Anda di halaman 1dari 26

ACI 352.

1 R-89
(Reapproved 1997)

Recommendations for Design of SlabColumn Connections in

Monolithic Reinforced Concrete Structures

Reported by ACI-ASCE Committee 352

James K. Wight Norman W. Hanson Jack P. Moehle, Sub-Committee Chairman for Preparation
Chairman Secretary of the Slab-Column Recommendations
James R. Cagley* Milind R. Joglekar Robert Park* Gene R. Stevens*
Marvin E. Criswell* Cary S. Kopczynski 1) Clarkson W. Pinkham Donald R. Strand
Ahmad J. Durrani Michael E. Kreger* Mehdi Saiidi* S. M. Uzumeri
Mohammad R. Ehsani Roberto T. Leon* Charles F. Scribner Sudhakar P. Verma
Luis E. Garcia Donald F. Meinheit Mustafa Seckin Loring A. Wyllie, Jr.
Neil M. Hawkins* Liande Zhang

Recommendations are given for determining proportions and details Chapter 4-Methods of analysis for
of monolithic, reinforced concrete slab-column connections. determination of connection strength, p. 6
Included are recommendations regarding appropriate uses of slab- 4. I-General principles and recommendations
column connections in structures resisting gravity and lateral forces, 4.2-Connections without beams
procedures for determination of connection design forces, proce- 4.3-Connections with transverse beams
dures for determination of connection strength, and reinforcement 4.4-Effect of openings
details to insure adequate strength, ductility, and structural integrity. 4.5-Strength of the joint
The recommendations are based on a review of currently available
information. A commentary is provided to amplify the recommen- Chapter G-Reinforcement recommendations, p. 10
dations and identify available reference material. Design examples il- 5. l-Slab reinforcement for moment transfer
lustrate application of the recommendation% (Design recommenda- 5.2-Recommendations for the joint
tions are set in standard type. Commentary is set in italics.) 5.3-Structural integrity reinforcement
5.4-Anchorage of reinforcement
Keywords: anchorage (structural); beams (supports); collapse; columns (sup-
ports); concrete slmbs: connections; earthquake-resistant structures; joints
(junctions); lateral pressure: loads (forces); reiaforctd codcnte; reinforcing Chapter 6-References, p. 16
steels; shear strength; stresses; structural design: structures. 6. I-Recommended references
6.2-Cited references
CONTENTS Examples, p. 17
Chapter l-Scope, p. 1
Notation, p. 22
Chapter 2-Definitions and classifications, p. 2
2. l-Definitions
2.2-Classifications CHAPTER l-SCOPE
These recommendations are for the determination of
Chapter 3-Design considerations, p. 5 connection proportions and details that are intended to
3.1-Connection performance provide for adequate performance of the connection of
3.2-Types of actions on the connection cast-in-place reinforced concrete slab-column connec-
3.3-Determination of connection forces tions. The recommendations are written to satisfy ser-
AC1 Committee Reports, Guides, Standard Practices, and Commentaries viceability, strength, and ductility requirements related
rue intended for guidance in planning, designing, executing, and inspecting to the intended functions of the connection.
construction. This document is intended for the use of individuals who
are competent to evaluate the significance and limitations of its con-
tent and recommendations and who will accept responsibility for the
application of the material it contains. Tbe American Concrete Institute
disclaims any and all responsibility for the stated principles. The Institute *Members of the slab-column subcommittee.
shall not be liable for any loss or damage arising therefrom. Copyright 0 1997, American Concrete Institute.
All rights reserved including rights of reproduction and use in any form or by any
Reference to this document shall not be made in contract documents. If means, including the making of copies by any photo process, or by electronic or
items found in this document arc desired by the Architect/Engineer to be mechanical device, printed, written, or oral, or recording for sound or visual reproduc-
a part of the contract documents, they shall be restated in mandatory ian- tion or for use in any knowledge or retrieval system or device, unless permission in
guage for incorporation by the Architect/Engineer. writing is obtained from the copyright proprietors.


Design of the connection between a slab and its sup- stressed connections.) Although structures having con-
porting member requires consideration of both the joint crete compressive strength exceeding 6000 psi are within
(the volume common to the slab and the supporting the realm of this document, the recommendations limit
element) and the portion of the slab or slab and beams the assumed maximum value of compressive strength to
immediately adjacent to the joint. No reported cases of 6000 psi.
joint distress have been identified by the Committee. Slab-column framing is generally inadequate as the
However, several connection failures associated with primary lateral load resisting system of multistory
inadequate performance of the slab adjacent to the buildings located in regions of high seismic risk (such as
joint have been reported. Many of these have oc- Zones 3 and 4 as defined in ANSI A.58.1 and UBC)
curred during construction when young concrete re- because of problems associated with excessive lateral
ceived loads from more than one floor as a conse- drift and inadequate shear and moment transfer capac-
quence of shoring and reshoring.d-O The disastrous ity at the connection. In regions of high seismic risk, if
consequences of some failures, including total collapse designed according to provisions of these recommen-
of the structure, emphasize the importance of the de- dations, slab-column framing may be acceptable in low-
sign of the connection. It is the objective of these rec- rise construction and multistory construction in which
ommendations to alert the designer to those aspects of lateral loads are carried by a stiffer lateral load resist-
behavior that should be considered in design of the ing system. In regions of low and moderate seismic risk
connection and to suggest design procedures that will (such as Zones I and 2 as defined in ANSI A.58.1 and
lead to adequate connection performance. UBC), slab-column frames may be adequate as the pri-
Previous reportsJ* and codes (AC1 318) have sum- mary lateral load resisting system, provided the con-
marized available information and presented some de- nection design recommendations in this document are
sign recommendations. The present recommendations followed.
are based on data presented in those earlier reports and
more recent data. CHAPTER 2-DEFINITIONS AND
The recommendations are intended to serve as a CLASSlFlCATlONS
guide to practice. 2.1 -Definitions
These recommendations apply only to slab-column Joint-The part of the column within the depth of
connections in monolithic concrete structures, with or the slab including drop panel and having plan dimen-
without drop panels or column capitals, without slab sions equal to those of the column at the intersection
shear reinforcement, without prestressed reinforce- between the column and the bottom surface of the slab
ment, and using normal weight or lightweight concrete or drop panel.
having design compression strength assumed not to ex- Connection-The joint plus the region of the slab
ceed 6000 psi. Construction that combines slab-column and beams adjacent to the joint.
and beam-column framing in orthogonal directions at Column-A cast-in-place vertical supporting ele-
individual connections is included, but these recom- ment, including column capital if provided, with or
mendations are limited to problems reldted to the without construction joints, designed to resist forces
transfer of loads in the direction perpendicular to the from the slab at the connection, and having a ratio of
beam axis. The provisions are limited to connections long to short cross-sectional dimensions not exceeding
for which severe inelastic load reversals are not antici- four.
pated. The recommendations do not apply to multi- Column capital-A flared portion of the column be-
story slab-column construction in regions of high seis- low the slab, cast at the same time as the slab, and hav-
mic risk in which the slab connection is a part of the ing effecfive plan dimensions assumed equal to the
primary lateral load resisting system. Slab-column smaller of the actual dimensions and the part of the
framing is inappropriate for such applications. capital lying within the largest right circular cone or
These recommendations are limited to slab-column pyramid with a 90-deg vertex that can be included
connections of cast-in-place reinforced concrete floor within the outlines of the supporting column.
construction, including ribbed floor slab construction2 Drop panel-A thickened portion of the slab around
and slab-column connections with transverse beams. the column having thickness not less than one-quarter
Recommendations are made elsewhere (AU 352X) for of the surrounding slab thickness and extending from
connections in which framing is predominantly by ac- the column centerline in each principal direction a dis-
tion between beams and columns. tance not less than one-sixth of the center-to-center
The recommendations do not consider connections span between columns.
with slab shear reinforcement, slab-wall connections, Shear capital-A thickened portion of the slab
precast or prestressed connections, or slabs on grade. around the column not satisfying plan dimension re-
The Committee is continuing study of these aspects of quirements for drop panels.
connection design. Relevant information on these sub- Slab critical section-A cross section of the slab near
jects can be found in the literature. (See References 5, the column, having depth d perpendicular to the slab
II,and 13 through 18 for slab shear reinforcement, and extending around the column (including capital). A
References 19 and 20 for slab-wall connections, and critical section should be considered around the col-
ACI 423.3R. and References 21 through 26 for pre- umn so that its perimeter 6, is a minimum, but it need
4 T %

oheor capital,
r - - e--m- alab
I r-- criticd
I I,*
I L--J !
- - - - - - J *


c .

alob edge
l - - - - - - - - - 1

is,- ----- 1
-----ta than f+ d

Note: For exterior connections, the dab critical section

should extend to the slab edge 05 shown in (e)
if such extension will reduce the critical section perimeter.
Otherwise, the slab crlticol section Is OS shown in (f)

Fig. 2.2~Examples of slab critical sections

N o t e : The rocommmdatl~* apPlY four times the slab thickness is based on considerations
only I f c, / c2< 4 related to strength of the slab near the support. Sev-
eral examples of exterior connections are in Fig. 2.5.
Where openings are located closer than four slab
thicknesses, the connection may behave as an exterior
connection, depending on the size and proximity of the
opening. To gage approximately the effect of the open-
ing, radial lines are drawn from the centroid of the
support area to the boundaries of the opening [Fig.
Fig. 2.3-Limitation on column aspect ratio 2.5(e)]. If the length of the slab critical section enclosed
within the radial lines exceeds the adjacent support di-
cent support dimension. A connection not defined as an mension, the connection is classified as an exterior
exterior connection is considered to be an interior con- connection. In the preceding, if there are no shear cap-
nection. itals, a support should be interpreted as being the col-
Openings or slab edges located close to the support umn plus column capital if present. If there are shear
interrupt the shear flow in the slab, induce moment capitals, the effect of the opening should first be
transfer to supports, reduce anchorage lengths, and re- checked considering the column to act as the support,
duce the effective joint confinement. The distance of and secondly, considering the shear capital to act as the

f slab

direction of (a) Edgo Ccmrtkvn (b) Cornw Connoctbn

main slab

PlUr\, (c) Edge Connection with (d) Edga Connaetkn with

Tmnmern (Spandral) Beam shalt slab owrhang

Fig. 2.4~Moment direction for one-way slab rodw lho to boundary oi .

