1 views

Uploaded by pedja

ec

- Takeda 2014
- Chapter IV
- (2) Misuse of Spreader Beams - Still an Issue_ _ LinkedIn
- Stress in Finite Element Analysis
- Continuous RC Slab 2
- Combined Loading
- Diseño Vigas de Levante 2
- (3) B054 MV Interaction, Prestressed
- Reinforced Concrete Slabs
- shear_corr_2001.pdf
- Combined Torsion and Bending
- R7220103 Strength of Materials - II
- Composite Column AISC
- 646_Optimised Aluminium Vehicle Front Section - Public Version
- Beam Calculation
- Bending Moment Capacity of Pipes
- Flexural Modulus
- 01-MENG221-SP11-Chap01-1
- 1 Factors Singly RC Case 1
- Unit 13 ( DESIGN OF SHORT BRACED COLUMNS )

You are on page 1of 9

Jaroslav Halvonik1

1 Slovak University of Technology

Faculty of Civil Engineering

Radlinského 11, 813 68 Bratislava, Slovakia

jaroslav.halvonik@stuba.sk

Abstract. The paper is focused on the design of foundation slabs and footings for

shear. Foundation slabs and footings are structural members where control pe-

rimeters within 2d should be also checked for punching. High load usually re-

quires additional shear reinforcement to be provided in this area. The paper intro-

duces proposal how to design this reinforcement in control perimeters within 2d

and how to verified shear resistance of the member.

1 Introduction

Foundation slabs and footings are structural members with thickness which frequently ex-

ceeds one meter, but for larger buildings or bridges it can be over three meters. Structural re-

spond to action is ground pressure or reaction in piles with very high magnitude. Therefore the

foundation slabs and footings are subjected to the shear forces which are changing significant-

ly with distance from the column face. In order to take into account this effect EN1992-1-1

requires verification of punching resistance also inside the basic control perimeter with mini-

mum distance a = 0,5d from the column face. Symbol d is an effective depth of the member.

Verification for punching includes calculation of shear stresses vEd(a) at assumed control

perimeter located at distance a from the column face and calculation of shear resistance with-

out shear reinforcement vRd,c or vRd,c(a) if a < 2d. Condition vEd(a) ≤ vRd,c(a) should be ful-

filled otherwise shear reinforcement is necessary to provide in order to meet requirement

vEd(a) ≤ vRd,cs(a).

Punching resistance without shear reinforcement vRd,c can be determined by formula (1) for

control perimeters with distance a ≥ 2d from the face of column. Punching resistance inside

basic control perimeter a < 2d can be increased by ratio 2d/a, see formula (2).

vRd, c = C Rd, c k (100.ρ l f ck )

1/ 3

(1)

2d 1/ 3

(2)

a

Where CRd,c is an empirical coefficient CRd,c = 0,18/γC

Design of Concrete Structures Using Eurocodes

2 Third International Workshop – Vienna, September 20-21, 2012

k factor k = 1+(200/d)0,5 ≤ 2 (d in [mm])

ρl reinforcement ratio based on main reinforcement in two orthogonal direction.

Shear stresses vEd(a) are related to the assumed control perimeter and depend on the value

of axial force NEd in the column at the junction with column base and on so called unbalanced

bending moments. Unbalanced bending moments are bending moments MEd,x and MEd,y at the

foot of the column in a case of foundation slab or footing. Shear stresses may increase e.g.

openings and recesses in the slab close to the column. Shear stresses result from the ground

pressure which is behind the assumed control perimeter. Therefore, shear forces can by re-

duced by upward force due to the ground pressure σgd,avrg inside the control perimeter, see

equation (3).

VEd, red (a ) = N Ed − σ gd, avrg A(a ) (3)

NEd

a control perimeter

MEd,y

d h

σgd,avrg σgd

cx

u(a)

a

a

MEd,x

cy

MEd,y

A(a)

An effect of unbalanced bending moments can be taken into account by factor β. Oppo-

site to the floor flat slabs the factor should be calculated for each control perimeter β =β(a),

see equations (4) and (6). Equation (4) is valid for rectangular column and equation (6) for

circular column with diameter D.

