## Are you sure?

This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?

Vu

V1

⎛ ⎞ 2 ⎟ x = dnρ ⎜ ⎜ 1 + nρ − 1⎟ ⎝ ⎠ ⎛ 25 ⎞ ⎛ 0.150 ⎞ 3 ε cpu = 0.0010⎜ ⎟ ⎟ ⋅⎜ ⎜f ⎟ ⎝ x ⎠ ⎝ cc ⎠ d−x σ s = Es ⋅ ε cpu ⋅ x x ⎞ ⎛ m = ρ ⋅ d 2 ⋅ σ s ⋅ ⎜1 − ⎟ ⎝ 3d ⎠ 8π Vu = m ⋅ c B2 2ln + 1 − 2 B c

0. 1 1

V2

Vu = my ⋅

2π B 1c

ρ2

ρ1

ρ

**Concrete flat slabs and footings Design method for punching and detailing for ductility
**

Carl Erik Broms Department of Civil and Architectural Engineering Division of Structural Design and Bridges Royal Institute of Technology SE-100 44 Stockholm, Sweden

TRITA-BKN. Bulletin 80, 2005 ISSN 1103-4270 ISRN KTH/BKN/B—80—SE Doctoral Thesis

Punching at one column may even initiate punching at adjacent columns as well. Keywords: bent-down bars. flat concrete plates. the limit values decrease with increasing depth of the compression zone in the slab. models. punching shall be checked for each of the two reinforcement directions separately if the bending moments differ. which would cause progressive collapse of the total structure. This opens up for a safer design than with the prevailing method. However. stirrups. deflection. Both the strain limit and the inclined stress limit display a size-effect.0035 for oneway structures loaded in bending. In compact slabs such as column footings the compression strength of the inclined strut from the load to the column is governing instead. Punching of a flat plate is assumed to occur when the concrete compression strain at the column edge due to the bending moment in the slab reaches a critical value that is considerably lower than the generally accepted ultimate compression strain 0. The performance is verified by tests with monotonic as well as cyclic loading. size effect. story drift. is transferred from the slab to the column.Abstract Simple but still realistic physical models suitable for structural design of flat concrete plates and column footings with respect to punching are presented. it can also treat the case where a bending moment. the risk for punching failure is a great disadvantage with flat plates. Due respect is also paid to increasing concrete brittleness with increasing compression strength. As a consequence. shear reinforcement. earthquake.e. The influence of the bending moment means that flat plates with rectangular panels display a lower punching capacity than flat plates with square panels – a case that is not recognized by current design codes. tests . A novel reinforcement concept is therefore presented that gives flat plates a very ductile behaviour. structural design. which eliminates the risk for punching failure. ductility. so called unbalanced moment. cyclic loading. Since the theory can predict the punching load as well as the ultimate deflection of test specimens with good precision. building codes. punching shear. i. The failure is brittle and occurs without warning in the form of extensive concrete cracking and increased deflection. stud rails. It is proposed that the column rotation in relation to the slab shall be checked instead of the unbalanced moment for both gravity loading and imposed story drift due to lateral loads.

.

Many thanks to Professor Håkan Sundquist. Stockholm. The tests aimed at achieving flat plates with increased ductility. February 2005 Carl Erik Broms i . but they were not successful. the tests of which are described in Papers III and IV. The tests described in Paper II were carried out in the Department of Structural Engineering at the Royal Institute of Technology (KTH). which turned out to be very successful (Paper II). The failure modes were brittle despite that the nominal shear capacity of the specimens exceeded the flexural capacity. who proposed that the above findings should be summarized into a thesis. This resulted in a new stirrup cage design. The tests described in Paper III were carried out at the Department of Structural Design at Tallinn Technical University and the cyclic tests in Paper IV at INCERC. In the late 1990’s he pointed out that the stirrup cages should be improved to facilitate fabrication and erection. All the tests were financed by my employer at that time WSP Sweden AB (formerly J&W) and Fundia Bygg AB provided reinforcement free of charge. All these contributions are gratefully acknowledged. the punching theory (Paper I) was developed. but the failure mode was not ductile enough to constitute a safe structure if overloaded. Dr. Kent Arvidsson at WSP Sweden AB has supported my endeavours throughout the project. National Building Research Institute of Romania. Specimens with shear reinforcement tested by Andersson (1963) at the Royal Institute of Technology. The author therefore initiated a test program with different types of shear reinforcement. In search for an explanation to this disappointing outcome. My deepest gratitude is therefore directed to my wife Kerstin for her invaluable support and patience during these years.Preface This thesis is the result of a long process that started in the late 1980´s when the author realized that flat plates are more vulnerable for extreme loads than conventional cast-in-place concrete slabs supported by beams or walls. He also provided valuable advice and proposals during the final preparation. The thesis as well as the test programs and the papers preceding it have all been developed and written during leisure time – thereof the large time span. With improved insight in the punching mechanism the author proposed a second test series with an unconventional reinforcement layout with a combination of bent-down bars and stirrup cages. displayed an increased punching capacity in relation to previously tested slabs by Kinnunen and Nylander (1960). KTH. Stockholm.

ii .

.......................................................................................................................2 2................................................................................................16 Flat plates with shear reinforcement......................................................2 2 Literature survey......................................................................................................................v Summary..................13 Yield punching ................33 2...........2.................................23 Flat plates..................................29 Reinforcement limit ρ 1 ....34 Influence of bending moment....2 2......................................................................1 2.................................................4...................3 Punching capacity Vσ ............34 Influence of concrete mechanical properties ................................................3 ....5 2........xiii 1 Introduction ....1 Scope of work..........2....................................3..1 2...........................................30 Reinforcement limit ρ 2 ......4 2.............................................................4 Manual calculation ...............................1 1.......................5 2.....3 2........................................................................................................................................................................................5...........................................2......19 2............................................................................ix Sammanfattning (Summary in Swedish)……………………………………………........7 Size effect ..........1 1..........................................1 2............23 Column footings .................5 Punching capacity Vε ..........4....................3..............................................................5......4....................................5.....................................32 Tabulated values for ρ 1 and ρ 2 ....................2 General ..3 2.4.......31 Transition zone between ρ 1 and ρ 2 ........................................................................10 Punching at elastic conditions ...................................................1 2....5 2.......................................................................................35 Comparison with test results for flat plates and column footings .............................5 Comparison with test results .................................................2 2........................29 2..7 Basic assumption ..........................................29 General ...........................................................Table of contents Preface ………………………………………………………………………………………................................................................2......................................................................................................2....................................................................i Table of contents...........................................iii Notations……………………………………………………………………………………........................................36 iii 2...................4.........................................2 2.......1 2.......................................3 Theory for concentric punching...................4 2.....................

........ 83 Conclusions and summary ...... Punching of flat plate............... ……………………………. 72 Building Code Requirements for Structural Concrete.......3 4..............5 3..................……………… ……………............................................................................................4............................................ 65 4. ………….... 71 Swedish Handbook for Concrete Structures ................................................... ACI 318-02........……………......................................................................... 51 Comparison with test results .................... 65 Design of midspan reinforcement ................................................. Punching of column footing...................... 85 References ....................................................... 79 Earthquake simulation ..................................................................................................... (Yield punching) …....6 Code approach......... 62 4 Design .................107 Appendix F........................................2 4................................................................. Punching of flat plate.............................2...4.... 73 Code comparison.................................................... 69 Comparison with Codes ......3 4................................................1 3.............................. Flat plate with shear reinforcement.....................1 4..................................... 47 3............................... 47 Approximate theory of elasticity.............. Punching of column footing.........…95 Appendix B..................................109 Appended Papers I ................. line load..........……………….................. 89 Appendix A..... BBK 04 ...............................................................4 3 Code predictions ..........1 4................ 65 Bending moments in a continuous flat plate.......4..................................................................................................................…………………………........................2 4....................................... 58 Column rotation capacity ..............4............ 71 Swedish Code for Concrete Structures........................4 Design of support reinforcement at square panels ......... 101 Appendix D..................IV Notations iv ......... 47 Introduction.............................3 3.............................. Unbalanced moment loading.5 5 6 7 8 Reinforcement for ductility .......104 Appendix E..... 72 Model Code 1990.............................................4 3......................................................... (No yield punching)…....................... …………………………………..2 3..........................98 Appendix C................................................. MC 90... ………………………………..……….....5...4.........................................................4 4........... 48 Model for eccentric punching of flat plates .. surface load....................... 73 4.... 43 Theory for eccentric punching..............................

measured centre-to-centre of supports span width in direction that moments are being determined span width transverse to L1 unbalanced bending moment column load on footing radius to centre of gravity for uniformly distributed load outside shear crack maximum value of sector element reaction due to unbalanced moment sector element reaction corresponding to tension in bottom reinforcement sector element reaction corresponding to tension in top reinforcement column reaction column reaction at reinforcement ratio ρ 1 column reaction at reinforcement ratio ρ 2 concentric punching capacity at tangential compression strain failure mode upper bound capacity with shear reinforcement concentric punching capacity at inclined compression stress failure mode v .Roman upper case letters B Bε Bσ D Ec0 diameter of circular column diameter of circular column with the same reduction effect on the total bending moment as a square column with width a. Bσ = 4a/π diameter of circular column footing tangent modulus of elasticity of concrete at zero strain Ec10 secant E-modulus of concrete up to the strain 0.0010 Ec15 secant E-modulus of concrete up to the strain 0.0015 (with shear reinforcement) Es EI EI1 F G H L L1 L2 Mu Pσ R R0 Rb Rt V V1 V2 Vε Vεs Vσ modulus of elasticity of reinforcing steel flexural stiffness of slab per unit width reduced flexural stiffness of slab near the column for unbalanced moment loading force fracture energy horizontal force span width. Bε = 3πa/8 diameter of circular column with the same perimeter as a square column with width a.

kI = ⎜ 1 ⎟ ⎝ EI ⎠ 1 vi . measured on standard cylinders with diameter 150 mm and length 300 mm (recorded mean value) fck fct fctk fsy fv1 fv2 h kI characteristic value for compressive strength of concrete tensile strength of concrete (recorded mean value) characteristic value for tensile strength of concrete yield strength of reinforcing steel one-way shear capacity two-way shear capacity slab thickness ⎛ EI ⎞ 2 factor for reduced slab stiffness near column due to unbalanced moment.Vσs Vy1 Vy2 Vu upper bound capacity with shear reinforcement column reaction when the reinforcement at the column edge starts to yield column reaction when the reinforcement in tangential direction at the distance c/2 from the column starts to yield the lesser of Vε and Vσ Roman lower case letters a b c c0 d e f ´´ fu´´ width of square column width of square footing diameter of circle around the column where the radial bending moment is zero diameter at reinforcement level of circular punching crack around column effective depth load eccentricity slab curvature in tangential direction ( = m/EI ) slab curvature near column edge at punching fus´´ slab curvature near column edge at punching with shear reinforcement fy´´ slab curvature at start of reinforcement yield fys´´ slab curvature at start of reinforcement yield with shear reinforcement fcc compressive strength of concrete.

lch characteristic length = Ec ⋅ GF 2 f ct m m1 m2 mr ms msc bending moment per unit width bending moment in tangential direction at column edge bending moment in tangential direction at the distance c/2 from the column bending moment in radial direction negative strip moment negative bending moment within column strip msm negative bending moment within middle strip mt my mys mε mεs n n0 ns bending moment in tangential direction bending moment at reinforcement yield bending moment at reinforcement yield with shear reinforcement bending moment in tangential direction at punching bending moment in tangential direction at punching with shear reinforcement = Es /Ec10 = Es /Ec0 = Es /Ec15 radial distance from column centre radius of circle inside which the reinforcement yields depth of inclined compression strut effective perimeter of internal column capital effective width of strip in a flat plate depth of slab compression zone compression zone depth with shear reinforcement compression zone depth at punching r ry t u w x xs xpu xpus compression zone depth with shear reinforcement at punching Greek upper case letters ∆ fictitious deflection of test specimen due to unbalanced moment vii .

∆r radial compression of slab by the horizontal strut due to unbalanced moment Greek lower case letters α γ γm γn δε δV δy1 δy2 εc factor in expression for compression zone force inclination angle for radial compression strut strength reduction factor for material strength reduction factor with respect to safety class (Swedish design method) specimen deflection at punching specimen deflection at column load V specimen deflection at start of yield at column edge specimen deflection at start of overall yield concrete strain εcpu concrete strain in tangential direction near the column at punching failure εcpus concrete strain near the column at punching failure with shear reinforcement εs εsy θ θu ξ ρ ρc ρ1 ρ2 σc σs φ ϕ ψ strain of reinforcing steel strain of reinforcing steel at start of yield slab rotation in relation to column (or vice versa) at imposed unbalanced moment rotation capacity of slab in relation to column at imposed unbalanced moment size-effect factor reinforcement ratio (= top reinforcement within column strip) compression reinforcement ratio (= bottom reinforcement within column strip) reinforcement ratio above which punching occurs with no reinforcement yielding reinforcement ratio below which all reinforcement yields at punching compression strength of internal column capital reinforcement stress average inclination of shear crack at compact slabs or footings angle in plane of slab slab inclination in radial direction at the distance c/2 from the column ψpu slab inclination at punching viii .

e. The limited flexural compression strain means that the curvature of the slab near the column is limited at the punching failure. the strain limit decreases with increasing depth of the compression zone at flexure. If the panels are rectangular. This strain is assumed to display similar size effect as the limiting strain without shear reinforcement. Comparison with reported test results in the literature demonstrates that these two failure criteria are sufficient to predict the punching capacity as well as the slab deflection and ultimate compression strain – both for slender flat plates and compact column footings.Summary This thesis is a summary of four papers about prediction of the punching capacity and a method for elimination of the punching failure mode for flat plates. The basic model is valid for concentrically loaded columns in a flat plate with square panels. The flexural compression strain in the slab is a function of the bending moment. Likewise. the compression strength of the internal column capital is assumed to decrease with its increasing height. The American notation flat plate is adopted. The punching capacity shall therefore be verified for both reinforcement directions separately. which means a slab without drop panels that is supported on columns without capitals. The upper bound capacity is governed by an increased critical tangential strain near the column. The compression strength is furthermore assumed to decrease with increasing perimeter of the capital in relation to its height. which means that a flat plate with rectangular panels will have a lower punching capacity than a slab with square panels for a given reinforcement ratio. In this context it should be noted that the theory usually calls for more reinforcement for the negative moment within the column strip than would be required according to yield line theory. then the bending moment in the long direction of a panel increases in relation to the column load. which is considerably less than the value 0. The critical value for compression strain is assumed to display a size-effect. With slab thickness 200 mm the critical concrete strain becomes round 0. The strain mechanism governs for flat plates and the compression strength of the internal capital is governing for compact slabs like column footings. which in turn means that the midspan curvature of the slab is limited as well. Similar approach is applied for flat plates provided with conventional shear reinforcement.0012. i. ix . Simple expressions are therefore derived for required amount of midspan reinforcement in balance with the reinforcement at the column.0035 accepted by most concrete design codes as a safe limit in bending – irrespective of the member size. The model put forward for concentric punching assumes that failure occurs either when the concrete compression strain in tangential direction near the column reaches a critical value or when the compression strength of a fictitious column capital within the slab is exceeded. Too little midspan reinforcement would then adversely affect the punching capacity.

the unbalanced moment is usually a statically indeterminate quantity that cannot be assessed as accurately as for a beam-column frame. different types of shear reinforcement were tested in the late 1980’s. The first test series comprised different types of stirrups that were anchored around the top tension reinforcement in agreement with code provisions.e. In order to find a reinforcement layout that would give flat plates the same good ductility (and hence safety against progressive collapse) as castin-place slabs supported by beams or walls. In a second test series. i. A punching failure at one column will result in increased curvature of the slab at surrounding columns. The story drift capacity is namely drastically reduced with increasing flexural reinforcement ratio. They enclosed the compression bottom reinforcement of the slab but did not enclose the tension top reinforcement. brittle failures occurred. Still larger unbalanced moments are transferred due to story drift during earthquakes. It was found that punching failure could occur due to a steep crack around the column leaving such shear reinforcement elements ineffective. due to lateral displacement difference from one story to the next. which implies that punching most probably will occur at these columns as well. i. These tests. demonstrate that stirrups and possibly so-called stud rails can hardly be laid out so that a flat plate displays a ductile behaviour similar to slabs supported by beams or walls.e. Here it is demonstrated that the reinforcement ratio is an equally important – or even more important – factor. This rotation can be estimated with better precision than the unbalanced moment. This reinforcement system turned out to be very effective in giving the slab the desired property – a ductile failure mode without any tendency for punching failure. the column reaction in relation to the nominal punching capacity at concentric loading. Despite the fact that the stirrups covered a large portion of the test specimens and the resulting nominal shear capacity of the specimens exceeded the load corresponding to yield of all flexural reinforcement. The method presupposes that the rotation of the column in relation to the slab that will cause punching can be predicted with sufficient accuracy at both elastic behaviour of the slab and when its reinforcement yields. which may result in progressive collapse of the entire structure. The punching capacity of the slab decreases in presence of such unbalanced moment. as well as other tests reported in the literature. A safer method is therefore proposed – rotation capacity of the slab in relation to the column. x . However. irrespective of the rotation being caused by gravity loading or story drift. which is confirmed by comparison with test results. The brittle punching failure is a major disadvantage of flat plates. The story drift capacity of flat plates is in the literature often reported as being a function of the utilization factor. a combination of bent bars and stirrups was tested. The bent bars were introduced to preclude the failure mode with a steep crack at the column. The stirrups were fabricated from welded deformed wire fabric.Bending moment – so called unbalanced moment – is often transferred from the slab to the column (or vice versa) in real structures if the panel sizes vary or if the gravity load is not uniformly distributed. Most concrete design codes have therefore provisions for this loading type.

No consideration to unbalanced moment was taken when designing the reinforcement. xi . As could be expected. two pilot tests simulating a severe earthquake are presented. All reinforcement is placed in a non-interlocking manner. The system is denoted “ductility reinforcement” and is patented in USA and Sweden.The stirrup design was later improved to rationalize fabrication and erection. Test specimens with this reinforcement system behaved in the same ductile manner as the previous specimens with stirrups enclosing the bottom flexural reinforcement. Finally. the tested specimens with ductility reinforcement could resist the story drift during a severe earthquake with good margin despite the fact that the applied gravity loads were 60 % and 75 % respectively of the load corresponding to yield of all flexural reinforcement. which means that the stirrups enclose neither the bottom nor the top flexural reinforcement in the slab.

xii .

Den nya typen av pelardäck introducerades i Sverige i och med att Kinnunen och Nylander (1960) publicerade försöksresultat och en mekanisk modell med empiriskt bestämda betongegenskaper för dimensionering av pelardäck med hänsyn till genomstansning. I Sverige kallas brottypen ”genomstansning” (engelska punching).Sammanfattning Denna avhandling är en sammanfattning och vidareutveckling av fyra uppsatser om pelardäck (Papers I-IV) publicerade under åren 1990 till 2005. Plattans tryckzonshöjd används därvid som jämförelseparameter för storleken och sprödheten antas öka med ökad betonghållfasthet. Försök i USA av Elstner och Hognestad (1956) och av Moe (1961) banade vägen för en förenklad typ av pelardäck utan de kraftiga pelarkapitäl som tidigare ansetts fordras för att förhindra skjuvbrott i plattan. De amerikanska försöken visade att den nya typen av pelardäck visserligen var känslig för en brottyp runt pelaren som liknade ett vanligt skjuvbrott. planlösningsflexibilitet och låg våningshöjd eftersom inga balkar utgör hinder för installationer ovan undertaket har bidragit till att bjälklagstypen fått stor användning i kontorshus och sjukhus och på senare tid även i bostadshus. Den övre gränsen för betongens tangentiella stukning vid pelaren antas motsvara den stukning då mikrosprickor i betongen utvecklas till makrosprickor. K1(1964).och kompatibilitetsekvationer uppställda med gränsvärdet för betongstukningen som enda brottvillkor visade sig kunna förutsäga publicerade försöksresultat med god precision. Bjälklagstypen kallas i USA ”flat plate” till skillnad från ”flat slab” som är en platta upplagd på pelare med kapitäl eller som har ökad plattjocklek nära pelaren. dvs. Den förenklade och förbättrade modell för genomstansning av centriskt belastade pelare som beskrivs i denna avhandling är utvecklad från ovannämnda modell. men utnyttjar i princip endast de materialegenskaper som av hävd används vid dimensionering av betongkonstruktioner. men att högre nominella skjuvspänningar kunde tillåtas för sådana pelardäck än för plattor upplagda på väggar eller balkar. xiii . alltifrån små försöksplattor till fullskaleprov. betongens och armeringens arbetskurvor som ger sambandet mellan töjning och påkänning. Ett bjälklag utan balkar upplagt på pelare benämns ”pelardäck”. Enkel formsättning. Genomstansning antas ske antingen om ett gränsvärde för betongens tangentiella stukning på grund av böjmoment överskrids intill pelaren eller om betongens tryckhållfasthet överskrids i ett fiktivt koniskt skal i plattan intill pelaren. Den teoretiska modell som lanserades i Paper I har stora likheter med Kinnunens och Nylanders mekaniska modell från 1960. Kinnunens och Nylanders dimensioneringsregler antogs av dåvarande Statens Betongkommitté som utfärdade ”Provisoriska bestämmelser för genomstansning”. Genomstansning antas även här ske antingen om betongstukningen av plattans böjmoment i tangentiell led uppnår ett kritiskt värde eller om tryckhållfastheten överskrids i ett fiktivt pelarkapitäl inne i plattan. Nomenklaturen ”flat plate” har därför använts i denna avhandling. Gränsvärdet antas vara storleksberoende och beroende av betongens sprödhet. Enkla jämvikts.

Vid plattjockleken 200 mm blir gränsvärdet ca 0.150 ⎞ 3 ⋅⎜ ⎟ ⎝ x ⎠ 1 (a) där x är plattans tryckzonshöjd uttryckt i (m) och 0.1 1 (b) Vid normala armeringshalter uppnår dock armeringen närmast pelaren flytgränsen innan genomstansning sker. Om böjarmeringshalten är hög nås den kritiska betongstukningen innan böjarmeringen flyter i pelardäcket.150 ⎞ 3 ε cpu = 0. vilket är betydligt lägre än det vedertagna värdet 0.0010⎜ ⎟ ⎜f ⎟ ⎟ ⋅⎜ ⎝ x ⎠ ⎝ cc ⎠ d−x σ s = Es ⋅ ε cpu ⋅ x x ⎞ ⎛ m = ρ ⋅ d 2 ⋅ σ s ⋅ ⎜1 − ⎟ ⎝ 3d ⎠ 8π Vu = m ⋅ c B2 2ln + 1 − 2 B c 0.Vid normala pelardäck blir enligt modellen gränsvärdet för betongstukningen avgörande för bärförmågan med hänsyn till genomstansning. Gränsvärdet antas vara beroende av plattans storlek och betongens ökande sprödhet med ökad hållfasthet enligt formeln ε cpu ⎛ 25 ⎞ = 0. Elasticitetsteorins momentfördelning gäller då inte längre när armeringen intill pelaren börjar flyta.150 är diametern av en standardcylinder för mätning av betongens tryckhållfasthet.1 ⎛ 0.0010 ⎜ ⎜f ⎟ ⎟ ⎝ cc ⎠ 0. Elasticitetsteorins momentfördelning antas då gälla i närheten av pelaren och den kritiska pelarlasten Vu kan beräknas direkt utan iterationer: nρ = Es ⋅ρ Ec ⎛ ⎞ 2 ⎟ x = dnρ ⎜ 1 1 + − ⎜ ⎟ n ρ ⎝ ⎠ ⎛ 25 ⎞ ⎛ 0.0035 för betongens maximala stukning vid böjmomentbelastning. Den kritiska betongstukningen εcpu sätter därvid även här en gräns för möjlig tillskottsdeformation.0012. xiv . Tilläggsmomentet och tilläggsdeformationen när lasten ökas beräknas i stället under antagandet att en flytled utbildas runt pelaren så att sektorelementen mellan plattans radiella sprickor börjar rotera som styva kroppar kring upplaget på pelarperiferin.

Dessutom antas dessa hållfastheter vara storleksberoende på motsvarande sätt som stukningen enligt ekv. varvid brottlasten ökar.150 0.Ur ekv. där tryckhållfastheten i ett fiktivt pelarkapitäl inne i plattan avgör bärförmågan.2fcc. såsom tidigare påpekats av Kinnunen och Nylander (1960). Tryckzonshöjden xpu blir x pu = d ⋅ 2ρ ⋅ f sy (d) ε cpu Ec Gränsvärdet för betongstukningen definierar därmed också maximal krökning av plattan i tangentiell led intill pelaren: " fu = ε cpu x pu 2 Ec 0. Det medför att en större andel av böjarmeringen når sträckgränsen innan genomstansning sker. Enligt den lanserade teorin sker alltså genomstansning då plattans krökningskapacitet vid pelarupplaget överskrids.150 10 3 ⋅ ⋅ f sy 2d ρ ⎛ 25 ⎞ ⋅⎜ ⎜f ⎟ ⎟ ⎝ cc ⎠ 0.0010 3 = 2 ⋅ ⋅ ρ2 f sy 4d 2 ⎛ 25 ⎞ ⋅⎜ ⎜f ⎟ ⎟ ⎝ cc ⎠ 0. eftersom spänningstillståndet då alltmer övergår från tvådimensionellt till plant. Gränsvärdet antas vara storleksberoende på samma sätt som gränsvärdet för icke skjuvarmerad platta. Även i detta fall begränsas bärförmågan av betongstukningen i tangentiell led intill pelaren.0015. En ny modell för kompakta konstruktioner presenteras. Det visas att genomstansningsbrott vid konventionellt utformad skjuvarmering uppkommer då stukningen når gränsvärdet 0. att krökningen i fält också är begränsad.6 f cc ⎜1 − cc ⎟ . Det medför. Ju större kapitälets omkrets är i förhållande till tryckzonens höjd. Vid mycket små pelare i förhållande till ⎝ 250 ⎠ tryckzonshöjden antas tryckhållfastheten öka till 1. ökar krökningen vid pelaren och genomstansning inträffar. (a) och jämviktssamband kan gränsvärdet för betongstukningen om armeringen flyter härledas till ε cpu = 10 −6 E c 0. xv . desto lägre antas tryckhållfastheten vara. Därför härleds enkla uttryck för kontroll att fältarmeringen i ett pelardäck harmonierar med den fordrade stödarmeringen.3 (e) Kritisk pelarreaktion och tillhörande nedböjning erhålls sedan ur enkla jämviktssamband. Om pelardäcket förses med skjuvarmering tål plattan större tangentiell stukning vid pelaren. Om armeringsmängden i fält då är för liten. (a). Vid mycket stora pelare i förhållande till plattans tryckzonshöjd antas f ⎞ ⎛ kapitälets tryckhållfasthet vara 0.3 (c) där d är plattans effektiva höjd i (m). så att momentjämvikten inte uppfylls. Tryckhållfastheten antas variera med kapitälets slankhet uttryckt som kvoten mellan kapitälets omkrets och plattans tryckzonshöjd.

