5 views

Uploaded by Mochammad Surya

sssss

- Anchor Design
- Anchor Bolts Design of Headed Anchor Bolts
- Various types of shear connectors in composite structures
- Structural Details to Increase Ductility of Connections
- 3D Truss
- ERS 027 (3rd) dt 29.11.16
- Download
- Mechanical Properties
- 2. IJCE - Civil -Performance and Damage Assessment of Reinforced - Haridharan
- ASTM A82 Spec. for Steel Wire, Plain for Reinforcement.pdf
- 5.10 Ground Support Slab-TR34
- Steel Deck Institute Inc. Design Manual for Composite Decks For
- 88-90
- p3fh-Cv-2400-Cal-1004_calculation for Common Duct Suport
- BridgeLRFD.pdf
- Anchor Bolt Calculation 1.2
- Som Introduction
- (5)-Maheri-Sahebi (ES-1997)
- Analysis of Bamboo Reinforced Concrete Column
- An Architectural Vision Realized Through Prefabrication

You are on page 1of 12

TECHNICAL PAPER

Connections

by Farshad Habibi, William D. Cook, and Denis Mitchell

The response of slab-column connections after a punching shear

failure is investigated. An analytical model for predicting the postpunching shear response of slab-column connections is presented

that accounts for the individual contributions of each layer of top

reinforcement and each layer of the structural integrity reinforcement. The predictions are compared with experimental results and

the results obtained by the CSA A23.3 Standard design method.

There is a good agreement between the predicted results and the

experimental results.

Keywords: breakout strength; post-punching shear; pullout; slab-column

connections; structural integrity; two-way slabs.

INTRODUCTION

Two-way slabs must be designed to have adequate flexural

and punching shear resistance. There have been many examples of brittle failures due to punching shear. These failures

have occurred during construction, in severe earthquakes, due

to corrosion of the top reinforcement, and due to construction errors.1-3 If the slab-column connection does not have

a secondary defense mechanism, then after punching shear

failure, the loads are transferred to adjacent supports. This

redistribution of moments and shears may result in punching

shear failures at the adjacent slab-column connections,

leading to progressive collapse. After the initial punching

shear failure, the top flexural reinforcement crossing the

punching shear cone and the bottom bars that are adequately

anchored in the column can provide a link between the slab

and the column. This reinforcement can play a significant

role in providing a secondary load-carrying mechanism after

initial failure and can prevent progressive collapse.

Previous research on the behavior of slab-column connections has typically focused on the initial punching shear

failure rather than on the post-punching behavior. Hawkins

and Mitchell4 described the difference in the post-punching

behavior of two-way slabs with and without bottom slab reinforcement properly anchored into the column. Figure 1 illustrates the failure of a slab-column connection that contains

top reinforcement only. After the punching shear failure, the

top bars rip out of the top concrete surface, offering little

resistance and leading to a complete loss of support at the

connection. Figure 2 illustrates the benefit of providing

bottom slab reinforcement that is continuous through the

column. The specially detailed bottom bars provide the

slab an ability to transfer shear to the column and prevent

progressive collapse. Hawkins and Mitchell4 suggested that

the post-punching shear capacity of a slab could be estimated using tensile membrane equations or, alternatively,

the capacity could be taken as not greater than one-half

ripping out of top bars after punching shear failure; and (b)

loss of support with top bars ineffective.

and continuous bottom reinforcement: (a) post-punching

resistance provided by both top and bottom bars; and (b)

post-punching resistance provided by continuous bottom

reinforcement.

of the yielding strength of all the bottom reinforcing bars

passing through the column.

Regan et al.5 investigated the role of bottom reinforcement

passing through the column on the post-punching response

of slab-column connections. They compared the response of

a 100 mm (3.94 in.) thick slab with three 8 mm (0.31 in.)

diameter bottom reinforcing bars in each direction with a

slab without bottom reinforcement and concluded that

the presence of bottom reinforcement is fundamental in

achieving post-punching resistance of a slab.

McPeake6 carried out an experimental program on thin

slabs to study the effect of bottom reinforcement on the

post-punching response of slab-column connections. It was

observed that the bottom bars had considerable contribution

in the form of tensile membrane action, rather than dowel

action, at large deflections.

MS No. S-2012-040.R1, doi:10.14359.51686436, was received June 27, 2013, and

reviewed under Institute publication policies. Copyright 2014, 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 ten months from this journals date if the discussion

is received within four months of the papers print publication.

123

of two-way slab structures and recommended a design equation that was adopted in the 1984 CSA Standard8 for the

design of minimum bottom reinforcement based on a tensile

membrane model. The 1984 CSA Standard8 required that

a minimum area of structural integrity reinforcement, Asb,

be placed through columns or support reaction areas and

be made effectively continuous in each span direction. The

minimum area was given by

Asb =

0.5ws l 2 l n

s fy

(1)

where ws is the total specified load per unit area, but not less

than twice the slab self-weight per unit area; ln is the clear

span in the direction moments are being considered measured

face-to-face of supports; l2 is the span length transverse to ln

measured center-to-center of supports; s is the resistance

factor for reinforcing bars (0.85); and fy is the specified yield

strength of reinforcement.

Mitchell9 proposed a simple equation to determine the

amount of structural integrity reinforcement that was

adopted by the 1994 CSA A23.3 Standard10 to design structural integrity reinforcement. This equation gives the total

amount of bottom reinforcement, Asb, connecting the slab

to the column or column capital on all faces of the periphery

of the column or column capital as

Asb

2Vse

fy

(2)

capital due to specified loads, but not less than the shear

corresponding to twice the self-weight of the slab.

