Structural Concrete

2000,1, No.3

Sept., 143-149

Ultimate limit state of punching in

the (fib) FIP recommendationsfor
the design of post-tensioned slabs
and foundations
v. J. G.Lcio New University of Lisbon, Portugal

J. A.5. Appleton Technical University of Lisbon, Portugal

J. F. Almelda Technical University of Lisbon, Portugal

Thls paper descrlbes the formulatlon of the Ultlmate LlmltState of punchlng reslstance of prestressed slabs proposed In the new FIP Recomo
mendatlons for the deslgn of post-tensloned slabs and foundatlon rafts. The prestress effects were consldered on the actlon slde deflnlng an ef-
fectlve applled punchlng load. For the evaluatlon of the punchlng reslstance, CEB-FIP Model Code 90 was followed. An example of the
appllcatlon of thls method to an Interior column of a prestressed flat slab 15presented.

Introductlon may be considered to be transferred directly to the column re

After the publication of CEB-FIP Model Code 90 (MC90) 1 it
became necessary to update the previous FIP recommendations
for the design of flat slabs in post-tensioned concrete, 2 published
in 1980. The new document, 'Recommendations for the design of
post-tensioned slabs and foundation rafts', 3 was prepared by a
working group of FIP Commission 3 on practical design, and was
finally published in 1999 by SETO(for the fib).
The ultimate limit state of punching resistance of prestressed
slabs is one of the subjects revised in the documento In that revi -
sion the concept of prestress as an action was considered in the
quantification ofthe applied punching load. The effects ofthe pre
stress (isostatic and hyperstatic) on the punching load are sepa
rated into the effects of the equivalent prestress forces
perpendicular to the slab plan and the effects of equivalent pre
stress forces in the plane of the slab (compression due to
prestress).
The equivalent prestress forces perpendicular to the slab plane
include the moments due to eccentricities at the anchorages and
the transversal deviation forces of the strands. For the evaluation
of the effects of these forces on the punching force, the deviation
forces within a perimeter at 0.5 h from the periphery of the column
ducing the value of the effective punching load.
The eccentricity of the punching force is taken into account
using the formulation presented in MC90. 1
This new formulation considers a rectangular distribution, over
the control perimeter, of the shear stresses that equilibrate part
of the moment transferred between the column and the slab. This
method is much less conservative than the one previously
adopted in MC78, which used a triangular distribution ofthe shear
stresses.4
For the quantification of the punching resistance, with or
- without transversal reinforcement, the formulation proposed by
- MC90 is adopted. The quantification ofthe punching resistance is
made considering a control perimeter at a distance from the
- column equal to 2 d, allowing resistant shear stresses for
punching to equal the ones used for the shear resistance of slabs,
and avoiding the previous difficulties in the case of large columns.
The quantification of the maximum punching resistance is more
rational than before since the crushing resistance of the concrete
in the column perimeter governs it. In this way the value of the
maximum punching resistance is again less conservative than
those proposed by the previous recommendations.

1464-4177 @ 2000 Thomas Telford Ltd and fib 143

------ - -- .
Lcio et aI.

eccentric punching force PSd(p),due the applied load p, by a factor

(3 greater than the unity, to take into consideration the eccen
tricity effect on the stresses around the control perimeter:

PSd.ett= (3PSd(p) (1)

The effective punching force must also account for the prestress
effects: the effect the equivalent prestressing forces transversal
to the slab PSd(P),and the in plane prestress force effect PPo:
(2)

Transversal prestress effect

Rg. 1 Transversal effect of the prestress for a typified prestressed flat
slab
An example of the application of the formulation described in
this paper is presented.
Effective value of the punchlng force
Theeffective designvalue ofthe punchingforce ( PSd.efl) is defined
as the value of a concentric punching force that produces uniform
shear stresses, over the control perimeter equal to the maximum
shear stress caused by the eccentric punching force. The effec
tive value of the punching force may be obtained multiplying the
The punching force is determined taking nto consideration the
loads applied to the slab and the equivalent prestressing forces
transversal to the slab ( PSd(p,P)), including its hyperstatic effect.
For this quantification ali the transversal equivalent prestress
forces (Figure 1) are considered, except those which are trans
ferred directly to the column and do not influence the shear
stresses around the column. For this purpose it is considered that
the prestress equivalent forces acting inside a perimeter 0.5 h
from the column periphery, together with the applied loads in that
area, are transferred directly to the column (Figure 2(a)). This is
equivalent to reducing the column reaction by the value of Ptan a
of the tendons which cross that perimeter (Figure 2(b)), where a
is the angle between the tendons and the plane of the slab at a
distance 0.5 h from the column.

