Iranian Journal of Science and Technology, Transactions of Civil Engineering

https://doi.org/10.1007/s40996-019-00301-y

RESEARCH PAPER

Nonlinear FEA of Two‑Way RC Slabs’ Punching Behavior with Openings

Özgür Anıl1 · Burçak Ulusoy1

Received: 31 May 2018 / Accepted: 24 July 2019

© Shiraz University 2019

Abstract
In this study, effect of varying opening location and size on the punching behavior of two-way RC flat slabs was investigated
through the finite element analyses. For this purpose, the two-way RC flat slabs with openings in the literature done by
the authors were simulated using finite element modeling technique. The variables that were investigated in the study are
the location and size of the opening. For the study, two-way square slabs having the dimensions of 2000 × 2000 × 120 mm
with openings were analyzed. The nonlinear analyses were performed using the ANSYS FEA software with reference to
the experimental data. The experimental results were compared with the finite element analyses results. According to the
results of this study, it was shown that when properly modeled, finite element simulations may be used as efficient tools for
estimating the nonlinear behavior of flat slabs with openings subjected to punching capacities. Simulations performed using
verified finite element models estimated the punching shear force capacity of the flat slabs with variable openings with 7%
average error. Moreover, the load–displacement relationships of the specimens are estimated in good agreement with their
experimental counterparts.

Keywords  Two-way RC slab · Punching shear · Opening · Finite element analysis · ANSYS

1 Introduction failure generally occurs due to the excessive shear stresses

Reinforced concrete flat slabs are among the most common
structural systems. Advantages of such systems are widely
known, and in relation to that, they are widely used in the
construction of parking slots, bridge decks, large-scale
supermarkets, stores, underground garages, industrial build-
ings, etc. The flat slabs offer advantages such as short manu-
facturing periods and reduced costs due to simple formwork
arrangements. Furthermore, such slab systems generally
minimize the floor height by providing lower total building
height and more clear space as well as lower costs due to
the absence of additional structural elements such as beams.
Consequently, an extensive study about designing and con-
struction approaches of slabs was performed and design
methods as well as technical codes were developed. On the
other hand, flat slabs are damageable to a sudden and brittle
damage mechanism called punching failure, especially for
structures located in severe seismic regions. Punching shear
* Özgür Anıl
oanil@gazi.edu.tr
1
Civil Engineering Department, Gazi University,
06570 Maltepe, Ankara, Turkey
that may form up during the transfer of unbalanced bending
moments at the junction points of flat slabs and support-
ing columns. These excessive shear stresses may cause the
failure of flat slab systems under the effect of loads smaller
than the bending capacity of the slab. Punching shear fail-
ure forms up without any warning signs. A local punching
shear failure of a single slab–column joint may stimulate the
progressive punching failure of the close other connections
which may lead to the failure of the whole building.
On the other hand, flat slabs may also be manufactured
with openings for architectural or structural concerns. As
widely known and accepted, size and location of the open-
ings with respect to the column are very important param-
eters on the punching shear capacity of flat slabs. Accord-
ingly, the effect of openings on the punching behavior
must be investigated carefully. For this reason, the accu-
rate estimation of punching capacities of slabs with open-
ings is a major issue. Accordingly, in this study, nonlinear
finite elements analyses of RC flat slabs with openings were
performed to obtain an efficient finite element tool for the
design of RC flat slabs with openings. In the literature,
studies concentrated on estimation of punching capacities
of flat slabs may be found. In addition, structural design

