ACI STRUCTURAL JOURNAI TECHNICAL PAPER Title no. 64-86 Size Effect in Punching Shear Failure of Slabs by Zdenek P. Bazant and Zhiping Cao Punching shear (esis of geometicaly similar retporced concrete sats of differen sizes are carried ou. The rominal shear sires at faire 18 not constant, as assumed in the current design formas, but de- ‘creases as the sab size inereases. The observed sie effect ix punch ing shear strength is approximarty Gesribed by an improved detion Liormala which wses the size-effet law for britle flues dee 0 di tributed cracking, Anplcobiity of this lave is further supported by ‘measurements of deitetion diagrams, which eved thatthe pos peak load decline becomes steeper asthe sla sice increases. Previous te dats by various investiguiors are aso analyzed collectiely es One large set. Due to the enormity of scatter within 1s Se, the ansence F geometrical similarity and the lack of signficandy different slad ‘S26 within any single tes series, these previous test daca neither or roborate nor contradict the applicability of the sie-effect aw 10 ppurching seer. Keywords coneee slabs cricking (Facing; duc fale; punching sear feviens; ssi rostral deen tt, Most current design formulas for failure loads of concrete structures are based on plastic limit analysis. ‘Theoretically, plastic limit analysis is justified only the load-deflection diagram terminates with a long hor- izontal yield plateau. During the 1970's, it nevertheless became popular to apply limit analysis to all types of failuce, including various brittle failures, such as the punching shear failure. Recently this trend has been recognized to be unjustified. Brittle failures of conerete siructures, which are characterized by a gradual decline of load at increasing deflection after the peak stress point, cannot be adequately described by plastie limit, analysis because the failure does not occur simultane- ‘cusly along the ultimate failure surface (except for very small structures). Rather, the failure is progressive, i.e. the failure zone propagates across the structure, with the energy dissipation localized into the cracking front. ‘Thus, the failure load should be predicted by fracture mechanics, a theory which is based on energy and sia- bility criteria instead of strength criteria. However, the classical, linear elastic fracture mechanies is normally inapplicable because the fracture front is not sharp but, blunted by distributed cracking.’ ‘The salient aspect of fracture mechanics is the size effect. Whereas for plastic limit analysis (gs well as for 44 the elastic allowable stress design) the nominal stress at failure of geometrically similar structures is size-inde- pendent, for fracture mechanics it decreases as the structure size increases. The classical, linear elastic, fracture mechanics yields the strongest possible size ef fect, which is found to be excessive for most concreie structures. A new nonlinear form of fracture mechan- ics, approximately formulated as the blunt crack band moéel, yields a milder size effect, for which a simple size-effect law was derived by dimensional analysis and. similinade arguments." This size-effect law was shown, to agree reasonably well with the test data from various types of fracture specimens’, In the current design codes, the formulas for the brittle failures of concrete structures ignore fracture mechanics and exhibit no size effect. However, in the preceding studies of diagonal shear failure of unpre- stressed and prestressed beams without stirrups," of ring and beam failures of unreinforced pipes, and of: torsion failure of plain or longitudinally reinforced beams,” it has been found that the available test data exhibit 2 size effect deseribable by the size-effect law for blunt fracture. This corroborates the initial theoret- ical proposition that the size-effect Jaw should apply, in an approximate