1

PUNCHING SHEAR TESTS ON COLUMN

FOOTINGS
Mikael Hallgren, Dr.Techn., Research associate
Department of Structural Engineering
Royal Institute of Technology (KTH)
SE-100 44 Stockholm, Sweden
e-mail: mikhal@struct.kth.se
Sven Kinnunen, Dr.Techn., Professor em.
Department of Structural Engineering
Royal Institute of Technology (KTH)
SE-100 44 Stockholm, Sweden
e-mail: svenk@struct.kth.se
Birgitta Nylander, M.Sc.
Swedish National Road Administration
SE-781 87 Borlnge, Sweden
ABSTRACT
The paper reports the punching shear tests of 14 column footings
of reinforced concrete. The main variables were the concrete
strength, the ratio of flexural reinforcement, the type of anchorage
of the reinforcement, and the type of shear reinforcement. The
tests showed that the concrete strength had a strong influence on
the punching shear strength. The ratio of flexural reinforcement
only slightly influenced the punching shear strength. The type of
anchorage did not influence the punching shear strength. The use
of inclined bent-up bars as shear reinforcement gave higher
punching shear strengths than the use of stirrups.
Key words: Punching shear, Column footings, Slabs, Concrete
strength, Shear reinforcement, Tests
1 INTRODUCTION
The resistance to the transverse effects of concentrated forces acting on concrete slabs is an
essential problem in design of column footings, flat plates and bridge slabs. The design methods
should be based on physical models, which in a relevant way describe the behaviour of the
structure and consider the mechanical properties of the materials.
Based on tests, a physical model for calculation of the punching shear resistance of column
supported concrete slabs was developed at the Department of Structural Engineering, KTH /1/.
This model was later extended to slabs with shear reinforcement /2/. The circular test slabs
2
represented the slab area surrounding an interior column of a flat plate. The test slabs were
rather slender, with a shear-span to depth ratio of about 6.
Column footings have much smaller values of the shear-span to depth ratio, and shear failure
and anchorage failure become the most common types of failure. When this investigation started
in 1979, recommendations in building codes gave insufficient guidance for design of column
footings. One reason was that the structural behaviour of footings, when loaded to failure, was
not clear. The aim of the investigation was to study the structural behaviour and to develop a
physical model for relevant design. Reliable design of column footings is very important for the
safety of structures, e. g. bridges. The present paper gives information on, until now unpub-
lished, results of tests performed in the years 1980 to 1983.
2 TEST SPECIMENS AND TESTING PROCEDURE
2.1 Test specimens
Totally, 14 slabs with small shear-span to depth ratios were tested in punching shear. The
dimensions of the test slabs were designed to be approximately equal to one fifth of the size of
column footings usually used in Swedish bridges.
The main variables were the ratio of flexural reinforcement , the compressive strength of
concrete fc,cube (measured on dry-cured 150 mm cubes), the type of end anchorage of the flexural
reinforcement, and the type of shear reinforcement. Furthermore, the influence of the type of
Table 1 Slab details
Slab
No.
Shape Type of
load
h
mm
d
mm
f
c,cube
MPa
Anchorage of flexural
reinforce.