Nuvarande regelverk – Boverkets handbok för betongkonstruktioner BBK 04 (2004) – ger bärförmågan med hänsyn till genomstansning som en formell skjuvhållfasthet i ett snitt på avståndet d/2 från pelarkanten i enlighet med ett betraktelsesätt som i princip tillämpas över hela världen. Kontroll mot försöksresultat visar att Betonghandboks-metoden inte kan förutsäga genomstansningslasten bättre än rent empiriska metoder. Till skillnad från Model Code 90 beaktas även konstruktionens slankhet.5 = 1.2·1. Dimensionerande bärförmåga i brottgränstillståndet fås därefter genom att dividera beräknad brottlast med partialkoefficienten för betong i säkerhetsklass 3: γ = 1. I jämförelse med andra dimensioneringsregler – inklusive teorin som beskrivs i denna avhandling – överskattar Betonghandboks-metoden bärförmågan vid armeringshalter större än cirka 0. Vid beräkning av dimensionerande bärförmåga vid given armering beräknas därför först brottlasten med de karakteristiska värdena på betongens tryckhållfasthet och armeringens sträckgräns som ingångsparametrar. Modellerna i denna avhandling visas ge nära identisk dimensionerande bärförmåga som funktion av armeringshalt. Den bygger på den ursprungliga mekaniska modellen från 1960. Detta kan ses som en god verifiering av teorins tillförlitlighet. Vid låga armeringshalter. Slutligen ges regler för hur modellerna skall användas vid dimensionering med hänsyn till genomstansning. bör ett pelardäck med rektangulära plattfält ha lägre genomstansningskapacitet vid given armeringsmängd än ett däck med kvadratiska plattfält. Om plattfälten är rektangulära ökar böjmomentet per breddenhet i den långa spännviddens riktning som funktion av pelarlasten jämfört med ett pelardäck med kvadratiska plattfält. xvi . I detta sammanhang påpekas att teorin i likhet med de flesta norm-metoder ger mer stödarmering inom c-området än vad som krävs för böjmoment beräknade enligt gängse regler. vilket har betydelse framför allt för kompakta konstruktioner såsom pelarsulor. Metoden kallas i fortsättningen Betonghandboks-metoden.7 %. Vidare behandlas storlekseffekten (avtagande nominell skjuvhållfasthet med ökad plattjocklek) på ett mer nyanserat sätt. men har genom vissa approximationer förenklats och anpassats till nuvarande sätt att kontrollera en konstruktions bärförmåga i brottgränstillståndet. Bärförmågan får dock alternativt beräknas enligt (Nylander & Kinnunens) ”mer nyanserade” metod återgiven i Betonghandboken-Konstruktion (1990). eftersom de strikt gäller för beräkning av den verkliga brottlasten. Till exempel kan den metod som anges i Model Code 90 (1993) förutsäga bärförmågan med bättre precision. Som en konsekvens av det sagda skall kapaciteten med hänsyn till genomstansning alltid beräknas i vardera riktningen för sig och inte för ett medelvärde av armeringshalten i de båda riktningarna. betonghållfasthet och kvoten B/d som Model Code 90.De förenklade och förbättrade modellerna visar sig kunna förutsäga försöksresultat för både slanka pelardäck och kompakta pelarsulor med ännu bättre precision än ursprungsmodellen. Därför ges regler ges för hur dimensionerande böjmoment bör beräknas i ett pelardäck med varierande spännvidder och/eller rektangulära plattfält. Eftersom betongstukningen (som är avgörande för bärförmågan i ett pelardäck) beror av böjmomentet. eftersom Model Code 90 bygger på statistisk bearbetning av en stor mängd försöksresultat. Inte bara bärförmågan utan även deformationen och den maximala betongstukningen kan beräknas med god noggrannhet.8. Modellernas ekvationer gäller i sin grundform för centriskt belastade innerpelare i ett pelardäck med kvadratiska plattfält.

progressive collapse) om genomstansning skulle inträffa vid en pelare. Metoden förutsätter att den vinkeländring mellan pelare och platta som ger upphov till genomstansning kan förutsägas med god noggrannhet både vid rent elastiskt beteende och när plattans armering flyter. Momentet är i de flesta fall en statiskt obestämd kvantitet. Lösningar enligt elasticitetsteorin ger dålig vägledning eftersom armeringen i normalt utformade pelardäck flyter innan genomstansning sker. Därför lanseras en säkrare metod att ta hänsyn till excentrisk pelarlast – möjlig vinkeländring av plattan i förhållande till pelaren. Inte ens de mest nyanserade beräkningsmetoder kan emellertid eliminera nackdelen med pelardäck – risken för ett sprött genomstansningsbrott vid överbelastning. ”Skadan” kan till exempel orsakas av en gasexplosion. så att en lokal skada kommer att spridas till en stor del av pelardäcket. I många länder föreskrivs därför att primärbalkar av betong skall förses med skjuvarmering för att garantera ett segt brottbeteende. I till exempel USA och Kanada rekommenderas därför en armeringsutformning med koncentrerad underkantsarmering från pelare till pelare. som förmodas kunna förhindra fortskridande ras (eng. Överfört böjmoment uppkommer också av vindlast och framför allt av jordbävning. xvii .där bärförmågan begränsas av att all armering flyter. Moderna byggnadsbestämmelser kräver att konstruktioner skall vara utformade så att risken för forskridande ras är ringa som följd av en primär skada. som starkt beror av plattans styvhet framför allt i närheten av pelaren. Vinkeländringen kan nämligen beräknas med bättre precision än det överförda böjmomentet oavsett om vinkeländringen orsakas av last på bjälklaget eller av förskjutningskillnad mellan våningsplanen. Normerna ger emellertid i allmänhet ingen anvisning om hur excentriciteten skall beräknas. Metoden har nackdelen att den inte kan förhindra att genomstansning överhuvudtaget inträffar eftersom systemet inte träder i funktion förrän en kraftig lokal ”sättning” av plattan inträffar vid pelaren. De flesta betongnormer ger därför anvisningar om hur genomstansningskapaciteten minskar vid excentrisk pelarreaktion. Då minskar plattans styvhet och pelarmomentet blir lägre än enligt elasticitetsteorin. I litteraturen redovisas försök där möjlig förskjutningsskillnad mellan våningsplanen vid jordbävning relateras till utnyttjandegraden. Risken är därför stor att genomstansning sker även vid angränsande pelare. som ger upphov till skillnad i horisontell förskjutning av de olika våningsplanen. Jämförelse med försöksresultat visar att så är fallet med den lanserade modellen. Vid höga armeringshalter erhålls en något större storlekseffekt än vad som anges av BBK 04 och Model Code 90. trots att genomstansning vid en pelare med stor sannolikhet leder till genomstansning vid angränsande pelare med risk för fortskridande ras som följd. I verkliga konstruktioner överförs ofta böjmoment från plattan till pelaren vid ojämnt fördelad last på bjälklaget eller om spännvidderna varierar. Motsvarande krav ställs i allmänhet inte på pelardäck. aktuell pelarreaktion i relation till dimensionerande bärförmåga med hänsyn till centrisk genomstansning. byggfel eller dimensioneringsfel. fås ingen storlekseffekt. Här visas att armeringshalten i plattan är en minst lika viktig parameter eftersom rotationskapaciteten drastiskt minskar med ökande böjarmeringsmängd. dvs.

Byglarna var utformade som korgar tillverkade av armeringsnät. Bygelkorgarna omsluter varken överkants. i kombination med att stödarmeringen över pelarna inte behöver dimensioneras med hänsyn till genomstansning. Den nedbockade böjarmeringen avsågs förhindra den ovan beskrivna brottypen intill pelaren. Konstruktioner som uppvisar ett segt brottbeteende får dimensioneras i säkerhetsklass 2. De omslöt underkantsarmeringen men inte överkantsarmeringen. som var förankrade runt överkantsarmeringen i överensstämmelse med gällande normer. vilket normalt innebär en armeringsbesparing om ca 10 %. xviii .eller underkantsarmeringen och armeringsutformningen ”ductility reinforcement” är patenterad i Sverige och USA. Detta. En förenklad bygelarmering i form av förtillverkade korgar av armeringsnät har därefter utvecklats för att rationalisera tillverkning och montering. Referensplattor med enbart nedbockad böjarmering utan kompletterande byglar uppvisade ett tämligen sprött brott utan nämnvärd förhöjning av lasten i förhållande till plattor utan skjuvarmering. I en andra försöksomgång provades nedbockad böjarmering i kombination med byglar. I Paper III redovisas försök med den armerings-utformningen som gav provplattorna samma sega brottbeteende som de tidigare provade plattorna med byglar omslutande underkantsarmeringen. eftersom sprött brott kan befaras vid en eventuell överbelastning. Som väntat kunde de provade plattorna klara normkrav för horisontalförskjutningar med god marginal trots att de var belastade med vertikallaster motsvarande mellan 60 % och 75 % av den vertikallast som ger flytning i all böjarmering inom c-området. Försöken bekräftade att pelardäck med ”ductility reinforcement” kan motstå även mycket svåra jordbävningar utan att kollapsa. Byglar och så kallade ”studrails” kan sannolikt inte utformas så att ett pelardäck med säkerhet uppvisar ett lika segt brott som en fyrsidigt upplagd betongplatta eftersom försöken visade att denna typ av skjuvarmering inte förmår förhindra genomstansining på grund av en brant spricka intill pelaren. Trots att byglarna lades in inom en stor yta runt pelaren och trots att den formella skjuvkapaciteten var större än den last som motsvarade flytning i all böjarmering uppkom spröda skjuvbrott. innebär att det alltid är ekonomiskt fördelaktigt att förse pelardäck med den nya typ av armering som redovisas i denna avhandling. En säkrare konstruktion fås till en lägre kostnad än för ett konventionellt utformat pelardäck. Pelardäck i flervåningsbyggnader skall dimensioneras i säkerhetsklass 3. Slutligen redovisas i Paper IV jordbävningssimulering av pelardäck med den patenterade armeringen.I syfte att hitta en armeringsutformning så att pelardäck får samma sega brottbeteende och därmed samma goda säkerhet mot fortskridande ras som platsgjutna betongplattor upplagda på väggar eller balkar provades olika typer av skjuvarmering i slutet av 80-talet. Denna armeringsutformning visade sig ge den eftersträvade egenskapen – ett segt (duktilt) brottbeteende utan tendens till genomstansning. I en första försöksserie provades olika former av byglar. Försöksresultaten redovisas i Paper II.

percentage of tension reinforcement (0. Talbot (1913) and Richart (1948). size of column (250 mm and 300 mm). does not give the designer any indication of the limited rotation capacity of the slab at punching. Some researchers have attempted to do it. The method. a simplified version of their original model is still used in Sweden for punching design of flat plates.1 Literature survey Flat plates seem to have first been constructed in USA in the late 1940’s. This subject therefore still attracts attention by code writers and researchers. which renders formwork construction very simple. Anyway. They concluded: “Even though it would be desirable to fully develop the flexural capacity of relatively thin slabs supported on slender columns. They found that shear reinforcement could increase the ultimate load capacity of slabs as much as 30 % but in no case flexural failure rather than shear failure could be achieved. The punching failure of flat plates resembles the shear failure of beams in the sense that it is characterized by a “shear crack” from the supporting column up to the top surface of the flat plate. It is thereby acknowledged and accepted that this method does not reflect the true failure mechanism. “The shearing strength of slabs is a function of concrete strength as well as several other variables”. Slab thickness. concrete strength.7 percent). This thesis is an attempt to respond to the challenge to fill the vacuum after Kinnunen and Nylander and expand the treatment to cover more aspects of flat plate design than just concentric punching. The challenge is therefore still there to develop a realistic physical model that can predict the slab behaviour at punching in a way simple enough to be used in the design office – also in non-standard cases. the majority of researchers and most building codes define the punching capacity in terms of a nominal shear capacity on a control perimeter at a certain distance from the column perimeter. Consequently. the flat plate is at disadvantage in comparison to two-way slabs supported by beams or walls. It has no beams. The major variables in the tests were concrete strength (14 MPa to 50 MPa).5 to 3. On the other hand. percentage of compression reinforcement. Elstner and Hognestad (1956) realized that the new flat plate concept was rather daring because the design code provisions for the shear capacity were based on tests with thick column footings. They therefore tested 39 flat plate specimens with the dimensions 6 x 6 ft and thickness 6 in. 1. distribution of tension reinforcement and amount and position of shear reinforcement. but their model is complicated and cannot predict the punching capacity with the same accuracy as current purely statistical methods. The mechanical model introduced by Kinnunen and Nylander (1960) has gained worldwide recognition.1 Introduction The reinforced concrete flat plate is a widely used structural system. Neither compression reinforcement nor concentrated tension reinforcement over the column increased the load capacity. or drop panels. but none has succeeded so far – with one exception. They concluded. Despite this shortcoming. for instance. to do so with shear reinforcement may be impractical…. the design provisions have generally resulted in safe structures in the standard cases that are covered by test results. column capitals. and column dimension 1 . because of the risk of brittle punching failure at the slab-column connection.

The proposed design provisions for holes in the slab and for eccentric loading are still considered appropriate by many building codes. Johannes Moe visited USA and the Portland Cement Association where he under the guidance of E. 25-mm or 20-mm reinforcement bars were used. if any at all. which resulted in the report Moe (1961). They also tested beam strips with the same thickness and span width as the tested slabs. 2 . They found that “tests on beam strips representing a narrow slab section and supported as a beam indicated that the use of such concepts as “beam strip analogy” and “equivalent width” does not necessarily lead to a correct prediction of the mode of failure for the corresponding slabs. Later research has been devoted to expand the validity borders for these tests. that only a small amount of shear reinforcement. Punching occurs. As already mentioned. effect of column size. One slab was tested under sustained load.” This opinion seems to have had a great influence on the development during the years to come. and effect of eccentric loading. He introduced the concept of “eccentricity of shear”.” During the years 1957-1959. Throughout the tests. The test series comprised 43 slabs of the same size as used by Elstner and Hognestad. may be due to bond slip of these too large bars in relation to the slab dimensions. current building codes such as Model Code 90 can predict the punching capacity with better precision. Furthermore. effect of special types of shear reinforcement. according to their model. These critical values were calibrated against their own tests and the tests by Elstner and Hognestad (1956). These three reports laid the foundation for a successful development of flat plate structures all over the world. One explanation to their finding that concentration of reinforcement over the columns was not advantageous. when the tangential compression strain and the radial inclined compression stress in the slab near the column simultaneously reach critical values. where part of the transferred moment between slab and column at eccentric loading is considered transferred by flexural reinforcement in the slab and the rest by uneven distribution of shear forces around the column. Moe's tests confirmed the test result of Elstner and Hognestad that concentration of flexural reinforcement over the column did not increase the punching capacity – again probably due to bond slip of the large reinforcement bars in relation to the slab dimensions. is needed in thin slabs. effect of concentration of the tensile reinforcement in narrow bands across the column. Hognestad carried out a large test series on flat plate specimens. Principal variables were effect of holes for utilities near the column. which is an extremely large dimension in slabs with 150-mm thickness and 1.8-m span width.should therefore probably be so chosen in design. One year before Moe published his report Kinnunen and Nylander (1960) published their mechanical model for the punching failure of flat plates. but rather the opposite. but this does not belittle their contribution to the understanding of the punching phenomenon. No test report seems to have had larger impact on punching design than Moe (1961). They introduced a completely new approach by studying the sector elements between the radial flexural cracks in the test specimens.

Dieterle and Rostasy (1981). presumably in the light of test evidence. 1998) and Sundquist and Kinnunen (2004).Narasimhan (1971). 3. V. Hawkins et al (1989) made tests on specimens with much larger column load eccentricities than those tested by Moe (1961). Nölting (1984) contains a summary of numerous published test results that was an invaluable source of information to the author for verification of the presented theory during the first development in 1988. 87. Islam and Park (1976). (1990b). 292-304. Pan and Moehle (1989). their proposed model has not been commonly accepted. Kinnunen and Nylander (1983. 696-705. Ghali et al (1974. 3 Paper II: . which means that the formal shear stress at punching decreases with increasing specimen size. (1990a). 87. whereas the other tests were intended to simulate large eccentricities due to story drift during an earthquake. In this way the basic integrity requirement for a structure will be fulfilled. C. ACI Structural Journal.E. Sundquist (1978) tested the capacity of flat plates for transient loads produced by for instance bomb blasts and developed a theoretical model for the impulse resistance of flat plates. No. Tolf (1988) demonstrated that a considerable size effect exists.2 Scope of work One aim of this thesis is to develop a realistic physical model for prediction of the punching capacity that is simple enough to be used in design and which covers both concentric and eccentric punching of slender flat plate structures as well as compact structures such as column footings. Another aim is to present an improved but still easy-to-install reinforcement detailing that eliminates the brittle punching failure mode of flat plates. “Shear Reinforcement for Deflection Ductility of Flat Plates”. The tests by Moe may represent the modest eccentricities that will occur due to gravity loading. 1. However. ACI Structural Journal. No. All research mentioned above was devoted to slender flat plates. i. pp. Finally. 6.e. Marzouk and Hussein (1991). Only Park and Islam (1976) presented a different design proposal than the “eccentricity of shear” method. This seems to be overlooked as regards flat plates by some code writers and many designers. 1976). a structure shall be designed so that a local failure due to overloading shall not result in progressive collapse of the building. Broms. “Punching of Flat Plates – A Question of Concrete Properties in Biaxial Compression and Size Effect”. Tomaszewicz (1993) and Hallgren (1996) made tests on concentric punching of high strength concrete specimens and Hallgren (1996) also presented an improved version of the Kinnunen and Nylander (1960) mechanical model based on a nonlinear fracture mechanics approach. C. pp.E. More compact structures such as column footings have been studied by Dieterle (1978). V. Hallgren. The issues have been treated in the following papers that form part of this thesis: Paper I: Broms.

4 . A completely new theory for eccentric punching is presented in Chapter 3. which means that the slab rotation in relation to the column is proposed to be the design criterion instead of the current force-based unbalanced moment approach. is presented in Chapter 2.E. A theory for concentric punching. Finally. 97. submitted to Magazine of Concrete Research for possible publication. The relation between unbalanced moment and the corresponding rotation of the column are derived from the relation between load and deflection at concentric punching. Comparison of the presented theory is made with the design provisions of existing structural design codes. C. 1. V. “Ductility Reinforcement for Flat Slabs in Seismic as well as Non-seismic Areas”. C. “Elimination of Flat Plate Punching Failure Mode”. (2005). (2000). pp.Paper III: Paper IV: Broms. in Chapter 6 some comments are added to the earthquake simulation presented in Paper IV. Broms. ACI Structural Journal.E. The ductility reinforcement concept presented in Papers II and III is summarized in Chapter 5. Chapter 4 contains a recommended procedure for design with respect to punching in the general case with varying span widths and rectangular slab panels. No. 94-101. The theory is an improved and simplified version of the theory presented in Paper I and is expanded to cover compact structures such as column footings and is validated by comparison with published test results in the literature. The punching load as well as the accompanying slab deflection and the flexural compression strain can be predicted with good precision. inspired by the Kinnunen and Nylander (1960) mechanical model.

5 .1 General The reinforcement is assumed to be ideally elastic-plastic with the yield strain ε sy = f sy Es (2. Punching is assumed to occur either when the concrete strain in the slab due to the bending moment or the inclined compression stress due to the column reaction reaches a critical level.3) The concrete secant modulus of elasticity. (2. As long as the reinforcement does not yield. the compression zone depth at flexure is computed by combining the strain compatibility and force equilibrium conditions. As will be shown in the following. F s εs d m F c x σc εc Figure 2-1 Depth x of compression zone. 2. Eq.2) The tangent modulus of elasticity Ec0 for concrete at zero strain is taken as the value given in Model Code 90 (1993): E c0 ⎛ f ⎞3 = 21500 ⋅ ⎜ cc ⎟ ⎝ 10 ⎠ 1 (MPa) with fcc in MPa (2. to the strain 0. but the theory is here improved and simplified.1) The modulus of elasticity for reinforcement bars is taken as Es = 200 GPa. the concrete strain due to the bending moment is so low at punching that the concrete usually behaves elastically: σ c = Ec ⋅ ε c (2.0010 is defined later in this chapter. Ec10. see Figure 2-1.2 Theory for concentric punching The basic principles are described in Paper I.10).

inclined cracks near the column usually form at a load level of less than 70 % of the ultimate load.4). 6 . similar to the conical shell originally proposed by Kinnunen and Nylander (1960). where the load from the flat plate is transferred to the column via a column capital within the slab. In a flat plate.5) (2.6): x d−x = nρ d 2 x x2 x + 2 nρ − 2 nρ = 0 2 d d ⎞ ⎛ x 2 = −nρ + n 2 ρ 2 + 2nρ = nρ ⎜ 1+ − 1⎟ ⎟ ⎜ d nρ ⎠ ⎝ The bending moment per unit width of a slab. Regan and Braestrup (1985).4) ρ dEs ⋅ ε s = E c10 ⋅ ε c ⋅ Es =n Ec10 x 2 (force equilibrium) (2. The flexural stiffness EI per unit width is therefore computed for a cracked section without any tension stiffening: EI = m x ⎞d −x x ⎞⎛ x ⎞ ⎛ ⎛ = ρ Es d 3 ⎜1 − ⎟⎜1 − = ρσ s d 2 ⎜1 − ⎟ ⎟ f ′′ ⎝ 3d ⎠ ε s ⎝ d ⎠⎝ 3d ⎠ (2. (2. is computed by the expression x ⎞ ⎛ m = ρσ s d 2 ⎜1 − ⎟ ⎝ 3d ⎠ (2.9) where f ′′ is the curvature of the slab due to the bending moment m. Although these cracks can surround the column. The model depicted in Figure 2-2 may simulate this zone. (2. the slab is nevertheless stable and can be unloaded and reloaded without any decrease of the ultimate load.εc x = εs d−x (strain compatibility) (2. and (2.5). m .6) Combine Eqs.8) Extensive flexural cracking will always occur near the column at ultimate loading. It is therefore evident that the punching failure mechanism is usually not a pure “shear failure” governed by the diagonal tensile strength of the concrete.7) (2. The punching failure occurs instead when the compression zone with height x adjacent to the column collapses.

7 . In contrast to one-way structures. The crack propagation is thereby facilitated because the concrete already experiences tension strain in perpendicular direction to the final punching crack due to the shear deformation of the compression zone. 2. the concrete starts to loose its internal bond and an almost vertical “shear crack” opens up at the column/slab interface due to the combined action of the vertical column reaction and the tangential slab strain both of which tend to create a vertical crack in the slab.2.1 Basic assumption The failure mode is illustrated in Figure 2-3.x V internal column capital Figure 2-2 Transfer of load V to column from the flat plate. the bending moment capacity in a flat plate can be maintained even if the radial flexural compression stress at the support approaches zero. The punching failure is assumed to occur either when the capital collapses when its capacity in compression is reached or when micro cracking at a critical tangential flexural strain softens the concrete at the column edge. At loads near the ultimate capacity. These failure modes are analyzed in detail in the following. The support reaction is concentrated to the edge of the column due to the global curvature of the slab. This shear deformation is also the reason why the radial flexural strain in the bottom of the slab some distance away from the column ceases to increase with increasing load once inclined circumferential cracks develop around the column. when the flexural tangential strain in the bottom of the slab reaches a critical value. Then. the column capital will collapse due to a “zip” effect because the inclined compression strut rapidly becomes too weak to resist the support reaction when it is forced to take a flatter load path. 2. which is a prerequisite for the following possible scenario. Once this happens. The corresponding punching capacities are denoted Vσ and Vε respectively. the compression strain due to the column reaction – in the column as well as the slab – will therefore always exceed the strain corresponding to the peak stress fcc.2 Punching capacity Vε Failure occurs when the tangential compression strain in the slab at the column edge reaches a critical value.

which forms the basis for the following hypothesis.Many researchers – as for instance Kinnunen and Nylander (1960) and Hallgren (1996) – report that the radial compression strain near the bottom surface of the slab close to the column suddenly decreases to zero at a load level just below the ultimate punching load.0010 it is evident that the almost linearly elastic behaviour of the concrete at low strains starts to change – the concrete “softens”. k= Ec0 ⋅ ε c1 f cc η1 = εc . The stress-strain relation is taken from High performance concrete structures (1998): 0. x fc c Figure 2-3 Failure mode Vε . Punching failure of a flat plate is therefore assumed to occur when the tangential concrete strain due to 8 . These general observations lead to the conclusion that the conditions of the concrete at the column edge are decisive for the punching failure capacity Vε. Study the stress-strain diagram for concrete with the compression strength 25 MPa according to Figure 2-4. ε c1 2 kη1 − η1 for ε c ≤ ε c1 1 + (k − 2 )η1 σ c = f cc ⋅ At a strain exceeding approximately 0.3 ε c1 = 0. that the failure is usually triggered by the formation of a circumferential crack at the slab/column interface and not by propagation of an inclined flexural crack.0007 ⋅ f cc . This seems to confirm the scenario described above.

0010 Figure 2-4 Assumed stress-strain curve for concrete strength fcc =25 MPa.3).6⎜1 − ck ⎟ ⎟ ⋅ E c0 ⎜ ⎝ 150 ⎠ ⎟ ⎝ ⎠ 0. The concrete behaves more linearly elastic with increasing concrete grades.the bending moment reaches this critical value adjacent to the column.0010 as indicated in Figure 2-4. it is important to estimate the stress-strain relation in the compression zone at flexure correctly. It is further assumed that this critical strain level decreases with increasing concrete strength because high strength concretes are more brittle.0000 (MPa) 0.0020 0 ε (2. 9 . see Figure 2-9.10) with Ec0 according to Eq. In the subsequent equations. which is approximately taken into account by putting the secant modulus Ec10 to the strain 0. (2. At low concrete grades there is a curved relation between strain and stress already at strains below 0. 1 fc 30 MPa Ec0 ⎛ f ⎞3 = 21500⎜ ck ⎟ ⎝ 10 ⎠ 25 20 15 10 Ec10 5 0.0010 equal to 4 ⎛ f ⎞ ⎞ ⎛ E c10 = ⎜1 − 0.

030 ⎪0.3)) (2.12) with the characteristic length lch = E c0 ⋅ GF 2 f ct (2.15 ⎞ 3 ⎟ ⋅⎜ ⎜ x pu ⎟ ⎝ ⎠ 1 (2. 10 .14) f ct (2.15) ⎛f ⎞ GF = GF0 ⋅ ⎜ cc ⎟ ⎝ 10 ⎠ ⎧0. This means that the E-modulus is assumed to be a concrete property that displays no size effect.7 2 1 ( = Eq. (2.2.15 = diameter of standard test cylinder specimen (m) xpu = depth of compression zone at flexure when punching occurs (m).11) where εcpu = tangential compression strain at punching 0.2 Size effect The size effect – in this case the decreasing ultimate material strain with increasing structural size – and the varying concrete brittleness are taken into account by the formula 0.25 1 (2. i. ⎛ 0.025 ⎪ = ⎨0.038 ⎩ [MPa·mm] ⎧8 ⎪ for maximum aggregate size d a = ⎨16 ⎪32 ⎩ (2.2.15 ⎞ 3 ⎟ is assumed to affect both strain and stress of the concrete in the The size effect factor ⎜ ⎜ x pu ⎟ ⎝ ⎠ same manner. Hillerborg et al (1976) developed the Fictitious Crack Model to explain the size effect for brittle failures in concrete structures caused by tensile strains.13) In the absence of experimental data Model Code 90 recommends the following relations for Ec0. it has the same value irrespective of specimen size. Gustafsson and Hillerborg (1988) used this model to derive that the shear strength of beams without shear reinforcement displays a size effect that can be approximated by ⎞ f v = k ⋅ f ct ⋅ ⎛ ⎜dl ⎟ ⎝ ch ⎠ −0.e.1 ε cpu ⎛ 25 ⎞ = 0.16) where GF0 [MPa·mm] [mm].0010 ⎜ ⎜f ⎟ ⎟ ⎝ cc ⎠ ⎛ 0. fct and GF : E c0 ⎛ f ⎞3 = 21500⎜ cc ⎟ [MPa] ⎝ 10 ⎠ ⎛ f ⎞3 = 1.4⎜ ck ⎟ [MPa] ⎝ 10 ⎠ 0.

where a small reinforcement size was kept constant and the number of bars was varied to keep the reinforcement ratio constant when the beam size was increased.33 1.17) Eq. Leonhardt and Walther drew the premature conclusion that the size effect for shear failures would fade out for beams with effective depth larger than round 400 mm because the reinforcement bar size is limited to 25 mm or 32 mm. The exponent decreases to -1. the beams displayed no size effect. A doubling of the aggregate size from 16 mm to 32 mm would increase the recorded shear strength by 6.25 = 70. The shear strength varied approximately proportional to d −0.33 when the reinforcement bars were scaled in proportion to the beam geometry. (2.12) it is thus evident that the maximum aggregate size has limited effect on the formal shear strength of beams. If the beam depth were increased four times without simultaneous scaling of the aggregate size. are the findings by Gustafsson and Hillerborg (1988) regarding shear strength of beams applicable also for the punching strength of flat plates despite the fact that the punching failure seems to be more brittle? Hallgren (1996) used the Fictitious Crack Model to derive an expression for the critical tangential concrete compression strain at punching.13) and replace the characteristic value of the compression strength by the recorded value fcc in Eq.12) can now be rearranged as ⎛ d ⎞ f v = k ⋅ f ct ⋅ ⎜ ⎟ ⎜G ⎟ ⎝ F0 ⎠ −0.15) lch = 0. the better anchoring bond with many small bars instead of few large bars decreased the anchoring slip sufficiently to eliminate the size effect.3 [mm] (2.4 2 ⋅ f cc ⋅ 10 0. According to Eq.7 % of the strength for the smaller beam.0 for large compression zone depths.5 % of the strength for the smaller beam. In this latter case.7 ⋅ GF0 ⋅ f cc 21500 f cc 1. These values seem to be unrealistic – the size effect becomes too large. The question is. the formal shear strength would be reduced to 78.075 (2. 11 . (2.25 ⎛f ⎞ ⋅ ⎜ cc ⎟ ⎝ 10 ⎠ −0. In this case. (2. In a second test series.5 for very small depths. It is also evident that an increased concrete compression strength fck has some reduction effect on the formal shear strength versus the tensile strength fct. (2.0 % and a reduction from 16 mm to 8 mm would decrease the strength by 4.5 %. (2.33 0. Based on the test results. the formal shear strength fv would be reduced to 4-0.14) to (2.16) into Eq.Insert Eqs.3 = 10970 ⋅ GF0 ⎛ f cc ⎞ ⎜ ⎟ ⎝ 10 ⎠ 0.18) that can be used to study the effect of maximum aggregate size. Simultaneous four-fold scaling of the maximum aggregate size from 8 mm to 32 mm would not eliminate the size effect as maintained by some researchers such as Bažant and Cao (1987). This demonstrates that tests have to be performed with realistically scaled reinforcement bars whenever reinforcement bond might be of concern for the structural behaviour. He found it to be proportional to the depth of the compression zone at flexure raised to the power -0. Leonhardt and Walther (1962) made tests on the shear strength size dependence for beams without shear reinforcement.

(2. the smaller the absolute value of the exponent becomes – down to zero at a plastic stress distribution (= no size effect). (2. which means that the absolute value of the exponent in the fracture strength equation should be smaller than 0. because the fracture at punching occurs due to a small shear displacement at high biaxial compression strain. the more non-linear stress distribution a structure displays. whereas the beam shear failure is usually associated with inclined crack growth due to tensile strains. However.11) is chosen to be constant. (2.0010 ⋅ ⎜ ⎜ x pu ⎝ ⎞3 ⎟ ⎟ ⎠ 1 ⎛ 25 ⎞ ⋅⎜ ⎟ ⎜f ⎟ ⎝ cc ⎠ 0. independent of the maximum aggregate size. Eq. (2.11) is a natural consequence of the hypothesis that punching occurs when the compression zone near the column collapses. i.0010 ⋅ ⎜ ⎜l ⎝ ch ⎞ ⎟ ⎟ ⎠ − 1 3 ⎛ A = 0. the size effect would be described by the Linear Elastic Fracture Mechanics equation for the failure strength ⎛ d ⎞ f = k ⋅⎜ ⎟ ⎜d ⎟ ⎝ 0⎠ −0. (2. The chosen exponent 1/3 in Eq. (2.5 – as in Eq.12) for the beam shear failure. Only experiments with varying specimen size will give a reliable answer.17): ε cpu ⎛ x pu = 0.e.13) characterize the relative brittleness of the concrete at tensile strains.11) for the punching failure can be derived from the same assumption as Eq. from small specimens up to beams with effective depth of at least 1000 mm.1 (2.16). (2. However. (2. which is more realistic the larger the structure becomes.5.25 is found to be valid for a large range of beam sizes. (2. The absolute value of the exponent for punching should then be larger than the beam-shear exponent 0. Theoretically. they do not give any indication on the exponent to be used in a fracture strength equation.5 (2. It is interesting to note that the format of Eq. because the aggregate size is seldom 12 . the size effect depends on the relation between a reference size of the structure and lch according to Eq. However.19) where d is the actual size of the structure and d0 is a reference size.12) for the shear strength of beams. However. slabs with effective depth varying from 100 mm up to 600 mm. (2.12) with the constant exponent -0.11) therefore seems to be reasonable and can be assumed valid at least for slab sizes covered by the validation of the theory in Section 2. The fracture energy GF determined by the RILEM (1985) beam test and the deduced characteristic length lch according to Eq.11a) where A is a reference size that should be proportional to the maximum aggregate size factor GF0 according to Eq. i. The choice of the compression zone depth as reference dimension for the size effect in Eq.25. the reference size in Eq. thick slabs may display a more pronounced apparent size effect due to possible induced cracks in the compression zone by uneven temperature over the slab depth during the concrete hydration. Most concrete structures display a non-linear stress distribution for brittle fractures. The upper limit 600 mm can most probably be increased because the presented theory presupposes elastic behaviour of the concrete in flexure.At very brittle failures characterized by a linear stress distribution.e. The punching fracture mode seems to be more brittle than the shear failure mode of beams.

