5 views

Original Title: 106-s66

Uploaded by Thai Dam

- Detailing Corner-Grade Beam
- PIP STE05121 - Anchor Bolt Design Guide
- FINALReport_PEER_CalibrationStudy_HaseltonEtAl_2007_12_14_final.pdf
- Seismic design tips
- CIVL 513 - Project No. 1 - 13Mar30 - Complete Report [Final]
- Bondek Performance Enhancements
- Standard Requirements for Seismic Evaluation and Retrofit of Existing Concrete Buildings Public Discussion Draft
- Column Wall Design Civilax.com
- 425-Chp7-Bond Development Length Splices.ppt
- Crimper - Method and Itp
- Soporte Block Caving
- Hollow Core Published
- 23. Earthquake Response and Design Criteria of Prestressed c
- ductility of columns.pdf
- 00194044- Shear Wall Test
- Engineeringcivil.com-Wrong Myths on Column Construction a Challenge to Overcome
- 173279313-DESIGN-OF-CORBELS-BS-CODE-xls.xls
- WCEE2012_0070
- ACI 350_Zarrinpour
- ANCLAJES

You are on page 1of 22

by Josef Hegger, Marcus Ricker, and Alaa G. Sherif

the punching shear behavior of footings. The test parameters

investigated are the shear span-depth ratio (a/d), concrete

strength, and punching shear reinforcement. The (a/d) ranged

between 1.25 and 2.0, whereas the concrete strength ranged

between 20 and 40 MPa (2.9 and 5.8 ksi). To study the effect of

soil-structure interaction, five footings were realistically supported

on sand. The remaining specimens were supported on a column

stub and a uniform surface load was applied. The present experimental

investigations indicated that the angle of the failure shear crack is

steeper in punching tests on compact footings than observed in

tests on more slender slabs. Furthermore, the (a/d) significantly

affects the punching shear capacity. Based on the test results, the ACI

and Eurocode 2 provisions are critically reviewed and improvements

are proposed.

depth ratio; soil pressure redistribution; soil-structure interaction.

INTRODUCTION

The problem of punching of reinforced concrete slabs has

been dealt with extensively in literature.1,2 Tests on reinforced

concrete footings, however, are still limited.3-6 Furthermore,

most of the available tests have unrealistic test setups. As a

consequence, the design of reinforced concrete footings is

mainly based on test results of slabs and most design codes

do not distinguish between slabs and footings in the design

rules. Hence, there is a need for a systematic experimental

Fig. 1—Critical perimeters according to: (a) ACI 318-08;

investigation on reinforced concrete footings. Therefore,

and (b) Eurocode 2.

punching tests on 17 quadratic reinforced concrete footings

were performed. The aim of this investigation is to study the

main parameters assumed to affect the punching shear ACI 318-08

strength of footings such as shear span-depth ratio (a/d), The critical section is at d/2 from the column face (Fig. 1 (a)).

concrete compression strength, shear reinforcement, and The design is based on

soil-structure interaction.

vu < φvn (1)

RESEARCH SIGNIFICANCE

The punching shear capacities of footings predicted by where φ is a strength reduction factor (0.75 for shear); vu is

various codes vary significantly. By testing 17 footings, the the applied factored shear stress, using load factors 1.2 and

main parameters affecting the punching strength are 1.6 for dead and live loads; and vn is the nominal shear resistance.

systematically investigated. The parameters studied are The applied shear stress due to factored concentric shear force

a/d, concrete compressive strength, punching shear Vu is calculated as

reinforcement, and the soil-structure interaction. The provisions

of ACI 318-087 and Eurocode 28 are evaluated by comparing vu = Vu/(b0d) (2)

with the experimental results.

where b0 is the perimeter of the critical section, and d is the

DESIGN CODES distance from the extreme compression fiber to the centroid

In general, design codes do not differentiate between the

punching shear strength of flat plates and footings. The ACI Structural Journal, V. 106, No. 5, September-October 2009.

codes allow a part of the soil reaction to be subtracted from MS No. S-2008-305 received September 15, 2008, and reviewed under Institute

publication policies. Copyright © 2009, American Concrete Institute. All rights reserved,

the punching load. The amount to be deducted, however, including the making of copies unless permission is obtained from the copyright proprietors.

Pertinent discussion including author’s closure, if any, will be published in the July-

differs from one code to the other. August 2010 ACI Structural Journal if the discussion is received by March 1, 2010.

ACI member Josef Hegger is a Professor at the Institute of Structural Concrete,

A v f yt

Rheinisch-Westfälische Technische Hochschule Aachen (RWTH) University, Aachen,

v s = -----------

- (9)

b0 s

Germany. He received his PhD from the Braunschweig University of Technology,

Braunschweig, Germany, in 1985. His research interests include bond behavior, shear

capacity, high-performance concrete, textile-reinforced concrete, and composite structures.

where Av is the area of shear reinforcement in one row around

Marcus Ricker is a Research Engineer at the Institute of Structural Concrete, RWTH. the column, s is the spacing of the shear reinforcement, and fyt

He received his Diploma degree in structural engineering from the Darmstadt is the yield strength of the shear reinforcement not to exceed

University of Technology, Darmstadt, Germany, in 1998. His research interests

include the punching behavior of footings and flat plates. 413 MPa (60,000 psi). The maximum allowed shear stress

vmax is determined as

ACI member Alaa G. Sherif is a Professor in the Civil Engineering Department,

Helwan University, Mataria-Cairo, Egypt. He received his BSc from Cairo University,

Giza, Egypt, in 1987, and his MSc and PhD from the University of Calgary, Calgary,

AB, Canada, in 1991 and 1996, respectively. He is a member of Joint ACI-ASCE Committee vmax = 0.5 f c′ MPa = 6 f c′ psi for stirrups (10)

352, Joints and Connections in Monolithic Concrete Structures. His research interests

include the design and serviceability of reinforced concrete structures.

vmax = 0.67 f c′ MPa = 8 f c′ psi for studs (s ≤ 0.5d) (11)

of tension reinforcement (effective depth). The shear

resistance of the concrete vc is the smallest value obtained Outside the shear-reinforced zone, the shear stress resistance

from Eq. (3), (4), and (5) of the concrete is limited to the one-way shear strength value of

2 4

⎝

(3) vc = 0.17λ f c′ MPa = 2λ f c′ psi (12)

β c⎠ ⎝ β c⎠

αs d αs d Eurocode 2

vc = 0.083 ⎛ --------

- + 2⎞ λ f c′ MPa = ⎛ --------

- + 2⎞ λ f c′ psi (4) For concentric loading, the maximum shear stress vEd is

⎝ b0 ⎠ ⎝ b0 ⎠

calculated as

v Ed = ----------------

- (13)

ud

where αs is a parameter taken as 40 for interior, 30 for edge,

and 20 for corner columns; βc is the ratio of long to short side

where VEd, red is the net applied shear force, u is the control

of concentrated load or reaction area; λ is a factor accounting

for the concrete density; and b0 is the perimeter of the critical perimeter considered, and d is the effective depth. For

section in Fig. 1(a). For slabs without shear reinforcement, concentric loading, VEd, red is calculated as

the nominal shear resistance vn in Eq. (1) is vc. The isolated

footing may be assumed to be rigid, resulting in a uniform VEd,red = VEd – ΔVEd (14)

soil pressure for concentric loading. The shear force can

be reduced by the effective soil pressure within the where VEd is the column load and ΔVEd is the net upward

control perimeter. force within the control perimeter considered, that is, upward

If vu > φvc, shear reinforcement has to be used. Two critical uniform pressure from soil minus self-weight of footing.

sections are to be checked: d/2 from the column face and d/2

The punching resistance should be verified at control

from the outer shear reinforcement (Fig. 1(a)). The punching

perimeters within 2.0d from the periphery of the column

shear resistance inside the shear-reinforced zone is calculated as

(Fig. 1(b)). The lowest value of resistance at the different

sections controls the design. The punching shear stress resistance

vn = vcs + vs ≤ vmax (6) of the concrete is calculated as

1⁄3 2d 2d

the shear-reinforced zone, vs is the shear stress resisted by v Rd, c = C Rd, c k ( 100ρ ⋅ f ck ) ---------- ≥ v min ---------- (15)

the shear reinforcement, and vmax is the maximum allowed a crit a crit

shear stress.

Acknowledging the superior anchorage performance of where CRd,c = 0.18/γc is an empirical factor derived from a

shear studs, ACI 318-08 distinguishes between shear studs regression analysis, with γc being the material resistance factor for

and stirrups as shear reinforcement. The nominal shear concrete (1.5); d is the effective depth; k = 1 + 200 ⁄ d ≤ 2.0 is

strength provided by concrete vcs inside the shear-reinforced the size factor of the effective depth (with d in mm); ρ is the

zone is calculated as flexural reinforcement ratio; fck is the characteristic cylinder

compressive concrete strength; acrit is the distance from the

vcs = 0.17λ f c′ MPa = 2λ f c′ psi for stirrups (7) column face to the control perimeter considered; and

v min = 0.035 · k 3/2· f ck1/2 is the minimum shear capacity

of the concrete, including the material resistance factor for

vcs = 0.25λ f c′ MPa = 3λ f c′ psi for studs (8) concrete γc = 1.5.

If vEd > vRd,c , shear reinforcement will be required. The

The nominal shear strength provided by shear reinforcement design of the shear reinforcement is based on the following

vs is calculated as expression

Table 1—Details of test specimens

d, c, b, fc′, Ec , ρ, Av, s, Vservice , Vtest , Vflex ,

Test mm (in.) mm (in.) mm (in.) a/d MPa (ksi) MPa (ksi) % cm2 (in.2) mm (in.) kN (kips) kN (kips) kN (kips)

DF6 395 (15.6) 200 (7.9) 1200 (47.2) 1.27 19.0 (2.8) 23,450 (3401) 0.87 — — 1008 (227) 2836 (638) 7146 (1607)

DF7 395 (15.6) 200 (7.9) 1400 (55.1) 1.52 20.9 (3.0) 25,067 (3636) 0.87 — — 980 (220) 2569 (578) 6544 (1471)

DF8 250 (9.8) 200 (7.9) 1200 (47.2) 2.00 22.5 (3.3) 24,850 (3604) 0.88 — — 540 (121) 1203 (270) 3028 (681)

DF9 250 (9.8) 200 (7.9) 1200 (47.2) 2.00 20.8 (3.0) 24,700 (3582) 0.89 28.4 (4.4) 90 (3.5)* 1008 (227) 2784 (626) 3069 (690)

DF10 250 (9.8) 200 (7.9) 1200 (47.2) 2.00 38.1 (5.5) 29,500 (4278) 0.91 — — 864 (194) 1638 (368) 3179 (715)

DF11 395 (15.6) 200 (7.9) 1200 (47.2) 1.27 21.4 (3.1) 22,000 (3191) 0.87 — — 1200 (270) 2813 (632) 6845 (1539)

DF12 395 (15.6) 200 (7.9) 1400 (55.1) 1.52 21.2 (3.1) 23,700 (3437) 0.88 — — 900 (202) 2208 (496) 6732 (1513)

DF13 395 (15.6) 200 (7.9) 1800 (70.9) 2.03 21.1 (3.1) 20,100 (2915) 0.87 — — 800 (180) 1839 (413) 6004 (1350)

DF14 295 (11.6) 200 (7.9) 1400 (55.1) 2.00 21.2 (3.1) 23,700 (3437) 0.88 — — 600 (135) 1478 (332) 3766 (847)

DF15 470 (18.5) 200 (7.9) 1400 (55.1) 1.28 21.7 (3.2) 22,500 (3263) 0.85 — — 1700 (382) 2750 (618) 8996 (2022)

DF16 395 (15.6) 200 (7.9) 1200 (47.2) 1.27 20.0 (2.9) 20,900 (3031) 0.87 45.2 (7.0) 190* (7.5) 1800 (405) 3680 (827) 7114 (1599)

DF17 395 (15.6) 200 (7.9) 1400 (55.1) 1.52 20.8 (3.0) 22,000 (3191) 0.87 45.2 (7.0) * 1600 (360) 3619 (814) 6570 (1477)

190 (7.5)

DF18 395 (15.6) 200 (7.9) 1800 (70.9) 2.03 21.7 (3.2) 22,500 (3263) 0.87 45.2 (7.0) * 1500 (337) 3361 (756) 6026 (1355)

190 (7.5)

DF19† 395 (15.6) 200 (7.9) 1200 (47.2) 1.27 21.8 (3.2) 21,900 (3176) 0.87 — — 1600 (360) 2790 (627) 7132 (1603)

DF20 395 (15.6) 200 (7.9) 1200 (47.2) 1.27 35.7 (5.2) 27,400 (3974) 0.87 — — 1600 (360) 3037 (683) 7455 (1676)

DF21 395 (15.6) 200 (7.9) 1400 (55.1) 1.52 36.3 (5.3) 26,800 (3887) 0.87 — — 1200 (270) 2860 (643) 6914 (1554)

DF22 395 (15.6) 200 (7.9) 1800 (70.9) 2.03 36.4 (5.3) 26,200 (3800) 0.87 — — 1000 (225) 2405 (541) 6338 (1425)

*Spacing between column face and first row of shear reinforcement was s0 = 75 mm (3.0 in.) for Specimen DF7 and s0 = 120 mm (4.7 in.) for DF16, DF17, and DF18.