10
2
Type of shear
reinforcement
A
sv
mm
2
S1 square line 275 242 49.8 loops 0.40 - -
S2 square line 277 243 35.5 bent-up bars 0.40 - -
S3 square line 278 250 37.2 loops 0.39 - -
S4 square line 275 232 32.1 bent-up bars 0.66 - -
S5 square line 277 230 34.7 bent-up bars 0.67 vertical stirrups 1608
S6 square line 276 236 37.8 bent-up bars 0.65 inclined bent-up bars
with bent-down ends
1005
S7 square line 277 246 18.0 loops 0.40 - -
S8 square line 277 245 39.3 bent-up bars 0.25 - -
S9 square line 277 244 31.9 straight bars 0.40 - -
S10 square line 277 232 36.9 straight bars 0.66 inclined bent-up bars
with straight anchor.
1005
S11 square surface 274 235 35.3 straight bars 0.41 - -
S12 circular line 275 242 34.1 anchor plates 0.42 - -
S13 circular line 275 244 24.7 anchor plates 0.42 - -
S14 square surface 273 240 26.8 straight bars 0.41 - -
3
loading, i.e. line loads and uniform surface loads, and the influence of the shape of the slab was
investigated. Table 1 gives the details of the test slabs.
Figure 1 shows the nominal dimensions of the test slabs. The nominal total depth h was 275 mm
and the nominal average effective depth d was 240 mm. Circular column stubs with diameter
250 mm were monolithically cast to the slabs. Twelve slabs, i.e. slabs S1 to S11 and slab S14,
were square shaped with the side length 850 mm. The shear-span to effective-depth ratio was
about 1.2.
Two slabs, i.e. slabs S12 and S13, were circular with diameter 960 mm. The area of these slabs
was approximately the same as the area of the 850 mm by 850 mm square slabs. The objective
of testing circular slabs was to obtain test results which could be used for computational
modelling, where the benefit of a clearer polar-symmetric state of stress in circular slabs is
utilized. Moreover, the practice of using equivalent circular slabs in the assessment of punching
shear strength of square column footings was checked hereby.
h

