Вы находитесь на странице: 1из 8

Ramos, A.P.; Lcio, V.J.G.

; Punching of prestressed flat slabs: experimental analysis; International 1 Workshop on Punching Shear Capacity of RC flat Slabs; Royal Institute of Technology; Estocolmo, Junho de 2000.

Punching of Prestressed Flat Slabs - Experimental Analysis

Mr. Antnio M. P. Ramos, M.Sc., Ph.D. Student ampr@mail.fct.unl.pt Prof. Vlter J.G. Lcio, Ph.D. lucio@civil.ist.utl.pt Instituto Superior Tcnico Avenida Rovisco Pais Lisboa, Portugal ABSTRACT The experimental analysis of nine prestressed flat slab models under punching is described and the results are compared with the recommendations of EC2 and MC90. The tests were performed on models at a scale 1/3, prestressed with unbounded high strength steel. In the first set, the models (AR2 to AR5 and AR7) were only subjected to in-plane compression, to evaluate the effect of the in-plane forces on the punching resistance. The second set of models (AR8 to AR11) intended to study the effect of the vertical component of the tendon forces near the column in the punching resistance. This work aims the understanding of the behaviour of prestressed flat slabs under punching load and the evaluation of the punching resistance. Key Words: punching, flat slab, prestress, concrete

1.

I TRODUCTIO

Prestressed flat slabs have been in use for several decades now. The advantages between this structural solution and a non-prestressed flat slab are various, e.g.: smaller deformations; enables deflections and cracks under service conditions to be kept under control; allows larger spans and thinner slabs, which implies reduced costs of materials and labour; less weight also allows less seismic force, which is an important factor in seismic zones. Punching resistance is an important subject in the design of prestressed concrete flat slabs. The punching failure mechanism results from the superposition of shear and flexural stresses near the column. It is a local and brittle failure mechanism. Research has been developed in this subject by several authors ([1] to [5]). The present work reports experimental research carried out on the behaviour of prestressed flat slabs under

punching, in order to evaluate the punching resistance. The effects of the in-plane force and the deviation force, caused by the prestress, are dealt separately. 2. MATERIALS PROPERTIES

For accessing the concrete strength used to make the models, compression tests on cubes of 15x15x15cm3 were carried out (fcm,cube). The results are listed in table 1. In this table it is also presented the values considered for the cylinder compression strength (fcm) and for the axial tensile strength of the concrete (fctm). Table 1 - Concrete Resistance
Model fcm,cube (MPa) fcm (MPa) fctm (MPa) AR2 48.9 39.1 2.98 AR3 46.8 37.4 2.88 AR4 53.9 43.1 3.24 AR5 44.6 35.7 2.76 AR7 54.8 43.8 3.28 AR8 51.9 41.5 3.14 AR9 46.4 37.1 2.85 AR10 51.8 41.4 3.13 AR11 47.5 38.0 2.91

The reinforcement steel tensile yielding strength was: T6=515MPa, T10=481MPa. The high strength steel used for prestressing had a tensile 0.1% proof strength of 1810MPa. 3. EFFECT OF THE I -PLA E FORCE

Four models were made and tested (AR3 to AR5 and AR7) with in-plane force. One model (AR2) was tested without prestress only for comparison purpose. The load was applied by two hydraulic jacks positioned under the laboratory floor (figure 1). The load was transferred to the top of the slab by steel tendons and a steel frame. The slab was supported on a steel plate 200x200mm2, which simulated the column. The bottom and top reinforcement consisted of 6mm rebars every 200mm and 10mm rebars every 60mm, respectively, in both orthogonal directions. The mean effective depths were 80mm. The in-plane forces were applied by hydraulic jacks and prestressing tendons on beams that compresses the concrete slab borders (figure 2). The prestress tendons were positioned outside the slab. The strains in the reinforcement steel, the vertical displacements of the slab at nine points, the total applied load and the actual in-plane force on the prestressing tendons, at each load stage, were measured during the tests. 3.1. Tests results

The prestressed slab models were loaded with a vertical force until failure occurred. The prestress force was kept constant during the test. The comparison between the experimental and the predicted failure loads is shown in table 2. In the quantification of the punching resistance the mean values of the materials strengths, without partial coefficients, were used.

