Академический Документы
Профессиональный Документы
Культура Документы
Three slab-column connections were tested to investigate the provide valuable information about the reinforcement’s
moment redistribution and punching shear resistance of flat effect on the moment redistribution limit and punching shear
plates under realistic loading and boundary conditions. The test strength of a flat-plate structure.
specimens were essentially identical except that they had different
reinforcement layouts within a span to impose different ratios of the DESIGN CODES
end span and midspan design moments to total static moment. The ACI 318-081
test results showed that the different reinforcement layouts signifi-
In ACI 318-08,1 a limited moment redistribution of the end
cantly and minutely influenced the moment redistribution and the
punching shear resistance, respectively. The moment redistribu- span and midspan factored bending moments is permitted.
tion and punching shear resistance provisions in ACI 318 and EC2 The redistribution of the moments based on elastic theory
were used to analyze the test results. New code recommendations has to be less than
for moment redistribution limit and punching shear strength are
proposed based on the novel findings of this study. 1000 e t (%) ≤ 20(%) (1)
Keywords: flat plates; moment redistribution; punching shear; span
reinforcement layout. where εt is the net tensile strain in the extreme layer of the
longitudinal tension reinforcement.
INTRODUCTION For concentric punching shear, the design shear equation
Experimental research on punching resistance of flat of VACI is a function of the concrete compressive strength
plates has been ongoing since the middle of the last century. fc′; the control perimeter length bo of a critical section (at a
Design methods in building codes to calculate the punching distance of d/2 from the face of the column); and the effec-
resistance of flat plates are based on the results of this tive flexural depth of the slab, d. When both the ratio of the
research. As shown in Fig. 1(a), two test setups for flat plates long side to the short side of the column and the ratio of
under a gravity load have been used. One is a slab supported
by hinges with a concentrated load and the other is a slab
supported on a column stub with a uniform surface load.
These ordinary test setups are inexpensive and simple, but
they have the drawbacks of not being able to simulate actual
moment redistribution and boundary conditions of a flat-plate
system. In the newly proposed method shown in Fig. 1(b),
gravity loading and edge restraint systems were installed to
simulate actual moment redistribution and boundary condi-
tions. This setup is much more complex but successful in
simulating both moment redistribution and punching shear
behaviors of a flat-plate system.
Flat-plate specimens with three different reinforcement
layouts over a single span were tested in this study. The
main objectives of the study were as follows: 1) find out the
moment redistribution and punching shear of a flat plate with
different reinforcement layouts within a span; and 2) verify
ACI 318 and EC2 design provisions on the limits of moment
redistribution and punching shear strength.
RESEARCH SIGNIFICANCE
A previous ordinary slab-column test method only simu-
lated the negative flexural behavior of a slab without consid- Fig. 1—Setups for slab-column test.
ering moment redistribution behavior. The newly proposed
test method, however, applies realistic boundary conditions
to a flat-plate system that simulates the actual moment redis- ACI Structural Journal, V. 109, No. 3, May-June 2012.
tribution and punching shear behaviors of the structure. MS No. S-2010-077.R3 received May 26, 2011, and reviewed under Institute
publication policies. Copyright © 2012, American Concrete Institute. All rights
To study the effects of different bending moment ratios in reserved, including the making of copies unless permission is obtained from the
the end spans and midspans, three different reinforcement copyright proprietors. Pertinent discussion including author’s closure, if any, will be
published in the March-April 2013 ACI Structural Journal if the discussion is received
layouts in the slab were considered. The study results will by November 1, 2012.
the control perimeter to the effective depth are sufficiently where u1 is the control perimeter length of a critical section
small, the punching shear strength is (at a distance of 2d from the face of the column). The tension
reinforcement ratio ρ can be computed as a mean value by
1 assuming that a slab width equals the column width plus 3d on
VACI = l fc′bo d (in SI units; MPa, mm)
3 (2) both sides. Additionally, the size effect factor k can be calcu-
VACI = 4l fc′bo d (in U.S. customary units; psi, in.) lated using k = 1 + 200 mm/d (or k = 1 + 7.87 in./d ) ≤ 2.
LITERATURE REVIEW
where λ is the modification factor for lightweight concrete, The slab-column systems for edge panels were tested by
taken as unity for normalweight concrete. If the average Rangan and Hall.3 In the test, all reinforcements yielded
splitting tensile strength fct of lightweight concrete is speci- and the bending moment of the test slabs was fully redis-
fied, λ can be substituted by fct/(0.56√fc′) ≤ 1.0 in SI units tributed before punching shear failure occurred. The test
(or fct/(6.7√fc′) ≤ 1.0 in U.S. customary units). Equation (2) results4 showed that between the uncracked state and the
then becomes maximum load state there was a considerable redistribution
of moments, with the midspan and two end-span moments
3 varying by approximately 50%. The tests also showed that
VACI ,ct = fct bo d (in both SI and U.S. customary units) (3) near maximum load capacities, the moment redistribution is
5 controlled largely by the reinforcement layout implemented
by the designer.
