See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/312948729

Uniform Design Method for punching shear in flat slabs and column bases

Article  in  Engineering Structures · April 2017

DOI: 10.1016/j.engstruct.2016.12.064

CITATIONS READS

17 1,364

5 authors, including:

Carsten Siburg Martin Herbrand

RWTH Aachen University WTM Engineers GmbH
41 PUBLICATIONS   181 CITATIONS    72 PUBLICATIONS   400 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Martin Claßen
RWTH Aachen University
105 PUBLICATIONS   687 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Strengthening of Concrete Bridges View project

Beurteilung der Querkraft- und Torsionstragfähigkeit von Brücken im Bestand - erweiterte Bemessungsansätze View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Martin Claßen on 29 September 2017.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 Kueres, D.; Siburg, C.; Herbrand, M.; Classen, M.; Hegger, J.: Uniform Design Method for punching shear in flat slabs
and column bases. In: Engineering Structures (136), April 2017, pp. 149-164.
Engineering Structures 136 (2017) 149–164

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Engineering Structures
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/engstruct

Uniform Design Method for punching shear in flat slabs and column
bases
Dominik Kueres a,⇑, Carsten Siburg b, Martin Herbrand a, Martin Classen a, Josef Hegger a
a
RWTH Aachen University, Institute of Structural Concrete, Mies-van-der-Rohe-Str. 1, 52074 Aachen, Germany
b
H+P Ingenieure GmbH, Kackertstr 10, 52072 Aachen, Germany

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: The punching shear design of flat slabs and column bases was revised with the introduction of Eurocode
Received 12 September 2016 2. While in many former codes the punching shear resistance was determined regardless of the type of
Revised 29 December 2016 member, in Eurocode 2 two different design equations for flat slabs and column bases were introduced.
Accepted 30 December 2016
Additionally, different control sections for flat slabs and column bases were defined. The differentiation
between flat slabs and column bases and especially the iterative design procedure for the determination
of the punching shear resistance of column bases require great effort in daily practice.
Keywords:
Based on the punching shear provisions according to Eurocode 2, a new Uniform Design Method (UDM)
Punching shear
Flat slabs
for flat slabs and column bases is developed. The derivation of the design method is described in detail. To
Column bases verify the changes in the current design provisions, the new design method is evaluated using large data-
Design provisions banks for flat slabs and column bases without and with shear reinforcement as well as systematic test
Punching shear reinforcement series.
Eurocode 2 Ó 2017 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction In this paper, possible improvements for the current punching

The punching shear behavior of reinforced concrete slabs was
investigated extensively by various researchers in the past. As a
result of these theoretical and experimental investigations, differ-
ent approaches for the determination of the punching shear resis-
tance of flat slabs and column bases were derived. A brief
description of the various approaches can be found e.g. in [1–4].
Due to more compact dimensions and soil-structure interaction,
column bases achieve significantly higher punching shear capaci-
ties than flat slabs [5–10]. Considering these differences, Eurocode
2 [11] introduced two different design equations for flat slabs and
column bases. Additionally, different control sections for flat slabs
and column bases were defined. While for flat slabs the control
section is given in a distance 2.0d from the column’s perimeter,
for column bases this distance has to be determined iteratively
minimizing the punching shear resistance. The differentiation
between flat slabs and column bases and especially the iterative
design procedure for the determination of the punching shear
resistance of column bases increased the effort in daily engineering
practice compared to former codes.
shear provisions according to Eurocode 2 are identified by means
of databank evaluations as well as experiences with the code pro-
visions. Based on the results of the evaluation of the current design
provisions, a new Uniform Design Method (UDM) for punching
shear in flat slabs and column bases is developed and its derivation
is described in detail.
2. Evaluation of design provisions according to Eurocode 2
2.1. General
In this section, the punching shear provisions for flat slabs and
column bases according to Eurocode 2 [11] are evaluated by means
of comparisons with test results. Based on the results of the data-
bank evaluations and experiences with the code provisions, possi-
ble improvements are identified and presented. A brief description
of the punching shear provisions for flat slabs and column bases
according to Eurocode 2 is presented in Appendix A. A more
detailed description of the design provisions can be taken from
[12–16].

⇑ Corresponding author. 2.2. Test databanks

E-mail addresses: dkueres@imb.rwth-aachen.de (D. Kueres), csiburg@huping.de
(C. Siburg), mherbrand@imb.rwth-aachen.de (M. Herbrand), mclassen@imb.rwth- Critically reviewed test databanks can be considered for both,
aachen.de (M. Classen), jhegger@imb.rwth-aachen.de (J. Hegger). the evaluation of existing code provisions and the derivation of

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.engstruct.2016.12.064
0141-0296/Ó 2017 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
150 D. Kueres et al. / Engineering Structures 136 (2017) 149–164

Nomenclature

Latin lower-case letters VRd,c design value of punching shear capacity without shear
ak shear span reinforcement
d effective depth VRd,c+s design value of punching shear capacity with shear rein-
d0 transitional size forcement
fc concrete compressive strength VRd,s design value of capacity of shear reinforcement
fck characteristic value of concrete compressive strength VRd,max design value of maximum punching shear capacity
fck,cyl characteristic value of concrete compressive strength VRk,c characteristic value of punching shear capacity without
(cylinder: 150
300 mm) shear reinforcement
fcm,cyl mean value of concrete compressive strength (cylinder: VRk,c+s characteristic value of punching shear capacity with
150
300 mm) shear reinforcement
fywd design value of the yield strength of the shear reinforce- VRm,gov governing punching shear capacity
ment VRm,s characteristic value of capacity of shear reinforcement
fywm mean value of the yield strength of the shear reinforce- VRk,max characteristic value of maximum punching shear capac-
ment ity
k factor accounting for the influence of size effects VRm,c mean value of punching shear capacity without shear
kd factor accounting for the influence of size effects reinforcement
kk factor accounting for the influence of column size and VRm,c+s mean value of punching shear capacity with shear rein-
shear span-depth ratio forcement
u0 perimeter of the loaded area VRm,s mean value of capacity of shear reinforcement
u0.5d control perimeter in a distance 0.5d from the face of the VRm,max mean value of maximum punching shear capacity
loaded area Vs contribution of shear reinforcement
ucontrol control perimeter Vx coefficient of variation (Standard normal distribution)
uout control perimeter at which shear reinforcement is not Vy coefficient of variation (Log normal distribution)
required
xp 5%-quantile Greek letters
xp,x 5%-quantile (Standard normal distribution) a angle between the shear reinforcement and the plane of
xp,y 5%-quantile (Log normal distribution) the slab
ac factor accounting for contribution of concrete
Latin upper-case letters amax increase factor
Asw area of shear reinforcement as factor accounting for contribution of shear reinforce-
CRk,c constant factor (characteristic value) ment
CRm,c constant factor (mean value) cC partial safety factor for concrete
Vc contribution of concrete lx mean value
VEd applied shear force ql flexural reinforcement ratio
VTest ultimate failure load in the test

improved design methods. Based on systematically checked test
data, the accuracy and reliability of design provisions can be eval-
uated. It can also be examined if the included parameters are taken
into account appropriately or if further parameters have to be
considered.
In [17] the collected databanks for flat slabs and column
bases without and with shear reinforcement of the Institute of
Structural Concrete, RWTH Aachen University [18–20] were
checked and extended by recent test results. In a second step,
selection criteria were formulated and the collected databanks
were filtered accordingly. The selection criteria are described in
[17] in detail.
The evaluation of the punching shear provisions according to
Eurocode 2 in this section is performed mainly on the basis of
the selected test databanks for flat slabs and column bases without
and with shear reinforcement (interior columns) by [17] (Appendix
B). By means of the comparison of failure load and punching shear
capacity according to Eurocode 2, it is investigated if the main
influences on the punching shear capacity (e.g. concrete compres-
sive strength fc, flexural reinforcement ratio ql, effective depth d,
specific column perimeter u0/d (u0 is the perimeter of the loaded
area), and shear span-depth ratio ak/d (ak is the distance between
the face of the loaded area and the line of contraflexure)) are con-
sidered in a consistent manner. Also, the level of safety of the
design provisions is determined and compared to the requirements
according to Eurocode 0 [21] (5%-quantile xp P 1,0). In this con-
text, the 5%-quantile is determined based on a ‘‘Standard normal
distribution” (indicated by index ‘‘x”) and a ‘‘Log normal distribu-
tion” (indicated by index ‘‘y”).
2.3. Punching shear resistance without shear reinforcement
For the evaluation of the punching shear provisions for flat slabs
without shear reinforcement according to Eurocode 2 (Appendix
A), a total of 328 tests can be considered according to [17]. Fig. 1
depicts the comparison of failure load and punching shear capacity
of flat slabs without shear reinforcement according to Eurocode 2.
While the influences of concrete compressive strength fc, flexural
reinforcement ratio ql, specific column perimeter u0/d, and shear
span-depth ratio ak/d are taken into account reasonably well by
the code equations, a strong trend for the influence of the effective
depth d can be observed. In this context, the ratio VTest/VRk,c,EC2
decreases with increasing effective depth d which indicates that
the influence of size effect is underestimated in the current provi-
sions. The evaluation of the ratio VTest/VRk,c,EC2 for the 328 tests
yields a mean value lx = 1.251 with COVs (coefficients of variation)
of Vx = 0.219 and Vy = 0.211, respectively. The 5%-quantile is xp,
x = 0.799 (Standard normal distribution) and xp,y = 0.866 (Log nor-
mal distribution). Thus, the 5%-quantile is lower than required by
Eurocode 0 (5%-quantile xp P 1.0).
For the evaluation of the punching shear provisions for column
bases without shear reinforcement according to Eurocode 2, a total
of 44 tests can be considered according to [17]. Fig. 2 shows the
comparison of failure load and punching shear capacity of column
 D. Kueres et al. / Engineering Structures 136 (2017) 149–164 151

4.0 4.0 4.0

Flat slabs Flat slabs Flat slabs

3.0 Linear regression 3.0 3.0

VTest / VRk,c,EC2 [-]

fck,cyl = fcm,cyl - 4 MPa
VTest / VRk,c,EC2 [-]

VTest / VRk,c,EC2 [-]

2.0 2.0 2.0

1.0 1.0 1.0

0.0 0.0 0.0

0 25 50 75 100 0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 0 200 400 600 800
Compressive strength fcm,cyl [MPa] Reinforcement ratio ρl [%] Effective depth d [mm]

4.0 4.0
Flat slabs Flat slabs Number of tests: 328
Mean value: 1.251
. .
3.0 3.0 Standard normal distribution: .
VTest / VRk,c,EC2 [-]
VTest / VRk,c,EC2 [-]

COV: 0.219
5%-Quantile: 0.799
2.0 2.0 . .

Log normal distribution: .