The perimeter of the specimen is intended to reflect the circular line of contra-flexure for bending moment in radial direction in a continuous flat plate. then both reinforcement and concrete behave elastically. the theory of elasticity is assumed valid for the bending moment distribution.7) and the critical strain εcpu is defined by Eq. the diameter of the equivalent circular slab is assumed equal to the width of the square slab if the corners are free to lift in the square specimen. Up to the load level when the flexural reinforcement starts to yield near the column.22) 3a 16 ∵B = 3π a 8 where B = diameter of circular column and a = width of square column. then the bending moment per unit width is defined and the punching load can be estimated if the relation between load and bending moment at the column is known. Furthermore. see Figure 2-5.11). Once the critical strain εcpu is defined. where L is the span width. this circle has the radius ≈ 0. In the latter case.2.21) (2.20) (2. (2. A common arrangement for punching testing of flat plates consists of a circular or square slab loaded along its perimeter and supported on a column at its centre.3 Punching at elastic conditions If punching occurs without any yield of the reinforcement (at high reinforcement ratios).2 L in a flat plate with square panels.reported in the literature. the resulting effect on the critical strain value would anyway be rather marginal. The column reaction is concentrated to the column perimeter as has been described above. The depth of the compression zone is then defined by Eq. Poisson's ratio of the cracked concrete slab is thereby assumed zero. (2. 2. 13 . which will be described hereafter. The following equations assume either a circular or a square specimen arrangement. According to the theory of elasticity. A square column is replaced by a fictitious circular column with the same reduction effect on the total bending moment across the specimen width: Circular column: ∆M = V Square column: ∆M = V B 2π (2.

When these effects are superimposed the resulting deformation configuration resembles a truncated cone and the deflection at the column edge is consequently assessed as 14 .26) ψ = m2 angle of inclination at the slab edge (2. where the latter is not negligible near the column.27) The theoretical deflection δ consists of bending deformation and shear deformation. The following expressions are valid according to the theory of elasticity (with ν = 0) for a circular slab.V πc V πB B c 1 m 2 δ ψ t mr r Figure 2-5 Bending moments and slab deformation according to the theory of elasticity for a circular slab supported on the edge of a circular column.23) mr = V ⎡ c B2 B2 ⎤ ⎢2ln + 2 − 2 ⎥ 8π ⎣ 2r 4 r c ⎦ ⎢ ⎥ V ⎡ c B2 ⎤ ⎢2 ln + 1 − 2 ⎥ 8π ⎢ B c ⎥ ⎦ ⎣ V ⎛ B2 ⎞ ⎜1 − 2 ⎟ 4π ⎜ c ⎟ ⎝ ⎠ c V ⎛ B2 ⎞ c ⎜1 − 2 ⎟ = 2 EI 4 π ⎜ c ⎟ ⎠ 2 EI ⎝ radial moment (2.24) m1 = tangential and radial moment at column edge (2. derived from Eqs.25) m2 = tangential moment at the slab edge (2. see Figure 2-5: mt = V ⎡ c B2 B2 ⎤ ⎢2ln + 2 − 2 − 2 ⎥ 8π ⎢ 2r c ⎥ 4r ⎣ ⎦ tangential moment (2. (84) and (85) of Timoshenko and Woinowsky-Krieger (1959).

then the reinforcement yields σ s = Es ⋅ ε cpu ⋅ before punching occurs and the calculation is performed according to Section 2.6) Depth of the compression zone in the slab at elastic behaviour ⎛ ⎞ 2 ⎟ x = d ⋅ nρ ⎜ ⎜ 1 + nρ − 1⎟ ⎝ ⎠ Compression strain at the column edge at punching 1 (2. 15 . Bending moment at the column edge at punching x ⎞ ⎛ mε = ρ ⋅ d 2σ s ⎜1 − ⎟ ⎝ 3d ⎠ Finally.δ ≈ψ c−B 2 (2.7) ε cpu = 0.4.0010 ⎜ ⎜ ⎛ 25 ⎝ f cc ⎞ ⎟ ⎟ ⎠ 0.11) Reinforcement stress at the column edge at punching d−x (2. see Section 4.25) Vε = mε 8π c B2 2ln + 1 − 2 B c (2. because then the alternative failure mode Vσ is checked automatically as well as the ultimate deflection δ ε.29) x If σ s turns out to be larger than the yield stress fsy . The relation between the modulus of elasticity for reinforcement and concrete n= Es E c10 (2.2.28) The punching capacity Vε can now be estimated as follows. The calculation is anyhow preferably computerized. In flat plates with rectangular panels the above equations have to be modified when checking the punching capacity. (2.150 ⎞ 3 ⎟ ⋅⎜ ⎜ x pu ⎟ ⎝ ⎠ (2.31) (2.30) No iteration is thus required for determination of the punching load. see Appendix A.1 ⎛ 0.2. the punching load Vε is derived from Eq.

32) (2.32) and (2. can then be expressed as The ultimate tangential curvature at the column edge. f u ′′ = fu ε cpu x pu E2 0.150 0.38) 16 . (2.1 (force equilibrium) 1 (2.11) ⎛ 0.33) x pu = d ⋅ 2ρ ε cpu E c10 (2.2.0010 3 = c10 ⋅ ⋅ 2 4d 2 f sy ρ2 ⎛ 25 ⎞ ⋅⎜ ⎜f ⎟ ⎟ ⎝ cc ⎠ 0. The bending moments according to the theory of elasticity are then no longer valid for the part of the load that exceeds the load Vy1 when the reinforcement at the column edge just starts to yield.5 ε cpu ⎛ 25 ⎞ = 0. Punching is still assumed to occur when the concrete compression strain reaches the critical value εcpu.37) V y2 = m y ⋅ 2π B 1− c (see Figure 2-6) (2.35) Bending moment at reinforcement yield x ⎞ ⎛ m y = ρ ⋅ d 2 ⋅ f sy ⎜1 − ⎟ ⎝ 3d ⎠ (2.2.150 10 3 ⋅ ⋅ f sy ρ 2d ⋅ f sy ε cpu = 10 −6 ⎛ 25 ⎞ ⋅⎜ ⎟ ⎜f ⎟ ⎝ cc ⎠ 0.4 Yield punching With medium reinforcement ratios the reinforcement near the column will yield before punching occurs.34) ′′ . It is instead assumed that a flexural hinge forms at the column edge and the sector elements of the slab between the radial flexural cracks start to rotate as rigid bodies with support on the column edge.11): Ec10 0.3 with effective depth d in (m) (2.150 ⎞ 3 ⎟ ⋅⎜ ⎜ x pu ⎟ ⎠ ⎝ Combine Eqs.3 (2.36) The column reactions Vy1 when the reinforcement starts to yield at the column edge and Vy2 when all reinforcement across the slab yields V y1 = m y ⋅ 8π c B2 2ln + 1 − 2 B c (2. The punching strain εcpu at the column edge when the reinforcement yields can then be calculated from ρ d f sy = E c10 ⋅ ε cpu ⋅ x pu ⋅ 0.0010⎜ ⎟ ⎜f ⎟ ⎝ cc ⎠ 0.

Curvature in tangential direction at start of yield ′′ = fy my EI = ε sy d−x = f sy Es ⋅ 1 d−x (2.42) 17 . 2 The load capacity is equal to the flexural load capacity Vy2 if ry ≥ The punching load Vε is calculated by integration of the tangential bending moment curve c over the slab width if ry < . see Figure 2-7: 2 c ⎡ ⎤ 2 2⎞ 2 ⎛V ⎛ ⎞ ⎥ V y2 ⎢ c B B B y1 ⎜ 2ln + 2 − − 2 ⎟ + ∆f ′′ ⋅ EI ⋅ ⎟dr ⎥ Vε = ⎢m ⋅ r + ⎜ 2 c ⎢ y y ∫ ⎜ 8π ⎜ 2 r 2r ⎟ r c ⎟ 4 ⎝ ⎠ ⎠ ⎥ ry ⎝ my ⋅ ⎥ 2⎢ ⎣ ⎦ (2. see Figure 2-7: my = 2 2⎞ V y1 ⎛ ⎜ 2ln c + 2 − B − B ⎟ + ∆f ′′ ⋅ EI ⋅ B 2 8π ⎜ 2ry 2ry c2 ⎟ 4ry ⎝ ⎠ (2.39) Possible additional curvature at column edge after first yield ′′ − f y ′′ ∆f ′′ = f u (2.41) c .40) The circle with radius ry inside which the reinforcement yields is solved from the following equation.my my = Vy2 ⎛ B ⎞ ⎜1 − ⎟ 2π ⎝ c ⎠ B c mr = 0 Figure 2-6 Fan type yield lines.

18 .41) can be solved manually by iteration only and Eq. because Eq. is calculated as the sum of the elastic deflection and the additional deflection due to rigid body rotation of the sector elements after first yield at the column: δε = V y1 ⎛ B 2 ⎞ c c − B B c−B ⎜1 − ⎟ ⋅ + ∆f ′′ ⋅ ⋅ 2 ⎜ ⎟ 4π ⎝ 2 2 2 c ⎠ 2 EI (2.The deflection of the slab at punching. (2. The computer solution has furthermore the advantage that the alternative failure mode Vσ is checked automatically as well as the ultimate deflection δ ε. However. The calculations have to be computerized.42) is laborious. (2.43) All equations in this section have to be modified for flat plates with rectangular panels. see Appendix B.2. see Section 4. δε .4. an approximate manual calculation of Vε is described in Section 2. C L ry punching failure my ∆ f ′′ ⋅ EI ⋅ B 2r first yield mt = 2 2⎞ V y1 ⎛ ⎜ 2 ln c + 2 − B − B ⎟ 8π ⎜ 2r 4r 2 c 2 ⎟ ⎠ ⎝ B 2 c 2 r Figure 2-7 Distribution of tangential bending moment at first yield and at punching failure.

**2.2.5 Flat plates with shear reinforcement
**

The capacity of the internal column capital will increase when shear reinforcement is provided, because part of the load is transferred by steep compression struts from the shear reinforcement; see Figure 2-8.

C L

xs

Figure 2-8

Model for maximum capacity with shear reinforcement.

The favourable inclination of the resulting compression strut means that the critical tangential concrete strain ε cpus is assumed to reach the strain 0.0015, which is close to the strain corresponding to the peak stress for concrete grade 25 MPa. The same brittleness and size effect factors as for the strain without shear reinforcement gives

ε cpus

⎛ 25 ⎞ = 0.0015 ⎜ ⎜f ⎟ ⎟ ⎝ cc ⎠

0.1

⎛ 0.150 ⎞ 3 ⋅⎜ ⎜ x ⎟ ⎟ ⎝ s ⎠

1

(2.44)

where xs = compression zone depth with shear reinforcement.

The secant modulus E c15 to the strain εcpus can with good approximation be represented by E c15 = f cc ⎛ f cc ⎞ ⋅⎜ ⎟ 0.0015 ⎝ 25 ⎠

0.1

f ⎞ ⎛ ⋅ ⎜1.1 − cc ⎟ 190 ⎠ ⎝

(2.45)

for concrete grades between 20 MPa and 100 MPa, which is indicated with dots in Figure 2-9 (together with corresponding dots for the secant modulus Ec10 to the strain 0.0010 for slabs without shear reinforcement).

19

**The compression zone force due to the tangential bending moment is assessed as
**

Fc = α ⋅ x s ⋅ E c15 ⋅ ε cpus f ⎞ ⎛ with α = 0.5 + 0.3 ⋅ ⎜1 − cc ⎟ ; ⎝ 100 ⎠

2

(2.46) 20 ≤ f cc ≤ 100 MPa . (2.47)

**The compression zone depth xs can then be derived to (compare Eqs. (2.4) to (2.7)):
**

⎛ 1 1 1 ⎞ ⎟ + − x s = d ⋅ ns ρ ⋅ ⎜ ⎜ 4α 2 α ⋅ n ρ 2α ⎟ s ⎝ ⎠

(2.48)

with ns ρ =

Es ⋅ρ. Ec15

(2.49)

fcc MPa 100

80

60

40

20 Ec15 Ec10 0.001 0.002 0 0

ε

Figure 2-9

Secant modules Ec10 and Ec15 according to Eqs. (2.10) and (2.45).

20

Punching before reinforcement yield Reinforcement stress at the column edge at punching

σ s = Es ⋅ ε cpus ⋅

d − xs xs

(2.50)

If σ s turns out to be larger than the yield stress fsy , then the reinforcement yields before punching occurs and the calculation is performed according to “Punching after reinforcement yield” below. Bending moment at the column edge at punching

x ⎞ ⎛ mεs = ρ ⋅ d 2σ s ⎜1 − s ⎟ ⎝ 3d ⎠

(2.51)

**Finally, the punching capacity Vεs is derived from Eq. (2.25):
**

V εs = m εs ⋅ 8π c B2 2ln + 1 − B c2 (2.52)

Punching after reinforcement yield The forces in the reinforcement and the concrete compression zone are equal:

**ρ d f sy = Ec15 ⋅ ε cpus ⋅ x pus ⋅ α
**

Combine Eqs. (2.53) and (2.44):

Ec15 α ⋅ 0.150 15 3 ⋅ ⋅ f sy d ρ ⎛ 25 ⎞ ⋅⎜ ⎜f ⎟ ⎟ ⎝ cc ⎠

0.3

(2.53)

ε cpus = 10 −6

d

with effective depth d in (m) (2.54)

x pus =

α ε cpus E c15

⋅

ρ

⋅

f sy

(2.55)

**′′ : The ultimate tangential curvature at the column edge, f us
**

′′ = f us

ε cpus

x pus

=

2 Ec15 α 2 ⋅ 0.150 0.00153 ⋅ ⋅ 2 f sy d2 ρ2

⎛ 25 ⎞ ⋅⎜ ⎜f ⎟ ⎟ ⎝ cc ⎠

0.3

(2.56)

Bending moment at reinforcement yield x ⎞ ⎛ m ys = ρ ⋅ d 2 ⋅ f sy ⎜1 − s ⎟ ⎝ 3d ⎠ (2.57)

21

41) and (2. which is preferably checked in accordance with Model Code 90.The column reactions Vy1 when the reinforcement starts to yield at the column edge and Vy2 when all reinforcement across the slab yields: V y1 = m ys ⋅ 8π c B2 2ln + 1 − 2 B c 2π B 1− c (2. The calculations are preferably computerized.58) V y2 = m ys ⋅ (2. (2. The nominal ultimate stress in the hangers should thereby be limited to round 350 MPa. Still larger capacity in combination with ductile behaviour can be achieved with the “ductility reinforcement” described in Chapter 5.42). Larger capacity can be achieved with inclined stirrups.59) Curvature in tangential direction at start of yield: ′′ = f ys f sy Es ⋅ 1 d − xs (2.60) Possible additional curvature at column edge after first yield: ′′ − f ys ′′ ∆f ′′ = f us (2. The total punching capacity can therefore be assessed by adding the vertical component of the hanger force to the above capacity Vεs. see Appendix C. The shear reinforcement must extend far enough from the column to exclude a shear failure outside the shear reinforced area. but not to more than the load corresponding to overall yield of the flexural reinforcement. The stirrups in the first row outside the column act as hangers that transfer their load directly to the column without affecting the internal column capital if the upper end of the stirrups is anchored inside the column edge.61) The distance ry and punching capacity Vεs is then determined from Eqs. It is further assumed that the shear reinforcement is designed for at least 60 % of the total column reaction and stirrups or stud rails are well anchored outside the innermost top and bottom reinforcement layers. The upper limit for punching capacity derived above presupposes that the punching failure occurs within the zone with shear reinforcement. 22 .

Definitions of parameters. D R V B t ∆x γ1 2γ σc Figure 2-10 Failure mode Vσ . 23 x0 d .3. Square columns are replaced by equivalent circular columns with the same perimeter and square slabs are replaced by equivalent circular slabs with the same area. The specimen could simulate a column footing.2. The shear force V is transferred to the column via a column capital within the slab and punching occurs when the stress at the upper edge of the capital reaches the compression strength σc. 2.1 Column footings Consider a relatively compact circular test specimen according to Figure 2-10.3 Punching capacity Vσ Punching occurs when the compression stress in the fictitious internal column capital of the slab reaches a critical value. The diameter of a circular slab is denoted D.

Part of uniformly distributed load will fall within the final shear crack. The shear crack is assumed steep in compact foundations and the inclination angle φ should not be taken less than round 45° in slender foundations. 24 . That part of the load does not affect the punching capacity.64) The column capital forms part of a compression strut from the load to the column. see Figure 2-10. Punching occurs when the capital fails in compression so that a diagonal shear crack forms. see Figure 2-11.62) D c 0 = kD R φ V σ Figure 2-11 Definition of angle φ and shear load Vσ .4d ≥1 D −B 3 2 (2. A reasonable expression for the angle φ is tan φ = 1.63) The radius to the centre of gravity for uniformly distributed load outside the fictitious shear crack can be shown to be R= D k2 (1 + ) 3 1+ k (2. It is easily shown that the capacity of the capital is at maximum when the angle γ1 is equal to γ. where 2γ is the angle to the horizontal of the punching crack near the column. The diameter of the circle within the fictitious shear crack at the flexural reinforcement level is denoted c0 c0 = kD = B + 2d tan φ (2.

65) (2.007 x ⎟ ⎟ ≤ 1. which is the generally accepted uniaxial compression strength in ⎝ 250 ⎠ cracked zones. see Figure 2-12.2 f cc ⎢ 0⎠ ⎥ ⎝ ⎣ ⎦ (2.6 + 0. That effect decreases with increasing u/x f ⎞ ⎛ until σ c = 0. (2.V = k V ⋅ x0 sinγ 1 ⋅ sin( 2γ − γ 1 ) sin 2γ ⋅ k x dV = V 0 [(cosγ 1 )sin (2γ − γ 1 ) − sinγ 1cos(2γ − γ 1 )] = 0 dγ 1 sin 2γ tan (2γ − γ 1 ) = tan γ 1 .2 fcc in Eq.5 B 1 x ∆x = ⋅ 02 4 cos γ tan γ = Eliminate ∆x from Eqs.6 f cc ⎜1 − cc ⎟ .69) represents the concrete compression strength in bi-axial compression.69) The compression strength “σc” of the capital is assumed to vary with the slenderness u/x of the cantilevering part of the capital.9⎜ ⎜1 − 0.65) and (2. γ1 = γ The inclination angle γ of the compression strut is determined by ( d − ∆x ) R − 0. 2 ⎡ ⎛ u ⎞ ⎤ ⎥ σ c = f cc ⎢0. 25 . it is evident from Figure 2-12 that the compression zone of the surrounding slab confines the capital.70) For small values of u/x. The upper limit 1. (2. when the perpendicular compression stress is moderate. see Nilsson (1983).66) (2 R − B )2 2 x0 + 4d 2R − B −1 − x0 x0 (2.67) The average upper diameter of the capital that supports the inclined compression strut from the load is x0 x0 B+ + (2.68) tan (2γ ) 2 tan (γ ) The effective perimeter u of the capital is thus x0 x0 ⎞ ⎛ u = π⎜ ⎜ B + tan (2γ ) + 2 tan (γ ) ⎟ ⎟ ⎝ ⎠ (2.66): tanγ = (2. (= fcd2 according to Model Code 90).

0 σc γ σc B/d = 2. 26 d t .γ B/d = 1.5 B Figure 2-12 Confinement of internal column capital by surrounding slab. C L D 2 c0 2 ε s0 ⋅ c0 2r ε s0 φ x0 ε c0 B 2 ε c0 ⋅ r B 2r Figure 2-13 Strain distribution in compact footing.

and put n0 ρ = s ⋅ ⋅ρ: D E c0 1 + ln B 1 + ln (D shall be replaced by the slab width b in square footings) ⎛ ⎞ x0 2 ⎟ = n0 ρ ⎜ 1 + − 1 ⎜ ⎟ d n0 ρ ⎝ ⎠ The punching capacity can then be determined as ⎛ 0. (2. which affects the depth of the compression zone.72).73) ⎛ ⎜ x0 ⎜ B Fc = ∆ϕ ⋅ E c0 ⋅ ε c0 ⋅ ⋅ + 2 ⎜2 ⎜ ⎝ (2.71).74) (2. Study a sector element under the shear crack with sector angle ∆ϕ : ε c0 B x ⋅ 2r = ε s0 d − x0 ⋅ c0 2r D 2 (2.150 ⎞ 3 Vσ = σ c ⋅ t ⋅ sin(γ ) ⋅ u ⋅ ⎜ ⎟ ⎝ t ⎠ where t= x0 = depth of compression strut 2cos(γ ) 1 (2. the sector elements between the radial flexural cracks are assumed to rotate as rigid bodies even before yielding of the flexural reinforcement.150 ⎞ 3 = size effect factor with dimension t in (m) ⎜ ⎟ ⎝ t ⎠ 0.75) 1 (2.77) .72) D ⎛ ⎞ ⎜ ⎟ 2 c0 c0 ⎟ c ⎜ + dr = ∆ϕ ⋅ Es ⋅ ε s0 ⋅ ρ ⋅ d ⋅ 0 Fs = ∆ϕ ⋅ Es ⋅ ε s0 ⋅ ρ ⋅ d ⋅ ⎜ 2 c∫ 2r ⎟ 2 0 ⎜ ⎟ 2 ⎝ ⎠ D E c0 Combine Eqs. (2.In compact footings.76) ⎛ 0. see Figure 2-13. the total load capacity with respect to punching is determined as Pσ = Vσ 1− k 2 27 (2.73). Finally. (2.71) ⎞ ⎟ x0 B ⎛ B ⎟ D⎞ d 1 + ln ⎟ r ∫ 2r ⎟ = ∆ϕ ⋅ Ec0 ⋅ ε c0 ⋅ 2 ⋅ 2 ⎜ B⎠ ⎝ B ⎟ 2 ⎠ ⎛ D⎞ ⎜ ⎜1 + ln c ⎟ ⎟ 0⎠ ⎝ (2.150 = diameter of standard test cylinder specimen (m).

74).0010 ⎜ ⎜f ⎟ ⎟ ⎝ cc ⎠ 0. The flexural capacity and the concrete strain of a square column footing are checked as follows. (2.3d 0 .80) with x according to Eq. The angle γ need not be taken less than 25°. see Figure 2-14. (2.7 d = + tan 30 ° tan 2γ tan γ → γ = 25 ° Figure 2-14 Angle γ for flat plates.75) and with Ec10 instead of Ec0 in Eq. see for instance Kinnunen and Nylander (1960).1 ⎛ 0. which has to be considered when designing such reinforcement. The expressions for the capacity Vσ presuppose that the flexural reinforcement in the footing does not yield. 28 .79) where M = total bending moment over footing width b = width of square footing c0 x σs ⋅ ⋅ εc = Bε + 2 x d − x Es ≤ ε cpu ⎛ 25 ⎞ = 0. Equation (2.78) M ⎛ b ⎞ ⎛ x ⎞ ρ d ⋅ c0 ⎜ 1− ⎟ ⎜1 + ln c ⎟ ⎟⋅⎜ 3d ⎠ 0⎠ ⎝ ⎝ 2 σs = (2. γ 2γ ≈ 0.15 ⎞ 3 ⋅⎜ ⎟ ⎝ x ⎠ 1 (2.80) may govern the capacity at high reinforcement ratios in combination with high strength concrete.For geometrical reasons the angle γ is limited to 45° corresponding to a vertical shear crack through the compression zone.3d γ d tan 30° d 0 . ⎛b B ⎞ M = P⎜ − ε ⎟ ⎝ 8 2π ⎠ (2. which agrees with the average shear crack inclination 30° observed at slender test specimens.

Additional deflection will then cause only limited increase of the radial curvature of the sector elements.2.75). if the curved relation is replaced by a linear relation as indicated in Figure 2-15.34). However. which is also evident from Figure 4-7. (2. the punching capacity can be easily determined even in this region. experience from published test results simulating slender flat plates demonstrates that Vσ is governing only when columns are small in relation to the slab thickness and the concrete compression strength is low. the flexural reinforcement near the column will often yield before punching occurs. However. punching occurs without any reinforcement yielding and the punching capacity can be easily determined by the equations given in Section 2. (2.3. The compression zone depth in radial direction will therefore not decrease below the value given by Eq. The lesser of Vσ and Vε governs the punching capacity of flat plates. Two limit values for the reinforcement ratio can be identified.2. When the flexural reinforcement ratio exceeds the value ρ 1. If Vσ turns out to be governing. the solution of which requires computerized calculations as described in Section 2. For flat plates with shear reinforcement. This is confirmed by Figure 4-11 of Hallgren (1996) that shows the recorded radial strain distribution over the compression zone for specimen HSC1.4.2 with a decreased critical value εcpu so that Vε becomes equal to Vσ However.7) is then no longer valid for the depth of the compression zone near the column for tangential bending moments – the depth decreases.2 Flat plates In flat plates. The punching capacity is then equal to the flexural capacity of the slab. the compression zone near the column has decreased to the value given by Eq. when the flexural reinforcement starts to yield near the column then the sector elements between the radial cracks in the slab start to rotate as rigid bodies. When punching occurs. (2. then the displacement of the flat plate is computed according to Section 2.1 General The relation between punching capacity of flat plates and flexural reinforcement ratio is typically as depicted in Figure 2-14. The “exact” estimation of the punching capacity in this region leads to rather complicated equations. Between these two limits part of the reinforcement yields. The depth remained constant – conforming to Eq.4.75) – up to the punching load. Eq. When the flexural reinforcement ratio is less than the value ρ 2.2.3. 29 . 2. (2.4 Manual calculation 2. Vσs shall be determined with the angle γ = 45°. punching occurs after all reinforcement has reached the yield limit. which value shall be used when calculating Vσ for flat plates.

4.2 m) 2.10) n ρ1 = Es ⋅ ρ1 Ec10 0.81) The punching capacity for reinforcement ratio exceeding ρ 1 is then determined according to Section 2.15 ⎞ 3 ⋅⎜ ⎟ → ⎝ x ⎠ (2.3.5 m. B = 0.Vε 1500 V 1 kN V2 1000 500 0 0 ρ 0.2 Reinforcement limit ρ 1 The reinforcement limit ρ 1 is estimated by trial and error calculations until σs is equal to fsy: Without shear reinforcement E c10 4 ⎡ f ⎞ ⎤ ⎛ ⎛ f ⎞3 = ⎢1 − 0.1 (2.6) 1 ⎛ ⎞ ⎛ ⎞ 2 ⎟ → ε cpu = 0.6⎜1 − cc ⎟ ⎥ ⋅ 21500 ⋅ ⎜ cc ⎟ ⎝ 150 ⎠ ⎥ ⎝ 10 ⎠ ⎢ ⎣ ⎦ 1 (2.5 2 ρ 1. d = 0. c = 3. 30 .0 1.0010 ⎜ 25 ⎟ x = d ⋅ nρ1 ⎜ 1 1 + − ⎜ ⎟ ⎜ ⎟ nρ1 ⎝ f cc ⎠ ⎝ ⎠ d−x σ s = Es ⋅ ε cpu ⋅ x ⎛ 0. (fcc = 30 MPa.2.25 m.5 ρ % 1 Figure 2-15 Punching capacity Vε versus reinforcement ratio. fsy =500 MPa.

5.47) 0.1 ⋅⎜ ⎜ x ⎟ ⎟ → ⎝ s ⎠ (2.82) 1 ⎛ 0.45) ns ρ1 = ⎛ 1 ⎛ ⎞ 1 1 ⎞ ⎟ → ε cpus = 0.33) and (2.1 − cc ⎟ 190 ⎠ ⎝ (2.33) (2.3 Reinforcement limit ρ 2 Without shear reinforcement ′′ at the slab edge at punching due to the rigid body The additional tangential curvature ∆f 2 rotation after first yield at the column can be derived from Eqs.0015 ⎜ 25 ⎟ xs = d ⋅ ns ρ1 ⎜ + − ⎜ ⎟ ⎟ ⎜ 4α 2 α ⋅ n ρ 2α ⎠ s 1 ⎝ f cc ⎠ ⎝ d − xs σ s = Es ⋅ ε cpus ⋅ xs 0. (2.84) 31 .150 10 3 ⋅ ⋅ 2d f sy ρ2 ⋅ f sy ⎛ 25 ⎞ ⋅⎜ ⎜f ⎟ ⎟ ⎝ cc ⎠ 0.34) ε cpu Ec10 Bε c ⎛ ε cpu ε sy ⎞ ⎟ ⎜ − ⎜ x pu d − x ⎟ ⎠ ⎝ 2ρ2 ρ 2 → ∆f 2′′ = with nρ 2 = (2.3⎜1 .cc ⎟ ⎝ 100 ⎠ E c15 2 (2.With shear reinforcement ⎛ f ⎞ α = 0.1 f cc ⎛ f cc ⎞ = ⋅⎜ ⎟ 0.3 (2.83) ⎛ ⎞ Es 2 ⎟ 1 + − 1 ⋅ ρ 2 and x = d ⋅ nρ 2 ⎜ ⎜ ⎟ E c10 n ρ 2 ⎝ ⎠ The additional curvature at the slab edge can also be expressed as 2 ⎛ ⎜ 1 − Bε ε sy ⎜ c 2 ⋅ 2π ′′ = − ∆f 2 1 B d −x⎜ 4π ⎜ 1− ε ⎜ c ⎝ ⎞ ⎟ Bε ⎞ ⎞ ⎟ ε sy ⎛ ⎛ ⎟= d −x⎜ ⎜1 − 0.15 ⎞ 3 The punching capacity for reinforcement ratio exceeding ρ 1 is then determined according to Section 2.2.0015 ⎝ 25 ⎠ Es ⋅ ρ1 Ec15 f ⎞ ⎛ ⋅ ⎜1.34): ε cpu = 10 xpu = d ⋅ −6 E c10 0.5⎜1 + c ⎟ ⎟ ⎟ ⎝ ⎠⎠ ⎝ ⎟ ⎟ ⎠ (2. 2.4.5 + 0.

