10

PUNCHING SHEAR STRENGTH

10.1

INTRODUCTION

The failures at H2, I2 and J2 at Pipers Row all showed the classic features of punching shear
failure, as do most of the subsequent column failures. In this section comparisons have been
made between the original CP114 design estimates of punching shear strength in 10.2, and the
BS8110 design and appraisal procedures in 10.3. More fundamental estimates of the strength,
as built and with deterioration and repairs at the time of failure, have been carried out based
on research on punching strength in 10.4 and on detailed finite element analyses in 10.5.
There is a body of specialist literature [e.g. 40-42] on the evolution of the shear design rules
in CP114, CP110 and BS8110 and on the testing flat slabs to induce punching shear failures.
BRE have carried out a detailed review [H216] of these publications and the source research
as it relates to the particular features at Pipers Row and Prof Regan has carried out a
complementary survey [H222]. From this, BRE have developed a best estimate for the
strength of the Pipers Row column heads as built, with the effects of deterioration
developing progressively down from the top of the slab and with repairs.
The strength of the slab in punching shear has been determined using CP114, the original
design basis, and BS8110 the current design code and also the basis on which assessments of
current strength are made when following IStructE Appraisal of Existing Structures [32]
approach. These calculations have been carried out by BLS in 1964 [H190 - 201] for the
original design, H&S for their report [H2] to NCP after the collapse in May 1997 and in
subsequent calculations [H5 - 9] August 1997, by AV for this study and by SS&D. [H209
213 & 215]
One objective has been to identify the range of interpretations of the code rules to assess the
magnitude of the inaccuracies in assessment of the resistance of sections, which is one of
the uncertainties covered by the m in BS8110. This should lead to improved guidance on the
most appropriate basis for future appraisals of flat slab and deteriorating concrete structures.
The codified rules are relatively straightforward to apply to a conventional in-situ flat slab
with uniformly spaced reinforcement. With the lift slab configuration, a range of more or less
appropriate interpretations can be made which can give rise to inaccuracies which erode the
partial factor. Many of these interpretations are not inconsistent with the wording in CP114
and BS8110, which can be ambiguous or ill defined when applied to unusual structures or
those which were not designed to meet BS8110 layout and detailing assumptions.
The factor of safety m also needs to cover variation in concrete strength and, with f, the
inaccuracies which arise from the geometric differences between the as-built structure and
the as-designed structure shown on the drawings. Design stresses are calculated on the basis
of the nominal geometry, but the specification tolerances give a scatter on strength. The m
factor also needs to cover the wider variation found on site.

115

10.2

DESIGN FOR SHEAR TO CP114.

When CP114 was written, relatively little experimental work on shear had been carried out and simple
empiricism was used in calculating the strength in shear and in particular for punching shear strength
around columns in flat slabs. The deficiencies of CP114 in shear became a cause clbre in structural
engineering and major programmes of research were carried out by Regan[41], Chana [42] and others
in the UK which provided the basis for the progressive development of more reliable strength clauses in
CP110, BS8110 and BS5400. CP114 shear rules should never be used in appraisal as the basis for
determining the strength of a flat slab in shear.
The CP114 check is based on comparing the column reaction V under working load with the strength at
a working stress of 100lb/in2 (0.69N/mm2) for the 3000lb/in2 (20.5N/mm2) concrete specified on the
area of depth equal to the lever arm around the shear perimeter at 0.5 x the thickness of the slab from
the column or drop.
The principle limitations in CP114 for punching shear are:
1.

CP114 ignores the transfer of moment from the slab into a column, which causes the shear
stress on one side to be increased. This is explicitly considered in BS8110.

2.

CP114 ignored the effect of flexural reinforcement on shear strength, which it related simply
to concrete strength. BS8110 relates the permissible shear stress to the area of steel
crossing the shear perimeter, slab depth and concrete strength.

3.

CP114 perimeter at half the slab thickness from the column and the use of the lever arm for
the effective depth carrying shear has been superseded in BS8110. The effective shear depth
of slab and the shear perimeter around the column were redefined in BS8110 with
adjustment to the permitted shear values and there is an additional check close to the
column.

4.

The particular requirements for edge column shear design were not covered in CP114, but
are given specific treatment in BS8110.

5.

The treatment of holes in the slab adjacent to a column is not included in CP114, but there is
a requirement in 329 that an opening should not encroach upon a column head or drop

10.2.1

British Lift Slab calculations

In the original BLS design to CP114 in 1964 punching shear was checked for the four types of shear
head. Only Type 1 (at J2) and Type 4 (at H2 and I2) shear heads were used in the area that collapsed.
The 10 x 10 columns (254mm x 254mm) Types A and F, as at J2, had a rectangular 18 by 16.5
(457mm by 419mm) Type 1 collar shear head. The column load for roof design was 43,200lbs,
(192kN) which BLS calculated gave a working shear stress of 67lb/in2 (0.46N/mm2) compared to the
100lb/in2 (0.69N/mm2) permitted. This corresponds to a working stress strength of 287kN in the
absence of holes. In the available calculations there are no checks on the holes adjacent to J2, perhaps
the reserve of strength was considered adequate to permit this.

116

The 12 x 12 columns (305mm x 305mm) Types E & I, as at H2 and I2, had a 36 by 18.5 (914mm by
470mm) Type 4 collar shear head with angles protruding 9.75 (248mm). The column load for service
design for the roof was 97,000lbs (431kN) which BLS calculated gave a working shear stress of 97.5
lb/in2 (0.67N/mm2), compared to the 100lb/in2 (0.69N/mm2) permitted. This corresponds to a working
stress strength of 443kN.
In these calculations BLS took 8.25 (210mm) as the thickness of the slab for determining the perimeter
and calculated the lever arm as 0.85 x 8.25. The 8.25 is not the thickness of the slab, actually 9
(229mm ), nor the slab depth to the top of angle at 8.125 (206mm) , nor the distance from the average
depth of the T1 and T2 reinforcement at I2 to the soffit at 7.5 (190mm) , nor the distance from the
average depth of the reinforcement at I2 to the top of the angle at 6.625 (168). The value of 0.85 for
calculating the lever arm is a typical value within the range of those derived using methods permitted by
CP114.
BLS did not calculate the effect of misfit on the height of the supports on the column reactions, but there
are calculations dated 15/8/64 [H193] on the effect of a 3/8 (10mm) differential in level during lifting
on the moments in the slab.
10.2.2

Interpretations of CP114 for Lift Slabs

Despite its simplicity CP114 strength calculation is open to a wide range of interpretations when applied
to Pipers Row. These are of importance as some clients have instructed their engineers to carry out
assessments on the basis of the original design, rather than the current codes which IStructE [32]
recommends as the appropriate basis for strength assessment.
In interpreting codes, designers tend to adopt the most economic interpretation, ie that which maximises
the calculated strength of the section. This is balanced by a tendency to use the code simplifications
which are conservative. If a section fails in appraisal on the basis of the simple method, then it is often
reappraised to give a better answer. It is often the interpretation of the wording in the code, rather than
a consideration of the underlying principles of structural behaviour, which guides the engineers
application of a code. Increasingly code checks are based on entering numbers in boxes in generalised
software which gives added scope for mistakes when used on an unconventional structures.
In evaluating CP114 and reviewing the interpretations which H&S adopted in their analyses after the
failures and which AV used in their checks for this study, the objective has not been to decide that one
particular interpretation of the flawed CP114 is right, but to examine how wide a range of strength
estimates might be reasonably derived from the code.
The H&S report to NCP in May 1997 included checks on the slab at J2 and H2 to CP114, where
compliance was reported, and BS8110 checks which are discussed below. Following further discussions
with HSE, H&S carried out some further CP114 checks in August 1987 to examine the sensitivity to
different assumptions and to include the full set of 12 columns in the area of collapse.
Amey Vectra reported, in their calculations 1300-218-C100[H210], their CP114 assessment of the slab
in flexure and shear. AV were left to develop their own interpretations of the code and their assumptions
cover a wide range. In making comparisons and drawing conclusions from these studies a limited
number of examples have been recalculated on a standard reference set of assumptions.

117

The thickness of a normal flat slab is unambiguous and the treatment of drops is clear in CP114.
However the setting of the collar angle with its top surface 7/8 (22mm) above the slab soffit, 8.125
(206mm) below the top of the slab and 6.625 (168mm) below the average centroid of the top steel, has
led to four interpretations in sizing the perimeter at thickness/2 from the ends of the shear head angles
based on:
i)
full slab thickness at 9 (229mm)
ii)
thickness to the bottom of angle at 8.5(216mm)
iii) thickness to the top of the angle at 8.125(206mm)
iv) thickness as 200mm
In determining the lever arm la , which CP114 uses as the effective depth in shear, it must be decided if
the shear fracture surface depth should be related to the overall depth of slab or the depth to the top of
the angle from which the shear fracture originated (HSE sketch in Appendix B of H&S report May
1997). Figure 10.2 - 1 compares the shear fracture positions for a normal in-situ detail with Pipers Row
lift slab.

Figure 10.2 - 1 Comparison of normal in-situ detail with Pipers Row lift slab shear head.

The value of the lever arm is based on effective depth d1 which has variously been taken for I2, and
similarly for other locations, as ranging from
d1 = 8.25 (210mm), as assumed by BLS
d1 = 7.5 (191mm), the distance from the average depth of the T1 and T2 reinforcement at I2
to the soffit
d1 = 6.625(168mm), the distance from the average depth of the T1 and T2 reinforcement at
I2 to the top of the angle
AV calculated d1 and lever arm la separately for the T1 bar face and the T2 bar face.

118

The lever arm la in CP114 can be calculated from d1 on a range of different bases using either the
modular ratio or load factor method. These can be based simply on the modular ratio and maximum
permitted concrete and steel stress giving la = 0.89d1. If la is calculated on the load factor basis with
the variation of the steel As/bd on the effective width considered, together with the moments applied to
the section, the lever arm can be in the range la =0.75d1 and 0.95d1. AV pursued this in considerable
detail in their calculations with la ranging from 138 to 194mm.
The treatment for holes and for edge columns, which are critical in the evaluation of J2 are not clarified
in CP114.
The projecting angles of the Type 4 shear head collar at H2 and I2 extend 7 (178mm) beyond the lift
angles. They are more flexible than a column support of the same area and so may be less than fully
effective, making it prudent to reduce the shear perimeter. It has also been argued [44] that the
projecting angles create stress concentrations which could trigger the brittle failure mode. These aspects
are evaluated in detail by BRE DIANA analysis in 10.5. In appraisal both H&S and AV have
considered the influence of curtailment of the angles. H&S reduced the effective length of the angles by
21mm at each end reducing the shear perimeter by 2.5 %. AV in CP114 calculations reduced the
effective angle length by 90 mm each end, reducing the shear perimeter and slab strength by 10%.
CP114 permitted the use of the age factor for the increase of concrete strength with time, which was a
characteristic of cements at that time. This would permit for concrete of over 1 year old an increase of
f cu from 1000 to 1240lb/in2, with a 14.4% increase in the permissible shear stress from 100 to 114.4
lb/in2 (0.69 to 0.79N/mm2 ). Normally this enhancement would be checked by core strength tests before
it was used in assessment. As noted in 8.3.1 a typical set of cores from the car park as a whole would
have justified the use of this factor. However, a set of cores specifically from the more deteriorated
areas in the repaired slab in 1996 would have shown concrete weaker than originally specified.
10.2.3

Comparison of CP114 Estimates of Reactions and Punching Strength

The range of permissible shear strengths calculated to CP114 are compared to the working load column
reactions Vt in Table 10.2.3 - 1. This gives the vertical reaction Vt, as distinct from the BS8110 Veff
which includes the effect of moments as used for the comparisons in Section 9.2.
In these comparisons the strength has been related to the reactions Vt from the AV CP114 sub- frame
analysis, after the redistribution which reduces the reactions at H2 and I2. The review shows that the
original shear design at H2 and I2 broadly complied with the CP114 design requirements, except
marginally at I2 if the most rigorous assumptions are made.
At J2 there was a substantial reserve of shear strength without the holes. With the holes, which are a
departure from the detailing requirements, the design can be close to the CP114 limit, depending on the
assumptions made.
If the CP114 strengths were related to the AV grillage analysis reactions (eg 416kN compared to 331kN
from sub-frame analysis at I2), it would show a substantial overstress utilisation factors of up to 1.29,
for H2 and I2 relative to CP114 strength. The scatter of strength estimates that arise when CP114 has
been interpreted for a structural form which departs from the conventional in-situ construction, gives an
unacceptable wide range as shown in Table 10.2.3 - 2. A rigorous strength estimate for I2 of 320kN,
contrasts with the original design strength estimate of 443kN.

119

Table 10.2.3 - 1
Comparison of CP114 estimates of DL + LL reactions and punching strength
________________________________________________________________________________
Reactions
H2
I2
J2
kN/m2
Vt kN
Vt kN
Vt kN
________________________________________________________________________________
AV Design DL + LL
8.62
368
423
141
ANSYS
AV BS8110
Grillage

8.62

368

416

151

AV CP114/BS8110
Subframe #

8.62

294

331

166

H&S
adjusted to
Superstress subframe #

8.62

293

331

168

BLS Design Max

8.62

431

431

192

# redistributed with Moments

________________________________________________________________________________
Strengths

H2
I2
J2
Vc kN
Vc kN
Vc kN
(Load/Strength relative to AV CP114 Subframe)
Vc /294
Vc /331
Vc/166
_______________________________________________________________________________
BLS Basis. * J2 No holes.
443
66%
443
75%
287* 58%*
H&S Full angles

347

85%

347

95%

176

94%

H&S Curtailed angles

341

86%

342

97%

176

94%

AV Curtailed angles p 7/10

334

88%

332

100%

207

80%

AV Summary Part 1. 4/7

317
93%
305 109%
167 99%
________________________________________________________________________________

Table 10.2.3 - 2
Sensitivity of CP114 punching strength to
slab depth, lever arm and effective shear head angle length
________________________________________________________________________________
Recalculated Strengths for I2.
I2
(Load/Strength relative to AV CP114 Subframe)
Vc kN
Vc /331
_______________________________________________________________________________
Full depth slab, full angles, la = 0.89
Full depth slab, full angles, la = 0.85
Full depth slab, angles - 22, la = 0.85
Full depth slab, angles - 90, la = 0.85

430
411
402
371

77%
81%
82%
89%

To angle, full angles,

la = 0.85
356
93%
To angle, angles - 22,
la = 0.85
347
95%
To angle, angles - 90,
la = 0.85
320
103%
________________________________________________________________________________

120

10.3

DESIGN FOR SHEAR TO BS8110.

CP110 in 1972 introduced new requirements for flat slab design on the basis of research and testing. BS
8110 in 1985 developed and refined them. This evolution is reviewed in detail in Section 10.4. and in
the BRE Contract C Report. The BS8110 approach to flat slab design was reviewed and additional
guidance was given, in CIRIA report 110:1994 Design of reinforced concrete flat slabs to
BS8110[24].
This report refers to BS8110:1997 Clause numbers, but BS8110:1985, with amendments to No. 4 1993,
was current the period leading up to the collapse. For the punching shear for the Pipers Row
configuration there are no technical differences between the two editions, but there are changes in Clause
numbering. The main emphasis in this review of BS8110 and in the more detailed BRE studies, is on the
treatment of punching shear for the particular parameters relating to Pipers Row. Calculations have been
undertaken for the as-designed structure and the as- built structure for H2, I2 and J2. The effects of
deterioration and repair and the relationship of BS8110 to more recent research have been considered in
detail by BRE [H217, 218] and in Sections 10.4 and 10.5.
10.3.1

Calculations to BS8110 by Amey Vectra and Harris & Sutherland

The H&S report to NCP in May 1997 included checks on the slab at H2 and J2 to BS8110, which
identified overstress under the design dead + live load condition for the as-designed slab and greater
overstress with an assumed 70mm deterioration. Following further discussions with HSE, H&S carried
out some further BS8110 checks in August 1997 [H6 - 9] to examine the sensitivity to different
assumptions and to include the full set of 12 columns in the area of collapse. For this H&S used an
estimated dead load 5.5kN/m2, based on the as-constructed slab and surfacing, and a live load of
2.5kN/m2, in accordance with current design practice, giving a factored load of 11.7kN/m2. For the
comparisons set out below H&S figures have been adjusted pro rata to a factored loading of 12.55N/m2
corresponding to factored original design loadings used in the reference set of calculations. In some
instances H&S figures have been recalculated using their assumptions, but with other parameters
standardised to enable more direct comparisons to be made.
In their original Report in May 1997 H&S reported in Clause 11.5.1, a 63% overstress (ie 163%
capacity) for an undeteriorated H2 on the assumption of the lower bound vc = 0.38N/mm2, discounting the
effectiveness of the reinforcement due to its spacing away from the column head. In their revised
calculations for H2 [H6, page 21] they give vc = 0.65N/mm2 after considering the effectiveness of
reinforcement and reported a 71% BS8110 capacity relative to a fixed column sub frame analysis (which
gives a Veff of about 75% of the value from the ANSYS Plate analysis, see Table 9.3.2 - 1). This
indicates the sensitivity of BS8110 appraisal to the assumptions made in deriving both strength and load.
Amey Vectra have reported, in their calculations 1300-218-C200, on their independent BS8110
assessment of the slab in flexure and shear. AV were left to develop their own interpretations of the code
and their assumptions cover a wide range. In making comparisons and drawing conclusions from these
studies a limited number of examples have been recalculated on standard reference set of assumptions as
set out in 10.3.2.

121

10.3.2

Basis of BS8110 Punching Shear Calculations

The BS8110 treatment of punching shear is radically different from that in CP114. The main features of
BS8110 calculations are:
i)

The design is based on the comparison of the loads factored by f, which are compared with
the characteristic strength divided by the partial materials factor m. For shear m is 1.25, and
is included in the Table 3.8 values of vc the design shear stress.

ii)

The transfer of moment from the slab into a column, which causes the shear stress on one
side to be increased, is explicitly considered in BS8110 by using:
Veff = Vt (1 + 1.5Mt/(Vt x)) for the moments Mt transferred from the slab to the column
about the x and y axes. x is the breadth of the shear perimeter face
For edge columns, like J2 , Veff is taken as 1.25Vt for the face parallel to the edge and as
Veff = Vt (1.25 + 1.5Mt/(Vt x)) where moments arise about an axis perpendicular to the edge
.

iii)

BS8110 Table 3.8 relates vc the design shear stress on the shear perimeter to the
characteristic concrete 28 day strength and the area of steel crossing the shear perimeter.
where vc = 0.79((100As/(bv d))1/3 (400/d)1/4 (f cu/25)1/3 )/ m N/mm2.

iv)

The effective shear depth of the slab is defined as the effective depth d from the centroid of
the top reinforcement to the soffit.

v)

The shear perimeter around the column is taken at 1.5d from the column.

vi)

The treatment of holes and of edge columns close to the edge of the slab is explicitly
covered.

Problems of interpretation for the Lift Slab shear head details arise with BS8110 in relation to:
i)

The value assumed for d, when calculating the shear perimeter dimensions and shear depth, to
account for the shear failure initiating at the seating on the angle support horizontal flange
22mm above the soffit, as distinct from soffit level with conventional in-situ construction, see
Figure 10.2 - 1.

ii)

The influence of the non uniform distribution of flexural steel in relation to the shear
perimeter which can significantly influence As/(bv d)) and hence vc. This is sensitive to the
precise location of the top steel in the slab and the assumptions made in relation to the shear
perimeter, as any bars outside the shear perimeter are discounted.

iii)

The differences in dimension between nominal (19mm) round bars and the square twisted
bars (SQT) which occupy a depth of 23.9mm and similarly with 5/8 (15.9mm) SQT bars with
a depth of 19mm.

122

iv)

The definitions in Clause 1.3.3 (relating to the perimeters in Clause 3.7.7) of BS8110
average the properties (As/(bv d), d and vc) on the 4 faces. This discounts the possibility that
the weakest face may have the highest shears. It would seem appropriate for a brittle mode of
fracture that checks should be based on each face around the shear perimeter using the
relevant values of vc, As , d, bv , x, and Veff . This would be consistent with the individual
checks carried out on 4 beams meeting at a column. The difference between these two
approaches becomes significant at Pipers Row where the structure falls outside the range for
which BS8110 simplifications are recommended and has:
- non uniform spans, so Veffx differs from Veffy,
- As/(bv d) and vc are significantly different on the x and y faces,
- the perimeter sides are of unequal length.

v)

The extent to which the full area of the Type 4 extended angle shear heads at H2 and I2 can
be considered effective or if curtailment is appropriate to reflect their low stiffness compared
to a column support.

vi)

The potential stress concentration effects of the Type 4 angle shear heads at H2 and I2.

vii)

The complex of holes around J2.

viii)

The curtailment of the T2 bars just short of the column J2, where the B2 bars stop just short
of the seating on the angle.

10.3.3 Parametric Study of Sensitivity of Strength to Assumptions

To demonstrate the sensitivity of the strength calculations to the range of interpretations of BS8110, the
design strengths Vc have been recalculated on a reference basis and compared to the reference values
of Veff with the original factored design loading 12.55kN/mm2, from the AV ANSYS plate analysis.
The ratio of Veff/Vc ,can be expressed as the % Capacity (as reported by H&S) or the Utilisation
Factor (as reported by AV). It will be appreciated that this % Capacity is a relative measure, not an
absolute one, as the load Veff is sensitive to the assumptions and method of analysis as evaluated in
Section 9.3. H2 and I2 column heads are similar and their strengths have been evaluated on the reference
basis. The full parametric study on the effect of a range of assumptions on Vc has been summarised for
I2 with more limited examples for H2. The very different configuration at J2 is treated separately in
10.3.4.
The standardised reference as-designed set of assumptions and dimensions with the specified
20.5N/mm2 concrete is:
at H2.

229mm (9) slab with 19mm cover to 19mm dia. T1 bars, with 16mm dia. T2 bars below
and the effective shear seating on the full area of the 914 by 470 shear head angle at 22mm
above the soffit.

at I2

229mm (9) slab with 19mm cover to 19mm dia. T1 bars, with 19mm dia. T2 bars below and
the effective shear seating on the full area of the 914 by 470 shear head angle at 22mm above
the soffit.

123

The reference as-built set of assumptions and dimensions with 20.5N/mm2 concrete is:
at H2.

235mm (9) slab with 40mm cover to SQT T1 bars, which occupy a depth of
23.4mm, with 5/8 SQT T2 bars, 19mm deep, below and the effective shear seating
on the top face of the flanges of the 914mm by 470mm shear head angle at 22mm
above the soffit.

at I2

229mm (9) slab with 29mm cover to SQT T1 bars, which occupy a depth of
23.4mm, with SQT T2 bars, 23.4mm deep, below and the effective shear seating
on the top face of the flanges of the 914mm by 470mm shear head angle at 22mm
above the soffit.

These reference dimensions are shown on Figure 8.3.9 - 2. The as-constructed thickness is
based on the average slab depth from Section 8.2.1. The reinforcement dimensions and cover
come from the HSE site sketches of H2 and I2 [H134, 136]. Figures 4.2 - 1 and 2 show the asdesigned reinforcement around H2 and I2, as taken by AV from the original BLS drawings.
The steel areas, As per bar, are taken as 285mm2 for the 19mm SQT bar and as 198mm2
for 16mm 5/8 SQT reinforcement. The spacing of the top reinforcement from columns H2
and I2, is set out in Figure 8.3.9 - 1 showing the as-designed values from the original BLS
drawings and as-built values from the HSE site sketches.
In calculating vc, the number of bars contributing to As/(bv d) falling within the shear perimeter
width bv , varies according to the assumptions. Figure 10.3.3 - 1 shows the variation in BS8110
Table 3.8 vc with the width of the perimeter for the as-designed bar spacings at I2 for the T1
and T2 bars respectively.
A range of shear perimeter assumptions at 1.5d outside the assumed support angle area are
shown in Figure 10.3.3 - 2. This also shows the perimeter at 3d outside the angles which are
considered on the basis of research (see 10.4) to be a more appropriate basis for calculating
As/(bv d) and vc.

124

Short side of I2, as designed, T1 bars:

Sensitivity of design shear stress vc to perimeter width
0.90

Table 3.9 Shear Stress vc N/mm2.

0.80

0.70

0.60

0.50

0.40

0.30

0.20

1.5d

0.10

3d

0.00
0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

Width of Perimeter mm.