13
Vol.:(0123456789)

codes (i.e., ACI 2008; Eurocode 2 2002; TS500 2000; JSCE
2002; Model Code 2010) employ the widely used critical
perimeter approach to calculate the punching capacity of
a slab–column connection for two-way slabs. The critical
perimeter approach relies on determination of shear stresses
on a calculated reference section around the supporting col-
umn. The shear stress is usually calculated as a function of
strength of concrete and the dimensions of the slab and sup-
porting column. Several codes proposed different methods
for the determination of critical perimeters to investigate the
punching capacity of the slab. In some studies, for exam-
ple Elshafey et al. (2011), Anil et al. (2014), Kueres et al.
(2017), Lapi et al. (2016, 2017), Samad and Shah (2018) and
Talaei and Nasrollahi (2016), it is observed that these equa-
tions based on critical perimeter of the slab yield correct
results in the case of slabs without any openings. Moreover,
several research studies performed using artificial neural net-
works (ANN) (Elshafey et al. 2011; Bhatt and Agar 2000;
Choi et al. 2007) focused on the punching behavior of solid
RC slab connections which may be found in the literature.
Also, Muttoni (2008) investigated the failure assumption
for slabs subjected to punching loads and accurately esti-
mated the punching shear capacities. The failure criterion
proposed by Muttoni (2008) highlights the dependence of
punching capacity on the slab rotation. The load–rotation
relationship proposed by Muttoni (2008) highlights that
the punching strength is affected by slenderness of the slab
provided by the ratio between thickness and span length.
Alam and Amanat (2013) focused on the effect of bending
reinforcement on punching behavior of RC slabs without
any openings. In the study, it was stated that the bending
reinforcements placed in the slab lead to a significant role
on punching capacity. Koppitz et al. (2013) conducted a
comprehensive investigation on the evaluation of analytical
models developed to calculate the punching capacities of
reinforced concrete slabs. Abdul Rasoul (2011) conducted
an investigation on the punching behavior of reinforced
concrete slabs with openings manufactured using self-
compacting concrete. In the study, the openings were in the
shape of rectangles and circles. The main parameters in the
study were shape and position of the openings. In the study,
it is verified that the percentage reduction in the punching
capacity depends mainly on the size and position of open-
ing. Experimental study conducted by Al-Shammari (2011)
focused on the punching behavior of one-way slabs with
openings. In this study, a total of nine specimens were tested
including the specimen without any opening. The results
showed that the presence of openings decreased the punch-
ing shear capacity 40% on average. Borges et al. (2013) con-
ducted in total 13 experiments about the RC plates with and
without openings and/or shear reinforcement. The openings
were neighboring the shorter sides of rectangular supports
and had widths equal to those of the supports. In this study,
13
Iranian Journal of Science and Technology, Transactions of Civil Engineering
the approach of calculating punching strengths proposed in
some codes was investigated along with some recommended
formulations and their estimations are compared with the
experimental results. It was stated that for small openings
the estimations of codes seem adequate. Oliveira (2014)
experimentally investigated the punching resistance of seven
RC slab–column joints, with one opening next to the col-
umn, with or without bending moment transfer of the slab
to the column. Test results were matched with the recom-
mendation from several code approaches. Then, in the study,
a modification on code approaches was recommended for
taking into account the moment caused by the eccentricity at
the critical perimeter for slabs with holes. Anil et al. (2014)
conducted an experimental study to determine punching
capacities of the two-way reinforced concrete slab–column
joints with openings. It is showed that the considered code
equations accurately predicted the punching capacity of the
reference test specimen without any openings. Contrary to
that, the code equations cannot accurately predict the punch-
ing capacity of the specimens with openings.
In addition to experimental research, numerical
researches have been carried out to apply nonlinear FEA
to estimate the punching behavior of reinforced concrete
slabs. Studies using two-dimensional FEA model have
been carried out by Menétrey et al. (1997) and Hallgren
(1996). An application was researched by implementing
layered shell element which investigates an out-of-plane
response and considers the application of three-dimen-
sional constitutive models, e.g., Polak (2005). 3D models
are given better results and offered a higher flexibility and
are more correct in the modeling of out-of-plane behav-
ior of RC structures than the 2D element models (Ozbolt
et al. 2000; Zheng et al. 2009; Eder et al. 2010; Shu et al.
2016). Failure of RC slabs without shear reinforcement in
punching has been a challenging problem for nonlinear
FEA. To enhance the analysis methods, this study was
done by investigating a nonlinear FEA approach for slabs
subjected to punching failure without shear reinforcement,
by using the widely used software ANSYS. The influence
of several parameters: (1) opening location and (2) size
was investigated by comparing the results in terms of ulti-
mate capacity and load–displacement response from the
FEA with available experimental data.
From the literature review which is given above, it is
observed that the number of comprehensive studies con-
ducted on the complete nonlinear behavior of two-way rein-
forced concrete slabs with openings subjected to punching
shear loads is very low. Accordingly, in this study, FEA were
conducted to obtain an efficient tool to obtain the complete
nonlinear behavior of RC flat slabs up to maximum load car-
rying capacity. In the study, two-way RC flat slab–column
connections tested by Anil et al. (2014) are simulated with
finite element analyses using ANSYS software.
Iranian Journal of Science and Technology, Transactions of Civil Engineering
2 Objective and Scope of the Research
Study
The main goal of this research is to accurately simulate
nonlinear behavior of two-way RC slabs with openings
using the FE method and to observe effect of openings
in the slabs when subjected to punching shear loads.
Accordingly, the test specimens of Anil et al. (2014) were
analyzed with finite element method. In this study, the
flat slabs were located on simple line supports at the four
sides of the slab. The punching load was loaded from the
top of a square central column. The test specimens were
manufactured using C20-grade (i.e., ultimate compression
strength of the concrete was 20 MPa) concrete. Punch-
ing failure is a brittle-type collapse mode and occurs with
simultaneous failure of many elements. Accordingly, the
finite element software could not converge such behavior
easily. Consequently, the last converging step is assumed
to be the failure limit in the analyses and the nonlinear
post-peak behavior of the RC slabs is not simulated in
this study.
3 Experimental Study
The RC flat slabs tested by Anil et al. (2014) were simu-
lated in this study. Accordingly, in this section, the flat
slabs of Anil et al. (2014) were introduced. One reference
slab without opening and eight flat slabs having openings
with variable size and location were tested (Anil et al.
2014). Test specimens (2000 × 2000 × 120  mm) were
constructed with RC column connections (200 × 200 mm)
placed in the center of the slab and tested by applying a
punching load from the top of the column. Reinforcement
details as well as the dimensions of specimens are given
in Fig. 1. Test specimens of Anil et al. (2014) had two
types of square openings with the side lengths 300 mm
and 500  mm located neighbor to column and 300  mm
Fig. 1  Reinforcement and
dimension of the specimen
considered in this study
210
38
38
175
apart from the column. As well, openings were located in
parallel and diagonal locations with respect to supporting
central column. Locations of openings on the tested slab
are given in Fig. 2.
Specifications of the test specimens and compressive
strengths of concrete are given in Table 1. Concrete com-
pression strengths of test specimens were measured as
20.35 MPa on average. Concrete compression strength is
determined by using standard 150 × 300 mm cylindrical con-
crete samples. Five samples are taken from each specimen
and are cured at the same conditions with specimens. They
are kept in humid environment for 1 week and then kept
with specimens for curing for the next 3 weeks. They are
tested at the same day with specimens before the experiment
for determining concrete compression strength. ϕ10 tension
and compression reinforcement were used and located in
the same ratio in each direction. ϕ10 tension reinforcements
were located with 175-mm space in each direction, and ϕ10
compression reinforcements were placed with 215-mm
space in each direction. Specimen 1 was constructed with
no opening (used as reference test specimen). Other speci-
mens were manufactured with openings that vary in size,
location and distance to column. Compression and tension
reinforcements were cut next to the opening, and no other
special reinforcement was used.
Test specimens are placed on the closed frame that is
specially manufactured from steel profiles which served as
a support. The specimens are tested by applying axial load
by using the steel load column placed onto the RC column
located at the center of the RC slab. Test setup and instru-
mentation details are shown in Fig. 3. The axial load is
applied to test specimens by hydraulic jack that has 400 kN
capacity and the applied load is measured by 400-kN capac-
ity load cell connected to the computer. The axial load is
applied by adjustable load speed, special hydraulic pump
system with motor, to the test specimen, and constant load
speed is used in each specimen. In order to determine the
column axial deformation and slab deformation profiles of
the test specimens, 11 vertical deformation measurements
are obtained as given in Fig. 3. The measurements are taken
4Ø10
38
215 215 215 215 215 215 215 210
Ø10/215 Ø4/40
15
10
70
10
15
Ø10/175
175 175 175 175 175 175 175 175 175 175
38
2000
13
 Iranian Journal of Science and Technology, Transactions of Civil Engineering