54) (2. The curvature according to Eq. (2. Vy2: Vε = V y2 = ρ ⋅ f sy ⎛ 2π ⋅ ρ ⋅ f sy ⋅ d 2 ⎜ − 1 0 .85) With shear reinforcement The calculation is performed in the same way as without shear reinforcement: Ec15 α ⋅ 0.4 Transition zone between ρ 1 and ρ 2 The punching capacity Vε is determined by linear interpolation: Vε = V2 + ρ − ρ2 ⋅ (V1 − V2 ) ρ1 − ρ 2 (2. The punching capacity up to the reinforcement ratio ρ 2 is equal to the flexural capacity at overall yield.48) The additional curvature at the slab edge can also be expressed as ′′ = ∆f 2 B ⎞⎞ ⎛ ⎜ 1 − 0. and the curvature according to Eq.88) 32 .55) f sy ρ2 ⋅ α ⋅ ε cpus Ec15 Bε c ⎛ ε cpus ε sy ⎜ − ⎜ x pus d − xs ⎝ ⎞ ⎟ ⎟ ⎠ ′′ = ρ 2 → ∆f 2 (2.4. 5 ⎜ B f cc ⎝ 1− ε c ⎞ ⎟ ⎟ ⎠ ρ ≤ ρ2 (2.Only a few iterations are normally required to determine the reinforcement ratio ρ 2 that makes the two curvature expressions equal.3 ε cpus = 10 x pus = d ⋅ −6 (2. (2.84) increases slowly with increasing ρ.86) with ns ρ 2 = ⎛ 1 Es 1 1 ⎞ ⎟ ⋅ ρ 2 and xs = d ⋅ n s ρ 2 ⎜ + − ⎟ ⎜ 4α 2 α ⋅ n ρ Ec15 2 α s 2 ⎠ ⎝ (2.150 15 3 ⋅ ⋅ f sy d ρ2 ⎛ 25 ⎞ ⋅⎜ ⎜f ⎟ ⎟ ⎝ cc ⎠ 0.5⎜1 + ε ⎟ ⎟ ⎜ d − xs ⎝ c ⎠⎟ ⎝ ⎠ ε sy ⎛ (2.87) 2.83) decreases rapidly with increasing ρ.

970 1.586 1.581 0.421 1. fck (MPa) 20 30 40 50 60 0.2 0.032 1.935 0.493 0.613 0.175 1.089 60 1.447 0.579 0.133 1.1 0. Table 2-1 Reinforcement ratio ρ 1 % for fsy = 500 MPa d (m) Without shear reinforcement Concrete cylinder strength.2 0.829 0.241 1.283 1.316 2.713 0.141 1.062 0.710 0.375 0.772 0.590 0.411 0.30 0.4.482 0.537 0.195 0.856 1.184 1.30 0.311 0.646 0.432 1.077 0.893 1.732 1.25 0.183 30 1.3 0.854 0.5 Tabulated values for ρ 1 and ρ 2 In order to facilitate calculations the limit values ρ 1 and ρ 2 can be tabulated for common standard designs.834 1.805 0. The reinforcement ratios ρ 2 in Table 2-2 are especially interesting because they represent the limits below which the flexural reinforcement within the column strip can be fully utilized without correction with respect to punching.684 0.3 0.25 0.712 0.825 0.20 0.552 0.816 50 2.919 0.588 0.1 0.014 0. fck (MPa) 20 30 40 50 60 With shear reinforcement Concrete cylinder strength.971 1.068 1.640 0.317 1.550 40 2.681 1.232 1.564 1.831 0.1 0. d (m) Bε c Without shear reinforcement Concrete cylinder strength.744 0.575 0.310 1.821 0.135 0.20 0. Examples are given in Tables 2-1 and 2-2.642 0.709 0.742 0.183 1.916 0.899 0.996 1.416 0.442 0.478 0.239 1.018 1.283 1.176 1.926 1.347 1.439 1.2 0.522 33 .577 0.981 1.425 0.739 0.977 50 1.2.376 1.930 1.534 0.654 0.535 0.683 Table 2-2 Reinforcement ratio ρ 2 % for fsy = 500 MPa.857 0.843 40 1.382 0.596 0. fck (MPa) 20 1.338 0.078 1.3 0.990 0.310 0.462 0.655 0.791 0.826 0.627 0.004 60 2.180 With shear reinforcement Concrete cylinder strength.507 0.520 0.174 2.766 0.401 2.129 1.416 1.558 2.366 1.493 1. fck (MPa) 20 30 1.892 1.762 0.697 0.496 0.

83 m square.5.457 m beyond the downward loads.1 Influence of bending moment 160 50 457 865 915 3000 1 865 915 457 m m 1 v Figure 2-16 Test set-up. An upward load was applied at the centre through a 160 mm square plate and downward line loads were applied at the four sides of the 1.83 m square.2. thus changing the ratio between the central load (V) and the restraining moments (m1) at the edges of the 1. The specimens were 100 mm thick and their central panels were reinforced with φ 10 c/c 75 (fsy = 525 MPa) both ways in the top and φ 8 c/c 75 (fsy = 510 MPa) both ways in the bottom. Regan (1986) Regan (1986) made a very illustrative test with specimens subjected to a bending moment at the slab boundary as shown in Figure 2-16. The average effective depths were 80 mm and 82 mm respectively. The assembly was supported on rollers positioned 0.5 Comparison with test results 2. By varying the ratios of the upward and downward loads differing reactions could be produced at the roller supports. 34 .

107 1.036 0.124 1.3 31. Slender flat plates usually display a sudden brittle failure – often characterized as explosive. The punching capacity in the tests increased when the bending moment in the slab at the column versus the column reaction V decreased. That occurs for instance for the bending moment in the long direction in flat plates with rectangular panels.2 Influence of concrete mechanical properties The punching failure modes for slender flat plates and compact footings are fundamentally different. because an increase of only the lesser of the two reinforcement ratios did not increase the punching capacity in their tests. The presented theory on the other hand assumes that punching occurs when the tangential strain in the concrete near the column reaches a critical value. fcc (MPa) m1/V Vtest (kN) 0 0.2 34. the bending moment in the slab at the column plays a decisive role for the punching failure mechanism and the resulting punching capacity. i.3 It is evident from Table 2-1 that the punching failure cannot be treated as a pure shear force failure.049 190 236 248 262 MC 90 Vcalc (kN) 193 210 198 205 Theory Vcalc (kN) 180 217 224 254 MC 90 Vtest/Vcalc 0.088 1. 2. Most probably. Table 2-3 Slab Comparison of test results by Regan (1986) with predictions of Model Code 90 and the presented theory. That strain is a function of the bending moment in the slab near the column. the punching capacity will decrease if the bending moment in the slab versus the column reaction V increases.056 1.017 0. Nylander and Sundquist (1972) concluded that if flexural reinforcement has to be added due to punching.278 Theory Vtest/Vcalc 1. then the required flexural reinforcement ratios ρ x and ρ y in the two orthogonal directions shall be increased with the same factor to k·ρ x and k·ρ y.252 1. 35 . The Model Code 90 may represent the common code approach where the punching failure load is related to formal shear strength irrespective of the bending moment in the slab near the column.e.031 IV/1 IV/2 IV/3 IV/4 26.0 28.All slabs failed in punching and the test data are summarized in Table 2-3 together with predictions according to the Model Code 90 and the theory of this thesis. which is confirmed by specimen S1 in Kinnunen et al (1980) (see Table 2-4).984 1. These findings have unfortunately never been incorporated in Swedish concrete codes and handbooks. Compact footings display a gradual failure similar to the failure of cylinders for testing of concrete compression strength.5. the opposite is also valid.

Concrete grades vary from 14 MPa up to more than 100 MPa. The E-modulus of concrete thus seems to be an important concrete property for prediction of the punching strength. The recorded E-modulus was there only 79 % of the value according to Model Code 90.7 % and the yield strength varies from 300 MPa up to more than 700 MPa.073 for the punching capacity predictions in Table 2-4 must therefore be regarded as a good verification of the theory for flat plates. The recorded values by for instance Hallgren (1996) were consistently lower than the values derived from the compression strengths according to Model Code 90. the simple and comprehensible failure model is based on recordable data for the stress-strain relation of concrete in uniaxial compression combined with prevailing knowledge of concrete properties in biaxial compression. The difference was still larger for the specimen described by Ožbolt et al (2000). The slab slenderness is represented by the expression (c – Bε)/2d. with a prediction scatter approaching the inevitable material strength scatter. This property is traditionally recorded neither for test specimens nor for actual structures. Furthermore. This relation is at best a good approximation. This had a large impact on the calculated punching capacity where the theoretical capacity with the recorded Emodulus was only 83 % of the capacity with E-modulus according to Model Code 90. where a square column is replaced by a circular column with the same bending moment reduction effect. probably due to a concrete mix design with aggregates from sedimentary rock. Bε = 3πa/8. The variation coefficient 0. Tolf (1988) and Tomaszewicz (1993) display a capacity scatter.0. where a square column with width a is replaced by a circular column with the same perimeter.Flat plates seem to fail when the tangential strain in the concrete reaches a critical value. The column size in relation to slab depth is represented by the parameter Bσ/d. These observations indicate that the concrete E-modulus has influence on the punching strength of flat plates. Compact footings seem to fail when the inclined compression stress reaches the failure stress in bi-axial compression. The reinforcement ratio varies from 0. they are directly related to the recorded compression strength of the test specimens. These base properties can simply not be “manipulated” or “tuned”. 36 . Only specimens with normal density aggregates are included. which is larger than the usual scatter observed for cylinder compression tests. Bσ = 4a / π .5. The test specimens simulating flat plates listed in Table 2-4 cover a very wide range of conditions. The effective depth of the specimens varies from 70 mm up to 619 mm and the column width versus the effective depth of the slab varies between 1. 2. The relation between compression strength and E-modulus as given by Model Code 90 has therefore been used for the verification in Table 2-4.35 % up to 3. Some of the duplicated tests by Kinnunen and Nylander (1960).3 Comparison with test results for flat plates and column footings The theory is validated by comparison with published test results in Tables 2-4 to 2-7.2 and 4. which is confirmed by those tests where the E-modulus was actually recorded. Not only the compression strength but also the E-modulus should therefore be recorded for test specimens and should be specified on structural drawings for flat plates.

The two specimens of Sundquist (1977) displayed a very ductile behaviour with overall yield. The upper bound 1. because the capacity when all reinforcement yields (for ρ < ρ 2) is well-defined by the fan-type yield line configuration. which forms the prerequisite for the approach in Chapter 3 about eccentric punching. larger capacity than 1. which is further supported by the tests with varying bending moment described in Section 2. However. However. because it utilizes a rough estimate of the decreasing compression strength of the column capital with increasing perimeter versus the compression zone depth. It is evident that if the theory can predict the capacity for ρ >ρ 1.6Vc can be achieved if the slab is provided with ductility reinforcement described in Chapter 5. However. The good agreement between theory and reality confirms that the presented model can predict the punching capacity as well as the slab deflection and the concrete strain near the column. whenever reported. That is why it is most important that a theory for punching capacity should primarily have the ability to predict the punching failure at such high reinforcement ratios that no reinforcement yields before punching. This is a strong support for the hypothesis that punching of flat plates occurs when the flexural compression strain in the slab reaches a critical value. Some of the slabs in Table 2-6 were provided with an extremely large amount of shear reinforcement. Figure 2-15 displays a typical curve for the punching capacity versus the flexural reinforcement ratio in a flat plate. but punching failures still occurred within the shear reinforced zone.6Vc according to Model Code 90 appears well advised. then any reasonable transition curve between ρ 1 and ρ 2 will give a good estimate of the punching capacity in this range as well.The theory for column footings is more intricate.75Vc + Vs must be utilized with caution. which indicates that the bent down reinforcement bars were not fully active in resisting the bending moment as assumed in Nylander and Kinnunen (1990). which at least is a better prediction result than any existing concrete code method. which demonstrates that the code approach with the capacity taken as Vu = 0. This moment distribution differs radically from the moment distribution corresponding to rigid body sector elements rotating around a support perimeter near the column edge. where Vc is the nominal capacity without shear reinforcement. which is used by Kinnunen and Nylander (1960) and Hallgren (1996) even for elastic conditions with no reinforcement yielding. 37 . the failure capacity is predicted even for those specimens where the reinforcement did not reach overall yield.5.092 in Table 2-5 indicates that the presented strut-and-tie model seems to describe the structural behaviour well enough to give a reasonably good estimate of the punching capacity. It is then logical that the moment distribution according to the theory of elasticity should be applied in that case. It is noteworthy that the theory can predict the large deflection and the sudden punching failure in slabs where all the reinforcement yields across the slab width. The small scatter in Table 2-6 for specimens with shear reinforcement is partly due to the fact that several specimens failed at loads close to the load corresponding to overall yield of the flexural reinforcement – a case that is trivial for the presented theory. but they did not reach the theoretical yield capacity. Predicted deflection and concrete strain in the tangential direction of flat plate specimens are in Table 2-7 compared to recorded values. the variation coefficient 0.1.

2 47.75 2.50 " " " " " 5.050 0.42 2.43 5.34 0.34 154 φ2600 φ300 1.48 1.6 26.2 706 701 657 670 720 712 668 664 0.3 S2. see next page.95 7. fcc MPa fsy MPa ρ % 1.50 " " 3.079 1.80 0.48 σs MPa Vcalc kN Vtest kN Vtest Vcalc 1.84 " " " " " 3.79 1.2 29.1174 1.6 26.80 0.003 0.38 5.2 S1.6 22.29 3.0 36.2 14.033 S1 30.018 1.13 1.152 Elstner.4 24.28 1.97 " 5.28 1.1 25.3264 1.965 0970 1. Nylander (1960) Moe (1961) Schaeidt et al (1970) Marti et al (1977) Pralong et al (1979) Kinnunen.73 5.34 0.9 26. Hognestad (1956) A-1b A-1c A1-d A-1e A-2b A-2c A-7b A-3b A-3c A-3d A-4 A-5 A-6 A-13 B-1 B-2 B-4 B-9 B -14 5 6 24 25 32 33 R2 M1A 25.2 515 1.943 1.25 1.974 1.00 3.50 1.026 1.008 0.6 621 0.43 5.912 1.9 50.61 5.26 1. flat plate specimens.49 5.148 1. Test slab No.057 1.043 1.44 2.84 3.46 699 584 483 465 fsy " " " 2291 1891 6301 5981 1471 1401 4531 4351 216 194 603 600 145 148 489 444 0.81 0.27 2. Tolf (1980) Tolf (1988) 1780 " φ2650 152 305 φ500 P-2 34.62 6.25 1.3 19.2 S2.021 38 .4 28.84 " " " " 1.1 S1.18 2.1 27.9 22.099 1.51 5.93 453 569 600 1.8 20.31 d mm 118 " " " 114 " " " " " 118 114 " 121 114 " " " " 117 118 128 124 123 125 114 " 240 c mm 1780 " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " φ1710 " " " " " Column size mm 254 " " " " " " " " " 356 " " " 254 " " " " φ150 " φ300 " " " Bσ d 2.026 0.7 43.35 100 99 200 199 98 99 200 197 φ1190 " φ2380 " φ1190 " φ2380 " φ125 " φ250 " φ125 " φ250 " 1.992 1.80 0.988 0.80 0.8 26.0 26.02 6.054 P-5 26.986 1.3 S1.931 1.01 1. Nylander.40 1.26 1.040 1.6 558 1.27 " " " 6.70 3.957 1.4394 1.0714 1.5 332 " " " 321 " " " " " 332 321 " 294 324 321 303 341 325 441 454 455 451 448 462 328 481 555 fsy " " " 256 fsy 297 198 212 237 fsy 297 207 fsy " " " " 324 fsy " " " " " fsy 390 381 350 356 354 335 381 512 449 432 465 526 393 530 535 178 136 139 270 511 599 263 266 446 419 231 241 303 394 1470 365 356 351 356 400 467 512 445 534 547 400 534 498 236 178 200 334 505 578 255 275 430 408 258 258 311 433 1694 Kinnunen.030 1.8 28.140 1.50 3.063 1.554 0.028 S1.1 26.38 5.74 0.5 20.3 26.47 421 551 569 1.26 1.5 37.69 5.5 34.02 0.476 " 1.4 S2.34 2.27 5.8 25.08 c−Bε 2d 6.50 " " " " 6.16 " " " 2.Table 2-4 Authors Test results.25 1.4 27.64 7.4 25.44 145 φ2600 φ300 2.40 619 4680 2340 φ800 1.01 2.964 0.82 0.40 5.24 404 4780 4915 1.38 1.74 " " " 2.67 6.6 47.2 22.2 26.07 7.49 0.1 S2.76 5.74 " " 1.98 " 3.04 0.2374 0.35 0. For explanations.23 4.9 24.41 2.000 0.034 0.38 5.6 25.5 26.3094 1.5 26.

80 0.45 " " 6.53 6.3243.069 1.60 0.0 24.073) 1) 2) 3) 4) 5) Failure mode Vσ governing.921 Marzouk.94 1.61 2.73 " " 2.01 1.12 " " " 5.51 " " 9.26 2.84 1.59 " " 2.35 5.965 0.50 1. therefore not included in the statistical evaluation.59 0.80 0.84 0.33 0.80 0.49 " " 2.100 Mean value Vtest / Vcalc = 1.055 1.59 2.25 1.24 1.27 1.075 0.008 1.01 " " 2.82 1.035 0.971 0.006 1.96 " " " " " " " 1.103 1. (2.4 1. Not included in the statistical evaluation due to the small effective depth 70 mm.33 0.91 5.55 1.01 1.956 1.891 1.94 1.62 " " " 1.894 0.52 2.1513 1.145 1.64 100 100 125 φ 1190 " " φ 250 φ 250 φ 125 2.29 5. Recorded Ec0 value 21. Hussein (1991) 144 242 353 367 322 425 323 469 557 626 148 212 232 414 469 305 349 1955 2113 2245 2409 1159 1233 1230 1310 1349 1308 1375 1403 340 1057 1051 921 1169 954 565 1042 6685 806 302 304 2411 178 249 356 418 365 489 356 436 543 645 196 258 267 498 560 320 396 2050 2250 2450 2400 1200 1100 1300 1400 1450 1250 1450 1550 330 965 1021 889 1041 960 565 944 615 Tomaszewicz (1993) Hallgren (1996) 2) HSC0 HSC1 HSC2 HSC4 HSC6 HSC9 N/HSC8 Ožbolt et al (2000) Sundquist.68 c−Bε 2d 6.93 " " " 0.75 " " " 2.80 d mm 95 " " 90 125 120 95 120 " " 70 " " 95 " " 120 275 " " " 200 " " " 200 " " " 88 200 200 194 200 201 202 198 190 c mm 1500 " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " 2500 " " " 2200 " " " 2200 " " " 1100 φ2400 " " " " " " φ2400 Column size mm 150 " " " " " " " " " " " " 220 300 150 " 200 " " " 150 " " " 150 " " " 100 φ250 " " " " " " 400 Bσ d 2.030 1.971 0.029 1. (2.021(1± 0.091 0.02 2.000 0.19 1.11 1.08 σs Vcalc kN Vtest kN MPa fsy " " 460 fsy " " " " 446 fsy " " " " " " 443 476 fy 325 449 475 474 fsy 354 345 361 401 fsy fy " " " " " " 442 Vtest Vcalc 1.049 1.2173 1.906 0.2 718 " " 0.29 1.38 5.47 2.95 4.26 688 692 583 270 250 265 0.922 0.25 1.00 4. Kinnunen (2004b) C1 C2 D1 24.12 1.19 0.065 1.049 1.975 1.892 1.04 6.37 0.80 0.64 0. 39 . Recorded Ec0-values used instead of Eq.822 1.7 GPa used instead of Eq.1344 1.139 1. HS 1 HS 2 HS 3 HS 4 HS 5 HS 6 HS 7 HS 8 HS 9 HS 10 HS 11 HS 12 HS 13 HS 14 HS 15 NS 1 NS 2 65-1-1 95-1-1 115-1-1 95-1-3 65-2-1 95-2-1D 95-2-1 115-2-1 95-2-3 95-2-3D 95-2-3D+ 115-2-3 95-3-1 fcc MPa 67 70 69 66 68 70 74 69 74 80 70 75 68 72 71 42 30 64 84 112 90 70 88 87 119 90 80 98 108 85 90 91 86 92 109 84 95 21 fsy MPa 490 " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " 500 " " " 500 " " " " " " " " 643 627 620 596 633 634 631 569 ρ % 0.35 5. Test slab No.95 1.3).32 5.38 " 5.4 27.06 " " " " " " " 4.5 GPa and Vcalc = 806 kN.057 1.51 4.2364 1.47 " " 0.Table 2-4 Authors Continued from previous page.54 5.96 5.00 1.51 6.24 1.53 1.50 2.102 0.996 1.927 0.49 0.80 0. Overall yield with membrane action and strain hardening.70 4.70 4.203 1.25 1.96 5.96 " " 7.3) which would give Ec0 = 27.150 1.105 0.43 5.

071 0.107 0.83 0.062 1.895 0.584 0.208 0.6 40 28.866 0.966 0.66 1.3 " " " " " " " 1.1 24.85 1.1402 1.3 24.047 0.862 0.6 28.026 1.04 4.413 0.169 1.998 1.642 0.88 0. MPa 23.39 0.928 1.987 0.87 0. Rostasy (1981) surface load 907 1405 1905 1845 1621 1839 1829 1863 633 2646 2255 2773 2249 1309 967 1021 994 532 880 881 959 727 1296 1035 1412 1859 1593 1784 1364 992 1053 1004 958 624 1407 1034 1493 2025 1865 1765 2050 2028 1853 859 2367 2234 3116 2368 1363 1015 1008 992 622 915 904 1049 803 1190 1103 1406 1725 1763 1607 1448 1039 1017 875 789 668 1356 Hallgren. Kinnunen (2004a) 600 " " " " " " φ674 " 850 " " " " " " φ960 " 850 " " " φ1000 " " " " φ500 " " φ175 φ175 φ250 φ1600 " " " " " " " φ560 φ800 φ800 φ2000 " " " " φ2300 " φ1730 Timm (2004) 760 1000 1080 Mean value Vtest / Vcalc = 1. column footings.4 26.02 c−Bε 2d 1.40 0.81 1.659 0.416 0.03 1.79 0.03 1.40 1.7 29.275 0.3 19.053 1.089 1.8 fcc MPa 444 433 407 387 477 449 455 387 564 572 572 510 512 621 " " " " " " " " " " 679 700 699 679 687 689 689 695 500 " " fsy ρ % 0.0 32.5 23.784 0.02 1.32 1.7 29.89 0.82 1.0 27.18 Vcalc kN Vtest kN Vtest Vcalc 1.18 1.434 0.400 0.996 0.4 25.25 1.430 0.8 25.02 1.64 " " 1.03 0.565 1.7 36.063 1.2 30.964 Dieterle (1978) Dieterle.02 0.7 14.02 1.041 1.372 0.388 0.357 0. B-1 B-2 B-3 B-4 V-2 B-4/2 B-4/3 B-4/4 C-1 C-3 H-2 H-3 S1-H S1 S2 S3 S4 S7 S8 S9 S12 S13 S11 S14 LBU1 LBU2 LBU3 KBU1 KBU2 KSU1 KSU2 KSU3 Ti-1A Ti-2A Ti-3A Test results.88 4.066 0.2 21.78 2.394 0.3 " " " " " " " 0.64 1.9 25.6 30.918 1.00 1.02 1.401 0.872 0.8 28.501 0.109 0.063 1.095) D Bε 1) − for footing with surface load.81 4.4 29. Kinnunen.040 1.032(1± 0.89 0.98 1.991 1.03 1.46 " " " " 2.Table 2-5 Authors Test slab No.392 0.88 4.34 0.55 4.1 28.0 35.239 0.4 24.400 0.333 0.824 1. 40 .115 1.395 0.18 d mm 296 294 293 292 294 290 294 292 290 290 375 450 290 242 243 250 232 246 245 244 242 244 235 240 205 220 208 205 209 210 206 208 172 172 246 Line load c mm Slab width b mm 1500 " " " " " " " " " " " " Column size mm 300 " " " " " " " 150 450 300 " " φ250 " " " " " " " " Bσ d 1.901 1.06 1.050 0.4 26.86 1. therefore not included in statistical evaluation.390 0.105 0.03 1. 3d 2d 2) Overall yield with strain hardening.4 31.399 0.094 1.7 40.1 25.02 1.5 27.08 1.805 0.43 2.995 1.398 0.6 26.02 1.89 0.3 24.8 28.88 0.124 1.93 0.830 0. Nylander (1983.6 32. 1998) line load surface load Sundquist.011 1.38 2.573 0.78 0.25 1.

99 d mm 120 120 120 121 119 121 122 125 120 119 121 120 120 119 200 201 200 169 168 230 225 220 267 150 c mm φ 1710 " " " " " column size mm φ 150 " " " " " φ 300 " " " " " " " φ 250 " " 200 φ 250 300 " " φ 500 250 Bσ d 1.80 4.08 " " " " 4.931 0.991 1.22 1. 62 63 64 65 66 67 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 1) 1) 1) 1) 2) 2) 1) 1) 1) 1) 1) 1) 2) 2) fcc MPa fsy MPa ρ % 0.12 1.932 5) 1.38 " " 4.05 1.Table 2-6 Authors Test results.27 4.826 1. Hegger (2000) K5 2) K7 2) PI-I 2) PI-II 2) P2-I 2) P2-II 2) P2-III 2) P3-I 2) P6-I 2) P7-I 2) PP0B 2) 26.079 0.806 0.806 0.05 0.5 92 91 85 26.981 0.897 0.0 36.80 0.993 0.77 1.66 1.41 1.42 1.15 1.3 26.072 7) 0.50 " " " " " " " 1.0 37.806 0.80 1.25 1.806 0. flat plates with shear reinforcement.2 28.962 0.965 0.12 c−Bε 2d 6.986 0.88 " " " " " " " 5.983 0.60 " " 9.50 " 5.14 1.25 " " 1.978 1.959 5) 0.82 1.05 0.78 0.14 1.417 6) Broms (1990b) Yamada et al (1992) Beutel.80 1. therefore not included in statistical evaluation.0 890 890 562 562 0.49 1. High capacity due to “ductility reinforcement”.977 0.4 26.891 0.036 0.0 29.71 1.50 " " " " " 5.5 28.3 40.25 " " " " " 2.8 27.919 0. Vertical stirrups as shear reinforcement.8 20.36 4.94 0.63 0.85 " " 3.033 0.71 0. Slab width 3000 mm with reinforcement over the whole width.5 23.071 0.993(1± 0.7 568 " 550 550 550 550 550 550 550 550 500 1. Overall yield with strain hardening therefore not included in statistical evaluation.753 1.1 23.53 " 164 " 190 190 190 190 190 220 220 230 121 1500 " φ 2400 " 8) " " " " " " 2750 300 " 2.74 1.80 0.68 " " " " 1.06 1.6 36.35 3.4 27.0 20 439 435 435 437 438 434 457 453 461 469 436 440 442 442 632 604 630 454 457 450 " " " 691 " " " " " " " " φ 2400 " " φ 1710 " 2000 " " " 2165 Hallgren (1966) Sundquist (1977) Andrä et al (1979) HSC3s 1) HSC5s 1) HSC7s 1) D 1) E 1) 1 2 3 4 7 3) 3) 3) 3) 1+ 2) 0.8 37.067 7) 1. Test slab No. Extremely high shear reinforcement ratio.1 25.0 21.27 0.3 26.3 26.74 2.960 4) 4) 0.2 46. Failure outside shear reinforcement.20 1.9 27.860 0.70 1.0 28. Slab width 2750 mm with reinforcement over the whole width.2 37.991 1.165 5) 1.18 0.08 1.51 1.957 1.40 4.950 0.993 0.23 Vy2 kN 364 360 400 409 299 303 555 569 622 627 457 456 463 456 1338 1831 1033 605 601 1819 1765 1653 3023 981 Vcalc kN 364 360 399 406 299 303 555 569 618 621 457 456 463 456 1338 1687 1033 605 601 1819 1765 1540 3022 710 Vtest kN 346 353 371 373 292 294 534 549 606 612 453 471 459 459 1329 1631 1106 580 560 2119 1904 1537 2956 1006 Vtest Vcalc 0.967 4) 1. 41 .07 1.87 2.30 400 " " " " 320 " " 300 7) 7) Krüger et al (2000) Hegger et al (2001) Z3 Z4 Z5 Z6 3) 3) 3) 3) 24. not included in statistical evaluation.81 6.90 1662 1667 1287 1283 1299 1289 1298 2286 3497 2868 609 1349 1397 1283 1277 1299 1289 1298 1635 2522 2375 603 1440 1498 1151 1055 1326 1109 1276 1624 2349 2117 579 1.58 3.021 0.09 0.037 0.981 0.806 1.970 0.301 1.4 40.2 25. Studs as shear reinforcement.94 1.944 1) 2) 3) 4) 5) 6) 7) 8) 9) Mean value Vtest/Vcalc = 0.16 3.0 28.007 4) 4) 4) 4) 4) 4) 4) 4) 4) 4) 4) 4) 4) 4) Andersson (1963) 26.8 27.3 37.66 3.9 29.33 " 2.40 3407 3428 3385 3337 1558 1720 1954 2071 1616 1646 2024 1954 1.0 27.930 0.25 250 " " " φ 2400 " 9) " " φ 200 φ 200 φ 263 φ 200 0.063) Bent bars as shear reinforcement.4 26.40 4.998 0.

0 18.9 26.31 2.2 9.6 22.5 28.48 0.1 23. 3) Calculated deflection at calculated punching load. 42 .0 19.5 19.0 3.6 Authors ρ % ε cpu ·103 1.71 0. 2) Vertical stirrups as shear reinforcement.25 3.8 36 1) Bent bars as shear reinforcement.18 3.1 27.77 1.79 1.3 6.80 0.806 1.80 0.8 9.42 2.18 0.2 S2.4 2.0 Hallgren (1996) 13.80 0.40 3.5 10.04 0.7 12.1 25.63 0.8 26.2 11.4 26.88 45.6 28.50 3.0 12.2 26.06 1.5 15.33 0.8 46.6 10.3 4.1 12.0 17.4 1.67 1.04 3.1 26.5 30 10 16 33 29 13.4 27.3 S1.7 17.8 20.64 1.7 12.4 25.0 13.3 S2.4 24. Specimen fcc MPa 26.3 0.82 1.46 1.5 16.5 9.76 2.21 2.9 11. Comparison with test results.5 7.1 9.17 1.31 0.8 1.0 δ test mm 13.09 1.0!! 3.4 HSC0 HSC1 HSC2 HSC3s 1) HSC4 HSC5s 1) HSC7s 1) HSC9 N/HSC8 NS B1 P2-II 2) P6-I 2) 28.45 1.7 4.2 26.4 S2.71 Andersson (1963) 4.0 24 18 Kinnunen Nylander (1960) 5 6 24 25 32 33 63 1) 65 1) 67 2) 76 78 80 82 83 1) 1) 1) 2) 2) 0.80 0.27 3.98 1.5 26.9 24.94 1.4 10.1 18.80 0.00 ε test·103 1.4 13.64 1.55 1.2 90 91 86 92 92 91 85 84 95 29.80 1.0 1.9 16.7 13.35 4.3 34.1 S1.2 1.8 5.0 5.08 1.05 0.6 29.2 1.2 2.8 29.93 1.6 25.38 2.1 S2.2 8.8 5.753 1.0 10.66 1.58 1.72 3.1 1.2 9.1 22.1 5.26 2.65 1.0 17.25 1.28 1.49 0.01 1.30 2.97 1.5 9.80 0.89 2.5 16.1 34.8 2.0 11.81 0.0!! δ calc 3) mm 10.17 1.80 0.41 1.0 8.3 35 25 14 Hassanzadeh (1996) Hassanzadeh (1998) Beutel.5 45.22 3.6 26.93 1.00 2.8 26.5 22.2 14.3 40.4 Sundquist (1977) Tolf (1988) D 1) E 1) S1.22 1.5 27.35 0.7 11.3 27.4 27.34 0.2 1.4 25.Table 2-7 Tangential concrete strain and deflection at punching.82 0.2 S1.7 27.2 2.9 10.21 3.64 2.35 0.47 1.15 3.34 0.38 3.7 1.2 28.0 13.0 28.19 1.80 0.45 1.2 22.09 0.8 2.5 12. Hegger (2000) Krüger et al (2000) PP0B 2) 37.15 2.3 26.

