Lateral Drift Limits for Structural Concrete Slab-Column

Connections, Including Shear Reinforcement Effects

Authors:

Mary Beth D. Hueste, Texas A&M University, College Station, TX, mhueste@tamu.edu
Thomas H.-K. Kang, University of Oklahoma, Norman, OK, tkang@ou.edu
Ian N. Robertson, University of Hawaii, Honolulu, HI, ianrob@hawaii.edu

INTRODUCTION
Floor systems composed of two-way slabs without beams are frequently used because they offer
several advantages, including relatively simple formwork and a shallow profile that can
accommodate shorter story heights. Slab-column frame systems are common in regions of low to
moderate seismic risk, where they are allowed as a lateral-force-resisting system (LFRS), as well
as in regions of high seismic risk for gravity systems where moment frames or shear walls are
provided as the main LFRS. However, past earthquake damage has shown that slab-column
frames are not a suitable main LFRS in regions of high seismic risk because of their relative
flexibility and potential for brittle punching shear failures in the slab-column connection region.
Slab-column connections experience very complex behavior when subjected to lateral
displacements or unbalanced gravity loads. The portion of the slab around the column must
transfer a combination of shear, flexure, and torsion. Flexural and diagonal cracking are coupled
with significant in-plane compressive forces induced by the restraint of the surrounding
unyielding portions of the slab. A number of experiments have been conducted over the past
forty years to evaluate the performance of slab-column connections under cyclic, lateral loading.
In 1989, Joint ACI-ASCE Committee 352 published the report ACI 352.1R-89 to provide
recommended practices for the design of slab-column connections in reinforced concrete
structures [ACI-ASCE 352, 1989, Reapproved 1997]. The existing report covers design
considerations, methods for analysis to determine connection strength, and reinforcement
recommendations (not including shear reinforcement). This report is currently being updated by
the committee to include more specific recommendations for slab-column connections with
respect to lateral drift limits. The proposed recommendations reflect recent research, as well as
changes to relevant ACI 318 provisions. The scope has also been expanded to discuss both
reinforced concrete (RC) and post-tensioned (PT) slabs, for cases with and without shear
reinforcement. This paper provides an overview of new recommendations being considered for
the updated report, with specific emphasis on the lateral drift limits for slab-column connections,
accompanying shear reinforcement recommendations, and the basis for these updates.

BACKGROUND

ACI 318 Provisions for Shear and Moment Transfer

The ACI 318 code has traditionally provided relatively simple design expressions to consider the
combination of shear and moment transfer at slab-column connections (ACI Committee 318,
2008). The “eccentric shear stress model” used in the code is based on the work by DiStasio and
Van Buren (1960) and reviewed by ACI-ASCE Committee 326 (1962). This model considers the
critical section to be located at d/2 away from the face of the column and assumes that shear
stress on the critical perimeter varies linearly with distance from the centroidal axis.
For a slab-column connection transferring shear and moment, the ACI 318-08 design
equations for limiting the shear stresses, vu, are given by:

vu ≤ φ vn (1)
V γ ⋅ Mu ⋅c
vu = u ± v (2)
bo ⋅ d J

where vu is the factored shear stress, φ is the strength reduction factor for shear (0.75), vn is the
nominal shear stress, Vu is the factored shear force acting at centroid of critical section, Mu is the
factored unbalanced bending moment acting about centroid of critical section, d is the distance
from the extreme compression fiber to the centroid of the longitudinal tension reinforcement, bo
is the length of perimeter of critical section, c is the distance from the centroidal axis of the
critical section to the point where the shear stress is being computed, J is the property of the
critical section analogous to the polar moment of inertia, and γv is the fraction of the unbalanced
moment considered to be transferred by eccentricity of shear.
In 2005, a modification was made to the ACI 318 Chapter 21 seismic provisions for
assessing the adequacy of slab-column connections not designated as part of the seismic LFRS in
structures and assigned to seismic design category D, E, or F (currently ACI 318-08, Section
21.13.6). The new requirements specify minimum slab shear reinforcement that must be
provided unless one of two criteria is satisfied: (a) the shear stress computed using the eccentric
shear stress model, with the design gravity shear Vug and the induced unbalanced moment
transferred between the slab and column under the design displacement, does not exceed the
reduced nominal two-way shear strength of the connection φvn, or (b) the design story drift ratio
does not exceed a limit based on the gravity shear ratio, as described below.