For punching shear strength, the ACI 318 equation
Eurocode 22 (Eq. (2)) is often criticized for failing to account for the
According to EC2, for concrete compressive strength contributions of flexural reinforcements. The CEB-FIP Task
fc′ ≤ 50 MPa (7.3 ksi), the redistribution of bending moments Group5 showed that the punching shear strength is reduced
can be implemented in design without explicitly checking with a decreasing tension reinforcement ratio in a punching
the rotation capacity provided that shear zone, and this finding was verified by the test reports of
Collins and Kuchma6 and Guandalini et al.7 In addition, their
δ ≥ (k1 + k2 xu / d ) test results demonstrated that the ACI 318 shear equation,
which does not account for the tension reinforcement ratio,
δ ≥ k5 where Class B and C reinforcements are used (4) may lead to a less conservative estimate of the punching
(refer to Annex C in EC2) shear strength for slabs with low reinforcement ratios.
EXPERIMENTAL PROGRAM
Design of test slabs
The current ACI 318 design code states that the flexural
strength VF varies approximately in proportion to the tension
reinforcement ratio, whereas the punching shear strength
VP does not correlate with the tension reinforcement ratio.
Thus, the flexural and punching failure lines can be repre-
sented by a diagonal line (a-a′) and a horizontal line (b-b′),
respectively (Fig. 2). The intersection of the diagonal and
horizontal lines is the transition point (c), which marks the
change in behavior from ductile failure to brittle failure of a
flat plate.
The design of the test slabs in this study focused on the
transition point such that the flexural and punching fail-
ures can occur simultaneously. The punching shear load
was calculated for the test slabs according to ACI 318-08
(Eq. (2)) and converted to the load distributed on the test
Fig. 2—Test slab design concept. slabs. A total static moment Mo was then obtained from a free
body diagram. All of the specimens were designed to have (200 kip) hydraulic jack and was measured by a vertical load
an equal total static moment Mo, but the distribution ratios cell (L1). This load was transferred to the gravity loading
of the end-span and midspan moments to the total static system, which was installed to simulate the gravity loading
moment were varied by assigning different span reinforce- condition of the slab via 16 loading points. The gravity
ment layouts. As shown in Table 1, the distribution ratios of loading system consisted of 16 vertical tie rods (φ19 mm
the end-span and midspan moments for MRA (the control [0.75 in.]) connected to each loading point, eight horizontal
specimen) were set at 65% and 35%, respectively. The hollow steel sections (HSS, 100 x 200 x 5 mm [3.94 x 7.87 x
distribution ratios of the end-span and midspan moments for 0.2 in.]), four horizontal HSS (150 x 150 x 9.5 mm [5.91 x
MRB and MRC (the parametric specimens) were then set at 5.91 x 0.37 in.]), and four vertical tie rods (φ25 mm [0.98 in.]
50% and 50% and at 35% and 65%, respectively. rods). Four vertical tie rods were anchored to the strong floor
For the design, a concrete compressive strength and and four vertical load cells (L2 to L5) were placed at each
reinforcement yield strength of 30 and 400 MPa (4351 and anchorage to measure the reaction forces. All of the joints
58,000 psi) were used, respectively. The material proper- of the gravity loading system were connected using pins.
ties of the reinforcement and the concrete (normalweight Thus, the applied gravity load was equally distributed to
concrete) tested just prior to the structural experiment are the 16 loading points on the test slab.
summarized in Table 2. Ideally, the slab under gravity load should produce a
non-zero deflection (DZ ≠ 0) and a zero rotation (Ry = 0) at
Geometry and reinforcement midspan, as shown in Fig. 1(b). To simulate the boundary
The test specimens consisted of a 4200 mm (165.4 in.) conditions at midspan, the edge restraint system was
square slab and a 356 mm (14 in.) square column with a mounted on the top of the test slab using eight independent
slab thickness of 152 mm (6 in.). The cover thickness for the frame-type assemblies. Each assembly consisted of two rect-
top and bottom bars of the test slab was 20 mm (0.79 in.), angular HSS (160 x 160 x 10 mm [6.30 x 6.30 x 0.39 in.])
and the effective depths of the end spans and midspans and a horizontal tie rod (φ25 mm [0.98 in.]) to connect them.
were 116 and 121 mm (4.57 and 4.76 in.), respectively. The tie rod was equipped with a horizontal load cell (L6 to
The flexural reinforcement layouts of each test slab are L13) to measure the midspan moment (=Ph × Lo; refer to
shown in Fig. 3. To satisfy the design requirements for end- Fig. 1(b)).
span moments, 15M (φ16 mm [0.63 in.]) top bars were used Four sets of vertical extension arms were attached to
within the width of the column strip. To meet the integrity the north and south edges of the test slab. Two horizontal
requirement of the steel, two 10M (φ11.3 mm [0.44 in.]) linear variable differential transformers (LVDTs) for
bottom bars were passed through the column, and the each set (D11 to D18) were installed at 305 and 686 mm
remaining bottom bars were placed with equal spacing over (12 and 27 in.) below the center of the slab section. Wires
the width of the design strip to satisfy the design midspan were strung between the LVDTs to measure the rotation
moments. For anchorage, both ends of the top bars were of the test slab. Furthermore, to measure the strain of the
extended by 25 mm (0.98 in.) and both ends of the bottom reinforcements, 55 embedded strain gauges were attached to
bars were welded to the 75 x 75 x 9 mm (2.95 x 2.95 x the bars, as shown in Fig. 3.