Vu = f v2 ⋅ d (4a + π d ) for square columns .6 − d for 0. Punching is assumed to occur when the shear stress at a control section on a certain distance from the column reaches a critical value. Vu = f v2 ⋅ π d ⋅ (B + d ) for circular columns f v2 = f ck 3 for a ≤ 4d and fck ≤ 69 MPa Ultimate punching capacity according to Model Code 90 The control section is placed 2 d outside the column edge. 1 (upper limit for fck = 80 MPa disregarded in Table 2-8) ξ = 1+ 0. cube and fck ≤ 48 MPa f ctk ≈ 0. Ultimate punching capacity according to ACI 318-02 The control section is placed at the distance 0. These codes treat punching as a form of shear failure. Vu = f v ⋅ d (4a + 4 π d ) for square columns .8 f c.45 ⋅ f ctk with ρ ≤ 0.2.5 d outside the column edge.12 ⋅ ξ ⋅ (100 ρ ⋅ f ck ) 3 .200 d with d in (m) Ultimate punching capacity according to BBK 04 The control section is placed 0.4 Code predictions The recorded ultimate loads for flat plates shown in Table 2-4 are in Table 2-8 compared to ultimate load predictions according to the design codes ACI 318-02.19( f ck ) 3 ⋅ [1 − 0.8 f c.5 ⋅ 0.008( f ck − 48)] with f ck = 0.2 ≤ d ≤ 0. Vu = f v2 ⋅ 4d ⋅ (a + d ) for square columns . Vu = f v ⋅ π d ⋅ (B + 4d ) for circular columns f v = 1. cube and 48< fck ≤ 64 MPa 2 2 43 .19( f ck ) 3 with f ck = 0. Vu = f v2 ⋅ π d ⋅ (B + d ) for circular columns f v2 = ξ (1 + 50 ρ ) ⋅ 0.01 ξ = 1.5.5 m f ctk ≈ 0. A control section with four straight sides is permitted for square and rectangular columns. Model Code 90 and BBK 04.5d from the column edge.

2 m.5 = 2.2 ⋅ 1. the expression for ξ is assumed valid also for d < 0.2 m. The American Code displays the largest scatter. which is no wonder because the code expressions are based on regression analysis of a large amount of test results.35 + 1.75 for the American Code and 1/1. which is compensated by the strength reduction factor 1/(1.0 + 1. The Swedish load factors are 1. because the code considers neither the strength increase with increasing flexural reinforcement ratio nor the strength reduction with increasing specimen size. The load factors are 1.5 = 2.5(1.5 = 0.5 for Model Code 90.2 + 1. In order to get realistic evaluation of test specimens with d less than 0.3)1.5(1. When comparing Table 2-4 and Table 2-8 it is evident that the presented theory can predict the punching capacity of flat plates better than the studied design codes. since the design strength instead of the ultimate strength is given in this code.14 γ = 0.4 for d ≤ 0. They are 0.The size effect factor ξ is in design taken as 1.5(1.2 for dead load and 1.35 and 1.6 for live load according to ACI 318-02.07 Model Code 90 predicts the ultimate capacity with a small scatter.5)1. The corresponding values are 1. The strength reduction factors in design differ also.5) for brittle punching failure mode.0 and 1.5 for Model Code 90. If the total load comprises 50 % dead load and 50 % live load the total safety factors γ become: ACI 318-02: Model Code 90: BBK 04: γ = 0.67 for the European Code. 44 . That is why fv is multiplied by 1.75 = 1.87 γ = 0.2 m according to BBK 04.2·1.6 ) / 0. BBK 04 displays a larger scatter and a very conservative estimate of the ultimate capacity. No comparison is made for column footings because the code provisions seem to be unrealistic for compact slabs.3. All values for Vu are intended to reflect the ultimate capacity according to the different codes.

3 S2.9 22.416 1. Column Vtest Vtest /Vcalc fcc MPa 25.276 1.300 1.576 1.211 1.064 0.748 1.18 2.241 1.862 2.38 1.504 1.495 1.2 S2.44 145 φ2600 φ300 600 1.Table 2-8 Authors Test slab No.80 0.229 1.81 0.34 0. For explanations see next page.2 14.9 26.015 1.8 20.971 0. Observed ultimate loads of flat plate specimens compared to predictions according to the codes ACI 318-02.774 1.663 1.028 1.8 25.2 706 701 657 670 720 712 668 664 0.5 26.037 0.6 25.337 1. Model Code 90.358 1.064 1.1 25.5 37.945 0.50 1.35 0.089 1.938 1.2 22.80 0.051 1.822 1.79 1.673 1.3 S1. BBK 04.852 1.7 43.085 2) 2) 0.1 S2.522 2) 2) 1.509 1.954 0.2 26.6 26.50 3. Tolf (1980) Tolf (1988) 1780 " φ2650 152 305 φ500 P-2 34.050 1.8 26.0 26.74 " " 1.731 1.49 0.505 2) 2) 2) 2) 1.635 1.966 1.088 1.31 d mm 118 " " " 114 " " " " " 118 114 " 121 114 " " " " 117 118 128 124 123 125 114 " 240 c mm size mm 254 " " " " " " " " " 356 " " " 254 " " " " kN 365 356 351 356 400 467 512 445 534 547 400 534 498 236 178 200 334 505 578 255 275 430 408 258 258 311 433 1694 ACI 318-02 MC 90 BBK 04 Elstner.881 1.5 20.01 1.017 0.1 26.5 34.993 1.6 22.478 2) 2) 1.417 1.020 1.365 1.5 26.362 45 .00 3.80 0.644 1.1 27.618 1.854 1.50 " " 3.511 1.706 0.687 S1.4 28.339 1.040 1.9 50.579 1.35 100 99 200 199 98 99 200 197 φ1190 " φ2380 " φ1190 " φ2380 " φ125 " φ250 " φ125 " φ250 " 216 194 603 600 145 148 489 444 1.130 1.74 0.493 1.4 27.714 1.458 1.8 28.1 S1.018 1.01 2.9 24.899 0.430 1.541 1.367 1.6 47. Hognestad (1956) A-1b A-1c A1-d A-1e A2-b A-2c A-7b A-3b A-3c A-3d A-4 A-5 A-6 A-13 B-1 B-2 B-4 B-9 B -14 5 6 24 25 32 33 R2 M1A 1780 " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " φ1710 " " " " " 1.806 2) 2) 2) 2) 0.4 24.2 47.348 1.6 26.517 1.3 26.493 1.672 1.029 0.456 1.493 P-5 26.004 0. Nylander.130 0.16 " " " 2.554 0.2 515 1.862 1. Nylander (1960) φ150 " φ300 " " " Moe (1961) Schaeidt et al (1970) Marti et al (1977) Pralong et al (1979) Kinnunen.2 29.523 1.619 1.04 0.6 621 0.0 36.6 558 1.921 1.978 1.663 1.80 0.34 0.050 1.926 0.987 0.989 1.02 0.927 0.736 1.574 619 4680 φ800 4915 0.476 " 1.3 19.395 2) 2) 2) 2) 1.966 0.904 0.398 1.937 0.815 1.4 25.867 0.973 0.361 1.5 fsy MPa 332 " " " 321 " " " " " 332 321 " 294 324 321 303 341 325 441 454 455 451 448 462 328 481 555 ρ % 1.866 Kinnunen.963 1.4 S2.2 S1.973 1.48 1.34 154 φ2600 φ300 569 1.585 S1 30.

80 0. 46 . Kinnunen (2004b) C1 C2 D1 24.977 1.380 1.004 1.500 1.786 2) 1.073) 1) 2) 3) 4) Not included in the statistical evaluation due to the small effective depth 70 mm.62 " " " 1.078 0.046 1.053 1.916 1.4 27.19 0.11 1.150 1.152 1.111 2) 1.75 " " " 2. fcc (= 0.47 2. HS 1 HS 2 HS 3 HS 4 HS 5 HS 6 HS 7 HS 8 HS 9 HS 10 HS 11 HS 12 HS 13 HS 14 HS 15 NS 1 NS 2 65-1-1 95-1-1 115-1-1 95-1-3 65-2-1 95-2-1D 95-2-1 115-2-1 95-2-3 95-2-3D 95-2-3D+ 115-2-3 95-3-1 fcc MPa 67 70 69 66 68 70 74 69 74 80 70 75 68 72 71 42 30 64 84 112 90 70 88 87 119 90 80 98 108 85 90 91 86 92 104 84 95 21 fsy MPa 490 " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " 500 " " " 500 " " " " " " " " 643 627 620 596 633 634 631 569 ρ % 0.49 0.33 0.791 Mean value Vtest / Vcalc = 1.94 1.211 1.80 d mm 95 " " 90 125 120 95 120 " " 70 " " 95 " " 120 275 " " " 200 " " " 200 " " " 88 200 200 194 200 201 202 198 190 c mm 1500 " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " 2500 " " " 2200 " " " 2200 " " " 1100 φ2400 " " " " " " φ2400 Column size mm 150 " " " " " " " " " " " " 220 300 150 " 200 " " " 150 " " " 150 " " " 100 φ250 " " " " " " 400 Vtest kN 178 249 356 418 365 489 356 436 543 645 196 258 267 498 560 320 396 2050 2250 2450 2400 1200 1100 1300 1400 1450 1250 1450 1550 330 965 1021 889 1041 960 565 944 615 2) 0.Table 2-8 Continued from previous page.147 Tomaszewicz (1993) Hallgren (1996) HSC0 HSC1 HSC2 HSC4 HSC6 HSC9 N/HSC8 Ožbolt et al (2000) Sundquist.161 1.00 1.60 0.355 4) 1.60(1± 0.64 100 100 125 φ 1190 " " φ 250 φ 250 φ 125 270 250 265 1.80 0.02(1± 0.082 1) 1) 1) 1.41(1± 0.472 4) 4) 4) 1. Authors Test slab No.55 1.018 1.80 0.84 1.961 1.064 0.011 2) 0. therefore not included in the statistical evaluation.451 1.536 4 4) 4) 4) 4) 4) 4) 4) 4) 4) 4) 4) 4) 2) 4) 0.245 1.889 3) 3) 3) 3) 3) 3) 3) 3) 3) 3) 3) 3) 3) 3) 3) 3) 3) 2) 3) 1.0 24.944 3) 3) 3) 3) 3) 3) 3) 3) 3) 3) 3) 1.381 1.64 0.058 1.916 1.2 718 " " 0.852 1.19 1.47 " " 0.61 2.186 1.047 1.015 1.047 0.15) Compare thesis: Mean value Vtest / Vcalc = 1. Overall yield with membrane action and strain hardening. fcc is larger than 69 MPa (= upper limit according to ACI 318-02).924 0.030 0.592 1.8 fc.cube) is larger than 64 MPa (= upper limit according to BBK 04).327 1.939 1.84 0.054 1.984 1.086 1.80 0.898 Vtest /Vcalc ACI 318-02 MC 90 BBK 04 Marzouk.82 1.024 0.023 1.077 1.17) 1.874 3) 3) 3) 1.80 0.49 " " 2. Hussein (1991) 2) 0.33 0.10) 1.95 1.949 0.469 1.646 1.52 2.214 4) 4) 1) 1) 1) 1.021(1± 0.506 1.877 1.134 1.608 1.37 0.94 1.550 1.

A simple example may describe the principle: Study the first interior column of a flat plate structure with equal span widths in both directions. However. a safer concept is proposed here – imposed rotation of the column in relation to the slab (or vice versa). Conservative results are achieved if the column is considered stiff in relation to the slab.2 Introduction Due to shortcomings of the code approach. the unbalanced moment is a statically indeterminate quantity that has to be determined by some form of approximate frame analysis where due respect should be paid to the fact that the flexural reinforcement at the column usually yields before punching occurs. which cannot be estimated as accurately as for a beam-column frame. Therefore. The shear stress at the control section due to this part of the unbalanced moment plus the shear stress caused by concentric loading shall fall below the shear stress capacity defined by the code. This means that a flexural hinge forms at the column. 3. the lateral displacement between stories caused by wind or earthquake.1 Code approach Transfer of moment between slab and columns – so called unbalanced moment – can occur due to gravity loading or due to story drift. normally a statically indeterminate quantity. As described previously.125qL2 47 . That bending moment is. another concept is proposed here – imposed slab rotation in relation to the column. however. which in turn implies that an analysis based on elastic conditions cannot correctly describe the true behaviour of the system in the strength limit state. The column is assumed stiff in relation to the slab: m = 0. 3. i.e. When caused by gravity loading or story drift. no generally accepted method for assessment of the unbalanced moment seems to exist. Both the imposed rotation and the rotation capacity of a flat plate can be assessed with good accuracy. most codes assume that punching occurs when the shear stress at a control section on a certain distance from the column reaches a critical value.3 Theory for eccentric punching When determining the punching capacity of a flat plate existing design codes presuppose that the transferred moment between slab and column is defined. An unbalanced moment is thereby considered partly transferred by “eccentricity of shear”.107 qL2 (strip moment per unit width assuming strip acting as beam simply supported on the columns) (strip moment at support assuming zero support rotation) m = 0.

107 ) qL2 = 0. The influence of the unbalanced moment is supposed to be mainly concentrated to the close vicinity of the column and therefore the same specimen size as for concentric loading seems to be a reasonable choice.018qL2 q = 15 kN/m . the slab shall be able to resist an imposed slab rotation in relation −3 to the column equal to 3. 3. This assumption will be evaluated later in this chapter.∆m = (0. H H V c Figure 3-1 Test set-up for eccentric punching. The torsional resistance of the sector elements is considered negligible. The sector elements between the radial flexural cracks will then deflect with varying fictitious deflection ∆ in relation to the column as shown in Figure 3-2.125 − 0. It resembles the one used for concentric punching described in Chapter 2. At least six times larger rotations of the column in relation to the flat plate may be imposed due to story drift during a severe earthquake.018 ⋅ 15 ⋅ L3 = ⋅ 12 ⋅ 32 3 = 3.5 ⋅ 10 −3 7 3 3EI 3 ⋅ 10 ⋅ L In this simplified example. The fan-type crack pattern at concentric loading is assumed to remain when the column is forced to rotate.5⋅10 radians. I= h3 L3 = 12 12 ⋅ 32 3 6 2 h L =1 32 E = 10⋅10 kN/m2 θ = ∆m ⋅ L 0.3 Approximate theory of elasticity Figure 3-1 depicts a common test set-up for eccentric punching. 48 .

1) The quantity R is consequently the total shear force that is transferred to the each half of the column due to the column rotation. The relation between unbalanced moment Mu and the maximum value R0 of the support reaction along the slab edge can be expressed as Mu R sinϕ c c c π c =∫ 0 ⋅ sinϕ ⋅ dϕ = R0 ⋅ = R0 ⋅ .2) 49 . 2 π⋅c 2 2 4π 2 8 0 π M u = R0 ⋅ c 4 (3.M ϕ c M θ R0 sin ϕ πc ∆ sinϕ Figure 3-2 Definition of parameters. The support reaction of the sector elements is proportional to their deflection. The total reaction R for each half of the specimen is R=∫ π R0 ⋅ sinϕ c R ⋅ dϕ = 0 π⋅c 2 π 0 (3.

3) The rotation due to an unbalanced moment is θ1 = R ⋅c Mu 2∆ = 0 = c − B 8π EI 2 π EI (3.4) L 2 L R R L 2 L 2 Figure 3-3 Unbalanced moment due to story drift.The deflection ∆ due to a concentric load R0 can be derived from Eqs.1) is conservatively assumed to act at the distance L/4 from the column. (3. Story drift during earthquakes or wind load as illustrated in Figure 3-3 is a common cause for unbalanced moment. the additional rotation of the column can be assessed as 50 L 2 . The broken lines represent the size of test specimens that are assumed to simulate the behaviour of the slab near the column.28): ∆= 2⎞ R0 ⎛ ⎜1 − B ⎟ ⋅ c ⋅ c − B ≈ R0 ⋅ c ⋅ c − B 4π ⎜ 2 4 π 2 EI 2 c2 ⎟ ⎝ ⎠ 2 EI (3.27) and (2. The reaction R according to Eq. (2. If the slab width resisting this force R is assumed equal to the column strip width (L/2). The effect of the column rotation within the broken lines is evaluated above.

it does not consider the local effects of force transfer from the column to the slab or vice versa.05) (3.2 ⋅ θ ⋅ EI Compare Aalami (1972) who used the theory of elasticity for an isotropic thin plate to derive M u. Any transfer of unbalanced moment by “eccentricity of shear” in the slab is neglected.4 Model for eccentric punching of flat plates The model described in the previous section only reflects the global elastic behaviour of the system.7) M u = 4.10 ⋅ θ ⋅ EI (for a/L = 0. el = 4.5 Mu 2 π EI (3.θ2 = RL 16 EI ⋅ 0. Figure 3-4 shows a possible load path for these effects. 3.5 . In-plane forces in the slab therefore balance the compression struts.5 L ( 2 )2 = Mu RL = 32 EI 4 π EI because R = R0 4M u and R0 = π c (3. The horizontal compression strut forces in the slab are larger than the tension tie forces from the reinforcement that passes through the column. Circumferential cracking around the column isolates other reinforcement bars from participating in the moment transfer.5) ∴ θ 2 2π = = 0. The total unbalanced moment is assumed transferred to the slab by a strut-and-tie system similar to the model often used for beam-column connections. θ 1 4π θ = θ 1 + θ 2 = 1 . Such force effects should be regarded as fictitious quantities that in reality are replaced by the two horizontal compression struts.6) (3. 51 . There is a difference. however.8) The simple model shown in Figure 3-2 thus seems to be accurate enough to form basis for a developed model that can describe the non-linear behaviour of a reinforced concrete flat plate subjected to gravity load plus unbalanced moment.

The opposite half where the unbalanced moment can cause tension in the bottom reinforcement of the slab is consequently called “the positive slab half”.5 M u Figure 3-4 Unbalanced moment transfer by strut-and. Corresponding forces act on the positive slab half.tie system. The radial compression stress near the column is consequently much larger than at concentric gravity loading. A sector element in the negative slab half is depicted in Figure 3-5. Figure 3-5 The slab resists unbalanced moment by radial concrete compression and tangential reinforcement.5 M u 0. The tangential tension strains due to the unbalanced moment initially reduce the tangential flexural compression strain due to gravity loading before any tension stress develops in the tangential bottom reinforcement. The large radial compression strut at the column connection is balanced by the tangential reinforcement and to a lesser degree by the few radial reinforcement bars passing through the column or within its close vicinity. The half of the slab where the unbalanced moment causes additional tension in the top reinforcement for negative moment in the slab is denoted “the negative slab half”. 52 .0.

The relation between concentric column load and slab deflection within the circle with diameter c is depicted in Figure 3-6. A column rotation will cause non-uniform reaction intensity along the circle with diameter c as described in the previous section and illustrated in Figure 3-7. The concentric gravity load V causes the slab deflection δV. 53 . Punching failure is assumed to occur when the sum of the fictitious deflection ∆ of the slab in the negative slab half due to a column rotation θ and the deflection δV due to concentric gravity loading V reaches the ultimate deflection δε that is associated with concentric punching failure. The sector element reactions are denoted Rti in the negative slab half and Rbi in the positive slab half. positive slab half negative slab half ∆ Vε 1 ∆ 1 k I V ∆ sinϕ Rb i δV δb i Rt i i ∆ sinϕ i δt i δ ε δ y2 Figure 3-6 Fictitious column reactions Rti and Rbi due to overall slab deflection ∆sinφi. The reactions Rti and Rbi denote the column reactions for a uniform slab deflection ∆sinφi (all around). The broken line illustrates the behaviour of the slab due to a column rotation.

(2. 54 . The reduced stiffness EI1 can be assessed in accordance with Eq. is assumed to be representative for the overall behaviour of the slab due to a column rotation where ⎛ EI ⎞ 2 kI = ⎜ 1 ⎟ ⎝ EI ⎠ 1 (3. the radial compression struts from the column cause a larger radial curvature of the sector elements near the column than at concentric loading. Furthermore. which is equal to kI·EI.The tangential flexural stiffness of the slab near the column for column rotation is reduced because the lever arm for the reinforcement is reduced due to the position of the radial compression strut.9) The mean value EI ⋅ EI1 .10) c M ϕ ∆ sin ϕ ϕn ϕ 1 ϕ ϕ 2 i Figure 3-7 Variation of fictitious slab deflection ∆ due to column rotation. The additional curvature results in an additional column rotation.9) with x replaced by h/2: h ⎞ ⎛ h ⎞ ⎛ EI1 = ρ ⋅ E s ⋅ d 3 ⋅ ⎜1 − ⎟ ⋅ ⎜1 − ⎟ ⎝ 2d ⎠ ⎝ 6d ⎠ (3. see Figure 3-8.

13) εc h ∆r εc Mu R0 ∆ϕ 2π mr ∆ϕ x B r c 2 Figure 3-8 Column rotation due to radial curvature of sector elements.2) 4 Radial bending moment per unit width along axis x: mr = R0 M ⎛1 2⎞ ⎛c ⎞ 1 ⋅ ∆ϕ ⎜ − r ⎟ = u⎜ − ⎟ 2π π ⎝r c⎠ ⎝2 ⎠ r ⋅ ∆ϕ (3. 55 .12) The major part of the surface shortening ∆r due to the compression strain εc along axis x will occur at the column and only a minor part at the slab edge: 6m r Ec0 ⋅ h 2 c/ 2 εc ≥ → ∆r ≈ B/ 2 ∫ ε c ⋅ dr = 6M u B⎞ ⎛1 2⎞ ⎛ c ⎜ − ⎟dr = ⎜ ln − 1 + ⎟ 2 c⎠ π ⋅ Ec10 ⋅ h B / 2 ⎝ r c ⎠ π ⋅ Ec10 ⋅ h ⎝ B 6M u 2 c/2 ∫ θ2 ≥ 12 M u ⎛ c 2∆r B⎞ = ⎜ ln − 1 + ⎟ 3 c⎠ h π ⋅ Ec ⋅ h ⎝ B θ2 Mu (3.Relation between unbalanced moment Mu and maximum value R0 of support reaction along slab edge: R ⋅c Mu = 0 (3.11) Radial compression strain in the slab along axis x due to the horizontal compression struts in the slab: εc ≥ 6m r Ec10 ⋅ h 2 (3.

With these assumptions it is possible to determine the flat plate capacity for unbalanced moment for a given concentric column reaction V. The calculation procedure may be best illustrated by a numeric example taken from a well-documented test, Ghali et al (1976), Specimen SM 1.0; see Appendix F and Table 3-1. The calculation steps are: 1. Perform the normal punching evaluation for concentric loading in accordance with Appendix A or B. 2. Determine the deflection δV due to the actual column load V. 3. Guess the additional overall deflection 2∆Μ due to the imposed ultimate column rotation. Half of this deflection is assumed to affect the slab before column rotation and the other half is assumed to affect the slab after full column rotation in order to simulate the continuously increasing deflection when the column rotates. 4. Determine the additional fictitious varying deflection ∆·sinφ along the circle with diameter c due to a column rotation, where

∆ = (δε − δV - 2∆M).

(3.14)

Divide each half-circle in “n” equal parts corresponding to the angels ϕ i ; see Figure 3-7. ⎛ π π ⎞ (3.15) ⎟ ⎝ n 2n ⎠ The corresponding total deflections of the sector elements are thus, with regard to the overall deflection ∆M at this stage :

ϕi = ⎜ i −

δ ti = δV + ∆sinφi + ∆M.

(index “t” stands for deflection causing tension in top reinforcement)

(3.16)

5. Determine the fictitious reactions Rti for unbalanced moment on the negative slab half due to overall deflections δti in step 4. Correct result is achieved by calculating the reactions from the curve for concentric loading for the deflections

δti = δV + kI·∆sinφi + ∆M

with the factor kI according to Eq. (3.10) and Rti = V{δti} - V

(3.17)

6. Determine the total real reaction Rt for the negative slab half due to column rotation and additional deflection ∆Μ: n R R t = ∑ ti (3.18) 1 2n 7. Determine the part of the total unbalanced moment caused by the reactions Rti: Mt = ∑

1 n

R ti c ⋅ ⋅ sinϕ i 2n 2

(3.19)

56

8. Determine the deflections on the positive slab half:

δbi = δV - ∆sinφi + ∆Μ

(3.20)

9. Determine the concentric column reactions Rbi corresponding to deflections in step 8. Observe the reduced stiffness once tension in the bottom reinforcement occurs; see Figure 3-6. 10. Determine the total reaction Rb for the positive slab half due to column rotation and additional deflection ∆Μ:

Rb = ∑

1

n

Rbi 2n

(3.21)

11. Check force equilibrium by determining A: A = Rb – Rt -∆Μ·Vy1/δy1 (3.22)

12. Repeat the calculation from step 3 with a larger value of ∆Μ if A > 0 until A = 0. If A < 0 decrease ∆Μ. 13. Determine the part of the unbalanced moment caused by the reactions Rbi:

Mb = ∑

1

n

Rbi c ⋅ ⋅ sinϕi 2n 2

(3.23) (3.24)

14. Determine the unbalanced moment capacity M u = M t + M b

15. Determine the column rotation neglecting additional radial curvature of sector elements:

θ1 =

1 2∆ ⋅ kI c − B

(3.25)

The factor 1/kI takes the effect of the reduced tangential flexural stiffness near the column into account. 16. Determine the column rotation due to radial curvature of the slab sector elements due to the radial compression strut according to Eq. (3.13):

θ2 =

B⎞ ⎛ c ⎜ ln − 1 + ⎟ c⎠ π ⋅ Ec10 ⋅ h ⎝ B 12 M u

3

(3.13)

17. Determine the rotation capacity of the system due to deformations of the slab within the circle with diameter c:

θ u = θ1 + θ 2

(3.26)

57

**3.5 Comparison with test results
**

Table 3-1

Authors Moe (1961)

**Unbalanced moment. Test results.
**

Test slab No.

fcc

fsy

ρ / ρc

%

1.50 / 0.0

d h mm

114 152

c m

1.78 " " " " " " 2.0

Column size mm

305 " 254 " " " " 305

Vtest e test θ test

δ test

Vcalc θ calc

kN

δ calc

**MPa MPa M2 M3 M6 M7 M8 M9 M10 25.7 22.8 26.5 25.0 24.6 23.2 21.1
**

26.6

kN mm % / mm

292 207 239 311 150 267 178 399 196 338 168 61 437 127 308 306 -269 202 272 322 180 277 198 338

% / mm

0.9 / 0 1.2 / 0 1.0/ 0 0.6 / 0 1.6 / 0 0.8 / 0 1.3 / 0

V test Vcalc

1.086 1.025 0.879 0.966 0.8331 0.964 0.899 1.180

481 " 327 " " " "

398

"

1.34 / 0.0

"

1.34 / 0.57 1.34 / 0.0 1.34 / 0.57

Narasimhan (1971) Ghali et al (1974) Ghali et al (1976) Islam, Park (1976) Elgabry,Ghali (1987) Pan , Moehle 1989 Hawkins et al (1989)

L1

1.05 / 1.05

143 170 115 152 121 152

1.2 / 0

B5NP

28.3

345

1.39 / 1.39

1.8

305

100

1960

--

74.5

2.6 / 0

1.342

SM0.5 SM1.0 SM 1.5 2

36.8 33.4 39.9 31.9

476 " " 374

0.53 /0.18 1.05 / 0.35 1.58 / 0.53 1.0 6 / 0.53

1.8 " "

305 " "

129 " "

775 984

6.5/6 2.7

126 122 127

6.9/1.8 2.6 / 0 1.9/ 0

1.024 1.057 1.016

1031 2.0

70 89 116 152 103 121 121 118 114 121 118 114 83 83 79 83 83 79 121 118 114 121 114

1.143 1.8

229 254

28 150

1346 5.0/0 867 --

24.2 126

6.2 / 0 3.0 / 0

1.157 1.190

1

35

452

1.07 / 0.46

AP1 AP3 6AH 9.6AH 14AH 6AL 9.6AL 14AL 7.3BH 9.5BH 14.2BH

29.3 31.7 31.3 30.7 30.3 22.7 28.9 27.0 22.2 19.8 29.5 18.1 20.0 20.5 52.4 57.2 54.7 49.5 47.7

484 " 472 415 420 472 415 420 472 472 415 472 472 415 472 415 420 472 420

0.86 / 0.29 " 0.60 / 0.28 0.96 / 0.50 1.40 / 0.63 0.60 / 0.28 0.96 / 0.50 1.40 / 0.63 0.73 / 0.40 0.95 / 0.48 1.42 / 0.75 0.73 / 0.40 0.95 / 0.48 1.42 / 0.75 0.60 / 0.28 0.96 / 0.50 1.40 / 0.63 0.60 / 0.28 1.40 / 0.63

1.83 " 1.83 " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " "

274 " 305 " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " "

104 53 169 187 205 244 257 319 80 94 102 130 142 162 186 218 252 273 362

548 535 522 489 134 135 136 488 483 500 98 117 129 511 519 529 135 136

1.7

137 61 176 181 189 259 315 315 91 89 101 142 157 151 201 242 240 297 400

2.8 / 0 4.2 / 0 4.2 / 2.4 2.7 / 0.5 1.6 / 0 2.0 / 1.4 1.4 / 0.9 0.8 / 0 4.7 / 1.4 3.1 / 0 3.1 / 0 2.1 / 1.0 1.5 / 0.6 1.2 / 0 6.5 / 5.4 4.0 / 2.2 2.4 / 0 4.6 / 3.2 1.1 / 0.6

0.7592 0.8692 0.960 1.033 1.085 0.942 0.816 1.013 0.879 1.056 1.010 0.915 0.904 1.073 0.925 0.901 1.050 0.919 0.905

1536 3.4

h=152

h = 114

7.3BL 9.5BL 14.2BL 6CH 9.6CH 14CH 6CL 14CL

h = 152

1) Presupposes restraint for uplift. 2) Cyclic loading, not included in statistical evaluation.

