PUNCHING SHEAR RESISTANCE OF FLAT SLABS WITH OPENING

International Journal of Civil Engineering and Technology (IJCIET), ISSN 0976 – 6308 (Print),
ISSN 0976 – 6316(Online), Volume 6, Issue 4, April (2015), pp. 01-12 © IAEME
1
PUNCHING SHEAR RESISTANCE OF FLAT SLABS WITH
OPENING
Dr Samal M. Rashied
Faculty of Engineering, University of Sulaimani Kurdistan of Iraq
ABSTRACT
There are numbers of methods have been proposed to evaluate the influence from opening on
punching shear resistance in flat slabs in the vicinity of columns. In the present paper, the aims are
going to compile this state of review on the evaluation of the predicted punching shear strength. A
total of 79 tested slabs without shear reinforcement were selected from literature to study the
treatments by these methods. The comparisons from their failure loads comparing to their reference
specimens without opening shows that the punching shear resistance is inversely proportional to the
opening size, location and distance to the face of the related columns. The predictions by ACI-318
and EC2 are investigated to give unsafe punching shear resistance in most cases.
Keywords: Punching Shear Resistance, Opening, Critical Shear Perimeter, Perimeter Reduction,
Compressive Strength, Effective Depth.
INTRODUCTION
The earliest design proposal for slabs with holes near supporting columns seems to be that in
Kinnunen and Nylander(1)
(1960), which reads “A rough estimate of the effect produced by a hole in
a slab at a column can be formed by excluding that portion of the imaginary shell, which is cut
through by hole. Then if ‘o ’ denotes the circumstance of the column and if use is made of the
rotation given in Fig.36, we obtain the reduced punching load:
osoPPred /)( −= ………………. (a)
Where P is the calculated punching load of the slab without hole.
Fig.36 is replaced here as Fig.1. As printed in(1)
the equation is ssoPPred /)( −= which must
be an error.
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF CIVIL ENGINEERING AND
TECHNOLOGY (IJCIET)
ISSN 0976 – 6308 (Print)
ISSN 0976 – 6316(Online)
Volume 6, Issue 4, April (2015), pp. 01-12
© IAEME: www.iaeme.com/Ijciet.asp
Journal Impact Factor (2015): 9.1215 (Calculated by GISI)
www.jifactor.com
IJCIET
©IAEME

2
The text in (1)
continues “since the hole partly removes the tangential forces in the
reinforcement near the top surface of the slab, eqn(a) should not be applied, where the hole has a
large extent in the radial direction. It is therefore suggested that the range of the applicability of
eqn(a) should be limited to “ tr dd / ”, where rd and td are as in the figure. Moreover the slab should
be designed so as to make it possible for that part of the reinforcement, which would have cut
through the hole, to be placed outside the hole.” This work appears to be the origin of the many
subsequent recommendations based on radial projection.
Fig.(1)Kinnunen and Nylander
One year later Moe(2)
published the results of a series of punching tests of slabs which small
holes (side length=0.5xlength of column side) at or near the central square column
(254x254mm) through which load was applied.
Moe’s work on punching was expressed in terms of nominal shear stress at the periphery of a
column and his treatment of holes is based on reductions in the length of this perimeter as follows
(see Fig.2)
For square holes adjacent to columns, the reduced perimeter is the total periphery minus the
sum of the widths of the holes. For circular holes adjacent to columns the residual perimeter is
measured along the shortest lines connecting the corners of the columns to the perimeters of the
holes. For holes not at the peripheries from the corners of the columns to the nearest points on the
perimeters of the holes if this yield length less than those of the column peripheries.
Fig.(2) Perimeter reduction by Moe

