Technical Paper
Ricardo Silva
Duarte M. Viúla Faria*
A. Pinho Ramos
Micael Inácio
A physical approach for considering how anchorage
head size influences the punching capacity of slabs
strengthened with vertical steel bolts
The introduction of new vertical steel bolts is an easy, practical
and common solution for retrofitting and strengthening slabs for
punching. Although a common option where punching strength-
ening is concerned, few studies exist regarding how the bolt’s
anchorage dimensions and its embedment in the concrete slab
affect the strengthening efficiency. This work presents an analyt-
ical approach that is able to predict the punching capacity of
slabs strengthened with post-installed vertical steel bolts, taking
into account the anchorage dimensions and positioning plus the
material properties. This approach results from the combination
of two physical models: one provided in the fib Model Code for
Concrete Structures 2010 regarding the punching capacity esti-
mation, and another that allows the deformation (crushing) of the
concrete beneath the head of the anchorage to be taken into
account. The predicted values are compared with experimental
results, showing that the analytical approach is able to simulate
correctly the anchorage behaviour and its influence regarding a
slab’s loadbearing capacity. A parametrical analysis is carried
out in order to study the importance of different factors such as
concrete compressive strength, longitudinal reinforcement ratio
and steel bolt length, always accompanied by the effect of
anchorage head size and embedment.
Keywords: punching, physical models, concrete crushing, anchorage, vertical
steel bolts, strengthening, flat slabs
1 Introduction
The introduction of new vertical steel bolts with the ob-
jective of strengthening flat slabs is an easy, practical and
common solution for slabs that do not have an adequate
loadbearing capacity. Usually, the vertical steel bolts are
anchored with large anchorage plates, which compromise
aesthetics since these are positioned on both slab surfaces.
Due to the lack of knowledge regarding how the anchor-
age plate dimensions influence the strengthening perfor-
mance, designers usually adopt large dimensions to be on
the safe side. It is therefore important for designers to be
aware of how the anchorage plate dimensions affect the
strengthening performance and how to take this into ac-
count, turning the strengthening solution into one that is
* Corresponding author: duamvf@gmail.com
Submitted for review: 19 November 2012
Revised: 28 May 2013
Accepted for publication: 2 June 2013
© 2013 Ernst & Sohn Verlag für Architektur und technische Wissenschaften GmbH & Co. KG, Berlin · Structural Concrete 14 (2013), No. 4
DOI: 10.1002/suco.201200051
both economical and acceptable aesthetically. Adopting
small anchorage head dimensions means it is also be easi-
er to embed them in the slab’s concrete cover, enhancing
the aesthetics even more.
One of the first studies regarding this kind of
strengthening was performed by Ghali [1], who showed
that it was a viable way of increasing punching capacity,
accompanied by improved ductility behaviour. Subse-
quently, several studies focusing on strengthening of slabs
by introducing steel bolts were conducted, namely those
by Ramos et al. [2], Duarte et al. [3], Ruiz et al. [4], Adetifa
and Polak [5], Faria et al. [6], Inácio et al. [7] and Polak
and Bu [8]. From the studies mentioned above, only the
ones by Faria et al. [6], Inácio et al. [7] and Polak and Bu
[8] referred to the anchorage plate dimensions and/or po-
sitioning. Slabs strengthened with steel bolts are expected
to behave similarly to new slabs reinforced with shear
studs having similar head anchorage dimensions. Several
studies on the behaviour of slabs reinforced with shear
studs have already been conducted, namely those focusing
on size, reinforcement layout or amount and comparison
with other reinforcing systems (e.g. Marzouk and Jiang [9],
Regan [10], Beutel and Hegger [11], Eligehausen et al. [12],
Ruiz and Muttoni [13], Heinzmann et al. [14], Lips et al.
[15] and Broms [16]), and these can help to form a judge-
ment on how to choose and detail a strengthening solu-
tion when using steel bolts.
The objective of this work is to present an analytical
approach that is able to predict the loadbearing capacity
of slabs strengthened by introducing vertical steel bolts,
taking into account the anchorage dimensions and bolt
positioning (embedded or not) plus the influence of mate-
rial properties. This approach results from the combina-
tion of two physical models: one provided in the fib Mod-
el Code for Concrete Structures 2010 [17] regarding
punching capacity and another that allows the displace-
ments due to concrete crushing beneath the head of the
anchorage to be taken into account, as developed by
Furche [18]. The predicted values are compared with ex-
perimental results, showing that the analytical approach is
able to simulate correctly the anchorage behaviour and al-
so its influence on the loadbearing capacity of flat slabs. A
parametrical analysis is carried out in order to study fur-
ther untested situations, revealing the importance of dif-
ferent parameters such as concrete compressive strength,
longitudinal reinforcement ratio and steel bolt embed-
389
R. Silva/D. M. Viúla Faria/A. P. Ramos/M. Inácio · A physical approach for considering how anchorage head size influences the punching capacity of slabs strengthened with vertical steel bolts

ment in slab, always accompanied by the effect of the an- d distance between bottom compressed face and cen-
chorage head size. troid of top longitudinal reinforcement bars
The steel bolts commonly used for strengthening of u control perimeter defined at d/2 from edge of col-
flat slabs are threaded at their extremities in order to allow umn determined in order to minimize its length
the attachment of the anchorage heads, i.e. nuts and wash- ψ slab rotation at failure
ers. Drilled holes where the steel bolts are introduced dg maximum aggregate size
need to have a larger diameter than the bolts themselves in
order to ease installation, and so the contact surface be- The rotation of the slab ψ at failure, considering the level
tween the nut/washer and concrete diminishes. The true III approach [17, 21], may be computed using Eq. (2):
effective contact surface transferring stresses must be care-
fully accounted for, and must not be taken as the contact 1.5
r f  V 
surface between concrete and washer, as it could appear   1.2 s y   if V ≤ Vflex (2)
d Es  Vflex 
to be at first sight. The above considerations highlight the
fact that wrong assumptions may seriously compromise where:
the strengthening effectiveness and structural safety, thus Es modulus of elasticity of longitudinal steel reinforce-
justifying the development of an adequate design proce- ment
dure. fy yield strength of longitudinal steel reinforcement
V applied shear force in slab
2 Description of physical models Vflex shear force associated with flexural capacity of slab
rs position where radial bending moment is zero with
The physical behaviour of a slab strengthened by intro- respect to column axis
ducing steel bolts is presented in Fig. 1, where it can be
seen that as the strengthened slab is loaded up to failure, In slabs with shear reinforcement, the punching capacity
the steel bolts that cross the shear crack are loaded in ten- may be estimated using the lowest value obtained from
sion, thus taking part in the resisting mechanism. This the following expressions (Eqs. (3) to (5)):
development of tension in the steel bolts relies on the an-
chorage head, which is mainly dependent on its geometri- VRm,crush  ksys  VRm  fcm  u  d (3)
cal characteristics and on the mechanical properties of
the concrete beneath it. u*  d v
VRm,out   VRm (4)
u d
2.1 Punching model

