See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/317567246

Improvement of Punching Shear Design Provisions According to Eurocode 2

Conference Paper · June 2017

CITATIONS READS

0 184

5 authors, including:

Carsten Siburg Martin Herbrand

RWTH Aachen University WTM Engineers GmbH
41 PUBLICATIONS   181 CITATIONS    72 PUBLICATIONS   400 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Martin Claßen
RWTH Aachen University
105 PUBLICATIONS   687 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Folded plate and curved sandwich panels made of high-performance cementitious composites for long-span roof-structures (German Research Foundation) View
project

CRC 532 - Textile Reinforced Concrete View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Martin Herbrand on 29 July 2018.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 Improvement of Punching Shear Design
Provisions According to Eurocode 2

Dominik Kueres1(&), Carsten Siburg2, Martin Herbrand1,

Martin Classen1, and Josef Hegger1
1
Institute of Structural Concrete, RWTH Aachen University, Aachen, Germany
dkueres@imb.rwth-aachen.de
2
H+P Ingenieure GmbH, Aachen, Germany

Abstract. The punching shear design of flat slabs and footings was revised
with the introduction of Eurocode 2. While in many former codes the punching
shear resistance was determined regardless of the type of member, in Euro-
code 2 two different design equations for flat slabs and footings were intro-
duced. Additionally, different control sections for flat slabs and footings were
defined. The differentiation between flat slabs and footings and especially the
iterative design procedure for the determination of the punching shear resistance
of footings require great effort in daily engineering practice.
Based on the punching shear provisions according to Eurocode 2, a new
design method was developed to unify the punching shear design of flat slabs
and footings. This paper describes the derivation of the design method. To verify
the changes in the current design provisions, the new design method is evaluated
using large databanks for flat slabs and footings without and with shear
reinforcement.

Keywords: Punching shear
Flat slabs
Footings
Design provisions

Eurocode 2

1 Introduction

With introduction of Eurocode 2, the punching shear design provisions for flat slabs
and footings were revised compared to former European codes. Particularly, the def-
inition of control perimeters was revised leading to an iterative design procedure for
footings. The application of the design provisions and especially the differentiation
between the members increased the effort in practice.
On the basis of the results of databank evaluations and experiences, possible
improvements for the current punching shear provisions according to Eurocode 2 are
identified. Based on the results of the evaluation of the current design provisions, a new
method was developed to unify the punching design of flat slabs and footings. This
paper describes the derivation and evaluation of the new design method in detail.

© Springer International Publishing AG 2018

D.A. Hordijk and M. Luković (eds.), High Tech Concrete: Where Technology
and Engineering Meet, DOI 10.1007/978-3-319-59471-2_181
1574 D. Kueres et al.

2 Evaluation of Eurocode 2 Design Provisions

Based on the results of databank evaluations (Siburg 2014) and experiences with the
code provisions, the following improvements for the punching shear design provisions
according to Eurocode 2 can be identified:
• Eurocode 2 introduced two different design equations for flat slabs and footings
without shear reinforcement. Additionally, different control perimeters for flat slabs
and footings were defined. The differentiation between the members and especially
the iterative design procedure for footings increase the effort in daily engineering
practice. To improve the provisions, the design equations for flat slabs and footings
should be merged. Also, the position of the control perimeter should be reconsid-
ered and the iterative design procedure for footings should be omitted.
• According to the databank evaluation, the influence of size effect seems to be
underestimated in the current design provisions (Siburg 2014). Also, the influences
of the specific column perimeter u0/d and the shear span-depth ratio ak/d tend to be
underestimated for small values of u0/d and ak/d. Thus, the influences of d, u0/d,
and ak/d should be revised in a consistent manner.
• According to test evaluations on flat slabs with shear reinforcement (Siburg et al.
2012), the capacity of shear-reinforced slabs is overestimated by the current design
equation. Hence, the design of the shear reinforcement should be revised. Also,
provisions for double-headed studs should be incorporated in the design provisions.
• The limitation of the punching shear resistance to the capacity of the compression
struts at the column face (perimeter u0) may lead to very conservative results
(especially for footings). In this context, the provisions for the determination of the
maximum punching shear capacity should be reconsidered.