3
Regan(3)
proposed an approach in which the length of the basic control perimeter was reduced
by the “parallel projections” of the widths of the openings as illustrated by Fig.3 (note: the basic
perimeter shown is that of CP110:1972(4)
).
Fig.(3) Perimeter reduction by Regan
A similar approach in a more complete form was subsequently given in the Handbook to BS
8110:1985(5)
from which Fig.4 is reproduced.
Fig.(4) 8110 HANDBOOK
Over time the radial projection approach has become the norm in codes of practice. In ACI
318-14 section 22.6.4.3 reads” If an opening is located within a column strip, or closer than h10
(h =overall thickness of slab) from a concentrated load or reaction area, a portion of the basic control
perimeter )( eb enclosed by straight lines radiating from the centroid of the column, concentrated load
or reaction area and tangent to the boundaries of the opening shall be considered ineffective.”
The commentary says that provisions for the design of opening in slabs were developed in
Joint ACI-ASCE Committee 326 (1926). It also says that research (Joint ACI-ASCE 426, 1974) has
confirmed that theses provisions are conservative. This statement seems rather over-confident in that
the research by the committee was reported 40 years ago and there has been considerable
experimental research between then and now.
EC2’s rules for the treatment of the effects that openings through slabs have on punching
resistance are given in section 6.4–Punching where paragraph 8.4.2 says “ For loaded area situated
near openings, if the shortest distance between the perimeter of the loaded area and the edge of the
opening does not exceed d6 , that part of the perimeter contained between two tangents drawn to the
opening from the centre of the loaded area is considered to be ineffective ( see Fig. 6.14)”

4
Note that EC2’s clauses on punching are written in terms of a concentrated load or reaction acting on
a relatively small area called the loaded area and treat the terms loaded area and column as
interchangeable.
EC2’s Fig.6.14 is redrawn here as Fig.5, in which it is corrected from the original where the
dimension d6≤ is drawn as about 5 times the d2 length between the column and the basic control
perimeter.The dimension 21ll is probably an echo of Kinnunen and Nylander.
Fig.(5) Control perimeter near an opening
A fairly recent proposal for a modification of radial projection has been made in a paper by
Teng et al. al.(6)
It arises from their tests of slabs on elongated columns ( 21 /cc up to 5.0) with
various holes including elongated ones. The proposal is illustrated by Fig.6 and uses radial
projections from two ‘centres’ one near each end of elongated columns.
Teng et al. used this proposal in their proposed formula for punching shear strength, then in
comparison with their 20 slab results together with the predictions by BS8110, ACI and EC2.They
found their method is more reliable than those by codes when the average expPr /VV ed is 0.816 and
COV is 0.128 which is the lowest among theses methods.
Fig.(6) Reduction of control perimeter by Teng,Cheong, Kvang and Geng
Earlier proposal for treating non-symmetrical patterns of openings were made by Regan and
Kordina and Nolting(7)
. Regan’s suggestion was that the reduced length of the control perimeter
should be calculated considering the actual holes and fictitious one restoring symmetry. Kordonia
and Notling proposed that the control perimeter should be calculated considering holes in the actual
positions with the deductions magnified to allow for their lack of symmetry.

5
DATA AND PUNCHING SHEAR CAPCITY
A total of 79 tested slabs have been selected. 70 of them have concrete compressive strength
between 30-65MPa.They are from El-Salakawy et al.(8)
with 6 slabs having opening close to edge
column, Teng et al.(5)
with 20 slabs having different types of opening close to an internal column,
Borges et al.(9)
with 7 slabs having one and two openings close to an internal column and from the
same reference 4 tests used from Silva having opening close to an internal column, Olivera et al.(10)
with 7 slabs having opening close to an internal column. Souza with 8 slabs having two opening
close to column, 9 slabs by Anil et al.(11)
having openings close to internal column and have concrete
compressive strength about 20MPa. The tests by Anil et al. have not been used in this analysis as
their concrete compressive strength are around 19-20 MPa which caused the slabs to obtain very low
strength and Mohammed(12)
with 20 smaller scale slabs having square and circle opening close to
column.
CODES AND OTHER RECOMMENDATION
Equations by Codes of practice:
For ACI, the lowest of:
( ) dbfV ccc 0
'
/2117.0 β+= , dbf
b
d
V c
s
c 0
'
0
2083.0 





