Engineering Structures 291 (2023) 116197

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Engineering Structures
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/engstruct

Punching Shear Response Theory (PSRT) – A two degree of freedom

kinematic theory for modeling the entire punching shear vs. deformation
response of RC slabs and footings
Martin Classen , Matthias Kalus *
RWTH Aachen University, Institute of Structural Concrete, Aachen, Germany

A R T I C L E I N F O A B S T R A C T

Keywords: Punching failures of reinforced concrete flat slabs and footings without shear reinforcement have been respon­
punching shear sible for a number of catastrophic collapses. Despite intense scientific efforts in recent decades that have led to
kinematic model failure criteria-based phenomenological models, our current mechanistic understanding is still not sufficiently
contributions of shear transfer mechanisms
advanced to fathom the physical background of punching phenomena in RC structures. That is why, this paper
shear vs. deformation response
mechanical explanation of punching failure
proposes a novel two degree of freedom mechanical theory - called Punching Shear Response Theory (PSRT) -
that interconnects all relevant effects of punching shear behavior, namely strutting action within a conical
concrete shell at the slab-column interface, shear transfer actions elicited along the circumferential punching
shear crack, including cohesive fracture process zone behavior, aggregate interlock and dowel action of rein­
forcement, as well as transfer of normal forces within tangential and radial cracks between slab segments in one
all-encompassing algorithm. The PSRT can thoroughly mimic and efficiently reproduce the entire punching
failure process of flat slabs and squat members (footings, pile caps, column bases) including prediction of pre-
and post-peak punching shear vs. deformation response, quantification of different punching shear contributions
and analysis of their evolution and mutual interaction within the failure process. The paper illustrates the
analytical development of the PSRT, exemplifies its ability to reproduce the punching shear response of selected
benchmark problems, proves its validity by database evaluations (incl. punching strength and deformation ca­
pacity) and eventually discloses the physical causalities of punching failures in RC structures.

1. Introduction
1.1. Motivation
In assessment and design of reinforced concrete (RC) structures,
punching shear is considered one of the most important failure modes.
Extensive studies have been performed in the last decades to analyze
punching shear phenomena and to identify relevant parameters influ­
encing the punching behavior of RC slabs and footings without shear
reinforcement. Results of hundreds of punching tests have been clus­
tered in comprehensive databases to derive response surfaces providing
the mapping between the studied parameters and punching strength by
means of statistical analysis [1–6]. The resulting empirical and semi-
empirical punching strength models have been widely used in the
past, as they allow users to handle a complex structural problem within
simple mathematical formulas. Due to their ease of use, these empirical
models were also incorporated in most design codes. However, it must
be kept in mind that the validity and scope of such empirical models is
limited to the experimentally covered range of geometrical and
material-related parameters, while extrapolations beyond are not reli­
able. Thus, it is neither safe to use empirical tools calibrated on small-
scale laboratory tests for designing large-scale structures (e.g. pile
caps or skyscraper foundations) nor is it justified to apply existing
empirical models for steel-reinforced concrete to members made of new
material combinations (e.g. FRP reinforced concrete), or produced by
innovative fabrication processes (e.g. additive manufacturing or 3DCP).
Nowadays, it seems that - driven by the needs of innovations and
ongoing technological progress in structural engineering - we have
reached the end of the era of empirical models. In the future, there will
be an increasing need for mechanical models based on the principles of
equilibrium, constitutive material behavior, and kinematic compati­
bility that can elucidate the physical background of structural

* Corresponding author at: RWTH Aachen University, Institute of Structural Concrete, Mies-van-der-Rohe-Str. 1, 52074 Aachen, Germany.
E-mail address: mkalus@imb.rwth-aachen.de (M. Kalus).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.engstruct.2023.116197
Received 30 December 2022; Received in revised form 14 March 2023; Accepted 18 April 2023
Available online 1 June 2023
0141-0296/© 2023 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
M. Classen and M. Kalus
phenomena and thus remain scalable and extrapolatable to any field of
application in modern concrete structures.
It was with this very intention, that the so-called Shear Crack Prop­
agation Theory (SCPT) has been developed by Classen [7] providing - for
the first time - a fully mechanical description of shear behavior in B-
regions of one-way RC members. The Punching Shear Response Theory
(PSRT) that is presented in this paper, is a complementary approach to
capture punching shear behavior in discontinuity regions (D-regions) of
two-way RC members. Both theories, SCPT and PSRT, are based on the
same physical principles but specifically tailored to address the pecu­
liarities of shear failures in either B- and D-regions (e.g. differences in
kinematic behavior of failure mechanisms, different modes of shear
crack propagation, discrepancies in geometrical discretization). The
combination of both consistent theories, SCPT and PSRT, allows us to
predict and analyze the entire shear vs. deformation responses of B- and
D-regions in almost arbitrary structural systems.
1.2. Elementary effects of punching behavior
The punching failure process of RC slabs and footings without shear
reinforcement includes several interacting effects of material behavior.
These elementary effects are exemplarily sketched in Fig. 1 for the
punching critical region of a RC structure. The slab-column connection
represents a structural discontinuity (D-region) characterized by a
combination of high bending moments provoking circumferential and
radial cracking of the slab and concentrated vertical forces to be trans­
ferred from the continuous slab into the column (Fig. 1a). The transfer of
vertical forces can be attributed to different stress transfer mechanisms
(Fig. 1b). Distinction is made between direct stress transfer σDB through
strutting action within a conical concrete shell that is part of a
compression ring exposed to a multiaxial state of stresses close to the
slab-column interface (effect (1)) and shear transfer actions elicited
along the circumferential punching shear crack (effect (2) – (4)). In this
context, effect (2) is the bending induced punching crack nucleation at
the tensile side of the slab and its straight propagation towards the
column including residual tensile stress transfer σ rt within the fracture
Fig. 1. Elementary effects controlling the punching failure process of RC structures without shear reinforcement: Direct stress transfer in conical shell (1), punching
crack nucleation, propagation and residual tensile stress transfer (2), aggregate interlock (3) and dowel action of bending reinforcement (4).
2
Engineering Structures 291 (2023) 116197
process zone (FPZ). Effect (3) is the shear stress transfer τai and σai owing
to aggregate interlock activated through sliding of both surfaces of the
circumferential punching crack, while effect (4) comprises the trans­
verse stiffness and strength of reinforcement and concrete cover known
as dowel action Vda. The activation of these stress transfer actions is
controlled through the kinematic behavior of the punching critical re­
gion. It has been demonstrated that the punching behavior of RC slabs
and footings obeys a two degree of freedom (2-DOF) kinematic mech­
anism [8] consisting of a bending induced slab rotation leading to a
vertical deformation δf and a translational deformation δt due to column
penetration and compressive shortening of the conical concrete strut
close to the slab column intersection (Fig. 1a).
Although there is a general agreement on the existence of the iden­
tified effects (1) – (4) in the scientific community, there is an ongoing
discussion on their role and significance within the punching failure
process. Indeed, the contributions to shear transfer associated with the
identified effects are non-proportional and exhibit strong variations due
to their mutual interaction. The following review of mechanical models
of punching behavior will make use of the introduced nonlinear effects
to discuss the strengths and weaknesses of the existing methods and to
provide the motivation for own research.
1.3. Punching models based on kinematic failure mechanisms
Already in the 1960s Kinnunen & Nylander [9,10] developed a 1-
DOF kinematic model idealizing the hogging moment area of a flat
slab (area between column and circumferential line of moment contra­
flexure) by a tangential shear crack dissecting the punching critical re­
gion into a truncated cone and a slab portion outside. The outer slab
portion is separated by radial cracks into discrete slab segments, each of
which is carried by a confined conical strut and considered as a rigid
body rotating about the root of the shear crack. In the model, the
punching shear capacity is determined by limiting the tangential con­
crete strain in the conical strut to a critical value (failure criterion) and
by calculating the corresponding shear contributions carried by
compressive forces in the conical strut [9] and by dowel action of
M. Classen and M. Kalus Engineering Structures 291 (2023) 116197

reinforcement [10]. The theory of Kinnunen & Nylander attracted a lot Table 1
of attention in the scientific community as it provided a very clear and Comparison of characteristics of different kinematic punching shear models.
comprehensible visualization of the fundamental punching failure Elementary effects Class A Class B
mechanism. Later, several researchers adopted the 1-DOF kinematic
1-DOF kinematic Primary DOF
principle and refined the failure criterion to either account for different theory controlled,
failure modes or additional shear transfer actions in the crack. Shehata secondary DOF
et al. [11], Broms [12] and Hallgren [13] for example introduced further adjusted to
strain criteria to also account for splitting failure and collapse of the maximize shear
stress transfer
conical strut in radial direction. Menetrey [14] extended the model to
also account for residual tensile stresses in the punching shear crack. e.g. e.g. [15,16] [17,18]
[9] [10–13]
In their Critical Shear Crack Theory (CSCT), Muttoni & Schwartz
were the first to acknowledge the role of aggregate interlock in punching 1 Contribution of conical strut + + – (+)
phenomena by means of a semi-empirical failure criterion [15]. How­ 2 Contribution of fracture – + –/+ +
process zone
ever, the occurrence of aggregate interlock stresses could not be 3 Contribution of aggregate – – + +
explained through Kinnunen’s 1-DOF kinematic mechanism alone, as it interlock
assumes the straight punching shear crack to rotate about the crack root 4 Contribution of dowel action – – – +
and open without any sliding of the crack lips. Thus, besides crack Equilibrium + + + +
Constitutive material behavior
rotation Muttoni also presumed a certain crack slide to occur. Later, he
+ + + +
Kinematic compatibility + + – –
[16] derived each point of the failure criterion of the CSCT through Fracture criterion Tangential strain (+ Maximization of
imposing a crack rotation (leading to a certain crack width) and maxi­ radial strain) transferred stresses
mizing the associated aggregate interlock stresses in the crack. To (+ strain criteria)
determine the punching strength, the CSCT failure criterion is inter­
sected with the slab’s load-rotation curve which is calculated from a
of strain-based fracture criteria. In these 1-DOF models, the elementary
multilinear moment–curvature relationship.
principles of equilibrium, constitutive material behavior and deforma­
Based on the general procedure of maximizing the transferred shear
tion compatibility are addressed. However, the kinematic mechanism is
stresses in the crack, several versions of the CSCT failure criterion as well
not able to account for sliding deformations along the punching shear
as other models comprising additional shear transfer action have been
crack. In consequence, the activation of elementary shear transfer ac­
developed. Guidotti [16] refined the CSCT failure criterion to also ac­
tions like aggregate interlock is not accounted for. In contrast, class-B
count for residual tensile stresses in the crack. Later, Simões et al. [17]
models are capable of also addressing aggregate interlock stress trans­
proposed a failure criterion that also acknowledges the role of shear
fer. For this purpose, these models assume the primary rotational DOF to
stresses transferred in the compression zone to extend the CSCT scope
be controlled through equilibrium conditions, while the secondary
from slender slabs to squat members and compact slabs and footings.
translational DOF is adjusted to maximize aggregate interlock stress
Simões et al. presume the contribution of the compression zone to be
transfer in the crack. However, what about RC members in which
transferred in a smeared crack band with each element of the crack band
aggregate interlock is not dominant in the stress transfer process? The
exposed to biaxial compression and perpendicular tensile stresses. The
analysis of measured punching fracture kinematics [8] reveals that
failure criterion is calculated through maximizing the transferred shear
adjusting the translational DOF oversimplifies the actual 2-DOF kine­
stresses due to smeared cracking (compression zone), localized cracking
matic problem and may violate compatibility conditions.
(aggregate interlock and residual tensile stress) as well as dowel action.
So far, there is still no mechanical model that fully complies with
In addition, a similar model has been proposed by Kueres & Hegger [18].
kinematic principles and accounts for all relevant effects within the
Here, the punching failure is assumed to be induced by the collapse of a
punching failure process (stress transfer in the conical strut (1), crack
triaxial compressive stress state in the compression zone, when the
localization in FPZ (2), aggregate interlock (3) and dowel action (4)), at
tangential strain criterion by Broms [12] is reached. The Ottosen failure
the same time (Table 1). Despite significant scientific efforts summa­
envelope [19] is used to calculate the contribution of the compression
rized in Table 1, we obviously do still not fully understand the innermost
zone. Each point of the failure criterion is numerically determined
nature of punching shear behavior. It is the authors’ conviction, that one
through imposing a certain rotation, maximizing aggregate interlock in
reason is, that we tend to oversimplify the punching failure process in
the crack and summing up the associated contributions of residual
the development of mechanical approaches. In the past, we tried to
tensile stress, dowel action as well as the previously calculated contri­
circumvent fully modelling the 2-DOF kinematic mechanism of punch­
bution of the compression zone.
ing failures, as it appeared to us to be too complex for an analytical
By remarkably extending the principles of Kinnunen & Nylander, the
description. In addition, we sticked to focusing on the state of failure
previously described class of models (CSCT by Muttoni & Guidotti,
only. We succumbed to the belief that analyzing the specific state of
refined models by Kueres & Hegger and Simões & Muttoni) represents a
failure would simplify the understanding of involved effects. However,
further milestone in understanding of punching failures, as it justifies
to finally solve the riddle of punching shear, we should dare to take a
the existence of aggregate interlock and highlights the interaction of
look at the full kinematic mechanism and examine the entire punching
different shear transfer actions in the crack.
shear response. Instead of limiting our interest to the state of failure
alone, it is of crucial importance to understand the continuously
1.4. Discussion of existing approaches and scope of the present paper
changing interplay of stress transfer in the conical shell, evolution of
stresses in the fracture process zone as well as activation of shear
The described model developments indicate the complexity of the
transfer actions within the punching crack over the entire loading pro­
punching failure process including the identified effects (1) to (4)
cess. These effects are non-constant, occur temporally shifted at
(Fig. 1). The ability of the existing kinematic modeling approaches to
different loading stages and strongly interact with each other.
capture these interacting effects is summarized in Table 1. Established
In the authors’ opinion, a mechanical theory that explains and
models are either characterized by a single rotational DOF (Table 1, class
clarifies the role and evolution of all involved effects over the entire
A) or by a combination of a primary rotational DOF with a secondary
loading process is the best way to gain deeper insights and eventually
translational DOF, which is not controlled but tuned to maximize the
understand the mechanical background of punching shear failures.
transferred stresses (Table 1, class B). In class-A models, the contribution
Therefore, the intention of this paper is to propose a mechanical theory
of the conical strut is usually governing and determined through the use