sense, to all the brittle failures of con- crete structures. The present study attempts to examine this proposition for the case of punching shear. REVIEW OF SIZE-EFFECT LAW Consider geometrically similar concrete structures of different characteristic sizes d, made of the same con- crete. If their failure is purely brittle, i.c., if itis caused by concrete cracking, and if plastic energy dissipation during failure is negligible, then the nominal stress at failure approximately obeys the following size effect Jaw (Fig. 1) RES Oc. 7, 1985, an revensd ep rt ait ot theo of cone uies srmince oka am the supre pope Structural Journal reehed by joy 1, 982. AGI Structural Journal | January-February 1987‘Zam P. Batans FACT, profesor and decor, Cente for Concrete and Geomateras, Northwestern University, Dr. Botan? i regtered siete! lenzineer, serves os constant to Argonne National Labortory ond reveal ‘ther frm, ands om eto Donde of five Journal. He is Charman of NCP Commitee 448, Fravure Mechanics, and & member of ACI Commitee 109, {Creep and Srinkoe im Concr; 34, Sirucurel Safe): and joint ACLASCE Commitice $8, Concrete Shel Design ond Construction, He alo servet Chairman of RILEM Commitee TCS on eet, of ASCE-EMD Commitee On Properties of Maer, end of I-SMIRT Divion H. Hi marks on concrete ‘and geometerial, inelastic behavior, fracture end sabiliy have been reo rized by RILEM medal, ASCE Huber Prize ond TY. Lim Award 1100 ‘Awerd, Cugsenhein Fellowship, Ford Foundation Fellowship, and eetion at Feliow of Amercon Academy af Mechanics. Zhiping Ceo is senior vl engineer ond director, Ctr for Buling Dein Design Insta, Yellow River Consersaney Commission, Zhngthot, Henan ‘Province, People's Republic af China. He has taken par nthe planning of Yellow River Valley nd several lrge hydraulic engineerin projets. Mr. Cao spent the last two pears at Vshing Scholar atthe Center for Concrete nd (Geomateras of Norhweser University, conducting Both Peoria and ek Derimenal researches onthe Jrectre mechani eppicaions and ite effec n ‘the falar of presiesed concrete beams, enforced be, nd pipe. w= BS OW, 60) d, Aen 1 ey a where oy = P/bd where P thickness of structure; f! concrete, d, = maximum aggregate size, } = d/d, relative structure size; and B, X, = empirical parame- ters characterizing the fracture energy of the material and the shape of the structure. This formula, which was derived by dimensional analysis and similitude argu- rments,! represents a gradual transition from the failure criterion of limit analysis (or allowable stress design) to the linear elastic fracture mechanics. The case of limit, analysis, corresponding to a horizontal strength line in 1, is obtained for very small structures (\ < Nl), and the case of linear elastic fracture mechanics, cor responding to a straight line of slope ~¥%, is obtained for very large structures (\ > Ayd,). Most practical structures represent the intermediate case, whereas most available laboratory data are near the limit analysis case Qa). The size-effect law was found to be in approximate agreement with the results of fracture tests of concrete. Furthermore, the test data available in the literature for diagonal shear failure of longitudinally reinforced non- prestressed as well as prestressed beams, for torsion failure of beams, and for beam and ring failures of pipes, were found to be in acceptable agreement”**2! with the size-effect law although they could not be said to validate it, due to the large random scatter of the data, Recently, it has been shown (see References 3 and 4 and the closure to Reference 7) that Eq, (1) represents the first order approximation to the most general size- effect law which reads oy = Bf! (@' + 1 + og + af + GE +. . 