The 2011 ACI Code11 requires that the bottom bars in

the column strip be lapped with Class B tension lap splices

and that at least two bottom bars or wires (integrity steel)

in each direction must pass within the region bounded by

the longitudinal reinforcement of the column and shall

be anchored at exterior supports. This typically results in

considerably smaller amounts of integrity reinforcement

passing through the column than that required by the 1994

and 2004 CSA A23.3 Standards.10,12

Melo and Regan13 carried out an experimental program

aimed at predicting the post-punching resistance of slabcolumn connections. They concluded that the post-punching

resistance of the structural integrity reinforcement is limited

by the breakout of the reinforcing bars or by rupture of the

bars rather than by dowel action. They used the ACI Code

for Nuclear Safety Related Concrete Structures14 method

to calculate the breakout resistance of the bottom bars

embedded in the concrete. For the rupture of the bars, they

proposed following equation

124

Vu = 0.44 Asb fu

(3)

They also indicated that if fu is not known then it can be

assumed that fu = 1.15fy, resulting in the following equation that is identical to the equation used in the CSA A23.3

Standards10,12

Vu = 0.50 Asb f y

(4)

the testing of 125 mm (4.92 in) thick slabs supported on eight

roller bearings with a vertical load applied to a steel plate to

simulate the column reaction. They considered the breakout

resistance of the reinforcing bars and the rupture stress of

the bars in determining the post-punching shear strength.

Ruiz et al.15 used the ACI Code for Nuclear Safety Related

Concrete Structures14 method for the concrete breakout

resistance and accounted for the progressive destruction of

the concrete over the reinforcing bars. To develop a mechanical model capable of predicting the post-punching behavior

of slab-column connections, they assumed that the top mat

of bars in the punching cone region acts together against the

concrete cover. The total breakout resistance of the integrity

reinforcement was calculated for the bars passing through

the column, treating them as having the same depth. The

integrity reinforcement contribution was governed either by

the maximum breakout strength of the concrete above the

bars or by the rupture of the bars.

Habibi et al.16 presented results of experimental studies

on seven two-way slabs to provide additional experimental

verification of the approach taken in the CSA A23.3 Standard12 for the design and detailing of the structural integrity

reinforcement. They also investigated the effects of different

parameters on the post-punching behavior of slab-column

connections, including the thickness of the slab, the length

and distribution of the integrity reinforcement, the influence

of column rectangularity, and the layout of the structural

integrity reinforcement in drop panel regions.

This paper presents an analytical method that has been

developed to predict the post-punching response of slabcolumn connections, taking into account the individual

layers of both the top reinforcement and the structural integrity reinforcement. In this method, the contribution of the

top reinforcing bars is governed by the breakout resistance

of the concrete cover and pullout of the bars after significant deflections. The contribution of the structural integrity

bars is governed by three different failure modes, including

rupture of the bars, concrete breakout of the bars, and pullout

of the bars. The resulting predictions of the complete postpunching responses of different slab-column connections

are compared with experimental results.

RESEARCH SIGNIFICANCE

The analytical method provides a tool for predicting the

complete post-punching shear response of slab-column

connections, including the possible failure modes. The

analysis demonstrates the different roles played by the two

layers of top reinforcement and the structural integrity reinforcement after punching shear failure has occurred. This

ACI Structural Journal/January-February 2014

demonstrates the importance of properly designed and

detailed structural integrity reinforcement.

MECHANISMS OF POST-PUNCHING RESPONSE

Immediately after an initial punching shear failure, there

is a sudden drop in load, and a different resisting mechanism

is set up involving both the top bars that cross the punching

shear cone region and the bottom structural integrity reinforcement. Figure 3 shows three stages in the response of a

200 mm (7.87 in.) thick slab containing top reinforcement

and structural integrity reinforcement. Figure 3(a) shows

the top surface of the slab soon after punching shear failure

occurred, and Fig. 3(b) shows the slab-column connection

after a number of top bars crossing the punching shear cone

have ripped out of the top surface. At large displacements,

the post-punching shear resistance depends on the bottom

structural integrity reinforcement. The resistance from the

integrity reinforcement is due to the vertical component

of the bars that develop large tensile stresses and become

inclined as the slab deflects (refer to Fig. 3(c)).

Different codes assume different angles for the punching

shear cone, as shown in Fig. 4. The ACI Code11 and the CSA

Standard12 assume a constant angle of 45 degrees (Fig. 4(a)),

resulting in the cone reaching a distance of d from the column

face. The EC2 Code17 assumes that the punching shear cone

extends to 1.5d (34-degree angle) and the CEB-FIP Code18

assumes this distance to be 2d (26.6-degree angle) measured

from the column face (refer to Fig. 4(b) and (c)). It has been

observed in experiments that the failure surface is approximately 45 degrees near the column (refer to Fig. 3(c)), but

becomes flatter near the top surface of the slab, surfacing

approximately 2d from the column face (refer to Fig. 3(a)).

In this study, the failure surface shown in Fig. 4(d) was

assumed to determine the effective number of top bars that

pass through the punching shear failure cone and, hence,

participate in the post-punching response.

