Concrete international DECEMBER 2013 47

Two-Way Slab Parking

Structures in Canada
Multiple factors can affect service life and safety
by Hassan Aoude, William D. Cook,

and Denis Mitchell
T
he design, construction, and maintenance of reinforced
concrete parking structures in cold climate regions of
Canada require special attention due to the harmful
efects of chlorides in deicing chemicals. Unfortunately,
many older reinforced concrete parking structures were not
properly designed for these exposure conditions and show
signs of deterioration afer only a few years in service.
1

A study conducted in the early 1980s by the National
Research Council of Canada estimated repair costs associated
with deterioration in parking structures in Canada to be
over $1.5 billion.
2
Similarly, in a 1997 report, the Federal
Highway Administration (FHWA) estimated that $1 billion
is spent annually in North America to repair bridges and
parking structures exposed to deicing chemicals.
3
Figure 1
shows an example of a two-way slab garage, built in
Canada in 1970, that sufered a collapse in 2008. Since
2005, at least three other similar failures have been reported
in Canada. The structures were subjected to the cold
climate of eastern Canada and had been designed prior
to the development of modern parking structure codes
and guidelines.
This article is aimed at owners and inspectors responsible
for the maintenance of two-way reinforced concrete
parking garage structures. In particular, we review factors
that can afect the structural safety of existing two-way slab
parking structures in Canada, including the inadequacy of
older codes, construction defects, and deterioration due to
exposure to deicing chemicals.
Evolution of Canadian Design Codes
Over the years, there have been changes to codes related
to the design of two-way slab parking structures in Canada.
These changes include improvements to the general design
provisions for two-way slab structures, as well as the
introduction of special provisions for parking structures.
Table 1 shows the evolution of the Canadian requirements
since 1960, including provisions related to minimum slab
thickness for serviceability, punching shear resistance, and
durability. Note that the requirements for punching shear
have been based on the corresponding design provisions in
the ACI 318 Code throughout this period.
Minimum slab thickness
The National Building Code of Canada
4
and the CSA
Standard A23.3
5
specify minimum slab thicknesses to
ensure that deections and crack widths are satisfactory
during the intended use. As shown in Table 1, the equations
for minimum slab thickness required for serviceability have
varied over the years. For a two-way slab with a square panel
layout; a center-to-center column spacing l of 6 m (20 f);
and 300 x 300 mm (12 x 12 in.) square columns, the
required minimum thickness would have been 167 mm
(6.6 in.) in the early 1960s. In contrast, the current CSA
Standard would require a minimum thickness of 190 mm
(7.5 in.) (using a clear span ln of 5.7 m [19 f] and assuming
Grade 400 steel, with

f y of 400 MPa [60 ksi]). For a regular
Fig. 1: An example of a punching shear failure and progressive
collapse of a parking structure. This failure occurred in St-Laurent,
QC, in November 2008. (photo courtesy of Denis Mitchel)
48 DECEMBER 2013 Concrete international
slab panel layout, the thickness in the current standard
would be increased by a factor of 1.1 for the more exible
edge panels, resulting in a minimum thickness of 209 mm
(8.2 in.)a 25% increase in the minimum slab thickness
from earlier codes.
Punching shear design
Two-way slab structures must be designed to have
sufcient punching shear resistance at slab-column
connections. To avoid brittle punching shear failures,
concrete codes limit the calculated shear stress on an
assumed failure surface in the slab around the column. In
the current edition of the CSA A23.3 Standard,
5
the
designer must ensure that the factored shear resistance vr
exceeds the maximum factored shear stress developed at the
slab-column connection vf
f r
v v
(1)
Table 1:
Summary of changes related to design of two-way parking structure slabs in Canada
Years
Reference
codes
Minimum slab
thickness
Punching shear provisions
Durability
requirements Shear resistance, vr
Shear stress,
vf
Integrity steel
provisions
1960 to
1964
ACI 318
(1956, 1963)
l

36

167 . 0
c
f


(working stress design)