Mean value Vtest / Vcalc = 1.006(1± 0.112)

58

The tests by Ghali et al (1976), Islam and Park (1976), and Pan and Moehle (1989) are especially interesting because they also report the column rotations. It is evident from the table that the presented theory can predict the unbalanced moment capacity and the corresponding rotation with acceptable accuracy. The tests by Pan and Moehle (1989) were cyclic load tests simulating story drift during an earthquake. That explains why the recorded ultimate unbalanced moments were lower than the calculated values for monotonic loading. The recorded unbalanced moments are in Table 3-2 compared to predictions according to the design codes ACI 318-02, Model Code 90 and BBK 04 in the same way as for concentric loading in Section 2.5.4. According to ACI 318-02, the shear stress due to concentric column load and unbalanced moment is calculated as

τ=

V V ⋅e +γ v ⋅ ≤ fv A W

4 d3 d ⋅ (a + d ) 2 + ; fv = 3 6

f ck

(3.27)

where A = 4d (a + d ) ; W = ∴ Vu = fv ⋅ A e⋅ A 1 + 0.4 W

3

; γ v = 0 .4

(3.28)

The corresponding values for Model Code 90 are: A = (4a + 4πd ) ⋅ d ; W = d 1.5a 2 + (4 + 2 π )ad + 16d 2 ; f v = 1.5 ⋅ 0.12ξ (100 ρ ⋅ f ck ) 3 ;

(

)

1

γ v = 0.6 ;

∴ Vu =

ξ = 1+

200 d

with d in (mm)

fv ⋅ A e⋅ A 1 + 0.6 W

(3.29)

The approach in BBK 04 is similar to the approach by Moe (1961):

Vu = η ⋅ f v ⋅ A ; A = d (4a + π d ) ; f v = ξ (1 + 50 ρ ) ⋅ 0.45 ⋅ f ctk ;

ξ = 1.6 − d for 0.2 ≤ d ≤ 0.5 m ; η =

k = 1 for f ck ≤ 48 MPa; k = 1 − 0.008( f ck fv ⋅ A ∴ Vu = e 1 + 1.5 a+d

1 1 + 1.5

e a+d − 48) for 48 ≤ f ck ≤ 64 MPa

;

f ctk ≈ k ⋅ 0.19( f ck ) 3

2

(3.30)

59

The size effect factor ξ is equal to 1.4 for d ≤ 0.2 m according to BBK 04. In order to get realistic evaluation of test specimens with d less than 0.2 m the expression for ξ is assumed valid also for d < 0.2 m. All values for fv are intended to reflect the ultimate strength according to the different codes. That is why fv is multiplied by 1.5 for Model Code 90, because this code gives the design shear strength instead of the ultimate strength. When comparing the results due respect should be paid to the total safety factors, which were derived in Section 2.5.4. ACI 318-02:

γ = 1.87

Model Code 90: γ = 2.14 BBK 04:

γ = 2.07

Model Code 90 displays a very good prediction result with small scatter. The mean value of Vtest / Vcalc is less than 1.0, however. Both BBK 04 and ACI 318-02 show a larger scatter, which is partly compensated by the mean values being larger than 1.0.

60

982 0.407 1.7941 0.842 0.75 0.3 31.336 0.517 1.338 0.077 1.60 / 0.245 Vtest / Vcalc 1.9 476 " " 374 0.805 1 2.160 0.4 57.331 1.05 2.772 0.0 Column size mm 305 " 254 " " " " 305 ACI 318 MC 90 BBK 04 Vtest / Vcalc 1.42 / 0.40 / 0.5 25.803 0.63 0.53 1.216 1.988 0.143 305 " " 229 0.2BH h = 114 7.7 28.78 " " " " " " 2.34 / 0.152 1.60 / 0.3BH 9.05 / 1.922 0.7 30.0 fcc fsy ρ / ρc % d h mm c m 1.878 0.438 1.380 1.50 1.1 20.242 2.63 0.911 1.0 SM 1.6AH 14AH 6AL 9.5 47.978 1.86 / 0.3 345 1.9 31.3BL 9.28 1.006(1± 0.761 " 1.5BL 14.Table 3-2 Authors Moe (1961) Unbalanced moment test results.991 1. MPa M2 M3 M6 M7 M8 M9 M10 25.4061 1.545 1.57 1.23 (1± 0.8 33.05 / 0.032 B5NP 28. Comparison with code predictions.7 484 " 472 415 420 472 415 420 472 472 415 472 472 415 472 415 420 472 420 0.914 0.968 0.195 1.40 0.3 30.063 1 1.542 1.6 23.58 / 0.024 0.73 / 0.40 / 0.537 1.29 " 0.53 / 0.521 1.20) 1.96 / 0.34 / 0.2 19.396 1.639 Vtest / Vcalc 0.279 1.50 1.6 MPa 481 " 327 " " " " 398 1.0121 1.2 21.95 / 0.42 / 0.6AL 29.28 0.0 1.57 Narasimhan (1971) Ghali et al (1974) Ghali et al (1976) Islam.512 1.383 1 35 452 1.60 / 0.5 SM1. 61 .34 / 0.239 0.39 / 1.83 " 1.0 6 / 0.186 0.487 SM0.5 2 36.96 / 0.0 20.190 1.2BL 6CH 9.783 1.397 1.0 24.95 / 0.873 0.095 1.73 / 0.394 1.777 1.40 / 0.9 27.344 1.63 1.0 22. Moehle (1989) Hawkins et al (1989) L1 1.692 1.889 0.146 1.93 (1± 0.652 1.8 26.4 39.950 1.5 52.13) h=152 14AL 7.065 1.334 1.48 1.949 0.985 0.837 0.946 0.28 0.674 1.35 1.5 18.7 31.8 254 1.50 / 0.566 0.28 0.566 1.029 0.0 114 152 " " " " " 143 170 115 152 121 152 " 70 89 116 152 103 121 121 118 114 121 118 114 83 83 79 83 83 79 121 118 114 121 114 " 1.302 1.39 1.63 0.989 1.60 / 0.40 / 0.876 1.112) 1) Cyclic loading.010 0.83 " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " 274 " 305 " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " 1.51 (1± 0.223 1. Park (1976) Elgabry.194 1.34 / 0.18 1.251 1. Test slab No.907 1.5BH 14.664 1.404 1.926 1.952 0.909 0.07 / 0.279 1.659 1.393 1.53 1.7 22.50 1.3 22.20) AP1 AP3 6AH 9.96 / 0.211 1.407 1.3001 1. not included in statistical evaluation.6CH 14CH 6CL 14CL h = 152 Mean value Compare Thesis: Mean value Vtest / Vcalc = 1.933 1.46 1.48 1.40 0.827 0.7 49.131 0.8 29.006 1.8 " " 1. Ghali (1987) Pan .8 305 1.834 0.977 0.141 1.851 0.75 0.936 0.809 0.669 1.1 26.2 54.

However. then Eq.4. (3.33) to (3.2 and it is simple to determine a conservative value for the rotation capacity of the column in relation to the slab in a flat plate structure. (3.31) is recommended. which introduces a torsional member between the slab and the column to simulate the flexible force transfer of unbalanced moment between column and slab.3. (3. An upper bound for the unbalanced moment can be assessed by combining Eqs.4). (3. Many methods have been proposed to solve the problem of estimating a design value for the unbalanced moment – with limited success. (3. The reason for this is two-fold.32) with kI according to Eq. as proposed in Section 3. conservatively expressed as θu = 2 δε ⎛ δV ⎜1 − ⋅ kI c − B ⎜ δε ⎝ 2 δε ⎛ V ⎜ 1− ⋅ ⎜ k I c − B ⎝ Vε ⎞ 12M u ⎛ c B⎞ ⎟ − + ln 1 ⎜ ⎟ ⎟+ 3 c⎠ ⎠ π ⋅ Ec10 ⋅ h ⎝ B ⎞ 12M u ⎛ c B⎞ ⎟ ⎜ ln − 1 + ⎟ ⎟+ 3 c⎠ ⎠ π ⋅ Ec10 ⋅ h ⎝ B (3. The calculation procedure is laborious and is only included here for verification of the model.13): Mu = θ ⎛ ⎛c⎞ B⎞ 12⎜ ln⎜ ⎟ − 1 + ⎟ ⎜ c⎟ 1 ⎝B⎠ ⎠ ⎝ + 3 2 π ⋅ k I ⋅ EI π ⋅ E c10 ⋅ h (3.32) becomes very conservative. Vε and δ ε are output values from the concentric punching check described in Chapter 2. it is not intended for use in the design office. (3.4. The computed values Vε and δ ε shall be divided by the strength reduction factor γn·γm in order to receive the design rotation capacity. see also Chapter 4. In that case the more exact Eq. but it cannot handle the decreasing slab stiffness at increasing gravity load or increasing unbalanced moment because the stiffness of the torsional member is assumed constant irrespective of the load level. When δ ε approaches or exceeds δy2 (at low reinforcement ratios). and (3. The code ACI 318-02 for instance allows flat plates to be designed according to the “Equivalent Frame Method”. the actual rotation can be determined with good precision by means of standard methods as indicated in Section 3. These shortcomings are overcome with the approach described in Section 3.10).2. flat plates should be checked for rotation capacity rather than unbalanced moment capacity. This approach may seem elegant.6 Column rotation capacity Flat plates display a much more pronounced non-linear behaviour a both gravity loading and story drift than beam-column frames. The punching deflection δ ε can always be determined without any iteration.37).33) 62 .10) and Mu taken as the lowest value according to Eqs. The rotation capacity was derived in Section 3.31) or more conveniently as θu = (3.

36) 4. the unbalanced moment is limited by the lesser of the punching capacity. 3. the flexural yield capacity of the slab. If the flat plate is provided with shear reinforcement or if the flexural reinforcement ratio is so low that punching occurs with yield of all flexural reinforcement.150 ⎞ 3 ⋅⎜ ⎟ ⎝ 0. The local compression strength at the column connection for the horizontal compression struts in the slab may limit the unbalanced moment: a ⋅ h2 M u 4 ≤ 3 ⋅ f ck ⋅ 4 ⎛ 0. 63 .5h ⎠ 1 (3. then the sum of negative and positive flexural capacities defines an upper bound for the unbalanced moment: ⎡ ρc ⎞ c ⎛ ρc ⎞⎤ c 1 ⎛ M u 3 ≤ ⎢ Vy 2 − V + ⎜ ⎜ ρ ⋅ V y2 + V ⎟ ⎟⎥ ⋅ 4 ⋅ 2 = Vy 2 ⋅ ⎜ ⎜1 + ρ ⎟ ⎟⋅ 8 = ⎝ ⎠⎦ ⎝ ⎠ ⎣ ( ) ⎛ ρc ⎞ π c = my ⋅ ⎜ ⎜1 + ρ ⎟ ⎟⋅ 4 ⋅ B ⎝ ⎠ 1− c (3. The punching failure load limits the unbalanced moment according to the lesser of Mu1a and Mu1b that are derived from Eq.34) 2.However. or the local compression strength of the horizontal compression struts: 1.35) 2π B 1− c and ρc = bottom reinforcement ratio.2): ⎞ c ⎛ V y1 M u1a = k I ⋅ ⎜ δ ε ⋅ −V ⎟ ⋅ ⎟ 4 ⎜ δ y1 ⎠ ⎝ c M u1b = V y2 − V ⋅ 4 ( ) (3.37) where h = slab thickness [m] and a = column width. The capacity corresponding to overall yield of the positive (bottom) reinforcement may be governing: ⎛ ρc ⎞ c M u2 ≤ ⎜ ⎜ ρ ⋅ Vy 2 + V ⎟ ⎟⋅ 4 ⎝ ⎠ where Vy 2 = m y ⋅ (3. (3.

0 08 0. The figure demonstrates that it may be unfavourable to add support reinforcement in a flat plate in order to resist imposed column rotation due to for instance pattern loading. The factored uniformly distributed load in an office building would typically be 11 kN/m² (with Swedish load factors). The span width is 7. which is derived from the “exact” expressions in Section 3. L = 7.5ρ) 64 . d = 0. and such flat plates may display no reduction in punching capacity when subjected to imposed column rotation. It is also evident that flat plates with moderate reinforcement ratio can resist large imposed column rotations. h = 0.0 12 0.0 m.04 0.5·539 = 970 kN with a required reinforcement ratio ρ = 0. which corresponds to a required ultimate punching capacity 1. fsy=420 MPa.5x0.03 ρ= 06 0. (c = 2.0 0 0. column 0.The ultimate rotation capacity for a slender flat plate structure versus reinforcement ratio and column size is displayed in Figure 3-9.01 0 V 500 1000 1500 kN Figure 3-9 Column rotation capacity versus reinforcement ratio.2·1. ρ’ = 0.02 = 539 kN.20 m. The column reaction would then be 11·7.0 m and the effective depth is 0.23 m.02 0. θu 0. which was found experimentally already by Ghali et al (1976).8 m.20 m corresponding to a slenderness L/d equal to 35.8 % according to Figure 3-9 (interior column with θ = 0).0 10 0.4. fck =30 MPa.5 m².

In Sweden this factor should be γn·γm = 1. Each strip is assumed pin-supported on the columns and the lines of zero shear for the perpendicular strips bound the strip laterally.2 will then give correct results for interior columns in flat plates with square panels if c is taken as 0.32) shall be divided by the strength reduction factor γn·γm to derive the design value of the rotation capacity at factored loading. The basic case – a flat plate structure with square panels – is treated in Section 2.5 = 1. The flat plate structure is divided into strips in accordance with Figure 4-1.4 Design This Chapter demonstrates how the presented theory shall be applied for design of flat plates. It is therefore essential that this bending moment be estimated in a correct way. The bending moments per unit width in the strips are calculated according to the theory of elasticity with due respect paid to the effect of pattern loading. (3.31) and (3. where c/2 is the distance from the column to the line where the radial bending moment is zero.2·1. The design rotation capacity is calculated in a similar manner. where the factor γn = 1. where L is the span width. The bending moment distribution near the column is assumed polar-symmetric within a circle with the diameter c. The equations in Section 2. The design punching capacity is then taken as the calculated ultimate punching capacity divided by the applicable strength reduction factor for concrete. 4. The punching failure in flat plates usually occurs when the tangential compression strain at the column edge due to the bending moment reaches a critical value.2 Bending moments in a continuous flat plate A rational method for calculating the bending moments in the general case with varying span widths and rectangular panels is described in the following.1 Design of support reinforcement at square panels In design. The negative strip moments can normally be determined for full load on all bays. Comparison is made with current structural design codes. 65 . which is applicable if the probable failure mode is brittle. 4. The quantities Vε and δ ε in Eqs. the equations in this thesis should be used to first calculate the ultimate punching capacity or the ultimate rotation capacity of the slab using the characteristic strength values fck for concrete and fsy for reinforcing steel and nominal dimensions.8.2 corresponds to Swedish safety class 3.2.4L.

5w L2 L2 Figure 4-1 Definition of strip parameters.0. it is concentrated toward the columns. Since the strip is supported on columns. The negative bending moment per unit width in a strip is denoted ms.the column strip . where w is the lesser of the width of the strip and the span width L1. The following provisions are adapted to the approach in Chapter 2. If the strip is unsymmetrical in relation to the columns the following procedure presupposes that the calculation is performed for a symmetrical strip with width two times the width of the larger of the two half-strips. 66 L1 . and the average negative bending moment per unit width on the remaining effective width of the strip . where the polar symmetric conditions within the circle with diameter c were studied. Only reinforcement within the effective width w of the strip is considered active.4w.the middle strip – is denoted msm. ms is not uniformly distributed over the width of the strip. The average negative bending moment per unit width within the width c .is denoted msc. The width c is taken as 0.

6 w → msm = −0. V 2π ⎛ B⎞ ⎜1 − ⎟ c⎠ ⎝ In the general case with rectangular slab panels. more reinforcement will be required within the column strip than corresponding to the average bending moment according to Eq.2). is identical to the average bending moment within the circle with diameter c according to Chapter 2.033V + ⎜ ms + ⎟ 12 ⎠ ⎝ (4.1) (4. Please note that the moment reduction due to the column extension is concentrated to the column strip only: ms ⋅ w = − msc = − qL2 V V ⋅w = − ⋅w = − ⋅ 0. The average bending moment msm within the remaining width – the middle strip – is determined by the conditions of moment equilibrium.3) V ⎞ ⎛ Bε ⎞ ⎛ ⎜1 − ⎟ + ⎜ ms + ⎟ c ⎠ ⎝ 12 ⎠ ⎝ V ⎞ ⎛ msm = −0.2) V ⎛ Bε ⎞ ⎜1 − ⎟ 2π ⎝ c ⎠ The bending moment within the column strip. The average bending moment msc within the column strip with width 0. B c m r =0 m=− Figure 4-2 Fan-type yield lines.4) 67 .Let us first study the basic case. (4. a continuous flat plate with square panels.4 w + msm ⋅ 0. the part of the strip moment ms that exceeds the bending moment m = msc = − V 2π V shall be evenly distributed over the width w: 12 (4.4w corresponds to the fan-type yield line depicted in Figure 4-2.033V 12 12 2π (4. Since punching normally occurs before all reinforcement reaches the yield limit. msc.

8 m in the two directions.8 + ⎟ = −100.033 ⋅ 622 = −20.5 kNm/m 12 ⎠ ⎝ 622 ⎛ 471 ⎞ ⎛ 622 ⎞ msc = − ⎜1 − ⎟ + ⎜ − 77. which for instance occurs when 12 ⎠ ⎝ L1 < L2 .5 kNm/m 471 ⎞ 622 ⎛ ⎜1 − ⎟ = −82.Observe that the bending moment ms is a quantity with negative sign and that the term V ⎞ ⎛ ⎜ ms + ⎟ shall be omitted if it turns out to be positive.8 + ⎟ = −46.8 = 1.2 = 2.2 2 = −51.7 kNm/m 2 π ⎝ 1920 ⎠ ⎝ 12 ⎠ in the short direction : msm = −0.4 ⋅ 7.7 kNm/m 2 π ⎝ 1920 ⎠ 68 .8 = 622 kN c = 0.88 m 8 = −0.033 ⋅ 622 + ⎜ − 77. Column size 400x400 mm Total factored load 18 kN/m2 ms = −18 ms = −18 7.92 m Bε = 3π 400 = 471 mm 8 in the long direction : 622 ⎞ ⎛ msm = −0.4.4. Column size = 400x400 mm Total factored load = 12 kN/m2.6 kNm/m (in the short direction) 12 V = 18 ⋅ 7.2 m in both directions. Example 1. c = 0. ms = −12 7.8 kNm/m 12 V = 12 ⋅ 7. Interior panel of a flat plate with span width 7.8 2 = −34.8 kNm/m (in the long direction) 12 4.2 2 = −77.8 kNm/m 2 π ⎝ 2880 ⎠ msc = − Example 2 Interior panel of flat plate with span widths 7.2 ⋅ 4.2 2 = 622 kN Bε = msm 3π 400 = 471 mm .2 and 4.5 kNm/m msc = − 622 ⎛ 471 ⎞ ⎜1 − ⎟ = −74.033 ⋅ 622 = −20.

the punching capacity shall be checked for each direction separately. The average bending moment within the column strip in the long direction in Example 2 is approximately 22 % larger than for the flat plate with square panels in Example 1.The column reactions in the two examples are identical (622 kN). It is then evident that it cannot be correct to check the punching capacity of Example 2 presupposing a relation between bending moment and column reaction valid for square panels as in Nylander and Kinnunen (1990). It can be shown that Eq.25) – when checking the punching capacity according to Chapter 2. in cases where the required flexural reinforcement ratio differs in the two directions. (4.3 Design of midspan reinforcement Kinnunen and Nylander (1960) realized that from the poor rotation capacity at the columns in a continuous flat plate follows that the midspan reinforcement has to be designed in balance with the support reinforcement. These static equilibrium conditions can be checked in accordance with Figure 4-3. Therefore. when full loading is applied on all panels of the flat plate structure. it was demonstrated that the bending moment at the column plays a decisive role for the punching capacity.07qL2 for exterior panels. Eq.23) and (2. however.25a) 4.23a) m1 = tangential moment at column edge (2. The bending moments at the column differ. 69 . In Section 2.3) for the negative bending moment at the column presupposes that the midspan flexural moment per unit width is at least qL2/24 for interior panels and 0.(4.1.3) yields a very good estimate of the average bending moment within the width 0. The quantity m 1 A= s − shall therefore be added to all expressions for bending moments – as for V 12 instance Eqs. Please note that the negative sign for the bending moment is omitted in that chapter: mt = ⎤ V ⎡ c B2 B2 2 ln + 2 − − 2 + 8 π A⎥ ⎢ 2 8π ⎣ 2r 4r c ⎢ ⎥ ⎦ ⎤ V ⎡ c B2 ⎢2ln + 1 − 2 + 8π A⎥ 8π ⎣ B c ⎢ ⎥ ⎦ tangential moment (2.4 w according to the theory of elasticity for 1 < L1/L2 < 2.5. (2.

75 L L Figure 4-3 Static equilibrium and compatibility conditions. (2. The inclination ψ pu is determined from Eq.2 L Exterior panel ψ 0.8) . Interior panels ψ pu = 1 0.27) if punching occurs without any reinforcement yielding. (2.Interior panel ψ curvature with parabolic variation ψ 0.6) ε sf = 5ψ pu Exterior panels ψ pu = −ψ pu ε sf where 1 L0 ε sf + 3 3 d − xf d − xf 16 = ψ pu 3 L (4.2 L L 0 = 0.6 L L 0.43): ψ pu = δ ε 2 c − Bε 70 (4. If some or all reinforcement yields before punching then the inclination ψ pu is determined from δε according to Eq.7) εsf = midspan reinforcement strain ψ pu = slab inclination at the distance c/2 from the column when punching occurs ⎞ ⎛ 2 ⎟ xf = dnρ f ⎜ ⎜ 1 + nρ − 1⎟ f ⎠ ⎝ ρ f = midspan reinforcement ratio.25 L ψ 3 L 0 = 0.6 L ε sf f ′′ ⋅ L0 = 3 3 d − xf d − xf L (4.

The Swedish load factors are 1.10).2 m ≤ d ≤ 0.1 Swedish Code for Concrete Structures. (4.5 m ξ = 1.3 – 0.07qL2 respectively.3) and the punching capacity would be larger than calculated.45 f ctk ⋅ where fctk is the characteristic tensile strength of concrete ( given as tabulated values for the cube strengths K8 to K80) 1 γ m ⋅ γn (4.2 in the Figures 4-4 to 4-6 in order to make them comparable with the Swedish approach. The design strength for these two codes is therefore divided by 1. BBK 04 f v2 = ξ (1 + 50 ρ )0.6 .4. The midspan reinforcement is usually designed for the effect of pattern loading.0 m ≤ d ρ is the reinforcement ratio within the circle with diameter c and ρ is limited to maximum 0. The chosen notations are identical for all the codes: V R = f v2 ⋅ u ⋅ d where VR = fv2 = u= d= design punching capacity two-way shear strength length of control perimeter at the distance 0. the design provisions of which is briefly summarized hereunder.4 Comparison with Codes The theory is in Figure 4-4 compared to some common codes for design of flat plates.5 m ≤ d ≤ 1. The opposite is valid if the strain in the midspan reinforcement corresponds to a flexural moment less than qL2/24 or 0.3 for dead load and live load respectively.5d from the column average effective depth (4.0 and 1.10) ξ is a size-effect factor ξ = 1. The average load factors for the two codes Model Code 90 and ACI 318-02 are approximately 20 % larger. then the design is safe because the negative flexural moment would be less than given by Eq.If the strain in the midspan reinforcement εsf corresponds to a flexural moment larger than qL2/24 and 0. (4. Additional midspan reinforcement has then to be provided until the described equilibrium and compatibility conditions are fulfilled. Additional midspan reinforcement as described here is therefore normally required only at such high flexural reinforcement ratio at the column that punching would occur without yielding of any reinforcement near the column.4d for 0.01 in Eq.d for 0. 71 .9 for 1.2 m ξ = 1. 4.07qL2 respectively.9) 4.0 m ξ = 0.4 for d ≤ 0.

12) (4. Firstly. however.5 f v1 u u = 4a + π d u = π (B + d ) α = 3π 72 . f v1 = 0.5d outside the column edge: u = π(B+d) for circular columns and u = 4a + πd for square columns 4.15) (4.13) (4. where the control perimeter would fall outside the structure.3 Model Code 1990.4.γm = strength reduction factor for concrete = 1.2 Swedish Handbook for Concrete Structures The Handbook gives a simplified design method – Nylander and Kinnunen (1990) – based on the original mechanical model by Kinnunen and Nylander (1960). This approach has furthermore the advantage that it is possible to establish a more realistic upper limit for the two-way shear strength than the present value in Model Code 90.5 γn = safety class related strength reduction factor = 1. it gives false information about the punching failure mode and secondly it cannot be applied to compact structures such as footings. if the approach proposed in Paper III is applied. The control perimeter is – as in most other codes – proposed to be placed 0.4.12 ⋅ ξ (100 ρ ⋅ f ck ) 3 MPa 1 (one-way design shear strength) with d in mm (size effect) (two way design shear strength) square columns circular columns interior columns (4.14) (4.2 for safety class 3 (= brittle failure mode) The control perimeter is placed 0. This is unfortunate for two reasons. The formal punching shear strength is then assumed equal to the shear strength for one-way structures such as beams.5d from the column edge (instead of 2d) and the punching shear strength – also called the two-way shear strength – is taken as the one-way shear strength multiplied by a correction factor. 4. MC 90 The Model Code 90 defines the punching shear capacity along a control perimeter at the distance 2d from the column edge. The deficiency can be overcome. It is described in detail in Hallgren (1996).16) ξ = 1+ f v2 = 200 d u +α ⋅d ⋅ f v1 ≤ 2.11) (4.

It is therefore encouraging that the theory in this thesis displays a similar design capacity curve at the concrete characteristic cylinder strength 24 MPa and B/d ≈ 2. the resulting safety factor is unnecessarily high and the limit 1 % for the reinforcement ratio seems to be too cautious. A control section with four straight sides is permitted for rectangular columns: u = 4(a + d ) u = π (B + d ) square columns circular columns (4. This is probably the reason why the code provisions for punching still are considered appropriate in USA.19) (4. but the reinforcement ratio in flat plates is usually high in North America because the best economy is achieved if the slab is made as thin as possible and the code ACI 318-02 allows very slender two-way slabs.20) Furthermore. Gardner et al (2000). ACI 318-02 f v1 = f v2 = 1 6 f ck (4. The code ACI 318-02 gives a single value for the punching shear strength.7 %.5 Code comparison Hallgren (1996) found that Model Code 1990 predicts punching test results with very good accuracy. It is therefore amazing that this method still is classified in the Swedish Concrete Code BBK 04 as being more profound than the simple BBK-method despite convincing evidence on the contrary. the ACI code is also used in many other parts of the world where practice often calls for thicker slabs with less reinforcement.4 Building Code Requirements for Structural Concrete. The code overestimates the punching capacity at low reinforcement values. The very simple expression in BBK 04 for punching capacity seems to reflect the influence of the reinforcement ratio in a correct way.18) u + 20d ⋅ f v1 ≤ 2 f v1 u The control perimeter is placed 0.17) (4. a reduction factor is given when the aspect ratio of a rectangular column is larger than 2. here and in other evaluations. 4.80 for flexural failure. If these two curves are assumed to represent the true design punching strength. The strength reduction factor is 0. The code expressions are purely empirical. However. In such cases the code provisions will result in structures with a low safety against punching.5d outside the column edge.4. However. Figure 4-4.4. only depending on the square root of the compression strength and independent of reinforcement ratio and size effect.75 for punching and shear failure and 0. the following conclusions can be drawn. based on regression analysis of many test results. 73 .9. which even has been a partial cause of a serious progressive collapse with many casualties. The Handbook method overestimates the punching capacity for reinforcement ratios exceeding 0.4.

The strength reduction factor for brittle concrete failure is there used throughout. BBK 04 MC 90/1. Design capacity at concentric punching versus flexural reinforcement ratio. The deflection of the slab within the circle with diameter c is δε at punching and δy2 when the reinforcement in tangential direction at the distance c/2 from the column has just reached the yield limit. γm· γn = 1. This is discussed in the following. even for the part of the curves where the flexural yield capacity governs.2 500 0 0 0.015 ρ Figure 4-4 Code comparison.8 Handbook ACI 318-02/1.21) (ACI 318-02) (4.VR kN 1000 5 3 4 2 1 1.22) Figure 4-4 reveals an inconsistency with the curves 3 and 4 for the Thesis and the Handbook. They are derived from the bending moment within the column strip according to the fan-type yield lines in all cases except for ACI 318-02: msc = − msc = − V ⎛ B⎞ ⋅ ⎜1 − ⎟ c⎠ 2π ⎝ q ( L − a )2 ⋅ 1. 5.8. 3. 2.6 m.2 Thesis/1.6 m. ( c = 3. 4.010 0. If δε < δy2 (at normal to high reinforcement ratios) then it is obvious that the capacity is punching-controlled.005 0. a = 0. 74 . fsy =500 MPa) The straight lines from the origin of coordinates in Figure 4-4 represent the flexural capacity.5 12 (fan type yield lines) (4. The design capacity is then derived from the theoretical ultimate capacity by division with the strength reduction factors for concrete and safety class 3.5·1. d = 0.2 = 1.26 m. fck = 24 MPa.

