‫بسم الله الرحمن الرحيم‬

‫ال َحبَّ ٖة ِ ّمنۡ َخر َۡد ٖل َفتَك ُن ِفي َصخ َۡر ٍة أَوۡ ِفي‬ ‫يَٰبُن َ َّي ِإن ّ ََهٓا ِإن تَ ُك ِمثۡ َق َ‬
‫ير‬ ‫ب‬
‫ِ‬ ‫خ‬
‫َ‬ ‫يف‬ ‫ٌ‬ ‫ِ‬
‫َط‬ ‫ل‬ ‫ه‬ ‫َ‬ ‫ّ‬ ‫ل‬ ‫ٱل‬ ‫َ‬
‫ن‬ ‫ّ‬ ‫إ‬
‫ِ‬ ‫ۚ‬ ‫ه‬ ‫َ‬ ‫ّ‬ ‫ل‬ ‫ٱل‬ ‫ا‬ ‫ه‬ ‫ب‬
‫ِ‬ ‫ِ‬
‫ۡت‬ ‫أ‬ ‫ي‬ ‫ِ‬
‫ۡض‬ ‫ر‬‫َ‬ ‫ۡأ‬ ‫ل‬ ‫ٱ‬ ‫ي‬ ‫ِ‬
‫ف‬ ‫و‬
‫ۡ‬ ‫ٱلس ٰم َٰو ِتأ َ‬
‫‪ٞ‬‬ ‫َ‬ ‫ُ‬ ‫َ‬ ‫َ‬ ‫َّ َ‬

‫صدق الله العظيم‬

 WELCOME

Prof. Dr./ Mohamed Abd Elrazek Ibrahim

Professor of Reinforced Concrete
Faculty of Engineering - Azhar University

Prof. Dr./ Mahmoud Mohamed Hashem

Professor of Reinforced Concrete
Faculty of Engineering - Zagazig University
 ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
Prof. Dr./ Mohamed Mahmoud Husain
Professor of Concrete Structures
Faculty of Engineering - Zagazig University

Ass. Prof. Dr./ Hilal Abd Elkader Mahmoud

Associate Professor of Structural Engineering
Faculty of Engineering - Zagazig University

Dr./ Wadid Willim Ibrahim

Lecturer of Structural Engineering
Faculty of Engineering - Zagazig University
 ZAGAZIG UNIVERSITY
Faculty of Engineering
Structural Engineering Department

Seismic Response of Slab-Column Connection with

Pyramid Shaped Drop Panel
‫ط هرمى‬5‫صلة البالطة والعمود ذات باكية سقو‬5‫السلوك الزلزالى لو‬

Prepared By
Eng. / Ahmed Mohsin Abdo Ibrahim
Outlines Introduction

Research Objectives

Methodology

Experimental Analysis

Finite Element Analysis

Parametric Study

Conclusions and Recommendations

 Introduction
Punching Shear Failure
• Known as two-way shear failure
• Punching shear failure is suddenly occurred (non-
ductile) and may lead to full structure collapse.

Two-way shear failure One-way shear failure

 Introduction
Enhancing punching shear strength and ductility of slab-
column connection are by using different methods of shear
reinforcement or by using drop panels and column heads.

Different schemes of shear reinforcement Drop panels and column heads

 Research Objectives
Studying the behavior of internal slab-column connection with
pyramid drop panel compared to rectangular drop panel, under
the effect of vertical and horizontal loads
The main objectives can be summarized as follows:
• Punching shear strength comparison through load deflection curves using
experimental tests.
• Parametric study using finite element analysis (FEA) on key parameters that
may effect on connection behavior such as:
oThickness of drop panel (depth),
o Angle of inclination of pyramid drop panel and
o Effect of vertical load value on load deflection relationship, maximum
value of horizontal load resisted by the connection, energy absorption
capacity, ductility capacity, stiffness and over strength factor.
 Methodology
1 Experimental Analysis 2 Finite Element Analysis

Subjected to vertical load only

S01 To predict Pu (ABAQUS 2016)
Subjected to vertical and VERIFICATION OF
horizontal loads EXPERIMENTAL TESTS
S02
S2 Hz. load
Vl. load
S3 up to
50% Pu
S4 failure
S5
 Methodology
(continue)

3 Parametric Study

Subjected to vertical and 1. Load Deflection Relationship

horizontal loads
2. Maximum Value of Horizontal Load
S02
3. Energy Absorption Capacity
S2 Vl. load
Hz. load 4. Ductility Capacity
12%,
S3 up to
30%, 5. Stiffness and
S4 failure
70% Pu
6. Over Strength Factor
S5
Outlines Introduction