+=
α and dbfV cc 0
'
33.0=
For EC2, the characteristic punching resistances are:
duvduvV cRkcRkcRk 0max,1,, ≤= ……….. (4)
( )3
1, .10018.0 ckcRk fv ρ= )/2001( d+ , ( ) ckckRk ffv 250/124.0max, −=
where '
cf and ckf is the characteristic cylinder compression strength of the concrete, cβ is the ratio
between the longest side to shortest side of the column, sα is a constant to the values: 40 for internal
columns, 30 for edge columns and 20 for corner columns, 0b is a punching perimeter which is
located at 2/d from the face of the column , 1u is the length of a control perimeter 2d from the
support , ( ) dccu π42 211 ++= for rectangular columns with side lengths , 1c and 2c and
( )dcu 41 += π for a circular column of diameter c , 0u is the length of the perimeter of the
column, 1ρ is the ratio of flexural tension reinforcement determined as yx 11 ρρ calculated for the
orthogonal directions of the reinforcement and for widths equal to those of the column plus 3d to
either side.
The comparisons between experimental and the predictions by ACI and EC2 as given in
Table 1 and 2. Table 1 lists the main data for the selected tests and the results of comparisons with
calculations to ACI and EC2. Table 3 presents the average, STD and COV for the tests by each
author.
The predicted shear resistance by ACI and EC2 found to be lower than to all experimental
results except those tested by Anil et al.
In Anil paper, there are problems with the test specimens. From page 957 "Compressive and
tensile reinforcements were cut next to the opening and no other special reinforcement was placed".
This is completely inappropriate detailing. What's done in practice is to relocate bars, that would be
cut by holes, to either side of the holes or to cut them and add extra bars to reinstate the areas of

6
effective reinforcement. Just cutting bars causes loss of flexural resistance and reductions of ρ that
affect shear resistance.
Also working from Fig.1 (in the paper) and the dimensions and locations of holes there are
many cases in which bars wouldn't have actually gone through holes, but would have had only 7.5
mm side cover over the lengths of the openings. This raises the question of whether they were moved
a bit sideways to obtain adequate cover. There is nothing in the paper to answer this and even the
hole-free slab was so lightly reinforced that the loss of two or three bars at a hole would have a large
effect on ρ , especially if ρ is calculated for the EC2 width of "column width + 3 d to either side".
Fig. 1(in the paper) is also not very clear about the effective depth. I would consider that the
vertical dimensions are to the centre lines of the bars, making xd and yd = 95 and 105 mm and d =
100 mm . From this xρ = 78.54/175 x 95 = 0.472% and yρ = 78.54/175 x 105 = 0.427% so that ρ =
0.45%, not the 0.39% of page 957.
Another problem is that the paper ignores the eccentricities between the centres of the
columns and the centroids of the reduced control perimeters (reduced by the openings).
The reduction of ρ where bars were cut, the apparent error in ρ even for slab 1, and the
neglect of the effect of eccentricity probably account for the low values of predtest VV / for EC2. The
first two of these are entirely due to the authors. The lack of consideration of the effect of
eccentricity is a feature of codes of practice, although it can be observed in many test series.
Table 2 gives the summary for calculated shear resistance considering the size, type and the
symmetrical issue for similar tests by different authors. In general, the shear resistance by EC2
showed a considerable less conservative than by ACI.
For the non-symmetrical openings, this is more clear in tests by El-Salaqawy where openings
are in the vicinity of edge column with an average of exp/VVpred =0.89, 0.59 and COV equals to 0.09
and 0.19 respectively. Tests by Teng which are from various types and sizes could be the good
evidence for the conservative predictions by both of codes as they have exp/VVpred =0.68 and COV
equal to 0.13 and 0.12 respectively.
For the symmetrical openings in tests by Souza and Borges, the failure loads were decreased
when opening size and the location to the column were increased except one slab with opening at
4 d far from the column where the openings do not influence the shear resistance. This observation
is not recognized by EC2 which considers the effective punching area at 6 d and exp/VVpred is 0.65.
Tests by Olivera were designed to take transfer moments from the slab to the column. Slab L2
without opening but with applied moment failed in a 62% of the failure load of the reference slab L1.
Slabs L4 showed 32% of failure load of L1 where it is with opening and the applied transfer moment
is next to the column. The opposite position of the applied moment to the opening caused lesser
reduction in L3 which is almost twice L4. The other tests are to regain some moment balancing by
applying from both side of the column and there is a clear trend of increasing in shear strength when
the resultant transfer moment is decreased.
The small scaled slabs by Mohammed shows a slight differences between the failure loads for
slabs without opening and those with opening having different distance from the column. The
circular opening showed better resistance than squares for all distances. The exp/VVpred are in the
range of 0.78-0.87 and 0.89-0.99 for square and circle opening respectively. The predictions by
codes are conservative for all tests and there is small sign for the differences in types and location of
openings.
The overall observations is all tests in this study showed that the reduction in punching shear
capacity is decreased when the distance from the column is increased.The orientation of the
rectangular openings with a same size next to the column showed a higher reduction when the longer