33 . 0
c
f


(strength design)
( f c in psi)
Based on
direct shear
only
None
Minimum cover
requirement only
1965 to
1972
NBCC
(1965, 1970)
l

30
1973 to
1976
CSA A23.3
(1973)

( )
36,000
005 . 0 800
y n
f +
( fy in psi)
33 . 0
c
f


( f c in psi)
Includes effect
of unbalanced
moments
1977 to
1983
CSA A23.3
(1977)

( )
36,000
5 . 1 / 800
y n
f +
( fy in MPa)

|
|
.
|

\
|
+ 19 . 0
2
1
38 . 0
min
c c
c
c c
f
f

( f c in MPa)
1984 to
1986
CSA A23.3
(1984)
Integrity steel
required
1987 to
1993
CSA A23.3
(1984)
CSA S413
(1987)
Introduction of
durability
requirements
1994 to
current
CSA A23.3
(1994, 2004)
CSA S413
(1987, 2007)

( )
30
1000 / 6 . 0
y n
f +

( fy in MPa)

|
|
.
|

\
|
+
|
|
.
|

\
|
+
19 . 0
19 . 0
2
1
38 . 0
min
c c
o
s
c c
c
c c
f
b
d
f
f

( f c in MPa)
Comments
Post-1965
minimum slab
thickness
increased
Post-1973 accounts for
unbalanced moments
Post-1977 accounts for column
rectangularity
Post-1994 accounts for size of punching
shear failure plane
Post-1984 slabs
require
structural
integrity steel
Post-1987 slabs
require improved
durability
Concrete international DECEMBER 2013 49
For slabs without shear reinforcement, v
r is taken as the
smallest of the following

c c r
f . v 38 0 =

(2)


19 . 0
2
1
c c
c
r
f v

+ =

(3)


19 . 0
c c
o
s
r
f
b
d
v

+ =

(4)
where f c, c, and represent the concrete compressive
strength in MPa, resistance factor for concrete, and a factor
to account for concrete density, respectively. The factor c is
the ratio of the long side to short side of the column cross
section, while the factor s accounts for whether the column
is an interior, edge, or corner column. Note that the CSA
expressions are consistent with those used in ACI 318-11.
6

The CSA A23.3 coefcients of 0.38 and 0.19 have been
derived by prorating the corresponding ACI 318 coefcients
by /c, where is 0.75 in the ACI document and c is 0.65
in the CSA document.
7
For example, the nominal shear
resistance vn corresponding to Eq. (2) in ACI 318 is given as
(5)
The coefcient in the CSA standard is thus given by
0.33(0.75/0.65), or 0.38.
The factored stress vf is computed based on the design
factored shear force Vf and fractions of the unbalanced
moments between the slab and column
(6)
where d is the average efective depth of the slab; bo is the
perimeter of the critical section (located at a distance of d/2
from the column faces); and J is a term that is analogous to
the polar moment of inertia of the critical section. The
factor v represents a fraction of the unbalanced moments
Mf x and Mf y that must be resisted at the slab-column

c n
f . v 33 0 =

, MPa

y
f v
x
f v
o
f
f
J
e M
J
e M
d b
V
v

+ =

connection; e is the distance from centroid of the section
for critical shear to the point where shear stress is being
calculated; and subscripts x and y represent the centroidal
axes of the critical section.
As shown in Table 1, the punching shear provisions have
changed over the years. For pre-1973 structures, the working
stress design method was used, although designers were
also given the option to use strength design afer 1965.
Equation (7) gives the punching shear resistance used for
both working stress and strength design methods.
(7)
Equations (3) and (4) were introduced in the 1977 and
1994 editions of the CSA A23.3 standard,
5
respectively. Both
account for column rectangularity and the size of the
punching shear failure plane. Note that the factored shear
resistance reduces as the column becomes more rectangular
(for aspect ratios greater than 2), and as the critical perimeter
of the punching shear failure plane increases.
Older provisions required the maximum shear stress vf
to be computed based on direct shear only as
(8)
Starting in 1973, requirements were added to compute
shear stresses due to the combined efect of direct shear and
transfer of unbalanced moments (refer to Eq. (6)). This
approach has been used in subsequent editions of the code
and results in larger and more realistic shear stresses.
In summary, the more recent code provisions have a
higher factored punching shear stress vf and for certain
cases have a lower shear resistance vr corresponding to
punching shear failure. Other contributing factors afecting
design safety include design errors and overloading of slabs.
Structural integrity reinforcement
As shown in Fig. 2(a), once punching shear failure
occurs, the top bars rip out of the slab and become inefective