3
M. Classen and M. Kalus
accounting for equilibrium, constitutive behavior and full kinematic
compatibility, that interconnects the single effects (1) – (4) in one all-
encompassing algorithm and thus gives us an appropriate artificial
reproduction of the physical punching shear problem. The development
of such theory is presented in the following.
2. Punching Shear Response Theory (PSRT)
2.1. General
To contribute to a deeper understanding of punching shear phe­
nomena, this paper proposes a new theory, called Punching Shear
Response Theory (PSRT), for prediction and analysis of pre- and post-
failure punching behavior including entire shear force vs. deformation
response of RC slabs and footings without shear reinforcement.
To introduce the PSRT this section is organized as follows: section 2.2
presents the geometrical discretization of the punching zone and section
2.3 the kinematic framework for modeling of the complex punching
failure mechanism with two independent DOF. The kinematic frame­
work can describe not only the global deformation pattern of the
punching zone but also the relationship between DOF and local de­
formations within the punching shear crack, crack opening and slip of
crack lips, as well as the strains within the uncracked compression ring
exposed to strutting action. These local deformation quantities are
subsequently used to determine the transferred shear contributions on
the basis of constitutive laws, presented in section 2.4 and to determine
the transferred total punching force by exploiting equilibrium condi­
tions (section 2.5).
The PSRT incorporates the necessary and sufficient conditions of
equilibrium, constitutive material behavior, and kinematic compati­
bility to devise an incremental algorithm for computation of all de­
formations and strains, as well as all internal forces corresponding to a
prescribed deformation increment. For this purpose, the PSRT makes use
of an efficient 2-DOF solution strategy (section 3). Multiple repetition of
this incremental procedure with successively increase of imposed total
deformations from zero to large values, finally allows us to predict the
total punching response of a member.
2.2. Geometrical discretization of punching shear zone
2.2.1. General
In the PSRT, the punching shear zone is discretized as a polar sym­
metrical system of interacting rigid bodies which are partly separated
from each other by punching related cracks (punching shear crack
(PSC), splitting crack (SC) and radial cracks) but connected via a
Fig. 2. Geometrical discretization of punching zone: (a) polar symmetrical system of interacting rigid bodies, (b) inclination and location of punching shear crack
PSC and splitting crack SC (c) geometry of deformable body DB and conical shell.
4
Engineering Structures 291 (2023) 116197
deformable body (DB) representing the compression ring at the slab-
column root (Fig. 2a). The PSC divides the hogging moment area of
the slab into two portions, the so-called inner and outer portion of the
slab. Radial cracks subdivide the outer portion of the slab into several
segments which are bounded by a part of the PSC and the slab’s
circumferential line of contraflexure.
2.2.2. Modeling punching shear crack and splitting crack inclination
In experimental investigations [20,21], different crack types have
been identified, of which the circumferential PSC and SC are the most
important ones for analysis of the punching shear response.
Moe [22] was the first to describe the PSC to be the outermost cir­
cular crack with flexural origin and to propagate from the tension side of
the slab to the neutral axis with a straight inclination. Due to its bending
origin the crack emerges already at very low load levels and spreads
almost instantaneously up to its final length. In experiments the exis­
tence of a fully developed punching shear crack was detected at loading
stages of below 20% [13] of the punching strength. After having reached
the neutral axis of the member, crack propagation of PSC slows down
and finally comes to a standstill. The inclination αPSC of the PSC depends
on several parameters e.g. the type of loading, shear span-depth ratio
and the flexural reinforcement ratio. With regard to footings, there are
different approaches available [21,23] to account for the effect of shear-
span-depth ratio ay/d. In this paper, an approach by Broms [23] is used,
in which the inclination of the PSC can be calculated by means of the
equivalent diameter of a circular column Bc, the equivalent diameter of
the footing Dc and the structural depth d following Eq. (3). The intro­
duction of equivalent geometrical parameters allows for assessment of
arbitrary column and slab shapes through transforming the given
geometrical instances into corresponding equivalent dimensions of a
polar-symmetrical (circular) member, under the condition of identical
slab and column area. In flat slabs, the effects of shear span-depth ratio
and reinforcement ratio are less pronounced and therefore usually
neglected. In the literature shear crack inclinations of flat slabs between
approximately 30◦ and 45◦ are documented. In the present study, the
PSC is modelled with a straight slope of αPSC = 37.5◦ (Eq. (1)) connecting
the outermost bending crack at the tension side with the DB in the
compression zone (Fig. 2b).
The circumferential SC causes splitting of the compression ring. In
contrast to the PSC, the SC nucleates from the slab-column root at the
compressive side and propagates towards the tensile side of the member
under mode II conditions [24–27]. It has significantly flatter inclination
than the PSC, in a range between 15◦ and 22.5◦ according to [28] and
thus approximately half the angle of the PSC. For both, flat slabs and
footings, the inclination of the SC can be determined from the structural
M. Classen and M. Kalus
depth of the member as well as from the radial spacing between column
edge and resultant of the external load acting on the slab ay, according to
Eq. (2) and Eq. (4), respectively.
αPSC = 37.5 [◦ ] (1)
( )
d
αSC = tan− 1 (2)
ay
(
1.4⋅d
) shell (section 2.4.2).
(3)
1 ◦
αPSC,fo = tan− ≥ 45
Dc /3 − Bc /2
(
d
) The thickness of the conical shell at the tip of the PSC, bDB, (repre­
αSC,fo = tan− 1
(4)
2/3⋅Dc /2 − Bc /2
In this paper, a rather simple geometrical discretization of punching
zone with straight crack paths is used; more refined approaches and
mechanical concepts to predict the crack shape and propagation (e.g.
SCPT [7]) could be used without loss of generality. However, especially
the consideration of crack propagation within loading history would
lead to significantly increased computing effort at little enhancement in
precision. Thus, a fixed crack geometry is promoted in this version of the
PSRT.
2.2.3. Geometry of deformable body for representation of compression ring
and conical shell
Experimental investigations on RC slabs and footings failing in
punching have indicated the existence of a compression ring, which is
located between the PSC, running from the tensile side of the slab to­
wards the column, and the horizontal slab-column interface. During the
loading process, the emergence of the circumferential SC, growing under
mode II conditions from the column edge towards the tensile side of the
slab (Fig. 1a), leads to splitting of this compression ring. A conical shell
remains, located between PSC and SC, that carries the rigid slab seg­
ments outside the PSC through strutting action and may eventually fail
due to concrete crushing under a multi-axial state of stresses.
In the PSRT, the compression ring is modelled with nonlinear ma­
terial behavior as a deformable body (DB). In agreement with saw cuts of
tested specimens the cross section of the DB may be idealized by an
isosceles triangle as shown in Fig. 2b. The geometry of the isosceles
triangle is fully defined through the length of one leg 1.5lDB, as well as
the PSC inclination αPSC (Fig. 2c). Here, lDB is the horizontal dimension
of the DB reaching into the column measured from the column face. This
quantity can be understood to define the effective surface of the column
which carries the conical shell and contributes to strutting action. In
addition, also the concrete adjacent to the column is highly squeezed.
The radial dimension of the DB outside the column, that is excessively
deformed due to shearing of concrete and column penetration, was
found to be about 0.5lDB. This part of the DB is cut off and separated from
the conical shell through the appearance of the SC.
Considerations of possible crack patterns in the vicinity of the col­
umn for different slab configurations indicate that lDB depends on
spacing of flexural cracks scr and can vary between zero and 1.0scr
(Appendix A1) with a mean value of 0.5scr. This mean value is used to
define lDB in the PSRT. Different studies in the literature have revealed
that the spacing of primary cracks scr in RC members loaded in shear and
bending primarily depends on the structural depth of the member, e.g.
Khaja & Sherwood [29]. In this paper, the rather simple approach from
[30] is used, describing the spacing of primary cracks to be 50% of the
structural depth, leading to an lDB of one quarter of the structural depth
d. Other approaches for primary crack spacing could be used without
loss of generality.
In addition, it needs to be taken into account that due to the polar
symmetry of the punching zone, the part of the column which can
contribute to the transfer of strutting forces has a maximal radial
dimension of half of the column diameter Bc. A similar geometrical
discretization has been proposed by Mihaylov for the critical loading
5
Engineering Structures 291 (2023) 116197
zones of deep beams [31,32]. Thus, lDB for calculation of side length of
DB is given according to Eq. (5).
lDB = min{scr /2 = 0.25⋅d; Bc /2} (5)
Having lDB and the inclination of PSC αPSC at hand, we can easily
compute the length of the basis of the isosceles triangle defining the
length of the conical shell through Eq. (6). Later, l0,DB will serve as the
initial length, i.e. the reference length to determine strains in the conical
l0,DB = 3⋅lDB ⋅cos(αPSC ) (6)
senting the width of DB) is given through the perpendicular distance
between the path of the PSC and slab-column root (Fig. 2c) as expressed
by Eq. (7). The radial distance r0 of the root of PSC at the tensile side of
the slab (position where PSC intersects the longitudinal flexural rein­
forcement) is defined according to Eq. (8).
bDB = lDB ⋅sin(αPSC ) (7)
Bc d
r0 = − lDB + (8)
2 tan(αPSC )
2.3. Kinematic framework - compatibility of deformations in punching
zone
It has been shown through experimental analysis [8] that the
punching behavior of RC slabs and footings obeys a two degree of
freedom (2-DOF) kinematic mechanism. Generally, the deformed shape
of the punching zone is a combination of a rotational and a translational
deformation quantity, which differ in their intensity depending on
geometrical dimensions, loading, boundary conditions and material
behavior. The PSRT makes use of a 2-DOF full kinematic model to
reproduce each of these deformations by a single DOF. This general
kinematic framework is key to describe the complex punching failure
mechanism of both, slender slabs and compact footings, by a uniform set
of equations.
Following up on the geometrical discretization (section 2.2), the slab
portion inside the PSC is idealized as a fan of rotating concrete struts
which connect the flexural reinforcement with the top of the column
[32] (Fig. 3a). The outer slab portion is modelled as rigid bodies rotating
about a center of rotation (CR).
The first DOF of this kinematic framework refers to the rotation of
the struts and the rigid body about the CR due to flexural deformations
controlled through the average radial strain in the flexural reinforce­
ment εs,r,avg including the effect of tension stiffening (Fig. 3c). In contrast
to flexural shear problems in B-regions where the CR obeys an upward
shift during the loading process as a consequence of shear crack prop­
agation [7], the kinematic analysis of punching phenomena [8] has
revealed that the CR can be set in the tip of the PSC and attached to the
DB with its distance from the column-slab root defined through the
geometric quantities xCR and yCR:
xCR = lDB ⋅sin(αPSC )2 (9)
yCR = lDB ⋅cos(αPSC )⋅sin(αPSC ) (10)
Fig. 3a shows the radial distribution of steel strain within the RC slab.
Due to excessive cracking, delamination of concrete cover and loss of
bond, and in agreement with experimental findings, this strain is
assumed to be constant within a radial distance lt (Eq. (11–12))
measured from the center of the slab and to decay in the rigid body
outside the PSC.
lt = (Bc /2 − xCR ) + (d − yCR )⋅cot(αPSC ) + lk (11)
M. Classen and M. Kalus Engineering Structures 291 (2023) 116197

Fig. 3. Kinematic principles and location of centre of rotation (CR): (a) total deformed shape, (b) radial inclined strain in top fibre of conical shell, crack width w and
slip s as function of (c) the flexural DOF εs,r,avg, and (d) the translational DOF δt.

