10

10.1

PUNCHING SHEAR STRENGTH

INTRODUCTION

The failures at H2, I2 and J2 at Pipers Row all showed the classic features of punching shear failure, as do most of the subsequent column failures. In this section comparisons have been made between the original CP114 design estimates of punching shear strength in 10.2, and the BS8110 design and appraisal procedures in 10.3. More fundamental estimates of the strength, as built and with deterioration and repairs at the time of failure, have been carried out based on research on punching strength in 10.4 and on detailed finite element analyses in 10.5. There is a body of specialist literature [e.g. 40-42] on the evolution of the shear design rules in CP114, CP110 and BS8110 and on the testing flat slabs to induce punching shear failures. BRE have carried out a detailed review [H216] of these publications and the source research as it relates to the particular features at Pipers Row and Prof Regan has carried out a complementary survey [H222]. From this, BRE have developed a best estimate for the strength of the Pipers Row column heads as built, with the effects of deterioration developing progressively down from the top of the slab and with repairs. The strength of the slab in punching shear has been determined using CP114, the original design basis, and BS8110 the current design code and also the basis on which assessments of current strength are made when following IStructE Appraisal of Existing Structures [32] approach. These calculations have been carried out by BLS in 1964 [H190 - 201] for the original design, H&S for their report [H2] to NCP after the collapse in May 1997 and in subsequent calculations [H5 - 9] August 1997, by AV for this study and by SS&D. [H209 213 & 215] One objective has been to identify the range of interpretations of the code rules to assess the magnitude of the inaccuracies in assessment of the resistance of sections, which is one of the uncertainties covered by the m in BS8110. This should lead to improved guidance on the most appropriate basis for future appraisals of flat slab and deteriorating concrete structures. The codified rules are relatively straightforward to apply to a conventional in-situ flat slab with uniformly spaced reinforcement. With the lift slab configuration, a range of more or less appropriate interpretations can be made which can give rise to inaccuracies which erode the partial factor. Many of these interpretations are not inconsistent with the wording in CP114 and BS8110, which can be ambiguous or ill defined when applied to unusual structures or those which were not designed to meet BS8110 layout and detailing assumptions. The factor of safety m also needs to cover variation in concrete strength and, with f, the inaccuracies which arise from the geometric differences between the as-built structure and the as-designed structure shown on the drawings. Design stresses are calculated on the basis of the nominal geometry, but the specification tolerances give a scatter on strength. The m factor also needs to cover the wider variation found on site.

115

10.2

DESIGN FOR SHEAR TO CP114.

When CP114 was written, relatively little experimental work on shear had been carried out and simple empiricism was used in calculating the strength in shear and in particular for punching shear strength around columns in flat slabs. The deficiencies of CP114 in shear became a cause clbre in structural engineering and major programmes of research were carried out by Regan[41], Chana [42] and others in the UK which provided the basis for the progressive development of more reliable strength clauses in CP110, BS8110 and BS5400. CP114 shear rules should never be used in appraisal as the basis for determining the strength of a flat slab in shear. The CP114 check is based on comparing the column reaction V under working load with the strength at a working stress of 100lb/in2 (0.69N/mm2) for the 3000lb/in2 (20.5N/mm2) concrete specified on the area of depth equal to the lever arm around the shear perimeter at 0.5 x the thickness of the slab from the column or drop. The principle limitations in CP114 for punching shear are: 1. CP114 ignores the transfer of moment from the slab into a column, which causes the shear stress on one side to be increased. This is explicitly considered in BS8110. CP114 ignored the effect of flexural reinforcement on shear strength, which it related simply to concrete strength. BS8110 relates the permissible shear stress to the area of steel crossing the shear perimeter, slab depth and concrete strength. CP114 perimeter at half the slab thickness from the column and the use of the lever arm for the effective depth carrying shear has been superseded in BS8110. The effective shear depth of slab and the shear perimeter around the column were redefined in BS8110 with adjustment to the permitted shear values and there is an additional check close to the column. The particular requirements for edge column shear design were not covered in CP114, but are given specific treatment in BS8110. The treatment of holes in the slab adjacent to a column is not included in CP114, but there is a requirement in 329 that an opening should not encroach upon a column head or drop

2.

3.

4.

5.

10.2.1

British Lift Slab calculations

In the original BLS design to CP114 in 1964 punching shear was checked for the four types of shear head. Only Type 1 (at J2) and Type 4 (at H2 and I2) shear heads were used in the area that collapsed. The 10 x 10 columns (254mm x 254mm) Types A and F, as at J2, had a rectangular 18 by 16.5 (457mm by 419mm) Type 1 collar shear head. The column load for roof design was 43,200lbs, (192kN) which BLS calculated gave a working shear stress of 67lb/in2 (0.46N/mm2) compared to the 100lb/in2 (0.69N/mm2) permitted. This corresponds to a working stress strength of 287kN in the absence of holes. In the available calculations there are no checks on the holes adjacent to J2, perhaps the reserve of strength was considered adequate to permit this.

116

The 12 x 12 columns (305mm x 305mm) Types E & I, as at H2 and I2, had a 36 by 18.5 (914mm by 470mm) Type 4 collar shear head with angles protruding 9.75 (248mm). The column load for service design for the roof was 97,000lbs (431kN) which BLS calculated gave a working shear stress of 97.5 lb/in2 (0.67N/mm2), compared to the 100lb/in2 (0.69N/mm2) permitted. This corresponds to a working stress strength of 443kN. In these calculations BLS took 8.25 (210mm) as the thickness of the slab for determining the perimeter and calculated the lever arm as 0.85 x 8.25. The 8.25 is not the thickness of the slab, actually 9 (229mm ), nor the slab depth to the top of angle at 8.125 (206mm) , nor the distance from the average depth of the T1 and T2 reinforcement at I2 to the soffit at 7.5 (190mm) , nor the distance from the average depth of the reinforcement at I2 to the top of the angle at 6.625 (168). The value of 0.85 for calculating the lever arm is a typical value within the range of those derived using methods permitted by CP114. BLS did not calculate the effect of misfit on the height of the supports on the column reactions, but there are calculations dated 15/8/64 [H193] on the effect of a 3/8 (10mm) differential in level during lifting on the moments in the slab. 10.2.2 Interpretations of CP114 for Lift Slabs

Despite its simplicity CP114 strength calculation is open to a wide range of interpretations when applied to Pipers Row. These are of importance as some clients have instructed their engineers to carry out assessments on the basis of the original design, rather than the current codes which IStructE [32] recommends as the appropriate basis for strength assessment. In interpreting codes, designers tend to adopt the most economic interpretation, ie that which maximises the calculated strength of the section. This is balanced by a tendency to use the code simplifications which are conservative. If a section fails in appraisal on the basis of the simple method, then it is often reappraised to give a better answer. It is often the interpretation of the wording in the code, rather than a consideration of the underlying principles of structural behaviour, which guides the engineers application of a code. Increasingly code checks are based on entering numbers in boxes in generalised software which gives added scope for mistakes when used on an unconventional structures. In evaluating CP114 and reviewing the interpretations which H&S adopted in their analyses after the failures and which AV used in their checks for this study, the objective has not been to decide that one particular interpretation of the flawed CP114 is right, but to examine how wide a range of strength estimates might be reasonably derived from the code. The H&S report to NCP in May 1997 included checks on the slab at J2 and H2 to CP114, where compliance was reported, and BS8110 checks which are discussed below. Following further discussions with HSE, H&S carried out some further CP114 checks in August 1987 to examine the sensitivity to different assumptions and to include the full set of 12 columns in the area of collapse. Amey Vectra reported, in their calculations 1300-218-C100[H210], their CP114 assessment of the slab in flexure and shear. AV were left to develop their own interpretations of the code and their assumptions cover a wide range. In making comparisons and drawing conclusions from these studies a limited number of examples have been recalculated on a standard reference set of assumptions.

117

The thickness of a normal flat slab is unambiguous and the treatment of drops is clear in CP114. However the setting of the collar angle with its top surface 7/8 (22mm) above the slab soffit, 8.125 (206mm) below the top of the slab and 6.625 (168mm) below the average centroid of the top steel, has led to four interpretations in sizing the perimeter at thickness/2 from the ends of the shear head angles based on: i) full slab thickness at 9 (229mm) ii) thickness to the bottom of angle at 8.5(216mm) iii) thickness to the top of the angle at 8.125(206mm) iv) thickness as 200mm In determining the lever arm la , which CP114 uses as the effective depth in shear, it must be decided if the shear fracture surface depth should be related to the overall depth of slab or the depth to the top of the angle from which the shear fracture originated (HSE sketch in Appendix B of H&S report May 1997). Figure 10.2 - 1 compares the shear fracture positions for a normal in-situ detail with Pipers Row lift slab.

Figure 10.2 - 1 Comparison of normal in-situ detail with Pipers Row lift slab shear head.

The value of the lever arm is based on effective depth d1 which has variously been taken for I2, and similarly for other locations, as ranging from d1 = 8.25 (210mm), as assumed by BLS d1 = 7.5 (191mm), the distance from the average depth of the T1 and T2 reinforcement at I2 to the soffit d1 = 6.625(168mm), the distance from the average depth of the T1 and T2 reinforcement at I2 to the top of the angle AV calculated d1 and lever arm la separately for the T1 bar face and the T2 bar face.

118

The lever arm la in CP114 can be calculated from d1 on a range of different bases using either the modular ratio or load factor method. These can be based simply on the modular ratio and maximum permitted concrete and steel stress giving la = 0.89d1. If la is calculated on the load factor basis with the variation of the steel As/bd on the effective width considered, together with the moments applied to the section, the lever arm can be in the range la =0.75d1 and 0.95d1. AV pursued this in considerable detail in their calculations with la ranging from 138 to 194mm. The treatment for holes and for edge columns, which are critical in the evaluation of J2 are not clarified in CP114. The projecting angles of the Type 4 shear head collar at H2 and I2 extend 7 (178mm) beyond the lift angles. They are more flexible than a column support of the same area and so may be less than fully effective, making it prudent to reduce the shear perimeter. It has also been argued [44] that the projecting angles create stress concentrations which could trigger the brittle failure mode. These aspects are evaluated in detail by BRE DIANA analysis in 10.5. In appraisal both H&S and AV have considered the influence of curtailment of the angles. H&S reduced the effective length of the angles by 21mm at each end reducing the shear perimeter by 2.5 %. AV in CP114 calculations reduced the effective angle length by 90 mm each end, reducing the shear perimeter and slab strength by 10%. CP114 permitted the use of the age factor for the increase of concrete strength with time, which was a characteristic of cements at that time. This would permit for concrete of over 1 year old an increase of f cu from 1000 to 1240lb/in2, with a 14.4% increase in the permissible shear stress from 100 to 114.4 lb/in2 (0.69 to 0.79N/mm2 ). Normally this enhancement would be checked by core strength tests before it was used in assessment. As noted in 8.3.1 a typical set of cores from the car park as a whole would have justified the use of this factor. However, a set of cores specifically from the more deteriorated areas in the repaired slab in 1996 would have shown concrete weaker than originally specified. 10.2.3 Comparison of CP114 Estimates of Reactions and Punching Strength

The range of permissible shear strengths calculated to CP114 are compared to the working load column reactions Vt in Table 10.2.3 - 1. This gives the vertical reaction Vt, as distinct from the BS8110 Veff which includes the effect of moments as used for the comparisons in Section 9.2. In these comparisons the strength has been related to the reactions Vt from the AV CP114 sub- frame analysis, after the redistribution which reduces the reactions at H2 and I2. The review shows that the original shear design at H2 and I2 broadly complied with the CP114 design requirements, except marginally at I2 if the most rigorous assumptions are made. At J2 there was a substantial reserve of shear strength without the holes. With the holes, which are a departure from the detailing requirements, the design can be close to the CP114 limit, depending on the assumptions made. If the CP114 strengths were related to the AV grillage analysis reactions (eg 416kN compared to 331kN from sub-frame analysis at I2), it would show a substantial overstress utilisation factors of up to 1.29, for H2 and I2 relative to CP114 strength. The scatter of strength estimates that arise when CP114 has been interpreted for a structural form which departs from the conventional in-situ construction, gives an unacceptable wide range as shown in Table 10.2.3 - 2. A rigorous strength estimate for I2 of 320kN, contrasts with the original design strength estimate of 443kN.

119

Table 10.2.3 - 1 Comparison of CP114 estimates of DL + LL reactions and punching strength ________________________________________________________________________________ Reactions H2 I2 J2 kN/m2 Vt kN Vt kN Vt kN ________________________________________________________________________________ AV Design DL + LL 8.62 368 423 141 ANSYS AV BS8110 Grillage AV CP114/BS8110 Subframe # H&S adjusted to Superstress subframe # BLS Design Max 8.62 368 416 151

8.62

294

331

166

8.62

293

331

168

8.62

431

431

192

# redistributed with Moments ________________________________________________________________________________ H2 I2 J2 Vc kN Vc kN Vc kN (Load/Strength relative to AV CP114 Subframe) Vc /294 Vc /331 Vc/166 _______________________________________________________________________________ BLS Basis. * J2 No holes. 443 66% 443 75% 287* 58%* H&S Full angles H&S Curtailed angles AV Curtailed angles p 7/10 347 341 334 85% 86% 88% 347 342 332 95% 97% 100% 176 176 207 94% 94% 80% Strengths

AV Summary Part 1. 4/7 317 93% 305 109% 167 99% ________________________________________________________________________________

Table 10.2.3 - 2 Sensitivity of CP114 punching strength to slab depth, lever arm and effective shear head angle length ________________________________________________________________________________ Recalculated Strengths for I2. I2 (Load/Strength relative to AV CP114 Subframe) Vc kN Vc /331 _______________________________________________________________________________ Full depth slab, full angles, la = 0.89 Full depth slab, full angles, la = 0.85 Full depth slab, angles - 22, la = 0.85 Full depth slab, angles - 90, la = 0.85 430 411 402 371 77% 81% 82% 89%

To angle, full angles, la = 0.85 356 93% To angle, angles - 22, la = 0.85 347 95% To angle, angles - 90, la = 0.85 320 103% ________________________________________________________________________________

120

10.3

DESIGN FOR SHEAR TO BS8110.

CP110 in 1972 introduced new requirements for flat slab design on the basis of research and testing. BS 8110 in 1985 developed and refined them. This evolution is reviewed in detail in Section 10.4. and in the BRE Contract C Report. The BS8110 approach to flat slab design was reviewed and additional guidance was given, in CIRIA report 110:1994 Design of reinforced concrete flat slabs to BS8110[24]. This report refers to BS8110:1997 Clause numbers, but BS8110:1985, with amendments to No. 4 1993, was current the period leading up to the collapse. For the punching shear for the Pipers Row configuration there are no technical differences between the two editions, but there are changes in Clause numbering. The main emphasis in this review of BS8110 and in the more detailed BRE studies, is on the treatment of punching shear for the particular parameters relating to Pipers Row. Calculations have been undertaken for the as-designed structure and the as- built structure for H2, I2 and J2. The effects of deterioration and repair and the relationship of BS8110 to more recent research have been considered in detail by BRE [H217, 218] and in Sections 10.4 and 10.5. 10.3.1 Calculations to BS8110 by Amey Vectra and Harris & Sutherland

The H&S report to NCP in May 1997 included checks on the slab at H2 and J2 to BS8110, which identified overstress under the design dead + live load condition for the as-designed slab and greater overstress with an assumed 70mm deterioration. Following further discussions with HSE, H&S carried out some further BS8110 checks in August 1997 [H6 - 9] to examine the sensitivity to different assumptions and to include the full set of 12 columns in the area of collapse. For this H&S used an estimated dead load 5.5kN/m2, based on the as-constructed slab and surfacing, and a live load of 2.5kN/m2, in accordance with current design practice, giving a factored load of 11.7kN/m2. For the comparisons set out below H&S figures have been adjusted pro rata to a factored loading of 12.55N/m2 corresponding to factored original design loadings used in the reference set of calculations. In some instances H&S figures have been recalculated using their assumptions, but with other parameters standardised to enable more direct comparisons to be made. In their original Report in May 1997 H&S reported in Clause 11.5.1, a 63% overstress (ie 163% capacity) for an undeteriorated H2 on the assumption of the lower bound vc = 0.38N/mm2, discounting the effectiveness of the reinforcement due to its spacing away from the column head. In their revised calculations for H2 [H6, page 21] they give vc = 0.65N/mm2 after considering the effectiveness of reinforcement and reported a 71% BS8110 capacity relative to a fixed column sub frame analysis (which gives a Veff of about 75% of the value from the ANSYS Plate analysis, see Table 9.3.2 - 1). This indicates the sensitivity of BS8110 appraisal to the assumptions made in deriving both strength and load. Amey Vectra have reported, in their calculations 1300-218-C200, on their independent BS8110 assessment of the slab in flexure and shear. AV were left to develop their own interpretations of the code and their assumptions cover a wide range. In making comparisons and drawing conclusions from these studies a limited number of examples have been recalculated on standard reference set of assumptions as set out in 10.3.2.

121

10.3.2

Basis of BS8110 Punching Shear Calculations

The BS8110 treatment of punching shear is radically different from that in CP114. The main features of BS8110 calculations are: i) The design is based on the comparison of the loads factored by f, which are compared with the characteristic strength divided by the partial materials factor m. For shear m is 1.25, and is included in the Table 3.8 values of vc the design shear stress. The transfer of moment from the slab into a column, which causes the shear stress on one side to be increased, is explicitly considered in BS8110 by using: Veff = Vt (1 + 1.5Mt/(Vt x)) for the moments Mt transferred from the slab to the column about the x and y axes. x is the breadth of the shear perimeter face For edge columns, like J2 , Veff is taken as 1.25Vt for the face parallel to the edge and as Veff = Vt (1.25 + 1.5Mt/(Vt x)) where moments arise about an axis perpendicular to the edge . iii) BS8110 Table 3.8 relates vc the design shear stress on the shear perimeter to the characteristic concrete 28 day strength and the area of steel crossing the shear perimeter. where vc = 0.79((100As/(bv d))1/3 (400/d)1/4 (f cu/25)1/3 )/ m N/mm2. iv) The effective shear depth of the slab is defined as the effective depth d from the centroid of the top reinforcement to the soffit. The shear perimeter around the column is taken at 1.5d from the column. The treatment of holes and of edge columns close to the edge of the slab is explicitly covered.

ii)

v) vi)

Problems of interpretation for the Lift Slab shear head details arise with BS8110 in relation to: i) The value assumed for d, when calculating the shear perimeter dimensions and shear depth, to account for the shear failure initiating at the seating on the angle support horizontal flange 22mm above the soffit, as distinct from soffit level with conventional in-situ construction, see Figure 10.2 - 1. The influence of the non uniform distribution of flexural steel in relation to the shear perimeter which can significantly influence As/(bv d)) and hence vc. This is sensitive to the precise location of the top steel in the slab and the assumptions made in relation to the shear perimeter, as any bars outside the shear perimeter are discounted. The differences in dimension between nominal (19mm) round bars and the square twisted bars (SQT) which occupy a depth of 23.9mm and similarly with 5/8 (15.9mm) SQT bars with a depth of 19mm.

ii)

iii)

122

iv)

The definitions in Clause 1.3.3 (relating to the perimeters in Clause 3.7.7) of BS8110 average the properties (As/(bv d), d and vc) on the 4 faces. This discounts the possibility that the weakest face may have the highest shears. It would seem appropriate for a brittle mode of fracture that checks should be based on each face around the shear perimeter using the relevant values of vc, As , d, bv , x, and Veff . This would be consistent with the individual checks carried out on 4 beams meeting at a column. The difference between these two approaches becomes significant at Pipers Row where the structure falls outside the range for which BS8110 simplifications are recommended and has: - non uniform spans, so Veffx differs from Veffy, - As/(bv d) and vc are significantly different on the x and y faces, - the perimeter sides are of unequal length.

v)

The extent to which the full area of the Type 4 extended angle shear heads at H2 and I2 can be considered effective or if curtailment is appropriate to reflect their low stiffness compared to a column support. The potential stress concentration effects of the Type 4 angle shear heads at H2 and I2. The complex of holes around J2. The curtailment of the T2 bars just short of the column J2, where the B2 bars stop just short of the seating on the angle.

vi) vii) viii)

10.3.3 Parametric Study of Sensitivity of Strength to Assumptions To demonstrate the sensitivity of the strength calculations to the range of interpretations of BS8110, the design strengths Vc have been recalculated on a reference basis and compared to the reference values of Veff with the original factored design loading 12.55kN/mm2, from the AV ANSYS plate analysis. The ratio of Veff/Vc ,can be expressed as the % Capacity (as reported by H&S) or the Utilisation Factor (as reported by AV). It will be appreciated that this % Capacity is a relative measure, not an absolute one, as the load Veff is sensitive to the assumptions and method of analysis as evaluated in Section 9.3. H2 and I2 column heads are similar and their strengths have been evaluated on the reference basis. The full parametric study on the effect of a range of assumptions on Vc has been summarised for I2 with more limited examples for H2. The very different configuration at J2 is treated separately in 10.3.4. The standardised reference as-designed set of assumptions and dimensions with the specified 20.5N/mm2 concrete is: at H2. 229mm (9) slab with 19mm cover to 19mm dia. T1 bars, with 16mm dia. T2 bars below and the effective shear seating on the full area of the 914 by 470 shear head angle at 22mm above the soffit. 229mm (9) slab with 19mm cover to 19mm dia. T1 bars, with 19mm dia. T2 bars below and the effective shear seating on the full area of the 914 by 470 shear head angle at 22mm above the soffit.

at I2

123

The reference as-built set of assumptions and dimensions with 20.5N/mm2 concrete is: at H2. 235mm (9) slab with 40mm cover to SQT T1 bars, which occupy a depth of 23.4mm, with 5/8 SQT T2 bars, 19mm deep, below and the effective shear seating on the top face of the flanges of the 914mm by 470mm shear head angle at 22mm above the soffit. 229mm (9) slab with 29mm cover to SQT T1 bars, which occupy a depth of 23.4mm, with SQT T2 bars, 23.4mm deep, below and the effective shear seating on the top face of the flanges of the 914mm by 470mm shear head angle at 22mm above the soffit.

at I2

These reference dimensions are shown on Figure 8.3.9 - 2. The as-constructed thickness is based on the average slab depth from Section 8.2.1. The reinforcement dimensions and cover come from the HSE site sketches of H2 and I2 [H134, 136]. Figures 4.2 - 1 and 2 show the asdesigned reinforcement around H2 and I2, as taken by AV from the original BLS drawings. The steel areas, As per bar, are taken as 285mm2 for the 19mm SQT bar and as 198mm2 for 16mm 5/8 SQT reinforcement. The spacing of the top reinforcement from columns H2 and I2, is set out in Figure 8.3.9 - 1 showing the as-designed values from the original BLS drawings and as-built values from the HSE site sketches. In calculating vc, the number of bars contributing to As/(bv d) falling within the shear perimeter width bv , varies according to the assumptions. Figure 10.3.3 - 1 shows the variation in BS8110 Table 3.8 vc with the width of the perimeter for the as-designed bar spacings at I2 for the T1 and T2 bars respectively. A range of shear perimeter assumptions at 1.5d outside the assumed support angle area are shown in Figure 10.3.3 - 2. This also shows the perimeter at 3d outside the angles which are considered on the basis of research (see 10.4) to be a more appropriate basis for calculating As/(bv d) and vc.

