Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Engineering Structures
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/engstruct
A R T I C LE I N FO A B S T R A C T
Keywords: One of the key phenomena in flat slab structures is their punching shear behaviour. The real importance of
Punching shear punching shear consists of a sudden brittle fracture, which can trigger catastrophic consequences for humans.
Reinforced concrete This paper presents a nonlinear numerical model based on finite elements in order to study the punching shear
Flat slabs phenomenon of reinforced slabs. The numerical model developed has been configured with hexahedral 3D
Nonlinearity
elements for concrete and linear elements (2D truss) for steel reinforcements. Constitutive equations for concrete
Parametric analysis
and steel include the nonlinearity of these materials. The slab has been simulated in ABAQUS software and the
FEM analysis
Concrete damaged plasticity model has been calibrated in comparison to experimental results developed in the University of Waterloo by
Adetifa and Polak, and some additional analytical results developed by Polak, in order to validate the model. The
calibration has also been contrasted with some experimental results from ACI database for punching tests.
Afterwards, a parametric analysis has been performed to study the influence of different geometric and me-
chanical parameters which define a classic slab-column structure. This discussion also addresses the adequacy of
some mechanical approaches, such as the CEB Model Code 2010.
⁎
Corresponding author at: Department of Civil Engineering, University of Alicante. San Vicente Del Raspeig, Apartado 99, 03080, Spain.
E-mail addresses: sivorra@ua.es, Salvador.Ivorra@bristol.ac.uk (S. Ivorra).
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.engstruct.2018.03.035
Received 27 December 2016; Received in revised form 13 March 2018; Accepted 13 March 2018
0141-0296/ © 2018 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
M. Navarro et al. Engineering Structures 165 (2018) 254–263
published the first study on how some variables (strength of concrete, Table 1
ratio of flexural reinforcement, geometric relations) affect to the Material properties of the slab tested in [4].
punching strength, using an axisymmetrical model with a circular cross-
Compressive strength of Tensile strength of Yield strength of steel
sectional column. Later on Menétrey published a synthesis of punching concrete [MPa] concrete [MPa] reinforcement [MPa]
failure in RC [15], showcasing experimental results and numerical si-
mulations, deriving an analytical model. On the other hand, Guan [16] 44 2.2 455
studied the influence of another parameter, the size and location of
openings and inserts with respect to the column. Belletti et al. [17]
compared numerical predictions based on non-linear finite elements
and multi-layered shell modeling of RC slabs with experimental results
and analytical values obtained using formulation in standards.
This paper is focused on analyzing the influence of the aforemen-
tioned factors, which will be carried out through a parametric study
based on a FE structure developed with ABAQUS, taking advantage of
the available plastic-damage models for concrete [18–20]. Numerical
simulations have proven to help saving costs in terms of experimental
studies of RC failure mechanisms [21], thus facilitating further para-
metric research and proposals as well as the incorporation of different
formulation and behaviour models.
Following this introduction, the second section of this paper de-
scribes the experimental study by Adetifa and Polak [4] to assess the
punching shear failure, which is used later to calibrate the proposed
slab numerical model.
The third section of the present paper makes a full description of the
numerical model proposed in this paper and its features. The para-
meters of the model are validated by comparison with experimental [4]
and numerical [8] results.
The fourth section presents the parametric study, based on the ca-
librated FEM model. The parameters analyzed in the parametric study
of the punching shear failure will be the yield strength of steel, com-
pressive strength of concrete, column width to slab width ratio and Fig. 1. Punching shear failure from experimental study [4].
column width to slab thickness ratio. Load-deflection curves will be
developed for each case and used for comparison. Some of the im-
four 20 M bars (transversal section of 300 mm2) of flexural reinforce-
plications of the experimental results in [6] and the analytical approach
ment and four 8 M bars for shear reinforcement (transversal section of
of CEB Model Code 2010 [22] will be addressed in the discussion. The
50 mm2). The effective depth of columns is 130 mm. In terms of the
novelty of this paper consists in developing a parametric study where
boundary conditions, the slab was simply supported along the edges on
main geometric and mechanical factors involved in punching shear of
little neoprene supports, creating spans of 1500 mm in the X and Y
flat slabs are studied through a nonlinear behaviour three-dimensional
directions.
numerical model.