Long side of I2, as designed, T2 bars:

Sensitivity of design shear stress vc to perimeter width

0.90

0.80

Table 3.9 Shear stressvc N/mm2

0.70

0.60

0.50

0.40

0.30

0.20

3d

1.5d

0.10

0.00
0

500

1000

1500

2000

Width of Perimeter mm

Figure 10.3.3 - 1
Variation in design shear stress vc with perimeter width, for 'as-designed' I2

125

2500

Figure 10.3.3 - 2.
Range of shear perimeter assumptions relative to shear head.

126

The main variations in the interpretation of BS8110 are:

1a)

To Angle (reference assumption): taking the depth d from the centroid of the top
reinforcement to the top of the angle horizontal flange at 22mm above the soffit, from which
shear fracture initiated.

1b)

To Soffit: taking the full slab depth d from the centroid of the top reinforcement to the
soffit. Although some people have followed this literal interpretation of the BS8110 wording,
this is clearly inappropriate as the shear failure starts from the angle support.

2a)

Full Angle: taking the full 914mm length of the angles as supporting the slab

2b)

Angle - 90mm: with only part (734mm) of the length of the angle effectively supporting the
slab.

The uncertain stiffness of the projecting angles has been variously treated by assuming each end of the
angles to be ineffective for
-

22mm in H&S calculations

90mm in AV CP114 calculations
136mm in AV in BS8110 calculations.

In these comparisons the 90mm value has been used as a sensitivity check. The effectiveness of the
projecting angles has been further evaluated with the BRE DIANA analysis, the results of which are
reviewed in 10.5.5.
The design shear strengths Vc (= average vc x perimeter x d) for H2 and I2, are compared in Table
10.3.3 -1 to the factored column effective shear forces Veff max from AV ANSYS under the original
factored design loading of 1.4 (5.41 + 0.81) + 1.6 x 2.4 = 12.55kN/m2 . This follows the BS8110
definitions in summing the strengths of the 4 sides.
Table 10.3.3 -1
Columns H2 and I2: BS8110 comparison of Strength with Load.
________________________________________________________________________________
H2
I2
kN/m2
Veff max kN
Veff max kN
_____________________________________________________________________________
Factored Load
AV ANSYS. DL x 1.6 + LL x 1.4
12.55
562
630
________________________________________________________________________________
Strength
(Veff/ Vc %relative to AV ANSYS )
H2
H2
I2
I2
Veff/ Vc
Vc kN Veff/Vc
Vc kN
________________________________________________________________________________
As-design

To Angle,

As-design
As-design

Full Angles REF

510

110%

538

117%

To Soffit, Full Angles

574

98%

606

104%

To Angle,

466

121%

464

136%

Angles -90mm

As Built, To Angle,
Full Angles
428
131%
517 122%
________________________________________________________________________________

127

The design shear strengths Vc for I2 have also been calculated for the sides of the perimeter. These are
compared to the factored column effective shear forces Veffx and Veffy on the T1 and T2 faces under the
original factored design loading of 12.55kN/m2
Veff gives the stress and force on the more highly stressed of the two parallel sides. The Veff has been
apportioned to the sides on the basis that Veff Tn = Veff (side length/perimeter).
so for

Veff T2 for T2 bars // to line 2,

Veff T1 for T1 bars // to line I,

Veff T2 =0.301Veff
Veff T1 =0.199Veff

Table 10.3.3 - 2
Column I2: Considering Shear Force Vc on T1 and T2 Sides.
________________________________________________________________________________
Veff x kN
Veff y kN
kN/m2
T2
T1
________________________________________________________________________________
Load
DL x 1.6 + LL x 1.4
12.55
Veff T. 190
124
________________________________________________________________________________
Strength
( Veff/ Vc% relative to AV ANSYS )
Vc xT2 kN
VeffT2 / Vcx
Vc yT1 kN
VeffT1 /
Vcy
_____________________________________________________________________________
As-design
To Angle,
Full Angles, REF
136
139%
133
93%
As-design

To Angle,

Angles -90

99

192%

133

93%

As-built
To Angle,
Full Angles
138
137%
120
103%
_____________________________________________________________________________

The marked increase in T2 overstress with the 90 mm curtailment of the ends of the angles arises
because the number of bars crossing the perimeter falls from 4 to 2, markedly reducing vc.
The BS8110 Clause 1.3.3 definitions give an overstress of 15% for the REF case based on the sum of
the strengths of the sides. However, on the T2 bar side towards H2 there is an overstress of 39%, while
the short T1 bar side towards I1 has a 10% reserve of strength. Because of the brittleness of the failure
mode the overstress on the T2 bar side will trigger a failure before the stress can redistribute to the other
sides.
For the Pipers Row Lift Slab configuration following the Clause 1.3.3 definitions will give an erroneous
overestimate of strength and the side by side approach should be followed. BS8110 definitions should
be reviewed so that this more realistic approach is used for design, to ensure that the steel is orientated
to give a sufficient As/(bv d) and vc . This approach is also essential for the appraisal of existing
structures, so that in cases like Pipers Row the strength reserves are correctly determined.
These higher stress side average forces and stresses are further compared to the average stresses on
comparable perimeters from the ANSYS and Diana analyses in 10.5.3.

128

Effect of tolerances on thickness and cover

Strength is calculated on nominal dimensions and the factor of safety m = 1.25 is in part to cover the
effect of specified BS8110 +5mm and -10mm tolerances on cover and an estimated +/-10mm variation
on thickness. Table 10.3.3 - 3 shows the change in BS8110 strength at I2 relative to the Reference asdesigned case with this range of tolerances.
Table 10.3.3 -3
Column I2: Change in Strength with BS8110 Cover and Thickness Tolerances.
_____________________________________________________________________________
I2
Load
kN/m2
Veff kN
AV ANSYS.
12.55
630
________________________________________________________________________________
Strengths
(Veff/ Vc% relative to AV ANSYS )
I2
I2
Effect
Vc kN
Veff/ Vc
Ref/ Vc
________________________________________________________________________________
As Designed, To Angle, Full Angles REF
538
117%
100%
as above 229mm slab, but cover 14mm

553

114%

97%

as above 229mm slab, but cover 29mm

508

124%

106%

as above, but 219mm slab and cover 29mm

415
152%
130%
________________________________________________________________________________

From this it is clear that an area of slab around a column at 219mm thick (ie 10mm under nominal
thickness) with the top steel low, giving 29mm cover, would more than fully utilise the m = 1.25 factor,
which also has to accommodate other uncertainties in the strength.
The variation in both cover and thickness found from measurements on the retained slabs indicates that
the variation at Pipers Row was wider than the limits assumed above. These wide tolerances, outside
the limits in Standards, are frequently found in normal construction practice.
10.3.4

Strength of J2

J2 is an edge column and BS8110 has different rules for them. Veff is enhanced by 25%, but it is not
clear if this is an additional factor of safety to cover the uncertainties of analysis as well as the effects of
the column moments. For this review the Veff has been calculated both as for an internal column on the
basis of the moments Mx and My and using the 1.25 factor.
For J2 the strength calculations are complicated by the holes for the drains and the cut outs for the lifting
rods which reduce the effective shear perimeter. The holes and as-designed reinforcement configuration
is shown in Figure 4.2 - 3. The 457mm x 419mm shear head round the 254mm square column is of
Type 1, with no projecting angles. The damage after the collapse prevented any reliable measurements
of reinforcement cover and disposition being taken so there are no as-built details.

129

Figure 10.3.4 -1
Column J2: Holes and 1.5d shear perimeters

130

Different engineers have formed different opinions about the effective perimeter at J2 and the range of
assumptions have been evaluated and compared on a standard basis:
1

Full Perimeter, assuming no holes .

The perimeter Max effective length, ie excluding the actual length crossing holes and the
115mm width of the lifting bar slot.

The perimeter based on the BS8110 Clause 3.7.7.7 radial hole divergence from the centre of
column (as H&S 20 Aug 97 p21/21), but BS Figure 3.18 shows holes outside the perimeter,
not inside as at J2.

The Conservative perimeter, based on discounting all strength to the J3 side of the shear head
angle (as H&S May 97 and AV 11/99)

These are shown in Figure 10.3.4 - 1 .

The infill concrete in the lifting holes and the drain surround have been considered to be ineffective in
carrying shear. It is appropriate to consider each face of the shear perimeter separately in evaluating
As/(bv d) and vc. As with the internal columns the question arise about the validity of summing the
strengths around the whole perimeter as BS8110 recommends, as distinct from checking each side on the
basis of its strength and its proportion of Veff.
The perimeter side towards J1 extends to the edge (BS8110 Clause 3.7.7.8) and so there is no perimeter
on the edge side of the column. The perimeter side towards J3 is substantially interrupted by holes and
also extends towards the edge. The effective perimeter lengths assumed influence the width x and bv in
calculating Veff and As/(bv d) hence the value of vc.
The BLS reinforcement configuration at J2 was clearly conceived on different principles from BS8110
and it is appropriate to consider the shear resistance following the original concept of the design using
the Max effective length basis as the main reinforcement of T1 bars is parallel to the edge and frames
the holes. The 7 main reinforcement T1 bars of SQT form an edge beam taking hogging moments
across the top of the column, and past the drain holes.
The T2 reinforcement towards I2, is light at (12.7mm) SQT ,with B2 (12.7mm SQT) bottom
reinforcement extending nearly to the column angle seating . The value of the T2 top steel in increasing
the shear resistance across the perimeter side towards I2 is at best questionable. The T2 steel only
extends about 170mm from the shear perimeter towards the column angle seating so has limited
anchorage to resist shear. Because of these uncertainties values of vc on the side to I2 have been
checked for two conditions, first assuming that the T2 bars are effective and then with As as zero giving
the lower bound vc. However, the area of steel is low, very close to the <0.15 cut off, so the vc is
0.40N/mm2 regardless of the assumption on the steel effectiveness.
The BLS drawing is unclear as to the exact end location of the B2 bars relative to the shear head angle
seating. Checks showed no marks of these bars in the concrete remaining on the shear head. So the
ends of these bars, as constructed, were outside the shear fracture surface, preventing them from
contributing to shear strength.
The design shear strengths for J2 calculated to BS8110 on a face by face basis, have been compared in
Table 10.3.4 - 4 with the factored column effective shear forces Veff x and Veff y, as for H2 and I2.

131

Comparison has been done firstly taking Veff based on moments, as for an internal column, and then
using the 1.25 factors for an edge column.
The as-designed dimensions for J2 have been taken as 229mm slab, cover 19mm, T1 bars 19mm, T2
bars 12.7mm, angle seating 22mm above soffit, f cu 20.5N/mm2 . Only calculations based on the
effective depth to the top of the angle are summarised. The perimeter length, before the deduction of
holes, is 918mm + 100mm to the edge on the T1 sides and 992mm on the T2 side towards I2 based on
effective depths of 179mm for the T1 sides and 163mm for the T2 side.
Table 10.3.4 - 1
Column J2: Comparison of Strength with Load, on a Range of Perimeter Assumptions.
________________________________________________________________________________
Vt kN
Veff x
Veff y
1.25Vt
1.25Veffy
AV ANSYS
kN/m2
kN
kN
kN
kN
kN
DL x 1.6 + LL x 1.4
12.55
205
219
216
256
267
________________________________________________________________________________
Recalculated Strengths
Units kN.
Vc J1
Vc I2
Vc J3
Vc
1.25Vt
1.25Veffy
(Load/Strength)
Vc
Vc
___________________________________________________________________________
1 Full Perimeter, No Holes
125
65
125
315
82%
85%
2 Max effective length
115
65
68
248
103%
108%
3 BS Radial Hole Diverge
115
64
22
201
128%
133%
4 Conservative Perimeter
115
47
0
162
158%
165%
_______________________________________________________________________________

When the configuration of reinforcement is considered the use of Basis 2 Max effective length
perimeter seems most appropriate as for:
Vc J1
Vc I2
Vc J3

there is no influence from the holes,

the holes do not influence the flow of the shear from the column towards I2 and the
strength arises from the concrete with little reinforcement contribution
The shear is carried past the holes towards J3 by the T1 bars running close to the shear
head collar.

On the BS8110 basis taking the sum of the strengths of the sides there is a small overstress 8% under the
full factored loading at 12.55kN/m2 when the 1.25 factor is included in Veff. Under the self weight
loading at 5.40kN/m2 at the time of failure, J2 would have had a substantial reserve of strength on this
basis, without the deterioration and repair which are considered in 10.4.

132

10.3.5

BS8110 Conclusions

This review of the application of BS8110 to the assessment of Pipers Row Lift Slab has revealed an
unacceptably wide range of possible interpretations of the punching shear strength clauses for flat slabs.
For I2, (relative to the ANSYS Reference factored 12.55N/mm2 design shear force Veff of 630kN)
assessments can give a % Capacity (ie over 100% is an overstress) for the undeteriorated as-designed
structure ranging from:
a)
b)
c)
d)
e)

104% with the full depth of slab mistakenly assumed effective

117% with the angles assumed to fully support the slab at 22mm above the soffit
136% with partial support from angles shortened by 90mm each end
139% on side T2 with angles fully supporting the slab at 22mm above the soffit
192% on side T2 with angles supporting the slab at 22mm shortened by 90mm each end.

If the normal BS8110 Sub-Frame analysis with redistribution was used to determine Veff (typically 505kN
@ 12.55kN/m2), then interpretation a) would report a comfortable 81 % Capacity and basis b)would give
92% Capacity.
In part this scatter arises from the application of BS8110 to a structure designed to CP114, which has
features and proportions outside the range envisaged by those drafting BS8110. In Section 10.4 and 10.5
the research on shear and the detailed analyses carried out by BRE have been reviewed to establish an
appropriate basis for assessment.

133

10.4

REVIEW OF PUNCHING SHEAR RESEARCH FOR APPRAISAL OF AS-BUILT

AND DETERIORATED STRENGTH

10.4.1

Introduction

In this section the uncertainties in the interpretation of BS8110 for punching shear strength, for the
particular proportions and condition of the overall structure and the shear heads at Pipers Row, are
reviewed on the basis of the available research data. In 10.5 the results of the detailed finite element
analyses by BRE and Amey Vectra, which further clarify some points, are summarised and overall
conclusions are drawn. The primary objective has been to establish the most appropriate method for
estimating the actual strength of the as-built Pipers Row structure and the effects of deterioration and
repair on strength. The secondary objective is to provide a broader clarification for those assessing the
safety of concrete structures.
BRE have carried out a wide ranging review of the research literature on punching shear and reports of
punching shear failures, as set out in their Contract C Reports [H408, 409]. The information from that
review and the documents identified in it have been utilised for this report on the particular
characteristics of punching shear failures at Pipers Row. Additional guidance on the research literature
has been provided by Prof P E Regan [H222].
The review considers, building on the BS8110 evaluation in Section 10.3, the following:
i)
ii)
iii)
iv)

The as-designed punching shear strength of the Pipers Row Lift Slab structure as designed
and specified,
The as-built punching shear strength, taking into account the as-built dimensions and
material properties,
The effects of the deterioration on the as-built strength,
The effects of cutting out and repair.

Consideration has also been given to the implications of these findings for the interpretation of BS8110
when appraising other structures where:
a)
b)
c)
d)
e)

10.4.2

The structural form overall or critical details are close to the limits or outside the range for
which the design simplifications of BS8110 are directly applicable,
Punching shear is critical,
Deterioration is developing,
Repairs are to be carried out,
Brittle failure of an element can transfer load to other brittle elements or create a
mechanism.
Development of Code Requirements from Research

There are good summaries on the nature and mechanisms of shear by Regan [43] and on punching shear
failure by Chana [42]. In CIRIA Report 89:1981 'Behaviour of reinforced concrete flat slabs' Regan [41]
carried out a detailed review of the research data on punching shear and proposed a basis for calculating
strength. This approach was then simplified and incorporated in BS8110:1985 which replaced
CP110:1972. BS5400 for bridges has distinct but similar requirements to BS8110. CP110 was a major
improvement on CP114 for punching shear design, but Regan identified some unsatisfactory features,
which his 1981 proposals were aimed at remedying.

134

A further detailed study of punching shear research for CEB 168 by Regan and Braestrup [45] formed
the basis of the CEB Model Code 90 ((MC90) [46] punching shear clauses. These have been further
developed as the Draft Eurocode 2 (EC2) [47] which is being finalised.
Since the collapse the slightly revised and re-number BS 8110:1997 has been issued but this does not
have any changes which relate to the Pipers Row structure. Recent research relevant to Pipers Row has
been considered in the BRE Contract C report [H217] and by Regan [H222].
For a conventional column with the in-situ slab cast on top, there is a good range of test data and a range
of theoretical treatments of various levels of sophistication. This data can also be related to the simpler
behaviour observed in beam shear tests. However the complexities of the three dimensional stress
regime in the punching zone are such that there is no accepted fundamental analytical procedure for
calculating the punching failure criteria from the geometry and material properties. The physical
phenomena involved in punching fracture are broadly understood, but their relative importance will
remain a matter for debate until further test data is available and analysed.
The European codes have adopted an empirical approach based on the parametric analysis of the test
data from CIRIA 89 [41] and CEB 168 [45]. This has been simplified and adjusted in the Codes and
Draft Codes. BS8110, BS5400, MC90, and EC2 are of a family based on similar analysis of data and
similar formulae, but with some significant differences in definition and partial factors
In America the ACI318 [48] approach is based on a different evaluation of the data. One major
difference is that the flexural steel area is not considered to contribute to shear strength. This report
considers the BS8110 approach, but clearly there are substantial implications for the interpretation of the
other codes for both design and appraisal which are outside the scope of this report.

135

10.4.3

Actual Failure Mode

The actual shear failure does not occur at the arbitrary vertical reference perimeter at 1.5d from
support used for the BS8110 check, but on a conical/pyramidal fracture surface at 25 to 30 to the
plane of slab, as shown on Figure 10.4.3 - 1. This form of fracture can be seen in the photos of H2
(Figure 7.4 - 2) and I2 (Figure 7.4 - 4) after the failure and of I3 (Figure 10.4.3 - 2) where partial
failure occurred. Cracking and the punching fracture develops progressively with an interaction of
the flexural behaviour and the shear flow into the column.

Figure 10.4.3 - 1. Shear fracture development, after Chana [42]

As load is applied to a typical in-situ concrete slab cast on a circular column with orthogonal top
steel of the same size and spacing both ways and no shear steel, the concrete is initially uncracked
and behaves in a linear elastic manner. As the flexural stresses increase the characteristic radial star
cracking over the column head can develop under dead load reactions, typically at ~50% ultimate
load, and this leads to a redistribution of moment from the column area to the spans. As the load is
increased this flexural cracking on the top of the slab will increase and a circumferential crack may
form above the column face. Then at about 80% of the ultimate failure load circumferential cracking
starts to develop at some distance from the column, see Figure 10.4.3 3 of a test by Chana [42].
As the circumferential cracks develop the shear transfer increasingly shifts, with features as indicated
on Figure 10.4.3 - 1, to a three layer mechanism:
1)

The top layer loses its shear carrying capacity in the concrete as the circumferential
cracks open, but shear is carried by dowel action of top reinforcement cantilevering
across these cracks until delaminating tension cracks develop below the bars.

2)

An intermediate layer in which a conical shear fracture cone develops at 25 to 30 to

the plane of the slab extending downward as the fracture develops, resisted by the
tensile strength of the concrete and aggregate interlock.

3)

A local ring of concrete under tri-axial compression around the column balanced by the
anchored top steel tension.

136

Figure 10.4.3 - 2. Partial Shear Fracture at I3

Figure 10.4.3 - 3. Top surface cracking at ultimate load, from Chana [49]

137

When the ultimate load is approached there is a redistribution of shear force between these layers
and failure can be triggered by:

and/or
and/or

the widespread yielding or loss of anchorage of the top steel,

the developing conical shear crack reducing the depth of the tri-axial compression ring,
a local crushing failure of the compression ring against the support.

Whatever the exact mechanism, the failure is brittle and sudden with almost all strength lost as
shown on Figure 10.4.3 - 4 the load defection plots for typical punching shear tests by Norris [50].
Because the shear deformation before fracture is small, the shear, unlike flexure, is not redistributed
to alternative load paths until the fracture occurs. Then almost all the reaction is transferred as shear
to the adjacent supports with the additional adverse effect of the column moments induced. This
combination of brittle fracture and almost total load shedding (typically 75%+ with normal bottom
steel, 100% with no effective bottom steel as at Pipers Row) can lead to progressive collapse, which
has often been a feature of punching shear failures. Major collapses noted in reviews by Mitchell
[51] and Carper [52] include Baileys Crossroads [53], Boston [54], Kalamazoo [55], Cocoa Beach
[56]. More recently the punching shear initiated progressive collapse of the Sampoong Department
store in South Korea killed over 500+ people, as reported by Garner [57]. An unexpected progressive
collapse developed during the demolition of a Lift Slab car park in Coventry in 1988 and the
demolition was then completed by initiating further progressive collapses.

Figure 10.4.3 - 4. Load displacement response in punching shear tests, from Norris [50]

138

10.4.4

Inspectability for Structural Risk

The effectiveness of inspection to check for a reduction in safety margins is dependant on clearly
apparent signs of structural distress, (eg cracking and excessive flexural deflections in beams and
slabs) and/or evaluating the structural consequences of apparent deterioration. When assessing and
inspecting for the risk of punching shear failure the following characteristic need to be considered:
i)

There will be no signs of distress on the soffit prior to collapse.

ii)

The star cracking on the top surface is an indication of permissible redistribution of

flexural stresses which may well occur under normal working stresses. Star cracking
gives no indication of shear behaviour.

iii)

As circumferential cracking of the top of the slab away from the column only develops
at about 80% of ultimate load, any sign of it would indicate a structure dangerously
close to failure.

iv)

Where there is surfacing on a slab or where the surface has degraded cracking would be
obscured.

v)

Where there is a weakness from degradation or at a repair interface the shear crack can
develop outwards as a delamination below the top steel, rather than showing through the
reinforced upper layer.

vi)

Deterioration from frost, wear or reinforcement corrosion which reduces the bond and
anchorage of top steel can severely weaken the slab.

It follows that a structural assessment based on the as-built structure, with sufficiently comprehensive
set of material strength and condition data, provides the only effective method of identifying risks
inherent in the original design and/or which have developed from deterioration and repair.
Inspection by itself cannot be relied on to identify the risk, except when apparent deterioration
triggers a full assessment. This lack of identifiable warning signs compared to the behaviour of
overloaded columns or beams needs to be considered in setting an appropriate value of m for both
design and for appraisal to cover the loss of strength which may go undetected.

139

10.4.5

Features of Undeteriorated Pipers Row

The particular features which are of importance for the shear strength of Pipers Row prior to
deterioration are:
i)

The appropriate effective depth d when the slab is supported on the angle horizontal flange
22mm above the soffit.

ii)

The interpretation of As/(bv d) for the reinforcement configuration at Pipers Row

iii)

The appropriate basis for determining Veff to represent shear stresses on the faces around a
column from the transfer of moment from the slab to the column for internal and edge
columns.

iv)

The appropriateness of averaging and summing of the properties of the four sides of the
shear perimeter to determine the strength Vc for comparison with Veff, as recommended in
BS8110, when the strengths and shears on the sides of the perimeter vary markedly as at
Pipers Row.

v)

The appropriate shear perimeter and/or stress concentration factor taking into account:
a)

the flexibility of the support provided by the projecting angles of the shear head,

b) the adverse effects of the shear concentrations on the corners of the shear head and the
edge of the angle seating.
vi)

The effect of concrete strength on punching shear strength for f cu 35, 28, 20.5, 15N/mm2

vii)

The reduction of short term test failure load used to calibrate vc with long term loading and
cyclical loading from the daily thermal and vehicle load variation.

viii)

The extent to which compressive membrane action might have increased the strength above
BS8110 value at Pipers Row with surface concrete intact and with degradation to below
the top reinforcement.

ix)

Holes around edge column at J2.

i)

Effective depth d

The range of interpretations of BS8110 noted in 10.2 and 10.3 has highlighted the importance of using
the appropriate effective depth d for shear when the slab is supported on the angle 22mm above the
soffit. Regan [41] in his Section 5.1.1 and Figure 46 drew attention to the importance of considering the
shape of the fracture surface relative to the support. Some punching shear tests with lift slab collars [58]
[59] reviewed by Regan [H222]analysed the tests calculating the depth to lower face of the collar angle.
The overall conclusion, after considering the shape of fractures observed at Pipers Row, is that the
effective depth d for shear should be based on the distance from the centroid of the top steel to the top
of the shear head support angle 22mm above the soffit.

