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

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

.

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

ii .

..............................................................................................................................................................1 Scope of work..........ix Sammanfattning (Summary in Swedish)…………………………………………….........................29 Reinforcement limit ρ 1 ........................................................................................................4 2.........4 2..........................1 1......................................33 2...................................................2.1 2...........................................5...................................................................iii Notations…………………………………………………………………………………….....34 Influence of concrete mechanical properties ..........................................1 2.........................................................................................7 Size effect ...................31 Transition zone between ρ 1 and ρ 2 ............35 Comparison with test results for flat plates and column footings ............................................7 Basic assumption .............................................................................................................2 2.....................4 Manual calculation .............xiii 1 Introduction ...................................................2.........................................................................................23 Flat plates..............v Summary..................29 2.......2.......................................2 2.5............................................3 2...................................................3 2................3 Punching capacity Vσ .............................................34 Influence of bending moment............4..........................................2 2..................................Table of contents Preface ………………………………………………………………………………………....................5 2.........................................3...............5 Comparison with test results ..................16 Flat plates with shear reinforcement.......................................................3......................................................................19 2...........................1 2.............................................................................29 General ...............................................23 Column footings .........30 Reinforcement limit ρ 2 .............................3 ...............................................................................2..................................1 2.....i Table of contents...5 2.............5 Punching capacity Vε ............................................................................10 Punching at elastic conditions ...................................................................................1 2.........................................2 2..........................1 1..............................2.....................4..4........3 Theory for concentric punching............................4................13 Yield punching ...5 2........32 Tabulated values for ρ 1 and ρ 2 ..................................................5...............................36 iii 2..........................2 2 Literature survey...........................................4............................2 General ........

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

measured centre-to-centre of supports span width in direction that moments are being determined span width transverse to L1 unbalanced bending moment column load on footing radius to centre of gravity for uniformly distributed load outside shear crack maximum value of sector element reaction due to unbalanced moment sector element reaction corresponding to tension in bottom reinforcement sector element reaction corresponding to tension in top reinforcement column reaction column reaction at reinforcement ratio ρ 1 column reaction at reinforcement ratio ρ 2 concentric punching capacity at tangential compression strain failure mode upper bound capacity with shear reinforcement concentric punching capacity at inclined compression stress failure mode v .Roman upper case letters B Bε Bσ D Ec0 diameter of circular column diameter of circular column with the same reduction effect on the total bending moment as a square column with width a. Bσ = 4a/π diameter of circular column footing tangent modulus of elasticity of concrete at zero strain Ec10 secant E-modulus of concrete up to the strain 0. Bε = 3πa/8 diameter of circular column with the same perimeter as a square column with width a.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.0010 Ec15 secant E-modulus of concrete up to the strain 0.

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

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

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

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

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

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

xii .

Den nya typen av pelardäck introducerades i Sverige i och med att Kinnunen och Nylander (1960) publicerade försöksresultat och en mekanisk modell med empiriskt bestämda betongegenskaper för dimensionering av pelardäck med hänsyn till genomstansning. dvs. I Sverige kallas brottypen ”genomstansning” (engelska punching). De amerikanska försöken visade att den nya typen av pelardäck visserligen var känslig för en brottyp runt pelaren som liknade ett vanligt skjuvbrott. Den övre gränsen för betongens tangentiella stukning vid pelaren antas motsvara den stukning då mikrosprickor i betongen utvecklas till makrosprickor. Nomenklaturen ”flat plate” har därför använts i denna avhandling. Plattans tryckzonshöjd används därvid som jämförelseparameter för storleken och sprödheten antas öka med ökad betonghållfasthet. 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. Enkla jämvikts. 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.och kompatibilitetsekvationer uppställda med gränsvärdet för betongstukningen som enda brottvillkor visade sig kunna förutsäga publicerade försöksresultat med god precision. 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. K1(1964). 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. Gränsvärdet antas vara storleksberoende och beroende av betongens sprödhet. Den teoretiska modell som lanserades i Paper I har stora likheter med Kinnunens och Nylanders mekaniska modell från 1960. men utnyttjar i princip endast de materialegenskaper som av hävd används vid dimensionering av betongkonstruktioner. Enkel formsättning.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. Ett bjälklag utan balkar upplagt på pelare benämns ”pelardäck”. alltifrån små försöksplattor till fullskaleprov. 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. Kinnunens och Nylanders dimensioneringsregler antogs av dåvarande Statens Betongkommitté som utfärdade ”Provisoriska bestämmelser för genomstansning”. men att högre nominella skjuvspänningar kunde tillåtas för sådana pelardäck än för plattor upplagda på väggar eller balkar. xiii . betongens och armeringens arbetskurvor som ger sambandet mellan töjning och påkänning.

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 ⎞ ⎛ 0.150 är diametern av en standardcylinder för mätning av betongens tryckhållfasthet. 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 ⎞ 3 ε cpu = 0.1 ⎛ 0. Vid plattjockleken 200 mm blir gränsvärdet ca 0.1 1 (b) Vid normala armeringshalter uppnår dock armeringen närmast pelaren flytgränsen innan genomstansning sker.0012. Elasticitetsteorins momentfördelning gäller då inte längre när armeringen intill pelaren börjar flyta. Gränsvärdet antas vara beroende av plattans storlek och betongens ökande sprödhet med ökad hållfasthet enligt formeln ε cpu ⎛ 25 ⎞ = 0.150 ⎞ 3 ⋅⎜ ⎟ ⎝ x ⎠ 1 (a) där x är plattans tryckzonshöjd uttryckt i (m) och 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 0.0035 för betongens maximala stukning vid böjmomentbelastning. xiv . Om böjarmeringshalten är hög nås den kritiska betongstukningen innan böjarmeringen flyter i pelardäcket. vilket är betydligt lägre än det vedertagna värdet 0.0010 ⎜ ⎜f ⎟ ⎟ ⎝ cc ⎠ 0.Vid normala pelardäck blir enligt modellen gränsvärdet för betongstukningen avgörande för bärförmågan med hänsyn till genomstansning. Den kritiska betongstukningen εcpu sätter därvid även här en gräns för möjlig tillskottsdeformation.

(a) och jämviktssamband kan gränsvärdet för betongstukningen om armeringen flyter härledas till ε cpu = 10 −6 E c 0. att krökningen i fält också är begränsad. Ju större kapitälets omkrets är i förhållande till tryckzonens höjd. En ny modell för kompakta konstruktioner presenteras. så att momentjämvikten inte uppfylls. xv . såsom tidigare påpekats av Kinnunen och Nylander (1960). ökar krökningen vid pelaren och genomstansning inträffar. där tryckhållfastheten i ett fiktivt pelarkapitäl inne i plattan avgör bärförmågan. eftersom spänningstillståndet då alltmer övergår från tvådimensionellt till plant.6 f cc ⎜1 − cc ⎟ . Dessutom antas dessa hållfastheter vara storleksberoende på motsvarande sätt som stukningen enligt ekv.150 0.0010 3 = 2 ⋅ ⋅ ρ2 f sy 4d 2 ⎛ 25 ⎞ ⋅⎜ ⎜f ⎟ ⎟ ⎝ cc ⎠ 0. Gränsvärdet antas vara storleksberoende på samma sätt som gränsvärdet för icke skjuvarmerad platta. Enligt den lanserade teorin sker alltså genomstansning då plattans krökningskapacitet vid pelarupplaget överskrids.2fcc. Det medför att en större andel av böjarmeringen når sträckgränsen innan genomstansning sker. Även i detta fall begränsas bärförmågan av betongstukningen i tangentiell led intill pelaren. Det medför. desto lägre antas tryckhållfastheten vara. varvid brottlasten ökar. Vid mycket små pelare i förhållande till ⎝ 250 ⎠ tryckzonshöjden antas tryckhållfastheten öka till 1. Vid mycket stora pelare i förhållande till plattans tryckzonshöjd antas f ⎞ ⎛ kapitälets tryckhållfasthet vara 0.0015.3 (e) Kritisk pelarreaktion och tillhörande nedböjning erhålls sedan ur enkla jämviktssamband.3 (c) där d är plattans effektiva höjd i (m). Det visas att genomstansningsbrott vid konventionellt utformad skjuvarmering uppkommer då stukningen når gränsvärdet 0. Om armeringsmängden i fält då är för liten. (a). Tryckhållfastheten antas variera med kapitälets slankhet uttryckt som kvoten mellan kapitälets omkrets och plattans tryckzonshöjd. 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. Därför härleds enkla uttryck för kontroll att fältarmeringen i ett pelardäck harmonierar med den fordrade stödarmeringen.150 10 3 ⋅ ⋅ f sy 2d ρ ⎛ 25 ⎞ ⋅⎜ ⎜f ⎟ ⎟ ⎝ cc ⎠ 0.Ur ekv. Om pelardäcket förses med skjuvarmering tål plattan större tangentiell stukning vid pelaren.

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

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

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

Despite this shortcoming. This subject therefore still attracts attention by code writers and researchers. percentage of compression reinforcement.1 Introduction The reinforced concrete flat plate is a widely used structural system. and column dimension 1 . They concluded: “Even though it would be desirable to fully develop the flexural capacity of relatively thin slabs supported on slender columns. The method. 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. Anyway. This thesis is an attempt to respond to the challenge to fill the vacuum after Kinnunen and Nylander and expand the treatment to cover more aspects of flat plate design than just concentric punching. The 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. Slab thickness. Neither compression reinforcement nor concentrated tension reinforcement over the column increased the load capacity. the flat plate is at disadvantage in comparison to two-way slabs supported by beams or walls. distribution of tension reinforcement and amount and position of shear reinforcement. The major variables in the tests were concrete strength (14 MPa to 50 MPa). The challenge is therefore still there to develop a realistic physical model that can predict the slab behaviour at punching in a way simple enough to be used in the design office – also in non-standard cases. “The shearing strength of slabs is a function of concrete strength as well as several other variables”.7 percent). or drop panels. which renders formwork construction very simple. 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. 1. On the other hand. concrete strength. but their model is complicated and cannot predict the punching capacity with the same accuracy as current purely statistical methods. They concluded. It has no beams. It is thereby acknowledged and accepted that this method does not reflect the true failure mechanism. for instance. a simplified version of their original model is still used in Sweden for punching design of flat plates. 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. Some researchers have attempted to do it. to do so with shear reinforcement may be impractical…. Talbot (1913) and Richart (1948). 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. The mechanical model introduced by Kinnunen and Nylander (1960) has gained worldwide recognition. Consequently. column capitals. percentage of tension reinforcement (0. does not give the designer any indication of the limited rotation capacity of the slab at punching. because of the risk of brittle punching failure at the slab-column connection.5 to 3. but none has succeeded so far – with one exception.1 Literature survey Flat plates seem to have first been constructed in USA in the late 1940’s.

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

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

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

Eq. As long as the reinforcement does not yield. F s εs d m F c x σc εc Figure 2-1 Depth x of compression zone. to the strain 0. the compression zone depth at flexure is computed by combining the strain compatibility and force equilibrium conditions.3) The concrete secant modulus of elasticity.1) The modulus of elasticity for reinforcement bars is taken as Es = 200 GPa. but the theory is here improved and simplified. 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. 5 .10).2 Theory for concentric punching The basic principles are described in Paper I. 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. see Figure 2-1. (2.0010 is defined later in this chapter.1 General The reinforcement is assumed to be ideally elastic-plastic with the yield strain ε sy = f sy Es (2. Ec10.2) 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. As will be shown in the following. 2.

6) Combine Eqs. inclined cracks near the column usually form at a load level of less than 70 % of the ultimate load. The punching failure occurs instead when the compression zone with height x adjacent to the column collapses. (2. In a flat plate. (2. 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. and (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 ⎠ (2.5). Regan and Braestrup (1985). similar to the conical shell originally proposed by Kinnunen and Nylander (1960).5) (2.6): x d−x = nρ d 2 x x2 x + 2 nρ − 2 nρ = 0 2 d d ⎞ ⎛ x 2 = −nρ + n 2 ρ 2 + 2nρ = nρ ⎜ 1+ − 1⎟ ⎟ ⎜ d nρ ⎠ ⎝ The bending moment per unit width of a slab. the slab is nevertheless stable and can be unloaded and reloaded without any decrease of the ultimate load.4).7) (2. where the load from the flat plate is transferred to the column via a column capital within the slab. 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.9) where f ′′ is the curvature of the slab due to the bending moment m.εc x = εs d−x (strain compatibility) (2. m . The model depicted in Figure 2-2 may simulate this zone. Although these cracks can surround the column.8) Extensive flexural cracking will always occur near the column at ultimate loading. 6 .

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

Punching failure of a flat plate is therefore assumed to occur when the tangential concrete strain due to 8 . ε c1 2 kη1 − η1 for ε c ≤ ε c1 1 + (k − 2 )η1 σ c = f cc ⋅ At a strain exceeding approximately 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. The stress-strain relation is taken from High performance concrete structures (1998): 0.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.0007 ⋅ f cc . Study the stress-strain diagram for concrete with the compression strength 25 MPa according to Figure 2-4. which forms the basis for the following hypothesis. k= Ec0 ⋅ ε c1 f cc η1 = εc .3 ε c1 = 0.0010 it is evident that the almost linearly elastic behaviour of the concrete at low strains starts to change – the concrete “softens”. x fc c Figure 2-3 Failure mode Vε . This seems to confirm the scenario described above. 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.

1 fc 30 MPa Ec0 ⎛ f ⎞3 = 21500⎜ ck ⎟ ⎝ 10 ⎠ 25 20 15 10 Ec10 5 0.3). see Figure 2-9.6⎜1 − ck ⎟ ⎟ ⋅ E c0 ⎜ ⎝ 150 ⎠ ⎟ ⎝ ⎠ 0. it is important to estimate the stress-strain relation in the compression zone at flexure correctly.0000 (MPa) 0.0010 Figure 2-4 Assumed stress-strain curve for concrete strength fcc =25 MPa.0020 0 ε (2. The concrete behaves more linearly elastic with increasing concrete grades.0010 as indicated in Figure 2-4. 9 . It is further assumed that this critical strain level decreases with increasing concrete strength because high strength concretes are more brittle. In the subsequent equations. At low concrete grades there is a curved relation between strain and stress already at strains below 0.10) with Ec0 according to Eq.0010 equal to 4 ⎛ f ⎞ ⎞ ⎛ E c10 = ⎜1 − 0.the bending moment reaches this critical value adjacent to the column. (2. which is approximately taken into account by putting the secant modulus Ec10 to the strain 0.

e.7 2 1 ( = Eq.4⎜ ck ⎟ [MPa] ⎝ 10 ⎠ 0.2. 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 = diameter of standard test cylinder specimen (m) xpu = depth of compression zone at flexure when punching occurs (m).025 ⎪ = ⎨0.25 1 (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.038 ⎩ [MPa·mm] ⎧8 ⎪ for maximum aggregate size d a = ⎨16 ⎪32 ⎩ (2.0010 ⎜ ⎜f ⎟ ⎟ ⎝ cc ⎠ ⎛ 0.14) f ct (2.2.12) with the characteristic length lch = E c0 ⋅ GF 2 f ct (2.2 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 0.3)) (2.15 ⎞ 3 ⎟ is assumed to affect both strain and stress of the concrete in the The size effect factor ⎜ ⎜ x pu ⎟ ⎝ ⎠ same manner. it has the same value irrespective of specimen size. This means that the E-modulus is assumed to be a concrete property that displays no size effect.13) In the absence of experimental data Model Code 90 recommends the following relations for Ec0.030 ⎪0.16) where GF0 [MPa·mm] [mm]. ⎛ 0. fct and GF : E c0 ⎛ f ⎞3 = 21500⎜ cc ⎟ [MPa] ⎝ 10 ⎠ ⎛ f ⎞3 = 1. i. 10 .15 ⎞ 3 ⎟ ⋅⎜ ⎜ x pu ⎟ ⎝ ⎠ 1 (2.11) where εcpu = tangential compression strain at punching 0. (2.1 ε cpu ⎛ 25 ⎞ = 0.15) ⎛f ⎞ GF = GF0 ⋅ ⎜ cc ⎟ ⎝ 10 ⎠ ⎧0.

A doubling of the aggregate size from 16 mm to 32 mm would increase the recorded shear strength by 6.4 2 ⋅ f cc ⋅ 10 0. 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.25 ⎛f ⎞ ⋅ ⎜ cc ⎟ ⎝ 10 ⎠ −0.17) Eq.16) into Eq. The exponent decreases to -1.0 for large compression zone depths.25 = 70.14) to (2. the formal shear strength fv would be reduced to 4-0.12) can now be rearranged as ⎛ d ⎞ f v = k ⋅ f ct ⋅ ⎜ ⎟ ⎜G ⎟ ⎝ F0 ⎠ −0. These values seem to be unrealistic – the size effect becomes too large.7 ⋅ GF0 ⋅ f cc 21500 f cc 1. (2. 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. Leonhardt and Walther (1962) made tests on the shear strength size dependence for beams without shear reinforcement. (2. The question is.33 0.33 1. the beams displayed no size effect.15) lch = 0. the better anchoring bond with many small bars instead of few large bars decreased the anchoring slip sufficiently to eliminate the size effect.5 % of the strength for the smaller beam. (2.5 for very small depths.33 when the reinforcement bars were scaled in proportion to the beam geometry.13) and replace the characteristic value of the compression strength by the recorded value fcc in Eq.18) that can be used to study the effect of maximum aggregate size. According to Eq. Based on the test results. This demonstrates that tests have to be performed with realistically scaled reinforcement bars whenever reinforcement bond might be of concern for the structural behaviour. (2. In a second test series. 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).5 %. the formal shear strength would be reduced to 78. The shear strength varied approximately proportional to d −0.3 [mm] (2.7 % of the strength for the smaller beam. (2.Insert Eqs. 11 .075 (2. He found it to be proportional to the depth of the compression zone at flexure raised to the power -0. 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. In this latter case.3 = 10970 ⋅ GF0 ⎛ f cc ⎞ ⎜ ⎟ ⎝ 10 ⎠ 0. 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. In this case. If the beam depth were increased four times without simultaneous scaling of the aggregate size.0 % and a reduction from 16 mm to 8 mm would decrease the strength by 4.12) it is thus evident that the maximum aggregate size has limited effect on the formal shear strength of beams.