0 - iongth of crltlcel
rlthln r&la! Ilna
support. For the purpose of classifying u connection as
b - door dbtmm bc.-w..
interior or exterior, the effect of openings on the criti- uppert and openIn
cal section around a drop panel need not be consid- e - column dimension

ered. Not.: Connretlan consldwrcl axtrfor

Where distances to openings and free edges exceed If a > c
and b <4h
the aforementioned requirements, the connection may (0) Connection with Signifkont Opening
be defined as being interior. In such cases, the diameter
of the longitudinal bars should be limited so that ade-
quate development is available between the column and Fig. 2.5~Examples of exterior connections
the opening or edge. Recommendations given
elsewhere suggest that bars should be selected so that tions. A Type 2 connection is a connection between
the development length is less than half the distance members that may be required to absorb or dissipate
from the column face to the edge or opening. moderate amounts of energy by deformations into the
2.2.2 A connection is classified as either Type 1 or inelastic range. Typical examples of Type 2 connec-
Type 2 depending on the loading conditions of the con- tions are those in structures designed to resist earth-
nection as follows: quakes or very high winds. In structures subjected to
(a) Type 1: A connection between elements that are very high winds or seismic loads, a slab-column con-
designed to satisfy AC1 318 strength and serviceability nection that is rigidly connected to the primary lateral
requirements and that are not expected to undergo de- load resisting system should be classified as a Type 2
formations into the inelastic range during the service connection even though it may not be considered dur-
life. ing design as a part of that primary lateral load resist-
(b) Type 2: A connection between elements that are ing system. As noted in Chapter I, these recommenda-
designed to satisfy AC1 318 strength and serviceability tions do not apply to multistory frames in regions of
requirements and that are required to possess sustained high seismic risk in which slab-column framing is con-
strength under moderate deformations into the inelas- sidered as part of the primary lateral load resisting sys-
tic range, including but not limited to connections sub- tem.
jected to load reversals.
The design recommendations for connections are de- CHAPTER 3-DESIGN CONSlDERAtlONS
pendent on the deformations implied for the design 3.1 -Connection performance
loading conditions. A Type 1 connection is any con- The connection should be proportioned for service-
nection in a structure designed to resist gravity and ability, strength, and ductility to resist the actions and
normal wind loads without deformations into the in- forces specified in this chapter.
elastic range for expected loads. Some local yielding of
slab reinforcement may be acceptable for Type 1 con- 3.2-Types at actions on the connection
nections. Slabs designed by conventional yield-line 3.2.1 The design should account for simultaneous ef-
methods may be included in this category, except if re- fects of axial forces, shears, bending moments, and
quired to resist loads as described for Type 2 connec- torsion applied to the connection as a consequence of

external loads, creep, shrinkage, temperature, and supports is likely to be higher (by as much as 20 per-
foundation movements. Loads occurring during con- cent) than the tributary area shear9e3 because of con-
struction and during the service life should be consid- tinuity effects.
ered. 3.3.3 For lateral loads, effects of cracking, compati-
The connection should be designed for the forces due bility, and vertical loads acting through lateral dis-
to applied external loads and due to time-dependent placements (P-delta effects) should be considered.
and temperature effects where they are significant. Ef- Cracking in the connection has been shownlJ-34 to re-
fects of construction loads and early concrete strengths duce connection lateral-load stiffness to a value well
are of particular importance for slabs without beams, below the stiffness calculated by the elastic theory.3zJJ
as demonstrated by several catastrophic failures during The reduction in stiffness can result in lateral drift ex-
construction.- Effects of heavy construction equip- ceeding that anticipated by a conventional elastic anal-
ment and of shoring and reshorin~z7~za should be con- ysis. Effects of gravity loads acting through lateral dis-
sidered. Effects of simultaneous bidirectional moment placements (P-delta effects) are consequently amplified
transfer should be considered in design of the connec- and may play an important role in behavior and stabil-
tion, except wind or seismic lateral loads generally are ity of slab-column frames. Methods of estimating re-
not considered to act simultaneously along both axes of duced lateral-load stiffness are discussed in References
the structure in design. 32,33, and ACI 318R.
3.2.2 Moment transfer about any principal axis
sh,Juld be included in evaluating connection resistance CHAPTER 4-METHODS OF ANALYSIS FOR
if the ratio between the factored transfer moment and DETERMINATION OF CONNECTION STRENGTH
factored slab shear at the slab critical section exceeds 4.1 -General principles and recommendations
0.2d, where d is the slab effective depth. The moment Connection strength may be determined by any
should be taken at the geometric centroid of the slab method that satisfies the requirements of equilibrium
critical section defined in Section 2.1. Where biaxial and geometric compatibility and that considers the lim-
moments are transferred to the support, the 0.26 limi- iting strengths of the slab, the column, and the joint. In
tation can be applied independently about both princi- lieu of a general analysis, strength of the slab included
pal axes of the connection. in the connection may be determined according to the
Moment transfer at a connection can reduce the procedures given in Sections 4.2, 4.3, and 4.4, and
shear strength of a slab-column connection. However, strength of the joint may be determined according to
the strength reduction for eccentricity less than 0.2d is Section 4.5.
within the experimental scatter for nominally identical Methods of computing strength of the slab in shear
connections transferring shear only. and moment transfer have received considerable atten-
tion in literature in recent years. Available methods in-
clude applications of yield line theory, elastic piate the-
3.3-Determination of connection for&s ory, beam analogies, truss models, and others.5*3M1 The
3.3.1 Forces on the connection may be determined by explicit procedures given in Sections 4.2, 4.3, and 4.4
any method satisfying requirements of equilibrium and provide acceptable estimates of connection strength
geometric compatibility for the structure. Time-depen- with a reasonable computational effort. It is noted that
dent effects should be evaluated, moment transfer strength of a connection may be lim-
3.3.2 For normal gravity loads, the recommenda- ited by the sum of the strengths of columns above and
tions of Section 3.3.1 may be satisfied using the Direct below the joint; hence, connection strength should not
Design Method or the Equivalent Frame Method of be assumed to exceed this limiting value.
AC1 318. For uniformly loaded slabs, slab shears at the
connection may be determined for loads within a trib- 4.2-Connections without beams
utary area bounded by panel centerlines; slab shears at The connection should be proportioned to satisfy
first interior supports should not be taken less than 1.2 Sections 4.2.1 and 4.2.2.
times the tributary area values unless a compatibility 4.2.1 Shear
analysis shows lower values are appropriate. L2,l.I Connections transferring shear-Shear
The design should account for the worst combina- strength V, in the absence of moment transfer is given
tions of actions at the connection. Analysis for connec- by
tion forces should consider at least (a) loads producing
the maximum slab shear on the slab critical section, and v, = 4 V,, where V, = C,V, (4-l)
(6) loads producing the maximum moment transfer at
the slab critical section. in which @ = 0.85, V,, = the nominal shear strength,
Factored slab shear at the connection can be deter- v, = basic shear strength carried by concrete, and C, is
mined by several procedures, including yield line and the product of all appropriate modification factors
strip design methods13.z9 and the equivalent frame given in Table 4.1 and is taken equal to 1 .O if none of
method. However, in typical designs, simpler proce- the modification factors of Table 4.1 are applicable
dures such as the use of tributary areas are acceptable.
The designer is cautioned that the shear at first interior v, = (2 + 4/&) fl A,Y < 4 A, fl , (4-2)

in which & = ratio of long to short cross-sectional di- - Modification factors for basic shear
mensions of the supporting column, A, = cross-sec-
tional area of the slab critical section = b,,d, and f: =
concrete compressive strength in units of psi and not to
exceed 6000 psi.
Eq. (4-l) defines shear strength in the absence of
moment transfer. The presence of moment may result
in decreased shear strength. Therefore, the designer is
cautioned when computing the required connection
moment strength to consider effecrs of pattern loads,
lateral loads, construction loads, and possible acciden-
tal loads.
Eq. (4-l) is based on a similar equation for two-way as a function of the square root of the concrete com-
shear strength as presented in the ACI 318. However, pressive strength. Some researcff* suggests that the re-
modification factors not included in ACI 318 are in- lation should be in terms of the cube root of concrete
cluded in these recommendations. The basic shear strength rather than the square root. Thus, it is possi-
strength should be multiplied by each of the applicable ble that shear strength given by Eq. (4-2) is unconser-
modificction factors in Table 4.1 to arrive at the nom- vative for concrete strengths exceeding 6000 psi, the
inal shear strength V,. The modification factors reflect upper bound of strengths reported in tests of siab-coi-
how each variable individually affects shear strength. umn connections.
There is little experimental information to show that During construction, young and relatively weak con-
the effects are cumulative. The Committee recommen- crete may need to carry heavy loads. Low concrete
dation is intended to be conservative. strength has a greater effect on shear strength than
The maximum value of 4fi A, for the basic shear fiexurai strength. Thus, there is G tendency toward
strength given in Eq. (4-2) exceeds the nominal strength connection shear failures. In checking resistance to
of 2fibdti used for beams largely because of the construction loads that occur before the full design
geometric confinement afforded to the slab shear faii- concrete strength develops, it is important to use the
ure surface. As the supporting column cross section be- concrete strength corresponding to the age at which the
comes elongated, the confinement due to lateral load occurs rather than the design strength.
compression along the long face is diminished. The Connections transferring shear and mo-
term flc in Eq. (4-2) reflects the reduction in strength ment-Any connection may be designed in accordance
due to reduction in lateral confinement. A similar phe- with the recommendations of Section Con-
nomenon arises if the critical section perimeter b, nections satisfying the limitations of Sections
greatly exceeds the depth d of the slab, as occurs for or may be designed by the procedures listed
the critical section around drop panels and shear capi- in those sections in lieu of the procedure in Section
tals. The values of the modification. factors as a func- All Type 2 connections should satisfy the
tion of b,/d are based subjectively on trends observed recommendation of Section in addition to the
in References 42 and 43. Research on interior connec- other recommendations of this section. All connections
tions with shearhead reinforcemenP shows that the should meet the recommendations of Section 4.2.2.
nominal strength decreases as the distance between the (a) The fraction of the transfer moment given by
critica! section and the column face increases. An evai-
uation of the data by the Committee indicates that the 1
YY = l- l+MJKj (4-3)
reduction may also have been attributable to the in-
crease in the ratio of the critical section dimension to
slab depth. should be considered resisted by shear stresses acting on
Lightweight aggregate concretes have been observep the slab critical section. In Eq. (43), 8, is the ratio of
to exhibit lower shear strengths relative to normal the lengths of the sides of the slab critical section mea-
weight concretes having the same compressive strength. sured parallel and transverse to the direction of mo-
Connections subjected to widespread flexural yieid- ment transfer, respectively. The shear stresses due to
ing have been observed to exhibit shear strengths moment transfer should be assumed to vary linearly
lower than those observed for connections failing in about the centroid of the slab critical section. The al-
shear prior to jlexurai yielding. Nominal shear strength gebraic sum of shear stresses due to direct shear and
for this case is reduced by a factor of 0.75. This provi- moment transfer should not exceed the value of VJA,.
sion should be applied for ail Type 2 connections and (b) Corner connections, and edge connections trans-
for some Type 1 connections. Included in the latter ferring moments only perpendicular to the slab edge,
category are slabs designed by yield-line methods. The may be assumed to have adequate shear strength if the
possibility of yield should be considered in flat-slab and factored direct shear transferred to the column does not
flat-plate floor systems for which column layouts are exceed 0.75V,, with V, defined by Eq. (4-l).
irregular. (c) Connections supported on columns having a ratio
The basic shear strength given by Eq. (4-2) is written of long to short cross-sectional dimensions less than or