300 300

A A A Opening A A Opening A
300 300

200 2000 200 2000 200 2000

200 200 200

300
500 500
Opening 300

Opening 500 Opening 500

A A A A A 300 A

200 2000 200 2000 200 2000

200 200 200

100
188
388
300
Opening 500
500 Opening
300 Opening
300 300
A A A 500 A A A
388 300
188 500

200 2000 200 2000 200 2000

200 200 200

Fig. 2  Layouts of the test specimens considered in this study

Table 1  Properties of test specimens of Anil et al. (2014) by electronic displacement transducers (LVDT) transferred
# Concrete compres- Opening
to computer, and tests are applied by taking into consid-
sion strength fc (MPa) eration the relations that show the change of column axial
Size (mm) Location with respect deformation with load.
to the column

1 20.83 Reference (without opening)

2 20.60 300 × 300 Parallel (adjacent) 4 Finite Element Modeling
3 20.85 300 × 300 Diagonal (adjacent)
4 19.63 500 × 500 Parallel (adjacent) In this study, the FE models of the reinforced concrete flat
5 19.61 500 × 500 Diagonal (adjacent) slab–column connections tested by Anil et al. (2014) were
6 20.02 300 × 300 Parallel (300 mm far) constructed. The information of the finite element procedure
7 21.24 300 × 300 Diagonal (300 mm far) is given in the next sections.
8 20.05 500 × 500 Parallel (300 mm far)
9 20.23 500 × 500 Diagonal (300 mm far) 4.1 Element Types and Material Properties

FEA made in this study were performed using the software

ANSYS (2012). In order to simulate the nonlinear behav-
ior of reinforced concrete, a special eight-node element,
SOLID65, with extensive modeling capabilities is used. This

13
Iranian Journal of Science and Technology, Transactions of Civil Engineering

Fig. 3  Test setup and instru- 11

mentation (dimension in mm)
10

4
35
9

4
35
8

4
35
1

14
14
5 6 7
2 4

4
35
300 300 300 3

900

Loading Frame

Load Cell LVDT

Hydraulic Jack
Steel Plate
Steel Loading Profile

Steel Plate

Test Specimen

Loading Frame

solid element is improved primarily for modeling plain and
RC solids. The most important features of this element are
the nonlinear material behavior and its abilities to capture
the cracking, crushing and plastic deformation of the con-
crete. In addition, SOLID65 may be used for the modeling
of solids with smeared reinforcement assumption. In the ele-
ment, three different reinforcements with different orienta-
tions may be defined. It is anticipated that the discrete mod-
eling of reinforcement of flat slabs is more convenient due
to the presence of two layers of mesh reinforcement at the
top and bottom of the slabs. Such a modeling will provide a
more realistic simulation, especially at the junction points of
the steel reinforcements. Also, the use of discrete modeling
technique reduced the number of finite elements and com-
puter time relative to the smeared modeling approach. In the
simulations, perfect bonding between the reinforcement and
concrete was assumed. Furthermore, it is also believed that
the discrete modeling of the reinforcement will better simu-
late the dowel action provided by the mesh reinforcement.
The behavior of concrete in linear and nonlinear stage is
modeled using linear elastic material properties and multi-
linear inelastic rate-independent material properties along
with the William and Warnke failure criterion (William
and Warnke 1975) for multi-axial stress state. The William
and Warnke failure criterion (William and Warnke 1975)
requires uniaxial tensile strength of the concrete and shear
transfer coefficients which are used to represent the shear
strength reduction factor for concrete across the crack face
for the open and closed cases of the crack. The value of shear
transfer coefficient ranges from 0 to 1 with 0 representing a

13
 Iranian Journal of Science and Technology, Transactions of Civil Engineering

Fig. 4  Uniaxial stress–strain (a)

