Manuscript Details

Manuscript number ENGSTRUCT_2016_831

Title Simplified model for compressive response of RC column footing with square
cross-section

Abstract
In this paper a simplified calculus model for the prediction of the compressive response of RC column footing with
square cross-section is presented. As it is well known RC concrete footing are generally designed adopting uniform
contact pressures on substrate and assuming a strut and tie model in deep members and a cantilever beam or slab
model in flexible members. Deep and flexible members are distinguished in literature only based on the tangent of the
angle expressed as the ratio between the depth and the shear span of the footing. If the angle is higher than 45° the
strut and tie model is adopted; while, if the angle is lower than 45° the beam or the slab models are adopted. In this
paper several subgrade contact pressures distribution for column footings (rigid or soft soils) were considered in
developing a mechanical model able to derive the complete load displacement curves of RC deep and flexible footing
in compression. Aim of the paper is the choice of the best model (strut and tie or cantilever beam model) to predict the
compressive response of single column footing. Numerical results and available experimental results were utilised to
verify the model. Effects of main parameters such as geometry (depth, width) and shape of footing (single or shaped),
mechanical ratio of longitudinal steel and type of soil are investigated both numerically and analytically. The
comparison between analytical and numerical results allows one to validate the proposed model and to define the
range of application of the strut and tie or beam model depending on the footing geometry, mechanical ratio of
longitudinal reinforcements and type of soil.

Submission Files Included in this PDF

File Name [File Type]
Written discussion.doc [Response to Reviewers]

II revsion may 16 Campione Cannella Cucchiara.doc [Manuscript File]

highlingth.doc [Highlights]

To view all the submission files, including those not included in the PDF, click on the manuscript title on your EVISE
Homepage, then click 'Download zip file'.
 Ref: ENGSTRUCT_2016_831_R1

Title: Simplified model for compressive response of RC column footing with square cross-
section
Journal: Engineering Structures

Thank you to the editor and to the reviewers for the time and the effort spent in review the paper.

All suggestions corrections were made and are in yellow during the text.

Comments from the editors and reviewers:

-Reviewer 1

The article was essentially improved as many errors were eliminated. Some important references
are added too.

1. A comparative analysis of the results obtained using model for the calculation of flexible
foundation was carried out, with some experimental results. However, it is not clearly
indicated which method of calculation was used in terms of characteristics of the ground
(rigid, flexible, and this soil-Winkler).

It was better specified that Strut and tie and cantilever beam model with punching shear
were here considered. In the strut and tie model concrete crushing of compressed struts
and yielding of steel bars are considered; while in the cantilever or the slab models for
flexible footing the shear failure due to punching failure is also considered with flexural
failure.

2. The results were compared with the calculation of punching according to EN 1992 (EC2)
and ACI 318. Figure 11 has been added to this comparative analysis. The results of the
model with shear deviate significantly from the calculated results of the proposed model,
and it should be reviewed, and eventually modified the image 11.

All corrections and suggestions were added and in particular Fig. 11 was redrawn and a
new section referred to punching shear failure was added and examined.

3. It is shown that tie and strut model suits the samples, although they belong to the flexible
foundations, so the mathematical model can be also applied to flexible foundations.

In was one of mission corrected.

 4. In accordance with the results and their comparative analysis it should be added the
discussion of the results, and the conclusions should be in accordance with these
discussion.

It was made

After correction of numbered suggestions, the article can be accepted for publication.

-Reviewer 3
- I recommend the paper with corrections given in uploaded file.

I recommend the paper with following corrections:

1. First of all, proof reading of English still is needed.

2. Page 4, equation (2):
For column footing, the minimum percentage of reinforcement, according to Eurocode
2 [9], is equal to:

….and ka between 0.5 and 1.

It should be changed with:

For column footing, the minimum percentage of reinforcement for crack control,
according to Eurocode 2 [9], is equal to:

….and k between 0.5 and 1.

3. Page 9, after equation (25):

While for flexible (soft) soils (type b of Fig. 4b) the moment is equal to….

4. Page 9, after equation (29):

At cracking, by posing Eq. (28) (28-a)equal to Eq. (24), it results…..

5. Page 11, after equation (36):

…. direction, Ef (Es) the modulus of elasticity and …..

6. Page 12, after equation (43):

J being the moment of inertia of the cross-section expressed as if before cracking or

as:
if at yielding.
7. Page 13, after equation (44):
With q1,q2 the reactions soil (soil reactions) for rigid, flexible and Winkler soil,….

8. Page 27, text after Fig. 4:

Fig. 4 - Simplified soil-foundation pressure distributions for rigid column footing on:
a) rigid soil; b) flexible (soft) soil; c) Winkler’s model of soil.

9. Page 29, Fig. 6:

Make corrections in the Fig.6: y should be dimensioned from the face of the column

10. Page 34, Fig. 11 and accompanying text in the manuscript

All these corrections were made during the text.

Comparison of the proposed beam (slab) model for calculation of flexible foundations is
done with results of Siburg and Hegger [18], and Simões et al. [19], which is correct
regarding that all examined foundations belong to flexible foundations (angle towards
horizontal is lower than 45°). However, comparison of the examined foundations from
literature is done also with expressions for rigid foundations, for whose calculation the strut
and tie model is proposed (angle towards horizontal is higher than 45°), which is not in
agreement with the proposed classification, because all examined foundations were flexible.
Examined foundations are also compared with calculation by EC2 and ACI. All comparisons
are given in Fig. 11.

Obtained results, according to Fig. 11, show that for the examined foundations the best
fitting calculation is the calculation according to the proposed strut and tie model (although
the foundations are flexible), than by EC2 and ACI standard, while the calculation according
to the beam (slab) model is very unsafe. This shows that the proposed procedure for
calculation of flexible foundations does not express good agreement with experimental
results, which is the consequence of the fact that experimental foundations are fractured due
to punching, and not bending. For the experimental foundations, good results are obtained by
the calculation procedure proposed for rigid foundations. Considering that for the calculation
of flexible foundations, besides the calculation of punching, the calculation according to
maximal moments is needed, in Fig. 11. the calculation of flexible foundations according to
maximal moments calculated by EC2 and ACI standard should be added.
Thus the proposed procedure will be compared with EC2 and ACI standards.