3 Derivation of Design Method

3.1 Punching Shear Capacity Without Shear Reinforcement

The evaluation of the punching shear provisions according to Eurocode 2 showed only
minor trends for the influences of flexural reinforcement ratio ql and concrete com-
pressive strength fck (Siburg 2014). It is therefore assumed, that the influences of ql and
fck can be described by means of a cubic root function. In this context, the following
basic equation is considered:

VRm;c ¼ CRm;c
k
ð100
ql
fck Þ1=3
ucontrol
d ð1Þ

where VRm,c is the mean value of the punching shear capacity of flat slabs and footings
without shear reinforcement, CRm,c is a constant factor, k is a factor accounting for the
influence of size effect, ql is the flexural reinforcement ratio, and fck is the concrete
compressive strength.
For the derivation of a single equation which is suitable for flat slabs and footings,
the position of the control perimeter is of crucial importance. With the aim of defining a
 Improvement of Punching Shear Design Provisions 1575

constant position of the control perimeter for both, flat slabs and footings, in (Siburg
2014) the punching tests in the selected databanks were evaluated depending on the
distance between the face of the loaded area and the control perimeter. The best results
(lowest COV) yielded a control perimeter which is located at a constant distance
0.5d from the edge of the loaded area. The same control perimeter is also defined in
current codes of practice (e.g. ACI Committee 318 2014). Considering the definition of
the control perimeter, Eq. (1) can be modified to:
VRm;c ¼ CRm;c
k
ð100
ql
fck Þ1=3
u0:5d
d ð2Þ

In Eurocode 2, the influence of size effect is taken into account by a size effect
factor k according to Model Code 1990:
pffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
k ¼ 1þ 200=d  2:0 with d in ½mm ð3Þ

The factor was verified at that time by using available test data. Since most of the tests
were conducted on scaled specimens or specimens with small effective depths, a verifi-
cation of the size effect factor k for larger effective depths was not possible. Meanwhile,
further test series on flat slabs and footings with bigger effective depths were conducted. In
this context, Fig. 1 depicts the comparison of the size effect factor k according to
Model Code 1990 (Comite euro-internationale du beton 1991) and test results by Guan-
dalini et al. (2009), Hegger et al. (2009) and Siburg and Hegger (2014). For the com-
parison, the failure loads VTest were normalized with the length of the control perimeter
u0.5d, the effective depth d, and the cubic root of the concrete compressive strength f1/3ck .
While for the specimens with smaller effective depths (PG-10 and DF11) the predicted
punching shear capacity is only slightly higher than the failure load, the capacity of
specimens PG-3 and DF26 is considerably overestimated by the size effect factor k.

Fig. 1. Comparison of different size effect factors and test results

A better agreement with the test results can be reached by applying the size effect
factor according to Bažant (2005):
1
kd ¼ pffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi with d in ½mm and d0 ¼ 200 mm ð4Þ
1 þ d=d0
1576 D. Kueres et al.

The transitional size d0 was evaluated by means of the tests results from
Guandalini et al. (2009), Hegger et al. (2009) and Siburg and Hegger (2014). The
comparison of the revised size effect factor kd and test results is shown in Fig. 1. In
accordance with the test results, the factor kd leads to a stronger reduction of the
nominal punching shear capacity with increasing effective depth than the factor
according to Model Code 1990. Taking into account the revised size effect factor,
Eq. (2) can be modified to:

VRm;c ¼ CRm;c
kd
ð100
ql
fck Þ1=3
u0:5d
d ð5Þ

Due to the large effective depths, footings are generally constructed with consid-
erably smaller specific column perimeters u0/d (Fig. 2(a, b)) and smaller shear
span-depth ratios ak/d (Fig. 2(a, b)) than flat slabs. For the derivation of a single
equation which is capable of predicting the punching shear capacity of flat slabs and
footings it is assumed that the differentiation between the members can be performed
by means
. ofthe u0/d-ratio
 andthe ak/d-ratio. In this context, Fig. 2(c) depicts the ratio
1=3
VTest kd
ql fck
u0:5d
d over the product of u0 =d
ak =d for the combined
selected databank for flat slabs and footings without shear reinforcement according to
(Siburg 2014).