2)! where £ = OWNS By do Fs Cy, Gy. » » = constants. Furthermore, when d, varies, Si vaties, 100, and approximately f= f? [1 + (@/ d)'9}, where f®, ¢, = constants. However, these refine- ‘ments of Eq. (1) are not used in the present study since they introduce further unknown parameters, the deter- load at failure and b = direct tensile strength of ACI Structural Journal | January-February 1987 mination of which is impossible because of the high random scatter of the existing test data. TEST SPECIMENS To check the size effect, a series of tests of micro- concrete specimens has been carried out. Three rein- forced circular slabs for each of three different thick- nesses d were cast, cured, and loaded to failure. The concrete mix ratio of cement:sand:gravel:water (by weight) was 1:2:2:0.5. The maximum aggregate size was d, = % in. (6.35 mm), and the maximum sand size was Yq in, (1.59 mm). The aggregate was crushed dolomitic limestone, the sand was river sand, and the portland cement was of ASTM Type I. The molds were made, of plywood. A group of three specimens, one of each size, ‘was cast one at a time from the same batch of con- crete. Then each specimen was vibrated, and one day after casting the specimens were unmolded and placed for curing in a room with 90-percent relative humidity and 78 F (25.6 C) temperature. The specimens of Group I were moved from the humidity room to the laboratory fof temperature about 72 F (22.2 C) and rel- ative humdity about 65 percent] one week before test- ing, and those of Groups II and III one day before testing. At the moment of test, the age of Groups I and II specimens was 228 days, and of Group III specimens 227 days. Three control cylinders of 3 in. (76.2 mm) di- ameter were cast from each batch of concrete and the uniaxial compressive strength f? was tested after stan- dard 28-day curing; see Table 1. An orthogonal rein- forcing mesh was placed at the bottom of each slab. For each group of specimens, the reinforcement ratio was slightly different so as to obtain at the same time some information on its possible effect, if any. None was detected, though. The average specific weights p of all slabs were determined by weighing cach siab after the test in air and in water (Table 1), in order to check for a possible correlation with the measured nominal shear strength, which would make it possible to process the results to reduce scatter. However, no significant correlation has been found. t i ‘ ‘most existing tests: i ! og (vise a) ‘Sizeceffect law for blunt fracture (dimensions in Tin, 45Table 1 — Data on the slabs tested eee Tiesletsl slots eld : sacl foto] | adn a wh Tale] a] 4 leueleae]alilese v0 als] a]: [aus] sam] is| ie aus ea es | fs [sas 8 [|| me a} i]s]: [susleaglslieas Bg aL [as | 3 fees a] alsa B3 mae] aa lewslaae] elalecs ies 9, ane a] fad]: faus]eael efile WS] B8) ah [a8 e181 2 [oasis] ellis se] os [8 “SB, = Sand en ad on com oes Tin = 284mm p= OSE Pa Slob & (artim 16.02 ka Slave @ (@=2in} ond © (a4 ind re — ‘oe E iL oe Fig. 2—Test specimens and their reinforcement The slabs of size A had thickness d = 1 in. (25.4 mm), size B. . . 2 in. (50.8 mm), size C. . . 4 in. (101.6 mm). The slabs were designed so as to fail by punching shear rather than bending, and they did. The geometry of size A slabs is shown in Fig. 2 on the left and that of size B and C slabs in Fig. 2 on the right. All data on the slabs are given in Table 1 in which a = slab diameter, b = diameter of the circular flat steel punch; Gq ¢, = distances from the bottom face of the cen- troids of x- and y- direction bars; n,n, = numbers of all x- and y-bars within the slab, D, = bar diameter; and s,s, = spacings of the x- and y-bars. Deformed bars of yield strength f, = 45,000 psi (309 MPa) were used. The reinforcement mesh was rectangular (as close to square as possible). The spacings in x- and y-direc- tions were slightly different to achieve a reinforcement that is approximately isotropic for bending, i.e., the moment of the bar yield force (per unit length) about the compression resultant is approximately the same for the x- and y-directions. The perimeter support con- sisted of a smooth continuous round steel bar bent into a circular shape. This type of support is not perfect, since radial horizontal friction forces can arise at the support; however, such forces have @ negligible effect on the punching shear failure (although they may af- fect considerably the bending failure). 