=

2
7
5
A
A
A - A
B
B
B - B
850
200 200 200
40
40
2
0
0
2
0
0
2
0
0

6
7
4
960
250
2
5
0
2
5
0
250
Square slabs Circular slabs
8
5
0
d
h

=

2
7
5
d
Figure 1 Nominal dimensions of the test slabs (unit of length = mm)
4
The concrete mixes were designed to reach three different compressive strengths of concrete.
These target strengths were 20, 35, and 50 MPa, measured on 150 mm cubes. The maximum
aggregate size was 8 mm. Table 1 gives the compressive strengths f
c,cube
which are the mean
values of six cubes tested for each slab on the day of the slab test.
Figure 2 shows the reinforcement of the test slabs. Swedish deformed bars with diameter 8
mm were used in all slabs. Swedish Grade Ks60S, with the measured yield stress fsy = 621 MPa
and the measured tensile strength f
su
= 788 MPa, was used for all reinforcement. The measured
strength values are based on tension tests on five reinforcement samples which were taken from
the same charge of reinforcement used in the slabs. Three nominal ratios of flexural rein-
forcement were used: 0.25, 0.40, and 0.65 percent.
Three types of anchorage of the flexural reinforcement were tested among the square slabs.
Slabs S1, S3, and S7 had flexural reinforcement consisting of loops. The flexural reinforcement
bars of slabs S2, S4, S5, S6, and S8 were bent-up at the edges of the slabs. Slabs S9, S11, and
S14 had straight flexural reinforcement bars, i.e. with straight anchorage. The circular slabs S12
and S13 had straight bars also, but these bars were provided with anchorage plates welded to
the ends of the bars.
Three types of shear reinforcement were tested. Slab S5 was provided with vertical stirrups. The
shear reinforcement of slabs S6 and S10 consisted of inclined bars bent-up with an angle of 58
from the layer of flexural reinforcement. The inclined bars of slab S6 were bent-down at the
ends, providing an additional anchorage. The inclined bars of slab S10 had straight anchorage
only. The total cross-sectional areas A
sv
of the shear reinforcement are given in Table 1. The
ratios of flexural reinforcement given in Table 1 include the bottom horizontal parts of the
inclined bent-up bars.
2.2 Test set-ups and testing procedures
All slabs, except for two, were loaded with uniform line loads. The other two slabs, S11 and
S14, were loaded with uniform surface loads. The loads were applied in steps of 100 kN. Each
load step was applied during a time period of two minutes. Between the load steps, the load was
kept constant during 10 minutes.
Immediately before and immediately after each load step, the load, deflections, concrete strains,
and steel strains were electronically measured and collected by an automatic data acquisition
system and stored in a computer. As the ultimate load was approached, intermediate sets of
measurements were also collected during the periods of loading.
5
Slabs S1, S3, and S7
Slab S2
Slab S4
Figure 2a Reinforcement of the test slabs
6
Slab S5
Slab S6
A - A
Slab S10
Stirrups
Figure 2b Reinforcement of the test slabs, continued.
7
Slab S8
Slabs S9, S11, and S14
Slabs S12 and S13
Figure 2c Reinforcement of the test slabs, continued.
8
Figure 3 shows the test set-up of the slabs tested with line loads. In these tests the slabs were
tested upside down. The line loads consisted of the forces provided by 12 tie rods placed along
the sides of a square for the square slabs, and placed along a circle for the circular slabs. At their
lower ends, the tie rods were anchored to the strong concrete floor of the laboratory. The load
was applied by a hydraulic jack placed between the concrete floor and the column stub of the
test slab. The total load was given by the oil pressure of the jack. The load was also checked by
summing the forces measured on the tie rods. Hereby, it was possible to control and adjust the
eccentricities of the loading.
Test slab
12 Tie rods
Hydraulic jack
Concrete floor
Figure 3 Test set-up of the slabs loaded with line loads
The distance from the centre of the slab to the line load, i.e. to the tie rods, was chosen so that
the effect of this type of load would be equivalent to the effect of a uniform surface load.
However, high compressive stresses which could improve the anchorage of the flexural rein-
forcement were introduced along the line load. In order to check this assumed improvement,
which does not reflect the real loading case of a column footing, two slabs were tested with
uniform surface loads.
Figure 4 shows the test set-up of the two slabs tested with uniform surface loads. The load was
applied by 25 small hydraulic jacks which each loaded four plates with the dimensions 70 70
mm. Thus, the load was applied through 100 equally distributed plates. By connecting the
hydraulic jacks in parallel, the oil pressure was equally distributed to the jacks. The load was
given by the oil pressure. The counter structure consisted of two orthogonally crossed steel I-
beams which were held back by four tie rods anchored to the strong concrete floor of the labo-
ratory.
9
Steel I-beams
4 Tie rods
Test slab
25 Hydraulic jacks
Concrete foundation
Concrete floor
Figure 4 Test set-up of the slabs loaded with uniform surface loads
3 TEST RESULTS
3.1 General observations
The observed ultimate loads P
u
of the test slabs are given in Table 2. After the tests, some test
slabs were split into two halves which revealed the failure surfaces, see Figure 6 and Figure 7.
Figure 5 shows the typical profile of a failure surface. In all slabs, the failure surface consisted of
a wide shear crack which formed the surface of a truncated cone. This indicated that all test
slabs failed in punching shear.
The shear crack propagated from the plane of the flexural reinforcement to the slab-column root
at an angle of about 50 to 60, measured between the shear crack and the horizontal plane. This
is a considerably steeper angle than the shear crack angles observed in punching shear tests of
more slender slabs, see e.g. /3/ and /4/.
Shear crack
Figure 5 Typical profile of the failure surface
10
Figure 6 Photos of the square slab S2 (top) and the circular slab S12 (bottom) after the test
11
Figure 7 Photos of slab S14 after the test. The slab was loaded with a uniform surface load.
12
At the level of the flexural reinforcement, the shear crack turned into a horizontal crack which
followed the reinforcement to the edges of the slab, see Figure 5 to Figure 7. This implies that
the reinforcement layer had induced a horizontal splitting of the concrete. However, this is not
likely to have been the cause of failure, but was probably a secondary effect. The horizontal
splitting has also been observed in beam tests as a secondary effect of the shear failure, see e.g.
/5/ and /6/.
Table 2 Ultimate loads P
u
3.2 Influence of the concrete strength
Figure 9 shows the load-deflection curves of the square slabs S1, S3, and S7. The definition of
the load and the deflection is given in Figure 8. The slabs were identical in terms of shape, size,
and reinforcement. The only difference was the concrete strength. The compressive cube
strengths of concrete were 49.8, 37.2, and 18.0 MPa, respectively.
The curves in Figure 9 indicate an increase of the cracking load with increasing concrete
strength, which would be expected. Furthermore, the ultimate load increases with increasing
concrete strength. As the concrete strength was increased from 18 to 50 MPa, the ultimate load
increased from 622 to 1363 kN, i.e. the load capacity was more than doubled. Hence, the
concrete strength had a strong influence on the punching shear capacity. Actually, in the present
test series, the concrete strength had the strongest influence of all variables.
In slab S1, i.e. the slab with the highest concrete strength, the reinforcement in tangential direc-
tion outside the inclined failure crack started to yield before the ultimate load was reached.
P