All corrections and suggestions were added and in particular Fig. 11 was redrawn and a
new section referred to punching shear failure was added and examined.

I suggest that the diagram in Fig. 11 be modified such that the ordinate contents the
ratio Pu, calc / Pu,exp, while the abscissa may remain with the failure force measured in
 experiments (Pu,exp). In that way, the safety factor (Pu, calc / Pu,exp) for the proposed calculation
procedures can be better observed.

It was made

According to the obtained results the manuscript text and the conclusions should be
revised.

11. Page 42, Fig. 19:

The ordinal of the quoted literature in the Fig. 19 should be altered. It was [19], now it should
be [20].
1

Simplified model for compressive response of RC column footing

with square cross-section

Campione G., Cannella F., Cucchiara C.
DICAM University of Palermo. Viale delle Scienze. 90128 Palermo. Italy.
Email: giuseppe.campione@unipa.it

Summary

In this paper, a simplified calculus model for the prediction of the compressive response of RC
column footing with a square cross-section is presented. As it is well-known RC concrete footing
are designed adopting uniform contact pressures on the substrate and assuming a strut and tie model
in deep members and a cantilever beam or slab model in flexible members. Deep and flexible
members are distinguished in literature only based on the tangent of the angle expressed as the ratio
between the depth and the shear span of the footing.

In this paper, several subgrade contact pressures distribution for column footings (rigid or soft
soils) were considered in developing a mechanical model able to derive the complete load
displacement curves of RC deep and flexible footing in compression. The objective of the research
was the more appropriate choice of the calculus model to predict the compressive response of single
column footing. In particular, if the angle, expressed as the ratio between the depth and the shear
span of the footing, is higher than 45° the strut and tie model was suggested for best prediction,
while, if the angle is lower than 45°, the beam or the slab models with punching shear were
adopted. For both cases simplified loading soil profiles corresponding to rigid, flexible or winker
model were adopted. Effects of main parameters such as geometry (depth, width) and shape of
footing (single or shaped), the mechanical ratio of longitudinal reinforcement and type of soil are
investigated both numerically and analytically. Numerical results and available experimental results
were utilised to verify the model. The comparison between analytical and numerical results allows
one to validate the proposed model and to define the range of application of the strut and tie or
beam model depending on the footing geometry, the mechanical ratio of longitudinal reinforcement
and type of soil. Finally, the comparison between analytical and experimental results available in
the literature gives a further confirmation on the reliability of the proposed model.

Keywords: Footing; strut and tie model; beam model; elastic soil; Winkler model.
2

1. INTRODUCTION

Foundation connects the structure with the subgrade. Characteristics of subgrade are very different

from those of structure, especially in term of deformability; in their calculation have not been

considered both in the literature and neither in the technical regulations. The study of soil-structure

interaction is essential to determine the soil-foundation pressures necessary for the design of the

foundation in respect of the limit state and to evaluate the settlements of the foundation. Evaluation

of stresses and relative design of foundation needs the determination of subgrade contact pressures,

and its distribution depends on its deformations and reactions transferred from the building. From

the geotechnical point of view, these aspects are clear, and it is clear that the determination of

pressures of the ground floor is a very complex problem concerning soil, foundation and building

with different behaviours, as discussed in Albert [1]. It depends on: - type of soil; - the intensity of

stresses transferred from the foundation; - nonlinear characteristics of the stress-strain curve of soil;

- short and long term phenomena due to concrete and soil (cracking, creep, consolidation);

foundation geometry.

Among the direct foundations is recurring the use of column footing especially in the case of

structural elements such as reinforced concrete columns and soils having high carrying capacity: in

this case, it is possible to have supports in a limited area. In the design of column footings, besides

geotechnical aspects, assumes an important role the limit state of concrete members, with a control

of allowable settlements (Viggiani [2], Toniolo [3] and Migliacci and Mola [4]).

From a structural point of view, the simplified calculation is adopted in the design of foundations,

which are considered as rigid, with a linear pressures distribution on subgrade. In the case of single

column footing, it is necessary to distinguish between deep and flexible member. As posed in the

literature, strut and tie model is generally adopted for deep elements, while cantilever beam model

is generally adopted for the flexible members. Column footing can be considered deep when,

referring to Fig.1,  > 45°, whereas can be considered flexible when  < 45°. In both cases,
3

important phenomenon determining columns footing failure is the punching shear failure.

Considerable significance is given to the control of column punching through floor slab with or

without shear reinforcement especially based on experimental research. Therefore, due to the small

number of experiments, this analysis is often based on theoretical and empirical equations. Some

interesting models, such as that of Simões et al. [5], have been developed.

Elastic analyses of soil-structure interaction as those of Terzaghi [6] and Heteny [7], based on

continuum models have shown that for deep footing the shape of contact pressures is that of Fig. 2

a) or Fig. 2 b) for rigid or soft soils, respectively; otherwise if footing is flexible, the shape of

contact pressures are those of Fig. 2 c) or Fig. 2 d) for rigid or soft soils, respectively. So contact

P
pressures distribution on the substrate could be different from the constant value p m  , that is
B2

usually used.

If the footing is deep and the soil is rigid the expression of contact pressures in the elastic range

given by Boussinesq [6] is:

4 P dxdy
2 
p ( x, y )   (1)
 B   x 2    y 2 
1      1    
  B / 2     B / 2  

From Eq. (1), it results that if x=y=B/2, pressures tend to infinitive and have a minimum value in

the middle (x=y=0). Therefore, Eq. (1) can reproduce the variation of contact pressures shown in

Fig. 2 a).

It has to be stressed that in deep compressed footing the upper part of the foundation is low stressed.

For this reason, the best shape to adopt should be the shaped. By contrast, the prismatic shape is the

most utilised because it is easier to realize and therefore cheaper.

4

According to the theory of Prandtl–Buisman [8], for a rigid foundation in soft soil, the effective

stress distribution is convex (Fig. 3), and the soil reaction underneath the punching cone is greater

than for a uniform one.

