www.ernst‐und‐sohn.

de  Page 1  Structural Concrete 

Technical Paper

Punching shear strength of flat slabs: Critical review of

Accepted Article
Eurocode 2 and fib Model Code 2010 design provisions

Ricker, Marcus; Siburg, Carsten

Abstract: fib Model Code 2010 introduces a new design concept for punching shear, which

is based on the Critical Shear Crack Theory. In this paper, the design provisions for punching

shear according to fib Model Code 2010, Eurocode 2 and the corresponding German National

Annex to Eurocode 2 are presented and background information is given. By means of

parameter studies and a comparison of the calculated resistances and test results, the different

punching shear design provisions are critically reviewed. The safety levels of the code

provisions are verified and the influence of the different punching parameters on the

calculated resistances is examined in detail.

 
This article has been accepted for publication and undergone full peer review but has not been through the copyediting, 
typesetting, pagination and proofreading process, which may lead to differences between this version and the Version of 
Record. Please cite this article as doi: 10.1002/suco.201500106. 

Submitted:   20‐Jul‐2015 
Revised:   07‐Oct‐2015 
Accepted:   03‐Nov‐2015 
 

© 2015 Ernst & Sohn Verlag für Architektur und technische Wissenschaften GmbH & Co. KG, Berlin 
 www.ernst‐und‐sohn.de  Page 2  Structural Concrete 

1 Introduction

The punching shear provisions according to EN 1992-1-1 [1] were adopted from Model
Accepted Article
Code 90 [2] with only minor modifications. In Germany, during the preparation of the

National Annex NA(D) [3], it was recognised by means of parameter studies that the

punching shear provisions according to EN 1992-1-1 do not ensure the safety level required

according to EN 1990 [4] and DIN 1055-100 [5]. Therefore, the punching shear design

according to the German National Annex partly differs from the provisions originally found

in EN 1992-1-1.

For fib Model Code 2010 [6], a completely new model for the estimation of the punching

shear capacity was introduced, which is based on the Critical Shear Crack Theory

[7],[8],[9],[10],[11]. In this model, the opening of the critical shear crack is strictly related to

the rotation of the slab. By means of punching tests, a failure criterion was derived which

allows the determination of the slab rotation at the ultimate limit state. fib Model Code 2010

provides different methods to approximate the relationship between load and slab rotation.

In this paper, different models for the punching shear design of flat slab systems are

critically compared. This is in addition to [12], where the punching provisions for footings

according to different design codes were critically reviewed. In the following, the failure

loads of punching shear tests on interior column-slab connections are used to compare the

different assumptions for the punching shear capacities without shear reinforcement. The

selection of systematic test series allows evaluating, how satisfactorily the different design

models reflect the influence of the main punching shear parameters. Subsequently, the results

of extensive parameter studies, dealing with the punching shear capacity of flat slab systems

with and without shear reinforcement, are presented and critically discussed.
 www.ernst‐und‐sohn.de  Page 3  Structural Concrete 

2 Design provisions for punching shear of flat slabs

2.1 General
Accepted Article
To illustrate the differences of the different code provisions, the relevant design equations

for the punching shear design of flat slabs according to EN 1992-1-1 (Eurocode 2) [1], the

German National Annex to EN 1992-1-1 (EC 2/NA(D)) [3], and fib Model Code 2010 [6] are

presented in the following.

Due to load eccentricities, a non-uniform shear stress distribution along the column

perimeter has to be considered. Therefore, Eurocode 2 and the EC2/NA(D) increase the

applied load by a load increase factor β. In contrast, fib Model Code 2010 reduces the length

of the critical perimeter in dependence on the moment transferred between the column and the

slab.

2.2 EN 1992-1-1:2011 (Eurocode 2)

The design concept for punching shear according to Eurocode 2 is taken from fib Model

Code 1990 [1]. For flat slabs without shear reinforcement, the punching shear resistance is

checked along different control perimeters. Eurocode 2 also demands for slabs without shear

reinforcement that the shear stress at the periphery of the loaded area u0 does not exceed the

web-crushing limit for beams (Fig. 1 a):

β VEd
vEd = ≤ vRd,max mit vRd,max = 0.4ν f cd (1)
u0 d

where d is the distance from the extreme compression fibre to the centroid of the

longitudinal tensile reinforcement (effective depth) and ν = 0.6(1 − f ck 250) is a factor,

accounting for the strength reduction of concrete compression struts in cracked concrete due

to lateral tension stresses.

The second control perimeter u1 applies at a distance of 2.0d from the periphery of the

loaded area (Fig. 1 a). The shear stress along that perimeter should not exceed the punching

shear resistance without shear reinforcement vrd,c:

 www.ernst‐und‐sohn.de  Page 4  Structural Concrete 

β VEd
vEd = ≤ vRd,c (2)
u1 d
Accepted Article
For non-sway systems, and where the adjacent spans do not differ in length by more than

25%, the load increase factor β may be taken as 1.5, 1.4, and 1.15 for corner, edge, and

interior columns, respectively. The punching shear resistance without punching shear

reinforcement can be calculated as:

vRd,c = CRd,c k (100 ρ l ⋅ f ck ) + k1 σ cp ≥ vmin + k1 σ cp

13
(3)

where CRd,c is the empirical factor for flat slabs, recommended as 0.18/γC in Eurocode 2; γC

is the partial safety factor for concrete (recommended as 1.5); fck is the characteristic

compressive cylinder strength of concrete; k = 1+(200/d)1/2 ≤ 2.0 is the size factor of the

effective depth; ρl = √(ρlx × ρly) ≤ 0.02 is the mean flexural reinforcement ratio, taking into

account a slab width equal to the column width plus 3d on each side; vmin = 0.035k3/2fck1/2 is

the minimum shear capacity (especially decisive for small flexural reinforcement ratios in

combination with high concrete compressive strength [13],[14]); σcp is the normal concrete

stress in the critical section (e.g. due to pre-stressing); and k1 is an empirical factor, which

defines the amount of the normal stress to be considered (recommended as 0.1). The punching

shear design of pre-stressed interior column-slab connections is discussed in detail in [15].

The punching shear resistance inside the shear-reinforced zone is calculated, using a strut-

and-tie model with an inclination of the compression struts of 33° in combination with a

constant concrete contribution. The amount of shear reinforcement calculated has to be

provided in several rows. The number of rows required is determined by the shear strength

along the outer perimeter, which is located at a distance of 1.5d from the outermost row (Fig.

1 a).

vRd,cs = 0.75vRd,c +1.5(d sr )Asw f ywd,ef(1 (u1d )) sin α (4)

where vRd,c is the concrete contribution according to Eq. (3); Asw is the amount of shear
 www.ernst‐und‐sohn.de  Page 5  Structural Concrete 

reinforcement provided in each row; sr is the radial spacing between adjacent rows of shear

reinforcement; and fywd,ef = 250 + 0,25d ≤ fywd is the design value of the steel strength (d in
Accepted Article
millimetre, mm), which considers the worse anchorage of the punching shear reinforcement

for small slab thicknesses. There are at least two rows of shear reinforcement needed. The

first has to be placed at a distance of 0.30d ≤ s0 ≤ 0.50d from the boundary of the loaded area.

The radial spacing between additional rows of shear reinforcement sr should be limited to

0.75d. For inclined bars, the effective cross section has to be determined as Asw = As sin α.

The loadbearing capacity with punching shear reinforcement is limited by the maximum

punching shear capacity vRd,max (Eq. (1)), which has to be checked along column perimeter u0.

