Composites: Part B 35 (2004) 313–321

www.elsevier.com/locate/compositesb

Punching shear strength of strengthened deck panels

with externally bonded plates
Hongseob Oh*, Jongsung Sim
Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Hanyang University, 1271, Sa1-dong, Ansan 425-791, South Korea
Received 9 June 2003; accepted 5 December 2003

Abstract
This paper proposes an analytical method to predict the punching shear strength of bridge decks that are strengthened using external
bonding techniques. Since the steel reinforcement affects the punching strength of a bridge deck, the deck will have a mechanical effect on
the strengthening material. The strengthening procedure will increase the effective punching depth over which the critical crack inclinations
can be divided into two inclination angles, depending on whether they are located above or below the main steel reinforcement. To verify the
analytical method that is proposed in this paper, comparisons were made with existing experimental results in the literature, which showed
that the proposed method accurately predicts the punching strength of bridge decks strengthened using external bonding techniques.
q 2004 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Keywords: A. Carbon fiber polymer plastic; A. Glass fiber polymer plastic; A. Steel plate; B. Bridge deck; D Structural strengthening

1. Introduction Since Talbot [10] initially reported punching shear

Punching shear failure of reinforced concrete bridge
decks supported by girders occurs either when the
flexural strength of the deck exceeds the shear strength
of the concrete due to over-reinforcement, or when
concentrated traffic loads are experienced repeatedly
[1 – 4]. Generally, failure of a bridge deck damaged by
fatigue is due to repeated traffic loads, since shear stress
by the concentrated traffic loads do not reach 40% of the
shear strength of the concrete. But, while strengthening
with steel plate or fiber-reinforced polymer composite
(FRP) will improve the flexural strength of a bridge deck,
the increase in shear strength is relatively small. There-
fore, strengthened decks may develop due to punching
shear failure [5]. Many previous studies have examined
the punching shear strength of concrete slabs; however,
there are some theoretical deficiencies in the conventional
theory, which cannot explain the additional effect of the
strengthening material attached on the concrete surface
[4 – 9].
* Corresponding author. Address: Department of Civil and
Environmental Engineering, Hanyang University, 1271 Sal-dong, Ansan
425–791, South Korea.
E-mail address: opera69@chollian.net (H. Oh).
1359-8368/$ - see front matter q 2004 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.compositesb.2003.12.003
failure in a concrete slab structure, many experiments
and theoretical studies using various approaches have been
reported. Elstner and Hognestand [11] presented a theoreti-
cal model that used a relationship between the shear stress
due to external loads and the shear strength of the concrete
at the control surface. Kinnunen and Nylander [7] applied a
force equilibrium condition that was derived from a failure
mechanism based on experimental results.
Chen [12] and Nielsen [13] proposed the model using an
upper bound solution of plastic theory. Matsui [14] defined a
control section to resist a shear stress based on fatigue test
results using moving loads, while Mufti and Newhook [4]
analyzed the membrane force caused by the restraint effect
from either the flexural reinforcing bar or the slab end.
Menérey [8,9] theoretically investigated the design
parameters that influence the punching shear strength of a
slab using finite element analysis, and proposed that the
punching shear strength is manifested by the principle
tensile stress of the concrete.
Mosallam [15] reported experimental results for the
structural behavior of a two-way slab system strengthened
by FRP, such as a grid type FRP (NEFMEC).
However, the experimental research reported to date does
not include any theoretical punching shear analysis of
314 H. Oh, J. Sim / Composites: Part B 35 (2004) 313–321
Nomenclature
a loading width in the transverse direction
Ap area of strengthening material in unit width
As area of reinforcing steel bars in unit width
b loading width in the longitudinal direction
b1 width of beam section
d effective depth of beam section
D diameter of the anchor bolt
d0 effective depth of compression reinforcement
d1 maximum aggregate size
Ep elastic modulus of the strengthening material
Es elastic modulus of reinforcing steel bar
f 0c compressive strength of the concrete
fs stress of steel bar
