Sunteți pe pagina 1din 11

ACI STRUCTURAL JOURNAL

Title no. 106-S66

TECHNICAL PAPER

Punching Strength of Reinforced Concrete Footings


by Josef Hegger, Marcus Ricker, and Alaa G. Sherif
A total of 17 reinforced concrete footings were tested to investigate the punching shear behavior of footings. The test parameters investigated are the shear span-depth ratio (a/d), concrete strength, and punching shear reinforcement. The (a/d) ranged between 1.25 and 2.0, whereas the concrete strength ranged between 20 and 40 MPa (2.9 and 5.8 ksi). To study the effect of soil-structure interaction, five footings were realistically supported on sand. The remaining specimens were supported on a column stub and a uniform surface load was applied. The present experimental investigations indicated that the angle of the failure shear crack is steeper in punching tests on compact footings than observed in tests on more slender slabs. Furthermore, the (a/d) significantly affects the punching shear capacity. Based on the test results, the ACI and Eurocode 2 provisions are critically reviewed and improvements are proposed.
Keywords: footings; punching shear; reinforced concrete; shear spandepth ratio; soil pressure redistribution; soil-structure interaction.

INTRODUCTION The problem of punching of reinforced concrete slabs has been dealt with extensively in literature.1,2 Tests on reinforced concrete footings, however, are still limited.3-6 Furthermore, most of the available tests have unrealistic test setups. As a consequence, the design of reinforced concrete footings is mainly based on test results of slabs and most design codes do not distinguish between slabs and footings in the design rules. Hence, there is a need for a systematic experimental investigation on reinforced concrete footings. Therefore, punching tests on 17 quadratic reinforced concrete footings were performed. The aim of this investigation is to study the main parameters assumed to affect the punching shear strength of footings such as shear span-depth ratio (a/d), concrete compression strength, shear reinforcement, and soil-structure interaction. RESEARCH SIGNIFICANCE The punching shear capacities of footings predicted by various codes vary significantly. By testing 17 footings, the main parameters affecting the punching strength are systematically investigated. The parameters studied are a/d, concrete compressive strength, punching shear reinforcement, and the soil-structure interaction. The provisions of ACI 318-087 and Eurocode 28 are evaluated by comparing with the experimental results. DESIGN CODES In general, design codes do not differentiate between the punching shear strength of flat plates and footings. The codes allow a part of the soil reaction to be subtracted from the punching load. The amount to be deducted, however, differs from one code to the other. 706

Fig. 1Critical perimeters according to: (a) ACI 318-08; and (b) Eurocode 2. ACI 318-08 The critical section is at d/2 from the column face (Fig. 1 (a)). The design is based on vu < vn (1)

where is a strength reduction factor (0.75 for shear); vu is the applied factored shear stress, using load factors 1.2 and 1.6 for dead and live loads; and vn is the nominal shear resistance. The applied shear stress due to factored concentric shear force Vu is calculated as vu = Vu/(b0d) (2)

where b0 is the perimeter of the critical section, and d is the distance from the extreme compression fiber to the centroid
ACI Structural Journal, V. 106, No. 5, September-October 2009. MS No. S-2008-305 received September 15, 2008, and reviewed under Institute publication policies. Copyright 2009, American Concrete Institute. All rights reserved, including the making of copies unless permission is obtained from the copyright proprietors. Pertinent discussion including authors closure, if any, will be published in the JulyAugust 2010 ACI Structural Journal if the discussion is received by March 1, 2010.

ACI Structural Journal/September-October 2009

ACI member Josef Hegger is a Professor at the Institute of Structural Concrete, Rheinisch-Westflische Technische Hochschule Aachen (RWTH) University, Aachen, Germany. He received his PhD from the Braunschweig University of Technology, Braunschweig, Germany, in 1985. His research interests include bond behavior, shear capacity, high-performance concrete, textile-reinforced concrete, and composite structures. Marcus Ricker is a Research Engineer at the Institute of Structural Concrete, RWTH. He received his Diploma degree in structural engineering from the Darmstadt University of Technology, Darmstadt, Germany, in 1998. His research interests include the punching behavior of footings and flat plates. ACI member Alaa G. Sherif is a Professor in the Civil Engineering Department, Helwan University, Mataria-Cairo, Egypt. He received his BSc from Cairo University, Giza, Egypt, in 1987, and his MSc and PhD from the University of Calgary, Calgary, AB, Canada, in 1991 and 1996, respectively. He is a member of Joint ACI-ASCE Committee 352, Joints and Connections in Monolithic Concrete Structures. His research interests include the design and serviceability of reinforced concrete structures.