Figure 1 Model geometry (AR2 to AR5 and AR7)

Figure 2 Model view (AR3 to AR5 and AR7)

The experimental results are compared with the punching resistance quantified using the Eurocode 2 EC2 [6] and the CEB-FIP Model Code 90 MC90 [7]. For the calculation of the punching resistance with EC2 the following expression was used: VRm= 0.25 fctm k ( 1.2 + 40 ) d u (1)

Where d stands for the mean effective depth of the slab, k=1.6-d 1.0 (d in metre), = lx ly + cp / fsy 0.015 is the equivalent reinforcement ratio for longitudinal reinforcement, cp is the mean compression stress due to prestress in the punching area and fsy denotes the mean tensile strength of the reinforcing steel. The control perimeter (u) is considered at 1.5d from the loaded area, or the column perimeter. In the calculation of the values followed by * the value of was limited to 0.015, as recommended in EC2, while in the values followed by ** no limitation was considered. The CEB-FIP Model Code 90 does not deal with prestressed slabs. In this document it is referred that the subject should be treated on a special publication. A FIP working group produced recommendations for the design of prestressed slabs, that were published in 1998 [8]. In this document both the in-plane force and the deviation force of the prestress are considered in the action side, while the punching resistance of the prestressed slab is considered as it is presented in MC90 for non prestressed slabs. Therefor, the punching force is given by: Veff = Vapplied loads Vdeviation forces V0 (2)

where V0 is the in-plane prestress effect and is determined as the punching force that decompresses the top surface of the slab, i.e., produces tensile stresses on the top surface of the slab, on the punching area, equal to the compression stresses caused by the prestress. This decompression punching force may be quantified as a proportion of the punching force as follows: V0= VSd
M0 M Sd (3)

Where M0=cpbh2/6 is the decompression moment, cp is the mean compression stress due to prestress, h is the thickness of the slab and b is the width of the control perimeter, which is taken as the column dimension plus 4d (b=2d+c+2d). The moment MSd is the total bending moment on the width b, correspondent to the punching force VSd. The punching resistance value for the analysis of the test results according to the MC90 may be obtained from: VRm= 0.18 ( 100 fcm)1/3 d u (4)

where =1+ 200 d (d in mm), is the reinforcement ratio for longitudinal reinforcement. The control perimeter (u) is considered at 2d from the loaded area, or the column perimeter.

Table 2 Comparison between experimental and predicated failure load


Model AR2 Px (k )
(1)

Py (k )
(1)

Vexp (k )
(2)

Code
EC2[6] MC90[7]

Veff (k )
(3)

VRm (k )
(3)

Veff/VRm 1.06 1.03 1.10 1.09 1.05 0.92 0.89 0.89 1.07 1.01 0.92 1.03 0.95 0.97

258

258 258 270 257 252 231 251 224 288 251

244 250 245 (*) 247 (**) 245 275 (*) 284 (**) 259 235 (*) 248 (**) 243 279 (*) 304 (**) 260

EC2[6]

AR3

465

270
MC90[7]

EC2[6]

AR4

709

252
MC90[7]

EC2[6]

AR5

470

469

251
MC90[7]

EC2[6]

AR7

650

622

288
MC90[7]

(1) In-plane force; (2) Experimental failure load; (3) Effective failure load: EC2 - Veff=Vexp, MC90 - Veff=Vexp-V0 ; (4) Predicated failure load ; (*) equivalent reinforcement ratio for longitudinal reinforcement limited to 0.015; (**) equivalent reinforcement ratio for longitudinal reinforcement without limitation

The in-plane prestress effect, as it was modelled, seems to have little effect on the punching resistance as may be seen in table 2. With the ratio of longitudinal reinforcement of the models (=0.013) the EC2 limitation of to 0.015, in practice, leads to neglect the in-plane force contribution.

4.

EFFECT OF THE DESVIATIO FORCE

Four models of reinforced concrete slabs were made and tested up to punching failure (AR8 to AR11). All the models were prestressed except model AR9 that was used for comparison. The prestress consisted on four unbounded 12.7mm (0.5) diameter tendons in two orthogonal directions, crossing the loaded area (which simulated the column). The tendons were trapezoidal, with the downward tendon deviation forces over the loaded area and the upward deviation forces at 1.0m from the centre of the loaded area. The initial vertical deviation of the tendons was 40mm in models AR8 and AR10, and 42mm in model AR11. The geometry and the reinforcement of these models was equal to the previous ones. The punching force was applied by one hydraulic jack positioned under the slab, through a steel plate 200x200mm2 in the centre of the model. The borders of the slab were connected by tendons to the strong floor of the laboratory. The prestress forces were applied by hydraulic jacks to the tendons on steel frames that did not allow the compression force of the prestress to be transmitted to the slab (figure 3). The strains in the reinforcement steel, the vertical

displacements of the slab at nine points, the total applied load and the actual prestress force on the tendons were measured during the tests.

Figure 3 Model view (AR8 to AR11)


The intention of these tests was to study only the effect of the vertical deviation forces of the prestressing tendons. The total prestress force was: AR8 440kN; AR10 335kN; AR11 230kN. With the slab deformation the tendons have the tendency to increase their prestress force, especially if they are short ones. A load maintainer device was used in these jacks in order to keep the prestress force constant during the tests.