Research Objectives

Methodology

Experimental Analysis

Finite Element Analysis

Parametric Study

Conclusions and Recommendations

 Experimental Analysis
Model Geometry

Material
Properties

Loading PROCESS Test Specimen

Procedure

Lab Preparation
 Experimental Analysis
 Model Geometry:
- “1/4” scale of interior slab column connection
for prototype structure with equal spans of “9.6m”.
- For drop dimensions (x*x) is within range of:

- Drop thickness ,
while slab thickness assumed = 8cm
Dimensions can be produced as following:
Slab dimensions = 120cm*120cm*8cm thk.
Drop dimensions = 80cm*80cm*4cm,3cm thk.
Column dimensions = 15cm*15cm*50cm height.
 Experimental Analysis
(continue)

Material Properties
Compressive Strength of Concrete (fcu) “25MPa” after “28 days”.
Pouring Days (fcu) after 7 Days (Mpa) (fcu) after 28 Days (Mpa)
Day 1 21 26
Day 2 20 24
Day 3 22 26
 Experimental Analysis
(continue)

Reinforcing Bars
• Comp. RFC. is 10Ø6(st 240/350) both dir.
• Ten. RFC. is 10Ø8(st 240/350) both dir.
• Column RFC. is 4Ø12(st 360/520) and
stirrups 7Ø8(st 240/350)
• Rec. drop panel RFC. is 6Ø6(st 240/350) both dir.
• Pyr. drop panel RFC. is 12Ø6(st 240/350) Specimens with no drop panels

Specimens with Rec. drop panels Specimens with Pyr. drop panels
 Experimental Analysis
(continue)

Loading procedure
-First stage: is to apply vertical load with constant value and
-Second stage: is to apply horizontal load up to failure.
vertical load applied is calculated according to (ECP 203-2018), using following equations:

FFFFFFFFFF‫ۍ‬ 𝑎 𝑓𝑐𝑢 2 FFFFFFFF‫ې‬

0.316
FFFFFFFF‫ێ‬ ቀ0.5 + ቁඨ = 1.94 𝑁/𝑚𝑚 FFFFFFFF‫ۑ‬
𝑏 𝛾𝑐
FFFFFFFF‫ێ‬ FFFFFFFF‫ۑ‬
𝑞𝑐𝑢𝑝 ,𝑢𝑛𝑐𝑟𝑎𝑐𝑘𝑒𝑑 (𝑁/𝑚𝑚2 ) = 𝑡ℎ𝑒 𝑙𝑒𝑎𝑠𝑡 𝑜𝑓 FFFFFFFF‫ێ‬ FFFFFFFF‫ۑ‬
FFFFFFFF‫𝑑 × 𝛼 ێ‬ 𝑓𝑐𝑢 2 FFFFFFFF‫ۑ‬
0.8 ൬
FFFFFFFF‫𝑏 ێ‬0 + 0.2൰ ඨ = 1.58 𝑁/𝑚𝑚 FFFFFFFF‫ۑ‬
𝛾𝑐
FFFFF‫ۏ‬ FFFFFFFFFFF‫ے‬
 
Pu = * d * b0 ≅ 80 Kn
 Experimental Analysis
(continue)
Lab Preparation
The existing lab potentials weren’t at same
level with study requirements, as the
available hydraulic jack was vertically
supported on steel frame with 4 steel
columns.
• steel base made of HEB20 was used to lift Steel Base Con. to existing column
specimens to the correct level for the test,
connected by 8 No. HSB M16 to obtain
boundary condition at zero moment
location, free to rotate with no translation.
• New steel beam connected to existing
columns by friction, to support new
cantilever steel beam with hydraulic jack
to apply horizontal loads on top of
column after the application of desired
vertical load.
Specimen ready for test
 Experimental Analysis
(continue)

Experimental Results
The experimental results are presented as following:
• Load vs. Deflection in form of tables
• Load-deflection curves with comparison

1-Load vs. Deflection in form of tables

Vertical Load (Kn) Deflection (mm) Vertical Load (Kn) Horizontal Load (Kn) Deflection (mm)
10 1
15 2 10 0 1
30 4 30 0 4
40 5 40 0 5
60 7 40 18 7
70 8 40 23 10
80 10
Loads Vs Deflection of specimen (S01) Loads Vs Deflection of specimen (S02) (reference)
With no drops subjected to vertical load With no drops subjected to vertical and horizontal
only load to failure
 Experimental Analysis
(continue)

1- Loads vs. Deflections in Form of Tables (continue)