The punching design recommendations in fib Model Code VRm,in  VRm  VRm,s (5)
2010 [17] present a new design philosophy based on criti-
cal shear crack theory (CSCT), as described in [19, 20] for where:
slabs without and with transverse reinforcement respec- VRm concrete contribution given by Eq. (1)
tively. The fib Model Code 2010 [17] presents the punch- VRm,crush mean value of punching shear capacity (gov-
ing design expressions, but the expressions for the average erned by crushing of concrete struts)
values [19, 20] are presented in the following, which can VRm,in mean value of punching shear capacity (gov-
be compared directly with the experimental results and erned by failure within shear-reinforced zone)
hereinafter will be referred to as CSCT. For slabs without VRm,s shear reinforcement contribution to punching
transverse reinforcement, the punching loads can be com- shear strength
puted using Eq. (1): VRm,out mean value of punching shear capacity (gov-
erned by failure outside shear-reinforced zone)
3 u d  f ksys coefficient that accounts for the performance of
4 cm
VRm  (1) the punching shear reinforcement system, taken
 d
1  15 as 3.0 (well-anchored shear reinforcement [20])
16  d g
u control perimeter, taken at distance d/2 from
where: column and constructed so as to minimize its
fcm mean value of concrete compression strength mea- length, and for the slabs tested taken as u =
sured on 150 x 300 mm cylinders Σc+πd, where c = square column dimension

possible concrete
cone formation
computed as Nu,c
V Loaded area
N=σsi ·Asi
Fig. 1. Physical behaviour of a slab strengthened by the introduction of steel bolts

390 Structural Concrete 14 (2013), No. 4

 R. Silva/D. M. Viúla Faria/A. P. Ramos/M. Inácio · A physical approach for considering how anchorage head size influences the punching capacity of slabs strengthened with vertical steel bolts

u* control perimeter defined at dv/2 beyond outer Nu,c

layer of shear reinforcement
dv effective depth that takes into account the posi-
tion of the bolts [17, 20]
Eq. (8) Eq. (9) with small σh
If dowel action is neglected, the contribution of the shear large bearing area
reinforcement is given by Eq. (6):
Eq. (9) with large σh
n small bearing area
VRm,s   si()  Asi (6)
i1

δh
where Asi is the cross-sectional area of a shear reinforce-
Fig. 2. Influence of anchor head size on anchorage behaviour, ultimate
ment bars intersected by the potential failure surface (con- loads as a function of displacement at failure (adapted from Eligehausen
ical surface with angle 45º) within the zone bounded by et al. [22] and Furche [18])
0.35dv and dv (here dv = d when column does not pene-
trate slab) from the border of the support region [17], and
σsi(ψ) is the stress in the shear reinforcement. The stress in known as the CC (concrete capacity) method for tensile
the shear reinforcement can be estimated using Eq. (7) loading [23]), which is valid for both cracked and un-
[20] since the shear reinforcement used is not bonded to cracked concrete:
the concrete. Moreover, the shaft diameter is smaller than
the drilled hole diameter, meaning that contact between Nu,c  k  (hef )1.5  fccm
0.5
,200 (8a)
the steel shaft and the hole surface is non-existent or very
reduced. where hef is the effective embedment depth and fccm,200
 stands for the average concrete compressive strength mea-

ks    h w  cos       sured on 200 mm cubes. When using 150 × 300 mm cylin-
 2
 si( )  E w    sp  fy,w (7) ders to measure the average concrete compressive
lw
strength fcm, Eq. (8a) is rearranged as Eq. (8b), taking into
where: account the fact that fcm = 0.85fccm,200 [22] and with corre-
hw vertical distance between tip of crack and point sponding values of k’ = 13.0 and 9.8 for uncracked and
where shear reinforcement crosses critical shear cracked concrete respectively, in line with Furche’s work
crack [18]:
α angle between critical shear crack and compression
Nu,c  k ' (hef )1.5  fcm ini   h,u )
0.5  k ' (h 1.5  f 0.5
face of slab cm (8b)
β angle between shear reinforcement and compres-
sion face of slab In Eqs. (8a) and (8b), the effective embedment depth hef is
lw bolt length computed by reducing δh,u (head displacement corre-
ks critical shear crack opening factor (taken as 0.5) sponding to formation of concrete cone) to the initial em-
fy,w yield strength of steel bolts bedment depth hini, as proposed by Furche [18] (Fig. 3).
σsp initial stress applied to bolt Furche [18] proposed a relation between the concrete
pressure at the contact surface σh and its displacement δh
2.2 Anchorage behaviour model using a physical model that is described by Eqs. (9) to (11).
Eq. (9a) was developed taking into account the fact that
According to Eligehausen et al. [22], the bearing pressure concrete strength is measured on 200 mm cubes, being
that occurs at the contact surface of the steel bolt anchor- rearranged as Eq. (9b) when 150 × 300 mm cylinders are
age head leads to a displacement δh associated with local- used to measure the average concrete compressive strength
ly crushed concrete. This results in a reduction in the em- fcm, taking account of the fact that fcm = 0.85fccm,200 [22].
bedment depth and the associated concrete cone breakout
load Nu,c (Fig. 2). Furche [18] studied anchorages exhibit- 2
   k k
ing this type of behaviour, and proposed that the concrete h   h

