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

# Cover figure

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

ductility. Punching at one column may even initiate punching at adjacent columns as well. In compact slabs such as column footings the compression strength of the inclined strut from the load to the column is governing instead. A novel reinforcement concept is therefore presented that gives flat plates a very ductile behaviour. cyclic loading. 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. Since the theory can predict the punching load as well as the ultimate deflection of test specimens with good precision. The failure is brittle and occurs without warning in the form of extensive concrete cracking and increased deflection.Abstract Simple but still realistic physical models suitable for structural design of flat concrete plates and column footings with respect to punching are presented. flat concrete plates. tests .e. Due respect is also paid to increasing concrete brittleness with increasing compression strength. punching shear. Keywords: bent-down bars. shear reinforcement. 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. size effect. This opens up for a safer design than with the prevailing method. The performance is verified by tests with monotonic as well as cyclic loading. story drift. which eliminates the risk for punching failure. earthquake. so called unbalanced moment. it can also treat the case where a bending moment. the risk for punching failure is a great disadvantage with flat plates. structural design. punching shall be checked for each of the two reinforcement directions separately if the bending moments differ. However. i. is transferred from the slab to the column.0035 for oneway structures loaded in bending. 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. the limit values decrease with increasing depth of the compression zone in the slab. building codes. stirrups. models. Both the strain limit and the inclined stress limit display a size-effect. As a consequence. deflection. stud rails. which would cause progressive collapse of the total structure.

.

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. The failure modes were brittle despite that the nominal shear capacity of the specimens exceeded the flexural capacity. The author therefore initiated a test program with different types of shear reinforcement. Dr. National Building Research Institute of Romania. The tests described in Paper II were carried out in the Department of Structural Engineering at the Royal Institute of Technology (KTH). February 2005 Carl Erik Broms i . Stockholm. The tests aimed at achieving flat plates with increased ductility. This resulted in a new stirrup cage design. In search for an explanation to this disappointing outcome. displayed an increased punching capacity in relation to previously tested slabs by Kinnunen and Nylander (1960). the tests of which are described in Papers III and IV. Stockholm. but the failure mode was not ductile enough to constitute a safe structure if overloaded. In the late 1990’s he pointed out that the stirrup cages should be improved to facilitate fabrication and erection. 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. who proposed that the above findings should be summarized into a thesis. the punching theory (Paper I) was developed. KTH. Kent Arvidsson at WSP Sweden AB has supported my endeavours throughout the project. 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. Many thanks to Professor Håkan Sundquist. My deepest gratitude is therefore directed to my wife Kerstin for her invaluable support and patience during these years. Specimens with shear reinforcement tested by Andersson (1963) at the Royal Institute of Technology. which turned out to be very successful (Paper II).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. 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. All these contributions are gratefully acknowledged. but they were not successful.

ii .

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

......................................................................................... (Yield punching) ….......... 83 Conclusions and summary ........................……………............................................................3 4...........3 4........ 79 Earthquake simulation .................................................................................................. 73 4....2 4................................................……….......................4..... 65 Bending moments in a continuous flat plate........ ………….5 3..............................................…………………………....... 65 Design of midspan reinforcement .................................................4...... 89 Appendix A........... MC 90................ …………………………………........104 Appendix E...............................................................................................................................................................…95 Appendix B.................................. 47 3....... 47 Approximate theory of elasticity..............................98 Appendix C........109 Appended Papers I ...………………....................... surface load............ 73 Code comparison............ 85 References .......................................................................................……………… ……………..................4....................................... 72 Model Code 1990..............1 4..1 3.....................................3 3............................ Punching of flat plate....................... ACI 318-02... 69 Comparison with Codes ......................................5 5 6 7 8 Reinforcement for ductility ... Punching of flat plate............................... Punching of column footing.. 71 Swedish Handbook for Concrete Structures .................2...........4.6 Code approach.....2 3.........................................................4................................................... 72 Building Code Requirements for Structural Concrete.... ……………………………….......... 47 Introduction......... 51 Comparison with test results .................................. 101 Appendix D...4 3 Code predictions ..........107 Appendix F.................................................. Flat plate with shear reinforcement..............................4 Design of support reinforcement at square panels .....2 4....... 43 Theory for eccentric punching......... 58 Column rotation capacity ............................. BBK 04 ..... 62 4 Design ....4 4..................... Punching of column footing......................4 3.......... 65 4.IV Notations iv ....................................................... 71 Swedish Code for Concrete Structures....................................................................... (No yield punching)…............1 4.................................................... Unbalanced moment loading.................... ……………………………...........5................................................ 48 Model for eccentric punching of flat plates .................................. line load............

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 .0010 Ec15 secant E-modulus of concrete up to the strain 0. 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 0.0015 (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.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.

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. 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. kI = ⎜ 1 ⎟ ⎝ EI ⎠ 1 vi .

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 .

ix . The flexural compression strain in the slab is a function of the bending moment. Simple expressions are therefore derived for required amount of midspan reinforcement in balance with the reinforcement at the column. which means a slab without drop panels that is supported on columns without capitals. the compression strength of the internal column capital is assumed to decrease with its increasing height.e. The strain mechanism governs for flat plates and the compression strength of the internal capital is governing for compact slabs like column footings. The compression strength is furthermore assumed to decrease with increasing perimeter of the capital in relation to its height. 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. Similar approach is applied for flat plates provided with conventional shear reinforcement. The punching capacity shall therefore be verified for both reinforcement directions separately. which in turn means that the midspan curvature of the slab is limited as well. 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. If the panels are rectangular.0035 accepted by most concrete design codes as a safe limit in bending – irrespective of the member size.0012. The American notation flat plate is adopted. This strain is assumed to display similar size effect as the limiting strain without shear reinforcement. Too little midspan reinforcement would then adversely affect the punching capacity. The critical value for compression strain is assumed to display a size-effect. which is considerably less than the value 0. The upper bound capacity is governed by an increased critical tangential strain near the column. With slab thickness 200 mm the critical concrete strain becomes round 0. then the bending moment in the long direction of a panel increases in relation to the column load. the strain limit decreases with increasing depth of the compression zone at flexure. i. Likewise. 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. 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. The basic model is valid for concentrically loaded columns in a flat plate with square panels. The limited flexural compression strain means that the curvature of the slab near the column is limited at the punching failure.

i. as well as other tests reported in the literature. The stirrups were fabricated from welded deformed wire fabric. In a second test series. Still larger unbalanced moments are transferred due to story drift during earthquakes.e. However. The story drift capacity is namely drastically reduced with increasing flexural reinforcement ratio. 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. They enclosed the compression bottom reinforcement of the slab but did not enclose the tension top reinforcement. brittle failures occurred. The punching capacity of the slab decreases in presence of such unbalanced moment. These tests. x . This rotation can be estimated with better precision than the unbalanced moment. which is confirmed by comparison with test results. The bent bars were introduced to preclude the failure mode with a steep crack at the column. 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.e. A punching failure at one column will result in increased curvature of the slab at surrounding columns. Here it is demonstrated that the reinforcement ratio is an equally important – or even more important – factor. the unbalanced moment is usually a statically indeterminate quantity that cannot be assessed as accurately as for a beam-column frame.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. 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. the column reaction in relation to the nominal punching capacity at concentric loading. irrespective of the rotation being caused by gravity loading or story drift. i. Most concrete design codes have therefore provisions for this loading type. It was found that punching failure could occur due to a steep crack around the column leaving such shear reinforcement elements ineffective. which implies that punching most probably will occur at these columns as well. 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. due to lateral displacement difference from one story to the next. different types of shear reinforcement were tested in the late 1980’s. A safer method is therefore proposed – rotation capacity of the slab in relation to the column. The first test series comprised different types of stirrups that were anchored around the top tension reinforcement in agreement with code provisions. 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. 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. which may result in progressive collapse of the entire structure. a combination of bent bars and stirrups was tested.

The stirrup design was later improved to rationalize fabrication and erection. No consideration to unbalanced moment was taken when designing the 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. All reinforcement is placed in a non-interlocking manner. xi . which means that the stirrups enclose neither the bottom nor the top flexural reinforcement in the slab. Test specimens with this reinforcement system behaved in the same ductile manner as the previous specimens with stirrups enclosing the bottom flexural reinforcement. As could be expected. two pilot tests simulating a severe earthquake are presented. The system is denoted “ductility reinforcement” and is patented in USA and Sweden.

xii .

Den övre gränsen för betongens tangentiella stukning vid pelaren antas motsvara den stukning då mikrosprickor i betongen utvecklas till makrosprickor. 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. Enkel formsättning. 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. De amerikanska försöken visade att den nya typen av pelardäck visserligen var känslig för en brottyp runt pelaren som liknade ett vanligt skjuvbrott. Nomenklaturen ”flat plate” har därför använts i denna avhandling.Sammanfattning Denna avhandling är en sammanfattning och vidareutveckling av fyra uppsatser om pelardäck (Papers I-IV) publicerade under åren 1990 till 2005. Den förenklade och förbättrade modell för genomstansning av centriskt belastade pelare som beskrivs i denna avhandling är utvecklad från ovannämnda modell. 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. dvs. Enkla jämvikts. 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. men utnyttjar i princip endast de materialegenskaper som av hävd används vid dimensionering av betongkonstruktioner.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. I Sverige kallas brottypen ”genomstansning” (engelska punching). Kinnunens och Nylanders dimensioneringsregler antogs av dåvarande Statens Betongkommitté som utfärdade ”Provisoriska bestämmelser för genomstansning”. Den teoretiska modell som lanserades i Paper I har stora likheter med Kinnunens och Nylanders mekaniska modell från 1960. men att högre nominella skjuvspänningar kunde tillåtas för sådana pelardäck än för plattor upplagda på väggar eller balkar. alltifrån små försöksplattor till fullskaleprov. Gränsvärdet antas vara storleksberoende och beroende av betongens sprödhet. Plattans tryckzonshöjd används därvid som jämförelseparameter för storleken och sprödheten antas öka med ökad betonghållfasthet. betongens och armeringens arbetskurvor som ger sambandet mellan töjning och påkänning. Ett bjälklag utan balkar upplagt på pelare benämns ”pelardäck”. K1(1964). xiii . 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.

Vid normala pelardäck blir enligt modellen gränsvärdet för betongstukningen avgörande för bärförmågan med hänsyn till genomstansning.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. Den kritiska betongstukningen εcpu sätter därvid även här en gräns för möjlig tillskottsdeformation. Elasticitetsteorins momentfördelning gäller då inte längre när armeringen intill pelaren börjar flyta.150 ⎞ 3 ⋅⎜ ⎟ ⎝ x ⎠ 1 (a) där x är plattans tryckzonshöjd uttryckt i (m) och 0. 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.150 är diametern av en standardcylinder för mätning av betongens tryckhållfasthet.150 ⎞ 3 ε cpu = 0. Om böjarmeringshalten är hög nås den kritiska betongstukningen innan böjarmeringen flyter i pelardäcket.0012. vilket är betydligt lägre än det vedertagna värdet 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.1 1 (b) Vid normala armeringshalter uppnår dock armeringen närmast pelaren flytgränsen innan genomstansning sker. xiv .0010 ⎜ ⎜f ⎟ ⎟ ⎝ cc ⎠ 0. Gränsvärdet antas vara beroende av plattans storlek och betongens ökande sprödhet med ökad hållfasthet enligt formeln ε cpu ⎛ 25 ⎞ = 0. Vid plattjockleken 200 mm blir gränsvärdet ca 0.1 ⎛ 0.

Det medför att en större andel av böjarmeringen når sträckgränsen innan genomstansning sker. Det medför. Om armeringsmängden i fält då är för liten. varvid brottlasten ökar.3 (e) Kritisk pelarreaktion och tillhörande nedböjning erhålls sedan ur enkla jämviktssamband. Vid mycket stora pelare i förhållande till plattans tryckzonshöjd antas f ⎞ ⎛ kapitälets tryckhållfasthet vara 0. Ju större kapitälets omkrets är i förhållande till tryckzonens höjd. Om pelardäcket förses med skjuvarmering tål plattan större tangentiell stukning vid pelaren. Det visas att genomstansningsbrott vid konventionellt utformad skjuvarmering uppkommer då stukningen når gränsvärdet 0. xv . Enligt den lanserade teorin sker alltså genomstansning då plattans krökningskapacitet vid pelarupplaget överskrids. eftersom spänningstillståndet då alltmer övergår från tvådimensionellt till plant. Gränsvärdet antas vara storleksberoende på samma sätt som gränsvärdet för icke skjuvarmerad platta.150 0.0015. (a) och jämviktssamband kan gränsvärdet för betongstukningen om armeringen flyter härledas till ε cpu = 10 −6 E c 0. (a). Vid mycket små pelare i förhållande till ⎝ 250 ⎠ tryckzonshöjden antas tryckhållfastheten öka till 1. 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 0.150 10 3 ⋅ ⋅ f sy 2d ρ ⎛ 25 ⎞ ⋅⎜ ⎜f ⎟ ⎟ ⎝ cc ⎠ 0. såsom tidigare påpekats av Kinnunen och Nylander (1960). desto lägre antas tryckhållfastheten vara. En ny modell för kompakta konstruktioner presenteras. Dessutom antas dessa hållfastheter vara storleksberoende på motsvarande sätt som stukningen enligt ekv. Även i detta fall begränsas bärförmågan av betongstukningen i tangentiell led intill pelaren.3 (c) där d är plattans effektiva höjd i (m).2fcc.Ur ekv. så att momentjämvikten inte uppfylls. Tryckhållfastheten antas variera med kapitälets slankhet uttryckt som kvoten mellan kapitälets omkrets och plattans tryckzonshöjd.6 f cc ⎜1 − cc ⎟ . ökar krökningen vid pelaren och genomstansning inträffar. Därför härleds enkla uttryck för kontroll att fältarmeringen i ett pelardäck harmonierar med den fordrade stödarmeringen. där tryckhållfastheten i ett fiktivt pelarkapitäl inne i plattan avgör bärförmågan. att krökningen i fält också är begränsad.0010 3 = 2 ⋅ ⋅ ρ2 f sy 4d 2 ⎛ 25 ⎞ ⋅⎜ ⎜f ⎟ ⎟ ⎝ cc ⎠ 0.

Vidare behandlas storlekseffekten (avtagande nominell skjuvhållfasthet med ökad plattjocklek) på ett mer nyanserat sätt. 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. bör ett pelardäck med rektangulära plattfält ha lägre genomstansningskapacitet vid given armeringsmängd än ett däck med kvadratiska plattfält. Modellerna i denna avhandling visas ge nära identisk dimensionerande bärförmåga som funktion av armeringshalt. Metoden kallas i fortsättningen Betonghandboks-metoden.8. 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. Eftersom betongstukningen (som är avgörande för bärförmågan i ett pelardäck) beror av böjmomentet.De förenklade och förbättrade modellerna visar sig kunna förutsäga försöksresultat för både slanka pelardäck och kompakta pelarsulor med ännu bättre precision än ursprungsmodellen.5 = 1. Inte bara bärförmågan utan även deformationen och den maximala betongstukningen kan beräknas med god noggrannhet. eftersom de strikt gäller för beräkning av den verkliga brottlasten. Vid låga armeringshalter. men har genom vissa approximationer förenklats och anpassats till nuvarande sätt att kontrollera en konstruktions bärförmåga i brottgränstillståndet. Därför ges regler ges för hur dimensionerande böjmoment bör beräknas i ett pelardäck med varierande spännvidder och/eller rektangulära plattfält. Till skillnad från Model Code 90 beaktas även konstruktionens slankhet. Kontroll mot försöksresultat visar att Betonghandboks-metoden inte kan förutsäga genomstansningslasten bättre än rent empiriska metoder. 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. Detta kan ses som en god verifiering av teorins tillförlitlighet. Slutligen ges regler för hur modellerna skall användas vid dimensionering med hänsyn till genomstansning.2·1.7 %. Om plattfälten är rektangulära ökar böjmomentet per breddenhet i den långa spännviddens riktning som funktion av pelarlasten jämfört med ett pelardäck med kvadratiska plattfält. eftersom Model Code 90 bygger på statistisk bearbetning av en stor mängd försöksresultat. vilket har betydelse framför allt för kompakta konstruktioner såsom pelarsulor. Bärförmågan får dock alternativt beräknas enligt (Nylander & Kinnunens) ”mer nyanserade” metod återgiven i Betonghandboken-Konstruktion (1990). I jämförelse med andra dimensioneringsregler – inklusive teorin som beskrivs i denna avhandling – överskattar Betonghandboks-metoden bärförmågan vid armeringshalter större än cirka 0. betonghållfasthet och kvoten B/d som Model Code 90. Den bygger på den ursprungliga mekaniska modellen från 1960. Dimensionerande bärförmåga i brottgränstillståndet fås därefter genom att dividera beräknad brottlast med partialkoefficienten för betong i säkerhetsklass 3: γ = 1. Modellernas ekvationer gäller i sin grundform för centriskt belastade innerpelare i ett pelardäck med kvadratiska plattfält. Vid beräkning av dimensionerande bärförmåga vid given armering beräknas därför först brottlasten med de karakteristiska värdena på betongens tryckhållfasthet och armeringens sträckgräns som ingångsparametrar.

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

Denna armeringsutformning visade sig ge den eftersträvade egenskapen – ett segt (duktilt) brottbeteende utan tendens till genomstansning.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. vilket normalt innebär en armeringsbesparing om ca 10 %. Referensplattor med enbart nedbockad böjarmering utan kompletterande byglar uppvisade ett tämligen sprött brott utan nämnvärd förhöjning av lasten i förhållande till plattor utan skjuvarmering. innebär att det alltid är ekonomiskt fördelaktigt att förse pelardäck med den nya typ av armering som redovisas i denna avhandling. De omslöt underkantsarmeringen men inte överkantsarmeringen. xviii . Den nedbockade böjarmeringen avsågs förhindra den ovan beskrivna brottypen intill pelaren. I Paper III redovisas försök med den armerings-utformningen som gav provplattorna samma sega brottbeteende som de tidigare provade plattorna med byglar omslutande underkantsarmeringen. 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. Konstruktioner som uppvisar ett segt brottbeteende får dimensioneras i säkerhetsklass 2. En förenklad bygelarmering i form av förtillverkade korgar av armeringsnät har därefter utvecklats för att rationalisera tillverkning och montering. Pelardäck i flervåningsbyggnader skall dimensioneras i säkerhetsklass 3. eftersom sprött brott kan befaras vid en eventuell överbelastning. Bygelkorgarna omsluter varken överkants. som var förankrade runt överkantsarmeringen i överensstämmelse med gällande normer. 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. I en andra försöksomgång provades nedbockad böjarmering i kombination med byglar.eller underkantsarmeringen och armeringsutformningen ”ductility reinforcement” är patenterad i Sverige och USA. Försöksresultaten redovisas i Paper II. Slutligen redovisas i Paper IV jordbävningssimulering av pelardäck med den patenterade armeringen. En säkrare konstruktion fås till en lägre kostnad än för ett konventionellt utformat pelardäck. i kombination med att stödarmeringen över pelarna inte behöver dimensioneras med hänsyn till genomstansning. 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. Detta. Byglarna var utformade som korgar tillverkade av armeringsnät. I en första försöksserie provades olika former av byglar. Försöken bekräftade att pelardäck med ”ductility reinforcement” kan motstå även mycket svåra jordbävningar utan att kollapsa.

and column dimension 1 . does not give the designer any indication of the limited rotation capacity of the slab at punching. or drop panels. 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. Despite this shortcoming. which renders formwork construction very simple. 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. column capitals. 1. a simplified version of their original model is still used in Sweden for punching design of flat plates. It has no beams. but none has succeeded so far – with one exception. 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.1 Literature survey Flat plates seem to have first been constructed in USA in the late 1940’s. the flat plate is at disadvantage in comparison to two-way slabs supported by beams or walls. They concluded. for instance. to do so with shear reinforcement may be impractical…. concrete strength. 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 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 design provisions have generally resulted in safe structures in the standard cases that are covered by test results. size of column (250 mm and 300 mm). They therefore tested 39 flat plate specimens with the dimensions 6 x 6 ft and thickness 6 in. They concluded: “Even though it would be desirable to fully develop the flexural capacity of relatively thin slabs supported on slender columns. On the other hand. It is thereby acknowledged and accepted that this method does not reflect the true failure mechanism. Consequently. The method.7 percent). Anyway. Neither compression reinforcement nor concentrated tension reinforcement over the column increased the load capacity. 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. percentage of tension reinforcement (0. 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. percentage of compression reinforcement. Talbot (1913) and Richart (1948). because of the risk of brittle punching failure at the slab-column connection. 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. Some researchers have attempted to do it. “The shearing strength of slabs is a function of concrete strength as well as several other variables”. The major variables in the tests were concrete strength (14 MPa to 50 MPa). Slab thickness. This subject therefore still attracts attention by code writers and researchers.5 to 3.

