Cover figure

Vu

V1
2 x = dn 1 + n 1 25 0.150 3 cpu = 0.0010 f x cc dx s = Es cpu x x m = d 2 s 1 3d 8 Vu = m c B2 2ln + 1 2 B c
0. 1 1

V2

Vu = my

2 B 1c

Concrete flat slabs and footings Design method for punching and detailing for ductility
Carl Erik Broms Department of Civil and Architectural Engineering Division of Structural Design and Bridges Royal Institute of Technology SE-100 44 Stockholm, Sweden

TRITA-BKN. Bulletin 80, 2005 ISSN 1103-4270 ISRN KTH/BKN/B80SE Doctoral Thesis

Abstract
Simple but still realistic physical models suitable for structural design of flat concrete plates and column footings with respect to punching are presented. Punching of a flat plate is assumed to occur when the concrete compression strain at the column edge due to the bending moment in the slab reaches a critical value that is considerably lower than the generally accepted ultimate compression strain 0.0035 for oneway structures loaded in bending. In compact slabs such as column footings the compression strength of the inclined strut from the load to the column is governing instead. Both the strain limit and the inclined stress limit display a size-effect, i.e. the limit values decrease with increasing depth of the compression zone in the slab. Due respect is also paid to increasing concrete brittleness with increasing compression strength. The influence of the bending moment means that flat plates with rectangular panels display a lower punching capacity than flat plates with square panels a case that is not recognized by current design codes. As a consequence, punching shall be checked for each of the two reinforcement directions separately if the bending moments differ. Since the theory can predict the punching load as well as the ultimate deflection of test specimens with good precision, it can also treat the case where a bending moment, so called unbalanced moment, is transferred from the slab to the column. This opens up for a safer design than with the prevailing method. It is proposed that the column rotation in relation to the slab shall be checked instead of the unbalanced moment for both gravity loading and imposed story drift due to lateral loads. However, the risk for punching failure is a great disadvantage with flat plates. The failure is brittle and occurs without warning in the form of extensive concrete cracking and increased deflection. Punching at one column may even initiate punching at adjacent columns as well, which would cause progressive collapse of the total structure. A novel reinforcement concept is therefore presented that gives flat plates a very ductile behaviour, which eliminates the risk for punching failure. The performance is verified by tests with monotonic as well as cyclic loading. Keywords: bent-down bars, building codes, cyclic loading, deflection, ductility, earthquake, flat concrete plates, models, punching shear, shear reinforcement, size effect, stirrups, story drift, structural design, stud rails, tests

Preface
This thesis is the result of a long process that started in the late 1980s when the author realized that flat plates are more vulnerable for extreme loads than conventional cast-in-place concrete slabs supported by beams or walls. Specimens with shear reinforcement tested by Andersson (1963) at the Royal Institute of Technology, KTH, displayed an increased punching capacity in relation to previously tested slabs by Kinnunen and Nylander (1960), but the failure mode was not ductile enough to constitute a safe structure if overloaded. The author therefore initiated a test program with different types of shear reinforcement. The tests aimed at achieving flat plates with increased ductility, but they were not successful. The failure modes were brittle despite that the nominal shear capacity of the specimens exceeded the flexural capacity. In search for an explanation to this disappointing outcome, the punching theory (Paper I) was developed. With improved insight in the punching mechanism the author proposed a second test series with an unconventional reinforcement layout with a combination of bent-down bars and stirrup cages, which turned out to be very successful (Paper II). Dr. Kent Arvidsson at WSP Sweden AB has supported my endeavours throughout the project. In the late 1990s he pointed out that the stirrup cages should be improved to facilitate fabrication and erection. This resulted in a new stirrup cage design, the tests of which are described in Papers III and IV. Many thanks to Professor Hkan Sundquist, who proposed that the above findings should be summarized into a thesis. He also provided valuable advice and proposals during the final preparation. The thesis as well as the test programs and the papers preceding it have all been developed and written during leisure time thereof the large time span. My deepest gratitude is therefore directed to my wife Kerstin for her invaluable support and patience during these years. All the tests were financed by my employer at that time WSP Sweden AB (formerly J&W) and Fundia Bygg AB provided reinforcement free of charge. The tests described in Paper II were carried out in the Department of Structural Engineering at the Royal Institute of Technology (KTH), Stockholm. The tests described in Paper III were carried out at the Department of Structural Design at Tallinn Technical University and the cyclic tests in Paper IV at INCERC, National Building Research Institute of Romania. All these contributions are gratefully acknowledged.

Stockholm, February 2005 Carl Erik Broms

ii

Table of contents
Preface ...i Table of contents......................................................................................................................iii Notations....v Summary...................................................................................................................................ix Sammanfattning (Summary in Swedish).........xiii 1 Introduction ......................................................................................................................1 1.1 1.2 2 Literature survey.........................................................................................................1 Scope of work.............................................................................................................3

Theory for concentric punching......................................................................................5 2.1 2.2 General .......................................................................................................................5 Punching capacity V ..................................................................................................7 Basic assumption ................................................................................................7 Size effect .........................................................................................................10 Punching at elastic conditions ..........................................................................13 Yield punching .................................................................................................16 Flat plates with shear reinforcement.................................................................19

2.2.1 2.2.2 2.2.3 2.2.4 2.2.5 2.3

Punching capacity V ................................................................................................23 Column footings ...............................................................................................23 Flat plates..........................................................................................................29

2.3.1 2.3.2 2.4

Manual calculation ...................................................................................................29 General .............................................................................................................29 Reinforcement limit 1 .....................................................................................30 Reinforcement limit 2 .....................................................................................31 Transition zone between 1 and 2 ..................................................................32 Tabulated values for 1 and 2 ........................................................................33

2.4.1 2.4.2 2.4.3 2.4.4 2.4.5 2.5

Comparison with test results ....................................................................................34 Influence of bending moment...........................................................................34 Influence of concrete mechanical properties ....................................................35 Comparison with test results for flat plates and column footings ....................36 iii

2.5.1 2.5.2 2.5.3

2.5.4 3

Code predictions .............................................................................................. 43

Theory for eccentric punching...................................................................................... 47 3.1 3.2 3.3 3.4 3.5 3.6 Code approach.......................................................................................................... 47 Introduction.............................................................................................................. 47 Approximate theory of elasticity.............................................................................. 48 Model for eccentric punching of flat plates ............................................................. 51 Comparison with test results .................................................................................... 58 Column rotation capacity ......................................................................................... 62

Design .............................................................................................................................. 65 4.1 4.2 4.3 4.4 Design of support reinforcement at square panels ................................................... 65 Bending moments in a continuous flat plate............................................................ 65 Design of midspan reinforcement ............................................................................ 69 Comparison with Codes ........................................................................................... 71 Swedish Code for Concrete Structures, BBK 04 ............................................. 71 Swedish Handbook for Concrete Structures .................................................... 72 Model Code 1990, MC 90................................................................................ 72 Building Code Requirements for Structural Concrete, ACI 318-02................ 73 Code comparison.............................................................................................. 73

4.4.1 4.4.2 4.4.3 4.4.4 4.4.5 5 6 7 8

Reinforcement for ductility ........................................................................................... 79 Earthquake simulation .................................................................................................. 83 Conclusions and summary ............................................................................................ 85 References ....................................................................................................................... 89

Appendix A. Punching of flat plate. (No yield punching)...........95 Appendix B. Punching of flat plate. (Yield punching) .. .98 Appendix C. Flat plate with shear reinforcement. ... 101 Appendix D. Punching of column footing, surface load. ..104 Appendix E. Punching of column footing, line load. ...107 Appendix F. Unbalanced moment loading. ...109 Appended Papers I - IV

Notations
iv

Roman upper case letters B B B D Ec0 diameter of circular column diameter of circular column with the same reduction effect on the total bending moment as a square column with width a; B = 3a/8 diameter of circular column with the same perimeter as a square column with width a; B = 4a/ diameter of circular column footing tangent modulus of elasticity of concrete at zero strain

Ec10 secant E-modulus of concrete up to the strain 0.0010 Ec15 secant E-modulus of concrete up to the strain 0.0015 (with shear reinforcement) Es EI EI1 F G H L L1 L2 Mu P R R0 Rb Rt V V1 V2 V Vs V modulus of elasticity of reinforcing steel flexural stiffness of slab per unit width reduced flexural stiffness of slab near the column for unbalanced moment loading force fracture energy horizontal force span width, measured centre-to-centre of supports span width in direction that moments are being determined span width transverse to L1 unbalanced bending moment column load on footing radius to centre of gravity for uniformly distributed load outside shear crack maximum value of sector element reaction due to unbalanced moment sector element reaction corresponding to tension in bottom reinforcement sector element reaction corresponding to tension in top reinforcement column reaction column reaction at reinforcement ratio 1 column reaction at reinforcement ratio 2 concentric punching capacity at tangential compression strain failure mode upper bound capacity with shear reinforcement concentric punching capacity at inclined compression stress failure mode v

Vs Vy1 Vy2 Vu

upper bound capacity with shear reinforcement column reaction when the reinforcement at the column edge starts to yield column reaction when the reinforcement in tangential direction at the distance c/2 from the column starts to yield the lesser of V and V

Roman lower case letters a b c c0 d e f fu width of square column width of square footing diameter of circle around the column where the radial bending moment is zero diameter at reinforcement level of circular punching crack around column effective depth load eccentricity slab curvature in tangential direction ( = m/EI ) slab curvature near column edge at punching

fus slab curvature near column edge at punching with shear reinforcement fy slab curvature at start of reinforcement yield

fys slab curvature at start of reinforcement yield with shear reinforcement fcc compressive strength of concrete, measured on standard cylinders with diameter 150 mm and length 300 mm (recorded mean value) fck fct fctk fsy fv1 fv2 h kI characteristic value for compressive strength of concrete tensile strength of concrete (recorded mean value) characteristic value for tensile strength of concrete yield strength of reinforcing steel one-way shear capacity two-way shear capacity slab thickness

EI 2 factor for reduced slab stiffness near column due to unbalanced moment, kI = 1 EI

vi

lch

characteristic length =

Ec GF
2 f ct

m m1 m2 mr ms msc

bending moment per unit width bending moment in tangential direction at column edge bending moment in tangential direction at the distance c/2 from the column bending moment in radial direction negative strip moment negative bending moment within column strip

msm negative bending moment within middle strip mt my mys m ms

n n0 ns bending moment in tangential direction bending moment at reinforcement yield bending moment at reinforcement yield with shear reinforcement bending moment in tangential direction at punching bending moment in tangential direction at punching with shear reinforcement = Es /Ec10 = Es /Ec0 = Es /Ec15 radial distance from column centre radius of circle inside which the reinforcement yields depth of inclined compression strut effective perimeter of internal column capital effective width of strip in a flat plate depth of slab compression zone compression zone depth with shear reinforcement compression zone depth at punching

r ry t u w x xs xpu

xpus compression zone depth with shear reinforcement at punching

Greek upper case letters

fictitious deflection of test specimen due to unbalanced moment vii

radial compression of slab by the horizontal strut due to unbalanced moment

Greek lower case letters

m n V y1 y2 c

factor in expression for compression zone force inclination angle for radial compression strut strength reduction factor for material strength reduction factor with respect to safety class (Swedish design method) specimen deflection at punching specimen deflection at column load V specimen deflection at start of yield at column edge specimen deflection at start of overall yield concrete strain

cpu concrete strain in tangential direction near the column at punching failure cpus concrete strain near the column at punching failure with shear reinforcement s sy u c 1 2 c s
strain of reinforcing steel strain of reinforcing steel at start of yield slab rotation in relation to column (or vice versa) at imposed unbalanced moment rotation capacity of slab in relation to column at imposed unbalanced moment size-effect factor reinforcement ratio (= top reinforcement within column strip) compression reinforcement ratio (= bottom reinforcement within column strip) reinforcement ratio above which punching occurs with no reinforcement yielding reinforcement ratio below which all reinforcement yields at punching compression strength of internal column capital reinforcement stress average inclination of shear crack at compact slabs or footings angle in plane of slab slab inclination in radial direction at the distance c/2 from the column

pu slab inclination at punching

viii

Summary
This thesis is a summary of four papers about prediction of the punching capacity and a method for elimination of the punching failure mode for flat plates. The American notation flat plate is adopted, which means a slab without drop panels that is supported on columns without capitals. The model put forward for concentric punching assumes that failure occurs either when the concrete compression strain in tangential direction near the column reaches a critical value or when the compression strength of a fictitious column capital within the slab is exceeded. The critical value for compression strain is assumed to display a size-effect, i.e. the strain limit decreases with increasing depth of the compression zone at flexure. With slab thickness 200 mm the critical concrete strain becomes round 0.0012, which is considerably less than the value 0.0035 accepted by most concrete design codes as a safe limit in bending irrespective of the member size. Likewise, the compression strength of the internal column capital is assumed to decrease with its increasing height. The compression strength is furthermore assumed to decrease with increasing perimeter of the capital in relation to its height. Comparison with reported test results in the literature demonstrates that these two failure criteria are sufficient to predict the punching capacity as well as the slab deflection and ultimate compression strain both for slender flat plates and compact column footings. The strain mechanism governs for flat plates and the compression strength of the internal capital is governing for compact slabs like column footings. Similar approach is applied for flat plates provided with conventional shear reinforcement. The upper bound capacity is governed by an increased critical tangential strain near the column. This strain is assumed to display similar size effect as the limiting strain without shear reinforcement. The limited flexural compression strain means that the curvature of the slab near the column is limited at the punching failure, which in turn means that the midspan curvature of the slab is limited as well. Too little midspan reinforcement would then adversely affect the punching capacity. Simple expressions are therefore derived for required amount of midspan reinforcement in balance with the reinforcement at the column. The basic model is valid for concentrically loaded columns in a flat plate with square panels. If the panels are rectangular, then the bending moment in the long direction of a panel increases in relation to the column load. The flexural compression strain in the slab is a function of the bending moment, which means that a flat plate with rectangular panels will have a lower punching capacity than a slab with square panels for a given reinforcement ratio. The punching capacity shall therefore be verified for both reinforcement directions separately. In this context it should be noted that the theory usually calls for more reinforcement for the negative moment within the column strip than would be required according to yield line theory.

ix

Bending moment so called unbalanced moment is often transferred from the slab to the column (or vice versa) in real structures if the panel sizes vary or if the gravity load is not uniformly distributed. Still larger unbalanced moments are transferred due to story drift during earthquakes, i.e. due to lateral displacement difference from one story to the next. The punching capacity of the slab decreases in presence of such unbalanced moment. Most concrete design codes have therefore provisions for this loading type. However, the unbalanced moment is usually a statically indeterminate quantity that cannot be assessed as accurately as for a beam-column frame. A safer method is therefore proposed rotation capacity of the slab in relation to the column. This rotation can be estimated with better precision than the unbalanced moment, irrespective of the rotation being caused by gravity loading or story drift. The method presupposes that the rotation of the column in relation to the slab that will cause punching can be predicted with sufficient accuracy at both elastic behaviour of the slab and when its reinforcement yields, which is confirmed by comparison with test results. The story drift capacity of flat plates is in the literature often reported as being a function of the utilization factor, i.e. the column reaction in relation to the nominal punching capacity at concentric loading. Here it is demonstrated that the reinforcement ratio is an equally important or even more important factor. The story drift capacity is namely drastically reduced with increasing flexural reinforcement ratio. The brittle punching failure is a major disadvantage of flat plates. A punching failure at one column will result in increased curvature of the slab at surrounding columns, which implies that punching most probably will occur at these columns as well, which may result in progressive collapse of the entire structure. In order to find a reinforcement layout that would give flat plates the same good ductility (and hence safety against progressive collapse) as castin-place slabs supported by beams or walls, different types of shear reinforcement were tested in the late 1980s. The first test series comprised different types of stirrups that were anchored around the top tension reinforcement in agreement with code provisions. Despite the fact that the stirrups covered a large portion of the test specimens and the resulting nominal shear capacity of the specimens exceeded the load corresponding to yield of all flexural reinforcement, brittle failures occurred. These tests, as well as other tests reported in the literature, demonstrate that stirrups and possibly so-called stud rails can hardly be laid out so that a flat plate displays a ductile behaviour similar to slabs supported by beams or walls. It was found that punching failure could occur due to a steep crack around the column leaving such shear reinforcement elements ineffective. In a second test series, a combination of bent bars and stirrups was tested. The bent bars were introduced to preclude the failure mode with a steep crack at the column. The stirrups were fabricated from welded deformed wire fabric. They enclosed the compression bottom reinforcement of the slab but did not enclose the tension top reinforcement. This reinforcement system turned out to be very effective in giving the slab the desired property a ductile failure mode without any tendency for punching failure.

The stirrup design was later improved to rationalize fabrication and erection. The system is denoted ductility reinforcement and is patented in USA and Sweden. All reinforcement is placed in a non-interlocking manner, which means that the stirrups enclose neither the bottom nor the top flexural reinforcement in the slab. Test specimens with this reinforcement system behaved in the same ductile manner as the previous specimens with stirrups enclosing the bottom flexural reinforcement. Finally, two pilot tests simulating a severe earthquake are presented. As could be expected, the tested specimens with ductility reinforcement could resist the story drift during a severe earthquake with good margin despite the fact that the applied gravity loads were 60 % and 75 % respectively of the load corresponding to yield of all flexural reinforcement. No consideration to unbalanced moment was taken when designing the reinforcement.

xi

xii

Sammanfattning
Denna avhandling r en sammanfattning och vidareutveckling av fyra uppsatser om pelardck (Papers I-IV) publicerade under ren 1990 till 2005. Ett bjlklag utan balkar upplagt p pelare benmns pelardck. Enkel formsttning, planlsningsflexibilitet och lg vningshjd eftersom inga balkar utgr hinder fr installationer ovan undertaket har bidragit till att bjlklagstypen ftt stor anvndning i kontorshus och sjukhus och p senare tid ven i bostadshus. Frsk i USA av Elstner och Hognestad (1956) och av Moe (1961) banade vgen fr en frenklad typ av pelardck utan de kraftiga pelarkapitl som tidigare ansetts fordras fr att frhindra skjuvbrott i plattan. Bjlklagstypen kallas i USA flat plate till skillnad frn flat slab som r en platta upplagd p pelare med kapitl eller som har kad plattjocklek nra pelaren. Nomenklaturen flat plate har drfr anvnts i denna avhandling. De amerikanska frsken visade att den nya typen av pelardck visserligen var knslig fr en brottyp runt pelaren som liknade ett vanligt skjuvbrott, men att hgre nominella skjuvspnningar kunde tilltas fr sdana pelardck n fr plattor upplagda p vggar eller balkar. I Sverige kallas brottypen genomstansning (engelska punching). Den nya typen av pelardck introducerades i Sverige i och med att Kinnunen och Nylander (1960) publicerade frsksresultat och en mekanisk modell med empiriskt bestmda betongegenskaper fr dimensionering av pelardck med hnsyn till genomstansning. Kinnunens och Nylanders dimensioneringsregler antogs av dvarande Statens Betongkommitt som utfrdade Provisoriska bestmmelser fr genomstansning, K1(1964). Den teoretiska modell som lanserades i Paper I har stora likheter med Kinnunens och Nylanders mekaniska modell frn 1960, men utnyttjar i princip endast de materialegenskaper som av hvd anvnds vid dimensionering av betongkonstruktioner, dvs. betongens och armeringens arbetskurvor som ger sambandet mellan tjning och pknning. Genomstansning antas ske antingen om ett grnsvrde fr betongens tangentiella stukning p grund av bjmoment verskrids intill pelaren eller om betongens tryckhllfasthet verskrids i ett fiktivt koniskt skal i plattan intill pelaren. Den vre grnsen fr betongens tangentiella stukning vid pelaren antas motsvara den stukning d mikrosprickor i betongen utvecklas till makrosprickor. Grnsvrdet antas vara storleksberoende och beroende av betongens sprdhet. Plattans tryckzonshjd anvnds drvid som jmfrelseparameter fr storleken och sprdheten antas ka med kad betonghllfasthet. Enkla jmvikts- och kompatibilitetsekvationer uppstllda med grnsvrdet fr betongstukningen som enda brottvillkor visade sig kunna frutsga publicerade frsksresultat med god precision, alltifrn sm frsksplattor till fullskaleprov. Den frenklade och frbttrade modell fr genomstansning av centriskt belastade pelare som beskrivs i denna avhandling r utvecklad frn ovannmnda modell. Genomstansning antas ven hr ske antingen om betongstukningen av plattans bjmoment i tangentiell led uppnr ett kritiskt vrde eller om tryckhllfastheten verskrids i ett fiktivt pelarkapitl inne i plattan.

xiii

Vid normala pelardck blir enligt modellen grnsvrdet fr betongstukningen avgrande fr brfrmgan med hnsyn till genomstansning. Grnsvrdet antas vara beroende av plattans storlek och betongens kande sprdhet med kad hllfasthet enligt formeln

cpu

25 = 0.0010 f cc

0.1

0.150 3 x

(a)

dr x r plattans tryckzonshjd uttryckt i (m) och 0.150 r diametern av en standardcylinder fr mtning av betongens tryckhllfasthet. Vid plattjockleken 200 mm blir grnsvrdet ca 0.0012, vilket r betydligt lgre n det vedertagna vrdet 0.0035 fr betongens maximala stukning vid bjmomentbelastning. Om bjarmeringshalten r hg ns den kritiska betongstukningen innan bjarmeringen flyter i pelardcket. Elasticitetsteorins momentfrdelning antas d glla i nrheten av pelaren och den kritiska pelarlasten Vu kan berknas direkt utan iterationer:

n =

Es Ec

2 x = dn 1 1 + n 25 0.150 3 cpu = 0.0010 f x cc dx s = Es cpu x x m = d 2 s 1 3d 8 Vu = m c B2 2ln + 1 2 B c

0.1 1

(b)

Vid normala armeringshalter uppnr dock armeringen nrmast pelaren flytgrnsen innan genomstansning sker. Elasticitetsteorins momentfrdelning gller d inte lngre nr armeringen intill pelaren brjar flyta. Tillggsmomentet och tillggsdeformationen nr lasten kas berknas i stllet under antagandet att en flytled utbildas runt pelaren s att sektorelementen mellan plattans radiella sprickor brjar rotera som styva kroppar kring upplaget p pelarperiferin. Den kritiska betongstukningen cpu stter drvid ven hr en grns fr mjlig tillskottsdeformation.

xiv

Ur ekv. (a) och jmviktssamband kan grnsvrdet fr betongstukningen om armeringen flyter hrledas till

cpu = 10

E c 0.150 10 3 f sy 2d

25 f cc

0.3

(c)

dr d r plattans effektiva hjd i (m). Tryckzonshjden xpu blir x pu = d 2 f sy (d)

cpu Ec

Grnsvrdet fr betongstukningen definierar drmed ocks maximal krkning av plattan i tangentiell led intill pelaren:
" fu

cpu
x pu

2 Ec 0.150 0.0010 3 = 2 2 f sy 4d 2

25 f cc

0.3

(e)

Kritisk pelarreaktion och tillhrande nedbjning erhlls sedan ur enkla jmviktssamband. Om pelardcket frses med skjuvarmering tl plattan strre tangentiell stukning vid pelaren. Det medfr att en strre andel av bjarmeringen nr strckgrnsen innan genomstansning sker, varvid brottlasten kar. ven i detta fall begrnsas brfrmgan av betongstukningen i tangentiell led intill pelaren. Det visas att genomstansningsbrott vid konventionellt utformad skjuvarmering uppkommer d stukningen nr grnsvrdet 0.0015. Grnsvrdet antas vara storleksberoende p samma stt som grnsvrdet fr icke skjuvarmerad platta. Enligt den lanserade teorin sker allts genomstansning d plattans krkningskapacitet vid pelarupplaget verskrids. Det medfr, ssom tidigare ppekats av Kinnunen och Nylander (1960), att krkningen i flt ocks r begrnsad. Om armeringsmngden i flt d r fr liten, s att momentjmvikten inte uppfylls, kar krkningen vid pelaren och genomstansning intrffar. Drfr hrleds enkla uttryck fr kontroll att fltarmeringen i ett pelardck harmonierar med den fordrade stdarmeringen. En ny modell fr kompakta konstruktioner presenteras, dr tryckhllfastheten i ett fiktivt pelarkapitl inne i plattan avgr brfrmgan. Tryckhllfastheten antas variera med kapitlets slankhet uttryckt som kvoten mellan kapitlets omkrets och plattans tryckzonshjd. Ju strre kapitlets omkrets r i frhllande till tryckzonens hjd, desto lgre antas tryckhllfastheten vara, eftersom spnningstillstndet d alltmer vergr frn tvdimensionellt till plant. Vid mycket stora pelare i frhllande till plattans tryckzonshjd antas f kapitlets tryckhllfasthet vara 0.6 f cc 1 cc . Vid mycket sm pelare i frhllande till 250

tryckzonshjden antas tryckhllfastheten ka till 1.2fcc. Dessutom antas dessa hllfastheter vara storleksberoende p motsvarande stt som stukningen enligt ekv. (a).