Vertical Load (Kn) Horizontal Load (Kn) Deflection (mm) Vertical Load (Kn) Horizontal Load (Kn) Deflection (mm)
15 0 0 15 0 0
30 0 1 30 0 2
40 0 3 40 0 4
40 28 5 40 28 6
40 32 6 40 32 7
40 36 7 40 36 8
40 40 9 40 40 11
40 44 12 40 44 15
Loads Vs Deflection of specimen (S2) Loads Vs Deflection of specimen (S3)
With rec. drop panel (td = 4cm) With pyr. drop panel (td = 4cm)

Vertical Load (Kn) Horizontal Load (Kn) Deflection (mm) Vertical Load (Kn) Horizontal Load (Kn) Deflection (mm)
15 0 1 15 0 1
30 0 2 30 0 3
40 0 3 40 0 4
40 23 5 40 23 6
40 32 7 40 32 8
40 36 8 40 36 10
40 41 11 40 41 14
Loads Vs Deflection of specimen (S4) Loads Vs Deflection of specimen (S5)
With rec. drop panel (td = 3cm) With pyr. drop panel (td = 3cm)
 Experimental Analysis
(continue)

2-Load-deflection curves with comparison

40 Kn remain constant
40Kn remain constant

40 40

Horizontal Loads (Kn)

Horizontal Loads (Kn)

Vertical Loads (Kn)

Vertical Loads (Kn)

20 20

40 0.0 40 0.0

S02 S2 S3 S02 S4 S5
20 40 Kn 40Kn 40 Kn 20 40 Kn 40Kn 40Kn
23 Kn 44 Kn 44Kn 23Kn 41 Kn 41Kn

0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14
Deflection (mm) Deflection (mm)

Specimens (S02&S2&S3) Specimens (S02&S4&S5)

 Finite Element Analysis
ABAQUS (2016)

Rebars Concrete Mesh Size Bond RC. Behavior B.C.

(T3D2) 3D stress (C3D8R) 3D 8- perfect using 8No. of hinged
truss elements noded Mesh size is bond (CDP) supports at same
that can carry hexahedral considered through model position of bolts,
only tensile or element with equal to the
(Rx = Ry = Rz = 0.0)
compressive reduced “20mm”. embedded
(Ux = Uy = Uz ≠ 0.0)
loads integration. method

Rebar Parameters Concrete Parameters Plasticity parameters

Density 7.75E-5 N/mm3 Dilation angle 30.0° ∼ 40.0°
Es (Mpa) 210000 “fcu” (Mpa) 25
Eccentricity 0.1
ʋ 0.3 Ec (Mpa) 22000 fb0/fc0 1.16
“fy” top/bot. mesh, drops, stirrups (Mpa) 240 K 0.667
“fy” Column Rebars (Mpa) 360
ʋ 0.18
Viscosity parameter 0.005
 Finite Element Analysis
(continue)

40Kn remain
Verification

20
constant

Horizontal Loads (Kn)

40 0.0
Vertical Loads (Kn)

S02 ABAQUS S02 EXPERIMENT

20
Pv = 40 Kn Pv = 40 Kn
Ph = 22.7 Kn Ph = 23 Kn

0.0 0.0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11
Deflection (mm)

Load-Deflection relationship for (S02) Propagation of cracks

 Finite Element Analysis
(continue)

40Kn remain constant

Verification

40

Horizontal Loads (Kn)

Vertical Loads (Kn)

20

40 0.0
S2 ABAQUS S2 EXPERIMENT

Pv = 40 Kn Pv = 40 Kn
Ph = 42.9 Kn Ph = 44 Kn

0.0 0.0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13
Deflection (mm)

Load-Deflection relationship for (S2) Propagation of cracks

 Finite Element Analysis
(continue)

40Kn remain constant Verification

40

Horizontal Loads (Kn)

Vertical Loads (Kn)

20

40 0.0
S3 ABAQUS S3 EXPERIMENT

Pv = 40 Kn Pv = 40 Kn
Ph = 43.2 Kn Ph = 44 Kn
0.0 0.0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16
Deflection (mm)

Load-Deflection relationship for (S3) Propagation of cracks

 Finite Element Analysis
(continue)

Verification

40
40Kn remain constant

Horizontal Loads (Kn)

Vertical Loads (Kn)

20

40 0.0
S4 ABAQUS S4 EXPERIMENT

Pv = 40 Kn Pv = 40 Kn
Ph = 40.8 Kn Ph = 41 Kn
0.0 0.0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
Deflection (mm)

Load-Deflection relationship for (S4) Propagation of cracks

 Finite Element Analysis
(continue)

Verification

40
40Kn remain constant

Horizontal Loads (Kn)

Vertical Loads (Kn)