A v f yt v s = ----------b0 s

(9)

where Av is the area of shear reinforcement in one row around the column, s is the spacing of the shear reinforcement, and fyt is the yield strength of the shear reinforcement not to exceed 413 MPa (60,000 psi). The maximum allowed shear stress vmax is determined as vmax = 0.5 f c MPa = 6 f c psi for stirrups (10)

vmax = 0.67 f c MPa = 8 f c psi for studs (s 0.5d) (11) of tension reinforcement (effective depth). The shear resistance of the concrete vc is the smallest value obtained from Eq. (3), (4), and (5) 2 4 vc = 0.17 1 + ---- f c MPa = 2 + ---- f c psi c c (3) Outside the shear-reinforced zone, the shear stress resistance of the concrete is limited to the one-way shear strength value of vc = 0.17 f c MPa = 2 f c psi (12)

s d s d vc = 0.083 -------- + 2 f c MPa = -------- + 2 f c psi (4) b0 b0 vc = 0.33 f c MPa = 4 f c psi (5)

Eurocode 2 For concentric loading, the maximum shear stress vEd is calculated as V Ed, red v Ed = ---------------ud (13)

where s is a parameter taken as 40 for interior, 30 for edge, and 20 for corner columns; c is the ratio of long to short side of concentrated load or reaction area; is a factor accounting for the concrete density; and b0 is the perimeter of the critical section in Fig. 1(a). For slabs without shear reinforcement, the nominal shear resistance vn in Eq. (1) is vc. The isolated footing may be assumed to be rigid, resulting in a uniform soil pressure for concentric loading. The shear force can be reduced by the effective soil pressure within the control perimeter. If vu > vc, shear reinforcement has to be used. Two critical sections are to be checked: d/2 from the column face and d/2 from the outer shear reinforcement (Fig. 1(a)). The punching shear resistance inside the shear-reinforced zone is calculated as vn = vcs + vs vmax (6)

where VEd, red is the net applied shear force, u is the control perimeter considered, and d is the effective depth. For concentric loading, VEd, red is calculated as VEd,red = VEd VEd (14)

where VEd is the column load and VEd is the net upward force within the control perimeter considered, that is, upward uniform pressure from soil minus self-weight of footing. The punching resistance should be verified at control perimeters within 2.0d from the periphery of the column (Fig. 1(b)). The lowest value of resistance at the different sections controls the design. The punching shear stress resistance of the concrete is calculated as v Rd, c = C Rd, c k ( 100 f ck )
13

where vcs is the shear stress resisted by the concrete inside the shear-reinforced zone, vs is the shear stress resisted by the shear reinforcement, and vmax is the maximum allowed shear stress. Acknowledging the superior anchorage performance of shear studs, ACI 318-08 distinguishes between shear studs and stirrups as shear reinforcement. The nominal shear strength provided by concrete vcs inside the shear-reinforced zone is calculated as vcs = 0.17 f c MPa = 2 f c psi for stirrups vcs = 0.25 f c MPa = 3 f c psi for studs (7) (8)

2d 2d --------- v min --------a crit a crit

(15)

The nominal shear strength provided by shear reinforcement vs is calculated as ACI Structural Journal/September-October 2009

where CRd,c = 0.18/c is an empirical factor derived from a regression analysis, with c being the material resistance factor for concrete (1.5); d is the effective depth; k = 1 + 200 d 2.0 is the size factor of the effective depth (with d in mm); is the flexural reinforcement ratio; fck is the characteristic cylinder compressive concrete strength; acrit is the distance from the column face to the control perimeter considered; and v min = 0.035 k 3/2 f ck1/2 is the minimum shear capacity of the concrete, including the material resistance factor for concrete c = 1.5. If vEd > vRd,c , shear reinforcement will be required. The design of the shear reinforcement is based on the following expression 707

Table 1Details of test specimens


Test DF6 DF7 DF8 DF9 DF10 d, mm (in.) c, mm (in.) b, mm (in.) a/d fc, MPa (ksi) 19.0 (2.8) 20.9 (3.0) 22.5 (3.3) 20.8 (3.0) 38.1 (5.5) 21.4 (3.1) 21.2 (3.1) 21.1 (3.1) 21.2 (3.1) 21.7 (3.2) 20.0 (2.9) 20.8 (3.0) 21.7 (3.2) 21.8 (3.2) 35.7 (5.2) 36.3 (5.3) 36.4 (5.3) Ec , MPa (ksi) , % Av, cm2 (in.2) 28.4 (4.4) 45.2 (7.0) 45.2 (7.0) 45.2 (7.0) s, mm (in.) 90 (3.5)* 190* (7.5) 190 (7.5) 190 (7.5)
* *

Vservice , kN (kips) 980 (220) 540 (121) 864 (194) 900 (202) 800 (180) 600 (135)

Vtest , kN (kips)

Vflex , kN (kips)

395 (15.6) 200 (7.9) 1200 (47.2) 1.27 395 (15.6) 200 (7.9) 1400 (55.1) 1.52 250 (9.8) 250 (9.8) 250 (9.8) 200 (7.9) 1200 (47.2) 2.00 200 (7.9) 1200 (47.2) 2.00 200 (7.9) 1200 (47.2) 2.00

