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

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

.

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

ii .

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

.............. 65 Design of midspan reinforcement ........................................ (No yield punching)…...........4...... 101 Appendix D....98 Appendix C. 43 Theory for eccentric punching...........…95 Appendix B............................. 73 Code comparison....... 65 4............. ……………………………….................................................................................................. 83 Conclusions and summary .1 4............................. 69 Comparison with Codes ..... Punching of flat plate.............................................................5............4.. 48 Model for eccentric punching of flat plates ...............................IV Notations iv ......... 47 3..............4. 58 Column rotation capacity ..............107 Appendix F......................................................................................................................5 5 6 7 8 Reinforcement for ductility ......1 3..............................4 Design of support reinforcement at square panels ..........2 3.................... …………………………….............................................................……………… ……………....... 79 Earthquake simulation ...................... …………...................................................................... ACI 318-02........ Punching of flat plate.. 89 Appendix A...................... BBK 04 .................. 65 Bending moments in a continuous flat plate..................... 71 Swedish Handbook for Concrete Structures ...................... Punching of column footing.....................................................6 Code approach....2.....................................................................2 4.5 3. 71 Swedish Code for Concrete Structures..............................................................................3 4.........3 4......4....... 62 4 Design .................. MC 90..............................................................4...................………………………….......................................................4 4.......... 73 4... Flat plate with shear reinforcement.............. Punching of column footing...........................4 3 Code predictions .................................................................... line load..................................................……………..... 85 References .......................3 3....................................................………………............................................104 Appendix E.............. 51 Comparison with test results ................................................................. …………………………………........... 72 Building Code Requirements for Structural Concrete......... Unbalanced moment loading.................109 Appended Papers I ... 47 Introduction................. surface load...................................... 47 Approximate theory of elasticity........................................2 4... (Yield punching) ….......………..................... 72 Model Code 1990.............................................1 4.......................................4 3........

0010 Ec15 secant E-modulus of concrete up to the strain 0.0015 (with shear reinforcement) Es EI EI1 F G H L L1 L2 Mu Pσ R R0 Rb Rt V V1 V2 Vε Vεs Vσ modulus of elasticity of reinforcing steel flexural stiffness of slab per unit width reduced flexural stiffness of slab near the column for unbalanced moment loading force fracture energy horizontal force span width. Bε = 3πa/8 diameter of circular column with the same perimeter as a square column with width a. 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 . 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.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.

measured on standard cylinders with diameter 150 mm and length 300 mm (recorded mean value) fck fct fctk fsy fv1 fv2 h kI characteristic value for compressive strength of concrete tensile strength of concrete (recorded mean value) characteristic value for tensile strength of concrete yield strength of reinforcing steel one-way shear capacity two-way shear capacity slab thickness ⎛ EI ⎞ 2 factor for reduced slab stiffness near column due to unbalanced moment. kI = ⎜ 1 ⎟ ⎝ EI ⎠ 1 vi .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 .

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

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

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

xii .

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

0010 ⎜ ⎜f ⎟ ⎟ ⎝ cc ⎠ 0. Elasticitetsteorins momentfördelning antas då gälla i närheten av pelaren och den kritiska pelarlasten Vu kan beräknas direkt utan iterationer: nρ = Es ⋅ρ Ec ⎛ ⎞ 2 ⎟ x = dnρ ⎜ 1 1 + − ⎜ ⎟ n ρ ⎝ ⎠ ⎛ 25 ⎞ ⎛ 0.150 ⎞ 3 ε cpu = 0.Vid normala pelardäck blir enligt modellen gränsvärdet för betongstukningen avgörande för bärförmågan med hänsyn till genomstansning. Om böjarmeringshalten är hög nås den kritiska betongstukningen innan böjarmeringen flyter i pelardäcket. Den kritiska betongstukningen εcpu sätter därvid även här en gräns för möjlig tillskottsdeformation.1 ⎛ 0. vilket är betydligt lägre än det vedertagna värdet 0. Elasticitetsteorins momentfördelning gäller då inte längre när armeringen intill pelaren börjar flyta.0035 för betongens maximala stukning vid böjmomentbelastning.0012.150 är diametern av en standardcylinder för mätning av betongens tryckhållfasthet. Gränsvärdet antas vara beroende av plattans storlek och betongens ökande sprödhet med ökad hållfasthet enligt formeln ε cpu ⎛ 25 ⎞ = 0. xiv .1 1 (b) Vid normala armeringshalter uppnår dock armeringen närmast pelaren flytgränsen innan genomstansning sker. Vid plattjockleken 200 mm blir gränsvärdet ca 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. 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 0. där tryckhållfastheten i ett fiktivt pelarkapitäl inne i plattan avgör bärförmågan.3 (c) där d är plattans effektiva höjd i (m). Gränsvärdet antas vara storleksberoende på samma sätt som gränsvärdet för icke skjuvarmerad platta. varvid brottlasten ökar.150 10 3 ⋅ ⋅ f sy 2d ρ ⎛ 25 ⎞ ⋅⎜ ⎜f ⎟ ⎟ ⎝ cc ⎠ 0. Om armeringsmängden i fält då är för liten. Dessutom antas dessa hållfastheter vara storleksberoende på motsvarande sätt som stukningen enligt ekv. desto lägre antas tryckhållfastheten vara. såsom tidigare påpekats av Kinnunen och Nylander (1960).Ur ekv. Om pelardäcket förses med skjuvarmering tål plattan större tangentiell stukning vid pelaren. eftersom spänningstillståndet då alltmer övergår från tvådimensionellt till plant. (a). Därför härleds enkla uttryck för kontroll att fältarmeringen i ett pelardäck harmonierar med den fordrade stödarmeringen. Även i detta fall begränsas bärförmågan av betongstukningen i tangentiell led intill pelaren. 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. En ny modell för kompakta konstruktioner presenteras. att krökningen i fält också är begränsad. Ju större kapitälets omkrets är i förhållande till tryckzonens höjd. Det visas att genomstansningsbrott vid konventionellt utformad skjuvarmering uppkommer då stukningen når gränsvärdet 0. Det medför att en större andel av böjarmeringen når sträckgränsen innan genomstansning sker.6 f cc ⎜1 − cc ⎟ .0015.0010 3 = 2 ⋅ ⋅ ρ2 f sy 4d 2 ⎛ 25 ⎞ ⋅⎜ ⎜f ⎟ ⎟ ⎝ cc ⎠ 0. Det medför. ökar krökningen vid pelaren och genomstansning inträffar. (a) och jämviktssamband kan gränsvärdet för betongstukningen om armeringen flyter härledas till ε cpu = 10 −6 E c 0. Enligt den lanserade teorin sker alltså genomstansning då plattans krökningskapacitet vid pelarupplaget överskrids.3 (e) Kritisk pelarreaktion och tillhörande nedböjning erhålls sedan ur enkla jämviktssamband. xv . Tryckhållfastheten antas variera med kapitälets slankhet uttryckt som kvoten mellan kapitälets omkrets och plattans tryckzonshöjd.2fcc. Vid mycket små pelare i förhållande till ⎝ 250 ⎠ tryckzonshöjden antas tryckhållfastheten öka till 1. så att momentjämvikten inte uppfylls. Vid mycket stora pelare i förhållande till plattans tryckzonshöjd antas f ⎞ ⎛ kapitälets tryckhållfasthet vara 0.

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

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

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

column capitals. 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. a simplified version of their original model is still used in Sweden for punching design of flat plates. or drop panels. size of column (250 mm and 300 mm). Talbot (1913) and Richart (1948). The major variables in the tests were concrete strength (14 MPa to 50 MPa). the flat plate is at disadvantage in comparison to two-way slabs supported by beams or walls. but none has succeeded so far – with one exception. but their model is complicated and cannot predict the punching capacity with the same accuracy as current purely statistical methods. because of the risk of brittle punching failure at the slab-column connection. 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. Slab thickness. They concluded: “Even though it would be desirable to fully develop the flexural capacity of relatively thin slabs supported on slender columns. It is thereby acknowledged and accepted that this method does not reflect the true failure mechanism. “The shearing strength of slabs is a function of concrete strength as well as several other variables”. percentage of tension reinforcement (0.7 percent). They concluded. concrete strength. Consequently. Anyway. This subject therefore still attracts attention by code writers and researchers. percentage of compression reinforcement. 1. the design provisions have generally resulted in safe structures in the standard cases that are covered by test results.5 to 3. distribution of tension reinforcement and amount and position of shear reinforcement. It has no beams. The method. 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. Neither compression reinforcement nor concentrated tension reinforcement over the column increased the load capacity. and column dimension 1 .1 Introduction The reinforced concrete flat plate is a widely used structural system. 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. They therefore tested 39 flat plate specimens with the dimensions 6 x 6 ft and thickness 6 in. On the other hand. for instance. 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.1 Literature survey Flat plates seem to have first been constructed in USA in the late 1940’s. Some researchers have attempted to do it. The mechanical model introduced by Kinnunen and Nylander (1960) has gained worldwide recognition. to do so with shear reinforcement may be impractical…. 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. does not give the designer any indication of the limited rotation capacity of the slab at punching. which renders formwork construction very simple. Despite this shortcoming.

when the tangential compression strain and the radial inclined compression stress in the slab near the column simultaneously reach critical values. 25-mm or 20-mm reinforcement bars were used. that only a small amount of shear reinforcement. As already mentioned. which resulted in the report Moe (1961). No test report seems to have had larger impact on punching design than Moe (1961). effect of concentration of the tensile reinforcement in narrow bands across the column. One explanation to their finding that concentration of reinforcement over the columns was not advantageous. is needed in thin slabs. Principal variables were effect of holes for utilities near the column. which is an extremely large dimension in slabs with 150-mm thickness and 1.8-m span width. may be due to bond slip of these too large bars in relation to the slab dimensions. Punching occurs. 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. but rather the opposite. Johannes Moe visited USA and the Portland Cement Association where he under the guidance of E. Throughout the tests. and effect of eccentric loading. He introduced the concept of “eccentricity of shear”. Furthermore.” This opinion seems to have had a great influence on the development during the years to come.” During the years 1957-1959. One slab was tested under sustained load. 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. 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. They also tested beam strips with the same thickness and span width as the tested slabs. Hognestad carried out a large test series on flat plate specimens. current building codes such as Model Code 90 can predict the punching capacity with better precision. 2 . effect of column size. 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.should therefore probably be so chosen in design. if any at all. Later research has been devoted to expand the validity borders for these tests. 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. effect of special types of shear reinforcement. They introduced a completely new approach by studying the sector elements between the radial flexural cracks in the test specimens. according to their model. One year before Moe published his report Kinnunen and Nylander (1960) published their mechanical model for the punching failure of flat plates. The test series comprised 43 slabs of the same size as used by Elstner and Hognestad.

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

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

2 Theory for concentric punching The basic principles are described in Paper I. to the strain 0.3) The concrete secant modulus of elasticity.1) The modulus of elasticity for reinforcement bars is taken as Es = 200 GPa. Eq. As will be shown in the following.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. 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. F s εs d m F c x σc εc Figure 2-1 Depth x of compression zone. see Figure 2-1. 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.0010 is defined later in this chapter. (2. the compression zone depth at flexure is computed by combining the strain compatibility and force equilibrium conditions. As long as the reinforcement does not yield.10). Ec10. 2. but the theory is here improved and simplified.1 General The reinforcement is assumed to be ideally elastic-plastic with the yield strain ε sy = f sy Es (2. 5 .

4) ρ dEs ⋅ ε s = E c10 ⋅ ε c ⋅ Es =n Ec10 x 2 (force equilibrium) (2. 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. Although these cracks can surround the column.4).6) Combine Eqs.7) (2. the slab is nevertheless stable and can be unloaded and reloaded without any decrease of the ultimate load.εc x = εs d−x (strain compatibility) (2. The model depicted in Figure 2-2 may simulate this zone. (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. is computed by the expression x ⎞ ⎛ m = ρσ s d 2 ⎜1 − ⎟ ⎝ 3d ⎠ (2.9) where f ′′ is the curvature of the slab due to the bending moment m. In a flat plate. where the load from the flat plate is transferred to the column via a column capital within the slab. 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). m . 6 . inclined cracks near the column usually form at a load level of less than 70 % of the ultimate load.5) (2. Regan and Braestrup (1985). The punching failure occurs instead when the compression zone with height x adjacent to the column collapses. and (2. similar to the conical shell originally proposed by Kinnunen and Nylander (1960). (2.8) Extensive flexural cracking will always occur near the column at ultimate loading.

2. 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.1 Basic assumption The failure mode is illustrated in Figure 2-3. Then. 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. The corresponding punching capacities are denoted Vσ and Vε respectively. In contrast to one-way structures. the column capital will collapse due to a “zip” effect because the inclined compression strut rapidly becomes too weak to resist the support reaction when it is forced to take a flatter load path. the bending moment capacity in a flat plate can be maintained even if the radial flexural compression stress at the support approaches zero. The support reaction is concentrated to the edge of the column due to the global curvature of the slab. These failure modes are analyzed in detail in the following. The punching failure is assumed to occur either when the capital collapses when its capacity in compression is reached or when micro cracking at a critical tangential flexural strain softens the concrete at the column edge. At loads near the ultimate capacity. 7 .2 Punching capacity Vε Failure occurs when the tangential compression strain in the slab at the column edge reaches a critical value.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. 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. which is a prerequisite for the following possible scenario. Once this happens. when the flexural tangential strain in the bottom of the slab reaches a critical value. 2.2.

x fc c Figure 2-3 Failure mode Vε .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. 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.0010 it is evident that the almost linearly elastic behaviour of the concrete at low strains starts to change – the concrete “softens”. which forms the basis for the following hypothesis. k= Ec0 ⋅ ε c1 f cc η1 = εc . The stress-strain relation is taken from High performance concrete structures (1998): 0. This seems to confirm the scenario described above. 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.3 ε c1 = 0. Punching failure of a flat plate is therefore assumed to occur when the tangential concrete strain due to 8 . Study the stress-strain diagram for concrete with the compression strength 25 MPa according to Figure 2-4. ε c1 2 kη1 − η1 for ε c ≤ ε c1 1 + (k − 2 )η1 σ c = f cc ⋅ At a strain exceeding approximately 0.0007 ⋅ f cc .

0010 as indicated in Figure 2-4. The concrete behaves more linearly elastic with increasing concrete grades. which is approximately taken into account by putting the secant modulus Ec10 to the strain 0.0000 (MPa) 0. In the subsequent equations. (2. At low concrete grades there is a curved relation between strain and stress already at strains below 0.0010 Figure 2-4 Assumed stress-strain curve for concrete strength fcc =25 MPa. it is important to estimate the stress-strain relation in the compression zone at flexure correctly.10) with Ec0 according to Eq.the bending moment reaches this critical value adjacent to the column.0020 0 ε (2.0010 equal to 4 ⎛ f ⎞ ⎞ ⎛ E c10 = ⎜1 − 0. see Figure 2-9. It is further assumed that this critical strain level decreases with increasing concrete strength because high strength concretes are more brittle.3). 9 .6⎜1 − ck ⎟ ⎟ ⋅ E c0 ⎜ ⎝ 150 ⎠ ⎟ ⎝ ⎠ 0. 1 fc 30 MPa Ec0 ⎛ f ⎞3 = 21500⎜ ck ⎟ ⎝ 10 ⎠ 25 20 15 10 Ec10 5 0.

2. ⎛ 0. (2.2.16) where GF0 [MPa·mm] [mm]. 10 . 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 ⎠ −0.13) In the absence of experimental data Model Code 90 recommends the following relations for Ec0.14) f ct (2. fct and GF : E c0 ⎛ f ⎞3 = 21500⎜ cc ⎟ [MPa] ⎝ 10 ⎠ ⎛ f ⎞3 = 1.025 ⎪ = ⎨0.0010 ⎜ ⎜f ⎟ ⎟ ⎝ cc ⎠ ⎛ 0.4⎜ ck ⎟ [MPa] ⎝ 10 ⎠ 0.e.038 ⎩ [MPa·mm] ⎧8 ⎪ for maximum aggregate size d a = ⎨16 ⎪32 ⎩ (2.11) where εcpu = tangential compression strain at punching 0. it has the same value irrespective of specimen size.12) with the characteristic length lch = E c0 ⋅ GF 2 f ct (2.7 2 1 ( = Eq.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 0.15) ⎛f ⎞ GF = GF0 ⋅ ⎜ cc ⎟ ⎝ 10 ⎠ ⎧0.15 = diameter of standard test cylinder specimen (m) xpu = depth of compression zone at flexure when punching occurs (m).15 ⎞ 3 ⎟ ⋅⎜ ⎜ x pu ⎟ ⎝ ⎠ 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.25 1 (2.15 ⎞ 3 ⎟ is assumed to affect both strain and stress of the concrete in the The size effect factor ⎜ ⎜ x pu ⎟ ⎝ ⎠ same manner. i.3)) (2.1 ε cpu ⎛ 25 ⎞ = 0. This means that the E-modulus is assumed to be a concrete property that displays no size effect.030 ⎪0.

