Structures 20 (2019) 340–352

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Structures
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/structures

Experimental and analytical investigation of punching shear capacity of T

biaxial voided slabs
R. Sagadevan, B.N. Rao
⁎

Structural Engineering Laboratory, Department of Civil Engineering, Indian Institute of Technology Madras, Chennai 600036, India

ARTICLE INFO ABSTRACT

Keywords: Biaxial voided slab is an emerging slab system which reduces its self-weight up to 50% in comparison with the
Reinforced concrete slab conventional reinforced concrete solid slab. The reduction in the concrete volume does not affect its flexural
Voided slab capacity significantly, however, it reduces both one-way and two-way (punching) shear capacity about 40%.
Punching shear Therefore, an effective way of predicting the punching shear capacity is investigated as the presence of voids
Two-way shear
alters the critical failure section. The applicability of conventional methods for solid slabs in the design stan-
Effective concrete area
dards, such as ACI 318 (2014), EN 1992-1-1 (2004) and IS 456 (2000) to predict the punching shear capacity of
the voided slab is examined. In addition, eight full-scale specimens were tested with the sphere and cuboid shape
of voids. Finally, experimental results of present study and test data collected from literature (33 specimens)
were compared with predictions by the relevant code provisions. The estimation of punching shear capacity of
biaxial voided slab by existing provisions for solid slabs in standards does not lead to satisfactory results. Hence,
the presence of voids is considered by modifying the critical section depending on the void location. Further,
only the effective concrete area is considered to predict the punching shear capacity. After the modifications, the
predictions by all three building standards lead to satisfactory results.

1. Introduction with cylinder shape voids carried 50–70% of the punching shear ca-
pacity of solid slab [17]. The reduction of punching shear capacity of
Reinforced concrete (RC) voided slabs are adopted in modern con- the slab with sphere shape void was about 4.41–18% and 14.7–29.4%
struction as alternate for conventional solid slab systems in flat slab for slabs with voids at sections located at 2d and d from face of the
buildings. These types of slabs are constructed with plastic void formers column, respectively [16]. Further, in the same study it was observed
having spherical, donut, oval, or cuboid shapes [1–5] and reduce their that the perimeter of the critical failure section in voided slabs was
self-weight up to 50% in comparison with RC solid slab without any 4.2–41.7% higher than that of solid slabs. The punching shear capacity
significant change in its flexural capacity [6–8]. However, a consider- of the specimens with plastic units of box type voids (hexahedron with
able reduction in the shear capacity of the voided slab is reported. One- rounded edges) and solid cross-shaped parts was 43% and 18% lower
way shear capacity of the biaxial hollow slab with rounded box and than that of the specimens without voids [13]. These studies explore
donut type hollow void formers showed 40% and 27% reduction in that the punching shear capacity of voided slab is highly dependent on
comparison with that of the solid slab, respectively [9]. Similarly, the the shape and location (from face of the column) of voids.
reduction in punching shear capacity (two-way shear) was studied by In this paper, punching shear capacity of the biaxial voided slab is
researchers with various shape of void formers [1,10–17] and reported calculated based on the conventional method or equations given in
that it decreases up to 40% in comparison with conventional RC solid standards such as ACI 318-14 [20], EN 1992-1-1 2004 [21] and IS 456
slab [1]. The reduction in punching shear capacity of cylinder voided 2000 [22]. The presence of voids in the prediction of actual punching
slab with 10% volume void ratio was observed to up 30% in compar- shear capacity of biaxial voided slabs is considered by adopting the
ison with reference solid slab [18]. The punching shear capacity of slab effective concrete area available to resist the punching shear. In addi-
with donut type void shape was 87% of that of solid slab and the critical tion, experiments were carried out on eight full-scale specimens to
failure section was observed to be in the range of 0.5–2.5 times of ef- understand the effect of shape, location and size of void formers on the
fective depth of slab (d) from face of the column which depends on the punching shear capacity of the biaxial voided slab. The experimental
number of void formers in that section [14,19]. The slab specimens results based on present study and the test data available in the

⁎
Corresponding author.
E-mail address: [email protected] (B.N. Rao).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.istruc.2019.03.013
Received 20 February 2019; Received in revised form 25 March 2019; Accepted 26 March 2019
Available online 28 April 2019
2352-0124/ © 2019 Institution of Structural Engineers. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
R. Sagadevan and B.N. Rao Structures 20 (2019) 340–352

Fig. 1. Single unit sphere void formers with its dimensions.

Fig. 2. Single unit cuboid void former, its dimensions and lateral spacer.

Table 1
Details of test specimens.
ID Void location from face of the column Void details Dimension (mm) Reinforcement (mm2/m) Cube strength (N/mm2)

Top Bottom

S – – 3300 × 3300 × 150 353 1413 28.1

V1 1.05d Ø 90 mm sphere 28.1
V2 0.38d 28.1
V3 0.51d Ø 180 mm sphere 3300 × 3300 × 250 246 983 26.7
V4 1.07d 26.7
V5 2.26d Cuboid 3300 × 3300 × 260 141 1005 25.0
V6 25.0
V7 25.0

literature (33 specimens) were compared with the estimations by pro- slab systems is expressed in terms of load versus displacement plot and,
visions in the building standards (specified for solid slabs), and a the results are compared using load carrying capacity corresponding to
modified equation is proposed (accounting for reduced concrete area). ultimate failure.