46 TESTING METHOD AND RESULTS The slab specimens, simply supported in a horizontal Position with span L such that L/a = 0.8, were loaded to failure in a closed-loop testing machine (MTS); see Fig. 3 and 4. The tests were displacement-controlled and the displacement rates were 0.002, 0.01, and 0.05, in./min. for the large, medium, and small specimens. For all specimen sizes, the maximum load was reached in about § min. The vertical displacement at the center of the slab on the bottom face was measured by an LVDT gage and used as a feedback signal for displace ment control. ‘The typical load displacement diagrams are shown in Fig. 5. These diagrams exhibit a sharp peak followed by gradual softening. This confirms that the failure is caused mainly by brittle cracking of concrete, and not by plasticity of concrete, as assumed in many previous works. If the failures were caused by plasticity of con- crete (or steel), the load-displacement diagram would have to exhibit a long horizontal plateau. Note also that the larger the specimen, the steeper the decline of load after the peak point. It follows that the response of a larger specimen is more brittle (less duc- tile) than that of a smaller specimen, i.e., that the be- havior of a larger specimen should be closer to linear elastic fracture mechanics and more different from a ACI Structural Journal / January-February 1987Fig. 3—Specimens in MTS testing machine Jimit-analysis solution. This behavior represents an in- direct confirmation of the size-efvect law. For the larg est specimen, the shape of the post-peak diagram about the same as itis in direct tensile tests. From this, we may infer that the rate of plastic dissipation, as op- posed {0 brittle cracking, is negligible in these failures Fig. 6 (¢)-(f) shows the photographs of the bottom faces of the slabs after the tests (the cracks were marked by a pea for better visibility). The cracking patterns observed, typical of the punching shear fail- ture, confirm that the cracking is quite distributed rather than localized. On the top face, by contrast, the defor- mation appears to be plastic (Fig. 6 (a) and (b)], duc to confining compression stresses under the punch. ‘The test results are listed in terms of the nominal shear siress at failure v,, defined as v, = P/xbd where P = maximum load measured, b = punch diameter, and d = slab thickness (d = 5) ANALYSIS OF TEST RESULTS ‘The formula currently used to predict punching shear failure!™%1519 jg Mecoin tn wks (1465) @) where &, and &; are empirical constants. This formule was derived theoretically by plastic limit analysis on the basis of the modified Coulomb yield criterion for con- creic. The plastic failure surface (Fig. 4) closely resem bles the observed final crack. Eq. (2), however, ex- AGI Structural Journal | January-February 1987 failure a etiection tnd Fig. 5—Typical measured ioad-deflection diagrams for slabs of different thicknesses (j kip = 6.895 MN, Tin, = 25.4 mm) ario) @ 48 hibits no size effect. Since the failure is brittle rather than ductile, a size effect of the fracture mechanics type should be expected. Eq. (2) may then be generalized, in view of Ea. (1), as v, = Ce () or in which f cams lt @ 7) The coefficients in this relation may be easily deter- mined by plotting ¥ = ¥;? versus X = d/d,, Accord- ing to Ea. (G3), ¥ = AX + D where A = D/A, D C+. Thus, the plot should ideally be linear, and linear regression may be applied. The linear regression plots for the