relationship a concrete, b rein- σc (b)
forcement steel

f
c
0.15fc

Ec=tanα

ε co εcu εc

smooth crack and 1 representing a rough crack (i.e., no loss Table 2  Mechanical properties reinforcement
of shear transfer) as stated in ANSYS (2012) user’s manual. Yield strength (MPa) Modulus of elasticity (MPa) Poisson’s Ratio
The shear transfer coefficients used in this study are 0.25
for an open crack and 0.75 for a closed crack. The shear 480 200,000 0.3
transfer coefficient that is used in the shear crack model in
ANSYS software is a special coefficient. This coefficient
transfers higher shear forces when crack width is small, and Table 3  Mechanical properties of concrete
transfers lower shear forces when the crack width is large. Ultimate strength Modulus of elasticity (MPa) Poisson’s Ratio
It can be used for better modeling of the cracking effects (MPa)
on load–displacement behavior. A reduction in the shear
Compressive Tensile
transfer coefficient results in lower transferred shear forces,
and an increase in shear transfer coefficient results in higher 20.35 1.57 21,800 0.2
transferred shear forces. Shear transfer coefficients range
from 0.0 to 1.0 with 0.0 being a smooth crack, which can-
not transfer any shear force, and 1.0 being a type of crack The multi-linear isotropic material properties were obtained
behavior that can transfer the entire shear without any loss in from a compressive uniaxial stress–strain diagram (Fig. 4a) for
a cracked section. A number of studies have been conducted concrete and are presented by Hognestad (1951):
for determining the accurate shear transfer coefficients for [ ( )2 ]
FE analysis of RC structures. The shear transfer coefficients 2𝜀c 𝜀c
are used as 0.35 for an open crack and 0.75 for a closed crack
𝜎c = fc − (1)
𝜀c0 𝜀c0
for the slabs with opening at bending zone and used as 0.2
for an open crack and 0.75 for a closed crack for the slabs where fc is the crushing stress of the concrete and εc is the
with opening at shear zone, respectively. It is thought that strain value corresponding to the concrete stress 𝜎c and εc0
fixed-angle crack model (FACM) (Lu et al. 2006), which is is the strain at the peak stress of the concrete (Desayi and
used by ANSYS (2012), is not capable of modeling these Krishnan 1954):
slabs since shear fracture is dominant on the failure mode of
these slabs (Bulut et al. 2011; Lu et al. 2006). 2fc
𝜀c0 = (2)
Some additional parameters may also be input for the Ec
William and Warnke failure criterion (William and Warnke
where Ec is the modulus of elasticity of the concrete cal-
1975) for the crushing of concrete. However, the concrete
culated using the equation proposed by Hognestad (1951):
crushing capability is turned off to avoid known conver-
gence issues and only the tensile cracking capability of the Ec = 12680 + 460fc (3)
concrete is used as a failure criterion of the concrete ele-
ments in relation to the statement of Kachlakev et al. (2001). Behavior of the concrete under the tensile loading is taken
Kachlakev et al. (2001) stated that compression failure of as linear elastic during modeling of the numeric finite ele-
concrete, which is weak in tension, is improbable due to ment, and concrete compression strength is calculated by using
the secondary tensile strains forming up in a perpendicular Eq. 4:
direction to the load (Mindess and Young 1981; Shah et al.
(4)
√
1995). ft = 0.35 ⋅ fc

13
Iranian Journal of Science and Technology, Transactions of Civil Engineering

The discrete reinforcements of the test specimens are
modeled using a simple uniaxial spar element, Link 180. The
conventional stress–strain diagram (without strain harden-
ing) for reinforcement steel is given in Fig. 4b. The mechani-
cal properties of the materials used in the test specimens of
Anil et al. (2014) are given in Tables 2 and 3 for reinforce-
ment steel and concrete, respectively.
4.2 Construction of the Nonlinear FE Model
The finite element model was made by using rectangular
mesh with varying size throughout the model. As known, the
number of elements is an important parameter significantly
affecting the computation time and analyses results. There-
fore, the model is constructed using varying size elements
to have balance between computation time and accuracy.
The size of the FE mesh is kept very fine in the expected
punching region which is located around the column. The
finite element model was constructed using rectangular
mesh with varying size throughout the model. It is also
worth noting that punching shear failure is a brittle failure
mode and occurs with simultaneous failure of many ele-
ments. Accordingly, the ANSYS cannot easily converge such
behavior. Consequently, the last converging step is assumed
to be the failure limit in the analyses. On the other hand,
the number of elements is an important parameter signifi-
cantly affecting the computation time and analyses results.
Therefore, the model is constructed using a different num-
ber of elements to have balance between computation time
and accuracy. As a first step, the finite element model is
built using a very fine mesh with elements having a con-
stant size (25 × 25 × 20 mm). Then, as a second step, the
similar model is built using elements with varying dimen-
sions (25 × 25 × 20–25 × 50 × 20–50 × 50 × 20). In the second
model (Fig. 5a), the size of the finite element mesh is kept
very small in the expected punching region which is located

Fig. 5  a Finite element model (a) (b)

with optimized mesh con- Used Mesh
figuration, b load–displacement Analysis_29
relationships obtained using 180 Very Fine Mesh
regular and optimized mesh 150
configurations 120

Load (kN)
90
60
30
0
0 10 20 30 40
Disp. (mm)

