ACI STRUCTURAL JOURNAL TECHNICAL PAPER

Title no. 103-S64

Experimental Investigations on Punching Behavior of

Reinforced Concrete Footings
by Josef Hegger, Alaa G. Sherif, and Marcus Ricker

Five reinforced concrete footings were tested to investigate the consistency of the sand are investigated. The provisions of
punching shear failure of footings realistically supported on sand. ACI and Eurocode 2 are evaluated by comparing with the
The tested specimens had different slab thicknesses and reinforcement experimental results.
ratios. The consistency of the sand was also varied as a test parameter
(dense and loose). Four footings had no shear reinforcement, whereas
the remaining one included shear reinforcement consisting of DESIGN CODES
vertical bars mechanically anchored at top and bottom by welded In general, design codes do not differentiate between the
anchor plates. The experimental results indicate that the angle of treatment of the punching shear strength of flat slabs and
the failure shear crack is steeper than observed by punching tests footings. The same design equations are used. The codes
of flat slabs. Furthermore, the shear slenderness seems to significantly allow a part of the soil reaction to be subtracted from the
affect the punching shear capacity. In addition to the experimental punching load. The amount to be deducted, however, differs
program, tests from the literature are critically reviewed and a test from one code to the other.
data bank is established. ACI and Eurocode 2 provisions and rules
for the design of footings are compared with the present test results
ACI 318-027
as well as the test data bank.
The critical section is at d/2 from the column face as
shown in Fig. 1. The design is based on
Keywords: footing; punching shear; reinforced concrete; shear strength;
soil pressure.
vu < Φ ⋅ vn (1)
INTRODUCTION
Since the middle of the last century, several investigations where Φ is a strength reduction factor (0.75 for shear), vu is
on the punching of footings have been conducted.1-6 Design the applied factored shear stress using load factors 1.4 and
methods and empirical expressions in codes for the calculation 1.6 for dead and live loads, respectively, and vn is the
of the punching resistance of reinforced concrete footings nominal shear resistance. The applied shear stress due to
are based on the results of these investigations. Mainly two factored concentric shear force Vu is calculated as
test setups have been used: either the footing is supported on
springs and a concentrated load is applied, or the footing is
Vu
supported on a column stub and a uniform surface load is v u = ------------ (2)
applied. Thus, the footings are tested under unrealistic boundary b0 ⋅ d
conditions. The main disadvantage of these experimental
investigations is that the redistribution of the soil pressure where b0 is the perimeter of critical section. The shear resistance
underneath the footing is not accounted for. Hence, there is of the concrete vc is the smallest value obtained from Eq. (3)
a need to examine the interaction between soil and footings to (5)
more closely. Therefore, punching tests on five quadratic
reinforced concrete column footings realistically supported on
sand were performed. The primary purpose of this investigation
was to study the following:
• What is the effect of the soil pressure distribution on
punching capacity?
• Under which angle does the main shear crack occur?
• Is it reasonable to assume the same punching behavior
for flat slabs and footings?

RESEARCH SIGNIFICANCE
Although punching of reinforced slabs is investigated
extensively in the literature, there are only limited data available
for punching of footings. Furthermore, most of the available
tests have unrealistic test setups and the code provisions are
mainly based on slab tests. As a consequence, the punching
shear capacities of footings predicted by different codes vary
significantly. The current research reviews the tests available
in the literature. Five footings realistically supported on sand
are tested. The effect of the slab depth, column size, and the
Fig. 1—Control perimeters around loaded areas according
to ACI 318-02 and Eurocode 2.
ACI Structural Journal, V. 103, No. 4, July-August 2006.
MS No. 05-184 received July 24, 2005, and reviewed under Institute publication policies.
Copyright © 2006, American Concrete Institute. All rights reserved, including the making
of copies unless permission is obtained from the copyright proprietors. Pertinent discussion
including author’s closure, if any, will be published in the May-June 2007 ACI
Structural Journal if the discussion is received by January 1, 2007.

604 ACI Structural Journal/July-August 2006

 yield strength of the shear reinforcement not to exceed
ACI member Josef Hegger is a Professor at the Institute of Structural Concrete, Technical
University Aachen, Aachen, Germany. He received his PhD from the Technical University 413 MPa = 60,000 psi. The maximum allowed shear stress
Braunschweig, Braunschweig, Germany, in 1985. His research interests include bond vmax is determined as
behavior, shear capacity, high-performance concrete, textile-reinforced concrete, and
composite structures.
v max = 0.5 f c′ MPa = 6 f c′ psi (9)
ACI member Alaa G. Sherif is an Associate Professor in the Civil Engineering
Department, Helwan University, Mataria-Cairo, Egypt. He received his BSc from
Cairo University in 1987, and his MSc and PhD from the University of Calgary,
Alberta, Canada, in 1991 and 1996, respectively. He is a member of Joint ACI-ASCE Outside the shear reinforced zone the shear stress resistance
Committee 352, Joints and Connections in Monolithic Concrete Structures. His research of the concrete is limited to the one-way shear strength value of
interests include the design and serviceability of reinforced concrete structures.