The slab was tested under a static vertical load through the column
The fifth section highlights the most relevant conclusions and pro-
until failure, in this particular case, by punching shear and behaving in
poses some future research objectives.
a brittle way. It is important to mention that the slab configuration is
A future study in the context of this research is to provide a suffi-
backwards in comparison to a real structure in order to facilitate the
ciently accurate modelling tool to assess the real capacity of reinforced
test. The shape of the crack pattern is showed in Fig. 1.
flat and waffle slabs in order to retrofit the design if necessary, e.g. with
The test was performed with displacement controlled velocity, re-
FRP reinforcements (see Meisami et al. [23] and Faria et al. [24]).
gistering the relation between the applied load and the displacement in
the centre of inner face of the column. Experimental results and the
2. Description of the experimental background
load-deflection curve reported in [4] are represented in Table 5 and in
Figs. 6–8.
Tests performed at University of Waterloo by Adetifa and Polak [4]
have been used in order to validate the slab numerical model described
and developed in the next section of the present paper. In that experi- 3. Implementation of the slab numerical model
mental campaign full scale models of RC slab-to-column connection
were tested. The arrangement replicated a part of a continuous slab- 3.1. Features of the numerical model
column system.
Slab dimensions were 1800 × 1800 × 120 mm and the column had The slab model has been developed in the finite element based
a square cross-section of 150 × 150 mm. The height of the column stubs software ABAQUS [20]. This program is capable of accurately simu-
extending from the top and the bottom faces of the slab was 150 mm. lating the nonlinearity of materials like steel or concrete, and it has
The mechanical properties of the concrete and the steel rebars are given been used to simulate reinforced concrete structures by authors like
in Table 1. Mirza [25], Obaidat [26] and Alfarah et al. [27].
The slab has two steel meshes, an upper one and a lower one, both In order to simulate the test by Adetifa and Polak [4], a slab portion
built with 10 M bars (transversal section of 100 mm2). Bars situated on with an axially loaded central column has been modelled. Spans from
the compression zone (upper face) have an equidistance of 200 mm the real test have been maintained in the model. Given the symmetry of
whereas bars situated on the stress zone (lower face) have 100 mm. the geometry, the boundary conditions and the loading procedure, just
Therefore, the slab was reinforced with equal flexure reinforcement in a quarter of slab-column connection has been modelled in ABAQUS,
both directions. The thickness of the slabs was 120 mm, and the ef- with simple supports along both external edges. Symmetry conditions
fective depth (d) was equal to 100 mm. The column was reinforced with have been applied on internal faces. The quasistatic test is performed by
255
M. Navarro et al. Engineering Structures 165 (2018) 254–263
Dilation Eccentricity ε Viscosity μ Shape Max. compression 3.2. Validation of the calibration for the slab model
angle ψ parameter K c axial/biaxial
36° 0.1 0.00001 1.16 0.667 The comparison between the experimental test by Adetifa and Polak
[4], the model by Genikomsou et al. [8] and the slab model presented in
256
M. Navarro et al. Engineering Structures 165 (2018) 254–263
Fig. 4. Constitutive tensile behaviour of concrete. Hillerborg’s model: (a) before cracking and (b) softening after cracking [29].
Table 3
Parameters for Concrete Damaged Plasticity model considered by Genikomsou and Polak
[8].