0.35 in.) steel plates.
Experimental procedure
Setup and instrumentation The experimental procedure was as follows:
The test setup is shown in Fig. 4. The load was applied from 1. The first loading was the application of a small amount
below by pushing the lower column upward using a 890 kN of pretension load to the horizontal tie rods in the edge
Moment distribution
The tensile forces of ties in the edge restraint system were
obtained from the measurements of the horizontal load cells
(L6 to L13). The moment M+ at the slab edge was calculated
by multiplying the tensile force Ph by the height Lo from the
ties to the center of the slab section (Fig. 1(b)), and the end-
span moment M– at the column face was then calculated by
subtracting the slab-edge moment M+ from the total static
moment Mo. The end-span and slab-edge moments were
nondimensionalized by dividing them by the total static
moment. These values are shown in Fig. 7, where the sum of
the ratios M–/Mo and M+/Mo is unity.
The test results showed that the moment ratios varied from
the uncracked state to the punching failure state. For all test
slabs, an M–/Mo ratio of approximately 0.77 was obtained Fig. 7—Moment distribution.
Fig. 10—Relationship between test slab width and actual slab span.
Reinforcement strain
The strains of all reinforcements marked in Fig. 3 were Fig. 11—Reinforcement strain of MRA test slab.
measured. Large reinforcement strains generally occurred
at the top or bottom region of the test slab where less occurred at the bottom surface near the edge. Near punching
reinforcement was used (for example, the top reinforce- shear failure, the bending moment profile along the span was
ments in the MRC slab and the bottom reinforcements in controlled by concrete cracking and reinforcement yielding.
the MRA slab). For the top reinforcements at the end span, When punching failure load was reached, the moment
the first reinforcement yield was observed at approximately redistribution from the end span to the edge of the MRA,
85% of the punching load, but some reinforcements still had MRB, and MRC slabs was approximately 3%, 9%, and
not yielded when the punching failure load was reached. 23%, respectively, compared to the uncracked state. It can
To compare the common trend of reinforcement strain, the therefore be concluded that moment redistribution is largely
average values for the reinforcements at the end span and controlled by the reinforcement layout within the slab span.
the slab edge are plotted in Fig. 11. The strain of the bottom
reinforcements at the slab edge was much lower than the Effect of ratio of punching and flexural strength
strain of the top reinforcements at the end span, which is MRB and MRC were designed to have 23% and 46%
mainly due to the imperfection in the edge restraint system. moment redistributions, respectively. At the failure state,
No bottom reinforcement at the slab edge yielded in any of however, the redistributions of MRB and MRC were only 9%
the specimens because the reinforcement strain at the edge and 23%, respectively, which were far less than the design
of the slab specimen was approximately 55% (=0.194/0.35; values. These differences can be attributed to insignificant
compare with Fig. 10) of the strain at the midspan of the differences in punching shear strength and flexural strength
actual slab. of the designed specimens, which were designed to fail in
a quasi-brittle manner. The ratios of the nominal punching
Cracking pattern shear strength to the nominal flexural strength (VP/VF) calcu-
The top and bottom surface cracks were measured as the lated according to ACI 318 for MRB and MRC were 1.00 and
load increased and are shown at punching failure in Fig. 12. 1.03, respectively, and all specimens failed in punching shear
Each slab specimen showed a different number and width of mode prior to full yielding of the reinforcements.
cracks according to the reinforcement layouts. More cracks These results contradicted the results found in Rangan
were observed at the top or bottom surfaces of the slab spec- and Hall’s4 study. Rangan and Hall’s4 test showed that there
imen where more reinforcements were placed, but the crack was a considerable redistribution of moment, approximately
widths were much smaller. The maximum crack widths 50%, and the moment distribution ratio at the failure state
for the top surface near the column were approximately almost equaled the design values. In Rangan and Hall’s4 test,
0.15, 0.2, and 0.3 mm (0.0059, 0.0079, and 0.0118 in.) for the nominal strength ratios were 1.50, 1.57, and 2.10 for
MRA, MRB, and MRC, respectively, at the end of the first Models 3, 4, and 5, respectively, with all of the reinforce-
cyclic load step, which simulated service load conditions. ments in the end span yielding before punching shear
These values satisfied allowable crack width limits of 0.3 or failure. The difference between the results of this test and
0.4 mm (0.0118 or 0.0157 in.) specified by EC2. For the Rangan and Hall’s4 test indicates that the moment redistribu-
punching failure angle, the test slab with more top reinforce- tion limit is directly associated with VP/VF. When VP/VF is
ments near the column had steeper failure angles of approxi- small, premature punching shear failure can occur before the
mately 33, 27.5, and 24.5 degrees for MRA, MRB, and design moment redistribution capacity is reached.
