ACI STRUCTURAL JOURNAL

Title no. 105-S52

TECHNICAL PAPER

Behavior of Slab-Column Connections of Existing Flat-Plate Structures

by Ying Tian, James O. Jirsa, Oguzhan Bayrak, Widianto, and Jaime F. Argudo
Experimental results of five large-scale isolated slab-column connections subjected to three types of loading histories are presented. The subassemblies represented typical flat-plate construction designed prior to the 1980s that had low slab reinforcement ratios and discontinuous bottom reinforcement at the column. The specimens failed in punching after extensive slab flexural yielding under different loading conditions. The damage induced by simulated seismic loading did not reduce the connection punching capacity under gravity loading. The post-earthquake connection stiffness was significantly reduced. The flexural reinforcement ratio had a significant effect on connection strength and stiffness.
Keywords: cyclic loading; flat-plate; lateral drift capacity; punching strength; slab-column connection.

INTRODUCTION Relatively low construction cost and reduced story height has resulted in the wide use of flat-plate floor systems for lightly loaded structures such as residential or office buildings in both nonseismic and seismic regions. Slab-column connections of flat-plate structures, however, are prone to punching failure, and the resulting gravity load redistribution may lead to the catastrophic progressive collapse of a building. The working stress method was used in ACI 318-51 to ACI 318-631-3 Codes. Since ACI 318-71,4 ultimate strength design for two-way shear strength of flat-plates has been the same with only minor revisions. With the same column geometry, load, and material properties, shear design based on working stress generally required a 30 to 50% thicker slab than that under more recent code provisions.4-6 Since the 1950s, slab flexural design and reinforcement detailing rules have changed little. A requirement for continuous bottom reinforcement through the column to prevent progressive collapse was added in ACI 318-89.5 For a flat-plate structure located in regions of moderate to high seismicity, typical practice involves a dual system, where the flat-plate is assumed to carry only gravity load and shear walls or perimeter frames resist the lateral load. However, the flat-plate must maintain its gravity load capacity while the structure is undergoing lateral deformation induced by the seismic excitations. Investigations on slabcolumn connections subjected to combined gravity and lateral load, such as those reported in References 7 to 12, demonstrated that the lateral deformation capacity of slabcolumn connections was reduced by increased gravity load acting on the slab. As a result, a new provision that limits the lateral interstory drift as a function of gravity load level was added to ACI 318-05.6 Limited test data exist regarding the performance of existing flat-plates designed following codes that did not require continuous bottom reinforcement through the ACI Structural Journal/September-October 2008

columns. Durrani et al.11 reported the test results of two-bay flat-plate specimens containing one interior and two edge connections; Robertson and Johnson12 investigated a series of isolated interior slab-column connections. In these tests, the detailing of older flat-plate construction was simulated and the effects of gravity load on connection behavior were studied. Despite research progress and code improvements, several concerns emerged from evaluations of existing flat-plate structures. First, the change in building function may require the structure to carry more gravity load than that considered in the original design. Second, even if flat-plates survive an earthquake, seismic loads may significantly damage the slab concrete at slab-column connections. Given that concrete has been considered as the major provider of shear resistance at a connection, the post-earthquake gravity load-carrying capacity becomes a major concern. RESEARCH SIGNIFICANCE This study reports the experimental results of large-scale isolated specimens representative of typical existing interior slab-column connections. The test data provide valuable information about the punching strength of slab-column connections with and without damage due to lateral loading, the connection deformation capacity and failure mechanism under different loading conditions, and the effect of slab flexural reinforcement ratio on connection strength and stiffness. The research results provide data and guidance for structural evaluation and retrofit design of older flatplate structures. EXPERIMENTAL PROGRAM Prototype structure The prototype structure represented a multistory office building designed using ACI 318-71 and located in a region of high seismic risk. With a 3.66 m (12 ft) story height, four bays in the short direction and five in the long direction, this structure consisted of a flat-plate floor system designed to carry only gravity loads and exterior perimeter frames to provide lateral seismic resistance. The reinforced concrete slab was supported on 610 mm (24 in.) square columns in the lower stories and spanned 6.4 m (21 ft) measured from column centers. The service gravity load included a 5.4 kPa (112.5 lb/ft2) slab self-weight, 0.96 kPa (20 lb/ft2) additional dead load for the floor finishing and partitioning walls, and 2.4 kPa (50 lb/ft2) superimposed live load. Under seismic

ACI Structural Journal, V. 105, No. 5, September-October 2008. MS No. S-2006-460 received November 28, 2006, and reviewed under Institute publication policies. Copyright 2008, American Concrete Institute. All rights reserved, including the making of copies unless permission is obtained from the copyright proprietors. Pertinent discussion including authors closure, if any, will be published in the JulyAugust 2009 ACI Structural Journal if the discussion is received by March 1, 2009.

