Numerical Investigation of The

TISDIC 2023 IOP Publishing
IOP Conf. Series: Materials Science and Engineering 1289 (2023) 012068 doi:10.1088/1757-899X/1289/1/012068
Numerical investigation of the punching shear resistance

capacity of reinforced concrete slab
Thanh Binh Pham, Viet-Chinh Mai*, Van Tu Nguyen and Cong-Binh Dao
Department of Civil and Industrial Engineering, Institute of Techniques for Special
Engineering, Le Quy Don Technical University, Hanoi 100000, Vietnam
*
Corresponding author’s e-mail: maivietchinh@lqdtu.edu.vn
Abstract. The article studies the punching shear capacity of reinforced concrete slabs by
simulation method. Based on the Concrete Damage Plasticity (CDP) constitute model, the
simulation model is established in the Abaqus software. The simulation model was verified by
the comparison of punching shear tests. The parametric studies were implemented to
investigate the effect of concrete and steel strength on the punching shear resistance capacity of
the reinforced concrete slab. The punching shear resistance capacity of reinforced concrete slab
was also calculated by the formulas proposed by available standards. Obtained results show
that increasing concrete strength leads to a significant increment in the punching shear
resistance capacity of slabs while the influence of steel strength is slight.
1. Introduction
The structure containing the slabs supported directly by columns without girders is defined as a flat
plate or slab-column system. In civil engineering, this type of structure provides more benefits than
conventional frame structure (slab-beam-column) [1]. For instance, in reinforced concrete (RC) high-
rise buildings, this structure can save time on construction and material as well as formwork.
Moreover, the flexibility of using space and the smaller height of each story is also a noticeable
advantage. One of the most important problems in flat reinforced concrete slab design is the
concentration of stress around the intersection position of the plate - column that can lead to punching
shear failure. According to the Brazilian association of standard, the term of punching shear failure
defines an ultimate limit state near the area of concentrated load, which can generate very high shear
stress [2]. This failure can occur at a loading smaller than that of the design flexural capacity of the
slab. Furthermore, this type of failure is considered dangerous due to its brittle behavior and abrupt
appearance without any warning. Some experimental and simulation studies relating to this
phenomenon have been implemented, however, there are still many questions that need to be clarified.
The punching shear requirement design in the available standards can be derived from various
concepts or experimental formulas, so it might result in different values of the punching shear
resistance capacity of the structure [3–5]. The critical shear crack model proposed by Muttoni is one of
the famous approaches to solve the problem of punching shear [6]. This model exhibits the advantages
to be used widely. Muttoni's approach assumed the punching shear resistance capacity of flat
reinforced concrete plate determined by the flexural deformations. Larger deformations such as plate
rotation can result in larger cracks in their vicinities and then reduce the punching shear resistance
capacity. The proposed model of Muttoni provided the geometrical interpretation that the increment of
Content from this work may be used under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 licence. Any further distribution
of this work must maintain attribution to the author(s) and the title of the work, journal citation and DOI.
Published under licence by IOP Publishing Ltd 1
the shear critical perimeter causes the larger punching shear resistance capacity of the structure. In the
Euro code EN2.2, the effect of steel bar ratio on the punching shear resistance capacity of slabs was
calculated. However, the influence of the plate's slenderness has not been considered [4]. Belletti et al.
investigated the punching shear resistance capacity of RC continuous slabs. The various parametric
studies including column dimension, slab area, and steel bar ratio were considered. They revealed that
the punching shear resistance capacity of continuous slabs is larger than isolated slabs[7]. By the
experimental method, Oukail et al. conducted six specimens to study the punching shear resistance
capacity of RC flat slabs with openings [8]. The influence of geometry size and the opening location
was considered. The test results indicate that the opening size significantly affects the punching shear
resistance capacity of the flat slab structure. Yang et al. conducted experiments to study the punching
shear resistance capacity of flat plates using high strength steel reinforcement bars [9]. Parametric
studies include longitudinal bar ratio, distribution of steel bar around column-girder connection
position as well as the influence of steel fiber. They concluded that replacing normal steel bars by high
strength steel bars lead to a higher capacity of punching shear resistance of slabs.
Although the experimental method plays a key role to study the punching shear resistance capacity
of RC flat slab, however, this approach still has disadvantages in terms of high cost and strict technical
requirements. The current article aims to estimate the punching shear resistance capacity of the RC
slab, using the simulation method. The computational power and the advanced software facilitate the
usage numerical approach and therefore overcome the disadvantages of the experimental method.
2. Finite element model verification
Figure 1. Test specimen of Jahangir Alam [10].

