Академический Документы
Профессиональный Документы
Культура Документы
DOI: 10.1002/suco.201800257
TECHNICAL PAPER
KEYWORDS
Structural Concrete. 2018;1–12. wileyonlinelibrary.com/journal/suco © 2018 fib. International Federation for Structural Concrete 1
2 KUERES ET AL.
between first perimeter of shear reinforcement and column edge; sr: radial spacing between two perimeters of shear reinforcement; Vflex: shear force that produces flexural failure according to yield-line theory28; Vtest: ultimate failure load;
Note. h: slab thickness; d: effective depth; c: square column dimension; l: square footing dimension; aλ/d: shear span-depth ratio; fc,cyl: concrete compressive strength; ;: diameter of flexural reinforcement; fy: yield strength of flexural
reinforcement; ρl: flexural reinforcement ratio; Asw: cross sectional area of shear reinforcement up to 0.8d; ;sw: diameter of shear reinforcement; ρsw: shear reinforcement ratio; fyw: yield strength of shear reinforcement; s0: distance
inside the shear-reinforced zone, up to a failure on the level
Failure (−)
of maximum punching shear capacity. Similar test series on
flat slabs with studs as shear reinforcement were reported in
w/o
w/o
w/o
m
m
i
i
i
i
literature 20,21. In this paper, the results of the experimental
Vtest (kN)
investigations on shear-reinforced footings are discussed in
1,839
2,948
3,361
5,386
7,137
7,090
3,916
4,495
5,415
5,416
5,850
detail. Based on measurements, the formation of inner shear
cracks and the activation of the shear reinforcement is ana-
lyzed depending on the amount of shear reinforcement.
Vflex (kN)
6,004
5,751
6,026
16,299
15,947
16,288
13,362
13,524
13,705
13,494
12,650
Moreover, the code provisions according to EC2, MC2010,
and prEC2 are evaluated by means of comparisons between
predictions and experimental results.
failure: failure mode (w/o: punching failure without shear reinforcement; i: punching failure inside the shear-reinforced zone; m: failure on the level of the maximum punching shear capacity).
sr (m)
0.200
0.200
0.300
0.300
0.300
0.300
0.300
0.300
–
–
2 | EX PER IM ENT AL PROGRA M
s0 (m)
0.120
0.120
0.180
0.170
0.180
0.180
0.180
0.180
–
–
2.1 | General
fyw (MPa)
The experimental program included three test series with a
–
580
559
528
529
580
554
562
529
total of eleven punching tests on reinforced concrete footings
without shear reinforcement and with conventional closed
ρsw (%)
stirrups22,23 as shear reinforcement. The tests were planned
0.00
0.20
0.77
0.00
0.20
0.62
0.00
0.11
0.20
0.31
0.62
considering the results of the previous test series on footings
by Hegger et al.8 and Siburg and Hegger.9 The investigated
;sw (mm)
–
8
–
6
8
12
14
10
14
shear span-depth ratio, and the effective depth.
Asw (cm2)
2.2 | Materials
–
–
16
63
36
111
20
36
57
111
For all specimens, commercial ready mixed concrete was
ρl (%)
25
25
1.800
2.700
l (m)
Test parameters and failure loads
0.300
0.300
c (m)
0.650
0.650
b
TABLE 1
DF28N
DF26b
DF33b
b
a
B3-10
DF13
DF18
DF35
B2-8
B3-6
B3-8
d = 1.25 and 2.00 (with aλ being the distance from the col- 25 load application points. Twelve hydraulic jacks trans-
umn face to the edge of the footing). The column perimeter- ferred their load through cross beams to two load points
depth ratio was approximately u0/d = 2.00 = const. for all each. A further hydraulic jack with a piston area of half the
specimens (with u0 being the perimeter of the column). The size completed the load arrangement above the column. All
flexural reinforcement ratio varied between ρl = 0.83 and hydraulic jacks were linked to a common manifold and
0.88% to prevent flexural failure, especially for the speci- applied the same load independent of the displacement. In
mens with high amounts of shear reinforcement. order to avoid any formation of membrane forces in the test
The layout of the shear reinforcement was defined in specimens, polytetrafluorethylene (PTFE)-coated sliding and
accordance with the detailing provisions of the German deformation bearings of dimensions 140 × 140 mm were
Annex of EC2.24,25 In this context, the distance between the placed between the footing and the beams.
first perimeter of shear reinforcement and the column face During testing, several measurements were performed to
was set to s0 = 0.3d. The radial spacing between the other investigate the punching shear behavior of the specimens.