They also tested beam strips with the same thickness and span width as the tested slabs. that only a small amount of shear reinforcement. according to their model. effect of special types of shear reinforcement. One year before Moe published his report Kinnunen and Nylander (1960) published their mechanical model for the punching failure of flat plates. They introduced a completely new approach by studying the sector elements between the radial flexural cracks in the test specimens. 2 . Later research has been devoted to expand the validity borders for these tests. may be due to bond slip of these too large bars in relation to the slab dimensions. These critical values were calibrated against their own tests and the tests by Elstner and Hognestad (1956). effect of concentration of the tensile reinforcement in narrow bands across the column. which resulted in the report Moe (1961). is needed in thin slabs. 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. when the tangential compression strain and the radial inclined compression stress in the slab near the column simultaneously reach critical values.” During the years 1957-1959. No test report seems to have had larger impact on punching design than Moe (1961). effect of column size. The proposed design provisions for holes in the slab and for eccentric loading are still considered appropriate by many building codes. 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. current building codes such as Model Code 90 can predict the punching capacity with better precision. Furthermore. He introduced the concept of “eccentricity of shear”. Throughout the tests. As already mentioned.should therefore probably be so chosen in design. Principal variables were effect of holes for utilities near the column. One explanation to their finding that concentration of reinforcement over the columns was not advantageous. Johannes Moe visited USA and the Portland Cement Association where he under the guidance of E. but this does not belittle their contribution to the understanding of the punching phenomenon.” This opinion seems to have had a great influence on the development during the years to come. which is an extremely large dimension in slabs with 150-mm thickness and 1. but rather the opposite. These three reports laid the foundation for a successful development of flat plate structures all over the world. Hognestad carried out a large test series on flat plate specimens. One slab was tested under sustained load. 25-mm or 20-mm reinforcement bars were used.8-m span width. Punching occurs. if any at all. The test series comprised 43 slabs of the same size as used by Elstner and Hognestad. 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. and effect of eccentric loading.

Finally. V. Broms. i. C. ACI Structural Journal. pp. whereas the other tests were intended to simulate large eccentricities due to story drift during an earthquake. pp.E. C. More compact structures such as column footings have been studied by Dieterle (1978). Marzouk and Hussein (1991). 1976). No. Tolf (1988) demonstrated that a considerable size effect exists. Ghali et al (1974.Narasimhan (1971).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. 6. Dieterle and Rostasy (1981). Hallgren. 696-705. Kinnunen and Nylander (1983. In this way the basic integrity requirement for a structure will be fulfilled. 1.e. 1998) and Sundquist and Kinnunen (2004). The tests by Moe may represent the modest eccentricities that will occur due to gravity loading. presumably in the light of test evidence. 87. their proposed model has not been commonly accepted. Another aim is to present an improved but still easy-to-install reinforcement detailing that eliminates the brittle punching failure mode of flat plates. All research mentioned above was devoted to slender flat plates. The issues have been treated in the following papers that form part of this thesis: Paper I: Broms. Pan and Moehle (1989). 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. V. However. 3. (1990a). which means that the formal shear stress at punching decreases with increasing specimen size. 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. 292-304. 3 Paper II: . “Shear Reinforcement for Deflection Ductility of Flat Plates”.E. Hawkins et al (1989) made tests on specimens with much larger column load eccentricities than those tested by Moe (1961). a structure shall be designed so that a local failure due to overloading shall not result in progressive collapse of the building. 87. No. This seems to be overlooked as regards flat plates by some code writers and many designers. Islam and Park (1976). ACI Structural Journal. (1990b). Only Park and Islam (1976) presented a different design proposal than the “eccentricity of shear” method. 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. “Punching of Flat Plates – A Question of Concrete Properties in Biaxial Compression and Size Effect”.

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

the concrete strain due to the bending moment is so low at punching that the concrete usually behaves elastically: σ c = Ec ⋅ ε c (2.10). F s εs d m F c x σc εc Figure 2-1 Depth x of compression zone.2 Theory for concentric punching The basic principles are described in Paper I.1 General The reinforcement is assumed to be ideally elastic-plastic with the yield strain ε sy = f sy Es (2.1) The modulus of elasticity for reinforcement bars is taken as Es = 200 GPa. the compression zone depth at flexure is computed by combining the strain compatibility and force equilibrium conditions. As will be shown in the following. to the strain 0.3) The concrete secant modulus of elasticity. 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.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. see Figure 2-1. Ec10. (2. Eq.0010 is defined later in this chapter. but the theory is here improved and simplified. 2. As long as the reinforcement does not yield. 5 .

The model depicted in Figure 2-2 may simulate this zone. similar to the conical shell originally proposed by Kinnunen and Nylander (1960). 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. and (2.5). where the load from the flat plate is transferred to the column via a column capital within the slab.7) (2.6) Combine Eqs.9) where f ′′ is the curvature of the slab due to the bending moment m. m . 6 . is computed by the expression x ⎞ ⎛ m = ρσ s d 2 ⎜1 − ⎟ ⎝ 3d ⎠ (2.4) ρ dEs ⋅ ε s = E c10 ⋅ ε c ⋅ Es =n Ec10 x 2 (force equilibrium) (2.εc x = εs d−x (strain compatibility) (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. the slab is nevertheless stable and can be unloaded and reloaded without any decrease of the ultimate load. The punching failure occurs instead when the compression zone with height x adjacent to the column collapses.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.8) Extensive flexural cracking will always occur near the column at ultimate loading. Although these cracks can surround the column. Regan and Braestrup (1985). In a flat plate. inclined cracks near the column usually form at a load level of less than 70 % of the ultimate load.5) (2. (2. (2.4).

x V internal column capital Figure 2-2 Transfer of load V to column from the flat plate. 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. Then. The support reaction is concentrated to the edge of the column due to the global curvature of the slab. 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 Punching capacity Vε Failure occurs when the tangential compression strain in the slab at the column edge reaches a critical value. These failure modes are analyzed in detail in the following. which is a prerequisite for the following possible scenario. The corresponding punching capacities are denoted Vσ and Vε respectively. 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. 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. 7 .1 Basic assumption The failure mode is illustrated in Figure 2-3. 2. At loads near the ultimate capacity. 2. 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. In contrast to one-way structures. Once this happens. when the flexural tangential strain in the bottom of the slab reaches a critical value. the bending moment capacity in a flat plate can be maintained even if the radial flexural compression stress at the support approaches zero. 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.

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. x fc c Figure 2-3 Failure mode Vε . k= Ec0 ⋅ ε c1 f cc η1 = εc .0010 it is evident that the almost linearly elastic behaviour of the concrete at low strains starts to change – the concrete “softens”.3 ε c1 = 0. The stress-strain relation is taken from High performance concrete structures (1998): 0. 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. ε c1 2 kη1 − η1 for ε c ≤ ε c1 1 + (k − 2 )η1 σ c = f cc ⋅ At a strain exceeding approximately 0. Punching failure of a flat plate is therefore assumed to occur when the tangential concrete strain due to 8 . This seems to confirm the scenario described above.0007 ⋅ f cc . 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. Study the stress-strain diagram for concrete with the compression strength 25 MPa according to Figure 2-4.

0020 0 ε (2. 1 fc 30 MPa Ec0 ⎛ f ⎞3 = 21500⎜ ck ⎟ ⎝ 10 ⎠ 25 20 15 10 Ec10 5 0. At low concrete grades there is a curved relation between strain and stress already at strains below 0.the bending moment reaches this critical value adjacent to the column.6⎜1 − ck ⎟ ⎟ ⋅ E c0 ⎜ ⎝ 150 ⎠ ⎟ ⎝ ⎠ 0.0000 (MPa) 0. The concrete behaves more linearly elastic with increasing concrete grades. (2. see Figure 2-9. which is approximately taken into account by putting the secant modulus Ec10 to the strain 0.0010 equal to 4 ⎛ f ⎞ ⎞ ⎛ E c10 = ⎜1 − 0. it is important to estimate the stress-strain relation in the compression zone at flexure correctly. 9 .0010 Figure 2-4 Assumed stress-strain curve for concrete strength fcc =25 MPa. It is further assumed that this critical strain level decreases with increasing concrete strength because high strength concretes are more brittle.0010 as indicated in Figure 2-4.10) with Ec0 according to Eq. In the subsequent equations.3).

7 2 1 ( = Eq.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 0.030 ⎪0. ⎛ 0.e.25 1 (2. 10 . This means that the E-modulus is assumed to be a concrete property that displays no size effect. i.13) In the absence of experimental data Model Code 90 recommends the following relations for Ec0.15) ⎛f ⎞ GF = GF0 ⋅ ⎜ cc ⎟ ⎝ 10 ⎠ ⎧0.2. (2.038 ⎩ [MPa·mm] ⎧8 ⎪ for maximum aggregate size d a = ⎨16 ⎪32 ⎩ (2. it has the same value irrespective of specimen size.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. fct and GF : E c0 ⎛ f ⎞3 = 21500⎜ cc ⎟ [MPa] ⎝ 10 ⎠ ⎛ f ⎞3 = 1.16) where GF0 [MPa·mm] [mm].15 ⎞ 3 ⎟ is assumed to affect both strain and stress of the concrete in the The size effect factor ⎜ ⎜ x pu ⎟ ⎝ ⎠ same manner.3)) (2.14) f ct (2.025 ⎪ = ⎨0.1 ε cpu ⎛ 25 ⎞ = 0.2.0010 ⎜ ⎜f ⎟ ⎟ ⎝ cc ⎠ ⎛ 0.12) with the characteristic length lch = E c0 ⋅ GF 2 f ct (2. Hillerborg et al (1976) developed the Fictitious Crack Model to explain the size effect for brittle failures in concrete structures caused by tensile strains. 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 ⎠ −0.15 ⎞ 3 ⎟ ⋅⎜ ⎜ x pu ⎟ ⎝ ⎠ 1 (2.4⎜ ck ⎟ [MPa] ⎝ 10 ⎠ 0.

This demonstrates that tests have to be performed with realistically scaled reinforcement bars whenever reinforcement bond might be of concern for the structural behaviour.12) it is thus evident that the maximum aggregate size has limited effect on the formal shear strength of beams.0 for large compression zone depths.25 ⎛f ⎞ ⋅ ⎜ cc ⎟ ⎝ 10 ⎠ −0.3 [mm] (2. 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. the beams displayed no size effect. 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 better anchoring bond with many small bars instead of few large bars decreased the anchoring slip sufficiently to eliminate the size effect. 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 0. (2. The exponent decreases to -1. 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. (2.7 % of the strength for the smaller beam.25 = 70.15) lch = 0. the formal shear strength would be reduced to 78. Based on the test results.14) to (2.13) and replace the characteristic value of the compression strength by the recorded value fcc in Eq. If the beam depth were increased four times without simultaneous scaling of the aggregate size.5 for very small depths. In a second test series.33 when the reinforcement bars were scaled in proportion to the beam geometry.12) can now be rearranged as ⎛ d ⎞ f v = k ⋅ f ct ⋅ ⎜ ⎟ ⎜G ⎟ ⎝ F0 ⎠ −0. A doubling of the aggregate size from 16 mm to 32 mm would increase the recorded shear strength by 6. Leonhardt and Walther (1962) made tests on the shear strength size dependence for beams without shear reinforcement. (2.33 1.16) into Eq.075 (2.5 % of the strength for the smaller beam. (2.Insert Eqs. In this case.0 % and a reduction from 16 mm to 8 mm would decrease the strength by 4.18) that can be used to study the effect of maximum aggregate size.3 = 10970 ⋅ GF0 ⎛ f cc ⎞ ⎜ ⎟ ⎝ 10 ⎠ 0. 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). In this latter case. The question is. According to Eq. the formal shear strength fv would be reduced to 4-0. He found it to be proportional to the depth of the compression zone at flexure raised to the power -0.4 2 ⋅ f cc ⋅ 10 0. 11 . These values seem to be unrealistic – the size effect becomes too large. The shear strength varied approximately proportional to d −0. (2.17) Eq.7 ⋅ GF0 ⋅ f cc 21500 f cc 1.5 %.

(2. The fracture energy GF determined by the RILEM (1985) beam test and the deduced characteristic length lch according to Eq. the size effect depends on the relation between a reference size of the structure and lch according to Eq.12) for the beam shear failure.11) is a natural consequence of the hypothesis that punching occurs when the compression zone near the column collapses. The chosen exponent 1/3 in Eq. from small specimens up to beams with effective depth of at least 1000 mm. independent of the maximum aggregate size.5.11a) where A is a reference size that should be proportional to the maximum aggregate size factor GF0 according to Eq.12) for the shear strength of beams.13) characterize the relative brittleness of the concrete at tensile strains. Theoretically. Only experiments with varying specimen size will give a reliable answer. However.25 is found to be valid for a large range of beam sizes.16). (2.At very brittle failures characterized by a linear stress distribution. The absolute value of the exponent for punching should then be larger than the beam-shear exponent 0.5 – as in Eq. (2. It is interesting to note that the format of Eq.1 (2. the reference size in Eq. they do not give any indication on the exponent to be used in a fracture strength equation.e. which means that the absolute value of the exponent in the fracture strength equation should be smaller than 0.12) with the constant exponent -0. slabs with effective depth varying from 100 mm up to 600 mm. the size effect would be described by the Linear Elastic Fracture Mechanics equation for the failure strength ⎛ d ⎞ f = k ⋅⎜ ⎟ ⎜d ⎟ ⎝ 0⎠ −0. However. (2. because the fracture at punching occurs due to a small shear displacement at high biaxial compression strain. i. (2.e. (2.25. However. (2.0010 ⋅ ⎜ ⎜ x pu ⎝ ⎞3 ⎟ ⎟ ⎠ 1 ⎛ 25 ⎞ ⋅⎜ ⎟ ⎜f ⎟ ⎝ cc ⎠ 0. 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. the more non-linear stress distribution a structure displays. the smaller the absolute value of the exponent becomes – down to zero at a plastic stress distribution (= no size effect).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 choice of the compression zone depth as reference dimension for the size effect in Eq. (2. which is more realistic the larger the structure becomes. However.0010 ⋅ ⎜ ⎜l ⎝ ch ⎞ ⎟ ⎟ ⎠ − 1 3 ⎛ A = 0. i. Most concrete structures display a non-linear stress distribution for brittle fractures.17): ε cpu ⎛ x pu = 0. whereas the beam shear failure is usually associated with inclined crack growth due to tensile strains.19) where d is the actual size of the structure and d0 is a reference size.5 (2.11) is chosen to be constant. (2. because the aggregate size is seldom 12 . Eq. The punching fracture mode seems to be more brittle than the shear failure mode of beams. The upper limit 600 mm can most probably be increased because the presented theory presupposes elastic behaviour of the concrete in flexure. (2.11) for the punching failure can be derived from the same assumption as Eq.

which will be described hereafter. this circle has the radius ≈ 0.21) (2.20) (2. 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.7) and the critical strain εcpu is defined by Eq. The following equations assume either a circular or a square specimen arrangement. then both reinforcement and concrete behave elastically. Furthermore. 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. 13 .reported in the literature. 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.3 Punching at elastic conditions If punching occurs without any yield of the reinforcement (at high reinforcement ratios). Poisson's ratio of the cracked concrete slab is thereby assumed zero. The depth of the compression zone is then defined by Eq.22) 3a 16 ∵B = 3π a 8 where B = diameter of circular column and a = width of square column. 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. the resulting effect on the critical strain value would anyway be rather marginal.2. Once the critical strain εcpu is defined. (2. According to the theory of elasticity. Up to the load level when the flexural reinforcement starts to yield near the column. the theory of elasticity is assumed valid for the bending moment distribution. The column reaction is concentrated to the column perimeter as has been described above. see Figure 2-5. 2.11). where L is the span width. (2. 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. In the latter case.2 L in a flat plate with square panels.

derived from Eqs.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.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. 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).25) m2 = tangential moment at the slab edge (2.24) m1 = tangential and radial moment at column edge (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 . The following expressions are valid according to the theory of elasticity (with ν = 0) for a circular slab. where the latter is not negligible near the column.27) The theoretical deflection δ consists of bending deformation and shear deformation.26) ψ = m2 angle of inclination at the slab edge (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 (2.28) The punching capacity Vε can now be estimated as follows. The relation between the modulus of elasticity for reinforcement and concrete n= Es E c10 (2.2.31) (2.7) ε cpu = 0.0010 ⎜ ⎜ ⎛ 25 ⎝ f cc ⎞ ⎟ ⎟ ⎠ 0.25) Vε = mε 8π c B2 2ln + 1 − 2 B c (2.150 ⎞ 3 ⎟ ⋅⎜ ⎜ x pu ⎟ ⎝ ⎠ (2. Bending moment at the column edge at punching x ⎞ ⎛ mε = ρ ⋅ d 2σ s ⎜1 − ⎟ ⎝ 3d ⎠ Finally. In flat plates with rectangular panels the above equations have to be modified when checking the punching capacity.30) No iteration is thus required for determination of the punching load. see Appendix A.4.29) x If σ s turns out to be larger than the yield stress fsy . The calculation is anyhow preferably computerized. because then the alternative failure mode Vσ is checked automatically as well as the ultimate deflection δ ε.1 ⎛ 0. the punching load Vε is derived from Eq. (2.δ ≈ψ c−B 2 (2. see Section 4. then the reinforcement yields σ s = Es ⋅ ε cpu ⋅ before punching occurs and the calculation is performed according to Section 2. 15 .2.11) Reinforcement stress at the column edge at punching d−x (2.