140

ii)

Reinforcement area As/(bv d)

The value of As/(bv d), when determining the value of vc from BS8110 Table 3.8, is normally based on
the area of steel crossing the shear perimeter at 1.5d from the column face. With normal regularly
spaced bars across the column strip, the ratio As/(bv d) is not sensitive to the width considered.
The review of research by BRE and Regan indicates that taking As/(bv d) based on the shear perimeter at
1.5d from the effectively supported area underestimates the breadth of the steel which contributes to the
shear strength. A more realistic basis, when the research data [60] is considered, is for As/(bv d) to be
based on the perimeter at 3d from the effectively supported area.
With the Pipers Row lift slab configuration the reinforcement was moved further from the column to
avoid the shear head, leaving much of it outside the shear perimeter at 1.5d , particularly for the T2 bars.
Figure 10.3.3 - 1 shows how the vc for I2, for the as-designed reinforcement spacings varies with the
effective width assumed for the T1 and T2 directions. Because of the range of assumptions which can
be made in interpreting BS8110 the effective widths at 1.5d and 3d perimeters have a wide spread. The
'Best' assumption case (see 10.5.5) with the angles curtailed by 95mm, with as-designed reinforcement
gives the values in Table 10.4.5 - 1.
Table 10.4.5 - 1
Variation in As/(bv d) and vc at 1.5d and 3d perimeters at I2
________________________________________________________________________________
T1 at 1.5d
T1 at 3d
T2 at 1.5d
T2 at 3d
perimeter face width
949mm
1427mm
1203mm
1681mm
________________________________________________________________________________
1.18
1.23
0.30
0.43
As/(bv d) on face
vc N/mm2 for face
0.79
0.80
0.50
0.56
_____________________________________________________________________________

iii)

Influence of column moments on peak shears

BS8110 adopts a simplified method of increasing the reaction Vt to Veffx and Veffy to take account of the
uneven shear distribution from the transfer of moments from the slab into the column.
Veff = Vt (1 + 1.5Mt/(Vt x)) for the moment Mt transferred from the slab to the column about the x and y
axes. x is the breadth of the shear perimeter face under consideration. The increased shear at the corner
of the perimeter from bi-axial bending is not considered. The moment shear concentrations need to be
considered with the coexisting concentrations from the shape of the support and at Pipers Row the
concentrations from the shear head angles.
The peak stress over an area sufficient to initiate fracture is the governing criteria for brittle failure, as
once fracture initiates at the highest stressed section of the shear perimeter it will spread.
As noted in the Section 9.3.2 the BS8110 reactions and moments are not necessarily the upper bound
values as both the range of permitted analytical procedures and the procedures for the ductile
redistribution of moments in the slab as cracking develops, can give values of column moments and
reactions below the upper bound appropriate for the assessment of a brittle element.

141

The origin of the BS8110 approach was set out by Regan [41]. Figure 10.4.5 - 1, his Figure 57,
shows the available test data on internal columns subject to a reaction combined with a moment. It
should be noted that at low eccentricities (Mt/Vt < 0.20) the strength falls sharply with increasing
eccentricity, so that underestimates of Mt from BS8110 analysis can lead to overestimates of
strength.

Figure 10.4.5 - 1
Influence of column moments on punching strength, from Regan [41]

In simplifying the Regan proposals into the BS8110 formula some changes were made which give a
lower value for Veff when applied to the Pipers Row shear head. MC90 and EC2 adopt a similar
approach to the increase in shear from column moments, but based on a shear perimeter at 2d with
quadrants at the corners, a factor for column shape with m = 1.5. The reliability of these simplified
approaches can only be evaluated by a detailed parametric study of the overall design and analysis
related to a sufficient body of test data with applied moments.
The values of Veff from BS8110 are compared with the shear forces on the faces of the perimeter
from the AV ANSYS plate analysis and from the BRE DIANA Analysis in Sections 10.5.3 and a
recommended basis for determining the shear force on the faces of the perimeter is given.

142

iv)

Variation in strength of sides of perimeter

BS 8110:1985 in Clause 1.3.3 defines the terms for the shear perimeter so that the properties (As, bv, and
d) of the four sides of the shear perimeter are averaged to determine the vc from Table 3.8 and summed
to give the perimeter strength Vc for comparison with Veffx and Veffy. The geometry of the section of Pipers
Row which collapsed is beyond the range of proportions defined in BS8110 Clause 3.7.1.2 and so the
discrete caveat ... the applicability of the provisions given in this section are a matter for judgement
applies. The basis for that judgement is not clarified by BS8110, but has to be the research source data
and the consideration of the actual failure mode and characteristics.
In normal design the greater As/(bv d), and hence (vc d) is provided for the more highly stressed side in
flexure and shear. At H2 and I2 at Pipers Row the more highly stressed T2 side has a significantly lower
strength.
Using the whole perimeter average vc of :
0.63N/mm2 based on As/(bv d) at 1.5d,
0.67N/mm2 based on As/(bv d) at 3d,

overestimates strength for T2 by 26%

overestimates strength for T2 by 19%

Regan [41] recommended the averaging of the As/(bv d) to derive vc, which is applied to the whole
perimeter times the average effective depth to give Vc, as in Clause 1.3.3. However, this is clearly based
on considering normal structural configurations where the relatively small variation between the faces
makes this simplification appropriate. This assumption is usually conservative when, unlike Pipers Row,
the higher shear stresses are on the stronger side.
It is a characteristic of almost all structural elements designed to BS8110, except for punching shear, that
they crack and deform in a stable way as ultimate load is approached, so that any local overstress is
safely redistributed. This enables simplified plastic and cracked section local properties to be used and
makes the adoption of simplified overall analysis and redistribution of moments and shears acceptable.
Punching shear failure of flat slabs without shear steel or bottom steel over the column is sudden and
brittle, so the BS8110 simplifying assumptions need to be re-examined.
The ultimate strength of brittle elements is reached when loss of strength in a local area sheds load in
excess of the capacity of the adjacent load paths to which it redistributes. Local punching shear failure
can initiate from:
i)
ii)
iii)

the loss of the top steel dowel and/or tensile capacity by yielding or bond failure
the development of the inclined shear crack with radial cracks
local crushing in the compression ring.

Some redistribution can occur through the depth of the section and circumferentially, but the brittleness
limits this. The relationship of the stress concentration around the support to the area at which the
developing fracture becomes unstable, triggering collapse, is not yet established experimentally and
theoretically.
It is concluded that in assessment the shear force on each face of the reference perimeter should be
checked against the strength of that face. This ensures that when structures were not designed to BS
8110 or are on the limits of the validity of its simplifications any weaknesses are identified. The
treatment of local stress concentrations across that face are evaluated in the finite element analyses in
10.5.

143

v) Shape of support
To take into account the stress concentration effects of the shape of a rigid column support, Regan [41]
proposed a factor Ksc on strength based on an analysis of test results. Ksc is:
1.0 for a circular column
1.15 for a square column (but Regan Equation 24 gives 1.13)
1.19 for H2 and I2 if the area of the angles provided rigid support.
1.13 for J2
BS 8110 does not use this factor, but allows higher stress on circular columns by defining a square shear
perimeter instead of circular. If the H2 and I2 shear heads were as rigid as a column Regans work
suggests a 5% stress concentration factor.
The appropriate value for Pipers Row clearly needs to consider the actual stress concentration from the
wedge supported flexible angle shear head relative to a normal square column which is the calibrator for
BS8110. This has been considered in more detail on the basis of the ANSYS and DIANA analyses in
10.5.
vi)

Effect of variable low strength concrete,

The effect of low strength concrete, below f cu = 25N/mm2, on punching shear strength has only been
covered in a few tests, as the main research concern has been for design with concretes over 25N/mm2,
where there is a relatively low increase in punching shear strength with increasing concrete strength. In
BS8110 this is covered by making vc proportional to f cu1/3 and applying an upper bound vc at f cu =
40N/mm2.
The validity of the f cu1/3 term at below 25N/mm2 is uncertain, but the limited tests suggest that it is
reasonable to adopt it down to 20N/mm2 and possibly to 15N/mm2. A linear increase in vc up to
25N/mm2 would give a lower bound. Because there is clear evidence of concrete of 15N/mm2 and
possibly weaker in the lower part of the slab in the failure zone at I2, this could have been an important
factor at Pipers Row.
The original concrete was of highly variable quality due to a combination of mix variation, poor mixing
and poor compaction resulting in an undeteriorated strength range on samples taken after the collapse of
16 to 53N/mm2, with:
-

35N/mm2 mean and 28N/mm2 characteristic strength for slabs away from the failed area,

20.5N/mm2 characteristic for the failed area as a whole

15N/mm2 characteristic for intact core samples from the lower part of the retained slabs, where
surface deterioration was severe.

The weakest material broke when sampled, so some concrete may have been weaker than 15N/mm2.
This strength range is covered by evaluating the as-built strength with strength levels of f cu = 35, 28, 20.5
and 15N/mm2. Table 10.4.5. - 2 gives relative shear strengths for this range.

144

Table 10.4.5 - 2 Relative shear strength for fcu = 15 to 38 N/mm2

________________________________________________________________________________
fcu
N/mm2
15
20
28
38
________________________________________________________________________________
proportional to fcu1/3
0.90
1.00
1.11
1.20
linear to 25N/mm2 then fcu1/3
0.64
0.85
1.11
1.20
________________________________________________________________________________

vii)

Reduction in strength under high and cyclical loads

The tests of punching strength on which vc is based were short term rapid tests to failure. It is known
that under long term sustained loading with superimposed cycles from temperature and traffic, as
quantified in 9.2, strength is reduced. There is limited data on this for shear behaviour, but this
weakening might have amounted to up to 10%. This effect, on which more research is required, needs to
be considered when design stresses and partial factors are calibrated relative to short term strength tests.
viii)

Compressive membrane action

Where a slab around a column is well contained in plan by the surrounding slab and structure, the
deformations associated with the development of a punching shear failure are additionally resisted by
compressive membrane action [61]. This forms a shallow inverted compression cone carrying shear
force from the surrounding restraining ring to the column to enhance the punching shear strength. The
magnitude of the beneficial effect of compressive membrane action is the subject of continuing
discussion and research. Most of the tests on which the design stress vc is based, are columns with a
small area of slab extending to just beyond the line of contraflexure where they are loaded, so there is no
benefit from membrane action.
At Pipers Row the area of slab from G1 to J3 had negligible restraint from the rest of the structure.
Within this area of slab the top reinforcement is in patches over columns which barely extend beyond the
lines of contraflexure. The bottom reinforcement is mostly within the sagging regions with some
anchorage length. The very limited top reinforcement around the failure zone, makes the development of
any compressive membrane enhanced shear strength relative to test conditions unlikely and with
degradation of the surface its anchorage would have been lost.

ix)

Holes at J2

The range of BS8110 and other interpretations of the treatment of the holes at J2 has been set out in
10.3.4. It follows from the discussion of the treatment of the shear strengths and shear on the faces of
the perimeter (above iii) and iv)), that for assessment of critical details the most reliable method of
determining the shear strength at a column with adjacent holes, is a finite element analysis from which
the shear force on each section of the perimeter can be determined. In Section 10.5.6, the shear forces
around J2 have been determined on this basis.

145

10.4.6

Degradation and Repair

The progressive degradation of the surface layers of concrete at H2, I2, and J2 and the partial repairs on
one side of H2 and encompassing the shear zone at J2, clearly had a substantial influence on the
punching shear strength and failure mode. The characteristics of this deterioration and the repairs are set
out in detail in Section 8.
There had been a progressive softening and decay of the surface of the concrete in some areas due to
water ingress through the surfacing, leading to frost and other damage. This had created a friable
microcracked layer of negligible strength with larger cracks to a variable depth of up to about 100mm.
There was a very shallow, ~ 5mm transition, from the degraded layer to undeteriorated concrete below.
Many areas including some of the retained slabs had intact surfacing and no surface layer of concrete
deterioration.
Where degradation and associated carbonation had reached the reinforcement, corrosion had developed.
This corrosion only formed after the degradation had reached the reinforcement and signs of rust on
reinforcement immediately after the collapse provides an indicator of the extent and depth of degradation
where the slab concrete was too damaged in the collapse for examination.
The repairs at H2 and J2 delaminated from the original concrete when the collapse occurred. There
were areas of poor bond and no adhesion on both repairs. Where delamination occurred in the original
concrete it may have been in the remnant of degraded material not fully removed or in concrete bruised
by the pneumatic tools used for cutting out.
The differences in thermal and moisture movement between the repair and substrate from the time of
casting induced extra stresses on the interface. The magnitude of these depend in part on the how well
repair material physical properties were matched to the concrete. Tests (see 8.3) show a good match of
repair to good concrete 35+N/mm2, but the repair was significantly stiffer and stronger than the weak
concrete at below 20N/mm2.
The structural stresses on the repair interface depend on the extent of and preload in the propping and the
repair maturity when the propping was removed. They will be:
-

live load only for the no propping case

full reinstatement of the dead load with live load stresses with full propping.

This is evaluated in more detail in Section 10.5. The effect of the repairs on reactions, moments and Veff
has been set out in Section 9.3.
The behaviour of a repaired area in punching shear is initially like an intact slab until the top steel and
stiffer repair supported over the column induce, by dowel action, vertical tension on the repair concrete
interface around the developing circumferential shear crack. Once this develops fully the slab behaves
as though it was degraded down to the bottom level of the repair, ie below the top steel at H2 and J2.
At H2 there was only a 75 to 100mm deep repair for an area on the side towards H3 as shown on Figure
8.3.10 - 1. The photos and inspection after the collapse clearly show that there was degradation of
varying depth (50 - 100mm) and corrosion of both the T1 and T2 steel in the punch failure zone and
around the repaired area.

146

At I2 no repair had been carried out, but there was an area of severe degradation of varying depth (50 100mm) and corrosion of both the T1 and T2 steel in the area around the column. The petrographic
examination of the fracture surface showed very poor concrete below the degraded layer.
At J2 the repair, as shown on Figure 8.3.10 - 1 extended for almost the full area of the T1 bars and
beyond the short T2 bars. The repair detached as a slab during the collapse. The strength implications
of this are discussed in Section 10.5.6.
Modelling strength loss from degradation
The effect of progressive development of the degraded surface layer on punching strength has been
considered by BRE in detail in their Contract C Report [H409, 410]. The behaviour of slabs with limited
anchorage due to curtailed reinforcement has been reported by Norris [50] [62].
BRE have developed a model which progressively reduces the shear strength Vc as the loss of effective
cover from degradation over the T1 and T2 bars reduces the bond capacity. By applying this to the
empirical formula
vc = 0.79((100As/(bv d))1/3 (400/d)1/4 (f cu/25)1/3 )/m N/mm2 from BS8110 Table 3.8
the progressive loss of strength has been estimated.
BRE have studied parametrically the influence of geometry and strength variations in their report. Here
only those cases for the as-built and deteriorated structure at H2 and I2 are summarised.
The value of vc is based on the empirical fit to the test data lower bound values, which approximates to
the test characteristic, which is divided by m =1.25 for the Table 3.8 values. The mean strength from
the test data is 1.14 times the lower bound strength. In comparing the loading at the time of the failure
with the declining strength it is appropriate to use 1.25vc as the characteristic strength and 1.42vc as the
mean strength.
These strengths are compared on Table 10.4.6 - 1 to the unfactored RefDL shear forces based a
perfect fit uniform temperature mean estimate of the shear forces at the time of failure from the
ANSYS uncracked analysis. The evaluation of the sensitivity of the Veff to temperature and misfits in
Section 9 has shown substantial, but indeterminate, variations of Veff greater than 25% from this mean
estimate. So for comparisons with the declining strength an estimated shear force of RefDL mean +
25% is also indicated.

147

Table 10.4.6 - 1
Comparison of loads on the T1 and T2 faces with characteristic strengths at H2 and I2.
________________________________________________________________________________
Column as-built
H2
H2
I2
I2
Face (higher loaded).
T1
T2
T1
T2
________________________________________________________________________________
Load
kN/m2
kN
kN
kN
kN
1.
RefDL Mean.
5.4
53.6
66.9
60.2
77.1
2.
1.25 RefDL with some misfit
67.0
83.6
75.3
96.3
1.4 x Dead + 1.6 Live Load
12.55
124.3
155.2
139.7
178.9
_______________________________________________________________________________
Strength, before degradation
Design Strength
vc
109.0
103.3
122.7
131.0
Capacity
114%
150%
114%
137%
________________________________________________________________________________
3.
Characteristic
1.25vc
136.3
129.1
153.4
163.8
154.9
146.7
174.2
186.1
4.
Mean
1.42vc
________________________________________________________________________________

The BRE model predicts a progressive fall in shear strength and then a sudden loss as the degradation
reaches the mid depth of the reinforcing bar at which point all bond strength is lost. The Table 3.8
however indicates a plateau on vc with As /(bv d) < 0.15%. The experimental validity of this is uncertain.
This As = 0 value of shear strength has been compared with the BRE values.
Figure 10.4.6 - 1 shows the decline in strength with degradation for T1 and T2 faces of H2 for the asbuilt geometry with the Best assumptions for estimating the strength as set out in 10.5.5. Figure
10.4.6 - 2 shows the similar relationship for I2. In the as-built condition the T2 faces of H2 and I2 have
an overstress under the design load at 150% and 137% capacity respectively.
Although H2 has a lower shear force on the T2 side than I2, it is weaker because of the greater cover at
40mm and smaller 5/8 SQT T2 bars than I2 with 29mm cover and SQT T2 bars.
The variability of both strength and shear force is such that either H2 (discounting the repair) or I2 might
have failed first if degradation was developing at a similar rate at both locations. There is evidence of
degradation extending down to below the T2 bar level at both H2 outside the repaired area and at I2. So
both would have been approaching the condition at which the strength falls into the range of the dead
load shear force.
As the H2 repair extended over on half the width of the more highly loaded T2 face it could have
reduced the risk of failure initiating at H2, if it was well bonded and was well propped during the repair
operation, but there is little evidence of this. If the repair was poorly carried out it would have had a
similar strength to the degraded slab before the repair.
The easily identifiable development of surface degradation down to the level of the reinforcement, so
that bond was lost, was the major factor in the initiation of the collapse. The sensitivity of punching
shear strength to loss of bond resulting from either the deterioration of the surface by frost action as at
Pipers Row or to the delamination of cover by the corrosion of reinforcement needs to be made clear to
all involved in the assessment, inspection and maintenance of flat slab structures.

148

Once the surface has deteriorated to a depth at which bond is adversely effected, cutting out of the
concrete surface and simple patch repair cannot provide an effective structural repair to re-establish the
full bond to reinstate the original shear strength. The effects of repair procedures on stress distributions
are evaluated in Section 10.5.
Column H2, T1 Face, Loss of shear strength with degradation
Mean Strength

200

Shear Strength and Force, kN.

1.25 vc Char Strength

As = 0 Char. Strength
150

RefDL Force
1.25 RefDL Force

100

50

3/4"SQT
0
0

20

40

60

80

100

Depth of Loss of Cover from Degradation, mm.

Column H2 T2 face. Loss of shear strength with degradation.

200

Mean Strength

Shear Strength and Force, kN.

1.25 vc Char Strength

As = 0 Char. Strength
RefDL Force

150

1.25 RefDL Force

100

50

5/8" SQT
0
0

20

40

60

80

100

Depth of Loss of Cover from Degradation, mm.

Figure 10.4.6 - 1
H2. Comparison of Declining Strength from Degradation of Surface with Shear Forces

149

Column I2, T1 Face, Loss of Shear Strength with Degradation

Mean Strength

200
Shear Strength and Force, kN.

1.25 vc Char Strength

As = 0 Char. Strength
150

RefDL Force
1.25 RefDL Force

100

50

3/4" SQT
0
0

20

40

60

80

100

Depth of Loss of Cover from Degradation, mm.

Column I2 T2 face Loss of Shear Strength with Degradation.

200

Mean Strength

Shear Strength and Force, kN.

1.25 vc Char Strength

As = 0 Char. Strength
RefDL Force

150

1.25 RefDL Force

100

50

3/4"SQT
0
0

20

40

60

80

100

Depth of Loss of Cover from Degradation, mm.

Figure 10.4.6 - 2
I2. Comparison of Declining Strength from Degradation of Surface with Shear Forces

150

10.4.7

Progressive Collapse

The local failure at Pipers Row developed rapidly into a progressive collapse of the top slab. This
progressive collapse fortunately stopped when approaching Line 3 as the bottom bars tore out of the
bottom of the slab, see Figure 10.4.7 - 1, between G and I and the ramp at I3 to J3 provided extra
strength. Better continuity of the flexural steel would have led to a progressive failure spreading more
widely through the top floor and possibly via the ramps or impact loading on the floor below to the
whole car park structure, as has happened with other flat slab collapses [51-57].

Figure 10.4.7 - 1
Tear out of soffit steel to limit progressive collapse, between G3 and H3.

At the time of the collapse there were comments that the ability of the floor below to take the extra load
was reassuringly indicative of the strength of the rest of the structure and other lift slab structures. It was
suggested that the BS8110 shear rules were conservative. This was misleading.
The 3rd floor slab had not deteriorated and the indications, from retained slab S20, are that it had a higher
initial strength than the top slab. Following the failure at H2, I2 and J2 the top slab folded down on to the
slab below with reduced impact because of the tensile restraint from the corner columns G1 and J1 and
from the ramp edge and J3. The full impact from the clear drop of 2.2m only occurred where the edge of
the slab parallel to Line 3 broke away. The impact of this area of slab only extended a small way into
the area supported by the Line 3 columns.

151

The dead load of the 3rd floor, lacking surfacing, was only 5.3kN/m2 to which was added the collapsed
top floor dead load of 5.4kN/m2. This would have given a loading of 10.7kN/m2, discounting impact,
compared to 12.55kN/m2, the design factored dead + live load. With impact, the load at H2 and I2 would
have approached or exceeded the lower bound characteristic strength of the slab with 20.5N/mm2
concrete. However the variability of column reactions due to the fit of the wedges may have reduced
shears and the variability inherent in punching strength and from the variability in concrete strength may
well have chanced to give the third floor a strength closer to the upper bound.
It seems that the survival of the third floor slab was probably due to the good fortune of above average
strength, rather than BS8110 underestimating strength. It follows that there was a significant risk of the
3rd floor collapsing onto the 2nd floor extending the progressive collapse to a far larger area. In the
appraisal of all flat slab structures this sensitivity to progressive collapse of the slab below needs to be
considered
The dangers of progressive collapse developing from the local failure of one element were highlighted
by the failure of Ronan Point and other buildings in the late 1960s. This has lead to the requirement for
Robustness in BS8110 Clause 2.2.2.2. This sets out the principles and gives a requirement for
horizontal ties and for vertical ties for buildings over 5 storeys. BS8110 states that Unreasonable
susceptibility to the effects of accidents may generally be prevented with ties. The thinking behind
these clauses clearly follows from the particular events of the gas explosion at Ronan Point.
The adequacy of this generalisation for the particular circumstances of punching shear failure in all types
of flat slab structures needs to be checked. Pipers Row did not have the BS8110 continuity of horizontal
ties, but it was the lack of these ties which halted the spread of the collapse.
Because of concerns over the progressive collapse of a number of flat slab structures in North America,
Mitchell and Cook [51] undertook research on preventing the progressive collapse of slab structures
without shear steel. They demonstrated how, following an initial punching failure, a tensile membrane
force develops in the unsupported area of slab. The top steel over the initial failure peals out of the slab
giving little support . The bottom steel in a slab with continuity can act in tension as a safety net. There
are two limitations on the effectiveness of this net to limit progressive collapse as shear failure spreads
to adjacent columns.
a)

Unless the bottom steel going directly over the failed column has sufficient large deflection
dowel/tension capacity to support the slab (MC90 has a requirement for this), it will
fracture and the tensile support at that column is lost.

b)

At the edge of the slab the in-plane tension needs to be resisted by a strong edge beam
and/or by the bending strength of the column.

The Mitchell and Cook analysis indicates that the generally applicable BS8110 horizontal tie rules
serve to spread a collapse in a flat slab and are ineffective in limiting the damage, unless sufficient ties
as bottom steel are carried over the tops of the columns and meet the other requirements for supporting
the slab after initial punching failure.