2. Experimental program 2.1. Details of void formers

Punching shear test helps to investigate the behaviour of slab- Sphere and cuboid shaped void formers are manufactured by re-
column connection. Eight full-scale specimens were tested – one RC cycled polypropylene and are used to create voids in the slab speci-
solid slab, four sphere and three cuboid voided slabs. The behaviour of mens. The specifications of the void formers are summarised below.

341
R. Sagadevan and B.N. Rao Structures 20 (2019) 340–352

2.1.1. Sphere void former was placed such that the centre to centre spacing in longitudinal and
The sphere void formers are spherical hollow plastic ball of wall transverse directions is 160 mm (113 mm in diagonal) and 230 mm for
thickness 3 mm with 90 mm and 180 mm outer diameter. The top and 90 mm and 180 mm diameter void formers, respectively. The dimen-
bottom reinforcement mesh were placed to keep the void former in sions of the sphere void formers with its actual photo are shown in
position with 20 mm clear cover at the bottom. The sphere void former Fig. 1.

(a) (b)

(c) (d)
Fig. 3. (a). Details of test specimen S.
(b). Details of test specimen V1.
(c). Details of test specimen V2.
(d). Details of test specimen V3.
(e). Details of test specimen V4.
(f). Details of test specimens V5–V7.

342
R. Sagadevan and B.N. Rao Structures 20 (2019) 340–352

(e) (f)
Fig. 3. (continued)

2.1.2. Cuboid void former summarised in Table 2, which are confirm to the provisions of IS 1786
The cuboid void former (Fig. 2) do not have any sharp edges. Ele- 2008 [24].
vator feet of 50 mm is provided at its bottom face of four corners which
facilitate to hold this void former at the centre of the slab. Similarly, it is 2.4. Experimental test set-up and instrumentation
placed at 600 mm centre to centre in longitudinal and transverse di-
rections using lateral spacers. The provided clear cover to the void 2.4.1. Test setup
former was 50 mm at top and bottom. The dimensions of the cuboid Single-point load test was conducted to study the punching shear
shape void former and its photographs, and lateral spacer are shown in behaviour of the slab. Fig. 5(a) and (b) shows the schematic and actual
Fig. 2. test set-up, respectively. The point load was applied through the column
of size 300 mm × 300 mm located at mid-span as shown in Fig. 6. A
2.2. Details of test specimens pair of pseudo-dynamic hydraulic actuators were used to apply the
load. The load was transferred through hot rolled steel section to the
The plan dimensions of the test specimens were column of slab specimens. The slab specimens were supported at its all
3300 mm × 3300 mm. Flexural reinforcements were arranged as mesh four sides using line-type reaction hinge of length 2800 mm and the
in longitudinal and transverse directions. The size of reinforcement bars location of support was 150 mm from specimen edges. The dis-
was restricted to 12 mm and 16 mm at bottom (tension face), and 6 mm continuity of supports at corner minimise the experimental errors such
at top (compression face) of the slab. The column was reinforced with 4 as the stress concentration and generation of fixed end moment, from
numbers of 16 mm diameter bars in the longitudinal direction and the support condition [10].
8 mm diameter stirrup at 50 mm c/c. The column was cast mono-
lithically with the slab to simulate actual site condition. The void for-
mers were kept in place by providing top and bottom reinforcements. 2.4.2. Instrumentation
The specifications of test specimens like plan dimension, cross section, The applied load was measured by the inbuilt load cells of the ac-
and reinforcement details are summarised in Table 1. The details of test tuators. Displacements were measured at mid-span and one-fourth of
specimens are shown in Figs. 3 and 4. the span along both the diagonals using linear variable differential
transformers (LVDTs) with a measuring range of ± 100 mm. A sche-
2.3. Material properties of test specimens matic arrangement of LVDTs is shown in Fig. 6. A data acquisition
system, having the facility to record load, and displacement at the same
Ready-mix concrete was used to cast the test specimens with con- instance was used to obtain real-time experimental data.
crete mix ratio of 1:2.25:4.50 (cement: fine aggregate: course ag-
gregate) and water to cement ratio of 0.55. The adopted aggregate size 2.4.3. Testing procedure
was 12 mm for all the test specimens. Concrete cubes of size 150 mm Displacement controlled monotonic tests were performed with a
were cast and cured under similar exposure conditions as that of slab pair of pseudo-dynamic hydraulic actuators of capacity 500 kN, each.
specimens. The compression test on cubes was carried out simulta- The actuators were synchronised and operated using a single master
neously along with the punching shear test on the companion slab control system to ensure equal load distribution across each actuator.
specimen. The observed average strength of the cube specimens is The adopted loading rate was 0.05 mm/s. The test was terminated at
summarised in Table 1. Similarly, tensile tests of reinforcements were ultimate failure (due to punching shear) as it ensures the safety of
conducted as per IS 1608 (Part 1) 2018 [23], and the properties are measuring and loading devices.

343
R. Sagadevan and B.N. Rao Structures 20 (2019) 340–352

(a)

Fig. 4. Typical section details of test specimens.

