STRUCTURAL DESIGN 3

Lecture 7

Punching-shear in flat slabs

 Punching failure in reinforced concrete

 EC2 design procedure

 Example 9
 Punching failure in reinforced concrete

Concentrated loading

Loading on floor slabs is commonly considered to be a UDL even though most loading arises
due to, relatively small, discrete concentrations. For instance, as we have already seen, most
continuous 2-way floor slabs are designed assuming a simplified UDL of 1.35 D + 1.5 L
throughout the entire system. Despite this, there may be instances where the critical load
may not be the equivalent distributed UDL but the more localised concentrated point load. A
useful analogy here is to consider the effects of a grand piano on a domestic floor (possibly
400-500 kg ie up to 5 kN or ½ tonne!). At the point of contact with the floor boards there
could be considerable localised crushing and even failure of the floor timber due to the
considerable weight of the piano (perhaps 150 kg down each of the three legs!), but as the
load is transmitted down through the underlying joists and walls only the total weight of the
piano, and all other floor loading, is relevant. So in structural design we need to be vigilant
for situations where this localised issue may be relevant and the loading code EC1, T. NA.3
(EC extracts, 1-17) offers concentrated load alternatives to the more common UDL. A few
common situations where concentrated loading may be of concern are given below.

Heavy localised load on floor slab Heavy wheel load on bridge deck slab

Column on foundation

Discrete reactions

As we saw in Lecture 2, there are many structural possibilities for forming a reinforced
concrete floor system and we have spent much time on the more popular methods for beam
and slab construction where the slabs are essentially “supported” continuously by the beams.

However, in “flat slab” construction all beams are removed and the floor slab alone transfers
the UDL into the columns. The resulting stress concentrations in the slab are now due not to
the load but to the concentrated discrete reactions from the columns – essentially the reverse
of the above.

Lecture 7, 2/5
 2-way floor slab span

columns

A A

Standard "flat" slab

Section A-A

Even if reinforced for shear, the slab depth, as determined primarily from serviceability and
bending considerations, may prove to be too shallow to realistically accommodate the large
stress concentrations at the columns and various methods are available to assist in this:

Slab with drops Enlarged column head

Punching-shear

In all of the above cases, the failure mechanism is by the concentrated load or reaction trying
to “punch” through the relatively thin slab resulting in a failure surface approximating to a
truncated cone or pyramid with an inclination of around 30° to the horizontal. Punching-
shear failure is a complex 3-dimensional problem and remains one of the least well
understood structural actions. Some modern-day failures can be linked to punching-shear
and so great care is required in design! All Code design methods are heavily based on
experimental and computational research and testing, which is still ongoing.

Lecture 7, 3/5
 EC2 punching-shear design procedure

EC2 Cl. 6.4 deals with the design of punching in flat slabs (EC extracts, 2-52 to 2-57). Also,
shear design more generally is covered in EC2 Cl. 6.2 (EC extracts, 2-44 to 2-50).

EC2 adopts the following empirical design procedure for punching-shear:

1. Ensure that the shear stress immediately around the column perimeter (u 0 ) does not
exceed the maximum allowable shear stress (v Rd,max = 4.5 N/mm2 for our C25/30
concrete). If this is an issue, as discussed above the solutions are either to locally
increase the depth of the slab or to increase the size of the column head.

2. Adopting a simplified punching-shear failure surface, determine an initial “control

3. If the shear stress on this control perimeter is less than the shear strength of the
concrete and tension rebar alone (v Rd,c or v Rd,c,min ), the slab will be adequate for
punching-shear and so no additional shear rebar is required.

4. If the shear stress on this control perimeter is greater than the shear strength of the
concrete and tension rebar alone, the slab will require additional punching-shear rebar
to locally enhance its strength.

5. Determine a further “outer perimeter” (u out,ef ), of the same general shape as the
control perimeter, at which the concrete and tension rebar alone are again adequate
and so punching-shear rebar is no longer required.

6. Within this outer perimeter, design a system of additional punching-shear links (or
use some other proprietary system) to enhance the concrete and tension rebar
strength.