Fig. 2. Differentiation between flat slabs and footings

The transition can be described by the factor kk:

1
kk ¼ p ffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi ð6Þ
5
u0 =d
ak =d

Considering the transition factor kk, Eq. (5) can be modified to:

VRm;c ¼ CRm;c
kd
kk
ð100
ql
fck Þ1=3
u0:5d
d with CRm;c ¼ 2:22 ð7Þ

The constant factor CRm,c = 2.22 for calculating the mean value of the punching
shear capacity of flat slabs and footings without shear reinforcement VRm,c was
 Improvement of Punching Shear Design Provisions 1577

evaluated by means of the combined selected databank for flat slabs and footings
without shear reinforcement according to (Siburg 2014).
For the purpose of designing new structures, the model uncertainty of Eq. (7) have
to be considered. In this context, the characteristic value of the factor was evaluated to
CRk,c = 1.8 (5%-quantile). The design value of the punching shear capacity of flat slabs
and footings without shear reinforcement VRd,c can thus be calculated as:

CRk;c
VRd;c ¼
kd
kk
ð100
ql
fck Þ1=3
u0:5d
d with CRk;c ¼ 1:8 ð8Þ
cC

3.2 Punching Shear Capacity with Shear Reinforcement

If a flexural failure and secondary failure scenarios (e.g. anchorage failure of flexural
reinforcement or local crushing of concrete underneath the column) can be excluded,
point-supported reinforced concrete slabs with punching shear reinforcement may fail in
punching inside and outside the shear-reinforced zone as well as on the level of the
maximum punching shear capacity. A failure inside the shear-reinforced zone may
develop if the amount of punching shear reinforcement is not sufficient to limit the inner
shear crack growth, resulting in a failure of the punching shear reinforcement due to
yielding or pullout of anchorages. A failure outside the shear-reinforced zone may take
place if the length of the shear-reinforced zone is too short. Once a failure inside and
outside the shear-reinforced zone can be excluded, the punching failure occurs on
maximum load level, which is strongly influenced by the multi-axial stress state along the
column face and the slab rotation (Beutel and Hegger 2002; Fernández Ruiz and
Muttoni 2009).
According to test evaluations on flat slabs with shear reinforcement (Siburg et al.
2012), the capacity of shear-reinforced slabs is overestimated by the current design
equation of Eurocode 2. Especially the high concrete contribution 0:75
vRd;c in
combination with the flat inclination of the compression struts of 33° (factor 1.5) lead
to a small amount of shear reinforcement. Meanwhile, a more realistic interaction based
on a proposal by Broms (2016) can be considered. In this context, two scenarios for
punching shear failures inside the shear-reinforced zone can be assumed:
(1) For low amounts of shear reinforcement, the punching shear failure inside the
shear-reinforced zone (Fig. 3(b)) resembles the punching shear failure without
shear reinforcement (Fig. 3(a)). While the punching shear capacity is governed by
the concrete contribution Vc, only a small part of the shear force is suspended to
the top of the slab by the shear reinforcement (Vs).
(2) If the capacity of the shear reinforcement Vs exceeds the concrete contribution Vc
the punching shear capacity is governed by the capacity Vs. After the initial
development of a flat shear crack, the amount of shear reinforcement is sufficient
to suspend the slab (Fig. 3(c)). Besides the contribution of the shear reinforce-
ment, also a smaller part of the shear force is carried by the concrete.
1578 D. Kueres et al.

