www.ernst‐und‐sohn.

de Page 1 Structural Concrete

Technical Paper

PUNCHING SHEAR TESTS ON COMPACT FOOTINGS

Accepted Article
WITH UNIFORM SOIL PRESSURE

by: João T. Simões 1, Jan Bujnak 2, Miguel Fernández Ruiz 3 and Aurelio Muttoni 4

(1) PhD Candidate, École Polytechnique Fédérale de Lausanne, ENAC, Station 18,

CH-1015, Lausanne, Switzerland, [email protected]

(2) R&D Manager, Peikko Group, [email protected]

(3) Lecturer and senior scientist, École Polytechnique Fédérale de Lausanne, Station

18, ENAC, CH-1015, Lausanne, Switzerland, [email protected]

(4) Professor, École Polytechnique Fédérale de Lausanne, ENAC, Station 18, CH-

1015, Lausanne, Switzerland, [email protected]

This article has been accepted for publication and undergone full peer review but has not been through the copyediting,
typesetting, pagination and proofreading process, which may lead to differences between this version and the Version of
Record. Please cite this article as doi: 10.1002/suco.201500175.

Submitted: 30‐Oct‐2015
Revised: 08‐Jan‐2016
Accepted: 02‐Feb‐2016

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

ABSTRACT

Punching shear is usually the governing failure criterion for the selection of the depth of
Accepted Article
reinforced concrete footings. Despite the fact that large experimental programmes have been

performed in the past aimed at the punching strength of slender flat slabs, only a few

experimental campaigns on full-scale compact reinforced concrete footings can be found in

the literature. In this paper, the results of an experimental programme including 8 reinforced

concrete footings with a nominal thickness of 550 mm is presented. These experiments

investigated the influence of the column size, member slenderness and the presence of

compression and shear reinforcement. The tests were performed using an innovative test

setup to ensure a uniform soil pressure. The experimental results show that the slenderness

influences the punching shear strength as well as the effectiveness of the shear reinforcement.

It is also experimentally shown that an important interaction amongst bending and shear

occurs for high levels of shear forces near the column (typical case of compact footings or

members with large amounts of shear reinforcement). Different continuous measurements

recorded during the experimental tests allow a complete description of the kinematics and

strains at failure. On that basis, experimental evidence is obtained showing that crushing of

the concrete struts near the column is the phenomenon that triggers the punching failure of

compact footings.

Keywords: experimental investigation, footings, punching shear strength, shear

reinforcement, column size, shear slenderness, punching behaviour

 www.ernst‐und‐sohn.de Page 3 Structural Concrete

NOTATION

a/d span-to-depth ratio

Accepted Article
B width of the specimen

c side length of square column

c/d column size-to-depth ratio

d effective depth

fc cylinders concrete compressive strength

fy yield strength of bottom flexural reinforcement

fyw yield strength of shear reinforcement

L distance between LVDT’s at the edge of the footing and near the column

ns number of studs per perimeter

np number of perimeters of shear reinforcement

Q load

QR maximum load

Qflex flexural capacity

r radius

δ displacement

δp column penetration

δy displacement associated to flexural deformation

δg displacement associated to shear deformation

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

δf,e displacement directly measured on the concrete top surface 10 mm from the edges of

the specimen
Accepted Article
δf,c displacement directly measured on the concrete top surface 25 mm from the column

δc displacement indirectly measured at centre of the column plate

ΔB changes in the side length of the specimen

Δh changes in the thickness of the specimen

εc,r radial strain on the concrete top surface

εc,t tangential strain on the concrete top surface

εs,r radial strain in the bottom flexural reinforcement

εs,t tangential strain in the bottom flexural reinforcement

ρ bottom flexural reinforcement ratio

ϕw diameter of the studs

ψ outer rotation
 www.ernst‐und‐sohn.de Page 5 Structural Concrete

1 INTRODUCTION

Several experimental investigations regarding the punching shear behaviour of reinforced

Accepted Article
concrete footings have been performed in the past [1-18]. They can be classified on the basis

of the test setup, where four types can be distinguished. The first test setup refers to the cases

where the footings were supported on a bed of springs and were loaded through a column

stub [1, 2] (refer to Fig. 1(a)). This arrangement may reproduce actual conditions for

perfectly elastic soils, but the analysis of the results due to the non-uniform distribution of the

reaction pressure is not straightforward (which depends upon the deformations of the footings

and vary during the test). A second configuration often used consists of footings resting on

line or concentrated supports, with the load being applied by a column stub or steel plate, see

Fig.1(b) [6, 7, 15-17]. A similar configuration, which is considered to be part of the same

group, is the application of a finite number of concentrated loads at a certain distance from

the column, being the latter fixed to a reaction frame. This configuration presents therefore

two slightly different options: (i) equal displacements at the line or concentrated supports or

(ii) equal force in the line or concentrated loads. Although useful information to analyse the

influence of different geometrical and mechanical properties can be obtained from this type

of experimental tests, not only the inclination of the compression struts but also the punching

failure surface are geometrically defined by the test setup (the later developing in between the

edge of the column and the inner radius of the supports). Therefore, in most of the tests on

footings subjected to concentrated loads, the failure surface might have not developed in a

completely free manner, being instead geometrically defined by the load arrangement.

As schematically shown in Fig. 1(c), another configuration of test setup currently used

consists on the application of an effective uniform loading replicated through the use of

several load points [3-5, 8-14]. These load points are supposed to represent the resultant of a

uniform pressure in each sub-area. It should nevertheless be noted that if the distance
 www.ernst‐und‐sohn.de Page 6 Structural Concrete

between load points becomes larger, these tests might also lead to a geometrical definition of

the failure surface. In fact, this is an important issue when testing full-scale specimens with
Accepted Article
this configuration, since a finite number of load points is to be applied on a large surface.

Recently, a more realistic configuration has been used [8-12], consisting on footings

supported on sand and loaded through the column (refer to Fig.1(d)). With this configuration,

the failure surface can develop freely, but, similarly to what happens in the test configuration

of footings supported on a bed of springs, soil pressure concentrations can occur. In addition,

soil behaviour may be difficult to characterize and pressure measurements are needed in

order to know the exact distribution of soil reaction. Nevertheless, these tests are a valuable

experimental contribution, allowing the investigation on the soil-structure interaction.

