Hegger 2007
Hegger 2007
Hegger 2007
www.elsevier.com/locate/engstruct
Received 24 July 2006; received in revised form 29 October 2006; accepted 12 November 2006
Available online 26 December 2006
Abstract
The punching shear capacity of footings varies significantly for different codes. One reason is that the amount of the soil reaction to be
deducted from the punching load differs from one code to another. The aim of the present investigation is to develop a design model for the
punching strength of footings taking into account the soil-structure-interaction. The results of five punching tests on reinforced concrete footings
supported on soil are presented. The experimental results indicate that the angle of the shear failure plane is steeper than observed in punching
tests on flat slabs and the shear slenderness seems to affect the punching shear capacity significantly. Based upon the findings and a test data bank
an advanced design model is derived, which is based on the BS 8110-1:1997 provisions.
c 2006 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Keywords: Footings; Punching shear capacity; Reinforced concrete; Soil-structure-interaction; Soil pressure redistribution
1. Introduction
0141-0296/$ - see front matter c 2006 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.engstruct.2006.11.012
2234 J. Hegger et al. / Engineering Structures 29 (2007) 2233–2241
Table 1
Details of the test specimens
ρl
Footing d (mm) c (mm) λ (−) f c (MPa) f ct,sp (MPa) f ct,flex (MPa) E c (GPa) Bar size (mm) f y (MPa)
(ρl0 ) (%)
1.03
DF1 150 150 2.5 20.2 1.63 2.81 24.0 14 552
(−)
1.03
DF2 150 150 2.5 22.0 1.76 3.02 22.6 14 552
(−)
1.03
DF3a 150 150 2.5 30.7 2.33 3.59 25.8 14 552
(0.33)
0.62
DF4 250 150 1.5 24.5 1.97 3.89 24.0 14 552
(−)
0.73
DF5 250 175 1.45 17.6 1.51 3.30 23.3 12/16 515
(−)
f c : Cylinder compressive strength; f ct,sp : Splitting tensile strength; f ct, f l : Flexural tensile strength; E c : Young’s modulus of concrete; ρl (ρl0 ): Flexural tensile
(compressive) reinforcement ratio; f y : Yield stress of steel.
a DF3 included shear reinforcement (A 2
sw = 4070 mm , s0 = 75 mm distance between the column face and the first row of shear reinforcement, sr = 112.5 mm
radial spacing between successive rows of shear reinforcement).
Table 2
Characteristics and properties of the sand
ρd : Dry unit weights; e: In situ void ratio; Dr : Relative density; E s : Oedometric modulus of the soil; ϕ 0 : Friction angle; D: Founding depth; ks : System rigidity.
Table 3
Failure loads achieved in tests and maximum flexural capacities
Fig. 9. Strain gauges arranged inside the test specimen (left) and strain measurements of the inclined compression struts in the radial direction for specimen DF5
(right).
as well. The strain measurements of the slender footings DF1 tried to explain the absence of compression strains at the top of
and DF2 confirmed this assumption (Fig. 8(a)) whereas the the slab by the eccentric loading of the inclined concrete struts.
more compact specimens DF4 and DF5 revealed a different This is comparable with an eccentrically loaded prism leading
behaviour. In radial direction, small tension strains up to to high compression stresses under the loading point and only
+0.3h were measured (Fig. 8(b)). small compression strains or even small tension strains on the
The strain distribution at the top of the slab is not a reliable opposite side of the prism.
indicator for the real stress distribution in the compression zone.
4.6. Measured soil pressure distribution
Therefore, strain gauges were arranged inside the specimens
as shown in Fig. 9, left. The strain measurements inside the Pressure gauges were used to measure the soil pressure dis-
slab confirm that there are indeed radial compression stresses tribution beneath the footing. For test DF1 17 pressure gauges
(Fig. 9, right). However, the radial compression zone consists were used, 20 for test DF2 and 21 for the remaining tests. The
of inclined compression struts. These inclined struts expand arrangement of the load cells is revealed in Fig. 5. The soil
inside the slab thickness from the corners and the edges of the pressure distribution beneath the footing DF2 is represented in
slab–column intersection towards the tension zone. Dieterle [4] Fig. 10 for the sections 3-3 and C-C. The equilibrium of the
2238 J. Hegger et al. / Engineering Structures 29 (2007) 2233–2241
Fig. 10. Soil pressure distribution for section 3-3 (left) and section C-C (right) of specimen DF2.