(2.150 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.150 ⎞ 3 ⎟ ⋅⎜ ⎜ x pu ⎟ ⎠ ⎝ Combine Eqs.33) x pu = d ⋅ 2ρ ε cpu E c10 (2.4 Yield punching With medium reinforcement ratios the reinforcement near the column will yield before punching occurs. f u ′′ = fu ε cpu x pu E2 0.1 (force equilibrium) 1 (2.150 10 3 ⋅ ⋅ f sy ρ 2d ⋅ f sy ε cpu = 10 −6 ⎛ 25 ⎞ ⋅⎜ ⎟ ⎜f ⎟ ⎝ cc ⎠ 0.0010⎜ ⎟ ⎜f ⎟ ⎝ cc ⎠ 0. Punching is still assumed to occur when the concrete compression strain reaches the critical value εcpu.0010 3 = c10 ⋅ ⋅ 2 4d 2 f sy ρ2 ⎛ 25 ⎞ ⋅⎜ ⎜f ⎟ ⎟ ⎝ cc ⎠ 0.35) Bending moment at reinforcement yield x ⎞ ⎛ m y = ρ ⋅ d 2 ⋅ f sy ⎜1 − ⎟ ⎝ 3d ⎠ (2.34) ′′ .32) and (2. can then be expressed as The ultimate tangential curvature at the column edge.2.11): Ec10 0.3 with effective depth d in (m) (2. 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. 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 ⋅ 0.32) (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 (2.2.37) V y2 = m y ⋅ 2π B 1− c (see Figure 2-6) (2.11) ⎛ 0.38) 16 .3 (2.5 ε cpu ⎛ 25 ⎞ = 0.

see Figure 2-7: my = 2 2⎞ V y1 ⎛ ⎜ 2ln c + 2 − B − B ⎟ + ∆f ′′ ⋅ EI ⋅ B 2 8π ⎜ 2ry 2ry c2 ⎟ 4ry ⎝ ⎠ (2.40) The circle with radius ry inside which the reinforcement yields is solved from the following equation.39) Possible additional curvature at column edge after first yield ′′ − f y ′′ ∆f ′′ = f u (2. 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.my my = Vy2 ⎛ B ⎞ ⎜1 − ⎟ 2π ⎝ c ⎠ B c mr = 0 Figure 2-6 Fan type yield lines.41) c .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 < . Curvature in tangential direction at start of yield ′′ = fy my EI = ε sy d−x = f sy Es ⋅ 1 d−x (2.

However. 18 . The computer solution has furthermore the advantage that the alternative failure mode Vσ is checked automatically as well as the ultimate deflection δ ε.41) can be solved manually by iteration only and Eq.The deflection of the slab at punching. because Eq. δε . 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 (2.42) is laborious.4.43) All equations in this section have to be modified for flat plates with rectangular panels.2. (2. see Section 4. The calculations have to be computerized. (2. see Appendix B. 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. an approximate manual calculation of Vε is described in Section 2.

**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

42).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. 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. (2.60) Possible additional curvature at column edge after first yield: ′′ − f ys ′′ ∆f ′′ = f us (2.58) V y2 = m ys ⋅ (2. 22 . see Appendix C. but not to more than the load corresponding to overall yield of the flexural reinforcement. Larger capacity can be achieved with inclined stirrups. 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. Still larger capacity in combination with ductile behaviour can be achieved with the “ductility reinforcement” described in Chapter 5. The nominal ultimate stress in the hangers should thereby be limited to round 350 MPa. which is preferably checked in accordance with Model Code 90. The total punching capacity can therefore be assessed by adding the vertical component of the hanger force to the above capacity Vεs.61) The distance ry and punching capacity Vεs is then determined from Eqs.59) Curvature in tangential direction at start of yield: ′′ = f ys f sy Es ⋅ 1 d − xs (2. The calculations are preferably computerized.41) and (2. The upper limit for punching capacity derived above presupposes that the punching failure occurs within the zone with shear reinforcement. The shear reinforcement must extend far enough from the column to exclude a shear failure outside the shear reinforced area.

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. Definitions of parameters. The diameter of a circular slab is denoted D. 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. 2.1 Column footings Consider a relatively compact circular test specimen according to Figure 2-10. The specimen could simulate a column footing. D R V B t ∆x γ1 2γ σc Figure 2-10 Failure mode Vσ . 23 x0 d .3.3 Punching capacity Vσ Punching occurs when the compression stress in the fictitious internal column capital of the slab reaches a critical value.

64) The column capital forms part of a compression strut from the load to the column.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.62) D c 0 = kD R φ V σ Figure 2-11 Definition of angle φ and shear load Vσ . where 2γ is the angle to the horizontal of the punching crack near the column. It is easily shown that the capacity of the capital is at maximum when the angle γ1 is equal to γ.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. That part of the load does not affect the punching capacity. 24 . see Figure 2-10. see Figure 2-11. 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. A reasonable expression for the angle φ is tan φ = 1. Punching occurs when the capital fails in compression so that a diagonal shear crack forms.4d ≥1 D −B 3 2 (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 . see Figure 2-12. see Nilsson (1983).67) The average upper diameter of the capital that supports the inclined compression strut from the load is x0 x0 B+ + (2.2 f cc ⎢ 0⎠ ⎥ ⎝ ⎣ ⎦ (2.2 fcc in Eq.66) (2 R − B )2 2 x0 + 4d 2R − B −1 − x0 x0 (2. which is the generally accepted uniaxial compression strength in ⎝ 250 ⎠ cracked zones.007 x ⎟ ⎟ ≤ 1.5 B 1 x ∆x = ⋅ 02 4 cos γ tan γ = Eliminate ∆x from Eqs. γ1 = γ The inclination angle γ of the compression strut is determined by ( d − ∆x ) R − 0.66): tanγ = (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 ) ⎟ ⎟ ⎝ ⎠ (2.70) For small values of u/x.9⎜ ⎜1 − 0. 25 . That effect decreases with increasing u/x f ⎞ ⎛ until σ c = 0. (2. 2 ⎡ ⎛ u ⎞ ⎤ ⎥ σ c = f cc ⎢0. (= fcd2 according to Model Code 90).65) (2.65) and (2.69) represents the concrete compression strength in bi-axial compression. when the perpendicular compression stress is moderate. it is evident from Figure 2-12 that the compression zone of the surrounding slab confines the capital.6 + 0.6 f cc ⎜1 − cc ⎟ .69) The compression strength “σc” of the capital is assumed to vary with the slenderness u/x of the cantilevering part of the capital. The upper limit 1. (2.

26 d t .γ B/d = 1. 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.0 σc γ σc B/d = 2.5 B Figure 2-12 Confinement of internal column capital by surrounding slab.

73). Finally. 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 ⎛ 0.150 = diameter of standard test cylinder specimen (m).77) . 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 (2.71) ⎞ ⎟ x0 B ⎛ B ⎟ D⎞ d 1 + ln ⎟ r ∫ 2r ⎟ = ∆ϕ ⋅ Ec0 ⋅ ε c0 ⋅ 2 ⋅ 2 ⎜ B⎠ ⎝ B ⎟ 2 ⎠ ⎛ D⎞ ⎜ ⎜1 + ln c ⎟ ⎟ 0⎠ ⎝ (2.74) (2.In compact footings.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. see Figure 2-13.73) ⎛ ⎜ x0 ⎜ B Fc = ∆ϕ ⋅ E c0 ⋅ ε c0 ⋅ ⋅ + 2 ⎜2 ⎜ ⎝ (2.72). (2. (2. the sector elements between the radial flexural cracks are assumed to rotate as rigid bodies even before yielding of the flexural reinforcement. which affects the depth of the compression zone. (2. the total load capacity with respect to punching is determined as Pσ = Vσ 1− k 2 27 (2.71).76) ⎛ 0.150 ⎞ 3 Vσ = σ c ⋅ t ⋅ sin(γ ) ⋅ u ⋅ ⎜ ⎟ ⎝ t ⎠ where t= x0 = depth of compression strut 2cos(γ ) 1 (2.150 ⎞ 3 = size effect factor with dimension t in (m) ⎜ ⎟ ⎝ t ⎠ 0.75) 1 (2.

The angle γ need not be taken less than 25°.3d γ d tan 30° d 0 . ⎛b B ⎞ M = P⎜ − ε ⎟ ⎝ 8 2π ⎠ (2. The expressions for the capacity Vσ presuppose that the flexural reinforcement in the footing does not yield. (2.78) M ⎛ b ⎞ ⎛ x ⎞ ρ d ⋅ c0 ⎜ 1− ⎟ ⎜1 + ln c ⎟ ⎟⋅⎜ 3d ⎠ 0⎠ ⎝ ⎝ 2 σs = (2.80) with x according to Eq.80) may govern the capacity at high reinforcement ratios in combination with high strength concrete.7 d = + tan 30 ° tan 2γ tan γ → γ = 25 ° Figure 2-14 Angle γ for flat plates. 28 . which agrees with the average shear crack inclination 30° observed at slender test specimens. (2.For geometrical reasons the angle γ is limited to 45° corresponding to a vertical shear crack through the compression zone. which has to be considered when designing such reinforcement.3d 0 .75) and with Ec10 instead of Ec0 in Eq. see for instance Kinnunen and Nylander (1960).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. see Figure 2-14.1 ⎛ 0. γ 2γ ≈ 0.0010 ⎜ ⎜f ⎟ ⎟ ⎝ cc ⎠ 0.74). Equation (2.15 ⎞ 3 ⋅⎜ ⎟ ⎝ x ⎠ 1 (2. The flexural capacity and the concrete strain of a square column footing are checked as follows.

the flexural reinforcement near the column will often yield before punching occurs. However.3. Vσs shall be determined with the angle γ = 45°. When the flexural reinforcement ratio exceeds the value ρ 1.1 General The relation between punching capacity of flat plates and flexural reinforcement ratio is typically as depicted in Figure 2-14. (2. 2. This is confirmed by Figure 4-11 of Hallgren (1996) that shows the recorded radial strain distribution over the compression zone for specimen HSC1. The punching capacity is then equal to the flexural capacity of the slab. However. Additional deflection will then cause only limited increase of the radial curvature of the sector elements. When punching occurs.75) – up to the punching load. then the displacement of the flat plate is computed according to Section 2. The lesser of Vσ and Vε governs the punching capacity of flat plates.34). 29 . The depth remained constant – conforming to 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.4 Manual calculation 2. the punching capacity can be easily determined even in this region.3. If Vσ turns out to be governing. The compression zone depth in radial direction will therefore not decrease below the value given by Eq. which is also evident from Figure 4-7. the solution of which requires computerized calculations as described in Section 2. Between these two limits part of the reinforcement yields.75). which value shall be used when calculating Vσ for flat plates. For flat plates with shear reinforcement. When the flexural reinforcement ratio is less than the value ρ 2. (2. Two limit values for the reinforcement ratio can be identified.2. 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.4. punching occurs after all reinforcement has reached the yield limit. (2. punching occurs without any reinforcement yielding and the punching capacity can be easily determined by the equations given in Section 2.2 Flat plates In flat plates. (2.7) is then no longer valid for the depth of the compression zone near the column for tangential bending moments – the depth decreases. Eq.2. The “exact” estimation of the punching capacity in this region leads to rather complicated equations. if the curved relation is replaced by a linear relation as indicated in Figure 2-15.2.2 with a decreased critical value εcpu so that Vε becomes equal to Vσ However. the compression zone near the column has decreased to the value given by Eq.4.

fsy =500 MPa.4.5 ρ % 1 Figure 2-15 Punching capacity Vε versus reinforcement ratio. c = 3.2.10) n ρ1 = Es ⋅ ρ1 Ec10 0. (fcc = 30 MPa. 30 .5 2 ρ 1.15 ⎞ 3 ⋅⎜ ⎟ → ⎝ x ⎠ (2.81) The punching capacity for reinforcement ratio exceeding ρ 1 is then determined according to Section 2.6⎜1 − cc ⎟ ⎥ ⋅ 21500 ⋅ ⎜ cc ⎟ ⎝ 150 ⎠ ⎥ ⎝ 10 ⎠ ⎢ ⎣ ⎦ 1 (2.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 − 0.0010 ⎜ 25 ⎟ x = d ⋅ nρ1 ⎜ 1 1 + − ⎜ ⎟ ⎜ ⎟ nρ1 ⎝ f cc ⎠ ⎝ ⎠ d−x σ s = Es ⋅ ε cpu ⋅ x ⎛ 0.0 1.3.6) 1 ⎛ ⎞ ⎛ ⎞ 2 ⎟ → ε cpu = 0.1 (2. B = 0. d = 0.2 m) 2.5 m.25 m.

34) ε cpu Ec10 Bε c ⎛ ε cpu ε sy ⎞ ⎟ ⎜ − ⎜ x pu d − x ⎟ ⎠ ⎝ 2ρ2 ρ 2 → ∆f 2′′ = with nρ 2 = (2.4.84) 31 . (2.150 10 3 ⋅ ⋅ 2d f sy ρ2 ⋅ f sy ⎛ 25 ⎞ ⋅⎜ ⎜f ⎟ ⎟ ⎝ cc ⎠ 0.15 ⎞ 3 The punching capacity for reinforcement ratio exceeding ρ 1 is then determined according to Section 2.5.1 − cc ⎟ 190 ⎠ ⎝ (2.5 + 0.45) ns ρ1 = ⎛ 1 ⎛ ⎞ 1 1 ⎞ ⎟ → ε cpus = 0.cc ⎟ ⎝ 100 ⎠ E c15 2 (2.33) (2.1 f cc ⎛ f cc ⎞ = ⋅⎜ ⎟ 0.2.5⎜1 + c ⎟ ⎟ ⎟ ⎝ ⎠⎠ ⎝ ⎟ ⎟ ⎠ (2.1 ⋅⎜ ⎜ x ⎟ ⎟ → ⎝ s ⎠ (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 0.3 (2.34): ε cpu = 10 xpu = d ⋅ −6 E c10 0.47) 0.3⎜1 .82) 1 ⎛ 0.83) ⎛ ⎞ 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. 2.33) and (2.0015 ⎝ 25 ⎠ Es ⋅ ρ1 Ec15 f ⎞ ⎛ ⋅ ⎜1.With shear reinforcement ⎛ f ⎞ α = 0.

The curvature according to Eq.Only a few iterations are normally required to determine the reinforcement ratio ρ 2 that makes the two curvature expressions equal. 5 ⎜ B f cc ⎝ 1− ε c ⎞ ⎟ ⎟ ⎠ ρ ≤ ρ2 (2.4 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 (2.83) decreases rapidly with increasing ρ.84) increases slowly with increasing ρ.54) (2.87) 2.86) 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 ⎠ ⎝ (2.3 ε cpus = 10 x pus = d ⋅ −6 (2. (2.150 15 3 ⋅ ⋅ f sy d ρ2 ⎛ 25 ⎞ ⋅⎜ ⎜f ⎟ ⎟ ⎝ cc ⎠ 0. The punching capacity up to the reinforcement ratio ρ 2 is equal to the flexural capacity at overall yield.4.5⎜1 + ε ⎟ ⎟ ⎜ d − xs ⎝ c ⎠⎟ ⎝ ⎠ ε sy ⎛ (2.48) The additional curvature at the slab edge can also be expressed as ′′ = ∆f 2 B ⎞⎞ ⎛ ⎜ 1 − 0.88) 32 .85) With shear reinforcement The calculation is performed in the same way as without shear reinforcement: Ec15 α ⋅ 0.55) f sy ρ2 ⋅ α ⋅ ε cpus Ec15 Bε c ⎛ ε cpus ε sy ⎜ − ⎜ x pus d − xs ⎝ ⎞ ⎟ ⎟ ⎠ ′′ = ρ 2 → ∆f 2 (2. Vy2: Vε = V y2 = ρ ⋅ f sy ⎛ 2π ⋅ ρ ⋅ f sy ⋅ d 2 ⎜ − 1 0 . and the curvature according to Eq. (2.

805 0.3 0.520 0.425 0.977 50 1.338 0.4.310 1.552 0.996 1.854 0.535 0.311 0.20 0.478 0.416 1. 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.1 0.078 1.537 0.241 1.176 1.174 2.2 0.493 1.375 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.744 0.382 0.089 60 1.316 2.135 0.183 1.283 1.522 33 .831 0.462 0. fck (MPa) 20 30 1.709 0.742 0.482 0.829 0.981 1.534 0.376 1.25 0.654 0.1 0.447 0.133 1.493 0.366 1.232 1.416 0.826 0.2. Examples are given in Tables 2-1 and 2-2.642 0.893 1.432 1.732 1.239 1.2 0.916 0.310 0.004 60 2.575 0.710 0.129 1.588 0.141 1.899 0.401 2.550 40 2.970 1.558 2.971 1.30 0.175 1.577 0.697 0.856 1.930 1.825 0.1 0.564 1.843 40 1.317 1.713 0.018 1.681 1.596 0. fck (MPa) 20 30 40 50 60 With shear reinforcement Concrete cylinder strength.439 1.2 0.590 0. fck (MPa) 20 1.892 1.990 0.30 0.646 0.014 0.579 0.421 1.772 0.791 0.442 0.816 50 2.627 0.183 30 1.655 0. Table 2-1 Reinforcement ratio ρ 1 % for fsy = 500 MPa d (m) Without shear reinforcement Concrete cylinder strength.857 0.683 Table 2-2 Reinforcement ratio ρ 2 % for fsy = 500 MPa.3 0.347 1.184 1.586 1.926 1.3 0.20 0.613 0.411 0.283 1.496 0.062 0. d (m) Bε c Without shear reinforcement Concrete cylinder strength.077 0.068 1.821 0.032 1.762 0. fck (MPa) 20 30 40 50 60 0.766 0.935 0.739 0.507 0.180 With shear reinforcement Concrete cylinder strength.712 0.640 0.834 1.919 0.581 0.25 0.684 0.195 0.

thus changing the ratio between the central load (V) and the restraining moments (m1) at the edges of the 1.1 Influence of bending moment 160 50 457 865 915 3000 1 865 915 457 m m 1 v Figure 2-16 Test set-up. The assembly was supported on rollers positioned 0.5.2. By varying the ratios of the upward and downward loads differing reactions could be produced at the roller supports. 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.457 m beyond the downward loads. 34 .83 m square. 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.5 Comparison with test results 2.83 m square. 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.

Slender flat plates usually display a sudden brittle failure – often characterized as explosive. Table 2-3 Slab Comparison of test results by Regan (1986) with predictions of Model Code 90 and the presented theory.056 1. the bending moment in the slab at the column plays a decisive role for the punching failure mechanism and the resulting punching capacity. Compact footings display a gradual failure similar to the failure of cylinders for testing of concrete compression strength.3 It is evident from Table 2-1 that the punching failure cannot be treated as a pure shear force failure. 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. i.2 34. 35 . Nylander and Sundquist (1972) concluded that if flexural reinforcement has to be added due to punching. That occurs for instance for the bending moment in the long direction in flat plates with rectangular panels.0 28. fcc (MPa) m1/V Vtest (kN) 0 0.984 1.088 1.278 Theory Vtest/Vcalc 1.252 1.107 1. which is confirmed by specimen S1 in Kinnunen et al (1980) (see Table 2-4).3 31. These findings have unfortunately never been incorporated in Swedish concrete codes and handbooks. because an increase of only the lesser of the two reinforcement ratios did not increase the punching capacity in their tests. 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. 2.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. 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. the punching capacity will decrease if the bending moment in the slab versus the column reaction V increases.017 0. The punching capacity in the tests increased when the bending moment in the slab at the column versus the column reaction V decreased. the opposite is also valid.036 0.2 Influence of concrete mechanical properties The punching failure modes for slender flat plates and compact footings are fundamentally different.e. Most probably.124 1. That strain is a function of the bending moment in the slab near the column.049 190 236 248 262 MC 90 Vcalc (kN) 193 210 198 205 Theory Vcalc (kN) 180 217 224 254 MC 90 Vtest/Vcalc 0.031 IV/1 IV/2 IV/3 IV/4 26.5.