23,450 (3401) 0.87 25,067 (3636) 0.87 24,850 (3604) 0.88 24,700 (3582) 0.89 29,500 (4278) 0.91 22,000 (3191) 0.87 23,700 (3437) 0.88 20,100 (2915) 0.87 23,700 (3437) 0.88 22,500 (3263) 0.85 20,900 (3031) 0.87 22,000 (3191) 0.87 22,500 (3263) 0.87 21,900 (3176) 0.87 27,400 (3974) 0.87 26,800 (3887) 0.87 26,200 (3800) 0.87

1008 (227) 2836 (638) 7146 (1607) 2569 (578) 6544 (1471) 1203 (270) 3028 (681) 1638 (368) 3179 (715) 2208 (496) 6732 (1513) 1839 (413) 6004 (1350) 1478 (332) 3766 (847)

1008 (227) 2784 (626) 3069 (690) 1200 (270) 2813 (632) 6845 (1539)

DF11 395 (15.6) 200 (7.9) 1200 (47.2) 1.27 DF12 395 (15.6) 200 (7.9) 1400 (55.1) 1.52 DF13 395 (15.6) 200 (7.9) 1800 (70.9) 2.03 DF14 295 (11.6) 200 (7.9) 1400 (55.1) 2.00 DF15 470 (18.5) 200 (7.9) 1400 (55.1) 1.28 DF16 395 (15.6) 200 (7.9) 1200 (47.2) 1.27 DF17 395 (15.6) 200 (7.9) 1400 (55.1) 1.52 DF18 395 (15.6) 200 (7.9) 1800 (70.9) 2.03 DF19 395 (15.6) 200 (7.9) 1200 (47.2) 1.27 DF20 395 (15.6) 200 (7.9) 1200 (47.2) 1.27 DF21 395 (15.6) 200 (7.9) 1400 (55.1) 1.52 DF22 395 (15.6) 200 (7.9) 1800 (70.9) 2.03
*Spacing

1700 (382) 2750 (618) 8996 (2022) 1800 (405) 3680 (827) 7114 (1599) 1600 (360) 3619 (814) 6570 (1477) 1500 (337) 3361 (756) 6026 (1355) 1600 (360) 2790 (627) 7132 (1603) 1600 (360) 3037 (683) 7455 (1676) 1200 (270) 2860 (643) 6914 (1554) 1000 (225) 2405 (541) 6338 (1425)

between column face and first row of shear reinforcement was s0 = 75 mm (3.0 in.) for Specimen DF7 and s0 = 120 mm (4.7 in.) for DF16, DF17, and DF18. Specimen included seven circular ties, which confine compression zone near column face (refer to text). Note: d is effective depth; c is column dimensions; b is footing dimension; a is footing dimension measured from face of column; fc is cylinder concrete compression strength; Ec is Youngs Modulus of concrete; is flexural reinforcement ratio; Av is area of one leg of stirrups along a peripheral line; s is spacing between two peripheral lines of stirrups; Vservice is estimated service load; Vtest is ultimate failure load; and Vflex is shear force that produces flexural failure according to yield-line theory.9 Footings with shear reinforcement included layer of top reinforcement of = 0.49% (DF9) and = 0.31% (DF16, DF17, and DF18).

1 d v Rd, cs = 0.75v Rd, c + 1.5 --- A sw f ywd, ef ----- sin ud sr

(16)

where Asw is the area of the shear reinforcement in one row around the column; sr is the radial spacing of perimeters of shear reinforcement; u is the control perimeter within 2.0d from the column face (Fig. 1(b)); fywd,ef is the effective design strength of the punching shear reinforcement, according to fywd,ef = 250 + 0.25d (with d in mm) fywd (MPa); and is the angle between the shear reinforcement and the plane of the slab. The maximum punching shear resistance (at the column face) is limited to a maximum of f ck v Rd, max = 0.5 0.6 1 -------- f cd (with fck in MPa) (17) 250 where fcd = cc fck /c is the design concrete compressive strength with cc = 1.0 being a coefficient taking account for long-term effects. The control perimeter at which shear reinforcement is not required (Fig. 1(b)) is determined by V Ed u out = -----------------v Rd, c d (18)

