Punching Shear-Moment Transfer Interacti

The Ninth East Asia-Pacific Conference on Structural Engineering and Construction
Main Menu Table of Contents
PUNCHING SHEAR-MOMENT TRANSFER INTERACTION IN CORNER

COLUMN FLAT PLATE CONNECTIONS
I.K. Sudarsana1 and N.J. Gardner2
ABSTRACT : An experimental investigation into punching shear-moment transfer interaction at flat plate
corner column connections is described. Four corner column slab connections of a 2 bay by 2 bay continuous
flat plate were tested separately under different combinations of vertical load and diagonal unbalanced moment.
The loads were applied through the column stubs. The experimental results were compared with the predictions
from ACI 318-02, CSA A23.3-94, CEB FIP-MC90, and Gardner’s approach. It was found that CSA-94 and
Gardner method-2 approach are in a good agreement with the experimental data. The punching strengths
predicted by ACI 318-02 and CEB FIP-90 are too conservative.
KEYWORDS : Punching shear strength, corner connections, moment transfer, flat plates, structural design.
1. INTRODUCTION
Punching shear under a single concentrated load is similar to punching shear around a column but the
consequences of punching shear at a column can be a brittle mode of failure. It happens suddenly without
significant warning signs. Punching shear failures around a column is a complex phenomenon. It becomes more
complex when unbalanced moment has to be transferred from the slab to the column, which cannot be avoided
at corner column slab connections. The unbalanced moment can be due to span discontinuity at the slab free
edge, or lateral loads caused by earthquake and wind loads.
The experimental investigation described was designed to determine the punching strength of the corner column
slab connections subjected to combinations of vertical force and diagonal unbalanced moment and the
interaction between these loads.
2. EXPERIMENTAL PROGRAM
The four corner column flat plate connections of a 2 bay by 2 bay continuous flat plate were tested separately to
obtain the punching shear strengths and the interaction between shear and diagonal unbalanced moment in
corner column connections.
The flat plate model was designed in accordance with CSA A23.3-94 with additional bottom reinforcement at
the corner connections. The flat plate thickness was 140 mm and the corner column dimensions were 305 x 305
mm. The effective slab depth was 115 mm. Details of the slab reinforcement are shown in Figure 1a. The 10M
reinforcing bars used had a yield strength, fy, of 420 MPa.
Normal density concrete with a 28 days specified strength of 30 MPa, maximum aggregate size of 10 mm,
slump of 65 mm, and six hours retarder was used. The slab was moist cured under damp burlap, for 2 weeks and
air cured until the day of testing. Standard concrete cylinders (150 mm x 300 mm), cured with the slab, gave an
average strength, fcm, of 44.4 MPa at the day of testing.
1
Lecturer, Dept. of Civil Engineering, University of Udayana, Bali, Indonesia
2
Professor, Dept. of Civil Engineering, University of Ottawa, Ontario, Canada
1
Reinforced Concrete Structures RCS - 146
5@ 90 9@ 226 2@ 127 2@ 127 9 @ 2 26 5@ 90 steel bracing