124

Short side of I2, as designed, T1 bars: Sensitivity of design shear stress vc to perimeter width
0.90

0.80

Table 3.9 Shear Stress vc N/mm2.

0.70

0.60

0.50

0.40

0.30

0.20

0.10

1.5d

3d

0.00 0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500

Width of Perimeter mm.

Long side of I2, as designed, T2 bars: Sensitivity of design shear stress vc to perimeter width

0.90

0.80

0.70

Table 3.9 Shear stressvc N/mm2

0.60

0.50

0.40

0.30

0.20

0.10

1.5d

3d

0.00 0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500

Width of Perimeter mm

Figure 10.3.3 - 1 Variation in design shear stress vc with perimeter width, for 'as-designed' I2

125

Figure 10.3.3 - 2. Range of shear perimeter assumptions relative to shear head.

126

The main variations in the interpretation of BS8110 are: 1a) To Angle (reference assumption): taking the depth d from the centroid of the top reinforcement to the top of the angle horizontal flange at 22mm above the soffit, from which shear fracture initiated. To Soffit: taking the full slab depth d from the centroid of the top reinforcement to the soffit. Although some people have followed this literal interpretation of the BS8110 wording, this is clearly inappropriate as the shear failure starts from the angle support. Full Angle: taking the full 914mm length of the angles as supporting the slab Angle - 90mm: with only part (734mm) of the length of the angle effectively supporting the slab.

1b)

2a) 2b)

The uncertain stiffness of the projecting angles has been variously treated by assuming each end of the angles to be ineffective for 22mm in H&S calculations 90mm in AV CP114 calculations 136mm in AV in BS8110 calculations.

In these comparisons the 90mm value has been used as a sensitivity check. The effectiveness of the projecting angles has been further evaluated with the BRE DIANA analysis, the results of which are reviewed in 10.5.5. The design shear strengths Vc (= average vc x perimeter x d) for H2 and I2, are compared in Table 10.3.3 -1 to the factored column effective shear forces Veff max from AV ANSYS under the original factored design loading of 1.4 (5.41 + 0.81) + 1.6 x 2.4 = 12.55kN/m2 . This follows the BS8110 definitions in summing the strengths of the 4 sides.
Table 10.3.3 -1 Columns H2 and I2: BS8110 comparison of Strength with Load. ________________________________________________________________________________ H2 I2 kN/m2 Veff max kN Veff max kN _____________________________________________________________________________ Factored Load AV ANSYS. DL x 1.6 + LL x 1.4 12.55 562 630 ________________________________________________________________________________ Strength (Veff/ Vc %relative to AV ANSYS ) H2 H2 I2 I2 Veff/ Vc Vc kN Veff/Vc Vc kN ________________________________________________________________________________ As-design As-design As-design To Angle, Full Angles REF 510 574 466 110% 98% 121% 538 606 464 117% 104% 136%

To Soffit, Full Angles To Angle, Angles -90mm

As Built, To Angle, Full Angles 428 131% 517 122% ________________________________________________________________________________

127

The design shear strengths Vc for I2 have also been calculated for the sides of the perimeter. These are compared to the factored column effective shear forces Veffx and Veffy on the T1 and T2 faces under the original factored design loading of 12.55kN/m2 Veff gives the stress and force on the more highly stressed of the two parallel sides. The Veff has been apportioned to the sides on the basis that Veff Tn = Veff (side length/perimeter). so for Veff T2 for T2 bars // to line 2, Veff T1 for T1 bars // to line I, Veff T2 =0.301Veff Veff T1 =0.199Veff

Table 10.3.3 - 2 Column I2: Considering Shear Force Vc on T1 and T2 Sides. ________________________________________________________________________________ Veff x kN Veff y kN kN/m2 T2 T1 ________________________________________________________________________________ Load DL x 1.6 + LL x 1.4 12.55 Veff T. 190 124 ________________________________________________________________________________ Strength ( Veff/ Vc% relative to AV ANSYS ) Vc xT2 kN VeffT2 / Vcx Vc yT1 kN VeffT1 / Vcy _____________________________________________________________________________ As-design To Angle, Full Angles, REF 136 139% 133 93% As-design To Angle, Angles -90 99 192% 133 93%

As-built To Angle, Full Angles 138 137% 120 103% _____________________________________________________________________________

The marked increase in T2 overstress with the 90 mm curtailment of the ends of the angles arises because the number of bars crossing the perimeter falls from 4 to 2, markedly reducing vc. The BS8110 Clause 1.3.3 definitions give an overstress of 15% for the REF case based on the sum of the strengths of the sides. However, on the T2 bar side towards H2 there is an overstress of 39%, while the short T1 bar side towards I1 has a 10% reserve of strength. Because of the brittleness of the failure mode the overstress on the T2 bar side will trigger a failure before the stress can redistribute to the other sides. For the Pipers Row Lift Slab configuration following the Clause 1.3.3 definitions will give an erroneous overestimate of strength and the side by side approach should be followed. BS8110 definitions should be reviewed so that this more realistic approach is used for design, to ensure that the steel is orientated to give a sufficient As/(bv d) and vc . This approach is also essential for the appraisal of existing structures, so that in cases like Pipers Row the strength reserves are correctly determined. These higher stress side average forces and stresses are further compared to the average stresses on comparable perimeters from the ANSYS and Diana analyses in 10.5.3.

128

Effect of tolerances on thickness and cover Strength is calculated on nominal dimensions and the factor of safety m = 1.25 is in part to cover the effect of specified BS8110 +5mm and -10mm tolerances on cover and an estimated +/-10mm variation on thickness. Table 10.3.3 - 3 shows the change in BS8110 strength at I2 relative to the Reference asdesigned case with this range of tolerances.
Table 10.3.3 -3 Column I2: Change in Strength with BS8110 Cover and Thickness Tolerances. _____________________________________________________________________________ I2 Load kN/m2 Veff kN AV ANSYS. 12.55 630 ________________________________________________________________________________ Strengths (Veff/ Vc% relative to AV ANSYS ) I2 I2 Effect Vc kN Veff/ Vc Ref/ Vc ________________________________________________________________________________ As Designed, To Angle, Full Angles REF 538 117% 100% as above 229mm slab, but cover 14mm as above 229mm slab, but cover 29mm 553 508 114% 124% 97% 106%

as above, but 219mm slab and cover 29mm 415 152% 130% ________________________________________________________________________________

From this it is clear that an area of slab around a column at 219mm thick (ie 10mm under nominal thickness) with the top steel low, giving 29mm cover, would more than fully utilise the m = 1.25 factor, which also has to accommodate other uncertainties in the strength. The variation in both cover and thickness found from measurements on the retained slabs indicates that the variation at Pipers Row was wider than the limits assumed above. These wide tolerances, outside the limits in Standards, are frequently found in normal construction practice. 10.3.4 Strength of J2

J2 is an edge column and BS8110 has different rules for them. Veff is enhanced by 25%, but it is not clear if this is an additional factor of safety to cover the uncertainties of analysis as well as the effects of the column moments. For this review the Veff has been calculated both as for an internal column on the basis of the moments Mx and My and using the 1.25 factor. For J2 the strength calculations are complicated by the holes for the drains and the cut outs for the lifting rods which reduce the effective shear perimeter. The holes and as-designed reinforcement configuration is shown in Figure 4.2 - 3. The 457mm x 419mm shear head round the 254mm square column is of Type 1, with no projecting angles. The damage after the collapse prevented any reliable measurements of reinforcement cover and disposition being taken so there are no as-built details.

129

Figure 10.3.4 -1 Column J2: Holes and 1.5d shear perimeters

130

Different engineers have formed different opinions about the effective perimeter at J2 and the range of assumptions have been evaluated and compared on a standard basis: 1 2 Full Perimeter, assuming no holes . The perimeter Max effective length, ie excluding the actual length crossing holes and the 115mm width of the lifting bar slot. The perimeter based on the BS8110 Clause 3.7.7.7 radial hole divergence from the centre of column (as H&S 20 Aug 97 p21/21), but BS Figure 3.18 shows holes outside the perimeter, not inside as at J2. The Conservative perimeter, based on discounting all strength to the J3 side of the shear head angle (as H&S May 97 and AV 11/99)

These are shown in Figure 10.3.4 - 1 . The infill concrete in the lifting holes and the drain surround have been considered to be ineffective in carrying shear. It is appropriate to consider each face of the shear perimeter separately in evaluating As/(bv d) and vc. As with the internal columns the question arise about the validity of summing the strengths around the whole perimeter as BS8110 recommends, as distinct from checking each side on the basis of its strength and its proportion of Veff. The perimeter side towards J1 extends to the edge (BS8110 Clause 3.7.7.8) and so there is no perimeter on the edge side of the column. The perimeter side towards J3 is substantially interrupted by holes and also extends towards the edge. The effective perimeter lengths assumed influence the width x and bv in calculating Veff and As/(bv d) hence the value of vc. The BLS reinforcement configuration at J2 was clearly conceived on different principles from BS8110 and it is appropriate to consider the shear resistance following the original concept of the design using the Max effective length basis as the main reinforcement of T1 bars is parallel to the edge and frames the holes. The 7 main reinforcement T1 bars of SQT form an edge beam taking hogging moments across the top of the column, and past the drain holes. The T2 reinforcement towards I2, is light at (12.7mm) SQT ,with B2 (12.7mm SQT) bottom reinforcement extending nearly to the column angle seating . The value of the T2 top steel in increasing the shear resistance across the perimeter side towards I2 is at best questionable. The T2 steel only extends about 170mm from the shear perimeter towards the column angle seating so has limited anchorage to resist shear. Because of these uncertainties values of vc on the side to I2 have been checked for two conditions, first assuming that the T2 bars are effective and then with As as zero giving the lower bound vc. However, the area of steel is low, very close to the <0.15 cut off, so the vc is 0.40N/mm2 regardless of the assumption on the steel effectiveness. The BLS drawing is unclear as to the exact end location of the B2 bars relative to the shear head angle seating. Checks showed no marks of these bars in the concrete remaining on the shear head. So the ends of these bars, as constructed, were outside the shear fracture surface, preventing them from contributing to shear strength. The design shear strengths for J2 calculated to BS8110 on a face by face basis, have been compared in Table 10.3.4 - 4 with the factored column effective shear forces Veff x and Veff y, as for H2 and I2.

131

Comparison has been done firstly taking Veff based on moments, as for an internal column, and then using the 1.25 factors for an edge column. The as-designed dimensions for J2 have been taken as 229mm slab, cover 19mm, T1 bars 19mm, T2 bars 12.7mm, angle seating 22mm above soffit, f cu 20.5N/mm2 . Only calculations based on the effective depth to the top of the angle are summarised. The perimeter length, before the deduction of holes, is 918mm + 100mm to the edge on the T1 sides and 992mm on the T2 side towards I2 based on effective depths of 179mm for the T1 sides and 163mm for the T2 side.
Table 10.3.4 - 1 Column J2: Comparison of Strength with Load, on a Range of Perimeter Assumptions. ________________________________________________________________________________ Vt kN Veff x Veff y 1.25Vt 1.25Veffy AV ANSYS kN/m2 kN kN kN kN kN DL x 1.6 + LL x 1.4 12.55 205 219 216 256 267 ________________________________________________________________________________ Recalculated Strengths Units kN. Vc J1 Vc I2 Vc J3 Vc 1.25Vt 1.25Veffy (Load/Strength) Vc Vc ___________________________________________________________________________ 1 Full Perimeter, No Holes 125 65 125 315 82% 85% 2 Max effective length 115 65 68 248 103% 108% 3 BS Radial Hole Diverge 115 64 22 201 128% 133% 4 Conservative Perimeter 115 47 0 162 158% 165% _______________________________________________________________________________

When the configuration of reinforcement is considered the use of Basis 2 Max effective length perimeter seems most appropriate as for: Vc J1 Vc I2 Vc J3 there is no influence from the holes, the holes do not influence the flow of the shear from the column towards I2 and the strength arises from the concrete with little reinforcement contribution The shear is carried past the holes towards J3 by the T1 bars running close to the shear head collar.

On the BS8110 basis taking the sum of the strengths of the sides there is a small overstress 8% under the full factored loading at 12.55kN/m2 when the 1.25 factor is included in Veff. Under the self weight loading at 5.40kN/m2 at the time of failure, J2 would have had a substantial reserve of strength on this basis, without the deterioration and repair which are considered in 10.4.

132

10.3.5

BS8110 Conclusions

This review of the application of BS8110 to the assessment of Pipers Row Lift Slab has revealed an unacceptably wide range of possible interpretations of the punching shear strength clauses for flat slabs. For I2, (relative to the ANSYS Reference factored 12.55N/mm2 design shear force Veff of 630kN) assessments can give a % Capacity (ie over 100% is an overstress) for the undeteriorated as-designed structure ranging from: a) b) c) d) e) 104% with the full depth of slab mistakenly assumed effective 117% with the angles assumed to fully support the slab at 22mm above the soffit 136% with partial support from angles shortened by 90mm each end 139% on side T2 with angles fully supporting the slab at 22mm above the soffit 192% on side T2 with angles supporting the slab at 22mm shortened by 90mm each end.

If the normal BS8110 Sub-Frame analysis with redistribution was used to determine Veff (typically 505kN @ 12.55kN/m2), then interpretation a) would report a comfortable 81 % Capacity and basis b)would give 92% Capacity. In part this scatter arises from the application of BS8110 to a structure designed to CP114, which has features and proportions outside the range envisaged by those drafting BS8110. In Section 10.4 and 10.5 the research on shear and the detailed analyses carried out by BRE have been reviewed to establish an appropriate basis for assessment.

133

10.4

REVIEW OF PUNCHING SHEAR RESEARCH FOR APPRAISAL OF AS-BUILT AND DETERIORATED STRENGTH Introduction

10.4.1

In this section the uncertainties in the interpretation of BS8110 for punching shear strength, for the particular proportions and condition of the overall structure and the shear heads at Pipers Row, are reviewed on the basis of the available research data. In 10.5 the results of the detailed finite element analyses by BRE and Amey Vectra, which further clarify some points, are summarised and overall conclusions are drawn. The primary objective has been to establish the most appropriate method for estimating the actual strength of the as-built Pipers Row structure and the effects of deterioration and repair on strength. The secondary objective is to provide a broader clarification for those assessing the safety of concrete structures. BRE have carried out a wide ranging review of the research literature on punching shear and reports of punching shear failures, as set out in their Contract C Reports [H408, 409]. The information from that review and the documents identified in it have been utilised for this report on the particular characteristics of punching shear failures at Pipers Row. Additional guidance on the research literature has been provided by Prof P E Regan [H222]. The review considers, building on the BS8110 evaluation in Section 10.3, the following: i) ii) iii) iv) The as-designed punching shear strength of the Pipers Row Lift Slab structure as designed and specified, The as-built punching shear strength, taking into account the as-built dimensions and material properties, The effects of the deterioration on the as-built strength, The effects of cutting out and repair.

Consideration has also been given to the implications of these findings for the interpretation of BS8110 when appraising other structures where: a) b) c) d) e) The structural form overall or critical details are close to the limits or outside the range for which the design simplifications of BS8110 are directly applicable, Punching shear is critical, Deterioration is developing, Repairs are to be carried out, Brittle failure of an element can transfer load to other brittle elements or create a mechanism. Development of Code Requirements from Research

10.4.2

There are good summaries on the nature and mechanisms of shear by Regan [43] and on punching shear failure by Chana [42]. In CIRIA Report 89:1981 'Behaviour of reinforced concrete flat slabs' Regan [41] carried out a detailed review of the research data on punching shear and proposed a basis for calculating strength. This approach was then simplified and incorporated in BS8110:1985 which replaced CP110:1972. BS5400 for bridges has distinct but similar requirements to BS8110. CP110 was a major improvement on CP114 for punching shear design, but Regan identified some unsatisfactory features, which his 1981 proposals were aimed at remedying.

134

A further detailed study of punching shear research for CEB 168 by Regan and Braestrup [45] formed the basis of the CEB Model Code 90 ((MC90) [46] punching shear clauses. These have been further developed as the Draft Eurocode 2 (EC2) [47] which is being finalised. Since the collapse the slightly revised and re-number BS 8110:1997 has been issued but this does not have any changes which relate to the Pipers Row structure. Recent research relevant to Pipers Row has been considered in the BRE Contract C report [H217] and by Regan [H222]. For a conventional column with the in-situ slab cast on top, there is a good range of test data and a range of theoretical treatments of various levels of sophistication. This data can also be related to the simpler behaviour observed in beam shear tests. However the complexities of the three dimensional stress regime in the punching zone are such that there is no accepted fundamental analytical procedure for calculating the punching failure criteria from the geometry and material properties. The physical phenomena involved in punching fracture are broadly understood, but their relative importance will remain a matter for debate until further test data is available and analysed. The European codes have adopted an empirical approach based on the parametric analysis of the test data from CIRIA 89 [41] and CEB 168 [45]. This has been simplified and adjusted in the Codes and Draft Codes. BS8110, BS5400, MC90, and EC2 are of a family based on similar analysis of data and similar formulae, but with some significant differences in definition and partial factors In America the ACI318 [48] approach is based on a different evaluation of the data. One major difference is that the flexural steel area is not considered to contribute to shear strength. This report considers the BS8110 approach, but clearly there are substantial implications for the interpretation of the other codes for both design and appraisal which are outside the scope of this report.

135

10.4.3

Actual Failure Mode

The actual shear failure does not occur at the arbitrary vertical reference perimeter at 1.5d from support used for the BS8110 check, but on a conical/pyramidal fracture surface at 25 to 30 to the plane of slab, as shown on Figure 10.4.3 - 1. This form of fracture can be seen in the photos of H2 (Figure 7.4 - 2) and I2 (Figure 7.4 - 4) after the failure and of I3 (Figure 10.4.3 - 2) where partial failure occurred. Cracking and the punching fracture develops progressively with an interaction of the flexural behaviour and the shear flow into the column.

Figure 10.4.3 - 1. Shear fracture development, after Chana [42]

As load is applied to a typical in-situ concrete slab cast on a circular column with orthogonal top steel of the same size and spacing both ways and no shear steel, the concrete is initially uncracked and behaves in a linear elastic manner. As the flexural stresses increase the characteristic radial star cracking over the column head can develop under dead load reactions, typically at ~50% ultimate load, and this leads to a redistribution of moment from the column area to the spans. As the load is increased this flexural cracking on the top of the slab will increase and a circumferential crack may form above the column face. Then at about 80% of the ultimate failure load circumferential cracking starts to develop at some distance from the column, see Figure 10.4.3 3 of a test by Chana [42]. As the circumferential cracks develop the shear transfer increasingly shifts, with features as indicated on Figure 10.4.3 - 1, to a three layer mechanism: 1) The top layer loses its shear carrying capacity in the concrete as the circumferential cracks open, but shear is carried by dowel action of top reinforcement cantilevering across these cracks until delaminating tension cracks develop below the bars. An intermediate layer in which a conical shear fracture cone develops at 25 to 30 to the plane of the slab extending downward as the fracture develops, resisted by the tensile strength of the concrete and aggregate interlock. A local ring of concrete under tri-axial compression around the column balanced by the anchored top steel tension.

2)

3)

136

Figure 10.4.3 - 2. Partial Shear Fracture at I3

Figure 10.4.3 - 3. Top surface cracking at ultimate load, from Chana [49]

137

When the ultimate load is approached there is a redistribution of shear force between these layers and failure can be triggered by: the widespread yielding or loss of anchorage of the top steel, the developing conical shear crack reducing the depth of the tri-axial compression ring, a local crushing failure of the compression ring against the support.

and/or and/or

Whatever the exact mechanism, the failure is brittle and sudden with almost all strength lost as shown on Figure 10.4.3 - 4 the load defection plots for typical punching shear tests by Norris [50]. Because the shear deformation before fracture is small, the shear, unlike flexure, is not redistributed to alternative load paths until the fracture occurs. Then almost all the reaction is transferred as shear to the adjacent supports with the additional adverse effect of the column moments induced. This combination of brittle fracture and almost total load shedding (typically 75%+ with normal bottom steel, 100% with no effective bottom steel as at Pipers Row) can lead to progressive collapse, which has often been a feature of punching shear failures. Major collapses noted in reviews by Mitchell [51] and Carper [52] include Baileys Crossroads [53], Boston [54], Kalamazoo [55], Cocoa Beach [56]. More recently the punching shear initiated progressive collapse of the Sampoong Department store in South Korea killed over 500+ people, as reported by Garner [57]. An unexpected progressive collapse developed during the demolition of a Lift Slab car park in Coventry in 1988 and the demolition was then completed by initiating further progressive collapses.

Figure 10.4.3 - 4. Load displacement response in punching shear tests, from Norris [50]

138

10.4.4

Inspectability for Structural Risk

The effectiveness of inspection to check for a reduction in safety margins is dependant on clearly apparent signs of structural distress, (eg cracking and excessive flexural deflections in beams and slabs) and/or evaluating the structural consequences of apparent deterioration. When assessing and inspecting for the risk of punching shear failure the following characteristic need to be considered: i) ii) There will be no signs of distress on the soffit prior to collapse. The star cracking on the top surface is an indication of permissible redistribution of flexural stresses which may well occur under normal working stresses. Star cracking gives no indication of shear behaviour. As circumferential cracking of the top of the slab away from the column only develops at about 80% of ultimate load, any sign of it would indicate a structure dangerously close to failure. Where there is surfacing on a slab or where the surface has degraded cracking would be obscured. Where there is a weakness from degradation or at a repair interface the shear crack can develop outwards as a delamination below the top steel, rather than showing through the reinforced upper layer. Deterioration from frost, wear or reinforcement corrosion which reduces the bond and anchorage of top steel can severely weaken the slab.

iii)

iv)

v)

vi)

It follows that a structural assessment based on the as-built structure, with sufficiently comprehensive set of material strength and condition data, provides the only effective method of identifying risks inherent in the original design and/or which have developed from deterioration and repair. Inspection by itself cannot be relied on to identify the risk, except when apparent deterioration triggers a full assessment. This lack of identifiable warning signs compared to the behaviour of overloaded columns or beams needs to be considered in setting an appropriate value of m for both design and for appraisal to cover the loss of strength which may go undetected.