individual spect men groups tested are shown in Fig. 7a), and for the entire set of measurements in Fig. 7(¢). The corre- sponding sizz-effect plots are shown in Fig. 7(b) and @). The parameter values for the optimum group fit in Fig. 7(6) and (d) ated, = 28.5, , = 0.155. Fig. 7(¢) also gives the linear repression statistics, consisting of the standard deviation (.D.), the coefficient of varia- tion wy» for the deviations of the date points from the regression line, and of the mean data value Y. ‘These figures show clearly that a size effect exists but J much weaker than linear fracture mechanics would indicate [slope — Ys in Fig. 7(4)]. To make the size ef- fect more conspicuous, the test results are replotted in Fig. 8 (a) and (b) in terms of the relative values of ¥, with respect to the value for the smallest slab from the same batch of concrete. The test results reveal no systematic effect of the re inforcement percentage. This agrees with the results of Previous investigators as well as with the ACI formula, EVALUATION OF TEST DATA FROM THE LITERATURE The principal test data from the literature!*41+1120 were also exemined for evidence of the size effect. Un- Fig. 6(a) through (f)—Specimons after test and their cracking pattern at bottom face ACI Structural Journal / Januery-February 1987© eet cea Oe te a rreery: ae on 5 @ 0 cree ts aye t8at é a ee te gem erasers eae eare si a/ay : © e 2 t ; eases.) eee coast rs croup, nras 8 Group 2 © Group 3 aaa © Grow 3 °S + . ry Ey 20 es * = 1 4k It a bp(d/d,) Fig. 7—Test results and their optimal fits + Get Cad 2 tree + Gre 3 cnasseties) aa, cn.rs8i(14.266) ane Be ae cmp 2 ta ft a a aay byla/ Fig. &—Test results relative to the result for the smallest slab and their optimal fits fortunately, not one of the previous test series included significantly different slab sizes. Nevertheless, in the set of all existing data, d/d, ratios ranging from 4 to 12 were used by different investigators (Table 2). This suggests that a size effect might be detected by analy2- ing all data collectively, in the same manner as has been done with success for the diagonal shear failure of beams." The results of 159 tests by seven previous investigators!" are plotted in Fig. 9a) and (b). Basic information on these data is summarized in Ta- ble 2. The optimum fits of these data by Eq. (4) are also plotted in Fig. 9 ACI Structural Journal / January-February 1987 The comparisons in Fig. 9a) and (b) do not contra. dict the size-effect law or Eq. (3)], but neither do they corroborate it, because the scatter is enormous. The ‘enormity of scatter is due to comparing the results from different laboratories obtained with different concretes and the results for slabs that were not geometrically similar. It was for this reason that the present tests were undertaken, If the test results fitted the theory perfectly, the plot of the measured values versus the calculated values would lie on a straight line of Slope 1 passing through the origin. Thus, the deviations from t are mea- sures of the errors of the formula. Plots of this type are 49Table 2 — Summary of previous test results magellan wslml 2 [eels pa || le): le bees | Se | Be Bee) 2B | ees Beaicsl||e eli 3 las iis paast | fm | 33 pao | yo OL ve | oe neal i= |e we ]a| @ || 2 so [as sf ele | Ele Beagles. aa Ss ects cate sll ieee elie meals Ee) BUHS) S2)8] : | B]B)8) BE) | |e PRR] ey ee RS Rey ese | ae oe) i | Se | ae | a a REUSE [SUES] SB] B| 2 HEE | | SB HER 50 ACI Structural Journal / January-February 1987Cay] cere, meses gn) wo | eausesty are, pla) Fig, 9—Ultimate load data from the literature and optimal fit by size-effect law shown in Fig. 10 (a) through (d) (where r is the corre- lation coefficient of regression). The theoretical values for the formulas of Elstner and Hognestad and Moe” are given by v, = ky + kf (no effect of d/b) and v, Ky + ky d/b) Vf, respectively. (The