Magazine of Concrete Research, 1998, 50, No. 4, Dec.

, 319±327

Post-punching resistance of connections

between flat slabs and interior columns
G. S. S. A. Melo and P. E. Regan{

University of BrasõÂlia; University of Westminster

The paper reports tests designed to study the improvement in the post-punching resistance of slab±column
connections by the provision of bottom bars passing through the columns and anchored in the slab. A series of
model tests on slabs was used to develop an expression for the strength limit governed by the slab concrete, while
large-scale tests on abbreviated specimens were used to formulate the criterion dependent on the failure of the
reinforcement. It is demonstrated that bottom reinforcement can be of significant benefit and that the resistance
given by it can be assessed with reasonable accuracy.

Notation Introduction
Ach area of horizontal projection of conical failure In most cases the failure of horizontal reinforced
surface (see Fig. 10) concrete members (slabs or beams) is ductile, and fail-
As cross-sectional area of a rebar ure causes very little redistribution of loading. Punch-
d effective depth ing failure of flat slabs without shear reinforcement can
f 9c cylinder strength of concrete be an exception. The drop in resistance at failure can
f ct tensile strength of concrete be large (70±80%) and give rise to a redistribution of
fy yield strength of reinforcement effects, which can trigger failures at adjacent columns
fu ultimate strength of reinforcement and lead to progressive collapse.
Pu ultimate load The special brittleness of slab±column connections is
Puc column reaction at punching failure due to the relative ease with which the flexural reinforce-
Ppu maximum post-punching load ment in the top of the slab can be torn out of the concrete
Ppuc maximum column reaction after punching once an inclined failure surface has formed. It has been
Psu sum of ultimate strengths of bottom bars proposed that the performance of such connections should
through column be improved by the provision of bottom bars passing
s spacing of bars through the columns and anchored in the surrounding
äpu deflection of slab at column corresponding to slab. It is claimed that bottom bars can act as a tensile
Ppuc membrane suspending the slab in the manner indicated in
1,2
åu ultimate strain of steel Fig. 1. Published test data show that such reinforcement
can be effective, but the information available is insuffi-
cient as a basis for calculating post-punching resistances.
The experimental work reported here, and more fully
3
elsewhere, was intended to provide data to allow ra-
tional assessment of the behaviour of failed (punched)
connections containing bottom steel. Three series of
 Civil Engineering Department, University of BrasõÂlia, 70910-900
tests were made. The first was concerned with post-
BrasõÂlia DF, Brasil. punching strength governed by the failure of the con-
{ Formerly Departments of Architecture and Engineering, University
of Westminster, 35 Marylebone Road, London NW1 5LS, UK. crete above the lower bends of the bottom bars (at A in
Fig. 1). The second treated failures of the bottom bars
(MCR 649) Paper received 28 July 1997; accepted 11 November themselves, while the third related to possible failure of
1997 the concrete in the column below the bars.
319

0024-9831 # 1998 Thomas Telford Ltd

Downloaded by [ Indian Institute of Technology Roorkee] on [09/08/19]. Copyright © ICE Publishing, all rights reserved.
 Melo and Regan

Fig. 1. Action of bottom bars in post-punching situation

Test series 1: slab tests

The test specimens were slabs 2´5 m square and
75 mm thick with 150 mm square columns at their
centres, and were simply supported at their edges. Each
represented an area centred on an interior column and
extending out to the lines of the contraflexure near
adjacent columns (Fig. 2).
The main reinforcement (Fig. 3), which was similar
for all the specimens, was detailed according to the
4
minimum requirements of BS 8110: 1985. All the bars Fig. 2. Test slabs (series 1) and their relationship to a proto-
were 6 mm diameter, hot-rolled deformed steel; the type floor (dimensions in mm)
yield stresses were 759 MPa in slabs 2±4 and 655 MPa
in the others.
The main variables in the series were the amount of tion at the central column was monitored throughout by
bottom steel passing through the column and the provi- a load cell at its base, and slab defections were meas-
sion of shear reinforcement in two slabs. The bottom ured by dial gauges.
bars through columns were additional to the reinforce- In the post-punching phase deflections were large,
ment shown in Fig. 3, and their details together with and by the end of this phase yield lines were formed
those of essentially nominal shear reinforcement are following the pattern of cracking on the bottom face. A
shown in Fig. 4. typical example is shown in Fig. 6. In the vicinity of
The conduct of the tests was as follows. With the the column, the shorter top bars became detached from
central column and slab edges supported on the test the outer concrete shortly after punching, while the
frame, equal downward loads were applied at the 16 longer ones were eventually detached by a combination
points indicated in Fig. 5. The loading was increased of bond failure and vertical tearing. Bottom bars
until a punching failure occurred, whereupon it fell. through the column provided a much better connection
With the slab punched, the loading was applied again between it and slab. An example of the final condition
until no further increment could be sustained. The reac- of a connection can be seen in Fig. 7.

