Paper: Chana/Desai

Paper

Design of shear reinforcement against punching

P. S. Chana, BSc(Eng), PhD, CEng, MIStructE, MICE
British Cement Association

S. B. Desai, BE, CEng, FIStructE, MICE

Department of the Environment

Synopsis
This paper examines the design methodsf o r providing
resistance against punching shear, generally concerning the
strength requirementf o r transfer of the load from a flatslab
to the supporting column or from a column to its base. The
BSI committee B/525/2 (CSB39 as it was then called) had
expressed concern about the present design method given in
BS 81 10: Part 1: 1985 f o r providing resistance against
punching shear in reinforced concrete slabs. A s a result, an
examination was carried out, based on a test programme
funded jointly by the Department of Environment and the
British Cement Association (BCA). The conclusions of this
examination have assisted in reviewing the punching shear
clauses given in BS 8110: Part 1: 1985*. The results of this Flexural Triaxial Failure
exercise have also been used f o r recommending a revision to reinforcement stress state cone
@lo p
the clauses given in the Eurocode 'DD ENV 1992-1-1: 1992
Eurocode 2: Design of Concrete Structures Part I (General Fig 1. Punching shear failure mode
rules and rules f o r buildings)'. This BSI document is expected
to be available soon, and it will include a National
Application Document providing information and additional shearcapacityof the slab up to a limit corresponding to a specified
recommendations necessary f o r its use in the UK during its maximum value ofv. This procedure was continued progessively away from
prestandard (ENV) stage. the loaded area in steps of 0.75 h, until v was found to be less than v,. The
procedure is still followed in the current edition of BS 5400: Part 4: 19904,
Introduction the Code of Practice for concrete bridges.
The term 'punching shear' is associated withthe resistance of a slab when BS 81 10adopts asimilar approach, with the exception of usingd i n place
subjected to a concentratedload acting over an area,small in comparison of h for theshear perimeter which is ofa rectangular shapeinstead of one
with the dimensions of the slab itself. This is distinctly different from the with rounded corners. This is expressed in the equations given below, derived
shear force action on a linear member such as a beam, and thus requires from BS 8110 to give the resistance of the concrete cross-section (Vc).
a different conceptual model and a corresponding design method.
In the UK, design methodsfor flatslabs and forchecking punching shear
capacity have developed in parallel with the increasing popularity of flat
y f 2 [pp
p:Y?

slab construction. The benefits, such as the elimination of intrusions of V,= w p x c [ 400
F] :L ud
down-stand beams and increased usable space, are obvious and areattractive y m

in the design ofa variety of buildings, including offices, stores, and carparks. where
The resistance to punching shear isan important considerationin flat slab y, = 1.25 . . . .(la)
design and, recently, various prefabricated systems have been developed p < 3.0 . . . .(lb)
to provide shear reinforcement'. However, this paper is concerned solely f,,< 40N/mm2 . . . .(lc)
with the traditionalmethod of reinforcing slabs by providing links and the 400
corresponding design rules in BS 81 lo2.
- 2 1.0 . . . .(ld)
d
U is the shear perimeter
BS 8110 design method
It is helpful to relate the design methods to the failure modeshown in Fig The shear contribution of the reinforcement, V, is given by the sum of
1. CP 110: Part I: 19723gavedetaileddesign recommendationsfor all the links within the critical perimeter multiplied by the design stress in
punching shear. These included a concept of failure on the inclined face the links. Hence
of an inverted truncated cone or pyramid. This solid figure was formed V, = 'A,, fyv/Ym . . . .(2)
with the loaded area as onebase and the other on the far face of the slab, V, 2 {V - V,} ud . . . . (2a)
an area enclosed by a 'shear perimeter', at a distance of 1.5 h away from
the boundary of the loaded area, h being the overall depth of the slab. where
The shear stress resultingfrom theloaded area was assumedto be constant d 2 200mm
across the effective depth of slab (d) and along this shear perimeter (U). y, = 1.15
The distance of 1.5h determined the first critical section for checking the CA,, is the total area of vertical reinforcement links (in mm2) withinthe
capacity of the section, or the design shear stress (v) acting on the critical zone determined by the critical shear perimeter
perimeter (ud). This was chosen so that the same permissible design concrete Minimum CA,, to correspond to V, 2 0.4 ud . . . .(2b)
shear stress values (v,) as for beams could be adopted with an identical f,, is the characteristic strength of shear reinforcement (in N/mmz ,
partial safety factor (y,). The concrete shear resistance, v,, was a function 460N/mm2)
of the percentage of tension reinforcement ( p ) , the characteristic cube The maximum possible shear stress that can be supported is given by
strength (&,), and a factor related to the depth of the slab. If v exceeded v,=, < 0.8 K,)" or 5 N/mm2 on column face . . . .(2c)
v, andtheslab was at least 200 mm thick, shearreinforcementwas
necessary (with a certainminimum requirement) to enhance the punching There is one major difference, however, in the provision of links. CPZZO
required provisionof all the links on the critical perimeter and a similar
* The amendment to the punching shear clauses is included in the draftAmendment amount on a parallel perimeter at a distance of 0.75h. BS 81 10, on the
no. 3, document no. 92112045 DC, issued by BSI for public comment. other hand, requires the links to be distributed evenly in a zonewithin the