COV: 0.211
5%-Quantile: 0.866
1.0 1.0

0.0 0.0
0 5 10 15 20 0 4 8 12 16
Specific column perimeter u0/d [-] Shear span-depth ratio aλ/d [-]

Fig. 1. Comparison of failure loads and punching shear capacity of flat slabs without shear reinforcement according to Eurocode 2 (selected databank according to [17]).

bases without shear reinforcement according to Eurocode 2. The underestimated. The evaluation of the ratio VTest/VRk,c,EC2 for the
limitation of the punching shear capacity to the capacity of the 44 tests yields a mean value lx = 1.350 with COVs of Vx = 0.291
compression struts at the column face results in rather conserva- and Vy = 0.276, respectively. The 5%-quantile is xp,x = 0.696 (Stan-
tive values of VTest/VRk,c,EC2 for low concrete compressive strengths dard normal distribution) and xp,y = 0.827 (Log normal distribu-
fc and small specific column perimeters u0/d. Also, the punching tion). Hence, the 5%-quantile is considerably lower than required
shear capacity of compact column bases (ak/d < 2,00) seems to be by Eurocode 0.

4.0 4.0 4.0

Column bases Column bases Column bases

3.0 Linear regression 3.0 3.0

VTest / VRk,c,EC2 [-]
VTest / VRk,c,EC2 [-]

VTest / VRk,c,EC2 [-]

fck,cyl = fcm,cyl - 4 MPa

2.0 2.0 2.0

1.0 1.0 1.0

0.0 0.0 0.0

0 25 50 75 100 0,0 1,0 2,0 3,0 4,0 0 200 400 600 800
Compressive strength fcm,cyl [MPa] Reinforcement ratio ρl [%] Effective depth d [mm]

4.0 4.0
Column bases Column bases Number of tests: 44
Mean value: 1.350
. .
3.0 3.0
VTest / VRk,c,EC2 [-]

Standard normal distribution: .

VTest / VRk,c,EC2 [-]

COV: 0.291
5%-Quantile: 0.696
.
2.0 2.0 .

Log normal distribution: .

COV: 0.276
5%-Quantile: 0.827
1.0 1.0
VTest,column-base is the ultimate failure load
reduced by the effective soil pressure
0.0 0.0 within the control perimeter:
0 5 10 15 20 0 4 8 12 16 .

Specific column perimeter u0/d [-] Shear span-depth ratio aλ/d [-] VTest,column-base = VTest(1-Acrit/A)

Fig. 2. Comparison of failure loads and punching shear capacity of column bases without shear reinforcement according to Eurocode 2 (selected databank according to [17]).
152 D. Kueres et al. / Engineering Structures 136 (2017) 149–164

2.4. Punching shear resistance with shear reinforcement the various influences on the punching shear capacity of column
bases with shear reinforcement is not possible yet. However, as
For the evaluation of the punching shear provisions for flat slabs observed for column bases without shear reinforcement, the
with stirrups as shear reinforcement according to Eurocode 2, a punching shear capacity of column bases with stirrups as shear
total of 58 tests can be considered according to [17]. Fig. 3 depicts reinforcement is governed by the capacity of the compression
the comparison of failure load and maximum punching shear struts at the column face. The evaluation of the ratio VTest/VRk,max,
capacity of flat slabs with stirrups as shear reinforcement accord- EC2 for the 8 tests yields a mean value lx = 2.782 with COVs of
ing to Eurocode 2. As observed for flat slabs without shear rein- Vx = 0.136 and Vy = 0.137, respectively. The 5%-quantile is xp,
forcement, the influences of concrete compressive strength fc, x = 2.123 (Standard normal distribution) and xp,y = 2.176 (Log nor-
flexural reinforcement ratio ql, specific column perimeter u0/d mal distribution). Thus, the 5%-quantile is considerably higher than
and shear span-depth ratio ak/d are taken into account reasonably required by Eurocode 0.
well by the code equations. Since only few tests exist with effective
depth d > 250 mm the influence of size effect cannot be investi-
gated thoroughly yet. The evaluation of the ratio VTest/VRk,max,EC2 2.5. Overall evaluation
for the 58 tests yields a mean value lx = 1.090 with COVs of
Vx = 0.190 and Vy = 0.178, respectively. The 5%-quantile is xp, Table 1 summarizes the results of the databank evaluation
x = 0.745 (Standard normal distribution) and xp,y = 0.800 (Log nor- according to the punching shear provisions of Eurocode 2
mal distribution). Thus, the 5%-quantile is considerably lower than (cC = 1.0; fck,cyl = fcm,cyl – 4 MPa [22]). The evaluation was performed
required by Eurocode 0. separately for the databanks for flat slabs and column bases with-
For the evaluation of the punching shear provisions for column out and with shear reinforcement (Sections 2.3 and 2.4). To inves-
bases with stirrups as shear reinforcement according to Euro- tigate the interaction between the design equations for flat slabs
code 2, a total of 8 tests can be considered according to [17]. Since and column bases, an additional evaluation was performed using
only eight tests are available for the evaluation, the investigation of combined databanks (flat slabs and column bases).

4.0 4.0 4.0

Flat slabs Flat slabs Flat slabs

Linear regression
VTest / VRk,max,EC2 [-]

VTest / VRk,max,EC2 [-]

VTest / VRk,max,EC2 [-]

3.0 fck,cyl = fcm,cyl - 4 MPa 3.0 3.0

2.0 2.0 2.0

1.0 1.0 1.0

0.0 0.0 0.0

0 25 50 75 100 0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 0 200 400 600 800
Compressive strength fcm,cyl [MPa] Reinforcement ratio ρl [%] effective depth d [mm]

4.0 4.0
Flat slabs Flat slabs Number of tests: 58
Mean value: 1.090
. .
VTest / VRk,max,EC2 [-]
VTest / VRk,max,EC2 [-]

3.0 3.0 Standard normal distribution: .

COV: 0.190
5%-Quantile: 0.745
2.0 2.0 . .

Log normal distribution: .

COV: 0.178
5%-Quantile: 0.800
1.0 1.0

0.0 0.0
0 5 10 15 20 0 4 8 12 16
Specific column perimeter u0/d [-] Shear span-depth ratio aλ/d [-]

Fig. 3. Comparison of failure loads and maximum punching shear capacity of flat slabs with stirrups according to Eurocode 2 (selected databank according to [17]).

Table 1
Summary of the results of the databank evaluation according to the punching shear provisions of Eurocode 2 (cC = 1.0; fck,cyl = fcm,cyl  4 MPa).

Statistical parameters Flat slabs Column bases Combined

Without srft With srft Without srft With srft Without srft With srft
# 328 58 44 8 372 66
lx 1.251 1.090 1.350 2.782 1.262 1.295
Vx 0.219 0.190 0.291 0.136 0.231 0.465
xp,x 0.799 0.745 0.696 2.123 0.781 0.294
Vy 0.211 0.178 0.276 0.137 0.209 0.366
xp,y 0.866 0.800 0.827 2.176 0.860 0.667

#: number of tests; lx: mean value; Vx: coefficient of variation (Standard normal distribution); xp,x: 5%-quantile (Standard normal distribution); Vy: coefficient of variation
(Log normal distribution); xp,y: 5%-quantile (Log normal distribution).
 D. Kueres et al. / Engineering Structures 136 (2017) 149–164
The evaluation of the ratio VTest/VRk,i,EC2 for the different data-
banks for flat slabs and column bases yields mean values in a range
of lx = 1.090 and lx = 2.782. The large differences indicate a differ-
ing suitability of the current Eurocode 2 design equations for flat
slabs and column bases. Also, the level of safety differs signifi-
cantly. While the design provisions for column bases with shear
reinforcement seem to be very conservative, the design equations
for flat slabs with shear reinforcement tend to overestimate the
punching shear capacity of these members. The evaluation of the
combined databanks for flat slabs and column bases shows very
high COVs varying between Vx = 0.231 and Vx = 0.465. As a result
of the large scatter, the 5%-quantiles decrease and are considerably
lower than required by Eurocode 0.
2.6. Possible improvements for the punching shear provisions
according to Eurocode 2
Based on the results of the databank evaluation and experiences
with the code provisions, the following improvements for the
punching shear provisions according to Eurocode 2 can be
identified:
 Eurocode 2 introduced two different design equations for flat
slabs and column bases without shear reinforcement. Addition-
ally, different control perimeters for flat slabs and column bases
were defined. While for flat slabs the control perimeter is given
in a constant distance 2.0d from the edge of the loaded area, for
column bases this distance has to be determined by iteration
minimizing the punching shear resistance. The differentiation
between the members and especially the iterative design proce-
dure for column bases increase the effort in daily engineering
practice. Also, the level of safety of the code equations differs
significantly (Table 1). To improve the provisions, the design
equations for flat slabs and column bases should be merged.
Also, the control perimeter should be placed at a more physical
location in agreement to the performed checks and the iterative
design procedure for column bases should be omitted.
 According to the databank evaluation, the influence of size
effect seems to be underestimated in the current design provi-
sions (Fig. 1). Also, the influences of the specific column perime-
ter u0/d and the shear span-depth ratio ak/d tend to be
underestimated for small values of u0/d and ak/d (Fig. 2). Thus,
the influences of size effect, specific column perimeter u0/d,
and shear span-depth ratio ak/d should be revised in a consis-
tent manner.
 According to test evaluations on flat slabs with shear reinforce-
ment [23], the capacity of shear-reinforced slabs is overesti-
mated by the current design equation. Hence, the design of
the shear reinforcement should be revised. Besides the level of
safety, the definition of the required amount of shear reinforce-
ment and the influence of inclined shear reinforcement should
be reconsidered. Also, provisions for double-headed studs
should be incorporated in the design provisions.
 The limitation of the punching shear resistance to the capacity
of the compression struts at the column face (perimeter u0)
may lead to very conservative results (especially for column
bases, Fig. 2). In this context, the provisions for the determina-
tion of the maximum punching shear capacity should be
reconsidered.
3. Uniform Design Method for flat slabs and column bases
3.1. General
Based on the results of the evaluation of the punching shear
provisions according to Eurocode 2, a new Uniform Design Method
153
(UDM) for flat slabs and column bases was developed. In this sec-
tion, the derivation of the design method is described in detail. To
verify the changes in the current design provisions, the new design
method is evaluated using the large databanks for flat slabs and
column bases without and with shear reinforcement from [17] as
well as systematic test series.
3.2. Derivation of design method
3.2.1. Punching shear resistance without shear reinforcement
The evaluation of the punching shear provisions according to
Eurocode 2 showed only minor trends for the influences of flexural
reinforcement ratio ql and concrete compressive strength fck. It is
therefore assumed, that the influences of ql and fck can be
described by means of a cubic root function. In this context, the fol-
lowing basic equation is considered:
V Rm;c ¼ C Rm;c  k  ð100  ql  f ck Þ
1=3
 ucontrol  d ð1Þ
where VRm,c is the mean value of the punching shear capacity of flat
slabs and column bases without shear reinforcement, CRm,c is a con-
stant factor, k is a factor accounting for the influence of size effects,
ql is the flexural reinforcement ratio, and fck is the concrete com-
pressive strength.
For the derivation of a single equation which is suitable for flat
slabs and column bases, the position of the control perimeter is of
crucial importance. With the aim of defining a constant position of
the control perimeter for both, flat slabs and column bases, in [17]
the punching tests in the selected databanks were evaluated
depending on the distance between the face of the loaded area
and the control perimeter. The best results (lowest COV) yielded
a control perimeter which is located at a constant distance 0.5d
from the edge of the loaded area. The same control perimeter
was already defined in former German code DIN 1045 [24] and is
also given in current codes of practice (e.g. SIA 232:2013 [25]
and ACI 318-14 [26]). Considering the definition of the control
perimeter, Eq. (1) can be modified to:
V Rm;c ¼ C Rm;c  k  ð100  ql  f ck Þ
1=3
 u0:5d  d ð2Þ
In Eurocode 2, the influence of size effect is taken into account
by a size effect factor k according to Model Code 1990 [27]:
qffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
k¼1þ 200=d 6 2:0 with d in ðmmÞ ð3Þ
The factor was verified at that time by using available test data.
Since most of the tests were conducted on scaled specimens or
specimens with small effective depths, a verification of the size
effect factor k for larger effective depths was not possible.
Meanwhile, further systematic test series on flat slabs and column
bases with bigger effective depths were conducted. In this context,
Fig. 4 depicts the comparison of the size effect factor k according
to Model Code 1990 and test results by Guandalini et al. [28],
Hegger et al. [8], and Siburg and Hegger [9]. For the comparison,
the failure loads VTest were normalized with the length of the
control perimeter u0.5d, the effective depth d, and the cubic root
of the concrete compressive strength fck1/3. While for the
specimens with smaller effective depths (PG-10 and DF11) the
predicted punching shear capacity is only slightly higher than
the failure load, the capacity of specimens PG-3 and DF26 is
considerably overestimated by the size effect factor k. This was
already observed in the databank evaluation of the current design
provisions (e.g. Fig. 1).
A better agreement with the test results can be reached by
applying the size effect factor according to Bažant [29–31]:
1
kd ¼ pffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi with d in ðmmÞ and d0 ¼ 200 mm ð4Þ
1 þ d=d0
154 D. Kueres et al. / Engineering Structures 136 (2017) 149–164