(2.12) it is thus evident that the maximum aggregate size has limited effect on the formal shear strength of beams. (2.13) and replace the characteristic value of the compression strength by the recorded value fcc in Eq.17) Eq. (2. Leonhardt and Walther (1962) made tests on the shear strength size dependence for beams without shear reinforcement.33 1.18) that can be used to study the effect of maximum aggregate size.7 ⋅ GF0 ⋅ f cc 21500 f cc 1. The question is. The shear strength varied approximately proportional to d −0.0 % and a reduction from 16 mm to 8 mm would decrease the strength by 4. In a second test series.3 [mm] (2. 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. (2.5 % of the strength for the smaller beam. the formal shear strength fv would be reduced to 4-0. the better anchoring bond with many small bars instead of few large bars decreased the anchoring slip sufficiently to eliminate the size effect.16) into Eq.5 %. the beams displayed no size effect.33 0. 11 . This demonstrates that tests have to be performed with realistically scaled reinforcement bars whenever reinforcement bond might be of concern for the structural behaviour. 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).14) to (2. 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 0.3 = 10970 ⋅ GF0 ⎛ f cc ⎞ ⎜ ⎟ ⎝ 10 ⎠ 0.33 when the reinforcement bars were scaled in proportion to the beam geometry. According to Eq. These values seem to be unrealistic – the size effect becomes too large. 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.25 = 70.15) lch = 0. In this latter case. If the beam depth were increased four times without simultaneous scaling of the aggregate size. the formal shear strength would be reduced to 78. 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.7 % of the strength for the smaller beam. Based on the test results.25 ⎛f ⎞ ⋅ ⎜ cc ⎟ ⎝ 10 ⎠ −0.075 (2. The exponent decreases to -1.0 for large compression zone depths.5 for very small depths. He found it to be proportional to the depth of the compression zone at flexure raised to the power -0.Insert Eqs.12) can now be rearranged as ⎛ d ⎞ f v = k ⋅ f ct ⋅ ⎜ ⎟ ⎜G ⎟ ⎝ F0 ⎠ −0. (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. In this case.

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

According to the theory of elasticity.reported in the literature. The depth of the compression zone is then defined by Eq. 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. 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. this circle has the radius ≈ 0. (2.22) 3a 16 ∵B = 3π a 8 where B = diameter of circular column and a = width of square column. see Figure 2-5.11). Once the critical strain εcpu is defined. Poisson's ratio of the cracked concrete slab is thereby assumed zero. (2.2.20) (2.3 Punching at elastic conditions If punching occurs without any yield of the reinforcement (at high reinforcement ratios). 13 .7) and the critical strain εcpu is defined by Eq. Up to the load level when the flexural reinforcement starts to yield near the column. which will be described hereafter.21) (2. The column reaction is concentrated to the column perimeter as has been described above. 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. the resulting effect on the critical strain value would anyway be rather marginal. 2. the diameter of the equivalent circular slab is assumed equal to the width of the square slab if the corners are free to lift in the square specimen. Furthermore.2 L in a flat plate with square panels. The following equations assume either a circular or a square specimen arrangement. where L is the span width. 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. the theory of elasticity is assumed valid for the bending moment distribution. In the latter case. then both reinforcement and concrete behave elastically.

25) m2 = tangential moment at the slab edge (2. The following expressions are valid according to the theory of elasticity (with ν = 0) for a circular slab. see Figure 2-5: mt = V ⎡ c B2 B2 ⎤ ⎢2ln + 2 − 2 − 2 ⎥ 8π ⎢ 2r c ⎥ 4r ⎣ ⎦ tangential moment (2.V πc V πB B c 1 m 2 δ ψ t mr r Figure 2-5 Bending moments and slab deformation according to the theory of elasticity for a circular slab supported on the edge of a circular column. 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 .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). where the latter is not negligible near the column.27) The theoretical deflection δ consists of bending deformation and shear deformation.24) m1 = tangential and radial moment at column edge (2.26) ψ = m2 angle of inclination at the slab edge (2. derived from Eqs.

0010 ⎜ ⎜ ⎛ 25 ⎝ f cc ⎞ ⎟ ⎟ ⎠ 0.4. The calculation is anyhow preferably computerized.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. In flat plates with rectangular panels the above equations have to be modified when checking the punching capacity. (2.30) No iteration is thus required for determination of the punching load.1 ⎛ 0.150 ⎞ 3 ⎟ ⋅⎜ ⎜ x pu ⎟ ⎝ ⎠ (2.7) ε cpu = 0. 15 .11) Reinforcement stress at the column edge at punching d−x (2. because then the alternative failure mode Vσ is checked automatically as well as the ultimate deflection δ ε. the punching load Vε is derived from Eq.31) (2.28) The punching capacity Vε can now be estimated as follows.δ ≈ψ c−B 2 (2. see Appendix A.29) x If σ s turns out to be larger than the yield stress fsy .2. see Section 4. The relation between the modulus of elasticity for reinforcement and concrete n= Es E c10 (2.25) Vε = mε 8π c B2 2ln + 1 − 2 B c (2.2. then the reinforcement yields σ s = Es ⋅ ε cpu ⋅ before punching occurs and the calculation is performed according to Section 2. Bending moment at the column edge at punching x ⎞ ⎛ mε = ρ ⋅ d 2σ s ⎜1 − ⎟ ⎝ 3d ⎠ Finally.

34) ′′ .5 ε cpu ⎛ 25 ⎞ = 0.37) V y2 = m y ⋅ 2π B 1− c (see Figure 2-6) (2.0010⎜ ⎟ ⎜f ⎟ ⎝ cc ⎠ 0.38) 16 .33) x pu = d ⋅ 2ρ ε cpu E c10 (2.11): Ec10 0. f u ′′ = fu ε cpu x pu E2 0. Punching is still assumed to occur when the concrete compression strain reaches the critical value εcpu.3 with effective depth d in (m) (2.4 Yield punching With medium reinforcement ratios the reinforcement near the column will yield before punching occurs.150 0. 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 ⋅ 0.2.36) The column reactions Vy1 when the reinforcement starts to yield at the column edge and Vy2 when all reinforcement across the slab yields V y1 = m y ⋅ 8π c B2 2ln + 1 − 2 B c (2. can then be expressed as The ultimate tangential curvature at the column edge.2.150 ⎞ 3 ⎟ ⋅⎜ ⎜ x pu ⎟ ⎠ ⎝ Combine Eqs. It is instead assumed that a flexural hinge forms at the column edge and the sector elements of the slab between the radial flexural cracks start to rotate as rigid bodies with support on the column edge.11) ⎛ 0.150 10 3 ⋅ ⋅ f sy ρ 2d ⋅ f sy ε cpu = 10 −6 ⎛ 25 ⎞ ⋅⎜ ⎟ ⎜f ⎟ ⎝ cc ⎠ 0. (2.0010 3 = c10 ⋅ ⋅ 2 4d 2 f sy ρ2 ⎛ 25 ⎞ ⋅⎜ ⎜f ⎟ ⎟ ⎝ cc ⎠ 0.35) Bending moment at reinforcement yield x ⎞ ⎛ m y = ρ ⋅ d 2 ⋅ f sy ⎜1 − ⎟ ⎝ 3d ⎠ (2.1 (force equilibrium) 1 (2.3 (2.32) and (2.32) (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.

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

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. (2.43) All equations in this section have to be modified for flat plates with rectangular panels. However. an approximate manual calculation of Vε is described in Section 2.The deflection of the slab at punching.4. see Appendix B. C L ry punching failure my ∆ f ′′ ⋅ EI ⋅ B 2r first yield mt = 2 2⎞ V y1 ⎛ ⎜ 2 ln c + 2 − B − B ⎟ 8π ⎜ 2r 4r 2 c 2 ⎟ ⎠ ⎝ B 2 c 2 r Figure 2-7 Distribution of tangential bending moment at first yield and at punching failure. The computer solution has furthermore the advantage that the alternative failure mode Vσ is checked automatically as well as the ultimate deflection δ ε.41) can be solved manually by iteration only and Eq.42) is laborious. δε . 18 . see Section 4. The calculations have to be computerized. (2.2. because Eq.

**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

which is preferably checked in accordance with Model Code 90. Larger capacity can be achieved with inclined stirrups. The stirrups in the first row outside the column act as hangers that transfer their load directly to the column without affecting the internal column capital if the upper end of the stirrups is anchored inside the column edge. Still larger capacity in combination with ductile behaviour can be achieved with the “ductility reinforcement” described in Chapter 5. see Appendix C.61) The distance ry and punching capacity Vεs is then determined from Eqs. It is further assumed that the shear reinforcement is designed for at least 60 % of the total column reaction and stirrups or stud rails are well anchored outside the innermost top and bottom reinforcement layers. but not to more than the load corresponding to overall yield of the flexural reinforcement. (2.59) Curvature in tangential direction at start of yield: ′′ = f ys f sy Es ⋅ 1 d − xs (2. The calculations are preferably computerized. The total punching capacity can therefore be assessed by adding the vertical component of the hanger force to the above capacity Vεs. The nominal ultimate stress in the hangers should thereby be limited to round 350 MPa.58) V y2 = m ys ⋅ (2.42). 22 .41) and (2.60) Possible additional curvature at column edge after first yield: ′′ − f ys ′′ ∆f ′′ = f us (2. The shear reinforcement must extend far enough from the column to exclude a shear failure outside the shear reinforced area. The upper limit for punching capacity derived above presupposes that the punching failure occurs within the zone with shear reinforcement.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.

1 Column footings Consider a relatively compact circular test specimen according to Figure 2-10.2. The specimen could simulate a column footing.3.3 Punching capacity Vσ Punching occurs when the compression stress in the fictitious internal column capital of the slab reaches a critical value. D R V B t ∆x γ1 2γ σc Figure 2-10 Failure mode Vσ . 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 diameter of a circular slab is denoted D. 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. 2. Definitions of parameters.

24 .64) The column capital forms part of a compression strut from the load to the column. That part of the load does not affect the punching capacity. 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.Part of uniformly distributed load will fall within the final shear crack. A reasonable expression for the angle φ is tan φ = 1. see Figure 2-10. where 2γ is the angle to the horizontal of the punching crack near the column.62) D c 0 = kD R φ V σ Figure 2-11 Definition of angle φ and shear load Vσ .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. see Figure 2-11.4d ≥1 D −B 3 2 (2. It is easily shown that the capacity of the capital is at maximum when the angle γ1 is equal to γ. Punching occurs when the capital fails in compression so that a diagonal shear crack forms. 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.

69) represents the concrete compression strength in bi-axial compression. when the perpendicular compression stress is moderate. That effect decreases with increasing u/x f ⎞ ⎛ until σ c = 0.68) 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. 2 ⎡ ⎛ u ⎞ ⎤ ⎥ σ c = f cc ⎢0. The upper limit 1.5 B 1 x ∆x = ⋅ 02 4 cos γ tan γ = Eliminate ∆x from Eqs.6 + 0.2 fcc in Eq.65) (2. γ1 = γ The inclination angle γ of the compression strut is determined by ( d − ∆x ) R − 0.65) and (2.70) For small values of u/x.69) The compression strength “σc” of the capital is assumed to vary with the slenderness u/x of the cantilevering part of the capital.007 x ⎟ ⎟ ≤ 1.6 f cc ⎜1 − cc ⎟ .9⎜ ⎜1 − 0. it is evident from Figure 2-12 that the compression zone of the surrounding slab confines the capital.66): tanγ = (2.67) The average upper diameter of the capital that supports the inclined compression strut from the load is x0 x0 B+ + (2. see Nilsson (1983). (= fcd2 according to Model Code 90). 25 .V = k V ⋅ x0 sinγ 1 ⋅ sin( 2γ − γ 1 ) sin 2γ ⋅ k x dV = V 0 [(cosγ 1 )sin (2γ − γ 1 ) − sinγ 1cos(2γ − γ 1 )] = 0 dγ 1 sin 2γ tan (2γ − γ 1 ) = tan γ 1 . see Figure 2-12.2 f cc ⎢ 0⎠ ⎥ ⎝ ⎣ ⎦ (2. which is the generally accepted uniaxial compression strength in ⎝ 250 ⎠ cracked zones. (2. (2.66) (2 R − B )2 2 x0 + 4d 2R − B −1 − x0 x0 (2.

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. 26 d t .0 σc γ σc B/d = 2.γ B/d = 1.5 B Figure 2-12 Confinement of internal column capital by surrounding slab.

(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. Finally. Study a sector element under the shear crack with sector angle ∆ϕ : ε c0 B x ⋅ 2r = ε s0 d − x0 ⋅ c0 2r D 2 (2.150 ⎞ 3 Vσ = σ c ⋅ t ⋅ sin(γ ) ⋅ u ⋅ ⎜ ⎟ ⎝ t ⎠ where t= x0 = depth of compression strut 2cos(γ ) 1 (2.In compact footings.150 = diameter of standard test cylinder specimen (m).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.75) 1 (2. (2.76) ⎛ 0.71) ⎞ ⎟ x0 B ⎛ B ⎟ D⎞ d 1 + ln ⎟ r ∫ 2r ⎟ = ∆ϕ ⋅ Ec0 ⋅ ε c0 ⋅ 2 ⋅ 2 ⎜ B⎠ ⎝ B ⎟ 2 ⎠ ⎛ D⎞ ⎜ ⎜1 + ln c ⎟ ⎟ 0⎠ ⎝ (2. (2.72) D ⎛ ⎞ ⎜ ⎟ 2 c0 c0 ⎟ c ⎜ + dr = ∆ϕ ⋅ Es ⋅ ε s0 ⋅ ρ ⋅ d ⋅ 0 Fs = ∆ϕ ⋅ Es ⋅ ε s0 ⋅ ρ ⋅ d ⋅ ⎜ 2 c∫ 2r ⎟ 2 0 ⎜ ⎟ 2 ⎝ ⎠ D E c0 Combine Eqs. see Figure 2-13.74) (2.72).71).73) ⎛ ⎜ x0 ⎜ B Fc = ∆ϕ ⋅ E c0 ⋅ ε c0 ⋅ ⋅ + 2 ⎜2 ⎜ ⎝ (2.77) . 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 ⎛ 0.73).

0010 ⎜ ⎜f ⎟ ⎟ ⎝ cc ⎠ 0. Equation (2. The flexural capacity and the concrete strain of a square column footing are checked as follows.7 d = + tan 30 ° tan 2γ tan γ → γ = 25 ° Figure 2-14 Angle γ for flat plates.80) may govern the capacity at high reinforcement ratios in combination with high strength concrete.74). which has to be considered when designing such reinforcement.78) M ⎛ b ⎞ ⎛ x ⎞ ρ d ⋅ c0 ⎜ 1− ⎟ ⎜1 + ln c ⎟ ⎟⋅⎜ 3d ⎠ 0⎠ ⎝ ⎝ 2 σs = (2. The angle γ need not be taken less than 25°.For geometrical reasons the angle γ is limited to 45° corresponding to a vertical shear crack through the compression zone. see for instance Kinnunen and Nylander (1960). see Figure 2-14.15 ⎞ 3 ⋅⎜ ⎟ ⎝ x ⎠ 1 (2. The expressions for the capacity Vσ presuppose that the flexural reinforcement in the footing does not yield. (2. ⎛b B ⎞ M = P⎜ − ε ⎟ ⎝ 8 2π ⎠ (2. which agrees with the average shear crack inclination 30° observed at slender test specimens. γ 2γ ≈ 0.79) 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 ⎞ = 0.3d γ d tan 30° d 0 .75) and with Ec10 instead of Ec0 in Eq. (2.80) with x according to Eq.3d 0 .1 ⎛ 0. 28 .

if the curved relation is replaced by a linear relation as indicated in Figure 2-15. (2. If Vσ turns out to be governing. However. When the flexural reinforcement ratio is less than the value ρ 2.2. Additional deflection will then cause only limited increase of the radial curvature of the sector elements. then the displacement of the flat plate is computed according to Section 2. The “exact” estimation of the punching capacity in this region leads to rather complicated equations.3. (2. Two limit values for the reinforcement ratio can be identified. The depth remained constant – conforming to Eq. Eq.7) is then no longer valid for the depth of the compression zone near the column for tangential bending moments – the depth decreases. (2.2 with a decreased critical value εcpu so that Vε becomes equal to Vσ However.1 General The relation between punching capacity of flat plates and flexural reinforcement ratio is typically as depicted in Figure 2-14. the flexural reinforcement near the column will often yield before punching occurs. 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. For flat plates with shear reinforcement. This is confirmed by Figure 4-11 of Hallgren (1996) that shows the recorded radial strain distribution over the compression zone for specimen HSC1. When punching occurs.4 Manual calculation 2.34). (2.2 Flat plates In flat plates. which is also evident from Figure 4-7.4. the solution of which requires computerized calculations as described in Section 2.2. which value shall be used when calculating Vσ for flat plates. Vσs shall be determined with the angle γ = 45°. The punching capacity is then equal to the flexural capacity of the slab. When the flexural reinforcement ratio exceeds the value ρ 1. Between these two limits part of the reinforcement yields. However. punching occurs without any reinforcement yielding and the punching capacity can be easily determined by the equations given in Section 2. The compression zone depth in radial direction will therefore not decrease below the value given by Eq.2. 29 .4.75).75) – up to the punching load. 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 lesser of Vσ and Vε governs the punching capacity of flat plates. punching occurs after all reinforcement has reached the yield limit. the punching capacity can be easily determined even in this region. the compression zone near the column has decreased to the value given by Eq.3.