perimeters of shear reinforcement was defined as sr = 0.5d. The vertical displacement of the test specimens was recorded
Moreover, the stirrups enclosed both the top and bottom layer at the corners of the column stub, the footing's corners, and
of flexural reinforcement to ensure adequate anchorage condi- several other locations using linear variable differential
tions. The shear reinforcement ratio ρsw (ρsw = [Asw,1+2/2]/ transformers (LVDTs). The penetration of the column into
[min{s0/2 + sr/2; sr}u0.5d]), with Asw,1+2 being the amount of the slab was monitored and the increase in slab thickness
shear reinforcement in the first two perimeters and u0.5d was measured at several points to investigate the develop-
being the control perimeter at a distance 0.5d from the edge ment of the inner shear cracks. Also, the slab rotation was
of the column) of the investigated specimens varied between measured at the edges of the specimens (B1-6, B2-8, B3-6,
ρsw = 0 and 0.77%. The variation of the shear reinforcement B3-8, and B3-10). Strain gages were used to measure the
ratio was achieved by changing the stirrup diameter only. strains in the flexural reinforcement and in the shear rein-
Hence, the layout of shear reinforcement remained forcement. To obtain the average strain at the bar's center of
unchanged throughout each test series. Figure 1 exemplarily gravity, two strain gages were attached to opposite side faces
depicts the layout of the shear reinforcement for test series of the reinforcing bars at each measuring point. Moreover,
DF28N–B3-6–B3-8–B3-10–DF35. the concrete strains at the compression face of the footing
near the column were recorded.
2.4 | Test setup and measurements
The punching tests were conducted in accordance with pre- 2.5 | Test procedure
vious tests on reinforced concrete footings without and with The load was applied under load control in increments of
shear reinforcement by Siburg and Hegger9 and Kueres 200–400 kN depending on the expected failure load. To
et al.26,27 The specimens were tested upside down with the simulate lifetime loading, the load was cycled ten times
base area on top and loaded by a uniform surface load between a service load and half its value. The service load
(Figure 2). The uniform soil pressure was simulated with was determined based on the expected failure load and the
4x 7 Ø6/8/10/14 stirrups
0.8d
4x 11 Ø6/8/10/14 stirrups
0.3d
2700
A A Section A - A
300
steel collar
250
200
650
1200
120 300 300 300 180 300 180 300 300 300 120
1200 300 1200
2700 [mm]
FIGURE 1 Layout of flexural reinforcement and shear reinforcement for test series DF28N–B3-6–B3-8–B3-10–DF35
4 KUERES ET AL.
Experimental rig of
two frames connected by
cross beams
Cross beams
Section A-A
12+1 hydraulic jacks
Cross beams
Sliding and deformation bearings
Load distribution plates
A A
Specimen
Cross beams
product of the partial safety factors γC × γF ≈ 2.1. Also, the inclination was observed in specimen B3-6 with a very low
measured changes in slab thickness and the strains in the amount of shear reinforcement (ρsw = 0.11%, Figure 3b).
shear reinforcement were taken into account for the defini- Due to the spacing of the stirrups, the first and second row
tion of the service load. In this context, it was ensured that a of shear reinforcement were crossed by the shear crack and
shear crack formed and, thus, the shear reinforcement was activated, which can be confirmed by the performed strain
activated prior to the load cycles. After the load cycles, one measurements. Compared to specimen B3-6, in specimen
or two further load steps were conducted before the speci- B3-8 with twice as much shear reinforcement (ρsw = 0.20%,
mens were continuously loaded until failure took place. Figure 3c) a further, more steeply inclined shear crack cross-
ing the first row of shear reinforcement developed. While in
specimen B3-8 the widths of both shear cracks seem to be
3 | EX PER IM ENT AL RES ULT S comparable, the more steeply inclined crack was much
stronger pronounced in specimen B3-10 (ρsw = 0.31%,
3.1 | General Figure 3d). Also, the saw-cut of specimen B3-10 shows
All tests failed in punching of the footing. Before failure more finely distributed cracks in the region of the column.
occurred, an increasing slab thickness, increasing strains in The saw-cut of specimen DF35 with the highest amount of
the shear reinforcement and a penetration of the column stub shear reinforcement (ρsw = 0.62%) revealed a crack pattern,
into the slab were observed. The failure loads Vtest are sum- which is typical for a failure on the level of maximum
marized in Table 1. The comparison with the flexural capaci- punching shear capacity. As can be seen in Figure 3e, the
ties of the footings Vflex according to the yield-line theory,28 failure crack had a very steep inclination and propagated
as well as the recorded strains in the flexural reinforcement between the first row of shear reinforcement and the column
clearly below the yield strain, prove that the flexural capac- face. Similar observations regarding the formation of inner
ity of the specimens was not reached when failure occurred shear cracks as a function of the shear reinforcement ratio
due to punching. can be made for test series DF13–B1-6–DF18 (Figure 3f–h)
and DF26–B2-8–DF33 (Figure 3i–k).