The Structural Engineer/Volume 70/No.9/5 May 1992 159

Paper: Chana/Desai
_-___
__

critical perimeter on at least two perimeters. This has been a subject of '& ;. . ' , , o.
0.:'. : . ::*g
controversy, as the provisions in BS 8110 can result in half the number
of links given by C P l 10. The BS 81 10 design method has been criticised
on the grounds that the rules are optimistic and that no justification for
the change from CP110 has ever been published. It should be noted that
BS 5400: Part 4: 1990 gives design rules for punching that are similar to
CP110.
The final draft of Eurocode ENV EC2: Part 1 (Generalrules and rules
for buildings)' adopts a similar approach to BS 81 10, except for variations
such as the shape and limitation on the length of critical perimeter and Main steel Extra T12 hanger bars
the limitation on the maximum punching shear capacity of a slab to 1.6 Fig 2. Shear reinforcement in slabs
times the capacity of the concrete section alone. (This limitation is replaced
by the one corresponding to eqn. (2c) in the UK National Application
Document which will accompany the ENV EC2for its use inthe UK.) Also,
ENV EC2 rules generally give results for v, very similar to those obtained
from theBS 8110 formulae with percentages of tension steel ( p ) around 1TO.
The BCA/DoE test programme was undertaken to verify whether there
is any needto modify the BS 8110 approach. Althoughthere is no evidence
of any failure ofa building attributable to the shortcomings ofthe punching
shear capacity of a flat slab, it was considered necessary to examine the
level of safety implied bythe present designmethod, adoptingan approach
without any preconceptions, and to take a fresh look at the fundamental
principles.

Issues considered in the test programme

Some of the issues concerning BS 81 10 and ENV EC2 design methods
considered in the test programme are listed below.