4. d = 0. B = 0.2. (fcc = 30 MPa. fsy =500 MPa.3. c = 3.15 ⎞ 3 ⋅⎜ ⎟ → ⎝ x ⎠ (2.2 m) 2.6) 1 ⎛ ⎞ ⎛ ⎞ 2 ⎟ → ε cpu = 0.25 m.1 (2.6⎜1 − cc ⎟ ⎥ ⋅ 21500 ⋅ ⎜ cc ⎟ ⎝ 150 ⎠ ⎥ ⎝ 10 ⎠ ⎢ ⎣ ⎦ 1 (2.5 2 ρ 1.Vε 1500 V 1 kN V2 1000 500 0 0 ρ 0.2 Reinforcement limit ρ 1 The reinforcement limit ρ 1 is estimated by trial and error calculations until σs is equal to fsy: Without shear reinforcement E c10 4 ⎡ f ⎞ ⎤ ⎛ ⎛ f ⎞3 = ⎢1 − 0.5 m.10) n ρ1 = Es ⋅ ρ1 Ec10 0.0 1.81) The punching capacity for reinforcement ratio exceeding ρ 1 is then determined according to Section 2.0010 ⎜ 25 ⎟ x = d ⋅ nρ1 ⎜ 1 1 + − ⎜ ⎟ ⎜ ⎟ nρ1 ⎝ f cc ⎠ ⎝ ⎠ d−x σ s = Es ⋅ ε cpu ⋅ x ⎛ 0. 30 .5 ρ % 1 Figure 2-15 Punching capacity Vε versus reinforcement ratio.

(2.0015 ⎝ 25 ⎠ Es ⋅ ρ1 Ec15 f ⎞ ⎛ ⋅ ⎜1.34): ε cpu = 10 xpu = d ⋅ −6 E c10 0.2.47) 0.83) ⎛ ⎞ Es 2 ⎟ 1 + − 1 ⋅ ρ 2 and x = d ⋅ nρ 2 ⎜ ⎜ ⎟ E c10 n ρ 2 ⎝ ⎠ The additional curvature at the slab edge can also be expressed as 2 ⎛ ⎜ 1 − Bε ε sy ⎜ c 2 ⋅ 2π ′′ = − ∆f 2 1 B d −x⎜ 4π ⎜ 1− ε ⎜ c ⎝ ⎞ ⎟ Bε ⎞ ⎞ ⎟ ε sy ⎛ ⎛ ⎟= d −x⎜ ⎜1 − 0.5.1 f cc ⎛ f cc ⎞ = ⋅⎜ ⎟ 0.3⎜1 .3 (2.With shear reinforcement ⎛ f ⎞ α = 0.84) 31 .82) 1 ⎛ 0.5 + 0.34) ε cpu Ec10 Bε c ⎛ ε cpu ε sy ⎞ ⎟ ⎜ − ⎜ x pu d − x ⎟ ⎠ ⎝ 2ρ2 ρ 2 → ∆f 2′′ = with nρ 2 = (2.1 ⋅⎜ ⎜ x ⎟ ⎟ → ⎝ s ⎠ (2.33) and (2.5⎜1 + c ⎟ ⎟ ⎟ ⎝ ⎠⎠ ⎝ ⎟ ⎟ ⎠ (2.45) ns ρ1 = ⎛ 1 ⎛ ⎞ 1 1 ⎞ ⎟ → ε cpus = 0.1 − cc ⎟ 190 ⎠ ⎝ (2.cc ⎟ ⎝ 100 ⎠ E c15 2 (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.15 ⎞ 3 The punching capacity for reinforcement ratio exceeding ρ 1 is then determined according to Section 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 0.33) (2.150 10 3 ⋅ ⋅ 2d f sy ρ2 ⋅ f sy ⎛ 25 ⎞ ⋅⎜ ⎜f ⎟ ⎟ ⎝ cc ⎠ 0.4. 2.

The punching capacity up to the reinforcement ratio ρ 2 is equal to the flexural capacity at overall yield.88) 32 . and the curvature according to Eq.150 15 3 ⋅ ⋅ f sy d ρ2 ⎛ 25 ⎞ ⋅⎜ ⎜f ⎟ ⎟ ⎝ cc ⎠ 0.Only a few iterations are normally required to determine the reinforcement ratio ρ 2 that makes the two curvature expressions equal. The curvature according to Eq.4.48) The additional curvature at the slab edge can also be expressed as ′′ = ∆f 2 B ⎞⎞ ⎛ ⎜ 1 − 0.85) With shear reinforcement The calculation is performed in the same way as without shear reinforcement: Ec15 α ⋅ 0.83) decreases rapidly with increasing ρ. (2.54) (2.87) 2.84) increases slowly with increasing ρ.3 ε cpus = 10 x pus = d ⋅ −6 (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. 5 ⎜ B f cc ⎝ 1− ε c ⎞ ⎟ ⎟ ⎠ ρ ≤ ρ2 (2.4 Transition zone between ρ 1 and ρ 2 The punching capacity Vε is determined by linear interpolation: Vε = V2 + ρ − ρ2 ⋅ (V1 − V2 ) ρ1 − ρ 2 (2.5⎜1 + ε ⎟ ⎟ ⎜ d − xs ⎝ c ⎠⎟ ⎝ ⎠ ε sy ⎛ (2. Vy2: Vε = V y2 = ρ ⋅ f sy ⎛ 2π ⋅ ρ ⋅ f sy ⋅ d 2 ⎜ − 1 0 . (2.55) f sy ρ2 ⋅ α ⋅ ε cpus Ec15 Bε c ⎛ ε cpus ε sy ⎜ − ⎜ x pus d − xs ⎝ ⎞ ⎟ ⎟ ⎠ ′′ = ρ 2 → ∆f 2 (2.

596 0.990 0.640 0.310 0.762 0.232 1.496 0.535 0.586 1.581 0.709 0.2 0.575 0.478 0.133 1.135 0.311 0.892 1.713 0. Table 2-1 Reinforcement ratio ρ 1 % for fsy = 500 MPa d (m) Without shear reinforcement Concrete cylinder strength.825 0.588 0.655 0.493 1. fck (MPa) 20 30 40 50 60 With shear reinforcement Concrete cylinder strength.684 0.826 0.462 0.283 1.129 1.3 0.744 0.241 1.30 0.558 2.537 0.482 0.416 1.382 0.416 0.375 0.732 1.447 0.831 0.712 0.805 0.935 0.520 0.710 0.829 0.20 0.996 1.534 0.522 33 .766 0. The reinforcement ratios ρ 2 in Table 2-2 are especially interesting because they represent the limits below which the flexural reinforcement within the column strip can be fully utilized without correction with respect to punching.926 1.421 1.376 1.184 1.078 1.579 0.310 1.613 0.627 0.854 0.174 2.338 0.183 1.018 1.564 1.916 0.077 0.25 0.646 0.25 0.283 1.2 0.550 40 2.30 0.857 0.347 1.977 50 1.20 0.742 0.507 0.183 30 1.425 0.683 Table 2-2 Reinforcement ratio ρ 2 % for fsy = 500 MPa.2.432 1.970 1.642 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.195 0. fck (MPa) 20 30 40 50 60 0.590 0.004 60 2.141 1.1 0.366 1.816 50 2. d (m) Bε c Without shear reinforcement Concrete cylinder strength.317 1. fck (MPa) 20 30 1.552 0.3 0.176 1.577 0.062 0.843 40 1.401 2.981 1.316 2.739 0.068 1.856 1.2 0.681 1.697 0.032 1.493 0. Examples are given in Tables 2-1 and 2-2. fck (MPa) 20 1.971 1.821 0.411 0.654 0.834 1.893 1.3 0.4.1 0.919 0.239 1.1 0.089 60 1.899 0.930 1.791 0.014 0.175 1.442 0.439 1.772 0.180 With shear reinforcement Concrete cylinder strength.

5.457 m beyond the downward loads. The assembly was supported on rollers positioned 0. 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. By varying the ratios of the upward and downward loads differing reactions could be produced at the roller supports.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.83 m square. 34 .2. The average effective depths were 80 mm and 82 mm respectively. thus changing the ratio between the central load (V) and the restraining moments (m1) at the edges of the 1. The specimens were 100 mm thick and their central panels were reinforced with φ 10 c/c 75 (fsy = 525 MPa) both ways in the top and φ 8 c/c 75 (fsy = 510 MPa) both ways in the bottom. Regan (1986) Regan (1986) made a very illustrative test with specimens subjected to a bending moment at the slab boundary as shown in Figure 2-16.5 Comparison with test results 2.

2 34. because an increase of only the lesser of the two reinforcement ratios did not increase the punching capacity in their tests. Nylander and Sundquist (1972) concluded that if flexural reinforcement has to be added due to punching. Compact footings display a gradual failure similar to the failure of cylinders for testing of concrete compression strength.0 28.3 31.107 1. Slender flat plates usually display a sudden brittle failure – often characterized as explosive.031 IV/1 IV/2 IV/3 IV/4 26. Most probably. i. the opposite is also valid.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.5. That strain is a function of the bending moment in the slab near the column.984 1. which is confirmed by specimen S1 in Kinnunen et al (1980) (see Table 2-4).252 1.017 0.278 Theory Vtest/Vcalc 1. 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. 2. 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. 35 . the bending moment in the slab at the column plays a decisive role for the punching failure mechanism and the resulting punching capacity.056 1.088 1.036 0. These findings have unfortunately never been incorporated in Swedish concrete codes and handbooks. Table 2-3 Slab Comparison of test results by Regan (1986) with predictions of Model Code 90 and the presented theory. The punching capacity in the tests increased when the bending moment in the slab at the column versus the column reaction V decreased. 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.124 1.e. 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. That occurs for instance for the bending moment in the long direction in flat plates with rectangular panels.049 190 236 248 262 MC 90 Vcalc (kN) 193 210 198 205 Theory Vcalc (kN) 180 217 224 254 MC 90 Vtest/Vcalc 0.3 It is evident from Table 2-1 that the punching failure cannot be treated as a pure shear force failure. the punching capacity will decrease if the bending moment in the slab versus the column reaction V increases.

which is confirmed by those tests where the E-modulus was actually recorded.5. 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. This relation is at best a good approximation. These base properties can simply not be “manipulated” or “tuned”.2 and 4. which is larger than the usual scatter observed for cylinder compression tests. The variation coefficient 0. Concrete grades vary from 14 MPa up to more than 100 MPa. 2.Flat plates seem to fail when the tangential strain in the concrete reaches a critical value. 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. The test specimens simulating flat plates listed in Table 2-4 cover a very wide range of conditions. Bσ = 4a / π . The E-modulus of concrete thus seems to be an important concrete property for prediction of the punching strength. The slab slenderness is represented by the expression (c – Bε)/2d. where a square column is replaced by a circular column with the same bending moment reduction effect. The reinforcement ratio varies from 0. The column size in relation to slab depth is represented by the parameter Bσ/d. The recorded E-modulus was there only 79 % of the value according to Model Code 90. the simple and comprehensible failure model is based on recordable data for the stress-strain relation of concrete in uniaxial compression combined with prevailing knowledge of concrete properties in biaxial compression.3 Comparison with test results for flat plates and column footings The theory is validated by comparison with published test results in Tables 2-4 to 2-7. This property is traditionally recorded neither for test specimens nor for actual structures. The recorded values by for instance Hallgren (1996) were consistently lower than the values derived from the compression strengths according to Model Code 90. Bε = 3πa/8.35 % up to 3. 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.7 % and the yield strength varies from 300 MPa up to more than 700 MPa. Only specimens with normal density aggregates are included. The difference was still larger for the specimen described by Ožbolt et al (2000). 36 . probably due to a concrete mix design with aggregates from sedimentary rock. Some of the duplicated tests by Kinnunen and Nylander (1960). with a prediction scatter approaching the inevitable material strength scatter. These observations indicate that the concrete E-modulus has influence on the punching strength of flat plates. where a square column with width a is replaced by a circular column with the same perimeter.073 for the punching capacity predictions in Table 2-4 must therefore be regarded as a good verification of the theory for flat plates. Compact footings seem to fail when the inclined compression stress reaches the failure stress in bi-axial compression. Tolf (1988) and Tomaszewicz (1993) display a capacity scatter.0. 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. they are directly related to the recorded compression strength of the test specimens. Furthermore.

However. The two specimens of Sundquist (1977) displayed a very ductile behaviour with overall yield. 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. 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. However. where Vc is the nominal capacity without shear reinforcement.6Vc can be achieved if the slab is provided with ductility reinforcement described in Chapter 5.1. It is then logical that the moment distribution according to the theory of elasticity should be applied in that case. which is used by Kinnunen and Nylander (1960) and Hallgren (1996) even for elastic conditions with no reinforcement yielding. but they did not reach the theoretical yield capacity. It is evident that if the theory can predict the capacity for ρ >ρ 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). larger capacity than 1. Figure 2-15 displays a typical curve for the punching capacity versus the flexural reinforcement ratio in a flat plate. which forms the prerequisite for the approach in Chapter 3 about eccentric punching. 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. because the capacity when all reinforcement yields (for ρ < ρ 2) is well-defined by the fan-type yield line configuration. the variation coefficient 0. The upper bound 1.5. the failure capacity is predicted even for those specimens where the reinforcement did not reach overall yield. whenever reported. However. 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.75Vc + Vs must be utilized with caution.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. Predicted deflection and concrete strain in the tangential direction of flat plate specimens are in Table 2-7 compared to recorded values. which demonstrates that the code approach with the capacity taken as Vu = 0. This moment distribution differs radically from the moment distribution corresponding to rigid body sector elements rotating around a support perimeter near the column edge. 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. This is a strong support for the hypothesis that punching of flat plates occurs when the flexural compression strain in the slab reaches a critical value. which at least is a better prediction result than any existing concrete code method. but punching failures still occurred within the shear reinforced zone. because it utilizes a rough estimate of the decreasing compression strength of the column capital with increasing perimeter versus the compression zone depth. 37 . Some of the slabs in Table 2-6 were provided with an extremely large amount of shear reinforcement.6Vc according to Model Code 90 appears well advised.The theory for column footings is more intricate. which is further supported by the tests with varying bending moment described in Section 2.