The simulation model is validated by comparing with the experimental results of Jahangir Alam
[10]. Figure 1 shows the geometry of the flat slab in the punching shear test. The concrete slab has a
dimension of 1200mm x 1200mm x 60mm. Steel layers of D6 are placed at a distance of 100mm. A
short column of 120mm x 120mm x 50mm is placed in the center of the slab. Concrete material has
the compressive strength fc = 35MPa and Young's modulus E = 29780MPa. Steel rebar has the yield
strength fy = 421MPa and elastic modulus Es = 200e3 MPa.
2.1. Material model

Table 1. Parameters of the CDP model for conventional concrete.
Parameter Details Value
fbo/fco Ratio of biaxial /uniaxia strength 1.16
kc Damage surface 0.67
 Dilation angle 310
 Eccentricity 0.1
µ Viscosity 0
2
The nonlinear response of concrete material relates to damage and plasticity. The damage variable
possesses a close relationship with cracks. The plasticity property of concrete is characterized by
softening behavior and volume reduction. These factors cause the strength attenuation of concrete
material. In order to capture accurately the complex behavior of concrete material, an isotropic scaled
damage model is necessary [11,12]. The concrete damage plasticity (CDP) model in Abaqus is
selected to construct the concrete material. In Abaqus, the CDP model for conventional concrete is
implemented by the parameters, as shown in Table 1 [13].
40
Compressive stress (MPa)
35
30
25
20
15
10
0
0.000 0.002 0.004 0.006
Strain
Figure 2. Compression – strain curve of C35 normal concrete.
Tensile stress (MPa)
1.4
1.2
1.0
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0.0
0.0000 0.0005 0.0010 0.0015 0.0020
Cracking Strain
Figure 3. Tension – cracking strain curve of C35 normal concrete.
Figs 2 and 3 depict the curve of strength – strain in compression and tension of C35 normal
concrete. Young's modulus of concrete is 21200 MPa with the Poisson's Ratio of 0.2.
3
2.2. Comparision of test result and simulation model

Load (kN)
90 90 90 90
80 80 80 80
70 70 70 70
60 60 60 60
50 50 50 50
Test
40 Simulation 40 40 40
30 30 30 30
20 20 20 20
10 10 10 10
0 0 0 0
0 5 10 15 20 25
Deflection (mm)
Figure 4. Load - Deflection curve according to the test and simulation.
Table 2. Comparison of maximum punching shear capacity.
Maximum punching shear Disparity
Study case
capacity (kN) (%)
Alam’s test 81.75 0
Simulation 82.80 1.3

Figure 4 shows the load-deflection curve at the middle span of the slab according to the experiment
of Alam and simulation. The maximum punching shear capacity in the simulation model is 82.8kN
corresponding to a deflection of 17mm while the results obtained from the test is 81.75kN with a
deflection of 15.2mm. Table 2 presents the disparity of maximum punching shear capacity in the test
and simulation. The disparity between the simulation and test result is 1.3%.
Figure 5. Failure pattern according to the test (left) and simulation (right).
Figure 5 shows the failure pattern due to punching shear according to the test and simulation.
Cracks are formed around the position of slab - colum and propagate along the edges of the slab. The
above results show good agreement and verify the feasibility of the simulation model.
4
3. Parametric study
In the following section, parametric studies are implemented to investigate the effect of concrete's
strength and steel's strength on the punching shear capacity of flat slabs. The prediction of the
punching shear resistance capacity of slabs is also calculated by the available formulas in ACI 318 [5]
and Eurocode 2 [4]. The input parameters of simulation models are the same as in the above
verification model. The compressive strength of concrete is changed with three cases of 15MPa,
19MPa and 22MPa.
3.1. Influence of compressive concrete strength

