ACI STRUCTURAL JOURNAL

Title no. 99-S45

TECHNICAL PAPER

Strengthening of Two-Way Slabs Subjected to Moment and Cyclic Loading

by U. Ebead and H. Marzouk
A two-way slab is an optimum gravity load-resisting system. Its resistance to lateral loads, however, is questionable. Upgrading or strengthening a two-way slab to column connection is a reliable means of improving the lateral resistance of the two-way slab system. This paper provides further details on the application of a strengthening technique using steel plates and steel bolts of two-way slabs subjected to different load types. The tested slabs were of two different reinforcement ratios of 0.5 and 1.0% and were subjected to central load, moment, and cyclic landings. Results of 11 specimens were evaluated. The specimens were square in shape with a side length of 1900 mm. A column of 250 mm square in cross section was located at the slab center and extended to a distance of 850 mm above and below the slab surfaces. The strengthening steel plates were extended to twice the slab depth around the column. The ultimate load was increased by an average of a minimum of 45 and 122% for specimens subjected to central load and central load plus moment, respectively. For specimens subjected to cyclic loading, the strengthening contributed to an increase of the horizontal cyclic drift by 76% compared with the reference (unstrengthened) specimens.
Keywords: concrete; reinforcement; repair; shear; strength.

INTRODUCTION A two-way slab is an efficient system for multistory buildings located at low and moderate seismic zones and for those subjected to moderate wind loads. Many researchers carried out experimental investigations to estimate the capability of the two-way slab system to resist a simulated earthquake drift routine or unbalanced moment caused by wind or unsymmetrical structural and/or loading distribution (Pan and Moehle 1989; Ghali, Elmasi, and Dilger 1976; Islam and Park 1976). Shear stresses are increased near the column at the location of the slab-column connection due to the horizontal loading caused by an earthquake or wind. The excessive shear stresses cause punching shear failure that is brittle in nature, and thus not desirable. The displacement ductility of a two-way slab is defined as the ratio between the displacement at the ultimate load and that at the yield load. The displacement ductility is a good indicator of the slab performance and the type of failure. The shear stress acting on the slab critical section should not exceed 0.15 fc MPa, as recommended by Pan and Moehle (1989), to ensure adequate displacement ductility under severe earthquake loading. Hence, enhancing the shear strength of a two-way slab is a key issue to achieve a better resistance to lateral and seismic loading. An increase of about 20% in shear strength was achieved when high-strength concrete was used in two-way slabs (Emam, Marzouk, and Hilal 1997). Building codes set clear statements of the limitations of the shear stress level carried by slab-to-column connections (ACI Committee 318 1999; CSA-A23.3 1994). Revisions of the code limitations were presented to overview cases ACI Structural Journal/July-August 2002

of utilizing vertical shear reinforcement, and cases of corner and edge columns (Elgabry and Ghali 1996a,b). Recently, a strengthening technique was developed that employed an integration of steel plates and steel bolts for enhancing centrally loaded two-way slab to column connections (Ebead and Marzouk 2002). The technique was useful in achieving higher values of stiffness, load-carrying capacity, and ductility of slabs. The side dimension of the steel plate was chosen so that it equals the column size dimension plus four times the slab depth. This dimension was in accordance with the results of a three-dimensional finite element analysis of slab-to-column connections (Marzouk and Jiang 1996). The finite element analysis findings were also supported by experimental evidence (Marzouk and Jiang 1997). The current investigation is a further application of that strengthening technique for cases of slabs subjected to different loading conditions and with different reinforcement ratios. It was proven that the most effective technique for enhancing the shear strength of a two-way slab is to provide vertical shear reinforcement in the form of shear studs around the column (Seible, Ghali, and Dilger 1980; Dilger and Ghali 1981; Marzouk and Jiang 1997; Yamada, Nanni, and Endo 1992). In the present technique, steel bolts were intended to serve as vertical shear reinforcement. These bolts were distributed in a similar way to shear studs in the aforementioned references. In addition, eight steel bolts ensured a complete interaction between steel plates and concrete slab by transmitting the horizontal forces between steel plates and concrete. Moreover, steel bolts confine the concrete between the steel plates. RESEARCH SIGNIFICANCE In an earlier research investigation carried by the authors, a strengthening technique was developed for two-way slabs subjected to central loads. In this research work, an experimental investigation was conducted to evaluate the effectiveness of that strengthening technique for two-way slabs subjected to moment and cyclic loads. The strengthening technique could be adopted in multistory buildings that are subjected to moment and cyclic loads in addition to the gravity loads. The strengthening technique was composed of the integration of steel plates and steel bolts that work as a unit to enhance the performance of two-way slabs against excessive stresses. The recommendations of this research will partially contribute to the existing information on the strengthening of the two-way slab system. This study is a part of a comprehensive research
ACI Structural Journal, V. 99, No. 4, July-August 2002. MS No. 01-285 received September 4, 2001 and reviewed under Institute publication policies. Copyright 2002, American Concrete Institute. All rights reserved, including the making of copies unless permission is obtained from the copyright proprietors. Pertinent discussion will be published in the May-June 2003 ACI Structural Journal if received by January 1, 2003.