152

Bottom Reinforcement
At Pipers Row the bottom steel at H2, I2 and J2 was detailed to just rest on the edge of the shear head
angles, but because of tolerances on placing steel, it just fell short at most locations. Even where
imprints show it was embedded in concrete on the angle it had too little bearing to contribute to resisting
the failure. At the corner columns G1 and J1 the bottom steel was welded to the angles and both
columns were pulled over by the developing tension. At J1 the column was pulled over towards I1
(indicating failure initiation at H2 or I2, rather than J2) and then failed in shear. At G1 the column pulled
towards H2 and I2 but the welded bottom steel prevented shear fracture.
The potential consequences of progressive failure need specific consideration in both the design and
appraisal of flat slab structures. In appraisal a specific check on the detailing of any shear reinforcement
and bottom steel and the potential effects of deterioration on them, should be carried out to establish the
residual strength after initial punching failure. If this is low, a check should be carried out on the
adequacy of the strength of adjacent parts to halt the spread of an initial failure.
10.4.8

Partial Factors

There is a clear case for differentiating between flat slab structures which have this safety net for
which partial factors for ductile elements in BS8110 are appropriate and those where initial shear failure
can develop into a progressive collapse which merit an increased m factor because of the potential
consequences of failure. The proposals for EC2 specify mc = 1.5, but this is not directly comparable
with BS8110 because of the range of different assumptions throughout the calculations.
A wider review, outside the scope of this report is needed, to evaluate the overall uncertainties to be
covered by load and material factors for punching shear. This needs to consider the structural risks
inherent in BS8110 and EC2, when used for design and for appraisal and should cover:
-

sensitivity to variations in construction accuracy and materials quality, as a function of contract

quality control,
sensitivity to underestimating maximum reactions and moments,
errors in determining the peak shear concentration on the perimeter with moments and non-circular
supports,
sensitivity of strength to deterioration,
risk of progressive collapse with and without deterioration,
influence of long term and cyclical loading on strength
inspectability of signs of deterioration and warning signs of failure.
uncertainties of the strength of repaired concrete.

153

10.5
10.5.1

DETAILED ANALYSIS OF SHEAR STRESS DISTRIBUTIONS

Introduction

A detailed analysis of the shear distributions in the slab around the columns has been undertaken by
Amey Vectra (AV) [H215], whose ANSYS analysis gives the average stresses in the plate elements
around H2, I2 and J2. H&S also reported [H2] on their plate idealisations of the slab focusing stress
distributions around H2 and J2. BRE have carried out the much more detailed DIANA analysis [H218]
related to H2/I2 shear head configuration and the repair of H2. There is a parametric study of punching
shear analysis using DIANA by Khwaounjoo [63].
The principal objectives of these analyses have been to address the uncertainties of interpretation of
BS8110 for the appraisal of the Lift Slab shear head as-built and when repaired.
The main issues for the internal columns H2 and I2 are :
i)

The effects of moments transferred from the slab to the column on the shear distribution on
the four faces of the shear perimeter.

ii)

The validity of the BS8110 simplification of summing the strength of the four faces, based on
their average geometry, and checking this against Veff, compared to considering the shear
force and strength of each face based on its properties.

iii)

The extent to which the full area of the Type 4 extended angle shear heads at H2 and I2 can
be considered effective or if a curtailment of the angles should be assumed to reflect its low
stiffness compared to a column support.

iv)

The potential stress concentration effects of the Type 4 angle shear heads, which might need
to be considered by a modification to the average stresses for a normally supported slab on a
circular or square column.

v)

The effect of cutting out concrete for repairs, with and without propping, and the subsequent
repair, on the overall stress distribution and on shear stress levels

For J2 the AV ANSYS analysis was used to examine the effects of the holes adjacent to the column and
the repair on the distribution of shear forces on the three sides of the perimeter.
10.5.2

ANSYS and DIANA Idealisations

In Section 10.4.3 the design shear forces Veff on the perimeter at 1.5d from the shear head have been
compared to Vc the sum of the strengths of the 4 faces following the BS8110 definitions and by
considering the shear force and strength of each face.
In 10.4.4 this has been refined on the basis of comparisons with research data and developed to cover
the effects of degradation. The research data on the strength when there is a significant transfer of
moment to the column, with a consequent variation of shear around the perimeter, has been analysed by
Regan[41]. The research data largely relates to tests with a circular or square concrete column under a
regularly reinforced slab, as distinct from the embedded angle shear head of the irregularly reinforced lift
slab with the uncertainties about the support and stress concentrations.

154

The AV ANSYS plate analysis of the whole slab area gives both the column reactions and moments
from which Veff has been derived for Section 9, and the stresses in the elements around the columns. The
idealisation around the columns has nodes on perimeters roughly corresponding to perimeters at 1d, 2d
and 3d from the column from which the shear stress and shear forces distributions have been extracted
for each load case.
The BRE DIANA detailed finite element analysis of the I2 column, the steel shear head and the slab,
used multiple layers of non-linear concrete elements with reinforcement individually idealised as bars
within elements. This gives more detailed stress distributions through the depth of the slab and around
the same perimeters. Full details of these idealisations and results are given in the respective
contractors reports.
Figure 10.5.2 - 1 shows the overall ANSYS idealisation of the whole area of slab including Columns G
to J in Rows 1 to 3 and the ramp. Figure 10.5.2 - 2 shows the orientation and sign convention for both
ANSYS and DIANA analyses. The detailed ANSYS idealisations around I2 and J2 are shown in
Figures 10.5.2 - 3 and 10.5.2 - 4. For the main set of load cases, the ANSYS plate element stiffnesses
incorporated the gross 229mm concrete section flexural stiffness and the in-plane and torsional shear
stiffness, with the long term or short term E as appropriate.
The assumed ANSYS properties are summarised in Figure 10.5.2 - 5, along with the properties in the
DIANA analysis and the design and test data on Pipers Row concrete. The stiffness of the shear head
angles was not represented in the ANSYS idealisation, but the drainage holes around J2 and elsewhere
were idealised. For the structure modification runs the star cracking around columns was modelled for
an area extending to 3d from the shear heads, with the cracked concrete stiffnesses related to the steel
area on each face. The effect of cutting out for the repairs without propping the slab was modelled as a
local reduction in thickness.
The DIANA analysis idealisation is based on the I2 column and the surrounding 5.114 m by 4.578m
area of slab, as shown in Figure 10.5.2 - 6. The slab is idealised as 7 layers of DIANA nonlinear
concrete elements with individual reinforcing bars represented as bar elements (axial stiffness only, no
dowel action), as shown in Figure 10.5.2 - 7. The concrete elements crack at a defined stress level
(Strong at 2.1N/mm2 and Weak at 1.0N/mm2) and the stiffnesses are modified to the depth of the
cracking. The shear head with the wedge supports to the column are modelled in detail as steel
elements, as shown in Figure 10.5.2 - 8. One DIANA LC5 run NOCOL has been carried out with the
steel shear head replaced by concrete supported directly on the column, as with normal in situ
construction.
Load Cases
The ANSYS shear data on the 1Dn, 2Dn and 3Dn perimeters at H2, I2, and J2 has been extracted for
each load case, but the analysis and comparisons have been focused on LC5 (unfactored dead load with
column moment fixity). The DIANA analysis has been carried out for unfactored dead load at
5.41kN/m2 with the edge of the idealised slab loaded with the forces and moments around the boundary
from both LC1 (column pinned) and LC5 ANSYS (column fixed) analyses. Because of slight
differences in idealisation between ANSYS and DIANA the output column head reactions and moments
differ. The results have been adjusted for the output column head reaction and moments in making the
comparisons below.

155

Figure 10.5.2 - 9 gives the reactions and column head moments and Veff values for the main set of
DIANA runs and associated ANSYS runs. The comparison of the BS8110 Veff, ANSYS and DIANA
shear distributions on the perimeters around the columns provides an indication of the shear stress
concentration arising from the moment transfer and the shear head stiffness and examples are given
below.
The idealisations of ANSYS and DIANA where matched to facilitate direct comparison on nodal
perimeters referred to as Dn, 2Dn and 3Dn (see Figure 10.5.2 - 3). Because of the range of
interpretations of the dimensions of the BS8110 perimeter these do not exactly match the nodal
perimeters. The 2Dn perimeter (1090mm by 1528mm) lies a little outside the 1.5d BS8110 reference
perimeter (914 by 1431mm) for the as-built dimensions and the full angle supporting the slab at 22mm
above the soffit as shown on Figure 10.5.2 - 10. The majority of the comparisons summarised below are
based on this 2Dn perimeter for I2, with the comparisons to BS8110 adjusted for this boundary and
loading.
For J2 there is no DIANA analysis but simple comparisons have been made between the BS8110 shear
forces and shear strengths and the ANSYS idealisation at 3Dn (see Figure 10.5.2.4). These illustrate
the effect of the holes and edge on the shear distribution around the column. H&S also reported on the
effect of holes in their finite element analyses of J2.

Repair
The repair of the slab at H2 and J2 could have substantially altered the stress distribution around the
column head as well as the reactions and moments considered in Section 9.3. The magnitude of the
changes depends on the indeterminate effectiveness of the propping during the repair, the match of the
repair material to the concrete, and the integrity of the bond between the concrete and the repair.
The effect of cutting out the holes for the repairs has been covered in the ANSYS analysis by three load
cases R1, R2 and R3 with the repair cutouts progressively removed at H2, J2 and then I23 by reducing
the slab elements from 229 to 150mm. A more detailed analysis of the effect of a repair similar to that
at H2 has been carried out with DIANA, but based on the LC5 loading and idealisation at I2 to facilitate
comparisons. This has been done on the basis of cutting out the Unpropped slab while it supports its
dead load of 5.41kN/m2.. The hole is then filled with higher stiffness repair concrete and the slab is
loaded with an additional 20% UDL (1.08kN/m2). Similarly the repair has been analysed with the slab
fully Propped to maintain the slab shape for cutting out and repair and then loaded with 20% additional
UDL .

156

Figure 10.5.2 - 1

Amey Vectra ANSYS idealisation of whole area

157

Figure 10.5.2 - 2 Orientation of axes in DIANA and ANSYS analyses

158

Figure 10.5.2 - 3

Amey Vectra Local ANSYS Idealisation around I2

159

Figure 10.5.2 - 4

Amey Vectra Local ANSYS Idealisation around J2

160

Figure 10.5.2 - 5.

C o m p a r i s o n o f D e s i g n a n d M e a s u r e d M a t e r i a l P r o p e r t i e s w i t h t h e A s s u m e d P r o p e rties in D I A N A a n d A N S Y S A n a l y s e s .

M a terial

Compression
('Y i e l d ' ) S t r e n g t h T e n s i l e S t r e n g t h

E Young's
M odulus

N/mm2

N/mm2

kN/mm2

21

2.1

20.5

Poisson's ratio

Cracking
criterion

Shear retention Shear Retention

criterion
factor

Tension
Softening
criterion

Strain at zero
tensile strength

Density

Coefficient of
T h e rmal
Expansion

kg/m 3

m icrostrain/Cdeg

D IANA: M A IN ANALYSES
S trong Concrete
W eak Concrete

0.2

Const. Stress
C u toff
Variable

0.99

Linear

0.00125

2400

0.20

Linear

0.00125

2400

21

1.0

20.5

0.2

Const. Stress
C u toff
Constant

21

2.1

20.5

0.2

Const. Stress
C u toff
Variable

0.99

Linear

0.00125

2400

30.8

0.2

Const. Stress
C u toff
Variable

0.99

Linear

0.00125

2400

DIANA REPAIR ANALYSES

S trong Concrete.
Repair

60

6.0

ANSYS ANALYSES
Long Term

21

20.5

0.2

2400

12

Short Term

21

10.3

0.2

2400

12

Design Properties CP114

Concrete

20.5

2414

Appraisal Properties BS8110

Concrete

20.5

24.0

2300

2.5

24.0

2340
2250

Measured Properties

Concrete Other Slabs

28

Concrete Failed Slabs Typical

20

1.7

18.0

Concrete Failed Slabs W orst

15

<1.3

9.0

Repair

65

5.0

31.0

11.3

11.5

Figure 10.5.2 - 5 Material properties in analyses

161

FEMGV 6.1-02 : Building Research

Est blishm
Model:
LC5FC

15-JUL-2001 21:46
tb rs cgm

5.114
J2

I1

4.578

H2

Top r/f bars

Z
Y

I2

FEMGV 6.1-02 : Building Research

Model:
LC5FC

15-JUL-2001 21:48

J2

I1

H2

Z
Y

Bottom r/f bars

Figure 10.5.2 - 6 DIANA Idealised slab and column with reinforcement

162

FEMGV 6.1-02 : Building Research

E bli h
Model:
LC FC

15-JUL-2001 23:16
l 1

Top of slab
Layer 1

29
29

Repair Depth
Top of collar angle

Distance to centre lines of T1 & T2 bars = 70mm

38
38
38

Location of bottom part of collar angle

Layer 7

38

45

20
26.5

Z
Y

Bottom of slab
X

I1

I3

Figure 10.5.2 - 7 Detail of DIANA shearhead collar idealisation with LC5 deflections in m.

163

FEMGV 6.1-02 : Building Research

E t bli LC5FC
h
Model:
LC1: Load case 1
Step: 3 LOAD: 1
Nodal TDTX...G
Max/Min on model
TDTZ
Max
-.339E-3
t ==-.811E-3
Min

15-JUL-2001 22:50
ll

J2
Top of slab

58
-.549E-3

I1

-.371E-3
-.355E-3
-.383E-3

-.736E-3
-.55E-3

-.558E-3

-.509E-3
-.368E-3
-.49E-3
-.355E-3
-.522E-3

20

-.737E-3

-.538E-3
-.746E-3

-.803E-3

-.559E-3

-.505E-3
-.59E-3

-.491E-3

Bottom of slab

-.518E-3

-.562E-3

-.597E-3
-.746E-3

470

914.4

-.811E-3

H2
Z
Y

Figure 10.5.2 - 8 DIANA Idealisation of slab in layers with reinforcement

164

Figure 10.5.2 - 9

BRE DIANA Applied and Reaction Loads and Moments

ANSYS reactions
(Moments absolute)
at top of col.
Date of First
Output
Model Name

LOAD
CASE

Output provided in

Details

PRELIMINARY ANALYSIS

26-Mar-00

NEWQ2\NE
WQB.dat

LC1

Fz
(kN)

Mx
kNm

My
kNm

kN

kNm

kNm

Total Applied Forces, Moments Middle Plane

Fx
kN

Fy
kN

1/4 Model using

Vectra's new LC1
NQ2LC1.doc/CV5231- loads of 17 Mar.
2000
GC-3 (2nd file)

Fz
kN

Mx
kNm

My Veffx
kNm
kN

Veffy
kN

77.28

Reactions at bottom of column (kN

and kNm)

Fx
kN

Fy
kN

Fz
kN

Mx
kNm

Moments at
slab midplane

My Mx
My
Veffx
kNm kNm kNm
kN

Veffy
kN

-77.3

Concrete.

Weak

THE MAIN ANALYSES

06-Jun-00 STRLC5

LC5

06-Jun-00 WKLC5

LC5

06-Jun-00 STRLC1

LC1

15-Jun-00 WKLC1

LC5

NEWLC5A.DOC/CV5231-GC7
Full model
NEWLC5A.DOC/CV5231-GC7
Full model
NEWLC1st.DOC/CV5231-GC8
Full model
NEWLC1wk.DOC/CV5231-GC10
Full model

-256.3

8.7

3.9

-2.88

6.28 -254.1

15.8

3.6

270.4

259.7

-3.5

7.8 -254.2

-5.54

-5.71

18.8

5.2

273.6

262.4

Strong

-256.3

8.7

3.9

-2.88

6.28 -254.1

15.8

3.6

270.4

259.7

-3.6

7.9 -254.2

-5.61

-5.65

19

5.6

273.9

263.0

Weak

-286.2

-5.77 -0.082

-6.22

-0.24

295.4

289.4

Strong

-286.2

-256.3

8.7

3.9

0.053

-0.15

-289

Weak

ANALYSIS WITHOUT A COLLAR

13-Dec-00 NOANG

LC5

NOANG.DOC/CV523
1-GC-19
Full model

-2.88

6.28 -254.1

3.6

270.4

259.7

-2.87

6.25 -254.1

252.2

-2.88

6.28 -248.2

-5.76

-5.89

13.8

3.1

268.4

259.0

Strong

About Column Base

REPAIR ANALYSES

21 Feb. 01

15.8

PipApF1.doc/CV5231-GC-23 Full model

PRPH2N

LC5

21 Feb. 01

PRPH3E

PipApFLC5 x 1.2 1.doc/CV5231-GC-23 Full model

-2.88

-3.46

21 Feb. 01

UNPH2N

LC5

PipApF1.doc/CV5231-GC-23 Full model

-2.88

21 Feb. 01

PipApFUNPH3D/3E LC5 x 1.2 1.doc/CV5231-GC-23 Full model

-3.46

6.28 -248.2

-7.54

-3.81

-2.54

252.1

-305

-5.2

-6.4

310.4

315.0

-5.8

6.28 -248.2

-3.81

-2.54

252.1

252.2

-2.88

-5.2

-6.4

310.4

315.0

-5.8

-7.54

-305

Strong

-305

-6.53

-6.73

Strong with
Repair

6.29 -248.2

-4.6

-2.94

Strong

-8.2

-6.5

-6.92

-8.3

-305

305.0

Note LC1 with perimeter shears from ANSYS with pinned column head should give no Moments, but does. Interpretaion is based on output moments.

Figure 10.5.2 - 9 BRE DIANA Applied and Reaction Loads and Moments

165

305.0

Strong with
Repair

Figure 10.5.2 - 10 DIANA Analysis 2Dn and BS8110 shear perimeters

166

10.5.3 Shear Distribution from Column Moments

The variation of average shear forces from the applied moment around the four sides at I2 of the 2Dn
perimeter have been extracted for LC5 5.41kN/m2, the unfactored dead load with column fixity load
case, on the BS8110 basis and for comparable ANSYS and DIANA runs. The reactions and
moments and BS8110 Veff based on the 2Dn perimeter with higher stressed side average shear
stresses are shown on Table 10.5.3 - 1
Figure 10.5.3 - 1 sets out the analysis of the ANSYS shear stresses and forces around the 2Dn
perimeter for I2. This gives an average shear stress of 0.205N/mm2 (slightly lower than BS8110
value, as it excludes the weight inside the perimeter) and average shear stresses on the 4 sides also
shown on Table 10.5.3 - 1
Figure 10.5.3- 2 sets out the analysis the DIANA shear stresses and forces on selected sections (as
shown on Figure 10.5.2 - 10) around the 2Dn perimeter for I2. This gives an average shear stress of
0.187N/mm2 (as the comparison is based on reference sections, not the whole perimeter area) and
average section shear stresses on the 4 sides which are also shown on Table 10.5.3 - 1 for
comparison.
Table 10.5.3 - 1.
Comparison of average stresses on the sides of ANSYS
and DIANA 2Dn perimeters with BS8110
_______________________________________________________________________________
Mx
My
Veffx
Veffy
Vt
Reaction and Moments kN
kN/m
kN/m
kN
kN
ANSYS LC5
256.3
8.7
3.9
264.8
261.7
0.033
0.015
M/Vt
______________________________________________________________________________
Average
North
East
South
West
to J2
to I1
to H2
to I3
T2 Bars
T1 Bars
T2 Bars
T1 Bars
v effy
veffx
vav
2
Side av. Shear N/mm 0.214
0.218
0.221
BS8110 v eff/vav
1.00
1.021
1.033
_____________________________________________________________________________
to J2
to I1
to H2
to I3
T2 Bars
T1 Bars
T2 Bars
T1 Bars
vav
2

ANSYS v Shear N/mm 0.205

0.194
0.204
0.226
0.193
1.00
0.944
0. 993
1.104
0.939
ANSYS v/ vav
________________________________________________________________________________
Mx
My
Veffx
Veffy
Vt
Reaction and Moments kN
kN/m
kN/m
kN
kN
DIANA LC5 strong
254.2
18.8
5.2
273.6
262.4
0.074
0.020
M/Vt
Average
to J2
to I1
to H2
to I3
v effy
veffx
DIANA
vav
BS8110v eff/vav
1.00
1.032
1.076
_____________________________________________________________________________
to J2
to I1
to H2
to I3
2
0.187
0.166
0.183
0.215
0.183
DIANA Shear N/mm
DIANA v/vav
1.00
0.88
0.98
1.15
0.98
____________________________________________________________________________

167

These analyses show that the effect (veff/vav) of the moment Mx on the highest stressed side at Pipers
Row I2 is:
- three times the BS8110 increase veff/vav with ANSYS analysis (i.e. 1.033 to 1.104).
- twice the BS8110 increase veff/vav with DIANA analysis.
(i.e. 1.076 to 1.150).
The basis for treating the increase in shear stress in BS8110 clearly needs a fundamental review
relative to a sufficient body of test data and analysis to ensure that the effects of moments are not
underestimated for the brittle detail. Possibly this should incorporate a basis similar to EC2. Pending
such a review doubling the effect of moments would be prudent in the absence of finite element
analysis. This can be achieved by changing the current BS8110 formula:
from

Veff = Vt (1 + 1.5Mt/(Vt x))

to

Veff = Vt (1 + 3Mt/(Vt x)).

168

Figure 10.5.3 - 1

LC5 Uncracked Unfactored Dead Load.

I2

Node Perimeter 2D LC5 Uncracked.

UDL = 5.41N/mm2 Unfactored Dead Load Column Fixed.
Node '2Dn'
d

1.528
0.178

1.090
0.161

I2 Perimeter at 2Dn, LC5 Uncracked Shear Stress at 5.41N/mm2

Side

Towards

a North

J2

0.350

Shear Stress N/mm2.

0.300
0.250

b East

I1

0.200
0.150
0.100

North to J2

East to I2

South to H2

West to I3

0.050
0.000
0

c South

H2

Perimeter m.

d West

H3

Total Perimeter

169

Depth 229mm
For Length
Av Shear Shear
Stress
Force
kN/m2
kN

Node
Max.
Node
Element Shear
Perimeter Shear
Length
length
Stress
Length Stress
m
m
kN/m2
N/mm2
aI2-2d_LC5.txt AV Email 5/12/0
0
0.000
7717
0.2191
94.8
0.000
0.095
119.5
6.00
7727
0.2034
144.1
0.219
0.144
182.3
8.49
7737
0.1889
220.5
0.423
0.220
229.5
9.93
7700
0.1525
238.6
0.611
0.239
248.2
8.67
1.528
8041
0.1525
257.8
0.764
0.258
252.5
8.82
8220
0.1889
247.3
0.916
0.247
240.8
10.42
8791
0.2034
234.3
1.105
0.234
194.2
9.04
8801
0.2191
154.0
1.309
0.154
127.5
6.40
8811
0
101.0
1.528
0.101
8811
0.2034
147.1
1.528
0.147
168.0
7.83
1.090
8809
0.1889
189.0
1.731
0.189
206.8
8.94
8765
0.1525
224.6
1.920
0.225
229.8
8.02
8753
0.1525
235.0
2.073
0.235
233.6
8.16
8711
0.1889
232.2
2.225
0.232
217.3
9.40
8741
0.2034
202.3
2.414
0.202
181.6
8.46
8739
0
160.8
2.617
0.161
8739
0.2191
112.5
2.617
0.112
141.6
7.10
8729
0.2034
170.7
2.837
0.171
219.6
10.23
8719
0.1889
268.5
3.040
0.269
283.6
12.27
8202
0.1525
298.6
3.229
0.299
307.9
10.75
1.528
8023
0.1525
317.1
3.381
0.317
303.9
10.61
7628
0.1889
290.6
3.534
0.291
273.1
11.81
7665
0.2034
255.5
3.723
0.256
208.4
9.71
7655
0.2191
161.2
3.926
0.161
133.8
6.71
7645
0
106.4
4.145
0.106
130.2
0.00
7645
0.2034
154.0
4.145
0.154
173.1
8.06
7647
0.1889
192.2
4.349
0.192
205.7
8.90
1.090
7633
0.1525
219.1
4.538
0.219
220.1
7.69
7675
0.1525
221.1
4.690
0.221
216.2
7.55
7687
0.1889
211.3
4.843
0.211
194.9
8.43
7715
0.2034
178.5
5.031
0.179
159.3
7.42
7717
0
140.0
5.235
0.140
5.235 m
Total Shear Force
Average Shear on 2Dn Perimeter

Shear
Force
kN

Gross depth
229
Shear
Stress
N/mm2
for d=229
% of Av.

