Magazine of Concrete Research, 2006, 58, No.

4, May, 243254

Ductility reinforcement for flat slabs in seismic areas

C. E. Broms*
Royal Institute of Technology, Stockholm

The reinforcement concept ductility reinforcement has previously been shown to give flat slabs such extremely ductile behaviour that the punching failure mode for gravity loading can be considered safely eliminated. That concept is now tested for imposed cyclic storey drift during earthquakes and found to be capable of resisting even severe earthquakes without any additional precautions than those already taken for normal gravity loading. The specimens were loaded with gravity load up to about 75% of their flexural yield capacity in order to simulate the ultimate limit load case involving seismic loads. Design recommendations are given based on these findings, where assessment of transferred moment between slab and column as currently dictated by North American practice is not required.

Notation
A slab area with effective stirrups within the distance 2dred from bottom bends of bent bars, defined in Fig. 11 cross-section area of bent bars reinforcement area total effective stirrup area for transfer of the shear force to bent bars diameter of circular column width of column strip diameter of circle around column where the radial bending moment is zero, (see Fig. 8) dimensions defined in Fig. 11 width of square area in the slab that is provided with stirrups unbalanced moment support reaction transferred from slab to column support reaction at the formation of yield lines at supports and midspans due to uniformly distributed gravity loading perimeter of critical section outside stirrups width of square column concrete cover over top reinforcement concrete cover under bottom reinforcement d distance from extreme compression fibre to centroid of the two top flexural reinforcement layers distance from top flexural reinforcement to bottom leg of bent bars nominal diameter of top flexural reinforcement nominal diameter of bottom flexural reinforcement nominal diameter of bent bars nominal diameter of stirrups distance from column corner to the nearest bent bar compressive cylinder strength of concrete design strength of stirrups ultimate strength of reinforcement nominal one-way shear strength of concrete nominal two-way shear strength of concrete yield strength of reinforcement slab thickness coefficient in expression for two-way shear strength clear span measured face-to-face of supports bending moment per unit width bending moment in radial direction 2dred spacing of stirrup legs angle defined in Fig. 11 concrete shear stress ratio of flexural reinforcement 2 d 2 st =4 s , stirrup reinforcement ratio 243
0024-9831 # 2006 Thomas Telford Ltd

Ai As Ast B C D L1,...,4 L0 MU V Vy

dred dt db di dst e fck fst fu fv1 fv2 fy h k ln m mr r s r rw

b0 c ct cb

* Department of Civil and Architectural Engineering, Royal Institute of Technology, Stockholm, Sweden. (MCR 41340) Paper received 24 December 2004; last revised 4 August 2005; accepted 13 January 2006

Broms

Introduction
A most significant disadvantage with conventional flat slabs is the high risk for a brittle punching failure in the event of overloading, that can occur for instance due to explosions, impact, consequences of human error or earthquakes. A punching failure at one column may lead to progressive collapse of the entire flat slab structure. It is therefore unfortunate that flat slabs are still designed as if all load effects were well defined and calculable, with limited attention paid to the consequences of unforeseen events. It could even be argued that a slab system that might display a brittle failure mode should not be accepted in a modern building. It is a common misconception that brittle failure will not occur if the nominal punching capacity of a flat slab exceeds its nominal flexural capacity. Many tests13 have demonstrated, however, that the failure mode is still a sudden punching failure. Tests by, for instance Mokhtar et al.4 have demonstrated that shear reinforcement in the form of so-called stud rails increases the punching capacity of flat slabs, but the failure mode cannot be classified as ductile because a sudden failure commonly occurs before all flexural reinforcement reaches the yield limit. The current method recommended by Mitchell and Cook5 and ACI 352.1R-896 to provide safety against progressive collapse by means of concentrated bottom reinforcement from column to column is not ideal. The method does not prevent punching from occurring in the first place and the accompanying large local deflection of the slab at the column before the system can resist the actual support reaction,7 will most probably cause punching at the adjacent columns as well. The initial local damage might therefore spread over a large portion of the structure. The aforementioned explains why flat slabs, even if they are provided with shear reinforcement, are often considered unsuitable in seismic areas. However, if the following two requirements are fulfilled, flat slabs can resist even severe earthquakes without collapse. First, it is well known and already adopted that the stability of buildings in earthquake regions should not rely on frame action by flat slabs and columns, since such frames rapidly become very flexible once the slab reinforcement starts to yield near the columns. Second, flat slabs should be detailed to display the same ductile behaviour as slabs supported by beams or walls. This latter requirement might seem provocative and not in agreement with the current design practice in, for instance, the United States but the approach is similar to the one already used for beamcolumn connections in seismic areas. One very efficient way to create ductile flat slabs loaded by gravity loads has been described by Broms.8,9 Test specimens with effective depth 150 mm displayed an extremely ductile behaviour even at a flexural reinforcement ratio exceeding 1% by using just 244