The upper limit 600 mm can most probably be increased because the presented theory presupposes elastic behaviour of the concrete in flexure.5 – as in Eq.11) is chosen to be constant. the size effect depends on the relation between a reference size of the structure and lch according to Eq. (2. (2. because the aggregate size is seldom 12 .e.17): ε cpu ⎛ x pu = 0.19) where d is the actual size of the structure and d0 is a reference size. the smaller the absolute value of the exponent becomes – down to zero at a plastic stress distribution (= no size effect). Only experiments with varying specimen size will give a reliable answer. (2. which is more realistic the larger the structure becomes. (2. 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. (2. The fracture energy GF determined by the RILEM (1985) beam test and the deduced characteristic length lch according to Eq.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. i. from small specimens up to beams with effective depth of at least 1000 mm. (2. (2. The absolute value of the exponent for punching should then be larger than the beam-shear exponent 0. However.25 is found to be valid for a large range of beam sizes.0010 ⋅ ⎜ ⎜l ⎝ ch ⎞ ⎟ ⎟ ⎠ − 1 3 ⎛ A = 0. (2. because the fracture at punching occurs due to a small shear displacement at high biaxial compression strain. The punching fracture mode seems to be more brittle than the shear failure mode of beams.At very brittle failures characterized by a linear stress distribution. However.11) is a natural consequence of the hypothesis that punching occurs when the compression zone near the column collapses. the reference size in Eq. (2. However.16).13) characterize the relative brittleness of the concrete at tensile strains.5 (2. The chosen exponent 1/3 in Eq. (2.5. whereas the beam shear failure is usually associated with inclined crack growth due to tensile strains. i.11) for the punching failure can be derived from the same assumption as Eq. Most concrete structures display a non-linear stress distribution for brittle fractures. they do not give any indication on the exponent to be used in a fracture strength equation.e. the size effect would be described by the Linear Elastic Fracture Mechanics equation for the failure strength ⎛ d ⎞ f = k ⋅⎜ ⎟ ⎜d ⎟ ⎝ 0⎠ −0. Eq.12) for the shear strength of beams. It is interesting to note that the format of Eq. The choice of the compression zone depth as reference dimension for the size effect in Eq. which means that the absolute value of the exponent in the fracture strength equation should be smaller than 0.25. independent of the maximum aggregate size.12) with the constant exponent -0.1 (2.0010 ⋅ ⎜ ⎜ x pu ⎝ ⎞3 ⎟ ⎟ ⎠ 1 ⎛ 25 ⎞ ⋅⎜ ⎟ ⎜f ⎟ ⎝ cc ⎠ 0. However. Theoretically. the more non-linear stress distribution a structure displays.12) for the beam shear failure.11a) where A is a reference size that should be proportional to the maximum aggregate size factor GF0 according to Eq. slabs with effective depth varying from 100 mm up to 600 mm.

the resulting effect on the critical strain value would anyway be rather marginal. 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. this circle has the radius ≈ 0. The following equations assume either a circular or a square specimen arrangement. then both reinforcement and concrete behave elastically.20) (2. 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. which will be described hereafter. In the latter case. 13 . Once the critical strain εcpu is defined.2. 2. see Figure 2-5. Furthermore. (2. The depth of the compression zone is then defined by Eq.11). the theory of elasticity is assumed valid for the bending moment distribution.3 Punching at elastic conditions If punching occurs without any yield of the reinforcement (at high reinforcement ratios). (2.2 L in a flat plate with square panels.reported in the literature. 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. where L is the span width.7) and the critical strain εcpu is defined by Eq.22) 3a 16 ∵B = 3π a 8 where B = diameter of circular column and a = width of square column. 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. The column reaction is concentrated to the column perimeter as has been described above. Poisson's ratio of the cracked concrete slab is thereby assumed zero.21) (2. According to the theory of elasticity. Up to the load level when the flexural reinforcement starts to yield near the column. 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.

where the latter is not negligible near the column. 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 .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. The following expressions are valid according to the theory of elasticity (with ν = 0) for a circular slab.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. (84) and (85) of Timoshenko and Woinowsky-Krieger (1959).27) The theoretical deflection δ consists of bending deformation and shear deformation. derived from Eqs. see Figure 2-5: mt = V ⎡ c B2 B2 ⎤ ⎢2ln + 2 − 2 − 2 ⎥ 8π ⎢ 2r c ⎥ 4r ⎣ ⎦ tangential moment (2.26) ψ = m2 angle of inclination at the slab edge (2.24) m1 = tangential and radial moment at column edge (2.25) m2 = tangential moment at the slab edge (2.

150 ⎞ 3 ⎟ ⋅⎜ ⎜ x pu ⎟ ⎝ ⎠ (2.28) The punching capacity Vε can now be estimated as follows.0010 ⎜ ⎜ ⎛ 25 ⎝ f cc ⎞ ⎟ ⎟ ⎠ 0.2. 15 . (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. the punching load Vε is derived from Eq.30) No iteration is thus required for determination of the punching load. then the reinforcement yields σ s = Es ⋅ ε cpu ⋅ before punching occurs and the calculation is performed according to Section 2. see Section 4.25) Vε = mε 8π c B2 2ln + 1 − 2 B c (2.7) ε cpu = 0. see Appendix A. The relation between the modulus of elasticity for reinforcement and concrete n= Es E c10 (2. because then the alternative failure mode Vσ is checked automatically as well as the ultimate deflection δ ε.1 ⎛ 0.11) Reinforcement stress at the column edge at punching d−x (2.δ ≈ψ c−B 2 (2. In flat plates with rectangular panels the above equations have to be modified when checking the punching capacity.4.2. The calculation is anyhow preferably computerized.31) (2.29) x If σ s turns out to be larger than the yield stress fsy . Bending moment at the column edge at punching x ⎞ ⎛ mε = ρ ⋅ d 2σ s ⎜1 − ⎟ ⎝ 3d ⎠ Finally.

1 (force equilibrium) 1 (2. 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 0.32) (2.11) ⎛ 0.3 (2.2.0010⎜ ⎟ ⎜f ⎟ ⎝ cc ⎠ 0.150 ⎞ 3 ⎟ ⋅⎜ ⎜ x pu ⎟ ⎠ ⎝ Combine Eqs. 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 ⋅ 0.36) 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 (2.33) x pu = d ⋅ 2ρ ε cpu E c10 (2.34) ′′ .11): Ec10 0.150 10 3 ⋅ ⋅ f sy ρ 2d ⋅ f sy ε cpu = 10 −6 ⎛ 25 ⎞ ⋅⎜ ⎟ ⎜f ⎟ ⎝ cc ⎠ 0. 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.0010 3 = c10 ⋅ ⋅ 2 4d 2 f sy ρ2 ⎛ 25 ⎞ ⋅⎜ ⎜f ⎟ ⎟ ⎝ cc ⎠ 0. Punching is still assumed to occur when the concrete compression strain reaches the critical value εcpu.38) 16 .4 Yield punching With medium reinforcement ratios the reinforcement near the column will yield before punching occurs.35) Bending moment at reinforcement yield x ⎞ ⎛ m y = ρ ⋅ d 2 ⋅ f sy ⎜1 − ⎟ ⎝ 3d ⎠ (2. (2.2. f u ′′ = fu ε cpu x pu E2 0. can then be expressed as The ultimate tangential curvature at the column edge.5 ε cpu ⎛ 25 ⎞ = 0.37) V y2 = m y ⋅ 2π B 1− c (see Figure 2-6) (2.32) and (2.3 with effective depth d in (m) (2.

40) The circle with radius ry inside which the reinforcement yields is solved from the following equation.my my = Vy2 ⎛ B ⎞ ⎜1 − ⎟ 2π ⎝ c ⎠ B c mr = 0 Figure 2-6 Fan type yield lines. see Figure 2-7: my = 2 2⎞ V y1 ⎛ ⎜ 2ln c + 2 − B − B ⎟ + ∆f ′′ ⋅ EI ⋅ B 2 8π ⎜ 2ry 2ry c2 ⎟ 4ry ⎝ ⎠ (2.39) Possible additional curvature at column edge after first yield ′′ − f y ′′ ∆f ′′ = f u (2.41) c .42) 17 . 2 The load capacity is equal to the flexural load capacity Vy2 if ry ≥ The punching load Vε is calculated by integration of the tangential bending moment curve c over the slab width if ry < . see Figure 2-7: 2 c ⎡ ⎤ 2 2⎞ 2 ⎛V ⎛ ⎞ ⎥ V y2 ⎢ c B B B y1 ⎜ 2ln + 2 − − 2 ⎟ + ∆f ′′ ⋅ EI ⋅ ⎟dr ⎥ Vε = ⎢m ⋅ r + ⎜ 2 c ⎢ y y ∫ ⎜ 8π ⎜ 2 r 2r ⎟ r c ⎟ 4 ⎝ ⎠ ⎠ ⎥ ry ⎝ my ⋅ ⎥ 2⎢ ⎣ ⎦ (2. Curvature in tangential direction at start of yield ′′ = fy my EI = ε sy d−x = f sy Es ⋅ 1 d−x (2.

2. see Appendix B. The computer solution has furthermore the advantage that the alternative failure mode Vσ is checked automatically as well as the ultimate deflection δ ε. 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.43) All equations in this section have to be modified for flat plates with rectangular panels.The deflection of the slab at punching. see Section 4. However. δε . because Eq. 18 . 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. The calculations have to be computerized.41) can be solved manually by iteration only and Eq.4. (2. (2. 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

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 (2.60) Possible additional curvature at column edge after first yield: ′′ − f ys ′′ ∆f ′′ = f us (2. but not to more than the load corresponding to overall yield of the flexural reinforcement. see Appendix C. (2. The upper limit for punching capacity derived above presupposes that the punching failure occurs within the zone with shear reinforcement.58) V y2 = m ys ⋅ (2. The total punching capacity can therefore be assessed by adding the vertical component of the hanger force to the above capacity Vεs. The shear reinforcement must extend far enough from the column to exclude a shear failure outside the shear reinforced area.42).61) The distance ry and punching capacity Vεs is then determined from Eqs. 22 . 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.59) Curvature in tangential direction at start of yield: ′′ = f ys f sy Es ⋅ 1 d − xs (2.41) and (2. Still larger capacity in combination with ductile behaviour can be achieved with the “ductility reinforcement” described in Chapter 5. 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. The calculations are preferably computerized. which is preferably checked in accordance with Model Code 90. The nominal ultimate stress in the hangers should thereby be limited to round 350 MPa.

2. Definitions of parameters. The diameter of a circular slab is denoted D. 2. 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.3.3 Punching capacity Vσ Punching occurs when the compression stress in the fictitious internal column capital of the slab reaches a critical value. 23 x0 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. The specimen could simulate a column footing. D R V B t ∆x γ1 2γ σc Figure 2-10 Failure mode Vσ .1 Column footings Consider a relatively compact circular test specimen according to Figure 2-10.

64) The column capital forms part of a compression strut from the load to the column. It is easily shown that the capacity of the capital is at maximum when the angle γ1 is equal to γ. The diameter of the circle within the fictitious shear crack at the flexural reinforcement level is denoted c0 c0 = kD = B + 2d tan φ (2.4d ≥1 D −B 3 2 (2. A reasonable expression for the angle φ is tan φ = 1. see Figure 2-10. That part of the load does not affect the punching capacity. 24 .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. 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.Part of uniformly distributed load will fall within the final shear crack.62) D c 0 = kD R φ V σ Figure 2-11 Definition of angle φ and shear load Vσ . Punching occurs when the capital fails in compression so that a diagonal shear crack forms. where 2γ is the angle to the horizontal of the punching crack near the column. see Figure 2-11.

6 + 0.66): tanγ = (2. see Figure 2-12.66) (2 R − B )2 2 x0 + 4d 2R − B −1 − x0 x0 (2.9⎜ ⎜1 − 0.007 x ⎟ ⎟ ≤ 1. (2.5 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 − 0.69) The compression strength “σc” of the capital is assumed to vary with the slenderness u/x of the cantilevering part of the capital. 2 ⎡ ⎛ u ⎞ ⎤ ⎥ σ c = f cc ⎢0.2 f cc ⎢ 0⎠ ⎥ ⎝ ⎣ ⎦ (2. when the perpendicular compression stress is moderate. (2. see Nilsson (1983). 25 .70) For small values of u/x.6 f cc ⎜1 − cc ⎟ . That effect decreases with increasing u/x f ⎞ ⎛ until σ c = 0. The upper limit 1. (= fcd2 according to Model Code 90).65) (2. which is the generally accepted uniaxial compression strength in ⎝ 250 ⎠ cracked zones.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 .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 ) ⎟ ⎟ ⎝ ⎠ (2.69) represents the concrete compression strength in bi-axial compression.65) and (2.2 fcc in Eq.67) The average upper diameter of the capital that supports the inclined compression strut from the load is x0 x0 B+ + (2. it is evident from Figure 2-12 that the compression zone of the surrounding slab confines the capital.

γ B/d = 1.0 σc γ σc B/d = 2. 26 d t . 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.5 B Figure 2-12 Confinement of internal column capital by surrounding slab.

see Figure 2-13.77) .75) 1 (2.71) ⎞ ⎟ x0 B ⎛ B ⎟ D⎞ d 1 + ln ⎟ r ∫ 2r ⎟ = ∆ϕ ⋅ Ec0 ⋅ ε c0 ⋅ 2 ⋅ 2 ⎜ B⎠ ⎝ B ⎟ 2 ⎠ ⎛ D⎞ ⎜ ⎜1 + ln c ⎟ ⎟ 0⎠ ⎝ (2.150 = diameter of standard test cylinder specimen (m).150 ⎞ 3 Vσ = σ c ⋅ t ⋅ sin(γ ) ⋅ u ⋅ ⎜ ⎟ ⎝ t ⎠ where t= x0 = depth of compression strut 2cos(γ ) 1 (2. 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. 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. (2.71).72).150 ⎞ 3 = size effect factor with dimension t in (m) ⎜ ⎟ ⎝ t ⎠ 0. the sector elements between the radial flexural cracks are assumed to rotate as rigid bodies even before yielding of the flexural reinforcement.72) D ⎛ ⎞ ⎜ ⎟ 2 c0 c0 ⎟ c ⎜ + dr = ∆ϕ ⋅ Es ⋅ ε s0 ⋅ ρ ⋅ d ⋅ 0 Fs = ∆ϕ ⋅ Es ⋅ ε s0 ⋅ ρ ⋅ d ⋅ ⎜ 2 c∫ 2r ⎟ 2 0 ⎜ ⎟ 2 ⎝ ⎠ D E c0 Combine Eqs. (2.73).74) (2.In compact footings. Finally.76) ⎛ 0. (2.73) ⎛ ⎜ x0 ⎜ B Fc = ∆ϕ ⋅ E c0 ⋅ ε c0 ⋅ ⋅ + 2 ⎜2 ⎜ ⎝ (2. which affects the depth of the compression zone. the total load capacity with respect to punching is determined as Pσ = Vσ 1− k 2 27 (2.

⎛b B ⎞ M = P⎜ − ε ⎟ ⎝ 8 2π ⎠ (2. γ 2γ ≈ 0. (2. see Figure 2-14. Equation (2. see for instance Kinnunen and Nylander (1960).78) M ⎛ b ⎞ ⎛ x ⎞ ρ d ⋅ c0 ⎜ 1− ⎟ ⎜1 + ln c ⎟ ⎟⋅⎜ 3d ⎠ 0⎠ ⎝ ⎝ 2 σs = (2. (2.79) 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 ⎞ = 0.7 d = + tan 30 ° tan 2γ tan γ → γ = 25 ° Figure 2-14 Angle γ for flat plates.15 ⎞ 3 ⋅⎜ ⎟ ⎝ x ⎠ 1 (2. which has to be considered when designing such reinforcement.80) with x according to Eq.0010 ⎜ ⎜f ⎟ ⎟ ⎝ cc ⎠ 0. 28 .75) and with Ec10 instead of Ec0 in Eq. The expressions for the capacity Vσ presuppose that the flexural reinforcement in the footing does not yield. which agrees with the average shear crack inclination 30° observed at slender test specimens. The angle γ need not be taken less than 25°.74).80) may govern the capacity at high reinforcement ratios in combination with high strength concrete. The flexural capacity and the concrete strain of a square column footing are checked as follows.3d γ d tan 30° d 0 .For geometrical reasons the angle γ is limited to 45° corresponding to a vertical shear crack through the compression zone.3d 0 .1 ⎛ 0.

the punching capacity can be easily determined even in this region. Between these two limits part of the reinforcement yields. (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. The punching capacity is then equal to the flexural capacity of the slab.3.4. (2. 2. However.75) – up to the punching load.2 with a decreased critical value εcpu so that Vε becomes equal to Vσ However. The depth remained constant – conforming to Eq.2. Eq.75). the solution of which requires computerized calculations as described in Section 2. When the flexural reinforcement ratio exceeds the value ρ 1.2 Flat plates In flat plates. which value shall be used when calculating Vσ for flat plates. When punching occurs.4.2. 29 .34).4 Manual calculation 2. (2. (2. If Vσ turns out to be governing. Additional deflection will then cause only limited increase of the radial curvature of the sector elements. 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. the flexural reinforcement near the column will often yield before punching occurs. which is also evident from Figure 4-7.3. punching occurs after all reinforcement has reached the yield limit. the compression zone near the column has decreased to the value given by Eq. The compression zone depth in radial direction will therefore not decrease below the value given by Eq. The lesser of Vσ and Vε governs the punching capacity of flat plates. Two limit values for the reinforcement ratio can be identified. Vσs shall be determined with the angle γ = 45°. For flat plates with shear reinforcement. When the flexural reinforcement ratio is less than the value ρ 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. then the displacement of the flat plate is computed according to Section 2. if the curved relation is replaced by a linear relation as indicated in Figure 2-15.1 General The relation between punching capacity of flat plates and flexural reinforcement ratio is typically as depicted in Figure 2-14. The “exact” estimation of the punching capacity in this region leads to rather complicated equations.2. punching occurs without any reinforcement yielding and the punching capacity can be easily determined by the equations given in Section 2. However.7) is then no longer valid for the depth of the compression zone near the column for tangential bending moments – the depth decreases.