Fig. 6  Finite element model

(reference solid specimen) with
optimized mesh configuration

13
 Iranian Journal of Science and Technology, Transactions of Civil Engineering
around the column. Then, the two models are analyzed and
force–displacement relationships are comparatively plotted
(Fig. 5b) to observe the difference. From the figure, it is
observed that the difference between the punching shear load
capacities is negligibly small (i.e., 2%) with respect to the
big gain in the analyses time. The quarter model of the solid
reference test specimen, which is obtained using the two
symmetry axis, is given in Fig. 6.
Next, the support conditions of the test specimens are
accurately modeled. From the experimental study of Anil
et al. (2014), it is observed that the corners of the test speci-
mens lift up during the experiments. In order to allow such
lift up and prevent possible stress concentrations, the simple
line supports under the four sides of the test specimens are
truncated and kept shorter (Fig. 7) in relation to the observed
lift up level in the experiments. Investigation of the experi-
mental results shows that corner liftoffs of the tested speci-
mens were in the range of 5–10 mm. In order to accurately
simulate the corner liftoff behavior, the upper face of the
reaction plate is modeled as an elastic steel plate. Next,
contact pairs (TARGE170 and CONTA174) active only in
the compression stress are used in the interface between
the upper face of the reaction frame and soffit of the flat
plate. Screenshot taken from the quarter model of the con-
trol specimen is given in Fig. 7b to illustrate the simulated
corner liftoff behavior. Moreover, the lateral friction between
the reaction frame and flat plate at the support locations is
simulated to provide a realistic lateral constrain as in the test
specimens. In the study of Rabbat and Russell (1985), the
friction coefficient between raw steel and concrete was given
in the range of 0.57–0.70. Consequently, the friction coef-
ficient between painted steel and concrete is adopted as 0.4
Fig. 7  a Closeup view of the simulated line supports located under the four sides of the test specimens, b simulated corner liftoff behavior of the
test specimens
13
from the study. Preliminary sensitivity analyses considering
the effect of this friction coefficient illustrated that friction
coefficient mainly affects the convergence of the models
rather than the response.
FE models of the test specimens modeled in study are
given in Fig. 8. From the figures, it is shown that the sym-
metry conditions are used for some of the models. Contrary
to that, some of the test specimens are modeled using full
models due to the absence of any symmetry axis.
5 Comparison of Load–Displacement Curves
In this section, the nonlinear force displacement curves of
the test specimens of Anil et al. (2014) obtained from the
finite element analyses are comparatively plotted together
with those obtained from the experimental study. The com-
parative plots are given in Fig. 9a–i for test specimens 1
to 9, respectively. From the force displacement plots, it is
observed that the force displacement curves obtained from
the finite element analyses are in good agreement with the
force displacement curves obtained from the experimental
study. However, from some of the plots given in Fig. 9a–i, it
is observed that the maximum loads obtained from the finite
element analyses are slightly larger than the experimental
maximum loads. These differences may be attributed to
some factors such as (1) microcracks that may form up dur-
ing the handling and positioning of test specimens to the test
setup, (2) thermal shrinkage cracks, (3) possible variation in
the crushing strength of concrete used in the experimental
study. In the experimental study, the compressive strength
of the concrete is determined by tests. In the finite element
Iranian Journal of Science and Technology, Transactions of Civil Engineering
Fig. 8  Finite element models of the test specimens of Anil et al. (2014)
simulations, these compressive strength values are assigned
as maximum compressive strength of concrete in the Hog-
nestad (1951) model and the complete uniaxial behavior of
concrete is determined based on this model. However, inho-
mogeneous and anisotropic nature of concrete prevents hav-
ing a uniform compressive strength in all points of concrete.
From Fig. 9a–i, it is also observed that the stiffness values
obtained from the finite element analyses are generally in
good agreement with those obtained from the experimental
study. However, from the plots given in Fig. 9c, e, i, it is
observed that the stiffnesses of the force displacement curves
obtained from the finite element analyses are larger than
those obtained from the experimental study. It is a known
and widely accepted fact that for many cases finite element
methods have tendency to overestimate the stiffness of the
structures. This may be attributed to the well-known factors
such (1) neglecting the bond-slip behavior between con-
crete and reinforcement. In the study of Kazaz (2012), it is
showed that bond-slip behavior may significantly affect the
stiffness of the force displacement curves obtained from the
finite element analyses. (2) Formation of microcracks due to
shrinkage (CSA 2006) and handling of the test specimens.
(3) Variations in the cracking strength and modulus of elas-
ticity of concrete.
The results of the study are also given in Table 4 in terms
of maximum load carrying capacity and corresponding dis-
placement level. From the table, it is observed that the differ-
ence between the experimental and numerical finite element
analyses load carrying capacities is 7% on average. In terms
of the displacements corresponding to maximum load, this
difference is larger and 15% on average.
To further assess the accuracy of the finite element
analyses, the test specimens are grouped according to their
distances to the central column. The first group consists
of the test specimens 6, 7, 8 and 9 with openings far from
the central column, and the second group consists of test
specimens 2, 3, 4 and 5 with openings next to central col-
umn. From the comparison of these groups, it is observed
13
 Iranian Journal of Science and Technology, Transactions of Civil Engineering

Fig. 9  Comparative load displacement plots of the test specimens of Anil et al. (2014)

Table 4  Comparison of Spec. # Maximum load (kN) Displacement corresponding to max. load

experimental and numerical (mm)
analyses results
Experimental Numerical %Difference (%) Experimental Numerical %Difference (%)

1 193.03 190.00 1.57 37.37 46.80 25.23

2 99.03 106.70 7.75 18.08 21.40 18.36
3 125.86 140.00 11.23 26.77 22.10 17.44
4 76.98 74.50 3.22 22.70 17.90 21.15
5 94.70 105.00 10.88 41.53 48.10 15.82
6 134.78 134.14 0.47 35.31 31.70 10.22
7 172.15 180.00 4.56 37.98 42.20 11.11
8 115.53 125.33 8.48 46.07 44.50 3.41
9 138.83 160.00 15.25 33.67 38.20 13.45

that there is no significant difference in the accuracy of
the finite element analyses, in terms of maximum loads.
On the contrary, in terms of displacements corresponding
to maximum displacements, it is observed that finite ele-
ment analyses yielded significantly better results for the
test specimens in Group 2 (specimens far from the col-
umn). Such accuracy may be attributed to the fact that the
effect of openings diminishes with the increasing distance
from the supporting column.
Another assessment is obtained with grouping the test
specimens according to their opening size. The first group
consists of the test specimens 2, 3, 6 and 7 with small
openings (300 mm × 300 mm), and the second group con-
sists of test specimens 4, 5, 8 and 9 with big openings