xv

De frenklade och frbttrade modellerna visar sig kunna frutsga frsksresultat fr bde slanka pelardck och kompakta pelarsulor med nnu bttre precision n ursprungsmodellen. Inte bara brfrmgan utan ven deformationen och den maximala betongstukningen kan berknas med god noggrannhet. Slutligen ges regler fr hur modellerna skall anvndas vid dimensionering med hnsyn till genomstansning, eftersom de strikt gller fr berkning av den verkliga brottlasten. Vid berkning av dimensionerande brfrmga vid given armering berknas drfr frst brottlasten med de karakteristiska vrdena p betongens tryckhllfasthet och armeringens strckgrns som ingngsparametrar. Dimensionerande brfrmga i brottgrnstillstndet fs drefter genom att dividera berknad brottlast med partialkoefficienten fr betong i skerhetsklass 3: = 1.21.5 = 1.8. Modellernas ekvationer gller i sin grundform fr centriskt belastade innerpelare i ett pelardck med kvadratiska plattflt. Om plattflten r rektangulra kar bjmomentet per breddenhet i den lnga spnnviddens riktning som funktion av pelarlasten jmfrt med ett pelardck med kvadratiska plattflt. Eftersom betongstukningen (som r avgrande fr brfrmgan i ett pelardck) beror av bjmomentet, br ett pelardck med rektangulra plattflt ha lgre genomstansningskapacitet vid given armeringsmngd n ett dck med kvadratiska plattflt. Drfr ges regler ges fr hur dimensionerande bjmoment br berknas i ett pelardck med varierande spnnvidder och/eller rektangulra plattflt. Som en konsekvens av det sagda skall kapaciteten med hnsyn till genomstansning alltid berknas i vardera riktningen fr sig och inte fr ett medelvrde av armeringshalten i de bda riktningarna. I detta sammanhang ppekas att teorin i likhet med de flesta norm-metoder ger mer stdarmering inom c-omrdet n vad som krvs fr bjmoment berknade enligt gngse regler. Nuvarande regelverk Boverkets handbok fr betongkonstruktioner BBK 04 (2004) ger brfrmgan med hnsyn till genomstansning som en formell skjuvhllfasthet i ett snitt p avstndet d/2 frn pelarkanten i enlighet med ett betraktelsestt som i princip tillmpas ver hela vrlden. Brfrmgan fr dock alternativt berknas enligt (Nylander & Kinnunens) mer nyanserade metod tergiven i Betonghandboken-Konstruktion (1990). Metoden kallas i fortsttningen Betonghandboks-metoden. Den bygger p den ursprungliga mekaniska modellen frn 1960, men har genom vissa approximationer frenklats och anpassats till nuvarande stt att kontrollera en konstruktions brfrmga i brottgrnstillstndet. Kontroll mot frsksresultat visar att Betonghandboks-metoden inte kan frutsga genomstansningslasten bttre n rent empiriska metoder. Till exempel kan den metod som anges i Model Code 90 (1993) frutsga brfrmgan med bttre precision. I jmfrelse med andra dimensioneringsregler inklusive teorin som beskrivs i denna avhandling verskattar Betonghandboks-metoden brfrmgan vid armeringshalter strre n cirka 0.7 %. Modellerna i denna avhandling visas ge nra identisk dimensionerande brfrmga som funktion av armeringshalt, betonghllfasthet och kvoten B/d som Model Code 90. Detta kan ses som en god verifiering av teorins tillfrlitlighet, eftersom Model Code 90 bygger p statistisk bearbetning av en stor mngd frsksresultat. Till skillnad frn Model Code 90 beaktas ven konstruktionens slankhet, vilket har betydelse framfr allt fr kompakta konstruktioner ssom pelarsulor. Vidare behandlas storlekseffekten (avtagande nominell skjuvhllfasthet med kad plattjocklek) p ett mer nyanserat stt. Vid lga armeringshalter, xvi

dr brfrmgan begrnsas av att all armering flyter, fs ingen storlekseffekt. Vid hga armeringshalter erhlls en ngot strre storlekseffekt n vad som anges av BBK 04 och Model Code 90. I verkliga konstruktioner verfrs ofta bjmoment frn plattan till pelaren vid ojmnt frdelad last p bjlklaget eller om spnnvidderna varierar. verfrt bjmoment uppkommer ocks av vindlast och framfr allt av jordbvning, som ger upphov till skillnad i horisontell frskjutning av de olika vningsplanen. De flesta betongnormer ger drfr anvisningar om hur genomstansningskapaciteten minskar vid excentrisk pelarreaktion. Normerna ger emellertid i allmnhet ingen anvisning om hur excentriciteten skall berknas. Momentet r i de flesta fall en statiskt obestmd kvantitet, som starkt beror av plattans styvhet framfr allt i nrheten av pelaren. Lsningar enligt elasticitetsteorin ger dlig vgledning eftersom armeringen i normalt utformade pelardck flyter innan genomstansning sker. D minskar plattans styvhet och pelarmomentet blir lgre n enligt elasticitetsteorin. Drfr lanseras en skrare metod att ta hnsyn till excentrisk pelarlast mjlig vinkelndring av plattan i frhllande till pelaren. Vinkelndringen kan nmligen berknas med bttre precision n det verfrda bjmomentet oavsett om vinkelndringen orsakas av last p bjlklaget eller av frskjutningskillnad mellan vningsplanen. Metoden frutstter att den vinkelndring mellan pelare och platta som ger upphov till genomstansning kan frutsgas med god noggrannhet bde vid rent elastiskt beteende och nr plattans armering flyter. Jmfrelse med frsksresultat visar att s r fallet med den lanserade modellen. I litteraturen redovisas frsk dr mjlig frskjutningsskillnad mellan vningsplanen vid jordbvning relateras till utnyttjandegraden, dvs. aktuell pelarreaktion i relation till dimensionerande brfrmga med hnsyn till centrisk genomstansning. Hr visas att armeringshalten i plattan r en minst lika viktig parameter eftersom rotationskapaciteten drastiskt minskar med kande bjarmeringsmngd. Inte ens de mest nyanserade berkningsmetoder kan emellertid eliminera nackdelen med pelardck risken fr ett sprtt genomstansningsbrott vid verbelastning. Moderna byggnadsbestmmelser krver att konstruktioner skall vara utformade s att risken fr forskridande ras r ringa som fljd av en primr skada. Skadan kan till exempel orsakas av en gasexplosion, byggfel eller dimensioneringsfel. I mnga lnder freskrivs drfr att primrbalkar av betong skall frses med skjuvarmering fr att garantera ett segt brottbeteende. Motsvarande krav stlls i allmnhet inte p pelardck, trots att genomstansning vid en pelare med stor sannolikhet leder till genomstansning vid angrnsande pelare med risk fr fortskridande ras som fljd. I till exempel USA och Kanada rekommenderas drfr en armeringsutformning med koncentrerad underkantsarmering frn pelare till pelare, som frmodas kunna frhindra fortskridande ras (eng. progressive collapse) om genomstansning skulle intrffa vid en pelare. Metoden har nackdelen att den inte kan frhindra att genomstansning verhuvudtaget intrffar eftersom systemet inte trder i funktion frrn en kraftig lokal sttning av plattan intrffar vid pelaren. Risken r drfr stor att genomstansning sker ven vid angrnsande pelare, s att en lokal skada kommer att spridas till en stor del av pelardcket.

xvii

I syfte att hitta en armeringsutformning s att pelardck fr samma sega brottbeteende och drmed samma goda skerhet mot fortskridande ras som platsgjutna betongplattor upplagda p vggar eller balkar provades olika typer av skjuvarmering i slutet av 80-talet. Frsksresultaten redovisas i Paper II. I en frsta frsksserie provades olika former av byglar, som var frankrade runt verkantsarmeringen i verensstmmelse med gllande normer. Trots att byglarna lades in inom en stor yta runt pelaren och trots att den formella skjuvkapaciteten var strre n den last som motsvarade flytning i all bjarmering uppkom sprda skjuvbrott. Byglar och s kallade studrails kan sannolikt inte utformas s att ett pelardck med skerhet uppvisar ett lika segt brott som en fyrsidigt upplagd betongplatta eftersom frsken visade att denna typ av skjuvarmering inte frmr frhindra genomstansining p grund av en brant spricka intill pelaren. I en andra frsksomgng provades nedbockad bjarmering i kombination med byglar. Den nedbockade bjarmeringen avsgs frhindra den ovan beskrivna brottypen intill pelaren. Byglarna var utformade som korgar tillverkade av armeringsnt. De omslt underkantsarmeringen men inte verkantsarmeringen. Denna armeringsutformning visade sig ge den efterstrvade egenskapen ett segt (duktilt) brottbeteende utan tendens till genomstansning. En frenklad bygelarmering i form av frtillverkade korgar av armeringsnt har drefter utvecklats fr att rationalisera tillverkning och montering. Bygelkorgarna omsluter varken verkants- eller underkantsarmeringen och armeringsutformningen ductility reinforcement r patenterad i Sverige och USA. I Paper III redovisas frsk med den armerings-utformningen som gav provplattorna samma sega brottbeteende som de tidigare provade plattorna med byglar omslutande underkantsarmeringen. Referensplattor med enbart nedbockad bjarmering utan kompletterande byglar uppvisade ett tmligen sprtt brott utan nmnvrd frhjning av lasten i frhllande till plattor utan skjuvarmering. Pelardck i flervningsbyggnader skall dimensioneras i skerhetsklass 3, eftersom sprtt brott kan befaras vid en eventuell verbelastning. Konstruktioner som uppvisar ett segt brottbeteende fr dimensioneras i skerhetsklass 2, vilket normalt innebr en armeringsbesparing om ca 10 %. Detta, i kombination med att stdarmeringen ver pelarna inte behver dimensioneras med hnsyn till genomstansning, innebr att det alltid r ekonomiskt frdelaktigt att frse pelardck med den nya typ av armering som redovisas i denna avhandling. En skrare konstruktion fs till en lgre kostnad n fr ett konventionellt utformat pelardck. Slutligen redovisas i Paper IV jordbvningssimulering av pelardck med den patenterade armeringen. Som vntat kunde de provade plattorna klara normkrav fr horisontalfrskjutningar med god marginal trots att de var belastade med vertikallaster motsvarande mellan 60 % och 75 % av den vertikallast som ger flytning i all bjarmering inom c-omrdet. Frsken bekrftade att pelardck med ductility reinforcement kan motst ven mycket svra jordbvningar utan att kollapsa.

xviii

1 Introduction
The reinforced concrete flat plate is a widely used structural system. It has no beams, column capitals, or drop panels, which renders formwork construction very simple. On the other hand, the flat plate is at disadvantage in comparison to two-way slabs supported by beams or walls, because of the risk of brittle punching failure at the slab-column connection. This subject therefore still attracts attention by code writers and researchers. The punching failure of flat plates resembles the shear failure of beams in the sense that it is characterized by a shear crack from the supporting column up to the top surface of the flat plate. Consequently, the majority of researchers and most building codes define the punching capacity in terms of a nominal shear capacity on a control perimeter at a certain distance from the column perimeter. It is thereby acknowledged and accepted that this method does not reflect the true failure mechanism. The method, for instance, does not give the designer any indication of the limited rotation capacity of the slab at punching. Despite this shortcoming, the design provisions have generally resulted in safe structures in the standard cases that are covered by test results. The challenge is therefore still there to develop a realistic physical model that can predict the slab behaviour at punching in a way simple enough to be used in the design office also in non-standard cases. Some researchers have attempted to do it, but none has succeeded so far with one exception. The mechanical model introduced by Kinnunen and Nylander (1960) has gained worldwide recognition, but their model is complicated and cannot predict the punching capacity with the same accuracy as current purely statistical methods. Anyway, a simplified version of their original model is still used in Sweden for punching design of flat plates. This thesis is an attempt to respond to the challenge to fill the vacuum after Kinnunen and Nylander and expand the treatment to cover more aspects of flat plate design than just concentric punching.

1.1 Literature survey

Flat plates seem to have first been constructed in USA in the late 1940s. Elstner and Hognestad (1956) realized that the new flat plate concept was rather daring because the design code provisions for the shear capacity were based on tests with thick column footings, Talbot (1913) and Richart (1948). They therefore tested 39 flat plate specimens with the dimensions 6 x 6 ft and thickness 6 in. The major variables in the tests were concrete strength (14 MPa to 50 MPa), percentage of tension reinforcement (0.5 to 3.7 percent), percentage of compression reinforcement, size of column (250 mm and 300 mm), distribution of tension reinforcement and amount and position of shear reinforcement. They concluded, The shearing strength of slabs is a function of concrete strength as well as several other variables. Neither compression reinforcement nor concentrated tension reinforcement over the column increased the load capacity. They found that shear reinforcement could increase the ultimate load capacity of slabs as much as 30 % but in no case flexural failure rather than shear failure could be achieved. They concluded: Even though it would be desirable to fully develop the flexural capacity of relatively thin slabs supported on slender columns, to do so with shear reinforcement may be impractical. Slab thickness, concrete strength, and column dimension 1

should therefore probably be so chosen in design, that only a small amount of shear reinforcement, if any at all, is needed in thin slabs. This opinion seems to have had a great influence on the development during the years to come. Throughout the tests, 25-mm or 20-mm reinforcement bars were used, which is an extremely large dimension in slabs with 150-mm thickness and 1.8-m span width. One explanation to their finding that concentration of reinforcement over the columns was not advantageous, but rather the opposite, may be due to bond slip of these too large bars in relation to the slab dimensions. They also tested beam strips with the same thickness and span width as the tested slabs. They found that tests on beam strips representing a narrow slab section and supported as a beam indicated that the use of such concepts as beam strip analogy and equivalent width does not necessarily lead to a correct prediction of the mode of failure for the corresponding slabs. During the years 1957-1959, Johannes Moe visited USA and the Portland Cement Association where he under the guidance of E. Hognestad carried out a large test series on flat plate specimens, which resulted in the report Moe (1961). The test series comprised 43 slabs of the same size as used by Elstner and Hognestad. Principal variables were effect of holes for utilities near the column, effect of concentration of the tensile reinforcement in narrow bands across the column, effect of special types of shear reinforcement, effect of column size, and effect of eccentric loading. One slab was tested under sustained load. No test report seems to have had larger impact on punching design than Moe (1961). The proposed design provisions for holes in the slab and for eccentric loading are still considered appropriate by many building codes. He introduced the concept of eccentricity of shear, where part of the transferred moment between slab and column at eccentric loading is considered transferred by flexural reinforcement in the slab and the rest by uneven distribution of shear forces around the column. Furthermore, Moe's tests confirmed the test result of Elstner and Hognestad that concentration of flexural reinforcement over the column did not increase the punching capacity again probably due to bond slip of the large reinforcement bars in relation to the slab dimensions. One year before Moe published his report Kinnunen and Nylander (1960) published their mechanical model for the punching failure of flat plates. As already mentioned, current building codes such as Model Code 90 can predict the punching capacity with better precision, but this does not belittle their contribution to the understanding of the punching phenomenon. They introduced a completely new approach by studying the sector elements between the radial flexural cracks in the test specimens. Punching occurs, according to their model, when the tangential compression strain and the radial inclined compression stress in the slab near the column simultaneously reach critical values. These critical values were calibrated against their own tests and the tests by Elstner and Hognestad (1956). These three reports laid the foundation for a successful development of flat plate structures all over the world. Later research has been devoted to expand the validity borders for these tests.

Narasimhan (1971), Ghali et al (1974, 1976), Islam and Park (1976), Pan and Moehle (1989), Hawkins et al (1989) made tests on specimens with much larger column load eccentricities than those tested by Moe (1961). The tests by Moe may represent the modest eccentricities that will occur due to gravity loading, whereas the other tests were intended to simulate large eccentricities due to story drift during an earthquake. Only Park and Islam (1976) presented a different design proposal than the eccentricity of shear method. However, their proposed model has not been commonly accepted, presumably in the light of test evidence. Sundquist (1978) tested the capacity of flat plates for transient loads produced by for instance bomb blasts and developed a theoretical model for the impulse resistance of flat plates. Tolf (1988) demonstrated that a considerable size effect exists, which means that the formal shear stress at punching decreases with increasing specimen size. Marzouk and Hussein (1991), Tomaszewicz (1993) and Hallgren (1996) made tests on concentric punching of high strength concrete specimens and Hallgren (1996) also presented an improved version of the Kinnunen and Nylander (1960) mechanical model based on a nonlinear fracture mechanics approach. All research mentioned above was devoted to slender flat plates. More compact structures such as column footings have been studied by Dieterle (1978), Dieterle and Rostasy (1981), Hallgren, Kinnunen and Nylander (1983, 1998) and Sundquist and Kinnunen (2004). Finally, Nlting (1984) contains a summary of numerous published test results that was an invaluable source of information to the author for verification of the presented theory during the first development in 1988.

1.2 Scope of work

One aim of this thesis is to develop a realistic physical model for prediction of the punching capacity that is simple enough to be used in design and which covers both concentric and eccentric punching of slender flat plate structures as well as compact structures such as column footings. Another aim is to present an improved but still easy-to-install reinforcement detailing that eliminates the brittle punching failure mode of flat plates. In this way the basic integrity requirement for a structure will be fulfilled, i.e. a structure shall be designed so that a local failure due to overloading shall not result in progressive collapse of the building. This seems to be overlooked as regards flat plates by some code writers and many designers. The issues have been treated in the following papers that form part of this thesis: Paper I: Broms, C.E. (1990a), Punching of Flat Plates A Question of Concrete Properties in Biaxial Compression and Size Effect, ACI Structural Journal, V. 87, No. 3, pp. 292-304. Broms, C.E. (1990b), Shear Reinforcement for Deflection Ductility of Flat Plates, ACI Structural Journal, V. 87, No. 6, pp. 696-705. 3

Paper II:

Paper III: Paper IV:

Broms, C.E. (2000), Elimination of Flat Plate Punching Failure Mode, ACI Structural Journal, V. 97, No. 1, pp. 94-101. Broms, C.E. (2005), Ductility Reinforcement for Flat Slabs in Seismic as well as Non-seismic Areas, submitted to Magazine of Concrete Research for possible publication.

A theory for concentric punching, inspired by the Kinnunen and Nylander (1960) mechanical model, is presented in Chapter 2. The theory is an improved and simplified version of the theory presented in Paper I and is expanded to cover compact structures such as column footings and is validated by comparison with published test results in the literature. The punching load as well as the accompanying slab deflection and the flexural compression strain can be predicted with good precision. A completely new theory for eccentric punching is presented in Chapter 3. The relation between unbalanced moment and the corresponding rotation of the column are derived from the relation between load and deflection at concentric punching, which means that the slab rotation in relation to the column is proposed to be the design criterion instead of the current force-based unbalanced moment approach. Chapter 4 contains a recommended procedure for design with respect to punching in the general case with varying span widths and rectangular slab panels. Comparison of the presented theory is made with the design provisions of existing structural design codes. The ductility reinforcement concept presented in Papers II and III is summarized in Chapter 5. Finally, in Chapter 6 some comments are added to the earthquake simulation presented in Paper IV.

2 Theory for concentric punching

The basic principles are described in Paper I, but the theory is here improved and simplified. Punching is assumed to occur either when the concrete strain in the slab due to the bending moment or the inclined compression stress due to the column reaction reaches a critical level.

2.1 General
The reinforcement is assumed to be ideally elastic-plastic with the yield strain

sy =

f sy Es

(2.1)

The modulus of elasticity for reinforcement bars is taken as Es = 200 GPa. As will be shown in the following, the concrete strain due to the bending moment is so low at punching that the concrete usually behaves elastically:

c = Ec c

(2.2)

The tangent modulus of elasticity Ec0 for concrete at zero strain is taken as the value given in Model Code 90 (1993):

E c0

f 3 = 21500 cc 10

(MPa)

with fcc in MPa

(2.3)

The concrete secant modulus of elasticity, Ec10, to the strain 0.0010 is defined later in this chapter; Eq. (2.10). As long as the reinforcement does not yield, the compression zone depth at flexure is computed by combining the strain compatibility and force equilibrium conditions; see Figure 2-1.

F s

s
d m

F c

c c
Figure 2-1

Depth x of compression zone.

c
x

s
dx

(strain compatibility)

(2.4)

dEs s = E c10 c
Es =n Ec10

x 2

(force equilibrium)

(2.5)

(2.6)

Combine Eqs. (2.4), (2.5), and (2.6): x dx = n d 2 x

x2 x + 2 n 2 n = 0 2 d d

x 2 = n + n 2 2 + 2n = n 1+ 1 d n The bending moment per unit width of a slab, m , is computed by the expression
x m = s d 2 1 3d

(2.7)

(2.8)

Extensive flexural cracking will always occur near the column at ultimate loading. The flexural stiffness EI per unit width is therefore computed for a cracked section without any tension stiffening:
EI = m x d x x x = Es d 3 1 1 = s d 2 1 f 3d s d 3d

(2.9)

where f is the curvature of the slab due to the bending moment m. In a flat plate, inclined cracks near the column usually form at a load level of less than 70 % of the ultimate load. Although these cracks can surround the column, the slab is nevertheless stable and can be unloaded and reloaded without any decrease of the ultimate load, Regan and Braestrup (1985). It is therefore evident that the punching failure mechanism is usually not a pure shear failure governed by the diagonal tensile strength of the concrete. The punching failure occurs instead when the compression zone with height x adjacent to the column collapses. The model depicted in Figure 2-2 may simulate this zone, where the load from the flat plate is transferred to the column via a column capital within the slab, similar to the conical shell originally proposed by Kinnunen and Nylander (1960).

x V internal column capital

Figure 2-2

Transfer of load V to column from the flat plate.

The punching failure is assumed to occur either when the capital collapses when its capacity in compression is reached or when micro cracking at a critical tangential flexural strain softens the concrete at the column edge. The corresponding punching capacities are denoted V and V respectively. These failure modes are analyzed in detail in the following.

2.2 Punching capacity V

Failure occurs when the tangential compression strain in the slab at the column edge reaches a critical value.

2.2.1 Basic assumption

The failure mode is illustrated in Figure 2-3. In contrast to one-way structures, the bending moment capacity in a flat plate can be maintained even if the radial flexural compression stress at the support approaches zero, which is a prerequisite for the following possible scenario. The support reaction is concentrated to the edge of the column due to the global curvature of the slab. At loads near the ultimate capacity, the compression strain due to the column reaction in the column as well as the slab will therefore always exceed the strain corresponding to the peak stress fcc. Then, when the flexural tangential strain in the bottom of the slab reaches a critical value, the concrete starts to loose its internal bond and an almost vertical shear crack opens up at the column/slab interface due to the combined action of the vertical column reaction and the tangential slab strain both of which tend to create a vertical crack in the slab. Once this happens, the column capital will collapse due to a zip effect because the inclined compression strut rapidly becomes too weak to resist the support reaction when it is forced to take a flatter load path. The crack propagation is thereby facilitated because the concrete already experiences tension strain in perpendicular direction to the final punching crack due to the shear deformation of the compression zone. This shear deformation is also the reason why the radial flexural strain in the bottom of the slab some distance away from the column ceases to increase with increasing load once inclined circumferential cracks develop around the column.

Many researchers as for instance Kinnunen and Nylander (1960) and Hallgren (1996) report that the radial compression strain near the bottom surface of the slab close to the column suddenly decreases to zero at a load level just below the ultimate punching load. This seems to confirm the scenario described above, that the failure is usually triggered by the formation of a circumferential crack at the slab/column interface and not by propagation of an inclined flexural crack.

fc c

Figure 2-3

Failure mode V .

These general observations lead to the conclusion that the conditions of the concrete at the column edge are decisive for the punching failure capacity V, which forms the basis for the following hypothesis. Study the stress-strain diagram for concrete with the compression strength 25 MPa according to Figure 2-4. The stress-strain relation is taken from High performance concrete structures (1998):
0.3 c1 = 0.0007 f cc ;

k=

Ec0 c1 f cc

1 =

c ; c1
2 k1 1 for c c1 1 + (k 2 )1

c = f cc

At a strain exceeding approximately 0.0010 it is evident that the almost linearly elastic behaviour of the concrete at low strains starts to change the concrete softens. Punching failure of a flat plate is therefore assumed to occur when the tangential concrete strain due to

the bending moment reaches this critical value adjacent to the column. It is further assumed that this critical strain level decreases with increasing concrete strength because high strength concretes are more brittle.
1

fc
30

MPa

Ec0

f 3 = 21500 ck 10

25

20

15

10 Ec10 5

0.0010

Figure 2-4

Assumed stress-strain curve for concrete strength fcc =25 MPa.

In the subsequent equations, it is important to estimate the stress-strain relation in the compression zone at flexure correctly. At low concrete grades there is a curved relation between strain and stress already at strains below 0.0010 as indicated in Figure 2-4. The concrete behaves more linearly elastic with increasing concrete grades, which is approximately taken into account by putting the secant modulus Ec10 to the strain 0.0010 equal to
4 f E c10 = 1 0.61 ck E c0 150

0.0000

(MPa)

0.0020

(2.10)

with Ec0 according to Eq. (2.3); see Figure 2-9.

2.2.2 Size effect

The size effect in this case the decreasing ultimate material strain with increasing structural size and the varying concrete brittleness are taken into account by the formula
0.1

cpu

25 = 0.0010 f cc

0.15 3 x pu

(2.11)

where

cpu = tangential compression strain at punching

0.15 = diameter of standard test cylinder specimen (m) xpu = depth of compression zone at flexure when punching occurs (m).

0.15 3 is assumed to affect both strain and stress of the concrete in the The size effect factor x pu same manner. This means that the E-modulus is assumed to be a concrete property that displays no size effect, i.e. it has the same value irrespective of specimen size. Hillerborg et al (1976) developed the Fictitious Crack Model to explain the size effect for brittle failures in concrete structures caused by tensile strains. Gustafsson and Hillerborg (1988) used this model to derive that the shear strength of beams without shear reinforcement displays a size effect that can be approximated by
f v = k f ct dl ch
0.25

(2.12)

with the characteristic length lch =

E c0 GF
2 f ct

(2.13)

In the absence of experimental data Model Code 90 recommends the following relations for Ec0, fct and GF :

E c0

f 3 = 21500 cc [MPa] 10 f 3 = 1.4 ck [MPa] 10

0.7 2

( = Eq. (2.3))

(2.14)

f ct

(2.15)

f GF = GF0 cc 10
0.025 = 0.030 0.038

[MPamm]
8 for maximum aggregate size d a = 16 32

(2.16)

where GF0

[MPamm]

[mm].

