REPORT

Review of maximum punching capacity of slabs reinforced with Shearail

Report Number: RV2010/MF

Author: Dr Robert L Vollum, BA, MSc, PhD, DIC, MIStructE, CENG

Client: Max Frank

Date: November 2010

1
Executive summary

This report was commissioned by Max Frank in response to the amendment to the UK

National Annex to Eurocode 2 which limits the maximum design punching shear stress to

2vcd where vcd is the design shear strength without shear reinforcement. Theoretically, the

2vcd limit is not applicable to shear studs since Eurocode 2 is written for concrete reinforced

with conventional high strength deformed reinforcement bars. The report investigates the

applicability of the 2vcd limit to the Shearail Stud Reinforcing System produced by Max

Frank. The report examines published test data and demonstrates that the 2vcd limit is

inappropriate for well anchored shear reinforcement such as Shearail. The report suggests

that the design shear stress can be increased to at least 2.5vcd for shearail. It is possible that a

higher limit could be justified by structural testing.

2
1.0 Design recommendations for punching shear in Eurocode 2

Eurocode 21 requires the punching shear stress to be checked on a basic control

perimeter U1 located at 2d from the face of the column where d is the mean effective depth of

the slab. The design shear stress v Ed along the basic control perimeter U1 is given by:

VEd
v Ed  (1)
U 1d

where V Ed is the effective design shear force, d is the mean effective depth to the flexural

reinforcement and U1 = Ucol+4d in which Ucol is the column perimeter.

The basic shear resistance provided by the concrete is taken as:

v Rd ,C  0.18k 100 l . f c  3 /  c
1
(2)

where:

f ck is the characteristic concrete cylinder strength in MPa

c is the material factor of safety for concrete which is taken as 1.5

k accounts for the influence of slab depth and is given by:

200
k  1  2.0 where d is the effective depth in mm
d

 l   lx . ly  0.02

 lx ,  ly are the bonded tension reinforcement ratios in the x- and y- directions respectively.

The values of  lx and  ly should be calculated as mean values taking into account a slab

width equal to the column width plus 3d on each side.

Shear reinforcement is required if the design shear stress on the basic control

perimeter v Ed (see equation (1)) exceeds the design shear strength without shear

reinforcement vRd,c. If required, shear reinforcement should be provided on successive

perimeters around the column until the design shear stress reduces below v R ,Cd on the

3
effective control perimeter outside the shear reinforcement Uout. The shear resistance of slabs

reinforced with shear reinforcement is taken as:

 1 
v RdCS  0.75v RdC  1.5 d  ASW f YWdef   (3)
 S r   u1 d 

where:
2
ASW is the area of one perimeter of shear reinforcement around the column [mm ]

S r is the spacing of shear links in the radial direction [mm]. S r  0.75d

f YW ,ef is the effective strength of the punching shear reinforcement, according to

f yw
f Ywd ,ef  250  0.25d   f ywd  [MPa]
 s  1.15

The critical perimeter outside the shear reinforcement Uout is assumed to be located 1.5d from

the centreline of the outer row of shear reinforcement. The maximum circumferential stud

spacing which can be used in the calculation of Uout is 2d.

a) b)

d
x d

c)

d

Figure 1: Arrangement of punching shear reinforcement a) ACI 2 type, b) radial, c) UK type

4
 The effective outer perimeter Uout is calculated as follows:

Uout=3d+s (4)

where s is the circumferential spacing between the outer stirrups or studs which should not be

taken as greater than 2d. In the case of shear reinforcement arranged in square perimeters as

traditional in the UK, Uout is given by:

Uout=2+1.5d+Ucol (5)

where  is defined in Fig. 1

In the case of shear reinforcement arranged in the ACI 2 pattern:

Uout eff ≤ 4x+3d +8d

where x is defined in Fig. 1

Eurocode 2 also limits the maximum shear stress in the slab at the column perimeter

to v R ,max which is defined as:

vR,max  0.5f cd (6)

where

 f ck 
  0.6 1  in which f ck is in MPa (7)
 250 

and fcd = fck/c in which c is the material factor of safety for concrete which is taken as 1.5.