7
side of opening and column are located on different axis. This is shown in Teng’s tests where those
located on the different axis of the column were achieved only 60% of the shear capacity while those
located on the same axis of the column achieved 81%. This is could be explained of the ineffective
portion of punching shear perimeter that occupied by a larger opening within the critical section.
For slabs where the openings are immediately adjacent (diagonal) to the corner of the columns,
the influence of the opening is lesser than where the openings are located directly next to the
columns. For tests by Teng et al. and Mohammed (only square openings) the corner openings cause
in reducing of 19% and 15% of ultimate shear capacity respectively. However, for tests by Anil the
reduction is about 39% for adjacent opening and 49% for diagonal opening and goes higher for
larger size of opening.
Table (1) Comparisons between the test results and the predictions by AC1 and EC2
Author Slab ID
( )mm
d



2
mm
N
fc
Opening size
No.
of
opening
Location
Of column
%
ρ
( )kN
Vexp exp/VVpred
ACI EC2
El-Salakawy
xxx 90 33.0 none none edge 0.75 125 0.72 0.99
SF0 90 31.5 150X150 1 edge 0.75 110 0.50 0.82
SE0 90 32.5 150X150 1 edge 0.75 120 0.63 0.80
SF1 90 33.0 150X150 1 edge 0.75 115 0.63 0.91
SF2 90 30.0 150X150 1 edge 0.75 114 0.64 0.93
CF0 90 30.5 250X250 1 edge 0.75 87 0.41 0.83
Teng
OC11 92 36.0 none none internal 1.81 423 0.50 0.62
OC11H30 92 33.9 200X400 1 internal 1.70 349 0.48 0.63
OC11V23 92 34.1 200X400 1 internal 1.69 373 0.50 0.51
OC11V20 92 38.6 200X400 1 internal 1.74 207 0.53 0.85
OC13 92 35.8 200X400 1 internal 1.71 568 0.63 0.63
OC13H50 92 36.3 200X400 1 internal 1.67 443 0.69 0.72
OC13V43 92 36.6 200X400 1 internal 1.61 467 0.66 0.67
OC13V23 92 36.9 200X400 1 internal 1.70 484 0.64 0.66
OC13V40 92 43.0 200X400 1 internal 1.69 340 0.81 0.86
OC13H02 92 43.1 200X400 1 internal 1.64 512 0.53 0.47
OC13-1.6 92 32.9 200X400 1 internal 1.67 508 0.68 0.68
OC13H50-1.6 92 33.1 200X400 1 internal 1.60 428 0.68 0.71
OC13V43-1.6 92 33.2 200X400 1 internal 1.65 383 0.77 0.80
OC13H02-1.6 92 37.5 200X400 1 internal 1.61 420 0.61 0.55
OC13-0.63 92 39.7 200X400 1 internal 1.65 455 0.83 0.81
OC13H50-0.63 92 39.8 200X400 1 internal 1.67 511 0.74 0.65
OC13V23-0.63 92 35.7 200X400 1 internal 1.67 488 0.51 0.65
OC15 92 40.2 200X400 1 internal 1.76 649 0.82 0.75
OC15H70 92 37.9 200X400 1 internal 1.67 529 0.88 0.81
OC15V43 92 35.9 200X400 1 internal 1.66 612 0.74 0.69
Borges
1 154 42.0 200x300 none internal 1.49 843 0.73 0.89
4 154 41.4 200x300 1 internal 1.49 776 0.69 0.89
5 154 40.5 200x300 1 internal 1.49 792 0.67 0.86
6 154 39.0 200x300 1 internal 1.49 750 0.70 0.89
7 144 37.0 200x300 2 internal 1.60 685 0.60 0.76
8 154 41.6 200x300 2 internal 1.49 750 0.63 0.77
9 164 40.6 200x300 2 internal 1.41 850 0.60 0.72
Silva
L1 102 39.6 none None internal 1.40 273 0.66 0.79
L4 102 39.4 120x180 1 internal 1.40 225 0.40 0.60
L5 102 39.6 120x180 1 internal 1.40 350 0.47 0.62
L6 102 39.1 120x180 1 internal 1.40 375 0.50 0.75
L1 91 35.5 none none internal 1.36 274 0.51 0.76
L2 90 35.7 150X150 2 internal 1.71 205 0.26 0.55

