ACI STRUCTURAL JOURNAL TECHNICAL PAPER

Title no. 103-S37

Cyclic Lateral Loading of Nonductile Slab-Column

Connections
by Ian Robertson and Gaur Johnson

Flat slabs with discontinuous bottom reinforcement are susceptible embedment locations. Due to the inadequacies of the pre-1971
to progressive collapse if punching shear failure occurs at a slab- design codes, there is a need to understand the behavior of
column connection. Many such failures have occurred in past the structures designed to these codes to assist in determining
earthquakes, resulting in significant loss of life. The evaluation of their true seismic behavior and capacity. Limited experimental
older flat-slab buildings must include a realistic prediction of the
research has been performed on the seismic performance of
response of the slab-column connections. Considerable research has
been performed on connections with continuous slab reinforcement; nonductile slab-column connections.4,5
however, there is a lack of data on the performance of slab-column This paper presents the results of tests performed on large-
connections with discontinuous reinforcement. The research scale slab-column connections, designed with pre-1971
presented in this paper involved the cyclic lateral loading of six noncontinuous slab reinforcement. Six half-scale interior
slab-column connections with discontinuous slab reinforcement connections with varying reinforcing ratios, detailing, and
typical of flat-slab buildings built prior to 1970. Punching shear slab gravity loads were subjected to a cyclic lateral loading
failure does not appear to occur earlier than in equivalent specimens routine. The results are compared with the performance
with continuous reinforcement; however, the consequences are predicted by the ACI code. Recommendations are made
significantly more severe. Based on this and prior research regarding the lateral drift level to which these connections
studies, a model is proposed for estimating the lateral drift at
can be subjected without inducing punching shear failure.
which punching failure may occur.

Keywords: loading; punching shear; slab. RESEARCH SIGNIFICANCE

Numerous existing flat slab buildings do not have slab
INTRODUCTION bottom reinforcement passing through the column. This lack
In the 1950s, the trend toward lighter and more flexible of continuity reinforcement could result in progressive
construction configurations led to the increased usage of flat collapse if punching shear failure occurs at a slab-column
plate construction—particularly for medium- to high-rise connection. In the process of retrofitting these structures for
office and residential buildings.1 Reinforced concrete flat future seismic events, it is important to correctly estimate the
plate construction has been and continues to be used as an lateral drift capacity for these connections so as to limit the
economical structural system for many buildings. In overall structural drift accordingly. Based on the results from
moderate and high seismic regions, flat plate structures are this study and previous research findings, a model is
supplemented with either a beam-column moment frame or proposed for the prediction of the lateral drift capacity of
shear wall lateral resisting system. Today, ductile detailing slab-column connections without continuity reinforcement.
for all structural connections, including for those that are
gravity-load-only, is a key concept learned initially as a EXPERIMENTAL INVESTIGATION
result of the failures observed during the 1971 San Fernando Test specimens
earthquake.1 All the gravity-load-only slab-column connec- Each test specimen represents a half-scale model of an
tions in a flat plate structure must maintain their gravity load interior flat-plate slab-column connection (Fig. 1). The
capacity at the maximum displacement of the lateral system. specimens were designed to evaluate the influence of gravity
During this lateral deformation, the brittle failure mode of load, slab reinforcement ratio, and bent-up bars in the
slab punching can occur. A punching shear failure, generated connection region on the seismic performance of interior
by the combination of gravity loading and seismically slab-column connections.
induced unbalanced moment, can occur with little or no The slab-column connections were tested under combined
warning and has resulted in the progressive collapse of these gravity and cyclic lateral load. The gravity load applied to
types of structures. In the 1985 Mexico City earthquake, 91 the slab during the test was equivalent to a loading on the
flat plate buildings collapsed and 44 were severely damaged full-scale structure of the total dead load plus 30% of the
due to punching failure.2 floor live load. This gravity load produced an effective shear
Prior to the ACI 318 building code revisions in the 1970s, stress on the critical perimeter equal to 25% of the direct
which introduced ductile detailing requirements, reinforcing punching shear capacity of the concrete—defined by the
for flat slab systems did not require continuity of top and ACI 318 Building Code.6 Two specimens were subjected to
bottom reinforcement.3 Top reinforcement, used for negative increased gravity loading with the largest slab load representing
bending, could be completely curtailed away from the
column supports. Bottom reinforcement was only required to ACI Structural Journal, V. 103, No. 3, May-June 2006.
MS No. 04-194 received June 14, 2004, and reviewed under Institute publication policies.
extend into supports by 150 mm (6 in.). It is now well known Copyright © 2006, American Concrete Institute. All rights reserved, including the making
that positive bending can occur at the face of supports during of copies unless permission is obtained from the copyright proprietors. Pertinent discussion
including author’s closure, if any, will be published in the March-April 2007 ACI
lateral displacements, inducing a bond failure at these short Structural Journal if the discussion is received by November 1, 2006.