{
scr d. The crack width caused by flexural deformation wf increases along the
lk = min (12)
(cot(αSC )⋅d + xCR ) − cot(αPSC )⋅(d − yCR ) crack path and is proportional to the rotation angle of the PSC φPSC. To
account for this, a local control variable ξ which runs from the CR to the
The second DOF is a translational shift δt of the rigid body in vertical
intersection between the PSC and the flexural top reinforcement is
direction (Fig. 3d) caused by squeezing and compressive shortening of
introduced. The DOF εs,r,avg is related to a pure rotation. Thus, no slip
the DB while the struts remain undeformed. This translational DOF
between the crack surfaces occurs. The crack width and slip caused by
represents the effects of shear deformation as well as column penetration
flexural deformations related to the DOF εs,r,avg are expressed as
into the slab.
(Fig. 3c):
The total deformed shape of the punching zone can be obtained by
superimposing both independent DOF (Fig. 3a). To this end, the PSRT wf (ξ) = φPSC ⋅ξ =
wf,0 ⋅ξ
=
εs,r,avg ⋅scr
⋅ξ (15a)
uses a slightly modified version of the 2-DOF kinematic model by Kueres (d − yCR )/sin(αPSC ) d − yCR
& Classen [8].
With the previously mentioned principles, the horizontal and vertical sf = 0 (16a)
displacements of each point in the slab can be described with two DOF Since the DOF δt is a pure vertical deformation, the corresponding
related to the given coordinate system in Fig. 3a by assuming very small crack width and slip are constant along the crack. Both quantities are
displacements compared to the slab sizes. The total vertical displace­ illustrated in Fig. 3d and given by:
ment δz at the radius where bending moment is zero (line of contra­
flexure) δz(x = Bc/2 + ay) needed for the solution procedure and wt = δt ⋅cos(αPSC ) = const. (15b)
composed of flexural (δf) and translational (δt) deformation is given:
st = δt ⋅sin(αPSC ) = const. (16b)
( / ) lt ( )
δz x = Bc 2 + ay = δtot = δf + δt = εs,r,avg ⋅ ⋅ ay + xCR + δt (13) Superposition of the crack opening related to both DOF, leads to Eq.
d − yCR
(15) and (16) for the total crack width w and slip s.
The term εs,r,avg•lt/(d-yCR) expresses the angle of rotation of the rigid
body about the CR. Reformulating Eq. (13) leads to the following rela­ w(ξ) = wf (ξ) + wt (15)
tionship, which is explicitly required for the solution strategy, between
s(ξ) = st (16)
εs,r,avg and the flexural deformation in the line of contraflexure δf:
( / ) Finally, the kinematic framework (Fig. 3b) also provides the rela­
δf x = Bc 2 + ay (d − yCR ) δf (d − yCR )
εs,r,avg = ⋅ = ⋅ (14) tionship between the translational DOF δt and the longitudinal concrete
ay + xCR lt ay + xCR lt
strain εDB,max in the top fiber of the conical shell (long inclined side of the
In addition, the kinematic model delivers the deformation quantities triangular DB). Due to compatibility of deformations in cracked and
localized in the PSC, i.e. the crack width w and slip s according to Fig. 3c, uncracked concrete, the constant slip st along the PSC equals the

6
M. Classen and M. Kalus
compressive shortening of the conical shell. Thus, εDB,max can be
computed through relating st to the initial length l0,DB of the conical shell
(Eq. (17)). The rotation only slightly influences the straining of this zone
and may therefore be neglected.
st δt ⋅sin(αPSC ) δt
εDB,max = − =− =− ⋅tan(αPSC ) (17)
l0,DB l0,DB 3⋅lDB
2.4. Constitutive behavior and stress transfer actions in punching zone
2.4.1. General
After the onset of concrete cracking, transfer of punching shear in RC
slabs and footings without shear reinforcement can be attributed to
different stress transfer mechanisms. The activation of these shear
transfer mechanisms depends on both, the 2-DOF kinematic behavior of
punching zone comprising local crack deformations (opening and
sliding) of PSC, shortening of DB, as well as corresponding steel and
concrete strains, and the constitutive behavior of involved stress transfer
actions. The literature delivers various approaches to account for the
constitutive behavior of these transfer actions. Distinction is made be­
tween stress transfer in the uncracked concrete of DB (section 2.4.2),
shear transfer across the PSC (section 2.4.3, viz. residual concrete
strength, aggregate interlock, dowel action), as well as normal forces
acting in concrete and reinforcement at tangential and radial cracks
between adjacent rigid concrete slab segments (section 2.4.4).
To compute the transferred stresses, the PSRT inserts the local de­
formations and strains provided by the kinematic framework (section
2.3) into well-established constitutive models. In this paper, a rather
subjective selection of constitutive models is summarized to exemplify
Fig. 4. Evolution of deformable body in different phases of loading history and corresponding stresses and strains: (a) crack initiation and propagation phase, (b)
crack arresting phase through carding moment in conical shell, (c) stable phase with relevant stress–strain state.
7
Engineering Structures 291 (2023) 116197
the general PSRT procedure. The selected material laws can be replaced
by other envelopes without loss of generality. Integration of these
stresses in the DB and along the PSC provides the shear force contri­
bution of each transfer action.
2.4.2. Stress transfer in conical shell (DB)
2.4.2.1. General. Despite intense numerical research [33,34] and
experimental effort including e.g. strain measuring devices [13] or fibre
optical sensors [35–37], a comprehensive evidence-based analysis of the
magnitude, orientation, and distribution of all relevant stresses and
strains within the DB of punching critical members is still lacking. That
is why, several (partly) contradictory hypotheses have been manifested
with regard to the governing strain state, ranging from the assumption of
triaxial compressive strains [18], over biaxial compressive straining
[12], to the adoption of two compressive strains and one transverse
tensile strain [17]. These discrepancies can be traced back to different
assumptions of the underlying models with regard to the formation and
geometry of the DB, which is closely related to the occurrence and
orientation of punching related cracks.
Based on observations made on cuts through tested specimen [38]
the PSRT assumes, that the PSC does not run towards the slab-column
root, as supposed by some other models [17,18], but is oriented to­
wards the interior region of the column. Through this geometry, the
conical shell located in the interspace between PSC and SC acts as a
corbel that directly supports the rigid body and that immediately
transfers the inclined compressive forces from strutting action into the
column. In Fig. 4, we try to give an overview of different effects
M. Classen and M. Kalus
occurring in the deformable body region and their consequences on
stress and strain evolution.
2.4.2.2. Review of stresses and strains in conical shell. It has already been
explained that the formation and geometry of the DB is closely related to
the initiation and propagation of PSC and SC (Fig. 4a). The PSC grows
from the tensile side of the slab under mode I conditions. The SC is
initiated at the slab-column root (bottom side of slab) and grows under
mode II conditions. This process is driven by the stress gradient between
highly compressed concrete in the slab-column interface and decom­
pressed concrete at the slab soffit near the column, that has been
experimentally observed in several test series [13,28]. The stress and
strain conditions at the SC tip (high stress gradient) are similar to
Reinhardt’s well-known mode II fracture experiments [39]. The inter­
space between PSC and SC forms the conical shell.
Fig. 4b illustrates that the vertical translational deformation δt of the
DB (penetration of column into slab) and the corresponding rise of
vertical supporting force in the slab-column interface leads to a carding
moment within the conical shell. This secondary bending effect (carding
moment) causes additional local stresses that superpose the initial stress
conditions from direct strutting and primary slab bending. In the top
fiber of the conical shell the carding moment provokes additional
compressive stresses, while it reduces compressive stresses in its bottom
fiber. Through this, it leads to a reduction of the stress gradient over the
SC that had triggered mode II crack propagation. At a certain instance in
the punching response, usually at about 10–20% of the punching
strength, the local stresses from carding moment are high enough to
suppress the crack propagation processes and cause their standstill
(Fig. 4b).
The punching shear response goes into a stable phase (0.2Vmax < V <
Vmax), in which the orientation and length of punching related cracks
and geometry of conical shell may be assumed constant. In radial in­
clined direction, along the top fibre of conical shell l0,DB (diagonal side of
the DB-triangle), the principal concrete strains have high compressive
intensity and a straight orientation that is assumed parallel to the slope
of the PSC. However, the strain intensity decreases gradually through
the thickness bDB of the conical shell to almost zero-strains close to the
tip of the SC (bottom fiber of conical shell) due to the carding moment
action. The PSRT assumes a linear strain distribution over the thickness
of the conical shell (Fig. 4c).
In tangential direction, we observe a linear concrete strain distri­
bution over the depth of the slab resulting from tangential bending
(Fig. 4c). Maximum tangential strains of concrete are reached at the
compressive (bottom) side of the slab, while zero stresses prevail within
the neutral fiber of the slab. Thus, the tangential strain is not constant
within the conical shell but varies from high compressive intensity in
regions close to the slab-column interface to almost zero tangential
strain at the top corner of the DB-triangle, that is located close to the
neutral fiber of the slab.
In a small region along the slab-column interface, radial-diagonal
compressive strains and tangential compressive strains of the conical
shell interact with vertical compressive strains (global z-direction)
resulting from the column’s support reaction. Fig. 4c illustrates this re­
gion with triaxial confinement. Due to its high stiffness and strength, the
triaxially confined region undergoes only very small deformations and is
rather irrelevant for the punching failure process. However, in the
largest part of the conical shell, especially in its middle region which is
clearly bounded by the PSC at the top side and the SC at the bottom side,
we do not observe significant out-of-plane stresses. Here, the super­
position in radial and tangential planes leads to a biaxial stress state
(Fig. 4c). This region of the conical shell governs the deformation
behavior. Its adequate modelling is of crucial importance and presented
in the following section.
2.4.2.3. Modeling of biaxial material behavior. In the PSRT, the material
8
Engineering Structures 291 (2023) 116197
law from Darwin & Pecknold [40] is used to model the biaxial concrete
behavior of the conical shell. The characteristic points of these curves
are the maximum compressive stress σ DB,c and the corresponding strain
εDB,c (Fig. 5). Using the expressions from the strength envelope by
Kupfer & Gerstle [41,42] (Fig. 4c) the concrete strength for each di­
rection can be expressed by the ratio α between second and first prin­
cipal stress, which correspond to tangential (second principal stress) and
radial (first principle stress) stress in the PSRT terminology. It has
already been explained before, that the ratio of tangential to radial-
diagonal compressive stresses α is not constant along the length of
conical shell l0,DB but variable because the tangential stress component
becomes smaller when approaching the neutral axis. However,
comparative calculations revealed, that the assumption of a constant
α-value of 1.0 (radial and tangential stresses with identical magnitude)
in combination with the idealized conical shell geometry of length l0,DB
and constant thickness bDB mimics the stress–strain responses of the
conical shell fairly well. Thus, this uniform idealization has been
implemented in the current version of PSRT for the sake of simplicity.
The stresses in each fiber i of the conical shell in radial direction σ DB,i
can be computed from the corresponding radial-diagonal strains εDB,i
according to Eq. (18). Owing to the assumption of a linear strain profile
through the thickness of the conical shell with maximum strain εDB,max
in the top and zero-strain in the bottom fiber, the radial-diagonal strain
εDB,i of each fiber is a function of εDB,max, which – in turn – depends on
the translational DOF δt given through Eq. (17). Note that all relevant
input data of the material law from Darwin & Pecknold (e.g. equivalent
uniaxial strain at maximum compressive stress εDB,c) are given in Ap­
pendix A2.
( ) εDB,i ⋅Eo
σ DB,i = σDB εDB,i = ( ) ( )2 (18)
E0 εDB,i εDB,i
1+ Esec,i
− 2 ⋅εDB,c + εDB,c
Instead of laboriously computing stresses of different fibers sepa­
rately, the linear through-thickness strain profile of the conical shell
makes it possible to determine an integral value for the radial-diagonal
stress σDB,int for the entire conical shell, Eq. (19), that will later be used
for computing the transferred punching shear contribution of the conical
shell. The principal stresses in each fiber of the DB have a fan-shaped
orientation toward the slab column root, with the inclinations in top
and bottom fibers of the conical shell corresponding to the respective
crack inclinations of PSC αPSC and SC αSC, respectively. The mean
strutting inclination can be calculated by (αPSC + αSC)/2. As the PSRT
formulates σDB,int as a function of αPSC to minimize the number of
introduced variables, the integral value needs to be adjusted by the
factor (sin((αPSC + αSC )/2))/sin(αPSC ). For several slabs with different
shear slenderness and thus different inclinations of PSC and SC, the
mean value for the factor results in 0.8. Note that by averaging the stress,
the stress–strain curve becomes more ductile (Fig. 5).
∫ε ∫ εDB,max
sin(αPSC2+αSC ) 0 DB,max σDB,i (εDB )dεDB σDB,i (εDB )dεDB
σ DB,int = ≈ 0.8 0
sin(αPSC ) εDB,max εDB,max
(19)
The resulting force carried in the conical shell FDB is obtained by
multiplying the averaged stress with the width of the conical shell
perpendicular to this stress bDB (Fig. 2b) and the corresponding perim­
eter (Eq. (20)). Finally, the shear transfer action VDB can be determined
by Eq. (21).
( )
FDB = − σDB,int εDB,max ⋅bDB ⋅(2π⋅(Bc /2 − bDB /2⋅sin(αPSC ) ) ) (20)
VDB = FDB ⋅sin(αPSC ) (21)
2.4.3. Stress transfer in PSC
2.4.3.1. Aggregate interlock. Besides the contribution of the uncracked
concrete, aggregate interlock influences the punching behavior of RC
M. Classen and M. Kalus Engineering Structures 291 (2023) 116197

Fig. 5. Stress–strain relationship in conical shell of a sample slab.

