Computers and Structures 79 (2001) 25592578

www.elsevier.com/locate/compstruc

Elastic analysis and application tables of rectangular

plates with unilateral contact support conditions
V.K. Papanikolaou, I.N. Doudoumis *
Department of Civil Engineering, Aristotle University of Thessaloniki, Division of Structural Engineering, Mail Stop 417,
54006 Thessaloniki, Greece
Received 26 May 2000; accepted 23 July 2001

Abstract
In the present study, a numerical methodology for the elastic analysis of single plates is presented, which takes into
account any unilateral support conditions (uplift potential) that can occur in one or more supporting boundaries. The
plates are discretized with a ne mesh of nite elements and the unilateral support conditions are simulated through
proper link elements, while the determination of the uplifted regions of the plates is part of the problem's solution. A
parametric study is then carried out for rectangular edge-supported plates for various combinations of support conditions and aspect ratios. From the processing of the results of this analysis, proper application tables for the calculation of stress state of the plates were created, in a form similar to the well-known tables compiled by Czerny. 2001
Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved.
Keywords: Unilateral supported plates; Application tables of plates

1. Introduction
In many structures and for various reasons regarding their structural system, reinforced concrete slabs or steel plates
and grillages are not monolithically connected to the subjacent members, but they are actually resting upon them, which
does not restrict their possibility to uplift (unilateral support). This usually happens to the roof slabs of masonry
buildings, to precast slabs of various structures (covering slabs of sewers and tanks, bridge decks), to slab additions
after rearranging or refurbishing old buildings etc. In the most of the above cases, design procedures based on the
results of conventional linear elastic analysis of plates usually are applied, assuming bilateral support conditions (instead of unilateral), which means that the potential uplift of any part of the plate from its support is prohibited. All the
widely used application tables for the calculation of the stress state of single plates [13], etc., have been based on the
above assumption.
However, it is known from engineering theory of rectangular plates under gravity loads [4] that at the corners formed
by two bilaterally supported adjacent sides of the plate, negative (tensile) point reactions Re 2Mxye are developed, due
to the twisting moment Mxye at this point. When these tensile reactions cannot be resisted by the support, uplifting at the
area of this corner occurs, which aects the stress and strain distribution throughout the body of the plate.
The above posed problem has not been yet handled with theoretical consistency, but usually by implicit ways such as
assuming that the corner uplift (leading to zero point reaction Re and hence zero twisting moment Mxye in the corner)
can be simulated by assuming zero twisting stiness throughout the plate. The above assumption leads to global
nullication of twisting moments and hence twisting reinforcement, so that special tables of rectangular plates with zero

Corresponding author.
E-mail addresses: billy@egnatia.ee.auth.gr (V.K. Papanikolaou), doud@civil.auth.gr (I.N. Doudoumis).

0045-7949/01/$ - see front matter 2001 Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved.
PII: S 0 0 4 5 - 7 9 4 9 ( 0 1 ) 0 0 1 4 4 - 4

2560

V.K. Papanikolaou, I.N. Doudoumis / Computers and Structures 79 (2001) 25592578

Nomenclature
x, y
cartesian coordinates with the origin located in the lower left corner
`x , `y
dimensions of the rectangular plate
p
uniform distributed load on the plate
d
plate width
E
Young's modulus of the plate material
fm
vertical displacement of the plate centre
fmax
maximum vertical displacement
fe
corner uplift displacement
mxm , mym bending moments mx and my on the plate centre
mxmax , mymax maximum bending moments mx and my along the middle cross-section
mxerm , myerm bending moments mx and my in the middle of a xed plate boundary
mxermin , myermin maximum bending moments mx and my along a xed plate boundary
mxymax
maximum twisting moment of a plate boundary
mxye
twisting moment of a plate corner
qxrm , qyrm shear forces qx and qy in the middle of a plate boundary
qxrmax , qyrmax maximum shear forces qx and qy along a plate boundary
qxerm , qyerm shear forces qx and qy in the middle of a xed plate boundary
qxermax , qyermax maximum shear forces qx and qy along a xed plate boundary
m
Poisson's ratio m 0
Additional shear force indices
(o)
upper boundary
(u)
lower boundary
(l)
left boundary
(r)
right boundary

twisting stiness have been created and used [3]. However, bending moments resulting from these tables are signicantly
larger (up to two times) than the values of the respective plate with full twisting stiness and, despite that they are on the
conservative side of consideration, they still lead to uneconomical design (for the concrete or steel) of the plate.
In the present study, a numerical methodology for elastic analysis of plates is presented, which takes consistently
into account any unilateral support conditions (uplift potential) that can occur in one or more supporting edges of the
plate (Fig. 1) [10]. Then, through a systematic parametric study of rectangular plates with various combinations of
support conditions and aspect ratios, proper application tables for the stress state of these plates were created, in a form
similar to the well-known tables compiled by Czerny [1].

2. Formulation of the unilateral contact problem

The quasi-static unilateral frictionless contact problem between an elastic structure and its rigid support is now
considered, under the assumption of small strains and displacements. It is further assumed that the supporting

Fig. 1. Rectangular plate with unilateral contact edge supports and corner uplift.

V.K. Papanikolaou, I.N. Doudoumis / Computers and Structures 79 (2001) 25592578

2561

Fig. 2. (a) Unilateral support forcedisplacement and (b) stressstrain relationship.

boundary consists of two parts; Cb , where there are bilateral connections between the structure and the support and Cc ,
where unilateral contact conditions (uplift possible) of Signorini's type hold. Further, the contact area Cc consists of
pairs of distinct points, as a result of a proper discretization of the structure, and the boundary conditions on Cb by
themselves prohibit rigid-body motion of the structure.
Denoting by SNi the normal reaction (compression positive), by uNi the corresponding relative displacement (separation positive) and by uoi the initial gap at the contact pair i uoi P 0, Signorini's law (Fig. 2a) can be written as a set of
complementarity conditions:
SNi P 0

uNi

uoi P 0

SNi
uNi

uoi 0

It is noted that Signorini' s law is reversible, that is the contact state Sni ; uNi of each nodal pair depends only on the
nal values of the applied actions on the structure and not on the loading history.
For a better compliance to the methods of structural analysis, ctitious link elements with forcedisplacement relationships identied by expression (1) are introduced at the pairs of contact points. Each link element consist of one
rigid bar i, normal to the boundary, connecting the nodes of the contact pair i. The axial force fNi of the element i
(tension positive) represents the normal contact reaction at that point, the relative displacement of the ends of the
element can be represented by an equivalent imposed strain eNi uNi uoi (elongation positive) and the initial gap uoi
is represented by an initial strain eoi uoi (non-negative). Therefore, relation (1) are written as:
fNi P 0

ki eNi

eoi P 0

fNi eNi

eoi 0

and for the total number m of contact pairs are written as:
f P0

k e

eo P 0
T

f T e

eo 0

3
T

where f fN1 ; fN2 ; . . . ; fNm is the vector of axial forces of the link elements; e eN1 ; eN2 ; . . . ; eNm , the vector of
imposed axial strains of the link elements; eo eo1 ; eo2 ; . . . ; eom T , the vector of initial axial strains of the link elements.
The above introduction of link elements generates a new structural system with xed-support boundary conditions,
which is absolutely equivalent [5] to the initial structure being in contact. In this ``equivalent structural system'' all the
link elements behave as rigid ones, subjected to m unknown imposed strains eNi , while at the same time, m complementarity conditions are fullled, which are equal in number to the non-negative unknowns ki . Therefore the subsequent study may be performed exclusively in the equivalent structural system.
According now to a proposition applied on the equivalent structural system (as used in Refs. [5,6], etc.), the workcorresponding pair of vectors f, e of any stable and linearly elastic structure, are related by the relations:
f K
e fo