Slab-Column Connection Types

ACI 352.1R categorizes slab-column connections as Type 1 and Type 2. The similarities and
differences between the connection types are summarized below and reflect refinements
currently being considered by Committee 352.
• Both Type 1 and Type 2 connections are designed to satisfy ACI 318 strength, ductility,
and serviceability requirements.
• Type 1 connections are not expected to undergo earthquake induced inelastic
deformations and are not designed to satisfy the ACI 318 Chapter 21.
• Type 2 connections are designed to satisfy ACI 318 Chapter 21.
• Type 2 connections that are not part of the seismic LFRS are required to maintain
gravity-load-carrying capacity under moderate-to-significant inelastic deformations.
• Type 2 connections that are part of the seismic LFRS are required to maintain sufficient
strength to resist earthquake-induced force demands in addition to gravity loads under the
presence of inelastic deformations.
RECOMMENDED LATERAL DRIFT LIMITS
In this section, lateral drift capacities for Type 2 RC and PT slab-column connections are
discussed and recommended lateral drift limits are provided.

General Recommendations

To ensure a minimal level of ductility, ACI 352.1R-89 recommends that for all Type 2 slab-
column connections without shear reinforcement, the factored gravity shear Vu acting on the
connection must not exceed 0.4φVc [after Pan and Moehle, 1989]. Here, Vc is defined in Chapter
11 of ACI 318 and Vu is the maximum two-way shear caused by factored gravity loads
determined by the load combinations of (9-1), (9-2) or (9-3) in ACI 318-08, excluding lateral
force-induced shear. It is suggested that this limit is waived if the drift capacity check is satisfied
(ACI 318, Sections 21.3.6.8 and 21.13.6).
These recommendations are expanded below based on the current ACI 318 Chapter 21
provisions and recent research [Kang et al., 2008]:
• For Type 2 connections without shear reinforcement that are part of the seismic LFRS, Vu
should not exceed 0.4φVc for reinforced concrete connections and 0.6φVc for post-
tensioned connections. Alternatively, the design story drift ratio of the structural system
should not exceed the lateral drift capacity of the slab-column connection, defined below
in (3) or (5), or else minimum shear reinforcement should be provided (described in the
next section).
• For Type 2 connections without shear reinforcement that are not designated as part of the
seismic LFRS, the algebraic sum of shear stresses due to direct shear and moment
transfer in conjunction with the design story drift ratio should nowhere exceed the value
of φVc/Ac. Alternatively, the design story drift ratio of the structural system should not
exceed the lateral drift capacity of the slab-column connection (3) or (5), or else
minimum shear reinforcement should be provided (described in the next section).

For example, if a dual system combining intermediate slab-column moment frames and
reinforced concrete structural walls is used in regions of low-to-moderate seismicity, lateral
drifts of the dual system will generally not exceed the drift capacity limits. If that is the case, the
allowable gravity shear ratio requirement is waived. If the design drift in any story exceeds the
drift capacity limit, Vu should not be greater than 0.4φVc and 0.6φVc for RC and PT connections
that are part of the seismic LFRS, respectively, or else minimum shear reinforcement, as
described in the next section, should be provided.
The design drift ratio of the system is obtained by subjecting a linear or nonlinear finite
element system model to the design-level earthquakes defined by the governing code (e.g.,
ASCE 7-05) [Hueste and Wight, 1999]. The linear model is typically built in accordance with
ACI 318-08 (Sections 8.8 and 10.10) and ASCE 7-05 (e.g., response modification coefficient),
while ASCE 41-06 bases nonlinear modeling parameters on the level of force or drift.
The authors recommend the drift capacity check as one of several deformation compatibility
checks that should be applied to all Type 2 RC and PT slab-column connections. Although slab-
column frames are not appropriate to resist seismic forces in high seismic design categories
(Seismic Design Categories D, E, and F), they must be designed to sustain design drift ratios of
the structural system without loss of their gravity load carrying capacity.
 The following subsections present a detailed discussion of the lateral drift limits of Type 2
connections with and without shear reinforcement and an alternative design that eliminates the
need to check the drift limit.