After a punching shear failure, both the effective top bars

and the structural integrity reinforcement undergo tension

as the slab deflects. Figure 5 shows the mechanism of shear

transfer after punching shear failure. It is the vertical component of the force in these bars that provides the post-punching

shear resistance. The vertical component is limited by either:

the breakout resistance of the concrete above the bar; pullout

of the reinforcement when the remaining embedded portion

of the bar equals the development length; or rupture of the

bars in tension.

The post-punching shear strength of a slab-column

connection, Vpp, can be calculated as the sum of the contributions of the top bars crossing the punching shear cone,

Vt, and the integrity reinforcement, Vi. It is assumed that

after punching, the dowel action and bending of the bars is

negligible, with tensile stresses in the bars providing the

shear resistance. The exposed length of the bars in the model

includes a concrete damage zone at the locations where the

bar enters the concrete of a length equal to the bar diameter

db (refer to Fig. 5). This debonded length was estimated from

observations of the local concrete damage around the bars

after testing was completed.

ACI Structural Journal/January-February 2014

Fig. 3Stages in the post-punching response of a slabcolumn connection containing structural integrity reinforcement: (a) top surface soon after punching shear; (b) ripping

out of top mat of reinforcement; and (c) inclination of structural integrity reinforcement at large slab displacements.

Based on the equilibrium conditions, the vertical component of the force developed in a reinforcing bar, V, is related

to the tensile stress developed in the bar, fs, and the angle of

inclination of the reinforcement, , by the following equation

V = Asfssin (5)

125

Fig. 4Different assumed angles of punching shear cone: (a) 45 degrees (ACI Code11 and CSA Standard12); (b) 34 degrees

(EC217); (c) 26.6 degrees (CEB-FIP18); and (d) failure plane after punching assumed in this study.

based on an equation proposed by Kunnath et al.19 The relationship is given by

Es s

fs = f y

f + f f u s

y

u

u

u sh

failure.

where As is the effective area of the reinforcing bar. The

strain in the bar can be calculated by

s =

1

1

cos

(6)

the deflection of slab can be expressed as

1

= l tan = l tan cos1

1 + s

(7)

bar. As shown in Fig. 5, the horizontal exposed length li of

the structural integrity reinforcement is given by

li = d3 + x + 2db (8)

by

li = 2x + 2db (9)

and strain of the reinforcement, an idealized stress-strain

curve of reinforcing steel has been used. The curve has an

elastic region, a yield plateau, and a strain hardening region

126

if

if

if

y < s sh (10)

sh < s u

s y

sh

p = Esh u

fu f y

and

CONCRETE BREAKOUT STRENGTH

The ACI Code for Nuclear Safety Related Concrete

Structures14 provides a method for calculating the concrete

breakout strength of an embedded reinforcing bar in concrete

when the bar is loaded in the direction of a free edge. The

breakout strength is taken as the vertical component of the

tensile strength of the concrete acting on the surface of the

concrete breakout cone, and is given by

2

d fct ,eff

2

(11)

the horizontal projection of the conical failure surface; fct,eff

is the effective tensile strength of the concrete above the

reinforcing bar; and d is the depth of concrete over the reinforcing bar measured to the center of the bar. It is assumed

that the failure surface is radiating out at 45 degrees from

the location where the bar enters into the concrete (refer to

Fig. 6).

For multiple bars with a center-to-center spacing s greater

than or equal to 2d, the total breakout resistance is equal

to the number of effective bars n times the breakout resistance of a single bar (Eq. (11)). For n bars having a center-toACI Structural Journal/January-February 2014

is reduced due to the overlapping of the failure cones, as

shown in Fig. 7. The total horizontal projected area of the

conical failure surface for n reinforcing bars with s < 2d is

given by

Ach = n

2

s

d 2 ( n 1) d 2 d sin

2

2

4

(12)

To predict the breakout resistance of each layer of the

structural integrity reinforcement, it is necessary to account

for the changing depth of concrete above the bars due to the

influence of the shape of the punching shear failure plane

(refer to Fig. 4) and for the loss of concrete above the integrity bars due to the progressive destruction of the concrete

as the top bars rip out (refer to Fig. 8). Figure 8(a) shows a

distance of d3 + x from the column face, with the breakout

cone intersecting the punching shear failure plane (that is,

x 2d/3).

As shown in Fig. 8(a), the thickness of the concrete

directly above the bar is x, and it is assumed that in calculating the breakout resistance that the diameter of horizontal

projection of the conical failure surface is 2x.

The concrete breakout resistance can be expressed as the

horizontal projected area, which is a function of x multiplied

by the effective tensile strength of the concrete, as

Vi(x) = Ach(x)fct,eff (13)

To calculate the horizontal projection of the conical failure

surface, Ach(x), for more than one structural integrity bar,

the interaction between the failure surfaces of the breakout

cones must be considered. For n structural integrity bars, the

horizontal projection of the conical failure surface is given

by

2

n x1 A1 ( x1 ) if

2

Ach ( x ) = n x2 2 A1 ( x2 ) if

2

2

n d2 A1 ( d2 ) if

2

2d

2d

2d

<x<

+ d2 cot 2

3

3

3

2d

2d

x

+ d2 cot 2

3

3

(14)

2d

3

2d

2d

x2 = x tan 2 +

3

3

and

Fig. 6ACI Code for Nuclear Safety Related Concrete

Structures14 model for concrete breakout strength above a

single bar assuming a 45-degree failure plane: (a) isometric

view; (b) plan view; and (c) elevation view.