365 350 625

200 100

2 3 210
3 3 250
2 3 180
170
2 3 85
4 3 135 2 3 60
2 3 85
170
2 3 180

2 3 210 3 3 250

200 100

Bottom bars Top bars

Fig. 3. Main reinforcement of slabs. All bars are 6 mm diameter. Cover to outer bars 10 mm. Bars are shown in one direction
only; bars in the other direction are similar (dimensions in mm)

320 Magazine of Concrete Research, 1998, 50, No. 4

Downloaded by [ Indian Institute of Technology Roorkee] on [09/08/19]. Copyright © ICE Publishing, all rights reserved.
 Flat slab±interior column connections

Fig. 4. Bottom bars through columns and slab stirrups. Bars `a' are present in slabs 2±5; bars `b' are present only in slab 3
(dimensions in mm)

Fig. 6. Typical cracking of the bottom surface of a slab

The tests of slabs without bottom bars were termi-

nated when resistance was practically zero with the
top steel almost completely detached. Where bottom
Fig. 5. Arrangement for slab tests (dimensions in mm) bars were present, testing was ended when the post-
Magazine of Concrete Research, 1998, 50, No. 4 321
Downloaded by [ Indian Institute of Technology Roorkee] on [09/08/19]. Copyright © ICE Publishing, all rights reserved.
 Melo and Regan

decreased a little, while the overall load continued to

Fig. 7. Final conditions of slab±column connections
punching resistance appeared fully developed. There
was generally no drop in either load or column reac-
tion. The apparent reason for the resistance reaching a
limit was the disintegration of the slab concrete in the
original punched cone and, more significantly, where
the bottom bars bore on the outer region.
There were no signs of anchorage failures of the
bottom steel. Strains of these bars were measured in
slab 5 and showed yielding at points 180 mm from the
column but only small values 260 mm from it.
In slabs 6 and 7, where nominal stirrups were pro-
vided, the effect of the bottom bars was less pro-
nounced, as the stirrups gave some continuity across
the failure surface. At late stages, however, the stirrups
began to open, and in both slabs the column reactions
increase or remained constant.
The test data are summarized in Table 1 and exam-
ples of load±deflection relationships and deflected pro-
files are given in Figs 8 and 9. Deflections were mainly
measured by dial gauges on the top surfaces, but after
punching the displacements close to the column were
not very meaningful. The movement of the soffits of
the slabs relative to the columns were then measured
with a scale at some but not all load stages. These scale
readings have been used in the construction of the
deflected profiles, but the load±deflection curves are
based on the dial gauge measurements as detailed in
Fig. 8. The deflections at the ends of the tests, meas-
ured by a scale at the column faces, were approxi-
mately 35±40 mm, i.e. about half the slab thickness.
The original punching loads were relatively high:
4
1´33±1´52 times values predicted by BS 8110: 1985
with the safety factor removed for the slabs without
stirrups. This is probably due primarily to compressive
membrane action arising from the considerable area of
slab surrounding the failure zone, but may also be
partly due to conservatism in the code's depth factor of
:
(400=d)0 25 when applied to very shallow slabs.
The post-punching column reactions of the slabs
without stirrups ranged from 16% to 53% of the
actual punching forces, or 21±78% of the unfactored
4
forces predicted by BS 8110: 1985. In either case
the lowest value was for slab 1 without bottom bars
and the highest was for slab 3 with 4T6 bottom bars
both ways.
The behaviour observed in these tests suggests that
resistance formulae based on dowel action by the bars
1
as proposed by Georgopoulos are unrealistic, and that
it would be more appropriate to treat the failure of the
bottom bar system in terms similar to those used for
the pullout resistance of embedments in concrete.
According to the ACI code for nuclear safety related