3.2 | Cracking characteristics
3.3 | Load-deflection characteristics
After testing, saw-cuts of the specimens were performed to
examine the inner shear crack patterns (Figure 3). Depend- In Figure 4a, the comparison of the measured load-deflection
ing on the amount of shear reinforcement, the observed curves of the specimens without shear reinforcement (DF13,
crack patterns differ significantly, which is, for example, evi- DF26, and DF28N) is shown. For all specimens, a stiff ini-
dent from test series DF28N–B3-6–B3-8–B3-10–DF35. In tial response followed by a reduced stiffness as a result of
specimen DF28N without shear reinforcement (ρsw = 0%), flexural cracking can be observed. The gradients of both
only one discrete shear crack formed at an angle of approxi- branches of the load-deflection curves are significantly influ-
mately 40 (Figure 3a). A shear crack with a similar enced by the effective depth and the shear span-depth ratio. In
KUERES ET AL. 5
this context, both the gradient of the load-deflection curve as as the failure load are significantly enhanced. This observa-
well as the absolute value of the failure load increase with tion is even more pronounced for the specimens with the
increasing effective depth or decreasing shear span-depth highest shear reinforcement ratios (DF18, DF33, and DF35;
ratio, respectively. This was already observed in previous Figure 4c).
experimental investigations on reinforced concrete footings.8,9
Similar tendencies can be observed for the specimens
with medium amounts of shear reinforcement (B1-6, B2-8, 3.4 | Strains in shear reinforcement
and B3-8; Figure 4a). While the stiffness before and after Figure 5 shows exemplarily the measured tensile strains in
cracking is comparable with the footings without shear rein- the shear reinforcement in the first two rows of the shear-
forcement, both the deformation at punching failure as well reinforced specimens of test series DF28N–B3-6–B3-8–
6 KUERES ET AL.
(a) 7500
(b) (c)
aλ/d = 1.27 aλ/d = 1.29
d = 590 mm d = 580 mm
ρsw = 0% ρsw = 0.20% ρsw = 0.62%/ 0 .77%
Applied load [kN] 6000
aλ/d = 1.27 aλ/d = 2.03
d = 590 mm aλ/d = 2.02 d = 590 mm
4500 d = 594 mm
aλ/d = 2.07
d = 580 mm
3000
DF26 aλ/d = 2.02 B2-8 aλ/d = 2.03 DF33
d = 396 mm d = 395 mm
1500 aλ/d = 2.03 DF28N B3-8 DF35
d = 395 mm
DF13 B1-6 DF18
0
0.0 1.5 3.0 4.5 6.0 7.5 0.0 1.5 3.0 4.5 6.0 7.5 0.0 1.5 3.0 4.5 6.0 7.5
Deflection [mm] Deflection [mm] Deflection [mm]
B3-10–DF35. The strains corresponding to the yield strength with shear reinforcement (Figure 6b–e). In this context,
of the shear reinforcement are indicated in the diagrams. In specimens B3-6 (ρsw = 0.11%, Figure 6b), B3-8 (ρsw =
the tests, substantial steel strains were first observed at a load 0.20%, Figure 6c), and B3-10 (ρsw = 0.31%, Figure 6d)
level coinciding with the beginning of the inner shear crack showed considerable changes in thickness up to the third
formation. This was confirmed by the measured increase in row of shear reinforcement. The highest changes in thick-
slab thickness at approximately the same load level. In speci- ness were observed in specimen B3-10. In contrast, the
men B3-6 (ρsw = 0.11%), the first two rows of shear rein- changes in thickness in specimen DF35 (ρsw = 0.62%,
forcement were crossed by the shear crack (Figure 3b) and Figure 6e) were much smaller compared to B3-10 and con-
reached the yield strength prior to failure (Figure 5a,b). The centrated between the first row of shear reinforcement and
fact that the load-increase after the activation of the shear the column face.
reinforcement was relatively low indicates that the amount
of shear reinforcement was only slightly higher than 3.6 | Failure mode
required to resist the forces at crack formation state (mini-
The punching failure modes of the specimens can be deter-
mum reinforcement). Compared to specimen B3-6, in spec-
mined by combining the evaluation of the crack patterns
imen B3-8 (ρsw = 0.20%) the load-increase caused by the
(Section 3.2), the tensile strains in the shear reinforcement
shear reinforcement was more pronounced, even though
(Section 3.4), and the changes in slab thickness
the shear reinforcement in the first and second row
(Section 3.5). In this context, the saw-cuts indicate that an
exceeded the yield strength (Figure 5c,d). A similar activa-
initial, relatively flat inclined shear crack developed in each
tion of the shear reinforcement in the first row was
specimen. While in specimens DF13 (ρsw = 0%), DF26
observed for specimen B3-10 (ρsw = 0.31%, Figure 5e).