75
3" x 3"
5@ 90
C5 C6
E4 75
Threaded Rod
Ø3/4" 143
4 @ 1 27
Hydraulic steel column
9@ 226
508
2845
Jack 427
T o p R ein fo rcem en t 8" x 8"
Slab Specimen
Load Cell 994 140
2@ 75
4@ 120 Load Cell
Threaded Rod
Ø3/4" Hydraulic Jack
3@ 127
4@ 12 0
L in e o f
E3 S ym m etry 143 Load Cell 970
E1
3@ 200
I1 Hydrolic steel base
Steel 5"x5"
400 Jack frame
B o tto m R ein fo rcem en t
2845
7@ 244
Laboratoryfloor
C8 E2 C7 5@ 90
30 5
5@ 90 7@ 24 4 3@ 200 70 3 @ 2 00 7@ 24 4 5@ 90
60 284 5 2845
(a) Slab Reinforcement (b) Test Set-up
Figure 1. Layout of Slab Reinforcement and Test Set-Up
A simple support along the line of contra flexure, calculated for a uniform surface load of 34.4 kN/m2, was
provided for the connection under test. Details of the test set-up of the corner column slab connections are
shown in Figure 1b. For all connections tested (C5, C6, C7, and C8), the loads were applied through the column
stubs using three hydraulic jacks. Two horizontal jacks were used to apply diagonal unbalanced moment and the
other one was used to apply vertical load from the bottom of the column. The vertical load was applied at the
centroid of the column section.
Out of plane slab deflection around the column were measured at distance 65 mm from the side column faces
using two LVDT’s. The horizontal deflections of the column stubs were measured at locations 343 mm above
and below the slab. Each corner connection was subjected to different load eccentricity (e = M/V).
3. PREDICTION METHODS
Code provisions for punching shear strength of connections transferring shear and unbalanced moment are
modifications of the concentric punching shear provisions which vary among the codes.
3.1 The American Code (ACI 318-2002)
The ACI 318-02 code assumes a critical section located at d/2 from the loaded area or column faces. It is stated
in the commentary of the code that the shear stress obtained at location d/2 is almost independent from the c/d
(column dimension to slab effective depth) ratio. When gravity load, wind, earthquake or other lateral forces
exist in the structure and cause transfer of unbalanced moment, Mu, to a slab from a column, a portion of this
moment γvMu is transferred by eccentric shear, which is assumed to vary linearly about the centroid of critical
shear section. The nominal shear stress, vu, is determined using:
Vu γ v M s e
vu =± (1)
Ac Jc
1
γ v = 1− (2)
1 + ( 2 / 3) (b1 / b2 )
Where b1 and b2 are the sides of the control perimeter of a rectangular column, perpendicular and parallel to the
unbalanced moment vector, respectively, Ms is the unbalanced moment acting at the centroid of the critical
section, and e is a distance from the centroid of the critical section to the side of the critical section.
2
3.2 The Canadian Code (CSA A23.3-1994)
The CSA A23.3-94 code provisions are similar to those of the ACI 318-02. The critical section is taken at d/2
from the faces of the column or loaded area. The maximum shear stress that concrete can resist for two-way
shear is 21% higher than the ACI Code, from vmax = 0.333 f cm of the ACI code to vmax = 0.4 f cm of the CSA
code for normal strength concrete. When unbalanced moment exists at the connections, the equations given in
the Canadian code are similar to the one given in the ACI code; however, the Canadian code does not allow a
reduction in the value of γv.
3.3 The European Model Code (CEB FIP-MC90)
CEB Model Code considers the critical section at 2d from the periphery of the loaded areas. The shear stress
resistance of the concrete is given by:
1
τ sd = 0.12(1 + (200 / d ) 2 (100 ρf ck ) 3 (MPa)
1
(3)
Where τs is the shear resistance of concrete, d is slab effective depth and ρ is flexural reinforcement ratio as
(ρxρy)1/2.
If the connection transfers an unbalanced moment (Msd) from the slab to a column, the shear stress distribution
at a control perimeter 2d from the column faces is combined with the effect of the shear stress produced by
concentric shear force (Fsd) to find the total shear stress distribution.
Fsd KM sd
τ sd = + (MPa) (4)
u1 d w1 d
Where Fsd and Msd are the applied shear force and unbalanced moment, respectively, due to factored loads, u1 is
the full shear perimeter, w1 is the property of the critical section, d is slab effective depth and K is a coefficient
determining a fraction of Msd resisted by shear stress (= 0.6 for square column).
3.4 Gardner Approach 1996 (Gardner-96)
The control perimeter was taken at the periphery of the columns or loaded area. The depth of the compression
zone was assumed as a function of the tension tie strength ρfy. To account for the effect of slab thickness, the
CEB size effect expression was used. The following equation was derived for non-prestressed flat plate column
connections:
⎛ ⎛ 200 ⎞ 0.5 ⎞ 0 .5
v c = 0.79⎜1 + ⎜ ⎟ ⎟(ρf y f cm )1 / 3 ⎛⎜ d ⎞⎟ (MPa) (5)