435

U. Ebead is a PhD candidate and research assistant at Memorial University of Newfoundland, St. Johns, Newfoundland, Canada, and is an assistant lecturer at Helwan University, Egypt. He received his BSc and MSc from Helwan University in 1994 and 1998, respectively. His research interests include strengthening of structural elements and finite element analysis. ACI member H. Marzouk is Chair of the Civil Engineering Department at Memorial University of Newfoundland. He received his MSc and PhD from the University of Saskatchewan, Saskatoon, Canada. He is a member of ACI Committees 209, Creep and Shrinkage in Concrete; and 363, High-Strength Concrete. His research interests include structural and material properties of high-strength concrete, lightweight high-strength concrete, creep, and finite element analysis.

Table 3Properties of steel reinforcing bars

Bar size, Diameter, Area, mm mm mm2 10 15 20 11.3 16.0 19.5 200 300 Yield strain 0.0025 0.0026 Mean yield Mean Elastic stress, ultimate modulus, MPa strength, MPa GPa 450 435 440 660 670 665 191 193 195

100 0.00235

Table 4Properties of strengthening steel plates

Thickness, mm 6.35 Weight, kN/m3 77 Yield strain 0.00235 Yield stress, MPa 248 Ultimate strength, MPa 400 Youngs modulus, GPa 191

Table 1Mixture proportions for 1 m3 of concrete

Gravel Sand Cement Water Water-cement ratio High-range water-reducing admixture Air-entrainment agent 1160 kg 690 kg 350 kg 175 L 0.5 440 mL 68.3 mL

Table 5Properties of epoxy adhesive

Compressive strength, MPa Adhesive strength on concrete, MPa Adhesive strength on steel, MPa Elastic modulus, GPa 100 2 26 12.8

Table 2Compressive strength of concrete

Specimen title Ref-P-0.5% Ref-P-1.0% Ref-M-0.5% Ref-C-0.5% Ref-C-1.0% Steel-P-0.5%
*

Compressive strength, MPa 34.0 33.0 32.0 31.0 36.0 34.0

Specimen title Steel-P-1.0%* Steel-M-0.5% Steel-M-1.0% Steel-C-0.5% Steel-C-1.0%

Compressive strength, MPa 37.0 33.0 34.0 32.0 31.0

Marzouk, Osman, and Hussein (2001). Edbead and Marzouk (2002).

program conducted by the authors on the strengthening of two-way slabs using different strengthening techniques. EXPERIMENTAL PROGRAM Properties of materials The concrete mixture was designed to achieve a target compressive strength of 35 MPa after 28 days. The steel reinforcing bars are deformed reinforcing barsCSA Grade 400. The actual yield strength of the reinforcing bars varied from 435 to 450 MPa based on the tensile tests of the samples of the reinforcing bars. ASTM A 36 6 mm-thick steel plates were used as an adequate thickness of the strengthening plates. The yield strength of this type was 248 MPa, and the ultimate tensile strength was 400 MPa, as per the manufacturer. Eight 19 mm-diameter ASTM A 325 bolts and an epoxy adhesive were used to ensure full interaction between the steel plates and the concrete (Ebead and Marzouk 2002). Moreover, epoxy adhesive was used to fill the gaps around the bolts in the holes. Detailed properties of the materials are listed in Table 1 through 5. Test slabs Tests were conducted on a simulated model of a two-way slab part enveloped by contraflexure lines where bending moment vanishes. The specimens were square with side lengths equal to 1900 mm and thicknesses equal to 150 mm. Column stubs were square in cross section with a side dimension of 250 mm and located at the slab center. The columns were extended to a distance of 850 mm from both slab faces. 436

The tested specimens were divided into three main groups: slabs subjected to central load; slabs subjected to combined central load and moment; and slabs subjected to combined central and cyclic loads. For convenience, the first group of slabs subjected to central load only will be referred to as the CENTRAL group. The second group of slabs subjected to combined central load and moment will be referred to as the MOMENT group. The third group of slabs subjected to combined central and cyclic loads will be referred to as the CYCLIC group. For the CENTRAL group, the specimens were simply supported along the four edges with corners free to lift. For the MOMENT and CYCLIC groups, additional steel brackets were placed at the slabs corners to prevent slab movements. The test setup and concrete dimensions are shown in Fig. 1. The CENTRAL group was composed of specimens subjected to central loading. This group included two reference (unstrengthened) specimens (Ref-P-0.5% and Ref-P-1.0%) and two strengthened specimens (Steel-P-0.5% and Steel-P-1.0%). The MOMENT group was composed of specimens subjected to central loading associated with unbalanced monotonic moment. This group included two reference specimens (Ref-M-0.5% and Ref-M-1.0%) and two strengthened specimens (Steel-M-0.5% and Steel-M-1.0%). Finally, the CYCLIC group was composed of specimens subjected to cyclic horizontal loading and composed of two reference specimens (Ref-C-0.5% and Ref-C-1.0%) and two strengthened specimens (Steel-C-0.5% and Steel-C-1.0%). Specimen titles beginning with Ref indicate reference (unstrengthened) specimens, while those beginning with Steel indicate strengthened specimens using steel plates. Second letters, P, M, and C, indicate specimens of the CENTRAL, MOMENT, and CYCLIC groups, respectively. The final digits in the specimens titles indicate the steel reinforcement ratio. Results of specimens Ref-C-0.5% and Ref-C-1.0% are taken from recent research investigation on slabs tested at the same laboratory (Marzouk, Osman, and Hussein 2001). Reinforcement details Original slab reinforcement ratios were chosen as 0.5 and 1.0%. These reinforcement ratios are common in two-way slab structures in the field. Steel reinforcement of 15 and 10 mm bars were placed in both directions at the tension side ACI Structural Journal/July-August 2002