ordinary reinforcement that was detailed in an unconventional manner never tested before. That reinforcement system is here denoted ductility reinforcement. The test specimens were loaded to overall yield with a ductility ratio of more than 6, defined as the ultimate displacement in relation to the displacement at yield of all flexural reinforcement in the test specimens. The ductility corresponded to a deflection inclination of 1 : 10. The test equipment did not allow further displacement, but the specimens carried maximum load at that large displacement without any tendency for punching failure despite wide flexural cracks around the column and concrete spalling across the specimens due to their very large curvature. The achieved yield rotation is so large that the reinforcement system indeed prevents brittle punching failure as well as progressive collapse of flat slabs due to exceptional gravity load. This paper describes two pilot tests, aimed at verifying the hypothesis that a flat slab with ductility reinforcement can withstand the imposed storey drift during a major earthquake even if the flexural reinforcement and hence the ductility reinforcement are merely designed for the normal load case gravity load, with no flexural reinforcement added to resist the unbalanced moment caused by the storey drift.

Detailing of ductility reinforcement

The philosophy behind the ductility reinforcement is very simple: a flat slab shall be detailed to prevent a brittle failure mode. Recommendations for detailing have been given in Broms,9 but are repeated here for the sake of completeness. The ductility reinforcement consists of bent bars and stirrup cages according to Fig. 1. The stirrup cages are fabricated in a machine for welded, deformed, wire fabric reinforcement and then bent to form a stirrup cage similar to the type often used in precast beams. The vertical legs are slightly inclined so that the cages can be piled when shipped to the site. The reinforcement layout and order of placement are depicted in Fig. 2. All reinforcement bars are placed in a non-interlocking manner with each other. Stirrup cages (2) and (4) are tied to the bottom bars of the bottom reinforcement mesh (1), with their longitudinal anchor bars running parallel to the upper bars in the mesh. It is normally sufficient if the stirrup cages cover a square with side length L/4, where L is the span width. The bent bars (3) are also tied to the bottom reinforcement and positioned within the column core with their upper bend at the column edge. Finally, the top reinforcement mesh (5) is placed in a noninterlocking manner with the already placed ductility reinforcement. The design provisions are described in Appendix 1. The bent bars act as hangers with a shallow slope in
Magazine of Concrete Research, 2006, 58, No. 4

Ductility reinforcement for flat slabs in seismic areas

Bent bar 35

Stirrup cage

6 dst dst 14 dst S S

Fig. 1. Ductility reinforcement components

area around the column where the concrete shear capacity is insufficient. It is recognised that the stirrup cages do not conform to the provisions for beams in the American Concrete Code ACI 318-02,10 in which U-stirrups from welded wire fabric should enclose the flexural reinforcement and each stirrup leg should be anchored in the compression zone by two longitudinal wires. Here, the stirrups do not enclose the flexural reinforcement and the legs are anchored by only one longitudinal wire. However, the radius of the stirrup corners conforms to the minimum radius of ordinary bends and the two longitudinal wires are replaced by one wire with area two times the stirrup leg area. The tests reported in Broms8,9 verified that the stirrups so detailed give flat slabs the desired ductility even at high flexural reinforcement ratios.

order to bridge over the unstable zone with wide, inclined flexural cracks near the column when a flexural yield hinge is formed. The purpose of the stirrups is two-fold. They prevent a concrete shear failure at the bottom bend of the bent bars and they also cover the
Column

Principle for ductility reinforcement in seismic areas

In order to preclude a brittle punching failure, flat slabs in seismic areas are traditionally designed to resist

C L

2 Stirrup cages

< L/4

Area with stirrup cages

C L

4 Stirrup cages 3 Bent bars L

C L

5 3

1 Column

Fig. 2. Detailing of ductility reinforcement Magazine of Concrete Research, 2006, 58, No. 4

3 Bent bars

245

Broms the transferred moment between slab and column due to the storey drift with only limited yielding of the flexural reinforcement. On the other hand, a flat slab that is provided with ductility reinforcement can withstand considerable monotonic yielding of the flexural reinforcement at the columns without punching occurring. The hypothesis to be verified is then that such a flat slab can resist repeated cyclic yielding at the columns due to storey drift without losing its bearing capacity for the concurrent gravity load, despite the fact that the slab is only designed to resist the normal gravity load case. In the ultimate limit load case involving earthquake forces, the factored gravity load is normally about 75% of the normal load case factored dead load plus factored live load. Consequently, in order to verify the hypothesis, the applied gravity load for the test specimens should correspond to approximately 75% of the gravity load causing overall flexural yield. Please note the different approach to cyclic storey drift tests of flat slabs with shear reinforcement in the form of stud rails by Brown and Dilger11 and Megally and Ghali.12 Those specimens had a large flexural over-capacity in relation to the applied gravity load, which reflects the North American design practice for flat slabs, in which a considerable amount of flexural reinforcement is added to resist the imposed unbalanced moments caused by the storey drift during an earthquake.
H