EXPERIMENTAL PROGRAM The experimental program included 17 footings. The dimensions of the test specimens were chosen to model 1/2 to 1/3 scale of a common footing. The specimens were divided in two series. The first series included five footings (DF6 to DF10) that were realistically supported on sand. These footings were to supplement previous tests.6 The second test series included 12 footings (DF11 to DF22) that were supported on a column stub and a uniform load was applied to the footing. The test parameters included the a/d ratio, the concrete compressive strength, the shear reinforcement, and the soil-structure interaction. Material properties For the footings of Series I, the concrete was mixed at the laboratory; for Series II, commercial ready mixed concrete was used. The maximum coarse aggregate size was 16 mm (0.63 in.) in all footings. Ordinary CEM III A 32.5 N portland cement and a water-cement ratio (w/c) of 0.50 were used, resulting in a slump of approximately 480 mm (18.9 in.). The concrete mixtures were designed to produce a 28-day target strength of fc = 20 and 40 MPa (2.9 and 5.8 ksi). German steel BSt 500 (A), with the measured yield stress fsy = 552 MPa (80.1 ksi), tensile strength fsu = 634 MPa (92.0 ksi), and a Youngs modulus of 200,000 MPa (29,000 ksi), was used for all reinforcement. Table 1 summarizes the properties of the materials used. Test specimens The dimensions of the footings were 1200, 1400, and 1800 mm (47.2, 55.1, and 70.9 in.) in square with the thickness of the footings varying between 300 and 530 mm (11.8 and 20.9 in.). The effective depth d varied between 250 and 470 mm (9.8 and 18.5 in.), resulting in a/d of approximately 1.25, 1.5, and 2.0. The ACI Structural Journal/September-October 2009

The outermost perimeter of shear reinforcement should be placed at a distance not greater than 1.5d within uout (Fig. 1(b)). The shear reinforcement should be provided in at least two rows and the spacing of the perimeters should not exceed 0.75d. The distance between the column face and the first row of shear reinforcement should not exceed s0 = 0.5d (Fig. 1(b)). 708

Fig. 3Test setups.

Fig. 2Layout of flexural and shear reinforcement for test Specimen DF9. dimensions and reinforcement details of a typical test specimen are shown in Fig. 2. The flexural reinforcement ratio varied between 0.85 and 0.91%. The 200 x 200 mm (7.8 x 7.8 in.) square column stubs were cast monolithically at the center of the slabs using high-strength concrete and were reinforced with 10 mm (0.4 in.) steel plates to prevent a premature failure. Full details of the footings are given in Table 1. Footings DF9 and DF16 to DF18 included heavy shear reinforcement and were designed to examine the maximum punching capacity. The shear reinforcement consisted of vertical stirrups with a diameter of 10 mm (0.4 in.) and a yield strength fyw of 520 MPa (75.4 ksi) in Specimen DF9 and 12 mm (0.5 in.) and fyw of 560 MPa (81.2 ksi) in Specimens DF16 to DF18. The spacings of the stirrups are given in Table 1. As an example, the layout of the shear reinforcement for DF9 is shown in Fig. 2. Specimen DF19 included seven circular ties with a diameter of 400 mm (15.7 in.), which were horizontally arranged underneath the column stub to confine the compression zone near the column face. The bar diameter was 12 mm (0.5 in.) and the spacing was 40 mm (1.6 in.). The circular ties did not increase the punching shear strength compared to a similar footing without confinement (DF11). Therefore, the test results are not discussed further in this paper. Test setup and measurements Series I (DF6 to DF10)The specimens of Series I were tested supported on sand (Fig. 3(a)). The dimension of the sand box was 3250 x 3250 x 3200 mm (128 x 128 x 126 in.). The remaining depth of the sand bed underneath the footings varied between 2200 and 2500 mm (87 and 98 in.), being approximately twice the width of the footings. To achieve homogeneous sand beds of reproducible packing, controlled pouring and tamping techniques were used to deposit sand layers of 55 mm (2.2 in.) thickness into the sand box. The load was applied by six hydraulic jacks (maximum capacity 3540 kN [796 kips]) placed between a steel frame and the ACI Structural Journal/September-October 2009 Fig. 4Arrangement of soil pressure gauges and steel strain gauges. column stub. The jacks were linked to a common manifold and applied the same load independent of the displacement. The soil pressure distribution was measured by 21 electric stress sensors with electric/hydraulic pressure gauges. In addition, thin-film pressure sensors were used to measure the soil pressure distribution. The main advantage of the sensors used is that this system allows a two-dimensional measurement of the soil pressure distribution whereas the soil pressure gauges can only measure the soil pressure at definite points (Fig. 4(a)). Series II (DF11 to DF22)The specimens of test Series II were loaded by a uniform surface load using the test setup shown in Fig. 3(b). The footings were tested upside down. The load was applied by eight hydraulic jacks (maximum capacity 4720 kN [1061 kips]). Each jack transferred its load via steel beams to two polytetrafluoroethylene (PTFE)-coated sliding bearings of dimensions 140 x 140 mm (5.5 x 5.5 in.). Thus, the load was applied by a total of 16 bearings simulating a uniform loading case. The reaction frame consisted of two parallel steel beams, which were supported by four tie rods anchored to the strong floor of the laboratory. For both test series during testing, the vertical displacement at the corners of the column stub and the slab corners were measured using linear variable differential transformer (LVDT) gauges. The flexural steel strains were monitored at 14 locations as shown in Fig. 4(b) as well as at some of the stirrups. At one measuring point, two strain gauges were attached to opposite side faces of the reinforcement bars to obtain the strains at the center of gravity of the bars. The concrete strains were also recorded at 14 locations on the compression faces. 709