For the reasons previously discussed, scanty experimental full-scale tests under complete

uniform soil pressure are available and more data is still needed. In this paper, an

experimental investigation on 8 full-scale reinforced concrete footings with an innovative test

setup is presented (Fig.1(e)). The latter enables the application of a uniform soil pressure on

the bottom surface of the specimens. For that purpose, a group of flat jacks connected in

series (equal pressure) was placed in the bottom of a rigid box, which was then filled with a

layer of sand of ~300 mm, thus ensuring a uniform distribution of the load and, consequently,

the application of a uniform soil pressure. A sheet of Teflon and small aluminium plates were

also placed between the footings and the layer of sand, to reduce friction between soil and the

footing. Some parameters were kept constant (nominal bottom flexural reinforcement ratio

(0.75%), nominal concrete compressive strength (30 MPa) and nominal thickness (550 mm))

while others were varied. The parameters whose influence was investigated are the column

size, the footing side length –allowing to vary the shear slenderness–, the presence of shear

reinforcement as well as the presence of horizontal reinforcement in the compression surface.

With respect to the shear slenderness, in this paper, it will be defined as the ratio between the
 www.ernst‐und‐sohn.de Page 7 Structural Concrete

clear shear span and the effective depth, where the effective clear shear span is defined as the

distance between the edge of the footing and the edge of the column (measured along the
Accepted Article
principal directions of the reinforcement, orthogonally disposed).

Every test was tracked with several continuous measurements, allowing to understand the

kinematics and strains of the specimen. Four different regimes of behaviour could be clearly

distinguished and its description is presented in this paper.

2 EXPERIMENTAL PROGRAMME

2.1 Specimens and materials

The footings were square with a side length of 2.12 m (PS11, PS12, PP7, PP8) or 1.59 m

(PS13, PS14, PS15, PP9). The columns used were also square with a side length of 0.30 m

(PS11, PS13, PS14, PS15, PP7, PP9) or 0.45 m (PS12, PP8). The bottom flexural

reinforcement was arranged orthogonally and its nominal reinforcement ratio was kept

constant for all the 8 specimens (ratio equal to 0.75%, 22 mm-diameter bars with a constant

spacing of 100 mm, refer to Fig.2). Horizontal reinforcement on the top surface (theoretical

compression surface) was also used but only for some specimens (footings PS14 and PS15

had no top reinforcement). When provided, the compression reinforcement was kept constant

(with a ratio equal to 0.39%, consisting of 16 mm-diameter bars with a constant spacing of

100 mm). Both bottom and top reinforcements were bent near the edges (Fig.2). The nominal

cover was equal to 20 mm.

The footings PP7, PP8, PP9 and PS15 had shear reinforcement consisting of double-headed

shear studs with a diameter of 25 mm and following a radial arrangement. The layout of the

shear reinforcement for each footing is presented in Fig.3: PP7 had 3 perimeters of 16 studs,

PP8 had 3 perimeters of 20 studs and tests PP9 and PS15 had 2 perimeters of 16 studs. In
 www.ernst‐und‐sohn.de Page 8 Structural Concrete

order to ensure the correct position of the studs, steel strips (800×30×4 mm for PP7 and PP8

and 550×30×4 mm for PP9 and PS15) were welded on the heads of the studs and the position
Accepted Article
of the flexural reinforcement was slightly adjusted when needed.

The concrete used in all footings was normal strength (nominal concrete compressive

strength of 30 MPa) with a maximum aggregate size of 16 mm. Concrete cylinders (320 mm

height and 160 mm diameter) were cast, tested and used to control the concrete strength.

Ordinary reinforcing steel with a characteristic yield strength of 500 MPa was used in all the

footings for both flexural and shear reinforcement. Its corresponding mechanical properties

were measured in three different samples of each different diameter. The cylinders concrete

compressive strength at the day of the punching tests as well as the yield strength of the

reinforcement for each specimen can be found in Table 1.

2.2 Test setup and experimental procedure

The test setup is shown in Fig. 4. It consists of a loading system under the footing and a

reaction frame above it (used also as a loading system in some cases). The loading system

under the footing consists of a box where a group of flat jacks hydraulically connected with a

copper tube were placed (16 jacks for the larger specimens and 9 for the smaller). The flat

jacks were square with a side length of 500 mm and a nominal height of 55 mm. An electric

pump was used to introduce water in the group of flat jacks to inflate them. The application

of a uniform pressure to the bottom surface of the footing was ensured through the

introduction of a layer of sand between it and the flat jacks (compensating for the gaps

between its effective areas). The sand was confined laterally by the faces of a box made of 4

steel U beams. A sheet of Teflon was placed between the sand and the lateral surfaces of the

box, thus avoiding that the uplift of the sand would be constrained by friction. A gap of

approximately 20 mm was additionally left between the lateral surfaces of the footing and the
 www.ernst‐und‐sohn.de Page 9 Structural Concrete

lateral surfaces of the box, allowing expansion of the bottom surface of the footing. In order

to reduce friction between sand and the specimen, a sheet of Teflon and aluminium plates
Accepted Article
(with 130×130×5 mm) were placed between them.

The reaction frame above the footing consisted of two perpendicular steel beams connected

to a high-strength steel column. The two steel beams were fixed to the strong floor of the

laboratory through four high-strength Ø75 mm threaded bars. The column was simulated by a

square steel plate placed between the footing and the high-strength steel column. A thin layer

of plaster was placed between the steel column plate and the specimens, in order to avoid any

local stress concentrations.

For the tests of specimens PP7 and PP8, the entire load was applied through the loading

system under the footing. For the remaining tests, four hydraulic jacks were placed on top of

the reaction frame. These jacks were used to apply part of the load in the beginning of the

test, therefore reducing the necessary deformation of the flat jacks.

With respect to the experimental procedure, a loading rate of 50 kN/min has been applied.

Load steps have been done during the loading of specimens PP7 to PP9 and PS11 to PS13 to

perform measurements whose results are out of the scope of this paper.

2.3 Measurement devices

A general overview of the main measurement devices is shown in Fig. 5. The applied force

was measured with four load cells placed on top of the reaction frame, four strain gages

placed on the steel column, as well as with the measured oil pressure in the hydraulic jacks

(placed on the top of the reaction frame) and with the water pressure measured in the flat

jacks under the sand bed. Negligible differences were observed with the different devices.

The footing rotation was measured on the top surface of the footing with four inclinometers
 www.ernst‐und‐sohn.de Page 10 Structural Concrete

aligned with the axis and placed 100 mm from the edge of the footing. The strains on the

concrete top surface were measured in radial and tangential direction with the help of three
Accepted Article
omega-shaped gauges (PP7 to PP9, PS11 to PS13) or strain gauges (PP14 and PS15) with a

base length of 100 mm. Vertical displacements were also measured at different locations on

top surface with linear variable differential transformers (LDVT’s), notably in the edges of

the footing aligned with the axis. Three LVTD’s have also been placed at the steel column

plate, enabling the calculation of the vertical displacement at its centre. The changes in the

thickness of the footing were also measured in specimens PS11 to PS15 at different distances

from the column edge. The strains in the bottom flexural reinforcement of specimen PS12

were measured at different locations using strain gauges with a base length of 6 mm.