561

ACI member Ying Tian is an Assistant Professor of civil and environmental engineering at the University of Nevada, Las Vegas, NV. He received his PhD from the University of Texas at Austin, Austin, TX. His research interests include experimental investigation and multi-scale modeling of reinforced concrete members and systems. James O. Jirsa, FACI, holds the Janet S. Cockrell Centennial Chair in Engineering at the University of Texas at Austin. He is a Past President of ACI and a Past Chair of the ACI Technical Activities Committee (TAC). He is a member of ACI Committee 318, Structural Concrete Building Code. ACI member Oguzhan Bayrak is an Associate Professor of civil engineering at the University of Texas at Austin. He is Chair of Joint ACI-ASCE Committee 441, Reinforced Concrete Columns, and a member of ACI Committee 341, Earthquake-Resistant Concrete Bridges, and Joint ACI-ASCE Committee 445, Shear and Torsion. ACI member Widianto is a Sructural Engineer at Bechtel Corporation, Houston, TX. He received his BS, MS, and PhD from the University of Texas at Austin. His research interests include rehabilitation and seismic-resistant and blast-resistant design of structures. Jaime F. Argudo is a Senior Engineer at Walter P. Moore Engineers and Consultants, Dallas, TX. He received his MS and PhD from the University of Texas at Austin. His research interests include structural repair and strengthening, seismic risk evaluation and mitigation, nondestructive evaluation, and forensic engineering.

satisfied code requirements of ACI 318-71 for slab two-way shear and deflection serviceability. Test subassemblies Five specimens were constructed and tested to failure. The specimens represented 2/3-scale models of interior slabcolumn connections bounded by the slab centerlines of the prototype structure. Each specimen consisted of a slab measuring 4267 mm (14 ft) square and 152 mm (6 in.) thick and a 406 mm (16 in.) square column extending 1397 mm (55 in.) beyond the slab top surface and 1016 mm (40 in.) beyond the bottom surface. The designation of the specimens consisted of letter(s) indicating the loading conditions followed by a number showing the percentage of top reinforcement within a slab width of c + 3h centered on the column, where c is the column size and h is the slab thickness. The specimens and the associated loading histories are as follows: 1. Specimens G0.5 and G1.0 were vertically loaded (without lateral load) to failure to investigate the connection gravity load-carrying capacity; 2. Specimen L0.5 was subjected to constant gravity loading combined with cyclic lateral loading to failure to study the connection strength, stiffness degradation, and deformation capacity in the event of earthquake; 3. Specimens LG0.5 and LG1.0 were subjected to the same loading as Specimen L0.5 up to 1.25% lateral drift to produce slab damage, but without failure. This was followed by vertical loading to failure to investigate the gravity loading capacity of slab-column connections damaged by lateral loading. No. 4 bars (13 mm diameter) were used for the top reinforcement in the column strip and No. 3 bars (diameter = 10 mm) for the reinforcement elsewhere. The slabs of all specimens had a nominal 13 mm (0.5 in.) clear concrete cover for both top and bottom reinforcement, resulting in an average effective depth of 127 mm (5 in.). The bars parallel to the lateral loading direction were placed closest to the slab surface. The reinforcement details in one quadrant (specimens were symmetrical about both axes through the column center) of Specimens L0.5, LG0.5, and G0.5 are shown in Fig. 1. The average reinforcement ratio was 0.5% for the top bars in the column strip and 0.25% for reinforcement elsewhere. To investigate the effect of slab flexural reinforcement on connection behavior, the spacing of top bars within the c + 3h region in Specimens LG1.0 and G1.0 was reduced by half, as shown in Fig. 2, leading to a 1.0% top reinforcement ratio in this area. Such reinforcement concentration is often used in more recent flat-plate construction because it can reduce slab deflection under service gravity loads. The amount and layout of the bars in other areas were identical to those in Specimens L0.5, LG0.5, and G0.5. The columns of all specimens were heavily reinforced so that they remained elastic under lateral loading. The specimens were constructed with normalweight concrete having a specified 27.6 MPa (4000 psi) compressive strength. The actual material properties of steel and concrete (at the time of testing) are given in Table 1. Test setup and instrumentation Nonlinear finite element analyses13 were conducted on the prototype structure and on the isolated slab-column subassemblies under lateral and gravity loading. Appropriate boundary conditions for the test specimens were selected to ACI Structural Journal/September-October 2008

deformations, 25% of the live load, in addition to the dead loads, was assumed to be acting on the structure. The slab was designed using Grade 60 reinforcement and concrete with a specified 27.6 MPa (4000 psi) compressive strength. The bottom reinforcement was terminated at 229 mm (9 in.) into the column. With the given column size and specified concrete strength, a slab thickness of 229 mm (9 in.)