Marcus Ricker is a Research Engineer at the Institute of Structural Concrete, Technical v c = 0.167 f c′ MPa = 2 f c′ psi (10)
University Aachen. He received his degree in structural engineering from the Technical
University Darmstadt, Darmstadt, Germany, in 1998. His research interests include
the punching behavior of footings and flat slabs.
Eurocode 28
For concentric loading, the maximum factored shear stress
vEd is calculated as
v c = 0.083 ⋅  2 + ----- f c′ MPa =  2 + ----- f c′ psi (3)
4 4
 β c  β c
V Ed, red
v Ed = ----------------
- (11)
u⋅d
αs ⋅ d
v c = 0.083 ⋅  ------------
- + 2 f c′ MPa
 b0  where VEd,red is the net applied factored shear force. For
(4) concentric loading, VEd,red is calculated as
αs ⋅ d
=  ------------
- + 2 f c′ psi
 b0  V Ed, red = V Ed – ∆V Ed (12)

v c = 0.332 f c′ MPa = 4 f c′ psi
where αs is a parameter taken as 40 for interior, 30 for edge,
and 20 for corner columns; βc is the ratio of long side to short
side of concentrated load or reaction area; and b0 is the
perimeter of critical section in Fig. 1. For the design purpose,
the isolated footing may be assumed to be rigid, resulting in
a uniform soil pressure for concentric loading. A reduction
of the shear force by the effective soil pressure within the
control parameter is allowed.
If vu > Φ ⋅ vc , shear reinforcement has to be used. For slabs
with shear reinforcement two critical sections are to be
checked: d/2 from the column face and d/2 from the outer
shear reinforcement (Fig. 2(a)). The punching shear resistance
inside the shear reinforced zone is calculated as
VEd is the column load and ∆VEd is the net upward force
(5)
within the control perimeter considered, that is, the resultant
upward uniform pressure from soil minus self-weight of footing.
The punching resistance should be verified at control
perimeters within 2.0d from the periphery of the column
(Fig. 1). The lowest value of resistance at the different
sections controls the design. The punching shear stress
resistance of the concrete is calculated as
1
---
3 2d 2d
v Rd, c = C Rd, c k ( 100ρ ⋅ f ck ) ⋅ ------ ≥ v min ⋅ ------ (13)
a a

vn = vcs + vs ≤ vmax (6)

where vcs is the shear stress resisted by the concrete inside the
shear reinforced zone, vs is the shear stress resisted by the shear
reinforcement, and vmax is the maximum allowed shear stress.
The nominal shear strength provided by concrete vcs inside
the shear reinforced zone is reduced to half the value given
by Eq. (5)

v cs = 0.167 f c′ MPa = 2 f c′ psi (7)

The nominal shear strength provided by shear reinforcement

vs is calculated as

Av ⋅ fy
v s = -------------
- (8)
b0 ⋅ s

where Av is the area of shear reinforcement in one row around Fig. 2—Critical shear sections outside shear reinforced
the column, s is the spacing of the shear reinforcement, fy is the zone according to ACI 318-02 and Eurocode 2.

