See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/233549918

Seismic design of concrete slabs for punching shear: A critical review of

Canadian standard CSA A23.3-04

Article  in  Canadian Journal of Civil Engineering · June 2008

DOI: 10.1139/L07-130

CITATIONS READS

3 2,512

2 authors, including:

Ramez B. Gayed
ThyssenKrupp Industrial Solutions (Canada) Inc.
19 PUBLICATIONS   43 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by Ramez B. Gayed on 18 April 2017.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

588

Seismic design of concrete slabs for punching

shear: a critical review of Canadian standard CSA
A23.3-04
Ramez B. Gayed and Amin Ghali

Abstract: Unbalanced moments, transferred between concrete flat plates and columns due to earthquakes, produce shear
stresses that increase the vulnerability to brittle punching failure. Appropriate design and detailing of the slab–column
joints are essential to prevent such failure. Because of the high flexibility of flat plate structures, lateral-force-resisting sys-
tems, e.g., bracings, frames or shear walls, are necessary to limit the interstorey drift ratio to specified values. The slab–
column joints must have the strength and the ductility to undergo, without punching failure, the lateral displacement of the
structure. In the 2004 version of the Canadian standard, CSA A23.3-04, clause 21.12.3 is added, specifying the punching
shear design of slab–column connections subjected to earthquakes. The provisions of the clause are critically reviewed us-
ing a design example. It is shown that the new clause permits absence of shear reinforcement in cases that lack strength
and when it requires shear reinforcement, it specifies excessive amount. Changes to the standard are proposed.
Key words: drift, flat plates, lateral displacement, punching, seismic design, shear, stud shear reinforcement, unbalanced
moment.
Résumé : Lors de séismes, les moments non balancés transférés entre les planchers-dalles en béton et les colonnes produi-
sent des contraintes de cisaillement qui augmentent la vulnérabilité à la rupture fragile par poinçonnement. Une conception
et un dimensionnement appropriés des joints dalles–colonnes sont essentiels pour prévenir une telle rupture. En raison de
la grande flexibilité des structures à planchers-dalles, il est nécessaire d’avoir des systèmes de résistance aux forces latéra-
les, p. ex. des contreventements, des murs à ossature ou des murs de cisaillement, afin de limiter le rapport de glissement
entre les étages à des valeurs spécifiques. Les joints dalles–colonnes doivent avoir la résistance et la ductilité nécessaires
pour subir le déplacement latéral de la structure sans rupture fragile par poinçonnement. L’article 21.12.3 a été ajouté à la
version 2004 de la norme canadienne A23.3-04 : il définit la conception de la résistance par poinçonnement des conne-
xions dalles–colonnes soumises à des séismes. Les dispositions de l’article sont examinées en détail en utilisant un exem-
ple de conception. Il est démontré que le nouvel article permet l’absence de renforcement en cisaillement dans les cas
manquant de résistance et lorsqu’un renforcement en cisaillement est nécessaire, il en spécifie une quantité excessive. Des
changements à la norme sont proposés.
Mots-clés : glissement, planchers-dalles, déplacement latéral, poinçonnement, calcul sismique, cisaillement, goujon de
renforcement au cisaillement, moment non balancé.
[Traduit par la Rédaction]

Introduction degradation of the slab at its connection with columns. In

A concrete flat plate is a slab supported directly on col-
umns, without column capitals or beams. Concentration of
shear stresses — resulting from the transfer of shearing
forces combined with unbalanced moments between columns
and slabs due to gravity load and lateral forces of earth-
quakes — can cause brittle punching failure. Furthermore,
reversed displacements in an earthquake accelerate the strength
Received 18 April 2006. Revision accepted 15 October 2007.
Published on the NRC Research Press Web site at cjce.nrc.ca on
3 June 2008.
R.B. Gayed and A. Ghali.1 Department of Civil Engineering,
University of Calgary, 2500 University Drive NW, Calgary, AB
T2N 1N4, Canada.
Written discussion of this article is welcomed and will be
received by the Editor until 31 October 2008.
1Corresponding author (e-mail: aghali@ucalgary.ca).
addition to strength, slab–column connections must possess
adequate ductility to undergo inelastic lateral displacement
reversals without punching failure.
Headed stud shear reinforcement (SSR) and stirrups, satis-
fying certain anchorage conditions, are permitted by Cana-
dian standard CSA A23.3-04 (CSA 2004) for use as shear
reinforcement. Equations for the design of SSR and stirrups
are given in the Canadian standard. For simplicity of presen-
tation, only SSR, conforming to ASTM A1044/A1044M
(ASTM 2005), is used in the discussions.
Flat plate structures are frequently provided with lateral-
force-resisting systems (LFRS) that control the lateral
displacements in earthquakes, such that the design drift ratio,
DRu, does not exceed specified code limits, depending upon
the type of structure and its usage (DRu £ 0.007 to 0.025).
DRu is the difference between the lateral displacements —
including plastic deformation — of two consecutive floors,
divided by lc, the distance between the mid-surfaces of the
flat plates of the two floors. The differential displacements of

Can. J. Civ. Eng. 35: 588–599 (2008) doi:10.1139/L07-130 # 2008 NRC Canada
Gayed and Ghali 589

the floors produce unbalanced moments that must be consid- Fig. 1. Plane frame idealizations: (a) equivalent frame for analysis
ered in punching shear design of the slab–column connec- of effect of lateral drift; (b) equivalent frame for analysis of effect
tions. Elastic analysis of the simplified equivalent frame in of gravity load; (c) detail of slab–column connection in equivalent
Fig. 1a, subjected to imposed displacement
e, can give the frames.
unbalanced moment. The unbalanced moment at a connection
is the sum of the moments at the ends of the columns above
and below the connection.
e is the elastic interstorey drift:
½1