(b)
Fig. 5. (a). Schematic diagram of experimental test set-up.
(b). Photograph of experimental test set-up.
Table 2
Mechanical properties of reinforcement.
3. Experimental results and discussions
Diameter of reinforcement (mm) Strength (N/mm2) Strain
3.1. Load displacement behaviour
Nominal Yield Tensile Yield Ultimate

6 500 545 643 0.0033 0.0611 All slab specimens showed typical punching shear failure. The load
12 500 582 664 0.0035 0.0928 versus mid-span displacement (LVDT 3) for all the eight tested speci-
16 500 528 625 0.0037 0.1047
mens is shown in Fig. 7. By comparing the plots for voided slab

344
R. Sagadevan and B.N. Rao Structures 20 (2019) 340–352

Fig. 6. Instrumentation of the test specimen (a) LVDTs location (plan) (b) LVDTs location (elevation).

specimen V1 and reference solid slab S, it can be observed that both the 3.2. Load carrying capacity
specimens show nearly identical load – displacement behaviour. Such
an observation can also be made from the experimental test data (PS Ultimate load and corresponding mid-span displacement are sum-
and PD-N-4) of Chung et al. [19]. This is reasonable because, after marised for all eight tested specimens in Table 3. From the test results of
cracking, a little portion of the void is expected to be present above the specimens S, V1 and V2, it is observed that the load carrying capacity of
neutral axis in low reinforced members like slabs. A clear illustration of voided slabs was 60% of solid slab capacity. The load carrying capacity
this behaviour has been observed in two-way flexure tests as well [8]. of voided slab specimens (V1 & V2 and V3 & V4) were observed to be
However, specimen V2 showed a flexible response in comparison to the almost same irrespective of void location, i.e., the void located any-
solid slab S. The reduced stiffness is attributed to higher stress con- where within d distance from face of the column. The ultimate load of
centrations due to the presence of voids (at 0.38d) near to the column. identical voided slab specimens (V5–V7) was almost the same, how-
ever, the displacement corresponding to ultimate load was observed to
vary significantly. It may be due to uncertainty in material properties.

345
R. Sagadevan and B.N. Rao Structures 20 (2019) 340–352

700 and IS 456 2000 [22]. It varies for each standards based on three key
parameters such as (i) critical section for punching shear which governs
600 the control perimeter, (ii) permissible shear strength of concrete, and
(iii) effect of flexural reinforcement. The equations to predict the
500 punching shear capacity of solid slab with these parameters are sum-
marised below.
Load (kN)

400
4.1. ACI 318
S

V1
300
V2
As per ACI 318, the critical section for punching shear is located at a
200
V3 distance of 0.5d from face of the column as shown in Fig. 8(a). The
V4 punching shear capacity of the solid slab (Vc) is least of Eqs. (1a), (1b),
100
V5 and (1c).
V6
Vc = 0.33 fc A (1a)
V7
0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40
2
Mid-span Displacement (mm) Vc = 0.17 1 + fc A
(1b)
Fig. 7. Load versus displacement behaviour of tested specimens.
sd
Vc = 0.083 2 + fc A
Table 3
b0 (1c)
Punching shear capacity of test specimens. where, λ is modification factor to reflect the reduced mechanical
ID Ultimate load, Vu Displacement at ultimate load, δu Ratio, Vu, void/ properties of light-weight concrete relative to normal-weight concrete
(kN) (mm) Vu, solid of the same compressive strength, and equal to 1.0 for normal-weight
concrete, fc′ is specified compressive cylinder strength of concrete, b0 is
S 404.21 36.89 –
V1 239.77 20.51 0.593 perimeter of critical section for two-way shear in slabs, d is distance
V2 240.38 24.83 0.595 from extreme compression fibre to centroid of longitudinal tension re-
V3 574.43 11.52 – inforcement, i.e., effective depth, β is ratio of long side to short side of
V4 548.91 11.37 – the column, αs is constant and equal to 40 for interior column, and A is
V5 657.18 19.70 –
V6 672.34 28.12 –
concrete area (=b0d).
V7 653.61 23.13 – The design punching shear capacity of the solid slab (Vn) is given by
Eq. (1d), where Φ is stress reduction factor and equal to 0.75.
Vn = Vc (1d)
4. Punching shear capacity prediction of solid slabs by various
standards
4.2. EN 1992-1-1
The punching shear capacity of the solid slab can be predicted by
various standards, such as ACI 318 2014 [20], EN 1992-1-1 2004 [21] As per EN 1992-1-1, the critical section for punching shear is located
at a distance of 2d from face of the column as shown in Fig. 8(b). The

Fig. 8. Critical section for punching shear as per (a) ACI 318 and IS 456, (b) EN 1992-1-1

346
R. Sagadevan and B.N. Rao Structures 20 (2019) 340–352

Table 4
Details and experimental results of voided slab specimens of other researchers.
Reference (year) Void details ID Void location Effective depth, Square column Concrete strengtha, N/ Rein. Ratio, Failure load,
from column face d (mm) size, a (mm) mm2 ρl (%) Vu (kN)

Cube Cylinder (fc′)

(fck)