20

40 0.0

S5 ABAQUS S5 EXPERIMENT
Pv = 40 Kn Pv = 40 Kn
Ph = 40.7 Kn Ph = 41 Kn

0.0 0.0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15
Deflection (mm)

Load-Deflection relationship for (S5) Propagation of cracks

Outlines Introduction

Research Objectives

Methodology

Experimental Analysis

Finite Element Analysis

Parametric Study

Conclusions and Recommendations

 Parametric Study

Subjected to vertical and 1. Load Deflection Relationship

horizontal loads
2. Maximum Value of Horizontal Load
S02
Vl. load 3. Energy Absorption Capacity
S2 Hz. load
12%, 4. Ductility Capacity
S3 up to
30%, 5. Stiffness and
S4 failure
70% Pu 6. Over Strength Factor
S5

DEFINES SEISMIC
RESISTANCE
 Parametric Study
(continue)

1.a. Load Deflection Relationship for (S02-S2-S3)

40Kn remain
10Kn remain constant

constant
40
40

Horizontal Loads (Kn)

Horizontal Loads (Kn)

Vertical Loads (Kn)

20
Vertical Loads (Kn)

30

40 0.0
S02 S2 S3 20
S02 S2 S3
10 Kn 10 Kn 10 Kn
40 Kn 40 Kn 40 Kn
10 36 Kn 44 Kn 44 Kn 0.0 20
23Kn 44 Kn 44 Kn

0.0 0.0 0.0 6 8 0.0

0 2 4 10 12 14 16
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14
Deflection (mm) Deflection (mm)

Vertical load (10Kn) Vertical load (40Kn)

25Kn remain

40

55Kn remain
constant

constant
40
20

Horizontal Loads (Kn)

35

Horizontal Loads (Kn)

Vertical Loads (Kn)

30

Vertical Loads (Kn)

55 0.0
25 0.0 50
S02 S2 S3
20 S02 S2 S3
15 25 Kn 25 Kn 25 Kn
25 55 Kn 55 Kn 55 Kn
10 36 Kn 44 Kn 44 Kn
12Kn 42 Kn 44 Kn
5
0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16
Deflection (mm) Deflection (mm)

Vertical load (25Kn) Vertical load (55Kn)

 Parametric Study
(continue)
1.b. Load Deflection Relationship for (S02-S4-S5)

10Kn remain constant

40Kn remain
constant
40
40

Horizontal Loads (Kn)

Vertical Loads (Kn)

Horizontal Loads (Kn)

Vertical Loads (Kn)
20
30

20 40 0.0
S02 S4 S5
S02 S4 S5
10 Kn 10 Kn 10 Kn
40 Kn 40 Kn 40 Kn
10 36 Kn 41 Kn 41 Kn 0.0 20
23 Kn 41 Kn 41 Kn

0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

0 2 4 6 8 10 12 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14
Deflection (mm) Deflection (mm)
Vertical load (10Kn) Vertical load (40Kn)
40
25Kn remain

55Kn remain
constant

constant
40
20

Horizontal Loads (Kn)

Horizontal Loads (Kn)

Vertical Loads (Kn)

30

Vertical Loads (Kn)

55 0.0
25 0.0 50
20 S02 S4 S5 S02 S4 S5

25 Kn 25 Kn 25 Kn 55 Kn 55 Kn 55 Kn
10 25
36Kn 41 Kn 41 Kn 12 Kn 37 Kn 39 Kn

0.0 0.0 0.0

0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 0.0
Deflection (mm) 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16
Deflection (mm)
Vertical load (25Kn) Vertical load (55Kn)
 Parametric Study
(continue)

2- Maximum Value of Horizontal Load Resisted By The Connection

Specimen Vertical Load (Kn) Horizontal Load (Kn) Specimen Vertical Load (Kn) Horizontal Load (Kn)
S02 36 S02 36
S2 44 S2 44
S3 10 44 S3 25 44
S4 41 S4 41
S5 41 S5 41

Specimen Vertical Load (Kn) Horizontal Load (Kn) Specimen Vertical Load (Kn) Horizontal Load (Kn)
S02 23 S02 12
S2 44 S2 42
S3 40 44 S3 55 44
S4 41 S4 37
S5 41 S5 39
 Parametric Study
(continue)
3- Energy Absorption Capacity
Known as Toughness, is generally defined as the area under load–deflection curve of a flexural
or stress–strain curve of a compressive test of specimen.
(İlker B. Topçu, Aytac Unverdi, in Waste and Supplementary Cementitious Materials in Concrete, (2018))
 Parametric Study
(continue)