81) The punching capacity for reinforcement ratio exceeding ρ 1 is then determined according to Section 2.15 ⎞ 3 ⋅⎜ ⎟ → ⎝ x ⎠ (2.0 1. B = 0.Vε 1500 V 1 kN V2 1000 500 0 0 ρ 0. d = 0.2.5 ρ % 1 Figure 2-15 Punching capacity Vε versus reinforcement ratio.4. c = 3.1 (2. fsy =500 MPa. 30 .6) 1 ⎛ ⎞ ⎛ ⎞ 2 ⎟ → ε cpu = 0.25 m.10) n ρ1 = Es ⋅ ρ1 Ec10 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. (fcc = 30 MPa.0010 ⎜ 25 ⎟ x = d ⋅ nρ1 ⎜ 1 1 + − ⎜ ⎟ ⎜ ⎟ nρ1 ⎝ f cc ⎠ ⎝ ⎠ d−x σ s = Es ⋅ ε cpu ⋅ x ⎛ 0.5 2 ρ 1.2 m) 2.3.6⎜1 − cc ⎟ ⎥ ⋅ 21500 ⋅ ⎜ cc ⎟ ⎝ 150 ⎠ ⎥ ⎝ 10 ⎠ ⎢ ⎣ ⎦ 1 (2.5 m.

3 (2. (2.15 ⎞ 3 The punching capacity for reinforcement ratio exceeding ρ 1 is then determined according to Section 2.83) ⎛ ⎞ Es 2 ⎟ 1 + − 1 ⋅ ρ 2 and x = d ⋅ nρ 2 ⎜ ⎜ ⎟ E c10 n ρ 2 ⎝ ⎠ The additional curvature at the slab edge can also be expressed as 2 ⎛ ⎜ 1 − Bε ε sy ⎜ c 2 ⋅ 2π ′′ = − ∆f 2 1 B d −x⎜ 4π ⎜ 1− ε ⎜ c ⎝ ⎞ ⎟ Bε ⎞ ⎞ ⎟ ε sy ⎛ ⎛ ⎟= d −x⎜ ⎜1 − 0.47) 0.2.3⎜1 .33) and (2.5 + 0.0015 ⎝ 25 ⎠ Es ⋅ ρ1 Ec15 f ⎞ ⎛ ⋅ ⎜1.34) ε cpu Ec10 Bε c ⎛ ε cpu ε sy ⎞ ⎟ ⎜ − ⎜ x pu d − x ⎟ ⎠ ⎝ 2ρ2 ρ 2 → ∆f 2′′ = with nρ 2 = (2.0015 ⎜ 25 ⎟ xs = d ⋅ ns ρ1 ⎜ + − ⎜ ⎟ ⎟ ⎜ 4α 2 α ⋅ n ρ 2α ⎠ s 1 ⎝ f cc ⎠ ⎝ d − xs σ s = Es ⋅ ε cpus ⋅ xs 0.5.5⎜1 + c ⎟ ⎟ ⎟ ⎝ ⎠⎠ ⎝ ⎟ ⎟ ⎠ (2.With shear reinforcement ⎛ f ⎞ α = 0. 2.cc ⎟ ⎝ 100 ⎠ E c15 2 (2.82) 1 ⎛ 0.1 − cc ⎟ 190 ⎠ ⎝ (2.4.33) (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.34): ε cpu = 10 xpu = d ⋅ −6 E c10 0.150 10 3 ⋅ ⋅ 2d f sy ρ2 ⋅ f sy ⎛ 25 ⎞ ⋅⎜ ⎜f ⎟ ⎟ ⎝ cc ⎠ 0.84) 31 .45) ns ρ1 = ⎛ 1 ⎛ ⎞ 1 1 ⎞ ⎟ → ε cpus = 0.1 f cc ⎛ f cc ⎞ = ⋅⎜ ⎟ 0.

48) The additional curvature at the slab edge can also be expressed as ′′ = ∆f 2 B ⎞⎞ ⎛ ⎜ 1 − 0. Vy2: Vε = V y2 = ρ ⋅ f sy ⎛ 2π ⋅ ρ ⋅ f sy ⋅ d 2 ⎜ − 1 0 .4. The curvature according to Eq.84) increases slowly with increasing ρ.54) (2. The punching capacity up to the reinforcement ratio ρ 2 is equal to the flexural capacity at overall yield. (2.83) decreases rapidly with increasing ρ.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 (2.4 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 (2.5⎜1 + ε ⎟ ⎟ ⎜ d − xs ⎝ c ⎠⎟ ⎝ ⎠ ε sy ⎛ (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 ⎠ ⎝ (2.150 15 3 ⋅ ⋅ f sy d ρ2 ⎛ 25 ⎞ ⋅⎜ ⎜f ⎟ ⎟ ⎝ cc ⎠ 0. 5 ⎜ B f cc ⎝ 1− ε c ⎞ ⎟ ⎟ ⎠ ρ ≤ ρ2 (2.Only a few iterations are normally required to determine the reinforcement ratio ρ 2 that makes the two curvature expressions equal. and the curvature according to Eq. (2.88) 32 .3 ε cpus = 10 x pus = d ⋅ −6 (2.87) 2.

1 0.892 1.590 0.596 0.522 33 . Table 2-1 Reinforcement ratio ρ 1 % for fsy = 500 MPa d (m) Without shear reinforcement Concrete cylinder strength.232 1.432 1.401 2.732 1.135 0.174 2.2 0.899 0.581 0.520 0.195 0.183 30 1.834 1.30 0.310 1.338 0.550 40 2.588 0.586 1.129 1.089 60 1.317 1.416 0.018 1.977 50 1.970 1.20 0.577 0.537 0.826 0.184 1.239 1.762 0.25 0.579 0.141 1. Examples are given in Tables 2-1 and 2-2.996 1.843 40 1.805 0.683 Table 2-2 Reinforcement ratio ρ 2 % for fsy = 500 MPa. d (m) Bε c Without shear reinforcement Concrete cylinder strength.857 0.2 0.646 0.697 0.916 0.627 0.981 1.2.077 0.078 1.421 1.558 2.990 0.919 0.180 With shear reinforcement Concrete cylinder strength.496 0. fck (MPa) 20 30 1.3 0.416 1.493 1.493 0.382 0.1 0.482 0.25 0.3 0.183 1.856 1.376 1.893 1.930 1.478 0.831 0.825 0.534 0.713 0.032 1.439 1.935 0.655 0.133 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.926 1.004 60 2.654 0.411 0. fck (MPa) 20 30 40 50 60 With shear reinforcement Concrete cylinder strength.742 0.425 0.068 1.062 0.175 1.347 1.014 0.2 0.971 1.739 0.4.1 0.507 0.30 0.311 0.709 0.829 0.552 0.366 1.710 0. fck (MPa) 20 1.766 0.744 0. fck (MPa) 20 30 40 50 60 0.821 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.642 0.176 1.613 0.712 0.816 50 2.854 0.681 1.535 0.241 1.640 0.316 2.442 0.20 0.3 0.462 0.283 1.772 0.447 0.564 1.283 1.684 0.575 0.791 0.310 0.375 0.

thus changing the ratio between the central load (V) and the restraining moments (m1) at the edges of the 1. The assembly was supported on rollers positioned 0. Regan (1986) Regan (1986) made a very illustrative test with specimens subjected to a bending moment at the slab boundary as shown in Figure 2-16.83 m square. By varying the ratios of the upward and downward loads differing reactions could be produced at the roller supports. 34 .2. 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 1.457 m beyond the downward loads.5. The average effective depths were 80 mm and 82 mm respectively.5 Comparison with test results 2.1 Influence of bending moment 160 50 457 865 915 3000 1 865 915 457 m m 1 v Figure 2-16 Test set-up.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.

0 28.056 1. then the required flexural reinforcement ratios ρ x and ρ y in the two orthogonal directions shall be increased with the same factor to k·ρ x and k·ρ y.017 0. These findings have unfortunately never been incorporated in Swedish concrete codes and handbooks.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. Slender flat plates usually display a sudden brittle failure – often characterized as explosive. because an increase of only the lesser of the two reinforcement ratios did not increase the punching capacity in their tests.3 It is evident from Table 2-1 that the punching failure cannot be treated as a pure shear force failure.e. Most probably.2 34.107 1. i.031 IV/1 IV/2 IV/3 IV/4 26.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.088 1. 35 . Compact footings display a gradual failure similar to the failure of cylinders for testing of concrete compression strength.5. 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. the bending moment in the slab at the column plays a decisive role for the punching failure mechanism and the resulting punching capacity. Table 2-3 Slab Comparison of test results by Regan (1986) with predictions of Model Code 90 and the presented theory. 2.278 Theory Vtest/Vcalc 1. That occurs for instance for the bending moment in the long direction in flat plates with rectangular panels.984 1. the punching capacity will decrease if the bending moment in the slab versus the column reaction V increases. which is confirmed by specimen S1 in Kinnunen et al (1980) (see Table 2-4). the opposite is also valid. The punching capacity in the tests increased when the bending moment in the slab at the column versus the column reaction V decreased.036 0.124 1. Nylander and Sundquist (1972) concluded that if flexural reinforcement has to be added due to punching.252 1. fcc (MPa) m1/V Vtest (kN) 0 0.2 Influence of concrete mechanical properties The punching failure modes for slender flat plates and compact footings are fundamentally different. 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. That strain is a function of the bending moment in the slab near the column.3 31.

Compact footings seem to fail when the inclined compression stress reaches the failure stress in bi-axial compression. Concrete grades vary from 14 MPa up to more than 100 MPa. This property is traditionally recorded neither for test specimens nor for actual structures. The column size in relation to slab depth is represented by the parameter Bσ/d. These base properties can simply not be “manipulated” or “tuned”. 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. where a square column with width a is replaced by a circular column with the same perimeter. 36 .Flat plates seem to fail when the tangential strain in the concrete reaches a critical value. This relation is at best a good approximation. 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.5. The recorded E-modulus was there only 79 % of the value according to Model Code 90. 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. Some of the duplicated tests by Kinnunen and Nylander (1960). The difference was still larger for the specimen described by Ožbolt et al (2000). 2.0.35 % up to 3. Bσ = 4a / π . Bε = 3πa/8.2 and 4. Tolf (1988) and Tomaszewicz (1993) display a capacity scatter. 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 90.073 for the punching capacity predictions in Table 2-4 must therefore be regarded as a good verification of the theory for flat plates. which is confirmed by those tests where the E-modulus was actually recorded. which is larger than the usual scatter observed for cylinder compression tests.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. where a square column is replaced by a circular column with the same bending moment reduction effect. These observations indicate that the concrete E-modulus has influence on the punching strength of flat plates. probably due to a concrete mix design with aggregates from sedimentary rock. The variation coefficient 0. The reinforcement ratio varies from 0.7 % and the yield strength varies from 300 MPa up to more than 700 MPa. with a prediction scatter approaching the inevitable material strength scatter. The slab slenderness is represented by the expression (c – Bε)/2d. Furthermore. they are directly related to the recorded compression strength of the test specimens. Only specimens with normal density aggregates are included. The test specimens simulating flat plates listed in Table 2-4 cover a very wide range of conditions. The recorded values by for instance Hallgren (1996) were consistently lower than the values derived from the compression strengths according to Model Code 90. The E-modulus of concrete thus seems to be an important concrete property for prediction of the punching strength. 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.

which forms the prerequisite for the approach in Chapter 3 about eccentric punching. 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.1. but punching failures still occurred within the shear reinforced zone.6Vc according to Model Code 90 appears well advised. However. Predicted deflection and concrete strain in the tangential direction of flat plate specimens are in Table 2-7 compared to recorded values. whenever reported.The theory for column footings is more intricate. It is then logical that the moment distribution according to the theory of elasticity should be applied in that case. because it utilizes a rough estimate of the decreasing compression strength of the column capital with increasing perimeter versus the compression zone depth. larger capacity than 1. which is further supported by the tests with varying bending moment described in Section 2. because the capacity when all reinforcement yields (for ρ < ρ 2) is well-defined by the fan-type yield line configuration. which at least is a better prediction result than any existing concrete code method. However. This moment distribution differs radically from the moment distribution corresponding to rigid body sector elements rotating around a support perimeter near the column edge. 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.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. which is used by Kinnunen and Nylander (1960) and Hallgren (1996) even for elastic conditions with no reinforcement yielding. which demonstrates that the code approach with the capacity taken as Vu = 0.6Vc can be achieved if the slab is provided with ductility reinforcement described in Chapter 5. but they did not reach the theoretical yield capacity. 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.75Vc + Vs must be utilized with caution. the failure capacity is predicted even for those specimens where the reinforcement did not reach overall yield. It is noteworthy that the theory can predict the large deflection and the sudden punching failure in slabs where all the reinforcement yields across the slab width. The two specimens of Sundquist (1977) displayed a very ductile behaviour with overall yield. The upper bound 1. which indicates that the bent down reinforcement bars were not fully active in resisting the bending moment as assumed in Nylander and Kinnunen (1990).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. where Vc is the nominal capacity without shear reinforcement. Some of the slabs in Table 2-6 were provided with an extremely large amount of shear reinforcement. the variation coefficient 0. It is evident that if the theory can predict the capacity for ρ >ρ 1. Figure 2-15 displays a typical curve for the punching capacity versus the flexural reinforcement ratio in a flat plate. 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. 37 .

Tolf (1980) Tolf (1988) 1780 " φ2650 152 305 φ500 P-2 34.5 37.7 43.80 0.974 1.50 3.25 1.9 26.50 " " " " 6.030 1.93 453 569 600 1.35 100 99 200 199 98 99 200 197 φ1190 " φ2380 " φ1190 " φ2380 " φ125 " φ250 " φ125 " φ250 " 1.80 0.42 2. Test slab No.008 0.063 1.48 σs MPa Vcalc kN Vtest kN Vtest Vcalc 1.050 0.23 4. Nylander.152 Elstner.140 1.3094 1.25 1.3 19.38 5.04 0.38 1.4394 1.028 S1.29 3.38 5.554 0.0 26.84 " " " " 1.26 1.74 " " 1.3 26.50 " " 3.28 1.40 5.95 7.3 S2.73 5.943 1.4 28.8 20.49 0.50 " " " " " 5.74 " " " 2.69 5.01 1.25 1.27 " " " 6.026 1.49 5.81 0. fcc MPa fsy MPa ρ % 1.931 1.98 " 3.8 26.5 34.00 3.61 5.4 S2.35 0.964 0.9 50.9 22.043 1.26 1.6 26.2 29.054 P-5 26.018 1.18 2.74 0.34 0.Table 2-4 Authors Test results.965 0970 1.84 " " " " " 3.43 5.2 S2.1 S1.40 619 4680 2340 φ800 1.988 0. For explanations.82 0.992 1.79 1.27 2.16 " " " 2.3 S1.43 5.80 0. 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 25.040 1.26 1.34 0.24 404 4780 4915 1.2 26.67 6.76 5.2 47.80 0.27 5.0 36.48 1.47 421 551 569 1. Nylander (1960) Moe (1961) Schaeidt et al (1970) Marti et al (1977) Pralong et al (1979) Kinnunen.034 0.44 2.08 c−Bε 2d 6.5 26.4 24.6 25.02 0.31 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 2.13 1.40 1.021 38 .75 2.099 1.41 2.2 14.1 26.46 699 584 483 465 fsy " " " 2291 1891 6301 5981 1471 1401 4531 4351 216 194 603 600 145 148 489 444 0.033 S1 30.2 22.2 706 701 657 670 720 712 668 664 0.2 515 1.62 6.8 25.51 5.0714 1.1 27.1 25.4 25.6 558 1.2374 0.000 0.64 7.5 26.44 145 φ2600 φ300 2.986 1.148 1.50 1.476 " 1.02 6.34 154 φ2600 φ300 1.38 5.6 26.026 0.957 1.6 621 0.057 1.912 1.1 S2.3264 1.97 " 5.6 22.2 S1. see next page.079 1.34 2.6 47.01 2.84 3.8 28. flat plate specimens.003 0.4 27.1174 1.9 24.28 1.07 7.5 332 " " " 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.5 20.70 3.