356 ACI Structural Journal/May-June 2006

ACI member Ian Robertson is a professor of structural engineering at the University of
Hawaii, Honolulu, Hawaii. He received his BS from the University of the Witwatersrand,
South Africa, and his MS and PhD from Rice University, Houston, Tex. He is a member
of ACI Committees 209, Creep and Shrinkage in Concrete, and Joint ACI-ASCE
Committee 352, Joints and Connections in Monolithic Concrete Structures. His research
interests include performance of reinforced and prestressed concrete structures under
extreme loading and its long-term effects, and retrofit using fiber-reinforced polymer.

ACI member Gaur Johnson is a PhD candidate in structural engineering at the

University of Hawaii at Manoa, Hawaii. He received his BS and MS from the University
of Hawaii. His research interests include fiber-reinforced polymer retrofit of concrete
structures, and field instrumentation for seismic and long-term monitoring.

Fig. 2—Slab reinforcement for ND1C, ND4LL, and ND5XL.

moderate and high seismic regions. In all specimens, the top

slab reinforcement extended to 1/3 of the span and was not
continuous through midspan. The bottom slab reinforcement
was continuous at midspan, but discontinuous through the
column, extending only 152 mm (3 in.) into the column
support. The lack of continuous bottom reinforcement
passing through the column may result in total collapse of
the slab after punching failure. To prevent this condition in
the laboratory tests, two continuous slab bottom bars were
added transverse to the loading direction in all specimens
except Specimen ND8BU. It was expected that these bars
would not affect the specimen response significantly, except
to prevent total collapse after punching. Details of the specimen
reinforcement are provided in Fig. 2 through 5. The six
nonductile interior slab-column connections tested as part of
this program are:
• ND1C—Control specimen.
• ND4LL—Identical to ND1C but with increased slab
gravity load.
• ND5XL—Identical to ND1C but with slab gravity load
Fig. 1—Prototype building and test specimens. greater than ND4LL.
• ND6HR—Identical to ND1C but with increased slab
flexural reinforcement.
a shear on the critical perimeter of 48% of the direct • ND7LR—Identical to ND1C but with decreased slab
punching shear capacity. flexural reinforcement.
The slab reinforcement details used in these half-scale • ND8BU—Identical to ND1C but with additional bent-
specimens were typical of older flat slab construction in up bars at the connection.