Rg. 2 Punching load

ITIllJ
O.5h Plana Plana

O.5h O.5h

(a) t P~(p, P) (b) t PSd(p, P)

Rg. 3 Moments transferred between the slab

and the columns

~MI

Rg. 4 Contrai perimeter u,

144
Structural Concrete , 2000, 1, No. 2
 ULS 01 punching in the ( fib) FIP recommendations

Eccentricity of the punching force The lesser 01

1.5d and O.5c1
c,
Usually the forces transferred between the slab and the columns H
are not centred with the column centroid. Due to horizontal forces
applied to the structure, unequal spans or unequalload values on
two adjacent spans, or at the columns of an end span (Figure 3),
there are moments transferred between the slab and the columns.
The maximum shear force per unit width on the control perim -
I~
eter (vmax) may be evaluated as follows, 4 where MSd = MSd(P, P) is
the moment transferred between the slab and the column, due to
the applied loads and the effects of the prestress: (a) (b)

PSd kMSd
Vmax=-+- (3) Flg. 5 Contrai perimeters at edge columns
u1 w1

The control perimeter ( u1) is taken at a distance 2 d from the

periphery of the applied force or column and must be constructed
50 as to minimize its length (Figure 4).
The parameter w1 is defined as
__u1
(4)
I The lesser 01
1.5d and O.5c

where di is an elementary length of the perimeter and e is the dis-

tance of d I to the axis about which the moment MSdacts. I (a) (b)
The coefficient k represents the proportion of applied moment
(MSd)transferred to the slab by shear stresses along the control Flg. 6 Contrai perimeters at comer columns
perimeter. This coefficient depends on the ratio between the
columndimensions c1(parallelto the eccentricity MSdI PSd) and c2
(perpendicular to the eccentricity):

c.1 C2 k
0.5 0.45
1.0 0.60
2.0 0.70
3.0 0.80

In accordance with MC90, 1 the effective punching force due to

the eccentricity effect may be estimated as
(5)

where 13is given by

13= 1 + k MSd u1 (6)

PSdw1

In the case of double eccentricity of the punching force the foi

lowing expression may be used:
' ke 2
ke
2

13=1+u1./ ()()
w1.+ w1 y
(7)

where e. and ey represent the eccentricities MSdlPSdalong x and Flg. 7 Compression due to prestress
y, respectively.
In the new recommendations, simpler expressions are proposed
for interior rectangular and circular columns:

(8) expression (8) are very close to the ones of expression (7) for
13= 1+1.8.{::J +(~J common slab and column dimensions.

for rectangular columns, and

Slab-edge column connectlons. At slab-edge column connec-

13 = 1 + 0.61r ".le 2 + e 2
D+4d
y (9)
tions, where the eccentricity perpendicular to the slab edge is
towards the interior, it is considered that the punching force is
uniformly distributed along the control perimeter u~, as defined in
for circular columns, where b. and by(Figure 4) are the dimensions
Figure 5. Thevalue of 13maythen be determined as
of the control perimeter and D is the diameter of the circular
column. Expression (8) was obtained using the 'Ieast squares'
(10)
method on the values of expression (7). The values obtained with

Structural Concrete , 2000,1, No. 3 145

Lcio et ai.