Fig. 1Test setup and concrete dimensioning. of the slab for specimens with a reinforcement ratio of 1.0% and those with a reinforcement ratio of 0.5%, respectively. In the compression side, eight 10 mm bars were placed at both directions for all specimens. The minimum concrete cover was maintained at 25 mm at both tension and compression sides. Figure 2 shows reinforcement details that include the original reinforcement and the external strengthening reinforcement of a typical strengthened specimen. Strengthening technique and procedure The steel plates for the strengthened specimens were two 6 mm-thick L-shaped plates welded together and then bonded to the concrete surface. The strengthening steel plates were chosen square with a side dimension of 730 mm. This dimension is equal to the side of the column plus four times the slab depth. This was based on aforementioned studies (Marzouk and Jiang 1996, 1997). Holes were drilled in the slabs according to a specified distribution of bolts using a hammer drill. The drilling process was followed by roughening the slab surface using a vibrating hammer. The surface of the slab and the holes were carefully cleaned by removing the dust and fine materials with a vacuum cleaner. In the meantime, the twopart epoxy resin was ready to be applied on the surfaces of the concrete and the welded steel plates. The surface of the steel plates being applied by epoxy is cleaned with a suitable ACI Structural Journal/July-August 2002 solvent to ensure it is free from oil and dust. Then, the welded steel plates were bonded to the concrete surfaces at both sides. The steel bolts were immersed in the epoxy resin before they were inserted inside the holes. Then, the bolts were immediately subjected to a torque equaling 441 kN.mm by using a calibrated torque wrench. The applied torque confined the concrete between the steel plates. The strengthened specimens were left to cure for 1 week before reinstalling them in the loading frame for testing. Figure 2 shows details of a strengthened specimen. Test setup and instrumentation The specimens were tested using a large reaction steel frame. A 10-ton capacity crane was used to lift and install the specimens vertically inside the frame. A rubber jacket was placed between the back surface of the slab and the supporting edges of the frame. A front hydraulic actuator and two side hydraulic actuators were fixed to the frame. The front actuator faced the specimens and was used to apply central load P through the inside column stub. The two side-actuators were used to apply an equal and opposite horizontal load H, as shown in Fig. 1. The lever arm between the two side actuators was kept to a distance of 1570 mm measured along the column axis. In the case of cyclic loading, the two side actuators were clamped to the column as shown in Fig. 3. 437

Fig. 2Reinforcement and strengthening details. groups, two computers were used to define both the horizontal and central movements of the actuators. The values of loads, deflections, and strains in a form of analog electrical signals were converted through the data acquisition system to digital signals and were saved in digital computer files. Nine-dial gages were equally spaced along the width of the slabs to record the deflection profiles of the CENTRAL and MOMENT specimen groups, as shown in Fig. 1. A drift routine that was limited to 22 cycles (Robertson and Durrani 1992) was adopted and modified by increasing the number of cycles to 29, as shown in Fig. 4, to accommodate possible expected improvement in the behavior of the strengthened CYCLIC group specimens. The drift ratios of the increased number of cycles were varied in a consistent manner with the original 22-cycle routine. Fig. 3Clamping of typical specimen under cyclic loading. Test procedure and load sequence All specimens were subjected to a central load equal to 50% of the ultimate load-carrying capacity of a reference specimen with the same reinforcement ratio. Specimens with reinforcement ratios of 0.5 and 1.0% were initially loaded to 156 and 240 kN, respectively. The load was completely released and the specimens were moved away from the loading frame for strengthening. This stage simulates the state of a slab in-field shored during the strengthening process. After strengthening and curing, specimens were placed at the loading frame again and applied to the specified load type. The central loads were applied under displacement control to prevent the big crash at the maximum loads. The rate of applying the displacement for the central actuator was 0.25 mm/min. In the case of the side actuators, the main concern was to apply equal and opposite lateral loads to each actuator at the same time. Therefore, the side actuators loads were applied using load control. The rate of applying the load for each of the side actuator was 0.75 kN/min, provided that each actuator would apply the same load. For the CENTRAL group, the central load was applied gradually using a ramp function until failure. For the MOMENT and CYCLIC groups, a central load of 90 kN was applied first to simulate the dead load subjected to a two-way slab in the field. For the MOMENT group, the monotonic lateral loads were applied simultaneously using the two side actuators, as the central load was kept constant. The maximum value of the horizontal load at both sides was kept at 56 kN, which produced an unbalanced moment of 88 kN.m. Then the central load was increased gradually ACI Structural Journal/July-August 2002

