Lúcio, V.; Castilho, S.

; Behaviour of Hollow Core Slabs under

Point Loads; Proceedings of the 2nd fib Congress, Naples,
Italia, Jun. 2006.

Behaviour of Hollow Core Slabs under Point Loads

Lúcio, V.
UNIC - Centro de Investigação em Estruturas e Construção da Universidade Nova de Lisboa, Monte de Caparica,
2829-516 Caparica, Portugal; vlucio@fct.unl.pt.

Castilho, S.
Versor Consultas, Estudos e Projectos Lda, R. Prof. Veiga Ferreira, 21C, 1600-802 Lisboa, Portugal; versor@sapo.pt.

INTRODUCTION

Hollow core slabs are conceived to function mainly on the span direction that corresponds to the direction of
the ribs and the only reinforcement, the pretensioning steel. The behaviour of such a system under uniformly
distributed loadings is well known, however, point loads induce lateral bending and localized shear forces for
which the hollow core slab system is not designed for.
A point load causes transversal bending moments that may exceed the transversal cracking moment of the
slab, causing longitudinal cracking between the ribs bellow the applied load. Since there is no transversal
reinforcement in this slab system, the opening of these cracks is only controlled by the confinement of the
entire slab and supporting beams. The longitudinal crack influences the lateral distribution of the point load
between the adjacent ribs, and the most loaded ribs may end with a shear failure, leading to a punching
failure of the slab.
Point loads on hollow core slabs may occur due to
machinery supports, heavy load wheel transportation
vehicles in warehouses, indirect supports at openings
on hollow core slabs, between other situations.
Twenty seven tests on slab panel models were
performed with point loads at different positions over
the panels. The load was applied progressively up to
the slab failure due to punching. The cracking load due
to lateral bending was recorded, following the physical
separation of the slab in two longitudinal elements the
load was increased up to the shear failure of the
directly loaded ribs.
In this communication, the experimental results are
presented and compared with the predicted cracking
and failure loads given by the European Standard
prEN 1168 [1]. Figure 1 – Hollow core slabs.

Keywords: Hollow core slabs, precast concrete, prestressed concrete, experimental analysis.

STATE OF THE ART

There is not much research on this subject. The known published works on this subject are due to Aswad
and Jacques [2] and Stanton [3 and 4]. Aswad and Jacques [2] analyzed experimentally the effects of the
point loads on the edges of hollow core slab panels. They tested 25 slab panels and concluded that failure
happened by punching bellow the applied load, or by torsion of the slab near the supports.
Stanton [3] studied the transversal distribution of the point load effects between adjacent slab panels and
proposed a method for the quantification of the internal forces on ribbed precast structures. Later on, Stanton
[4] studied the effects of linear and concentrated loads on hollow core slabs and developed a numerical
method to quantify the shear forces distribution near the supports and the bending moment in the centre of
the slab panels.
The prEN 1168-1 - Precast Concrete products – Hollow core slabs [1], together with the Spanish code EFHE
Instructions for the design and production of unidirectional concrete slabs built with precast elements [5], are
the only standards dealing with the problem of transversal bending and shear failure due to point loads on
hollow core slabs. These two documents use the same formulation to quantify the transversal cracking load
and the punching resistance of the hollow core slabs.
The transversal cracking of the hollow core slab due to a point load does not lead to a failure of the slab, and
is considered as a serviceability limit state, whose characteristic load value shall not exceed the following:

Fk= 3 Wλ fctk0.05 (1)

Where Wλ is the smaller bending modulus of the transversal section and fctk0.05 is the lower characteristic
value of the concrete tensile strength. This limit corresponds to a maximum transversal bending moment
of: mt,k = Fk / 3.
The longitudinal crack reduces the capacity of the slab to distribute the shear force between the ribs adjacent
to the loading area. Consequently, the shear stresses in the ribs directly bellow the loading area increase
and the shear resistance is suddenly achieved. The corresponding load is usually named as “punching load”
and may be evaluated, according with the prEN 1168 [1], by the following expression:

VRd = beff h fctd (1 + 0,3 α σcp / fctd) (2)