139

10.4.5

Features of Undeteriorated Pipers Row

The particular features which are of importance for the shear strength of Pipers Row prior to deterioration are: i) The appropriate effective depth d when the slab is supported on the angle horizontal flange 22mm above the soffit. The interpretation of As/(bv d) for the reinforcement configuration at Pipers Row The appropriate basis for determining Veff to represent shear stresses on the faces around a column from the transfer of moment from the slab to the column for internal and edge columns. The appropriateness of averaging and summing of the properties of the four sides of the shear perimeter to determine the strength Vc for comparison with Veff, as recommended in BS8110, when the strengths and shears on the sides of the perimeter vary markedly as at Pipers Row. The appropriate shear perimeter and/or stress concentration factor taking into account: a) the flexibility of the support provided by the projecting angles of the shear head,

ii) iii)

iv)

v)

b) the adverse effects of the shear concentrations on the corners of the shear head and the edge of the angle seating. vi) vii) The effect of concrete strength on punching shear strength for f cu 35, 28, 20.5, 15N/mm2 The reduction of short term test failure load used to calibrate vc with long term loading and cyclical loading from the daily thermal and vehicle load variation. The extent to which compressive membrane action might have increased the strength above BS8110 value at Pipers Row with surface concrete intact and with degradation to below the top reinforcement. Holes around edge column at J2. Effective depth d

viii)

ix) i)

The range of interpretations of BS8110 noted in 10.2 and 10.3 has highlighted the importance of using the appropriate effective depth d for shear when the slab is supported on the angle 22mm above the soffit. Regan [41] in his Section 5.1.1 and Figure 46 drew attention to the importance of considering the shape of the fracture surface relative to the support. Some punching shear tests with lift slab collars [58] [59] reviewed by Regan [H222]analysed the tests calculating the depth to lower face of the collar angle. The overall conclusion, after considering the shape of fractures observed at Pipers Row, is that the effective depth d for shear should be based on the distance from the centroid of the top steel to the top of the shear head support angle 22mm above the soffit.

140

ii)

Reinforcement area As/(bv d)

The value of As/(bv d), when determining the value of vc from BS8110 Table 3.8, is normally based on the area of steel crossing the shear perimeter at 1.5d from the column face. With normal regularly spaced bars across the column strip, the ratio As/(bv d) is not sensitive to the width considered. The review of research by BRE and Regan indicates that taking As/(bv d) based on the shear perimeter at 1.5d from the effectively supported area underestimates the breadth of the steel which contributes to the shear strength. A more realistic basis, when the research data [60] is considered, is for As/(bv d) to be based on the perimeter at 3d from the effectively supported area. With the Pipers Row lift slab configuration the reinforcement was moved further from the column to avoid the shear head, leaving much of it outside the shear perimeter at 1.5d , particularly for the T2 bars. Figure 10.3.3 - 1 shows how the vc for I2, for the as-designed reinforcement spacings varies with the effective width assumed for the T1 and T2 directions. Because of the range of assumptions which can be made in interpreting BS8110 the effective widths at 1.5d and 3d perimeters have a wide spread. The 'Best' assumption case (see 10.5.5) with the angles curtailed by 95mm, with as-designed reinforcement gives the values in Table 10.4.5 - 1.
Table 10.4.5 - 1 Variation in As/(bv d) and vc at 1.5d and 3d perimeters at I2 ________________________________________________________________________________ T1 at 1.5d T1 at 3d T2 at 1.5d T2 at 3d perimeter face width 949mm 1427mm 1203mm 1681mm ________________________________________________________________________________ 1.18 1.23 0.30 0.43 As/(bv d) on face vc N/mm2 for face 0.79 0.80 0.50 0.56 _____________________________________________________________________________

iii)

Influence of column moments on peak shears

BS8110 adopts a simplified method of increasing the reaction Vt to Veffx and Veffy to take account of the uneven shear distribution from the transfer of moments from the slab into the column. Veff = Vt (1 + 1.5Mt/(Vt x)) for the moment Mt transferred from the slab to the column about the x and y axes. x is the breadth of the shear perimeter face under consideration. The increased shear at the corner of the perimeter from bi-axial bending is not considered. The moment shear concentrations need to be considered with the coexisting concentrations from the shape of the support and at Pipers Row the concentrations from the shear head angles. The peak stress over an area sufficient to initiate fracture is the governing criteria for brittle failure, as once fracture initiates at the highest stressed section of the shear perimeter it will spread. As noted in the Section 9.3.2 the BS8110 reactions and moments are not necessarily the upper bound values as both the range of permitted analytical procedures and the procedures for the ductile redistribution of moments in the slab as cracking develops, can give values of column moments and reactions below the upper bound appropriate for the assessment of a brittle element.

141

The origin of the BS8110 approach was set out by Regan [41]. Figure 10.4.5 - 1, his Figure 57, shows the available test data on internal columns subject to a reaction combined with a moment. It should be noted that at low eccentricities (Mt/Vt < 0.20) the strength falls sharply with increasing eccentricity, so that underestimates of Mt from BS8110 analysis can lead to overestimates of strength.

Figure 10.4.5 - 1 Influence of column moments on punching strength, from Regan [41]

In simplifying the Regan proposals into the BS8110 formula some changes were made which give a lower value for Veff when applied to the Pipers Row shear head. MC90 and EC2 adopt a similar approach to the increase in shear from column moments, but based on a shear perimeter at 2d with quadrants at the corners, a factor for column shape with m = 1.5. The reliability of these simplified approaches can only be evaluated by a detailed parametric study of the overall design and analysis related to a sufficient body of test data with applied moments. The values of Veff from BS8110 are compared with the shear forces on the faces of the perimeter from the AV ANSYS plate analysis and from the BRE DIANA Analysis in Sections 10.5.3 and a recommended basis for determining the shear force on the faces of the perimeter is given.

142

iv)

Variation in strength of sides of perimeter

BS 8110:1985 in Clause 1.3.3 defines the terms for the shear perimeter so that the properties (As, bv, and d) of the four sides of the shear perimeter are averaged to determine the vc from Table 3.8 and summed to give the perimeter strength Vc for comparison with Veffx and Veffy. The geometry of the section of Pipers Row which collapsed is beyond the range of proportions defined in BS8110 Clause 3.7.1.2 and so the discrete caveat ... the applicability of the provisions given in this section are a matter for judgement applies. The basis for that judgement is not clarified by BS8110, but has to be the research source data and the consideration of the actual failure mode and characteristics. In normal design the greater As/(bv d), and hence (vc d) is provided for the more highly stressed side in flexure and shear. At H2 and I2 at Pipers Row the more highly stressed T2 side has a significantly lower strength. Using the whole perimeter average vc of : 0.63N/mm2 based on As/(bv d) at 1.5d, 0.67N/mm2 based on As/(bv d) at 3d, overestimates strength for T2 by 26% overestimates strength for T2 by 19%

Regan [41] recommended the averaging of the As/(bv d) to derive vc, which is applied to the whole perimeter times the average effective depth to give Vc, as in Clause 1.3.3. However, this is clearly based on considering normal structural configurations where the relatively small variation between the faces makes this simplification appropriate. This assumption is usually conservative when, unlike Pipers Row, the higher shear stresses are on the stronger side. It is a characteristic of almost all structural elements designed to BS8110, except for punching shear, that they crack and deform in a stable way as ultimate load is approached, so that any local overstress is safely redistributed. This enables simplified plastic and cracked section local properties to be used and makes the adoption of simplified overall analysis and redistribution of moments and shears acceptable. Punching shear failure of flat slabs without shear steel or bottom steel over the column is sudden and brittle, so the BS8110 simplifying assumptions need to be re-examined. The ultimate strength of brittle elements is reached when loss of strength in a local area sheds load in excess of the capacity of the adjacent load paths to which it redistributes. Local punching shear failure can initiate from: i) ii) iii) the loss of the top steel dowel and/or tensile capacity by yielding or bond failure the development of the inclined shear crack with radial cracks local crushing in the compression ring.

Some redistribution can occur through the depth of the section and circumferentially, but the brittleness limits this. The relationship of the stress concentration around the support to the area at which the developing fracture becomes unstable, triggering collapse, is not yet established experimentally and theoretically. It is concluded that in assessment the shear force on each face of the reference perimeter should be checked against the strength of that face. This ensures that when structures were not designed to BS 8110 or are on the limits of the validity of its simplifications any weaknesses are identified. The treatment of local stress concentrations across that face are evaluated in the finite element analyses in 10.5.

143

v) Shape of support To take into account the stress concentration effects of the shape of a rigid column support, Regan [41] proposed a factor Ksc on strength based on an analysis of test results. Ksc is: 1.0 for a circular column 1.15 for a square column (but Regan Equation 24 gives 1.13) 1.19 for H2 and I2 if the area of the angles provided rigid support. 1.13 for J2 BS 8110 does not use this factor, but allows higher stress on circular columns by defining a square shear perimeter instead of circular. If the H2 and I2 shear heads were as rigid as a column Regans work suggests a 5% stress concentration factor. The appropriate value for Pipers Row clearly needs to consider the actual stress concentration from the wedge supported flexible angle shear head relative to a normal square column which is the calibrator for BS8110. This has been considered in more detail on the basis of the ANSYS and DIANA analyses in 10.5. vi) Effect of variable low strength concrete,

The effect of low strength concrete, below f cu = 25N/mm2, on punching shear strength has only been covered in a few tests, as the main research concern has been for design with concretes over 25N/mm2, where there is a relatively low increase in punching shear strength with increasing concrete strength. In BS8110 this is covered by making vc proportional to f cu1/3 and applying an upper bound vc at f cu = 40N/mm2. The validity of the f cu1/3 term at below 25N/mm2 is uncertain, but the limited tests suggest that it is reasonable to adopt it down to 20N/mm2 and possibly to 15N/mm2. A linear increase in vc up to 25N/mm2 would give a lower bound. Because there is clear evidence of concrete of 15N/mm2 and possibly weaker in the lower part of the slab in the failure zone at I2, this could have been an important factor at Pipers Row. The original concrete was of highly variable quality due to a combination of mix variation, poor mixing and poor compaction resulting in an undeteriorated strength range on samples taken after the collapse of 16 to 53N/mm2, with: 35N/mm2 mean and 28N/mm2 characteristic strength for slabs away from the failed area, 20.5N/mm2 characteristic for the failed area as a whole 15N/mm2 characteristic for intact core samples from the lower part of the retained slabs, where surface deterioration was severe.

The weakest material broke when sampled, so some concrete may have been weaker than 15N/mm2. This strength range is covered by evaluating the as-built strength with strength levels of f cu = 35, 28, 20.5 and 15N/mm2. Table 10.4.5. - 2 gives relative shear strengths for this range.

144

Table 10.4.5 - 2 Relative shear strength for fcu = 15 to 38 N/mm2 ________________________________________________________________________________ fcu N/mm2 15 20 28 38 ________________________________________________________________________________ proportional to fcu1/3 0.90 1.00 1.11 1.20 linear to 25N/mm2 then fcu1/3 0.64 0.85 1.11 1.20 ________________________________________________________________________________

vii)

Reduction in strength under high and cyclical loads

The tests of punching strength on which vc is based were short term rapid tests to failure. It is known that under long term sustained loading with superimposed cycles from temperature and traffic, as quantified in 9.2, strength is reduced. There is limited data on this for shear behaviour, but this weakening might have amounted to up to 10%. This effect, on which more research is required, needs to be considered when design stresses and partial factors are calibrated relative to short term strength tests. viii) Compressive membrane action

Where a slab around a column is well contained in plan by the surrounding slab and structure, the deformations associated with the development of a punching shear failure are additionally resisted by compressive membrane action [61]. This forms a shallow inverted compression cone carrying shear force from the surrounding restraining ring to the column to enhance the punching shear strength. The magnitude of the beneficial effect of compressive membrane action is the subject of continuing discussion and research. Most of the tests on which the design stress vc is based, are columns with a small area of slab extending to just beyond the line of contraflexure where they are loaded, so there is no benefit from membrane action. At Pipers Row the area of slab from G1 to J3 had negligible restraint from the rest of the structure. Within this area of slab the top reinforcement is in patches over columns which barely extend beyond the lines of contraflexure. The bottom reinforcement is mostly within the sagging regions with some anchorage length. The very limited top reinforcement around the failure zone, makes the development of any compressive membrane enhanced shear strength relative to test conditions unlikely and with degradation of the surface its anchorage would have been lost.

ix)

Holes at J2

The range of BS8110 and other interpretations of the treatment of the holes at J2 has been set out in 10.3.4. It follows from the discussion of the treatment of the shear strengths and shear on the faces of the perimeter (above iii) and iv)), that for assessment of critical details the most reliable method of determining the shear strength at a column with adjacent holes, is a finite element analysis from which the shear force on each section of the perimeter can be determined. In Section 10.5.6, the shear forces around J2 have been determined on this basis.

145

10.4.6

Degradation and Repair

The progressive degradation of the surface layers of concrete at H2, I2, and J2 and the partial repairs on one side of H2 and encompassing the shear zone at J2, clearly had a substantial influence on the punching shear strength and failure mode. The characteristics of this deterioration and the repairs are set out in detail in Section 8. There had been a progressive softening and decay of the surface of the concrete in some areas due to water ingress through the surfacing, leading to frost and other damage. This had created a friable microcracked layer of negligible strength with larger cracks to a variable depth of up to about 100mm. There was a very shallow, ~ 5mm transition, from the degraded layer to undeteriorated concrete below. Many areas including some of the retained slabs had intact surfacing and no surface layer of concrete deterioration. Where degradation and associated carbonation had reached the reinforcement, corrosion had developed. This corrosion only formed after the degradation had reached the reinforcement and signs of rust on reinforcement immediately after the collapse provides an indicator of the extent and depth of degradation where the slab concrete was too damaged in the collapse for examination. The repairs at H2 and J2 delaminated from the original concrete when the collapse occurred. There were areas of poor bond and no adhesion on both repairs. Where delamination occurred in the original concrete it may have been in the remnant of degraded material not fully removed or in concrete bruised by the pneumatic tools used for cutting out. The differences in thermal and moisture movement between the repair and substrate from the time of casting induced extra stresses on the interface. The magnitude of these depend in part on the how well repair material physical properties were matched to the concrete. Tests (see 8.3) show a good match of repair to good concrete 35+N/mm2, but the repair was significantly stiffer and stronger than the weak concrete at below 20N/mm2. The structural stresses on the repair interface depend on the extent of and preload in the propping and the repair maturity when the propping was removed. They will be: live load only for the no propping case full reinstatement of the dead load with live load stresses with full propping.

This is evaluated in more detail in Section 10.5. The effect of the repairs on reactions, moments and Veff has been set out in Section 9.3. The behaviour of a repaired area in punching shear is initially like an intact slab until the top steel and stiffer repair supported over the column induce, by dowel action, vertical tension on the repair concrete interface around the developing circumferential shear crack. Once this develops fully the slab behaves as though it was degraded down to the bottom level of the repair, ie below the top steel at H2 and J2. At H2 there was only a 75 to 100mm deep repair for an area on the side towards H3 as shown on Figure 8.3.10 - 1. The photos and inspection after the collapse clearly show that there was degradation of varying depth (50 - 100mm) and corrosion of both the T1 and T2 steel in the punch failure zone and around the repaired area.

146

At I2 no repair had been carried out, but there was an area of severe degradation of varying depth (50 100mm) and corrosion of both the T1 and T2 steel in the area around the column. The petrographic examination of the fracture surface showed very poor concrete below the degraded layer. At J2 the repair, as shown on Figure 8.3.10 - 1 extended for almost the full area of the T1 bars and beyond the short T2 bars. The repair detached as a slab during the collapse. The strength implications of this are discussed in Section 10.5.6. Modelling strength loss from degradation The effect of progressive development of the degraded surface layer on punching strength has been considered by BRE in detail in their Contract C Report [H409, 410]. The behaviour of slabs with limited anchorage due to curtailed reinforcement has been reported by Norris [50] [62]. BRE have developed a model which progressively reduces the shear strength Vc as the loss of effective cover from degradation over the T1 and T2 bars reduces the bond capacity. By applying this to the empirical formula vc = 0.79((100As/(bv d))1/3 (400/d)1/4 (f cu/25)1/3 )/m N/mm2 from BS8110 Table 3.8 the progressive loss of strength has been estimated. BRE have studied parametrically the influence of geometry and strength variations in their report. Here only those cases for the as-built and deteriorated structure at H2 and I2 are summarised. The value of vc is based on the empirical fit to the test data lower bound values, which approximates to the test characteristic, which is divided by m =1.25 for the Table 3.8 values. The mean strength from the test data is 1.14 times the lower bound strength. In comparing the loading at the time of the failure with the declining strength it is appropriate to use 1.25vc as the characteristic strength and 1.42vc as the mean strength. These strengths are compared on Table 10.4.6 - 1 to the unfactored RefDL shear forces based a perfect fit uniform temperature mean estimate of the shear forces at the time of failure from the ANSYS uncracked analysis. The evaluation of the sensitivity of the Veff to temperature and misfits in Section 9 has shown substantial, but indeterminate, variations of Veff greater than 25% from this mean estimate. So for comparisons with the declining strength an estimated shear force of RefDL mean + 25% is also indicated.

147

Table 10.4.6 - 1 Comparison of loads on the T1 and T2 faces with characteristic strengths at H2 and I2. ________________________________________________________________________________ Column as-built H2 H2 I2 I2 Face (higher loaded). T1 T2 T1 T2 ________________________________________________________________________________ Load kN/m2 kN kN kN kN 1. RefDL Mean. 5.4 53.6 66.9 60.2 77.1 2. 1.25 RefDL with some misfit 67.0 83.6 75.3 96.3 1.4 x Dead + 1.6 Live Load 12.55 124.3 155.2 139.7 178.9 _______________________________________________________________________________ Strength, before degradation Design Strength vc 109.0 103.3 122.7 131.0 Capacity 114% 150% 114% 137% ________________________________________________________________________________ 3. Characteristic 1.25vc 136.3 129.1 153.4 163.8 154.9 146.7 174.2 186.1 4. Mean 1.42vc ________________________________________________________________________________

The BRE model predicts a progressive fall in shear strength and then a sudden loss as the degradation reaches the mid depth of the reinforcing bar at which point all bond strength is lost. The Table 3.8 however indicates a plateau on vc with As /(bv d) < 0.15%. The experimental validity of this is uncertain. This As = 0 value of shear strength has been compared with the BRE values. Figure 10.4.6 - 1 shows the decline in strength with degradation for T1 and T2 faces of H2 for the asbuilt geometry with the Best assumptions for estimating the strength as set out in 10.5.5. Figure 10.4.6 - 2 shows the similar relationship for I2. In the as-built condition the T2 faces of H2 and I2 have an overstress under the design load at 150% and 137% capacity respectively. Although H2 has a lower shear force on the T2 side than I2, it is weaker because of the greater cover at 40mm and smaller 5/8 SQT T2 bars than I2 with 29mm cover and SQT T2 bars. The variability of both strength and shear force is such that either H2 (discounting the repair) or I2 might have failed first if degradation was developing at a similar rate at both locations. There is evidence of degradation extending down to below the T2 bar level at both H2 outside the repaired area and at I2. So both would have been approaching the condition at which the strength falls into the range of the dead load shear force. As the H2 repair extended over on half the width of the more highly loaded T2 face it could have reduced the risk of failure initiating at H2, if it was well bonded and was well propped during the repair operation, but there is little evidence of this. If the repair was poorly carried out it would have had a similar strength to the degraded slab before the repair. The easily identifiable development of surface degradation down to the level of the reinforcement, so that bond was lost, was the major factor in the initiation of the collapse. The sensitivity of punching shear strength to loss of bond resulting from either the deterioration of the surface by frost action as at Pipers Row or to the delamination of cover by the corrosion of reinforcement needs to be made clear to all involved in the assessment, inspection and maintenance of flat slab structures.

148

Once the surface has deteriorated to a depth at which bond is adversely effected, cutting out of the concrete surface and simple patch repair cannot provide an effective structural repair to re-establish the full bond to reinstate the original shear strength. The effects of repair procedures on stress distributions are evaluated in Section 10.5.
Column H2, T1 Face, Loss of shear strength with degradation
200 Mean Strength 1.25 vc Char Strength Shear Strength and Force, kN. As = 0 Char. Strength 150 RefDL Force 1.25 RefDL Force 100

50

?
3/4"SQT

0 0 20 40 60 80 100 Depth of Loss of Cover from Degradation, mm.

Column H2 T2 face. Loss of shear strength with degradation.

200

Mean Strength 1.25 vc Char Strength As = 0 Char. Strength

Shear Strength and Force, kN.

150

RefDL Force 1.25 RefDL Force

100

50

?
5/8" SQT

0 0 20 40 60 80 100 Depth of Loss of Cover from Degradation, mm.

Figure 10.4.6 - 1 H2. Comparison of Declining Strength from Degradation of Surface with Shear Forces

149

Column I2, T1 Face, Loss of Shear Strength with Degradation

200 Shear Strength and Force, kN. Mean Strength 1.25 vc Char Strength As = 0 Char. Strength 150 RefDL Force 1.25 RefDL Force 100

50

3/4" SQT
0 0 20 40 60 80 100 Depth of Loss of Cover from Degradation, mm.

Column I2 T2 face Loss of Shear Strength with Degradation.

200

Mean Strength 1.25 vc Char Strength As = 0 Char. Strength

Shear Strength and Force, kN.

150

RefDL Force 1.25 RefDL Force

100

50

?
3/4"SQT

0 0 20 40 60 80 100 Depth of Loss of Cover from Degradation, mm.

Figure 10.4.6 - 2 I2. Comparison of Declining Strength from Degradation of Surface with Shear Forces

150

10.4.7

Progressive Collapse

The local failure at Pipers Row developed rapidly into a progressive collapse of the top slab. This progressive collapse fortunately stopped when approaching Line 3 as the bottom bars tore out of the bottom of the slab, see Figure 10.4.7 - 1, between G and I and the ramp at I3 to J3 provided extra strength. Better continuity of the flexural steel would have led to a progressive failure spreading more widely through the top floor and possibly via the ramps or impact loading on the floor below to the whole car park structure, as has happened with other flat slab collapses [51-57].

Figure 10.4.7 - 1 Tear out of soffit steel to limit progressive collapse, between G3 and H3.

At the time of the collapse there were comments that the ability of the floor below to take the extra load was reassuringly indicative of the strength of the rest of the structure and other lift slab structures. It was suggested that the BS8110 shear rules were conservative. This was misleading. The 3rd floor slab had not deteriorated and the indications, from retained slab S20, are that it had a higher initial strength than the top slab. Following the failure at H2, I2 and J2 the top slab folded down on to the slab below with reduced impact because of the tensile restraint from the corner columns G1 and J1 and from the ramp edge and J3. The full impact from the clear drop of 2.2m only occurred where the edge of the slab parallel to Line 3 broke away. The impact of this area of slab only extended a small way into the area supported by the Line 3 columns.

