Received: 10 September 2018 Revised: 3 December 2018 Accepted: 5 December 2018

DOI: 10.1002/suco.201800257

TECHNICAL PAPER

Punching shear behavior of reinforced concrete footings with a

varying amount of shear reinforcement
Dominik Kueres | Philipp Schmidt | Josef Hegger

RWTH Aachen University, Institute of Structural

Concrete, Aachen, Germany
Correspondence
Dominik Kueres, RWTH Aachen University,
Institute of Structural Concrete, Mies-van-der-
Rohe-Str. 1/52074 Aachen, Germany.
Email: dkueres@imb.rwth-aachen.de
Funding information
Federal Ministry for Economic Affairs and Energy;
German Federation of Industrial Research
Associations
The existing punching shear design provisions according to current codes have
either a semi-empirical (e.g., Eurocode 2) or a more physical (e.g., Model Code
2010) background. Although the design procedures are very similar, the predicted
punching shear capacities may differ significantly, depending on the background
of the design provisions and the considered influences. Recent test series on rein-
forced concrete footings without shear reinforcement and with high amounts of
shear reinforcement are available and can be used for the evaluation and improve-
ment 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 low and medium amounts of
shear reinforcement, three systematic test series (11 specimens) with stirrups as
shear reinforcement were conducted. In the tests, the amount of shear reinforce-
ment was varied by changing the stirrup diameter only. Further investigated influ-
ences were the shear span-depth ratio and the effective depth. In this paper, the
results of the test series are discussed and compared to the predictions according to
Eurocode 2, Model Code 2010, and the draft of the second generation of Euro-
code 2.

KEYWORDS

column base, Eurocode 2, footing, Model Code 2010, punching, reinforced

concrete, shear reinforcement, stirrup

1 | INTRODUCTION revision of EC2,17,18 which is currently in progress. The

The punching shear behavior of reinforced concrete footings
without shear reinforcement and with high amounts of shear
reinforcement has been investigated by various researchers
in the past.1–14 Considering the earlier test results, the cur-
rent punching shear design provisions according to Euro-
code 2 (EC215) and Model Code 2010 (MC201016) were
established. Based on the design provisions according to
MC2010, simplified design expressions were derived for the
Discussion on this paper must be submitted within two months of the print
publication. The discussion will then be published in print, along with the
authors' closure, if any, approximately nine months after the print publication.
final draft of the second generation of EC2 by the Project
Team SC2.T1 was released in April 2018 (prEC219). How-
ever, the evaluation of the code equations for the design of
the shear reinforcement in reinforced concrete footings has
not yet been possible since systematic test series with a vary-
ing amount of shear reinforcement were not available.
In the present study, three systematic test series (11 speci-
mens) on reinforced concrete footings without shear rein-
forcement and with a varying amount of shear reinforcement
(stirrups) were conducted. The aim of the experimental pro-
gram was the investigation of the transition from a punching
failure without shear reinforcement, to a punching failure

Structural Concrete. 2018;1–12. wileyonlinelibrary.com/journal/suco © 2018 fib. International Federation for Structural Concrete 1
2 KUERES ET AL.

between first perimeter of shear reinforcement and column edge; sr: radial spacing between two perimeters of shear reinforcement; Vflex: shear force that produces flexural failure according to yield-line theory28; Vtest: ultimate failure load;
Note. h: slab thickness; d: effective depth; c: square column dimension; l: square footing dimension; aλ/d: shear span-depth ratio; fc,cyl: concrete compressive strength; ;: diameter of flexural reinforcement; fy: yield strength of flexural
reinforcement; ρl: flexural reinforcement ratio; Asw: cross sectional area of shear reinforcement up to 0.8d; ;sw: diameter of shear reinforcement; ρsw: shear reinforcement ratio; fyw: yield strength of shear reinforcement; s0: distance
inside the shear-reinforced zone, up to a failure on the level

Failure (−)
of maximum punching shear capacity. Similar test series on
flat slabs with studs as shear reinforcement were reported in

w/o

w/o

w/o
m

m
i

i
i
i
literature 20,21. In this paper, the results of the experimental

Vtest (kN)
investigations on shear-reinforced footings are discussed in

1,839
2,948
3,361
5,386
7,137
7,090
3,916
4,495
5,415
5,416
5,850
detail. Based on measurements, the formation of inner shear
cracks and the activation of the shear reinforcement is ana-
lyzed depending on the amount of shear reinforcement.

Vflex (kN)
6,004
5,751
6,026
16,299
15,947
16,288
13,362
13,524
13,705
13,494
12,650
Moreover, the code provisions according to EC2, MC2010,
and prEC2 are evaluated by means of comparisons between
predictions and experimental results.

failure: failure mode (w/o: punching failure without shear reinforcement; i: punching failure inside the shear-reinforced zone; m: failure on the level of the maximum punching shear capacity).
sr (m)

0.200
0.200

0.300
0.300

0.300
0.300
0.300
0.300
–

–
2 | EX PER IM ENT AL PROGRA M

s0 (m)

0.120
0.120

0.180
0.170

0.180
0.180
0.180
0.180
–

–
2.1 | General

fyw (MPa)
The experimental program included three test series with a

–
580
559

528
529

580
554
562
529
total of eleven punching tests on reinforced concrete footings
without shear reinforcement and with conventional closed

