UNL Behaviour of Hollow Core Slabs

under Point Loads

The Second
fib Congress
Napoli 2006

Válter Lúcio Sílvia Castilho

New University of Lisbon - Portugal Versor Lda - Portugal
1/16
 Hollow core slabs are used mainly on the span direction
that corresponds to the direction of the ribs and the pretensioning
UNL
reinforcement.
Behaviour of Hollow Core Slabs

The behaviour of such a system under uniformly distributed loading is

well known,
however, point loads induce lateral bending and localized shear forces
under Point Loads

for which the hollow core slab system is not designed for.

Punching

The Second
fib Congress
Napoli 2006

Transversal
bending

2/16
 Point loads on hollow core slabs may occur due to:
• machinery supports,
• heavy load wheel transportation vehicles in warehouses,
UNL
• indirect supports at openings on hollow core slabs,
Behaviour of Hollow Core Slabs

• and other situations.

Twenty seven tests on slab panel models were performed with point
under Point Loads

loads at different positions over the panels.

In this communication, the experimental results are presented and
compared with the predicted cracking and failure loads given by the
European Standard prEN 1168.

The Second
fib Congress
Napoli 2006

3/16

UNL
Behaviour of Hollow Core Slabs
BEHAVIOUR OF HOLLOW CORE SLABS UNDER POINT LOADS
A point load causes transversal bending moments that
may exceed the transversal cracking moment of the slab, causing
longitudinal cracking between the ribs bellow the applied load.

Since there is no transversal reinforcement

in this slab system, the opening of these
under Point Loads

cracks is only controlled by the

confinement of the entire slab
and supporting beams.

The longitudinal crack influences the

lateral distribution of the point load
The Second
fib Congress
between the adjacent ribs, and
Napoli 2006 the most loaded ribs
may end with a shear
failure, leading to a
punching failure of
4/16 the slab.
 prEN 1168.1 - PRECAST CONCRETE PRODUCTS – HOLLOW CORE SLABS

UNL The transversal cracking of the hollow core slab due to a point load does
not lead to a failure of the slab, and is considered as a serviceability limit
Behaviour of Hollow Core Slabs

state, whose characteristic load value shall not exceed the following:
under Point Loads

Fk= 3 wl fctk0.05
Where wl is the smaller bending modulus of the transversal section and
fctk0.05 is the lower characteristic value of the concrete tensile strength.

This limit corresponds to a maximum transversal bending moment of:

mt,k = Fk / 3.

The shear stresses in the ribs directly bellow the loading area increase
and the shear resistance is suddenly achieved.
The Second The corresponding load is usually named as “punching load” and may
fib Congress
be evaluated by:
Napoli 2006

VRd = beff h fctd (1 + 0,3 α σcp / fctd)

5/16
 VRd = beff h fctd (1 + 0,3 α σcp / fctd)
UNL fctd is the design value of the concrete resistance in tension,
Behaviour of Hollow Core Slabs

σcp is the mean value of the compression stress on the concrete due to
prestress,
α = lx / lpt2 ≤ 1 is the ratio between the distance of the section under
under Point Loads

consideration to the slab end (lx) and the upper bound value of the
prestress transmission length (lpt2), as defined in 6.2.2 of the EN1992-1-1,
beff stands for the effective breadth of the webs interested in the
resistance mechanism.

45º 45º 45º 45º

bw1 bw2 bw3 bw1 bw2 bw1 bw2 bw3 bw1 bw2

The Second beff = bw1+ bw2 + bw3 beff = bw1+ bw2 beff = bw1+ bw2 + bw3 beff = bw1+ bw2
fib Congress
a. General case b. Free edge c. General case with d. Free edge with
Napoli 2006
concrete topping concrete topping

6/16
 EXPERIMENTAL PROGRAM

The experimental program includes tests on single slab panels and

UNL a slab with four hollow core panels supported on reinforced concrete
edge beams.
Behaviour of Hollow Core Slabs

27 tests with point loads were performed on single hollow core panels
under Point Loads

and 6 on the slab with four hollow core panels.

Isolated panels
Position of the Position of the load
Number of load in the panel in the span Number of
Test sets Loaded area
cast cores In the Over the Near the tests
At mid span
centre edge support
a) - √ Over a rib 5
1st set b) 0,10 x 0,10m - √ Over a rib 3
c) - √ Over a core 3
2nd a) - √ Over a rib 4
0,10 x 0,10m
The Second
set b) - √ Over a core 3
fib Congress 3
rd
a) 0,15 x 0,15m - √ Over a rib 3
Napoli 2006 set
Over a cast
a) 2 √ 3
core
4th set 0,10 x 0,10m
Over a cast
b) 4 √ 3
core
7/16
 EXPERIMENTAL PROGRAM
Slab with four hollow core panels
UNL Position of the load in Position of the load
the panel in the span Number of
Number of
Behaviour of Hollow Core Slabs

Test set Loaded area tests

cast cores In the Over the
At mid span
centre edge
a) Over a rib √ 4
under Point Loads

5th set 0,10x0,10m - Over a

b) √ 2
joint

The Second
fib Congress
Napoli 2006

Table 1 – Parameters studied in the experimental analysis.

8/16

UNL
Behaviour of Hollow Core Slabs
MODELS AND TEST ARRENGEMENT
The slab panel has 1.0m span, leaving 0.50m of slab outside of the
supports in order to have the full prestress transmitted to the concrete
on the testing area.

One support line is fixed, allowing the rotation of the slab in the plane of
the ribs. The other support line, the rotation of the slab in the plane
normal to the ribs is also allowed, by means of a cylindrical hinge, in
under Point Loads

order to avoid torsion stresses in the slab.