Relation (4) are applied on the ``equivalent'' structural system when all of its unilateral link elements are considered
as bilateral ones with zero imposed strains (methodology of the displacement method of structural analysis), i.e. the
stress vector f of the link elements is expressed by the superposition of the part K
e due to the unknown imposed strains
e of the elements, and the part f o (with known values) due to the known values of the external actions. The m  m square
matrix K is the inuence matrix (of stiness type) of the imposed strains (elongations) of the link elements on their

2562

V.K. Papanikolaou, I.N. Doudoumis / Computers and Structures 79 (2001) 25592578

corresponding stresses (axial forces), i.e. each coecient Kij expresses the tension arising in bar i due to an imposed unit
elongation in bar j, no matter which link element the bars i and j belong to.
Substituting now in Eq. (3) the value of f obtained by Eq. (4), it follows that:
f

K
e

f P0

fo

K
e

eo

eo P 0

k e

K
eo
f
e

fo M
k q

eo 0

where M K, q K
eo f o
Relation (5) express a linear complementarity problem (LCP), where k is the unknown vector to be determined and q
is a known vector dependent on the initial gaps eo and the stresses f o . Since the boundary conditions Cb by themselves
have been supposed to prohibit rigid-body motion of the structure, matrix M K is positive denite and the above
LCP has a unique solution [7]. The numerical solution of this problem denes the contact state of the link elements, i.e.
which link elements are open (ki > 0) or closed (fi < 0), due to the nal values of the external actions [8].
Let us consider now the special case eo 0, and let f ;P k;P e;P be the unique solution of the LCP due to the
external actions P, which produce the stress vector f o at the link elements of the ``equivalent'' structural system. We
shall prove that increasing proportionally the external actions P by a factor l > 0 (i.e. for external actions l
P), the
solution of the corresponding LCP is l
f P ; l
eP .
Proof. For eo 0, LCP (5) is written as
f

K
e

f P0

fo M
e q

fT
e 0

e kP0

where M K, q f o
Since f ;P e;P is the solution of LCP (6), it follows that
f ;P

K
e;P

f ;P P 0

f o;P

7a
f ;P T
e;P 0

e;P P 0

7b

Multiplying Eq. (7a) by l it follows that

l
f ;P

l
K
e;P

l
f o;P

and since f ;P , e;P , f o;P are referred to the ``equivalent'' structural system, the principle of superposition holds, which leads
to
l
f ;P f o;lP
l
e;P e;lP
l
f o;P f o;lP
l
f ;P l
K
e;P

9
l
f o;P

and so Eq. (8) is written as

f o;lP

K
e;lP

f o;lP

10a
2

Also, multiplying the rst two relations of Eq. (7b) by l and the third by l it follows that
f ;lP P 0

e;lP P 0

f ;lP T
e;lP 0

10b

Therefore, since relations (10a) and (10b) hold, the values f ;lP e;lP constitute the (unique) solution of the LCP (6)
corresponding to the external action l
P 8 l > 0: 
From the aforementioned analysis and for the special case of zero initial gaps eo 0, the following conclusions can
easily be drawn:
(a) For a given external action P, the solution of the corresponding LCP (6) denes which pairs of contact points are
separated loosing their initial contact ki ei > 0, or still remain in contact developing compressive reactions fi 6 0.
(b) For a proportional variation l
P l > 0 of the external action, the pattern of nodal pairs loosing their initial
contact and the pattern of those pairs keeping their initial contact state remain unchanged. More especially, the relative

V.K. Papanikolaou, I.N. Doudoumis / Computers and Structures 79 (2001) 25592578

2563

displacements of the separated nodal pairs, as well as the compressive contact reactions of the nodal pairs still in
contact, are varying proportionally f o;lP l
f ;P , e;lP l
e;P .
(c) The response values (displacements, stresses, link forces, etc.), due to an external action of magnitude P, may be
represented by the product of the response values due to an external action of unit magnitude, multiplied by the
magnitude P.
3. Analysis procedure
In the present study, for the plate models under consideration, the various assumptions of linear elasticity with small
strains and displacements are adopted and specically the assumptions of classical bending theory of thin plates [4].
These assumptions, neglecting any shear deformations, postulate that ``points of the plate lying initially on a line that is
normal to the undeformed middle plane of the plate, remain on a straight line that is also normal to the deformed
middle surface''. The deformation and stress state of the plate is thus described entirely by one quantity w denoting the
lateral displacement (normal to the middle plane) of the plate. For the numerical treatment of this problem, the nite
element method is used. Although continuity conditions require compatibility of the lateral displacement w and its
derivatives at the interfaces between the elements, conventional four-node quadrilateral plate elements with ``nonconforming'' shape functions (violating the slope compatibility) and three degrees of freedom per node are used.
Single rectangular plates with aspect ratios of 1:1 up to 1:2 are examined, which are discretized with a ne mesh of
square plate elements (20 elements across the smaller length, Fig. 3). The plates are bounded with edge supports along
each side, which can be either unilateral contact supports (frictionless), or simple bilateral supports, or fully xed.
Nevertheless, any uplift potential is only developed at corners of adjacent unilaterally supported sides. Further, the edge
supports of unilateral contact are discretized into pairs of contact points and each contact pair is modelled as a link
element with zero initial gap, as mentioned above. The edge bilateral supports are modelled by simply discretizing them
into nodal points with restrained translational displacements and free rotations. The alternative modelling approach,
with restrained translational displacements and xed the rotations about plate lines normal to the edge of the plate, was
also examined and tested leading to almost identical results.
The formulation of the unilateral contact problem as a LCP relation (6) requires the application of solution algorithms which are seldom available (at the present time) in existing computer software of structural analysis. For this
reason, an approximate way of overcoming this diculty is adopted, according to which the vertical branch of zero
exibility in the stressstrain relationship of the link elements (Fig. 4) is replaced by an almost vertical one with minimal
exibility 1=Kc . Moreover, the horizontal branch of zero stiness is replaced by an almost horizontal one with minimal
stiness Kt and hence, the approximate stressstrain relationship (shown with a dashed line in Fig. 4), can be expressed
as follows:
f Ke
e

11

where Ke Kt (tensile) for e > 0 and Ke Kc (compressive) for e < 0 (bilinear elastic material law).

Fig. 3. Meshes of plate discretization.

2564

V.K. Papanikolaou, I.N. Doudoumis / Computers and Structures 79 (2001) 25592578

Fig. 4. Stressstrain relationship of a link element with zero initial gap.