quai to two may be assumed to have adequate shear straint when the flexural reinforcement yields. For that
strength to transfer the factored connection shear and reason, an upper limit equal to three-quarters of the
moment if value given by Eq. (4-l) is recommended. Recommen-
dations for moment tmnsfer reinforcement are given in
Section 4.2.2.
For interior or edge connections having a ratio be-
in which b, = perimeter of the slab critical section, I, tween long and short column dimensions less than or
= factored direct shear on the slab critical section, and equal to two, effects of moment transfer on shear
Mvb, and iUvbl are the factored moments transferred si- strength can be accounted for by proportioning the
multaneously to the support in the two principal direc- connection to satisfy the recommendations of Section
tions at the geometric centroid of the slab critical sec- Eq. (4-4) of that section essentially emu-
tion. For exterior connections, moments perpendicular lates, in algebraic form, the eccentric shear stress model
to the slab edge may be taken equal to zero in Eq. (4-4) described in Section The form of Eq. (4-4)
if V, does not exceed 0.75 I,, with V, defined by Eq. (4- was originally presented by ACI-ASCE Committee
1). The value of (Y should be taken equal to 5 for inte- 426, which recommended the equation for interior
rior connections and 3.5 for edge connections. connections with a value of a equal to 5.2. The value
(d) For all Type 2 connections, the maximum shear of a has been modified to 5.0 for interior connections.
acting on the connection in conjunction with inelastic For edge connections transferring moment only paral-
moment transfer should not exceed 0.4V,. lel to the slab edge, a value of a equal to 3.5 is appro-
Shear strength may be reduced when moments are priate. For edge connections also transferring moment
transferred simultaneously to the connection. In Sec- perpendicular to the slab edge, the shear V, is usually
tion, several alternate procedures for consider- less than 0.75V, in which case moments perpendicular
ing the effects of moment transfer are recommended. to the slab edge can be ignored in Eq. (4-4). This equa-
The most general of the recommended procedures, tion may be unconservative for connections not satis-
which can be applied to connections of any geometry fying the requirement for column cross section aspect
and loading, is described in Section How- ratio.
ever, connections can be designed with less computa- The recommendation in Section should be
tional effort if they satisfy the loading and geometric applied to all connections without beams for which in-
requirements of Section 4.2. I .2(b) or elastic moment transfer is anticipated. The recommen-
The design method described in Section is dation is based on a review? of data reported in Refer-
identical to the eccentric shear stress mode1 embodied in ences 33, 34, and 48 through 52, and some previously
ACI 318. It is assumed that shear stresses due to direct unpublished tests, which reveal that lateral displace-
shear on the connection are uniformly distributed on ment ductility of interior connections without shear re-
the slab critical section. In addition, a portion of the inforcement is inversely related to the level of shear on
unbalanced moment given by Eq. (4-3) is resisted by a the connection. Connections having shear exceeding the
linear variation of shear stresses on the slabcritical sec- recommended value exhibited virtually no lateral dis-
tion. The algebraic sum of shear stresses due to direct placement ductility under lateral loading. The recom-
shear and moment transfer should not exceed the value mendation of Section may be waived if cal-
of V,/&. The portion of moment not carried by ec- culations demonstrate that lateral interstory drifts will
centric shear stresses is to be carried by slab flexural re- not induce yield in the slab system. For multistory con-
inforcement according to Section 4.2.2. The method is struction, stiff lateral load resisting structural systems
described in detail in several references (e.g., AC1 comprising several structural walls may be adequate.
318R, and Reference 13). 4.2.2 Fiexure-Slab flexural reinforcement should be
For corner connections, and for edge connections provided to carry the moment transferred to the con-
transferring moment only perpendicular to the slab nection in accordance with Section 5.1.1.
edge, a simple computational design procedure is given
in Section The procedure is based on 4.3~Connections with transverse beams
research46 on slab-column edge connections for which If a connection has beams transverse to the span of
the outside face of the column is flush with the slab the slab, shear and moment transfer strength of the
edge. For such connections, moment transfer strength connection may be determined as follows:
perpendicular to the slab edge is governed by slab flex- 4.3.1 Shear strength is the smaller of the following:
Ural reinforcement within an effective transfer width, (a) Design shear strength-limited by beam action with
and apparently is not influenced significantly by shear a critical section extending across the entire slab width
on the connection. Failure apparently occurs when the in a plane parallel to the beam and located a distance d
connection moment reaches theflexural strength of slab from the face of the beam, where d is the slab effective
reinforcement, or the connection shear reaches the depth. Design shear strength for this condition is cal-
shear strength of the slab critical section. In cases where culated according to AC1 318 for beams,
moments induce yield in slab flexural reinforcement, (b) Design shear strength limited by the sum of de-
shear failure can apparently occur for shear less than sign strengths in shear of only the transverse beams.
that given by Eq. (4-I) because of loss of in-plane re- Design shear strength of the transverse beams at a dis-

tana d- from the support face should be computed tion. For connections having substantial transverse
considering interaction between shear and torsion, beams, it is unlikely that the beams and slab will de-
where d- is the beam effective depth. velop design shear strengths simultaneously, so shear
4.3.2 Moment transfer strength is the smaller of the strength should be limited to the contribution of the
following: beams only.
(a) Design flexural strength of the slab at the face of Flexural strength is limited by development of a flex-
the support over a width equal to that of the column Ural yield line across the slab column-strip width, in
strip. which case the transverse beams do not reach their de-
(b) Sum of the design flexural strength of the slab sign strengths [Fig. 4.1(a)], or by development of a
and the design torsional strengths of the transverse yield surface around the connection that involves flex-
beams. Slab design flexural strength is computed over Ural yield of the slab and torsional yield of the traits-
a width equal to. that of the support face. verse beams [Fig. 4.1(b)]. Beam torsional strength is
The procedure described is based on concepts of the calculated considering interaction between shear and
beam analogy as presented in Reference 38. The pro- torsion. The beam shear may be determined by the
cedure assumes the shear strength is limited by either procedure given in Reference 16, or more simply, all
beam action in the slab or by development of shear shear may be assumed distributed to beams in propor-
strengths of the beams at the side faces of the connec- tion to their tributary areas if the beams have equal



e* Mu - Slab flexural strength

for width of the

column strip

M, = Momant transfer
tronsvsr5e boom-
w St1tength = M,,

(a) Strength Limited by Slab Column-Strip Capacity

f, - Boom torsional strength

Mu - Slab flexural strength

for width c2

M5 t Moment transfer

strength = M, f 21,

(b) Strength Llmitsd by Combined Flaxural/ k~~iotw~ Capacities

Fig. 4.1--Unbalanced moment strength of connections with transverse beams


without splices, and the joint should be confined as

specified in Section 5.2.2 of these recommendations.
4.5.2 Shear-Calculations for joint shear strength in
slab-column connections are not required.
The committee is aware of no cases of joint shear
failure in flat slab or flat plate connections. The ab-
sence of joint shear failures is likely to be attributable
to two phenomena: (I) For slabs of usual proportions,
the magnitudes of moment transfer that can be devel-
oped, and hence of the joint shear, are not excessive;
and (2) confinement afforded by the slab concrete en-
hances joint shear strength.

Fig. &I-Illustration of cases where balanced and un- CHAPTER 5~REINF0RCEMENT

balanced connection moments predominate
5.1 -Slsb reinforcement for moment transfer
stiffness. Combined shear and torsion strength may be 5.1.1
represented as in ACI 318 or can be based on other (a) Interior connections-Reinforcement required in
methods such as those described in References 53 and each direction to resist the moment +fMb, where 7, =
16. 1 - yy, should he placed within lines 1.5h either side of
a column (including capital), where Mub = the moment
4.4-Effect of openings transferred to the column in each principal direction, h
When openings perpendicular to the plane of the slab = the slab thickness including drop panel, and 7, =
are located closer to a slab critical section than four fraction of moment transferred by flexure. The rein-
times the slab thickness, the effect of such openings forcement should be anchored to develop the tensile
should be taken into account. This may be done using forces at the face of the support. Reinforcement placed
a general analysis that satisfies requirements of equilib- to resist slab flexural moments or placed as structural
rium and compatibility. In lieu of a general analysis, integrity reinforcement (as recommended in Section
Section 4.2 or 4.3 should be followed as appropriate, 5.3) may be assumed effective for moment transfer.
except that portions of the slab critical section enclosed The optimum placement of reinforcement for mo-
within lines from the centroid of the support area to the ment transfer has not been clearly established by avail-
extreme edges of the opening should be considered in- able experimental data. Current practice (AC1 318)
effective. The eccentricity of the applied shear caused considers reinforcement placed within I.5 slab thick-
by the opening should also be taken into account, ex- nesses both sides of the column to be effective in trans-
cept where the ineffective length of the slab critical sec- ferring the flexural moment y,&, and observed per-
tion is less than either d or half the length of the adja- formance of connections designed by this procedure has
cent support face. The support should be considered generally been acceptable. Whether the reinforcement
the column including column capital if the critical sec- required for moment transfer is placed totally as top
tion under consideration is adjacent to the column, and reinforcement, or whether some bottom reinforcement
should be considered the shear capital or drop panel if should be used, is less clear and requires judgment on
the critical section under consideration is adjacent to the part of the engineer. As guidance, consider the two
the shear capital or drop panel. extreme cases illustrated in Fig. 5.1.
Slab perforations and embedded service ducts dis- In Case A of Fig. 5. I, the connection loading is pre-
rupt the flow of flexural and shear stresses in the vicin- dominated by a large balanced moment. If a small ec-
ity of the connection and generally result in decreased centric loading is introduced, the slab moment in-
strength. The influence is a function of proximity and creases on one side of the connection and decreases
size of the disruption. Effects of slab perforations and slightly (but still remains negative) on the other side of
of embedded service ducts are described in Reference the connection. In this case, the designer would be pru-
54: dent to pluce all the moment transfer reinforcement as
top steel.
4.5-Strength of the joint In the other extreme (Case B of Fig. 5.1). the con-
4.5.1 Axial compression--If the design compressive nection is loaded by a small balanced moment and a
strength of concrete in the column is less than or equal large moment transfer due to lateral loads. In this case,
to 1.4 times that of the floor system, strength of the the loading results in nearly equal slab moments of op-
joint in axial compression can be assumed equal to posite sign on opposite sides of the column. Conse-
strength of the column below the joint. Otherwise, ax- quently, the total area of reinforcement required by
ial strength should be determined according to Section Section 5.1. I(a) for moment transfer should be divided
10.13 of AC1 318. The column longitudinal reinforce- equally between the top and bottom of the slab. Be-
ment should be continuous through the joint, with or cause the loading condition shown in Case B of Fig. 5. I

normally involves moment reversals, both the top and

the bottom reinforcement should be effectively contin-
uous over the column.
(b) Exterior connections-For resistance to moment
transfer parallel to the edge of edge connections, the
recommendations of Section 5,1,1(a) for interior con-
nections should be followed.
For resistance to moment transfer perpendicular to
the edge, including corner connections, sufficient rein-
forcement should be placed within a width 2c, + c,,
centered on the column, to resist the total moment to
be transferred to the column at the centroid of the slab
(a) E* Cannedon (b) Camr Connection
critical section, unless the edge is designed to transfer
the torsion due to required slab reinforcement outside
this width. The quantity c, is the distance from the in- Fig. 5.2-Plan views showing yield lines at edge and
ner face of the column to the slab edge measured per- corner connections
pendicular to the edge, but not to exceed c,. In cases
where the edge is designed for torsion, recommenda- inforcement should be provided in both directions. The
tions of Section 5.1.1 (a) for interior connections should value of pf, for that reinforcement within lines 2h
be followed. either side of the column in each direction should be
Experimental results6~sJ~J6 indicate that slab rein- not less than 100 psi, where p is the reinforcement ra-
forcement for moment transfer perpendicular to the tio of bottom slab reinforcement.
edge is fully effective in resisting the edge moment only (c) Structural integrity reinforcement should be pro-
if it is anchored within torsional yield lines projecting vided according to provisions of Section 5.3.
from the interior column face to the slab edge (Fig. Slab reinforcement is required through the column
5.2). Because of the large twist that occurs in the edge cage to insure that there is continuity between the slab
member after torsional yield, reinforcement beyond the and column. Minimum reinforcement in the slab sur-
projection of the yield line cannot be fully developed rounding the supporting column is necessaty to control
until large connection rotations occur. For the typical cracking. Concentration of reinforcement at the con-
torsional yield line having a projection of approxi- nection delaysjlexural yield of reinforcement and, thus,
mately 45 deg, only that reinforcement within the width enhances shear strength.*9 For exterior slab-column
2c, + c, is considered effective, as shown in Fig. 5.2. connections in which the slab extends beyond the outer
If the edge has been designed for torsion, the edge face of the column, the slab overhang should be pro-
member is likely to possess greater torsional stiffness so vided with temperature and shrinkage reinforcement as
that reinforcement beyond the torsional yield line might a minimum.
be effective. In this case, the column strip should be In designs where lateral loads are of sufficient mag-
capable of resisting the total moment, and sufficient nitude that positive slab moments are computed at the
reinforcement should be placed within the effective column face, reinforcement should be provided in the
width as defined in Section 5.1.1(a). There is some ex- column strip to resist the computed moments (Case B
perimental evidence to verify the performance of this in Fig. 5.1). This can occur even in buildings with
type of connection.6 structural wall systems designed to resist the lateral
5.1.2 At least two of the main top slab bars in each load.
direction and all the structural integrity reinforcement In designs where moment transfer is of lesser magni-
required by Section 5.3 should pass within the column tude, the total slab moment at the column face may be
cage. Maximum spacing of slab flexural reinforcement computed to be negative (Case A in Fig. 5.1). How-
placed in both directions in the connection should not ever, it is stil! possible that positive slab moments will
exceed twice the slab thickness. develop near the column,s and reinforcement [Section
5.1.3 Continuous bottom slab reinforcement should 5.1.3(b)] should be provided to resist this moment. At
be provided at the connection in accordance with the edge connections where the column is flush with the
following: slab edge and the connection is loaded by an unbal-
(a) Where analysis indicates that positive slab mo- anced moment that produces tension at the top of the
ments develop at the connection, sufficient bottom re- slab, the provision of Section 5.1.3(b) does not apply.
inforcement should be provided within the column strip The recommendations for continuity and anchorage
to resist the computed moment. of bottom reinforcement presented in this and other
(b) Where moment transfer alone develops positive sections of this document differ from minimum re-
slab moments, and the maximum shear stress on the quirements of many codes (e.g., ACI 318). Minimum
slab critical section due to moment transfer computed requirements of these codes are considered to be inad-
in accordance with Section exceeds 0.4VJA, equate for many common design situations.
or when the quantity 5(M,,, + Mub2)/boVu computed 5.1.4 Where bottom reinforcement is placed to sat-
according to Section exceeds 0.6, bottom re- isfy the recommendations of Section 5.1.3(a) or

