APPLICATIONS OF FLAT-SLAB R/C STRUCTURES IN

SEISMIC REGIONS
George E.Lelekakis, Athina T.Birda, Stergios A.Mitoulis, Theodoros A.
Chrysanidis, Ioannis A.Tegos
Aristotle University of Thessaloniki, Department of Civil Engineering,
Thessaloniki, Greece, george.lelekakis@gmail.com, athinabirda@gmail.com,
mitoulis@civil.auth.gr, thchrysa@civil.auth.gr, itegos@metesysm.gr
ABSTRACT
It is known that the Greek codes allow flat-slab structural systems, however they
provide specific compliance criteria. In the present study an extended parametric
investigation was carried out in order to identify the seismic response of structural
systems consisting of ) slabs-columns b) columns-perimetric beams c) columnsshear walls-slabs d) columns-shear walls-slabs and perimetric beams. The
aforementioned systems were studied for all possible storey heights in Greece by
means of F.E.M. Code SAP2000 ver.9. The compliance criteria provided by the
Greek Code for earthquake resistance are related to second order effects, torsional
flexibility, capacity design and the sensitivity of masonry infill. Conclusions were
extracted concerning the number of storeys which can be applied to each case.
KEYWORDS
Building, flat-slab, seismic, storey height, perimetric beams, walls
1 INTRODUCTION
Advantages of flat-slab reinforced concrete structures are widely known but there
are also known the disadvantages concerning their earthquake resistance. It is
remarkable that both Greek codes, Reinforced Concrete Code [1] and Seismic
Code [2] do not forbid the use of such structural systems however both Codes
provide specific compliance criteria in order such structures to be acceptable. The
advantages of these systems are [3]:
1. The ease of the construction of formwork.
2. The ease of placement of flexural reinforcement.
3. The ease of casting concrete.

102

G.E.Lelekakis, A.T.Birda, S.A.Mitoulis, T.A. Chrysanidis, I.A.Tegos

4. The free space for water, air pipes, etc between slab and a possible furred
ceiling.
5. The free placing of walls in ground plan.
6. The use of cost effective prestressing methods for long spans in order to reduce
slab thickness and deflections as also the time needed to remove the formwork.
7. The reduction of building height in multi-storey structures by saving one storey
height in every six storeys thanks to the elimination of the beam height.
These structural systems seem to attract global interest due to their advantages
mainly in countries in which the seismicity is low. The application of flat-slab
structures is restrained due to the belief that such structures are susceptible to
seismic actions, [4]. Moreover, it is known that in Central America, at the
beginning of 1960s, flat-slab structures displayed serious problems during
earthquake actions.
Three examples of such buildings of international interest are described below.
These buildings, in which construction innovations were implemented, demonstrate
new cost-effectiveness criteria and reduced construction time. These are the
building of public energy company in Stuttgart, the state credit bank of BadenBidenberg, and the 25-floor Stuttgart International hotel [5]. Specifically, in the
aforementioned building a construction time of one storey every four days was
achieved, thanks to the utilization of the abilities of prestress concrete without
bond. The use of partial prestressing technique without bond was aiming the rapid
increment of load capacity, due to prestress loading, the shortening of time needed
to remove cast and additionally the ease of maintenance of the building. In each
case there was a structural cost reduction in comparison with the conventional
structural methods.
Three characteristic cases, from state-of-the-art studies, were examined in the
present paper. These investigations have experimentally studied the response of
flat-slab column connections under horizontal loading. The first experimental
research, [6], concerns the effect of variable slab loading, which produces punching
shear stress in internal and external slab-column joints. The study was carried out
by applying seismic loading to a model of two span flat-slab structure supported by
columns. The three specimens, which included one internal and two external joints,
were subjected to identical horizontal cyclic loading by increasing the target
displacements, while each specimen had a different vertical slab loading. The
experiments showed that the increase in the slab vertical loading leads to a
dramatic reduction in the ability of carrying overturning moment and differential
horizontal replacements, [7].
The second experimental study [8], which concerned external joints, included 27
H-shaped specimens that were examined under seismic loading and conclusions
were extracted regarding the effective width of the slab connected to the column. It
was also concluded that, the ability of the specimens to develop deflections is
strongly influenced by loading and more specifically higher values of dead loading