27 5.80 0.48 σs MPa Vcalc kN Vtest kN Vtest Vcalc 1. 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 25.3 26.5 26.04 0.70 3.8 26.40 1.38 5.44 145 φ2600 φ300 2.26 1.021 38 .992 1.50 " " 3. Tolf (1980) Tolf (1988) 1780 " φ2650 152 305 φ500 P-2 34.3 S1.9 22.043 1.030 1.4 25.13 1.5 37.054 P-5 26.Table 2-4 Authors Test results.08 c−Bε 2d 6.4 S2.38 5.80 0.476 " 1.034 0.40 5.0714 1.6 26.931 1.079 1.2 47.28 1.152 Elstner.5 20.3094 1.25 1.40 619 4680 2340 φ800 1.063 1.50 " " " " " 5.2 S1.76 5.1 25.95 7.6 47.61 5.1 26.099 1.80 0.986 1.3264 1.02 6.80 0. see next page.9 50.4 24.050 0.057 1.2 29.003 0.81 0.000 0. Nylander (1960) Moe (1961) Schaeidt et al (1970) Marti et al (1977) Pralong et al (1979) Kinnunen.43 5.69 5.2 22.82 0.1 27.26 1.47 421 551 569 1.2 14.5 34.3 S2.28 1.51 5.026 1.00 3.957 1.2 26.8 28.75 2.01 2.9 24.25 1.140 1.97 " 5.27 2.1 S2.018 1.35 100 99 200 199 98 99 200 197 φ1190 " φ2380 " φ1190 " φ2380 " φ125 " φ250 " φ125 " φ250 " 1.49 5.943 1.41 2.2 S2.974 1.5 332 " " " 321 " " " " " 332 321 " 294 324 321 303 341 325 441 454 455 451 448 462 328 481 555 fsy " " " 256 fsy 297 198 212 237 fsy 297 207 fsy " " " " 324 fsy " " " " " fsy 390 381 350 356 354 335 381 512 449 432 465 526 393 530 535 178 136 139 270 511 599 263 266 446 419 231 241 303 394 1470 365 356 351 356 400 467 512 445 534 547 400 534 498 236 178 200 334 505 578 255 275 430 408 258 258 311 433 1694 Kinnunen.2374 0.73 5.6 558 1.31 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 2.8 20.42 2.8 25.4394 1.49 0.34 0.50 3.1 S1.16 " " " 2.67 6.64 7.6 25.62 6. Test slab No.34 154 φ2600 φ300 1.23 4.554 0.01 1.35 0.4 28.008 0.040 1.3 19.44 2.84 3.29 3.07 7.7 43.6 26.84 " " " " 1.25 1.2 706 701 657 670 720 712 668 664 0.912 1.02 0.24 404 4780 4915 1. For explanations.9 26.34 2.50 1.46 699 584 483 465 fsy " " " 2291 1891 6301 5981 1471 1401 4531 4351 216 194 603 600 145 148 489 444 0.98 " 3.2 515 1.148 1.38 1.43 5.18 2.74 0.38 5.6 22.988 0.74 " " " 2.965 0970 1.026 0.5 26.93 453 569 600 1.0 26.27 " " " 6.1174 1.0 36. Nylander.34 0.84 " " " " " 3. fcc MPa fsy MPa ρ % 1.79 1. flat plate specimens.74 " " 1.028 S1.964 0.4 27.50 " " " " 6.26 1.48 1.033 S1 30.6 621 0.

921 Marzouk.906 0.84 0.25 1.60 0.45 " " 6.006 1.96 5.100 Mean value Vtest / Vcalc = 1. Test slab No.145 1.822 1.93 " " " 0.049 1.02 2.80 0.971 0.80 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 1.150 1.965 0.996 1. Not included in the statistical evaluation due to the small effective depth 70 mm.29 5.96 " " " " " " " 1.43 5.49 0.01 1.38 " 5.956 1.1344 1.80 0.055 1.64 100 100 125 φ 1190 " " φ 250 φ 250 φ 125 2. Kinnunen (2004b) C1 C2 D1 24.50 2.3) which would give Ec0 = 27.53 1.94 1.102 0.11 1.35 5. Overall yield with membrane action and strain hardening.049 1. 39 .01 1.26 688 692 583 270 250 265 0.59 " " 2.80 0.62 " " " 1.51 6.922 0.26 2.01 " " 2.70 4.38 5.000 0. Recorded Ec0-values used instead of Eq.75 " " " 2.51 4.105 0.975 1.51 " " 9. Recorded Ec0 value 21.1513 1. (2.96 5.50 1.203 1.075 0.19 1.68 c−Bε 2d 6. (2. 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.25 1.49 " " 2.065 1. HS 1 HS 2 HS 3 HS 4 HS 5 HS 6 HS 7 HS 8 HS 9 HS 10 HS 11 HS 12 HS 13 HS 14 HS 15 NS 1 NS 2 65-1-1 95-1-1 115-1-1 95-1-3 65-2-1 95-2-1D 95-2-1 115-2-1 95-2-3 95-2-3D 95-2-3D+ 115-2-3 95-3-1 fcc MPa 67 70 69 66 68 70 74 69 74 80 70 75 68 72 71 42 30 64 84 112 90 70 88 87 119 90 80 98 108 85 90 91 86 92 109 84 95 21 fsy MPa 490 " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " 500 " " " 500 " " " " " " " " 643 627 620 596 633 634 631 569 ρ % 0.19 0.2 718 " " 0.24 1.33 0.53 6.64 0.7 GPa used instead of Eq.35 5.2173 1.82 1.3).47 2.47 " " 0.70 4.06 " " " " " " " 4.32 5.55 1.891 1.12 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 2.54 5.069 1.021(1± 0.091 0.5 GPa and Vcalc = 806 kN.27 1.139 1.94 1.59 2.96 " " 7.95 1.894 0.33 0.057 1. therefore not included in the statistical evaluation.Table 2-4 Authors Continued from previous page.008 1.971 0.029 1.2364 1.3243.91 5.035 0.61 2.59 0.103 1.73 " " 2.00 4.4 1.030 1.927 0.37 0.25 1.4 27.95 4.29 1.12 " " " 5.24 1.00 1.04 6.52 2.073) 1) 2) 3) 4) 5) Failure mode Vσ governing.80 0.84 1.0 24.892 1.

830 0.895 0.38 2. Nylander (1983.011 1.996 0.998 1.275 0.3 24. 3d 2d 2) Overall yield with strain hardening.7 14.25 1.394 0.2 21.88 4.4 26. therefore not included in statistical evaluation.0 27.4 31.66 1.107 0.401 0.89 0.03 1.400 0.39 0.1 25.25 1.6 26.89 0.208 0.32 1.88 0.03 0.066 0.501 0. 1998) line load surface load Sundquist.18 1.050 0.784 0.400 0.55 4.8 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 % 0.063 1.399 0.395 0.7 40.64 " " 1.573 0.063 1.40 0.1 24.565 1.98 1.333 0.4 29.85 1.966 0.3 24.928 1.86 1.918 1.81 1.866 0.239 0.34 0.109 0.642 0.03 1.388 0.78 0. B-1 B-2 B-3 B-4 V-2 B-4/2 B-4/3 B-4/4 C-1 C-3 H-2 H-3 S1-H S1 S2 S3 S4 S7 S8 S9 S12 S13 S11 S14 LBU1 LBU2 LBU3 KBU1 KBU2 KSU1 KSU2 KSU3 Ti-1A Ti-2A Ti-3A Test results.041 1.9 25.430 0.08 1.46 " " " " 2.00 1.987 0.1 28.02 1.4 24.Table 2-5 Authors Test slab No.81 4.8 28.105 0.392 0.03 1.6 30.047 0.3 19.5 23.416 0.0 35.3 " " " " " " " 1.64 1.026 1.89 0.83 0. Kinnunen.6 40 28.413 0. Rostasy (1981) surface load 907 1405 1905 1845 1621 1839 1829 1863 633 2646 2255 2773 2249 1309 967 1021 994 532 880 881 959 727 1296 1035 1412 1859 1593 1784 1364 992 1053 1004 958 624 1407 1034 1493 2025 1865 1765 2050 2028 1853 859 2367 2234 3116 2368 1363 1015 1008 992 622 915 904 1049 803 1190 1103 1406 1725 1763 1607 1448 1039 1017 875 789 668 1356 Hallgren.4 26.094 1.5 27. 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 = 1.06 1.824 1.372 0.862 0.78 2.434 0.93 0.02 1. MPa 23.02 1.02 1.089 1.43 2.4 25.357 0. 40 .02 0.18 d mm 296 294 293 292 294 290 294 292 290 290 375 450 290 242 243 250 232 246 245 244 242 244 235 240 205 220 208 205 209 210 206 208 172 172 246 Line load c mm Slab width b mm 1500 " " " " " " " " " " " " Column size mm 300 " " " " " " " 150 450 300 " " φ250 " " " " " " " " Bσ d 1.032(1± 0.2 30.398 0.169 1.02 1.390 0.88 0.584 0.0 32.3 " " " " " " " 0.02 c−Bε 2d 1.7 36. column footings.7 29.124 1.8 28.071 0.03 1.40 1.095) D Bε 1) − for footing with surface load.991 1.7 29.88 4.053 1.901 1.8 25.82 1.1402 1.872 0.04 4.062 1.115 1.6 32.18 Vcalc kN Vtest kN Vtest Vcalc 1.995 1.79 0.6 28.659 0.805 0.040 1.02 1.964 Dieterle (1978) Dieterle.87 0.

3 26.66 1.80 0.27 4.0 28.0 28.20 1.94 0.14 1.993 0.806 0.80 1.40 4. Slab width 2750 mm with reinforcement over the whole width.94 1.15 1.99 d mm 120 120 120 121 119 121 122 125 120 119 121 120 120 119 200 201 200 169 168 230 225 220 267 150 c mm φ 1710 " " " " " column size mm φ 150 " " " " " φ 300 " " " " " " " φ 250 " " 200 φ 250 300 " " φ 500 250 Bσ d 1.165 5) 1.88 " " " " " " " 5.9 27.2 25.08 1.063) Bent bars as shear reinforcement.067 7) 1.417 6) Broms (1990b) Yamada et al (1992) Beutel.960 4) 4) 0.981 0.51 1. Vertical stirrups as shear reinforcement.22 1.0 27.998 0.753 1.806 0. Overall yield with strain hardening therefore not included in statistical evaluation.079 0.05 1. 62 63 64 65 66 67 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 1) 1) 1) 1) 2) 2) 1) 1) 1) 1) 1) 1) 2) 2) fcc MPa fsy MPa ρ % 0.38 " " 4.2 37.021 0.977 0.806 1.87 2.Table 2-6 Authors Test results.932 5) 1. Test slab No.71 0.30 400 " " " " 320 " " 300 7) 7) Krüger et al (2000) Hegger et al (2001) Z3 Z4 Z5 Z6 3) 3) 3) 3) 24.0 37.967 4) 1.986 0.50 " " " " " 5.072 7) 0.3 26.4 26.1 23.0 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) 0.35 3.970 0.919 0.4 26.897 0.4 27.9 29.0 36.53 " 164 " 190 190 190 190 190 220 220 230 121 1500 " φ 2400 " 8) " " " " " " 2750 300 " 2.50 " " " " " " " 1.33 " 2.66 3.6 36.3 40.036 0. 41 .007 4) 4) 4) 4) 4) 4) 4) 4) 4) 4) 4) 4) 4) 4) Andersson (1963) 26.981 0.950 0.5 92 91 85 26.42 1.5 23.860 0.05 0.40 3407 3428 3385 3337 1558 1720 1954 2071 1616 1646 2024 1954 1.8 20.80 0.08 " " " " 4.77 1.63 0.8 27. Studs as shear reinforcement.16 3.991 1.90 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 1.1 25.2 28.8 27.60 " " 9.85 " " 3.931 0.0 890 890 562 562 0.74 2.09 0.957 1.49 1. therefore not included in statistical evaluation.037 0.05 0. 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 " " 1.301 1.41 1.930 0.07 1.806 0.40 4.70 1.27 0.81 6.06 1.80 4.78 0.4 40.25 250 " " " φ 2400 " 9) " " φ 200 φ 200 φ 263 φ 200 0.2 46.965 0.8 37.23 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 0.991 1.36 4. Slab width 3000 mm with reinforcement over the whole width.7 568 " 550 550 550 550 550 550 550 550 500 1.80 1. High capacity due to “ductility reinforcement”.806 0.25 " " " " " 2.58 3.12 1.944 1) 2) 3) 4) 5) 6) 7) 8) 9) Mean value Vtest/Vcalc = 0.962 0.82 1.74 1. not included in statistical evaluation.993 0.18 0.959 5) 0.033 0.5 28.0 29.0 21. flat plates with shear reinforcement.12 c−Bε 2d 6.071 0.891 0.68 " " " " 1.3 37.14 1. Failure outside shear reinforcement.978 1. Extremely high shear reinforcement ratio.50 " 5.993(1± 0.71 1.826 1.3 26.25 1.983 0.

3 6.93 1.0 10.80 1.28 1.3 27.Table 2-7 Tangential concrete strain and deflection at punching.97 1.0 13.21 3.3 26.8 5.8 29.7 27.80 0.22 3.00 2.0 3.5 9.79 1. Hegger (2000) Krüger et al (2000) PP0B 2) 37.2 2.42 2.5 45.66 1.0 5.65 1.30 2.2 22.9 26. Specimen fcc MPa 26.3 35 25 14 Hassanzadeh (1996) Hassanzadeh (1998) Beutel.80 0.6 26.1 9.6 10.80 0.2 1.82 0.4 26.88 45.89 2.34 0.7 12.3 34.0 13.8 1. 3) Calculated deflection at calculated punching load.4 HSC0 HSC1 HSC2 HSC3s 1) HSC4 HSC5s 1) HSC7s 1) HSC9 N/HSC8 NS B1 P2-II 2) P6-I 2) 28.5 9.5 16.2 8.64 1.33 0.45 1. 42 .64 1.2 9.1 5.35 0.5 30 10 16 33 29 13.71 0.1 1.1 26.2 2.7 1.1 34.55 1.64 2.5 12.09 0.1 22.0 18.2 1.0 δ test mm 13.94 1.77 1.1 18.6 22.40 3.2 11.1 S2. 2) Vertical stirrups as shear reinforcement.2 90 91 86 92 92 91 85 84 95 29.80 0.1 S1.1 23.5 27.0 12.49 0.27 3.7 13.0 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) 0.58 1.17 1.8 26.4 27.9 16.8 2.80 0.26 2.45 1.21 2.09 1.04 3.1 12.31 0.0!! 3.1 25.80 0.6 29.72 3.93 1.50 3.4 27.2 S1.98 1.5 22.80 0.04 0.806 1.0 8.76 2.25 3.18 0.8 2.34 0.2 S2. Comparison with test results.0 17.8 36 1) Bent bars as shear reinforcement.9 24.01 1.3 S2.4 1.4 10.3 S1.8 26.9 11.0 17.38 2.8 46.5 16.18 3.2 26.6 25.22 1.0 Hallgren (1996) 13.4 25.06 1.6 28.4 Sundquist (1977) Tolf (1988) D 1) E 1) S1.4 2.9 10.4 24.0!! δ calc 3) mm 10.8 9.17 1.6 Authors ρ % ε cpu ·103 1.35 4.0 19.05 0.80 0.00 ε test·103 1.0 28.3 4.5 26.15 2.2 14.5 15.2 1.5 10.2 26.48 0.47 1.2 9.82 1.3 0.7 12.38 3.5 19.2 28.1 27.8 5.7 17.5 28.15 3.46 1.4 13.753 1.0 11.19 1.71 Andersson (1963) 4.08 1.5 7.4 25.31 2.63 0.7 11.67 1.25 1.3 40.8 20.0 1.4 S2.41 1.81 0.35 0.7 4.

5. cube and fck ≤ 48 MPa f ctk ≈ 0.19( f ck ) 3 ⋅ [1 − 0. Vu = f v2 ⋅ d (4a + π d ) for square columns . Vu = f v2 ⋅ π d ⋅ (B + d ) for circular columns f v2 = ξ (1 + 50 ρ ) ⋅ 0.19( f ck ) 3 with f ck = 0. A control section with four straight sides is permitted for square and rectangular columns.200 d with d in (m) Ultimate punching capacity according to BBK 04 The control section is placed 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.8 f c. Punching is assumed to occur when the shear stress at a control section on a certain distance from the column reaches a critical value. Vu = f v2 ⋅ 4d ⋅ (a + d ) for square columns .5d from the column edge.6 − d for 0.45 ⋅ f ctk with ρ ≤ 0.5 ⋅ 0.008( f ck − 48)] with f ck = 0. Vu = f v ⋅ π d ⋅ (B + 4d ) for circular columns f v = 1.5 m f ctk ≈ 0.12 ⋅ ξ ⋅ (100 ρ ⋅ f ck ) 3 . Model Code 90 and BBK 04. These codes treat punching as a form of shear failure.01 ξ = 1.2.8 f c. Vu = f v ⋅ d (4a + 4 π d ) for square columns . Ultimate punching capacity according to ACI 318-02 The control section is placed at the distance 0.5 d outside the column edge. 1 (upper limit for fck = 80 MPa disregarded in Table 2-8) ξ = 1+ 0. cube and 48< fck ≤ 64 MPa 2 2 43 .2 ≤ d ≤ 0.4 Code predictions The recorded ultimate loads for flat plates shown in Table 2-4 are in Table 2-8 compared to ultimate load predictions according to the design codes ACI 318-02.