e ¼ DRu lc =ðRo Rd =IE Þ
where IE is the occupancy importance factor; Ro and Rd are
the over-strength and ductility factors of the LFRS, respec-
tively. The National building code of Canada (NBCC
2005), specifies values for IE, Ro, and Rd.
Figure 1b is an equivalent frame that can be used for anal-
ysis of internal forces due to gravity loads. The moment of
inertia of the members of the equivalent frames in Figs. 1a
and 1b are indicated in the figures [based on clause 13.8.2 of
CSA A23.3-04 (CSA 2004)]. Iec is the moment of inertia of
the equivalent columns, accounting for an assumed torsional
strip. To account for cracking, the moment of inertia, Is, of
the members representing the slab in Fig. 1a is equal to one-
half the gross moment of inertia of a slab strip, bounded
laterally by the centrelines of the panels on each side of the
column line (i.e., of width l2); the reason for recommending
the factor one-half is discussed in a separate section.
Based on experimental research, supplemented by finite
element analyses, Megally and Ghali (2000) have recom-
mended a design procedure that is the basis of American
Concrete Institute Committee 421 guide ACI 421.2R-07
(ACI Committee 421 2007); this design procedure is re-
viewed below. The design provisions of clause 21.12.3 of cal section, d is the average of the distances from the ex-
CSA A23.3-04 are critically reviewed and compared with treme compression fibre to the centroids of the tension
those of ACI 421.2R-07; it is shown that the former requires reinforcements running in two orthogonal directions, x and
more shear reinforcement than necessary in some cases and y are coordinates of the point at which vf is calculated,
vx
in others permits absence of shear reinforcement at connec- and
vy are fractions of unbalanced moments transferred by
tions that lack strength and ductility. shear eccentricity, lx and ly are the projections of the shear
The slab–column connections must have the strength and critical section on the centroidal principal x- and y-axes
ductility to undergo, without punching failure, the lateral (Fig. 2), and Jx or Jy is the property of the assumed shear
displacements of the structure. This design requirement ap- critical section. For a shear critical section having the shape
plies even when the slab–column connections are not desig- of a closed rectangle, Jy is commonly calculated as:
nated as part of the LFRS.
d ðcx þ dÞ3 d ðcy þ dÞ ðcx þ dÞ2 ðcx þ dÞ d 3
½4
Jy ¼ þ þ
Provisions for punching shear: clause 13.3 of 6 2 6
CSA A23.3-04 where cx and cy are the column dimensions in the x- and
y-direction, respectively. When shear reinforcement is pro-
Clause 13.3 of CSA A23.3-04 (CSA 2004) employs
vided, the assumed shear critical section outside the shear-
eqs. [2] and [3] to calculate shear stress distribution at an
reinforced zone has a polygonal shape for which Jy is
assumed shear critical section, subjected to shearing force
taken equal to d multiplied by the moment of inertia of
Vf at the centroid combined with unbalanced moments Mfx
the perimeter of the critical section about the centroidal
and Mfy about principal x and y axes (Fig. 2).
principal y-axis:
Vf
Mfx y
vy Mfy x d  
½2
vf ¼ þ vx þ ½5
Jy  lij x2i þ xi xj þ x2j
bo d Jx Jy 3
where the summation is for all sides of the polygon; lij, xi,
1 and xj are, respectively, length of a typical polygon side ij

vx ¼ 1 pffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
1 þ ð2=3Þ ly =lx and coordinates of its two ends. Equation [5] can be applied
½3
1 for any polygonal critical section; for the shear critical sec-

vy ¼ 1 pffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
1 þ ð2=3Þ lx =ly tion in Fig. 2a, eq. [5] gives the same result as eq. [4] when
the relatively small term (cx + d)d3/6 is ignored. Inter-
where bo is the perimeter length of the assumed shear criti- changing the symbols x and y in eqs. [4] and [5] gives the
# 2008 NRC Canada
590 Can. J. Civ. Eng. Vol. 35, 2008

Fig. 2. Shear critical sections at d/2 from face of: (a) interior column; (b) edge column; (c) corner column.

equivalent equations of Jx. In the design example in this where vf is the maximum factored shear stress at the assum-
paper, eq. [5] is used. Positive directions of Vf, Mfx, and ed shear critical section (eq. [2]) and vr is the factored shear
Mfy are indicated in Fig. 2; the arrows represent the forces stress resistance. In the absence of shear reinforcement, vr =
transferred from column to slab. vc; where vc is the shear stress resistance provided by con-
CSA A23.3-04 requires that: crete at a critical section at d/2 from the column. For non-
prestressed slabs,
½6
vf  v r

     
pffiffiffiffi 2 pffiffiffiffi s d pffiffiffiffi
½7
vc ¼ the least of : 0:38  c fc0 ; 1 þ 0:19  c fc0 ; þ 0:19  c fc0
c bo

where c (= 0.65) is the resistance factor for concrete;  is

the concrete density factor (= 1.0 for normal-weight con-  
crete);  c (‡1.0) is the aspect ratio of the column; s = 4, vcs þ vs Nonseismic design
½9
vr ¼
3, or 2 for interior, edge or corner column, respectively; ðvcs =2Þ þ vs Seismic design
and f ’c is the specified concrete compressive strength. pffiffiffiffi
 0:75  c fc0
Throughout this paper, MPa is used as unit of stress and m
or mm is used as unit of length. To calculate vc for slabs
having d > 300 mm, eq. [7] has to be multiplied by a size pffiffiffiffi
½10
vcs ¼ 0:28  c fc0
factor: 1300/(1000 + d).
When shear reinforcement is required, vr is the sum of
the strengths provided by the concrete, vcs, and that pro- ½11
vs ¼ s Av fyv =ðbo sÞ
vided by the shear reinforcement, vs. The shear-reinforced
zone has to extend such that the maximum factored shear
stress, vf (eq. [2]), at d/2 from the outermost peripheral line
of shear reinforcement, satisfies eq. [6], with vr being calcu- where s (= 0.85) is the resistance factor for nonprestressed
lated by: reinforcement, Av is the area of vertical shear reinforcement
pffiffiffiffi on one peripheral line parallel to the column face, fyv is the
½8
vr  vc ¼ 0:19  c fc0 specified yield strength of shear reinforcement, and s is the
spacing between peripheral lines of shear reinforcement. It
is noted, in eq. [9], that in seismic design, the concrete
Equations of clause 13.3.8 of CSA A23.3-04 contribution is half the value given by eq. [10], to account
for the degradation of shear resistance due to unbalanced
for stud shear reinforcement moment reversals. The spacing, s, between peripheral lines
The following equations are specified for use with stud of studs and the spacing between the column face and the
shear reinforcement in clause 13.3.8 of CSA A23.3-04 (CSA first peripheral line of studs, s0, must satisfy:
2004):

 pffiffiffiffi
0:75 d when vf  0:56  c fc0
½12
s pffiffiffiffi for s0  0:4d
0:50 d when vf > 0:56  c fc0

# 2008 NRC Canada

Gayed and Ghali
It is emphasized that eqs. [2] through [12] are require-
ments of clause 13 of CSA A23.3-04; vf = the maximum
shear stress due to factored gravity loads combined with fac-
tored lateral loads due to wind, earthquakes or other lateral
forces (see clause 13.10.2 in CSA A23.3-04).
Provisions for seismic design: clause 21.12.3
of CSA A23.3-04
Clause 21.12.3.1 of CSA A23.3-04 (CSA 2004) requires
that shear reinforcement be provided when:
½13
ðVf ÞDþL =ðbo dÞ > RE vc
where (Vf)D+L is the shearing force due to factored dead and
live loads, calculated by using the seismic load combina-
tion: VD + 0.5VL; vc is the shear stress resistance in absence
of shear reinforcement, calculated by eq. [7]; and RE is a
dimensionless factor given by:
½14
RE ¼ ð0:005=DRu Þ0:85  1:0
Figure 3a is a graphical representation of the requirement
of shear reinforcement criterion, expressed by eq. [13]. The
shear reinforcement is required when the point {[(Vf)D+L/Vc],
DRu} is above the curve, where Vc (= vc bo d) is the
shear strength provided by concrete in absence of shear
reinforcement. The shear reinforcement must satisfy
eqs. [6], [8], [9], and the following two equations:
½15
ðVf ÞDþL =ðb0 dÞ  RE ½ðvcs =2Þ þ vs