slabs significantly. This stress transfer mechanism is activated when the

d − yCR
aggregates at one side of a crack contact the cement paste in the other lPSC = (24)
sin(αPSC )
side. Through this, normal and shear stresses arise which depend on
both, crack opening w and crack sliding s. The contribution also depends For each node, the distinct crack width w and crack slip s according
on the crack geometry and the roughness of the crack surfaces (cement to Eq. (15) and (16) are calculated. Note that while the crack width
paste and aggregate particles) and is controlled through both DOF εs,r,avg varies along the crack length due to the rotation, the crack slip remains
and δt. constant. With these quantities the shear stress (Eq. (22)) and normal
In this theory, the approach from Bazant & Gambarova [43] based on stress (Eq. (23)) for each node can be determined. The integration is
test data from Paulay & Loeber [44] is used to quantify the contribution performed with the rectangle-procedure. For each element with the
of aggregate interlock. In this approach shear stress along the crack finite length Δξ the stresses are assumed to be constant with the
surfaces τai mainly depends on the ratio r = s/w between slip s and crack magnitude of the node inside the specific element (Fig. 6b). Since the
width w. The normal stress across the crack surfaces is approximately PSC is circumferential around the column and, thus, aggregate interlock
proportional to the shear stress along the crack surfaces and inverse is activated over the whole perimeter, the distinct stresses are multiplied
proportional to the crack width. The normal stress σ ai (Eq. (23)) and the by the perimeter u(ξ) for each node (Eq. (27)). The determination of the
shear stress τai (Eq. (22)) activated by aggregate interlock can be forces Fτ,ai and Fσ,ai activated by aggregate interlock is performed ac­
calculated by means of the normal and tangential displacements of the cording to Eqs. (25) and (26).
crack planes. The definition of the parameters used a1 to a4 can be found ∫ lPSC
in [43]. Fτ,ai = τai (ξ)⋅u(ξ)⋅dξ (25)
0
a3 + a4 ⋅|r|3
τai (w, s) = τu ⋅r⋅ (22) ∫ lPSC
1 + a4 ⋅r4
Fσ,ai = σai (ξ)⋅u(ξ)⋅dξ (26)
0
a
σ ai (w, s) = − 1 ⋅(a2 ⋅|τai | )p < 0 for compression (23)
w (( / ) )
u(ξ) = 2π⋅ Bc 2 − lDB ⋅sin(αPSC )2 + ξ⋅cos(αPSC ) (27)
For negative values, the normal stress is compressive, i.e. the crack
surfaces are squeezed apart. Finally, the contribution of aggregate interlock Vai by means of both
To determine the contribution of aggregate interlock, numerical DOF εs,r,avg and δt and the inclination of the critical shear crack αPSC is
integration of the stresses along the PSC from the CR to the intersection given by:
between PSC and flexural reinforcement (r = r0) is performed. For this Vai = Fσ,ai ⋅cos(αPSC ) + Fτ,ai ⋅sin(αPSC ) (28)
purpose, the crack length lPSC (Eq. (24)) is divided into n nodes in a
distance of Δξ (Fig. 6b).
2.4.3.2. Residual tensile stresses. Another stress transfer action across
the PSC is cohesive behavior which transfers forces across the crack by

Fig. 6. Contribution of aggregate interlock: (a) Total deformed shape of the slab and resulting forces; (b) numerical integration of shear and normal stresses
along PSC.

9
M. Classen and M. Kalus
residual tensile stresses as long as the crack opening remains under a
certain limit. According to Hordijk [45] the exponential stress-crack
opening relationship is given by Eq. (29). The control variable ξ takes
into account that the crack opening varies along the PSC. From uniaxial
tensile tests results the coefficients were set to c1 = 3.00 and c2 = 6.93.
{[ )3 ] }
(
w w(ξ) ( ) σ s = εs,r,avg ⋅Es ≤ fy
(29)
w(ξ)
σ rt (ξ) = 1 + c1 ⋅ ⋅e− c2 ⋅ wc − ⋅ 1 + c31 ⋅e− c2 ⋅fct
wc wc
When the crack opening w reaches the critical value wc, the distance
between the crack surfaces is too wide to transfer tensile stresses. The
critical crack opening wc which is influenced by the fracture energy Gf
and the tensile strength fctm is given by wc = 5.14•Gf/fctm. The fracture
energy Gf depends on the type of aggregate, the maximum aggregate size
ϕg, the concrete compressive strength fcm and the water-cement ratio.
According to Mari et al. [46] the determination of the fracture energy
with Gf = 0.028•f0.18
cm •ϕg
0.32
is in good accordance to test results.
Similar to the contribution of aggregate interlock, the determination
of the contribution of residual stresses is performed by numerical inte­
gration. The normal stress is integrated along the PSC from the CR to the
length lrt,max Eq. (48) at which wc is reached.
wc wc d − yCR
lrt,max = = = wc ⋅
tan(φPSC ) φPSC εs,r,avg
Thus, the force Fσ,rt resulting from residual tensile stresses is deter­
mined according to Eq. (31). Finally, the contribution of residual tensile
stresses Vrt by means of both DOF εs,r,avg and δt is expressed by Eq. (32).
∫ lrt,max
Fσ,rt = σ rt (ξ)⋅u(ξ)⋅Δξ (31)
0
Vrt = Fσ,rt ⋅cos(αPSC )
It is important to note, that more refined constitutive laws for re­
sidual tensile stress transfer could be employed likewise. In particular,
the use of approaches that take into account the effect of crack parallel
stresses onto fracture energy [47] could further enhance the accuracy of
the calculation.
2.4.3.3. Dowel action of reinforcement. A further stress transfer mecha­
nism within the PSC is dowel action of the longitudinal flexural rein­
forcement at the tensile side of the slab. Dowel action of reinforcement
in a PSC is activated through sliding of crack faces transverse to the rebar
axis. The crack opening associated with both DOF εs,r,avg and δt leads to
tensile stresses in the flexural bars crossing the punching shear crack.
The DOF δt and the vertical component of the deformation associated
with the DOF εs,r,avg cause a double curvature of the flexural reinforce­
ment. Thereby, bending stresses in the reinforcement bars which may
cause plastic hinges at both ends of the dowels are induced [48]. In this
work, an approach proposed by Simões et al. [17] which itself combines
approaches from different researches, [20,48–50], is applied to quantify
dowel action. The approach is derived by performing equilibrium of the
dowel forces and the tensile stresses in the concrete for the case that
spalling of the concrete is governing. The ability of the reinforcement
bar to carry bending moment is limited when yielding occurs. The
maximum available force Vda,max,b due to dowel action for a single bar
according to Simões et al. [17] is expressed as:
√̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅
( ( )2 )
√̅̅̅ √̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅ √
1 √ σs
Vda,max,b = 3 √
⋅ ϕflex 3⋅beff ⋅ σt ⋅fy ⋅ 1 −
3 fy
The effective width of the spalled concrete is given in accordance to
[51]:
( )
beff = sb − ϕflex ≤ min 4⋅d1 ; 6⋅ϕflex (34)
with the bar spacing sb = πϕ2flex/(4dρflex) and the concrete cover d1. The
Engineering Structures 291 (2023) 116197
stress in the flexural reinforcement caused by rotation of the slab by
means of the previously defined averaged steel strain εs,r,avg is given by
Eq. (35). Due to tensile strains in the reinforcement the tensile strength
(spalling strength) in the concrete is reduced. This is considered ac­
cording to [50] in Eq. (36).
(35)
1/4
σ t = 0.063⋅ε−s,r,avg ⋅fct ≤ fct (36)
With the proposed expression by [48] the activated dowel force Vda,b
of a single bar can be calculated as a function of slip sda:
(√̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅ )
sda
Vda,b = Vda,max,b ⋅min ,1 (37)
sda,max
with the slip required to activate maximum dowel force sda,max =
0.2ϕflex.The slip sda corresponds to the vertical component of the flexural
and translational deformation and can be calculated by Eq. (38) as:
( )/
sda = εs,r,avg ⋅scr sin(αPSC )⋅cos(αPSC ) + δt (38)
Finally, the contribution of dowel action of the flexural reinforce­
ment Vda considering one layer of reinforcement in each direction can be
(30) calculated by multiplication of Eq. (39) with the number of bars inter­
sected by the PSC nb = 2πr0/sb:
Vda = nb ⋅Vda,b (39)
Note that the dowel action causes no additional normal force
component. However, the vertical component may lead to delamination
between the concrete and the reinforcement. Thus, the punching shear
crack propagates parallel to the reinforcement before reaching the top
(32) surface of the slab. The effect of dowel action of the reinforcement in the
compression zone is neglected in this version of the PSRT but can be
easily integrated.
2.4.4. Transfer of normal forces of reinforcement in tangential and radial
cracks between rigid slab segments
In the following the radial and tangential forces of the reinforcing
steel activated within cracks between rigid bodies are discussed. The
elastic–plastic behavior of the reinforcement is characterized by its
modulus of elasticity Es and yield strength fy.
2.4.4.1. Normal stress in tangential direction. It has already been
explained that inside the PSC (0 < r < r0) tests proofed a constant steel
strain distribution [13]. However, outside the PSC, the strains in the
reinforcing steel in tangential direction are inversely proportional to the
radius r of the control perimeter (Fig. 3a). Based on test results [13], the
tangential steel strain is assumed to be equal to the radial steel strain (εs,
t0 = εs,r,avg) in the PSC. Thus, the tangential steel strain along the radius r
is given by Eq. (40a) and (40b) .
εs,t = εs,t0 = εs,r,avg 0 < r ≤ r0 (40a)
1
εs,t = εs,t0 ⋅r0 ⋅ (40b)
r
The resulting tangential steel force Rs,t can be obtained by integra­
tion of the stresses along the radius r. The force resulting from tangential
steel stresses of the flexural reinforcement is calculated by integration of
the stresses from the section where the moment equilibrium is per­
(33) formed (r = Bc/2-xCR/2, see section 2.5) to the edge of the slab. The
determination of Rs,t depends on whether the reinforcement is in elastic
(εs,t0 < εsy, Eq. (41a)) or plastic stress state (εs,t0 ≥ εsy, Eq. (41b)).
( ) ( )
Bc − xCR Dc /2
Rs,t = ρflex ⋅d⋅Es ⋅εs,t0 r0 − + ρflex ⋅d⋅Es ⋅εs,t0 ⋅r0 ⋅ln (41a)
2 r0
10
M. Classen and M. Kalus Engineering Structures 291 (2023) 116197

( ) ( )
Bc − xCR Dc /2 according to Eq. (42).
Rs,t = ρflex ⋅d⋅fy rs − + ρflex ⋅d⋅Es ⋅εs,t0 ⋅r0 ⋅ln (41b)
2 rs ⎧ ⎫
⎪ fctm
⎨ ρflex ⋅d⋅Es ⋅εs,r,avg + √̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅ ⋅hc,ef ⎪
⎬
εs,t0 ⋅r0 Dc Rs,r = min 1 + 200⋅εs,r,avg (42)
with yield radius rs = ≤ ⎪
⎩ ⎪
⎭
εsy 2 ρflex ⋅d⋅fy

2.4.4.2. Normal stress in radial direction. The force in the longitudinal

flexural reinforcement in radial direction per unit length Rs,r (Eq. (42))
consists of the pure behavior of the reinforcement and the tension
stiffening effect of the concrete between the cracks [52]. The rein­
forcement is assumed to behave linear-elastically before it starts to yield
when the yield strength fy is reached. The effective concrete depth hc,ef
which provides tension stiffening is calculated by means of the concrete
cover d1 and the depth of the compression zone in radial direction ac­
cording to [53] as hc,ef = min{2.5d1 ; (h − xr )/3}. This depth of the
compression zone xr is assumed to equal the depth of the tangential
compression zone and calculated according to Hallgren [13] (Appendix
A3). Finally, the radial steel force Rs,r per unit length is determined
2.5. Equilibrium conditions
The PSRT is based on the requirement of equilibrium for bending,
shear and normal stress resultants in an intermediate state of the
punching shear response. The free body diagram of a punching zone
represented by a slab segment with the angle Δψ is illustrated in Fig. 7a.
Having the resulting forces of all stress transfer mechanisms (section
2.4) and the corresponding lever arms at hand, we can easily formulate
equilibrium conditions.
To ease calculation, equilibrium in vertical direction and equilibrium
of bending moments, respectively, can alternatively be formulated in
two separate control sections. Choosing the geometry of the equilibrated

Fig. 7. Equilibrium conditions: (a) Forces acting on a slab segment; (b) position where the moment equilibrium is applied.

Fig. 8. Free-body cuts for linearly loaded flat slabs: (a) equilibrium of forces in vertical direction, (b) equilibrium of moments.

11
M. Classen and M. Kalus Engineering Structures 291 (2023) 116197

Fig. 9. Free-body cuts for uniformly loaded flat slabs: (a) equilibrium of forces in vertical direction, (b) equilibrium of moments.

control section following the path of the PSC and the contour of the
Table 2
conical shell, the equilibrium in vertical direction (Fig. 8a) for linearly
Contributions to punching shear resistance, their dependence on the two DOF
loaded flat slabs, delivers Eq. (43) for the total vertical force Veqv. and their corresponding lever arm.
Veqv = VDB + Vai + Vrt + Vda (43) Force DOF Lever arm Eq.