5
2.0 Background to 2Vcd limit in UK National Annex to Eurocode 2

Eurocode 21 does not impose any limit on the maximum shear resistance apart from limiting

the maximum shear stress around the column in accordance with equation (6). The maximum

allowable shear force is limited to 2Vcd in the current UK National Annex3 to Eurocode 2.

This change was made in response to a paper published by Fraser and Jones 4 in The

Structural Engineer. Fraser and Jones showed that Eurocode 2 overestimates the shear

strength of a number of slabs tested by Chana and Desai5 which were reinforced with stirrups

placed in square perimeters around the column. Fig. 2 compares the measured shear strengths

of Chana and Desai’s5 specimens with the strengths predicted by Eurocode 2 with material

factors of safety equal to 1.0 for concrete and steel respectively. Fig. 1 shows that Eurocode 2

overestimates the strength of 4 of Chana and Desai’s5 specimens. Fraser and Jones3

concluded that Eurocode 2 gives an unacceptable margin of safety for Chana and Desai’s

specimens and consequently proposed that the maximum allowable design shear stress should

be limited to 2vcd. This recommendation was subsequently accepted by BSI Committee 525/2

and incorporated into the UK National Annex3 to Eurocode 2. Fraser and Jones are not alone

in their concerns about the safety of the Eurocode 2 punching shear provisions. For example,

Vollum et al6 have expressed concern that the overall factor of safety provided by the

Eurocode 2 design method for punching shear reinforcement reduces as the shear

reinforcement ratio increases.

Fig. 3 shows the influence of reinforcement index on the accuracy of the EC2 shear

strength predictions for the Chana and Desai specimens. The material factors of safety for

steel and concrete were taken as 1.0 in Fig. 3 to enable the accuracy of the EC2 design

method to be evaluated. The black dotted line in Fig. 3 at Vtest/VcEC2= 1.33 represents the

upper limit on shear strength of 2Vcd given in the UK National Annex to Eurocode 2. Table 1

gives details of the 9 specimens tested by Chana and Desai5. Specimens 5 to 7 were designed

6
to investigate the influence of varying the proportion of stirrups placed on the first and

second perimeters at 0.5d and 1.25d from the face of the loaded area. Table 2 compares the

measured failure loads of Chana and Desai’s5 specimens with the predicted shear and flexural

capacities. The flexural capacities were estimated with equation (8) below which was derived

with yield line analysis.

Pflex=2m+8mc/(R-c) (8)

where m is the moment of resistance per unit length, c is the length of each side of the

loading plate and R is the radius measured from the centreline of the loading plate to the

circularly positioned vertical restraints around the edge of the slab. The moment of resistance

m per unit length was estimated assuming the yield strength of the reinforcement was 500

MPa.

Table 2 shows that specimens 4 and 9, which have particularly low values for

Vtest/VEC2 are likely to have failed in combined flexure and shear. There is no simple

explanation for the low shear strength of specimen 6 which failed at a significantly lower

load than specimens 5 or 7 which were comparable apart from the distribution of stirrups

within the first two perimeters from the column. Specimen 6 also failed at a significantly

lower load than predicted by Eurocode 2. It should be noted that none of the reinforcement

arrangements used in test 5 to 7 comply with the recommendations of Eurocode 2 which

requires an equal area of shear reinforcement to be placed on each perimeter as shown in Fig.

1b. Furthermore, it is clear that the T10 stirrups used in tests 5 to 7 were not properly

anchored. This can be seen by comparing Ptest and Ptest/PEC2 for specimens 5 and 8 which

were essentially identical apart from T10 stirrups being used in specimen 5 and T8 stirrups

being used in specimen 8. Table 1 shows that the concrete strengths were very similar in

7
specimens 5 and 8 and furthermore the failure load of specimen 5 was only 78 kN greater

than that of specimen 8 despite the area of shear reinforcement within the first two perimeters

being increased by 56%. This is reflected in Vtest/Vpred being 1.10 for specimen 8 and 0.96 for

specimen 5.