ρsw (%)
stirrups22,23 as shear reinforcement. The tests were planned

0.00
0.20
0.77
0.00
0.20
0.62
0.00
0.11
0.20
0.31
0.62
considering the results of the previous test series on footings
by Hegger et al.8 and Siburg and Hegger.9 The investigated
;sw (mm)

test parameter were the amount of shear reinforcement, the

–
6

–
8

–
6
8
12

14

10
14
shear span-depth ratio, and the effective depth.
Asw (cm2)

2.2 | Materials
–

–
16
63

36
111

20
36
57
111
For all specimens, commercial ready mixed concrete was
ρl (%)

used. The maximum coarse aggregate size was 16 mm and

0.84
0.84
0.84
0.83
0.83
0.85
0.88
0.86
0.86
0.86
0.86
the concrete mixture was designed to reach a cylinder
strength (150/300 mm) of approximately fc,cyl = 20 MPa
fy (MPa)

at the day of testing. To prevent premature failure, the col-

558
526
558
587
531
587
549
558
558
558

umn stubs consisted of high-strength concrete with concrete 515

compressive strengths fc,cyl > 90 MPa. Additionally, the col-

; (mm)

umn stubs were reinforced with a steel collar made of

20

25

25

10 mm steel plates. For all specimens, reinforcing steel with

a characteristic yield strength of fyk = 500 MPa was used
fc,cyl (MPa)

for both the flexural reinforcement and the shear reinforce-

21.1
22.1
21.7
21.9
23.2
23.7
22.4
20.6
19.9
18.9
19.4

ment. Table 1 summarizes all test parameters, dimensions,

material properties, and failure loads.
aλ/d (−)
2.03
2.02
2.03
1.27
1.27
1.29
2.07
2.03
2.02
2.03
2.03

2.3 | Test specimens

The notations DF13a–B1-6–DF18a, DF26b–B2-8–DF33b,
1.800

1.800

2.700
l (m)
Test parameters and failure loads

and DF28Nb–B3-6–B3-8–B3-10–DF35b were used for the

specimens of the three test series. Each of the test series con-
0.200

0.300

0.300
c (m)

sisted of reinforced concrete footings with identical dimen-

sions. The side dimensions varied between l = 1,800 and
Test by Siburg and Hegger.9
0.395
0.396
0.395
0.590
0.590
0.580
0.580
0.591
0.594
0.590
0.590
d (m)

2,700 mm and the slab thickness was either h = 450 or

650 mm. The square column stubs had side dimensions of
Test by Hegger et al.8
h (m)
0.450

0.650

0.650

c = 200 or 300 mm and were casted monolithically at the

center of the footings. The distance from the extreme con-
crete compression fiber to the centroid of tension reinforce-
Test (−)

b
TABLE 1

DF28N
DF26b

DF33b

b
a

B3-10
DF13

DF18

DF35

ment (effective depth) was approximately d = 400 or

B1-6

B2-8

B3-6
B3-8

600 mm resulting in shear span-depth ratios between aλ/

b
a
KUERES ET AL.
d = 1.25 and 2.00 (with aλ being the distance from the col-
umn face to the edge of the footing). The column perimeter-
depth ratio was approximately u0/d = 2.00 = const. for all
specimens (with u0 being the perimeter of the column). The
flexural reinforcement ratio varied between ρl = 0.83 and
0.88% to prevent flexural failure, especially for the speci-
mens with high amounts of shear reinforcement.
The layout of the shear reinforcement was defined in
accordance with the detailing provisions of the German
Annex of EC2.24,25 In this context, the distance between the
first perimeter of shear reinforcement and the column face
was set to s0 = 0.3d. The radial spacing between the other
perimeters of shear reinforcement was defined as sr = 0.5d.
Moreover, the stirrups enclosed both the top and bottom layer
of flexural reinforcement to ensure adequate anchorage condi-
tions. The shear reinforcement ratio ρsw (ρsw = [Asw,1+2/2]/
[min{s0/2 + sr/2; sr}u0.5d]), with Asw,1+2 being the amount of
shear reinforcement in the first two perimeters and u0.5d
being the control perimeter at a distance 0.5d from the edge
of the column) of the investigated specimens varied between
ρsw = 0 and 0.77%. The variation of the shear reinforcement
ratio was achieved by changing the stirrup diameter only.
Hence, the layout of shear reinforcement remained
unchanged throughout each test series. Figure 1 exemplarily
depicts the layout of the shear reinforcement for test series
DF28N–B3-6–B3-8–B3-10–DF35.
2.4 | Test setup and measurements
The punching tests were conducted in accordance with pre-
vious tests on reinforced concrete footings without and with
shear reinforcement by Siburg and Hegger9 and Kueres
et al.26,27 The specimens were tested upside down with the
base area on top and loaded by a uniform surface load
(Figure 2). The uniform soil pressure was simulated with
1200
0.8d
0.3d
2700
A A
300
1200
FIGURE 1 Layout of flexural reinforcement and shear reinforcement for test series DF28N–B3-6–B3-8–B3-10–DF35
3
25 load application points. Twelve hydraulic jacks trans-
ferred their load through cross beams to two load points
each. A further hydraulic jack with a piston area of half the
size completed the load arrangement above the column. All
hydraulic jacks were linked to a common manifold and
applied the same load independent of the displacement. In
order to avoid any formation of membrane forces in the test
specimens, polytetrafluorethylene (PTFE)-coated sliding and
deformation bearings of dimensions 140 × 140 mm were
placed between the footing and the beams.
During testing, several measurements were performed to
investigate the punching shear behavior of the specimens.
The vertical displacement of the test specimens was recorded
at the corners of the column stub, the footing's corners, and
several other locations using linear variable differential
transformers (LVDTs). The penetration of the column into
the slab was monitored and the increase in slab thickness
was measured at several points to investigate the develop-
ment of the inner shear cracks. Also, the slab rotation was
measured at the edges of the specimens (B1-6, B2-8, B3-6,
B3-8, and B3-10). Strain gages were used to measure the
strains in the flexural reinforcement and in the shear rein-
forcement. To obtain the average strain at the bar's center of
gravity, two strain gages were attached to opposite side faces
of the reinforcing bars at each measuring point. Moreover,
the concrete strains at the compression face of the footing
near the column were recorded.
2.5 | Test procedure
The load was applied under load control in increments of
200–400 kN depending on the expected failure load. To
simulate lifetime loading, the load was cycled ten times
between a service load and half its value. The service load
was determined based on the expected failure load and the
28 Ø12 top reinforcement
28 Ø25 bottom reinforcement
4x 7 Ø6/8/10/14 stirrups
4x 11 Ø6/8/10/14 stirrups
Section A - A
steel collar
250
200
650
120 300 300 300 180 300 180 300 300 300 120
1200 300 1200
2700 [mm]
4 KUERES ET AL.