180

900
3 300 1

900 1400
1800

1400
4 1400 1800 1400

Fig. 3. Test set-up. Dimensions in mm

Test programme
The tests reported here were intended to simulate the behaviour during cyclic storey drift of a flat slab at an interior column. Flat slabs in normal buildings have commonly a ratio of span over effective depth of around 32. The test specimens with average effective depth 150 mm could therefore be assumed to simulate the behaviour of a prototype structure with the span width 32 3 0.150 4.8 m. The two specimens 15 and 16 were supported on four roller bearings (Fig. 3). It is standard practice for punching tests with gravity loading to choose a circular or square test slab loaded along its perimeter and supported on a column at its centre. The perimeter of the specimen is intended to reflect the circular line of contra-flexure for bending moment in radial direction in a continuous flat slab with uniformly distributed gravity load. According to the theory of elasticity, this circle has the diameter 0.4L in a flat slab with square panels, where L is the span width. The span width of the specimens was here increased by 45% to 2.8 m (1.45 3 0.4 3 4.8 2.8) in order to approximately simulate the lateral stiffness of the corresponding continuous flat slab. The specimens were cast with normal weight concrete. The concrete strength was recorded on 140 mm test cubes that were cured and stored under the same conditions as the test specimens. The corresponding standard cylinder 246

strength, estimated as 0.8 fcube , was 27.0 MPa for specimen 15 and 25.8 MPa for specimen 16. The low concrete strengths were deliberately chosen in order to achieve a conservative value for the drift capacity. The ductility reinforcement consisted of bent bars and stirrup cages according to Fig. 4. The flexural reinforcement was uniformly distributed across the width 2000 mm in each direction. The width of 2000 mm was intended to simulate the width of the column strip in the prototype flat slab structure. Stirrup cages covered a square with dimensions 1100 mm 3 1100 mm. The column was symmetrically reinforced with 16 bars with diameter 16 mm in order to display only elastic deformations during the test. The reinforcement properties are given in Table 1. The yield strength fy is taken as the stress f0:2 because the reinforcement bars had no pronounced yield plateau. The amount of flexural reinforcement was chosen to simulate the conditions for a normal office building. The negative bending moment capacity over the reinforced width 2.0 m can be calculated with due respect paid to the contribution by the bent bars M y At 3 f y 3 0:95 d Ai 3 cos 358 3 f y 3 0:95 d i (20 3 78:5 3 390 3 0:95 3 0:150 4 3 113 3 cos 358 3 320 3 0:95 3 0:134)103 102:3kNm (1)

Magazine of Concrete Research, 2006, 58, No. 4

1800

1800

Ductility reinforcement for flat slabs in seismic areas

20 diam. 10 @ 100 in each direction

C L
4 bent bars diam. 12 in each direction
20

180

15

50

100

100

100

100

100

Column 300 3 300

14 diam. 8 @ 140 in each direction

Fig. 4. Specimen reinforcement. Dimensions in mm

Table 1. Material properties

Concrete cylinder strength: fcc : MPa Slab 15 Slab 16 Flexural reinforcement: fy /fu : MPa Top: 20 10 @100 in each direction Bottom: 14 8 @ 140 in each direction Ductility reinforcement: fy /fu : MPa Bent bars: 4 12 in each direction Stirrups: 6 @ 100 27.0 25.8 390/510 460/600 320/429 500/714

where At is the total area of top flexural reinforcement in one direction (20 3 10 with fy 390 MPa) and Ai is the area of bent bars in one direction (4 3 12 with fy 320 MPa). The column reaction Vy corresponding to the flexural yield capacity of the specimen is given by   Vy 3 2:8 0: 3 M y 102:3 ! Vy 327kN 1 : 28 8 (2) The column reaction Vy corresponds to a factored uniformly distributed loading 327 12:3kN=m2 qd : 1 15 3 4:82 which is a representative value for office buildings with
Magazine of Concrete Research, 2006, 58, No. 4

span widths less than about 7.5 m. The chosen amount of flexural reinforcement can therefore be considered typical for a flat slab designed for gravity loading only, with no reinforcement added to resist unbalanced moments due to storey drift during an earthquake. The two specimens were thus provided with identical reinforcement, but they received different gravity loads. A concentric column load was first applied, 250 kN for specimen 15 and 200 kN for specimen 16, corresponding to round 75 and 60% of the specimens gravity load capacity of 327 kN at overall yield of the flexural reinforcement. The 75% load level was chosen to simulate a flat slab in which no flexural reinforcement has been added to cater for the unbalanced moment during an earthquake as described above. The 60% level represents the case in which some reinforcement has been added to cater for this unbalanced moment. A cyclic forced horizontal displacement was then applied at the free column end as depicted in Fig. 3. The first displacement corresponded to a drift ratio of 0.5%, that was increased in increments of 0.5% until 2% drift ratio and thereafter in increments of 1% until 7% drift ratio was achieved. At each drift level two full displacement cycles were performed. (The drift ratio is defined as the horizontal displacement of the free column end divided by the total column height 1.8 m.) During each cycle, the relation between the forced horizontal displacement and the horizontal force H at the free column end was continuously recorded. The additional deflection of the slab along the connection 247