Schnellenbach Held and Sphere D1-24 0.31d 190.0 300 44.40 35.52 1.803 520
Pfeffer (2002) [11] D2-24 0.31d 190.0 300 50.80 40.64 1.803 580
D3-24 0.31d 190.0 300 46.70 37.36 1.803 525
D4-45 0.18d 380.0 300 29.60 23.68 1.060 935
D5-45 0.18d 380.0 300 37.90 30.32 1.060 990
D6-45 0.18d 380.0 300 40.50 32.40 1.060 1180
Han and Lee (2014) [17] Cylinder V1 0.66d 373.5 267 41.25 33.00 0.791 1297
V2 0.34d 373.5 267 41.25 33.00 0.791 1071
V3 0.34d 373.5 267 41.25 33.00 0.791 1111
V4 0.34d 373.5 267 41.25 33.00 0.791 944
Oukaili and Husain (2017) Sphere BD1 2.00d 77.0 100 37.70 30.50 0.734 140
[16] BD3 2.00d 105.0 100 34.00 28.00 1.068 205
BD5 1.00d 77.0 100 36.40 29.50 0.734 120
BD7 1.00d 105.0 100 39.60 31.70 1.068 190
BD9 2.00d 77.0 100 74.00 65.00 0.734 180
BD11 2.00d 105.0 100 74.70 66.50 1.068 325
BD13 1.00d 77.0 100 75.70 67.00 0.734 170
BD15 1.00d 105.0 100 76.40 68.00 1.068 290
Valivonis et al. (2017a)b Hexahedron with BPR1-1 0.34d 234.6 350 31.64 26.51 0.487 600.2
[12] rounded edges BPR1-2 0.34d 234.8 350 31.64 26.51 0.486 600.1
BPR2-1 0.34d 232.9 350 34.78 28.95 0.493 776.3
BPR2-2 0.34d 235.0 350 34.78 28.95 0.485 704.5
BPR3-1 3.33d 152.9 350 32.02 27.96 0.403 385.4
BPR3-2 3.40d 150.0 350 32.02 27.96 0.416 428.1
Valivonis et al. (2017b) Hexahedron with BP1-1 2.18d 233.9 350 36.15 31.01 0.306 772.7
[13] rounded edges BP1-2 2.19d 232.5 350 36.15 31.01 0.308 800.5
BP2-1 0.35d 225.7 350 34.54 32.07 0.317 443.1
BP2-2 0.34d 236.3 350 34.54 32.07 0.303 450.9
BP3-1 0.35d 231.1 350 34.82 30.38 0.310 630.4
BP3-2 0.34d 234.0 350 34.82 30.38 0.306 658.4
Chung et al. (2018a) [19] Donut PD-N-0 1.31d 217.0 300 26.75 21.40 0.800 556.4
PD-N-4 0.07d 217.0 300 27.75 22.20 0.800 515.7
PD-N-8 0.07d 217.0 300 33.50 26.80 0.800 480.2
Current study Sphere V1 1.05d 119.0 300 28.10 22.48 1.130 239.8
V2 0.38d 119.0 300 28.10 22.48 1.130 240.4
V3 0.51d 205.0 300 26.70 21.36 0.800 574.4
V4 1.07d 205.0 300 26.70 21.36 0.800 548.9
Cuboid V5 2.26d 221.0 300 25.00 20.00 0.430 657.2
V6 2.26d 221.0 300 25.00 20.00 0.430 672.3
V7 2.26d 221.0 300 25.00 20.00 0.430 653.6

Note:
a
Concrete cylinder strength is taken as 80% of cube strength and vice versa, if required.
b
The contribution from presence of shear reinforcement is not considered as it is not significant in comparison with observed failure load.

punching shear capacity of the solid slab (VRd,c) is given in Eq. (2). Vmin = 0.035k 3/2 fc A (2c)
VRd, c = CRd, c k (100 l fc )1/3A Vmin (2) The design punching shear capacity of the solid slab (Vn) is given by
Eq. (2d), where γc is partial factor for concrete and equal to 1.5.
where, CRd,c is equal to 0.18, fc′ is characteristic compressive cylinder
strength of concrete, u1 is perimeter of critical section for two-way Vn = VRd, c / c (2d)
shear in slabs, d is effective depth of slab, k is size effect factor and
calculated as per Eq. (2a), ρl is reinforcement ratio for longitudinal 4.3. IS 456
reinforcement and calculated as per Eq. (2b), ρly and ρlz are reinforce-
ment ratios for longitudinal reinforcement in y- and z-direction, re- As per IS 456, the critical section for punching shear is located at a
spectively, Vmin is defined as minimum punching shear capacity of the distance of 0.5d from face of the column as shown in Fig. 8(a). The
solid slab and calculated as per Eq. (2c) and A is concrete area (=u1d). punching shear capacity of solid slab (Vc) is given in Eq. (3).
200 Vc = 0. 25 1. 5fck ks A (3)
k=1+ 2.0
d (2a)
where, fck is characteristic compressive cube strength of concrete, b0 is
= + 0.02 perimeter of critical section for two-way shear in slabs, d is effective
l ly lz (2b)
depth of slab, ks calculated as per Eq. (3a), βc is defined as ratio of short