Deformations of double-headed shear studs have also been measured using the same strain

gauges. The expansion of top and south lateral surfaces of specimens PS14 and PS15 was

measured with LVDT’s, as it will be later described.

3 EXPERIMENTAL RESULTS

3.1 Main results

The main results of the experimental campaign are presented in Table 2. After testing,

cracking was observed on the bottom surface, regularly spaced and coincident with the

location of the reinforcement bars in both directions (see for instance Fig. 6). To investigate

on the tangential cracking and punching cone, the specimens were saw-cut along (at least) the

weak axis (axis with smaller effective depth of the reinforcement). The observed cracking

patterns are presented in Fig.7 (where the punching cone can be clearly observed). The

specimens with shear reinforcement PP7, PP9 and PS15 failed in punching inside the shear

reinforced zone by crushing of the concrete struts near the loading plate. The test of specimen

PP8 with shear reinforcement was stopped after large plastic deformations. Nevertheless,
 www.ernst‐und‐sohn.de Page 11 Structural Concrete

shear cracks can be seen very clearly, indicating that a punching failure was probably close to

occur.
Accepted Article
On the basis of the saw-cuts, Fig.7, failure can be associated to crushing observed along the

failure surface, notably, close to the column (where various parallel cracks appear). The

specimens with shear reinforcement have shown a more ductile failure than those without

shear reinforcement. With the exception of specimen PP8, every footing presented a clear

crushing failure characterized by the development of failure surface between the edge of

column and the first row of studs.

It is also important to note from Fig.7 that the inclination of the failure surface of footing

without shear reinforcement appears to be dependent on the shear slenderness, with steeper

surfaces observed for more compact slabs. This is in agreement with previous experimental

campaigns presented in the literature [11-14].

3.2 Measured Deformations

3.2.1 Rotation and deflections

The load-rotation curves of the tested specimens are presented in Fig.8, where the specimens

without shear reinforcement are compared with the corresponding shear reinforced

specimens. From that figure, it can be observed that the presence of shear reinforcement

enhances the strength and the deformation capacity. Both footings with and without shear

reinforcement experienced a decrease on the tangent flexural stiffness. For specimens without

transverse reinforcement, this was observed close to the failure load, whereas for specimens

with shear reinforcement, this decrease was observed at lower load levels (refer to Fig. 8).

Fig.9(a-d) show the load-displacement curves obtained using different measurement devices

for 3 specimens without shear reinforcement (PS11 to PS13) and for a specimen with shear
 www.ernst‐und‐sohn.de Page 12 Structural Concrete

reinforcement (PS15). The displacements presented in this figure were calculated based on

the rotations measured with four inclinometers and on the displacement measured with
Accepted Article
LVDT’s at the column plate or edge (Fig.9(e)). Three different components may be

distinguished, corresponding to flexural deformations δy, shear deformations δγ and, finally,

column penetration δp, as shown in Fig.9(e). It is important to note that the information

shown in Fig.9 are calculated based on the measured deformations at the top surface of the

specimens. It is also important to note that part of the deformation here considered as column

penetration may also be considered as a shear deformation (here it will be separated for

clearness reasons). With this respect, it can be observed that the punching failures of the

footings without shear reinforcement presented an enhanced total deformation capacity (sum

of flexural, shear and column penetration) with respect to slender flat slabs [22] (where the

flexural deformation component is dominant).

The three specimens without shear reinforcement shown in Fig.8 (a-c) differ in the span-to-

effective depth ratio and the column size. For all specimens, the sum of the shear deformation

and column penetration can be of the same, or even higher, magnitude than the flexural

deformations. It is also possible to verify that the column penetration, which can be seen as a

very local deformation, can reach non-negligible values, particularly for the most compact

footings, as a result of high levels of shear forces. It is interesting to note that for the smallest

column size, the shear deformation stabilized or even decreased near failure. This result is

explained by the fact that a part of the shear deformation is accounted for as a column

penetration.

Based on the recorded measurements, the deformed shaped of the footing during loading can

be drafted as represented in Fig.9(e), where the three components (flexural and shear

deformations, as well as column penetration) are qualitatively taken into account. Fig.9(d)

refers to footing PS15, which corresponds to a shear reinforced footing without horizontal top
 www.ernst‐und‐sohn.de Page 13 Structural Concrete

reinforcement. In the case of shear-reinforced specimens, the three components of the

deformations can again be clearly distinguished. Although an increase of flexural

Accepted Article
deformations are observed close to failure in the case of the shear reinforced specimens (a

plateau seems to be reached in the load-rotation curves, refer to Fig.8(d)), a more significant

increase of the column penetration is again observed.

3.2.2 Strains in the bottom flexural reinforcement

The strains in the bottom flexural reinforcement of specimen PS12 were tracked along the

weak axis both in the radial and tangential directions. The location of the 32 strain gauges is

shown in Fig.10(a) (where strain gauge J23 is not considered hereafter due to measurement

problems during the test). Although the specimen is square and not circular, the strain gauges

J17 to J32 can be considered as indicators of tangential strains. The results are presented in

Fig.10(b) and (c) for radial and tangential directions, respectively. Each value represented in

these two figures result from the average value of two strain gauges placed at a distance of 50

mm (e.g. εs,r at r=25 mm is the average of J1 (r=0 mm) and (r=50 mm), where r represents

the radial distance from the centre of the specimen). It is interesting to note that a peak on the

strains profile develops at the edge of the column in the radial direction (although the average

value at this position is below the yielding strain, the strain gauge placed at r=250 mm

attained locally the yielding strain). It should also be noted that the tangential strains

measured near the edge of the footing are larger than those measured in radial direction.

3.2.3 Changes in the thickness of the footings

The changes in the thickness of the specimens were measured at different points in specimens

without shear reinforcement, as well as in the shear-reinforced footing PS15 (detail of the

measurement is shown in Fig.11(a)). The results are presented in Fig.11, where it remains

clear that the variation in the thickness at maximum load tends to be more pronounced for the
 www.ernst‐und‐sohn.de Page 14 Structural Concrete

most compact footings (refer to Fig.11(b-e)). It is to be noted that the changes of thickness

measured correspond to the vertical component of shear cracks developing inside the footing.
Accepted Article
It is possible to verify that the changes in the thickness of the footings start to be significant at

values of ~80% of the maximum load for the specimens without shear reinforcement. It is

also interesting to note that the changes in the thickness tend to be more pronounced near the

column. With respect to the shear reinforced specimen (Fig. 11 (f)), it is shown that the

changes in the thickness variation start at ~60% of the maximum load, which corresponds to

the load where the changes in the thickness of the reference specimen –without shear

reinforcement– can also be observed.