MRC, respectively. ACI 318 and EC2 ensure ductile behavior and restrict
brittle failure by assigning different safety factors for member
MOMENT REDISTRIBUTION and material strengths. In ACI 318, member safety factors of
Effect of reinforcement layouts within span 0.9 for flexure and 0.75 for shear are given. In EC2, material
During the test, concrete cracking initiated at the top safety factors of 1.15 for reinforcement and 1.5 for concrete
surface of the slab near the column. Due to this cracking, are given. Thus, VP/VF of the slabs designed according to
moment redistributions of approximately 9%, 12%, and 18% ACI 318 and EC2 are approximately 1.2 (=0.9/0.75) and 1.3
occurred for MRA, MRB, and MRC, respectively, from the (=1.5/1.15), respectively. The ACI 318 and EC2 codes cited
end span to the edge of the slab. After the initial moment limit the redistribution of factored bending moments by 20%
redistribution, a secondary redistribution from the slab and 30%, respectively, and these limits might be conserva-
edge to the end span was observed when concrete cracking tive due to the assignment of safety factors.
Shear Behavior of Self-Consolidating Concrete Beams. Paper by Chien-Hung Lin and Jiunn-Hung Chen
Discussion by Mahdi Arezoumandi and Jeffery S. Volz
ACI members, Missouri University of Science and Technology, Rolla, MO
The authors should be complimented on their pursuit of Table 10—et for beams
the issue of shear strength in self-consolidating concrete
Specimen No. et
(SCC)—a topic worthy of considerable research given
the benefits of SCC within the construction industry. N1 0.0021
However, their conclusions need to be tempered due to N2 0.0030
the very high longitudinal reinforcement ratio used in all N3 0.0035
of their specimens: 4.67%. This amount of longitudinal
reinforcement fails to meet the limitations of ACI 318-08, N4 0.0030
Section 10.3.5,16 as shown in Table 10, even accounting for N5 0.0029
the compression steel (et at nominal strength shall not be less
N6 0.0029
than 0.004). Furthermore, as noted in the literature,16,20-24 the
amount of longitudinal reinforcement has a significant effect N7 0.0029
on the concrete contribution to shear strength, as shown in N8 0.0029
Fig. 5. With such high amounts of flexural reinforcement,
S11 0.0024
the neutral axis is much lower at failure, increasing the
shear strength contribution within the uncracked compres- S12 0.0029
sion zone, as well as increasing dowel action and poten- S13 0.0035
tially aggregate interlock effects due to smaller shear crack
widths. To state that the ACI equations are “quite conser- S14 0.0029
vative” neglects the fact that these equations are not neces- S15 0.0030
sarily applicable at this high level of longitudinal reinforce- S16 0.0031
ment, particularly because ACI 318-0816 places an upper
bound of (3.5√fc′)bwd on Eq. (11-5)—herein Eq. (5)—and a S17 0.0029
significant amount of previous test data fall well above this S18 0.0030
limit. Furthermore, as shown in Fig. 5, shear test data has
S21 0.0022
significant scatter, and design equations must account for
this significant variation in test results. Instead of comparing S22 0.0032
the test results with the ACI equations, the authors should S23 0.0035
compare the results with the wealth of shear test data avail-
S24 0.0029
able in the literature. The authors should also normalize the
test results when comparing the different mixtures to remove S25 0.0029
the effect of differences in concrete strengths. S26 0.0030
The authors also state that the concrete contribution to
shear strength—in this case, taken as the diagonal cracking S27 0.0029
strength—is similar between beams both with and without S28 0.0029
web reinforcement. However, numerous researchers have
noted that the concrete contribution to shear strength increases
in the presence of transverse reinforcement,25-27 where it
is often referred to as the “concrete contribution to shear
strength in the presence of transverse reinforcement.”
Furthermore, the concrete contribution to shear strength for
members without transverse reinforcement is often higher
than that which initiates diagonal cracking. For instance,
the Modified Compression Field Theory accounts for the
concrete contribution to shear strength at the ultimate condi-
tion, not at the condition that causes diagonal cracking.
To compare the shear performance of different types of
concrete, it would have been more informative to test beams
without shear reinforcement to compare the relative shear
strengths of the different mixtures.
REFERENCES
28. Roller, J. J., and Russell, H. G., “Shear Strength of High‐Strength
Concrete Beams with Web Reinforcement,” ACI Structural Journal, V. 87,
No. 2, Mar.‐Apr. 1990, pp. 191‐198.