Fig. 4Drift routine used for CYCLIC group. Built-in load cells were attached to each actuator to record the load using four calibrated, electrical-resistance strain gages fixed to the inner cylinder of each load cell. Linear variable displacement transformers (LVDTs) were built in each actuator to measure the deflection associated with each actuators movement. Electrical-resistance strain gages with a resistance of 120 0.3% of 8 mm length and a gage factor equal to 2.070 0.50% were used to measure the steel reinforcement strains. The LVDTs and the electrical strain gages were connected through a master control panel to a data acquisition system. A data acquisition program was used to apply the load through predefined functions. For the MOMENT and CYCLIC 438

Table 6Deflection characteristics of CENTRAL and MOMENT groups

Specimen title Ref-P-0.5% Ref-P-1.0% Ref-M-0.5% Steel-P-0.5% Steel-P-1.0%* Steel-M-0.5% Steel-M-1.0%
*Ebead

Deflection Yield at yield load, kN load, mm 242 370 120 267 588 272 400 16.63 20.09 8.03 13.21 21.60 10.24 11.96

Ultimate load, kN 312 420 150 453 645 385 517

Deflection at ultimate Ductility, load, mm Du /Dy 38.00 24.50 18.00 52.27 28.00 51.77 24.60 2.29 1.22 2.24 3.96 1.30 5.06 2.06

and Marzouk (2002).

Table 7Stiffness, energy absorption, and steel strains of CENTRAL and MOMENT groups
Specimen title Ref-P-0.5% Ref-P-1.0% Ref-M-0.5% Steel-P-0.5% Steel-P-1.0%* Steel-M-0.5% Initial stiffness, Energy absorption, Steel strain at kN/mm kN.mm ultimate load, 106 18.5 18.1 20.0 27.0 35.9 32.0 34.7 9473 5635 2607 19,414 11,711 21,924 12,767 3286 2463 3399 4841 3015 3870 2884

Fig. 5Load-deflection relationships for CENTRAL and MOMENT groups. until failure, as the horizontal load was kept constant. For the CYCLIC group, the predefined drift routine that consisted of 29 cycles of full reversal incrementally increasing peak displacement as shown in Fig. 4 was applied using the side-actuators. TEST RESULTS AND DISCUSSION Load-carrying capacity of CENTRAL and MOMENT groups The values of the ultimate load-carrying capacities and the corresponding deflections are shown in Table 6. In the following discussion, the term ultimate capacity refers to the ultimate central load-carrying capacity applied to slabs. Due to the strengthening process, Specimens Steel-P-1.0% and Steel-P-0.5% showed an increase of approximately 54 and 36.5%, respectively, in the ultimate capacity over that of the associated reference specimens, Ref-P-1.0% and Ref-P-0.5%, respectively. For specimens subjected to moment as well as central load, the increase of the ultimate capacity was more noticeable. Due to the strengthening process, Specimen Steel-M-0.5% showed more than twice the ultimate capacity of the reference Specimen Ref-M-0.5%. Results of a previous investigation indicated that the strengthened Specimen Steel-M-1.0% gained an increase in the ultimate capacity of 88% over that of a reference specimen with the same dimensions and reinforcement ratio (Marzouk, Osman, and Helmy 2000). Also, the strengthened Specimen Steel-M-1.0% showed approximately 52% increase in the ultimate capacity over that of the strengthened Specimen Steel-M-0.5%. Central load-deflection relationships of CENTRAL and MOMENT groups Central load versus the central deflection relationships of the CENTRAL and MOMENT groups specimens are shown ACI Structural Journal/July-August 2002

Steel-M-1.0%
*Ebead

and Marzouk (2002).

in Fig. 5. The central deflection profiles of the strengthened CENTRAL and MOMENT specimens are shown in Fig. 6 and 7, respectively. At the same central load level, the values of the central deflection for strengthened Specimens Steel-P-0.5% and Steel-M-0.5% were greater than those for Specimens Steel-P1.0% and Steel-M-1%, respectively, as shown in Fig. 5. Also, the central deflection values at the maximum central load of Specimens Steel-P-1.0% and Steel-P-0.5% were increased by approximately 15 and 35% over those of the reference Specimens Ref-P-1.0% and Ref-P-0.5%, respectively. At the maximum central load, the strengthened Specimens Steel-M-1.0% and Steel-M-0.5% showed average deflection values of approximately 5% less than the average of those of Specimens Steel-P-1.0% and Steel-P-0.5%. Stiffness, energy absorption, and steel strains of CENTRAL and MOMENT groups The initial stiffness, energy absorption, and steel strains recorded at the radial distance 170 mm away from the slab center at the maximum central load are tabulated in Table 7. It is evident that the strengthened slabs showed an increase in the stiffness over that of the reference slabs. The average increase in the initial stiffness due to the strengthening of the strengthened specimens was approximately 1.72 times the average of that of the reference specimens. The definition of the energy absorption is the area under the central load versus central deflection curve for a tested specimen. A considerable increase in the energy absorption values was observed due to the strengthening. Strengthened specimens Steel-P-0.5% and Steel-P-1.0% showed a 104 and 107% increase, respectively, in the energy absorption over that of the associated reference Specimens, Ref-P-0.5% and Ref-P-1.0%, respectively. Specimen Steel-M-0.5% showed 439

Fig. 6Deflection profiles for strengthened specimens of CENTRAL group.