( x) 2 s

A1 ( x ) = 2 ( n 1)

x x sin ( x )

4

2

Fig. 7Concrete breakout failure surface for three reinforcing bars: (a) isometric view; (b) plan view; and (c) elevation view.

ACI Structural Journal/January-February 2014

127

Fig. 8Model to estimate progressive destruction of concrete over structural integrity reinforcing bar.

1 s

cos 2 x

where ( x ) =

0

if

if

surface, and fct,eff is the effective tensile strength of concrete

in determining the breakout resistance for the top bars,

which can be taken as

s

1

2x

s

>1

2x

the overlapping failure cones when the spacing of the bars s

is less than 2x.

From correlations with the test results,16 where the splitting

tensile strength fsp is known, the effective tensile strength of

the concrete for determining breakout of the structural integrity bars can be taken as

test results for the splitting tensile strength of concrete, fsp,

is not available, then the effective tensile strength of the

concrete can be estimated by

= 4 fc

(psi units)

(19)

concrete can be estimated by15

breakout resistance of the top bars is due to the fact that the

top concrete cover is in the cracked tension zone of the slab

and is typically subjected to larger shrinkage strains. The

ACI Code for Nuclear Safety Related Concrete Structures14

uses a nominal tensile strength of 4fc psi (0.33fc MPa)

for all design cases, while acknowledging that considerably

higher tensile strengths may be achieved.

It is noted that the use of the 45-degree failure cone,

together with the concrete tensile strengths described previously, gave better predictions than the approach for predicting

concrete breakout given in the 2011 ACI Code.11 The angles

of the breakout failure cones measured on full-scale slabcolumn connections16 are approximately 45 degrees.

For typical top bar spacing and slab concrete covers, the

interaction between the breakout cones need not be considered. Hence the projected area of the breakout cone, Ach(x),

can be calculated by

= 6 fc

(psi units)

(16)

breakout strength above the structural integrity bars reaches

a maximum. Beyond this stage, the concrete breakout

strength remains constant due to the constant concrete thickness above the bars and, hence, the contribution of these bars

to the shear resistance is also constant.

The same approach used for the structural integrity

reinforcement can be used in determining the progressive breakout of the top bars. The breakout strength of the

concrete cover over a single top bar, with the breakout

progressing to a distance of x from the crack face (refer to

Fig. 5) is equal to

Vt(x)total = Ach(x)fct,eff (17)

128

2 ( x tan 2 )

Ach ( x ) =

d 2

2 1

if

if

x < d1 cot 2

(20)

x d1 cot 2

to the center of the bar.

PULLOUT OR RUPTURE OF REINFORCING BARS

After punching shear failure occurs, large tensile strains

develop in the reinforcement and the inclinations of the

exposed bars increase with increasing displacement (refer

to Fig. 5). The reinforcement offers resistance over large

displacements until it either ruptures or suffers pullout from

the concrete, at which point the resistance of this reinforcement is assumed to be zero.

At each increment of deflection, the strain in a reinforcing

bar can be determined by the compatibility expression,

Eq.(7). The computed strain in the reinforcing steel is used

to check if rupture of the steel occurs. If rupture occurs,

then the contribution of the steel to the post-punching resistance is zero. If rupture does not occur, then the pullout

resistance of the remaining embedded portion of the bar is

checked. The bar can continue to provide shear resistance

until the remaining embedded length is reduced to the development length of the bar, ld, at which point the bar loses

its anchorage and pullout occurs. Figure 9 illustrates when

pullout is predicted for the top bars and the structural integrity bars (refer to Fig. 9(a) and (b), respectively). In determining the development length, the ACI Code11 design

expression for development length was used, assuming that

the stress in the embedded reinforcement corresponds to the

horizontal component of the force in the exposed inclined

reinforcement. The ACI Code11 design expression for development length is based on the research by Orangun et al.20

and includes an implicit bond strength reduction factor of

0.8. Hence, in checking for pullout failure, corresponding to

the nominal concrete bond strength, the development length

was taken as 0.8 times the development length determined

using the ACI Code11 equation.

SOLUTION TECHNIQUE

To predict the nonlinear response after punching shear has

occurred, the responses of the two top layers of reinforcement and the responses of the two structural integrity layers

of reinforcement are treated separately. For the top steel

contribution, values of x (refer to Eq. (9)) were incremented

and the equilibrium and compatibility relationships were

satisfied until the complete shear-versus-deflection response

was determined. Similarly for the structural integrity layers,

x (refer to Eq. (8)) was incremented to give the load deflection responses of each layer. The complete response of the

combined top and structural integrity reinforcement was

determined by adding the predicted shears for each value of

predicted deflection.

VERIFICATION OF ANALYTICAL MODEL

Figures 10 to 12 show comparisons between the postpunching predictions obtained using the analytical model

and the experimental results for slab-column specimens SS,

RS, and D1 reported by Habibi et al.16 All three specimens

had a mat of 15M top bars (diameter of 16.0 mm [0.63 in.])

and 10M bottom bars (diameter of 11.3 mm [0.44 in.]) and

structural integrity reinforcement as required by the CSA

ACI Structural Journal/January-February 2014

A23.3-04 Standard.12 Flat plate specimens SS and RS had

plan dimensions of 2.3 x 2.3 m (7.55 x 7.55 ft) and a thickness of 200 mm (7.9 in.). Specimen SS had a 225 mm (8.9 in.)

square central column and had two 15M structural integrity

bars passing through the column in each direction protruding

a distance Li of 790 mm (31.1 in.) from the column face.