The load was
applied through a
loading steel plate
with dimensions
100x100x20mm or
150x150x20mm, by
a steel beam and a
pair of hydraulic
cylinders.
The Second
fib Congress
Napoli 2006

9/16
 The slab panels used in the tests are 200mm thick, 1200mm wide and
2000mm long.
UNL
The prestress was applied using 5mm high resistance steel wires, 45 in
Behaviour of Hollow Core Slabs

the bottom layers and 6 on the top one.

The average compression stress due to prestress after losses was
estimated in σcp = 6.5MPa.
under Point Loads

The Second
fib Congress
Napoli 2006

10/16
 EXPERIMENTAL RESULTS
Cracking load [kN] Failure load [kN]
Load position Test case Partial Partial
Mean values Mean values
UNL values values
133,4 147,6
Behaviour of Hollow Core Slabs

119,5 129,7
Mid span - 149,0
1a 136,7 143,2
over a rib - 140,8
85,9 90,1
under Point Loads

Middle of the 157,3 149,1

panel 134,6 104,7
Near the support over a
1b 146,7 136,5 118,9 109,5
rib
128,3 104,9
- 134,5
Mid span
1c 145,4 141,1 154,0 146,2
over a core
136,8 150,0
46,1 173,7
Mid span - 165,0
2a - 163,5
over a rib - 153,5
Panel edge - 161,9
- 176,7
Near the support over a
2b - - 170,1 171,6
rib
- 168,0
The Second Middle 124,0 148,7
fib Congress Mid span
of the 3a 108,6 126,9 162,7 160,0
over a rib
Napoli 2006 panel 148,0 168,5
Middle 207,2 191,7
Mid span
of the 4a 128,0 166,4 193,9 195,2
over a cast core
panel 164,0 200,0
- 214,4
Mid span
Panel edge 4b 217,8 - 179,3 203,3
11/16 over a cast core
- 216,1
 Cracking load

Shear
failure
UNL LONGITUDINAL
CRACK
Behaviour of Hollow Core Slabs
under Point Loads

Load step

Load evolution of test 1a. Crack due to transversal bending.

The Second
fib Congress
Napoli 2006

12/16 Top view of the shear failure. Shear failure in a rib.


UNL
Behaviour of Hollow Core Slabs
The predicted values for the cracking force, according to prEN 1168
and considering the mean value of the concrete tensile strength, are
presented in the table.
The ratio between the experimental load and the predicted one shows a

nearly constant value of about 2.3, except for the cases with cast cores
where this value is about 2.
under Point Loads

Test Ftest Fm (prEN1168)

Ftest / Fm
case [kN] [kN]
a 136,7 58,6 2,33
1 b 136,5 58,6 2,33
c 141,1 58,6 2,41
3 a 126,9 58,6 2,16
4 a 166,4 84,1 1,98

The Second
fib Congress
Napoli 2006

13/16

UNL
Behaviour of Hollow Core Slabs
The estimated punching resistance is compared with the test results in
the next table.
The ratio between the experimental values and the predicted ones are, in
most cases, over 1.0, what means that the predicted values are safe.

Test VRtest VRm (prEN1168)

VRtest / VRm
case [kN] [kN]
a 143,2 160,5 0,89
under Point Loads

1 b 109,5 160,5 0,68

c 146,2 109,0 1,34
a 163,5 120,9 1,35
2
b 171,6 120,9 1,42
3 a 160,0 163,4 0,98
a 195,2 152.7 1,28
4
b 203,3 164.8 1,23
Exceptions are for the most general situation where the load is away
from the panel edge and from the supports (case 1a), and the case 1b
where the load is near the support in the middle of the panel.
The Second
fib Congress
Such an unsafe value was not obtained in case 2b where the load is near the support at
Napoli 2006 the edge of the panel.
The values obtained for the punching resistance at the edges (cases 2a, 2b and 4b) were
not divided by 2, as recommended, nevertheless, for design purpose this
recommendation shall be considered to avoid local failure of the edges due to other
14/16 phenomena not considered.

UNL
Behaviour of Hollow Core Slabs
The values of the punching resistance of cases 4, with cast cores, were
obtained by adding to the punching resistance, the value correspondent
to the shear resistance of the filled core given in prEN 1168:
ΔVRd,core = 2/3 bc d fctd

bc is the width of the core and d is the effective depth of the lower layer
of the prestressing steel.
under Point Loads

The slab may be strengthened to punching failure by filling the cores

with structural concrete, the resistance may be increased by nearly 30%.

The Second
fib Congress
Napoli 2006

15/16
 Numerical analysis

UNL
Behaviour of Hollow Core Slabs

Tests on a slab with 4 hollow core panels

under Point Loads

supported on edge beams

The Second
fib Congress
Napoli 2006

16/16
 CONCLUSIONS
1. With the present experimental research, it was observed that, in
UNL
general, the transversal bending of the slab due to point loads, away
Behaviour of Hollow Core Slabs

from the panel edges, causes a longitudinal crack on the bottom of

the slab. This crack does not correspond to the slab failure, but
corresponds to a serviceability limit state. In consequence of the
under Point Loads

loss of lateral continuity of the slab, the shear stresses increase

rapidly in the ribs under the load and the shear failure takes place.
2. Point loads at panel edges do not cause longitudinal cracks, as
transversal bending moments are zero near the edges.
3. The formulation used in the prEN 1168.1 to quantify the cracking
load was found to have a safety factor of 2 in relation to the test
results of the present work.
4. The formulation for the quantification of the punching resistance is,
in general, on the safe side, but, for cases where the load is applied
The Second
away from the panel edges, the test results presented lower values
fib Congress than the predicted ones.
Napoli 2006
5. The strengthening of the slab, by casting the cores directly loaded
with concrete, was tested and the results showed an increase on the
punching resistance of about 30%.
17/16