Thus, the problem of an elastic structure resting on unilateral frictionless supports is transformed to a non-linear
elasticity problem (due to the existence of bilinear elastic link elements), and hence it can be solved by the solution
strategies (combination of the step-by-step and iterative methods) which are appropriate for the determination of the
non-linear structural response (see for instance Ref. [9]). The last consideration is consistent with the modelling capabilities and solution algorithms of a variety of computer software of non-linear structural analysis.
In the present study [10], the step-by-step NewtonRaphson method was applied and the static non-linear solution
was carried out using the MSC/NASTRAN for Windows nite element software. The plates were subjected to a
uniformly distributed pressure load, applied proportionally in 10 equal steps in order to test and verify the linearity of
the response, which according to the LCP formulation must be valid. As shown in Fig. 5, the response of all 10 load
steps actually resulted perfectly linear, because all the non-linearities had developed during only the very rst iterations
of the rst load step, when the iterative algorithm was searching for uplifted unilateral support points through changes
in the tangent stiness matrix which, since then, remained constant till the end of the analysis. The veried linearity of
the response, provides reliability to the analysis results so that they can later be assembled in the form of tables with
dimensionless factors.
Nine dierent combinations of support types were derived, from every possible combination of at least two adjacent
unilaterally supported sides (able to form corner uplift), combined with simple bilateral support or fully xed support
conditions. For each support type, six dierent models corresponding to aspect ratios `y =`x from 1:1 up to 1:2 with step
of 0.20 were solved and the obtained results were registered into tables in the form of dimensionless factors according to
the format used by Czerny.
Moreover, before assembling the tables, an additional polynomial extrapolation was performed in order to enhance
boundary values of bending and twisting moments, which were not consistent with engineering theory, taken out
blindly from the nite element software nodal output. This happened because the software used did not feature output
at element Gauss points, but only at element nodes, evaluated by linear extrapolation from its internal Gauss points.
For this reason, some utility programs were developed, which at rst performed stress averaging in every node and then,
for each boundary node, carried out polynomial extrapolation, from the respective internal nodal outputs. Specically,
boundary bending moments were calculated by quadratic extrapolation (that is using three inner nodal outputs)
whereas boundary twisting moments and shear forces were calculated by linear extrapolation (using two inner nodal

Fig. 5. Linear loaddisplacement resulted response, for unilateral support conditions.

V.K. Papanikolaou, I.N. Doudoumis / Computers and Structures 79 (2001) 25592578

2565

outputs). The accuracy of the above procedure was determined by a comparison between the nite element solution of a
bilaterally supported plate and results taken from the closed-form solution of the corresponding Czerny table. It was
satisfactory to observe the divergence of the corner twisting moment dropping from 8.5% (without extrapolation) to
2.5% and that of shear forces dropping from 5% to less than 1%. The only drawback of this approach may be the lower
accuracy of the corner nodal outputs which were derived by double extrapolation from the two adjacent boundaries.
Finally, with appropriate polynomial interpolation of fth order, table results were rened to a step of 0.05 from the
initial step of 0.20, in order to identify with Czerny's table format. The reliability of this method was conrmed by
comparing the 1:1.5 aspect ratio results, derived from interpolation, with the direct output from a new nite element
solution with the same aspect ratio. The dierence between those two independent approaches was negligible (0.1%).
4. Results of the analysiscreation of application tables
The results of the linear response analysis of rectangular plates with unilateral support conditions are summarized in
the following nine tables based upon the Czerny format (see at the end of the paper):
Type 1: Unilateral support on all four sides.
Type 2: Bilateral support on one small side and unilateral support on the other three sides.
Type 3: Bilateral support on one large side and unilateral support on the other three sides.
Type 4: Bilateral support on two adjacent sides and unilateral support on the other two sides.
Type 5: One small side fully xed and unilateral support on the other three sides.
Type 6: One large side fully xed and unilateral support on the other three sides.
Type 7: Two adjacent sides fully xed and unilateral support on the other two sides.
Type 8: One small side fully xed, bilateral support on the one large side and unilateral support on the other two sides.
Type 9: One large side fully xed, bilateral support on the one small side and unilateral support on the other two sides.
For instance, in Type 1 table, the dimensionless factors of the plate stress which is supported unilaterally on all four
edges are shown for uniformly distributed load and aspect ratios from 1:1 to 1:2. Similarly, in Type 5 table, the corresponding factors for a plate with one small fully xed side and three unilaterally supported sides are shown. Moment
quantities for every type of plate are derived by dividing q`2min by the corresponding table factor (where q is the uniformly distributed load and `min the smaller dimension), shear quantities are derived by dividing q`min by the corresponding table factor and displacement quantities are derived by multiplying q`2min =Ed 3 with the corresponding table
factor (where E is the Young's modulus and d the plate thickness). Table factors depend on aspect ratio `y =`x only.
Moreover, detailed plots of bending moments and displacements are also provided with each table.
In Fig. 6, a comparison for the bending moment mx factors at the plate's centre between the case of unilateral
support on all four sides and the respective bilateral support is shown, as a function of aspect ratio `y =`x . It is observed
that the unilateral support yields larger values of bending moments up to 14% (shown by smaller factors on the gure).
Moreover, the corresponding increase in the vertical displacement of the centre is 20.1%. Those dierences are due to
the drastic reduction in the twisting moments around the plate corners.
Fig. 7 shows a comparison of bending moment mymax factors between the proposed table Type 6 (three unilaterally
supported sides with one small side fully xed) and the corresponding Czerny's table (three bilaterally supported sides

Fig. 6. Bending moment factors mxm for unilateral and bilateral support on all four sides.

2566

V.K. Papanikolaou, I.N. Doudoumis / Computers and Structures 79 (2001) 25592578

Fig. 7. Bending moment factors mymax for unilateral and bilateral support on three sides.

with one small side fully xed). In this case, the existence of unilateral supports results in larger values of bending
moments up to 18.5%.
Fig. 8 shows a detailed comparison between table factors obtained by the proposed table Type 1 (all four sides with
unilateral supports) and the corresponding Czerny's table (all four sides with unilateral supports). It is observed that
these factors dier up to:
14.1% and 26.7% for the case of bending moments mxm and mymax respectively,

Df

fCzerny
%
fCzerny

where f is the corresponding value of the proposed table type 1.

20.6% and 29.3% for the case of edge shears qxrmax and qyrmax respectively,
66.0% for the case of maximum twisting moments along the long edge of the plate and
20.1% for the case of lateral displacement fm at the centre of the plate.

`y =`x
Dmxm
Dmymax
Dmxy
Dqxrmax
Dqyrmax
Dfm

1.00
14.1%
14.1%
66.0%
20.6%
20.6%
20.1%

1.05
14.0%
13.5%
58.4%
19.9%
21.2%
19.9%

1.10
14.3%
12.6%
53.9%
19.1%
22.1%
19.6%

1.15
14.8%
11.9%
51.6%
18.5%
23.1%
19.2%

1.20
14.3%
12.2%
50.8%
17.8%
24.3%
18.6%

1.25
13.9%
12.8%
50.5%
17.4%
25.2%
17.2%

1.30
14.0%
14.1%
50.4%
16.7%
26.1%
17.3%

1.35
13.2%
15.2%
50.1%
16.2%
26.6%
16.7%

1.40
12.7%
16.6%
49.4%
15.6%
26.8%
15.9%

1.45
12.2%
18.1%
48.2%
15.1%
27.3%
15.0%

`y =`x
Dmxm
Dmymax
Dmxy
Dqxrmax
Dqyrmax
Dfm

1.55
11.4%
20.3%
44.7%
14.2%
28.1%
13.5%

1.60
10.7%
21.3%
42.8%
13.5%
28.2%
12.8%

1.65
10.3%
22.0%
41.3%
12.8%
28.6%
12.1%

1.70
9.7%
22.8%
40.1%
12.4%
28.9%
11.5%

1.75
8.7%
23.6%
39.5%
11.7%
29.0%
10.4%

1.80
8.9%
24.4%
39.5%
11.3%
29.4%
10.1%

1.85
8.2%
24.8%
39.9%
11.0%
29.5%
9.5%

1.90
8.1%
25.4%
40.2%
10.6%
29.5%
9.0%

1.95
7.7%
25.9%
39.9%
10.2%
29.3%
8.2%

2.00
7.4%
26.7%
37.9%
9.8%
29.3%
7.9%

1.50
11.7%
19.4%
46.6%
14.8%
28.0%
14.3%

V.K. Papanikolaou, I.N. Doudoumis / Computers and Structures 79 (2001) 25592578

2567

Fig. 8. Comparison of results obtained proposed table Type 1 and corresponding Czerny's table.