ACI Structural Journal/July-August 2006 605

where
CRd,c = 0.18/γc; with γc being the material resistance factor
for concrete (1.5);
k = size factor = 1 + 200 ⁄ d ≥ 2.0 (d in mm);
ρ = flexural reinforcement ratio;
fck = characteristic cylinder compressive concrete strength;
d = effective depth;
a = distance from periphery of column to control
perimeter considered; and
1/2
vmin = 0.035 ⋅ k2/3 ⋅ fck minimum shear capacity of concrete.
If vEd > vRd,c shear reinforcement will be required. The design
of the shear reinforcement is based on the following expression
d
v Rd, cs = 0.75 ⋅ v Rd, c + 1.5 ⋅ ---- ⋅ A sw ⋅ f ywd, ef ⋅
sr
1
------------ ⋅ sin α
u1 ⋅ d
where Asw is the area of the shear reinforcement along one
perimeter around the column, sr is the radial spacing of
perimeters of shear reinforcement, u1 is the full control
perimeter at a distance 2.0d from the column face (Fig. 2(b)),
fywd,ef is the effective design strength of the punching shear
reinforcement, according to fywd,ef = 250 + 0.25 d ≤ fywd
(MPa), fwyd is the design yield strength of the shear rein-
forcement, and α is the angle between the shear reinforce-
ment and the plane of the slab.
The maximum punching shear resistance is limited to a
maximum of
vRd,max = 0.5 · v · fcd
where v = 0.6 · [1 – fck /250], with fck in MPa.
Fig. 3—Definition of notation used in data bank.
The control parameter at which shear reinforcement is not
required (Fig. 2(b)) is determined by
β ⋅ V Ed
u out = ------------------
- (16)
v Rd, c ⋅ d
The outermost perimeter of shear reinforcement should be
placed at a distance not greater than 1.5d within uout (Fig. 2(b)).
The punching shear reinforcement should be provided in at
least two rows and the spacing of the perimeters should not
exceed 0.75d. The distance between the column face and
the first row of shear reinforcement should not exceed
0.5d (Fig. 2(b)).
TESTS FROM LITERATURE
(14) Since the beginning of the 20th century, only a few
punching tests on footings have been performed. Because
the experimental study of a footing under realistic boundary
conditions is associated with considerable expenditure, most
researchers1-6 avoid using real soil in their experiments.
There are three types of test setups that have been used for
testing column-footing connections:
1. Most of the tests found in the literature support the
footing on a bed of steel (car) springs.1 The car springs are
to simulate the elastic behavior of soil;
2. Some footings were loaded with uniform surface load
on the bottom2-5 simulating a uniform soil stress distribution.
A battery of small hydraulic jacks applies the load. The
hydraulic jacks are connected in parallel so that the oil pressure
is equally distributed to the jacks; and
3. Some tests5,6 used a support line (circular or rectangular)
(15) equivalent to the effect of a uniform surface support of soil.
The main disadvantage of this kind of test setup is that it is
not possible to account for the redistribution of the soil pressure.
Table 1 summarizes the experimental investigations avail-
able in the literature of reinforced concrete footings without
shear reinforcement including the most important parame-
ters in chronological order. The definitions and general nota-
tions used in the data bank are given in Fig. 3. Figure 4 shows
the distribution of the tests with respect to the test parameters
effective depth d, reinforcement ratio ρl, concrete compres-
sive strength f ′c and shear span ratio a/d. The distribution of
the investigated effective depths of the footings is poor. Only
seven tests have a slab thickness within a practical range. The
reinforcement ratio shows a better scatter, but there are very few
tests with high reinforcement ratios. The distribution of the

Table 1—Summary of tests from literature

Geometry of footing Material
Type of
Author Year load/support No. Form Span, mm (in.) d, mm (in.) fc,cyl, MPa (psi) ρl, %
760 to 1080 172 to 246 32.8 to 40.8
Timm6 2003 Line 10 q (29.9 to 42.6) (6.8 to 9.7) (4756 to 5916) 1.18 to 1.25
850 to 960 273 to 278 15.0 to 41.4
Hallgren5 1998 Line/surface 14 q,c
(33.5 to 37.8) (10.8 to 11) (2175 to 6003)
0.25 to 0.67

1500 to 3000 320 to 800 20.0 to 31.4

Dieterle and Rostásy4 1987 Surface 13 q (59.1 to 118.2) (12.6 to 31.5) (2900 to 4553) 0.20 to 0.89

1500 to 1800 193 to 343 21.5 to 31.3

Kordina and Nölting3 1981 Surface 11 r (59.1 to 70.9) (7.6 to 13.5) (3118 to 4539) 0.44 to 1.04

1800 to 3000 700 to 740 20.6 to 25.9

Dieterle and Steinle2 1981 Surface 6 q (70.9 to 118.2) (27.6 to 29.2) (2987 to 3756) 0.14 to 1.21

610 to 3000 200 to 740 12.8 to 33.1

Richart1 1948 Springs 149 q,r (24 to 118.2) (7.9 to 29.2) (1856 to 4800) 0.13 to 1.77
Note: Year = year of publication; No. = number of tests; Form: q = quadratic, c = circular, r = rectangular; d = effective depth; fc,cyl = concrete cylinder strength; and ρl = flexural
reinforcement ratio.