Specimen fc h c[mm] Flexural Stirrup Stirrups Stirrups Vtest

[MPa] [mm] reinforce- size at 0.5d at 1.25d
ement
1 32.2 240 300 T20.200 T8 0 0 803
2 35.5 240 300 T20.200 T8 12 12 1057
3 32.9 240 300 T20.200 T8 12 12 1129
4 36.3 240 300 T20.200 T8 24 24 1248
5 30.6 250 400 T20.175 T10 12 20 1405
6 34.7 250 400 T20.175 T10 20 12 1249
7 32.3 250 400 T20.175 T10 32 0 1487
8 31.8 250 400 T20.175 T8 12 20 1327
9 34.0 228 300 T20.200 T8 20 28 1112

Table 1: Details of Chana & Desai4 specimens

Stirrups Stirrups
Specimen Vtest Pflex Vtest/VEC2 at 0.5d at 1.25d
1 803 1263 1.02 0 0
2 1057 1271 1.09 12 12
3 1129 1265 1.18 12 12
4 1248 1273 0.93 24 24
5 1405 1662 0.96 12 20
6 1249 1677 0.83 20 12
7 1487 1669 1.01 32 0
8 1327 1666 1.10 12 20
9 1112 1187 0.87 20 28

Table 2: Comparison between measured and predicted failure loads for Chana & Desai4 specimens

8
 1.4

1.2

1.0
VEC2 C =1.0/Vtest

0.8

0.6

0.4

0.2
Chana & Desai
0.0
0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2 1.4
VsEC2 fydef/VcEC2 c =1.0

Figure 2: Influence of shear reinforcement ratio on VEC2/Vtest for Chana & Desai5 specimens

(c=1.0)

2.0

1.5
Vtest/VcEC2

1.0

Chana

0.5
2vcdesign limit

EC2 gc=1

0.0
0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5
VsEC2/VcEC2

Figure 3: Influence of shear reinforcement ratio VsEC2/VcEC2 on Vtest/Vc EC2 for Chana &

Desai5 specimens (c=1.0)

9
3.0 Review of other test data

Fig. 4 shows the influence of Vtest/VcEC2 on VEC2/Vtest for a range of test specimens

from the literature including those of Chana & Desai5. The specimens were chosen since the

shear reinforcement ratios V s/Vc were comparatively high. The material factor of safety is

taken as 1.0 for concrete in Fig. 4. All the specimens in Fig. 4 failed in shear with the

exception of specimens 4 and 9 of Chana & Desai 5 which appear to have failed in combined

shear and flexure. The specimens were reinforced with various different types of shear

reinforcement including shear studs and stirrups as summarised below in Fig. 4. Shear failure

occurred due to crushing at the column face (Beutel7), within the shear reinforcement and

outside the shear reinforcement. The vertical black line in Fig. 4 represents the upper limit on

shear strength of 2Vcd (2Vcd = 1.33VcEC2) given in the UK National Annex to Eurocode 2.

Fig. 3 shows that Eurocode 2 tends to give reasonable estimates of measured shear strengths

when the material factor of safety for concrete c is taken as 1.0. Fig. 3 also shows that the

ratio VEC2/Vtest is greatest for the Chana and Desai5 specimens for reasons discussed in

Section 2.0.

10
 1.2

1.0

0.8
VEC2 C=1.0/Vtest

0.6

0.4 Seible Mokhtar

Gomes inside Gomes outside
Marzouk Chana
0.2 Vollum Regan & Samadan
Beutel Yamada
2Vcd UK National Annex
0.0
0.75 1 1.25 1.5 1.75 2 2.25 2.5
Vtest/VcEC2

Beutel7 Radial studs Regan & stirrups and studs radial and
Samadan11 square
Chana5 Stirrups square arrangement Seible12 Studs ACI pattern
Gomes8 I section off-cuts radial and ACI Vollum6 Stirrups ACI pattern
Marzouk9 Studs ACI pattern Yamada13 Stirrups square arrangement
hook anchorage
Mohktar10 Studs ACI pattern

Figure 4: Influence of Vtest/VcEC2 on accuracy of EC2 shear strength predictions (c=1.0)