ACI Structural Journal/May-June 2006 357

Fig. 3—Slab reinforcement for ND6HR.
Fig. 4—Slab reinforcement for ND7LR.
The slab reinforcement layout for Specimens ND4LL and
ND5XL was identical to that of the control specimen, ND1C The specimens were designed using the ACI 318-63
as shown in Fig. 2. Specimen ND6HR had heavier slab Building Code, which did not require continuous bottom
reinforcement than the control specimen, as shown in Fig. 3. reinforcement through column lines. No shear reinforcement
Because of the increase in slab top reinforcement, it was was included because the concrete shear capacity was
anticipated that this specimen would resist a greater lateral adequate for the code defined ultimate conditions.
load than the control specimen would. As a consequence, if
all of the top reinforcement were curtailed at 1/3 span as for
Test displacement routine
the control specimen, it is likely that the negative moment
induced at this section would exceed the cracking moment of The lateral displacement test routine used in this program
the unreinforced slab, resulting in a premature flexural was derived from a lateral testing routine developed by
failure. To fully test the slab-column connection region, half PEER researchers based on previous research performed by
of the top reinforcement was continued through midspan as Krawinkler.7 The cyclic routine was performed in two
shown in Fig. 3. It should be noted that older flat-slab buildings phases: Phase I consisted of both positive and negative
with heavy top reinforcement that is not continuous through cycling up to 5% drift level (maximum capacity of the actuator);
the span may suffer premature flexural failure at the point of Phase II consisted of cycling up to 10% drift, but only in the
reinforcement curtailment. Any retrofit scheme for such a positive drift direction due to limitations of the testing
structure should provide reinforcement to prevent this equipment (Fig. 6). This protocol gradually increases the
premature flexural failure. drift level from ±0.1 to ±5% in Phase I and from +7 to +10%
Specimen ND7LR had lighter slab reinforcement than the in Phase II. To evaluate the loss of strength and stiffness after
control specimen, as shown in Fig. 4, while Specimen ND8BU repeated loading of the structure, and to induce the type of
had a similar reinforcement layout, except with additional bent- damage expected in a seismic event, each drift level was
up bars added (Fig. 5). These bent-up bars increased the top repeated three times.
reinforcement ratio at the face of the column and the bottom
reinforcement ratio at midspan. Again, half of the top reinforce- Test setup and instrumentation
ment was continued to midspan to ensure that flexural cracking The specimens were tested as shown in Fig. 7. A pin
of the slab at the curtailment of top reinforcement would not support, with two load cells to monitor column axial load and
cause premature flexural failure. shear, was located at midheight of the column below the

358 ACI Structural Journal/May-June 2006

 Fig. 6—Lateral displacement routine.

Fig. 7—Test frame configuration.

Table 1—Concrete material properties

Specimen ND1C ND4LL ND5XL ND6HR ND7LR ND8BU
Compressive
strength fc (three 29.6 32.3 24.1 26.3 18.8 39.2
cylinders), MPa
Modulus of elasticity
Ec (one cylinder), 17.4 21.3 18.5 17.2 15.0 18.2
GPa
Fig. 5—Slab reinforcement for ND8BU. Modulus of rupture
fr (two beams), MPa 4.20 4.22 2.49 4.27 2.83 4.62

Poisson’s ratio ν 0.23 0.24 0.29 0.20 0.23 0.22

slab. Three pin-ended vertical load rods at each edge of the (one cylinder)
slab prevented vertical displacement of the slab, but allowed
free lateral movement and rotation, thus simulating midspan Load-drift relationships
conditions in the direction of loading. The cyclic lateral Relevant data collected during each specimen test are
displacement routine (Fig. 6) was applied to a pin connection summarized in Table 3. These data include the initial gravity
at the midheight of the column above the slab by an actuator load supported by the column (Row 1); the ratio between the
with an internal linear variable displacement transducer initial gravity load and the ACI 318 shear capacity of the
(LVDT) and an in-line load cell. critical perimeter (Row 2); the gravity load at failure (Row 3),
different from Row 1 due to redistribution to the load rods;
Material properties the ratio between the failure gravity load and the shear
Concrete—The concrete used to make each specimen was capacity of the critical perimeter (Row 4); the maximum
supplied by a local concrete company with a specified horizontal load during hysteresis in the positive direction
compressive strength of 24 MPa. Three 152 x 304 mm cylinders (Row 5); the maximum horizontal load during hysteresis in
and two 152 x 152 x 533 mm beams were fabricated and the negative direction (Row 6); the positive drift level at the
cured along with the slab specimen for 7 days covered with maximum horizontal load (Row 7); the negative drift level at
plastic. These were tested at the same age as the slab-column the maximum horizontal load (Row 8); the maximum drift
connections. The resulting concrete properties are listed in level before failure (Row 9); and the type of failure (Row 10).
Table 1. The concrete compressive strength in Table 1 The load-drift relationships for each specimen are shown
represents the actual strength of the concrete at the time of in Fig. 8 through 13. These figures show the hysteretic
testing and not the design 28-day strength. response, the resulting backbone curve, and critical points
Reinforcing steel—The reinforcement used in both the slab identified on these curves.
and column in each specimen was specified as Grade 400
deformed bars. The slab reinforcement was 10 mm-diameter Comparison of backbone curves
deformed bars. The reinforcement ratios for various slab widths The backbone curves shown in Fig. 8 through 13 represent
are listed in Table 2 for both top and bottom slab steel. the envelope of peak lateral loads supported by the specimen