(ρsw = 0%), DF28N (ρsw = 0%), and B3-6 (ρsw = 0.11%),
Nevertheless, the activation of the second row of shear
the initial shear crack directly triggered the punching failure
reinforcement was less pronounced (Figure 5f ). In contrast,
(without shear reinforcement or inside the shear-reinforced
the strains in the shear reinforcement of specimen DF35
zone), the amount of shear reinforcement in specimens B1-6
(ρsw = 0.62%) did at no point exceed the yield strength
(ρsw = 0.20%), B2-8 (ρsw = 0.20%), and B3-8 (ρsw =
prior to failure (Figure 5g,h).
0.20%) was sufficient to redistribute the forces at crack for-
mation state leading to an additional, more steeply inclined
3.5 | Changes in thickness of the specimens shear crack. Nevertheless, strain measurements in the shear
The changes in thickness of the specimens were continu- reinforcement as well as the measured changes in slab thick-
ously measured during the tests at several positions. The ness prove a punching failure inside the shear-reinforced
results of test series DF28N–B3-6–B3-8–B3-10–DF35 are zone for these specimens. In contrast, in specimens DF18
illustrated exemplarily for different load levels in Figure 6. (ρsw = 0.77%), DF33 (ρsw = 0.62%), and DF35 (ρsw =
Regardless of the amount of shear reinforcement, the highest 0.62%) a very steep failure crack developed between the
changes in thickness were measured close to the column first row of shear reinforcement and the column face. The
face. While specimen DF28N without shear reinforcement fact that the first row of shear reinforcement did not reach
failed in a brittle manner without large measured changes in the yield strength and that the second row of shear reinforce-
thickness (Figure 6a), a more ductile behavior at failure and ment was hardly activated indicates that the capacity of the
higher changes in thickness were observed in the specimens shear reinforcement was not reached when failure occurred
KUERES ET AL. 7
(a) (b)
7500
Øsw = 6 mm CL
ρsw = 0.11%
6000 B3-6 B3-6
Applied load [kN]
4500
S21
3000 S11
yield strain
yield strain
S22
1500 S12
S11 S12
1st row S21 2nd row S22
0
0.0 1.5 3.0 4.5 6.0 0.0 1.5 3.0 4.5 6.0
Shear reinforcement strain [‰] Shear reinforcement strain [‰]
(c) (d)
7500
Øsw = 8 mm CL
ρsw = 0.20%
6000 B3-8 B3-8
Applied load [kN]
4500
S21
3000 S11
yield strain
yield strain
S22
1500 S12
S11 S12
1st row S21 2nd row S22
0
0.0 1.5 3.0 4.5 6.0 0.0 1.5 3.0 4.5 6.0
Shear reinforcement strain [‰] Shear reinforcement strain [‰]
(e) (f)
7500
Øsw = 10 mm CL
ρsw = 0.31%
6000 B3-10 B3-10
Applied load [kN]
4500
S21
3000 S11
yield strain
yield strain
S22
1500 S12
S11 S12
1st row S21 2nd row S22
0
0.0 1.5 3.0 4.5 6.0 0.0 1.5 3.0 4.5 6.0
Shear reinforcement strain [‰] Shear reinforcement strain [‰]
(g) (h)
7500
Øsw = 14 mm CL
ρsw = 0.62%
6000 DF35 DF35
Applied load [kN]
4500
3000 S11
yield strain
yield strain
1500 S12
S11 S12
1st row 2nd row
0
0.0 1.5 3.0 4.5 6.0 0.0 1.5 3.0 4.5 6.0
Shear reinforcement strain [‰] Shear reinforcement strain [‰]
FIGURE 5 Measured strains in the first two rows of shear reinforcement: B3-6, B3-8, B3-10, and DF35
on the level of the maximum punching shear capacity. failure inside the shear-reinforced zone and a failure on
According to the crack patterns and the steel strains in the level of the maximum punching shear capacity. Nev-
the second row of shear reinforcement (no yielding), the ertheless, the fact that the first row of shear reinforce-
punching failure mode of specimen B3-10 (ρsw = 0.31%) ment yielded prior to punching indicates a punching
may be situated in the transition between a punching failure inside the shear-reinforced zone, since the