Fig. 5Saw-cuts of different test specimens. Testing procedure The load was applied in increments of 108 to 196 kN (24.3 to 43.8 kips) for Series I and in increments of 100 to 200 kN (22.5 to 45.0 kips) in Series II. For Series I, the increments were chosen to increase the soil pressure by 75 and 100 kN/m2 (10.9 and 14.5 psi), respectively. After the service load Vservice was reached (Table 1), the load was cycled 10 times between the service load and half of the service load. After this, the load was incrementally increased until 80% of the calculated failure load was reached. Then the footings were continuously loaded until failure took place. EXPERIMENTAL RESULTS Cracking and failure characteristic All tests failed in punching of the footing. The failure loads are listed in Table 1. The comparison with the flexural capacities of the footings Vflex according to Gesund9 reveals that the flexural capacities were not reached and confirm the fact that failure occurred due to punching (Table 1). After the test, the specimens were sawn into two halves. In all slabs, the failure surface consisted of a wide shear crack, which formed the surface of a truncated cone (Fig. 5). For the specimens without shear reinforcement, the observed inclinations of the failure shear crack were approximately 45 degrees for the compact footings DF11, DF20, and DF6 (a/d = 1.25) and less than 35 degrees for the more slender footings DF13 and DF22 (a/d = 2.0). For the footings without shear reinforcement, the inclination of the failure crack seems to be mainly influenced by a/d. Neither the concrete strength nor the support situation had a significant effect in this aspect. For the shear-reinforced specimens, an outer shear crack with an inclination of approximately 45 degrees, crossing the shear reinforcement, as well as a much steeper inner crack with an inclination of approximately 50 to 60 degrees were observed. Strain measurements confirmed that the shear reinforcement was activated. Hence, it can be concluded that the outer, more gently inclined shear crack developed first. The failure most likely took place when the second, inner shear crack occurred. In contrast to the footings without shear reinforcement, the influence of a/d on the inclination of the shear cracks seems to be negligible. 710 Load-deflection characteristic The deflections at the center of the slab for several footings are shown in Fig. 6. For all series, the gradient of the curves decreases with increasing a/d; this can be attributed to the increasing bending deformations. In contrast, the deformations of the more compact footings are mainly induced by shear. For the tested specimens, the shear deformations are somewhat smaller than the deformations due to bending irrespective of the boundary conditions, the concrete compressive strength, or the existence of shear reinforcement (Fig. 6). If the load deflection curves of the specimens DF11 to DF13 and DF20 to DF22 are compared, it is obvious that the gradient of the deflection curves increases for higher concrete grades due to the increased stiffness (Fig. 6(b) and (d)). The specimen with shear reinforcement showed a more ductile behavior than the specimen without shear reinforcement (Fig. 6(b) and (c)). Steel strains Measurements were made to determine the steel strain distribution for all slabs. Typical test results of these measurements are shown in Fig. 7. In general, the measurements showed some scatter. For the specimen without shear reinforcement, the bars did not reach yield at failure. For the footings DF16 and DF17 with shear reinforcement, only the tension reinforcement in the vicinity of the column yielded before punching took place (Fig. 7(c)). Thus, the flexural capacity had not been reached when the footings failed in punching. Soil pressure distribution For all tested footings of Series I, the soil pressure distribution was measured. Figure 8 shows the soil pressure distribution of the footings DF6 and DF9 close to failure. Although the measurements showed plenty of scatter, a concentration of soil pressure underneath the column stub was more pronounced for DF9 (a/d = 2.0). DISCUSSION OF EXPERIMENTAL RESULTS For the following discussion of the experimental results, the critical shear section specified by ACI 318-08 is used. The failure load Vtest is multiplied by the factor (1 A0 /A), where the parameters A0 and A are the area within the shear ACI Structural Journal/September-October 2009

Fig. 7Typical steel-strain distributions at failure. Fig. 6Load-deflection curves. critical section and the area of the footing, respectively (Fig. 1(a)). The term (1 A0 /A) accounts for the soil reaction within the critical section to be subtracted from the punching force assuming a uniform soil pressure distribution. ACI Structural Journal/September-October 2009 Effect of a/d In Tests DF11 to DF13, the only parameter varied was a/d. Therefore, the tests may be used to study the effect of a/d on the punching behavior. As shown in Fig. 9(a), the tests indicate that the shear strength decreases with increasing a/d. The ACI 318-08 does not reflect this trend as it does not account for the effect of a/d. 711