†

Specimen included seven circular ties, which confine compression zone near column face (refer to text).

Note: d is effective depth; c is column dimensions; b is footing dimension; a is footing dimension measured from face of column; fc′ is cylinder concrete compression strength;

Ec is Young’s Modulus of concrete; ρ is flexural reinforcement ratio; Av is area of one leg of stirrups along a peripheral line; s is spacing between two peripheral lines of stirrups;

Vservice is estimated service load; Vtest is ultimate failure load; and Vflex is shear force that produces flexural failure according to yield-line theory.9 Footings with shear reinforcement

included layer of top reinforcement of ρ′ = 0.49% (DF9) and ρ′ = 0.31% (DF16, DF17, and DF18).

d 1 EXPERIMENTAL PROGRAM

v Rd, cs = 0.75v Rd, c + 1.5 ---- A sw f ywd, ef ------ sin α (16) The experimental program included 17 footings. The

sr ud

dimensions of the test specimens were chosen to model 1/2

to 1/3 scale of a common footing. The specimens were

where Asw is the area of the shear reinforcement in one row divided in two series. The first series included five footings

around the column; sr is the radial spacing of perimeters of (DF6 to DF10) that were realistically supported on sand.

shear reinforcement; u is the control perimeter within 2.0d These footings were to supplement previous tests.6 The

from the column face (Fig. 1(b)); fywd,ef is the effective second test series included 12 footings (DF11 to DF22) that

design strength of the punching shear reinforcement, were supported on a column stub and a uniform load was

according to fywd,ef = 250 + 0.25d (with d in mm) ≤ fywd (MPa); applied to the footing. The test parameters included the a/d

and α is the angle between the shear reinforcement and the ratio, the concrete compressive strength, the shear reinforcement,

plane of the slab. and the soil-structure interaction.

The maximum punching shear resistance (at the column

face) is limited to a maximum of

Material properties

For the footings of Series I, the concrete was mixed at the

f ck ⎞

v Rd, max = 0.5 ⋅ 0.6 ⋅ ⎛ 1 – --------

- ⋅ f (with fck in MPa) (17) laboratory; for Series II, commercial ready mixed concrete

⎝ 250⎠ cd was used. The maximum coarse aggregate size was 16 mm

(0.63 in.) in all footings. Ordinary CEM III A 32.5 N portland

where fcd = αcc fck /γc is the design concrete compressive cement and a water-cement ratio (w/c) of 0.50 were used,

strength with αcc = 1.0 being a coefficient taking account for resulting in a slump of approximately 480 mm (18.9 in.).

long-term effects. The control perimeter at which shear The concrete mixtures were designed to produce a 28-day

reinforcement is not required (Fig. 1(b)) is determined by target strength of fc′ = 20 and 40 MPa (2.9 and 5.8 ksi).

German steel BSt 500 (A), with the measured yield stress

fsy = 552 MPa (80.1 ksi), tensile strength fsu = 634 MPa

V Ed (92.0 ksi), and a Young’s modulus of 200,000 MPa (29,000 ksi),

u out = ------------------

- (18)

v Rd, c ⋅ d was used for all reinforcement. Table 1 summarizes the

properties of the materials used.

The outermost perimeter of shear reinforcement should be

placed at a distance not greater than 1.5d within uout (Fig. 1(b)). Test specimens

The shear reinforcement should be provided in at least two The dimensions of the footings were 1200, 1400, and 1800 mm

rows and the spacing of the perimeters should not exceed (47.2, 55.1, and 70.9 in.) in square with the thickness of the

0.75d. The distance between the column face and the first footings varying between 300 and 530 mm (11.8 and 20.9 in.).

row of shear reinforcement should not exceed s0 = 0.5d The effective depth d varied between 250 and 470 mm (9.8 and

(Fig. 1(b)). 18.5 in.), resulting in a/d of approximately 1.25, 1.5, and 2.0. The

Fig. 3—Test setups.

Specimen DF9.

are shown in Fig. 2. The flexural reinforcement ratio varied Fig. 4—Arrangement of soil pressure gauges and steel

between 0.85 and 0.91%. The 200 x 200 mm (7.8 x 7.8 in.) strain gauges.

square column stubs were cast monolithically at the center

of the slabs using high-strength concrete and were reinforced column stub. The jacks were linked to a common manifold

with 10 mm (0.4 in.) steel plates to prevent a premature failure. and applied the same load independent of the displacement.

Full details of the footings are given in Table 1. Footings DF9 The soil pressure distribution was measured by 21 electric

and DF16 to DF18 included heavy shear reinforcement and stress sensors with electric/hydraulic pressure gauges. In

were designed to examine the maximum punching capacity. addition, thin-film pressure sensors were used to measure the

The shear reinforcement consisted of vertical stirrups with a soil pressure distribution. The main advantage of the sensors

diameter of 10 mm (0.4 in.) and a yield strength fyw of 520 MPa used is that this system allows a two-dimensional measurement

(75.4 ksi) in Specimen DF9 and 12 mm (0.5 in.) and fyw of of the soil pressure distribution whereas the soil pressure

560 MPa (81.2 ksi) in Specimens DF16 to DF18. The spacings gauges can only measure the soil pressure at definite points

of the stirrups are given in Table 1. As an example, the layout of (Fig. 4(a)).

the shear reinforcement for DF9 is shown in Fig. 2. Specimen Series II (DF11 to DF22)—The specimens of test Series II

DF19 included seven circular ties with a diameter of 400 mm were loaded by a uniform surface load using the test setup

(15.7 in.), which were horizontally arranged underneath the shown in Fig. 3(b). The footings were tested upside down.

column stub to confine the compression zone near the column The load was applied by eight hydraulic jacks (maximum

face. The bar diameter was 12 mm (0.5 in.) and the spacing was capacity 4720 kN [1061 kips]). Each jack transferred its load

40 mm (1.6 in.). The circular ties did not increase the via steel beams to two polytetrafluoroethylene (PTFE)-coated

punching shear strength compared to a similar footing sliding bearings of dimensions 140 x 140 mm (5.5 x 5.5 in.).

without confinement (DF11). Therefore, the test results are Thus, the load was applied by a total of 16 bearings simulating

not discussed further in this paper.

a uniform loading case. The reaction frame consisted of two

parallel steel beams, which were supported by four tie rods

Test setup and measurements anchored to the strong floor of the laboratory.

Series I (DF6 to DF10)—The specimens of Series I were

tested supported on sand (Fig. 3(a)). The dimension of the For both test series during testing, the vertical displacement at

sand box was 3250 x 3250 x 3200 mm (128 x 128 x 126 in.). the corners of the column stub and the slab corners were

The remaining depth of the sand bed underneath the footings measured using linear variable differential transformer

varied between 2200 and 2500 mm (87 and 98 in.), being (LVDT) gauges. The flexural steel strains were monitored at

approximately twice the width of the footings. To achieve 14 locations as shown in Fig. 4(b) as well as at some of the

homogeneous sand beds of reproducible packing, controlled stirrups. At one measuring point, two strain gauges were

pouring and tamping techniques were used to deposit sand attached to opposite side faces of the reinforcement bars to

layers of 55 mm (2.2 in.) thickness into the sand box. The obtain the strains at the center of gravity of the bars. The

load was applied by six hydraulic jacks (maximum capacity concrete strains were also recorded at 14 locations on the

3540 kN [796 kips]) placed between a steel frame and the compression faces.

Fig. 5—Saw-cuts of different test specimens.

The load was applied in increments of 108 to 196 kN The deflections at the center of the slab for several footings

(24.3 to 43.8 kips) for Series I and in increments of 100 to are shown in Fig. 6. For all series, the gradient of the curves

200 kN (22.5 to 45.0 kips) in Series II. For Series I, the decreases with increasing a/d; this can be attributed to the

increments were chosen to increase the soil pressure by increasing bending deformations. In contrast, the deformations

75 and 100 kN/m2 (10.9 and 14.5 psi), respectively. of the more compact footings are mainly induced by shear. For

After the service load Vservice was reached (Table 1), the the tested specimens, the shear deformations are somewhat

load was cycled 10 times between the service load and half smaller than the deformations due to bending irrespective of

of the service load. After this, the load was incrementally the boundary conditions, the concrete compressive strength,

increased until 80% of the calculated failure load was or the existence of shear reinforcement (Fig. 6). If the load

reached. Then the footings were continuously loaded until deflection curves of the specimens DF11 to DF13 and DF20

failure took place. to DF22 are compared, it is obvious that the gradient of the

deflection curves increases for higher concrete grades due to

EXPERIMENTAL RESULTS the increased stiffness (Fig. 6(b) and (d)). The specimen with

Cracking and failure characteristic shear reinforcement showed a more ductile behavior than the

All tests failed in punching of the footing. The failure specimen without shear reinforcement (Fig. 6(b) and (c)).

loads are listed in Table 1. The comparison with the flexural

capacities of the footings Vflex according to Gesund9 reveals Steel strains

that the flexural capacities were not reached and confirm the Measurements were made to determine the steel strain

fact that failure occurred due to punching (Table 1). After the distribution for all slabs. Typical test results of these

test, the specimens were sawn into two halves. In all slabs, measurements are shown in Fig. 7. In general, the measurements

the failure surface consisted of a wide shear crack, which showed some scatter. For the specimen without shear

formed the surface of a truncated cone (Fig. 5). For the specimens reinforcement, the bars did not reach yield at failure. For

without shear reinforcement, the observed inclinations of the the footings DF16 and DF17 with shear reinforcement, only

failure shear crack were approximately 45 degrees for the the tension reinforcement in the vicinity of the column

compact footings DF11, DF20, and DF6 (a/d = 1.25) and yielded before punching took place (Fig. 7(c)). Thus, the

less than 35 degrees for the more slender footings DF13 and flexural capacity had not been reached when the footings

DF22 (a/d = 2.0). For the footings without shear reinforcement, failed in punching.

the inclination of the failure crack seems to be mainly influenced

by a/d. Neither the concrete strength nor the support situation had Soil pressure distribution

a significant effect in this aspect. For the shear-reinforced For all tested footings of Series I, the soil pressure distribution

specimens, an outer shear crack with an inclination of was measured. Figure 8 shows the soil pressure distribution of

approximately 45 degrees, crossing the shear reinforcement, as the footings DF6 and DF9 close to failure. Although the

well as a much steeper inner crack with an inclination of measurements showed plenty of scatter, a concentration of

approximately 50 to 60 degrees were observed. Strain soil pressure underneath the column stub was more

measurements confirmed that the shear reinforcement was pronounced for DF9 (a/d = 2.0).

activated. Hence, it can be concluded that the outer, more

gently inclined shear crack developed first. The failure most DISCUSSION OF EXPERIMENTAL RESULTS

likely took place when the second, inner shear crack For the following discussion of the experimental results,

occurred. In contrast to the footings without shear reinforcement, the critical shear section specified by ACI 318-08 is used.

the influence of a/d on the inclination of the shear cracks seems The failure load Vtest is multiplied by the factor (1 – A0 /A),

to be negligible. where the parameters A0 and A are the area within the shear

deflection (in.) distance from s lab center (in.)