151

The dead load of the 3rd floor, lacking surfacing, was only 5.3kN/m2 to which was added the collapsed top floor dead load of 5.4kN/m2. This would have given a loading of 10.7kN/m2, discounting impact, compared to 12.55kN/m2, the design factored dead + live load. With impact, the load at H2 and I2 would have approached or exceeded the lower bound characteristic strength of the slab with 20.5N/mm2 concrete. However the variability of column reactions due to the fit of the wedges may have reduced shears and the variability inherent in punching strength and from the variability in concrete strength may well have chanced to give the third floor a strength closer to the upper bound. It seems that the survival of the third floor slab was probably due to the good fortune of above average strength, rather than BS8110 underestimating strength. It follows that there was a significant risk of the 3rd floor collapsing onto the 2nd floor extending the progressive collapse to a far larger area. In the appraisal of all flat slab structures this sensitivity to progressive collapse of the slab below needs to be considered The dangers of progressive collapse developing from the local failure of one element were highlighted by the failure of Ronan Point and other buildings in the late 1960s. This has lead to the requirement for Robustness in BS8110 Clause 2.2.2.2. This sets out the principles and gives a requirement for horizontal ties and for vertical ties for buildings over 5 storeys. BS8110 states that Unreasonable susceptibility to the effects of accidents may generally be prevented with ties. The thinking behind these clauses clearly follows from the particular events of the gas explosion at Ronan Point. The adequacy of this generalisation for the particular circumstances of punching shear failure in all types of flat slab structures needs to be checked. Pipers Row did not have the BS8110 continuity of horizontal ties, but it was the lack of these ties which halted the spread of the collapse. Because of concerns over the progressive collapse of a number of flat slab structures in North America, Mitchell and Cook [51] undertook research on preventing the progressive collapse of slab structures without shear steel. They demonstrated how, following an initial punching failure, a tensile membrane force develops in the unsupported area of slab. The top steel over the initial failure peals out of the slab giving little support . The bottom steel in a slab with continuity can act in tension as a safety net. There are two limitations on the effectiveness of this net to limit progressive collapse as shear failure spreads to adjacent columns. a) Unless the bottom steel going directly over the failed column has sufficient large deflection dowel/tension capacity to support the slab (MC90 has a requirement for this), it will fracture and the tensile support at that column is lost. At the edge of the slab the in-plane tension needs to be resisted by a strong edge beam and/or by the bending strength of the column.

b)

The Mitchell and Cook analysis indicates that the generally applicable BS8110 horizontal tie rules serve to spread a collapse in a flat slab and are ineffective in limiting the damage, unless sufficient ties as bottom steel are carried over the tops of the columns and meet the other requirements for supporting the slab after initial punching failure.

152

Bottom Reinforcement At Pipers Row the bottom steel at H2, I2 and J2 was detailed to just rest on the edge of the shear head angles, but because of tolerances on placing steel, it just fell short at most locations. Even where imprints show it was embedded in concrete on the angle it had too little bearing to contribute to resisting the failure. At the corner columns G1 and J1 the bottom steel was welded to the angles and both columns were pulled over by the developing tension. At J1 the column was pulled over towards I1 (indicating failure initiation at H2 or I2, rather than J2) and then failed in shear. At G1 the column pulled towards H2 and I2 but the welded bottom steel prevented shear fracture. The potential consequences of progressive failure need specific consideration in both the design and appraisal of flat slab structures. In appraisal a specific check on the detailing of any shear reinforcement and bottom steel and the potential effects of deterioration on them, should be carried out to establish the residual strength after initial punching failure. If this is low, a check should be carried out on the adequacy of the strength of adjacent parts to halt the spread of an initial failure. 10.4.8 Partial Factors

There is a clear case for differentiating between flat slab structures which have this safety net for which partial factors for ductile elements in BS8110 are appropriate and those where initial shear failure can develop into a progressive collapse which merit an increased m factor because of the potential consequences of failure. The proposals for EC2 specify mc = 1.5, but this is not directly comparable with BS8110 because of the range of different assumptions throughout the calculations. A wider review, outside the scope of this report is needed, to evaluate the overall uncertainties to be covered by load and material factors for punching shear. This needs to consider the structural risks inherent in BS8110 and EC2, when used for design and for appraisal and should cover: sensitivity to variations in construction accuracy and materials quality, as a function of contract quality control, sensitivity to underestimating maximum reactions and moments, errors in determining the peak shear concentration on the perimeter with moments and non-circular supports, sensitivity of strength to deterioration, risk of progressive collapse with and without deterioration, influence of long term and cyclical loading on strength inspectability of signs of deterioration and warning signs of failure. uncertainties of the strength of repaired concrete.

153

10.5 10.5.1

DETAILED ANALYSIS OF SHEAR STRESS DISTRIBUTIONS Introduction

A detailed analysis of the shear distributions in the slab around the columns has been undertaken by Amey Vectra (AV) [H215], whose ANSYS analysis gives the average stresses in the plate elements around H2, I2 and J2. H&S also reported [H2] on their plate idealisations of the slab focusing stress distributions around H2 and J2. BRE have carried out the much more detailed DIANA analysis [H218] related to H2/I2 shear head configuration and the repair of H2. There is a parametric study of punching shear analysis using DIANA by Khwaounjoo [63]. The principal objectives of these analyses have been to address the uncertainties of interpretation of BS8110 for the appraisal of the Lift Slab shear head as-built and when repaired. The main issues for the internal columns H2 and I2 are : i) The effects of moments transferred from the slab to the column on the shear distribution on the four faces of the shear perimeter. The validity of the BS8110 simplification of summing the strength of the four faces, based on their average geometry, and checking this against Veff, compared to considering the shear force and strength of each face based on its properties. The extent to which the full area of the Type 4 extended angle shear heads at H2 and I2 can be considered effective or if a curtailment of the angles should be assumed to reflect its low stiffness compared to a column support. The potential stress concentration effects of the Type 4 angle shear heads, which might need to be considered by a modification to the average stresses for a normally supported slab on a circular or square column. The effect of cutting out concrete for repairs, with and without propping, and the subsequent repair, on the overall stress distribution and on shear stress levels

ii)

iii)

iv)

v)

For J2 the AV ANSYS analysis was used to examine the effects of the holes adjacent to the column and the repair on the distribution of shear forces on the three sides of the perimeter. 10.5.2 ANSYS and DIANA Idealisations

In Section 10.4.3 the design shear forces Veff on the perimeter at 1.5d from the shear head have been compared to Vc the sum of the strengths of the 4 faces following the BS8110 definitions and by considering the shear force and strength of each face. In 10.4.4 this has been refined on the basis of comparisons with research data and developed to cover the effects of degradation. The research data on the strength when there is a significant transfer of moment to the column, with a consequent variation of shear around the perimeter, has been analysed by Regan[41]. The research data largely relates to tests with a circular or square concrete column under a regularly reinforced slab, as distinct from the embedded angle shear head of the irregularly reinforced lift slab with the uncertainties about the support and stress concentrations.

154

The AV ANSYS plate analysis of the whole slab area gives both the column reactions and moments from which Veff has been derived for Section 9, and the stresses in the elements around the columns. The idealisation around the columns has nodes on perimeters roughly corresponding to perimeters at 1d, 2d and 3d from the column from which the shear stress and shear forces distributions have been extracted for each load case. The BRE DIANA detailed finite element analysis of the I2 column, the steel shear head and the slab, used multiple layers of non-linear concrete elements with reinforcement individually idealised as bars within elements. This gives more detailed stress distributions through the depth of the slab and around the same perimeters. Full details of these idealisations and results are given in the respective contractors reports. Figure 10.5.2 - 1 shows the overall ANSYS idealisation of the whole area of slab including Columns G to J in Rows 1 to 3 and the ramp. Figure 10.5.2 - 2 shows the orientation and sign convention for both ANSYS and DIANA analyses. The detailed ANSYS idealisations around I2 and J2 are shown in Figures 10.5.2 - 3 and 10.5.2 - 4. For the main set of load cases, the ANSYS plate element stiffnesses incorporated the gross 229mm concrete section flexural stiffness and the in-plane and torsional shear stiffness, with the long term or short term E as appropriate. The assumed ANSYS properties are summarised in Figure 10.5.2 - 5, along with the properties in the DIANA analysis and the design and test data on Pipers Row concrete. The stiffness of the shear head angles was not represented in the ANSYS idealisation, but the drainage holes around J2 and elsewhere were idealised. For the structure modification runs the star cracking around columns was modelled for an area extending to 3d from the shear heads, with the cracked concrete stiffnesses related to the steel area on each face. The effect of cutting out for the repairs without propping the slab was modelled as a local reduction in thickness. The DIANA analysis idealisation is based on the I2 column and the surrounding 5.114 m by 4.578m area of slab, as shown in Figure 10.5.2 - 6. The slab is idealised as 7 layers of DIANA nonlinear concrete elements with individual reinforcing bars represented as bar elements (axial stiffness only, no dowel action), as shown in Figure 10.5.2 - 7. The concrete elements crack at a defined stress level (Strong at 2.1N/mm2 and Weak at 1.0N/mm2) and the stiffnesses are modified to the depth of the cracking. The shear head with the wedge supports to the column are modelled in detail as steel elements, as shown in Figure 10.5.2 - 8. One DIANA LC5 run NOCOL has been carried out with the steel shear head replaced by concrete supported directly on the column, as with normal in situ construction. Load Cases The ANSYS shear data on the 1Dn, 2Dn and 3Dn perimeters at H2, I2, and J2 has been extracted for each load case, but the analysis and comparisons have been focused on LC5 (unfactored dead load with column moment fixity). The DIANA analysis has been carried out for unfactored dead load at 5.41kN/m2 with the edge of the idealised slab loaded with the forces and moments around the boundary from both LC1 (column pinned) and LC5 ANSYS (column fixed) analyses. Because of slight differences in idealisation between ANSYS and DIANA the output column head reactions and moments differ. The results have been adjusted for the output column head reaction and moments in making the comparisons below.

155

Figure 10.5.2 - 9 gives the reactions and column head moments and Veff values for the main set of DIANA runs and associated ANSYS runs. The comparison of the BS8110 Veff, ANSYS and DIANA shear distributions on the perimeters around the columns provides an indication of the shear stress concentration arising from the moment transfer and the shear head stiffness and examples are given below. The idealisations of ANSYS and DIANA where matched to facilitate direct comparison on nodal perimeters referred to as Dn, 2Dn and 3Dn (see Figure 10.5.2 - 3). Because of the range of interpretations of the dimensions of the BS8110 perimeter these do not exactly match the nodal perimeters. The 2Dn perimeter (1090mm by 1528mm) lies a little outside the 1.5d BS8110 reference perimeter (914 by 1431mm) for the as-built dimensions and the full angle supporting the slab at 22mm above the soffit as shown on Figure 10.5.2 - 10. The majority of the comparisons summarised below are based on this 2Dn perimeter for I2, with the comparisons to BS8110 adjusted for this boundary and loading. For J2 there is no DIANA analysis but simple comparisons have been made between the BS8110 shear forces and shear strengths and the ANSYS idealisation at 3Dn (see Figure 10.5.2.4). These illustrate the effect of the holes and edge on the shear distribution around the column. H&S also reported on the effect of holes in their finite element analyses of J2.

Repair The repair of the slab at H2 and J2 could have substantially altered the stress distribution around the column head as well as the reactions and moments considered in Section 9.3. The magnitude of the changes depends on the indeterminate effectiveness of the propping during the repair, the match of the repair material to the concrete, and the integrity of the bond between the concrete and the repair. The effect of cutting out the holes for the repairs has been covered in the ANSYS analysis by three load cases R1, R2 and R3 with the repair cutouts progressively removed at H2, J2 and then I23 by reducing the slab elements from 229 to 150mm. A more detailed analysis of the effect of a repair similar to that at H2 has been carried out with DIANA, but based on the LC5 loading and idealisation at I2 to facilitate comparisons. This has been done on the basis of cutting out the Unpropped slab while it supports its dead load of 5.41kN/m2.. The hole is then filled with higher stiffness repair concrete and the slab is loaded with an additional 20% UDL (1.08kN/m2). Similarly the repair has been analysed with the slab fully Propped to maintain the slab shape for cutting out and repair and then loaded with 20% additional UDL .

156

Figure 10.5.2 - 1

Amey Vectra ANSYS idealisation of whole area

157

Figure 10.5.2 - 2 Orientation of axes in DIANA and ANSYS analyses

158

Figure 10.5.2 - 3

Amey Vectra Local ANSYS Idealisation around I2

159

Figure 10.5.2 - 4

Amey Vectra Local ANSYS Idealisation around J2

160

C o m p a r i s o n o f D e s i g n a n d M e a s u r e d M a t e r i a l P r o p e r t i e s w i t h t h e A s s u m e d P r o p e rties in D I A N A a n d A N S Y S A n a l y s e s .

Figure 10.5.2 - 5.

M a terial D IANA: M A IN ANALYSES S trong Concrete W eak Concrete DIANA REPAIR ANALYSES S trong Concrete. Repair ANSYS ANALYSES Long Term Short Term Design Properties CP114 Concrete

Compression ('Y i e l d ' ) S t r e n g t h T e n s i l e S t r e n g t h N/mm2 N/mm2

E Young's M odulus kN/mm2

Poisson's ratio

Cracking criterion

Shear retention Shear Retention criterion factor

Tension Softening criterion

Strain at zero tensile strength

Density kg/m 3

Coefficient of T h e rmal Expansion m icrostrain/Cdeg

21 21

2.1 1.0

20.5 20.5

0.2 0.2

Const. Stress C u toff Variable Const. Stress C u toff Constant

0.99 0.20

Linear Linear

0.00125 0.00125

2400 2400

21 60

2.1 6.0

20.5 30.8

0.2 0.2

Const. Stress C u toff Variable Const. Stress C u toff Variable

0.99 0.99

Linear Linear

0.00125 0.00125

2400 2400

21 21

20.5 10.3

0.2 0.2

2400 2400

12 12

20.5

2414

Appraisal Properties BS8110 Concrete Measured Properties 20.5 24.0 2300

Concrete Other Slabs Concrete Failed Slabs Typical Concrete Failed Slabs W orst Repair

28 20 15 65

2.5 1.7 <1.3 5.0

24.0 18.0 9.0 31.0

2340 2250 11.3

11.5

Figure 10.5.2 - 5 Material properties in analyses

161

FEMGV 6.1-02 : Building Research Est blishm Model: LC5FC

15-JUL-2001 21:46 tb rs cgm

5.114
J2 I1

4.578

H2

Z Y X

Top r/f bars I2

FEMGV 6.1-02 : Building Research Model: LC5FC

15-JUL-2001 21:48

J2

I1

H2

Z Y X

Bottom r/f bars

Figure 10.5.2 - 6 DIANA Idealised slab and column with reinforcement

162

FEMGV 6.1-02 : Building Research E bli h Model: LC FC

15-JUL-2001 23:16 l 1

Top of slab Layer 1 Repair Depth

Top of collar angle

29 29 38 38 38
Distance to centre lines of T1 & T2 bars = 70mm

Location of bottom part of collar angle

38 20
26.5

45

Layer 7
Z Y X

Bottom of slab I3 I1

Figure 10.5.2 - 7 Detail of DIANA shearhead collar idealisation with LC5 deflections in m.

163

FEMGV 6.1-02 : Building Research E t bli LC5FC h Model: LC1: Load case 1 Step: 3 LOAD: 1 Nodal TDTX...G Max/Min on model TDTZ Max = -.339E-3 t = Min -.811E-3

15-JUL-2001 22:50 ll

J2 Top of slab
-.549E-3

58 I1
-.736E-3 -.55E-3

-.371E-3 -.355E-3 -.383E-3

-.558E-3 -.368E-3 -.49E-3 -.355E-3 -.522E-3

-.509E-3

20

-.538E-3 -.746E-3 -.559E-3 -.491E-3 -.505E-3 -.59E-3

-.737E-3 -.803E-3

Bottom of slab
-.746E-3

-.518E-3 -.597E-3

-.562E-3

470

-.811E-3

914.4

H2
Z Y X

Figure 10.5.2 - 8 DIANA Idealisation of slab in layers with reinforcement

164

BRE DIANA Applied and Reaction Loads and Moments

Figure 10.5.2 - 9

ANSYS reactions (Moments absolute) at top of col. Date of First Output Model Name PRELIMINARY ANALYSIS 1/4 Model using Vectra's new LC1 NQ2LC1.doc/CV5231- loads of 17 Mar. 2000 GC-3 (2nd file) NEWLC5A.DOC/CV5231-GC7 Full model NEWLC5A.DOC/CV5231-GC7 Full model NEWLC1st.DOC/CV5231-GC8 Full model NEWLC1wk.DOC/CV5231-GC10 Full model LOAD CASE Output provided in Details Fz (kN) kN Mx kNm kNm My kNm kNm

Total Applied Forces, Moments Middle Plane

Reactions at bottom of column (kN and kNm)

Moments at slab midplane Veffy kN Concrete.

Fx kN

Fy kN

Fz kN

Mx kNm

My Veffx kNm kN

Veffy kN

Fx kN

Fy kN

Fz kN

Mx kNm

My Mx My Veffx kNm kNm kNm kN

26-Mar-00

NEWQ2\NE WQB.dat

LC1

77.28

-77.3

Weak

THE MAIN ANALYSES

06-Jun-00 STRLC5

LC5

-256.3

8.7

3.9

-2.88

6.28 -254.1

15.8

3.6

270.4

259.7

-3.5

7.8 -254.2

-5.54

-5.71

18.8

5.2

273.6

262.4

Strong

06-Jun-00 WKLC5

LC5

-256.3

8.7

3.9

-2.88

6.28 -254.1

15.8

3.6

270.4

259.7

-3.6

7.9 -254.2

-5.61

-5.65

19

5.6

273.9

263.0

Weak

06-Jun-00 STRLC1

LC1

-286.2

0.053

-0.15

-289

-5.77 -0.082

-6.22

-0.24

295.4

289.4

Strong

15-Jun-00 WKLC1

LC5

-286.2

Weak

ANALYSIS WITHOUT A COLLAR 13-Dec-00 NOANG REPAIR ANALYSES PipApF1.doc/CV5231-GC-23 Full model LC5 NOANG.DOC/CV523 1-GC-19 Full model -256.3 8.7 3.9 -2.88 6.28 -254.1 15.8 3.6 270.4 259.7 -2.87 6.25 -254.1 -5.76 -5.89 13.8 3.1 268.4 259.0 Strong

About Column Base

21 Feb. 01

PRPH2N

LC5

-2.88

6.28 -248.2

-3.81

-2.54

252.1

252.2

-2.88

6.28 -248.2

Strong Strong with Repair

21 Feb. 01

PRPH3E

PipApFLC5 x 1.2 1.doc/CV5231-GC-23 Full model PipApF1.doc/CV5231-GC-23 Full model

-3.46

-7.54

-305

-5.2

-6.4

310.4

315.0

-5.8

-8.3

-305

-6.53

-6.73

21 Feb. 01

UNPH2N

LC5

-2.88

6.28 -248.2

-3.81

-2.54

252.1

252.2

-2.88

6.29 -248.2

-4.6

-2.94

Strong Strong with Repair

21 Feb. 01

PipApFUNPH3D/3E LC5 x 1.2 1.doc/CV5231-GC-23 Full model

-3.46

-7.54

-305

-5.2

-6.4

310.4

315.0

-5.8

-8.2

-305

-6.5

-6.92

305.0

305.0

Note LC1 with perimeter shears from ANSYS with pinned column head should give no Moments, but does. Interpretaion is based on output moments.

Figure 10.5.2 - 9 BRE DIANA Applied and Reaction Loads and Moments

165

Figure 10.5.2 - 10 DIANA Analysis 2Dn and BS8110 shear perimeters

166

10.5.3 Shear Distribution from Column Moments The variation of average shear forces from the applied moment around the four sides at I2 of the 2Dn perimeter have been extracted for LC5 5.41kN/m2, the unfactored dead load with column fixity load case, on the BS8110 basis and for comparable ANSYS and DIANA runs. The reactions and moments and BS8110 Veff based on the 2Dn perimeter with higher stressed side average shear stresses are shown on Table 10.5.3 - 1 Figure 10.5.3 - 1 sets out the analysis of the ANSYS shear stresses and forces around the 2Dn perimeter for I2. This gives an average shear stress of 0.205N/mm2 (slightly lower than BS8110 value, as it excludes the weight inside the perimeter) and average shear stresses on the 4 sides also shown on Table 10.5.3 - 1 Figure 10.5.3- 2 sets out the analysis the DIANA shear stresses and forces on selected sections (as shown on Figure 10.5.2 - 10) around the 2Dn perimeter for I2. This gives an average shear stress of 0.187N/mm2 (as the comparison is based on reference sections, not the whole perimeter area) and average section shear stresses on the 4 sides which are also shown on Table 10.5.3 - 1 for comparison.
Table 10.5.3 - 1. Comparison of average stresses on the sides of ANSYS and DIANA 2Dn perimeters with BS8110 _______________________________________________________________________________ Mx My Veffx Veffy Vt Reaction and Moments kN kN/m kN/m kN kN ANSYS LC5 256.3 8.7 3.9 264.8 261.7 0.033 0.015 M/Vt ______________________________________________________________________________ Average North East South West to J2 to I1 to H2 to I3 T2 Bars T1 Bars T2 Bars T1 Bars v effy veffx vav 2 Side av. Shear N/mm 0.214 0.218 0.221 BS8110 v eff/vav 1.00 1.021 1.033 _____________________________________________________________________________ to J2 to I1 to H2 to I3 T2 Bars T1 Bars T2 Bars T1 Bars vav ANSYS v Shear N/mm 0.205 0.194 0.204 0.226 0.193 1.00 0.944 0. 993 1.104 0.939 ANSYS v/ vav ________________________________________________________________________________ Mx My Veffx Veffy Vt Reaction and Moments kN kN/m kN/m kN kN DIANA LC5 strong 254.2 18.8 5.2 273.6 262.4 0.074 0.020 M/Vt Average to J2 to I1 to H2 to I3 v effy veffx DIANA vav BS8110v eff/vav 1.00 1.032 1.076 _____________________________________________________________________________ to J2 to I1 to H2 to I3 2 0.187 0.166 0.183 0.215 0.183 DIANA Shear N/mm DIANA v/vav 1.00 0.88 0.98 1.15 0.98 ____________________________________________________________________________
2

167

These analyses show that the effect (veff/vav) of the moment Mx on the highest stressed side at Pipers Row I2 is: - three times the BS8110 increase veff/vav with ANSYS analysis (i.e. 1.033 to 1.104). - twice the BS8110 increase veff/vav with DIANA analysis. (i.e. 1.076 to 1.150). The basis for treating the increase in shear stress in BS8110 clearly needs a fundamental review relative to a sufficient body of test data and analysis to ensure that the effects of moments are not underestimated for the brittle detail. Possibly this should incorporate a basis similar to EC2. Pending such a review doubling the effect of moments would be prudent in the absence of finite element analysis. This can be achieved by changing the current BS8110 formula: from Veff = Vt (1 + 1.5Mt/(Vt x)) to Veff = Vt (1 + 3Mt/(Vt x)).

168

Figure 10.5.3 - 1

LC5 Uncracked Unfactored Dead Load.

I2

Node Perimeter 2D LC5 Uncracked.