M Ed, x u (a) M Ed, y u (a )

β (a ) = 1 + kx + ky (4)

VEd, red (a ) Wx (a ) VEd, red (a ) Wy (a )

cx2 π

Wx (a) = + cx cy + 2cx a + 2a 2 + cx a (5)

2 2

Design of Concrete Structures Using Eurocodes

Third International Workshop – Vienna, September 20-21, 2012 3

M Ed 1

β (a) = 1 + 0,6.π . (6)

VEd, red (a ) ( D + 2a)

Factors kx and ky in equation (4) are defined in table 6.1 of [1]. Factor kx depends on the ra-

tio of column dimensions cy/cx while factor ky is based on the ratio cx/cy. Geometrical param-

eter Wx(a) can be determined by equation (5) as a function of variable a and Wy(a) by the same

equation only column dimensions is necessary exchanged here. Shear stresses for punching

verification can be calculated by equation (7).

VEd, red (a)

vEd (a) = β (a) (7)

u (a).d

Verification for punching should be carried out at the set of control perimeters with regard

to the minimum value of [vRd,c(a)-vEd(a)]. The first control perimeter should be assumed at

distance d/2 from the face of the column. If value [vRd,c(a) - vEd(a)] < 0 shear reinforcement

for punching is necessary to provide within the control perimeter a or change parameters

which influence shear capacity vRd,c(a), e.g. increase slab thickness, quality of concrete or in-

crease amount of bending reinforcement. The cheapest solution is an application of shear rein-

forcement at the vicinity of the column. However EC2 does not provide suitable formula for

calculation of shear resistance with shear reinforcement for control perimeters at a < 2d .

The maximum shear capacity for punching is determined by crushing of compression diag-

onal at the column perimeter a = 0. Reliability condition is following.

f

vEd, max = vEd (0) ≤ vRd, max = k .0,6.1 − ck f cd (8)

250

Originally factor k was proposed by value 0,5 in [1]. Amendment of the code has changed

value to 0,4 , because factor β underestimates an effect of unbalanced bending moments at

the column perimeter in the floor flat slabs, where β is calculated base on the geometrical pa-

rameters associated with basic control perimeter at a = 2d. However, because factor β should

be determined for each assumed control perimeter in foundation slabs and footings there is no

reason to take this lower value k and 0,5 should be acceptable.

Punching resistance with shear reinforcement vRd,cs can be determined by equation (9) for

control perimeters with distance a ≥ 2d.

1,5.d Asw . f ywd,ef

vRd, cs = 0,75.vRd, c + sin α (9)

sr u (≥ 2.d ).d

Where Asw is the area of one perimeter of shear reinforcement around the column

sr – radial spacing of perimeters of shear reinforcement

fywd,ef – effective design strength of shear reinforcement fywd,ef = 250 MPa + 0,25d [mm]

Design of Concrete Structures Using Eurocodes

4 Third International Workshop – Vienna, September 20-21, 2012

For punching resistance with shear reinforcement inside 2d Eurocode 2 does not offer suit-

able model. My proposal is expressed by equation (10):

vRd, cs (a ) = 0,75vRd, c + sin α (10)

a sr u ( a ) d

or more conservative model by equation (11):

0,75a Asw f ywd,ef

vRd, cs (a ) =

2d

0,75vRd, c + sin α (11)

a sr u (a )d

Formula (10) is based on the assumption that part of load (ground pressure) within 0,5d ≤ a

≤ 2d flows to the support (column) through the compressive diagonals, see fig.2. This effect

can be expressed by reduction of shear force with factor a/2d, see 6.2.2 (6), 6.2.3 (8) of

EN1992-1-1, or by increasing of shear resistance with factor 2d/a , see 6.4.4 (2).

3 Footings

Generally, design of footings for punching is the same as in foundation slabs. However the

effect of unbalanced bending moments should be taken into account rather by an increment of

ground pressure σgd than application of the factor β. It results from an arrangement of the ac-

tion under the footing and flow of internal forces in the member, see fig.2.

a) NEd b)

compressive

MEd

diagonals

VEd

h

a

u(a)

σgd,ef

b

σgd,max

Fig. 2 Footings - a) constant ground pressure, flow of internal forces , b) linear ground pressure

The procedure for shear stress calculation depends on assumed distribution of ground pres-

sure. Very simple solution brings assumption of constant ground pressure see fig.2. Increased

value of σgd can be obtained from formula (11) and reduced shear force per full length of con-

trol perimeter u(a) by equation (13).