Fig. 8Load-steel strain relationship for specimens of CENTRAL and MOMENT groups.

Fig. 9Unbalanced moment-drift relationship for strengthened specimens. Fig. 7Deflection profiles for strengthened specimens of MOMENT group. energy absorption of approximately 8.4 times that of the associated reference specimen, Ref-M-0.5%. Measurements were made to determine the steel strain distributions at selected radii from the slab center. The main (tension) steel strain distributions for the tested specimens at 440 a radial distance of 170-mm are shown in Fig. 8. The recorded strain gages at that location were used to determine the point of the first yield of the slabs in the CENTRAL and MOMENT groups. A value of steel strain of 2000 strain at that location indicated the yield onset. The value of the yield load is used to determine the associated deflection at yield for the calculation of the displacement ductility (Marzouk, Emam, and Hilal ACI Structural Journal/July-August 2002

Table 8Connection stiffness and ductility of CYCLIC group

Specimen title Ref-C-0.5%* Ref-C-1.0%* Steel-C-0.5% Steel-C-1.0%
*Marzouk,

Mub 132 110 176 128 145 134 190 160

Drift at peak,% 5.00 4.00 5.00 4.00 7.83 7.94 7.92 7.93

Drift at yield, % 1.4 2.2 2.8 3.5

Displacement Stiffness at ductility 0.5% drift 3.57 2.27 2.80 2.26 44.03 43.05

Stiffness at Mub 24.20 28.30 22.55 16.65

Stiffness degradation 0.512 0.397

Osman, and Hussein (2001)

1996; Marzouk and Hussein 1991). The yield loads are indicated in Fig. 5 using the symbol O. Cyclic unbalanced moment-drift relationship Figure 9 shows the relationships of the unbalanced moment and the associated lateral drift of the column for the strengthened specimens in the CYCLIC group. It was observed that strengthened specimens with a reinforcement ratio of 1.0%, Ref-C-1.0%, showed an unbalanced moment resistance approximately 25.5% higher than that of the specimens with a reinforcement ratio of 0.5%, Ref-C-0.5%. The unbalanced moment capacity of a strengthened specimen was approximately 15% higher than that of the corresponding reference specimen (Marzouk, Osman, and Hussein 2001) regardless the reinforcement ratio. The remarkable finding was that a strengthened slab can undergo a horizontal cyclic drift 76% higher than that of the associated reference specimen. Moreover, the strengthened specimens withstood more cycles than the corresponding reference specimens did. The reference slab-column connections can resist a lateral drift ratio of approximately 4 to 5% before failure (Marzouk, Osman, and Hussein 2001). On the other hand, the strengthened specimens resist a drift ratio of almost 8% before failure. Considering the actual building dimensions and safety considerations, most of the building codes limit the interstory lateral drift ratio to 2% for most structural buildings. For a slab-to-column connection strengthened using the suggested technique, the limit of 2% could be safely increased to 3.5% if all other circumstances and factors remain the same. Cyclic ductility characteristics The lateral displacement ductility of a slab-column connection is defined as the ratio between lateral displacement at failure and that at the first yield of the connection. The maximum peak values of the unbalanced moment for the tested slabs under cyclic loading are clear on the unbalanced moment-drift relationship. The yield point of the slab-tocolumn connection subjected to cyclic loading is not clear, as is the case with static loading, because it depends on the overall behavior of the connection. The lateral load-drift relationship is not unique since yield gradually spreads across the slab width (Pan and Moehle 1989). An approximate method was developed to overcome the uncertainty of identifying the yield point of slab-column connections subjected to reversal horizontal cyclic drift (Pan and Moehle 1989). The procedure of the determination of the first yield and then the displacement ductility of a slab-to-column connection is shown in Fig. 10. It was based on constructing a secant through 2/3 of the ultimate unbalanced moments that intersects ACI Structural Journal/July-August 2002