Studies present in the literature (Viggiani [2], Toniolo [3] and Migliacci and Mola [4]) show that

distribution of contact pressures indicated in Fig. 2 can be idealized as in Fig. 4 a) for rigid soil or

Fig. 4 b) per soft soil. Reference values, for the definition of loading profiles, are those indicated in

Fig. 4. They are defined through the maximum and the minimum values correlated to the medium

value pm. Near failure conditions of footing, the hypothesis of uniform contact pressure (Winkler

model) is acceptable for safety conditions and the distribution of pressures that can be adopted is

that of Fig. 4 c).

Finally, when column footing failure occurs with soil in the elastic range, the better shape of contact

pressures is that of Fig. 4 a) and b), depending on the type of soil (rigid or soft); otherwise, the best

contact pressures distribution is that of Fig. 4 c). In this case, bending moments are higher than

those obtained with contact pressures distribution shown in Fig. 3.

2. PROPOSAL OF SIMPLIFIED MODEL OF CALCULUS

Despite the complexity of the problem and with the aim of utilizing simplified models for the

preliminary design of column footing the contact pressures distribution are assumed linear or

uniform as shown in Fig. 4.

Strut and tie and cantilever beam model with punching shear were here considered. In the strut and

tie model concrete crushing of compressed struts and yielding of steel bars are considered; while in

the cantilever or the slab models for flexible footing the shear failure due to punching failure is also

considered with flexural failure.

5

As shown below for 45° beam model with punching shear is more suitalbe, while for  >45° and

strut and tie model is more suitable.

Based on the previously mentioned models the arrangement of longitudinal steel reinforcement is

that of Fig. 5 a) for deep footings and that of Fig. 5 b) for flexible footing with specific punching or

shear reinforcement if it is necessary.

For column footing, the minimum percentage of reinforcement of crack control according to

Eurocode 2 [9], is equal to:

k c  k  Act  f ct ,eff
As min  (2)
s

Where Act is the concrete area in the tensile zone, kc=0.4 for simple bending and 1 for pure traction,

fct.eff the tensile strength of concrete in the presence of cracking (suggested value for Eurocode 2 [9]

is equal to 3 MPa), s< 0.9 fyk and ka between 0.5 and 1. It has to be stressed that this value is

referred, according to the Eurocode 2 [9], to the Serviceability Limit State, the case here not

examined.

If, in Eq. (2), it is assumed fy=fyk, fct,eff=0.1 fc, (with fc the compressive strength of concrete), kc=0.4

Af fy
and k=0.5, the mechanical ratio of reinforcement results     0.022 .
BH fc

Where Af is the area of longitudinal reinforcement equal in x and y direction, fy the yielding

strength of steel, fc the compressive strength of concrete. According to Eurocode 2 [9],

reinforcements equal in x and y direction, are placed on the bottom of the column footing with

adequate cover and bent on the upper side with length calculated as the maximum between 200 mm,

10 times the diameter of the reinforcement and 1/3 of the footing side according to Eurocode 2 [9].
6

2.1 Strength model for deep footing

The calculus model here adopted is the strut and tie model shown in Fig. 6. This model is

constituted by two single trusses each loaded by P/2. Each truss is constituted by two struts and one

tie member, the latter constituted by longitudinal reinforcements.

The force T in the tie and the force C in the strut are related to the external load P as follows:

P P
 T  tan   C  sin  (3)
4 4

 moreover, z being defined as:

z
tan   (4)
y

z  0.9  H    (5)

 is the cover thickness and y is the distance of P/4 from the face of the column.

If the column footing is prismatic and the contact pressures are supposed uniform y=B/4; while for

rigid or soft soil it results y= 1.22 B/4 and y = 0.77 B/4. Analogously, for shaped column footing it

results y= B/3, a y= 1.62 B/3 and y= 1.02 B/3, respectively, for Winker, rigid and soft soil.

In the case of deep footings, to take into account the nonlinear strain distribution within the cross

section, lower values of z has to be assumed. According to Leonhardt [11], its value depends on the

ratio a/d, where a is the shear span and d the effective depth of the beam.

The tensile force in the tie when concrete cracks in tension is calculated as:

f ct
Tc  0.2  f ct  B  H  A f  E s  (6)
E ct
7

fct being the tensile strength of concrete, Ect the modulus of elasticity in tension and Es the modulus

of elasticity of steel bar.

The value 0.2 H in Eq. (6) defines the depth of tensile zone of concrete around steel members. The

value assumed is in agreement with values suggested in Leonhardt [11] and with results of

numerical analyses carried out below.

Substituting Eq. (6) in Eq. (3) it results:

 f 
Pu ,c  4  0.2  f ct  B  H  A f  E s  ct   tan  (7)
 E ct 

The tensile force at yielding of reinforcement is equal to:

Ty  A f  f y (8)

Eq. (8) substituted in Eq. (3) gives:

Pu , y  4  A f  f y  tan  (9)

From equilibrium of internal forces (see Fig. 6), it is possible to derive force Ccc on strut that, at

cracking, assumes the value:

 f  1
C cc  0.2  f ct  B  H  A f  E s  ct   (10)
 E ct  cos 

At tie yielding from Eq. (3) it results:

Af  f y
C cy  (11)
cos 

Finally, at concrete crushing the force on strut is:

C cu    b 2  f c (12)
8

Where b is the depth of column assumed equal to the depth of the strut, ξ is softening coefficient

that takes into account of the biaxial state of stresses (tensile-compression) on concrete struts. The

softening coefficient was here calculated through the expression proposed by Campione [12] in the

form:

1
 2
(13)
a
1  0.66   
z

Eq. (13) agrees with expression given in AASHTO [13]. Fig 7 shows the variation of the softening

coefficient calculated with Eq. (13) and with that given in AASHTO [13] expression with the

variation of a

Substituting Eq. (12) into Eq. (3) it results:

Pu ,c  4    b 2  f c  sin  (14)

Eq. (14) is valid for B>3b. For B<3b it is necessary to introduce in Eq. (14) a corrective coefficient

B
 that considers the limit case b=B for which it must results Pu ,c  b 2  f c .
4b

If Eq. (9) and Eq. (14) are solved with respect to P it results:

0.9  H   
Pu , y  16  A f  f y  (15)
Bb

1
Pu ,c  4   b 2  f c  sin  (16)
Bb
1  0.37 
H 

Similar expressions to Eq. (15) and Eq. (16) are given in the literature (Viggiani [2], Toniolo [3]

and Migliacci and Mola [4]) in the form:

H 
Pu , y  16  A f  f y  Viggiani [2] (17)
Bb
9

 
 H   1
Pu , y  4  Af  f y    Toniolo [3] (18)
 B  b  0.2  H     1  b
 4  B

1 1
Pu ,c  4  0.4  H     b  f c  2
 2
Toniolo [3] (19)
  b
  1  
H  B
 
 B  b  0.2  H    
 4 

0.875  H   
Pu , y  16  A f  f y  Migliacci and Mola [4] (20)
Bb

0.4  H    2 0.50  H   
Pu ,c  16   b  fc  Migliacci and Mola [4] (21)
Bb b

Comparison among expressions given by Eqn. (15, 17, 18, 20) gives results that differs for 

between 45° and 60° in the range of 10%. Comparison among expressions given in Eqn. (16, 19,

21) gives results that differs for  between 45° and 60° in the range of 20%.

If a premature failure due to concrete cracking in tension or due to concrete crushing in

compression has to be avoided, it is necessary to limit mechanical ratio of reinforcement to a

minimum and a maximum value. These values are obtained placing Eq. (7) equal to Eq. (9)

moreover, placing Eq. (9) equal to Eq. (15) resulting:

f ct 1
 min  0.2   (22)
fc 
1  ct
y

 b2 
 max       cos  (23)
 BH 

In Fig. 8 is showed the variation of the minimum and the maximum mechanical ratio of

reinforcement, with variation of θ for Winkler, rigid or flexible soil modelled assuming y=1.22 B/4
10

f ct
and y=0.72 B/4 respectively. In the application of Eq. (22) it was assumed that  0.1 and it was
fc

 ct
supposed that was negligible.
y

From graphs of Fig. (8) it can be observed that the minimum mechanical ratio is equal to 0.02

which is very close to the value suggested in Eurocode 2 [9] equal to 0.022. Maximum value

changes with the soil type and with the θ.

When <  max the ultimate load of deep footing is given by Eq. (15)

2.2 Strength model for flexible column footing

For flexible column footing having a square base, it was used a cantilever beam model derived

decomposing the footing in four independent cantilever beams subjected to uniform pressures, as

showed in Fig. 9.

In the case of uniform contact pressures, the maximum bending moment in the fixed section is

equal to:

M max 
P
24  B 2

 B 2  2 B  3b   b 3  (24)

In the case of rigid soil (type a) of Fig. 4) the moment is equal to:

M max 
P
56  B 3
 
 B 3  5 B  7b   b 3  B  b  (25)

While for soft soils, (type b of Fig. 4b) the moment is equal to:

M max 
P
40  B 3

 B 3  3B  5b   b 3  3B  b   (26)

The maximum shear force, in the case of uniform pressures, is equal to:
11

P  B  b 
Vmax  (27)
2 B

The moment at cracking in the more stressed section (calculated not considering, for brevity sake,

the contribution of steel reinforcement) is equal to:

H2
 
 Bb
M cr  B  f ct with B    For shaped footing (28-a)
6  2 

H2
M cr  B  f ct For prismatic footing (28-b)
6

The yielding moment in the most stressed section is equal to:

M rd  A f  f y  z (29)

At cracking, by posing Eq. (28-a) equal to Eq. (24), it results:


Puc 24  B 2 B H 2  f ct
 2  For shaped footing (30)
A f  f y  z B  2 B  3b   b 3 6  A f  f y  z

Moreover, at yielding, posing Eq. (29) equal to Eq. (24), it results:

Puy 24  B 2
 (31)
A f  f y  z B 2  (2  B  3b)  b 3

Studies present in literature (Viggiani [2], Toniolo [3] and Menditto [14]) give similar expressions

to Eq. (31):

Pu 24  B 2
 Viggiani [2] (32)
A f  f y  z B  b 2  (2  B  b)

Pu 8 B
 Toniolo [3] (33)
A f  f y  z B  b 2
12

Pu 1
 Menditto [14] (34)
A f  f y  z B b

12 8

Comparing results obtained with Eqn. (31, 32, 33, 34) it is possible to see that values obtained are

different at least 10%. In the case of beam model, limits of maximum and minimum reinforcements

are those given by Eurocode 2 [9] or ACI 318 [10] codes.

For slender footinh also punching shear failure have to be cheked.

In this case, the ultimate load can be predicted utilizing one of the expressions given in the literature

[9-10] for punching shear failure for two-way slabs. In these expressions, it was taken into account

that under punching shear failure the plate of area A is punched when a vertical fracture cross-

section is established along the entire perimeter of the penetration body that is formed near the

column. It occurs in the so-called critical or control section of the perimeter Okp. Slab punching of

the effective depth d occurs when the shear stress  in the critical cross-section reaches the shear

strength of the concrete. Therefore, punching calculation is reduced to checking the shear stress in

the critical section. Regulations for calculating ultimate shear stress at punching in the control

section greatly differ for the position and shape of the control section of area A0 and calculation of

the shear stress . In the case of punching shear taking into account the part of the soil reaction

beneath the punching body, the ultimate load Pu is in the form:

1
Pu , p    Okp  d  (35)
 Ao 
1  
 A

From Eq. (35) it emerges that the ultimate load increases with the following: - thickness of the slab;

- the concrete strength of concrete; - increases in the control perimeter.

Utilising Eq. (35) it is possible to obtain the ultimate load, that with expression of  and Okp given

by ACI 318 (2008) and Eurocode 2 (1992) [9-10] result:

13

 
 4  b  d   d 
 0.332  f c   
Pu , p

1 

B 2  b  d 
2
 
[9] (36)
 B2 

 
  200   A 
0.33
  4  b  d   d 
 0.18  1    100  f   f c 0.33    
Pu , p
  d   B  H  
 1  B  b  d 
2 2
 
[10] (37)
 B2 

For flexible foundation as stressed in Bonić and Folić [20], the pressure exerted on the entire

contact surface of the footing on the granular soil is not uniformd and a corrective factro has to be

introduced. This factor is defined as the ratio of the average pressure under the punching body to the

average pressure under the entire footing and in Bonić and Folić [20] and a constant value of 1.4

was suggested for soft soil.