0.167 , MPa
0.33 , MPa; 0.85
c
r
c
f
v
f

=

=

(working stress design)
(strength design)

d b
V
v
o
f
f
=
Fig. 2: Effect of structural integrity reinforcement: (a) pre-1984 construction results in collapse after punching shear failure, while (b)
post-1984 construction includes integrity steel that allows the slab to hang from the column after punching shear failure
8,9
(b) (a)
50 DECEMBER 2013 Concrete international
in transferring loads to the column, possibly leading to
progressive collapse.
8
Modern design codes thus require that
some bottom reinforcement is continuous through the
slab-column connection (Fig. 2(b)). This structural
integrity reinforcement allows the slab to hang from the
column in case of punching failure, efectively preventing
progressive collapse.
9
Design provisions for structural
integrity reinforcement were introduced in the 1984
edition of the CSA A23.3 Standard.
5
Unlike the ACI Code,
the 2004 CSA A23.3 Standard requires that the structural
integrity reinforcement be designed. The total area of
structural integrity reinforcement passing through the
column must satisfy the following equation
(9)
where

sb
A is the total area of bottom reinforcement
connecting the slab to the column on all faces of the
column; and Vse is the shear transmitted to the column due
to the unfactored service loads but not less than the shear
corresponding to twice the self-weight of the slab (to
account for loading during construction). In addition, the
CSA Standard gives requirements for the detailing of this
reinforcement. Recent failures of parking structures
constructed prior to 1984 have demonstrated the
susceptibility to progressive collapse of slabs that lack
structural integrity reinforcement (Fig. 1).
Durability design
The CSA S413 Standard,
10
which was introduced in
1987, applies to the design of new parking structures and
provides requirements for durability in addition to the
structural design requirements of CSA A23.3. The CSA
S413 Standard requires the use of high-quality and durable
concretes, increased concrete covers, use of corrosion
protection systems, and design for drainage. This standard
also provides guidelines for inspection and quality control
during construction. Parking structures designed prior to
1987 are unlikely to include any of these requirements and
are therefore more susceptible to deterioration-related
distress. As a comparative example, the 1965 National
Building Code of Canada
4
required a minimum clear
concrete cover of 20 mm (3/4 in.) and did not specify
requirements for structures exposed to deicing chemicals.
In contrast, the 2007 edition of CSA S413 requires a
minimum concrete cover of 40 mm (1.6 in.), the use of low-
permeability concrete, and the use of a suitable corrosion
protection system.
10

A regular maintenance plan can improve service life and
prevent premature deterioration of parking structures.
CSA S413 requires that parking structures designed and
constructed in conformance with the standard are to be
regularly maintained in accordance with a comprehensive
inspection and maintenance program. Guidelines for

=
y
se
sb
f
V
A
2
implementing a regular maintenance plan are provided in
Annex E of CSA S413. While requirements exist for
newer construction, requirements for a comprehensive
maintenance plan are typically lacking for older (pre-1987)
parking structures. Following the recent collapses of
parking structures in the Province of Qubec, the Rgie du
Btiment du Qubec introduced the following require-
ments
11
in the Provincial Safety Code:

An archive of the structural drawings, details of repairs,
annual verication reports, and detailed condition
assessments must be kept on the premises;