0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 5 10 15 20 25 30 35

4000 5.0

(a) without shear reinforcement DF8

supponed on sand 800 ~4.5 DF7

DF6

II

';" 4.0

£ 3000 ·;; sua in gauges I

I

c. ~ 3.5 51 57 58 59 I

..

'C

~ 3.0

.2

"'

.: 2000

E

~ 2.5 -------------------

c.

.."' ~ 2.0

-~ 1.5 ~ - - DF6

- - l)f'7

1000

- - DF6 (ald• l.25)

200 "

-~ 1.0

" 0.5

~

"' _,._ DFS

- - - yield strength

- - OF7 (aid= 1.5)

(a)

0 0.0

0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900

distance from slab cente r (mm)

deflection (mm)

distance from slab center (in.)

deflection (in.) 5 10 15 20 25 30 35

0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 5.0

DFI3

4000 DFI2

n

(b} without shear rcinforcment ~4.5

I

800 -; 4.0

·; gauges~train

I

I

~ 3.S 51 57 SS S9

z 3000 f 3.0

I

c. 600 j

..

"'.2 c.

..

"'

E '_,$

~ -------------------

-g 2000 Q

~ 2.0

~

400 ~

c. 'f I.S ~

~ .... :::::.

- - 0 1' 11

"'" g. "

-~ 1.0 ..... - - DFI2

1000 - - oF II (ald• l.25) c _,._ DFI3

200

- - o F12(atd=L5) ~ 05

(b) - - - yield strcng1h

DF I3 (ald• 2.0) 0.0

100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900

1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0 di.stanee from slab center (mm)

5 10 15 20 25 30 35

deflection (in.) 5.0

0.0 0.5

~ ~----~--~~--~----,

1.0 1.5 l4.S

(C) with she.ar reinforcement .; 4.0

800 ~ 3.5

z 3000 ~ 3.0

600 j E

c. c ~ 2.5

"'"

Q

~ 2000

"'.... ~ 2.0

·~ 1.5

- - DFI6

- - OF17

400 ~

~

~

"

-~ 1.0

_,._ OF IS

"'" - -OF16(ald= l.25) "'" " 0.5

~

- - - yield strength

1000 200 (c)

- - OF1 7(ald= l.5) 0.0

OF 18 (ald=2.0) 0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900

o ¥-~~~==~==~~ o distance from slab center (mm)

0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0 distance from slab center (in.)

deflection (mm) 5 10 15 20 25 30 35

deflection (i n.) 5.0

DF22

0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 ~4.5 DF21

4000

(d) withom shear reinforcement

800

';;" 4.0

·;;

~ 3.5 Sl

f 3.0

strain gauges

$7 S8

DF20

59

I

I

I

I

n

£ 3000

c. ~ 2.5 -------------------

..

'C

~ 2.0

~ 2000

c. ry -~ 1.5

=

~- - - DF20

- - DF2 1

_,._ DF22

.."' ·! 1.0

" - - - yield strength

1000 f/ -- DF20 (ald=l.25) ~ 0.5

(d)

II --OF21 (ald=1.5)

200

0.0

~· DF22 (ald• 2.0) 0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900

.lL----.---=;::::=;::::::::;==~ 0 distance from slab center (mm)

o.o 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0

Fig. 7—Typical steel-strain distributions at failure.

deflection (mm)

Effect of a/d

Fig. 6—Load-deflection curves.

In Tests DF11 to DF13, the only parameter varied was a/d.

Therefore, the tests may be used to study the effect of a/d on the

critical section and the area of the footing, respectively punching behavior. As shown in Fig. 9(a), the tests indicate

(Fig. 1(a)). The term (1 – A0 /A) accounts for the soil reaction that the shear strength decreases with increasing a/d. The

within the critical section to be subtracted from the punching ACI 318-08 does not reflect this trend as it does not account

force assuming a uniform soil pressure distribution. for the effect of a/d.

Fig. 8—Soil pressure distribution close to failure.

Fig. 9—Effect of: (a) a/d; and (b) concrete compressive strength

Effect of concrete compressive strength on punching shear strength of footings.

For the investigation of the influence of the concrete

strength, two test series are available. The footings of the sponding similar footing without shear reinforcement.

first series (DF11 to DF13) had a concrete compressive Figure 10(a) shows that shear reinforcement substantially

strength of approximately 20 MPa (2.9 ksi) and the test increases the punching capacity of footings. The effectiveness

specimens of the second series (DF20 to DF22) had a target of the shear reinforcement, however, depends on a/d. The

strength of 40 MPa (5.8 ksi). In Fig. 9(b), the failure loads effectiveness of shear reinforcement decreases with

are plotted as a function of the concrete compressive strength decreasing a/d. For example, the shear strength of footing

fc′. Although the test data are limited, it can be concluded DF18 (a/d = 2.0) was increased approximately 80% by the

that for slender footings (a/d = 1.5 and 2.0), the concrete stirrups. In contrast, the shear reinforcement increased the

strength seems to significantly affect the punching behavior. shear strength of the more compact footing DF16 (a/d = 1.25)

For the less slender footings DF11 and DF20 (a/d = 1.25), by only approximately 33%. In Fig. 10(b), the ratio vs,test /vs,ACI

the effect of the concrete strength is not significant. This is is compared. The shear stress v s,test is calculated by

remarkable because it was expected that the behavior of the (V test – 0.5Vc,test)/(b0d). Thus, the theoretical capacity of the

more compact footings could be described by a strut-and-tie shear reinforcement according to ACI 318-08 has not been

model. In such a case, the failure load of the compact footings reached or the concrete contribution is overestimated.

DF11 and DF20 should be controlled by the bearing capacity of

the compression strut if enough flexural reinforcement is Effect of soil-structure interaction

provided. Therefore, for compact footings, it was expected Two test series are available to investigate the influence of

that the punching shear strength increases linearly with the the soil-structure interaction. Series DF6 to DF8 were

concrete compressive strength. Two test results, however, supported on sand, whereas the companion specimens of

are not sufficient to draw definite conclusions and more test Series DF11 to DF13 were uniformly loaded. In general, the

results are needed on this aspect. footings supported on sand had a higher punching shear

resistance than those uniformly loaded (Fig. 11). This may

Effect of shear reinforcement be attributed to the soil pressure concentration underneath

To investigate the influence of shear reinforcement on the the footing (Fig. 8). This concentration increases the part of

punching behavior, two series are available. In the first the soil pressure that reduces the applied shear stress along

series, three specimens with closed stirrups as shear the critical perimeter. The test Specimen DF8 supported on

reinforcement were tested (DF16 to DF18). The second sand showed significantly higher shear strength than the

series included footings DF11 to DF13 that are identical to uniformly loaded Specimen DF13 (Fig. 11). To fit into the

the first series except they did not contain shear reinforcement. sand box, the dimensions of Specimen DF8 had to be reduced

In Fig. 10(a), the ratio Vtest /Vc,test is plotted as a function of compared to Specimen DF13. To ensure the same a/d, the slab

a/d. Vtest is the failure load of the footing containing shear thickness also had to be reduced from 450 to 300 mm (17.7 to

reinforcement, while Vc,test is the failure load of the corre- 11.8 in.) for Specimens DF13 and DF8, respectively. Therefore,

Fig. 10—(a) Contribution of shear reinforcement on shear

strength of footings; and (b) comparison between theoretical

contribution of shear reinforcement to punching shear

strength according to ACI 318-08 and steel contribution

determined by testing.

shear strength of footings.

the high shear strength of the footing DF8 may be partly shear resistance according to ACI 318-08.

attributed to the size effect. The present tests are not

sufficient to evaluate the size effect quantitatively. It may be Comparison with ACI 318-08

concluded that for design purpose, the soil-structure interaction The ACI 318-08 code provisions are compared with the

is not a major factor.6 test results in Fig. 12. The ACI Code does not account for the

size effect on the punching shear strength. Therefore, the

COMPARISON OF PREDICTIONS AND provisions tend to be less conservative for larger effective

EXPERIMENTAL RESULTS depths. This tendency can be observed for the specimens

For the comparison between the present tests and the supported on sand as well as for the uniformly loaded footings

codes, all material and strength reduction factors in the code (Fig. 12(a)). The ratio Vtest /VACI has a mean of 1.33 and a

equations are taken as unity. The comparison is mainly based coefficient of variation of 0.13. The ACI predictions as a

on the ratio of the failure load Vtest and the calculated function of a/d are shown in Fig. 12(b). Although the code

punching shear resistance Vcode. The ratio Vtest /Vcode is does not account for a/d, the analysis of all tested footings

plotted against the effective depth d and a/d. seem to be trend free for the concrete strengths tested. The

reinforcement is plotted as a function of a/d in Fig. 12(d).

Except for Specimen DF9, which was supported on sand, the

ratio Vtest /VACI is independent of a/d.

Eurocode 2 provides two equations to determine the

punching shear strength of slabs without shear reinforcement

VRd,c (Eq. (15)) and VRd,max (Eq. (17)). The smaller value

controls the design. The equation for VRd,max was originally

adapted from the Model Code 90.10 For slabs, Eurocode 2 as

well as Model Code 90 uses a critical perimeter at a distance

of 2.0d from the periphery of the applied load. The use of a

control perimeter relatively far away from the column face

leads to a good correlation with slab tests with a practical

ratio of column perimeter u0 to effective slab depth d (larger

than 4). The large control perimeter also offers the opportunity

to use the same shear strength as for one-way shear. The large

perimeter, however, leads to the fact that the shear stress

along the periphery of very small loaded areas becomes

governing.11 Therefore, Model Code 90 and Eurocode 2

demand that the shear stress at the periphery of the applied load

should not exceed the web-crushing limit for beams with

vertical stirrups.

Unfortunately, VRu,max = γcVRd,max (with γc = 1.5 being

the material resistance factor for concrete and VRd,max

according to Eq. (17)) controls the design of the present tests

(except DF10) due to the small ratios u0/d, which are

characteristic for column footings. Because the equation

of VRu,max is only a function of the concrete compressive

strength, VRu,max does not reflect the influence of the effective

depth d or a/d correctly, as shown in Fig. 13(a) and (b). In

addition, the equation significantly overestimates the

punching shear capacity for higher concrete grades, as

shown in Fig. 13(b). This is attributed to the fact that the

equation accounts for a linear effect of the concrete compressive

strength on the punching capacity, which is in contrast to test

results.12,13 It is also obvious from the statistical evaluation,

which leads to a mean value of 1.12 and a coefficient of

variation of 0.23 indicating high scatter, that the equation

for VRu,max is not able to predict the punching shear strength

of footings without shear reinforcement satisfactorily. The

equation of VRu,max is also not applicable for the maximum

punching strength of footings with shear reinforcement

(Fig. 13(d)). Due to the small ratios u0/d of 2.0 and 3.2, the

equation calculates very conservative punching shear resistances

for the shear-reinforced footings and does not count for any

shear reinforcement.