This relation is at best a good approximation. where a square column with width a is replaced by a circular column with the same perimeter. 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. Compact footings seem to fail when the inclined compression stress reaches the failure stress in bi-axial compression. Only specimens with normal density aggregates are included. Some of the duplicated tests by Kinnunen and Nylander (1960). probably due to a concrete mix design with aggregates from sedimentary rock. The test specimens simulating flat plates listed in Table 2-4 cover a very wide range of conditions. with a prediction scatter approaching the inevitable material strength scatter. 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.35 % up to 3. Tolf (1988) and Tomaszewicz (1993) display a capacity scatter. 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. 36 . they are directly related to the recorded compression strength of the test specimens. The difference was still larger for the specimen described by Ožbolt et al (2000).5.0. The reinforcement ratio varies from 0. which is larger than the usual scatter observed for cylinder compression tests. The relation between compression strength and E-modulus as given by Model Code 90 has therefore been used for the verification in Table 2-4.7 % and the yield strength varies from 300 MPa up to more than 700 MPa. The column size in relation to slab depth is represented by the parameter Bσ/d.073 for the punching capacity predictions in Table 2-4 must therefore be regarded as a good verification of the theory for flat plates. Concrete grades vary from 14 MPa up to more than 100 MPa. These observations indicate that the concrete E-modulus has influence on the punching strength of flat plates. The variation coefficient 0. 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. which is confirmed by those tests where the E-modulus was actually recorded. The recorded values by for instance Hallgren (1996) were consistently lower than the values derived from the compression strengths according to Model Code 90.Flat plates seem to fail when the tangential strain in the concrete reaches a critical value. Bσ = 4a / π .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. This property is traditionally recorded neither for test specimens nor for actual structures. These base properties can simply not be “manipulated” or “tuned”. The E-modulus of concrete thus seems to be an important concrete property for prediction of the punching strength.2 and 4. The recorded E-modulus was there only 79 % of the value according to Model Code 90. where a square column is replaced by a circular column with the same bending moment reduction effect. Furthermore. 2. The slab slenderness is represented by the expression (c – Bε)/2d. Bε = 3πa/8.

Figure 2-15 displays a typical curve for the punching capacity versus the flexural reinforcement ratio in a flat plate. However. but they did not reach the theoretical yield capacity. because the capacity when all reinforcement yields (for ρ < ρ 2) is well-defined by the fan-type yield line configuration.1. 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. The two specimens of Sundquist (1977) displayed a very ductile behaviour with overall yield. because it utilizes a rough estimate of the decreasing compression strength of the column capital with increasing perimeter versus the compression zone depth. which at least is a better prediction result than any existing concrete code method. but punching failures still occurred within the shear reinforced zone. where Vc is the nominal capacity without shear reinforcement.75Vc + Vs must be utilized with caution. 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 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.6Vc according to Model Code 90 appears well advised. Predicted deflection and concrete strain in the tangential direction of flat plate specimens are in Table 2-7 compared to recorded values. However. which forms the prerequisite for the approach in Chapter 3 about eccentric punching. Some of the slabs in Table 2-6 were provided with an extremely large amount of shear reinforcement. whenever reported. 37 . The upper bound 1. larger capacity than 1. It is then logical that the moment distribution according to the theory of elasticity should be applied in that case. However. 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. which is used by Kinnunen and Nylander (1960) and Hallgren (1996) even for elastic conditions with no reinforcement yielding. 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 is further supported by the tests with varying bending moment described in Section 2. the variation coefficient 0. which demonstrates that the code approach with the capacity taken as Vu = 0.092 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. the failure capacity is predicted even for those specimens where the reinforcement did not reach overall yield. It is evident that if the theory can predict the capacity for ρ >ρ 1.5. 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. This moment distribution differs radically from the moment distribution corresponding to rigid body sector elements rotating around a support perimeter near the column edge.6Vc can be achieved if the slab is provided with ductility reinforcement described in Chapter 5. 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.The theory for column footings is more intricate.

84 3.0714 1.5 26.6 25.31 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 2.74 " " " 2.24 404 4780 4915 1.26 1.38 5.8 20.6 26.2 22.01 2. Nylander (1960) Moe (1961) Schaeidt et al (1970) Marti et al (1977) Pralong et al (1979) Kinnunen.2 26.1 27.5 26.13 1.26 1.050 0. flat plate specimens.2 29.44 2.7 43.3264 1.554 0.34 0.054 P-5 26.988 0.43 5. Nylander.28 1.5 20.35 0.43 5.057 1.008 0.74 " " 1.46 699 584 483 465 fsy " " " 2291 1891 6301 5981 1471 1401 4531 4351 216 194 603 600 145 148 489 444 0.69 5.51 5.34 0.25 1.4394 1. Test slab No.943 1.Table 2-4 Authors Test results.26 1.48 1.030 1.9 22.67 6.50 " " " " 6.18 2.48 σs MPa Vcalc kN Vtest kN Vtest Vcalc 1.033 S1 30.42 2.79 1.9 24.25 1.73 5.23 4.34 2.3 S1.912 1.38 1.8 26.61 5.3 S2.27 5.026 1.5 37.040 1.27 " " " 6. see next page.974 1.98 " 3.1 S1.62 6.992 1.6 22.01 1.026 0.40 619 4680 2340 φ800 1.1174 1.50 " " 3.70 3.35 100 99 200 199 98 99 200 197 φ1190 " φ2380 " φ1190 " φ2380 " φ125 " φ250 " φ125 " φ250 " 1.93 453 569 600 1.9 26.4 S2.08 c−Bε 2d 6.16 " " " 2.07 7.40 1.028 S1.1 26.965 0970 1.84 " " " " 1.476 " 1.9 50.957 1.148 1.38 5.34 154 φ2600 φ300 1.97 " 5.8 25.003 0.44 145 φ2600 φ300 2.6 47.80 0.82 0.099 1.2 47.02 6. fcc MPa fsy MPa ρ % 1.2 706 701 657 670 720 712 668 664 0.02 0. For explanations.5 34.6 558 1.986 1.2 S1.3094 1.2374 0.04 0.81 0.0 36.27 2.50 3.75 2.4 28.74 0.76 5.84 " " " " " 3.000 0.931 1.6 621 0.95 7.64 7.021 38 .3 26.964 0.6 26.4 27.2 14.8 28.4 25.50 " " " " " 5.29 3.28 1.063 1.152 Elstner.80 0.2 S2.41 2.47 421 551 569 1.4 24.80 0. Tolf (1980) Tolf (1988) 1780 " φ2650 152 305 φ500 P-2 34.2 515 1.1 S2.034 0.043 1.49 0.49 5.38 5.018 1.50 1.079 1.40 5.00 3.80 0.3 19. 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 25.140 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.0 26.1 25.25 1.

049 1.105 0.921 Marzouk.19 0.075 0.055 1.06 " " " " " " " 4.065 1.203 1.96 5.49 " " 2.45 " " 6.139 1.60 0.030 1.11 1.12 " " " 5.94 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 % 0.7 GPa used instead of Eq.47 " " 0.927 0.52 2.035 0.00 4. 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 6.59 " " 2. Overall yield with membrane action and strain hardening.32 5.150 1.50 2.891 1.80 0.000 0.38 " 5.971 0.006 1.029 1.53 6. Recorded Ec0 value 21.01 1.822 1.61 2.96 " " 7. (2.057 1.59 2.24 1.37 0.93 " " " 0.1513 1. Test slab No.33 0.956 1.892 1.54 5.922 0.55 1.70 4.3243.1344 1.4 1.102 0.80 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 2.24 1.35 5.049 1. Recorded Ec0-values used instead of Eq.965 0.145 1.069 1.84 0.25 1.00 1.95 1.2 718 " " 0.975 1.103 1.53 1.100 Mean value Vtest / Vcalc = 1.51 6.971 0.96 5.4 27.906 0.3) which would give Ec0 = 27.073) 1) 2) 3) 4) 5) Failure mode Vσ governing.3).51 4.0 24.26 2.02 2.33 0.04 6.38 5.25 1.19 1.29 1.51 " " 9.80 0.95 4.50 1.5 GPa and Vcalc = 806 kN.27 1.996 1.59 0.94 1.01 1.96 " " " " " " " 1.008 1. therefore not included in the statistical evaluation.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. Not included in the statistical evaluation due to the small effective depth 70 mm.80 0.91 5.73 " " 2.29 5. (2.26 688 692 583 270 250 265 0.2364 1. Kinnunen (2004b) C1 C2 D1 24.43 5.62 " " " 1.84 1.75 " " " 2.82 1.64 0.70 4. 39 .894 0.021(1± 0.35 5.49 0.80 0.Table 2-4 Authors Continued from previous page.01 " " 2.25 1.12 1.80 0.091 0.47 2.64 100 100 125 φ 1190 " " φ 250 φ 250 φ 125 2.2173 1.

400 0.998 1.991 1.6 32.93 0.4 25.46 " " " " 2.398 0.063 1.1 28.7 14.8 25.02 1.872 0.40 1.00 1.0 27.4 26.208 0.109 0.98 1.642 0.333 0.6 40 28.124 1.32 1.357 0.18 Vcalc kN Vtest kN Vtest Vcalc 1.79 0.03 1.0 32.7 29.918 1.1402 1.784 0.805 0.38 2.02 1.03 1.416 0.862 0.39 0.928 1.050 0.89 0.06 1.062 1.66 1.55 4.095) D Bε 1) − for footing with surface load.659 0.6 26.78 2.88 0.34 0.2 30.895 0.066 0.02 c−Bε 2d 1.6 30.04 4.239 0. MPa 23. Kinnunen.040 1.275 0.6 28.88 4.047 0.966 0.81 1.372 0.573 0.3 " " " " " " " 1.18 1.388 0.89 0.501 0.011 1.88 4.03 0.88 0.063 1.3 " " " " " " " 0.390 0.02 1.584 0. 3d 2d 2) Overall yield with strain hardening.032(1± 0.3 24.995 1.82 1.041 1.89 0.2 21. column footings.4 29.18 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 1.830 0.400 0.83 0.5 27.4 24. 40 .824 1.399 0.86 1.25 1.053 1. therefore not included in statistical evaluation.02 0.02 1.169 1.866 0.430 0.964 Dieterle (1978) Dieterle.7 40. 1998) line load surface load Sundquist.02 1.3 24.64 1.43 2.105 0.565 1. 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.1 24.115 1.Table 2-5 Authors Test slab No.85 1.434 0.0 35.392 0.4 31.8 28. Nylander (1983. 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.107 0.987 0.401 0.87 0.996 0.64 " " 1.1 25.40 0.03 1.8 28.02 1.071 0. 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 = 1.026 1.78 0.094 1.4 26.089 1.03 1.413 0.395 0.3 19.7 36.9 25.8 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 % 0.25 1.394 0.901 1.81 4.7 29.08 1.5 23.

993 0. Overall yield with strain hardening therefore not included in statistical evaluation.70 1.49 1.94 0.25 " " " " " 2. 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) 26.986 0. flat plates with shear reinforcement.0 36.41 1.965 0.80 1.071 0.3 26.38 " " 4.40 4.07 1.50 " 5.08 " " " " 4.063) Bent bars as shear reinforcement.05 0. Slab width 2750 mm with reinforcement over the whole width.0 890 890 562 562 0.2 28.90 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 1.18 0.993 0.09 0.60 " " 9.50 " " " " " " " 1.3 26.8 27.8 20.74 1.991 1.82 1. Studs as shear reinforcement.58 3.072 7) 0.998 0.50 " " " " " 5.12 1.991 1.80 4.05 0.033 0.71 0.16 3.4 26.897 0.30 400 " " " " 320 " " 300 7) 7) Krüger et al (2000) Hegger et al (2001) Z3 Z4 Z5 Z6 3) 3) 3) 3) 24. therefore not included in statistical evaluation.05 1.66 1.Table 2-6 Authors Test results.85 " " 3.5 28.15 1.20 1.25 1.4 27.993(1± 0.962 0.2 25.9 27.932 5) 1.40 3407 3428 3385 3337 1558 1720 1954 2071 1616 1646 2024 1954 1.806 1. Test slab No.417 6) Broms (1990b) Yamada et al (1992) Beutel.8 37.78 0.94 1.0 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) 0.80 1.40 4.27 4.0 21.165 5) 1.806 0.25 " " 1.960 4) 4) 0.51 1.301 1.87 2.079 0.71 1.36 4.806 0.80 0.826 1. 41 .8 27.74 2.2 46.3 26. Slab width 3000 mm with reinforcement over the whole width.806 0.1 23.99 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 1.753 1.3 37.0 27.806 0.4 40.0 37.930 0.860 0. High capacity due to “ductility reinforcement”.978 1.944 1) 2) 3) 4) 5) 6) 7) 8) 9) Mean value Vtest/Vcalc = 0.1 25.970 0.967 4) 1. Failure outside shear reinforcement.3 40.80 0.2 37.63 0.88 " " " " " " " 5. 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 % 0.53 " 164 " 190 190 190 190 190 220 220 230 121 1500 " φ 2400 " 8) " " " " " " 2750 300 " 2.983 0.14 1.08 1.23 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 0.0 28.931 0.7 568 " 550 550 550 550 550 550 550 550 500 1.067 7) 1.66 3.35 3.81 6.4 26.981 0.021 0.6 36.12 c−Bε 2d 6.959 5) 0.977 0.919 0.981 0.0 28. Vertical stirrups as shear reinforcement.036 0.68 " " " " 1.06 1. not included in statistical evaluation.037 0.42 1.25 250 " " " φ 2400 " 9) " " φ 200 φ 200 φ 263 φ 200 0.950 0.33 " 2.0 29.891 0.007 4) 4) 4) 4) 4) 4) 4) 4) 4) 4) 4) 4) 4) 4) Andersson (1963) 26.14 1. Extremely high shear reinforcement ratio.27 0.5 23.957 1.9 29.77 1.5 92 91 85 26.22 1.

64 2.7 13.04 3.7 12. 2) Vertical stirrups as shear reinforcement.5 9.45 1.34 0.55 1.97 1.7 27.4 24.2 S1.2 28.8 5.5 22.4 1.4 S2.5 27.80 0. 3) Calculated deflection at calculated punching load.6 Authors ρ % ε cpu ·103 1.98 1.0 19.753 1.9 10.28 1.0 Hallgren (1996) 13.94 1.9 26.35 4.66 1.8 2.15 2.Table 2-7 Tangential concrete strain and deflection at punching.1 1.3 S1.17 1.3 0.64 1.0 5.33 0.0 δ test mm 13.0 3.3 34.80 1.17 1.30 2.25 1.0 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) 0.05 0.41 1.80 0.0!! 3.42 2.0 13.3 4.1 S2.4 27.8 9.8 26.4 25.0 17.89 2.6 29.4 HSC0 HSC1 HSC2 HSC3s 1) HSC4 HSC5s 1) HSC7s 1) HSC9 N/HSC8 NS B1 P2-II 2) P6-I 2) 28.38 2.34 0.8 20.1 5.4 26.2 1.49 0.71 0.22 1.2 26.7 17.5 19.5 28.2 90 91 86 92 92 91 85 84 95 29.3 40.0 18.79 1.0 12.09 0.15 3.45 1.80 0.67 1.77 1. Specimen fcc MPa 26.00 2.31 2.80 0.93 1.5 7.8 26.35 0.27 3.65 1. Hegger (2000) Krüger et al (2000) PP0B 2) 37.80 0.3 6.25 3.2 1.04 0.88 45.9 11.7 1.4 13.47 1.4 25.6 28.1 23.5 12.2 11.0 10.9 24. Comparison with test results.0 13.8 36 1) Bent bars as shear reinforcement.8 46.2 8.7 12.2 9.6 22.2 9.18 0.5 30 10 16 33 29 13.2 26.01 1.93 1.2 2.1 9.6 26.6 10.09 1.8 29.0 1.8 2.64 1.1 22.5 10.4 27.4 Sundquist (1977) Tolf (1988) D 1) E 1) S1.08 1.6 25.2 2.21 2.3 S2.1 27.50 3.2 14.2 1.7 11.38 3.0 17.19 1.4 10.1 12.8 5.00 ε test·103 1.71 Andersson (1963) 4.1 34.5 15.1 18.58 1.06 1.81 0.8 1.1 S1.46 1.72 3.40 3.9 16.3 26.35 0.3 27.80 0.0!! δ calc 3) mm 10.0 8.0 28.5 16.80 0.48 0.80 0.1 26.2 S2.2 22.26 2.0 11.5 16.806 1.3 35 25 14 Hassanzadeh (1996) Hassanzadeh (1998) Beutel.31 0.4 2.63 0.22 3.5 45.76 2.82 1. 42 .18 3.21 3.5 9.1 25.5 26.82 0.7 4.

Vu = f v2 ⋅ d (4a + π d ) for square columns .200 d with d in (m) Ultimate punching capacity according to BBK 04 The control section is placed 0.5. Ultimate punching capacity according to ACI 318-02 The control section is placed at the distance 0.19( f ck ) 3 with f ck = 0. cube and fck ≤ 48 MPa f ctk ≈ 0. Model Code 90 and BBK 04.12 ⋅ ξ ⋅ (100 ρ ⋅ f ck ) 3 .5d from the column edge.5 ⋅ 0. Vu = f v2 ⋅ π d ⋅ (B + d ) for circular columns f v2 = ξ (1 + 50 ρ ) ⋅ 0. A control section with four straight sides is permitted for square and rectangular columns.2 ≤ d ≤ 0.6 − d for 0. cube and 48< fck ≤ 64 MPa 2 2 43 .8 f c.45 ⋅ f ctk with ρ ≤ 0.5 d outside the column edge.2.4 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 318-02.8 f c.19( f ck ) 3 ⋅ [1 − 0.008( f ck − 48)] with f ck = 0.01 ξ = 1.5 m f ctk ≈ 0. Vu = f v2 ⋅ 4d ⋅ (a + d ) for square columns . 1 (upper limit for fck = 80 MPa disregarded in Table 2-8) ξ = 1+ 0. Vu = f v ⋅ π d ⋅ (B + 4d ) for circular columns f v = 1. 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. These codes treat punching as a form of shear failure. Vu = f v ⋅ d (4a + 4 π d ) for square columns . Punching is assumed to occur when the shear stress at a control section on a certain distance from the column reaches a critical value.

35 and 1.5)1. The load factors are 1.2·1. which is no wonder because the code expressions are based on regression analysis of a large amount of test results.35 + 1.5(1.5(1.3. The strength reduction factors in design differ also.5 for Model Code 90.5) for brittle punching failure mode. because the code considers neither the strength increase with increasing flexural reinforcement ratio nor the strength reduction with increasing specimen size. the expression for ξ is assumed valid also for d < 0. That is why fv is multiplied by 1. They are 0.4 for d ≤ 0.6 for live load according to ACI 318-02.0 + 1.75 for the American Code and 1/1.0 and 1. since the design strength instead of the ultimate strength is given in this code.5(1. In order to get realistic evaluation of test specimens with d less than 0. 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.3)1.2 for dead load and 1.87 γ = 0. 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 = 0.07 Model Code 90 predicts the ultimate capacity with a small scatter.5 = 0.2 m.5 = 2.5 = 2. 44 .2 m according to BBK 04.2 + 1.5 for Model Code 90. The Swedish load factors are 1. The corresponding values are 1. The American Code displays the largest scatter.2 m. All values for Vu are intended to reflect the ultimate capacity according to the different codes.2 ⋅ 1. 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.6 ) / 0. which is compensated by the strength reduction factor 1/(1.67 for the European Code.The size effect factor ξ is in design taken as 1.14 γ = 0.75 = 1.