606 ACI Structural Journal/July-August 2006

concrete strength shows a wide scatter. There are no tests shear reinforcement consisted of vertical bars with a diameter
with high-strength concrete, however. With respect to the a/d of 12 mm (0.47 in.) and a yield strength of 548 MPa (79.5 ksi)
ratio, the tests have a/d ratios greater than practical values. anchored at the top and bottom by welded anchor plates. The
From the previous discussion, it can be concluded that there is layout of the shear reinforcement is shown in Fig. 6.
a need for further experimental investigations especially for The footings DF4 and DF5 were more compact and were
footings with practical depths and a/d ratios. In addition, designed to investigate the effect of a small shear slenderness
tests with realistic boundary conditions are needed to λ = a/d on the punching behavior.
investigate the effect of interaction between footing and soil.
Material properties
EXPERIMENTAL PROGRAM Commercial ready mixed concrete with maximum coarse
Five reinforced concrete footings were tested under realistic aggregate size of 16 mm (0.63 in.) was used in all footings.
boundary conditions. The notations DF1, DF2, DF3, DF4, and Ordinary CEM III A 32.5 N portland cement and a water
DF5 will be used for the test specimens. The test parameters cement ratio of 0.50 were used resulting in a slump of
included the sand consistency, a/d ratio, and the shear reinforce- approximately 480 mm (18.9 in.). The concrete mixture was
ment. The following describes the five specimens. designed to produce a 28-day strength of 20 MPa (2.9 ksi). Test

Test specimens
The dimensions of the test specimens are chosen to model
1/2 to 1/3 scale of an ordinary footing and to fit in the
experimental sandbox. All footings were 900 x 900 mm
(35.4 x 35.4 in.) and were designed to fail in punching. The
dimensions and reinforcement details of a typical test
specimen are shown in Fig. 5. Full details of the tested
footings are given in Table 2. The reinforcement ratio ranged
between 0.62 and 1.03%. The square column stubs were cast
monolithically at the center of the slabs.
For tests DF1 and DF2, the sand consistency was varied.
Test DF1 has a sand compactness D of 0.339, whereas D = 0.851
for test DF2. This resulted in a system rigidity ks varying
between 0.497 for test DF1 and 0.258 for test DF2 (refer to
Table 2). The system rigidity ks is calculated as

E c ⋅ I footing
k s = -------------------------
- (8) Fig. 4—Histograms showing distribution of data of punching
3
Es ⋅ l ⋅ b tests on footings without shear reinforcement.

where Ec and Es are the modulus of elasticity of the concrete

and soil, respectively; Ifooting is the moment of inertia of the
cross section of the footing; l is the side length; and b is the
width of the footing. As an example, the system rigidity can
be calculated for Footing DF2 as

3 3
22,600 MPa ⋅ 0.9 m ⋅ 0.2 m
k s = ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
3 3
80.1 MPa ⋅ 0.9 m ⋅ 0.9 m ⋅ 12
 = 3277 ksi ⋅ 35.5 in. ⋅ 7.9 3 in. 3 
 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
- = 0.258
 11.62 ksi ⋅ 35.5 3 in. 3 ⋅ 35.5 in. ⋅ 12

Footing DF3 included heavy shear reinforcement and was

designed to examine the maximum punching capacity. The Fig. 5—Dimensions and reinforcement of footing DF1.

Table 2—Details of test specimens

Footing no. d, mm (in.) c, mm (in.) a/d fc,cyl, MPa (psi) fct,sp, MPa (psi) Ec, GPa (ksi) Bar size ρl (ρ ′l ), % D Es, MPa (ksi) ks
DF1 150 (5.9) 150 (5.9) 2.5 20.2 (2929) 1.63 (236.4) 24.0 (3480) 14 (0.6) 1.03 0.339 44.2 (6.41) 0.497
DF2 150 (5.9) 150 (5.9) 2.5 22.0 (3190) 1.76 (255.2) 22.6 (3277) 14 (0.6) 1.03 0.851 80.1 (11.62) 0.258
DF3* 150 (5.9) 150 (5.9) 2.5 30.7 (4451.5) 2.33 (337.9) 25.8 (3741) 14 (0.6) 1.03 0.870 125.8 (18.25) 0.188
DF4 250 (9.9) 150 (5.9) 1.5 24.5 (3552.5) 1.97 (285.7) 24.0 (3480) 14 (0.6) 0.62 0.930 127.5 (18.49) 0.581
DF5 250 (9.9) 175 (6.9) 1.45 17.6 (2552) 1.51 (219) 23.3 (3378.5) 12/16 (0.5/0.6) 0.73 0.821 96.1 (13.94) 0.707
Notes: fc,cyl = cylinder compression strength; fct,sp = splitting tensile strength; Ec = Young’s modulus of concrete; ρl (ρ l′) = flexural tensile (compressive) reinforcement ratio; D = compact-
ness of sand packing; Es = modulus of elasticity of soil; and ks = system rigidity.
*DF3 included shear reinforcement (A = 4070 mm2 [6.32 in.2]; s = 75 mm [3.0 in.]; and s = 112.5 mm [4.4 in.]).
sw 0

