Slab Column Frames

John Wallace
University of California, Los Angeles

with contributions from:

Dr. Thomas H.-K. Kang

University of California, Los Angeles

Dr. Ian Robertson

University of Hawaii, Manoa

Presentation Overview
Current Practice
!
!
!
!

Modeling & analysis

Connection design
Progressive collapse
Deformation compatibility

Existing Construction
!
!
!

Post-earthquake observations
Modeling and Model Assessment
Backbone curves/Rehabilitation

Shear reinforcement
2

Current Practice
Non-participating or
gravity system
Post-tensioned slabcolumn frame
Span-to-depth ratios
typically ~40+
Use of shear
reinforcement at slabcolumn connection to
allow for thinner slabs or
to eliminate drop panels
~1/3 scale shake table test specimen
3

Shear Reinforcement

Post-tensioning steel
~1/3 scale shake table tests: Kang & Walalce, ACI SJ, Sept-Oct. 2005
4

Gravity Load Analysis & Design

ACI 318 Chapter 11, 13, & 21 Materials
!

Slab moments: Use direct design, Equivalent frame,

or computer program
Connection design Chapter 11 & 13
wu = 1.2D + 1.6L

EIcolumn

wu = 1.2D + 1.6L

EIslab = Ec(!"I2)

Effective slab width

Gravity Load Analysis - Moments

Gravity Analysis: 1.2D + 1.6L
Unbalanced
Moment
Slab Moments
Unbalanced
Moment

Design slab-column connection to transfer

unbalanced moment to column
FEMA 356 refers to ACI 318 provisions
6

Unbalanced Moment Transfer

Unbalanced moment at the
slab-column connection is
transferred by two
mechanisms:
!

M f $ # f M unbalanced
where # f $

1
1 % (2 / 3) b1 / b2

Moment transfer (flexure)

over a transfer width of c +
3h centered on the column

b1 , b2 $ widths of critical section

Eccentric shear on a critical

section around the slabcolumn connection

M v $ (1 & # f )M unbalanced $ # v M unbalanced

Code provisions are covered

in Chapter 13 (13.5) and
Chapter 11 (11.12) of ACI 318

defined in 11.12.1.2

If b1 $ b2 , then:

# f $ 0.6 and # v $ 0.4

7

Unbalanced Moment Transfer

Unbalanced Moment
(Interior connection)

Flexural Transfer: c2 + 3h
!

ML

#f Munb where #f is typically ~0.6

for square columns
Ratio of top to bottom
reinforcement of 2:1
recommended in ACI 318
(R13.5.3.3)

MR
c2

Munb = ML + MR

h
c2+3h
!

FEMA 356 6.5.4.3(2) allows use of c2+5h

Unbalanced Moment Transfer

c1+d

Eccentric Shear transfer

!

Critical section is defined d/2

from column face
Direct shear stress

b
c2+d

d
z
d/2
centroid
b
c

Vu(direct )
bo d

Eccentric shear stress due to

(1-#f)Munb = #vMunb

Munbz
vunb $ # v
J

column

" b0 = perimeter of critical section

vgravity $

c2+d

z
b

c
c2+d

d
9

Unbalanced Moment Transfer

Combined shear
stresses
Check punching
failure per 318
') vn $ ) vc ( ) vn *

vu where ) =0.75

+ '4 .
f
2
%
/ c0
1
"
c 3
/
2
/
! %d
/
' vc $ Min 42 f c 0 2 % s
b0
2
/
/
'
/4 f c
/
6

,
/
/
/
./
15
3/
/
/
/
7

ACI Eq. 11-33, -34, -35

b
Direct shear
stress

c
d

c
c2+d

Eccentric shear
a
stress

d
b

=
Total shear
stress

c2+d

c
c2+d

vu ,max 8 ) vn

10

Laboratory Studies

Interior connection

Exterior connection

Progressive collapse continuous bottom steel (2 bars)

ACI 318-05 7.13.2.5 (13.3.8.5)
Photo: Hwang and Moehle, ACI SJ, March-April 2000.
11

ACI Committee 352.1R89

Slab Column Report
spalling

kink
Bottom bar at angle of
30 degrees from horizontal

wu l1l2
Asm $ 0.5
) fy
Recommendations for the design of slab-column connections in monolithic RC
Structures, ACI-ASCE Committee 352, Report 352.1R-89 (reapproved 1997)

12

Deformation Compatibility
Slab column (gravity) frame assessment
!