For rigid foundations, in agreement with the soil pressure distribution assumed in Fig. 8, we have

Fc= 3/7 (0.428) and 9/5 (1.8) for rigid and flexible soil, respectively. While for elastic foundations

under elastic soil modelled with the Winkler model, it is possible to determine Fc analytically.

Hartog (1952) gives the expression for the centre deflection of an elastic beam subjected to a

concentrated load P:

P   W 2  cos W  B   cosh  W  B 
y center   (38)
2k sin  W  B   sinh  W  B 

6k
where k is the Winkler soil constant and  W  4 with Ec the elastic modulus of concrete
Ec  H 3

4200  f c
(e.g. in the cracked state according to [10].
2

If the beam is rigid and a Winkler model for the soil is assumed, we have:
14

2P
y center  (39)
k  B  B  b 

The Fc factor is obtained as the ratio between Eq. (38), and Eq. (39):

 W  B  B  d   2  cos W  B   cosh  W  B 
Fc    (40)
4  sin  W  B   sinh  W  B  

Introducing Eq. (40) into Eq. (37) it results:

 
1  d  4  b  d   0.33
 200   Af 
Pus     0.18  1    100    f c 0.33
Fc  
B 2  b  d 
2
  


d    BH 
(41)
1  B2 

The ultimate load for a slender footing is the minimum between Eq. (31) moreover, Eq. (41).

To validate the proposed model a comparison between experimental data, referred to real column

footings is shown in Fig. 11. Data of Siburg and Hegger [18] and Simões et al. [19] are used. All

speciemens were characterized by angle  lower than 50° for which punching shear was observed

experimentally. Geometry and mechanical characteristics of specimens tested are shown in Table 1.

In the graph of Fig. 11 data were predicted with strut and tie model, with [9-10], and beam model

with punching shear and including the flexibility of foundation with Fc assumed 0.9 for simulate

rigid soil. From the comparison it emerges that the strut and tie model is the unsafe model, while the

more accurate is the flexural model with punching shear. The flexural model without punching

shear is unsafe. Eurocode2 [9] gives safe prediction, while ACI 318 [10] is unsafe.

2.3 Load displacements response of RC column footings

If, in the strut and tie model, the equilibrium equations are utilized coupled with the

compatibility equation of the loaded joint and with the constitutive laws of strut and tie members it

is possible to derive the load-displacement (P-) curves of RC column footing. The load P is the
15

external load applied, while the displacement  is the vertical displacement of the loaded joint. The

compatibility equations relate the elongation of the tie member δs and with the shortening of strut

member δc according to:

c 
  s (42)
sin  tan 

If the Winkler soil model is adopted and the soil settlements have to be enclosed in the vertical

P 1
displacement, the effective displacement is obtained adding the term  to  with k being the
B2 k

Winkler coefficient, as described in Hetenyi [7]. It has to be stressed that the parameter δ represents

the shortening of footing without soil settlement. At this stage of the study, soil settlement is not

considered in the calculus of the displacement when refer to numerical simulation in which this

effect was not considered.

The elongation of the tie member at yielding of steel bars is:

Ty  a
sy  (43)
Es  A f

With Af the area of longitudinal reinforcement in x (or y) direction, Es the modulus of elasticity and

B B
a the shear span expressed as a  for prismatic column footing and as a  for shaped column
4 3

footing.

The shortening of the strut member at tie yielding is:

C  z2  a2
c  (44)
Ec  b 2

Substituting Eq. (36) and Eq. (37) into Eq. (35) it results:
16

 z2  a2 1 a 1 
 y  Af  f y      (45)
 4  E c  b sin  E s  A f tan  
2

And at strut crushing with tie to be yielded and in the hardening phase it results:

 Puc 
  fy 
a  f y 4  A f  tan   Puc  z  a
2 2
1
u       (46)
tan  E s Eh 4  E sec  b 2
sin 
 
 
 

With:

fc
Esec  (47)
2o

With 0 the peak strain of concrete (e.g. 0.002).

Eh    Es (48)

h being the hardening modulus of steel and  being the hardening coefficient of steel bars.

It has to be underlined that the ratio  between δu and δy can be assumed as a measure of ductility

factor of this elements.

While if at concrete crushing steel bars are in elastic phase, it results:

Puc  z2  a2 1 a 1 
 cu      2 
(49)
 4  E c  b sin  E s  A f tan   
2
4

The load- shortening curve of the column footing (P-δ) is constituted by three linear branches.

If a cantilever model is adopted the deflection of a single beam subjected to the distributed load q is:
17

4
 Bb
q  
 2 
 (50)
8  Ec  J

bH3
J being the moment of inertia of the cross-section expressed as J cr  before cracking or
12

1 bH3
Jy   at yielding.
3 12

If q is related to the trapezium external load it results:

4
B b
  
2 2   q 2 q1  q 2 
     (51)
2 E  J  4 15 

With q1,q2 the soil reactions for rigid, flexible and Winkler soil, that are equal to:

 q1  9 7  p m
 For rigid soil (52-a)
q 2  3 7  p m

 q1  9 5  p m
 For soft soil (52-b)
q 2  3 5  p m

q1  p m For Winkler soil (52-c)

With:

 P 
pm   2   B (53)
B 

The application of beam model gives three linear curves in which the first branch stops to cracking

load, the second one stops up to yielding load, and the third one (with strain-hardening effect) stops

to the ultimate displacement corresponding to the curvature in which steel failure in tension failure

occurs.
18

3. NUMERICAL ANALISYS AND COMPARISON WITH ANALYTICAL MODEL AND

EXPERIMENTAL RESULTS

To better understand the problem here presented, and to have a confirm of the proposed model

finite elements analyses were carried out through the software ATENA [17]. The soil is here

modelled with independent springs having stiffness proportional to the type of the considered soil

or as fixed supports to simulate the effect of rigid soil. Shaped and single column footings were

modelled through isoparametric finite elements having nine joints. The concrete material utilized

was the so-called “SBeta” [17]. It has assumed a constitutive tensile law for concrete having linear

behaviour before cracking. When maximum principal stress exceeds tensile strength, cracks

develop. In this case, it was utilized a “smeared crack model” where cracks were modelled reducing

principal tensile stress according to a constitutive law of tensile concrete. Instead of represent a

single crack, distributed cracks having direction normal to tensile principal stress direction are

represented. This hypothesis is quite realistic for concrete, where the formation of cracks is

preceded by a microcracking of material. It has supposed perfect bond between concrete and steel.