Campressian effects af the prestress

The compression effects of the prestress influence the punching

behaviour of the slab.
The value of this compression depends on the position of the an -
chorages in relation to the punching area and the restriction to
the in plane deformation of the slab caused by the vertical struc
tural elements, like shear walls or large columns (Figure 7).
For foundation rafts, where the friction between the foundation
and the subgrade may be significant, a detailed analysis must be
Flg. 8 Decompression punching force p'o due to compression effect performed in order to quantify the compression stresses.
Unless the prestress force is very high, the influence of the

.
compression stresses on the punching behaviour is usually very
small. For doubtful situations the compression effect is
. . . neglected.
. ___--e,, . The compression effect of the prestress may be considered on
.. A- -. - -8 -- the action side of the ultimate limit check (expression (2, and
/..- '~\
/ / . .. \ different compression stresses in two directions ( x and y) may be
.,11'8 .TT.
..T.
considered. The compression stresses due to prestress delay the
.+~.I I
opening of the shear cracks, reduce their widths and increase the

. .\'. . ... . . . .
///
depth of the concrete compressed area at the slab cross-section
near the column faces.
\ 8-_ S,__ A decompression punching force Ppois defined as the force
. -.- -j 8 needed to compensate the compression stresses due to the com -
. . . pression effect of the prestress. To take into account different
prestress forces in two orthogonal directions x and y the decom-
Flg. 9 Punching-shear reinforcement
pression punching force may be evaluated as follows:

(12)

where b. and by are the dimensions of the control perimeter along

x and y, respectively, and p'o and Pyoare the decompression forces
corresponding to the prestress forces in those directions (Figure
8).
It is assumed that the decompression punching force is the
punching force which corresponds to a bending moment that
causes tension stresses on the slab top surface equal to the com -
pression stresses due to the compression effect of the prestress,
as is shown in the following paragraphs.
The decompression forces in each direction may be easily eval -
uated as a proportion to the actual punching force PSd(p, P) and
Flg. 10 Control perimeters for maximum resistance
bending moments M.Sd(P,P) and MySd(p,P):

(13)

where e is the component of the eccentricity parallel to the slab

The moments M.Sd(p, P) and MySd(p, P) are the total bending
edge.
If the eccentricity perpendicular to the slab edge is not towards
moments at the columnface in the widths b x and by'respectively,
and M.o and Myo stand for the decompression moments in the
the interior, expression (6) applies.
widths b. and by' respectively, defined as
In any case, in the definition of the control perimeter, the space
needed for the anchorage recess must not be considered
(14)
(Rgure 5).
where I7cP' and I7cpy are the mean concrete stresses, due to the pre -
SlalH:orner column connectlons. At slab-corner column connec -
stress axial compression, in the by and b. widths, respectively.
tions, where the eccentricity is towards the interior of the slab, it
is assumed that the punching force is uniformly distributed along
the control perimeter u~, as defined in Rgure 6. The {3value may Punchlng reslstance
then be considered as
In order to check the ultimate limit state of punching resistance,
the effective punching force must not be greater than the
(11)
punching resistance:

If the eccentricity is towards the exterior, expression (6) applies. PSd. ell ~ PRd (15)

146 Structural Concrete , 2000, 1, No. 2

 ULS of punching in the ( fib) FIP recommendations

Flg. 11 Slab geometry (dimensions in mm) I I

T-

~
-I
I I
I I
I CenlreUnes01 I
lhe slabpanel

A- A
0.80.~

-r +-
I

Ix= 9.0

For the quantification of the punching resistance the CEB-FIP Section A-A --------
Model Code is followed.

Punching resistance without shear reinforcement

The punching resistance. along the control perimeter u1. may be

---------
taken as

Flg. 12 Prestress tendons

PRd,= 0.12((100p,"k)1/3u1d (16)

where (= 1 + -../(200/ d) expresses the size effect, d (mm) being

the effective depth of the slab. If more than one layer of bonded re-
inforcement exists. the mechanical centre of resistance must be
Seclion A-A
considered in the definition of d. The ratio of reinforcement may be
016/10.15
determined as (= -../(PXpy), where Px and Py are the ratios of ali
bonded reinforcement (reinforcing bars and bonded tendons) in
the two orthogonal directions. These reinforcement ratios are cal 0.225

culated as the average along the widths by and bx. respectively.