A a
(9a)
f
 ccm,200  c1
breakout load Nu,c be computed using Eq. (8a) (usually

N N N

hini
δh,u δh,u
δh δh

Large Bearing Area Medium Bearing Area Small Bearing Area

Fig. 3. Concrete breakout cones for heads of different sizes and concrete displacement dh beneath anchor head (adapted from Eligehausen et al. [22] and
Furche [18])

Structural Concrete 14 (2013), No. 4 391

R. Silva/D. M. Viúla Faria/A. P. Ramos/M. Inácio · A physical approach for considering how anchorage head size influences the punching capacity of slabs strengthened with vertical steel bolts

  k k
2 pends on the strain in the steel bolts (ks·(ψ·hw·cos(α+β−
 h  0.72  h  A a (9b) π/2))/lw), which is a function of the crack opening at the
 fcm  c1
point where it crosses each bolt and the bolt length lw.
Therefore, if crushing occurs under the anchorage head,
dh2 the elongation of the steel bolt (numerator in Eq. (7)
d
kA   9  a  (dh  a)  h  a (10) (ks·(ψ·hw·cos((α+β−π/2)) is diminished by the displace-
4 2
ment δh at both ends of the anchorage due to concrete
crushing, taking into account in the calculations that the
slab is cracked on the top surface and uncracked on the
5
ka  if a ≤ 5 and ka = 1 if a > 5 (11) bottom surface. It is at this point that both physical mod-
a
els interconnect, and the computation of the punching ca-
pacity when failure is within the shear reinforced zone
where c1 may be taken as 300 and 600 for cracked and un- may be computed iteratively:
cracked concrete respectively, dh is the drilled hole diame- 1. Assume an initial value for ψ.
ter and a is the anchor head size (Fig. 4). In order to obtain 2. Compute initial σsi(ψ) according to Eq. (7).
the concrete cone breakout load, it is necessary to solve 3. Compute displacements δh at both ends of anchorage
Eqs. (8) and (9) iteratively. using Eq. (9).
The size of anchorage considered (a in Fig. 4) is 4. Compute a new σsi(ψ) adopting the value of ψ initially
based on the true contact surface between concrete and proposed and taking into account the values of δh com-
anchorage head, i.e. where the transfer of stresses will take puted previously in step 3 using Eq. (12):
place and thus governing the pull-out behaviour. In the
 
present case, the anchorage head is not totally in contact ks  i hw cos        h,t   h,b
with the concrete as there is a space between the steel  2
 si   Ew   sp  fy,w
shaft and the drilled hole surface. The adaptation of the  lw
model proposed by Furche [18] in this situation is done by (12)
simply replacing the shaft diameter by the hole diameter Nu,c
dh when computing kA using Eq. (10). 5. If σsi(ψ) > , a concrete cone failure type occurs,
A si
Eq. (8a) was developed considering that the steel bolt
is perpendicular to the concrete surface. Nevertheless, meaning that the steel bolt is not efficient and therefore
Regan [10] showed that it may be used when steel bolts may not be considered in design.
are introduced into sloping concrete surfaces, considering 6. Compute VRm,in using Eq. (5), adopting the value of ψ
hini to be the length of the shaft inserted in the concrete initially proposed and the value of σsi(ψ) computed
(Fig. 5). previously in step 4.
7. Apply Eq. (2) to compute slab rotation at failure ψ, with
2.3 Combining the models V = VRm,in.
8. Change the initial values of σsi(ψ) and ψ and iteratively
From the analysis of the models described in the previous compute the true σsi(ψ) and ψ, repeating steps 3 to 7
sections, it may be observed that the contribution of the until these match the values proposed initially; at this
shear reinforcement through the application of Eq. (7) de- point, the slab punching capacity governed by failure
within the shear-reinforced zone is the one computed
in step 6.
Anchorage
Steel Nut Plate Values for the loadbearing capacity corresponding to all
45º failure modes (VRm,crush, VRm,out, VRm,in, Vflex) must be
computed and the lowest of these governs the behaviour.
10

a [mm]
3 Evaluation of proposed physical model
Steel Bolt 3.1 Experimental tests

drilled hole diameter A previous work [7] presented the details of an experimen-
tal investigation into punching of slabs strengthened with
Fig. 4. Embedded anchorage details vertical steel bolts using different anchorage approaches:
large anchorage at slab surface, small anchorage at slab
surface and small embedded anchorage. The slab speci-
N mens measured 1800 × 1800 × 120 mm thick (Fig. 6). They
modelled the area near a column of an interior slab panel
up to the zero moment lines. The slab bottom flexure re-
inforcement consisted of a square mesh of 6 mm diameter
hini bars spaced at 200 mm and the top reinforcement was a
square mesh of 10 mm diameter bars spaced at 75  mm.
The concrete cover to the longitudinal reinforcement was
Fig. 5. Anchorage installed in sloping concrete surfaces (adapted from about 10 and 20 mm in the bottom and top faces respec-
Regan [10]) tively. The effective depth of the specimens was measured

392 Structural Concrete 14 (2013), No. 4

 R. Silva/D. M. Viúla Faria/A. P. Ramos/M. Inácio · A physical approach for considering how anchorage head size influences the punching capacity of slabs strengthened with vertical steel bolts

SECTION A-A'
PLAN VIEW
(a) Anchorage
500 250 250 500

12
Load Cell Steel Plate

00
Steel Beam RHS
120
Steel Plate

500
Hydraulic Jack
A A'

200 Prestress Strand

250
1800
1000

200

250
Strong Floor

1000 500
1800

[mm]
Anchorage Steel plate

75
(b)
50

t=5

150

(c) 6.65
(d) 9.10
27.00
20.75

t=5.5 t=7.5

[mm]

(e)
B7
B5 B9
75

B8
B6 B10
50

B3 B4 B12 B11
200

75 50

B2 50 B14
B16
B1 75 B13
B15

[mm]
Fig. 6. Test setup: a) dimensions of anchorage plates of specimens,
b) M6, c) M6S and M6SE, d) M8S, and e) shear reinforcement Bolts with strain gauges (B1 to B4 and B9 to B12)
arrangement (dimensions in mm) Bolts without strain gauges (B5 to B8 and B13 to B16)

