Seismic Damage Assessment of Reinforced Concrete Slab-Column Connections—Review of Test Data, Code Provisions and Analytical Models
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Reinforced concrete slab-column connections are vulnerable to punching shear failure when subjected to combined gravity and lateral loadings during earthquakes. Over the years, many experimental campaigns have been conducted and assessed the seismic performance of flat slabs. The experimental findings were used to derive empirical equations for the design provisions. The paper aims to provide a detailed description of the code development for seismic punching shear. Two current code provisions (ACI 318-19, EC 2 & EC 8-2004) for seismic punching shear are presented and discussed. Relevant and updated experimental data of interior slab-column connections without and with shear reinforcement are selected and assessed against the current design provisions with a focus on key response parameters such as the drift ratio and the gravity shear ratio. The ACI 318-19 limit drift line is considered to assess the lateral deformation demand for the connections with respect to the updated database. The gravity shear ratio is shown to have a considerable impact on the limit drift ratio of slab-column connections without shear reinforcement. The majority of the test specimens with no shear reinforcement experienced punching shear failure, followed by the specimens which showed a combined flexure–punching failure. Punching shear failures occurred for a range of gravity shear ratios of 0.2 to 0.9, while all combined flexure–punching shear failures occurred for gravity shear ratio values below 0.5. The shear-reinforced concrete slab-column connections can achieve much higher drift ratios. Most of the slabs were reinforced with shear studs, particularly in the range of gravity shear ratios of 0.4 to 0.6. Most test specimens failed by flexure for gravity shear ratio values of 0.1 to 0.7, followed by the specimens which failed in combined flexure–punching for gravity shear ratio values that ranged from 0.3 to 0.9. Finally, the available numerical and analytical models for seismic punching shear are presented with the objective of observing their potential strengths and limitations.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".