29. Lee, J.‐Y.; Choi, I.‐J.; and Kim, S.‐W., “Shear Behavior of Reinforced
Concrete Beams with High‐Strength Stirrups,” ACI Structural Journal,
V. 108, No. 5, Sept.‐Oct. 2011, pp. 620‐629.
30. Kong, P. Y. L., and Rangan, B. V., “Shear Strength of High‐
Performance Concrete Beams,” ACI Structural Journal, V. 95, No. 6, Nov.‐
Dec. 1998, pp. 677‐688.
31. Ahmad, S. H.; Khaloo, A. R.; and Poveda, A., “Shear Capacity of
Reinforced High‐Strength Concrete Beams,” ACI Journal, V. 83, No. 2,
Mar.‐Apr. 1986, pp. 297‐305.
32. Joint ACI-ASCE Committee 426, “The Shear Strength of Reinforced
Fig. 6—Influence of longitudinal reinforcement ratio on Concrete Members,” Journal of the Structural Division, ASCE, V. 99,
dimension-free shear force.23 (Note: 1 MPa = 0.145 ksi.) No. ST6, June 1973, pp. 1091‐1187.
Behavior of Circular and Square Reinforced Concrete Bridge Columns under Combined Loading Including
Torsion. Paper by S. Suriya Prakash, Qian Li, and Abdeldjelil Belarbi
Discussion by Andor Windisch
ACI member, PhD, Karlsfeld, Germany
The authors report on an experimental study investigating core and the concrete cover are indifferent for the behavior of
the effect of different cross-sectional shapes, hysteretic the member. The dowel action of the longitudinal reinforcing
torsional and flexural response, damage distribution, and bars (encased in the load studs) yields an important contribu-
ductility characteristics with respect to various torsion-to- tion to the torsional stiffness of the column at high cycles, as
bending-moment ratios. correctly referred to by the authors. The stiffness degradation
The authors are right: “understanding the behavior of during cyclic loading does not occur due to the softening of
members subjected to pure torsion is necessary for a gener- any member of the truss (least of all the concrete strut), but
alized analysis of members…”; therefore, the discusser deals instead by “softening” of the bond between the reinforcing
herein with the results and conclusions concerning the tests bar and the surrounding concrete.
in pure torsion only. (An axial load equivalent to 7% of the
axial concrete capacity of columns should be kept in mind.) Square column
When comparing the reinforcement patterns of the The crack pattern shown in Fig. 6-(1) reveals angles of
columns tested in pure torsion, the following comments can diagonal cracks of approximately 45 degrees (and not
be made: approximately 40 to 42 degrees, as reported by the authors).
• The effective patterns of the longitudinal reinforcement A comparison of the damage patterns under peak torsional
are quite different. The 12 diameters of 28 mm (No. 9) moment of the circular versus square columns, as shown in
in the circular cross section are all equally efficient; Fig. 6(a)-(2) and Fig. 6(b)-(2), respectively, reveals the differ-
however, a small contradiction can be detected—the ence in the behavior of the longitudinal reinforcing bars. The
diameters of the longitudinal reinforcing bars are 25 mm four reinforcing bars in the corners of the square column let
(No. 8) in Fig. 1(a) and 28 mm (No. 9) in Fig. 1(c). the concrete cover spall rather quickly during the loading
Please clarify. In the case of the square cross section, process (these are taken along with the other parts of the
the 28 mm (No. 9) reinforcing bars in the corners are concrete cover). Longitudinal reinforcement of the circular
less efficient than the two 25 mm (No. 8) reinforcing column let the concrete cover fail along substantial regions.
bars along each side as, during the first loading phase, Considerable parts of the concrete cover remain attached to
the inclined cracks propagate relatively delayed to the the specimen even if loosened.
corners (refer to the elastic shear-stress pattern—in the At both columns, the reason for the torsional plastic hinge
corners, the shear stresses are zero), whereas in the case formed near midheight of the specimens might be the influ-
of the circular cross section, the shear stress is constant ence of the straight and stiff anchorage of the longitudinal
along the perimeter of the cross section; hence, each bars into the load stubs on the top and bottom.
longitudinal reinforcing bar becomes equally efficient. The measured failure moments given in Table 3 and
• The rates of transverse versus longitudinal reinforcement shown in Fig. 5 are different—why? The circular test spec-
are quite different: imen with a spiral ratio of 1.32% referred to in Table 3 is
◦◦ In the case of the circular column, the ratio is not mentioned in the text of this paper. In a former paper,
0.837/4.45 = 0.188. Prakash et al. (2008) report on torsion tests with circular
◦◦ At the square cross section, the ratio is 0.776/2.60 columns with a spiral ratio of 1.32%, but the longitudinal
= 0.298. Note: in the square cross section, square reinforcement consisted of reinforcing bars with a diameter
and octagonal ties—9 and 82 mm (0.35 and of 25 mm (No. 8) instead of a diameter of 28 mm (No. 9)
3.23 in.) each—are placed, but their efficiencies in the test presented in the paper. Therefore, the two results
are different. This means that the rate is actually presented in Table 3 are not comparable. Please clarify.