Applications of flat-slab R/C structures in seismic regions

103

reduce significantly the aforementioned capability. It is noted that, the magnitude

of the slab loading reflects on the value of punching shear force during an
earthquake, [9. This leads to the conclusion the structure should provide adequate
resistance against punching shear in critical joints, which are overstressed during
earthquake, [10].
The third experimental investigation, which is obtained from Greek bibliography,
[11], concerns the deformability of internal slab-column joints under seismic
loading. The results of the study lead to conclusions referring to the seismic
behavior of these joints and particularly the inter-storey drifts of multi-storey 3D
structural systems.
2 COMPLIANCE CRITERIA ACCORDING TO CURRENT CODES
During the conduct of this work, it has been found completely necessary to make a
reference to the provisions of the Greek Concrete Code and the Greek Seismic
Code concerning directly or indirectly flat slab structures.
In Greek Concrete Code 2000 in paragraph 9.1.7 it is stated: As a rule,
horizontal loads must be resisted by vertical structural elements of significant
stiffness (like shear walls or beam-column frames), which are appropriately
placed in plan. In the case that a part of horizontal loads is resisted by the slab
column system, a special check will be conducted (e.g. using the equivalent
frame method). This check will prove that strain, taking in account punching
shear, too, is permissible, that deflections are kept below the acceptable limits
and that the ductility of the system is not reduced. It is also stated that: The
analysis of slabs, which abut directly and monolithically on columns having an
approximately orthogonal array in plan, can be performed using the equivalent
frame method. This method is mainly applicable for vertical loads. In the case
that this method is applied for horizontal loads, too, then it will be assumed as
effective width of the beam lx = bo + 2hs, where bo is the column width
measured on the direction in question and hs is the slab thickness. In this case,
there is no need for a further reduction of stiffness due to cracking.
According to table 2.6 of the Greek Seismic Code, the options available for the
behaviour factor are: q = 3,5 for frames or dual systems and q = 3 for
cantilever wall systems. In the present study q factor has been assumed to be
equal
to
q =3.
Matters related to torsional sensitivity of buildings are examined in Greek
Seismic Code 2003 paragraph 3.3.3.: At non torsionally flexible buildings,
if not a more precise calculation is performed, the equivalent static
eccentricities are: efi =1.50eoi, eri = 0.50eoi, where eoi is the static eccentricity
of storey i perpendicular to the assumed force direction (meaning eox,i or eoy,i).
At torsionally flexible buildings, either a more precise calculation of efi and eri

104

G.E.Lelekakis, A.T.Birda, S.A.Mitoulis, T.A. Chrysanidis, I.A.Tegos

as a function of static eccentricity eoi and torsional radius is required, or

application of the dynamic spectrum method is required.
In Greek Seismic Code 4.1.2.2 the compliance criteria concerning second
order effects are provided: If no accurate analysis is carried out, the variance
in loading due to the structural seismic deflections can be neglected if in each
storey the deflection parameter , given by equation =./V.h, where
and V are the total axial and shear due to seismic loading of all the vertical
elements, is smaller than 0.10. In the above equation h is the storey height and
is the calculated deflection of the slabs of storey. The value of is calculated
by equation =q., where q is the behaviour factor, used in the analysis and
is the relative displacement of the slabs of the storey, determined by the
critical perimetric frame, under seismic loading. The analysis can be carried
out by means of elastic analysis, namely equivalent static or dynamic analysis.
In case 0.10< 0.20 the influence of second order effects, due to relative
deflection of the slabs, can be taken into account by multiplying the results of
the seismic analysis by a factor equal to 1/(1-). The value of , in any case,
should not exceed the value 0.20.
The capacity criterion in the Greek Seismic Code in paragraph 4.1.4 requires
that: In order to assure the capability of the structure to dissipate energy
under seismic design load, without total or partial failure, the post-elastic
response has to have a ductile shape and it has to be distributed to as many
structural elements as possible at regions with a limited length (plastic hinges).
This fact presupposes that the avoidance of all possible brittle failure types,
which are possible to precede, has been assured. Slabs, in flat slab structures
are not neutral structural elements, since they participate in the seismic
resistance and consequently they have to be designed accordingly. Specifically,
their punching shear capacity has to surpass the corresponding flexural
capacity by 40%. The capacity criterion at the joints is satisfied swimmingly at
the structural case in question, since column has an incomparably greater
resistibility compared to slab. In the case of existence of perimetric beams,
weak beams are chosen in order to ensure the formation of a plastic hinge at
beams.