Included in the model with the lateral system

wu = 1.2D + 0.5L

Imposed
lateral
Displacements
(new design)
Pushover
Analysis
(Assessment
of existing)

EIcolumn

wu = 1.2D + 0.5L

EIslab = Ec(!"I2)

13

Deformation Compatibility
Determine if the connection can resist the Vu & Munb without
punching failure Adequate strength. (ACI 318-05 21.11.5)
" Flexural transfer, eccentric shear stress model
" Limit analysis approach for connections with a fuse
" this does not consider the potential for shear strength

degradation.

Slab Moments

Munb , Vu

Stress-induced
Punching

Shear Capacity (Vn)

Munb , Vu

Shear Demand (Vu)

Drift-induced
Punching

Shear Capacity
Shear Demand
0

Ductility (9)

14

Alternative - Deformation Compatibility

Verify that punching failures do not occur for gravity shear

combined with imposed interstory displacement for :M (new) or
;target (Rehab). Adequate deformability. (ACI 318-05 21.11.5)
RC interior and exterior (limited data) connections
0.09

Isolated RC "Interior"
Connections2,10,14,15,16,17
6
.
Subassemblies
.
Nine-panel
Frame18

0.08

Drift Ratio at Punching

0.07

Relationship
for RC with stud-rails
(Robertson et al.10)

0.06

Isolated
.
RC "Edge" Connections9

0.05
0.04

Best-Fit Line for

Interior Connections
without
Shear Reinforcement

0.03
0.02
0.01
ACI 318-05 Limit

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

Gravity Shear Ratio (Vg /)Vc), where Vc =

0.8

0.9

(1/3)f'c1/2bod

15

Deformation Compatibility
!

PT Connections without shear reinforcement

0.09

.Trongtham et al. ('77) - Int.

.Qaisrani ('93) - Int.

Drift Ratio at Punching

0.08

.Pimanmas ('04) - Int.

.Trongtham ('77) - Ext.
.Shatila ('87) - Ext.
.Foutch et al. ('90) - Ext.
.Martinez ('93) - Ext.

0.07
0.06

.Martinez ('93) - Corner

Best-Fit Line for

PT without Shear
Reinforcement

0.05
0.04
0.03
0.02
0.01
0

Best-Fit Line for

PT Subjected to
Reversed Cyclic
Loading

ACI 318-05 Limit

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

Gravity Shear Ratio (Vg /)Vc), where Vc =

0.7

0.8

0.9

(0.29f'c1/2+0.3fpc)bod

16

Presentation Overview
Current Practice
!
!
!
!

Modeling & analysis

Connection design
Progressive collapse
Deformation compatibility

Existing Construction
!
!
!

Background & observations

Modeling and Model Assessment
Backbone curves/Rehabilitation

Shear reinforcement
17

Older Construction
!

Gravity design, or relatively low lateral forces

used for design

Bent reinforcement
sometimes used

No continuous
bottom reinforcement
through column cage

18

Post-Earthquake Observations

Bullocks Department Store - Northridge Fashion Mall

19

Presentation Overview
Current Practice
!
!
!
!

Modeling & analysis

Connection design
Progressive collapse
Deformation compatibility

Existing Construction
!
!
!

Background & observations

Modeling and Model Assessment
Backbone curves/Rehabilitation

Shear reinforcement
20

Modeling Overview
How to model
!
!

Lateral stiffness?
Connection behavior?

How good are our models?

!

Shake table studies

FEMA 356 backbone curves

!
!

Basis of existing curves

New information?

21

Modeling Assumptions - Typical

Rigid end
zones at joints

EIeff = effective
column stiffness

Model slab with

an effective beam
EIeff = !"EIg

EIeff

22

Analytical Model - Column Stiffness

M

P = PG + PE
P = PG

P = PG - PE

My

0.42 EIg
0.39 EIg
0.38 EIg

EIcr " 0.45 EIg

EIcr,col " 0.4 EIg,col

Exterior Column
!
!

P = PG

#y
!

Interior Column

PG = axial from gravity and PE = axial from earthquake

Anchorage slip not likely as significant as noted for beam
column frames (see Elwood presentation)
23

Analytical Model Slab Flexural Stiffness

Effective Beam Width Model

Applied lateral loads

CL

l2

!"l2

!l2

CL

l1
!: Effective Beam Width Factor
": Coefficient accounting for Cracking
Allen & Darvall, ACI 74(7), 1977.
Grossman, ACI 94(2), 1997.
Hwang & Moehle, ACI 97(1), 2000.
Kang & Wallace, ACI 102(5), 2005.