pffiffiffiffi
½16
vs  0:3 fc0
In addition, the distance lsh-zone between the column face
and the outermost peripheral line of shear reinforcement
must satisfy: lsh-zone ‡ 4d.
Clause 21.12.3 of CSA A23.3-04 provides a design proce-
dure for punching shear due to earthquakes, without the
need to satisfy the requirements of clause 13. Thus, for con-
nections that are not part of the LFRS, the design would be
based only on DRu and (Vf)D+L, without calculation of the
unbalanced moment or the shearing force associated with
DRu. In other words, the internal forces due to the design
drift need not be considered when calculating vf for satisfy-
ing the requirements of clause 13.3.
Remarks on seismic design according to
clause 21.12.3 of CSA A23.3-04
For seismic design for punching shear, section 21.13.6 of
ACI 318-08 (ACI Committee 318 2008) permits either of
two methods. Method ‘‘a’’ requires calculation of shear
stress due to the factored shear force and induced moment
according to section 11.11 of ACI 318-08 [equivalent to
clause 13 of CSA A23.3-04 (CSA 2004)]. The ‘‘induced
moment’’ is the unbalanced moment transferred at the slab–
column connection when subjected to the design drift.
Method ‘‘b’’ is consistent with clause 21.12.3 of CSA
A23.3-04 in using empirical relationships between the fac-
tored shearing force due to gravity loads and DRu as crite-
rion for requiring shear reinforcement; the empirical
relationships differ slightly. The guide ACI 421.2R-07 (ACI
591
Committee 421 2007) mentions the two methods of ACI
318-08, but recommends and demonstrates method ‘‘a’’ by
design examples. Method ‘‘a’’ is preferred because, unlike
method ‘‘b’’, it ensures the strength required in ACI 318-08
section 11.11 (corresponding to eqs. [6], [8], and [9] of the
present paper). Megally and Ghali (2000) proposed method
‘‘a’’ of ACI 318-08; in addition, for ductility, they recom-
mended a minimum amount of shear reinforcement when
the ratio of factored shearing force, due to gravity loads
combined with earthquake, to Vc exceeds 0.4. This was
based on an experimental graph for which eq. [13], com-
bined with eq. [14], is a close fitting curve [see curve 1,
Fig. 1 of Megally and Ghali (2000)]. The guide ACI
421.2R-07 recommends the same criterion and the same
minimum amount of shear reinforcement as Megally and
Ghali (2000). The discussion in the remainder of this sec-
tion shows that clause 21.12.3 of CSA A23.3-04 can, in
some cases, permit absence of shear reinforcement in con-
nections that lack the strength required in clause 13 of
CSA A23.3-04; in other cases, it can require an excessive
amount of shear reinforcement, well above the requirement
of clause 13.
Excessive shear reinforcement
Although clause 21.12.3 of CSA A23.3-04 (CSA 2004)
requires shear reinforcement that satisfies eqs. [6] and [15],
the latter equation governs in most practical cases. Consider-
ing the case of nonprestressed slab, eqs. [15] and [6] (com-
bined with eqs. [9] and [11]) can be put in the form of
eqs. [17] and [18], respectively.
 
Av 1 ðVf ÞDþL vcs
½17
 
bo s s fyv bo d RE 2
Av 1  vcs 
½18
 vf 
bo s s fyv 2
The required shear reinforcement ratio, Av/(bos), is gov-
erned by eq. [15] when the right-hand side of eq. [17] is
greater than that of eq. [18], i.e., when [(Vf)D+L/(bodRE)] >
vf; dividing both sides of this inequality by vc = Vc /(bod)
gives eq. [19] that expresses the condition in which eq. [15]
governs the amount of shear reinforcement.
½19
ðVf ÞDþL =Vc > RE ðvf =vc Þ
When eq. [13] is satisfied, with vf > vc, the amount of
shear reinforcement will be governed by eq. [15] rather
than eq. [6]. The design example below indicates that the
amount of shear reinforcement, resulting from the require-
ment of eq. [15], exceeds what is needed for strength.
Lack of strength — contradiction between CSA A23.3-04
clauses 21.12.3 and 13.3
Clause 21.12.3.1 of CSA A23.3-04 (CSA 2004) implies
that the shearing force and unbalanced moment induced by
an earthquake do not have to be determined and no shear re-
inforcement is needed when the point {[(Vf)D+L/Vc], DRu}
falls below curve AB in Fig. 4; it will be shown that there
are cases represented by points below the curve while vf >
vc. This means that in these cases, clause 21.12.3.1 overrides
# 2008 NRC Canada
592 Can. J. Civ. Eng. Vol. 35, 2008

Fig. 3. Criteria for the need of shear reinforcement: (a) clause 21.12.3 of CSA A23.3-04 (CSA Standard 2004); (b) ACI 421.2R-07 (ACI
Committee 421 2007).

or contradicts clause 13.3 of CSA A23.3-04 that requires Fig. 4. Contradiction between clauses 21.12.3 and 13.3 of CSA
shear reinforcement when vf > vc. The contradiction is ob- A23.3-04 (CSA 2004) in specifying when shear reinforcement is
vious when (Vf)D+L/Vc is close to 1.0. In the absence of required.
shear reinforcement, the ultimate strength is exhausted
when (Vf)D+L/Vc approaches 1.0, with no unbalanced
moment. A design according to Clause 21.12.3.1 for
(Vf)D+L/Vc & 1.0 would allow the absence of shear rein-
forcement with drift up to DRu = 0.005, and the associated
shearing force and unbalanced moment ignored; such a de-
sign would not satisfy clause 13.3.
Consider the central interior column–slab connection in a
structure of six equal spans (Fig. 1). The maximum factored
shear force due to gravity load, (Vf)D+L, can occur without
unbalanced moment; the corresponding shear stress =
(Vf)D+L/)bod. Figure 4 shows a comparison between the shear
reinforcement requirement criteria of clauses 21.12.3 and
13.3. The exponential curve AB is for (Vf)D+L/Vc versus
DRu according to clause 21.12.3.1 (eqs. [13] and [14]). For
an earthquake excitation in the x-direction, the value of drift
ratio that clause 13.3 permits in absence of shear reinforce-
ment must satisfy:
DRu vc ½1  fðVf ÞDþL =Vc g

½20
DRe ¼ 
ðRo Rd =IE Þ vDRe ¼1
where DRe is the elastic interstorey drift ratio; vDRe ¼1 = con- reinforcement, while clause 21.12.3 permits absence of the
stant for the considered column–slab connection = the max- same. In the zone below EF and above the curve in Fig. 4,
imum shear stress at the shear critical section, at d/2 from clause 21.12.3 requires excessive shear reinforcement
the column, due to a hypothetical elastic drift ratio, DRe = (eq. [15], whereas a minimum amount would be necessary
1. The value of vDRe ¼1 can be obtained by eq. [2] with for ductility, not for strength; the minimum amount is spe-
(Mfx)E = 0, but (Vf)E and (Mfy)E are determined by an elastic cified in ACI 421.2R-07 (ACI Committee 421 2007) and
analysis of the frame in Fig. 1a subjected to imposed displa- is required only when the ratio of factored shearing force,
cement
e determined by substituting DRe = 1, i.e., DRu = due to gravity loads combined with earthquake, to Vc ex-
(RoRd/IE) in eq. [1], where (Vf)E, (Mfx)E, and (Mfy)E are the ceeds 0.4.
factored shearing force and unbalanced moments produced Line CG in Fig. 4 is the same as line CD, using the same
by the hypothetical earthquake producing DRe = 1 or data as for line CD, but the square columns are replaced by
DRu = (RoRd/IE). Line CD in the graph in Fig. 4 is for rectangular columns, cx  cy = 500 mm  250 mm; the
DRu = the right-hand side of eq. [20] multiplied by (RoRd/ shaded area between the curve AB and the line CG repre-
IE), using assumed input data specified in the section titled sents a wider zone for which clause 21.12.3 does not require
‘‘Example’’, with square columns, cx  cy = 300 mm  shear reinforcement, permitting connections that lack the
300 mm. For any case represented by a point within the strength required by clause 13.3. A summary of the calcula-
shaded zones BCF and AED, clause 13.3 requires shear tions necessary to prepare Fig. 4 is included in Appendix A.
# 2008 NRC Canada
Gayed and Ghali 593