Fig. 1Reinforcement layout for Specimens L0.5, LG0.5, and G0.5.

Fig. 2Reinforcement layout for Specimens LG1.0 and G1.0. 562

produce bending moment and shear of the slab comparable to the prototype in the vicinity of the column where most damage was expected. The plan and elevation views of the test setup for combined loading are shown in Fig. 3. Eight vertical struts with clevises at each end were symmetrically distributed around the column to restrain slab vertical displacement. A horizontal strut was used to laterally restrain the lower end of the column and transfer the horizontal reaction to the reaction wall. Two torsional struts, parallel to the slab plane and pinconnected to the reaction wall and the slab, were used to prevent the specimen from rotating about the vertical axis of the column. Gravity load was simulated by vertically applying an upward load through the column using a hydraulic jack. The seismic movement was simulated by applying displacement to desired drift levels at the top column through a servo-controlled hydraulic actuator. The vertical distance between the two clevises connected to column top and bottom ends defined a 2438 mm (8 ft) effective column height. Test Setup 2, shown in Fig. 4, was designed for testing specimens subjected to pure gravity load. The slab was loaded monotonically through the same vertical jack used during the combined loading. Four struts

were used to transfer tensile reactions to the strong floor. Clevises on the struts were oriented to minimize restraint to the expected deformations of the slab. The actuator braced the specimens as gravity load was applied. Applied loads were measured using load cells, displacements using displacement transducers, and steel and concrete strains by strain gauges installed at selected locations. Testing procedures Prior to lateral loading for Specimen L0.5, gravity shear of Vg = 105 kN (23.5 kips) on the critical section around the

Fig. 4Test Setup 2: Gravity loading. Table 1Material properties

Concrete Yield stress of compressive reinforcement, MPa (ksi) Top reinforcement ratio, % strength fc, Label MPa (psi) No. 3 bar No. 4 bar c + 3h Column strip L0.5 25.6 (3710) 441 (64) 462 (67) 407 (59) 407 (59) 407 (59) 469 (68) 455 (66) 421 (61) 421 (61) 421 (61) 0.50 0.50 1.00 0.50 1.00 0.50 0.50 0.71 0.50 0.71 LG0.5 33.2 (4820) LG1.0 27.6 (4000) G0.5 31.3 (4550) 28.0 (4060)

Fig. 3Test Setup 1: Combined loading. ACI Structural Journal/September-October 2008

G1.0

563

column was introduced by applying a vertical load of 118 kN (26.4 kips) and subtracting 12.9 kN (2.9 kips) to account for the weight of column and loading apparatus attached to the column. The gravity shear on the critical section was intended to simulate dead load plus 25% of the design live load acting on the floors of the prototype structure. The corresponding gravity shear ratio Vg /Vc was 0.23, where Vc is the two-way shear strength based on ACI 318-05 provisions.6 Following gravity loading, Specimen L0.5 was subjected to lateral deformation reversals shown in Fig. 5 with increasing lateral drift levels until the connection failed. Two test phases were used for Specimens LG0.5 and LG1.0. First, they were subjected to the combined loading using Test Setup 1. The same gravity shear ratio used for Specimen L0.5, Vg /Vc = 0.23, was applied to Specimens LG0.5 and LG1.0 to determine the initial gravity load. The corresponding gravity shear was 119 kN (26.8 kips) for Specimen LG0.5 and 107 kN (24.1 kips) for Specimen LG1.0. To avoid connection punching failure, based on the test observation from Specimen L0.5, lateral loading for Specimens LG0.5 and LG1.0 was terminated after cycling to 1.25% drift, as shown in Fig. 5. During the second test phase, Test Setup 2 was used and the damaged specimens were vertically loaded to failure. During combined loading for Specimens L0.5, LG0.5, and LG1.0, the initially applied gravity load was continuously