Structural Concrete 14 (2013), No. 4 393

R. Silva/D. M. Viúla Faria/A. P. Ramos/M. Inácio · A physical approach for considering how anchorage head size influences the punching capacity of slabs strengthened with vertical steel bolts

Table 1. Material properties and 8 mm diameter respectively. The middle sections were
machined to a uniform diameter of 4.6 and 6 mm respec-
Specimen M6 M6S M6SE M8S tively to allow the easy gluing of strain gauges [7]. The
drilled holes were 9 and 11 mm diameter for the M6 and
fcm (MPa) 47.7 36.3 26.8 38.7
M8 threaded bars respectively. The strengthened speci-
fctma) (MPa) 3.5 2.8 2.1 2.9 mens with M6 threaded bars were as follows: one slab
with large anchorage plates on the top and bottom sur-
Ecb) (GPa) 32.6 29.8 26.9 30.4
faces of the slab (specimen M6), one with small anchorage
Ø6 fy/f0.2 (MPa) 586 523 523 plates on both surfaces of the slab (specimen M6S), and
ft (MPa) 696 618 618 one with small embedded anchorages (specimen M6SE –
10 mm embedment in each slab surface (Fig.  4)). The
Ø10 fy/f0.2 (MPa) 467 529 529 specimen strengthened with M8 threaded bars was one
ft (MPa) 597 653 653 slab with small anchorage plates on the top and bottom
Μ6 f0.2 (MPa) 421 530 – surfaces of the slab (specimen M8S). Further details re-
Ew (GPa) 197 195 – garding the test setup may be found in [7].

Μ8 f0.2 (MPa) – – 587 3.2 Comparison with the proposed model

Ew (GPa) – – 217

d (mm) 89.5 91.1
ρ (%) 1.17 1.15
a) Concrete tensile strength
b) Concrete modulus of elasticity computed according to fib
MC2010 [17]
during casting. Table 1 presents the average effective
depths d of the tension reinforcement and its ratio ρ. Max-
imum aggregate size dg was 16 mm.
The results obtained with the use of a small anchor-
age at the slab surface instead of a large one did not show
a clear trend. The use of embedded anchorages led to a
slight decrease in the efficiency of the strengthening sys-
tem. Different failure modes were obtained in the tests:
the failure surface crossed the shear reinforcement, devel-
oped outside the shear reinforcement or presented a flex-
ural punching failure. However, in the work presented
here, only specimens that exhibited a failure surface cross-
ing the shear reinforcement are studied in order to show
the adequacy of the proposed design model. Afterwards,
in section 4, a parametric analysis is performed where the
influence of several parameters is evaluated.
Table 1 presents the material characteristics of the
slabs that exhibited a failure surface crossing the shear re-
inforcement and Fig. 6 shows the dimensions of the an-
chorage plates and the positioning of the steel bolts
around the column. The strengthening steel bolts used in
these tests were cut from M6 and M8 threaded bars with 6
91.2 94.1 Table 2 gives a comparison between experimental failure
1.04 1.11
loads and the predicted values obtained using CSCT (ap-
plying the level III approach of fib Model Code 2010 [17]),
both considering the effect of the deformation of concrete
due to crushing beneath the head of the anchorage and ig-
noring it. The size of the anchorage head (a in Fig. 4) was
taken as the size of the nut over the concrete added to the
size of the anchorage plate considering a load degradation
of 45º from the nut’s outer perimeter.
From the results presented in Table 2 it may be ob-
served that CSCT provides a mean punching capacity very
close to the figures obtained experimentally, with an aver-
age ratio Vexp/VRm,in,c of 1.05 and a Vexp/VRm,in of 1.02,
considering the effect of the crushed concrete beneath the
anchorage head and ignoring it, and a COV of 0.04 and
0.05 respectively. When considering the effect of the
crushed concrete beneath the anchorage head, none of
the relations Vexp/VRm,in,c was < 1.0, all were conserva-
tive.
The experimental values for the initial (prestress/ad-
justment force) and final forces in the steel bolts are pre-
sented in Table 3, along with the computed ones. It is also
possible to verify that the computed forces are closer to
the measured ones when the effect of the crushed con-
crete beneath the anchorage head is considered. It also
shows that the steel bolts did not reach yield (correspond-
ing to a force of 7.0 kN for the bolts used in slab M6, 8.8
kN for slabs M6S and M6SE, and 16.6 kN for slab M8S),
matching the experimental results more closely and con-

Table 2. Comparison of experimental punching results and code provisions

Specimen Vexp a) (kN) Vflex b) (kN) VRm,in,c c) (kN) VRm,in d) (kN) Vexp/Vmin,c e) Vexp/Vmin f)

M6 331.0 324.7 311.7 314.7 1.06 1.05

M6S 328.6 364.0 300.4 308.9 1.09 1.06
M6SE 273.8 323.1 262.7 275.1 1.04 1.00
M8S 352.3 378.1 351.6 366.3 1.00 0.96
a) Experimental failure load
b) Predicted flexural failure load
c) Predicted punching failure load considering crushing beneath anchorage head
d) Predicted punching failure load ignoring crushing beneath anchorage head

min,c = min(Vflex ; VRm,in,c) considering crushing

e) V

min = min(Vflex ; VRm,in) ignoring crushing

f) V

394 Structural Concrete 14 (2013), No. 4

 R. Silva/D. M. Viúla Faria/A. P. Ramos/M. Inácio · A physical approach for considering how anchorage head size influences the punching capacity of slabs strengthened with vertical steel bolts