latter formula is equivalent to that of ACI since k, = kyk;,) The coef- ficient values for mean ultimate load predictions are k, 4.31, k; = 0.66 for the ACI formula; k = 111.5, ks 0.067 for Elstner and Hognestad’s formula’ and k, = 4.31, ky = 2.86 for Moe's formula” (2.86 = 4.31 x 0.664). ‘The comparisons of the data points with the theoret- ical lines (dashed) in Fig. 10 (a) through (c) show huge scatter, as indicated by the vertical deviations from the dashed line (the regression line is not plotted). The pro- posed formula [Eg. (4)] has only marginally better sta- tistics than the previous formulas, and the comparison in Fig. 10(c) cannot be viewed at all as either a verifi- cation or an invalidation of Eq. (4) proposed here. ‘The design values v, of nominal shear stress are ob- tained by applying to the formula a capacity reduction factor 0.75. The plots of such reduced nominal shear stress values versus the measured values are shown in Fig. 10 (d) through (f). In these plots, the majority of data are expected to lie above the theoretical straight line, as basically they do, although a few data points still fall dangerously low below the prediction line. This happens even when the size effect is introduced 10(f]; the variation coefficient and the correlation coefficient are only marginally better for this graph Fig. 10(9). The scatter of the data points in Fig. 10is very large. Apparently, aside from the effects of b/d and size, there are some other systematic influences which are not yet understood. ACI Structural Journal | January-February 1987 CONCLUSIONS 1. The punching shear failure of stabs without stir rups is not plastic but brittle. This is evidenced by the fact that, after the peak, the load-deflection diagram exhibits a gradual decline rather than a plastic yield plateau. Due to the brittleness of failure, the size-effect law for blunt failures should, in theory, apply. 2. The punching shear tests of geometrically similar concrete slabs of different sizes, carried out as part of the present investigation, indicate that the size effect exists, ie., the nominal stress at failure decreases as the size increases. These new test results show acceptable agreement with the size-effect law, and lead to an im- proved design formula (Eq. (3)]. 3. The larger the slab thickness, the steeper the post- peak dectine of the load-deflection diagram; thus, the punching shear behavior of thin slabs is closer to plas- ticity, and that of thick slabs is closer to linear elastic fracture mechanics. This independently confirms the applicability of the size-effect law, since this law pre~ dicts exactly such kind of behavior. 4, Previous test data from the literature do not con- tradict the proposed formula but they do not validate it either, due to their enormous scatter when they are all analyzed collectively. S. In view of the limited number of tests, the not very broad size range, and the use of small aggregate (max- imum size 4 in. of 6.35 mm), it would be desirable to conduct further geometrically similar size-effect tests with much larger slabs and a regular-size aggregate (this would of course require much larger funding. ACKNOWLEDGMENT ‘The fundamental investigations underlying the present work were supported by U.S. Air Force Office of Scientific Research under Grant No, 83.0008, 517 Go) act, oe 4 “ (a) act, Oe os. tee 7 oe tee weesreameiMt ane 7 bth ne, of date 158 gy ge 247 s.0.= 1087 (psi) Lie 04. Cod 485, - Be Be Tier eR > . Eee. 7% Eu = eae = Pe Sas ee Fu a lar , . nal ett st.o7m, FA] seven on Ged. 3 Lice? hy £, ¥ tog Wu(mesn)) gor ot sons. 8) i 7258, (ufone) tap ateate) Fig. 10—Plot of measured versus calculated nominal shear strength values at ulti- ‘mate load: left—mean formula; REFERENCES 1. Batant, Zdentk P., “Size Effect in Blunt Fracture: Concrete, Rock, Metal." Journal of Engineering Mechanics, ASCE, V. 110, No. 4, Apr. 1984, pp. 518-535 2. Batan, Z. P., “Mechanics of Fracture and Progressive Crack- ‘ng in Concrete Structures,” Fracture Mechanics of Concrete: iru tural Application and Numerical Calculation, Martinus Nijnofé Pub- lishers, Dordreeht-Boston, 1985, pp. 1-94, 3, Badant, Zdenék P., “Comment on Hillerborg's Comparison of Size Effect Law and Fictitious Crack Model,” Dei Poll Anniversery Volume, Poitenico di Milano, 1985, pp. 335-338. 