fsp spalling strength of concrete
ft tensile strength of the concrete
fy yield strength of steel bar
h height of beam section
l length of anchor bolt
np ratio of Ep to Es
Pcone pull-out strength by concrete cone
Pbond pull-out strength by bonding effect
rs radius of an equivalent column circle in a
slab-column system
u length of the unbonded part of anchor bolt
us bond strength
Vaggregate aggregate interlock force
the strengthening designs. To control the brittle failure of a
strengthened slab due to excess strengthening, a suitable theo-
retical model to predict a punching shear failure is required.
2. Punching shear of a strengthened bridge deck
As concentrated loads increase, a bridge deck’s failure
progresses through the following sequence: (1) the for-
mation of a flexural crack in the tension side under the
loading point; (2) the formation of a diagonal flexural crack
and development of a transverse crack due to the bonding
failure of the rebar; (3) shear crack initiation from the depth
of the flexural reinforcement; and (4) the propagation of the
punching shear crack to the compression zone [16]. At stage
(4), additionally, the punching shear of a strengthened deck
panel with an externally bonded plate develops inclined
shear cracks to resist the external loads on the concrete
cover, neglecting the shear strength in a traditional
reinforced concrete deck panel. Whereas the concrete
cover of non-strengthened deck panel with dispersed
flexural cracks does not resist the shear stress, strengthened
deck panel decreased the number of flexural cracks and
confined concrete cover by strengthening material partially
resist shear stress [5].
Vanchor resistance of the anchor bolts
Vc vertical component of the shear strength of
the concrete
Vc1 vertical component of the tensile force from
the compression side to either 0:1d or d 0
Vc2 vertical component of the tensile force from
0:1d to d
Vc3 vertical component of the tensile force from d to h
Vdow dowel action of the flexural reinforcement
xc critical depth of the first cone failure of anchor
P
bars bolt
As sum of the cross sectional areas of the reinforcing
steel bars embedded in the punching cone.
b tan f in failure surface of anchor bolt
z ratio of fs to fy
h coefficient of loading area effect
u1 first inclination angle of the failure surface
from the top of the compression side to d 0
u2 second inclination angle from d0 to d
u3 third inclination angle from d to h
m coefficient of aggregate size effect
j coefficient of reinforcement effect
r reinforcement ratio
requi equivalent reinforcement ratio of FRP
rp strengthening ratio
f apex angle of the cone
fs diameter of steel bar
The relationship between punching shear and the flexural
strength of an unstrengthened traditional deck panel and a
strengthened deck panel with externally bonded plastic is
shown in Fig. 1. Whereas the flexural strength of a
strengthened deck panel can improve the load-carrying
capacity when a proper amount of strengthening material is
applied, the enhancement of the punching shear strength
dominantly depends on the shear strength of the concrete.
But, previous research by the authors verified that punching
shear strength as well as flexural strength are increased by
external strengthening. Increment of shear strength by
external strengthening is smaller than that of the flexural
strength increase [5].
The difference in the failure pattern between a
traditional reinforced concrete deck panel and a strength-
ened deck panel, as shown in Fig. 2, is due to the
additional shear resistance of the concrete cover and the
angle of the failure surface. The angle of the failure surface
of a traditional concrete slab in a slab-column varies from
25 to 358 [8,16,17], but tests performed by the authors on a
bridge deck system with a relatively narrow clear span and
more stiffness than a slab-column system generally showed
a 358 failure surface angle in an unstrengthened deck
panel, from the compression zone to the flexural
reinforcement. The failure angle on the additional surface
 H. Oh, J. Sim / Composites: Part B 35 (2004) 313–321
Fig. 1. Load –displacement relationship of bridge deck corresponding to
non-strengthening and strengthening case.
beneath the tensile rebar in the strengthened deck panel
was only 258 [5].
The total shear resistance of a strengthened concrete slab
system is given by
Vpun ¼ Vc þ Vdow þ Vaggregate þ Vanchor ð1Þ
where Vc is the vertical component of the shear strength of
the concrete, Vdow is the dowel action of the flexural
reinforcement, Vaggregate is an infinitesimal aggregate
interlock force, and Vanchor is the resistance of the anchor
bolts.
3. Proposed punching shear analysis
