Proceedings

ISBN 978-80-87158-29-6

fib Symposium PRAGUE 2011

Session 1-4: New Model Code

FAILURE ANALYSIS OF SYMMETRIC FLAT-SLAB COLUMN

CONNECTIONS WITH SHEAR REINFORCEMENT

Dan Vasile
Bompa

Traian
One

Abstract
Flat slab structural systems have a large applicability due to their functional and economical
advantages. Form engineering point of view, these structures develop a complex behavior at flat
slab column connection. Close to ultimate states flat slabs are susceptible to punching. Under
extensive loading, stress distribution lead to a concentration of stresses near the column. Stress
boosting is followed by a loss of shear strength across the connection. Existing minute and flexural
flaws influence the behavior of the flat slab column connection zone by diminishing the stress
transfer capacity. Punching of flat slabs occurs without any warning and as a consequence of load
boost showing extensive cracking and large deflections.
The paper presents a failure analysis on five large-scale reinforced concrete slabs. Four of
the slabs are fitted with two shear reinforcement configurations having the same reinforcement
ratio: double headed stud rails and closed stirrups. The fifth slab, used as control slab, has no shear
reinforcement inserted. The tests are focused in analyzing flat slab rotation near column, maximum
punching capacity and behavior of the two shear reinforcement configurations up to the failure.
A yield line analysis was made in order to justify the behaviour at failure.
Keywords: punching shear, shear reinforcement, stud rails, stirrups, failure analysis

fib Symposium PRAGUE 2011

Session 1-4: New Model Code

Proceedings
ISBN 978-80-87158-29-6

Introduction

It is well known that concrete has a contrastable behaviour in extremes, strong in compression and
weak in tension. Since most of the analysis upon concrete are defined by these characteristics,
(i.e. crushing and cracking), behaviour of the flat slab column connection under monotonic load
can be marked out through them. At a coarse view it can be divided in four stages: the elastic stage
when both constitutive materials behave can sustain reversible strains; flexural stage starts when
the first bending crack occurs and ends when the first tangential crack cannot transfer stresses
through its interface. During this stage cracks propagate in radial direction from most critical point
to the bearings. If the slab is fitted with adequate flexural reinforcement, shear transfer mechanisms
can be activated and the connection has the capacity to pass to the next stage, which is called shear
strength stage. As mentioned, dowel action and concrete-to-concrete friction mechanisms are
developed. The capacity to resist concentrated loads can be enhanced by providing transversal bars
within the critical perimeter. Shear reinforcement share is consumed in this stage. Final stage is
reached when the diagonal crack forms a cone around the column and perforates the slab above.
In an ideal circular slab-column connection column force Vu is transferred to the slab in radial
direction. Considering that the shear crack has reached the neutral axis due to radial bending, the
forces have to pass under the crack. Since all the stress transfer capacity through crack is cut, (i.e.
stress free crack), the entire bearing capacity lies on the strength of the compression strut. Failure
occurs when punching ultimate strain or maximum compressive strength is reached in the strut.
Due to the high concentration of stresses in the critical perimeter the expected failure takes
place in a non-ductile, brittle manner. When this happens, it means that the slab is lacking in postpunching rotational capacity and ductility. Structural design has to overcome this problem
providing adequate rotational capacity to the members. A higher ductility can be reached by
placing transversal reinforcement in the zones where the stresses are high, and a flexural failure can
be initiated. Anyhow, since the behaviour is complex, even an expected flexural failure can lead to
a punching failure due to development of large displacements and rotations.
V
Vu2
Vy
Vu1

Vshear > Vflex

Vshear < Vflex
Brittle
failure

Ductile
failure

w
Fig. 1 Failure modes for a flat slab column connection

A flexural failure corresponds to the moment when tension reinforcement reaches the yielding
limit. In order to find the flexural punching value of a flat slab column connection the plasticity
based yield line theory has to be used. The theory uses the same behaviour stages as presented
earlier. Plastification occurs following incrementally the envelope of maximum bending moments.
The sections where the reinforcement reaches the yielding limit increasing the strains and
devloping plastic rotations. Plastification follows the strips where the highest concentration of
cracks is found. The boundry condition influence in a very important way how these yielding lines
are developed. Failure occurs when a mechanism is formed.Several research studies have been
made upon this issue and the conclusion regarding the ranges of the ratio between test and flexural
failure force. Some of them consider value of 1 to be the point of balance. A more complex
approach which diviedes in three main failure types, considering an intermediate punching failure
would be [2]:
Vtest/Vu,flex > 1.15 flexural failure (F), (1a)
0.95< Vtest/Vu,flex <1.15 - flexural punching failure (FP), and (1b)
Vtest/Vu,flex 0.95 - brittle punching (P). (1c)
2

