SEISMIC PERFORMANCE OF FLAT SLAB

BUILDINGS

Subhajit Sen1, Yogendra Singh2

1
Department of Earthquake Engineering, IIT Roorkee, Roorkee, Uttarakhand, India,
Tel : +91-9045245916, Email : subha.sen.besu@gmail.com
2
Department of Earthquake Engineering, IIT Roorkee, Roorkee, Uttarakhand, India,
Tel : +91-01332-285534, Email : yogenfeq@iitr.ac.in

Abstract

Flat slab system is becoming widely popular for multistory buildings due to its
several advantages. But performance of flat slab buildings under earthquake load-
ing is unsatisfactory due to its vulnerability to punching shear failure. Several
codes provide the guidelines for deigning flat slab system under gravity load only.
However flat slab buildings are also being constructed in high seismicity region
which can cause collapse of the buildings under seismic loading. In this paper,
performances of flat slab buildings designed as per existing code guidelines have
been evaluated under earthquake loading. This study is carried out on a five and a
ten storied buildings with identical plan. These buildings have been designed as
per guidelines of Indian code, ACI code, Eurocode and New Zealand code. Non-
linear static analysis has been carried out to evaluate the performance of these
buildings with and without considering the continuity of slab bottom reinforce-
ment through column cages. Equivalent frame approach with transverse torsional
members has been used to model these flat slab buildings. From the results of
nonlinear analysis it is clear that most of the buildings are not ensuring CP per-
formance for MCE level of hazard in high seismicity areas. Continuity of slab bot-
tom reinforcement has an influence on performance of flat slab buildings. It im-
proves the performance of the buildings. Maximum inter-storey drifts of the
buildings at collapse have been compared with the limiting value of maximum in-
ter-storey drifts corresponding to gravity shear ratio, given in literature. It is
found that most of the buildings analyzed here are collapsing at an inter-storey
drifts lower than that prescribed in literature.

Key Word

Flat slab, Earthquake, Design, code, Nonlinear Analysis, Seismic performance.

2

1 Introduction

Flat slab is a reinforced concrete slab supported directly by columns without use
of beams. Sometimes drop panels and capitals are also provided around and at the
top of columns in flat slab buildings. Flat slab system is becoming widely popular
for multistory buildings due to its several advantages, e.g. easy to construct, eco-
nomical, larger clear height and lesser building height. Though flat slab structures
have several advantages, their performance under earthquake loading is doubtful.
Flat slab buildings are very flexible and undergo large deflection under lateral load
induced by earthquake. Flat slabs generally fail in punching shear mode which is a
brittle mode of failure and reduces the ductility of the structures. In past earth-
quake, flat slab buildings face sudden collapse due to punching shear failure.
Most of the codes provide guidelines for designing flat slab buildings under gravi-
ty loads only. However flat slab buildings are also being constructed in high seis-
micity region which can cause collapse of the buildings under a major earthquake.
In this study, guidelines of IS 456:2000[10], ACI 318 – 08[1], EC 2:2004[6] and
NZS 3101 (Part 1) – 2006[13] are used for design flat slab buildings. Perfor-
mance of these buildings is evaluated using nonlinear static analysis for ground
acceleration 0.36g at rocky site.

2 Modelling of flat slabs

Two approaches, viz. finite element approach and equivalent frame method, are
available for modelling flat slab buildings. In finite element approach, flat slabs
can be modelled using plate bending elements or shell elements. For reasonably
accurate results, large number of elements is required for meshing in finite ele-
ment approach. This approach increases the cost of analysis for large buildings.
The equivalent frame approach is relatively economical and easy to use for simu-
lating seismic response of flat slab buildings. In this approach, flat slabs are mod-
elled as beam members of equivalent width. Equivalent width (αl2) of flat slab can
be estimated using the following expression, proposed by Elwood et al. (2007)[5]:

 l 
for interior supports l 2   2c1  1  (Eq. 1)
 3

 l 
for edge supports l 2   c1  1  (Eq. 2)
 6

where, α is equivalent width factor, l1 is length of slab panel (c/c of support) in the
direction parallel to lateral load, l2 is length of slab panel (c/c of support) in the di-
 3

rection transverse to lateral load, and c1 is column dimension in the direction par-
allel of lateral loading.