Figure 8 Definition of the load

P and the deflection

Slab
No.
Shape Load
type
f
c,cube
(MPa)
Type of
reinf.

10
2
Type of
shear reinf.
P
u
kN
S1 Sq Li 50 Lo 0.4 - 1363
S2 Sq Li 36 B-u 0.4 - 1015
S3 Sq Li 37 Lo 0.4 - 1008
S4 Sq Li 32 B-u 0.7 - 992
S5 Sq Li 35 B-u 0.7 Stir 1401
S6 Sq Li 38 B-u 0.7 B-u, B-d.e 1732
S7 Sq Li 18 Lo 0.4 - 622
S8 Sq Li 39 B-u 0.2 - 915
S9 Sq Li 32 St 0.4 - 904
S10 Sq Li 37 St 0.6 B-u, w.s.a. 1683
S11 Sq Su 35 St 0.4 - 1190
S12 C Li 34 St 0.4 - 1049
S13 C Li 25 St 0.4 - 803
S14 Sq Su 27 St 0.4 - 1100
Notations: Sq = square, C = circular, Li = line, Su = surface, Lo = loops, B-
u = bent-up, St = straight, Stir = stirrups, B-u = bent-up, B-d.e = bent-down
ends, w.s.a. = with straight anchorage
13
However, this does not seem to have affected the global load-deflection response of the slab
notably when compared to the load-deflection curves of the other two slabs, see Figure 9.
0
300
600
900
1200
1500
1800
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3
Deflection (mm)
L
o
a
d


P

(
k
N
)
S1 (49.8 MPa)
S3 (37.2 MPa)
S7 (18.0 MPa)
= 0.4 %
Figure 9 Load-deflection curves of slabs with various concrete strengths
The effective depth d was not a variable in the present investigation. However, as shown in
Table 1, the actual value of d varied with as much as 9 percent within the test series. Obviously,
the slab depth has a strong influence on the load capacity of a slab. In order to eliminate
(reduce) the effect of the differences of the effective depth, punching shear strengths v
u
were
calculated from the following expression:
v
P
B d
u
u
=

(1)
where B is the diameter of the column stub. Thus, v
u
is the formal ultimate shear stress in a cross
section at a control perimeter with the radius B/2 from the slab centre.
Figure 10 shows the punching shear strength v
u
of the square slabs S1, S3, S7 and of the circular
slabs S12, S13, as function of the concrete compressive strength. The circular slabs had the
same ratio of reinforcement as the square slabs in this comparison. A linear regression analysis
based on these slab tests gives that the punching shear strength was proportional to the concrete
compressive strength to the power of 0.76. Other investigations based on tests on more slender
slabs have shown that the punching shear strength is proportional to the concrete compressive
strength to the power of about 1/3 to 1/2, see e.g. /4/, /7/, and /8/. This implies that the concrete
compressive strength has a stronger influence on the punching shear strength of slabs with low
shear span ratios, such as column footings, than on the punching shear strength of slender slabs
with high shear span ratios, such as column supported flat slabs.
14
0.36 f
c
0.76
0
2
4
6
8
0 10 20 30 40 50 60
f
c,cube
[MPa]
v
u