The transitional size d0 was evaluated by means of the tests The constant factor CRm,c = 2.22 for calculating the mean value
results from Guandalini et al. [28], Hegger et al. [8], and Siburg of the punching shear capacity of flat slabs and column bases with-
and Hegger [9]. The comparison of the revised size effect factor out shear reinforcement VRm,c was evaluated by means of the com-
kd and test results is shown in Fig. 4. In accordance with the test bined selected databank for flat slabs and column bases without
results, the factor kd leads to a stronger reduction of the nominal shear reinforcement according to [17].
punching shear capacity with increasing effective depth (size For the purpose of designing new structures, the model
effect) than the factor according to Model Code 1990. Taking into uncertainty of Eq. (7) has to be considered. In this context, the
account the revised size effect factor, Eq. (2) can be modified to: characteristic value of the factor was evaluated to CRk,c = 1.8.
The design value of the punching shear capacity of flat slabs
V Rm;c ¼ C Rm;c  kd  ð100  ql  f ck Þ
1=3
 u0:5d  d ð5Þ and column bases without shear reinforcement VRd,c can thus
Due to the large effective depths, column bases are generally be calculated as:
constructed with considerably smaller specific column perimeters
 kd  kk  ð100  ql  f ck Þ
C Rk;c 1=3
V Rd;c ¼ cC  u0:5d  d
u0/d (Fig. 5a and b) and smaller shear span-depth ratios ak/d
(Fig. 5a and b than flat slabs. For the derivation of a single equation with C Rk;c ¼ 1:8
which is capable of predicting the punching shear capacity of flat
slabs and column bases it is assumed that the differentiation
3.2.2. Punching shear resistance with shear reinforcement
between the members can be performed by means of the u0/d-
If a flexural failure and secondary failure scenarios (e.g. anchor-
ratio and the ak/d-ratio. In this context, Fig. 5c depicts the ratio
age failure of flexural reinforcement or local crushing of concrete
VTest/(kd(qlfck1/3)u0.5dd) over the product of u0/d ak/d for the com-
underneath the column) can be excluded, point-supported rein-
bined selected databank for flat slabs and column bases without
forced concrete slabs with punching shear reinforcement may fail
shear reinforcement according to [17].
in punching inside and outside the shear-reinforced zone as well
For column bases the value u0/d ak/d varies between 2.0 and
as on the level of the maximum punching shear capacity. A failure
11.0 and for flat slabs the value u0/d ak/d ranges between 3.0 and
inside the shear-reinforced zone may develop if the amount of
131.0. The transition can be described by the factor kk:
punching shear reinforcement is not sufficient to limit the inner
1 shear crack growth, resulting in a failure of the punching shear
kk ¼ p ffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi ð6Þ
5
u0 =d  ak =d reinforcement due to yielding or pullout of anchorages [32–34].
A failure outside the shear-reinforced zone may take place if the
Considering the transition between flat slabs and column bases length of the shear-reinforced zone is too short [32,33]. Once a fail-
(factor kk), Eq. (5) can be modified to: ure inside and outside the shear-reinforced zone can be excluded,
the punching failure occurs on maximum load level, which is
V Rm;c ¼ C Rm;c  kd  kk  ð100  ql  f ck Þ
1=3
 u0:5d  d
strongly influenced by the multi-axial stress state along column
with C Rm;c ¼ 2:22 face and the slab rotation [32,33,35].

0.9 3.0
(a) Tests by: Guandalini et al. 2009 (b) Tests by: Hegger et al. 2009
VTest (1-A0.5d /A) / (u0.5d d fck1/3)

Siburg and Hegger 2014

VTest / (u0.5d d fck1/3)

0.6 2.0

PG-10
PG-3
DF11
0.3 1.0 DF26

k k
kd kd
0.0 0.0
0 500 1000 1500 0 500 1000 1500
Effective depth d [mm] Effective depth d [mm]

Fig. 4. Comparison of different size effect factors and test results (Tests by: Guandalini et al. [28], Hegger et al. [8], Siburg and Hegger [9]).

4.0
(a) (b) (c) Flat slabs
Column bases
VTest / (kd(ρlfck)1/3u0.5dd) [-]

3.0
u0
aλ
2.0
d
d CRm,ckλ
1.0
aλ
u0
CRk,ckλ
0.0
0 50 100 150 200
u0/d aλ/d [-]

Fig. 5. Differentiation between flat slabs and column bases (combined selected databanks for flat slabs and column bases without shear reinforcement according to [17]).
 D. Kueres et al. / Engineering Structures 136 (2017) 149–164
According to test evaluations on flat slabs with shear reinforce-
ment [23], the capacity of shear-reinforced slabs is overestimated
by the current design equation of Eurocode 2. Especially the high
concrete contribution (0.75vRd,c) in combination with the flat incli-
nation of the compression struts of 33° (factor 1.5) lead to a small
amount of shear reinforcement (constant in each row). Meanwhile,
a more realistic interaction based on a proposal by Broms [36] can
be considered. In this context, two scenarios for punching shear
failures inside the shear-reinforced zone can be assumed:
(1) For low amounts of shear reinforcement, the punching shear
failure inside the shear-reinforced zone (Fig. 6b) resembles
the punching shear failure without shear reinforcement
(Fig. 6a). While the punching shear capacity is governed by
the concrete contribution Vc, only a small part of the shear
force is suspended to the top of the slab by the shear rein-
forcement Vs.
(2) If the capacity of the shear reinforcement Vs exceeds the
concrete contribution Vc the punching shear capacity is gov-
erned by the capacity Vs. After the initial development of a
flat shear crack, the amount of shear reinforcement is suffi-
cient to suspend the slab (Fig. 6c). Besides the contribution
of the shear reinforcement, also a smaller part of the shear
force is carried by the concrete.
Considering the two failure scenarios, the mean value of the
punching shear capacity of shear-reinforced slabs VRm,c+s can be
calculated as:
V Rm;s 6 V Rm;c : V Rm;cþs ¼ V Rm;c þ as  V Rm;s
¼ V Rm;c þ as  Asw;1:25d  f ywm  sin a
V Rm;s > V Rm;c : V Rm;cþs ¼ ac  V Rm;c þ V Rm;s
¼ ac  V Rm;c þ Asw;1:25d  f ywm  sin a
with ac ¼ as ¼ 0:3
where VRm,c is the punching shear capacity without shear reinforce-
ment according to Eq. (7), Asw,1.25d is the area of shear reinforcement
within a distance of 0.30d to 1.25d from the face of the loaded area
(due to the steeper inclination of shear cracks, for column bases the
area of shear reinforcement within a distance of 0.30d to 0.80d from
the face of the loaded area should be considered), fywm is the mean
value of the yield strength of the shear reinforcement, and a is the
angle between the shear reinforcement and the plane of the slab.
The factors ac and as were evaluated by means of a systematic test
series on flat slabs with double-headed studs as shear reinforce-
ment and varying amount of shear reinforcement by Lips et al. [37].
CL CL
(a) Failure without (b) Failure inside the
shear reinforcement
shear-reinforced zone (Vs Vc)
CL CL
(c) Failure inside the (d) Failure on the level of the
maximum punching shear capacity
shear-reinforced zone (Vs Vc)
Fig. 6. Punching failure modes (a–d) and comparison of proposed method with test results on flat slabs with double-headed studs as shear reinforcement by Lips et al. [37]
(e).
155
A punching failure at maximum load level (upper bound capac-
ity of Eq. (10)) is indicated by a very steep failure crack (Fig. 6 (d)).
Following the design provisions of Eurocode 2 (incl. Amendment 1:
EN 1992-1-1:2004/A1:2014) and other codes of practice (e.g.
SIA 232:2013 and ACI 318-14) the maximum punching shear
capacity VRm,max can be defined as a multiple of the punching shear
capacity of an identical slab without shear reinforcement as:
V Rm;max ¼ amax  V Rm;c ð11Þ
with amax ¼ 1:5 ðfor stirrups and bent-up barsÞ and
amax ¼ 1:8 ðfor double-headed studsÞ
where amax is an increase factor and VRm,c is the punching shear
capacity without shear reinforcement according to Eq. (7). The fac-
tor amax depends on the efficiency of the punching shear reinforce-
ment and should be verified experimentally for each reinforcement
type. In this context, the factor amax for stirrups and bent-up bars
was taken from Eurocode 2. For double-headed studs the factor
amax was evaluated by means of test series by Beutel [18], Broms
[38], Birkle and Dilger [39], Lips et al. [37], and Ferreira et al. [40].
Fig. 6e depicts the comparison of predicted punching shear
capacity according to Eqs. (7) and (9)–(11) and failure loads of
the test series PV1-PL11-PL12-PL7 by Lips et al. [37]. On the verti-
cal axis, the ratio of failure load and punching shear capacity of an
identical slab without shear reinforcement VR/VRm,c,UDM and on the
horizontal axis the amount of shear reinforcement within a dis-
tance of 0.30d to 1.25d from the face of the loaded area is shown.
While for low amounts of shear reinforcement (VRm,s 6 VRm,c) the
punching shear capacity is governed by Eq. (9), for higher amounts
ð9Þ of shear reinforcement (VRm,s > VRm,c) the punching shear capacity
is governed by Eq. (10) or Eq. (11), respectively. The comparison
reveals a good agreement between the test results and the pro-
posed method.
ð10Þ In accordance with Section 3.2.1, the design value of the punch-
ing shear capacity of shear-reinforced slabs VRd,c+s can be calculated
as:
V Rk;s 6 V Rk;c : V Rd;cþs ¼ V Rd;c þ as  V Rd;s
¼ V Rd;c þ as  Asw;1:25d  f ywd  sin a ð12Þ
V Rk;s > V Rk;c : V Rd;cþs ¼ ac  V Rd;c þ V Rd;s
¼ ac  V Rd;c þ Asw;1:25d  f ywd  sin a ð13Þ
with ac ¼ as ¼ 0:3
where VRd,c is the punching shear capacity without shear reinforce-
ment according to Eq. (8) and fywd is the design strength of the shear
3.0
(e) Tests by: Lips et al. 2012
VR / VRm,c,UDM [-]
2.0 Case (d)
Case (c) PL7
PL12
PL11
1.0
PV1 Case (b)
Case (a)
0.0
0 2000 4000 6000
Asw,1.25d [mm²]
156 D. Kueres et al. / Engineering Structures 136 (2017) 149–164