5.1.3(b), the sum of the top and bottom reinforcement slob edge without spandrel beums be designed for tor-
within the width c, + 3h should not exceed threequar- sion. Additionally, it is noted that the recommended
ters of the balanced reinforcement computed for the edge reinforcement may be inadequate to act as a dia-
area having total width c, + 3h and depth d, unless phragm chord or strut tie. Typical examples of rein-
both the bottom and top flexural reinforcement can be forcement at edge connections are shown in Fig. 5.3.
developed within the column. For edge connections without beams, the bars run-
The upper limit on the sum of continuous top and ning parallel to the slab edge should be placed (where
bottom reinforcement applies for cases where the coi- practicable) within the bars perpendicular to the edge or
umn dimension is not sufficient to develop the rein- within the stirrups* if present.
forcement, according to Section 5.4.5. In the presence
of significant moment transfer at such connections, a 5.24tecommendationr,for the joint
bar in tension due toflexurai stresses on one face of the 5.2.1 Column longitudinal reinforcement-Column
column may, because of inadequate anchorage, be in longitudinal reinforcement passing through the joint
tension also at the opposite face of the column. Thus, should satisfy Sections 10.9.1 and 10.9.2 of AC1 318.
both the top and bottom reinforcement may be stressed Offsets that satisfy requirements of AC1 318 are per-
in tension on a single face. To insure that the extra ten- mitted within the joint.
sile forces will not result in local crushing of slab con- In addition, the column reinforcement for Type 2
crete, the sum of fop and bottom reinforcement ratios joints should be distributed around the perimeter of the
should not exceed three-guarters of the balanced ratio. column core. The center-to-center spacing between ad-
5.1.5 At discontinuous edges of exterior connections, jacent longitudinal bars should not exceed the larger of
all top slab reinforcement perpendicular to the edge 8 in. or one-third of the column cross-sectional dimen-
should be anchored to develop the yield stress at the sion in the direction for which the spacing is being de-
face of the column, and the edge should be reinforced termined.
to satisfy the recommendations of Sections 5.1.5(a) or Researchers have pointed out the need for we&d&
5.1.5(b). tributed longitudinal reinforcement to confine con-
(a) A beam should be provided having depth equal to crete.7 The recommendations for distribution of iongi-
or greater than the slab depth and having longitudinal tudinai reinforcement for Type 2 connections are in-
reinforcement and closed stirrups designed to resist the tended to insure adequate column ductility by
torsion transmitted from the discontinuous slab edge. improving column confinement.
The transverse reinforcement should extend a distance 5.2.2 Transverse reinforcement
not less than four times the slab thickness from both Type I connections-Transverse reinforce-
sides of the support and should be spaced at not more ment is not required for interior connections. For exte-
than 0.5d-, where dk, is the beam effective depth, rior connections, horizontal transverse joint reinforce-
except it need not be spaced less than 0.75 times the ment should be provided. Within the depth of the slab
slab effective depth. plus drop panel, the reinforcement should satisfy Sec-
(b) An effective beam formed within the slab depth tion 7.10 of AC1 318, with the following modifica-
and reinforced by slab reinforcement should be pro- tions.
vided. For this effective beam, within a distance not (a) At least one layer of transverse reinforcement
less than two slab thicknesses on both sides of the sup- should be provided between the top and bottom levels
port, the top reinforcement perpendicular to the edge of slab longitudinal reinforcement.
should be spaced not more than 0.75 times the slab ef- (b) If the connection is part of the primary system for
fective depth and should have a 1X-Ldeg hook with ex- resisting nonseismic lateral loads, the center-to-center
tension returning along the bottom face of the slab a spacing of the transverse reinforcement should not ex-
distance not less than I,, as defined in Section 5.4.5. In ceed 8 in.
lieu of hooked bars hairpin bars of diameter not less Type 2 connections-Column transverse
than that of the top slab bars may be inserted along reinforcement above and below the joint should con-
the edge to overlap the top bars. At least four bars, of form to requirements of Appendix A of AC1 318.
diameter not less than the diameter of the main slab For interior connections, transverse reinforcement is
bars, should be placed parallel to the discontinuous not required within the depth of the joint. For exterior
edge as follows: Two of the bars should be top bars, connections, as defined in Section 2.2.1, the column
one along the slab edge and one not less than 0.75 c, transverse reinforcement should be continued through
nor more than c, from the slab edge. The other two the joint, with at least one layer of transverse rein-
bars should be bottom bars, placed so one bar is di- forcement between the top and bottom slab reinforce-
rectly below each of the two top bars. ment. Maximum spacing of transverse reinforcement
At discontinuous edges, the use of spandrel beams is within the slab depth should not exceed the smallest of
encouraged to insure adequate serviceability and tor- (a) one-half the least column dimension, (b) eight times
sional strength. Where spandrel beams are absent, the the smallest longitudinal bar diameter, or (c) 8 in. All
slab edge should be reinforced to act as a spandrel hoops should be closed with hooks at their ends of not
beam. The recommended slab edge reinforcement is in- less than 135 deg. Where rquired, crossties should be
tended to control cracking. It is not intended that the provided at each layer of transverse reinforcement, and

(a) Connection With Spandrel Beam


otc mlc,< 0 < c,

90 dog. h

(b) Boomleas Edge Connbctlon

Fig. 3.3-Typical details at discontinuous edges

each end of a crosstie should engage a perimeter longi- AC! 318 for columns in frames that are not part of the
tudinal bar. Single-leg crossties should have a 135 deg lateral force resisting system in regions of high seismic
or greater bend on one end, and the other end may risk, and for frames in regions of moderate seismic
have a standard !Wdeg tie hook as defined in Section risk, as appropriate.
7.1 in AC1 318. If 90deg hooks are used, the hooks For interior connections, adequate confinement is
should be placed at the interior face of the joint within afforded by the slab. Reinforcement above and below
the slab depth. All 135-deg hooks should have mini- the slab should conform to the recommendations.
mum extensions not less than the greater of 6 tie bar Within the depth of the joint of exterior connec-
diameters and 3 in. tions, column longitudinal bars should be restrained
For Type I connections, joint confinement by trans- laterally by spirals or by ties as required in Section
verse reinforcement is advised for exterior connections of ACI 318 and as modified here.
where at least one face of the joint is not confined by
the slab. Because the joint may be thin in elevation, the
requirements of ACI 318 are modified to recommend at 5.3~Structural integrity reinforcement
least one layer of transverse steel within the joint. An Reinforcement as specified in 5.3.1 and 5.3.2 should
additional requirement is made for the more severe be provided to increase the resistance of the structural
loading case where the slab resists lateral loads. system to progressive collapse.
For Type 2 connections, the recommendations for 5.3.1 Connections without beams-At interior con-
transverse reinforcement are the same as those given by nections, continuous bottom reinforcement passing

below the nominal value of 4flkpermitted by ACI

318, thereby reducing the margin of safety against col-
lapse. Thus, minimum continuous bottom reinforce-
ment as specified by Eq. (5-I) is recommended to sup-
port the slab in the event of a punching shear failure.
Eq. (5-l) was developed using the conceptual mode1
I ; I tbttanba&. of Fig. 5.4. In the model, the slab is supported after
of Soot0 tha hotlmntd punching by bottom reinforcement draped over the
support in the two directions. If the bottom reinforce-
Fig. S.4-Model of connection during punching failure ment is considered to assume an angle of 30 deg with
respect to the horizontal, reinforcement having an area
equal to that given by Eq.. (5-I) will be capable of sup-
within the column cage in each principal direction porting the load w, within a tributary area equal to I,&.
should have an area at least equal to Identical expressions have been obtained by other in-
vestigators using different interpretations of the basic
mechanism.d~42 The adequacy of Eq. (5-l) has been
demonstrated by numerous experiments.*42 The reduc-
tions permitted for corner and edge connections result
in an area of reinforcement providing the same theo-
retical resistance as provided for interior connections.
in which A,,,, = minimum area of effectively continu- For these exterior connections, 1, and 1, are intended to
ous bottom bars or mesh in each principal direction be the full span dimensions, not the tributary area di-
placed over the support, w, = factored uniformly dis- mensions.
tributed load, but not less than twice the slab service It is noted that only bottom reinforcement is capable
dead load, I, and 1, = center-to-center span in each of significant post-punching resistance. To perform as
principal direction, f, = yield stress of steel A,, and 4 intended, the bottom reinforcement must be effectively
= 0.9. The quantity of reinforcement A, may be re- continuous, and it must be placed directly over the col-
duced to two thirds of that given by Eq. (5-l) for edge umn and within the column cage. As depicted in Fig.
connections, and to one-half of that given by Eq. (5-l) 5.4, top reinforcement is less effective than bottom re-
for corner connections. Where the calculated values of inforcement because it tends to split the top concrete
A, in a given direction differ for adjacent spans, the cover.
larger value should be used at that connection. The minimum recommended value of w, equal to
Bottom bars having area A, may be considered con- twice the slab dead load is based on Reference 8, which
tinuous if (1) they are lap spliced outside a distance 21, indicates that the total load resisted by a connection
from the column face with a minimum lap splice length during construction may be approximately twice the
equal to I,; (2) they are lap spliced within Phe column slab dead load. Where detailed calculations and field
plan area with a minimum lap splice length of I,,; (3) monitoring of construction loads indicate lower loads,
they are lap spliced immediately outside the column the design may be based on the lower loads.
with a minimum lap splice of 2l,, provided the lap 5.3.2 Connections with beams
splice occurs within a region containing top reinforce- If the beam depth is less than twice the slab
ment; or (4) they are hooked or otherwise anchored at depth at the support, the provisions of Section 5.3.1
discontinuous edges to develop yield stress at the col- should be followed in both directions.
umn face. If the beam depth is at least equal to twice
Catastrophic progre&ve collapses have occurred in the slab depth, adequate integrity is provided if provi-
slab-column structures. ld Many of the failures have oc- sions of AC1 318 are followed for the transverse beams,
curred during construction when young, relatively weak including minimum embedment of bottom bars in the
concrete was subjected to heavy construction loads. support.
Procedures for considering the effects of construction Progressive collapse has not been a prominent prob-
loads have been described.a*J7*2d lem in structures having beams between supports.
For Type I connections, the minimum bottom rein- Nonetheless, the value of well anchored bottom bars as
forcement given by Eq. (5-I) should be continuous over provision against collapse should not be overlooked.
the columns to reduce the likelihood of progressive col-
lapse. Although not presently required by ACI 318,
such reinforcement is frequently called out by many 5.4.Anchorage of reinforcement
design offices. 5.4.1 General recommendations-Reinforcement
For Type 2 connections, the design loading condi- should be anchored on each side of the critical section
tions may result in genera1 yielding of the top and/or by embedment length or end anchorage. At connec-
bottom slab reinforcement at the connection. Experi- tions, the critical section for development of reinforce-
mental data indicate that under such conditions the ment is at the location of maximum bar stress. At con-
punching shear strength may be reduced considerably nections in structures having rectangular bays, the crit-