[
M
P
a
]
Rectangular slabs (loops)
Circular slabs
Regression
= 0.4 %
S1
S3
S7
S12
S13
Figure 10 Punching shear strength v
u
as function of the compressive cube strength f
c,cube
3.3 Influence of the ratio of flexural reinforcement
Figure 11 shows the load-deflection curves of the square slabs S2, S4, and S8. The slabs were
identical in terms of shape, size, and target strength of concrete. The only difference was the
ratio of flexural reinforcement. The ratios of reinforcement were 0.40, 0.66, and 0.25 percent,
respectively.
In slab S8, i.e. the slab with the lowest reinforcement ratio, the reinforcement in tangential direc-
tion outside the inclined failure crack had started to yield before the ultimate load was reached.
Slab S8 also had the lowest ultimate load of the three slabs in this comparison. However, the
increase of load capacity with increasing reinforcement ratio was very modest. As the rein-
forcement ratio was increased from 0.25 to 0.40 percent the ultimate load only increased from
915 to 1015 kN. The ultimate load of the slab with 0.66 percent reinforcement actually had a
slightly lower ultimate load, 992 kN, than the slab with 0.40 percent reinforcement. However,
this contrariety was mainly due to the small differences of the effective depths and of the
concrete strengths. This is shown in the following comparison.
A normalised punching shear strength v
n1
, which considers the influence of the effective depth d
and of the compressive cube strength f
c,cube
, as derived in Section 3.2, was computed by:
v
P
B d f
n1
u
c,cube
MPa
=

35
0 76 .
(2)
15
0
200
400
600
800
1000
1200
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5
Deflection (mm)
L
o
a
d


P

(
k
N
)
S4 (0.66 %)
S2 (0.40 %)
S8 (0.25 %)
f
c,cube
~ 35 MPa
Figure 11 Load-deflection curves of slabs with various ratios of reinforcement
The normalised punching shear strength v
n1
, according to Equation (2), increased with
increasing reinforcement ratio, see Figure 12. A linear regression analysis gives that the
normalised punching shear strength was proportional to the reinforcement ratio to the power of
0.30. This indicates that the reinforcement ratio has a small influence on the punching shear
capacity of column footings.
0
2
4
6
8
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8
Ratio of flexural reinforcement [%]
v
n
1





[
M
P
a
]
f
c,cube
~ 35 MPa
S2
S4
S8
6.68
0.30
Figure 12 Normalised punching shear strength v
n1
as function of the ratio of reinforcement
16
3.4 Influence of the end anchorage of flexural reinforcement
Figure 13 shows the load-deflection curves of the square slabs S2, S3, and S9. The slabs were
identical in terms of shape, size, target strength of concrete, and nominal ratio of reinforcement.
The only difference was the anchorage of the flexural reinforcement. Slab S2 was provided with
bent-up bars and slab S3 was provided with loops. Slab S9 was provided with straight bars, i.e.
the reinforcement had straight anchorages.
Slabs S2 and S3 had about the same ultimate load, i.e. 1015 kN and 1008 kN, respectively. The
ultimate load of slab S9, with straight bars, was slightly lower, i.e. 904 kN. However, as shown
later, this was due to the fact that slab S9 had a lower concrete strength than the other two
slabs.
The important difference between the behaviours of the slabs is that the slabs with curved
anchorages maintained higher loads after the peak load while the load of the slab with straight
anchorage dropped steeper after its peak value. As the tests were load controlled, it is difficult
to draw a general conclusion from this. However, it implies that curved anchorage of the
flexural reinforcement improves the ductility of column footings.
0
300
600
900
1200
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3
Deflection (mm)
L
o
a
d


P

(
k
N
)
S3 (loops)
S2 (bent-up bars)
S9 (straight bars)
~ 0.4 %
f
c,cube
~ 35 MPa
Figure 13 Load-deflection curves of slabs with various anchorage of the flexural
reinforcement
In order to consider the influence of the reinforcement ratio as shown in Section 3.3, another
normalised punching shear strength v
n2
was calculated from:
v
P
B d f
n2
u
c,cube
MPa
=