Table 3. Study cases by changing compressive strength of concrete.
Compressive strength of Yield stress of steel
Study case
concrete (MPa) (MPa)
Case 1 15 210
Case 2 19 210
Case 3 22 210
Load (kN)
70 70 70 70
60 60 60 60
50 50 50 50
40 40 40 40
Case 1
30 30 30 30
Case 2
Case 3
20 20 20 20
10 10 10 10
0 0 0 0
0 5 10 15 20
Deflection (mm)
Figure 6. Punching shear resistance load - deflection curve in cases 1, 2, 3.

Study case Case 1 Case 2 Case 3
Punching shear
55.4 62.4 67.9
capacity (kN)
Increment (%) 0 13% 23%
Table 5. Study cases by changing the compressive strength of concrete.

Study case
concrete (MPa) (MPa)
Case 4 15 260
Case 5 19 260
Case 6 22 260
5
Load (kN)
70 70 70 70
60 60 60 60
50 50 50 50
40 40 40 40
Case 4
30 Case 5 30 30 30
Case 6
20 20 20 20
10 10 10 10
0 0 0 0
0 5 10 15 20
Deflection (mm)
Figure 7. Punching shear resistance load - deflection curve in cases 4, 5, 6.

Study case Case 4 Case 5 Case 6
Punching shear
57.5 64.6 70
capacity (kN)
Increment (%) 0 12% 22%
To investigate the effect of concrete strength on the punching shear resistance capacity of the slab,
a total of six numerical simulation models were performed. In cases, 1, 2, and 3 (Table 3) concrete
strength varies from 15MPa to 22MPa, and the yield stress of steel is 210MPa. Cases 4, 5, and 6
(Table 5) correspond to the yield stress of steel is 260MPa. Figs 6 and 7 show the punching shear
resistance capacity - deflection curve of RC slab as changing the strength of concrete. Load-deflection
curve consists of three stages. In the first stage, load-deflection curves show elastic behavior without
cracks which has a constant slope. After the first stage, a few micro-cracks start to appear on the lower
surface of the slab. The curve turns to the second nonlinear stage. At that time, visible cracks start
propagating in the lower surface of the slab. The slope of the P-U curves of the simulation model
exhibits the decrement trending. This can be explained by the reason for decreasing the stiffness in the
slab. In the third stage, P-U curves exhibit the plasticity behavior of yield strengthening. Keep
increasing load, RC slab failed. The crushing of concrete and localized cracking in the tensile zone of
the slab was observed in all simulation models. Tables 4 and 6 summarize shear resistance values
obtained from numerical analysis. The increment of 12% to 23% in the punching shear resistance
capacity of the slab is observed when the compressive strength of concrete increases from 15MPa to
22MPa. Apparently, increasing concrete strength significantly affects the punching shear resistance
capacity of the RC slab.
According to the ACI 318-11 [5], the punching shear capacity of flat slab Pu under concentric load
can be determined by the equation:
Pu = vcbod (1)
where vc denotes the shear strength of concrete at the ultimate state, bo defines the perimeter of
ultimate shear. The critical perimeter is assumed at 0.5d from the perimeter of the loaded area. So the
value bo denotes the lower perimeter of the punching shear failure zone, where the upper perimeter is
the dimension of the column, as shown in Figure 8, with d is the effective depth of the flat slab.
6
0.5d
0.5d 0.5d 0.5d
Figure 8. Critical section according to the ACI 318-11.