Compressive softening coefficient has been assumed 0.7. Steel is assumed with an elastoplastic

with strain- hardening behaviour.

For the numerical analyses, two types of column footings were considered. The first one is

constituted by shaped column footing having a square base of side 1000 mm, variable heights of

400, 500, 650, 1000 mm, with a reinforcing grid in x and y direction constituted by 8 bars of 14

diameter with yield strength fy=450 MPa. Concrete strength was assumed 45 MPa. Area of steel

Af
bars was adopted in the range of geometrical ratio of    0.00308, 0.00246, 0.00189,
bH

0.00123, respectively.

The second series of column footing was constituted by single prismatic members having square

base 800 mm. Reinforcement was constituted by 8 bars having 14 mm diameter in x and y
19

directions. Different heights of 800, 700, 600, 500, 400 mm were considered. Area of steel bars was

Af
adopted in the range of geometrical ratio of    0.0019, 0.0022, 0.00256, 0.00304, 0.0038,
bH

respectively.

For all column footing having side 1000 and 800 mm fixed supports at the base were considered.

For the footing having side 800 mm were also considered supports constituted by elastic springs

having stiffness that reproduces typical values of cohesive and non-cohesive soils. Particularly,

were examined sand and clay for which were assumed Winkler constant k for the considered base

equal to 118 N/cm3 and 12.5 N/cm3. Each column footing has been loaded through a growing

monotonic load on the upper part of the column until failure.

Fig. 12 shows shaped column footings analysed in numerical simulations. For each column footing

was derived the load-displacement curves.

Fig. 13 shows the variation of the maximum load corresponding to yielding of longitudinal steel

and failure of compressed concrete struts with the height of the footing obtained numerically and

analytically. From the comparison, it results in good agreement between numerical and analytical

results. It is possible to observe that, with increasing the height of column footing, the load

increases. Exceeding the height of 800 mm, corresponding to θ=60°, failure of strut happens after

yielding of steel reinforcement with brittle behaviour.

In Fig. 14 and in Fig. 15 are shown the curves for the column footing having base 800 mm. Fig. 14

gives failure load values with the variation of the height of the footing and Fig. 15 shows the

variation of the load with the variation of steel reinforcement. Good correspondence between

numerical and analytical values are obtained.

From Fig. 15 it is possible to observe that the variation of the peak load in the case of concrete

crushing, is lightly influenced by the variation of reinforcement area, whereas in the analytical
20

model it is not influenced. From the graph, it is possible to see that results obtained with strut and

tie model agree with numerical results and failure of deep beams (θ>60°) is due to strut crushing.

Fig. 16 shows the variation of failure load with variation of θ: a) for 3 different classes of strength

of concrete (Fig. 16 a); b) for different strength grades for steel (Fig. 16b); c) for rigid, flexible or

Winkler soils (Fig. 16 c). From the graphs, it is possible to see clearly the dependence of the failure

load from the investigated parameters.

To make a comparison between theoretical and numerical results in term of load-displacements

curves it was used the finite elements code ATENA. Fig. 17 shows load-displacement curves

deduced from the analytical model (beam model and strut and tie model) and with the numerical

model about single column footings having different heights. The comparison shows that, in the

considered field of investigation (θ between 45° and 60°), the strut and tie model better interprets

the numerical behaviour than the cantilever beam model. Yield load calculated with beam or strut

and tie models are much close to numerical values; strut failure happens after yielding of

reinforcement for the mechanical ratio of reinforcement higher than the value given by Eq. (24).

Strut and tie model overestimates in the range of 10% displacements obtained numerically, whereas

beam model produces results different from numerical ones.

For all cases examined, calculus of ductility factor was carried out. Results are presented in Table 2.

From data of Table 2, it is possible to see that values of ductility calculated using beam model are

comparable with those obtained from the numerical model. All values of ductility are close to one

showing the brittle behaviour of column footings.

A comparison between theoretical and experimental results was made with data of Vacev et al. [16]

and Bonic and Folic [20]. Column footing had a square base of side 850 mm, height 125 mm with a

cover 25 mm and θ=19°. The same reinforcement in x and y direction were adopted and constituted

by a grid in the lower part of the foundation of seven bars having 8 mm of diameter and yielding

stress equal to 570 MPa and stress failure 637 MPa. Concrete had a compressed strength of 25 MPa.
21

Experimental analyses were carried out: - arrange the foundation on the ground surface; - applying

a centred load through a hydraulic jack of 1000 kN; - controlling each second the vertical

displacement of the loaded section and in other characteristics point as, for example, the corner of

footing.

In Fig. 18 are showed the load-displacement experimental curves and those obtained theoretically

using beam and strut and tie analytical [20] models. From results, it is possible to see that the beam

model is in good agreement with the experimental results, both regarding stiffness and

displacements during the different phases. Strut and tie model is stiffer than numerical one and after

yielding of steel considers concrete crushing. In Fig. 18 are also given the ductility factors

calculated.

Another comparison is carried out with data of Hallegren and Bjerke [21], where some column

footing having side 960 mm and height 275 mm lied on the ground through fixed supports with a

distance of 268 mm from the axis of the specimen were tested in compression. The same

reinforcement in x and y direction were adopted and constituted by a grid in the lower zone of the

footing having a mechanical geometrical ratio 0.0042, and yielding stress of 621 MPa. Concrete has

a compressive strength of 24.7 and 34.1 MPa for specimens 1 and 2, respectively. Experimental

analyses are carried out: - arrange the footing on fixed supports and applying a centred load through

a hydraulic jack on the column having side 250 mm. In Fig. 19 are showed load-displacements

experimental curve and those obtained theoretically with beam, strut and tie models. From results, it

has to highlight that strut and tie model is in good agreement with experimental results in the first

branch of response up to punching shear failure observed experimentally and predicted theoretically

in Bonic and Folic [19]; - but not considered in the current model.
22

4. CONCLUSIONS

In the present paper, a simplified calculus model to determine the structural behaviour of reinforced

concrete column footings subjected to centred compression is presented. Two different models are

used: strut and tie model for deep footing and cantilever beam model for flexible column footings.