The criterion of sensitive masonry infill is stated in the Greek Seismic

Code 2003 in paragraph 4.2, according to which: In buildings with a
framework filled with masonry infill, it will be checked that the
interstorey drift, at all perimetric walls, taking into account the relative
rotation of consecutive slabs around vertical axis, does not surpass the
value 0.005. In the framework of the present research, it is reminded
that the existence of light masonry infill leads to an exemption from the
aforementioned check.

Applications of flat-slab R/C structures in seismic regions

105

3 PARAMETRICAL STUDY
3.1 SPECIFICATIONS OF 3D STRUCTURAL SYSTEMS
Four different cases of 3D structural systems were examined. The categories
include the following structural systems: a) flat-slab supported only by columns b)
flat-slab with perimetric beams supported by columns c) flat-slab supported by
columns and shear walls d) flat-slab with perimetric only beams supported by
columns and shear walls. The aforementioned systems were studied for all possible
storey heights which can be implemented in Greece, namely one to nine storey
buildings with or without basement, (underground storey). The plan view of the
four analysed structural systems is given in Fig. 1 and Fig. 2, while in Fig 3 a side
view of the nine storey building with its basement is illustrated. The cross section
of the columns is decreased, in both dimensions, by 5cm from one storey to a
sequentially higher storey. Two load combinations were used: (a) the first which
imposes ultimate limit states vertical loading i.e. 1.35g+13.50q and, (b) the second
one which imposes seismic loading provided by the Greek Earthquake.
3.2 REQUIRED THICKNESS OF THE FLAT-SLAB
In all analysed systems concrete class C30/37 was used, due to its high punching
shear resistance. The minimum thickness of the slab with punching shear
reinforcement is: h = 20.0 cm .
The required thickness of the slab in order to avoid deflection checks is:
li = max l eff max leff = max leff ,y = 8.30 0.25 2 = 8.175 m
(1)
The value of the a parameter for the edge of the flat slab is 0.9 and is allowed to be
reduced to 0.8 if the class of the concrete is C30/37:
li = max leff ,y = ( 0.9 0.1) 8.175 = 6.54 m
(2)
For bending deflections equal to 1 250 we have:

li
30 :
d

li
l
654
= 35 d = i =
= 21.8 cm
d
30 30
Cantilever: max leff = lcant. = 2.65 m
li = lcant. = 2.4 2.65 = 6.36 m < 6.54 m
d
1, 2
h = d + nomc + s = 21.8 + 2.0 +
24.4 cm
2
2
Finally, the thickness of the slab is: h = 26.0 cm

(3)
(4)
(5)
(6)

G.E.Lelekakis, A.T.Birda, S.A.Mitoulis, T.A. Chrysanidis, I.A.Tegos

106

4 MODELLING
Vertical elements columns and shear walls were modeled in all cases with
linear beam elements (see Fig. 4). The difference between the models is located on
one hand in the use or not of diaphragm action of slabs and on the other hand in the
use of shell or linear elements for the modeling of the slab. At the shell element
(see Fig. 5) the mass was considered to be concentrated on slab and in the first case
it was modeled using a thin mesh at openings without considering a diaphragm
action for the slab. In the second case the slab was modeled using a thin mesh at
openings considering the diaphragm action of the slab.
For the linear model the equivalent frame method was applied according to 9.1.7
of the Greek Concrete Code. The effective width of the slab was calculated based
on the equation: lx = bo + 2hs of the Greek Concrete Code and the mass was
considered concentrated at the nodes of the elements. It has to be noted the fact that
the results of analyses using linear elements were more favorable than those using
shell elements to model the slabs. In the present study, only the least favorable
results were taken into account.
5 400
4 475

2 650
2 525

450x450mm

7 825
8 300

450x450mm

13 900

450

2 050

450x450mm

8 300
4 550

13 900

5 125
5 600

19 750
5 400
4 700

5 600
5 650

6 300
5 250

6 050
6 300

5 050
5 400
19 750

4 700
5 400

2 300
2 650

Fig. 1: Plan view of the 9th storey of the flat-slab structure with columns and shear walls.

Applications of flat-slab R/C structures in seismic regions

19 750
5 400
4 700

5 400
4 475

2 650
2 525

850x850mm

850x850mm

7 225
8 300

850x850mm

650x650mm

6 050
6 300

13 900

2 050

8 300
4 550

13 900

5 600
5 650

4 925
5 600

650

6 300
5 250

107

5 050
5 400
19 750

4 700
5 400

2 300
2 650

Fig. 2: Plan view of the ground floor of the flat-slab structure with columns and shear
walls.