Specimen RS had a 180 x 270 mm (7.1 x 10.6 in.) rectangular column and had three 15M structural integrity bars in

one direction (Li of 790 mm [31.1 in.]) and two 10M bars (Li

of 600 mm [23.6 in.]) in the other direction. The structural

integrity reinforcement was placed at the same level as the

bottom reinforcement for Specimens SS and RS. Specimen

D1 had a 225 mm (8.9 in.) square column, plan dimensions

of 2.3 x 2.3 m (7.55 x 7.55 ft) and a 160 mm (6.3 in.) thick

slab with a 1.825 x 1.825 m (6.0 x 6.0 ft) drop panel that was

90 mm (3.5 in.) thick. The structural integrity reinforcement

in Specimen D1 was the same as for Specimen SS and was

placed in the bottom of the drop panel with a clear cover of

25 mm (1.0 in.). The top and bottom clear covers were 25

mm (1.0 in.) for all three specimens.

Table 1 gives the average measured reinforcing bar properties and Table 2 gives the average material properties of

the ready mixed concrete at the time of testing used in Specimens SS, RS, and D1. The maximum aggregate size for the

concrete in this series was 20 mm (0.75 in.). The details of

reinforcement for these specimens and those for specimens

tested by others are summarized in Table 3.

Figures 10(a), 11(a), and 12(a) show the predicted contributions of the top bars to the post-punching shear resistance.

The predicted contributions of the structural integrity bars to

the post-punching response are shown in Fig. 10(b), 11(b),

and 12(b). In these figures, the end of the contributions

of the upper layer (Point A) and lower layer (Point B) of

the top bars as well as the upper layer (Point C) and lower

layer (point D) of the structural integrity bars are shown.

It is noted that the top mat of bars becomes ineffective at

a relatively early stage in the post-punching response and

offers little resistance, whereas the structural integrity rein129

Bar size

y, %

sh, %

u, %

10M

100 (0.15)

460 (66.7)

0.23

0.75

8400 (1220)

730 (106)

13

15M

200 (0.31)

420 (60.9)

0.21

0.50

8000 (1160)

723 (105)

13

Specimens SS, RS, and D1

Slab

SS

26 (3770)

3.35 (485)

3.46 (502)

RS

30 (4350)

3.16 (458)

3.88 (563)

D1

22 (3190)

2.60 (377)

4.16 (603)

resistance at very large displacements. The predictions of

the post-punching load-deflection responses of these slabs

are in good agreement with the experimentally determined

responses, including the major behavioral aspects of the

complex progressive damage to the concrete and the highly

nonlinear responses.

Table 3 shows the comparison between the results

obtained by the CSA A23.3 Standard12 design method,

the analytical model, and the test data. It is noted that the

simplified design equation used in the CSA A23.3 Standard12 provides reasonably accurate predictions of the

post-punching shear resistance. There is a good agreement

between the results predicted by the analytical model and the

experimental results. The analytical model described in this

paper is capable of predicting the maximum post-punching

resistance Vpp and the ultimate average displacement u,test,

defined as the deflection reached when the load drops to 80%

of the maximum post-punching shear resistance.

integrity reinforcement in predicting post-punching shear

versus deflection response of Specimen SS. (Note: 1 mm =

0.0394 in.; 1 kN = 0.225 kip.)

130

CONCLUSIONS

The following conclusions can be made based on observations from test results of slab-column connections and from

the behavioral aspects predicted by the analytical model

that was developed to predict the complete response of

slab-column connections after punching shear failures have

occurred:

1. Structural integrity reinforcement can provide significant post-punching shear resistance and deformability.

2. Top slab reinforcing bars, in the vicinity of the column,

provide a limited post-punching shear resistance and become

ineffective at a deflection that is considerably less than that

for the structural integrity reinforcement.

3. An analytical model was developed to predict the postpunching response of slab-column connections. This model

satisfies compatibility of deformation and equilibrium and

includes the nonlinear response of the steel reinforcement.

This model is capable of predicting the complete postpunching response of slab-column connections.

4. The analytical model is capable of predicting the

progressive breakout of each layer of the top reinforcing bars

and the structural integrity bars, the pullout of the top bars

and the structural integrity bars, and the possible rupturing

of the reinforcement.

integrity reinforcement in predicting the post-punching

shear versus deflection response of Specimen RS. (Note:

1mm = 0.0394 in.; 1 kN = 0.225 kip.)

integrity reinforcement in predicting post-punching shear

versus deflection response of Specimen D1. (Note: 1 mm =

0.0394 in.; 1 kN = 0.225 kip.)

5. The predicted shear-deflection responses agree reasonably well with the post-punching shear responses of the slabcolumn specimens that were tested. The predicted maximum

post-punching resistance and ultimate deflection agree well

with the large variety of experiments reported by others.

He received his PhD from McGill University, Montreal, QC, Canada. His

research interests include progressive collapse of reinforced concrete

structures and seismic design of structures.

AUTHOR BIOS

of Civil Engineering at McGill University, where he also received his PhD.

His research interests include nonlinear analysis of reinforced concrete

structures and the structural use of high-performance concrete.

