This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?

Welcome to Scribd! Start your free trial and access books, documents and more.Find out more

Yield line Theory for Concrete Slabs Subjected to Axial Force

DANMARKS TEKNISKE UNIVERSITET

**Rapport BYG·DTU R-073 2003
**

ISSN 1601-2917 ISBN 87-7877-136-6

**Yield line Theory for Concrete Slabs Subjected to Axial Force
**

Tim Gudmand-Høyer

um

Non-deflected form Deflected form

.

Sc.D. dr. M. Sc.D. BYG•DTU. Bent Feddersen RAMBØLL and Architect MAA Søren Bøgh MURO for their engagement and criticism to the present work and my Ph.D. for the inspiration and the many and rewarding discussions and criticism to this work. degree at the Technical University of Denmark. M.D. I would like to thank my supervisor for the valuable advise. P. Finally I would like to thank my wife and family for their encouragement and support. Bent Steen Andreasen. Technical University of Denmark (BYG•DTU).D. The work has been carried out at the Department of Structural Engineering and Materials. Thanks are also due to my co-supervisor M. Sc.-project in general.D. M.-student Karsten Findsen. techn. Laugesen. M. Nielsen. under the supervision of Professor.-student Jakob L. M. Ph. Ph. Sc.-student Lars Z. Lyngby. Ph. Ph. RAMBØLL. December 2003 Tim Gudmand-Høyer -1- . Hansen.D.Tim Gudmand-Høyer 1 Preface This report is prepared as a partial fulfilment of the requirements for obtaining the Ph. Ph. BYG•DTU. Sc. BYG•DTU.

Yield line Theory for Concrete Slabs Subjected to Axial Force -2- .

W. The same assumptions are also used for rectangular slabs loaded with axial force in both one and two directions and sufficiently good agreement is found by comparing the methods. This method has shown good agreement with experiments and has won general acceptance. Only a few comparisons between experiments and theory are made. In this paper this is verified by comparing the results with numerical calculations of the dissipation. For a slab without axial force the usual way of calculating this dissipation is by using the normality condition of the theory of plasticity together with the yield condition. It is found that the calculations lead to the same results if the axes of rotation are the same for adjacent slab parts. If it is assumed that the axis of rotation corresponds to the neutral axis of a slab part and the dissipation is found from the moment capacities about these axes K. Johansen. In this paper the dissipation in a yield line is calculated on the basis of the Coulomb yield condition for concrete in order to verify K. Johansen’s method. An evaluation of the error made using K. Johansen’s proposal for orthotropic rectangular slabs is made and it is found that the method is sufficiently correct for practical purposes. Johansen’s proposal may be used to find the loadcarrying capacity in these cases too. -3- . In order to calculate the load-carrying capacity from an upper bound solution the dissipation has to be known. For deflected slabs it is known that the load-carrying capacity is higher. this is only true if the slab is isotropic and not subjected to axial load. This method is equivalent to the original proposal by K.Tim Gudmand-Høyer 2 Summary This paper treats the subject Yield line Theory for Concrete Slabs Subjected to Axial Force. Different approaches are discussed. Interaction diagrams between the axial load and the transverse load are developed at the end of the paper for both methods. W. If the deflection is unknown an estimate of the deflection based on the yield strains of the concrete and the reinforcement seems to lead to acceptable results. Also for deflected slabs it is found that the simplified method is sufficiently correct for practical purposes. W. These indicate that the theory may be used if a proper effectiveness factor is introduced and the deflection at failure is known. W. However.

Kun ganske få forsøg er her fundet brugbare til verifikation af teorien. Denne metode har vist god overensstemmelse med forsøg og er almindeligt benyttet. Denne metode er ækvivalent med K. Af dette fremgår det at resultatet er det samme hvis rotationsakserne for tilstødende pladedele ligger i samme højde. Fejlen vurderes at være uden praktisk betydning. Kendes brududbøjningen ikke kan man tilsyneladende anvende et skøn der baserer sig på flydetøjningen for beton og armering. W. I denne rapport udregnes dissipationen i en brudlinie ud fra dissipationsformlerne for et Coulomb materiale og dette sammenholdes med K. Beregninger af plader med normalkraft og udbøjede plader med normalkraft i både en og to retninger viser tilsvarende god overensstemmelse. Dette vil dog kun være rigtigt for isotrope plader og der er derfor gennemført en vurdering af fejlen ved beregninger af ortotrope plader. at afvigelserne er uden praktisk betydning. Ved sammenligning mellem forsøg og teori er det vist at beregninger med en passende effektivitetsfaktor giver god overensstemmelse med forsøg hvis man anvender den målte brududbøjning. Plader uden normalkraft beregnes normalt ud fra plasticitetsteoriens normalitetsbetingelse kombineret med pladens flydebetingelse. Beregningerne viser. Johansens metode. Det er her vist at hvis man antager at rotationsaksen svarer til nullinien for den enkelte pladedel og beregner dissipationen efter K. Dette er eftervist ved at sammenligne med numeriske beregninger der baserer sig på dissipationsudtrykkene for et Coulomb materiale. W. W. For at kunne beregne bæreevnen ud fra en øvreværdibetragtning er det nødvendigt at kunne udregne dissipationen. -4- .Yield line Theory for Concrete Slabs Subjected to Axial Force 3 Resume Denne rapport behandler emnet brudlinieteori for plader belastet med normalkræfter og tværbelastning. Det vides at bæreevnen for en plade stiger under udbøjning. Johansens fremgangsmåde kan man beregne bæreevnen. Johansens oprindelige forslag. Disse data er for kvadratiske plader med normalkraft i én retning. Interaktionsdiagrammer for normal og tværlast behandles til sidst og der gives forskellige bud på hvordan dette kan gribes an.