In Fig. 14, the resistance is calculated according to Eq. (15)

Fig. 13—Comparision between punching tests and punching and (16), while VRu,max is neglected. The aim of this comparison

shear resistance according to Eurocode 2. is to investigate the performance of these equations. For the

footings without shear reinforcement, VRu,c = γcVRd,c (with

ratio Vtest /VACI is significantly higher for the specimens VRd,c according to Eq. (15)) correctly reflects the influence of the

supported on sand (Fig. 12(c)). This is due to the fact that for effective depth d, the concrete strength, and a/d, and results in less

the calculations, a uniform soil pressure distribution underneath scatter (Fig. 14(a), (b), and (c)). This is also confirmed by the

the footings was assumed. The soil pressure inside the critical reduced coefficient of variation of 0.10. The mean value of

perimeter b0 at a distance of 0.5d from the column face was only 0.77, however, clearly indicates that for footings without

subtracted from the applied shear force. In the tests, a shear reinforcement, Eq. (15) would result in an unconservative

concentration of the soil pressure inside the critical perimeter design. Application of Eq. (16) leads to safety factors below 0.5

was measured. This led to a reduction of the applied shear because the footings failed in maximum punching shear due to the

force and, therefore, increased the punching shear strength. high shear reinforcement ratio (Fig. 14(d)).

Furthermore, the diameter of the punching cone differs from Eurocode 2 provides parameters that are optional for

the diameter of the assumed critical perimeter to some extent national choice. In Eq. (15), the empirical factor CRd,c can be

(Fig. 5). The ratio Vtest /VACI for the specimens with shear given by the National annex. To ensure the required safety

Fig. 14—Comparision between punching tests and punching Fig. 15—Comparision between punching tests and punching

shear resistance of footings according to Eurocode 2 neglecting shear resistance according to the modification proposed to

the influence of Vmax. Eurocode 2.

level for footings, it is proposed here to reduce CRd,c to a with vRd,c being the punching shear capacity of a slab without

value of 0.12/γc. shear reinforcement, which is calculated as vRd,c = 0.18/γck

To overcome the problem that Eq. (17) for VRd,max calculates (100ρfck) 1/3. The notations are chosen in accordance with

very conservative punching shear resistances for the shear- Eurocode 2. Certainly, the applied shear force can only be

reinforced footings, a new equation for the calculation of reduced by the effective soil pressure within the column

VRd,max at the periphery of the loaded area is herein proposed perimeter u0. In Fig. 15, the proposed equations are

compared to the test results. The proposal correctly reflects

the influence of the effective depth d and a/d. In addition, the

V Rd, max = 16 d ⁄ u 0 v Rd, c u 0 d (19) scatter is reduced and the safety level is increased.

CONCLUSIONS ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

Based on the results of the experimental investigation on The authors wish to express their sincere gratitude to the Deutsche

footings supported on sand, as well as on footings loaded Forschungsgemeinschaft (DFG, German Research Foundation) for the

financing. The tests of Series I were conducted in cooperation with the Institute

uniformly, the following conclusions can be drawn: of Geotechnical Engineering, RWTH Aachen University. The effective

1. For the footings without shear reinforcement, the cooperation is appreciated. This paper was written during a research visit

inclination of the failure shear crack seems to be mainly of A. G. Sherif at the RWTH Aachen University financed by the Alexander

influenced by a/d and not by the concrete strength. The von Humboldt Foundation. The support of the Alexander von Humboldt

observed inclinations of the failure crack were approximately Foundation is deeply appreciated.

45 degrees for the compact footings (a/d = 1.25) and less than

35 degrees for the more slender footings (a/d = 2.0). REFERENCES

2. The punching shear resistance is strongly influenced by 1. Regan, P. E., and Braestrup, M. W., “Punching Shear in Reinforced

Concrete,” CEB-Bulletin d’Information No. 168, Lausanne, Switzerland,

a/d. The shear strength decreases with increasing a/d. 1985, 232 pp.

3. Although the test data are limited, it can be concluded 2. Polak, M. A., ed., Punching Shear in Reinforced Concrete Slabs, SP-232,

that for slender footings (a/d = 1.5 and 2.0), the concrete American Concrete Institute, Farmington Hills, MI, 2005, 302 pp.

strength seems to significantly affect the punching behavior. 3. Richart, F. E., “Reinforced Concrete Wall and Column Footings,”

This effect seems to decline for more compact footings ACI JOURNAL, Proceedings V. 45, (Part 1) No. 2, Oct. 1948, pp. 97-127, (Part

(a/d = 1.25). 2) No. 3, Nov. 1948, pp. 237-260.

4. Dieterle, H., and Rostásy, F., “Tragverhalten quadratischer

4. Shear reinforcement can substantially increase the Einzelfundamente aus Stahlbeton,” Deutscher Ausschuss für Stahlbeton,

punching capacity of footings, but is less effective with V. 387, Berlin, Germany, 1987, 134 pp.

decreasing a/d. 5. Hallgren, M.; Kinnunen, S.; and Nylander, B., “Punching Shear Tests

5. In general, the footings supported on sand showed a on Column Footings,” Nordic Concrete Research, V. 21, No. 3, 1998, pp. 1-22.

higher punching shear resistance than those uniformly 6. Hegger, J.; Sherif, A. G.; and Ricker, M., “Experimental Investigations

loaded. This may be attributed to the soil pressure concentration on Punching Behavior of Reinforced Concrete Footings,” ACI Structural

Journal, V. 103, No. 4, July-Aug. 2006, pp. 604-613.

underneath the footing. The assumption of uniformly distributed

7. ACI Committee 318, “Building Code Requirements for Structural

soil pressure beneath the footings according to the building Concrete (ACI 318-08) and Commentary,” American Concrete Institute,

codes, however, ensures a safe design. Farmington Hills, MI, 2008, 465 pp.

6. ACI 318-08 does not account for the size effect on the 8. European Committee for Standardization (CEN), “Eurocode 2: Design

punching shear strength. Therefore, the provisions tend to be of Concrete Structures—Part 1.1: General Rules and Rules for Buildings,”

less conservative for larger effective depths. This tendency Brussels, Belgium, 2004, 225 pp.

9. Gesund, H., “Flexural Limit Analysis of Concentrically Loaded

can be observed for the specimens supported on sand as well Column Footings,” ACI JOURNAL, Proceedings V. 80, No. 3, May-June 1983,

as for the uniformly loaded footings. pp. 223-228.

7. According to Eurocode 2, the shear strength of footings 10. Committee Euro-International du Béton, “CEB-FIP Model Code

of practical dimensions, as the one tested, is governed by the 1990: Design Code,” London: Thomas Telford, 1993, 437 pp.

maximum allowed web crushing limit VRd,max at the column 11. Regan, P. E., “Punching of Slabs under Highly Concentrated Loads,”

face. Because VRd,max is only a function of the concrete Structures and Buildings, V. 157, No. 2, 2004, pp. 165-171.

compressive strength, this leads to the fact that it is not 12. Elstner, R. C., and Hognestad, E., “Shearing Strength of Reinforced

Concrete Slabs,” ACI JOURNAL, Proceedings V. 53, No. 7, July 1956, pp. 29-58.

possible to increase the punching resistance of footings by 13. Moe, J., “Shearing Strength of Reinforced Concrete Slabs and Footings

using shear reinforcement. Modifications are proposed to under Concentrated Loads,” Bulletin D47, Portland Cement Association,

overcome this deficiency. Skokie, IL, 1961, 135 pp.

DISCUSSION

Disc. 106-S55/From the September-October 2009 ACI Structural Journal, p. 600

Progressive Collapse Resistance to Axially-Restrained Frame Beams. Paper by Youpo Su, Ying Tian, and

Xiaosheng Song

College of Civil Engineering, Hunan University, Changsha, Hunan, China

The paper presents the experimental results of a series of measured strain of the steel of Specimen B3 in the Closure

12 reinforced concrete (RC) beams restrained longitudinally of this discussion, which would be helpful in better under-

against axial deformation. Some theoretical considerations standing the paper.

are also proposed on the basis of a theory developed by Park 3. In the literature to date, there are very few measurement

and Gamble.13 The innovative design of the experiments and results of arch thrust in the testing of RC beams and slabs. It

testing results presented by the authors allowed the discussers to is very interesting that the maximum arch thrust and the

investigate the compressive arch action and tensile catenary maximum load-carrying capacity of the beams occurred at a

action in reinforced concrete beams. The discussers would different deformation state, as described in the paper. The

like to offer the following comments and suggestions: curves shown in Fig. 12 and Eq. (3) seem to give a reasonable

1. As seen in Fig. 2 to 4, there should be a great rigid explanation of the relationship between the increase in the

assembly to block horizontal displacement of the specimens cross section bending resistance capacity and the change in

under compressive arch thrust. Also, the horizontal force load-carrying capacity of the beam. In the compressive arch

should be measured. It is noted that from Fig. 5 to 9 that action stage, the effect of axial force on the bending resistance

several axial force curves take on slippage in the position of capacity of the sections and the flexural equilibrium state of

zero axial force. This slippage may have resulted from an the beam changed with deflection. For the slabs with a small

experimental device other than the behavior of the beams. In section height, the stage from the beginning of the arch

addition, the linear variable differential transformer (LVDT) action to the snap-through is very short. It can be loosely

installed in the actuator can only be used to measure the considered that the sectional bending resistance capacity and

cylinder displacement of the actuator rather than the the load-carrying capacity of the slab reach the maximum at

displacement of the beam. From Fig. 4 it can be seen that the the same time, but the section height of a beam is usually

steel frame on which the actuator was fixed may also deform much greater than that of a slab. Before the cross section

upward under loading. The displacement of the actuator’s bending resistance capacity reaches its maximum, the beam

cylinder is not equal to the displacement of the specimen. It reaches the maximum load-carrying capacity. This is the

is necessary to calibrate the flexibility of the frame, then main difference in compressive arch action between beams

subtract the displacement of the frame from the total actu- and slabs. It is also the main finding of the paper. Unfortu-

ator’s displacement to obtain the displacement of the spec- nately, the paper gives the measured relative bending

imen. In addition, the sudden drop of the load-carrying moment of only one specimen. The variation of arch thrust is

capacity in Specimens A3 and A6, as shown in Fig. 5 and 8, is limited to qualitative discussions. Using Eq. (3) in the paper,

perhaps due to the sudden release of elastic strain energy Park and Gamble13 developed an arch thrust equation of a

stored in the frame in the conversion process of arch action slab strip, as shown in Eq. (1) of the paper. Park’s equation,

to catenary action. If the stiffness of the test device was large however, implies an assumption that the “maximum load-

enough, more smooth curves13 could be obtained. carrying capacity and the maximum arch thrust occurred at

2. In Fig. 5 to 8 and Fig. 12, the load-deflection curves are the same time.” Park’s model is not applicable to the beams

marked with a yielding point, which means that the yielding presented in the paper. As shown in Fig. 12, the axial force,

of tension steel reinforcement occurred at the supports; bending moments at the midspan, and support can be

however, how to measure the strain of the steel was not expressed as the functions of deflection δ. The correct

described in the paper. It is not clear how to get the yielding method is to solve the deflection δ from the following equation

point in the testing. From the curves in these figures, such as

Specimens A1, A4, B3, B4, and others, it cannot be considered d ( M + M′ ) dN

that the behavior of the specimens at the yielding point have -------------------------- = ------- δ + N

dδ dδ

not been beyond the “linear load-deflection response,”

assuming the yielding bending moment amplifies the factor

of Specimen B3 at the midspan and support as 1.15 and 1.65, By substituting δ into Eq. (3) in the paper, the maximum

respectively (Fig. 12). The estimated yield load according to load-carrying capacity of the beam under the action of arch

Eq. (3) is at least 10% less than that listed in Table 3. In thrust can be obtained.

testing the applied load, the axial force and bending moment 4. The paper states that the tension of steel reinforcement

at the supports could be measured. Then, the bending at the midspan in all of the specimens was finally fractured.

moment at the midspan could be calculated based on Eq. (3). For example, there were three steel bars of 14 mm (0.552 in.)