347
R. Sagadevan and B.N. Rao Structures 20 (2019) 340–352

Table 5
Punching shear capacity of voided slabs calculated by various standards without considering the voids.
Reference (year) ID Failure load, Vu (kN) ACI 318 EN 1992-1-1 IS 456

Vc (kN) Vc/Vu VRdc (kN) VRdc/Vu Vc (kN) Vc/Vu

Schnellenbach Held and Pfeffer (2002) [11] D1-24 520 732.4 1.41 981.8 1.89 759.8 1.46
D2-24 580 783.4 1.35 1026.9 1.77 812.7 1.40
D3-24 525 751.2 1.43 998.5 1.90 779.2 1.48
D4-45 935 1659.8 1.78 2070.2 2.21 1721.8 1.84
D5-45 990 1878.2 1.90 2248.0 2.27 1948.3 1.97
D6-45 1180 1941.5 1.65 2298.3 1.95 2014.0 1.71
Han and Lee (2014) [17] V1 1297 1814.0 1.40 1987.8 1.53 1881.8 1.45
V2 1071 1814.0 1.69 1987.8 1.86 1881.8 1.76
V3 1111 1814.0 1.63 1987.8 1.79 1881.8 1.69
V4 944 1814.0 1.92 1987.8 2.11 1881.8 1.99
Oukaili and Husain (2017) [16] BD1 140 99.4 0.71 106.9 0.76 102.5 0.73
BD3 205 150.4 0.73 201.7 0.98 153.7 0.75
BD5 120 97.7 0.81 105.7 0.88 100.7 0.84
BD7 190 160.0 0.84 210.3 1.11 165.9 0.87
BD9 180 145.0 0.81 137.5 0.76 143.6 0.80
BD11 325 231.7 0.71 269.2 0.83 227.9 0.70
BD13 170 147.3 0.87 138.9 0.82 145.2 0.85
BD15 290 234.3 0.81 271.2 0.94 230.4 0.79
Valivonis et al. (2017a) [12] BPR1-1 600.2 932.1 1.55 827.0 1.38 944.8 1.57
BPR1-2 600.1 932.9 1.55 827.3 1.38 945.7 1.58
BPR2-1 776.3 964.2 1.24 849.2 1.09 980.6 1.26
BPR2-2 704.5 976.4 1.39 852.9 1.21 993.0 1.41
BPR3-1 385.4 536.5 1.39 409.7 1.06 532.7 1.38
BPR3-2 428.1 523.5 1.22 401.9 0.94 519.8 1.21
Valivonis et al. (2017b) [13] BP1-1 772.7 1003.9 1.30 742.6 0.96 1005.7 1.30
BP1-2 800.5 995.5 1.24 740.6 0.93 997.3 1.25
BP2-1 443.1 971.3 2.19 723.3 1.63 935.3 2.11
BP2-2 450.9 1035.3 2.30 761.2 1.69 996.9 2.21
BP3-1 630.4 976.8 1.55 729.5 1.16 970.2 1.54
BP3-2 658.4 994.0 1.51 737.8 1.12 987.3 1.50
Chung et al. (2018a) [19] PD-N-0 556.4 685.1 1.23 774.8 1.39 710.7 1.28
PD-N-4 515.7 697.8 1.35 784.4 1.52 723.8 1.40
PD-N-8 480.2 766.6 1.60 835.2 1.74 795.3 1.66
Current Study V1 239.8 312.1 1.30 339.4 1.41 323.7 1.35
V2 240.4 312.1 1.30 339.4 1.42 323.7 1.35
V3 574.4 631.6 1.10 714.2 1.24 655.2 1.14
V4 548.9 631.6 1.15 714.2 1.30 655.2 1.19
V5 657.2 679.7 1.03 632.1 0.96 705.1 1.07
V6 672.3 679.7 1.01 632.1 0.94 705.1 1.05
V7 653.6 679.7 1.04 632.1 0.97 705.1 1.08
Minimum 0.71 0.76 0.70
Maximum 2.30 2.27 2.21
Mean 1.325 1.345 1.349
SD 0.391 0.431 0.391
COV 0.295 0.320 0.289

side to long side of the column and A is concrete area (=b0d). specimens (in total 40 test specimens) are summarised in Table 4. These
test specimens covers wide range of void former shapes (sphere, cy-
ks = 0.5 + 1.0 (3a)
linder, donut, hexahedron and cuboid), void locations from the column
c

The design punching shear capacity of the solid slab (Vn) is given by face (0.07d–3.40d), concrete cylinder strengths (20–68.5 N/mm2) and
Eq. (3b), where γc is partial safety factor for material strength and equal longitudinal reinforcement ratios (0.303–1.803%).
to 1.5 for concrete.
5.1. Prediction of capacity by various standards
Vn = Vc / c (3b)
The punching shear capacity of all 40 specimens (Table 4) is cal-
5. Experimental test data and prediction of punching shear culated based on the provisions of building standards, applicable for
capacity solid slabs, are summarised in Section 4. The calculated capacity using
various standards are summarised in Table 5; here the strength reduc-
The experimental results based on present study (7 voided slab) and tion factor/partial safety for material is removed to compare with ex-
the test data available in the literature (33 specimens) were compared perimental test data. Based on the above comparison, the following
with the estimations by provisions in the building standards (specified observations are made. The punching shear capacity of voided slabs is
for solid slabs). The details and experimental results of voided slab greatly overestimated (mean ≈ 1.3, and COV ≈ 0.3) by the provisions