10

Insert Eqs. (2.14) to (2.16) into Eq. (2.13) and replace the characteristic value of the compression strength by the recorded value fcc in Eq. (2.15)

lch =

0.33 0.7 GF0 f cc 21500 f cc 1.33 1.4 2 f cc

10 0.3 = 10970

GF0 f cc 10
0.3

[mm]

(2.17)

Eq. (2.12) can now be rearranged as

d f v = k f ct G F0
0.25

f cc 10

0.075

(2.18)

that can be used to study the effect of maximum aggregate size. If the beam depth were increased four times without simultaneous scaling of the aggregate size, the formal shear strength fv would be reduced to 4-0.25 = 70.7 % of the strength for the smaller beam. Simultaneous four-fold scaling of the maximum aggregate size from 8 mm to 32 mm would not eliminate the size effect as maintained by some researchers such as Baant and Cao (1987). In this case, the formal shear strength would be reduced to 78.5 % of the strength for the smaller beam. According to Eq. (2.12) it is thus evident that the maximum aggregate size has limited effect on the formal shear strength of beams. A doubling of the aggregate size from 16 mm to 32 mm would increase the recorded shear strength by 6.0 % and a reduction from 16 mm to 8 mm would decrease the strength by 4.5 %. It is also evident that an increased concrete compression strength fck has some reduction effect on the formal shear strength versus the tensile strength fct. Leonhardt and Walther (1962) made tests on the shear strength size dependence for beams without shear reinforcement. The shear strength varied approximately proportional to d 0.33 when the reinforcement bars were scaled in proportion to the beam geometry. In a second test series, where a small reinforcement size was kept constant and the number of bars was varied to keep the reinforcement ratio constant when the beam size was increased, the beams displayed no size effect. In this latter case, the better anchoring bond with many small bars instead of few large bars decreased the anchoring slip sufficiently to eliminate the size effect. This demonstrates that tests have to be performed with realistically scaled reinforcement bars whenever reinforcement bond might be of concern for the structural behaviour. Based on the test results, Leonhardt and Walther drew the premature conclusion that the size effect for shear failures would fade out for beams with effective depth larger than round 400 mm because the reinforcement bar size is limited to 25 mm or 32 mm. The question is; are the findings by Gustafsson and Hillerborg (1988) regarding shear strength of beams applicable also for the punching strength of flat plates despite the fact that the punching failure seems to be more brittle? Hallgren (1996) used the Fictitious Crack Model to derive an expression for the critical tangential concrete compression strain at punching. He found it to be proportional to the depth of the compression zone at flexure raised to the power -0.5 for very small depths. The exponent decreases to -1.0 for large compression zone depths. These values seem to be unrealistic the size effect becomes too large.
11

At very brittle failures characterized by a linear stress distribution, the size effect would be described by the Linear Elastic Fracture Mechanics equation for the failure strength d f = k d 0
0.5

(2.19)

where d is the actual size of the structure and d0 is a reference size. Most concrete structures display a non-linear stress distribution for brittle fractures, which means that the absolute value of the exponent in the fracture strength equation should be smaller than 0.5 as in Eq. (2.12) for the shear strength of beams. Theoretically, the more non-linear stress distribution a structure displays, the smaller the absolute value of the exponent becomes down to zero at a plastic stress distribution (= no size effect). However, Eq. (2.12) with the constant exponent -0.25 is found to be valid for a large range of beam sizes, from small specimens up to beams with effective depth of at least 1000 mm. The fracture energy GF determined by the RILEM (1985) beam test and the deduced characteristic length lch according to Eq. (2.13) characterize the relative brittleness of the concrete at tensile strains. However, they do not give any indication on the exponent to be used in a fracture strength equation. Only experiments with varying specimen size will give a reliable answer. The punching fracture mode seems to be more brittle than the shear failure mode of beams, because the fracture at punching occurs due to a small shear displacement at high biaxial compression strain, whereas the beam shear failure is usually associated with inclined crack growth due to tensile strains. The absolute value of the exponent for punching should then be larger than the beam-shear exponent 0.25. The chosen exponent 1/3 in Eq. (2.11) therefore seems to be reasonable and can be assumed valid at least for slab sizes covered by the validation of the theory in Section 2.5, i.e. slabs with effective depth varying from 100 mm up to 600 mm. The upper limit 600 mm can most probably be increased because the presented theory presupposes elastic behaviour of the concrete in flexure, which is more realistic the larger the structure becomes. However, thick slabs may display a more pronounced apparent size effect due to possible induced cracks in the compression zone by uneven temperature over the slab depth during the concrete hydration. The choice of the compression zone depth as reference dimension for the size effect in Eq. (2.11) is a natural consequence of the hypothesis that punching occurs when the compression zone near the column collapses. It is interesting to note that the format of Eq. (2.11) for the punching failure can be derived from the same assumption as Eq. (2.12) for the beam shear failure, i.e. the size effect depends on the relation between a reference size of the structure and lch according to Eq. (2.17):

cpu

x pu = 0.0010 l ch

1 3

A = 0.0010 x pu

25 f cc

0.1

(2.11a)

where A is a reference size that should be proportional to the maximum aggregate size factor GF0 according to Eq. (2.16). However, the reference size in Eq. (2.11) is chosen to be constant, independent of the maximum aggregate size, because the aggregate size is seldom 12

reported in the literature. Furthermore, the resulting effect on the critical strain value would anyway be rather marginal.

2.2.3 Punching at elastic conditions

If punching occurs without any yield of the reinforcement (at high reinforcement ratios), then both reinforcement and concrete behave elastically. The depth of the compression zone is then defined by Eq. (2.7) and the critical strain cpu is defined by Eq. (2.11). Once the critical strain cpu is defined, then the bending moment per unit width is defined and the punching load can be estimated if the relation between load and bending moment at the column is known, which will be described hereafter. A common arrangement for punching testing of flat plates consists of a circular or square slab loaded along its perimeter and supported on a column at its centre; see Figure 2-5. The perimeter of the specimen is intended to reflect the circular line of contra-flexure for bending moment in radial direction in a continuous flat plate. According to the theory of elasticity, this circle has the radius 0.2 L in a flat plate with square panels, where L is the span width. The following equations assume either a circular or a square specimen arrangement. In the latter case, the diameter of the equivalent circular slab is assumed equal to the width of the square slab if the corners are free to lift in the square specimen. Up to the load level when the flexural reinforcement starts to yield near the column, the theory of elasticity is assumed valid for the bending moment distribution. Poisson's ratio of the cracked concrete slab is thereby assumed zero. The column reaction is concentrated to the column perimeter as has been described above. A square column is replaced by a fictitious circular column with the same reduction effect on the total bending moment across the specimen width: Circular column: M = V Square column: M = V B 2 (2.20) (2.21) (2.22)

3a 16

B =

3 a 8 where B = diameter of circular column and a = width of square column.

13

c
V B B c 1 m 2

t mr

r
Figure 2-5

Bending moments and slab deformation according to the theory of elasticity for a circular slab supported on the edge of a circular column.

The following expressions are valid according to the theory of elasticity (with = 0) for a circular slab, derived from Eqs. (84) and (85) of Timoshenko and Woinowsky-Krieger (1959); see Figure 2-5:
mt = V c B2 B2 2ln + 2 2 2 8 2r c 4r tangential moment (2.23)

mr =

V c B2 B2 2ln + 2 2 8 2r 4 r c V c B2 2 ln + 1 2 8 B c
V B2 1 2 4 c
c V B2 c 1 2 = 2 EI 4 c 2 EI

radial moment

(2.24)

m1 =

tangential and radial moment at column edge

(2.25)

m2 =

tangential moment at the slab edge

(2.26)

= m2

angle of inclination at the slab edge

(2.27)

The theoretical deflection consists of bending deformation and shear deformation, where the latter is not negligible near the column. When these effects are superimposed the resulting deformation configuration resembles a truncated cone and the deflection at the column edge is consequently assessed as
14

cB 2

(2.28)

The punching capacity V can now be estimated as follows. The relation between the modulus of elasticity for reinforcement and concrete n= Es E c10 (2.6)

Depth of the compression zone in the slab at elastic behaviour 2 x = d n 1 + n 1 Compression strain at the column edge at punching
1

(2.7)

cpu = 0.0010

25 f cc

0.1

0.150 3 x pu

(2.11)

Reinforcement stress at the column edge at punching dx (2.29) x If s turns out to be larger than the yield stress fsy , then the reinforcement yields

s = Es cpu

before punching occurs and the calculation is performed according to Section 2.2.4.

Bending moment at the column edge at punching x m = d 2 s 1 3d Finally, the punching load V is derived from Eq. (2.25) V = m 8 c B2 2ln + 1 2 B c (2.31) (2.30)

No iteration is thus required for determination of the punching load. The calculation is anyhow preferably computerized, see Appendix A, because then the alternative failure mode V is checked automatically as well as the ultimate deflection . In flat plates with rectangular panels the above equations have to be modified when checking the punching capacity, see Section 4.2.

15

2.2.4 Yield punching

With medium reinforcement ratios the reinforcement near the column will yield before punching occurs. The bending moments according to the theory of elasticity are then no longer valid for the part of the load that exceeds the load Vy1 when the reinforcement at the column edge just starts to yield. It is instead assumed that a flexural hinge forms at the column edge and the sector elements of the slab between the radial flexural cracks start to rotate as rigid bodies with support on the column edge. Punching is still assumed to occur when the concrete compression strain reaches the critical value cpu. The punching strain cpu at the column edge when the reinforcement yields can then be calculated from

d f sy = E c10 cpu x pu 0.5

cpu
25 = 0.0010 f cc
0.1

(force equilibrium)
1

(2.32) (2.11)

0.150 3 x pu

Combine Eqs. (2.32) and (2.11): Ec10 0.150 10 3 f sy 2d

f sy

cpu = 10

25 f cc

0.3

with effective depth d in (m)

(2.33)

x pu = d

cpu E c10

(2.34)

, can then be expressed as The ultimate tangential curvature at the column edge, f u = fu

cpu
x pu

E2 0.150 0.0010 3 = c10 2 4d 2 f sy 2

25 f cc

0.3

(2.35)

Bending moment at reinforcement yield x m y = d 2 f sy 1 3d (2.36)

The column reactions Vy1 when the reinforcement starts to yield at the column edge and Vy2 when all reinforcement across the slab yields
V y1 = m y 8 c B2 2ln + 1 2 B c (2.37)

V y2 = m y

2 B 1 c

(see Figure 2-6)

(2.38)

16

my

my =

Vy2 B 1 2 c

B c

mr = 0

Figure 2-6

Fan type yield lines.

Curvature in tangential direction at start of yield = fy my EI =

sy
dx

f sy Es

1 dx

(2.39)

Possible additional curvature at column edge after first yield

f y f = f u

(2.40)

The circle with radius ry inside which the reinforcement yields is solved from the following equation; see Figure 2-7:

my =

2 2 V y1 2ln c + 2 B B + f EI B 2 8 2ry 2ry c2 4ry

(2.41) c . 2

The load capacity is equal to the flexural load capacity Vy2 if ry

The punching load V is calculated by integration of the tangential bending moment curve c over the slab width if ry < ; see Figure 2-7: 2
c 2 2 2 V V y2 c B B B y1 2ln + 2 2 + f EI dr V = m r + 2 c y y 8 2 r 2r r c 4 ry my 2

(2.42)

17

The deflection of the slab at punching, , is calculated as the sum of the elastic deflection and the additional deflection due to rigid body rotation of the sector elements after first yield at the column:

V y1 B 2 c c B B cB 1 + f 2 4 2 2 2 c 2 EI

(2.43)

All equations in this section have to be modified for flat plates with rectangular panels, see Section 4.2. The calculations have to be computerized, see Appendix B, because Eq. (2.41) can be solved manually by iteration only and Eq. (2.42) is laborious. The computer solution has furthermore the advantage that the alternative failure mode V is checked automatically as well as the ultimate deflection . However, an approximate manual calculation of V is described in Section 2.4.

C L ry

punching failure my
f EI B 2r

first yield

mt =

2 2 V y1 2 ln c + 2 B B 8 2r 4r 2 c 2

2 c 2 r

Figure 2-7

Distribution of tangential bending moment at first yield and at punching failure.

18

2.2.5 Flat plates with shear reinforcement

The capacity of the internal column capital will increase when shear reinforcement is provided, because part of the load is transferred by steep compression struts from the shear reinforcement; see Figure 2-8.
C L

xs

Figure 2-8

Model for maximum capacity with shear reinforcement.

The favourable inclination of the resulting compression strut means that the critical tangential concrete strain cpus is assumed to reach the strain 0.0015, which is close to the strain corresponding to the peak stress for concrete grade 25 MPa. The same brittleness and size effect factors as for the strain without shear reinforcement gives

cpus

25 = 0.0015 f cc

0.1

0.150 3 x s

(2.44)

where xs = compression zone depth with shear reinforcement.

The secant modulus E c15 to the strain cpus can with good approximation be represented by E c15 = f cc f cc 0.0015 25
0.1

f 1.1 cc 190

(2.45)

for concrete grades between 20 MPa and 100 MPa, which is indicated with dots in Figure 2-9 (together with corresponding dots for the secant modulus Ec10 to the strain 0.0010 for slabs without shear reinforcement).

19

The compression zone force due to the tangential bending moment is assessed as
Fc = x s E c15 cpus f with = 0.5 + 0.3 1 cc ; 100
2

(2.46) 20 f cc 100 MPa . (2.47)

The compression zone depth xs can then be derived to (compare Eqs. (2.4) to (2.7)):
1 1 1 + x s = d ns 4 2 n 2 s

(2.48)

with ns =

Es . Ec15

(2.49)

fcc MPa 100

80

60

40

20 Ec15 Ec10 0.001 0.002 0 0

Figure 2-9

Secant modules Ec10 and Ec15 according to Eqs. (2.10) and (2.45).

20

Punching before reinforcement yield Reinforcement stress at the column edge at punching

s = Es cpus

d xs xs

(2.50)

If s turns out to be larger than the yield stress fsy , then the reinforcement yields before punching occurs and the calculation is performed according to Punching after reinforcement yield below. Bending moment at the column edge at punching
x ms = d 2 s 1 s 3d

(2.51)

Finally, the punching capacity Vs is derived from Eq. (2.25):

V s = m s 8 c B2 2ln + 1 B c2 (2.52)

Punching after reinforcement yield The forces in the reinforcement and the concrete compression zone are equal:

d f sy = Ec15 cpus x pus

Combine Eqs. (2.53) and (2.44):
Ec15 0.150 15 3 f sy d 25 f cc
0.3

(2.53)

cpus = 10 6
d

with effective depth d in (m) (2.54)

x pus =

cpus E c15

f sy

(2.55)

: The ultimate tangential curvature at the column edge, f us

= f us

cpus
x pus

2 Ec15 2 0.150 0.00153 2 f sy d2 2

25 f cc

0.3

(2.56)

Bending moment at reinforcement yield x m ys = d 2 f sy 1 s 3d (2.57)

21

The column reactions Vy1 when the reinforcement starts to yield at the column edge and Vy2 when all reinforcement across the slab yields: V y1 = m ys 8 c B2 2ln + 1 2 B c 2 B 1 c (2.58)

V y2 = m ys

(2.59)

Curvature in tangential direction at start of yield: = f ys f sy Es

1 d xs

(2.60)

Possible additional curvature at column edge after first yield:

f ys f = f us

(2.61)

The distance ry and punching capacity Vs is then determined from Eqs. (2.41) and (2.42).

The calculations are preferably computerized, see Appendix C.

The upper limit for punching capacity derived above presupposes that the punching failure occurs within the zone with shear reinforcement. It is further assumed that the shear reinforcement is designed for at least 60 % of the total column reaction and stirrups or stud rails are well anchored outside the innermost top and bottom reinforcement layers. The shear reinforcement must extend far enough from the column to exclude a shear failure outside the shear reinforced area, which is preferably checked in accordance with Model Code 90. Larger capacity can be achieved with inclined stirrups. The stirrups in the first row outside the column act as hangers that transfer their load directly to the column without affecting the internal column capital if the upper end of the stirrups is anchored inside the column edge. The total punching capacity can therefore be assessed by adding the vertical component of the hanger force to the above capacity Vs, but not to more than the load corresponding to overall yield of the flexural reinforcement. The nominal ultimate stress in the hangers should thereby be limited to round 350 MPa. Still larger capacity in combination with ductile behaviour can be achieved with the ductility reinforcement described in Chapter 5.

22

2.3 Punching capacity V

Punching occurs when the compression stress in the fictitious internal column capital of the slab reaches a critical value.

2.3.1 Column footings

Consider a relatively compact circular test specimen according to Figure 2-10. The specimen could simulate a column footing. The shear force V is transferred to the column via a column capital within the slab and punching occurs when the stress at the upper edge of the capital reaches the compression strength c.
D R

B
t

1
2

Figure 2-10 Failure mode V . Definitions of parameters.

Square columns are replaced by equivalent circular columns with the same perimeter and square slabs are replaced by equivalent circular slabs with the same area. The diameter of a circular slab is denoted D. 23

x0

Part of uniformly distributed load will fall within the final shear crack. That part of the load does not affect the punching capacity; see Figure 2-11. The shear crack is assumed steep in compact foundations and the inclination angle should not be taken less than round 45 in slender foundations. A reasonable expression for the angle is tan = 1.4d 1 D B 3 2 (2.62)

D c 0 = kD R

Figure 2-11

Definition of angle and shear load V .

The diameter of the circle within the fictitious shear crack at the flexural reinforcement level is denoted c0

c0 = kD = B +

2d tan

(2.63)

The radius to the centre of gravity for uniformly distributed load outside the fictitious shear crack can be shown to be
R= D k2 (1 + ) 3 1+ k (2.64)

The column capital forms part of a compression strut from the load to the column. Punching occurs when the capital fails in compression so that a diagonal shear crack forms. It is easily shown that the capacity of the capital is at maximum when the angle 1 is equal to , where 2 is the angle to the horizontal of the punching crack near the column; see Figure 2-10.

24

V = k V x0

sin 1 sin( 2 1 ) sin 2 k x dV = V 0 [(cos 1 )sin (2 1 ) sin 1cos(2 1 )] = 0 d 1 sin 2

tan (2 1 ) = tan 1 ;

1 =

The inclination angle of the compression strut is determined by ( d x ) R 0.5 B 1 x x = 02 4 cos tan = Eliminate x from Eqs. (2.65) and (2.66):
tan =

(2.65) (2.66)

(2 R B )2
2 x0

4d 2R B 1 x0 x0

(2.67)

The average upper diameter of the capital that supports the inclined compression strut from the load is x0 x0 B+ + (2.68) tan (2 ) 2 tan ( ) The effective perimeter u of the capital is thus x0 x0 u = B + tan (2 ) + 2 tan ( )

(2.69)

The compression strength c of the capital is assumed to vary with the slenderness u/x of the cantilevering part of the capital; see Figure 2-12.
2 u c = f cc 0.6 + 0.9 1 0.007 x 1.2 f cc 0

(2.70)

For small values of u/x, it is evident from Figure 2-12 that the compression zone of the surrounding slab confines the capital. That effect decreases with increasing u/x f until c = 0.6 f cc 1 cc , which is the generally accepted uniaxial compression strength in 250 cracked zones, (= fcd2 according to Model Code 90). The upper limit 1.2 fcc in Eq. (2.69) represents the concrete compression strength in bi-axial compression, when the perpendicular compression stress is moderate; see Nilsson (1983).

25


B/d = 1.0

B/d = 2.5

Figure 2-12

Confinement of internal column capital by surrounding slab.

C L

c0

s0

c0 2r

s0

x0

c0
B 2

c0
r

B 2r

Figure 2-13

Strain distribution in compact footing. 26

In compact footings, the sector elements between the radial flexural cracks are assumed to rotate as rigid bodies even before yielding of the flexural reinforcement, which affects the depth of the compression zone; see Figure 2-13. Study a sector element under the shear crack with sector angle :

c0 B
x
2r

s0
d x0

c0 2r
D 2

(2.71) x0 B B D d 1 + ln r 2r = Ec0 c0 2 2 B B 2 D 1 + ln c 0 (2.73)

x0 B Fc = E c0 c0 + 2 2

(2.72)

D 2 c0 c0 c + dr = Es s0 d 0 Fs = Es s0 d 2 c 2r 2 0 2

D E c0 Combine Eqs. (2.71), (2.72), (2.73), and put n0 = s : D E c0 1 + ln B 1 + ln (D shall be replaced by the slab width b in square footings) x0 2 = n0 1 + 1 d n0 The punching capacity can then be determined as 0.150 3 V = c t sin( ) u t where t= x0 = depth of compression strut 2cos( )
1

(2.74)

(2.75)

(2.76)

0.150 3 = size effect factor with dimension t in (m) t

0.150

= diameter of standard test cylinder specimen (m).

Finally, the total load capacity with respect to punching is determined as P = V 1 k 2

27

(2.77)

For geometrical reasons the angle is limited to 45 corresponding to a vertical shear crack through the compression zone. The angle need not be taken less than 25, which agrees with the average shear crack inclination 30 observed at slender test specimens, see for instance Kinnunen and Nylander (1960); see Figure 2-14.

0.3d

d tan 30

d 0 .3d 0 .7 d = + tan 30 tan 2 tan

= 25

Figure 2-14

Angle for flat plates.

The flexural capacity and the concrete strain of a square column footing are checked as follows. b B M = P 8 2 (2.78)
M b x d c0 1 1 + ln c 3d 0
2

s =

(2.79)

where

M = total bending moment over footing width b = width of square footing c0 x s c = B + 2 x d x Es cpu 25 = 0.0010 f cc
0.1

0.15 3 x

(2.80)

with x according to Eq. (2.75) and with Ec10 instead of Ec0 in Eq. (2.74).

Equation (2.80) may govern the capacity at high reinforcement ratios in combination with high strength concrete. The expressions for the capacity V presuppose that the flexural reinforcement in the footing does not yield, which has to be considered when designing such reinforcement. 28

2.3.2 Flat plates

In flat plates, the flexural reinforcement near the column will often yield before punching occurs. Eq. (2.7) is then no longer valid for the depth of the compression zone near the column for tangential bending moments the depth decreases. When punching occurs, the compression zone near the column has decreased to the value given by Eq. (2.34). However, when the flexural reinforcement starts to yield near the column then the sector elements between the radial cracks in the slab start to rotate as rigid bodies. Additional deflection will then cause only limited increase of the radial curvature of the sector elements. The compression zone depth in radial direction will therefore not decrease below the value given by Eq. (2.75), which value shall be used when calculating V for flat plates. This is confirmed by Figure 4-11 of Hallgren (1996) that shows the recorded radial strain distribution over the compression zone for specimen HSC1. The depth remained constant conforming to Eq. (2.75) up to the punching load. The lesser of V and V governs the punching capacity of flat plates. If V turns out to be governing, then the displacement of the flat plate is computed according to Section 2.2 with a decreased critical value cpu so that V becomes equal to V However, experience from published test results simulating slender flat plates demonstrates that V is governing only when columns are small in relation to the slab thickness and the concrete compression strength is low, which is also evident from Figure 4-7. For flat plates with shear reinforcement, Vs shall be determined with the angle = 45.

2.4 Manual calculation

2.4.1 General
The relation between punching capacity of flat plates and flexural reinforcement ratio is typically as depicted in Figure 2-14. Two limit values for the reinforcement ratio can be identified. When the flexural reinforcement ratio exceeds the value 1, punching occurs without any reinforcement yielding and the punching capacity can be easily determined by the equations given in Section 2.2.3. When the flexural reinforcement ratio is less than the value 2, punching occurs after all reinforcement has reached the yield limit. The punching capacity is then equal to the flexural capacity of the slab. Between these two limits part of the reinforcement yields. The exact estimation of the punching capacity in this region leads to rather complicated equations, the solution of which requires computerized calculations as described in Section 2.2.4. However, if the curved relation is replaced by a linear relation as indicated in Figure 2-15, the punching capacity can be easily determined even in this region.

29

V 1500 V
1

kN

V2

1000

500

0.5

1.0

1.5

Figure 2-15

Punching capacity V versus reinforcement ratio. (fcc = 30 MPa, fsy =500 MPa, d = 0.25 m, B = 0.5 m, c = 3.2 m)

2.4.2 Reinforcement limit 1

The reinforcement limit 1 is estimated by trial and error calculations until s is equal to fsy: Without shear reinforcement
E c10
4 f f 3 = 1 0.61 cc 21500 cc 150 10 1

(2.10)

n 1 =

Es 1 Ec10
0.1

(2.6)
1

2 cpu = 0.0010 25 x = d n1 1 1 + n1 f cc dx s = Es cpu x

0.15 3 x

(2.81)

The punching capacity for reinforcement ratio exceeding 1 is then determined according to Section 2.2.3.

30

With shear reinforcement f = 0.5 + 0.31 - cc 100 E c15

2

(2.47)
0.1

f cc f cc = 0.0015 25 Es 1 Ec15

f 1.1 cc 190

(2.45)

ns 1 =

1 1 1 cpus = 0.0015 25 xs = d ns 1 + 4 2 n 2 s 1 f cc d xs s = Es cpus xs

0.1

x s (2.82)

1 0.15 3

The punching capacity for reinforcement ratio exceeding 1 is then determined according to Section 2.2.5.

2.4.3 Reinforcement limit 2

Without shear reinforcement
at the slab edge at punching due to the rigid body The additional tangential curvature f 2 rotation after first yield at the column can be derived from Eqs. (2.33) and (2.34):

cpu = 10
xpu = d

E c10 0.150 10 3 2d f sy 2
f sy

25 f cc

0.3

(2.33) (2.34)

cpu Ec10
B c cpu sy x pu d x

22

2 f 2 =
with n 2 =

(2.83)

Es 2 1 + 1 2 and x = d n 2 E c10 n 2

The additional curvature at the slab edge can also be expressed as

2 1 B sy c 2 2 = f 2 1 B d x 4 1 c

B sy = d x 1 0.51 + c

(2.84)

31

Only a few iterations are normally required to determine the reinforcement ratio 2 that makes the two curvature expressions equal. The curvature according to Eq. (2.83) decreases rapidly with increasing , and the curvature according to Eq. (2.84) increases slowly with increasing . The punching capacity up to the reinforcement ratio 2 is equal to the flexural capacity at overall yield, Vy2: V = V y2 =

f sy 2 f sy d 2 1 0 . 5 B f cc 1 c

(2.85)

With shear reinforcement The calculation is performed in the same way as without shear reinforcement: Ec15 0.150 15 3 f sy d 2 25 f cc
0.3

cpus = 10
x pus = d

(2.54) (2.55)

f sy 2 cpus Ec15 B c cpus sy x pus d xs

= 2 f 2

(2.86)

with ns 2 =

1 Es 1 1 2 and xs = d n s 2 + 4 2 n Ec15 2 s 2

(2.48)

The additional curvature at the slab edge can also be expressed as

= f 2 B 1 0.51 + d xs c

sy

(2.87)

2.4.4 Transition zone between 1 and 2

The punching capacity V is determined by linear interpolation:
V = V2 +

2 (V1 V2 ) 1 2

(2.88)

32

2.4.5 Tabulated values for 1 and 2

In order to facilitate calculations the limit values 1 and 2 can be tabulated for common standard designs. Examples are given in Tables 2-1 and 2-2. The reinforcement ratios 2 in Table 2-2 are especially interesting because they represent the limits below which the flexural reinforcement within the column strip can be fully utilized without correction with respect to punching.

Table 2-1 Reinforcement ratio 1 % for fsy = 500 MPa

d (m)

Without shear reinforcement Concrete cylinder strength, fck (MPa) 20 30 1.014 0.916 0.843 40 1.176 1.062 0.977 50 1.310 1.183 1.089 60 1.421 1.283 1.180

With shear reinforcement Concrete cylinder strength, fck (MPa) 20 1.416 1.283 1.183 30 1.856 1.681 1.550 40 2.175 1.970 1.816 50 2.401 2.174 2.004 60 2.558 2.316 2.135

0.20 0.25 0.30

0.821 0.742 0.683

Table 2-2 Reinforcement ratio 2 % for fsy = 500 MPa.

d (m)

B c

Without shear reinforcement Concrete cylinder strength, fck (MPa) 20 30 40 50 60

With shear reinforcement Concrete cylinder strength, fck (MPa) 20 30 40 50 60

0.1 0.20 0.2 0.3 0.1 0.25 0.2 0.3 0.1 0.30 0.2 0.3

0.375 0.462 0.535 0.596 0.646 0.697 0.893 1.032 1.129 1.195 0.496 0.613 0.710 0.791 0.857 0.926 1.184 1.366 1.493 1.579 0.577 0.712 0.825 0.919 0.996 1.078 1.376 1.586 1.732 1.831 0.338 0.416 0.482 0.537 0.581 0.627 0.805 0.930 1.018 1.077 0.447 0.552 0.640 0.713 0.772 0.834 1.068 1.232 1.347 1.425 0.520 0.642 0.744 0.829 0.899 0.971 1.241 1.432 1.564 1.654 0.310 0.382 0.442 0.493 0.534 0.575 0.739 0.854 0.935 0.990 0.411 0.507 0.588 0.655 0.709 0.766 0.981 1.133 1.239 1.311 0.478 0.590 0.684 0.762 0.826 0.892 1.141 1.317 1.439 1.522

33

2.5 Comparison with test results

2.5.1 Influence of bending moment

160

50 457 865 915 3000

1

865 915 457

v
Figure 2-16

Test set-up, Regan (1986)

Regan (1986) made a very illustrative test with specimens subjected to a bending moment at the slab boundary as shown in Figure 2-16. The specimens were 100 mm thick and their central panels were reinforced with 10 c/c 75 (fsy = 525 MPa) both ways in the top and 8 c/c 75 (fsy = 510 MPa) both ways in the bottom. The average effective depths were 80 mm and 82 mm respectively. An upward load was applied at the centre through a 160 mm square plate and downward line loads were applied at the four sides of the 1.83 m square. The assembly was supported on rollers positioned 0.457 m beyond the downward loads. By varying the ratios of the upward and downward loads differing reactions could be produced at the roller supports, thus changing the ratio between the central load (V) and the restraining moments (m1) at the edges of the 1.83 m square.

