Punching Shear Strength of Slabs including Double-Headed Studs—Critical

Review of Technical Report 060, ACI 318-19, and Australian

Design Provisions
Marcus Ricker1, Andreas Boomkamp2
1
Professor of Civil Engineering, Hochschule Biberach University of Applied Sciences
2
National Technical Manager (Aus/NZ), Ancon Building Products Pty Ltd T/A Leviat

Abstract: Double-headed studs are used as punching shear reinforcement in reinforced or prestressed
slabs and footings. Due to an improved anchoring behaviour, double-headed studs have a higher load
capacity than stirrups. Double-headed studs are quick to install and are therefore more cost-efficient than
stirrups. Provided flexural and bond failure is avoided, flat slabs can fail in a local shear failure, the so-called
punching shear failure. It is necessary to distinguish between punching shear failure in slabs with and
without shear reinforcement. At present, no commonly accepted design provisions for slabs including
double-headed studs as shear reinforcement are available in Australia. Lim and Rangan proposed a
punching shear model for slabs with stud shear reinforcement, based on AS 3600. However, this model
was calibrated on only three punching tests on edge column-slab connections and an assessment for the
different failure modes was not performed. This paper offers a critical comparative review of the design
provisions for double-headed studs according to EOTA Technical Report 060, ACI 318-19, and the model
of Lim and Rangan.

Keywords: double-headed studs, flat slabs, maximum punching shear capacity, punching.

1 Introduction
Double-headed studs (Figure 1 a) are alternative punching shear reinforcement for reinforced or pre-
stressed concrete slabs and footings (1). Due to the improved anchorage behaviour of double-headed
studs, their punching shear resistance is increased in comparison to stirrups. Double-headed studs require
a reduced installation time and are of easy implementation, which makes them a cost-efficient alternative in
comparison to more traditional reinforcement as stirrups. Double-headed studs are made of ribbed or plain
B 500 reinforcing steel bars with characteristic yield strength of 500 MPa. The stud heads are forged at the
shaft ends with a head diameter three times the diameter of the shaft. To secure its position during the
concrete pouring, at least two studs are tack welded on to mounting bars (e.g. flat steel bars) and combined

Figure 1. (a) Ribbed and smooth double-headed studs as shear reinforcement (2) and (b)
design perimeter according to model of Lim/Rangan (3)
into a reinforcing element (Figure 1 a).
2 Design provisions for double-headed studs as punching shear reinforcement
2.1 EOTA Technical Report 060 (TR 060) (4)
TR 060 (4) uses a critical perimeter in accordance to EN 1992-1-1 (5) to check the punching shear
resistance without shear reinforcement. The maximum punching shear capacity is calculated along the
same perimeter. This is in contrast to EN 1992-1-1, which additionally limits the allowable maximum
punching shear stress directly at the column face. The applied shear stress along the critical perimeter is
calculated as:
 VEd
vEd  (1)
u d
where V1Ed is the design value of the applied shear force, d is the distance from extreme compression fibre
to the centroid of the longitudinal tensile reinforcement (effective depth), u1 is the critical perimeter at a
distance of 2.0d from the periphery of the loaded area, and is a parameter accounting for load eccentricity.
According to EN 1992-1-1 for non-sway systems,  may be taken as 1.5, 1.4, and 1.15 for corner, edge,
and interior columns, respectively. According to TR 060, a reduced load factor red may be applied for the
calculation of punching shear capacity outside the shear-reinforced zone.
For flat slabs without shear reinforcement, the punching shear capacity is calculated along the critical
perimeter at a distance of 2.0d from the periphery of the loaded area:

vRd , c  CRd , c k 100 l f ck   vmin (2)

13

where CRd,c = 0.18/C is the empirical factor for flat slabs, fck is the characteristic cylinder compressive
concrete strength, k = 1 + √(200/d) ≤ 2.0 is the size factor of the effective depth, and l = √(lx × ly) is the
flexural reinforcement ratio. For interior column-slab connections and ratios of the perimeter of the load
application area and the effective depth u0/d smaller than 4.0, a reduced empirical pre-factor CRd,c has to be
used:

0.18  u0 
u0 d  4: CRd ,c   0.1  0.6  (3)
 C shear
TR 060 introduces a minimal d capacity
 vmin, which can be calculated according to:

0.0525 3 / 2 1/ 2 0.0375 3 / 2 1/ 2
vmin  k f ck for d  600 mm ; vmin  k f ck for d  800 mm (4)
C C
In a shear-reinforced slab, ground slab, or footing, punching can occur: (1) inside the shear-reinforced
zone, (2) at maximum load level, and (3) outside the shear-reinforced zone. TR 060 provides design
provisions for the three failure modes. The maximum punching shear capacity of slabs including double-
headed studs as shear reinforcement is determined along the critical perimeter at a distance of 2.0d from
the periphery of the loaded area and is a multiple of the punching shear resistance without shear
reinforcement vRd,c (Eq. 2):
vRd ,max  1.96 vRd , c (5)
For the design of the studs in a slab, two zones are distinguished: zone C extends from the column face to
a distance 1.125d and zone D extends from 1.125d to the outermost row of studs. In zone C, the studs shall
be designed to resist the whole applied shear force VEd. For slabs, the punching shear resistance of the
studs VRd,sy is determined as:
d A2  f yk
VRd , sy  mC nC (6)
where mC, nC are 4  Sthe number of rows and number of studs in each row in zone C, dA is the stud diameter, f
yk is the characteristic yield strength of the studs, S is the partial safety factor for reinforcing steel, and  is
a factor to account for the effective depth of the slab with  = 1 for d ≤ 200 mm and  = 1.6 for d ≥ 800 mm
(interim values can be interpolated).
For slabs, the punching shear resistance outside the shear-reinforced zone is checked along a control
perimeter located at 1.5d from the outermost row of studs. The length of the control perimeter at which shear
reinforcement is not required can be calculated as:
  red VEd
uout  (7)
vRd , c d
where red is a reduced load factor to account for the eccentricity along the outer perimeter and vRd,c = CRd,c
k (100l fck)1/3 ≥ vmin is the shear capacity of a linearly supported slab (one-way shear). According to EN
1992-1-1, the recommended value for CRd,c is 0.12.
TR 060 specifies a star-like layout for the double-headed studs. The radial spacing should not exceed
0.75d. The shear-reinforced zone is divided up in a zone C and D as described above. The tangential
spacing is limited to 1.7d within a distance of 1.0d from the column face. In zone D, the tangential spacing
should not exceed 3.5d.
2.2 ACI 318-19 (6)
In ACI 318-19 (6), the critical section is located at d/2 from the column face. The design is based on vu ≤ v
n where = 0.75 is a resistance factor for shear, vu is the applied factored shear stress and vn is the nominal
punching shear capacity. The applied shear stress due to a factored shear force Vu is calculated as:
V
vu  u (8)
b0 d
where b0 is the perimeter of the critical section. The shear resistance is the smallest of the following three
values:

  4   d 
vc  min  0.083 s   2   f c , 0.083 s   2  s  f c , 0.33 s  f c  (9)
   b  
where sis a parameter 
taken as 40 for interior, 300 for 
edge, and 20 for corner columns; is the ratio of long
to short side of concentrated load or reaction area;  is a factor accounting for the concrete density; f’c is
the cylinder concrete strength; and s  2 1 d 254   1 is the size effect factor (d in mm).

If vu > vc, shear reinforcement has to be used. Two critical sections are to be checked: d/2 from the column
face and d/2 from the outer shear reinforcement. The punching shear resistance inside the shear-reinforced
zone is calculated as
vn = vcs + vs ≤ vmax (10)
where vcs is the shear stress resisted by the concrete inside the shear-reinforced zone, vs is the shear stress
resisted by the shear reinforcement, and vmax is the maximum allowed shear stress.
Acknowledging the superior anchorage performance of shear studs (1), ACI 318-19 distinguishes between
shear studs and stirrups as shear reinforcement. For studs, the nominal shear strength provided by concrete
vcs inside the shear-reinforced zone is calculated as

  4   d 
vcs  min  0.083 s   2   , 0.083 s   2  s  , 0.25 s  f c  for studs (11)
    provided by shearb0 reinforcement 
 shear strength
The nominal   calculated as:
vs is
Av f yt
vs  (12)
whereb0Asv is the cross section area of studs in one row around the column, s is the spacing of the shear
reinforcement, fyt is the yield strength of the shear reinforcement not to exceed 414 MPa. The maximum
allowed shear stress vmax is determined as

vmax  0.5 f c for studs and stirrups (s  0.75d ) ; vmax  0.67 f c for studs (s  0.5d ) (13)
Outside the shear-reinforced zone, the shear stress resistance of concrete is limited to the one-way shear
strength value of:

vc  0.17 f c (14)
The studs are to be placed in an orthogonal layout. The maximum allowed spacing between peripheral rows
of stud shear reinforcement s depends on the level of the shear stress (Eq. 12) and varies between 0.5d and
0.75d. The distance from column face to the first peripheral line of studs s0 should not exceed 0.5d.
2.3 AS 3600:2018 (7) in combination with model from Lim/Rangan (3)
The shear design according to AS 3600:2018 (7) is based on V* ≤ Vu, where V* is the applied factored
shear load and  = 0.7 is a resistance factor for shear.
AS 3600:2018 uses the same critical section at dom/2 from the column face as ACI 318. The punching shear
capacity without shear reinforcement is also taken from ACI 318, but the equation considering large column
dimensions is neglected. The capacity is determined as:
Vuo  u d om f cv (15)
  2  
f c , 0.34 f c  , h is the ratio of the long side to the short side of the column,
where f cv  min  0.17  1  
  h  
dom is the mean value of effective depth, u the length of the critical perimeter, and f’c is the cylinder
compressive strength.
If V* ≥ Vu shear reinforcement has to be used. The model of Lim/Rangan, which was derived for stud shear
reinforcement, assumes that the shear force is partly transferred by the slab strips at the front and back
column face and the remaining in each torsion strip at the left and right column face (Figure 1 b). The shear
strength, which can be resisted until the torsion strips fail in combined torsion and shear, can be calculated
as
Vuo
Vu  (16)
1 uM*
 * v
1 K 8V a d om
where a ist the width of the torsion strips and Mv* is the bending moment transferred from the slab to the
column. The factor Kt considers the contribution of a stud reinforcement and can be taken as

1  d u
Kt   Asw,t f sy. f om  (17)
whereVuoAsw,t
 is the cross s a sectional area of a row of studs in the torsion strip, f is the yield strength of studs,
sy.f
and s is the spacing between rows of studs.
If the failure of the slab strip at front or back face becomes governing, the shear strength is given by
Vu  Vuo 1 K s  (18)
The contribution of the stud shear reinforcement is considered by

1  d u
Ks   Asw, s f sy. f om  (19)
With V 
Kuos being s b  sectional area of a row of studs in the slab strip at the front or back face of the
the cross
support.
The punching shear capacity of a slab with stud shear reinforcement is taken as the smaller of the values
Vu given by Eqs. 16 and 18.
The maximum punching shear capacity according to Lim/Rangan should be limited by
Vuo 1 K s   0.2 f c u d om in the torsion strip and Vuo 1 K t   0.2 f c u d om in the slab strip (20)
According to AS 3600:2018, the applied shear force Vu shall in no case be greater than

Vu .max  3 Vu .min x y (21)

where x and y are the shorter and longer dimension respectively of the cross-section of the torsion strip. If
the torsion strip contains the minimum quantity of shear reinforcement, Vu.min can be calculated as
1.2Vuo
Vu .min  (22)
u M v*
1.0 
2V * a 2
The minimum cross-sectional area of stud reinforcement required in the torsion strip and the slab strip is
given by
Asw,t 0.35 a Asw, s 0.35 b
 torsion strip ;  slab strip (23)
s f sy. f s f sy. f
with b being the width of the slab strip.
With regard to the detailing of the stud shear reinforcement, clause 9.3.6 of AS 3600:2018 can be followed.
The radial spacing of the stud rows should not exceed the lesser of 300 mm and the slab height. The first
row of studs should be located at not more than 0.5s from the face of the support.