4.1.

Tests results

The models were prestressed and loaded up until failure accurred. The comparison between the experimental and the predicted failure load is shown in tables 3 and 4. The punching resistance values were quantified as described in the previous section. The effective punching force (Veff) was determined by subtracting to the experimental punching force the deviation force due to the prestress. As the slab deforms during loading the prestress deviation force increases. The final vertical deviation of the tendons may be estimated by adding the vertical deformation of the slab to the initial vertical deviation. In table 3 the effective punching force is quantified with the initial vertical deviation of the tendons, as it is usually done, in table 4 the final vertical deviation was considered. With the analysis of tables 3 and 4 it seems that a better approach for the punching resistance may be obtained if the final vertical deviation of the prestress tendons is taken into account.

Table 3 - Comparison between experimental and predicated failure load (deviation force using the initial vertical deviation of the tendons)
Model Deviation Force (k ) 70 Vexp (k )
(1)

Veff (k )
(2)

VRm (k )
(3) EC2[6] MC90[7]

Veff/VRm 1.18 1.19 1.05 1.00 1.22 1.23 1.27 1.22

AR8

380

310

262 260 238 250 261 259 238 248

AR9

251

251

EC2[6] MC90[7]

AR10

54

372

318

EC2[6] MC90[7]

AR11

39

342

303

EC2[6] MC90[7]

(1) Experimental failure load; (2) Veff = Vexp Vdeviation force; (3) Predicated failure load

Table 4 - Comparison between experimental and predicated failure load (deviation force using the final vertical deviation of the tendons)
Model Deviation Force (k ) 112 Vexp (k )
(1)

Veff (k )
(2)

VRm (k )
(3) EC2[6] MC90[7]

Veff/VRm 1.02 1.03 1.08 1.08 1.18 1.13

AR8

380

268

262 260 261 259 238 248

AR10

91

372

281

EC2[6] MC90[7]

AR11

61

342

281

EC2[6] MC90[7]

(1) Experimental failure load; (2) Veff = Vexp Vdeviation force; (3) Predicated failure load

5.

CO CLUSIO S

Two sets of tests of prestressed flat slabs under punching were performed. On the first set only in-plane prestress was applied with external tendons (models AR3, AR4, AR5 and AR7). On the second set internal tendons were used with a trapezoidal shape to impose deviation forces to the slab (models AR8, AR10 and AR11). In this last set of tests no compression due to prestress was applied to the slab. It was possible to analyse separately the two prestress effects in this analysis. The test results were compared with the predicted values of the EC2 and MC90. One non-prestressed slab was tested with each set of tests (AR2 and AR9) in order to compare the results. As may be observed in tables 2 and 3 the predicted values for these two slabs agree quite well with the test results. The effect of the compression of the prestress seems to have little influence in the punching resistance of the tested models (see table 2). On the other hand, the deformation of the slab

increases the deviation force of the tendons and the quantification of the punching resistance neglecting this fact may lead to quite conservative values. The number of tests performed is not enough to validate these conclusions and more tests are scheduled in the near future.

REFERE CES [1] Scordelis, A. C., Lin, T.Y. and May, H. R., Shearing strength of prestressed lift slabs, ACI Journal, October, 1958, pp 485-506. [2] Shehata, I. A., Punching of prestressed and non-prestressed reinforced concrete flat slabs, M Phil Thesis, Polytechnic of Central London, Sept, 1982. [3] Kinnunen, S., Nylander, H. and Tolf, P., Plattjocklekens inverkan p betongplattors hllfasthet vid genomstansning, Frsk med rektangulra plattor, Meddelande, nr. 137, Institutionen fr Byggnadsstatik, KTH, Stockholm, 1983. [4] Regan, P. E., Punching shear in prestressed concrete slab bridges, Structures Research Group, Polytechnic of Central London, Jan, 1983. [5] Gardner, N. J. and Kallage, R., Punching shear strength of continuous post-tensioned concrete flat plates, ACI Materials Journal, Vol. 95, no. 3, May, 1998, pp 272-283. [6] Norma Portuguesa NP ENV 1992-1-1: Eurocdigo 2: Projecto de Estruturas de Beto Parte 1.1: Regras Gerais e Regras para Edifcios (Eurocode 2 : Design of Concrete Structures - Part 1.1 : General Rules and Rules for Buildings), April, 1998. [7] Comit Euro-International du Bton: CEB-FIP - Model Code 1990, Bulletin dinformation n213/214, May, 1993. [8] Fdration Internationale de la Prcontrainte: Recommendations for the Design of Post-Tensioned Slabs and Foundation Rafts, May, 1998.