ical section may be taken along a line intersecting the that yield is generally anticipated in Type 2 connec-
joint face and perpendicular to the direction of the mo- tions, the modification of Section 5.4.4(d) is not to be
ment . applied for the Type 2 connection.
5.4.2 Recommendations for Type I connections- Where significant strain hardening of reinforcement
Reinforcement at connections may be developed by us- is anticipated due to inelastic deformations, 1.25 f,
ing hooked bars according to Section 5.4.4, by using should be substituted for fY in Eq. (5-2).
straight bars passing through the connection according 5.4.5 Straight bars terminating at the connection-
to Section 5.4.5, or by using straight bars terminating The development length id for a straight bar terminat-
at the connection according to Section 5.4.5. ing at a Type 1 connection should be computed as
5.4.3 Recommendations for Type 2 connections-
Reinforcement at connections may be developed by us-
ing hooked bars according to Section 5.4.4, except all 1, = f,Ab ) o.o004d,fy (5-3)
bars terminating in the joint should be hooked within 25 47
the transverse reinforcement of the joint using a Meg
hook. Alternately, anchorage may be provided by provided the bar is contained within the core of the
straight bars passing through the connection according column, with the following modifications:
to Section 5.4.6. Straight bars should not be termi- (a) The length Id should be increased by 30 percent
nated within the region of slab comprising the connec- for bars not terminating within the core of the column.
tion. For bars anchored partially within the column core, any
5.4.4 Hooked bars terminating at the connection- portion of the embedment length not within the con-
The development length Id,, of a bar terminating in a fined core should be increased by 30 percent.
standard hook is (b) The length I,, should be increased by 30 percent if
the depth of concrete cast in one lift beneath the bar
exceeds 12 ln.
V-2) (c) The length I, should be multiplied by 1.33 for all-
lightweight concrete, or by 1.18 for sand-lightweight
with the following modifications: (d) The length id may be reduced for Type 1 connec-
(a) The develo&ment length should be increased by 30 tions by multiplying by the factor A, (required)/ A,
percent for all-lightweight and sand-lightweight con- (provided) where reinforcement is provided in excess of
crete. that required for strength.
(b) If transverse reinforcement in the joint is pro- The recommended development length ti similar to
vided at a spacing less than or equal to three times the that required by ACI 318.
diameter of the bar being developed, f& may be re- Where the bar is not contained within the core of the
duced by 20 percent within the joint. column, 1, should be increased as recommended in Ref-
(c) For Type 1 connections, if side cover normal to erence 59 to account for the greater tendency toward
the plane of the hook is not less than,2/1 in., and cover splitting when concrete cover is small.
on the bar extension is not less than 2 in., I& may be For Type 2 connections, straight bars should not ter-
reduced by 30 percent. minate in the region of slab comprising the connection.
(d) For Type 1 connections, if reinforcement in ex- 5.4.6 Bars passing through the joint-For Type 2
cess of that required for strength is provided, Id& may be connections, all straight slab bars passing through the
reduced by the ratio AJrequired)/A,(provided). joint should be selected such that
In no case should the length I,, be less than the
greater of 6 in. or 8d,.
For most Type I and all Type 2 exterior connections, hi/d, ) 15 (5-4)
bars terminating at a connection will be anchored using
a standard hook as defined by ACI 318. The tail exten-
sion of the hook should project toward the midheight where h, is the joint dimension parallel to the bar. No
of the joint. The development length given by Eq. (S-2) special restrictions are made for column bars or for
is similar to that required by ACI 318 and is evaluated Type 1 connections.
more fully in work done by AC! Committee 408.9 The Straight slab bars are likely to slip within a joint dur-
modifications are to be applied concurrently. ing repeated inelastic lateral load reversals (ACI 352R,
The same length is specified for Type I and Type 2 Reference 40). In slabs.of usual thickness, slip of rein-
connections, based on the assumption that the effects forcement can result in significant reduction of lateral
of load: reversals for Type 2 connections will be offset load stiffness.6 The purpose of the recommended ratio
by more stringent recommendations for joint confine- between bar size and joint dimension is to limit, but not
ment. These confinement recommendations are equiv- eliminate, slippage of the bars through the connection.
alent to the benefits from increased concrete cover over The recommended ratio is intended to avoid unusuaUy
the hook; hence, the modification of Section 5.4.4(c) is large diameter slab bars and will not influence propor-
not applicable to Type 2 connections. In addition, given tions in typical designs.

CHAPTER G-REFERENCES American Concrete Institute, Detroit, 1974, pp. 817-846.

6.1 -Recommended references 16. Rangan, B. Vijaya, and Hall, A. S.. Moment and Shear
Transfer Between Slab and Edge Column, AC1 JOURNAL, &owed-
American Concrete Institute ings V. 5, No. 3, May-June 1983, pp. 183-191.
318-83 (1986) Building Code Requirements 17. Hawkins, N. M., and Corley, W. 0.. Moment Transfer to
for Reinforced Concrete Columns in Slabs with Shearhead Reinforcement, Shear in Rein-
3181-83 Commentary on Building Code Re- forced Concrete, SP42. American Concrete Institute, Detroit, 1974,
quirements for Reinforced Concrete pp. 847-879.
18. Corley, W. Gene, and Hawkins, Neil M., Shearhead Rein-
423.3R-83 Recommendations for Concrete forcement for Slabs, AC1 JOURNAL, promdings V. 65, No. 10, Ckt.
Members Prestressed with Unbonded 1968, pp. 81 l-824.
Tendons 19. Paulay. T., and Taylor, R. G., Slab Coupling of Earthquake
352 R-85 Recommendations for Design of Resisting Shear Walls, AC1 JOURNAL, Proceedings V. 78, No. 2,
Beam-Column Joints in Monolithic Mar.-Apr. 1981, pp. 130-140.
20. Schwaighofer, Joseph, and Collins, Michael P., An Experi-
Reinforced Concrete Structures mental Study of the Behavior of Reinforced Concrete Coupling
Slabs, AC1 Journal, Proceedings V. 74, No. 3, Mar. 1977. pp. I23-
American National Standards Institute 127.
ANSI A.58.1-82 Building Code Requirements for 21. Hawkins, Neil M., Lateral Load Resistance of Unbonded
Minimum Design Loads in Buildings Post-Tensioned Flat Plate Construction, Jouma/, Prestressed Con-
crete Institute, V. 26, No. 1, Jan.-Feb. 1981. pp 94-115.
and Other Structures 22. Bums, Ned H., and Hemakom, Roongroj, Test of Post-Ten-
sioned Flat Plate With Banded Tendons, Journal of Structuml En-
International Conference of Building Officials gineering, ASCE. V. Ill. No. 9. Sept. 1985. pp. 1899-1915.
UBC-1985 Uniform Building Code 23. Kosut. Gary M.; Burns, Ned H.; and Winter, C. Victor, Test
of Four-Panel Post-Tensioned Flat Plate, Journal ofStmctuml En-
6.2~Cited rekrencos gineering, ASCE. V. 111. No. 9. Sept. 1985, pp. 19161929.
1. Flat Slab Breaks from Columns in Building, Engineering 24. Smith. Stephen W., and Bums, Ned H., Post-Tensioned Flat
News Record, Oct. 11. 1956. pp. 24-25. Plate to Column Connection Behavior, Journal, hestressed Con-
2. Building Collapse Blamed on Design, Construction, Engi- crete Institute, V. 19, No. 3, May-June 1974. pp.7691.
neering News-Record, July 15. 1971, p. 19. 25. Design of Post-Tensioned Slak, Post-Tensioning Institute,
3. Collapse Kills Five and Destroys Large Portion of 26Story Glenview. 1977.52 pp.
Apartment Building.Engineering News-Record, Mar. 8, 1973, p.13. 26. Trongtham. N., and Hawkins, N. M., Moment Transfer to
and subsequent articles on Mar. 15, 1973, p. 12, May 31, 1973, p. 13. Columns in Unbonded Post-Tensioned Prestressed Concrete Slabs,
and June 14, 1973, p. IS. Report No. SM-77-3. Department of Civil Engineering, University of
4. Leyendecker, Edgar V., and FattaI, !I. George, Investigation of Washington, Seattle, Oct. 1977.
the Skyline Plaza Collapse in Fairfax County, Virginia, Building 27. Liu. Xi-La; Chen. Wai-Fah; and Bowman, Mark D., Con-
Science Series No. 94, National Bureau of Standards, Washington, struction Loads on Supporting Floors, Concmte International: De-
DC., Feb. 1977.88 pp. sign & Construction, V. 7, No. 12, Dec. 1985, pp. 21-26.
5. ACI-AXE Committee 426, The Shear Strength of Reinforced 28. Grundy, Paul, and Kabaila. A., Construction Loads on Slabs
Concrete Members-Slabs, Proceedings, ASCE, V. IfJO, STE, Aug. with Shored Formwork in Multistory Buildings, AC1 JournaI, Pro-
1974. pp. 1543-1591. ceedingsv. 60. No. 12. Dec. 1963. pp. 1729-1738.
6. Rosenblueth. Emilio, and Meli, Roberto, The, 1985 Earth- 29. Johansen, K. W., Yield Line Theory, Cement and Concrete
quake: Causes and Effects in Mexico City. Concrete International: Association, London, 1962, 181 pp.
Design & Construction. V. 8, No. 5, May 1986. pp. 23134. 30. Hatcher, David S.; Sozen. Mete A.; and Siess, Chester P.,
7. Lew. H. S.; Carino, N. J.; and Fattal, S. 0.. Cause of the Test of a Reinforced Concrete Flat Plate, promdings, ASCE, V.
Condominium Collapse in Cocoa Beach, Florida. Concrere Inter- 91. STS, Oct. 1965, pp. 205-231.
national: Design & Construction, V. 4. No. 8. Aug. 1982. pp. 64-73. 31. Criswell, M. E., Design and Testing of a Blast Resistant R/C
Also, Discussion, V. 5, No. 6. June 1983. pp. 58-61. Slab System. Report No. N-72-10. U. S. Army Engineer Water-
8. Agarwal, R. K., and Gardner, Noel J., Form and Shore Re- ways Experiment Station, Vicksburg, Nov. 1972.
quirements for Multistory PIat Slab Type Buildings. AC1 JOURNAL, 32. Vanderbilt, M. Daniel. and Corley, W. Gene, Frame AnaIy-
Proceedings V. 71, No. I 1, Nov. 1974, pp. 559-569. sis of Concrete Buildings, Concnrre International: Design d Con-
9. Sbarounis, John A., Multistory Flat Plate Buildings, Con- struction, V. 5, No. 12, Dec. 1983, pp. 33-43.
crete International: Design & Construction. V. 6, No. 2. Feb. 1984. 33. Moehle, Jack P., and Diebold. John W., Lateral Load Re-
pp. 70-77. sponse of Flat-Plate Frame, Journal of Structural Engineering,
10. Lew, H. S.; Carino, N. J.; Fattal, S. G.; and Batts, M. E., ASCE. V. 111, No. 10. Oct. 1985, pp. 2149-2164.
Investigation of Construction Failure of Harbour Cay Condomin- 34. Mulcahy, J. F.. and Rotter, J. M., Moment Rotation Ck-
ium in Cocoa Beach, Florida, Building Science Series No. 145 , Na- acteristics of Flat Plate and Column Systems, AC1 JOURNAL, Pro-
tional Bureau of Standards. Washington, D. C., Aug. 1982, 135 pp. ceedings V. 80. No. 2. Mar.-Apr. 1983, pp. 85-92.
11. ACI-ASCE Committee 426, Suggested Revisions to Shear 35. Darvall, Peter, and Allen, Fred. Lateral Load Effective Width
Provisions for Building Codes, AC1 JOURNAL, Proceedings V. 74, of Flat Plates with Drop Panels. AC1 JOURNAL, Proceedings V. 81.
No. 9. Sept. 1977. pp. 458-468. No. 6. Nov.-Dec., 1984. pp. 613-617.
12. Meli. Robert, and Rodriguez, Mario, Waffle Flat Plate-Col- 36. Regan, P. E.. and Braestrup. M. W.. Punching Shear in
umn Connections Under Alternating Loads, Bulletin dit@ormation Reinforced Concrete, Bulletin dInformation No, 168, ComitC Euro-
No. 132, ComitC Euro-International du B&on, Paris, Apr. 1979, pp. International du B&ton, Lausanne. Jan. 1985, 232 pp.
45-52. 37. Cracking, Deflection, and Ultimate Load of Concrete Slab
13. Park, Robert, and Gamble, William L,. ReiMorc& Concrete Sysrems, SP-30. American Concrete Institute, Detroit, 1971. 382 pp.
Slabs, John Wiley & Sons, New York, 1980,618 pp. 38. Shear in Reinforced Concrete, SP-42. American Concrete In-
14. Vanderbilt, M. Daniel, Shear Strength of Continuous Plates, stitute, Detroit, 1974. 949 pp.
promdings, ASCE, V. 98. STS, May 1972. pp. 961-973. 39. Alexander, Scott D. B.. and Simmonds. Sidney H., Ultimate
15. Hawkins. N. M.. Shear Strength of Slabs with Moments Strength of Slab-Column Connections, ACI Structuml Journal, V.
Transferred to Columns, Shear in Reinfomed Concrete. SP-42. 84, No. 3, May-June 1987, pp. 255-261.