ACI Structural Journal/July-August 2006 607

Fig. 6—Layout of shear reinforcement of footing DF3.
(a)
(b)
Fig. 7—Test setup used: (a) photograph of setup; and (b)
schematic representation.
cylinders (150 x 300 mm [5.9 x 11.8 in.]), cubes (150 x
150 mm [5.9 x 5.9 in.]) in addition to prisms (700 x 150 x
100 mm [27.6 x 5.9 x 3.9 in.]) were cast from each mixture to
determine the concrete compression and tensile strengths as
well as Young’s modulus. Table 2 summarizes the properties
of the concretes used.
German steel BSt 500 (A), with the measured yield stress
fsy = 552 MPa (80.1 ksi) and the tensile strength fsu = 634 MPa
(92.0 ksi), was used for all reinforcement. The measured strength
values were based on tension tests on three reinforcement samples
that were taken from the same charge of reinforcement used in
the footings. The stress-strain curve obtained from a small
tension specimen of the steel reinforcement indicates that the
yield strain of a steel bar is approximately 2550 microstrains
608
Fig. 8—Arrangement of strain measurements.
for test DF5 and approximately 2750 microstrains for the
other tests.
Test setup and testing procedure
Figure 7 shows the experimental setup. The load is applied
by a hydraulic jack (maximum capacity 2000 kN (449.6 kips)
placed between a steel frame and the column stub. At the
first load steps, the load was applied in increments of
approximately 25 kN (5.6 kips). After the service load
Vservice was reached (refer to Table 3), the load was cycled
ten times between the service load and half of the service
load. After this, the load was increased in increments of
approximately 40 kN (9 kips) until the footing failed.
During testing, the vertical displacements at the slab
center and slab corners were measured using linear variable
differential transformer (LVDT) gauges. Measurements
were taken every 3 seconds either at five points (DF1 and
DF2) or at nine points (DF3-DF5). The steel strains were
monitored at 14 locations as shown in Fig. 8(a). The concrete
strains were recorded at 14 locations on the compression
faces of the concrete footings as shown in Fig. 8(b).
Furthermore, 17 pressure gauges were used to measure the
soil pressure distribution in test DF1, 20 gauges were used in
test DF2, and 21 gauges were used in the remaining tests.
EXPERIMENTAL RESULTS
Cracking and failure characteristic
All tests failed in punching of the footing. The failure
loads are listed in Table 3. The comparison with the flexural
capacities of the footings Vflex reveals the fact that the flexural
capacities were not reached, and hence confirm the fact that
ACI Structural Journal/July-August 2006
 Fig. 9—Failure patterns of test footings.

Table 3—Comparison of code predictions with

present test results
VTest /Vcode
Vservice,* VTest, kN
Footing kN (kips) (kips) ACI 318-02 ACI 318-02† EC2 VTest /Vflex
221 551
DF1 (49.7) (123.9) 1.82 1.54 0.87 0.40

DF2 221 530 1.69 1.42 0.81 0.38

(49.7) (119.2)
485
DF3 (109.0) 1197 1.59 1.34 1.64 0.83
(269.1)

DF4 635 1251 1.54 0.91 0.89 0.51

(142.8) (281.3) (a)
DF5 680 1130 1.49 0.84 0.77 0.47
(152.9) (254.1)
*
Vcode /2.1.
†
Soil pressure subtracted within distance of d (instead of d/2).

failure occurred by punching (refer to Table 3). Post-

punching behavior was monitored in some tests. After
failure, the load was released completely and then reapplied.
The loading reached approximately 70 to 80% of the ultimate
load. The crack patterns of the footings are shown in Fig. 9.
After the test, the specimens were sawed into two halves. In
all slabs, the failure surface consisted of a wide shear
crack, which formed the surface of a truncated cone. A
view of the resulting punching cone for Specimen DF1 is
presented in Fig. 10(a). The crack pattern in the sawcut for
test DF3 is shown in Fig. 10(b). The crack formation of the
sawcut of the shear-reinforced footing DF3 indicates that
the failure can be explained by a simple strut-and-tie model
shown in Fig. 10(b). Furthermore, the failure of the
compressive strut at the column stub section can be seen well.
The angle of the failure shear crack was approximately
45 degrees in all test specimens.
Load-deflection characteristics
The measured settlements at the corners of the footings
were nearly equal. Therefore, the net deflection at the center
can be calculated as the difference of the measured deflection
(b)
Fig. 10—Punching cone of: (a) test DF1; and (b) sawcut of
footing of test DF3.
at the center of the slab and the mean settlement at the
corners of the footings. The applied load versus the deflection
at the center of the slab for all test specimens is shown in
Fig. 11. A downward arrow in the figure indicates the
punching failure.
The gradient of all curves until failure is very steep.
Indicating that the footing maintained its rigidity until
failure, which is a typical phenomenon of punching failure.
The gradient curve of test DF1 scatters, because the settlements
were continuously increasing during testing due to the very
loose sand. If the scattering is neglected, the curves of test
DF1 and DF2 will look very similar. This is no surprise