2.3 Eurocode 2 in combination with the German National Annex (EC2/NA(D))

For the German National Annex to Eurocode 2 [1],[3], the design equations according to

Eurocode 2 were compared to tests results and additional parameter studies were conducted to

verify the safety level [13],[16],[17],[18],[19],[20],[21]. For these investigations, new

punching shear tests on slabs with larger effective depths of practical interest were considered

[18],[22] as well as similar tests on footings [23],[24],[25],[26]. The adjustments, which were

necessary from a German point of view, are summarised in the National Annex including the

amendment A1 [3]. This document is abbreviated in the following as EC2/NA(D).

The design value of the applied shear stresses along the critical perimeter at a distance of

2.0d from the boundary of the loaded area (Fig. 1 a) can be calculated in accordance to

EC2/NA(D) as:

VEd
vEd = β (5)
u1 d

For interior column-slab connections, the load increase factor β was slightly reduced in

comparison to Eurocode 2 to greater than 1.1. The limitation of the shear stresses directly at

the perimeter of the load application area u0 to a value equal to the web-crushing limit of

beams vRd,max is obsolete according to EC2/NA(D), because a comparison with test results
 www.ernst‐und‐sohn.de  Page 6  Structural Concrete 

clearly showed a dependency on the concrete compressive strength and the specific column

perimeter u0/d [14],[16],[17],[21]. In addition, the limitation of the shear stresses at the
Accepted Article
column face to a value of vRd,max does not allow to consider a possible increase of the

punching shear resistance due to improved punching shear elements like double-headed studs

or lattice girders [27],[28],[29]. As in Eurocode 2, the punching shear capacity without shear

reinforcement is calculated according to Eq. (3). For interior column-slab connections and

ratios of u0/d smaller than 4.0, a reduced empirical pre-factor CRd,c has to be used:

0.18 ⎛ u0 ⎞
u0 d < 4 : CRd ,c = ⎜ 0.1 + 0.6 ⎟ (6)
γC ⎝ d ⎠

To avoid compression reinforcement, EC2/NA(D) limits the flexural reinforcement ratio to

ρl = √(ρlyρlz) ≤ min(0.02; 0.5fcd/fyd). For effective depths greater than 600 mm, the minimum

punching shear capacity is further reduced in comparison to Eurocode 2 and is equal to the

minimum shear capacity of the German bridge building provisions “DIN Fachbericht 102”

[30]:

vmin = ⎛⎜ 0.0525 ⎞⎟k 3 2 f ck1 2 für d ≤ 600 mm

⎝ γC ⎠
(7)
vmin = ⎛⎜ 0.0375 ⎞⎟k 3 2 f ck1 2 für d > 800 mm
⎝ γC ⎠

The limitation of the shear stresses at the column perimeter to a value of vRd,max (web

crushing limit) was not adopted for an application in Germany. The maximum punching shear

capacity was defined as 1.4 times the punching shear capacity without shear reinforcement

[16],[17],[14],[21]:

vEd ≤ vRd,max = 1.4vRd,c for stirrups (8)

The comparison with test results showed that Eq. (4) underestimates the shear

reinforcement required in the first two rows [17],[21]. Therefore, EC2/NA(D) demands that

the calculated shear reinforcement of the first row at a distance between 0.3d and 0.5d from

the perimeter of the loaded area has to be increased by a factor ksw,1 = 2.5. The shear
 www.ernst‐und‐sohn.de  Page 7  Structural Concrete 

reinforcement of the second row, placed at a distance of 0.75d from the first row, has to be

increased by a factor ksw,2 = 1.4. For further rows, the calculated shear reinforcement does not
Accepted Article
have to be increased, i.e. the factor ksw,i≥3 can be taken as 1.0.

2.4 fib Model Code 2010

The provisions of fib Model Code 1990 [1] are the basis of the present Eurocode 2 (refer to

section 2.2) as only minor adjustments were done. fib Model Code 2010 [6] provides a new

design concept for punching shear, based on the Critical Shear Crack Theory [7],[8],[9]. In

this physical model with empirical adjustment factors, the punching shear resistance depends

on the width of the critical shear crack, which is related to the slab rotation according to [7].

The new design model was derived from punching shear tests on isolated flat slab elements,

but the model is also applicable to ground slabs and footings:

f ck
VEd ≤ VRd,c = kψ
γ c b0 dv (9)

where fck is the characteristic value of the cylinder concrete compressive strength, dv is the

shear-resisting effective depth of member (distance between the centroid of the flexural

reinforcement and the surface at which the slab is supported), and γc = 1.5 is the partial safety

factor for concrete. The critical shear-resisting perimeter can be estimated to b0 = keb1,red. The

factor ke accounts for a non-symmetrical shear stress distribution along the critical perimeter

and b1,red is the basic control perimeter at a distance of 0.5d from the periphery of the loaded

area (Fig. 1 b), considering slab discontinuities (e.g. openings). In non-sway systems and

where differences between adjacent spans are less than 25 %, the reduction factor ke may be

taken as 0.9, 0.7, and 0.65 for interior, edge and corner columns, respectively. The reduction

factor ke can be taken to be 0.75 for wall corners.

The parameter kψ considers the influence of the width of the critical shear crack and

depends on the slab rotation ψ and the maximum aggregate size:

 www.ernst‐und‐sohn.de  Page 8  Structural Concrete 

k ψ = (1.5 + 0.9ψ d kdg ) ≤ 0.6

−1
(10)

where d is the mean value of the flexural effective depth in millimetres (mm) and the factor
Accepted Article
kdg = 32 (16 + dg ) ≥ 0.75 considers the influence of the aggregate size (with dg in mm).

In fib Model Code 2010, different Levels of Approximation (LoA) were introduced from

LoA I to LoA IV, with increasing accuracy of determination of the slab rotation ψ [9]. With

increasing LoA, the calculated slab rotations generally decrease, leading to higher punching

shear capacities. In the following, only the equations according to LoA II are presented,

because, in this paper, all comparisons to test results and the parametric studies were

performed using the LoA II.

If a LoA II approach is chosen, the distance rs between the centroid of the loaded area and

the line of zero radial bending moments (line of contraflexure) will be estimated to 0.22L

(with L being the maximum adjacent span of the slab). The moment per unit length acting in

the column strip can be calculated for interior column-slab connections separately for each

direction as:

⎛ 1 eu,i ⎞
msd = VEd ⎜ + ⎟ (11)
⎜ 8 2 bs ⎟
⎝ ⎠

where eu,i are the load eccentricities in the direction considered and bs = 1,5 √(rsx × rsy) ≤

lmin is the representative width of the column strip (with lmin being the minimal span in x- or y-

direction).

The average bending moment acting in the column strip msd can be approximated for each

reinforcement direction and different support types. The equations can be taken from [2].

Depending on the desired LoA, the slab rotation can be estimated as:

f yd
LoA I: ψ = 1.5rs (12)
d ⋅ Es
 www.ernst‐und‐sohn.de  Page 9  Structural Concrete 

where Es is the Young’s modulus of the flexural reinforcement. If not the full capacity of the

flexural reinforcement is assumed, a smaller slab rotation can be calculated at LoA II:
Accepted Article
The slab rotation can be estimated as:

1.5
f ⎛m ⎞
LoA II: ψ = 1.5rs yd ⎜⎜ Sd ⎟⎟ (13)
d Es ⎝ mRd ⎠

where Es is the Young’s modulus of the flexural reinforcement.

According to fib Model Code 2010 in slabs including shear reinforcement, the punching

shear capacity inside the shear-reinforced zone depends on the contributions of the concrete

and the transverse reinforcement:

VEd ≤ VRd = VRd,c + VRd,s (14)

where VRd,c is the concrete contribution according to Eq. (9). The contribution of the shear

reinforcement VRd,s can be calculated as:

VRd,s = ∑ ( Asw ke σswdsin α) (15)

where Asw is the amount of transverse reinforcement placed in an area between 0.35d and

1.00d from the column face, this area normally corresponds to the first two rows of shear

reinforcement; σswd is the allowable steel stress in the shear reinforcement, depending on the

slab rotation ψ and bond conditions of the transverse reinforcement. The design yield strength

of the shear reinforcement fywd is an upper bound for the design steel stress σswd.