Fig. 10Evaluation of displacement ductility. the unbalanced moment-drift envelope with origin point (O) at (A). The intersection of line (OA) and the horizontal line at the ultimate unbalanced moment level was denoted as (B). The intersection of the vertical line from (B) and the drift axis defines the drift at the first yield of the connection. As shown in Table 8, specimens with a reinforcement ratio of 0.5%, Ref-C-0.5% and Steel-C-0.5%, showed 57 and 24% higher ductility values, respectively, than Specimens Ref-C1.0% and Steel-C-1.0%, respectively. In addition, the strengthened specimen Steel-C-0.5% showed 21% less ductility than the associated reference specimen Ref-C-0.5%. Also, the ductility of strengthened specimen Steel-C-1.0% and that of reference specimen Ref-C-1.0% were almost the same. Cyclic stiffness characteristics The peak-to-peak connection stiffness is well-defined as the slope of the line connecting the peak-to-peak unbalanced moment points at a load cycle of the unbalanced momentdrift relationship (Emam, Marzouk, and Hilal 1997). The ratio of stiffness at a drift corresponding the ultimate unbalanced moment and that at a drift of 0.5% indicates the stiffness degradation as shown in Table 8. The average value of stiffness of the strengthened specimens in the CYCLIC group was 25% lower than that of the reference specimens. Failure characteristics of tested specimens The tension reinforcement of a specimen may reach the yield point at locations around the column and far from the center of the specimen with a punching radius. Larger punching radii are associated with the flexural failure mode 441

than those associated with a punching shear failure mode (Marzouk, Osman, and Hussein 2001). Figure 11 combines pictures of tested specimens at failure. The reference specimens of the CENTRAL and MOMENT groups with a reinforcement ratio of 0.5% showed flexural ductile failure mode with higher punching radii than those for reference specimens with a reinforcement ratio of 1.0%. Reference specimens with a reinforcement ratio of 1.0% showed ductile punching shear failure mode. The ductile punching is the kind of failure mode in between the ductile flexural mode of failure and the pure punching shear failure mode as classified by (Marzouk, Osman, and Hussein 2001). Due to the strengthening process, both Specimens Steel-P0.5% and Steel-P-1.0% showed more flexural ductile behavior than that of the corresponding reference Specimens Ref-P-0.5% and Ref-P-1.0%, respectively. The strengthened specimens of the CYCLIC group, Steel-C-0.5% and Steel-C-1.0%, failed in the column portion as shown in Fig. 11. The strengthening process improved the slab part of the connection forcing the failure to occur in the column, unlike the failure mode experienced in the reference Specimens Ref-C-0.5% and Ref-C-1.0%.

COMPARISON OF TEST RESULTS WITH ACI CODE Centrally loaded two-way slabs The ultimate capacity of the centrally loaded slabs can be calculated using available design equations in the ACI code (ACI Committee 318 1999). Both the punching shear capacity and the flexural capacity can be evaluated at the critical section. The least of both punching shear and flexural capacities determines the ultimate capacity of the slabs (Ebead and Marouk 2002). To calculate the punching shear capacity, the critical shear perimeter is calculated assuming that the critical section is located at a distance lp /2 from the center of the slab for the strengthened specimens, rather than (c + d )/2 which determines the location of the critical section for the unstrengthened specimens. Hence, the punching shear capacity can be evaluated using the following formula V 0 = v c Acs (1)

where Acs = 4dlp and 4 d(c + d) for the strengthened and unstrengthened specimens, respectively.

Fig. 11Tested specimens at failure. 442 ACI Structural Journal/July-August 2002

The flexural capacity of the slab can be evaluated using the yield line theory. A modification of the original equation presented by Rankin and Long (1987), in which the flexural capacity was evaluated using s P flex = 8 M b ----------- 0.172 ac (2)

Under combined load and moment transfer, the shear stresses on the critical slab sections are computed according to V v Mu ----------v 1, 2 = ------J cs A cs (6)

This is based on the virtual work done by the actions of the yield lines. Herein, the column size dimension c is replaced by the width of the steel plate lp . Therefore, the yield line flexural capacity of the strengthened slabs can be written as s - 0.172 P flex = 8 M b ----------- a lp (3)

where Acs = 4dlp in case of strengthened specimen; According to ACI 318 provisions (ACI Committee 318 1999), the larger shear stress v1 must not exceed the nominal shear stress vc. The flexural capacity Mr in this case is calculated at the unstrengthened section of the slab within a slab width equal to lp; the value is almost the same as c + 3h as used in

)+ M r = f y l p d ( 1 0.59 f y f c [ ( f y 0.85 f c ) l p d ( d d ) ]

(7)

where Mb is calculated at the unstrengthened section of the slab according to ACI Committee 318s (1999) equation

( ) f y - + f y d ( d d ) (4) M b = bd ( ) f y 1 0.59 ---------------------fc

2

Results of this approach in terms of the flexural and punchingshear capacities are compared with the experimental work results in Table 9. It is clear that there is a good agreement between the experimental results and the simple prediction of the ACI code regarding the ultimate load-carrying capacity and the mode of failure of the slabs. Eccentrically loaded two-way slabs For two-way slabs subjected to central load and moment, the shear perimeter is assumed that the perimeter of critical section be located at distance lp /2 for the strengthened specimen rather than (c + d)/2. Several verified cases of the unstrengthened specimens have been reported in previous research work (Marzouk, Osman, and Helmy 2000). The fraction v can be calculated as 1 - = 0.4 v = 1 --------------------------l p 1 + 23 --lp Table 9Code verification for strengthened specimens subjected to central load
Specimen title Ref-P-0.5% Ref-P-1.0% Steel-P-0.5% Steel-P-1.0% fc , MPa 34 33 34 37 Vtest , kN 312 420 453 645 Vcalc, kN 225 357 335 704 Vtest / Vcalc 0.72 0.85 0.74 1.09 Mode of failure Flexure Punching shear Flexure Flexure