maintained at an approximately constant level. Three cycles were applied at each drift level. Specimens G0.5 and G1.0 were loaded to failure using Test Setup 2 without applying any lateral deformation. EXPERIMENTAL RESULTS Response of specimens subjected to combined loading Lateral load-drift responseFigures 6 through 8 show the measured lateral load-drift response for Specimens L0.5, LG0.5, and LG1.0. After reaching 0.5% lateral drift, the hysteretic loops of all three specimens exhibited significant pinching, indicating strength and stiffness degradation as well as lower energy dissipation capacity of the connections. The peak lateral load attained in Specimen L0.5 was 50.7 kN (11.4 kips) at +1.5% and 52.5 kN (11.8 kips) at 1.5% drift. After that, the connection withstood an additional 0.5% drift while 90% of the lateral load-carrying capacity was maintained. The failure of Specimen L0.5 occurred at a drift of 1.6% after completion of cycles at 2.0% drift. A brittle failure was evident in the sudden drop of both lateral and vertical loads. Envelope curves for the three specimens are shown in Fig. 9. Stiffness degradationThe slab-column connections experienced gradual lateral stiffness degradation. Figure 10 shows the secant stiffness of the three specimens at the peak lateral deformation of the first cycle for various drift levels. The secant stiffness is defined as the ratio of unbalanced

Fig. 5Lateral loading history.

Fig. 7Lateral load-drift response: Specimen LG0.5.

Fig. 6Lateral load-drift response: Specimen L0.5. 564

Fig. 8Lateral load-drift response: Specimen LG1.0. ACI Structural Journal/September-October 2008

moment, determined from the measured lateral load and effective column height, to the connection lateral drift measured toward the reaction wall. Under lateral deformation reversals, considerable stiffness loss was evident due to concrete cracking and reinforcement yielding near the column. When 1% drift was reached, the secant stiffness was only approximately 50 to 60% of the initial value. The ratio of the secant stiffness of Specimen LG0.5 to that of Specimen LG1.0 ranged from 0.6 (at 0.25% drift) to 0.7 (at 1.25% drift), indicating the significant effect of reinforcement ratio on connection rigidity. Damage patternFour types of cracks were generated on the slab top surface: 1) peripheral cracks around the column; 2) torsional cracks at column sides; 3) diagonal cracks radiating from the column to the slab boundaries; and 4) radial cracks along the flexural reinforcement. The cracking patterns on the slab top surface of Specimen LG0.5 after experiencing 1.25% lateral drift are shown in Fig. 11. The gravity load produced peripheral cracks around the column. Such cracking generally was not developed at the column faces but above the flexural reinforcement closest to the column. The peripheral cracks were always the most pronounced cracks in terms of crack depth and width during the entire loading history and outlined the final punching surface. Gravity loading also caused the radial cracks along the top bars to extend outward from the column. With the application of lateral load, diagonal cracks toward slab corners were observed and more radial cracks were generated. Flexural cracking occurred along the column faces but remained as secondary damage compared with the peripheral cracking.

Torsional cracks oriented from 30 to 45 degrees to the lateral loading direction were initiated at 0.5% drift. After completion of cycles to 0.75% drift, visible flexural cracks emerged at the interface of column and slab bottom surface. After 1.25% lateral drift was reached, significant torsional cracking appeared on the slab lower face and bottom flexural cracks extended beyond the slab-column interface. Specimen LG1.0 developed cracking patterns similar to Specimen LG0.5. No visible cracking was identified due to the gravity loading, however, and cracks induced by lateral loading were narrower but denser around the column. The slab damage in Specimen LG1.0 after cycling to 1.25% drift is shown in Fig. 12. In Specimen L0.5, concrete spalling occurred and the peripheral cracks opened widely at 2.0% lateral drift. The extensive damage around column at this loading stage likely indicated that connection failure was imminent. The failure of Specimen L0.5 was accompanied by extensive concrete cover spalling as the column punched through the slab and the slab flexural reinforcement was stripped out of the top surface of the slab. Steel strain distributionThe tensile strain profile of the top reinforcement of Specimen L0.5 is shown in Fig. 13 to illustrate the spread of slab yielding in the direction transverse to

Fig. 9Response envelope curves.

Fig. 11Crack pattern: Specimen LG0.5.

Fig. 10Secant stiffness degradation. ACI Structural Journal/September-October 2008

