4.0 Article

Punching strength of footings with varying shear reinforcement ratios

Journal

BETON- UND STAHLBETONBAU
Volume 114, Issue 4, Pages 231-241

Publisher

ERNST & SOHN
DOI: 10.1002/best.201800107

Keywords

-

Ask authors/readers for more resources

With the introduction of Eurocode 2 in Germany, the punching shear design provisions of footings and ground slabs were revised. According to Eurocode 2, the design of the shear reinforcement is performed by means of a design model considering a strut inclination of 33 degrees and a constant contribution of concrete. Due to safety related concerns, in German Annex to Eurocode 2 (EC2+NA(D)), a different concept was introduced. In this context, the design of the shear reinforcement in footings and ground slabs is conducted without consideration of a concrete contribution. Various test series on reinforced concrete footings without shear reinforcement and with high amounts of shear reinforcement are available and can be used for the evaluation of the current provisions. Nevertheless, the evaluation of the code equations for the design of the shear reinforcement (failure inside the shear-reinforced zone) is still not possible since systematic test series on footings with a varying amount of shear reinforcement have not yet been conducted. To investigate the punching shear behavior of reinforced concrete footings with stirrups as shear reinforcement, three systematic test series (eleven specimens) with varying shear reinforcement ratios were performed. In the tests, the shear reinforcement ratio was varied by changing the stirrup diameter only. Further investigated influences were the shear span-depth ratio and the effective depth. In this paper, the results of the tests are discussed and compared to the predictions according to Eurocode 2 and EC2+NA(D). Moreover, the punching design provisions according to Model Code 2010 are evaluated.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.0
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available