The characteristic value ofthe concrete cylinder's compression ------
strength fCk(MPa), in this expression, is limited to 50 MPa.
Flg. 13 Ordinary reinforcement (dimensions in m, diameter in mm)

Punching resistance with shear reinforcement

The punching resistance with shear reinforcement may be evalu

ated as

(17)
PR~ = tPRd + 1.5:1 A.w f jd sina
, 5, fcd2 = 0.60
(1-
250
fck
) fcd (19)

where Aswis the total area of shear reinforcement in a layer around
the column, 5, is the radial spacing between layers (Figure 9) and
a is the angle between the shear reinforcement and the plane of
the slab. The design strength of the reinforcement fydshall not be
taken greater than 300 MPa.
Maximum punching resistance
The segments of perimeters Uonormal to the slab edge at comer
and edge columns are limited to 1.5 d as are shown in Figure 10.
Example
In this section an example of the application of these recommen
dations is presented.

The maximum load /3PSd(P),not considering the prestress effects,
must not be greater than
(18)
where Uois the length of the periphery of the supporting column
and ,"d2the design resistance. of the concrete under compression
in a cracked zone, and is given by
Design data
The example refers to the punching check of an interior panel of a
prestressed solid slab, shown in Rgure 11. The slab is 0.225 m
thick, with spans I. = 9.0 m and Iy= 7.0 m. The prestress con-
sists of unbonded tendons with an effective prestress, after
losses, of P = 150 kN per tendon. There are 16 and 12 tendons on

Structural Concrete . 2000, 1. No. 3 147

Lcio et ai.

------------------------
I
Punching reinforcementisthus needed for load combination 2.
I

Considering vertical stirrups, with a radial spacing

I

I ___06 s, = 0.125 m < O.75d (Figure 14), then

I
p. _:lp,
I
A. = Sd,eff 4 Rd,l
I w (1.5d/ s,)xf yd
I
then
I

I A.w= 817 - i x 663 - X 104 = 4.67 cm2

I

I
Ten6 mm dia. stirrups with two legs were used in each layer
I
(5.66 em 2 per layer), as shown in Figure 14.
I

-, 1- Punching resistance considering the prestress compression

effect

Assuming thatalithe compression due to prestressis transmitted

I to the slab and the compression stresses are uniform along the

panel width, the favourable compression effects may be consid

ered in the following calculations:

Px = 16 x 150 kN = 2400 kN
Flg.14 Punching reinforcement (dimensions in m, diameter in m)
. Py= 12 x 150 kN = 1800 kN
= 2400 kN/(0.22 5 m x 7.0 m) = 1524 kPa
O"cpx
= 1800 kN/(0.22 5 m x 9. Om) = 889 kPa
O"cpy
the column lines in the x and y directions, respectively (Figure

12). MO = 15241.36 mx(0.225 m)2 -17.5 kN m

The amount of flexural reinforcement is As = 13.4 cm2/m in y 6
both x and y directions (Figure 13). The materiais used in the
M O = 8891.56 m x (0.225 m)2 = 11.7 kN m
design are concrete grade C30 and steelgrade forordinaryrein- x 6
forcement 5500, and the prestress reinforcement is defined by
fptk = 1800 MPa.
Comblnatlon 1. Considering for the totalbending moments on
For the geometry of this column and a slab effective depth
the slab widths bx and b" respectively:
d= (dx+ dy)/2 = 0.19 m:
bx= 0.8 + 4 x 0.19 = 1.56 m
MySd = 110 kN m
M xSd= 80 kN m
by= 0.6 + 4 x 0.19 = 1.36 m
u1 = 2 x (0.80 + 0.60) + 1\"x 4 x 0.19 =5.19 m p = 17.5 kN m x 550 kN =88 kN
Xo 110~0 kN m
p = Px'" Py = 7.05 X 10-3
p = 11.7 kN m x 550 kN =80 kN
yo 80.0 kN m
Acting forces
p = 80 x 1.56 + 88 x 1.36 = 84 kN
The forces transferred between the slab and the column are Po 1.56 + 1.36
shown inTable 1. The first
load combination refersto gravityloads psd.ett= I3PSd(p,P) - PpO= 644 - 84 = 560 kN
plus the transversal prestress action, and the other two load com -

Table 3 presents these results for alithe load combinations.

binations refer to the quasi-permanent value of the gravity loads
These values are slightly
lower than those presented inTable 2,
and the earthquake actions along x and y directions plus the pre -

stress action.
where the compression effectof prestresswas neglected.
Comparing the values of PSd, ellwith the value of PRd.1 = 663 kN
it can be seen that less punching reinforcement is required for
Effective punching force
load combination 2 than in the previous case: Asw= 3.45 cm2 per
From the eccentricitiesin Table 1 the value of the effective layer, with s, = 0.125 m.
punching force may be quantified as shown in Table 2.