⎜ ⎝ d ⎠ ⎟ ⎝ 4c ⎠
⎝ ⎠
Where:
d = effective slab depth
(d/4c)0.5 = strength enhancement factor
fy = yield strength of flexural steel, MPa
fcm = measured average cylinder compressive strength, MPa
ρ = ratio of flexural tensile reinforcement calculated over a width c+6d where c is the column width
For combined shear forces and moment transfer, two alternative methods were suggested; (1) using the ACI
linear interaction formula with a control perimeter around the loaded area, and (2) using a simple multiplier. For
corner connections, a multiplier of 2.0 was suggested to multiply Equation 5. This implies that the design shear
resistance given by Equation 5 (for Ms = 0) is reduced by a factor of 0.5 when unbalanced moment equal to
Mflex exist at the connections.
3
4. DISCUSSION OF RESULTS
4.1 Connection Capacity and Failure Modes
All corner connections failed in punching shear due to combined action of a shear force and diagonal
unbalanced moment. Cracks around the column perimeter were observed first due to negative bending followed
by radial cracks progressing from the column toward the supports. Torsion cracks on the slab were observed just
before the slab failed. Figure 2 shows the cracks and failure surface of the connections C6 and C7.
(a) Connection C6 (b) Connection C7
Figure 2. Cracks and Failure Surface of the Corner Connections C6 and C7 at Ultimate Load
The ultimate load capacity (Vu, Mu) measured at the centroid of the column section and failure modes of the
connections are presented in Table 1. Connection C5 was tested twice, without and with diagonal unbalanced
moment. At the first test, a large inward rotation occurred causing tension cracks on the lower surface of the
slab; therefore the results of the C5 is not used in comparison.
Table 1. Ultimate Load Capacity and Connection Properties
Slabs c1=c2 h ρc2+1.5h ρc1+1.5h fy fcm Vu Mu e=M/V Failure

mm mm % % MPa MPa kN kNm mm Modes
C5* 305 140 1.11 1.11 420 44.4 59.7 - - -
C5 305 140 1.11 1.11 420 44.4 62.1 27.7 446 Punching
C6 305 140 1.11 1.11 420 44.4 108.6 49.3 454 Punching
C7 305 140 1.11 1.11 420 44.4 93.7 46.6 497 Punching
C8 305 140 1.11 1.11 420 44.4 98.1 38.9 397 Punching
4.2 Interaction Diagram
The interactions between the punching shear forces and unbalanced diagonal moment calculated based on ACI-
02, CSA-94, CEB FIP-90 and Gardner-96 are presented in Figure 3. Flexural capacities of the connections to
resist diagonal unbalanced moment are also presented in the diagram.
The ACI-02 interaction diagram is calculated based on Equation 1 and Equation 2. For all corner connections,
it is found that the eccentricity, e, from the centroid of the critical section to the inner corner of the critical
section is the same magnitude as that to the outer corner of the critical shear section. Therefore, the shear force
in the absence of unbalanced moment, Vo, and the moment in the absence of the shear force, Mo, at the centroid
critical shear section can be calculated as:
Vo = v max bo d (6)
v max J c
Mo = (7)
γ veA
4
Where, the maximum shear stress is given by Vmax = 0.333 f c' . Applying all of the parameters, it is found that the
interaction diagram is linear. Three test results of corner connections are also plotted on the diagram. Figure 3a
shows that the ACI 318-02 provisions underestimate all the test results.
The Canadian CSA-94 code is based on the same assumptions as the ACI-02 code for corner connections.
Interaction between shear force and unbalanced moment predicted by the CSA-94 is better than the ACI-02
code as shown in Figure 3b. The only reason for this is the increase in the specified maximum shear stress by
21% from v max = 0.333 f cm for the ACI code to v max = 0.4 f cm for the CSA code for normal strength concrete.
1.2 1.2
Experimental data Experimental data
A CI 318-02 CSA A 23.3-94
1.0 1.0
Biaxial Biaxial
2
Flexural 1 Flexural
0.8 2 0.8
capacity Capacit y
1 C6
V u/V o
3 One-way
V u/V o
0.6 C8 0.6 shear
C7 C8 C6
C7
0.4 0.4
0.2 Fig.(a) 0.2 Fig. (b)