UDL = 5.41N/mm2 Unfactored Dead Load Column Fixed. Node '2Dn' d 1.528 0.178 1.090 0.161 Side Towards

I2 Perimeter at 2Dn, LC5 Uncracked Shear Stress at 5.41N/mm2

0.350 0.300 Shear Stress N/mm2. 0.250 0.200 0.150 0.100

a North

J2

b East

I1

North to J2
0.050 0.000 0 1

East to I2

South to H2

West to I3

3 Perimeter m.

c South

H2

d West

H3

Total Perimeter

Node Max. Node Element Shear Perimeter Shear Length length Stress Length Stress m m kN/m2 N/mm2 aI2-2d_LC5.txt AV Email 5/12/0 0 0.000 7717 0.2191 94.8 0.000 0.095 119.5 6.00 7727 0.2034 144.1 0.219 0.144 182.3 8.49 7737 0.1889 220.5 0.423 0.220 229.5 9.93 7700 0.1525 238.6 0.611 0.239 248.2 8.67 1.528 8041 0.1525 257.8 0.764 0.258 252.5 8.82 8220 0.1889 247.3 0.916 0.247 240.8 10.42 8791 0.2034 234.3 1.105 0.234 194.2 9.04 8801 0.2191 154.0 1.309 0.154 127.5 6.40 8811 0 101.0 1.528 0.101 8811 0.2034 147.1 1.528 0.147 168.0 7.83 1.090 8809 0.1889 189.0 1.731 0.189 206.8 8.94 8765 0.1525 224.6 1.920 0.225 229.8 8.02 8753 0.1525 235.0 2.073 0.235 233.6 8.16 8711 0.1889 232.2 2.225 0.232 217.3 9.40 8741 0.2034 202.3 2.414 0.202 181.6 8.46 8739 0 160.8 2.617 0.161 8739 0.2191 112.5 2.617 0.112 141.6 7.10 8729 0.2034 170.7 2.837 0.171 219.6 10.23 8719 0.1889 268.5 3.040 0.269 283.6 12.27 8202 0.1525 298.6 3.229 0.299 307.9 10.75 1.528 8023 0.1525 317.1 3.381 0.317 303.9 10.61 7628 0.1889 290.6 3.534 0.291 273.1 11.81 7665 0.2034 255.5 3.723 0.256 208.4 9.71 7655 0.2191 161.2 3.926 0.161 133.8 6.71 7645 0 106.4 4.145 0.106 130.2 0.00 7645 0.2034 154.0 4.145 0.154 173.1 8.06 7647 0.1889 192.2 4.349 0.192 205.7 8.90 1.090 7633 0.1525 219.1 4.538 0.219 220.1 7.69 7675 0.1525 221.1 4.690 0.221 216.2 7.55 7687 0.1889 211.3 4.843 0.211 194.9 8.43 7715 0.2034 178.5 5.031 0.179 159.3 7.42 7717 0 140.0 5.235 0.140 5.235 m Total Shear Force Average Shear on 2Dn Perimeter

Depth 229mm For Length Av Shear Shear Stress Force kN/m2 kN

Shear Force kN

Gross depth 229 Shear Stress N/mm2 for d=229 % of Av.

67.76

0.194 -94.4%

50.81

0.204 -99.3%

79.20

0.226 110.4%

48.05 245.82 kN N/mm2

0.193 93.9% 0.205

169

FIGURE 10.5.3 - 2

LC5
Column Head Reaction Vt 254kN Column Head Moment Mx 18.8kNm Properties Strong Column Head Moment My 5.2kNm Sxz Distribution for load case LC5 (N/mm2) y= -0.504m y= -0.504m y=-0.27m y=-0.27m y=0m y=0m WEST FACE EAST FACE WEST FACE EAST FACE WEST FACE EAST FACE 0.027 0.035 0.040 0.051 0.056 0.056 0.058 0.077 0.087 0.098 0.113 0.113 0.142 0.177 0.194 0.214 0.219 0.219 0.212 0.256 0.281 0.311 0.287 0.287 0.219 0.267 0.297 0.321 0.294 0.294 0.178 0.207 0.237 0.249 0.231 0.231 0.084 0.103 0.119 0.124 0.117 0.117 0.018 0.043 0.049 0.052 0.051 0.051 0.219 0.267 0.297 0.321 0.294 0.294 0.192 1.545 0.209 1.538 0.200 1.473 0.200 1.473 y=0.27m WEST FACE 0.051 0.098 0.214 0.311 0.321 0.249 0.124 0.052 0.321 0.209 1.538 y=0.27m EAST FACE 0.040 0.087 0.194 0.281 0.297 0.237 0.119 0.049 0.297 0.192 1.545 y=0.504m WEST FACE 0.035 0.077 0.177 0.256 0.267 0.207 0.103 0.043 0.267 0.172 1.553 y=0.504m EAST FACE 0.027 0.058 0.142 0.212 0.219 0.178 0.084 0.018 0.219 0.140 1.560

Top Node 1 Node 2 Node 3 Node 4 Node 5 Node 6 Node 7 Node 8 Bottom

z (m) 0.211 0.181 0.152 0.114 0.0765 0.0385 0.005 -0.0195 Max Value

Average Sxz 0.140 0.172 Max/Av 1.560 1.553 Average Sxz Weighted for Thickness

Top Node 1 Node 2 Node 3 Node 4 Node 5 Node 6 Node 7 Node 8 Bottom

z (m) 0.211 0.181 0.152 0.114 0.0765 0.0385 0.005 -0.0195 Max Value

Syz Distribution for load case LC5 (N/mm2) x=-0.728m x=-0.728m x=-0.371m x=-0.371m x=0m x=0m x=0.371 x=0.371 x=0.728 x=0.728 SOUTH FACE NORTH FACE SOUTH FACE NORTH FACE SOUTH FACE NORTH FACE SOUTH FACE NORTH FACE SOUTH FACE NORTH FACE 0.041 0.036 0.048 0.050 0.073 0.061 0.050 0.046 0.042 0.034 0.083 0.071 0.091 0.093 0.141 0.119 0.093 0.086 0.088 0.068 0.150 0.128 0.252 0.211 0.262 0.222 0.254 0.196 0.162 0.123 0.188 0.160 0.435 0.317 0.363 0.303 0.441 0.293 0.205 0.153 0.188 0.159 0.446 0.329 0.398 0.328 0.454 0.302 0.206 0.152 0.145 0.122 0.336 0.249 0.312 0.256 0.344 0.228 0.161 0.117 0.072 0.060 0.151 0.112 0.139 0.114 0.155 0.102 0.080 0.058 0.029 0.024 0.052 0.038 0.047 0.038 0.054 0.035 0.032 0.024 0.188 0.160 0.446 0.329 0.398 0.328 0.454 0.302 0.206 0.153 0.271 1.644 0.208 1.584 0.256 1.558 0.212 1.545 0.276 1.644 0.191 1.580 0.142 1.446 0.106 1.443

Average Syz 0.131 0.111 Max/Av 1.440 1.445 Average Syz Weighted for Thickness Average WEST FACE Length mm 1090 Av Shear N/mm2 0.183 Force kN 45.6 Av FaceShear % Av Perimeter Shear N/mm2 97.6%

Average Average Average EAST FACE SOUTH FACE NORTH FACE 1090 1528 1528 0.183 0.215 0.166 45.6 75.3 57.9 97.6% 115.0% 88.5%

Overall Average Perimeter 5236 0.187 224.4

Note. This is based on average at 5 locations per side and gives relative forces on sides but not correct total

170

10.5.4

Shear Concentrations from Shear head Support

When shears develop around a uniformly loaded circular column, as in the testing from which the BS8110 design rules have been developed, the shear stresses are: - Uniform around the circumference, - Increase towards the column as the perimeter shrinks, - Vary through the thickness of the slab as in beam sections. For an uncracked slab away from the column, the through thickness shear distribution varies parabolically with a highest value at mid depth of 1.5 times the average. Close to the support the peak increases and is lower in the slab. When the slab cracks in flexure these shears are redistributed into the lower part of the slab. This is in part taken into account by discounting the concrete above the centroid of the top reinforcement in the BS8110 effective depth d. The actual shear fracture develops as a tensile fracture on a cone with crushing round the column, discussed in Section 10.4.3 and shown Figure 10.4.3 - 1. This contrasts with the arbitrary vertical shear perimeter on which the stresses are checked in the BS8110. Thus the arbitrary shear perimeter stress does not directly relate to the peak principal tensile stress, peak shear stress or the failure criteria in the triaxial crushing zone at which the shear crack triggers the collapse. The shear distribution around the inner columns H2 and I2 at Pipers Row varied around the shear perimeter and within the depth of the section because of: i) ii) The moments applied to the column, as discussed above. The stress concentrations resulting from the steel shear head insert in the slab. These concentrations, relative to the uniform support of a circular column, arise from a combination of: a) The support being at the level of the top of the angle flanges 22mm above the soffit of the slab.

b) the non uniform vertical support from the bottom flanges of the angles which can flex and twist. c) The potential stress concentration onto the ends of the verticals of the projecting angles.

d) The compressive stress concentration onto the cutting edge of the bottom flange of the angles at the root of the shear failure surface which may initiate premature crushing failure. e) The effects of the flexural cracking of the upper part of the slab, which is complicated by the wide spacing of the reinforcing bars away from the column and the bars being lower in the slab than designed. The local effects of the cutting out and repair at H2.

f)

171

The DIANA analysis has been carried out to quantify these effects within the limits of the idealisation. The full non linearity of punching shear behaviour and in particular the relationship of local stress concentrations to the initiation of a crack which then unzips to fail in brittle punching, cannot be fully clarified without well instrumented tests combined with detailed finite element analysis. Such testing is beyond the scope of this study. Selected output from the DIANA LC5 (5.41kN/m2 UDL) with column slab fixity strong analysis is set out below to illustrate the features identified above. The BRE Report [H218] contains full details and more comprehensive sets of stress outputs. The idealisation and the loadings were based on I2, but the effects of repair were considered by assuming the H2 repaired area was located at I2 to facilitate comparisons. Figure 10.5.4 - 1a shows the top reinforcement with a localised area around the shear head with tensile stresses up to about 50N/mm2, so yield of the top steel over the column head was not a factor under the LC5 dead loads 5.41kN/m2, nor would it arise under factored dead + live load at 12.55kN/m2. Figure 10.5.4 - 1b shows the first crack normal strain vectors at 90 to the crack orientation. This shows the tendency to star cracking with the strong crack across the width of the long shear head angle and then radiating out from the end, as found in the examination of I2 and similar to that shown in Figure 7.4 - 8 at another location in Pipers Row. Figure 10.5.4 - 2 shows the Syz shear stresses (ie shear out of plane of the T2, long North and South sides, see Figure 10.5.2. - 2 for orientation) on the 4 faces on the 2Dn perimeter with LC5 5.41kN/m2 dead load. There are distinct shear peaks up to 0.45N/mm2 on the South side towards H2. This compares with an average from ANSYS for the full 2Dn perimeter at 229mm depth of 0.205N/mm2 and an average for the most highly loaded south side towards H2 of 0.226N/mm2. Figure 10.5.4 - 3 Compares the maximum shear stresses from the DIANA analysis with the full depth shears from the ANSYS analysis across the width of the LC5 North and South faces. Figure 10.5.4 - 4 Compares the variation in shear stress through the depth of slab on 5 shear sections (see Figure 10.5.2 - 10) for the North and South faces, from the LC5 DIANA analysis. This shows a peak mid depth shear stress 0.45N/mm2 on the South Face of 214% of the perimeter average shear stress. Figure 10.5.4 - 5 shows the Sxz shear stresses (shear out of plane of T1, short East and West sides) on the 4 faces on the 2Dn perimeter. There are only slight shear peaks, up to to 0.3N/mm2 on the West side towards I3, so the ends of angles are not giving a stress peak at 2Dn. This compares with an average from ANSYS for the full 2Dn perimeter at 229mm depth of 0.205N/mm2 and an average for the West side towards I3 of 0.193N/mm2. Figure 10.5.4 - 6 shows the Syz shear stresses (shear out of plane of T2, long North and South sides) on the 4 faces on the 1Dn perimeter. There are distinct shear peaks up to 0.70N/mm2 on the South side towards H2 aligned with the short cross angles which are supported on the wedges. Figure 10.5.4 - 7 shows the Sxz shear stresses (shear out of plane of T1, short East and West sides) on the 4 faces on the 1Dn perimeter. There are smaller shear peaks, up to to 0.5N/mm2 on the East and West side towards I1 and I3. This confirms that the long projecting angles do not create a shear peak on the T1 side of the perimeter comparable to that on the T2 side as shown on Figure 10.5.4 - 6.

172

Figure 10.5.4 - 8 shows in plan view the concentration of the Syz and Sxz shear stresses towards the corners of the column with little indication of any concentration of shear on the ends of the angles. The focus of stress is the ends of the short, wedge supported, 8" x 4"angles. This confirms the view that the full lengths of the angles cannot be considered as supporting the slab. Assuming that the angles give an effective support length to 1.5 x the depth of the projecting 5" x 3" x 3/8" angle beyond outer face of the 8" x 4" x 5/8" angle (ie 190mm), when defining the shear perimeter is an empirical basis for allowing for this. However this does not allow for the stress concentration effects that arise from the hard point of the angles seating and the concentration on the end of the wedge supported angle. Because the failure mode is brittle the stress concentrations will initiate failure on the highest stressed area on one side of the column which will then spread. This makes it essential to check the shear strength against the shear force on each face of the perimeter with overstress on any one face being the criteria for failure. The condition of the shear head being seated predominately on only one of the 4 wedges, as found at I2, has not been evaluated using DIANA, but must increase the stress concentrations further. Figure 10.5.4 - 9 and Figure 10.5.4 - 10 show how both shear and flexural stresses concentrate onto the hard edge of the angles of the shear head 5" x 3" x 3/8" angle. This creates a risk on the T2 side of initiating a crack to precipitate a punching failure. Without physical tests to failure of similar configurations and detailed FE analysis of them, the magnitude of the stress concentration factor and the stress level at which failure initiates cannot be determined. When using the BS8110 shear strength v c in Table 3.8, which is derived from test data on in-situ construction in which this concentration does not occur, a stress concentration of factor of at least 1.1 should be applied to Veff on the T2 side. On the T1 face this magnitude of stress concentration does not arise. This factor is more necessary because of the inadequacy of m of 1.25 to cover the range of uncertainties and stress concentration effects. In design any feature which introduces a stress concentration in the punching shear zone should be avoided. Figure 10.5.4 11 compares the effect on the T2 South face shear stresses at 2Dn of the wedge supported angle collar in LC1 (column pinned as lifting) and LC5 (column fixed) with a run NOCOL with normal column support to the slab. This shows very clear peaks in shear stress at 380mm and 550mm from the column centre line which coincide with the positions of the widely spaced T2 reinforcing. In the non linear cracking modelled in DIANA a crack forms across the width of the long angles where there is a gap in this T2 steel. This crack also developed in the structure. This cracking redistributes the shear onto the peaks where the reinforcing bars maintain stiffness. This effect largely masks the difference between the NOCOL and the LC1 and LC5 runs with shear head angle collar. This comparison confirms the limited effectiveness of the projecting angles, but it does not enable a more detailed comparison to be made with the conventional in situ construction with regularly spaced reinforcement, as in the tests used to calibrate BS 8110.

173

FEMGV 6.1-02 : Building Research Establishm. Model: LC5FD Element RE.SXX.L SXX Max/Min on model set: Max = .428E8 Min = -.63E7

16-JUL-2001 17:25 newst1.cgm

J2

50 45 40 35 30 25 20 15 10 5 0 -5

Y Z X

H2

2 Top reinforcement stresses (N/mm ) under LC5 Loading.

FEMGV 6.1-02 : Building Research Establishm. Model: LC5FD LC1: Load case 1 Step: 3 LOAD: 1 Gauss EL.ECR1 EKNN Max/Min on model set: Max = .391E-2 Min = 0 Factor = 100

16-JUL-2001 17:34 newcr.cgm

.352E-2 .313E-2 .274E-2 .235E-2 .196E-2 .157E-2 .117E-2 .783E-3 .391E-3

Y Z X

First crack normal strain vectors under LC5 Loading. Cracks are at right angles to the strain vectors. The top reinforcement bars shown.

Figure 10.5.4 - 1

DIANA I2 Top reinforcement stresses and crack vectors

174

Figure 10.5.4 - 2 : Shear Stress Syz (N/m2) under LC5 Loading, around the D2 Block.

FEMGV 6.1-02 : Building Research Establishm.

Model: LC5FD LC1: Load case 1 Step: 3 LOAD: 1 Nodal EL.SXX.G SYZ Max/Min on model set: Max = .133E8 Min = -.141E8

17-JUL-2001 10:32 newyz2.cgm

J K J J K JK J K K

K L K

LL

Z Y X

J K L L K J I J J L J J J KK G I MI L E DFI K I K H F J K H H K I J KL M J F II K G F KJ I K K M Q U T S R E K J IF N O G F H JK LH G E HM K B MK J JL J L H K I H E K L O I B O N EK GM KK J DN P M K GR PG A N O I LK K C I K E F K E L H K A I K J I M F J K B L F K OL L CD J N N O KG M J C H K G J K K K KJ AE J J K G I K K H K EE DE F H C D J F B G E F H G GH G H J H FD J I L G G H J G H A I I I G E I K M I L F L H J L M B D D L F M G GK J I J J EF N LJ F L H C L J E C A D M G H G J G L M I L H G H D O G DN G L F F CB I B F C C M J A E H FH N M O E H G G D K P E A C J I K M Q G N F O D E H P L I H B D Q O F FH F R C K K T S B B E IJ J D IH F N K KK M C C D E FU J ID E R B H S J G H D C UL T J N O P C B E I A N E F E BFB IH G I O C F F KG E C M C D I A C L R J K U T S LM ID D N N O P K F G E L N O Q P DJ N O P S N J G Q L H D N F Q B N M N M L N H M M N M L L L M M L L L L L

L M N

M M

0.45 N/nm2 0.4 N/nm2 South to H2

U.1E7 T .9E6 S.8E6 R.7E6 Q.6E6 P.5E6 O.4E6 N.3E6 M.2E6 L .1E6 K0 J -.1E6 I -.2E6 H-.3E6 G-.4E6 F -.5E6 E-.6E6 D-.7E6 C-.8E6 B-.9E6 A-.1E7

Model: LC5FD LC1: Load case 1 Step: 3 LOAD: 1 Nodal EL.SXX.G SYZ Max/Min on model set: Max = .133E8 Min = -.141E8 J

0.3N/nm2 North Face to J2

J J J J J I J J J J I L I K J H I ML KI JN H K I M G I D E E D IE F J M F K M PO M M F J I I E M M K A F D K HD H C M ML C MO M N A J K J K B B LH C C L I A JH D HG C A J D H H Q O E B H Q P L E N E H G G I E H O L K P F H GC G M K K J J J IB FL B L C H G PI M J E L I F B I K L K J M N C K F J K O I N IL C E N B H R P O K A J F K G N KR O NJL O K N RO J FB F P J Q L M I R N T R P J K N U RJ Q J J M S N O Q O J K Q T K G U O O K C S N K J H U M MM U KJ GU K R M N I N L M OL Q L Q NH K M IL PQ P P H N N J IUG GH TS M A O L KK JP L O O K K K JD F T FI H J J O S R JC Q K H D C P K G LO B J I Q P L J S K QE F Q E U N L I M K N K J IIS H L T K GJB L HL LJE NH I P LJ K J F K G RK U P O M A T C Q M S Q D I J K L R JP O GK I N PQ K KM N M SJ T AH R J L J N L IF D K M J H O E M N F TO B K P Q N H L H K D C G S T R G Q U AU N Q HO B F A S IM KO C H F I K FL L T UP B Q O E H P R K H KK J MN E KS PQ H DI G I K Q U J O P R HC U T JIF TI NQ Q S K K IH R R K N L Q R S J H G H G K L F E U P N F K P T L E D M U N L I K M O G F P Q L L F D O N G L N H P I B K K A Q U E G EH K LP Q R UF R Q C E G K O G K L M J J J J KP SD B B G I AIK LS K J L I UKD H O S D T O S P H GT T P IA C U T K J IO M R C B P S R S E H F M Q T M D G G N Q A S O IGL E L N LFL J C R R A O B K J I H I M JE IEC G N P B F F A F E D C E F KK J H F O L G B P D S E N I I T S O L HO M H JJ K K K N GPO E D IG J LG N M J D QP P M T I A M AA B D K G DC H HO I L N M H IM J Q P T S UU J K H E I C O D D G K O L N R N Q KK GPQ F H O J ID PK N K K K MDM S R P E A BE J L M N O N H G F BF CL M I MI CD I H G DE L O J N ET F G H I L M JK K L L M N L K K J J I I

J I

K K

Z X Y

U.1E7 T .9E6 S.8E6 R.7E6 Q.6E6 P.5E6 O.4E6 N.3E6 M.2E6 L .1E6 K0 J -.1E6 I -.2E6 H-.3E6 G-.4E6 F -.5E6 E-.6E6 D-.7E6 C-.8E6 B-.9E6 A-.1E7

Pipers Row Report

175

LC5 North and South. Comparison of DIANA Max. and ANSYS Av. Shears at 2Dn.
0.6 Shear Stress N/mm2
DIANA LC5S Max. ANSYS LC5S Av. DIANA LC5N Max. ANSYS LC5N Av.

0.4

0.2

0.0 -0.8 -0.6 -0.4 -0.2 0.0 From Centre m. 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8

LC5 East and West Comparison of DIANA Max. and ANSYS Av. Shears at 2Dn.
0.6
DIANA LC5W Max. ANSYS LC5W Av. DIANA LC5E Max. ANSYS LC5E Av.

Shear Stress N/mm2

0.4

0.2

0 -0.8 -0.6 -0.4 -0.2 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 From Centre m.
FIgure 10.5.4 - 3 DIANA and ANSYS I2 Shear stresses on 2Dn perimeter

176

Run on: 6/6/00 Properties Strong Column Head Reaction Vt 254.2kN Column Head Moment Mx 18.8kNm

Column Head Moment My 5.2kN/m.

Syz Distribution for load case LC5 (N/mm2) North and South Face
-ve
Syz Distribution for load case LC5 (N/mm2) x=-0.728m x=-0.371m z (m) SOUTH FACE 0.211 0.041 0.181 0.083 0.152 0.150 0.114 0.188 0.0765 0.188 0.0385 0.145 0.005 0.072 -0.0195 0.029 Max 0.188 Max/Av Perim. 0.89
NORTH FACE SOUTH FACE NORTH FACE

c
x=0m
SOUTH FACE NORTH FACE

+ve
x=0.371
SOUTH FACE NORTH FACE

x=0.728
SOUTH FACE NORTH FACE

Top

Bottom

0.036 0.071 0.128 0.160 0.159 0.122 0.060 0.024 0.160 0.75

0.048 0.091 0.252 0.435 0.446 0.336 0.151 0.052 0.446 2.10

0.050 0.093 0.211 0.317 0.329 0.249 0.112 0.038 0.329 1.55

0.073 0.141 0.262 0.363 0.398 0.312 0.139 0.047 0.398 1.88

0.061 0.119 0.222 0.303 0.328 0.256 0.114 0.038 0.328 1.55

0.050 0.093 0.254 0.441 0.454 0.344 0.155 0.054 0.454 2.14

0.046 0.086 0.196 0.293 0.302 0.228 0.102 0.035 0.302 1.42

0.042 0.088 0.162 0.205 0.206 0.161 0.080 0.032 0.206 0.97

0.034 0.068 0.123 0.153 0.152 0.117 0.058 0.024 0.153 0.72

Perimeter = 2(1.528 = 1.090) = 5.6236m Depth 229mm Av S for 2Dn perimeter 0.212N/mm2

Syz Distribution at y=-0.728 m for Load Case LC5

0.25
SOUTH FACE NORTH FACE

-ve

Syz Distribution at y=-0.371m for Load Case LC5

Syz Distribution at y=0 for Load Case LC5

-ve
0.25
SOUTH FACE NORTH FACE SOUTH FACE

c
0.25
NORTH FACE

0.2

0.2 Coordinate, z (m)

0.2

Coordinate, z (m)

0.15

Coordinate z (m) 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8

0.15

0.15

0.1

0.1

0.1

0.05

0.05

0.05

0 0.0 -0.05 Transverse Shear Stress, Sxz (N/mm )

2

0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 -0.05 Transverse Shear Stress, Sxz (N/mm )
2

0 0.0 -0.05 Transverse Shear Stress, Sxz (N/mm )

2

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

Syz Distribution at y=0.728m for Load Case LC5

Syz Distribution at y=0.371m for Load Case LC5

+ve
0.25
SOUTH FACE NORTH FACE

+ve
0.25
SOUTH FACE NORTH FACE

0.2 Coordinate, z (m)

0.2 Coordinate, z (m) 0.15 0.1 0.05 0 0.000 -0.05

0.15

0.1

0.05

0 0.0 -0.05 Transverse Shear Stress, Sxz (N/mm2) 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8

0.200

0.400

0.600

0.800

Transverse Shear Stress, Sxz (N/mm )

Pipers Row Report.