Lateral Drift Limit for Connections without Shear Reinforcement

ACI 318 has incorporated a simplified relationship between the limiting lateral drift ratio (DR)
and the gravity shear ratio (VR) that can be used for deformation compatibility checks, as shown
below:

DR = larger of [(0.035 – 0.05VR) and 0.005] (3)

where VR is the gravity shear ratio, defined as:

VR = Vug / (φVc) (4)

where the term Vc is calculated in accordance with ACI 318-08, Section 11.11.2.1, and φ = 0.75.
The factored gravity shear force, Vug, is determined using the load combinations of 1.2D + 1.0L
(or 0.5L) + 0.2S specified in ACI 318-08, Section 21.13.6, where D, L, and S are the dead, live,
and snow loads, respectively. It is impossible for VR to be equal to or greater than unity for
connections without shear reinforcement, as the factored gravity shear Vu for 1.2D + 1.6L (> Vug)
is always less than φVc.
This lateral drift versus gravity shear relationship was codified based on a database [Moehle,
1996; Megally and Ghali, 2002] of lateral load tests on slab-column connections assigned to
moderate and high seismic design categories. The database was expanded by [Hueste et al.,
2007] and re-examined by the authors (see Figures 1 and 2). The authors have adopted the ACI
318-08 drift limit for RC slab-column connections in these recommendations. If the drift ratio of
the system exceeds the drift capacity of the connection (or the deformation compatibility is not
met), either minimum shear reinforcement or a redesign of the connection is recommended as
detailed later in this paper (different from ACI 318-08).
0.09
RC without shear reinf.
PT without shear reinf.
0.08
Drift limit for RC connections
Drift limit for PT connections
0.07
Drift ratio at punching

0.06

0.05

0.04

0.03

0.02

0.01

0
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1

Gravity shear ratio, (Vug /φVc)

FIGURE 1 – DRIFTS FOR RC AND PT CONNECTIONS WITHOUT SHEAR REINFORCEMENT

 0.09
  Shear Studs
0.08 Steel Stirrups
Kang and Wallace (2008) Bent Up
0.07 Shearheads
Drift ratio at punching

Shearbands
Robertson et al.
0.06 (2002)

0.05

0.04

0.03
Kang and Wallace (2006)
0.02
Cheng et al. (2008)
0.01

0
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1

Gravity sh ear ratio , (V ug /φV c )

FIGURE 2 – DRIFTS FOR RC CONNECTIONS WITH SHEAR REINFORCEMENT

A database for PT connections was compiled and assessed by Kang et al. [2008] (see Figure
1). It was observed that PT connections could sustain higher lateral drift ratios prior to punching
than comparable RC connections (without shear reinforcement and under a variety of loading
types). Larger slab span-to-thickness ratios used in PT slab-column construction (about 40)
versus in RC construction (about 25), as well as the increase in the connection strength due to the
in-plane compressive stress generated by the post-tensioning tendons result in these higher drift
capacities [Kang and Wallace, 2006]. The larger span-to-thickness ratio makes PT systems more
flexible than RC systems under lateral deformations, even though a PT slab is likely to be less
cracked. Based on the database, a similar relationship between drift capacity and gravity shear
ratio was proposed for deformation compatibility by Kang et al. [2008], as shown below:

DR = larger of [(0.045 – 0.05VR) and 0.015] (5)

where VR is the gravity shear ratio, defined as in (4), and the term Vc is calculated in accordance
with ACI 318-08, Section 11.11.2.2. The authors recommend that the increased Vc due to the in-
plane precompression be applied to all types of PT connections (interior, exterior, and corner).
Likewise, the maximum concrete stress (f’c) used in the Vc equation is not recommended to be
limited.
The drift limits defined in (3) and (5) provide lower bounds to RC and PT connection test
data that represent details used in typical construction. Thus, these limits are appropriate for
design of new construction. For evaluation of slab-column connections for existing construction,
more detailed assessment is necessary. For example, nonductile connections with discontinuous
bottom reinforcement have somewhat lower drift capacities at punching. Furthermore, these
connections are susceptible to brittle failure and progressive collapse. More detailed information
and discussions on lateral drift capacities for existing construction are available in the paper by
Robertson and Johnson [2006].
Lateral Drift Limit for Connections with Shear Reinforcement

Figure 2 indicates that larger drift ratios are possible when slab shear reinforcement is utilized. In
particular, substantially larger drift capacities are noted for most connections with headed studs.
The majority of these data are from a single test facility (University of Calgary; 16 of 21 data
points), except for the data from three different research groups [Robertson et al., 2002; Kang
and Wallace, 2006; Cheng et al., 2008; Kang and Wallace, 2008]. In particular, a recent large-
scale slab-column connection test [Cheng et al., 2008] showed that RC slab-column connections
with headed stud shear reinforcement could experience brittle punching failure at a relatively low
drift ratio of about 1.25% when subjected to biaxial drifts and gravity shear levels of one-half of
the concrete punching shear strength. This presents a serious concern for design of shear
reinforcement to ensure connection ductility during earthquake shaking. The dynamic tests of
two-story frames [Kang and Wallace, 2006] have highlighted the importance of reinforcing the
slab-column “interface.” Based on these recent observations, the authors suggest somewhat more
stringent shear reinforcing details for seismic design of slab-column connections as described in
the shear reinforcement section below.
ACI 318-08 introduced new provisions for design of slab-column connections with headed
studs (Section 11.11.5). The authors however suggest that this section is not applicable to
connections that are subject to inelastic lateral deformations (Type 2). The shear reinforcement
section later in this paper gives further details about this issue.

Alternative Approach of Deformation Compatibility

An alternative approach of deformation compatibility is to develop a detailed model of the slab-

column frame and subject it to the design lateral drift demand in order to calculate the connection
shear stress demands. These demands should be compared to the shear stress capacity, with
consideration of the potential for shear strength degradation (by applying strength reduction
modifier of 0.75 per ACI 352.1R-89 or by considering φ = 0.60 versus φ = 0.75 per ACI 318-08,
Section 9.3.4(b)). It should be noted that connection punching may still occur at a certain lateral
drift ratio, and the type of failure could be brittle depending on the gravity shear ratio and the
degree of shear strength degradation.
This approach is included in ACI 318-08 provisions, although it is rarely used because of its
complexity and uncertainty of the nonlinear slab-column frame model. One of the main reasons
for inclusion is that when the limit analysis (or capacity design) is applied, flexural failure will
generally precede punching shear failure, leading to ductile connection behavior. If that is the
case, the alternative approach may lead to both simple computations and a high degree of safety.

SHEAR REINFORCEMENT RECOMMENDATIONS

When the design story drift ratio exceeds the lateral drift capacity DR, the connection must be
modified to enhance the ductility of the connection. The addition of shear reinforcement has
been shown to increase the ductility of the connection when subjected to reversed cyclic lateral
loads [Hawkins et. al. 1975; Megally and Ghali, 2002; Robertson et al, 2002; Kang and Wallace,
2006 and 2008]. This shear reinforcement can be in the form of headed shear studs, single- or
multiple-leg stirrups, or shearbands. It is essential that shear reinforcement be adequately
anchored at the top and bottom of the slab.
Types of Shear Reinforcement

Steel stirrups located in the slab adjacent to the slab-column joint may consist of single-legs,
multiple-legs, closed hoops, or continuous stirrups as described in Section 11.11.3 of ACI 318
(Figure 3). Effective anchorage of the stirrups requires that the top and bottom of each stirrup
vertical leg be hooked around a longitudinal reinforcing bar.