3.1. Shear strength of concrete
The shear resistance of the concrete in a traditional
concrete slab-column system is defined as either the
shear strength of the effective concrete section from 0:1d
to d [8,9,18], or the shear strength in an uncracked area of
the compression zone confined between the extreme
compression plane of the deck and the neutral axis at the
failure state [16].
Fig. 2. Punching shear failure pattern.
315
The vertical component of the tensile force obtained by
integrating the vertical components of the tensile stresses in
concrete ðVc Þ is assumed to be
Vc ¼ Vc1 þ Vc2 þ Vc3 ð2Þ
where Vc1 is the vertical component of the tensile force from
the compression side to either 0:1d or d0 that means a
distance to compressive reinforce bar, Vc2 is the vertical
component of the tensile force from 0:1d to d; and Vc3 is the
vertical component of the tensile force from d to h:
3.2. Influencing factors
Previous studies [8,9,16,19,20] have reported various
successful attempts to predict the real vertical forces of the
tensile strength of the concrete on the failure surface.
Theodorakopoulos and Swamy [16] assumed that the tensile
strength of the concrete was valid on the surface from the
compression side to the depth of the compression zone
because shear cracks develop from near the mid-depth point
of the slab.
Yankelevsky and Leibowitz [19] derived a semi
empirical equation to predict the tangential and nominal
force at the shear crack based on the force –displacement
relationship and the test results by Walraven [20].
A European code [17] specifies the punching shear
resistance for a concrete slab or deck from the effective
depth of the slab, the loaded perimeter, and the empirical
tensile strength of the concrete derived from statistical
approaches. Menérey [8,9] presumed that concrete’s tensile
strength is influenced by design parameters such as the
reinforcement ratio, maximum aggregate size effect, and
geometrical size effect. He derived the following analytical
expression based on finite element analysis:
(
20:1r2 þ 0:46r þ 0:35; r , 0:02
j¼ ð3Þ
0:87; r $ 0:02
m ¼ 1:6ð1 þ d=d1 Þ21=2 ð4Þ
(
0:1ðrs =hÞ2 2 0:5ðrs =hÞ þ 1:25; rs =h , 2:5
h¼ ð5Þ
0:625; rs =h $ 2:5
316 H. Oh, J. Sim / Composites: Part B 35 (2004) 313–321
where r is the reinforcement ratio ð¼ As =b1 d £ 100%Þ; d1 is
maximum aggregate size (mm), and rs (mm) is the radius of
an equivalent column circle in a slab-column system for
which the circumference is the same as the perimeter of the
rectangular loaded area, such as a wheel area [7].
3.3. Contribution of the top layer of concrete
In this study, the reinforcement effect j (Eq. (3)),
aggregate size effect m (Eq. (4)) and loading area effect h
(Eq. (5)) proposed by Menérey [8,9] were adopted as
influencing factors for a concrete’s tensile strength. The
vertical component of the tensile force required to resist an
external load was expressed in terms of the tensile strength
of the concrete and the inclination angle of the failure
surface. The typical failure surface of the strengthened slab
was assumed to form tri-linearly, as shown in Fig. 3. From
previous test results measured by the authors, the first
inclination angle in the compression region is 608. There-
fore, 608 was used for the first inclination angle of the failure
surface ðu1 Þ in Eq. (6), for the region from the top of
the compression side to d 0 ; which is the distance from
the compression steel to the compression face. In the
proposed punching shear model, the unified perimeter in
Fig. 3. Proposed punching shear model.
the first region was defined as the sum of the perimeter of
the loading area, or the entire contact area, and the
circumference of the failure surface, d0 cot u1 :
The vertical component of the tensile force of the first
failure surface is
Vc1 ¼ d 0 ft cot u1 ½Ajmh ð6Þ
where Vc1 is the sum of the vertical components of the tensile
force in the first inclination, ft is the tensile strength of the
concrete, A is ½2pd0 cot u1 þ 2ða þ bÞ as a failure surface, a
is the loading width in the transverse direction, and b is the
loading width in the longitudinal direction. As proposed by
Raphael [21], the tensile strength of the concrete is
ft ðMPaÞ ¼ 0:3f 0c 2=3 ð7Þ
where f 0c is the compressive strength of the concrete.
3.4. Contribution of the mid-depth concrete
The second inclination angle ðu2 Þ of the punching cone
depends on the boundary conditions, reinforcement ratio,
and concrete strength, and varies from 25 to 358 as
previously reported [8,12,13]. Because test results report
that failures occur at steeper angles due to the confinement
 H. Oh, J. Sim / Composites: Part B 35 (2004) 313–321 317