Fig.1. Equivalent frame modelling of flat slab systems

Depth of beam members is kept same as thickness of flat slab. In this study,
equivalent frame method proposed by Elwood et al. (2007)[5] has been used for
modelling flat slab buildings. According to this method, the equivalent beams are
connected to columns through ‘explicit’ torsional members. Torsional members
represent the transfer of unbalanced moments, from slab to column, through tor-
sion. These members are modelled as rigid in all other degrees of freedom
(DOFs), except for torsional DOF. To neutralize the additional moments due to
offset between equivalent beams and column, two beam members, each having
half the stiffness and strength of the equivalent beam, are connected to both sides
of the column as shown in Fig.1. Stiffness (Kt) of the torsional member under lat-
eral loading (Park et al., 2009[11]) is estimated using equation Eq. 3. Effective
stiffness factor (Table 1) for cracked slab section is taken as 0.33, and for column
sections as recommended by ASCE/SEI 41[3].

6 EC
Kt   (Eq. 3)
l2 1  c2 l2 
2

 x  x3 y
C   1  0.63  (Eq. 4)
 y 3

where, c2 is size of column in the direction transverse to the lateral load, x and y
are the short and long dimensions of rectangular part of slab portion which trans-
fers torsion (in flat slab x is depth of slab and y represents the column size in the
direction of lateral loading).
4

Table 1. Effective stiffness factor for modeling of different members (Elwood et

al., 2007[3] and ASCE/SEI 41[5])

Effective stiffness factor

Member
Flexure rigidity Shear rigidity
Equivalent beam 0.33 0.40
Column with compression due to gravity load  0.5 Ag f c
'
0.70 0.40

Column with compression due to gravity load  0.3 Ag f c' or

0.50 0.40
with tension

For nonlinear analysis, three different types of plastic hinges are assigned to dif-
ferent members. Flexural hinges are assigned at the ends of the equivalent beam
members. These represent the flexural capacity of flat slab near slab column con-
nection. Punching shear capacity of slab-column connection is represented by tor-
sional hinges assigned to fictitious torsional elements. Torsional capacity (MT) of
these hinges is calculated using Eqs. 5 and 6. Rotational properties of torsional
hinges are assigned as per Elwood et al. (2007)[5]. P-M-M interaction hinges are
assigned at the ends of columns to represent the axial force-moment capacity of
columns.


 M f Mv 

M T  min  ;  (Eq. 5)
  f v 
 

Vg Mf c
vn   (Eq. 6)
b0 d J
where, Mf is the capacity of moment transfer through flexure, and calculated based
on transfer width of c2+5h, h is overall depth of flat slab, Mv is capacity of mo-
ment transfer through eccentric shear, γf is factor used to determine the unbalanced
moment transferred by flexure at slab-column connections, γv is factor used to de-
termine the unbalanced moment transferred by torsion at slab-column connections,
Vg is shear force due to gravity load, bo is perimeter of critical section, d is effec-
tive depth of slab, c is distance from the centroid of the critical section to the pe-
rimeter of the critical section, and J is polar moment of inertia of the critical sec-
tion.

3 Seismic performance

To study the seismic performance of flat slab buildings, designed for different
codes, two sets of buildings, 5 storey and 10 storey tall, with identical plan shown
in Figure 2 have been considered. Each storey in the buildings is 2.8 m tall and
 5

consists of nine square slab panels having plan dimension 5 m x 5 m. The live
load on floors has been considered as 2.5 kN/m2. The buildings are designed for
IS 456:2000[10], ACI 318 – 08[1], EC 2:2004[6] and NZS 3101 (Part 1) –
2006[13]. These codes provide the guideline for designing flat slabs for gravity
load only. Two configurations of flat slab buildings are considered. In first case,
no edge beam is considered and in second case edge beams are considered along
perimeter of slab. In case of flat slab without edge beams, torsional portion of un-
balance moment at the exterior support causes excessive punching shear stress,
and design of flat slab is governed by punching shear failure at the exterior slab-
column support. In flat slabs with edge beams, the unbalanced moment at exterior
support is transferred through the edge beams, resulting in significant reduction in
punching shear stress at slab column connection, which leads to reduction in
thickness of slab. In the present study, design of flat slabs with edge beams is gov-
erned by deflection criteria. The characteristic compressive strength of concrete
(95 percentile cube compressive strength) and yield strength of reinforcing steel
are considered as 30 MPa and 415 MPa, respectively. Details of flat slab buildings
with and without edge beams are shown in Tables 2 and 3. Among the different
buildings without edge beams, the slab designed by EC 2:2004[6] has the maxi-
mum thickness, whereas for ACI 318 – 08[1] the required thickness is minimum.
All the flat slabs with edge beams have lower slab thickness as compared to flat
slabs with perimeter beams.