67.76

0.194
-94.4%

50.81

0.204
-99.3%

79.20

0.226
110.4%

48.05

0.193
93.9%

245.82 kN
N/mm2

0.205

FIGURE 10.5.3 - 2

LC5
Column Head Reaction Vt 254kN
Column Head Moment Mx 18.8kNm

Top
Node 1
Node 2
Node 3
Node 4
Node 5
Node 6
Node 7
Node 8
Bottom

z (m)
0.211
0.181
0.152
0.114
0.0765
0.0385
0.005
-0.0195
Max Value

Sxz Distribution for load case LC5 (N/mm2)

y= -0.504m
y= -0.504m
y=-0.27m
y=-0.27m
y=0m
y=0m
WEST FACE EAST FACE WEST FACE EAST FACE WEST FACE EAST FACE
0.027
0.035
0.040
0.051
0.056
0.056
0.058
0.077
0.087
0.098
0.113
0.113
0.142
0.177
0.194
0.214
0.219
0.219
0.212
0.256
0.281
0.311
0.287
0.287
0.219
0.267
0.297
0.321
0.294
0.294
0.178
0.207
0.237
0.249
0.231
0.231
0.084
0.103
0.119
0.124
0.117
0.117
0.018
0.043
0.049
0.052
0.051
0.051
0.219
0.267
0.297
0.321
0.294
0.294

Average Sxz
0.140
0.172
Max/Av
1.560
1.553
Average Sxz Weighted for Thickness

Top
Node 1
Node 2
Node 3
Node 4
Node 5
Node 6
Node 7
Node 8
Bottom

z (m)
0.211
0.181
0.152
0.114
0.0765
0.0385
0.005
-0.0195
Max Value

Properties Strong
Column Head Moment My 5.2kNm

0.192
1.545

0.209
1.538

0.200
1.473

0.200
1.473

y=0.27m
WEST FACE
0.051
0.098
0.214
0.311
0.321
0.249
0.124
0.052
0.321

y=0.27m
EAST FACE
0.040
0.087
0.194
0.281
0.297
0.237
0.119
0.049
0.297

y=0.504m
WEST FACE
0.035
0.077
0.177
0.256
0.267
0.207
0.103
0.043
0.267

y=0.504m
EAST FACE
0.027
0.058
0.142
0.212
0.219
0.178
0.084
0.018
0.219

0.209
1.538

0.192
1.545

0.172
1.553

0.140
1.560

Syz Distribution for load case LC5 (N/mm2)

x=-0.728m
x=-0.728m
x=-0.371m
x=-0.371m
x=0m
x=0m
x=0.371
x=0.371
x=0.728
x=0.728
SOUTH FACE NORTH FACE SOUTH FACE NORTH FACE SOUTH FACE NORTH FACE SOUTH FACE NORTH FACE SOUTH FACE NORTH FACE
0.041
0.036
0.048
0.050
0.073
0.061
0.050
0.046
0.042
0.034
0.083
0.071
0.091
0.093
0.141
0.119
0.093
0.086
0.088
0.068
0.150
0.128
0.252
0.211
0.262
0.222
0.254
0.196
0.162
0.123
0.188
0.160
0.435
0.317
0.363
0.303
0.441
0.293
0.205
0.153
0.188
0.159
0.446
0.329
0.398
0.328
0.454
0.302
0.206
0.152
0.145
0.122
0.336
0.249
0.312
0.256
0.344
0.228
0.161
0.117
0.072
0.060
0.151
0.112
0.139
0.114
0.155
0.102
0.080
0.058
0.029
0.024
0.052
0.038
0.047
0.038
0.054
0.035
0.032
0.024
0.188
0.160
0.446
0.329
0.398
0.328
0.454
0.302
0.206
0.153

Average Syz
0.131
0.111
Max/Av
1.440
1.445
Average Syz Weighted for Thickness
Average
WEST FACE
Length mm
1090
Av Shear N/mm2
0.183
Force kN
45.6
Av FaceShear % Av Perimeter Shear N/mm2

97.6%

0.271
1.644

0.208
1.584

0.256
1.558

Average
Average
Average
EAST FACE SOUTH FACE NORTH FACE
1090
1528
1528
0.183
0.215
0.166
45.6
75.3
57.9
97.6%

115.0%

0.212
1.545

0.276
1.644

0.191
1.580

Overall Average
Perimeter
5236
0.187
224.4

88.5%

Note. This is based on average at 5 locations per side and gives relative forces on sides but not correct total

170

0.142
1.446

0.106
1.443

10.5.4

Shear Concentrations from Shear head Support

When shears develop around a uniformly loaded circular column, as in the testing from which the
BS8110 design rules have been developed, the shear stresses are:
- Uniform around the circumference,
- Increase towards the column as the perimeter shrinks,
- Vary through the thickness of the slab as in beam sections.
For an uncracked slab away from the column, the through thickness shear distribution varies
parabolically with a highest value at mid depth of 1.5 times the average. Close to the support the peak
increases and is lower in the slab. When the slab cracks in flexure these shears are redistributed into
the lower part of the slab. This is in part taken into account by discounting the concrete above the
centroid of the top reinforcement in the BS8110 effective depth d.
The actual shear fracture develops as a tensile fracture on a cone with crushing round the column,
discussed in Section 10.4.3 and shown Figure 10.4.3 - 1. This contrasts with the arbitrary vertical
shear perimeter on which the stresses are checked in the BS8110. Thus the arbitrary shear perimeter
stress does not directly relate to the peak principal tensile stress, peak shear stress or the failure criteria
in the triaxial crushing zone at which the shear crack triggers the collapse.
The shear distribution around the inner columns H2 and I2 at Pipers Row varied around the shear
perimeter and within the depth of the section because of:
i)

The moments applied to the column, as discussed above.

ii)

The stress concentrations resulting from the steel shear head insert in the slab. These
concentrations, relative to the uniform support of a circular column, arise from a
combination of:
a)

The support being at the level of the top of the angle flanges 22mm above the soffit of
the slab.

b) the non uniform vertical support from the bottom flanges of the angles which can flex
and twist.
c)

The potential stress concentration onto the ends of the verticals of the projecting
angles.

d) The compressive stress concentration onto the cutting edge of the bottom flange of
the angles at the root of the shear failure surface which may initiate premature
crushing failure.
e)

The effects of the flexural cracking of the upper part of the slab, which is complicated
by the wide spacing of the reinforcing bars away from the column and the bars being
lower in the slab than designed.

f)

The local effects of the cutting out and repair at H2.

171

The DIANA analysis has been carried out to quantify these effects within the limits of the
idealisation. The full non linearity of punching shear behaviour and in particular the
relationship of local stress concentrations to the initiation of a crack which then unzips to fail
in brittle punching, cannot be fully clarified without well instrumented tests combined with
detailed finite element analysis. Such testing is beyond the scope of this study.
Selected output from the DIANA LC5 (5.41kN/m2 UDL) with column slab fixity strong
analysis is set out below to illustrate the features identified above. The BRE Report [H218]
contains full details and more comprehensive sets of stress outputs. The idealisation and the
loadings were based on I2, but the effects of repair were considered by assuming the H2
repaired area was located at I2 to facilitate comparisons.
Figure 10.5.4 - 1a shows the top reinforcement with a localised area around the shear head
with tensile stresses up to about 50N/mm2, so yield of the top steel over the column head was
not a factor under the LC5 dead loads 5.41kN/m2, nor would it arise under factored dead +
live load at 12.55kN/m2.
Figure 10.5.4 - 1b shows the first crack normal strain vectors at 90 to the crack orientation.
This shows the tendency to star cracking with the strong crack across the width of the long
shear head angle and then radiating out from the end, as found in the examination of I2 and
similar to that shown in Figure 7.4 - 8 at another location in Pipers Row.
Figure 10.5.4 - 2 shows the Syz shear stresses (ie shear out of plane of the T2, long North
and South sides, see Figure 10.5.2. - 2 for orientation) on the 4 faces on the 2Dn perimeter
with LC5 5.41kN/m2 dead load. There are distinct shear peaks up to 0.45N/mm2 on the South
side towards H2. This compares with an average from ANSYS for the full 2Dn perimeter at
229mm depth of 0.205N/mm2 and an average for the most highly loaded south side towards
H2 of 0.226N/mm2.
Figure 10.5.4 - 3 Compares the maximum shear stresses from the DIANA analysis with the
full depth shears from the ANSYS analysis across the width of the LC5 North and South
faces.
Figure 10.5.4 - 4 Compares the variation in shear stress through the depth of slab on 5 shear
sections (see Figure 10.5.2 - 10) for the North and South faces, from the LC5 DIANA
analysis. This shows a peak mid depth shear stress 0.45N/mm2 on the South Face of 214% of
the perimeter average shear stress.
Figure 10.5.4 - 5 shows the Sxz shear stresses (shear out of plane of T1, short East and West
sides) on the 4 faces on the 2Dn perimeter. There are only slight shear peaks, up to to
0.3N/mm2 on the West side towards I3, so the ends of angles are not giving a stress peak at
2Dn. This compares with an average from ANSYS for the full 2Dn perimeter at 229mm
depth of 0.205N/mm2 and an average for the West side towards I3 of 0.193N/mm2.
Figure 10.5.4 - 6 shows the Syz shear stresses (shear out of plane of T2, long North and
South sides) on the 4 faces on the 1Dn perimeter. There are distinct shear peaks up to
0.70N/mm2 on the South side towards H2 aligned with the short cross angles which are
supported on the wedges.
Figure 10.5.4 - 7 shows the Sxz shear stresses (shear out of plane of T1, short East and West
sides) on the 4 faces on the 1Dn perimeter. There are smaller shear peaks, up to to 0.5N/mm2
on the East and West side towards I1 and I3. This confirms that the long projecting angles do
not create a shear peak on the T1 side of the perimeter comparable to that on the T2 side as
shown on Figure 10.5.4 - 6.

172

Figure 10.5.4 - 8 shows in plan view the concentration of the Syz and Sxz shear stresses towards the
corners of the column with little indication of any concentration of shear on the ends of the angles. The
focus of stress is the ends of the short, wedge supported, 8" x 4"angles. This confirms the view that the
full lengths of the angles cannot be considered as supporting the slab. Assuming that the angles give
an effective support length to 1.5 x the depth of the projecting 5" x 3" x 3/8" angle beyond outer face of
the 8" x 4" x 5/8" angle (ie 190mm), when defining the shear perimeter is an empirical basis for
allowing for this.
However this does not allow for the stress concentration effects that arise from the hard point of the
angles seating and the concentration on the end of the wedge supported angle. Because the failure
mode is brittle the stress concentrations will initiate failure on the highest stressed area on one side of
the column which will then spread. This makes it essential to check the shear strength against the shear
force on each face of the perimeter with overstress on any one face being the criteria for failure. The
condition of the shear head being seated predominately on only one of the 4 wedges, as found at I2, has
not been evaluated using DIANA, but must increase the stress concentrations further.
Figure 10.5.4 - 9 and Figure 10.5.4 - 10 show how both shear and flexural stresses concentrate onto the
hard edge of the angles of the shear head 5" x 3" x 3/8" angle. This creates a risk on the T2 side of
initiating a crack to precipitate a punching failure.
Without physical tests to failure of similar configurations and detailed FE analysis of them, the
magnitude of the stress concentration factor and the stress level at which failure initiates cannot be
determined. When using the BS8110 shear strength v c in Table 3.8, which is derived from test data on
in-situ construction in which this concentration does not occur, a stress concentration of factor of at
least 1.1 should be applied to Veff on the T2 side. On the T1 face this magnitude of stress concentration
does not arise. This factor is more necessary because of the inadequacy of m of 1.25 to cover the range
of uncertainties and stress concentration effects. In design any feature which introduces a stress
concentration in the punching shear zone should be avoided.
Figure 10.5.4 11 compares the effect on the T2 South face shear stresses at 2Dn of the wedge
supported angle collar in LC1 (column pinned as lifting) and LC5 (column fixed) with a run NOCOL
with normal column support to the slab. This shows very clear peaks in shear stress at 380mm and
550mm from the column centre line which coincide with the positions of the widely spaced T2
reinforcing. In the non linear cracking modelled in DIANA a crack forms across the width of the long
angles where there is a gap in this T2 steel. This crack also developed in the structure. This cracking
redistributes the shear onto the peaks where the reinforcing bars maintain stiffness. This effect largely
masks the difference between the NOCOL and the LC1 and LC5 runs with shear head angle collar.
This comparison confirms the limited effectiveness of the projecting angles, but it does not enable a
more detailed comparison to be made with the conventional in situ construction with regularly spaced
reinforcement, as in the tests used to calibrate BS 8110.

173

FEMGV 6.1-02 : Building Research Establishm.

Model: LC5FD
Element RE.SXX.L SXX
Max/Min on model set:
Max = .428E8
Min = -.63E7

16-JUL-2001 17:25 newst1.cgm

J2

50
45
40
35
30
25
20
15
10
5
0
-5

Y
Z

H2

2
Top reinforcement stresses (N/mm ) under LC5 Loading.

FEMGV 6.1-02 : Building Research Establishm.

16-JUL-2001 17:34 newcr.cgm

Model: LC5FD
LC1: Load case 1
Step: 3 LOAD: 1
Gauss EL.ECR1 EKNN
Max/Min on model set:
Max = .391E-2
Min = 0
Factor = 100

.352E-2
.313E-2
.274E-2
.235E-2
.196E-2
.157E-2
.117E-2
.783E-3
.391E-3

Y
Z

First crack normal strain vectors under LC5 Loading.

Cracks are at right angles to the strain vectors. The top reinforcement bars shown.

Figure 10.5.4 - 1

DIANA I2 Top reinforcement stresses and crack vectors

174

Figure 10.5.4 - 2 : Shear Stress Syz (N/m2) under LC5 Loading, around the D2 Block.

FEMGV 6.1-02 : Building Research Establishm.

17-JUL-2001 10:32 newyz2.cgm

Model: LC5FD
LC1: Load case 1
Step: 3 LOAD: 1
Nodal EL.SXX.G SYZ
Max/Min on model set:
Max = .133E8
Min = -.141E8

J
K
J

JK
J

LL
L

Z
Y

J
K L LJ
K
I J J
L
J J J KKL
GE FI K
I MI
I
K
H
F
J
K
H
H I DJ K L
K
M
J F
II K
G
FK
M
Q
U
T
S
RJL
E
K
JIFK J HI MKK J LK
N
O
G
F H JK LH
G
E
B
H
K
I H EKJK N
L I LJK KK
O
O
N E KK M
G ML I B
P
M
K
GR
PG AK
N
O
C
I
E
F
E
L
H
K
K
A
I
D
K
J
I
M
F
J
B
F
K
C DKG
J
NO
M
J CA E
H K G J KNOJL LJ
K K
KJI
G
K KH
H K
EE DE F
C K
D
J
F
B G
E F H G GH G H J
H
FDG
J
I
L
G H
J
GA
H
I
I
I
G
E
I
K M
I
L
F L
H
J
L
M
B D
D
L F
M
G
GK
J I
J
J EF N
LLJ FH C
L
J
E
C
A
D
M
G
H
G
J
G
L
M
I
L
H
HHJ I
D O
LM
FG
CB
BDN G
F
C CDEFG
A
H
FH
N
M
O
E
G
G
K
P
E
A
C
J
I
K
M
Q
G
N
F
O
D
E
H
P
L
IHB
D
Q
O
F
FHIJK K
F
R
C
T
S
B B
E
JK KC
D
IH F N K
M
C
D
ER
FU
JID
E
BA
H
S
J G
H D
C
UL
T
J N
O
P
C B
E
I
N EB F B
F E
IH
O C
F
FIG
KG
E
C
C D I
A
C
L
R
JM
K
UI D
T
S
LM
N
N
O
P
K F G
ED
L N
O
Q
P
DJ N
O
PS
N
J G
Q
L
H
D
N
F
Q B
N
M
N
M
L N H
M
M
N
M
L
L
L
M
M
L
L
L
L
L

L
M
N

M
M

0.45 N/nm2

0.4 N/nm2

South to H2

U.1E7
T .9E6
S.8E6
R.7E6
Q.6E6
P.5E6
O.4E6
N.3E6
M.2E6
L .1E6
K0
J -.1E6
I -.2E6
H-.3E6
G-.4E6
F -.5E6
E-.6E6
D-.7E6
C-.8E6
B-.9E6
A-.1E7

Model: LC5FD
LC1: Load case 1
Step: 3 LOAD: 1
Nodal EL.SXX.G SYZ
Max/Min on model set:
Max = .133E8
Min = -.141E8

0.3N/nm2
North Face to J2
J

J
J
J
J J
I
J J J
J
I
L
I
JK
H I
ML KI
JN
H
K
I M
G
I
D
ED I
E
F
J
M
F
K
M
PO
M
M
F
J
I
I
E
E
M
M
K
A
F
D
K
HDAH
C
M MLLH
CJB
MO M
N
K
C
CB
LB
IKJHG
A
JH
D
C
A
J
D
H
H
Q O
E
H
Q
P
L
E
N
E
H
G
G
I
E
H O
K
PL
MG CGKJI F H
K
J
J
B
L
I
B
C
H FLG
J
L
I
F
I
LM
K
JK
N C
L P O
JN
K OJ FB HBFKG M P I
N IL
C
EJOEK
N
O
K A
N
K
R ON J R K R
P
Q
LJF BFM
I R
N
T
R
P
J
K
N
U
RJ Q J
J M
S
N
O
Q
O
J
K
Q
T
K
G
U
O
O
K
C
S
N
K
J
H
U
MM
U
K JK
G UTSM
R
M N
LM
Q
LK
Q
NH
I LMOL
PQ
P
P
N
N
M
O
AO
O
L
KK
L
OLJE
KJD
FJ P
F I H JK
JOFKI LMN
S
RHLK T K
JC
K H
DJIUG
C
K
G
BGH
IJT
Q
P
SQ
K QE
Q
U
L
IRP Q
M
K
K
JIISUAH
H
GJB
HL LJEN H
I P
LJN
K
JPN
FN
K G
P
O
M
LK S
A
T
C
M
S
DIJK
LQ
J PKOK M
O
GK
IL
N
K
NU
JFD
LIFRN
D
JQ
H
O
EK G
M
TO
K
PQ
N
L
HM
C
S
T
R
G
Q
U
Q
HO
FN
A
SK
CBTAU
H
F
IK
JL
T
Q
O H
HBB
R
HKJIFIM
K K JJQKJ TI R KJS Q
M NKF LE
E DI GIH
H
U
O
PQ
R
HCP
P QTU
UR
TE
NQ
S
R
K
N
L
Q
R
S
H
G
H
G
K
L
F
E
P
N
F
P
L
D
M
P
U
N
L
I
KI K K
M
O
G
F
P
L
L
F
D
O
N
G
L
N
H
P
I
B
K K
A
Q
U
E
G
EH
K
LP O
Q
RUF
RS
Q C
E
G
JR
SD
B B
G
IK LT
AIK
LS
K
IH
UKD
O
S
D
TM
S
P H
GT
P IA C
U
TJO
K
JGJ J SKPJ L
IO M
R
C
B
P
S
E
H
F
M
Q
T
M
D
G
G
N
Q
A
S
O
L
N
LFLJIGL
C
R
R
K K
A
O
B
K
J
I
H
I
M JE
G
N
P
B
F
F
A
F
E
D
C
E
F
KK
JIEC
H
FE
O
L
G
B
P
D
E
N
I
I
T
S
O
L
HON MJI GJL
J
GPO
D
M
JD
QP
P
M
IE
A MKD C
A B DP
KEHIJH
G
HQ
I LPK T
NN
M
H
I MNJH
TD
S
E
C
O
K
DH
G
K
O L
N
KK
GPQ
F
O MIG
TS
MDM
R
PNJ K
EQ
MUEU
NID A M
O
N
HR
G
C LO
MF
CDJ L
G
DEL
L
OA BBF
K K
NIJH
N IF
G
H
IJK
L
M
K
L
L
K K
J

Z
X

J
I

K
K

U.1E7
T .9E6
S.8E6
R.7E6
Q.6E6
P.5E6
O.4E6
N.3E6
M.2E6
L .1E6
K0
J -.1E6
I -.2E6
H-.3E6
G-.4E6
F -.5E6
E-.6E6
D-.7E6
C-.8E6
B-.9E6
A-.1E7

Pipers Row Report

175

LC5 North and South. Comparison of DIANA Max.

and ANSYS Av. Shears at 2Dn.
DIANA LC5S Max.
ANSYS LC5S Av.
DIANA LC5N Max.
ANSYS LC5N Av.

Shear Stress N/mm2

0.6

0.4

0.2

0.0
-0.8

-0.6

-0.4

-0.2

0.0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

From Centre m.

LC5 East and West Comparison of DIANA Max.

and ANSYS Av. Shears at 2Dn.

Shear Stress N/mm2

0.6

DIANA LC5W Max.

ANSYS LC5W Av.
DIANA LC5E Max.
ANSYS LC5E Av.

0.4

0.2

0
-0.8

-0.6

-0.4

-0.2

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

From Centre m.
FIgure 10.5.4 - 3

DIANA and ANSYS I2 Shear stresses on 2Dn perimeter

176

Run on: 6/6/00

Properties Strong
Column Head Reaction Vt 254.2kN
Column Head Moment Mx 18.8kNm

-ve

Syz Distribution for load case LC5 (N/mm2)

x=-0.728m
x=-0.371m

x=0m

z (m)
SOUTH FACE
0.211
0.041
0.181
0.083
0.152
0.150
0.114
0.188
0.0765
0.188
0.0385
0.145
0.005
0.072
-0.0195
0.029
Max
0.188
Max/Av Perim.
0.89

Top

Bottom

Column Head Moment My 5.2kN/m.

Syz Distribution for load case LC5 (N/mm2) North and South Face
NORTH FACE

0.036
0.071
0.128
0.160
0.159
0.122
0.060
0.024
0.160
0.75

SOUTH FACE

NORTH FACE

0.048
0.091
0.252
0.435
0.446
0.336
0.151
0.052
0.446
2.10

SOUTH FACE

0.050
0.093
0.211
0.317
0.329
0.249
0.112
0.038
0.329
1.55

Syz Distribution at y=-0.728

m for Load Case LC5

0.073
0.141
0.262
0.363
0.398
0.312
0.139
0.047
0.398
1.88

+ve
x=0.371
NORTH FACE

x=0.728

SOUTH FACE

0.061
0.119
0.222
0.303
0.328
0.256
0.114
0.038
0.328
1.55

NORTH FACE

0.050
0.093
0.254
0.441
0.454
0.344
0.155
0.054
0.454
2.14

SOUTH FACE

0.046
0.086
0.196
0.293
0.302
0.228
0.102
0.035
0.302
1.42

NORTH FACE

0.042
0.088
0.162
0.205
0.206
0.161
0.080
0.032
0.206
0.97

0.034
0.068
0.123
0.153
0.152
0.117
0.058
0.024
0.153
0.72

Syz Distribution at y=-0.371m for Load Case LC5

-ve

Syz Distribution at y=0 for Load Case LC5

-ve

0.25

0.25

SOUTH FACE

0.25
SOUTH FACE

NORTH FACE

SOUTH FACE

NORTH FACE

0.2

0.2

0.1

0.05

0.15

0.1

0.05

0
0.0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

0.0

-0.05

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

-0.05
Transverse Shear Stress, Sxz (N/mm )

+ve
0.25
SOUTH FACE
SOUTH FACE

Coordinate, z (m)

Coordinate, z (m)

0.15

0.1

0.05

0
0.8

0.15
0.1
0.05
0
0.000

0.200

0.400

0.600

-0.05

-0.05

Transverse Shear Stress, Sxz (N/mm2)

Pipers Row Report.

NORTH FACE

0.2

NORTH FACE

0.6

0
0.0

0.2

0.4

0.6

+ve

0.25

0.4

0.05

Transverse Shear Stress, Sxz (N/mm )

Syz Distribution at y=0.371m for Load Case LC5

Syz Distribution at y=0.728m for Load Case LC5

0.2

0.1

Transverse Shear Stress, Sxz (N/mm )

0.0

0.15

-0.05

0.2

NORTH FACE

0.2

Coordinate z (m)

0.15

Coordinate, z (m)

Coordinate, z (m)

Perimeter = 2(1.528 = 1.090) = 5.6236m

Depth 229mm
Av S for 2Dn perimeter 0.212N/mm2

Transverse Shear Stress, Sxz (N/mm )

177

0.800

0.8

Figure 10.5.4 - 5 : Shear Stress Szx (N/m2) under LC5 Loading, around the D2 Block.
FEMGV 6.1-02 : Building Research Establishm.