Esψ ⎛ ⎞
σ swd = (sin α + cos α ) ⎜⎜ sin α + f bd d ⎟⎟ ≤ f ywd (16)
6 ⎝ f ywd Ø w ⎠

where fbd is the bond strength (in general a value fbd = 3 MPa may be used for ribbed bars)

and ∅w is the diameter of the shear reinforcement. A decreasing slab rotation ψ reduces the

allowable steel stress σswd of the shear reinforcement, due to the smaller widths of the inner

shear cracks. In shear-reinforced slabs, a minimum amount of punching shear reinforcement

 www.ernst‐und‐sohn.de  Page 10  Structural Concrete 

should be provided to ensure sufficient deformation capacity:

∑ (A k f
sw e ywd ) ≥ 0.5V Ed (17)
Accepted Article
The maximum punching shear capacity can be defined as a multiple of the shear capacity

without shear reinforcement. As a consequence of the larger slab rotation at higher load level,

the load increase is not linear.

f ck f ck
VEd ≤ VRd, max = k sys k ψ b0 d v ≤ b0 d v (18)
γC γC

The factor ksys accounts for the efficiency of different punching shear reinforcement

systems, which should be experimentally determined. For stirrups, ksys can be taken as 2.4

according to fib Model Code 2010. Compared to the punching shear capacity without shear

reinforcement, this corresponds to an increase of 58 % according to available parameter

studies. For double-headed studs as punching shear reinforcement, a coefficient ksys = 2.8 may

be taken, corresponding to a load increase of 71 % with respect to the punching capacity

without shear reinforcement.

The extent of the shear-reinforced zone, should be checked along a perimeter at a distance

of 0.5dv,out from the outermost row of shear reinforcement (Fig. 1 b). To avoid a pull-out

failure of the shear reinforcement and to ensure that the outer compression struts are

supported on the shear reinforcement, a reduced, shear-resisting effective depth dv,out should

be applied for the calculation of the punching shear capacity along the outer perimeter. The

reduced effective depth is defined between the centroid of the flexural reinforcement and the

anchorage element of the shear reinforcement. Considering the reduced effective depth dv,out,

the punching shear capacity along the outer perimeter can be calculated according to Eq. (9).
 www.ernst‐und‐sohn.de  Page 11  Structural Concrete 

3 Parameter studies and comparison to test results

3.1 Introduction
Accepted Article
In this section, the design equations according to Eurocode 2, EC2/NA(D), and fib Model

Code 2010 are compared through parameter studies. The selected parameters were established

on the basis of punching tests conducted by [22],[31],[32],[33]. To asses if the design

provisions realistically consider the different factors that influence the punching shear

resistance, systematic test series were selected, in which only one parameter was varied at a

time. Subsequently, parameter studies were performed, in which the punching shear capacities

of interior column-slab connections according to different design provisions were compared.

3.2 Punching shear capacity without shear reinforcement

3.2.1 Comparison to test results

For the comparison of the calculated with experimental capacities, all partial safety factors

as well as the load increase factor β or the reduction factor ke, accounting for an uneven shear

distribution along the critical perimeter, were taken as unity. When the empirical European

design equation were derived from test results, it was hypothesised that the mean value of the

concrete compression strength in the test specimen is 4 MPa larger than the characteristic

value of the concrete compressive strength fck, which is used for the calculation of the

punching shear strength [16],[17],[13],[20],[21],[28]. For this reason, the punching shear

strength according to Eurocode 2 and EC2/NA(D) were calculated using a reduced concrete

strength of fck = fcm − 4 MPa [16]. The offset of 4 MPa for the concrete compressive strength

was chosen following the conformity criteria of EN 206-1 [34] for an initial concrete

production. The punching shear strength according to fib Model Code 2010 was calculated

using mean values for the concrete compressive strength and the characteristic failure

criterion (target 5 % fractile) [7],[6].

fib Model Code 2010 allows the use of different levels of approximation (LoA) for the

determination of the punching shear resistance (refer to section 2.4). For the comparison to
 www.ernst‐und‐sohn.de  Page 12  Structural Concrete 

test results and the parameter studies, the LoA II was used, i.e. the slab rotation was estimated

according to Eq. (13) and the average moment per unit length in the column strip was taken to
Accepted Article
Vd/8.

In Fig. 2 a, the influence of the effective depth is investigated. The available two test

results indicate a decrease of the punching shear capacity with increasing effective depth [22].

This effect is satisfactorily considered by Eurocode 2, EC2/NA(D), and fib Model Code 2010.

In comparison to the European design provisions, the punching shear capacities according to

fib Model Code 2010 are somewhat more conservative (Fig. 2 a).

A systematic test series conducted by Regan [33] is used in Fig. 2 b to evaluate the

influence of the ratio of the column perimeter to the effective depth u0/d on the punching

shear strength. The use of a control perimeter relatively far away at a distance of 2.0d from

the periphery of the applied load tendentially leads to an overestimation of the punching shear

capacities for small load application areas [17],[20],[28], because the shear stresses at the

column face govern the failure. For this reason, Eurocode 2 also demands for slabs without

shear reinforcement that the shear stresses at the periphery of the loaded area u0 do not exceed

the web-crushing limit for beams according to Eq. (1). A comparison with test results shows

that the web-crushing limit does not correctly consider the influence of u0/d [17],[33]. In

addition for small u0/d ratios, the punching shear capacity cannot be increased by the

application of shear reinforcement, because the capacity of the compression strut obtained

from Eq. (1) becomes governing as an upper limit for the punching shear capacity. This is in

contradiction to test results (e.g. [25],[35]). To achieve a sufficient safety level for slabs with

small load application areas, an additional empirical factor CRk,c valid for values u0/d < 4 was

derived according to Eq. (6). This reduced pre-factor ensures that the design equation in

EC2/NA(D) satisfactorily considers the influence of u0/d. The described issue will not occur if

the punching shear capacity is calculated according to fib Model Code 2010, because the

critical perimeter is located much nearer to the periphery of the loaded area at a distance of
 www.ernst‐und‐sohn.de  Page 13  Structural Concrete 

0.5d. Nevertheless for very small u0/d ratios, fib Model Code 2010 also seems to overestimate

the punching shear resistance without shear reinforcement as can be seen in Fig. 2 b.
Accepted Article
The shear span-depth ratio is the distance from the centroid of the loaded area to the line of

contraflexure rs divided by the effective depth d. The ratio rs/d clearly influences the punching

shear strength of compact footings, as is proved by punching tests and finite element analyses

[23],[24],[25],[35],[36],[37]. It can be hypothesised that the shear span-depth ratio also

influences the punching shear capacity of flat slabs. However, this influence may be reduced

due to the larger shear span-depth ratios of flat slabs and the implicit limitation of the span-

depth ratio arising from deflection control requirements. Unfortunately, the authors could not

find a test series on interior column-slab connections, in which the ratio rs/d had been

systematically varied and which was suitable for the present parameter study. Neither

Eurocode 2 nor EC2/NA(D) directly consider the influence of the shear span-depth ratio,

while fib Model Code 2010 calculates smaller punching shear capacities for high rs/d values

(Fig. 2 c).