The yielding of steel reinforcement, however, can only be diameter in the bottom of Specimen B3. The total tension

determined from the measured strain of the steel. The force was 247 kN (55.53 kip). Due to the elongation of the

measured strain of the steel was not listed in the paper, steel reinforcement rate of 27%, top reinforcement should

possibly due to limits on length. The authors could plot the also be in tension. Therefore, the axial force in the beam may

not be less than 247 kN (55.53 kip). In Fig. 5, however, the

axial force in Specimen A3 is only approximately 100 kN

(22.48 kip). The axial tension forces in other specimens are

also smaller than the total tension force of the bottom steel

bars. In the second paragraph on p. 604, it says that “The

final failure of all specimens was announced by the fracture

of bottom reinforcement at the interface of beam and center

column stub.” According to the explanation for Fig. 12 in the

paper, the bending moment in the midspan existed until the

bottom steel reinforcement fractured. This is possible

because the bottom and top steel bars are in different tension

stress states, which results in a bending-tension state. If there

is a considerable bending moment at the midspan of a beam

in the final stage, the load-carrying capacity of the beam is

obviously underestimated by the model presented in Fig. 14

because there is not only catenary action but also bending Fig. 15—Vertical load and horizontal reaction force versus

moment in the load path. As described in the paper, “It is normalized center deflection (Specimens B3 and B2).

noted that, prior to failure, the specimen could still resist a

significant amount of bending moment at the critical vertical load P was measured solely by the load cell of the

sections. Therefore, a double curvature deformed shape was actuator. However, as indicated by the use of “transducers”

maintained in the beams until failure when the bottom rein- in this sentence, the center vertical displacement was

forcement at the midspan fractured under catenary action” measured by more than one transducer. Two LVDTs were

(first paragraph, p. 606). This description may be used to actually used in the tests: one was mounted at the actuator

explain why the measured axial force is less than the total and another one was independent. The difference in the

tension force in the bottom steel reinforcement of the beam. measurements from these two transducers was negligible at

If this explanation was acceptable, the ultimate load-carrying the peak load for each specimen, indicating that the loading

capacity would be calculated using Eq. (3) in the paper by frame placed vertically was sufficiently stiff.

simply substituting the measured axial tensile force and A sudden drop of loads occurred mainly in testing Specimens

bending moments in the equation. In this way, however, the A2, A3, A5, and A6 with small span-depth ratios. Such a

comparison shown in Fig. 14 may be meaningless. In phenomenon can be better explained by the notable effects

addition, “tensile arch action” in Table 3 should be “tensile of high axial forces developed in the beams on their flexural

catenary action.” strength rather than the strain energy stored in the vertical

5. A comparison of the test curves of Specimens B2 and loading frame. A numerical model with properly defined

B3 is very interesting because Specimen B2 contains only parameters can successfully capture the sudden loss of

one more bottom steel bar of 14 mm (0.552 in.) diameter than loading capacity as a result of concrete crushing. The horizontal

Specimen B3. According to the curves illustrated in Fig. 7 and rigidity of the supports that anchored the beams was in a

8, the curves of Specimens B2 and B3 are drawn together, as realistic range that the neighboring structural components

shown in Fig. 15. It is indicated in the figure that Specimens such as columns and slabs can offer to a frame beam. A test

B2 and B3 have an approximate yield load and ultimate load setup with extremely high axial rigidity is neither practical in

(a difference of approximately 10%), and the same maximum a test nor necessary for simulating the actual boundary

arch thrust of 210 kN (47.21 kip). The significant difference condition of a frame beam. Slippage in the measured horizontal

is the conversion from compressive arch action to tensile reaction force took place when the compressive arch action

catenary action. When the relative deflection reached 0.7, was transformed into catenary action. Such a phenomenon

the compressive arch action disappeared in Specimen B2. At can be explained by the inherent tolerance for the connection

this time, the top steel reinforcement at midspan had not yet components of the supports, especially at the pins

reached the position below the bottom steel reinforcement at connecting the steel sockets with the test bed. The slippage

the support. The “arch” should be maintained at this stage. In was sufficiently small, thereby causing negligible effects on

Specimen B3, however, the compressive arch action existed the overall performance of the specimens.

until the relative deflection reached beyond 1.10. At this Table 3 provides the measured horizontal reaction force

stage, the top face at the midspan of the beam had dropped and vertical deflection of specimens at the reach of peak load

below the bottom face at the support. In the two specimens, Pcu under compressive arch action. The discussers may have

the transition from “arch” to “catenary” could not be misinterpreted Pcu as the load causing tensile steel yielding.

explained by existing models. Because Pcu was much higher than the yield load, it is not

surprising that the “estimated yield load according to Eq. (3)

AUTHORS’ CLOSURE is at least 10% less than that listed in Table 3.”

The authors would like to thank the discussers for their The discussers claim, without providing experimental

interest in the paper. The paper focused primarily on the evidence, that “For the slabs with small section height, the

effects of compressive arch action on the load-carrying stage from the beginning of arch action to snap-through is

capacity of axially restrained frame beams. very short. It can be loosely considered that the sectional

It appears that the discussers have misunderstood the bending-resistance capacity and the load-carrying capacity

context regarding the measurement of beam deflections. The of the slab reach the maximum at the same time.” The major

paper states that “the vertical load P and deflection δ at the difference between the beam and one-way slab is the span-

center column stub were measured by a built-in load cell depth ratio that is one of the parameters governing the effects

within the actuator and displacement transducers.” The of compressive arch action. It is noteworthy, however, that

the same mechanism of compressive arch action can still be approach has to be used to determine the value of δ at Pcu.

assumed for both beams and one-way slabs. Additionally, Additionally, if the same ways of defining M, M′, and N (as

due to the secondary effects resulting from large slab defor- those recommended by Park and Gamble13) are used, it is

mation far beyond initial steel yielding, the slab loading believed that the approach recommended by the discussers

capacity can be reached earlier than its flexural capacity. would lead to results identical to the analytical predictions

Such a performance has also been observed in the beam tests given in the paper.

(such as Specimen B3). The authors extended the model It is noted that N is defined in the paper as the measured

developed for one-way slabs by Park and Gamble13 to horizontal reaction force. Hence, Fig. 5 to 8 show the horizontal

axially restrained beams. It is noted that, different from what reaction force rather than the axial force actually developed

the discussers have interpreted, Eq. (1) defines P as the in the beams. At large deformation of beams subjected to

vertical load applied on the beam rather than as the “arch catenary action, the axial force will be much higher than the

thrust.” In addition, scrutinizing the context of Chapter 12 of horizontal reaction force. Therefore, it is inappropriate to

Reference 13 indicates that no assumption was adopted or directly correlate the forces shown in these figures to the

implied by the authors of this reference about a simultaneous catenary action forces. Figure 14 shows a simple model for

reach of the maximum vertical load-carrying capacity and predicting the loading capacity as well as the comparison

the maximum axial force developed in the beams under between the calculated and measured results. As described in

compressive membrane action. the paper and admitted by the discussers, the internal force

The discussers briefly described an approach to calculate may be far more complicated than that assumed in the simple

the beam loading capacity Pcu. This approach is simply a model. By presenting Fig. 14, the authors used a modest way

different mathematical method to solve the same problem: to show their disagreement with this simple model, which has

searching the maximum load at varying values. The equation been adopted in Reference 10, and alert readers that this model

provided by the discussers can be derived from Eq. (3) by may result in unreliable predictions.

taking the first-order directive of P with respect to δ as zero. The authors agree that the test results for Specimens B2

Despite the seemingly simple format of this equation, no and B3 are interesting, especially the earlier transition from

detailed formulations are provided by the discussers to a compressive arch action to a catenary action in Specimen B2.

define M, M′, and N as a function of δ. It is possible that a The authors are currently carrying out an analytical study

closed-form solution of δ cannot be obtained and a numerical that may facilitate a reasonable explanation of the different

Carbon Fiber-Reinforced Polymer for Continuity in Existing Reinforced Concrete Buildings Vulnerable to

Collapse. Paper by Sarah Orton, James O. Jirsa, and Oguzhan Bayrak

ACI member, PhD, Universidade Estadual de Maringá, Maringá, Brazil

The authors have made a significant contribution regarding the main advantages of using CFRP instead of shoring elements

the strengthening of structures to prevent progressive collapse. in critical situations where progressive collapse is evident?

Also, the authors have presented an interesting strategy based

on the use of carbon fiber-reinforced polymers (CFRPs). EXPERIMENTAL PROCEDURE

Despite the quality of their research and their valuable findings, The authors have determined a strengthening scheme

the discusser requests clarification on some topics. using FRP that would allow a beam with discontinuity

reinforcement to survive loss of a column. For that, they

INTRODUCTION AND RESEARCH SIGNIFICANCE have investigated seven half-scale specimens based on

The authors have proposed the use of FRP as a strengthening typical information obtained from constructions built in the

alternative for beams that might lose some of their supports 1970s. Unfortunately, the concrete compressive strength

used for the specimens do not represent the majority of the

(interior columns). It is undoubtedly a situation that may

buildings constructed in that time. Also, the values presented

occur in daily practice and engineers need to come up with

in Table 3 are very different and may prompt distortions

quick and rational strategies of strengthening. The engineering

regarding the interpretation of the results.

solutions are desired to be simple, fast, and economical to

The discusser does not agree with the procedure of taking

avoid progressive collapse and allow the users to escape or

just one specimen for each proposed situation (NR-2, PM-1,

recover their belongings before the effects become significant. PM-2, NM-1, NM-2, FR-1, CR-1). At least two specimens

The use of CFRP for critical situations such as that should have been tested for each situation to effectively

presented by the authors, however, does not seem to be a discuss the results based on a minimum statistical background.

practical alternative, as this solution may demand specialized Also, there is a great variation for the compressive concrete

workers (adequate intervention) and structural engineers strength used in all specimens. As one can see in Table 3,

(design of the CFRP sheets). From a practical point of Specimens NM-2, FR-1, and CR-1 have concrete compressive

view—despite the exceptional qualities of CFRP sheets—a strengths that are significantly higher than the other situations.

shoring approach using steel or wood shores will work better Additionally, some specimens are significantly more reinforced

for a provisory situation where the loss of some columns is than others and, taking into account the great variation

evident. Also, this kind of approach is cheaper, faster, and does regarding the concrete compressive strength and reinforcements

not require a complex background. Could the authors explain (steel and FRP), some results were expected.

EXPERIMENTAL RESULTS AND DISCUSSION The application of CFRP in these situations does require

To the discusser’s understanding, the authors have specialized workers and structural engineers, but there is not

mentioned two basic situations of failure for their specimens: a lack of these qualified people. The use of CFRP to

flexure strength and catenary (or cable) action. However, it strengthen structures has been long implemented and there

is not clear throughout the paper which situation is more are several firms that provide both the engineering assistance

effective for representing the level of strength of a structure to design the CFRP and the workers to correctly apply it. CFRP

based on the GSA guidelines.1 Also, it is not clear when is both flexible and lightweight so that after the surface prepara-

catenary (or cable) action may develop. How can the rotation tion, the application of the fabric can occur in less than a few

of 0.13 radians be defined to obtain catenary (or cable) action? hours with only a few skilled workers. For the beams in this

In the situation denominated “flexural strengthening,” study, the CFRP application only took approximately 1 hour.

the authors used 4.5 times the amount of CFRP used in For this study, the intent was to see whether CFRP could

Specimen NM-2. Why not use the same strengthening used be applied in such a way to provide continuity (which it can)

in Specimens PM-1/PM-2 and NM-1/NM-2 to account for and whether that continuity can aid in the resistance of

the effect of providing FRP for positive and negative progressive collapse (which it can). Although it would have

moments? Increasing CFRP in Specimen FR-1 makes a been desirable to repeat the tests of some CFRP designs, that

comparison with Specimens PM-1, PM-2, NM-1 and NM-2 was simply not within the time or budget constraints of the

difficult. Also, in Table 3, there is no description regarding projects. The evaluation of more variables was deemed more

the concrete compressive strength of Specimen NM-1. important than replicating rather expensive test specimens.