8
Souza L3 89 36.0 150X150 2 internal 1.64 275 0.46 0.65
L4 91 36.2 150X150 2 internal 1.54 300 0.45 0.65
L5 91 31.9 150X300 2 internal 1.36 140 0.37 0.53
L6 91 32.0 150X450 2 internal 0.96 101 0.51 0.56
L7 92 32.1 150X300 2 internal 1.56 225 0.49 0.61
L8 92 32.2 150X450 2 internal 1.56 210 0.45 0.40
Oliveira
Oliveira
L3 125 42.8 400X400 1 internal 1.17 250 0.65 0.68
L4 123 44.6 400X400 1 internal 1.20 137 0.96 1.27
L5 122 44.5 400X400 1 internal 1.22 213 1.08 1.30
L6 124 45.6 400X400 1 internal 1.19 305 0.75 0.79
L7 121 46.8 400X400 1 internal 1.24 260 0.86 1.03
Anil
1 100 20.8 none none internal 0.39* 193 0.94 0.94
2 100 20.6 300x300 1 internal 0.39 99 1.21 1.24
3 100 20.9 300x300 1 internal 0.39 126 1.32 1.18
4 100 19.6 500x500 1 internal 0.39 77 1.52 1.41
5 100 19.6 500x500 1 internal 0.39 95 1.70 1.49
6 100 20.0 300x300 1 internal 0.39 135 1.19 1.18
7 100 21.2 300x300 1 internal 0.39 172 0.93 0.94
8 100 20.1 500x500 1 internal 0.39 116 1.30 1.27
9 100 20.2 500x500 1 internal 0.39 139 1.09 1.11
Mohammed
H1 47 56.4 none none internal 1.30 122 0.56 0.57
H2 47 64.3 none 1 internal 1.30 126 0.58 0.58
H1-S0 47 56.8 89X89 1 internal 1.30 95 0.56 0.62
H1-Sd 47 56.8 89X89 1 internal 1.30 104 0.59 0.59
H1-S2d 47 56.8 89X89 1 internal 1.30 105 0.60 0.61
H1-SLb 47 56.8 89X89 1 internal 1.30 99 0.58 0.61
H1-C0 47 57.3 D=100 1 internal 1.30 110 0.52 0.55
H1-Cd 47 57.3 D=100 1 internal 1.30 120 0.55 0.53
H1-C2d 47 57.3 D=100 1 internal 1.30 121 0.56 0.54
H1-CLb 47 57.3 D=100 1 internal 1.30 108 0.57 0.57
H2-S0 47 65.7 89X89 1 internal 1.30 99 0.60 0.63
H2-Sd 47 65.7 89X89 1 internal 1.30 108 0.58 0.59
H2-S2d 47 65.7 89X89 1 internal 1.30 109 0.59 0.61
H2-SLb 47 65.7 89X89 1 internal 1.30 103 0.56 0.62
H2-C0 47 65.1 D=100 1 internal 1.30 113 0.56 0.56
H2-Cd 47 65.1 D=100 1 internal 1.30 125 0.55 0.53
H2-C2d 47 65.1 D=100 1 internal 1.30 125 0.50 0.55
H2-CLb 47 65.1 D=100 1 internal 1.30 112 0.48 0.58
* The values of ρ are as given in the paper but the correct values should be %0.45 as explained
above.
Teng et al. proposed an equation to evaluate the punching shear strength. They compare its
prediction with those by ACI and EC2 but using their method (as mentioned above) in considering
the ineffective perimeter in all methods’ calculations. They found their proposed method is reliable
when the COV =0.128 of exp/VVpred was the lowest among the methods. However, the methods in
ACI and EC2 were examined in this paper to gain a clear understanding for the assessment by their
method as given in Table (3).
The results for square columns are remaining the same for all methods, but for 200x600mm
columns the results seem a similar average, STD and COV. It found that for the larger columns of
200x1000mm the method gives better prediction than both ACI and EC2 although the variation of
holes are limited as there are only one size and two position are tested. Therefore, there is still works
are needed to verify the effectiveness of this method than others.