effect of girders, a value of u2 ¼ 358 was used for this
research. The vertical component of the tensile force at the
mid-depth point of the slab is
Vc2 ¼ ðd 2 d0 Þft cot u2 ½Bjmh
where, B is 2pðd0 cot u1 þ ðd 2 d0 Þcot u2 Þ þ 2ða þ bÞ:
3.5. Contribution of the bottom concrete
In an unstrengthened concrete slab, the effective region
after punching shear cracking is the surface to d because the
tensile strength in the concrete cover beneath the flexural
reinforcement can be neglected due to the numerous flexural
cracks [8,22]. The concrete section in the bottom layer
between the reinforcing steel bar and the strengthening plate
gains additional punching shear resistance because the
partial restraining effect of the bonded strengthened plate
produces positive results such as crack control, improved
structural stiffness, and the ‘pseudo-dowel effect’ of the
strengthening material at the failure state [23]. The effect of
the existence of numerous discrete flexural cracks on the
strengthened deck panel is different from the typical
connected flexural cracks formed in an unstrengthened
slab. These cracks in unstrengthened slab forfeit the tensile
strength and produce concrete spalling. A flexural crack that
develops in one reinforcement grid, which is the area
between the transverse rebar spacing and the longitudinal
rebar spacing, becomes connected with other cracks in the
adjacent grid as the load is increased. However, flexural
cracks in the strengthened slab that is not connected with
other crack caused by constraint effect of FRP, delay the
concrete spalling. Therefore, even though the increase of
the shear strength by external strengthening is the sum of the
vertical components of the tensile strength and the partial
dowel action of the plate, only the concrete tensile force
given by Eq. (9) is considered in this study. The partial
dowel action is ignored
Vc3 ¼ ðh 2 dÞfsp cot u3 ½Cj0 mh
where, C is 2pðd0 cot u1 þ ðd 2 d0 Þcot u2 þ ðh 2 dÞcot u3 Þ þ
2ða þ bÞ; fsp is the splitting strength of concrete suggested by
Matsui [14]
pffiffiffi
fsp ðMPaÞ ¼ 0:183 f 0c ð10Þ
In Eq. (9), m and h are the size effect factors used to
calculate Vc3 and are the same as those given in Eq. (6).
However, the reinforcement influence factor ðj0 Þ for the
strengthening plate is not the same value as the factor used
for the flexural reinforcement ratio ðrÞ because the shear
constraint of the concrete cover is supplied by the
strengthening plates. Therefore, in this study, an equivalent
reinforcement ratio requi is used for the influence of the
strengthening as follows
r ¼ requi ¼ np rp ð11Þ
where np is the ratio of Ep to Es ; rp ð¼ Ap =b1 hÞ is the
strengthening ratio, Ep is the elastic modulus of the
strengthening material, Es is the elastic modulus of
reinforcing steel bar, and Ap is the area of strengthening
ð8Þ material in unit width.
3.6. Contribution of dowel action
Hewitt and Batchelor [6] observed that the theoretical
punching shear strength of a traditional RC slab was about
20% less than the test results, and proposed that the
difference was caused by the dowel action of the rebar.
Regan and Braestrup [24] stated that the dowel action
increased the punching shear strength of an orthogonally
reinforced concrete slab by 34%.
In this research, the following dowel action hypothesis,
proposed by Millard and Johnson [25] and Menérey [8,9],
was adopted
1Xbar qffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
Vdow ¼ f2s fcu fy ð1 2 z2 Þsin u2 ð12Þ
2
where z is equal to fs =fy ; and fs is the steel stress at failure
given by
Vpun cot u2
fs ¼ bX
ars
ð13Þ
As
P
bars
Here, As is the sum of the cross sectional areas of the
reinforcing steel bars embedded in the punching cone. Vdow
can be calculated using an iteration technique from its
relationship with the unknown value Vc1 :
3.7. Contribution of bond-typed anchor bolts
Many strengthening techniques that use thick and heavy
weight plate, such as steel plate or GFRP, require additional
bond-typed anchor bolts for installation of plate and for
ð9Þ enhancement of the bond strength of the plate. Bond-typed
anchor bolts, unlike the usual headed anchors, exhibit
complex failure modes as depicted in Fig. 4: (a) bond
failure, (b) cone failure, and (c) mixed failure. While
cone failure depends on geometric conditions, mixed bond–
cone failure rely on the material properties is the
dominant failure mode [26].
In this study, the following simplifying assumptions were
used to evaluate the pull-out strength of a bond-typed
anchor bolts installed in a strengthened panel: (a) the bond
stress is uniformly distributed, (b) the anchor bolt deforms
Fig. 4. Failure modes of bond-typed anchor.
318 H. Oh, J. Sim / Composites: Part B 35 (2004) 313–321

