Citation :

Vinodkrishna M Savadi, Santosh M Muranal, Shreeshail Heggond, "Comparative Study of Drop Panels, Stirrups, and Stud Rails for Enhancing Punching Shear Resistance under Seismic Actions," International Journal of Civil Engineering, vol. 13, no. 7, pp. 323-343, 2026. Crossref, https://doi.org/10.14445/23488352/IJCE-V13I7P120

Abstract

Problems with punching shear failure at slab-column joints have remained one of the major problems in RC flat slabs, especially where there is a combination of loadings from both gravity and lateral forces acting on the slab. This paper presents a numerical study of the use of drop panels and shear reinforcements in improving slab-column joints using nonlinear FEM with the CDP approach. Ten models (C25-C34) were considered while considering the two grades of concrete (M35 and M40), three types of reinforcement systems (unreinforced, with stirrups, and with stud rails) under static and Lateral loading conditions. The numerical results suggest that drop panels increase initial stiffness and Peak lateral load (for seismic analyses) capacity of slab–column joints. But, without geometric enhancement, the brittle punching behaviour under Lateral loading could not be prevented. The unstiffened configurations showed substantial loss of strength and higher deformations. Stirrups had been introduced to provide better confinement and post-peak stability. The systems with stud rail reinforcement had the best numerical response when measured in terms of load-carrying capacity, residual strength and ductility. The presence of a stirrup gives the added advantage of increased lateral load capacity of about 330% as well as good post-peak behaviour. The stud rail system exhibits the best overall behaviour, where the lateral load capacity can be increased by about 400%. The grade effect of concrete reveals that more the strength, the higher the stiffness and capacity and the lower the ductility in non-reinforced applications. The sensitivity analysis proves that the most important parameter that controls the performance is the shear reinforcement type. A comparison with codal provisions such as IS 456, ACI 318, and Eurocode 2 indicates that the existing formulations do not adequately capture the effect of reinforcement and the post-peak structural behaviour. The numerical results indicate that, out of all the examined configurations, the use of both drop panels and stud-rail reinforcement would yield the most favourable structural response. These results, however, are based on finite element simulation and require experimental validation in the future.

Keywords

Punching shear; Flat slab–column joints; Drop panels; Shear reinforcement; Stud rails; Stirrups; Lateral loading; Nonlinear finite element analysis; Concrete Damage Plasticity (CDP); Residual strength; Structural ductility; Codal validation.