Table 3. Initial and final forces in steel bolts (kN) 4 Parametric analysis

Steel bolt forces From the results obtained in the previous section it was
Specimen possible to conclude that the proposed method is able to
Fi a) Ff b) Fcf,c c) Fcf d) Fcf,c/Ff Fcf/Ff take into account the anchorage head size satisfactorily.
In order to increase the understanding of the effect of sev-
M6 4.2 5.6 6.9 7.0 1.23 1.25
eral parameters associated with the anchorage head size,
M6S 2.7 6.4 7.7 8.8 1.20 1.38
this section presents an analytical parametrical analysis,
M6SE 3.2 6.2 7.0 8.8 1.13 1.42
which involves comparing the application of the physical
M8S 5.5 11.3 14.8 16.6 1.31 1.47 model considering and ignoring the crushing of the con-
a) Fi – initial bolt force crete under the anchorage head. The parametric analysis
b) Ff – measured bolt force at failure was carried out using the experimental slab specimens de-
c) Fcf,c – computed bolt force at failure considering crushing
d)
scribed in section 3.1, but for the sake of simplicity, only
Fcf – computed bolt force at failure ignoring crushing
the results regarding slab M6S are presented, as the results
for all other slabs are similar. This analysis evaluates the
trary to the approach where crushing is not considered. slab punching capacity and the contribution of the steel
The average Fcf,c/Ff ratio is 1.22, with a COV of 0.06, bolts, showing the importance of different parameters
whereas the average Fcf/Ff ratio is 1.38, with a COV of such as concrete compressive strength, longitudinal rein-
0.07, when considering the effect of the crushed concrete forcement ratio and steel bolt length, always accompanied
beneath the anchorage head and when ignoring it respec- by the effect of the anchorage head size.
tively. When the anchorage head dimensions and con- Figs. 7 and 8 present the relation between slab
crete crushing are taken into account, the steel bolts expe- punching capacity VRm,CSCT,c/VRm,CSCT and the contribu-
rience a smaller elongation due to concrete crushing tion of the steel bolts VRms,CSCT,c/VRms,CSCT, both consid-
beneath the anchorage head, and the computed bolt ering and ignoring crushing beneath the anchorage head.
forces were closer to the experimental ones, thus illustrat- The effect of the anchorage head size can be clearly seen
ing the adequacy of the proposed design approach. In all from Figs. 7 and 8 (for steel bolt lengths lw = 120 and
Nu,c 100 mm respectively), since as this size decreases or in-
the above computations, σsi(ψ)< , meaning that the creases relative to the one considered in the test (a =
A si
5.9 mm), the total capacity of the slab also decreases or in-
concrete cone formation failure mode did not govern, creases respectively. The effect of the anchorage head size
matching the experimental results. is more pronounced in the contribution of the steel bolts

1,30 1,40
ρ=1% ρ=1%
VRm,CSCT,C / VRm,CSCT

1,20 change to flexural 1,20

VRms,CSCT,C / VRms,CSCT

failure mode 1,00

1,10
1,00 0,80
0,90 0,60
0,80 0,40
maximum contribuon of
0,70 shear reinforcement 0,20
0,60 0,00
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60
a [mm]
a [mm]
fcm= 30 MPa fcm= 35 MPa fcm= 40 MPa fcm= 30 MPa fcm= 35 MPa fcm= 40 MPa

1,30 1,40
ρ=1.5% ρ=1.5%
VRms,CSCT,C / VRms,CSCT

1,20 1,20
VRm,CSCT,C / VRm,CSCT

1,10 1,00
1,00 0,80
0,90 0,60
0,80 0,40
0,70 0,20
0,60 0,00
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60
a [mm] a [mm]
fcm= 30 MPa fcm= 35 MPa fcm= 40 MPa fcm= 30 MPa fcm= 35 MPa fcm= 40 MPa

Fig. 7. Relation between punching capacity (left) and contribution of steel bolts of length lw = 120 mm (right) when considering and ignoring concrete crush-
ing beneath anchor head, showing the importance of anchor head size a, concrete compressive strength fcm and longitudinal reinforcement ratio ρ

Structural Concrete 14 (2013), No. 4 395

 R. Silva/D. M. Viúla Faria/A. P. Ramos/M. Inácio · A physical approach for considering how anchorage head size influences the punching capacity of slabs strengthened with vertical steel bolts

1,30 1,40
ρ=1% ρ=1%
1,20 Change to flexural 1,20
VRm,CSCT,C / VRm,CSCT

VRms,CSCT,C / VRms,CSCT
failure mode
1,10 1,00
1,00 0,80
0,90 0,60
0,80 maximum contribuon of 0,40
0,70 shear reinforcement
0,20
0,60 0,00
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60
a [mm] a [mm]
fcm= 30 MPa fcm= 35 MPa fcm= 40 Mpa fcm= 30 MPa fcm= 35 MPa fcm= 40 MPa

1,30 1,40
ρ=1.5%
VRm,CSCT,C / VRm,CSCT

ρ=1.5%

VRms,CSCT,C / VRms,CSCT
1,20 1,20
1,10 1,00
1,00 0,80
0,90
0,60
0,80
0,40
0,70
0,20
0,60
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 0,00
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60
a [mm]
a [mm]
fcm= 30 MPa fcm= 35 MPa fcm= 40 MPa
fcm= 30 MPa fcm= 35 MPa fcm= 40 MPa

Fig. 8. Relation between punching capacity (left) and contribution of embedded steel bolts of length lw = 100 mm (right) when considering and ignoring
concrete crushing beneath anchor head, showing the importance of anchor head size a, concrete compressive strength fcm and longitudinal reinforcement
ratio ρ

ρ= 1 %
0,20 0,80 0,20 0,80
Crushing displacement [mm]
Crushing displacement [mm]

0,18 0,73 0,18 0,73

and slab rotation [rad]
and slab rotation [rad]

0,15 0,65 0,15 0,65

0,13 0,58 0,13 0,58

w [mm]
w [mm]

0,10 0,50 0,10 Change to flexural 0,50

maximum contribuon of failure mode
0,07
shear reinforcement
0,43 0,08 0,43
0,05 0,35 0,05 0,35
0,02 0,28 0,03 0,28
0,00 0,20 0,00 0,20
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60
a [mm] a [mm]

crushing displacement at bottom Slab rotation crushing displacement at bottom Slab rotation
crushing displacement at top Crack width crushing displacement at top Crack width

ρ= 1.5%
0,20 0,80 0,20 0,80
Crushing displacement [mm]

Crushing displacement [mm]

0,18 0,73 0,18 0,73

and slab rotation [rad]

and slab rotation [rad]

0,15 0,65 0,15 0,65

0,13 0,58 0,13 0,58
w [mm]

w [mm]

0,10 0,50 0,10 0,50

0,08 0,43 0,08 0,43
0,05 0,35 0,05 0,35
0,03 0,28 0,03 0,28
0,00 0,20 0,00 0,20
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60
a [mm] a [mm]
crushing displacement at bottom Slab rotation crushing displacement at bottom Slab rotation
crushing displacement at top Crack width crushing displacement at top Crack width