Analyses of structural systems have shown that fundamental period is not affected
significantly neither by the density of the slab mesh nor by the use of diaphragm
action, since the differentiation between the results is no more than 0.1%. So the
type of thin mesh of Fig. 5 was adopted along with the use of diaphragm action
which provides satisfying results.
A number of 36 models were analysed using shell elements to model the slab and
36 models were analysed using linear elements to model the slab. The models were
the following: Four single-storey systems with a basement (underground storey)
and the rest of the models were multi-storey systems with a basement (underground
storey) with heights varying from 5m to 29m. Models can be categorised according
to their structural systems to: a) Flat slab supported only by columns b) Slab with
perimetric only beams supported by columns c) Flat slab supported by columns
and shear walls d) Slab with perimetric only beams supported by columns and

G.E.Lelekakis, A.T.Birda, S.A.Mitoulis, T.A. Chrysanidis, I.A.Tegos

108

shear walls. In models in which shell elements were utilised, the slab was modeled
using shell elements whilst vertical structural elements were modeled using linear
beam elements.
19 750
5 400
5 050

5 400
4 700

2 650
2 300

2 740
3 000

4 740
5 000

2 740
3 000

2 740
3 000

2 740
3 000
33 260

2 740
3 000

2 740
3 000

2 740
3 000

2 740
3 000

2 740
3 000

6 300
6 050

2 000

17 450
21 450

2 000

Fig. 3: Side view of the 9-storey flat-slab structure with columns and shear walls.

5 RESULTS
The analysed flat-slab structures were assessed by checking the compliance criteria
of both Greek Codes mentioned above. The checks lead to the acceptance or
rejection of the analysed flat-slab structures for the design seismic action. In Fig. 6
and Fig. 7 the variation of coefficient as well as the total seismic actions -axial
and shear loading for each case- are given correspondingly.

Applications of flat-slab R/C structures in seismic regions

109

Fig .4: 3-D model of the 9-storey flat-slab structure with columns and shear walls.

5.1 Second order effects

Critical criterion for the acceptance or not of a structural system was found to be
the criterion of second order effects. Values of interstorey drift sensitivity
coefficient , according to analyses of all types of structural systems in question,
are shown in Fig. 6.
5.2 Design
After a great number of analyses, serious problems were spotted concerning,
specifically, flat slab structures. The crucial ones are:
a) Due to the slight reduction of behaviour factor which is utilised, q = 3 instead of
q = 3.5, but most importantly due to the absence of strong beams, the stresses of
the vertical structural elements and mainly those of the shear walls (which have a
minimal difference compared to vertical cantilevers) are found to be unusual
high. This fact is reflected to the foundation requirements and moreover it brings
out the necessity of a greater number (than usual) of shear walls to be utilised in

G.E.Lelekakis, A.T.Birda, S.A.Mitoulis, T.A. Chrysanidis, I.A.Tegos

110

the framework of the structure in order to achieve a rational resistance of seismic

actions.

Coefficient

Fig. 5: Meshing of the shell elements used to model a typical flat-slab.

0.2
0.18
0.16
0.14
0.12
0.1
0.08
0.06
0.04
0.02
0
1-storey
without
beams

2-storey
without
beams

3-storey
without
beams

4-storey
without
beams

5-storey
without
beams

6-storey
without
beams

9-storey
6-storey
with
with
perimetric perimetric
beams
beams

5-storey
6-storey
9-storey
9-storey
with shear with shear with shear with shear
walls
walls
walls
walls and
perimetric
beams

Fig. 6: Alteration of coefficient for different flat-slab structural systems.

b) The necessity for ductile systems to be led exclusively to a bending type

of failure suggests creates the need, in the specific case, that the punching
shear resistance, wherever it applies, must be at least over 40% of the
corresponding flexural resistance in the same position. This overstrength
can be assured by assuming a behaviour factor q = 3.0/1.4 = 2.14, which
only concerns design of slabs against punching shear. Design of slabs, as
well as design of vertical elements, against bending must be done using
q=3.