663 1.9 50. Column Vtest Vtest /Vcalc fcc MPa 25.619 1.00 3.731 1.585 S1 30.2 706 701 657 670 720 712 668 664 0.80 0.064 0.945 0.5 26.4 24.050 1.987 0.554 0.618 1.80 0.80 0.0 26. Nylander (1960) φ150 " φ300 " " " Moe (1961) Schaeidt et al (1970) Marti et al (1977) Pralong et al (1979) Kinnunen.3 19.44 145 φ2600 φ300 600 1.663 1.8 25.672 1.966 1.6 25.5 fsy MPa 332 " " " 321 " " " " " 332 321 " 294 324 321 303 341 325 441 454 455 451 448 462 328 481 555 ρ % 1.130 1.822 1.687 S1.509 1.504 1.3 26. Nylander.881 1.337 1.430 1.130 0.4 25.815 1.229 1.904 0.6 22.973 1.01 1.978 1. Model Code 90.3 S2.478 2) 2) 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.2 S1.79 1.2 47.579 1.862 1.6 26.004 0.48 1.089 1.644 1.993 1.852 1.5 34.5 37.963 1.348 1.5 26.50 3. Observed ultimate loads of flat plate specimens compared to predictions according to the codes ACI 318-02.3 S1. BBK 04.8 20.971 0.Table 2-8 Authors Test slab No.736 1.493 P-5 26.927 0.34 0.241 1.2 S2.493 1.01 2.9 24.029 0.476 " 1.458 1.862 2.35 100 99 200 199 98 99 200 197 φ1190 " φ2380 " φ1190 " φ2380 " φ125 " φ250 " φ125 " φ250 " 216 194 603 600 145 148 489 444 1.8 28.017 0.015 1.020 1. 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 " " " " " 1.50 1.367 1.954 0.1 S1.018 1.051 1.365 1.2 26.921 1.517 1. Tolf (1980) Tolf (1988) 1780 " φ2650 152 305 φ500 P-2 34.1 25.040 1.1 S2.16 " " " 2.339 1.7 43.2 29.34 154 φ2600 φ300 569 1.938 1.74 " " 1. For explanations see next page.417 1.064 1.4 27.774 1.522 2) 2) 1.80 0.493 1.8 26.35 0.523 1.04 0.38 1.541 1.706 0.1 27.300 1.398 1.714 1.511 1.81 0.34 0.635 1.1 26.574 619 4680 φ800 4915 0.395 2) 2) 2) 2) 1.49 0.854 1.2 515 1.867 0.4 28.973 0.673 1.0 36.9 22.576 1.899 0.050 1.088 1.2 14.456 1.989 1.211 1.966 0.74 0.50 " " 3.02 0.9 26.361 1.037 0.866 Kinnunen.748 1.028 1.362 45 .806 2) 2) 2) 2) 0.358 1.495 1.6 558 1.937 0.2 22.926 0.4 S2.416 1.276 1.6 26.085 2) 2) 0.18 2.505 2) 2) 2) 2) 1.6 47.6 621 0.5 20.

80 0.916 1.52 2.877 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 92 104 84 95 21 fsy MPa 490 " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " 500 " " " 500 " " " " " " " " 643 627 620 596 633 634 631 569 ρ % 0. fcc is larger than 69 MPa (= upper limit according to ACI 318-02).082 1) 1) 1) 1.55 1.852 1.94 1.786 2) 1.11 1.49 " " 2.214 4) 4) 1) 1) 1) 1.41(1± 0.75 " " " 2.889 3) 3) 3) 3) 3) 3) 3) 3) 3) 3) 3) 3) 3) 3) 3) 3) 3) 2) 3) 1.064 0.086 1. Overall yield with membrane action and strain hardening.053 1. fcc (= 0.95 1.2 718 " " 0.111 2) 1.84 0.355 4) 1.536 4 4) 4) 4) 4) 4) 4) 4) 4) 4) 4) 4) 4) 2) 4) 0.924 0.19 1.874 3) 3) 3) 1.646 1.47 2.cube) is larger than 64 MPa (= upper limit according to BBK 04).37 0.84 1.186 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) 0.61 2.046 1.500 1.49 0.33 0.550 1.245 1.015 1.058 1. therefore not included in the statistical evaluation. Kinnunen (2004b) C1 C2 D1 24.469 1.024 0.451 1.47 " " 0.380 1.944 3) 3) 3) 3) 3) 3) 3) 3) 3) 3) 3) 1.33 0.15) Compare thesis: Mean value Vtest / Vcalc = 1.161 1.Table 2-8 Continued from previous page.073) 1) 2) 3) 4) Not included in the statistical evaluation due to the small effective depth 70 mm.030 0.80 0.80 0.62 " " " 1.592 1.916 1.381 1.8 fc.047 1.077 1.10) 1.984 1.506 1.078 0.047 0.00 1.949 0.0 24.898 Vtest /Vcalc ACI 318-02 MC 90 BBK 04 Marzouk.64 0.018 1.19 0.147 Tomaszewicz (1993) Hallgren (1996) HSC0 HSC1 HSC2 HSC4 HSC6 HSC9 N/HSC8 Ožbolt et al (2000) Sundquist.004 1.211 1.472 4) 4) 4) 1.327 1.82 1. 46 .152 1.64 100 100 125 φ 1190 " " φ 250 φ 250 φ 125 270 250 265 1.023 1.94 1.17) 1.4 27.150 1.939 1.60 0.054 1.011 2) 0.80 0.961 1.134 1.80 0.608 1. Authors Test slab No.977 1.021(1± 0.02(1± 0.60(1± 0.791 Mean value Vtest / Vcalc = 1. Hussein (1991) 2) 0.

which cannot be estimated as accurately as for a beam-column frame. An unbalanced moment is thereby considered partly transferred by “eccentricity of shear”. However. When caused by gravity loading or story drift. This means that a flexural hinge forms at the column. The column is assumed stiff in relation to the slab: m = 0. normally a statically indeterminate quantity. Therefore. 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. Conservative results are achieved if the column is considered stiff in relation to the slab.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. 3. A simple example may describe the principle: Study the first interior column of a flat plate structure with equal span widths in both directions.125qL2 47 . the lateral displacement between stories caused by wind or earthquake. a safer concept is proposed here – imposed rotation of the column in relation to the slab (or vice versa). 3.1 Code approach Transfer of moment between slab and columns – so called unbalanced moment – can occur due to gravity loading or due to story drift. 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 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.2 Introduction Due to shortcomings of the code approach. That bending moment is. however.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. Both the imposed rotation and the rotation capacity of a flat plate can be assessed with good accuracy. no generally accepted method for assessment of the unbalanced moment seems to exist. i. As described previously.e. 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. another concept is proposed here – imposed slab rotation in relation to the column.

3 Approximate theory of elasticity Figure 3-1 depicts a common test set-up for eccentric punching.∆m = (0. 48 . 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. The torsional resistance of the sector elements is considered negligible. the slab shall be able to resist an imposed slab rotation in relation −3 to the column equal to 3. This assumption will be evaluated later in this chapter. 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.125 − 0.107 ) qL2 = 0.5⋅10 radians. 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 . It resembles the one used for concentric punching described in Chapter 2.5 ⋅ 10 −3 7 3 3EI 3 ⋅ 10 ⋅ L In this simplified example. H H V c Figure 3-1 Test set-up for eccentric punching. 3. The fan-type crack pattern at concentric loading is assumed to remain when the column is forced to rotate. I= h3 L3 = 12 12 ⋅ 32 3 6 2 h L =1 32 E = 10⋅10 kN/m2 θ = ∆m ⋅ L 0.018 ⋅ 15 ⋅ L3 = ⋅ 12 ⋅ 32 3 = 3.

M ϕ c M θ R0 sin ϕ πc ∆ sinϕ Figure 3-2 Definition of parameters. 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. 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 (3.1) The quantity R is consequently the total shear force that is transferred to the each half of the column due to the column rotation.

3) The rotation due to an unbalanced moment is θ1 = R ⋅c Mu 2∆ = 0 = c − B 8π EI 2 π EI (3. The reaction R according to Eq.28): ∆= 2⎞ R0 ⎛ ⎜1 − B ⎟ ⋅ c ⋅ c − B ≈ R0 ⋅ c ⋅ c − B 4π ⎜ 2 4 π 2 EI 2 c2 ⎟ ⎝ ⎠ 2 EI (3. the additional rotation of the column can be assessed as 50 L 2 .4) L 2 L R R L 2 L 2 Figure 3-3 Unbalanced moment due to story drift. (3.The deflection ∆ due to a concentric load R0 can be derived from Eqs. If the slab width resisting this force R is assumed equal to the column strip width (L/2). Story drift during earthquakes or wind load as illustrated in Figure 3-3 is a common cause for unbalanced moment. The broken lines represent the size of test specimens that are assumed to simulate the behaviour of the slab near the column.1) is conservatively assumed to act at the distance L/4 from the column. The effect of the column rotation within the broken lines is evaluated above. (2.27) and (2.

There is a difference.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 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. however.5 Mu 2 π EI (3. 3.2 ⋅ θ ⋅ EI Compare Aalami (1972) who used the theory of elasticity for an isotropic thin plate to derive M u.05) (3.5 L ( 2 )2 = Mu RL = 32 EI 4 π EI because R = R0 4M u and R0 = π c (3. θ 1 4π θ = θ 1 + θ 2 = 1 .10 ⋅ θ ⋅ EI (for a/L = 0. In-plane forces in the slab therefore balance the compression struts. 51 .6) (3. it does not consider the local effects of force transfer from the column to the slab or vice versa.θ2 = RL 16 EI ⋅ 0. Figure 3-4 shows a possible load path for these effects. Such force effects should be regarded as fictitious quantities that in reality are replaced by the two horizontal compression struts. el = 4.4 Model for eccentric punching of flat plates The model described in the previous section only reflects the global elastic behaviour of the system. The horizontal compression strut forces in the slab are larger than the tension tie forces from the reinforcement that passes through the column. Any transfer of unbalanced moment by “eccentricity of shear” in the slab is neglected.7) M u = 4. Circumferential cracking around the column isolates other reinforcement bars from participating in the moment transfer.5 .5) ∴ θ 2 2π = = 0.

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 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 opposite half where the unbalanced moment can cause tension in the bottom reinforcement of the slab is consequently called “the positive slab half”. A sector element in the negative slab half is depicted in Figure 3-5. 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”.0.5 M u Figure 3-4 Unbalanced moment transfer by strut-and. 52 .tie system. Figure 3-5 The slab resists unbalanced moment by radial concrete compression and tangential reinforcement. Corresponding forces act on the positive slab half.5 M u 0. The radial compression stress near the column is consequently much larger than at concentric gravity loading.

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. 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 broken line illustrates the behaviour of the slab due to a column rotation. The sector element reactions are denoted Rti in the negative slab half and Rbi in the positive slab half. The reactions Rti and Rbi denote the column reactions for a uniform slab deflection ∆sinφi (all around). 53 . The concentric gravity load V causes the slab deflection δV.The relation between concentric column load and slab deflection within the circle with diameter c is depicted in Figure 3-6. 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 radial compression struts from the column cause a larger radial curvature of the sector elements near the column than at concentric loading. The reduced stiffness EI1 can be assessed in accordance with Eq. which is equal to kI·EI. Furthermore. (2.10) c M ϕ ∆ sin ϕ ϕn ϕ 1 ϕ ϕ 2 i Figure 3-7 Variation of fictitious slab deflection ∆ due to column rotation.9) The mean value EI ⋅ EI1 . 54 .9) with x replaced by h/2: h ⎞ ⎛ h ⎞ ⎛ EI1 = ρ ⋅ E s ⋅ d 3 ⋅ ⎜1 − ⎟ ⋅ ⎜1 − ⎟ ⎝ 2d ⎠ ⎝ 6d ⎠ (3. 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. see Figure 3-8.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. The additional curvature results in an additional column rotation.

Relation between unbalanced moment Mu and maximum value R0 of support reaction along slab edge: R ⋅c Mu = 0 (3.13) 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.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 (3.2) 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 .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

Moehle (1989) Hawkins et al (1989) L1 1.761 " 1.946 0.5 47.834 0.152 1.1 20.006(1± 0.186 0.93 (1± 0.5 2 36.077 1.809 0.302 1. 61 .344 1.977 0.837 0.8 254 1.53 1.40 / 0.566 1.141 1.9 27.639 Vtest / Vcalc 0.0 1.28 0.95 / 0.6 23.3 30.83 " 1.6CH 14CH 6CL 14CL h = 152 Mean value Compare Thesis: Mean value Vtest / Vcalc = 1.952 0.803 0.982 0.5BL 14.40 / 0.095 1.777 1.40 0.42 / 0.3 31.8 26.6AH 14AH 6AL 9.2 19.827 0.487 SM0.242 2.78 " " " " " " 2.63 0.438 1.3BH 9.57 Narasimhan (1971) Ghali et al (1974) Ghali et al (1976) Islam.35 1.50 1.566 0.2 54.63 1.397 1.34 / 0.338 0.876 1.251 1.7941 0.936 0.9 31.279 1.86 / 0.160 0.50 1.57 1.926 1.95 / 0.336 0.3001 1.60 / 0.537 1.39 1.29 " 0.63 0.3 345 1.18 1.73 / 0.4 57.024 0. not included in statistical evaluation.7 484 " 472 415 420 472 415 420 472 472 415 472 472 415 472 415 420 472 420 0.7 22.4 39.96 / 0.194 1.5 25.5 52.989 1.664 1.42 / 0.8 " " 1. Test slab No.60 / 0.842 0.889 0.2BH h = 114 7.34 / 0.39 / 1.393 1.772 0.48 1.949 0.652 1.245 Vtest / Vcalc 1.6AL 29.0 114 152 " " " " " 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 " 1.28 0.216 1.5 SM1.873 0.851 0.13) h=152 14AL 7.0121 1.8 29.1 26.23 (1± 0.8 305 1.7 28.2BL 6CH 9.75 0.907 1.512 1.065 1.407 1.542 1.7 49.83 " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " 274 " 305 " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " 1.146 1.279 1.988 0. Park (1976) Elgabry.7 31.40 / 0.006 1.143 305 " " 229 0.334 1.190 1.517 1.3 22.407 1.545 1.911 1. MPa M2 M3 M6 M7 M8 M9 M10 25.53 1.950 1.48 1. Comparison with code predictions.73 / 0.5BH 14.0 22.34 / 0.029 0.669 1.0 SM 1.05 2.383 1 35 452 1.05 / 1.692 1.7 30.223 1.239 0.40 / 0.50 1.50 / 0.394 1.922 0.396 1.34 / 0.331 1.878 0.58 / 0.195 1.60 / 0.0 20.131 0.0 24.0 fcc fsy ρ / ρc % d h mm c m 1.3BL 9.60 / 0.909 0.63 0.063 1 1.4061 1.112) 1) Cyclic loading.404 1.28 1.5 18.032 B5NP 28.75 0.8 33.521 1.659 1.05 / 0.96 / 0.07 / 0.783 1.933 1.2 21.380 1.Table 3-2 Authors Moe (1961) Unbalanced moment test results.985 0.9 476 " " 374 0.53 / 0.46 1.211 1.20) AP1 AP3 6AH 9.51 (1± 0.010 0.674 1.991 1.978 1.0 6 / 0. Ghali (1987) Pan .40 0.805 1 2.914 0.0 Column size mm 305 " 254 " " " " 305 ACI 318 MC 90 BBK 04 Vtest / Vcalc 1.28 0.6 MPa 481 " 327 " " " " 398 1.20) 1.96 / 0.968 0.

see also Chapter 4. and (3. as proposed in Section 3. (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. it is not intended for use in the design office.10) and Mu taken as the lowest value according to Eqs.37).33) to (3. which introduces a torsional member between the slab and the column to simulate the flexible force transfer of unbalanced moment between column and slab. 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. Many methods have been proposed to solve the problem of estimating a design value for the unbalanced moment – with limited success.31) is recommended.4. However.4). When δ ε approaches or exceeds δy2 (at low reinforcement ratios). In that case the more exact Eq.32) with kI according to Eq. The rotation capacity was derived in Section 3.6 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 code ACI 318-02 for instance allows flat plates to be designed according to the “Equivalent Frame Method”. then Eq.31) or more conveniently as θu = (3. The punching deflection δ ε can always be determined without any iteration.4.32) becomes very conservative.13): Mu = θ ⎛ ⎛c⎞ B⎞ 12⎜ ln⎜ ⎟ − 1 + ⎟ ⎜ c⎟ 1 ⎝B⎠ ⎠ ⎝ + 3 2 π ⋅ k I ⋅ EI π ⋅ E c10 ⋅ h (3. (3.33) 62 . The calculation procedure is laborious and is only included here for verification of the model. 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. (3.2. 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. (3.3. (3. (3. The reason for this is two-fold. These shortcomings are overcome with the approach described in Section 3. flat plates should be checked for rotation capacity rather than unbalanced moment capacity. Vε and δ ε are output values from the concentric punching check described in Chapter 2. This approach may seem elegant. An upper bound for the unbalanced moment can be assessed by combining Eqs.10). the actual rotation can be determined with good precision by means of standard methods as indicated in Section 3.

63 .150 ⎞ 3 ⋅⎜ ⎟ ⎝ 0. or the local compression strength of the horizontal compression struts: 1.34) 2. (3. 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 ⎛ 0.5h ⎠ 1 (3. The punching failure load limits the unbalanced moment according to the lesser of Mu1a and Mu1b that are derived from Eq.37) where h = slab thickness [m] and a = column width. the unbalanced moment is limited by the lesser of the punching capacity. 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 ⋅ (3.2): ⎞ c ⎛ V y1 M u1a = k I ⋅ ⎜ δ ε ⋅ −V ⎟ ⋅ ⎟ 4 ⎜ δ y1 ⎠ ⎝ c M u1b = V y2 − V ⋅ 4 ( ) (3. 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. the flexural yield capacity of the slab.36) 4.35) 2π B 1− c and ρc = bottom reinforcement ratio.However. 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. 3.

2·1.01 0 V 500 1000 1500 kN Figure 3-9 Column rotation capacity versus reinforcement ratio.5 m².20 m corresponding to a slenderness L/d equal to 35. 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. which corresponds to a required ultimate punching capacity 1. and such flat plates may display no reduction in punching capacity when subjected to imposed column rotation.0 12 0. which is derived from the “exact” expressions in Section 3. which was found experimentally already by Ghali et al (1976). ρ’ = 0.The ultimate rotation capacity for a slender flat plate structure versus reinforcement ratio and column size is displayed in Figure 3-9. The column reaction would then be 11·7.5ρ) 64 .02 = 539 kN. column 0. fck =30 MPa.20 m.0 10 0.8 % according to Figure 3-9 (interior column with θ = 0). d = 0.4. fsy=420 MPa.8 m.04 0. (c = 2.0 m.02 0.03 ρ= 06 0.5·539 = 970 kN with a required reinforcement ratio ρ = 0.0 08 0. The factored uniformly distributed load in an office building would typically be 11 kN/m² (with Swedish load factors).23 m. L = 7. θu 0.0 m and the effective depth is 0. It is also evident that flat plates with moderate reinforcement ratio can resist large imposed column rotations.5x0.0 0 0. h = 0. The span width is 7.