Fig. 12Slab damage: Specimen LG1.0. 565

lateral displacement. The strains were recorded at peak drift during the first cycle of each lateral drift level. The maximum tensile strain was always measured in the top bars passing though the column and crossing the peripheral cracks. Under the initial gravity load, a strain of nearly half of the yielding strain was recorded. At a drift ratio of 0.5%, the first yielding occurred. The yielding gradually extended as the lateral deformation increased and, when the peak lateral load was reached at 1.5% drift, all the bars in a region of 508 mm (20 in.) from the slab centerline had experienced yielding. Meanwhile, at 1.5% drift, bottom reinforcement of Specimen L0.5 exhibited tensile strains greater than yield under positive bending. It is noted that the discontinuous bottom reinforcement was embedded into the column for 152 mm (6 in.), only 40% of the required development length of bars in tension by ACI 318-05.6 The transverse confinement provided by the 406 mm (16 in.) wide column was

apparently sufficient for the steel to reach yielding. The first yielding occurred at 0.5% drift in Specimen LG0.5 and 0.44% in Specimen LG1.0. When lateral loading was stopped at 1.25% drift for these two specimens, strains in the bottom steel were below yield. Response of specimens subjected to gravity loading Load-deflection responseThe measured vertical load versus slab center deflection response of Specimens G0.5, G1.0, LG0.5, and LG1.0 is compared in Fig. 14, where the abscissa represents the upward central deflection and ordinate the gravity load transferred from the column to slab. The loads at first yielding of tensile reinforcement recorded from the strain gauges in Specimens G0.5 and G1.0 are also shown in this figure. Three loading stages for Specimens G0.5 and G1.0 can be classified in sequence as: 1) initial loading to cracking; 2) cracking to the first yielding; and 3) first yielding to connection failure. The response of Specimens G0.5 and G1.0 was approximately bilinear up to first yielding. The cracking load increased from 128 kN (28.8 kips) for Specimen G0.5 and 153 kN (34.3 kips) for Specimen G1.0. After slab cracking, the stiffness was greater for the slab with higher top reinforcement ratio at the column. For convenience, the initial stiffness is defined as the ratio of load to deflection measured at cracking, whereas the post-cracking stiffness is determined from the increments of load and deflection between cracking and first yielding. The ratio of post-cracking to initial stiffness was 0.12 and 0.17 for Specimens G0.5 and G1.0, respectively. Very few new cracks were observed during the second loading stage where the load-deflection response was nearly linear. Therefore, the increased deformations in this loading stage were the result of crack opening in the vicinity of column. First yielding occurred at a load of 245 and 277 kN (55.0 and 62.3 kips) for Specimens G0.5 and G1.0, respectively. After yielding, the connection stiffness gradually degraded due to spread of yielding across the slab. The measured peak load was 312 and 403 kN (70.2 and 90.6 kips) for Specimens G0.5 and G1.0, respectively. Punching failure with a sudden drop in load took place at a deflection of nearly 25 mm (1 in.) for both specimens. The most significant result of Specimens LG0.5 and LG1.0 was that, despite the extensive damage shown in Fig. 11 and 12, the punching strength was almost equal to that of Specimens G0.5 and G1.0, respectively. In other words, the slab damage imposed by the previously applied cyclic loading up to 1.25% lateral drift had no detrimental effect on the connection gravity load-carrying capacity. From the data shown in Fig. 14, however, the secant stiffness of Specimens LG0.5 and LG1.0 at the service level gravity load was only 30 and 45% of their undamaged counterparts. Slab central deflections at service gravity load and at failure, and punching strength of the four specimens subjected to gravity loading are summarized in Table 2. Damage patternOne peripheral crack formed at each side of the column in Specimen G0.5 along a bar located 102 mm (4 in.) away from the column face. With increasing load, the peripheral cracks curved down to the intersection of column and slab bottom surface (refer to Fig. 15) and developed the inclined crack that formed a classic pyramid-shape punching surface at failure. No flexural crack was visible in Specimen G0.5 at the column face until punching failure occurred. ACI Structural Journal/September-October 2008

Fig. 13Steel tensile strain of Specimen L0.5.

Fig. 14Load-deflection response under gravity loading. Table 2Test results of gravity loading
Label G0.5 LG0.5 G1.0 LG1.0 Deflection at service load, mm (in.) Peak load, kN (kips) 1.3 (0.05) 3.9 (0.15) 1.1 (0.04) 2.8 (0.11) 312 (70.2) 324 (72.8) 404 (90.9) 400 (89.9) Deflection at failure, mm (in.) 25 (0.99) 27 (1.07) 24 (0.96) 20 (0.78)