Fig. 3. Punching failure modes (a–d) and comparison of the proposed method with test results
on flat slabs with double-headed studs as shear reinforcement (e)

Considering the two failure scenarios, the mean value of the punching shear
capacity of shear-reinforced slabs VRm,c+s can be calculated as:

VRm;s  VRm;c : VRm;c þ s ¼ VRm;c þ as
VRm;s ¼ VRm;c þ as
Asw;1:25d
fywm
sin a ð9Þ

VRm;s [ VRm;c : VRm;c þ s ¼ ac
VRm;c þ VRm;s ¼ ac
VRm;c þ Asw;1:25d
fywm
sin a

ð10Þ

with ac = as = 0.3
where VRm,c is the punching shear capacity without shear reinforcement according
to Eq. (7), Asw;1:25d is the area of shear reinforcement within a distance of 0.30d to
1.25d from the face of the loaded area (footings: 0.30d to 0.80d), fywm is the mean
value of the yield strength of the shear reinforcement, and a is the angle between the
shear reinforcement and the plane of the slab. The factors ac and as were evaluated by
means of a systematic test series on flat slabs with double-headed studs as shear
reinforcement and varying amount of shear reinforcement by Lips et al. (2012).
A punching failure at maximum load level (upper bound capacity of Eq. (10)) is
indicated by a very steep failure crack (Fig. 3(d)). Following the design provisions of
Eurocode 2 (incl. Amendment 1: EN 1992-1-1:2004/A1:2014) and other codes of
practice (e.g. ACI 318-14) the maximum punching shear capacity VRm,max can be
defined as a multiple of the punching shear capacity of an identical slab without shear
reinforcement as:

VRm;max ¼ amax
VRm;c ð11Þ

with amax = 1.5 (for stirrups and bent-up bars) and amax = 1.8 (for double-headed
studs)
where amax is an increase factor and VRm,c is the punching shear capacity without
shear reinforcement according to Eq. (7). The factor amax depends on the efficiency of
the punching shear reinforcement and should be verified experimentally for each rein-
forcement type. In this context, the factor amax for stirrups and bent-up bars was taken
from Eurocode 2. For double-headed studs the factor was evaluated by means of test
 Improvement of Punching Shear Design Provisions 1579

series by Beutel (2003), Broms (2007), Birkle and Dilger (2008), Lips et al. (2012)
and Ferreira et al. (2014).
Figure 3(e) depicts the comparison of predicted punching shear capacity according
to Eqs. (7, 9, 10 and 11) and failure loads of the test series PV1-PL11-PL12-PL7 by
Lips et al. (2012). On the vertical axis, the ratio of failure load and punching shear
capacity of an identical slab without shear reinforcement VR/VRm,c,NDM and on the
horizontal axis the amount of shear reinforcement within a distance of 0.30d to
1.25d from the face of the loaded area is shown. While for low amounts of shear
reinforcement (VRm,s  VRm,c) the punching shear capacity is governed by Eq. (9), for
higher amounts of shear reinforcement (VRm,s > VRm,c) the punching shear capacity is
governed by Eq. (10) or (11), respectively. The comparison reveals a good agreement
between the test results and the proposed method.
In accordance with Sect. 3.1, the design value of the punching shear capacity of
shear-reinforced slabs VRd,c+s can be calculated as:

VRk;s  VRk;c : VRd;c þ s ¼ VRd;c þ as
VRd;s ¼ VRd;c þ as
Asw;1:25d
fywd
sin a ð12Þ

VRk;s [ VRk;c : VRd;c þ s ¼ ac
VRk;c þ VRk;s ¼ ac
VRk;c þ Asw;1:25d
fywd
sin a ð13Þ

with ac = as = 0.3
where VRd,c is the punching shear capacity without shear reinforcement according
to Eq. (8) and fywd is the design strength of the shear reinforcement. The design value
of the maximum punching shear capacity is limited to:

VRd;max ¼ amax
VRd;c ð14Þ

with amax = 1.5 (for stirrups and bent-up bars) and amax = 1.8 (for double-headed
studs)
where VRd,c is the punching capacity without shear reinforcement according to
Eq. (8).
The punching shear capacity outside the shear-reinforced zone may be calculated
according to Eurocode 2, Sect. 6.4.5.