34

All slabs failed in punching and the test data are summarized in Table 2-3 together with predictions according to the Model Code 90 and the theory of this thesis. The Model Code 90 may represent the common code approach where the punching failure load is related to formal shear strength irrespective of the bending moment in the slab near the column. The presented theory on the other hand assumes that punching occurs when the tangential strain in the concrete near the column reaches a critical value. That strain is a function of the bending moment in the slab near the column.

Table 2-3
Slab

Comparison of test results by Regan (1986) with predictions of Model Code 90 and the presented theory.
fcc (MPa) m1/V Vtest (kN) 0 0.017 0.036 0.049 190 236 248 262 MC 90 Vcalc (kN) 193 210 198 205 Theory Vcalc (kN) 180 217 224 254 MC 90 Vtest/Vcalc 0.984 1.124 1.252 1.278 Theory Vtest/Vcalc 1.056 1.088 1.107 1.031

IV/1 IV/2 IV/3 IV/4

26.2 34.0 28.3 31.3

It is evident from Table 2-1 that the punching failure cannot be treated as a pure shear force failure; the bending moment in the slab at the column plays a decisive role for the punching failure mechanism and the resulting punching capacity. The punching capacity in the tests increased when the bending moment in the slab at the column versus the column reaction V decreased. Most probably, the opposite is also valid, i.e. the punching capacity will decrease if the bending moment in the slab versus the column reaction V increases. That occurs for instance for the bending moment in the long direction in flat plates with rectangular panels, which is confirmed by specimen S1 in Kinnunen et al (1980) (see Table 2-4). Nylander and Sundquist (1972) concluded that if flexural reinforcement has to be added due to punching, then the required flexural reinforcement ratios x and y in the two orthogonal directions shall be increased with the same factor to k x and k y, because an increase of only the lesser of the two reinforcement ratios did not increase the punching capacity in their tests. These findings have unfortunately never been incorporated in Swedish concrete codes and handbooks.

2.5.2 Influence of concrete mechanical properties

The punching failure modes for slender flat plates and compact footings are fundamentally different. Slender flat plates usually display a sudden brittle failure often characterized as explosive. Compact footings display a gradual failure similar to the failure of cylinders for testing of concrete compression strength.

35

Flat plates seem to fail when the tangential strain in the concrete reaches a critical value. Compact footings seem to fail when the inclined compression stress reaches the failure stress in bi-axial compression. These observations indicate that the concrete E-modulus has influence on the punching strength of flat plates. This property is traditionally recorded neither for test specimens nor for actual structures. The relation between compression strength and E-modulus as given by Model Code 90 has therefore been used for the verification in Table 2-4. This relation is at best a good approximation, which is confirmed by those tests where the E-modulus was actually recorded. The recorded values by for instance Hallgren (1996) were consistently lower than the values derived from the compression strengths according to Model Code 90. The difference was still larger for the specimen described by Obolt et al (2000). The recorded E-modulus was there only 79 % of the value according to Model Code 90, probably due to a concrete mix design with aggregates from sedimentary rock. This had a large impact on the calculated punching capacity where the theoretical capacity with the recorded Emodulus was only 83 % of the capacity with E-modulus according to Model Code 90. The E-modulus of concrete thus seems to be an important concrete property for prediction of the punching strength. Not only the compression strength but also the E-modulus should therefore be recorded for test specimens and should be specified on structural drawings for flat plates.

2.5.3 Comparison with test results for flat plates and column footings
The theory is validated by comparison with published test results in Tables 2-4 to 2-7. Only specimens with normal density aggregates are included. The column size in relation to slab depth is represented by the parameter B/d, where a square column with width a is replaced by a circular column with the same perimeter, B = 4a / . The slab slenderness is represented by the expression (c B)/2d, where a square column is replaced by a circular column with the same bending moment reduction effect, B = 3a/8. The test specimens simulating flat plates listed in Table 2-4 cover a very wide range of conditions. The reinforcement ratio varies from 0.35 % up to 3.7 % and the yield strength varies from 300 MPa up to more than 700 MPa. Concrete grades vary from 14 MPa up to more than 100 MPa. The effective depth of the specimens varies from 70 mm up to 619 mm and the column width versus the effective depth of the slab varies between 1.2 and 4.0. Some of the duplicated tests by Kinnunen and Nylander (1960), Tolf (1988) and Tomaszewicz (1993) display a capacity scatter, which is larger than the usual scatter observed for cylinder compression tests. The variation coefficient 0.073 for the punching capacity predictions in Table 2-4 must therefore be regarded as a good verification of the theory for flat plates, with a prediction scatter approaching the inevitable material strength scatter. Furthermore, the simple and comprehensible failure model is based on recordable data for the stress-strain relation of concrete in uniaxial compression combined with prevailing knowledge of concrete properties in biaxial compression. These base properties can simply not be manipulated or tuned, they are directly related to the recorded compression strength of the test specimens. 36

The theory for column footings is more intricate, because it utilizes a rough estimate of the decreasing compression strength of the column capital with increasing perimeter versus the compression zone depth. However, the variation coefficient 0.092 in Table 2-5 indicates that the presented strut-and-tie model seems to describe the structural behaviour well enough to give a reasonably good estimate of the punching capacity, which at least is a better prediction result than any existing concrete code method. The small scatter in Table 2-6 for specimens with shear reinforcement is partly due to the fact that several specimens failed at loads close to the load corresponding to overall yield of the flexural reinforcement a case that is trivial for the presented theory. However, the failure capacity is predicted even for those specimens where the reinforcement did not reach overall yield. The two specimens of Sundquist (1977) displayed a very ductile behaviour with overall yield, but they did not reach the theoretical yield capacity, which indicates that the bent down reinforcement bars were not fully active in resisting the bending moment as assumed in Nylander and Kinnunen (1990). Some of the slabs in Table 2-6 were provided with an extremely large amount of shear reinforcement, but punching failures still occurred within the shear reinforced zone, which demonstrates that the code approach with the capacity taken as Vu = 0.75Vc + Vs must be utilized with caution. The upper bound 1.6Vc according to Model Code 90 appears well advised, where Vc is the nominal capacity without shear reinforcement. However, larger capacity than 1.6Vc can be achieved if the slab is provided with ductility reinforcement described in Chapter 5. Predicted deflection and concrete strain in the tangential direction of flat plate specimens are in Table 2-7 compared to recorded values, whenever reported. The good agreement between theory and reality confirms that the presented model can predict the punching capacity as well as the slab deflection and the concrete strain near the column, which forms the prerequisite for the approach in Chapter 3 about eccentric punching. It is noteworthy that the theory can predict the large deflection and the sudden punching failure in slabs where all the reinforcement yields across the slab width. This is a strong support for the hypothesis that punching of flat plates occurs when the flexural compression strain in the slab reaches a critical value, which is further supported by the tests with varying bending moment described in Section 2.5.1.
Figure 2-15 displays a typical curve for the punching capacity versus the flexural reinforcement ratio in a flat plate. It is evident that if the theory can predict the capacity for > 1, then any reasonable transition curve between 1 and 2 will give a good estimate of the punching capacity in this range as well, because the capacity when all reinforcement yields (for < 2) is well-defined by the fan-type yield line configuration. That is why it is most important that a theory for punching capacity should primarily have the ability to predict the punching failure at such high reinforcement ratios that no reinforcement yields before punching. It is then logical that the moment distribution according to the theory of elasticity should be applied in that case. This moment distribution differs radically from the moment distribution corresponding to rigid body sector elements rotating around a support perimeter near the column edge, which is used by Kinnunen and Nylander (1960) and Hallgren (1996) even for elastic conditions with no reinforcement yielding.

37

Table 2-4
Authors

Test results, flat plate specimens. For explanations, see next page.
Test slab No.

fcc
MPa

fsy
MPa

%
1.16 " " " 2.50 " " 3.74 " " 1.18 2.50 3.74 0.554 0.476 " 1.01 2.00 3.02 0.80 0.79 1.01 1.04 0.49 0.48 1.38 1.50 1.31

d mm
118 " " " 114 " " " " " 118 114 " 121 114 " " " " 117 118 128 124 123 125 114 " 240

c mm
1780 " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " "
1710 " " " " "

Column size mm
254 " " " " " " " " " 356 " " " 254 " " " "
150 " 300 " " "

B d
2.74 " " " 2.84 " " " " " 3.84 3.98 " 3.75 2.84 " " " " 1.28 1.27 2.34 2.42 2.44 2.40 1.70 3.41 2.08

cB 2d
6.27 " " " 6.50 " " " " " 5.76 5.97 " 5.62 6.50 " " " " 6.67 6.61 5.51 5.69 5.73 5.64 7.02 6.23 4.48

s
MPa

Vcalc
kN

Vtest
kN

Vtest Vcalc
1.043 1.000 0.992 1.063 1.050 0.912 1.140 1.030 1.148 1.040 1.018 1.008 0.931 1.3264 1.3094 1.4394 1.2374 0.988 0.965 0970 1.034 0.964 0.974 1.1174 1.0714 1.026 1.099 1.152

Elstner, Hognestad (1956)

A-1b A-1c A1-d A-1e A-2b A-2c A-7b A-3b A-3c A-3d A-4 A-5 A-6 A-13 B-1 B-2 B-4 B-9 B -14 5 6 24 25 32 33 R2 M1A

25.2 29.0 36.8 20.3 19.5 37.4 27.9 22.6 26.5 34.5 26.1 27.8 25.0 26.2 14.2 47.6 47.7 43.9 50.5 26.8 26.2 26.4 25.1 26.3 26.6 26.5 20.8 28.5

332 " " " 321 " " " " " 332 321 " 294 324 321 303 341 325 441 454 455 451 448 462 328 481 555

fsy " " " 256 fsy 297 198 212 237 fsy 297 207 fsy " " " " 324 fsy " " " " " fsy 390 381

350 356 354 335 381 512 449 432 465 526 393 530 535 178 136 139 270 511 599 263 266 446 419 231 241 303 394 1470

365 356 351 356 400 467 512 445 534 547 400 534 498 236 178 200 334 505 578 255 275 430 408 258 258 311 433 1694

Kinnunen, Nylander (1960)

Moe (1961) Schaeidt et al (1970) Marti et al (1977) Pralong et al (1979) Kinnunen, Nylander, Tolf (1980) Tolf (1988)

1780 "
2650

152 305
500

P-2

34.6

558

1.44

145

2600

300

2.07

7.93

453

569

600

1.054

P-5

26.2

515

1.34

154

2600

300

1.95

7.47

421

551

569

1.033

S1

30.6

621

0.82 0.40

619

4680 2340

800

1.29

3.13 1.24

404

4780

4915

1.028

S1.1 S1.2 S2.1 S2.2 S1.3 S1.4 S2.3 S2.4

28.6 22.9 24.2 22.9 26.6 25.1 25.4 24.2

706 701 657 670 720 712 668 664

0.80 0.81 0.80 0.80 0.35 0.34 0.34 0.35

100 99 200 199 98 99 200 197

1190 " 2380 " 1190 " 2380 "

125 " 250 " 125 " 250 "

1.25 1.26 1.25 1.26 1.28 1.26 1.25 1.27

5.38 5.43 5.38 5.40 5.49 5.43 5.38 5.46

699 584 483 465 fsy " " "

2291 1891 6301 5981 1471 1401 4531 4351

216 194 603 600 145 148 489 444

0.943 1.026 0.957 1.003 0.986 1.057 1.079 1.021

38

Table 2-4
Authors

Continued from previous page.

Test slab No.
HS 1 HS 2 HS 3 HS 4 HS 5 HS 6 HS 7 HS 8 HS 9 HS 10 HS 11 HS 12 HS 13 HS 14 HS 15 NS 1 NS 2 65-1-1 95-1-1 115-1-1 95-1-3 65-2-1 95-2-1D 95-2-1 115-2-1 95-2-3 95-2-3D 95-2-3D+ 115-2-3 95-3-1

fcc

MPa
67 70 69 66 68 70 74 69 74 80 70 75 68 72 71 42 30 64 84 112 90 70 88 87 119 90 80 98 108 85 90 91 86 92 109 84 95 21

fsy

MPa
490 " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " 500 " " " 500 " " " " " " " " 643 627 620 596 633 634 631 569

%
0.49 0.84 1.47 2.37 0.64 0.94 1.19 1.11 1.61 2.33 0.95 1.52 2.00 1.47 " " 0.94 1.49 " " 2.55 1.75 " " " 2.62 " " " 1.84 0.80 0.80 0.82 1.19 0.60 0.33 0.80 0.80

d mm
95 " " 90 125 120 95 120 " " 70 " " 95 " " 120 275 " " " 200 " " " 200 " " " 88 200 200 194 200 201 202 198 190

c mm
1500 " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " 2500 " " " 2200 " " " 2200 " " " 1100
2400 " " " " " " 2400

Column size mm
150 " " " " " " " " " " " " 220 300 150 " 200 " " " 150 " " " 150 " " " 100
250 " " " " " " 400

B d
2.01 " " 2.12 1.53 1.59 2.01 1.59 " " 2.73 " " 2.95 4.02 2.01 1.59 0.93 " " " 0.96 " " " " " " " 1.27 1.25 1.25 1.29 1.25 1.24 1.24 1.26 2.68

cB 2d
6.96 " " 7.35 5.29 5.51 6.96 5.51 " " 9.45 " " 6.53 6.04 6.96 5.51 4.12 " " " 5.06 " " " " " " " 4.91 5.38 " 5.54 5.38 5.35 5.32 5.43 5.08

Vcalc
kN

Vtest
kN

MPa
fsy " " 460 fsy " " " " 446 fsy " " " " " " 443 476 fy 325 449 475 474 fsy 354 345 361 401 fsy fy " " " " " " 442

Vtest Vcalc
1.2364 1.029 1.008 1.139 1.1344 1.150 1.102 0.927 0.975 1.030 1.3243,4 1.2173 1.1513 1.203 1.145 1.049 1.103 1.049 1.065 1.091 0.996 1.035 0.892 1.057 1.069 1.075 0.956 1.055 1.105 0.971 0.922 0.971 0.965 0.891 1.006 1.000 0.906 0.921

Marzouk, Hussein (1991)

144 242 353 367 322 425 323 469 557 626 148 212 232 414 469 305 349 1955 2113 2245 2409 1159 1233 1230 1310 1349 1308 1375 1403 340 1057 1051 921 1169 954 565 1042 6685 806 302 304 2411

178 249 356 418 365 489 356 436 543 645 196 258 267 498 560 320 396 2050 2250 2450 2400 1200 1100 1300 1400 1450 1250 1450 1550 330 965 1021 889 1041 960 565 944 615

Tomaszewicz (1993)

Hallgren (1996) 2)

HSC0 HSC1 HSC2 HSC4 HSC6 HSC9 N/HSC8

Obolt et al (2000) Sundquist, Kinnunen (2004b)

C1 C2 D1

24.0 24.4 27.2

718 " "

0.80 0.80 0.64

100 100 125

1190 " "

250 250 125

2.50 2.50 1.00

4.70 4.70 4.26

688 692 583

270 250 265

0.894 0.822 1.100

Mean value Vtest / Vcalc = 1.021(1 0.073) 1) 2) 3) 4) 5) Failure mode V governing. Recorded Ec0-values used instead of Eq. (2.3). Not included in the statistical evaluation due to the small effective depth 70 mm. Overall yield with membrane action and strain hardening, therefore not included in the statistical evaluation. Recorded Ec0 value 21.7 GPa used instead of Eq. (2.3) which would give Ec0 = 27.5 GPa and Vcalc = 806 kN.

39

Table 2-5
Authors
Test slab No.
B-1 B-2 B-3 B-4 V-2 B-4/2 B-4/3 B-4/4 C-1 C-3 H-2 H-3 S1-H S1 S2 S3 S4 S7 S8 S9 S12 S13 S11 S14 LBU1 LBU2 LBU3 KBU1 KBU2 KSU1 KSU2 KSU3 Ti-1A Ti-2A Ti-3A

Test results, column footings.

MPa
23.5 23.6 28.1 24.1 25.9 25.3 24.3 24.8 28.1 28.7 29.4 26.2 30.6 40 28.4 29.8 25.7 14.4 31.4 25.5 27.3 19.8 28.2 21.4 26.6 32.6 30.0 35.4 24.6 26.7 29.0 27.7 40.7 36.0 32.8

fcc

MPa
444 433 407 387 477 449 455 387 564 572 572 510 512 621 " " " " " " " " " " 679 700 699 679 687 689 689 695 500 " "

fsy

%
0.208 0.434 0.642 0.866 0.501 0.784 0.805 0.830 0.275 0.430 0.333 0.390 0.862 0.401 0.399 0.388 0.659 0.395 0.239 0.398 0.413 0.416 0.40 0.39 0.400 0.372 0.394 0.400 0.392 0.573 0.584 0.565 1.25 1.25 1.18

d mm
296 294 293 292 294 290 294 292 290 290 375 450 290 242 243 250 232 246 245 244 242 244 235 240 205 220 208 205 209 210 206 208 172 172 246

Line load c mm

Slab width b mm
1500 " " " " " " " " " " " "

Column size mm
300 " " " " " " " 150 450 300 " "
250 " " " " " " " "

B d
1.3 " " " " " " " 0.66 1.98 1.02 0.85 1.32 1.03 1.03 1.00 1.08 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.03 1.02 1.06 1.04 4.88 4.55 4.81 4.88 4.78 2.38 2.43 2.40 1.02 1.02 1.02

cB 2d
1.3 " " " " " " " 1.64 1.03 1.03 0.86 1.34 0.89 0.89 0.87 0.93 0.88 0.88 0.89 0.79 0.78 0.83 0.81 1.46 " " " " 2.64 " " 1.18 1.82 1.18

Vcalc
kN

Vtest
kN

Vtest Vcalc
1.1402 1.063 1.063 1.011 1.089 1.115 1.109 0.995 1.357 0.895 0.991 1.124 1.053 1.041 1.050 0.987 0.998 1.169 1.040 1.026 1.094 1.105 0.918 1.066 0.996 0.928 1.107 0.901 1.062 1.047 0.966 0.872 0.824 1.071 0.964

Dieterle (1978) Dieterle, Rostasy (1981)

surface load

907 1405 1905 1845 1621 1839 1829 1863 633 2646 2255 2773 2249 1309 967 1021 994 532 880 881 959 727 1296 1035 1412 1859 1593 1784 1364 992 1053 1004 958 624 1407

1034 1493 2025 1865 1765 2050 2028 1853 859 2367 2234 3116 2368 1363 1015 1008 992 622 915 904 1049 803 1190 1103 1406 1725 1763 1607 1448 1039 1017 875 789 668 1356

Hallgren, Kinnunen, Nylander (1983, 1998)

line load surface load

Sundquist, Kinnunen (2004a)

600 " " " " " " 674 "

850 " " " " " " 960 " 850 "

" "
1000 " " " " 500 " " 175 175 250

1600 " " " " " " " 560 800 800

2000 " " " " 2300 " 1730

Timm (2004)

760 1000 1080

Mean value Vtest / Vcalc = 1.032(1 0.095) D B 1) for footing with surface load. 3d 2d 2) Overall yield with strain hardening, therefore not included in statistical evaluation.

40

Table 2-6
Authors

Test results, flat plates with shear reinforcement.

Test slab No.
62 63 64 65 66 67 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 1) 1) 1) 1) 2) 2) 1) 1) 1) 1) 1) 1) 2) 2)

fcc
MPa

fsy
MPa

%
0.94 0.94 1.05 1.05 0.78 0.77 1.22 1.20 1.41 1.42 1.06 1.07 1.08 1.09
0.82 1.18 0.63 0.71 0.71 1.12 1.14 1.14 1.27 0.99

d mm
120 120 120 121 119 121 122 125 120 119 121 120 120 119 200 201 200 169 168 230 225 220 267 150

c mm
1710 " " " " "

column size mm
150 " " " " " 300 " " " " " " " 250 " " 200 250 300 " " 500 250

B d
1.25 " " " " " 2.50 " " " " " " " 1.25 " " 1.51 1.49 1.66 1.70 1.74 1.87 2.12

cB 2d
6.50 " " " " " 5.88 " " " " " " " 5.38 " " 4.36 4.35 3.58 3.66 3.74 2.81 6.23

Vy2 kN
364 360 400 409 299 303 555 569 622 627 457 456 463 456 1338 1831 1033 605 601 1819 1765 1653 3023 981

Vcalc kN
364 360 399 406 299 303 555 569 618 621 457 456 463 456 1338 1687 1033 605 601 1819 1765 1540 3022 710

Vtest kN
346 353 371 373 292 294 534 549 606 612 453 471 459 459 1329 1631 1106 580 560 2119 1904 1537 2956 1006

Vtest Vcalc
0.950 0.981 0.930 0.919 0.977 0.970 0.962 0.965 0.981 0.986 0.991 1.033 0.991 1.007 4) 4) 4) 4) 4) 4) 4) 4) 4) 4) 4) 4) 4) 4)

Andersson (1963)

26.3 26.4 26.4 26.3 26.8 27.4 27.0 28.0 28.2 28.5 28.1 25.9 27.1 23.5 92 91 85 26.8 20.4 40.0 36.0 21.6 36.0 20

439 435 435 437 438 434 457 453 461 469 436 440 442 442 632 604 630 454 457 450 " " " 691

" " " " " " " "

2400 " " 1710 " 2000 " " " 2165

Hallgren (1966) Sundquist (1977) Andr et al (1979)

HSC3s 1) HSC5s 1) HSC7s 1) D 1) E 1) 1 2 3 4 7 3) 3) 3) 3) 1+ 2)

0.993 0.967 4) 1.071 0.959 5) 0.932 5) 1.165 5) 1.079 0.998 0.978 1.417 6)

Broms (1990b) Yamada et al (1992) Beutel, Hegger (2000)

K5 2) K7 2) PI-I 2) PI-II 2) P2-I 2) P2-II 2) P2-III 2) P3-I 2) P6-I 2) P7-I 2) PP0B 2)

26.0 27.8 27.3 26.2 37.9 29.8 37.5 23.2 46.3 40.0 37.7

568 " 550 550 550 550 550 550 550 550 500

1.53 "

164 " 190 190 190 190 190 220 220 230 121

1500 " 2400 " 8) " " " " " " 2750

300 "

2.33 " 2.68 " " " " 1.85 " " 3.16

3.50 " 5.08 " " " " 4.60 " " 9.90

1662 1667 1287 1283 1299 1289 1298 2286 3497 2868 609

1349 1397 1283 1277 1299 1289 1298 1635 2522 2375 603

1440 1498 1151 1055 1326 1109 1276 1624 2349 2117 579

1.067 7) 1.072 7) 0.897 0.826 1.021 0.860 0.983 0.993 0.931 0.891 0.960 4) 4)

0.806 0.806 0.806 0.806 0.806 1.15 1.753 1.301 1.30

400 " " " " 320 " " 300

7) 7)

Krger et al (2000) Hegger et al (2001)

Z3 Z4 Z5 Z6

3) 3) 3) 3)

24.0 29.2 25.3 37.0

890 890 562 562

0.80 0.80 1.25 1.25

250 " " "

2400 " 9) " "

200 200 263 200

0.80 0.80 1.05 0.80

4.40 4.40 4.27 4.40

3407 3428 3385 3337

1558 1720 1954 2071

1616 1646 2024 1954

1.037 0.957 1.036 0.944

1) 2) 3) 4) 5) 6) 7) 8) 9)

Mean value Vtest/Vcalc = 0.993(1 0.063) Bent bars as shear reinforcement. Vertical stirrups as shear reinforcement. Studs as shear reinforcement. Failure outside shear reinforcement, therefore not included in statistical evaluation. Overall yield with strain hardening therefore not included in statistical evaluation. High capacity due to ductility reinforcement, not included in statistical evaluation. Extremely high shear reinforcement ratio. Slab width 2750 mm with reinforcement over the whole width. Slab width 3000 mm with reinforcement over the whole width.

41

Table 2-7

Tangential concrete strain and deflection at punching. Comparison with test results.
Specimen fcc MPa
26.8 26.2 26.4 25.1 26.3 26.6 26.4 26.3 27.4 27.0 28.2 28.1 27.1 23.5 26.8 20.6

Authors

cpu 103
1.97 1.93 1.64 1.64 2.42 2.40 3.38 3.18 3.76 2.89 2.72 3.21 3.15 3.04 3.22 3.00

test103
1.7 4.0!!

calc 3)
mm
10.6 10.2 9.5 9.5 28.5 27.5 19.9 16.6 28.0 19.5 16.7 27.4 25.5 22.1 22.0 17.0

test
mm
13.0 12.9 10.4 10.4 27.2 26.4 13.2 11.2 14.0 17.1 18.0 13.0 13.0 18.0 24 18

Kinnunen Nylander (1960)

5 6 24 25 32 33 63 1) 65 1) 67 2) 76 78 80 82 83 1) 1) 1) 2) 2)

0.80 0.79 1.01 1.04 0.49 0.48 0.94 1.05 0.77 1.22 1.41 1.06 1.08 1.09 0.71 0.71

Andersson (1963)

4.0 3.8 5.2

2.3 4.3
6.0!! 3.4

Sundquist (1977) Tolf (1988)

D 1) E 1)

S1.1 S1.2 S2.1 S2.2 S1.3 S1.4 S2.3 S2.4 HSC0 HSC1 HSC2 HSC3s 1) HSC4 HSC5s 1) HSC7s 1) HSC9 N/HSC8 NS B1 P2-II 2) P6-I 2)

28.6 22.9 24.2 22.9 26.6 25.1 25.4 24.2 90 91 86 92 92 91 85 84 95 29.5 45.6 29.8 46.3

0.80 0.81 0.80 0.80 0.35 0.34 0.34 0.35 0.80 0.80 0.82 0.82 1.19 1.18 0.63 0.33 0.80 0.80 0.31 0.806 1.753

1.58 1.45 1.17 1.15 2.09 1.93 1.28 1.25 1.45 1.46 1.38 2.67 1.21 2.27 3.00 2.17 1.47 1.31 2.2 2.65 1.80

1.8 2.8 1.2 1.8 2.4 2.4 1.2 1.2 1.55 1.66 1.35 4.0 1.26 2.25 3.1 1.98 1.64 1.50 3.0

5.8 5.0 8.2 8.0 10.2 9.1 12.0 11.7 12.7 12.9 11.8 26.8 9.7 17.3 40.1 34.7 13.1 9.3 34.8 29.7 11.1

5.5

7.5 15.5 16.0

Hallgren (1996)

13.5 12.5 10.5 30 10 16 33 29 13.5 9.3 35 25 14

Hassanzadeh (1996) Hassanzadeh (1998) Beutel, Hegger (2000) Krger et al (2000)

PP0B 2)

37.7

1.30

2.88

45.8

36

1) Bent bars as shear reinforcement. 2) Vertical stirrups as shear reinforcement. 3) Calculated deflection at calculated punching load.