* Headed Studs

* Single-leg stirrup or bar

See ACI 318-08, Section 7.1.3

* Multiple-leg stirrup or bar

Shearbands
 
at the slab-
column interface
and connection

See ACI 318-08, Section 7.1.3

* Closed stirrup or bar

FIGURE 3 – STIRRUPS (ACI 318), HEADED STUDS, AND SHEARBANDS [KANG AND WALLACE, 2008]

Headed studs oriented through the slab thickness are effective for increasing the shear
capacity and ductility of the slab adjacent to a slab-column joint. Shear studs are usually
prefabricated as a stud rail where a number of studs are attached to a single anchorage plate at
one end, with individual anchorage plates attached at the opposite end (Figure 3). Research has
shown that effective anchorage is provided by a head with an area equal to 10 times the cross-
sectional area of the stud [Megally and Ghali, 2002].
Shearband reinforcement consists of elongated thin steel strips with punched circular holes
along the centerline. The thin steel strips are usually pre-bent to fit over and between top bars in
the slab (Figure 3). However, shearbands can be adjusted on site to accommodate tolerances on
position of slab reinforcement already placed. Research has shown that shearbands are as
effective as shear studs in improving the punching shear capacity and ductility under both gravity
and cyclic lateral loads [Pilakoutas and Li, 2003; Kang and Wallace, 2008]. The 90 degree bends
at top and bottom of the vertical legs of a shearband and punched holes along the strip provide
effective anchorage without the need for longitudinal reinforcement in each bend.

Shear Strength of Connections with Shear Reinforcement

The punching shear strength (Vo) of a slab around a slab-column connection is given as

Vo = φ(λVc + Vs) ≤ φVmax (6)

where φ = 0.75, λ adjusts for the reduced shear capacity of lightweight concrete or for Type 2
connections, Vmax is the maximum combined shear capacity based on 6 f 'c , and f 'c is the
specified concrete strength.
The shear strength provided by shear reinforcement oriented perpendicular to the slab is
given by

Vs = (Av fyt d) / s (7)

where Av is the cross-sectional area of all legs of reinforcement on one peripheral line that is
geometrically similar to the perimeter of the column section, fyt is the yield stress of the shear
reinforcement, not to be taken greater than 60,000 psi, d is the average of the distances from
extreme compression fiber to the centroid of tension reinforcement in two orthogonal directions,
and s is the spacing between adjacent peripheral lines of shear reinforcement. For shearbands, Av
is the net area of the band at the circular holes.
When shear reinforcement is provided to increase the shear capacity of the connection, the
concrete contribution to the shear stress capacity is limited to 2 f 'c and the maximum
combined shear stress capacity (Vmax) is limited to 6 f 'c . When headed stud shear
reinforcement is provided, ACI 318-08 allows these limits to be increased to 3 f 'c and 8 f 'c ,
respectively. However, based on the performance of a recent slab-column connection with
headed studs subjected to biaxial cyclic loading [Cheng et al., 2008], it is recommended that the
lower limits of 2 f 'c and 6 f 'c be used for all types of slab shear reinforcement.
For slab-column connections that are not part of LFRS, the preceding check of punching
shear strength is not necessary provided the story drift ratio does not exceed the lateral drift
capacities given by (3) and (5). If the lateral drift capacity is exceeded, then minimum shear
reinforcement must be provided to ensure adequate connection ductility without abrupt punching
shear failure.