3 Punching of interior column-slab connections

3.1 Maximum punching shear resistance
3.1.1 Comparison with test results
For the verification of the maximum punching shear resistance, an experimental database initiated by Beutel
(8) was used. This database has been maintained and extended with newer test results by, among others,
Siburg (9). All partial safety factors as well as all factors, accounting for an uneven shear distribution along
the critical section, were taken as unity for the comparison of the calculated and experimental capacities.
When the empirical European design equations were derived from test results, it was hypothesised that the
mean value of the concrete compressive strength in the test specimens is 4 MPa larger than the
characteristic value (5%-fractile) of the concrete compressive strength fck used for calculating the punching
shear strength. For this reason, the punching shear strength according to TR 060 was calculated using a
reduced concrete strength of fck = fcm – 4 MPa. The offset of 4 MPa was chosen following the conformity
criteria of EN 206 (10) for the initial concrete production (11). The punching strength capacities according to
ACI 318-19 and the Australian design provisions were calculated using mean values for the concrete
compressive strength.
EOTA TR 060 defines the maximum punching shear capacity of slabs including double-headed studs as a
multiple of the shear resistance without shear reinforcement. To evaluate this assumption, 15 tests with
double-headed studs are available, which are in accordance with the detailing rules according to TR 060.
In Figure 2 a, b, the ratio x = Vtest/VRk,max,code is plotted against the concrete compressive strength and the
column diameter-effective depth ratio u0/d. Both parameters are correctly considered by the design equation
according to TR 060, which is obvious from the nearly horizontal regression line. The ratio x has a mean
value of 1.087 and a coefficient of variation of 0.054 resulting in a 5%-fractile value of x5% = 0.994, indicat
ing a sufficient safety level.
The maximum punching shear capacity according to ACI 318-19 is compared with 18 test results in Figure
2 c, d. The concrete strength is sufficiently approximated as shown in Figure 2 c. Nevertheless, the de-sign
equation tends to be slightly less conservative for higher concrete strengths. ACI 318-19 specifies the
maximum punching shear strength as a function of fc1/2. This approach fits for normal strength concrete.
For higher concrete strengths, the factor n = 1/2 leads to an overestimation of the concrete strength and
using 1/3 is more appropriate (12), (13).
For the sake of comparison, the maximum punching shear capacity according to the model of Lim/Rangan
was adapted. The web crushing limit 0.2 fc was combined with the maximum punching shear capacity
according to AS 3600:2018. The smallest value becomes governing. In Figure 2 e, f, this value is compared
with 26 test results that fulfil the detailing requirements of AS 3600:2018. The influence of the concrete
strength is well approximated. The equations tend to be less conservative for smaller u0/d ratios. However,
the equations for the maximum punching shear resistance overestimate the experimental failure loads. As
a consequence, the statistical evaluation leads to a mean value of 0.900 and a coefficient of variation of
0.150. The small 5%-fractile value of only 0.696 indicates that a sufficient safety level cannot be achieved.
If the maximum punching shear limitation according to AS 3600:2018 (Eq. 20) is not considered, the
statistical evaluation gives a further reduced mean value of 0.772, a coefficient of variation of 0.178, and a
5%-fractile of only 0.569.
3.1.2 Information from parametric studies

Figure 2. Comparison of punching tests with double-headed studs and the maximum punching
shear resistance according to TR 060, ACI 318-19, and Model of Lim/Rangan

In this section, the results of a parametric study comparing the maximum punching shear strength of interior
column-slab connections with dimensions of practical interest are presented. It is hypothesised that
sufficient punching shear reinforcement is provided inside the slab so that the maximum allowable punching
shear strength for double-headed studs can be achieved without any premature failure.
The design values of the maximum punching shear capacities according to TR 060, ACI 318-19, the model
of Lim/Rangan, and AS 3600:2018 are plotted against the effective depth and the specific column perimeter
in Figure 3. If the effective depth becomes larger, the maximum punching shear resistance will increase
above average (Figure 3 a). The web-crushing limited used in the model of Lim/Rangan leads to a
sufficiently larger maximum punching than the other approaches. ACI 318-19 and AS 3600:2018 calculate
a very similar increase in punching shear strength. TR 060 leads to more conservative values. If the ratio of
column perimeter to effective depth is enlarged, the punching shear capacity will be increased further. Again,
the web-crushing limit according to the model of Lim/Rangan predicts significant larger punching shear
capacities than the other guidelines, because this criteria is significantly influenced by the u0/d ratio and the
 Figure 3. Influence of (a) the effective depth d and (b) the ratio of column perimeter to effective
depth u0/d on the maximum punching shear capacity

concrete compressive strength. For u0/d ratios smaller than approximately 7, AS 3600:2018 also generates
higher resistance values than ACI 318-19 and TR 060. The US American code results in significantly greater
maximum punching shear capacities for u0/d ratios larger than 4 than the TR 060. In contrast to the
calculation of the punching shear capacity without shear reinforcement, ACI 318-19 does not consider the
influence of large control perimeters for the maximum punching shear capacity.
3.2 Punching shear failure inside the shear-reinforced zone
Figure 4 compares the amount of punching shear reinforcement required according to the different design
provisions. The design value of the shear load resisted is plotted against the amount of shear reinforcement
without considering any minimum punching shear reinforcement or spacing limitations. The curves of all
design provisions can be divided into three areas. For small amounts of punching shear reinforcement, the
punching shear capacity without shear reinforcement controls the design. In the mid-range, for intermediate
amounts of shear reinforcement, the punching shear capacity inside the shear-reinforced zone calculated
with the first two rows of shear reinforcement becomes the governing factor. If a large amount of shear
reinforcement is provided, the maximum punching shear capacity is the upper limit. The model of
Lim/Rangan generates very high punching shear capacities inside the shear-reinforced zone, due to the
large concrete contribution equal to the punching shear capacity without shear reinforcement and due to a
very high chosen steel contribution. TR 060 calculates more punching shear reinforcement than ACI 318-19,
because TR 060 does not assume any concrete contribution. Figure 4 b shows the results for a thicker slab
with an effective depth d = 500 mm and a small u0/d = 3.14. According to TR 060, the factor  decreases
the shear resistance for larger effective depth (refer to 2.1). Therefore, in comparison to ACI 318-19, TR
060 calculates relatively smaller punching shear resistances than for the thinner slab. Again, the model of
Lim/Rangan predicts significantly higher resistances in the mid-range than the other design provisions.