(a) Concrete term, v,, and location of the critical perimeter

The location ofthe critical perimeter at 1.5 d seems to be acceptable generally
and should be retained.The shape varies, withBS 8110 adoptinga simplified
rectangular shape as opposed to the CP110 and EC2shapes having corners
as quadrantsof a circle. EC2 limits the lengthof the perimeter to 11d and
additionally has a modified perimeter for aloaded area with a length/width
ratio greater than 2. These variations, however, do not have a significant
influence on normal designs, and the BS 81 10 shape could be retained.
Recent test data6 have shown that the BS 81 10 equation is valid for
shear failure in beams for f,, up to 80 N/mm2. Both the ACI Code' and
EC2 allow the punching shear resistanceto increase up to a cube compressive
strength of 60 N/mm2.
The BS 81 10 approach gives good correlation with the vast amount of
test dataon slabswith f,, limited to 40 N/mm2.The presenttest
programme did not address theissue of increasing the limitation off," of
40 N/mm2. Further test data are required to confirm that punching shear
design using higher strength concretes (>40 N/mm2) can safely be made
less conservative in BS 81 10.
(b) Limitation on punching shear capacity
In BS 8110 the maximum shearstress on the column perimeter is limited
to the lesser of 0.8 f f , , or 5 N/mm2. This allows the maximum shear
resistance to be increased above 2 V, in many cases. In EC2 the maximum
shear resistance is 1.6 V,,whereas in the ACI Code the maximum value
is only 1.5 V, unless structural steel shearheads are provided.
Tests were carried out to determine whether there is any difference in
the contribution of shear reinforcement at the higher and lower range of
shear forces(on either side ofabout 1.5 times the capacity of concrete cross-
section alone) and to makerecommendations on whether there should be
a limit on the maximum shear as a function of v,.
(c) Distribution and anchorage of shear reinforcement
As a primary objective,the tests were concerned withthe BS 81 10method
for provision of shear reinforcement. Thetest specimens were, therefore,
reinforced generally to the BS 8110 requirement for the number of links
on two perimeters, at 0.5 d and 1.25 d away from face of column. To see
if an increase in the number of links on the inner perimeter made any
difference, the distribution of links was changed in one set of specimens.
The testspecimenswereprovidedwithlinks, as these are the most
common form of shear reinforcement. Thelinks were anchored using the
common and practical detail recommended in CIRIA Report 1lo8 where
the links pass round the inner layers of both the top and the bottom main
tension reinforcement, to be within the cover space provided for the outer
layers (see Fig 2).
The anchorage ofthe links may berelevant to the effectiveness of links
in contributing to theshear resistance. The development of stresses in links
in a slab(even if the thickness is in excess of 200mm) may not be similar
Elevation
Fig 3. Method of providing punching shear reinfoccement
recommended in ACI Code
to those of stirrups in a beam wherethe length and anchorage are superior.
Also, in a beam the confinement of concrete due to well-anchored links
passing around the longitudinaltension steel hasa beneficial effect on the
shear strength. In thecase of a slab, however, the links usually passround
only the inner layers ofboth the top and the bottom tension reinforcement.
It should be noted that the ACI Code requires the shear reinforcement
to be anchored round all the tension reinforcement, necessitatingan increase
in slab depthto maintain the cover to the links (see Fig3). A limited amount
of work wasdone in this programmeto investigate the effect of anchoring
links in this manner.
(d) Membrane action
The behaviour of a two-way slab as a plate or a membrane is complex in
the context of shear resistance. An important factor is the presence of
inplane restraining forces, referred to as compressive membrane action,
generated by supports or the portionof the slab outside the failurezone.
It has been demonstrated that the vertical deflection ofa reinforced concrete
slab is accompanied byan outward expansion of the slab boundaries. This
tendency to expand will be prevented,to some degree, by the lateral stiffness
of supporting columns, beams or walls. The adjacent slab also forms a
stiff diaphragm. Thus, membrane action in slabs is self-generated and leads
to a significant increase in flexural and shear capacities.
It is also recognised that the slabs can have a large reserve of strength
derived from membrane action'. It is, however, not practical to quantify
the influence of membrane action in normal design and codify it reasonably
well. Also in cases suchas column basesand slabs nearthe corner columns,
it may not be possibleto justify totalmobilisation of this effect. However,
it is not logical to apply partial factor limit state philosophy and ignore
a legitimate contribution of such an aspect as membrane action where it

160 The Structural Engineer/Volume 70/No.9/5 May 1992

 Paper: ChanaIDesai

TABLE I - Specimen details

Total Effective Column P

No of links at Total no
Specimen Tension Link
depth depth size of links
no. reinforcement , 070 diameter
h d C 0.5 S 1.25 d within 1.5 d
1 240 200 300 T20 at 200 0.79 T 8 0 0 0
2 240 200 300 at 200 0.79 T20 T 8 12 12 24
3 240 200 300 at 200 0.79 T20 T 8 12 12 24
4 240 300 200 T20 at 200 0.79 . T 8 24 24 48
5 250 210 400 T20 at 175 0.86 T10 12 20 32
6 250 400 210 T20 at 175 12 20 T10 0.86
32

8 250 400 210 T20 at 175 0.86 T 8 20 12 32

9 228 300 188 T20 at 200 0.86 T 8 28 20 48
NOTE: In specimen 3, the links were extended to anchor round the main steel in both directions.

0.4L Steel strand Anchor

Load cells
Bearing plates
I 1
Test slab
300 x 300 mm column

t
Fig 4. Conventional punching shear specimen
Reaction block

Hydraulic jack

can be mobilised, and consider it to be something ‘in hand’. Perhaps this Anchor
approach would indirectly maskother deficiencies, whichis not desirable.
The presenttesting programme hasbeencarried out using the
conventional punching shear test specimens describedlater, which do not
account for mobilisation of membrane action. An additional DoE/BCA
test programmeto investigate effects of membrane action on full-scale slabs
is being carriedout separately. The results are expected to be available later
this
year, and it is hoped that thiswill
lead to further design
recommendations for slabs where membrane action can be relied on.