Summarizing, all the above mentioned factors of table Type 1 (except factors for twisting moments) provide more
unfavourable results than those obtained by the corresponding Czerny's table, while the opposite happens to twisting
moments.
Another point of interest is that the distribution of shear forces and twisting moments along the unilaterally supported boundaries are quite dierent than the distribution along the bilaterally supported edges. Furthermore, comparing the factors given by all the proposed tables with the factors given by the corresponding Czerny's tables, we can
see that as the number of the bilaterally supported boundaries increases (resulting to more similarities with the types of
conventional plates examined by Czerny), the dierences between the respective table factors become negligible.
Finally, the reliability of the results obtained by the above nite element analysis is conrmed by solving a bilaterally
supported plate on all four sides (Table 10) and comparing it with the corresponding Czerny's table. The divergence
between the nite element models (Table 10) and the closed-form results of Czerny's tables was around 1% (with the
only exception of 3.3% in the corner twisting moment).

5. Numerical example
Consider a thin plate of dimensions 4:0  2:5 m2 , bilaterally supported on one small side and unilaterally supported
on the other three sides. The uniformly distributed load is p 10:0 kN/m2 . It is asked to calculate the maximum
bending moments in the central region of the plate for both directions.
The support conditions refer to table Type 2 and the output to be calculated are the values mxm and mymax .
`x `min 2:5 m. For `y =`x 4:0=2:5 1:60, it follows (from table Type 2) that mfactor (for the calculation of mxm ) is
12.00 and mfactor (for the calculation of mymax ) is 28.19. Thus: mxmax mxm p
`2x =mfactor 10:0  2:52 =12:00 5:208
kN m, mymax p
`2x =mfactor 10:0  2:52 =28:19 2:217 kN m.

6. Conclusions
Bending moments and vertical displacements for plates with unilateral support conditions seem to be more unfavourable than those with bilateral supports, while the opposite happens to twisting moments. As a result, the usual
practice of calculating the stress state of this kind of plates is open to possible improvement and the proposed tables
may give designers a reliable and economical alternative.

2568

V.K. Papanikolaou, I.N. Doudoumis / Computers and Structures 79 (2001) 25592578

Appendix A
A.1. Type 1: unilateral support on all four sides

`x `min ;

p`2x
;
mfactor

p`x
;
qfactor

p`4x
ffactor
Ed 3

`y =`x
mx m
mym
mymax
mxymax
qxrmax
qyrmax
fm
fe

1.00
23.37
23.37
23.37
36.22
2.35
2.35
0.05850
0.01573

1.05
21.08
23.80
23.80
33.06
2.30
2.30
0.06425
0.01718

1.10
19.19
24.39
24.39
30.89
2.25
2.25
0.06984
0.01861

1.15
17.64
25.13
25.01
29.40
2.21
2.20
0.07523
0.01998

1.20
16.37
26.04
25.56
28.36
2.17
2.15
0.08040
0.02126

1.25
15.32
27.11
26.08
27.58
2.13
2.11
0.08532
0.02244

1.30
14.44
28.34
26.55
26.93
2.10
2.07
0.08998
0.02351

1.35
13.71
29.73
26.98
26.33
2.07
2.04
0.09437
0.02446

1.40
13.09
31.29
27.35
25.74
2.05
2.02
0.09849
0.02530

1.45
12.56
33.02
27.68
25.13
2.03
2.00
0.10235
0.02603

`y =`x
mx m
mym
mymax
mxymax
qxrmax
qyrmax
fm
fe

1.55
11.69
36.99
28.20
23.92
2.00
1.97
0.10933
0.02720

1.60
11.34
39.24
28.42
23.37
1.99
1.96
0.11247
0.02767

1.65
11.03
41.68
28.61
22.90
1.98
1.95
0.11540
0.02808

1.70
10.75
44.31
28.79
22.53
1.97
1.94
0.11814
0.02843

1.75
10.50
47.14
28.95
22.28
1.97
1.93
0.12070
0.02875

1.80
10.29
50.19
29.11
22.15
1.96
1.92
0.12309
0.02903

1.85
1.90
1.95
2.00
10.10
9.93
9.78
9.63
53.46
56.97
60.74
64.79
29.25
29.38
29.48
29.54
22.10
22.05
21.91
21.52
1.95
1.95
1.94
1.94
1.91
1.91
1.91
1.91
0.12533 0.12741 0.12935 0.13113
0.02928 0.02950 0.02968 0.02981

1.50
12.10
34.91
27.96
24.52
2.01
1.98
0.10596
0.02666

V.K. Papanikolaou, I.N. Doudoumis / Computers and Structures 79 (2001) 25592578

2569

A.2. Type 2: bilateral support on the one small side and unilateral support on the other three sides

p`2x
;
mfactor

`y =`x
mx m
mym
mymax
mxye
qxrmax
qyrmu
qyrmaxo
fm
fmax
fe

1.00
25.19
25.19
24.79
20.76
2.52
2.92
2.44
0.05352
0.05352
0.01420

`y =`x
mx m
mym
mymax
mxye
qxrmax
qyrmu
qyrmaxo
fm
fmax
fe

1.55
12.41
37.01
27.97
16.17
2.05
2.74
2.01
0.10292
0.10301
0.02596

`x `min ;

p`4x
ffactor
Ed 3

1.05
22.75
25.56
25.02
19.90
2.44
2.88
2.37
0.05879
0.05879
0.01543

1.10
20.74
26.08
25.29
19.18
2.37
2.86
2.32
0.06399
0.06399
0.01673

1.15
19.07
26.74
25.60
18.58
2.31
2.83
2.26
0.06907
0.06907
0.01805

1.20
17.68
27.53
25.92
18.07
2.26
2.81
2.22
0.07399
0.07399
0.01934

1.25
16.52
28.46
26.25
17.64
2.21
2.79
2.18
0.07874
0.07874
0.02057

1.30
15.55
29.54
26.57
17.29
2.17
2.78
2.14
0.08329
0.08329
0.02172

1.35
14.73
30.75
26.89
16.98
2.14
2.77
2.11
0.08764
0.08764
0.02277

1.40
14.02
32.10
27.19
16.73
2.11
2.76
2.08
0.09178
0.09179
0.02372

1.60
12.00
38.95
28.19
16.04
2.03
2.74
1.99
0.10623
0.10635
0.02654

1.65
11.64
41.04
28.39
15.92
2.02
2.74
1.98
0.10935
0.10949
0.02705

1.70
11.31
43.30
28.57
15.83
2.00
2.73
1.96
0.11228
0.11245
0.02750

1.75
11.03
45.72
28.73
15.74
1.99
2.73
1.96
0.11505
0.11523
0.02791

1.80
10.78
48.32
28.88
15.67
1.98
2.73
1.95
0.11765
0.11784
0.02828

1.85
10.56
51.11
29.02
15.61
1.97
2.73
1.95
0.12010
0.12029
0.02861

1.90
10.36
54.10
29.14
15.56
1.96
2.73
1.94
0.12240
0.12259
0.02891

1.95
2.00
10.17
9.98
57.30
60.73
29.26
29.36
15.51
15.47
1.95
1.95
2.72
2.72
1.93
1.92
0.12455 0.12656
0.12475 0.12677
0.02915 0.02933