ACI Structural Journal/May-June 2006 359

 Table 2—Specimen reinforcement ratios
Bottom reinforcement ratio at:
Top reinforcement ratio at face of support* face of support midspan
Effective
depth d, c2 + 3h c2 + 5h Column Full c2 + 3h c2 + 5h Column Full
Specimen mm width, % width, % strip, % width, % width, % width, % strip, % width, %
(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) (10)
ND1C 100 0.53 0.54 0.52 0.36 0.09 0.10 0.36 0.28
ND4LL 100 0.53 0.54 0.52 0.36 0.09 0.10 0.36 0.28
ND5XL 100 0.53 0.54 0.52 0.36 0.09 0.10 0.36 0.28
ND6HR 100 0.93 0.93 0.88 0.65 0.23 0.20 0.67 0.54
ND7LR 100 0.39 0.37 0.36 0.23 0.10 0.09 0.36 0.28
ND8BU 100 0.93 0.81 0.67 0.44 0.09 0.09 0.47 0.39
*
Bottom reinforcement ratios at face of support are reduced by 50% to account for reduced embedment.

Table 3—Specimen test data summary

Specimen
Test results ND1C ND4LL ND5XL ND6HR ND7LR ND8BU
1. Initial gravity load
Vg , kN 60.8 93.4 104.8 67.2 68.5 65.3

2. Initial gravity/
shear ratio Vg /Vo 0.25 0.37 0.48 0.30 0.36 0.24

3. Gravity load at
failure Vgf , kN 55.1 70.9 101.2 65.5 49.0 71.3

4. Failure gravity/
shear ratio Vgf /Vo 0.23 0.28 0.47 0.29 0.26 0.26

5. Maximum
positive horizontal 28.6 31.2 22.7 40.6 18.8 41.5
load, kN
6. Maximum
negative horizontal –30.9 –32.4 –23.7 –42.7 –21.8 –42.8
Fig. 8—Hysteretic response in Specimen ND1C. load, kN
7. Positive drift
at maximum 3 to 5 3 1.5 3 3 3
horizontal load, %
8. Negative drift
at maximum –3 –3 –1.5 –3 –3 –3
horizontal load, %
9. Maximum drift
attained before 8 4 2 5 5 5
failure, %
Flexure/ Flexure/ Flexure/ Flexure/
10. Type of failure punch punch Punch Punch punch punch

lack of continuous bottom reinforcement passing through the

column, both punching shear failures would have lead to
complete collapse of the slab and potential progressive
collapse of floors below this level.
Reinforcement ratio effect—Figure 15 shows the comparison
between backbone curves for three specimens with
Fig. 9—Hysteretic response for Specimen ND4LL. significantly different slab flexural reinforcement ratios.
Specimen ND6HR has more slab reinforcement than the
control specimen, ND1C, while Specimen ND7LR has less
at each drift level. Figure 14 to 16 show comparisons of
(refer to reinforcement layouts in Fig. 2, 3, and 4). As expected,
various backbone curves.
the peak lateral load capacity varies with the reinforcement
Gravity load effect—Figure 14 shows the comparison of
ratio. The increased unbalanced moment in the stronger and
the control specimen, ND1C, with the two nominally identical
stiffer ND6HR specimen results in punching shear failure
specimens subjected to increased gravity load, ND4LL and
during the first cycle to 5% lateral drift.
ND5XL. The initial response of all three specimens is
similar; however, the maximum drift level decreases as the Effect of bent-up bars—Figure 16 shows the comparison
gravity shear ratio (Vg /Vo) increases. Specimen ND4LL between backbone curves for the control specimen, ND1C;
achieved the same peak lateral load at a similar drift as the the specimen with increased slab flexural reinforcement,
control specimen, but failed due to punching shear soon ND6HR; and the specimen with bent-up bars, ND8BU. Because
thereafter. Specimen ND5XL, with the heaviest slab gravity of their similar reinforcement ratios, Specimens ND6HR and
load, suffered punching shear failure before reaching the ND8BU resisted the same peak lateral loads at the same lateral
flexural capacity of the slab reinforcement. Because of the drift level. Both specimens experienced punching shear failure

360 ACI Structural Journal/May-June 2006

Fig. 10—Hysteretic response for Specimen ND5XL. Fig. 13—Hysteretic response for Specimen ND8BU.