much higher. This makes a comparison between the Comparing the reinforcement patterns and the failure
different cross-section shapes more difficult. moments in pure torsion for the circular columns dealt with
in the paper and in Prakash et al. (2008) (the data shown
Circular column in the hysteresis curves are considered), the calculations in
The crack pattern shown in Fig. 6-(1) reveals angles of Table 4 are found.
diagonal cracks of approximately 45 degrees (and not The measured failure moments (7) are nearly identical.
approximately 40 degrees, as reported by the authors). The difference between the sums of relative yield forces
The authors’ model attaches great importance to the core (5) can be neglected, whereas the concrete strengths are
concrete and the confinement effect of the spirals. The significantly different. This should emphasize that the
discusser means that the case is actually the opposite: the behavior is governed by the reinforcement and not by any
concrete core makes the stirrups elongate (this is called concrete-related issues (outer bond).
“locking” by the authors) and, after spalling of the cover The authors are encouraged to continue their efforts for a
(caused by the helix during unlocking loading), the helix is better understanding of the behavior of structural members
not efficient in tension. Any strength issues of the concrete under combined loading conditions.
to the closing action of spiral reinforcement (similar to a verse reinforcement, which caused the torsional stiffness and
spring coil under twisting) and unlocking refers to opening rigidity redistribution along the columns.
of spiral reinforcement. During the locking mechanism, the
spiral exerts a confinement pressure on the core concrete. Specimen details and measured failure moments
The authors also acknowledge the influence of dowel action The discusser pointed out that the specimen details in the
of longitudinal bars and softening of the bond between paper contradicted those in a previous paper (Prakash et al.
reinforcing bar and the surrounding concrete in torsional 2008); he also observed that the measured failure moments
stiffness contribution and its degradation, as correctly given in Table 3 were different from the ones shown in
pointed out by the discusser. Fig. 5 in the paper. There is a typo in Table 3 in comparison
of results. The values of flexural capacity of the circular
Angles of diagonal cracks and concrete cover columns were wrongly reported as torsional capacities.
spalling in square column The correct values of the torsional capacities are given in
The discusser pointed out that the crack pattern in the Table 6 and are in agreement with Fig. 5. The authors would
square column, as shown in Fig. 6-(1), reveals approximately like to thank the discusser for having pointed out this error.
45 degrees, which contradicted the approximation of 40 to As discussed previously, all the circular columns had
42 degrees, as reported by the authors. However, the angle of 25 mm (No. 8) longitudinal bars. Please refer to the afore-
cracks was measured to be in the range of 40 to 42 degrees at mentioned reply for comments on the reinforcement ratio
different locations at the yielding of transverse tie reinforce- for further clarification. The specimens reported on by
ment in this column. The four longitudinal reinforcing bars in Prakash et al. (2008), as referred to by the discusser, had
the corners of the square columns did amplify the spalling of an aspect ratio (H/D) of 3. The paper discusses the results
the concrete cover, as indicated by the discusser. In addition, of specimens with an H/D of 6, except for one specimen
the significant concrete cover spalling in the square cross (H/D(3)-T/M(∞)), which was tested under pure torsion,
section was also caused by the bending effect in the concrete where the influence of H/D can be considered as minimum.
strut, which was defined as the “warping effect.” However, Specimen H/D(3)-T/M(∞), which was tested under pure
due to smooth shear flow in circular columns, considerable torsion, was used for comparison due to similar transverse
parts of the concrete cover adhered to the specimen even at reinforcement ratios.
the end of testing on complete failure. In addition, Specimens M/V(0)-T/M(∞) and H/D(3)-T/M(∞),
tested under pure torsion and referred to in Prakash et al.
Location of torsional plastic hinge (2008) and the paper, are the same. The concrete strength of
The discusser correctly pointed out the influence of rigid this specimen is 28 MPa (4061 psi) (refer to Table 5). The
boundary conditions from load stubs and stiff anchorage measured failure moments will also be the same, as indi-
of longitudinal bars on the formation of a torsional plastic cated in Table 6.
hinge near midheight of the specimens. In addition, the
square column with ties obtained more localized damage REFERENCES
distribution and lower height of plastic hinge location due CALTRANS, 2000, “Bridge Design Specifications,” LFD version,
to a greater warping effect and less confinement of trans- California Department of Transportation, Sacramento, CA.