Applications of flat-slab R/C structures in seismic regions

111

70 000
60 000

TOTAL AXIAL FORCE (KN)

50 000

TOTAL SHEAR FORCE (KN)

40 000
30 000
20 000

nine storey with perimetrc beams and

shear walls

nine storey with shear walls

six storey with shear walls

five storey with shear walls

nine storey with perimetric beams

six storey with perimetric beams

six storey

four storey

three storey

two storey

one storey

five storey

10 000

Fig. 7: Total axial and shear actions due to seismic load combination related to the
analysed flat-slab system.

c) In most cases for punching shear design critical loading is the combination of
non seismic loads only. The seismic load combination is critical where
vertical elements are close to each other as well as in the case of slabs which
are supported at the edge of shear wall sections or at the corners C-shaped
walls (e.g. walls used for staircases). It is notable that the last two cases
concern (are crucial) more the upper storeys than the bottom storey.
d) Due to the fact that current edition of the Greek Code does not define a
minimum punching shear reinforcement ratio, it is vital the placement of such
reinforcement in previously stated places and in other places that punching
shear may occur, even when design results do not arrive in such an outcome.
e) When two vertical elements are close to each other in plan, it is prudent to
place beams in between, as the punching shear stress is severe in this case and
the resulting slab thicknesses which are required in order to comply with
criterion of VRd2 are not realistic.
f) Finally, one indirect confrontation of punching shear related problems in slabs
can be achieved by the use of more shear walls in the structural system. Shear
walls reduce the earthquake displacements resulting in a reduced punching
shear stress on slabs.

112

G.E.Lelekakis, A.T.Birda, S.A.Mitoulis, T.A. Chrysanidis, I.A.Tegos

6 CONCLUSIONS
In the present study the applicability of flat-slab structures in seismically active
regions, such as Greece, was examined. The acceptance or rejection of the each
analysed flat-slab system was assessed by checking the compliance criteria
provided by the Greek Codes. The aforementioned systems were studied for all
possible storey heights, namely one to nine storey systems, with or without
basement. The study came up to the following conclusions, concerning the total
number of storeys which can be applied to each case:
a) Flat-slab systems with columns only can be applied under conditions buildings
with a small number of storeys. However, the Greek codes provisions,
concerning the compulsory use of shear walls, lead to the conclusion that the
implementation of such systems is restrained.
b) Flat-slab structural systems with perimetric beams supported only by columns,
comply with both Greek codes provisions, however in that case big cross
sections for the columns is needed.
c) Flat-slab systems with shear walls can be applied for any number of storeys
allowed in Greece, i.e. 9-storey buildings. The same conclusion, concerning the
height of the structure, can be drawn for flat-slab systems with perimetric beams
supported by columns and shear walls.
7 REFERENCES
[1] Ministry of Public works Greece, Greek Code for the design of R/C structuresEKOS 2000, Athens, Greece, 2000.
[2] Ministry of Public works Greece, Greek Seismic Code-EAK 2000, (amended
June2003)", Athens, Greece, 2000.
[3] Tegos I.A., Design of particular R/C structures, Aristotle University of
Thessaloniki, University Press, 1998.
[4] Erberik M.A., Elnashai A.S., Fragility analysis of flat-slab structures,
Engineering Structures, Vol. 26, Issue 7, Pages 937-948, 2004.
[5] Vorfelder ., Dinkelacker H., Christou .P., New techonology in building
construction with partial prestressing systems, 12th Greek Conference on R/C
structures, 1996.
[6] Robertson, I. N., and Durrani, A. J., Gravity Load Effect on Seismic Behavior
of Exterior Slab-Column Connections, ACI Structural Journal, Vol. 88, No. 3,
pp. 255-267, 1991.
[7] Leonhardt, F. - Monning, E. (1975), Regan, P. E., "Behavior of Reinforced
Concrete Flat Slabs," CIRIA Report No. 89, Construction Industry Research
and Information Association, London, 1981.
[8] Pan, A., and Moehle, J. P., Lateral Displacement Ductility of Reinforced
Concrete Flat Plates, ACI Structural Journal, Vol. 86, No. 3, pp. 250-258,
Reinforced Concrete Construction, University of California, Berkeley, 1989.

Applications of flat-slab R/C structures in seismic regions

113

[9] Dilger W.H., Flat-slab column connections, Prog. Struct. Engng, Mater., 2,
386-399, 2000.
[10] Walker, P. R., and Regan, P. E "Corner Column-Slab Connections in
Concrete Flat Plates," Journal of Structural Engineering, ASCE, V. 113, No. 4,
Apr. 1987, pp. 704-720.
[11] Tegos I.A., Tsonos A.G., Repair and strengthening of slabs against punching
shear, 12th Greek Conference on R/C structures, Lemesos, Cyprus, 1996.