Fig. 11—Hysteretic response from Specimen ND6HR. Fig. 14—Effect of gravity shear ratio.

Fig. 12—Hysteretic response for Specimen ND7LR. Fig. 15—Effect of flexural reinforcement ratio.

during cycling to 5% lateral drift. The bent-up bars were slab-column connection that will cause a punching failure.
effective at preventing progressive collapse of the slab since According to the code, the shear stresses are evaluated at a
four bent-up bars passed through the column reinforcement critical section around the column. This critical section is
cage and were anchored into the bottom of the slab adjacent located at a distance of d/2 from the face of the column,
to the connection region.
where d is the average depth of the tensile (top) steel from
the compression surface (bottom) of the slab. The code
ANALYTICAL INVESTIGATION
Current ACI code requirements method assumes that the shear at the critical section is the
The ACI code establishes a method to determine the combination of the direct shear Vu and a portion of the
combination of direct shear and unbalanced moment on a unbalanced moment Mu at the connection.

ACI Structural Journal/May-June 2006 361

Table 4—ACI 318 comparison: laterally tested specimen
Flexural moment Flexural moment
Nominal capacity Moment capacity Moment
concrete Flexural portion C2 + 3h ratio C2 + 5h ratio
Unbalanced Ultimate shear stress of applied fy C2 + 3h 1.25fy C2 + 5h
Specimen moment Mu, Direct shear shear stress capacity νn = Shear ratio moment γf Mu, Mf , fy Mf , 1.25fy
(+ or –) kN·m force Vu, kN νu, MPa νc, MPa νu/νn kN·m kN·m γf Mu/Mf kN·m γf Mu/Mf
(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) (10) (11)
ND1C+ 39.2 59.1 1.44 1.81 0.80 23.5 14.9 1.58 25.5 0.92
NC1C– –42.3 52.0 1.46 1.81 0.81 25.4 14.9 1.71 25.5 0.99
ND4LL+ 42.8 73.9 1.64 1.89 0.89 25.7 14.9 1.72 25.7 1.00
ND4LL– –44.4 76.3 1.70 1.89 0.90 26.6 14.9 1.78 25.7 1.04
ND5XL+ 31.1 98.6 1.53 1.63 0.94 18.7 14.8 1.27 25.1 0.74
ND5XL– –32.5 95.6 1.54 1.63 0.94 19.5 14.8 1.32 25.1 0.78
ND6HR+ 55.6 65.4 1.90 1.70 1.12 33.4 26.7 1.25 42.2 0.79
ND6HR– –58.5 65.9 1.98 1.70 1.16 35.1 26.7 1.32 42.2 0.83
ND7LR+ 25.7 57.6 1.09 1.44 0.75 15.4 11.6 1.33 18.4 0.84
ND7LR– –30.0 52.0 1.15 1.44 0.80 18.0 11.6 1.55 18.4 0.98
ND8BU+ 56.9 69.4 1.96 2.08 0.94 34.2 24.0 1.42 35.5 0.96
ND8BU– –58.7 65.8 1.98 2.08 0.95 35.2 24.0 1.47 35.5 0.99