348
R. Sagadevan and B.N. Rao Structures 20 (2019) 340–352

Fig. 9. Typical critical sections based on void locations for (a) ACI 318 and IS 456, (b) EN 1992-1-1.

of the building standards considered in this study; slabs with voids where, ui is control perimeter depends on void location and/or as per
within 0.5d distance from the column face is particularly unsafe (Vc/ design code, and Ai-void is area of void at ith critical section (i = 1, 2,
Vu ≈ 2.3). Since the estimation of punching shear capacity of biaxial …,n). The smallest value of Ae should be considered. Typical details are
voided slab by existing provisions for solid slabs in standards does not shown in Fig. 9b.
lead to satisfactory results, an effective area method is proposed to The punching shear capacity of the voided slab is predicted by
predict the punching shear capacity of biaxial voided slab. considering effective concrete area and the results are summarised in
Table 6; here the strength reduction factor/partial safety for material is
5.2. Prediction of capacity by effective concrete area removed to compare with experimental test data. Based on the com-
parison of calculated and experimental capacity for each building
The presence of voids is considered by modifying the critical section standard, the following observations are made.
depending on the void location. In addition, the gross concrete area
available (A) to resist the punching shear load is reduced to an effective • After modifying the critical perimeter and the effective concrete
concrete area (Ae) by acknowledging the presence of voids. The effec- area, the provisions of (ACI 318, EN 1992-1-1, IS 456) predict the
tive concrete area (Ae) is estimated based on the Eqs. (4a), (4b). experimental data reasonably well (mean ≈ 1.0, and COV ≈ 0.21).
For, ACI 318 and IS 456, • After including the strength reduction factor/partial safety for ma-
terial for the predicted capacity, the observed conservatism (mean)
Ae = bi d Ai void (4a) is 22%, 35% and 13% for ACI 318, EN 1992-1-1, and IS 456, re-
where, bi is control perimeter (depending on the void location), and Ai- spectively.
voidis area of void at ith critical section (i = 0, 1, …,n). The smallest
value of Ae should be considered. Typical details are shown in Fig. 9a. The results from 40 test specimens were grouped into four cate-
For, EN 1992-1-1 gories based on the location of voids from face of the column, such
as < 0.5d, 0.5d–1.0d, 1.0d–2.0d, and > 2.0d (Fig. 10). It helps to un-
A e = ui d Ai void (4b) derstand the variation in the capacity depending on the location of

349
R. Sagadevan and B.N. Rao Structures 20 (2019) 340–352

Table 6
Punching shear capacity of voided slabs calculated by various standards with effective concrete area.
Reference (year) ID Failure load, Vu (kN) ACI 318 EN 1992-1-1 IS 456

Vc (kN) Vc/Vu VRdc (kN) VRdc/Vu Vc (kN) Vc/Vu

Schnellenbach Held and Pfeffer (2002) [11] D1-24 520 465.7 0.90 432.7 0.83 483.1 0.93
D2-24 580 498.2 0.86 452.5 0.78 516.8 0.89
D3-24 525 477.7 0.91 440.0 0.84 495.5 0.94
D4-45 935 753.5 0.81 1071.4 1.15 781.7 0.84
D5-45 990 852.6 0.86 1163.4 1.18 884.5 0.89
D6-45 1180 881.4 0.75 1189.4 1.01 914.3 0.77
Han and Lee (2014) [17] V1 1297 1814.0 1.40 618.5 0.48 1881.8 1.45
V2 1071 1268.9 1.18 801.5 0.75 1316.3 1.23
V3 1111 921.0 0.83 710.0 0.64 955.4 0.86
V4 944 921.0 0.98 710.0 0.75 955.4 1.01
Oukaili and Husain (2017) [16] BD1 140 99.4 0.71 106.9 0.76 102.5 0.73
BD3 205 150.4 0.73 201.7 0.98 153.7 0.75
BD5 120 97.7 0.81 105.7 0.88 100.7 0.84
BD7 190 160.0 0.84 210.3 1.11 165.9 0.87
BD9 180 145.0 0.81 137.5 0.76 143.6 0.80
BD11 325 231.7 0.71 269.2 0.83 227.9 0.70
BD13 170 147.3 0.87 138.9 0.82 145.2 0.85
BD15 290 234.3 0.81 271.2 0.94 230.4 0.79
Valivonis et al. (2017a) [12] BPR1-1 600.2 503.9 0.84 622.7 1.04 510.8 0.85
BPR1-2 600.1 504.8 0.84 623.2 1.04 511.7 0.85
BPR2-1 776.3 964.2 1.24 636.8 0.82 980.6 1.26
BPR2-2 704.5 976.4 1.39 642.8 0.91 993.0 1.41
BPR3-1 385.4 536.5 1.39 409.7 1.06 532.7 1.38
BPR3-2 428.1 523.5 1.22 401.9 0.94 519.8 1.21
Valivonis et al. (2017b) [13] BP1-1 772.7 1003.9 1.30 742.6 0.96 1005.7 1.30
BP1-2 800.5 995.5 1.24 740.6 0.93 997.3 1.25
BP2-1 443.1 500.4 1.13 242.1 0.55 481.8 1.09
BP2-2 450.9 564.4 1.25 278.5 0.62 543.5 1.21
BP3-1 630.4 976.8 1.55 544.6 0.86 970.2 1.54
BP3-2 658.4 994.0 1.51 554.7 0.84 987.3 1.50
Chung et al. (2018a) [19] PD-N-0 556.4 685.1 1.23 499.9 0.90 710.7 1.28
PD-N-4 515.7 639.0 1.24 506.0 0.98 662.9 1.29
PD-N-8 480.2 443.8 0.92 538.8 1.12 460.3 0.96
Current study V1 239.8 312.1 1.30 233.3 0.97 323.7 1.35
V2 240.4 269.0 1.12 233.3 0.97 279.1 1.16
V3 574.4 631.6 1.10 432.5 0.75 655.2 1.14
V4 548.9 631.6 1.15 635.1 1.16 655.2 1.19
V5 657.2 679.7 1.03 632.1 0.96 705.1 1.07
V6 672.3 679.7 1.01 632.1 0.94 705.1 1.05
V7 653.6 679.7 1.04 632.1 0.97 705.1 1.08
Minimum 0.71 0.48 0.70
Maximum 1.55 1.18 1.54
Mean 1.045 0.895 1.064
SD 0.237 0.161 0.237
COV 0.227 0.180 0.223