Broms line between roller supports 1 and 3 (measured on the bottom surface of the slab) was also recorded.
3 H 4% drift ratio

Test results
The hysteresis loops for the drift ratio levels 4 and 7% are shown in Figs 5 and 6. (The loops display the relation between drift ratio and unbalanced moment MU 1.8H during a drift cycle). The envelope for all loops is also depicted. Lateral strength decay started at about 4% drift ratio for both specimens due to concrete strength degradation near the column, but the specimens had full bearing capacity for the applied gravity load even at 7% storey drift. The additional deflection of slab 16 due to the unbalanced moment at the drift ratio 4% is depicted in Fig. 7. The deflection difference for the slab over the column width 300 mm was 10.5 mm, corresponding to a drift angle 10.5/300 3.5%. Consequently, the column deformed in bending corresponding to 0.5% drift. This means that the column, as intended, was much stiffer than the slab, because the slab stiffness was already reduced by the initial gravity loading that
MU (kNm) 200 MU 5 H 3 18 kNm 150 100

H V

Fig. 7. Specimen 16. Slab deflection due to 4% storey drift

1 100 150 200

6 7 Drift ratio %

Fig. 5. Hysteresis curves for specimen 15, V 250 kN

MU (kNm) 200 150 MU 5 H 3 18 kNm 100

caused typical radial flexural cracks in the slab. It is also interesting to note that the slab inclination due to the storey drift was steepest near the column and that the whole drift angle in the slab seems to be taken by flexural hinges close to the column. The column started to penetrate into the slab at 4% drift for both specimens, indicating that the gravity load was then transferred to the column by the bent bars only. However, even at 7% drift it was impossible to cause a brittle failure, because the bent bars yielded but did not break despite several repeated cycles at the 7% drift. The cycling was stopped when the column had penetrated into the slab about 40 mm. The initial vertical deflection of the slab due to the gravity loading was 21 mm for slab 15 with V 250 kN and 10 mm for slab 16 with V 200 kN. The deflection increased to around 75 mm at the end of the repeated cycles at drift level 7% for slab 15. The record for the ultimate deflection of slab 16 was unfortunately lost.

Discussion
The gravity load was imposed by means of a hydraulic jack, which was adjusted after every drift level to maintain the gravity load. During each cycle the hydraulic jack was locked, however, which means that the slab was supported at the column for the effects of the transferred moment. That would still have simulated the real structure for a purely elastic system because the support reaction due to the transferred moment would then be zero. A concrete slab with part of the reinforcement yielding behaves differently. It is stiffer when unloaded than when loaded. The major part of
Magazine of Concrete Research, 2006, 58, No. 4

1 100 150 200

7 Drift ratio %

Fig. 6. Hysteresis curves for specimen 16, V 200 kN

248

105 mm

Ductility reinforcement for flat slabs in seismic areas the transferred moment was therefore transferred to the half of the specimen in which the transferred moment counteracted the bending moment from gravity load. The recorded unbalanced moment was therefore larger and the column load lower than would have been the case if the jack had been adjusted during each cycle to maintain the gravity load at a constant level. However, the hysteresis curves for 7% drift ratio were recorded in this latter way for slab 15 (with the gravity load maintained at 250 kN during the whole drift cycle). The eighth cycle at 7% drift ratio is displayed in Fig. 5. The nominal maximum shear stress in the slab at the control section 2d from the column face for specimen 16 can be assessed in accordance with Model Code 90.13 The vertical load decreased from 200 kN to approximately 160 kN during the 4% storey drift cycle V 160 kN; M U 200 kNm V MU K 0:35 0:77 1:12 MPa (3) u3d W3d M t 102:3 kNm The positive moment capacity (bottom reinforcement 14 8c140 with fy 460 MPa) is M b 14 3 50 3 460 3 0:95 3 0:157 3 103 48:0 kNm (5)