Experimental rig of
two frames connected by
cross beams

Cross beams

Section A-A
12+1 hydraulic jacks
Cross beams
Sliding and deformation bearings
Load distribution plates
A A
Specimen

Cross beams

FIGURE 2 Test setup for footings with uniform soil pressure

product of the partial safety factors γC × γF ≈ 2.1. Also, the
measured changes in slab thickness and the strains in the
shear reinforcement were taken into account for the defini-
tion of the service load. In this context, it was ensured that a
shear crack formed and, thus, the shear reinforcement was
activated prior to the load cycles. After the load cycles, one
or two further load steps were conducted before the speci-
mens were continuously loaded until failure took place.
3 | EX PER IM ENT AL RES ULT S
3.1 | General
All tests failed in punching of the footing. Before failure
occurred, an increasing slab thickness, increasing strains in
the shear reinforcement and a penetration of the column stub
into the slab were observed. The failure loads Vtest are sum-
marized in Table 1. The comparison with the flexural capaci-
ties of the footings Vflex according to the yield-line theory,28
as well as the recorded strains in the flexural reinforcement
clearly below the yield strain, prove that the flexural capac-
ity of the specimens was not reached when failure occurred
due to punching.
3.2 | Cracking characteristics
After testing, saw-cuts of the specimens were performed to
examine the inner shear crack patterns (Figure 3). Depend-
ing on the amount of shear reinforcement, the observed
crack patterns differ significantly, which is, for example, evi-
dent from test series DF28N–B3-6–B3-8–B3-10–DF35. In
specimen DF28N without shear reinforcement (ρsw = 0%),
only one discrete shear crack formed at an angle of approxi-
mately 40 (Figure 3a). A shear crack with a similar
inclination was observed in specimen B3-6 with a very low
amount of shear reinforcement (ρsw = 0.11%, Figure 3b).
Due to the spacing of the stirrups, the first and second row
of shear reinforcement were crossed by the shear crack and
activated, which can be confirmed by the performed strain
measurements. Compared to specimen B3-6, in specimen
B3-8 with twice as much shear reinforcement (ρsw = 0.20%,
Figure 3c) a further, more steeply inclined shear crack cross-
ing the first row of shear reinforcement developed. While in
specimen B3-8 the widths of both shear cracks seem to be
comparable, the more steeply inclined crack was much
stronger pronounced in specimen B3-10 (ρsw = 0.31%,
Figure 3d). Also, the saw-cut of specimen B3-10 shows
more finely distributed cracks in the region of the column.
The saw-cut of specimen DF35 with the highest amount of
shear reinforcement (ρsw = 0.62%) revealed a crack pattern,
which is typical for a failure on the level of maximum
punching shear capacity. As can be seen in Figure 3e, the
failure crack had a very steep inclination and propagated
between the first row of shear reinforcement and the column
face. Similar observations regarding the formation of inner
shear cracks as a function of the shear reinforcement ratio
can be made for test series DF13–B1-6–DF18 (Figure 3f–h)
and DF26–B2-8–DF33 (Figure 3i–k).
3.3 | Load-deflection characteristics
In Figure 4a, the comparison of the measured load-deflection
curves of the specimens without shear reinforcement (DF13,
DF26, and DF28N) is shown. For all specimens, a stiff ini-
tial response followed by a reduced stiffness as a result of
flexural cracking can be observed. The gradients of both
branches of the load-deflection curves are significantly influ-
enced by the effective depth and the shear span-depth ratio. In
KUERES ET AL.
FIGURE 3 Saw-cuts of test specimens
this context, both the gradient of the load-deflection curve as
well as the absolute value of the failure load increase with
increasing effective depth or decreasing shear span-depth
ratio, respectively. This was already observed in previous
experimental investigations on reinforced concrete footings.8,9
Similar tendencies can be observed for the specimens
with medium amounts of shear reinforcement (B1-6, B2-8,
and B3-8; Figure 4a). While the stiffness before and after
cracking is comparable with the footings without shear rein-
forcement, both the deformation at punching failure as well
5
as the failure load are significantly enhanced. This observa-
tion is even more pronounced for the specimens with the
highest shear reinforcement ratios (DF18, DF33, and DF35;
Figure 4c).
3.4 | Strains in shear reinforcement
Figure 5 shows exemplarily the measured tensile strains in
the shear reinforcement in the first two rows of the shear-
reinforced specimens of test series DF28N–B3-6–B3-8–
6 KUERES ET AL.