reinforcement. The design value of the maximum punching shear uniformly distributed around 1.0 for both, flat slabs and column
capacity is limited to: bases. This observation can be verified by the evaluation of the
ratio VTest/VRm,c,UDM, since the mean value for the 372 tests is
V Rd;max ¼ amax  V Rd;c ð14Þ
lx = 1.004 and the COV is Vx = 0.149.
Due to the fact that the evaluation of the entire databank does
with amax ¼ 1:5 ðfor stirrups and bent-up barsÞ and
not necessarily prove that the different influences are taken into
amax ¼ 1:8 ðfor double-headed studsÞ account appropriately by the proposed method, a further evalua-
where VRd,c is the punching shear capacity without shear reinforce- tion on the basis of systematic test series was performed. In this
ment according to Eq. (8). context, Figs. 8 and 9 depict the comparison of predicted punching
Following the punching shear provisions according to Eurocode shear capacity according to Uniform Design Method (Eq. (7)) and
2, the control perimeter at which shear reinforcement is not experimental results for flat slabs and column bases without shear
required uout can be determined by: reinforcement. Also, the predicted punching shear capacity accord-
ing to Eurocode 2 is compared to the test results.
V Ed;out For flat slabs (Fig. 8), the influences of concrete compressive
uout ¼ ð15Þ
v Rd;c  d strength fck and flexural reinforcement ratio ql are taken into
where vRd,c is the one-way shear capacity (Eurocode 2, Section 6.2). account in good agreement with the test results by both methods.
The outermost perimeter of shear reinforcement should be placed In contrast, the influences of effective depth d and shear span-
at a distance not greater than 1.5d within the perimeter uout. depth ratio ak/d seem to be underestimated and the influence of
specific column perimeter u0/d seems to be overestimated by the
Eurocode 2 provisions. This was already observed in the databank
3.3. Evaluation of design method (mean value)
evaluation (Section 2.3). Better agreement with the tests results
can be achieved by applying the Uniform Design Method.
3.3.1. Punching shear resistance without shear reinforcement
Due to the limitation of the punching shear resistance on the
For the evaluation of the Uniform Design Method for flat slabs
capacity of the compression struts at the face of the loaded area,
and column bases without shear reinforcement, a total of 372 tests
the punching shear capacity of column bases without shear rein-
(combined databank: 328 tests on flat slabs and 44 tests on column
forcement according to Eurocode 2 underestimates the failure
bases according to Section 2.3) can be considered according to [17].
loads of the evaluated test series in many cases (Fig. 9). In contrast,
Fig. 7 depicts the comparison of failure load and mean value of
the punching shear capacity according to the Uniform Design
punching shear capacity of flat slabs and column bases without
Method is in good accordance with the test results.
shear reinforcement according to Eq. (7). The evaluation shows
no significant trends for the investigated influences of concrete
compressive strength fc, flexural reinforcement ratio ql, effective 3.3.2. Punching shear resistance with shear reinforcement
depth d, specific column perimeter u0/d, and shear span-depth For the evaluation of the Uniform Design Method for flat
ratio ak/d. It is also notable, that the values VTest/VRm,c,UDM are slabs and column bases with stirrups as shear reinforcement,

4.0 4.0 4.0

Flat slabs Flat slabs Flat slabs
Column bases Column bases Column bases
Linear regression
VTest / VRm,c,UDM [-]
VTest / VRm,c,UDM [-]

VTest / VRm,c,UDM [-]

3.0 fck,cyl = fcm,cyl - 4 MPa 3.0 3.0

2.0 2.0 2.0

1.0 1.0 1.0

0.0 0.0 0.0

0 25 50 75 100 0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 0 200 400 600 800
Compressive strength fcm,cyl [MPa] Reinforcement ratio ρl [%] Effective depth d [mm]

4.0 4.0
Flat slabs Flat slabs Number of tests: 372
Column bases Column bases
Mean value: 1.004
COV: 0.149
VTest / VRm,c,UDM [-]
VTest / VRm,c,UDM [-]

3.0 3.0
. .

.
VTest,column-base is the ultimate failure load
2.0 2.0 reduced by the effective soil pressure
within the control perimeter:
.

VTest,column-base = VTest(1-A0,5d/A)
1.0 1.0

0.0 0.0
0 5 10 15 20 0 4 8 12 16
Specific column perimeter u0/d [-] Shear span-depth ratio aλ/d [-]

Fig. 7. Comparison of failure loads and punching shear capacity of flat slabs and column bases without shear reinforcement according to Uniform Design Method (selected
databank according to [17]).
 D. Kueres et al. / Engineering Structures 136 (2017) 149–164 157

9.0 1.5 1.0

Tests by: Ramdane 1996 Tests by: Guandalini et al. 2009 Tests by: Guandalini et al. 2009
Einpaul et al. 2016

VTest / (u0.5d d fck1/3)

VTest / (u0.5d d fck1/3)

VTest / (u0.5d d)

6.0 1.0 0.5

PG-10
PE8 PG-3
14 16
12 PE9
13
15
3.0 0.5 PG-5 0.0
PG-10

EC2 EC2 EC2

UDM UDM UDM
0.0 0.0 -0.5
0 50 100 150 0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 0 500 1000 1500
Compressive strength fck,cyl [MPa] Reinforcement ratio ρl [%] Effective depth d [mm]

1.5 1.5
Tests by: Guandalini et al. 2009 Tests by: Fernández Ruiz et al. 2010
Einpaul et al. 2016 Einpaul et al. 2016
VTest / (u0.5d d fck1/3)

VTest / (u0.5d d fck1/3)

1.0 1.0 PE4

PE10 PE11 PV1 PE3
PE9
PG-11 PE12

0.5 0.5

EC2 EC2
UDM UDM
0.0 0.0
0 4 8 12 0 4 8 12
Specific column perimeter u0/d [-] Shear span-depth ratio aλ/d [-]

Fig. 8. Comparison of predictions and experimental results for flat slabs without shear reinforcement (Tests by: Ramdane [41], Guandalini et al. [28], Fernández Ruiz et al.
[42] and Einpaul et al. [43]).

9.0 1.8 2.1

Tests by: Hegger et al. 2009 Tests by: Dieterle and Rostásy 1987 Tests by: Hegger et al. 2009
VTest (1-A0.5d/A) / (u0.5d d fck1/3)

VTest (1-A0.5d/A) / (u0.5d d fck1/3)

Siburg and Hegger 2014 Siburg and Hegger 2014

VTest (1-A0.5d/A) / (u0.5d d)

6.0 1.2 B-4 1.4

DF38 B-3 DF11
DF26
DF20 B-2
DF11
3.0 0.6 0.7
B-1

EC2 EC2 EC2

UDM UDM UDM
0.0 0.0 0.0
0 30 60 90 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 0 500 1000 1500
Compressive strength fck,cyl [MPa] Reinforcement ratioρl [%] Effective depth d [mm]

2.4 1.8
Tests by: Simões et al. 2016 Tests by: Hegger et al. 2009
VTest (1-A0.5d/A) / (u0.5d d fck1/3)
VTest (1-A0.5d/A) / (u0.5d d fck1/3)

1.6 1.2 DF20

PS12 DF21
DF22
PS11
0.8 0.6

EC2 EC2
UDM UDM
0.0 0.0
0 2 4 6 0 2 4 6
Specific column perimeter u0/d [-] Shear span-depth ratio aλ/d [-]

Fig. 9. Comparison of predictions and experimental results for column bases without shear reinforcement (Tests by: Dieterle and Rostásy [5], Hegger et al. [8], Siburg and
Hegger [9] and Simões et al. [10]).

a total of 66 tests (combined databank: 58 tests on flat slabs the test series by Elstner and Hognestad [44], Hallgren and
and 8 tests on column bases according to Section 2.4) can Kinnunen [45], Beutel [18], Birkle and Dilger [39], Lips
be considered according to [17]. For the verification of the et al. [37], and Ferreira et al. [40] were added to the
proposed method for bent-up bars and double-headed studs databank.
158 D. Kueres et al. / Engineering Structures 136 (2017) 149–164

4.0 4.0 4.0

Flat slabs Flat slabs Flat slabs
Column bases Column bases Column bases
Linear regression

VTest / VRm,gov,UDM [-]

VTest / VRm,gov,UDM [-]

VTest / VRm,gov,UDM [-]

3.0 fck,cyl = fcm,cyl - 4 MPa 3.0 3.0

2.0 2.0 2.0

1.0 1.0 1.0

0.0 0.0 0.0

0 25 50 75 100 0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 0 200 400 600 800
Compressive strength fcm,cyl [MPa] Reinforcement ratio ρl [%] Effective depth d [mm]

4.0 4.0
Flat slabs Flat slabs Number of tests: 104
Column bases Column bases
Mean value: 0.990
VTest / VRm,gov,UDM [-]

COV: 0.106
VTest / VRm,gov,UDM [-]

3.0 3.0
. .

.
VTest,column-base is the ultimate failure load
2.0 2.0 reduced by the effective soil pressure
within the control perimeter:
.

VTest,column-base = VTest(1-A0,5d/A)
1.0 1.0

0.0 0.0
0 5 10 15 20 0 4 8 12 16
Specific column perimeter u0/d [-] Shear span-depth ratio aλ/d [-]

Fig. 10. Comparison of failure loads and punching shear capacity of flat slabs and column bases with different types of shear reinforcement according to Uniform Design
Method (selected databank according to [17] supplemented by tests with bent-up bars and double-headed studs).