Specimens NM-1 and NM-2 did replicate results of the

negative moment strengthening. The two specimens were

CONCLUSIONS

the same, with the only difference being in the amount of

The authors have presented a very interesting paper CFRP applied. After the successful test of Specimen NM-1,

concerning the progressive collapse of reinforced concrete it was decided that a reduced amount of CFRP could produce

structures. The loss of a supporting column may leave a the same results, so Specimen NM-2 was tested.

beam unable to resist gravity loads and may lead to the The design concrete strength for the specimens was 27.6 MPa

collapse of either side of the lost column. In that way, engineers (4000 psi). The concrete, provided by a local concrete

need to come up with techniques that allow building occupants supplier, was unusually low for the first batch of beams, and

to recover their belongings or escape before the effects of a high for the second two. The concrete compressive strength

local failure become significant. The authors have presented of Specimen NM-1 was 33.8 MPa (4900 psi) (the same as for

a technique based on the use of CFRP sheets, which can be Specimens PM-1 and PM-2). Although the concrete strength

considered a very effective intervention because it can may not have been as intended, it did not significantly affect

provide a great level of ductility for damaged sections. the behavior of the specimens. For a specimen under catenary

In critical situations, however, this alternative of intervention action, the most important variables are the location and

may be considered more complicated and expensive than strength of the reinforcing steel, and height and depth of the

other provisory and simple situations, such as a shoring beam. As for the steel in the specimens, all specimens have

approach (steel or wood). Also, when strengthening a beam the same reinforcing steel and the same steel design, except

for flexure using CFRP, one must be aware of the effective Specimen CR-1, which was designed using current ACI 318

shear strength. If the shear strength needs to be enhanced requirements for integrity reinforcement.

once the flexural strength was increased by using CFRP All specimens (except for Specimen FR-1) exhibited some

sheets, this solution may become even more expensive and form of flexural failure (ex-beam hinging at the support in

complicated, demanding special attention. Specimens NM-1 and NM-2), then went into catenary action.

The authors are correct when they state that a statically Catenary action consistently developed at a deflection equal

applied load corresponding to 2(DL + 0.25LL), based on GSA to, or just greater than, the depth of the beam. To reach this

guidelines,1 may or may not correspond to actual progressive deflection without a complete flexural failure (bar fracture),

collapse prevention. In fact, new information concerning the beams needed to have sufficient rotational ductility. For

catenary (or cable) action is needed to better understand the these specimens, the rotational ductility needed to be

maximum strength of reinforced concrete structures. approximately 0.13 radians.

Finally, the discussed paper presents the importance of For Specimen FR-1, the intent was to increase the flexural

providing continuity for positive and negative reinforcements. strength of the beam to allow it to carry the moments induced

It is an issue that requires special attention in the design by a loss column. This was not the same intent as the other

codes. Practical experience has been shown through the specimens, so a different design approach was used. The

years that an adequately detailed structure may withstand design of the CFRP was based on basic flexural principles

incredible loads, even if some errors were committed during and used the least amount of CFRP needed to reach the

the design process. There is no doubt that the proposed required strength. As seen in Fig. 12 of Reference 19, the

intervention using FRP sheets is effective; however, it will strains measured in the CFRP were approaching the fracture

only be possible in practice if an adequate continuity of rein- strain and most of the CFRP had debonded, indicating that

forcement was defined in the damaged structure. the CFRP was almost fully used.

The discusser is correct that shear strength must be considered.

AUTHORS’ CLOSURE Improving the continuity in a beam does not help if the shear

The authors thank the discusser for his interest in the paper. It strength is lacking. Strengthening for shear was outside of

appears the discusser misinterpreted the intent of the strength- the scope of the research project.

ening procedure. The objective was to prevent a progressive

collapse if a catastrophic event occurred. The technique was REFERENCES

19. Orton, S. L.; Jirsa, J. O.; and Bayrak, O., “Design Considerations of

never intended to be used on a structure that was heavily Carbon Fiber Anchors,” Journal for Composites for Construction, ASCE,

damaged and needed to be shored to prevent collapse. V. 12, No. 6, Nov/Dec 2008, pp. 608-616.

Disc. 106-S61/From the September-October 2009 ACI Structural Journal, p. 656

New Formula to Calculate Minimum Flexure Reinforcement for Thick High-Strength Concrete Plates. Paper

by E. Rizk and H. Marzouk

Assistant Professor, Department of Civil Engineering, University of Gaziantep, Gaziantep, Turkey

minimum flexure reinforcement for thick plates and two-

way slabs. The validity of the new proposed equation is verified

by a comparison between the proposed equation with

Battista’s experimental results and with different code

formulas for calculating minimum reinforcement for flexural

members. At first sight, everything seems to be correct;

however, after closer inspection, the database (Battista’s

experimental results) used for verification cannot be used for

this purpose. First of all, the range of the dependent variable

(steel ratio) is too close where steel ratios are 0.22, 0.23, and

0.24, respectively. On the other hand, the ranges of independent

variables are quite high as compared to the dependent variable,

which means that most of the dependent variables do not Fig. 10—Interaction plot of steel ratio = 0.23 for fc versus

have any significant effect on the dependent variable. As the fy, fc versus depth, and depth versus fy.

dependent variable is grouped and the interaction diagrams

are plotted, this problem can be observed easily, as shown in

Fig. 10 to 12. As can be seen, variations of related independent

variables have no effect on the dependent variable (steel ratio).

As a result of the aforementioned arguments, Battista’s

experimental results cannot be used to verify any code formu-

lations or equations regarding the calculation of minimum

flexure reinforcement for thick plates and two-way slabs.

AUTHORS’ CLOSURE

The authors would like to thank the discusser for his

interest in the paper, and for providing the authors the

opportunity to illustrate a few details. The developed model

is based on the theoretical assumptions based on the theory

of plates in Eq. (12) to (17) and the shear sandwich model

simplification, not any test data as explained in the paper. Fig. 11—Interaction plot of steel ratio = 0.22 for fc versus fy.

The test data of Battista is not related to the paper.

The discusser is arguing that Battista’s experimental work

cannot be used to verify any code formulations or equations

regarding the calculation of minimum flexure reinforcement

for thick plates and two-way slabs, because most of the

independent variables (concrete compressive strength fc′ , steel

yield strength fy, and slab depth d) do not have any significant

effect on the dependant variable (reinforcement ratio ρ).

The discusser’s argument is not correct because he ignored

the size-scale effect factor as an independent factor on the

amount of reinforcement ratio. It is possible to consider the

structural member size effect on the minimum reinforcement

ratio through the brittleness number concept NP, as defined

by Bosco et al.15 The brittleness number is derived from

linear elastic fracture mechanics (LEFM) concepts, as

Fig. 12—Interaction plot of steel ratio = 0.24 for fc versus

0.5 fy.

fy h

N P = ρ -----------

- (39)

K IC The critical value of the stress-intensity factor KIC can be

evaluated as follows

where ρ is the steel reinforcement ratio, KIC is the concrete

fracture toughness, fy is the yield strength of the steel, and h (40)

is the thickness of the structural member. K IC = Gf Ec

Fig. 13—Brittleness number (NP): steel yield strength for Fig. 15—Brittleness number (NP): steel yield strength for

steel reinforcement ratio = 0.23%. (Note: 1 MPa = 145 psi.) steel reinforcement ratio = 0.24%. (Note: 1 MPa = 145 psi.)

Fig. 14—Brittleness number (NP): slab depth for steel Fig. 16—Brittleness number (NP): steel yield strength for

reinforcement ratio = 0.23%. (Note: 1 MPa = 145 psi.) steel reinforcement ratio = 0.22%. (Note: 1 MPa = 145 psi.)

where Gf is the fracture energy and Ec is the concrete ratio independent of member size. This is not true as the

modulus of elasticity determined by standard methods. The minimum reinforcement ratio is inversely proportional to the

brittleness of the structural member increases by increasing member depth.

the member size or decreasing the steel reinforcement ratio. As a result of the aforementioned arguments, Battista’s

Bosco et al.15 found that a particular value of number NP experimental results can be used to verify any code formulations

does exist, for which the moment at which the reinforcement or equations regarding the calculation of minimum flexure

yields equals the moment at first cracking. Such a condition reinforcement for thick plates and two-way slabs. The signifi-

defines the minimum amount of reinforcement ratio. Current cance of the independent variables on the reinforcement ratio

design codes suggest a constant minimum reinforcement is clear and can be observed easily, as shown in Fig. 13 to 16.

Evaluation of Load Transfer and Strut Strength of Deep Beams with Short Longitudinal Bar Anchorages.

Paper by Sergio F. Breña and Nathan C. Roy

PhD, Reader, School of Engineering, Cochin University of Science and Technology, Kochi, Kerala, India; PhD, ACI member, Assistant Professor, Department of Civil Engineering,

Indian Institute of Technology Roorkee, Roorkee, India; PhD, Professor, Department of Civil Engineering, Indian Institute of Technology Roorkee

The authors are to be complimented for the interesting of web reinforcement, however, does serve to confine the

study. Based on a/d ratio, the authors have sought to identify inclined strut in the tied arch. Further, ACI 318-08 specifies

two mechanisms of load transfer in deep beams: tied-arch that diagonal struts in beams inclined in the range of 25 to

mechanism and truss mechanism. It is well established, 65 degrees with the adjoining tie are well-conditioned for

however, that besides the ratio, the truss mechanism is also strut-and-tie modeling. Therefore, for all cases wherein the

dependent on the amount of web reinforcement in the deep inclination of the strut is typically more than 25 degrees (that is,

beam, whereas the tied-arch mechanism is relatively inde- a/d < 2.14), it will be reasonable to use the tied-arch mechanism

pendent of the amount of web reinforcement. The presence as the overarching method for the analysis of deep beams.

The authors have rightly observed that although vertical web

reinforcement is explicitly included in truss models, it is not

done so in tied-arch models. Moreover, the effect of horizontal

web reinforcement is usually not included in either of the

models. The discussers feel that discounting the role of

horizontal web reinforcement runs contrary to a unified

approach to strut-and-tie modeling. On the basis of their

investigations of statically determinate truss models with

vertical and with horizontal truss mechanisms, Matamoros

and Wong (2003) have concluded that though both the

mechanisms yield conservative results, they require almost

double the amount of web reinforcement compared to an

indeterminate truss model consisting of a combination of the

vertical and horizontal truss models. The discussers are of

the opinion that for a/d less than about 2.14 (strut inclination

>25 degrees), it will be simple and convenient to adopt the

tied-arch mechanism with web reinforcement—both vertical

and horizontal—being accounted for in determining the

strength of the single bottle-shaped diagonal strut joining the

load point and the support. Fig. 12—Variation of strut efficiency factor with strut angle.

The term F in Eq. (12) and (18) should be corrected to FS-truss.