The equations in Section 2. 65 . where L is the span width. where the factor γn = 1. In Sweden this factor should be γn·γm = 1. The flat plate structure is divided into strips in accordance with Figure 4-1.2·1. 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. The bending moment distribution near the column is assumed polar-symmetric within a circle with the diameter c. Each strip is assumed pin-supported on the columns and the lines of zero shear for the perpendicular strips bound the strip laterally.2 corresponds to Swedish safety class 3. The design punching capacity is then taken as the calculated ultimate punching capacity divided by the applicable strength reduction factor for concrete. 4. It is therefore essential that this bending moment be estimated in a correct way.4L. The negative strip moments can normally be determined for full load on all bays. The quantities Vε and δ ε in Eqs.2 will then give correct results for interior columns in flat plates with square panels if c is taken as 0. Comparison is made with current structural design codes.31) and (3.4 Design This Chapter demonstrates how the presented theory shall be applied for design of flat plates.5 = 1. The design rotation capacity is calculated in a similar manner. which is applicable if the probable failure mode is brittle.8. 4.1 Design of support reinforcement at square panels In design. 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. The basic case – a flat plate structure with square panels – is treated in Section 2.2 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.32) shall be divided by the strength reduction factor γn·γm to derive the design value of the rotation capacity at factored loading. 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.2. where c/2 is the distance from the column to the line where the radial bending moment is zero. (3.

ms is not uniformly distributed over the width of the strip.the middle strip – is denoted msm.0. The negative bending moment per unit width in a strip is denoted ms. 66 L1 . where the polar symmetric conditions within the circle with diameter c were studied. The width c is taken as 0.is denoted msc. Since the strip is supported on columns.the column strip . it is concentrated toward the columns. The following provisions are adapted to the approach in Chapter 2.5w L2 L2 Figure 4-1 Definition of strip parameters. The average negative bending moment per unit width within the width c . 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. and the average negative bending moment per unit width on the remaining effective width of the strip . Only reinforcement within the effective width w of the strip is considered active.4w. where w is the lesser of the width of the strip and the span width L1.

033V + ⎜ ms + ⎟ 12 ⎠ ⎝ (4. Since punching normally occurs before all reinforcement reaches the yield limit.4 w + msm ⋅ 0. msc.4) 67 .Let us first study the basic case.033V 12 12 2π (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 = − ⋅ 0.3) V ⎞ ⎛ Bε ⎞ ⎛ ⎜1 − ⎟ + ⎜ ms + ⎟ c ⎠ ⎝ 12 ⎠ ⎝ V ⎞ ⎛ msm = −0. B c m r =0 m=− Figure 4-2 Fan-type yield lines. V 2π ⎛ B⎞ ⎜1 − ⎟ c⎠ ⎝ In the general case with rectangular slab panels.2) V ⎛ Bε ⎞ ⎜1 − ⎟ 2π ⎝ c ⎠ The bending moment within the column strip.2).1) (4. is identical to the average bending moment within the circle with diameter c according to Chapter 2. The average bending moment msm within the remaining width – the middle strip – is determined by the conditions of moment equilibrium. 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. The average bending moment msc within the column strip with width 0.6 w → msm = −0.4w corresponds to the fan-type yield line depicted in Figure 4-2. more reinforcement will be required within the column strip than corresponding to the average bending moment according to Eq. (4. a continuous flat plate with square panels.

c = 0.2 ⋅ 4.8 kNm/m 2 π ⎝ 2880 ⎠ msc = − Example 2 Interior panel of flat plate with span widths 7.8 + ⎟ = −46.8 kNm/m (in the long direction) 12 4.5 kNm/m msc = − 622 ⎛ 471 ⎞ ⎜1 − ⎟ = −74.8 + ⎟ = −100.8 m in the two directions.2 2 = 622 kN Bε = msm 3π 400 = 471 mm . Column size 400x400 mm Total factored load 18 kN/m2 ms = −18 ms = −18 7.2 = 2.8 2 = −34.88 m 8 = −0.7 kNm/m 2 π ⎝ 1920 ⎠ 68 .033 ⋅ 622 = −20.4.5 kNm/m 12 ⎠ ⎝ 622 ⎛ 471 ⎞ ⎛ 622 ⎞ msc = − ⎜1 − ⎟ + ⎜ − 77. Example 1.2 m in both directions.4.5 kNm/m 471 ⎞ 622 ⎛ ⎜1 − ⎟ = −82.4 ⋅ 7.2 2 = −51. ms = −12 7. which for instance occurs when 12 ⎠ ⎝ L1 < L2 .033 ⋅ 622 = −20.2 and 4.8 = 622 kN c = 0.92 m Bε = 3π 400 = 471 mm 8 in the long direction : 622 ⎞ ⎛ msm = −0. Interior panel of a flat plate with span width 7.7 kNm/m 2 π ⎝ 1920 ⎠ ⎝ 12 ⎠ in the short direction : msm = −0.033 ⋅ 622 + ⎜ − 77. Column size = 400x400 mm Total factored load = 12 kN/m2.6 kNm/m (in the short direction) 12 V = 18 ⋅ 7.8 = 1.8 kNm/m 12 V = 12 ⋅ 7.2 2 = −77.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.

the punching capacity shall be checked for each direction separately.5.25a) 4. Eq.3) yields a very good estimate of the average bending moment within the width 0.3 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. when full loading is applied on all panels of the flat plate structure. It can be shown that Eq.07qL2 for exterior panels. The quantity m 1 A= s − shall therefore be added to all expressions for bending moments – as for V 12 instance Eqs. In Section 2. it was demonstrated that the bending moment at the column plays a decisive role for the punching capacity. in cases where the required flexural reinforcement ratio differs in the two directions. These static equilibrium conditions can be checked in accordance with Figure 4-3.1. The bending moments at the column differ. (4. 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 (2.3) 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. Therefore.(4.25) – when checking the punching capacity according to Chapter 2. 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). 69 .23a) m1 = tangential moment at column edge (2.4 w according to the theory of elasticity for 1 < L1/L2 < 2. however. 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).23) and (2. (2.

Interior panels ψ pu = 1 0.Interior panel ψ curvature with parabolic variation ψ 0. The inclination ψ pu is determined from Eq.6 L L 0.75 L L Figure 4-3 Static equilibrium and compatibility conditions. (2.43): ψ pu = δ ε 2 c − Bε 70 (4.27) if punching occurs without any reinforcement yielding.25 L ψ 3 L 0 = 0.6 L ε sf f ′′ ⋅ L0 = 3 3 d − xf d − xf L (4.7) 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.2 L Exterior panel 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. (2.2 L L 0 = 0. If some or all reinforcement yields before punching then the inclination ψ pu is determined from δε according to Eq.8) .

5 m ≤ d ≤ 1. BBK 04 f v2 = ξ (1 + 50 ρ )0.d for 0.3) and the punching capacity would be larger than calculated. 71 .2 m ≤ d ≤ 0.0 and 1. The midspan reinforcement is usually designed for the effect of pattern loading.9 for 1. The opposite is valid if the strain in the midspan reinforcement corresponds to a flexural moment less than qL2/24 or 0. The Swedish load factors are 1.10) ξ is a size-effect factor ξ = 1. the design provisions of which is briefly summarized hereunder.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 (4.4.6 .5d from the column average effective depth (4. 4. The average load factors for the two codes Model Code 90 and ACI 318-02 are approximately 20 % larger.4d for 0.9) 4.If the strain in the midspan reinforcement εsf corresponds to a flexural moment larger than qL2/24 and 0.10).3 – 0. Additional midspan reinforcement has then to be provided until the described equilibrium and compatibility conditions are fulfilled.3 for dead load and live load respectively.07qL2 respectively. 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. 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.07qL2 respectively.2 in the Figures 4-4 to 4-6 in order to make them comparable with the Swedish approach.01 in Eq. (4.0 m ξ = 0.0 m ≤ d ρ is the reinforcement ratio within the circle with diameter c and ρ is limited to maximum 0.1 Swedish Code for Concrete Structures. The design strength for these two codes is therefore divided by 1.2 m ξ = 1.4 for d ≤ 0.5 m ξ = 1. then the design is safe because the negative flexural moment would be less than given by Eq.4 Comparison with Codes The theory is in Figure 4-4 compared to some common codes for design of flat plates. (4.

2 for safety class 3 (= brittle failure mode) The control perimeter is placed 0.5d outside the column edge: u = π(B+d) for circular columns and u = 4a + πd for square columns 4.14) (4.4.12) (4. if the approach proposed in Paper III is applied.4. Firstly. This is unfortunate for two reasons. It is described in detail in Hallgren (1996). f v1 = 0.2 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).γm = strength reduction factor for concrete = 1.5 γn = safety class related strength reduction factor = 1.5d 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. The control perimeter is – as in most other codes – proposed to be placed 0. MC 90 The Model Code 90 defines the punching shear capacity along a control perimeter at the distance 2d from the column edge. 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 (4.15) (4.5 f v1 u u = 4a + π d u = π (B + d ) α = 3π 72 . The formal punching shear strength is then assumed equal to the shear strength for one-way structures such as beams. where the control perimeter would fall outside the structure.11) (4.3 Model Code 1990. 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 90.13) (4.16) ξ = 1+ f v2 = 200 d u +α ⋅d ⋅ f v1 ≤ 2. however. it gives false information about the punching failure mode and secondly it cannot be applied to compact structures such as footings. The deficiency can be overcome.

18) u + 20d ⋅ f v1 ≤ 2 f v1 u The control perimeter is placed 0. The code overestimates the punching capacity at low reinforcement values.80 for flexural failure.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.4.17) (4. The Handbook method overestimates the punching capacity for reinforcement ratios exceeding 0. The strength reduction factor is 0.9. The code ACI 318-02 gives a single value for the punching shear strength. only depending on the square root of the compression strength and independent of reinforcement ratio and size effect. a reduction factor is given when the aspect ratio of a rectangular column is larger than 2. the following conclusions can be drawn.20) Furthermore. The very simple expression in BBK 04 for punching capacity seems to reflect the influence of the reinforcement ratio in a correct way.4. 73 .4 Building Code Requirements for Structural Concrete. 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. However. Figure 4-4.75 for punching and shear failure and 0.4. ACI 318-02 f v1 = f v2 = 1 6 f ck (4. based on regression analysis of many test results. Gardner et al (2000). which even has been a partial cause of a serious progressive collapse with many casualties. the resulting safety factor is unnecessarily high and the limit 1 % for the reinforcement ratio seems to be too cautious. If these two curves are assumed to represent the true design punching strength. 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. 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. here and in other evaluations.5d outside the column edge.7 %. the ACI code is also used in many other parts of the world where practice often calls for thicker slabs with less reinforcement. 4.19) (4. The code expressions are purely empirical. This is probably the reason why the code provisions for punching still are considered appropriate in USA. In such cases the code provisions will result in structures with a low safety against punching. However.

015 ρ Figure 4-4 Code comparison.2 500 0 0 0.010 0. The strength reduction factor for brittle concrete failure is there used throughout. 4.26 m.5 12 (fan type yield lines) (4.2 = 1. a = 0. This is discussed in the following. 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.2 Thesis/1. d = 0.6 m. If δε < δy2 (at normal to high reinforcement ratios) then it is obvious that the capacity is punching-controlled.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. The design capacity is then derived from the theoretical ultimate capacity by division with the strength reduction factors for concrete and safety class 3. 3. fck = 24 MPa.6 m. 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 ⋅ 1.21) (ACI 318-02) (4. Design capacity at concentric punching versus flexural reinforcement ratio.5·1. ( c = 3.8. 5. γm· γn = 1. 2.005 0. even for the part of the curves where the flexural yield capacity governs. fsy =500 MPa) The straight lines from the origin of coordinates in Figure 4-4 represent the flexural capacity. 74 .8 Handbook ACI 318-02/1. BBK 04 MC 90/1.

2).5·1.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. Below point B = flexure controlled capacity (γm·γn =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 strength reduction factors for reinforcement (= 1. 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 4-6.1).1) would then be appropriate.005 0. Above point A = punching controlled capacity (γm·γn =1. which means that punching occurs after all reinforcement has reached the yield limit. 75 . The structure can therefore not be defined as flexure-controlled until δε >> δy2. 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.15) and safety class 2 (= 1. VR 1000 kN A 500 B 0 ρ 0 0. a punching failure still occurs suddenly with little warning of impending failure. A linear transition between points A and B corresponds to a gradual change of the punching-controlled strength reduction factor to the flexurecontrolled. say δε > 3δy2. The refinement will therefore not be used in the following. 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 = Vy2.010 Figure 4-5 Design capacity with varying strength reduction factors.15·1.

26 m.010 0.8 fck MPa 80 50 24 500 0 0 0.010 0.015 ρ VR kN a = 300 mm B/d = 1.2 Thesis/1.2 1500 fck MPa 80 50 1000 MC 90/1.VR kN 1500 a = 600 mm B/d = 2.9 c-B 2d = 5.2 24 500 Thesis/1.005 0. Comparison between Thesis and Model Code 90.5 c-B 2d = 6. fsy = 500 MPa) 76 .6 1000 MC 90/1.005 0.8 0 0 0. d = 0.015 ρ Figure 4-6 Design capacity at concentric punching. (c = 3.6 m.

1.2 Thesis/1.0 B MPa B+d c Vσ 4.0 ≥2 4 5 0.5 1.2 ACI 318-02/1. This is partly illustrated in Figure 4-7. 1. 1. 3. is studied. f v1 7 10 10 B d Figure 4-7 Effect of (c-B)/2d and B/d on design strength for punching.5 fv1 1. a continuous flat plate or a single foundation. 2.2 2. The codes can therefore neither differentiate between slender and compact structures nor identify the influence of the bending moment on the punching capacity.5d from the column. (d = 0. The punching capacity is expressed as the design shear strength along a control perimeter at the distance 0.5 1. 0 0 BBK 04 Model Code 90/1.8 5 4. 4.7 %) 77 . A column-supported structure. fck =30 MPa. 3. ρ = 0. d VR VR = fv2 * π (B+d)d fv2 2.3 m.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. fsy = 500 MPa.0 2.5 c-B 2d 1. Vε 2.

The Thesis theory on the other hand displays a dependence also on the reinforcement ratio. If it were placed close to the column. The two codes BBK 04 and Model Code 90 give a size effect that depends only on the effective depth of the slab. with no size effect if all reinforcement yields before punching.2 m) for punching ultimate capacity versus effective depth of the slab and reinforcement ratio.0 for d = 0.002 0.5 0 0.The code methods give a shear strength that is independent of the slenderness of the flat plate structure.005 ≥ 0.5 1. The high allowable shear stress at large columns by the code ACI 318-02 is remarkable. the size-effect is illustrated in Figure 4-8. corresponding to the diameter of the internal column capital. ξ 1.01 0. which means that the strength of compact slabs such as footings is underestimated.0 ρ 0. the punching strength of slabs 2d increases with decreasing slenderness. B/d = 1. (fck =30 MPa. Comparison with Model Code 90 and BBK 04.0 d (m) Figure 4-8 Normalized size-effect (ξ =1.9. however. The decreasing strength of the Vσ -curves for B/d < 3 is a consequence of the chosen position of the formal control section. fsy = 500 MPa. (c-B)/2d = 5. Just as for the shear strength of beams. the Vσ -curves would be continuously increasing with decreasing column size. The Thesis on the other hand gives a significant punching strength dependence on the c−B slenderness . Finally.4) 78 .004 MC 90 0.003 BBK 04 0. (The curve represents the capacity for a square column).

or consequences of human error. 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. impact. slabs with various forms of stirrups were tested (Paper II). However. it must be emphasized that even the most accurate theory cannot eliminate the disadvantage of flat plates. Punching usually occurs when the concrete strain near the column due to the bending moment in the slab exceeds a critical value. In other words. it should be remembered that modern building codes agree with what is stated in Eurocode 2 (1991). who all seem to utilize shear reinforcement merely for increasing the punching capacity – not for creating a ductile structure. which in turn most probably will result in punching at these columns as well. see Chapter 2. If a punching failure occurs at one column due to a local overloading. In order to find a reinforcement system that could result in the desired ductile behaviour. then the slab inclination and hence the concrete strain will increase at the adjacent columns. The stirrups were anchored around the top reinforcement of the slab in accordance with code provisions. 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. A flat plate should behave in the same manner as a cast-in-place concrete slab supported by beams or walls. researchers and designers. to an extent disproportionate to the original cause”. A progressive collapse of the entire building is then impending. Please observe that this approach differs from the current perception by codes.5 Reinforcement for ductility In the preceding chapters. That code requires a structure to be designed is such a way “that it will not be damaged by events like explosions. a theory for prediction of punching capacity is presented and validated. It is commonly accepted that such test specimens do simulate the behaviour of continuous flat plates near the columns. namely the risk of a brittle punching failure in the event of overloading. Consequently. 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 local failure shall not spread over a large portion of the structure and shall not trigger a progressive collapse.2. The theory can therefore be applied for verification of existing structures and for design purpose. Such a slab displays a very ductile flexural failure mode without risk for brittle shear failure. Despite the fact that the formal shear capacity exceeded the yield capacity of the specimens. 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. 79 . In this context. the failure was brittle. It is demonstrated that the theory can predict the capacity and deflection of test specimens with good accuracy.

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

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. Alternatively. Furthermore. The design calculations of the mature concept “ductility reinforcement” are very simple and described in detail in Paper IV. the column reaction can be taken as five times the contribution from the worst adjacent panel. where the stirrup cages were simplified as regards both fabrication and installation. the zone with stirrups was reduced in relation to Paper II. 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 concept was later on further developed (Paper III). In this way. 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. 81 .

82 .

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

84 .

If the column is small in relation to the compression zone depth. 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 1990.5 per mille. Low strength concretes start to “soften” at a compression strain of about 1. In this case it is obvious that the failure is not caused by the shear force. If the f ⎞ ⎛ column is very large. As a consequence. however.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 size effect decreases with decreasing amount of flexural reinforcement. The failure mechanism is different. 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. 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.0 per mille. That capacity depends in turn on a limited concrete strain capacity. The slab is nevertheless stable and can be loaded and reloaded without any decrease of the ultimate load.75 per mille – the same for all concrete grades. 85 . the compression strength is assumed reduced to 0. Punching occurs instead when the compression zone of the slab near the column collapses. the compression strength of the strut is assumed to reach the value 1. To crown everything. The presented models are based on information that can be gained from the stress-strain relation of concrete in uniaxial compression. The thickness of the compression strut near the column is limited by the compression zone depth in radial direction. but it is assumed to slowly decrease with increasing concrete strength to account for the increasing brittleness of concrete with increasing strength. It is interesting to note that the latter strength corresponds to a compression strain of about 0. which is close to the strain at the peak stress for low strength concretes. 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. It should be observed that these critical strain levels are considerably lower than the generally accepted ultimate strain 3. If the slab is provided with adequate amount of conventional shear reinforcement the critical concrete strain is assumed to increase to 1. which ⎝ 250 ⎠ is the generally accepted value for the uniaxial compression strength in cracked zones. 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.6 f cc ⎜1 − cc ⎟ .5 per mille for uniaxially spanned members in bending. 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. 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.2 fcc corresponding to the strength of concrete in biaxial compression with moderate perpendicular compression stress. it is caused by the limited curvature capacity of the slab.

which is similar to the case that the compression strength tested on a cylinder specimen does not explain the failure mechanism. A conservative value for the rotation capacity is derived from the slab behaviour at concentric punching. above all. However. 86 1 . (Observe that Ec10 ≈ k ⋅ ( f cc ) 3 ). which demonstrates. Similarly.3 (2. 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. Equation (2. If so called unbalanced moment is transferred from the slab to the column or vice versa. because the imposed slab rotation can be estimated with much better certainty than the imposed unbalanced moment. which initiates the punching failure due to a “zip” effect. This follows from the hypothesis that the concrete compression strain in flexure is decisive for the punching capacity. very simple and straightforward. the presented size dependent strain limit in a flat plate happens to capture the conditions when the concrete near the column edge becomes unstable. 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. the theory is able to predict reported test results … with amazing accuracy.As stated in Paper I: “The basic assumptions behind the theory are. It is therefore recommended that the E-modulus shall be specified for flat plate structures. Nevertheless. which is especially important if the coarse aggregates in the concrete mix do not emanate from primitive rock. 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. The dependence on the concrete E-modulus indicates that capacity predictions will be uncertain if only the compression strength of the concrete is recorded. which is mainly a tensile failure in lateral direction. The curvature of the slab at failure will then increase in relation to a slab without shear reinforcement. 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 increased curvature means that more flexural reinforcement will reach the yield limit before punching occurs.” The presented models do not explain the failure mechanisms in detail. in reality. that the punching failure mechanism … is perhaps not as complex as many researchers claim. which means that the curvature capacity increases with increasing concrete grade. which in turn means that the capacity increases.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 0.150 0. It is also evident that the curvature capacity of a flat plate rapidly decreases with increasing reinforcement ratio and increasing effective depth.0010 3 ⎛ 25 ⎞ ⎟ ⎜ = c10 ⋅ ⋅ ⎟ 2 ρ2 ⎜ 4d 2 f sy ⎝ f cc ⎠ 0. 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.