Experimental Investigations on Moment Redistribution and Punching Shear of Flat Plates. Paper by Jung-
Wook Choi and Jang-Ho Jay Kim
Discussion by Adrian E. Long and G. I. B. Rankin
FACI, School of Planning, Architecture and Civil Engineering, Queen’s University, Belfast, UK; School of Planning, Architecture and Civil Engineering, Queen’s University
The authors of this paper are to be complimented on tests,10 edge and interior column tests,11 and unbonded post-
having carried out tests on the punching resistance of slab- tensioned slab-column tests.12,13
column junctions with more realistic boundary conditions In his PhD research, Long8 realized that the strengths
than conventional punching tests so that the effects of of full-panel interior column tests with realistic boundary
moment redistribution can be taken into account. conditions were not only enhanced by moment redistribution
However, the authors will be interested to know that their but were also enhanced by compressive membrane action
test setup is almost identical to that used by Long8 for slab- (CMA). However, the extent of the CMA enhancement only
column junctions subjected to shear and moment transfer. became apparent when further research was carried out by
Full details of the method of testing are given by Long Masterson and Long.14
and Masterson9 and a figure from this paper is reproduced Two subsequent papers by Rankin and Long15,16 contrast
in Fig. 13. Subsequently, this means of restraining the the results for conventional slab-column specimens with
boundaries of slabs was used for edge column punching those for specimens representing full panels of a flat-plate
system. It would be of interest to know whether the authors 12. Franklin, S. O., and Long, A. E., “The Punching Behaviour of Un-
noted any such enhancing effects in their tests. Bonded Post-Tensioned Flat Plates,” Proceedings of the Institution Civil
Engineers, Part 2, V. 73, Sept. 1982, pp. 6409-6431.
13. Cleland, D. J., and Long, A. E., “Post-Tensioned Concrete Flat Slabs
REFERENCES at Edge Columns,” ACI Materials Journal, V. 90, No. 3, May-June 1993,
8. Long, A. E., “Punching Failure of Reinforced Concrete Slabs,” PhD
pp. 207-213.
thesis, Queen’s University of Belfast, Belfast, UK, May 1967.
14. Masterson, D. M., and Long, A. E., “The Punching Strength of
9. Long, A. E., and Masterson, D. M., “Improved Experimental Procedure
for Determining the Punching Strength of Reinforced Concrete Flat Slab Slabs, a Flexural Approach Using Finite Elements,” Shear in Reinforced
Structures,” Shear in Reinforced Concrete, SP-24, American Concrete Concrete, SP-42, American Concrete Institute, Farmington Hills, MI,
Institute, Farmington Hills, MI, 1974, pp. 921-935. 1974, pp. 747-768.
10. Neth, V. W.; de Paiva, H. A. R.; and Long, A. E., “Behavior of Models 15. Rankin, G. I. B., and Long, A. E., “Predicting the Punching Strength
of a Reinforced Concrete Flat Plate Edge Column Connection,” ACI of Conventional Slab-Column Specimens,” Proceedings of ICE, Part 1,
Journal, V. 78, No. 4, Apr. 1981, pp. 269-275. V. 82, Apr. 1987, pp. 327-346.
11. Long, A. E.; Cleland, D. J.; and Kirk, D. W., “Moment Transfer and 16. Rankin, G. I. B., and Long, A. E., “Predicting the Enhanced Punching
the Ultimate Capacity of Slab Column Structures,” The Structural Engineer, Strength of Interior Slab-Column Connections,” Proceedings of ICE, Part 1,
V. 56 A, No. 4, Apr. 1978, pp. 95-102. V. 82, Dec. 1987, pp. 1165-1186.
Compressive Strength of Concrete Masonry Beams. Paper by Thomas Ring, Sreekanta Das, and David Stubbs
Discussion by Emil de Souza Sánchez Filho, Eduardo Rizzatti, Gihad Mohamad, and Cary Cassiano Cavalcanti Filho
ACI member, DSc, Professor at Fluminense Federal University, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil; DSc, Professor at the University of Santa Maria, Rio Grande do Sul, Brazil; DSc, Professor
at the University of Santa Maria; MSc, Professor at Fluminense Federal University
The authors should be congratulated on their objective 2. The beam effective depth d is not clearly specified and
paper on the compressive strength of concrete masonry this parameter is essential to check the values of fm′. The
beams, which is an important topic of structural masonry same is valid for the neutral axis location c. Figure 13 illus-
design. The discussers would like to offer some comments trates only Beam 2, which shows the depth of the neutral
on the results of the laboratory tests presented by the authors. axis; however, it is difficult to obtain the correct position by
1. The authors are accurate in their approach of the one interpolation—the authors do not describe the neutral
compression zone of the masonry beams with web interrup- axis depth of the other beams.
tion with direct theoretical formulation to obtain fm′. This is 3. The discussers’ opinion is that the test results shown can
an issue that has received little research attention. change radically with the change of the geometric longitu-
Serviceability and Safety of Multi-Story Flat Plate Buildings: Effect of Lateral Forces. Paper by Amin Ghali
and Ramez B. Gayed
Discussion by Jacky Q. Zhang
PEng, Associate, MMP Structural Engineering Ltd., Calgary, AB, Canada
The flat plate is the most commonly used floor system are different in every floor; thus, floors may have to be
in North America due to its easy formwork and fast-paced designed individually.