42

2.5.4 Code predictions

The recorded ultimate loads for flat plates shown in Table 2-4 are in Table 2-8 compared to ultimate load predictions according to the design codes ACI 318-02, Model Code 90 and BBK 04. These codes treat punching as a form of shear failure. Punching is assumed to occur when the shear stress at a control section on a certain distance from the column reaches a critical value. Ultimate punching capacity according to ACI 318-02 The control section is placed at the distance 0.5d from the column edge. A control section with four straight sides is permitted for square and rectangular columns. Vu = f v2 4d (a + d ) for square columns ; Vu = f v2 d (B + d ) for circular columns
f v2 = f ck

for a 4d and fck 69 MPa

Ultimate punching capacity according to Model Code 90 The control section is placed 2 d outside the column edge.
Vu = f v d (4a + 4 d ) for square columns ; Vu = f v d (B + 4d ) for circular columns

f v = 1.5 0.12 (100 f ck ) 3 ;

(upper limit for fck = 80 MPa disregarded in Table 2-8)

= 1+

0.200 d

with d in (m)

Ultimate punching capacity according to BBK 04 The control section is placed 0.5 d outside the column edge. Vu = f v2 d (4a + d ) for square columns ; Vu = f v2 d (B + d ) for circular columns f v2 = (1 + 50 ) 0.45 f ctk with 0.01

= 1.6 d for 0.2 d 0.5 m

f ctk 0.19( f ck ) 3 with f ck = 0.8 f c, cube and fck 48 MPa f ctk 0.19( f ck ) 3 [1 0.008( f ck 48)] with f ck = 0.8 f c, cube and 48< fck 64 MPa
2 2

43

The size effect factor is in design taken as 1.4 for d 0.2 m according to BBK 04. In order to get realistic evaluation of test specimens with d less than 0.2 m, the expression for is assumed valid also for d < 0.2 m. All values for Vu are intended to reflect the ultimate capacity according to the different codes. That is why fv is multiplied by 1.5 for Model Code 90, since the design strength instead of the ultimate strength is given in this code. The load factors are 1.2 for dead load and 1.6 for live load according to ACI 318-02. The corresponding values are 1.35 and 1.5 for Model Code 90. The strength reduction factors in design differ also. They are 0.75 for the American Code and 1/1.5 = 0.67 for the European Code. The Swedish load factors are 1.0 and 1.3, which is compensated by the strength reduction factor 1/(1.21.5) for brittle punching failure mode. If the total load comprises 50 % dead load and 50 % live load the total safety factors become: ACI 318-02: Model Code 90: BBK 04:

= 0.5(1.2 + 1.6 ) / 0.75 = 1.87

= 0.5(1.35 + 1.5)1.5 = 2.14

= 0.5(1.0 + 1.3)1.2 1.5 = 2.07

Model Code 90 predicts the ultimate capacity with a small scatter, which is no wonder because the code expressions are based on regression analysis of a large amount of test results. BBK 04 displays a larger scatter and a very conservative estimate of the ultimate capacity. The American Code displays the largest scatter, because the code considers neither the strength increase with increasing flexural reinforcement ratio nor the strength reduction with increasing specimen size. When comparing Table 2-4 and Table 2-8 it is evident that the presented theory can predict the punching capacity of flat plates better than the studied design codes. No comparison is made for column footings because the code provisions seem to be unrealistic for compact slabs.

44

Table 2-8

Authors

Test slab No.

Observed ultimate loads of flat plate specimens compared to predictions according to the codes ACI 318-02, Model Code 90, BBK 04. For explanations see next page. Column Vtest Vtest /Vcalc
fcc MPa
25.2 29.0 36.8 20.3 19.5 37.4 27.9 22.6 26.5 34.5 26.1 27.8 25.0 26.2 14.2 47.6 47.7 43.9 50.5 26.8 26.2 26.4 25.1 26.3 26.6 26.5 20.8 28.5

fsy MPa
332 " " " 321 " " " " " 332 321 " 294 324 321 303 341 325 441 454 455 451 448 462 328 481 555

%
1.16 " " " 2.50 " " 3.74 " " 1.18 2.50 3.74 0.554 0.476 " 1.01 2.00 3.02 0.80 0.79 1.01 1.04 0.49 0.48 1.38 1.50 1.31

d mm
118 " " " 114 " " " " " 118 114 " 121 114 " " " " 117 118 128 124 123 125 114 " 240

c mm

size mm
254 " " " " " " " " " 356 " " " 254 " " " "

kN
365 356 351 356 400 467 512 445 534 547 400 534 498 236 178 200 334 505 578 255 275 430 408 258 258 311 433 1694

ACI 318-02

MC 90

BBK 04

Elstner, Hognestad (1956)

A-1b A-1c A1-d A-1e A2-b A-2c A-7b A-3b A-3c A-3d A-4 A-5 A-6 A-13 B-1 B-2 B-4 B-9 B -14 5 6 24 25 32 33 R2 M1A

1780 " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " "
1710 " " " " "

1.241 1.130 0.989 1.348 1.619 1.365 1.736 1.673 1.854 1.663 1.050 1.416 1.395 2) 2) 2) 2) 1.361 1.456 1.509 1.618 1.458 1.478 2) 2) 1.495 1.493 1.706

0.971 0.904 0.822 1.017 0.937 0.881 1.064 0.867 0.987 0.927 0.899 0.954 0.806 2) 2) 2) 2) 0.973 0.926 0.973 1.050 1.089 1.085 2) 2) 0.963 1.088 1.337

1.367 1.211 1.020 1.541 1.852 1.398 1.862 1.862 2.015 1.731 1.130 1.504 1.505 2) 2) 2) 2) 1.358 1.417 1.635 1.774 1.493 1.522 2) 2) 1.663 1.672 1.866

Kinnunen, Nylander (1960)

150 " 300 " " "

Moe (1961) Schaeidt et al (1970) Marti et al (1977) Pralong et al (1979) Kinnunen, Nylander, Tolf (1980) Tolf (1988)

1780 "
2650

152 305
500

P-2

34.6

558

1.44

145

2600

300

600

1.511

1.040

1.493

P-5

26.2

515

1.34

154

2600

300

569

1.517

1.018

1.585

S1

30.6

621

0.574

619

4680

800

4915

0.966

1.051

1.687

S1.1 S1.2 S2.1 S2.2 S1.3 S1.4 S2.3 S2.4

28.6 22.9 24.2 22.9 26.6 25.1 25.4 24.2

706 701 657 670 720 712 668 664

0.80 0.81 0.80 0.80 0.35 0.34 0.34 0.35

100 99 200 199 98 99 200 197

1190 " 2380 " 1190 " 2380 "

125 " 250 " 125 " 250 "

216 194 603 600 145 148 489 444

1.714 1.748 1.300 1.339 1.229 1.276 1.029 0.978

1.064 1.037 0.945 0.966 0.993 1.028 1.004 0.938

1.815 1.921 1.523 1.579 1.576 1.644 1.430 1.362

45

Table 2-8 Continued from previous page.

Authors Test slab No.
HS 1 HS 2 HS 3 HS 4 HS 5 HS 6 HS 7 HS 8 HS 9 HS 10 HS 11 HS 12 HS 13 HS 14 HS 15 NS 1 NS 2 65-1-1 95-1-1 115-1-1 95-1-3 65-2-1 95-2-1D 95-2-1 115-2-1 95-2-3 95-2-3D 95-2-3D+ 115-2-3 95-3-1

fcc MPa
67 70 69 66 68 70 74 69 74 80 70 75 68 72 71 42 30 64 84 112 90 70 88 87 119 90 80 98 108 85 90 91 86 92 104 84 95 21

fsy MPa
490 " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " 500 " " " 500 " " " " " " " " 643 627 620 596 633 634 631 569

%
0.49 0.84 1.47 2.37 0.64 0.94 1.19 1.11 1.61 2.33 0.95 1.52 2.00 1.47 " " 0.94 1.49 " " 2.55 1.75 " " " 2.62 " " " 1.84 0.80 0.80 0.82 1.19 0.60 0.33 0.80 0.80

d mm
95 " " 90 125 120 95 120 " " 70 " " 95 " " 120 275 " " " 200 " " " 200 " " " 88 200 200 194 200 201 202 198 190

c mm
1500 " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " 2500 " " " 2200 " " " 2200 " " " 1100
2400 " " " " " " 2400

Column size mm
150 " " " " " " " " " " " " 220 300 150 " 200 " " " 150 " " " 150 " " " 100
250 " " " " " " 400

Vtest
kN
178 249 356 418 365 489 356 436 543 645 196 258 267 498 560 320 396 2050 2250 2450 2400 1200 1100 1300 1400 1450 1250 1450 1550 330 965 1021 889 1041 960 565 944 615 2) 0.961 1.380 1.786 2) 1.355 4) 1.214 4) 4) 1) 1) 1) 1.469 1.327 1.592 1.451 1.472 4) 4) 4) 1.536 4 4) 4) 4) 4) 4) 4) 4) 4) 4) 4) 4) 4) 2) 4) 0.898

Vtest /Vcalc
ACI 318-02 MC 90 BBK 04

Marzouk, Hussein (1991)

2) 0.852 1.015 1.111 2) 1.161 1.064 0.984 1.058 1.082 1) 1) 1) 1.211 1.186 1.077 1.245 1.150 1.152 1.047 1.004 1.078 0.916 1.086 1.054 1.047 0.939 1.018 1.053 1.024 0.977 1.030 0.949 0.916 1.011 2) 0.924 0.874

3) 3) 3) 1.944 3) 3) 3) 3) 3) 3) 3) 3) 3) 3) 3) 1.608 1.877 1.889 3) 3) 3) 3) 3) 3) 3) 3) 3) 3) 3) 3) 3) 3) 3) 3) 3) 2) 3) 1.147

Tomaszewicz (1993)

Hallgren (1996)

HSC0 HSC1 HSC2 HSC4 HSC6 HSC9 N/HSC8

Obolt et al (2000) Sundquist, Kinnunen (2004b)

C1 C2 D1

24.0 24.4 27.2

718 " "

0.80 0.80 0.64

100 100 125

1190 " "

250 250 125

270 250 265

1.500 1.381 1.550

1.134 1.046 1.023

1.646 1.506 1.791

Mean value Vtest / Vcalc = 1.41(1 0.17) 1.02(1 0.10) 1.60(1 0.15) Compare thesis: Mean value Vtest / Vcalc = 1.021(1 0.073) 1) 2) 3) 4) Not included in the statistical evaluation due to the small effective depth 70 mm. Overall yield with membrane action and strain hardening, therefore not included in the statistical evaluation. fcc (= 0.8 fc,cube) is larger than 64 MPa (= upper limit according to BBK 04). fcc is larger than 69 MPa (= upper limit according to ACI 318-02).

46

3 Theory for eccentric punching

When determining the punching capacity of a flat plate existing design codes presuppose that the transferred moment between slab and column is defined. That bending moment is, however, normally a statically indeterminate quantity, which cannot be estimated as accurately as for a beam-column frame. Therefore, another concept is proposed here imposed slab rotation in relation to the column. Both the imposed rotation and the rotation capacity of a flat plate can be assessed with good accuracy. Conservative results are achieved if the column is considered stiff in relation to the slab.

3.1 Code approach

Transfer of moment between slab and columns so called unbalanced moment can occur due to gravity loading or due to story drift, i.e. the lateral displacement between stories caused by wind or earthquake. As described previously, most codes assume that punching occurs when the shear stress at a control section on a certain distance from the column reaches a critical value. An unbalanced moment is thereby considered partly transferred by eccentricity of shear. The shear stress at the control section due to this part of the unbalanced moment plus the shear stress caused by concentric loading shall fall below the shear stress capacity defined by the code. However, no generally accepted method for assessment of the unbalanced moment seems to exist. When caused by gravity loading or story drift, the unbalanced moment is a statically indeterminate quantity that has to be determined by some form of approximate frame analysis where due respect should be paid to the fact that the flexural reinforcement at the column usually yields before punching occurs. This means that a flexural hinge forms at the column, which in turn implies that an analysis based on elastic conditions cannot correctly describe the true behaviour of the system in the strength limit state.

3.2 Introduction
Due to shortcomings of the code approach, a safer concept is proposed here imposed rotation of the column in relation to the slab (or vice versa). A simple example may describe the principle: Study the first interior column of a flat plate structure with equal span widths in both directions. The column is assumed stiff in relation to the slab:
m = 0.107 qL2

(strip moment per unit width assuming strip acting as beam simply supported on the columns) (strip moment at support assuming zero support rotation)

m = 0.125qL2

47

m = (0.125 0.107 ) qL2 = 0.018qL2

q = 15 kN/m ;
I= h3 L3 = 12 12 32 3
6

=1

32

E = 1010 kN/m2

= m

L 0.018 15 L3 = 12 32 3 = 3.5 10 3 7 3 3EI 3 10 L

In this simplified example, the slab shall be able to resist an imposed slab rotation in relation 3 to the column equal to 3.510 radians. At least six times larger rotations of the column in relation to the flat plate may be imposed due to story drift during a severe earthquake.

3.3 Approximate theory of elasticity

Figure 3-1 depicts a common test set-up for eccentric punching. It resembles the one used for concentric punching described in Chapter 2. The influence of the unbalanced moment is supposed to be mainly concentrated to the close vicinity of the column and therefore the same specimen size as for concentric loading seems to be a reasonable choice. This assumption will be evaluated later in this chapter.
H

H V c

Figure 3-1

Test set-up for eccentric punching.

The fan-type crack pattern at concentric loading is assumed to remain when the column is forced to rotate. The sector elements between the radial flexural cracks will then deflect with varying fictitious deflection in relation to the column as shown in Figure 3-2. The torsional resistance of the sector elements is considered negligible.

48

R0 sin

sin

Figure 3-2

Definition of parameters.

The support reaction of the sector elements is proportional to their deflection. The total reaction R for each half of the specimen is R=

R0 sin c R d = 0 c 2 0

(3.1)

The quantity R is consequently the total shear force that is transferred to the each half of the column due to the column rotation. The relation between unbalanced moment Mu and the maximum value R0 of the support reaction along the slab edge can be expressed as Mu R sin c c c c = 0 sin d = R0 = R0 ; 2 c 2 2 4 2 8 0

M u = R0

c 4

(3.2)

49

The deflection due to a concentric load R0 can be derived from Eqs. (2.27) and (2.28):

2 R0 1 B c c B R0 c c B 4 2 4 2 EI 2 c2 2 EI

(3.3)

The rotation due to an unbalanced moment is

1 =

R c Mu 2 = 0 = c B 8 EI 2 EI

(3.4)

Figure 3-3

Unbalanced moment due to story drift.

Story drift during earthquakes or wind load as illustrated in Figure 3-3 is a common cause for unbalanced moment. The broken lines represent the size of test specimens that are assumed to simulate the behaviour of the slab near the column. The effect of the column rotation within the broken lines is evaluated above. The reaction R according to Eq. (3.1) is conservatively assumed to act at the distance L/4 from the column. If the slab width resisting this force R is assumed equal to the column strip width (L/2), the additional rotation of the column can be assessed as

50

L 2

2 =

RL

16 EI 0.5 L

( 2 )2

Mu RL = 32 EI 4 EI

because R =

R0 4M u and R0 = c

(3.5)

2 2 = = 0.5 ; 1 4

= 1 + 2 = 1 .5

Mu 2 EI

(3.6) (3.7)

M u = 4.2 EI

Compare Aalami (1972) who used the theory of elasticity for an isotropic thin plate to derive M u, el = 4.10 EI (for a/L = 0.05) (3.8)

The simple model shown in Figure 3-2 thus seems to be accurate enough to form basis for a developed model that can describe the non-linear behaviour of a reinforced concrete flat plate subjected to gravity load plus unbalanced moment.

3.4 Model for eccentric punching of flat plates

The model described in the previous section only reflects the global elastic behaviour of the system; it does not consider the local effects of force transfer from the column to the slab or vice versa. Figure 3-4 shows a possible load path for these effects. The total unbalanced moment is assumed transferred to the slab by a strut-and-tie system similar to the model often used for beam-column connections. There is a difference, however. The horizontal compression strut forces in the slab are larger than the tension tie forces from the reinforcement that passes through the column. Circumferential cracking around the column isolates other reinforcement bars from participating in the moment transfer. In-plane forces in the slab therefore balance the compression struts. Any transfer of unbalanced moment by eccentricity of shear in the slab is neglected. Such force effects should be regarded as fictitious quantities that in reality are replaced by the two horizontal compression struts.

51

0.5 M u

0.5 M u

Figure 3-4

Unbalanced moment transfer by strut-and- tie system.

The half of the slab where the unbalanced moment causes additional tension in the top reinforcement for negative moment in the slab is denoted the negative slab half. The opposite half where the unbalanced moment can cause tension in the bottom reinforcement of the slab is consequently called the positive slab half. A sector element in the negative slab half is depicted in Figure 3-5. The large radial compression strut at the column connection is balanced by the tangential reinforcement and to a lesser degree by the few radial reinforcement bars passing through the column or within its close vicinity. The radial compression stress near the column is consequently much larger than at concentric gravity loading. Corresponding forces act on the positive slab half. The tangential tension strains due to the unbalanced moment initially reduce the tangential flexural compression strain due to gravity loading before any tension stress develops in the tangential bottom reinforcement.

Figure 3-5

The slab resists unbalanced moment by radial concrete compression and tangential reinforcement. 52

The relation between concentric column load and slab deflection within the circle with diameter c is depicted in Figure 3-6. The broken line illustrates the behaviour of the slab due to a column rotation. The concentric gravity load V causes the slab deflection V. A column rotation will cause non-uniform reaction intensity along the circle with diameter c as described in the previous section and illustrated in Figure 3-7. The sector element reactions are denoted Rti in the negative slab half and Rbi in the positive slab half. The reactions Rti and Rbi denote the column reactions for a uniform slab deflection sini (all around). Punching failure is assumed to occur when the sum of the fictitious deflection of the slab in the negative slab half due to a column rotation and the deflection V due to concentric gravity loading V reaches the ultimate deflection that is associated with concentric punching failure.

positive slab half

negative slab half

V 1

1 k
I

sin
Rb i

V b i

Rt i
i

sin i

t i

y2

Figure 3-6

Fictitious column reactions Rti and Rbi due to overall slab deflection sini.

53

The tangential flexural stiffness of the slab near the column for column rotation is reduced because the lever arm for the reinforcement is reduced due to the position of the radial compression strut. The reduced stiffness EI1 can be assessed in accordance with Eq. (2.9) with x replaced by h/2: h h EI1 = E s d 3 1 1 2d 6d (3.9)

The mean value EI EI1 , which is equal to kIEI, is assumed to be representative for the overall behaviour of the slab due to a column rotation where EI 2 kI = 1 EI
1

(3.10)

sin

Figure 3-7

Variation of fictitious slab deflection due to column rotation.

Furthermore, the radial compression struts from the column cause a larger radial curvature of the sector elements near the column than at concentric loading. The additional curvature results in an additional column rotation; see Figure 3-8.

54

Relation between unbalanced moment Mu and maximum value R0 of support reaction along slab edge: R c Mu = 0 (3.2) 4 Radial bending moment per unit width along axis x:

mr =

R0 M 1 2 c 1 r = u 2 r c 2 r

(3.11)

Radial compression strain in the slab along axis x due to the horizontal compression struts in the slab:

6m r Ec10 h 2

(3.12)

The major part of the surface shortening r due to the compression strain c along axis x will occur at the column and only a minor part at the slab edge: 6m r Ec0 h
2
c/ 2

B/ 2

c dr =

6M u B 1 2 c dr = ln 1 + 2 c Ec10 h B / 2 r c Ec10 h B 6M u
2

c/2

12 M u c 2r B = ln 1 + 3 c h Ec h B
2
Mu

(3.13)

c
h

Mu R0 2 mr

B r c 2

Figure 3-8

Column rotation due to radial curvature of sector elements.

55

With these assumptions it is possible to determine the flat plate capacity for unbalanced moment for a given concentric column reaction V. The calculation procedure may be best illustrated by a numeric example taken from a well-documented test, Ghali et al (1976), Specimen SM 1.0; see Appendix F and Table 3-1. The calculation steps are: 1. Perform the normal punching evaluation for concentric loading in accordance with Appendix A or B. 2. Determine the deflection V due to the actual column load V. 3. Guess the additional overall deflection 2 due to the imposed ultimate column rotation. Half of this deflection is assumed to affect the slab before column rotation and the other half is assumed to affect the slab after full column rotation in order to simulate the continuously increasing deflection when the column rotates. 4. Determine the additional fictitious varying deflection sin along the circle with diameter c due to a column rotation, where

= ( V - 2M).

(3.14)

Divide each half-circle in n equal parts corresponding to the angels i ; see Figure 3-7. (3.15) n 2n The corresponding total deflections of the sector elements are thus, with regard to the overall deflection M at this stage :

i = i

ti = V + sini + M.
(index t stands for deflection causing tension in top reinforcement)

(3.16)

5. Determine the fictitious reactions Rti for unbalanced moment on the negative slab half due to overall deflections ti in step 4. Correct result is achieved by calculating the reactions from the curve for concentric loading for the deflections

ti = V + kIsini + M
with the factor kI according to Eq. (3.10) and Rti = V{ti} - V

(3.17)

6. Determine the total real reaction Rt for the negative slab half due to column rotation and additional deflection : n R R t = ti (3.18) 1 2n 7. Determine the part of the total unbalanced moment caused by the reactions Rti: Mt =
1 n

R ti c sin i 2n 2

(3.19)

56

8. Determine the deflections on the positive slab half:

bi = V - sini +

(3.20)

9. Determine the concentric column reactions Rbi corresponding to deflections in step 8. Observe the reduced stiffness once tension in the bottom reinforcement occurs; see Figure 3-6. 10. Determine the total reaction Rb for the positive slab half due to column rotation and additional deflection :
Rb =
1

Rbi 2n

(3.21)

11. Check force equilibrium by determining A: A = Rb Rt -Vy1/y1 (3.22)

12. Repeat the calculation from step 3 with a larger value of if A > 0 until A = 0. If A < 0 decrease . 13. Determine the part of the unbalanced moment caused by the reactions Rbi:
Mb =
1

Rbi c sini 2n 2

(3.23) (3.24)

14. Determine the unbalanced moment capacity M u = M t + M b

15. Determine the column rotation neglecting additional radial curvature of sector elements:

1 =

1 2 kI c B

(3.25)

The factor 1/kI takes the effect of the reduced tangential flexural stiffness near the column into account. 16. Determine the column rotation due to radial curvature of the slab sector elements due to the radial compression strut according to Eq. (3.13):

2 =

B c ln 1 + c Ec10 h B 12 M u
3

(3.13)

17. Determine the rotation capacity of the system due to deformations of the slab within the circle with diameter c:

u = 1 + 2

(3.26)

57

3.5 Comparison with test results

Table 3-1
Authors Moe (1961)

Unbalanced moment. Test results.

Test slab No.

fcc

fsy

/ c
%
1.50 / 0.0

d h mm
114 152

c m
1.78 " " " " " " 2.0

Column size mm
305 " 254 " " " " 305

Vtest e test test

test

Vcalc calc
kN

calc

MPa MPa M2 M3 M6 M7 M8 M9 M10 25.7 22.8 26.5 25.0 24.6 23.2 21.1
26.6

kN mm % / mm
292 207 239 311 150 267 178 399 196 338 168 61 437 127 308 306 -269 202 272 322 180 277 198 338

% / mm
0.9 / 0 1.2 / 0 1.0/ 0 0.6 / 0 1.6 / 0 0.8 / 0 1.3 / 0

V test Vcalc
1.086 1.025 0.879 0.966 0.8331 0.964 0.899 1.180

481 " 327 " " " "

398

"
1.34 / 0.0

"
1.34 / 0.57 1.34 / 0.0 1.34 / 0.57

Narasimhan (1971) Ghali et al (1974) Ghali et al (1976) Islam, Park (1976) Elgabry,Ghali (1987) Pan , Moehle 1989 Hawkins et al (1989)

L1

1.05 / 1.05

143 170 115 152 121 152

1.2 / 0

B5NP

28.3

345

1.39 / 1.39

1.8

305

100

1960

--

74.5

2.6 / 0

1.342

SM0.5 SM1.0 SM 1.5 2

36.8 33.4 39.9 31.9

476 " " 374

0.53 /0.18 1.05 / 0.35 1.58 / 0.53 1.0 6 / 0.53

1.8 " "

305 " "

129 " "

775 984

6.5/6 2.7

126 122 127

6.9/1.8 2.6 / 0 1.9/ 0

1.024 1.057 1.016

1031 2.0

70 89 116 152 103 121 121 118 114 121 118 114 83 83 79 83 83 79 121 118 114 121 114

1.143 1.8

229 254

28 150

1346 5.0/0 867 --

24.2 126

6.2 / 0 3.0 / 0

1.157 1.190

35

452

1.07 / 0.46

AP1 AP3 6AH 9.6AH 14AH 6AL 9.6AL 14AL 7.3BH 9.5BH 14.2BH

29.3 31.7 31.3 30.7 30.3 22.7 28.9 27.0 22.2 19.8 29.5 18.1 20.0 20.5 52.4 57.2 54.7 49.5 47.7

484 " 472 415 420 472 415 420 472 472 415 472 472 415 472 415 420 472 420

0.86 / 0.29 " 0.60 / 0.28 0.96 / 0.50 1.40 / 0.63 0.60 / 0.28 0.96 / 0.50 1.40 / 0.63 0.73 / 0.40 0.95 / 0.48 1.42 / 0.75 0.73 / 0.40 0.95 / 0.48 1.42 / 0.75 0.60 / 0.28 0.96 / 0.50 1.40 / 0.63 0.60 / 0.28 1.40 / 0.63

1.83 " 1.83 " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " "

274 " 305 " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " "

104 53 169 187 205 244 257 319 80 94 102 130 142 162 186 218 252 273 362

548 535 522 489 134 135 136 488 483 500 98 117 129 511 519 529 135 136

1.7

137 61 176 181 189 259 315 315 91 89 101 142 157 151 201 242 240 297 400

2.8 / 0 4.2 / 0 4.2 / 2.4 2.7 / 0.5 1.6 / 0 2.0 / 1.4 1.4 / 0.9 0.8 / 0 4.7 / 1.4 3.1 / 0 3.1 / 0 2.1 / 1.0 1.5 / 0.6 1.2 / 0 6.5 / 5.4 4.0 / 2.2 2.4 / 0 4.6 / 3.2 1.1 / 0.6

0.7592 0.8692 0.960 1.033 1.085 0.942 0.816 1.013 0.879 1.056 1.010 0.915 0.904 1.073 0.925 0.901 1.050 0.919 0.905

1536 3.4

h=152

h = 114

7.3BL 9.5BL 14.2BL 6CH 9.6CH 14CH 6CL 14CL

h = 152

1) Presupposes restraint for uplift. 2) Cyclic loading, not included in statistical evaluation.