Proceedings
ISBN 978-80-87158-29-6

fib Symposium PRAGUE 2011

Session 1-4: New Model Code

Shear reinforcement

A large discussion about the share of the transversal reinforcement has been made in many papers.
The common agreement is that the failure can be divided in four large categories: flexural failure
by yielding of tension reinforcement, maximum shear capacity, failure inside the shear reinforced
area and failure outside the shear reinforced area.
Failure mechanism in case of transversal reinforced flat slabs is activated due to existence of
microcracks and development of flexural cracks. After first diagonal crack is opened the entire
shear capacity is taken by the transversal bars that cross the interface. In order to account their
share on the maximum punching capacity the bars have to conform to the anchorage and bond
regulations. A discussion can be made upon the topic of the capacity of transversal reinforcement
to transfer stresses when the shear crack has opened.
It has been showed, both experimentally and numerically that the concrete found at the root
of the punching crack is in a triaxial compressive state and the bar is confined. On the other side the
part of the dowel situated above the plane parallel with the face of the slab that intersects the root
of the punching crack, the stress transfer between the two sides of the neutral axis is restrained. In
conclusion the punching capacity is highly influenced. Consequently, the effectiveness of the shear
reinforcement depends on the angle and the length of the punching crack. Coarsely considering the
CEB-FIB 2010 regulations regarding the confinement level and bond conditions a correction factor
for stud-rails of 0.625 can be applied (table 6.11 in [1]).
When stirrups, hooks or bent-up bars are provided with enough anchorage length the bars are
not highly influenced by the stress state and can reach yield strength. ACI design code obliges the
structural designer to enclose the two layers of flexural reinforcement by stirrups.
In order to find a closest share of the shear reinforcement a stress-strain computation can be made
by means of fracture energy, considering the strain in the bar due to the opening of the crack.
a)

b)

Fig. 2 Shear reinforcement used in tests

It can be noticed that effectiveness of the shear reinforcement is not only influenced by their
position, yielding strength and quantity, but also the anchoring conditions and bond characteristics.
The four shear reinforced slabs were fitted with the reinforcement in the Fig. 2. Two of the slabs
have been provided with stirrup beams and the other two with double headed stud-rails.
Transversal reinforcement has been positioned after normal and diagonal directions after all four
column faces and edges. It has to be mentioned that the stirrup beams have been placed between
the two layers of flexural reinforcement.
First type of reinforcement, Fig. 2a, was made of 10 stirrups forming a beam of 500 mm.
Longitudinal bars used to connect stirrups were 410. 10 hooks connected on 210 at the edges
were used for the diagonal shear reinforcement. The entire stirrup beam was position in between
the two faces of flexural reinforcement. Double headed stud-rails, reinforcement type II, were
welded on a rectangular plate of 20 mm x 3 mm cross-section. The head of the studs was 24 and
the welded plate was placed on the tensioned face of the slab.