5) for brittle punching failure mode.2·1.4 for d ≤ 0.6 ) / 0.2 m according to BBK 04.07 Model Code 90 predicts the ultimate capacity with a small scatter.67 for the European Code. BBK 04 displays a larger scatter and a very conservative estimate of the ultimate capacity. No comparison is made for column footings because the code provisions seem to be unrealistic for compact slabs. 44 . All values for Vu are intended to reflect the ultimate capacity according to the different codes. 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.The size effect factor ξ is in design taken as 1. The corresponding values are 1.2 m.2 m.5 for Model Code 90. since the design strength instead of the ultimate strength is given in this code.3. 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 load factors are 1. The Swedish load factors are 1. The strength reduction factors in design differ also. because the code considers neither the strength increase with increasing flexural reinforcement ratio nor the strength reduction with increasing specimen size. In order to get realistic evaluation of test specimens with d less than 0.0 and 1.35 + 1.5 = 2.87 γ = 0.3)1.2 + 1. which is compensated by the strength reduction factor 1/(1.5(1.75 = 1.5 = 0. The American Code displays the largest scatter.14 γ = 0. the expression for ξ is assumed valid also for d < 0.35 and 1.5(1.5 = 2.0 + 1.75 for the American Code and 1/1. which is no wonder because the code expressions are based on regression analysis of a large amount of test results.6 for live load according to ACI 318-02.2 ⋅ 1. That is why fv is multiplied by 1.2 for dead load and 1.5(1.5)1.5 for Model Code 90. They are 0.

358 1. Nylander (1960) φ150 " φ300 " " " Moe (1961) Schaeidt et al (1970) Marti et al (1977) Pralong et al (1979) Kinnunen.130 0.6 25.0 26.493 1.339 1.511 1.978 1.8 28.2 515 1.456 1.362 45 .517 1.35 100 99 200 199 98 99 200 197 φ1190 " φ2380 " φ1190 " φ2380 " φ125 " φ250 " φ125 " φ250 " 216 194 603 600 145 148 489 444 1.672 1.2 22.618 1.211 1.050 1. BBK 04.495 1.00 3.395 2) 2) 2) 2) 1.0 36.80 0.416 1.973 1.9 24.971 0.867 0.34 0.04 0.3 26.3 S1.576 1.6 22. For explanations see next page.34 154 φ2600 φ300 569 1.064 1.2 29.8 26.430 1.866 Kinnunen.9 26.44 145 φ2600 φ300 600 1.7 43.619 1.1 27.037 0.5 fsy MPa 332 " " " 321 " " " " " 332 321 " 294 324 321 303 341 325 441 454 455 451 448 462 328 481 555 ρ % 1.1 26.229 1.904 0. 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 " " " " " 1.48 1.80 0.862 1.822 1.74 " " 1.017 0.5 26.989 1.4 S2.Table 2-8 Authors Test slab No. Tolf (1980) Tolf (1988) 1780 " φ2650 152 305 φ500 P-2 34.01 2.541 1.966 0.4 24.574 619 4680 φ800 4915 0.509 1.2 S2.504 1.663 1.748 1.881 1.899 0.300 1.31 d mm 118 " " " 114 " " " " " 118 114 " 121 114 " " " " 117 118 128 124 123 125 114 " 240 c mm size mm 254 " " " " " " " " " 356 " " " 254 " " " " kN 365 356 351 356 400 467 512 445 534 547 400 534 498 236 178 200 334 505 578 255 275 430 408 258 258 311 433 1694 ACI 318-02 MC 90 BBK 04 Elstner.554 0. Column Vtest Vtest /Vcalc fcc MPa 25.130 1. Model Code 90.987 0.585 S1 30.945 0.6 47.4 25.5 34.493 1.020 1.015 1.337 1.35 0.993 1.1 S2.051 1.523 1.16 " " " 2.8 25. Nylander.963 1.5 26.6 621 0.50 3.80 0.938 1.774 1.80 0.276 1.088 1.004 0.862 2.6 26.348 1.365 1.5 37.921 1.954 0.8 20.6 26.064 0.9 22.2 47.398 1.02 0.4 27.714 1.3 19.089 1.029 0.706 0.505 2) 2) 2) 2) 1.644 1.2 14.478 2) 2) 1.815 1.493 P-5 26.50 " " 3.673 1.2 S1.736 1.085 2) 2) 0.926 0.2 706 701 657 670 720 712 668 664 0.522 2) 2) 1.476 " 1.937 0.241 1.3 S2.927 0.81 0.635 1.1 25.663 1.687 S1.34 0.854 1.731 1.49 0.1 S1.50 1.4 28.973 0.79 1.74 0.9 50.367 1.361 1.38 1.6 558 1.040 1.18 2.018 1.5 20.050 1.458 1. Observed ultimate loads of flat plate specimens compared to predictions according to the codes ACI 318-02.966 1.852 1.2 26.417 1.579 1.01 1.028 1.806 2) 2) 2) 2) 0.

916 1.37 0.949 0.015 1.80 0.327 1.41(1± 0.086 1.064 0. Overall yield with membrane action and strain hardening. Hussein (1991) 2) 0.152 1. 46 .058 1.077 1.898 Vtest /Vcalc ACI 318-02 MC 90 BBK 04 Marzouk.451 1.054 1.82 1.49 " " 2.500 1.94 1.0 24. Authors Test slab No.19 1.004 1.916 1.80 0.078 0.55 1.62 " " " 1.536 4 4) 4) 4) 4) 4) 4) 4) 4) 4) 4) 4) 4) 2) 4) 0.134 1.150 1.52 2.046 1.15) Compare thesis: Mean value Vtest / Vcalc = 1.80 0.214 4) 4) 1) 1) 1) 1.19 0.355 4) 1.506 1.380 1.64 0.874 3) 3) 3) 1.877 1.961 1.cube) is larger than 64 MPa (= upper limit according to BBK 04).64 100 100 125 φ 1190 " " φ 250 φ 250 φ 125 270 250 265 1.4 27.111 2) 1.47 2. HS 1 HS 2 HS 3 HS 4 HS 5 HS 6 HS 7 HS 8 HS 9 HS 10 HS 11 HS 12 HS 13 HS 14 HS 15 NS 1 NS 2 65-1-1 95-1-1 115-1-1 95-1-3 65-2-1 95-2-1D 95-2-1 115-2-1 95-2-3 95-2-3D 95-2-3D+ 115-2-3 95-3-1 fcc MPa 67 70 69 66 68 70 74 69 74 80 70 75 68 72 71 42 30 64 84 112 90 70 88 87 119 90 80 98 108 85 90 91 86 92 104 84 95 21 fsy MPa 490 " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " 500 " " " 500 " " " " " " " " 643 627 620 596 633 634 631 569 ρ % 0.924 0.024 0.186 1.80 0.018 1.75 " " " 2.023 1.608 1.02(1± 0.10) 1.021(1± 0.852 1.047 1.49 0.17) 1.8 fc.84 1.082 1) 1) 1) 1.030 0.786 2) 1.984 1.889 3) 3) 3) 3) 3) 3) 3) 3) 3) 3) 3) 3) 3) 3) 3) 3) 3) 2) 3) 1.944 3) 3) 3) 3) 3) 3) 3) 3) 3) 3) 3) 1.80 d mm 95 " " 90 125 120 95 120 " " 70 " " 95 " " 120 275 " " " 200 " " " 200 " " " 88 200 200 194 200 201 202 198 190 c mm 1500 " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " 2500 " " " 2200 " " " 2200 " " " 1100 φ2400 " " " " " " φ2400 Column size mm 150 " " " " " " " " " " " " 220 300 150 " 200 " " " 150 " " " 150 " " " 100 φ250 " " " " " " 400 Vtest kN 178 249 356 418 365 489 356 436 543 645 196 258 267 498 560 320 396 2050 2250 2450 2400 1200 1100 1300 1400 1450 1250 1450 1550 330 965 1021 889 1041 960 565 944 615 2) 0.053 1.33 0.2 718 " " 0.80 0.011 2) 0. therefore not included in the statistical evaluation.61 2.60(1± 0.161 1.469 1.94 1.Table 2-8 Continued from previous page.11 1.550 1.84 0.047 0.472 4) 4) 4) 1.646 1.33 0.00 1. fcc (= 0.073) 1) 2) 3) 4) Not included in the statistical evaluation due to the small effective depth 70 mm.95 1.147 Tomaszewicz (1993) Hallgren (1996) HSC0 HSC1 HSC2 HSC4 HSC6 HSC9 N/HSC8 Ožbolt et al (2000) Sundquist.211 1. fcc is larger than 69 MPa (= upper limit according to ACI 318-02).791 Mean value Vtest / Vcalc = 1.939 1.592 1.977 1. Kinnunen (2004b) C1 C2 D1 24.381 1.60 0.47 " " 0.245 1.

3. Therefore. the lateral displacement between stories caused by wind or earthquake. 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.125qL2 47 . When caused by gravity loading or story drift. however.e. That bending moment is.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. which cannot be estimated as accurately as for a beam-column frame. i. normally a statically indeterminate quantity. As described previously. However. a safer concept is proposed here – imposed rotation of the column in relation to the slab (or vice versa). 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. no generally accepted method for assessment of the unbalanced moment seems to exist. 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. Conservative results are achieved if the column is considered stiff in relation to the slab. An unbalanced moment is thereby considered partly transferred by “eccentricity of shear”. 3.2 Introduction Due to shortcomings of the code approach. another concept is proposed here – imposed slab rotation in relation to the column. 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.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. This means that a flexural hinge forms at the column. Both the imposed rotation and the rotation capacity of a flat plate can be assessed with good accuracy. A simple example may describe the principle: Study the first interior column of a flat plate structure with equal span widths in both directions.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. The column is assumed stiff in relation to the slab: m = 0.

The sector elements between the radial flexural cracks will then deflect with varying fictitious deflection ∆ in relation to the column as shown in Figure 3-2. The fan-type crack pattern at concentric loading is assumed to remain when the column is forced to rotate. 48 . The torsional resistance of the sector elements is considered negligible. I= h3 L3 = 12 12 ⋅ 32 3 6 2 h L =1 32 E = 10⋅10 kN/m2 θ = ∆m ⋅ L 0.125 − 0. the slab shall be able to resist an imposed slab rotation in relation −3 to the column equal to 3.107 ) qL2 = 0.3 Approximate theory of elasticity Figure 3-1 depicts a common test set-up for eccentric punching. 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.∆m = (0. H H V c Figure 3-1 Test set-up for eccentric punching.018 ⋅ 15 ⋅ L3 = ⋅ 12 ⋅ 32 3 = 3. 3. This assumption will be evaluated later in this chapter. It resembles the one used for concentric punching described in Chapter 2.018qL2 q = 15 kN/m .5 ⋅ 10 −3 7 3 3EI 3 ⋅ 10 ⋅ L In this simplified example.5⋅10 radians. The influence of the unbalanced moment is supposed to be mainly concentrated to the close vicinity of the column and therefore the same specimen size as for concentric loading seems to be a reasonable choice.

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 ⋅ . The support reaction of the sector elements is proportional to their deflection. The total reaction R for each half of the specimen is R=∫ π R0 ⋅ sinϕ c R ⋅ dϕ = 0 π⋅c 2 π 0 (3.1) The quantity R is consequently the total shear force that is transferred to the each half of the column due to the column rotation.M ϕ c M θ R0 sin ϕ πc ∆ sinϕ Figure 3-2 Definition of parameters. 2 π⋅c 2 2 4π 2 8 0 π M u = R0 ⋅ c 4 (3.2) 49 .

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

There is a difference. it does not consider the local effects of force transfer from the column to the slab or vice versa.5) ∴ θ 2 2π = = 0. θ 1 4π θ = θ 1 + θ 2 = 1 .10 ⋅ θ ⋅ EI (for a/L = 0.5 Mu 2 π EI (3. In-plane forces in the slab therefore balance the compression struts.4 Model for eccentric punching of flat plates The model described in the previous section only reflects the global elastic behaviour of the system. Circumferential cracking around the column isolates other reinforcement bars from participating in the moment transfer.2 ⋅ θ ⋅ EI Compare Aalami (1972) who used the theory of elasticity for an isotropic thin plate to derive M u. 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.7) M u = 4. Figure 3-4 shows a possible load path for these effects. el = 4.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 (3.05) (3.8) 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. Any transfer of unbalanced moment by “eccentricity of shear” in the slab is neglected. 3.6) (3. Such force effects should be regarded as fictitious quantities that in reality are replaced by the two horizontal compression struts. however. 51 . The horizontal compression strut forces in the slab are larger than the tension tie forces from the reinforcement that passes through the column.5 .

Corresponding forces act on the positive slab half. 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.tie system. The half of the slab where the unbalanced moment causes additional tension in the top reinforcement for negative moment in the slab is denoted “the negative slab half”. 52 . Figure 3-5 The slab resists unbalanced moment by radial concrete compression and tangential reinforcement. The radial compression stress near the column is consequently much larger than at concentric gravity loading. 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.0.5 M u 0. A sector element in the negative slab half is depicted in Figure 3-5.5 M u Figure 3-4 Unbalanced moment transfer by strut-and. The opposite half where the unbalanced moment can cause tension in the bottom reinforcement of the slab is consequently called “the positive slab half”.

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

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

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

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

761 " 1.032 B5NP 28.34 / 0.566 0. Test slab No.75 0.669 1. Park (1976) Elgabry.6CH 14CH 6CL 14CL h = 152 Mean value Compare Thesis: Mean value Vtest / Vcalc = 1.989 1.878 0.988 0.0 Column size mm 305 " 254 " " " " 305 ACI 318 MC 90 BBK 04 Vtest / Vcalc 1.05 / 1.6AH 14AH 6AL 9.487 SM0.659 1. Ghali (1987) Pan .344 1.692 1.873 0.6 MPa 481 " 327 " " " " 398 1.545 1.190 1.2 21.0 22.331 1.911 1.40 / 0.512 1.05 / 0.7 30.0 SM 1.7 484 " 472 415 420 472 415 420 472 472 415 472 472 415 472 415 420 472 420 0.50 1.3BL 9.2 19.50 1.5 47.336 0.946 0.065 1.5 18.407 1.380 1.239 0.396 1.674 1.9 27.211 1.75 0.42 / 0.83 " 1.141 1.195 1.095 1.772 0.982 0.93 (1± 0.5BL 14.51 (1± 0.7 28. Comparison with code predictions.34 / 0.3001 1.8 29.438 1.40 / 0.20) AP1 AP3 6AH 9.63 0.922 0.968 0.Table 3-2 Authors Moe (1961) Unbalanced moment test results.5BH 14.077 1. 61 .35 1.8 33.542 1.851 0.9 476 " " 374 0.216 1.34 / 0.50 / 0.2BH h = 114 7.4 57. Moehle (1989) Hawkins et al (1989) L1 1.57 Narasimhan (1971) Ghali et al (1974) Ghali et al (1976) Islam.876 1.063 1 1.28 0.952 0.50 1.42 / 0.4061 1.7941 0.53 / 0.834 0.13) h=152 14AL 7.909 0.1 26.7 49.251 1.3 345 1.517 1.827 0.907 1.6AL 29.0 6 / 0.8 254 1.950 1.152 1.936 0.977 0.404 1.60 / 0.83 " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " 274 " 305 " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " 1.393 1.2BL 6CH 9.521 1.28 0.3BH 9.279 1.803 0.777 1.5 2 36.933 1.652 1.5 SM1.73 / 0. MPa M2 M3 M6 M7 M8 M9 M10 25.48 1.837 0.334 1.39 / 1.006(1± 0.63 1.95 / 0.842 0.95 / 0.57 1.5 25.566 1.8 " " 1.60 / 0.28 1.783 1.809 0. not included in statistical evaluation.40 / 0.9 31.28 0.338 0.05 2.537 1.394 1.96 / 0.3 22.805 1 2.0 114 152 " " " " " 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 " 1.78 " " " " " " 2.39 1.383 1 35 452 1.0 20.926 1.223 1.4 39.143 305 " " 229 0.53 1.73 / 0.029 0.889 0.46 1.7 22.0121 1.5 52.53 1.63 0.20) 1.949 0.96 / 0.664 1.48 1.407 1.63 0.985 0.29 " 0.8 305 1.639 Vtest / Vcalc 0.024 0.991 1.186 0.010 0.07 / 0.302 1.0 fcc fsy ρ / ρc % d h mm c m 1.40 / 0.23 (1± 0.978 1.7 31.40 0.0 24.40 0.245 Vtest / Vcalc 1.397 1.58 / 0.60 / 0.131 0.86 / 0.3 30.8 26.146 1.112) 1) Cyclic loading.194 1.160 0.96 / 0.006 1.60 / 0.6 23.18 1.34 / 0.3 31.0 1.1 20.279 1.242 2.914 0.2 54.