Minimum Design punching shear capacity, Vn (with partial safety factor) 0.53 0.50 0.57
Maximum 1.16 1.01 1.26
Mean 0.783 0.654 0.869
SD 0.178 0.116 0.193
COV 0.228 0.178 0.222

voids. In Fig. 10, the capacity points located above 45° line are over existing provisions for solid slabs in standards (ACI 318-14, EN 1992-1-
predicted by the standards. Such variation between the experimental 1 2004 and IS 456 2000) does not lead to satisfactory results. The
and estimated capacity is primarily due to change in control perimeter, punching shear capacity of voided slabs is greatly overestimated (mean
as it is affected by the presence of voids. ≈ 1.3, and COV ≈ 0.3) by the provisions of the building standards
considered in this study; slabs with voids within 0.5d distance from the
6. Conclusions column face is particularly unsafe (Vc/Vu ≈ 2.3).
3. The predictions of punching shear capacity of voided slabs by the
The following observations are drawn based on the experimental considered building standards (ACI 318-14, EN 1992-1-1 2004 and
investigation of biaxial voided slab under punching shear and com- IS 456 2000), after suitably modifying the control perimeter and
paring the results with the predictions by relevant code provisions (ACI using effective concrete area, are reasonably good in comparison
318-14, EN 1992-1-1 2004 and IS 456 2000). with experimental test data.
4. The observed mean conservatism is 22%, 35% and 13% for ACI 318-
1. The load – displacement behaviour of voided slab (voids located 14, EN 1992-1-1 2004 and IS 456 2000, respectively; this is obtained
beyond 0.5d distance from face of column) shows insignificant dif- after including strength reduction factor/partial safety for material
ference in comparison with reference solid slab. given in building standards for the prediction of punching shear
2. The estimation of punching shear capacity of biaxial voided slab by capacity.

350
R. Sagadevan and B.N. Rao Structures 20 (2019) 340–352

2000 2000
(a) (b) ACI 318 – with considering voids

1600 1600
ACI 318 – without considering voids
Vc,cal (kN)

1200 1200

Vc,cal (kN)
800 800
<0.5d <0.5d
>0.5d, <1.0d >0.5d, <1.0d
400 400
>1.0d, <2.0d >1.0d, <2.0d
>2.0d >2.0d
0 0
0 400 800 1200 1600 2000 0 400 800 1200 1600 2000
Vu,exp (kN) Vu,exp (kN)

(c)2400 EN 1992-1-1 – without considering voids (d)

2400 EN 1992-1-1 – with considering voids

2000 2000

1600 1600
VRdc,cal (kN)

VRdc,cal (kN)
1200 1200

800 <0.5d 800 <0.5d

>0.5d, <1.0d >0.5d, <1.0d
400 >1.0d, <2.0d 400 >1.0d, <2.0d
>2.0d >2.0d
0 0
0 400 800 1200 1600 2000 2400 0 400 800 1200 1600 2000 2400
Vu,exp (kN) Vu,exp (kN)

(e) (f)
2000 2000 IS 456 – with considering voids

1600 1600
IS 456 – without considering voids
Vc,cal (kN)

Vc,cal (kN)

1200 1200

800 800
<0.5d
<0.5d
>0.5d, <1.0d
400 400 >0.5d, <1.0d
>1.0d, <2.0d
>1.0d, <2.0d
>2.0d
>2.0d
0 0
0 400 800 1200 1600 2000 0 400 800 1200 1600 2000
Vu,exp (kN) Vu,exp (kN)

Fig. 10. Comparison of punching shear capacity of voided slab specimens obtained from experiments and various standards.

Acknowledgement [2] Cobiax Technologies. Cobiax engineering manual. Switzerland. 2010.