4, Badant, Z, P., “Fractute Mechanics and Strain-Softening of Concrete," ‘Proceedings, U.S.-Japan Seminar on Finite Element ‘Analysis of Reinforced Conerete Structures, Japan Concrete Inti- 82 right—design formula tute, Tokyo, 1985, pp. 47-9. Also in Proceedings, ASCE, New York, ‘pp. 121-150; and as “Mechanics of Distributed Cracking,” Applied ‘Mechanics Reviews, V. 39, No. &, May 1986, pp. 675-705, 5. Balant, Zdentk P., and Cao, Zhiping, “Size Effect of Shear Failure in Prestressed Concrete Beams,”” ACI JOURNAL, Proceeding? 'V. 83, No. 2, Mar-Apr. 1986, pp. 260-268, 6. Batant, Zdenék P., and Cao, Zhiping, “Size Effect in Brittle Fallure of Unreinforeed Pipes," ACI JOURNAL, Proceedings V. 83, No. 3, May-June 1986, pp. 369.373. 17. Batant, Zdendk P., and Kim, Jin-Keun, “Size Effet in Shear Failure of Longitudinally Reinforced Concrete Beams,"” ACI JOuR- ‘at, Proceedings V. 81, No. 5, Sept-Oct. 1984, pp. 456-458. Also, Discussion, V. 82, No. 4, July-Aug. 1985, pp. 579-583 8. Betant, Zdentk P.; Kim, Jin-Keun; and Pfeiffer, Philip A.. “Nonlinear Fracture Properties from Size Effect Tests,” Journal of ACI Structural Journal | January-February 1987Structural Engineering, ASCE, V. 112, No. 2, Feb. 1986, pp. 289- 301. 9, Batant, Zdendk, and Oh, B. H., “Crack Band Theory for Frac- ture of Concrete," Materials and Structures, Research and Testing (RILEM, Pars), V. 16, No, 93, May-June 1983, pp. 155-177 10. Braestrup, M. W., “Punching Shear in Concrete Slabs," Lic. ‘Techn. thesis, Stractural Research Laboratory, Technical University ‘of Denmark, Lyngby, 1976. 11. Chen, Wai-Fah, Plasticity in Reinforced Concrete, McGraw Hill Book Co., New York, 1982, pp. 329-332. 12, Corley, W. Gene, and Hawkins, Neil M., “Shearhead Rein- orcement for Slabs,” ACI JouRNAL, Proceedings V. 65, No. 10, Ot 1968, pp. 811-824, 13, Dragosavic, M., and Van den Beukel, A, “Punching Shear,” Heron (Delt), V. 2, No. 2, 1974, 48 pp. 14, Elstner, Richard C., and Hognestad, Eivind, ‘Shearing Strength of Reinforced Concrete Slabs," ACI JouRnat, Proceedings V.83, No. 1, July 1986, pp. 29-58 15. Hess, U., and Jensen, B. C., “Gennemlokning af jernbeton plader."” Report No. R9O, Structural Research Laboratory, Techni- ‘al University of Denmark, Lyngby, May 1978, 63 pp. ACI Structural Journal | January-February 1987 16. Kinnunen,S., and Nylander, H., “Punching of Concrete Slabs without Shear Reinforcement,” Transactions, Royal Institue of, ‘Technology, Stockholm, 1960, 110 pp. 17, Moe, Johannes, “Shear Strength of Reinforced Concrete Slabs ‘and Footings Under Concentrated Load," Development Depertment Bullefin No. DAT, Portland Cement Assocation, Skokie, 1961, 135, 18, Mowrer, R. D., and Vanderbitt, M. D., “Shear Strength of Lightweight Aggregate Reinforced Concrete Flat Plates," ACI JOUR- aL, Proceedings V. 68, No. 11, Nov. 1967, pp. 722-72 19, Nielsen, M. P.; Braesrup, M. W.; Jensen, B. Cand Bach, F., Concrete Plasticity. Beam Shear—Shear in Joints—Punching ‘Sheeat,” Special Publication, Danish Society for Structural Science and Engineering, Copentagen, 1978, 129 pp. 20, Taylor, R., and Hayes, B, “‘Some Tests on the Effet of Edge Restraint on Punching Shear in Reinforced Concrete Slabs," Moga zine of Concrete Research (London), V. 17, No. 50, Mar. 1968, pp. 39.44 21, Batant, Z, P. and Sener, S., ‘Size Effect in Torsional Fa fof Beams,” Report No. 86-8/428, Center for Conerete and Geo terials, Northwestern University, Evanston, Aug. 1986, 21 pp. 53