3- Energy Absorption Capacity

A r e a u n d e r lo a d -
A r e a u n d e r lo a d -

d e fle c tio n c u r v e
d e fle c tio n c u r v e
(continue)

10Kn vertical load applied (12%Pu) 25Kn vertical load applied (30%Pu)

46.1 50.2 76.3

34.8 36.2 64.4 56.8
30.75 52.4
38.32

S02 S2 S3 S4 S5 S02 S2 S3 S4 S5
Specimens
Specimens
A r e a u n d e r lo a d -

A r e a u n d e r lo a d -
d e fle c tio n c u r v e

d e fle c tio n c u r v e
40Kn vertical load applied (50%Pu) 55Kn vertical load applied (70%Pu)

98.5 97.4 98.5 97.4

82.5 82.5
69.2 69.2
40.7 40.7

S02 S2 S3 S4 S5 S02 S2 S3 S4 S5
Specimens
Specimens
 Parametric Study
(continue)

4- Ductility Capacity
Ductility of RC element is defined by ductility factor (µΔ), which is the ratio of displacement
value at ultimate load (Δu) of the RC element to displacement value at first yield stress of
reinforcing rebars at tension side (Δy).

25Kn vertical load applied (30%Pu) 40Kn vertical load applied (50%Pu) 55Kn vertical load applied (70%Pu)

2.8
2.4 2.5 2.5
Ductility Factor

Ductility Factor

Ductility Factor
2.14
2
1.67 1.57 1.57
1.5 1.43 1.5 1.43 1.5 1.38

S02 S2 S3 S4 S5 S02 S2 S3 S4 S5 S02 S2 S3 S4 S5

Specimens Specimens Specimens
 Parametric Study
(continue)
5- Stiffness and
6- Over Strength Factor
Stiffness (ks) is the resistance of elastic body to
deflection or deformation.
Overstrength factor (Ωo) indicates the resistance
of body at plastic behavior zone.
5- Stiffness
25Kn vertical load applied 40Kn vertical load applied 55Kn vertical load applied
(30%Pu) (50%Pu) (70%Pu)

10.2 10.2 10.1 10.4 11 11.3 10.2 10.8

9.7
Stiffness

Stiffness

Stiffness
8.6 8.1 8.7 8.6 8.2 7.8

S02 S2 S3 S4 S5 S02 S2 S3 S4 S5 S02 S2 S3 S4 S5

Specimens Specimens Specimens
 Parametric Study
(continue)

6- Over Strength Factor

25Kn vertical load applied 40Kn vertical load applied 55Kn vertical load applied
(30%Pu) (50%Pu) (70%Pu)

1.83 3.28 4.23

Over Strength Factor (Ωo)

Over Strength Factor (Ωo)

Over Strength Factor (Ωo)

4 3.82

2.25 2.77
1.17 2.7
1.1
1 1.67 1.63
0.83 1.5

S02 S2 S3 S4 S5 S02 S2 S3 S4 S5 S02 S2 S3 S4 S5

Specimens Specimens Specimens
 Conclusions
1-Pyramid shaped drop panel can increase punching shear capacity compared to
rectangular drop panel.

2-Increasing thickness of pyramid shape drop panel at column face may increase
punching strength and the value of lateral load resisted by the connection.

3-Resisting capacity of connection against lateral loads are related to the vertical
load value, it was found that when value of vertical load is (70%Pu) the
connection fails when subjected to lower values of horizontal load.

4-Pyramid shape drop panel increase energy absorption capacity by (40%)

compared to rectangular drop panel
 Conclusions
5-Value of vertical load applied affect the ductility factor for interior slab-
column connection.
At vertical load equal to (30%Pu), rectangular drop panel show rigid behavior
compared to reference specimen and specimens with pyramid shaped as
well. Specimens with pyramid shaped drop panel increased ductility by
(120%) at (30% Pu).
When vertical load applied is ≥ (50% Pu), rectangular drop panel starting to
show some degree of ductility and more punching shear strength compared
to reference specimen, however pyramid shaped drop panel increased
ductility factor by (180%) of rectangular drop panel.
6-Stiffness for both rectangular and pyramid drop panels almost the same , but
results of over strength factor indicates that pyramid shape drop panel has
better performance in plastic zone than rectangular shaped drop panel with an
approximate increase of (70%).
 Recommendations for Future Studies

.Increasing thickness of pyramid drop panel and inclination angle-1

.Using shear reinforcement methods with pyramid shape drop panel-2

3-Methods of enhancing ductility of existing flat slab structures.

Outlines Introduction

Research Objectives

Methodology

Experimental Analysis

Finite Element Analysis

Parametric Study

Conclusions and Recommendations

Thank you

THE END