25 1. (2.93 " " " 0.927 0.49 " " 2.61 2.150 1. Not included in the statistical evaluation due to the small effective depth 70 mm.96 " " " " " " " 1.26 2.892 1.3) which would give Ec0 = 27.37 0.029 1.95 1.12 " " " 5.891 1.0 24.53 6.80 0.049 1.4 1.84 1.7 GPa used instead of Eq.27 1.80 0.91 5.70 4.203 1. therefore not included in the statistical evaluation.01 1.43 5.922 0.1344 1. Recorded Ec0 value 21.965 0.956 1.54 5.25 1.065 1.02 2.006 1.1513 1.2364 1.35 5.73 " " 2.049 1.105 0.102 0.80 0.52 2.00 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 Bσ d 2.29 5.62 " " " 1.59 0.45 " " 6.894 0.073) 1) 2) 3) 4) 5) Failure mode Vσ governing.030 1.139 1.145 1.Table 2-4 Authors Continued from previous page.68 c−Bε 2d 6.82 1.64 0.091 0.11 1.80 0.19 1.971 0.51 4.04 6.94 1.3243.975 1. 39 .33 0.24 1.55 1.906 0.64 100 100 125 φ 1190 " " φ 250 φ 250 φ 125 2.60 0.2 718 " " 0. Overall yield with membrane action and strain hardening.100 Mean value Vtest / Vcalc = 1.38 5.49 0.80 0.25 1.057 1.01 1.50 2.96 5.53 1.35 5.069 1.055 1. (2.24 1.47 " " 0.971 0.08 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 1.96 5.2173 1.12 1.84 0.5 GPa and Vcalc = 806 kN.51 " " 9.075 0.47 2.38 " 5. 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.51 6.008 1.822 1.70 4.94 1.96 " " 7.01 " " 2.06 " " " " " " " 4.000 0.50 1.00 4.59 " " 2. HS 1 HS 2 HS 3 HS 4 HS 5 HS 6 HS 7 HS 8 HS 9 HS 10 HS 11 HS 12 HS 13 HS 14 HS 15 NS 1 NS 2 65-1-1 95-1-1 115-1-1 95-1-3 65-2-1 95-2-1D 95-2-1 115-2-1 95-2-3 95-2-3D 95-2-3D+ 115-2-3 95-3-1 fcc MPa 67 70 69 66 68 70 74 69 74 80 70 75 68 72 71 42 30 64 84 112 90 70 88 87 119 90 80 98 108 85 90 91 86 92 109 84 95 21 fsy MPa 490 " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " 500 " " " 500 " " " " " " " " 643 627 620 596 633 634 631 569 ρ % 0.4 27.035 0.32 5.75 " " " 2.95 4.19 0. Recorded Ec0-values used instead of Eq.33 0.921 Marzouk.103 1.3).021(1± 0. Test slab No.26 688 692 583 270 250 265 0. Kinnunen (2004b) C1 C2 D1 24.996 1.29 1.59 2.

03 1.063 1.413 0.115 1.82 1.43 2.46 " " " " 2.6 32. column footings.0 27.9 25.02 1.7 29.03 1.996 0.87 0.04 4.25 1.401 0.400 0.8 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 % 0.40 0.8 28.89 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 = 1.7 36.784 0.3 24.3 " " " " " " " 0.862 0.4 26.964 Dieterle (1978) Dieterle.18 Vcalc kN Vtest kN Vtest Vcalc 1.39 0.901 1.063 1.400 0.584 0.79 0.357 0.011 1.78 2.81 4.3 24.0 35.3 19. Nylander (1983.5 23.8 25.6 30.805 0.02 c−Bε 2d 1. Kinnunen.998 1.573 0.7 40.169 1.275 0.88 4. therefore not included in statistical evaluation.388 0.03 1.095) D Bε 1) − for footing with surface load.Table 2-5 Authors Test slab No.398 0.089 1.966 0.81 1.928 1. 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.1 24.25 1.040 1.40 1.390 0.062 1.0 32.7 14.501 0.4 25.00 1.3 " " " " " " " 1.895 0.392 0.02 0.98 1.824 1.89 0.4 31. 1998) line load surface load Sundquist.430 0.6 28. 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.333 0.02 1.094 1.78 0.2 21.88 4.026 1.109 0.372 0.64 " " 1.5 27.02 1.1 28.4 24.8 28. MPa 23.89 0.565 1.830 0.239 0.399 0.124 1.85 1.93 0.872 0.394 0. 40 .55 4.4 29.66 1.02 1.395 0.03 1.659 0.208 0.64 1.83 0.1 25.995 1.38 2.08 1.066 0.2 30.107 0.071 0.03 0. 3d 2d 2) Overall yield with strain hardening.32 1.6 26.416 0.047 0.642 0.88 0.053 1.991 1.06 1.4 26.105 0.987 0.88 0.7 29.866 0.18 1.34 0.86 1.918 1.02 1.434 0.032(1± 0.041 1.18 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 1.1402 1.6 40 28.050 0.02 1.

12 1.08 " " " " 4.94 1.071 0. Extremely high shear reinforcement ratio.2 37.40 3407 3428 3385 3337 1558 1720 1954 2071 1616 1646 2024 1954 1.0 29.993 0.4 26.0 28.63 0.033 0.037 0.930 0.30 400 " " " " 320 " " 300 7) 7) Krüger et al (2000) Hegger et al (2001) Z3 Z4 Z5 Z6 3) 3) 3) 3) 24.932 5) 1.986 0.5 23.3 37.27 0. Failure outside shear reinforcement.3 40.90 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 1.806 0. not included in statistical evaluation. 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) 26.25 " " " " " 2. Slab width 3000 mm with reinforcement over the whole width.38 " " 4.993(1± 0.2 25. flat plates with shear reinforcement.14 1.58 3. 41 .1 25.41 1.40 4.417 6) Broms (1990b) Yamada et al (1992) Beutel.4 27.067 7) 1.5 92 91 85 26.967 4) 1.80 1.931 0.Table 2-6 Authors Test results.036 0.0 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) 0.806 1.25 " " 1.15 1.14 1.40 4.072 7) 0.53 " 164 " 190 190 190 190 190 220 220 230 121 1500 " φ 2400 " 8) " " " " " " 2750 300 " 2.80 1.3 26.77 1.9 29. Slab width 2750 mm with reinforcement over the whole width.7 568 " 550 550 550 550 550 550 550 550 500 1.301 1.4 40.753 1.16 3.81 6.87 2.80 4.8 20.74 1.8 37.919 0.0 37.957 1.50 " " " " " 5.4 26.80 0.18 0.983 0.1 23.12 c−Bε 2d 6. 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 % 0.42 1.51 1.981 0.05 1.3 26.2 46.80 0.66 1.94 0.950 0.23 Vy2 kN 364 360 400 409 299 303 555 569 622 627 457 456 463 456 1338 1831 1033 605 601 1819 1765 1653 3023 981 Vcalc kN 364 360 399 406 299 303 555 569 618 621 457 456 463 456 1338 1687 1033 605 601 1819 1765 1540 3022 710 Vtest kN 346 353 371 373 292 294 534 549 606 612 453 471 459 459 1329 1631 1106 580 560 2119 1904 1537 2956 1006 Vtest Vcalc 0.0 21.68 " " " " 1.079 0.6 36.3 26.991 1.021 0.71 0.897 0.165 5) 1.66 3.960 4) 4) 0.998 0.09 0.965 0.993 0.063) Bent bars as shear reinforcement.06 1.0 28.826 1.991 1.0 36. High capacity due to “ductility reinforcement”.50 " " " " " " " 1.78 0.99 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 1.74 2.25 1.806 0.962 0.25 250 " " " φ 2400 " 9) " " φ 200 φ 200 φ 263 φ 200 0.05 0.08 1. therefore not included in statistical evaluation.71 1.007 4) 4) 4) 4) 4) 4) 4) 4) 4) 4) 4) 4) 4) 4) Andersson (1963) 26.806 0.0 890 890 562 562 0.860 0.891 0.2 28.50 " 5.88 " " " " " " " 5. Vertical stirrups as shear reinforcement.970 0.9 27.944 1) 2) 3) 4) 5) 6) 7) 8) 9) Mean value Vtest/Vcalc = 0.8 27.49 1.85 " " 3.82 1.33 " 2.978 1.977 0.5 28.60 " " 9.27 4.05 0.959 5) 0.981 0.70 1.806 0.36 4. Overall yield with strain hardening therefore not included in statistical evaluation.20 1.0 27.22 1. Studs as shear reinforcement.35 3. Test slab No.07 1.8 27.

6 25.0 Hallgren (1996) 13.3 4.25 3.3 27.5 9.31 0.2 26.1 S2.9 11.71 0.4 1.35 4.7 17.8 36 1) Bent bars as shear reinforcement.40 3.0 18.21 2.42 2.4 10.8 46.6 Authors ρ % ε cpu ·103 1.79 1.4 27.35 0.17 1.00 2.72 3.3 26.0 13.8 20.7 27.15 3.80 0.80 0.0 10.6 29.4 HSC0 HSC1 HSC2 HSC3s 1) HSC4 HSC5s 1) HSC7s 1) HSC9 N/HSC8 NS B1 P2-II 2) P6-I 2) 28.6 22.8 5. Hegger (2000) Krüger et al (2000) PP0B 2) 37.5 9.2 14.2 22.38 2.64 2.5 45.47 1.00 ε test·103 1.1 25.34 0.50 3.2 28.94 1.04 3.2 9.2 8.46 1.5 16.48 0.3 34.27 3.1 1.9 16.8 29.8 2.89 2.1 5.0 12.80 0. 3) Calculated deflection at calculated punching load.2 1.4 26.05 0.80 0.0 δ test mm 13.80 0.753 1.30 2.4 24.0 13.0 3.80 0.6 28.0 5.2 26.8 26.0 19.4 S2.18 0.1 12.6 26.2 90 91 86 92 92 91 85 84 95 29.81 0.77 1.34 0.2 1.3 S2.1 27.3 0.5 12.3 35 25 14 Hassanzadeh (1996) Hassanzadeh (1998) Beutel.41 1.2 S1.4 Sundquist (1977) Tolf (1988) D 1) E 1) S1.06 1.49 0.21 3.8 1.7 11.1 S1. 2) Vertical stirrups as shear reinforcement.19 1.3 40.4 2.38 3.5 7.0 11.8 9.25 1.64 1.15 2.1 9.09 0.5 16.5 15.33 0.5 22.80 0.22 1. Specimen fcc MPa 26.26 2.4 25.8 26.2 1.2 S2.7 13.67 1.35 0.0 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) 0.66 1.4 25.09 1.0 28.7 12.5 28.08 1.9 26.5 10.Table 2-7 Tangential concrete strain and deflection at punching.0 17.55 1.2 9.0!! δ calc 3) mm 10.31 2.65 1.4 27.1 23.01 1.80 1.2 2.58 1.2 2. 42 .1 26.5 26.22 3.0 8.64 1.7 1.3 6.0 1.97 1.1 34.5 19.04 0.5 27.88 45.71 Andersson (1963) 4.93 1.98 1.3 S1.5 30 10 16 33 29 13.8 5.8 2.1 18.2 11.93 1.28 1.7 4.7 12.45 1.76 2.4 13.0!! 3.63 0.17 1.9 10.1 22.0 17.806 1.82 0.9 24. Comparison with test results.18 3.82 1.45 1.6 10.80 0.

Punching is assumed to occur when the shear stress at a control section on a certain distance from the column reaches a critical value. Model Code 90 and BBK 04.19( f ck ) 3 ⋅ [1 − 0.8 f c.5 d outside the column edge.19( f ck ) 3 with f ck = 0.5d from the column edge.5.45 ⋅ f ctk with ρ ≤ 0. cube and 48< fck ≤ 64 MPa 2 2 43 .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 318-02.6 − d for 0. Vu = f v2 ⋅ 4d ⋅ (a + d ) for square columns .008( f ck − 48)] with f ck = 0. 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.2 ≤ d ≤ 0.5 m f ctk ≈ 0. Vu = f v ⋅ d (4a + 4 π d ) for square columns . 1 (upper limit for fck = 80 MPa disregarded in Table 2-8) ξ = 1+ 0. Vu = f v2 ⋅ π d ⋅ (B + d ) for circular columns f v2 = ξ (1 + 50 ρ ) ⋅ 0.200 d with d in (m) Ultimate punching capacity according to BBK 04 The control section is placed 0.8 f c.12 ⋅ ξ ⋅ (100 ρ ⋅ f ck ) 3 . Vu = f v ⋅ π d ⋅ (B + 4d ) for circular columns f v = 1.2.5 ⋅ 0.01 ξ = 1. Ultimate punching capacity according to ACI 318-02 The control section is placed at the distance 0. These codes treat punching as a form of shear failure. A control section with four straight sides is permitted for square and rectangular columns. Vu = f v2 ⋅ d (4a + π d ) for square columns . cube and fck ≤ 48 MPa f ctk ≈ 0.

5(1. which is compensated by the strength reduction factor 1/(1.The size effect factor ξ is in design taken as 1.5) for brittle punching failure mode.67 for the European Code. BBK 04 displays a larger scatter and a very conservative estimate of the ultimate capacity. The American Code displays the largest scatter.5)1.5 for Model Code 90.35 + 1.5(1.6 ) / 0.2 ⋅ 1.5 for Model Code 90.75 for the American Code and 1/1. No comparison is made for column footings because the code provisions seem to be unrealistic for compact slabs.6 for live load according to ACI 318-02. In order to get realistic evaluation of test specimens with d less than 0. 44 .2 for dead load and 1.4 for d ≤ 0. because the code considers neither the strength increase with increasing flexural reinforcement ratio nor the strength reduction with increasing specimen size.3)1. That is why fv is multiplied by 1.2 m. The corresponding values are 1.35 and 1.5 = 2. 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. The strength reduction factors in design differ also.5 = 2.0 + 1. which is no wonder because the code expressions are based on regression analysis of a large amount of test results. the expression for ξ is assumed valid also for d < 0.2 + 1.14 γ = 0.0 and 1. All values for Vu are intended to reflect the ultimate capacity according to the different codes. The load factors are 1. since the design strength instead of the ultimate strength is given in this code. They are 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 = 0.5 = 0. The Swedish load factors are 1.2 m.07 Model Code 90 predicts the ultimate capacity with a small scatter.75 = 1.87 γ = 0.2·1.2 m according to BBK 04.5(1.3.

945 0.6 26.9 24.505 2) 2) 2) 2) 1.04 0.706 0.020 1.554 0.416 1.79 1.362 45 .1 S2.015 1.618 1.085 2) 2) 0.398 1.644 1.80 0.3 19.478 2) 2) 1.5 fsy MPa 332 " " " 321 " " " " " 332 321 " 294 324 321 303 341 325 441 454 455 451 448 462 328 481 555 ρ % 1.029 0.48 1.80 0.866 Kinnunen.899 0.4 27.50 3.6 621 0.4 28.619 1.3 S2.854 1.74 " " 1.80 0.2 26.663 1.417 1.004 0.2 S2.2 706 701 657 670 720 712 668 664 0. For explanations see next page.300 1.040 1.339 1.672 1.5 20.9 22.088 1.973 1. Nylander.458 1. BBK 04.881 1.8 25.276 1.9 50.5 26. Tolf (1980) Tolf (1988) 1780 " φ2650 152 305 φ500 P-2 34. Column Vtest Vtest /Vcalc fcc MPa 25.31 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.348 1.0 36.509 1.16 " " " 2.241 1.867 0.806 2) 2) 2) 2) 0. Observed ultimate loads of flat plate specimens compared to predictions according to the codes ACI 318-02.517 1.050 1.822 1.130 1.8 26.4 25.2 47.430 1.576 1.051 1.574 619 4680 φ800 4915 0.35 100 99 200 199 98 99 200 197 φ1190 " φ2380 " φ1190 " φ2380 " φ125 " φ250 " φ125 " φ250 " 216 194 603 600 145 148 489 444 1.904 0.395 2) 2) 2) 2) 1.1 27.017 0.1 26.01 2.493 1.579 1.971 0.2 29.2 14.211 1.49 0.978 1.4 S2.585 S1 30.921 1.541 1.687 S1.01 1. Model Code 90.493 P-5 26.714 1.6 25.523 1.926 0.037 0.81 0.00 3.38 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 " " " " " 1.028 1.44 145 φ2600 φ300 600 1.361 1.358 1.815 1.927 0.6 47.337 1.2 22.02 0.6 26.993 1.064 0.504 1.018 1.635 1.937 0.8 28.966 0.Table 2-8 Authors Test slab No.18 2.3 26.1 S1.050 1.954 0.989 1.456 1.495 1.35 0.4 24.365 1.34 0.089 1.6 558 1.731 1.5 34.736 1.963 1.1 25.987 0.522 2) 2) 1.50 1.673 1.493 1.966 1.6 22.511 1.2 S1.774 1.8 20. Nylander (1960) φ150 " φ300 " " " Moe (1961) Schaeidt et al (1970) Marti et al (1977) Pralong et al (1979) Kinnunen.973 0.5 37.9 26.7 43.34 154 φ2600 φ300 569 1.748 1.50 " " 3.0 26.663 1.367 1.34 0.862 2.064 1.2 515 1.229 1.476 " 1.5 26.938 1.862 1.3 S1.80 0.130 0.74 0.852 1.