Fig. 9. Concrete displacement δh beneath anchor heads, crack opening and slab rotations ψ at failure for slab M6S (lw = 120 mm) with different longitudinal
reinforcement ratios ρ (1 and 1.5 %) and different concrete compressive strengths fcm = 30 MPa (left) and fcm = 40 MPa (right)

396 Structural Concrete 14 (2013), No. 4

 R. Silva/D. M. Viúla Faria/A. P. Ramos/M. Inácio · A physical approach for considering how anchorage head size influences the punching capacity of slabs strengthened with vertical steel bolts

ρ= 1 %
0,20 0,80 0,20 0,80
Crushing displacement [mm]

Crushing displacement [mm]

0,18 0,73 0,18 0,73
and slab rotation [rad]

and slab rotation [rad]

0,15 0,65 0,15 0,65
0,13 0,58 0,13 0,58

w [mm]
w [mm]
0,10 Change to flexural 0,50
0,10 maximum contribuon of 0,50 failure mode
0,08 shear reinforcement 0,43 0,08 0,43
0,05 0,35 0,05 0,35
0,03 0,28 0,03 0,28
0,00 0,20 0,00 0,20
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60
a [mm]
a [mm]
crushing displacement at bottom Slab rotation
crushing displacement at bottom Slab rotation
crushing displacement at top Crack width crushing displacement at top Crack width

ρ= 1.5%
0,20 0,80 0,20 0,80
Crushing displacement [mm]

Crushing displacement [mm]

0,18 0,73 0,18 0,73
and slab rotation [rad]

and slab rotation [rad]

0,15 0,65 0,15 0,65
0,13 0,58 0,13 0,58
w [mm]

0,10 0,50 0,10 0,50

w [mm]
0,08 0,43 0,08 0,43
0,05 0,35 0,05 0,35
0,03 0,28 0,03 0,28
0,00 0,20 0,00 0,20
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60
a [mm] a [mm]
crushing displacement at bottom Slab rotation crushing displacement at bottom Slab rotation
crushing displacement at top Crack width crushing displacement at top Crack width

Fig. 10. Concrete displacement δh beneath anchor heads, crack opening and slab rotations ψ at failure for slab M6S (lw = 100 mm) with different longitudi-
nal reinforcement ratios ρ (1 and 1.5 %) and different concrete compressive strengths fcm = 30 MPa (left) and fcm = 40 MPa (right)

as the mobilization of steel bolt forces are very dependent is not significant for greater head sizes. Slab rotation ψ at
on concrete crushing beneath the anchorage head. Re- failure increased with the increase in the anchorage head
garding the variation in the longitudinal reinforcement ra- size, although not significantly, matching the results found
tio, it may be concluded that as it diminishes, the influ- previously where the total slab capacity only changed
ence of the concrete compressive strength becomes more marginally. It can also be seen that for smaller values of a,
pronounced, both for the punching capacity and for the the displacements δh are relatively high when compared
mobilization of the steel bolts. The first diagram of each with the crack opening, meaning that the elongations of
figure shows the position where the failure mode changes the steel bolts are significantly reduced due to local con-
from an inside failure to a flexural one or where the maxi- crete crushing. In the case of the model with lw = 120 mm,
mum capacity of the steel bolts (yielding of steel bolts) is ρ = 1.00 % and fcm = 40 MPa (Fig. 9), with an anchorage
reached in the models where crushing beneath the an- head size of approx. a = 15 mm, the failure mode changes
chorage head is considered. In cases where the failure from an inside failure to a flexural one, and thus an in-
mode changes to a flexural one, the relation VRms,CSCT,c/ crease in the slab rotation ψ is evident. This more or less
VRms,CSCT is only presented up to the point where the flex- sudden increase in ψ is due to the fact that after the slab
ural failure mode occurs. In all other situations studied, reaches its yielding plateau, it only fails when punching
the maximum capacity of the steel bolts was reached. through the inside is recorded, commonly known as a
Figs. 9 and 10 (for steel bolt lengths lw = 120 and flexural/punching failure. In all the remaining cases, fail-
100 mm respectively) present the concrete displacement ure took the form of a surface crossing the shear rein-
dh beneath the anchorage heads using Eqs. (9) to (11), the forcement (inside failure), whether or not the maximum
crack opening and the slab rotations for longitudinal rein- contribution of the steel bolts (yielding of steel bolts) was
forcement ratios of 1 and 1.5  % and different concrete reached.
compressive strengths for slab M6S. It can be seen that as The influence of the length of the steel bolts is relat-
the anchorage head size increases, so crushing beneath ed to the strain mobilized, as for a smaller steel bolt length
the head diminishes, accompanied by an increase in the lw and the same elongation, strains in the steel bolts are
crack opening. This increase in the crack opening was on- higher, thus increasing the pressure under the anchorage
ly verified up to a defined anchorage head size, which var- head. The concrete cone breakout load also diminishes,
ied according to the concrete compressive strength, rang- which at ultimate may lead to a completely inefficient
ing between 20 and 25 mm, since crushing of the concrete steel bolt. From Figs. 7 and 8 it can be seen that slabs with

Structural Concrete 14 (2013), No. 4 397

R. Silva/D. M. Viúla Faria/A. P. Ramos/M. Inácio · A physical approach for considering how anchorage head size influences the punching capacity of slabs strengthened with vertical steel bolts