The above discussion indicates that eq. [13] is not a suitable
criterion for the shear reinforcement requirement.
Seismic design procedure of ACI 421.2R-07
The guide ACI 421.2R-07 (ACI Committee 421 2007),
supplemental to ACI 421.1R-99 (ACI Committee 421 1999),
gives the appropriate punching design procedure for slab–
column connections with or without shear reinforcement
that are subject to earthquake-induced displacements. Ap-
pendix D of ACI 421.2R-07 gives design examples of the
shear reinforcement required at interior, edge, and corner
column–slab connections. Referenced experimental data
and analytical studies are the basis of the recommendations
of ACI 421.2R-07. The equations recommended for design
are [using notation from the American Concrete Institute
(ACI Committee 318 2008)]:
½21
vu   vn
where vu is the maximum factored shear stress at the
assumed shear critical section,  ( = 0.75) is the strength
reduction factor for shear, and vn is the nominal shear
strength. Without shear reinforcement, vn at the shear criti-
cal section, at d/2 from the column, is the same as the shear
strength of concrete:

(pffiffiffiffi   pffiffiffi0ffi   pffiffiffi0ffi)

fc0 4 fc s d fc
½22
vc ¼ the least of : ; 2þ ; þ2
3 c 12 bo 12

where s is a dimensionless coefficient that equals to 40, subjected to imposed drift
e and the frame in Fig. 1b sub-
30, and 20 for interior, edge, and corner columns, respec- jected to gravity loads.
tively; and  c ( ‡ 1.0) is the aspect ratio of the column.
When stud shear reinforcement is provided, the nominal Step 2
shear strength at the same shear critical section is: As stated earlier, the purpose of shear reinforcement is to
  ensure that slab–column connections can undergo lateral de-
vcs þ vs Nonseismic design formations, associated with the LFRS, without punching
½23
vn ¼
ðvcs =2Þ þ vs Seismic design failure. In slabs with relatively low reinforcement ratios,
pffiffiffiffi
 ð2=3Þ fc0 ductile flexural failure can occur before creating demand
for the punching shear strength of the slab–column connec-
pffiffiffiffi tions; the unbalanced moment causing such flexural failure,
½24
vcs ¼ fc0 =4 governed by the amount of flexural reinforcement, is used to
calculate an upper limit for the unbalanced moment to be
½25
vs ¼ Av fyv =ðbo sÞ accounted for in punching shear design:
where vcs is the shear strength provided by concrete in pre- ½28
Mupper limit ¼ Mpr =m
sence of stud shear reinforcement and vs is the nominal
shear strength provided by shear reinforcement. The spacing where Mpr is the sum of the absolute values of the probable
s between peripheral lines of shear reinforcement should flexural strengths of opposite critical section sides of width
satisfy: (cx+d ) or (cy+d ), when the transferred moment is about the
 pffiffiffiffi x- or y-axis, respectively; cx and cy are the column dimen-
0:75 d when vu =  fc0 =2 sions in the x- and y-directions, respectively (Fig. 2); and
½26
s pffiffiffiffi
0:50 d when vu = > fc0 =2 m is an empirical coefficient expressed as:

The shear reinforcement should extend from the column
face such that vu (calculated by eq. [2]), at the critical sec-
tion, at d/2 from the outermost peripheral line of shear rein-
forcement, satisfies:
pffiffiffiffi
½27
vu <  fc0 =6
Steps for seismic design recommended by ACI 421.2R-07
The following steps are recommended by ACI 421.2R-07
(ACI Committee 421 2007) for the seismic design for a
given inelastic drift ratio, DRu, combined with specified
gravity loads.
Step 1
Use eq. [1] to determine the maximum elastic interstorey
drift,
e, from the specified DRu. Calculate the shearing
force, Vu, and the unbalanced moment(s), Mux and (or) Muy
by linear elastic analyses of the equivalent frame in Fig. 1a
½29
m ¼ 0:85 
v  ð r =20Þ for interior columns
½30
m ¼ 0:55 
vy  ½ðlx =ly Þ=40
þ 10
for exterior columns
where r is the ratio (ly/lx) or (lx/ly) when the transferred mo-
ment is about the x- or y-axis, respectively. Equation [29]
applies for interior connections transferring Mux or Muy and
also for edge connections transferring Mux (with Muy = 0,
Fig. 2b); eq. [30] applies for exterior connections transfer-
ring Muy (with Mux = 0, Fig. 2b). In eq. [30],  is the ratio
of tensile flexural reinforcing bars, passing through the side
of the critical section that is parallel to the moment axis,
e.g.,  is the ratio of the tensile flexural bars passing
through face BC in Fig. 2b (when Mux = 0).
The upper limit given by eq. [28] governs only in excep-
tional cases where the flexural reinforcement ratio is so
small, such that the bars’ yielding causes flexural failure at
# 2008 NRC Canada
594
a low unbalanced moment that does not demand high punch-
ing shear strength of the slab–column connections.
Step 3
Using eq. [2], calculate the maximum shear stress vu, due
to Vu combined with the lesser of the unbalanced moments
determined in steps 1 and 2, at the shear critical section, at
d/2 from the column face, and verify that it does not exceed:
 pffiffiffiffi
5  fc0 =6 MPa when Vu =ðVc Þ  1:0
½31
vmax ¼ pffiffiffiffi
0
2  fc =3 MPa when Vu =ðVc Þ > 1:0
Otherwise, the structural members should be changed to
reduce vu (e.g., by enlarging the column dimensions or re-
ducing DRu by stiffening the LFRS). If vu  vc , provide
no shear reinforcement and terminate the design, provided
that: Vu =ðVc Þ  0:4 and DRu  f0:7  ½Vu =ðVc Þ
g=20;
otherwise, provide the minimum shear reinforcement speci-
fied in the section titled "Minimum shear reinforcement".
Step 4
If vu > vc , provide shear reinforcement such that
 ½ðvcs =2Þ þ vs
 vu , with vcs, vs, s, and the extent of the
shear-reinforced zone in accordance with eqs. [23] through
[27]. Verify that the provided shear reinforcement exceeds
the minimum specified by eqs. [32] and [33] and terminate
the design.
Minimum shear reinforcement
The minimum shear reinforcement recommended by ACI
421.2R-07 (ACI Committee 421 2007) is
pffiffiffiffi
½32
vs  fc0 =4
The distance lsh-zone between the column face and the outer-
most peripheral line of shear reinforcement should satisfy:
½33
lshzone  3:5d
The recommendations for the minimum shear reinforce-
ment, for ductility, are based on experimental data presented
in Appendix A of ACI 421.2R-07.
Remarks on procedure contained in ACI
421.2R-07
The shear stress due to drift needs to be calculated in all
cases. For ductility, shear reinforcement, equal to or exceed-
ing the minimum (eqs. [32] and [33]), is required when the
point f½ðVf ÞDþL =Vc
; DRu g falls to the right of the bilinear
limit in Fig. 3b. In this statement, ðVf ÞDþL =Vc is considered
to have the same meaning as Vu =ð Vc Þ.
Ductility in absence of shear reinforcement
The drift ratio that a slab–column connection can undergo
without punching is frequently considered as an indicator of
ductility. Figure 5 shows a plot of experimental data of
Vtest =ðVc Þ versus DRu (Pan and Moehle 1989; Megally and
Ghali 2000); where Vtest and DRu are the shearing force and
the corresponding drift ratio, respectively, at which maxi-
mum strength is reached; and ðVc Þ, with  = 1 and
Vc ¼ vc bo d, is the nominal shear strength in absence of
Can. J. Civ. Eng. Vol. 35, 2008
Fig. 5. Effect of gravity load on drift capacity [tests of: Hawkins et
al. (1974), Ghali et al. (1976), Symmonds et al. (1976), Pan and
Moehle (1989, 1992), Dilger and Cao (1991), Robertson and
Durrani (1992), and Brown (2003)].
shear reinforcement (eq. [22]). Considering that Vtest and
ðVc Þ are equivalent to, respectively, ðVf ÞDþL and Vc in CSA
A23.3-04 (CSA 2004), the curve:
½34
ðVf ÞDþL =Vc ¼ RE
is plotted in the same figure. The guide ACI 421.2R-07
(ACI Committee 421 2007) used the data in Fig. 5 as indi-
cative of the effect of the level of the shear force Vtest on the
ductility; it is shown that as Vtest approaches ðVc Þ, DRu for
connections without shear reinforcement approaches a small
value (close to 0.005). Clause 21.12.3 of CSA A23.3-04 re-
places the equal sign in eq. [34] by the greater-than sign and
uses the inequality as a criterion for requiring shear reinfor-
cement (eq. [13]). The contradiction of this criterion with
clause 13.3 was discussed earlier in this paper.
Clause 21.12.3 sets the criterion for permitting the ab-
sence of shear reinforcement on eqs. [13] and [14] that ex-
presses the drift capacity of a column–slab connection as a
function of (Vf)D+L/Vc only. However, the drift capacity de-
pends on other parameters, including the flexural reinforce-
ment ratio (Stein et al. 2007) and the aspect ratio of the
column. It is noteworthy that the experimental data, used in
establishing the empirical eq. [13], are for interior square
column–slab connections.
Moment of inertia of slab in the equivalent
frame analysis
For lateral loads, clause 13.5.2 of standard CSA A23.3-04
(CSA 2004) requires that analysis of frames should take into
account the effects of cracking and reinforcement on stiff-
ness. No commentary to this clause is given in the standard.
The commentary to the corresponding section in ACI 318-
08 (ACI Committee 318 2008) reduces the slab bending
stiffness to between 0.5 and 0.25 times the stiffness of the
uncracked slab. For the purpose of calculation of (Mf)E due
to drift, ACI 421.2R-07 (ACI Committee 421 2007) recom-
mends using the upper bound in the range to obtain a con-
# 2008 NRC Canada
Gayed and Ghali 595

