DISCUSSIONS AND CLOSURES

and PSS-C; thus, shear cracks should have intersected shearbands

Discussion of “Alternative Shear
Reinforcement of Reinforced
Concrete Flat Slabs” by
K. Pilakoutas and X. Li
September 2003, Vol. 129, No. 9, pp. 1164–1172.
DOI: 10.1061/共ASCE兲0733-9445共2003兲129:9共1164兲
Gerd Birkle1 and Ramez B. Gayed2
1
PhD Candidate, Univ. of Calgary, Alberta, Canada T2N 1N4.
2
Chief PhD Candidate, Univ. of Calgary, Alberta, Canada T2N 1N4.
The objective of the paper is to introduce an alternative type of
shear reinforcement for slab-column connections 共shearband兲 and
validate its effectiveness using experimental results and calcula-
tions based on design codes. The shearband is a sheet-metal strip
bent in the shape of a multiple-leg stirrup, shown in Fig. 1, taken
from ACI 318R-02 共ACI 2002兲. A stirrup with this configuration
contributes to the shear resistance by developing tensile forces in
the vertical branches; such forces cannot develop unless the end
anchorages of the vertical branches are insured. For effective an-
chorage, the ACI 318-02 code requires that a multileg stirrup of
this shape engage a heavier bar at each bent. Because of its
method of installation, a shearband cannot satisfy this require-
ment. The presented tests do not prove that the shearbands are
effective. Comments on the laboratory results and the application
of shearband reinforcement in practice are presented below.
The paper states that a strength enhancement of 23% has been
achieved by the use of shearbands. This statement is based on
comparing the failure loads recorded for three specimens with
shearbands with the failure load of a control specimen having no
shear reinforcement. However, the concrete strength of the con-
trol specimen is considerably smaller than the specimens with
shearbands. If the punching strength is considered proportional to
共f ⬘c 兲1/2, in accordance with ACI 318-02, the gain of strength that
can be attributed to the shearbands is only 11%.
The yield strength of 1,100 MPa 共159.5 ksi兲 for the shear-
bands corresponds to a yield strain of approximately
5500⫻ 10−6. The graphs of load versus strain in the shearbands
共Figs. 14 and 15兲 indicate that they ceased to contribute to the
load resistance when this strain reached a value ranging between
200⫻ 10−6 and 700⫻ 10−6. Thus, the fact that the graph reached a
plateau at these low strain levels cannot be attributed to yielding
of the shearbands; it indicates failure of the strain gauge rather
than yielding of the shearbands. Fig. 11 shows that failure has
occurred inside the shear reinforced zone of specimens PSS-B
in this zone. However, Fig. 14 has not shown evidence of yielding
of the shearbands.
According to the yield line theory, the ultimate flexural
strength, Vflex, of the tested slabs is Vflex = 590 kN 共132.6 kip兲.
Because this value is close to the ultimate punching shear strength
of slabs without shear reinforcement, large deflections are ex-
pected in all tests. This is so because extensive yielding of the
flexural reinforcement is bound to occur before failure. Again, the
ductile behavior exhibited in the tests cannot be attributed to the
shearbands.
For practical application, the discussers envisage that the
shearbands be installed from the top after the installation of the
flexural reinforcement 关Fig. 2共a兲兴. When this is done, the bends of
the shearband will not engage heavier bars, as required by ACI
318-02. Furthermore, the horizontal part of the band at the bottom
will be above the two layers of the bottom reinforcement 共and
above the compression zone in most cases兲. In specimen PSS-D,
the shearbands have hooks that engage some flexural bars; also,
the bottom horizontal parts of the bands are located below the two
bottom layers of the flexural reinforcement 关Fig. 2共b兲兴. These fa-
vorable anchorage details of the test cannot be done in practice;
thus, PSS-D shows better behavior than what can occur in real
construction. The discussers believe that shearbands, installed as
proposed for construction, will have poor anchorage and contrib-
ute little to the punching shear strength.
In the tests, the cross-sectional area of the shearbands is
25⫻ 0.8= 20 mm2 共31⫻ 10−3 in.2兲. The paper proposes to use the
same bands in practice, with specified yield strength f yv = 460 or
500 MPa 共66.7 or 72.5 ksi兲. With the recommended f yv values,
the cross-sectional area of shearbands required is the same as
when conventional stirrups are used. If half-inch bars are used for
stirrups, six legs of the shearband can be replaced by one bar.
Thus, one expects congestion of the reinforcement when shear-
bands are used. This is demonstrated by the following example.