Checking the maximum punching force

Punching resistance neglecting the prestress compression

effect uo = 2 x (0.80 x 0.60) = 2.80 m

PRd,1 =0.12[1 + --J(200/190 mm)](100 x

,"d2 = 0.6[1- (30/250)] x 20 = 10.56 MPa
0.00705 x 30 MN/mm 2)1/3x 103 x PRd,max =0.5 x 10.56 MN/m2x
5.19 m x 0.19 m 103 x 2.80 m x 0.19 m
= 663 kN < PSd.ell (combination 2) = 2809 kN > I3PSd(p)

148 Structural Concrete , 2000, i, No. 3

 ULS of punching in the ( fib) FIP recommendations

Table 1 Transferred forces between the slab and the column

Load combination 1: Load combination 2: Load combination 3:

1.5(g + q) + P g + 'l'2q + P + 1.5E, g + 'l'2Q + P + 1.5Ey
PSd (kN) 550 180 180
MSd' (kN m) 40 30 380
(ey (~)) (0.073) (0.167) (2.11)
Msdy (kN m) 60 480 40
(e, (m)) (0.109) (2.667) (0.222)

Table 2 Effective punching load neglecting the compression due to prestress

Load combination 1 Load combination 2 Load combination 3

/3 1.17 4.54 3.45
PSd.eff = /3PSd(kN) 644 817 621

Table 3 Effective punching load including the compression effect due to prestress

Load combination 1 Load combination 2 Load combination 3

MySd (kN m) 110 36 36
P 'o (kN) 88 88 88
MySd (kN m) 80 26 26
P'o (kN) 80 80 80
P"" 84 84 84
PSd.ett 560 733 537

Table 4 Maximum punching force check

Load combination 1: Load combination 2: Load combination 3:
1.5(g + Q) g + .'l'2Q+ 1.5E, g + 'l'2Q + 1.5Ey
PSd(P) (kN) 857 487 487
MSd' (kN m) 40 30 380
(ey(m)) (0.047) (0.062) (0.780)
MSdY(kN m) 60 480 40
(e, (m)) (0.070) (0.986) (0.082)
(3 1.11 2.31 1.91
(3PSd(p) (kN) 951 1125 930

The values of /3PSd(P)are obtained from Table 4, where the pre -

stress effects were not considered.

References V.J. G.Lcio,PhD

1. CEB-FIP. CEB-FIP Model Code 1990, Design Code . Thomas Telford, Researcher of ICIST (UTL), Associated Professor at
London, 1993. UNL, Dep. Eng. Civil, Universidade Nova de Lisboa,
2. FIP. RP Recommendations for the Design of Flat Slabs in Post- Quinta da Torre, 2825-114 Caparica, Portugal
tensioned Concrete (Using Unbonded and Bonded Tendons) Cement .
and Concrete Association, Wexham Springs, 1980. .
3. fib. Design of post-tensioned slabs and foundation rafts. FIP
recommendations, SETO (for fib), London, 1999.
4. fib. Structural Concrete, Textbook on Behaviour, Design and J. A. S. Appleton, PhD

Performance. fib, Lausanne, 1999. Head of ICIST (UTL), Fuli Professor at 1ST,Dep. Eng.
Civil, Instituto Superior Tcnico, Av. Rovisco Pais,
1049-001 Lisboa, Portugal

. Prepared by a Working Group with the following members: Joo Almeida

(POR), Thomas Friedrich (CH), M. Jartoux (F, FIP Commission 2) Manfred
J. F. Almelda,PhD
Miehlbradt (CH), K. Schtt (D, FIP Commission 4), Jlio Appleton (POR), H. Researcher of ICIST (UTL), Associated Professor at
Ganz (CH), Vlter Lcio (POR), L Schbert (D), Paul Regan (UK, CEB 1ST,Dep. Eng. Civil, Instituto Superior Tcnico, Av.
Commission). Rovisco Pais, 1049-001 Lisboa, Portugal

Structural Concrete , 2000, 1, No. 3 149

--