p`x
;
qfactor

1.45
13.41
33.59
27.47
16.51
2.09
2.75
2.05
0.09570
0.09574
0.02456

1.50
12.88
35.23
27.73
16.33
2.06
2.75
2.03
0.09942
0.09948
0.02531

2570

V.K. Papanikolaou, I.N. Doudoumis / Computers and Structures 79 (2001) 25592578

A.3. Type 3: bilateral support on the one large side and unilateral support on the other three sides

`x `min ;

p`2x
;
mfactor

p`x
;
qfactor

p`4x
ffactor
Ed 3

`y =`x
mx m
mxmax
mym
mymax
mxye
qxrml
qxrmaxr
qyrmax
fm
fe

1.00
25.19
24.79
25.19
25.19
20.76
2.92
2.44
2.52
0.05352
0.01420

1.05
22.76
22.47
25.57
25.57
19.84
2.81
2.39
2.43
0.05877
0.01531

1.10
20.75
20.54
26.09
26.09
19.06
2.72
2.34
2.37
0.06393
0.01649

1.15
19.09
18.95
26.76
26.76
18.40
2.64
2.30
2.34
0.06898
0.01769

1.20
17.71
17.62
27.56
27.55
17.84
2.57
2.26
2.32
0.07387
0.01886

1.25
16.56
16.51
28.50
28.30
17.37
2.51
2.22
2.31
0.07859
0.01997

1.30
15.59
15.56
29.58
29.03
16.97
2.46
2.19
2.30
0.08311
0.02099

1.35
14.77
14.76
30.79
29.72
16.63
2.41
2.16
2.29
0.08744
0.02193

1.40
14.06
14.06
32.14
30.35
16.34
2.37
2.14
2.28
0.09155
0.02276

1.45
13.45
13.45
33.63
30.92
16.10
2.33
2.12
2.27
0.09545
0.02349

`y =`x
mx m
mxmax
mym
mymax
mxye
qxrml
qxrmaxr
qyrmax
fm
fe

1.55
12.45
12.45
37.03
31.89
15.71
2.27
2.08
2.24
0.10264
0.02469

1.60
12.03
12.03
38.95
32.30
15.56
2.24
2.07
2.22
0.10594
0.02518

1.65
11.66
11.66
41.02
32.68
15.43
2.22
2.06
2.21
0.10905
0.02561

1.70
11.34
11.34
43.26
33.03
15.31
2.20
2.05
2.19
0.11199
0.02598

1.75
11.05
11.05
45.66
33.35
15.22
2.18
2.04
2.18
0.11475
0.02632

1.80
10.80
10.80
48.24
33.66
15.13
2.17
2.03
2.18
0.11736
0.02663

1.85
10.58
10.58
51.00
33.94
15.06
2.16
2.02
2.18
0.11981
0.02691

1.90
10.38
10.38
53.96
34.18
14.99
2.15
2.02
2.18
0.12212
0.02715

1.95
10.19
10.19
57.13
34.35
14.94
2.13
2.01
2.17
0.12428
0.02739

2.00
10.01
10.01
60.52
34.42
14.89
2.11
2.01
2.16
0.12629
0.02749

1.50
12.92
12.92
35.26
31.43
15.89
2.30
2.10
2.25
0.09915
0.02414

V.K. Papanikolaou, I.N. Doudoumis / Computers and Structures 79 (2001) 25592578

2571

A.4. Type 4: bilateral support on two adjacent sides and unilateral support on the other two sides

`x `min ;

p`2x
;
mfactor

p`x
;
qfactor

p`4x
ffactor
Ed 3

`y =`x
mx m
mxmax
mym
mymax
mxye
qxrml
qxrmaxr
qyrmu
qyrmaxo
fm
fe

1.00
26.07
25.98
26.07
25.98
21.21
2.95
2.56
2.95
2.56
0.05134
0.01343

1.05
23.57
23.53
26.39
26.23
20.25
2.85
2.47
2.91
2.47
0.05642
0.01455

1.10
21.50
21.48
26.87
26.64
19.44
2.76
2.39
2.88
2.42
0.06143
0.01572

1.15
19.78
19.77
27.48
27.18
18.75
2.68
2.34
2.85
2.38
0.06633
0.01691

1.20
18.34
18.34
28.23
27.77
18.17
2.61
2.29
2.83
2.35
0.07111
0.01807

1.25
17.14
17.14
29.11
28.39
17.67
2.55
2.25
2.81
2.33
0.07574
0.01918

1.30
16.12
16.12
30.11
29.01
17.25
2.49
2.22
2.80
2.32
0.08020
0.02022

1.35
15.25
15.25
31.24
29.61
16.89
2.44
2.19
2.79
2.30
0.08449
0.02118

1.40
14.51
14.51
32.49
30.17
16.58
2.40
2.17
2.78
2.29
0.08859
0.02205

1.45
13.86
13.86
33.87
30.70
16.31
2.36
2.15
2.77
2.28
0.09251
0.02283

`y =`x
mx m
mxmax
mym
mymax
mxye
qxrml
qxrmaxr
qyrmu
qyrmaxo
fm
fe

1.55
12.80
12.80
37.02
31.63
15.88
2.30
2.11
2.76
2.25
0.09978
0.02414

1.60
12.36
12.36
38.80
32.05
15.71
2.27
2.09
2.75
2.23
0.10314
0.02468

1.65
11.97
11.97
40.72
32.44
15.56
2.25
2.07
2.74
2.22
0.10632
0.02516

1.70
11.62
11.62
42.80
32.80
15.43
2.23
2.06
2.74
2.20
0.10934
0.02558

1.75
11.31
11.31
45.03
33.14
15.32
2.21
2.05
2.73
2.20
0.11219
0.02596

1.80
11.04
11.04
47.43
33.46
15.22
2.19
2.04
2.73
2.19
0.11488
0.02630

1.85
10.80
10.80
50.00
33.75
15.14
2.17
2.03
2.73
2.19
0.11742
0.02660

1.90
10.58
10.58
52.75
33.99
15.06
2.16
2.03
2.72
2.18
0.11982
0.02687

1.95
10.38
10.38
55.69
34.18
15.00
2.15
2.02
2.72
2.18
0.12207
0.02710

2.00
10.18
10.18
58.83
34.27
14.94
2.13
2.02
2.72
2.17
0.12419
0.02728

1.50
13.30
13.30
35.38
31.18
16.08
2.33
2.13
2.76
2.26
0.09624
0.02352

2572

V.K. Papanikolaou, I.N. Doudoumis / Computers and Structures 79 (2001) 25592578

A.5. Type 5: one small side fully xed and unilateral support on the other three sides