40. Simmonda, Sidney H., and Alexander, Scott D. B., Tru88 EXAMPLES*
Model for Edge Column-Slab Connections, ACI Structural JOW-
nal, V. 84, No. 4, July-Aug. 1987, pp. 296-303. Example 1 - Dcsiga of III edge connection subjected
41. Park, Robert, and Islam, Shatiqul, Strength of Slab-Column
to gravity loading
Connections with Shear and Unbalanced Flexure, Proceedings,
AXE, V. 102. ST9, Sept. 1976, pp. 1879-1901.
42. Hawkins, N. M., and Mitchell, D., Prolprsrive Collapse of
Flat Plate Structura, AC1 JOURNAL, Mings V. 76, No. 7, July
1979. pp. 775-808.
43. Dilger. Walter H., and Ohali, Knin. Shear Reinforcement for
Concrete Slabs, Mfngs, ASCB, V. 107, ST12, Dec. 1981. pp.
44. Ivy, Charles B.; Ivey, Don L.; and Buth, Eugene, Shear Ca-
pacity of Lightweight Concrete Flat Slabs, AC1 JOURNAL, Proceed-
ings V. 66, No. 6. June 1969, pp. 490-493.
45. Zsutty, Theodore C., Beam Shear Strength Predictions by -8 Slab
Analysis of Existing Data. AC1 JOURNAL, Proceedings V. 65, No.
11. Nov. 1968, pp. 943-951.
46. Moehle, Jack P., Strength of Slab-Column Edge Connec-
tions, ACI Stmctuml Joumof, V. 85, No. 1, Jan.-Feb. 1988, pp. 89-
47. Pan, Aurtin, and Moehle, Jack P., Lateral Diiplacement
buctllity of Reinforced Concrete Slab-Column Connections. to be
published in AC1 Strwtuml Journal.
1 4 - 15
48. Morrison. Denby G.; Hirasawa, Ikuo; attd Sozen. Mete A.,
Lateral-Load Tests of R/C Slab-Column Connections, Joumul of
Structural Engineering, AXE, V. 109. No. 11, Nov. 1983, pp. 26%-
49. Hawkinr, Neil M., Seismic Response Constraints for Slab t = 40 p8f i,
Systems. Earthquake-Resistant Reiqforcvd Concmte Building Con- D = 115psf u
struction, University of California. Berkeley, 1977. V. 3. pp. 1253-
1275. Type 1 connection (2.2.2)
50. Hanson, Norman W., and Hanson, John M., Shear and Mo-
ment Transfer Between Concrete Slabs and Columnr, Jouma/, PCA Design forces
Research and Development Laboratories, V. 10. No. 1. Jan. 1968, U = 1.4D + 1.7L
pp. 2-16. v, = 38.6 kips
51. Islam, Shafiqul, and Park, Robert, Tests on Slab-Column M* = 580 kip-in. at centroid of slab critical section
Connections with Shear and Unbalanced Flexure. Proceedings,
AXE, V. 102, ST3. Mar. 1976, pp. 549-568. Check shear
52. Zce, H. L., and Moehle, J. P., Behavior of Interior and Ex- Assume P4 bars each way, %-in. cover
terior Flat Plate Connections Subjected to Inelastic Load Reversals. d = (7 + 6.5)/2 = 6.75 in.
Report No. UCB/EERC-84/07. Earthquake Engineering Research b. = 16 + 6.7s + 2(12 + 6.75/2) = 53.5 in. (2.1)
Center, University of California, Berkeley, Aug. 1984. 130 pp. A, = b.d = 53.5 x 6.75 = 361 in. (
53. Collins, Michael P.. and Mitchell, Denis. Shear and Torsion v. = v, = 4A-c = 4 x 361 x &i-%6
Design of Prestrnsed and Non-Prestressed Concrete Beams. Jour- = 91,300lb = 91.3 kips
nal. Prestressed Concrete Institute, V. 25, No. 5, Sept.-Ott. 1980. pp.
32-100. v. = cp V, = 0.85 x 91.3 = 77.6 kips
54. Hanson, John M., Influence of Embedded Service Ducts on VJV, = 38,6/77.7 = 0.50 c 0.75, therefore, OK (
Strength of Flat-Plate Structures. Research und Development But-
&in No. RWM.OlD, Portland Cement Association, Skokie. 1970.16 Check moment transfer
PP. c, + 2, = 16 + 2 x 12 = 4Oin.
55. hghbol. E. Ramzy F., and de Paiva, H. A. Rawdon, Tests +M. = +bd%(I - 0.5%f,&) (
of Flat-Plate Corner Column-Slab Connections, Proceedings, ) M. = 580 kips-in.
ASCE, V. 99, ST3, Mar. 1973, pp. 551-572. which requires p = 0.0058; A, = 1.62 in.
56. Rangan, B. Vijaya, and Hall, A. S., Moment Redistribution Use nine #4 bars
in Flat Plate Floors, AC1 Journal, Proc&ings V. 81, No. 6, Nov.-
Dec. 1984, pp. 601-608. Reinforcement details
57. Sheikh, Shamin A., and Uzumeri, S. M., Strength and Duc- Top reinforcement perpendicular to the slab edge (5.1.5b)
tility of Tied Concrete Columns, Proreedings, AXE, V. 106. STS. spacing < 0.75d = 5.1 in.
May 1980. pp. 1079-l 102. Development length of hooks
58. Mitchell, Denis. and Cook, William D., Preventing Progres- L = v;dd45Od?)
sive Collapse of Slab Structures, Journal of Structural Engineering, = (60,000 x O.S)/(SOm) = 9.5 in. (5.4.4)
ASCE. V. 110. No. 7. July 1984. pp. 1513.1532. Structural integrity reinforcement (5.3.1)
59. AC1 Committee 408. Suggested Development, Splice. and w, = greater of (1.4D + I .7L) and (20) = 0.230 ksf
Standard Hook Provisions for Deformed Bars in Tension, (AC1 A, = (++)(0.5w.l,l>)/(+L)
408.1R-79). American Concrete Institute, Detroit, 1979, 3 pp. I= (n)(O.5 x 0.230 x 22.5 x 15)/(0.9 x 60)
60. fkrtuo, V. V.; Popov, E. P.; and Forzani, 9.. Seismic Be- = 0.48 in.
havior of Lightweight Concrete Beam-Column Subassemblages, Use two #5 bottom bars each way passing through column
AC1 JOURNAL, Proceedings V. 77, No. 1, Jan.-Feb., 1980. pp. 44-52. cage.
61. Hawkins, N. M., Lateral Load Design Considerations for Flat
Plate Structures, Nonlinear &sign of Concrete Structures, Study
No. 14. University of Waterloo Press, 1980, pp. 581-613. *Numbers in parentheses refer lo sections of this report.

Final design - Example 1

Column Wx16

Tamp. ond


Exam lo 2 - Design of a corner connection sub. Check shear

jecte8 to gravity loading Assume #3 bars each way, %-in. cover
d = ( 7 . 0 6 + 6.69)/2 = 6 . 8 8 in.
b, = 2(16 + 6.8812) = 38.9 in. 0.1)
~Pd A , = 3 8 . 9 x 6 . 8 8 = 268 in. (
Column l&l8 V = v, = 4 A, fl = 4 x 2 6 8 x &i% = 6 7 , 8 0 0 lb = 67.8
Y kips
-. i Column V, = &V. = 0 . 8 5 x 6 7 . 8 = 5 7 . 5
t ig MX VW/V, = 19.307.5 = 0.34 < 0.75. therefore, OK (
x M
Y b
f-43- slob
! Check qoment transfer
L Panel . - . c, + c, = 16 + 16 = 32 in.
+M, ) M* = 290 kipin.
r 11.25' which requires p. = 0.0035; A, = 0.78 in. (
Use eight #3 bars
CbM, ) M,,, = 190 kip-in.
Plan which requires pr = 0.0025; A,. = 0.54 in.
Use five #3 bars
f: = 4000 psi
f, = 60.000 psi

L =
Reinforcement details
MPf Top reinforcement perpendicular to the slab edge (5.1.5b)
D = 115psf
spacing < 0.7Sd = 5.1 in.
Type 1 connection (2.2.2) Development length of hooks
I,, = (JdJmOfl) = 7 . 1 i n . (5.4.4)
Design forces Structural integrity reinforcement (5.3.1)
u = 1.40 + 1.7L
W* = 0.230 ksf as in Example I
VW = 19.3 kip A, = ww.w,4Y(~~~
M* = 290 kigin. = (A)(03 x 0 . 2 3 0 x 2 2 . 5 x 15)/(0.9 x $0)
Mb = 190 kip-in. = 0 . 3 6 in?
at centroid of slab critical section Use two W4 bottom bars each way passing through column cage.

Flnal design - Example 2

Column lS%llc

J 1-
Section A-A

Note: #4 bottom bara placed

through column for protection

against progresstve collapse shall

have stand&d hooks (not shown).