35 0 004
0 76
0 30
.
.
.
(3)
17
Figure 14 gives the normalised punching shear strength v
n2
, according to Equation (3), of the
three slabs with different types of anchorage of the flexural reinforcement. The figure shows that
the anchorage did not have any significant influence on the punching shear strength of the test
slabs.
0
2
4
6
8
bent-up bars loops straight bars
v
n
2



[
M
P
a
]
~ 0.4 %
f
c,cube
~ 35 MPa
S2
S3
S9
Figure 14 Normalised punching shear strength v
n2
of slabs with various anchorage of the
flexural reinforcement
3.5 Influence of shear reinforcement
Figure 15 shows the load-deflection curves of the square slabs S4, S5, S6 and S10. The slabs
were identical in terms of shape, size, target strength of concrete, and nominal ratio of flexural
reinforcement. The main difference was the type of shear reinforcement. Slab S6 was provided
with inclined bent-up bars with the ends bent down, and slab S10 was provided with inclined
bent-up bars with straight anchorage. Slab S5 was provided with vertical stirrups and slab S4
had no shear reinforcement.
The highest ultimate loads within this series were reached by the slabs S6 and S10, i.e. the slabs
with inclined bent-up bars. The ultimate loads where 1732 kN and 1683 kN, respectively. In
these slabs, the flexural reinforcement, in tangential direction above the perimeter of the column,
and the shear reinforcement had started to yield before the ultimate load was reached. The
lowest ultimate load, 992 kN, was reached by the slab without shear reinforcement.
The slab with vertical stirrups, slab S5, failed at a clearly lower load, 1401 kN, than the slabs
with inclined bent-up bars. This might seem surprising, as the total cross-sectional area of the
vertical stirrups was 60 percent larger than the total cross-sectional area of the inclined bent-up
bars. An inspection of the test slabs after the tests revealed an explanation for this. Apparently,
the shear crack in slab S5 had not crossed all stirrups. Hence, only a part of the shear
reinforcement was activated.
18
The slabs with inclined bent-up bars failed at larger deflections than the slab with vertical
stirrups, see Figure 15. Hence, the inclined bent-up bars appear to have been more efficient by
allowing larger deflections of the slabs and, consequently, giving higher ultimate loads. It is
interesting to note that the slabs with inclined bent-up bars, besides holding the highest ultimate
loads, also required less pure flexural reinforcement as the horizontal part of the bent-up bars
contributed to flexural resistance.
In order to eliminate the effect of the small differences in concrete strength, effective depth, and
0
500
1000
1500
2000
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5
Deflection

(mm)
L
o
a
d


P

(
k
N
)
S6 (inclined bars with bent-down ends)
S10 (inclined bars with straight anchorage)
S5 (stirrups)
S4 (no shear reinforcement)
~ 0.65 %
f c,cube
~ 35 MPa
Figure 15 Load-deflection curves of slabs with various shear reinforcement
0
2
4
6
8
10
No shear reinf. Vertical stirrups Inclined bent-up bars Inclined bent-up bars
v
n
2