Table 1. Summary of slab test data and results

Slab No. Bottom bars through f 9c : MPa Pu : kN Puc : kN Ppu : kN Ppuc : kN äpu : mm Ppuc test
column Ppuc calc
P
Detail{ As f y : kN
1 ± ± 29´6 228 133 102 21 60 ±
1=1 ± ± 34´5 272 160 120 31 44 ±
2 2 3 2T6 172 27´3 240 142 186 64 35 0´94
3 4 3 2T6 343 34´1 264 153 192 81 21 0´95
4 2 3 2T8 213 30´6 258 148 192 66 25 1´02
5 2 3 2T8 213 28´8 240 136 186 65 38 1´03
6 ± ± 29´8 264 156 144 60 38 ±
7 2 3 2T8 213 41´7 324 186 204 83 35 1´09
Pu , total load at punching failure; Puc , column reaction at punching failure; Ppu , maximum load in post-punching phase; Ppuc , maximum column
P
reaction in post-punching phase; äpu , deflection corresponding to Ppuc ; As f y , total yield resistance of bottom bars through column; Ppuc calc ,
post-punching column load calculated from equation (3).
 Slab with shear reinforcement.
{ T denotes deformed hot-rolled reinforcement.

322 Magazine of Concrete Research, 1998, 50, No. 4

Downloaded by [ Indian Institute of Technology Roorkee] on [09/08/19]. Copyright © ICE Publishing, all rights reserved.
 Flat slab±interior column connections
5
350 structures, the pullout resistance of an embedment can
be calculated as the vertical resultant of tensile stresses
300 acting on the surface of a 458 cone or part-cone. With
no safety factor
250
Pu ˆ f ct Ach (1)
Slab 2
where Ach is the horizontal projection of the conical
Load: kN

200

surface (illustrated in Fig. 10 for both single and double

150
loads near a slab edge) and f ct isp the
 average tensile
Slab 1 stress in the concrete, taken as 0:33 f 9c (MPa).
100
This approach can be applied to the present circum-
stances by treating the vertical components of the bar
50
forces as the pullout loads and assuming them to act at
0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35
Deflection: mm

350

300

250
Load: kN

200
Slab 7

150
Slab 6
100

50

0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35
Deflection: mm

Fig. 8. Load±deflection relationships from slab tests. Deflec-

tions were measured on the centre lines at points 500 mm Fig. 10. Horizontal projections of conical surfaces. The shad-
from the centre of the slab (averages of measurements at four ing indicates the horizontally projected area associated with
points) one bar

20

40
Deflection: mm

Slab 1 Slab 6
60

20

40
Slab 2 Slab 7
60

Immediately before punching

One stage before end of test

Fig. 9. Deflected profiles of slabs. Deflections are for slab centre lines
Magazine of Concrete Research, 1998, 50, No. 4 323
Downloaded by [ Indian Institute of Technology Roorkee] on [09/08/19]. Copyright © ICE Publishing, all rights reserved.
 Melo and Regan

the edge of a slab (the `edge' of slab beyond the

fractured zone around the column). Then, for an iso-
lated bar
p d 2
Pu ˆ 0:33 f 9c ð (2)
2
For each of a pair of bars at a spacing s , 2d,
p d 2
Pu ˆ 0:33 f 9c ð ÿ A1 (3)
2
where
ö s
A1 ˆ ðd 2 ÿ d sin ö
360 4
and
 
s
ö ˆ arc cos
2d

Equivalent formulae for larger numbers of bars can be

derived from simple geometry.
The results of a comparison of calculated strengths,
summed for all the bottom bars involved, and the ex-
perimental post-punching resistances of the present
slabs with bottom steel, are given in Table 1. Nothing
has been subtracted from the experimental column re-
actions to allow for residual loads carried by the top
bars. Although marginally non-conservative, this seems
appropriate in view of their practically total detachment
in the later stages of the tests. The ratios of experimen-
tal and calculated column reactions are close to unity,
with a slightly high value for the slab with stirrups.
The development of the forces predicted by equa-
tions (2) and (3) is, of course, dependent on the proper
anchorage of the bottom bars beyond the point at
which they enter intact concrete. The maximum possi-
ble length from the column face to the bend of a bar is
about 2d (approximately 120 mm in the present case),
and it is proposed that a full tension anchorage should
be provided beyond this point.
Test series 2: bar/slab tests
The second set of tests was designed to investigate
the limit of post-punching resistance defined by frac-
ture of the bottom bars passing through the column. As
shown in Fig. 11, each specimen included a precast
section, which was intended to be a two-dimensional
representation of the punched cone and a short length
of `column'. The bottom bars were cast in this element
and projected from it. The specimen was completed by
an in situ surround representing the outer part of the
slab and separated from the precast unit by thin layers
of the polystyrene glued to its surfaces. The length of
the surround varied as indicated in Fig. 11.
For testing, the specimens were subjected to upward
loads applied to the downward projections of the pre-
Fig. 11. Test specimens and arrangements for series 2 (di-
mensions in mm)
cast units, while reactions were provided by steel beams
running over the outer parts (as shown) and anchored
to the laboratory floor. The efficiency of the polysty-
rene separation between the two parts of a specimen
was checked by testing a specimen without connecting
steel, and the force carried was negligible.
In the tests with connecting bars modest loads were
carried by dowel action at small displacements. Then,
as loading was increased, the bars began to break up
the outer concrete, leading to the situation shown in
Fig. 12. The two types of behaviour are clearly distin-
guished in the typical load±deflection graph shown in
Fig. 13.
Failure occurred in one of three ways. For bar sizes
up to 10 mm the bars fractured in both the short (ST)
and long (LG) specimens, while for the 12 mm size the
bars fractured only in the long specimen. Examples of
fractured bars retrieved after tests are shown in Fig. 14.
Where the larger bars (12, 16 and 20 mm) were used in
the shorter specimens their anchorages failed, while
with large (16 and 20 mm) bars in the longer specimens
the failures were due to crushing of the concrete in the
central stub.
The test results are summarized in Table P2. For cases
where the bars fractured, the ratio Pu = As f u is re-
markably constant, with a mean of 0´44. The angle
whose sine is 0´44 is 26.18, and agrees closely with the
Fig. 12. Damage to concrete: series 2 tests