Punching shear tests

Test specimens
Ninefull-scale
models
of a slab-columnconnection
weretested.
Convenionally, a slab specimenfor punching shear testsis simply supported
at the nominal line of contraflexure which is assumed to be at 0.2L from
the column centre, where L is the span (see Fig 4).
The testspecimenswere 3 m square, and the depths were228mm
(specimen 9), 240 (specimens 1 to 4), and 250 (specimens 5 to 8). The
@ @
specimens representeda flatslab continuous over columnsat 6.0 m centres
in each direction. The loadingwas applied at points equally spaced along I I

a circumferenceof a circleof2.4 m diameter, whichapproximately L 2400 bl

corresponds to the nominal line of contraflexure at 1.2m from thecentre
of the column (0.2 times the column spacing). Plan of slab
The concrete had a nominal compressive strength of40 N/mm2 at Fig 5. Schematic of test arrangement
around 21 days. The following mix proportions were used:
20 mm Thames Valley gravel 795 kg/m3
quantities of shear reinforcement withequal numbersof links on the0.5 d
10 mm Thames Valley gravel 390 kg/m3
and 1.25d perimeters. Specimen 3 had the same number and location of
Sand 740 kg/m3
links as specimen 2, but the links were extended and anchored round the
OPC 290 kg/m3
main steelin both directions. For all the other specimensin the test
Water 165 kg/m3
programme, the links were anchored according to the CIRIA 110 detail
Total 2380 kg/m3
as shown in Fig 2.
The actual concrete strengths at thetime of testing were determinedfrom Specimens 5 to 7 were all reinforced with 32 nos. T10 diameter links
three 100 mm cubes cured alongside the test specimens. Additionally, the with different arrangements in the first andsecond perimeter. This series
tensile splitting strength of the concrete was obtained from cylinders. All of tests was performed to investigate the effect of different distributions
the specimens were cast in timber moulds and cured under polyethylene of links between the perimeters.
for 7days. At this time, they were lifted and positioned on the test rig until Specimens 8 and 9were testedto investigate the effectiveness of lowand
testing at approximately 21 days, when the concrete compressive strength high numbers of links, respectively.
was around 40 N/mm2. All the specimens were reinforced with two further perimeters of links
Details of the reinforcement are summarised in Table 1. outside the first failure zoneat 2.0d and2.75d. The yield strength of the
Specimen 1 had noshear reinforcement and can be considered to be a 8 mm and 10 mm shearreinforcement, determined from tensile tests, was
control specimen. Specimens2 to 4 were identicalin size but had different 520 N/mm2.

The Structural Engineer/Volume 70 /No.9/5 May 1992 161

Paper:Chana/Desai

7 9 9

Fig 9. Typical crack pattern at jailure

Fig 10 shows a sawn section through the middle of specimen 8 and

illustrates the internal cracking after failure.
The failure loads are summarised in Table 2 and compared withthe design
values (including y,) calculated using the BS 8110 design formulae. The
contribution of the concrete, V,, and the links, V,, are also shown in
separate columns.