The theoretical maximum unbalanced moment MU at reinforcement yield is   0: 3 102:3 48:0 ! M U 168 kNm MU 1 : 28 (6) The recorded unbalanced moment 200 kNm shows that strain hardening of the reinforcement occurred. The unbalanced moment for specimen 15 was limited by the capacity of the bent bars that started to yield when the unbalanced moment reached 160 kNm. The drift capacity of the specimens is more interesting and demonstrates the essence of the design philosophy. The storey drift during a severe earthquake should be limited to a maximum of 2.5% by the stabilising system according to modern seismic Codes (ASCE 798).15 The tests confirm that the column region of flat slabs with proper ductility reinforcement has the capacity to withstand such imposed storey drift with a good safety margin without being specifically designed for unbalanced moment due to storey drift. It could be argued that ductile behaviour of a flat slab could be achieved in ways other than with the system presented. That might be true, but tests described in Broms8,9 revealed that conventional shear reinforcement systems do not seem to be efficient enough. Neither stirrups nor bent bars were able to give the test specimens the desired ductile behaviour despite the fact that their formal shear capacity by far exceeded the flexural capacity of the specimens, which can be explained as follows. Once yielding starts near the column, commonly at a gravity load that is about 70% of the load at overall yield, then a flexural hinge is formed and the slab will start to deform like a truncated cone in agreement with the fan-type yield line configuration shown in Fig. 8. High tangential compression strain will then develop in the concrete near the column and the concrete will be squeezed due to the overall slab behaviour. Ultimately, the cantilevering part of the internal column capital indicated in Fig. 9 collapses due to this squeezing effect.1,16 Similarly, an unbalanced moment is mainly transferred to the slab by two radial clamping forces as indicated in Fig. 9. These forces may cause compression failure in the slab at the connection to the column, which in turn will result in punching failure. These two scenarios explain why the author considers stirrups or stud rails not safe enough alone, to form part of a system for ductility of flat slabs. 249

where u 4 c 4 d 3:08 m W 2 c2 4 cd 17:8 d 2 2 dc 1:04 m2 K 0: 6 The ultimate shear capacity (without shear reinforcement) at monotonic loading can be assessed to be r! 1 0:2 f v 1:5 3 0:12 1 100r 3 f ck 3 0:92 MPa d 78:5 0:0052 (4) 10c100 ! r 100 3 150 Consequently, the slab would most probably have failed in punching if ductility reinforcement had not been provided, especially since the shear capacity for cyclic loading is known to be lower than for monotonic loading. This conclusion is further supported by Pan and Moehle,14 who found that a slab without shear reinforcement with gravity load to 37% of the nominal concrete punching capacity had already failed in punching at 1.6% storey drift. In the present test, specimen 16 was loaded to 0.35/0.92 38% of its nominal concentric punching capacity according to Model Code 9013 and resisted 4% drift before the lateral strength started to decrease. The formal shear stress calculated above is no indication of the maximum shear capacity with ductility reinforcement, because punching failure did not occur. The unbalanced moment was instead limited by the sum of the negative and positive moment capacities of the slab over the entire reinforced width 2.0 m. The negative moment capacity according to equation (1) is
Magazine of Concrete Research, 2006, 58, No. 4

Broms Increased stiffness means that there is a larger unbalanced moment for a given storey drift. A larger unbalanced moment increases the required amount of shear reinforcement to avoid punching failure. Only a limited amount of additional flexural reinforcement, if any, to resist storey drift is required for a flat slab with ductility reinforcement. The two pilot tests demonstrate that such a slab has the ability to withstand the imposed storey drift during even a severe earthquake without losing its gravity load capacity, because the slab is detailed to resist both load and displacement when the actual flexural reinforcement around the column exhibits tension strain far beyond the yield strain limit. However, the reinforcement proportions should be chosen to avoid flexural yielding in the midspan during an earthquake, because the slab deflection would then increase for each cycle, even if the drift ratio were constant during the cycling. The flexural reinforcement and hence the ductility reinforcement should therefore be chosen so that the negative bending moment due to factored gravity load during an earthquake utilises a maximum 70% of the negative bending moment capacity of the slab. The average bottom reinforcement ratio within the total strip width should be at least 50% of the average top reinforcement ratio within the column strip.

m D B mr 5 0 3 c B V V 3 12 ; m5 12 8 2 D 2 D m5

(square column)

Fig. 8. Fan-type yield lines

MU

Compression zone Ultimate failure crack Internal column capital

Conclusion
The present two pilot tests confirm that flat slabs with properly designed ductility reinforcement will automatically give sufficient capacity to resist the storey drift during severe earthquakes provided that the building stability does not rely on frame action with the flat slab as the participating member. Uncertain assumptions regarding slab stiffness and unbalanced moment are not required, the flexural reinforcement and consequently the ductility reinforcement need only be designed for the more severe of normal factored gravity loading and 1.4 times ( 1/0.7) the factored gravity load during an earthquake. The economical and technical advantages with the proposed design method are evident from the numeric example in Appendix 2, which is compared with a design with conventional shear reinforcement. Please note that the same amount of ductility reinforcement is required in regions with moderate seismic risk as in those with high seismic risk, because ductility reinforcement is always designed in balance with the flexural yield capacity of the slab.