The owner must arrange for an annual inspection of the
parking structure; and

An engineering report must be produced at least every
5 years providing a detailed condition assessment
identifying defects and providing recommendations for
corrective action.
Construction Defects
Errors or poor practice during construction can result
in defects such as improperly located reinforcing steel
and inadequate slab thickness (Fig. 3). Alone or in combina-
tion with other factors, such defects can lead to loss of
structural capacity.
Improper placement of top reinforcing steel
Improper placement of the top bars (Fig. 3(a) and(b))
can afect exural and shear capacity by reducing the slabs
efective depth. Figure 4 shows the exural and punching shear
response of reinforced concrete slabs tested by Lee et al.
12

While the test slabs had identical physical and material
properties, the top concrete cover was adjusted to simulate
diferent degrees of improper bar placement. It is evident
that the exural and shear capacities are reduced as the top
concrete covers increase and the efective depths of the
reinforcement are reduced (Fig. 4(a) and (b), respectively).
Excessive top cover also results in decreased slab stifness,
increased deections, and larger crack widths at the service
load level. In parking structures exposed to chlorides, the
increased crack widths would allow for a more rapid
initiation of corrosion, compounding the efects of the
initial error. The misplaced top bars shown in Fig. 3(b)
resulted in a deep penetrating crack, allowing the ingress of
chlorides and corrosion of the top bars.
Variations in slab thickness
Variations in slab thickness can reduce the efective depth
of a slab and lead to reductions in exural and punching
shear resistance. Another related defect is a reduction of
slab thickness at slab-column joints due to the use of
berboard forms for circular columns. If the slab formwork
does not have proper support at the column interface, the
formwork can deect downward as the slab concrete is
placed. As a result, the berboard tubes can protrude above
the bottom surface of the slab at the slab-column connection
Concrete international DECEMBER 2013 51
Fig. 3: Construction defects: (a) improperly placed top slab bars; (b) flexural failure
plane showing bars with excessive top cover; (c) reduction of slab thickness at
critical punching shear location around circular column due to fiberboard form; and
(d) measuring penetration of fiberboard form for circular column into bottom of slab
Fig. 4: Effects of misplaced steel on: (a) flexural response; and (b) punching shear
response (adapted from Reference 12) (Note: 1 kN = 225 lbf; 1 mm = 0.04 in.)
(a)
(c) (d)
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
0 10 20 30 40 50
L
o
a
d

P
,

k
N
L
o
a
d

V
,


k
N
L
o
a
d

P
,

k
i
p
L
o
a
d

V
,

k
i
p
Average deflection , mm
Average deflection , mm
Average deflection , in.
0
5
1
4
3
2
0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0
Average deflection , in.
0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0
6
Cover

P
P P
P
V/2 V/2

Cover
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
400
450
0 10 20 30 40 50
0
100
20
80
60
40

Cover = 0
Cover = 20 mm (0.8 in.)
PS 1
Cover = 20 mm (0.8 in.)
Cover = 35 mm (1.4 in.)
Cover = 65 mm (2.6 in.)
PS 2
Cover = 65 mm (2.6 in.)
Cover = 90 mm (3.6 in.)
PS 3
Cover = 90 mm (3.6 in.)
(a) (b)
(Fig. 3(c) and (d)), resulting in reduced
efective slab thickness around the
column. This causes a reduction in the
efective depth at the slab-column
joint, resulting in a reduction in
punching shear capacity.
Durability-Related Distress
Parking structures in cold climate
regions are typically subjected to
severe exposure conditions which can
cause durability-related distress. A
Canadian study conducted in the early
1980s noted that unprotected parking
structures can show initial signs of
deterioration afer as little as
5 years in service.
1
This is a worrying
fact, given the large inventory of older
parking structures in Canada, with
many of these constructed before
1987, when durability requirements
were introduced. Deterioration-related
distress can include cracking, material
degradation due to repeated freezing-
and-thawing cycles, and corrosion-
related distress due to exposure to
deicing chemicals.
13
While damage
due to freezing and thawing may be a
concern for exposed (or open) parking
structures, the temperature in most
enclosed parking garages rarely drops
below the freezing point.
1,2
Therefore,
the most important cause of deterio-
ration in indoor parking structures is
corrosion-related distress.
Corrosion of reinforcement is a
function of the alkalinity of its
environment. Because concrete
provides a highly alkaline environment,
the embedded steel forms a passive
protective layer.
1,2
However, corrosion
of steel can take place if this passive
layer is broken down by the presence
of chlorides.
13
A chloride content of
1.4 kg/m
3
(0.084 lb/f
3
) is typically
sufcient to initiate corrosion.
3
In
indoor parking structures, the concrete
can become chloride-contaminated as
the chemicals present in deicing salts
are brought in by cars.
10
It is not
surprising that the widespread use of
chloride-based salts that started in the
early 1970s has been accompanied by
widespread deterioration of parking
structures. Figure 5 shows an example
Fig. 5: Effect of corrosion: (a) severely corroded reinforcement in parking slab structure;
and (b) tensile test results from bars with and without corrosion showing significant
losses in capacity and ductility due to reduced cross-sectional area (Note: 1 kN =
225 lbf; 1 mm = 0.04 in.; 1 m = 3.3 ft)
(a) (b)
(b)
0 20 40 60
0
20
40
60
80
100
Uncorroded bars
Strain, mm/m
L
o
a
d
,