Fig. 5. Assumed failure modes.

elastically, (c) the free edge of the projected cone failure

area is entirely circular. The total available pull-out
resistance of all of the anchor bolts ðNÞ installed in the
panel, given by Eq. (14), is the sum of the pull-out strength
of each anchor bolt except for those ðns1 Þ installed along the Fig. 6. Comparison between theoretical and experimental results from
perimeter of the concrete shear surface at the mid-depth Refs. [16,28,29].
point of the slab
Xs1
N2n Xs1
N2n
were used in Ref. [28] to investigate the effect of the loading
Pbolt ¼ ðPcone þ Pbond Þ ð14Þ
n¼0
area of a girder-slab bridge using normal strength concrete.
The loading area varied from 75 £ 150 to 200 £ 500 mm2.
According to ACI349-85 [27], which uses the effective Lovrovich and McLean [29] investigated the punching
projected area of a stress cone, Pcone is given by shear failure of 10 reinforced concrete slabs with span-depth
 2

2 2 D ratios varying from 2 to 12.

Pcone ¼ fsp p b y 2 ð15Þ There was a good correlation between the theoretical
2
D strengths derived from the proposed model and the
y ¼ xc þ ð16Þ experimental data reported in the above references, as
2b
sffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi shown in Fig. 6. The overall average was 1.00 with a
Du standard deviation of 0.164. We therefore conclude that
x c ¼ u þ u2 þ ð17Þ the model is valid for a typical deck panel for high
b
strength concrete, various span-depth ratios, and different
where fsp is the splitting strength of the concrete, b is load areas.
tan f and f is the apex angle of the cone which is equal
to ð90 2 uÞ ¼ 558; xc is the critical depth of the first cone
failure, D is the diameter of the anchor bolt, and u is the
length of the unbonded part. The bond anchor was
assumed to fail in the mode shown in Fig. 5.
The length ðl 2 xc Þ of an anchor bolt was assumed to
affect its bond strength
Pbond ¼ us ðl 2 xc Þ ð18Þ
where us is the bond strength.

4. Verification of the proposed model

4.1. Comparison with experimental data for unstrengthened

slabs

The model results were also compared to referred

test results for traditional RC slabs referred to in Refs.
[16,28,29]. The experimental variables in Ref. [16] were the
ultimate compressive strength of concrete (30 – 120 MPa),
the reinforcement ratio (0.33 – 2.63%), and the effective
depth of the test panels (70 – 275 mm). Twelve test results Fig. 7. Details of specimen (unit: cm).
 H. Oh, J. Sim / Composites: Part B 35 (2004) 313–321 319

Table 1
Material properties

Thickness or Yield strength Ultimate strength Elastic modulus Ultimate

diameter (mm) (MPa) (MPa) (Mpa) strain

Concrete – 22.5 0.232 £ 105 –

Rebar 13 300 400 1.96 £ 105 –
Epoxy – 88.3 0.07 £ 105 –
Steel plate 4.5 240 280 1.96 £ 105 –
Glass fiber polymer plastic 8.0 – 300 0.25 £ 105 0.012
Carbon fiber 0.11 – 3,500 2.31 £ 105 0.015
Glass fiber composite 1.3 – 450 0.227 £ 105 0.02
Carbon fiber rod 6 – 2,352 1.20 £ 105 0.0115
Mortar for CFR 45.0 0.108 £ 105 –
GCFRP 4.0 – 1170 1.00 £ 105 0.0117
Mortar for GCFRP 27.0 0.14 £ 105 –