Where beff stands for the
effective breadth of the webs
interested in the resistance
45º 45º mechanism, shown in Fig. 2,
fctd is the design value of the
concrete resistance in
tension, σcp is the mean
bw1 bw2 bw3 bw1 bw2 value of the compression
beff = bw1 + bw2 + bw3 beff = bw1 + bw2 stress on the concrete due to
a) General case b) Free edge prestress, and
α = lx / lpt2 ≤ 1 is the ratio
between the distance of the
section under consideration
45º 45º to the slab end (lx) and the
upper bound value of the
prestress transmission
length (lpt2), as defined in
bw1 bw2 bw3 bw1 bw2 6.2.2 of the Eurocode 2
beff = bw1 + bw2 + bw3 beff = bw1 + bw2
(EN1992-1-1) [6].
For point loads acting in a
c) General case with concrete topping d) Free edge with concrete topping free edge, the resistance
given by (2) shall be divided
Figure 2 – Effective webs breadth interested in the resistance mechanism.
by 2 if there is no prestress
reinforcement in the outmost rib or/and there is no transversal top reinforcement.

EXPERIMENTAL PROGRAM

An experimental program was developed in order to improve the understanding of the behaviour of hollow
core slabs under point loads. This program includes tests on single slab panels and a slab with four hollow
core panels supported on reinforced concrete edge beams. In this paper only the first tests are described
and analysed.
Twenty seven tests with point loads were performed on single hollow core panels. These tests had different
characteristics, namely: the relative position of the load in relation to the panel edge and to the slab support,
the dimension of the loaded area, the position of the load in relation to the ribs and the cores, and the
existence of cores cast in order strengthen the slab panel. The following table describes the sets of tests
performed.

2
 Position of the Position of the load
Number of load in the panel in the span Number of
Test sets Loaded area
cast cores In the Over the Near the tests
At mid span
centre edge support
a) - √ Over a rib 5
1st
b) 0,10 x 0,10m - √ Over a rib 3
set
c) - √ Over a core 3
2nd a) - √ Over a rib 4
0,10 x 0,10m
set b) - √ Over a core 3
3 rd
a) 0,15 x 0,15m - √ Over a rib 3
set
Over a cast
a) 2 √ 3
4th core
0,10 x 0,10m
set Over a cast
b) 4 √ 3
core

Table 1 – Parameters studied in the experimental analysis.

The test set with the load over a rib at the mid span and in the centre of the panel is the set used for
comparison with the remainder ones. In case 1c, load in the centre of the panel near the support, the load
was placed so that the clear distance between the loading plate and the supporting neoprene strip was equal
to the slab thickness, 200mm.

MODELS AND TEST ARRENGEMENT

The test layout is presented in Figg 3 to 5. The slab panel is supported along two lines 1.0m apart, leaving
0.50m of slab outside of the supports in order to have the full prestress transmitted from the steel to the
concrete on the testing area. One support line is fixed, allowing the rotation of the slab in the plane of the
ribs. The other support line, the rotation of the slab in the plane normal to the ribs is also allowed, by means
of a cylindrical hinge, in order to avoid torsion stresses in the slab. The load was applied through a loading
steel plate with dimensions 100x100x20mm or 150x150x20mm, by a steel beam and a pair of hydraulic
cylinders.

Load Cell CC2 Load Cell - CC1

Hydraulic Jack Hydraulic Jack

RRH 307 RRH 307

Loading plate
100x100x20 (mm)

Neoprene strip
0,10m width

Ø50 mm

High strength steel bar High strength steel bar

Dywidag Ø 26 Dywidag Ø 26

REACTION SLAB

Figure 3 – Test arrangement, front view.

3
 Load Cell - CC1
Hydraulic Jack
RRH 307

Fixed support
Ø50 mm

Loading plate
100x100x20 (mm)

(a) (b)
Figure 4 – Test arrangement: (a) plan, (b) lateral view.

Figure 5 – Test arrangement.