17-JUL-2001 10:43 newxz2.cgm

Model: LC5FD
LC1: Load case 1
Step: 3 LOAD: 1
Nodal EL.SXX.G SZX
Max/Min on model set:
Max = .16E8
Min = -.173E8
K
KK
K
K
K K
K
KK K J
K
K
K
K
K
L
K
K
K
I HHIG JK
L
K
J
K
F M
LL
L
K
L
K
L
G
M
JHKJ MO
C
M
K
I ON
UN
DEH
S
T
K
K
K
Q
R
E
P
F
H
DGJ
H
M N LL K
J
IJM
K
J
FEH
IKLNK
L
N
O
DGJ
O
N
LOK
K
PL
M
N
K
I
K
K
K
I
H
M
L
K
L
O
J
R
J
J
C
S
M
D
E
M
J
G
F
B
LN
Q
K J
A
HM GIJ K
OP L
I
F
FEGK O
L
S
C
B
R
A
I H IH
Q
P
KJ K J J
L J
O
M
LG
O
Q
NK ON
L JT
P I KQ
KK K
JIK JK M
JKF
M
K
LIN
KLL K
JHA
E
L SRPM
QP
O
N
L
F
J
M
J
G
G
D
C
B
A
B
C
MM ML
D
E
G
I
N
F
N
K
L
E
EF
H
J
H
I
J
K
JI KLL K K
K
L
K
L L L L
K
K
KK
K
K
M LL
M
K
M
K
M L
J
NN
M
L
L
L
J
N
M
L
M
L L
NN M
L
J
LL MM
I I I
M
M
M
M M
L
M
M
J
M
L L M N NN
L
LL M
K
M
J
M
K
M
M
LL MM
L
L
K
L
L
L
L L
KK

Z
Y

0.3N/mm2

J
I

I
J

South to H2

U.1E7
T .9E6
S.8E6
R.7E6
Q.6E6
P.5E6
O.4E6
N.3E6
M.2E6
L .1E6
K0
J -.1E6
I -.2E6
H-.3E6
G-.4E6
F -.5E6
E-.6E6
D-.7E6
C-.8E6
B-.9E6
A-.1E7

Model: LC5FD
LC1: Load case 1
Step: 3 LOAD: 1
Nodal EL.SXX.G SZX
Max/Min on model set:
Max = .16E8
Min = -.173E8

North Face
J
J
J
I

I
H H

H H

J
I

L
K

K
N
O
P
RPO
N
IIKJLM
SQ
Q
R
M
LJ
J JI J

J
J II

J
J

J
KHJ J
K

JJ

I I

HH H

H
I
I I J
J
J

I I

L
M
N
O
PJ
LM
N
O
PQ
J IJK
IR
JK

J J

KJ OM
KJ LLE
JSN
IK
O
P
JN
Q
RT
P
O
PLRIH
G
E
M
IKMKTQN
D
C
FJ Q
K
DG
C
U
T
KM
IS
F
H
RJM
F
H
JJHRTIL
E
FK
SK
P
O
N
Q
U
S
Q
P
O
JT
E
B
A
NIG
B
A
D
C
H
L
D
USS
U
M
LG
HIG
M
O
P
RC
I
H
F
T
I
FGKN
H
K
T
U L
M
E
D
C
B
A
G
P
O
N
P
O
N
L
R
J
A KQLIA
SLQ KF
JH
E B
M
J
J K JQ
K BJ G
K K
K
K
K

K K
K
K

K
K
KI M K
FABM
H
FH
EM LGB
L
JL
SN JK
KL
KF
HH
G K L
JI EMC
S JIQRA
EFJILLML
E U FLK
KC
M
BD
GLH NM
L IG
MD
TN
SU
OR
D
C
J
M
C
DLN
NC
Q
P
O
G
F
O
U
K
H
FEIJKNM
KQ LG M
H
L
M
D
Q TH
A
BD
NM
L
F
PC
T
R
K
I
B
A
G
S
N
M
E
I
N
E
B
I
J
J
K
M
LJ R
I
O
P
U
O
E
F
L
N
S
L
G
H
P
R
K
H
D
C
C
O
PU TL LJQ
H
K
K
G
JM
G
L
JEB AF
FH
LD
L JI E
D
G
K
I
K
L
L
K
LLL
L
K
M

LL M
K
L

Z
X

0.3N/mm2

U.1E7
T .9E6
S.8E6
R.7E6
Q.6E6
P.5E6
O.4E6
N.3E6
M.2E6
L .1E6
K0
J -.1E6
I -.2E6
H-.3E6
G-.4E6
F -.5E6
E-.6E6
D-.7E6
C-.8E6
B-.9E6
A-.1E7

Figure 10.5.4 5

DIANA I2 Shear Stresses Sxz 2Dn block

178

Figure 10.5.4 - 6

DIANA I2 Shear stresses Syz 1Dn block

179

Figure 10.5.4 - 7

DIANA I2 Shear stresses Sxz 1Dn block

180

FEMGV 6.1-02 : Building Research Establishm.

17-JUL-2001 11:05 newlay.cgm

Model: LC5FD
LC1: Load case 1
Step: 3 LOAD: 1
Nodal EL.SXX.G SYZ
Max/Min on model set:
Max = .201E7
Min = -.18E7

Model: LC5FD
LC1: Load case 1
Step: 3 LOAD: 1
Nodal EL.SXX.G SZX
Max/Min on model set:
Max = .16E7
Min = -.175E7

.12E7
.11E7
.1E7
.9E6
.8E6
.7E6
.6E6
.5E6
.4E6
.3E6
.2E6
.1E6
0
-.1E6
-.2E6
-.3E6
-.4E6
-.5E6
-.6E6
-.7E6
-.8E6
-.9E6
-.1E7

Y
Z

Layer 4

Model: LC5FD
LC1: Load case 1
Step: 3 LOAD: 1
Nodal EL.SXX.G SYZ
Max/Min on model set:
Max = .939E7
Min = -.474E7

Layer 6

Y
Z

Layer 4

.12E7
.11E7
.1E7
.9E6
.8E6
.7E6
.6E6
.5E6
.4E6
.3E6
.2E6
.1E6
0
-.1E6
-.2E6
-.3E6
-.4E6
-.5E6
-.6E6
-.7E6
-.8E6
-.9E6
-.1E7

Y
Z

Layer 6

.1E7 N/m2= 1.0N/mm2

Figure 10.5.4 - 8

Model: LC5FD
LC1: Load case 1
Step: 3 LOAD: 1
Nodal EL.SXX.G SZX
Max/Min on model set:
Max = .115E8
Min = -.117E8

Y
Z

.12E7
.11E7
.1E7
.9E6
.8E6
.7E6
.6E6
.5E6
.4E6
.3E6
.2E6
.1E6
0
-.1E6
-.2E6
-.3E6
-.4E6
-.5E6
-.6E6
-.7E6
-.8E6
-.9E6
-.1E7

DIANA I2 Shear stresses Sxz and Syz plan, Layers 4 and 6

181

.12E7
.11E7
.1E7
.9E6
.8E6
.7E6
.6E6
.5E6
.4E6
.3E6
.2E6
.1E6
0
-.1E6
-.2E6
-.3E6
-.4E6
-.5E6
-.6E6
-.7E6
-.8E6
-.9E6
-.1E7

Figure 10.5.4 - 9

2
2
Shear Stress Szx (N/m ) and direct stress Sxx (N/m ) along the element strip closest to the column
and parallel to the x-axis I1 to I3. LC5 Loading. Zoomed view near the steel collar.

FEMGV 6.1-02 : Building Research

18-JUL-2001 17:57

Model: LC5FD
L
Nodal EL.SXX.G
Max/Min
on model
ZX = .703E7
Max
set:
Min = -.712E7

HH
I
H

G
G

E
ED
H
G
A
B FI E

F
E

H
HF

GE FH
I

I
H

E
D
C
G GF ED

C
C

D
D

Shear

G
F

EF

F
F

E
HG F

I .1E7
H.6E6
G.2E6
F-.2E6
E-.6E6
D-.1E7
C-.14E7
B-.18E7
A-.22E7

Y Z
X

Model: LC5FD
Nodal EL.SXX.G
Max/Min
on model
XX .395E7
Max
set: ==-.315E8
Min

D
C

F
E

E
D
B

C
A

D
F

E D
F

F
E

F
E
D
C
B

F
F

E
B

C
A

C
E
G D EE
F
G
D
C

F
F
F
F
E

AB

Flexure

D
F

B
A

C
B

E
D

D
H.3E7
G.2E7
F .1E7
E0
D-.1E7
C-.2E7
B-.3E7
A-.4E7

Y Z
X

Figure 10.5.4 9

DIANA I2 East West section shear and flexure

182

Figure 10.5.4 - 10 :
2
2
Shear Stress Syz (N/m ) and direct stress Syy (N/m ) along the element strip closest to the column
and parallel to the y-axis J2 to H2 . LC5 Loading. Zoomed view near the steel collar.

FEMGV 6.1-02 : Building Research

18-JUL-2001 18:23

Model: LC5FD
Nodal EL.SXX.G
Max/Min
on model set:
YZ = .132E8
Max
Min = -.141E8

I
K
H
HA
M
I
B
C
FO
P
M
P
I JL K
J J JO
NK R

K L
IJ

J
O
O
NM
NML
L

L
M
M
N O

Q
R
IH
R
P
P O Q
M
M
G
R
Q
P
O
N
K
IJ
H
G
F
E
H IJK
LO L
D

J
I
H

KL
KK
IKG
H K
G
JL
N

NQ

MM

N
N
M

R.12E7
Q.1E7
P.8E6
O.6E6
N.4E6
M.2E6
L0
K-.2E6
J -.4E6
I -.6E6
H-.8E6
G-.1E7
F -.12E7
E-.14E7
D-.16E7
C-.18E7
B-.2E7
A-.22E7

N
M

Z
X
Y

Shear

L
K
K
I

Model: LC5FD
Nodal EL.SXX.G SYY
Max/Min on model set:
Max = .338E7
Min = -.362E8

G
F

E
E
Z
X

F
E

E
D
D
D

D
E
F

D
C

D
A

E
C

F
G H
G
H
GE
F
F
F
D
C
DA
C
BA
B E

F
E

E
E

E
D

D
A

C
B

Flexure

E
G

H.3E7
G.2E7
F .1E7
E0
D-.1E7
C-.2E7
B-.3E7
A-.4E7

Figure 10.5.4 10

DIANA I2 North South section shear and flexure

183

DIANA South Face Shear Distribution at 2Dn,

Comparison of LC1, LC5 with Shear Head Collar
and No Collar LC5.

Figure 10.5.4 - 11

0.6

LC1 S
LC5 S
NOCOL S
T2bar

Shear Sterss N/mm2

0.5

0.4

0.3

0.2

0.1

0
-0.8

-0.6

-0.4

-0.2

0.2

0.4

0.6

Width from Centre m

Figure 10.5.4 - 11

DIANA I2 South face shear stresses LC1, LC5 and 'No Collar'

184

0.8

Repairs
Figure 10.5.4 - 12 shows how the I2 column head idealisation was modified to represent the type of
repair at H2. The top three layers to a depth of 98 mm are reduced to a near zero stiffness over the
area of the repair with the exposed bars bridging across.
Figure 10.5.4 - 13 shows the high stress concentration at the edge of the repair on the 2Dn South
Face that develops if the slab is not fully supported during cutting out and while the repair fully
hardens, in comparison with full propping to prevent deflection. This unpropped stress concentration
develops in the badly deteriorated concrete which was found to a depth of ~100mm adjacent to the
repair at H2 and would have encouraged the debonding of the top steel around the repair.
Figure 10.5.4 - 14 shows the same view after the stiffer repair (E = 31kN/mm2 relative to
20.5kN/mm2 for concrete) has hardened, the props have been removed and a 20% increase in loading
(eg 1.08kN/m2 vehicle loading ) has been applied. With the unpropped slab the repair carries no dead
load and its share (or a little more due to its higher stiffness) of the live load. Unpropped the cutting out
stress concentration remains, giving a peak shear in the degraded material adjacent to the repair of
~1.5N/mm2. This contrast with a peak shear of ~0.6N/ mm2 for the propped and fully hardened
repair.
If the props were prematurely removed, the repair was poorly bonded and/or the repair had shrunk
significantly relative to the original concrete, then a stress concentration similar to the unpropped case
would have formed. Because of the uncertainties about the repair and propping procedures at Pipers
Row it is not possible to quantify the additional repair stress concentration factor at H2. Such a factor
would need to be considered relative to the strength of the severely degraded upper layers of the
concrete which are also indeterminate.

185

FEMGV 6.1-02 : Building Research Establishm.

20-JUL-2001 17:11 excav-1p.cgm

Model: UNPH2N

Z
Y
X

View of the idealised floor slab with concrete dug out to a depth of 96mm for repair.
The exposed top reinforcement is shown.

Figure 10.5.4 12

DIANA I2 Idealised slab with repair excavated.

186

FEMGV 6.1-02 : Building Research Establishm.

Model: UNPH3E
LC1: Load case 1
Step: 1 LOAD: 1
Nodal EL.SXX.G SYZ
Max/Min on model set:
Max = .158E8
Min = -.2E8

A
A
A
A
A
BA
C
D
A
C
C
DB
A
A
B F
G
E
A
A
B
B
E E C DA
A
D
C
A A
B
B
CABIJH
AA C
CA A
A
B
A A
B
B
D
A
A
A
F
E
B
C
D
G
A
A
B
A
C
A
A
D
E
A
E A E CB
D
A BB
A A
A
A
B
A
A
A
B
A
A
A C
CD
AC
A
A DE A
A AAA
C B
HF
A
CC
B B
A
CAB B
B
C
C
FF
FA
M D
LK
JG
E
D
BBCC BA
E
GE JJG
H
D
H
MO
F
LIK
G AC
IA
P
N
B
F
D
A A BA
D
C A
C
D
B
I
B
B
D
A
A
B
B
A
A
A
A A A
A
A
A
A
LK
F
H M
A BE C
D
B
A
A GA CG G BA
C
A
F
C
H ED D
G
AA
IJ G
AFH
FC CE
A
NJC
D
B
D
I LK
D FDB
B B BD FBA D
H
G
A
JE A
A
C
D
B
AA A D
BA E
GB
BB B B
E
B
A
D
G
IK
H
L FB
BG
H
HGE
IJO
B
K
CC
L
N
M
A
EG
JK
B
P
D
E
F
C
E C
BJM
A A
C
P
M
O
F
N
A
D
B
GF A
A C
B
D
B
IM
C
B
D
E
D
D
N
F M
P FI A DJK
O
BEG
H LA
H A
G
E
FH
IK
LO
CH C
D
E
P
HN LE
D
CC
D D F
D
I JK I G
E
E
E
D
C
C
F
C
E
DE
C
D
D
C
B
C
C
C
B B
C
C
C
C
C
B
B
B
B

A
A A
A
A

A
A

A
A

A
A

C
Z

AA

P.15E7
O.14E7
N.13E7
M.12E7
L .11E7
K.1E7
J .9E6
I .8E6
H.7E6
G.6E6
F.5E6
E.4E6
D.3E6
C.2E6
B.1E6
A0

Unpropped

20-JUL-2001 19:06 newsyz1b.cgm

Model: PRPH3E
LC1: Load case 1
Step: 1 LOAD: 1
Nodal EL.SXX.G SYZ
Max/Min on model set:
Max = .137E8
Min = -.211E8

A
AA
A
BA
A A AA
BC
C
AB
D
A
A
C
DB
D
AA
B
G
F
E
A
A
B
A
AC A E B A
A
A DD D A
A BIJH
BA
C
B
A
C
BB
B BBC
C
A A D
D
C
AE
F
A
C
F
A
F
G
A
A A
FE
GA
E
BD CA
D
A A AA
D
EA
BA
AA
A A
C
C
A
A C B
C
E
B
B
A
A B
AA
A
B A
AA A
BD
B
B
A
A
J
K
P
N
M
A
J F
A
A
E
D
LP N
K
J C C
A
B B B A AA A
M
BL IH
F
E
D
D
BB C G
CH
JKO
IH
IHAG
IA
I
A
A C D C H
A
A
B
ABB
AFB
A GA A
EDA
D
D
ID
AA
B C
H
B
C
A
B
A
C
CA
A
B
A
AC
A
A
AAADDB
D
AA
C
A
A B
B
C
A E
BADG
A
C
C
G A
B
A
B
A EC FF ABC
D
B C
C
B
DB B
B
AD
B AA B
AB
A
B A
D
B
D
CDEB
B E
D
D
E
B B
AAA BBBB
B
C C CF
E B
D
D
A
B
D BC
M
C
N
B D D A
A
CCH
BE
IE
BDC D A
D AD
B
DD C
E
L
D D
C
D
K
LG
B B
C F
JM
C C
C
D
CC
N
O
F
FC
PH
H
I
IAA
E
D
C
C
C
C
D
E
D
C
ACGJ
G
C
O
E
G
J
K
AC
H
I FO
PDNM LG
B
EM
N
E
B
P
E
CD
C
L
G
FK
O
A
C
E
F
E
F
J
K
K
L
C
E
E
A

A
A
A

Z
Y

B
B
A
A
A

A
A

B
BB

A
B

C
B B

C
B

C
B

C
B B

BB

P.15E7
O.14E7
N.13E7
M.12E7
L .11E7
K.1E7
J .9E6
I .8E6
H.7E6
G.6E6
F.5E6
E.4E6
D.3E6
C.2E6
B.1E6
A0

Propped

A
A

A
A

Figure 10.5.4 13 DIANA I2 Unpropped and Propped Repair Cutout Shears on 2Dn block

187

FEMGV 6.1-02 : Building Research Establishm.

Model: UNPH3E
LC1: Load case 1
Step: 2 LOAD: 1.2
Nodal EL.SXX.G SYZ
Max/Min on model set:
Max = .162E8
Min = -.205E8

20-JUL-2001 19:10 newsyz2b.cgm

Z
Y

P.15E7
O.14E7
N.13E7
M.12E7
L .11E7
K.1E7
J .9E6
I .8E6
H.7E6
G.6E6
F.5E6
E.4E6
D.3E6
C.2E6
B.1E6
A0

Unpropped

A
AA A A
B B
AA
CB
D
B
BC B A C
D
EAE
A
AB
B BA B
H
FE
A
JIG
F
B
A
D
A
A
A
A CA
AA
B CD
DK
BB B
B C A C BB
A A A A
A A
A
E
B
A
F
A
D
DE
E
C
DED
CC A A A CBC
AB
D
C
A
A
A
A
B
A
A
A
A AB A
BB B B ACD
A
D
A
EA A
A
C
B
B
A
HG
D DA D
C
C CA AK
B G
B
A
B FI C C
C
E
A
D
O
N
F
G
A
D
E
F
L
J
J
P
O
N
E
F
I
J
N
O
P
FD
L
G
H
E
BC
D
D
E
A
A
A
A A CD
B
B
FIK F
C
D
A B A
C
A A
M E G FIK
A
BL B GA
K
J
F
B
A
G
D
H
E
A
IG
A
JJ HC C C H
DA
A
A
A A
HG
GDB C CBA
G
E B
A
A
B JI
ED C C B A
A
AA
H
KA
D
CK C
B
E
D K
H
A
IJG
A
C
B
A BB
C
A
E
A CE
B
I G
CK
B
E
JN
PM
O
LIH
GD
AF P
N
M
L
M
B
B
D
O
E
F
F
A
E
C
B
A
B
BA
DA
C C
F AC
C
G
H
IL
K
P
C
B
B
IB
H
G
E
M
L
G
AB
B
F
E
L I
D
C
E
C
A A
C
F
K
M
C
JA
FB
D
EH
FA
D
J CB F
D
IL A O
B
P DH
M
F
EG
ILD B
H
N
K
E
D
B
DB
IM FC
H
C
D
E
IL
M JA
E
E
D N
E
E
C
D
JH
B
D
HJ
D
E
F
D
E
F
G
G
F
D
C
E
C
D
D
D
C
C C
B
C
B
B
B
C
C
B
B
A

Model: PRPH3E
LC1: Load case 1
Step: 2 LOAD: 1.2
Nodal EL.SXX.G SYZ
Max/Min on model set:
Max = .159E8
Min = -.22E8

A
A A

A
A AA

A A
A

A AA
A A

A
AA

B
A
A

A A A
B

B
B

B
B

BB

BA
A ABB

A
B

AA
A

A
C
DA B
D
GOEE
F
I A
H
D
C
B
B JAIAPF
A
A

Propped

A
A A

AA
A
B
A
A
BB
BA
C
CD
DAB
B CE
C JH
A
F
EC
IG
C
C
C
AE A
BA
C B
AB
A A
B
A
C
B
A
BA
AD
B DE
FD B B BAB B
AA A A
D
E
FF
CA
C D A A G ACA
D
H AA
C
B
B
ACB
E B B
A
D
D
A
BA
A
B ABCB
A
BC
B
PN
M
LK
A B DB
JO
H
C
E
G
GA
DHL
M
E
N
O
P
EO
D
AB C BCI H A C
P M
N
LH
C I FG
D
B
A C
ACD
B
B AEH
A
AAEH B C
C DB
FGJD E
A
A
CB
D BA
E
B E CG
A
C
A
F
A
A
C
E E CB
A
AA
AABD C B CA
I
C
F
B
B
B
DB
F
A FEA
DC
AA
B B
D
B
BCD A G C
BB
DD
C CD
A
B
F B
DBD CD
A
DB BABBB B ABAB
A C BDD
E
A
B CA DEDF A
F
A
F
B
B CB
BC
H
E H
E E
CDDB C
B
G
D
C
K
L
A
M
E
G
I
E
N
B
B
J
B
A
K
L
M
C
N
A
C CCE
C
O
P
E
FE
DD A
F DD
EG
E
C
C
F
I
J
D
I
C
E
D
JBA
E
FG
C
E
D
IK
L
N
M
D
PE
O
E
G
C
D
F JG
G
C
D
C
F
H
LM
NP
OI K
JK
CG
JK
F GC DA
L
NB
M
DI F
D
G
JK I
E H
D
E F
A
BCH
E
E
E
D
E
D
D
C
C
C
C
C
B
B
B
B
B
B
A A
A B
A
AAA

A
A
C
A

A
A A
A

B BB
B C

C
D DD
D
D
C

C C
B B B

P.15E7
O.14E7
N.13E7
M.12E7
L .11E7
K.1E7
J .9E6
I .8E6
H.7E6
G.6E6
F.5E6
E.4E6
D.3E6
C.2E6
B.1E6
A0

Figure 10.5.4 14

DIANA I2 Unpropped and Propped Repaired + 1.1kN/m2 UDL

188

10.5.5

Best Estimate H2 and I2 Strength

On the basis of the results of these detailed analyses it is considered that the following assumptions are
likely to give the most reliable or Best estimate of the strength of Pipers Row H2 and I2 column
heads.
1.

Effective depth d is taken from the top of the angle seating (22mm above soffit) to the
centroid of top reinforcement for each face.

2.

The long angles should be treated as curtailed to give an effective support length to 1.5 x the
depth of the projecting 5" x 3" x 3/8" angle beyond outer face of the 8" x 4" x 5/8" angle (ie
190mm). This gives an effective supported length of 312 (column + grout) + 32 (2 x 5/8"
thickness) + 190 + 190 = 724mm That is 95mm off each end of the 914 angles compared
to the 90mm curtailment covered in Section 6.4.3 parametric study. This covers the flexibility
of the angles relative to a normal square column.

3.

Uncertainty remains about the stress concentration factor needed to reflect the high localised
stress peaks which arise on the T2 side with the H2 and I2 Type 4 Shear head compared to a
square column. A factor of 1.1 seems the minimum appropriate for uniform support on 4
wedges, but the peaks with all the reaction on one wedge have not been determined.

4.

For determining vc, the design shear stress on the 1.5d perimeter, from BS8110 Table 3.8 use
As/(bv d) on reinforcement crossing the perimeter of depth d at 3d from edge of seating for
each face (rather than the 1.5d to the shear perimeter in BS 8110) Reinforcement included in
As must have full anchorage beyond 3d.

5.

Checks should be carried out on shear stress including the concentration factor across the
width of each 1.5d perimeter side against strength of that side.

6.

For each face compare the strength Vc = width x effective depth d x vc with either:
i) the shear force on 1.5d perimeter face from FE analysis

or

ii) Double the BS8110 moment effect on shear, by making Veff = Vt (1 + 3Mt/(Vt x)). And
apportioning it between sides.

Figure 10.5.5 -1 brings together a selection of the estimates of load and strength for I2 on various
bases. This illustrates the breadth of uncertainty about the safety margins at Pipers Row before
deterioration set in. The major uncertainty on load was the tolerance on setting on the wedges. A range
of features reduced the strength of the as-built slab, but deterioration was the dominant factor
precipitating the collapse.
Where remedial works are carried out the stress concentrations and redistributions of stress from both
cutting out and casting the repair need to be evaluated and considered in the appraisal of the structure.
In particular the relationship of the repair to concrete interfaces to potential fracture surfaces and the
sensitivity to the loss of bond between the repair and the original concrete need to be evaluated, in
terms of strength and ductility.