The discussers suggest that the issue of apportioning the total

A

∑ --------sin

shear between the tied-arch and the truss mechanism can ρT = si 2

αi (23)

probably be better resolved by using the combined indeter- bs si

minate strut-and-tie model of Fig. 7(a) rather than the

determinate model approach implied in Eq. (10) through where Asi is the cross-sectional area of each layer of web

(21). Furthermore, the authors’ attempt to determine the reinforcement in the i-th orientation; bs is the strut or beam

fraction of the shear transferred through truss action on the thickness (out-of-plane); si is the spacing of web reinforce-

basis of strain measurements using Instruments L2 and L3 ment in the i-th orientation; and αi is the angle between the

may not be reliable because the strain profile across the strut strut and the bars in the i-th orientation.

axis is nonuniform due to the bottling effect. What is notable in Fig. 12 is that that the trend of the

It is interesting to note that the strut efficiency factor βs of authors’ experimentally obtained strut efficiency factors is

the diagonal struts of the nine beams that failed by strut similar to the trend of the predicted strut efficiency factors

failure when plotted against the corresponding strut inclination based on the Sahoo (2009) model.

angle α is seen to be increasing with increasing α following

the linear trend shown in Fig. 12. On the other hand, REFERENCES

irrespective of the angle of inclination of the diagonal strut Matamoros, A. B., and Wong, K. H., 2003, “Design of Simply Supported

Deep Beams Using Strut-and-Tie Models,” ACI Structural Journal, V. 100,

with the adjoining horizontal tie, ACI 318-08 Appendix A No. 6, Nov.-Dec., pp. 704-712.

recommends a constant strut efficiency factor of 0.75 for all Sahoo, D. K., 2009, “An Investigation of the Strength of Bottle-Shaped

of these reinforced bottle-shaped struts. For strut inclinations Struts,” PhD thesis, Indian Institute of Technology Roorkee, Roorkee,

India, 324 pp.

smaller than approximately 30 degrees, Fig. 12 shows that

Sahoo, D. K.; Singh, B.; and Bhargava, P., 2009, “An Appraisal of the

the ACI recommended strut efficiency factor may be uncon- ACI Strut Efficiency Factors,” Magazine of Concrete Research, V. 61, No. 6,

servative when compared to the experimental results of the Aug., pp. 445-456.

authors. Interestingly, for all of these beams, including those

with short anchorage lengths, the authors’ experimentally AUTHORS’ CLOSURE

observed strut efficiency factors do have a sufficient margin The authors appreciate the discussers’ interest in their

of safety when compared with the predicted strut efficiency paper. We would first like to thank the discussers for

factors obtained from a recent model by Sahoo (2009), shown pointing out notation errors in Eq. (12) and (18) in the paper.

as follows. This allows us to correct these equations and fix other errors

found in the manuscript. Figure 11(b) should be modified to

be consistent with the notation given in Fig. 11(a) included

0.05 α

β s = ⎛ 0.60 + ---------- + 55ρ T⎞ ------ (22) in this discussion.

⎝ rc ⎠ 90

FC(L) = FC(R) – FS-trusscosγ (12)

In Eq. (22), (valid for up to 81 MPa [11,748.05 psi]), α is

the angle of inclination of the diagonal strut with the tie in Vtruss = FS-trusssinγ (18)

degrees, and rc is the concentration ratio of the load resisted

by the diagonal strut obtained as the ratio of ws-top and half Finally, the values reported in the last column of Table 3

the strut length. The effective transverse reinforcement ratio ρT are ratios of calculated-to-test values of stresses in the strut

is computed from the corrected version of the transformation for a tied-arch model. Therefore, the header for the last

used in ACI Eq. (A-4), shown as follows (Sahoo et al. 2009) column in Table 3 should be modified to read fS-TA/fS-TA(test).

The authors would now like to provide closing comments

in response to points made by the discussers. The discussers

correctly point out that the load-transfer mechanism in deep

beams is not only influenced by a/d, but also by the amount

of transverse web reinforcement. To isolate the influence of

a/d in the load-transfer mechanism, the authors designed the

deep beams in our tests with the same amount and spacing of

transverse reinforcement. The main objective of the research

was to identify the effect of short bar anchorage at the

support on the load-transfer mechanism. Certainly a more

complete study would include variations in the amount and

spacing of transverse reinforcement while holding a/d

constant—this was, however, outside the scope of our tests.

The discussers point out that by using the minimum

permissible angle between a strut and a tie in accordance

with ACI 318-08, one could determine a maximum a/d of

2.14, where load could be transferred directly into the

support using a tied-arch model. Although one could

certainly design a beam that falls in this a/d range using only

a tied-arch model and in compliance with ACI 318-08, loads

can also be transferred indirectly into the support through

truss action for a/d less than 2.0, as has been previously

demonstrated (refer to Eq. (4) from FIP [1999] in the paper).

Furthermore, the authors contend that in the case of deep

beams with anchorage details that do not ensure yielding of

the bottom tie at the face of the extended nodal zone above

the support (a requirement needed to satisfy equilibrium in a

tied-arch model), the fraction of load transferred through

truss action might be higher than for a beam with appropriate

anchorage in this region, provided that enough transverse

reinforcement exists to support this load transferred by truss

action. The fact that specimens having longitudinal bar

anchorages shorter than required to develop yielding of the

bottom tie were able to support loads comparable with those

with full development demonstrates that a fraction of the

total load was being transferred through a truss mechanism.

The discussers point out that it would be better to use an

indeterminate strut-and-tie model involving tied-arch and Fig. 11—(revised from original paper)—Truss model for load

truss mechanisms to determine the fraction of shear transferred transfer: (a) geometry of model; and (b) top node details.

by each model. The authors would like to remind the

discussers that, to solve an indeterminate strut-and-tie model,

one must either assume the fraction of load transferred by each

individual mechanism or determine this load fraction in

proportion to the individual submodel stiffnesses. The best

way to verify our experimental results was to separate the 100% of the applied shear, that would mean that the adopted

problem into two statically determinate models where the procedure to determine the individual load-transfer fractions

load being transferred could be verified by independent was flawed or that experimental measurements were not

measurements taken during the tests. These results were reliable. As mentioned in the paper and included in Table 3,

intended to provide information on the fraction of load being the largest difference between the load needed to be transferred

transferred by each potential load-transfer mechanism to by tied-arch action to ensure that 100% of the applied shear

provide guidance for the future use of indeterminate models was carried and the load determined through potentiometer

for this type of structure. The load carried by each mechanism measurements was approximately 12%. We believe that this

was estimated through independent experimental measurements small difference gives reasonable confidence about the proce-

taken along the direction of struts in the assumed tied-arch dure employed to estimate the fraction of load transferred by

and truss models for each group of beams. The authors tied-arch and truss mechanisms.

would like to emphasize that we were using potentiometers The variation of strut efficiency factor βs that the

that measured the overall axial shortening of the relevant discussers present in Fig. 12 is consistent with results plotted

struts (the potentiometer ends were attached to points located in Fig. 9. The main difference is that βs is plotted in Fig. 9 as

at the ends of struts). This allowed us to experimentally a function of a/d instead of direct strut angle α, but these two

determine the average axial force-displacement relationship quantities are directly related. The authors are also quite

of each strut and avoid basing our results on local strain satisfied that the experimentally determined βs values follow

readings. The total load (sum of forces carried by each the same trend as the discussers’ model. We thank the

individual mechanism) would of course have to add to 100% discussers for making us aware of their model and look

of the applied shear. If the total load carried did not add to forward to studying the reference they provided in detail.

Disc. 106-S66/From the September-October 2009 ACI Structural Journal, p. 706

Punching Strength of Reinforced Concrete Footings. Paper by Josef Hegger, Marcus Ricker, and Alaa G. Sherif

ACI member, PhD, Karlsfeld, Germany

The authors should be complimented for their interesting seems to be negligible.” The distance s0, the spacing between

test series and informative report. The saw cuts of different the column face and the first row of shear reinforcement is

test specimens (Fig. 5) especially allow for very informative decisive.

insights into the failure process of the footings and some

shortages of the code provisions. Steel strains

The footings without shear reinforcement did not fail in As revealed before, the position of the strain gauges was

direct punching: the failure was caused by the failure of the not optimal. The flexural steel strains measured at failure of

anchorage of the flexural reinforcement along the perimeter the footings with shear reinforcement reached yielding as the

of the specimens. This can be observed at the horizontal shear reinforcement let the inner crack develop in the neigh-

cracking along/above the flexural reinforcement at the edges borhood of the strain gauges.

of the specimens and at the many failing outer corners of

practically each and every footing without shear reinforce- DISCUSSION OF EXPERIMENTAL RESULTS

ment. These local failures could partly be caused by the Effect of a/d

loading pattern with the sliding bearings near edges The slenderness ratio a/d is an indirect indicator of the

modeling a uniform surface load, which is practical for test possible inclination of the failure shear surface only. At this

reasons but not realistic. These circumstances could lead to point, a direct factor (the inclination) should be introduced in

a decision not to consider these specimens in the discussion. the codes.

Nevertheless, as the detailing of the reinforcement corre-

sponds to the practice, it is mandatory to tackle the results as Effect of concrete compressive strength

they help to elucidate the shortages of the code provisions. The authors’ conclusion is correct: the behavior of the

footings can not be described by a strut-and-tie model. The

EXPERIMENTAL PROGRAM failure load in shear is not controlled at all by the bearing

Material properties capacity of the compressive strut. The “source” of the ultimate

It is not clear at which age the test specimens were loaded. load in shear is the shear load-bearing capacity of the

Was it around the 28th day? concrete compressive zone. Before the failure occurs, the

shear crack, as part of the failure surface, is so wide that no

Test setup aggregate interlock or similar sidelines could be drawn on to

Even if Fig. 4(b) does not yield detailed information about explain the behavior. The influence of the increasing

the real loading pattern, the discusser has the impression that concrete strength is neither linear nor follows any square

the specimens of Series II were relatively overloaded along root relationship. Further fundamental research is needed

their perimeter; the outer sliding bearings were too near to regarding this.

the edges of the specimens.

The locations of the flexural steel strain gauges as shown Effect of shear reinforcement

in Fig. 4(b) are not optimal. At choosing these locations, the As explained previously, at least in case of Specimens

staggering of the tension line due to the shear force (refer to DF16 to DF18, the shear reinforcement was not activated as

the inclined cracks in Fig. 5), too, should have been taken part of the shear load-bearing mechanism; hence, any

into consideration. conclusion—for example, based on Fig. 10—would be

misleading.

EXPERIMENTAL RESULTS

Cracking and failure characteristics Effect of soil-structure interaction

All test specimens without shear reinforcement failed due It is a pity that the saw cut of the test specimen with shear

to the failure of the anchorage of the flexural reinforcement. reinforcement, Specimen DF 9, supported on sand, was not

The authors declare correctly that “the failure occurred presented in the paper.

along/due to the wide shear crack and the inclination of the

cracks in these specimens is determined by the ratio a/d.” COMPARISON OF PREDICTIONS AND

The saw cuts of the uniformly loaded footings with shear EXPERIMENTAL RESULTS

reinforcement reveal an extremely important and forward- Comparison with ACI 318-08

looking fact: as the inner work required to open the outer Figure 12(b) seems to confirm that ACI 318-08 does not

shear crack crossing the shear reinforcement was higher than consider the influence of a/d. Nevertheless, the real influence

the inner work causing the much steeper inner shear crack, of the effective depth, as shown in Fig. 12(a), should not be

even though the shear reinforcement was activated, it evaluated without considering the impact of a/d, that is, the

determined the position of the failure surface but not the size inclination of the failure surface. The specimens supported

of the ultimate failure load. The authors correctly specify on sand with different effective depths had different a/d too.

that “in contrast to the footings without shear reinforcement, The position of the critical perimeter b0, accompanied with

the influence of a/d on the inclination of the shear cracks the assumption of the uniform soil pressure distribution,

Fig. 16—Crack patterns of Footings DF11 to DF13 after failure.

approximates the real behavior on the safe side (namely, address some of the points raised in the discussion to provide

conservative) two times; refer to the crack pattern in Fig. 5(iv) some clarification. Because of space limitations, the most

(Fig. 5(h) shows Specimens DF7, not DF17). The crack important points, such as the type of failure, will be

pattern of Specimen DF9 should have been shown, too, to discussed in more detail.

realize the impact of the shear reinforcement on the failure

behavior of sand-supported footings. EXPERIMENTAL PROGRAM

Failure characteristics

Comparison with Eurocode 2

The discusser assumes that the failure of the footings

The authors are correct in that:

without shear reinforcement was caused by bond failure.

• The failure crack patterns of the footings without shear

This is not correct. In Fig. 16, the crack patterns of three foot-

reinforcement seem to prove the position of the basis

ings without shear reinforcement are presented. All footings

control perimeter at 2.0d distance from the column

face; and were loaded via 16 bearings, simulating a uniform load case.