(a) 7500
(b) (c)
aλ/d = 1.27 aλ/d = 1.29
d = 590 mm d = 580 mm
ρsw = 0% ρsw = 0.20% ρsw = 0.62%/ 0 .77%
Applied load [kN] 6000
aλ/d = 1.27 aλ/d = 2.03
d = 590 mm aλ/d = 2.02 d = 590 mm
4500 d = 594 mm

aλ/d = 2.07
d = 580 mm
3000
DF26 aλ/d = 2.02 B2-8 aλ/d = 2.03 DF33
d = 396 mm d = 395 mm
1500 aλ/d = 2.03 DF28N B3-8 DF35
d = 395 mm
DF13 B1-6 DF18

0
0.0 1.5 3.0 4.5 6.0 7.5 0.0 1.5 3.0 4.5 6.0 7.5 0.0 1.5 3.0 4.5 6.0 7.5
Deflection [mm] Deflection [mm] Deflection [mm]

FIGURE 4 Comparison of load-deflection curves

B3-10–DF35. The strains corresponding to the yield strength with shear reinforcement (Figure 6b–e). In this context,
of the shear reinforcement are indicated in the diagrams. In specimens B3-6 (ρsw = 0.11%, Figure 6b), B3-8 (ρsw =
the tests, substantial steel strains were first observed at a load 0.20%, Figure 6c), and B3-10 (ρsw = 0.31%, Figure 6d)
level coinciding with the beginning of the inner shear crack showed considerable changes in thickness up to the third
formation. This was confirmed by the measured increase in row of shear reinforcement. The highest changes in thick-
slab thickness at approximately the same load level. In speci- ness were observed in specimen B3-10. In contrast, the
men B3-6 (ρsw = 0.11%), the first two rows of shear rein- changes in thickness in specimen DF35 (ρsw = 0.62%,
forcement were crossed by the shear crack (Figure 3b) and Figure 6e) were much smaller compared to B3-10 and con-
reached the yield strength prior to failure (Figure 5a,b). The centrated between the first row of shear reinforcement and
fact that the load-increase after the activation of the shear the column face.
reinforcement was relatively low indicates that the amount
of shear reinforcement was only slightly higher than 3.6 | Failure mode
required to resist the forces at crack formation state (mini-
The punching failure modes of the specimens can be deter-
mum reinforcement). Compared to specimen B3-6, in spec-
mined by combining the evaluation of the crack patterns
imen B3-8 (ρsw = 0.20%) the load-increase caused by the
(Section 3.2), the tensile strains in the shear reinforcement
shear reinforcement was more pronounced, even though
(Section 3.4), and the changes in slab thickness
the shear reinforcement in the first and second row
(Section 3.5). In this context, the saw-cuts indicate that an
exceeded the yield strength (Figure 5c,d). A similar activa-
initial, relatively flat inclined shear crack developed in each
tion of the shear reinforcement in the first row was
specimen. While in specimens DF13 (ρsw = 0%), DF26
observed for specimen B3-10 (ρsw = 0.31%, Figure 5e).
(ρsw = 0%), DF28N (ρsw = 0%), and B3-6 (ρsw = 0.11%),
Nevertheless, the activation of the second row of shear
the initial shear crack directly triggered the punching failure
reinforcement was less pronounced (Figure 5f ). In contrast,
(without shear reinforcement or inside the shear-reinforced
the strains in the shear reinforcement of specimen DF35
zone), the amount of shear reinforcement in specimens B1-6
(ρsw = 0.62%) did at no point exceed the yield strength
(ρsw = 0.20%), B2-8 (ρsw = 0.20%), and B3-8 (ρsw =
prior to failure (Figure 5g,h).
0.20%) was sufficient to redistribute the forces at crack for-
mation state leading to an additional, more steeply inclined
3.5 | Changes in thickness of the specimens shear crack. Nevertheless, strain measurements in the shear
The changes in thickness of the specimens were continu- reinforcement as well as the measured changes in slab thick-
ously measured during the tests at several positions. The ness prove a punching failure inside the shear-reinforced
results of test series DF28N–B3-6–B3-8–B3-10–DF35 are zone for these specimens. In contrast, in specimens DF18
illustrated exemplarily for different load levels in Figure 6. (ρsw = 0.77%), DF33 (ρsw = 0.62%), and DF35 (ρsw =
Regardless of the amount of shear reinforcement, the highest 0.62%) a very steep failure crack developed between the
changes in thickness were measured close to the column first row of shear reinforcement and the column face. The
face. While specimen DF28N without shear reinforcement fact that the first row of shear reinforcement did not reach
failed in a brittle manner without large measured changes in the yield strength and that the second row of shear reinforce-
thickness (Figure 6a), a more ductile behavior at failure and ment was hardly activated indicates that the capacity of the
higher changes in thickness were observed in the specimens shear reinforcement was not reached when failure occurred
KUERES ET AL. 7

(a) (b)
7500
Øsw = 6 mm CL
ρsw = 0.11%
6000 B3-6 B3-6
Applied load [kN]

