A Practical Approach for Addressing the

Deformation Compatibility of Flat Slabs

Andres Lepage,
p g , Ph.D.,, P.E.,, Project
j Engineer
g
KPFF Consulting Engineers
Seattle, WA

John M. Hochwalt, P.E., S.E., Associate

KPFF Consulting Engineers
Seattle, WA
Limitations and Scope:

• A rapid screening methodology is presented for detecting

the need of shear reinforcement in slab-column
connections subjected to large deflection reversals.

• The
Th method
th d iis iintended
t d d ffor slabs
l b th
thatt are nott partt off the
th
primary lateral force resisting system.

• The slabs are assumed to have post

post-tensioning
tensioning tendons or
bottom bars in each direction effectively continuous
through the column cage.
 ACI 318 Eccentric Shear Stress Model
(slabs without shear reinforcement)

Vg γv ⋅ Mub ⎛ c1 + d ⎞
+ ⎜ ⎟ ≤ φ ⋅ vc (1)
bo ⋅ d J ⎝ 2 ⎠

For Interior Connections

Non-prestressed: Prestressed:
⎧
⎪ 4 f 'c
⎪ ⎧ Vp
3.5 f ' c + 0.3 fpc +
⎪⎛ 4 ⎞ ⎪⎪ bo ⋅ d
vc = min ⎨ ⎜⎜ 2 + ⎟⎟ f 'c vc = min ⎨
⎪⎝ β c ⎠ ⎪ ⎛⎜1.5 + 40 d ⎞⎟ f 'c + 0.3 fpc + Vp
⎪ 40 d ⎪⎩ ⎝ bo ⎠ bo ⋅ d
⎪ f 'c
⎩ bo
D fi
Define Vo , Mo :

Vo = Maximum shear capacity

p y in absence of unbalanced moment

Vo = φ ⋅ vc ⋅ bo ⋅ d

Mo = Maximum unbalanced moment capacity in absence of gravity shear

J ⎛ 2 ⎞
Mo = φ ⋅ vc ⋅ ⎜ ⎟
γv ⎝ c1 + d ⎠

Simplify Equation (1) using Voand M:o

Vg Mub
+ ≤1
Vo Mo
 Stiffness Degradation of Test Specimen

Wey, E.H., and Durrani, A.J., “Seismic Response of Interior Slab-Column Connections with Shear Capitals,”
ACI Structural Journal, V. 89, No. 6, Nov.-Dec. 1992, pp. 682-691.
Mub Mo θ
Mo
C C’
1.0 C

C’
B B B’

A + A = B’
C
B
A

1.0 Vg θ 1.0 Vg
Vo Vo

Rationale for Proposed Punching Shear Model

 D ift Ratio
Drift R ti vs. Sh
Shear Ratio
R ti
Slabs without Shear Reinforcement
4.0
3.5 DR = 3.75(1-1.5VR)
3.0
2.5 DR = 2.5(1-VR)
( )
DR

2.0
1.5
1.0
0.5
00
0.0
0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0
VR
 D ift Ratio
Drift R ti vs. Sh
Shear Ratio
R ti
Slabs without Shear Reinforcement
4.0
3.5

3.0 DR = 3.5-5VR
25
2.5
DR

2.0
1.5

1.0
0.5
00
0.0
0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0
VR
DR

VR

Effect of Gravity Shear Ratio on Lateral Drift Ratio

Megally, S.H., and Ghali, A., “Punching Shear Design of Earthquake-Resistant Slab-Column Connections,”
ACI Structural Journal, V. 97, No. 5, Sept-Oct 2000, pp. 720-730.
 5.0

4.0

3.0
DR

(0.40, 2.25)
•
2.0
(0.40, 1.50)
•
1.0 •
(0.40, 1.0)

0 0.20 0.40 0.60 0.80 1.0

VR
Performance Based Design Adaptation
 5.0

FEMA 356,
4.0 CP

FEMA 356, LS
3.0
DR

2.0

1.0

0 0.20 0.40 0.60 0.80 1.0

VR
Performance Based Design Adaptation
Design
g Procedure:
Shear Reinforcement
Design Procedure:
Column Capital
 Drift demand = 2%

Post-Tensioning Manual, Post –Tensioning Institute, 5th Edition, 1990.