fib Symposium PRAGUE 2011

Session 1-4: New Model Code

Proceedings
ISBN 978-80-87158-29-6

Geometrical configuration of the slabs and test set-up

Fig. 3 Geometrical configuration and reinforcement positioning in tested slabs

Tests were carried out in the Central Laboratories of Technical University of Cluj-Napoca. There
were performed six punching tests upon large scale symmetric flat slab column connections. The
geometrical configuration of the slab was chosen in order to fit the essay stand requirements.
Square shaped flat slabs had the dimensions (L l) of 1500 mm 1500 mm. The nominal
height of the slab was 170 mm and the average effective depth 155 mm. Column part had the cross
section of 300 mm 300 mm and a height of 600 mm. Slabs were reinforced on both faces with
10/100mm bars for tension and integrity. Columns had 8 bars 14 at each corner and middle
point of the four faces and were transversally reinforced with 8 stirrups posed at 100mm. All
connections were uniformly supported on rubber bearings along the four sides at an average
distance of 30 mm from the edges. It is important to mention that this way the corners of the slabs
were able to lift from the bearing stand and the flexural analysis sketch has to account this fact.
Positioning of the shear reinforcement in the critical perimeter is plotted in Fig. 3. Both
configurations of shear reinforcement contained 5 rows of 10 bars at 100 mm spacing. The first
row of shear reinforcement was placed at 50 mm from column faces which would mean 0.32d and
the last one at 3.54d, where d represents the effective depth of the slab.
Compressive strength of concrete fcm, tested on 150 mm cubes, varied from 22.79 MPa to
43.89 MPa at 74 days after cast-in, representing the week of essays, as presented in Tab. 1.
Uniaxial tensile strength of specimens, tested by means of splitting and flexure tests reached an
average of fctm=1.50 MPa. Both flexural and shear reinforcement were from the same sample group
and had average yielding strength fy,s = 475.60 MPa and an ultimate uniaxial strength fu,s = 638.58
MPa Essay stand was compound of modular steel elements. Force was recorded during the entire
load process through a force transducer HDM C6A, deflection at the middle point of the
compressed face of slab was read using an inductive standard displacement transducer HBM
W200. Strains at faces of the slab were recorded using microcomparators. Deflection at midpoint
on the tension face and displacement at the supports were read using fleximeters. Load was applied

Proceedings
ISBN 978-80-87158-29-6

fib Symposium PRAGUE 2011

Session 1-4: New Model Code

gradual through a hydraulic jack with a 10 kN increment for the first 30 steps and variable 10-30
kN value step until failure.

Results and discussion

4.1

Load-deflection curve

Fig. 4 presents the slab deflection versus the applied force on the column. Excepting DB05, the
slopes of the curves have a similar development for the first 300 kN. All the slabs have a similar
reinforcement ratio on the tension face and as well the same designed concrete strength class. The
slight differences on the first behaviour are justified by the bearing conditions. In the first stages
rubber bearing compressed gradually reaching an average maximum value of 6.59 mm. In Tab. 1
are plotted both, displacements read through ISDT and effective reduced ones. DB02 shows
a different trend on the first part of the load-displacement plot due to the concrete uniaxial strength
which reached values of 43.62 MPa. The similar specimen, DB03 reached only half, 22.79 MPa.
The inflection point found at the middle of virtual exponential trend line for specimen without
shear reinforcement can be justified by the fact that the supports reached their compressive limit.
The same behaviour is found on DB03. For the other three specimens the curve shows a linear
stabilisation of the bearing conditions until the maximum load point has been reached.

Fig. 4 Applied load vs diplacement curve for the tested connections

Concrete share response to the applied loads depends on the time load increment, and the behaviour
stage in which is. As expected for the elastic part, loss of rigidity is smaller for specimen DB02. It
can be observed that slabs DB02 and DB03 have a similar behaviour regarding the load-deflection
response, maximum displacement and failure load. On the other hand slabs DB01 and DB04 cruves
have the same shape. It can be observed that the P-w curves are grouped after the shape and mode
of the transversal reinforcement.
First visible cracks were observed between 10th and 14th load steps. Maximum crack widths
read at essay completion had maximum values of 1.0 mm for DB01 at 220 kN, and minimum of
0.4 mm for DB03 at 300 kN. Aforementioned crack widths have small relevance on the final
failure since they were the first formed. Due to redistribution of stresses inside de connection other
flexural cracks have formed. Crack closing phenomenon was noticed on the entire essay process.
After the flexural cracks developed the entire bending moment was carried by the flexural
reinforcement. Another influence over flexural behaviour of the four studied connections can be the
share of the longitudinal bars used to connect the transversal reinforcement (i.e. 210 for ST-B and
3x30 mm welded plate for DHSR, Tab. 1). Longitudinal reinforcement used to connect stirrups has
an area of A1=157.08 mm2 and a lever of 130 mm in respect to compressed face, welded plates
5

fib Symposium PRAGUE 2011

Session 1-4: New Model Code

Proceedings
ISBN 978-80-87158-29-6

have an area of A2=129 mm2 and a lever of 156 mm. Without accounting the bond conditions, ratio
between the products of these values is 1.576, giving an advantage to the DHSR transversal
reinforced slabs.
Displacement
ISDT
[mm]