The influence of the concrete compressive strength is similarly assessed by all three design

provisions (Fig. 2 d). The calculated punching shear capacities are conservative in comparison

to the tests conducted by Ramdane [32]. For concrete strengths smaller than approximately

20 MPa, the web-crushing limit according to Eurocode 2 (Eq. (1)) becomes governing at the

column face, leading to small allowable punching shear capacities in contrast to the other

design provisions investigated. For the concrete compressive strengths considered, fib Model

Code 2010 estimated smaller punching shear capacities as the European design provisions

(Fig. 2 d).

It has been seen that the punching shear capacity becomes larger, when the flexural

reinforcement ratio increases. This effect is considered by Eurocode 2 as well as by fib Model

Code 2010 (Fig. 2 e). Eurocode 2 assumes that the punching shear strength increases

proportionally to the cubic root of the flexural reinforcement ratio ρ1/3. The influence on the
 www.ernst‐und‐sohn.de  Page 14  Structural Concrete 

punching shear capacity according to fib Model Code 2010 is not directly discernible from the

design equation. An increasing flexural reinforcement ratio leads to a smaller mSd/mRd ratio
Accepted Article
and therefore to a reduced slab rotation, leading to a larger punching shear strength. In spite of

the different calculation models, Eurocode 2 and fib Model Code 2010 consider the influence

of the flexural reinforcement ratio in a very similar way (Fig. 2 e). To avoid a concentration of

flexural reinforcement in the vicinity of the load application area and a resulting pre-mature

bond failure, the flexural reinforcement ratio ρl considered should not exceed a value of 2 %.

The additional limitation from EC2/NA(D), to avoid reinforcement on the compression side

of the slab, did not become governing in the parameter study, presented in Fig. 2 e. For a

verification of the different design provisions, three punching tests of Elstner and Hognestad

[31] are available. In these tests, only the flexural reinforcement ratio was varied. The other

parameters were kept constant in all tests. Fig. 2 e shows that both design codes estimate

punching shear capacities on the safe side. The influence of the flexural reinforcement ratio is

also satisfactorily considered. In contrast to Eurocode 2, fib Model Code 2010 does not limit

the flexural reinforcement ratio to a value of 2 %. As a consequence, fib Model Code 2010

estimates larger punching shear capacities for higher flexural reinforcement ratios and

therefore is in better accordance with two of the punching shear tests, which included heavy

longitudinal reinforcement.

According to Model Code 2010 the influence of the maximum aggregate size on the

punching shear capacity should not be neglected, because the roughness of the critical shear

crack also affects the punching shear strength in line with the Critical Shear Crack Theory

[7]. Walraven [38] and Veccio/Collins [39] approximately described the roughness of the

critical shear crack as a function of the maximum aggregate size. Eurocode 2 and EC2/NA(D)

do not consider the influence of the maximum aggregate size on the punching shear

resistance. Due to practical reasons, this seems to be useful, because if concrete is ordered,

normally only the maximum aggregate size will be specified but not its volume in the
 www.ernst‐und‐sohn.de  Page 15  Structural Concrete 

concrete mix. It is also not clear, which volume fraction would be necessary so that the

influence of the maximum aggregate size will become significant. The available tests from
Accepted Article
Guandalini et al. [22] with a maximum aggregate size of 4 mm and 16 mm do not confirm a

significant influence of the maximum aggregate size on the punching shear strength (Fig. 2 f).

To clarify the influence of the maximum aggregate size, further systematic test series are

needed. According to fib Model Code 2010, a reduction of the maximum aggregate size leads

to a decrease of the punching shear strength due to reduced roughness of the critical shear

crack.

3.2.2 Information from parametric studies

Fig. 3 presents the results of a parameter study, comparing the punching shear strengths of

interior column-slab connections with dimensions of practical interest. The punching shear

capacities according to Eurocode 2, EC2/NA(D), and fib Model Code 2010 are plotted against

the effective depth in Fig. 3 a. With increasing effective depth, the punching shear strength

becomes disproportionally larger. This increase is partly attributed to the constant ratio of

column perimeter to effective depth, which is u0/d = 5.61. Consequently, the length of the

critical perimeter not only increases due to the enlarged effective depth, but also due to the

increasing column perimeter. The design provisions of all three standards assess the increase

of the punching shear strength qualitatively in a similar way, whereas the punching shear

capacity according to fib Model Code 2010 is approximately 20 % smaller for small effective

depths than according to the European design provisions. For larger effective depths than

those presented in Fig. 3 a, the punching shear strengths become more and more equal.

The influence of the ratio of the column perimeter to the effective depth u0/d is

investigated in Fig. 3 b. For an increasing ratio u0/d, the larger column perimeter leads to a

linear increase of the punching shear capacity. This tendency is for all three design provisions

more or less the same. While Eurocode 2 as well as EC2/NA(D) calculate approximately

equal punching shear capacities, Model Code 2010 estimates significantly smaller punching
 www.ernst‐und‐sohn.de  Page 16  Structural Concrete 

shear strengths for the given parameters. For values u0/d smaller than 4.0, the punching shear

capacity according to EC2/NA(D) is smaller than according to Eurocode 2 and approaches the
Accepted Article
values from Model Code 2010. The reason for this is that EC2/NA(D) demands the

application of a reduced empirical pre-factor CRd,c for u0/d ratios smaller than 4.0 (refer to Eq.

(6)). The punching shear capacity according to Eurocode 2 is reduced for u0/d ratios smaller

than 3.0. This happens because the limitation of the shear stress to vRd,max at the boundary of

the loaded area according to Eq. (1) becomes governing, normally leading to very

conservative punching shear strengths [17],[21],[28],[33].

In Fig. 4 a, the different punching shear capacities are plotted against the shear span-depth

ratio rs/d. The application of the European design provisions again leads to constant punching

shear strengths for all investigated rs/d ratios. fib Model Code 2010 calculates larger punching

shear capacities for smaller shear span-depth ratios rs/d. For values of rs/d greater than

approximately 4.0, fib Model Code 2010 estimates smaller punching shear strength than the

European design provisions, whereas the trend is inversed for ratios of rs/d smaller than 4.0.

The punching shear strengths for a constant flexural reinforcement ratio of 0.8 % are

plotted against the concrete compressive strength in Fig. 4 b. Although Eurocode 2 and

EC/NA(D) consider the influence of the concrete strength with the cubic root fck1/3 and fib

Model Code 2010 uses the square root fck1/2, it is obvious from the diagram that the curve

shapes from the different design provisions are qualitatively similar. Due to the chosen shear

span-depth ratio of rs/d = 0.22 × 8.0 / 0.28 = 6.3, which is of practical interest, fib Model Code

2010 estimates more conservative punching shear capacities than the European design

provisions.

The influence of the flexural reinforcement ratio on the punching shear strength according

to different design provisions is compared in Fig. 5 a. The graphs of the punching shear

capacities are nearly affine for the different design equations evaluated. The graphs according

to Eurocode 2 and EC2/NA(D) show a kink at a flexural reinforcement ratio of approximately

 www.ernst‐und‐sohn.de  Page 17  Structural Concrete 

0.4 %, because for smaller flexural reinforcement ratios the minimum punching shear

capacity becomes governing. The calculation according to fib Model Code 2010 again leads
Accepted Article
to somewhat more conservative punching shear capacities than the European design

provisions.

In Fig. 5 b, the calculated punching shear capacities are plotted against the maximum

aggregate size. Eurocode 2 as well as EC2/NA(D) estimated constant punching shear

capacities, independent of the chosen maximum aggregate size. According to fib Model Code

2010, smaller maximum aggregate sizes lead to smaller punching shear strengths, due to the

reduced roughness of the critical shear crack. The allowable punching shear force cannot be

further increased by choosing a maximum aggregate size greater than 26.6 mm.