0.0 0.0
0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2
M ACI/M o M CSA/M o
2.0 1.2
Experimental data Exp erimental d ata
CEB-FIP M C90 Gard ner (1 )
1.0 Gard ner (2 )
1.5 Biaxial Biaxial
Flexural 0.8 1 flexural
Capacity cap acity
Vu/Vo
V u/V o
1.0 0.6 C8 C6
1 C6 2 4 C7
C8 C7 0.4
2
0.5
0.2 Fig.(d)
Fig.(c)
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2
M CEB/M o Mgdr/Mo
Figure 3. Comparison of the Interaction between Shear and Unbalanced Moment
The interaction diagram of CEB-FIP MC90 is based on Equation 4, using the full length of the critical shear
perimeter. Vo and Mo are the shear force and moment at the centroid of the critical shear section when the
absence of moment and shear force, respectively, can be calculated as:
Vo = v max bo d (8)
v wd
M o = max 1 (9)
K
The maximum shear stress, vmax, is obtained from Equation 3. A linear interaction is obtained as shown in
Figure 3c. The CEB-FIP MC90 is too conservative for all three tests of corner connections. Diagonal flexural
capacity of the corner connections is obtained as in the ACI and the CSA codes. The flexural capacity provided
by the reinforcement in one direction is calculated within the effective width of c+3d as indicated by Line-2 in
Figure 3c. All corner connections failed significantly below the flexural resistance of the CEB-FIP MC90.
5
By taking the shear critical section at the column periphery as suggested by Gardner method-1, the interaction
between punching shear and diagonal unbalanced moment is similar to the ACI-02 interaction, although the
maximum shear stress is calculated according to Equation 5. However, using a simple multiplier of 2.0
according to Gardner method-2, the interaction approximates the experimental results.
4.3 Comparison of the Shear Stress
Comparisons between experimental shear stresses and predicted shear stresses at connection failure are
presented in Table 2. The shear stresses are calculated at the assumed critical shear section that varies from one
code to the others. To calculate the shear stresses, the measured compressive strength of concrete (fcm) is used
rather than the specified strengths (fck). Connection C5 is not included in the discussion, as the result of this test
may not represent the capacity of the connection. It is found that CSA-94 and Gardner method-2 predictions are
in good agreement to the test results. The other predictions are too conservative.
Table 2. Comparisons between Experimental Shear Stresses and Predicted Shear Stresses at Failure
fcm Vu Mu vtest vpred

Method Connect. MPa kN kNm MPa MPa vtest/vpred Avg. COV
ACI-318 C6 44.4 108.6 49.3 2.99 2.21 1.35
(2002) C7 44.4 93.7 46.6 2.78 2.21 1.26 1.23 0.10
C8 44.4 98.1 38.9 2.42 2.21 1.10
CSA C6 44.4 108.6 49.3 2.99 2.67 1.12
(1994) C7 44.4 93.7 46.6 2.78 2.67 1.04 1.02 0.10
C8 44.4 98.1 38.9 2.42 2.67 0.91
CEB-FIP C6 44.4 108.6 49.3 2.24 1.48 1.52
(1990) C7 44.4 93.7 46.6 2.23 1.48 1.51 1.37 0.18
C8 44.4 98.1 38.9 1.62 1.48 1.10
Gardner C6 44.4 108.6 49.3 4.19 3.07 1.36
(1) C7 44.4 93.7 46.6 3.88 3.07 1.26 1.24 0.10
(1996) C8 44.4 98.1 38.9 3.41 3.07 1.11
Gardner C6 44.4 108.6 49.3 3.39 3.07 1.11
(2) C7 44.4 93.7 46.6 2.93 3.07 0.95 1.02 0.08
(1996) C8 44.4 98.1 38.9 3.06 3.07 1.00
5. CONCLUSIONS
The interaction diagrams between shear and diagonal unbalanced moment at corner connections, calculated
using ACI 318-02, the CEB-FIP MC90, and Gardner method-1 are too conservative, however, Gardner method-
2 and CSA-94 are in a good agreement with the experimental data. The comparison of the punching shear
strength of corner column slab connections shows the same results as the interaction diagrams.
6. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
Dr. Sudarsana wishes to thank the Indonesian Government for its financial support to pursue a Ph.D. degree.
The authors thank the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada for financial support under
Grant OPG0005645.
7. REFERENCES
ACI Committee 318, (2002), “Building Code Requirements for Reinforced Concrete (ACI 318-02) and
Commentary (ACI 318R-02)”, American Concrete Institute, Detroit.
CEB-FIP MC 90 Model Code, (1990), “Model Code for Concrete Structures”, Comitè Euro-International du
Bèton et Fèdèration International de la Prècontrainte, Lausanne, Switzerland.
CSA-A23.3-M94, (1994), “Design of Concrete Structures for Buildings”, Canadian Standard Association,
December.
Gardner, N.J., (1996), “Punching Shear Provisions for Reinforced and Prestressed Concrete Flat Slabs”, CSCE
Journal, Vol. 23, No. 2, April, 502-210.
6
Sudarsana, I K., (2001), “Punching Shear in Edge and Corner Column Slab Connections of Flat Plate
Structures”, PhD Thesis, University of Ottawa, Ontario, Canada, December.
7

Punching Shear-Moment Transfer Interacti

Загружено:

Сведения о документе

Оригинальное название

Авторское право

Доступные форматы

Поделиться этим документом

Поделиться или встроить документ

Параметры публикации

Этот документ был вам полезен?

Это неприемлемый материал?

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

Punching Shear-Moment Transfer Interacti

Загружено:

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

The Ninth East Asia-Pacific Conference on Structural Engineering and Construction

Main Menu Table of Contents