2d 2d

2d

Column perimeter (u 0 )

2d

Control perimeter (u 1 )

Lecture 7, 4/5
Information on shear link design is contained in EC2, Cl. 6.4.5 (not part of EC extracts).
However there are many similarities to the work we have already done on shear (Lecture 4).
Much of the following is also contained in your Data for Reinforced Concrete Design.

Applied punching-shear stress

v Ed = (β V Ed ) / (u i d)

where, β = eccentricity factor (1.15 for an internal column; higher for others),
u i = shear perimeter, as appropriate (u 0 , u 1 or u out,ef )
d = average effective depth (for double layer of tension rebar).

Punching-shear strength without shear-links

As before, the shear strength of the concrete and tension rebar alone can be given by:

v Rd,c = 0.12 [1 + (200/d)1/2 ] (f ck 100A s /bd)1/3 , or,

v Rd,c,min = 0.035 [1 + (200/d)1/2 ] 3/2 f ck 1/2

These formulae are also presented on beam shear design Chart A for values of d > 200 mm.
Again, if d < 200 mm, the limiting values are determined taking d = 200 mm (200/d = 1.0).

If v Ed < v Rd,c (or v Rd,c,min ), punching-shear links are not required.

Punching-shear links

If v Ed > v Rd,c (or v Rd,c,min ), additional punching-shear links are required.

Unlike the method for the provision of shear-links in beams (where the links had to be
designed for the entire shear force) the punching-shear formula allows 75% of the shear
strength of the concrete and main tension rebar to be utilised. Using the given formula
and expressing it in terms of the unknown shear-link area and known control perimeter
stress, the total area of vertical shear rebar (in each & every ring within the critical zone) is
given as:

A sw = (v Ed – 0.75 v Rd,c ) (s r u 1 / 1.5 f ywd,ef )

where, s r = the radial spacing of the rings of shear-links (0.75d maximum),

Detailing rules are contained in EC2, Cl. 9.4.3 (not part of EC extracts) which essentially
requires an even distribution of shear-links throughout the zone of concern. Skill is
required to achieve the desired minimum area, maximum spacing and a practical layout
pattern consistent with the ongoing tension rebar! Shear links should start within 0.5d of the
column face and extend to within 1.5d of the outer perimeter. The radial spacing of the
various rings of links (s r ) should not exceed 0.75d and the tangential leg spacing (s t ) should
not exceed 1.5d. There should be at least two rings of links within the reinforced zone. The
slab should normally have a minimum thickness (h) of 200 mm to accommodate the links.

Lecture 7, 5/5
 School of
~~~)~~GJ
~c... ~\.~
Engineering ~~~\~~~~e.
.
Item
Calculation Output
(Code ret)

••••••• ........ ~t.\el.~

"" :. 1..\
~ ::.\

\J~---\)
-..,~
I -' \)c:.,",~1~':\11l:>., ..
_1

~~~~\a~'" 3'~~
, . \.\-;;-"'-
. +\"I...~'t \~

~
,. -.--~.,.
- •...
/ I • '.
I ,,~"YI\
I ~ \
T ~~. T
~ I -l--+-t- I
-l- '--t----- 4'
. \ I

. \, /~\J\.
•...
- ~ -'-f -.'/
 )

\~~~ : \~ Y..1.~~c:? :. \. ~~
-bd.- \o~'< \~

~"<. \~ _<.. L~ ;. - \)~ \\W.I."~ (c}'::.l~~ ~~

~~~~
.
\''1...'''L~'~'~L'
,~"';;:>
. h~
I \"",k~
. .~~
-=:. .
~\l\

b.Q.~~\~-t? ~ • ~'I!-~' ~\J ~\ ~~\ )

\~\ ....
-'I.. \ -
. ~ -~
'II.\C)~ .
~ ~~"L ~
-
\)0))' 4 ~\:{\~~...
\j <:)..)~.)~ 'I- \~ - ~ _ . ' .

.. -

/-
---r-- I~-....•....
- / ~- + . . "-~.
/ / \

/ .. - - - / \,

f
\
-W/'~' 1 ~~~ I
\ - /
\
, ./
/
/

. ~....... ./
h
\J c:).)\) e s- - . -r-~ ---1 - ~