By choosing point A in section xeqm at a height of one-third of the External shear force V zV = ay + xCR /2 (46)
zV,fo = (47)
compression zone (Fig. 7b), equilibrium of bending moments can be ( )3
3
easily formulated, because the resultants of tangential and radial con­ 2 (Dc /2) − xeqm
⋅ ( ) − xeqm
3 (Dc /2) − xeqm 2
2
crete compressive forces (Rc,t, FDB) do not need to be considered owing
Forces in continuous concrete
to their negligible lever arms. Since a vertical free cut in section xeqm
Deformable body VDB δt zVDB = 0
(Eq. (44)) was chosen (Fig. 8b, Fig. 9b), also the resultants of different Shear transfer actions
stress transfer mechanisms within the PSC (Fτ,ai, Fσ,ai, Fσ,rt, Vda) do not Aggregate interlock Vai εs,r,avg, not applicable
have a contribution to the bending moment equilibrium conditions. δt
Residual tensile Vrt εs,r,avg not applicable
xeqm = (Bc /2 − xCR /2) (44) stresses
Dowel action Vda εs,r,avg, not applicable
The corresponding free body diagram for flat slabs is illustrated in δt
Fig. 8b and delivers Eq. (45) for the total vertical force Veqm. The forces Forces in rigid body
Tangential steel Rs,t εs,r,avg, xt (48)
in tangential directions are multiplied by the angle of the segment Δψ to zRs,t = d −
force 3
transfer them in the radial plane.
δt
Radial steel force Rs,r εs,r,avg xr (49)
zRs,r =d−
( ) 1 3
Veqm = Rs,r ⋅xeqm ⋅2π⋅zRs,r + Rs,t ⋅2π⋅zRs,t ⋅ (45)
zV
Table 2 summaries all resulting forces required for formulation of
equilibrium conditions, highlights their dependence on the respective
(Dc /2)2
DOF and the respective lever arms for the bending moment equilibrium. Veqv = [VDB + Vai + Vrt + Vda ]⋅ (50)
For uniformly loaded slabs, e.g. footings, the equilibrium conditions (Dc /2)2 − r20
provide the Eq. (50) and (51) according to Fig. 9.

12
M. Classen and M. Kalus
( ) (Dc /2)2 1
Veqm = Rs,r ⋅xeqm ⋅2π⋅zRs,r + Rs,t ⋅2π⋅zRs,t ⋅ ( )2 ⋅ (51)
(Dc /2)2 − xeqm zV,fo
In order to comply with global equilibrium, both, the shear force
derived from vertical equilibrium Veqv as well as the shear force ob­
tained from bending moment equilibrium Veqm naturally need to coin­
cide. The required equality of both values is used in the following to
formulate the PSRT solution strategy.
3. PSRT algorithm and iterative solution strategy
3.1. General
To perform a detailed analysis of the punching behavior over the
entire loading process a new incremental solution strategy is devised
which is inspired by Mihaylov’s five-spring model for deep beams [32].
Fig. 10. Graphical solution of equilibrium conditions for an applied displace­
In this strategy, the total vertical displacement of the punching zone δtot
ment δtot,i for a single deformation step i.
is incrementally imposed and increased from zero to large values
(deformation capacity) in order to analyze the full punching shear vs.
deformation response of the RC member. The total displacement δtot is
taken in the perimeter of moment contraflexure (radius r = Bc/2 + ay,
Fig. 2b). The quantity ay defines the distance from the edge of the col­
umn to the applied load.
It has already been explained, that δtot is composed of flexural de­
formations δf (controlled by DOF εs,r,avg) and translational deformations
δt (controlled by DOF δt):
δtot = δf + δt (52)
δf (δt ) = δtot − δt (52a)
All stress transfer actions to calculate punching shear contributions
(VDB, Vai, Vrt, Vda) and radial and tangential normal forces (Rs,r, Rs,t)
depend at least on one of the two DOF (εs,r,avg and δt). With the help of
Eq. (14), the stress transfer actions depending on the rotational DOF εs,r,
avg can be expressed in terms of the vertical component of the flexural
deformation δf. Furthermore, by reformulating Eq. (52) to Eq. (52a), the
flexural deformation δf can be expressed by means of δt. Thereby, all
relevant equations to perform a single deformation step (section 3.2) can
be expressed with only one variable, the DOF δt. This is one of the main
ingredients of the solution strategy. Consequently, the translational
deformation δt and the corresponding punching shear force V are the
only unknowns remaining since the total displacement δtot is prescribed.
These unknowns are solved by equilibrating Veqv and Veqm (section 2.5).
3.2. Calculations for a single imposed deformation δtot,i in step i
Generally, the PSRT requires the geometry of the analyzed RC
member (e.g. flat slab, footing, etc.), the material properties and
constitutive laws as well as information about the type of loading (lin­
early or uniformly distributed) as input data. In the following, the cal­
culations for a single imposed deformation step i (a distinct δtot,i) are
described. The initial values for the deformation δtot,0, the increment size
δstep (increase of deformation after each deformation step), and the
maximum number of iterations n are set. The iterative solution strategy
is illustrated in Fig. 11 and includes the following steps:
(1) Describe the relationship between flexural deformation and
translational deformation, in order to express all deformation
equations as a function of only one variable, the DOF δt,i:
( )
δf,i δt,i = δtot,i − δt,i .
(2) Discretize the geometry of the punching zone (PSC, SC, DB in
uncracked compression zone).
(3) Use kinematic principles and output of steps (1) and (2) in order
to express the local deformation quantities, crack opening wi
and crack slip si in the PSC, the radial-diagonal strain εDB,max,i in
13
Engineering Structures 291 (2023) 116197
the deformable body, and the strain in longitudinal reinforce­
ment εs,r,avg,i as a function of the translational DOF δt,i.
(4) Use constitutive laws and local deformations from step (3) to
quantify the following contributions to the transferred punching
shear force depending on the translational deformation δt,i:
(a) contribution of uncracked concrete (deformable body):
VDB(δt,i).
(b) shear transfer actions in the critical shear crack: aggregate
interlock Vai(δt,i), residual tensile stresses Vrt(δt,i) and dowel
action Vda(δt,i).
(c) horizontal forces in the rigid body: tangential steel force
Rs,t,i(δt,i), radial steel force Rs,r,i(δt,i).
(5) Exploit both equilibrium conditions to obtain Vi(δt,i):
(a) equilibrium of forces in vertical direction in the PSC.
( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( )
→Veqv,i δt,i = VDB δt,i + Vai δt,i + Vrt δt,i + Vda δt,i
(b) equilibrium of moments close to the column edge.
( )
→Veqm,i δt,i
This results in a equation system with two equations
(Veqv,i(δt,i), Veqm,i(δt,i)) and two unknowns (the transferred
shear force Vi and the translational deformation δt,i for the
actual deformation step i). Consequently, a unique solution
exists.
(6) Use iterative bisection-method to solve the equation system by
determining δt,i which solves the following equation:
Veqv (δt )
solution(δt ) = − 1=0
Veqm (δt )
The solution of this equation is illustrated in Fig. 10 for a
specific deformation step i of a sample punching zone. On the
horizontal axis the possible range of translational deformations δt,i
is shown from zero to the actual total deformation δtot,i. The
deformation is normalized by δtot,i. The different curves represent
the respective punching shear contributions as functions of the
DOF δt,i. The red curve displays the solution for equilibrium of
forces in vertical direction, i.e. the sum of all considered shear
contributions. The moment equilibrium is represented by the
black line. Both equations are functions of δt,i. The solution is
found when the difference between the shear force determined
from force equilibrium Veqv and moment equilibrium Veqm is equal
to zero, i.e. intersection point of red and black curve. Once this
solution is found for δt,i, the corresponding shear force Vi can be
determined by evaluating one of the equilibrium conditions. The
point (δt,i;Vi) for the load–displacement curve for the actual
deformation step i is found.
M. Classen and M. Kalus
Fig. 11. 2DOF kinematic Punching Shear Response Theory (PSRT): Algorithm and iterative solution strategy for reinforced concrete slabs without shear
reinforcement.
If δt,i equals zero, the deformed shape of the slab is described by the
flexural DOF εs,r,avg,i only (pure flexural deformations). Thus, εs,r,avg,i has
a maximum as well as the shear force from moment equilibrium (black
line) since it is mainly influenced by the strain in the flexural rein­
forcement. The contribution of the uncracked concrete and aggregate
interlock are zero for this case, since the crack slip s and the radial-
diagonal strain εDB,max,i in the deformable body which are associated
with the translational DOF δt,i are also zero. However, the contributions
of residual tensile stresses and dowel action in the reinforcement are
activated as soon as the crack opens due to flexural deformations. For
the other case, (δt,i = δtot,i) the deformed shape of the slab is described by
the translational DOF δt,i only (pure translational deformations).
(7) Calculate the corresponding flexural deformation δf,i with Eq.
(52a). Thereby, the total deformation is explicitly distributed in
flexural and translational deformations. Evaluate the distinct
14
Engineering Structures 291 (2023) 116197
quantities of all forces and deformations for the actual deforma­
tion step i (insert δt,i in equations for shear contributions).
3.3. Analysis of complete load–displacement behavior
In order to analyse the full punching shear vs. deformation response
we have to perform the calculation steps (1) to (7) at least until the
maximum punching shear force Vcal or the maximum number of itera­
tions n is reached. Vcal is reached when the obtained shear force for the
actual deformation step i is smaller than the punching shear force from
the previous deformation step i-1 (Vi < Vi-1). Optionally, a further
analysis of the post-punching failure response is possible through
imposing further increased deformations.
The total deformation between column and punching zone is
generally composed out of three contributions according to [54]: flex­
ural deformations, shear deformations, and column penetration. To also
account for shear deformations of the slab segments that have been
M. Classen and M. Kalus
modeled with rigid material behavior in previous equations an addi­
tional deformation term δs described in the Appendix A4 can be
included. This term accounts for squeezing of the inclined strut and can
be used optionally to further enhance modeling accuracy. This defor­
mation δs is added to the deformation δtot after all calculation steps have
been performed. Thus, the total displacement Δ is given by:
Δ = δtot + δs = δf + δt + δs
To keep the solution strategy simple, the version of PSRT described
in this paper only covers the part of the deformation response after the
occurrence of a discrete PSC. To easily describe the early deformation
behavior during the crack propagation progress, usually in a range of
10–20% of the punching strength (section 2.4.2), a load-rotation rela­
tionship e.g. according to [15] can be used. Using the kinematic
expression Eq. (13), the flexural deformation when cracking occurs δf,cr
can be calculated according to Eq. (54). Since the flexural deformations
govern the uncracked stage, the total displacement Δcr is simply equated
with the flexural deformation. Thereby, the point (Δcr; Vcr) for the
load–displacement curve is obtained.
lt ( ) ( )
δf,cr = εs,r,avg ⋅ ⋅ ay + xCR = φcr ⋅ ay + xCR = Δcr
d − yCR
4. Validation of the PSRT by experimental results
4.1. General
The proposed kinematic Punching Shear Response Theory (PSRT) is
validated for flat slabs and footings without shear reinforcement in this
chapter. For this reason, databases for flat slabs and footings are created
which collect slab properties and experimental results for several test
series and evaluated by the PSRT. Besides the ultimate punching shear
strength and the corresponding deformation, also load–displacement
curves are gathered.
4.2. Exemplary recalculation of a sample slab and footing
The benefits of the proposed PSRT are presented in this section by
recalculation of a sample flat slab and a sample footing summarizing the
described calculation steps briefly. Footings are turned by 180◦ and,
thus, calculated as compact slabs with different load application. Both
specimens were tested at the Institute for Structural Concrete at the
RWTH Aachen [55,56]. The flat slab A1-0 had a square shape of side
length D = 2000 mm and was supported on a square column with the
side length B = 280 mm. The height of the slab was h = 280 mm with an
effective depth d = 224 mm. The load was applied at a distance of ay =
1060 mm from the column edge resulting in a shear span-depth ratio of
ay/d = 4.73. The slab was reinforced by normal strength bars (fy = 538
MPa, ρflex = 1.40 %). The concrete compressive strength was fcm = 30.3
MPa. The footing DF13 was D = 1800 mm wide with a column side
length of B = 200 mm. The height was h = 450 mm with an effective
depth of d = 395 mm. This leads to a shear span-depth ratio of ay/d =
Fig. 12. Deformable body in flat slab A1-0 [55] and footing DF13 [56].
Engineering Structures 291 (2023) 116197
2.03. The load was uniformly distributed over the whole surface. The
footing was produced from normal strength concrete (fcm = 21.2 MPa)
and reinforced by normal strength steel bars (fy = 558 MPa, ρflex = 0.84
%).
In the beginning, the size and the position of the deformable body
(DB) as well as the punching shear crack (PSC) are discretized. Fig. 12
illustrates that the defined geometry of the DB according to section 2.2.2
(53)
matches reasonably well with the crack pattern in the saw cuts. It is
notable that the saw cuts depict the situation after failure. Therefore,
PSC and SC have already fully evolved and partly destroyed the conical
shell. After the geometrical discretization is done (section 2.2), the ki­
nematic principles are formulated (section 2.3). Based on these princi­
pals, the vertical and horizontal deformations for any point in the slab as
well as the crack width w and crack slip s by means of the two DOF εs,r,avg
and δt are determined. In the next steps, the considered stress transfer
actions and the normal forces in the rigid body are quantified depending
on the DOF δt (section 2.4). After formulating equilibrium conditions,
the shear force V and the corresponding translational deformation δt are
determined. The load–displacement curves for the flat slab A1-0 and the
footing DF13 are obtained by repetition of the previously described
(54) calculation steps. The curves are illustrated in Fig. 13. The maximum
shear force (Fig. 13a, peak of the red curve) is defined as Vcal with the
corresponding total displacement Δcal.
Fig. 13a depicts the measured and predicted responses of both
specimens. The x-axis shows the total displacement below the applied
load, the y-axis the applied shear force. The predicted response (red line)
consists of three parts. The two linear parts describe the pre-cracking
linear elastic behavior before the PSRT’s two DOF kinematic deforma­
tion pattern is activated. The first linear part represents the uncracked
stage and is obtained with the load-rotation relationship according to
[15] (section 3.3). The second linear part can be understood as the crack
initiation stage. It connects the first linear part and the nonlinear part
which is produced by the PSRT algorithm. The black line describes the
slab response measured in experiments. The predicted curves are in
good accordance to the test results in pre-peak as well as post-peak
phase. The PSRT predicts the ultimate load, the displacement and,
thus, the stiffness accurately.
In addition to the total shear force predicted by the PSRT, Fig. 13a
also illustrates the evolution of the considered shear transfer actions
with increasing displacement. For slab A1-0 the contribution of the
uncracked concrete VDB mainly influences the punching resistance and is
analyzed to trigger the punching failure (Fig. 13a). The slab reaches its
ultimate strength at the maximum stress in the DB. Besides the contri­
bution of uncracked concrete, the contribution provided by aggregate
interlock Vai effects the punching resistance significantly. For displace­
ments larger than 10 mm, this contribution almost equals zero due to a
wide crack opening. The contribution of dowel action Vda seems to
mainly influence the post-peak behavior of the slab. The contribution of
residual tensile stresses Vrt vanishes already at small displacements since
the critical crack width wc is reached.
Furthermore, the PSRT is suitable to separate the displacement in
15
M. Classen and M. Kalus Engineering Structures 291 (2023) 116197