3.2.4 Strains on the concrete top surface

The strains on the concrete top surface were measured near the column plate. The radial and

tangential strains measured for specimen PS11 (most slender specimen) are shown in

Fig.12(a-b), respectively. With respect to radial strains, an elongation was measured, with

higher values obtained for smaller distances to the column plate. This elongation increases

with increasing levels of load, up to ~80% of the total load, from which it starts decreasing.

At failure, values of radial strains on the concrete top surface near the column are very small.

This behaviour, which was consistently measured in this experimental campaign, has already

been observed in footings in previous experimental investigations [e.g. 4, 5, 8-14]. This

behaviour is very different from that normally observed in flat slender slabs [e.g. 19- 22],

where a shortening (related to compression) is measured in the soffit of the slab up to a

certain value, from which a decompression is normally observed. With respect to the

tangential strains on the concrete top surface, it is to be noted that a shortening (related to

compression) proportional to the rotation (as a result of flexural deformations) was measured
 www.ernst‐und‐sohn.de Page 15 Structural Concrete

up to a certain value, where a tendency of stabilization or even slight decrease of the

tangential strains could be consistently measured.

Accepted Article
3.3 Global observed behaviour of RC footings subjected to concentrated loads

The punching failure of the specimens with shear reinforcement can be governed by a failure

inside, within or outside the shear reinforced zone [23]. The shear reinforced specimens in

this paper that reached failure presented a crushing of the concrete struts near the loading

plate, with the development of a failure surface between the column edge and the first

perimeter of shear reinforcement. Although the potential failure modes of shear reinforced

specimens are well established, the phenomena that trigger the failure of footings without

shear reinforcement is still an object of discussion. For that topic, the continuous

measurements recorded in the shear critical region (near the column) in this experimental

campaign provide valuable additional information.

The main deformations measured in the shear critical region are presented in Fig.13. Five

different measurements are presented: the rotation measured near the edges of the footing

(ψ); the column penetration (δp); the changes in the thickness of the specimen measured at a

distance of 100 mm from the edge of the steel column plate (Δh); the radial (εc,radial) and

tangential (εc,tan) strains on the top concrete surface, both measured at a distance of 100 mm

from the edge of the steel column plate. The results presented in Fig.13 correspond to the

specimens (a) PS11 and (b) PS13, which are the most slender and the most compact

specimens without shear reinforcement, respectively. It is important to note that in both

diagrams, the load is normalized by the maximum load. With respect to the results, four

different regimes of behaviour can be distinguished:

- 1) Up to ~30% Q/QR an elastic behaviour can be observed. This led to an increase of

rotation (uncracked flexural stiffness), an increase of tangential compression (negative

 www.ernst‐und‐sohn.de Page 16 Structural Concrete

tangential strains) proportional to the rotation, an increase of the radial tension (as a

results of local shear deformation near the column, refer to Fig.9) and an increase of
Accepted Article
the support penetration (probably partially due to the crushing of the plaster between

the steel column plate and the footing). No changes in the thickness of the specimens

were observed

- 2) From ~30% to ~80% Q/QR for PS11 and ~30% to ~75% Q/QR for PS13: flexural

cracks start developing (this was confirmed after visual inspection of the bottom

surfaces after testing, see for instance Fig. 6) and a decrease of the flexural stiffness

can be observed in the load-rotation curve. The tangential compression strains on the

concrete top surface increase proportionally to the rotation. The radial tension on the

top concrete surface are still increasing as a consequence of a local shear deformation

near the column and the penetration of the column slightly accelerates. In the

transition between this and the following stage, changes in the thickness of the footing

are measured, which may be justified by the appearance of inclined cracks due to the

flexural-shear interaction;

3) From ~80% to ~90% Q/QR for PS11 and from ~75% to ~85% for PS13: the

rotation and the column penetration increase, but the corresponding stiffness are still

approximately equal to the previous regime. The tangential compression on the

concrete top surface is still increasing. However, a different behaviour may be

observed: the changes in the thickness become important and the radial tension

measured on the concrete top surface attains its maximum, remaining approximately

constant;

4) Finally, from ~90% Q/QR (PS11) or ~85% Q/QR (PS13) up to maximum load, a

slight loss of flexural stiffness (also observed to occur in Fig.8) is observed

accompanied by a pronounced loss of shear stiffness. The tangential compression in

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

the concrete top surface near the column remains constant or even decreases

(decompression). The radial tension in the concrete top surface decreases almost up to
Accepted Article
a zero value and the changes in the thickness of the footing and the column

penetration accelerate and become very significant.

The four regimes previously described have been clearly observed for the 4 footings without

shear reinforcement. The limits of each regime depend however on the mechanical and

geometrical properties. For instance, the last regime appears to be more significant for more

compact footings. This stage might be assumed as to be corresponding to the crushing of the

concrete struts near the column, which can be confirmed by the signs of crushing observed in

the saw-cuts (refer to Fig.7). The crushing of the concrete struts near the column would also

explain the tangential decompression observed on the concrete top surface (as a consequence

of the pronounced lateral expansion of concrete close to failure [24]). At this stage, the

column is penetrating into the footing and the sliding surface forming at the top of the

concrete struts are confirmed with the measurements of the changes in the thickness (refer to

Fig.11).

It is also interesting to note that the experimental evidences observed in the campaign

presented in this paper are in accordance to those presented by Hallgren and Bjerke [25], who

also observed similar regimes when analyzing the punching behaviour of footings using non-

linear finite element analyses.

4 ANALYSIS OF EXPERIMENTAL EVIDENCES

4.1 Influence of span-to-depth ratio and column size

The span-to-depth ratio depends on the footing and column sizes, as well as on the effective

depth. While the nominal value of the latter parameter was kept constant in the presented
 www.ernst‐und‐sohn.de Page 18 Structural Concrete

experimental investigation, the formers were varied. The maximum loads normalized by the

square of the effective depth and the square root of the cylinders concrete compressive
Accepted Article
strength are presented in Table 2 and represented in Fig.14 as a function of the shear

slenderness (equal column size) and of the column size (for equal side length of the footings).

The results show that an increase of the shear slenderness decreases the load carrying

capacity for the cases of footings without shear reinforcement (refer to Fig.14(a)), due to:

- an increase of percentage of load outside the failure surface, where the load has to be

carried by inclined struts (increase of shear force);

- a decrease of the inclination of the failure surface (Fig.7), which is associated to a

decrease of the average shear strength per unit length; according to theoretical

considerations [26, 27].