Kang & Wallace (2005)

!
"

RC

PT

0.75
0.33

0.65
0.5
24

Analytical Modeling - Connections

Column
( fiber element )

Slab

Munbalanced @connection
Flexure c2+3h (5h)
Eccentric shear
Mn = Mf/0.6

Connection
( rigid plastic spring )

Column strip spring

<=>;
0.0375

M-n / M+n @ column strip

Punching before or after yielding
Kang, 13WCEE, Aug. 2004, Paper 1119

M
Mn

<=>;
0.75 Vg / Vo

Limit

Limit State Model: Mean 1 ?

This model satisfies FEMA 356 6.5.4.2.2, which states that the
connection must be modeled separately from slab and column elements.
25

Connection Modeling - Punching

0.09

Isolated RC "Interior"
Connections2,10,14,15,16,17
6
.
Subassemblies
.
Nine-panel
Frame18

Drift Ratio at Punching

0.08
0.07

Relationship
for RC with stud-rails
(Robertson et al.10)

0.06

Isolated
.
RC "Edge" Connections9

0.05
0.04

Best-Fit Line for

Interior Connections
without
Shear Reinforcement

0.03
0.02
0.01
ACI 318-05 Limit

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

0.8

0.9

Gravity Shear Ratio (Vg /)Vc), where Vc = (1/3)f'c1/2bod

26

Shake Table Studies

Two stories, 2 2 bays

Approximately 1/3 scale
CL
S
1.82 m
N

CL
W

Kang and Wallace, ACI SJ, Sept-Oct, 2005, another paper in-press.
27

RC Specimen
Six 200 x 200 mm columns
90 mm thick slab

9.5 mm rebar fy = 414 MPa

fc = 28 MPa

4.1 m

4.3 m

28

RC Specimen - Reinforcement

Interior Connection

Shear Reinforcement

Expected connection behavior: Flexural yielding, followed by punching

29

PT Specimen
5.7 m
5.7 m

8 mm 7-wire strand

6.35 mm deformed rebar

30

PT Specimen Interior
ACI318-05 Requires only bottom (integrity) reinforcement

31

PT Video Run 5

32

Model Assessment
NSP
Top Drift Ratio [%]
-4
250

-3

-2

-1 Drift
0
1
Top
[%]

RC-RUN4-Exp
Push-over (2:1)
Push-over (1:2)

200

<u = 2.5%

100

0.5

50
0

-50

-0.5

-100
(1:2 Ratio)

-150

(2:1 Ratio)

2H

-200

H
H

-60

-40

-1

2H

RC-RUN4
-80

Base Shear [W]

Base Shear [W]

Base
Shear[kN]
[kN]
Base
Shear

150

-250

1.5

-1.5
-20

20

40

60

80

Displacementrelative
Relative to
TopTop
displacement
toFooting
footing[mm]
[mm]

33

Model Assessment - PT
0.04

0.04

Top Drift Ratio

Measured Top Drift at Peak Base Shear (2.78%)

0.02

0.02

-0.02

-0.02
Measured Top Drift at Peak Base Shear (2.78%)

-0.04

Experimental Response Histories

Analytical Response Histories
10

12

(a) PT-RUN4 : ym - ?res case

14

16

18

20

-0.04
22

Time (sec)
See Kang et al., 13WCEE, August 2004, paper 1119
Direct measurement of footing rotations

34

Presentation Overview
Current Practice
!
!
!
!

Modeling & analysis

Connection design
Progressive collapse
Deformation compatibility

Existing Construction
!
!
!

Background & observations

Modeling and Model Assessment
Backbone curves/Rehabilitation

Shear reinforcement
35

Deformation Backbone Curves

Slabs Controlled by
Flexure

Vgravity

Continuity

V0

Reinforcement

8 0.2

Model Parameters, Radians

Plastic
Hinge

Plastic
Hinge

Residual
Strength

Yes

0.02

0.05

0.2

> 0.4

Yes

0.0

0.04

0.2

8 0.2

No

0.02

0.02

--

* 0.25

No

0.0

0.0

--

Continuity reinforcement defined as

at least one bottom bar or pt bar
continuous through the column cage
in each direction

Vu = 1.2D + 0.5L

b-a

36

Slab Column Tests

Typical test setup
Cyclic lateral load
LC

; column

Gravity load

Reaction
block

; slab
column

Load
cell

Load
cell

Axial load
Strong Floor
37

New Data Test Results #1

!