ACI Structural Journal/July-August 2006 609

Fig. 11—Load-deflection curves for footing centers.

because the footings had the same geometry and reinforcement.

The load-deflection curves of the other tests look very similar,
too. The curve of the footing with shear reinforcement DF3
has the slightest slope, but DF3 has a height of only 200 mm
(7.9 in.) compared with 300 mm (11.8 in.) for footings DF4
and DF5. The higher steel reinforcement ratio of test spec-
imen DF5 results in an increased stiffness compared to
footing DF4.

Concrete strains
For all tested slabs, measurements were made to determine
the distribution of the concrete strain along a radius of the
slab. Due to the rotation-symmetric loading, the reinforcement is
under radial tensile stress. Therefore, in the compression
zone radial compression stresses can be expected as well.
The strain gauges of the slender footings DF1 and DF2
measured compressions strains (Fig. 12(a)), but the more
compact specimens DF4 and DF5 showed a different
behavior (Fig. 12(b)). In the radial direction, small tension
strains up to 300 microstrains were measured.
The strain distribution at the top of the slab is not a reliable
indicator for the real stress distribution in the compression
zone. The strain measurement inside the slab shows that
there is in fact radial compression stresses. The radial
compression stresses, however, are inclined. The inclined
compression strut expands inside the slab thickness from the
corner of the slab-column intersection toward the tension
zone. Dieterle2,4 tried to explain the absence of compression
strains at the top of the slab: The inclined compression struts
are loaded eccentrically. This is comparable with an
eccentrically loaded prism. On the opposite side of the
loading point, only small compression strains or even small
tension strains appear.
Steel strains
Measurements were made to determine the steel strain
distribution along a radius for all the tested slabs. Typical test
results of these measurements are shown in Fig. 13. The high
strains were confined within the region of the column stub.
The reinforcement of test DF1 and DF2 did not reach yield
at failure (Fig. 13(a)). For the footings DF3, DF4, and DF5,
the tension reinforcement yielded before punching took
place (Fig. 13(b)). Because of the high reinforcement levels,
the yielding only occurred at higher loads and was localized
within the width of the column stub.
Soil stress distribution
For all tested footings, measurements were made to determine
the soil pressure distribution. Fig. 14 shows the soil pressure
distribution close to failure for the conducted tests. Footing
Fig. 12—Typical concrete strain distribution in radial direction.
DF1 shows only a slight concentration of soil pressure under-
neath the column stub. In contrast, a definite concentration of
soil pressure beneath the column stub was measured in the
other tests (DF2-DF5).
Comparison of code predictions and
experimental results
Comparison with own tests—For the purpose of comparison
with the test results, all material and strength reduction
factors incorporated in the code equations are taken as unity.
The ultimate recorded test loads are compared in Table 3
with the values predicted by ACI 318-02 and Eurocode 2.
ACI 318-02 seems to be conservative in predicting the
punching loads. If the soil pressure within a distance of d
instead of d/2 is subtracted, ACI 318-02 would tend to be
conservative for footings having shear slenderness greater
than two. Tor compact bases (DF4 and DF5), however, this
would lead to the overestimation of the punching shear
resistance (refer to Table 3). Eurocode 2 overestimates the
punching shear capacity of the tested footings except for the
footing DF3 with shear reinforcement. The reason for this is
that the maximum punching shear resistance in Eurocode 2
is designed for a shear reinforcement consisting of stirrups.
The chosen shear reinforcement in test DF3 has an improved
anchorage behavior by welded anchor plates. For this reason,