They can therefore be classified as having no risk for brittle punching failure and can be designed in Swedish safety class 2. The complete calculation steps for prediction of the punching failure are demonstrated in Appendices A to E. an approximate manual method for this case is described in Section 2. Flat plates with shear reinforcement are treated in Appendix C. Two examples of flat plates are treated in Appendices A and B. but all calculations are possible to perform manually except for the punching load at partial yield of the flexural reinforcement in Appendix B.4. However. 87 . The displayed calculations are valid for interior square panels. the rotation of the column in relation to the slab shall be checked instead. The required modifications for other cases are described in Chapter 4.Flat plates provided with a novel reinforcement concept denoted “ductility reinforcement” display an extremely ductile behaviour.6. The laborious calculations for unbalanced moment are shown in Appendix F just for documentation purpose. 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). In practice. 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. which is described in Section 3. The program Mathcad is used for this purpose.

88 .

International Workshop on Punching Shear Capacity of RC Slabs – Proceedings. V.8 References ACI 318-02 (2002).. R.und Stahlbetonbau. ACI Structural Journal. H. Boverkets handbok om betongkonstruktioner. “Recommendations for Design of Slab-Column Connections in Monolithic Reinforced Concrete Structures”. (1979). pp. submitted to Magazine of Concrete Research. ACI Journal. ACI-ASCE Committee 352.181-189. “Shear Reinforcement for Slabs”. Universität Stuttgart.. Bericht über das Forschungsvorhaben V 175 des DAfStb.P. pp. (2000b). in Swedish). (2005). V. A. Dieterle. Beton. J. 94-101. “Punching of Concrete Slabs with Shear Reinforcement”. Hegger. pp. (1987). American Concrete Institute. ACI-ASCE Committee 421. Bažant. V.1R-89 (1989). Royal Institute of Technology. (1990a). ACI Structural Journal. H. 22 pp. Stockholm. Stockholm. 59 pp. Cao.E.L. H.84.H.1R -99 (1999). Beutel.E. pp. “Versuche an quadratischen Einzelfundamente mit und ohne Schubbewehrung”. No. R. 185 pp. “Moment-Rotation Relation between Column and Slab”. 44-53. Vol 74. Otto-GrafInstitut. No. pp.. 129-132. “Punching Behaviour of Shear Reinforced Flat Slabs at Interior Columns – Effective and Economic Shear Systems”. J. Broms. (1972). BBK 04 (2004). Ghali. ACI 421. 3. 73. “Durchstanzbewehrung für Flachdecken”. No. (1963). C.. “Shear Reinforcement for Deflection Ductility of Flat Plates”. pp.87. “Size Effect in Punching Shear Failure of Slabs”. Andrä. 292-304. pp. Dilger. Andersson. Broms. Royal Institute of Technology. ACI Structural Journal.. C. 89 . Schmidt. 212.W. Broms. (1978). 263-269. 29-37. “Building Code Requirements for Structural Concrete and Commentary. Z. A. Dieterle. Jg. ACI 352. pp. “Ductility Reinforcement for Flat Slabs in Seismic as well as Nonseismic Areas”. 97. (Recommendations for design of Concrete Structures. Stockholm. M. Michigan. 15 pp. Betonund Stahlbetonbau. Z. Broms.87. No. C.. Transactions of the Royal Institute of Technology. (2000).2. F. International Workshop on Punching Shear Capacity of RC Slabs – Proceedings. H. 1.E. 6.1. 696-705. pp. “3D Numerical Punching Analysis of Shear Reinforced Flat Slabs – Variation of Quantity and Arrangement of Stirrups”. V. “Zur Bemessung von Fundamentplatten ohne Schubbewehrung”. Rostasy. “Punching of Flat Plates – A Question of Concrete Properties in Biaxial Compression and Size Effect”. Beutel.171-179. (1990b). B. C. “Elimination of Flat Plate Punching Failure Mode”. Landauer. ACI Structural Journal.E. (2000a).S.. (1981). No 5. No. Aalami.

Goralski. S.73. N. Hallgren. Sargious. (1988). No. pp. Dept. Comité Européen de Normalisation. 85.M. of Structural Engineering. Yamazaki. Hawkins.M. Stockholm. 3. Bulletin No.. No. Proceedings. ACI Journal. 162 pp. European Prestandard ENV 1992-1-1:1991. 6. J. Ghali. Ghali. pp. (1983.. Hognestad. N. 206 pp.. “Tests on Concrete Slab-Column Connections with Stud-Shear Reinforcement Subjected to Shear-Moment Transfer”. Elstner. Royal Institute of Technology. R.. Beutel. Hegger. Bulletin No. Gustafsson. Lan Chung (2000). Redovisning av provningar”. “Progressive Collapse of Flat Plate Structures”. V.. pp. Mitchell. Gardner.775-808. V. 90 . V. International Workshop on Punching Shear Capacity of RC Slabs – Proceedings. Bertram. of Structural Engineering. B. Elmasri. 253 pp. ACI Publication SP-42. N.225-233. Hassanzadeh (1998).. Huizer. “Shearing Strength of Reinforced Concrete Slabs”.. (2001).. Dept. “Förstärkning av brobaneplattor på pelare med hänsyn till genomstansning. (in Swedish with a summary in English). M. (1976). “Sensitivity in Shear Strength of Longitudinally Reinforced Concrete Beams to Fracture Energy of Concrete”. A. Nylander. Stockholm. E. 905-920. A. pp. “Versuchsbericht zum Durchstanzen mit Halfen HDB-N-Ankern als Durchstanzbewehrung im Bereich von Innenstützen”. of Structural Engineering. Vol. G. Royal Institute of Technology. P. Dept. A. Hawkins.10. ACI Structural Journal. (1996). 5. ACI Structural Journal. pp. M. Kinnunen.A. Eurocode 2: Design of Concrete Structures – Part I: General Rules and Rules for Buildings. No. Bao.C. “Punching Shear Capacity of Reinforced High Strength Concrete Slabs”. 29-58.EC 2 (1991)..J. “Moment Transfer from Concrete Slabs to Columns”. 1998). G. “What can we learn from the Sampong Department Store Collapse”. Ghali. “Punching of Flat Plates under Static and Dynamic Horizontal Forces”. W. Royal Institute of Technology. “Punching Shear Tests on Column Footings”. Stockholm. ACI Structural Journal. 134 pp. of Structural Engineering.Z. Vol.. (1974) “Vertical Prestressing of Flat Plates around Columns”.. RWTH. Royal Institute of Technology.. A. Stockholm. Dimensioneringsmetoder för plattor med icke vidhäftande spännarmering”.. Stockholm. M. pp. 705-716. R.53. ACI Journal. (1956). 433-442. A.. Huh. (1979). J. 22 pp. (1989). J. Hillerborg.. 566-572.86. C. Hallgren.2. (1966). Vol. Aachen. A. Elgabry.. pp. (in Swedish with a summary in English). ACI Journal. Hassanzadeh. 43. A. pp.J. Dept. Brussels. Bulletin 23. “Betongplattor på pelare. D. Dilger. 286-294. Royal Institute of Technology. 41.84. (1987). Technical Report 1998:3. M. No..

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

52 pp. Richart. (1989). J. (1972) “Genomstansning av pelarunderstödd plattbro av betong med ospänd armering”. “Punching Shear in Reinforced Concrete: A State-ofthe-Art Report”. 97-127 and pp. A.. Islam. (1986). Institut für Baustatik und Konstruktion. Regan.Narasimhan. H. Journal of the Structural Division.E. Regan. M. P. (1971) “Shear Reinforcement in Reinforced Concrete Column Heads”. Design (Das Durchstanzen von Platten aus Stahlbeton – Tragverhalten. (in Swedish). “Strength of Slab-Column Connections with Shear and Unbalanced Flexure”.. Betonghandboken – Konstruktion. Bulletin 140. R. D. (2000). Vol. 18791901. “Symmetric punching of reinforced concrete slabs”. pp. 38. pp. Moehle. London. Nilssson. No. J. “Three-dimensional Numeric Analysis of Punching Failure”.102. Berechnung.. Bulletin d´Information. A. (in Swedish with a summary in English). Sundquist. Bulletin 104. F. Ladner. 115.. Pan. pp. No. 62. 106. Materials and Structures. International Workshop on Punching Shear Capacity of RC Slabs – Proceedings. (1979). 65-74. RILEM. pp. (1970). Zürich. Vocke. Institut für Baustoffe. 68 pp. pp.W. 237-260.128. AB Svensk Byggtjänst. (1976). “Design of Flat Plates for Punching (Berechnung von Flachdecken auf Durchstanzen)”. No. Nylander.. Braestrup. 174 pp. 3.E. “Determination of the Fracture Energy of Mortar and Concrete by means of Three-Point Bend Tests on Notched Beams.und Beratungsstelle der Schweizerischen Zementindustrie. Stockholm. B. H. R. “Reinforced Concrtete Wall and Column Footings”.. (1990). Park. (in Swedish). Wildegg Technische Forschungs. pp. 232 pp. ACI Journal. Proceedings V. N. RILEM Draft Recommendation (1985). Royal Institute of Technology. PhDThesis. “Lateral Displacement Ductility of Reinforced Concrete Flat Plates”. Second edition..86. “Punching Tests on Reinforced Concrete Slabs and Prestressed Concrete Slabs (Durchstanzversuche an Stahlbeton. Brändli. M. Rösli. of Structural Mechanics and Engineering.. Schaeidt. H. Nölting. No. Dept. “Dimensionering med hänsyn till genomstansning vid koncentrerat stöd”. 648-675. Magazine of Concrete Research.P. 285-290. of Structural Mechanics and Engineering. Bemessung). 250-258. S.. A (1983). ETH. Royal Institute of Technology. Technische Universität Braunschweig. (1948). 45. Massivbau und Brandschutz. Kinnunen. W.186. 7305-3. Imperial College. Dept. Stockholm.E. 136. S.. Royal Institute of Technology. Calculation. 64 pp. Bericht No. Wildegg.. Comité Euro-International du Béton. J. (1985). Vol.und Spannbetonplatten). Lausanne. pp. Ožbolt. 89 pp. Nylander. Bulletin No.. Paris. No. Stockholm. 18. “Spänningstillstånd i plattdel utanför skjuvarmering vid genomstansning”. Thürlimann. 92 . W. ST9. “Punching of Concrete Slabs – Statics. V. V. (1984). Pralong. ASCE. Eligehausen. ACI Structural Journal. H. P.

Royal Institute of Technology. Sundquist. (1959). 93 . of Structural Mechanics and Engineering. (1977). 88. of Civil and Architectural Engineering. No.3. 1: Resultat av statiska fösök”. Kinnunen. 42 pp. SINTEF Structures and Concrete. V. of Structural Mechanics and Engineering.. (1993). (1992). Deutscher Ausschuss für Stahlbeton. “Betongplatta på pelare vid dynamisk engångslast. Royal Institute of Technology. 116 pp. Kinnunen. “Durchstanzen von Bodenplatten unter rotationssymmetrischer Belastung”. 81.. H. 64 pp. 70 pp. Dept. A. “Betongplatta på pelare vid dynamisk engångslast. A. Sundquist. “The effect of column head and drop panels on the punching capacity of flat slabs”. Bulletin 125. 114 pp. Tomaszewicz. Timm. K.. SP2 – Plates and Shells. 82. Talbot. of Civil and Architectural Engineering. S. S. S. Stockholm. “Plattjocklekens inverkan på betongplattors hållfasthet vid genomstansning. of Structural Mechanics and Engineering. Dept. 67. A. Bulletin 124. Stockholm. University of Illinois Engineering Experiment Station. (in Swedish with a summary in English). Woinowsky-Krieger. Bulletin No. International Student Edition. Bulletin No. Bulletin No. (1988). “The effect of large column section and slab thickness taper on the punching shear capacity of flat slabs”. 146. Stockholm. H. 36 pp. Försök med cirkulära plattor. Report 2. (in Swedish with a summary in English). 24 pp. Royal Institute of Technology. Dept.” High Strength Concrete. Report No. H. (1978).Sundquist..STF70 A93082. (2004b). Trondheim. (in Swedish with summary and Figure captions in English). pp. 555-563.. M.S. Stockholm. Endo.. Heft 547. 580 pp. Berlin. Dept. Royal Institute of Technology.”. Royal Institute of Technology. “Reinforced Concrete Wall Footings and Column Footings”. (in Swedish with summary in English). Bulletin No. T. (2004). Inc. Dept. Stockholm. H. 162 pp. (in Swedish with summary and Figure captions in English). “Theory of Plates and Shells”. 2: Dynamiska försöksresultat och dimensioneringsprinciper”. Mc Graw-Hill Book Company. ACI Structural Journal. Yamada. Urbana. “Punching Shear Capacity of Reinforced Concrete Slabs. 4. “Punching Shear Resistance of Flat Slabs: Influence of Reinforcement Type and Ratio”. Timoshenko. P.N. Nanni. (1913). Tolf.. (2004a). Sundquist.

94 .

6 1 fc 150 4 .38 24.62138 fy = 657 If σs > fy go to 1.150 . 1 d kNm 1. 1 x 3d x x = 0.25 2. 1 2 nρ 1 x .20 0.Appendix A.68998 10 m EI 3 6 ρ .1 ε cpu k . S2. ρ Ec10 d . 200.02972 10 MPa n ρ = 0. d B c fc fy ρ 0. d .0012 3 σs 200000 ε cpu . 0.07883 200000. 0. a 8 B Bσ Bσ 1 4a π B Ec0 21500 fc 10 3 (Model Code 90) 4 Ec0 = 2.008 m m m MPa MPa Tolf (1988).1 (no yield punching) Bε Bε 3π .2 657 0. Punching of flat plate. PUNCHING CAPACITY Vε Guess factor k to make V ε equal to or less than Vσ: k 0.001. 10 . (d x x) σ s = 483.883 1. 25 x fc ε cpu = 1.1 No yield punching 1 3 0.2 MPa MPa 95 .nρ .88654 10 Ec10 nρ 1 0. Ec0 4 Ec10 = 2.0652 3 EI = 7.16949 10 Recorded: ε = 0.

125 c 2 = 1.075. fy .00338 10 3 xpu d.d . kN Vy2 my. 10 .5 mm 1.02437 ∆ f´´ = 0.3 ε cpu 6 Ec10.31564 10 kN f´´u f´´y ∆ f´´ ε cpu xpu my EI f´´u f´´y f´´u = 9. 1 kN Vy1 my. c Bε 2 EI 2 δε ny = 8.10323 my = 187. 8π 2 .82819 2 Deflection δε ny Vε ny . fy ε cpu Ec10 x .1819 10 3 m Recorded δ = 7.98057 m my 2 ρ . ln c Bε Bε c 1 Bε c 2 2 xpu = 0. 1 Vε ny 3 8 .71972 10 f´´y = 0. 0.σ s . 2 ρ .d 1 Bε c 2 c 2 . 4π 1 Bε c 2 2 . 3 10 3d 8π 2 . EI ry = 0. c . d .39524 Vy1 = 856. 1 2π 3 Vy2 = 1. ( k . fy d fc ρ ε cpu = 1. x 3. ln Bε Result Vε ny = 630. ln c 2 ry 2 Bε Bε c ∆ f´´. π . 25 10 .2 Yield punching (not governing in this case) 3 0.2 ρ . 10) . Bε .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 .

9 1 u 0. fc . 3 10 t 3 Vσ max = 630. 1 2 n0ρ x0 1 u π .150 . t . 0. ry c my . . c 2 Bε 2 δ y1 = 0.23351 Vtest = 603 kN kN kN 97 .82819 Vσ max = 630. t . 4π Bε c 2 Vε y = 669. n0ρ . 2 tan ( 25 deg ) u x0 = 22.02686 Vσ 0. x0 2 .13876 t x0 2 cos ( 25 deg ) 1 t = 0. Bσ tan ( 50 deg ) x0 .77791 kN δ y1 1 2 .65 n0ρ 200000. 103 t 1 3 Vσ = 652.883 Vε ny = 630.64153 Vσ max 1. PUNCHING CAPACITY Vσ c0 Bε 2d 1 1 ln ln c c0 c Bε x0 = 0. 8π ry 2 .150 . 2r EI d r Result Deflection Vy1 . my . u . ln c 2r 2 Bε 2 2 Bε c 2 4r 2 ∆ f´´. c Bε 2 EI 2 Bε . 0.16496 10 3 m 2. PUNCHING CAPACITY WITHOUT SHEAR REINFORCEMENT k = 0. c . sin ( 25 deg ) .0. 2 Vy1 .5 c Vε y Vy2 .6 0. ρ Ec0 x0 d . Bε . u .04868 n0ρ = 0.2 fc .23351 3. sin ( 25 deg ) .03915 c0 = 0.01112 m δε y δ y1 ( f´´u f´´y ) δε y = 9.007.

HSC1 (yield punching) Bε Bε 3π .1 ε cpu 0. 25 k . PUNCHING CAPACITY Vε Guess factor k to make V ε equal to or less than Vσ: k 1 1. d B c fc fy ρ 0.001. 1 2 nρ 1 x .2 MPa MPa 98 .6 1 fc 150 .04797 3 EI = 8.22839 10 MPa n ρ = 0.nρ .56107 fy = 627 If σs > fy go to 1.48868 10 4 Ec0 = 4.Appendix B.95203 10 m EI 3 6 ρ .29 10 Ec0 42900 4 (recorded value) Ec10 nρ 1 0. ρ Ec10 d .150 . Ec0 4 Ec10 = 4. 200. 1 d x 3d x x = 0. d .20 0.1 No yield punching (not governing in this case) 1 3 0.03784 200000.4 91 627 0. Punching of flat plate.28508 10 3 σs σ s = 814. 0. a 8 B Bσ Bσ 1 4a π B Ec0 21500 fc 10 3 (Model Code 90) 4 Ec0 = 4. 10 .25 2. (d x x) ε cpu = 1. 1 kNm 1.008 m m m MPa MPa Hallgren (1966). x fc 200000 ε cpu .