Fig. 8Soil pressure distribution close to failure. Effect of concrete compressive strength For the investigation of the influence of the concrete strength, two test series are available. The footings of the first series (DF11 to DF13) had a concrete compressive strength of approximately 20 MPa (2.9 ksi) and the test specimens of the second series (DF20 to DF22) had a target strength of 40 MPa (5.8 ksi). In Fig. 9(b), the failure loads are plotted as a function of the concrete compressive strength fc. Although the test data are limited, it can be concluded that for slender footings (a/d = 1.5 and 2.0), the concrete strength seems to significantly affect the punching behavior. For the less slender footings DF11 and DF20 (a/d = 1.25), the effect of the concrete strength is not significant. This is remarkable because it was expected that the behavior of the more compact footings could be described by a strut-and-tie model. In such a case, the failure load of the compact footings DF11 and DF20 should be controlled by the bearing capacity of the compression strut if enough flexural reinforcement is provided. Therefore, for compact footings, it was expected that the punching shear strength increases linearly with the concrete compressive strength. Two test results, however, are not sufficient to draw definite conclusions and more test results are needed on this aspect. Effect of shear reinforcement To investigate the influence of shear reinforcement on the punching behavior, two series are available. In the first series, three specimens with closed stirrups as shear reinforcement were tested (DF16 to DF18). The second series included footings DF11 to DF13 that are identical to the first series except they did not contain shear reinforcement. In Fig. 10(a), the ratio Vtest /Vc,test is plotted as a function of a/d. Vtest is the failure load of the footing containing shear reinforcement, while Vc,test is the failure load of the corre712 Fig. 9Effect of: (a) a/d; and (b) concrete compressive strength on punching shear strength of footings. sponding similar footing without shear reinforcement. Figure 10(a) shows that shear reinforcement substantially increases the punching capacity of footings. The effectiveness of the shear reinforcement, however, depends on a/d. The effectiveness of shear reinforcement decreases with decreasing a/d. For example, the shear strength of footing DF18 (a/d = 2.0) was increased approximately 80% by the stirrups. In contrast, the shear reinforcement increased the shear strength of the more compact footing DF16 (a/d = 1.25) by only approximately 33%. In Fig. 10(b), the ratio vs,test /vs,ACI is compared. The shear stress v s,test is calculated by (V test 0.5Vc,test)/(b0d). Thus, the theoretical capacity of the shear reinforcement according to ACI 318-08 has not been reached or the concrete contribution is overestimated. Effect of soil-structure interaction Two test series are available to investigate the influence of the soil-structure interaction. Series DF6 to DF8 were supported on sand, whereas the companion specimens of Series DF11 to DF13 were uniformly loaded. In general, the footings supported on sand had a higher punching shear resistance than those uniformly loaded (Fig. 11). This may be attributed to the soil pressure concentration underneath the footing (Fig. 8). This concentration increases the part of the soil pressure that reduces the applied shear stress along the critical perimeter. The test Specimen DF8 supported on sand showed significantly higher shear strength than the uniformly loaded Specimen DF13 (Fig. 11). To fit into the sand box, the dimensions of Specimen DF8 had to be reduced compared to Specimen DF13. To ensure the same a/d, the slab thickness also had to be reduced from 450 to 300 mm (17.7 to 11.8 in.) for Specimens DF13 and DF8, respectively. Therefore, ACI Structural Journal/September-October 2009

Fig. 10(a) Contribution of shear reinforcement on shear strength of footings; and (b) comparison between theoretical contribution of shear reinforcement to punching shear strength according to ACI 318-08 and steel contribution determined by testing.

Fig. 11Effect of soil-structure interaction on punching shear strength of footings. the high shear strength of the footing DF8 may be partly attributed to the size effect. The present tests are not sufficient to evaluate the size effect quantitatively. It may be concluded that for design purpose, the soil-structure interaction is not a major factor.6 COMPARISON OF PREDICTIONS AND EXPERIMENTAL RESULTS For the comparison between the present tests and the codes, all material and strength reduction factors in the code equations are taken as unity. The comparison is mainly based on the ratio of the failure load Vtest and the calculated punching shear resistance Vcode. The ratio Vtest /Vcode is plotted against the effective depth d and a/d. ACI Structural Journal/September-October 2009 Fig. 12Comparision between punching tests and punching shear resistance according to ACI 318-08. Comparison with ACI 318-08 The ACI 318-08 code provisions are compared with the test results in Fig. 12. The ACI Code does not account for the size effect on the punching shear strength. Therefore, the provisions tend to be less conservative for larger effective depths. This tendency can be observed for the specimens supported on sand as well as for the uniformly loaded footings (Fig. 12(a)). The ratio Vtest /VACI has a mean of 1.33 and a coefficient of variation of 0.13. The ACI predictions as a function of a/d are shown in Fig. 12(b). Although the code does not account for a/d, the analysis of all tested footings seem to be trend free for the concrete strengths tested. The 713