Fig. 13. Measured and predicted response of specimen flat slab A1-0 and footing DF13.

several components (Fig. 13c). It is distinguished between flexural de­
formations δf, shear deformations of the rigid body δs and translational
deformations δt. For simplicity, the shear deformations are added to the
translational deformations in the following. Fig. 13c illustrates for each
deformation step the ratios of flexural (light grey) and translational
(dark grey) deformation to the total displacement. In the beginning the
deformation behavior of the slab is governed by flexural deformations
(light grey area). The portion of translational deformations increases
rapidly on the verge of failure and rises continuously in the post-peak
area. Consequently, the flexural reinforcement in the tension zone

16
M. Classen and M. Kalus Engineering Structures 291 (2023) 116197

Table 3
Database of punching tests on flat slabs without shear reinforcement.
Researcher # fcm ρflex d u0/d ay/d xM of Vx of
[-] [-] [MPa] [%] [mm] [-] [-] Vexp/Vcal Vexp/Vcal

Tolf [57] 22.9 0.34 98 3.93 5.33

fs 8 1.07 0.09
− 28.6 − 0.81 − 200 − 4.01 − 5.43
Regan et al. [13] 88.0 0.58 98 4.81 6.23
fs 6 1.06 0.12
− 102.0
Hallgren [13] 84.1 0.33 194 3.89 5.32
fs 6 0.94 0.04
− 108.8 − 1.19 − 202 − 4.05 − 5.44
Guandalini et al. [58] 27.6 0.22 96 4.44 5.87
fs 8 1.03 0.13
− 40.5 − 1.50 − 456 − 5.42 − 7.16
Guidotti et al. [16] 31.5 0.33 194 4.95 6.52
fs 12 1.06 0.12
− 51.7 − 1.56 − 210 − 5.36 − 7.06
Tassinari et al. [59] 66.3 0.82 196 4.91 6.46
fs 2 1.04 0.07
− 67.0 − 1.48 − 212 − 5.31 − 6.99
Lips et al. [60] 30.5 1.50 193 2.69 3.29
fs 4 1.04 0.13
− 36.5 − 1.63 − 353 − 10.56 − 6.81
Einpaul et al. [61,62] 31.1 0.74 197 1.21 3.22
fs 11 1.15 0.17
− 44.1 − 1.59 − 218 − 9.87 − 8.80
Schmidt et al. [63] 30.3 1.39 224 4.97 4.66
fs 3 0.93 0.10
− 37.8 − 1.40 –322 − 5.00 − 6.93

Flat slabs 22.9 0.22 96 1.21 3.22

60 1.05 0.13
− 108.8 − 1.63 − 456 − 10.56 − 8.80

fs: flat slabs; #: number of specimens; fcm mean value of concrete compressive strength; ρflex: flexural reinforcement ratio; d: effective depth; u0/d: column perimeter-depth ratio;
ay/d: shear span-depth ratio.

unloads and the flexural deformation decreases. The absolute flexural
deformation at maximum shear force is δf = 4.2 mm and decreases to δf
= 2.1 mm in the post-peak phase (Fig. 13c1). In contrast, the absolute
translational deformation increases from δs + δt = 1.7 mm at the peak
shear force to δs + δt = 15.4 mm in the post-peak region. The deformed
shape of the slab at failure is depicted in Fig. 13d. The deformations are
superelevated by factor 15 since they are small compared to the slab
dimensions. In the figure, the slab is plotted with its equivalent
dimensions.
In contrast to the flat slab, the punching resistance for the footing
DF13 is governed by the contribution of aggregate interlock (Fig. 13a2).
This contribution decreases after reaching the ultimate punching
strength. The post-peak behavior is mainly influenced by the contribu­
tion of uncracked concrete VDB and dowel action Vda in the longitudinal
reinforcement. The predicted stiffness in the pre-peak regime of the
PSRT fits perfectly with the stiffness obtained in tests.
While the deformation behavior of flat slabs is mainly influenced by
flexural deformations, for footings translational deformations have a
stronger influence on the deformed shape due to smaller ay/d ratios. For
specimen A1-0 the total displacement at failure consists of 70% flexural,
and 30% translational deformations (Fig. 13b1). In contrast, for footing
DF13 only 43% of the total displacement are flexural deformations,
while translational deformations are 57% (Fig. 13b2).
4.3. Validation with systematic experimental data
The two specimens described in the previous section are part of da­
tabases which collect results from experiments of flat slabs and footings.
The selected database for flat slabs contains 60 specimens with varying
dimensions and material properties which are summarized in Table 3.
For further slab dimensions and material properties is referred to the
references of the respective experiments. The evaluation of the PSRT
was performed by comparing the maximum shear force predicted by the
PSRT Vcal and the shear force measured in experiments Vexp. The mean
value xM for the ratio Vexp/Vcal as well as the coefficient of variation
(COV) Vx for each test series is given in Table 3. For all considered flat
slabs a mean value of xM = 1.05 is reached for the ratio Vexp/Vcal. The
corresponding COV of Vx = 0.13 indicates that the proposed PSRT
predicts the punching strengths of flat slabs accurately.
The selected database for footings contains 39 specimens. The range
of the parameters which are studied in the respective test series are given
in Table 4. This table also gives an overview over the mean values and
COV for the ratio Vexp/Vcal. The evaluation of tested footings yields a
mean value of xM = 0.96 and a COV of Vx = 0.15. This proves that the

Table 4
Database of punching tests on footings without shear reinforcement.
Researcher # fcm ρflex D u0/d ay/d xM of Vx of
[-] [-] [MPa] [%] [mm] [-] [-] Vexp/Vcal Vexp/Vcal

Dieterle & Rostásy [64] 22.6 0.21 290 2.07 1.33

fo 9 0.83 0.10
− 27.7 − 0.62 − 450 − 6.21 − 2.33
Hallgren et al. [65] 14.4 0.25 232 3.14 0.70− 1.28
fo 11 0.88 0.10
− 39.8 − 0.66 − 250 − 3.39
Hegger et al. [56] 21.1 0.82 295 1.70 1.27
fo 8 1.09 0.13
− 36.4 − 0.86 − 470 − 2.71 − 2.03
Siburg & Hegger [66] 19.6 0.29 400 1.98 1.23
fo 7 1.03 0.10
− 53.3 − 0.88 − 590 − 2.07 − 2.07
Simões et al. [54] 29.5 0.74 506 2.22 1.27
fo 4 1.06 0.09
–32.1 − 0.76 − 540 − 3.52 − 1.79

Footings 14.4 0.21 232 1.98 0.70

39 0.96 0.15
− 53.3 − 0.88 − 590 − 6.21 − 2.33

fo: footings; #: number of specimens; fcm mean value of concrete compressive strength; ρflex: flexural reinforcement ratio; d: effective depth; u0/d: column perimeter-depth ratio;
ay/d: shear span-depth ratio.

17
M. Classen and M. Kalus
Table 5
Comparison of PSRT and standard models.
EC2 prEC2 MC2010 PSRT
Flat slabs
xM of Vexp/Vcal 1.07 1.07 1.18 1.05
Vx of Vexp/Vcal 0.14 0.13 0.12 0.13
Footings
xM of Vexp/Vcal 1.25 1.20 1.02 0.96
Vx of Vexp/Vcal 0.27 0.13 0.14 0.15
PSRT is not only able to predict the punching strength for flat slabs but
also for footings precisely.
It was found that mainly specimens from the test series from Dieterle
& Rostasy [64] and Hallgren et al. [65] are overestimated. This causes a
mean value smaller than 1.0. Noteworthy is, that especially the speci­
mens tested by Hallgren et al. are loaded differently than the other
specimens. For the test series from Hegger et al. [56], Siburg & Hegger
[66] and Simões et al. [54] a mean value of xM = 1.06 and a COV of Vx =
0.11 are reached. This deviation might be explained by different load
applications.
A more comprehensive evaluation of existing databases comprising
additional punching test results will be published in a companion paper.
Here, also the excellent prediction quality of the PSRT with regard to the
deformation capacity of flat slabs and footings will be shown in detail.
4.4. Comparison of PSRT to other modeling approaches
The PSRT shows comparable prediction quality with regard to
punching strength as several standard models from the literature. In
Table 5 the mean value xM and the COV Vx for the standard models EC2
[3], new Version of EC2 (prEC2) [67] and MC2010 [68] based on the
Critical shear Crack Theory are depicted for the selected database from
the previous section. It is interesting to note, that PSRT is capable to
reach this high precision with a uniform set of equations covering both
flat slabs and footings, while some standard models require separate
calculation approaches.
All standard models and PSRT can be easily evaluated in real time by
a standard personal computer (e.g. PSRT algorithm requires 0.3 sec
computing time per deformation step). So, PSRT delivers comparable
punching strength predictions at comparable low computing costs.
However, in addition, PSRT is capable of delivering a significantly
higher amount of information (e.g. deformation response, internal
stresses and strains, shear contributions of all stress transfer actions).
Owing to the wide range of provided prediction results (e.g. defor­
mation response) it is possible to compare PSRT also to numerical
models. However, due to large computational cost of FE-models it is not
reasonable to do this for the whole database. Therefore, as a benchmark
the specimen A1-0 has been exemplarily simulated by a calibrated three-
dimensional nonlinear FE using the modeling approach presented in
[69] (Abaqus, Concrete Damage Plasticity model, element size 40 × 40
× 40 mm3). The calibrated numerical model provided a punching
strength of 1028 kN (Vexp/Vcal = 0.97). The computation time on the
personal computer amounted to 24 h. In contrast, running the PSRT
algorithm to compute the entire deformation response can be done in
just a few seconds (e.g. 11.9 sec for specimen A1-0 with δtot,i = 2.0 mm
and δstep = 0.1 mm).
When looking at the results, it can be seen that the FE model and
PSRT deliver comparable prediction quality with regard to slab strength.
However, as the FE model with smeared crack representation does not
explicitly address some essential physical mechanisms (e.g. discrete
cracking) it is neither capable of evaluating local crack deformations nor
to clearly identify the contributions of different shear transfer actions (e.
g. aggregate interlock). Thus, the authors believe that the use of PSRT is
advantageous over numerical and standard models as it delivers a wide
variety of mechanical information at high prediction quality and at low
18
Engineering Structures 291 (2023) 116197
computational cost.
5. Summary and conclusions
In this paper a novel mechanical theory called Punching Shear
Response Theory (PSRT) with two degrees of freedom (DOF) is proposed
and validated. The PSRT incorporates equilibrium conditions, consti­
tutive laws to describe the stress transfer actions and compatibility of
deformations. Besides the punching shear resistance, the PSRT is suit­
able to predict the entire displacement response of slabs. In the
following, the main features of the PSRT are outlined:
• Acknowledging the model developed by Kinnunen & Nylander
[9,10], a division of the slab into rigid segments owing to radial and
tangential cracking is assumed. Each rigid segment is bounded by
two radial crack lines, a part of the circumferential crack (punching
shear crack) and the slab’s circumferential line of contraflexure
(Fig. 2a-b).
• The slab segment outside the punching shear crack is supposed to be
carried by a conical shell, also known as compression ring (Fig. 1b).
The conical shell is assumed to be located above the concrete col­
umn, between the punching shear crack running from the tensile side
of the slab towards the compression ring with an inclination αPSC and
a flatter splitting crack (inclination αSC) propagating from the col­
umn edge towards the tensile side (Fig. 1a). The conical shell be­
tween both cracks is modelled as a deformable body with nonlinear
concrete behavior exposed to a multiaxial state of stress.
• An external load V⋅Δ2πψ is presumed to act onto the slab segment. This
external load is resisted by the vertical projection of various contri­
butions occurring in the uncracked concrete and in the PSC: an
strutting force acting in the conical shell VDB ⋅Δ2πψ , and different shear
transfer actions in the punching crack, like aggregate interlock Vai ⋅Δ2πψ
, residual tensile stresses Vrt ⋅Δ2πψ , and dowel action of the reinforce­
ment Vda ⋅Δ2πψ .
• Key feature of PSRT is the full kinematic description of the complex
punching failure mechanism by two DOF. The first DOF refers to the
averaged strain in the reinforcement εs,r,avg due to flexural de­
formations. The second DOF is a translational shift δt of the rigid
body in vertical direction (caused by squeezing and compressive
shortening of the conical shell). This translational DOF represents the
effects of shear deformation as well as column penetration into the
slab. The total deformed shape can be obtained by superimposing
both DOF. As a result, each point of the rigid-body motion in vertical
and in horizontal direction can be described by a combination of
both DOF. The calculated local deformations and strains, in turn,
serve as the input values for the constitutive relations.
• The exploitation of constitutive relations and integration of activated
stresses within conical shell and shear crack to cover effects of
aggregate interlock, residual tensile stress and dowel action of flex­
ural reinforcement allows calculating the contribution of all involved
shear transfer actions. These shear transfer actions are activated
through the local deformation patterns caused by the combination of
both DOF εs,r,avg and δt.
• An innovative solution strategy is applied to predict the displace­
ment response of slabs over the complete loading process. In contrast
to existing models, the applied solution strategy allows the two DOF
to develop independently. This avoids any deformation in­
compatibilities. By a stepwise increase of the total slab displacement,
the load–displacement curve for the considered slab is obtained.
Moreover, the evolution of different stress transfer actions and
deformation components over the loading process are predicted.
Thus, the results from the model may be compared to experimental
data at any load level which enables a deeper analysis of the
punching shear behavior.
M. Classen and M. Kalus Engineering Structures 291 (2023) 116197