566

Specimen G1.0 had a damage pattern similar to that in Specimen G0.5, except that: 1) fewer cracks along the bars were generated on the slab surface; 2) concrete cover spalled over a larger area of the slab at punching failure; 3) the critical cracks that formed the failure surface could not be recognized solely from the slab surface because the crack widths were similar to adjacent cracks; and 4) the inclined crack was initiated at a flexural crack at a distance of 200 mm (8 in.) from the column face. Flexural cracking occurred at the slab-column interface in Specimen G1.0 after 60% of the ultimate load was applied, but the cracks remained narrow and there was no significant change in the load-deflection response. Steel and concrete strainIn Fig. 15, the representative steel strains measured in Specimen G0.5 are plotted against normalized load expressed as the ratio of load V to the ultimate strength Vult. Gauges T1 and T2 were attached on a top bar passing through the column and B1 was located immediately beneath Gauge T1 on a bottom bar. Tensile strains are positive in this figure. The appearance of inclined cracks at about 0.45Vult caused a rapid increase in steel strains. The tensile strains at Gauges T1 and T2 show the effect of the inclined cracking that developed between the gauge locations. Because the load-deflection curve (Fig. 14) has a profile similar to the load-strain curves for Gauges T1 and T2, slab deformations are directly related to the concentrated rotational deformation at the inclined cracks. The load-strain curve for B1 indicated compressive strains up to about 0.5Vult. First yielding occurred around the column at approximately 0.8Vult for Specimens G0.5 and G1.0. However, forces were transferred to adjacent bars and the opening of inclined cracks was restrained so that the stiffness degradation was fairly gradual. When the peak loads were reached, the yielding of the top reinforcement spread transversely at least 305 mm (12 in.) from the column face in both specimens. Meanwhile, large tensile strains at B1 could be the result of highly localized bending at the root of the crack due to the rotation of slab at the inclined crack and indicated the small area of concrete in compression underneath the inclined crack to resist shear. Concrete strain gauges oriented to the tangential and radial directions with respect to column face were attached to the slab bottom surface in the immediate vicinity of the column in Specimen G1.0. The recorded concrete strains at peak load in both directions were approximately 0.001. DISCUSSION Connection strength According to ACI 318-05,6 if the ratio (c + d)/d is less than 5, the two-way shear strength for an interior connection with square column is defined as Vc = 0.33 f c Ac (fc in MPa) (1)

conservative fit of 198 tests that failed in shear. It must be noted that in these documents, the failure of a lightly reinforced connection that exhibited general yielding was not treated as a shear failure. It follows that Eq. (1) may not be applicable for assessing the punching strength of connections with low reinforcement ratios that have extensive flexural yielding before punching failure occurs. The CEB-FIP MC9016 code considers the effect of slab top reinforcement ratio on connection shear strength. The measured capacity of Specimens G0.5 and G1.0, however, was only 75 and 88% of the strength calculated based on the CEB-FIP MC9016 code, respectively. For the slab-column connections with square columns transferring both gravity shear Vg and unbalanced moment Mu, the current ACI code considers two distinct failure modes: shear failure and flexural failure. It is assumed that a portion, v = 0.4, of the unbalanced moment is transferred by a linear variation of concrete shear stress, limited to 0.33 f c (MPa), along the assumed critical section parallel to the column side faces. Based on this model, the unbalanced moment at shear failure is derived as 2 ( V c V g )J c M u, v = ----------------------------- v ( c + d )A c where
3 3 2 J c = -- d ( c + d ) + 1 ( c + d )d -3 6

(2)

(3)

Furthermore, the code requires that slab flexural reinforcement within a width c + 3h centered on the column carry a fraction (1 v) of the total unbalanced moment Mu not resisted by shear. The flexural resistance is contributed by Mf,1, the negative bending capacity at one side of column bending face, and Mf,2, the positive bending capacities at the other. Using the code design procedure to define the unbalanced moment at flexural failure of a connection leads to M f, 1 + M f, 2 M u, f = -------------------------1 v (4)

where Ac = 4d(c + d) is the area of assumed shear critical section located 0.5d away from column face. The above equation gives a shear capacity of 503 kN (113 kips) for Specimen G0.5 and 476 kN (107 kips) for Specimen G1.0, a value 61% and 20% higher than the measured punching strength, respectively. Equation (1) was developed by Joint ACI-ASCE Committee 326.14 The committee simplified Moes formulation15 for connection shear strength and derived the empirical formula from a ACI Structural Journal/September-October 2008