Fig. 5 compares the measured and predicted normalised punching shear strengths

V/VcEC2 (where VcEC2 is the calculated shear strength without shear reinforcement) of the

specimens considered in Fig. 4. Chana & Desai’s5 specimens 4 and 9 are omitted from Fig. 5

since their shear strength was limited by flexural failure. Fig. 5 shows that well anchored

shear reinforcement can increase the punching shear strength of a comparable slab without

shear reinforcement by multiples up to 2.4 provided that the strength is not limited by

concrete crushing around the column. This implies that the restriction on shear strength to

2Vcd in the UK National Annex to Eurocode 2 is unnecessary for well anchored shear

11
reinforcement. In this context, it is interesting to note that the highest shear stresses (up to

2.4vc = 3.6vcd) were obtained on the basic perimeter U1 in the tests of Yamada et al13 in

which 180o hook ended stirrups were used.

2.6
2.4
2.2
2.0
1.8
1.6
Vtest/VcEC2

1.4 Ladder unit

1.2
1.0
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0.0
0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2.0 2.2 2.4 2.6
VEC2/VcEC2

Seible Mokhtar
Gomes inside Gomes outside
Marzouk Chana in
Vollum Regan & Samadian out
Beutel crush Regan & Samadian studs in
2Vcd Regan & Samadian stirrups in
2.5Vcd Yamada

Note: “inside” denotes failure inside the shear reinforced zone, “out” denotes failure inside

the shear reinforced zone.

Figure 5: Comparison of measured and predicted normalised shear strengths with c=1.0

(Chana & Desai’s5 specimens 4 and 9 are omitted since failure was flexural)

12
 There is however relatively little data which can be used to determine the efficiency

of shear reinforcement at such high shear stresses since the failure of many of the most

heavily loaded specimens was limited by either crushing at the face of the column (e.g. all the

Beutel6 specimens in Fig. 4 and possibly the circled specimens of Yamada13) or failure

outside the shear reinforcement (e.g. the Gomes & Regan8 and Regan & Samadan11

specimens labelled “outside” in Fig. 5).

Analysis of the test data suggests that the concrete contribution which is taken as

0.75Vc in equation (3) reduces with increasing normalised shear force V/V c. It follows that

the factor of safety implicit in the Eurocode 2 equation for punching failure within the shear

reinforcement reduces with increasing normalised shear force V/V c even when c=1.0. This is

illustrated in Figs. 6 and 7 which show the influence of the shear reinforcement ratio

VsEC2/VcEC2 on VEC2/Vtest (where VsEC2 is the shear reinforcement contribution calculated with

the right hand term in equation (3) and VcEC2 is the calculated shear resistance without shear

reinforcement). The predicted failure load VEC2 is calculated in Figs. 6 and 7 assuming that

failure occurred within the shear reinforced zone as observed in the tests except where noted.

The concrete material factor of safety is taken as 1.0 in Fig. 6 and 1.5 in Fig. 7. Four

specimens of Gomes and Regan8 that failed outside the shear reinforced zone are included in

Figs. 6 and 7 since the shear reinforcement yielded around the loaded area indicating that

failure was imminent within the shear reinforcement reinforced zone. Fig. 6 supports the

conclusion that these specimens were close to failing inside the shear reinforcement since the

measured failure load was close to that predicted by Eurocode 2 for failure within the shear

reinforcement. The normalised shear strengths Vtest/VcEC2 (where VcEC2 is the calculated shear

strength without shear reinforcement with c=1.0) of the three specimens of Gomes and

Regan7 circled in Fig. 7 were 1.98, 2.05 and 2.11 (corresponding to Vtest/VcdEC2 =2.97, 3.08

13
and 3.17). It is interesting to note that the yield strength of the I section offcuts used as shear

reinforcement was 430 MPa compared with fydef which equals 290 MPa for these specimens.

The use of fydef in equation (3) from Eurocode 2 is intended to cater for the reduced

anchorage of stirrups in thin slabs. There is significant evidence, including that from the

Gomes and Regan8 tests, that well anchored shear reinforcement can yield adjacent to the

column at failure if the failure occurs within the shear reinforced zone and that the average

stress of the shear reinforcement within the first control perimeter can be greater than fydeff.