Fig. 10 shows the comparison of failure load and mean value of databanks for flat slabs and column bases without and with shear
punching shear capacity of flat slabs and column bases with differ- reinforcement. To investigate the quality of the proposed equations
ent types of shear reinforcement according to Eqs. (9)–(11). As separately for the different members, an additional evaluation was
already observed for members without shear reinforcement, the performed using the corresponding databanks for flat slabs and
evaluation shows no significant trends for the investigated influ- column bases, respectively.
ences of concrete compressive strength fc, flexural reinforcement The evaluation of the ratio VTest/VRm,i,UDM for the different data-
ratio ql, effective depth d, specific column perimeter u0/d, and banks for flat slabs and column bases yields mean values in a range
shear span-depth ratio ak/d. The values VTest/VRm,gov,UDM are uni- of lx = 0.980 and lx = 1.063 and COVs between Vx = 0.098 and
formly distributed around 1.0 for both, flat slabs and column bases, Vx = 0.154. The limited range of mean values as well as the moder-
which can be verified by the evaluation of the ratio VTest/VRm,c,UDM. ate COVs for all databanks indicate a high prediction accuracy of
In this context, the mean value for the 104 tests with different the proposed method.
types of shear reinforcement is lx = 0.990 and the COV is
Vx = 0.106.
For the evaluation of the proposed method for members with 3.4. Evaluation of design method (characteristic value)
shear reinforcement, systematic test series with varying amount
of shear reinforcement can be considered. In this context, Fig. 11 For the purpose of designing new structures, the model uncer-
depicts the comparison of predicted punching shear capacity tainty of the proposed equations (Eqs. (7) and (9)–(11)) have to
according to Eurocode 2 and Uniform Design Method (Eqs. (9)– be considered. In this context, the characteristic values of the
(11)) with failure loads of the test series PV1-PL11-PL12-PL7 punching shear capacity without and with shear reinforcement
(double-headed studs) by Lips et al. [37], 10-12-11 (double- were evaluated (Eqs. (8) and (12)–(14)). Table 3 summarizes the
headed studs) by Birkle and Dilger [39], and HSC0-HSC7-HSC3- results of the databank evaluation according to the proposed
HSC5 (bent-up bars) by Hallgren and Kinnunen [45]. design method (cC = 1.0; fck,cyl = fcm,cyl  4 MPa). The evaluation
Due to the fact that Eurocode 2 did not introduce design provi- was performed for the combined databanks for flat slabs and col-
sions for slabs with double-headed studs, the punching shear umn bases without and with shear reinforcement. To investigate
capacity of tests PL12 and PL7 by Lips et al. [37] is underestimated. the quality of the proposed design equations separately for the dif-
For the tests by Birkle and Dilger [39] and Hallgren and Kinnunen ferent members, an additional evaluation was performed using the
[45], the provisions according to Eurocode 2 overestimate the corresponding databanks for flat slabs and column bases,
punching shear capacity which is in line with former investigations respectively.
[23]. Better agreement with the test results can be achieved by The evaluation of the ratio VTest/VRk,i,UDM for the different data-
applying the Uniform Design Method. banks for flat slabs and column bases yields mean values in a range
of lx = 1.159 and lx = 1.277 and COVs between VX = 0.091 and
3.3.3. Overall evaluation VX = 0.154. For the combined evaluation, the 5%-quantile is xp,
Table 2 summarizes the results of the databank evaluation y = 0.945 for members without shear reinforcement and xp,
according to the proposed method (Eqs. (7) and (9)–(11)); fck,cyl = y = 0.959 for members with shear reinforcement (Log normal dis-
fcm,cyl  4 MPa). The evaluation was performed for the combined tribution), which is only slightly lower than required by Eurocode
 D. Kueres et al. / Engineering Structures 136 (2017) 149–164 159

3.0 3.0 3.0

Tests by: Lips et al. 2012 Tests by: Birkle and Dilger 2008 Tests by: Hallgren and Kinnunen 1996
VR / VRk,c,EC2 [-]

VR / VRk,c,EC2 [-]

VR / VRk,c,EC2 [-]
2.0 2.0 2.0
PL7
PL12
HSC5S
11 HSC3S
PL11 12 HSC7S
1.0 1.0 1.0
PV1 10 HSC0

EC2 EC2 EC2

0.0 0.0 0.0
0 2000 4000 6000 0 2000 4000 6000 0 1500 3000 4500
Asw,1.25d [mm²] Asw,1.25d [mm²] Asw,1.25d [mm²]

3.0 3.0 3.0

Tests by: Lips et al. 2012 Tests by: Birkle and Dilger 2008 Tests by: Hallgren and Kinnunen 1996
VR / VRm,c,UDM [-]

VR / VRm,c,UDM [-]

VR / VRm,c,UDM [-]
2.0 2.0 2.0
PL7
PL12
HSC5S
11 HSC3S
PL11 12 HSC7S
1.0 1.0 1.0
PV1 10 HSC0

UDM UDM UDM

0.0 0.0 0.0
0 2000 4000 6000 0 2000 4000 6000 0 1500 3000 4500
Asw,1.25d [mm²] Asw,1.25d [mm²] Asw,1.25d [mm²]

Fig. 11. Comparison of predictions and experimental results for flat slabs with different types of shear reinforcement (Tests by: Hallgren and Kinnunen [45], Birkle and Dilger
[39] and Lips et al. [37]).

Table 2
Summary of the results of the databank evaluation (mean value) according to the proposed method (fck,cyl = fcm,cyl  4 MPa).

Statistical parameters Flat slabs Column bases Combined

Without srft With srft Without srft With srft Without srft With srft
# 328 92 44 12 372 104
lx 1.000 0.980 1.036 1.063 1.004 0.990
Vx 0.154 0.103 0.110 0.098 0.149 0.106

#: number of tests; lx: mean value; Vx: coefficient of variation (Standard normal distribution).

Table 3
Summary of the results of the databank evaluation (characteristic value) according to the proposed design method (cC = 1.0; fck,cyl = fcm,cyl  4 MPa).

Statistical parameters Flat slabs Column bases Combined

Without srft With srft Without srft With srft Without srft With srft
# 328 92 44 12 372 104
lx 1.234 1.159 1.277 1.255 1.239 1.170
Vx 0.154 0.118 0.110 0.091 0.149 0.117
xp,x 0.920 0.933 1.043 1.060 0.933 0.943
Vy 0.162 0.117 0.112 0.088 0.158 0.117
xp,y 0.933 0.949 1.055 1.075 0.945 0.959

#: number of tests; lx: mean value; Vx: coefficient of variation (Standard normal distribution); xp,x: 5%-quantile (Standard normal distribution); Vy: coefficient of variation
(Log normal distribution); xp,y: 5%-quantile (Log normal distribution).