The structure can therefore not be defined as flexure-controlled until δε >> δy2.Tests by for instance Kinnunen and Nylander (1960) have demonstrated that if δε > δy2. so that extensive cracking and large deflection will give ample warning of impending failure.15·1. Linear transition between A and B. In order to verify that the close agreement between the Thesis and Model Code 90 in Figure 4-4 is not just a coincidence. which means that punching occurs after all reinforcement has reached the yield limit. a punching failure still occurs suddenly with little warning of impending failure. say δε > 3δy2.010 Figure 4-5 Design capacity with varying strength reduction factors. 75 .1) would then be appropriate. The refinement will therefore not be used in the following.15) and safety class 2 (= 1. It is evident that this refined approach is of limited value because the flexurecontrolled behaviour occurs at very low reinforcement ratios seldom encountered in practice. The described approach is applied on the Thesis curve 3 of Figure 4-4 and the result is shown in Figure 4-5. comparison is made with varying concrete grades and column sizes in Figure 4-6. The reinforcement ratio and the capacity Vy2 corresponding to point B is easily calculated by trial and error in Appendix B until δ ε = 3δy2 and point A corresponds to the reinforcement ratio when Vε = Vy2.2). VR 1000 kN A 500 B 0 ρ 0 0. The strength reduction factors for reinforcement (= 1.1). A linear transition between points A and B corresponds to a gradual change of the punching-controlled strength reduction factor to the flexurecontrolled.005 0. Above point A = punching controlled capacity (γm·γn =1. Below point B = flexure controlled capacity (γm·γn =1.5·1.

d = 0.2 1500 fck MPa 80 50 1000 MC 90/1.VR kN 1500 a = 600 mm B/d = 2.6 m.005 0.5 c-B 2d = 6.015 ρ Figure 4-6 Design capacity at concentric punching.010 0.2 Thesis/1. fsy = 500 MPa) 76 .010 0.26 m.005 0.015 ρ VR kN a = 300 mm B/d = 1.8 0 0 0. (c = 3.9 c-B 2d = 5.8 fck MPa 80 50 24 500 0 0 0.6 1000 MC 90/1. Comparison between Thesis and Model Code 90.2 24 500 Thesis/1.

The codes can therefore neither differentiate between slender and compact structures nor identify the influence of the bending moment on the punching capacity.0 2.0 B MPa B+d c Vσ 4. This is partly illustrated in Figure 4-7. The punching capacity is expressed as the design shear strength along a control perimeter at the distance 0. fck =30 MPa. fsy = 500 MPa. (d = 0. 2.5 c-B 2d 1.7 %) 77 . d VR VR = fv2 * π (B+d)d fv2 2.2 2.2 Thesis/1. f v1 7 10 10 B d Figure 4-7 Effect of (c-B)/2d and B/d on design strength for punching.0 ≥2 4 5 0. Vε 2. is studied. 1.8 5 4. 0 0 BBK 04 Model Code 90/1.2 ACI 318-02/1.5 fv1 1. A column-supported structure.All major concrete codes use the same approach by expressing the punching capacity as formal shear strength along a control perimeter at a certain distance from the column edge.5d from the column. 1.3 m. ρ = 0. a continuous flat plate or a single foundation.5 1. 1. 3. 3.5 1. 4.

which means that the strength of compact slabs such as footings is underestimated. The Thesis on the other hand gives a significant punching strength dependence on the c−B slenderness .0 ρ 0. If it were placed close to the column.01 0.0 d (m) Figure 4-8 Normalized size-effect (ξ =1. the Vσ -curves would be continuously increasing with decreasing column size.002 0.4) 78 . (fck =30 MPa. however. The two codes BBK 04 and Model Code 90 give a size effect that depends only on the effective depth of the slab.005 ≥ 0. Just as for the shear strength of beams.The code methods give a shear strength that is independent of the slenderness of the flat plate structure. corresponding to the diameter of the internal column capital. The decreasing strength of the Vσ -curves for B/d < 3 is a consequence of the chosen position of the formal control section.004 MC 90 0. (The curve represents the capacity for a square column). Finally. the punching strength of slabs 2d increases with decreasing slenderness. fsy = 500 MPa. B/d = 1.003 BBK 04 0.9. ξ 1.5 1.2 m) for punching ultimate capacity versus effective depth of the slab and reinforcement ratio. with no size effect if all reinforcement yields before punching.0 for d = 0. the size-effect is illustrated in Figure 4-8. (c-B)/2d = 5. The Thesis theory on the other hand displays a dependence also on the reinforcement ratio. The high allowable shear stress at large columns by the code ACI 318-02 is remarkable.5 0 0. Comparison with Model Code 90 and BBK 04.

Such a slab displays a very ductile flexural failure mode without risk for brittle shear failure. However. Please observe that this approach differs from the current perception by codes. The theory can therefore be applied for verification of existing structures and for design purpose. researchers and designers. it should be a code requirement that a flat plate structure in a multi-story building in case of overloading displays a ductile failure mode. the failure was brittle. It is demonstrated that the theory can predict the capacity and deflection of test specimens with good accuracy. impact. then the slab inclination and hence the concrete strain will increase at the adjacent columns. Punching usually occurs when the concrete strain near the column due to the bending moment in the slab exceeds a critical value. it must be emphasized that even the most accurate theory cannot eliminate the disadvantage of flat plates. One solution would be to provide the flat plate structure with some form of shear reinforcement in order to prevent the brittle punching failure mode. It is therefore surprising that the same code – in the detailing chapters – requires a least amount of shear reinforcement in primary beams in order to prevent a brittle failure. A flat plate should behave in the same manner as a cast-in-place concrete slab supported by beams or walls. a theory for prediction of punching capacity is presented and validated.2. The stirrups were anchored around the top reinforcement of the slab in accordance with code provisions. which in turn most probably will result in punching at these columns as well. In this context. or consequences of human error. In order to find a reinforcement system that could result in the desired ductile behaviour. That code requires a structure to be designed is such a way “that it will not be damaged by events like explosions. If a punching failure occurs at one column due to a local overloading. Despite the fact that the formal shear capacity exceeded the yield capacity of the specimens. who all seem to utilize shear reinforcement merely for increasing the punching capacity – not for creating a ductile structure. 79 . It is commonly accepted that such test specimens do simulate the behaviour of continuous flat plates near the columns. a local failure shall not spread over a large portion of the structure and shall not trigger a progressive collapse. In other words. see Chapter 2. A progressive collapse of the entire building is then impending. to an extent disproportionate to the original cause”.5 Reinforcement for ductility In the preceding chapters. it should be remembered that modern building codes agree with what is stated in Eurocode 2 (1991). but no similar requirement is put on flat plates despite the fact that a punching failure of a flat plate may lead to worse consequences than a shear failure of a beam. slabs with various forms of stirrups were tested (Paper II). Consequently. namely the risk of a brittle punching failure in the event of overloading.

This configuration is currently standard practice in USA and in Canada for so-called stud rails. Stirrups and stud rails may increase the punching capacity of the slab. Stirrup cages were added in order to exclude a shear failure outside the bent bars. this configuration aims at making the shearreinforced zone around the column as large as possible in order to maximize the possible shear capacity. however. These slabs had higher capacity than the corresponding slabs without shear reinforcement. but the failure mode was still a sudden punching failure. 2. Three important conclusions could be made. This scenario is confirmed by the Hallgren (1996) tests. That practice prescribes that the bars should be bent down at a certain distance outside the column perimeter and some of the bars should be placed outside the column. Bent down flexural reinforcement constitutes another shear reinforcement possibility. Furthermore. One slab with stirrups arranged in the form of a cross failed due to a shear crack outside the shear-reinforced zone. Therefore. However. 3. it is evident that bent bars anyhow do not reach far enough away from the column to exclude the possibility of a shear failure outside the bent bars. The outcome of the stirrup test described in Paper II was thus very disappointing. A steep shear crack could develop inside the bent bars.Three test specimens failed due to a steep shear crack near the column leaving the stirrups ineffective. The ultimate deflection was in the order of two times the deflection at overall yield. The shear reinforcement should extend far enough from the column to preclude a shear failure outside the shear reinforced area. Obviously. it was learnt that the bent bars should not be detailed according to current practice in order to achieve a ductile behaviour. after evaluation of the stirrup tests. The shear capacity is according to US and Canadian Codes calculated assuming a uniform stress along the critical perimeter outside the stud rails. however: 1. The bent bars were designed as hangers with the vertical component of their yield capacity in balance with the column reaction at overall yield of the flexural reinforcement. The shear reinforcement should be well distributed along the outer perimeter in order to achieve a uniform shear stress along that perimeter. irrespective of the distance between the outermost studs. The bent bars were all placed within the column width and were bent down at the column edge at a shallow slope in order to bridge over the zone with large circumferential cracks around the column at flexural yielding. It seemed impossible to achieve ductile flat plates with intermediate or high flexural reinforcement ratios. The stirrups were in the latter case obviously too far apart to cause a uniform shear stress in the slab along a critical perimeter outside the shear reinforced zone. a second test series was performed with a combination of bent bars and stirrups.63 % displayed some ductility before the sudden punching failure. From Figure 4-21 of Hallgren (1996) it is evident that only specimen HSC7s with reinforcement ratio 0. Most European codes apply a more restrictive approach. The shear crack developed outside the shear reinforcement in specimen HSC5s with a high reinforcement ratio. 80 . there is risk that such a layout would result in the same type of ultimately brittle failure as experienced with stirrups. see Paper II. A structure with such a low ductility (δu/δy = 2) is normally not considered ductile. but they cannot prevent a steep shear crack from forming near the column when the stability of the compression zone of the slab decreases due to high flexural compression strain. From the tests with stirrups. Steep shear cracks developed inside the bent bars in the slabs HSC3s and HSC7s. Some of the specimens were provided with bent bars as shear reinforcement.

That concept turned out to be very effective in creating an extremely ductile structural system without any punching tendency even at high flexural reinforcement ratios. Furthermore. The bent bars and the stirrups shall be designed for the column reaction corresponding to the formation of yield lines over the supports and the midspans at uniform loading. the zone with stirrups was reduced in relation to Paper II. In this way. The design calculations of the mature concept “ductility reinforcement” are very simple and described in detail in Paper IV. Alternatively. 81 . respect is paid to the fact that the flexural reinforcement might be “over designed” and that pattern loading has been considered when designing the midspan reinforcement. The concept was later on further developed (Paper III). where the stirrup cages were simplified as regards both fabrication and installation. the column reaction can be taken as five times the contribution from the worst adjacent panel.

82 .

The resulting hysteresis curves are displayed in Paper IV. The drift capacity at cyclic loading could therefore be expected to be in the order of half that value. which demonstrates that flat plates with ductility reinforcement are safe even in regions of high seismic risk. It should be noted that demands on the ductility reinforcement for seismic loading are identical to the demands for normal gravity loading. In order to examine if the ductility reinforcement used for test slabs in Paper III also could be effective at seismic cyclic loading. No flexural reinforcement has to be added to cater for unbalanced moment due to story drift. flat plates that are provided with ductility reinforcement described in Chapter 5 display such good ductility that they should be well suited also in seismic areas. if the building stability does not rely on frame action with the flat plate as horizontal member. 83 .5 % or less. The slab rotation in relation to the column at story drift resembles the deflection inclination of a concentrically loaded slab. Most seismic codes seem to agree upon that the stabilizing system shall be designed so that the story drift ratio is limited to 2. It is evident that the specimens could withstand a story drift ratio of more than 4 %. Paper III demonstrated that a flat plate with ductility reinforcement displays an inclination capacity of about 9% at monotonic loading. they should be used with caution in seismic areas. Stability should be provided by shear walls or equivalent systems. Then a cyclic imposed story drift was applied up to a story drift ratio of 7 %. On the other hand.6 Earthquake simulation Since ordinary flat plates have a very limited ductility. two pilot tests were performed and reported in Paper IV. The specimens were loaded to a concentric load corresponding to 60 % and 75 % respectively of their flexural yield capacity.

84 .

it is caused by the limited curvature capacity of the slab.2 fcc corresponding to the strength of concrete in biaxial compression with moderate perpendicular compression stress. the compression strength is assumed reduced to 0. however. It should be observed that the apparent size effect factor may increase for thick slabs where cracks in the compression zone may be induced due to uneven temperature effects during the concrete hydration. It is interesting to note that the latter strength corresponds to a compression strain of about 0. It should be observed that these critical strain levels are considerably lower than the generally accepted ultimate strain 3. In compact slabs such as column footings the compression strength of the inclined compression strut from the load to the column is found to be governing. The slab is nevertheless stable and can be loaded and reloaded without any decrease of the ultimate load.0 per mille. To crown everything. If the column is small in relation to the compression zone depth. which ⎝ 250 ⎠ is the generally accepted value for the uniaxial compression strength in cracked zones. The failure mechanism is different. If the f ⎞ ⎛ column is very large. which is close to the strain at the peak stress for low strength concretes. As a consequence. In this case it is obvious that the failure is not caused by the shear force. The thickness of the compression strut near the column is limited by the compression zone depth in radial direction. 85 . this strain limit is found to be a sufficient criterion for prediction of the punching capacity and deflection of a large variety of flat plate specimen types reported in the literature. but it is assumed to slowly decrease with increasing concrete strength to account for the increasing brittleness of concrete with increasing strength. Inclined circumferential cracks down to the neutral axis form around the column already at a load level of less than 70 % of the ultimate load. A strong support for the hypothesis that the concrete strain in tangential direction plays a decisive role is given by the fact that the theory can predict the deflection at the sudden punching failure of flat plate specimens with all flexural reinforcement yielding.7 Conclusions and summary The punching failure of flat plates resembles the shear failure of beams in the sense that an inclined “shear crack” constitutes the failure. The above critical strain and stress levels are assumed to display a size effect that is inversely proportional to the cube root of the compression zone depth and the thickness of the inclined compression strut respectively – an approach that was utilized already in Paper I of 1990. the size effect decreases with decreasing amount of flexural reinforcement. Punching occurs instead when the compression zone of the slab near the column collapses.5 per mille.75 per mille – the same for all concrete grades. the compression strength of the strut is assumed to reach the value 1.6 f cc ⎜1 − cc ⎟ . The presented models are based on information that can be gained from the stress-strain relation of concrete in uniaxial compression. Low strength concretes start to “soften” at a compression strain of about 1. If the slab is provided with adequate amount of conventional shear reinforcement the critical concrete strain is assumed to increase to 1. This level for the flexural compression strain is therefore regarded to be critical for the stability of the compression zone near the column of a flat plate.5 per mille for uniaxially spanned members in bending. That capacity depends in turn on a limited concrete strain capacity.

It is therefore recommended that the E-modulus shall be specified for flat plate structures. in reality.3 (2. because the imposed slab rotation can be estimated with much better certainty than the imposed unbalanced moment.As stated in Paper I: “The basic assumptions behind the theory are. The capacity increase for flat plates with conventional shear reinforcement can be attributed to the fact that the compression zone can endure an increased tangential strain. A conservative value for the rotation capacity is derived from the slab behaviour at concentric punching. Nevertheless. which demonstrates. Similarly. which is similar to the case that the compression strength tested on a cylinder specimen does not explain the failure mechanism. the theory is able to predict reported test results … with amazing accuracy. A high strength concrete slab has therefore a better rotation capacity than a normal strength slab despite that the high strength concrete matrix is more brittle. which is especially important if the coarse aggregates in the concrete mix do not emanate from primitive rock. which initiates the punching failure due to a “zip” effect. the presented size dependent strain limit in a flat plate happens to capture the conditions when the concrete near the column edge becomes unstable. However. above all. The increased curvature means that more flexural reinforcement will reach the yield limit before punching occurs. The dependence on the concrete E-modulus indicates that capacity predictions will be uncertain if only the compression strength of the concrete is recorded. then it is safer to check the rotation capacity of the slab in relation to the column instead of the unbalanced moment capacity of the slab. which is mainly a tensile failure in lateral direction. which in turn means that the capacity increases. This follows from the hypothesis that the concrete compression strain in flexure is decisive for the punching capacity. Equation (2.150 0. 86 1 . but for each direction separately. Flat plates where the support moments differ in the two directions (as for slabs with rectangular panels) shall not be checked for a mean value of the reinforcement ratios in the two directions. The curvature of the slab at failure will then increase in relation to a slab without shear reinforcement. (Observe that Ec10 ≈ k ⋅ ( f cc ) 3 ). that the punching failure mechanism … is perhaps not as complex as many researchers claim. the failure mode cannot be classified as ductile because the ultimate deflection usually does not even reach two times the deflection at overall yield of the reinforcement. If so called unbalanced moment is transferred from the slab to the column or vice versa.0010 3 ⎛ 25 ⎞ ⎟ ⎜ = c10 ⋅ ⋅ ⎟ 2 ρ2 ⎜ 4d 2 f sy ⎝ f cc ⎠ 0. It is also evident that the curvature capacity of a flat plate rapidly decreases with increasing reinforcement ratio and increasing effective depth.35) A high concrete E-modulus is favourable.35) is informative as regards the parameters that affect the curvature capacity of the slab near the column in the normal case with the flexural reinforcement yielding at the column before punching occurs: " fu = ε cpu x pu E 2 0. which means that the curvature capacity increases with increasing concrete grade. very simple and straightforward.” The presented models do not explain the failure mechanisms in detail.

The required modifications for other cases are described in Chapter 4. Two examples of flat plates are treated in Appendices A and B. The complete calculation steps for prediction of the punching failure are demonstrated in Appendices A to E. but all calculations are possible to perform manually except for the punching load at partial yield of the flexural reinforcement in Appendix B. the rotation of the column in relation to the slab shall be checked instead.4. which is described in Section 3. Column footings are treated in Appendix D and footing specimens with line load in Appendix E. The simple design procedure for flat plates with ductility reinforcement is described in detail in Paper IV. Flat plates with shear reinforcement are treated in Appendix C. The displayed calculations are valid for interior square panels. 87 . In practice. However. They can therefore be classified as having no risk for brittle punching failure and can be designed in Swedish safety class 2.Flat plates provided with a novel reinforcement concept denoted “ductility reinforcement” display an extremely ductile behaviour. The laborious calculations for unbalanced moment are shown in Appendix F just for documentation purpose. an approximate manual method for this case is described in Section 2. which means a reinforcement saving of about 10 % in relation to flat plates with conventional shear reinforcement (and still larger saving in comparison to flat plates without shear reinforcement). The program Mathcad is used for this purpose.6.

88 .

Jg. Beton.. Betonund Stahlbetonbau.. (1979). Broms. No. (2000b). Andersson. “3D Numerical Punching Analysis of Shear Reinforced Flat Slabs – Variation of Quantity and Arrangement of Stirrups”. Bericht über das Forschungsvorhaben V 175 des DAfStb. (1981). V. “Size Effect in Punching Shear Failure of Slabs”. pp. Schmidt. Universität Stuttgart. Stockholm. No. V. Ghali.L.und Stahlbetonbau. Royal Institute of Technology. (1972). “Building Code Requirements for Structural Concrete and Commentary. Broms.171-179. Rostasy.1R -99 (1999). 292-304. J. International Workshop on Punching Shear Capacity of RC Slabs – Proceedings.. “Punching of Concrete Slabs with Shear Reinforcement”. H.E. R. H. A. R. “Elimination of Flat Plate Punching Failure Mode”. ACI 352.1. submitted to Magazine of Concrete Research.. (Recommendations for design of Concrete Structures. “Shear Reinforcement for Deflection Ductility of Flat Plates”.P. Transactions of the Royal Institute of Technology. ACI-ASCE Committee 352. (2005). pp. “Shear Reinforcement for Slabs”.W. 129-132. Z.2. H. C.E..E. 263-269. V. ACI-ASCE Committee 421. 44-53. 212. 22 pp. Broms. 29-37. (1978). No 5. No. “Versuche an quadratischen Einzelfundamente mit und ohne Schubbewehrung”. ACI Structural Journal. 97. M.181-189.1R-89 (1989). Vol 74. (1990b). 3. (1963).87. Beutel. V. “Punching of Flat Plates – A Question of Concrete Properties in Biaxial Compression and Size Effect”. Broms. Stockholm. 89 . Bažant. 15 pp.. pp.8 References ACI 318-02 (2002). Dilger. Royal Institute of Technology. H. Otto-GrafInstitut.H. Dieterle. Stockholm. A. No. pp. (2000). F. C. 1. Aalami. B. Beutel. Z. in Swedish). “Recommendations for Design of Slab-Column Connections in Monolithic Reinforced Concrete Structures”. ACI Structural Journal. “Moment-Rotation Relation between Column and Slab”. pp. C. Cao. Michigan. pp. “Durchstanzbewehrung für Flachdecken”. 59 pp. Boverkets handbok om betongkonstruktioner. Andrä.. “Ductility Reinforcement for Flat Slabs in Seismic as well as Nonseismic Areas”. “Punching Behaviour of Shear Reinforced Flat Slabs at Interior Columns – Effective and Economic Shear Systems”. Landauer.E. (1990a). C.S. “Zur Bemessung von Fundamentplatten ohne Schubbewehrung”. (2000a). 6. ACI Structural Journal. pp. (1987). Dieterle. No. BBK 04 (2004).87. 185 pp. 94-101. pp. ACI Journal. International Workshop on Punching Shear Capacity of RC Slabs – Proceedings. 73. ACI Structural Journal. Hegger. pp. 696-705.84. ACI 421. American Concrete Institute. J.

. (1996). (1989). “Betongplattor på pelare. Goralski. Bulletin No. “Förstärkning av brobaneplattor på pelare med hänsyn till genomstansning. Redovisning av provningar”.53. 206 pp.2. Brussels. Ghali. J. “What can we learn from the Sampong Department Store Collapse”. N. Stockholm. R.. Dimensioneringsmetoder för plattor med icke vidhäftande spännarmering”. Hassanzadeh. Huizer. of Structural Engineering. Hassanzadeh (1998).225-233. Aachen. 905-920. “Moment Transfer from Concrete Slabs to Columns”. pp. Ghali. pp. 1998). N. J. “Punching Shear Tests on Column Footings”. (1976). (1966). Beutel. Elstner.. Vol.73. N. 5. Eurocode 2: Design of Concrete Structures – Part I: General Rules and Rules for Buildings.775-808. Bulletin 23. pp. Hegger. A. Gardner. P. Dept. Comité Européen de Normalisation.10. Yamazaki. Hognestad. (1988). ACI Journal. 90 . No. J. Stockholm. (1979). ACI Structural Journal. M. (1987). V. “Progressive Collapse of Flat Plate Structures”.J. 134 pp.C. 162 pp. M. R. Dept. (1956). “Punching Shear Capacity of Reinforced High Strength Concrete Slabs”.. Bertram.. Royal Institute of Technology. Nylander. ACI Journal. 6. Royal Institute of Technology. ACI Publication SP-42... European Prestandard ENV 1992-1-1:1991. ACI Structural Journal. A. G. Elmasri. 566-572. (in Swedish with a summary in English). Elgabry.. Vol. Royal Institute of Technology. Royal Institute of Technology. Dept.. Bulletin No..M. Dilger. C. “Sensitivity in Shear Strength of Longitudinally Reinforced Concrete Beams to Fracture Energy of Concrete”. Dept. “Shearing Strength of Reinforced Concrete Slabs”. Stockholm. 3.. Sargious. ACI Structural Journal.. 22 pp. “Versuchsbericht zum Durchstanzen mit Halfen HDB-N-Ankern als Durchstanzbewehrung im Bereich von Innenstützen”. “Tests on Concrete Slab-Column Connections with Stud-Shear Reinforcement Subjected to Shear-Moment Transfer”.. No. of Structural Engineering. V. of Structural Engineering. Ghali. No. 286-294. Vol. A. E. pp. International Workshop on Punching Shear Capacity of RC Slabs – Proceedings.. Hillerborg. Stockholm. Kinnunen. 85.M. pp. Lan Chung (2000).86. Proceedings. 43. (2001). Mitchell. 253 pp. RWTH. Huh. V.A.Z. A. B. of Structural Engineering. Technical Report 1998:3. Hallgren. (in Swedish with a summary in English). (1974) “Vertical Prestressing of Flat Plates around Columns”. Hawkins. W.. A. D. “Punching of Flat Plates under Static and Dynamic Horizontal Forces”. M. Bao. A.. Hallgren. Royal Institute of Technology. pp.J. pp. 705-716. G. Hawkins. 41. Gustafsson.. M. ACI Journal. 433-442. pp. A. S. No. 29-58. Stockholm. (1983.84.EC 2 (1991).

S. “Punching strength of RC Flat Slabs with Moment Transfer”. Vol. Massachusetts 02142. 83 pp. “Tests on Slab-Column Connections with Shear and Unbalanced Flexure”. 73 pp. Försök med rektangulära plattor”. American Concrete Institute. “Analysis of crack formation and crack growth in concrete by means of fracture mechanics and finite elements”. “Post-punching resistance of connections between flat slabs and interior columns”. 6. Model Code 90 (1993). 319-327. Cook.. Kinnunen. Journal of the Structural Division. O.5. 50.. W.E. 82. Walther. Vol. pp.. ETH. G. P. 549-568. Design Handbook. Stockholm. LTU. (1984). Bericht No. “Punching Tests on Reinforced Concrete Slabs (Schubversuche an Stahlbetonplatten)”. pp. pp.. Statens Betongkommitté.High performance concrete structures. (1980). Inc. 88.. (1991) “Experimental Investigation on the Behavior of HighStrength Concrete Slabs. 333-341. (1962). No. Deutscher Ausschuss für Stahlbeton. D. Mathcad 7 Professional. Cambridge.7. “Users Guide”. Detroit. Comité Euro-Internationale du Béton. (1998). Marti.. Journal of Structural Engineering. No. No. 773-782. 676-683. Petersson. (1960). V. Magazine of Concrete Research. Stockholm. (1977). A. J. Stockholm. MathSoft. “Schubversuche an einfeldrigen Stahlbetonbalken mit und ohne Schubbewhrung”. “Plattjocklekens inverkan på betongplattors hållfasthet vid genomstansning. F. Park. H. “Förslag till bestämmelser för dimensionering av betongplattor på pelare jämte utdrag ur kommentarer“. P. Mokhtar. H. Marzouk.. A. Leonhardt. Royal Institute of Technology. Transactions of the Royal Institute of Technology. Bulletin No. Portland Cement Association (PCA). (1976). pp.. A Swedish Program for Research and Development. “Shearing Strength of Reinforced Concrete Slabs and Footings under Concentrated Loads”. H. ACI Structural Journal. Draft version. M. 112 pp. Favre. Pralong. CTH. Institut für Baustatik und Konstruktion.. Vol. International Workshop on Punching Shear Capacity of RC Slabs – Proceedings.. W.. Mathcad (1997).S. Islam. Mitchel. Dilger. A-S.6. A.S. Bulletin d´Information No. pp. Regan.. Burdet. (1976). Hussein. No. Thürlimann. pp. 232 pp.. “Punching of Concrete Slabs without Shear Reinforcement”. Moe. 213/214.” ACI Structural Journal. Stockholm. Development Department Bulletin d47. Vol. No. Modéer. 110. (2000). Nylander. 701-713. Hillerborg. 130 pp. 6. Lausanne. 7305-2. (1964). B. Dept. 158. pp. ST3.102. J. Heft 151. USA. Royal Institute of Technology. ASCE. Kinnunen. Krüger. 137. (1985)..E. CBI. “Stud Shear Reinforcement for Flat Plate Concrete Plates”. Cement and Concrete Research. 91 . (in Swedish). No. Vol. Berlin. S. P. No. Melo. (1961). R. Ghali.. Zürich. LTH. R.D. Tolf. KTH.. 1513-1532. 123 pp. (in Swedish with a summary in English). G.. R. “Preventing Progressive Collapse of Slab Structures”. K1.A. 4. of Structural Mechanics and Engineering. Nylander. P. S. (1998).

Royal Institute of Technology. Massivbau und Brandschutz. (1984). 65-74. (1985). Bulletin 104. D. Richart. (1971) “Shear Reinforcement in Reinforced Concrete Column Heads”. Moehle. of Structural Mechanics and Engineering. Regan. S.102. Proceedings V.. Pan. 237-260.Narasimhan. pp. Vocke. “Punching Tests on Reinforced Concrete Slabs and Prestressed Concrete Slabs (Durchstanzversuche an Stahlbeton. Vol. ST9. Paris. pp. pp. (in Swedish with a summary in English). pp. Technische Universität Braunschweig.. ETH. Magazine of Concrete Research. F. “Determination of the Fracture Energy of Mortar and Concrete by means of Three-Point Bend Tests on Notched Beams. “Dimensionering med hänsyn till genomstansning vid koncentrerat stöd”. Wildegg. H. Second edition.. 7305-3. Dept. H. M. No. Institut für Baustatik und Konstruktion. A.W. (1972) “Genomstansning av pelarunderstödd plattbro av betong med ospänd armering”.. Bericht No. Betonghandboken – Konstruktion. Wildegg Technische Forschungs. pp.. (1948). H. (1989).E. J. “Reinforced Concrtete Wall and Column Footings”. J. No. “Punching of Concrete Slabs – Statics. (1990). 106. Bulletin No. Ožbolt. Nylander. 285-290. 648-675. Bemessung). No. “Three-dimensional Numeric Analysis of Punching Failure”. 45. 18. Nilssson. S. “Strength of Slab-Column Connections with Shear and Unbalanced Flexure”. Lausanne. 64 pp. (1979). No. Dept. 52 pp. Stockholm. ACI Structural Journal. Rösli. 89 pp. No. Materials and Structures. Institut für Baustoffe. (1986). Braestrup. V. Zürich. 18791901. of Structural Mechanics and Engineering.und Spannbetonplatten). 174 pp. Eligehausen. V. W. Sundquist. 115. PhDThesis.. P. Park. R. Design (Das Durchstanzen von Platten aus Stahlbeton – Tragverhalten. Ladner.. 3. Royal Institute of Technology. (1970). Kinnunen. 136.128. Thürlimann. H.E. 38. Comité Euro-International du Béton. “Punching Shear in Reinforced Concrete: A State-ofthe-Art Report”. Regan. RILEM. ASCE. 62.. AB Svensk Byggtjänst.86. P. Schaeidt. Pralong. Journal of the Structural Division. J. 68 pp. A. Bulletin d´Information. RILEM Draft Recommendation (1985). N. Bulletin 140. (1976). Islam. Stockholm. London. 232 pp.E. R. Calculation. “Lateral Displacement Ductility of Reinforced Concrete Flat Plates”. (2000). 97-127 and pp.. B..186. Berechnung. Nölting. 92 .und Beratungsstelle der Schweizerischen Zementindustrie. 250-258. Royal Institute of Technology. Stockholm. (in Swedish).. pp. A (1983). ACI Journal. “Symmetric punching of reinforced concrete slabs”. (in Swedish).. International Workshop on Punching Shear Capacity of RC Slabs – Proceedings. pp. Nylander. W. Imperial College. Brändli. “Design of Flat Plates for Punching (Berechnung von Flachdecken auf Durchstanzen)”. M. Vol.P. “Spänningstillstånd i plattdel utanför skjuvarmering vid genomstansning”.