unbalanced moment, and shear stresses around the critical

perimeter for each specimen are presented in Table 4.
The first column in Table 4 contains the slab-column
specimen designation. Each specimen has two rows: the first
row lists results for the peak lateral load in the positive
direction, while the second row refers to the peak lateral load
in the negative direction. The second column is the total
unbalanced moment transferred between the column and the
slab at the peak lateral load. It is calculated by multiplying the
peak lateral load by the story height of the specimen (1372 mm).
Column (3) lists the total gravity load being carried by the
column at the same time as the peak lateral load. This value
is approximately the same as the total direct shear force
acting on the slab at the critical perimeter.
In Column (4), the ultimate shear stress is the maximum
shear stress acting on the critical perimeter due to the loading
Fig. 16—Effect of bent-up bar reinforcement. condition present during the application of the peak lateral
load. This stress is based on the linear shear stress distribution
The total maximum shear stress acting on the critical due to the gravity load and the portion of the unbalanced
perimeter νu is determined from the following equation moment carried by an eccentric shear, γvMu (Eq. (1)). The
nominal concrete shear stress νc (Column (5)) is calculated using
V γv Mu c the controlling formula in the ACI Building Code (Eq. (2)).
νu = -----u ± --------------
- (1) Because these slabs do not contain shear reinforcement, this
Ac Jc represents the nominal shear stress capacity of the slab-column
connection at the critical perimeter νn. Column (6) is the ratio
where Ac is the area of the critical perimeter, Jc is the polar of the maximum shear stress induced by the loading condition at
moment of inertia of the critical perimeter, γv is the proportion the peak lateral load to the nominal shear capacity of the
of the unbalanced moment assumed to be transferred by connection. A value of 1.0 for the shear ratio in Column (6)
eccentric shear stress, and c is the distance between the would indicate that the connection is on the verge of
centroid and edge of the critical perimeter. punching shear failure according to the ACI Building Code.
The concrete shear stress is limited to the smallest of three Slab-column connections may also fail due to flexural
concrete stress expressions given in ACI 318, Section failure. According to the ACI Code, the portion of the
11.12.2.1. The slabs tested in this program are controlled by unbalanced moment not carried by shear is carried by
the following equation flexure, γf Mu, where γf = 1 – γv. These values are listed in
Column (7) of Table 4. If this moment exceeds the flexural
moment capacity of a slab width of c2 + 3h centered on the
νc = 1/3 f c′ (2)
column, Mf , then the ACI Code predicts a flexural failure. Due to
the reduced embedment of the slab bottom reinforcement, the
where the concrete strength fc′ is in MPa. contribution of bottom steel to the moment capacity was
decreased by 50%. The resulting values of Mf are listed in
Comparison with ACI code Column 8. The moment ratio (Column 9) is the ratio of the
The ACI code approach was applied to each of the slab- unbalanced moment resisted by flexure to the nominal
column specimens. Values and results for the peak shear, moment capacity of the slab within c2 + 3h. A value in

362 ACI Structural Journal/May-June 2006

 Fig. 17—Punching shear models for connections without continuity reinforcement.