Mean value Vtest / Vcalc = 1.006(1 0.112)

58

The tests by Ghali et al (1976), Islam and Park (1976), and Pan and Moehle (1989) are especially interesting because they also report the column rotations. It is evident from the table that the presented theory can predict the unbalanced moment capacity and the corresponding rotation with acceptable accuracy. The tests by Pan and Moehle (1989) were cyclic load tests simulating story drift during an earthquake. That explains why the recorded ultimate unbalanced moments were lower than the calculated values for monotonic loading. The recorded unbalanced moments are in Table 3-2 compared to predictions according to the design codes ACI 318-02, Model Code 90 and BBK 04 in the same way as for concentric loading in Section 2.5.4. According to ACI 318-02, the shear stress due to concentric column load and unbalanced moment is calculated as

V V e + v fv A W
4 d3 d (a + d ) 2 + ; fv = 3 6
f ck

(3.27)

where A = 4d (a + d ) ; W = Vu = fv A e A 1 + 0.4 W

; v = 0 .4

(3.28)

The corresponding values for Model Code 90 are: A = (4a + 4d ) d ; W = d 1.5a 2 + (4 + 2 )ad + 16d 2 ; f v = 1.5 0.12 (100 f ck ) 3 ;

v = 0.6 ;
Vu =

= 1+

200 d

with d in (mm)

fv A e A 1 + 0.6 W

(3.29)

The approach in BBK 04 is similar to the approach by Moe (1961):

Vu = f v A ; A = d (4a + d ) ; f v = (1 + 50 ) 0.45 f ctk ;

= 1.6 d for 0.2 d 0.5 m ; =

k = 1 for f ck 48 MPa; k = 1 0.008( f ck fv A Vu = e 1 + 1.5 a+d

1 1 + 1.5

e a+d 48) for 48 f ck 64 MPa

f ctk k 0.19( f ck ) 3

(3.30)

59

The size effect factor is equal to 1.4 for d 0.2 m according to BBK 04. In order to get realistic evaluation of test specimens with d less than 0.2 m the expression for is assumed valid also for d < 0.2 m. All values for fv are intended to reflect the ultimate strength according to the different codes. That is why fv is multiplied by 1.5 for Model Code 90, because this code gives the design shear strength instead of the ultimate strength. When comparing the results due respect should be paid to the total safety factors, which were derived in Section 2.5.4. ACI 318-02:

= 1.87

Model Code 90: = 2.14 BBK 04:

= 2.07

Model Code 90 displays a very good prediction result with small scatter. The mean value of Vtest / Vcalc is less than 1.0, however. Both BBK 04 and ACI 318-02 show a larger scatter, which is partly compensated by the mean values being larger than 1.0.

60

Table 3-2
Authors
Moe (1961)

Unbalanced moment test results. Comparison with code predictions.

Test slab No. MPa M2 M3 M6 M7 M8 M9 M10 25.7 22.8 26.5 25.0 24.6 23.2 21.1 26.6 MPa 481 " 327 " " " " 398
1.50 / 0.0

fcc

fsy

/ c
%

d h mm

c m
1.78 " " " " " " 2.0

Column size mm 305 " 254 " " " " 305

ACI 318

MC 90

BBK 04

Vtest / Vcalc
1.407 1.334 1.279 1.331 1.302 1.397 1.380 1.639

Vtest / Vcalc
0.985 0.889 0.878 0.949 0.827 0.952 0.876 1.245

Vtest / Vcalc
1.664 1.659 1.517 1.521 1.652 1.669 1.761

"
1.34 / 0.0

114 152 " " " " " 143 170 115 152 121 152 " 70 89 116 152 103 121 121 118 114 121 118 114 83 83 79 83 83 79 121 118 114 121 114

"
1.34 / 0.57 1.34 / 0.0 1.34 / 0.57

Narasimhan (1971) Ghali et al (1974) Ghali et al (1976) Islam, Park (1976) Elgabry, Ghali (1987) Pan , Moehle (1989) Hawkins et al (1989)

L1

1.05 / 1.05

2.032

B5NP

28.3

345

1.39 / 1.39

1.8

305

1.911

1.242

2.487

SM0.5 SM1.0 SM 1.5 2

36.8 33.4 39.9 31.9

476 " " 374

0.53 / 0.18 1.05 / 0.35 1.58 / 0.53 1.0 6 / 0.53

1.8 " " 1.143

305 " " 229

0.978 1.216 1.152 1.131

0.946 0.909 0.772 0.783

1.404 1.512 1.393 1.383

35

452

1.07 / 0.46

1.8

254

1.674 1.0121 1.063

1

1.160 0.7941 0.805

1

2.077 1.3001 1.4061 1.542 1.545 1.692 1.407 1.146 1.537 1.344 1.566 1.394 1.195 1.190 1.438 1.211 1.279 1.566 0.950 1.194 1.51 (1 0.20)

AP1 AP3 6AH 9.6AH 14AH 6AL 9.6AL

29.3 31.7 31.3 30.7 30.3 22.7 28.9 27.0 22.2 19.8 29.5 18.1 20.0 20.5 52.4 57.2 54.7 49.5 47.7

484 " 472 415 420 472 415 420 472 472 415 472 472 415 472 415 420 472 420

0.86 / 0.29 " 0.60 / 0.28 0.96 / 0.50 1.40 / 0.63 0.60 / 0.28 0.96 / 0.50 1.40 / 0.63 0.73 / 0.40 0.95 / 0.48 1.42 / 0.75 0.73 / 0.40 0.95 / 0.48 1.42 / 0.75 0.60 / 0.28 0.96 / 0.50 1.40 / 0.63 0.60 / 0.28 1.40 / 0.63

1.83 " 1.83 " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " "

274 " 305 " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " "

1.095 1.251 1.396 1.024 0.991 1.336 0.989 1.223 1.186 0.926 1.006 1.239 0.907 1.065 1.338 0.777 1.141 1.23 (1 0.20)

1.010 0.988 0.977 0.968 0.834 0.982 0.842 0.936 0.851 0.803 0.809 0.873 0.914 0.933 1.029 0.837 0.922 0.93 (1 0.13)

h=152

14AL 7.3BH 9.5BH 14.2BH

h = 114

7.3BL 9.5BL 14.2BL 6CH 9.6CH 14CH 6CL 14CL

h = 152

Mean value

Compare Thesis: Mean value Vtest / Vcalc = 1.006(1 0.112) 1) Cyclic loading, not included in statistical evaluation.

61

3.6 Column rotation capacity

Flat plates display a much more pronounced non-linear behaviour a both gravity loading and story drift than beam-column frames. Many methods have been proposed to solve the problem of estimating a design value for the unbalanced moment with limited success. The code ACI 318-02 for instance allows flat plates to be designed according to the Equivalent Frame Method, which introduces a torsional member between the slab and the column to simulate the flexible force transfer of unbalanced moment between column and slab. This approach may seem elegant, but it cannot handle the decreasing slab stiffness at increasing gravity load or increasing unbalanced moment because the stiffness of the torsional member is assumed constant irrespective of the load level. These shortcomings are overcome with the approach described in Section 3.4. The calculation procedure is laborious and is only included here for verification of the model, it is not intended for use in the design office. However, as proposed in Section 3.2, flat plates should be checked for rotation capacity rather than unbalanced moment capacity. The reason for this is two-fold; the actual rotation can be determined with good precision by means of standard methods as indicated in Section 3.2 and it is simple to determine a conservative value for the rotation capacity of the column in relation to the slab in a flat plate structure. The rotation capacity was derived in Section 3.4, conservatively expressed as

u =

2 V 1 kI c B 2 V 1 k I c B V

12M u c B + ln 1 + 3 c Ec10 h B 12M u c B ln 1 + + 3 c Ec10 h B

(3.31)

or more conveniently as

u =

(3.32)

with kI according to Eq. (3.10) and Mu taken as the lowest value according to Eqs. (3.33) to (3.37). V and are output values from the concentric punching check described in Chapter 2. The punching deflection can always be determined without any iteration. When approaches or exceeds y2 (at low reinforcement ratios), then Eq. (3.32) becomes very conservative. In that case the more exact Eq. (3.31) is recommended. The computed values V and shall be divided by the strength reduction factor nm in order to receive the design rotation capacity, see also Chapter 4. An upper bound for the unbalanced moment can be assessed by combining Eqs. (3.4), (3.10), and (3.13):
Mu =

c B 12 ln 1 + c 1 B + 3 2 k I EI E c10 h

(3.33)

62

However, the unbalanced moment is limited by the lesser of the punching capacity, the flexural yield capacity of the slab, or the local compression strength of the horizontal compression struts: 1. The punching failure load limits the unbalanced moment according to the lesser of Mu1a and Mu1b that are derived from Eq. (3.2): c V y1 M u1a = k I V 4 y1 c M u1b = V y2 V 4

(3.34)

2. The capacity corresponding to overall yield of the positive (bottom) reinforcement may be governing: c c M u2 Vy 2 + V 4 where
Vy 2 = m y

(3.35)

2 B 1 c

and c = bottom reinforcement ratio.

3. If the flat plate is provided with shear reinforcement or if the flexural reinforcement ratio is so low that punching occurs with yield of all flexural reinforcement, then the sum of negative and positive flexural capacities defines an upper bound for the unbalanced moment:
c c c c 1 M u 3 Vy 2 V + V y2 + V 4 2 = Vy 2 1 + 8 =

c c = my 1 + 4 B 1 c

(3.36)

4. The local compression strength at the column connection for the horizontal compression struts in the slab may limit the unbalanced moment: a h2 M u 4 3 f ck 4 0.150 3 0.5h
1

(3.37)

where h = slab thickness [m] and a = column width.

63

The ultimate rotation capacity for a slender flat plate structure versus reinforcement ratio and column size is displayed in Figure 3-9, which is derived from the exact expressions in Section 3.4. The span width is 7.0 m and the effective depth is 0.20 m corresponding to a slenderness L/d equal to 35. The factored uniformly distributed load in an office building would typically be 11 kN/m (with Swedish load factors). The column reaction would then be 117.02 = 539 kN, which corresponds to a required ultimate punching capacity 1.21.5539 = 970 kN with a required reinforcement ratio = 0.8 % according to Figure 3-9 (interior column with = 0). The figure demonstrates that it may be unfavourable to add support reinforcement in a flat plate in order to resist imposed column rotation due to for instance pattern loading. It is also evident that flat plates with moderate reinforcement ratio can resist large imposed column rotations, which was found experimentally already by Ghali et al (1976), and such flat plates may display no reduction in punching capacity when subjected to imposed column rotation.

u
0.04

0.03

=
06 0.0

08 0.0

10 0.0 12 0.0
0

0.02

0.01

V
500 1000 1500

kN

Figure 3-9

Column rotation capacity versus reinforcement ratio. (c = 2.8 m, L = 7.0 m, d = 0.20 m, h = 0.23 m, column 0.5x0.5 m, fck =30 MPa, fsy=420 MPa, = 0.5)

64

4 Design
This Chapter demonstrates how the presented theory shall be applied for design of flat plates. Comparison is made with current structural design codes.

4.1 Design of support reinforcement at square panels

In design, the equations in this thesis should be used to first calculate the ultimate punching capacity or the ultimate rotation capacity of the slab using the characteristic strength values fck for concrete and fsy for reinforcing steel and nominal dimensions. The design punching capacity is then taken as the calculated ultimate punching capacity divided by the applicable strength reduction factor for concrete. In Sweden this factor should be nm = 1.21.5 = 1.8, where the factor n = 1.2 corresponds to Swedish safety class 3, which is applicable if the probable failure mode is brittle. The design rotation capacity is calculated in a similar manner. The quantities V and in Eqs. (3.31) and (3.32) shall be divided by the strength reduction factor nm to derive the design value of the rotation capacity at factored loading. The punching failure in flat plates usually occurs when the tangential compression strain at the column edge due to the bending moment reaches a critical value. It is therefore essential that this bending moment be estimated in a correct way. The basic case a flat plate structure with square panels is treated in Section 2.2. The bending moment distribution near the column is assumed polar-symmetric within a circle with the diameter c, where c/2 is the distance from the column to the line where the radial bending moment is zero. The equations in Section 2.2 will then give correct results for interior columns in flat plates with square panels if c is taken as 0.4L, where L is the span width.

4.2 Bending moments in a continuous flat plate

A rational method for calculating the bending moments in the general case with varying span widths and rectangular panels is described in the following. The flat plate structure is divided into strips in accordance with Figure 4-1. Each strip is assumed pin-supported on the columns and the lines of zero shear for the perpendicular strips bound the strip laterally. The bending moments per unit width in the strips are calculated according to the theory of elasticity with due respect paid to the effect of pattern loading. The negative strip moments can normally be determined for full load on all bays.

65

0.5w L2 L2

Figure 4-1

Definition of strip parameters.

The negative bending moment per unit width in a strip is denoted ms. Since the strip is supported on columns, ms is not uniformly distributed over the width of the strip, it is concentrated toward the columns. If the strip is unsymmetrical in relation to the columns the following procedure presupposes that the calculation is performed for a symmetrical strip with width two times the width of the larger of the two half-strips. Only reinforcement within the effective width w of the strip is considered active, where w is the lesser of the width of the strip and the span width L1. The average negative bending moment per unit width within the width c - the column strip - is denoted msc, and the average negative bending moment per unit width on the remaining effective width of the strip - the middle strip is denoted msm. The following provisions are adapted to the approach in Chapter 2, where the polar symmetric conditions within the circle with diameter c were studied. The width c is taken as 0.4w.

66

L1

Let us first study the basic case, a continuous flat plate with square panels. The average bending moment msc within the column strip with width 0.4w corresponds to the fan-type yield line depicted in Figure 4-2. The average bending moment msm within the remaining width the middle strip is determined by the conditions of moment equilibrium. Please note that the moment reduction due to the column extension is concentrated to the column strip only: ms w = msc = qL2 V V w = w = 0.4 w + msm 0.6 w msm = 0.033V 12 12 2 (4.1) (4.2)

V B 1 2 c

The bending moment within the column strip, msc, is identical to the average bending moment within the circle with diameter c according to Chapter 2. Since punching normally occurs before all reinforcement reaches the yield limit, more reinforcement will be required within the column strip than corresponding to the average bending moment according to Eq. (4.2).

B c

m r =0

m=
Figure 4-2
Fan-type yield lines.

V 2

B 1 c

In the general case with rectangular slab panels, the part of the strip moment ms that exceeds the bending moment m = msc = V 2 V shall be evenly distributed over the width w: 12 (4.3)

V B 1 + ms + c 12

V msm = 0.033V + ms + 12

(4.4)

67

Observe that the bending moment ms is a quantity with negative sign and that the term V ms + shall be omitted if it turns out to be positive, which for instance occurs when 12 L1 < L2 . Example 1. Interior panel of a flat plate with span width 7.2 m in both directions. Column size = 400x400 mm Total factored load = 12 kN/m2. ms = 12 7.2 2 = 51.8 kNm/m 12

V = 12 7.2 2 = 622 kN B = msm 3 400 = 471 mm ; c = 0.4 7.2 = 2.88 m 8 = 0.033 622 = 20.5 kNm/m 471 622 1 = 82.8 kNm/m 2 2880

msc =

Example 2 Interior panel of flat plate with span widths 7.2 and 4.8 m in the two directions. Column size 400x400 mm Total factored load 18 kN/m2

ms = 18 ms = 18

7.2 2 = 77.8 kNm/m (in the long direction) 12

4.8 2 = 34.6 kNm/m (in the short direction) 12 V = 18 7.2 4.8 = 622 kN c = 0.4.4.8 = 1.92 m B = 3 400 = 471 mm 8

in the long direction : 622 msm = 0.033 622 + 77.8 + = 46.5 kNm/m 12 622 471 622 msc = 1 + 77.8 + = 100.7 kNm/m 2 1920 12 in the short direction : msm = 0.033 622 = 20.5 kNm/m msc = 622 471 1 = 74.7 kNm/m 2 1920

68

The column reactions in the two examples are identical (622 kN). The bending moments at the column differ, however. The average bending moment within the column strip in the long direction in Example 2 is approximately 22 % larger than for the flat plate with square panels in Example 1. In Section 2.5.1, it was demonstrated that the bending moment at the column plays a decisive role for the punching capacity. It is then evident that it cannot be correct to check the punching capacity of Example 2 presupposing a relation between bending moment and column reaction valid for square panels as in Nylander and Kinnunen (1990). Therefore, in cases where the required flexural reinforcement ratio differs in the two directions, the punching capacity shall be checked for each direction separately. It can be shown that Eq.(4.3) yields a very good estimate of the average bending moment within the width 0.4 w according to the theory of elasticity for 1 < L1/L2 < 2. The quantity m 1 A= s shall therefore be added to all expressions for bending moments as for V 12 instance Eqs. (2.23) and (2.25) when checking the punching capacity according to Chapter 2. Please note that the negative sign for the bending moment is omitted in that chapter: mt = V c B2 B2 2 ln + 2 2 + 8 A 2 8 2r 4r c V c B2 2ln + 1 2 + 8 A 8 B c tangential moment (2.23a)

m1 =

tangential moment at column edge

(2.25a)

4.3 Design of midspan reinforcement

Kinnunen and Nylander (1960) realized that from the poor rotation capacity at the columns in a continuous flat plate follows that the midspan reinforcement has to be designed in balance with the support reinforcement. Eq. (4.3) for the negative bending moment at the column presupposes that the midspan flexural moment per unit width is at least qL2/24 for interior panels and 0.07qL2 for exterior panels, when full loading is applied on all panels of the flat plate structure. These static equilibrium conditions can be checked in accordance with Figure 4-3.

69

Interior panel

curvature with parabolic variation

0.2 L

L 0 = 0.6 L L

0.2 L

Exterior panel

0.25 L

L 0 = 0.75 L L

Figure 4-3

Static equilibrium and compatibility conditions.

Interior panels

pu =

1 0.6 L sf f L0 = 3 3 d xf d xf L

(4.6)

sf = 5 pu
Exterior panels

pu = pu sf
where

1 L0 sf + 3 3 d xf

d xf 16 = pu 3 L

(4.7)

sf

= midspan reinforcement strain

pu = slab inclination at the distance c/2 from the column when punching occurs
2 xf = dn f 1 + n 1 f f = midspan reinforcement ratio. The inclination pu is determined from Eq. (2.27) if punching occurs without any reinforcement yielding. If some or all reinforcement yields before punching then the inclination pu is determined from according to Eq. (2.43):

pu =

2 c B 70

(4.8)

If the strain in the midspan reinforcement sf corresponds to a flexural moment larger than qL2/24 and 0.07qL2 respectively, then the design is safe because the negative flexural moment would be less than given by Eq. (4.3) and the punching capacity would be larger than calculated. The opposite is valid if the strain in the midspan reinforcement corresponds to a flexural moment less than qL2/24 or 0.07qL2 respectively. Additional midspan reinforcement has then to be provided until the described equilibrium and compatibility conditions are fulfilled. The midspan reinforcement is usually designed for the effect of pattern loading. Additional midspan reinforcement as described here is therefore normally required only at such high flexural reinforcement ratio at the column that punching would occur without yielding of any reinforcement near the column.

4.4 Comparison with Codes

The theory is in Figure 4-4 compared to some common codes for design of flat plates, the design provisions of which is briefly summarized hereunder. The Swedish load factors are 1.0 and 1.3 for dead load and live load respectively. The average load factors for the two codes Model Code 90 and ACI 318-02 are approximately 20 % larger. The design strength for these two codes is therefore divided by 1.2 in the Figures 4-4 to 4-6 in order to make them comparable with the Swedish approach. The chosen notations are identical for all the codes: V R = f v2 u d where VR = fv2 = u= d= design punching capacity two-way shear strength length of control perimeter at the distance 0.5d from the column average effective depth (4.9)

4.4.1 Swedish Code for Concrete Structures, BBK 04

f v2 = (1 + 50 )0.45 f ctk where fctk is the characteristic tensile strength of concrete ( given as tabulated values for the cube strengths K8 to K80) 1 m n (4.10)

is a size-effect factor

= 1.4 for d 0.2 m = 1.6 - d for 0.2 m d 0.5 m = 1.3 0.4d for 0.5 m d 1.0 m = 0.9 for 1.0 m d

is the reinforcement ratio within the circle with diameter c and is limited to
maximum 0.01 in Eq. (4.10). 71

m = strength reduction factor for concrete = 1.5 n = safety class related strength reduction factor = 1.2 for safety class 3 (= brittle failure mode) The control perimeter is placed 0.5d outside the column edge: u = (B+d) for circular columns and u = 4a + d for square columns

4.4.2 Swedish Handbook for Concrete Structures

The Handbook gives a simplified design method Nylander and Kinnunen (1990) based on the original mechanical model by Kinnunen and Nylander (1960). It is described in detail in Hallgren (1996).

4.4.3 Model Code 1990, MC 90

The Model Code 90 defines the punching shear capacity along a control perimeter at the distance 2d from the column edge. The formal punching shear strength is then assumed equal to the shear strength for one-way structures such as beams. This is unfortunate for two reasons. Firstly, it gives false information about the punching failure mode and secondly it cannot be applied to compact structures such as footings, where the control perimeter would fall outside the structure. The deficiency can be overcome, however, if the approach proposed in Paper III is applied. The control perimeter is as in most other codes proposed to be placed 0.5d from the column edge (instead of 2d) and the punching shear strength also called the two-way shear strength is taken as the one-way shear strength multiplied by a correction factor. This approach has furthermore the advantage that it is possible to establish a more realistic upper limit for the two-way shear strength than the present value in Model Code 90. f v1 = 0.12 (100 f ck ) 3 MPa
1

(one-way design shear strength) with d in mm (size effect) (two way design shear strength) square columns circular columns interior columns

(4.11) (4.12) (4.13) (4.14) (4.15) (4.16)

= 1+
f v2 =

200 d

u + d f v1 2.5 f v1 u

u = 4a + d
u = (B + d )

= 3

72

4.4.4 Building Code Requirements for Structural Concrete, ACI 318-02

f v1 = f v2 = 1 6 f ck (4.17) (4.18)

u + 20d f v1 2 f v1 u

The control perimeter is placed 0.5d outside the column edge. A control section with four straight sides is permitted for rectangular columns:

u = 4(a + d )
u = (B + d )

square columns circular columns

(4.19) (4.20)

Furthermore, a reduction factor is given when the aspect ratio of a rectangular column is larger than 2. The strength reduction factor is 0.75 for punching and shear failure and 0.80 for flexural failure.

4.4.5 Code comparison

Hallgren (1996) found that Model Code 1990 predicts punching test results with very good accuracy. The code expressions are purely empirical, based on regression analysis of many test results. It is therefore encouraging that the theory in this thesis displays a similar design capacity curve at the concrete characteristic cylinder strength 24 MPa and B/d 2.9; Figure 4-4. If these two curves are assumed to represent the true design punching strength, the following conclusions can be drawn. The very simple expression in BBK 04 for punching capacity seems to reflect the influence of the reinforcement ratio in a correct way. However, the resulting safety factor is unnecessarily high and the limit 1 % for the reinforcement ratio seems to be too cautious. The Handbook method overestimates the punching capacity for reinforcement ratios exceeding 0.7 %. It is therefore amazing that this method still is classified in the Swedish Concrete Code BBK 04 as being more profound than the simple BBK-method despite convincing evidence on the contrary, here and in other evaluations. The code ACI 318-02 gives a single value for the punching shear strength, only depending on the square root of the compression strength and independent of reinforcement ratio and size effect. The code overestimates the punching capacity at low reinforcement values, but the reinforcement ratio in flat plates is usually high in North America because the best economy is achieved if the slab is made as thin as possible and the code ACI 318-02 allows very slender two-way slabs. This is probably the reason why the code provisions for punching still are considered appropriate in USA. However, the ACI code is also used in many other parts of the world where practice often calls for thicker slabs with less reinforcement. In such cases the code provisions will result in structures with a low safety against punching, which even has been a partial cause of a serious progressive collapse with many casualties, Gardner et al (2000).

73

VR

kN

1000 5 3

1 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. BBK 04 MC 90/1.2 Thesis/1.8 Handbook ACI 318-02/1.2

500

0.005

0.010

0.015

Figure 4-4

Code comparison. Design capacity at concentric punching versus flexural reinforcement ratio. ( c = 3.6 m, d = 0.26 m, a = 0.6 m, fck = 24 MPa, fsy =500 MPa)

The straight lines from the origin of coordinates in Figure 4-4 represent the flexural capacity. They are derived from the bending moment within the column strip according to the fan-type yield lines in all cases except for ACI 318-02: msc = msc = V B 1 c 2 q ( L a )2 1.5 12 (fan type yield lines) (4.21)

(ACI 318-02)

(4.22)

Figure 4-4 reveals an inconsistency with the curves 3 and 4 for the Thesis and the Handbook. The strength reduction factor for brittle concrete failure is there used throughout, even for the part of the curves where the flexural yield capacity governs. This is discussed in the following.

The deflection of the slab within the circle with diameter c is at punching and y2 when the reinforcement in tangential direction at the distance c/2 from the column has just reached the yield limit. If < y2 (at normal to high reinforcement ratios) then it is obvious that the capacity is punching-controlled. The design capacity is then derived from the theoretical ultimate capacity by division with the strength reduction factors for concrete and safety class 3, m n = 1.51.2 = 1.8.

74

Tests by for instance Kinnunen and Nylander (1960) have demonstrated that if > y2, which means that punching occurs after all reinforcement has reached the yield limit, a punching failure still occurs suddenly with little warning of impending failure. The structure can therefore not be defined as flexure-controlled until >> y2, say > 3y2, so that extensive cracking and large deflection will give ample warning of impending failure. The strength reduction factors for reinforcement (= 1.15) and safety class 2 (= 1.1) would then be appropriate. The described approach is applied on the Thesis curve 3 of Figure 4-4 and the result is shown in Figure 4-5. The reinforcement ratio and the capacity Vy2 corresponding to point B is easily calculated by trial and error in Appendix B until = 3y2 and point A corresponds to the reinforcement ratio when V = Vy2. A linear transition between points A and B corresponds to a gradual change of the punching-controlled strength reduction factor to the flexurecontrolled. It is evident that this refined approach is of limited value because the flexurecontrolled behaviour occurs at very low reinforcement ratios seldom encountered in practice. The refinement will therefore not be used in the following.
VR 1000 kN

A 500 B

0 0.005 0.010

Figure 4-5

Design capacity with varying strength reduction factors. Above point A = punching controlled capacity (mn =1.51.2). Below point B = flexure controlled capacity (mn =1.151.1). Linear transition between A and B.