k
N
Corroded bars
52 DECEMBER 2013 Concrete international
Fig. 6: Secondary effects of corrosion: (a) delamination at level of top bars; and
(b) damage observed in parking structure suffering from severe delamination
Fig. 7: Test setup
to evaluate
simulated
corrosion and
delamination
effects on
two-way slab
behavior
Fig. 8: Construction of specimen with induced delamination: (a) a plastic sheet
installed under the top layer of reinforcing bars, extending from the column to near the
perimeter of the slab; and (b) before the top concrete was placed and the slab
finished, concrete was placed and consolidated from the perimeter of the plastic sheet
to fill the volume below the plastic sheet
Fig. 9: Failure surfaces after collapse: (a) as observed in the laboratory with simulated
delamination; and (b) as observed in an actual failure of a slab delaminated by
corrosion of the reinforcing bars
of corroded top bars and the tensile
behavior of control and corroded
reinforcing bars taken from a deterio-
rated parking structure in eastern
Canada. It is evident that the loss in
reinforcing bar cross-sectional area
results in a signicant reduction in
both tensile capacity and ductility.
Corrosion by-products of embedded
steel reinforcement can also cause
signicant pressures to develop in the
surrounding concrete, resulting in
cracking and spalling as well as
delamination of the cover concrete
(Fig. 6).
13,14
Surveys of older parking
structures in Canada have shown that
these slabs can delaminate at an annual
rate of 3% of the slab surface area.
10

To study the efect of corrosion on
punching shear capacity, a series of
slab-column specimens were tested by
the authors.
15
Figure 7 shows a typical
specimen and the test setup. The
specimens had 2300 x 2300 x 150 mm
(90.6 x 90.6 x 5.9 in.) slabs and 225 mm
(8.9 in.) square column stubs. The
top mat reinforcement in the control
specimen consisted of 15M bars
(db = 16 mm [0.63 in.]) at a spacing
of 154 mm (6 in.), while the bottom
mat reinforcement consisted of 10M
bars (db = 11.3 mm [0.44 in.]) spaced
at 300 mm (11.8 in.). As was typical
of older slabs, the specimens lacked
structural integrity steel detailing.
The test series included a second
specimen with simulated corrosion,
constructed with 10M top reinforcing
bars to simulate a 50% loss in steel
cross-sectional area due to corrosion,
and a third specimen with severe
delamination. The third specimen
(Fig. 8) had identical dimensions and
material properties as the control
specimen, but a plastic sheet was
placed under the top layer of reinforcing
bars during concreting to simulate a
delamination plane, resulting in a
top bar embedment length outside
of the delamination region that was
less than the development length of
the bars. Figure 9 shows a photo of
the specimen at failure and a photo
taken afer the failure of an actual
delaminated slab structure; one can
(a)
(a)
(b)
(b)
(a) (b)
Concrete international DECEMBER 2013 53
Fig. 10: Normalized load-deflection response of: (a) slab specimens with and without
corrosion; and (b) slab specimens with and without delamination (adapted from
Reference 15)
see similarities in failure modes with
the top bars ripping out of the slab
with the delaminated concrete cover.
Figure 10 summarizes the normalized
load-deection response of the slab-
column specimens, where the
experimentally obtained load is
normalized with respect to the
nominal punching shear capacity
given in the CSA A23.3 Standard
5

