Page 1 / 4 ETA 13/0151: Design of flat slabs with PSB reinforcement elements
ETA 13/0151:
DESIGN OF FLAT SLABS
WITH PSB REINFORCEMENT
ELEMENTS
Text: Jan Bujnak, R&D Manager, Peikko Group
INTRODUCTION
PSB reinforcement elements consisting of
doubleheaded studs welded on an assembly
profile (Figure 1) are currently one of the
most competitive techniques to enhance the
resistance of reinforced concrete flat slabs
against failure by punching. Despite being a
very popular system that is available on the
European market for more than 20 years, the
design methods for slabs reinforced by dou-
ble headed studs are not yet implemented in
the harmonized European standard EN 1992-
1-1 [1] for reinforced concrete structures.
Assembly profile
PSB Studs
Figure 1. PSB reinforcement elements
Over the past couple of years, Peikko Group
invested significant efforts into several
R&D projects related to PSB. These projects
included experimental research about the
performance of slabs reinforced by PSB,
development on national and European
technical approvals and development of
design tools.
Currently, the European Technical
Approval ETA 13/0151 [16] is the only valid
reference for the design of slabs reinforced
with PSB reinforcement in Europe. This
ETA approval is also a reference for the CE
marking of the PSB studs. The ETA 13/0151
[16] entered into force in April 2013 and
since then, hundreds of projects have
been designed referring to it in about 20
European countries. The design has been
generally well accepted by designers and
local building authorities. Nevertheless,
some questions, mainly regarding the
official / administrative status of ETA
13/0151 [16] with regards to EN 1992-1-1,
have been raised by designers in a couple
of countries. The ambition of this paper is
to develop research based arguments that
could answer such questions.
v Rd,s
Figure 2. Resistance of slab reinforced with shear reinforcement
DESIGN RECOMMENDATIONS
OF EN 1992-1-1
The Eurocode EN 1992-1-1 defines the basic
framework for the design of reinforced
concrete structures in Europe. The design
of punching shear reinforcement typically
consists of the following steps:
1. Resistance of the slab without punch-
ing reinforcement (vRd,c)
2. Maximum resistance of slabs (vRd,max)
3. Number and diameter of reinforcement
links in basic control perimeter
4. Number of perimeters or reinforcement
links necessary to activate a sufficient
resistance on the outer perimeter vRd,out)
v Rd,out (4)
(3)
v Rd,c (1)
v Rd,max (2)
 Page 2 / 4 ETA 13/0151: Design of flat slabs with PSB reinforcement elements

Extensive information about the back-
ground of the design methods of EN
1992-1-1 may be found in reference [17].
While verifications 1,3 and 4 are relatively
straightforward and consistent with prac-
tices that existed in former national codes
preceding the EN 1992-1-1, the verification
of the maximum resistance of the slab
seems to be more ambiguous. Indeed,
Table 1. Maximum resistance of the slabs acc. to EC2 and national annexes
EN 1992-1-1 (2004) [1]
CEN versions since 2004
according to the reference [17], several
alternative empirical models have been con-
sidered for the verification of vRd,max during
the development of EN 1992-1-1. The model
implemented in the EN 1992-1-1 published in
2004 verifies the maximum resistance of the
slab as follows:
, = 0,5 ∙ ∙ ∙ 0 ∙
0,50,5
∙ ∙∙ ∙ ∙ 0∙ ∙ 0 ∙
According to the knowledge of the authors
of this paper, there exist little if no refer-
ence or arguments that would validate the
pertinence this empirical model on research
based arguments. On the contrary, the model
has been widely discussed and criticized
among researchers and designers in several
countries over the past couple of years (see
(1) references [10-14]). Consequently, the ap-
proach of EN 1992-1-1 has been modified in
a total of 6 national annexes, each annex
using own national design approach. In
parallel to National Annexes, the formula