2 Yield punching 6 Ec10. x 3. 10 . ln c Bε Bε c 1 Bε c 2 kN 2 Vy2 my . c Bε 2 EI 2 δε ny = 0. ( k . 8π 2 .2 4 ry 2 ry find( ry ) If ry > c/2 then V ε = Vy2 99 .02062 ∆ f´´ = 0. 2 ρ .3 ε cpu ε cpu = 1.09336 10 2 Deflection δε ny Vε ny .σ s . 2 ry ry = 0.60164 m my 2 ρ .075.29474 10 kN f´´u f´´y ∆ f´´ ε cpu xpu my EI f´´u f´´y f´´u = 0.46474 10 3 xpu d. 3 10 xpu = 0. π . 0. 10) . 1 2π 3 Vy2 = 1. c . EI ∆ f´´. ln c 2 ry 2 Bε Bε c Bε .2 ρ .02459 Guess ry Bε 2 2 2 2 Given my Vy1 . ln c Bε Result 3 Vε ny = 1. 25 10 . d .d .0124 m 1. fy .0324 my = 184. 1 Vε ny 3 8 .d 1 Bε c 2 2 .4738 c 2 = 1.04521 f´´y = 0.59891 Vy1 = 841. 1 3d 8π kN Vy1 my . fy d fc ρ 3 0. fy ε cpu Ec10 x . 4π 1 Bε c 2 2 . 2 .

c 2 Bε 2 δ y1 = 9. 0.04096 n0ρ = 0.6 0. 2r EI d r Result Deflection Vy1 .65 n0ρ 200000. n0ρ . ry c my .02129 10 3.05141 10 3 Vσ max = 2.0393 10 Vσ max 1. c . u . t . 1 2 n0ρ x0 1 u π .02637 c0 = 0. 0. fc . PUNCHING CAPACITY Vσ c0 Bε 2d 1 1 ln ln c c0 c Bε x0 = 0. my . 4π Bε c 2 3 Vε y = 1. u .007. sin ( 25 deg ) . 8π ry 2 . Bσ tan ( 50 deg ) x0 . PUNCHING CAPACITY WITHOUT SHEAR REINFORCEMENT k= 1 3 Vε y = 1. ρ Ec0 x0 d .54612 10 3 m δε y δ y1 ( f´´u f´´y ) δε y = 0. 2 tan ( 25 deg ) u x0 = 25.9 1 u 0. sin ( 25 deg ) .150 .150 . 103 t 1 3 3 Vσ = 2. x0 2 . c Bε 2 EI 2 Bε .05141 10 kN δ y1 1 2 .5 mm m 2.0226 Vσ 0. Bε .5 c Vε y Vy2 .18017 t x0 2 cos ( 25 deg ) 1 t = 0.02129 10 Vtest = 1021 kN kN kN 100 .01285 Recorded δ = 12.2 fc . t . 2 Vy1 . 3 10 t 3 3 Vσ max = 2.0. . ln c 2r 2 Bε 2 2 Bε c 2 4r 2 ∆ f´´.

d . 1.0015 25 200000. ns ρ .Appendix C.4 91 604 0.5 0. 1 fc fc 100 0.50243 fc 190 4 Ec15 = 4.201 0.1 .150 xs 3 ε cpus = 1. Ec0 0. 1 4 EI = 1. 1 d 1 2α xs 3d 1 xs d . 10 43000 1 (Model Code 90) 4 Ec0 = 4. xs ) xs MPa MPa If σs > fy go to Section 2 101 .82609 10 σ s = 935. 0.6. fc 0. 0.28735 10 Ec15 ns ρ . Flat plate with shear reinforcement.05505 1 1 .1 2 α = 0. d B c fc fy ρ 0.25 2.3.48868 10 4 Ec0 = 4. 200. α ns ρ xs .0015 25 fc (d 0. 10 .3 10 4 Ec10 = 4.23825 10 Ec0 Ec10 MPa fc 150 4 (Recorded value) . 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 .7871 fy = 604 3 200000 ε cpus . ρ Ec15 . 1 1.1 ns ρ = 0. 4α EI 2 xs = 0.05642 m 3 6 ρ . a 8 B k 1 Bσ Bσ 1 3 (to make V ε equal to or larger than Vσ) 4a π B Ec0 fc 21500.24948 10 kNm ε cpus σs k .

1 2π 3 Vy2 = 1. 2 ρ . 0.2 ρ .02089 kN f´´u ε cpus xpus f´´y .07768 f´´y = 0. ln c Bε Bε c 1 Bε c 2 3 Vy1 = 1. 2 .σ s .15. π . 10 . c .0568 Bε 2 Given mys Vy1 .d 1 Bε c 2 2 .27296 10 3 Recorded ε = 0. xs 3. 8π 2 .02926 m mys xs .83061 10 f´´u = 0.d .84358 10 kN 2 Deflection δε sny Vε sny . fy .2 2 If ry > c/2 then V εs = Vy2 ry = 0. d . 1 200000 d xs fy f´´u f´´y ∆ f´´ Guess ry ∆ f´´ = 0. d fy fc ρ 3 0.3 ε cpus ε cpus = 2. c Bε 2 EI 2 δε sny = 0.01498 m 2. ln c 2 ry 2 Bε 2 2 Bε c 2 4 ry 2 ∆ f´´. 15 . EI ry find( ry ) = 1. 25 10 .00225 xpus . 2 ry Bε . 4π 1 Bε c 2 2 .73126 c 102 . fy α ε cpus Ec15 d.00196 kN Vy1 mys . 1 Vε sny 3 8 .18993 10 kN 2 Vy2 mys . α . 1 ρ xpus = 0. 3 10 3d 8π mys = 261. Yield punching Vε sy 6 Ec15. ln c Bε Result 3 Vε sny = 1.

5 c Vε sy Vy2 . 2r EI d r 3 Vε sy = 1. mys .68702 10 kN Deflection δ y1 Vy1 . 0. Bε . t . sin ( 45 deg ) . t . c Bε 2 EI 2 f´´y ) Bε .67012 10 3 m δε sy ( f´´u δε sy = 0.007.150 . c 2 Bε 2 δ y1 = 9. sin ( 45 deg ) . 0. n0ρ .3 10 n0ρ 200000. 103 t 1 3 3 Vσ s = 4. ln c 2r 2 Bε 2 2 Bε c 2 4r 2 ∆ f´´. Punching capacity Vσ s 4 Ec0 = 4. fc .0173 m Recorded δ =16 mm 3.6 0. tan ( 45 deg ) MPa n0ρ = 0. 8π ry Result 2 . 3 10 t 3 3 Vσ smax = 4. x0 2 . 2 Vy1 . π . ρ Ec0 d . 4π δ y1 Bε c 2 1 2 .03993 m Vσ s 0.05488 x0 = 0.2 fc .59288 10 Vσ smax 1.0.9 1 u 0.8741 x0 u m t x0 2 cos ( 45 deg ) 1 t = 0. Bσ 1 2 n0ρ x0 tan ( 90 deg ) 1 x0 2 .68702 10 3 Vσ smax = 4. u . ry c mys .05647 m u = 0.18953 10 Vtest = 1631 kN 103 . Maximum punching capacity with shear reinforcent k=1 3 Vε sy = 1.150 . u . c .18953 10 4.

382 D = 1.5 30.353 m Bε B Bσ = 0.907 m Radius R to center of gravity for load outside shear crack 2 R D.536 c0 = 0. 3 1 k 1 k R = 0.D k = 0.67 m 104 . Punching of column footing.693 m D m Inclination φ of fictitious shear crack tan φ 1. surface load.4 d D 3 Bε 2 tan φ = 1.00862 m m m MPa MPa Dieterle (1978) S1-H 1.048 If tan φ < 1 put tanφ = 1 Diameter kD = c0 of circle within fictitious shear crack Bε k 2d tan φ D c0 k.3 1. d a b fc fy ρ 0. a 8 Bε = 0. Punching capacity Vσ Bσ Bσ B 4a π 2b π Bε 3π .29 0.6 512 0.Appendix D.

526 m t u x0 Vσ x0 2 cos ( γ ) = 22.038 m 0. 0. 103 t 1 3 Vσ = 1.Inclination γ of compression strut 1 3 Ec0 fc 21500. 3 10 t 3 3 Vσ max = 1.007.499 tan ( γ ) = 0.150 . sin ( γ ) . 2 tan ( γ ) u = 1. Bσ x0 tan ( 2 γ ) x0 .466 put γ = 0. ρ Ec0 4 Ec0 = 3. 0.121 10 ln ln b c0 b Bε x0 = 0.9 1 u 0.785 = (45 deg) Shear capacity V σ u π . u . n0ρ .996 1 2 3 t = 0.436 = (25 deg) If tan( γ ) > 1 put γ = 0. 10 200000. . sin ( γ ) . 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. fc . t .066 n0ρ = 0. t .150 .545 If tan( γ ) < tan(25 deg) = 0.603 10 105 .6 0.2 fc .034 1 1 n0ρ x0 d . x0 .648 10 Vσ max 1. u .

10 3 σ s = 326. 1 x 3d .249 10 Ptest = 2368 kN kN Flexural capacity 1 4 3 Ec10 1 0.Load capacity P σ Pσ Vσ max 1 k 2 3 Pσ = 2.nρ . c0 . 10 4 Ec10 = 2. x 2 x 200000 d x 1 ε c = 1. ρ Ec10 1 1 n ρ = 0. 1 2 nρ Bε 2π 1 x = 0.045 x d . 0. . b 8 M = 295.369 10 MPa nρ 200000. 1 M ln b c0 .075 m M Pσ .0010 25 fc 0.023 10 3 ε cpu 0. d .214 kNm σs 2 ρ .778 MPa εc c0 Bε .6 1 fc 150 ln ln b c0 b Bε fc 21500.1 .236 10 3 106 . σs .15 x 3 ε cpu = 1.

10 1 1 4 Ec0 = 3.734 1 3 Ec0 fc 21500. Kinnunen. . 1 2 n0ρ fc 1 4 Ec10 1 0.04543 m 107 .19765 10 MPa nρ 200000. Nylander (1983.nρ . d B c D fc fy ρ 0. ρ Ec10 1 1 2 nρ n ρ = 0. b 8 B c0 = 0.25 D = 0.00487 10 D c D B x0 = 0.96 27.01587 x0 d .3 621 0.25 0. line load. 10 3 4 Ec10 = 2.674 0.96 R = 0. 1998) S12 Bσ Bε D R c0 Bσ Bε B Bσ = 0.6 1 150 ln ln D c D B 1 fc 21500.242 0. 1 x = 0.02169 x d .00413 4a π m m m m MPa MPa Hallgren.Appendix E. . ρ Ec0 ln ln n0ρ = 0.337 3π . a 8 3 c 2 B 2d π .03944 1 MPa n0ρ 200000. n0ρ . Punching of column footing.25 Bε = 0.

785 = (45 deg) γ 0.6 0.62469 Vtest = 1049 kN Flexural capacity Vσ max.436 = (25 deg) If tan( γ ) > 1 put γ = 0.8475 t = 0.150 . u .0010 25 fc 0.68962 .70442 εc c B . 10 3 kNm ln D c . fc .150 . Bσ x0 tan ( 2 γ ) x0 2 tan ( γ ) u = 0.c .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. 1 M σs 1 M = 64. σs .48887 1 Vσ 0.2513 Vσ max 0. t . 1 x 3d σ s = 312. c c M 2 ρ .9 1 u 0. x 2 x 200000 d x 1 ε c = 7.80706 Find( γ ) tan ( γ ) = 1. sin ( γ ) . t . 0.14512 10 4 ε cpu 0.04428 If tan( γ ) < tan(25 deg) = 0. 3 1.785 Calculate V σ u t u x0 π . 2π Bε . u .007. sin ( γ ) .15 x 3 ε cpu = 1.2 fc .d . 10 t Vσ max = 958.47603 10 3 108 . 0.02788 x0 2 cos ( γ ) = 21. 103 t 1 3 3 Vσ = 998. x0 2 .1 .466 put γ = 0.

200. 1 x 3d .20237 10 EI 3 6 ρ . Unbalanced moment loading.d . 1 d kNm EI1 3 6 ρ . 1 2 nρ 1 x .4 476 0.01 εclim 0.200.0010 25 fc .001 xlim x Given 1 0.70476 1.35932 fc 150 4 Ec nρ 1 0.εclim 0.150 xlim xlim εclim εclim fy 200000 . 1 h 6d x x = 0.5.0105 0.08367 200000.Ec.21500 fc 10 3 4 Ec = 2.152 0. 0.0404 3 EI = 2.1 3 εclim 0.10 . ρ Ec d .d ρ1 .fy 109 . ρ1 Guess ρ1 0. LIMIT FOR REINFORCEMENT YIELD.n ρ.8 33. a 8 1 m m m m MPa MPa Ghali et al 1976.Appendix F. SM1. h d a c fc fy ρ ρc B 0.0939 10 kI EI1 EI 2 kI = 0.d .xlim d .0035 3π.0 B = 0.6 1 .10 .50977 10 n ρ = 0. 1 1 h 2d 3 EI1 = 1.121 0.305 1.

68922 10 3 xpu d.55508 0.5 c Vε Vy2 . 2r B.5 c = 0. EI ry = 0. my . 1 my = 65.d . 2 ρ . my 2 Vy1 . 2 ry B . c 2 ln 2 ry 8π find( ry ) 2 B 2 2 B c 2 4 ry 2 ( f´´u f´´y ) .ry c .7489 kN Vy2 my .0105 2. Vy1 = 390.075.9 ry If ry > c/2 then V ε = Vy2 0. εclim) Limit for reinforcement yield ρ1 = 0. fy d ρ fc 3 0. Vy2 = 510.01437 ρ = 0.82889 2 B 2 2 B c 2 4r 2 ( f´´u f´´y ) . 25 10 .3 εcpu = 1. EI d r 110 .ln 2π 1 B c c B 1 B c 2 2 xpu = 0. PUNCHING CAPACITY Vε εcpu 6 Ec . . 3 10 3d 8π 2 .fy .ρ1 xlim εclim Find( ρ1 .03184 kN Vy1 my . 0.05921 f´´y = 0. c 2 ln 2 r 8π ry Vε = 473. 10 .51769 kN f´´u εcpu xpu my EI f´´u = 0. fy εcpu Ec x . .02953 f´´y Guess ry c 2 Given my Vy1 .02853 m my 2 ρ . xlim .

kI 0.02411 3 ( f´´u f´´y . .3.kI δt1 = 3.51769 Vε = 473.74398 10 3 4.90776 10 δy1 = 8.7489 δy1 = 8. 1 4π B . c . 2 2 (c 4 B) 2 2 δy1 δε δy2 1 δy1 = 8.01085 δt1 δt2 δt3 δt4 δV ∆ M δV ∆ M δV ∆ M δV ∆ M 0. 4π δy1 δy1 B .1 Insert column reaction V and guess value for ∆ M V 122 Vy1 = 390. DEFLECTIONS Vy1 .00048 4.61596 10 δt4 = 9.kI 0.3 Tension in top reinforcement of slab Fictitious slab deflections δt along circle c due to column rotation ∆c ( δε δV 2 ∆ M ) ∆ c = 0.50628 10 δt3 = 8.78857 10 δε = 0. 4. c .01263 δy2 = 0.c B 2 c 2 EI 2 B c B f´´y ) .kI ∆ c .78857 10 ∆M 3 Vy2 = 510.2 Deflection due to load V V < Vy1 2 δV V .82889 0.195 ∆ c .78857 10 δy2 = 0.555 ∆ c .831 ∆ c .02411 3 3 3 3 3 Elastic behaviour for reactions Rt1 to Rt3 because the deflections δt are less than δy1 111 . UNBALANCED MOMENT CAPACITY Mu 4.c B 2 c 2 EI 2 δV = 2.75451 10 δt2 = 6.

14949 10 112 .0745 Rt2 δt2 . Vy1 V Rt1 δy1 Rt1 = 44. .555 ∆ c 0.5 c Rt4 Vy2 .74894 10 δb4 = 8. Vy1 V Rt3 Guess f´´v Given my Vy1 .00855 Mt = 69. .831 ∆ c ∆c δb1 = 1. EI 2 ry δt4 δy1 f´´v ry B c B f´´y ) .49032 10 4 3 3 3 3 δb2 = 3.195 ∆ c 0. . ry ) 0. c 16 Rt = 97. EI d r V Rt4 = 302.75548 10 δb3 = 6. 2 2 f´´v = 0.35529 0.58189 10 δV.5 c = 0. 1 kI kI = 1.7886 Shear force Rt and unbalanced moment Mt Rt Mt ( Rt1 Rt2 Rt3 Rt4) .831 Rt3 Rt4) .4 Tension in bottom reinforcement of slab δb1 δb2 δb3 δb4 δV ∆ M δV ∆ M δV ∆ M δV ∆ M 0. 2r B.92956 Rt2 = 167.195 Rt1 0.03818 ry = 0. Vy1 V δy1 δy1 δt3 .9 Find( f´´v .555 Rt2 4. 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 .27575 Rt3 = 261. 1 8 0.Reactions Rt at deflections δt δt1 . c 2 ln 2 r 8π ry 2 B 2 2 B c 2 4r 2 ( f´´v f´´y ) .ry c .90084 ( 0. my . B .

ρc .98634 V = 122 etest =0.02136 θ2 = 4.h θ1 θ2 1 B .984 θ1 θ2 θu δM 2 .6 10 4 3 2 ∆M 113 .21922 δb3 Rb3 V 1 δy1 kI kI . δV . 10 c 3 θ1 = 0. δV kI . ρc .33081 Equilibrium check Rb Rb Rt = 20.63038 Rbmax = 292. c ln 3 B π .31145 δb2 Rb2 V kI . c 16 Mb = 50.66356 Shear force Rb and unbalanced moment Mb Rb = 76.Ec.Vy1.kI ρ δy1 1 δy1 kI .kI ρ Rb3 = 180.δb1 Rb1 V kI .5 Unbalanced moment capacity Mu Mu e Mt Mu V Mb Mu = 120.22909 10 θu = 0.33304 e = 0.831. Vy1 δy1 = 0.4322 4.Vy1.195 Rb1 0.Vy1. Vy2 ρ Rb3 8 Rb4 Rb Rb = 76. ρ .kI ρ Rb2 = 149.Rb3 Rb4) .kI ρ Rb4 = 199.Vy1.555 Rb2 0. ρc . δV . ∆c kI c B 12 Mu .67774 Rt ∆M .02559 δM = 9.48547 δb4 Rb4 V 1 δy1 kI kI . δV 1 Rb1 = 81.33081 Mb ( 0.17256 Rbmax Rb1 V Rb2 ρc .

83296 Mumax2 ( Vy2 V) . 1 kI c B 2 .01947 Mu 1 2 π .02409 114 .103 Mumax5 = 221.h 3 .15531 1 Mumax5 h 3 fc .Ec.EI c 12.a . c 4 1 B c . Mumax3 ρc .10 3 θ1a = 0. 1 ρc ρ Mumax4 = 153.01847 θ1b θ1b = 0. 1 kI c B V Vε δV δε θu .09793 Mumax1 kI.my .42193 θ2a 12 Mumax3. δε . c Vy2 V . 10 c 3 θ2a = 4.47765 Mumax4 π.h θ1b θ2a 3 ln c B 1 B .62077 10 3 θu θu = 0. δε .h 1 3 B c Mu = 726. 4 ρ Mumax3 = 131.kI.4. π .6 Simplified approach θ1a 2 . δε .39621 Mumax2 = 174.5. ln B π .15 0. 4 Mumax1 = 139. Vy1 δy1 c 4 c V .Ec. 4 2 0.