This implies that in addition to accounting for the reduced anchorage of stirrups in thin slabs,

fydef also acts as an efficiency factor limiting the contribution of the shear reinforcement. It

would probably be more correct to calculate the shear reinforcement contribution using the

actual stress in the reinforcement and to relate the concrete contribution Vc to the ratio

between V and Vflex (where Vflex is the flexural failure load) as is done in the critical crack

theory of Muttoni et al14,15 which has been incorporated into Model Code 201016.

1.6

1.4

1.2
VEC2 C=1.0/Vtest

1.0

0.8

0.6

0.4
Gomes inside Gomes inside
0.2 Chana Regan inside
Gomes failed outside
0.0
0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2 1.4 1.6
VsEC2 fydef/VcEC2 c=1.0

Figure 6: Influence of stirrup ratio on relative safety of EC2 design method for punching

shear within shear reinforced zone (c=1.0).

14
 1.4

1.2
4 9
1.0
VEC2 C=1.5/Vtest

0.8

0.6

0.4
Gomes inside Gomes outside
0.2 Gomes inside Chana
Regan inside Gomes failed outside
0.0
0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5
VsEC2 fydef/VcEC2 c=1.5

Figure 7: Influence of stirrup ratio on relative safety of EC2 design method for punching

shear within shear reinforced zone (c=1.5).

4.0 Recommendations on V max in other design codes

This section reviews the limits on the maximum punching shear stress in other codes.

4.1 BS8110

The BS811017 design method for punching shear is based on the tests of Chana and Desai5.

BS8110 limits the maximum dsign shear stress to 2vc where the basic shear resistance vc is

given by:

vc=0.79(100As/(bd))1/3(400/d)1/4(fcu/25)1/3/m (9)

where As is the area of flexural reinforcement, d is the effective depth, fcu is the concrete cube

strength and m is the material factor of safety which is taken as 0.25.

15
Shear reinforcement is required if the shear stress exceeds v c on the basic shear perimeter

which is assumed to be square and located 1.5d from the face of the loaded area. BS8110

limits the maximum shear stress at the face of the column to 0.8√fcu ≤5 MPa.

Fig. 8 compares the maximum possible design shear strengths given by the UK

National Annex to EC2 and BS8110 with fck=30 MPa for a 250mm thick slab with 600mm

square columns. Fig. 9 shows that BS8110 gives higher shear resistances than Eurocode 2 for

the case considered. This will typically be true for concrete cylinder strengths up to around

40 MPa. It should be born in mind that Eurocode 2 uses load factors of 1.35 for dead load and

1.5 for imposed load compared with 1.4 for dead load and 1.6 for imposed load in BS8110.

2500
Maximum shear resistance [kN]

2000

1500

1000

500
EC2
BS8110
0
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5
Reinforcement ratio 100As/bd

Figure 8: Comparison between maximum possible design shear resistances permitted by

BS8110 and Eurocode 2 for a 250mm thick slab with a 600 mm square column and f ck=30

MPa).

16
4.2 Din 1045-1

The German Din 1045-118 limits the maximum punching capacity of conventional stirrups

and bent up bars to 1.5Vcd where Vcd is the design shear resistance without shear

reinforcement. The Din 1045-1 method is based on the work of Beutel and Hegger 19 who

provide an informative commentary on the method. They assessed the maximum punching

shear capacity for various types of shear reinforcement and concluded that stirrups could

increase shear strength by up to a multiple of 1.5 compared with a multiple of 1.8 for headed

stud rail anchored in the layer of the flexural reinforcement. These multiples are lower 5%

values of the ratio Vtest/Vc in their data set.

They also assessed the effectiveness of various types of shear reinforcement by back

calculating the shear strength with Din 1045-1 assuming the stress in the shear reinforcement

was ksfy. They found that ks was 0.7 for stirrups with a 90o angle enclosing the flexural

reinforcement and 1.0 for headed stud rail. These findings are significant since they provide

further confirmation of the improved performance of headed stud rail over conventional

stirrups with 90o bends.

5.0 Recommendations for the Shearail Stud Reinforcing System

Shearail is a proprietary shear stud system sold by Max Frank. The system has been

approved by BRE for use in concrete floors in accordance with BS 8110 and Eurocode 2.