Values of Mr and the portion of ultimate measured moment (1 v) Mu divided by flexural capacity Mr are listed in Table 10. The maximum shear and moment transferred to the column achieved in the tests simultaneously prior to failure, Vtest and M u, are compared with the ACI code predictions V0 , the ultimate strength for shear transfer only, and M0, the ultimate strength for moment transfer only, respectively. The value of M0 is calculated as follows (ACI Committee 318 1999) v c J cs M 0 = ----------lp v --2 (8)

(5)

The sum of the two nondimensional quantities Vtest /V0 and Mu /M0 represents the nondimensional shear strength VT(test) / VT(calc) as summarized in Table 10. Both Specimens Steel-M0.5% and Steel-M-1.0% were failed in flexure. The calculated ratio VT(test) /VT(calc) in Table 10 is less than 1.0 for both Specimens Steel-M-0.5% and Steel-M-1.0%, indicating that these two specimens fail under flexure. Hence, the code prediction of the failure mode matches the experimental findings for strengthened Specimens Steel-M-0.5% and Steel-M-1.0%. The ratio (1 v) Mu / Mr shown in Table 10 exceeds unity for specimen Steel-M-0.5% that confirms the codes for that specimen to fail under flexure. However, the ratio (1 v) Mu /Mr for Specimen Steel-M-1.0% is lower than 1. The difference between the test results and the code requirements could be attributed to the fact that the code shear stress model overestimates the portion of moment transferred by flexure. SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS The following conclusions were drawn from this study: 1. The ultimate load-carrying capacity of the specimens subjected to central loading increased by 54 and 36.5%

Table 10Code verification for strengthened specimens subjected to central load plus moment
fc , MPa Vtest , kN V0 , kN Steel-M-0.5% 33 385 696 Specimen Steel-M-1.0% 34 517 706 M0 , kN.m 436 436 Mu, kN.m 88 88 Vtest / V0 Mu / M0 0.55 0.2 0.73 0.2 VT(test) / VT(calc) 0.75 0.93 Mr , kN.m 36.8 58.9 (1 v) Mu / M r 1.43 0.90

ACI Structural Journal/July-August 2002

443

for specimens with a reinforcement ratio of 1.0 and 0.5%, respectively, over that of the associated reference specimens; 2. The strengthened specimen with a reinforcement ratio of 0.5%, and subjected to central load plus moment, showed more than twice the ultimate capacity of the associated reference specimen. Moreover, the gain of the ultimate capacity for the specimen with a reinforcement ratio of 1.0%, and subjected to central load plus moment, was greater than that of the associated reference specimens by approximately 88%; 3. For the specimens subjected to central load only or those subjected to central load plus moment, it was evident that the strengthened slabs showed an increase in the stiffness over that of the reference slabs. The strengthened specimens showed an increase of approximately 72% in the initial stiffness over the average of that of the reference specimens; 4. A considerable increase in the energy absorption values was observed due to the strengthening for strengthened specimens subjected to central load only or central load plus moment over that of the reference specimens. Strengthened specimens under central loading showed an average of 105% over that of the reference specimens. Specimens subjected to central load plus moment with a reinforcement ratio of 0.5% showed an energy absorption of approximately 8.4 times that of the reference specimen; 5. For specimens subjected to cyclic load, the unbalanced moment resistance of the strengthened specimen was approximately 15% higher than that of the reference specimen, regardless of the reinforcement ratio. 6. For specimens subjected to cyclic load, a strengthened slab can undergo a horizontal drift capacity 76% higher than that of the associated reference specimen. Moreover, the strengthened specimens had more drift cycles after reaching the ultimate loadcarrying capacity than that of the reference specimens; and 7. Simple approaches based on the ACI code accurately predict the ultimate capacity of strengthened and unstrengthened specimens subjected to central loads only and the mode of failure of the strengthened specimens subjected to central and moment loads. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The authors are grateful to the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada (NSERC) for funding this project. Sincere thanks are due to the Technical Staff of Structures Laboratory and the Technical Service at Memorial University of Newfoundland for their assistance during the preparation of the specimens and testing, especially A. Bursey and C. Ward. Sincere thanks are extended to Capital Ready Mix Limited, Newfoundland, for providing the concrete for this project.