324 Magazine of Concrete Research, 1998, 50, No. 4

Downloaded by [ Indian Institute of Technology Roorkee] on [09/08/19]. Copyright © ICE Publishing, all rights reserved.
 Flat slab±interior column connections

140 angles of bends measured in bars such as those shown

120 12LG in Fig. 14. These varied from 248 to 268.
The upper limit of post-punching resistance defined
100 by fracture of bars of the type used in these tests may
well be taken as
Load: kN

80
X
60 P ˆ 0:44 As f u (4)
40
or, in the absence of knowledge of f u , assuming f u
ˆ 1:15 f y , as
20

X
20 40 60 80 100 120 140 P ˆ 0: 5 As f y (5)
Deflection: mm

Fig. 13. Typical load±deflection relationship for series 2 The bars used were all of hot-rolled, round, deformed
steel, and it is clearly necessary to use a ductile type of
steel to obtain the sort of performance found here.

Test series 3: bar/column tests

The third and final group of tests was made to
extend the investigation of resistance corresponding to
the fracture of bars to larger sizes and to investigate the
possible failure of the column concrete. The test ar-
rangement (Fig. 15) comprised a 500 mm high column,
300 mm square in cross-section and reinforced with
eight longitudinal bars. Two horizontal bars passed
through the column in each direction and projected
1´35 m to either side. The outer 850 mm of the bars
were cast in in situ concrete on top of large precast
concrete blocks. Steel beams were positioned over the
in situ concrete and prestressed to the floor by high
tensile bars passing through the blocks. Details of the
columns are shown in Fig. 16.
Fig. 14. Bars fractured in series 2 tests A hydraulic jack under the column was used to

Table 2. Summary of data for test series 2

Specimen No. Steel Properties Concrete Pu : kN Fracture of Crushing of Pu
bars concrete Psu
f y : MPa f u : MPa åu : % f 9c1 : MPa f 9c2 : MPa
6ST 655 801 12´9 41´1 30´1 41 Yes No 0´45
6LG 655 801 12´9 49´2 41´4 41 Yes No 0´45
8ST 529 647 19´6 41´4 30´1 57 Yes No 0´44
8LG 529 647 19´6 42´6 41´4 57 Yes No 0´44
10ST 497 620 21´4 28´9 33´4 82 Yes No 0´42
10LG 497 620 21´4 36´9 38´3 90 Yes No 0´46
12ST 524 649 19´8 25´0 34´3 70 No Part ±
12LG 524 649 19´8 30´6 36´9 123 Yes Part 0´42
16ST 483 599 23´5 41´0 33´4 65 No Part ±
16LG 483 599 23´5 34´6 32´5 148 No Yes ±
20ST 492 626 24´3 35´4 28´2 78 No Part ±
20LG 492 629 24´3 27´3 40´1 168 No Yes ±

f y ( f u ), yield (ultimate) strength of bars; åu , elongation at ultimate measured on a 500 mm gauge length, including necking; f 9c1 , cylinder
strength of precast concrete (inner `cone'); f 9c2 , cylinder strength of surrounding concrete; Pu , ultimate load; Psu , sum of ultimate force of bars
P
( As f u ˆ 4 As f u , if As is the area of one bar).
 Number gives the bar size in mm, ST or LG denotes short or long specimen (see Fig. 11).