4.2. Comparison with experimental data for strengthened shear crack above the rebar was 358. The theoretical results
slabs of the unstrengthened deck panel CON are summarized in
Table 2. The fraction of the dowel action of the ultimate
The proposed model was used to predict the ultimate deck strength was 22%, and the theory/test ratio was 1.004.
strength of strengthened deck panels tested by the authors The crack patterns in the concrete panels ST-I, and GP-I
[5]. For the experimental test program, a prototype deck were examined after the strengthening material was
panel with dimensions of 160 £ 240 cm2 was selected to removed. Panels ST-I also exhibited a brittle punching
simulate a real bridge deck supported by two girders, as shear failure. Panel CS-SA developed a noticeable initial
shown in Fig. 7. The slab thickness was 18 cm, which was crack at 300 kN that was parallel to the transverse CFS. As
the same as that of second-grade bridge decks in Korea. the load increased further, cracks propagated from the initial
The 28-day compressive strength of the concrete was crack in only one direction until a punching shear failure
22.5 MPa. The tensile rebar spacing in the transverse occurred. The cracking patterns of panels CS-I and GF-H
direction was 10 cm and the reinforcement spacing in the were very similar. As in the reference panel CON, cracks
longitudinal direction was 15 cm. The material properties propagated towards the deck edges. After the steel
are listed in Table 1. For the strengthened deck panel tests, reinforcement yielded in both directions, partial interface
various strengthening materials were used and are listed in debonding of the CFS was observed. All of the panels that
Table 1. were strengthened with FRP sheets failed ultimately due to
Applied strengthening patterns are depicted in Fig. 8.
The abbreviations in Table 1 are as follows: SP for steel
plate, GP for glass fiber-reinforced plastic laminated with
eight layers in two directions, CF and GF for carbon fiber
and glass fiber sheet woven in one direction, CFR for carbon
fiber-reinforced polymer rod formed in a rod shape,
and GCFRP for grid carbon fiber plastic. An ‘I’ indicates
that the specimen was strengthened isotropically, and ‘SA’
indicates that the specimen was strengthened only in the
transverse direction. The flexural strength of each deck
panel was evaluated using yield line theory modified by the
authors [5].
The strengthened deck failed in one of two manners,
depending on the amount of strengthening: either the steel
bar yielded, or the rebar did not yield due to over-
strengthening. In Table 2, panels SP-I, GP-I, CS-TA and
CFR-I were over-strengthened, whereas panels CS-I, GS-I
and GCFRP-I failed after the rebar yielded. In the table, FP
indicates that the structural failure of the deck occurred after
the rebar yielded.
The unstrengthened panel CON exhibited a brittle
punching shear failure after the reinforcing bars yielded.
At the punching cone of the panel, the angle of the punching Fig. 8. Strengthening details.
320 H. Oh, J. Sim / Composites: Part B 35 (2004) 313–321

Table 2
Theoretical ultimate shear strength for the deck panel CON

Slab h (mm) d (mm) ft (Mpa) r (%) Vc1 (kN) Vc2 (kN) Vdow (kN) Vpun (kN) Vexp (kN) Error (%)

CON 180 150 2.35 1.56 14.7 479.5 140.9 635.2 632.6 0.4

punching shear after the rebar yielded. The crack patterns of
panels CFR-I and GCFRP-I were similar to those of the
reference panel, but the crack width and spacing were much
less. Failure of these panels was also due to punching shear,
similar to panels CS-I and GS-I. These results indicate that
the cracks in a strengthened slab depend on the spacing of
the strengthening material rather than the rebar spacing or
effective concrete cover, which are traditionally accepted
factors that are used to control the cracks.
Experimental and theoretical results based on the yield
line theory are shown in Table 3. The load-carrying capacity
of panels SP-I and GP-I, which were strengthened with the
highest strengthening ratios, was 30% greater than that of
the unstrengthened reference panel CON. Also, the
structural stiffness of panel SP-I was 300% greater than
that of panel CON [5], and the ductility of panels CS-I and
GCFRP-I was 20% greater than that of panel CON [5].
Therefore, the strengthening material as well as the
strengthening amount must be chosen according to
the existed deterioration pattern of the real bridge deck,
depending on the purpose of the strengthening. It is
unreasonable to use the same strengthening material for
different deterioration patterns that all cause and results are
different as either excessive residual deformation or
decreased load-carrying capacity.
The calculated shear strength of the strengthened deck
panels is given in Table 4. The design parameters, except for
the strengthening material, were set to the same values as
the panel CON. In the strengthened slab, the crack
inclination in the concrete cover was 258, except for panel
CS-TA which was strengthened in only one direction.
The angle of the crack in the bottom layer was 308 in panel
CS-TA. The discrepancies between the theoretical and
experimental values did not exceed 3.7%. Panel CFR-I,
which had the largest error, was slightly overestimated
because of the hypothesis that the strengthening materials
(CFR) were perfectly bonded to the concrete surface despite
the propagation of partial debonding at the end block.