610 ACI Structural Journal/July-August 2006


Fig. 13—Typical steel-strain distribution.
the maximum shear resistance in Eurocode 2 tends to be
conservative for this test.
Comparison with tests from the literature—The punching test
data bank without shear reinforcement contains 196 punching
tests of footings. The comparison between these tests and
selected codes is based on the ratio of the observed failure
load VTest and the punching resistance VCode at ultimate limit
state. This ratio is calculated for each test. The numerical calcu-
lation of the quotient is based on the following principles:
1. All material and strength reduction factors incorporated
in the code equations are taken as unity.
2. The code equations are solved with mean values of the
material strength. Characteristic values are not considered.
3. The concrete strength is considered as short time
strength. A reduction due to the time-dependent behavior of
concrete was not taken into account, as the loading time
period was not documented for most of the tests.
4. An upper limit for the size-effect is considered for an
effective depth less than 200 mm (7.88 in.) if this parameter
is required. Therefore, all codes that do not consider a size
effect law tend to be progressive.
ACI Structural Journal/July-August 2006
Fig. 14—Soil pressure distribution close to failure.
Table 4—Statistical parameters
ACI 318-02 ACI 318-02* ACI 318-02† EC 2
ζm 1.30 1.10 1.29 0.99
ζ5% 0.82 0.57 0.76 0.77
σ 0.29 0.32 0.32 0.14
v 0.22 0.29 0.25 0.14
*
Soil pressure subtracted within a distance of d (instead of d/2).
†
Shear slenderness a/d > 2.5 and soil pressure subtracted within a distance of d.
In addition to these rather engineering selection criteria,
some statistical evaluations had to be conducted to ensure
that the ratios VTest /VCode are comparable in a statistical
sense. Finally, the ratios VTest /VCode are plotted versus the
main punching parameters (d, ρl , fc, λ) to give some informa-
tion about the trend of the performance of the different codes.
The results of this evaluation are discussed in the following.
ACI 318-02
The ACI 318-02 code provisions are compared with the
test results in Fig. 15. The ACI does not account for the effect
of the thickness on the punching stress. As a consequence,
the provisions tend to be less conservative for effective
depths greater than 450 mm (17.7 in.), as shown in Fig. 15(a).
The ACI results as a function of the reinforcement ratio ρl
are plotted in Fig. 15(b). The high scatter in the data is
caused by the fact that the ACI provisions do not account for
the reinforcement ratio. This leads to the highest standard
deviation (σ = 0.29) and coefficient of variation (v = 0.22).
Therefore, it is recommended to consider the flexural rein-
forcement ratio in calculating the punching shear strength.
The concrete strength is well approximated by ACI 318-02
as shown in Fig. 15(c). ACI 318-02 specifies the shear strength
as a function of (fcm)n, with n = 1/2. This fits for normal
strength concrete. For higher concrete strengths, the factor
n = 1/2 leads to the overestimation of the shear strength for
high strength concrete and using n = 1/3 is more appropriate.9,10
The ACI predictions as a function of the shear slenderness
are shown in Fig. 15(d). The provisions tend to become less
conservative for a/d less than 2.0. There are only a few tests,
however, on footings concerning a shear slenderness of
practical interest (a/d ≤ 2.0). The present tests confirm
this tendency.
The statistical results of the comparison between tests and
codes are arranged in Table 4. Subtracting the soil pressure
611
 Fig. 15—Comparison between punching tests and punching shear capacity according to
ACI 318-02.

Fig. 16—Comparison between punching tests and punching shear capacity according to
Eurocode 2.

within a section located at a distance d from the column face
instead of the current provisions of an area within the critical
section (d/2 from the column face), results in a lower mean
value (1.10), 5% fractile (0.57), and a higher standard deviation.
It is remarkable, however, that if the shear slenderness a/d is
limited to 2.5, the statistical parameters of the modified and
unmodified equations will be nearly equal (Table 4).
Regarding this evaluation of the data bank, it is considered to
be acceptable to subtract the soil pressure within a distance
of d (instead of d/2) from the periphery of the column for
footings. Until further research will be done, this is only
recommended for footings with shear slenderness greater
than 2.5 and without shear reinforcement.
Eurocode 2
Eurocode 2 underestimates the effect of the effective depth
d as shown in Fig. 16(a). The code correctly reflects the
influence of the flexural reinforcement ratio and the concrete