• The evaluation of selected databases indicates no significant trends
for various influences. This emphasizes the validity of the proposed
PSRT and its suitability to predict the punching resistance of both flat
slabs and footings with a uniform set of equations.
• The results depict that in flat slabs the stress transfer in the uncracked
concrete has the main contribution to the punching resistance. In
footings, however the contribution of aggregate interlock becomes
more relevant. The evolution of displacements (Fig. 13b) confirms
the previous investigations which indicate that flat slabs are gov­
erned by flexural deformations δf. In contrast, footings are rather
influenced by translational deformations δs + δt. While in flat slabs
the translational deformations increase quite rapidly on the verge of
failure, in footings they grow rather continuously.
• A comparison to EC2 [3], new Version of EC2 (prEC2) [67], MC2010
[68] and FE models has revealed the advantages of PSRT over nu­
merical simulations and standard design models in terms of precision
and prediction quality, amount of mechanical information and
computational cost.
• In the future, the theory is to be extended to incorporate different
types of punching shear reinforcement as well as, single loads on
wide slabs [70,71] and effects of slab continuity [72].
In conclusion, the authors believe that the PSRT provides important
explanatory approaches for a deeper understanding of the mechanical
background of punching shear behavior.
CRediT authorship contribution statement
Martin Classen: Conceptualization, Investigation, Resources, Visu­
alization, Supervision, Funding acquisition, Methodology, Writing -
original draft, Writing - review & editing. Matthias Kalus: Methodol­
ogy, Data curation, Software, Validation, Formal analysis, Investigation,
Writing – original draft, Writing – review & editing, Visualization.
Declaration of Competing Interest
The authors declare that they have no known competing financial
interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence
the work reported in this paper.
Data availability
Data will be made available on request.

Appendix

A1. Possible crack patterns depending on slab configurations

Fig. A1 illustrates possible crack patterns in the area over the column for different slab configurations. Cracks are assumed to evolve at a spacing of
scr under the angle αPSC. Based on investigations of beams failing in shear Cavagnis et al. [30] and Khaja and Sherwood [29] suggest scr to be in the
range between 0.5d and 0.6d. In this model scr is set to:
scr = 0.5⋅d (A.1)
The first inclined crack propagating into the column (viewed from the edge of the slab) is defined as the PSC (Fig. A1). Along this crack a part of the
applied shear force is transferred across the crack before being introduced into the column. The other part of the applied shear force is directly carried
by the DB, respectively the column. Fig. A1 indicates that lDB is influenced by the distance between the cracks scr and, thus, the effective depth d. With
decreasing effective depth, the maximum value for lDB decreases (Fig. A1a,b). The maximum possible value for lDB equals the crack spacing scr.
However, for different slab configurations (e.g. varying column width) lDB may decrease to zero (Fig. A1c,d). Consequently, the length of the DB inside
the column can vary between zero and scr (Fig. A1). In many experiments the length of the DB has been observed to correspond approximately to half

Fig. A1. Length of the deformable body lDB: (a,b) influence of effective depth d; (c,d) influence of column width B.
19
M. Classen and M. Kalus Engineering Structures 291 (2023) 116197

of the crack spacing scr (Fig. A1c). In accordance with test results the length lDB is therefore assumed to be 0,5scr in the PSRT. Furthermore, it is
assumed that due to the polarsymmetry of the slab, the part of the column which contributes to the load transfer is limited by half of the column width.
A2. Biaxial concrete behavior in conical shell

In the PSRT, the material law from Darwin & Pecknold [40] is used to model the relationship between biaxial strains and stresses. The charac­
teristic values are the maximum compressive stress σ ic and the corresponding strain εic. Using the expressions from the strength envelope from Kupfer
& Gerstle [41,42] the maximum compressive concrete strength σic for each direction can be expressed by the ratio α between σ 2 and σ1. To consider the
effect of brittleness of different concrete types, the expressions from [41,42] have been extended by a brittleness factor ηc Eq. (A.5) according to [17].
1 + 3, 65⋅α
σ 1c = ⋅fc ⋅ηc (A.2)
(1 + α)2

1 + 3, 65⋅α
σ 2c = α⋅σ1c = α⋅ ⋅fc ⋅ηc (A.3)
(1 + α)2

σ2
α= |σ 1 | ≥ |σ 2 | (A.4)
σ1
( )1/3
30
ηc = ≤1 [− ] (A.5)
fcm
The equivalent uniaxial strain at maximum compressive stress εic depends on the uniaxial compressive strength fc and the corresponding strain εcu.
The latter one is calculated according to Eurocode 2 [3]:
εcu = − 0.7⋅f 0.31
c ⋅10
− 3
≥ − 0.0028 with fc > 0 (A.6)

Now, the equivalent uniaxial strain at maximum compressive stress εic can be expressed by either Eq. (A.7) or (A.7a) depending on the absolute
magnitude of the maximum compressive stress |σic|. The Poisson’s ratio is assumed to be 0.2 [40].
[ ]
σ ⃒ ⃒
εic = εcu ⋅ ic ⋅3 − (3 − 1) |σ ic ⃒ ≥ |fc ⃒ (A.7)
fc
[ ( )3 ( )2 ( )]
σ ic σic σic ⃒ ⃒
εic = εcu ⋅ − 1.6⋅ + 2.25⋅ + 0.35⋅ |σic ⃒ < |fc ⃒ (A.7a)
fc fc fc

After the characteristic point of the curve (εic; σ ic) is determined (Fig. 5) the stress in the ith direction for compressive loading is obtained by Eq.
(A.8). The value for the initial tangent modulus E0 is taken from uniaxial compression tests or calculated according to Eurocode 2 [3] by means of the
mean modulus of elasticity Ecm.
εiu ⋅Eo
σi = ( ) ( )2 (A.8)
1+ E0
Esec,i
− 2 ⋅εεiuic + εεiuic

σ ic
Esec,i = (A.9)
εic
E0: tangent modulus of elasticity at zero stress.
Esec,i: secant modulus at point of maximum compressive stress σic.
εic: equivalent uniaxial strain at maximum compressive stress.
i: direction of principal stress.
In the PSRT the stress in radial direction is denoted by σDB,i. By substituting the indices i by DB in Eq. (A.8) one finally obtains Eq. (A.10) which
equals Eq. (18) from section. 2.4.2:
( ) εDB,i ⋅Eo
σ DB,i = σDB εDB,i = ( ) ( )2 (A.10)
E0 εDB,i εDB,i
1+ Esec,i
− 2 ⋅εDB,c + εDB,c

A3. Height of concrete compressive zone

For the derivation of the height of the tangential compression zone xt an equilibrium of forces in tangential direction at the section r = r0 is
performed. The factor kE accounts for a higher stiffness due to the biaxial compression state. For the derivation of kE, Hallgren [13] assumes the radial
concrete strain εc,r to be equal to 0.5εc,t, which matches with test observations, and applies Hooke’s law. The height of the compression zone is varying
during the load process caused by different stress states of concrete and steel and, thus, different resulting forces in the respective materials. The height
of the tangential compression zone xt is given for concrete and steel in the elastic region by:

(i) concrete: elastic; steel: elastic

(√̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅ )
ρ ⋅Es 2⋅kE ⋅Ecm
xt = flex ⋅ 1+ − 1 ⋅d (A.11)
kE ⋅Ecm ρflex ⋅Es

20
M. Classen and M. Kalus Engineering Structures 291 (2023) 116197

( )− 1
ν + 2⋅ν2
kE = 1− (A.12)
2+ν

ρflex: reinforcement ratio of the longitudinal flexural reinforcement

Es: modulus of elasticity of reinforcing steel
Ecm: modulus of elasticity of concrete
n: Poisson’s ratio

(ii) concrete: elastic; steel: plastic

(√̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅ )
ρflex ⋅fy 2⋅kE ⋅Ecm ⋅εs,t0
xt = ⋅ 1+ − 1 ⋅d (A.13)
εs,t0 ⋅kE ⋅Ecm ρflex ⋅fy

εs,t0: steel strain at radius r = r0

fy: yield strength of steel

(iii) concrete: plastic; steel: elastic

( )
ρflex ⋅Es ⋅εs,t0 εcy d
xt = + ⋅ (A.14)
ηc ⋅fcm 2⋅εs,t0 1 + 2⋅εεcys,t0

ηc: factor to account for brittleness of high strength concrete

εcy: yield strain of concrete

(iv) concrete: plastic; steel: plastic

( )
ρflex ⋅fy εcy d
xt = + ⋅ (A.15)
ηc ⋅fcm 2⋅εs,t0 1 + 2⋅εεcys,t0

A4. Shear deformation in inclined strut

To account for the squeezing of the inclined strut, analysis on a simple model shown in Fig. A2 is performed.
The fictive compression cone with variable depth is confined by the PSC and the SC. The depth of the cone at the tip is given by:
bstart = lDB ⋅sin(αPSC ) (A.16)
The difference between the angle of the PSC and the SC is calculated as:
β = αPSC − αSC (A.17)
To evaluate the respective depth of the cone along the PSC, a control variable ξ is introduced (Fig. A2). Thus, the depth of the cone for each point
along the punching shear crack can be expressed as:
bcone = bstart + ξ⋅sin(β) (A.18)
By multiplying this depth with the perimeter at the respective radius rcone one obtains the area of the cone perpendicular to the punching shear
crack:

Fig. A2. Fictive cone to account for shear deformations in the rigid body.

21
M. Classen and M. Kalus Engineering Structures 291 (2023) 116197

( / )
bcone
Acone (ξ) = 2⋅π⋅rcone ⋅bcone = 2⋅π⋅ Bc 2 − lDB + lDB ⋅cos(αPSC )2 + ξ⋅cos(αPSC ) + ⋅sin(αPSC ) ⋅bcone (A.19)
2
With the inclined compressive force FDB Eq. (20) and the area of the cone Acone(ξ) the stress distribution along the punching shear crack can be
calculated according to:
σ cone (ξ) = − FDB /Acone (ξ) (A.20)
By usage of the stress–strain relationship from Darwin and Pecknold and reformulating Eq. (A.8), the corresponding strain distribution can be
calculated by the following expression:
( )
ε1c ⋅ − E0 ⋅σ 1 + 2⋅Esec,1 ⋅σ 1 + k(σ 1 ) + E0 ⋅Esec,1 ⋅ε1c
εcone (ξ) = (A.21)
2⋅Esec,1 ⋅σ 1
√̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅
( )( )
σ1 − Esec,1 ⋅ε1c ⋅ 4⋅Esec,1 ⋅σ1 − E0 ⋅σ1 + E0 ⋅Esec,1 ⋅ε1c
k = E0 ⋅ − . (A.22)
E0

For the explanation of the parameters is referred to Appendix A2. The integration of this strain distribution over the length lcone gives the shear
deformation in the cone parallel to the PSC:
∫ lcone
δcone = εcone (ξ)dξ (A.23)
0

Finally, the vertical component of the shear deformation in the rigid body can be expressed as:
δs = δcone ⋅sin(αPSC ) (A.24)
This term accounts for squeezing of the inclined strut and can be used optionally to further enhance modeling accuracy. This deformation δs is
added to the deformation δtot after all calculation steps have been performed.