Effective
displacement
[mm]

Ultimate
rotation [o/oo]

Load at first
crack [kN]

Vu,test
[kN]

Vu,flex
[kN]

31.37

25.28

19.08

32.9

110.00

517.20

487.01

1.062

FP

DB02

ST-B

43.62

18.66

13.16

22.69

100.00

557.40

493.57

1.129

FP

DB03

ST-B

22.79

18.63

11.35

19.57

140.00

561.30

478.25

1.174

DB04

DHSR

30.48

23.74

17.64

30.41

120.00

527.40

486.33

1.084

FP

DB05

N/A

43.89

12.40

4.55

7.84

90.00

495.00

493.75

1.002

(F)P

Vu,test/
Vu,flex

fcm
MPa]

DHSR

Shear

DB01

Specimen

reinforcement

Failure Mode

Tab. 1 Results of the tested slabs

*DHSR Double headed stud-rails, ST-B Stirrup beam, N/A Without shear reinforcement

4.2

Concrete strengths and strains

Distribution of concrete strains after radial and tangential direction was made using a total of 15
analogue deformeters on the both tensioned and compressed faces of the slab. On the compressed
face results have been recorded at every load increment until ULS was reached and on the
tensioned face over the SLS limit was passed.
It has been noticed that all shear reinforced connections reached ultimate strain cu of 3.5 at the face
of the column, point MC1, Fig. 5b. Fig. 5a presents the strain on slab faces at a 2d distance from
the column edge. DHSR group specimens were able do develop larger strains at the ultimate stage,
showing larger rotational capacity. Concrete strain on the compressive face for ST-B specimen
group was 25% lower than the aforementioned. Strains read on the tensioned faces were highly
influenced by crack openings and propagation.
As can be seen on Tab. 1 concrete designed strength was crossed for four of the five specimens. It
is showed that the type of shear reinforcement has more influence on final failure value than the
concrete strength. The fact that maximum failure load being was reached by DB03 makes the
supposition stronger (Vu=561.30kN, fcm=22.79MPa).

Fig. 5 Concrete strain curves on compressed and tensioned face of the slab

Proceedings
ISBN 978-80-87158-29-6

fib Symposium PRAGUE 2011

Session 1-4: New Model Code

rq

yield lines

r0

column

r
m

x
r

V flex = 8m
3+ 2 2
r
1

0.5 f ys
m = f ys d 2 1

f ck

bearing conditions

Fig. 6 Yield line paths

4.3

Failure modes.

Comparing the ultimate value of failure of the DB05 connection, which had no shear
reinforcement, with other connections, their failure values were only with 4 - 13% higher. It is
known that for a flat slab to reach the maximum punching capacity it was to be fitted adequate
bending stiffness in order to pass the flexural stage. Expected punching values predicted by Model
Code 2010, considering a maximum yielding strength of shear reinforcement less than 250+0.25d,
was 774.57 kN. As can be noticed none of the connections reached the maximum predicted
punching shear capacity. It has been showed that for small flexural reinforcement rations (i.e.
l=0.5% in this case) and VTest/VMC ratio of 0.5-1.0 the main recorded failures were flexural [fib
bulletin 12]. Accounting this, a flexural failure analysis based on yield line theory was made. In
order to find the exact flexural failure value Elstener and Hognestad (1956) specifications were
applied. Slabs were considered simply supported and corners free to lift as plotted in Fig. 6.
Considering the range of Vtest/Vflex ratios from (1), as presented in Tab. 1, it can be seen that
slabs DB01, DB02 and DB04 can be placed in flexural punching failure category and DB03 in
flexural failure. If we consider the Vtest/Vflex =1.00 the border point between flexural and punching
failure, one can say that all connections failed in flexure. After failure was reached another charge
was applied to the column in order to get the main crack patterns. Specimens DB02 and DB03
showed a post-punching behaviour creating a possible punching cone. As can be seen on the crack
pattern map, of Fig. 7, the limit of the shear crack developed close to the supports with an average
slope of 21.45o for DB02 and 17.57o for DB03. In this case the diagonal crack crossed three
perimeters of shear reinforcement. Having this value of the angle for DB03, one can sustain the
entire shear force was transferred to the supports, failure occurring through shear reinforcement. In
opposition to his speciment DB01 and DB04 showed a strong flexural pattern.
Since the main purpose of this research was to find which of the two reinforcement types
provide a higher rotational capacity, one can say that DHSR specimens showed a more ductile
mode of failure reaching an ultimate rotation over 30o/oo. ST-B specimen group showed an average
rotation capacity smaller with 33.25% than DHSR, but 2.69 times higher than the specimen without
shear reinforcement. (Tab. 1).

