ISSN 2277-2685

IJESR/July 2015/ Vol-5/Issue-7/821-829

P. Srinivasulu et. al./ International Journal of Engineering & Science Research

BEHAVIOUR OF RCC FLAT SLAB STRUCTURE UNDER EARTHQUAKE

LOADING
P. Srinivasulu*1, A. Dattatreya Kumar2
1
Post Graduate student, Department of Civil Engineering, VRSEC, Vijayawada (A.P), India.
2
Asst. Prof, Department of Civil Engineering, VRSEC, Vijayawada (A.P), India.

ABSTRACT
The flat slab system is currently widely used in construction. It permits flexibility in architecture, more clear
space, low building height, easier formwork, and shorter construction time. However, Flat slab building
structures are significantly more flexible than traditional concrete structures as beams are not present. They are
becoming more vulnerable to earthquakes. The objective of this paper is to investigate the behaviour of flat slab
in 4 different cases as I).flat slab structure without drop, II). Flat slab structure with column drop, III). Flat slab
structure with shear wall, IV). Flat slab structure with column drop and shear wall together, through response
spectrum method, by using ETABS software. The behaviour of the flat slab is investigated in terms of story
displacements, frequency, base shear, story level accelerations. And also most severe problem in flat slabs is
punching shear failure. During the earthquake, unbalanced moments can produce significant shear stresses that
causes slab column connections to brittle punching shear failure. This paper also investigates on which type of
combination produces less punching shear at slab column joint.

Introduction
Flat slab construction is a developing technology in India. A slab constructed without supporting beams resting
directly on columns, such slab is called flat slab. Provision of thickened portion of slab around column is called
drop panel, drops are proved to increase shear strength of slab and to reduce negative reinforcement in the slab
column connections. Column heads are flared profile around column is also provide to increase the perimeter of
critical section for shear.
Slabs of constant thickness which do not have drop panels or column capitals are called as flat plates. The
strength of the flat plate structure is often limited due to punching shear action around columns. So they are
predominantly used in low seismic areas.
The performance of flat slab building under seismic loading is poor as compare to frame structure due to lack of
frame action which leads to excessive lateral deformation. This leads to instability in the structure. And also
Transfer of lateral displacement induces moment at slab column connection which is of complex 3-dimensional
behaviour. Despite the advantages of flat slab, it fails to gravity loads by punching shear. It can be overcome by
providing column drops in low seismic areas. But when these flat slab structures situated in seismic zones, the
moments transferring from slab to column through shear increases further more and becoming more tendency to
punching shear failure during earthquakes.
Due to the flexibility of flat slab buildings, they must be combined with a stiffer lateral force resisting system in
high seismic regions like shear walls, braces to reduce lateral loads on structural frame. When flat slab is used in
combination with bracings, shear wall for lateral load resistance, the column in building can be designed for
only 25% of the design seismic force.Thus the behavior of a structure for dynamic loads can be determined by
model analysis. And dynamic behaviour can be examined by considering the parameters as storey drift, base
shear, time period and acceleration of model.

PROBLEM FORMULATION
Here, we are focusing on the behaviour of flat slab RCC structure in four different types. One is with drops and
another one is without drop and these two models are modeled with shear walls at corners. As it is clear from
*Corresponding Author www.ijesr.org 821
 P. Srinivasulu et. al./ International Journal of Engineering & Science Research

previous literature that flat slab structure are unstable for seismic forces, we are analytically investigating the
behaviour of flat slab during the earthquakes(zoneIII) and checked for increase of punching shear from gravity
loads to earthquake loads by taking one center column and one exterior column in intermediate frame in model
1 and also checked for tendency of punching shear failure in flat slab through checking punching shear stress (τv)
variation at various places in prescribed 4models.Response spectrum method is considered to analyze the
structure by using ETABS software.
Here, 4models were created and all are analyzed for seismic loads.
Those are
1. Flat slab structure without drop
2. Flat slab structure with column drops
3. Flat slab structure with shear wall
4. Flat slab structure with column drops and shear wall together.