3.3 Maximum punching shear capacity

3.3.1 Introduction

In this section, the maximum punching shear capacities according to Eurocode 2,

EC2/NA(D), and fib Model Code 2010 are compared by parametric studies. It is hypothesised

that, inside the slab enough punching shear reinforcement is provided, so that the maximum

allowable punching shear strength for stirrups as shear reinforcement can be achieved without

any pre-mature failure. Due to a lack of systematic test series on slabs including punching

shear reinforcement, the calculated maximum punching shear capacities could not be

compared with test results.

3.3.2 Information from parametric studies

The maximum punching shear capacities according to Eurocode 2, EC2/NA(D), and fib

Model Code 2010 are plotted against the effective depth d and the specific column perimeter

u0/d in Fig. 6. If the effective depth becomes larger, the maximum punching shear resistance

will increase above average (Fig. 6 a). Eurocode 2 calculates larger maximum punching shear

capacities than EC2/NA(D) and fib Model Code 2010, while the curves are qualitatively very
 www.ernst‐und‐sohn.de  Page 18  Structural Concrete 

similar. The reason for the disproportional increase of the punching shear strength is that the

effective depth is considered several times (refer to section 3.2.2). If the ratio of column
Accepted Article
perimeter to effective depth u0/d is enlarged, the punching shear capacity will be further

increased. Calculations according to EC2/NA(D) and fib Model Code 2010 lead to a nearly

similar increase of the punching shear strength.

The influence of the shear span-depth ratio and the concrete compressive strength on the

maximum punching shear strength is investigated in Fig. 7. Eurocode 2 and EC2/NA(D) do

not explicitly consider the influence of the shear span-depth ratio, while fib Model Code 2010

estimates decreasing punching shear capacities for increasing shear span-depth ratios rs/d. In

Germany, span-depth ratios L/d between 25 and 35 are common for flat slab systems. This

approximately corresponds to shear span-depth ratios rs/d between 4 and 8. For rs/d ratios in

this range, EC2/NA(D) and fib Model Code 2010 calculate punching shear capacities of

comparable size. Eurocode 2 predicts significantly larger punching shear strengths, because

the web-crushing limit, used to limit the maximum punching shear capacity, strongly depends

of the ratio u0/d and the concrete compressive strength.

In Fig. 7 b, the punching shear capacity is plotted against the concrete compressive

strength. The calculated resistances according to EC2/NA(D) and fib Model Code 2010 are

again in the same range. The chosen slab span of 8.0 m in each direction corresponds to a

shear span-depth ratio of rs/d = 6.3, which explains the good agreement of the punching shear

capacities of both design codes. In contrast, the maximum punching shear strength of

Eurocode 2 increases far above average, which can be explained by the linear influence of the

concrete compressive strength.

A good agreement of the maximum punching shear capacities according to EC2/NA(D)

and fib Model Code 2010 is also observed for different flexural reinforcement ratios ρl (Fig.

8 a). For small values of ρl, the minimum punching shear capacity according to EC2/NA(D)

becomes governing, leading to larger allowable punching shear strengths in comparison to fib
 www.ernst‐und‐sohn.de  Page 19  Structural Concrete 

Model Code 2010. In contrast, the increase of the punching shear capacity according to fib

Model Code 2010 is a bit more pronounced for larger flexural reinforcement ratios than
Accepted Article
according to EC2/NA(D). In the range of practical interest between 0.5 % and 1.5 %, both

design provisions estimate nearly the same punching shear capacities.

In Fig. 8 b, the influence of the maximum aggregate size on the maximum punching shear

capacity is investigated. The same tendencies can be observed as those seen for flat slabs

without punching shear reinforcement.

The significantly larger maximum punching shear strength of shear-reinforced slabs

according to Eurocode 2 was also recognised by fib Task Group 4 “Punching, Shear, and

Torsion”. To reduce the risk of a possibly reduced safety level, the Task Group 4 suggested an

amendment to Eurocode 2. The maximum punching shear capacity should additionally be

checked along the critical perimeter u1 at a distance of 2.0d from the periphery of the loaded

area. Following the provisions of EC2/NA(D) the maximum shear strength should be defined

as a multiple of the punching shear capacity without shear reinforcement (kmax × VRdc) and

can be calculated as:

VEd ≤ VRd,c+s ≤ kmax VRd,c (19)

For stirrups as punching shear reinforcement, the recommended value for kmax is 1.5. The

limitation of the maximum punching shear capacity along the critical perimeter to

VRd,c+s ≤ kmax × VRd,c leads to significantly smaller maximum punching shear strength in

particular for higher concrete compressive strength and larger u0/d ratios than the web-

crushing limit according to Eq. (1). In comparison to the design provisions of EC2/NA(D),

the new design equation leads to very similar maximum punching shear strengths, which are

only slightly larger (≤ 7 %) than according to the German provisions. The amendment to

Eurocode 2 had already been passed by the responsible committees and was published in

March 2015 [40].

 www.ernst‐und‐sohn.de  Page 20  Structural Concrete 

3.4 Punching shear capacity inside the shear-reinforced zone

In Fig. 9, the required amount of punching shear reinforcement according to the different
Accepted Article
design provisions is compared. The characteristic value of the resisted shear load is plotted

against the amount of shear reinforcement, without considering any minimum punching shear

reinforcement. According to all three design provisions, the punching shear capacity can be

increased by placing an additional row of shear reinforcement. The curves of Eurocode 2 and

EC2/NA(D) can be divided into three areas. For small amounts of punching shear

reinforcement, the punching shear capacity without shear reinforcement controls the design.

In the mid-range, for intermediate amounts of shear reinforcement, the punching shear

capacity inside the shear-reinforced zone calculated with the first two rows of shear

reinforcement becomes governing. If a large amount of shear reinforcement is provided, the

maximum punching shear capacity is the upper limit. Eurocode 2 calculates very high

punching shear capacities inside the shear-reinforced zone, due to the used strut and tie model

with an inclination of the compression struts of 33°. For an application in Germany, the

required amount of shear reinforcement was classified as rather low. Therefore, according to

EC2/NA(D) the required amount of shear reinforcement for the first two rows has to be

increased by a factor of approximately 2.0, leading in general to relatively large amounts of

required shear reinforcement.

According to fib Model Code 2010, a disproportional increase of the punching shear

strength can be observed, if the amount of shear reinforcement between 0.35d and 1.00d from

the periphery of the loaded area is increased. For the calculation of the punching shear

capacity, the concrete contribution as well as the steel contribution have to be calculated using

the same slab rotation. For larger amounts of shear reinforcement, the punching shear strength

and the calculated slab rotation increase. This causes in this case, a reduction of the concrete

contribution and an increase of the design steel strength applicable for the calculation of the

shear reinforcement, due to the implied larger shear crack widths. These effects result in a
 www.ernst‐und‐sohn.de  Page 21  Structural Concrete 

disproportional increase of the punching shear resistance inside the shear-reinforced zone

until the maximum strength is achieved.

Accepted Article
In general, fib Model Code 2010 correctly considers the effect also observed in

experiments that as the load level increases, the concrete contribution decreases, due to higher

shear crack formation. The influence on the allowable design steel stress σswd is not that clear.

It is hypothesised that a smaller slab rotation leads to a reduced design steel strength of the

shear reinforcement. As a consequence, the choice of a more sophisticated Level of

Approximation leads to a reduced slab rotation and therefore to an increased concrete

contribution and maximum punching strength, but also to a reduced design steel strength,

requiring a larger amount of shear reinforcement.

By means of the parameter study shown in Fig. 9, the described effects can be illustrated.