As shown in Fig.14(b), increasing the column size leads to an increase of the load carrying

capacity, of both footings with and without shear reinforcement. This may be justified not

only by the increase of the column perimeter (associated to lower acting shear stresses), but

also by the inherent decrease of the shear slenderness (as the side length of the footings were

kept constant).

4.2 Influence of shear reinforcement

As it was previously shown (refer to Figs.8 and 14), the shear reinforcement can enhance the

punching strength and deformation capacity compared to specimens without shear

reinforcement. Its effectiveness is nevertheless shown to be dependent on the span-to-

effective depth ratio, as can be seen in Fig.14. This has been previously shown for footings

having stirrups as shear reinforcement [11-14] and is here confirmed for the case of double-

headed shear studs. The shear reinforcement controls the development of transverse strains,

as it can be seen comparing the changes in the thickness of footings PS14 and PS15 (refer to
 www.ernst‐und‐sohn.de Page 19 Structural Concrete

Fig. 11 (e) and (f)) with the activation of the shear reinforcement in footing PS15 (see Fig.

15). The first perimeter of shear studs of specimen PS15 is activated from approximately
Accepted Article
80% of the maximum load of the reference specimen PS14, which corresponds to the level of

load from which important changes in the thickness of the specimens were measured

(Fig.11). The excellent anchorage conditions of the shear reinforcement used in this

experimental campaign (double-headed studs with anchorage head size of 3 diameters)

enables its full activation with the appearance of transverse strains.

The decrease on the effectiveness of the shear reinforcement with decreasing shear

slenderness may be physically explained by the location and inclination of the concrete struts.

Considering that the principal transverse strains develop normal to the compressive strain and

that the principal compressive strains have approximately the same direction of the concrete

struts, a decrease of the angle between the concrete struts and the shear reinforcement leads to

lower efficiency of the latter [28]. This is the case of footings with low span-to-effective

depth ratio, which have more inclined concrete struts, and, consequently, lower angles

between the concrete struts and the shear reinforcement.

4.3 Flexural-shear interaction

It is shown in the Fig.8 that the load-rotation curves of the specimens with shear

reinforcement reach a plateau before failure. The strengths at the plateau are significantly

lower than those predicted by the classical yield line theory [29, 30] and presented in the

Table 2. This has been shown to occur for slabs with large amounts of shear reinforcement

[19, 20]. This phenomenon can be seen as a flexural-shear interaction, as shown using the

kinematic theorem of limit analysis [26]. This effect is very important for compact footings

[26] since it leads to theoretical values of strength significantly lower than those obtained for

a pure flexural failure.

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

4.4 Influence of top reinforcement

Specimens PS14 and PS15 differ from specimens PS13 and PP9, respectively, because
Accepted Article
horizontal reinforcement was not used in the theoretical compression surface. The objective

was to study the potential influence of this reinforcement in the failure mode as well as in the

strength of the footings. According to theoretical considerations [26], horizontal

reinforcement in the compression zone can act as confinement reinforcement of the inclined

strut near the column, therefore increasing the load capacity. The ratio of the normalized

loads (refer to Table 2) of the specimens with and without horizontal flexural reinforcement

confirm that a small increase of the load carrying capacity can be achieved by the presence of

this reinforcement (8% increase for specimens without shear reinforcement PS13/PS14 and

3% in case of specimens with shear reinforcement PP9/PS15).

The expansion of the top and lateral surfaces of the specimen PS14 was measured with

LVDT's (see Fig.16(a)) and the results are shown in Fig.16(b). An elongation of the bottom

surface (measured at the bottom of the lateral surface) and a shortening of the top surface

were measured up to ~80% of the maximum load, probably resulting from the flexural

behaviour. From that moment, although the bottom surface continues to elongate, the

shortening of the top surface stabilizes. This may be justified with the expansion of the

diagonal concrete strut [24], which compensates the continuous contraction expected due to

the flexural behaviour. While for specimen PS13 (with top flexural reinforcement) no cracks

at the top surface could be observed after failure, radial cracks could be seen in the top

surface of specimen PS14 (without top reinforcement). Although the expansion of the top

surface of specimen PS13 was not measured, the differences in the load carrying capacity and

in the crack pattern of the top surface indicate that the presence of top reinforcement might

increase the strength of footings without shear reinforcement (this topic should be clarified in

future by experimental and analytical research).

 www.ernst‐und‐sohn.de Page 21 Structural Concrete

5 CONCLUSIONS

An experimental investigation on 8 full-scale reinforced concrete footings with and without

Accepted Article
shear reinforcement is presented in this paper. The bottom flexural reinforcement (0.75%)

and the nominal thickness (550 mm) were kept constant, while the influence of the column

size, the slenderness, the presence of top horizontal reinforcement and of shear reinforcement

was investigated. Detailed measurements in the shear critical region were recorded during the

experimental tests. The main experimental evidences are summarized in the following:

1) Punching strength of reinforced concrete footings without shear reinforcement is

shown to increase with decreasing shear slenderness. Also the inclination of the

critical shear crack appears to be steeper for low span-to-effective depth ratios;

2) Punching strength of reinforced concrete footings can be significantly increased using

double-headed shear studs. The effectiveness of this reinforcement is experimentally

shown to be dependent on the shear slenderness, being less effective for low span-to-

effective depth ratios;

3) Although flexural deformations might be important to describe the punching

behaviour of footings, significant shear deformations also occur due to the high levels

of shear forces;

4) A careful analysis of the measurements recorded in the shear critical region indicate

that the crushing of the concrete diagonal strut close to the column is the phenomenon

that triggers failure. The observations of the saw-cuts after testing confirm the

presence of crushed concrete in this zone;

5) An important flexural-shear interaction was observed in the case of footings with

shear reinforcement, where a plateau appears to be reached in the load-rotation

curves;
 www.ernst‐und‐sohn.de Page 22 Structural Concrete

6) The load corresponding to this flexural-shear plateau is significantly lower than the

theoretical flexural capacity calculated based on the yield line method. This reduction
Accepted Article
may be explained by the high concentrations of shear forces at the edge of the

column, increasing the height of the compression zone and decreasing consequently

the lever arm;

7) The flexural-shear regime above described has to be taken into account in the design

and assessment of reinforced concrete footings. A rational based method to predict the

flexural-shear capacity of reinforced concrete footings is needed.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

The authors would like to thank Peikko Group for supporting the experimental work on

footings with shear reinforcement. The authors also want to express their gratitude to Mr.

Jürgen Einpaul for his contribution in part of the laboratorial work.

REFERENCES

[1] Talbot A. N., Reinforced Concrete Wall Footings and Column Footings, Bulletin 67,

Engineering Experiment Station, University of Illinois, 1913, 114 pp.