`x `min ;

p`2x
;
mfactor

p`x
;
qfactor

p`4x
ffactor
Ed 3

`y =`x
mx m
mym
mymax
myerm
mxymax
qxrmax
qyerm
qyrmax
fm
fmax
fe

1.00
38.84
29.80
26.81
11.34
37.60
2.93
1.71
2.79
0.03609
0.03711
0.00932

1.05
33.89
29.32
26.34
10.81
35.24
2.78
1.66
2.66
0.04087
0.04204
0.01092

1.10
29.90
29.07
26.04
10.37
33.18
2.66
1.62
2.55
0.04572
0.04703
0.01238

1.15
26.67
29.03
25.88
10.00
31.39
2.57
1.58
2.47
0.05060
0.05205
0.01373

1.20
24.06
29.18
25.84
9.69
29.85
2.49
1.55
2.41
0.05547
0.05706
0.01502

1.25
21.94
29.50
25.90
9.43
28.53
2.43
1.52
2.36
0.06030
0.06201
0.01627

1.30
20.19
29.97
26.03
9.21
27.42
2.37
1.50
2.31
0.06505
0.06688
0.01748

1.35
18.75
30.59
26.22
9.03
26.48
2.32
1.48
2.26
0.06972
0.07164
0.01867

1.40
17.53
31.34
26.45
8.87
25.69
2.27
1.47
2.22
0.07426
0.07627
0.01982

1.45
16.49
32.23
26.70
8.74
25.03
2.22
1.46
2.18
0.07867
0.08074
0.02093

`y =`x
mx m
mym
mymax
myerm
mxymax
qxrmax
qyerm
qyrmax
fm
fmax
fe

1.55
14.81
34.39
27.23
8.52
24.03
2.14
1.44
2.10
0.08702
0.08917
0.02298

1.60
14.12
35.67
27.48
8.44
23.64
2.11
1.43
2.07
0.09094
0.09311
0.02389

1.65
13.52
37.08
27.72
8.37
23.31
2.08
1.42
2.04
0.09468
0.09686
0.02471

1.70
12.99
38.63
27.93
8.31
23.03
2.06
1.41
2.02
0.09825
0.10041
0.02543

1.75
12.54
40.32
28.13
8.25
22.77
2.04
1.41
2.00
0.10163
0.10378
0.02605

1.80
12.15
42.16
28.30
8.21
22.55
2.03
1.40
1.99
0.10484
0.10697
0.02658

1.85
11.81
44.14
28.46
8.17
22.35
2.02
1.39
1.98
0.10788
0.10999
0.02703

1.90
11.52
46.28
28.61
8.14
22.17
2.01
1.39
1.98
0.11076
0.11284
0.02744

1.95
11.23
48.57
28.76
8.12
22.02
2.00
1.39
1.97
0.11348
0.11555
0.02783

2.00
10.92
51.01
28.92
8.09
21.91
1.98
1.39
1.95
0.11608
0.11814
0.02828

1.50
15.59
33.24
26.97
8.62
24.48
2.18
1.45
2.14
0.08292
0.08505
0.02199

V.K. Papanikolaou, I.N. Doudoumis / Computers and Structures 79 (2001) 25592578

2573

A.6. Type 6: one large side fully xed and unilateral support on the other three sides

`x `min ;

p`2x
;
mfactor

p`x
;
qfactor

`y =`x
mx m
mxmax
mxerm
mym
mymax
mxymax
qxerm
qxrmax
qyrmax
fm
fmax
fe

1.00
29.80
26.81
11.34
38.84
38.84
37.60
1.71
2.79
2.93
0.03609
0.03711
0.00932

1.05
27.69
24.96
10.84
40.85
40.60
36.68
1.68
2.75
2.93
0.03854
0.03964
0.00991

1.10
25.95
23.42
10.42
43.19
42.25
35.95
1.65
2.72
2.92
0.04080
0.04198
0.01041

`y =`x
mx m
mxmax
mxerm
mym
mymax
mxymax
qxerm
qxrmax
qyrmax
fm
fmax
fe

1.55
18.83
17.05
8.60
83.26
50.52
33.71
1.56
2.61
2.90
0.05418
0.05588
0.01239

1.60
18.49
16.73
8.51
90.54
50.86
33.67
1.56
2.61
2.90
0.05507
0.05681
0.01245

1.65
18.19
16.45
8.43
98.61
51.14
33.64
1.56
2.61
2.90
0.05587
0.05765
0.01250

p`4x
ffactor
Ed 3

1.15
24.51
22.15
10.07
45.87
43.76
35.37
1.63
2.69
2.92
0.04288
0.04414
0.01083

1.20
23.31
21.10
9.77
48.93
45.12
34.92
1.61
2.67
2.91
0.04479
0.04612
0.01118

1.25
22.32
20.22
9.52
52.38
46.32
34.57
1.60
2.65
2.91
0.04654
0.04794
0.01147

1.30
21.48
19.48
9.30
56.26
47.36
34.31
1.58
2.64
2.90
0.04813
0.04959
0.01171

1.35
20.78
18.84
9.12
60.58
48.24
34.11
1.58
2.63
2.90
0.04959
0.05111
0.01191

1.40
20.18
18.30
8.96
65.40
48.99
33.96
1.57
2.62
2.90
0.05091
0.05248
0.01207

1.45
19.67
17.83
8.82
70.75
49.61
33.85
1.57
2.62
2.90
0.05211
0.05373
0.01220

1.70
1.75
1.80
1.85
1.90
1.95
2.00
17.93
17.71
17.51
17.34
17.19
17.06
16.93
16.20
15.99
15.80
15.64
15.50
15.37
15.24
8.37
8.31
8.26
8.22
8.18
8.15
8.12
107.55
117.46
128.45
140.65
154.20
169.25
185.97
51.37
51.57
51.74
51.89
52.01
52.10
52.12
33.62
33.60
33.59
33.58
33.58
33.57
33.57
1.56
1.56
1.56
1.56
1.56
1.56
1.56
2.61
2.61
2.61
2.61
2.61
2.61
2.61
2.90
2.89
2.89
2.89
2.89
2.89
2.90
0.05660
0.05726
0.05785
0.05838
0.05886
0.05929
0.05967
0.05841
0.05910
0.05973
0.06030
0.06081
0.06127
0.06167
0.01254
0.01257
0.01259
0.01261
0.01262
0.01263
0.01264

1.50
19.22
17.41
8.70
76.68
50.11
33.77
1.56
2.61
2.90
0.05320
0.05486
0.01230

2574

V.K. Papanikolaou, I.N. Doudoumis / Computers and Structures 79 (2001) 25592578

A.7. Type 7: two adjacent sides fully xed and unilateral support on the other two sides

`x `min ;

p`2x
;
mfactor

p`x
;
qfactor

p`4x
ffactor
Ed 3

`y =`x
mx m
mxmax
mxermin
mym
mymax
myermin
mxymax
qxermax
qxrmax
qycrmax
qyrmax
fm
fmax
fe

1.00
41.66
38.15
14.06
41.66
38.15
14.06
43.55
1.93
3.16
1.93
3.16
0.02631
0.02763
0.00708