In order to verify that the close agreement between the Thesis and Model Code 90 in Figure 4-4 is not just a coincidence, comparison is made with varying concrete grades and column sizes in Figure 4-6.

75

VR

kN 1500 a = 600 mm B/d = 2.9 c-B 2d = 5.6 1000 MC 90/1.2 Thesis/1.8

fck
MPa 80 50

24

500

0 0 0.005 0.010 0.015

VR

kN a = 300 mm B/d = 1.5 c-B 2d = 6.2

1500

fck
MPa 80 50

1000

MC 90/1.2

24

500 Thesis/1.8

0 0 0.005 0.010 0.015

Figure 4-6

Design capacity at concentric punching. Comparison between Thesis and Model Code 90. (c = 3.6 m, d = 0.26 m, fsy = 500 MPa)

76

All major concrete codes use the same approach by expressing the punching capacity as formal shear strength along a control perimeter at a certain distance from the column edge. The codes can therefore neither differentiate between slender and compact structures nor identify the influence of the bending moment on the punching capacity. This is partly illustrated in Figure 4-7. A column-supported structure, a continuous flat plate or a single foundation, is studied. The punching capacity is expressed as the design shear strength along a control perimeter at the distance 0.5d from the column.

d VR VR = fv2 * (B+d)d

fv2
2.0

B MPa B+d c

V 4. 1.5 c-B 2d 1.0 2. 3. 1.5 1. 1.2

2.5 fv1

1.0

2
4 5

0.5 1. 2. 3. 4. 0 0 BBK 04 Model Code 90/1.2 ACI 318-02/1.2 Thesis/1.8 5 4. V 2. f v1

7 10

10

B d

Figure 4-7

Effect of (c-B)/2d and B/d on design strength for punching. (d = 0.3 m, fck =30 MPa, fsy = 500 MPa, = 0.7 %) 77

The code methods give a shear strength that is independent of the slenderness of the flat plate structure, which means that the strength of compact slabs such as footings is underestimated. The high allowable shear stress at large columns by the code ACI 318-02 is remarkable, however. (The curve represents the capacity for a square column). The Thesis on the other hand gives a significant punching strength dependence on the cB slenderness . Just as for the shear strength of beams, the punching strength of slabs 2d increases with decreasing slenderness. The decreasing strength of the V -curves for B/d < 3 is a consequence of the chosen position of the formal control section. If it were placed close to the column, corresponding to the diameter of the internal column capital, the V -curves would be continuously increasing with decreasing column size. Finally, the size-effect is illustrated in Figure 4-8. The two codes BBK 04 and Model Code 90 give a size effect that depends only on the effective depth of the slab. The Thesis theory on the other hand displays a dependence also on the reinforcement ratio, with no size effect if all reinforcement yields before punching.

1.0

0.002

0.003 BBK 04 0.004 MC 90 0.005

0.01
0.5 0 0.5 1.0 d (m)

Figure 4-8

Normalized size-effect ( =1.0 for d = 0.2 m) for punching ultimate capacity versus effective depth of the slab and reinforcement ratio. Comparison with Model Code 90 and BBK 04. (fck =30 MPa, fsy = 500 MPa, B/d = 1.9, (c-B)/2d = 5.4)

78

5 Reinforcement for ductility

In the preceding chapters, a theory for prediction of punching capacity is presented and validated. It is demonstrated that the theory can predict the capacity and deflection of test specimens with good accuracy. It is commonly accepted that such test specimens do simulate the behaviour of continuous flat plates near the columns. The theory can therefore be applied for verification of existing structures and for design purpose. However, it must be emphasized that even the most accurate theory cannot eliminate the disadvantage of flat plates, namely the risk of a brittle punching failure in the event of overloading. In this context, it should be remembered that modern building codes agree with what is stated in Eurocode 2 (1991). That code requires a structure to be designed is such a way that it will not be damaged by events like explosions, impact, or consequences of human error, to an extent disproportionate to the original cause. In other words, a local failure shall not spread over a large portion of the structure and shall not trigger a progressive collapse. It is therefore surprising that the same code in the detailing chapters requires a least amount of shear reinforcement in primary beams in order to prevent a brittle failure, but no similar requirement is put on flat plates despite the fact that a punching failure of a flat plate may lead to worse consequences than a shear failure of a beam. Punching usually occurs when the concrete strain near the column due to the bending moment in the slab exceeds a critical value, see Chapter 2.2. If a punching failure occurs at one column due to a local overloading, then the slab inclination and hence the concrete strain will increase at the adjacent columns, which in turn most probably will result in punching at these columns as well. A progressive collapse of the entire building is then impending. Consequently, it should be a code requirement that a flat plate structure in a multi-story building in case of overloading displays a ductile failure mode. A flat plate should behave in the same manner as a cast-in-place concrete slab supported by beams or walls. Such a slab displays a very ductile flexural failure mode without risk for brittle shear failure. One solution would be to provide the flat plate structure with some form of shear reinforcement in order to prevent the brittle punching failure mode. Please observe that this approach differs from the current perception by codes, researchers and designers, who all seem to utilize shear reinforcement merely for increasing the punching capacity not for creating a ductile structure. In order to find a reinforcement system that could result in the desired ductile behaviour, slabs with various forms of stirrups were tested (Paper II). The stirrups were anchored around the top reinforcement of the slab in accordance with code provisions. Despite the fact that the formal shear capacity exceeded the yield capacity of the specimens, the failure was brittle.

79

Three test specimens failed due to a steep shear crack near the column leaving the stirrups ineffective. One slab with stirrups arranged in the form of a cross failed due to a shear crack outside the shear-reinforced zone. The stirrups were in the latter case obviously too far apart to cause a uniform shear stress in the slab along a critical perimeter outside the shear reinforced zone. This configuration is currently standard practice in USA and in Canada for so-called stud rails. The shear capacity is according to US and Canadian Codes calculated assuming a uniform stress along the critical perimeter outside the stud rails, irrespective of the distance between the outermost studs. Most European codes apply a more restrictive approach. The outcome of the stirrup test described in Paper II was thus very disappointing. It seemed impossible to achieve ductile flat plates with intermediate or high flexural reinforcement ratios. Three important conclusions could be made, however: 1. Stirrups and stud rails may increase the punching capacity of the slab, but they cannot prevent a steep shear crack from forming near the column when the stability of the compression zone of the slab decreases due to high flexural compression strain. 2. The shear reinforcement should be well distributed along the outer perimeter in order to achieve a uniform shear stress along that perimeter. 3. The shear reinforcement should extend far enough from the column to preclude a shear failure outside the shear reinforced area. Bent down flexural reinforcement constitutes another shear reinforcement possibility. From the tests with stirrups, it was learnt that the bent bars should not be detailed according to current practice in order to achieve a ductile behaviour. That practice prescribes that the bars should be bent down at a certain distance outside the column perimeter and some of the bars should be placed outside the column. Obviously, this configuration aims at making the shearreinforced zone around the column as large as possible in order to maximize the possible shear capacity. However, there is risk that such a layout would result in the same type of ultimately brittle failure as experienced with stirrups. A steep shear crack could develop inside the bent bars. Furthermore, it is evident that bent bars anyhow do not reach far enough away from the column to exclude the possibility of a shear failure outside the bent bars. This scenario is confirmed by the Hallgren (1996) tests. Some of the specimens were provided with bent bars as shear reinforcement. These slabs had higher capacity than the corresponding slabs without shear reinforcement, but the failure mode was still a sudden punching failure. Steep shear cracks developed inside the bent bars in the slabs HSC3s and HSC7s. The shear crack developed outside the shear reinforcement in specimen HSC5s with a high reinforcement ratio. From Figure 4-21 of Hallgren (1996) it is evident that only specimen HSC7s with reinforcement ratio 0.63 % displayed some ductility before the sudden punching failure. The ultimate deflection was in the order of two times the deflection at overall yield. A structure with such a low ductility (u/y = 2) is normally not considered ductile, however. Therefore, after evaluation of the stirrup tests, a second test series was performed with a combination of bent bars and stirrups; see Paper II. The bent bars were all placed within the column width and were bent down at the column edge at a shallow slope in order to bridge over the zone with large circumferential cracks around the column at flexural yielding. The bent bars were designed as hangers with the vertical component of their yield capacity in balance with the column reaction at overall yield of the flexural reinforcement. Stirrup cages were added in order to exclude a shear failure outside the bent bars. 80

That concept turned out to be very effective in creating an extremely ductile structural system without any punching tendency even at high flexural reinforcement ratios. The concept was later on further developed (Paper III), where the stirrup cages were simplified as regards both fabrication and installation. Furthermore, the zone with stirrups was reduced in relation to Paper II. The design calculations of the mature concept ductility reinforcement are very simple and described in detail in Paper IV. The bent bars and the stirrups shall be designed for the column reaction corresponding to the formation of yield lines over the supports and the midspans at uniform loading. Alternatively, the column reaction can be taken as five times the contribution from the worst adjacent panel. In this way, respect is paid to the fact that the flexural reinforcement might be over designed and that pattern loading has been considered when designing the midspan reinforcement.

81

82

6 Earthquake simulation
Since ordinary flat plates have a very limited ductility, they should be used with caution in seismic areas. On the other hand, flat plates that are provided with ductility reinforcement described in Chapter 5 display such good ductility that they should be well suited also in seismic areas, if the building stability does not rely on frame action with the flat plate as horizontal member. Stability should be provided by shear walls or equivalent systems. Most seismic codes seem to agree upon that the stabilizing system shall be designed so that the story drift ratio is limited to 2.5 % or less. The slab rotation in relation to the column at story drift resembles the deflection inclination of a concentrically loaded slab. Paper III demonstrated that a flat plate with ductility reinforcement displays an inclination capacity of about 9% at monotonic loading. The drift capacity at cyclic loading could therefore be expected to be in the order of half that value. In order to examine if the ductility reinforcement used for test slabs in Paper III also could be effective at seismic cyclic loading, two pilot tests were performed and reported in Paper IV. The specimens were loaded to a concentric load corresponding to 60 % and 75 % respectively of their flexural yield capacity. Then a cyclic imposed story drift was applied up to a story drift ratio of 7 %. The resulting hysteresis curves are displayed in Paper IV. It is evident that the specimens could withstand a story drift ratio of more than 4 %, which demonstrates that flat plates with ductility reinforcement are safe even in regions of high seismic risk. It should be noted that demands on the ductility reinforcement for seismic loading are identical to the demands for normal gravity loading. No flexural reinforcement has to be added to cater for unbalanced moment due to story drift.

83

84

7 Conclusions and summary

The punching failure of flat plates resembles the shear failure of beams in the sense that an inclined shear crack constitutes the failure. The failure mechanism is different, however. Inclined circumferential cracks down to the neutral axis form around the column already at a load level of less than 70 % of the ultimate load. The slab is nevertheless stable and can be loaded and reloaded without any decrease of the ultimate load. Punching occurs instead when the compression zone of the slab near the column collapses. The presented models are based on information that can be gained from the stress-strain relation of concrete in uniaxial compression. Low strength concretes start to soften at a compression strain of about 1.0 per mille. This level for the flexural compression strain is therefore regarded to be critical for the stability of the compression zone near the column of a flat plate, but it is assumed to slowly decrease with increasing concrete strength to account for the increasing brittleness of concrete with increasing strength. If the slab is provided with adequate amount of conventional shear reinforcement the critical concrete strain is assumed to increase to 1.5 per mille, which is close to the strain at the peak stress for low strength concretes. It should be observed that these critical strain levels are considerably lower than the generally accepted ultimate strain 3.5 per mille for uniaxially spanned members in bending. In compact slabs such as column footings the compression strength of the inclined compression strut from the load to the column is found to be governing. The thickness of the compression strut near the column is limited by the compression zone depth in radial direction. If the column is small in relation to the compression zone depth, the compression strength of the strut is assumed to reach the value 1.2 fcc corresponding to the strength of concrete in biaxial compression with moderate perpendicular compression stress. If the f column is very large, the compression strength is assumed reduced to 0.6 f cc 1 cc , which 250 is the generally accepted value for the uniaxial compression strength in cracked zones. It is interesting to note that the latter strength corresponds to a compression strain of about 0.75 per mille the same for all concrete grades. The above critical strain and stress levels are assumed to display a size effect that is inversely proportional to the cube root of the compression zone depth and the thickness of the inclined compression strut respectively an approach that was utilized already in Paper I of 1990. As a consequence, the size effect decreases with decreasing amount of flexural reinforcement. It should be observed that the apparent size effect factor may increase for thick slabs where cracks in the compression zone may be induced due to uneven temperature effects during the concrete hydration. A strong support for the hypothesis that the concrete strain in tangential direction plays a decisive role is given by the fact that the theory can predict the deflection at the sudden punching failure of flat plate specimens with all flexural reinforcement yielding. In this case it is obvious that the failure is not caused by the shear force, it is caused by the limited curvature capacity of the slab. That capacity depends in turn on a limited concrete strain capacity. To crown everything, this strain limit is found to be a sufficient criterion for prediction of the punching capacity and deflection of a large variety of flat plate specimen types reported in the literature. 85

As stated in Paper I: The basic assumptions behind the theory are, in reality, very simple and straightforward. Nevertheless, the theory is able to predict reported test results with amazing accuracy, which demonstrates, above all, that the punching failure mechanism is perhaps not as complex as many researchers claim. The presented models do not explain the failure mechanisms in detail, which is similar to the case that the compression strength tested on a cylinder specimen does not explain the failure mechanism, which is mainly a tensile failure in lateral direction. Similarly, the presented size dependent strain limit in a flat plate happens to capture the conditions when the concrete near the column edge becomes unstable, which initiates the punching failure due to a zip effect. Equation (2.35) is informative as regards the parameters that affect the curvature capacity of the slab near the column in the normal case with the flexural reinforcement yielding at the column before punching occurs:
" fu

cpu
x pu

E 2 0.150 0.0010 3 25 = c10 2 2 4d 2 f sy f cc

0.3

(2.35)

A high concrete E-modulus is favourable, which means that the curvature capacity increases with increasing concrete grade. A high strength concrete slab has therefore a better rotation capacity than a normal strength slab despite that the high strength concrete matrix is more brittle. (Observe that Ec10 k ( f cc ) 3 ). It is also evident that the curvature capacity of a flat plate rapidly decreases with increasing reinforcement ratio and increasing effective depth. The dependence on the concrete E-modulus indicates that capacity predictions will be uncertain if only the compression strength of the concrete is recorded. It is therefore recommended that the E-modulus shall be specified for flat plate structures, which is especially important if the coarse aggregates in the concrete mix do not emanate from primitive rock. Flat plates where the support moments differ in the two directions (as for slabs with rectangular panels) shall not be checked for a mean value of the reinforcement ratios in the two directions, but for each direction separately. This follows from the hypothesis that the concrete compression strain in flexure is decisive for the punching capacity. If so called unbalanced moment is transferred from the slab to the column or vice versa, then it is safer to check the rotation capacity of the slab in relation to the column instead of the unbalanced moment capacity of the slab, because the imposed slab rotation can be estimated with much better certainty than the imposed unbalanced moment. A conservative value for the rotation capacity is derived from the slab behaviour at concentric punching. The capacity increase for flat plates with conventional shear reinforcement can be attributed to the fact that the compression zone can endure an increased tangential strain. The curvature of the slab at failure will then increase in relation to a slab without shear reinforcement. The increased curvature means that more flexural reinforcement will reach the yield limit before punching occurs, which in turn means that the capacity increases. However, the failure mode cannot be classified as ductile because the ultimate deflection usually does not even reach two times the deflection at overall yield of the reinforcement. 86
1

Flat plates provided with a novel reinforcement concept denoted ductility reinforcement display an extremely ductile behaviour. They can therefore be classified as having no risk for brittle punching failure and can be designed in Swedish safety class 2, which means a reinforcement saving of about 10 % in relation to flat plates with conventional shear reinforcement (and still larger saving in comparison to flat plates without shear reinforcement). The complete calculation steps for prediction of the punching failure are demonstrated in Appendices A to E. The program Mathcad is used for this purpose, but all calculations are possible to perform manually except for the punching load at partial yield of the flexural reinforcement in Appendix B. However, an approximate manual method for this case is described in Section 2.4. Two examples of flat plates are treated in Appendices A and B. Flat plates with shear reinforcement are treated in Appendix C. The displayed calculations are valid for interior square panels. The required modifications for other cases are described in Chapter 4. Column footings are treated in Appendix D and footing specimens with line load in Appendix E. The laborious calculations for unbalanced moment are shown in Appendix F just for documentation purpose. In practice, the rotation of the column in relation to the slab shall be checked instead, which is described in Section 3.6. The simple design procedure for flat plates with ductility reinforcement is described in detail in Paper IV.

87

88

8 References
ACI 318-02 (2002), Building Code Requirements for Structural Concrete and Commentary, American Concrete Institute, Michigan. ACI 352.1R-89 (1989), Recommendations for Design of Slab-Column Connections in Monolithic Reinforced Concrete Structures, ACI-ASCE Committee 352, 22 pp. Aalami, B. (1972), Moment-Rotation Relation between Column and Slab, ACI Journal, pp. 263-269. ACI 421.1R -99 (1999), Shear Reinforcement for Slabs, ACI-ASCE Committee 421, 15 pp. Andersson, J.L. (1963), Punching of Concrete Slabs with Shear Reinforcement, Transactions of the Royal Institute of Technology, No. 212, Stockholm, 59 pp. Andr, H.P.; Dilger,W.H.; Ghali, A. (1979), Durchstanzbewehrung fr Flachdecken, Beton- und Stahlbetonbau, Vol 74, No 5, pp. 129-132. Baant, Z.; Cao, Z. (1987), Size Effect in Punching Shear Failure of Slabs, ACI Structural Journal, V.84, No.1, pp. 44-53. BBK 04 (2004), Boverkets handbok om betongkonstruktioner, 185 pp. (Recommendations for design of Concrete Structures, in Swedish). Beutel, R.; Hegger, J. (2000a), Punching Behaviour of Shear Reinforced Flat Slabs at Interior Columns Effective and Economic Shear Systems, International Workshop on Punching Shear Capacity of RC Slabs Proceedings, Royal Institute of Technology, Stockholm, pp.171-179. Beutel, R.; Schmidt, M.; Landauer, A. (2000b), 3D Numerical Punching Analysis of Shear Reinforced Flat Slabs Variation of Quantity and Arrangement of Stirrups, International Workshop on Punching Shear Capacity of RC Slabs Proceedings, Royal Institute of Technology, Stockholm, pp.181-189. Broms, C.E. (1990a), Punching of Flat Plates A Question of Concrete Properties in Biaxial Compression and Size Effect, ACI Structural Journal, V.87, No. 3, pp. 292-304. Broms, C.E. (1990b), Shear Reinforcement for Deflection Ductility of Flat Plates, ACI Structural Journal, V.87, No. 6, pp. 696-705. Broms, C.E. (2000), Elimination of Flat Plate Punching Failure Mode, ACI Structural Journal, V. 97, No. 1, pp. 94-101. Broms, C.E. (2005), Ductility Reinforcement for Flat Slabs in Seismic as well as Nonseismic Areas, submitted to Magazine of Concrete Research. Dieterle, H. (1978), Zur Bemessung von Fundamentplatten ohne Schubbewehrung, Betonund Stahlbetonbau, Jg. 73, H.2, pp. 29-37. Dieterle, H.; Rostasy, F.S. (1981), Versuche an quadratischen Einzelfundamente mit und ohne Schubbewehrung, Bericht ber das Forschungsvorhaben V 175 des DAfStb, Otto-GrafInstitut, Universitt Stuttgart. 89

EC 2 (1991), Eurocode 2: Design of Concrete Structures Part I: General Rules and Rules for Buildings. European Prestandard ENV 1992-1-1:1991, Comit Europen de Normalisation, Brussels, 253 pp. Elgabry, A.; Ghali, A. (1987), Tests on Concrete Slab-Column Connections with Stud-Shear Reinforcement Subjected to Shear-Moment Transfer, ACI Structural Journal, V.84, No. 5, pp. 433-442. Elstner, R.C.; Hognestad, E. (1956), Shearing Strength of Reinforced Concrete Slabs, ACI Journal, Vol.53, pp. 29-58. Gardner, N.J.; Huh, J.; Lan Chung (2000), What can we learn from the Sampong Department Store Collapse, International Workshop on Punching Shear Capacity of RC Slabs Proceedings, Royal Institute of Technology, Stockholm, pp.225-233. Ghali, A.; Sargious, M.A.; Huizer, A. (1974) Vertical Prestressing of Flat Plates around Columns, ACI Publication SP-42, Vol.2, pp. 905-920. Ghali, A.; Elmasri, M.Z.; Dilger, W. (1976), Punching of Flat Plates under Static and Dynamic Horizontal Forces, ACI Journal, Proceedings, V.73, No.10, pp. 566-572. Gustafsson, P.J.; Hillerborg, A. (1988), Sensitivity in Shear Strength of Longitudinally Reinforced Concrete Beams to Fracture Energy of Concrete, ACI Structural Journal, Vol. 85, No. 3, pp. 286-294. Hallgren, M. (1966), Punching Shear Capacity of Reinforced High Strength Concrete Slabs, Bulletin 23, Dept. of Structural Engineering, Royal Institute of Technology, Stockholm, 206 pp. Hallgren, M.; Kinnunen, S.; Nylander, B. (1983, 1998), Punching Shear Tests on Column Footings, Technical Report 1998:3, Dept. of Structural Engineering, Royal Institute of Technology, Stockholm, 22 pp. Hassanzadeh, G. (1996), Frstrkning av brobaneplattor p pelare med hnsyn till genomstansning. Redovisning av provningar, Bulletin No. 41, Dept. of Structural Engineering, Royal Institute of Technology, Stockholm, 134 pp. (in Swedish with a summary in English). Hassanzadeh (1998), Betongplattor p pelare. Dimensioneringsmetoder fr plattor med icke vidhftande spnnarmering, Bulletin No. 43, Dept. of Structural Engineering, Royal Institute of Technology, Stockholm, 162 pp. (in Swedish with a summary in English). Hawkins, N.M.; Mitchell, D. (1979), Progressive Collapse of Flat Plate Structures, ACI Journal, pp.775-808. Hawkins, N.M.; Bao, A.; Yamazaki, J. (1989), Moment Transfer from Concrete Slabs to Columns, ACI Structural Journal, V.86, No. 6, pp. 705-716. Hegger, J.; Beutel, R.; Goralski, C.; Bertram, G. (2001), Versuchsbericht zum Durchstanzen mit Halfen HDB-N-Ankern als Durchstanzbewehrung im Bereich von Innensttzen, RWTH, Aachen.

90

High performance concrete structures, Design Handbook, (1998), Draft version, A Swedish Program for Research and Development, CBI, CTH, KTH, LTH, LTU. Hillerborg, A.; Moder, M.; Petersson, P.E. (1976), Analysis of crack formation and crack growth in concrete by means of fracture mechanics and finite elements, Cement and Concrete Research, Vol.6, No. 6, pp. 773-782. Islam, S.; Park, R. (1976), Tests on Slab-Column Connections with Shear and Unbalanced Flexure, Journal of the Structural Division, ASCE, V.102, No. ST3, pp. 549-568. Kinnunen, S.; Nylander, H. (1960), Punching of Concrete Slabs without Shear Reinforcement, Transactions of the Royal Institute of Technology, No. 158, Stockholm, 112 pp. Kinnunen, S.; Nylander, H.; Tolf, P. (1980), Plattjocklekens inverkan p betongplattors hllfasthet vid genomstansning. Frsk med rektangulra plattor, Bulletin No. 137, Dept. of Structural Mechanics and Engineering, Royal Institute of Technology, Stockholm, 73 pp. (in Swedish with a summary in English). Krger, G.; Burdet, O.; Favre, R. (2000), Punching strength of RC Flat Slabs with Moment Transfer, International Workshop on Punching Shear Capacity of RC Slabs Proceedings, Royal Institute of Technology, Stockholm, pp. 333-341. K1, (1964), Frslag till bestmmelser fr dimensionering av betongplattor p pelare jmte utdrag ur kommentarer, Statens Betongkommitt, Stockholm, (in Swedish). Leonhardt, F.; Walther, R. (1962), Schubversuche an einfeldrigen Stahlbetonbalken mit und ohne Schubbewhrung, Deutscher Ausschuss fr Stahlbeton, Heft 151, Berlin, 83 pp. Marti, P.; Pralong, J.; Thrlimann, B. (1977), Punching Tests on Reinforced Concrete Slabs (Schubversuche an Stahlbetonplatten), Bericht No. 7305-2, Institut fr Baustatik und Konstruktion, ETH, Zrich, 123 pp. Marzouk, H.; Hussein, A. (1991) Experimental Investigation on the Behavior of HighStrength Concrete Slabs, ACI Structural Journal, Vol. 88, No. 6, American Concrete Institute, Detroit, pp. 701-713. Mathcad (1997), Users Guide, Mathcad 7 Professional, MathSoft, Inc., Cambridge, Massachusetts 02142, USA. Melo, G.S.S.A.; Regan, P.E. (1998), Post-punching resistance of connections between flat slabs and interior columns, Magazine of Concrete Research, Vol. 50, No. 4, pp. 319-327. Mitchel, D.; Cook, W.D. (1984), Preventing Progressive Collapse of Slab Structures, Journal of Structural Engineering, Vol. 110, No.7, pp. 1513-1532. Model Code 90 (1993), Bulletin dInformation No. 213/214, Comit Euro-Internationale du Bton, Lausanne, 232 pp. Moe, J. (1961), Shearing Strength of Reinforced Concrete Slabs and Footings under Concentrated Loads, Development Department Bulletin d47, Portland Cement Association (PCA), 130 pp. Mokhtar, A-S.; Ghali, A.; Dilger, W. (1985), Stud Shear Reinforcement for Flat Plate Concrete Plates, ACI Structural Journal, Vol. 82, No.5, pp. 676-683. 91

Narasimhan, N. (1971) Shear Reinforcement in Reinforced Concrete Column Heads, PhDThesis, Imperial College, London. Nilssson, A (1983), Spnningstillstnd i plattdel utanfr skjuvarmering vid genomstansning, Bulletin 140, Dept. of Structural Mechanics and Engineering, Royal Institute of Technology, Stockholm, 52 pp. (in Swedish with a summary in English). Nylander, H.; Sundquist, H.; (1972) Genomstansning av pelarunderstdd plattbro av betong med ospnd armering, Bulletin 104, Dept. of Structural Mechanics and Engineering, Royal Institute of Technology, Stockholm, 64 pp. (in Swedish). Nylander, H.; Kinnunen, S. (1990), Dimensionering med hnsyn till genomstansning vid koncentrerat std, Betonghandboken Konstruktion, Second edition, AB Svensk Byggtjnst, pp. 648-675, (in Swedish). Nlting, D. (1984), Punching of Concrete Slabs Statics, Calculation, Design (Das Durchstanzen von Platten aus Stahlbeton Tragverhalten, Berechnung, Bemessung), Bulletin No. 62, Institut fr Baustoffe, Massivbau und Brandschutz, Technische Universitt Braunschweig, 174 pp. Obolt, J.; Vocke, H.; Eligehausen, R. (2000), Three-dimensional Numeric Analysis of Punching Failure, International Workshop on Punching Shear Capacity of RC Slabs Proceedings, Royal Institute of Technology, Stockholm, pp. 65-74. Pan, A.; Moehle, J.P. (1989), Lateral Displacement Ductility of Reinforced Concrete Flat Plates, ACI Structural Journal, V.86, No. 3, pp. 250-258. Park, R.; Islam, S. (1976), Strength of Slab-Column Connections with Shear and Unbalanced Flexure, Journal of the Structural Division, ASCE, V.102, No. ST9, pp. 18791901. Pralong, J.; Brndli, W.; Thrlimann, B. (1979), Punching Tests on Reinforced Concrete Slabs and Prestressed Concrete Slabs (Durchstanzversuche an Stahlbeton- und Spannbetonplatten), Bericht No. 7305-3, Institut fr Baustatik und Konstruktion, ETH, Zrich, 89 pp. Regan, P.E.; Braestrup, M.W. (1985), Punching Shear in Reinforced Concrete: A State-ofthe-Art Report, Bulletin dInformation, No.186, Comit Euro-International du Bton, Lausanne, 232 pp. Regan, P.E. (1986), Symmetric punching of reinforced concrete slabs, Magazine of Concrete Research, Vol. 38, No. 136, pp. 115- 128. Richart, F.E. (1948), Reinforced Concrtete Wall and Column Footings, ACI Journal, Proceedings V. 45, pp. 97-127 and pp. 237-260. RILEM Draft Recommendation (1985), Determination of the Fracture Energy of Mortar and Concrete by means of Three-Point Bend Tests on Notched Beams, Materials and Structures, Vol. 18, No. 106, RILEM, Paris, pp. 285-290. Schaeidt, W.; Ladner, M.; Rsli, A. (1970), Design of Flat Plates for Punching (Berechnung von Flachdecken auf Durchstanzen), Wildegg Technische Forschungs- und Beratungsstelle der Schweizerischen Zementindustrie, Wildegg, 68 pp.