[2] Richart F. E., Reinforced Concrete Walls and Column Footings, part 1 and 2, ACI

Journal, Vol. 45, 1948, pp. 97-127, pp. 237-260.

[3] Kordina K., Nölting D., Load-carrying behaviour of eccentrically loaded isolated

reinforced concrete foundations, Technical Report, DFG-Research Ko 204/27-30,

Brunswick, Germany, 1981, pp. 158 (In German: Tragverhalten von ausmittig

beanspruchten Einzelfundamenten aus Stahlbeton).

[4] Dieterle H., Rostásy F., Load-carrying behaviour of isolated reinforced concrete

foundations of square columns, Deutscher Ausschuss für Stahlbeton, Vol. 387, 1987, pp.

1-91 (In German: Tragverhalten quadratischer Einzelfundamente aus Stahlbeton).

 www.ernst‐und‐sohn.de Page 23 Structural Concrete

[5] Dieterle H., Design of reinforced concrete foundations of square columns under

centric loading with the help of design diagrams, Deutscher Ausschuss für Stahlbeton,
Accepted Article
Vol. 387, 1987, pp. 94-134 (In German: Zur Bemessung quadratischer Stützenfundamente

aus Stahlbeton unter zentrischer Belastung mit Hilfe von Bemessungsdigrammen).

[6] Hallgren M., Kinnunen S., Nylander B., Punching Shear Tests On Column Footings,

Nordic Concrete Research, Vol. 21, 1998, pp. 1-22.

[7] Timm M., Punching of foundation slabs under axisymmetric loading, Doctoral Thesis,

Institute for Building Materials, Concrete Structures and Fire Protection of the Technical

University Braunschweig, 2003, pp. 159 (In German: Durchstanzen von Bodenplatten

unter rotationssymmetrischer Belastung).

[8] Hegger J., Sherif A., Ricker M., Experimental Investigations on Punching Behaviour

of Reinforced Concrete Footings, ACI Structural Journal, Vol. 103, No. 4, 2006, pp. 604-

613.

[9] Ricker M., Punching in RC footings considering the soil-structure-interaction,

Proceedings of the 6th Int. Ph.D. Symposium in Civil Engineering, Zürich, Switzerland,

2006.

[10] Hegger J., Ricker M., Ulke B., Ziegler M., Investigations on the punching behaviour

of reinforced concrete footings, Engineering Structures, Vol. 29, No. 9, 2007, pp. 2233-

2241.

[11] Hegger J., Ricker M., Sherif A., Punching Strength of Reinforced Concrete Footings,

ACI Structural Journal, Vol. 106, No. 5, pp. 706-716, 2009.

[12] Ricker M., Reliability of punching design of isolated foundations, Doctoral Thesis,

RWTH Aachen University, 2009, pp. 304 (In German: Zur Zuverlässigkeit der Bemessung

gegen Durchstanzen bei Einzelfundamenten).

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

[13] Siburg C., Hegger J., Experimental Investigations on Punching Behaviour of

Reinforced Concrete Footings with structural dimensions, Structural Concrete, Vol. 15,
Accepted Article
No. 3, 2014, pp. 331-339.

[14] Siburg C., Consistent punching design in flat slabs and foundations, Doctoral Thesis,

RWTH Aachen University, 2014, pp. 333 (In German: Zur einheitlichen Bemessung gegen

Durchstanzen in Flachdecken und Fundamenten).

[15] Netopilik R. J., Punching Shear Behaviour of Thick Reinforced Concrete Slabs, Master

Thesis, University of Toronto, 2012, 243 pp.

[16] Urban T., Goldyn M., Krakowski J., Krawczyk L., Experimental investigation on

punching behaviour of thick reinforced concrete slabs, Archives of Civil Engineering,

Vol. 59, No. 2, 2013, pp. 157-174.

[17] Krakowski J., Krawczyk L., Urban T., Punching of RC Thick Plates – Experimental

Test and Analysis, Proceedings of the fib Symposium, Concrete – Innovation and Design,

Copenhagen , 2015.

[18] Urban T., Krakowski J., Goldyn M., Krawczyk L., Punching of RC thick plates,

Department of Concrete Structures, Technical University of Lodz, Poland, Report Nr. 19,

2013, pp. 173.

[19] Lips S. Punching of Flat Slabs with Large Amounts of Shear Reinforcement, Thèse

EPFL N°5409, 2012, pp. 273.

[20] Lips S., Fernández Ruiz M. and Muttoni A., Experimental Investigation on

Punching Strength and Deformation Capacity of Shear-Reinforced Slabs, ACI Structural

Journal, Vol. 109, No. 6, pp. 896-900, 2012.

[21] Kinnunen S., Nylander H., Punching of Concrete Slabs Without Shear

Reinforcement, Transactions of the Royal Institute of Technology, N° 158, 112 pp., 1960.
 www.ernst‐und‐sohn.de Page 25 Structural Concrete

[22] Guandalini S., Burdet O., Muttoni A., Punching tests of slabs with low

reinforcement ratios, ACI Structural Journal, Vol. 106, N°1, pp. 87-95, 2009.
Accepted Article
[23] Fernández Ruiz M., Muttoni A., Applications of the critical shear crack theory to

punching of R/C slabs with transverse reinforcement, ACI Structural Journal, Vol. 106 N° 4,

pp. 485-494, 2009.

[24] Guidotti R., Fernández Ruiz M., Muttoni A., Crushing and Flexural Strength of

Slab-Column Joints, Engineering Structures, Vol. 33, No. 3, 2011, pp. 855-867.

[25] Hallgren M., Bjerke M., Non-linear finite element analyses of punching shear failure

of column footings, Cement and Concrete Composites, Vol. 24, No. 6, 2002, pp. 491-496.

[26] Simões J. T., Faria D. V., Fernández Ruiz M., Muttoni A., Limit Analysis for

punching shear design of compact slabs and footings, Proceedings of the fib Symposium,

Concrete – Innovation and Design, 2015.

[27] Braestrup M. W., Nielsen M. P., Jensen B. C., Bach F., Axisymmetric Punching of

Plain and Reinforced Concrete, Report No. 75, Structural Research Laboratory, Technical

University of Denmark, 1976, pp. 33.

[28] Vecchio F. J., Collins M. P., The modified compression-field theory for reinforced

concrete elements subjected to shear, ACI Journal, Vol. 83, No. 2, 1988, pp. 219-231.

[29] Johansen K.W., Yield-line Theory, Cement and Concrete Association, 1962, pp. 182.

[30] Gesund H., Flexural Limit Analysis of Concentrically Loaded Column Footings, ACI

Journal Proceedings, Vol. 80, No. 3, 1983, pp. 223-228.