References

1. Aurelio Muttoni, “Punching Shear Strength of Reinforced Concrete Slabs without Transverse Reinforcement,” ACI Structural Journal, vol. 105, no. 4, pp. 440-450, 2008.
   [CrossRef] [Google Scholar] [Publisher Link]
2. Juan Sagaseta et al., “Non-Axis-Symmetrical Punching Shear around Internal Columns of RC Slabs without Transverse Reinforcement, vol. 63, no. 6, pp. 441-457, 2011.
   [CrossRef] [Google Scholar] [Publisher Link]
3. Ian N. Robertson, and Ahmad J. Durrani, “Gravity Load Effect on Seismic Behavior of Interior Slab-Column Connections,” Aci Structural Journal, vol. 89, no. 1, pp. 37-45, 1993.
   [Google Scholar] [Publisher Link]
4. Mary Beth D. Hueste et al., “Seismic Design Criteria for Slab-Column Connections,” ACI Structural Journal, vol. 104, no. 4, pp. 448-458, 2007.
   [CrossRef] [Google Scholar] [Publisher Link]
5. Austin Pan, and Jack P. Moehle, “Lateral Displacement Ductility of Reinforced Concrete Flat Plates,” Structural Journal, vol. 86, no. 3, pp. 250-258, 1989.
   [CrossRef] [Google Scholar] [Publisher Link]
6. C.E. Broms, “Structural Model for Interstory Drift Capacity of Flat Slabs without Shear Reinforcement,” ACI Structural Journal, vol. 117, no. 3, pp. 45-54, 2020.
   [CrossRef] [Google Scholar] [Publisher Link]
7. Stefano Guandalini, Olivier Burdet, and Aurelio Muttoni, “Punching Tests of Slabs with Low Reinforcement Ratios,” ACI Structural Journal, vol. 106, no. 1, pp. 87-95, 2009.
   [CrossRef] [Google Scholar] [Publisher Link]
8. Stefan Lips, Miguel Fernandez Ruiz, and Aurelio Muttoni, “Experimental Investigation on Punching Strength and Deformation Capacity of Shear-Reinforced Slabs,” ACI Structural Journal, vol. 109, no. 6, pp. 889-900, 2012.
   [CrossRef] [Google Scholar] [Publisher Link]
9. Eric M. Matzke et al., “Behaviour of Biaxially Loaded Slab-Column Connections with Shear Studs,” ACI Structural Journal, vol. 112, no. 3, pp. 335-346, 2015.
   [CrossRef] [Google Scholar] [Publisher Link]
10. Thai X. Dam, and James K. Wight, “Flexurally-Triggered Punching Shear Failure of Reinforced Concrete Slab–Column Connections Reinforced with Headed Shear Studs Arranged in Orthogonal and Radial Layouts,” Engineering Structures, vol. 110, pp. 258-268, 2016.
    [CrossRef] [Google Scholar] [Publisher Link]
11. Philipp Schmidt et al., “Activation Model for Various Punching Shear Reinforcement Types in Flat Slabs and Column Bases Optimized for Design,” Engineering Structures, vol. 249, 2021.
    [CrossRef] [Google Scholar] [Publisher Link]
12. Building Code Requirements for Structural Concrete (ACI 318-19), American Concrete Institute, 2019.
    [Google Scholar] [Publisher Link]
13. EN 1992-1-1, Eurocode 2: Design of Concrete Structures, Part 1-1: General Rules and Rules for Buildings, 2004.
    [Google Scholar] [Publisher Link]
14. Indian Standard 456:2000, Plain and Reinforced Concrete – Code of Practice, Bureau of Indian Standards, 2000.
    [Google Scholar] [Publisher Link]
15. Jürgen Einpaul et al., “Performance of Punching Shear Reinforcement under Gravity Loading: Influence of Type and Detailing,” ACI Structural Journal, vol. 113, no. 4, pp. 827-838, 2016.
    [CrossRef] [Google Scholar] [Publisher Link]
16. Aurelio Muttoni et al., “Background to fib Model Code 2010 Shear Provisions – Part II: Punching Shear,” Structural Concrete, vol. 14, no. 3, pp. 204-214, 2013.
    [CrossRef] [Google Scholar] [Publisher Link]
17. Dominik Kueres et al., “Uniform Design Method for Punching Shear in Flat Slabs and Column Bases,” Engineering Structures, vol. 136, pp. 149-164, 2017.
    [CrossRef] [Google Scholar] [Publisher Link]
18. Jeeho Lee, and Gregory L. Fenves, “Plastic-Damage Model for Cyclic Loading of Concrete Structures,” Journal of Engineering Mechanics, vol. 124, no. 8, pp. 892-900, 1998.
    [CrossRef] [Google Scholar] [Publisher Link]
19. Aikaterini S. Genikomsou, and Maria Anna Polak, “Finite Element Analysis of Punching Shear of Concrete Slabs using Damaged Plasticity Model in ABAQUS,” Engineering Structures, vol. 98, pp. 38-48, 2015.
    [CrossRef] [Google Scholar] [Publisher Link]
20. Adam Wosatko, Jerzy Pamin, and Maria Anna Polak, “Application of Damage–Plasticity Models in Finite Element Analysis of Punching Shear,” Computers and Structures, vol. 151, pp. 73-85, 2015.
    [CrossRef] [Google Scholar] [Publisher Link]
21. Frederico P. Maués et al., “Numerical Modelling of Flat Slabs with Different Amounts of Double-Headed Studs as Punching Shear Reinforcement,” Buildings, vol. 15, no. 6, pp. 1-25, 2025.
    [CrossRef] [Google Scholar] [Publisher Link]