a smaller lw provided, in general, a marginally higher slab the crack opening at failure. This increase in the crack
capacity, as expected, due to a higher mobilized strain. opening was only verified up to a defined anchorage head
This higher mobilized strain also led, in general, to the size, which varied according to the concrete compressive
steel bolts making a greater contribution to the total slab strength, ranging between 20 and 25 mm, since for greater
capacity. head sizes, concrete crushing is not significant. Addition-
ally, for smaller anchorages heads, the concrete displace-
5 Conclusions ments beneath the anchor are relatively high when com-
pared with the crack opening, meaning that the
This paper presents the development of a physical model elongations of the steel bolts are significantly reduced due
capable of predicting the punching capacity of flat slabs to local concrete crushing. The results presented in Figs. 7
and the contribution of vertical steel bolts used for and 8 show that if the anchorage head size is relatively
strengthening. This results from the combination of two small, the total slab loadbearing capacity could decrease
physical models: one used to determine the punching ca- by as much as approx. 15 % in the specific cases studied,
pacity of slabs and the other used to describe the behav- which is a significant loss of loadbearing capacity that
iour of anchorages in concrete taking into account the an- could not be estimated if crushing beneath the anchorage
chorage head size. It was shown that the proposed model head was not considered.
satisfactorily predicts both the punching capacity and the
steel bolt forces, considering the influence of the anchor- Aknowledgements
age head size. The model takes into account the mechani- This work received support from the Fundação para a
cal and geometrical properties of both the existing rein- Ciência e Tecnologia – Ministério da Ciência, Tecnologia
forced concrete slab and the new reinforcing elements. e Ensino Superior through Project PTDC/ECM/114492/
The evaluation of the proposed approach to predict the 2009. We would like to thank CONCREMAT for making
experimental failure loads and the steel bolt forces the slab specimens.
showed that:
− it provides a safer estimate of the slab’s punching capac- Notation
ity as all the relations Vexp/VRm,in,c ≥ 1.0, with an aver- α angle between critical shear crack and com-
age of 1.05 (COV = 0.04); pression face of slab
− the forces computed in the steel bolts were closer to the β angle between shear reinforcement and com-
ones measured experimentally; the average Fcf,c/Ff ratio pression face of slab
is 1.22, considering the effect of the crushed concrete ρ longitudinal reinforcement ratio
beneath the anchorage head, whereas an average ratio δh concrete displacement beneath anchor head
Fcf/Ff = 1.38 is obtained when ignoring it; δh,t concrete displacement beneath top anchor
− the steel bolt forces computed did not reach yield, head
matching the experimental results more closely and δh,b concrete displacement beneath bottom an-
contrary to the approach where crushing is not consid- chor head
ered. δh,u concrete displacement beneath anchor head
corresponding to formation of concrete cone
When the anchorage head dimensions and concrete σh concrete pressure beneath anchor head
crushing are taken into account, the steel bolts experience σsi stress in shear reinforcement
a smaller elongation due to concrete crushing beneath the σsp initial prestress applied to bolt
anchorage head, and the computed forces were closer to ψ slab rotation at failure
the experimental ones, thus showing the adequacy of the a anchorage head size
proposed design approach. c column side dimension
The application of the proposed methodology allows d distance between bottom compressed face
the anchorage head minimum size to be determined for and centroid of top longitudinal reinforce-
each specific situation, instead of leaving it to the design ment bars
engineer to propose a groundless size independently of dg maximum aggregate size
the situation, as is common practice, and not taking into dh drilled hole diameter
account all the variables involved already mentioned dv reduced effective depth
above. The adequate anchorage head size is the one that f0.2 0.2 % proof strength of steel reinforcement or
allows the development of the full yield strength of the steel bolts
new strengthening elements, i.e. the steel bolts, taking ad- fcm mean value of concrete compression strength
vantage of their full capacity. measured on 150 × 300 mm cylinders
The work was complemented by a parametric analy- fccm,200 mean value of concrete compression strength
sis that allowed further strengthening situations to be stud- measured on 200 mm cubes
ied. The punching capacity and the steel bolt forces were fctm concrete tensile strength
evaluated, showing the importance of different parameters ft ultimate strength of steel reinforcement
such as concrete compressive strength, longitudinal rein- fy yield strength of steel reinforcement
forcement ratio and steel bolt length, always accompanied fy,w yield strength of steel bolts
by the effect of the anchorage head size. This analysis h slab depth
showed that as the anchorage head size increases, crush- hef effective embedment depth
ing beneath it diminishes, accompanied by an increase in hini initial embedment depth

398 Structural Concrete 14 (2013), No. 4

 R. Silva/D. M. Viúla Faria/A. P. Ramos/M. Inácio · A physical approach for considering how anchorage head size influences the punching capacity of slabs strengthened with vertical steel bolts