177

Figure 10.5.4 - 5 : Shear Stress Szx (N/m2) under LC5 Loading, around the D2 Block.
FEMGV 6.1-02 : Building Research Establishm.
Model: LC5FD LC1: Load case 1 Step: 3 LOAD: 1 Nodal EL.SXX.G SZX Max/Min on model set: Max = .16E8 Min = -.173E8 K KK K K K K K KK K J K K K K K L K IG JK H K K I H L K J K F M LL L K L K L G M J C M MO N K IO N K EH U D S T K K K Q R E P F H LN H DGJ J H M N LL K J I K J J FEH IK L N O O M D O N L K GJ PL M N K K I K K I H M L K L O J R J J C S K M D E M J G F B LN J J Q J K K J A H OP L I F F EGK O L S C B R A I H IH Q P IJ M M IN N K LG K RP L K Q O J K M L M O Q N L J P IK KK K JIK J JKF T M K L KL J H E G L S QP O KO K N L F J M A J G G D C B A B C M M ML D E G I N F N K L E EF H J H I J I KL K J K L L K K K L L L L K K KK K K M LL M K M K M L J N N M L L L J N M L M L L M N L J N L L M M I I I M M M M M L M M J M LL M N N N L LL M K M J M K M M LL MM L L K L L L L L K K K X

17-JUL-2001 10:43 newxz2.cgm

J I

J I

J U.1E7 T .9E6 S.8E6 R.7E6 Q.6E6 P.5E6 O.4E6 N.3E6 M.2E6 L .1E6 K0 J -.1E6 I -.2E6 H-.3E6 G-.4E6 F -.5E6 E-.6E6 D-.7E6 C-.8E6 B-.9E6 A-.1E7

I J

I J J

Z Y

0.3N/mm2

South to H2

Model: LC5FD LC1: Load case 1 Step: 3 LOAD: 1 Nodal EL.SXX.G SZX Max/Min on model set: Max = .16E8 Min = -.173E8

North Face
J J J I H H H I I I J J J J J II J J J L M N O P Q L M N O P K J IJ K IR J I JJ J I H H I H J I I HH H J J I I I J K H JKJ L M N O P O P R N IIKJ S Q R Q M LJ J JI J J J I I I J K K J K KJ L J LG IK O P N O L JN Q R T P O PM G E SN M J Q IKM D C F KTQ K RIH DE C U T KM H IL IS K F H R F J H J E I F K S T P O N Q U S Q P O J E B A N G B A D C H J R M L C D G TS U U M L H M K N O P R I H F T S I G FG H I K T U L M E D C B A G P O N P O N L Q R J A KQLIA S J H E B Q KF M L J J KJ K BJ G K K K K K K K K K J L K K L M L K L L L L L U.1E7 T .9E6 S.8E6 R.7E6 Q.6E6 P.5E6 O.4E6 N.3E6 M.2E6 L .1E6 K0 J -.1E6 I -.2E6 H-.3E6 G-.4E6 F -.5E6 E-.6E6 D-.7E6 C-.8E6 B-.9E6 A-.1E7 K K K L

K KJ M M LGB K LF I MK H AB F H E K NK L IQF J K KL J S IL M K H G J C IE ML S EJ A HNL D D E U FL C F IG H K L U R N M B G M N T L S O D C IJ K J M C D N L M L L Q P O G F Q O U K M R LG M H N D C FE K H M C D Q T A B NM L F P T R K I B A G S N M E I N H E B I J J K M L I O P U O J R E F L N S L G H P R K H D C C O P U T Q E H K K B AF LL G JM G L J J F H LD L JI E D G K I K L L K LLL L K M

Z X Y

0.3N/mm2

Figure 10.5.4 5

DIANA I2 Shear Stresses Sxz 2Dn block

178

Figure 10.5.4 - 6

DIANA I2 Shear stresses Syz 1Dn block

179

Figure 10.5.4 - 7

DIANA I2 Shear stresses Sxz 1Dn block

180

FEMGV 6.1-02 : Building Research Establishm.

Model: LC5FD LC1: Load case 1 Step: 3 LOAD: 1 Nodal EL.SXX.G SYZ Max/Min on model set: Max = .201E7 Min = -.18E7 Model: LC5FD LC1: Load case 1 Step: 3 LOAD: 1 Nodal EL.SXX.G SZX Max/Min on model set: Max = .16E7 Min = -.175E7

17-JUL-2001 11:05 newlay.cgm

Y Z X Layer 4

.12E7 .11E7 .1E7 .9E6 .8E6 .7E6 .6E6 .5E6 .4E6 .3E6 .2E6 .1E6 0 -.1E6 -.2E6 -.3E6 -.4E6 -.5E6 -.6E6 -.7E6 -.8E6 -.9E6 -.1E7

Y Z X Layer 4

.12E7 .11E7 .1E7 .9E6 .8E6 .7E6 .6E6 .5E6 .4E6 .3E6 .2E6 .1E6 0 -.1E6 -.2E6 -.3E6 -.4E6 -.5E6 -.6E6 -.7E6 -.8E6 -.9E6 -.1E7

Model: LC5FD LC1: Load case 1 Step: 3 LOAD: 1 Nodal EL.SXX.G SYZ Max/Min on model set: Max = .939E7 Min = -.474E7

Model: LC5FD LC1: Load case 1 Step: 3 LOAD: 1 Nodal EL.SXX.G SZX Max/Min on model set: Max = .115E8 Min = -.117E8

Y Z X Layer 6

.12E7 .11E7 .1E7 .9E6 .8E6 .7E6 .6E6 .5E6 .4E6 .3E6 .2E6 .1E6 0 -.1E6 -.2E6 -.3E6 -.4E6 -.5E6 -.6E6 -.7E6 -.8E6 -.9E6 -.1E7

Y Z X Layer 6

.12E7 .11E7 .1E7 .9E6 .8E6 .7E6 .6E6 .5E6 .4E6 .3E6 .2E6 .1E6 0 -.1E6 -.2E6 -.3E6 -.4E6 -.5E6 -.6E6 -.7E6 -.8E6 -.9E6 -.1E7

.1E7 N/m2= 1.0N/mm2

Figure 10.5.4 - 8 DIANA I2 Shear stresses Sxz and Syz plan, Layers 4 and 6

181

Figure 10.5.4 - 9

2 2 Shear Stress Szx (N/m ) and direct stress Sxx (N/m ) along the element strip closest to the column and parallel to the x-axis I1 to I3. LC5 Loading. Zoomed view near the steel collar.

FEMGV 6.1-02 : Building Research

Model: LC5FD L Nodal EL.SXX.G Max/Min on model ZX = .703E7 Max set: Min = -.712E7

18-JUL-2001 17:57

Shear

G G H G G G G G HH H I H

F I

EF

E D C F D G G E I I E F H G

G F G

F H

G H HF D

G G C C C F

F F E D D G F H E E

F F

G F I

E ED H G A B F I E

G I E FH

Y Z X

I .1E7 H.6E6 G.2E6 F-.2E6 E-.6E6 D-.1E7 C-.14E7 B-.18E7 A-.22E7

Model: LC5FD Nodal EL.SXX.G Max/Min on model XX = .395E7 Max set: = Min -.315E8

Flexure

D F E E D D Y Z X C E D B C A B F F E C

D E D F F F F F E B C A

F E

F E D C B A

C E E G DE F G D C E B A C

F F F F D B A C B C E D E D D H.3E7 G.2E7 F .1E7 E0 D-.1E7 C-.2E7 B-.3E7 A-.4E7 E E

Figure 10.5.4 9

DIANA I2 East West section shear and flexure

182

Figure 10.5.4 - 10 : 2 2 Shear Stress Syz (N/m ) and direct stress Syy (N/m ) along the element strip closest to the column and parallel to the y-axis J2 to H2 . LC5 Loading. Zoomed view near the steel collar.

FEMGV 6.1-02 : Building Research

Model: LC5FD Nodal EL.SXX.G Max/Min on model set: YZ = .132E8 Max Min = -.141E8

18-JUL-2001 18:23

K K J J

L K K I J I

K L IJ J I H NQ

J O O M N N M L L

K L K IK G KK H G J N L

L M M N O N M N N M M MM R.12E7 Q.1E7 P.8E6 O.6E6 N.4E6 M.2E6 L0 K-.2E6 J -.4E6 I -.6E6 H-.8E6 G-.1E7 F -.12E7 E-.14E7 D-.16E7 C-.18E7 B-.2E7 A-.22E7

Shear

K Z X Y

K H HA M I B C F O P M P I JL K R K J JJ N O

Q R IH R P P O Q M M G R Q P O N K J I H G F E H IJ K L OL D

Model: LC5FD Nodal EL.SXX.G SYY Max/Min on model set: Max = .338E7 Min = -.362E8

Flexure

E G G F E E E Z X Y D D C D F E C B F F D C B B G G

D E F

F F G H G H G E F F F D C DA C BA B E

F E E E

E D A C B C D D

D A

E C

H.3E7 G.2E7 F .1E7 E0 D-.1E7 C-.2E7 B-.3E7 A-.4E7

Figure 10.5.4 10

DIANA I2 North South section shear and flexure 183

DIANA South Face Shear Distribution at 2Dn, Comparison of LC1, LC5 with Shear Head Collar and No Collar LC5.
0.6

Figure 10.5.4 - 11

0.5 Shear Sterss N/mm2

LC1 S LC5 S NOCOL S T2bar

0.4

0.3

0.2

0.1

0
-0.8 -0.6 -0.4 -0.2 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8

Width from Centre m

Figure 10.5.4 - 11

DIANA I2 South face shear stresses LC1, LC5 and 'No Collar'

184

Repairs Figure 10.5.4 - 12 shows how the I2 column head idealisation was modified to represent the type of repair at H2. The top three layers to a depth of 98 mm are reduced to a near zero stiffness over the area of the repair with the exposed bars bridging across. Figure 10.5.4 - 13 shows the high stress concentration at the edge of the repair on the 2Dn South Face that develops if the slab is not fully supported during cutting out and while the repair fully hardens, in comparison with full propping to prevent deflection. This unpropped stress concentration develops in the badly deteriorated concrete which was found to a depth of ~100mm adjacent to the repair at H2 and would have encouraged the debonding of the top steel around the repair. Figure 10.5.4 - 14 shows the same view after the stiffer repair (E = 31kN/mm2 relative to 20.5kN/mm2 for concrete) has hardened, the props have been removed and a 20% increase in loading (eg 1.08kN/m2 vehicle loading ) has been applied. With the unpropped slab the repair carries no dead load and its share (or a little more due to its higher stiffness) of the live load. Unpropped the cutting out stress concentration remains, giving a peak shear in the degraded material adjacent to the repair of ~1.5N/mm2. This contrast with a peak shear of ~0.6N/ mm2 for the propped and fully hardened repair. If the props were prematurely removed, the repair was poorly bonded and/or the repair had shrunk significantly relative to the original concrete, then a stress concentration similar to the unpropped case would have formed. Because of the uncertainties about the repair and propping procedures at Pipers Row it is not possible to quantify the additional repair stress concentration factor at H2. Such a factor would need to be considered relative to the strength of the severely degraded upper layers of the concrete which are also indeterminate.

185

FEMGV 6.1-02 : Building Research Establishm. Model: UNPH2N

20-JUL-2001 17:11 excav-1p.cgm

Z Y X

View of the idealised floor slab with concrete dug out to a depth of 96mm for repair. The exposed top reinforcement is shown.

Figure 10.5.4 12

DIANA I2 Idealised slab with repair excavated.

186

FEMGV 6.1-02 : Building Research Establishm.

Model: UNPH3E LC1: Load case 1 Step: 1 LOAD: 1 Nodal EL.SXX.G SYZ Max/Min on model set: Max = .158E8 Min = -.2E8

20-JUL-2001 19:06 newsyz1b.cgm

A A

A A A A A A A A A

C Z Y X B B

A A A A A A B C D A C C DB A A B I J H G F E A A B B E E CD A D A A C A A A B B CAB A C A B C A A B A B D A A A F E B C D G A A B A C A A D E A E A EC D A BB A A A B A B A A A B A A A C D C AC E A A AD A AAA B HF A CC A A C B A C C F F M D L K J G E D BB E G K I H D AB C B D C B B H M F L G AC C BA IA P O N C B J F F D AA B D G C A EJ B I B B D A A B B A A A A A A A A A A L K F H M A B D B A EC C A G G B A G A C A F C H ED D G AA IJ G H C E AF F A N D B C B K D CD J I L D F B B BD FB H G EA A J A D B A C D B AA A D G BB B B E C BA E B A D G I H K L FB BG H H I J B G K C L N M E O A EG J B P D E F K C E C BJ M A A C P M O F N A D B GF A A C B D B IM C B D E D D N F M P FI A DJ O BEG H L H A L G E E F H IK L CH C D E O P H A N K D CC D D F D I JK I G E E E D C C F C E E D C D D C B C C C B B C C C C C B B B B A

Unpropped

AA

P.15E7 O.14E7 N.13E7 M.12E7 L .11E7 K.1E7 J .9E6 I .8E6 H.7E6 G.6E6 F.5E6 E.4E6 D.3E6 C.2E6 B.1E6 A0

Model: PRPH3E LC1: Load case 1 Step: 1 LOAD: 1 Nodal EL.SXX.G SYZ Max/Min on model set: Max = .137E8 Min = -.211E8

A A A

A A A A B B A A A A A

A B

B B B

AA A BA A A AA A BC C AB D A A C DB D A B J H G F E A A B A AC A E B A A DD A A AD A BI BA C B A C B B BB C A A D D C AE F B A C F A A F G A C A A F GA E E BD C A D A A A D EA BA AA A A C C A A C B C E B B A A A A A A B A D A B B A B B A A J K P N M A J F A A E D L K J C C A B B B A AA A P N M B L I H F E D D G BB C G CH J I H I IA I HA KO A C D C H A A A A B AA BB A AFB A G E D D ID AA B C H B C D A B A C CA A B A A C A A AA D A A A C DDB A A B B C A E BAD A C F C G A G B A B A E D B C C B FA DB B B BC CB A BA AB AB A B A D B D D C B E D A BB D E B B A A B B F D CC C E B D D E A B B D BC M C C N B D D A A H C IE BD D C D AD B D D AF B E E L D D C D K G LC B B C J C C C D M CC N O F F P C A H H I I E D A C C C C D E D C A C G J G C O E G J K ML A H C I FO PDN B G E N M E B P E CD C L G FK O A C E F E F J K K L C E E A A A A B C B B B D C B B C B C B B C BB

Propped

Z Y X

P.15E7 O.14E7 N.13E7 M.12E7 L .11E7 K.1E7 J .9E6 I .8E6 H.7E6 G.6E6 F.5E6 E.4E6 D.3E6 C.2E6 B.1E6 A0

Figure 10.5.4 13 DIANA I2 Unpropped and Propped Repair Cutout Shears on 2Dn block

187

FEMGV 6.1-02 : Building Research Establishm.

Model: UNPH3E LC1: Load case 1 Step: 2 LOAD: 1.2 Nodal EL.SXX.G SYZ Max/Min on model set: Max = .162E8 Min = -.205E8

20-JUL-2001 19:10 newsyz2b.cgm

Z Y X

A A A A B B A AA C D E B B B D C BA C EA A A B B BA B I H G F A J F B A E D A A A A CA AA B CD DK B B B B CA C B A A A A A A B E B A EA F A D D E C C D B CC A A A CB ED A D C A A A A B A A A B B A AB A B A B ACD D A EA A A C B B A A H G D D AD C CC B G B A B FI C C C E A A D K O N F G A D E F L J J P O N E F I J N O P FD L G H E BC D D E A A A A A C B B F F D FIK C A B A D C IK A A ME A GJK A BL B G F B A G D H E A I G A JJ HC C C H D A B A BA D B C C A A G G G IH E A C B A A A B J E A A A H KA D C CK C DE B G D K H A I J A C B A B C A E B A CE B I G CK B E J N PM O L IH G D A FP N M L M B B D O E F F A E C B A B B DA C C A FA C G H IL C K P C B B IB H G E M L G A B F E L I D B C E C A A C F K M C JA FB D EH F D J CB F D I LAO B P DH M B A C F EG I H N K E D B A C LD B D I H MF D E IL M J E E D N E E C J D JH B D H D E F D E F G G F D C E C D D D C C C B C B B B C C B B A

Unpropped

P.15E7 O.14E7 N.13E7 M.12E7 L .11E7 K.1E7 J .9E6 I .8E6 H.7E6 G.6E6 F.5E6 E.4E6 D.3E6 C.2E6 B.1E6 A0

Model: PRPH3E LC1: Load case 1 Step: 2 LOAD: 1.2 Nodal EL.SXX.G SYZ Max/Min on model set: Max = .159E8 Min = -.22E8

A A A A A A A AA B A A A

A A A A

A A A A A

A AA A A A A A B B

B B

Z Y X

BB

AA A B A A BB BA C D B C A D B CE C J A G F E I H E A C C C A C B A C B A A A B B A C B A A B B A A A B A B D FD B B B A D D E F F CA CE D AA G A D A H AA C B B A ECA B B C A D B D A B A B A A BC B A BC B C P O N M L A B D J K H C E G G D H L M E A N O P E H D A O P M N L CH D B A A B B C BCI H A C I FG H C B E B D B AE A A JD E C D F G A A AE C A BB E C CB D BA C A G F A A C E EC A AA A A C I C B A B C F B B B B E DB F C A D A F D AA B B D B BCD A G C BB DD AB A C CD A B D A DB B A B BB B B D CD D F B B B BA A C B B C A DED E A BC F A F D B BC F C H E H E E C DD B C G D K L M E G I E N CECA B B A J B K L M C N A CC O P A FE D E F DD EG E D C C F I J D I C E D B J E FG C E A D I L K N M D P O E E G C D FJ G C D I C F H L G M N K P O J K G C J K F G L NB M DI F D C DA G K I J E H D E F A BCH E E E D E D D C C C C C B B B B B B A A A B A AAA A BA A ABB A A

Propped

A B

A A A C

A A A A A A

A C DA B A D G E F I A O P H IA F E D C B B J A A BB B B C

C D DD D D C C C B B B B

P.15E7 O.14E7 N.13E7 M.12E7 L .11E7 K.1E7 J .9E6 I .8E6 H.7E6 G.6E6 F.5E6 E.4E6 D.3E6 C.2E6 B.1E6 A0

Figure 10.5.4 14

DIANA I2 Unpropped and Propped Repaired + 1.1kN/m2 UDL

188

10.5.5

Best Estimate H2 and I2 Strength

On the basis of the results of these detailed analyses it is considered that the following assumptions are likely to give the most reliable or Best estimate of the strength of Pipers Row H2 and I2 column heads. 1. Effective depth d is taken from the top of the angle seating (22mm above soffit) to the centroid of top reinforcement for each face. The long angles should be treated as curtailed to give an effective support length to 1.5 x the depth of the projecting 5" x 3" x 3/8" angle beyond outer face of the 8" x 4" x 5/8" angle (ie 190mm). This gives an effective supported length of 312 (column + grout) + 32 (2 x 5/8" thickness) + 190 + 190 = 724mm That is 95mm off each end of the 914 angles compared to the 90mm curtailment covered in Section 6.4.3 parametric study. This covers the flexibility of the angles relative to a normal square column. Uncertainty remains about the stress concentration factor needed to reflect the high localised stress peaks which arise on the T2 side with the H2 and I2 Type 4 Shear head compared to a square column. A factor of 1.1 seems the minimum appropriate for uniform support on 4 wedges, but the peaks with all the reaction on one wedge have not been determined. For determining vc, the design shear stress on the 1.5d perimeter, from BS8110 Table 3.8 use As/(bv d) on reinforcement crossing the perimeter of depth d at 3d from edge of seating for each face (rather than the 1.5d to the shear perimeter in BS 8110) Reinforcement included in As must have full anchorage beyond 3d. Checks should be carried out on shear stress including the concentration factor across the width of each 1.5d perimeter side against strength of that side. For each face compare the strength Vc = width x effective depth d x vc with either: i) the shear force on 1.5d perimeter face from FE analysis or ii) Double the BS8110 moment effect on shear, by making Veff = Vt (1 + 3 Mt/(Vt x)). And apportioning it between sides.

2.

3.

4.

5.

6.

Figure 10.5.5 -1 brings together a selection of the estimates of load and strength for I2 on various bases. This illustrates the breadth of uncertainty about the safety margins at Pipers Row before deterioration set in. The major uncertainty on load was the tolerance on setting on the wedges. A range of features reduced the strength of the as-built slab, but deterioration was the dominant factor precipitating the collapse. Where remedial works are carried out the stress concentrations and redistributions of stress from both cutting out and casting the repair need to be evaluated and considered in the appraisal of the structure. In particular the relationship of the repair to concrete interfaces to potential fracture surfaces and the sensitivity to the loss of bond between the repair and the original concrete need to be evaluated, in terms of strength and ductility.

189

These analyses have highlighted the uncertainties associated with part depth repairs for slabs near columns where punching shear is the failure mode. No simple patch repair will fully restore the strength of the original cast concrete. Propping combined with full depth recasting of concrete or the incorporation of tensioned vertical through bolts to introduce shear reinforcement through a patch repair [64], provide a more robust and reliable approach to remedial work in punching shear zones.