construction. The contribution of the flat plate and column In practice, Design B is recommended for buildings less
connections in resisting lateral loads of multi-story flat- than 120 m (390 ft) high; Design A should be considered for
plate buildings is generally ignored in practice in spite of taller buildings and these also require wind tunnel testing.
the vulnerability of slabs to brittle punching shear failure. As shown by the building examples analyzed in the paper,
Experimental research in the last two decades has shown that Design A is more beneficial for the 50-story building; thus,
properly reinforced flat plate-column connections can have it will be worthwhile to include the slab and column for the
adequate strength and ductility to withstand the maximum super-high-rise buildings. However, Design A for build-
drift in severe earthquakes. ACI 421.2R-105 refers to the ings with Rd > 1.5 or SDC D and above will not satisfy
mentioned research and gives details of the required design. ACI 318 and will result in a cost increase not favored by
The investigation of the contribution of flat plate-column building developers and contractors.
connections to the stiffness and strength of multi-story flat- In conclusion, Design A or B should be permitted and the
plate buildings presented in this paper is greatly appreciated. economical impact should be considered.
The authors prefer Design A, which resists the lateral loads
due to wind or earthquake by all monolithic components of AUTHORS’ CLOSURE
the building, over Design B, which considers resisting the For design purposes, the internal forces in the compon-
same loads solely by the shear walls. Design A results in ents of a flat-plate building due to lateral loads of wind or
reduced thickness of shear walls and thus increases the usable earthquakes may be determined for a model idealizing all
space; Design A also requires reinforcing each component monolithic components of the structure; the discusser refers
for its factual internal forces. The entire lateral load would to this as Design A. ACI 318-111 permits elastic analysis
be resisted by shear walls, as assumed in Design B, only with Design A, requiring accounting for the effects of
after the slab-column connections fail to share their part of cracking and reinforcement on the stiffness of the compon-
the resistance (nonlinear behavior). While recommending ents. For earthquake loads, however, Design A is permitted
Design A, the paper warns that implementing the recom- for SDCs A to C only. The code also permits an analysis
mendation has to be preceded by nonlinear time history model in which the lateral earthquake forces are resisted by
studies. Application of such analyses for the four buildings a lateral force-resisting system (LFRS) comprised solely of
considered in this paper is an exhaustive research that is not shear walls for SDCs A to F. A design using this analysis
necessary to justify recommending Design A; it can only model is referred to by the discusser as Design B.
calibrate the safety of Design B, as permitted by codes (for Elastic analysis, according to ACI 318-11,1 applied to
example, ACI 318). several example buildings, shows that monolithic compon-
Design complexities and cost implications arise with ents other than shear walls have a significant contribu-
Design A. Additional top reinforcement will be required in tion in resisting lateral forces. The paper recommends
the column strips and a large amount of bottom reinforce- Design A—the analysis of the internal forces due to lateral
ment will be needed to provide sufficient yield strength at forces on flat-plate multi-story buildings will be done for
the supports. The practice is to curtail bottom reinforce- LFRSs comprising all monolithic components of the struc-
ment at the supports and eliminate the top reinforcement ture; appropriate design loads due to wind or earthquakes
at the middle of the spans; with Design A, the quantity of will be based on a factual, natural period of vibration; and
reinforcement will be increased by at least 15%. The addi- the design and detailing of all components will be done
tional flexural reinforcement combined with the necessary for realistic internal forces. With properly designed shear
shear reinforcement will increase the cost. In a 50-story reinforcement, research shows that slab-column connections
building designed for Seismic Design Category (SDC) C, can withstand, without failure, the maximum permissible
with respect to the total concrete quantity, the floor slabs interstory drift ratio due to an earthquake. Thus, there is no
and the shear wall are approximately 55% and 25%, respec- reason to ignore the contribution of the slab-column connec-
tively; the reinforcement of the floor slabs and the shear wall tions in resisting the lateral forces. For this reason, the paper
are approximately 45% and 30% of the total for the building, recommends that ACI 318 permit Design A for all SDCs of
respectively; and the reduction of the shear wall cost will not flat-plate buildings. The discusser agrees with the recom-
offset the increase of the floor slab cost. mendation and considers that it does not need justification
The time for analysis will increase significantly if all by further nonlinear analyses. The linear analysis, as speci-
components are taken into account. Take a 50-story building fied by the code, gives the internal forces in the components
as an example: the analysis can be completed in 2 hours without redistribution of resistance.
with Design B; however, the analysis for Design A will The authors agree with the discusser; for Design B, the
require 1 day or more. For accuracy in Design A, the joints exhaustive nonlinear analyses, required by a reviewer, would
between the slab and the walls require challenging finite serve to verify that components of flat-plate buildings have
element meshes. The analysis in Design A will show that enough ductility to avoid local failure of individual compon-
the lateral forces resisted by the slab-column connections ents until lateral forces are resisted solely by the assumed