1.05
37.57
34.45
13.17
42.40
38.80
13.68
41.41
1.86
3.06
1.90
3.07
0.02889
0.03032
0.00763

1.10
34.24
31.41
12.43
43.46
39.64
13.38
39.69
1.81
2.98
1.87
3.01
0.03138
0.03293
0.00821

1.15
31.51
28.91
11.80
44.83
40.59
13.13
38.31
1.76
2.91
1.85
2.97
0.03377
0.03543
0.00878

1.20
29.28
26.86
11.27
46.51
41.63
12.93
37.21
1.73
2.85
1.84
2.95
0.03605
0.03782
0.00933

1.25
27.45
25.16
10.82
48.50
42.71
12.77
36.34
1.70
2.80
1.83
2.94
0.03821
0.04008
0.00984

1.30
25.93
23.75
10.44
50.82
43.79
12.65
35.64
1.68
2.76
1.82
2.93
0.04023
0.04219
0.01029

1.35
24.66
22.56
10.12
53.46
44.84
12.55
35.09
1.66
2.73
1.81
2.92
0.04213
0.04417
0.01069

1.40
23.58
21.55
9.84
56.44
45.85
12.47
34.65
1.64
2.70
1.81
2.92
0.04390
0.04601
0.01104

1.45
22.66
20.69
9.60
59.78
46.79
12.41
34.29
1.62
2.68
1.81
2.92
0.04554
0.04771
0.01133

`y =`x
mx m
mxmax
mxermin
mym
mymax
myermin
mxymax
qxermax
qxrmax
qyermax
qyrmax
fm
fmax
fe

1.55
21.17
19.29
9.21
67.64
48.39
12.33
33.76
1.60
2.65
1.80
2.91
0.04846
0.05072
0.01178

1.60
20.57
18.72
9.05
72.22
49.05
12.30
33.56
1.59
2.64
1.80
2.91
0.04975
0.05204
0.01194

1.65
20.04
18.22
8.91
77.28
49.61
12.28
33.39
1.58
2.63
1.80
2.91
0.05094
0.05325
0.01208

1.70
19.58
17.79
8.79
82.85
50.07
12.26
33.25
1.58
2.63
1.80
2.90
0.05203
0.05436
0.01219

1.75
19.19
17.41
8.68
89.00
50.44
12.25
33.13
1.57
2.62
1.80
2.90
0.05303
0.05537
0.01229

1.80
1.85
18.85
18.56
17.09
16.81
8.59
8.51
95.78
103.25
50.74
50.98
12.24
12.23
33.04
32.97
1.57
1.57
2.62
2.62
1.80
1.80
2.90
2.90
0.05395
0.05479
0.05630
0.05715
0.01237
0.01244

1.90
18.30
16.56
8.44
111.47
51.19
12.23
32.92
1.57
2.61
1.80
2.90
0.05556
0.05792
0.01250

1.95
18.06
16.32
8.38
120.54
51.39
12.23
32.88
1.57
2.61
1.80
2.90
0.05626
0.05863
0.01254

2.00
17.81
16.08
8.33
130.52
51.61
12.23
32.86
1.57
2.61
1.80
2.90
0.05688
0.05926
0.01255

1.50
21.87
19.94
9.39
63.51
47.64
12.36
34.00
1.61
2.66
1.80
2.92
0.04706
0.04928
0.01158

V.K. Papanikolaou, I.N. Doudoumis / Computers and Structures 79 (2001) 25592578

2575

A.8. Type 8: one small side fully xed, bilateral support on the one large side and unilateral support on the other two sides

`x `min ;

p`2x
;
mfactor

p`x
;
qfactor

p`4x
ffactor
Ed 3

`y =`x
mx m
mxmax
mym
mymax
myerm
mxye
qxrmaxl
qxrmaxr
qyerm
qyrmax
fm
fmax
fe

1.00
39.82
39.36
30.52
28.07
11.57
25.80
3.49
2.97
1.73
2.85
0.03492
0.03583
0.00896

1.05
34.84
34.57
30.01
27.61
11.04
24.19
3.32
2.84
1.68
2.79
0.03947
0.04046
0.01050

1.10
30.80
30.65
29.74
27.35
10.58
22.82
3.17
2.73
1.63
2.71
0.04411
0.04519
0.01185

1.15
27.52
27.45
29.66
27.28
10.20
21.67
3.05
2.63
1.60
2.62
0.04880
0.04997
0.01307

1.20
24.86
24.83
29.76
27.36
9.88
20.69
2.94
2.54
1.57
2.54
0.05350
0.05476
0.01421

1.25
22.68
22.67
30.02
27.57
9.61
19.86
2.85
2.47
1.55
2.47
0.05817
0.05952
0.01531

1.30
20.88
20.88
30.43
27.87
9.38
19.15
2.76
2.40
1.52
2.41
0.06279
0.06422
0.01638

1.35
19.39
19.39
30.98
28.25
9.18
18.54
2.69
2.35
1.51
2.37
0.06734
0.06883
0.01743

1.40
18.12
18.12
31.65
28.69
9.01
18.02
2.62
2.30
1.49
2.34
0.07178
0.07333
0.01847

1.45
17.04
17.03
32.45
29.16
8.87
17.57
2.56
2.26
1.48
2.32
0.07611
0.07770
0.01948

`y =`x
mx m
mxmax
mym
mymax
myerm
mxye
qxrmaxl
qxrmaxr
qyerm
qyrmax
fm
fmax
fe

1.55
15.27
15.27
34.41
30.13
8.63
16.84
2.45
2.20
1.45
2.31
0.08436
0.08601
0.02137

1.60
14.55
14.55
35.58
30.61
8.54
16.54
2.41
2.17
1.44
2.30
0.08826
0.08992
0.02222

1.65
13.91
13.91
36.87
31.06
8.46
16.28
2.37
2.15
1.43
2.29
0.09201
0.09366
0.02299

1.70
13.36
13.36
38.29
31.49
8.39
16.06
2.34
2.13
1.42
2.28
0.09559
0.09724
0.02366

1.75
12.88
12.88
39.85
31.88
8.33
15.87
2.31
2.11
1.42
2.26
0.09902
0.10064
0.02423

1.80
12.46
12.46
41.54
32.24
8.28
15.70
2.28
2.09
1.41
2.23
0.10228
0.10388
0.02472

1.85
12.10
12.09
43.37
32.57
8.24
15.56
2.26
2.08
1.41
2.22
0.10539
0.10695
0.02513

1.90
11.77
11.77
45.35
32.89
8.20
15.43
2.24
2.06
1.40
2.21
0.10834
0.10987
0.02550

1.95
11.47
11.46
47.47
33.20
8.17
15.32
2.21
2.05
1.40
2.20
0.11114
0.11264
0.02587

2.00
11.14
11.14
49.73
33.52
8.14
15.22
2.19
2.05
1.40
2.19
0.11380
0.11527
0.02630

1.50
16.10
16.09
33.37
29.65
8.74
17.18
2.50
2.23
1.46
2.31
0.08030
0.08193
0.02045

2576

V.K. Papanikolaou, I.N. Doudoumis / Computers and Structures 79 (2001) 25592578

A.9. Type 9: one large side fully xed, bilateral support on the one small side and unilateral support on the other two sides