Table 3
Test results for the strengthened deck panels

Specimen Strengthening scheme Yield line theory (kN) Test results

Transverse Longitudinal Yielding of rebars Fracture of plate Ultimate loads (kN) Failure mode

CON – 450 633 FPa

SP-I 2.5% (whole area) Not yield 960 823 Pb
GP-I 4.4% (whole area) Not yield 990 813 P
CS-TA 0.12% (whole area) – Not yield 470 684 P
CS-I 0.061% (10 cm £ 5 sc £ 2p) 0.061% (10 cm £ 5 s £ 2p) 620 740 732 FP
GS-I 0.65% (10 cm £ 5 s £ 2pd) 0.65% (10 cm £ 5 s £ 2p) 640 840 710 P
CFR-I 0.34% (f6 at 4 cm) 0.34% (f6 at 4 cm) Not yield 1010 698 P
GCFRP-I 0.18% (17.6 at 5 cm) 0.18% (17.6 at 5 cm) 720 910 710 P
a
Punching shear failure after flexural yielding.
b
Punching shear failure.
c
Strip methods.
d
Ply.

Table 4
Punching shear strength of strengthened deck panels

Slab r (%) np jp Vc1 (kN) Vc2 (kN) Vc3 (kN) Vdow (kN) Vanchor (kN) Vpun (kN) Vexp Error (%)