4500
S21
3000 S11

yield strain

yield strain
S22
1500 S12
S11 S12
1st row S21 2nd row S22
0
0.0 1.5 3.0 4.5 6.0 0.0 1.5 3.0 4.5 6.0
Shear reinforcement strain [‰] Shear reinforcement strain [‰]
(c) (d)
7500
Øsw = 8 mm CL
ρsw = 0.20%
6000 B3-8 B3-8
Applied load [kN]

4500
S21
3000 S11
yield strain

yield strain
S22
1500 S12
S11 S12
1st row S21 2nd row S22
0
0.0 1.5 3.0 4.5 6.0 0.0 1.5 3.0 4.5 6.0
Shear reinforcement strain [‰] Shear reinforcement strain [‰]
(e) (f)
7500
Øsw = 10 mm CL
ρsw = 0.31%
6000 B3-10 B3-10
Applied load [kN]

4500
S21
3000 S11
yield strain

yield strain

S22
1500 S12
S11 S12
1st row S21 2nd row S22
0
0.0 1.5 3.0 4.5 6.0 0.0 1.5 3.0 4.5 6.0
Shear reinforcement strain [‰] Shear reinforcement strain [‰]
(g) (h)
7500
Øsw = 14 mm CL
ρsw = 0.62%
6000 DF35 DF35
Applied load [kN]

4500

3000 S11
yield strain

yield strain

1500 S12
S11 S12
1st row 2nd row
0
0.0 1.5 3.0 4.5 6.0 0.0 1.5 3.0 4.5 6.0
Shear reinforcement strain [‰] Shear reinforcement strain [‰]

FIGURE 5 Measured strains in the first two rows of shear reinforcement: B3-6, B3-8, B3-10, and DF35

on the level of the maximum punching shear capacity. failure inside the shear-reinforced zone and a failure on
According to the crack patterns and the steel strains in the level of the maximum punching shear capacity. Nev-
the second row of shear reinforcement (no yielding), the ertheless, the fact that the first row of shear reinforce-
punching failure mode of specimen B3-10 (ρsw = 0.31%) ment yielded prior to punching indicates a punching
may be situated in the transition between a punching failure inside the shear-reinforced zone, since the
8 KUERES ET AL.

40 mm 70 mm 70 mm

2 LVDTs 5 LVDTs 5 LVDTs

(a) (b) (c)

CL CL Øsw = 6 mm CL Øsw = 8 mm
ρsw = 0% ρsw = 0.11% ρsw = 0.20%

9
DF28N B3-6 B3-8
Δh [mm]

6 100%

3 100% 95%
95% 90%
90% 80%
0 100% 80% 70%
0 450 900 1350 0 450 900 1350 0 450 900 1350
Distance [mm] Distance [mm] Distance [mm]
70 mm 40 mm

5 LVDTs 2 LVDTs

(d) (e) LVDT

CL Øsw = 10 mm CL Øsw = 14 mm
ρsw = 0.31% ρsw = 0.62%

9
100% B3-10 DF35
threaded rod
Δ h [mm]

6
100%
95%
3 90% 95% tube
90%
80% 80%
0 70% 70%
0 450 900 1350 0 450 900 1350
Distance[mm] Distance [mm]
FIGURE 6 Measured changes in thickness of test specimens: DF28N, B3-6, B3-8, B3-10, and DF35

capacity of the shear reinforcement was reached when
failure occurred.
4 | COMPA R ISON O F P RE DICT ION S AN D
E X P E RI M E N T A L RE S UL T S
The main parameter investigated in the three test series was
the amount of shear reinforcement. Figure 7a illustrates the
normalized failure loads Vtest/ (u0.5dd(ρlfck)1/3) (where u0.5d
is the control perimeter in a distance 0.5d from the column
edge, d is the effective depth, ρl is the flexural reinforcement
ratio, and fck is the characteristic value of the concrete com-
pressive strength) of specimens DF28N (ρsw = 0%), B3-6
(ρsw = 0.11%), B3-8 (ρsw = 0.20%), B3-10 (ρsw = 0.31%),
and DF35 (ρsw = 0.62%) as a function of the shear rein-
forcement ratio ρsw. As expected, the normalized failure
loads increase with increasing shear reinforcement ratio.
While the load-increase up to a shear reinforcement ratio of
ρsw = 0.20% (specimens DF28N, B3-6, and B3-8) is more
than linear, the load-increase is less pronounced for ratios
ρsw > 0.20% (B3-10 and DF35) and seems to result in an
upper limit (s-form of capacity curve). Similar observations
can be made for test series DF26–B2-8–DF33 (Figure 7b)
and DF13–B1-6–DF18 (Figure 7c).
For the sake of comparing the test results with the punching
shear design provisions according to EC2, MC2010 (LoA III),
and prEC2, the predicted punching shear capacities of similar
footings with varying shear reinforcement ratio were deter-
mined. For the calculations, all material and strength reduction
factors in the design equations were taken as unity. Further
information regarding the punching shear provisions according
to EC2 and MC2010 are available in the literature.29–32 The
expressions according to prEC2 are summarized in Appendix A
and their derivation is explained in literature.17,18,33
KUERES ET AL. 9

(a) reinforcement), the predicted punching shear capacity

3.00
increases with increasing amount of shear reinforcement
EC2
MC2010 aλ/d = 2.04 until a certain maximum punching shear capacity is
reached. A further increase of the shear reinforcement
V / (u0.5d d (ρl fck) )