N Ed M + h.VEd

σ gd, ef = where e = Ed (11),(12)

(b − 2.e).l N Ed

Design of Concrete Structures Using Eurocodes

Third International Workshop – Vienna, September 20-21, 2012 5

Due to the higher level o reliability for geotechnical design compare to design for mechanical

resistance linear distribution of ground pressure is recommended, see fig.3. In order to take

into account higher shear stresses vEd(a) in a part of control perimeter due to the different

ground pressure under the footings it is necessary to divide member e.g. into quadrants. Then

for the quadrant with maximum ground stress σgd,max calculate shear force VEd,red(a) by integra-

tion of ground pressure under the area of footing behind assumed control perimeter, cross-

hatched area in fig.3.

Shear stresses for punching verification can be then simply calculated by formula (7) with

β(a) = 1,0 and corresponding length of control perimeter u(a) which depends on the way of

VEd,red(a) calculation.

Similar procedure which is introduced in chapter 3.1 can be used also for punching verifica-

tion of footing with piles. Basic difference is in distribution of shear forces VEd,red(a). Change

of shear forces is not continuous but staggered and depends the on the arrangement of piles

and value of reactions in the piles REdi with regard to assumed control perimeter u(a). In fig.3

is shown example how to determine length of control perimeter u(a) in order to maximize

shear stresses and how to calculate shear forces VEd,red(a) for punching verification.

u(a)

REd1 REd4 REd2

a

a

α REd3

u(0) a

a

Fig. 3 Footing with piles - model for calculation of maximum shear stresses vEd(a)

VEd, red (a )

VEd, red (a ) = REd1 + REd2 + REd3 → vEd (a ) = ≤ vRd, c (a) (14)

u (a)d

VEd, max

VEd, max = REd1 + REd2 + REd3 + REd4 → vEd, max = ≤ vRd , max (15)

u (0)d

4 Example

Bridge over the river Nitra has 5 spans with maximum span length of 120 m. Bridge is con-

structed using cantilever balanced method. Substructure consists of pier footings with dimen-

sions 15×12 m and one column with diameter D = 4 m, see fig.4. Thickness of the footings is

variable and changes from 3 m to 2,47 m with pitch of 7%. Bending reinforcement B500B

Design of Concrete Structures Using Eurocodes

6 Third International Workshop – Vienna, September 20-21, 2012

consists of 2 layers φ32 bars spaced at 125 mm in longitudinal directions and 2 layers φ25 bars

spaced at 125 mm in transverse directions. Effective depth is d = 2,705 m. Concrete C25/30.

4000

Shear forces: VEd,x = 2,770 MN ; VEd,y = 1,178 MN

Bending moments: MEd,x = 38,0 MN.m ; MEd,y = 22,0 MN.m

NEd

MEd,y

VEd,x

7%

4.2 Punching resistance

2705

2860

k = 1+(200/2705)0,5 = 1,272

Asx = 16.8,04 = 128,64 cm2

15000

Asy = 16.4,91 = 78,54 cm2

ρsx = 0,012864/(1,0.2,72) = 0,004733 Transverse axis

ρsl = (0,00473.0,00292)0,5 = 0,003717

vRd, c = C Rd, c k (100.ρ l f ck )

1/ 3 MEd,y

x

12000

Longitudinal VEd,x

axis MEd,x VEd,y

1,272 (100.0,00372.25) =

0,18

vRd, c =

1/ 3

a

1,5

= 0,320 MPa u(a)

3/ 2

Fig. 4 Pier footing of the bridge

y

vRd, c (a ) = 0,320.2d / a = 0,320.5,41 / a

Length of control perimeter: r(a) = 0,5D + a → u(a) = 0,5π r(a) (one quadrant)

M Ed, x + h.VEd, y 38 + 2,86.1,178

ey = = = 0,558 m

N Ed 74,1

M Ed, y + h.VEd, x 22 + 2,86.2,77

ex = = = 0,404 m

N Ed 74,1

N Ed 74,1

σ gd, ef ≈ = = 0,48 MN/m 2

(bx − 2ex ).(by − 2ey ) (15 − 2.0,404)(

. 12 − 2.0,558)