131

Integrity

s,

bars mm

L i,

mm

fy,

MPa

Effective

top bars*

Lt ,

mm

fy,

MPa

Vtest,

kN

VCSA,

kN

Vtest

VCSA

Vpp,

kN

Vtest

Vpp

u,test,

mm

u,pred,

mm

u, pred

u,test

Slab

h, mm

fc,

MPa

S1

150

28

2-15M 145

2-15M 145

790

790

457

457

3-15M

1-15M

900

1350

457

457

314

365.6

0.86

290

1.08

183

149

1.22

S2

150

30

2-15M 145

2-15M 145

1000

1000

457

457

3-15M

1-15M

900

1350

457

457

333

365.6

0.91

321

1.04

234

234

1.00

R2

150

33

3-15M

2-10M

77

60

1000

820

457

455

3-15M

1-15M

900

1350

457

457

321

368

0.88

276

1.16

178

192

0.93

SS

200

26

2-15M 120

2-15M 120

790

790

420

420

5-15M

5-15M

1037

1037

420

420

397

336

1.18

381

1.04

188

128

1.46

RS

200

30

3-15M

2-10M

77

60

790

600

420

460

5-15M

5-15M

1010

1055

420

420

360

344

1.04

351

1.02

122

113

1.08

D1

250

22

2-15M 120

2-15M 120

790

790

420

420

8-15M

6-15M

1037

1037

420

420

519

336

1.54

492

1.05

174

160

1.08

S1-B

150

37

3-10M

3-10M

55

55

1037

1037

454

454

6-15M

6-15M

1037

1037

445

445

245

272.4

0.90

270

0.90

75

48

1.56

S1-U

150

37

3-10M

3-10M

55

55

1037

1037

454

454

4-15M

4-15M

1037

1037

445

445

273

272.4

1.00

227

1.20

50

48

1.04

S2-B

150

57

3-10M

3-10M

55

55

1037

1037

454

454

6-15M

6-15M

1037

1037

445

445

298

272.4

1.09

335

0.89

38

51

0.74

S2-U

150

57

3-10M

3-10M

55

55

1037

1037

454

454

4-15M

4-15M

1037

1037

445

445

266

272.4

0.97

282

0.94

54

51

1.05

S3-B

150

61

3-10M

3-10M

55

55

1037

1037

454

454

6-15M

6-15M

1037

1037

445

445

340

272.4

1.25

357

0.95

57

53

1.07

S3-U

150

61

3-10M

3-10M

55

55

1037

1037

454

454

4-15M

4-15M

1037

1037

445

445

281

272.4

1.03

302

0.93

43

53

0.81

PM-9

125

31

2-8

2-8

120

120

616

616

7-8

7-8

601

601

123

121

1.02

135

0.91

42

35

1.20

PM-10

125

31

2-10 120

2-10 120

560

560

7-8

7-8

601

601

159

176

0.90

172

0.92

50

41

1.21

Average

1.04

1.00

1.10

Standard deviation

0.18

0.09

0.22

Coefficient of variation, %

17.3

9.0

20.0

Civil Engineering at McGill University. He is a member of Joint ACI-ASCE

Committees 408, Development and Splicing of Deformed Bars, and 445,

Shear and Torsion.

Esh =

fc =

fct,eff =

fct,eff =

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

Sciences and Engineering Council of Canada for funding this research

program. The authors are grateful to those who assisted in the experimental

program, in particular, E. Redl and M. Egberts.

A1

Ach

As

Asb

d

d1

d2

=

=

=

=

=

=

d3

db

Es

=

=

=

132

NOTATION

cones

horizontal projection of conical breakout failure surface

area of reinforcing bar

area of structural integrity reinforcement

effective depth; depth of concrete measured to center of bar

depth of concrete measured to the center of a top bar

depth of concrete measured to the center of a structural integrity

bar

distance measured from bottom face of slab to center of a bar

bar diameter

modulus of elasticity of reinforcement

f s

fsp

fu

fy

h

L i

=

=

=

=

=

=

Lt

l2

ld

li

ln

=

=

=

=

=

lt

n

s

V

VCSA

V i

=

=

=

=

=

=

steel

concrete compressive strength

effective tensile strength of concrete used to determine breakout

resistance of structural integrity reinforcement

effective tensile strength of concrete used to determine breakout

resistance of top reinforcement

tensile stress in a bar

splitting tensile strength of concrete

ultimate strength of reinforcing bars

yield strength of reinforcing bars

slab thickness

protruding length of structural integrity reinforcement from

column face

protruding length of top reinforcement from column face

span length transverse to ln, center-to-center of supports

development length of reinforcing bar

horizontal exposed length of structural integrity reinforcement

clear span in direction moments are being considered, face-toface of supports

horizontal exposed length of top reinforcement

number of effective reinforcing bars

center-to-center spacing of bars

vertical component of force developed in a reinforcing bar

CSA Standard prediction for post-punching shear resistance

contribution of structural integrity bars to post-punching shear

resistance

Vn

Vpp

= analytical model prediction for maximum post-punching shear

resistance

Vse = shear transmitted to column or column capital under service

loads

Vt = contribution of effective top bars to post-punching shear

resistance

Vtest = experimental maximum post-punching shear resistance

Vu

= post-punching shear resistance at reinforcement rupture

w s

= total specified service load per unit area

x

= distance from punching shear crack to location where structural

integrity bars enter slab

x

= distance from punching shear crack to location where effective

top bars enter slab

= deflection of slab

u,pred = average deflection when predicted post-punching shear drops to

80% of Vpp

u,test = average deflection when experimental post-punching shear

drops to 80% of Vtest

s

= strain in reinforcing bar

sh

= strain hardening strain of reinforcing bar

u

= ultimate strain of reinforcing bar

y

= yield strain of reinforcing bar

s

= resistance factor for reinforcing bars (equal to 0.85)

= angle of inclination of reinforcement in damaged state

REFERENCES

Punching Shear Case Study, Journal of Performance of Constructed

Facilities, V. 18, No. 1, 2004, pp. 54-61.