Fig. 1. Multiple-leg stirrup 共see ACI 318R-02兲 Fig. 2. Proposed and tested arrangements of shearbands

JOURNAL OF STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING © ASCE / JANUARY 2006 / 167

Example
Consider a square column of cross section 300⫻ 300 mm
共12⫻ 12 in.2兲; slab thickness of 200 mm 共8 in.兲; d = 164 mm
共6.5 in.兲; f ⬘c = 40 MPa 共5.8 ksi兲; f yv = 460 MPa 共66.7 ksi兲; and
spacing of shear reinforcement, s = 80 mm 共3.1 in.兲. Find the
cross-sectional area of the shear reinforcement, Av, required
to provide shear strength, vs = 冑 f ⬘c / 3 共4冑 f ⬘c , psi units兲 and
Vs = vsb0d, where b0 = 1,856 mm 共74 in.兲 taken as the perimeter of
the critical section at d / 2 from the face of the column.
According to the equations of ACI 318-02 and ACI 421.1R-99
共ACI 1999兲, the cross-sectional area required in one peripheral
line of shear reinforcement around the column is
sVs sb0vs
Av = = = 680 mm2共1,054 ⫻ 10−3 in.2兲
f y vd f yv
This can be provided by 34 legs of shearbands; 8 or 10 bands of
total width 200 or 250 mm 共8 or 10 in.兲, respectively, are required
within the 300 mm 共12 in.兲 width of column. This example shows
the expected congestion with this small cross section of the band.
Perhaps bands with greater thickness could be used; but the
problem of anchorage can be more critical.
From the above, the discussers conclude that shearbands are
not practical; they do not satisfy the ACI 318-02 code anchorage
requirement and the experimental investigation presented in the
paper does not show that they are effective.
References
ACI Committee 318. 共2002兲. Building code requirements for structural
concrete (ACI318-02) and commentary (ACI318R-02), American
Concrete Institute, Farmington Hills, Mich.
ACI Committee 421. 共1999兲. Shear reinforcement for slabs, ACI421.1R-
99, American Concrete Institute, Farmington Hills, Mich.
Closure to “Alternative Shear
Reinforcement for Reinforced
Concrete Flat Slabs” by
K. Pilakoutas and X. Li
September 2003, Vol. 129, No. 9, pp. 1164–1172.
DOI: 10.1061/共ASCE兲0733-9445共2003兲129:9共1164兲
Kypros Pilakoutas1
1
Professor of Construction Innovation, Dept. of Civil and Structural
Engineering, Univ. of Sheffield, Sir Frederick Mappin Building,
Mappin St., Sheffield S1 3JD, U.K.
168 / JOURNAL OF STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING © ASCE / JANUARY 2006
It is accepted that, as with all types of shear reinforcement in thin
2 concrete slabs, the key issue is anchorage and whether the shear
reinforcement can develop its full strength.
The requirement of ACI-318-02 for bars at each bent as illus-
trated by Fig. 1 in the discussion is fully justified, since conven-
tional reinforcement has a round cross section and hence imposes
a stress concentration in the bent that can lead to concrete crush-
ing. The same problem is encountered in Stud reinforcement,
when using large-diameter bars and inadequate Stud head.
The main advantage of the Shearband is that it uses a very thin
metal strip, which can anchor over short lengths without creating
large stress concentrations in the concrete. The issue of anchorage
is dealt with by ICBO in its Evaluation Report 共ER-5668兲. A bar
in the bent is not needed since the Shearband can be shown from
pull-out tests and beam tests that it can develop its full strength
with the specified anchorage lengths.
Hence, the opinion expressed that the Shearband cannot de-
velop its full potential is completely wrong and also goes against
the evidence provided. The following may help explain to the
authors of the discussion the strain results in the paper which
clearly show yielding:
1. The strain gauges are positioned centrally in sections of the
Shearband without holes. Hence, it is natural that yielding
starts in the section with holes 共which has reduced area by
20%兲 and the strain gauges in the given positions will only
record yielding when strain hardening has raised the strength
of the steel by the corresponding amount.
2. The strain gauges are placed prior to concrete casting and it
is difficult to locate them exactly along a failure surface.
Since the Shearband anchors very well due to the holes along
its length, if the shear crack surface is not passing through
the gauge, a much lower reading of strain will be recorded,
even when the strip is yielding elsewhere.
Despite the above limitations of strain gauges, yielding is re-
corded in many occasions. In fact, to the knowledge of the writers
this is the first time that yield has been demonstrated in shear
reinforcement of flat slabs.
The writers also disagree with the opinion that the Shearband
was not responsible for the ductile behavior. It is well known in
the field, and is also demonstrated by Figs. 12 and 14, that unre-
inforced or underreinforced in shear slabs in general fail in
punching without much warning and no ductility. Slabs with the
Shearband allowed the main flexural reinforcement to develop
strains approaching 20,000 ␮␧. To the expert in the field, that
shows a change of failure mode and ductile behavior.
Finally, the discussion addresses the issue of the practicality of
using the Shearband. The writers consider that this is a matter that
should be left to practicing engineers to decide. However, the
experience of the writers shows that installers around the country
found it extremely easy to fix, and give the Shearband strong
recommendations.