Fig. 9 a shows the results, determined for a thin slab with a ratio u0/d = 5.61. Due to the large

slab rotation, leading to a design steel stress of σswd = 500 N/mm², the increase of the

punching shear capacity according to fib Model Code 2010 is even more pronounced than that

according to Eurocode 2. Due to the small effective depth Eurocode 2 as well as EC2/NA(D)

limits the allowable steel stress to fyd,eff = 368 N/mm². This is also the main reason, why fib

Model Code 2010 leads to significantly less shear reinforcement than the calculation

according to EC2/NA(D).

In comparison, Fig. 9 b shows the results for a thicker slab with an effective depth d of

500 mm and a small u0/d ratio of 3.14. The calculation according to fib Model Code 2010

leads to smaller slab rotations and, in contrast, to much smaller applicable design steel

stresses σswd between 155 MPa and 300 MPa. The allowable steel stress according to

Eurocode 2 is fyd,eff = 431 N/mm². Due to the small design steel stresses, fib Model Code 2010

calculates large amounts of required shear reinforcement in the same order of magnitude as

EC2/NA(D). As discussed e.g. in [12], this can be of practical interest mainly for thick slabs

or footings. As known by the authors, there are no systematic test series available, which
 www.ernst‐und‐sohn.de  Page 22  Structural Concrete 

would allow to clarify the influence of the slab rotation on the applicable design steel stress.
Accepted Article
4 Summary and conclusions

In Europe, there are two opposite design concepts popular at present time: the empirical

design model according to Eurocode 2, which was adopted from Model Code 90, and the

design model from fib Model Code 2010, based on the Critical Shear Crack Theory, a

physical model including empirical adjustment factors. The main idea of the Critical Shear

Crack Theory is that the punching shear resistance depends on the width of the critical shear

crack, which is related to the slab rotation. The punching shear strength is the point of

intersection of a failure criteria and the load-rotation curve of the slab investigated. Although

several assumptions and empirical factors are introduced to simplify the calculation

procedure, the application of fib Model Code 2010 is still more sophisticated than Eurocode 2

or EC2/NA(D). The design concept according to fib Model Code 2010 is nearly the same as

in the Swiss code SIA 262:2013 [41]. Therefore, further information about the practical

application of the new model should be available in the near future.

At the beginning of the present paper, the design provisions according to Eurocode 2,

EC2/NA(D), and Model Code 2010 were introduced in detail. A comparison with systematic

test series allowed to clarify if the different design approaches consider the influence of the

main punching parameters satisfactorily. In addition, the differences between the design

provisions were identified through extensive parameter studies on flat slab with and without

shear reinforcement.

The results of the present investigations allow to draw the following conclusions:

- For flat slabs without shear reinforcement, Eurocode 2, EC2/NA(D), and fib Model

Code 2010 (LoA II) consider the main influence parameters on the punching shear

strength quite similarly and agree well with test results. In comparison to the European

design provisions, the punching shear capacity according to fib Model Code 2010 is
 www.ernst‐und‐sohn.de  Page 23  Structural Concrete 

smaller for shear span-depth ratios in the range of practical interest. This tendency is

reversed for smaller shear span-depth ratios.

Accepted Article
- The punching shear capacities of flat slabs including shear reinforcement according to

EC2/NA(D) and fib Model Code 2010 (LoA II) are in the same order of magnitude.

The maximum punching shear strength according to Eurocode 2 is defined similarly to

the compression strut strength of a beam and has to be checked at the column face. For

flat slabs, this approach leads in many cases to significantly larger punching shear

capacities than the other design provisions investigated.

- The amount of shear reinforcement required according to EC2/NA(D) is greater than

those for fib Model Code 2010 and Eurocode 2010. According to fib Model Code 2010,

the required amount of shear reinforcement is strongly dependent on the slab rotation at

ultimate limit state. If larger slab rotations are achieved, less shear reinforcement will

be required, which can be in the same order of magnitude as for Eurocode 2.

Further information

A similar paper was first published in German in “Beton- und Stahlbetonbau” V. 109,

November 2014 [42].

 www.ernst‐und‐sohn.de  Page 24  Structural Concrete 

Literature

[1] DIN EN 1992-1-1:2004 + AC:2010 January 2011. Eurocode 2: Design of concrete

Accepted Article
structures – Part 1-1: General rules and rules for buildings; German version EN 1992-

1-1:2004 + AC:2010.

[2] CEB-FIP Model Code 1990: Design Code. Committee Euro-International du Beton.

London: Thomas Telford 1993.

[3] DIN EN 1992-1-1/NA April 2013. National Annex – Nationally determined parame-

ters – Eurocode 2: Design of concrete structures – Part 1-1: General rules and rules for

buildings.

[4] DIN EN 1990:2002 + A1:2005 + A1:2005/AC:2010 December 2010: Eurocode: Basis

of structural design. CEN European Committee for Standardization; German version

EN 1990:2002 + A1:2005 + A1:2005/AC:2010.

[5] DIN 1055-100 March 2001: Actions on structures – Part 100: Basis of design, safety

concept and design rules.

[6] Fédération Internationale du Béton (fib): Model Code 2010 – Final Draft, Vol. 1 und

2, Bulletin 65 und 66, Lausanne, Switzerland, 2012.

[7] Muttoni, A.: Punching Shear Strength of Reinforced Concrete Slabs without Trans-

verse Reinforcement. In: ACI Structural Journal 105 (2008), pp. 440–450.

[8] Ruiz, F.M.; Muttoni, A.: Application of Critical Shear Crack Theory to Punching of

Reinforced Concrete Slabs with Transverse Reinforcement. In: ACI Structural Journal

106 (2009), pp. 485–494.

 www.ernst‐und‐sohn.de  Page 25  Structural Concrete 

[9] Muttoni, A.; Ruiz, M.F.: The levels-of-approximation approach in MC 2010: applica-

tion to punching shear provisions. In: Structural Concrete 13 (2012), pp. 32–41 doi:
Accepted Article
10.1002/suco.201100032.

[10] Muttoni, A.; Ruiz, M. F.; Bentz, E.; Foster, S.; Sigrist, V.: Background to fib Model

Code 2010 shear provisions–part II: punching shear. In: Structural Concrete 14

(2013), pp. 204–214. doi: 10.1002/suco.201200064

[11] Clément, T.; Ramos, A. P.; Fernández Ruiz, M.; Muttoni, A.: (2013). Design for

punching of prestressed concrete slabs. In: Structural Concrete, 14 (2013), pp. 157–

167. doi: 10.1002/suco.201200028

[12] Siburg, C., Ricker, M., Hegger, J.: Punching shear design of footings: critical review

of different code provisions. In: Structural Concrete, 15 (2014), pp. 497–508. doi:

10.1002/suco.201300092

[13] Hegger, J.; Ricker, M.; Häusler, F.: Zur Durchstanzbemessung von ausmittig

beanspruchten Stützenknoten und Einzelfundamenten nach Eurocode 2 (Punching

Shear Capacity of Column-Slab Connections with Moment Transfer and Footings Ac-

cording to Eurocode 2). In: Beton- und Stahlbetonbau 103 (2008), pp. 723–734 (in

German). doi: 10.1002/best.200800639

[14] Hegger, J.; Walraven, J.C.; Häusler, F.: Zum Durchstanzen von Flachdecken nach

Eurocode 2 (Punching of Flat Slabs according to Eurocode 2). In: Beton- und

Stahlbetonbau 105 (2010), pp. 206–215 (in German). doi: 10.1002/best.201000013

[15] Häusler, F.; Ricker, M.; Siburg, C.: Einfluss einer Vorspannung auf die Durchstanz-

tragfähigkeit von Flachdecken (Influence of pre-stressing on the punching behaviour

of flat slabs). In: Bauingenieur 89 (2014), pp. 261–271 (in German).

 www.ernst‐und‐sohn.de  Page 26  Structural Concrete 

[16] Hegger, J.; Häusler, F.; Ricker, M.: Zur maximalen Durchstanztragfähigkeit von

Flachdecken (Maximum Punching Capacity of Flat Slabs). In: Beton- und Stahlbet-
Accepted Article
onbau 102 (2007), pp. 770–777 (in German). doi: 10.1002/best.200700584

[17] Hegger, J.; Häusler, F.; Ricker, M.: Zur Durchstanzbemessung von Flachdecken nach

Eurocode 2 (Critical Review of the Punching Shear Provisions According to Eurocode

2). In: Beton- und Stahlbetonbau 103 (2008), pp. 93–102 (in German). doi:

10.1002/best.200700596

[18] Hegger, J.; Ricker, M.; Häusler, F.; Tuchlinski, D.: Versuche zum Durchstanzen im

Bereich von Randstützen mit und ohne Durchstanzbewehrung (Investigations on pun-

ching behaviour of slab-column edge connections with and without shear reinforce-

ment). In: Bauingenieur 82 (2007), pp. 270–278 (in German).