servative value of Mf. For the calculation of the displace-
ment or forces in the LFRS due to an earthquake, clause
21.2.5.2.1 of CSA A23.3-04 (CSA 2004) requires that a re-
duced moment of inertia of the slab be used, equal to 0.2
times the moment of inertia of the gross concrete section.
The factor 0.2, deliberately low for safety of the LFRS,
should not be used to calculate Mf.
Example
This example demonstrates the design of an earthquake-
resistant slab–column connection for punching shear, accord-
ing to the two procedures discussed in this paper. Consider
a solid slab for an office building, with equal span lengths
in x- and y-directions, l1 = l2 = 6.0 m; floor height, lc =
3.5 m; column size cx  cy = 0.3 m  0.3 m, and slab
thickness, h = 200 mm. The floor is designed for a service
live load of 2.40 kPa, a superimposed dead load of
1.30 kPa, and a self-weight of 4.70 kPa. It is required to
design the shear reinforcement in the slab at its connection
with the central column. Other data are: concrete cover =
20 mm; f ’c = 30 MPa; Ec = 25 GPa; fy = 400 MPa; the
top and bottom flexural reinforcements are composed of
15M and 10M bars with reinforcement ratios of 0.70%
and 0.50%, respectively; nominal diameter of SSR = 1/
2 in. (1 in. = 25.4 mm) (Astud = 127 mm2); and fyv =
345 MPa. The effective slab depth, d = 200–20–16 =
164 mm.
The earthquake-excited motion is in the x-direction, where
the structure has six bays, with many bays in the y-direction.
The structure has a LFRS that limits the interstorey drift
ratio, including inelastic deformations, to DRu = 0.02;
assume that the ratio RoRd/IE = DRuIc/
e = 4.0; the elastic
displacement (eq. [1]):

e ¼ 0:02 ð3500Þ=4:0 ¼ 17:5 mm
An elastic analysis of the equivalent frame in Fig. 1b sub-
jected to unfactored dead and live loads gives:
VD ¼ 221 kN; VL ¼ 88 kN;
ðMy ÞD ¼ ðMy ÞL ¼ 0 kN  m
From an elastic analysis of the equivalent frame in
Fig. 1a, subjected to lateral displacement
e = 0.0175 m,
the shearing force and unbalanced moment at the central
interior column are: VE = 0 kN and (My)E = 102 kNm.
Appendix A calculates the moments of inertia of the mem-
bers of the equivalent frames used in the analyses.
Design according to Clause 21.12.3 of CSA A23.3-04
The factored shearing force is:
ðVf ÞDþL ¼ VD þ 0:5VL ¼ 265 kN
Vf ¼ ðVf ÞDþL þ VE ¼ 265 kN
The dimensionless parameter, RE is (eq. [14]):
RE ¼ ð0:005=0:02Þ0:85 ¼ 0:31
Properties of the shear critical section, at d/2 from the
column face, are listed in Fig. 6. The shear stress resistance
(eq. [7]):
pffiffiffiffiffi
vc ¼ 0:38ð1:0Þð0:65Þ 30 ¼ 1:35 MPa
Vc ¼ vc bo d ¼ 1:35ð1:856Þð164Þ ¼ 411 kN
ðVf ÞDþL =Vc ¼ 265=411 ¼ 0:64
(Vf)D+L/Vc > RE; thus, shear reinforcement is required
(eq. [13]). The factored unbalanced moment is:
Mfy ¼ ðMy ÞD þ 0:5 ðMy ÞL þ ðMy ÞE ¼ 102 kN  m
At the considered interior column, an earthquake does not
produce a shearing force; thus, Vf = (Vf)D+L = 265 kN. The
maximum factored shear stress (eq. [2]):
265  103 0:4 ð102  103 Þ ð0:232Þ
vf ¼ þ
1:856 ð0:164Þ 10:92  103
¼ 1:74 MPa
value
The vf p ffiffiffiffi is less than the permitted limit (eq. [9]):
0:75  c fc0 ¼ 2:67 MPa. Thus, the thickness of the slab
is adequate.
The shear reinforcement must satisfy eqs. [15], [16], and
[9] (combined with eq. [6]).