Dept. 114 pp. Talbot. “Betongplatta på pelare vid dynamisk engångslast. Mc Graw-Hill Book Company. pp. Stockholm. Sundquist.. A. V. (1978). 67.N. SINTEF Structures and Concrete. (1992). Bulletin No. A. Sundquist. 64 pp. “Reinforced Concrete Wall Footings and Column Footings”. International Student Edition. M.”. K. Stockholm.. 81.3. Bulletin No. “Punching Shear Resistance of Flat Slabs: Influence of Reinforcement Type and Ratio”. P. (in Swedish with a summary in English). 162 pp. Dept. (in Swedish with summary and Figure captions in English). (1977). A.. Heft 547. Stockholm.” High Strength Concrete. Urbana. H. of Civil and Architectural Engineering. “The effect of column head and drop panels on the punching capacity of flat slabs”. Berlin. 4. of Structural Mechanics and Engineering. 580 pp. H. Royal Institute of Technology. 24 pp. SP2 – Plates and Shells. Tolf. University of Illinois Engineering Experiment Station.. (2004b). (1959). Dept. No. Royal Institute of Technology. Tomaszewicz. S. Stockholm. 88. Trondheim.. “Plattjocklekens inverkan på betongplattors hållfasthet vid genomstansning. Woinowsky-Krieger. Dept. “The effect of large column section and slab thickness taper on the punching shear capacity of flat slabs”. of Structural Mechanics and Engineering. H. (1993). Kinnunen. 2: Dynamiska försöksresultat och dimensioneringsprinciper”. “Theory of Plates and Shells”. (in Swedish with summary and Figure captions in English). (2004). Timm. 93 . Försök med cirkulära plattor. 70 pp. “Durchstanzen von Bodenplatten unter rotationssymmetrischer Belastung”. (in Swedish with summary in English). Royal Institute of Technology.Sundquist. Report 2. Sundquist. ACI Structural Journal. Yamada. Deutscher Ausschuss für Stahlbeton. S. “Punching Shear Capacity of Reinforced Concrete Slabs.. 1: Resultat av statiska fösök”. “Betongplatta på pelare vid dynamisk engångslast. (2004a). 116 pp. Timoshenko. H. Report No. Bulletin 125. of Civil and Architectural Engineering. (1988).STF70 A93082. 555-563. (in Swedish with a summary in English). Endo.S. Royal Institute of Technology. Bulletin 124. 42 pp. Inc. 82. Nanni. Bulletin No. T. (1913). 36 pp. Royal Institute of Technology. Stockholm. S. of Structural Mechanics and Engineering. 146.. Bulletin No. Dept. Kinnunen.

94 .

1 2 nρ 1 x .150 .02972 10 MPa n ρ = 0.20 0. ρ Ec10 d .16949 10 Recorded: ε = 0.62138 fy = 657 If σs > fy go to 1. PUNCHING CAPACITY Vε Guess factor k to make V ε equal to or less than Vσ: k 0.0012 3 σs 200000 ε cpu . 0.1 (no yield punching) Bε Bε 3π .001. 1 x 3d x x = 0.2 MPa MPa 95 . d B c fc fy ρ 0.1 ε cpu k .6 1 fc 150 4 .2 657 0. d . 25 x fc ε cpu = 1. 200.nρ . a 8 B Bσ Bσ 1 4a π B Ec0 21500 fc 10 3 (Model Code 90) 4 Ec0 = 2.38 24. Punching of flat plate.25 2.68998 10 m EI 3 6 ρ .0652 3 EI = 7. 1 d kNm 1. (d x x) σ s = 483.008 m m m MPa MPa Tolf (1988).883 1. S2. 0.1 No yield punching 1 3 0. 10 .07883 200000.88654 10 Ec10 nρ 1 0.Appendix A. Ec0 4 Ec10 = 2.

fy d fc ρ ε cpu = 1.3 ε cpu 6 Ec10.d 1 Bε c 2 c 2 .82819 2 Deflection δε ny Vε ny . ( k .125 c 2 = 1. 3 10 3d 8π 2 . 1 2π 3 Vy2 = 1. c . fy ε cpu Ec10 x . c Bε 2 EI 2 δε ny = 8. kN Vy2 my.σ s .2 Yield punching (not governing in this case) 3 0. 10 .2 ρ . Bε . 1 kN Vy1 my.02437 ∆ f´´ = 0. EI ry = 0. 0.5 mm 1. π .71972 10 f´´y = 0.075. d . ln c 2 ry 2 Bε Bε c ∆ f´´.d . ln c Bε Bε c 1 Bε c 2 2 xpu = 0.39524 Vy1 = 856.98057 m my 2 ρ .00338 10 3 xpu d.19 4 ry 2 2 ry ry find( ry ) If ry > c/2 then V ε = Vy2 96 .01465 3 Guess ry Bε 2 2 2 2 Given my Vy1 .10323 my = 187.1819 10 3 m Recorded δ = 7. 25 10 . fy . x 3. 8π 2 . 10) . 4π 1 Bε c 2 2 . 1 Vε ny 3 8 .31564 10 kN f´´u f´´y ∆ f´´ ε cpu xpu my EI f´´u f´´y f´´u = 9. 2 ρ . ln Bε Result Vε ny = 630.

64153 Vσ max 1.23351 3. Bε . .0. 4π Bε c 2 Vε y = 669. 8π ry 2 . 103 t 1 3 Vσ = 652. my . ry c my .77791 kN δ y1 1 2 .03915 c0 = 0. sin ( 25 deg ) .5 c Vε y Vy2 . 3 10 t 3 Vσ max = 630.883 Vε ny = 630.150 . ln c 2r 2 Bε 2 2 Bε c 2 4r 2 ∆ f´´. PUNCHING CAPACITY WITHOUT SHEAR REINFORCEMENT k = 0. n0ρ .02686 Vσ 0. 1 2 n0ρ x0 1 u π . u .6 0.2 fc . sin ( 25 deg ) . c . 0. 2r EI d r Result Deflection Vy1 .23351 Vtest = 603 kN kN kN 97 .65 n0ρ 200000.150 .04868 n0ρ = 0. ρ Ec0 x0 d . 0.82819 Vσ max = 630. x0 2 . 2 Vy1 . Bσ tan ( 50 deg ) x0 . u . c 2 Bε 2 δ y1 = 0.9 1 u 0. t . 2 tan ( 25 deg ) u x0 = 22.01112 m δε y δ y1 ( f´´u f´´y ) δε y = 9.16496 10 3 m 2. c Bε 2 EI 2 Bε . fc .007. t . PUNCHING CAPACITY Vσ c0 Bε 2d 1 1 ln ln c c0 c Bε x0 = 0.13876 t x0 2 cos ( 25 deg ) 1 t = 0.

Ec0 4 Ec10 = 4. HSC1 (yield punching) Bε Bε 3π . 200. a 8 B Bσ Bσ 1 4a π B Ec0 21500 fc 10 3 (Model Code 90) 4 Ec0 = 4.04797 3 EI = 8.28508 10 3 σs σ s = 814.1 ε cpu 0. 0.20 0.001. 1 d x 3d x x = 0.6 1 fc 150 . ρ Ec10 d .95203 10 m EI 3 6 ρ . d . 1 kNm 1. d B c fc fy ρ 0.Appendix B.2 MPa MPa 98 .4 91 627 0.29 10 Ec0 42900 4 (recorded value) Ec10 nρ 1 0.25 2. 10 .03784 200000.150 .nρ .48868 10 4 Ec0 = 4. 1 2 nρ 1 x . Punching of flat plate.008 m m m MPa MPa Hallgren (1966). (d x x) ε cpu = 1.1 No yield punching (not governing in this case) 1 3 0.56107 fy = 627 If σs > fy go to 1. 25 k .22839 10 MPa n ρ = 0. PUNCHING CAPACITY Vε Guess factor k to make V ε equal to or less than Vσ: k 1 1. x fc 200000 ε cpu .

04521 f´´y = 0. 10) . ln c Bε Bε c 1 Bε c 2 kN 2 Vy2 my . c .02459 Guess ry Bε 2 2 2 2 Given my Vy1 .σ s . 10 . fy ε cpu Ec10 x .29474 10 kN f´´u f´´y ∆ f´´ ε cpu xpu my EI f´´u f´´y f´´u = 0. π .4738 c 2 = 1. 0. ln c Bε Result 3 Vε ny = 1.02062 ∆ f´´ = 0. 25 10 .2 4 ry 2 ry find( ry ) If ry > c/2 then V ε = Vy2 99 . c Bε 2 EI 2 δε ny = 0.60164 m my 2 ρ . 2 ρ . 1 3d 8π kN Vy1 my . 8π 2 . 1 2π 3 Vy2 = 1. 1 Vε ny 3 8 .075. fy d fc ρ 3 0.59891 Vy1 = 841.2 Yield punching 6 Ec10.0124 m 1.0324 my = 184.46474 10 3 xpu d. 2 ry ry = 0. d . ln c 2 ry 2 Bε Bε c Bε .09336 10 2 Deflection δε ny Vε ny . ( k . 3 10 xpu = 0.2 ρ . 2 .d 1 Bε c 2 2 . fy . x 3. EI ∆ f´´.3 ε cpu ε cpu = 1. 4π 1 Bε c 2 2 .d .

007.150 .9 1 u 0. ln c 2r 2 Bε 2 2 Bε c 2 4r 2 ∆ f´´.04096 n0ρ = 0.6 0. my . c 2 Bε 2 δ y1 = 9.65 n0ρ 200000. t .54612 10 3 m δε y δ y1 ( f´´u f´´y ) δε y = 0.02129 10 3.0393 10 Vσ max 1. Bε . n0ρ . 0.0.18017 t x0 2 cos ( 25 deg ) 1 t = 0. PUNCHING CAPACITY WITHOUT SHEAR REINFORCEMENT k= 1 3 Vε y = 1.05141 10 kN δ y1 1 2 . 8π ry 2 . sin ( 25 deg ) .5 c Vε y Vy2 . ry c my . fc . u .05141 10 3 Vσ max = 2. Bσ tan ( 50 deg ) x0 . x0 2 .02129 10 Vtest = 1021 kN kN kN 100 .0226 Vσ 0. c Bε 2 EI 2 Bε . 1 2 n0ρ x0 1 u π . 2 Vy1 . 0. 2 tan ( 25 deg ) u x0 = 25.5 mm m 2.01285 Recorded δ = 12. . 3 10 t 3 3 Vσ max = 2. 2r EI d r Result Deflection Vy1 .2 fc . t . c . sin ( 25 deg ) . PUNCHING CAPACITY Vσ c0 Bε 2d 1 1 ln ln c c0 c Bε x0 = 0. ρ Ec0 x0 d .150 . 103 t 1 3 3 Vσ = 2.02637 c0 = 0. u . 4π Bε c 2 3 Vε y = 1.

Appendix C. 4α EI 2 xs = 0.24948 10 kNm ε cpus σs k .05642 m 3 6 ρ .201 0.1 .50243 fc 190 4 Ec15 = 4. Ec0 0. 200. 10 43000 1 (Model Code 90) 4 Ec0 = 4. fc 0. d B c fc fy ρ 0.3.05505 1 1 . 1 1.7871 fy = 604 3 200000 ε cpus .5 0. 1. 0.0015 25 200000.0015 25 fc (d 0.28735 10 Ec15 ns ρ .1 2 α = 0. 1 4 EI = 1.82609 10 σ s = 935. d .23825 10 Ec0 Ec10 MPa fc 150 4 (Recorded value) .3 10 4 Ec10 = 4.6.25 2. ρ Ec15 . No yield punching Vε sny (not governing in this case) α 0.0118 m m m MPa MPa Hallgren (1996) HSC5s Guess Bε Bε 3π . 1 fc fc 100 0.1 ns ρ = 0. a 8 B k 1 Bσ Bσ 1 3 (to make V ε equal to or larger than Vσ) 4a π B Ec0 fc 21500.4 91 604 0. Flat plate with shear reinforcement.150 xs 3 ε cpus = 1. α ns ρ xs . 0. 1 d 1 2α xs 3d 1 xs d . 10 .48868 10 4 Ec0 = 4. ns ρ . xs ) xs MPa MPa If σs > fy go to Section 2 101 .

00225 xpus . 3 10 3d 8π mys = 261. 15 .02089 kN f´´u ε cpus xpus f´´y . 2 ry Bε . 2 .27296 10 3 Recorded ε = 0. α .2 2 If ry > c/2 then V εs = Vy2 ry = 0.83061 10 f´´u = 0.d . c .3 ε cpus ε cpus = 2.2 ρ . fy α ε cpus Ec15 d. 4π 1 Bε c 2 2 . EI ry find( ry ) = 1.15.0568 Bε 2 Given mys Vy1 . ln c Bε Bε c 1 Bε c 2 3 Vy1 = 1. 2 ρ . 1 ρ xpus = 0. fy . 1 2π 3 Vy2 = 1. 10 . ln c 2 ry 2 Bε 2 2 Bε c 2 4 ry 2 ∆ f´´. 1 Vε sny 3 8 . 25 10 .07768 f´´y = 0.00196 kN Vy1 mys . 1 200000 d xs fy f´´u f´´y ∆ f´´ Guess ry ∆ f´´ = 0. Yield punching Vε sy 6 Ec15. xs 3. 0. π .σ s .73126 c 102 . d .01498 m 2.02926 m mys xs . c Bε 2 EI 2 δε sny = 0. ln c Bε Result 3 Vε sny = 1.18993 10 kN 2 Vy2 mys .84358 10 kN 2 Deflection δε sny Vε sny . 8π 2 .d 1 Bε c 2 2 . d fy fc ρ 3 0.

Bε . Bσ 1 2 n0ρ x0 tan ( 90 deg ) 1 x0 2 . c 2 Bε 2 δ y1 = 9. 103 t 1 3 3 Vσ s = 4.18953 10 4.5 c Vε sy Vy2 . ρ Ec0 d . c Bε 2 EI 2 f´´y ) Bε . 2r EI d r 3 Vε sy = 1.0.8741 x0 u m t x0 2 cos ( 45 deg ) 1 t = 0.03993 m Vσ s 0.150 . t .68702 10 kN Deflection δ y1 Vy1 . ln c 2r 2 Bε 2 2 Bε c 2 4r 2 ∆ f´´. u . 4π δ y1 Bε c 2 1 2 .2 fc .05488 x0 = 0. 0.68702 10 3 Vσ smax = 4. Punching capacity Vσ s 4 Ec0 = 4.6 0.3 10 n0ρ 200000. ry c mys .0173 m Recorded δ =16 mm 3. sin ( 45 deg ) . 2 Vy1 . π . Maximum punching capacity with shear reinforcent k=1 3 Vε sy = 1. mys . 3 10 t 3 3 Vσ smax = 4. x0 2 . sin ( 45 deg ) . fc . 0.150 .67012 10 3 m δε sy ( f´´u δε sy = 0.007. c . 8π ry Result 2 .18953 10 Vtest = 1631 kN 103 .59288 10 Vσ smax 1.9 1 u 0. n0ρ . u . t .05647 m u = 0. tan ( 45 deg ) MPa n0ρ = 0.

Punching capacity Vσ Bσ Bσ B 4a π 2b π Bε 3π .00862 m m m MPa MPa Dieterle (1978) S1-H 1.29 0.3 1. 3 1 k 1 k R = 0. surface load.907 m Radius R to center of gravity for load outside shear crack 2 R D. d a b fc fy ρ 0.382 D = 1. a 8 Bε = 0.Appendix D.4 d D 3 Bε 2 tan φ = 1.693 m D m Inclination φ of fictitious shear crack tan φ 1. Punching of column footing.5 30.536 c0 = 0.67 m 104 .6 512 0.353 m Bε B Bσ = 0.048 If tan φ < 1 put tanφ = 1 Diameter kD = c0 of circle within fictitious shear crack Bε k 2d tan φ D c0 k.D k = 0.

648 10 Vσ max 1. 0.150 . 10 200000. u . fc .545 If tan( γ ) < tan(25 deg) = 0.150 . 0. 3 10 t 3 3 Vσ max = 1.6 0. sin ( γ ) . 2 tan ( γ ) u = 1.038 m 0. n0ρ .436 = (25 deg) If tan( γ ) > 1 put γ = 0.499 tan ( γ ) = 0. Bσ x0 tan ( 2 γ ) x0 .9 1 u 0.785 = (45 deg) Shear capacity V σ u π .526 m t u x0 Vσ x0 2 cos ( γ ) = 22.066 n0ρ = 0. sin ( γ ) .2 fc .034 1 1 n0ρ x0 d . t . x0 .121 10 ln ln b c0 b Bε x0 = 0.603 10 105 . .466 put γ = 0. 1 2 n0ρ 1 m Guess γ 30 deg Given Bε ) 2 2 tan ( γ ) (2 R x0 4 d x0 1 2R x0 Bε γ Find( γ ) γ = 0. 103 t 1 3 Vσ = 1. ρ Ec0 4 Ec0 = 3.007.Inclination γ of compression strut 1 3 Ec0 fc 21500. t .996 1 2 3 t = 0. u .

b 8 M = 295. 1 x 3d .1 .15 x 3 ε cpu = 1. 1 M ln b c0 .Load capacity P σ Pσ Vσ max 1 k 2 3 Pσ = 2. d . 1 2 nρ Bε 2π 1 x = 0.778 MPa εc c0 Bε .6 1 fc 150 ln ln b c0 b Bε fc 21500. ρ Ec10 1 1 n ρ = 0. .0010 25 fc 0. 0.249 10 Ptest = 2368 kN kN Flexural capacity 1 4 3 Ec10 1 0. σs . 10 4 Ec10 = 2.045 x d . 10 3 σ s = 326.369 10 MPa nρ 200000. c0 .236 10 3 106 .nρ .023 10 3 ε cpu 0.214 kNm σs 2 ρ . x 2 x 200000 d x 1 ε c = 1.075 m M Pσ .

03944 1 MPa n0ρ 200000.96 27.337 3π . .25 D = 0. ρ Ec10 1 1 2 nρ n ρ = 0.96 R = 0. Nylander (1983.734 1 3 Ec0 fc 21500. n0ρ . 1 2 n0ρ fc 1 4 Ec10 1 0.00413 4a π m m m m MPa MPa Hallgren. b 8 B c0 = 0.242 0.02169 x d .01587 x0 d . 1998) S12 Bσ Bε D R c0 Bσ Bε B Bσ = 0.25 0. line load. 1 x = 0. 10 3 4 Ec10 = 2. ρ Ec0 ln ln n0ρ = 0. Kinnunen.04543 m 107 .19765 10 MPa nρ 200000. a 8 3 c 2 B 2d π .00487 10 D c D B x0 = 0. d B c D fc fy ρ 0. .nρ . 10 1 1 4 Ec0 = 3.674 0. Punching of column footing.Appendix E.3 621 0.25 Bε = 0.6 1 150 ln ln D c D B 1 fc 21500.

Bσ x0 tan ( 2 γ ) x0 2 tan ( γ ) u = 0. t .80706 Find( γ ) tan ( γ ) = 1.14512 10 4 ε cpu 0.436 = (25 deg) If tan( γ ) > 1 put γ = 0.47603 10 3 108 .9 1 u 0.785 = (45 deg) γ 0. 0.d .0010 25 fc 0. t . 10 t Vσ max = 958.15 x 3 ε cpu = 1. 103 t 1 3 3 Vσ = 998. sin ( γ ) . u . u . x 2 x 200000 d x 1 ε c = 7. sin ( γ ) .70442 εc c B . σs .8475 t = 0.Calculate γ Guess γ 30 deg Given tan ( γ ) γ (2 R x0 Bε ) 2 2 4 d x0 1 2R x0 Bε γ = 0.007.466 put γ = 0.150 . fc . 0. 3 1.150 .6 0. 1 x 3d σ s = 312. 1 M σs 1 M = 64.2 fc .c .02788 x0 2 cos ( γ ) = 21. 10 3 kNm ln D c . 2π Bε .785 Calculate V σ u t u x0 π .68962 .2513 Vσ max 0. x0 2 .48887 1 Vσ 0. c c M 2 ρ .1 .04428 If tan( γ ) < tan(25 deg) = 0.62469 Vtest = 1049 kN Flexural capacity Vσ max.

0939 10 kI EI1 EI 2 kI = 0.200. ρ Ec d .152 0. Unbalanced moment loading.8 33.150 xlim xlim εclim εclim fy 200000 .10 . LIMIT FOR REINFORCEMENT YIELD.305 1.50977 10 n ρ = 0.fy 109 .21500 fc 10 3 4 Ec = 2.4 476 0.5.d ρ1 .d .εclim 0.08367 200000.20237 10 EI 3 6 ρ . 1 h 6d x x = 0.01 εclim 0.1 3 εclim 0.0105 0. SM1. a 8 1 m m m m MPa MPa Ghali et al 1976. ρ1 Guess ρ1 0.001 xlim x Given 1 0.0010 25 fc . 1 2 nρ 1 x . h d a c fc fy ρ ρc B 0. 1 d kNm EI1 3 6 ρ .121 0.0404 3 EI = 2.10 .35932 fc 150 4 Ec nρ 1 0.n ρ.200.xlim d . 1 x 3d . 0.70476 1.0 B = 0.Appendix F.d . 1 1 h 2d 3 EI1 = 1.6 1 .Ec.0035 3π.

my 2 Vy1 . 2 ρ . εclim) Limit for reinforcement yield ρ1 = 0. fy εcpu Ec x .55508 0.ρ1 xlim εclim Find( ρ1 .5 c Vε Vy2 .ln 2π 1 B c c B 1 B c 2 2 xpu = 0.02853 m my 2 ρ .01437 ρ = 0. Vy1 = 390. c 2 ln 2 ry 8π find( ry ) 2 B 2 2 B c 2 4 ry 2 ( f´´u f´´y ) . . 2 ry B .075.ry c .05921 f´´y = 0. fy d ρ fc 3 0. EI d r 110 . 1 my = 65. xlim . 10 . c 2 ln 2 r 8π ry Vε = 473.68922 10 3 xpu d.82889 2 B 2 2 B c 2 4r 2 ( f´´u f´´y ) . 25 10 .fy . Vy2 = 510. PUNCHING CAPACITY Vε εcpu 6 Ec . .51769 kN f´´u εcpu xpu my EI f´´u = 0.3 εcpu = 1. 0.03184 kN Vy1 my .d .0105 2. 2r B.7489 kN Vy2 my . 3 10 3d 8π 2 .5 c = 0.9 ry If ry > c/2 then V ε = Vy2 0. EI ry = 0.02953 f´´y Guess ry c 2 Given my Vy1 . my .

2 2 (c 4 B) 2 2 δy1 δε δy2 1 δy1 = 8.51769 Vε = 473.75451 10 δt2 = 6.01085 δt1 δt2 δt3 δt4 δV ∆ M δV ∆ M δV ∆ M δV ∆ M 0. .78857 10 ∆M 3 Vy2 = 510.02411 3 ( f´´u f´´y .02411 3 3 3 3 3 Elastic behaviour for reactions Rt1 to Rt3 because the deflections δt are less than δy1 111 . c .78857 10 δε = 0.78857 10 δy2 = 0.00048 4.c B 2 c 2 EI 2 δV = 2.1 Insert column reaction V and guess value for ∆ M V 122 Vy1 = 390. 4.7489 δy1 = 8. 1 4π B . DEFLECTIONS Vy1 .01263 δy2 = 0.kI 0. c . UNBALANCED MOMENT CAPACITY Mu 4.831 ∆ c .3.c B 2 c 2 EI 2 B c B f´´y ) .kI 0.kI δt1 = 3.555 ∆ c .74398 10 3 4.90776 10 δy1 = 8.82889 0.2 Deflection due to load V V < Vy1 2 δV V . 4π δy1 δy1 B .kI ∆ c .195 ∆ c .3 Tension in top reinforcement of slab Fictitious slab deflections δt along circle c due to column rotation ∆c ( δε δV 2 ∆ M ) ∆ c = 0.61596 10 δt4 = 9.50628 10 δt3 = 8.

03818 ry = 0.00855 Mt = 69.195 Rt1 0.5 c = 0.58189 10 δV.92956 Rt2 = 167.ry c . c 2 ln 2 r 8π ry 2 B 2 2 B c 2 4r 2 ( f´´v f´´y ) . Vy1 V δy1 δy1 δt3 .90084 ( 0. c 16 Rt = 97. EI d r V Rt4 = 302.75548 10 δb3 = 6.555 Rt2 4.0745 Rt2 δt2 .7886 Shear force Rt and unbalanced moment Mt Rt Mt ( Rt1 Rt2 Rt3 Rt4) . B .195 ∆ c 0. Vy1 V Rt1 δy1 Rt1 = 44.5 c Rt4 Vy2 . . 1 8 0.4 Tension in bottom reinforcement of slab δb1 δb2 δb3 δb4 δV ∆ M δV ∆ M δV ∆ M δV ∆ M 0. ry ) 0. EI 2 ry δt4 δy1 f´´v ry B c B f´´y ) . my . 2 2 f´´v = 0.831 ∆ c ∆c δb1 = 1.35529 0. . .49032 10 4 3 3 3 3 δb2 = 3. 2r B.9 Find( f´´v .27575 Rt3 = 261.14949 10 112 . c 2 ln 2 ry 8π ( f´´v 2 f´´y ry c 2 B 2 2 2 B c 2 4 ry 2 ( f´´v f´´y ) . my 2 Vy1 . 1 kI kI = 1.555 ∆ c 0.74894 10 δb4 = 8.831 Rt3 Rt4) .Reactions Rt at deflections δt δt1 . Vy1 V Rt3 Guess f´´v Given my Vy1 .

17256 Rbmax Rb1 V Rb2 ρc .Rb3 Rb4) .195 Rb1 0.4322 4.98634 V = 122 etest =0.5 Unbalanced moment capacity Mu Mu e Mt Mu V Mb Mu = 120.22909 10 θu = 0. Vy2 ρ Rb3 8 Rb4 Rb Rb = 76. ρ . ρc .kI ρ Rb4 = 199. δV 1 Rb1 = 81.33304 e = 0.33081 Mb ( 0.831.33081 Equilibrium check Rb Rb Rt = 20. c 16 Mb = 50.02136 θ2 = 4.Vy1.Vy1. Vy1 δy1 = 0.555 Rb2 0.Vy1.67774 Rt ∆M .kI ρ Rb2 = 149. δV .21922 δb3 Rb3 V 1 δy1 kI kI .66356 Shear force Rb and unbalanced moment Mb Rb = 76.6 10 4 3 2 ∆M 113 .kI ρ δy1 1 δy1 kI .984 θ1 θ2 θu δM 2 . c ln 3 B π . ρc .02559 δM = 9. δV .Ec. 10 c 3 θ1 = 0. δV kI . ∆c kI c B 12 Mu .δb1 Rb1 V kI .Vy1.h θ1 θ2 1 B . ρc .kI ρ Rb3 = 180.63038 Rbmax = 292.48547 δb4 Rb4 V 1 δy1 kI kI .31145 δb2 Rb2 V kI .

EI c 12.01947 Mu 1 2 π . 1 kI c B 2 .39621 Mumax2 = 174. ln B π . c Vy2 V .103 Mumax5 = 221.a .h 3 . 1 ρc ρ Mumax4 = 153.15 0. 4 ρ Mumax3 = 131. 10 c 3 θ2a = 4.my .5.42193 θ2a 12 Mumax3.kI. π .h θ1b θ2a 3 ln c B 1 B .h 1 3 B c Mu = 726.10 3 θ1a = 0. Mumax3 ρc . δε . c 4 1 B c .83296 Mumax2 ( Vy2 V) . δε . 4 Mumax1 = 139.Ec.02409 114 .15531 1 Mumax5 h 3 fc .Ec.62077 10 3 θu θu = 0.47765 Mumax4 π. δε .01847 θ1b θ1b = 0. 4 2 0. Vy1 δy1 c 4 c V .6 Simplified approach θ1a 2 . 1 kI c B V Vε δV δε θu .4.09793 Mumax1 kI.

- Base Plate.xls
- Pushove RC Column
- Ultimate Strenth of Laterly Laoded Columns
- Structural Failure through Sliding].pdf
- 6.2 Design of Flat Plates for Shear
- ENG2002 Test 2 2013 Solutions
- DUCTILITY, STRENGTH AND STABILITY OF CONCRETEFILLED.pdf
- SG Rule of Thumb for RC Design
- Hognestad-A Study of Combined Bending and Axial Load in Reinforced Concrete Members
- CCEER10_01
- An Experimental Behaviour of Concrete-filled Steel
- Reinforced Concrete Design BS 8110
- sputo1991
- Job#3
- bzdawka_composite_column_calculation_examples.pdf
- 1 Stress Strain SM
- Russian Code STAAD
- Design of Sloping Rc Building Using Staad
- Ejemplo Calculo Puente Acero AASHTO LRFD
- CFD-HK-CP-04
- Slab
- Csi_sap2000_concrete Frame Design Tutorial
- buckling of coloumn
- CEB FIP2010 Punching
- CFD-HK-CP-04
- Supplemenatry Calculations for 750x750 Column Near Pool Area
- Buckling instability of structures
- 0020
- CFD-BS-8110-97
- CFD-BS-8110-97.pdf

- Shear Strength in Various Codes
- Theoretical Analysis of the Flexural Strength Unbonded Tendons
- CENG440_Spr2008_Syllabus
- yield line des8ign.pdf
- Shear in Slabs and Beams
- Behavior of Beams and Punching in Slabs without Shear Reinforcement
- Summar Paper 311
- Exploring Proative Behavior
- Muhller Breslau Principle.pdf
- ANALYSIS OF UNDETERMINED PRESTRESSED SLAB WITH VARYING THICKNESS USING UNBONDED TENDONS.pdf
- Background to the Model Code 2010 Shear Provisions - Part II Punching Shear
- Problems
- statics_13esi_solutions-manual_c01-180896.pdf
- Statics 13esi Solutions-manual c01-180896
- Chapter 1
- Good Practice Guidance - Sustainable Design and Construction
- 233583487-Pec-Oba-manual-2014
- 233583487-Pec-Oba-manual-2014
- Good Practice Guidance - Sustainable Design and Construction
- Paper 311
- Acee 2008-1 Ce P_paczkowski A_s_nowak
- menetrey
- Analysis of Undetermined Prestressed Slab With Varying Thickness Using Unbonded Tendons
- Mechanism of Shear Transfer
- 06 Muttoni Fernandez
- 233583487-Pec-Oba-manual-2014
- Holy_Quran_Full.pdf
- 052_taplin Austroads04
- Intro Physics 1
- Good_Practice_Guidance_-_Sustainable_Design_and_Construction.pdf

Sign up to vote on this title

UsefulNot usefulClose Dialog## Are you sure?

This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?

Loading