[19] Hegger, J.; Ricker, M.: Zur Bemessung des Durchstanzen im Bereich von Randstützen

Durchstanzbewehrung (Investigations on punching behaviour of slab-column edge

connections with and without shear reinforcement). In: Bauingenieur 82 (2007), pp.

177–184 (in German).

[20] Ricker, M.; Siburg, C.; Hegger, J.: Durchstanzen von Fundamenten nach NA(D) zu

Eurocode 2 (Foundation punching design according to German Annex of Eurocode 2).

In: Bauingenieur 87 (2012), pp. 267–276 (in German).

[21] Siburg, C.; Häusler, F.; Hegger, J.: Durchstanzen von Flachdecken nach NA(D) zu

Eurocode 2 (Flat slab punching design according to german annex of Eurocode 2). In:

Bauingenieur 87 (2012), pp. 216–225 (in German).

[22] Guandalini, S. ; Burdet, O. L. ; Muttoni, A. : Punching Tests of Slabs with Low Rein-

forcement Ratios. In: ACI Structural Journal 106 (2009), pp. 87–95.
 www.ernst‐und‐sohn.de  Page 27  Structural Concrete 

[23] Hegger, J.; Ricker, M.; Ulke, B.; Ziegler, M.: Investigations on the punching behav-

iour of reinforced concrete footings. In: Engineering Structures 29 (2007), pp. 2233–
Accepted Article
2241. doi: 10.1016/j.engstruct.2006.11.012

[24] Hegger, J.; Sherif, A.G.; Ricker, M.: Experimental investigations on punching behav-

ior of reinforced concrete footings. In: ACI Structural Journal 103 (2006), pp. 604–

612.

[25] Hegger, J.; Ricker, M.; Sherif, A.G.: Punching strength of reinforced concrete foot-

ings. ACI Structural Journal 106 (2009), pp. 706–716.

[26] Hegger, J.; Ziegler, M.; Ricker, M.; Kürten, S.: Experimentelle Untersuchungen zum

Durchstanzen von gedrungenen Fundamenten unter Berücksichtigung der Boden-

Bauwerk-Interaktion (Experimental investigations of the punching behaviour of com-

pact footings considering the soil-structure interaction). In: Bauingenieur 85 (2010),

pp. 87–96 (in German).

[27] Siburg, C.; Hegger, J.; Furche, J.; Bauermeister, U.: Durchstanzbewehrung für Ele-

mentdecken nach Eurocode 2 (Punching shear reinforcement for semi precast slabs

according to Eurocode 2). In: Beton- und Stahlbetonbau 109 (2014), pp. 170–181 (in

German). doi: 10.1002/best.201300075

[28] Ricker, M.; Häusler, F.: European punching design provisions for double-headed

studs. In: Structures and Buildings 167 (2014), pp. 495–506. doi:

10.1680/stbu.13.00047

[29] Lindorf, A.: Durchstanzbemessung von Doppelkopfankern nach Europäischen Tech-

nischen Zulassungen (Punching shear design of double-headed anchors according to

European Technical Approvals). In: Beton‐und Stahlbetonbau 108 (2013). pp. 691–

700 (in German). doi: 10.1002/best.201300040

 www.ernst‐und‐sohn.de  Page 28  Structural Concrete 

[30] DIN-Fachbericht 102 March 2009. Concrete bridges (in German).

[31] Elstner, R.C.; Hognestad, E.: Shearing Strength of Reinforced Concrete Slabs. In: ACI
Accepted Article
Journal, Proceedings 53 (1956), pp. 29–58.

[32] Ramdane, K.-E.: Punching Shear of High Performance Concrete Slabs. In: Proceed-

ings of the 4th International Symposium on Utilization of High-Strength/High-

performance concrete, Paris, 1996, pp. 1015–1026.

[33] Regan, P. E.: Punching of slabs under highly concentrated loads. In: Structures &

Buildings 157 (2004), pp. 165–171. doi: 10.1680/stbu.2004.157.2.165

[34] DIN EN 206-1:2000 + A1:2004 + A2:2005 September 2005. Concrete – Part 1: Speci-

fication, performance, production and conformity.

[35] Siburg, C.; Hegger, J.: Experimental investigations on the punching behaviour of rein-

forced concrete footings with structural dimensions. In: Structural Concrete 15 (2014),

pp. 331–339. doi: 10.1002/suco.201300083

[36] Ricker, M.: Zur Zuverlässigkeit der Bemessung gegen Durchstanzen bei Einzelfun-

damenten (Reliability of the punching shear design of footings). Dissertation RWTH

Aachen, Lehrstuhl und Institut für Massivbau (IMB), 2009 (in German).

urn:nbn:de:hbz:82-opus-30383

[37] Ricker, M.: Numerische Untersuchungen zum Durchstanzen von gedrungenen Einzel-

fundamenten (Numerical Investigations on Punching Behaviour of Compact Foo-

tings). In: Bauingenieur 86 (2011), pp. 443–453 (in German).

[38] Walraven, J.C.: Fundamental analysis of Aggregate Interlock. In: Journal of Structural

Engineering, ASCE 107 (1981), pp. 2245–2270.

 www.ernst‐und‐sohn.de  Page 29  Structural Concrete 

[39] Veccio, F.J.; Collins, M.P.: The Modified Compression-Field Theory for Reinforced

Concrete Elements Subjected to Shear. In: ACI Journal, Proceedings 83 (1986), pp.
Accepted Article
219–231.

[40] DIN EN 1992-1-1/A1 March 2015: Eurocode 2: Design of concrete structures – Part

1-1: General rules and rules for buildings; German version EN 1992-1-

1:2004/A1:2014.