92

Sundquist, H. (1977), Betongplatta p pelare vid dynamisk engngslast. 1: Resultat av statiska fsk, Bulletin 124, Dept. of Structural Mechanics and Engineering, Royal Institute of Technology, Stockholm, 70 pp. (in Swedish with a summary in English). Sundquist, H. (1978), Betongplatta p pelare vid dynamisk engngslast. 2: Dynamiska frsksresultat och dimensioneringsprinciper, Bulletin 125, Dept. of Structural Mechanics and Engineering, Royal Institute of Technology, Stockholm, 116 pp. (in Swedish with a summary in English). Sundquist, H.; Kinnunen, S. (2004a), The effect of large column section and slab thickness taper on the punching shear capacity of flat slabs, Bulletin No. 81, Dept. of Civil and Architectural Engineering, Royal Institute of Technology, Stockholm, 42 pp. (in Swedish with summary and Figure captions in English). Sundquist, H.; Kinnunen, S. (2004b), The effect of column head and drop panels on the punching capacity of flat slabs, Bulletin No. 82, Dept. of Civil and Architectural Engineering, Royal Institute of Technology, Stockholm, 24 pp. (in Swedish with summary and Figure captions in English). Talbot, A.N. (1913), Reinforced Concrete Wall Footings and Column Footings, Bulletin No. 67, University of Illinois Engineering Experiment Station, Urbana, 114 pp. Tomaszewicz, A. (1993), Punching Shear Capacity of Reinforced Concrete Slabs. High Strength Concrete. SP2 Plates and Shells. Report 2.3. Report No.STF70 A93082, SINTEF Structures and Concrete, Trondheim, 36 pp. Timm, M. (2004), Durchstanzen von Bodenplatten unter rotationssymmetrischer Belastung, Deutscher Ausschuss fr Stahlbeton, Heft 547, Berlin, 162 pp. Timoshenko,S.; Woinowsky-Krieger, S. (1959), Theory of Plates and Shells, International Student Edition, Mc Graw-Hill Book Company, Inc., 580 pp. Tolf, P. (1988), Plattjocklekens inverkan p betongplattors hllfasthet vid genomstansning. Frsk med cirkulra plattor., Bulletin No. 146, Dept. of Structural Mechanics and Engineering, Royal Institute of Technology, Stockholm, 64 pp., (in Swedish with summary in English). Yamada, T.; Nanni, A.; Endo, K. (1992), Punching Shear Resistance of Flat Slabs: Influence of Reinforcement Type and Ratio, ACI Structural Journal, V. 88, No. 4, pp. 555-563.

93

94

Appendix A. Punching of flat plate.

d B c fc fy 0.20 0.25 2.38 24.2 657 0.008 m m m MPa MPa

Tolf (1988), S2.1 (no yield punching)

B B

3 . a 8 B

B B
1

4a B

Ec0

21500

fc 10

(Model Code 90)

4 Ec0 = 2.88654 10

Ec10 n

0.6 1

fc 150

. Ec0

4 Ec10 = 2.02972 10 MPa n = 0.07883

200000. Ec10 d .n . 1 2 n 1 x . 1 x 3d

x = 0.0652 3 EI = 7.68998 10

EI

3 6 . d . 200. 10 . 1

kNm

1. PUNCHING CAPACITY V
Guess factor k to make V equal to or less than V: k 0.883

1.1 No yield punching

1 3 0.1

cpu

k . 0.001.

0.150 . 25 x fc

cpu = 1.16949 10 Recorded: = 0.0012

200000 cpu .

(d x

x)

s = 483.62138 fy = 657 If s > fy go to 1.2

MPa MPa

95

2 . s .d . 1

V ny

3 8 . . 10 .

x 3.d 1 B c
2

c 2 . ln B

Result

V ny = 630.82819

Deflection

ny

V ny . 4

B c

. c . c B 2 EI 2

ny = 8.1819 10

Recorded = 7.5 mm

1.2 Yield punching

(not governing in this case)

3 0.3

cpu

6 Ec10. 0.075. ( k . 10) . 25 10 . fy d fc

cpu = 1.00338 10

xpu

d.

2 . fy cpu Ec10 x . 3 10 3d 8 2 . ln c B B c 1 B c
2 2

xpu = 0.10323 my = 187.39524 Vy1 = 856.98057

my

2 . d . fy . 1

kN

Vy1

my.

kN

Vy2

my. 1

3 Vy2 = 1.31564 10

kN

fu fy f

cpu xpu my EI fu fy

fu = 9.71972 10 fy = 0.02437 f = 0.01465

Guess ry B 2
2 2 2

Given my Vy1 . 8 2 . ln c 2 ry 2 B B c f. B . EI ry = 0.125 c 2 = 1.19

4 ry

2 ry

ry

find( ry )

If ry > c/2 then V = Vy2

96

0.5 c V y Vy2 . my . ry c my . 2 Vy1 . 8 ry 2 . ln c 2r 2 B

2 2

B c

4r

f.

B . 2r

EI d r

Result Deflection Vy1 . 4 B c

2

V y = 669.77791

kN

y1

. c . c B 2 EI 2 B . c 2 B 2

y1 = 0.01112

y1

( fu

fy )

y = 9.16496 10

2. PUNCHING CAPACITY V
c0 B 2d 1 1 ln ln c c0 c B x0 = 0.04868 n0 = 0.03915 c0 = 0.65

n0

200000. . Ec0

x0

d . n0 .

2 n0 x0

. B

tan ( 50 deg )

x0 . 2 tan ( 25 deg )

u x0

= 22.13876

x0 2 cos ( 25 deg )
1

t = 0.02686

0.6 0.9 1

u 0.007. x0

. fc . t . sin ( 25 deg ) . u . 0.150 . 103 t

1

V = 652.64153

V max

1.2 fc . t . sin ( 25 deg ) . u .

0.150 . 3 10 t

V max = 630.23351

3. PUNCHING CAPACITY WITHOUT SHEAR REINFORCEMENT

k = 0.883 V ny = 630.82819 V max = 630.23351 Vtest = 603 kN kN kN

97

Appendix B. Punching of flat plate.

d B c fc fy 0.20 0.25 2.4 91 627 0.008 m m m MPa MPa

Hallgren (1966), HSC1 (yield punching)

B B

3 . a 8 B

B B
1

4a B

Ec0

21500

fc 10

(Model Code 90)

4 Ec0 = 4.48868 10 4 Ec0 = 4.29 10

Ec0

42900
4

(recorded value)

Ec10 n

0.6 1

fc 150

. Ec0

4 Ec10 = 4.22839 10 MPa n = 0.03784

200000. Ec10 d .n . 1 2 n 1 x . 1 d x 3d

x = 0.04797 3 EI = 8.95203 10

EI

3 6 . d . 200. 10 . 1

kNm

1. PUNCHING CAPACITY V
Guess factor k to make V equal to or less than V: k 1

1.1 No yield punching (not governing in this case)

1 3 0.1

cpu

0.150 . 25 k . 0.001. x fc 200000 cpu . (d x x)

cpu = 1.28508 10

s = 814.56107 fy = 627 If s > fy go to 1.2

MPa MPa

98

2 . s .d . 1

V ny

3 8 . . 10 .

x 3.d 1 B c
2

2 . ln

c B

Result

3 V ny = 1.09336 10

Deflection

ny

V ny . 4

B c

. c . c B 2 EI 2

ny = 0.0124

1.2 Yield punching

6 Ec10. 0.075. ( k . 10) . 25 10 . fy d fc 3 0.3

cpu

cpu = 1.46474 10

xpu

d.

2 . fy cpu Ec10 x . 3 10

xpu = 0.0324 my = 184.59891 Vy1 = 841.60164

my

2 . d . fy . 1

3d 8

kN

Vy1

my . 2 . ln c B B c

B c

kN

Vy2

my . 1

3 Vy2 = 1.29474 10

kN

fu fy f

cpu xpu my EI fu fy

fu = 0.04521 fy = 0.02062 f = 0.02459

Guess ry B 2
2 2 2

Given my Vy1 . 8 2 . ln c 2 ry 2 B B c B . EI f. 2 ry ry = 0.4738 c 2 = 1.2

4 ry

ry

find( ry )

If ry > c/2 then V = Vy2

99

0.5 c V y Vy2 . my . ry c my . 2 Vy1 . 8 ry 2 . ln c 2r 2 B

2 2

B c

4r

f.

B . 2r

EI d r

Result Deflection Vy1 . 4 B c

2

3 V y = 1.05141 10

kN

y1

. c . c B 2 EI 2 B . c 2 B 2

y1 = 9.54612 10

y1

( fu

fy )

y = 0.01285 Recorded = 12.5 mm

2. PUNCHING CAPACITY V
c0 B 2d 1 1 ln ln c c0 c B x0 = 0.04096 n0 = 0.02637 c0 = 0.65

n0

200000. . Ec0

x0

d . n0 .

2 n0 x0

. B

tan ( 50 deg )

x0 . 2 tan ( 25 deg )

u x0

= 25.18017

x0 2 cos ( 25 deg )
1

t = 0.0226

0.6 0.9 1

u 0.007. x0

. fc . t . sin ( 25 deg ) . u . 0.150 . 103 t

1

3 V = 2.0393 10

V max

1.2 fc . t . sin ( 25 deg ) . u .

0.150 . 3 10 t

3 V max = 2.02129 10

3. PUNCHING CAPACITY WITHOUT SHEAR REINFORCEMENT

k= 1 3 V y = 1.05141 10 3 V max = 2.02129 10 Vtest = 1021 kN kN kN

100

Appendix C. Flat plate with shear reinforcement.

d B c fc fy 0.201 0.25 2.4 91 604 0.0118 m m m MPa MPa

Hallgren (1996) HSC5s

Guess B B 3 . a 8 B

1 B B
1 3

(to make V equal to or larger than V) 4a B

Ec0

fc 21500. 10 43000 1

(Model Code 90)

4 Ec0 = 4.48868 10 4 Ec0 = 4.3 10 4 Ec10 = 4.23825 10

Ec0 Ec10

MPa fc 150
4

(Recorded value) . Ec0

0.6. 1

1. No yield punching V sny (not governing in this case)

0.5 0.3. 1 fc fc 100
0.1 2

= 0.50243 fc 190 4 Ec15 = 4.28735 10

Ec15 ns

. fc 0.0015 25 200000. Ec15

. 1.1

ns = 0.05505 1 1 . ns xs . 1 d 1 2 xs 3d
1

xs

d . ns .

4 EI

xs = 0.05642

3 6 . d . 200. 10 . 1

4 EI = 1.24948 10

kNm

cpus s

k . 0.0015

25 fc (d

0.1

. 0.150 xs

cpus = 1.82609 10 s = 935.7871 fy = 604

200000 cpus .

xs ) xs

MPa MPa

If s > fy go to Section 2

101

2 . s .d . 1

V sny

3 8 . . 10 .

xs 3.d 1 B c
2

2 . ln

c B

Result

3 V sny = 1.84358 10

kN

Deflection
sny
V sny . 4 1 B c
2 2

. c . c B 2 EI 2

sny = 0.01498

2. Yield punching V sy
6 Ec15. . 0.15. 15 . 25 10 . d fy fc 3 0.3

cpus

cpus = 2.27296 10

Recorded = 0.00225 xpus

. fy cpus Ec15
d.
2 . d . fy . 1

xpus = 0.02926

mys

xs . 3 10 3d 8

mys = 261.00196 kN

Vy1

mys . 2 . ln c B B c

B c

3 Vy1 = 1.18993 10

kN

Vy2

mys . 1

3 Vy2 = 1.83061 10 fu = 0.07768 fy = 0.02089

kN

fu

cpus
xpus

fy

. 1 200000 d xs
fy fu fy

f
Guess ry

f = 0.0568

B 2

Given mys Vy1 . 8 2 . ln c 2 ry 2 B

2 2

B c

4 ry

f.

2 ry

B . EI

ry

find( ry )

= 1.2 2 If ry > c/2 then V s = Vy2

ry = 0.73126

102

0.5 c V sy Vy2 . mys . ry c mys . 2 Vy1 . 8 ry Result 2 . ln c 2r 2 B

2 2

B c

4r

f.

B . 2r

EI d r

3 V sy = 1.68702 10

kN

Deflection
y1 Vy1 . 4 y1 B c
2

. c . c B 2 EI 2 fy ) B . c 2 B 2

y1 = 9.67012 10

sy

( fu

sy = 0.0173

Recorded =16 mm

3. Punching capacity V s
4 Ec0 = 4.3 10 n0 200000. Ec0 d . n0 . . B 1 2 n0 x0 tan ( 90 deg ) 1 x0 2 . tan ( 45 deg ) MPa n0 = 0.05488 x0 = 0.05647 m u = 0.8741

x0

x0 2 cos ( 45 deg )
1

t = 0.03993

V s

0.6 0.9 1

u 0.007. x0

. fc . t . sin ( 45 deg ) . u . 0.150 . 103 t

1

3 V s = 4.59288 10

V smax

1.2 fc . t . sin ( 45 deg ) . u .

0.150 . 3 10 t

3 V smax = 4.18953 10

4. Maximum punching capacity with shear reinforcent

k=1 3 V sy = 1.68702 10 3 V smax = 4.18953 10 Vtest = 1631 kN

103

Appendix D. Punching of column footing, surface load.

d a b fc fy 0.29 0.3 1.5 30.6 512 0.00862 m m m MPa MPa

Dieterle (1978) S1-H

1. Punching capacity V
B B B 4a 2b B 3 . a 8 B = 0.353 m B B B = 0.382 D = 1.693 m

Inclination of fictitious shear crack tan 1.4 d D 3 B 2 tan = 1.048 If tan < 1 put tan = 1

Diameter kD = c0 of circle within fictitious shear crack B k 2d tan D c0 k.D k = 0.536 c0 = 0.907

Radius R to center of gravity for load outside shear crack

2

D. 3

k 1

R = 0.67

104

Inclination of compression strut

1 3

Ec0

fc 21500. 10 200000. . Ec0

4 Ec0 = 3.121 10 ln ln b c0 b B x0 = 0.066 n0 = 0.034

1 1

n0

x0

d . n0 .

2 n0

Guess

30 deg

Given B )
2 2

tan ( )

(2 R x0

d x0

2R x0

Find( )

= 0.499

tan ( ) = 0.545

If tan( ) < tan(25 deg) = 0.466 put = 0.436 = (25 deg) If tan( ) > 1 put = 0.785 = (45 deg) Shear capacity V u
. B

x0 tan ( 2 )

x0 . 2 tan ( )

u = 1.526

t u x0 V

x0 2 cos ( )
= 22.996
1 2 3

t = 0.038

0.6 0.9 1

u 0.007. x0

. fc . t . sin ( ) . u . 0.150 . 103 t

1

3 V = 1.648 10

V max

1.2 fc . t . sin ( ) . u .

0.150 . 3 10 t

3 V max = 1.603 10

105

Load capacity P P V max 1 k

2

3 P = 2.249 10 Ptest = 2368 kN

kN

Flexural capacity
1 4 3

Ec10

0.6 1

fc 150 ln ln b c0 b B

fc 21500. 10

4 Ec10 = 2.369 10

MPa

200000. . Ec10

1 1

n = 0.045

d .n .

2 n B 2

x = 0.075

P .

b 8

M = 295.214

kNm

s
2 . d . c0 . 1

M ln b c0
. 1

x 3d

. 10

s = 326.778

MPa

c0 B

. s . x 2 x 200000 d x
1

c = 1.023 10

cpu

0.0010

25 fc

0.1

. 0.15 x

cpu = 1.236 10

106

Appendix E. Punching of column footing, line load.

d B c D fc fy

0.242 0.25 0.674 0.96 27.3 621 0.00413 4a

m m m m MPa MPa

Hallgren, Kinnunen, Nylander (1983, 1998) S12

B B D R c0

B B

B = 0.25 B = 0.25 D = 0.96 R = 0.337

3 . a 8 3 c 2 B 2d
. b 8

c0 = 0.734
1 3

Ec0

fc 21500. 10 1 1

4 Ec0 = 3.00487 10 D c D B x0 = 0.03944

1

MPa

n0

200000. . Ec0

ln ln

n0 = 0.01587

x0

d . n0 .

2 n0 fc

Ec10

0.6 1

150 ln ln D c D B 1

fc 21500. 10

4 Ec10 = 2.19765 10 MPa

200000. . Ec10

1 1 2 n

n = 0.02169

d .n .

x = 0.04543

107

Calculate Guess

30 deg Given tan ( )

(2 R x0

B )
2

d x0

2R x0

B
= 0.80706

Find( )

tan ( ) = 1.04428 If tan( ) < tan(25 deg) = 0.466 put = 0.436 = (25 deg) If tan( ) > 1 put = 0.785 = (45 deg)

0.785

Calculate V u t u x0
. B

x0 tan ( 2 )

x0 2 tan ( )

u = 0.8475 t = 0.02788

x0 2 cos ( )
= 21.48887
1

0.6 0.9 1

u 0.007. x0

. fc . t . sin ( ) . u . 0.150 . 103 t

1 3

V = 998.2513

V max

0.150 . 3 1.2 fc . t . sin ( ) . u . 10 t

V max = 958.62469 Vtest = 1049 kN

Flexural capacity V max. 2 B . c c M

2 .d .c . 1

M
s

M = 64.68962
. 10
3

kNm

ln

D c

. 1

x 3d

s = 312.70442

c B

. s . x 2 x 200000 d x
1

c = 7.14512 10

cpu

0.0010

25 fc

0.1

. 0.15 x

cpu = 1.47603 10

108

Appendix F. Unbalanced moment loading.

h d a c fc fy c B 0.152 0.121 0.305 1.8 33.4 476 0.0105 0.0035 3. a 8
1

m m m m MPa MPa

Ghali et al 1976, SM1.0

B = 0.35932 fc 150
4

Ec n

0.6 1

.21500 fc 10

4 Ec = 2.50977 10 n = 0.08367

200000. Ec d .n . 1 2 n 1 x . 1 x 3d . 1 h 6d

x = 0.0404 3 EI = 2.20237 10

EI

3 6 .d .200.10 . 1

kNm

EI1

3 6 .d .200.10 . 1 1

h 2d

3 EI1 = 1.0939 10

kI

EI1 EI

kI = 0.70476

1. LIMIT FOR REINFORCEMENT YIELD, 1 Guess 1 0.01 clim 0.001 xlim x

Given
1 0.1 3

clim 0.0010

25 fc

. 0.150 xlim

xlim

clim clim fy 200000

.d

.Ec.clim 0.5.xlim d .fy

109

1 xlim clim Find( 1 , xlim , clim)

Limit for reinforcement yield 1 = 0.01437 = 0.0105

2. PUNCHING CAPACITY V

cpu

6 Ec . 0.075. 10 . 25 10 . fy d fc

0.3

cpu = 1.68922 10

xpu

d.

2 . fy cpu Ec x . 3 10 3d 8 2 .ln 2 1 B c c B 1 B c
2 2

xpu = 0.02853

my

2 .d .fy . 1

my = 65.03184

kN

Vy1

my .

Vy1 = 390.7489

kN

Vy2

my .

Vy2 = 510.51769

kN

fu

cpu xpu my EI

fu = 0.05921 fy = 0.02953

fy

Guess ry c 2

Given my Vy1 . . c 2 ln 2 ry 8 find( ry ) 2 B

2 2

B c

4 ry

( fu

fy ) .

2 ry

B . EI ry = 0.55508 0.5 c = 0.9

ry

If ry > c/2 then V = Vy2 0.5 c V Vy2 . my .ry c . my 2 Vy1 . . c 2 ln 2 r 8 ry V = 473.82889 2

2 2

B c

4r

( fu

fy ) .

2r

B. EI d r

110

3. DEFLECTIONS Vy1 . 4 y1 y1 B . c .c B 2 c 2 EI 2 B c B fy ) . . 2 2 (c 4 B)
2 2

y1 y2

y1 = 8.78857 10 = 0.01263 y2 = 0.02411

( fu fy .

4. UNBALANCED MOMENT CAPACITY Mu

4.1 Insert column reaction V and guess value for M V 122 Vy1 = 390.7489 y1 = 8.78857 10 M 3 Vy2 = 510.51769 V = 473.82889

0.00048

4.2 Deflection due to load V V < Vy1

2

V . 1 4

B . c .c B 2 c 2 EI 2

V = 2.74398 10

4.3 Tension in top reinforcement of slab Fictitious slab deflections t along circle c due to column rotation c ( V 2 M ) c = 0.01085

t1 t2 t3 t4

V M V M V M V M

0.195 c .kI 0.555 c .kI 0.831 c .kI c .kI

t1 = 3.75451 10 t2 = 6.50628 10 t3 = 8.61596 10 t4 = 9.90776 10 y1 = 8.78857 10 y2 = 0.02411

3 3 3 3 3

Elastic behaviour for reactions Rt1 to Rt3 because the deflections t are less than y1

111

Reactions Rt at deflections t t1 . Vy1 V

Rt1

y1

Rt1 = 44.92956 Rt2 = 167.27575 Rt3 = 261.0745

Rt2

t2 . Vy1 V y1 y1 t3 . Vy1 V

Rt3

Guess fv Given my Vy1 . . c 2 ln 2 ry 8 ( fv 2 fy ry c 2 B

2 2

B c

4 ry

( fv

fy ) .

B . EI 2 ry

t4 y1 fv ry

B c B fy ) . . 2 2 fv = 0.03818 ry = 0.35529 0.5 c = 0.9

Find( fv , ry )

0.5 c Rt4 Vy2 . my .ry c . my 2 Vy1 . . c 2 ln 2 r 8 ry 2

2 2

B c

4r

( fv

fy ) .

2r

B. EI d r

Rt4 = 302.7886

Shear force Rt and unbalanced moment Mt Rt Mt ( Rt1 Rt2 Rt3 Rt4) . 1 8 0.831 Rt3 Rt4) . c 16 Rt = 97.00855 Mt = 69.90084

( 0.195 Rt1

0.555 Rt2

4.4 Tension in bottom reinforcement of slab b1 b2 b3 b4 V M V M V M V M 0.195 c 0.555 c 0.831 c c b1 = 1.49032 10 4 3 3 3 3

b2 = 3.75548 10 b3 = 6.74894 10 b4 = 8.58189 10 V. 1 kI kI

= 1.14949 10

112

b1 Rb1 V

kI . V kI .Vy1. .kI y1 1 y1 kI . V

Rb1 = 81.31145

b2 Rb2 V

kI

.Vy1. c .kI

Rb2 = 149.21922

b3 Rb3 V

1 y1

kI

kI . V

.Vy1. c .kI

Rb3 = 180.48547

b4 Rb4 V

1 y1

kI

kI . V

.Vy1. c .kI

Rb4 = 199.63038 Rbmax = 292.17256

Rbmax Rb1

V Rb2

c . Vy2 Rb3 8 Rb4

Rb

Rb = 76.33081

Equilibrium check Rb Rb Rt = 20.67774 Rt M . Vy1 y1 = 0.66356

Shear force Rb and unbalanced moment Mb Rb = 76.33081 Mb ( 0.195 Rb1 0.555 Rb2 0.831.Rb3 Rb4) . c 16 Mb = 50.4322

4.5 Unbalanced moment capacity Mu Mu e Mt Mu V Mb Mu = 120.33304 e = 0.98634 V = 122 etest =0.984 1 2 u M 2 . c kI c B 12 Mu . c ln 3 B .Ec.h 1 2 1 B . 10 c
3

1 = 0.02136 2 = 4.22909 10 u = 0.02559 M = 9.6 10 4 3

2 M

113

4.6 Simplified approach

1a

2 . . 1 kI c B 2 . . 1 kI c B

V V V u .10
3

1a = 0.01847

1b

1b = 0.01947

Mu 1 2 .kI.EI

c 12. ln B .Ec.h

1
3

B c

Mu = 726.09793

Mumax1

kI. .

Vy1 y1 c 4

c V . 4

Mumax1 = 139.39621 Mumax2 = 174.83296

Mumax2

( Vy2 V) .

Mumax3

c . c Vy2 V . 4

Mumax3 = 131.47765

Mumax4

. c 4 1 B c

.my . 1

Mumax4 = 153.15531

Mumax5

h 3 fc .a . 4

0.15 0.5.h

.103

Mumax5 = 221.42193

2a

12 Mumax3. .Ec.h 1b 2a
3

ln

c B

B . 10 c

2a = 4.62077 10

u = 0.02409

114