Technical Note

Your Partner in Structural Concrete Design

TN404_slab_shear_050611

SHEAR DESIGN IN FLOOR SLABS1

Bijan O Aalami2

1 ONE-WAY AND TWO-WAY SHEAR Tests have shown that concrete exhibits greater resistance to shear, when the geometry of its support is square, and of about the same dimensions as slab thickness Fig. 1-1a. As the support geometry becomes rectangular, with increase of the aspect ratio a/b, the unit capacity3 of concrete drops. At its limit, when the column support turns into a wall, its shear capacity is least, where it is governed by the well-established one-way slab/beam shear. At its highest value, ACI-318-11 stipulates the concrete capacity for a square geometry support twice that of the other extreme, namely elongated support or wall.

(a) square

(b) Rectangular

(c) wall

FIGURE 1-1 Selected Support Geometries Under the designation of punching shear, major building codes permit the designers to take advantage of the greater concrete capacity that square and near square supports provide, while leaving the one-way shear for longer supports, and where punching shear does not apply. The design capacity of reinforcement commonly used for resisting shear (Fig. 1-2) remains unchanged, regardless of the support geometry. The capacity provided by each reinforcement is simply its crosssectional area, times its characteristic material strength, reduced by a code-specified material or strength reduction factor. The essential difference between punching shear and one-way shear lies in the greater capacity that concrete provides. The response of a slab in punching shear is multi-dimensional, and heavily dependent on the features of the geometry, and reinforcement layout of the joint. The response, while understood, is considered too complex to be formulated in a simplified form for use in everyday work of consulting engineers. For routine and everyday design, major building codes offer simplified alternatives, based on empirical formulas that are supported by extensive test results.

1 2

Copyright ADAPT Corporation 2011 Professor Emeritus, San Francisco State University; Principal, ADAPT Corporation; bijan@adaptsoft.com 3 Unit capacity is defined as strength per unit area of assumed failure surface

support@adaptsoft.com www.adaptsoft.com
ADAPT Corporation, Redwood City, California, USA, Tel: (650) 306-2400 Fax (650) 306 2401 ADAPT International Pvt. Ltd, Kolkata, India, Tel: 91 33 302 86580 Fax: 91 33 224 67281

Technical Note
A design, based on the simple empirical formulas is deemed to meet or exceed the required capacity thus, it is safe . One alternative to the application of the empirical formulas, is the use of strut-and-tie method, as suggested in ACI-318-11. Another alternative is to simply forego the advantages of higher concrete capacity and design the location using one-way shear.

PUNCHED OUT COLUMN REGION Mu

SHEAR STRESS DUE TO kM u

FIGURE 1-2 Common Shear Reinforcement Options

FIGURE 2-1 Assumed Distribution of Stress Over a Notional Failure Surface

D108/SLIDES/060591

Vu

SHEAR STRESS DUE TO Vu

CRITICAL SURFACE

TWO-WAY SLAB

ILLUSTRATION OF CRITICAL SURFACE FOR THE EVALUATION OF PUNCHING SHEAR STRESSES

2 THE EMPIRICAL DESIGN MODEL The analytical model suggested by major building codes for the empirical formulas assumes a notional failure surface at a given distance from the support, along with a distribution of stress such as the one shown in Fig. 2-1 adopted by ACI-318. (i) Using statics, the ordinates of the assumed stress distribution (Fig. 2-1) are calculated to bring the distribution in static equilibrium with the design shear. (ii) Next, from results of extensive tests, the lead values of the assumed stress distribution are calibrated to render the outcome of computations based on the notional distribution to be safe. The safe application of the empirical punching shear formulas rests strictly on the support configurations, for which test results have validated the empirical analytical models.

Technical Note
3 GENERALIZATION OF PUNCHING SHEAR FORMULAS Design for punching shear is a safety requirement. A safe design can be achieved through proper application of the established laws of mechanics, or reliance on test results for similar conditions. The punching shear design, when using the empirical formulas, falls in the latter category. There are two central prerequisites for a safe design. These are: (i) Selection of a stress (or generalized force) distribution that is in static equilibrium with the applied loads, coupled with provision of adequate resistance in the structure to meet the selected stress/force distribution. (ii) The structure designed shall have, or be provided with, adequate ductility to deform on demand without failure, and mobilize the resistance provided in (i) for the selected stress (or generalized force) distribution. The punching shear stress distribution adopted for the empirical formulas meets the first criterion, namely static equilibrium, but does not satisfy the second condition. However, it still is a valid model, since its application is calibrated through test results of similar conditions. It is known among the structural engineers that the failure mechanism in punching shear is in the form depicted in Fig. 3-1 , where compression struts, in balance with the top reinforcement resist the applied shear Vu. This mechanism, can meet both of the safety prerequisites, namely (i) the forces in the struts and the tension in top bars can be calculated to be in static equilibrium with the applied force, and (ii) the mechanism shown in the figure is physically plausible, subsequent to cracking of concrete.