The crack patterns are typical for a punching shear failure. At

• It is odd that VRu,max according to Eq. (17) controls the

design. Being only a function of the concrete compres- first, radial cracks around the column appeared, then the first

sive strength, it seems to refer to a web-crushing limit tangential cracks developed at the column face and, later on,

although, in case of the tested footings, no crushing at higher load stages, more and more tangential cracks

could occur. appeared. The ultimate punching capacity of the slab was

The authors criticize that VRu,max does not reflect a/d achieved when the inclined failure crack reached the flexural

correctly. The discusser agrees and suggests that in the case reinforcement. Because the failure was relatively brittle and

of footings, a control like VRu,max has no meaning at all. the tests were load controlled, it was not always possible to

Instead of VRd,max, the authors propose a new equation, Eq. stop the test right in time. After the failure took place, the

(19), which is a follow-up of Eq. (15). It would be informa- load was removed and, afterward, the specimens were

tive to learn how the multiplier 16 ( d/u 0 ) has been found. reloaded to determine the bearing capacity after punching

Whereas vRd,c (Eq. (15)) yields a lower limit, VRd,max (Eq. failure. During this second loading phase, the flexural rein-

(19)) sets an upper limit of the load-bearing capacity. forcement was heavily deformed in the region of the failure

Comparing Eq. (19) to Eq. (15), the margin between them crack, which led to the spalling concrete at some edges.

seems to originate from the geometry, that is, ( d/u 0 ) . Why In contrast to Fig. 2, in the footings without shear rein-

does the geometry not influence the punching shear-stress forcement, the flexural reinforcement was twice bent-up

resistance vRd,c either? The authors are kindly asked to clarify. (Fig. 17). Thus, for the given geometry, a typical bond

It would be desirable, too, that the odd “best fit” form of failure is nearly impossible. The footings with shear rein-

(100ρ · fck)1/3 in Eq. (15) will be substituted with a physically forcement were identical to the specimens without shear

sound term in the New Model Code of fib under preparation. reinforcement in terms of flexural reinforcement and

Even if—according to Fig. 15(d)—Eq. (19) seems to yield concrete strength. Although the anchorage of the flexural

a “safe” upper limit, the rate of approximation depends on a/d reinforcement was weaker (90-degree hooks), the specimens

and is, in the case of footings supported on sand, very conser- with shear reinforcement reached a higher failure load. This

vative. For the time being, the limited number of the test should clearly indicate that at least the footings without shear

specimens with shear reinforcement, that is, with different reinforcement and 180 (2 times 90) degree hooks did not fail

ratios d/u0 and different spacings between the column face prematurely by bond failure. Hallgren et al.5 reported the

and the first row of shear reinforcement, s0, do not allow for results of 14 punching shear tests on reinforced column foot-

final acceptance of the proposed VRd,max (Eq. (19)). ings. In these tests, among other parameters, the influence of

The authors are kindly encouraged to continue their the end anchorage of reinforcement was investigated system-

interesting research work. atically. Hallgren et al.5 concluded that the anchorage of the

flexural reinforcement has only a small influence on the

AUTHORS’ CLOSURE punching strength of footings; however, curved anchorage

The authors are grateful for the comments and the interest improved the ductility. It is worth mentioning that the

in the paper. In the present closure, the authors would like to Swedish saw cuts and crack patterns are very similar to those

that the failure load is sensitive to the spacing between the

column face and the first row of shear reinforcement s0. To

investigate this effect in more detail, Ricker14 conducted a

finite element analysis. In Fig. 18, the calculated failure

loads VFE are plotted against s0/d (with d being the effective

depth). The finite element analysis showed that a reduction

of the spacing between the column face and the first row to

s0 = 0.2d leads to an increase in failure load between 10 and

14%. However, to clarify the influence of this parameter,

further tests are needed.

Fig. 17—Saw cut of Footing DF11. Figure 19 presents the saw cut of Specimen DF9 with

shear reinforcement (supported on sand). The crack pattern

is comparable to those of the uniformly loaded specimens.

The concrete is slightly more crushed because the specimen

was overloaded when the bearing capacity after failure was

determined during a second loading phase. The inclination

of the failure shear crack is very steep (approximately 50 to

60 degrees). The crack propagates from the column face to

the anchorage of the first row of shear reinforcement

consisting of stirrups.

EXPERIMENTAL RESULTS

The equation for the calculation of the maximum punching

capacity was originally derived for flat plates by a regression

analysis.15 For the present paper, this equation was adapted

to footings. Due to a lack of suitable tests, Eq. (19) was

Fig. 18—Result of finite element calculations performed to adapted in such a way to determine lower-bound values for

investigate influence of distance from column face to first the maximum punching-shear capacity of footings as

row of shear reinforcement s0 on failure load. correctly mentioned by the discusser. According to Euro-

code 2, a critical perimeter at the periphery of the loaded area

was chosen for the calculation of the maximum punching-

shear capacity. In contrast, the punching-shear resistance

without shear reinforcement, according to Eq. (15), is verified

at control perimeters within 2.0d. The use of a relatively

large distance to the control perimeter has the advantage that

the correlation with test data over the normal range of

column dimensions to effective depth is reasonable (refer to

Reference 11). This can be explained by a reduction of the

influence of the uneven shear stress distribution resulting

from the type of column (for example, circular or rectangular)

and the column dimensions. Thus, for control perimeters far

Fig. 19—Saw cut of Footing DF9. away from the periphery of the loaded area, the column

dimensions need not be considered directly.

in the present tests and also showed spalling concrete at the REFERENCES

edges of the specimens. 14. Ricker, M., “Zur Zuverlässigkeit der Bemessung gegen Durchstanzen

For the footings with shear reinforcement, the discusser bei Einzelfundamenten,” doctoral thesis, RWTH Aachen University,

Aachen, Germany, 2009, 304 pp.

correctly mentions that the shear reinforcement determined 15. Hegger, J.; Häusler, F.; and Ricker, M., “Zur Durchstanzbemessung

the position of the failure surface but not the value of the von Flachdecken nach Eurocode 2,” Beton-und Stahlbetonbau, V. 103, No. 2,

ultimate failure load. The discusser also correctly presumed Feb. 2008, pp. 93-102.

- Detailing Corner-Grade BeamUploaded byProfessor Dr. Nabeel Al-Bayati-Consultant Engineer
- PIP STE05121 - Anchor Bolt Design GuideUploaded bynistiana
- FINALReport_PEER_CalibrationStudy_HaseltonEtAl_2007_12_14_final.pdfUploaded byvicvic ortega
- Seismic design tipsUploaded byapi-19754583
- CIVL 513 - Project No. 1 - 13Mar30 - Complete Report [Final]Uploaded bybpaxton
- Bondek Performance EnhancementsUploaded byRada Ioan
- Standard Requirements for Seismic Evaluation and Retrofit of Existing Concrete Buildings Public Discussion DraftUploaded byAbdulkadir Cüneyt Aydın
- Column Wall Design Civilax.comUploaded byCivilax.com
- 425-Chp7-Bond Development Length Splices.pptUploaded byPunya Suresh
- Crimper - Method and ItpUploaded byRosalin Martalena Christianti Sihombing
- Soporte Block CavingUploaded bycamilajostin
- Hollow Core PublishedUploaded byTasi Zafir
- 23. Earthquake Response and Design Criteria of Prestressed cUploaded byankursonicivil
- ductility of columns.pdfUploaded bybobos
- 00194044- Shear Wall TestUploaded byDemçe Florjan
- Engineeringcivil.com-Wrong Myths on Column Construction a Challenge to OvercomeUploaded byAravindan
- 173279313-DESIGN-OF-CORBELS-BS-CODE-xls.xlsUploaded byLAU TO
- WCEE2012_0070Uploaded byAnonymous PDEpTC4
- ACI 350_ZarrinpourUploaded byTete Lunarejo Aguilar
- ANCLAJESUploaded byfrankp_147
- artigo ingles, curva tensao deformação.pdfUploaded byLuís Henrique
- 'Fragmentation'Uploaded bywasimiitgn
- Final Exam AarstrcUploaded byRobbie Calangian
- IRJET-Strength Tests on Crimped Steel Fibres-A StudyUploaded byIRJET Journal
- B S Codes_ListUploaded byKelvin Leong
- IRJET-V2I985Uploaded bysheik
- ICCS16 Final GeorgiouUploaded byAndri Georgiou
- CBM SCC PoliolefinaUploaded byJavier Del Castillo Schiffino
- 3.IJCSEIERDOCT20173Uploaded byTJPRC Publications
- FHWA-IF-09-014LoadRatingGuidanceandExamplesforGussetsFebruary2009rev3[1].pdfUploaded byShawn Cole

- Building IrregularitiesUploaded bykalpanaadhi
- GreekUploaded byThai Dam
- ROMANUploaded byThai Dam
- CMD Commands Get InfoUploaded byThai Dam
- Risk Category - ASCE 7-10Uploaded byThai Dam
- ReadmeUploaded byThai Dam
- Masonry Control Joints (TEK_10-02B).pdfUploaded byCesar Rjszvl
- TEK 10-03Uploaded byThai Dam
- Chen and Associate NIW StatsUploaded byThai Dam
- asbahan2011.pdfUploaded byThai Dam
- 16-215Uploaded byThai Dam
- Nguoi Tinh Mua Dong - Piano Music SheetsUploaded byPriscilla Tran
- 474728Uploaded byThai Dam
- 16-432Uploaded byThai Dam
- 302.1R-15_Chapter5Uploaded byFerds Angeles
- A New Look at Tensile Creep of Fiber Reinforced CoUploaded byThai Dam
- Vulcraft Composite DeckUploaded byThai Dam
- YpsiUploaded byThai Dam
- Ann ArborUploaded byThai Dam
- FDDM-Appendix-A-2014.pdfUploaded byuserhie
- 17-033Uploaded byThai Dam
- Design Connection Capitulo i Aisc 2005Uploaded byAPB
- Csi ReferUploaded byjorgerojasr

- 130324 SRO 2010 NEQS Air Water Noise AttiqUploaded byenvian13
- Pore pressureUploaded bySorin Sorin
- Physics Reference TablesUploaded bydbranetension
- Particle SizeUploaded byKek Siang Ming
- ASTM D512 Chloride Ion in WaterUploaded byguadalupegomezperez
- Non MetalsUploaded byHarshal Jadhav
- 49704821-ALFA-LAVAL-Manual-P605-High-Speed-Separator.pdfUploaded byKeivinMC
- Material BoilerUploaded byAdi Septiawan
- COBRAS-2013-CLARKKOCH-APSforSulfuricAcidStorageTanks.pdfUploaded byAca Chch
- THERMODYNAMICS.docxUploaded byAngelito Mendoza
- Ct 9089302016Uploaded byh_shivalkar
- Bogush-1987-Preparation of Monodisperse Silica Particles, Control of Size and MassUploaded byLirio Tai
- ASTM E-595 Outgassing TestUploaded byVivek Keviv
- 2. Det Voltam ParacetamolUploaded byAdrianaMerticariu
- Ir ThermometerUploaded bypradeepchennai10_959
- Tg102016 at a Glance Indoor Air QualityUploaded byDavid Silva
- Antimicrobial Effect of Sodium Hypochlorite Solution and Zataria Multiflora Essential Oil as Irrigants in Root Canals Contaminated With Candida Albicans (1)Uploaded byzaheerbds
- VelocityModelingUploaded byVladutiu Radu
- ElectrochemistryUploaded byFah Fahsai
- Msds Fisher Scientific UreaUploaded byt.shannon5508
- Two Physical PhenomenaUploaded byjosenaranjo
- ECNDT Th.2.2.3Uploaded byAditya Pratap
- Blow HolesUploaded byKruti Patel
- How Electricity Works Book 4Uploaded bymrshong5b
- First SubmissionUploaded byHuzefa Calcuttawala
- 409_Ni_Data_Bulletin.pdfUploaded byAntohi Catalin
- History of the Mediterranean Allied Air Forces - Part II - 1 September 1944 to 9 May 1945Uploaded byjohnwolfe
- Guidelines Safe Use of HydrocarbonUploaded byLeonardo De La Hudi
- Shrinkage CrackUploaded byMayuresh Kudve
- 3.9 Cathodic protection systems.pptxUploaded byDio Omelin