(refer to Eq. (5)).
The tests demonstrate that a 50%
reduction in steel area led to earlier
exural yielding and a 28% drop in
punching shear capacity. In addition
to reducing structural capacity, the
reduction in reinforcing bar cross-
sectional area decreased the slab
stifness, leading to increased deec-
tions and crack widths at service load
levels. In service, this would allow a
pathway for chlorides to cause
further deterioration.
The simulated severe delamination
reduced the punching shear capacity
by 20%. It must be noted that the
efects of corrosion (loss of bar area
and delamination) were studied
independently. In an actual structure
with corrosion, both efects will occur
together and the margin of safety will
be further reduced.
Conclusions
Several factors can reduce the
service life or safety of parking
structures. These factors include
design using older decient codes,
design errors, construction defects,
deterioration, and overloading.
Two-way slab parking structures in
Canada designed before implementation
of the 1984 edition of CSA A23.3
typically lack structural integrity
reinforcement and may be susceptible
to progressive collapse following a
punching shear failure. Parking
structures designed prior to the
introduction of CSA S413 in 1987 are
also likely to lack durability provisions
and could be highly susceptible to
deterioration due to corrosion. As with
all structures, the service life and
structural safety of two-way slab
parking structures will be negatively
0.0 4.0
0 20 40 60 80 100 0 20 40 60 80 100
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
1.2
1.4
N
o
r
m
a
l
i
z
e
d