4 Conclusions
The results of the present investigations allow for the following conclusions:
- A comparison with punching shear tests on flat slabs, including double-headed studs as shear
reinforcement, indicate that the resistances predicted by TR 060 and ACI 318-19 are conservative.
The model of Lim/Rangan, in combination with the maximum punching shear resistances according
to AS 3600:2018, predicts significantly higher resistances for thinner flat slabs, leading to a lower
safety level in comparison to the other design provisions addressed in this paper.
- In comparison with test results, TR 060 and ACI 318-19 consider the main parameters influencing
the maximum punching shear capacity quite similar and agree well with the test results. The model
of Lim/Rangan, in combination with AS 3600:2018, tends to calculate higher maximum punching
shear capacities with increasing u0/d ratios.
- The maximum punching shear capacities according to TR 060, ACI 318-19, and AS 3600:2018
show approximately the same tendencies and are roughly in the same order of magnitude. The
maximum punching shear strength according to the model of Lim/Rangan is defined similar to the
 Figure 4. Comparison of the amount of punching shear reinforcement required according to
TR 060, ACI 318-19, and the model of Lim/Rangan

compression strut strength of a beam. This approach leads, in many cases, to significantly larger
punching shear capacities than the other design provisions investigated.
- The amount of shear reinforcement required according to TR 060 is greater than for ACI 318-19.
Particularly in the case of thicker slabs, the model of Lim/Rangan yields significantly smaller
amounts of shear reinforcement than the other design provisions.

5 References
1. Leviat: “HALFEN Punching Shear Reinforcement and Shear Reinforcement – Technical Product Information,”
product brochure, 2020.
2. Ricker M, Häusler F. European punching design provisions for double-headed studs. Proc Inst Civil Eng-Structures
and Buildings 167 (2014), pp 495–506.
3. Lim F.K., Rangan B.V., “Strength of concrete slabs with stud shear reinforcement in the vicinity of edge columns,”
Australian Civil Engineering Transactions CE35 (1993), pp 95-105.
4. EOTA, “Technical Report 060: Increase of punching shear resistance of flat slabs or footings and ground slabs –
double headed studs – Calculation Methods,” 2017.
5. DIN EN 1992-1-1:2004 + AC:2010 + A1:2014, Eurocode 2: Design of Concrete Structures – Part 1-1: General
Rules and Rules for Buildings; 2011.
6. American Concrete Institute, “Building code requirements for structural concrete (ACI 318-19)”, ACI Committee
318, 2019, Michigan.
7. AS 3600:2018, “Concrete Structures,” Standards Australia, Sydney.
8. Beutel R., “Durchstanzen Schubbewehrter Flachdecken im Bereich von Innenstützen [Ph.D. thesis],” RWTH
Aachen University, Chair and Institute of Structural Concrete (IMB); 2002.
9. Siburg C., “Zur einheitlichen Bemessung gegen Durchstanzen in Flachdecken und Fundamenten [Ph.D. thesis],”
RWTH Aachen University, Chair and Institute of Structural Concrete (IMB); 2014.
10. DIN EN 206:2014-07: Concrete - Part 1: Specification, performance, production and conformity. DIN, Berlin.
11. Ricker M, Siburg C., “Punching shear strength of flat slabs – critical review of Eurocode 2 and fib model code 2010
design provisions,” Structural Concrete 17 (2016), pp 457–68.
12. Marzouk H., Hussein A., “Experimental Investigation on the Behavior of High-Strength Concrete Slabs,” ACI
Structural Journal 88 (1991), pp 701-713.
13. Sherif A. G., Dilger W., “Critical Review of the CSA A23.3-94, Punching Shear Provisions for Interior Columns,”
Canadian Journal of Civil Engineering 23 (1996), pp 998-1011.