Different loading profiles are considered, corresponding to different soil types (rigid or soft soil).

The role of the different position of soil pressures resultant, both regarding load both regarding

displacement capacity of column footing are considered. Results obtained stressed that angle

towards horizontal lower than 45° then beam model with punching shear is more suitalbe, while for

angle>45° and strut and tie model is more suitable.

More in details results obtained for deep RC column footing showed that for the prediction of

ultimate load:

- the angle  expressed as the ratio between the depth and the shear span of the footing) to define

the range of using strut and tie model from the range of using beam model is an important

parameter but not the only one.

- strut and tie model accurately predicts the ultimate load of deep column footing with yielding of

steel bars and concrete crushing of compressed struts;

- strut and tie model allows one to define the minimum and maximum mechanical ratios depending

on the geometry of the footing, on the material’s characteristics and the type of soil corresponding

to the simultaneous occurrence of concrete cracking in tension and yielding of steel bars or yielding

of steel bars and concrete crushing;

- beam model including flexural and punching shear failure mode predicts the ultimate load of

flexible foundation;
23

- for mechanical ratio lower than the maximum mechanical ratio, a combined flexural-shear

mechanism governs the column footing behaviour, and yielding of steel bars occurs before concrete

crushing;

- for mechanical ratio higher than the maximum mechanical ratio, brittle failure governs the column

footing behaviour with concrete crushing of compressed struts and steel bars in elastic range;

- the maximum mechanical ratios decrease with the increasing of the height of column footing and

with the flexibility of the soil foundation.

The mechanical model proposed for the determination of load-displacement curves of columns

footing allows one to predict in a satisfactory manner both numerical and experimental results

available in the literature stressing the importance in choosing the most appropriate simplified

model (strut and tie model or beam model) to predict the structural behaviour of column footing.

Variation of the main parameters included in the model and governing the structural behaviour of

column footing (geometry, size, concrete strength, the mechanical ratio of longitudinal bars) reflect

accurately the results obtained though non-linear finite element analyses.

24

REFERENCES

[1] Albert L. Interazione fra struttura e fondazioni, Riunioni e Congressi 1964 (only available in
Italian).
[2] Viggiani C. Fondazioni. Helvelius Editore 1999 (only avalaibale in Italian); pp. 584.
[3] Toniolo G. Il cemento armato. 2° Volume, Zanichelli (only avalaible in Italian).
[4] Migliacci A, Mola F. Progetto agli stati limite delle strutture in c.a. Parte I e parte II. Ed.
Masson Italia, Milano 1984 (only available in italian).
[5] Simões JT, Faria DMV, Ruiz MF, Muttoni A. Strength of reinforced concrete footings without
transverse reinforcement according to limit analysis. Eng Struct 2016; 112; 146–161.
[6] Terzaghi K. Theoretical soil mechanics. John Wiley & Sons , Inc. - New York, London, Sidney
1964.
[7] Hetenyi M. Beams on Elastic Foundation. University of Michigan Press. Ann Arbor. MI. U.S.A
1964.
[8] Prandtl L. Uber die harte plasticher korper. Nachr. Ge.s Wiss. Goettingen, Math. Phys. Kl. 1920;
74-85.
[9] Eurocode 2: Design of Concrete Structures. Part 1-1: General Rules and Rules for Building
(ENV1992-1-1), 2004.
[10] ACI Committee 318. Building Code Requirements for Structural Concrete (ACI 318-08) and
Commentary, American Concrete Institute. Framington Hills MI 2005; 430 pp.
[11] Leonhardt F. C. A. & C. A. P. Calcolo di progetto e tecniche costruttive”, Edizioni Studio M
& B, 1980 (only available in Italian).
[12] Campione G. Flexural behavior of steel fibrous reinforced concrete deep beams. J Struct Eng
2012; 138(2); 235-246.
[13] AASHTO Guide Specifications for LRFD Seismic Bridge Design, 2nd Edition, with 2012,
2014, and 2015 Interim Revisions.
[14] Menditto G. Esercitazioni di tecnica delle costruzioni – volumi I e II. Liguori Editore (only
available in italian).
[15] Hegger J, Ricker M, Ulke B, Ziegler M. Investigation on the punching behavior of reinforced
concrete footing. Eng Struct 2007; 29; 2233-2241.
[16] Vacev T, Bonic´ Z, Prolovic´ V, Davidovic´ N, Lukic D. Testing and finite element analysis of
reinforced concrete column footings failing by punching shear. Eng Struct 2015, 92; 1–14.
[17] Cervenka, V. Simulating a response. Concrete Engineering International 2000; 4; 45–49.
[18] Siburg C and Hegger J. Experimental investigations on the punching behaviour of reinforced
concrete footings with structural dimensions. Struct Conc 2014; 15(3); 331-339.
25

[19] Simões JT, Bujnak J, Ruiz MF, Muttoni A. Punching shear tests on compact footings with
uniform soil pressure. Struct Conc 2016; 4; 603-617.
[20] Bonic Z, Folic R. Punching of column footings-comparison of experimental and calculus
results, Grandevinar 2013; 65(10); 887-899.
[21] Hallgren M, Bjerke M. Non-linear finite element analyses of punching shear failure of column
footings, Cem Concr Comp 2002; 24; 491–496.
26

List of tables

Tab. 1 – Characteristics of column footings tested in Siburg and Hegger [18] and Simões et al. [19].

Tab. 2 – Comparison of ductility values of column footings of Fig. 17.

27

Tab. 1 – Characteristics of column footings tested in Siburg and Hegger [18] and Simões et al. [19].
28

Tab. 2 – Comparison of ductility values of column footings of Fig. 17.

29

List of figures

Fig. 1 - Prismatic RC footing.