80 0.472 4) 4) 4) 1.4 27.80 0.889 3) 3) 3) 3) 3) 3) 3) 3) 3) 3) 3) 3) 3) 3) 3) 3) 3) 2) 3) 1.053 1.786 2) 1.047 0.944 3) 3) 3) 3) 3) 3) 3) 3) 3) 3) 3) 1.8 fc.939 1. fcc is larger than 69 MPa (= upper limit according to ACI 318-02).791 Mean value Vtest / Vcalc = 1.898 Vtest /Vcalc ACI 318-02 MC 90 BBK 04 Marzouk.19 1.064 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 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) 0.054 1.004 1.15) Compare thesis: Mean value Vtest / Vcalc = 1.52 2.00 1.506 1.49 0.877 1.62 " " " 1.046 1.84 0.10) 1.37 0.0 24.cube) is larger than 64 MPa (= upper limit according to BBK 04).949 0.592 1.961 1.186 1.058 1.111 2) 1.500 1.94 1.024 0. therefore not included in the statistical evaluation.380 1.451 1.086 1.011 2) 0.608 1.355 4) 1.874 3) 3) 3) 1.030 0.646 1.94 1.073) 1) 2) 3) 4) Not included in the statistical evaluation due to the small effective depth 70 mm.077 1.61 2.023 1.916 1.80 0.021(1± 0.84 1.977 1.082 1) 1) 1) 1.47 " " 0.95 1.147 Tomaszewicz (1993) Hallgren (1996) HSC0 HSC1 HSC2 HSC4 HSC6 HSC9 N/HSC8 Ožbolt et al (2000) Sundquist.150 1.916 1.82 1.924 0.134 1.015 1.078 0. Hussein (1991) 2) 0.60 0. Kinnunen (2004b) C1 C2 D1 24.33 0.75 " " " 2.214 4) 4) 1) 1) 1) 1.161 1.02(1± 0.Table 2-8 Continued from previous page.047 1.152 1.80 0.19 0.2 718 " " 0.536 4 4) 4) 4) 4) 4) 4) 4) 4) 4) 4) 4) 4) 2) 4) 0.55 1.33 0.984 1.018 1.17) 1.550 1.64 100 100 125 φ 1190 " " φ 250 φ 250 φ 125 270 250 265 1.60(1± 0.852 1.245 1.64 0.381 1.211 1.47 2.80 0. 46 .49 " " 2.469 1. fcc (= 0. Authors Test slab No. Overall yield with membrane action and strain hardening.327 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 % 0.11 1.41(1± 0.

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 = 0.1 Code approach Transfer of moment between slab and columns – so called unbalanced moment – can occur due to gravity loading or due to story drift. When caused by gravity loading or story drift. which cannot be estimated as accurately as for a beam-column frame. This means that a flexural hinge forms at the column. 3. 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.2 Introduction Due to shortcomings of the code approach. normally a statically indeterminate quantity. 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.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. 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. As described previously. 3. however. That bending moment is. However. another concept is proposed here – imposed slab rotation in relation to the column. the lateral displacement between stories caused by wind or earthquake. i. Conservative results are achieved if the column is considered stiff in relation to the slab.e. a safer concept is proposed here – imposed rotation of the column in relation to the slab (or vice versa). no generally accepted method for assessment of the unbalanced moment seems to exist. 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. Therefore.125qL2 47 . An unbalanced moment is thereby considered partly transferred by “eccentricity of shear”. A simple example may describe the principle: Study the first interior column of a flat plate structure with equal span widths in both directions. Both the imposed rotation and the rotation capacity of a flat plate can be assessed with good accuracy. The column is assumed stiff in relation to the slab: m = 0.

3 Approximate theory of elasticity Figure 3-1 depicts a common test set-up for eccentric punching. 3.5⋅10 radians. 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. The torsional resistance of the sector elements is considered negligible. It resembles the one used for concentric punching described in Chapter 2.∆m = (0.5 ⋅ 10 −3 7 3 3EI 3 ⋅ 10 ⋅ L In this simplified example. This assumption will be evaluated later in this chapter.018 ⋅ 15 ⋅ L3 = ⋅ 12 ⋅ 32 3 = 3. I= h3 L3 = 12 12 ⋅ 32 3 6 2 h L =1 32 E = 10⋅10 kN/m2 θ = ∆m ⋅ L 0. 48 . the slab shall be able to resist an imposed slab rotation in relation −3 to the column equal to 3. The fan-type crack pattern at concentric loading is assumed to remain when the column is forced to rotate. 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 . H H V c Figure 3-1 Test set-up for eccentric punching. The sector elements between the radial flexural cracks will then deflect with varying fictitious deflection ∆ in relation to the column as shown in Figure 3-2.107 ) qL2 = 0.125 − 0.

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

The broken lines represent the size of test specimens that are assumed to simulate the behaviour of the slab near the column.3) The rotation due to an unbalanced moment is θ1 = R ⋅c Mu 2∆ = 0 = c − B 8π EI 2 π EI (3. If the slab width resisting this force R is assumed equal to the column strip width (L/2).4) L 2 L R R L 2 L 2 Figure 3-3 Unbalanced moment due to story drift. The reaction R according to Eq. The effect of the column rotation within the broken lines is evaluated above. the additional rotation of the column can be assessed as 50 L 2 . (3.27) and (2.The deflection ∆ due to a concentric load R0 can be derived from Eqs. Story drift during earthquakes or wind load as illustrated in Figure 3-3 is a common cause for unbalanced moment.28): ∆= 2⎞ R0 ⎛ ⎜1 − B ⎟ ⋅ c ⋅ c − B ≈ R0 ⋅ c ⋅ c − B 4π ⎜ 2 4 π 2 EI 2 c2 ⎟ ⎝ ⎠ 2 EI (3. (2.1) is conservatively assumed to act at the distance L/4 from the column.

There is a difference. 3. Any transfer of unbalanced moment by “eccentricity of shear” in the slab is neglected. 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. it does not consider the local effects of force transfer from the column to the slab or vice versa.5) ∴ θ 2 2π = = 0.8) 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. Figure 3-4 shows a possible load path for these effects.5 .4 Model for eccentric punching of flat plates The model described in the previous section only reflects the global elastic behaviour of the system.5 Mu 2 π EI (3.7) M u = 4. however. θ 1 4π θ = θ 1 + θ 2 = 1 . Such force effects should be regarded as fictitious quantities that in reality are replaced by the two horizontal compression struts.θ2 = RL 16 EI ⋅ 0.5 L ( 2 )2 = Mu RL = 32 EI 4 π EI because R = R0 4M u and R0 = π c (3.6) (3. el = 4. In-plane forces in the slab therefore balance the compression struts. The horizontal compression strut forces in the slab are larger than the tension tie forces from the reinforcement that passes through the column.2 ⋅ θ ⋅ EI Compare Aalami (1972) who used the theory of elasticity for an isotropic thin plate to derive M u.05) (3. Circumferential cracking around the column isolates other reinforcement bars from participating in the moment transfer. 51 .10 ⋅ θ ⋅ EI (for a/L = 0.

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

A column rotation will cause non-uniform reaction intensity along the circle with diameter c as described in the previous section and illustrated in Figure 3-7.The 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. 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. 53 . 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). The concentric gravity load V causes the slab deflection δV.

54 .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. is assumed to be representative for the overall behaviour of the slab due to a column rotation where ⎛ EI ⎞ 2 kI = ⎜ 1 ⎟ ⎝ EI ⎠ 1 (3.9) with x replaced by h/2: h ⎞ ⎛ h ⎞ ⎛ EI1 = ρ ⋅ E s ⋅ d 3 ⋅ ⎜1 − ⎟ ⋅ ⎜1 − ⎟ ⎝ 2d ⎠ ⎝ 6d ⎠ (3.9) The mean value EI ⋅ EI1 . the radial compression struts from the column cause a larger radial curvature of the sector elements near the column than at concentric loading. The additional curvature results in an additional column rotation. which is equal to kI·EI. see Figure 3-8.10) c M ϕ ∆ sin ϕ ϕn ϕ 1 ϕ ϕ 2 i Figure 3-7 Variation of fictitious slab deflection ∆ due to column rotation. Furthermore. (2. The reduced stiffness EI1 can be assessed in accordance with Eq.

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 (3.13) 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. 55 .Relation between unbalanced moment Mu and maximum value R0 of support reaction along slab edge: R ⋅c Mu = 0 (3.11) Radial compression strain in the slab along axis x due to the horizontal compression struts in the slab: εc ≥ 6m r Ec10 ⋅ h 2 (3.12) 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.

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

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 " 1.46 1.40 / 0.7 484 " 472 415 420 472 415 420 472 472 415 472 472 415 472 415 420 472 420 0.73 / 0.512 1.950 1.077 1.40 0.28 0.63 1.2 19.279 1.7 31.53 1.0 24.537 1.39 / 1.8 " " 1.28 0.5 SM1.777 1.0 1.4 39.0 fcc fsy ρ / ρc % d h mm c m 1.83 " 1.006 1.911 1.194 1.1 26.63 0.545 1.982 0.34 / 0.6AH 14AH 6AL 9.50 1.8 254 1.48 1.639 Vtest / Vcalc 0.991 1.Table 3-2 Authors Moe (1961) Unbalanced moment test results.669 1.988 0.936 0. Park (1976) Elgabry.024 0.223 1.2 54.985 0.42 / 0.2BL 6CH 9.6AL 29.487 SM0.83 " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " 274 " 305 " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " 1.152 1.2 21.51 (1± 0.23 (1± 0.18 1.652 1.521 1.952 0.946 0.393 1.010 0.20) AP1 AP3 6AH 9.239 0.7 30.63 0.0 SM 1.1 20.58 / 0.566 1.5 47.40 / 0.20) 1.692 1.803 0.978 1.809 0.438 1.78 " " " " " " 2.4 57.9 476 " " 374 0.40 / 0.7941 0.3BH 9.7 22.065 1. Ghali (1987) Pan .251 1.5 18.334 1.160 0.13) h=152 14AL 7.28 0.186 0.989 1.3001 1.0 6 / 0. Moehle (1989) Hawkins et al (1989) L1 1.344 1.60 / 0.302 1.57 1.35 1.7 49.34 / 0.909 0.407 1.242 2.542 1.29 " 0.9 31.977 0.131 0.914 0.50 1.674 1. MPa M2 M3 M6 M7 M8 M9 M10 25.2BH h = 114 7.50 / 0.112) 1) Cyclic loading.0 20.28 1.3 345 1.0 Column size mm 305 " 254 " " " " 305 ACI 318 MC 90 BBK 04 Vtest / Vcalc 1.6 MPa 481 " 327 " " " " 398 1.5 52.34 / 0.6 23.338 0.827 0.8 26.006(1± 0.566 0.063 1 1. Comparison with code predictions.4061 1.216 1.53 / 0.878 0.63 0.3 31. 61 .834 0.3BL 9.095 1.95 / 0.190 1.05 2.195 1.57 Narasimhan (1971) Ghali et al (1974) Ghali et al (1976) Islam.783 1.380 1.53 1.922 0.949 0.876 1.5 25.889 0.032 B5NP 28.60 / 0.8 33.60 / 0.926 1.7 28.659 1.96 / 0.907 1.0121 1.761 " 1.3 22.42 / 0.40 / 0.968 0.93 (1± 0.60 / 0.331 1.96 / 0.404 1.873 0.5BL 14.772 0.029 0.3 30.50 1.211 1.5BH 14.0 22.39 1.48 1.279 1.664 1.5 2 36.9 27.397 1.517 1.05 / 0.86 / 0.805 1 2.07 / 0. not included in statistical evaluation.95 / 0.143 305 " " 229 0.245 Vtest / Vcalc 1.73 / 0.40 0.396 1.336 0.8 29. Test slab No.96 / 0.837 0.6CH 14CH 6CL 14CL h = 152 Mean value Compare Thesis: Mean value Vtest / Vcalc = 1.842 0.851 0.394 1.407 1.75 0.05 / 1.75 0.34 / 0.8 305 1.933 1.141 1.146 1.383 1 35 452 1.

31) is recommended. flat plates should be checked for rotation capacity rather than unbalanced moment capacity. 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. The calculation procedure is laborious and is only included here for verification of the model. (3. An upper bound for the unbalanced moment can be assessed by combining Eqs. (3.10) and Mu taken as the lowest value according to Eqs. However. (3.32) becomes very conservative.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. This approach may seem elegant.2. When δ ε approaches or exceeds δy2 (at low reinforcement ratios). the actual rotation can be determined with good precision by means of standard methods as indicated in Section 3. it is not intended for use in the design office. These shortcomings are overcome with the approach described in Section 3. (3. then Eq. see also Chapter 4. as proposed in Section 3.4).37). Vε and δ ε are output values from the concentric punching check described in Chapter 2.10). The code ACI 318-02 for instance allows flat plates to be designed according to the “Equivalent Frame Method”. The punching deflection δ ε can always be determined without any iteration.4. conservatively expressed as θu = 2 δε ⎛ δV ⎜1 − ⋅ kI c − B ⎜ δε ⎝ 2 δε ⎛ V ⎜ 1− ⋅ ⎜ k I c − B ⎝ Vε ⎞ 12M u ⎛ c B⎞ ⎟ − + ln 1 ⎜ ⎟ ⎟+ 3 c⎠ ⎠ π ⋅ Ec10 ⋅ h ⎝ B ⎞ 12M u ⎛ c B⎞ ⎟ ⎜ ln − 1 + ⎟ ⎟+ 3 c⎠ ⎠ π ⋅ Ec10 ⋅ h ⎝ B (3. The rotation capacity was derived in Section 3. Many methods have been proposed to solve the problem of estimating a design value for the unbalanced moment – with limited success. The reason for this is two-fold. In that case the more exact Eq.33) 62 . 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.32) with kI according to Eq.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.13): Mu = θ ⎛ ⎛c⎞ B⎞ 12⎜ ln⎜ ⎟ − 1 + ⎟ ⎜ c⎟ 1 ⎝B⎠ ⎠ ⎝ + 3 2 π ⋅ k I ⋅ EI π ⋅ E c10 ⋅ h (3.31) or more conveniently as θu = (3. and (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.4.33) to (3. (3. (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.2): ⎞ c ⎛ V y1 M u1a = k I ⋅ ⎜ δ ε ⋅ −V ⎟ ⋅ ⎟ 4 ⎜ δ y1 ⎠ ⎝ c M u1b = V y2 − V ⋅ 4 ( ) (3.34) 2. 63 . 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 (3.36) 4.150 ⎞ 3 ⋅⎜ ⎟ ⎝ 0.37) where h = slab thickness [m] and a = column width. the flexural yield capacity of the slab. The capacity corresponding to overall yield of the positive (bottom) reinforcement may be governing: ⎛ ρc ⎞ c M u2 ≤ ⎜ ⎜ ρ ⋅ Vy 2 + V ⎟ ⎟⋅ 4 ⎝ ⎠ where Vy 2 = m y ⋅ (3. 3. (3.However. the unbalanced moment is limited by the lesser of the punching capacity.35) 2π B 1− c and ρc = bottom reinforcement ratio. or the local compression strength of the horizontal compression struts: 1. 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. The punching failure load limits the unbalanced moment according to the lesser of Mu1a and Mu1b that are derived from Eq.5h ⎠ 1 (3.

4.03 ρ= 06 0.0 0 0.2·1.5·539 = 970 kN with a required reinforcement ratio ρ = 0.8 % according to Figure 3-9 (interior column with θ = 0).02 0.0 10 0. column 0. L = 7. fsy=420 MPa.0 m.5x0. d = 0.23 m. θu 0.04 0. h = 0. The column reaction would then be 11·7. which is derived from the “exact” expressions in Section 3. which was found experimentally already by Ghali et al (1976).02 = 539 kN.5ρ) 64 .01 0 V 500 1000 1500 kN Figure 3-9 Column rotation capacity versus reinforcement ratio. ρ’ = 0. The span width is 7.8 m. which corresponds to a required ultimate punching capacity 1.20 m corresponding to a slenderness L/d equal to 35.20 m.5 m². and such flat plates may display no reduction in punching capacity when subjected to imposed column rotation. fck =30 MPa. It is also evident that flat plates with moderate reinforcement ratio can resist large imposed column rotations. (c = 2. The figure demonstrates that it may be unfavourable to add support reinforcement in a flat plate in order to resist imposed column rotation due to for instance pattern loading. The factored uniformly distributed load in an office building would typically be 11 kN/m² (with Swedish load factors).0 m and the effective depth is 0.0 12 0.0 08 0.The ultimate rotation capacity for a slender flat plate structure versus reinforcement ratio and column size is displayed in Figure 3-9.

2 will then give correct results for interior columns in flat plates with square panels if c is taken as 0. 4. The basic case – a flat plate structure with square panels – is treated in Section 2. The negative strip moments can normally be determined for full load on all bays. Each strip is assumed pin-supported on the columns and the lines of zero shear for the perpendicular strips bound the strip laterally. 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. where the factor γn = 1. (3.5 = 1. The design rotation capacity is calculated in a similar manner. 65 .8. The bending moment distribution near the column is assumed polar-symmetric within a circle with the diameter c.4 Design This Chapter demonstrates how the presented theory shall be applied for design of flat plates. The punching failure in flat plates usually occurs when the tangential compression strain at the column edge due to the bending moment reaches a critical value.2 Bending moments in a continuous flat plate A rational method for calculating the bending moments in the general case with varying span widths and rectangular panels is described in the following. 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.32) shall be divided by the strength reduction factor γn·γm to derive the design value of the rotation capacity at factored loading. Comparison is made with current structural design codes. In Sweden this factor should be γn·γm = 1. where c/2 is the distance from the column to the line where the radial bending moment is zero. where L is the span width. It is therefore essential that this bending moment be estimated in a correct way. The design punching capacity is then taken as the calculated ultimate punching capacity divided by the applicable strength reduction factor for concrete.2. 4.2·1.4L. The equations in Section 2. which is applicable if the probable failure mode is brittle. The quantities Vε and δ ε in Eqs. The flat plate structure is divided into strips in accordance with Figure 4-1.31) and (3.2 corresponds to Swedish safety class 3.1 Design of support reinforcement at square panels In design.