02

03

01

04

Fig. 7 Crack patterns for tested slabs

fib Symposium PRAGUE 2011

Session 1-4: New Model Code

Proceedings
ISBN 978-80-87158-29-6

Conclusions

This paper presents a failure analysis upon four shear reinforced flat slab column connections with
thin plates. Both tension and integrity reinforcement ratio was 0.5%. Five perimeters of shear
reinforcement, 10/100mm, under star dirrection were fitted in the critical perimeter. Average
effective depth of the slab was 155 mm and designed concrete strength was C20/25. Accounting
this few conclusions can be drawn:
Flat slab column connections with thin slabs having tension reinforcement of 0.5
(i.e. d=155mm) and and high shear reinfoced ratio develop strong flexural behaviour failing in
flexure. None of the shear reinforced connections reached the maximum punching capacity
predicted by any design codes.
For thin flat plates with medium reinforcement shear force is dirrected main to the supports,
angle of post-punching crack reaching values around 20o showing a tendency of transferring the
entire shear force to the supports.
As showed earlier concrete uniaxial compressive strength does not influence the final failure
values. Load-deflection behaviour was mainly influenced by the type of shear reinfocement than
the concrete strength.
As discussed in chapter 2 of the paper, bond conditions and anchorange length highly influence
the effectiveness of double headed stud-rails reinforcement. In situations when the state of
stresses crossed the SLS stage, perfect bond cannot be adopted.
DHSR specimen group showed a better behaviour regarding rotational capacity reaching values
above 30o/oo. Specimens reinforced with stirrup beams showed rotations 50% smaller that the
compared ones, stud-rails showing better ductility behaviour.

References
[1]
[2]
[3]
[4]
[5]
[6]

***, fib Bulletin 55, 56 Model Code 2010, First complete draft, 2010,
***, fib Bulletin 12, Punching of Structural Concrete Slabs, Technical Report, August 2001
A. Muttoni Punching Shear Strength of Reinforced Concrete Slabs without Transverse
Reinforcement, ACI Structural Journal, V. 105, No. 4, July-August 2008.
Ph. Menetrey, Numerical Analysis of Punching Failure in Reinforced Concrete Structures,
Doctoral Thesis, EPFL, 1994
C.E.Broms, Concrete Flat Slab and Footing Design Method for Punching and Detailing for
Ductility, Doctoral Thesis, KTH, 2005
Min-Yuan Cheng, Punching Shear Strength and Deformation Capacity of Fiber Reinforced
Concrete Slab-Column Connections Under Earthquake-Type Loading, Annex 1, Doctorate
Thesis, The University of Michigan 2009,

Dan-Vasile Bompa, TS., C.Eng.

Prof. Dr. Ing. Traian One , C.Eng.




URL

Technical University of Cluj-Napoca

Faculty of Civil Engineering
Department of Concrete and Steel
Structures
Bariiu 25
40027 Cluj-Napoca, Romania
+40 265 401 513
+40 723 283 704
dan.bompa[at]bmt.utcluj.ro
http://dbproiect.ro/danbompa/




URL

Technical University of Cluj-Napoca

Faculty of Civil Engineering
Department of Concrete and Steel
Structures
Bariiu 25
40027 Cluj-Napoca, Romania
+40 265 401 513
+40
traianonet[at]gmail.com