0. The minor differences between the different evaluations indicate Based on the results of the evaluation of the current design pro-
a well-balanced level of safety for the proposed design method. visions according to Eurocode 2, a new Uniform Design Method for
punching shear in flat slabs and column bases was developed. The
4. Summary and conclusions derivation of the design method was described in detail. To verify
the changes in the current design provisions, the new design
In this paper, the punching shear design provisions according to method was evaluated using large databanks for flat slabs and col-
Eurocode 2 were evaluated by means of comparisons with test umn bases without and with shear reinforcement as well as sys-
results. On the basis of the results of the databank evaluations tematic test series.
and experiences with the code provisions, possible improvements While being easier applied than the current Eurocode 2 provi-
for the current punching shear provisions were identified. sions, the proposed design method shows good agreement with
160 D. Kueres et al. / Engineering Structures 136 (2017) 149–164
test results on flat slabs and column bases without and with differ-
ent types of shear reinforcement. In particular, the influences of
size effect, specific column perimeter u0/d, and shear span-depth
ratio ak/d are taken into account in a consistent manner in the pro-
posed method. Also, the punching shear capacity with shear rein-
forcement was revised and the changes were verified by means
of systematic test series on slabs with varying amount of shear
reinforcement. The evaluation of the large databanks indicates a
well-balanced level of safety of the proposed design method for
all investigated types of members.
The Uniform Design Method as presented in this paper deals
with the punching shear resistance at interior columns. Further
research will be performed in order to extend the method for other
cases, such as edge and corner columns, in-plane forces, or novel
reinforcing materials (e.g. SFRC and FRP).
Acknowledgements
Major parts of the work presented in this paper were funded by
Deutsches Institut für Bautechnik (German Institute of Construc-
tion Technology, DIBt P 52-5-7.310-/13) and Initiative PRB (PRB-
2.12 (2013)). The authors are appreciative of the support received.
Appendix A
A.1. Punching shear provisions according to Eurocode 2
A.1.1. Punching shear resistance without shear reinforcement
According to Eurocode 2, the punching shear resistance of flat
slabs and column bases without shear reinforcement should be
checked along different control perimeters. Following the provi-
sions for one-way shear (Eurocode 2, Section 6.2), the punching
shear capacity is limited to the capacity of the compression struts
at the periphery of the loaded area (first control perimeter uo):
b  V Ed
v Ed ¼ 6 v Rd;max ¼ 0:4  m  f cd
u0  d
where b is a factor accounting for non-uniformly distributed shear
stresses along the control perimeter, VEd is the applied shear force
(for column bases the applied shear force may be reduced by the
sum of the upward soil pressure inside the control perimeter), d
is the distance from the extreme compression fibre to the centroid
of the flexural reinforcement (effective depth), and m = 0.6 
(1  fck/250) is a factor accounting for the strength reduction of con-
crete compression struts in cracked concrete due to lateral tension
stresses.
For flat slabs without shear reinforcement, the second control
perimeter u1 is located at 2.0d from the face of the loaded area.
The shear stress vEd along that perimeter should not exceed the
punching shear resistance without shear reinforcement vRd,c:
b  V Ed C Rk;c
v Ed ¼ 6 v Rd;c ¼  k  ð100  ql  f ck Þ þ k1  rcp
1=3
u1  d cC
P v min þ k1  rcp
where CRk,c = 0.18 is a constant factor, cC is the partial safety factor
p
for concrete, k = 1 + (200/d) 6 2.0 (with d in mm) is a factor
p
accounting for size effects of the effective depth d, ql = (qlx  qly) -
6 0.02 is the flexural reinforcement ratio (the values qlx and qly may
be calculated for a strip width equal to the column width plus 3d
each side), and fck is the characteristic value of the compressive
cylinder strength of concrete. The minimum punching shear capac-
ity is defined as vmin = 0.035  k3/2  fck1/2.
Due to more compact dimensions and soil-structure interaction,
column bases achieve significantly higher punching shear capaci-
ties than flat slabs. To account for these differences, Eurocode 2
defines an additional equation to calculate the punching shear
capacity of column bases without shear reinforcement:
b  V Ed C Rk;c 1=3 2  d
v Ed ¼ 6 v Rd;c ¼  k  ð100  ql  f ck Þ 
ucrit  d cC acrit
2d
P v min  ðA:3Þ
acrit
While for flat slabs the second control perimeter u1 is given in a
constant distance 2.0d from the face of the loaded area, for column
bases the distance acrit between the face of the loaded area and the
control perimeter ucrit has to be determined by iteration minimiz-
ing the punching shear resistance (acrit 6 2.0d). The ratio 2  d/acrit
in Eq. (A.3) accounts for values acrit < 2.0d.
A.2. Punching shear resistance with shear reinforcement
If vEd > vRd,c shear reinforcement is required. The punching shear
resistance inside the shear-reinforced zone vRd,c+s is calculated by
means of a truss model with an inclination of the compression
struts of 33°:
v Ed 6 v Rd;cþs ¼ v Rd;cs þ v Rd;s
d Asw  f ywd;ef  sin a
¼ 0:75  v Rd;c þ 1:5   6 amax  v Rd;c ðA:4Þ
sr u1  d
where vRd,c is the concrete contribution according to Eq. (A.2) or Eq.
(A.3), respectively, sr is the radial spacing of perimeters of shear
reinforcement, Asw is the area of shear reinforcement along one
perimeter, fywd,ef is the effective design strength of the shear rein-
forcement according to fywd,eff = 250 + 0.25d 6 fywd (with d in mm),
a is the angle between the shear reinforcement and the plane of
the slab, and u1 is the control perimeter located at 2.0d from the col-
umn face. The capacity of the shear reinforcement is limited to a
multiple of the punching shear capacity without shear reinforce-
ment. In this context, Eurocode 2 (incl. Amendment 1: EN 1992-1-
1:2004/A1:2014) recommends a increase factor amax = 1.5 for stir-
ðA:1Þ
rups and bent-up bars (Eq. (A.4)). Analogous to slabs without shear
reinforcement, the punching shear capacity of flat slabs and column
bases is limited to the capacity of the compression struts at the face
of the loaded area (perimeter u0, Eq. (A.1)).
The control perimeter at which shear reinforcement is not
required uout (or uout,ef) is determined by:
V Ed;out
uout ¼ ðA:5Þ
v Rd;c  d
where vRd,c is the one-way shear capacity (Eurocode 2, Section 6.2).
The outermost perimeter of shear reinforcement should be placed
at a distance not greater than 1.5d within the perimeter uout (or
uout,ef). The shear reinforcement should be provided in at least two
rows and the radial spacing should not exceed sr = 0.75d. The first
row of shear reinforcement should be placed at a distance
0.30d 6 s0 6 0.50d from the face of the loaded area.
ðA:2Þ Appendix B
B.1. Selected databanks for punching shear by Siburg [17]
B.1.1. Flat slabs without shear reinforcement
For the evaluation of punching shear provisions for flat slabs
without shear reinforcement, a total of 328 tests can be
considered:
Graf (1938, [B.17]): # of tests 2; Forssell and Holmberg (1946,
[B.13]): # of tests 7; Elstner and Hognestad (1956,[B.11]): # of tests
23; Rosenthal (1959, [B.60]): # of tests 4; Moe (1961, [B.42]): # of tests
8; Kinnunen (1963, [B.25]): # of tests 15; Taylor and Hayes (1965,
[B.66]): # of tests 8; Manterola (1966, [B.37]): # of tests 8; Mowrer
 D. Kueres et al. / Engineering Structures 136 (2017) 149–164
and Vanderbilt (1967, [B.44]): # of tests 1; Corley and Hawkins (1968,
[B.7]): # of tests 2; Narasimhan (1971, [B.46]): # of tests 2; Roll et al.
(1971, [B.59]): # of tests 8; Criswell (1972, [B.8]): # of tests 8; Nylan-
der and Sundquist (1972, [B.47]): # of tests 4; Ladner (1973, [B.28]): #
of tests 2; Long and Masterson (1974, [B.35]): # of tests 1; Ladner et al.
(1977, [B.29]): # of tests 4; Marti et al. (1977, [B.38]): # of tests 1; Pra-
long et al. (1979, [B.54]): # of tests 1; van der Voet et al. (1981, [B.71]):
# of tests 1; Swamy and Ali (1982, [B.65]): # of tests 1; Regan (1984,
[B.57]): # of tests 8; Schaefers (1984, [B.61]): # of tests 2; Mokhtar
et al. (1985, [B.43]): # of tests 1; Regan (1986, [B.58]): # of tests 21;
Rankin and Long (1987, [B.56]): # of tests 18; Tolf (1988, [B.68]): #
of tests 8; Broms (1990, [B.4]): # of tests 1; Gardner (1990, [B.14]):
# of tests 22; Lovrovich and McLean (1990, [B.36]): # of tests 4; Mar-
zouk and Hussein (1991, [B.39]): # of tests 13; Chana and Desai (1992,
[B.5]): # of tests 1; Yamada (1992, [B.73]): # of tests 2; Chana (1993,
[B.6]): # of tests 1; Tomaszewicz (1993, [B.69]): # of tests 13; Urban
(1994, [B.70]): # of tests 13; Hallgren and Kinnunen (1996, [B.20]):
# of tests 7; Ramdane (1996, [B.55]): # of tests 15; Marzouk and Jiang
(1997, [B.40]): # of tests 1; Sistonen et al. (1997, [B.64]): # of tests 10;
Ghannoum (1998, [B.15]): # of tests 3; Ladner (1998, [B.30]): # of tests
1; Gomes and Regan (1999, [B.16]): # of tests 2; Lee et al. (1999,
[B.32]): # of tests 2; McHarg et al. (2000, [B.41]): # of tests 1; Li
(2000, [B.33]): # of tests 6; Oliveira et al. (2000, [B.49]): # of tests
2; Beutel (2003, [B.2]): # of tests 1; Günther and Scherzer (2003,
[B.19]): # of tests 2; Ospina et al. (2003, [B.51]): # of tests 1; Pilak-
outas and Li (2003, [B.53]): # of tests 1; Timm (2003, [B.67]): # of tests
3; Oliveira et al. (2004, [B.50]): # of tests 5; Ozden and Ersoy (2006,
[B.52]): # of tests 6; Birkle and Dilger (2008, [B.3]): # of tests 3; Etter
et al. (2009, [B.12]): # of tests 1; Guandalini et al. (2009, [B.18]): # of
tests 11; Lips et al. (2012, [B.34]): # of tests 5.
B.2. Column bases without shear reinforcement
For the evaluation of punching shear provisions for column
bases without shear reinforcement, a total of 44 tests (tests sup-
ported on springs were excluded) can be considered:
Dieterle and Steinle (1981, [B.9]): # of tests 3; Kordina and Nölting
(1981, [B.27]): # of tests 2; Dieterle and Rostásy (1987, [B.10]): # of
tests 13; Hallgren et al. (1998, [B.21]): # of tests 2; Hegger et al.
(2006, [B.22]): # of tests 4; Hegger et al. (2009, [B.24]): # of tests
12; Siburg and Hegger (2014, [B.63]): # of tests 8.