[41] Norm SIA 262 January 2013. Concrete structures. – Swiss Code SN 505 262:2013 de

[42] Ricker, M.; Siburg, C.: Vergleich der Durchstanzbemessung nach Model Code 2010

und Eurocode 2 (Comparison of punching shear design according to Model Code 2010

and Eurocode 2). In: Beton- und Stahlbetonbau 109 (2014), pp. 771–782 (in German).

doi: 10.1002/best.201400068
 www.ernst‐und‐sohn.de  Page 30  Structural Concrete 

Figures:
Accepted Article
(a) Eurocode 2 (b) Model Code 2010
EC2/NA(D)

u1
2.0d 0.5d

u0

lsw lsw

0.5d
uout 1.5d

Fig. 1: Design Perimeters according to Eurocode 2 and EC2/NA(D) (a) and according to

Model Code 2010 (b)

 www.ernst‐und‐sohn.de  Page 31  Structural Concrete 

0.6
(a) fck = fc,test − 4 MPa (b) fck = fc,test − 4 MPa (c) fck = fc,test − 4 MPa
(MPa2/3 )

c = 1.175d, rs = 7.4d, fc = 30 MPa,

0.4 dg = 16 mm, ρ = 0.33 %, fy = 500 MPa
Accepted Article
fcm u2.0d d
1/3
VR

0.2 c = u0 /d, d = 128 mm,

rs = 1062 mm, fc = 42 MPa,
dg = 20 mm, ρ = 0.93 %, c = 260 mm, d = 210 mm, fc = 28.5 MPa,
x=

fy = 520 MPa dg = 16 mm, ρ = 0.33 %, fy = 577 MPa

Guandalini/Muttoni (2004) Regan (2004) Guandalini/Muttoni (2004)

0.0
0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 0 2 4 6 8 0 2 4 6 8 10 12
Effective depth d (m) Specific column perimeter u0 /d (–) Shear span-depth ratio rs /d (–)

0.6
(d) fck = fc,test − 4 MPa (e) fck = fc,test − 4 MPa (f) fck = fc,test − 4 MPa
(MPa2/3 )

0.4
fcm u2.0d d
VR
1/3

0.2
c = 254 mm, d = 114.3 mm, c = 260 mm, d = 210 mm,
rc = 75 mm, d = 98 mm, rs = 850 mm,
x=

rs = 992 mm, fc = 22 MPa, rs = 1505 mm, fc = 28.9 MPa,

dg = 10 mm, ρ = 1.28 %, fy = 550 MPa
dg = 25.4 mm, fy = 325 MPa ρ = 0.33 %, fy = 550 MPa

Ramdane (1996) Elstner/Hognestad Guandalini/Muttoni (2004)

0.0
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 0 10 20 30 40
Concrete compr. strength fcm,cyl (MPa) Flexural reinf. ratio ρl (%) Maximum aggregate size dg (mm)

Eurocode 2 NA(D) Model Code 2010

Fig. 2: Comparison of the punching shear capacity without shear reinforcement according to

Eurocode 2, NA(D), and Model Code 2010 and tests from literature
(MN)

2.0
(a) (b)
Punching capacity VRk,c

d
1.5
h

1.0

c
0.5 fck = 30 MPa, ρl = 0.8 %,
h = d + 40 mm, c = u0 /π, u0 /d = 5.61 h = 320 mm, d = 280 mm, c = u0 /π fyk = 500 MPa, lx = ly = 8.0 m,
dg = 32 mm
0.0
0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0 2 4 6 8 10 12
Effective depth d (m) Specific column perimeter u0 /d (–)

Eurocode 2 NA(D) Model Code 2010

Fig. 3: Influence of the effective depth d (a) and the ratio of column perimeter to effective

depth u0/d (b) on the punching shear capacity of slabs without punching shear rein-

forcement
 www.ernst‐und‐sohn.de  Page 32  Structural Concrete 

Punching capacity VRk,c (MN)

2.0
(a) (b)
d = 280 mm
1.5
h = 320 mm
Accepted Article 1.0

c = 500 mm
0.5
ρl = 0.8 %, fyk = 500 MPa
lx = ly = rs /0.22, fck = 30 MPa lx = ly = 8.0 m u0 /d = 5.61, dg = 32 mm
0.0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 0 20 40 60 80 100
Shear span-depth ratio rs /d (–) Concrete compressive strength fck (–)
Eurocode 2 NA(D) Model Code 2010

Fig. 4: Influence of the shear span-depth ratio rs/d (a) and the concrete compressive strength

fck (b) on the punching capacity of slabs without punching shear reinforcement
Punching capacity VRk,c (MN)

2.0
(a) (b)
d = 280 mm
1.5
h = 320 mm

1.0

c = 500 mm
0.5
fck = 30 MPa, fyk = 500 MPa,
dg = 32 mm ρl = 0.8 % u0 /d = 5.61, lx = ly = 8.0 m
0.0
0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 0 10 20 30 40
Flexural reinforcement ratio ρl (%) Max. aggregate size dg (mm)
Eurocode 2 NA(D) Model Code 2010

Fig. 5: Influence of the flexural reinforcement ratio ρl (a) and the maximum aggregate size

of the concrete dg (b) on the punching shear capacity of slabs without punching shear

reinforcement
 www.ernst‐und‐sohn.de  Page 33  Structural Concrete 

Max. punching capacity VRk,max (MN)

3.0
(a) (b)
d

2.0 h
Accepted Article
1.0 c
fck = 30 MPa, ρl = 0.8 %,
h = d + 40 mm, c = u0 /π, u0 /d = 5.61 h = 320 mm, d = 280 mm, c = u0 /π fyk = 500 MPa, lx = ly = 8.0 m,
dg = 32 mm
0.0
0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0 2 4 6 8 10 12
Effective depth d (m) Specific column perimeter u0 /d (–)
Eurocode 2 NA(D) Model Code 2010

Fig. 6: Influence of the effective depth d (a) and the ratio of column perimeter to effective

depth u0/d (b) on the maximum punching shear capacity of slabs with punching shear

reinforcement
Max. punching capacity VRk,max (MN)

3.0
(a) (b)
d = 280 mm

2.0 h = 320 mm

1.0 c = 500 mm

ρl = 0.8 %, fyk = 500 MPa

lx = ly = rs /0.22, fck = 30 MPa lx = ly = 8.0 m u0 /d = 5.61, dg = 32 mm
0.0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 0 20 40 60 80 100
Shear span-depth ratio rs /d (–) Concrete compressive strength fck (–)
Eurocode 2 NA(D) Model Code 2010

Fig. 7: Influence of the shear span-depth ratio rs/d (a) and the concrete compressive strength

fck (b) on the maximum punching shear capacity of slabs with punching shear rein-

forcement
 www.ernst‐und‐sohn.de  Page 34  Structural Concrete 

Max. punching capacity VRk,max (MN)

3.0
(a) (b)
d = 280 mm

2.0 h = 320 mm
Accepted Article
1.0 c = 500 mm

fck = 30 MPa, fyk = 500 MPa,

dg = 32 mm ρl = 0.8 % u0 /d = 5.61, lx = ly = 8.0 m
0.0
0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 0 10 20 30 40
Flexural reinforcement ratio ρl (%) Max. aggregate size dg (mm)
Eurocode 2 NA(D) Model Code 2010

Fig. 8: Influence of the flexural reinforcement ratio ρl (a) and the maximum aggregate size

of the concrete dg (b) on the maximum punching shear capacity of slabs with punch-

ing shear reinforcement

Punching capacity VRk (MN)

6.0
(a) (b)
d

4.0 h

2.0 c = 500 mm
fck = 30 MPa, ρl = 0.8 %,
h = 320 mm, d = 280 mm, u0 /d = 5.61 h = 540 mm, d = 500 mm, u0 /d = 3.14 fyk = 500 MPa, lx = ly = 8.0 m,
dg = 32 mm
0.0
0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 0 2000 4000 6000 8000 10000 12000
Punching shear reinf. Asw,1.+2. row (mm2 ) Punching shear reinf. Asw,1.+2. row (mm2 )

Eurocode 2 NA(D) Model Code 2010

Fig. 9: Comparison of the required amount of punching shear reinforcement according to

Eurocode 2, NA(D), and Model Code 2010

 www.ernst‐und‐sohn.de  Page 35  Structural Concrete 

Authors:

Dr.-Ing. Marcus Ricker, M.Sc

Accepted Article
HALFEN GmbH

Research – Development – Engineering

Liebigstrasse 14, 40764 Langenfeld

e-mail: marcus.ricker@halfen.de

www.halfen.com

Dr.-Ing. Carsten Siburg

H+P Ingenieure GmbH

Kackertstraße 10, 52072 Aachen

e-mail: csiburg@huping.de

www.HuPIng.de