Discussion
Fig 11 shows the test data plotted as V/V, against V,/V,
where
Fig 7. Failure mode
V is the failure load (normalised for f, = 40 N/mm2)
V, = v, U d, i.e. design concrete shear resistance to BS 8110
V, = C A,, O.87fp, i.e. design resistance due to all links within a 1.5
d perimeter, calculated according to BS 8110
The BS 8110 approach for design is to consider
v, = v, + v,
which can be rearranged to give
%=l+- VL .. . .(3)
VC VC
where VDis the design shear resistance.
The currentBS 8110 design values which can beexpressed as a straight
line are also shown on the figure. .Clearly, BS 81 10 is unsafe for values
of VL/Vcgreater than 0.8.For VL/Vcless than 0.8, the BS 8110 approach
is satisfactory. It should be noted that, for V,/V, = 0 (i.e. no links), the
average value of V,/V, from many test results is approximately 1.25.
The rearrangement of links within the first failure zone makes no
significant difference to the failure load, and thereis no indication that
Fig 8. Failure mode vlewea from lop OJ Slao any arrangement is markedly superior (compare results for specimens 5
to 7). Similarly, improvements in the anchorage of links to pass around
aN the tension reinforcement in specimen 3 leads onlyto amarginal increase
Test arrangement and method in failure load (compare the results for specimen 2 with specimen 3).
The first arrangement is shown inFig 5 and a slab under test in Fig 6. The Thetest results indicatethattheconcreteterm, V,, andthe link
slab specimens were supported on a 300 or 400 mm square block in the contribution, V,, cannot be considered as being simply additive. As the
centre representing a column. Load was applied by means of hydraulic jacks applied shear increases ((V,/V,) increasing), eitherorboth of these
at eight locations on thecircumference of a circle of diameter 2.4 m, acting contributions reduce.
through loadcells and prestressing cables. The hydraulic jacks were linked In general terms, the design shear resistance can be expressed as
to a common supply so that the force on each cable was the same. V, =K , V, + K2 V, .. . .(3)
The load was generally applied in 10equal increments. At each load stage
where K , and K2 are factors
the crack pattern was recorded, along with the deflections.
(G1) which are functions of V,/V,.
Results The concrete contribution K , V, is assumed to be as follows:
All the specimens appear to have failed by punching, with the failureplane
passing through the links in the slab.Figs 7 and 8 show typical modes of K , V, = V, when V, = V, and reduces linearly to
failure for the specimens.
K , V, = P V, when V, = 2Vc
The sequence of cracking on all the specimens wassimilar. Radial cracks
formed in the middle of the slab, extending gradually to the edges. Some Hence for V, < V, 2V,,
circumferential cracks thendeveloped prior to a punching shear failure.
Typical development of cracking on the top faceof the slab is shown in
K , V, = (2-P) - (1 - P ) VD/VcI VC ... .(4)
Fig 9. The link contribution is expressed as K, V,. These can be considered

162 The Structural EngineerIVolume 70lNo.915 May 1992

 Paper: Chana/Desai

2.2 - /
1.0 -

-
V
VC
l.6t /L
.o
''O r /

BS 8110 design line

0

VL l VC
Fig 10. Section through slab after failure Fig 11. Test results compared with BS 8110 design

to perform in two ways. They provideresistance through the development
of tensile stress across the shear crack and they provide confinement of
the concrete. The link resistance should increase with quantity of links and
hence is directly proportional to V, (aVJ.However, the test data show
that the effectiveness is steadily reduced with increasing shear force, V,.
This reduction can be considered as being a function of the ratio VD/V,.
Further research is needed to understand and verify these factors. The
contribution of links can be summed up as V, [a - B VD/V,l,where 01
and B are non-dimensional coefficients.
m e ultimate shear capacity of a slab reinforced with vertical links then
is
given by the equation
This equation indicates a constant concrete contribution and reduced
a link
contributionas VD/V, increases. It islikely thatthe 'pure' concrete
contribution reduces as V,/V, becomes greaterthan 1 owing to the
progressive cracking of concrete making the concrete cross-section less
effective in resisting the shear stresses. However, this is compensated by
the confinement action of the link contribution and, for simplicity, the
total concrete contribution can considered
be as remaining constant equal
to v,.
The term [3 - 1.25 VD/V,l can be considered as a 'link effectiveness
factor', comparing the contribution of the links with the BS 8110 formula.
The value of this factor is tabulated below in relation to VD/V,:

Link
. . . .(5) effectiveness
'D/ C'
factor
. . . .(6) 1 1.75
1.2 1.5
1.4 1.25
From the test data inFig 13, a reasonablelower bound is given by values 1.6 1.o
of V,/V, of 0,0.6 and 2.0 corresponding to VD/V,of 1.0, 1.6, and 2.0, 1.8 0.75
respectively. Inserting these values into eqn. (6) gives 2.0 0.5
a = 3 (2-4
P = 1.25 ( 2 - P ) In practice, minimumlinks will be required for VD/V, less than around
1.4. For VD/V,equal to 1.6, the effectiveness of links is identical with
and the design equation becomes
BS 8110. For VD/Vcgreater than 1.6, the link effectiveness reduces
VD = VC + V, [3 - 1.25 VD/Vcl . . ..(7) linearly and at VD/V,equal to 2, the links are only half as effective as

TABLE 2 - Failure loads compared withBS 8110 design strength

NOTES:
(1) f,, is the average value of cubes cast and cured alongside the specimen.
(2) Failure load includes self-weight of the specimen.
(3) Failure load for 40 N/mm2 is calculated by multiplying the failure load by (M/&.)".
(4) BS 8110 design strength includes the 7, factors.