Table 4
Concrete properties considered by Genikomsou and Polak [8].
than previous model by Genikomsou and Polak [8]: the relative error
with respect to the ultimate load is 6.3% and the relative error with
respect to the ultimate deflection is 2.5%. Another feature of the load-
Fig. 6. Load–deflection response of slabs for different mesh size.
deflection curve obtained with the model presented in this paper is an
intermediate stiffness between the slab model by Genikomsou and
this paper is shown in Fig. 8 and in Table 5. Polak [8] and the experimental test.
As shown in Table 5, the model presented in this paper accurately Not only a quantitative calibration has been performed, but also a
represents the experimental test results with a slightly higher accuracy
257
M. Navarro et al. Engineering Structures 165 (2018) 254–263
445C [31] has been revised. The results reported by Marzouk and
Hussein [6] and included in the aforementioned database have been
selected for the validation, because of the similar geometry, the prop-
erties of the materials and the arrangement of the test and boundary
conditions. In the discussion that follows, several of the conclusions
indicated by them have been satisfactorily predicted by our slab model.
Moreover, the influence of the geometric ratios associated with the
column width, the slab thickness and the slab width – which is ad-
dressed in the parametric discussion – has also been compared with the
analytical models in Eurocode 2 and the CEB Model Code 2010.
4. Parametric study The load-deflection curves for the reference model ( fc = 25 MPa)
and variations B.1 ( fc = 35 MPa) and B.2 ( fc = 45 MPa) are shown in
In order to validate the parametric study presented in this section, Fig. 11.
the database created by The American Concrete Institute Committee Larger ultimate loads can be appreciated as the concrete strength
Table 5
Results of the slab model for load–deflection compared with Refs. [4,8].
Adetifa and Polak [4] Genikomsou and Polak [8] Calibrated slab model
Ultimate load Ultimate deflection Ultimate load Ultimate deflection Ultimate load Ultimate deflection
(kN) (mm) (kN) (mm) (kN) (mm)
258
M. Navarro et al. Engineering Structures 165 (2018) 254–263
Fig. 9. Punching failure: (a) cracks on the tension face reported by Adetifa and Polak [4]; (b) actively yielding elements (‘AC yield’) in red on the tension face, obtained in the slab model
immediately after the ultimate load; (c) equivalent plastic strain (PEEQT) across the slab thickness; (d) ‘AC yield’ variable across the slab thickness; (e) PEEQT variable across the slab
thickness (45° plane); (f) ‘AC yield’ variable across the slab thickness (45°plane).
Table 6 Table 7
Value of parameters in the reference model for parametric study. Models for studying the influence of the yield strength of steel.
259
M. Navarro et al. Engineering Structures 165 (2018) 254–263
Table 8
Models for studying the influence of the concrete strength.
Table 9
Models for studying the influence of the flexural reinforcement.
Table 10
Models for studying the influence of the column width/slab width ratio.
Variable Base model Variation D.1 Variation D.2 Fig. 10. Load–deflection response of slabs with steels of different yield strength.
Table 11
Models for studying the influence of the column width/slab thickness ratio.
Table 12
Geometry of model in variations D.1 and D.2.
but lower ultimate deflection and less ductility. However, in this case, 4.5. Influence of the ratio of column width to slab width
the differences in the load–deflection curves are more notorious. In
other words, plastic behaviour decreases while stiffness increases. The column width to slab width ratio is designated as bcol / wslab . The
Reinforcement ratio ρs = 0.67% corresponds approximately to ∅8 mm load-deflection curves for the reference model (bcol / wslab = 0.1) and
rebars at a distance of 95 mm (tension side) and achieves an ultimate variations D.1 (bcol / wslab = 0.075) and D.2 (bcol / wslab = 0.125) are shown
displacement exceeding the deflection limit of 20 mm and an ultimate in Fig. 13. Column width is 0.15 m and slab thickness is 0.12 m in the
load up to 166.4 kN. The value ρs = 1.5% corresponds approximately to three models.