l
o
a
d
,

V
e
x
p
/
V
p
r
e
d

N
o
r
m
a
l
i
z
e
d

l
o
a
d
,

V
e
x
p
/
V
p
r
e
d

Average deflection, mm
S10 (with "Corrosion")
Average deflection, in.
1.0 2.0 3.0 0.0 4.0
Average deflection, in.
1.0 2.0 3.0
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
1.2
1.4
Average deflection, mm
S15d (with "Delamination")
S15 (Control) S15 (Control)
(a) (b)
afected by construction defects such
as improperly located reinforcing
steel and inadequate slab thickness.
Corrosion of steel reinforcing bars
may reduce the cross-sectional area
of bars as well as induce delamination
of the concrete cover, leading to
signicant reductions in punching
shear resistance.
Punching shear failures and
progressive collapse of two-way slabs
usually arise due to a combination of
factors. Inspection and maintenance
programs should be planned accordingly.
References
1. Litvan, G.G., Deterioration of Indoor
Parking Garages, CBD-224, Division of
Building Research, National Research
Council of Canada, Ottawa, ON, Canada, 1982.
2. Litvan, G.G., Evaluation and Repair of
Deteriorated Garage Floors, CBD-225,
Division of Building Research, National
Research Council of Canada, Ottawa, ON,
Canada, 1982.
3. Cusson, D., and Qian, S., Inhibiting
Chloride-Induced Corrosion in Concrete
Bridges, Construction Technology Update
No. 73, Division of Building Research,
National Research Council of Canada,
Ottawa, ON, Canada, 2010.
4. Associate Committee on the National
Building Code, National Building Code of
Canada, National Research Council of
Canada, Ottawa, ON, Canada, 1960-2005.
5. CSA A23.3, Design of Concrete
Structures, Canadian Standards Association,
Rexdale and Mississauga, ON, Canada,
1973-2004.
6. ACI Committee 318, Building Code
Requirements for Structural Concrete and
Commentary, American Concrete Institute,
Farmington Hills, MI, 1956-2011.
7. Explanatory Notes on CSA Standard
A23.3-04, Concrete Design Handbook, third
edition, Cement Association of Canada,
Ottawa, ON, Canada, 2006.
8. Hawkins, N.M., and Mitchell, D.,
Progressive Collapse of Flat Plate
Structures, ACI Journal, V. 76, No. 7, July 1979,
pp. 775-808.
9. Mitchell, D., and Cook, W.D., Preventing
Progressive Collapse of Slab Structures,
Journal of Structural Engineering, ASCE, V. 110,
No. 7, July 1984, pp. 1513-1532.
10. CAN/CSA-S413, Parking Structures,
Canadian Standards Association, Rexdale and
Mississauga, ON, Canada, 1987-2007.
11. RBQ, Rglement Visant Amliorer
la Scurit dans le Btiment (Chapitre VIII -
Btiment), Code de Scurit, Rgie du
Btiment du Qubec, Montral, QC,
Canada, 2009.
12. Lee, Y.M.; Mitchell, D.; and Harris, P.J.,
Lessons from Structural PerformanceSlabs
Containing Improperly Placed Reinforcing,
Concrete International, V. 1, No. 6, June 1979,
pp. 45-53.
13. Donnelly, J.P.; Pulver, B.E.; and
Popovic, P.L., Condition Assessment of
54 DECEMBER 2013 Concrete international
ACI member Hassan Aoude is an
Assistant Professor in the Department
of Civil Engineering, University of
Ottawa, Ottawa, ON, Canada. He
received his PhD from McGill
University and his masters from cole
de Technologie Suprieure. His main
research interests relate to the
structural use of high-performance
and ber-reinforced concretes. He is a member of Joint
ACI-ASCE Committee 441, Reinforced Concrete Columns,
and ACI Committee 544, Fiber-Reinforced Concrete.
ACI member William D. Cook is a
Research Associate in the Depart-
ment of Civil Engineering & Applied
Mechanics at McGill University,
Montral, QC, Canada. He received
his BEng, MEng, and PhD from McGill
University. His research interests relate
to predicting nonlinear response of
concrete structures.
Denis Mitchell, FACI, is a Professor in
the Department of Civil Engineering &
Applied Mechanics at McGill
University, Montral, QC, Canada.
He received his BASc, MASc, and
PhD from the University of Toronto. His
research interests include shear and
torsion design, design of disturbed
regions, seismic design, seismic evalu-
ation and retrot, and the behavior of prestressed and high-
strength concrete structures. He received the ACI Raymond
C. Reese Structural Research Award in 1976 and 1981. He is
a member of Joint ACI-ASCE Committees 408, Development
and Splicing of Deformed Bars, and 445, Shear and Torsion.
Parking Structures, Proceedings of the 2006 Structures Congress: Structural
Engineering and Public Safety, ASCE, St. Louis, MO, 2006, pp. 1-10.
14. Jana, D., Delamination: a State-of-the-Art Review, Proceedings
of the 29th Conference on Cement Microscopy, Quebec City, QC, Canada,
May 20-24, 2007, pp. 135-167.
15. Aoude, H.; Cook, W.D.; and Mitchell, D., Efects of Simulated
Corrosion and Delamination on Response of Two-Way Slabs, Journal
of Structural Engineering, ASCE, Nov. 2012, http://dx.doi.org/10.1061/
(ASCE)ST.1943-541X.0000775.
16. Reilly, J.L.; Cook, W.D.; Bastien, J.; and Mitchell, D., Efects of
Delamination on the Performance of Two-Way Reinforced Concrete
Slabs, Journal of Performance of Constructed Facilities, ASCE, Mar. 2013,
http://dx.doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)CF.1943-5509.0000457.
Received and reviewed under Institute publication policies.
Youll never have to wait for ACIs Online
Bookstore to open. Our collection of over 400
standards, technical reports, special publications,
and industry favorites is always openwaiting
for you!
Additionally, you can download many of ACIs
publications immediately!
ACIs Online Bookstore
its always open!
www.concrete.org