hw vertical distance between tip of crack and References

point where shear reinforcement crosses criti-
cal shear crack 1. Ghali, A., Sargious, M. A., Huizer, A.: Vertical prestressing of
flat plates around columns. ACI SP 42 – Shear in Reinforced
ks critical shear crack opening factor
Concrete, Detroit, 1974, pp. 905–920.
ksys coefficient that accounts for performance of
2. Ramos, A. M. P., Lúcio, V., Regan, P. E.: Repair and Strength-
punching shear reinforcement system ening Methods of Flat Slabs for Punching. International
lw steel bolt length Workshop on Punching Shear Capacity of RC Flat Slabs,
rs distance between column axis and position Royal Institute of Technology, Department of Structural En-
where radial bending moment is zero gineering, Stockholm, Jun 2000.
u length of control perimeter 3. Duarte, I. Ramos, A., Lúcio, V.: Strengthening of existing flat
u* length of control perimeter defined at 0.5dv slabs with transverse reinforcement. Proc. of CCC 2008,
from outermost perimeter of shear reinforce- Challenges for Civil construction, FEUP, Oporto, Apr 2008.
ment 4. Ruiz M. F., Muttoni, A., Kunz, J.: Strengthening of Flat Slabs
Asi cross-sectional area of one shear bar Against Punching Shear Using Post-Installed Shear Rein-
forcement. ACI Structural Journal, vol. 107, No. 4, Jul/Aug
Ec concrete modulus of elasticity
2010, pp. 434–442.
Es modulus of elasticity of longitudinal reinforce-
5. Adetifa, B., Polak, M.: Retrofit of Slab Column Interior Con-
ment nections Using Shear Bolts Punching Shear. ACI Structural
Ew modulus of elasticity of shear reinforcement Journal, vol. 102, No. 2, Mar/Apr 2005, pp. 268–274.
Fcf computed force in steel bolt at failure ignoring 6. Faria, D., Inácio, M., Ramos, A., Lúcio, V.: Punching of
crushing Strengthened Concrete Flat Slabs – Experimental Analysis
Fcf,c computed force in steel bolt at failure consid- and Comparison with Codes. IABSE Structural Engineering
ering crushing International 2/2012, pp. 202–214.
Ff measured force in steel bolt at failure 7. Inácio, M., Ramos, A., Faria, D.: Strengthening of Flat Slabs
Fi initial steel bolt force with Transverse Reinforcement by Introduction of Steel
Bolts using different Anchorage Approaches. Engineering
Nu,c concrete cone breakout tension load
Structures 44, Nov 2012, pp. 63–77.
V load applied to slab, shear force
8. Polak, M. A., Bu, W.: Design Considerations for Shear Bolts
Vexp experimental failure load in Punching Shear Retrofit of Reinforced Concrete Slabs.
Vflex shear force associated with flexural capacity ACI Structural Journal, vol. 110, No. 1, Jan/Feb 2013, pp.
of slab 15–25.
Vmin minimum value of Vflex and VRm 9. Marzouk, H., Jiang, D.: Experimental investigation on shear
VRm mean value of punching capacity enhancement types for high-strength concrete plates. ACI
VRm,crush mean value of punching shear capacity (gov- Structural Journal, vol. 94, No. 1, Jan/Feb 1997, pp. 49–58.
erned by crushing of concrete struts) 10. Regan, P. E.: Shear Reinforcement of Flat Slabs. Internation-
VRm,CSCT,c mean value of punching shear capacity ac- al Workshop on Punching Shear Capacity of RC Flat Slabs,
cording to CSCT considering crushing be- Royal Institute of Technology, Department of Structural En-
gineering, Stockholm, Jun 2000.
neath anchorage head
11. Beutel, R., Hegger, J.: The effect of anchorage on the effec-
VRm,CSCT mean value of punching shear capacity ac- tiveness of the shear reinforcement in the punching zone.
cording to CSCT ignoring crushing beneath Cement and Concrete Composites 24, 2002, pp. 539–549.
anchorage head 12. Eligehausen, R., Vocke, H., Clauss, A., Furche, J., Bauermeis-
VRm,crush mean value of punching shear capacity (gov- ter, U.: Neue Durchstanzbewehrung für Elementdecken. Be-
erned by crushing of concrete struts) ton- und Stahlbetonbau, 98, 2003, pp. 334–344.
VRm,in mean value of punching shear capacity (gov- 13. Ruiz, F., Muttoni, A.: Performance and Design of Punching
erned by failure within shear-reinforced zone) Shear Reinforcement Systems. 3rd fib International Con-
VRm,in,c mean value of punching shear capacity (gov- gress, Washington, 2010.
erned by failure within shear-reinforced zone) 14. Heinzmann, D., Etter, S., Villiger, S., Jaeger, T.: Punching
Tests on Reinforced Concrete Slabs with and without Shear
considering crushing beneath anchorage head
Reinforcement. ACI Structural Journal, vol. 109, No. 6,
VRm,out mean value of punching shear capacity (gov-
Nov/Dec 2012, pp. 787–794.
erned by failure outside shear-reinforced 15. Lips, S., Fernández Ruiz, M., Muttoni., A.: Experimental In-
zone) vestigation on Punching Strength and Deformation, ACI
VRm,s shear reinforcement contribution to punching Structural Journal, vol. 109, No. 6, Nov/Dec 2012, pp.
shear strength 889–900.
VRms,CSCT,c shear reinforcement contribution to punching 16. Broms, C. E.: Ductility of flat plates: Comparison of shear re-
shear strength considering crushing beneath inforcement systems. ACI Structural Journal, vol. 104, No. 6,
anchorage head Nov/Dec 2007, pp. 703–711.
VRms,CSCT shear reinforcement contribution to punching 17. Federation International du Beton (fib): Model Code for
shear strength ignoring crushing beneath an- Concrete Structures 2010, fib Bulletins 65 & 66, 2012.
18. Furche, J.: Zum Trag- und Verschiebungsverhalten von Kopf-
chorage head
bolzen bei zentrischem Zug. PhD thesis, Stuttgart University,
1994.
19. Muttoni, A.: Punching Shear of Reinforced Concrete Slabs
without Transverse Reinforcement. ACI Structural Journal,
vol. 105, No. 4, Jul/Aug 2008, pp. 440–450.

Structural Concrete 14 (2013), No. 4 399

R. Silva/D. M. Viúla Faria/A. P. Ramos/M. Inácio · A physical approach for considering how anchorage head size influences the punching capacity of slabs strengthened with vertical steel bolts

20. Ruiz M. F., Muttoni, A.: Punching Shear of Reinforced Con-

crete Slabs with Transverse Reinforcement. ACI Structural
Journal, vol. 106, No. 4, Jul/Aug 2009, pp. 485–494.
21. Muttoni, A., Ruiz, M.: The Levels-of-Approximation Ap-
proach in MC2010: Application to Punching Shear Provi- Ricardo Silva
sions. Structural Concrete, 13, 2012, pp. 32–41. doi:10.1002/ UNIC, Department of Civil Engineering, Facul-
suco.201100032. dade de Ciências e Tecnologia, Universidade
22. Eligehausen, R., Mallée, R., Silva, J.: Anchorage in Concrete NOVA de Lisboa, 2829-516 Caparica, Portugal,
Construction, Ernst & Sohn, 2006. ricardodinissilva@gmail.com
23. Fuchs, W., Eligehausen, R., Breen, J. E.: Concrete Capacity
Design (CCD) Approach for Fastening to Concrete. ACI
Structural Journal, vol. 92, No. 1, Jan/Feb 1995, pp. 73–94.
Duarte M. Viúla Faria
Assistant Professor, UNIC, Department of
Civil Engineering, Faculdade de Ciências e
Tecnologia, Universidade NOVA de Lisboa,
2829-516 Caparica, Portugal,
duamvf@gmail.com

A. Pinho Ramos
Assistant Professor, UNIC, Department of
Civil Engineering, Faculdade de Ciências e
Tecnologia, Universidade NOVA de Lisboa,
2829-516 Caparica, Portugal, ampr@fct.unl.pt

Micael Inácio
PhD Student, UNIC, Department of Civil
Engineering, Faculdade de Ciências e
Tecnologia, Universidade NOVA de Lisboa,
2829-516 Caparica, Portugal, mmgi@fct.unl.pt

400 Structural Concrete 14 (2013), No. 4