260
M. Navarro et al. Engineering Structures 165 (2018) 254–263
where VRd,c is the design shear strength attributed to concrete and VRd,int
is the additional resistance provided by the integrity reinforcement
after punching. Resistance VRd,c can be calculated through Eq. (4):
fck
VRd,c = k ψ b0 d
γc (4)
261
M. Navarro et al. Engineering Structures 165 (2018) 254–263
Acknowledgements
Fig. 14. Load–deflection response of slabs for different column width/slab thickness
ratio. The authors would like to thank the Technical University of
Valencia for their collaboration in order to use their ABAQUS software
Table 15 license to develop this research framed in Miguel Navarro's doctoral
Results of punching analysis in slabs with different column width/slab thickness ratio. studies. A special mention is made of Dr. Vicente Albero and Dr. David
Pons for their assistance and advice in the use of this software.
Column width to Ultimate load [kN] Max. deflection [mm]
slab thickness
ratio FEM Eurocode 2 CEB Model FEM CEB Model References
model Code 2010 model Code 2010
[1] Kunz J, Fernández-Ruiz M, Muttoni A. Enhanced safety with post-installed punching
0.075 198.2 145.6 180.2 13.0 15.5 shear reinforcement vol. l. London: Taylor & Francis Group; 2008.
0.1 260.9 207.7 241.9 10.3 10.8 [2] Foti D. Shear vulnerability of historical reinforced-concrete structures. Int J Archit
0.125 586.5 561.6 556.7 8.4 4.3 Herit 2015;9(4):453–67.
[3] Fernández-Ruiz M, Muttoni A, Kunz J. Strengthening of flat slabs against punching
shear using post-installed shear reinforcement. ACI Struct J 2010;107(4):434–42.
[4] Adetifa B, Polak MA. Retrofit of slab column interior connections using shear bolts.
slab thickness ratio and the results are conservative with respect to the
ACI Struct J 2005;102(2):268–74.
Model Code 2010 and the FEM models for thinner slabs. The ultimate [5] Lips S, Fernández-Ruiz M, Muttoni A. Experimental investigation on punching
load calculated with the formulation in the Model Code 2010 is closer strength and deformation capacity of shear-reinforced slabs. ACI Struct J
to the predictions of the FEM models, but remains conservative. The 2012;109(6):889–900.
[6] Marzouk H, Hussein A. Experimental investigation on the behavior of high-strength
calculation of deflections based on the rotation angle ψ given in the concrete slabs. ACI Struct J 1991;88(6):701–13.
Model Code 2010 gives similar results to FEM models in the case of [7] Polak MA. Modeling punching shear of reinforced concrete slabs using layered finite
thinner slabs, but in the case of bcol / tslab = 0.75 it seems that Model elements. ACI Struct J 1998;95(1):71–80.
[8] Genikomsou AS, Polak MA. Finite element analysis of a reinforced concrete slab-
Code 2010 would predict a stiffer behaviour in the punching failure column connection using ABAQUS. In: Structures congress 2014; 2014. p. 813–23.
mechanism. [9] Wosatko A, Pamin J, Polak MA. Application of damage–plasticity models in finite
element analysis of punching shear. Comput Struct 2015;151:73–85.
[10] de Borst R, Nauta P. Non-orthogonal cracks in a smeared finite element model. Eng
5. Conclusions Comput 1985;2(1):35–46.
[11] Cervera M, Hinton E, Hassan O. Nonlinear analysis of reinforced concrete plate and
Simulations have been presented using finite elements with shell structures using 20-noded isoparametric brick elements. Comput Struct Jan.
1987;25(6):845–69.
ABAQUS software in order to analyze the punching shear in flat slabs [12] Shehata IAEM, Regan PE. Punching in R.C. slabs. J Struct Eng Jul.
structures, which has been quantitatively and qualitatively calibrated 1989;115(7):1726–40.
using external tests. [13] Shu J, Plos M, Zandi K, Johansson M, Nilenius F. Prediction of punching behaviour
of RC slabs using continuum non-linear FE analysis. Eng Struct 2016;125:15–25.