MODELING AND ANALYSIS OF 6 STOREY OFFICE BUILDING

Grade of concrete= M25
Grade of steel =Fe 415
Slab thickness = 0.260 m
Number of stories = (6) G+5
Number of bays along X-direction = 4
Number of bays along Y-direction = 5
Storey height = 3.2meters
Bay width along X-direction = 8m
Bay width along Y-direction = 8m
Column =0.7x0.7m
Edge beam =0.3x0.23m
Drop size =3.0x3.0m
slab thickness at drop =0.325m
Shear wall thickness =0.2m

Loading specifications.
Wall load for the outer side = 14 kN/m
Wall load for the inner side = 9 kN/m
Wall load for the terrace = 4 kN/m
Dead load of slab = 6.5 kN/m2
Live load = 4 kN/m2
Earthquake load for the building has been calculated as per IS-1893:2002
i. Zone (Z) = III
ii. Soil =medium
iii. Response Reduction Factor ( RF ) = 5
iv. Importance Facto =1

Copyright © 2015 Published by IJESR. All rights reserved 822

 P. Srinivasulu et. al./ International Journal of Engineering & Science Research

v. Damping Ratio = 0.05

For Seismic loading only 50% of the imposed load is considered.

Fig. 1: Working plan

.
Fig. 2: Model 1(Flat slab structure without drop)

Fig 3: Model 2(Flat slab structure with column drop only)

Copyright © 2015 Published by IJESR. All rights reserved 823

 P. Srinivasulu et. al./ International Journal of Engineering & Science Research

Fig. 4: Model 3(Flat slab structure with shear wall)

Fig. 5: Model 4(Flat slab structure with drop and shear wall together)
Response spectrum method
Response-spectrum analysis is useful for decision making to select structural type, before designing a structure.
It gives the dynamic performance of a structure. Structures of shorter period experience greater acceleration,
whereas those of longer period experience greater displacement. The number of modes to be considered in
analysis should be such that the sum of total of model mass of all the modes considered is not less than 90% of
total seismic mass of structure. By considering 12 modes mass participation of flat slab building is achieved up
to 94%.Therefore 12modes are considered for all models. Center of mass & centre of rigidity coincides, due to
regularity in the plan, mass and stiffness of the building. so providing shear walls at all corners symmetrically
may not affect center of mass and center of rigidity.

RESULTS
Table1: Comparison of frequencies of mode shapes in all 4 models
Mode. No MODEL1 (Hz) MODEL2 (Hz) MODEL3 (Hz) MODEL4 (Hz)
1 0.558 0.669 1.096 1.189
2 0.562 0.673 1.101 1.193
3 0.616 0.707 1.923 1.985
4 1.956 2.262 4.503 4.656
5 1.969 2.277 4.51 4.662
6 2.153 2.403 5.401 6.233
7 4.126 4.545 5.487 6.358
8 4.144 4.566 5.54 6.404
9 4.532 4.854 5.601 6.442
10 5.386 6.211 5.705 6.568
11 5.476 6.369 5.721 6.588
12 5.513 6.369 5.788 6.666

Copyright © 2015 Published by IJESR. All rights reserved 824

 P. Srinivasulu et. al./ International Journal of Engineering & Science Research

Graph 1: Graph for fundamental mode of frequencies

fundamental mode of frequency

fundamental mode of frequency(Hz)

1.096 1.189

0.558 0.669

MODEL1 MODEL 2 MODEL 3 MODEL 4

Graph 2: Graph for fundamental time period

FUNDAMENTAL TIME PERIOD

Time period (sec)