0,5 ∙ ∙ ∙ 0∙ has been modified already two times (refer-

0,5 ∙ ∙ ∙ 0∙ ence [2] and [3]) in the basic document EN
0,40,4
∙ ∙∙ ∙ ∙ 0∙ ∙ 0 ∙
EN 1992-1-1/AC (2010) [2] 1992-1-1 since 2004, mainly due to concerns
0,4 0,5
∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ 0∙ ∙ 0 ∙ regarding its safety and overall pertinence
EN 1992-1-1/A1 (2014) [3] 0,5
0,4∙∙ ∙∙ ∙∙ 00 ∙∙ (Table 1).
0,5
0,4 ∙ ∙ ∙∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ 0∙ 0∙ 0∙ ∙
0,4
The summary in Table 1 shows that the
0,4
1,5 ∙∙ ∙ ∙ ∙, ∙0∙ ∙1 ∙
1,5
0,40,4 ∙ ∙∙ , ∙ ∙ 1 0∙ ∙ ∙ design framework for slabs reinforced by
1,4 1,5
1,4
0,4
∙ ∙∙ , ∙ ∙ , 1∙ ∙∙ 10∙ ∙ 0
0,4 1,5
∙ ∙ ∙∙∙ ∙ ∙, ∙ ∙∙ 0 1∙ ∙∙ such stirrups has been relatively unstable
Germany DIN EN 1992-1-1 [4] 1,40,4
∙ 0,4∙
1,40,4 ∙ ∙∙∙∙ , ∙ ∙∙∙ ∙ 10∙ ∙∙∙ ∙0 ∙
, 1 0 during the past 10 years in Europe. One of
0,4 ∙
0,4
∙1,5∙∙ ∙, ∙∙∙ , 1 ∙∙∙∙1 0 ∙∙∙
0 the reasons behind this might be the lack
Austria Onorm EN 1992-1-1 [5] 0,40,4 ∙, ∙ ∙ ,1 ∙ ∙ 100 ∙
∙1,5 of knowledge, common understanding and
∙ , ∙ ∙1 ∙∙
= 1,4
1,4 ∙ ∙ ∙, ≤
1,5 ,∙ ,∙200
1 ∙1 ∙ proper scientific arguments concerning the
= 1,41,4 ∙ ≤, 200
0,4 ∙ ∙ ∙ 1 ∙∙ 1 ∙
= 1,6
= 1,4
= 1,6 1,4 ∙ ≥ ≤ 200≥∙ 700 ∙0 behavior of slabs reinforced by stirrups.
= 1,4 0,4 ∙ ∙ ,700 ∙1 0 ∙
= 1,6 0,4∙ ∙≥ 700 ∙,≤∙ 200 ∙1 ∙ 0 ∙ This observation has been one of the main
= 1,6 ∙ , ≥∙ 700 1∙ motivation factors for Peikko Group to
0,40,4 ∙ ∙∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ , 0∙ ∙ 01 ∙ initiate an experimental program focused on
=0,4
1,4∙ ∙ ∙ , ∙≤∙ 0200
Finland SFS EN 1992-1-1 [6] = 1,4
Refers ∙ former
to0,4 ∙ , ∙national
∙∙ ≤ ∙ ∙1∙ ∙ ∙
1 200 demonstrating the real performance of slabs
==1,6 1,4
∙ ≥ ≤ ∙700
200 0
National Annexes

= 1,6 ∙ , ≥1∙700∙
standards reinforced with PSB studs. The experimental
=
= 1,4=1,4 1,6 ≤ 200≤, ≥ 2007001
campaign performed in cooperation with
Slovakia STN EN 1992-1-1 [7] 0,4 ∙ ≤∙ 200 ∙ 0∙
= 1,4
=
= 1,8 1,8 ≥ 700
= 1,4 0,4 ∙ ≥∙ 700 ≤ ∙ 0∙
200
EPFL Lausanne in Switzerland (see reference
∙ ∙∙, ∙ ∙ ∙∙10∙ 0∙ ∙
= 1,80,40,4 ∙0,4∙∙∙ ∙≥∙ 700 , ≥∙ 0700 1∙
[15] for details) produced evidence that has
=0,4
1,8 ∙
2,0
2,00,4 ∙ ∙ , ∙ ∙ ∙, , 1∙0∙∙∙ ∙11∙ ∙∙
∙ ∙ been used by European building authorities
=2,0
1,40,5 ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙∙≤1∙200 ∙ 0∙ to grant the ETA 13/0151 that is currently
=0,51,4∙2,0∙ ∙ , ≤ 0∙ ∙ 0 ∙
200
=0,5
1,8
= 1,4 ∙ ∙ ≥ 700
∙ ≤10 200
, ∙1 the only official and valid reference for the
= 1,8
1,6 1,6
∙ 0,5
0,4 ∙ ∙ ∙ , ∙ 1≥ ∙ ∙ 700 ∙ ∙ ∙01∙ ∙ design of slabs reinforced with PSB studs.
United BS EN 1992-1-1 [8] = 1,8 ∙, ∙ 1 ≥0∙ 700 1
1,6 ∙0,4 2,0 , ∙∙ ∙ ∙0 ∙ ∙11∙ 0∙ ∙∙ ∙
1,6 0,4
2,0∙ ∙∙ ∙, 0,∙ ∙ ∙ 1∙ ∙01∙ ∙
Kingdom , 1
DESIGN
0,5 2,0 ∙ 0∙ 0∙
0,5 ∙ ∙ , ∙1 01∙ RECOMMENDATIONS OF ETA
Sweden SIS EN 1992-1-1 [9] 0,5 ∙ ∙ ∙ 0∙
1,6 ∙ , ∙ 1 ∙ 1∙ 13/0151
1,6 ∙ ∙ 0 1∙ ∙
1,6 ∙ , , ∙ 0 ∙ 1 1 ∙
0 In accordance with the Construction
Products Regulation (EU/305/2011), the
The scope of the EN 1992-1-1 is limited to structures reinforced with reinforcement links European Technical approval (nowadays
detailed in accordance with Figure 8.5 of EN 1992-1-1 (stirrups on Figure 3). called European Technical Assessment) is
defined as a “document providing informa-
10 , but tion about the performance of a construc-
5 , but
2 tion product, to be declared in relation to its
50 mm 70 mm 10 mm essential characteristics”. The ETA’s may be
20 mm
10 mm 50 mm issued for products not or not fully covered
1,4 by any harmonized technical specification.
In order to obtain the ETA, the manufacturer
0,7 needs to fulfill requirements formulated in
so-called European assessment documents
(EAD formerly called CUAP). Both ETA and
a) b) c) d) EAD/CUAP of each building product are vali-
dated by approval bodies from 28 member
Figure 3 Types of reinforcement elements falling within the scope of EN 1992-1-1 states of the EU.
 Page 3 / 4 ETA 13/0151: Design of flat slabs with PSB reinforcement elements