Figure 10.5.5 1 Comparison of Loads and Strengths, Column I2 Punching

LOAD Design Dead + Live Load Design Dead + Live Load Design Dead + Live Load Actual Dead Load Actual Dead Load Actual Dead Load Actual Dead Load Actual Dead Load DL + Full Medium Cars Actual Dead Load Actual Dead Load RefDL Actual Dead Load Actual Dead Load STRENGTH As built 'best' basis Characteristic strength Table 3.8 vc Design Deteriorated to top of T1 bar Deteriorated to top of T1 bar Deteriorated to mid depth of T1 bar ANSYS ANSYS Subframe ANSYS ANSYS ANSYS ANSYS ANSYS ANSYS ANSYS ANSYS ANSYS ANSYS

Cracking None None None None None None None None None None None repairs cutouts Star cracked

Temperature uniform uniform uniform uniform uniform uniform uniform uniform uniform Night of 20/3/97 uniform uniform uniform

Wedge Fit level level level on 2 wedges My 5mm high on 4 wedges 10mm high on 2 wedges My level on 4 wedges 5mm high on 2 wedges Mx level level level level level

Loading kN/m2 12.55 8.62 8.62 5.4 5.4 5.4 5.4 5.4 5.4 5.4 5.4 5.4 5.4

yf 1.4, 1.6 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 ym

Load Veff kN 630 423 331 388 359 337 317 285 304 285 275 272 261 Strength

1.0 1.25 1.0 1.25 1.0

540 432 460 386 244

190

10.5.6

Detailed Analysis of J2

The ANSYS idealisation of the area around J2 includes the simple idealisation of the drainage holes as omitted elements. The idealisation is not fine enough to evaluate the local stress concentrations around the column head and cut outs, but does give reliable data on the shear forces on the three faces (East towards J1, South towards I2 and West towards I3 on the side with drainage holes). The shear forces for the three sides of J2 from the ANSYS analysis LC5 uncracked and LC99 cracked with rotational fixity of the column to the slab, have been compared with the strength estimates from Table 10.3.4 - 1 for the main perimeter assumptions. For this comparison the basic LC5 and LC99 runs at 5.41kN/m2 have been proportioned up to the factored Dead + Live Load 12.55kN/m2 level. The shear forces have been determined on the 3Dn nodal perimeter, away from the local anomalies adjacent to the holes, and then adjusted to the values at the 1.5 d perimeter. The comparisons of shear stress with shear strength for Column J2, on the BS8110 basis from Table 10.3.4 - 1, have been re-evaluated using the ANSYS shear forces on each face in Table 10.5.6 - 1.
Table 10.5.6 - 1 Strength of J2 relative to forces on sides from ANSYS

________________________________________________________________________________
Reactions Vt Veff x Veff y 1.25 Vt 1.25'Veffy 2 AV ANSYS kN/m DL x 1.6 + LL x 1.4 12.55 205 219 216 256 267 ________________________________________________________________________________ Strengths kN. From 10.3.4

Vc J1 VcI2 Vc J3 Vc Basis. East South West 2 Max effective length 115 65 68 248 3 BS8110 Radial Diverge 115 64 22 201 _______________________________________________________________________________ Shear forces from ANSYS adjusted to Factored DL + LL 2 at 12.55kN/m , at 1.5d Perimeter. V J1 VI2 V J3 V LC5 Uncracked 73 54 66 193 LC99 Cracked sections to 3d. 66 73 58 197 Compared to Basis 2 Strength. LC5 Uncracked LC99 Cracked sections to 3d. VJ1/ Vc J1 63% 57% VI2/ Vc I2 83% 113% VJ3/ Vc J3 97% 86%

________________________________________________________________________________ The comparison based on actual shear forces on each face from the 'uncracked' LC5 analysis show that with the face by face checks, but without the BS8110 additional 1.25 factor, J2 as designed has a normal BS8110 reserve of strength under factored live + dead load despite the holes.

191

When the LC99 star cracking of the slabs over the columns is included in the idealisation the total reaction at J2 changes only slightly. However the shear distribution is radically altered, as it is shed towards J1 and J3 reducing the shear on those faces, while the shedding from I2 increases the shears on the South Face at J2 by 35% to create a 13% overstress under factored loads. This analysis suggests that the 1.25 factor in BS8110 provides a generous allowance for the effect of moments on an edge column shears and also an additional factor of safety to cover the uncertainties. The basis for determining the strength of internal column set out in 10.5.5 can also be applied to edge columns, but is simplified in the absence of projecting angles. The additional 1.25 edge column factor is reasonable in design and appraisal. For determining the reserve of strength at the time of failure it has been more appropriate to use the shear forces on each face from FE analysis. Because of the T1 bar configuration framing the holes at Pipers Row, the Basis 2 assumption of Max effective length of perimeter is more appropriate at J2 than the Basis 3 BS8110 Radial Hole Diverge or other more conservative appraisal assumptions on holes. J2 Repair The repair at J2 was 60 to 90mm deep and extended over the whole area around the column, see Figure 8.3.10 - 1. The top reinforcement, see Figure 4.2 - 3, was embedded in the surface repair with the T1 bars parallel to the edge providing most of the shear resistance towards J1 and past the holes towards J3. The T2 bars were probably partly in the original concrete and partly in the repair. The DIANA idealisation of the repair at H2 was on one side of the column only, with unrepaired degraded material and corroding reinforcement adjacent to it, and the stress concentration from the repair occurring in the region of the shear failure. In contrast at J2 the extensive area of repair surrounded and extended beyond the shear perimeter except very locally near the edge of the slab. The main adverse effects of the J2 repair on strength arise from poor bond and the possibility that the slab was inadequately propped, or that the propping was prematurely removed, so that the lower part of the slab without effective reinforcement was carrying all the dead load stress. The upper repair layer, which contained all the reinforcement, would have only contributed to supporting the short term temperature and vehicle loadings. The brittleness of a shear fracture in the unreinforced lower layer would have prevented any significant load redistribution between the two layers as the ultimate load was approached. The very poor adhesion of the repair to the substrate concrete was evidenced by the separation of the whole repair in the collapse and the examination of the retained samples. Because of the poor anchorage of the T2 bars making the side towards I2 weak, the main load path for shear support would have been diagonally up, parallel to the edge, to support the 'edge beam' with T1 bars and then down in tension across the weak interface of the repair to the lower original slab concrete. The poor characteristics of this repair adhesion would have severely weakened the structure. For J2 the unusual characteristics of the original design, combined with the uncertainties associated with the repair make it impossible to predict the reserves of strength in the period leading up to the collapse, beyond indicating the wide range of possible strength. Without the deterioration and subsequent repair, J2 would have had reasonable reserves of strength under factored loading and would have been lightly stressed at the time of failure. The inadequacies of the repair would have contributed to the spread of the collapse, even if the failure did not initiate at J2.

192

At J2 sizable diagonal shear type crack had formed in the edge of the slab on the J3 side of the edge cutout, as noted and photographed by CDM [H129-131], Figure 6.2 - 1, in January 1997, and was being investigated at the time of the collapse. The edge crack occurred in the unreinforced edge strip where the T1 bars had been were relocated 300mm in from the edge to pass between the two holes for drainage. Such a crack could have been checked by the T1 bars and the holes so that it may well not be indicative of the initiation of a full punching shear failure at J2. The long period between the first report of this crack in January 1997 and the collapse in March despite the significant cycles of loading, support the view that the holes and T1 bars acted as crack stoppers. A number of factors make it unlikely that J2 initiated the failure including: I2 slab was degraded and unrepaired H2 and I2 were more highly stressed shears were being shifted away from J2 to I2 and H2 by the cooling of the top slab overnight.

The definitive evidence is the direction of fall of column J1. If the failure had initiated at J2, J1 would have been pulled towards J2, not I1 as shown in Figure 10.5.6 - 1.

Figure 10.5.6 - 1 Column J1 pulled towards I1 not J2, indicating failure did not start from J2

193

11

APPLYING THE LESSONS

The collapse at Pipers Row and its development into a progressive collapse resulted from the combination of a wide range of factors which, after 32 years, led to the complete erosion of the normally generous factors of safety expected for buildings. The lessons from it apply to all types of deteriorating concrete structures and to all forms of flat slab construction. Design and appraisal The collapse and this investigation have highlighted significant weaknesses in current design and appraisal basis for flat slabs of all types which need to be considered in relation to BS8110 and EC2 when applied to design and to the appraisal of older structures. There is a more general problem when design to simplified standards is applied to innovative and unusual structural forms which fall outside the often ill defined limits of the validity of the codes. In particular the requirements for punching shear design, partial factors, robustness and preventing progressive collapse need to be re-examined. Construction The construction of Pipers Row, like many concrete structures, produced far wider variation in the geometry of the structure and quality of materials than code specifications require. This needs to be considered in design and appraisal where assumptions and partial factors need to reflect the actual variability achieved with different forms of construction, contract and quality control. The sensitivity of the Lift Slab structure to erection tolerances was not properly treated in the original or current design guidance and partial factors and this may also arise with other forms of construction. Inspection and maintenance Although developing deterioration was clearly apparent for at least a decade prior to the collapse, its significance was not understood. Structural assessment to identify at risk details in a structure and inspection procedures which will identify them, need to be developed and form the basis for regular inspection procedures specific to each structure. Effect of deterioration and repairs on strength. The basis for the determination of strength of deteriorating concrete structures has not yet progressed beyond an understanding by specialists of the principles to be adopted. Research to provide quantitative data on the failure characteristics of deteriorating concrete is needed, so that appropriate guidance can be developed. Such guidance is essential for sustaining our deteriorating infrastructure without disproportionate risk or expenditure.

194

Acknowledgements This comprehensive review of the factors contributing to the collapse at Pipers Row has been greatly facilitated by the co-operation of many individuals and organisations concerned with the structure from its design in 1964 to the investigations after the collapse in 1997. In particular the help from Heavilifts (ex British :Lift Slab) (designer and contractor), National Car Parks (owner), Harris & Sutherland, Sandberg and Car Deck Maintenance is acknowledged. The information they have made available to the HSE has provided the essential core material for this report The report brings together the results of studies by the contractors to HSE and their contribution is acknowledged with particular thanks to Pradeep Prakash and David Leung at Amey Vectra Stuart Matthews, Pal Chana, Gerald Canisius, Martyn Webb, George Sergi, Ted Sibbick, Barry Reeves, Mary Emerson and Elizabeth Silver at the Building Research Establishment Prof Geoff Mays and Richard Barnes at RMCS Shrivenham. The work has also been assisted by advice from many specialists in the Construction Industry, Universities and Research Establishments on particular aspects of materials and structural behaviour, notably by Prof Paul Regan, colleagues at Aston University and former colleagues at Mott MacDonald. References There are two sets of referenced documents. References to publicly available Standards, Codes and papers. [nn] as listed below. HSE set of documents relating to the construction and operation of the car park and reports of studies on it some of which are confidential. These are prefixed [H nn], where nn is the number in HSE document register. Publicly Available References 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. Kellerman J, Pipers Row Car Park, Concrete Car Parks Conference, BCA, Sept. 1997 HSE, Interim Results of Pipers Row Investigation. Press Release 30/4/97 Papers to BCA Concrete Car Parks Conference Sept. 1997 Papers to Aston Conference on Concrete Car Parks, Aston University March 1998 Wood J G M, Caring for car parks Parking News May 1999. SCOSS, 10th Report of the Standing Committee on Structural Safety October 1994. SCOSS Structural Safety 1994-96 11th Report Summary January 1997 SCOSS Structural Safety 1997-99 12th Report Summary and Bulletin 2 Jan 1998 IStructE Design recommendations for multi-storey and underground car parks, 3rd Ed. , June 2002 ICE Recommendation for the inspection, maintenance and management of car park structures 2002 ICE Papers to Conference on Inspection of Multi-Story Car Parks, July 2000. Office of the Deputy Prime Minister Enhancing the Whole Life Structural Performance of Multi-Storey Car Parks September 2002.

195

13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18.

19. 20. 21.

22. 23 24. 25. 26. 27. 28. 29. 30. 31. 32. 33. 34. 35. 36. 37. 38. 39. 40. 41. 42. 43. 44.

Douglas, Lift Slab Construction, Brochure, c. 1972. CP114: 1957,The structural use of reinforced concrete in buildings, BSI 1957. BS449:1959, Structural Steel, BS1 1959. CP3:ChV:1952, Loading, BSI 1952. Flexcrete Admixture 850 Brochure c. 1996 Emberson N K and Mays G C, Significance of property mismatch in the patch repair of structural concrete. Parts 1 and 2 Mag. of Concrete Research V42, No 152, pp 147 - 170, Sept. 1990, and Part 3 MCR V48, No 174, pp 45 - 57, Mar. 1996. Emberson N K and Mays G C, Design of patch repairs: Measurement of properties Proc. Int. Conf Protection of Concrete, Ed. Dhir R K, pp 937 to 954, Dundee, Sept 1990. Chandler J W E and Mays G C The evaluation of test for repair materials used on concrete pavements TRL Report 303. CIRIA Standard tests for repair materials and coatings for concrete, Part 1 Pull-off tests TN 139, Part 2 Permeability tests TN 140, Part 3 Stability, substrate compatibility and shrinkage tests. TN 141 1993. Eurocode on Concrete Repair ENV 1504-9:1997 Products and systems for the protection and repair of concrete structures. Part 9 General Principles. BS1 1997. Davies H The European Standard on Concrete Repair Principles Proc. 7th Structural Faults + Repair 1997 CIRIA Report 110, Design of reinforced concrete flat slabs to BS8110 CIRIA 1985, Rev. 1994. Sadagzadeh M, Page C L and Vassie P R W, Effects of Urea on the durability of reinforced Mag. Conc. Res. V 45, No. 164, pp 179-186, Sept 1993. Sadagzadeh M and Page C L, Effects of Urea on the durability of reinforced TRRL CR208 Digest 1990. CP114:1957 "The structural use of reinforced concrete in buildings" BSI 1957 CP110:1972 Structural use of concrete BSI, 1972 (superseded by BS8110 1985) BS8110: 1985 Structural use of concrete.. BSI 1985, Issue 2 1989 with Amendments to No.4 to Sept. 1993 (Edition for period up to collapse.) BS8110: 1997 Structural use of concrete, Part 1. Code of practice for design and construction. BSI. BS5400:1990 Steel, concrete and composite bridges, Part 4 Concrete Bridges, 1990. IStructE Appraisal of Existing Structures Second Edition October 1996 SETO, London BD44/95, BA51/95 and BD 21/97 Assessment of Bridges HMSO. CIRIA 63, Rationalisation of factors of safety, CIRIA London, 1977. Yeo R G L, Design live loads for parking garages, CE 40534, ASCE 2000. Emerson M, Temperatures in bridges during the cold winter 1978/79, LR926 TRRL 1980. Emerson M, Temperatures in bridges during the hot summer 1976, LR783 TRRL 1977 Currie R J and Robery P C "Repair and maintenance of reinforced concrete" BRE 1994 Pullar-Strecker P, "Corrosion Damaged Concrete, assessment and repair" CIRIA Butterworths1987 Poston R W et al. Selecting Durable Repair Materials Performance: Criteria - Laboratory Results pp21 - 29, ACI Concrete International Nov. 2000 Regan P E Behaviour of reinforced concrete flat slabs. CIRIA Report 89 1981. Chan P S and Desai S B Design of shear reinforcement against punching, The Structural Engineer, 70/9/5 May 1992. Regan P E Research on shear, The Structural Engineer 71, 19, 5, October 1993. Courtney M A, Figg J W, et al, Concrete car parks: Design and maintenance issues Paper to BCA Conference on Car Parks Sept. 1997

196

45. 46. 47. 48. 49. 50. 51. 52. 53. 54. 55. 56. 57. 58. 59. 60. 61. 62. 63. 64.

Regan P and Braestrup M W Punching Shear in Reinforced Concrete CEB Bulletin of Information No 168, Jan 1985. MC90, CEB FIP Model Code 1990, CEB Bulletin of Information No 205, July 1991. prEn 1992-1, Eurocode 2 (2nd Draft), Design of concrete structures, Jan 2001. ACI 318 Building code for reinforced concrete ACI Chana P S, BCA test series Photo. 90/22/2 Norris P et al. Assessment of inadequate reinforcement anchorage in a flat slab viaduct, Proc. Conf. at City University, London 1996. Mitchell D and Cook W D, Preventing progressive collapse of slab structures, J of Structural Engineering 110/7, ASCE, July 1984. Carper K L, Current structural safety topics in North America, The Structural Engineer, June 1998. Leyendecker E V and Fattel, S G, Skyline Plaza Collapse, Report BSS 94, NBS Washington June 1973 Litle W A, Boston Collapse at 2000 Commonwealth Avenue, Symp. Progressive Collapse, ACI Convention, Boston, Apr. 1975. Feld J, Lessons from failures in concrete structures, ACI Monograph No. 1, pp30-32, 1964. Lew H S et al, Condominium collapse Cocoa Beach Concrete International Design and Construction, ACI V4. No.8, pp 64-73, Aug 1982. Gardener N J, Huh Jungsuck, Lan Chung, What we can learn from Sampoong Department Store collapse, Int. Workshop on Punching Shear KTH/BKN/B--57--SE Stockholm 2000 Andersson J L Punching of Lift Slabs Nordisk Betong: pp 229-252. 1963. Andersson J L Design of Lift Slabs with reference to punching. Nordisk Betong: pp 27-54. 1974 Hawkins , Bao and Yamazaki, see Regan [H414] Chana P S and Desai S B, Membrane action and design against punching shear, The Structural Engineer, Vol. 70, No.19, Oct 1992. Mott MacDonald SSD Model testing of flat slab deck. Oct 1988. Khwaounjoo Y R, 3D finite element modelling of punching type problems using DIANA, UNICIV Report No. R-393,Uni. NSW Sydney,Aug 2000. Menetry P and Bruhwiler E Punching shear strengthening of reinforced concrete Vol. 2 pp 451 - 458 Proc. 7th Int. Conf. Structural Faults & Repair 1997

197

Documents forwarded to Structural Studies & Design Ltd. Document Reference NCP/HSE/SS &D
1 2 3

Date

Document

Content
Materials Testing Wolverhampton NCP Car Park Report on the partial collapse of the Roof Slab of Pipers Row Car Park Wolverhampton Addendum to Document 2

22/07/1997 Sandberg's Completed Report 15643/S 22/05/1997 Harris & Sutherland Report First issue J411100/R1/Rev2 28/05/1997 Harris & Sutherland Addendum Report J411100/R1/Addendum 1 First issue 20/06/1997 Harris & Sutherland "Summary" Report J411100/S1 10/06/1997 Fax H&S - HSE 27/08/1997 Fax H&S - HSE 02/09/1997 Fax H&S - HSE 21/01/1998 Letter H&S - HSE 03/03/1998 Letter H&S - HSE Photographs of Pipers Row Car Park by HSE HSE Photos HSE Photos HSE Photos HSE Photos HSE Photos HSE Photos HSE Photos HSE Photos HSE Photos HSE Photos HSE Photos HSE Photos Photographs of Pipers Row Car Park Car Deck Maintenance Ltd

4 5 6 7 8 9

Summary of Document 2. Intended for public release by NCP Summary of assumptions used in calculations, and resulting shear loads and stresses at column/slab junctions of collapsed slab As Document 5 after amendments - Shear calculations for collapsed portion of level 8 slab Summary of assumptions and results of flexural calculations for collapsed level 8 slab Temperature differential calculations for top slab, manual and finite element Further explanation of basis of temperature differential calculations for document 8

Photos: 10 - 34 35 - 42 43 - 66 67 - 68 69 - 71 72 73 - 82 83 - 91 92 - 101 102 - 108 109 - 116 117 - 119 120 -131

P1-1 P2-5a P3-1 P4-2a P5-1a P6-1a P6-3a P7-1a P8-4a P9-6a P10-1a

to P1-P24 to P2-12a to P3-24 to P4-12 to P5-3 to P6-12a to P7-12a to P8-12a to P9-12a to P10-8a

P10-10a to P10-12a 120 - 125; 126 127 & 128; 129 - 131; (I-J) (8-9); J2; H2 J2 Crack

132 133 134 135 136 137 138 139 140 141 142 143 144 145 146 147 148 149 150 151 152 153 154 155 156 157 158 159 160 161 162 163 164 165 166 167 168 169 170 171 172 173 174 175

06/01/1998 Letter H&S-HSE Apr-97 Sketch 1A by HSE Apr-97 Sketch 2 by HSE Apr-97 Sketch 3 by HSE Apr-97 Sketch 4 by HSE Apr-97 Sketch 5 by HSE Apr-97 Sketch 6 by HSE Apr-97 Sketch 7 by HSE Apr-97 Sketch 8 by HSE Apr-97 Sketch 9 by HSE Dec-97 Sketch10 by HSE Dec-97 Sketch11 by HSE T130 T130/16 T130/16 T130/17 T130/17 T130/18 T130/19 T130/20 T130/21 T130/28 T130/29 T130/30 T130/31 T130/32 T130/33 T130/36 T130/40 T130/46 T130/47 T130/48 T130/49 T130/50 T130/51 T130/52 T130/53 T130/58 T130/59 T130/61 T130/63 T130/64 T130/67 T130/68

Covering letter and 12 colour photocopies of photographs taken by H&S when visiting Pipers Row 20/03/96 Plan view collapsed area (1-3) (G-J) listing sample areas and findings Details taken of reinforcement around column I2 Details taken of reinforcement around column H2 Details taken of reinforcement between columns H2 & I2 Site measurements and locations of slab repairs Details of reinforcement around column I1 Details of shear surfaces of fallen slab at columns H2 & I2 Details of shear surface at column I3 Details of seperation line of slab adjacent to Grid Line 3 Interpretation of crack adjacent to J2 Interpretation of relationship of repaired area at J2 to crack adjacent to J2 Site Survey Layout Drawing Scheme 3 . Ground & first floor plans (5/64) Layout Drawing Scheme 3 . Ground & first floor plans (5/65) Layout Drawing Scheme 3. Upper floor plans elevations & section (4/64) Layout Drawing Scheme 3. Upper floor plans elevations & section (4/65) Section 7 elevations scheme B Block plan (outlines existing building on site to be demolished). Column Details - 1 Column Details - 2 M.S. column insert - Type 2 Wedge Type W.1. Splice Plates M.S. Column Insert - Type 1 Bases to Columns Sheet 1 of 2 Column Details - 3 Ground floor layout showing finalised details Typical upper floor structural layout Typical floor panel I. Top reinforcement 4 No. OFF Typical floor panel I. Bottom reinforcement 4 No. OFF Typical floor panels IV & V. Top reinforcement 4 No. OFF Typical floor panels IV & V. Bottom reinforcement 4 No. OFF Typical floor panel III. Top reinforcement 3 No. OFF Typical floor panel III. Bottom reinforcement 3 No. OFF Typical floor panel II. Top reinforcement 4 No. OFF Typical floor panel II. Bottom reinforcement 4 No. OFF Bases to Columns Sheet 2 of 2 Details of outlets at car parking levels Foundation layout Roof - panel III. Top reinforcement 1 No. OFF Roof - panel III. Bottom reinforcement 1 No. OFF Collar schedule M.S. column insert - type 3.

Documents forwarded to Structural Studies & Design Ltd.