 pffiffiffiffiffi
ðVf ÞDþL vcs 265  103 0:28 ð1:0Þ ð0:65Þ 30
vs   ¼  ¼ 2:31 MPa
RE p 0:31 ð1:856Þ ð0:164Þ
bo ffiffiffidffi 2 pffiffiffiffiffi 2
vs  0:3 fc0 ¼ 0:3 30 ¼ 1:65 MPa
pffiffiffiffiffi
vcs 0:28 ð1:0Þ ð0:65Þ 30
vs  vf  ¼ 1:74  ¼ 1:24 MPa
2 2

Equation [15] governs the design of shear reinforcement;

thus, vs must be no less than 2.31 MPa, according to clause 0:85 ð1013Þ ð345Þ
21.12.3 of CSA A23.3-04 (CSA 2004), whereas vs = vs ¼ ¼ 2:46 MPa > 2:31 MPa
1.65 MPa would be enough for strength and ductility. 1856 ð65Þ
Provision of eight studs, arranged as shown in Fig. 6, with The shear reinforcement must extend such that: lsh-zone ‡
s = 65 mm, fyv = 345 MPa, and Av = 1013 mm2, yields a 4 d = 656 mm. At the outer shear critical section in Fig. 6,
shear stress resistance (eq. [11]) of: the maximum factored shear stress (eq. [2]) is:

# 2008 NRC Canada

596
Fig. 6 Example of shear reinforcements designed according to clause 21.12.3 of CSA A23.3-04 (CSA 2004) or ACI 421.2R-07 (ACI Com-
mittee 421 2007).
265  103 0:4 ð102Þ ð0:947Þ
vf ¼ þ
5:788 ð0:164Þ 370 pffiffiffiffiffi
¼ 0:38 MPa < vc ¼ 0:19 ð1:0Þ ð0:65Þ 30
¼ 0:68 MPa
The extent of the shear-reinforced zone is governed by the
minimum (lsh-zone ‡ 4d). The shear reinforcement ratio in
Fig. 6 = Av/(bos) = 8.4  10–3; without the exigency of
eq. [15] and the minimum requirement of lsh-zone, the re-
quired value of Av/(bos) = 5.6  10–3 and six peripheral lines
of shear reinforcement (with s0 = s = 65 mm) would suffice
to make the shear stress outside the shear-reinforced zone
vf £ 0.68 MPa.
Design according to ACI 421.2R-07
Step 1
The load combinations of ACI 318-08 (ACI Committee
318 2008), section 9.2.1 are used.
Vu ¼ 1:2 VD þ 0:5 VL þ VE ¼ 309 kN
Muy ¼ 1:2 ðMy ÞD þ 0:5 ðMy ÞL þ ðMy ÞE ¼ 102 kN  m
Step 2
The absolute values of the flexural strengths provided by
the top and bottom flexural reinforcement, based on a stress
of 1.25 fy, of critical section sides BC and AD (Fig. 2a) are
45 and 34 kNm, respectively; thus, Mpr = 45 + 34 =
79 kNm. For this interior connection,
vy = 0.4;  r = 1.0,
and m = 0.4 (eq. [29]). Therefore, the upper limit of Muy is
Can. J. Civ. Eng. Vol. 35, 2008
(eq. [28]): Mupper limit = 79/0.4 = 197 kNm > 102 kNm.
Design for Muy = 102 kNm, combined with Vu = 309 kN.
Step 3
At the shear critical section, at d/2 from the column face,
the maximum shear stress vu = 1.88 pffiffiffiffi MPa (eq. [2]); this is
less than the upper limit ð5  fc0 =6 ¼ 3:42 MPaÞ and is
greater than  vc (= 1.37 MPa, eq. [22]); thus, shear rein-
forcement isffi required. The maximum shear stress vu is less
pffiffiffi
than  fc0 =2 ¼ 2:05 MPa; thus, s £ 0.75d = 123 mm
(eq. [26]).
Step 4
Use eight rails of SSR, arranged as shown in Fig. 6, hav-
ing s = 100 mm, s0 = 65 mm, and Av = 1013 mm2; at d/2
from the column face, bo = 1856 mm and d = 164 mm.
Equations [25] and [24] give: vs = 1.88 MPa; vcs =
1.38 MPa;  ½ðvcs =2Þ þ vs
¼ 1:93 MPa > vu ¼ 1:88 MPa;
thus, the chosen Av and s are satisfactory. At d/2 from
the outermost peripheral line of studs,
vy = 0.4; bo =
5.505 m; Jy = 320  10–3 m4, and vu = 0.44 MPa
(eq. [2], Fig. 6). This value
pffiffiffiffi is less than the factored con-
crete strength,  vc ¼  fc0 =6 ¼ 0:69 MPa (eq. [27]). The
amount of shear reinforcement exceeds the minimum
recommended by eq. [32]; the size of the shear-reinforced
zone is governed by the minimum (lsh-zone ‡ 3.5d,
eq. [33]). Note that the designs satisfying clause 21.12.3
of CSA A23.3-04 (CSA 2004) and ACI 421.2R-07 (ACI
Committee 421 2007) require 88 and 56 studs (Fig. 6),
respectively, in spite of the fact that the respective Vu val-
ues are 256 kN and 309 kN. The excess in the required
# 2008 NRC Canada
Gayed and Ghali
number of studs (by 60%) in this example is mainly due
to the exigency of eq. [15] and the minimum lsh-zone.
Proposed changes to clause 21.12.3 of CSA
A23.3-04
For strength, ductility, and economy, clause 21.12.3 of
CSA A23.3-04 (CSA 2004) should be changed. The clause
should require that punching shear strength comply with
clause 13 in CSA A23.3-04 for the factored dead, live, and
earthquake loads, but with vr equal to (vcs/2) + vs. For duc-
tility, the revised caluse 21.12.3
pshould
ffiffiffiffi require that shear re-
inforcements with vs  0:21 fc0 , extending to lsh-zone ‡
3.5d, be provided when (Vf/Vc) ‡ 0.4 or (Vf/Vc) ‡ (0.7–
20 DRu), with DRu ‡ 0.015. With these proposed changes,
clause 21.12.3 will avoid contradiction with clause 13.3
and achieve ductility closely equivalent to that recom-
mended by ACI 421.2R-07 (ACI Committee 421 2007). A
proposed wording for clause 21.12.3 of CSA A23.3-04
(CSA 2004) is:
‘‘21.12.3 — Slab–column connections
21.12.3.1 — Punching shear strength shall comply with
Clause 13. Where the maximum shear stress, vf, using
seismic load combinations
pffiffiffiexceeds
ffi vc of 13.3.4.1, vs shall
not be less than 0:21 fc0 . The shear-reinforced zone
shall extend a minimum of 3.5d beyond the face of the
column.
21.12.3.2 — Where the maximum shear stress, vf, using
seismic load combinations does not exceed vc of
13.3.4.1, shear reinforcement shall be provided when
(Vf/Vc) ‡ 0.4 or when (Vf/Vc) ‡ (0.7-20 DRu), with
DRu ‡ 0.015. The factored shear stress resistance of
the shear
pffiffiffiffi reinforcement, vs, shall not be less than
0:21 fc0 . The shear reinforcement shall extend a mini-
mum of 3.5d beyond the face of the column.’’
Summary and conclusion
The equations given in CSA A23.3-04 (CSA 2004) for
design of slabs for punching shear are reviewed. Clause
21.12.3 of CSA A23.3-04 permits absence of shear rein-
forcement based on the factored shear force due to gravity
loads and the inelastic interstorey drift ratio, DRu, without
the need to calculate the shearing force or the unbalanced
moment due to the drift or the maximum shear stress due to
the combined effect of gravity and earthquake loads. This
contradicts clause 13 of the same standard, which bases the
need for shear reinforcement on the maximum shear stress
due to the specified combination of the effects of gravity
and earthquake loads. The paper demonstrates cases in
which clause 21.12.3 does not ensure the strength required
in clause 13.3, or in section 21.13.6(a) of ACI 318-08 (ACI
Committee 318 2008), by permitting the absence of shear
reinforcement, whereas the maximum shear stress exceeds
the concrete shear strength specified by clause 13.
Where clause 21.12.3 requires shear reinforcement, it
gives an equation that governs its amount in most practical
cases; justification of the equation or its source is not
known. The equation requires an excessive amount of shear
reinforcement that exceeds what is needed for strength or for
ductility. A seismic design procedure given by ACI 421.2R-
597
07 (ACI Committee 421 2007) is presented. A design exam-
ple of an interior connection demonstrates the calculations
using clause 21.12.3 and the procedure of ACI 421.2R-07.
Acknowledgement
This research was funded by a research grant from the
Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Can-
ada.
References
ACI Committee 318. 2008. Building code requirements for struc-
tural concrete and commentary. Code ACI 318-08 and commen-
tary ACI 318R-08. American Concrete Institute, Farmington
Hills, Mich.
ACI Committee 421. 1999. Shear reinforcement for slabs. Report
ACI 421.1R-99. American Concrete Institute, Farmington Hills,
Mich.
ACI Committee 421. 2007. Seismic design of punching shear rein-
forcement in flat plates. Report ACI 421.2R-07. American Con-
crete Institute, Farmington Hills, Mich.
ASTM. 2005. Standard specification for steel stud assemblies for
shear reinforcement of concrete. ASTM standard A1044/
A1044M. American Society for Testing and Materials, West
Conshohocken, Pa.
Brown, S.J. 2003. Seismic response of slab-column connections.
Ph.D. dissertation. University of Calgary, Calgary, Alta.
CSA. 2004. Design of concrete structures. CSA standard A23.3-04.
Canadian Standards Association, Mississauga, Ont.
Dilger, W., and Cao, H. 1991. Behavior of slab-column connec-
tions under reversed cyclic loading. In Proceedings of the 2nd
International Conference of High-Rise Buildings, China.
Ghali, A., Elmasri, M.Z., and Dilger, W. 1976. Punching of flat
plates under static and dynamic horizontal forces. ACI Journal,
73: 566–572.
Hawkins, N.M., Mitchell, D., and Sheu, M.S. 1974. Cyclic beha-
vior of six reinforced concrete slab-column specimens transfer-
ring moment and shear. Progress Report 1973-74, NSF Project
GI-38717, Section II. Department of Civil Engineering, Univer-
sity of Washington, Seattle, Wash.
Megally, S., and Ghali, A. 2000. Punching shear design of earth-
quake-resistant slab-column connections. ACI Structural Journal,
97: 720–730.
NBCC. 2005. National building code of Canada. Institute for
Research in Construction. National Research Council of Canada,
Ottawa, Ont.
Pan, A., and Moehle, J.P. 1989. Lateral displacement ductility of
reinforced concrete flat plates. ACI Structural Journal, 86: 250–
258.
Pan, A., and Moehle, J.P. 1992. Experimental study of slab-column
connections. ACI Structural Journal, 89: 626–638.
Robertson, I.N., and Durrani, A.J. 1992. Gravity load effect on
seismic behavior of interior slab-column connections. ACI
Structural Journal, 89: 37–45.
Stein, T., Ghali, A., and Dilger, W.H. 2007. Distinction between
punching and flexural failure modes of flat plates. ACI Struc-
tural Journal, 104: 355–363.
Symmonds, D.W., Mitchell, D., and Hawkins, N.M. 1976. Slab-
column connections subjected to high intensity shears and trans-
ferring reversed moments. Department of Civil Engineering,
University of Washington, Seattle, Wash., August 1976. Pro-
gress Report, NSF Project GI-38717.
# 2008 NRC Canada
598
List of symbols
Av cross-sectional area of vertical legs of shear reinfor-
cement on one peripheral line, parallel to the col-
umn perimeter
bo perimeter length of shear critical section
c1, c2 dimension of rectangular column measured in the
direction parallel to or perpendicular to, respec-
tively, the span for which moments are determined
cx, cy column dimensions in the x- and y-directions,
respectively
cx , cy dimensions of rectangular corner column parallel to
the nonprincipal directions x and y, respectively
(Fig. 2c)
d average of distances from extreme compression
fibre to the centroids of the tension reinforcements
running in two orthogonal directions
Ec modulus of elasticity of concrete
DRe elastic interstorey drift ratio
DRu inelastic interstorey design drift ratio
fc0 specified concrete compressive strength
fy specified yield strength of nonprestressed flexural
reinforcement
fyv specified yield strength of shear reinforcement
h thickness of slab
I moment of inertia
Ic gross moment of inertia of a column
IE occupancy importance factor
Iec moment of inertia of an equivalent column, acc-
ounting for torsional members, according to CSA
A23.3-04
Is gross moment of inertia of a slab strip of width l2
Isj moment of inertia of slab part from the column
centreline to the column’s face
Jx, Jy property of the shear critical section given by
eq. [4] for a section having the shape of a closed
rectangle or by eq. [5] for a section of any poly-
gonal shape
Kc end rotational stiffness of a column, accounting for
the rigid parts at its ends
Kt twisting stiffness of a torsional member
l1, l2 center-to-center span between columns in two
orthogonal directions (x and y)
lc height of storey
lij length of a typical side ij of a polygonal shear
critical section
lsh-zone distance between the column face and the outermost
peripheral line of shear reinforcement
lx, ly projections of shear critical section on the
centroidal principal x and y axes of the shear
critical section
Mpr probable unbalanced moment strength
Mf, Mu factored unbalanced moment transferred between
slab and column, about centroidal principal axes of
the shear critical section, according to CSA A23.3-
04 or American Concrete Institute code ACI 318-
08, respectively
Mupper limit upper limit value for the unbalanced moment, given
by eq. [28]
Ro overstrength factor
Rd ductility factor
RE dimensionless factor, given by eq. [14]
s spacing between peripheral lines of shear reinforce-
ment
s0 distance between column face and first peripheral
line of shear reinforcement
Can. J. Civ. Eng. Vol. 35, 2008
vc shear strength (in stress units) provided by concrete
in absence of shear reinforcement
vcs shear strength (in stress units) provided by concrete
in presence of shear reinforcement
vDRe ¼1 maximum shear stress at the shear critical section at
d/2 from column due to a hypothetical elastic drift
ratio = 1
vf or vu maximum factored shear stress, according to CSA
A23.3-04 or American Concrete Institute code ACI
318-08, respectively
vn nominal shear strength (in stress units), according to
American Concrete Institute code ACI 318-08
vr factored shear stress resistance, according to CSA
A23.3-04
vs shear stress resistance (in stress units) provided by
shear reinforcement
Vc shear strength provided by concrete in absence of
shear reinforcement
Vf or Vu factored shear force, according to CSA A23.3-04 or
American Concrete Institute code ACI 318-08, re-
spectively
(Vf)D+L shearing force due to factored dead and live loads
(Vf)E factored shearing force produced by earthquake
elastic drift
x, y centroidal principal axes or coordinates of points at
which shear stress is calculated
x, y orthogonal nonprincipal axes, Fig. 2c
m empirical coefficient
s,  c empirical coefficients given by CSA A23.3-04
 r is the ratio (ly/lx) or (lx/ly) when the transferred mo-
ment is about the x- or y-axis, respectively