Example 3 - E e connection subjected to Load Wind

biaxial moment2ue to gravity and wind loading -combination - direction
(1) 1.q + 40.5 - 572 -394 - -413
I Column 12~24~ x 30.4 -743 -298 690 -310

Y 34.8 -429 -610 - -625

Notes: M, and M are flexural moments in the slab cohunn strip.
M* and A? are moments transferred to the connection at the een-
troid of the sla% critical section. For moment in the x-direction, no sign
is indicated. For moment in the y-direction, vahtcs are positive if the
transfer moment tends to place bottom slab steel in tension.
V. varies depending on whethn the wind is considered along the pas-
itive or negative direction of the x- or y-axes. Only the larger value for
Y e Pmel each load combination is tabulated.
I X A, = 61.5 x 6.75 = 415 in.*
v.= Vc=4~A,-4x x 415 = 105 kips
1;1 = 4000 psi
f, = 60.000 psi
v. = &V. = 0.85 x 105 = 89.3 kips
L = 40 psf Moment transfer in x-directiott:
D = 115psf The maximum transfer moments in the x-direction occur for
Type 1 connection (2.2.2) loading cases (2) and (4). Loading case (4) must he checked he-
cause it has the larger moment, and loading case (2) must he
Design forces checked because it has the larger shear. Both cases involve bi-
U = 1.40 + 1.715 ial moment transfer. Section is followed.
) 0.75(1*44 + 1.7L + 1.7w)
) 0.9 + 1.3w For loading case (2)
V, b V. + a WJ. + M,,)/b.
Check shear = 30.4 + 3.5(690)/61.5 = 69.7 kips, OK
Basic data
d = 6.75 in. For loading case (4)
ba = 24 + 6.75 + 2(12 + 6.7512) = 61.5 in. (2.1) V, 2 18.3 + 3.5(703)/61.5 = 58.3 kips, OK

Final design-Example 3

Temp. and Shrhkoga

top and bottom
uithln column atr@

Note: hf.,,, is taken equal to xero in the preceding because Structural integrity reinforcement (5.3.1)
V./V. < 0.75.
= (%)(0.5 x 0.229 x 22.5 x 15)/(0.9 x 60)
= 0.40 in.
Moment transfer in y-direction:
The maximum moment transfer in the y-direction occurs un- Use three #4 bottom bars each direction through column cage.
der uniaxial moment transfer. According to Section,
effects of moment transfer on shear are ignored because V./V,
< 0.75.
Exam lo 4 - Design of an interior connection
F with sR ear capital

Check flexure
Reinforcement in x-direction: a 20_-
The column strip (5 1 in.) is designed to carry the total column
strip flexural moment M,,, requiring eleven 114 top and 14 at 12
in. bottom (temperature and shrinkage).
Cdumn 24x24
For moment transfer

Y. = 1 - l/(1 + O&JB-,) = (4.2.1 Aa)

t I - I/(1 + o.saJm) = 0.49
Y,J%# = (1 - yJo(O3) = 359 kip-in. ( R
Transfer width = c, + 1.5h = 24 in.
The column strip bars already in place will suffice if dis-
tributed uniformly in column strip.
Note: SM,,Jb.V, > 0.6, therefore place temperature and shrink-
age reinforcement at the bottom. (5.1.3b)
Reinforcement in y-direction:
The entire moment M4 is to be resisted in flexure (
by reinforcement within transfer width quai to f: = 4000 psi
f, = 60,000 psi

C, + 2e, = 24 + 2 x 12 = 48 in. L = 250 psf

D = 20 psf plus self weight
For MtiY = - 623 k&in., provide nine 14 top. Type 1 connection (2.2.2)
For M,,,, = + 146 kip-in., provide #4 @ 12 in. (temperature
and shrinkage). Design forces
Check spacing C 0.756. OK (5.1.5b) U = 1.40 + 1.7L
Check development, I, = 9.5 in., OK (5.4.4) Slab reinforcement #4 bars each way.

Check shear Check shear

(a) Around column Assume #4 bars each way. %-in. cover.
d = 6.75 in. (as per Example
V = 233 kips, M., = 300 k-in. b. = 4 x (22 + 6.75) = 115in. (24
A&/v. = 1.29 in. < O.zd, therefore, ignore moment transfer A, = 6.75 x I15 = 776 in. (
d = 10.75 in. For nonseismic loads
V = V, = 4 A, fl = 4 x 776 x &O@r = 1% kips
b, = 4 x (10.75 + 24) = 139 in.
A, = 139 x 10.75 = 149Oin. ( v, = 6 v, = 0.85 x 1% = 167 kips > 97 kips, OK
V,a Vc=4flA,=4x 149Oxm=377kips For seismic loads
V, = 9 V, = 0.85 x 377 = 320 kips v. = C. V, = 0.75 x 1% = 147 kips
V, < V., therefore, OK ( (C!. = 0.75 for seismic loads as per Table 1) (
v, = 6 v. = 0.85 x 147 = 125 kips
(b) Around shear capital
Check moment transfer
V, = 225 kips v, + P (hf.,, + M&/b, = 7 3 + 5 x 7801115
d = 6 . 7 5 in. = 107 kips < V., OK (
b. - 4 x (48 + 6 . 7 5 ) = 2 1 9 in. Check maximum permitted vertical shear
b/d = 21916.7s = 32.4, therefore, C, = 0.75 (Table 1) v, = 0.4 v, = 0.4 x 1% = 78 kips > 73 kips, OK
A, = 219 x 6.75 = 1480in. ( (4.2.1 Ski)
v, = C.V. 7 0.75 x 4 x 1480 x m = 281 kips
V, P 6 V, I 0.85 x 281 = 238 kips Reinforcement requirements
V, < V,, therefore, OK ( Column strip flexural strength requirements are met by placing
14 18 bars uniformly across the 10 ft wide column strip.
Reinforcement details Moment transfer strength is checked as follows
Provide slab flexural steel to resist total slab moments as per AC1 7, = 1 - y. = 0.6
318. Steel is required within c, + 3h = 46 in. to raist flexural
No rquirements for moment transfer. momem of value y,M, = 0.6 x 780 = 470 kip-in.
Provide structural integrity reinforcement as per &CtiOn5.3.1 Reinforcement placed for total column strip moment (as per
and as illustrated in previous examples. previous paragraph) is adequate.
Check if bottom steel is required for moment transfer (5.1.3b)
Example 5 - Design df an interior connection re. SM,,/b.V. = 5 x 780/(115 x 41) = 0.83 > 0.6
slsting seismic loads Therefore minimum reinforcement requirements must be met.
Provide U 4 at 16 in. within width c, + 4 Ir = 54 in., result-
ing in pf, = 111 psi > 100 psi, OK.
Structural integrity reinforcement (53.1)
A* = (0.5wn4M~~~
= (0.5 x 0.246 x 20 x 20)/(0.9 x 60) = 0.91 in.
Use three #5 bottom bars each way passing through column
Check maximum reinforcement
Within c, + 3h = 46 in., p + p r; 0.75 pu, OK (5.1.4)
Check maximum bar spacing (5.1.2)
I- 8 Slob S, = 2h = 16 in., OK
Final design - Example 5

f: = dOO0 psi
L = 6O.OOOPsi

L = 50 psf
D = 115 psf

Type 2 connection (2.2.2)

Design forces
U = 1.40 + l.fL
> 0.75(1.40 + 1.7L. + 1.8fE)
) 0.9D + 1.43W

Load combination kip-in.
(1) 1.40 + 1.7L 1450
(2) 0.75(1.40 + 1.7~5 + 1.87E) E 1440 780
(3) 0.9D + 1.43E 41 960 780
Notes: M. = column strip total moment.
M* = transfer moment.

NOTATION If, = basic shear strength of concrete without modifications

cross-sectional area of reinforciw bar, in. in Table 4.1, lb
cross-sectional area of the slab critical section, in. v, = nominal shear strength in the absence of moment
total area of steel at a cross section, in. transfer, lb
minimum area of effectively continuous bottom slab v, = design shear strength in the absence of moment trans-
bars iu each principal direction placed over the sup fer. lb
port for resistance to progressive collapse. in? v, = factored direct shear force acting on slab critical sec-
= beam width. in. tion
perimeter of the slab critical section, in. W. = factored ultimate load, but not less than twice the slab
dimension of the column transverse to the direction Of dead load, to be considered for resistance to progm-
moment transferred to the column, in. sive collapse
dimension of the column transverse to the direction of I coefficient to 3Z.q. (4.4)
moment transferred to the column, in. ; = ratio of long to short dimensions of the column cross
distance from the inner face of the column to the slab section
edge measured perpendicular to the edge, but not to 8 = ratio of length of the slab critical section measured
exceed c, parallel and transverse to the direction of moment
product of ail appropriate modification factors in Ta- transfer, respectively
ble 4.1 0 = steel ratio for bottom slab steel in one direction at the
slab effective depth, taken as the avera&te of the depths connection
from extreme concrete compression fiber to tension # = strength reduction factor
steel in two orthogonal directions. in. Yf = fractin of transfer moment at slab-column connection
diameter of slab reinforcing bar, in. that is to be carried by slab flexure, same as AC1 318
effective depth of transverse beam at connection, in. definition of 7,
concrete compression strength, psi Y. = fraction of transfer moment at slab-column connection
design yield stress of slab reinforcement, psi that is to be carried by eccentric shear stresses on the
slab thickness. in. slab critical section. same as AC1 3 18 definition of y.
joint dimension in direction parallel to that of a
straight slab bar passing through the joint, in. CONVERSION FACTORS
development length of straight bar, in. 1 in. = 25.4 mm
development length of hooked bar, in. 1 psi - 6895 N/m*
center-to-center spans in each principal direction lIb=4.448N
moment transferred to the column 1 kigin. = 0.113 kN-m
simultat~us moments transferred to the column and
acting in the two principal directions about the geo- This report was submitted to letter batlot of the c6tttmittee and vu; l p-
metric centroid of the slab critical section prowl in accordance with AC1 balloting procedures.

Recomrnendstkns for Design of SlabColumn Connections in Monolithk Reinbrced

Concrete Structures. Report by ACI-ASCE Committee 352
Discussion by Amin Ghali, 8. Vijaya Ranga( and Committee
By AMlN GHALI where V, M,, and M, are the shear force and the mo-
Mewtber Amnjeon comma htlittlte, Profi?s9or of civil El@Karl~, ments about centroidal principal axes x and y of the
Univemiiy of Ca&av. Calgary. Albtna. Canada critical section; A, I,, and I, are the area and second
Section of the report recommends three alter- moments of area about the same axes.
nate methods for calculating the strength of slab-col- The positive directions of the coordinates x and y and
umn connections transferring shearing forces and the forces V, AU,, and M, are indicated in Fig. A. The
bending moments. Method (a) is general and applies to arrows represent a force and moments exerted by the
any critical section at interior, edge, or corner col- column on the critical section. Equal and opposite force
umns. In this method, a fraction y. of the moment is and moments representing the effect of the critical sec-
assumed transferred by shear stress, which varies lin- tion on the column* exist but are not shown in Fig. A.
early about the centroid of the slab critical section. The symbols M, and M, represent the fraction of the
Method (c) uses Eq. (4-4) which emulates, in alge- moments transferred by shear; that is 7. multiplied by
braic form, the eccentric shear model adopted in the moment transferred between column and slab.
Method (a). Thus, it can be expected that Method (a) When using Eq. Q&5), it should be noted that x and
and Eq. (4-4) give the same result. Method (b) ignores y are the critical section centroidal principal axes, which
the moment transfer in corner and edge connections are not necessarily parallel to the slab edges or to the
and considers that they have adequate strength when principal ax& of the column cross section. This will be
the shear stress caused by V, does not exceed 75 per- the case for the critical section at a corner column or at
cent of VJkl,. any column adjacent to nonsymmetrical openings.
The assumption involved in Method (a) leads to the The basic mechanics Eq. (4-5) is derived from the as-
following equation for the shear stress at any point on sumption of linear variation of v over the critical sec-
the critical section tion and the conditions that Y has stress resultants qua1

*The doubkheadcd arrows shown on the plans of the slabs in Exatn~k~ 2

M and 3 of the report do not indiiate the moment directions unless a mention is
l+Fy+ --X (4-5) made that the arrow represent the action of the column on the critical sections
I I, or the effect of critical section on the column.