9
Table (2) Comparisons between the test results and the predictions by AC1 and EC2- Authors sets
Authors
No. of
Tests
Average expPr /VV ed STD C.O.V.
ACI EC2 ACI EC2 ACI EC2
El-Salakawy 6 0.62 0.89 0.07 0.08 0.13 0.09
Teng 20 0.68 0.69 0.13 0.11 0.19 0.16
Borges and Silva 8 0.60 0.79 0.13 0.12 0.21 0.15
Oliveira 7 0.89 1.01 0.17 0.24 0.19 0.23
Souza+Borges 8 0.48 0.63 0.11 0.12 0.22 0.19
Mohammed
( square holes)
10 0.58 0.60 0.02 0.02 0.03 0.03
Mohammed
( circle holes)
8 0.54 0.55 0.03 0.02 0.06 0.03
Table (3) Applying all methods and Comparisons between The prediction by AC1 and EC2
Slab ID
exp/VVACI exp2 /VVEC
Code method Teng method
Code
method
Teng
method
OC11 0.503 0.503 0.615 0.615
OC11H30 0.445 0.445 0.631 0.631
OC11V23 0.454 0.454 0.507 0.507
OC11V20 0.682 0.682 0.852 0.852
OC13 0.629 0.629 0.632 0.632
OC13H50 0.714 0.693 0.721 0.740
OC13V43 0.642 0.690 0.674 0.629
OC13V23 0.638 0.640 0.659 0.632
OC13V40 0.865 0.907 0.857 0.857
OC13H02 0.539 0.539 0.472 0.472
OC13-1.6 0.675 0.675 0.682 0.682
OC13H50-1.6 0.706 0.685 0.714 0.733
OC13V43-1.6 0.746 0.801 0.802 0.748
OC13H02-1.6 0.608 0.608 0.547 0.547
OC13-0.63 0.827 0.827 0.807 0.807
OC13H50-0.63 0.648 0.629 0.645 0.662
OC13V23-0.63 0.606 0.651 0.647 0.616
OC15 0.820 0.820 0.749 0.749
OC15H70 0.904 0.875 0.812 0.828
OC15V43 0.684 0.737 0.686 0.660
Average of
exp/VVpred 0.667 0.674 0.683 0.680
STD 0.126 0.130 0.108 0.109
C.O.V. 0.190 0.192 0.158 0.160
CONCLUSIONS
Different methods in evaluating the reduction of the ineffective punching perimeter due to
opening are reviewed and a total of 79 tested slabs were studied. From review of the test data,
number of concerns in treating of opening became evident. The opening size and its distance from
the face of columns show that the punching shear resistance is inversely proportional to them. Also,
other parameters like reinforcement ratio, compressive strength, the effective depth and the flexural
reinforcement detailing have their significant influence on the punching shear resistance.