(3. the actual rotation can be determined with good precision by means of standard methods as indicated in Section 3.31) is recommended.2. When δ ε approaches or exceeds δy2 (at low reinforcement ratios). The punching deflection δ ε can always be determined without any iteration. The code ACI 318-02 for instance allows flat plates to be designed according to the “Equivalent Frame Method”.10). (3.4). (3.33) 62 . (3. The calculation procedure is laborious and is only included here for verification of the model.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. flat plates should be checked for rotation capacity rather than unbalanced moment capacity.32) becomes very conservative. In that case the more exact Eq.33) to (3. These shortcomings are overcome with the approach described in Section 3.13): Mu = θ ⎛ ⎛c⎞ B⎞ 12⎜ ln⎜ ⎟ − 1 + ⎟ ⎜ c⎟ 1 ⎝B⎠ ⎠ ⎝ + 3 2 π ⋅ k I ⋅ EI π ⋅ E c10 ⋅ h (3. as proposed in Section 3. 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.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. This approach may seem elegant. The rotation capacity was derived in Section 3. see also Chapter 4. then Eq. (3. Vε and δ ε are output values from the concentric punching check described in Chapter 2.31) or more conveniently as θu = (3.3.10) and Mu taken as the lowest value according to Eqs. and (3.32) with kI according to Eq.4. An upper bound for the unbalanced moment can be assessed by combining Eqs. which introduces a torsional member between the slab and the column to simulate the flexible force transfer of unbalanced moment between column and slab. Many methods have been proposed to solve the problem of estimating a design value for the unbalanced moment – with limited success. (3. conservatively expressed as θu = 2 δε ⎛ δV ⎜1 − ⋅ kI c − B ⎜ δε ⎝ 2 δε ⎛ V ⎜ 1− ⋅ ⎜ k I c − B ⎝ Vε ⎞ 12M u ⎛ c B⎞ ⎟ − + ln 1 ⎜ ⎟ ⎟+ 3 c⎠ ⎠ π ⋅ Ec10 ⋅ h ⎝ B ⎞ 12M u ⎛ c B⎞ ⎟ ⎜ ln − 1 + ⎟ ⎟+ 3 c⎠ ⎠ π ⋅ Ec10 ⋅ h ⎝ B (3. The reason for this is two-fold. 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.4. However.37). it is not intended for use in the design office.

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 ( ) (3.37) where h = slab thickness [m] and a = column width. 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. 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 (3.34) 2. 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: 1.36) 4.However. 63 . The punching failure load limits the unbalanced moment according to the lesser of Mu1a and Mu1b that are derived from Eq.150 ⎞ 3 ⋅⎜ ⎟ ⎝ 0. 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 ⋅ (3.5h ⎠ 1 (3. the flexural yield capacity of the slab. 3. (3.

It is also evident that flat plates with moderate reinforcement ratio can resist large imposed column rotations.5·539 = 970 kN with a required reinforcement ratio ρ = 0. h = 0.8 m.4. The span width is 7. (c = 2.04 0.20 m.0 m and the effective depth is 0.01 0 V 500 1000 1500 kN Figure 3-9 Column rotation capacity versus reinforcement ratio. The factored uniformly distributed load in an office building would typically be 11 kN/m² (with Swedish load factors).8 % according to Figure 3-9 (interior column with θ = 0).03 ρ= 06 0.23 m. fck =30 MPa. L = 7. ρ’ = 0. column 0.5ρ) 64 .5 m².0 08 0. which was found experimentally already by Ghali et al (1976). The column reaction would then be 11·7.5x0.0 10 0. The figure demonstrates that it may be unfavourable to add support reinforcement in a flat plate in order to resist imposed column rotation due to for instance pattern loading. and such flat plates may display no reduction in punching capacity when subjected to imposed column rotation.2·1.The ultimate rotation capacity for a slender flat plate structure versus reinforcement ratio and column size is displayed in Figure 3-9. which is derived from the “exact” expressions in Section 3. fsy=420 MPa.0 12 0.0 0 0.02 0.02 = 539 kN.20 m corresponding to a slenderness L/d equal to 35.0 m. θu 0. d = 0. which corresponds to a required ultimate punching capacity 1.

4 Design This Chapter demonstrates how the presented theory shall be applied for design of flat plates. which is applicable if the probable failure mode is brittle. where L is the span width. In Sweden this factor should be γn·γm = 1.2. (3. 4.2 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.4L.1 Design of support reinforcement at square panels In design.2 will then give correct results for interior columns in flat plates with square panels if c is taken as 0. where the factor γn = 1. The flat plate structure is divided into strips in accordance with Figure 4-1.32) shall be divided by the strength reduction factor γn·γm to derive the design value of the rotation capacity at factored loading.31) and (3.8. It is therefore essential that this bending moment be estimated in a correct way. The bending moments per unit width in the strips are calculated according to the theory of elasticity with due respect paid to the effect of pattern loading. where c/2 is the distance from the column to the line where the radial bending moment is zero.5 = 1. The design punching capacity is then taken as the calculated ultimate punching capacity divided by the applicable strength reduction factor for concrete.2 corresponds to Swedish safety class 3. The equations in Section 2. The negative strip moments can normally be determined for full load on all bays. 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.2·1. Comparison is made with current structural design codes. The bending moment distribution near the column is assumed polar-symmetric within a circle with the diameter c. The basic case – a flat plate structure with square panels – is treated in Section 2. 4. 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. Each strip is assumed pin-supported on the columns and the lines of zero shear for the perpendicular strips bound the strip laterally. 65 . The quantities Vε and δ ε in Eqs. The design rotation capacity is calculated in a similar manner.

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

2).2) V ⎛ Bε ⎞ ⎜1 − ⎟ 2π ⎝ c ⎠ The bending moment within the column strip. The average bending moment msc within the column strip with width 0. is identical to the average bending moment within the circle with diameter c according to Chapter 2. B c m r =0 m=− Figure 4-2 Fan-type yield lines.4) 67 .Let us first study the basic case. The average bending moment msm within the remaining width – the middle strip – is determined by the conditions of moment equilibrium. (4. msc.3) V ⎞ ⎛ Bε ⎞ ⎛ ⎜1 − ⎟ + ⎜ ms + ⎟ c ⎠ ⎝ 12 ⎠ ⎝ V ⎞ ⎛ msm = −0. the part of the strip moment ms that exceeds the bending moment m = msc = − V 2π V shall be evenly distributed over the width w: 12 (4. more reinforcement will be required within the column strip than corresponding to the average bending moment according to Eq. Since punching normally occurs before all reinforcement reaches the yield limit. 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 = − ⋅ 0.033V 12 12 2π (4. a continuous flat plate with square panels.6 w → msm = −0.4w corresponds to the fan-type yield line depicted in Figure 4-2.033V + ⎜ ms + ⎟ 12 ⎠ ⎝ (4. V 2π ⎛ B⎞ ⎜1 − ⎟ c⎠ ⎝ In the general case with rectangular slab panels.1) (4.4 w + msm ⋅ 0.

5 kNm/m msc = − 622 ⎛ 471 ⎞ ⎜1 − ⎟ = −74.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.7 kNm/m 2 π ⎝ 1920 ⎠ 68 .8 kNm/m (in the long direction) 12 4. ms = −12 7.5 kNm/m 471 ⎞ 622 ⎛ ⎜1 − ⎟ = −82. c = 0.88 m 8 = −0.2 and 4.8 + ⎟ = −46.5 kNm/m 12 ⎠ ⎝ 622 ⎛ 471 ⎞ ⎛ 622 ⎞ msc = − ⎜1 − ⎟ + ⎜ − 77. Interior panel of a flat plate with span width 7. Example 1. which for instance occurs when 12 ⎠ ⎝ L1 < L2 .4.2 = 2.2 m in both directions.2 2 = −77. Column size 400x400 mm Total factored load 18 kN/m2 ms = −18 ms = −18 7.2 2 = 622 kN Bε = msm 3π 400 = 471 mm .8 m in the two directions. Column size = 400x400 mm Total factored load = 12 kN/m2.4 ⋅ 7.2 ⋅ 4.8 = 1.8 + ⎟ = −100.8 kNm/m 12 V = 12 ⋅ 7.6 kNm/m (in the short direction) 12 V = 18 ⋅ 7.033 ⋅ 622 + ⎜ − 77.2 2 = −51.7 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 7.92 m Bε = 3π 400 = 471 mm 8 in the long direction : 622 ⎞ ⎛ msm = −0.033 ⋅ 622 = −20.8 2 = −34.8 = 622 kN c = 0.4.033 ⋅ 622 = −20.

25a) 4. in cases where the required flexural reinforcement ratio differs in the two directions. Therefore. when full loading is applied on all panels of the flat plate structure. (4. Eq.1. 69 . it was demonstrated that the bending moment at the column plays a decisive role for the punching capacity. the punching capacity shall be checked for each direction separately.23a) m1 = tangential moment at column edge (2.23) and (2.07qL2 for exterior panels.5. 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. (2.3) for the negative bending moment at the column presupposes that the midspan flexural moment per unit width is at least qL2/24 for interior panels and 0.25) – when checking the punching capacity according to Chapter 2.(4. It is then evident that it cannot be correct to check the punching capacity of Example 2 presupposing a relation between bending moment and column reaction valid for square panels as in Nylander and Kinnunen (1990). It can be shown that Eq. In Section 2. The average bending moment within the column strip in the long direction in Example 2 is approximately 22 % larger than for the flat plate with square panels in Example 1.3) yields a very good estimate of the average bending moment within the width 0.The column reactions in the two examples are identical (622 kN). however. The bending moments at the column differ.4 w according to the theory of elasticity for 1 < L1/L2 < 2. These static equilibrium conditions can be checked in accordance with Figure 4-3. The quantity m 1 A= s − shall therefore be added to all expressions for bending moments – as for V 12 instance Eqs.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.

6 L L 0.75 L L Figure 4-3 Static equilibrium and compatibility conditions.2 L Exterior panel ψ 0. The inclination ψ pu is determined from Eq.6 L ε sf f ′′ ⋅ L0 = 3 3 d − xf d − xf L (4. (2.25 L ψ 3 L 0 = 0. If some or all reinforcement yields before punching then the inclination ψ pu is determined from δε according to Eq.7) εsf = midspan reinforcement strain ψ pu = slab inclination at the distance c/2 from the column when punching occurs ⎞ ⎛ 2 ⎟ xf = dnρ f ⎜ ⎜ 1 + nρ − 1⎟ f ⎠ ⎝ ρ f = midspan reinforcement ratio.27) if punching occurs without any reinforcement yielding.2 L L 0 = 0. (2. Interior panels ψ pu = 1 0.8) .43): ψ pu = δ ε 2 c − Bε 70 (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.Interior panel ψ curvature with parabolic variation ψ 0.

The design strength for these two codes is therefore divided by 1.If the strain in the midspan reinforcement εsf corresponds to a flexural moment larger than qL2/24 and 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 (4.1 Swedish Code for Concrete Structures.2 m ξ = 1. The opposite is valid if the strain in the midspan reinforcement corresponds to a flexural moment less than qL2/24 or 0. then the design is safe because the negative flexural moment would be less than given by Eq. (4. Additional midspan reinforcement has then to be provided until the described equilibrium and compatibility conditions are fulfilled.6 . (4.2 in the Figures 4-4 to 4-6 in order to make them comparable with the Swedish approach.4d for 0.0 m ≤ d ρ is the reinforcement ratio within the circle with diameter c and ρ is limited to maximum 0.5 m ξ = 1.10) ξ is a size-effect factor ξ = 1.2 m ≤ d ≤ 0.4 Comparison with Codes The theory is in Figure 4-4 compared to some common codes for design of flat plates.0 and 1. 4.9 for 1. BBK 04 f v2 = ξ (1 + 50 ρ )0.4. 71 . The Swedish load factors are 1.d for 0.07qL2 respectively.3 for dead load and live load respectively.10).0 m ξ = 0. The midspan reinforcement is usually designed for the effect of pattern loading.4 for d ≤ 0.01 in Eq.5 m ≤ d ≤ 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 average load factors for the two codes Model Code 90 and ACI 318-02 are approximately 20 % larger.9) 4.3 – 0. The chosen notations are identical for all the codes: V R = f v2 ⋅ u ⋅ d where VR = fv2 = u= d= design punching capacity two-way shear strength length of control perimeter at the distance 0. the design provisions of which is briefly summarized hereunder.07qL2 respectively.5d from the column average effective depth (4.3) and the punching capacity would be larger than calculated.

11) (4. It is described in detail in Hallgren (1996).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. it gives false information about the punching failure mode and secondly it cannot be applied to compact structures such as footings. The control perimeter is – as in most other codes – proposed to be placed 0. however.3 Model Code 1990. The deficiency can be overcome. 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 90.14) (4. MC 90 The Model Code 90 defines the punching shear capacity along a control perimeter at the distance 2d from the column edge.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). 4.4.5d outside the column edge: u = π(B+d) for circular columns and u = 4a + πd for square columns 4.5 γn = safety class related strength reduction factor = 1.16) ξ = 1+ f v2 = 200 d u +α ⋅d ⋅ f v1 ≤ 2. if the approach proposed in Paper III is applied.15) (4.5d from the column edge (instead of 2d) and the punching shear strength – also called the two-way shear strength – is taken as the one-way shear strength multiplied by a correction factor.4. Firstly. where the control perimeter would fall outside the structure.5 f v1 u u = 4a + π d u = π (B + d ) α = 3π 72 . f v1 = 0. 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 = 1.2 for safety class 3 (= brittle failure mode) The control perimeter is placed 0.13) (4. This is unfortunate for two reasons.12) (4.

Gardner et al (2000). 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. However. The very simple expression in BBK 04 for punching capacity seems to reflect the influence of the reinforcement ratio in a correct way.19) (4.5d outside the column edge.5 Code comparison Hallgren (1996) found that Model Code 1990 predicts punching test results with very good accuracy. The code expressions are purely empirical.4. However. the following conclusions can be drawn. 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. In such cases the code provisions will result in structures with a low safety against punching.18) u + 20d ⋅ f v1 ≤ 2 f v1 u The control perimeter is placed 0. only depending on the square root of the compression strength and independent of reinforcement ratio and size effect.4. based on regression analysis of many test results.75 for punching and shear failure and 0.20) Furthermore.80 for flexural failure. 73 . The code overestimates the punching capacity at low reinforcement values. 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 code ACI 318-02 gives a single value for the punching shear strength.4 Building Code Requirements for Structural Concrete. This is probably the reason why the code provisions for punching still are considered appropriate in USA. The strength reduction factor is 0. 4.9. 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. If these two curves are assumed to represent the true design punching strength. The Handbook method overestimates the punching capacity for reinforcement ratios exceeding 0. here and in other evaluations. Figure 4-4.4.7 %. which even has been a partial cause of a serious progressive collapse with many casualties. the resulting safety factor is unnecessarily high and the limit 1 % for the reinforcement ratio seems to be too cautious.17) (4. ACI 318-02 f v1 = f v2 = 1 6 f ck (4. a reduction factor is given when the aspect ratio of a rectangular column is larger than 2. the ACI code is also used in many other parts of the world where practice often calls for thicker slabs with less reinforcement.

VR kN 1000 5 3 4 2 1 1.6 m. fck = 24 MPa.6 m.015 ρ Figure 4-4 Code comparison. 5. 74 . BBK 04 MC 90/1. 3.2 Thesis/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.5·1.21) (ACI 318-02) (4. 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 ⋅ 1.005 0.010 0. even for the part of the curves where the flexural yield capacity governs. This is discussed in the following. The design capacity is then derived from the theoretical ultimate capacity by division with the strength reduction factors for concrete and safety class 3.5 12 (fan type yield lines) (4. a = 0. 2. If δε < δy2 (at normal to high reinforcement ratios) then it is obvious that the capacity is punching-controlled. Design capacity at concentric punching versus flexural reinforcement ratio.22) Figure 4-4 reveals an inconsistency with the curves 3 and 4 for the Thesis and the Handbook.2 500 0 0 0.2 = 1. γm· γn = 1. d = 0. fsy =500 MPa) The straight lines from the origin of coordinates in Figure 4-4 represent the flexural capacity. The strength reduction factor for brittle concrete failure is there used throughout. ( c = 3. 4.8.8 Handbook ACI 318-02/1.26 m.

The strength reduction factors for reinforcement (= 1. The structure can therefore not be defined as flexure-controlled until δε >> δy2. 75 . 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. VR 1000 kN A 500 B 0 ρ 0 0.2). The refinement will therefore not be used in the following. so that extensive cracking and large deflection will give ample warning of impending failure. A linear transition between points A and B corresponds to a gradual change of the punching-controlled strength reduction factor to the flexurecontrolled.010 Figure 4-5 Design capacity with varying strength reduction factors. comparison is made with varying concrete grades and column sizes in Figure 4-6. say δε > 3δy2. which means that punching occurs after all reinforcement has reached the yield limit. 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.Tests by for instance Kinnunen and Nylander (1960) have demonstrated that if δε > δy2. Above point A = punching controlled capacity (γm·γn =1.005 0. a punching failure still occurs suddenly with little warning of impending failure. Linear transition between A and B.15·1.15) and safety class 2 (= 1.1).1) would then be appropriate.5·1. Below point B = flexure controlled capacity (γm·γn =1. The described approach is applied on the Thesis curve 3 of Figure 4-4 and the result is shown in Figure 4-5. In order to verify that the close agreement between the Thesis and Model Code 90 in Figure 4-4 is not just a coincidence.