2.25 prEC2 d = 589 mm

1/3

ratio does not lead to an increased punching shear capac-

ity according to the codes. In contrast, in the present
1.50 DF35 cases the punching shear capacity according to EC2
B3-8 B3-10
B3-6 (solid black curves) is governed by the capacity of the
DF28N compression struts at the column face independent of the
0.75 shear reinforcement ratio. Hence, increasing the amount
of shear reinforcement does not lead to an increased
punching shear capacity according to EC2. This observa-
0.00
0.00 0.30 0.60 0.90 1.20 tion can be explained by the relatively low concrete com-
pressive strength in combination with the small column
Shear reinforcement ratio ρsw [%]
perimeter-depth ratio of the specimens.
(b) 3.00 The comparison of predictions and experimental results
EC2 indicates that the punching shear provisions according to
MC2010 aλ/d = 1.28 EC2 and MC2010 considerably underestimate the punching
V / (u0.5d d (ρl fck) )

2.25 prEC2 d = 587 mm shear capacity of footings with shear reinforcement. In this
1/3

context, the limitation of the maximum punching shear

B2-8 DF33 capacity to the capacity of the compression struts at the col-
1.50 umn face according to EC2 seems not to reflect the actual
DF26
punching behavior of these members. This was already
observed in previous databank evaluations.32 Also, the
0.75
application of the provisions according to MC2010 to
shear-reinforced concrete footings indicates that the slab
0.00 rotation might not be the decisive parameter for these mem-
0.00 0.30 0.60 0.90 1.20 bers as vertical (translational) deformations allow for a
Shear reinforcement ratio ρsw [%] good activation of the shear reinforcement also for small
rotations. Better agreement between experimental results
(c) 3.00 and predictions can be obtained by means of the improved
EC2 MC2010 provisions according to prEC2. Nevertheless,
MC2010 aλ/d = 2.02 especially the predicted punching shear capacity of rein-
V / (u0.5d d (ρl fck) )

2.25 prEC2 d = 395 mm forced concrete footings with low and medium amounts of
1/3

shear reinforcement is still rather conservative compared to

DF18
the test results.
1.50
B1-6

DF13
5 | S UM M A RY AN D C O NC L U S IO N S
0.75
The results of the experimental investigations on reinforced
concrete footings with varying amount of shear reinforce-
0.00
0.00 0.30 0.60 0.90 1.20 ment and the comparison with code provisions allow the fol-
lowing conclusions to be drawn:
Shear reinforcement ratio ρsw [%]