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

FIGURES

CL CL CL CL C
L
Accepted Article Q
Q Q Q Q

(a) (b) (c) (d) (e)

Fig. 1: Typical configurations of test setups used in experimental investigations on the

punching shear strength of footings.

Bottom reinforcement Top reinforcement Bottom reinforcement Top reinforcement

(PP9, PS13)
11Ø22 @ 100 mm 11Ø16 @ 100 mm 8Ø22 @ 100 mm 8Ø16 @ 100 mm
1060 mm 1060 mm 795 mm 795 mm

8Ø16 @ 100 mm
8Ø22 @ 100 mm
11Ø16 @ 100 mm
11Ø22 @ 100 mm

795 mm
795 mm
1060 mm
1060 mm

(a) (c)

column plate top reinforcement

300 mm (PP7, PS11) top reinforcement 16Ø16 @ 100 mm
450 mm (PP8, PS12) 21Ø16 @ 100 mm (PP9, PS13)
550 mm

550 mm

bottom reinforcement bottom reinforcement

21Ø22 @ 100 mm 16Ø22 @ 100 mm
(b) (d)
Fig. 2: Layout of the flexural reinforcement of: (a) PS11, PS12, PP7, PP8; (b) PS13, PS14,

PS15, PP9.
 www.ernst‐und‐sohn.de Page 27 Structural Concrete

Accepted Article
(a) (b)

(c) (d)

Fig. 3: Layout of the shear reinforcement: (a) plan view of PP7 and PP8; (b) plan view of PP9

and PS15; (c) cut view of PP7 and PP8; (d) cut view of PP9 and PS15.
 www.ernst‐und‐sohn.de Page 28 Structural Concrete

4 x spheric nuts

steel plates
4 x force transducers
Accepted Article 4 x hydraulic jacks

2 x steel profiles
600 x 600 x 3000 mm
steel column
Ø 220 mm
4x high-strength
steel plate steel bars Ø 75 mm
aluminium plates
Teflon sheet
sand ~300 mm specimen
Teflon sheet
wood plate 16 steel profiles
4 x force transducers
UPN180

flat jacks 4 Dywidag bars

500x500x55 [mm] Ø 36 mm
4 steel U-profiles
bed of mortar 320x160x2400 mm

reaction slab

steel plates
4 x spheric nuts laboratory
strong floor

Fig. 4: Schematic representation of the test setup.

Inc. N

3 LVDT’s at the
column plate LVDT at the
West edge
Inc. W
100
100
100

LVDT

LVDT at the Inc. E

100
West edge 100 omega-shaped
100 transducers
rInc. = 960 mm (PP7, PP8, PS11, PS12)
rInc. = 695 mm (PP9, PS13 to PS15)

Inc. S

Fig. 5: Schematic representation of the main measurement devices and its location.
 www.ernst‐und‐sohn.de Page 29 Structural Concrete

Accepted Article

Fig. 6: Schematic representation of the cracking pattern on the bottom surface of specimen

PS14 after testing.

PS11 PP7

(a) (b)
PS12 PP8

(c) (d)
PS13 PP9

(e) (f)
PS14 PS15

(g) (h)
 www.ernst‐und‐sohn.de Page 30 Structural Concrete

Fig. 7: Schematic representation of the saw cuts.

12
Accepted Article 10
PP8 PP9 PS15
PP7
8
Q [MN]

4
PS13
PS14
PS11 a/d ≈ 1.81 a/d ≈ 1.63 a/d ≈ 1.26 a/d ≈ 1.26
2 PS12
c/d ≈ 0.60 c/d ≈ 0.88 c/d ≈ 0.59 c/d ≈ 0.59
0
0 2 4 6 80 2 4 6 8 10 12 0 2 4 6 80 2 4 6 8
ψ [mrad] ψ [mrad] ψ [mrad] ψ [mrad]

(a) (b) (c) (d)

Fig. 8: Load rotation curves of the corresponding specimens with and without shear

reinforcement.

7
flexural deformation δy
6
δp
shear deformation δγ
5 δγ δp
δy δγ
Q [MN]

4 column
penetration δp δy
δf,e-δc
3
δf,e-δc δf,e-δc
2 δf,e-δf,c
δf,e-δf,c δf,e-δf,c
1
PS11 PS12 PS13
0
0 2 4 6 8 0 2 4 6 8 0 2 4 6 8
δ [mm] δ [mm] δ [mm]
(a) (b) (c)

L
9
δc δf,c δf,e
8 ψ
7 δp
δy = y x L
6 δγ δγ = (δf,e-δf,c) - δy
Q [MN]

5 δy δp = δf,c - δc
4 δf,e-δc
3 δf,e-δf,c
2
1
PS15
0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12
δ [mm]
(d) (e)
 www.ernst‐und‐sohn.de Page 31 Structural Concrete

Fig. 9: Load displacement curves accounting separately the flexural deformation (estimated

based on the rotation of the footing), shear deformation and column penetration: (a) PS11; (b)
Accepted Article
PS12; (c) PS13; (d) PS15; (e) scheme of recorded measures: outer rotation ψ by

inclinometers; vertical displacement in the edge of the footing δf,e using a LVDT; vertical

displacement of the footing 25 mm far from the column edge δf,c; vertical displacement at the

centre of the column plate δc.

CL

CL
N J15 J13 J11 J9 J7 J5 J3 J1
J16 J14 J12 J10 J8 J6 J4 J2

3
εs,y
2.5
1060

εs,r [mm/m]

2 100%
90%
1.5 80%
70%
1
50%
0.5
30%
0
J15 J13 J11 J9 J7 J5 J3 J1 1000 800 600 400 200 0
J16 J14 J12 J10 J8 J6 J4 J2 r [mm]
CL

50
J31/32

(J23)/24

(b)
J29/30

J27/28

J25/26

J21/22
J19/20
J17/18

CL
CL J31 J29 J27 J25 J21 J19 J17
1060 J32 J30 J28 J26 J24 J22 J20 J18

3
εs,y
2.5
100%
εs,t [mm/m]

2 90%
1.5 80%
J15 J13 J11 J9 J7 J5 J3 J1 1 70%
J16 J14 J12 J10 J8 J6 J4 J2 0.5 50%
0 30%
J31/32

J17/18
(J23)/24
J29/30

J27/28

J25/26

J21/22
J19/20

1000 800 600 400 200 0

r [mm]

(a) (c)

Fig. 10: Strains in the bottom flexural reinforcement of specimen PS12: (a) location of the 32

strain gauges used, 16 in radial and 16 in tangential direction along the axis of the weak

direction; (b) radial strains J1-J16; (c) tangential strains J17-J32 (J23 not considered);

percentages indicate load level compared to maximum load.