2
1.5
1
0.5
0
MODEL1 MODEL 2 MODEL 3 MODEL 4

Table 2: comparison of design storey shear in all 4 models

Height of building Story MODEL1 MODEL2 MODEL3 MODEL4
(m) (KN) (KN) (KN) (KN)
2.1 Plinth 1164.53 1412.03 2194.68 2405.98
5.6 STORY1 1163.58 1410.9 2193.15 2404.32
8.8 STORY2 1133.17 1374.32 2135.56 2341.74
12 STORY3 1058.17 1284.14 1993.87 2187.75
15.2 STORY4 918.77 1116.53 1730.55 1901.58
18.4 STORY5 695.25 847.75 1308.3 1442.68
21.6 STORY6 367.7 453.88 689.55 770.21

Graph 3: Graph shown for storey shear in all 4 models

7 storey shears
MODEL1
6 MODEL 2

5 MODEL 3
storey no.

MODEL 4
4

0
0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000
storey shear(KN)

Copyright © 2015 Published by IJESR. All rights reserved 825

 P. Srinivasulu et. al./ International Journal of Engineering & Science Research

Table 3: Comparison of storey displacements in x-direction in 4 models

Story MODEL1 MODEL2 MODEL3 MODEL4
(mm) (mm) (mm) (mm)
STORY1 3.1 3 1.1 1.1
STORY2 5.7 5.2 2.2 2.1
STORY3 8.1 7.1 3.5 3.3
STORY4 10.2 8.7 4.8 4.5
STORY5 11.8 9.9 6 5.6
STORY6 13.1 10.7 7.2 6.6
Graph 4: Graph shown for comparison of storey displacements in x-direction in all 4models

7
storey displacements
6

5
storey no

3 MODEL1

2 MODEL 2

1 MODEL 3

0 MODEL 4
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14
displacements (mm)

PUNCHING SHEAR FAILURE IN FLAT SLAB BUILDINGS

Table 4: Comparison of shear stresses in model 1, corresponding to Mx moments in column C13 (center
column) in all stories
Story DD+LL DD+LL+EQX
τ 2 τ 2
v(N/mm ) v(N/mm )
6 1.180209 1.1678
5 1.181 1.1852
4 1.1789 1.2166
3 1.1832 1.2413
2 1.1858 1.2689
1 1.1927 1.3293
Graph 5: Comparison of shear stresses in model1corresponding to Mx moments in column C13 in all
stories

6
DD+LL DD+LL+EQX
5
storey no.

0
1.15 1.2 1.25 1.3 1.35

shear stress (N/mm2 )

Copyright © 2015 Published by IJESR. All rights reserved 826

 P. Srinivasulu et. al./ International Journal of Engineering & Science Research

Table 5: Comparison of shear stresses in model 1, corresponding to Mx moments in column C11 (exterior
column)
DD+LL Story
DD+LL+EQX
τ 2 τ 2
v(N/mm ) v(N/mm )
6 1.331665 1.362915
5 1.269498 1.269238
4 1.28516 1.241355
3 1.254228 1.23
2 1.25 1.251425
1 0.891808 1.073618
Graph 6: Comparison of shear stresses corresponding to Mx moments in column C11
7

5
storey no

4 DD+LL DD+LL+EQX

0
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4 1.6

shear stress (N/mm2 )

Table 6: Comparison of punching shear stresses in column C13 (center column) corresponding to 4
models
STOREY MODEL1 MODEL2 MODEL3 MODEL4
τ 2 τ 2 τ 2 τ 2
NO v(N/mm ) v(N/mm ) v(N/mm ) v(N/mm )
6 1.1879 0.858 1.140 0.890
5 1.1868 0.878 1.217 0.893
4 1.224 0.905 1.230 0.904
3 1.254 0.920 1.239 0.909
2 1.287 0.932 1.244 0.901
1 1.359 0.948 1.245 0.893
Graph 7: Comparison of punching shear stresses in column C13 corresponding to 4 models