[
M
P
a
]
~ 0.65 %
f c,cube ~ 35 MPa
w
i
t
h

b
e
n
t
-
d
o
w
n

e
n
d
s
w
i
t
h

s
t
r
a
i
g
h
t

a
n
c
h
o
r
a
g
e
S10
S6
S5
S4
Figure 16 Normalised punching shear strength v
n2
of slabs with various shear reinforcement
19
ratio of flexural reinforcement, the normalised punching shear strength v
n2
of the slabs was
calculated according to Equation (3). Figure 16 shows that the slabs with inclined bent-up bars
had the highest punching shear strengths. Furthermore, there does not seem to be any significant
difference between the punching shear strength of the slab with bent-down end on the inclined
bars and the strength of the slab with straight anchorage of the inclined bars.
3.6 Influence of the type of loading
The ultimate loads of the slabs S11 and S14, which were loaded by uniform surface loads, were
1190 kN and 1100 kN, respectively. The nominally identical slab S9, which was loaded with a
line load, had a lower ultimate load, i.e. 904 kN. However, it should be noticed that a
considerable part of the surface load under the column of slabs S11 and S14 was transferred
directly to the column, without contributing to the shear force acting on the slab.
According to the Swedish Bridge Code, BRO 94 /9/, the shear force acting on a column footing
may be reduced with the resulting force from the ground pressure acting on the bottom area of a
truncated cone with the slope 2:1 from the column root to the level of the flexural
reinforcement, see Figure 17. Following this recommendation, the ultimate loads of slabs S11
and S14 were reduced to punching shear loads according to:
P P
B d
L
u,red u
=
+

1
4
2
2
( )
(4)
where L is the width of the slab (= 850 mm) and B is the diameter of the column (= 250 mm).
The reduced ultimate loads, according to Equation (4), of slabs S11 and S14 were 886 kN and
813 kN, respectively.
d
B
P
1
2

B + d
L
Figure 17 Reduction of the load according to BRO 94 /9/
In order to consider the differences in concrete strength, effective depth, and ratio of flexural
reinforcement, the normalised punching shear strength v
n2
of the slabs was calculated according
to Equation (3). Figure 18 shows that punching shear strengths based on the reduced ultimate
20
loads of the slabs loaded with surface loads were approximately the same as for the correspon-
ding slab loaded with line load.
0
2
4
6
8
Line load Surface load Surface load
v
n
2



[
M
P
a
]
~ 0.4 %
S9
S11
S14
R
e
d
u
c
e
d


l
o
a
d
R
e
d
u
c
e
d


l
o
a
d
Figure 18 Normalised punching shear strength v
n2
of slabs with various types of loading
3.7 Influence of the slab shape
The ultimate loads of the circular slabs S12 and S13 were 1049 kN and 803 kN, respectively.
The ultimate load of the corresponding square shaped slab S9 was 904 kN.
In order to consider the differences in concrete strength, effective depth, and ratio of flexural
reinforcement, the normalised punching shear strength v
n2
of the slabs was calculated according
to Equation (3). Figure 19 shows that the normalised punching shear strengths of the circular
0
2
4
6
8
Square slab Circular slab Circular slab
v
n
2