Each shearail rail consists of a number of double headed studs of variable diameter and

length according to the specification welded to the carrier rail.

BRE20 have verified the system by testing 3 interior slab specimens with various

arrangements of shearail. The shear studs used in the tests were fabricated from deformed

bars. The slabs measured 2.75 m square and were 200 mm thick. The top and bottom

reinforcement was H20@110 mm spacing in the T2 and B2 layer and H20.130 in the T1 and

17
B1 layer. The concrete cube strength in the tests was around 40 MPa. The calculated and

measured shear strengths are summarised in Table 3 which shows that the measured failure

loads are close to those predicted by Eurocode 2 (with c=1.0) within the shear reinforcement.

The failure mode in the tests is not clearly defined in the BRE 20 report. However, strain

measurements indicate that some of the shear studs yielded close to the loaded area. This

shows that the studs were effectively anchored by the head at the end of the stud.

Test Loaded area fcu As per row So Sr Number

[mm] [MPa] [mm] [mm] studs/rail
1 300*300 39.5 942 60 120 6
2 300*300 39.5 942 60 120 8
3 370  40.5 942 50 110 8

Table 3: Properties of BRE specimens with shearail shear reinforcement.

c=1.0 c=1.5
Test Vtest VEC2 VEC2 Vtest/Vcd VEC2 VEC2 Vtest/Vcd
in out in out
1 1133 1064 754 1.64 891 503 2.46
2 1067 1064 754 1.55 891 503 2.32
3 1115 1112 1159 1.62 940 773 2.43

Table 4: Comparison of measured and predicted shear strengths of BRE specimens with

shearail shear reinforcement.

18
6.0 Concluding remarks and design implications for Shearail

The 2Vcd limit in the UK National Annex to Eurocode 2 is only applicable to

conventional shear reinforcement bent from deformed bars. Eurocode 2 does not specifically

cover the design of other types of shear reinforcement. Test data shows that the Eurocode 2

design method for punching shear gives reasonable predictions of shear strength for slabs

reinforced with well anchored shear reinforcement. Furthermore, test data conclusively shows

that headed stud rails like shearail perform better in punching shear tests that conventional

shear reinforcement due to improved anchorage.

However, there clearly needs to be a limit on the maximum allowable shear capacity

with headed stud rails. Fig. 5 clearly demonstrates that well anchored shear reinforcement can

increase punching strength by multiples of 2.4Vc (calculated with c=1.0). Fig. 9 shows Fig.

5 redrawn with the Max Frank tests S1 to S3 included. The shear strength was calculated for

slabs S1 and S2 in Fig. 9 assuming that failure occurred within the shear reinforcement. Fig.

9 shows that slabs S1 to S3 resisted shear forces close to 2.5Vcd. Fig. 9 also shows that the

specimens performed significantly better than the Chana and Desai5 slabs which led to the

2Vcd restriction in the UK National Annex to Eurocode 2. Therefore, it seems reasonable to

adopt an upper limit of 2.5Vcd on the maximum allowable shear strength for the Shearail

punching shear reinforcement system. It is possible that higher design shear stresses than

2.5vcd could be justified by structural testing.

19
 2.6
2.4
2.2
2.0
1.8
1.6
Vtest/VcEC2

1.4
1.2
1.0
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0.0
0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2.0 2.2 2.4 2.6
VEC2/VcEC2

Seible Mokhtar
Gomes inside Gomes outside
Marzouk Chana in
Vollum Regan & Samadan out
Beutel crush Regan & Samadan in
2Vcd Yamada
2.5Vcd Max Frank S1-S3

Figure 9: Comparison of measured and predicted normalised shear strengths (Chana &

Desai’s5 specimens 4 and 9 are omitted since failure was flexural) (c=1.0)

20
7.0 Notation

Asw area of shear reinforcement in each perimeter

d slab effective depth

fck concrete cylinder strength

fydef effective design strength for punching shear reinforcement

U1 inner control perimeter

Uout outer control perimeter

Uouteff EC2 effective outer control perimeter

v shear stress

vcd Eurocode 2 design shear strength without shear reinforcement (calculated with c=1.5)