4 Evaluation of Design Method

4.1 Mean Value

For the evaluation of the design method for flat slabs and footings without shear
reinforcement, a total of 372 tests (combined databank: 328 tests on flat slabs and 44
tests on footings; Siburg (2014)) were considered. Figure 4 depicts the comparison of
failure load and mean value of punching shear capacity of flat slabs and footings
without shear reinforcement according to Eq. (7). The evaluation shows no significant
trends for the investigated influences. This observation can be verified by the evalu-
ation of the ratio VTest/VRm,c,NDM, since the mean value for the 372 tests is lx = 1.00
and the COV is Vx = 0.15.
1580 D. Kueres et al.

Fig. 4. Comparison of failure loads and punching shear capacity without shear reinforcement
(mean value) according to the proposed design method

For the evaluation of the design method for flat slabs and footings with stirrups as
shear reinforcement, a total of 66 tests (combined databank: 58 tests on flat slabs and 8
tests on footings, Siburg (2014)) were considered. For the verification of the proposed
method for bent-up bars and double-headed studs the test series by Elst-
ner and Hognestad (1956), Hallgren and Kinnunen (1996), Beutel (2003), Birkle and
Dilger (2008), Lips et al. (2012) and Ferreira et al. (2014) were added to the databank.
Figure 5 shows the comparison of failure load and mean value of punching shear
capacity of flat slabs and footings with different types of shear reinforcement according
to Eqs. (9, 10 and 11). The evaluation shows no significant trends for the investigated
influences. This can be verified by the evaluation of the ratio VTest/VRm,c,NDM. In this
context, the mean value for the 104 tests with different types of shear reinforcement is
lx = 0.99 and the COV is Vx = 0.11.

Fig. 5. Comparison of failure loads and punching shear capacity with shear reinforcement
(mean value) according to the proposed design method

4.2 Characteristic Value

For the purpose of designing new structures, the model uncertainty of the proposed
equations (Eqs. (7, 9, 10 and 11)) have to be considered. In this context, the charac-
teristic values of the punching shear capacity without and with shear reinforcement
were evaluated (Eqs. (8, 12, 13 and 14)). Table 1 summarizes the results of the
 Improvement of Punching Shear Design Provisions 1581

Table 1. Summary of the results of the databank evaluation (characteristic value) according to
the proposed design method (cC = 1.0; fck,cyl = fcm,cyl – 4 MPa)
Statistical Flat slabs Footings Combined
parameters Without srft With srft Without srft With srft Without srft With srft
# 328 92 44 12 372 104
lx 1.23 1.16 1.28 1.26 1.24 1.17
Vx 0.15 0.12 0.11 0.09 0.15 0.12
xp,x 0.92 0.93 1.04 1.06 0.93 0.94
Vy 0.16 0.12 0.11 0.09 0.16 0.12
xp,y 0.93 0.95 1.06 1.08 0.95 0.96
#: Number of tests; lx: mean value; Vx: coefficient of variation (Standard normal distribution);
xp,x: 5%-Quantile (Standard normal distribution); Vy: coefficient of variation (Log normal
distribution); xp,y: 5%-Quantile (Log normal distribution).

databank evaluation according to the proposed design method (cC = 1.0;

fck,cyl = fcm,cyl – 4 MPa). The evaluation was performed for the combined databanks
for flat slabs and footings without and with shear reinforcement. To investigate the
quality of the proposed design equations separately for the different members, an
additional evaluation was performed using the corresponding databanks for flat slabs
and footings, respectively.
The evaluation of the ratio VTest/VRk,i,NDM for the different databanks for flat slabs and
footings yields mean values in a range of lx = 1.16 and lx = 1.28 and COVs between
VX = 0.09 and VX = 0.15. For the combined evaluation, the 5%-Quantile is xp,y = 0.95
for members without shear reinforcement and xp,y = 0.96 for members with shear rein-
forcement (Log normal distribution). The minor differences between the different eval-
uations indicate a well-balanced level of safety for the proposed design method.