FIGURE 3-1 Punching Shear Failure Mechanism Based on the foregoing, it is a mistake to make a logical argument, and extend the empirical formulas of the code for punching shear design to scenarios for which test results are either not available, or not used. As an example consider the partial view of the floor slab shown in Fig, 3-2. Several of the column supports on the boundary, such as the one identified in part (b) of the figure, are non-standard. These columns do not match the standard configurations, for which empirical formulas are suggested in the codes. The simplification of the geometry of the support to shapes that do not closely match the code extends the application of the empirical formulas beyond the range of their validity. For irregular configurations that are not validated by test results, short of embarking on detailed analyses, such as strut-and-tie models, the alternative is to use the one-way shear approach, and 3

Technical Note
forego the added concrete capacity that is available at the location on account of its multi-directional geometry.

(a) Partial 3D view of floor

(b) Plan details of support

FIGURE 3-2 Example of a Floor System with Non-Standard Punching Shear Configurations 4 ONE-WAY SHEAR IN SLAB DESIGN In applying the one-way shear alternative to design of support locations the following criteria can be used. i. ii. Select a perimeter beyond the boundary of column support at distance d for conventionally reinforced slabs, or h/2 for post-tensioned slabs, where d is the effective depth, and h is the slab thickness Break the perimeter into segments and associate with each segment an adequate region of the slab that can capture the entire shear flow into the supports extended perimeter. The slab segments can be in form of spines, as shown in Fig. 4-1, or wedge-shaped as illustrated in Fig. 4-2 for the non-standard column identified in Fig. 3-2. The spines or the wedges shall extend beyond the point, where concrete section can resist the applicable shear without reinforcement. In Fig.4-1, on account of high perimeter loads, the spines are extended along the entire length of the perimeter.

Technical Note

(a) View of transfer plate

(b) Deflection of plate under selfweight

(c) View of shear spines

(d) Design sections of shear spines

FIGURE 4-1 Floor System with One-Way Shear Spines Figure 4-2 illustrates how the non-standard column shown in Fig. 3-2b can be analyzed using one-way slab shear. Coming out a code-specified distance4 from the face of the support, the region around the column is subdivided into fanned out segments. Each segment is provided with a shear flow direction (designated as support line). Design sections are drawn normal to the support line. For each design section the total one-way shear is calculated. Each design section is then evaluated against the associated shear. Where the cross-sectional area of a design section is adequate to resist the computed shear, no reinforcement will be provided.

(a) Breakdown of the support vicinity into shear segments

(b) Illustration of design sections associated with each shear segment

FIGURE 4-2 Selection of Shear Segments Adjacent to Support

4

If prestressed use h/2; if conventionally reinforced, use d; [ACI-318-11], where h is slab thickness and d the effective depth.

Technical Note
The calculated reinforcement is generally provided by shear links, shear studs, or other alternatives shown in Fig. 1-2. Where the required shear reinforcement is high, it may be more practical to contain them in a U-shaped or closed tie and select a shear spine for design as illustrated in Fig. 4-3. The construction of the cage within the body of a concrete slab is also is referred to as virtual beam. The practice is common for transfer slabs, where slabs are thick and shears are generally high.

Vertical J-bars FIGURE 4-3 ARRANGEMENT OF VERTICAL REINFORCEMENT ACROSS THE WIDTH OF A SHEAR SPINE
Another example of a non-standard perimeter support column and structural model for its safe shear transfer is shown in Fig. 4-4.

(a) Subdivision of support region in vicinity of column

(b) Identification of support lines and design strips

FIGURE 4-4 Example of a Irregular Perimeter Support and the Model of Its Shear DE

5 AMOUNT OF SHEAR REINFORCEMENT

The shear reinforcement generally consists of vertical bars, or shear studs, placed at regular spacing along each spine and across its width. The vertical bars may be encased in a U stirrup and closed at the top for thick slabs and transfer plates. For thin slabs, the bars are not encased. The mechanism for shear transfer through the vertical bars is illustrated in Fig. 5-1. The following conservative assumptions are made for an expeditious computation of shear capacity: 6

Technical Note
If the slab is post-tensioned, disregard the beneficial contribution of the vertical component of the tendons near the supports. Also, disregard the contribution of precompression provided by post-tensioning. Refer to Fig 5-1. The parameters for shear transfer through reinforcement for its design are: Vu sl = design shear (kN; k); = spacing of shear bars in direction of spine; = spacing of shear bars in transverse direction; = cross-sectional area of each bar; = yield stress of each bar; = material factor, where applicable (non-US building codes); = number of bars across the assumed fracture surface; and = strength reduction factor for US codes

st

Av fy n

Design shear capacity of one row of vertical bars Shear capacity = (n * Av * fy)/ = (n * Av * fy) - non-US codes - for US codes

For one square meter of plan, the shear capacity will be: Shear capacity unit plan area = (Av * fy/ ) * (d/ sl )*(1000/ st ) = (Av * fy) * (d/ sl )*(1000/ st ) non-USA codes USA codes

FIGURE 5-1 SHEAR FORCE AND THE RESISTING REINFORCEMENT