v fraction of unbalanced moment transferred by shear
eccentricity

e elastic interstorey drift
ha, hb dimensionless coefficients, given by eqs. [A1] and
[A2], respectively
 strength reduction factor ( = 0.75 for shear), accord-
ing to American Concrete Institute code ACI 318-08
c, s resistance factors for concrete and nonprestressed
reinforcement, respectively, according to CSA
A23.3-04
 flexural reinforcement ratio
 concrete density factor, according to CSA A23.3-04
Appendix A. Summary of calculations
involved in preparing Figure 4
The end rotational stiffnesses, Kc, of the columns in
Figs. 1a and 1b, accounting for the rigid parts at their ends,
are needed in the calculations below. Equations [A1] and
[A2] are used for this purpose.
Frame in Fig. 1a:
Kc ¼ a ½ðEc Ic Þ=ðlc =2Þ

½A1
Kc ¼ 2Kc
a ¼ 3=½1  ðh=lc Þ
3
Frame in Fig. 1b:
Kc ¼ b ðEc Ic =lc Þ
Kc ¼ 2Kc
½A2
1 3
b ¼ þ
1  ðh=lc Þ ½1  ðh=lc Þ
3
# 2008 NRC Canada
Gayed and Ghali 599

Figure 4, line CD At (Vf)D+L/Vc = 0.55, point H is at DRu = 0.0200(1 – 0.55) =

The same geometry and dimensions of the floor, used in
the section titled ‘‘Example’’, are employed in assessing the
need for shear reinforcement, according to clause 13 of CSA
A23.3-04 (CSA 2004). Properties of the members in the
equivalent frames in Figs. 1a and 1b, with a column size
300 mm  300 mm, are:
Figure 1a: Is = 2  10–3 m4; Isj = 4.43  10–3 m4; Ic =
0.68  10–3 m4; Kt = 1.62  10–3Ec; Kc = 2.76  10–3Ec;
Iec = 0.25  10–3 m4.
Figure 1b: Same properties as the frame in Fig. 1a ex-
cept: Is = 4.00  10–3 m4; Kc = 1.79  10–3Ec; Iec =
0.32  10–3 m4.
Elastic analysis of the frame in Fig. 1a, with six bays of
span l1 = 6.0 m, Ec = 25 GPa, and properties of members as
listed above, subjected to DRe = 1.0,
e = DRelc = 1.0(3.5)
= 3.5 m (eq. [1]), gives an unbalanced moment at the central
column = 20.4 MNm. For the critical section at d/2 from
the column,
vy = 0.4, Jy = 10.92  10–3 m4 and the maxi-
mum shear stress corresponding to DRe = 1 is (eq. [2]):
0:4 ð20:4Þ ð0:232Þ
vDRe ¼1 ¼ ¼ 173:4 MPa
10:92  103
Thus, the equation of line CD is (eq. [20]):
vc f1  ½ðVf ÞDþL =Vc
g
DRu ¼
½IE =ðRo Rd Þ
vDRe ¼1
1:35 f1  ½ðVf ÞDþL =Vc
g
¼ Is gross moment of inertia of a slab strip of width l2
ð173:4=4Þ
¼ 0:0312f1  ½ðVf ÞDþL
=Vc g
Figure 4, line CG
Line CG is for the same structure but with columns cx 
cy = 500 mm  250 mm. Properties of the members of the
equivalent frame in Fig. 1a are: Is = 2.00  10–3 m4; Isj =
4.36  10–3 m4; Ic = 2.60  10–3 m4; Kt = 3.40  10–3Ec;
Kc = 10.6  10–3Ec; Iec = 0.63  10–3 m4.
Subjecting the frame in Fig. 1a to the same
e = 3.5 m
gives an unbalanced moment at the central column =
40.8 MNm. For the critical section at d/2 from the column,

vy = 0.458, Jy = 23.0  10–3 m4, and the maximum shear at
x = 0.332 m is (eq. [2]):
0:458 ð40:8Þ ð0:332Þ
vDRe ¼1 ¼ ¼ 269:6 MPa
23:0  103
The equation of line CG (eq. [20]) is:
1:35 f1  ½ðVf ÞDþL =Vc
g
DRu ¼
ð269:6=4Þ
¼ 0:0200f1  ½ðVf ÞDþL
=Vc g
The factored shearing force and shear strength provided
by concrete are:
ðVf ÞDþL ¼ VD þ 0:5 VL ¼ 265
pffiffiffiffiffikN
Vc ¼ 0:38ð1:0Þð0:65Þ 30ð2:156Þð164Þ
¼ 478 kN
0.0090. Point J is at DRu = 0.0101, obtained by setting the
left-hand side of eq. [14] = (Vf)D+L/Vc = RE = 0.55 and
solving for DRu (see eq. [34]). Therefore, clause 21.12.3
of CSA A23.3-04 (CSA 2004) permits the absence of shear
reinforcement, in contradiction with clause 13.3 of CSA
A23.3-04, for DRu in the range of 0.0090 to 0.0101 (be-
tween points H and J, Fig. 4).
References
CSA. 2004. Design of concrete structures. CSA standard A23.3-04.
Canadian Standards Association, Mississauga, Ont.
A1. List of symbols
cx, cy column dimensions in the x- and y-directions, re-
spectively
d average of distances from extreme compression fi-
bre to the centroids of the tension reinforcements
running in two orthogonal directions
DRe elastic interstorey drift ratio
DRu inelastic interstorey design drift ratio
Ec modulus of elasticity of concrete
h thickness of slab
Ic gross moment of inertia of a column
Iec moment of inertia of an equivalent column, ac-
counting for torsional members, according to CSA
A23.3-04
IE occupancy importance factor
Isj moment of inertia of slab part from the column cen-
treline to the column’s face
Jy property of shear critical section calculated by eqs.
[4] or [5]
Kc end rotational stiffness of a column, accounting for
the rigid parts at its ends
Kt twisting stiffness of a torsional member
lc height of storey
Ro overstrength factor
Rd ductility factor
RE dimensionless factor, given by eq. [14]
vc shear strength (in stress units) provided by concrete
in absence of shear reinforcement
vDRe ¼1 maximum shear stress at the shear critical section at
d/2 from column due to a hypothetical elastic drift
ratio = 1
Vc shear strength provided by concrete in absence of
shear reinforcement
(Vf)D+L shearing force due to factored dead and live loads
x centroidal principal axis or coordinate of points at
which shear stress is calculated

vy fraction of unbalanced moment transferred by shear
eccentricity in the x direction

e elastic interstorey drift
ha, hb dimensionless coefficients, given by eqs. [A1] and
[A2], respectively

# 2008 NRC Canada

View publication stats