The most complicated aspect to consider in modelling reinforced
[14] Menétrey P, Walther R, Zimmermann T, Willam KJ, Regan PE. Simulation of
concrete structures is precisely the choice of a proper behaviour model punching failure in reinforced-concrete structures. J Struct Eng 1997;123(5):652–9.
for concrete. In this study the Concrete Damage Plasticity model has [15] Menétrey P. Synthesis of punching failure in reinforced concrete. Cem Concr
been applied. The calibration of the model has been done through the Compos 2002;24(6):497–507.
[16] Guan H. Prediction of punching shear failure behaviour of slab-edge column con-
contrast of reported experimental and numerical results. nections with varying opening and column parameters. Adv Struct Eng
Based on this model, a parametric study has been performed in 2009;12(1):19–36.
order to investigate the influence of different variables which define a [17] Belletti B, Walraven JC, Trapani F. Evaluation of compressive membrane action
effects on punching shear resistance of reinforced concrete slabs. Eng Struct
flat slab structure and its phenomenon of punching shear. The main 2015;95(July):25–39.
conclusions relatives to this parametric study are the next: [18] Lee J, Fenves GL. Plastic-damage model for cyclic loading of concrete structures. J
Eng Mech 1998;124(8):892–900.
• Increasing the yield strength of steel increases the ultimate load of [19] Lubliner J, Oliver J, Oller S, Oñate E. A plastic-damage model for concrete. Int J
Solids Struct 1989;25(3):299–326.
the slab but decreases the final displacement, which may induce [20] Abaqus Theory Manual (6.14). Dassault Systemes, Providence, RI, USA, 2014.
lower ductility. [21] Calderón PA, Adam JM, Ivorra S, Pallarés FJ, Giménez E. Design strength of axially
262
M. Navarro et al. Engineering Structures 165 (2018) 254–263
loaded RC columns strengthened by steel caging. Mater Des 2009;30(10):4069–80. [27] Alfarah B, López-Almansa F, Oller S. New methodology for calculating damage
[22] International Federation for Structural Concrete (fib). fib Model Code for Concrete variables evolution in Plastic Damage Model for RC structures. Eng Struct
Structures 2010. Berlin: Ernst & Sohn; 2013. 2017;132:70–86.
[23] Meisami MH, Mostofinejad D, Nakamura H. Punching shear strengthening of two- [28] Drucker DC, Prager W. Soil mechanics and plastic analysis or limit design. Q Appl
way flat slabs with CFRP grids. J Compos Constr 2014;18(2):4013047. Math 1952;10(2):157–65.
[24] Faria DM, Einpaul J, Ramos AMP, Fernández-Ruiz M, Muttoni A. On the efficiency [29] Hillerborg A, Modéer M, Petersson PE. Analysis of crack formation and crack
of flat slabs strengthening against punching using externally bonded fibre re- growth in concrete by means of fracture mechanics and finite elements. Cem Concr
inforced polymers. Constr Build Mater 2014;73:366–77. Res 1976;6(6):773–81.
[25] Mirza O, Uy B. Behaviour of headed stud shear connectors for composite steel–- [30] European Committee for Standarisation. Eurocode 2: design of concrete structures -
concrete beams at elevated temperatures. J Constr Steel Res 2009;65(3):662–74. part 1–1: general rules and rules for buildings. Madrid: AENOR; 2013.
[26] Obaidat YT, Heyden S, Dahlblom O. The effect of CFRP and CFRP/concrete inter- [31] Ospina CE, et al. NEES: ACI 445 Punching Shear Collected Databank;
face models when modelling retrofitted RC beams with FEM. Compos Struct 2011 < https://datacenterhub.org/resources/256 > .
2010;92(6):1391–8.
263