Fig. 9. Possible failure mode with shear reinforcement

Flat slabs are traditionally designed to resist defined loads. A ductile behaviour has not been a primary concern. Flat slabs in seismic areas are therefore currently provided with shear reinforcement, the design of which requires that the seismic moment is estimated, which is the transferred unbalanced moment between the slab and column due to the storey drift during an earthquake. No consensus on how to perform this assessment seems to exist, which is not surprising because the stiffness of a flat slab is highly non-linear in relation to storey drift. The seismic moment will therefore vary depending on assumptions made regarding the slab stiffness for lateral displacement and the required shear reinforcement depends in turn on an assumed fraction of the seismic moment that is transferred by the eccentricity of shear. Please note the fundamental difference between the described conventional seismic design approach and the design philosophy behind the ductility reinforcement. The conventional force method often calls for at least 50% increase of the flexural reinforcement in relation to what is required for the normal gravity load case. More flexural reinforcement means increased stiffness of the flat slab and a more brittle behaviour. 250

Acknowledgements
The tests were carried out at INCERC, National Building Research Institute of Romania, and were
Magazine of Concrete Research, 2006, 58, No. 4

Ductility reinforcement for flat slabs in seismic areas financed by WSP Sweden AB. This is gratefully acknowledged. crease of Vy due to strain hardening of the flexural reinforcement. (8) 1:25 Vy < f v2 3 b0 3 d where b0 is the perimeter of the critical section according to Fig. 10 (observe that the critical section is placed adjacent to the shear reinforced zone in accordance with the approach for indirect support of beams) and fv2 is the two-way shear capacity according to equation (10). According to Model Code 9013 with modifications as recommended in Broms9 r! 1 200 f v1 0:12 1 100r 3 f ck 3 (one-way shear) d f v2 (9) : f v1 3 b0 kd = b0 < 2 5 f v1 (two-way shear) (10)

Appendix 1. Design recommendation

The ductility reinforcement gives the flat slab structure an extremely ductile behaviour. The design principle is very simple. The capacity of the structure shall be governed by its flexural failure mode and not any brittle failure mode. The ductility reinforcement shall therefore be designed for the column reaction Vy corresponding to the formation of flexural yield lines at the supports and in the midspans for uniformly distributed gravity loading. Alternatively, the design capacity Vy /1.15 can be taken as five times the contribution from the largest adjacent panel at factored gravity loading. In this way respect is paid to the fact that the flexural reinforcement might be over-designed and that the midspan reinforcement could be designed for pattern loading. The bent bars act as hangers and the vertical component of their yield force shall be at least equal to Vy . The sloping part shall start at the column edge and the inclination shall be approximately 358 to the horizontal. The bottom legs shall be given at least full development length, but, in order for the bars to be effective for the catenary action of the slab in combination with the flexural bottom reinforcement, they shall extend not less than the distance 0.25 ln from the face of the column. The shallow slope of the bent bars is chosen so that they can bridge over the zone with wide inclined flexural cracks when a flexural hinge is formed at the column. The bent bars also participate as flexural reinforcement. The calculated support flexural reinforcement within the column strip can therefore in each direction be reduced by As (1 d i = d )cos 358 3 Ai (7)

where b0 is the critical section 0.5d outside column perimeter k 3 for interior columns, k 0:75 for edge columns (limited confinement) and k 0 for corner columns (one-way shear). The stirrup cages shall be placed with their longitudinal anchor bars on top of the bottom layer of the bottom reinforcement and extend up to the top face of the slab with minimum concrete cover. The spacing of the stirrup legs shall not exceed 0.75d in both directions, their diameter dst should not exceed 8 mm and the strength of the weld between the longitudinal anchor wire and the stirrup legs shall exceed the design force of the stirrup leg by a minimum of 25%. The
Critical perimeter b0

where Ai is the area of bent bars in the studied direction; di is the diameter of bent bars. The area of the bent bars is of the same order of magnitude as the bottom reinforcement bars from column to column as recommended in ACI 352.1R-896 for preventing progressive collapse in the event of a punching failure at a column. The bent bars fulfil this task much better. They not only act as a defence against progressive collapse if punching would occur, but also act one step ahead by virtually eliminating the possibility of a punching failure. The stirrup legs shall be uniformly distributed around the column and cover a square outside which the shear capacity of the slab exceeds the column reaction 1.25Vy. The stirrups shall extend, however, to a distance at least 1.5d outside the bottom bend of the bent bars. The factor 1.25 is intended to cover the possible inMagazine of Concrete Research, 2006, 58, No. 4