SP-I 2.5 1.000 0.870 14.7 479.5 193 122. 0 810 823 1.6
GP-I 4.4 0.082 0.535 14.7 479.5 127.4 129. 60 810 812 0.3
CS-TA 0.122 1.152 0.413 14.7 479.5 58.0 136 – 688 678 1.5
CS-I 0.061 1.152 0.382 14.7 479.5 84.9 133. – 712 732 2.7
GS-I 0.65 0.360 0.451 14.7 479.5 85.3 133 – 713 710 0.4
CFR-I 0.34 0.608 0.441 14.7 479.5 97.8 132 – 724 698 3.7
GCFRP-I 0.18 0.490 0.088 14.7 479.5 86.8 133 – 714 710 0.6
 H. Oh, J. Sim / Composites: Part B 35 (2004) 313–321
5. Conclusions
The results presented here lead to the following
conclusions. The failure pattern of a strengthened concrete
deck panel changes from ductile flexural failure to brittle
punching shear failure according to the amount of
strengthening material as well as the boundary conditions
of the unstrengthened deck. A punching shear model was
proposed in a simplistic yet practical form, which included
an equivalent strengthening ratio, a linear failure surface, a
size effect, and a strengthening effect.
Whereas the contribution of an externally bonded plate is
neglected in classical punching shear theory, the actual
shear strength of strengthened deck is improved by a
constraining effect because the strengthening plate supports
the shear resistance of the concrete cover, and this controls
spalling failure. Therefore, the results from classical
punching shear theory will differ from the actual shear
strength.
Bond-typed anchor bolts used to ensure perfect bonding
between a strengthening plate and the concrete surface resist
the tensile stress according to the sum of the pull-out
strength and the bond strength. Therefore, the contribution
of anchor bolts in the outer radius of the punching cone from
the flexural reinforcing steel bars was also considered in the
punching shear strength evaluation.
The proposed punching shear model predicted the
ultimate shear strength of slab systems referred to in other
research with reasonable accuracy, even though the slabs
were strengthened with various strengthening materials.
The proposed theory is more effective than either traditional
punching shear theory or finite element analysis for
determining the optimum amount of strengthening required
to control the failure pattern and for improving the load-
carrying capacity of deteriorated deck panels.
Acknowledgements
This work was supported by the Post-doctoral Fellowship
Program of Korea Science & Engineering Foundation
(KOSEF).
References
[1] Sonoda K, Horikawa T. Fatigue strength of reinforced concrete slab
under moving loads. IABSE Rep 1982;37:455 –62.
[2] Schläfli M, Brühwiler E. Fatigue of existing reinforced concrete
bridge deck slabs. Engng Struct 1998;20(11):991 –8.
[3] Mufti AA, Jaeger LG, Bakht B, Wegner LD. Experimental
investigation of fibre-reinforced concrete deck without internal steel
reinforcement. Can J Civil Engng 1993;20(3):398–406.
321
[4] Mufti AA, Newhook JP. Punching shear strength of restrained
concrete bridge slabs. ACI Struct J 1998;95(4):375–81.
[5] Sim J. Rehabilitation of the RC bridge decks. Technical report of
Korea Highway Corporation; 2000.
[6] Hewitt BE, Batchelor BdeV. Punching shear strength of restrained
slabs. J Struct Div, ASCE 1975;101(9):1837–53.
[7] Kinnunen S, Nylander H. Punching of concrete slabs without shear
reinforcement. Transactions 158, Stockholm: Royal Institution of
Technology; 1960.
[8] Menérey Ph. Analytical computation of the punching strength of
reinforced concrete. ACI Struct J 1996;93(5):503 –11.
[9] Menérey Ph, Walther R, Zimmermann Th. Simulation of punching
failure in reinforced-concrete structures. J Struct Engng, ASCE 1997;
123(5):652 –9.
[10] Talbot AN. Reinforced concrete wall footings and column footings.
Bulletin67, Engineering Experimental Station, University of Illinois;
1913.
[11] Elstner RC, Hognestand E. Shearing strength of reinforced concrete
slabs. ACI J, Proc 1956;28(1):29–58.
[12] Chen WF. Plasticity in reinforced concrete. New York: McGraw-Hill;
1982.
[13] Nielsen MP. Limit analysis and concrete plasticity, 2nd ed. Boca
Raton: CRC Press; 1998.
[14] Matsui S. Estimation of punching shear strength of reinforced
concrete bridge deck. J JSCE 1984;134–41. [in Japanese].
[15] Mosallam AS, Mosallam KM. Strengthening of two-way concrete
slabs with FRP composite laminates. Construct Build Mater 2003;17:
43–54.
[16] Theodorakopoulos DD, Swamy RN. Ultimate punching shear strength
analysis of slab-column connections. Cement Concrete Compos 2002;
24:509–21.
[17] CEB-FIP Model Code 1990; 1993.
[18] Virlogeux M. Structural concrete-textbook. International Federation
for Structural Concrete (fib); 1999.
[19] Yankelevsky DZ, Leibowitz O. Punching shear in concrete slabs. Int J
Mech Sci 1999;41:1–15.
[20] Walraven JC. Fundamental analysis of aggregate interlock. ASCE J
Struct Div 1981;107(ST11):2245–70.
[21] Raphael JM. Tensile strength of concrete. ACI Mater J 1984;81(2):
158–65.
[22] Regan PE. Punching shear in prestressed concrete slab bridge.
Technical report. Engineering and Structural Research Group,
Polytechnic of Central London, London; 1983.
[23] Kumar A, Odeh, AA, Myers JR. Repair, evaluation, maintenance, and
rehabilitation research program. Technical report. Construction
Engineering Research Lab. (Army), Champaign, IL. USA; 1990.
[24] Regan PE, Braestrup MW. Punching shear in reinforced concrete.
Bulletin d’Information 168, Comitte Euro-International du Beton;
1985.
[25] Millard SG, Johnson RP. Shear transfer across cracks in reinforced
concrete due to aggregate interlock and dowel action. Mag Concrete
Res 1984;36(126):9 –21.
[26] Obata M, Inoue M, Goto Y. The failure mechanism and the pull-out
strength of a bond-type anchor near a free edge. Int J Mech Mater
1998;28:113 –22.
[27] ACI349-85. Code requirements for nuclear safety related structures.
American Institute of Concrete; 1985.
[28] Azad AK, Baluch M, Abbasi MSA, Kareem K. Punching capacity of
deck slabs in girder-slab bridges. ACI Struct J 1994;91(6):656–62.
[29] Lovrovich JS, McLean DI. Punching shear behavior of slabs with
varying span-depth ratios. ACI Struct J 1990;87(5):507–11.