2. Lew, H. S.; Carino, N. J.; and Fattal, S. G., Cause of the Condominium Collapse in Cocoa Beach, Florida, Concrete International, V. 4,

No. 8, Aug. 1982, pp. 64-73.

3. Mitchell, D.; Adams, J.; DeVall, R. H.; Lo, R. C.; and Weichert, D.,

Lessons from the 1985 Mexican Earthquake, Canadian Journal of Civil

Engineering, V. 13, No. 5, 1986, pp. 535-557.

4. Hawkins, N. M., and Mitchell, D., Progressive Collapse of Flat Plate

Structures, ACI Journal, V. 76, No. 7, July 1979, pp. 775-808.

5. Regan, P. E.; Walker, P. R.; and Zakaria, K. A. A., Tests of Reinforced

Concrete Flat Slabs, CIRIA Project RP 220, School of the Environment,

Polytechnic of Central, London, UK, 1979, 217 pp.

6. McPeake, F. A., Post-Punching Resistance of Internal Slab-Column

Connection, BSc honours project, Department of Civil Engineering,

Queens University of Belfast, UK, 1980, 107 pp.

Slab Structures, Journal of Structural Engineering, ASCE, V. 110, No. 7,

1984, pp. 1513-1532.

8. CSA A23.3-M84, Design of Concrete Structures, Canadian Standards Association, Rexdale, ON, Canada, 1984, 281 pp.

9. Mitchell, D., Controversial Issues in the Seismic Design of Reinforced Concrete Frames, Recent Developments in Lateral Force Transfer

in Buildings, Thomas Paulay Symposium at La Jolla, CA, Sept. 20-22,

1993, pp.73-93.

10. CSA A23.3-94, Design of Concrete Structures, Canadian Standards Association, Mississauga, ON, Canada, 1994, 199 pp.

11. ACI Committee 318, Building Code Requirements for Structural

Concrete (318-11) and Commentary, American Concrete Institute, Farmington Hills, MI, 2011, 503 pp.

12. CSA A23.3-04, Design of Concrete Structures, Canadian Standards Association, Mississauga, ON, Canada, 2004, 214 pp.

13. Melo, G. S. S. A., and Regan, P. E., Post-Punching Resistance

of Connections between Flat Slabs and Interior Columns, Magazine of

Concrete Research, V. 50, No. 4, 1998, pp. 319-327.

14. ACI Committee 349, Proposed Addition to: Code Requirements for

Nuclear Safety Related Concrete Structures (ACI 349-76), ACI Journal,

V. 75, No. 8, Aug. 1978, pp. 329-335.

15. Ruiz, M. F.; Mirzaei, Y.; and Muttoni, A., Post-Punching Behavior

of Flat Slabs, ACI Structural Journal, V. 110, No. 5, July-Aug. 2013,

pp.801-811.

16. Habibi, F.; Redl, E.; Egberts, M.; Cook, W. D.; and Mitchell,

D., Assessment of CSA A23.3 Structural Integrity Requirements for

Two-Way Slabs, Canadian Journal of Civil Engineering, V. 39, No. 12,

2012, pp. 351-361.

17. Eurocode 2, Design of Concrete Structures Part 1-1: General

Rules and Rules for Buildings, EN 1992-1-1, CEN, Brussels, Belgium,

2004, 225 pp.

18. CEB-FIP MC 90, Design of Concrete Structures, CEB-FIP Model

Code 1990, British Standard Institution, London, UK, 1993, 437 pp.

19. Kunnath, S. K.; Heo, Y.; and Mohle, J. F., Nonlinear Uniaxial Material Model for Reinforcing Steel Bars, Journal of Structural Engineering,

ASCE, V. 135, No. 4, 2009, pp. 335-343.

20. Orangun, C. O.; Jirsa, J. O.; and Breen, J. E., A Reevaluation of Test

Data on Development Length and Splices, ACI Journal, V. 74, No. 3, Mar.

1977, pp. 114-122.

21. Ghannoum, C. M., Effect of High-Strength Concrete on the Performance of Slab-Column Specimens, MEng thesis, Department of Civil

Engineering, McGill University, Montreal, QC, Canada, 1998, 91 pp.

133

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without

permission.