The slab panels used in the tests are 200mm thick, 1200mm wide and 2000mm long. The cross section
shape is shown in the following figure. The prestress was applied using 5mm high resistance steel wires, 45
in the bottom layers and 6 on the top one. The steel has the following mechanic characteristics:
fpk = 1770MPa; fp0,1k = 1470MPa; Ep = 200GPa. The average compression stress due to prestress after
losses was estimated in σcp = 6.5Mpa.

Figure 6 – Cross section of the hollow core slab.

4
The concrete of the slab panels and the concrete in the cores were tested and the following mean values
were adopted in the analysis:

fcm - mean compression resistance in cylinders fctm - mean tension resistance

Slabs without cast cores 50,2MPa 4,1MPa
Slabs with cast cores 54,6MPa 4,2MPa
Concrte of the cast cores 50,5MPa 4,1MPa

Table 2 –Concrete characteristics.

EXPERIMENTAL RESULTS

The test results are presented in Table 3 bellow. In the table it may be seen that some results were ignored
because the values were nonsense. In the situations where the load was applied near the panel edge there
was no longitudinal cracking (cases 2a, 2b and 4b), in some of the other cases it was not possible to
visualize the longitudinal cracking, and the correspondent load value was not recorded.
Because de span is very small and the model very stiff, the deflections were negligible and were measured
only on the first test. The typical load evolution is shown in Fig. 7, where it may be seen that after the
longitudinal cracking the stiffness of the model drops, but the failure occurs by shear failure of the ribs
directly loaded.

Cracking load [kN] Failure load [kN]

Load position Test case
Partial Mean Partial Mean
values values values values
133,4 147,6
119,5 129,7
Mid span - 149,0
over a rib 1a 136,7 143,2
- 140,8
Middle of the panel

85,9 90,1
157,3 149,1
134,6 104,7
Near the support
1b 146,7 136,5 118,9 109,5
over a rib
128,3 104,9
- 134,5
Mid span
1c 145,4 141,1 154,0 146,2
over a core
136,8 150,0
46,1 173,7
Mid span - 165,0
2a - 163,5
Panel edge

over a rib - 153,5

- 161,9
- 176,7
Near the support
2b - - 170,1 171,6
over a rib
- 168,0
124,0 148,7
Middle
of the
panel

Mid span
3a 108,6 126,9 162,7 160,0
over a rib
148,0 168,5
207,2 191,7
Middle
of the
panel

Mid span
4a 128,0 166,4 193,9 195,2
over a cast core
164,0 200,0
- 214,4
Panel

Mid span
edge

4b 217,8 - 179,3 203,3

over a cast core
- 216,1
Note: all testes were performed with a loading plate 100x100x20mm except the set 3a,
where the loading plate was 150x150x20mm.

Table 3 –Test results.

5
 Cracking Cracking
load Shear
load
failure
Shear
failure

Load step Load step

Figure 7 – Load evolution of a test 1a. Figure 8 – Load evolution of a test 1b.

In the case 1b, load near the support, the cracking load reduced significantly the stiffness of the model and
the shear failure occurred for a lower value than the cracking load mainly because the shear failure occurred
in only one side of the rib, the nearest to the support, where the shear stresses are much higher. This fact
shows that the failure load may be lower than the cracking load, and that the punching resistance depends
on the position of the load in relation to the supports since both sides of the ribs may be unevenly loaded.
Figures 9 to 11 show typical cracking and shear failure pictures observed in the tests.

LONGITUDINAL
CRACK

Figure 9 – Crack due to transversal bending. Figure 10 – Top view of the shear failure.

Figure 11 –Shear failure in a rib.

6
The predicted values for the cracking force, according to prEN 1168 [1] (see expression 1) and considering
the mean value of the concrete tensile strength, are presented in Table 4. There, the ratio between the
experimental load and the predicted one is calculated and it shows a nearly constant value of about 2.3,
except for the cases with cast cores where this value is about 2.

Ftest Fm (prEN1168)
Test case Ftest / Fm
[kN] [kN]
a 136,7 58,6 2,33
1 b 136,5 58,6 2,33
c 141,1 58,6 2,41
3 a 126,9 58,6 2,16
4 a 166,4 84,1 1,98

Table 4 – Comparison of the test results with the predicted [1] values for the cracking load.