reinforcement is plotted as a function of a/d in Fig. 12(d). Except for Specimen DF9, which was supported on sand, the ratio Vtest /VACI is independent of a/d. Comparison with Eurocode 2 Eurocode 2 provides two equations to determine the punching shear strength of slabs without shear reinforcement VRd,c (Eq. (15)) and VRd,max (Eq. (17)). The smaller value controls the design. The equation for VRd,max was originally adapted from the Model Code 90.10 For slabs, Eurocode 2 as well as Model Code 90 uses a critical perimeter at a distance of 2.0d from the periphery of the applied load. The use of a control perimeter relatively far away from the column face leads to a good correlation with slab tests with a practical ratio of column perimeter u0 to effective slab depth d (larger than 4). The large control perimeter also offers the opportunity to use the same shear strength as for one-way shear. The large perimeter, however, leads to the fact that the shear stress along the periphery of very small loaded areas becomes governing.11 Therefore, Model Code 90 and Eurocode 2 demand that the shear stress at the periphery of the applied load should not exceed the web-crushing limit for beams with vertical stirrups. Unfortunately, VRu,max = cVRd,max (with c = 1.5 being the material resistance factor for concrete and VRd,max according to Eq. (17)) controls the design of the present tests (except DF10) due to the small ratios u0/d, which are characteristic for column footings. Because the equation of VRu,max is only a function of the concrete compressive strength, VRu,max does not reflect the influence of the effective depth d or a/d correctly, as shown in Fig. 13(a) and (b). In addition, the equation significantly overestimates the punching shear capacity for higher concrete grades, as shown in Fig. 13(b). This is attributed to the fact that the equation accounts for a linear effect of the concrete compressive strength on the punching capacity, which is in contrast to test results.12,13 It is also obvious from the statistical evaluation, which leads to a mean value of 1.12 and a coefficient of variation of 0.23 indicating high scatter, that the equation for VRu,max is not able to predict the punching shear strength of footings without shear reinforcement satisfactorily. The equation of VRu,max is also not applicable for the maximum punching strength of footings with shear reinforcement (Fig. 13(d)). Due to the small ratios u0/d of 2.0 and 3.2, the equation calculates very conservative punching shear resistances for the shear-reinforced footings and does not count for any shear reinforcement. In Fig. 14, the resistance is calculated according to Eq. (15) and (16), while VRu,max is neglected. The aim of this comparison is to investigate the performance of these equations. For the footings without shear reinforcement, VRu,c = cVRd,c (with VRd,c according to Eq. (15)) correctly reflects the influence of the effective depth d, the concrete strength, and a/d, and results in less scatter (Fig. 14(a), (b), and (c)). This is also confirmed by the reduced coefficient of variation of 0.10. The mean value of only 0.77, however, clearly indicates that for footings without shear reinforcement, Eq. (15) would result in an unconservative design. Application of Eq. (16) leads to safety factors below 0.5 because the footings failed in maximum punching shear due to the high shear reinforcement ratio (Fig. 14(d)). Eurocode 2 provides parameters that are optional for national choice. In Eq. (15), the empirical factor CRd,c can be given by the National annex. To ensure the required safety ACI Structural Journal/September-October 2009

Fig. 13Comparision between punching tests and punching shear resistance according to Eurocode 2. ratio Vtest /VACI is significantly higher for the specimens supported on sand (Fig. 12(c)). This is due to the fact that for the calculations, a uniform soil pressure distribution underneath the footings was assumed. The soil pressure inside the critical perimeter b0 at a distance of 0.5d from the column face was subtracted from the applied shear force. In the tests, a concentration of the soil pressure inside the critical perimeter was measured. This led to a reduction of the applied shear force and, therefore, increased the punching shear strength. Furthermore, the diameter of the punching cone differs from the diameter of the assumed critical perimeter to some extent (Fig. 5). The ratio Vtest /VACI for the specimens with shear 714

Fig. 14Comparision between punching tests and punching shear resistance of footings according to Eurocode 2 neglecting the influence of Vmax. level for footings, it is proposed here to reduce CRd,c to a value of 0.12/c. To overcome the problem that Eq. (17) for VRd,max calculates very conservative punching shear resistances for the shearreinforced footings, a new equation for the calculation of VRd,max at the periphery of the loaded area is herein proposed V Rd, max = 16 d u 0 v Rd, c u 0 d ACI Structural Journal/September-October 2009 (19)

Fig. 15Comparision between punching tests and punching shear resistance according to the modification proposed to Eurocode 2. with vRd,c being the punching shear capacity of a slab without shear reinforcement, which is calculated as vRd,c = 0.18/ck (100fck) 1/3. The notations are chosen in accordance with Eurocode 2. Certainly, the applied shear force can only be reduced by the effective soil pressure within the column perimeter u0. In Fig. 15, the proposed equations are compared to the test results. The proposal correctly reflects the influence of the effective depth d and a/d. In addition, the scatter is reduced and the safety level is increased. 715