8 KUERES ET AL.
40 mm 70 mm 70 mm
9
DF28N B3-6 B3-8
Δh [mm]
6 100%
3 100% 95%
95% 90%
90% 80%
0 100% 80% 70%
0 450 900 1350 0 450 900 1350 0 450 900 1350
Distance [mm] Distance [mm] Distance [mm]
70 mm 40 mm
5 LVDTs 2 LVDTs
9
100% B3-10 DF35
threaded rod
Δ h [mm]
6
100%
95%
3 90% 95% tube
90%
80% 80%
0 70% 70%
0 450 900 1350 0 450 900 1350
Distance[mm] Distance [mm]
FIGURE 6 Measured changes in thickness of test specimens: DF28N, B3-6, B3-8, B3-10, and DF35
capacity of the shear reinforcement was reached when While the load-increase up to a shear reinforcement ratio of
failure occurred. ρsw = 0.20% (specimens DF28N, B3-6, and B3-8) is more
than linear, the load-increase is less pronounced for ratios
ρsw > 0.20% (B3-10 and DF35) and seems to result in an
4 | COMPA R ISON O F P RE DICT ION S AN D upper limit (s-form of capacity curve). Similar observations
E X P E RI M E N T A L RE S UL T S
can be made for test series DF26–B2-8–DF33 (Figure 7b)
and DF13–B1-6–DF18 (Figure 7c).
The main parameter investigated in the three test series was
For the sake of comparing the test results with the punching
the amount of shear reinforcement. Figure 7a illustrates the
shear design provisions according to EC2, MC2010 (LoA III),
normalized failure loads Vtest/ (u0.5dd(ρlfck)1/3) (where u0.5d
and prEC2, the predicted punching shear capacities of similar
is the control perimeter in a distance 0.5d from the column
edge, d is the effective depth, ρl is the flexural reinforcement footings with varying shear reinforcement ratio were deter-
ratio, and fck is the characteristic value of the concrete com- mined. For the calculations, all material and strength reduction
pressive strength) of specimens DF28N (ρsw = 0%), B3-6 factors in the design equations were taken as unity. Further
(ρsw = 0.11%), B3-8 (ρsw = 0.20%), B3-10 (ρsw = 0.31%), information regarding the punching shear provisions according
and DF35 (ρsw = 0.62%) as a function of the shear rein- to EC2 and MC2010 are available in the literature.29–32 The
forcement ratio ρsw. As expected, the normalized failure expressions according to prEC2 are summarized in Appendix A
loads increase with increasing shear reinforcement ratio. and their derivation is explained in literature.17,18,33
KUERES ET AL. 9
2.25 prEC2 d = 587 mm shear capacity of footings with shear reinforcement. In this
1/3
2.25 prEC2 d = 395 mm forced concrete footings with low and medium amounts of
1/3
DF13
5 | S UM M A RY AN D C O NC L U S IO N S
0.75
The results of the experimental investigations on reinforced
concrete footings with varying amount of shear reinforce-
0.00
0.00 0.30 0.60 0.90 1.20 ment and the comparison with code provisions allow the fol-
lowing conclusions to be drawn:
Shear reinforcement ratio ρsw [%]
FIGURE 7 Comparison of predictions and experimental results • The present test series allow for the investigation of the
transition between punching failures without shear rein-
The development of the predicted normalized punch- forcement and failures on the level of the maximum
ing shear capacities with increasing shear reinforcement punching shear capacity. While specimens DF13, DF26,
ratio according to the provisions of EC2, MC2010, and and DF28N failed in punching without shear reinforce-
prEC2 are shown in Figure 7 for the investigated test ment and specimens DF18, DF33, and DF35 failed on
series. As indicated by the predictions based on MC2010 the level of the maximum punching shear capacity, spec-
(dotted black curves) and prEC2 (dashed gray curves), imens B1-6, B2-8, B3-6, B3-8, and B3-10 failed inside
starting at the lowest capacity (without shear the shear-reinforced zone (Table 1).
10 KUERES ET AL.
The upper bound capacity of Equation (A3) (maximum The perimeter at which shear reinforcement is not
punching shear resistance) is defined as a multiple of the required is determined as:
punching shear capacity of an identical slab without shear 2
reinforcement: dv 1
b0, out ¼ b0 ðA7Þ
dv, out ηc
τRd, max ¼ ηsys τRd, c ðA6Þ
where dv,out is the outer shear-resisting effective depth
where the coefficient ηsys = 1.5 for stirrups and ηsys = 1.8 depending on the anchorage conditions of the shear
for studs. reinforcement.