The estimated punching resistance [1] (see expression 2) is compared with the test results in the next table.
The ratio between the experimental values and the predicted ones are, in most cases, over 1.0, what means
that the predicted values are safe. Exceptions are for the most general situation where the load is away from
the panel edge and from the supports (case 1a), and the case 1b where the load is near the support in the
middle of the panel. Such an unsafe value was not obtained in case 2b where the load is near the support at
the edge of the panel.
In Table 5, the values obtained with expression (2) for the punching resistance at the edges (cases 2a, 2b
and 4b) were not divided by 2, as recommended in [1], nevertheless, for design purposes this
recommendation shall be considered to avoid local failure of the edges due to other phenomena not
considered.
The values of the punching resistance of cases 4, with cast cores, were obtained by adding to the punching
resistance given by (1), the value correspondent to the shear resistance of the filled core given in
prEN 1168 [1]:

ΔVRd,core = 2/3 bc d fctd (3)

Where bc is the width of the core and d is the effective depth of the lower layer of the prestressing steel. It is
interesting to observe that strengthening the slab, by filling the cores with structural concrete, may increase
the resistance to punching failure by nearly 30%.

VRtest VRm (prEN1168)

Test case VRtest / VRm
[kN] [kN]
a 143,2 160,5 0,89
1 b 109,5 160,5 0,68

c 146,2 109,0 1,34

a 163,5 120,9 1,35

2
b 171,6 120,9 1,42
3 a 160,0 163,4 0,98

a 195,2 152.7 1,28

4
b 203,3 164.8 1,23
Note: disregarding the recommended in [1], the values of the punching resistance at the
edges were not divided by 2 (cases 2a, 2b and 4b).
Table 5 – Comparison of the test results with the predicted [1] values for the punching load.

7
CONCLUSIONS

This communication presents the experimental research developed on the behaviour of hollow core slabs
under point loads. Twenty seven tests on single panel slabs were done and the results analysed and
compared with the values proposed by the prEN 1168 [1].
It was observed that, in general, the transversal bending of the slab due to point loads, away from the panel
edges, causes a longitudinal crack on the bottom of the slab. This crack does not correspond to the slab
failure, but corresponds to a serviceability limit state. In consequence of the loss of lateral continuity of the
slab, the shear stresses increase rapidly in the ribs under the load and the shear failure takes place. Point
loads at panel edges do not cause longitudinal cracks, as transversal bending moments are zero near the
edges.
The formulation used in [1] to quantify the cracking load was found to have a safety factor of 2 in relation to
the test results of the present work. The formulation for the quantification of the punching resistance is, in
general, on the safe side, but, for cases where the load is applied away from the panel edges, the test
results presented lower values than the predicted ones.
The strengthening of the slab, by casting the cores directly loaded with concrete, was tested and the results
showed an increase on the punching resistance of about 30%.
The present research goes on with the experimental analysis of a slab with four hollow core panels
supported on edge beams, in order to study the effect of the confinement of the edge beams on the cracking
and punching load.

The present research program is sponsored by the company Secil Prébetão SA and Fundação para a
Ciência e Tecnologia through the research program POCTI.

REFERENCES

1. CEN, prEN1168-1 – “Precast Concrete products – Hollow core slabs”, April 2003.
2. Alex Aswad, Ph.D., P.E.; Francis J.Jacques, P.E. – “Behaviour of Hollow-Core Slabs Subject to Edge
Loads”, PCI Journal, V37 No2, March - April 1992. p. 153-203.
3. John F. Stanton, M. ASCE – “Point Loads on Precast Concrete Floors”, Journal of Structural
Engineering, V109. 11 November 1983.
4. John F. Stanton, Ph.D. – “Response of Hollow-Core Slab Floors to Concentrated Loads”, PCI Journal,
V37 No4, July – August 1992. p. 98-113.
5. EFHE - Instrucción para el proyecto y la ejecución de forjados unidireccionales de hormigón estrutural
realizados con elementos prefabricados, Real Decreto 642/2002 of 5th July.
6. CEN, EN 1992-1-1 – “Eurocódigo 2: Design of concrete structures – Part 1: General rules and rules for
buildings”, December 2004.