189

These analyses have highlighted the uncertainties associated with part depth repairs for slabs near
columns where punching shear is the failure mode. No simple patch repair will fully restore the
strength of the original cast concrete. Propping combined with full depth recasting of concrete or the
incorporation of tensioned vertical through bolts to introduce shear reinforcement through a patch
repair [64], provide a more robust and reliable approach to remedial work in punching shear zones.

Figure 10.5.5 1
Comparison of Loads and Strengths, Column I2 Punching

LOAD

Cracking

Temperature

Wedge Fit

Loading
kN/m2

yf

Load
Veff kN

Design Dead + Live Load

ANSYS

None

uniform

level

12.55

1.4, 1.6

630

Design Dead + Live Load

Design Dead + Live Load

ANSYS
Subframe

None
None

uniform
uniform

level
level

8.62
8.62

1.0
1.0

423
331

Actual Dead Load

Actual Dead Load
Actual Dead Load
Actual Dead Load
Actual Dead Load

ANSYS
ANSYS
ANSYS
ANSYS
ANSYS

None
None
None
None
None

uniform
uniform
uniform
uniform
uniform

on 2 wedges My 5mm high

on 4 wedges 10mm high
on 2 wedges My level
on 4 wedges 5mm high
on 2 wedges Mx

5.4
5.4
5.4
5.4
5.4

1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0

388
359
337
317
285

DL + Full Medium Cars

ANSYS

None

uniform

level

5.4

1.0

304

Actual Dead Load

ANSYS

None

Night of 20/3/97

level

5.4

1.0

285

Actual Dead Load RefDL

Actual Dead Load
Actual Dead Load

ANSYS
ANSYS
ANSYS

None
repairs cutouts
Star cracked

uniform
uniform
uniform

level
level
level

5.4
5.4
5.4

1.0
1.0
1.0

275
272
261

STRENGTH
As built 'best' basis

ym

Strength

Characteristic strength
Table 3.8 vc Design

1.0
1.25

540
432

Deteriorated to top of T1 bar

Deteriorated to top of T1 bar

1.0
1.25

460
386

Deteriorated to mid depth of T1 bar

1.0

244

190

10.5.6

Detailed Analysis of J2

The ANSYS idealisation of the area around J2 includes the simple idealisation of the drainage holes as
omitted elements. The idealisation is not fine enough to evaluate the local stress concentrations around
the column head and cut outs, but does give reliable data on the shear forces on the three faces (East
towards J1, South towards I2 and West towards I3 on the side with drainage holes). The shear forces
for the three sides of J2 from the ANSYS analysis LC5 uncracked and LC99 cracked with rotational
fixity of the column to the slab, have been compared with the strength estimates from Table 10.3.4 - 1
for the main perimeter assumptions.
For this comparison the basic LC5 and LC99 runs at 5.41kN/m2 have been proportioned up to the
factored Dead + Live Load 12.55kN/m2 level. The shear forces have been determined on the 3Dn nodal
perimeter, away from the local anomalies adjacent to the holes, and then adjusted to the values at the
1.5 d perimeter.
The comparisons of shear stress with shear strength for Column J2, on the BS8110 basis from Table
10.3.4 - 1, have been re-evaluated using the ANSYS shear forces on each face in Table 10.5.6 - 1.
Table 10.5.6 - 1
Strength of J2 relative to forces on sides from ANSYS

________________________________________________________________________________
Reactions
Vt
Veff x
Veff y
1.25 Vt 1.25'Veffy
2
AV ANSYS
kN/m
DL x 1.6 + LL x 1.4
12.55
205
219
216
256
267
________________________________________________________________________________
Strengths kN.
From 10.3.4

Vc J1
VcI2
Vc J3
Vc
Basis.
East
South
West
2 Max effective length
115
65
68
248
3 BS8110 Radial Diverge
115
64
22
201
_______________________________________________________________________________
Shear forces from ANSYS
adjusted to Factored DL + LL
2
at 12.55kN/m , at 1.5d Perimeter.
V J1
VI2
V J3
V
LC5 Uncracked
73
54
66
193
LC99 Cracked sections to 3d.
66
73
58
197
Compared to Basis 2 Strength.
LC5 Uncracked
LC99 Cracked sections to 3d.

VJ1/ Vc J1
63%
57%

VI2/ Vc I2
83%
113%

VJ3/ Vc J3
97%
86%

________________________________________________________________________________
The comparison based on actual shear forces on each face from the 'uncracked' LC5 analysis show that
with the face by face checks, but without the BS8110 additional 1.25 factor, J2 as designed has a
normal BS8110 reserve of strength under factored live + dead load despite the holes.

191

When the LC99 star cracking of the slabs over the columns is included in the idealisation the total
reaction at J2 changes only slightly. However the shear distribution is radically altered, as it is shed
towards J1 and J3 reducing the shear on those faces, while the shedding from I2 increases the shears on
the South Face at J2 by 35% to create a 13% overstress under factored loads. This analysis suggests
that the 1.25 factor in BS8110 provides a generous allowance for the effect of moments on an edge
column shears and also an additional factor of safety to cover the uncertainties.
The basis for determining the strength of internal column set out in 10.5.5 can also be applied to edge
columns, but is simplified in the absence of projecting angles. The additional 1.25 edge column factor
is reasonable in design and appraisal. For determining the reserve of strength at the time of failure it
has been more appropriate to use the shear forces on each face from FE analysis. Because of the T1
bar configuration framing the holes at Pipers Row, the Basis 2 assumption of Max effective length of
perimeter is more appropriate at J2 than the Basis 3 BS8110 Radial Hole Diverge or other more
conservative appraisal assumptions on holes.
J2 Repair
The repair at J2 was 60 to 90mm deep and extended over the whole area around the column, see Figure
8.3.10 - 1. The top reinforcement, see Figure 4.2 - 3, was embedded in the surface repair with the T1
bars parallel to the edge providing most of the shear resistance towards J1 and past the holes towards
J3. The T2 bars were probably partly in the original concrete and partly in the repair.
The DIANA idealisation of the repair at H2 was on one side of the column only, with unrepaired
degraded material and corroding reinforcement adjacent to it, and the stress concentration from the
repair occurring in the region of the shear failure. In contrast at J2 the extensive area of repair
surrounded and extended beyond the shear perimeter except very locally near the edge of the slab.
The main adverse effects of the J2 repair on strength arise from poor bond and the possibility that the
slab was inadequately propped, or that the propping was prematurely removed, so that the lower part of
the slab without effective reinforcement was carrying all the dead load stress. The upper repair layer,
which contained all the reinforcement, would have only contributed to supporting the short term
temperature and vehicle loadings. The brittleness of a shear fracture in the unreinforced lower layer
would have prevented any significant load redistribution between the two layers as the ultimate load
was approached.
The very poor adhesion of the repair to the substrate concrete was evidenced by the separation of the
whole repair in the collapse and the examination of the retained samples. Because of the poor
anchorage of the T2 bars making the side towards I2 weak, the main load path for shear support would
have been diagonally up, parallel to the edge, to support the 'edge beam' with T1 bars and then down in
tension across the weak interface of the repair to the lower original slab concrete. The poor
characteristics of this repair adhesion would have severely weakened the structure.
For J2 the unusual characteristics of the original design, combined with the uncertainties associated
with the repair make it impossible to predict the reserves of strength in the period leading up to the
collapse, beyond indicating the wide range of possible strength. Without the deterioration and
subsequent repair, J2 would have had reasonable reserves of strength under factored loading and would
have been lightly stressed at the time of failure. The inadequacies of the repair would have contributed
to the spread of the collapse, even if the failure did not initiate at J2.

192

At J2 sizable diagonal shear type crack had formed in the edge of the slab on the J3 side of the edge
cutout, as noted and photographed by CDM [H129-131], Figure 6.2 - 1, in January 1997, and was
being investigated at the time of the collapse. The edge crack occurred in the unreinforced edge strip
where the T1 bars had been were relocated 300mm in from the edge to pass between the two holes for
drainage. Such a crack could have been checked by the T1 bars and the holes so that it may well not be
indicative of the initiation of a full punching shear failure at J2. The long period between the first
report of this crack in January 1997 and the collapse in March despite the significant cycles of loading,
support the view that the holes and T1 bars acted as crack stoppers.
A number of factors make it unlikely that J2 initiated the failure including:
-

I2 slab was degraded and unrepaired

H2 and I2 were more highly stressed
shears were being shifted away from J2 to I2 and H2 by the cooling of the top slab
overnight.

The definitive evidence is the direction of fall of column J1. If the failure had initiated at J2, J1 would
have been pulled towards J2, not I1 as shown in Figure 10.5.6 - 1.

Figure 10.5.6 - 1
Column J1 pulled towards I1 not J2, indicating failure did not start from J2

193

11

APPLYING THE LESSONS

The collapse at Pipers Row and its development into a progressive collapse resulted from the
combination of a wide range of factors which, after 32 years, led to the complete erosion of the
normally generous factors of safety expected for buildings. The lessons from it apply to all types of
deteriorating concrete structures and to all forms of flat slab construction.
Design and appraisal
The collapse and this investigation have highlighted significant weaknesses in current design and
appraisal basis for flat slabs of all types which need to be considered in relation to BS8110 and EC2
when applied to design and to the appraisal of older structures. There is a more general problem when
design to simplified standards is applied to innovative and unusual structural forms which fall outside
the often ill defined limits of the validity of the codes. In particular the requirements for punching shear
design, partial factors, robustness and preventing progressive collapse need to be re-examined.
Construction
The construction of Pipers Row, like many concrete structures, produced far wider variation in the
geometry of the structure and quality of materials than code specifications require. This needs to be
considered in design and appraisal where assumptions and partial factors need to reflect the actual
variability achieved with different forms of construction, contract and quality control. The sensitivity of
the Lift Slab structure to erection tolerances was not properly treated in the original or current design
guidance and partial factors and this may also arise with other forms of construction.
Inspection and maintenance
Although developing deterioration was clearly apparent for at least a decade prior to the collapse, its
significance was not understood. Structural assessment to identify at risk details in a structure and
inspection procedures which will identify them, need to be developed and form the basis for regular
inspection procedures specific to each structure.
Effect of deterioration and repairs on strength.
The basis for the determination of strength of deteriorating concrete structures has not yet progressed
beyond an understanding by specialists of the principles to be adopted. Research to provide
quantitative data on the failure characteristics of deteriorating concrete is needed, so that appropriate
guidance can be developed. Such guidance is essential for sustaining our deteriorating infrastructure
without disproportionate risk or expenditure.

194

Acknowledgements
This comprehensive review of the factors contributing to the collapse at Pipers Row has been
greatly facilitated by the co-operation of many individuals and organisations concerned with the
structure from its design in 1964 to the investigations after the collapse in 1997. In particular
the help from Heavilifts (ex British :Lift Slab) (designer and contractor), National Car Parks
(owner), Harris & Sutherland, Sandberg and Car Deck Maintenance is acknowledged. The
information they have made available to the HSE has provided the essential core material for
this report
The report brings together the results of studies by the contractors to HSE and their contribution
is acknowledged with particular thanks to
Pradeep Prakash and David Leung at Amey Vectra
Stuart Matthews, Pal Chana, Gerald Canisius, Martyn Webb, George Sergi, Ted Sibbick, Barry
Reeves, Mary Emerson and Elizabeth Silver at the Building Research Establishment
Prof Geoff Mays and Richard Barnes at RMCS Shrivenham.
The work has also been assisted by advice from many specialists in the Construction Industry,
Universities and Research Establishments on particular aspects of materials and structural
behaviour, notably by Prof Paul Regan, colleagues at Aston University and former colleagues
at Mott MacDonald.
References
There are two sets of referenced documents.
References to publicly available Standards, Codes and papers. [nn] as listed below.
HSE set of documents relating to the construction and operation of the car park and reports of
studies on it some of which are confidential. These are prefixed [H nn], where nn is the number
in HSE document register.
Publicly Available References
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.

Kellerman J, Pipers Row Car Park, Concrete Car Parks Conference, BCA, Sept. 1997
HSE, Interim Results of Pipers Row Investigation. Press Release 30/4/97
Papers to BCA Concrete Car Parks Conference Sept. 1997
Papers to Aston Conference on Concrete Car Parks, Aston University March 1998
Wood J G M, Caring for car parks Parking News May 1999.
SCOSS, 10th Report of the Standing Committee on Structural Safety October 1994.
SCOSS Structural Safety 1994-96 11th Report Summary January 1997
SCOSS Structural Safety 1997-99 12th Report Summary and Bulletin 2 Jan 1998
IStructE Design recommendations for multi-storey and underground car parks, 3rd
Ed. , June 2002
ICE Recommendation for the inspection, maintenance and management of car park
structures 2002
ICE Papers to Conference on Inspection of Multi-Story Car Parks, July 2000.
Office of the Deputy Prime Minister Enhancing the Whole Life Structural
Performance of Multi-Storey Car Parks September 2002.

195

13.
14.
15.
16.
17.
18.

19.
20.
21.

22.
23
24.
25.
26.
27.
28.
29.
30.
31.
32.
33.
34.
35.
36.
37.
38.
39.
40.
41.
42.
43.
44.

Douglas, Lift Slab Construction, Brochure, c. 1972.

CP114: 1957,The structural use of reinforced concrete in buildings, BSI 1957.
BS449:1959, Structural Steel, BS1 1959.
CP3:ChV:1952, Loading, BSI 1952.
Flexcrete Admixture 850 Brochure c. 1996
Emberson N K and Mays G C, Significance of property mismatch in the patch repair of
structural concrete. Parts 1 and 2 Mag. of Concrete Research V42, No 152, pp 147 - 170,
Sept. 1990, and Part 3 MCR V48, No 174, pp 45 - 57, Mar. 1996.
Emberson N K and Mays G C, Design of patch repairs: Measurement of properties Proc.
Int. Conf Protection of Concrete, Ed. Dhir R K, pp 937 to 954, Dundee, Sept 1990.
Chandler J W E and Mays G C The evaluation of test for repair materials used on concrete
pavements TRL Report 303.
CIRIA Standard tests for repair materials and coatings for concrete, Part 1 Pull-off tests
TN 139, Part 2 Permeability tests TN 140, Part 3 Stability, substrate compatibility and
shrinkage tests. TN 141 1993.
Eurocode on Concrete Repair ENV 1504-9:1997 Products and systems for the protection and
repair of concrete structures. Part 9 General Principles. BS1 1997.
Davies H The European Standard on Concrete Repair Principles Proc. 7th Structural Faults
+ Repair 1997
CIRIA Report 110, Design of reinforced concrete flat slabs to BS8110 CIRIA 1985, Rev.
1994.
Sadagzadeh M, Page C L and Vassie P R W, Effects of Urea on the durability of reinforced
Mag. Conc. Res. V 45, No. 164, pp 179-186, Sept 1993.
Sadagzadeh M and Page C L, Effects of Urea on the durability of reinforced TRRL CR208
Digest 1990.
CP114:1957 "The structural use of reinforced concrete in buildings" BSI 1957
CP110:1972 Structural use of concrete BSI, 1972 (superseded by BS8110 1985)
BS8110: 1985 Structural use of concrete.. BSI 1985, Issue 2 1989 with Amendments to
No.4 to Sept. 1993 (Edition for period up to collapse.)
BS8110: 1997 Structural use of concrete, Part 1. Code of practice for design and
construction. BSI.
BS5400:1990 Steel, concrete and composite bridges, Part 4 Concrete Bridges, 1990.
IStructE Appraisal of Existing Structures Second Edition October 1996 SETO, London
BD44/95, BA51/95 and BD 21/97 Assessment of Bridges HMSO.
CIRIA 63, Rationalisation of factors of safety, CIRIA London, 1977.
Yeo R G L, Design live loads for parking garages, CE 40534, ASCE 2000.
Emerson M, Temperatures in bridges during the cold winter 1978/79, LR926 TRRL 1980.
Emerson M, Temperatures in bridges during the hot summer 1976, LR783 TRRL 1977
Currie R J and Robery P C "Repair and maintenance of reinforced concrete" BRE 1994
Pullar-Strecker P, "Corrosion Damaged Concrete, assessment and repair" CIRIA
Butterworths1987
Poston R W et al. Selecting Durable Repair Materials Performance: Criteria - Laboratory
Results pp21 - 29, ACI Concrete International Nov. 2000
Regan P E Behaviour of reinforced concrete flat slabs. CIRIA Report 89 1981.
Chan P S and Desai S B Design of shear reinforcement against punching, The Structural
Engineer, 70/9/5 May 1992.
Regan P E Research on shear, The Structural Engineer 71, 19, 5, October 1993.
Courtney M A, Figg J W, et al, Concrete car parks: Design and maintenance issues Paper to
BCA Conference on Car Parks Sept. 1997

196

45.
46.
47.
48.
49.
50.
51.
52.
53.
54.
55.
56.
57.
58.
59.
60.
61.
62.
63.
64.

Regan P and Braestrup M W Punching Shear in Reinforced Concrete CEB Bulletin of

Information No 168, Jan 1985.
MC90, CEB FIP Model Code 1990, CEB Bulletin of Information No 205, July 1991.
prEn 1992-1, Eurocode 2 (2nd Draft), Design of concrete structures, Jan 2001.
ACI 318 Building code for reinforced concrete ACI
Chana P S, BCA test series Photo. 90/22/2
Norris P et al. Assessment of inadequate reinforcement anchorage in a flat slab viaduct,
Proc. Conf. at City University, London 1996.
Mitchell D and Cook W D, Preventing progressive collapse of slab structures, J of
Structural Engineering 110/7, ASCE, July 1984.
Carper K L, Current structural safety topics in North America, The Structural Engineer,
June 1998.
Leyendecker E V and Fattel, S G, Skyline Plaza Collapse, Report BSS 94, NBS Washington
June 1973
Litle W A, Boston Collapse at 2000 Commonwealth Avenue, Symp. Progressive Collapse,
ACI Convention, Boston, Apr. 1975.
Feld J, Lessons from failures in concrete structures, ACI Monograph No. 1, pp30-32, 1964.
Lew H S et al, Condominium collapse Cocoa Beach Concrete International Design and
Construction, ACI V4. No.8, pp 64-73, Aug 1982.
Gardener N J, Huh Jungsuck, Lan Chung, What we can learn from Sampoong Department
Store collapse, Int. Workshop on Punching Shear KTH/BKN/B--57--SE Stockholm 2000
Andersson J L Punching of Lift Slabs Nordisk Betong: pp 229-252. 1963.
Andersson J L Design of Lift Slabs with reference to punching. Nordisk Betong: pp 27-54.
1974
Hawkins , Bao and Yamazaki, see Regan [H414]
Chana P S and Desai S B, Membrane action and design against punching shear, The Structural
Engineer, Vol. 70, No.19, Oct 1992.
Mott MacDonald SSD Model testing of flat slab deck. Oct 1988.
Khwaounjoo Y R, 3D finite element modelling of punching type problems using DIANA,
UNICIV Report No. R-393,Uni. NSW Sydney,Aug 2000.
Menetry P and Bruhwiler E Punching shear strengthening of reinforced concrete Vol. 2 pp
451 - 458 Proc. 7th Int. Conf. Structural Faults & Repair 1997

197

Documents forwarded to Structural Studies & Design Ltd.

Document
Reference
NCP/HSE/SS
&D

Date

Document

Content

22/07/1997 Sandberg's Completed Report

15643/S

Materials Testing Wolverhampton NCP Car Park

22/05/1997 Harris & Sutherland Report First

issue J411100/R1/Rev2
28/05/1997 Harris & Sutherland Addendum

Report on the partial collapse of the Roof Slab of Pipers Row Car Park
Wolverhampton
Addendum to Document 2

Summary of Document 2. Intended for public release by NCP

Report J411100/R1/Addendum 1
First issue
20/06/1997 Harris & Sutherland "Summary"
Report J411100/S1
10/06/1997 Fax H&S - HSE

27/08/1997 Fax H&S - HSE

As Document 5 after amendments - Shear calculations for collapsed portion of level

8 slab

02/09/1997 Fax H&S - HSE

Summary of assumptions and results of flexural calculations for collapsed level 8

slab

8
9

21/01/1998 Letter H&S - HSE

03/03/1998 Letter H&S - HSE

Temperature differential calculations for top slab, manual and finite element

Summary of assumptions used in calculations, and resulting shear loads and

stresses at column/slab junctions of collapsed slab

Further explanation of basis of temperature differential calculations for document 8

Photos:

Photographs of Pipers Row Car

Park by HSE

10 - 34

HSE Photos

P1-1

35 - 42

HSE Photos

P2-5a

to P2-12a

43 - 66

HSE Photos

P3-1

to P3-24

67 - 68

HSE Photos

P4-2a

to P4-12

69 - 71

HSE Photos

P5-1a

to P5-3

72

HSE Photos

P6-1a

73 - 82

HSE Photos

P6-3a

83 - 91

HSE Photos

P7-1a

to P7-12a

92 - 101

HSE Photos

P8-4a

to P8-12a

102 - 108

HSE Photos

P9-6a

to P9-12a

109 - 116

HSE Photos

P10-1a

to P10-8a

117 - 119
120 -131

HSE Photos
Photographs of Pipers Row Car
Park Car Deck Maintenance Ltd

P10-10a to P10-12a

132

06/01/1998 Letter H&S-HSE

to P1-P24

to P6-12a

120 - 125;
126
127 & 128;
129 - 131;

(I-J) (8-9);
J2;
H2
J2 Crack

Covering letter and 12 colour photocopies of photographs taken by H&S when

visiting Pipers Row 20/03/96

133

Apr-97 Sketch 1A by HSE

Plan view collapsed area (1-3) (G-J) listing sample areas and findings

134

Apr-97 Sketch 2 by HSE

Details taken of reinforcement around column I2

135

Apr-97 Sketch 3 by HSE

Details taken of reinforcement around column H2

136

Apr-97 Sketch 4 by HSE

Details taken of reinforcement between columns H2 & I2

137

Apr-97 Sketch 5 by HSE

Site measurements and locations of slab repairs

138

Apr-97 Sketch 6 by HSE

Details of reinforcement around column I1

139

Apr-97 Sketch 7 by HSE

Details of shear surfaces of fallen slab at columns H2 & I2

140

Apr-97 Sketch 8 by HSE

Details of shear surface at column I3

141

Apr-97 Sketch 9 by HSE

Details of seperation line of slab adjacent to Grid Line 3

142

Dec-97 Sketch10 by HSE

Interpretation of crack adjacent to J2

143

Dec-97 Sketch11 by HSE

Interpretation of relationship of repaired area at J2 to crack adjacent to J2

144

T130

Site Survey

145

T130/16

Layout Drawing Scheme 3 . Ground & first floor plans (5/64)

146

T130/16

Layout Drawing Scheme 3 . Ground & first floor plans (5/65)

147

T130/17

Layout Drawing Scheme 3. Upper floor plans elevations & section (4/64)

148

T130/17

Layout Drawing Scheme 3. Upper floor plans elevations & section (4/65)

149

T130/18

Section 7 elevations scheme B

150

T130/19

Block plan (outlines existing building on site to be demolished).

151

T130/20

Column Details - 1

152

T130/21

Column Details - 2

153

T130/28

M.S. column insert - Type 2

154

T130/29

Wedge Type W.1.

155

T130/30

Splice Plates

156

T130/31

M.S. Column Insert - Type 1

157

T130/32

Bases to Columns Sheet 1 of 2

158

T130/33

Column Details - 3

159

T130/36

Ground floor layout showing finalised details

160

T130/40

Typical upper floor structural layout

161

T130/46

Typical floor panel I. Top reinforcement 4 No. OFF

162

T130/47

Typical floor panel I. Bottom reinforcement 4 No. OFF

163

T130/48

Typical floor panels IV & V. Top reinforcement 4 No. OFF

164

T130/49

Typical floor panels IV & V. Bottom reinforcement 4 No. OFF

165

T130/50

Typical floor panel III. Top reinforcement 3 No. OFF

166

T130/51

Typical floor panel III. Bottom reinforcement 3 No. OFF

167

T130/52

Typical floor panel II. Top reinforcement 4 No. OFF

168

T130/53

Typical floor panel II. Bottom reinforcement 4 No. OFF

169

T130/58

Bases to Columns Sheet 2 of 2

170

T130/59

Details of outlets at car parking levels

171

T130/61

Foundation layout

172

T130/63

Roof - panel III. Top reinforcement 1 No. OFF

173

T130/64

Roof - panel III. Bottom reinforcement 1 No. OFF

174

T130/67

Collar schedule

175

T130/68

M.S. column insert - type 3.

Documents forwarded to Structural Studies & Design Ltd.