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

(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.Let us first study the basic case.2). 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.4w corresponds to the fan-type yield line depicted in Figure 4-2. The average bending moment msc within the column strip with width 0. 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. msc. 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. more reinforcement will be required within the column strip than corresponding to the average bending moment according to Eq.3) V ⎞ ⎛ Bε ⎞ ⎛ ⎜1 − ⎟ + ⎜ ms + ⎟ c ⎠ ⎝ 12 ⎠ ⎝ V ⎞ ⎛ msm = −0.4) 67 . a continuous flat plate with square panels. Since punching normally occurs before all reinforcement reaches the yield limit.033V 12 12 2π (4.033V + ⎜ ms + ⎟ 12 ⎠ ⎝ (4.4 w + msm ⋅ 0.1) (4.6 w → msm = −0.2) V ⎛ Bε ⎞ ⎜1 − ⎟ 2π ⎝ c ⎠ The bending moment within the column strip.

which for instance occurs when 12 ⎠ ⎝ L1 < L2 .5 kNm/m 471 ⎞ 622 ⎛ ⎜1 − ⎟ = −82.4.2 m in both directions.8 kNm/m (in the long direction) 12 4.2 2 = −77.8 + ⎟ = −100.92 m Bε = 3π 400 = 471 mm 8 in the long direction : 622 ⎞ ⎛ msm = −0.2 and 4. Column size 400x400 mm Total factored load 18 kN/m2 ms = −18 ms = −18 7.2 2 = −51. Column size = 400x400 mm Total factored load = 12 kN/m2.7 kNm/m 2 π ⎝ 1920 ⎠ 68 .5 kNm/m 12 ⎠ ⎝ 622 ⎛ 471 ⎞ ⎛ 622 ⎞ msc = − ⎜1 − ⎟ + ⎜ − 77. Interior panel of a flat plate with span width 7.2 ⋅ 4.8 m in the two directions.4 ⋅ 7.8 = 1.4.2 2 = 622 kN Bε = msm 3π 400 = 471 mm . ms = −12 7. c = 0.Observe that the bending moment ms is a quantity with negative sign and that the term V ⎞ ⎛ ⎜ ms + ⎟ shall be omitted if it turns out to be positive.8 = 622 kN c = 0.033 ⋅ 622 = −20.2 = 2.033 ⋅ 622 = −20.7 kNm/m 2 π ⎝ 1920 ⎠ ⎝ 12 ⎠ in the short direction : msm = −0.8 kNm/m 2 π ⎝ 2880 ⎠ msc = − Example 2 Interior panel of flat plate with span widths 7. Example 1.8 2 = −34.5 kNm/m msc = − 622 ⎛ 471 ⎞ ⎜1 − ⎟ = −74.8 + ⎟ = −46.033 ⋅ 622 + ⎜ − 77.88 m 8 = −0.6 kNm/m (in the short direction) 12 V = 18 ⋅ 7.8 kNm/m 12 V = 12 ⋅ 7.

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. 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 (2.25) – when checking the punching capacity according to Chapter 2. Therefore. The quantity m 1 A= s − shall therefore be added to all expressions for bending moments – as for V 12 instance Eqs.23a) m1 = tangential moment at column edge (2. it was demonstrated that the bending moment at the column plays a decisive role for the punching capacity.5.(4. Eq. It can be shown that Eq.3) for the negative bending moment at the column presupposes that the midspan flexural moment per unit width is at least qL2/24 for interior panels and 0.4 w according to the theory of elasticity for 1 < L1/L2 < 2. however.1. 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). when full loading is applied on all panels of the flat plate structure. These static equilibrium conditions can be checked in accordance with Figure 4-3. In Section 2. (2.25a) 4.3 Design of midspan reinforcement Kinnunen and Nylander (1960) realized that from the poor rotation capacity at the columns in a continuous flat plate follows that the midspan reinforcement has to be designed in balance with the support reinforcement. the punching capacity shall be checked for each direction separately. (4. The bending moments at the column differ. 69 .23) and (2. in cases where the required flexural reinforcement ratio differs in the two directions.The column reactions in the two examples are identical (622 kN).3) yields a very good estimate of the average bending moment within the width 0.07qL2 for exterior panels.

2 L Exterior panel ψ 0. Interior panels ψ pu = 1 0. If some or all reinforcement yields before punching then the inclination ψ pu is determined from δε according to Eq.27) if punching occurs without any reinforcement yielding.25 L ψ 3 L 0 = 0.75 L L Figure 4-3 Static equilibrium and compatibility conditions.8) .6 L L 0.6 L ε sf f ′′ ⋅ L0 = 3 3 d − xf d − xf L (4.6) 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. The inclination ψ pu is determined from Eq. (2. (2.7) 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.Interior panel ψ curvature with parabolic variation ψ 0.43): ψ pu = δ ε 2 c − Bε 70 (4.2 L L 0 = 0.

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.If the strain in the midspan reinforcement εsf corresponds to a flexural moment larger than qL2/24 and 0.5 m ξ = 1.2 m ≤ d ≤ 0.1 Swedish Code for Concrete Structures. then the design is safe because the negative flexural moment would be less than given by Eq.d for 0.3 – 0.5 m ≤ d ≤ 1.6 . The chosen notations are identical for all the codes: V R = f v2 ⋅ u ⋅ d where VR = fv2 = u= d= design punching capacity two-way shear strength length of control perimeter at the distance 0. The Swedish load factors are 1.3) and the punching capacity would be larger than calculated.07qL2 respectively. (4. the design provisions of which is briefly summarized hereunder. The average load factors for the two codes Model Code 90 and ACI 318-02 are approximately 20 % larger.0 m ξ = 0.2 in the Figures 4-4 to 4-6 in order to make them comparable with the Swedish approach.0 and 1. 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. The midspan reinforcement is usually designed for the effect of pattern loading.3 for dead load and live load respectively. 71 .4d for 0.4 for d ≤ 0. (4.07qL2 respectively.10) ξ is a size-effect factor ξ = 1.10).4 Comparison with Codes The theory is in Figure 4-4 compared to some common codes for design of flat plates.4.9 for 1.01 in Eq. The opposite is valid if the strain in the midspan reinforcement corresponds to a flexural moment less than qL2/24 or 0. 4.5d from the column average effective depth (4.2 m ξ = 1.0 m ≤ d ρ is the reinforcement ratio within the circle with diameter c and ρ is limited to maximum 0. The design strength for these two codes is therefore divided by 1.9) 4. BBK 04 f v2 = ξ (1 + 50 ρ )0. Additional midspan reinforcement has then to be provided until the described equilibrium and compatibility conditions are fulfilled.

f v1 = 0. it gives false information about the punching failure mode and secondly it cannot be applied to compact structures such as footings.2 for safety class 3 (= brittle failure mode) The control perimeter is placed 0. 4. This is unfortunate for two reasons. if the approach proposed in Paper III is applied.5 γn = safety class related strength reduction factor = 1.12) (4. The control perimeter is – as in most other codes – proposed to be placed 0.12 ⋅ ξ (100 ρ ⋅ f ck ) 3 MPa 1 (one-way design shear strength) with d in mm (size effect) (two way design shear strength) square columns circular columns interior columns (4.14) (4.16) ξ = 1+ f v2 = 200 d u +α ⋅d ⋅ f v1 ≤ 2. MC 90 The Model Code 90 defines the punching shear capacity along a control perimeter at the distance 2d from the column edge.13) (4. The formal punching shear strength is then assumed equal to the shear strength for one-way structures such as beams.γm = strength reduction factor for concrete = 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. It is described in detail in Hallgren (1996). 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 90.4.5d outside the column edge: u = π(B+d) for circular columns and u = 4a + πd for square columns 4. where the control perimeter would fall outside the structure.5 f v1 u u = 4a + π d u = π (B + d ) α = 3π 72 .15) (4. however.3 Model Code 1990. The deficiency can be overcome.4.11) (4. Firstly.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).

The code expressions are purely empirical. the ACI code is also used in many other parts of the world where practice often calls for thicker slabs with less reinforcement.20) Furthermore. The strength reduction factor is 0. Gardner et al (2000).4 Building Code Requirements for Structural Concrete. Figure 4-4.80 for flexural failure. However. The very simple expression in BBK 04 for punching capacity seems to reflect the influence of the reinforcement ratio in a correct way.5d outside the column edge. In such cases the code provisions will result in structures with a low safety against punching. which even has been a partial cause of a serious progressive collapse with many casualties.18) u + 20d ⋅ f v1 ≤ 2 f v1 u The control perimeter is placed 0.19) (4. the resulting safety factor is unnecessarily high and the limit 1 % for the reinforcement ratio seems to be too cautious.17) (4. However. here and in other evaluations. 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.9.7 %. The code overestimates the punching capacity at low reinforcement values. based on regression analysis of many test results. 73 . the following conclusions can be drawn. ACI 318-02 f v1 = f v2 = 1 6 f ck (4. This is probably the reason why the code provisions for punching still are considered appropriate in USA. 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. a reduction factor is given when the aspect ratio of a rectangular column is larger than 2.4. 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. The code ACI 318-02 gives a single value for the punching shear strength.75 for punching and shear failure and 0.4. only depending on the square root of the compression strength and independent of reinforcement ratio and size effect.5 Code comparison Hallgren (1996) found that Model Code 1990 predicts punching test results with very good accuracy. If these two curves are assumed to represent the true design punching strength. It is therefore encouraging that the theory in this thesis displays a similar design capacity curve at the concrete characteristic cylinder strength 24 MPa and B/d ≈ 2. The Handbook method overestimates the punching capacity for reinforcement ratios exceeding 0.

γm· γn = 1. fck = 24 MPa. They are derived from the bending moment within the column strip according to the fan-type yield lines in all cases except for ACI 318-02: msc = − msc = − V ⎛ B⎞ ⋅ ⎜1 − ⎟ c⎠ 2π ⎝ q ( L − a )2 ⋅ 1.5 12 (fan type yield lines) (4. BBK 04 MC 90/1. 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. ( c = 3. d = 0. 4.010 0.6 m. 3. Design capacity at concentric punching versus flexural reinforcement ratio. This is discussed in the following. a = 0.2 500 0 0 0. even for the part of the curves where the flexural yield capacity governs.6 m. If δε < δy2 (at normal to high reinforcement ratios) then it is obvious that the capacity is punching-controlled. The strength reduction factor for brittle concrete failure is there used throughout.VR kN 1000 5 3 4 2 1 1.21) (ACI 318-02) (4. 74 .8. fsy =500 MPa) The straight lines from the origin of coordinates in Figure 4-4 represent the flexural capacity. 2.2 Thesis/1.015 ρ Figure 4-4 Code comparison.2 = 1. The design capacity is then derived from the theoretical ultimate capacity by division with the strength reduction factors for concrete and safety class 3.22) Figure 4-4 reveals an inconsistency with the curves 3 and 4 for the Thesis and the Handbook.5·1.8 Handbook ACI 318-02/1.005 0.26 m. 5.

5·1. Linear transition between A and B. The described approach is applied on the Thesis curve 3 of Figure 4-4 and the result is shown in Figure 4-5.2). Below point B = flexure controlled capacity (γm·γn =1. VR 1000 kN A 500 B 0 ρ 0 0. a punching failure still occurs suddenly with little warning of impending failure. 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. A linear transition between points A and B corresponds to a gradual change of the punching-controlled strength reduction factor to the flexurecontrolled. The strength reduction factors for reinforcement (= 1. which means that punching occurs after all reinforcement has reached the yield limit. so that extensive cracking and large deflection will give ample warning of impending failure.15·1.Tests by for instance Kinnunen and Nylander (1960) have demonstrated that if δε > δy2.005 0.15) and safety class 2 (= 1. 75 . say δε > 3δy2.010 Figure 4-5 Design capacity with varying strength reduction factors. Above point A = punching controlled capacity (γm·γn =1. The structure can therefore not be defined as flexure-controlled until δε >> δy2.1) would then be appropriate.1). 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. comparison is made with varying concrete grades and column sizes in Figure 4-6. The refinement will therefore not be used in the following. In order to verify that the close agreement between the Thesis and Model Code 90 in Figure 4-4 is not just a coincidence.

005 0.8 fck MPa 80 50 24 500 0 0 0.9 c-B 2d = 5. d = 0.26 m.5 c-B 2d = 6.010 0. (c = 3.2 24 500 Thesis/1.015 ρ Figure 4-6 Design capacity at concentric punching.2 Thesis/1. fsy = 500 MPa) 76 . Comparison between Thesis and Model Code 90.6 m.2 1500 fck MPa 80 50 1000 MC 90/1.8 0 0 0.010 0.VR kN 1500 a = 600 mm B/d = 2.6 1000 MC 90/1.005 0.015 ρ VR kN a = 300 mm B/d = 1.

2 2.2 ACI 318-02/1.2 Thesis/1.0 B MPa B+d c Vσ 4.5 1. This is partly illustrated in Figure 4-7. 3. fsy = 500 MPa. fck =30 MPa. 1.0 2. The punching capacity is expressed as the design shear strength along a control perimeter at the distance 0.5d from the column.5 c-B 2d 1.0 ≥2 4 5 0.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. 2. 1. 0 0 BBK 04 Model Code 90/1. The codes can therefore neither differentiate between slender and compact structures nor identify the influence of the bending moment on the punching capacity. d VR VR = fv2 * π (B+d)d fv2 2. (d = 0.7 %) 77 . 1.5 fv1 1. A column-supported structure. 4. Vε 2. 3.8 5 4.3 m. a continuous flat plate or a single foundation. ρ = 0. f v1 7 10 10 B d Figure 4-7 Effect of (c-B)/2d and B/d on design strength for punching.5 1. is studied.

0 for d = 0. Finally. the size-effect is illustrated in Figure 4-8. The high allowable shear stress at large columns by the code ACI 318-02 is remarkable.002 0.5 0 0.004 MC 90 0.2 m) for punching ultimate capacity versus effective depth of the slab and reinforcement ratio. which means that the strength of compact slabs such as footings is underestimated. The decreasing strength of the Vσ -curves for B/d < 3 is a consequence of the chosen position of the formal control section.003 BBK 04 0.0 d (m) Figure 4-8 Normalized size-effect (ξ =1. the Vσ -curves would be continuously increasing with decreasing column size. Comparison with Model Code 90 and BBK 04. with no size effect if all reinforcement yields before punching. corresponding to the diameter of the internal column capital.5 1. the punching strength of slabs 2d increases with decreasing slenderness.9. Just as for the shear strength of beams.0 ρ 0. ξ 1.01 0.005 ≥ 0. (fck =30 MPa. The Thesis on the other hand gives a significant punching strength dependence on the c−B slenderness . (c-B)/2d = 5. however.4) 78 . If it were placed close to the column.The code methods give a shear strength that is independent of the slenderness of the flat plate structure. B/d = 1. fsy = 500 MPa. The two codes BBK 04 and Model Code 90 give a size effect that depends only on the effective depth of the slab. (The curve represents the capacity for a square column). The Thesis theory on the other hand displays a dependence also on the reinforcement ratio.

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

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

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

82 .

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

84 .

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. It is interesting to note that the latter strength corresponds to a compression strain of about 0. 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. 85 . If the slab is provided with adequate amount of conventional shear reinforcement the critical concrete strain is assumed to increase to 1. To crown everything. 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. which ⎝ 250 ⎠ is the generally accepted value for the uniaxial compression strength in cracked zones. The slab is nevertheless stable and can be loaded and reloaded without any decrease of the ultimate load. Low strength concretes start to “soften” at a compression strain of about 1. As a consequence. the compression strength is assumed reduced to 0. 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. however. it is caused by the limited curvature capacity of the slab. The failure mechanism is different. The presented models are based on information that can be gained from the stress-strain relation of concrete in uniaxial compression. In compact slabs such as column footings the compression strength of the inclined compression strut from the load to the column is found to be governing. The thickness of the compression strut near the column is limited by the compression zone depth in radial direction.5 per mille. It should be observed that these critical strain levels are considerably lower than the generally accepted ultimate strain 3.75 per mille – the same for all concrete grades. the compression strength of the strut is assumed to reach the value 1.6 f cc ⎜1 − cc ⎟ . In this case it is obvious that the failure is not caused by the shear force.5 per mille for uniaxially spanned members in bending. That capacity depends in turn on a limited concrete strain capacity. Punching occurs instead when the compression zone of the slab near the column collapses.2 fcc corresponding to the strength of concrete in biaxial compression with moderate perpendicular compression stress. If the column is small in relation to the compression zone depth. If the f ⎞ ⎛ column is very large. but it is assumed to slowly decrease with increasing concrete strength to account for the increasing brittleness of concrete with increasing strength. the size effect decreases with decreasing amount of flexural reinforcement. 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 1990.0 per mille.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. which is close to the strain at the peak stress for low strength concretes. 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.

which means that the curvature capacity increases with increasing concrete grade. Similarly. the presented size dependent strain limit in a flat plate happens to capture the conditions when the concrete near the column edge becomes unstable.As stated in Paper I: “The basic assumptions behind the theory are. The increased curvature means that more flexural reinforcement will reach the yield limit before punching occurs. which is mainly a tensile failure in lateral direction. 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.” The presented models do not explain the failure mechanisms in detail. in reality.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. very simple and straightforward. which is similar to the case that the compression strength tested on a cylinder specimen does not explain the failure mechanism. 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.150 0. but for each direction separately. because the imposed slab rotation can be estimated with much better certainty than the imposed unbalanced moment. 86 1 . This follows from the hypothesis that the concrete compression strain in flexure is decisive for the punching capacity. that the punching failure mechanism … is perhaps not as complex as many researchers claim. (Observe that Ec10 ≈ k ⋅ ( f cc ) 3 ). the theory is able to predict reported test results … with amazing accuracy. If so called unbalanced moment is transferred from the slab to the column or vice versa. A conservative value for the rotation capacity is derived from the slab behaviour at concentric punching.35) A high concrete E-modulus is favourable. The curvature of the slab at failure will then increase in relation to a slab without shear reinforcement. It is therefore recommended that the E-modulus shall be specified for flat plate structures. 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. which demonstrates. Nevertheless. which initiates the punching failure due to a “zip” effect. above all.3 (2. Equation (2. which in turn means that the capacity increases. However. The dependence on the concrete E-modulus indicates that capacity predictions will be uncertain if only the compression strength of the concrete is recorded. 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. It is also evident that the curvature capacity of a flat plate rapidly decreases with increasing reinforcement ratio and increasing effective depth. 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.0010 3 ⎛ 25 ⎞ ⎟ ⎜ = c10 ⋅ ⋅ ⎟ 2 ρ2 ⎜ 4d 2 f sy ⎝ f cc ⎠ 0.

the rotation of the column in relation to the slab shall be checked instead. 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). 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. The required modifications for other cases are described in Chapter 4. The laborious calculations for unbalanced moment are shown in Appendix F just for documentation purpose.4. In practice.Flat plates provided with a novel reinforcement concept denoted “ductility reinforcement” display an extremely ductile behaviour. The simple design procedure for flat plates with ductility reinforcement is described in detail in Paper IV. Column footings are treated in Appendix D and footing specimens with line load in Appendix E. Two examples of flat plates are treated in Appendices A and B. which is described in Section 3.6. The program Mathcad is used for this purpose. 87 . However. The displayed calculations are valid for interior square panels. an approximate manual method for this case is described in Section 2. Flat plates with shear reinforcement are treated in Appendix C. but all calculations are possible to perform manually except for the punching load at partial yield of the flexural reinforcement in Appendix B.