Column 9 greater than unity indicates that the connection is higher shear demand. The average shear ratio of the stiffer
resisting slab moments greater than those predicted by the ND6HR was 1.14 while the average shear ratio of ND7LR
ACI Building Code, and flexural failure should result. was 0.78. The average moment ratio for Specimen HD6HR
The moment ratios listed in Column (9) are notably much is 0.81 while for Specimen HD7LR, the moment ratio is
larger than unity, indicating that the specimens are stronger 0.91. Specimen HD7LR maintained its peak flexural
than estimated using the ACI code approach. In Column capacity through one complete cycle of 5% drift before
(10), the flexural moment capacity is based on FEMA 356 punching shear failure; however, ND6HR punched at negative
recommendations.8 Specifically, the bending capacity is 4% drift in the first cycle of the 5% drift regime.
calculated using a slab width of c2 + 5h centered on the Specimens ND6HR and ND8BU comparison—At the
column and 1.25fy as the expected tensile yield capacity of column face, these two connections have similar reinforcement
the reinforcement. These recommendations were validated ratios. For Specimen ND8BU, the average shear ratio of 0.95
by Enomoto and Robertson.9 The moment ratio (Column (11)) and average moment ratio of 0.98 confirm that an increase in
is the ratio of the unbalanced moment resisted by flexure to flexural stiffness induces a higher shear demand, similar to
the nominal moment capacity of the slab according to FEMA Specimen ND6HR. The hysteretic responses for these
356 recommendations. Column (11) values better indicate specimens are virtually identical; however, the bent-up
the behavior observed in the hysteretic response shown in bars in Specimen ND8BU provided a mechanism to prevent
Fig. 8 through 13 than the values in Column (9). catastrophic collapse once punching shear failure occurred.
Specimens ND1C, ND4LL, and ND5XL comparison—
Specimen ND1C was observed to fail first in flexure at 6% Connection lateral drift capacity
drift followed by punching failure at 9% drift. The average To avoid punching shear failure of slab-column connections,
moment ratio (Column (11)) of 0.96 and an average shear it is important to limit the lateral drift to which the connection is
ratio of 0.80 are consistent with the observed behavior. The subjected during cyclic lateral loading. As demonstrated by
extensive crack formation during flexural concrete deterioration Specimens ND4LL and ND5XL, the drift capacity is dependant
lead to the shear failure at an induced shear stress less than on the gravity shear ratio at the critical section. Hueste and
that predicted by Eq. (1). The average moment ratio of 1.02 Wight10 formalized this relationship based on numerous test
and average shear ratio of 0.90 for Specimen ND4LL would results from past research studies (Fig. 17). For a gravity
also indicate this type of behavior. The peak lateral load shear ratio less than 0.2, the connection is expected to exceed
occurred at a drift of 3% followed by a reduced lateral load 4% lateral drift without punching shear failure. Pan and
at a drift of 4% just prior to punching. For Specimen Moehle11 identified a limiting gravity shear ratio of 0.4 if the
ND5XL, the average moment ratio of 0.76 and average shear connection is to reach a drift level of 1.5% without punching
ratio of 0.94 indicates that flexural failure should not occur and shear failure. Hueste and Wight assume that a connection
that punching shear failure was imminent. Indeed, the hysteretic with a gravity shear ratio of 1.0 can sustain 0.5% lateral drift
plot (Fig. 10) confirms that a punching shear failure occurred before punching failure. Joining these points with straight
prior to reaching the flexural capacity of the connection. lines produces the Hueste and Wight trilinear curve shown in
Specimens ND6HR and ND7LR comparison—The failures Fig. 17.
of Specimens ND6HR and ND7LR show that an increase in The Hueste and Wight trilinear curve provides a good
the flexural stiffness of a slab-column connection induces a approximation to the average of the prior test results. This

ACI Structural Journal/May-June 2006 363

 curve would seem appropriate for slab-column connections would greatly reduce the gravity shear applied to the slab-
with continuity reinforcement provided to prevent total slab column connections, resulting in a lower probability of
collapse after punching, and the resultant progressive punching shear failure during a seismic event;
collapse. However, in the case of connections without continuity 4. Connections with increased slab flexural reinforcement
reinforcement, such as those tested in this study, a punching will support greater lateral loads, but the increased eccentric
shear failure would likely lead to progressive collapse. It is shear transfer may result in premature punching shear failure;
therefore appropriate to use a more conservative estimate for 5. Using a slab width of c2 + 5h and 1.25 times the yield
the gravity shear to drift capacity relationship as shown in strength of reinforcing steel to determine the unbalanced
Fig. 17. The proposed trilinear curve (Eq. (3)) assumes that bending capacity of an interior slab-column connection
connections with a gravity shear ratio (GSR) less than 0.15 provides a better estimate than using c2 + 3h and fy, as
will achieve at least 4% lateral drift prior to punching failure. prescribed by the ACI Code; and
A connection with 0.4% GSR is now assumed to be capable of 6. A lower-bound trilinear curve is proposed for the
only 1% lateral drift, while a connection with a GSR of 1.0 is relationship between gravity shear ratio and lateral drift
assumed to have no lateral drift capacity. This trilinear curve capacity for slab-column connections without continuity
provides a lower bound for almost all of the prior test results. reinforcement. This conservative estimate is justified by
the need to avoid progressive collapse subsequent to
 punching shear failure.
Unlimited GSR < 0.15

Drift limit, % =  5.8 – 12 ( GSR ) 0.15 ≤ GSR ≤ 0.40 (3) ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