13
Iranian Journal of Science and Technology, Transactions of Civil Engineering
(500 mm × 500 mm). From the comparison of these groups,
it is observed that the finite element analyses yielded slightly
better results for Group 1 (specimens with small openings),
in terms of maximum loads. On the other hand, no signifi-
cant difference is observed between Groups 1 and 2 in terms
of displacements corresponding to maximum load.
The failure mechanisms obtained from the experimental
study and stress and displacement distributions obtained
from the finite element analyses are comparatively presented
in Fig. 10. From Fig. 10, it is observed that the failure mech-
anisms of the flat slabs are in good agreement with the stress
distributions obtained from the finite element analyses. The
maximum stress and displacement regions in the finite ele-
ment analyses indicate the punching perimeter observed in
the experimental study.
6 Comparison of Experimental
and Analytical Regulations Results
The punching shear capacities of test specimens obtained
from experimental study and numerical analyses are com-
pared with the punching shear capacities calculated using
the regulations of ACI 318 (2008) and Eurocode 2 (CEN
2002). The set of equations proposed by ACI 318 (2008) to
calculate the punching shear capacities are given in Eqs. 4, 5
and 6. In these equations, the size, location and the distance
of the opening affect the punching perimeter. The punching
perimeter is calculated using the perimeter of a section at a
distance d/2 (d: slab usable depth) far from the column face.
In this code, the presence of opening on the slab is taken
into account with the punching perimeter approach (Fig. 11).
√
(4)
( )
Vc = 0.17 ⋅ 1 + 2∕𝛽c ⋅ 𝜆 ⋅ fC� ⋅ d ⋅ up (ACI318)
√
( )
Vc = 0.083 𝛼s ⋅ d∕bo + 2 ⋅ 𝜆 ⋅ fC� ⋅ d ⋅ up (ACI318)
√ opening gets closer to the column in a diagonal position, the
Vc = 0.33 ⋅ 𝜆 ⋅ fC� ⋅ d ⋅ up (ACI318)
The set of equations given in Eurocode 2 (2002) to calcu-
late the punching shear capacities are given in Eqs. 7, 8 and
9. The presence of openings in the RC slabs is accounted
for in the Eurocode 2 (2002) in a similar way to ACI 318
(2008) by calculating the punching perimeter. The punch-
ing perimeter approach of Eurocode 2 is given in Fig. 10b.
√
3
Vc = Crd,c ⋅ k ⋅ 100 ⋅ 𝜌 ⋅ fck ⋅ d ⋅ up (Eurocode-2)
Crd,c = 0.18 (Eurocode-2)
√
200
k =1+ (Eurocode-2) (9)
d
Punching shear load capacities obtained from the ACI318
and Eurocode 2 regulations are given in comparison with
experimental, numerical and analytical regulations results
in Table 5. The results given in Table 5, obtained using the
procedures given in ACI 318 (2008) and Eurocode 2 (CEN
2002), showed that the punching shear load capacities of the
test specimens, which are calculated from these two regula-
tions, are greater than the experimental and results except
specimen 7. The average differences between the experimen-
tal and analytical regulations results are calculated as 15%
and 17% for ACI 318 (2008) and Eurocode 2 (CEN 2002),
respectively. When analytical regulation and numeric finite
element analysis results are compared, it can be seen that
numerical finite element capacity results are less than the
analytical regulations ones except the specimens 7 and 9.
The average differences between the numerical finite ele-
ment analyses results and analytical regulations results are
calculated as 14% and 11% for ACI 318 (2008) and Euroc-
ode 2 (CEN 2002), respectively.
From the shear capacities obtained by the procedures
given in the stated two codes, it is observed that the punch-
ing shear capacity of the specimen 1, without any openings,
is accurately estimated by all code approaches. However, for
the test specimens having openings that vary in size, location
and distance the calculated analytical punching shear capaci-
ties are larger than the experimental values and in the un-
conservative side. This is an important observation showing
the fact that the real punching shear capacities of the slabs
with openings are significantly smaller than the calculated
values. Especially for the slabs with larger opening sizes, the
error percent of the code equations amplifies. The analytical
punching shear capacities of the test specimens with open-
ings are calculated 19% larger by ACI318 and 17% larger
by Eurocode 2. The most accurate code among the others
(5)
is the Eurocode 2. When the opening size increases and the
(6) result with maximum error is obtained. Under these condi-
tions, the analytical values are calculated 37% larger than the
experimental results. When the distance of the opening from
the supporting column increases, the error percentage of the
analytical equations gets smaller. The analytical punching
shear load capacities of the specimens 6, 7, 8 and 9 are 10%
smaller than the actual experimental punching shear load
capacities. The observations illustrated that the code equa-
tions to estimate the punching shear load capacities are not
suitable for two-way RC slabs with openings, because of
un-conservative results. In relation to that, a new arrange-
(7)
ment should be made and a new reduction factor should be
proposed to consider the reduction in the punching shear
(8)
capacity in the case of the presence of openings.
13
 Iranian Journal of Science and Technology, Transactions of Civil Engineering