612 ACI Structural Journal/July-August 2006

compressive strength as shown in Fig. 16(b) and (c). The
effect of the shear slenderness (Fig. 16 (d)) is comparable to
the ACI Code. With respect to the statistical evaluation, from
Table 4 it can be concluded that Eurocode 2 results in a better
mean value for the ratios VTest /Vcode if compared with the
ACI Code. The demanded 5% design value of 1.0, however,
is not reached.11 Eurocode 2 also shows less scattering of the
ratio ζ. This leads to a smaller standard deviation and coefficient
of variation (σ = 0.14, v = 0.14).
CONCLUSIONS
Based on the results of the experimental investigation
on footings supported on sand in addition to the assessment
of tests from the literature, the following conclusions can
be drawn:
1. The observed angle of the failure cone was approximately
45 degrees in all test specimens. This failure angle seems to
be steeper than for flat slabs;
2. The consistency of the sand (loose or dense) has no
further influence on the soil pressure distribution underneath
the footing. A concentration of soil pressure in the center of
the footing was measured in all conducted tests. However,
the assumption of uniformly distributed soil pressure
beneath the footings according to the building codes ensures
a safe design;
3. The present experimental investigation and a test data bank
comprising punching tests on footings from literature indicate
that the punching loads predicted by ACI 318-02 for reinforced
concrete footings tend to be conservative for slender footings.
Nevertheless, ACI 318-02 tends to overestimate the punching
resistance for compact footings with smaller shear slenderness;
4. For footings without shear reinforcement and a shear
slenderness greater than 2.5, it is proposed to subtract the soil
pressure within a perimeter of d from the column face in
context with the ACI punching provisions; and
5. The European Code tends to be less conservative than
ACI 318-02. As in the ACI Code, the influence of the shear
slenderness is underestimated.
ACI Structural Journal/July-August 2006
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The authors gratefully acknowledge the funding provided by the Industrial
Research Association (Arbeitsgemeinschaft Industrieller Forschungsgemein-
schaften), and the German Concrete and Construction-Technology Association
(Deutscher Beton- und Bautechnik Verein e.V.). The tests were conducted
in cooperation with the Institute of Geotechnical Engineering, Technical
University of Aachen, Aachen, Germany. Special thanks are due to M. Ziegler,
Head of the Geotechnical Institute and B. Ulke, Research Engineer at the
Geotechnical Institute for the effective cooperation and their valuable
encouragement. This article was written during a research visit of A. Sherif
to the Technical University of Aachen, financed by the Alexander von
Humboldt Foundation. The support of the Alexander von Humboldt Foun-
dation is deeply appreciated.
REFERENCES
1. Richart, F. E., “Reinforced Concrete Wall and Column Footings,” ACI
JOURNAL, Proceedings V. 45, Part 1, No. 2, Oct. 1948, pp. 97-127; Part 2,
No. 3, Nov. 1948, pp. 237-260.
2. Dieterle, H., and Steinle, A., “Blockfundamente für Stahlbetonfertig-
stützen,” Deutscher Ausschuss für Stahlbeton, Heft 326, Berlin, 1981, 49 pp.
3. Kordina, K., and Nölting, D., “Tragverhalten von ausmittig beanspruchten
Einzelfundamenten aus Stahlbeton,” Technical Report, DFG-research Ko
204/27+30, Braunschweig, Germany, 1981, 155 pp.
4. Dieterle, H., and Rostásy, F., “Tragverhalten quadratischer Einzelfun-
damente aus Stahlbeton,” Deutscher Ausschuss für Stahlbeton, Heft 387,
Berlin, Germany, 1987, 134 pp.
5. Hallgren, M., “Non-Linear Finite Element Analyses of Column Footings
Loaded to Punching Shear Failure,” Proceedings of the International Workshop
on Punching Shear Capacity of RC Slabs, Stockholm, 2000, pp. 75-82.
6. Timm, M., “Durchstanzen von Bodenplatten unter rotationssymme-
trischer Belastung,” PhD thesis, Institut für Baustoffe, Massivbau und
Brandschutz, Technical University of Brunswick, Brunswick, Germany,
2003, 159 pp.
7. ACI Committee 318, “Building Code Requirements for Structural
Concrete (ACI 318-02) and Commentary (318R-02),” American Concrete
Institute, Farmington Hills, Mich., 2002, 443 pp.
8. European Committee for Standardization, “Eurocode 2: Design of
Concrete Structures, Part 1.1: General Rules and Rules for Buildings,” final
draft, Brussels, Apr. 2002, 226 pp.
9. Marzouk, H., and Hussein, A., “Experimental Investigation on the
Behavior of High-Strength Concrete Slabs,” ACI Structural Journal, V. 88,
No. 6, Nov.-Dec. 1991, pp. 701-713.
10. Sherif, A. G., and Dilger, W., “Critical Review of the CSA A23.3-94,
Punching Shear Provisions for Interior Columns,” Canadian Journal of
Civil Engineering, V. 23, No. 5, 1996, pp. 998-1011.
11. European Committee for Standardization, “Eurocode Basis of Structural
Design,” final draft, Brussels, July 2001, 89 pp.
613
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.