10
Compared to the tested results, neither Neither ACI-318 nor EC2 is altogether satisfactory in
itself in relation to flat slabs with openings and since they were developed there has been significant
research on topics in this area, a reasonably comprehensive design guide accompanied by
experimental evidence is needed to include:
- Slab connections to edge columns
- Slab connections to interior columns where slabs on elongated and/or large columns
( dc 3max > ), slab with larger openings and connections transferring moments.
- Eccentricity clearly needs to be taken into account.
- detailing of the flexural reinforcement at the edge of the openings.
REFERENCES
1. Kinnunen S. and Nylander H., Punching of concrete slabs without shear Reinforcement,
Moddelande Nr 38, Institutionen for Byggnadsstatik,KTH Stockholm 1960.
2. Moe.J., Shearing strength of reinforced concrete slabs and footings under concentrated Loads.
Development Dept. Bulletin D47, Portland Cement Association, Skokie, Illinois.Apr. 1961.
3. Regan P.E., Design for punching shear, The structural Engineer, V52, No.6, June 1974. pp197-
207.
4. 12.CP110:1972” Code of Practice for Structural Use of Concrete” British Standards Institution,
London, 1972.
5. Handbook to British Standard BS8110:1985- Structural Use of Concrete. Palladian Publication
Ltd. London 1987.
6. Teng S., Cheong H.K.,Kuang K.L. and Geng J.Z., Punching shear of reinforced concrete flat
plates with openings. ACI Structural Journal.V110 No.4, July- Aug. 2013, pp 547-566.
7. Kordina K. and Nolting D., Tragfahigkeit durchstangef ahrdeter Stahlbefonplatten,
Entwicklong von Bemessungsvorschlagen 9 punching capacity of reinforced concrete slabs,
Elaboration of suggestions for dimensioning), Deutscher Ausschuss for Stahlbeton, Heft 371,
Berlin 1986, p167.
8. El-Salakawy E.F., Polak M.A. and Soliman M.H., Reinforced concrete slab-column
connections with openings. ACI Structural Journal, V96, No.1, Jan.-Feb.1999, pp79-87.
9. Borges L.L.J,Melo G.S. and Gomes R.B., Punching shear of reinforced concrete flat plates
with openings. ACI Structural Journal, V110, No.4, July-Aug. 2013, pp1-10.
10. Oliveira D.C., Gomes R.B. and Melo G.S., Punching shear in reinforced concrete flat slabs
with hole adjacent to the column and moment transfer. Ibracon Structures and Materials
Journal, Vol.7, No.3, June 2014, pp 414-467.
11. Anil O. and Kina T., Effect of opening size and location on punching shear behavior of two-
way RC slabs, Magazine of Concrete Research, Vol.66, Issue 18, 2014,pp955- 966.
12. Mohammed B.K., Punching shear strength of High strength reinforced concrete flat plate slabs
with opening. MSc. Dissertation, Department of Civil Engineering, University of Sulaimani,
Iraq.2011, P.101.

11
APPENDIX
Test by El-Salakawy et al
Tests by Teng et al.

12
Tests by Anil et al.
Tests by Oliviera et al.

PUNCHING SHEAR RESISTANCE OF FLAT SLABS WITH OPENING

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

What's hot

What's hot (20)

Viewers also liked

Viewers also liked (6)

Similar to PUNCHING SHEAR RESISTANCE OF FLAT SLABS WITH OPENING

Similar to PUNCHING SHEAR RESISTANCE OF FLAT SLABS WITH OPENING (20)

More from IAEME Publication

More from IAEME Publication (20)

Recently uploaded

Recently uploaded (20)

PUNCHING SHEAR RESISTANCE OF FLAT SLABS WITH OPENING