[3] Daliform Group. U-Boot Beton® system study: lightened concrete slab by using U-
Boot Beton® Italy 2014.
This work was supported by Department of Science and Technology, [4] Sagadevan R, Nageswara Rao B. Numerical study on flexural capacity of biaxial
Ministry of Science and Technology, India (SR/S3/MERC/0040/2012) hollow slab. In: Rao ARM, Ramanjaneyulu K, editors. Recent advances in structural
and M/s Post Tension Services India Pvt. Ltd. (PTSI), Vadodara, engineering, volume 1. Select proceedings of SEC 2016 Singapore: Springer; 2019.
p. 97–105. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-13-0362-3_8.
Gujarat, India (WO/GEN/0001/16-17). The authors wish to acknowl- [5] Valivonis J, Jonaitis B, Zavalis R, Skuturna T, Šneideris A. Flexural capacity and
edge the assistance and facilities offered by Technical Staff, Structural stiffness of monolithic biaxial hollow slabs. J Civ Eng Manag 2014;20:693–701.
Engineering Laboratory, IIT Madras. https://doi.org/10.3846/13923730.2014.917122.
[6] Björnson G. BubbleDeck - two-way hollow slab. Denmark. 2003.
[7] Harding P. BubbleDeck™–advanced structure engineering. BubbleDeck article.
References 2004. p. 15–6.
[8] Sagadevan R, Rao BN. Experimental and analytical investigations on two-way
flexural capacity of biaxial voided slab. Proceedings National Conference on
[1] BubbleDeck Technology. BubbleDeck voided flat slab solutions - technical manual &
Advances in Structural Technologies (CoAST). 2019. p. 635–48.
documents. UK. 2008.

351
R. Sagadevan and B.N. Rao Structures 20 (2019) 340–352

[9] Chung JH, Choi HK, Lee SC, Choi CS. Shear capacity of biaxial hollow slab with experimental investigation. Smart monitoring, assessment and rehabilitation of civil
donut type hollow sphere. Procedia Eng 2011;14:2219–22. https://doi.org/10. structures, Zurich, Switzerland. 2017.
1016/j.proeng.2011.07.279. [17] Han SW, Lee CS. Evaluation of punching shear strength of voided transfer slabs.
[10] Chung JH, Jung HS, il Bae B, Choi CS, Choi HK. Two-way flexural behavior of Mag Concr Res 2014;66:1116–28. https://doi.org/10.1680/macr.14.00080.
donut-type voided slabs. International Journal of Concrete Structures and Materials [18] Wang YZ, Sun YY, Wang LN, Chen Y. Punching shear behavior of reinforced con-
2018;12. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40069-018-0247-6. crete hollow slab. 11th ASCE Aerospace Division International Conference (Earth
[11] Schnellenbach Held M, Pfeffer K. Punching behavior of biaxial hollow slabs. Cem and Space 2008) California, USA: American Society of Civil Engineers; 2008. p. 1–7.
Concr Compos 2002;24:551–6. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0958-9465(01)00071-3. https://doi.org/10.1061/40988(323)62.
[12] Valivonis J, Skuturna T, Daugevičius M, Šneideris A. Punching shear strength of [19] Chung JH, Il Bae B, Choi HK, Jung HS, Choi CS. Evaluation of punching shear
reinforced concrete slabs with plastic void formers. Construct Build Mater strength of voided slabs considering the effect of the ratio b0/d. Eng Struct
2017;145:518–27. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2017.04.057. 2018;164:70–81. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.engstruct.2018.02.085.
[13] Valivonis J, Šneideris A, Šalna R, Popov V, Daugevičius M, Jonaitis B. Punching [20] ACI Committee 318. Building code requirements for structural concrete (ACI 318-
strength of biaxial voided slabs. ACI Struct J 2017;114:1373–83. https://doi.org/ 14) and commentary (ACI 318R-14). USA: American Concrete Institute; 2014.
10.14359/51700912. [21] EN 1992-1-1. Eurocode 2: design of concrete structures – part 1-1: general rules and
[14] Chung JH, Choi HK, Lee SC, Choi CS. Punching shear strength of biaxial hollow slab rules for buildings. London, UK: BSI; 2004.
with donut type hollow sphere. Key Eng Mater 2011;452–453:777–80. https://doi. [22] IS 456. Plain and reinforced concrete - code of practice. New Delhi: Bureau of
org/10.4028/www.scientific.net/KEM.452-453.777. Indian Standards; 2000.
[15] Sagadevan R, Rao BN. Numerical study on punching shear capacity of biaxial [23] IS 1608. Metallic materials - tensile testing. Part 1: method of test at room tem-
hollow slabs. Proceedings, 5th International Congress on Computational Mechanics perature. New Delhi: Bureau of Indian Standards; 2018.
and Simulation Singapore: Research Publishing Services; 2014. p. 1881–90. https:// [24] IS 1786. High strength deformed steel bars and wires for concrete reinforcement -
doi.org/10.3850/978-981-09-1139-3_217. specification. New Delhi: Bureau of Indian Standards; 2008.
[16] Oukaili NKA, Husain LF. Punching shear in reinforced concrete bubbled slabs:

352