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

N N

5 LVDT 5 LVDTs
125 mm 125 mm
Accepted Article CL CL

3.0 3.0
PS11 PS12
2.5 W-E 2.5 W-E
∆h [mm]

∆h [mm]
2.0 2.0
1.5 100% 1.5 100%
98% 98%
1.0 1.0 95%
95%
0.5 0.5 90%
90% 85%
0 85% 0
1000 800 600 400 200 0 1000 800 600 400 200 0
r [mm] r [mm]

(a) (b) (c)

N 5 LVDTs N 5 LVDTs N
5 LVDTs
100 mm
CL CL CL

3.0 3.0 3.0 100%

PS13 PS14 PS15
2.5 W-E 100% 2.5 N-S 2.5 N-S
100% 98%
∆h [mm]

∆h [mm]

∆h [mm]
2.0 2.0 2.0
1.5 1.5 1.5 95%
98% 98% 90%
1.0 95% 1.0 95% 1.0 85%
90% 80%
0.5 90% 0.5 85% 0.5
85% 80% 60%
0 0 0
600 400 200 0 600 400 200 0 600 400 200 0
r [mm] r [mm] r [mm]

(d) (e) (f)

Fig. 11: Changes in the thickness for different load levels and location of the measured

points: (a) detail of the measurement device; (b) PS11; (c) PS12); (d) PS13; (e) PS14; (f)

PS15; percentages indicate load level compared to maximum load.

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

6
εc,tan,100
εc,tan,200
5 εc,tan,300
Accepted Article
4
εc,radial,100
Q [MN]

3
εc,radial,300 N

n
m
εc,radial,200

lu
100 εc,radial,100

100 εc,radial,200
c,radial,300
2 N

co
100

n
εc,tan,100

m
50 100

lu

100 ε
εc,tan,200

co
1 100
εc,tan,300

0
−0.5 0 0.5 1.0 −2.0 −1.5 −1.0 −0.5 0
εc,radial [mm/m] εc,tangential [mm/m]

(a) (b)

Fig. 12: Strains on the concrete top surface of test PS11 in (a) radial and (b) tangential

directions (positive values indicate elongation).

1
thickness
0.9 variation
∆h [mm] column
0.8 penetration
column thickness δp [mm]
0.7 penetration variation
outer δp [mm] ∆h [mm]
0.6
Q / QR

rotation y radial
0.5 [mrad] deformation
0.4 radial εc,r [mm/m]
tangential deformation outer
0.3 deformation tangential
εc,radial [mm/m] rotation y
εc,tan [mm/m] deformation
0.2 [mrad]
εc,tan [mm/m]
0.1

0
-2 -1 0 1 2 3 4 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4 5

(a) (b)

Fig. 13: Representation of different deformations recorded in the shear critical region for

footings (a) PS11 and (b) PS13: rotation measured at the concrete top surface; column

penetration; thickness variation measured 100 mm from the edge of the column plate; radial

and tangential strains on the concrete top surface measured at 100 mm from the edge of the

column plate with omega-shaped gauges (refer to Figs. 5 and 11 for more details on the

location of the measurement devices).

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

7 PP8

6 with shear
Accepted Article reinforcement PP9 with shear
PP7 reinforcement PP7
5
QR / ( d2 fc1/2 )

without shear PS12

reinforcement
PS13
4
without shear
PS11 PS11
3 reinforcement

0
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2
a/d c/d

(a) (b)

Fig. 14: Normalized load carrying capacity as a function of the (a) span-to-effective depth

ratio and (b) column size-to-effective depth ratio.

N
1.6
JG4 JG3
1.4 JG1 1.0

1.2
0.8
JG2
1.0
Q / QR,PS14

Q / QR,PS15
JG1 JG3 0.6
0.8
εs,y

JG2 JG4

(a) 0.6 0.4

0.4
47
50

0.2
JG2 JG4 0.2

0 0
JG1 JG3 0.5 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3
εs,studs [mm/m]
55

48

(b) (c)

Fig. 15: Strains in the shear reinforcement of specimen PS15: (a) plan and (b) cut view with

the location of the strain gauges; (c) corresponding load-deformation curves.

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

7
ΔBtop,2
[mm] ΔBlat,1 ΔBlat,2 ΔBlat,3
6
ΔBtop,1
162 5
Accepted Article 405 ΔBtop,2

Q [MN]
4

ΔBlat,1 3
ΔBtop,1
530

ΔBlat,2 2
310

1
90

ΔBlat,3
0
-0.5 0 0.5 1 1.5 2
ΔB [mm]
(a) (b)

Fig. 16: Changes in the width of the specimen PS14: (a) representation of the disposed

measurements devices; (b) results (positive value indicates elongation).

TABLES

Table 1: Main properties of the experimental investigation.

B c d a/d c/d fy fc ϕw fyw

Specimen ρ [%] ns np
[mm] [mm] [mm] [-] [-] [MPa] [MPa] [mm] [MPa]
PS11 2.12 0.30 0.509 1.79 0.59 0.740 517 29.5 - - - -
PS12 2.12 0.45 0.512 1.63 0.88 0.735 517 31.1 - - - -
PS13 1.59 0.30 0.506 1.27 0.59 0.756 517 32.1 - - - -
PS14 1.59 0.30 0.510 1.26 0.59 0.750 537 31.9 - - - -
PP7 2.12 0.30 0.497 1.83 0.60 0.758 580 33.7 16 3 25 567
PP8 2.12 0.45 0.510 1.64 0.88 0.738 580 34.5 20 3 25 567
PP9 1.59 0.30 0.516 1.25 0.58 0.741 580 34.8 16 2 25 567
PS15 1.59 0.30 0.511 1.26 0.89 0.749 537 32.2 16 2 25 578
(1)
experimental test stopped due to large deformations
 www.ernst‐und‐sohn.de Page 36 Structural Concrete

Table 2: Results of the experimental investigation.

QR / d2 fc1/2
Accepted Article Specimen QR [MN]
Qflex
QR / Qflex
QR, with / QR,
[MN] [MPa1/2] without

PS11 4.769 10.059 0.474 3.389

PS12 6.839 12.065 0.567 4.678
‐
PS13 6.285 11.422 0.550 4.333
PS14 5.896 11.421 0.516 4.013
PP7 7.651 11.014 0.695 5.336 1.57
PP8 10.868(1) 13.469 0.807(1) 7.114(1) 1.52(1)
PP9 9.020 13.054 0.691 5.743 1.33
PS15 8.260 11.363 0.727 5.575 1.39
(1)
experimental test stopped due to large deformations