The shear strength vc for slabs under concentric load is determined among the smallest of the
following:
1
vc = ( s .d / bo ) + 2 f c (2)
12
1 2 
vc =  0.5 +  f c (3)
6 c 
1
vc = fc (4)
3
Where s = 40 for interior columns; c is the ratio of the long side to the short side of the column
and fc is the compressive strength of concrete.
Table 7. Shear strength for the slab with 15Mpa compressive strength of concrete.
vc1 vc2 vc3
s d b0 c
(Eq.2) (Eq.2) (Eq.2)
(--) (mm) (mm) (mm) (MPa) (MPa) (MPa)
40 50 720 1 1.54 1.6 1.3
The shear strength for the slab with 15Mpa compressive strength of concrete is calculated in Table
7. Then the punching shear capacity of flat slab Pu = 1.3 x 720 x 50 = 46800 N = 46.8 kN.
By the same method, the punching shear resistance capacity of the slab according to Eurocode 2 [4]
is also calculated. Table 8 summarizes obtained results according to simulation, ACI 318 and
Eurocode 2. The punching shear resistance capacity of the slab for all analysis scenarios in the
simulation model is larger than the values obtained from the proposed formulas of ACI 318 and
Eurocode 2. This is attributed to the influence of the interaction between the longitudinal
reinforcement and the concrete on the punching shear strength of the slab. In the simulation model in
Abaqus, the interaction between reinforcement and concrete is applied by the embedded method. On
the contrary, in the formulas of ACI 318 and Eurocode 2, the shear resistance depends only on the
concrete strength and geometry parameters.
Table 8. Punching shear resistance capacity according to some methods.

Case 1 Case 2 Case 3
(1) (2) (3) (1) (2) (3) (1) (2) (3)
55.4 46.8 48.9 62.4 52.3 53 67.9 56.3 55.6
Case 4 Case 5 Case 6
(1) (2) (3) (1) (2) (3) (1) (2) (3)
57.6 46.8 48.9 64.6 52.3 53 70 56.3 55.6
Note: unit (kN); (1): Simulation; (2): ACI 318; (3): Eurocode 2
7
3.2. Influence of longitudinal reinforcement's strength

In order study the influence of the longitudinal steel bar's strength on the punching shear capacity
of slabs, the scenarios from 7 to 12 were considered, as shown in Table 9.
Table 9. Study cases by changing the strength of longitudinal reinforcement.

Study case
concrete (Mpa) (Mpa)
Case 1 15 210
Case 4 15 260
Case 2 19 210
Case 5 19 260
Case 3 22 210
Case 6 22 260
70 70 70 70 70 70 70
Load (kN) Load (kN)
60 60 60 60 60 60 60
50 50 50 50 50 50 50
40 40 40
40 40 40 40 40
Case 1 Case 2
30 30 30
30 30 30 30 30
Case 4 Case 5
20 20 20
20 20 20 20 20
10 10 10
10 10 10 10 10
Deflection (mm) Deflection (mm)
00 0 0 0
0
0 0 0 5 10 15 20
0 5 10 15 20
70 Load (kN) 70 70 70
60 60 60 60
50 50 50 50
40 40 40 40
Case 3
30 Case 6 30 30 30
20 20 20 20
10 10 10 10
Deflectiom (mm)
0 0 0 0
0 5 10 15 20
Figure 9. Punching shear resistance capacity-deflection in the analysis scenarios.
Figure 9 shows the load-deflection curve with analysis cases. Tables 10-12 list the disparity in
punching shear capacity. The largest disparity value of 3.8% was observed in case 8 when increasing
the yield stress of steel from 210MPa to 260MPa. It can be concluded that the increase in longitudinal
reinforcement's strength does not significantly affect punching shear resistance capacity of the slab.
8
Table 10. Comparison of the punching shear capacity in cases 1, 4.