88 .

1. C. A. Schmidt. “Zur Bemessung von Fundamentplatten ohne Schubbewehrung”. submitted to Magazine of Concrete Research. “Punching Behaviour of Shear Reinforced Flat Slabs at Interior Columns – Effective and Economic Shear Systems”. (1981). Royal Institute of Technology. “Elimination of Flat Plate Punching Failure Mode”. Dieterle.87. Andersson. Dilger. Broms. Ghali. “Building Code Requirements for Structural Concrete and Commentary. Hegger.1R -99 (1999). C. J. ACI-ASCE Committee 352. Jg. Vol 74. pp. Betonund Stahlbetonbau. Bericht über das Forschungsvorhaben V 175 des DAfStb.P.1.. No. Broms.und Stahlbetonbau.. 44-53. No. Stockholm. 6. pp. “Shear Reinforcement for Deflection Ductility of Flat Plates”. H.W. Z. “Versuche an quadratischen Einzelfundamente mit und ohne Schubbewehrung”. M. 89 . (2000). Landauer. ACI Structural Journal. 292-304. pp. B. ACI Structural Journal. Stockholm. Boverkets handbok om betongkonstruktioner. BBK 04 (2004). Transactions of the Royal Institute of Technology. 185 pp. 696-705.84. pp. Royal Institute of Technology.S. (1963). (1990a). Broms. “3D Numerical Punching Analysis of Shear Reinforced Flat Slabs – Variation of Quantity and Arrangement of Stirrups”. 94-101. 129-132. Michigan. “Moment-Rotation Relation between Column and Slab”. No. 3. Stockholm. R. American Concrete Institute. pp.E.. ACI Structural Journal. (1979). H. V. (2000a). Dieterle. Otto-GrafInstitut. (2005).. No. pp.1R-89 (1989). pp. 29-37.. ACI Journal. “Punching of Concrete Slabs with Shear Reinforcement”. V. (Recommendations for design of Concrete Structures. Beton.87.181-189. C. “Ductility Reinforcement for Flat Slabs in Seismic as well as Nonseismic Areas”. 15 pp. H. F. ACI-ASCE Committee 421. Aalami. “Shear Reinforcement for Slabs”. Universität Stuttgart. Cao. (1987). (1972). C. pp.. “Recommendations for Design of Slab-Column Connections in Monolithic Reinforced Concrete Structures”. V.E. 263-269. Andrä. in Swedish). No. Broms.2. No 5.171-179. International Workshop on Punching Shear Capacity of RC Slabs – Proceedings. V. 97.E.8 References ACI 318-02 (2002). Rostasy. (2000b).H. H. ACI 421. (1978). Bažant. A. J. 73.E. pp. “Durchstanzbewehrung für Flachdecken”. 212. ACI 352. Z. R. (1990b). 59 pp. Beutel. “Size Effect in Punching Shear Failure of Slabs”. 22 pp. Beutel. ACI Structural Journal. “Punching of Flat Plates – A Question of Concrete Properties in Biaxial Compression and Size Effect”..L. International Workshop on Punching Shear Capacity of RC Slabs – Proceedings.

Stockholm. Lan Chung (2000). “Shearing Strength of Reinforced Concrete Slabs”.. Elstner. ACI Structural Journal. European Prestandard ENV 1992-1-1:1991. No. pp. N. Dept. International Workshop on Punching Shear Capacity of RC Slabs – Proceedings. S. B.. J. Royal Institute of Technology. Dept. (1996). (1983. J.J. Stockholm. pp. 3. G. 206 pp. Vol. of Structural Engineering.. Comité Européen de Normalisation. Brussels. 6. “Förstärkning av brobaneplattor på pelare med hänsyn till genomstansning. 1998). C. R. Hassanzadeh. Eurocode 2: Design of Concrete Structures – Part I: General Rules and Rules for Buildings. Royal Institute of Technology. Royal Institute of Technology. (1956). No.. (1979).84. ACI Structural Journal. Royal Institute of Technology.2.. (1966)..EC 2 (1991). R. “What can we learn from the Sampong Department Store Collapse”. 253 pp. (1989). Hassanzadeh (1998).. Bertram. ACI Publication SP-42. 85. Proceedings. Technical Report 1998:3. pp. V. Beutel. M.A.. Ghali. “Punching Shear Tests on Column Footings”. V. M. Bao. Bulletin No. M.86. A. Gardner.J.. ACI Journal. (1976). A.. Vol. “Punching Shear Capacity of Reinforced High Strength Concrete Slabs”. A. of Structural Engineering. 22 pp. Hawkins.10. of Structural Engineering.. (in Swedish with a summary in English). ACI Journal.53. (1988). Dept. Hegger. Gustafsson. P. “Tests on Concrete Slab-Column Connections with Stud-Shear Reinforcement Subjected to Shear-Moment Transfer”. Stockholm. Aachen. pp. Mitchell. 29-58. “Punching of Flat Plates under Static and Dynamic Horizontal Forces”. Redovisning av provningar”. G. J.. Hillerborg. (1987). E. Ghali. Royal Institute of Technology. D. Bulletin 23. “Betongplattor på pelare.Z. Dimensioneringsmetoder för plattor med icke vidhäftande spännarmering”. “Versuchsbericht zum Durchstanzen mit Halfen HDB-N-Ankern als Durchstanzbewehrung im Bereich von Innenstützen”. 41. RWTH. (1974) “Vertical Prestressing of Flat Plates around Columns”. W. “Moment Transfer from Concrete Slabs to Columns”. 705-716. pp.225-233.. Goralski. Vol. pp. 162 pp. “Sensitivity in Shear Strength of Longitudinally Reinforced Concrete Beams to Fracture Energy of Concrete”. (in Swedish with a summary in English). Hallgren.. pp. of Structural Engineering. M. 134 pp. Dilger. A. No. Ghali. Bulletin No. Stockholm. 286-294. ACI Journal. Elmasri. No. Hawkins. A. “Progressive Collapse of Flat Plate Structures”. A.. N. pp.M. Hognestad. V. (2001). 5. Hallgren.M.73. Elgabry. Yamazaki.. Stockholm. N. Sargious. ACI Structural Journal.775-808. 566-572.C. A. Dept.. 433-442. 905-920. Nylander. Huh. 43. 90 . Huizer. Kinnunen.

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

“Punching of Concrete Slabs – Statics. (1970). of Structural Mechanics and Engineering. Moehle. “Three-dimensional Numeric Analysis of Punching Failure”. Calculation. Schaeidt. ACI Journal. A. (in Swedish). W. ETH. No.W. Royal Institute of Technology. (1984). No... ASCE. Wildegg Technische Forschungs. A. Berechnung. Vol. P. London. “Punching Shear in Reinforced Concrete: A State-ofthe-Art Report”. D. Lausanne. Technische Universität Braunschweig. “Symmetric punching of reinforced concrete slabs”.86. Comité Euro-International du Béton. 174 pp. 136. No.Narasimhan. H. (1971) “Shear Reinforcement in Reinforced Concrete Column Heads”. S.. J. Magazine of Concrete Research. ST9.E. Bulletin d´Information. “Design of Flat Plates for Punching (Berechnung von Flachdecken auf Durchstanzen)”. Regan. ACI Structural Journal. M.186.. 38. Materials and Structures. Bemessung). W. Bulletin 140. A (1983). (1986). Royal Institute of Technology. 648-675. Regan.. H. 250-258.. 45. (1976). No. (in Swedish with a summary in English). Dept. Institut für Baustoffe. Braestrup. pp. 92 . Stockholm. N. Park. pp. (in Swedish). Brändli.. 65-74. 106. RILEM. 62. Nylander. 115. (1985). 18. “Dimensionering med hänsyn till genomstansning vid koncentrerat stöd”. 68 pp. Stockholm.. Islam. (1990). pp. “Punching Tests on Reinforced Concrete Slabs and Prestressed Concrete Slabs (Durchstanzversuche an Stahlbeton. 237-260. 89 pp. Institut für Baustatik und Konstruktion.. No. 285-290. Zürich. RILEM Draft Recommendation (1985). Kinnunen.E. pp. “Determination of the Fracture Energy of Mortar and Concrete by means of Three-Point Bend Tests on Notched Beams.128. AB Svensk Byggtjänst. Bulletin 104. (2000). 64 pp.. R. Betonghandboken – Konstruktion. P. R. Second edition. Richart. (1989). pp. Imperial College. 3.und Beratungsstelle der Schweizerischen Zementindustrie. Ladner. S. (1979). 18791901. V. Thürlimann. Sundquist. Paris. M.P. Nölting. “Spänningstillstånd i plattdel utanför skjuvarmering vid genomstansning”.E. Bulletin No.102. Bericht No. Royal Institute of Technology. pp.und Spannbetonplatten). of Structural Mechanics and Engineering. 97-127 and pp. pp. Pan. J. H. B. Massivbau und Brandschutz. Vol. “Strength of Slab-Column Connections with Shear and Unbalanced Flexure”. International Workshop on Punching Shear Capacity of RC Slabs – Proceedings. 232 pp. 52 pp. V. Proceedings V. Journal of the Structural Division. (1948). Eligehausen. Wildegg. (1972) “Genomstansning av pelarunderstödd plattbro av betong med ospänd armering”. Rösli. Nilssson. Nylander. Ožbolt. H. Stockholm. “Reinforced Concrtete Wall and Column Footings”. Dept. F. J. Design (Das Durchstanzen von Platten aus Stahlbeton – Tragverhalten. PhDThesis. Pralong.. “Lateral Displacement Ductility of Reinforced Concrete Flat Plates”. 7305-3. Vocke..

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

94 .

2 MPa MPa 95 .68998 10 m EI 3 6 ρ .16949 10 Recorded: ε = 0.88654 10 Ec10 nρ 1 0. 10 .20 0.150 .25 2. 1 d kNm 1. d B c fc fy ρ 0.02972 10 MPa n ρ = 0. PUNCHING CAPACITY Vε Guess factor k to make V ε equal to or less than Vσ: k 0. ρ Ec10 d .1 ε cpu k .0012 3 σs 200000 ε cpu . 1 2 nρ 1 x .0652 3 EI = 7.62138 fy = 657 If σs > fy go to 1.001.2 657 0.008 m m m MPa MPa Tolf (1988). Ec0 4 Ec10 = 2.1 (no yield punching) Bε Bε 3π . 0. (d x x) σ s = 483. 0. 1 x 3d x x = 0. Punching of flat plate. a 8 B Bσ Bσ 1 4a π B Ec0 21500 fc 10 3 (Model Code 90) 4 Ec0 = 2. S2.883 1.nρ .07883 200000.6 1 fc 150 4 .Appendix A. d . 200. 25 x fc ε cpu = 1.38 24.1 No yield punching 1 3 0.

82819 2 Deflection δε ny Vε ny .98057 m my 2 ρ . 8π 2 .00338 10 3 xpu d. 1 kN Vy1 my. 3 10 3d 8π 2 . 10) .075. 25 10 .d . π . d .3 ε cpu 6 Ec10.19 4 ry 2 2 ry ry find( ry ) If ry > c/2 then V ε = Vy2 96 . kN Vy2 my. fy .2 ρ .2 Yield punching (not governing in this case) 3 0. c . 1 2π 3 Vy2 = 1. 10 . 1 Vε ny 3 8 . Bε . ln c 2 ry 2 Bε Bε c ∆ f´´.1819 10 3 m Recorded δ = 7.02437 ∆ f´´ = 0. ln c Bε Bε c 1 Bε c 2 2 xpu = 0. c Bε 2 EI 2 δε ny = 8. x 3. 4π 1 Bε c 2 2 . EI ry = 0.d 1 Bε c 2 c 2 . 0.σ s .39524 Vy1 = 856. 2 ρ . fy ε cpu Ec10 x .10323 my = 187.31564 10 kN f´´u f´´y ∆ f´´ ε cpu xpu my EI f´´u f´´y f´´u = 9.71972 10 f´´y = 0.01465 3 Guess ry Bε 2 2 2 2 Given my Vy1 .125 c 2 = 1. ( k . ln Bε Result Vε ny = 630. fy d fc ρ ε cpu = 1.5 mm 1.

c 2 Bε 2 δ y1 = 0. .03915 c0 = 0.82819 Vσ max = 630. 2 tan ( 25 deg ) u x0 = 22.007. ln c 2r 2 Bε 2 2 Bε c 2 4r 2 ∆ f´´. c Bε 2 EI 2 Bε . PUNCHING CAPACITY WITHOUT SHEAR REINFORCEMENT k = 0.23351 3.16496 10 3 m 2. t . sin ( 25 deg ) .65 n0ρ 200000. 2r EI d r Result Deflection Vy1 . 3 10 t 3 Vσ max = 630. n0ρ .01112 m δε y δ y1 ( f´´u f´´y ) δε y = 9.64153 Vσ max 1. ry c my . 103 t 1 3 Vσ = 652.04868 n0ρ = 0.6 0. 0. my . 1 2 n0ρ x0 1 u π . ρ Ec0 x0 d . c .23351 Vtest = 603 kN kN kN 97 .9 1 u 0.150 .77791 kN δ y1 1 2 . u . sin ( 25 deg ) . 4π Bε c 2 Vε y = 669.0.02686 Vσ 0.2 fc . 2 Vy1 . 8π ry 2 .5 c Vε y Vy2 . u . 0. fc . Bε .150 . t . PUNCHING CAPACITY Vσ c0 Bε 2d 1 1 ln ln c c0 c Bε x0 = 0. Bσ tan ( 50 deg ) x0 .883 Vε ny = 630. x0 2 .13876 t x0 2 cos ( 25 deg ) 1 t = 0.

200.03784 200000. ρ Ec10 d . 25 k .25 2. 1 d x 3d x x = 0.150 .29 10 Ec0 42900 4 (recorded value) Ec10 nρ 1 0.001.nρ . Punching of flat plate.56107 fy = 627 If σs > fy go to 1.1 ε cpu 0. Ec0 4 Ec10 = 4.Appendix B. 0. (d x x) ε cpu = 1. 1 2 nρ 1 x .1 No yield punching (not governing in this case) 1 3 0. PUNCHING CAPACITY Vε Guess factor k to make V ε equal to or less than Vσ: k 1 1. d .28508 10 3 σs σ s = 814.008 m m m MPa MPa Hallgren (1966).2 MPa MPa 98 .6 1 fc 150 . a 8 B Bσ Bσ 1 4a π B Ec0 21500 fc 10 3 (Model Code 90) 4 Ec0 = 4. d B c fc fy ρ 0. 10 . x fc 200000 ε cpu .95203 10 m EI 3 6 ρ . HSC1 (yield punching) Bε Bε 3π .22839 10 MPa n ρ = 0.20 0.4 91 627 0.48868 10 4 Ec0 = 4.04797 3 EI = 8. 1 kNm 1.

c .02062 ∆ f´´ = 0. 1 2π 3 Vy2 = 1.d .0324 my = 184.2 4 ry 2 ry find( ry ) If ry > c/2 then V ε = Vy2 99 .59891 Vy1 = 841. 4π 1 Bε c 2 2 .d 1 Bε c 2 2 . ln c 2 ry 2 Bε Bε c Bε .σ s .0124 m 1. ln c Bε Bε c 1 Bε c 2 kN 2 Vy2 my . EI ∆ f´´. 2 ρ .09336 10 2 Deflection δε ny Vε ny .2 ρ . 3 10 xpu = 0. 1 Vε ny 3 8 . x 3. 10) .3 ε cpu ε cpu = 1. ( k . fy . ln c Bε Result 3 Vε ny = 1. 25 10 . d . 10 .02459 Guess ry Bε 2 2 2 2 Given my Vy1 . 2 ry ry = 0. 8π 2 .60164 m my 2 ρ .4738 c 2 = 1.04521 f´´y = 0. π .46474 10 3 xpu d. fy d fc ρ 3 0.2 Yield punching 6 Ec10.075. 1 3d 8π kN Vy1 my . 0.29474 10 kN f´´u f´´y ∆ f´´ ε cpu xpu my EI f´´u f´´y f´´u = 0. 2 . fy ε cpu Ec10 x . c Bε 2 EI 2 δε ny = 0.