Minimum Shear Reinforcement for Type 2 Connections

When minimum shear reinforcement is provided to increase the shear capacity of a connection or
to waive the lateral drift capacity requirements, the shear stress capacity (vs) provided by shear
reinforcement must satisfy vs ≥ 3.5 f 'c , as required by ACI 318-08, Section 21.13.6. This shear
reinforcement should extend at least 4h away from, and perpendicular to, the face of the support,
drop panel, or column capital for reinforced concrete (per ACI 318-08), and 3h for post-
tensioned connections, where h is the slab thickness. Minimum distances for extending shear
reinforcement are to ensure that punching failure will not occur at the outer critical section prior
to punching failure at the column critical section. For post-tensioned connections with shear
reinforcement, experimental studies [see Kang et al., 2008] indicate that a minimum extended
length of shear reinforcement from the column face can be reduced to 3h. The shear strength at
the outer critical section of a post-tensioned connection tends to be improved by in-plane
precompression. Reinforcement placement and detailing recommendations are provided below.
Shear Reinforcement Placement and Detailing for Type 2 Connections

The number of studs or stirrup legs in each line of shear reinforcement running around the
column should be determined such that the distance between adjacent studs or stirrup legs along
the first and second peripheral lines does not exceed 2d. ACI 318 only requires this spacing
check for the first peripheral line and for the spacing between shear reinforcement elements
placed parallel to the same column face. Observations from recent tests [Cheng et al., 2008]
indicate that the relatively wide spacing occurring at the corners of square or rectangular
columns, where the shear reinforcement is placed orthogonal to each column face, may reduce
the effectiveness of the shear reinforcement.
The spacing, s, between peripheral lines of shear reinforcement, measured in a direction
perpendicular to any face of the column, should not exceed d/2. The first peripheral line of shear
reinforcement should be located within s/2 from the face of the column. Dynamic tests on
reinforced concrete and post-tensioned flat plate frames with shear studs [Kang and Wallace,
2006] showed shear strength degradation at the interface between the slab and the column, which
has not been captured in quasi-static tests. Therefore, these recommendations for the location of
the shear reinforcement are more stringent than required by ACI 318.

SUMMARY AND DISCUSSION

The paper seeks to inform readers of recent updates to the ACI 318 code for slab-column
connections and to provide the basis for these provisions, especially with respect to the specified
lateral drift limits. In addition, recommendations in ACI 352.1R-89 relevant to slab-column
connections subject to combined shear and unbalanced moment transfer are discussed. As noted
in the paper, the ACI 352.1R-89 report is limited to reinforced concrete slab-column connections
with no shear reinforcement. However, this report is currently being updated to include both
post-tensioned and reinforced concrete slab-column connections, along with shear reinforcement
recommendations.
This paper summarizes the recommendations of the authors, and does not necessarily reflect
the final content in the update to ACI 352.1R-89. While many of the recommendations presented
in this paper are consistent with ACI 318-08, more conservative recommendations are made in
some cases based on recent research. It is important to note that the potential for brittle punching
shear failures at slab-column connections under inelastic deformations could lead to serious
damage or collapse of a structure. Therefore, the importance of retaining the structural integrity
of these connections cannot be overemphasized. More information on design and detailing
considerations not covered in this paper can be found in ACI 352.1R-89 and ACI 318-08.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