Fig. 15Steel strain of Specimen G0.5. 567

The minimum value of Mu,v and Mu,f gives the connection lateral strength Mu. According to the procedures described previously, Specimen L0.5 should have failed at Mu = 78.6 kN-m (696 k-in.), a value much lower than 128 kN-m (1137 k-in.) determined from the test. The underestimation of slab-column connection flexural capacity using code provisions was also noted by Robertson and Johnson.12 Either the value of v or the strip width for calculating slab flexural strength would need to be changed. Connection failure mechanism Prior to punching failure, all specimens exhibited general yielding as indicated by the vertical load-deflection response for Specimens G0.5, G1.0, LG0.5, and LG1.0 and the lateral loaddrift response for Specimen L0.5. Therefore, the connection failure resulted from large flexural deformation rather than reaching a nominal shear stress in the slab around the column. A comparison of test results of Specimens G0.5, LG0.5, and L0.5 provides valuable information regarding the connection deformation capacity. Steel tensile strains indicated that, in both gravity loading and combined loading, the connection deformation was concentrated at the inclined crack. Figure 16 shows schematically the deformation mechanism for specimens under two types of loading after the generation of inclined cracks that occurred at an assumed distance of 0.5d from the column face. In this figure, R denotes the radius from the column center to the supporting struts, is the slab rotation relative to the slab-column joint defined by the area located within c + d, is the increased slab central deflection measured from inclined cracking to the ultimate deformation, is the joint rotation, and is the slab rotation caused by . can be approximated by the lateral drift if the column is stiff as is the case here. For Specimens G0.5 and LG0.5 subjected to gravity load, is equal to . For Specimen L0.5 subjected to combined gravity and lateral loading, is the summation of and . The values of , , and at the failure for Specimens G0.5 and LG0.5 and at the maximum lateral drift for Specimen L0.5 determined from the test data are listed in Table 3. The

similar values of likely suggest the same mechanism triggered the exhaustion of slab local deformation capacity at the column and led to punching failure. In addition, for connections subjected to combined loading and with a given slab local rotational capacity of , the slab deformation capacity consumed by increased gravity load would always reduce the reserve capacity for the following lateral loading. Thus, the observation regarding the effect of gravity shear on connection lateral drift capacity can be explained. After experiencing a 1.25% drift during combined loading, the inclined cracks in Specimens LG0.5 and LG1.0 have connected with the flexural cracks generated from slab bottom surface at the column due to positive bending. Considering that the damage on slab concrete due to lateral deformation reversals did not affect the connection punching capacity and that only a small area of concrete in compression was available at the inclined cracks to resist shear, the dowel action of the top bars crossing the inclined cracks may provide a significant portion of gravity shear capacity for both damaged and undamaged connections. Dowel action produces an out-of-plane uplifting force in concrete outside the inclined crack and tends to split the cover over the top reinforcement. Once splitting occurs, dowel action disappears, punching failure occurs, and connection loses the local deformation capacity. In fact, the connection failure of Specimen L0.5 occurred soon after horizontal concrete delamination along the top steel mat near the inclined crack was identified. At 2% lateral drift, tapping on the slab top surface provided an indication of the extent of the splitting and delamination. It is concluded that reducing the dowel action force or restraining the concrete splitting would possibly increase the connection deformation capacity. The effect of gravity load on connection lateral deformation capacity was recognized in ACI 318-05,6 where the lateral drift capacity is specified as ( = 0.75) Vg 3.5 5 ------- V c Drift(%) = 0.5 Vg -------- 0.60 V c Vg -------- > 0.60 V c

(5)

Based on Eq. (5), Specimen L0.5 (Vg /Vc = 0.23) should sustain a drift of 2%, a value equal to the observed capacity. CONCLUSIONS The following conclusions were reached based on an experimental investigation of five lightly reinforced slabcolumn connections subjected to: 1) gravity loading to failure; 2) lateral loading to failure; and 3) lateral loading to introduce connection damage followed by gravity loading to failure: 1. The punching failure of connections with low reinforcement ratios was not induced by reaching a critical shear stress under gravity or lateral load. Such failure can be better interpreted as a deformation-driven shear failure that occurred when the slab rotational deformation capacity at the inclined crack was exhausted, which can be attributed to the concrete splitting across a plane through the top slab reinforcement; 2. As the reinforcement ratio increased, connection punching capacity and lateral stiffness increased significantly; 3. The damage to slab concrete near the column under cyclic load up to 1.25% drift did not reduce the connection gravity ACI Structural Journal/September-October 2008

Fig. 16Illustration of connection local deformation. Table 3Slab local rotational deformation
Label G0.5 LG0.5 L0.5 Deflection between inclined cracking and failure, mm (in.) , rad. 24 (0.94) 27 (1.07) 13 (0.50) 0.025 0.028 0.008 , rad. = +, rad. 0 0 0.020 0.025 0.028 0.028

568

load-carrying capacity. The damage caused by cyclic lateral loading, however, significantly reduced the connection stiffness; 4. For evaluating the gravity load capacity of connections in existing flat-plate buildings with low slab reinforcement ratios (less than 1%), ACI 318-05 provisions may overestimate the two-way shear strength; and 5. The design drift ratio in ACI 318-05 for slab-column connections without beams as a function of the level of applied gravity loads was achieved in the specimen subjected to lateral loading to failure. Connection unbalanced moment transfer capacity was significantly underestimated using the code equations. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
This paper is based on work supported by the National Science Foundation under Grant No. 0301632 and 0301395. The authors gratefully acknowledge the financial support from the National Science Foundation and the assistance of S. Bartoletti, J. R. Cagley, L. D. Olson, and L. A. Wyllie who served on the technical advisory panel. Any opinions, findings, and conclusions or recommendations expressed in this paper are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of the sponsor.