5 Summary and Conclusions

Based on the results of the evaluation of the current design provisions according to
Eurocode 2, a new design method was developed to unify the punching shear design of
flat slabs and footings. The derivation of the design method was described in detail. To
verify the changes in the current design provisions, the new design method was
evaluated using large databanks for flat slabs and footings without and with shear
reinforcement.
While being easier applied than the current Eurocode 2 provisions, the proposed
design method shows good agreement with test results on flat slabs and footings
without and with different types of shear reinforcement. In particular, the influences of
size effect, specific column perimeter u0/d, and shear span-depth ratio ak/d are taken
into account in a consistent manner. Also, the punching shear capacity with shear
reinforcement was revised. The evaluation of the large databanks indicates a
well-balanced level of safety of the proposed design method for all investigated types
of members.
1582 D. Kueres et al.

Acknowledgements. Major parts of the work presented in this paper were funded by Deutsches
Institut für Bautechnik (German Institute of Construction Technology, DIBt P 52-5-7.310-/13)
and Initiative PRB (PRB-2.12 (2013)). The authors are appreciative of the support received.

References
ACI Committee 318. Building Code Requirements for Structural Concrete (ACI 318–14) and
Commentary (ACI 318R-14). American Concrete Institute, Farmington Hills (2014)
Bažant, Z.P.: Scaling of Structural Strength, 2nd edn. Hermes Penton Sciene (Kogan Page
Science), Elsevier, London (2005)
Beutel, R., Hegger, J.: The effect of anchorage on the effectiveness of the shear reinforcement in
the punching zone. Cem. Concr. Composites 24(6), 539–549 (2002)
Beutel, R.: Durchstanzen schubbewehrter Flachdecken im Bereich von Innenstützen. Ph.D.-
thesis, RWTH Aachen University (2003). (in German)
Birkle, G., Dilger, W.: Influence of slab thickness on punching shear strength. ACI Struct. J. 105(2),
180–188 (2008)
Broms, C.E.: Ductility of flat plates: comparison of shear reinforcement systems. ACI Struct.
J. 104(6), 703–711 (2007)
Broms, C.E.: Shear reinforcement for flat slabs (2016)
Comité euro-internationale du béton: CEB-FIP Model Code 1990 – Design Code, p. 1991.
Thomas Telford, London (1991)
Elstner, R., Hognestad, E.: Shearing strength of reinforced concrete slabs. J. Am. Concr. Inst. 28(1),
29–58 (1956)
Ferreira, M.P., Melo, G.S., Regan, P., Vollum, R.: Punching of reinforced concrete flat slabs with
double-headed shear reinforcement. ACI Struct. J. 111(2), 363–374 (2014)
Fernández Ruiz, M., Muttoni, A.: Applications of critical shear crack theory to punching of
reinforced concrete slabs with transverse reinforcement. ACI Struct. J. 106(4), 485–494
(2009)
Guandalini, S., Burdet, O.L., Muttoni, A.: Punching tests of slabs with low reinforcement ratios.
ACI Struct. J. 106(1), 87–95 (2009)
Hallgren, M., Kinnunen, S.: Increase of punching shear capacity by using high strength concrete.
In: Proceedings of 4th International Symposium on Utilization of High Strength Concrete,
pp. 1037–1046 (1996)
Hegger, J., Ricker, M., Sherif, A.G.: Punching strength of reinforced concrete footings. ACI
Struct. J. 106(5), 706–716 (2009)
Lips, S., Fernandez Ruiz, M., Muttoni, A.: Experimental investigation on punching strength and
deformation capacity of shear-reinforced slabs. ACI Struct. J. 109(6), 889–900 (2012)
Siburg, C., Häusler, F., Hegger, J.: Flat slab punching design according to German annex of
Eurocode 2. Bauingenieur 87(5), 216–225 (2012). (in German)
Siburg, C.: Zur einheitlichen Bemessung gegen Durchstanzen in Flachdecken und Fundamenten.
Ph.D.-thesis, RWTH Aachen University (2014). (in German)
Siburg, C., Hegger, J.: Experimental investigations on the punching behavior of reinforced
concrete footings with structural dimensions. Struct. Concr. 15(3), 331–339 (2014)

View publication stats