B.3. Flat slabs with stirrups as shear reinforcement
For the evaluation of punching shear provisions for flat slabs
with stirrups as shear reinforcement, a total of 58 tests can be
considered:
Elstner and Hognestad (1956, [B.11]): # of tests 1; Andersson
(1963, [B.1]): # of tests 4; Marti et al. (1977, [B.38]): # of tests 1; Kin-
nunen et al. (1980, [B.26]): # of tests 2; Seible et al. (1980, [B.62]): # of
tests 3; Müller et al. (1984, [B.45]): # of tests 3; Tolf (1988, [B.68]): # of
tests 8; Broms (1990, [B.4]): # of tests 4; Chana and Desai (1992,
[B.5]): # of tests 8; Chana (1993, [B.6]): # of tests 1; Ladner (1998,
[B.30]): # of tests 1; Ladner (1999, [B.31]): # of tests 1; Lee et al.
(1999, [B.32]): # of tests 5; Oliveira and Melo (1999, [B.48]): # of tests
3; Beutel (2003, [B.2]): # of tests 2; Hegger et al. (2007, [B.23]): # of
tests 1; Vollum et al. (2010, [B.72]): # of tests 5; Lips et al. (2012,
[B.34]): # of tests 5.
B.4. Column bases with stirrups as shear reinforcement
For the evaluation of punching shear provisions for column
bases with stirrups as shear reinforcement, a total of 8 tests can
be considered:
Hegger et al. (2009, [B.24]): # of tests 3; Siburg and Hegger (2014,
[B.63]): # of tests 5.
161
B.5. References
[B.1] Andersson, J.L: Punching of concrete slabs with shear rein-
forcement. PhD-thesis, Royal Institute of Technology, Civil
Engineering, Stockholm, 1951.
[B.2] Beutel, R.: Durchstanzen schubbewehrter Flachdecken im
Bereich von Innenstützen. PhD-thesis, RWTH Aachen
University, Institute of Structural Conrete, Issue 16, 2003.
[B.3] Birkle, G.; Dilger, W.: Influence of Slab Thickness on Punch-
ing Shear Strength. In: ACI Structural Journal, V. 105, No. 2,
March-April 2008, pp. 180-188.
[B.4] Broms, C.E.: Shear Reinforcement For Deflection Ductility of
Flat Plates. In: ACI Structural Journal, V. 87, No. 6, November-
December 1990, pp. 696-705.
[B.5] Chana, P. S.; Desai, S.B.: Design of shear reinforcement
against punching. In: The Structural Engineer, V. 70; No. 9,
1992, pp. 159-164.
[B.6] Chana, P.S.: A prefabricated shear reinforcement system for
flat slabs. In: Proceedings of ICE, Structures and Buildings,
V. 99, 1993, pp. 345-358.
[B.7] Corley, W.; Hawkins, N.: Shearhead Reinforcement for Slabs.
In: ACI Journal, V. 65, October 1968, pp. 811-824.
[B.8] Criswell, M.E.: Static And Dynamic Response Of Reinforced
Concrete Slab-Column Connections. In: ACI SP 42-31, 1974,
pp. 721-746.
[B.9] Dieterle, H.; Steinle, A.: Blockfundamente für Stahlbetonfer
tigteilstützen. DAfStb Heft 326, Berlin, 1981.
[B.10] Dieterle, H.; Rostásy, F.S.: Tragverhalten quadratischer
Einzelfundamente aus Stahlbeton. DAfStb Heft 387, Berlin,
1987.
[B.11] Elstner, R.; Hognestad, E.: Shearing Strength of Reinforced
Concrete Slabs. In: Journal of the American Concrete Insti-
tute, V. 28, No. 1, July 1956, pp. 29-58.
[B.12] Etter, S.; Heinzmann, D.; Jäger, T.; Marti, P.: Versuche zum
Durchstanzverhalten von Stahlbetonplatten. ETH Zürich,
2009.
[B.13] Forssell, C.; Holmberg, A.: Stämpellast Pa Plattor av Betong.
Nr. 2, 1946-ISBN DK 539.415:666.982 620.176:624.073.
[B.14] Gardner, N. J.: Relationship of the Punching Shear Capacity of
Reinforced Concrete Slabs With Concrete Strength. In: ACI
Structural Journal, V. 87, No. 1, January-February 1990, pp.
66-71.
[B.15] Ghannoum, C.: Effect of high-strength concrete on the per-
formance of slab-column specimens. McGill University,
Department of Civil Engineering and Applied Mechanics,
Montréal, Canada, 1998.
[B.16] Gomes, R.; Regan, P.E.: Punching strength of slabs reinforced
for shear with offcuts of rolled steel I-section beams. In:
Magazine of Concrete Research, V. 51, No. 2, 1999, pp.
121-129.
[B.17] Graf, O.: Versuche über die Widerstandsfähigkeit von all-
seitig aufliegenden dicken Eisenbetonplatten unter Einzel-
lasten. DAfStb Heft 88, Berlin, 1938.
[B.18] Guandalini, S.; Burdet, Olivier L.; Muttoni, A.: Punching
Tests of Slabs with Low Reinforcement Ratios. In: ACI
Structural Journal, V. 106, No. 1, January-February 2009,
pp. 87-95.
[B.19] Günther, G.; Scherzer, I.: Querkrafttragfähigkeit von Beton-
bauteilen infolge neuartiger Einbauteile. In: BFT, V. 69, No.
8, 2003, pp. 32-39.
[B.20] Hallgren, M.; Kinnunen, S.: Increase of Punching Shear
Capacity by Using High Strength Concrete. In: Proceedings
of 4th International Symposium on Utilization of high
strength concrete,1996, pp. 1037-1046.
162 D. Kueres et al. / Engineering Structures 136 (2017) 149–164
[B.21] Hallgren, M.; Kinnunen, S.; Nylander, B.: Punching Shear
Tests on Column Footings. In: Nordic Concrete Research, V.
21, No. 3, 1998, pp. 1-22.
[B.22] Hegger, J.; Sherif, A.G.; Ricker, M.: Experimental Investiga-
tions on Punching Behavior of Reinforced Concrete Footings.
In: ACI Structural Journal, V. 103, No. 4, July-August 2006,
pp. 604-613.
[B.23] Hegger, J.; Häusler, F., Ricker, M.: Zur maximalen Durch-
stanztragfähigkeit von Flachdecken. In: Beton - und Stahlbe-
tonbau, V. 102, No. 11, 2007, pp. 770-777.
[B.24] Hegger, J.; Ricker, M.; Sherif, A.G.: Punching Strength of Rein-
forced Concrete Footings. In: ACI Structural Journal, V. 106,
No. 5, September-October 2009, pp. 706-716.
[B.25] Kinnunen, S.: Punching of Concrete Slabs with two-way
Reinforcement. No. 198, 1963 (Transaction of the Royal
Institute of Technology Stockholm).
[B.26] Kinnunen, S., Nylander, H.; Tolf, P.: Plattjocklekens inverkan
pä betongplattors hällfasthet vid genomstansning - Försök
med rektangulära plattor. No. 137, 1980 (Transaction of
the Royal Institute of Technology Stockholm).
[B.27] Kordina, K.; Nölting, D.: Tragverhalten von ausmittig bean-
spruchten Einzelfundamenten aus Stahlbeton. Technische
Hochschule. Braunschweig, Institut für Baustoffe, Massivbau
und Brandschutz, 1981.
[B.28] Ladner, M.: Einfluss der Maßstabgrößen bei Durchstanzver-
suchen. Ableitung eines begründeten Übertragungsgesetzes.
In: Material und Technik, No. 2, 1973, pp. 60-68.
[B.29] Ladner, M.; Schaeidt, W.; Gut, S.: Experimentelle Unter-
suchungen an Stahlbeton-Flachdecken. Eidgenössische
Materialprüfungs- und Versuchsanstalt Dübendorf, Report
No. 205, 1977.
[B.30] Ladner, M.: Durchstanzversuche an Flachdeckenausschnit-
ten. Hochschule Technik+Architektur Luzern, Report No.
419, 1998.
[B.31] Ladner, M.: Durchstanzversuch an Flachdeckenausschnitt.
Hochschule Technik+Architektur Luzern, Report No. 419-1,
1999.
[B.32] Lee, S.C.; Lee, S.B.; Teng, S.; Morley, C.T.: Punching Shear
tests on high strength concrete slabs, 1999.
[B.33] Li, K.: Influence of size on punching shear strength of con-
crete slabs. McGill University, Department of Civil Engineer-
ing and Applied Mechanics, Montréal, Canada, 2000.
[B.34] Lips, S.; Fernandez Ruiz, M.; Muttoni, A.: Experimental
Investigation on Punching Strength and Deformation Capac-
ity of Shear-Reinforced Slabs. In: ACI Structural Journal, V.
109, No. 6, November-December 2012, pp. 889-900.
[B.35] Long, A.E.; Masterson, D.M.: Improved Experimental Proce-
dure For Determining The Punching Strength Of Reinforced
Concrete Flat Slab Structures. In: ACI SP 42-39, 1974, pp.
921-935.
[B.36] Lovrovich, J.; McLean, D.: Punching Shear Behavior of Slabs
with Varying Span-Depth Ratios. In: ACI Structural Journal,
V. 87, No. 5, September-October 1990, pp. 507-512.
[B.37] Manterola, J.: Poinconnement de dalles sans armature d’ef-
fort tranchant (Mécanismes de redistribution des efforts et
rupture), 1966.
[B.38] Marti, P.; Pralong, J.; Thürlimann, B.: Schubversuche an
Stahlbeton-Platten. ETH Zürich, Report No. 7306-2, 1977.
[B.39] Marzouk, H. M.; Hussein, A.: Experimental Investigation on
the Behavior of High-Strength Concrete Slabs. In: ACI Struc-
tural Journal, V. 88, No. 6, November-December 1991, pp.
701-713.
[B.40] Marzouk, H.; Jiang, D.: Experimental Investigation on Shear
Enhancement Types for High-Strength Concrete Plates. In:
ACI Structural Journal, V. 94, No. 1, January-February 1997,
pp. 49-58.
[B.41] McHarg, P.; Cook, W.; Mitchell, D.; Yoon, Y.: Benefits of Con-
centrated Slab Reinforcement and Steel Fibres on Perfor-
mance of Slab-Column Connections. In: ACI Structural
Journal, V. 97, No. 2, March-April 2000, pp. 225-235.
[B.42] Moe, J.: Shearing Strength Of Reinforced Concrete Slabs And
Footings Under Concentrated Loads. Bulletin D47. Illinois:
Portland Cement Association, 1961.
[B.43] Mokhtar, A.-S.; Ghali, A.; Dilger, W.: Stud Shear Reinforce-
ment for Flat Concrete Plates. In: ACI Journal, V. 82,
September-October 1985, pp. 676-683.
[B.44] Mowrer, R. D.; Vanderbilt, M. D.: Shear Strength of Light-
weight Aggregate Reinforced Concrete Flat Plates. In: ACI
Journal, V. 64, November 1967, pp. 722-729.
[B.45] Müller, F.-X.; Muttoni, A.; Thürlimann, B.: Durchstanzver-
suche an Flachdecken mit Aussparungen. ETH Zürich, Report
No. 7305, 1984.
[B.46] Narasimhan, N.: Shear Reinforcement In Reinforced Concrete
Column Heads. PhD-thesis, Imperial College of Science and
Technology London, Civil Engineering Department, 1971.
[B.47] Nylander, H.; Sundquist, H.: Genomstansning av pelarun-
derstödd plattbro av betong med ospänd armering. No.
104, 1972 (Transaction of the Royal Institute of Technology
Stockholm).
[B.48] Oliveira, D.R. C.; Melo, G.S.: Inclined stirrups as shear rein-
forcement in high performance concrete flat slabs. In: Pro-
ceedings of Utilization of high strength/high performance
concrete, Norway, 1999, pp. 507-516.
[B.49] Oliveira, D.R.; Melo, G.S.; Regan, P.E.: Punching Strengths of
Flat Plates with Vertical or Inclined Stirrups. In: ACI Struc-
tural Journal, V. 97, No. 3, May-June 2000, pp. 485-491.
[B.50] Oliveira D.R., Regan P.E. Melo G.S.: Punching Resistance of RC
slabs with rectangular columns. In: Magazine of Concrete
Research, V. 56, No. 3, 2004, pp. 123-137.
[B.51] Ospina, C.E.; Alexander, S.D.B.; Cheng, J.J.R.: Punching of
Two-Way Concrete Slabs with Fiber-Reinforced Polymer
Reinforcing Bars or Grids. In: ACI Structural Journal, V. 100,
No. 5, September-October 2003, pp. 589-598.
[B.52] Ozden, S.; Ersoy, U.: Punching shear tests of normal- and
high-strength concrete flat plates. In: Canadian Journal of
Civil Engineering, V. 33, 2006, pp. 1389-1400.
[B.53] Pilakoutas, K.; Li, X.: Alternative Shear Reinforcement for
Reinforced Concrete Flat Slabs. In: Journal of structural Engi-
neering, V. 129, No. 9, September 2003, pp. 1164-1172.
[B.54] Pralong, J.; Brändli, W.; Thürlimann, B.: Durchstanzversuche