Study case Case 1 Case 4
Punching shear capacity (kN) 55.4 57.5
Increment (%) 0 3.8%

Punching shear capacity (kN) 62.4 64.6
Increment (%) 0 3.2%

Punching shear capacity (kN) 67.9 70
Increment (%) 0 3%
4. Conclusions
The present study investigates the influence of concrete and steel strength on the punching shear
resistance capacity of RC slabs, using the simulation approach. Through the comparison with
experimental results, the CDP model exhibits the reliability to predict the punching shear resistance
capacity of the RC floor as well as the failure pattern. The increase in concrete strength considerably
strengthens the punching shear resistance capacity of the flat slab. On the contrary, the strength of
longitudinal steel bars shows an insignificant influence on the punching shear capacity of the RC slab.
CRediT author statement

Thanh Binh Pham: Conceptualization, Methodology. Viet-Chinh Mai: Software, Formal analysis,
Writing - Original Draft, Writing - Review & Editing. Van Tu Nguyen: Validation, Writing - Review
& Editing. Cong-Binh Dao: Validation, Data Curation, Writing - Review & Editing.
References
[1] Valivonis J, Skuturna T and Daugevičius M 2017 Punching shear strength of reinforced
concrete slabs with plastic void formers Construction and Building Materials 145 518–27
[2] Brazilian Association of technical standards 2014 NBR 6118: Standard for concrete Stuctures
Design (Rio de Janeiro)
[3] Fédération internationale du béton 2010 Fi Model Code for Concrete Structures Ernst & Sohn,
(Berlin, Germany)
[4] EN 1992-1-1 2004 Design of Concrete Structures-Part 1: General Rules and Rules for
Buildings European Committee for Standardization (CEN) (Brussels, Belgium)
[5] ACI Committee 318 2014 Building Code Requirements for Structural Concrete
[6] Muttoni A 2008 Punching Shear Strength of Reinforced Concrete Slabs without Transverse
Reinforcement ACI Structural Journal 105
[7] Belletti B, Muttoni A, Ravasini S and Vecchi F 2019 Parametric analysis on punching shear
resistance of reinforced-concrete continuous slabs Magazine of Concrete Research 71 1083–96
[8] Oukaili N and Al-Gasham T 2014 Punching Shear Strength of Reinforced Concrete Flat Plates
with Openings University of Baghdad Engineering Journal 20 1–20
[9] Yang J M, Yoon Y S and Cook W 2010 Punching Shear Behavior of Two-Way Slabs
Reinforced with High-Strength Steel ACI Structural Journal 107 468–475
[10] Jahangir Alam 1997 Punching shear behaviour of shear reinforced concrete slabs
9
[11] Lubliner J, Oliver J, Oller S and Oñate E 1989 A plastic-damage model for concrete.
International Journal of Solids and Structures 25 299–326
[12] Lee J, Fenves GL 1998 Plastic-damage model for cyclic loading of concrete structures Journal
of Engineering Mechanics 124 892–900
[13] Hafezolghorani M, Hejazi F, Vaghei R and Jaafar MS 2017 Simplified damage plasticity
model for concrete Structural Engineering International 27 68–78
10
Reproduced with permission of copyright owner. Further reproduction
prohibited without permission.

Numerical Investigation of The

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Numerical Investigation of The

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

TISDIC 2023 IOP Publishing

Numerical investigation of the punching shear resistance

2. Finite element model verification

Figure 1. Test specimen of Jahangir Alam [10].

2.1. Material model

2.2. Comparision of test result and simulation model

Alam’s test 81.75 0

Simulation 82.80 1.3

3.1. Influence of compressive concrete strength

Table 4. Comparison of maximum punching shear capacity.

Table 5. Study cases by changing the compressive strength of concrete.

Table 6. Comparison of maximum punching shear capacity.

Figure 8. Critical section according to the ACI 318-11.

Table 8. Punching shear resistance capacity according to some methods.

3.2. Influence of longitudinal reinforcement's strength

Table 9. Study cases by changing the strength of longitudinal reinforcement.

Figure 9. Punching shear resistance capacity-deflection in the analysis scenarios.

Table 10. Comparison of the punching shear capacity in cases 1, 4.

Table 11. Comparison of the punching shear capacity in cases 2, 5.

Table 12. Comparison of the punching shear capacity in cases 3, 6.

CRediT author statement

You might also like