T h e Structural Engineer/Volume 70/No.9/5

163 May 1992
Paper: Chana/Desai

assumed in BS 81 10, i.e. twice the number of links are required. Fig 12 (NOTE: for vertical links sincr equals unity, being the angle between the
compares the calculated amount of shear reinforcement for themodified shear reinforcement and theplane of the slab). It is also recommendedthat
formula and the current BS 81 10 approach. the maximum shear capacity is limited to 2 V,.

Relating the above formulae to the proposedrevisions to BS 8110 Conclusions

Fig 13 showsthe curve obtainedfrom eqn. (7)and astraight line representing Full-scale tests were carriedout toinvestigate the currentrules in BS 81 10
BS 8110 design rule, c1.3.7.7.5. It is recommended that, for V,/V, < 1.6, on the effectiveness of links in resisting punching shear. The variables
the BS 8110 design rules should be retained. This represents
the relationship considered were the anchorage of links, distribution of links in the first
failure zone, and the amount of shear reinforcement.
V, = V, + V,
The results indicate that anchoring the links around all the tension
whichseems satisfactory.For V,/V, 2 1.6, a simplified straight line reinforcement, as compared to the conventional method in the United
could replace the curve given by eqn. (7), so that Kingdom of anchoring round one layer of top steel, has only a marginal
effect on improving the shear capacity. The distribution of links between
V, = 1.428V, + 0.286VL . . . .(S) the two perimeters (at 0.5 d and 1.25 d) in the first failure zone has no
This gives the proposed modification to BS 81 10, eqn. (29) as follows: significant effect on the shear capacity. The results indicatethat the present
recommendations in BS8110 regarding detailing and spacing of shear
A,, sincr 2 5 f 0 . 7 ~- v,] ud/0.87fy, . . . .(9) reinforcement are satisfactory and should be retained.
The design rules for calculating the shear capacity in BS 81 10 can be
unsafe where the applied shear force exceeds 1.6 V, and large quantities
2.0
1 of links are required (VL/ V, > 0.6). A modified design formula for shear
I forces in excess of 1.6 V, (up to a maximum of 2 V,) is proposed, giving

;l;i
l an acceptable margin of safety.It is shownthat thedesign rules inBS 8110
18
for shearforcesless than 1.6 V, aresatisfactory.Also,no changeis
proposed to the design of slabs without shear reinforcement where a vast
l
1.6 amount of test data shows excellent correlation withthe BS 8110 equation.
l It should be noted that the effects of membrane action are ignored in
the design rules. Significant increases in shear capacity have been observed
1.4 Modified equation in slabs when membrane action can be mobilised. Research is currently
v, = v, +V, (3-1.25 VD )
- under way at BCA to quantify this effect and propose design guidance,
VC
taking into account the enhancement due to membrane action.
1.2
l
I References
-
VL

VC l 1. Chana,P. S.: ‘Punching shearinconcreteslabs’, The Structural

1.c
l /
, Engineer, 69, No. 15, 6 August 1991
(amount of links)
2. BS 81 10Structural use of concrete: Part I : Code ofpracticefor design
and construction, London, British Standards Institution, 1985
0.8
3. CP 110 The structural use of reinforced concrete in buildings, London,
Proposed revision
British Standards Institution, 1957
0.6 4. BS 5400 Steel, concrete and composite bridges: Part 4: Code of practice
for design of concrete bridges, London, British Standards Institution,
1990
0.4 5 . Eurocode No.2: ‘Part 1: Design of concrete structures,’ 1990 (draft)
6. ‘Utilisation of high strength concrete,’Proc. Symp., Stavangar, Norway,
15-18 June 1987, ed. I Holand, S. Helland et al
0.2 7. ACI 318-319: Building Code requirements for reinforced concrete,
Detroit, American Concrete Institute, 1989
8. CIRIA Report 110: Design of reinforced concrete slabs to BS 8110,
0
London, CIRIA, 1985
9. Vecchio, F. J., Tang, K: ‘Membrane action in reinforced concrete slabs,’
VD / V c (applied shear force) Canadian Journal of Civil Engineering, 17, 1990, pp686-697

Fig 12. Comparison of links required

Fig 13. Comparison of test results with modified equation and proposed revision to BS 8110

164 The Structural Engineer/Vohme 70/No.9/5 May 1992