an Stahlbeton- und Spannbetonplatten. ETH Zürich, Report
No. 7305-3, 1979.
[B.55] Ramdane, K.-E.: Punching Shear of High Performance Con-
crete Slabs. In: Proceedings of 4th International Symposium
on Utilization of high strength concrete, 1996, pp. 1015-1026.
[B.56] Rankin, G.I.B.; Long, A.E.: Predicting the punching strength of
conventional slab-column specimens. In: Proceedings of ICE,
Civil Engineering, V. 82, 1987, pp. 327-346.
[B.57] Regan, P.E.: The dependence of punching resistance upon the
geometry of the failure surface. In: Magazine of Concrete
Research, V. 36, No. 127, March 1984, pp. 3-8.
[B.58] Regan, P.E.: Symmetric punching of reinforced concrete
slabs. In: Magazine of Concrete Research, V. 38, No. 136,
September 1986, pp. 115-128.
 D. Kueres et al. / Engineering Structures 136 (2017) 149–164
[B.59] Roll, F.: Shear Resistance of perforated Reinforced Concrete
Slabs. In: ACI SP 30-4, 1971, pp. 77-101.
[B.60] Rosenthal, I.: Experimental Investigation of Flat Plate Floors.
In: Journal of the American Concrete Institute, V. 31, No. 2,
August 1959, pp.153-166.
[B.61] Schaefers, U.: Konstruktion, Bemessung und Sicherheit
gegen Durchstanzen von balkenlosen Stahlbetondecken im
Bereich der Innenstützen. DAfStb Heft 357, Berlin, 1984.
[B.62] Seible, F.; Ghali, A.; Dilger, W. H.: Preassembled shear rein-
forcing units for flat plates. In: ACI Structural Journal, V.
77, 1980, pp. 28-35.
[B.63] Siburg, C.; Hegger, J.: Experimental investigations on the
punching behavior of reinforced concrete footings with
structural dimensions. In: Structural Concrete, V. 15, No. 3,
2014, pp. 331-339.
[B.64] Sistonen E., Huovinen S.; Lydman, M.: Teräsbetonilaatan
Lävistyskakasiteetin Laskentakaavan Geometrinen Malli.
Helsinki, 1997.
[B.65] Swamy, R. N.; Ali, S. A.: Punching Shear Behavior of Rein-
forced Slab-Column Connections Made with Steel Fiber Con-
crete. In: ACI Journal, V. 79, September-October 1982, pp.
392-406.
[B.66] Taylor, R.; Hayes, B.: Some tests on the effect of edge
restraint on punching shear in reinforced concrete slabs.
In: Magazine of Concrete Research, V. 17, 1965, pp. 39-44.
[B.67] Timm, M.: Durchstanzen von Bodenplatten unter rotation-
ssymmetrischer Belastung. PhD-thesis, Technische Univer-
sität Carolo-Wilhelmina, Fachbereich Bauingenieurwesen,
Braunschweig, 2003.
[B.68] Tolf, P.: Plattjocklekens inverkan pa Betongplattors hallfas-
thet vid Genomstansning. Nr. 146, 1988 (Transaction of the
Royal Institute of Technology Stockholm).
[B.69] Tomaszewicz, A.: Punching Shear Capacity of Reinforced
Concrete. High Strength Concrete. SP2 - Plates and Shells
Report 2.3, SINTEF Structure and Concrete, Report No.
STF70 A93082, Trondheim, 1993.
[B.70] Urban, T.: Nosnosc na przebibie w aspekcie proporcji bokow
slupa. Lódz, 1994.
[B.71] van der Voet, A. F.; Dilger, W.; Ghali, A.: Concrete flat plates
with well-anchored shear reinforcement elements. In: Cana-
dian Journal of Civil Engineering, V. 9, 1981, pp. 107-114.
[B.72] Vollum, R. L., Abdel-Fattah, T., Eder, M., and Elghazouli, A.Y.:
Design of ACI-type punching shear reinforcement to Euro-
code 2. In: Magazine of Concrete Research, V. 62, No.1,
2010, pp. 3-16.
[B.73] Yamada, T.; Nanni, A.; Endo, K.: Punching Shear Resistance of
Flat Slabs: Influence of Reinforcement Type and Ratio. In:
ACI Structural Journal, V. 89, No. 5, September-October
1992, pp. 555-563.
References
[1] Comité euro-internationale du béton: Punching Shear in Reinforced Concrete.
Bulletin d’information No. 168; 1985.
[2] Fédération internationale du béton: Punching of Structural Concrete Slabs.
Bulletin No. 12; 2001.
[3] Silfwerbrand & Hassanzadeh, editors. Royal Institute of Technology
(Stockholm) – Department of Structural Concrete: International workshop on
punching shear capacity of RC slabs – proceedings. Bulletin 57; 2000.
[4] Maria Anna Polak, editor. American Concrete Institute: punching shear in
reinforced concrete slabs. Special Publication 232; 2005.
[5] Dieterle H, Rostásy FS, Tragverhalten quadratischer Einzelfundamente aus
Stahlbeton. DAfStb Heft 387, Berlin; 1987 [in German].
[6] Hallgren M, Kinnunen S, Nylander B. Punching shear tests on column footings.
Nordic Concr Res 1998;21(3):1–22.
[7] Hegger J, Sherif AG, Ricker M. Experimental investigations on punching
behavior of reinforced concrete footings. ACI Struct J 2006;103(4):604–13.
163
[8] Hegger J, Ricker M, Sherif AG. Punching strength of reinforced concrete
footings. ACI Struct J 2009;106(5):706–16.
[9] Siburg C, Hegger J. Experimental investigations on the punching behavior of
reinforced concrete footings with structural dimensions. Struct Concr 2014;15
(3):331–9.
[10] Simões JT, Bujnak J, Fernández Ruiz M, Muttoni A. Punching shear tests on
compact footings with uniform soil pressure. Struct Concr 2016;17(4):603–17.
[11] EN 1992-1-1:2004: Eurocode 2: Design of concrete structures – Part 1–1:
General rules and rules for building. Incl. Corrigendum 1: EN 1992-1-1:2004/
AC:2008, incl. Corrigendum 2: EN 1992-1-1:2004/AC:2010, incl. Amendment
1: EN 1992-1-1:2004/A1:2014.
[12] Angotti F, Orlando M. Punching-shear strength: a model still in progress. In:
Studies and Researches, Graduate School in Concrete Structures - Fratelli
Pesenti, Politecnico di Milano, Italy, vol. 29; 2009. p. 79–108, SBN 978-88-
96225-28-8.
[13] Siburg C, Ricker M, Hegger J. Punching shear design of footings: critical review
of different code provisions. Struct Concr 2014;15(4):497–508.
[14] Ricker M, Siburg C. Punching shear strength of flat slabs: Critical review of
Eurocode 2 and fib Model Code 2010 design provisions. Struct Concr 2016;17
(3):457–68.
[15] Wieneke K, Kueres D, Siburg C, Hegger J. Investigations on the punching shear
behaviour of eccentrically loaded footings. Struct Concr 2016;17(6):1047–58.
[16] Lapi M, Orlando M, Angotti F, Spinelli P. Comparison of recent code provisions
for punching shear capacity of R/C slabs without shear reinforcement. In:
Proceedings of the Italian Concrete Days, Rome; 27th-28th October 2016, ISBN
978-88-99916-02-2.
[17] Siburg C. Zur einheitlichen Bemessung gegen Durchstanzen in Flachdecken
und Fundamenten. PhD-thesis. RWTH Aachen University, Institute of
Structural Concrete, Issue 40; 2014 [in German].
[18] Beutel R. Durchstanzen schubbewehrter Flachdecken im Bereich von
Innenstützen. PhD-thesis. RWTH Aachen University, Institute of Structural
Conrete, Issue 16; 2003 [in German].
[19] Häusler F. Zum maximalen Durchstanzwiderstand von Flachdecken mit und
ohne Vorspannung. PhD-thesis. RWTH Aachen University, Institute of
Structural Concrete, Issue 27; 2009 [in German].
[20] Ricker M. Zur Zuverlässigkeit der Bemessung gegen Durchstanzen bei
Einzelfundamenten. PhD-thesis. RWTH Aachen University, Institute of
Structural Concrete, Issue 28; 2009 [in German].
[21] EN 1990:2002: Eurocode 0: Basis of structural design. Incl. Amendment 1: EN
1990:2002/A1:2005, incl. Corrigendum 1: EN 1990:2002/A1:2005/AC:2010.
[22] DIN EN 206:2014–07, ‘‘Concrete – Specification, performance, production and
conformity”, German version EN 206:2013, Berlin, July 2014.
[23] Siburg C, Häusler F, Hegger J. Flat slab punching design according to german
annex of Eurocode 2. Bauingenieur 2012;87(5):216–25 [in German].
[24] DIN 1045:1988–07: Beton und Stahlbeton, Bemessung und Ausführung; 1988
[in German].
[25] SIA 262:2013: Betonbau. Zürich: Schweizerischer Ingenieur- und
Architektenverein; 2013 [in German].
[26] ACI Committee 318: Building Code Requirements for Structural Concrete (ACI
318-14) and Commentary (ACI 318R-14). Farmington Hills: American
Concrete Institute; 2014.
[27] Comité euro-internationale du béton: CEB-FIP Model Code 1990 – Design
Code. London: Thomas Telford; 1991.
[28] Guandalini S, Burdet Olivier L, Muttoni A. Punching tests of slabs with low
reinforcement ratios. ACI Struct J 2009;106(1):87–95.
[29] Bažant ZP. Size effect in blunt fracture: concrete, rock, metal. J Eng Mech
1984;110(4):518–35.
[30] Bažant ZP, Planas J. Fracture and size effect on concrete and other quasibrittle
materials. Boca Raton and London: CRC Press; 1998.
[31] Bažant ZP. Scaling of Structural Strength. Hermes Penton Sciene (Kogan Page
Science). 2nd updated ed. London: Elsevier; 2005.
[32] Beutel R, Hegger J. The effect of anchorage on the effectiveness of the shear
reinforcement in the punching zone. Cement Concr Compos 2002;24(6):539–49.
[33] Fernández Ruiz M, Muttoni A. Applications of critical shear crack theory to
punching of reinforced concrete slabs with transverse reinforcement. ACI
Struct J 2009;106(4):485–94.
[34] Kueres D, Ricker M, Häusler F, Hegger J. Punching shear behaviour of footings
with a new punching shear reinforcement. Beton- und Stahlbetonbau
2016;111(6):355–65 [in German].
[35] Kueres D, Ricker M, Stark A, Hegger J. Maximum punching shear resistance of
footings with a new punching shear reinforcement. Bauingenieur 2016;91
(11):435–45 [in German].
[36] Broms CE. Shear reinforcement for flat slabs 13/04/2016 [unpublished].
[37] Lips S, Fernandez Ruiz M, Muttoni A. Experimental Investigation on punching
strength and deformation capacity of shear-reinforced slabs. ACI Struct J
2012;109(6):889–900.
[38] Broms CE. Ductility of flat plates: comparison of shear reinforcement systems.
ACI Struct J 2007;104(6):703–11.
[39] Birkle G, Dilger W. Influence of slab thickness on punching shear strength. ACI
Struct J 2008;105(2):180–8.
[40] Ferreira MP, Melo GS, Regan P, Vollum R. Punching of reinforced concrete flat
slabs with double-headed shear reinforcement. ACI Struct J 2014;111
(2):363–74.
[41] Ramdane K-E. Punching shear of high performance concrete slabs. In:
Proceedings of 4th international symposium on utilization of high strength
concrete; 1996. p. 1015–1026.
164 D. Kueres et al. / Engineering Structures 136 (2017) 149–164

[42] Fernández Ruiz M, Muttoni A, Kunz J. Strengthening of flat slabs against
punching shear using post-installed shear reinforcement. ACI Struct J
2010;107(4):434–42.
[43] Einpaul J, Bujnak J, Fernández Ruiz M, Muttoni A. Study on influence of column
size and slab slenderness on punching strength. ACI Struct J 2016;113
(1):135–45.
[44] Elstner R, Hognestad E. Shearing strength of reinforced concrete slabs. J Am
Concr Inst 1956;28(1):29–58.
[45] Hallgren M, Kinnunen S. Increase of punching shear capacity by using high
strength concrete. In: Proceedings of 4th international symposium on
utilization of high strength concrete; 1996. p. 1037–46.

View publication stats