[
M
P
a
]
~ 0.4 %
S9
S12
S13
Figure 19 Normalised punching shear strength v
n2
of slabs with various shapes
21
slabs were slightly higher than that of the square shaped slab. However, the differences are small
and fall within the scatter of the measured strength and geometric properties and of the uncer-
tainties of the assumptions used to calculate v
n2
, i.e. the influences of concrete strength and rein-
forcement ratio based on regression analysis. Hence, it is fair to conclude that the punching
shear strengths of the corresponding circular and square shaped slabs were approximately the
same.
4 CONCLUSIONS
The conclusions from the present investigation can be summarised by the following clauses:
The angle of the punching shear crack observed in the tests of the column footings was about
50 to 60, which is much steeper than the shear-crack slopes observed in previous tests on
more slender slabs.
The compressive strength of concrete had a strong influence on the punching shear strength
of the column footings. The punching shear strength increased with compressive concrete
strength at a higher rate than derived in previous investigations based on tests on more slen-
der slabs.
The punching shear strength of the column footings slightly increased with increasing ratio of
flexural reinforcement. The influence of the reinforcement ratio on the punching shear
strength was much smaller than that of the concrete strength.
The type of anchorage of the flexural reinforcement, or the lack of it, did not have any
significant influence on the punching shear strength of the column footings. However, the
slabs provided with curved anchorage displayed more ductile post-peak behaviour.
The column footings provided with shear reinforcement had about 35-55 percent higher
punching shear strengths than the corresponding column footing without shear reinforcement.
The column footings provided with shear reinforcement consisting of inclined bent-up bars
had about 15 percent higher punching shear strengths than the corresponding footing provi-
ded with vertical stirrups. The footings with inclined bent-up bars had larger deflections at
ultimate load than the footing with vertical stirrups.
The type of anchorage of the inclined bent-up shear bars, i.e. with or without bent-down
ends, did not influence the punching shear strength.
The type of loading, i.e. uniform line loads or uniform surface loads, did not influence the
punching shear strength.
The shape of the footings, i.e. square or circular, did not influence the punching shear
strength.
5 NEEDS FOR FURTHER RESEARCH
The slabs tested in the present investigation were much smaller than real footings, found in e.g.
bridges. In order to check the size effect, tests on larger slabs with small shear-span to depth
22
ratios are of great interest. As high strength concrete is available now, the influence of high
strength concrete on the load capacity of footings should also be tested. Furthermore,
theoretical research work for the development of a relevant method for design of column
footings is needed.
6 REFERENCES
/1/ Kinnunen S., Nylander H.; Punching of Concrete Slabs without Shear Reinforcement.
Transactions of the Royal Institute of Technology, No. 158, Stockholm 1960, 112 pp.
/2/ Andersson J. L.; Punching of Concrete Slabs with Shear Reinforcement. Transactions of
the Royal Institute of Technology, No. 212, Stockholm 1963, 59 pp.
/3/ Tolf P.; Plattjocklekens inverkan p betongplattors hllfasthet vid genomstansning.
Bulletin 146, Dept. of Structural Mechanics and Engineering, Royal Institute of
Technology (KTH), Stockholm 1988, 64 pp.
/4/ Hallgren M.; Punching Shear Capacity of Reinforced High Strength Concrete Slabs.
Doctoral Thesis, Bulletin 23, Dept. of Structural Engineering, Royal Institute of
Technology (KTH), Stockholm 1996, 206 pp.
/5/ Hallgren M.; Flexural and Shear Capacity of Reinforced High Strength Concrete Beams
without Stirrups. Licentiate Thesis, Bulletin 9, Dept. of Structural Engineering, Royal
Institute of Technology (KTH), Stockholm 1994, 150 pp.
/6/ Fransson H.; Rotation Capacity of Reinforced High Strength Concrete Beams. Licentiate
Thesis, Bulletin 32, Dept. of Structural Engineering, Royal Institute of Technology
(KTH), Stockholm 1997, 74 pp.
/7/ Braestrup M. W.; Punching of Reinforced Concrete Slabs: Code Rules, Plastic Analysis,
Test Results. Nordic Concrete Research, Publication No. 8, The Nordic Concrete
Federation, Oslo 1989, pp. 24-48.
/8/ Gardner N. J.; Relationship of the Punching Shear Capacity of Reinforced Concrete Slabs
with Concrete Strength. ACI Structural Journal, Vol. 87, No. 1, American Concrete Insti-
tute, Detroit 1990, pp. 66-71.
/9/ BRO 94; Allmn teknisk beskrivning fr broar. Del 4 Betongkonstruktioner. Publ 1994:4,
Vgverket, Borlnge 1994, 84 pp.
7 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The present investigation was initiated by professors Henrik Nylander and Sven Kinnunen, and
was supported financially by Vgverket (Swedish National Road Administration) and Stiftelsen
Svensk Betongforskning (Swedish Council for Concrete Research). The research work was
carried out by Miss Birgitta Nylander, MSc, and was supervised by Prof Kinnunen. The test
program was planned jointly by the three persons mentioned above, together with Mr Werner
von Olnhausen, MSc, and Dr Hans Ingvarsson at Vgverket. The present paper has been written
23
primarily by Dr Mikael Hallgren, who made the analyses and evaluation of test results given in
this paper. His work was supported financially by KTH (Royal Institute of Technology).