Mu s tp v1,2 vc V0 Vf Vtest VT(test) / VT(calc) u y

= = = = = = = = = = =

unbalanced moment transferred between slab and column, kN.m side length of square slab, mm thickness of steel plate, mm shear stresses on faces of critical section, MPa nominal shear strength of concrete, MPa normal punching shear capacity at zero moment, kN load-carrying capacity at flexural failure, N experimental ultimate shear capacity, kN normalized shear strength drift at ultimate unbalanced moment drift at yield

REFERENCES
ACI Committee 318, 1999, Building Code Requirements for Structural Concrete (ACI 318-99) and Commentary (318R-99), American Concrete Institute, Farmington Hills, Mich., 391 pp. Broms, C. E., 1990, Punching of Flat PlatesA Question of Concrete Properties in Biaxial Compression and Size Effect, ACI Structural Journal, V. 87, No. 3, May-June, pp. 292-304. CSA-A23.3,1994, Design of Concrete Structures for Buildings, Rexdale, Ontario, Canada. Dilger, W., and Ghali, A., 1981, Shear Reinforcement for Concrete Slabs, Journal of the Structural Division, ASCE, V. 107, No. ST12, pp. 2403-2420. Ebead, U., and Marzouk, H., 2002, Strengthening of Two-Way Slabs using Steel Plates, ACI Structural Journal, V. 99, No. 1, Jan.-Feb., pp. 23-31. Elgabry, A. A., and Ghali, A., 1996a, Moment Transfer by Shear in Slab-Column Connections, ACI Structural Journal , V. 93, No. 2, Mar.-Apr., pp. 187-196. Elgabry, A. A., and Ghali, A., 1996b, Transfer of Moments between Columns and Slabs: Proposed Code Revisions, ACI Structural Journal, V. 93, No. 1, Jan.-Feb., pp. 56-61. Emam, M.; Marzouk, H.; and Hilal, M. S., 1997, Seismic Response of Slab-Column Connections Constructed with High-Strength Concrete, ACI Structural Journal, V. 94, No. 2, Mar.-Apr., pp. 197-205. Ghali, A.; Elmasri, M. Z.; and Dilger, W., 1976, Punching of Flat Plates under Static and Dynamic Horizontal Forces, ACI JOURNAL, Proceedings V. 73, No. 10, Oct., pp. 566-572. Islam, S., and Park, R., 1976, Tests on Slab-Column Connections with Shear and Unbalanced Flexure, Proceedings, ASCE, V. 102, No. ST3, pp. 549-568. Marzouk, H.; Emam, M.; and Hilal, M. S., 1996, Effect of HighStrength Concrete Columns on the Behavior of Slab-Column Connections, ACI Structural Journal, V. 93, No. 5, Sept.-Oct., pp. 545-563. Marzouk, H., and Hussein, A., 1991, Experimental Investigation on the Behavior of High-Strength Concrete Slabs, ACI Structural Journal, V. 88, No. 6, Nov.-Dec., pp. 701-713. Marzouk, H., and Jiang, D., 1996, Finite Element Evaluation of Shear Enhancement for High-Strength Concrete Plates, ACI Structural Journal, V. 93, No. 6, Nov.-Dec., pp. 667-673. Marzouk, H., and Jiang, D., 1997, Experimental Investigation on Shear Enhancement Types for High-Strength Concrete Plates, ACI Structural Journal, V. 94, No. 1, Jan.-Feb., pp. 49-58. Marzouk, H.; Osman, M.; and Helmy, S., 2000, Behavior of High-Strength Lightweight Aggregate Concrete Slabs under Column Load and Unbalanced Moment, ACI Structural Journal, V. 97, No. 6, Nov.-Dec., pp. 860-866. Marzouk, H.; Osman, M.; and Hussein, A., 2001, Cyclic Loading of High-Strength Lightweight Concrete Slabs, ACI Structural Journal, V. 98, No. 2, Mar.-Apr., pp. 207-214. Pan, A., and Moehle, J. P., 1989, Lateral Displacement Ductility of Reinforced Concrete Flat Plates, ACI Structural Journal, V. 86, No. 3, May-June, pp. 250-258. Rankin, G. B., and Long, A. E., 1987, Predicting the Punching Strength of Conventional Slab-Column Specimen, Proceedings, Part 1: Design and Construction, V. 82, The Institution of Civil Engineers, pp. 327-346. Robertson, I. N., and Durrani, A. J., 1992, Gravity Load Effect on Seismic Behavior of Interior Slab-Column Connections, ACI Structural Journal, V. 89, No. 1, Jan.-Feb., pp. 37-45. Seible, F.; Ghali, A.; and Dilger, W. H., 1980, Preassempled Shear Reinforcement Units for Flat Plates, ACI JOURNAL, Proceedings V. 77, No. 1, Jan.-Feb., pp. 28-35. Yamada, T.; Nanni, A.; and Endo, K., 1992, Punching Shear Resistance of Flat Slabs: Influence of Reinforcement Type and Ratio, ACI Structural Journal, V. 89, No. 5, Sept.-Oct., pp. 555-562.

NOTATION
a Acs b0 c d fc fy fyp h Jcs l lp M M0 = = = = = = = = = = = = = = side dimension between supports of square slab shear area at critical section of slab, mm2 critical perimeter, mm side length of square column, mm distance from compression fiber to centroid tension reinforcement of slab, mm characteristic strength of concrete, MPa yield stress of slab reinforcement, MPa yield stress of steel plate, MPa thickness of the slab, mm polar moment of inertia of slab critical section about its centroid, mm4 side distance between supports of square slab, mm side length of steel plate, mm internal moment, N.mm/mm nominal slam moment capacity when at zero shear, kN.m

444

ACI Structural Journal/July-August 2002