Magazine of Concrete Research, 1998, 50, No. 4 325

Downloaded by [ Indian Institute of Technology Roorkee] on [09/08/19]. Copyright © ICE Publishing, all rights reserved.
 Melo and Regan

Fig. 15. Test arrangements for series 3 (dimensions in mm)

Fig. 17. Damage to cover in series 3 tests

Fig. 16. Details of columns for test series 3 (dimensions in
mm)
apply upward loading. Under load, the concrete cover
at the corners of the columns was spalled away below
the bars (Fig. 17), but this did not lead to failure. In
the specimens with closer spacings of column links,
failures were caused by fractures of the projecting bars.
In the tests with fewer column links, loading was
terminated when the outer ends of the projecting bars
began to slip, due to the vertical prestress at the
supports being insufficient. It might have been possible
to complete the tests more satisfactorily if the prestress
had then been increased, but the applied loads were
already almost as high as those in the specimens where
the bars had fractured, and re-testing did not seem
justified.
The ultimate loads for the specimens in which the
bars fractured are given in Table 3. The ratios
Pu =As f y are similar to those found in the second test
series. The results of the series 3 tests suggest that
failure of the concrete in columns is unlikely to be a
problem as long as the bottom bars of the slab used

Table 3. Summary of data for test series 3

Specimen No. Steel properties f 9c : MPa Pu : kN Pu
Psu
f y : MPa f u : MPa åu : %
16=2 494 608 24´0 47´8 433 0´44
20=2 489 625 23´9 49´0 649 0´41
P
f 9c , cylinder strength of concrete in column; Pu , ultimate load; Psu , sum of breaking forces of bars ( As f u ˆ 8 As f u , if As is area of one
bar).
 The first number gives the bar size in mm.

326 Magazine of Concrete Research, 1998, 50, No. 4

Downloaded by [ Indian Institute of Technology Roorkee] on [09/08/19]. Copyright © ICE Publishing, all rights reserved.

for suspension pass inside the cage of the column
reinforcement.
Conclusion
The experimental work reported here shows that bot-
tom bars passing through a column and anchored in the
slab to either side of it can be highly effective in increas-
ing the post-punching resistance of a slab±column con-
nection. The final resistance provided by the bottom
bars appears to be governed either by the destruction of
the concrete in the zone where they are anchored in the
slab or by the fracture of the bars themselves.
In the former case the resistance provided by each
bottom bar p can
 be calculated (without any safety fac-
tor) as 0:33 f 9c Ach , where Ach is the horizontal projec-
tion of a 458 failure surface around the bar (see Fig.
10). For this resistance to be attained the bars must be
well anchored in the slab and a length equal to two slab
depths plus a full tension anchorage is proposed. In the
latter case the resistance per bar can be taken as
0´44 As f u , where f u is the ultimate strength of the steel.
For this resistance to be realizable the steel should be
of a ductile type.
Magazine of Concrete Research, 1998, 50, No. 4
Downloaded by [ Indian Institute of Technology Roorkee] on [09/08/19]. Copyright © ICE Publishing, all rights reserved.
Flat slab±interior column connections
There appears to be little risk of premature failure
due to destruction of concrete in the column under the
bars, as long as the bars pass inside the cage of the
column reinforcement.
References
1. GEORGOPOULOS T. Verbesserung des Bruchverhaltens punktfoÈrmig
gestuÈtzter Stahlbeton-platten. Bautechnik 65, 1988, H. 8, pp. 267±
270.
2. LEE Y. M., MITCHELL D. and HARRIS P. J. Lessons from structural
performance ± slabs containing improperly placed reinforcing.
Concrete International, 1979, 1, No. 6, 45±53.
3. MELO G. S. S. A. Behaviour of Reinforced Concrete Flat Slabs
after Local Failure. PhD thesis, Polytechnic of Central London,
1990, p. 214.
4. BRITISH STANDARDS INSTITUTION. The Structural Use of Concrete.
BSI, Milton Keynes, 1985, BS 8110: Part 1.
5. ACI COMMITTEE 349. Proposed Addition to: Code Requirements
for Nuclear Safety Related Concrete Structures (ACI 349-76). Ad-
dition to Commentary on Code Requirements for Nuclear Safety
Related Concrete Structures (ACI 349-76). ACI Journal, 1978, 75,
No. 8, 329±347.
Discussion contributions on this paper should reach the editor by
25 June 1999
327