(a) (b)
Fig.2. Plan of the flat slab buildings: (a) without edge beams; (b) with edge beams

Table 2. Section details for flat slab buildings without perimeter beams

5 Storey Building 10 Storey Building

Design code Slab thickness Column size Slab thickness Column size
(mm) (m x m) (mm) (m x m)
IS 456:2000 270 0.4 x 0.4 275 0.5 x 0.5
ACI 318 – 08 225 0.4 x 0.4 200 0.5 x 0.5
EC 2:2004 325 0.4 x 0.4 325 0.5 x 0.5
NZS 3101 (Part 1) – 2006 250 0.4 x 0.4 200 0.5 x 0.5
6

Table 3. Section details for flat slab buildings with perimeter beams

5 Storey Building 10 Storey Building

Design code Slab Column Edge Slab Column Edge
thickness size beam thickness size beam
(mm) (m x m) (m x m) (mm) (m x m) (m x m)
IS 456:2000 140 0.4 x 0.4 0.3 x 0.4 140 0.5 x 0.5 0.3 x 0.4
ACI 318 – 08 165 0.4 x 0.4 0.3 x 0.4 165 0.5 x 0.5 0.3 x 0.4
EC 2:2004 200 0.4 x 0.4 0.3 x 0.4 200 0.5 x 0.5 0.3 x 0.4
NZS 3101 (Part 1) – 2006 175 0.4 x 0.4 0.3 x 0.4 175 0.5 x 0.5 0.3 x 0.4

Table 4. Gravity shear ratios at the slab column joints of flat slab buildings

Without perimeter beams With perimeter beams

Design code
5 Storey 10 Storey 5 Storey 10 Storey
IS 456:2000 0.24 0.20 0.39 0.33
ACI 318 – 08 0.27 0.25 0.35 0.3
EC 2:2004 0.21 0.18 0.3 0.25
NZS 3101 (Part 1) – 2006 0.26 0.25 0.33 0.3

Gravity shear ratio, the ratio of shear force due to gravity load at the slab-column
connection and punching shear force capacity at critical section, has a very im-
portant role in failure of flat slab. Gravity shear ratios of all the considered build-
ings are shown in Table 4. Slabs designed for EC 2:2004[6] have the minimum
gravity shear ratio.
Nonlinear static analysis has been carried out to evaluate the performance of these
buildings with and without considering the continuity of slab bottom reinforce-
ment through column cages. Hinge pattern for flat slab buildings with and without
edge beams are shown in Figures 3 and 4. All the flat slab buildings without edge
beams and without continuity of slab bottom reinforcement fail in punching shear
at the edge supports. In case of flat slab buildings with continuity of slab bottom
reinforcement, the plastic rotation capacity in punching shear failure increases,
and failure is governed by flexural capacity of the slab. All the buildings with
edge beams also do not fail in punching shear, as the thicknesses of slabs in these
buildings is governed by deflection criterion, resulting in significant over strength
in punching shear. As these buildings are not failing in punching shear, continuity
of slab bottom reinforcement does not influence behavior of these buildings and
no separate analysis for continuity of slab bottom reinforcement has been carried
out. Capacity curves obtained from nonlinear analysis of flat slab buildings with-
out perimeter beams are plotted in Figures 5-7. From the plots, it is clear that flat
slab buildings designed as per guidelines of EC 2:2004[6] have the maximum
strength capacity. As the column sections of all the buildings of a particular height
 7

(a) (b)