 1.67 – 1.67 ( GSR ) GSR > 0.4 This research was supported by the Pacific Earthquake Engineering
Research Center, PEER, under grant number 5041999. This support is
gratefully acknowledged.
The ACI 318-05 code also has a drift limit that is used to
prevent punching shear failures.6 The lateral drift limit is REFERENCES
1. Federal Emergency Management Agency, “FEMA-274: NEHRP
bilinear as defined by Eq. (4) and shown in Fig. 17. Commentary on the Guidelines for the Seismic Rehabilitation of Buildings,”
Washington, D.C., 1997, pp. 6-1 to 6-8.
2. Ghali, A., and Megally, S., “Stud Shear Reinforcement for Punching:
 3.5 – 5 ( GSR ) GSR < 0.60 North American and European Practices,” Proceedings of the International
Drift limit, % =  (4)
 0.5 GSR > 0.60 Workshop on Punching Shear Capacity of RC Slabs, Kungl Tekniska
Hogskolan Institute for Byggkonstruktion, Stockholm, Sweden, 2000,
pp. 201-209.
3. ACI Committee 318, “Building Code Requirements for Reinforced
CONCLUSIONS Concrete (ACI 318-63),” American Concrete Institute, Farmington Hills,
Based on the results of this cyclic lateral loading test Mich., 1963, 144 pp.
program on interior slab-column connections with 4. Durrani, A. J.; Du, Y.; and Luo, Y. H., “Seismic Resistance of Non-
discontinuous slab reinforcement detailing, the following ductile Slab-Column Connections in Existing Flat-Slab Buildings,” ACI
conclusions were drawn: Structural Journal, V. 92, No. 4, July-Aug. 1995, pp. 479-487.
1. Slab-column connections with discontinuous slab 5. Dovich, L., and Wight, J. K., “Lateral Response of Older Flat Slab
Frames and the Economic Effect on Retrofit,” Earthquake Spectra, V. 12,
reinforcement perform similar to those with continuous No. 4, 1996, pp. 667-691.
reinforcement until punching shear failure. After punching 6. ACI Committee 318, “Building Code Requirements for Structural
failure, connections without adequate continuous bottom Concrete (ACI 318-05) and Commentary (318R-05),” American Concrete
reinforcement passing through the column will suffer Institute, Farmington Hills, Mich., 2005, 430 pp.
complete collapse, which may lead to progressive collapse of 7. Krawinkler, H., “Loading History Issues in Testing for Seismic
Performance Assessment,” Proceedings of the Invitational Workshop on
the floors below the initial failure. The exception to this Seismic Testing, Analysis and Design of Woodframe Construction,
observation is that bent-up bars passing through the column as Publication No. W-01, California Universities for Research in Earth-
top reinforcement, but anchored as bottom reinforcement in quake Engineering (CUREe), Richmond, Calif., 1999, pp. 99-101.
the slab, were able to prevent collapse after punching failure; 8. Federal Emergency Management Agency, “FEMA-356: Prestandard
2. Increased gravity load on the slab during cyclic lateral and Commentary for the Seismic Rehabilitation of Buildings,” Washington,
D.C., 2000, pp. 6-5, 6-32.
loading results in a significant reduction in lateral drift 9. Enomoto, B., and Robertson I. N., “Hysteretic Modeling of Flat Slab-
capacity before punching failure. For heavy slab loading Column Connections,” Research Report UHM/CE/01-03, University of
conditions, punching failure can occur before reaching the Hawaii, Honolulu, Hawaii, May 2001, 235 pp.
lateral load capacity of the connection; 10. Hueste, M. D., and Wight, J. K., “Nonlinear Punching Shear Failure
3. Reduction of gravity load on the slab through alteration Model for Interior Slab-Column Connections,” Journal of the Structural
Engineering Division, V. 125, No. 9, 1999, pp. 997-1008.
of the building occupancy and function could serve as an 11. Pan, A., and Moehle, J. P., “Lateral Displacement Ductility of
economical retrofit technique. For example, conversion of a Reinforced Concrete Flat Plates,” ACI Structural Journal, V. 86, No. 3,
warehouse or storage facility to residential or office use May-June 1989, pp. 250-258.

364 ACI Structural Journal/May-June 2006