REFERENCES
1. ACI Committee 318, Building Code Requirements for Reinforced Concrete (ACI 318-51), American Concrete Institute, Farmington Hills, MI, 1951, 64 pp. 2. ACI Committee 318, Building Code Requirements for Reinforced Concrete (ACI 318-56), American Concrete Institute, Farmington Hills, MI, 1956, 74 pp. 3. ACI Committee 318, Building Code Requirements for Reinforced Concrete (ACI 318-63), American Concrete Institute, Farmington Hills, MI, 1963, 144 pp. 4. ACI Committee 318, Building Code Requirements for Reinforced Concrete (ACI 318-71), American Concrete Institute, Farmington Hills, MI, 1971, 96 pp. 5. ACI Committee 318, Building Code Requirements for Structural Concrete (ACI 318-89) and Commentary (318R-89), American Concrete Institute, Farmington Hills, MI, 1989, 347 pp. 6. ACI Committee 318, Building Code Requirements for Structural Concrete (ACI 318-05) and Commentary (318R-05), American Concrete Institute, Farmington Hills, MI, 2005, 430 pp. 7. Pan, A., and Moehle, J. P., Lateral Displacement Ductility of Reinforced Concrete Flat Plates, ACI Structural Journal, V. 86, No. 3, May-June 1989, pp. 250-258. 8. Pan, A., and Moehle, J. P., An Experimental Study of Slab-Column Connections, ACI Structural Journal, V. 89, No. 6, Nov.-Dec. 1992, pp. 626-638. 9. Hueste, M. B. D., and Wight, J. K., Nonlinear Punching Shear Failure Model for Interior Slab-Column Connections, Journal of Structural Engineering, ASCE, V. 125, No. 9, Sept. 1999, pp. 997-1008. 10. Robertson, I. N., and Durrani, A. J., Gravity Load Effect on Seismic Behavior of Interior Slab-Column Connections, ACI Structural Journal, V. 89, No. 1, Jan.-Feb. 1992, pp. 37-45. 11. Durrani, A. J.; Du, Y.; and Luo, Y. H., Seismic Resistance of Nonductile Slab-Column Connections in Existing Flat-Slab Buildings, ACI Structural Journal, V. 92, No. 4, July-Aug. 1995, pp. 479-487. 12. Robertson, I., and Johnson, G., Cyclic Lateral Loading of Nonductile Slab-Column Connections, ACI Structural Journal, V. 103, No. 3, MayJune 2006, pp. 356-364. 13. Tian, Y., Behavior and Modeling of Reinforced Concrete SlabColumn Connections, PhD dissertation, University of Texas at Austin, Austin, TX, 2007, 210 pp. 14. Joint ACI-ASCE Committee 326, Shear and Diagonal Tension, ACI JOURNAL, Proceedings V. 59, No. 3, Mar. 1962, pp. 353-396. 15. Moe, J., Shearing Strength of Reinforced Concrete Slabs and Footings under Concentrated Loads, Development Department Bulletin No. D47, Portland Cement Association, Skokie, IL, Apr. 1961, 130 pp. 16. Comit Euro-International du Bton-Fdration International de la Prcontrainte (CEB-FIP), Model Code 1990, Lausanne, Switzerland, 1990, 437 pp.

NOTATION
Ac c d fc h Mf,1 Mf,2 Mu,f Mu,v Vc Vg Vult v = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = area of critical section for two-way shear size of square column slab average effective depth concrete cylinder compressive strength slab thickness flexural capacity for negative bending evaluated in c + 3h flexural capacity for positive bending evaluated in c + 3h unbalanced moment at flexural failure unbalanced moment at shear failure nominal two-way shear strength of slab-column connection gravity shear transferred from slab to column measured ultimate two-way shear strength of slab-column connection slab rotation due to slab center deflection slab-column joint rotation slab center deflection from inclined cracking to ultimate deformation fraction of unbalanced moment transferred by shear slab rotation relative to slab-column joint

ACI Structural Journal/September-October 2008

569