010 0.005 0.2 24 500 Thesis/1.6 1000 MC 90/1.9 c-B 2d = 5. (c = 3.VR kN 1500 a = 600 mm B/d = 2.015 ρ VR kN a = 300 mm B/d = 1.005 0. fsy = 500 MPa) 76 .26 m.8 0 0 0. d = 0.2 1500 fck MPa 80 50 1000 MC 90/1.5 c-B 2d = 6.6 m.015 ρ Figure 4-6 Design capacity at concentric punching.010 0. Comparison between Thesis and Model Code 90.8 fck MPa 80 50 24 500 0 0 0.2 Thesis/1.

(d = 0.2 ACI 318-02/1. 0 0 BBK 04 Model Code 90/1.5 1.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 Thesis/1.5 c-B 2d 1. is studied. fsy = 500 MPa.0 B MPa B+d c Vσ 4.8 5 4.7 %) 77 . The punching capacity is expressed as the design shear strength along a control perimeter at the distance 0.5 fv1 1. A column-supported structure. The codes can therefore neither differentiate between slender and compact structures nor identify the influence of the bending moment on the punching capacity. 3.2 2. 2. 3. 1. 1. fck =30 MPa.0 ≥2 4 5 0.0 2. ρ = 0. 4.3 m. 1. a continuous flat plate or a single foundation.5d from the column. d VR VR = fv2 * π (B+d)d fv2 2.5 1. This is partly illustrated in Figure 4-7. f v1 7 10 10 B d Figure 4-7 Effect of (c-B)/2d and B/d on design strength for punching. Vε 2.

fsy = 500 MPa. The decreasing strength of the Vσ -curves for B/d < 3 is a consequence of the chosen position of the formal control section.9. If it were placed close to the column.0 d (m) Figure 4-8 Normalized size-effect (ξ =1.01 0. ξ 1. (fck =30 MPa. the Vσ -curves would be continuously increasing with decreasing column size. The high allowable shear stress at large columns by the code ACI 318-02 is remarkable.0 for d = 0.4) 78 . B/d = 1. however.2 m) for punching ultimate capacity versus effective depth of the slab and reinforcement ratio.004 MC 90 0. (The curve represents the capacity for a square column). Comparison with Model Code 90 and BBK 04. The two codes BBK 04 and Model Code 90 give a size effect that depends only on the effective depth of the slab.5 0 0.The code methods give a shear strength that is independent of the slenderness of the flat plate structure. which means that the strength of compact slabs such as footings is underestimated.003 BBK 04 0.5 1. the punching strength of slabs 2d increases with decreasing slenderness. corresponding to the diameter of the internal column capital. (c-B)/2d = 5.005 ≥ 0. Finally. with no size effect if all reinforcement yields before punching.002 0.0 ρ 0. The Thesis theory on the other hand displays a dependence also on the reinforcement ratio. Just as for the shear strength of beams. the size-effect is illustrated in Figure 4-8. The Thesis on the other hand gives a significant punching strength dependence on the c−B slenderness .

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

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

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

82 .

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

84 .

As a consequence. 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. That capacity depends in turn on a limited concrete strain capacity. The presented models are based on information that can be gained from the stress-strain relation of concrete in uniaxial compression. 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. 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.5 per mille. If the slab is provided with adequate amount of conventional shear reinforcement the critical concrete strain is assumed to increase to 1. This level for the flexural compression strain is therefore regarded to be critical for the stability of the compression zone near the column of a flat plate. The failure mechanism is different. 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. the compression strength is assumed reduced to 0. the size effect decreases with decreasing amount of flexural reinforcement. The slab is nevertheless stable and can be loaded and reloaded without any decrease of the ultimate load.6 f cc ⎜1 − cc ⎟ . the compression strength of the strut is assumed to reach the value 1. 85 . It is interesting to note that the latter strength corresponds to a compression strain of about 0. it is caused by the limited curvature capacity of the slab.0 per mille. If the column is small in relation to the compression zone depth. Low strength concretes start to “soften” at a compression strain of about 1. To crown everything. In this case it is obvious that the failure is not caused by the shear force. Punching occurs instead when the compression zone of the slab near the column collapses.5 per mille for uniaxially spanned members in bending. The thickness of the compression strut near the column is limited by the compression zone depth in radial direction. but it is assumed to slowly decrease with increasing concrete strength to account for the increasing brittleness of concrete with increasing strength. If the f ⎞ ⎛ column is very large. 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. 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.75 per mille – the same for all concrete grades.2 fcc corresponding to the strength of concrete in biaxial compression with moderate perpendicular compression stress. however.7 Conclusions and summary The punching failure of flat plates resembles the shear failure of beams in the sense that an inclined “shear crack” constitutes the failure. which is close to the strain at the peak stress for low strength concretes. It should be observed that these critical strain levels are considerably lower than the generally accepted ultimate strain 3. which ⎝ 250 ⎠ is the generally accepted value for the uniaxial compression strength in cracked zones.

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

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

88 .

Z. “Elimination of Flat Plate Punching Failure Mode”. Rostasy. (1979). 73. Universität Stuttgart. B.E. Stockholm. Andrä. ACI Structural Journal. pp.. “Size Effect in Punching Shear Failure of Slabs”. Beutel.E. J. 3. ACI Journal. No.2. Bericht über das Forschungsvorhaben V 175 des DAfStb. Boverkets handbok om betongkonstruktioner. in Swedish). Stockholm. 44-53. Vol 74. 6. (1987). ACI Structural Journal. pp.. (1981). pp. Broms.171-179. 212. Z. No. 1. Stockholm. (1990a). H.87. Broms.. (2000).87. Cao. “Shear Reinforcement for Deflection Ductility of Flat Plates”. C. (1990b). 185 pp. J. Transactions of the Royal Institute of Technology. V. Betonund Stahlbetonbau. Bažant. International Workshop on Punching Shear Capacity of RC Slabs – Proceedings. No. Hegger. 89 .181-189. Otto-GrafInstitut. Michigan.und Stahlbetonbau. ACI 421. 15 pp. Beton. Broms.1R -99 (1999).8 References ACI 318-02 (2002).E. Aalami. R. 59 pp. 22 pp. V. Royal Institute of Technology. (1972). ACI-ASCE Committee 352. (Recommendations for design of Concrete Structures. C.. “Durchstanzbewehrung für Flachdecken”. (2000a). (2005).. “Punching of Flat Plates – A Question of Concrete Properties in Biaxial Compression and Size Effect”. “Recommendations for Design of Slab-Column Connections in Monolithic Reinforced Concrete Structures”. International Workshop on Punching Shear Capacity of RC Slabs – Proceedings. pp. ACI Structural Journal. pp. “3D Numerical Punching Analysis of Shear Reinforced Flat Slabs – Variation of Quantity and Arrangement of Stirrups”. (2000b). Broms. pp.84.H. F. “Building Code Requirements for Structural Concrete and Commentary. V.L. H.P. Andersson. 29-37. No 5. pp.. (1963). H. ACI Structural Journal. 696-705. 94-101. No. Ghali. Dieterle. V. No. Dilger. “Punching Behaviour of Shear Reinforced Flat Slabs at Interior Columns – Effective and Economic Shear Systems”. Jg..S. A. American Concrete Institute. “Punching of Concrete Slabs with Shear Reinforcement”. BBK 04 (2004). ACI-ASCE Committee 421. Beutel. 129-132.1R-89 (1989). Dieterle. “Zur Bemessung von Fundamentplatten ohne Schubbewehrung”. ACI 352. Landauer. 292-304.W. H. “Moment-Rotation Relation between Column and Slab”. (1978). M. 263-269. “Ductility Reinforcement for Flat Slabs in Seismic as well as Nonseismic Areas”. “Versuche an quadratischen Einzelfundamente mit und ohne Schubbewehrung”. C.1.E. A. 97. pp. C. “Shear Reinforcement for Slabs”. submitted to Magazine of Concrete Research. pp. Schmidt. R. Royal Institute of Technology.

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

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

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

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

94 .

Appendix A. S2.6 1 fc 150 4 .38 24. d B c fc fy ρ 0.25 2. 0.0012 3 σs 200000 ε cpu . a 8 B Bσ Bσ 1 4a π B Ec0 21500 fc 10 3 (Model Code 90) 4 Ec0 = 2. d . PUNCHING CAPACITY Vε Guess factor k to make V ε equal to or less than Vσ: k 0. Ec0 4 Ec10 = 2.07883 200000. 1 x 3d x x = 0.883 1.16949 10 Recorded: ε = 0.20 0. 1 d kNm 1.1 ε cpu k .1 No yield punching 1 3 0.2 MPa MPa 95 .008 m m m MPa MPa Tolf (1988). (d x x) σ s = 483.001. 0.88654 10 Ec10 nρ 1 0.1 (no yield punching) Bε Bε 3π .150 . 1 2 nρ 1 x .2 657 0.nρ . 200.0652 3 EI = 7.62138 fy = 657 If σs > fy go to 1. 25 x fc ε cpu = 1. Punching of flat plate.68998 10 m EI 3 6 ρ . ρ Ec10 d .02972 10 MPa n ρ = 0. 10 .

0. 25 10 .00338 10 3 xpu d.σ s .d . fy . c .98057 m my 2 ρ .075.82819 2 Deflection δε ny Vε ny . 10) . ln c 2 ry 2 Bε Bε c ∆ f´´. x 3. fy d fc ρ ε cpu = 1. d . ln Bε Result Vε ny = 630. EI ry = 0. ( k .10323 my = 187.125 c 2 = 1.02437 ∆ f´´ = 0. 1 kN Vy1 my.19 4 ry 2 2 ry ry find( ry ) If ry > c/2 then V ε = Vy2 96 . Bε . π . fy ε cpu Ec10 x .71972 10 f´´y = 0. 1 2π 3 Vy2 = 1.31564 10 kN f´´u f´´y ∆ f´´ ε cpu xpu my EI f´´u f´´y f´´u = 9. 4π 1 Bε c 2 2 .2 Yield punching (not governing in this case) 3 0. kN Vy2 my. 8π 2 .1819 10 3 m Recorded δ = 7. 10 .3 ε cpu 6 Ec10.39524 Vy1 = 856. ln c Bε Bε c 1 Bε c 2 2 xpu = 0. 2 ρ .5 mm 1. 1 Vε ny 3 8 . c Bε 2 EI 2 δε ny = 8.2 ρ . 3 10 3d 8π 2 .01465 3 Guess ry Bε 2 2 2 2 Given my Vy1 .d 1 Bε c 2 c 2 .

03915 c0 = 0. u .16496 10 3 m 2. 4π Bε c 2 Vε y = 669. 0.150 .150 .04868 n0ρ = 0. ry c my . 103 t 1 3 Vσ = 652. u . 2 tan ( 25 deg ) u x0 = 22. . 1 2 n0ρ x0 1 u π . 0.65 n0ρ 200000. PUNCHING CAPACITY WITHOUT SHEAR REINFORCEMENT k = 0.9 1 u 0.02686 Vσ 0. sin ( 25 deg ) . 2r EI d r Result Deflection Vy1 . n0ρ . PUNCHING CAPACITY Vσ c0 Bε 2d 1 1 ln ln c c0 c Bε x0 = 0.2 fc . c Bε 2 EI 2 Bε .82819 Vσ max = 630. x0 2 . t . c . ρ Ec0 x0 d .64153 Vσ max 1.6 0. my .883 Vε ny = 630.01112 m δε y δ y1 ( f´´u f´´y ) δε y = 9.0. 2 Vy1 . fc . ln c 2r 2 Bε 2 2 Bε c 2 4r 2 ∆ f´´.13876 t x0 2 cos ( 25 deg ) 1 t = 0. 3 10 t 3 Vσ max = 630. t . sin ( 25 deg ) .77791 kN δ y1 1 2 . c 2 Bε 2 δ y1 = 0. Bσ tan ( 50 deg ) x0 .23351 Vtest = 603 kN kN kN 97 .23351 3.007. 8π ry 2 . Bε .5 c Vε y Vy2 .

1 d x 3d x x = 0.56107 fy = 627 If σs > fy go to 1.nρ .03784 200000. 1 2 nρ 1 x .20 0.001.008 m m m MPa MPa Hallgren (1966).29 10 Ec0 42900 4 (recorded value) Ec10 nρ 1 0. HSC1 (yield punching) Bε Bε 3π .2 MPa MPa 98 .48868 10 4 Ec0 = 4. 10 . 25 k . Ec0 4 Ec10 = 4. d .150 . 1 kNm 1.04797 3 EI = 8. Punching of flat plate.28508 10 3 σs σ s = 814. 0. PUNCHING CAPACITY Vε Guess factor k to make V ε equal to or less than Vσ: k 1 1.95203 10 m EI 3 6 ρ .1 No yield punching (not governing in this case) 1 3 0.1 ε cpu 0.4 91 627 0.Appendix B. (d x x) ε cpu = 1.22839 10 MPa n ρ = 0.6 1 fc 150 .25 2. x fc 200000 ε cpu . 200. d B c fc fy ρ 0. a 8 B Bσ Bσ 1 4a π B Ec0 21500 fc 10 3 (Model Code 90) 4 Ec0 = 4. ρ Ec10 d .

59891 Vy1 = 841. fy d fc ρ 3 0.02459 Guess ry Bε 2 2 2 2 Given my Vy1 . 2 . 1 2π 3 Vy2 = 1.09336 10 2 Deflection δε ny Vε ny . ( k . EI ∆ f´´.σ s . fy ε cpu Ec10 x .075.29474 10 kN f´´u f´´y ∆ f´´ ε cpu xpu my EI f´´u f´´y f´´u = 0. ln c Bε Bε c 1 Bε c 2 kN 2 Vy2 my . d . fy . 2 ry ry = 0. 10 . x 3. c . 10) .4738 c 2 = 1. 0.2 ρ . 1 3d 8π kN Vy1 my .d 1 Bε c 2 2 . ln c 2 ry 2 Bε Bε c Bε .d . 8π 2 .2 Yield punching 6 Ec10.60164 m my 2 ρ . 1 Vε ny 3 8 .2 4 ry 2 ry find( ry ) If ry > c/2 then V ε = Vy2 99 .0324 my = 184. 2 ρ . ln c Bε Result 3 Vε ny = 1. 4π 1 Bε c 2 2 .3 ε cpu ε cpu = 1.46474 10 3 xpu d. π .0124 m 1. 25 10 .02062 ∆ f´´ = 0. 3 10 xpu = 0. c Bε 2 EI 2 δε ny = 0.04521 f´´y = 0.