FIGURE 7 Comparison of predictions and experimental results
The development of the predicted normalized punch-
ing shear capacities with increasing shear reinforcement
ratio according to the provisions of EC2, MC2010, and
prEC2 are shown in Figure 7 for the investigated test
series. As indicated by the predictions based on MC2010
(dotted black curves) and prEC2 (dashed gray curves),
starting at the lowest capacity (without shear
• The present test series allow for the investigation of the
transition between punching failures without shear rein-
forcement and failures on the level of the maximum
punching shear capacity. While specimens DF13, DF26,
and DF28N failed in punching without shear reinforce-
ment and specimens DF18, DF33, and DF35 failed on
the level of the maximum punching shear capacity, spec-
imens B1-6, B2-8, B3-6, B3-8, and B3-10 failed inside
the shear-reinforced zone (Table 1).
10
• The inner shear crack formation of reinforced concrete
footings is strongly influenced by the amount of shear
reinforcement (Figure 3). While the punching failure of
the specimens without or with very low amounts of
shear reinforcement was directly triggered by the initial,
relatively flat inclined shear crack, the specimens with
higher amounts of shear reinforcement were capable of
redistributing the forces at crack formation state, which
led to additional, more steeply inclined shear cracks.
For the specimens with very high amounts of shear
reinforcement, a very steep failure crack developed
between the first row of shear reinforcement and the
column face.
• The activation of the shear reinforcement depends on the
inner shear crack formation. In this context, in the tests
with low amounts of shear reinforcement the first two
rows were crossed by the failure crack and substantially
activated (yielding of shear reinforcement, Figure 5a–d).
With increasing amount of shear reinforcement, the mea-
sured strains in the second row of shear reinforcement
decreased due to the formation of steeper inclined shear
cracks (Figure 5f,h).
• With increasing amount of shear reinforcement, the fail-
ure loads increase. While the load-increase up to a cer-
tain shear reinforcement ratio is more than linear, the
load-increase is less pronounced for larger ratios and
seems to result in an upper limit (s-form of capacity
curve, Figure 7).
• The punching shear provisions according to EC2 and
MC2010 significantly underestimate the punching shear
capacity of reinforced concrete footings, which leads to a
safe but uneconomic design. Better agreement between
predictions and experimental results can be obtained by
means of the punching shear provisions according to
prEC2 (Figure 7).
• The present test series investigates the punching behav-
ior of reinforced concrete footings with stirrups as shear
reinforcement. To investigate the differences between
stirrups and studs, further experimental investigations on
stud-reinforced concrete footings with low and medium
amounts of shear reinforcement would be of interest in
the future.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The presented work was part of a research project of the
German Concrete and Construction Technology Association
(DBV) at the Institute of Structural Concrete of RWTH
Aachen University. The research project was funded within
the program for sponsorship by the German Federation of
Industrial Research Associations (AiF, IGF number 18114
N/1) of the German Federal Ministry for Economic Affairs
and Energy on the basis of a decision by the German
Bundestag.
KUERES ET AL.
OR CID
Dominik Kueres https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6382-1154
REFERENCES
1. Talbot AN. Reinforced concrete wall footings and column footings. Publica-
tions of the engineering Experiment Station, Bulletin No. 67, Urbana, IL:
University of Illinois; 1913.
2. Richart FE. Reinforced concrete wall and column footings. J American Con-
crete Ins. 1948;20(2):97–127. (Part 1), No. 3, 1948, pp. 237–261 (Part 2).
3. Dieterle H, Steinle A. Blockfundamente für Stahlbetonfertigstützen. Deutscher
Ausschuss für Stahlbeton, Issue 326, 1981. Berlin, Germany: German.
4. Dieterle H, Rostásy FS. Tragverhalten quadratischer Einzelfundamente aus
Stahlbeton. Deutscher Ausschuss für Stahlbeton, Issue 387, 1987. Berlin,
Germany: German.
5. Hallgren M, Kinnunen S, Nylander B. Punching shear tests on column foot-
ings. Nordic Concrete Res. 1998;21(3):1–22.
6. Hegger J, Sherif AG, Ricker M. Experimental investigations on punching
behavior of reinforced concrete footings. ACI Struct J. 2006;103(4):604–613.
7. Hegger J, Ricker M, Ulke B, Ziegler M. Investigations on the punching
shear behaviour of reinforced concrete footings. Eng Struct. 2007;29(9):
2233–2241.
8. Hegger J, Ricker M, Sherif AG. Punching strength of reinforced concrete
footings. ACI Struct J. 2009;106(5):706–716.
9. Siburg C, Hegger J. Experimental investigations on the punching behaviour
of reinforced concrete footings with structural dimensions. Struct Concr.
2014;15(3):331–339.
10. Simões JT, Faria DMV, Fernández Ruiz M, Muttoni A. Strength of rein-
forced concrete footings without transverse reinforcement according to limit
analysis. Eng Struct. 2016;112:146–161.
11. Simões JT, Bujnak J, Fernández Ruiz M, Muttoni A. Punching shear tests
on compact footings with uniform soil pressure. Struct Concr. 2016;17(4):
603–617.
12. Wieneke K, Kueres D, Siburg C, Hegger J. Investigations on the punching
shear behaviour of eccentrically loaded footings. Struct Concr. 2016;17(6):
1047–1058.
13. Kueres D, Ricker M, Classen M, Hegger J. Fracture kinematics of reinforced
concrete slabs failing in punching. Eng Struct. 2018;171:269–279.
14. Kueres D, Hegger J. Two-parameter kinematic theory for punching shear in
reinforced concrete slabs without shear reinforcement. Eng Struct. 2018;175:
201–216.
15. EN 1992-1-1:2004: Eurocode 2: Design of concrete structures – Part 1-1:
General rules and rules for buildings. Incl. Corrigendum 1: EN 1992-1-1:
2004/AC:2008, incl. Corrigendum 2: EN 1992-1-1:2004/AC:2010.
16. International federation for structural concrete: fib model code for concrete
structures 2010. Lausanne, Switzerland: Ernst & Sohn, 2013.
17. Muttoni A, Fernández Ruiz M. The critical shear crack theory for punching
design: From a mechanical model to closed-form design expressions. In:
Ospina CE, Mitchell D, Muttoni A, editors. Punching shear of structural
concrete slabs: Honoring Neil M. Hawkins, October 25, 2016; p. 237–252,
Proceedings of ACI-fib International Symposium, Philadelphia, USA. (ACI
SP-315, fib Bulletin 81).
18. Muttoni A, Fernández Ruiz M, Simões JT. The theoretical principles of the
critical shear crack theory for punching shear failures and derivation of con-
sistent closed-form design expressions. Struct Concr. 2018;19(1):174–190.
19. prEN 1992-1-1:2018: Eurocode 2: Design of concrete structures – Part 1-1:
General rules, rules for buildings, bridges and civil engineering structures.
Final draft by the Project Team SC2.T1 working on Phase 1 of the CEN/TC
250 work programme under Mandate M/515.
20. Lips S, Fernández Ruiz M, Muttoni A. Experimental investigation on punch-
ing strength and deformation capacity of shear-reinforced slabs. ACI Struct
J. 2012;109(6):889–900.
21. Ferreira MP, Melo GS, Regan PE, Vollum RL. Punching of reinforced con-
crete flat slabs with double-headed shear reinforcement. ACI Struct J. 2014;
111(2):363–374.
22. Beutel R, Hegger J. The effect of anchorage on the effectiveness of the shear
reinforcement in the punching zone. Cem Concr Compos. 2002;24:539–549.
23. Hegger J, Sherif AG, Kueres D, Siburg C. Efficiency of various punching
shear reinforcement systems for flat slabs. ACI Struct J. 2017;114(3):
631–642.
KUERES ET AL. 11