FEd,max = 0,5bx0,5byσgd,eff = 0,25.15.12.0,48 =21,6 MN

VEd,max = FEd,max - 0,25π (D/2)2σgd,eff = 21,6 – 0,25.3,14.(4/2)2.0,48 =20,1 MN

vEd,max = VEd,max/(u0d) = 20,1/(0,25πDd ) = 20,1/(0,25.3,14.4.2,705) = 2,365 MPa

vRd,max = 0,5.0,6.(1- fck/250).fcd = 0,5.0,6.(1- 25/250).14,17 = 3,825 MPa

Design of Concrete Structures Using Eurocodes

Third International Workshop – Vienna, September 20-21, 2012 7

VEd,red(a) = FEd,max – σgd,eff 0,25π r(a)2 → vEd(a) = VEd,red(a)/(u(a)d)

3

1.5×10

3

1.2×10

vRdc ⋅ 2⋅ d

900

a

vEd ( a) 600

300

0

1 1.3 1.6 1.9 2.2 2.5 2.8 3.1 3.4 3.7 4 4.3 4.6 4.9 5.2 5.5

a

Fig.5 Footing without shear reinforcement - punching verification where a ranges from 0,5.d to 2,0.d

Verification for punching resistance is shown in fig.5. Red line indicates shear resistance,

dashed blue line shear stresses. For control perimeters with distance a varying from 0,56.d =

1,52 m to 1,09.d = 2,95 m is not fulfilled reliability condition and shear reinforcement is re-

quired. Proposed shear reinforcement φ12 mm consists of 64 links in perimeter around the

column or 16 links per quadrant. Spacing of shear reinforcement perimeters in radial direction

sr = 210 mm was determined from vRd,cs(a) ≥ vEd(a).

Note: Proposed arrangement of shear reinforcement was chosen in order to simplify calculation. Orthogonal

arrangement of links or bent up bars is typical for bridge footings.

3

1.5×10

3

1.2×10

vRdc ⋅ 2⋅ d

⋅ 0.75+ vRds ( a) 900

a

vEd ( a) 600

300

0

1 1.3 1.6 1.9 2.2 2.5 2.8 3.1 3.4 3.7 4 4.3 4.6 4.9 5.2 5.5

a

Fig.6 Footing with shear reinforcement - punching verification where vRd,cs(a) is calculated by equation (11)

Detailing rules require to check ratio of shear reinforcement ρw = Asw1/(st sr) ≥ ρw,min

ρw,min = 0,08.(fck)0,5/fywk = 0,08.(25)0,5/500 = 0,0008 → st,max = min [Asw1/(ρw,minsr), 600 mm] =

min[0,000113/(0,0008.0,21); 0,6 m] = min[0, 672 m, 0,600] = 0,6 m.

Design of Concrete Structures Using Eurocodes

8 Third International Workshop – Vienna, September 20-21, 2012

3

2.4×10

3

1.92×10

vRdc ⋅ 2⋅ d 2⋅ d 3

⋅ 0.75+ ⋅ vRds ( a) 1.44×10

a a

vEd ( a) 960

480

0

1 1.3 1.6 1.9 2.2 2.5 2.8 3.1 3.4 3.7 4 4.3 4.6 4.9 5.2 5.5

a

Fig.7 Footing with shear reinforcement - punching verification where vRdcs(a) is calculated by equation (10)

In fig.7 is shown punching verification with vRd,cs(a) calculated with less conservative equa-

tion (10) and the same reinforcement arrangement as in fig.6. Verification indicates possibility

to save some amount of shear reinforcement. However this saving is limited by the detailing

rules.