Document Reference NCP/HSE/SS& D 176 177 178 179 180 181 182 183 184 185 186 187 188 189

Date

Document

Content

T130/69 T130/70 T130/71 T130/72 T130/75 T130/76 T130/77 T130/78 T130/79 T130/80 T130/83 T130/95 T130/100 T130/101

N.W. staircase & lift shaft walls above ground floor - sheet 1. Part elevation to Pipers Row Columns - supplementary details. Bases to columns I1, TK1 & L1. N. W. Staircase & lift shaft walls above ground floor - sheet 2. N.W. Staircase (Sheet 3) Sections thru panels II & III. South east staircase Reinforcement details to pour strips. Sheet 1 of 2 Reinforcement details to pour strips. Sheet 2 of 2 Layout drawing scheme 3. Upper floor plans, elevations & section showing marking out for car bays Lifting schedule (also Col./Slab connection detail). Revised collar type 5. Revised collar type 6. British Lift Slab Calculations Typical Floor Collars Columns Differential Lifting Foundations North West Stairs North East Stairs Staircase Wells South East Staircase Retaining wall facing forecourt Line 3 Retaining wall Grid line 3 Retaining wall Split Level Cloud cover, air temperature, wind direction & speed for 01/03/97 to 20/03/97 11 photographs of Pipers Row Dec. 1998 24 SS&D photos after collapse including annotation Pipers Row Car Park, Wolverhampton. Initital Summary Report to the HSE on the Partial Collapse on 20th March 1997" Review of Reasonable Good Practice for the Maintenance , Inspection, Appraisal and Repair of Pipers Row Car Park , Wolverhampton 1988 to 1997 Pipers Row Car Park, Briefing Report Qualitative Review of Possible Contributions to Failure 1300-218 CAD Drawings as designed from BLS originals 1300-218 Calculations 000 series Wind Loading 1300-218 Calculations 100 series CP114 and Sub-frame analysis 1300-218 Calculations 200 series BS8110 and Sub-frame analysis 1300-218 Calculations 300 series BS8110 and grillage analysis 1300-218 Calculations 400 series BS5400 and grillage analysis 1300-218 Record drawings of large samples and as-built details 1300-218 Calculations 500 series 3-D Plate ANSYS Analysis Contract C. Report Punching Shear Literature Search Bibliography. Contract C. Report 202352 Factors affecting punching shear, case histories and degraded strength Contract C. Report 23977/S33.071 Strength of slab connections DIANA FE analysis Contract D1. Report 3978/S33.072 Material testing of concrete samples Contract E Report 3980/S33.074 Determaintion of temperature differentials in exposed slab and repair Contract D2. Report, Testing of repair materials. Bound set of notes and references on punching shear.

190 191 192 193 194 195 196 197 198 199 200 201 202 203 204 205 206 207 208 209 210 211 212 213 214 215 216 217 218 219 220 221 222

1964 Calculations " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " 1964 Calculations " " 28/04/1997 Records:- Met Office Wolverhampton MBC -HSE 25-Mar-97 SS&D to HSE 19-May-97 SS&D Report to HSE 10-Jul-98 SS&D Report to HSE 11-Dec-98 SS&D Report to HSE Amey Vectra to HSE B1 Amey Vectra to HSE B2 Amey Vectra to HSE B2 Amey Vectra to HSE B2 Amey Vectra to HSE B2 Amey Vectra to HSE B2 Amey Vectra to HSE B3 Amey Vectra to HSE B4 BRE to HSE C BRE to HSE C BRE to HSE C BRE to HSE D1 BRE to HSE E RMCS to HSE D2 22-Oct-01 Regan to SS&D and HSE

Figures and Tables in Report

Section Report Ref 1 Figure 1.3 - 1 Figure 1.4 - 1 Table 1.6 - 1 4 Figure 4.2 - 1 Figure 4.2 - 2 Figure 4.2 - 3 6 Figure 6.1 - 1 Figure 6.1 - 2 Figure 6.1 - 3 Figure 6.2 - 1 7 Figure 7.1 - 1 Figure 7.1 - 2 Figure 7.2 - 1 Figure 7.2 - 2 Figure 7.2 - 3 Figure 7.2 - 4 Figure 7.4 - 1 Figure 7.4 - 2 Figure 7.4 - 3 Figure 7.4 - 4 Figure 7.4 - 5 Figure 7.4 - 6 Figure 7.4 - 7 Figure 7.4 - 8 Summary Plan of 4th floor slab at Pipers Row showing repaired areas Collapsed 4th floor slab at Pipers Row Car Park, Wolverhampton on 25/3/97 Load effects: % increase in effective shear Veff around columns above self weight Design and Construction of Car Park, 1964 - 65 Reinforcement and shear head 'collar' at H2. Reinforcement and shear head 'collar' at I2. Reinforcement and shear head 'collar' at J2. Inspection and Repair, 1996 to 1997 CDM photo [H162] of cutting out for repairs at J2, January 1996 CDM photo [H164] of cutting out for repairs at H2, January 1996 H&S photo [H168 H&S 1] of cutting out for repairs at I23, 20th March 1997 CDM photo [H166] of Crack at J2, January 1997 The Collapse, 20th March 1997 Photo from above the collapsed slab Layout of collapsed slab Marked locations for retained slab samples. Retained samples in store Birmingham List of retained large samples Location of retained column and slab samples H2 general view H2 Close up view showing degradation and corrosion I2 General view Close up view of I2 showing degradation, corrosion and fracture surface J2 General view showing delamination of repair G1 column, with bottom steel welded to shear head, did not fail in punching shear Punching shear fracture at I3, deformation limited by support from ramp. Typical star cracking around shearhead. 30 31 32 33 34 35 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 26 27 27 28 18 19 20 3 5 6 Page

Section Report Ref 8 Further investigation and testing of construction and materials, 1999 - 2001 Page

Figure 8.2.3 - 1 Figure 8.2.7 - 1

Marking of degradation depth and shear fracture plane on Sections of H2 Sectioning of Column I2 shear head to reveal wedges

50 56

Figure 8.3 - 1 Figure 8.3.1 - 1 Figure 8.3.3 - 1 Figure 8.3.4 - 1 Figure 8.3.4 - 2 Figure 8.3.5 - 1

Comparison of properties used in design and analysis with test data from the structure Range of test compressive strengths Variation in Young's Modulus E of Pipers Row concrete. RMCS Creep Tests, Failed Slab Concrete Samples. RMCS Creep Tests. Repair Samples. Average strain on wetting and drying for concrete and repairs

59 60 63 65 65 67

Figure 8.3.9 - 1 Figure 8.3.9 - 2

Comparison of as-designed top reinforcement bar spacing with as-built locations As-designed and as-built cover to top reinforcement

69 70

Table 8.3.10 - 1 Figure 8.3.10 - 1 Figure 8.4.1 - 1 Figure 8.4.1 - 2 9

Repair sample dimensions. Location of repairs Corrosion indicative of fissured and degraded slab at H2 Corrosion indicative of fissured and degraded slab at I2 Loading and Analysis

70 71 73 74

Figure 9.2.1 - 1

Load Combinations, excluding wind and snow.

80

Figure 9.2.2 -1 Table 9.2.2 - 1

Vehicle loading in bays on slab. Increase in Veff and % change relative to the RefDL from vehicle loading

83 84

Figure 9.2.4 -1 Figure 9.2.4 -2 Figure 9.2.4 -3 Figure 9.2.4 -4 Figure 9.2.4 -5 Figure 9.2.4 -6 Figure 9.2.4 -7 Figure 9.2.4 -8 Figure 9.2.4 -9 Figure 9.2.4 -10 Figure 9.2.4 -11

Air Temperature March 1997 Birmingham Airport Meteorological Record for 19th - 20th March 1997 Comparison of BRE 6th - 7th Nov 1999 with Piper's Row 19th - 20th March 1997 Extreme day slab temperature profiles Extreme night slab temperature profiles Slab S2 exposed at BRE for temperature recording Surface of Slab S2 at BRE Contract E : BRE Meteorological and Temperature Data from Slab S2. 6th and 7th November 1999, Slab Temperatures and Cloud Temperature Gradients Through Slab at BRE 7/11/99. Slab Temperature Differentials at BRE 13th to 31st March 2000

85 85 88 90 90 91 91 95 96 97 98

Section Report Ref Page

Table 9.2.5 -1

Increase in Veff and % change relative to the RefDL from temperature effects

99

Table 9.2.7 -1 Table 9.2.7 -2 Table 9.2.7 -3

Increase in Veff and % change relative to the RefDL from 5mm Vertical Misfit Range of Column Veff kN, for Levels of Vertical Misfit. Effect on Veff of Uneven Seating on Wedges.

103 103 104

Table 9.3.1 - 1 Figure 9.3.1 - 1 Table 9.3.2 - 1 Table 9.3.3 - 1

Comparison of analysis properties with test data Deflections and Deflected Profile Variation in column reactions V with analysis method Effect on max Veff of cracking and repair cutouts, unpropped.

105 106 110 112

Table 9.3.4 - 1 10 10.2

Effect on max Veff of punching failures at H2, I2 and J2. Punching Shear Strength Design for Shear to CP114.

113

Figure 10.2 - 1 Table 10.2.3 - 1 Table 10.2.3 - 2 10.3

Comparison of Pipers Row lift slab shear head with normal in-situ detail. Comparison of CP114 estimates of reactions and punching strength Sensitivity of CP114 punching strength to slab depth, lever arm and shearhead Design for Shear to BS8110. Variation in design shear stress vc with perimeter width, for 'as-designed' I2 Range of shear perimeter assumptions relative to shearhead.

118 120 120

Figure 10.3.3 - 1 Figure 10.3.3 - 2

125 126

Table 10.3.3 -1 Table 10.3.3 - 2 Table 10.3.3 - 3

Columns H2 and I2: BS8110 comparison of strength with load. Column I2: Shear force Vc and strength on T1 and T2 Sides. Column I2: Change in strength with cover and thickness tolerances.

127 128 129

Figure 10.3.4 -1 Table 10.3.4 - 1 10.4

Column J2: Holes and 1.5d shear perimeters Column J2: Comparison of strength with load, on a range of perimeter assumptions. Review of punching shear research for appraisal

130 132

Figure 10.4.3 - 1 Figure 10.4.3 - 2 Figure 10.4.3 - 3 Figure 10.4.3 - 4

Shear fracture development, from Chana [42] Partial Shear Fracture at I3 Top surface cracking at ultimate load, from Chana [49 ] Load displacement response in punching shear tests, from Norris [50 ]

136 137 137 138

Table 10.4.5 - 1 Figure 10.4.5 - 1 Table 10.4.5 - 2 Figure 10.4.6 - 1 Figure 10.4.6 - 2 Figure 10.4.7 - 1

Variation in As/(bv d) and vc at 1.5d and 3d perimeters at I2 Influence of column moments on punching strength, from Regan [ 41], Relative shear strength for fcu = 15 to 38 N/mm2 H2. Declining Strength from Degradation of Surface and Shear Forces I2. Declining Strength from Degradation of Surface with Shear Forces Tear out of soffit steel to limit progressive collapse, between G3 and H3.

141 142 145 149 150 151

Section Report Ref 10.5 Figure 10.5.2 - 1 Figure 10.5.2 - 2 Figure 10.5.2 - 3 Figure 10.5.2 - 4 Figure 10.5.2 - 5 Figure 10.5.2 - 6 Figure 10.5.2 - 7 Figure 10.5.2 - 8 Figure 10.5.2 - 9 Figure 10.5.2 - 10 Table 10.5.3 - 1 Figure 10.5.3 - 1 Figure 10.5.3 - 2 Figure 10.5.4 - 1 Figure 10.5.4 - 2 Figure 10.5.4 - 3 Figure 10.5.4 - 4 Figure 10.5.4 - 5 Figure 10.5.4 - 6 Figure 10.5.4 - 7 Figure 10.5.4 - 8 Figure 10.5.4 - 9 Figure 10.5.4 - 10 Figure 10.5.4 - 11 Figure 10.5.4 - 12 Figure 10.5.4 - 13 Figure 10.5.4 - 14 Figure 10.5.5 - 1 Table 10.5.6 - 1 Figure 10.5.6 - 1 Detailed Analysis of Shear Stress Distribution Amey Vectra ANSYS idealisation of whole area Orientation of axes in DIANA and ANSYS analyses. Local ANSYS Idealisation around I2 Local ANSYS Idealisation around J2 Material properties in analyses DIANA Idealised slab and column with reinforcement Detail of DIANA shearhead collar idealisation with LC5 deflections in m. DIANA Idealisation of slab in layers with reinforcement BRE DIANA Applied and Reaction Loads and Moments. DIANA Analysis 2Dn and BS8110 shear perimeters Average shear stresses on the sides of BS8110, ANSYS and DIANA 2Dn perimeters ANSYS I2 Variation in Shear Stress around 2Dn perimeter DIANA I2 Variation in Shear Stress with depth on 2Dn perimeter DIANA I2 Top reinforcement stresses and crack vectors DIANA I2 Shear stresses Syz 2Dn block DIANA and ANSYS I2 Shear stresses on 2Dn perimeter DIANA I2 Shear stresses with depth at 2Dn North and South DIANA I2 Shear stresses Sxz 2Dn block DIANA I2 Shear stresses Syz 1Dn block DIANA I2 Shear stresses Sxz 1Dn block DIANA I2 Shear stresses Sxz and Syz plan, Layers 4 and 6 DIANA I2 East West section shear and flexure. DIANA I2 North South section shear and flexure. DIANA I2 South face shear stressesLC1, LC5 and 'No Collar' DIANA I2 Idealised slab with repair excavated. DIANA I2 Propped and Unpropped Repair Cutout Shears on 2Dn block DIANA I2 Propped and Unpropped Repaired + 1.1kN/m2 UDL Comparison of Loads and Strengths Strength of J2 relative to forces on sides from ANSYS Column J1 pulled towards I1 not J2, indicating failure did not start from J2 157 158 159 160 161 162 163 164 165 166 167 169 170 174 175 176 177 178 179 180 181 182 183 184 186 187 188 190 191 193 Page

Appendix 1 Notes on Construction of Pipers Row Lift Slab Car Park, Wolverhampton. Construction Sequence The construction sequence and accuracy of the setting the slabs on the columns can have significant effect on the shears around columns. This note was prepared to clarify the range of conditions to be considered in analysis and to provide background information on the construction which could help in other aspects of the investigation. The prime source for these notes was a discussion with an ex-Lifting Engineer for R M Douglas/British Lift Slab (RMD/BLS). He was responsible for the lifting operations for many Lift Slab structures including Pipers Row. The lifting operation, which was carried out at an early age as soon as sufficient concrete strength was developed, was considered a critical design condition. The calculations for lifting are included in the BLS calculations (BLS Contract 130. Differential lifting Sheets 1 to 8.)[H 289]. 1 The precast columns were set to level on shims in bases, levelled by dumpy. They were set slightly low so shims could be used under collar wedges to bring the slab up to level. They were then set vertical as cantilevers and concreted in. Precast columns were made in steel moulds with inserts for slab support wedges accurately positioned. Most columns (about 80%) were precast by F C Precast of Derby The collars for first floor slab was set above ground floor slab by measuring down from column insert edge using a steel tape to give a tolerance of about +/-2 to 3mm. Collars and wedges were fabricated to tolerances shown on the drawings (36/130/24, 25A & 27). The first floor slab was cast to a profile incorporating the falls in the structure on the ground floor slab to incorporate the collar set horizontal. The collars were similarly set for the upper floor slabs which were cast one on top of another. For Pipers Row, it was thought that Pioneer supplied all the concrete as ready mix in 5 or 6 yd3 loads (ie about 12 to 15 loads for the collapsed area). There were supply difficulties at Pipers Row (see also letter of 27th March 1965), but it was considered that poor material was unlikely to be used as it was a design and build contract where reliable early age strength was important for the lifting operation. A site mix was often used for preliminary works and to encourage competitive quotations from ready mix suppliers for the actual slab construction. Casting of one level of slab on top of another was carried out on a 4 or 5 day cycle. The separately lifted sections between pour strips were cast in strips and not all cast in one pour. Poker vibrators were normally used with a tamped surface, brush finished. The cold joints would be formed where convenient and were reported to be thoroughly prepared before the next section was poured (However the cold joint in recovered slab S4 was not prepared). A spray on curing/separating compound, specially formulated by Tretol, was used with 2 coats on lower slabs, 1 coat on top slab. Cubes were taken every day for normal curing in a tank and a second set were air cured on site for checking that a strength gain to >28 day design value= was achieved, prior to lifting, after 10 days minimum. Mike Price would have known about cube results, but it is unlikely that they still exist. Before lifting levelling points were established on the slab adjacent to each column and
.

4.

5.

7.

surveyed to established >reduced levels= for the slab on ground. The calculated 'Final Rise' was added to this to give the >new reduced level= at which the slab would be set on wedges. Levelling check marks were also made on the columns. 8. A check of his records showed that the Pipers Row lift was carried out in May and June 1965, suggesting casting in March - April 1965. This accords with 27th March 1965 letter from BLS to NCP about supply difficulties. However 'defective concrete' letters were later in August 1965. The slab was lifted using hydraulic jacks in 1/2" (12mm) stages, with nuts run down on rods fitted to collar to take load as jacks are reset and to provide a safety limit stop in the event of hydraulic failure. As the jacks are linked to give equal pressure and reaction at all columns the more lightly loaded columns at the edge would lift first and the slab would correspondingly flex. However as the edge columns came up against their stops for the 1/2" lift the inner columns would attract more reaction and bring the slab up to level and original profile.

9.

10. With the slab 4 to 5ft (~1.5m) below final position the reduced levels and the distance from column insert to collar seating would be checked. Any misfit would be estimated and shim packs in increments of 1/16" (1.6mm) would be used to correct. These shims would be placed ready under the wedges inset on the column insert. 11. The whole slab would then be lifted to just above the final levels so that the wedges on the shims could be moved out to engage the seatings in the slab collars as the slab was lowered. 12. The seating of the two pairs of wedges would then be checked. Sometimes all the weight was on one side, leaving the other wedges loose, these would be fixed to prevent their being displaced during the grouting. At some time, possibly after Pipers Row, thin wedge shims were supplied for this (these were not found at I2, which had flat 1/4" packs under wedge pair on one side only). While this procedure would have located the loose wedge, it would not have ensured that it took it's share of dead load. 13. The columns acted as cantilevers during lifting and the slab to column moment connections of lifted slabs were made temporarily with hardwood wedges at intermediate stages. The full moment connection was made by pouring in sand cement mortar after all slabs had been raised to their level. Top floor slab was raised to full height first, then lower floors in sequence. The infill strips between sections of the building were poured last. 14. Star cracking was occasionally seen after construction, some attempt was usually made at sealing when it was noticed. 15. A copy of Lift Slab Construction, a 24 page brochure produced by R M Douglas in the 1970s, was given to us. This shows lift slab construction techniques similar to those for Piper's Row and some later developments.

Other Information on Construction and Materials. The following information has been considered when planning the testing of the material from Pipers Row. The results of the tests, not the recollections, have been utilised in drawing the conclusions in the report. The Supervising Engineer for BLS during the construction of Pipers Row, outlined to SS&D (30/3/00) some of the difficulties during construction. These include cement supply difficulties leading to tendency of ready mix supplier to lower cement contents as far as possible. He also referred to the use of Calcium Chloride in some pours during cold weather. A Concrete repair constructor who worked on the 1987 repairs at Piper's Row and has described to SS&D the very poor concrete which became apparent during that work.

Appendix 2. Photograph Sets.

Date Pre Collapse December 1988 Jan. 1996 20th March 1996 Jan. 1997 Pipers Row Site after Collapse March April 1997 March April 1997 March April 1997 March April 1997 March April 1997 March April 1997 March April 1997 March April 1997 March April 1997 March April 1997 March April 1997 March April 1997 March April 1997 March April 1997 March April 1997 March April 1997 March April 1997 March April 1997 March April 1997 25th March 1997 March April 1997 March April 1997 Retained Samples in Store April - June 1997 April - June 1997 April - June 1997 April - June 1997 April - June 1997 April - June 1997 April - June 1997 June 1997 to Oct 1999 Quantification Contracts Oct 1999 Oct 1999 Oct 1999 Oct 1999Oct 1999 Nov 1999 Dec 1999 March 2000 5th May 2000 June 2000 5th May 2000 5th May 2000 5th May 2000

By

Ref

Photo

Details and Comment.

Wolverhampton MBC Car Deck Maintenance Ltd Harris & Sutherland Car Deck Maintenance Ltd

H203 1 to 11 H120 - 128 H132 1 to 12 H129 + 131

11 of Defects and Star cracking. 156 to 161 (I-J) (8-9),162 J2, 163 & 164 H2. Repairs in progress and miscellaneous. J2 Crack

H&S Report J411100 May 97 H&S Report J411100 May 97 H&S Report J411100 May 97 H&S Report J411100 May 97 H&S Report J411100 May 97 H&S Report J411100 May 97 H&S Report J411100 May 97 HSE Photos HSE Photos HSE Photos HSE Photos HSE Photos HSE Photos HSE Photos HSE Photos HSE Photos HSE Photos HSE Photos HSE Photos JGMW SS&D Sandberg Report 22/7/97 Sandberg

H2 H2 H2 H2 H2 H2 H2 H10 - 34 H35 - 42 H43 - 46 H67 - 68 H69 - 71 H72 H73 - 82 H83 - 91 H92 - 101 H102 - 108 H109 - 116 H120 - 131 H204 H1 H1

1 to 12 2-1 to 2-33 3-2 to 3-12 3-13 to 3-19 4-3 to 4-15 5-0 to 5-19 7-22 to 7-23 P1-1 P2-5a P3-1 P4-2a P5-1a P6-1a P6-3a P7-1a P8-4a P9-6a P10-1a P10-10a to to to to to to to to to to to P1-P24 P2-12a P3-24 P4-12 P5-3 P6-12a P7-12a P8-12a P9-12a P10-8a P10-12a

Views and Details after the Collapse. Views and Details after the Collapse. Views and Details after the Collapse. Cutting out large samples Cutting out large samples Demolition Details of large samples Views and Details after the Collapse. Views and Details after the Collapse. Views and Details after the Collapse. Views and Details after the Collapse. Views and Details after the Collapse. Demolition Large Samples Views and Details after the Collapse. Demolition Large Samples Demolition Repaired ramp Views and Details after the Collapse from hoist Site Photos Set of photos of structure just prior to demolition

J1-1 to J1-24 7, 19, 18, 20, 30,

Sandberg Report Sandberg Report Sandberg Report Sandberg Report Sandberg Report Sandberg Report Sandberg SS&D

22/7/97 App A 22/7/97 App A 22/7/97 App A 22/7/97 App A 22/7/97 App D 22/7/97 App Plates

H1 H1 H1 H1 H1 H1 Films 1 to 12 J2

4, 5, 8, 9, 14, 15 Sampling and testing 11A, 19A, 20A, 13A, 7A, 8A Sampling and testing Sampling and testing Sampling and testing Sampling and testing 6 to10 Sampling and testing Full set of Sandberg photos Retained Samples at Birmingham

Amey Vectra Amey Vectra Amey Vectra BRE SS&D SS&D SS&D SS&D SS&D SS&D HSE Photos HSE Photos HSE Photos

AV1 AV2 AV3 BRE Reports J3 J4 J5 J6 J7 J8 P11-0a to P11-12a P12-1a to P12-12a P13-4 to P13-12a

Retained Samples at Birmingham Retained Samples at Birmingham Retained Samples at Birmingham Features of samples and cores. Retained Samples at Birmingham Retained Samples at Cardington Cutting up retained samples at Cardington at RMCS Samples and Testing Cutting up I2 at Cardington Sliced up repairs at BRE Sectioning of I2 Column Head at Cardington Sectioning of I2 Column Head at Cardington Sectioning of I2 Column Head at Cardington

HSE Photos