(c) (d)
[ - Yielding, - Immediate occupancy, - Life Safety, - Collapse Prevention]
Fig.3. Typical hinge patterns of flat slab buildings without edge beams: (a) 5 storey
building without continuity of slab bottom reinforcement, (b) 10 storey
building without continuity of slab bottom reinforcement, (c) 5 storey build-
ing with continuity of slab bottom reinforcement, (d) 10 storey building with
continuity of slab bottom reinforcement

(a) (b)
[ - Yielding, - Immediate occupancy, - Life Safety, - Collapse Prevention]
Fig.4. Typical Hinge patterns of flat slab buildings with edge beams: (a) 5 storey
building, (b) 10 storey building
8

are identical, the strength capacity mainly depends on the thicknesses of the flat
slabs. Capacity curves for 10 storey building without edge beams, designed for
ACI 318 – 08[1] and NZS 3101 (Part 1) – 2006[13] are identical as the
thicknesses of slabs in the two buildings is same. Inelastic roof displacements of
the buildings are calculated using the Displacement Modification Method (DMM)
outlined in ASCE/SEI 41. Performance of the buildings, is evaluated for ground
acceleration of 0.36g (MCE in Indian seismic zone V as per IS 1893:2002[9]) at
rocky site, and is summarized in Tables 5-7. In case of flat slabs without perimeter
beams, only 5 storey buildings designed for EC 2:2004[6] provide collapse pre-
vention (CP) performance level without considering continuity of slab reinforce-
ment through column cages. While considering continuity of slab reinforcement
through column cages, all the 5 storey buildings and 10 storey buildings designed
by EC 2:2004[6] provide CP performance level. This shows that continuity of slab
reinforcement through column cages improves the performance of flat slab build-
ings, significantly. In case of flat slabs with edge beams, 10 storey building de-
signed according to ACI 318 – 08[1] and both 5 and 10 storey buildings designed
according to NZS 3101 (Part 1) – 2006[13] do not ensure CP performance level.

(a) (b)
Fig.5. Capacity curves for flat slab buildings without edge beams and without con-
tinuity of slab bottom reinforcement: (a) 5 storey buildings, (b) 10 storey
buildings

(a) (b)
Fig.6. Capacity curves for flat slab buildings without edge beams and with continu-
ity of slab bottom reinforcement: (a) 5 storey buildings, (b) 10 storey build-
ings
 9

(a) (b)
Fig.7. Capacity curves for flat slab buildings with perimeter beams: (a) 5 storey
buildings, (b) 10 storey buildings

Table 5. Estimated performance levels of flat slab buildings without continuity of

slab reinforcements, at MCE

Inelastic roof Maximum roof displacement Performance

No of displacement for CP performance level level
Design code
storeys
(mm) (mm)
IS 456: 2000 180 136 Collapse
ACI 318 - 08 219 119 Collapse
5
EC 2:2004 156 164 CP
NZS 3101 (Part 1) – 2006 205 125 Collapse
IS 456: 2000 356 260 Collapse
ACI 318 - 08 450 222 Collapse
10
EC 2:2004 285 266 Collapse
NZS 3101 (Part 1) – 2006 450 222 Collapse

Table 6. Estimated performance levels of flat slab buildings with continuity of slab
reinforcements, at MCE

Inelastic roof Maximum roof displacement Performance

No of displacement for CP performance level level
Design code
storeys
(mm) (mm)
IS 456: 2000 180 218 CP
ACI 318 - 08 217 222 CP
5
EC 2:2004 156 170 CP
NZS 3101 (Part 1) – 2006 204 210 CP
IS 456: 2000 359 300 Collapse
ACI 318 - 08 450 343 Collapse
10
EC 2:2004 275 302 CP
NZS 3101 (Part 1) – 2006 450 343 Collapse
10

Table 7. Estimated performance levels of flat slab buildings with perimeter beams,
at MCE

Inelastic roof Maximum roof displacement for Performance

No of displacement CP performance level level
Design code
storeys
(mm) (mm)
IS 456: 2000 144 186 CP
ACI 318 - 08 145 155 CP
5
EC 2:2004 141 164 CP
NZS 3101 (Part 1) – 2006 145 142 Collapse
IS 456: 2000 262 290 CP
ACI 318 - 08 265 245 Collapse
10
EC 2:2004 270 285 CP
NZS 3101 (Part 1) – 2006 264 225 Collapse