Example
Determine gravity shear ratio

Vg = 68 kips ( 1.2 D + 1.0 Ev + 0.5 L)

Vc = 115 kips ( ~ 4.5 f ' c ⋅ bo ⋅ d)

68
VR = = 0.59
115

DR = 2.5(1-VR) = 1.0%

Since DR = 1.0%, provide additional shear strength to enhance

deformation capacity up to 2% interstory drift ratio.
Provide Shear Reinforcement

Prescriptive Requirements:

⎛ Av ⎞ 3 f 'c ⋅ b o
⎜ ⎟ =
⎝ s ⎠ min fy

Lr ≥ 3.5d

D i St
Design Steps
• Calculate Vc at rail ends
• Determine VR
• Find DR that corresponds to VR
• Increase Lr until DR is adequate
Results
12 rails, Lr = 54”, #3 studs @ 3.5” oc
Vc = 225 kips (at rail ends)
VR = 68 = 0.30
225
DR = 3.75(1-1.5VR) = 2.1%
Provide Shear Capital

Prescriptive Requirements:

Lc ≥ 2h

Design steps: Results:

Check two critical sections For hc = 4” and Lc = 18”
1. Column Perimeter
At Column Perimeter
2. Capital Perimeter
Vc = 233 kips
For each section:
VR = 0.29
• Calculate Vc
DR = 2.1%
• Determine VR
• Find DR that corresponds to VR At C
Capital
it l P
Perimeter
i t
• Increase either hc or Lc until DR is adequate
Vc = 221 kips
VR = 0.31
DR = 2.0%
a. bottom
b tt view
i off 24-inch
24 i h shear
h capital
it l b T
b. Top view
i off 24-inch
24 i h shear
h capital
it l

Punching shear failure of specimen SC6

Wey, E.H., and Durrani, A.J., “Seismic Response of Interior Slab-Column Connections with Shear Capitals,”
ACI Structural Journal, V. 89, No. 6, Nov.-Dec. 1992, pp. 682-691.
 Strength Envelopes of Test Specimens

Wey, E.H., and Durrani, A.J ., “Seismic Response of Interior Slab-Column Connections with Shear Capitals,”
ACI Structural Journal, V. 89, No. 6, Nov-Dec. 1992, pp. 682-691.
Summary and Conclusions

When induced shear stresses under lateral displacements

are not calculated, reinforcement to resist punching shear
shall be provided in accordance with ACI 318 section 11.12
and with items 1 through 3 below:

1 At slab-column
1. l b l connections
ti where
h th
the iinterstory
t t
drift ratio (in percentage) exceeds
⎛ Vu ⎞ ⎡ Vu ⎤
2.5 ⎜⎜1 - ⎟⎟ ⎢ for ≥ 0 .4 ⎥
⎝ φ ⋅ V c ⎠ ⎣ φ ⋅ Vc ⎦
⎛ Vu ⎞ ⎡ Vu ⎤
3.75 ⎜⎜1 - 1.5 ⎟⎟ ⎢for φ ⋅ Vc < 0.4⎥
⎝ φ ⋅ Vc ⎠ ⎣ ⎦

for the load combination:

1.2 D + 1.0 Ev + f 1 ⋅ L + f 2 ⋅ S
2. When shear reinforcement is required, the shear
strength Vs shall not be less than 3 f ' c ⋅ bo ⋅ d
3a. Shear reinforcement shall be provided over a minimum
length equal to 3.5 times the slab depth measured from
the face of the column.

3b. When shear capital is provided it shall extend a

minimum length equal to 2 times the slab depth
measured from the face of the column.
Continuity Reinforcement

ACI 318 Section 13.3.8.5 (Non-prestressed slabs)

“All bottom bars within the column strip
p shall be continuous…
two of the column strip bottom bars in each direction shall
pass within the column core…”

ACI 318 Section 18.12.4 (

(Prestressed slabs))
“… A minimum of two tendons shall be provided in each
direction through the critical shear section over columns…”
 FEMA 356 Acceptance Criteria for Two-Way Slabs
and Slab-Column Connections

Plastic Rotation Angle,

Angle radians

Secondary Components
Vg Vo Life Safety Collapse
p Prevention

≤ 0.2 0.03 0.05

≥ 0. 4 0 03
0.03 0 04
0.04

Values for Vg Vo ≤ 0.2are in agreement

with the recommended model

For cases where Vg Vo ≥ 0.4, FEMA 356 values

are not supported by the experimental data