CONCLUSIONS Based on the results of the experimental investigation on footings supported on sand, as well as on footings loaded uniformly, the following conclusions can be drawn: 1. For the footings without shear reinforcement, the inclination of the failure shear crack seems to be mainly influenced by a/d and not by the concrete strength. The observed inclinations of the failure crack were approximately 45 degrees for the compact footings (a/d = 1.25) and less than 35 degrees for the more slender footings (a/d = 2.0). 2. The punching shear resistance is strongly influenced by a/d. The shear strength decreases with increasing a/d. 3. Although the test data are limited, it can be concluded that for slender footings (a/d = 1.5 and 2.0), the concrete strength seems to significantly affect the punching behavior. This effect seems to decline for more compact footings (a/d = 1.25). 4. Shear reinforcement can substantially increase the punching capacity of footings, but is less effective with decreasing a/d. 5. In general, the footings supported on sand showed a higher punching shear resistance than those uniformly loaded. This may be attributed to the soil pressure concentration underneath the footing. The assumption of uniformly distributed soil pressure beneath the footings according to the building codes, however, ensures a safe design. 6. ACI 318-08 does not account for the size effect on the punching shear strength. Therefore, the provisions tend to be less conservative for larger effective depths. This tendency can be observed for the specimens supported on sand as well as for the uniformly loaded footings. 7. According to Eurocode 2, the shear strength of footings of practical dimensions, as the one tested, is governed by the maximum allowed web crushing limit VRd,max at the column face. Because VRd,max is only a function of the concrete compressive strength, this leads to the fact that it is not possible to increase the punching resistance of footings by using shear reinforcement. Modifications are proposed to overcome this deficiency.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The authors wish to express their sincere gratitude to the Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft (DFG, German Research Foundation) for the financing. The tests of Series I were conducted in cooperation with the Institute of Geotechnical Engineering, RWTH Aachen University. The effective cooperation is appreciated. This paper was written during a research visit of A. G. Sherif at the RWTH Aachen University financed by the Alexander von Humboldt Foundation. The support of the Alexander von Humboldt Foundation is deeply appreciated.

REFERENCES
1. Regan, P. E., and Braestrup, M. W., Punching Shear in Reinforced Concrete, CEB-Bulletin dInformation No. 168, Lausanne, Switzerland, 1985, 232 pp. 2. Polak, M. A., ed., Punching Shear in Reinforced Concrete Slabs, SP-232, American Concrete Institute, Farmington Hills, MI, 2005, 302 pp. 3. Richart, F. E., Reinforced Concrete Wall and Column Footings, ACI JOURNAL, Proceedings V. 45, (Part 1) No. 2, Oct. 1948, pp. 97-127, (Part 2) No. 3, Nov. 1948, pp. 237-260. 4. Dieterle, H., and Rostsy, F., Tragverhalten quadratischer Einzelfundamente aus Stahlbeton, Deutscher Ausschuss fr Stahlbeton, V. 387, Berlin, Germany, 1987, 134 pp. 5. Hallgren, M.; Kinnunen, S.; and Nylander, B., Punching Shear Tests on Column Footings, Nordic Concrete Research, V. 21, No. 3, 1998, pp. 1-22. 6. Hegger, J.; Sherif, A. G.; and Ricker, M., Experimental Investigations on Punching Behavior of Reinforced Concrete Footings, ACI Structural Journal, V. 103, No. 4, July-Aug. 2006, pp. 604-613. 7. ACI Committee 318, Building Code Requirements for Structural Concrete (ACI 318-08) and Commentary, American Concrete Institute, Farmington Hills, MI, 2008, 465 pp. 8. European Committee for Standardization (CEN), Eurocode 2: Design of Concrete StructuresPart 1.1: General Rules and Rules for Buildings, Brussels, Belgium, 2004, 225 pp. 9. Gesund, H., Flexural Limit Analysis of Concentrically Loaded Column Footings, ACI JOURNAL, Proceedings V. 80, No. 3, May-June 1983, pp. 223-228. 10. Committee Euro-International du Bton, CEB-FIP Model Code 1990: Design Code, London: Thomas Telford, 1993, 437 pp. 11. Regan, P. E., Punching of Slabs under Highly Concentrated Loads, Structures and Buildings, V. 157, No. 2, 2004, pp. 165-171. 12. Elstner, R. C., and Hognestad, E., Shearing Strength of Reinforced Concrete Slabs, ACI JOURNAL, Proceedings V. 53, No. 7, July 1956, pp. 29-58. 13. Moe, J., Shearing Strength of Reinforced Concrete Slabs and Footings under Concentrated Loads, Bulletin D47, Portland Cement Association, Skokie, IL, 1961, 135 pp.

716

ACI Structural Journal/September-October 2009