VEC2 EC2 shear strength (subscript d refers to design shear strength with c=1.5)

VcEC2 EC2 shear strength without shear reinforcement (calculated with c =1.0 unless noted

otherwise)

Vin Calculated shear strength within shear reinforcement

Vout Calculated shear strength outside shear reinforcement

Vtest measured shear strength

c material factor of safety for concrete (taken as 1.0 for assessment of accuracy of design

method and 1.5 for design)

21
8.0 References

1. BRITISH STANDARDS INSTITUTION. Eurocode 2: Design of Concrete

Structures- Part 1: General rules for buildings, BSI, London, 2004, BS EN 1992-1-

1:2004

2. ACI COMMITTEE 318, Building Code Requirements for Reinforced Concrete,

American Concrete Institute, Detroit, 2005, ACI 318-2005

3. BRITISH STANDARDS INSTITUTION. UK National Annex to Eurocode 2: Design

of Concrete Structures- Part 1: General rules for buildings, BSI, London, 2004, BS

EN 1992-1-1:2004.

4. FRASER A.S. and JONES A.E.K, Effectiveness of punching shear reinforcement to

EN 1992-1-1:2004, The Structural Engineer, 87 (10) 19 May 2009, 23-27

5. CHANA P.S. and DESAI S. B. Design of shear reinforcement against punching, The

Structural Engineer, 1992, 70, No. 9, 159-164

6. VOLLUM, R.L, ABDEL-FATTAH T., EDER M. and ELGHAZOULI A., Design of

ACI type punching shear reinforcement to Eurocode 2, Magazine of Concrete

Research, Vol. 62, Issue 1, 3-16, 2009.

7. BEUTEL, R., “Punching of Flat Slabs with Shear Reinforcement at Inner Columns,”

Rheinisch-Westfälischen Technischen Hochschule Aachen, Aachen, Germany, 2002,

267 pp. (in German)

8. GOMES R and REGAN P., Punching strength of slabs reinforced for shear with

offcuts of rolled steel I-section beams, Magazine of Concrete Research, 1999, 51, No.

2, 121-129

9. MARZOUK H. and JIANG D. Experimental investigation on shear enhancement

types for high-strength concrete plates ACI Journal, 1997, 94, No. 1, 49-58

22
10. MOKHTAR A-S, GHALI A and DILGER W. Stud shear reinforcement for flat

concrete plates ACI Journal, 1985, 82, No. 5, 676-683

11. REGAN P.E. and SAMADIAN F. Shear reinforcement against punching in reinforced

concrete flat slabs, The Structural Engineer, 2001, 79, No. 10, 24-31

12. SEIBLE F., GHALI A and DILGER W. Preassembled shear reinforcing units for flat

slabs ACI Journal, 1980,77, No. 1, 28-35

13. YAMADA T, NANNI A, ENDO K, Punching shear resistance of flat slabs : influence

of reinforcement type and ratio, ACI Structural Journal, V88, /No. 4, Sept-Oct, 1992,

pp. 555-563.

14. MUTTONI A., Punching Shear Strength of Reinforced Concrete Slabs without

Transverse Reinforcement ACI Structural Journal/July-August 2008, pp. 440-450.

15. RUIZ M.F AND MUTTONI A., Applications of Critical Shear Crack Theory to

Punching of Reinforced Concrete Slabs with Transverse Reinforcement ACI

Structural Journal, V. 104, No. 4, July-August 2007, pp. 495-502.

16. MODEL CODE 2010, First Complete Draft, fib, 2010

17. BRITISH STANDARDS INSTITUTION. Structural Use of Concrete, BSI, London,

2007, BS8110-1: 1997.

18. DIN 1045-1(2001): Tragwerke aus Beton, Stahlbeton und Spannbeton, Teil1:

Bemessung und Konstruktion. Beuth Verlag, Juli 2001.

19. BEUTEL R. AND HEGGER J., The effect of anchorage on the effectiveness of the

shear reinforcement in the punching zone Cement & Concrete Composites 24 (2002)

539–549

20. BRE Client Report 252-952, Structural testing of Shearail Stud reinforcing system, 30

October 2009.

23