1,25 1,25 1,50 1,50

1,20 1,20
1,40 1,40
1,15 1,15

VR,test /VR,EC2

VR,test /VR,EC2
VR,test / VR,ETA

VR,test / VR,ETA
1,30 1,30
1,10 1,10

1,05 1,05 1,20 1,20

1,00 1,00 1,10 1,10

0,95 0,95
1,00 1,00
0,90 0,90
0,90 0,90
0,85 0,85
aλ/d aλ/d aλ/d aλ/d
0,80 0,80 0,80 0,80
2,0 2,5
2,0 3,0
2,5 3,5
3,0 4,0
3,5 4,5
4,0 5,0
4,5 5,5
5,0 6,0
5,5 6,02,0 2,5
2,0 3,0
2,5 3,5
3,0 4,0
3,5 4,5
4,0 5,0
4,5 5,5
5,0 6,0
5,5 6,0

Figure 4. Safety level of formula (2) – ETA 13/0151 Figure 5. Safety model of formula (3)

The design recommendat ions Table 2. Evaluation of design models (see reference [15] for details of tests)
implemented in the ETA 13/0151 of PSB
make partly reference to the design concepts VR,ETA/ VR,test/ VR,test/
VR,test VR,C VR,EC2 VR,ETA
of EN 1992-1-1 and thus follow the design VR,Ec2 VR,ETA VR,EC2
logic described in the previous paragraph.
PP1 864 395,3 554,9 774,9 1,40 1,12 1,56
However, certain deviations have been
implemented in order to represent the PP2 1095 535,8 1027,7 1050,2 1,02 1,04 1,07
specific structural properties of slabs PP3 4754 2076,9 3346,2 4070,8 1,22 1,17 1,42
reinforced by PSB studs that have been
demonstrated by tests. One of the differences PP4 2076 946,9 1426,2 1856,0 1,30 1,12 1,46
between the design methods of EN 1992-1-1 PP5 1812 922,5 1408,7 1808,1 1,28 1,00 1,29
and ETA 13/0151 lies in the verification of
the maximum resistance of flat slabs, which PL9 3132 1491,8 2429,1 2923,9 1,20 1,07 1,29
is formulated in ETA 13/0151 as: PL10 5193 2350,1 4150,0 4606,2 1,11 1,13 1,25
, = 1,96 ∙ , ∙ 1∙ (2) AVG 1,09 1,33
The resistance is thus formulated analogous COV 0,05 0,15
to the concept used in DIN EN 1992-1-1 with 5% 1,00 1,07
a value 40% superior compared to the resist-
ance of the slab reinforced with stirrups. The
empirical factor 1,96 has been calibrated to
results of full scale tests on the basis of a
statistical evaluation performed in accord- of the type of shear reinforcement used in CONCLUSIONS
ance with EN 1990 (see reference [15] for the slab. Such assumption is however not
details). So far ETA 13/0151 has been well validated by research, at least not by the With the ETA 13/0151, Peikko Group offers to
accepted and understood by designers. If tests that have been used as a reference its customers the possibility to optimize the
any open questions related to this design for the development of ETA 13/0151. The design of the slabs using reliable design con-
remain, they are mostly related to the status evaluation of test results in Table 2 shows cepts that have been validated by extensive
of ETA 13/0151 in relation to EN 1992-1-1. that the formula (2) alone leads to a 5% experimental research. The design methods
More precisely, some designers tend to over- fractile of 1,0, meaning that the design implemented in ETA 13/0151 have been
lap the two design methods and formulate model is safe and reliable with regards approved by building authorities of all 27
the resistance by defining the maximum to the requirements of EN 1990. Would member states of the EU during the process
resistance of the slab as the minimum of: the same evaluation be done with for- of development of the ETA approval. The
mula (3), the 5% fractile increases to 1,07, approval covers both the design of PSB stud
0,4 ∙ ∙ ∙ 0∙