References [21] Simões JT, Rita RBDS. The mechanics of punching in reinforced concrete slabs and
footings without shear reinforcement. PhD-Thesis. Lausanne, Switzerland: Ecole
Polytechnique Fédérale de Lausanne; 2018.
[1] Regan PE. Design for punching shear. Struct Eng 1974;52(6):197–207.
[22] Moe J. Shearing strength of reinforced concrete slabs and footings under
[2] Comite Euro-International du Béton. CEB-FIP Model Code for Concrete Structures:
concentrated loads. Research and Development Laboratories. Bulletin D47. Skokie,
Design Code. Bulletin d’Information / Comité Euro-International du Béton(Model
Illinois, USA; 1961.
Code 1990). London, Großbritannien: Thomas Telford; 1991.
[23] Broms CE. Concrete flat slabs and footings - design method for punching and
[3] Deutsches Institut für Normung e.V. (DIN). Eurocode 2: Design of concrete
detailing for ductility. Stockholm: KTH Stockholm; 2005. Doctoral thesis.
structures – Part 1-1: General rules and rules for buildings: German version EN
[24] Ungermann J, Adam V, Classen M. Fictitious rough crack model (FRCM): a
1992-1-1:2004 + AC:2010;91.010.30; 91.080.40(DIN EN 1992-1-1:2011-01).
smeared crack modelling approach to account for aggregate interlock and mixed
Berlin: Beuth; 2011.
mode fracture of plain concrete. Materials 2020;13(12):2774.
[4] Elshafey AA, Rizk E, Marzouk H, Haddara MR. Prediction of punching shear
[25] Becks H, Classen M. Mode II behavior of high-strength concrete under monotonic,
strength of two-way slabs. Eng Struct 2011;33:1742–53.
cyclic and fatigue loading. Materials 2021;14(24):7675.
[5] Dönmez A, Bažant ZP. Size effect on punching strength of reinforced concrete slabs
[26] Reinhardt HW, Ošbolt J, Shilang X, Dinku A. Shear of structural concrete members
without and with shear reinforcement. ACI SJ 2017;114(4):875–86.
and pure mode II testing. Adv Cem Bas Mat 1997;5(3–4):75–85.
[6] Kueres D, Siburg C, Herbrand M, Classen M, Hegger J. Uniform Design Method for
[27] Becks H, Aguilar M, Chudoba R, Classen M. Characterization of high-strength
punching shear in flat slabs and column bases. Eng Struct 2017;136:149–64.
concrete under monotonic and fatigue mode II loading with actively controlled
[7] Classen M. Shear Crack Propagation Theory (SCPT) – the mechanical solution to
level of lateral compression. Mater Struct 2022;55(252).
the riddle of shear in RC members without shear reinforcement. Eng Struct 2020;
[28] Clément T. Influence de la précontrainte sur la résistance au poinçonnement de
210.
dalles en béton armé. PhD-Thesis. Lausanne, Switzerland: Ecole Polytechnique
[8] Kueres D, Ricker M, Classen M, Hegger J. Fracture kinematics of reinforced
Fédérale de Lausanne; 2012.
concrete slabs failing in punching. Eng Struct 2018;171:269–79.
[29] Noghreh Khaja M, Sherwood EG. Does the shear strength of reinforced concrete
[9] Kinnunen S, Nylander H. Punching of Concrete Slabs without Shear Reinforcement.
beams and slabs depend upon the flexural reinforcement ratio or the reinforcement
Kungl. Tekniska Högskolan. Transactions of the Royal Institute of Technology Nr.
strain? Can J Civ Eng 2013;40(11):1068–81.
158. Stockholm, Sweden; 1960.
[30] Cavagnis F, Fernández Ruiz M, Muttoni A. Shear failures in reinforced concrete
[10] Kinnunen S. Punching of Concrete Slabs with Two-Way Reinforcement. Kungl.
members without transverse reinforcement: an analysis of the critical shear crack
Tekniska Högskolans Handlingar No. 198. Stockholm, Sweden; 1963.
development on the basis of test results. Eng Struct 2015;103:157–73.
[11] Shehata IAEM. Simplified model for estimating the punching resistance of
[31] Mihaylov BI, Bentz EC, Collins MP. Two-parameter kinematic theory for shear
reinforced concrete slabs. Mater Struct 1990;23:364–71.
behavior of deep beams. ACI Struct J 2013;110(3):447–55.
[12] Broms CE. Punching of flat plates - a question of concrete properties in biaxial
[32] Mihaylov BI. Five-spring model for complete shear behaviour of deep beams. Struct
compression and size effect. ACI SJ 1990;87(3):292–304.
Concr 2015;1:71–83.
[13] Hallgren M. Punching shear capacity of reinforced high strength concrete slabs.
[33] Herbrand M, Kueres D, Stark A, Claßen M. Numerische Simulation von balken- und
PhD-Thesis. Stockholm, Sweden: Royal Institute of Technology (KTH); 1996.
plattenförmigen Bauteilen aus Stahlbeton und UHPC mit einem plastischen
[14] Menétrey P. Analytical computation of the punching strength of reinforced
Schädigungsmodell. Bauingenieur 2016;91(2):46–56.
concrete. ACI SJ 1996;93(5):1–9.
[34] Genikomsou AS, Polak MA. Finite element analysis of punching shear of concrete
[15] Muttoni A. Punching shear strength of reinforced concrete slabs without transverse
slabs using damaged plasticity model in ABAQUS. Eng Struct 2015;98:38–48.
reinforcement. ACI SJ 2008;105(4):440–50.
[35] Ungermann J, Schmidt P, Classen M, Hegger J. Eccentric punching tests on column
[16] Guidotti R. Poinçonnement des planchers-dalles avec colonnes superposées
bases – new insights into the inner concrete strain development. Eng Struct 2022;
fortement sollicitées. PhD-Thesis. Switzerland: Ecole Polytechnique Fédérale de
262:114273.
Lausanne. Lausanne; 2010.
[36] Becks H, Baktheer A, Marx S, Classen M, Hegger J, Chudoba R. Monitoring concept
[17] Simões JT, Fernández Ruiz M, Muttoni A. Validation of the critical shear crack
for the propagation of compressive fatigue in externally prestressed concrete beams
theory for punching of slabs without transverse reinforcement by means of a
using digital image correlation and fiber optic sensors. Fatigue Fract Eng Mater
refined mechanical model. Struct Concr 2018;19(1):191–216.
Struct 2023;46(2):514–26.
[18] Kueres D, Hegger J. Two-parameter kinematic theory for punching shear in
[37] Lemcherreq Y, Galkovski T, Mata-Falcón J, Kaufmann W. Application of
reinforced concrete slabs without shear reinforcement. Eng Struct 2018;175:
distributed fibre optical sensing in reinforced concrete elements subjected to
201–16.
monotonic and cyclic loading. Sensors (Basel Switzerland) 2022;22(5).
[19] Ottosen NS. A failure criterion for concrete. J Eng Mech Div 1977;103(4):527–35.
[38] Schmidt P, Ungermann J, Hegger J. Contribution of concrete and shear
[20] Einpaul J. Punching strength of continuous flat slabs. PhD-Thesis. Lausanne,
reinforcement to the punching shear resistance of column bases. Eng Struct 2021;
Switzerland: Ecole Polytechnique Fédérale de Lausanne; 2016.
245:1–12.
[39] Reinhardt HW, Xu S. A practical testing approach to determine mode II fracture
energy GIIF for concrete. Int J Fract 2000;105(2):107–25.

22
M. Classen and M. Kalus
[40] Darwin D, Pecknold DA. Nonlinear biaxial stress-strain law for concrete. J. Eng.
Mech. Div. 1977:229–41.
[41] Kupfer H, Hilsdorf HK. Behavior of concrete under biaxial stresses. ACI J 1969;66
(8):656–66.
[42] Kupfer H, Gerstle H. Behavior of concrete under biaxial stresses. J Eng Mech Div
1973;99(4):853–66.
[43] Bažant ZP, Gambarova P. Rough cracks in reinforced concrete. J Struct Div 1980;
106(ST4):819–42.
[44] Paulay T, Loeber PJ. Shear transfer by aggregate interlock. ACI SP 1974;42:1–15.
[45] Hordijk DA. Tensile and tensile fatigue behaviour of concrete; experiments. Model
Anal HERON 1992;37(1):1–79.
[46] Marí A, Cladera A, Bairán J, Oller E, Ribas C. Shear-flexural strength mechanical
model for the design and assessment of reinforced concrete beams subjected to
point or distributed loads. Front Struct Civ Eng 2014;8(4):337–53.
[47] Nguyen HT, Pathirage M, Cusatis G, Bažant ZP. Gap test of crack-parallel stress
effect on quasibrittle fracture and its consequences. J Appl Mech 2020;87(7).
[48] Randl N. Design recommendations for interface shear transfer in fib Model Code
2010. Struct Concr 2013;14(3):230–41.
[49] Fernández Ruiz M, Muttoni A, Sagaseta J. Shear strength of concrete members
without transverse reinforcement: a mechanical approach to consistently account
for size and strain effects. Eng Struct 2015;99:360–72.
[50] Cavagnis F, Fernández Ruiz M, Muttoni A. A mechanical model for failures in shear
of members without transverse reinforcement based on development of a critical
shear crack. Eng Struct 2018;157:300–15.
[51] Fernández Ruiz M, Plumey S, Muttoni A. Interaction between bond and deviation
forces in spalling failures of arch-shaped members without transverse
reinforcement. ACI SJ 2010;107(3):346–54.
[52] Vecchio FJ, Collins MP. The modified compression-field theory for reinforced
concrete elements subjected to shear. ACI Struct J 1986;83(2):219–31.
[53] Comite Euro-International du Béton. CEB-FIP Model Code 1990 Design Code; 1991.
[54] Simões JT, Bujnak J, Fernández Ruiz M, Muttoni A. Punching shear tests on
compact footings with uniform soil pressure. Struct Concr 2016;17(4):603–17.
[55] Schmidt P, Kueres D, Hegger J. Punching shear behavior of reinforced concrete flat
slabs with a varying amount of shear reinforcement. Struct Concr 2020;21(1):
235–46.
[56] Hegger J, Ricker M, Sherif AG. Punching strength of reinforced concrete footings.
ACI SJ 2009;106(5):706–16.
[57] Tolf P. Plattjocklekens inverkan pa betongplattors hallfasthet vid genomstansning.
Kungl. Tekniska Högskolan. No. 146. Stockholm, Sweden; 1988.
[58] Guandalini S, Burdet OL, Muttoni A. Punching tests of slabs with low reinforcement
ratios. ACI SJ 2009;106(1):87–95.
23
Engineering Structures 291 (2023) 116197
[59] Tassinari M. Poinçonnement symétrique des dalles en béton armé avec armature de
poinçonnement. PhD-Thesis. Lausanne, Switzerland: Ecole Polytechnique Fédérale
de Lausanne; 2011.
[60] Lips S, Fernández Ruiz M, Muttoni A. Experimental investigation on punching
strength and deformation capacity of shear-reinforced slabs. ACI SJ 2012;109(6):
889–900.
[61] Fernández Ruiz M, Muttoni A, Kunz J. Strengthening of flat slabs against punching
shear using post-installed shear reinforcement. ACI SJ 2010;107(4):434–42.
[62] Einpaul J, Bujnak J, Fernández Ruiz M, Muttoni A. Study on influence of column
size and slab slenderness on punching strength. ACI Struct J 2016;113(1):135–46.
[63] Schmidt P, Kueres D, Claßen M, Hegger J. Durchstanztragverhalten von
Flachdecken mit variierenden Durchstanzbewehrungsgraden. BuSt 2020;115(1):
13–25.
[64] Dieterle H, Rostásy FS. Tragverhalten quadratischer Einzelfundamente aus
Stahlbeton. In: Deutscher Ausschuss für Stahlbeton, editor. DAfStb-Heft 387: Ernst
& Sohn; 1987, p. 6–91.
[65] Hallgren M, Kinnunen S, Nylander B. Punching shear tests on column footings.
Nordic Concr Res 1998;21(1):1–22.
[66] Siburg C, Hegger J. Experimental investigations on the punching behaviour of
reinforced concrete footings with structural dimensions. Struct Concr 2014;15(3):
331–9.
[67] CEN/TC 250/SC 2/WG 1. prEN 1992-1-1/2021-09: Eurocode 2: Design of Concrete
Structures - Part 1-1: General rules for buildings, bridges and civil engineering
structures. Stable version by Project Team SC2.T1; 2021.
[68] International Federation for Structural Concrete. fib Model Code for Concrete
Structures(Model Code 2010). Berlin: Ernst & Sohn; 2013. 10.1002/
9783433604090.
[69] Kueres D, Schmidt P, Bosbach S, Classen M, Herbrand M, Hegger J. Numerische
Untersuchungen zur Durchstanztragfähigkeit von Flachdeckensystemen.
Bauingenieur 2018;93(4):141–51.
[70] Lantsoght EOL, van der Veen C, de Boer A, Walraven JC. One-way slabs subjected
to a combination of loads failing in shear. ACI SJ 2012;112(4).
[71] Reissen K, Classen M, Hegger J. Shear in reinforced concrete slabs - Experimental
investigations in the effective shear width of one-way slabs under concentrated
loads and with different degrees of rotational restraint. Struct Concr 2017;19(1):
36–48.
[72] Kalus M, Ungermann J, Hegger J. Punching shear behavior of continuous flat slabs:
a new test setup incorporating system influences. In: University of Cape Town,
editor. Current perspectives and new directions in mechanics, modelling and
design of structural systems: proceedings of the eigth international conference on
structural engineering, mechanics and computation (SEMC). London: Taylor &
Francis; 2022, p. 1215–9.