Slab reinforcing details

10ft x 10 ft x 4.5

2 Continuous bottom bars

Robertson & Johnson, 13WCEE, August 2004, Paper 143

38

Test Results #1 Control Specimen

Vg
Vc

$ 0.23
continuity

M n $ (12)(71 mm 2 )(414 MPa)(95mm)=33,500 kN-mm

Pn = 33,500 kN-mm/1524mm = 22 kN

< e $ 0.015; < p $ 0.02(17 / 20) $ 0.017

Yield: 1.5% (assumed)

Robertson & Johnson, 13WCEE, August 2004, Paper 143

39

Test Results #1

Vg
Vc

$ 0.28
continuity

M n $ (12)(71 mm 2 )(414 MPa)(95mm)=33,500 kN-mm

Pn = 33,500 kN-mm/1524mm = 22 kN

< e $ 0.015; < p $ 0.02(12 / 20) $ 0.012

Robertson & Johnson, 13WCEE, August 2004, Paper 143

40

Test Results #1

Vg
Vc

$ 0.48

M n $ (12)(71 mm 2 )(414 MPa)(95mm)=33,500 kN-mm

Pn = 33,500 kN-mm/1524mm = 22 kN

< e $ 0.015; < p $ 0

Robertson & Johnson, 13WCEE, August 2004, Paper 143

41

Test Results #1 - Summary

!

FEMA 356 Overall comparison

Robertson & Johnson, 13WCEE, August 2004, Paper 143

42

Test Results - #2
!

Slab reinforcing details less reinforcement

10ft x 10 ft x 4.5

2 Continuous bottom bars

Robertson & Johnson, 13WCEE, August 2004, Paper 143

43

Test Results
Vg
Vc

$ 0.36

M n $ (7)(71 mm 2 )(414 MPa)(95mm)=19,500 kN-mm

Pn = 19,500 kN-mm/1524mm = 13 kN

< e $ 0.015; < p $ 0.02(4 / 20) $ 0.004

Robertson & Johnson, 13WCEE, August 2004, Paper 143

44

Subassembly Test
!
!

Test specimens ~1/2 scale

4 specimens
" DNY_1, DNY_2, DNY_3, DNY_4 (spandrel beam)
" Bent-up (1,2,4), Straight (3)
" Vg $ 0.2, 0.3, 0.24, 0.28
Vc

Durrani, Du, Luo, ACI SJ, July-Aug. 1995

45

Test Results

Vg
Vc

Vg
Vc

@ 0.20

@ 0.24

Durrani, Du, Luo, ACI SJ, July-Aug. 1995

Vg
Vc

@ 0.30

Vg
Vc

@ 0.28

Spandrel beam
46

Test Results - Summary

spandrel

Backbone relation:
P = 10 kip (arbitrary)

Vg
Vc

@ 0.30

< e @ 0.01

< p $ 0.02

Straight bars vs
Bent up bars
- no difference
- except for collapse

Durrani, Du, Luo, ACI SJ, July-Aug. 1995 47

Presentation Overview
Current Practice
!
!
!
!

Modeling & analysis

Connection design
Progressive collapse
Deformation compatibility

Existing Construction
!
!
!

Background & observations

Modeling and Model Assessment
Backbone curves/Rehabilitation

Shear reinforcement
48

Recent Tests ERICO Fortress Steel

0.6 Scale model tests (6 thick slab) Smith Emery

49

Preliminary Results ERICO Steel Fortress

Fortress steel appears to be very effective in
improving the punching resistance
Appear as effective as stud-rails

!
200

S1 (none) vs S2 (shear bands)

Lateral load [kips]

160 S1 control

S1 (none) vs S4 (stud rails)

S1 (shear bands) vs S4 (stud rails)

S1 control
S4 Studrails

120 S2 ESF 2.5

80

S2 ESF 2.5
S4 Studrails

60
40

80

20

40
0

-40

-20

-80

-40

-120

-60

-160
-200

-80

-12

-8

-4

Drift ratio [%]

12 -12

-8

-4

Drift ratio [%]

12 -12

-8

-4

Drift ratio [%]

12

Av = 1.44 in2 fy =72.5 ksi Av = 0.88 in2 fy =60 ksi

50

Summary
Modeling
!
!

Effective beam width model

Connection behavior Limit state model

Backbone curves - RC
!
!

Conservative In general
Review allowable plastic rotation for low
gravity stress ratios < 0.2, mean - ?
Potential to increase plastic rotation for low
reinforcement ratios
Remove residual capacity for RC connections
51

Summary
Backbone curves - PT
!
!

Conservative
Increase plastic rotation from 0.02 (RC) to
0.03 at gravity shear ratio of 0.2
Review higher gravity shear ratios allowable
plastic rotation of 0.01 at a gravity shear ratio
of 0.5
Allow residual capacity of 0.2 up to drifts of
about 5% where one strand pass within the
column cage in both directions.
52

Slab Column Frames

John Wallace
University of California, Los Angeles

with contributions from:

Dr. Thomas H.-K. Kang

University of California, Los Angeles

Dr. Ian Robertson

University of Hawaii, Manoa