, = (3) meaning that the design is still safe, but and the design of slabs reinforced with PSB
1,96 ∙ , ∙ 1∙ un-necessarily conservative. In practice, studs. Combining ETA with EN 1992-1-1 leads
Such interpretation is probably based on the the ultimate load in tests with PSB studs to an un-necessarily conservative design.
assumption that the formula (1) describes a has been on average 25% higher than what
failure of the slab that occurs independent would be predicted by formula (3).
 Page 4 / 4
REFERENCES
[1] EN 1992-1-1: Design of Concrete
Structures. Part 1-1: General rules and rules
for buildings. Brussels, 2004.
[2] EN 1992-1-1/AC: Corrigendum AC -
Eurocode 2: Design of concrete structures
- Part 1-2: General rules - Structural fire
design. Brussels, 2010.
[3] EN 1992-1-1/A1:2014 Amendment for:
Design of concrete structures – Part 1:
General rules and rules for buildings,”
European Committee for Standardization
(CEN), Bruxelles, Belgium, 2014, 4 p.
[4] DIN EN 1992-1-1/NA: Nationaler Anhang
- National festgelegte Parameter - Eurocode
2: Bemessung und Konstruktion von
Stahlbeton- und Spannbetontragwerken -
Teil 1-1: Allgemeine Bemessungsregeln und
Regeln für den Hochbau. Berlin, 2011.
[5] Onorm B EN 1992-1-1/NA: National Annex
to Eurocode 2 of Austria. Vienna, 2011.
[6] SFS EN 1992-1-1/NA: The Finnish National
Annex to the standard SFS-EN 1992-1-1.
Helsinki, 2007.
[7] STN EN 1992-1-1/NA/Z1: National Annex
to Eurocode 2 of Slovakia. Bratislava, 2013.
[8] BS EN 1992-1-1/NA: UK National Annex to
Eurocode 2. London, 2009.
[9] SIS EN 1992-1-1/NA: National Annex to
Eurocode 2 of Sweden. Stockholm, 2011.
[10] HEGGER, J.- WALRAVEN, J. – HAEUSLER,
F. : Zum Durchstanzen von Flachdecken nach
Eurocode 2. Beton- und Stahlbetonbau
Volume 105, Issue 4, April 2010, p. 206–215.
ETA 13/0151: Design of flat slabs with PSB reinforcement elements
[11] HEGGER, J. –SIBURG, C.: Punching – V Rd,max Maximum resistance of
comparison of design rules and experimental slabs with shear
data. Design of concrete structures acc. to reinforcement
EN 1992-1-1. Prague, 16-17 September 2010. vRd,c Resistance of slab with
[12] BERTAGNOLI G. - MANCINI G.: On out shear reinforcement
the maximum punching shear resistance u1 Basic control perimeter
adjacent to the column. Symposium in d Effective depth of the slab
honour of Prof. Toniolo, Milano 5-12-2008, ϑ Empirical factor
2008. fcd Compressive strength of
[13] FEIX J. – HAEUSLER F. – WALKNER R.: concrete
Necessary amendments to the rules for u0 Column periphery
punching design according to EN 1992-1-1.
Design of concrete structures - EN 1992-1-1.
Bratislava, 12-13 September 2011.
[14] LESKALA M.: Inconsistencies in the
punching shear design rules of EN 1992-1-1. PSB PUNCHING
for CEN TC250/SC2, Helsinki. PREVENTION SYSTEM
[15] MUTTONI A. - BUJNAK, J. “Performance - a Transverse Reinforcement
of slabs reinforced by Peikko PSB studs System for Cast-in-situ and
demonstrated by full scale tests and Precast Concrete Structures.
validated by ETA approval starting April
2013” Concrete connection 01/2013, Watch video on Youtube:
Customer magazine of Peikko Group.
[16] Deutsches Institut fur Bautechnik,
European Technical Approval 13/0151 –
PEIKKO PSB Punching reinforcement. Berlin,
Germany, May 2012, 25 p.
[16] European Concrete Platform ASBL:
EUROCODE 2 COMMENTARY. Brussels, 2008.