This paper was developed by members of Joint ACI-ASCE Committee 352 – Joints and
Connections in Monolithic Concrete Structures, as a result of recent committee work to update
ACI 352.1R-89: Recommendations for Design of Slab-Column Connections in Monolithic
Reinforced Concrete Structures. The authors wish to thank the committee for their contributions
to this paper.
REFERENCES
[1] ACI Committee 318, Building Code Requirements for Structural Concrete (ACI 318-08) and Commentary
(ACI 318-08R), American Concrete Institute, Farmington Hills, MI, 2008.
[2] ACI-ASCE Committee 326, 1962, “Shear and Diagonal Tension, Slabs,” ACI Journal, Proceedings, 59, 3,
1962, pp. 353-396.
[3] ACI-ASCE Committee 352, ACI 352.1R-89: Recommendations for Design of Slab-Column Connections in
Monolithic Reinforced Concrete Structures, American Concrete Institute, Farmington Hills, MI, 1989
(Reapproved 1997), 22 pp.
[4] ASCE, Minimum Design Loads for Buildings and Other Structures (ASCE Standard ASCE/SEI 7-05),
American Society of Civil Engineers, Reston, Virginia, 2005.
[5] ASCE, Seismic Rehabilitation of Existing Buildings (ASCE Standard ASCE/SEI 41-06), American Society of
Civil Engineers, Reston, Virginia, 2006.
[6] Cheng, M.-Y.; Parra-Montesinos, G. J.; and Shield, C. K., "Effectiveness of Steel Fibers versus Shear Stud
Reinforcement for Punching Shear Resistance in Slab-Column Connections Subjected to Bi-Axial Lateral
Displacements", Proceedings of 14WCEE, Beijing, China, Oct. 2008, 8 pp.
[7] DiStasio, J., and Van Buren, M. P., “Transfer of Bending Moment between Flat Plate Floor and Column,”
ACI Journal, Proceedings, 57, 3, 1960, pp. 299-314.
[8] Hawkins, N. M.; Mitchell, D; and Hannah, S. N., “The Effects of Shear Reinforcement on Reversed Cyclic
Loading Behavior of Flat Plate Structures,” Canadian Journal of Civil Engineering, 2, 1975, pp. 572-582.
[9] Hueste, M. D.; Browning, J.; Lepage, A.; and Wallace, J. W., "Seismic Design Criteria for Slab-Column
Connections", ACI Structural Journal, 104, 4, July-Aug. 2007, pp. 448-458.
[10] Hueste, M. D., and Wight, J. K., "Nonlinear Punching Shear Failure Model for Interior Slab-Column
Connections", ASCE Journal of Structural Engineering, 125, 9, Sept. 1999, pp. 997-1008.
[11] Kang, T. H.-K.; Robertson, I. N.; Hawkins, N. M.; and LaFave, J. M, "Recommendations for Design of Post-
Tensioned Slab-Column Connections Subjected to Lateral Loading", PTI Journal, 6, 1, Feb. 2008, pp. 45-59.
[12] Kang, T. H.-K., and Wallace, J. W., "Punching of Reinforced and Post-Tensioned Concrete Slab-Column
Connections", ACI Structural Journal, 103, 4, July-Aug. 2007, pp. 531-540.
[13] Kang, T. H.-K., and Wallace, J. W., "Seismic Performance of Reinforced Concrete Slab-Column Connections
with Thin Plate Stirrups", ACI Structural Journal, 105, 5, Sept.-Oct. 2008, pp. 617-625.
[14] Megally, S., and Ghali, A., "Punching Shear Design of Earthquake-Resistant Slab-Column Connections", ACI
Structural Journal, 97, 5, Sept.-Oct. 2002, pp. 720-730.
[15] Moehle, J. P., "Seismic Design Considerations for Flat Plate Construction", Mete A. Sozen Symposium: A
Tribute from his Students, SP-162, J. K. Wight and M. E. Kreger, eds., ACI, Farmington Hills, MI, pp. 1-35.
[16] Pan, A., and Moehle, J. P., "Lateral Displacement Ductility of Reinforced Concrete Flat Plates", ACI
Structural Journal, 86, 3, May.-June 1989, pp. 250-258.
[17] Pilakoutas, K., and Li, X., “Alternative Shear Reinforcement for Reinforced Concrete Flat Slabs,” Journal of
Structural Engineering, ASCE, 129, 9, Sept. 2003, pp. 1164-1172.
[18] Robertson, I. N.; Kawai, T.; Lee, J.; and Enomoto, B., "Cyclic Testing of Slab-Column Connections with
Shear Reinforcement", ACI Structural Journal, 99, 5, Sept.-Oct. 2002, pp. 605-613.
[19] Robertson, I. N., and Johnson, G., "Cyclic Lateral Testing of Nonductile Slab-Column Connections", ACI
Structural Journal, 103, 3, May-June 2006, pp. 356-364.