Fig. 10  Comparison of experimental and FEA failure modes

13
Iranian Journal of Science and Technology, Transactions of Civil Engineering
Fig. 10  (continued)
7 Conclusions
In this study, finite element analyses were conducted to
obtain an efficient tool to obtain the complete nonlinear
behavior of RC flat slabs up to maximum load carrying
capacity. In the study, two-way RC flat slab–column con-
nections tested by Anil et al. (2014) are simulated with finite
element analyses. Then, the results obtained from the experi-
mental and analytical studies are compared in terms of maxi-
mum loads and displacements corresponding to maximum
loads which may be stated as the representatives of strengths
and the stiffness of the test specimens. From the analyses
results, it is observed that the finite element analyses gener-
ally yielded results in good agreement with the experimental
results. The following main conclusions may be deduced
from the study;
• It is observed that the difference between the experi-
mental and analytical load carrying capacities is 7% on
average. In terms of the displacements corresponding to
maximum load, this difference is larger and 15% on aver-
age.
• The results of slabs with openings of identical dimen-
sion but different locations revealed that the level of
error increased for the specimens with openings diag-
onally located with respect to the columns (for speci-
mens with openings next to column). The level of error
was 7.75% for specimen 2, with a 300 mm × 300 mm
opening located parallel to the column. However,
the level of error was 11.23% for specimen 3, with a
300 mm × 300 mm opening located diagonal to the col-
umn. Similarly, the error was 3.22% for specimen 4, with
a 500 mm × 500 mm opening in parallel with the column.
On the other hand, the error was 10.88% for specimen 5,
with a 500 mm × 500 mm opening located diagonal to the
column.
• The similar comparison for slabs with opening 300 mm
far from column revealed that the level of error increased
for the specimens with openings diagonally located with
respect to the columns. The level of error was 0.47% for
specimen 6, with a 300 mm × 300 mm opening located
parallel to the column. But, the level of error was 4.56%
for specimen 7, with a 300  mm × 300  mm opening
located diagonal to the column. Similarly, the error was
8.48% for specimen 8, with a 500 mm × 500 mm opening
in parallel with the column. On the other hand, the error
was 15.25% for specimen 9, with a 500 mm × 500 mm
opening located diagonal to the column.
13
 Iranian Journal of Science and Technology, Transactions of Civil Engineering

Fig. 11  Punching perimeter calculation methods given in a ACI318 and b Eurocode2

• The inspection of specimens with openings in the identi-
cal locations but different dimensions revealed that the
increasing opening dimensions also increased the level
of deviations between the experimental and numeri-
cal results. The level of error in specimen 6, with an
opening of 300  mm × 300  mm dimension and paral-
lel to the column, was 0.47% while the level of error
for specimen 8 with an opening of 500 mm × 500 mm
dimension and parallel to the column was 8.48%. Simi-
larly, the level of error in specimen 7 with an opening of
300 mm × 300 mm dimension located diagonally to the
column was 4.56% while the level of error for specimen 9
with an opening of 500 mm × 500 mm dimension located
diagonally to the column was 15.25%.
• Also the results of the analyses highlighted that the
level of error is higher for specimens closer to the col-
umn. From the comparison of specimens with openings
of 300 × 300 mm dimensions, it is observed that the

13
Iranian Journal of Science and Technology, Transactions of Civil Engineering

Table 5  Comparison of experimental, numerical and analytical maxi- Alam AKMJ, Amanat KM (2013) Effect of reinforcement on punch-
mum load capacities ing shear of multipanel flat slab. J Civ Eng (IEB) 41(2):123–137
Al-Shammari HH (2011) Effect of openings with or without strength-
Spec. # Maximum Load (kN) ening on punching shear strength for reinforced concrete flat
Experimental Numerical plates. J Eng 17(2):218–234
Analytical
Anil Ö, Kina T, Salmani V (2014) Effect of opening size and location
ACI 318 Eurocode 2 on punching shear behavior of two-way RC slabs. Mag Concr
Res 66(18):955–966. https​://doi.org/10.1680/macr.14.00042​
1 193.03 190.00 180.71 180.06 ANSYS® (2012) Academic Research, Release 14.5
2 99.03 106.70 119.82 122.82 Bhatt P, Agar TJA (2000) A neural network for predicting the punch-
3 125.86 140.00 165.74 148.23 ing shear strength of internal column-flat slab junctions without
shear reinforcement. In: International workshop on punching
4 76.98 74.50 116.95 108.81 shear capacity of RC slabs, vol 57, pp 39–46
5 94.70 105.00 160.75 140.95 Borges LJ, Melo GS, Gomes RB (2013) Punching shear of reinforced
6 134.78 134.14 160.57 158.29 concrete flat plates with openings. ACI Struct J 110(4):547–556
7 172.15 180.00 160.13 162.42 Bulut N, Anıl Ö, Belgin ÇM (2011) Nonlinear finite element analy-
sis of RC beams strengthened with CFRP strip against shear.
8 115.53 125.33 149.61 146.71 Comput Concr 8(6):717–733
9 138.83 160.00 150.71 153.72 Cement Association of Canada (CSA) (2006) Concrete design hand-
book CSA Standard, A23.3-04, 3rd edn. Cement Association of
Canada, Ottawa
level of errors increased to 7.75% from 4.56%. These Choi K, Taha M, Sherif A (2007) Simplified punching shear design
method for slab–column connections using fuzzy learning. ACI
error levels were 21.15% and 13.45%, respectively, for Struct J 104(4):438–447
specimens with openings close to and far from the col- Desayi P, Krishnan S (1954) Equation for the stress–strain curve of
umn. The differences in the failure loads were excep- concrete. J Am Concr Inst 61:345–350
tionally decreased. Eder MA, Vollum RL, Elghazouli AY, Abdel-Fattah T (2010) Model-
ling and experimental assessment of punching shear in flat slabs
• It is believed that one of the most important reasons with shear heads. Eng Struct 32(12):3911–3924
under the stated error levels was the anisotropic and Elshafey AA, Rizk E, Marzouk H, Haddara MR (2011) Prediction of
heterogeneous nature of concrete which is simulated punching shear strength of two-way slabs. Eng Struct 33:1742–
as homogeneous and isotropic in the models. 1753. https​://doi.org/10.1016/j.engst​r uct.2011.02.013
Eurocode No. 2 (2002) Design of concrete structures—part 1: Gen-
• It is observed that the punching shear capacity of the eral rules and rules for buildings. Commission of the European
specimen 1, without any openings, is accurately esti- Communities, prEN 1992-1-1 draft
mated by all code approaches. However, for the test Fédération Internationale du Béton, model code 2010, First complete
specimens having openings that vary in size, location draft, Bulletin 56, vol 2, Lausanne (2010)
Hallgren M (1996) Punching shear capacity of reinforced high-
and distance the calculated analytical punching shear strength concrete slabs. Doctoral thesis, Stockholm (Sweden),
capacities are larger than the experimental values and Kungliga Tekniska Hogskolan
in the un-conservative side. Especially for the slabs Hognestad E (1951) A study of combined bending and axial load in
with larger opening sizes, the error percentage of the reinforced concrete members. University of Illinois Engineer-
ing Experiment Station, Bulletin Series No. 399, Bulletin No. 1
code equations amplifies. Japan Society of Civil Engineers (JSCE) (2002) Standard specifica-
• The most accurate code among the others is the Eurocode tion for concrete structure-structural performance verification.
2. When the opening size increases and the opening gets Japan Society of Civil Engineers (JSCE), Tokyo
closer to the column in a diagonal position, the result Kachlakev D, Miller T, Yim S, Chansawat K, Potisuk T (2001) Finite
element modeling of reinforced concrete structures strengthened
with maximum error is obtained. Under these conditions, with FRP laminates. California Polytechnic State University,
the analytical values are calculated 37% larger than the San Luis Obispo, CA and Oregon State University, Corvallis,
analytical results. When the distance of the opening from OR for Oregon Department of Transportation
the supporting column increases, the error percentage of Kazaz I (2012) Application of bond-slip in the finite element analy-
ses of reinforced concrete shear walls. Eng Sci J Pamukkale
the analytical equations gets smaller. Univ 18(3):155–163
Koppitz R, Kenel A, Keller T (2013) Punching shear of RC flat
slabs—review of analytical models for new and strengthening of
existing slabs. Eng Struct 52:123–130. https​://doi.org/10.1016/j.
engst​r uct.2013.02.014
References Kueres D, Siburg C, Herbrand M, Classen M, Hegger J (2017) Uni-
form design method for punching shear in flat slabs and column
Abdul Rasoul ZMR (2011) Experimental study of punching shear bases. Eng Struct 136:149–164
strength of self compacting concrete slabs with openings. J Ker- Lapi M, Orlando M, Angotti F, Spinelli P (2016) Comparison of
bala Univ 9(2):88–100 recent code provisions for punching shear capacity of R/C slabs
ACI (2008) Committee 318, Building code requirements for struc- without shear reinforcement. In: Proceedings of the Italian Con-
tural concrete (ACI 318-08). American Concrete Institute, crete Days, Rome, ISBN 978-88-99916-02-2
Detroit