6 MODEL 1

MODEL 2
5
storey no

MODEL 3
4
MODEL 4
3

0
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4 1.6

shear stress (N/mm2 )

Copyright © 2015 Published by IJESR. All rights reserved 827

 P. Srinivasulu et. al./ International Journal of Engineering & Science Research

Table 7: Comparison of punching shear stresses in column C11 (exterior column) corresponding to 4
models
STOREY MODE1 MODE2 MODE3 MODEL4
τ 2 τ 2 τ 2 τ 2
NO v(N/mm ) v(N/mm ) v(N/mm ) v(N/mm )
6 1.466 1.179 1.387 1.115
5 1.354 1.068 1.298 1.031
4 1.320 1.042 1.303 1.033
3 1.225 0.973 1.238 0.980
2 1.332 1.096 1.391 1.118
1 1.119 0.801 0.931 0.674
Graph 8: Comparison of punching shear stresses in column C11 (exterior column) corresponding to 4
models
7

5
MODEL 1
storey no

4
MODEL 2
3 MODEL 3

2 MODEL 4

0
0 0.5 1 1.5 2
shear stress (N/mm2 )

CONCLUSION
Within the scope of present work, following conclusions are drafted

Fundamental mode of frequencies of a flat slab structure increase 20% when drops panels are present, as
further increasing of stiffness by providing shear walls those values increases to 96%.

Base Shear values increases from model1 to model 4. As weight of structure increases from model1 to
model4

Flat slab attracts more shear value, when flat slab provided with shear wall rather than flat slab having
column drops.

Providing column drops to flat slab, storey displacements reduces slightly, as stiffness increases slightly. But
when flat slabs combine with shear walls, these displacements reduces tremendously as stiffness of shear walls
increases overall lateral stiffness of structure.

For inner columns, punching shear stresses are increasing linearly from top stories to bottom stories. As
earthquake moments are increasing from top stories to bottom stories. But the punching shear variation due to
the gravity loads are not much changes from storey to storey. This shows that earthquake moments are more
effective in producing punching shear at bottom stories.

Due to the effect of exterior panel moments and earthquake moments, punching shear stresses varying
slightly irregular in exterior columns. In exterior columns punching shear stress is more in columns at top stories
than the columns in the bottom stories.

Punching shear failure occurs, more in flat plate. On provision of column drops it’s punching shear stress
decreases unto 25%.
Provision of shear walls may not effective in reducing punching shear on intermediate storey’s but effective in
top and bottom storey’s as shear wall attracts lateral moments from columns.

Copyright © 2015 Published by IJESR. All rights reserved 828

 P. Srinivasulu et. al./ International Journal of Engineering & Science Research

REFERENCES
[1] Paz M, Leigh W. Structural Dynamics, Fifth Edition.
[2] Lelekakis GE, Ioannis A. Tegos Aristotle University of Thessaloniki, Department of Civil Engineering,
Thessaloniki, Greece. Applications of flat-slab RCC structures in seismic regions.
[3] Bhunia D. Solution of Shear Wall Location in Multi-Storey Building:
[4] Megally S, Ghali A. Punching shear design of earthquake resistant slab column connections. ACI Structural
Journal, Title No. 97 – S73.
[5] Gupta U, Ratnaparkhe S, Gome P. Seismic Behaviour of Buildings Having Flat Slabs with Drops. Journal of
IJERT 2014; 3(5).
[6] IS456 - Indian standard plain and reinforced concrete code of practice.
[7] Agarwal P, Shrikhande M. Earthquake Resistant Design of Structures.
[8] Pan A. Lateral Displacement Ductility of Reinforced Concrete Flat plates. ACI Structural journal, Title No.
86–S27.
[9] Durrani AJ. Seismic Resistance of Nonductile slab–Column Connections in Existing Flat – Slab Buildings.
ACI structural Journal, Title No. 92–S46.

Copyright © 2015 Published by IJESR. All rights reserved 829