24. DIN EN 1992-1-1:2011-01: Eurocode 2: Bemessung und Konstruktion von

Stahlbeton- und Spannbetontragwerken – Teil 1-1: Allgemeine Bemessungs-
regeln und Regeln für den Hochbau. Mit DIN EN 1992-1-1/A1:2015-03:
A1-Änderung. German.
25. DIN EN 1992-1-1/NA:2013-04: Nationaler Anhang – National festgelegte
Parameter – Euro-code 2: Bemessung und Konstruktion von Stahlbeton- und
Spannbetontragwerken – Teil 1–1: Allgemeine Bemessungsregeln und
Regeln für den Hochbau. Mit DIN EN 1992-1-1/NA/A1:2015-12: A1-
Änderung. German.
26. Kueres D, Ricker M, Hegger J. Improved shear reinforcement for footings—
Punching strength inside shear-reinforced zone. ACI Struct J. 2017;114(6):
1445–1456.
27. Kueres D, Ricker M, Hegger J. Improved shear reinforcement for
footings—Maximum punching strength. ACI Struct J. 2018;115(5):
1365–1377.
28. Gesund H. Flexural limit analysis of concentrically loaded column footings.
ACI J. 1983;80(3):223–228.
29. Siburg C. Zur einheitlichen Bemessung gegen Durchstanzen in Flachdecken
und Fundamenten [Doctoral thesis]. RWTH Aachen University; 2014.
German.
30. Muttoni A, Fernández Ruiz M, Bentz E, Foster S, Sigrist V. Background to
fib model code 2010 shear provisions – Part II: Punching shear. Struct
Concr. 2013;14(3):204–214.
31. Siburg C, Ricker M, Hegger J. Punching shear design of footings: Criti-
cal review of different code provisions. Struct Concr. 2014;15(4):
497–508.
32. Kueres D, Siburg C, Herbrand M, Classen M, Hegger J. Uniform design
method for punching shear in flat slabs and column bases. Eng Struct. 2017;
136:149–164.
33. Muttoni A, Fernández Ruiz M, Simões JT, Hegger J, Siburg C, Kueres D.
Background document for section 8.4: Punching. Report EPFL/RWTH –
17-01-R5, 30.11.2017.
AUTHOR DETAILS
Dominik Kueres
RWTH Aachen University, Institute
of Structural Concrete
Mies-van-der-Rohe-Str. 1, 52074
Aachen, Germany
dkueres@imb.rwth-aachen.de
How to cite this article: Kueres D, Schmidt P,
Hegger J. Punching shear behavior of reinforced con-
crete footings with a varying amount of shear rein-
forcement. Structural Concrete. 2018;1–12. https://
doi.org/10.1002/suco.201800257
AP P E N DI X A : P UN CH I NG S H E A R D E S I GN
PR OV ISION S AC CORD ING TO PR EC2
This appendix summarizes the punching shear design provi-
sions according to the final draft of the second generation of
EC2 by the Project Team SC2.T1 (prEC219). Further infor-
mation can be found in the literature.17,18,33
The punching shear resistance without shear reinforce-
ment is determined as:


0:6 ddg 1=3 0:6 pffiffiffiffiffiffi
τRd, c ¼ k pb 100ρl f ck ≤ f ck ðA1Þ
γC dv γC
where γ C is the partial safety factor for concrete, kpb = √(5
μp dv/b0) ≤ 2.5 is the shear enhancement factor, μp is a coef-
ficient accounting for the shear force and bending moments
developing in the shear-critical region, dv is the shear-
resisting effective depth, b0 is the control perimeter at a dis-
tance 0.5dv from the edge of the loaded area, ρl is the flex-
ural reinforcement ratio, fck is the characteristic value of the
concrete compressive strength, and ddg is a factor consider-
ing the influence of the maximum aggregate size.
For distances between the center of the support area and
the line of contraflexure smaller than 8dv (e.g., compact foot-
ings), the value of dv in Equation (A1) may be replaced by:
rffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
ap
apd ¼ d v ðA2Þ
8

Philipp Schmidt where ap ≥ dv.

RWTH Aachen University, Institute The punching shear resistance with shear reinforcement
of Structural Concrete is given by:
Mies-van-der-Rohe-Str. 1, 52074 τRd, cs ¼ ηc τRd, c + ηs ρsw f ywd ≥ ρsw f ywd ðA3Þ
Aachen, Germany
pschmidt@imb.rwth-aachen.de where ρsw = Asw/(sr st) is the shear reinforcement ratio, Asw
is the area of one unit shear reinforcement, sr is the radial
spacing between the first and second row of shear reinforce-
ment, st is the average tangential spacing of perimeters of
Josef Hegger
shear reinforcement measured at the control perimeter and ηc
RWTH Aachen University, Institute
and ηs are factors defining the magnitude of concrete contri-
of Structural Concrete
bution and shear reinforcement contribution, respectively.
Mies-van-der-Rohe-Str. 1, 52074
For deformed vertical bars, the factors can be calculated as:
Aachen, Germany
jhegger@imb.rwth-aachen.de τRd, c
ηc ¼ ðA4Þ
τEd

1=2
3=2
ddg 1
ηs ¼ 0:1 + 15 ≤ 0:8 ðA5Þ
dv ηc kpb
12 KUERES ET AL.

The upper bound capacity of Equation (A3) (maximum The perimeter at which shear reinforcement is not
punching shear resistance) is defined as a multiple of the required is determined as:
punching shear capacity of an identical slab without shear
2
reinforcement: dv 1
b0, out ¼ b0 ðA7Þ
dv, out ηc
τRd, max ¼ ηsys τRd, c ðA6Þ
where dv,out is the outer shear-resisting effective depth
where the coefficient ηsys = 1.5 for stirrups and ηsys = 1.8 depending on the anchorage conditions of the shear
for studs. reinforcement.