(a) (b)
Fig.8. Comparison of maximum inter storey drift for flat slab buildings, designed
for different codes, with drift limits at failure, prescribed in literature: (a)
without continuity of slab bottom reinforcement, (b) with continuity of slab
bottom reinforcement

Fig.9. Comparison of maximum inter storey drift for flat slab buildings with pe-
rimeter beam, designed for different codes, with drift limits at failure, pre-
scribed in literature
Several plots for the limiting values of inter-storey drift corresponding to failure of
flat slab buildings as a function of gravity shear ratio are available in literature.
Among these, the limits prescribed in ACI 318 – 05[2] are the most conservative.
Figures 8 and 9 show the comparison of the maximum inter-storey drifts at failure
 11

of different flat slab buildings considered in this study, with the limiting values
available in literature. Most of the buildings analyzed here collapsed at inter-
storey drifts slightly lower than those prescribed in literature.

4 Conclusions

Performance of most of the flat slab buildings without edge beams, considered in
the present study, has been found to be unsatisfactory, except for 5 storey build-
ings with continuity of slab reinforcement. The failure of flat slab buildings is
mostly governed by the punching shear failure at slab-column joints along the pe-
rimeter. Edge beams in flat slabs result in enhancement of punching shear capacity
at these joints and avoid failure in punching shear. Continuity of slab bottom rein-
forcement also improves the performance of flat slab buildings, significantly. The
analytically obtained ultimate drift capacity of all the flat slab buildings, consid-
ered in the present study, is slightly lower than the corresponding drift limits
available in literature.

References

[1] ACI 318 - 08 (2008), Building Code Requirements for Structural Concrete, ACI Commitee
318, American Concrete Institute, Farmington Hills.
[2] ACI 318 - 05 (2005), Building Code Requirements for Structural Concrete, ACI Commitee
318, American Concrete Institute, Farmington Hills.
[3] ASCE/SEI 41-06 (2007), Seismic Rehabilitation of Existing Building, American Society of
Civil Engineers, Reston.
[4] Beyer K, Dazio A and Priestley MJN (2008), Seismic Design of Torsionally Eccentric
Buildings with U-Shaped RC Walls, IUSS Press, Pavia.
[5] Elwood KJ, Matamoros A, Wallace JW, Lehman D, Heintz J, Mitchell A, Moore M, Valley
M, Lewoes LN, Comartin C and Mohele JP (2007), Update to ASCE/SEI 41 Concrete
Provisions, <http://peer.berkeley.edu/pdf/ ASCE_41_update_PEER_Report_02.pdf-report.>
[6] Eurocode 2 (2004), Design of concrete structures Part 1-1: General Rules and Rules for
Buildings, European Committee for Standardization, Brussels.
[7] Hueste MBD and Wight JK (1999), "Nonlinear Punching Shear Failure Model for Interior
Slab-Column Connections," Journal of Structural Engineering, ASCE, 125(9): 997–1008.
[8] IS 13920 (1993), Indian Standard Ductile Detailing of Reinforced Concrete Structures
Subjected to Seismic Forces - Code of Practice, Bureau of Indian Standatd, New Delhi.
[9] IS 1893 (2002), Indian Standard Criteria for Earthquake Resistant Design of Structures, Part
1: General Provisions and Buildings, Bureau of Indian Standards, New Delhi.
[10] IS 456 (2000), Indian Standard Plain and Reinforced Concrete - Code of Practice, Bureau
of Indian Standatd, New Delhi.
[11] Park YM, Han SW and Kee SH (2009), "A Modified Equivalent Frame Method for Lateral
Load Analysis," Magazine of Concrete Research, 61(5), 359–370.
[12] Priestley MJN, Calvi GM and Kowalsky MJ(2007), Displacement-Based Seismic Design of
Structures, IUSS Press, Pavia.
[13] NZS 3101:Part 1 (2006), Concrete Structures Standard Part 1 - The Design of Concrete
Sructure, Standards New Zealand, Wellington.