Conclusions

Design of foundation slabs and footings for shear is more complex than in a case of floor

flat slabs because verification brings requirement to check shear stresses also inside the basic

control perimeter a < 2d and to take into account an interaction with ground pressure in calcu-

lation of shear forces. Current EC2 does not offer suitable model for punching verification in

control perimeters inside 2d if shear reinforcement is required here. The paper offers two pos-

sible ways how to design shear reinforcement and how to determine shear resistance for

punching in this area. The first one, equation (10), is compatible with model for calculation of

vRd,c inside basic control perimeter where shear resistance grows with decreasing of a/d. The

second model, equation (11) is more conservative and better reflects knowledge obtained from

extensive research in foundation performed by RWTH Aachen University. In [3] is stated that

shear reinforcement substantially increase punching capacity of footings but less effectively

with decreasing of a/d.

Acknowledgment

Author gratefully acknowledges Scientific Grant Agency of the Ministry of Education of Slo-

vak Republic and the Slovak Academy of Sciences VEGA No. 1/0857/11.

References

[1] EN 1992-1-1/2004 Design of concrete structures – Part 1-1 General rules and rules for buildings

[2] CEB-FIB Model Code 2010

[3] Siburg,C., Hegger, J.: Punching of flat slabs – comparison of models. In: Proceedings of fib Symposium

PRAGUE 2011, 151–154

[4] Šmekal, J., Prochazka, J.,Hanzlova, H.: Punching shear design – Part I. Beton TKS, 5/2011, 66-72

Design of Concrete Structures Using Eurocodes

Third International Workshop – Vienna, September 20-21, 2012 9

1.2

1.1

1

0.9

0.8

vEd ( a) ⋅ a 0.7

0.6

2⋅ d⋅ vRdc 0.5

0.4

0.3

0.2

0.1

0

0.5 0.61 0.72 0.83 0.94 1.05 1.16 1.27 1.38 1.49 1.6

−1

a⋅ d

- Takeda 2014Uploaded byignacio zuniga
- Chapter IVUploaded byAdriane Cagampan
- (2) Misuse of Spreader Beams - Still an Issue_ _ LinkedInUploaded byyogihard
- Stress in Finite Element AnalysisUploaded byAsadAli
- Continuous RC Slab 2Uploaded byklára Ludínová
- Combined LoadingUploaded bySang Ka Kala
- Diseño Vigas de Levante 2Uploaded byJeanny Palma
- (3) B054 MV Interaction, PrestressedUploaded byMarco Della Pelle
- Reinforced Concrete SlabsUploaded bymartinbeyer
- shear_corr_2001.pdfUploaded byCHILAKAPATI ANJANEYULU
- Combined Torsion and BendingUploaded byfefahim
- R7220103 Strength of Materials - IIUploaded bysivabharathamurthy
- Composite Column AISCUploaded byAmmar Kh
- 646_Optimised Aluminium Vehicle Front Section - Public VersionUploaded byJony M. Temnikar
- Beam CalculationUploaded byhardik5818
- Bending Moment Capacity of PipesUploaded byJomer J Simpson
- Flexural ModulusUploaded bymehtabpathan
- 01-MENG221-SP11-Chap01-1Uploaded byameershaut
- 1 Factors Singly RC Case 1Uploaded byAminah Saltat Maniala II
- Unit 13 ( DESIGN OF SHORT BRACED COLUMNS )Uploaded byZara Nabilah
- Combined Footing Design With ExampleUploaded byPhil Wilsons Moreno
- Cracked Section Analysis MIDAS GENUploaded byDiego Benavides K
- Design PenstockUploaded bysunchitk
- Bond Development Lengths and HookUploaded byAly Arquillano Jr
- Pipe Bend AnalysisUploaded bypradeep_tyagi80
- Effects of Bending Stiffness in Tow and Salvage CablesUploaded byjtoreroc
- tutorial 2 2.pdfUploaded byAvish Gunnuck
- Gate Design ProcedureUploaded byNoppadol Ariyakrua
- Weight_Optimization_of_Buck_Stays_using.pdfUploaded byIvan Fernando Mosquera
- ConSteel_Getting_Started (1)Uploaded byMihnea Orza