`x `min ;

p`2x
;
mfactor

p`x
;
qfactor

p`4x
ffactor
Ed 3

`y =`x
mx m
mxmax
mxerm
mym
mymax
mxye
qxerm
qxrmax
qyrmaxu
qyrmaxo
fm
fmax
fe

1.00
30.52
28.07
11.57
39.82
39.36
25.80
1.73
2.85
3.49
2.97
0.03492
0.03583
0.00896

1.05
28.36
26.07
11.05
41.75
40.84
25.19
1.70
2.81
3.48
2.95
0.03734
0.03833
0.00954

1.10
26.57
24.40
10.62
43.99
42.25
24.69
1.68
2.77
3.47
2.93
0.03958
0.04065
0.01005

1.15
25.08
23.01
10.25
46.55
43.58
24.30
1.65
2.74
3.47
2.93
0.04167
0.04282
0.01050

1.20
23.84
21.85
9.94
49.46
44.81
23.98
1.63
2.71
3.47
2.92
0.04359
0.04482
0.01088

1.25
22.80
20.87
9.68
52.73
45.92
23.73
1.61
2.69
3.47
2.92
0.04536
0.04667
0.01121

1.30
21.93
20.05
9.45
56.39
46.92
23.53
1.60
2.67
3.47
2.91
0.04700
0.04837
0.01148

1.35
21.19
19.34
9.26
60.47
47.79
23.37
1.59
2.65
3.48
2.91
0.04849
0.04993
0.01171

1.40
20.56
18.74
9.09
64.99
48.55
23.25
1.58
2.64
3.48
2.91
0.04986
0.05136
0.01190

1.45
20.01
18.22
8.94
70.00
49.20
23.15
1.58
2.63
3.48
2.91
0.05111
0.05266
0.01205

`y =`x
mx m
mxmax
mxerm
mym
mymax
mxye
qxerm
qxrmax
qyrmaxu
qyrmaxo
fm
fmax
fe

1.55
19.12
17.37
8.71
81.68
50.21
23.02
1.57
2.62
3.49
2.90
0.05329
0.05494
0.01228

1.60
18.76
17.02
8.61
88.45
50.59
22.97
1.57
2.62
3.49
2.90
0.05423
0.05592
0.01236

1.65
1.70
18.44
18.16
16.71
16.45
8.52
8.45
95.93
104.20
50.91
51.17
22.94
22.91
1.57
1.57
2.62
2.62
3.49
3.49
2.90
2.90
0.05509
0.05586
0.05681
0.05763
0.01242
0.01248

1.75
17.92
16.21
8.39
113.35
51.39
22.89
1.56
2.61
3.49
2.90
0.05657
0.05837
0.01252

1.80
17.71
16.01
8.33
123.46
51.57
22.88
1.56
2.61
3.49
2.90
0.05721
0.05904
0.01255

1.85
17.53
15.83
8.28
134.65
51.73
22.87
1.56
2.61
3.49
2.90
0.05779
0.05965
0.01258

1.90
17.37
15.67
8.24
147.04
51.86
22.87
1.56
2.61
3.49
2.90
0.05831
0.06021
0.01260

1.95
17.22
15.53
8.20
160.76
51.96
22.86
1.56
2.61
3.49
2.90
0.05878
0.06071
0.01261

2.00
17.07
15.38
8.16
175.96
52.03
22.85
1.57
2.61
3.50
2.90
0.05920
0.06117
0.01262

1.50
19.54
17.77
8.82
75.55
49.75
23.08
1.57
2.62
3.49
2.90
0.05225
0.05385
0.01218

V.K. Papanikolaou, I.N. Doudoumis / Computers and Structures 79 (2001) 25592578

2577

A.10. Type 10: bilateral support on all four sides (results reliability check)

`x `min ;

p`2x
;
mfactor

p`x
;
qfactor

p`4x
ffactor
Ed 3

`y =`x
mx m
mym
mymax
mxye
qxrm
qyrm
fm

1.00
26.92
26.92
26.92
21.82
2.98
2.98
0.04938

1.05
24.35
27.20
27.20
20.87
2.88
2.93
0.05428

1.10
22.22
27.63
27.63
20.07
2.79
2.90
0.05913

1.15
20.44
28.18
28.18
19.39
2.71
2.87
0.06390

1.20
18.96
28.87
28.87
18.81
2.64
2.85
0.06856

1.25
17.71
29.68
29.77
18.32
2.58
2.83
0.07310

1.30
16.65
30.60
30.71
17.90
2.52
2.82
0.07749

1.35
15.75
31.65
31.67
17.54
2.47
2.80
0.08173

1.40
14.97
32.81
32.61
17.23
2.43
2.79
0.08581

1.45
14.29
34.09
33.51
16.96
2.39
2.78
0.08972

`y =`x
mx m
mym
mymax
mxye
qxrm
qyrm
fm

1.55
13.16
37.01
35.16
16.53
2.32
2.76
0.09704

1.60
12.69
38.66
35.90
16.36
2.29
2.75
0.10045

1.65
12.27
40.44
36.58
16.21
2.26
2.74
0.10369

1.70
11.90
42.36
37.20
16.08
2.24
2.74
0.10677

1.75
11.57
44.43
37.76
15.97
2.22
2.74
0.10970

1.80
11.28
46.65
38.28
15.88
2.20
2.74
0.11247

1.85
11.02
49.03
38.74
15.80
2.18
2.74
0.11510

1.90
10.79
51.58
39.15
15.73
2.17
2.74
0.11758

1.95
10.57
54.32
39.50
15.66
2.15
2.74
0.11992

2.00
10.35
57.24
39.78
15.60
2.14
2.73
0.12212

1.50
13.69
35.49
34.37
16.73
2.35
2.77
0.09347

2578

V.K. Papanikolaou, I.N. Doudoumis / Computers and Structures 79 (2001) 25592578

References
[1]
[2]
[3]
[4]
[5]
[6]
[7]
[8]
[9]
[10]

Czerny F. Tafeln fur gleichmassig vollbelastete Rechteckplatten Bautechnik-Archiv, Heft11. Berlin: Wilhelm Ernst; 1955.
Hahn J. Durchlauftrager, Rahmen und Platten. D
usseldorf: Verlag; 1974.
Stiglat K, Wippel H. PLATTEN. Berlin: Verlag von Wilhelm Ernst; 1973.
Timoshenko SP, Woinowsky-Krieger S. Theory of plates and shells. New York: McGraw Hill; 1959.
Nitsiotas G. Statics of framed structures I and II. Greece: Thessaloniki; 1980.
Maier G. Incremental plastic analysis in the presence of large displacements and physical instabilizing eects. Int J Solids Struct
1971;7:34572.
Murty KG. Linear complementarity, linear and nonlinear programming. Berlin: Heldermann Verlag; 1988.
Doudoumis IN. Modelling inll nite elements with unilateral frictional contact interface conditions, PhD thesis. Dept of Civil
Engineering, Aristotle University of Thessaloniki, Greece, 1991.
Bathe KJ. Finite element procedures in engineering analysis. Englewood Clis, NJ: Prentice-Hall; 1982.
Papanikolaou VK. Stress state of rectangular fully supported plates with unilateral contact support conditions. Diploma Thesis.
Department of Civil Engineering, Aristotle, University of Thessaloniki, Greece, 1999.