13

Lapi M, Fernandes H, Orlando M, Ramos A, Lúcio V (2017) Per-
formance assessment of flat slabs strengthened with a bonded
reinforced concrete overlay. Mag Concr Res 70(9):433–451
Lu XZ, Jiang JJ, Teng JG, Ye LP (2006) Finite element simulation of
debonding in FRP-to-concrete bonded joints. Constr Build Mater
20:412–424
Menétrey P, Walther R, Zimmermann T, Willam KJ, Regan PE (1997)
Simulation of punching failure in reinforced-concrete structures.
J Struct Eng 123(5):652–659
Mindess S, Young JF (1981) Concrete. Prentice-Hall Inc, Englewood
Cliffs
Muttoni A (2008) punching shear strength of reinforced concrete slabs
without transverse reinforcement. ACI Struct J 105(4):440–450
Oliveira DC (2014) Punching shear in reinforced concrete flat slabs
with hole adjacent to the column and moment transfer. IBRACON
Struct Mater J 7(3):414–440
Ozbolt J, Vocke H, Eligehausen R (2000) Three-dimensional numerical
analysis of punching failure. Trita-BKN Bull 57:65–74
Polak MA (2005) Shell finite element analysis of RC plates sup-
ported on columns for punching shear and flexure. Eng Comput
22(4):409–428
Rabbat BG, Russell HG (1985) Friction coefficient of steel on concrete
or grout. J Struct Eng 111(3):505–515. https​://doi.org/10.1061/
(ASCE)0733-9445(1985)111:3(505)
13
Iranian Journal of Science and Technology, Transactions of Civil Engineering
Samad S, Shah A (2018) Analysis of punching shear capacity of RC flat
slabs produced with partial replacement of cement by pulverized
fly ash (PFA). Iran J Sci Technol Trans Civ Eng 42(2):181–190
Shah SP, Swartz SE, Ouyang C (1995) Fracture mechanics of concrete.
Wiley, New York
Shu J, Plos M, Zandi K, Johansson M, Nilenius F (2016) Prediction of
punching behaviour of RC slabs using continuum nonlinear FE
analysis. Eng Struct 125:15–25
Talaei AKS, Nasrollahi A (2016) Application of probabilistic particle
swarm in optimal design of large-span prestressed concrete slabs.
Iran J Sci Technol Trans Civ Eng 40(1):33–40
TSE TS-500 (2000) Türk Standartları Enstitüsü, Betonarme Yapıların
Tasarım ve Yapım Kuralları. Ankara (in Turkish)
William KJ, Warnke ED (1975) Constitutive model for the triaxial
behavior of concrete. In: Proceedings of the International Associa-
tion for Bridge and Structural Engineering, vol 19. ISMES, Italy,
Bergamo, p 174
Zheng Y, Robinson D, Taylor S, Cleland D (2009) Finite element inves-
tigation of the structural behaviour of deck slabs in composite
bridges. Eng Struct 31(8):1762–1776