L0

Fig. 10. Critical perimeter, b0 , outside stirrup reinforcement

251

Broms strength of the weld for stirrups fabricated in conformity with ASTM A 18517 shall correspond to the stress 240 MPa multiplied by the nominal area of the larger of the two connected wires. With the diameter of the anchor wire minimum 1.4 times the diameter of the stirrup leg, the possible design strength of the stirrups becomes 1: 42 f st 240 : 376 MPa 1 25 (11)
Column c Bent bars Bottom bends

e L1 e

L4

L3

L2

The stirrup design strength should, however, be limited to 350 MPa to avoid too large an anchoring slip at the upper end. The stirrups shall be designed to transfer the support reaction 1.25Vy to the bent bars. Only stirrup legs within the distance 2dred from the bottom bend of the bent bars are thereby considered active, where dred is the distance from the top flexural reinforcement to the bottom leg of bent bars. This is in accordance with the variable strut inclination method for design of shear reinforcement, in which the formal concrete shear strength is set to zero. The reinforcement ratio rw of stirrup legs shall exceed 0.0020 and shall be limited to 0.0050 where
2 rw d 2 st =4 s ( s spacing of stirrup legs)

025 A

Fig. 11. Slab area, A, with effective stirrups for transfer of column reaction to bent bars

Vy 1:15 3 (5=4) 3 (356=0:70) 731 kN Input Width of column strip Slab thickness Column size Position of bent bars Concrete top cover Concrete bottom cover Diameter of top reinforcement Diameter of bottom reinforcement Diameter of bent bars Diameter of stirrups Yield limit of reinforcement Concrete compression strength Column reaction Calculation Bent bars

(14)

(12)

The tests reported in Broms8 verify that the upper limit for rw is conservative when combined with the design strength 350 MPa of the stirrups. Until further tests show otherwise, the upper limit of rw determines the maximum column reaction Vy that can be safely handled by ductility reinforcement. The slab area, A, with effective stirrups for transferring the shear forces to the bent bars is depicted in Fig. 11. A 4[0:75 r 2 L2 3 L4 r( L3 L2 )] 4 r( c 2 e) (13) p where r 2 d red ; L4 r ( e L1 )= 2; L4 (2 r L4 ); and sin L2 = r; L3 3 r. L2 2

C 3.05 m h 200 mm c 400 mm e 100 mm ct 20 mm cb 20 mm dt 16 mm db 12 mm di 16 mm dst 8 mm fy 420 MPa fck 32 MPa Vy 731 kN

Ai Vy =(4 f y sin 358) 759 mm2 per column side (15)

Appendix 2. Numeric example

Assume a very slender flat slab structure identical to the one studied by Megally and Ghali,18 namely with equal span lengths 20 ft (6.1 m) in two orthogonal directions. The column size c is 16 in 3 16 in (400 mm 3 400 mm), the slab thickness h 8 in (200 mm). The factored gravity load in load combination involving seismic forces is 80 kip (356 kN). Considering that the gravity load in seismic load combination should utilise a maximum of 70% of the slab flexural capacity, and that the design capacity Vy /1.15 may be taken as five times the load contribution from the largest of the four adjacent panels: 252 Choose four bent bars diameter 16 mm in each direction

Reduction of flexural reinforcement within column strip d h ct d t 164 mm r [(1 d i =d ) 3 ( Ai 3 cos 358)]=[ C 3 d ] 0:11% r 0:0075 0:0011 0:0064
Magazine of Concrete Research, 2006, 58, No. 4

(16)

Ductility reinforcement for flat slabs in seismic areas Stirrup cages. Average distance from column edge to lower bend of bent bars L1 ( h ct cb d t 1:5 d b 1:5 d i )=tan 358 146 mm (17)
Stirrup cage (8 mm) Bent bars (16 mm)

Average distance r within which stirrups can transfer shear force to bent bars r 2:0( d cb 2 d b 0:5 d i ) 224 mm (18) Distances L4 , L2 and L3 according to Fig. 11 p L4 r ( e L1 )= 2 50 mm L2 [ L4 (2 r L4 )] 141 mm arcsin( L2 = r) 0:681 L3 r 152 mm
0:5

(19) (20) (21) (22)

15 3 110 5 1650 mm

S (110 mm)

Slab area A with effective stirrups for transfer of forces to bent bars (Fig. 11) A 4[0:75 r 2 L2 3 L4 r( L3 L2 )] 4 r( c 2 e) 0:614 m2 Design strength for stirrups f st 350 MPa Stirrup area Ast 1:25 Vy = f st 2610 mm2 ; rw Ast = A 0:00425 (24) Upper limit for rw 0.0050 . 0.00425 OK Spacing of stirrups to achieve rw s ( d st 2 =4rw )0 5 109 mm , 0:75 3 150 112:5 OK (25)
:

Fig. 12. Numeric example

L03 c 2 L1 3 d 1184 mm (23) L0 is the larger of L01 , L02 and L03 L0 1629 mm Number of stirrup cages n 0:5[( L0 =s) 1] 7:9

(29)

(30)

(31)

Choose eight stirrup cages with leg spacing s 110 mm. Comment The calculation shown above is suited for computerisation in the displayed order. The ductility reinforcement is depicted in Fig. 12. Approximately 70% of the bent bar weight replaces otherwise required top flexural reinforcement and the total leg area of the stirrups is equal to the stem area of the required stud rails according to conventional North American design (12 rails 18 with eight 1 Furthermore, 2 inch studs/rail 96 studs). the flat slab with ductility reinforcement requires only a small amount of additional flexural reinforcement in relation to that required for the normal gravity load case.

Area for stirrup cages (L0 3 L0 ) With respect to concrete shear capacity outside the stirrups r! 200 0:64 3 321=3 0:691 MPa f v1 0:12 1 164 (26) : f v1 (4 L01 3d ) 3 d 1 25 Vy ! L01 1629 mm (27) Stirrups to extend at least distance r outside lower bend of bent bars L02 c 2L1 2 r 1140 mm (28)

References
1. Kinnunen S. and Nylander H. Punching of Concrete Slabs without Shear Reinforcement, Transactions No. 158. Royal Institute of Technology, Stockholm, 1960, 112 pp. 2. Moe J. Shearing Strength of Reinforced Concrete Slabs and Footings under Concentrated Load, Bulletin D46. Portland Cement Association, Research and Development Laboratories, Skokie, Illinois, 1961, 135 pp. 3. Hallgren M. Punching Shear Capacity of Reinforced High Strength Concrete Slabs. PhD thesis, Department of Civil Engineering, Royal Institute of Technology, Stockholm, 1996.

Stirrups to extend at least 1.5d outside lower bend of bent bars

Magazine of Concrete Research, 2006, 58, No. 4

253

Broms
4. Mokhtar A.-S., Ghali A. and Dilger W. Stud shear reinforcement for flat concrete plates. ACI Structural Journal, 1985, 82, No. 5, 676683. 5. Mitchell D. and Cook W. D. Preventing progressive collapse of slab structures. Journal of Structural Engineering, ASCE, 1984, 110, No. 7, 15131532. 6. ACI ASCE Committee 352. ACI 352.1R-89, Recommendations for Design of Slab-Column Connections in Monolithic Reinforced Concrete Structures. American Concrete Institute, Farmington Hills, MI, 1989, 22 pp. 7. Melo G. S. S. A. and Regan P. E. Post-punching resistance of connections between flat slabs and interior columns. Magazine of Concrete Research, 1998, 50, No. 4, 319327. 8. Broms C. E. Shear reinforcement for deflection ductility of flat plates. ACI Structural Journal, 1990, 87, No. 6, 696705. 9. Broms C. E. Elimination of flat plate punching failure mode. ACI Structural Journal, 2000, 97, No. 1, 94101. 10. ACI Committee 318. ACI 318-02, Building Code Requirements for Structural Concrete. American Concrete Institute, Farmington Hills, MI, 2002. 11. Brown S. and Dilger W. H. Seismic Response of Flat Plate Column Connections. Proceedings II, Canadian Society for Civil Engineering Annual Conference, Winnipeg, 1994, pp. 388397. 12. Megally S. and Ghali A. Seismic behaviour of edge column slab connections with stud shear reinforcement. ACI Structural Journal, 2000, 97, No. 1, 5360. CEB-FIP. MC 90 CEB-FIP Model Code, Bulletin dInformation 213/214. Comite Euro-International du Be ton, Lausanne, Switzerland, 1993, 437 pp. Pan A. and Moehle J. Lateral displacement ductility of reinforced concrete flat plates. ACI Structural Journal, 1989, 86, No. 3, 250258. ASCE. ASCE 7-98, Minimum Design Loads for Buildings and Other Structures. American Society of Civil Engineers, Reston, VA, 2000, 330 pp. Broms C. E. Punching of flat plates a question of concrete properties in biaxial compression and size effect. ACI Structural Journal, 1990, 87, No. 3, 292304. ASTM. ASTM A 185, Standard Specification for Steel Welded Wire Fabric, Plain, for Concrete Reinforcement. American Society for Testing and Materials, West Conshohocken, PA, USA, 1990. Megally S. and Ghali A. Punching shear design of earthquake-resistant slab-column connections. ACI Structural Journal, 2000, 97, No. 5, 720730.

13.

14.

15.

16.

17.

18.

Discussion contributions on this paper should reach the editor by 1 November 2006

254

Magazine of Concrete Research, 2006, 58, No. 4