- seizmika vetarUploaded bypedja
- Penetration 2Uploaded bypperic13
- newUploaded bypedja
- KonverzijaUploaded bypedja
- Corolla Hatchback, 5 Vrata, 2.0L Hybrid (178 KS), E-CVT, LUNA HYBRIDUploaded bypedja
- Corolla Hatchback, 5 Vrata, 1.2L Turbo (116 KS), CVT, EXECUTIVEUploaded bypedja
- Corolla Hatchback, 5 Vrata, 2.0L Hybrid (178 KS), E-CVT, SOL HYBRIDUploaded bypedja
- Parametri TlaUploaded bypedja
- penetracija 3.pdfUploaded bypedja
- Temp 2019062112571526Uploaded bypedja
- predlog konstrukcije platforme.pdfUploaded bypedja
- Tl Sikadur 32i32lUploaded byDarko Bogdanovic
- Tl Sikadur 32i32lUploaded byDarko Bogdanovic
- Independent Verification of SAP2000 Results.xlsUploaded bypedja
- Panel With Opening ExampleUploaded bypedja
- Propracun Celicnih Konstrukcija, Prof. Dr Dusko LucicUploaded byMiki Maus Misic
- 53 - dimenzionisanje ramaUploaded bymevludin82
- crtez 9Uploaded bypedja
- Zidane Konstrukcije, Mr Jelena PejovicUploaded byNikolaMihajlovic
- Zidane Konstrukcije, Mr Jelena PejovicUploaded byNikolaMihajlovic
- aUploaded bypedja
- 01 OSNOVE_PRORACUNA_KONSTRUKCIJA,_Prof._dr_Nebojsa_Djuranovic.pdfUploaded bypedja
- primjer-opeka-blokoviUploaded byHasool01
- EN1991_8_CalgaroUploaded byNicu Lucan
- stanko brcic - predavanja novi pazar.pdfUploaded byRade Đurđević
- Parametri TlaUploaded bypedja
- 11 Zidane Konstrukcije, Mr Jelena Pejovic1Uploaded bypedja
- crtez 9.pdfUploaded bypedja
- 11 Zidane Konstrukcije, Mr Jelena Pejovic1Uploaded bypedja

- 01_07FRICTION_102-118_Uploaded byeamcetmaterials
- Sissala - FEA Simple Tension Test Progressive FailureUploaded byYoun Seok Choi
- 130_jul_92Uploaded byRigobertoGuerra
- Lecture Notes of Ship Manoeuvring and Sea Keeping 20060615 _New(by Candle Wind)Uploaded byGoutam Kumar Saha
- GH1_B(gate)_ME_FM_27-09-17-SUploaded byRahul
- Teleportaion Device PatentUploaded byJeff Lunan
- A level PhysicsUploaded byNanban Jin
- Eulerian Flow ModelingUploaded byromdhan88
- Exemplos SINTAPUploaded byDaniele Gouveia
- CP1 - GEARUploaded byMuhammad Idraki
- 06 ConcepTests ClickersUploaded bysunlias
- FAILURE.pptxUploaded byomarseto
- 4340 fracture toughness.pdfUploaded byGrafton Montgomery
- Pressure drop in the flow of oil products through pipelines - application for hydraulic calculationUploaded byTI Journals Publishing
- Basics of in Viscid Incompressible FlowsUploaded byAnonymous 6Sivdzj
- Modeling of 3D Flow and Scouring Around Circular Piers Chinlien YenUploaded byEndless Love
- SCREEN CALCULATIONUploaded byRakesh Ranjan
- IIT-JEE Solved Physics 2006Uploaded byAbhinav
- Types of Support Calculation and ReactionUploaded bykannankriv
- [Notes] Elementary PhysicsUploaded byFrancis Genesis Rivera
- Chapter 4-Piezoelectric Ceramics.pptUploaded byHaniffudin Nurdiansah
- Esfuerzos y Fuerzas en Shell Element Etabs y SapUploaded byluciapfm09
- Mechanical BehaviourUploaded byLuis Nunes
- Lacey ArticleUploaded byFred_Mayweather
- Analysis of Pressure for 3lobe Hydrodynamic Journal BearingUploaded byseventhsensegroup
- The Lifting Force of an Airplane WingUploaded byJoseph Stanovsky
- emagsUploaded byrobertz_tolentino014
- Electric Power Generation Using Buoyancy-Induced VorticesUploaded byJairo Acuña
- [eng]advanced package training scaffolding 14.pdfUploaded byJosipPeko
- Experimental analysis on the risk of vortex ventilation and the free surface ventilation of marine propellersUploaded bynascosannascosan