Fig. A - Positive directions of coordinates x and y and

of V, M, and M,

to V, M,, and M,. Eq. (4-5) differs from the equation

in Section of the AC1 318-83 Commentary6* Fig. B - Top views of a corner-column connection ex-
in that the critical section property J,, which the Com- ample
mentary describes as analogous to polar moment of
inertia, is here replaced by the second moment of corner columns. It is also expected that, for edge and
Area I. The reasons for the change are given in Refer- comer columns, the coefficient yV becomes zero when
ence 63, where it is shown that the Commentary equa- the critical section is sufficiently far from the column
tion gives erroneous results when x and y are not cen- faces. However, research is needed before an adjust-
troidal principal axes, and when they are, the equation ment of yI can be made.
gives slightly smaller stresses than the stresses by Eq. Method (b) allows substantially higher force and
(4-5). For the remainder of the present discussion, Eq. moment transfer compared to Method (a), as will be
(4-S) will be considered applicable in Method (a) of shown below by a numerical example of a corner col-
Section of the Committee 352 report. umn connection. Method (b) can lead to unsafe design
Eq. (4.4) of the report implies that the maximum because it extends the results of a test series of edge
shear stress at the critical section can be determined by connections to corner connections without sufficient
experimental evidence..

A corner column of cross section 16 x 16 in2 is con-
where b, is the perimiter of the critical section, and A&,,, nected to an 8-in. slab with d = 6.88 in. The factored
and Mub2 are the factored moments transferred to the force and moments transferred from the column to the
column about the centroidal principal directions at the slab are indicated in Fig. B.* It is required to deter-
centroid of the critical section. The values of a recom- mine, using Method (a), a multiplier I), which, when
mended are 5 for interior and 3.5 for edge connections. applied to the transferred force and moment, will make
No value is given for corner connections, which prob- the connection just safe. Repeat the design using
ably means that Eq. (4-6) does not apply in this case. Method (b) to determine a corresponding multiplier Q.
In fact, when Eq. (4-6) is used for a corner column, Assume that normal weight concrete having f: = 4000
with (r = 3.5, it gives a substantially different result psi is used, that flexural yielding in the slab is not an-
from Eq. (4-S). ticipated, and that the connection is of Type 1.
The Committee report states that Eq. (4-6) does not Method (a) - The principal axes of the slab critical
apply when the long-to-short cross-sectional dimen- section are inclined 45 deg to the slab edges. The prop-
sions of the column are greater than two. There are erties of the critical section are
several other cases not mentioned in the report for
which Eq. (4-6) cannot possibly give the correct maxi- A = 2(6.875)( 19.44)
mum shear stress because the equation does not include = 267 in.* I, = 4
12 (13.74Y = 4208 in.
the necessary parameters. Examples of such cases are:
columns with nonrectangular cross-sections, nonsym-
I,, = 327.49y = 16,800 in.
metrical critical sections due to the presence of open-
ings, and edge connections with slab overhang.
Eq. (4-5) is basic and general and does not need to be The transferred moments are multiplied by yy = 0.4
simplified by Eq. (4-6), which has so many limitations. and replaced by equivalent components in the principal
Method (b) is based on tests on edge connections that x- and y-directions. The shear in the critical section are
have indicated that the slab strength in transfer of mo- to be determined for V = 19.3 kips; M, = 136 kips-in.,
ment perpendicular to slab edge is not influenced sig- MY = 28 kips-in.
nificantly by the shearing force. This phenomenon can
mean that the fraction of moment transferred by shear *The d a t a for this exampk are tk same as for Exmnpk 2 of tk Committee
report. with the exception of the directions of tk transferred m-1,. Here
is smaller for exterior columns than for interior col- the directions of the transferred moments are chosen such tkt they produce.
umns. Thus, in Method (a), different values of the tensile stress in tk top slab fikr in directions prpendicular IO the inner faces
of the columns. This represents the common case in practice where tk mo-
coefficient yV should be used for interior, edge, and ments are caused by gravity forces on the slab.

The maximum shear stress occurs at Point A, whose torsion. The combined maximum shear stress due di-
x and y coordinates are (0 and 6.87). Maximum shear rect shear and moment transfer is found to be 211 psi,
stress by Eq. (4-5) which is less than @fl = 4 x O.SSJ;fiTbii = 215 psi.
The shear strength of the slab is therefore adequate. To
transfer a moment of 375 kips-in. by direct flexure, ad-
vlmv = s + $ff! (6.87) + ?&EjO) equate area steel must be provided in the vicinity of the
column over a width of c, + 3h = 16 + (3 x 8) = 40
= 72 + 222 + 0 = 294 psi in. This requires p = 0.0039; A, = 1.05 in. which
should be compared with p = 0.0058; A, = 1.62 in.
None of the modification factors of Table 4.1 apply; given in Example 1. In other words, the proposed
thus C, = 1 .O. The connection will be just safe when q, method requires over 50 percent more steel than that
multiplied by v, is equal to VJA, = 6(4a) needed by the AC1 Code method within the same slab
width of 40 in. The AC1 method has been in use for
more than 20 years, and I am not aware of any evi-
294l),= 0.85 (4m); thus I), = 0.73 dence showing that it is not adequate. With the advent
of microcomputers and programmable calculators, very
Method (b) - According to this method, the con- little effort is required to check a slab for adequate
nection will be just safe when qb multiplied-by 72 psi, shear strength using the AC1 method. For these rea-
which is the shear stress due to the a vertical force, is sons, I fail to see the necessity for the proposed method
qua1 to 0.75 1$(4fl). This gives that would lead to overconservative designs. Also, the
supporting data for limiting the spacing of bars to a
maximum of 0.75d is not given in the report.
72 ,)b = 0.75(0.85) (4+/400@; thus ?)b = 2.24 2. The overconservative nature of the proposed
method is further supported by the results obtained
From the example just given it can be seen that from a slapb specimen tested recently at the University
Method (b) considers the connection to be safe under of New South Wales. The test specimen is similar to the
load more than three times the load allowed by Method one I have tested earlier,16 except that there are no
(a). Method (b) can hardly be considered an alternate to closed ties in the slab at the edge.
Method (a). The test specimen is a half-scale model of an edge
connection with the following details: slab thickness =
100 mm (3.94 in.), d = 82 mm (3.23 in.), c, = 250 mm
CONCLUSION (9.84 in.), c, = 200 mm (7.87 in.), fJ = 48.3 MPa
In view of the preceding example, it is suggested that
(7004 psi), and slab steel perpendicular to the free edge
only Method (a) be retained, with the maximum stress consisted of 6.3 mm (0.25 in.) diameter bars at spac-
calculated by Eq. (4-5). A mention may be made that
ings of 100 mm (3.94 in.) at the top and 115 mm (4.53
the value of y. can be smaller than the value given by in.) at the bottom, In addition, two 8 mm (0.31 in.) di-
Eq. (4-3) when the connection is of an exterior column.
ameter bars and two 6.3 mm (0.25 in.) diameter bars
were also placed at the top within the column width.
REFERENCE The yield strength of 6.3 mm bar is 460 MPa (66.7 ksi)
62. AC1 Committee 318, Commentary on Building Code Rc and that of 8 mm bar is 535 MPa (77.6 ksi). The spec-
quiremcnts for Reinforced Concrete (AC1 316R-83): American
imen failed in punching shear and the measured forces
Concrete Institute, Detroit, 1983, 155 pp., and 1986 Supplement.
63. Ghali. Amin. Discussion of Section of Proposed at failure are V, = 108.2 kN (24.4 kips) and I&, = 27.9
Revision to: Building Code Requirements for Reinforced Concrete kNm (247 kips-in.). For this specimen, 6, = 864 mm
(AC1 318-83) (Revised 1986); reported by AC1 Committee 318, ACI (34.0 in.), V, = 864 x 82 x 0.34a = 167.4 kN
Structural Journal, V. 86, No. 3, May-June 1989. p. 329. (37.7 kips) and VU/V, = 108.2/167.4 = 0.65 < 0.75.
According to the proposed method, therefore, the
strength of this edge connection is given by the mo-
By B. VIJAYA RANQAN ment transfer strength of the slab flexural steel within
FACI, Associate Profess and Head, Department of Structuml
University of New Sourh Wales, Kensington. New South Waks,
the width of c, + 2c, = 200 + (2 x 250) = 700 mm
(27.6 in.), which is found to be 14.0 kNm (124 kips-
The members of Committee 352 should be congratu- in.). The ratio of test strength/predicted strength =
lated for their report- This discussion deals mainly with 27.9D4.0 = 2.0.
Sections, and Example 1. The design method I have calculated the strength of this test specimen
described in these sections of the report is based on the using the AC1 Building Code method. The predicted
work of Professor Moehle.e I am concerned that this moment transfer strength is 20 kNm (177 kips-in.) and
method would lead to overconservative designs in prac- therefore test value/calculated value = 27.9120.0 =
tice. The following points support my concern: 1.40.
1. I have reworked Example 1 using AC1 318-83. I have also calculated the strength of this connection
According to the AC1 Building Code method, the mo- using the simple formula given in the Australian Stan-
ment transferred by direct flexure is 375 kips-in., and dard. The predicted shear strength is 77.3 kN (17.4
therefore 580 - 375 = 205 kips-in. is transferred as kips) and the test/calculated ratio is 108.2/77.3 = 1.40.

REFERENCE rior connections transferring moment parallel to the

61. Australii Standard for Concrete Structures, (AS 360&1988), edge. For columns having other cross sections, Method
Standards Association of Australia, North Sydney, Mar. 1988, 108 (a) of Section should be used.
PP. The committee agrees with Dr. Rangan that the rec-
ommendations may result in more reinforcement near
exterior columns than is required by the AC1 Building
The committee thanks Professors Ghali and Rangan Code. The concentration of reinforcement is recom-
for their discussions of the recommendations. The mended to improve performance of the connection. As
Committee will consider seriously the points made in
reinforcement is spread over wider distances, the con-
the discussions in its future deliberations. Response to
nection becomes more flexible, and, especially under
their comments follows.
lateral loading, may not be able to develop its strength
The committee agrees with Dr. Ghali that the three
within reasonable deformation limits. Further, it should
methods of Section for determining connection
be noted that the recommendations, although requiring
shear and moment transfer strength do not produce
concentration of reinforcement near the exterior col-
identical results. Method (a) of that section is the fa-
umn, do not require use of more reinforcement in to-
miliar shear and moment transfer method of the AC1
tal. According to either the AC1 Building Code or the
Building Code. Because this method has been success- Committee 352 recommendations, the total quantity of
ful for design for many years, the committee did not reinforcement at the edge is determined by the total
attempt to modify this method. The committee cannot
slab moment at the edge.
comment on the modifications to this method that were
The additional experimental data provided by Dr.
proposed by Dr. Ghali. Those modifications and their
Rangan are welcome and will be studied further. As
bases were submitted as discussion to the Committee noted in the background to the recommendations* the
3 18 proposed revisions and are not available to the eccentric shear stress model of Section of the
recommendations usually is more conservative than is
Method (b) of Section is not intended to pro- the model of Section
duce designs that are exactly the same as those pro-
The committee agrees that computers and calculators
duced by Method (a); it is an alternative that has been
facilitate design but disagrees that such equipment ob-
found to match experimental data better than does
viates simplified techniques. When simplified tech-
Method (a). Recent comparisons with experimental niques provide insight into the proportioning and d e -
data65 indicate that Method (b) is applicable to corner tailing process, or simply aid conceptual design, they
connections. Dr. Ghali suggests in his example that the become tools as valuable as the computer or calculator
shear stress for a corner connection should be calcu-
that are purported to replace them.
lated about an axis 45 deg relative to the column prin-
cipal axes. The committee will consider this recommen-
dation further. However, the committee notes that REFERENCES
connections tested in the laboratory typicaily display 65. Twang, S.-J., An Experimental Study of Flat-Plate Strut-
yield lines across the slab prior to punching of the con- tures Under Vertical and Lateral Loads, graduate thesis, University
of California, Berkeley, Jan. 1989. 271 pp.
nection. 66. Moehle, Jack P.; Kreger. Michael E.; and Leon, Roberto,
The committee thanks Dr. Ghali for pointing out Background to Recommendations for Design of Reinforced Con-
that Method (c) of Section is applicable only to crete Slab-Column Connections. ACJ Stmctural Journal, V. 85. No.
rectangular interior connections and rectangular exte- 6. Nov.-Dec. 1988. pp. 636-644.