Fig. 2 - RC column footing: a) rigid footing on rigid soil (clay); b) rigid footing on soft soil (sand);
c) flexible footing on rigid soil; d) flexible footing on soft soil.

Fig. 3 - Plastic soil-foundation pressures distribution for rigid footing as in Toniolo [3].

Fig. 4 - Simplified soil-foundation pressure distributions for rigid foundation of: a) rigid soil; b)
flexible soil; c) Winkler’s model of soil.

Fig. 5 - Reinforcements details for columns footings: a) deep; a) flexible.

Fig. 6 - Strut and tie calculus model for RC deep footing.

Fig. 7 - Softening coefficients for compressed struts of deep footing with  variation.

Fig. 8 - Variation of minimum and maximum mechanical ratio of longitudinal reinforcement with


Fig. 9 - Cantilever calculus model for RC flexible footing.

Fig. 10 - Punching shear calculus model for RC slab footing.

Fig. 11 - Analytical versus experimental load response of footings testes in Siburg and Hegger [18]
and Simões et al. [19].

Fig. 12 - Truncated pyramidal footing with H (mm): a) 1000; b) 650; c) 500 ; d) 400.

Fig. 13 - Load carrying capacity of RC truncated pyramidal footing with variation of H.

Fig. 14 - Load carrying capacity of RC prismatic footing with variation of H.

Fig. 15 - Load carrying capacity of RC footing with variation of Af.

Fig. 16 - Load carrying capacity of RC footing with variation of  for : a) concrete strength; b)
yielding stress of longitudinal steel; c) type of soil.

Fig. 17 - Analytical versus numerical load-displacements response of RC footing for different

values of H.

Fig. 18 - Analytical versus experimental load-displacements response of footing tested in Vacev et

al [16].

Fig. 19 - Analytical versus experimental load-displacements response of footing tested in Hallgren

and Bjerke [21].
30

 P 
pm   2   B
B 

Fig. 1 - Prismatic RC footing.

31

a) b)

c) d)
Fig. 2 - RC column footing: a) rigid footing on rigid soil (clay); b) rigid footing on soft soil (sand);
c) flexible footing on rigid soil; d) flexible footing on soft soil.
32

Fig. 3 - Plastic soil-foundation pressures distribution for rigid column footing as in Toniolo [3].
33

a) b) c)

Fig. 4 - Simplified soil-foundation pressure distributions for rigid column footing on:

a) rigid soil; b) flexible soil; c) Winkler’s model of soil.

34

P P

b b

H
s s

H
s

s/2
B

s
B B

Fig. 5 - Reinforcements details for RC column footings: a) deep; a) flexible.

 C

H


H
T

35 y
P/4

P b/4
b

b
B

B
C
H

z
 y
 T

y
P/4 b a

Fig. 6 - Strut and tie calculus model for RC deep column footing.
36

Fig. 7 - Softening coefficients for compressed struts of deep column footing with  variation.
37

Fig. 8 - Variation of minimum and maximum mechanical ratio of longitudinal reinforcement

with 
 C


H
H
T 45°

y
38 P/4 a
b+
pt

P P P
b/4
b
b H/2 b failure surface

b
B

B


H
H

T y 45°
y
y pt
P/4 a
b+H
b a pt b a

Fig. 9 - Cantilever calculus model for RC flexible column footing.

b/4
b

b
B

B
y
y

b a b a
 P P P
b
39 b H/2 b failure surface

C
H

H
H
T 45°

y pt
P/4 a
b+H
P P pt

b H/2 b failure surface

b/4
H
b

b
B

B
45°

y
a y
pt
b+H
pt
b a b a
Fig. 10 - Punching shear calculus model for RC column slab footing.
b
B

b a
40

8
ACI model
UNSAFE Beam model without punching
7 Beam model with punching shear
EC2 model
6 Strut and tie model
Serie1

5
Pu,calulated/Pu,exp

1
SAFE
0
0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000 8000 9000 10000

Pu,exp [kN]

Fig. 11 - Analytical versus experimental load response of footings testes in Siburg and Hegger [18]
and Simões et al. [19].
41

a) b)

c) d)
Fig. 12 - Truncated pyramidal column footing with H (mm): a) 1000; b) 650; c) 500; d) 400.
42

15
Anal. concrete
crusching
12.5

Nc - numerical
10
P (MN)

7.5
Ny - numerical

5
Anal. yielding

2.5

0
0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200
H (mm)

Fig. 13 - Load carrying capacity of RC truncated pyramidal column footing with variation of H.
43

15
Anal. concrete
crusching

12.5
Nc - numerical

10
P (MN)

7.5

Analytical yielding

Ny - numerical
2.5

0
0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200
H (mm)

Fig. 14 - Load carrying capacity of RC prismatic column footing with variation of H.

44

Fig. 15 - Load carrying capacity of RC column footing with variation of Af.

45

a)

b)

c)

Fig. 16 - Load carrying capacity of RC column footing with variation of  for different: a) concrete
strength; b) yielding stress of longitudinal steel; c) type of soil (rigid, soft, Winkler).
46

16
16
H=800 mm
H=700 mm
14
14
beam model truss model
beam model truss model
12 12

10 10
numerical

P (MN)
P (MN)

8 8 numerical

6 6

4 4

2 2

0 0
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5
 (mm)  (mm)

16
16 H=500 mm
H=600 mm
14
14
truss model 12 numerical
12 truss model

10
10 numerical
P (MN)
P (MN)

8
8
beam model
beam model
6 6

4 4

2 2

0 0
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5
 (mm)  (mm)

Fig. 17 – Analytical versus numerical load-displacements response

of RC column footing for different values of H.

47

Fig. 18 - Analytical versus experimental load-displacements response of column footing

tested in Vacev et al. [16].

48

Fig. 19 - Analytical versus experimental load-displacements response of column footing

tested in [19].
 Model for compressive behavior of RC column footing with square cross-section
 Strut and tie model for concrete footing with variation of geometry and soil type
 Numerical model and experimental results do RC single and shaped footing
 for mechanical ratio higher than the maximum mechanical ratio, brittle failure governs the
column footing behavior
 concrete cracking in tension, yielding of steel bars and yielding of steel bars and concrete
crushing strut and tie model allows one to define minimum and maximum mechanical ratios