Bσ tan ( 50 deg ) x0 .0226 Vσ 0. sin ( 25 deg ) .65 n0ρ 200000.54612 10 3 m δε y δ y1 ( f´´u f´´y ) δε y = 0. sin ( 25 deg ) . c Bε 2 EI 2 Bε .5 mm m 2.2 fc .9 1 u 0.02129 10 Vtest = 1021 kN kN kN 100 . 8π ry 2 . 2 tan ( 25 deg ) u x0 = 25. Bε . 1 2 n0ρ x0 1 u π . t .04096 n0ρ = 0. fc .150 .007.02637 c0 = 0. my . x0 2 .0393 10 Vσ max 1. 0.6 0.5 c Vε y Vy2 . ln c 2r 2 Bε 2 2 Bε c 2 4r 2 ∆ f´´. 0. 4π Bε c 2 3 Vε y = 1. 3 10 t 3 3 Vσ max = 2.01285 Recorded δ = 12.18017 t x0 2 cos ( 25 deg ) 1 t = 0.02129 10 3. 2 Vy1 .150 . n0ρ . u .0. PUNCHING CAPACITY WITHOUT SHEAR REINFORCEMENT k= 1 3 Vε y = 1.05141 10 kN δ y1 1 2 . . c 2 Bε 2 δ y1 = 9. PUNCHING CAPACITY Vσ c0 Bε 2d 1 1 ln ln c c0 c Bε x0 = 0.05141 10 3 Vσ max = 2. 103 t 1 3 3 Vσ = 2. u . 2r EI d r Result Deflection Vy1 . t . ρ Ec0 x0 d . ry c my . c .

ns ρ .05505 1 1 . 0.4 91 604 0. 1 1.28735 10 Ec15 ns ρ . fc 0.25 2. 1 fc fc 100 0.50243 fc 190 4 Ec15 = 4.201 0. 0. Flat plate with shear reinforcement.23825 10 Ec0 Ec10 MPa fc 150 4 (Recorded value) .6.3 10 4 Ec10 = 4. d .5 0. xs ) xs MPa MPa If σs > fy go to Section 2 101 . α ns ρ xs . No yield punching Vε sny (not governing in this case) α 0. 1 4 EI = 1.1 . 10 43000 1 (Model Code 90) 4 Ec0 = 4. 10 .150 xs 3 ε cpus = 1.1 ns ρ = 0.48868 10 4 Ec0 = 4.0118 m m m MPa MPa Hallgren (1996) HSC5s Guess Bε Bε 3π . ρ Ec15 . d B c fc fy ρ 0.0015 25 200000.0015 25 fc (d 0. 1.24948 10 kNm ε cpus σs k .7871 fy = 604 3 200000 ε cpus .05642 m 3 6 ρ . 200. Ec0 0.3. 1 d 1 2α xs 3d 1 xs d . 4α EI 2 xs = 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.Appendix C.1 2 α = 0.82609 10 σ s = 935.

d 1 Bε c 2 2 . ln c Bε Bε c 1 Bε c 2 3 Vy1 = 1. 1 Vε sny 3 8 .84358 10 kN 2 Deflection δε sny Vε sny .2 2 If ry > c/2 then V εs = Vy2 ry = 0.d . α . 4π 1 Bε c 2 2 . fy . Yield punching Vε sy 6 Ec15.18993 10 kN 2 Vy2 mys . c Bε 2 EI 2 δε sny = 0.27296 10 3 Recorded ε = 0. 2 ry Bε .σ s . xs 3. c . 25 10 . 15 .15. EI ry find( ry ) = 1.3 ε cpus ε cpus = 2. π . 2 ρ . 1 2π 3 Vy2 = 1. 2 . d fy fc ρ 3 0.02089 kN f´´u ε cpus xpus f´´y .07768 f´´y = 0. 3 10 3d 8π mys = 261. 8π 2 . 0.2 ρ . 1 200000 d xs fy f´´u f´´y ∆ f´´ Guess ry ∆ f´´ = 0.02926 m mys xs . ln c 2 ry 2 Bε 2 2 Bε c 2 4 ry 2 ∆ f´´.0568 Bε 2 Given mys Vy1 . d .01498 m 2. fy α ε cpus Ec15 d.73126 c 102 . ln c Bε Result 3 Vε sny = 1. 10 .00225 xpus . 1 ρ xpus = 0.83061 10 f´´u = 0.00196 kN Vy1 mys .

Maximum punching capacity with shear reinforcent k=1 3 Vε sy = 1. c 2 Bε 2 δ y1 = 9.0173 m Recorded δ =16 mm 3. Bε . sin ( 45 deg ) . t .2 fc . 0.5 c Vε sy Vy2 .03993 m Vσ s 0. 2r EI d r 3 Vε sy = 1. 0.3 10 n0ρ 200000. n0ρ .67012 10 3 m δε sy ( f´´u δε sy = 0. mys . tan ( 45 deg ) MPa n0ρ = 0. c Bε 2 EI 2 f´´y ) Bε .150 .05488 x0 = 0. ln c 2r 2 Bε 2 2 Bε c 2 4r 2 ∆ f´´. u . x0 2 .59288 10 Vσ smax 1. sin ( 45 deg ) . ρ Ec0 d .007. 8π ry Result 2 .9 1 u 0. u .18953 10 4.8741 x0 u m t x0 2 cos ( 45 deg ) 1 t = 0.68702 10 3 Vσ smax = 4. Bσ 1 2 n0ρ x0 tan ( 90 deg ) 1 x0 2 . 2 Vy1 . fc . π .68702 10 kN Deflection δ y1 Vy1 . 4π δ y1 Bε c 2 1 2 .6 0. ry c mys . c .150 .0. Punching capacity Vσ s 4 Ec0 = 4.18953 10 Vtest = 1631 kN 103 .05647 m u = 0. t . 3 10 t 3 3 Vσ smax = 4. 103 t 1 3 3 Vσ s = 4.

Punching of column footing.29 0. surface load.3 1. d a b fc fy ρ 0.353 m Bε B Bσ = 0.382 D = 1.907 m Radius R to center of gravity for load outside shear crack 2 R D. Punching capacity Vσ Bσ Bσ B 4a π 2b π Bε 3π .00862 m m m MPa MPa Dieterle (1978) S1-H 1. 3 1 k 1 k R = 0.Appendix D.67 m 104 .4 d D 3 Bε 2 tan φ = 1. a 8 Bε = 0.693 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.536 c0 = 0.D k = 0.6 512 0.5 30.

u .150 .603 10 105 . n0ρ .526 m t u x0 Vσ x0 2 cos ( γ ) = 22. . sin ( γ ) . 10 200000. sin ( γ ) . 0. t . x0 .545 If tan( γ ) < tan(25 deg) = 0. Bσ x0 tan ( 2 γ ) x0 . 2 tan ( γ ) u = 1. fc .785 = (45 deg) Shear capacity V σ u π .121 10 ln ln b c0 b Bε x0 = 0. t . 0.2 fc . ρ Ec0 4 Ec0 = 3. 103 t 1 3 Vσ = 1.034 1 1 n0ρ x0 d .499 tan ( γ ) = 0.466 put γ = 0. 1 2 n0ρ 1 m Guess γ 30 deg Given Bε ) 2 2 tan ( γ ) (2 R x0 4 d x0 1 2R x0 Bε γ Find( γ ) γ = 0.150 .Inclination γ of compression strut 1 3 Ec0 fc 21500.9 1 u 0. 3 10 t 3 3 Vσ max = 1.436 = (25 deg) If tan( γ ) > 1 put γ = 0.007. u .066 n0ρ = 0.6 0.648 10 Vσ max 1.038 m 0.996 1 2 3 t = 0.

236 10 3 106 . 10 4 Ec10 = 2. 10 3 σ s = 326. x 2 x 200000 d x 1 ε c = 1.nρ .1 . ρ Ec10 1 1 n ρ = 0.075 m M Pσ . .249 10 Ptest = 2368 kN kN Flexural capacity 1 4 3 Ec10 1 0. b 8 M = 295. 0.369 10 MPa nρ 200000. 1 2 nρ Bε 2π 1 x = 0.0010 25 fc 0.15 x 3 ε cpu = 1.778 MPa εc c0 Bε .Load capacity P σ Pσ Vσ max 1 k 2 3 Pσ = 2. d .045 x d .023 10 3 ε cpu 0. 1 x 3d . 1 M ln b c0 .214 kNm σs 2 ρ .6 1 fc 150 ln ln b c0 b Bε fc 21500. σs . c0 .

02169 x d .00487 10 D c D B x0 = 0. ρ Ec10 1 1 2 nρ n ρ = 0.242 0.nρ . ρ Ec0 ln ln n0ρ = 0. Nylander (1983. d B c D fc fy ρ 0. 1 2 n0ρ fc 1 4 Ec10 1 0. 1998) S12 Bσ Bε D R c0 Bσ Bε B Bσ = 0.3 621 0. 1 x = 0.96 R = 0.04543 m 107 . 10 3 4 Ec10 = 2. . .25 Bε = 0.6 1 150 ln ln D c D B 1 fc 21500.00413 4a π m m m m MPa MPa Hallgren. Kinnunen.19765 10 MPa nρ 200000. Punching of column footing.25 0. 10 1 1 4 Ec0 = 3.337 3π .734 1 3 Ec0 fc 21500.25 D = 0.96 27.03944 1 MPa n0ρ 200000.Appendix E.674 0. b 8 B c0 = 0. a 8 3 c 2 B 2d π . line load. n0ρ .01587 x0 d .

sin ( γ ) .6 0.47603 10 3 108 . 103 t 1 3 3 Vσ = 998.2 fc .785 Calculate V σ u t u x0 π .48887 1 Vσ 0.1 . fc . 0. 10 t Vσ max = 958.9 1 u 0.80706 Find( γ ) tan ( γ ) = 1. u .68962 .436 = (25 deg) If tan( γ ) > 1 put γ = 0.04428 If tan( γ ) < tan(25 deg) = 0.150 .70442 εc c B . sin ( γ ) . Bσ x0 tan ( 2 γ ) x0 2 tan ( γ ) u = 0. 10 3 kNm ln D c . 1 x 3d σ s = 312.c . x0 2 . 3 1. x 2 x 200000 d x 1 ε c = 7.02788 x0 2 cos ( γ ) = 21. t .14512 10 4 ε cpu 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 = 0.62469 Vtest = 1049 kN Flexural capacity Vσ max.d . t .150 .15 x 3 ε cpu = 1. c c M 2 ρ .466 put γ = 0.785 = (45 deg) γ 0.007. σs .2513 Vσ max 0. 2π Bε . 0.0010 25 fc 0. 1 M σs 1 M = 64.8475 t = 0. u .

200. ρ Ec d .50977 10 n ρ = 0.0404 3 EI = 2.Appendix F.305 1.5. 1 2 nρ 1 x . 1 1 h 2d 3 EI1 = 1.20237 10 EI 3 6 ρ .001 xlim x Given 1 0.Ec.8 33. 1 d kNm EI1 3 6 ρ . SM1. a 8 1 m m m m MPa MPa Ghali et al 1976.10 .n ρ.d .08367 200000.1 3 εclim 0.4 476 0.fy 109 .0010 25 fc . 1 h 6d x x = 0.0035 3π.152 0. Unbalanced moment loading. 1 x 3d .εclim 0. LIMIT FOR REINFORCEMENT YIELD.6 1 .35932 fc 150 4 Ec nρ 1 0.0105 0. h d a c fc fy ρ ρc B 0.200.0 B = 0.d .0939 10 kI EI1 EI 2 kI = 0.xlim d .d ρ1 . 0.10 .70476 1. ρ1 Guess ρ1 0.01 εclim 0.150 xlim xlim εclim εclim fy 200000 .21500 fc 10 3 4 Ec = 2.121 0.

2r B. fy d ρ fc 3 0.7489 kN Vy2 my .ln 2π 1 B c c B 1 B c 2 2 xpu = 0.9 ry If ry > c/2 then V ε = Vy2 0.ρ1 xlim εclim Find( ρ1 .55508 0.fy .68922 10 3 xpu d. xlim .0105 2. .5 c Vε Vy2 .51769 kN f´´u εcpu xpu my EI f´´u = 0. 2 ry B . my 2 Vy1 . 3 10 3d 8π 2 .d . Vy1 = 390. my .ry c . 25 10 . PUNCHING CAPACITY Vε εcpu 6 Ec .82889 2 B 2 2 B c 2 4r 2 ( f´´u f´´y ) .05921 f´´y = 0.075.02953 f´´y Guess ry c 2 Given my Vy1 . .03184 kN Vy1 my . 10 . 0. 2 ρ . εclim) Limit for reinforcement yield ρ1 = 0.3 εcpu = 1. fy εcpu Ec x .02853 m my 2 ρ . EI ry = 0. EI d r 110 .5 c = 0.01437 ρ = 0. Vy2 = 510. c 2 ln 2 r 8π ry Vε = 473. 1 my = 65. c 2 ln 2 ry 8π find( ry ) 2 B 2 2 B c 2 4 ry 2 ( f´´u f´´y ) .

555 ∆ c . UNBALANCED MOMENT CAPACITY Mu 4. 4π δy1 δy1 B .c B 2 c 2 EI 2 δV = 2.c B 2 c 2 EI 2 B c B f´´y ) .61596 10 δt4 = 9.75451 10 δt2 = 6.kI 0.1 Insert column reaction V and guess value for ∆ M V 122 Vy1 = 390.78857 10 δε = 0. DEFLECTIONS Vy1 .kI δt1 = 3. c .195 ∆ c .78857 10 δy2 = 0.74398 10 3 4. 1 4π B .2 Deflection due to load V V < Vy1 2 δV V .50628 10 δt3 = 8.3.02411 3 ( f´´u f´´y .82889 0.kI 0.7489 δy1 = 8.90776 10 δy1 = 8. 2 2 (c 4 B) 2 2 δy1 δε δy2 1 δy1 = 8.01085 δt1 δt2 δt3 δt4 δV ∆ M δV ∆ M δV ∆ M δV ∆ M 0. 4.01263 δy2 = 0.3 Tension in top reinforcement of slab Fictitious slab deflections δt along circle c due to column rotation ∆c ( δε δV 2 ∆ M ) ∆ c = 0. c .02411 3 3 3 3 3 Elastic behaviour for reactions Rt1 to Rt3 because the deflections δt are less than δy1 111 . .00048 4.831 ∆ c .51769 Vε = 473.kI ∆ c .78857 10 ∆M 3 Vy2 = 510.

831 ∆ c ∆c δb1 = 1.5 c = 0. 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 ) .49032 10 4 3 3 3 3 δb2 = 3. 1 kI kI = 1.92956 Rt2 = 167. 2r B.35529 0. B . Vy1 V Rt3 Guess f´´v Given my Vy1 .555 ∆ c 0. my .27575 Rt3 = 261.831 Rt3 Rt4) . 2 2 f´´v = 0. ry ) 0. .58189 10 δV.9 Find( f´´v .7886 Shear force Rt and unbalanced moment Mt Rt Mt ( Rt1 Rt2 Rt3 Rt4) . EI d r V Rt4 = 302.ry c . 1 8 0. .90084 ( 0.03818 ry = 0.5 c Rt4 Vy2 . .4 Tension in bottom reinforcement of slab δb1 δb2 δb3 δb4 δV ∆ M δV ∆ M δV ∆ M δV ∆ M 0. Vy1 V Rt1 δy1 Rt1 = 44.75548 10 δb3 = 6.Reactions Rt at deflections δt δt1 .74894 10 δb4 = 8. Vy1 V δy1 δy1 δt3 .195 ∆ c 0. my 2 Vy1 .555 Rt2 4. c 16 Rt = 97.14949 10 112 . c 2 ln 2 r 8π ry 2 B 2 2 B c 2 4r 2 ( f´´v f´´y ) .00855 Mt = 69. EI 2 ry δt4 δy1 f´´v ry B c B f´´y ) .195 Rt1 0.0745 Rt2 δt2 .

33304 e = 0.21922 δb3 Rb3 V 1 δy1 kI kI . 10 c 3 θ1 = 0.Vy1. Vy2 ρ Rb3 8 Rb4 Rb Rb = 76.Vy1.98634 V = 122 etest =0. ρc .δb1 Rb1 V kI .555 Rb2 0.984 θ1 θ2 θu δM 2 . ρc .48547 δb4 Rb4 V 1 δy1 kI kI .4322 4.Rb3 Rb4) . δV .h θ1 θ2 1 B .33081 Equilibrium check Rb Rb Rt = 20.kI ρ Rb4 = 199.5 Unbalanced moment capacity Mu Mu e Mt Mu V Mb Mu = 120.831. δV 1 Rb1 = 81. ρ .kI ρ Rb2 = 149.02559 δM = 9.22909 10 θu = 0.17256 Rbmax Rb1 V Rb2 ρc .kI ρ Rb3 = 180.195 Rb1 0.31145 δb2 Rb2 V kI .63038 Rbmax = 292.67774 Rt ∆M .6 10 4 3 2 ∆M 113 . Vy1 δy1 = 0. c ln 3 B π . δV .Vy1.Ec.kI ρ δy1 1 δy1 kI . ρc .33081 Mb ( 0. c 16 Mb = 50.66356 Shear force Rb and unbalanced moment Mb Rb = 76.02136 θ2 = 4. ∆c kI c B 12 Mu . δV kI .Vy1.

Mumax3 ρc . 1 kI c B V Vε δV δε θu . δε . 4 Mumax1 = 139.09793 Mumax1 kI.h 1 3 B c Mu = 726.4.42193 θ2a 12 Mumax3.47765 Mumax4 π. 1 kI c B 2 .EI c 12.01947 Mu 1 2 π .h θ1b θ2a 3 ln c B 1 B . Vy1 δy1 c 4 c V .5. δε . 4 ρ Mumax3 = 131.Ec.my .39621 Mumax2 = 174.Ec.kI.01847 θ1b θ1b = 0. 1 ρc ρ Mumax4 = 153.h 3 . π .a .103 Mumax5 = 221.6 Simplified approach θ1a 2 .02409 114 .15 0. c 4 1 B c . c Vy2 V . 4 2 0. δε .62077 10 3 θu θu = 0.15531 1 Mumax5 h 3 fc . ln B π .10 3 θ1a = 0. 10 c 3 θ2a = 4.83296 Mumax2 ( Vy2 V) .