Fig. 12. Comparison of punching tests and the punching shear capacity according to BS 8110-1:1997.
Fig. 14. Comparison of punching tests and the punching shear capacity according to the proposed empirical model.
(3) In two small-scale tests as well as in tests from literature the [2] BS 8110-1. Structural use of concrete—Part 1: Code of practice for design
experimental soil bearing capacities exceed the calculated and construction. London: British Standard Institution; 1997.
values according to current code provisions. Thus, the soil [3] BS EN 1992-1-1. Eurocode 2: Design of concrete structures. London:
British Standard Institution; 2005.
pressure redistribution towards the centre seems not to
[4] Dieterle H, Rostásy F. Tragverhalten quadratischer Einzelfundamente aus
be completed when the calculated bearing capacity was Stahlbeton. In: Deutscher Ausschuss für Stahlbeton, Heft 387. Berlin:
reached. Beuth Verlag; 1987.
(4) The assumption of an uniformly distributed soil pressure is [5] Leussink H, Blinde A, Abel P. Versuche über die Sohldruckverteilung
safe for most practical cases. unter starren Gründungskörpern auf kohäsionslosem Sand. Karlsruhe:
(5) The punching loads predicted by different codes tend to be Veröffentlichung des Institutes für Bodenmechanik und Felsmechanik der
conservative for slender footings. Nevertheless, the codes Technischen Hochschule Fridericana in Karlsruhe. Heft 22. 1966.
[6] Blinde A, Wibel A. Sohldruckverteilung unter starren quadratischen
tend to overestimate the punching resistance for compact
Fundamenten. Karlsruhe: Veröffentlichungen des Institutes für Boden-
footings with small shear slenderness. mechanik und Felsmechanik der Technischen Hochschule Fridericana in
(6) Due to the strong dependency on the column dimensions Karlsruhe. Heft 48. 1971.
√ 8110-1:1997 limit on the column face shear of γm ·
the BS [7] von Wolffersdorff P-A. Probebelastung zur Baugrundtagung 1990: Ver-
0.8· f cu and γm ·5 MPa, respectively, is not able to predict suchsergebnisse und Auswertung des Prognosewettbewerbs. Geotechnik
the punching shear resistance of footings trendlessly. 1991;14:16–21.
(7) A new equation was derived which ensures the safety [8] BS EN 1997-1. Eurocode 7. Geotechnical design. General rules. London:
British Standard Institution; 2004.
level of Eurocode. The punching shear capacity of compact
[9] BS EN 206-1. Concrete—Part 1: Specification, performance and
footings can be calculated with this equation. conformity. London: British Standard Institution; 2001.
[10] Richart FE. Reinforced concrete wall and column footings. Journal
Acknowledgements of the American Concrete Institute 1948;45(2):97–127. Part 1; Part 2:
45(3):237–60.
This research program (AiF-No. 13620, DBV-No. 245) was [11] Kordina K, Nölting D. Tragverhalten von ausmittig beanspruchten
supported via the Deutsche Beton- und Bautechnik Verein E.V. Einzelfundamenten aus Stahlbeton. Abschlußbericht zum DFG-Vorhaben
(DBV) by the funds of the Federal Ministry of Economy of Ko 204/27+30. Braunschweig; 1981.
Germany with a contribution from the Arbeitsgemeinschaft [12] Dieterle H, Steinle A. Blockfundamente für Stahlbetonfertigteilstützen.
industrieller Forschung (AiF). The authors express thanks to the In: Deutscher Ausschuss für Stahlbeton, Heft 326. Berlin: Beuth Verlag;
1981.
AiF and the participating companies for their financial support,
[13] Hallgren M, Kinnunen S, Nylander B. Punching shear tests on column
as well as to the committee accompanying the project for their footings. Nordic Concrete Research 1998;21(1):1–23.
helpful suggestions. [14] Hegger J, Ziegler M, Ricker M, Ulke B. Entwicklung eines
Bemessungskonzeptes zum Durchstanzen von Fundamentplatten unter
References Berücksichtigung der Boden-Bauwerk-Interaktion. Abschlußbericht zum
AiF-Vorhaben 13620. Aachen; 2005.
[1] Daniel L. Application des potentiels à l’étude de l’équilibre et du [15] EN 1990. Eurocode—Basis of structural design. Brussels: European
mouvement des solides élastique. Imprimérie. Lille. 1885. Committee for Standardization; 2002.