- Anchor DesignUploaded byAshok Kumar
- Anchor Bolts Design of Headed Anchor BoltsUploaded byDoug Lamb
- Various types of shear connectors in composite structuresUploaded byYasser Oryasso
- Structural Details to Increase Ductility of ConnectionsUploaded byNicușor Sfârlea
- 3D TrussUploaded bySathi Mech
- ERS 027 (3rd) dt 29.11.16Uploaded bySujeet Kumar
- DownloadUploaded byYogesh Mhaske
- Mechanical PropertiesUploaded bykhagendrakryadav
- 2. IJCE - Civil -Performance and Damage Assessment of Reinforced - HaridharanUploaded byiaset123
- ASTM A82 Spec. for Steel Wire, Plain for Reinforcement.pdfUploaded byVasan Sam
- 5.10 Ground Support Slab-TR34Uploaded byVũ Hà Mai Lê
- Steel Deck Institute Inc. Design Manual for Composite Decks ForUploaded byJorge Cifuentes
- 88-90Uploaded byandeekurniawan
- p3fh-Cv-2400-Cal-1004_calculation for Common Duct SuportUploaded byEko Dariyadi
- BridgeLRFD.pdfUploaded byTharach Janesuapasaeree
- Anchor Bolt Calculation 1.2Uploaded bybasum mat
- Som IntroductionUploaded byBijoy Duwary
- (5)-Maheri-Sahebi (ES-1997)Uploaded byabdullah
- Analysis of Bamboo Reinforced Concrete ColumnUploaded byRamesh
- An Architectural Vision Realized Through PrefabricationUploaded byunix0123
- malik.pptxUploaded bym yousaf
- IS 1786 2008 - TMT barUploaded byananda_beloshe75
- Bond Stress-Slip Relationship and Development Length of FRP Bars embedded in concrete p18.pdfUploaded byHashem Said
- MET_44_3_227_230_PilarczykUploaded byAnand Kalariparambil
- Paper 092Uploaded byAnshul Agarwal
- Project PaperUploaded bySeaver Lee
- PII_ S1359-6454(99)00128-7Uploaded byAwan Tri Kesuma
- u Boottechnology Copy1 180221093951Uploaded bySanket Mahadik
- New Microsoft Word DocumentUploaded byAnduel Selamaj
- 14Uploaded byAbera Zewdu

- Mathcad - 2019 SDOF Plane Frame Model Dynamic AnalysisUploaded byMochammad Surya
- 20181030_Risalah Rapat Koordinasi VE Struktur Tower II Urbantown KarawangUploaded byMochammad Surya
- (2) Fly Ash by KJSUploaded byMochammad Surya
- column_design.xlsxUploaded bySudan Shrestha
- BOLTGRPUploaded byPhanikrishnab
- Portal2DV_MT.docUploaded byMochammad Surya
- Gaya Reaksi Tga1Uploaded byMochammad Surya
- Perhit BebanUploaded byMochammad Surya
- RCC62 Retaining WallUploaded byMochammad Surya
- out_16Uploaded byMochammad Surya
- out_10Uploaded byMochammad Surya
- out_5Uploaded byMochammad Surya
- out_2Uploaded byMochammad Surya
- 5892Uploaded byMochammad Surya
- Construction Powerpoint TemplateUploaded byLorelei Bucu
- 2912Uploaded byMochammad Surya
- 2939Uploaded byIvana Bijelic
- ACI 318 14 Benefits Rationale Availability RenoUploaded byMochammad Surya
- ACI Committee 318-318-14 Cross Reference 2011 to 2014-American Concrete Institute (2014).pdfUploaded byNicopipo63
- k16-31Uploaded byMochammad Surya
- 2-8-1-PBUploaded byMochammad Surya
- Efect Test Cilynder on Compressive Strength File806Uploaded byLuis Fabian Brito
- Experimental Study of Composite StructuresUploaded bylivia_lim_2
- Ac i DiaphragmUploaded byBintaZoelvia
- Full TextUploaded byMochammad Surya
- Tekla TutorialUploaded bySyahreza Nurdian

- Curriculum-M.-Tech-Structre---Final-FY-2018.pdfUploaded byshubham sawant
- Petrone-Shear Resisting Mechanisms in CSCBUploaded byRagheb Ibrahim Ragheb
- Earthquake Design of BridgesUploaded bycoolidiot
- SS1 DesignUploaded byChahbi Ramzi
- EE1Uploaded bymythilispd_355305156
- Pell 1978 - Design loadings for foundations on shale and sandstone in the Sydney Region.pdfUploaded byJohn Van Rooyen
- hhhUploaded byMol Mol
- REPORT OF LIFTING BEAM DESIGN.docxUploaded bynarutothunderjet216
- A Guide for FEM Analysis Nw2011_18Uploaded byAnonymous bVFHov
- Analysis of High Rise Irregular Shape Building With Shear Wall at Different LocationsUploaded byPauloAndresSepulveda
- Bearing StressUploaded bysupermanedit
- analysis report of gita.pdfUploaded byrahul
- Geotechnical Manuals for SlopeUploaded byGan Chin Phang
- Dome FEMUploaded byWhy Soshant
- Chap 016Uploaded byPatrick Fahrenbach
- Steel Staircase DesignUploaded byserafini
- PSHASteps_paper de CrisisUploaded byPamela Paz Donoso Matus
- Iscm2007 CD-rom PDF 101 Fp-203-GaocyUploaded byalex
- Criterios de Fluencia en el siglo XX.pdfUploaded byjpahe
- pvt_137_06_061602Uploaded byRey Luis Teh
- Measurement of Effective Stress Shear Strength of RockUploaded byNadim527
- Effective-Stress Analysis of Berm-supported Retaining WallsUploaded byDerek Wong
- FATEMI Lecture on Fatigue (Must Read Again and Again)Uploaded bymasoodkamal
- SaddleUploaded byidiazg
- Book 1Uploaded byramuce04
- EX03. 2D Static Analysis of Rectangular Plate With HoleUploaded byJohn Dias
- Repair and Strengthening of Brick & Concrete Block Masonry HousesUploaded bykissistvan
- Fan Blade Titanium AlloysUploaded bysanmite
- The Consequence of Particle Crushing in Engineering Properties of Granular MaterialsUploaded byQual_08
- Tension MemberUploaded bynegisbabi