150 . n0ρ . PUNCHING CAPACITY Vσ c0 Bε 2d 1 1 ln ln c c0 c Bε x0 = 0.02637 c0 = 0. my .54612 10 3 m δε y δ y1 ( f´´u f´´y ) δε y = 0. u . 103 t 1 3 3 Vσ = 2.5 c Vε y Vy2 . 0.02129 10 Vtest = 1021 kN kN kN 100 . c Bε 2 EI 2 Bε . sin ( 25 deg ) .02129 10 3. 4π Bε c 2 3 Vε y = 1. 0. t . PUNCHING CAPACITY WITHOUT SHEAR REINFORCEMENT k= 1 3 Vε y = 1. .65 n0ρ 200000.007. ln c 2r 2 Bε 2 2 Bε c 2 4r 2 ∆ f´´.04096 n0ρ = 0. 2 tan ( 25 deg ) u x0 = 25.05141 10 kN δ y1 1 2 . ry c my .18017 t x0 2 cos ( 25 deg ) 1 t = 0. 1 2 n0ρ x0 1 u π .150 . u .6 0.0. fc .2 fc . c .5 mm m 2.0393 10 Vσ max 1. 3 10 t 3 3 Vσ max = 2.05141 10 3 Vσ max = 2. sin ( 25 deg ) .01285 Recorded δ = 12.0226 Vσ 0. 2r EI d r Result Deflection Vy1 . t . Bε . 8π ry 2 . ρ Ec0 x0 d .9 1 u 0. 2 Vy1 . x0 2 . Bσ tan ( 50 deg ) x0 . c 2 Bε 2 δ y1 = 9.

05642 m 3 6 ρ . No yield punching Vε sny (not governing in this case) α 0. d B c fc fy ρ 0.150 xs 3 ε cpus = 1. ns ρ . 1 4 EI = 1.7871 fy = 604 3 200000 ε cpus .1 ns ρ = 0.23825 10 Ec0 Ec10 MPa fc 150 4 (Recorded value) .1 .82609 10 σ s = 935.201 0. 10 43000 1 (Model Code 90) 4 Ec0 = 4.25 2. 0.0015 25 200000. xs ) xs MPa MPa If σs > fy go to Section 2 101 .50243 fc 190 4 Ec15 = 4. α ns ρ xs .6.05505 1 1 . 200. fc 0.48868 10 4 Ec0 = 4.0118 m m m MPa MPa Hallgren (1996) HSC5s Guess Bε Bε 3π . Ec0 0. a 8 B k 1 Bσ Bσ 1 3 (to make V ε equal to or larger than Vσ) 4a π B Ec0 fc 21500.1 2 α = 0.24948 10 kNm ε cpus σs k .0015 25 fc (d 0. d .4 91 604 0.5 0. 1 d 1 2α xs 3d 1 xs d .28735 10 Ec15 ns ρ . 1 1. 0. 10 .3. 1 fc fc 100 0.Appendix C.3 10 4 Ec10 = 4. ρ Ec15 . Flat plate with shear reinforcement. 1. 4α EI 2 xs = 0.

d . 4π 1 Bε c 2 2 .3 ε cpus ε cpus = 2. 2 ρ . ln c 2 ry 2 Bε 2 2 Bε c 2 4 ry 2 ∆ f´´. 1 200000 d xs fy f´´u f´´y ∆ f´´ Guess ry ∆ f´´ = 0. 8π 2 . fy α ε cpus Ec15 d. 15 . c .d 1 Bε c 2 2 . α . xs 3. c Bε 2 EI 2 δε sny = 0.83061 10 f´´u = 0.27296 10 3 Recorded ε = 0. 3 10 3d 8π mys = 261. d .2 ρ .01498 m 2. Yield punching Vε sy 6 Ec15.18993 10 kN 2 Vy2 mys .84358 10 kN 2 Deflection δε sny Vε sny .2 2 If ry > c/2 then V εs = Vy2 ry = 0.73126 c 102 .15. 1 ρ xpus = 0. π . 2 . 0. 2 ry Bε .07768 f´´y = 0.00196 kN Vy1 mys . ln c Bε Bε c 1 Bε c 2 3 Vy1 = 1.0568 Bε 2 Given mys Vy1 . ln c Bε Result 3 Vε sny = 1.02926 m mys xs . fy . 1 2π 3 Vy2 = 1.00225 xpus . 10 . d fy fc ρ 3 0. EI ry find( ry ) = 1.σ s . 25 10 .02089 kN f´´u ε cpus xpus f´´y . 1 Vε sny 3 8 .

mys .18953 10 4. ry c mys .0173 m Recorded δ =16 mm 3. 0.6 0. c .150 .007. Punching capacity Vσ s 4 Ec0 = 4. u .68702 10 kN Deflection δ y1 Vy1 .0.59288 10 Vσ smax 1. c Bε 2 EI 2 f´´y ) Bε . 4π δ y1 Bε c 2 1 2 . 2 Vy1 . fc . ln c 2r 2 Bε 2 2 Bε c 2 4r 2 ∆ f´´. 2r EI d r 3 Vε sy = 1.150 . c 2 Bε 2 δ y1 = 9. x0 2 .68702 10 3 Vσ smax = 4.18953 10 Vtest = 1631 kN 103 . sin ( 45 deg ) . u . 103 t 1 3 3 Vσ s = 4.2 fc .8741 x0 u m t x0 2 cos ( 45 deg ) 1 t = 0.05647 m u = 0. 3 10 t 3 3 Vσ smax = 4. sin ( 45 deg ) . t . π .9 1 u 0.03993 m Vσ s 0. n0ρ .67012 10 3 m δε sy ( f´´u δε sy = 0. Bσ 1 2 n0ρ x0 tan ( 90 deg ) 1 x0 2 . Bε . 8π ry Result 2 .05488 x0 = 0. Maximum punching capacity with shear reinforcent k=1 3 Vε sy = 1. 0. ρ Ec0 d . tan ( 45 deg ) MPa n0ρ = 0.5 c Vε sy Vy2 . t .3 10 n0ρ 200000.

67 m 104 . d a b fc fy ρ 0.Appendix D.536 c0 = 0. surface load.907 m Radius R to center of gravity for load outside shear crack 2 R D.693 m D m Inclination φ of fictitious shear crack tan φ 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.5 30. Punching capacity Vσ Bσ Bσ B 4a π 2b π Bε 3π .D k = 0.353 m Bε B Bσ = 0.3 1.29 0. a 8 Bε = 0.00862 m m m MPa MPa Dieterle (1978) S1-H 1. Punching of column footing.4 d D 3 Bε 2 tan φ = 1.382 D = 1.6 512 0. 3 1 k 1 k R = 0.

Inclination γ of compression strut 1 3 Ec0 fc 21500.436 = (25 deg) If tan( γ ) > 1 put γ = 0. t . fc . 3 10 t 3 3 Vσ max = 1. t .150 .526 m t u x0 Vσ x0 2 cos ( γ ) = 22.545 If tan( γ ) < tan(25 deg) = 0. Bσ x0 tan ( 2 γ ) x0 .996 1 2 3 t = 0.466 put γ = 0.6 0. 10 200000.603 10 105 . u . 103 t 1 3 Vσ = 1.150 . 0.2 fc .007. 2 tan ( γ ) u = 1. n0ρ . 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. u . sin ( γ ) .038 m 0.066 n0ρ = 0.121 10 ln ln b c0 b Bε x0 = 0.034 1 1 n0ρ x0 d . . x0 . ρ Ec0 4 Ec0 = 3.499 tan ( γ ) = 0. sin ( γ ) .9 1 u 0.785 = (45 deg) Shear capacity V σ u π .648 10 Vσ max 1. 0.

b 8 M = 295.023 10 3 ε cpu 0. 1 2 nρ Bε 2π 1 x = 0. 0. σs . 10 4 Ec10 = 2.369 10 MPa nρ 200000.778 MPa εc c0 Bε .249 10 Ptest = 2368 kN kN Flexural capacity 1 4 3 Ec10 1 0.0010 25 fc 0. 10 3 σ s = 326. c0 .236 10 3 106 . d . 1 x 3d .15 x 3 ε cpu = 1.045 x d . 1 M ln b c0 .nρ . .214 kNm σs 2 ρ .Load capacity P σ Pσ Vσ max 1 k 2 3 Pσ = 2. x 2 x 200000 d x 1 ε c = 1.1 . ρ Ec10 1 1 n ρ = 0.075 m M Pσ .6 1 fc 150 ln ln b c0 b Bε fc 21500.

1 2 n0ρ fc 1 4 Ec10 1 0.03944 1 MPa n0ρ 200000.04543 m 107 . b 8 B c0 = 0.19765 10 MPa nρ 200000.nρ .337 3π .01587 x0 d . . Kinnunen.Appendix E.00487 10 D c D B x0 = 0.25 Bε = 0.96 27.734 1 3 Ec0 fc 21500. 1998) S12 Bσ Bε D R c0 Bσ Bε B Bσ = 0.6 1 150 ln ln D c D B 1 fc 21500.02169 x d . a 8 3 c 2 B 2d π .25 0. ρ Ec0 ln ln n0ρ = 0. 1 x = 0.25 D = 0. line load.00413 4a π m m m m MPa MPa Hallgren. ρ Ec10 1 1 2 nρ n ρ = 0.3 621 0. 10 3 4 Ec10 = 2.674 0. Nylander (1983. Punching of column footing. 10 1 1 4 Ec0 = 3.242 0. . n0ρ .96 R = 0. d B c D fc fy ρ 0.

x0 2 .466 put γ = 0. Bσ x0 tan ( 2 γ ) x0 2 tan ( γ ) u = 0. 0.150 .9 1 u 0.Calculate γ Guess γ 30 deg Given tan ( γ ) γ (2 R x0 Bε ) 2 2 4 d x0 1 2R x0 Bε γ = 0.68962 . 10 3 kNm ln D c . c c M 2 ρ .007.15 x 3 ε cpu = 1.1 .48887 1 Vσ 0. sin ( γ ) .6 0. fc . u . 10 t Vσ max = 958. σs .150 . 3 1.436 = (25 deg) If tan( γ ) > 1 put γ = 0.785 = (45 deg) γ 0. 0.14512 10 4 ε cpu 0.04428 If tan( γ ) < tan(25 deg) = 0.2 fc .47603 10 3 108 .8475 t = 0. t .2513 Vσ max 0.70442 εc c B .62469 Vtest = 1049 kN Flexural capacity Vσ max. 2π Bε . sin ( γ ) . 1 M σs 1 M = 64. u . 103 t 1 3 3 Vσ = 998.c . t .80706 Find( γ ) tan ( γ ) = 1. x 2 x 200000 d x 1 ε c = 7.785 Calculate V σ u t u x0 π .d .02788 x0 2 cos ( γ ) = 21.0010 25 fc 0. 1 x 3d σ s = 312.

εclim 0. 1 d kNm EI1 3 6 ρ .6 1 .10 .20237 10 EI 3 6 ρ .21500 fc 10 3 4 Ec = 2.0035 3π.121 0. ρ Ec d .08367 200000. SM1.d .150 xlim xlim εclim εclim fy 200000 .10 .0 B = 0.4 476 0.d ρ1 . LIMIT FOR REINFORCEMENT YIELD. 1 2 nρ 1 x .200.d .xlim d . 0. ρ1 Guess ρ1 0.1 3 εclim 0.0010 25 fc . h d a c fc fy ρ ρc B 0. 1 x 3d .200.Ec.001 xlim x Given 1 0.50977 10 n ρ = 0.35932 fc 150 4 Ec nρ 1 0.152 0.70476 1.Appendix F.0105 0.5. 1 h 6d x x = 0.305 1.n ρ. Unbalanced moment loading.8 33. a 8 1 m m m m MPa MPa Ghali et al 1976.01 εclim 0.0939 10 kI EI1 EI 2 kI = 0. 1 1 h 2d 3 EI1 = 1.0404 3 EI = 2.fy 109 .

0. .9 ry If ry > c/2 then V ε = Vy2 0.ln 2π 1 B c c B 1 B c 2 2 xpu = 0.01437 ρ = 0. c 2 ln 2 r 8π ry Vε = 473. EI ry = 0.03184 kN Vy1 my . my .02853 m my 2 ρ . c 2 ln 2 ry 8π find( ry ) 2 B 2 2 B c 2 4 ry 2 ( f´´u f´´y ) .5 c = 0. εclim) Limit for reinforcement yield ρ1 = 0. my 2 Vy1 .02953 f´´y Guess ry c 2 Given my Vy1 . 2 ρ .3 εcpu = 1.05921 f´´y = 0. 2r B.d .7489 kN Vy2 my . 3 10 3d 8π 2 .075. fy d ρ fc 3 0. EI d r 110 .51769 kN f´´u εcpu xpu my EI f´´u = 0.82889 2 B 2 2 B c 2 4r 2 ( f´´u f´´y ) . .ry c .0105 2. xlim .55508 0.ρ1 xlim εclim Find( ρ1 .5 c Vε Vy2 . Vy1 = 390. 10 . fy εcpu Ec x . PUNCHING CAPACITY Vε εcpu 6 Ec .68922 10 3 xpu d.fy . 25 10 . Vy2 = 510. 1 my = 65. 2 ry B .

61596 10 δt4 = 9.c B 2 c 2 EI 2 δV = 2.831 ∆ c .82889 0.78857 10 δε = 0.555 ∆ c .kI ∆ c . 4π δy1 δy1 B .02411 3 3 3 3 3 Elastic behaviour for reactions Rt1 to Rt3 because the deflections δt are less than δy1 111 .00048 4. UNBALANCED MOMENT CAPACITY Mu 4.01263 δy2 = 0.kI 0.74398 10 3 4. 1 4π B .02411 3 ( f´´u f´´y .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.c B 2 c 2 EI 2 B c B f´´y ) .90776 10 δy1 = 8. c .kI 0.01085 δt1 δt2 δt3 δt4 δV ∆ M δV ∆ M δV ∆ M δV ∆ M 0.3. c .7489 δy1 = 8.78857 10 ∆M 3 Vy2 = 510.50628 10 δt3 = 8.75451 10 δt2 = 6. DEFLECTIONS Vy1 .2 Deflection due to load V V < Vy1 2 δV V .kI δt1 = 3. 4.195 ∆ c . 2 2 (c 4 B) 2 2 δy1 δε δy2 1 δy1 = 8.51769 Vε = 473. .78857 10 δy2 = 0.1 Insert column reaction V and guess value for ∆ M V 122 Vy1 = 390.

49032 10 4 3 3 3 3 δb2 = 3. EI d r V Rt4 = 302.90084 ( 0. c 16 Rt = 97.5 c = 0. my .4 Tension in bottom reinforcement of slab δb1 δb2 δb3 δb4 δV ∆ M δV ∆ M δV ∆ M δV ∆ M 0.03818 ry = 0.5 c Rt4 Vy2 .195 ∆ c 0.00855 Mt = 69. 1 kI kI = 1.Reactions Rt at deflections δt δt1 .27575 Rt3 = 261.831 Rt3 Rt4) .58189 10 δV.7886 Shear force Rt and unbalanced moment Mt Rt Mt ( Rt1 Rt2 Rt3 Rt4) . c 2 ln 2 r 8π ry 2 B 2 2 B c 2 4r 2 ( f´´v f´´y ) .74894 10 δb4 = 8. my 2 Vy1 .831 ∆ c ∆c δb1 = 1. B . ry ) 0.14949 10 112 . EI 2 ry δt4 δy1 f´´v ry B c B f´´y ) . . . Vy1 V Rt1 δy1 Rt1 = 44.75548 10 δb3 = 6.92956 Rt2 = 167. Vy1 V δy1 δy1 δt3 . 2 2 f´´v = 0.555 ∆ c 0.35529 0.0745 Rt2 δt2 . .555 Rt2 4. Vy1 V Rt3 Guess f´´v Given my Vy1 .9 Find( f´´v . 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 ) .195 Rt1 0.ry c . 2r B. 1 8 0.

δV kI . ρc .Vy1.33081 Equilibrium check Rb Rb Rt = 20.31145 δb2 Rb2 V kI .kI ρ Rb3 = 180.6 10 4 3 2 ∆M 113 .66356 Shear force Rb and unbalanced moment Mb Rb = 76.33081 Mb ( 0.63038 Rbmax = 292.17256 Rbmax Rb1 V Rb2 ρc .Ec. c 16 Mb = 50. c ln 3 B π . Vy2 ρ Rb3 8 Rb4 Rb Rb = 76.Rb3 Rb4) .kI ρ δy1 1 δy1 kI .67774 Rt ∆M .831. δV .33304 e = 0.48547 δb4 Rb4 V 1 δy1 kI kI .555 Rb2 0. 10 c 3 θ1 = 0.kI ρ Rb2 = 149.5 Unbalanced moment capacity Mu Mu e Mt Mu V Mb Mu = 120.02559 δM = 9.Vy1.195 Rb1 0.Vy1. δV .22909 10 θu = 0.h θ1 θ2 1 B .Vy1. ρc .δb1 Rb1 V kI .98634 V = 122 etest =0. ρ .4322 4.21922 δb3 Rb3 V 1 δy1 kI kI . δV 1 Rb1 = 81. ρc .02136 θ2 = 4. ∆c kI c B 12 Mu .984 θ1 θ2 θu δM 2 . Vy1 δy1 = 0.kI ρ Rb4 = 199.

103 Mumax5 = 221.a .Ec. 1 kI c B V Vε δV δε θu .h 3 . 1 ρc ρ Mumax4 = 153.15 0.02409 114 .h θ1b θ2a 3 ln c B 1 B . δε . π .62077 10 3 θu θu = 0. 1 kI c B 2 . 4 Mumax1 = 139. Mumax3 ρc .09793 Mumax1 kI.EI c 12.Ec.my .h 1 3 B c Mu = 726. 10 c 3 θ2a = 4.01947 Mu 1 2 π . c 4 1 B c .15531 1 Mumax5 h 3 fc . ln B π .4.10 3 θ1a = 0.39621 Mumax2 = 174.5. c Vy2 V . 4 ρ Mumax3 = 131.42193 θ2a 12 Mumax3.kI. δε .6 Simplified approach θ1a 2 .01847 θ1b θ1b = 0. Vy1 δy1 c 4 c V . 4 2 0. δε .47765 Mumax4 π.83296 Mumax2 ( Vy2 V) .