Document
Reference
NCP/HSE/SS&
D
176
177
178
179
180
181
182
183
184
185
186
187
188
189

190
191
192
193
194
195
196
197
198
199
200
201
202
203
204
205

Date

Document

T130/69
T130/70
T130/71
T130/72
T130/75
T130/76
T130/77
T130/78
T130/79
T130/80
T130/83
T130/95
T130/100
T130/101

1964
Calculations
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
1964
Calculations
"
"
28/04/1997 Records:- Met Office
Wolverhampton MBC -HSE
25-Mar-97 SS&D to HSE
19-May-97 SS&D Report to HSE

206

10-Jul-98 SS&D Report to HSE

207

11-Dec-98 SS&D Report to HSE

208
209
210
211
212
213
214
215
216
217

Amey Vectra to HSE B1

Amey Vectra to HSE B2
Amey Vectra to HSE B2
Amey Vectra to HSE B2
Amey Vectra to HSE B2
Amey Vectra to HSE B2
Amey Vectra to HSE B3
Amey Vectra to HSE B4
BRE to HSE C
BRE to HSE C

218
219
220

BRE to HSE C
BRE to HSE D1
BRE to HSE E

221
222

RMCS to HSE D2
22-Oct-01 Regan to SS&D and HSE

Content

N.W. staircase & lift shaft walls above ground floor - sheet 1.
Part elevation to Pipers Row
Columns - supplementary details.
Bases to columns I1, TK1 & L1.
N. W. Staircase & lift shaft walls above ground floor - sheet 2.
N.W. Staircase (Sheet 3)
Sections thru panels II & III.
South east staircase
Reinforcement details to pour strips. Sheet 1 of 2
Reinforcement details to pour strips. Sheet 2 of 2
Layout drawing scheme 3. Upper floor plans, elevations & section showing marking out for
car bays
Lifting schedule (also Col./Slab connection detail).
Revised collar type 5.
Revised collar type 6.
British Lift Slab Calculations
Typical Floor
Collars
Columns
Differential Lifting
Foundations
North West Stairs
North East Stairs
Staircase Wells
South East Staircase
Retaining wall facing forecourt Line 3
Retaining wall Grid line 3
Retaining wall Split Level
Cloud cover, air temperature, wind direction & speed for 01/03/97 to 20/03/97
11 photographs of Pipers Row Dec. 1998
24 SS&D photos after collapse including annotation
Pipers Row Car Park, Wolverhampton. Initital Summary Report to the HSE on the Partial
Collapse on 20th March 1997"
Review of Reasonable Good Practice for the Maintenance , Inspection, Appraisal and
Repair of Pipers Row Car Park , Wolverhampton 1988 to 1997
Pipers Row Car Park, Briefing Report Qualitative Review of Possible Contributions to
Failure
1300-218 CAD Drawings as designed from BLS originals
1300-218 Calculations 000 series Wind Loading
1300-218 Calculations 100 series CP114 and Sub-frame analysis
1300-218 Calculations 200 series BS8110 and Sub-frame analysis
1300-218 Calculations 300 series BS8110 and grillage analysis
1300-218 Calculations 400 series BS5400 and grillage analysis
1300-218 Record drawings of large samples and as-built details
1300-218 Calculations 500 series 3-D Plate ANSYS Analysis
Contract C. Report Punching Shear Literature Search Bibliography.
Contract C. Report 202352 Factors affecting punching shear, case histories and
degraded strength
Contract C. Report 23977/S33.071 Strength of slab connections DIANA FE analysis
Contract D1. Report 3978/S33.072 Material testing of concrete samples
Contract E Report 3980/S33.074 Determaintion of temperature differentials in exposed
slab and repair
Contract D2. Report, Testing of repair materials.
Bound set of notes and references on punching shear.

Figures and Tables in Report

Section
Report Ref
1

Page
Summary

Figure 1.3 - 1

Plan of 4th floor slab at Pipers Row showing repaired areas

Figure 1.4 - 1

Collapsed 4th floor slab at Pipers Row Car Park, Wolverhampton on 25/3/97

Table 1.6 - 1

Load effects: % increase in effective shear Veff around columns above self weight

Design and Construction of Car Park, 1964 - 65

Figure 4.2 - 1

Reinforcement and shear head 'collar' at H2.

18

Figure 4.2 - 2

Reinforcement and shear head 'collar' at I2.

19

Figure 4.2 - 3

Reinforcement and shear head 'collar' at J2.

20

Inspection and Repair, 1996 to 1997

Figure 6.1 - 1

CDM photo [H162] of cutting out for repairs at J2, January 1996

26

Figure 6.1 - 2

CDM photo [H164] of cutting out for repairs at H2, January 1996

27

Figure 6.1 - 3

H&S photo [H168 H&S 1] of cutting out for repairs at I23, 20th March 1997

27

Figure 6.2 - 1

CDM photo [H166] of Crack at J2, January 1997

28

The Collapse, 20th March 1997

Figure 7.1 - 1

Photo from above the collapsed slab

30

Figure 7.1 - 2

Layout of collapsed slab

31

Figure 7.2 - 1

Marked locations for retained slab samples.

32

Figure 7.2 - 2

Retained samples in store Birmingham

33

Figure 7.2 - 3

List of retained large samples

34

Figure 7.2 - 4

Location of retained column and slab samples

35

Figure 7.4 - 1

H2 general view

38

Figure 7.4 - 2

H2 Close up view showing degradation and corrosion

39

Figure 7.4 - 3

I2 General view

40

Figure 7.4 - 4

Close up view of I2 showing degradation, corrosion and fracture surface

41

Figure 7.4 - 5

J2 General view showing delamination of repair

42

Figure 7.4 - 6

G1 column, with bottom steel welded to shear head, did not fail in punching shear

43

Figure 7.4 - 7

Punching shear fracture at I3, deformation limited by support from ramp.

44

Figure 7.4 - 8

Typical star cracking around shearhead.

45

Section
Report Ref
8

Page
Further investigation and testing of construction and materials, 1999 - 2001

Figure 8.2.3 - 1

Marking of degradation depth and shear fracture plane on Sections of H2

50

Figure 8.2.7 - 1

Sectioning of Column I2 shear head to reveal wedges

56

Figure 8.3 - 1

Comparison of properties used in design and analysis with test data from the structure

59

Figure 8.3.1 - 1

Range of test compressive strengths

60

Figure 8.3.3 - 1

Variation in Young's Modulus E of Pipers Row concrete.

63

Figure 8.3.4 - 1

RMCS Creep Tests, Failed Slab Concrete Samples.

65

Figure 8.3.4 - 2

RMCS Creep Tests. Repair Samples.

65

Figure 8.3.5 - 1

Average strain on wetting and drying for concrete and repairs

67

Figure 8.3.9 - 1

Comparison of as-designed top reinforcement bar spacing with as-built locations

69

Figure 8.3.9 - 2

As-designed and as-built cover to top reinforcement

70

Table 8.3.10 - 1

Repair sample dimensions.

70

Figure 8.3.10 - 1

Location of repairs

71

Figure 8.4.1 - 1

Corrosion indicative of fissured and degraded slab at H2

73

Figure 8.4.1 - 2

Corrosion indicative of fissured and degraded slab at I2

74

Loading and Analysis

Figure 9.2.1 - 1

Load Combinations, excluding wind and snow.

80

Figure 9.2.2 -1

Vehicle loading in bays on slab.

83

Table 9.2.2 - 1

Increase in Veff and % change relative to the RefDL from vehicle loading

84

Figure 9.2.4 -1

Air Temperature March 1997 Birmingham Airport

85

Figure 9.2.4 -2

Meteorological Record for 19th - 20th March 1997

85

Figure 9.2.4 -3

Comparison of BRE 6th - 7th Nov 1999 with Piper's Row 19th - 20th March 1997

88

Figure 9.2.4 -4

Extreme day slab temperature profiles

90

Figure 9.2.4 -5

Extreme night slab temperature profiles

90

Figure 9.2.4 -6

Slab S2 exposed at BRE for temperature recording

91

Figure 9.2.4 -7

Surface of Slab S2 at BRE

91

Figure 9.2.4 -8

Contract E : BRE Meteorological and Temperature Data from Slab S2.

95

Figure 9.2.4 -9

6th and 7th November 1999, Slab Temperatures and Cloud

96

Figure 9.2.4 -10

Temperature Gradients Through Slab at BRE 7/11/99.

97

Figure 9.2.4 -11

Slab Temperature Differentials at BRE 13th to 31st March 2000

98

Section
Report Ref

Table 9.2.5 -1

Page

Increase in Veff and % change relative to the RefDL from temperature effects

99

Table 9.2.7 -1

Increase in Veff and % change relative to the RefDL from 5mm Vertical Misfit

103

Table 9.2.7 -2

Range of Column Veff kN, for Levels of Vertical Misfit.

103

Table 9.2.7 -3

Effect on Veff of Uneven Seating on Wedges.

104

Table 9.3.1 - 1

Comparison of analysis properties with test data

105

Figure 9.3.1 - 1

Deflections and Deflected Profile

106

Table 9.3.2 - 1

Variation in column reactions V with analysis method

110

Table 9.3.3 - 1

Effect on max Veff of cracking and repair cutouts, unpropped.

112

Table 9.3.4 - 1

Effect on max Veff of punching failures at H2, I2 and J2.

113

10
10.2

Punching Shear Strength

Design for Shear to CP114.

Figure 10.2 - 1

Comparison of Pipers Row lift slab shear head with normal in-situ detail.

Table 10.2.3 - 1

Comparison of CP114 estimates of reactions and punching strength

120

Table 10.2.3 - 2

Sensitivity of CP114 punching strength to slab depth, lever arm and shearhead

120

10.3

118

Design for Shear to BS8110.

Figure 10.3.3 - 1

Variation in design shear stress vc with perimeter width, for 'as-designed' I2

125

Figure 10.3.3 - 2

Range of shear perimeter assumptions relative to shearhead.

126

Table 10.3.3 -1

Columns H2 and I2: BS8110 comparison of strength with load.

127

Table 10.3.3 - 2

Column I2: Shear force Vc and strength on T1 and T2 Sides.

128

Table 10.3.3 - 3

Column I2: Change in strength with cover and thickness tolerances.

129

Figure 10.3.4 -1

Column J2: Holes and 1.5d shear perimeters

130

Table 10.3.4 - 1

Column J2: Comparison of strength with load, on a range of perimeter assumptions.

132

10.4

Review of punching shear research for appraisal

Figure 10.4.3 - 1

Shear fracture development, from Chana [42]

136

Figure 10.4.3 - 2

Partial Shear Fracture at I3

137

Figure 10.4.3 - 3

Top surface cracking at ultimate load, from Chana [49 ]

137

Figure 10.4.3 - 4

Load displacement response in punching shear tests, from Norris [50 ]

138

Table 10.4.5 - 1

Variation in As/(bv d) and vc at 1.5d and 3d perimeters at I2

141

Figure 10.4.5 - 1

Influence of column moments on punching strength, from Regan [ 41],

142

Table 10.4.5 - 2

Relative shear strength for fcu = 15 to 38 N/mm2

145

Figure 10.4.6 - 1

H2. Declining Strength from Degradation of Surface and Shear Forces

149

Figure 10.4.6 - 2

I2. Declining Strength from Degradation of Surface with Shear Forces

150

Figure 10.4.7 - 1

Tear out of soffit steel to limit progressive collapse, between G3 and H3.

151

Section
Report Ref
10.5

Page
Detailed Analysis of Shear Stress Distribution

Figure 10.5.2 - 1

Amey Vectra ANSYS idealisation of whole area

Figure 10.5.2 - 2

Orientation of axes in DIANA and ANSYS analyses.

157
158

Figure 10.5.2 - 3

Local ANSYS Idealisation around I2

159

Figure 10.5.2 - 4

Local ANSYS Idealisation around J2

160

Figure 10.5.2 - 5

Material properties in analyses

161

Figure 10.5.2 - 6

DIANA Idealised slab and column with reinforcement

162

Figure 10.5.2 - 7

Detail of DIANA shearhead collar idealisation with LC5 deflections in m.

163

Figure 10.5.2 - 8

DIANA Idealisation of slab in layers with reinforcement

164

Figure 10.5.2 - 9

BRE DIANA Applied and Reaction Loads and Moments.

165

Figure 10.5.2 - 10

DIANA Analysis 2Dn and BS8110 shear perimeters

166

Table 10.5.3 - 1

Average shear stresses on the sides of BS8110, ANSYS and DIANA 2Dn perimeters

167

Figure 10.5.3 - 1

ANSYS I2 Variation in Shear Stress around 2Dn perimeter

169

Figure 10.5.3 - 2

DIANA I2 Variation in Shear Stress with depth on 2Dn perimeter

170

Figure 10.5.4 - 1

DIANA I2 Top reinforcement stresses and crack vectors

174

Figure 10.5.4 - 2

DIANA I2 Shear stresses Syz 2Dn block

175

Figure 10.5.4 - 3

DIANA and ANSYS I2 Shear stresses on 2Dn perimeter

176

Figure 10.5.4 - 4

DIANA I2 Shear stresses with depth at 2Dn North and South

177

Figure 10.5.4 - 5

DIANA I2 Shear stresses Sxz 2Dn block

178

Figure 10.5.4 - 6

DIANA I2 Shear stresses Syz 1Dn block

179

Figure 10.5.4 - 7

DIANA I2 Shear stresses Sxz 1Dn block

180

Figure 10.5.4 - 8

DIANA I2 Shear stresses Sxz and Syz plan, Layers 4 and 6

181

Figure 10.5.4 - 9

DIANA I2 East West section shear and flexure.

182

Figure 10.5.4 - 10
Figure 10.5.4 - 11
Figure 10.5.4 - 12
Figure 10.5.4 - 13
Figure 10.5.4 - 14

DIANA I2 North South section shear and flexure.

DIANA I2 South face shear stressesLC1, LC5 and 'No Collar'
DIANA I2 Idealised slab with repair excavated.
DIANA I2 Propped and Unpropped Repair Cutout Shears on 2Dn block
DIANA I2 Propped and Unpropped Repaired + 1.1kN/m2 UDL

183
184
186
187
188

Figure 10.5.5 - 1

Comparison of Loads and Strengths

190

Table 10.5.6 - 1
Figure 10.5.6 - 1

Strength of J2 relative to forces on sides from ANSYS

Column J1 pulled towards I1 not J2, indicating failure did not start from J2

191
193

Appendix 1
Notes on Construction of Pipers Row Lift Slab Car Park, Wolverhampton.
Construction Sequence
The construction sequence and accuracy of the setting the slabs on the columns can have
significant effect on the shears around columns. This note was prepared to clarify the
range of conditions to be considered in analysis and to provide background information on
the construction which could help in other aspects of the investigation.
The prime source for these notes was a discussion with an ex-Lifting Engineer for R M
Douglas/British Lift Slab (RMD/BLS). He was responsible for the lifting operations for many
Lift Slab structures including Pipers Row.
The lifting operation, which was carried out at an early age as soon as sufficient concrete
strength was developed, was considered a critical design condition.
The calculations for lifting are included in the BLS calculations (BLS Contract 130.
Differential lifting Sheets 1 to 8.)[H 289].
1

The precast columns were set to level on shims in bases, levelled by dumpy. They
were set slightly low so shims could be used under collar wedges to bring the slab up
to level. They were then set vertical as cantilevers and concreted in. Precast columns
were made in steel moulds with inserts for slab support wedges accurately positioned.
Most columns (about 80%) were precast by F C Precast of Derby

The collars for first floor slab was set above ground floor slab by measuring down from
column insert edge using a steel tape to give a tolerance of about +/-2 to 3mm.
Collars and wedges were fabricated to tolerances shown on the drawings (36/130/24,
25A & 27).

The first floor slab was cast to a profile incorporating the falls in the structure on the
ground floor slab to incorporate the collar set horizontal. The collars were similarly set
for the upper floor slabs which were cast one on top of another.

4.

For Pipers Row, it was thought that Pioneer supplied all the concrete as ready mix in 5
or 6 yd3 loads (ie about 12 to 15 loads for the collapsed area). There were supply
difficulties at Pipers Row (see also letter of 27th March 1965), but it was considered
that poor material was unlikely to be used as it was a design and build contract where
reliable early age strength was important for the lifting operation. A site mix was often
used for preliminary works and to encourage competitive quotations from ready mix
suppliers for the actual slab construction.

5.

Casting of one level of slab on top of another was carried out on a 4 or 5 day cycle.
The separately lifted sections between pour strips were cast in strips and not all cast in
one pour. Poker vibrators were normally used with a tamped surface, brush finished.
The cold joints would be formed where convenient and were reported to be thoroughly
prepared before the next section was poured (However the cold joint in recovered slab
S4 was not prepared). A spray on curing/separating compound, specially formulated by
Tretol, was used with 2 coats on lower slabs, 1 coat on top slab.

Cubes were taken every day for normal curing in a tank and a second set were air
cured on site for checking that a strength gain to >28 day design value= was achieved,
prior to lifting, after 10 days minimum. Mike Price would have known about cube
results, but it is unlikely that they still exist.

7.

Before lifting levelling points were established on the slab adjacent to each column and
.

surveyed to established >reduced levels= for the slab on ground. The calculated 'Final
Rise' was added to this to give the >new reduced level= at which the slab would be set
on wedges. Levelling check marks were also made on the columns.
8.

A check of his records showed that the Pipers Row lift was carried out in May and
June 1965, suggesting casting in March - April 1965. This accords with 27th March
1965 letter from BLS to NCP about supply difficulties. However 'defective concrete'
letters were later in August 1965.

9.

The slab was lifted using hydraulic jacks in 1/2" (12mm) stages, with nuts run down on
rods fitted to collar to take load as jacks are reset and to provide a safety limit stop in
the event of hydraulic failure. As the jacks are linked to give equal pressure and
reaction at all columns the more lightly loaded columns at the edge would lift first and
the slab would correspondingly flex. However as the edge columns came up against
their stops for the 1/2" lift the inner columns would attract more reaction and bring the
slab up to level and original profile.

10. With the slab 4 to 5ft (~1.5m) below final position the reduced levels and the distance
from column insert to collar seating would be checked. Any misfit would be estimated
and shim packs in increments of 1/16" (1.6mm) would be used to correct. These
shims would be placed ready under the wedges inset on the column insert.
11. The whole slab would then be lifted to just above the final levels so that the wedges on
the shims could be moved out to engage the seatings in the slab collars as the slab
was lowered.
12. The seating of the two pairs of wedges would then be checked. Sometimes all the
weight was on one side, leaving the other wedges loose, these would be fixed to
prevent their being displaced during the grouting. At some time, possibly after Pipers
Row, thin wedge shims were supplied for this (these were not found at I2, which had
flat 1/4" packs under wedge pair on one side only). While this procedure would have
located the loose wedge, it would not have ensured that it took it's share of dead load.
13. The columns acted as cantilevers during lifting and the slab to column moment
connections of lifted slabs were made temporarily with hardwood wedges at
intermediate stages. The full moment connection was made by pouring in sand
cement mortar after all slabs had been raised to their level. Top floor slab was raised
to full height first, then lower floors in sequence. The infill strips between sections of
the building were poured last.
14. Star cracking was occasionally seen after construction, some attempt was usually
made at sealing when it was noticed.
15. A copy of Lift Slab Construction, a 24 page brochure produced by R M Douglas in the
1970s, was given to us. This shows lift slab construction techniques similar to those
for Piper's Row and some later developments.

Other Information on Construction and Materials.

The following information has been considered when planning the testing of the material from Pipers
Row. The results of the tests, not the recollections, have been utilised in drawing the conclusions in the
report.
The Supervising Engineer for BLS during the construction of Pipers Row, outlined to SS&D (30/3/00)
some of the difficulties during construction. These include cement supply difficulties leading to
tendency of ready mix supplier to lower cement contents as far as possible. He also referred to the use
of Calcium Chloride in some pours during cold weather.
A Concrete repair constructor who worked on the 1987 repairs at Piper's Row and has described to
SS&D the very poor concrete which became apparent during that work.

Appendix 2. Photograph Sets.

Date
Pre Collapse
December 1988
Jan. 1996
20th March 1996
Jan. 1997

By

Ref

Wolverhampton MBC
Car Deck Maintenance Ltd
Harris & Sutherland
Car Deck Maintenance Ltd

Pipers Row Site after Collapse

March April 1997
March April 1997
March April 1997
March April 1997
March April 1997
March April 1997
March April 1997

H&S Report J411100 May 97

H&S Report J411100 May 97
H&S Report J411100 May 97
H&S Report J411100 May 97
H&S Report J411100 May 97
H&S Report J411100 May 97
H&S Report J411100 May 97

March April 1997

March April 1997
March April 1997
March April 1997
March April 1997
March April 1997
March April 1997
March April 1997
March April 1997
March April 1997
March April 1997
March April 1997

HSE Photos
HSE Photos
HSE Photos
HSE Photos
HSE Photos
HSE Photos
HSE Photos
HSE Photos
HSE Photos
HSE Photos
HSE Photos
HSE Photos

25th March 1997

JGMW SS&D

March April 1997

March April 1997

Sandberg Report 22/7/97

Sandberg

Retained Samples in Store

April - June 1997
April - June 1997
April - June 1997
April - June 1997
April - June 1997
April - June 1997

Sandberg Report
Sandberg Report
Sandberg Report
Sandberg Report
Sandberg Report
Sandberg Report

April - June 1997

Sandberg

June 1997 to Oct 1999

SS&D

Quantification Contracts
Oct 1999
Oct 1999
Oct 1999

Amey Vectra
Amey Vectra
Amey Vectra

Oct 1999-

BRE

Oct 1999
Nov 1999
Dec 1999
March 2000
5th May 2000
June 2000

SS&D
SS&D
SS&D
SS&D
SS&D
SS&D

5th May 2000

5th May 2000
5th May 2000

HSE Photos
HSE Photos
HSE Photos

Details and Comment.

H203
1 to 11
H120 - 128
H132
1 to 12
H129 + 131

H2
H2
H2
H2
H2
H2
H2
H10 - 34
H35 - 42
H43 - 46
H67 - 68
H69 - 71
H72
H73 - 82
H83 - 91
H92 - 101
H102 - 108
H109 - 116
H120 - 131
H204

22/7/97 App A
22/7/97 App A
22/7/97 App A
22/7/97 App A
22/7/97 App D
22/7/97 App Plates

Photo

11 of Defects and Star cracking.

156 to 161 (I-J) (8-9),162 J2, 163 & 164 H2.
Repairs in progress and miscellaneous.
J2 Crack

1 to 12
2-1 to 2-33
3-2 to 3-12
3-13 to 3-19
4-3 to 4-15
5-0 to 5-19
7-22 to 7-23
P1-1
P2-5a
P3-1
P4-2a
P5-1a
P6-1a
P6-3a
P7-1a
P8-4a
P9-6a
P10-1a
P10-10a

Views and Details after the Collapse.

Views and Details after the Collapse.
Views and Details after the Collapse.
Cutting out large samples
Cutting out large samples
Demolition
Details of large samples

to
to
to
to
to

P1-P24
P2-12a
P3-24
P4-12
P5-3

to
to
to
to
to
to

P6-12a
P7-12a
P8-12a
P9-12a
P10-8a
P10-12a

Views and Details after the Collapse.

Views and Details after the Collapse.
Views and Details after the Collapse.
Views and Details after the Collapse.
Views and Details after the Collapse.
Demolition
Large Samples
Views and Details after the Collapse.
Demolition
Large Samples
Demolition
Repaired ramp

J1-1 to J1-24

Views and Details after the Collapse from hoist

H1
H1

7, 19, 18, 20, 30,

Site Photos
Set of photos of structure just prior to demolition

H1
H1
H1
H1
H1
H1

4, 5, 8, 9, 14, 15
Sampling and testing
11A, 19A, 20A, 13A, 7A, 8A Sampling and testing
Sampling and testing
Sampling and testing
Sampling and testing
6 to10
Sampling and testing

Films 1 to 12

Full set of Sandberg photos

J2

Retained Samples at Birmingham

AV1
AV2
AV3

Retained Samples at Birmingham

Retained Samples at Birmingham
Retained Samples at Birmingham

BRE Reports

Features of samples and cores.

J3
J4
J5
J6
J7
J8

HSE Photos

Retained Samples at Birmingham

Retained Samples at Cardington
Cutting up retained samples at Cardington
at RMCS Samples and Testing
Cutting up I2 at Cardington
Sliced up repairs at BRE
P11-0a to P11-12a
P12-1a to P12-12a
P13-4 to P13-12a

Sectioning of I2 Column Head at Cardington

Sectioning of I2 Column Head at Cardington
Sectioning of I2 Column Head at Cardington