................................................... 98 Appendix ............................................................1...1 Results of calculations for different slabs ..................29 7.................................................................5 RECTANGULAR SLABS WITH AXIAL FORCE AND WITH DEFLECTION ...............................................79 8 9 10 11 Theory compared with tests...................................................................................................... 97 Literature ...........................................10 7..............................................................................................................6 INTERACTION CURVES .........................................................3 SQUARE SLAB WITHOUT AXIAL FORCE .................... 7 Introduction .................................................. 89 Conclusion .........................................................................................................1........................................... 4 Table of contents .........................................................................Tim Gudmand-Høyer 4 Table of contents 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Preface ..1 DISSIPATION IN A YIELD LINE .............................................................. 9 Theory......................................2 BEAM EXAMPLE ...............................................................................44 7...........2 The contribution from the reinforcement..................................... 10 7..........................................................33 7....................................... 99 11.........................................................................................................99 11.................................................................................10 7................................................................................................................................... 1 Summary.................. 5 Notation ...........................................................1..................................................55 7..............30 7....................................................................................................4 RECTANGULAR SLABS WITH AXIAL FORCE ......................................... 3 Resume .................................................................................................................................1 The contribution from the concrete...................................................103 -5- .........2 CALCULATIONS OF THE COMPRESSION DEPTH ..................

Yield line Theory for Concrete Slabs Subjected to Axial Force -6- .

z Height of a cross-section Area of a cross-section Area of a concrete cross-section Area of reinforcement close to the bottom face Area of reinforcement close to the top face Area of reinforcement in compression Distance from the bottom face to the centre of the bottom reinforcement Distance from the top face to the centre of the top reinforcement Compression depth Length of an element Length of a slab in the x and y direction. but this will then be noted in the text in connection with the actual symbol. y. uniform load per unit length -7- ρ Φ0 Φ0x. Exceptions from the list may appear. respectively Line load.Ly e u um x. respectively Eccentricity Deflection Deflection in the mid section Cartesian coordinates Physics ε σ σc fc fy Strain Stress Stress in concrete Compressive strength of concrete Yield strength of reinforcement Reinforcement ratio Degree of Reinforcement Degree of Reinforcement in the x and y direction.Tim Gudmand-Høyer 5 Notation The most commonly used symbols are listed below. Geometry h A Ac As As ’ Asc hc hc’ y0 L Lx. Φ0y p .

respectively internal and external work.We Wc. respectively yield moment for a given axial load yield moment for a given axial load in the x and y direction. uniform load per area unit yield moment in pure bending yield moment in pure bending in the x and y direction. respectively Axial load per unit length Axial load per unit length in the x and y direction.Yield line Theory for Concrete Slabs Subjected to Axial Force q mp mpx.Ws Surface load. respectively concrete and reinforcement contribution to the dissipation.mfy n nx.mpy mf mfx. respectively -8- .ny Wi.

In order to determine the load-carrying capacity for slabs by using an upper bound approach the dissipation in a yield line has to be found.5) treat different cases of rectangular slabs starting with the square slab without axial force and initial deflection and ending up with rectangular slabs with axial force and initial deflections. In chapter 8 test results are compared with theory. R. In both cases formulas for the dissipation are developed for all possible yield lines starting in a corner. In section 7. -9- . Section 7. Johansen´s proposal regarding the dissipation and C. Finally conclusions are made in chapter 9. In section 7.2 treats beams.Tim Gudmand-Høyer 6 Introduction This paper has two main purposes.1 the contribution from the concrete and the reinforcement are found separately. Calladine´s proposal regarding the axes of rotation. This illustrates the basic problems in these calculations. The following sections (7. The first one is to investigate the possibility of calculating the load-carrying capacity of a slab in a simplified way based on an interpretation of K.3 to 7. followed by the formulas for the special case of a right-angled corner. W. The second purpose is to investigate the possibility of finding a calculation method for the relation between axial load-carrying capacity and lateral load-carrying capacity.6 a conservative proposal for an interaction curve between the axial load and the transverse load is given.

which is the depth from the top surface to the point considered.1) u being the relative displacement and α the angle between the displacement and the yield line. the relative displacement discontinuity is no longer perpendicular to the yield line. The angle between the displacement discontinuity and the yield line changes with the depth from the slab surface and this must be taken into account when calculating the dissipation. Setting the tensile strength of concrete to zero.1 Dissipation in a yield line If the axes of rotation for two slab parts are not at the same depth measured from the slab surface.10 - . uI and uII are the displacements of slab part I and II. Both u and α depends on z. Formula for plane stress has been used.1 The contribution from the concrete The concrete dissipation in the yield line may be calculated from the dissipation formulas for plane stress assuming a modified Coulomb material. Depending on whether the displacements uI and uII are positive or not. 7.Equation Section 7 II Axis of rotation for slab II y w u π 2 -α w π II v w 2 −v − (w − v) uI=ωI(hI-z) I u uII=ωII(hII-z) I w-v Axis of rotation for slab I x z hII hI z Figure 7. the contribution to the dissipation (per unit length) from the concrete may be calculated as: Wc = ∫ h 0 1 f c u (1 − sin (α ) )dz 2 (7.Yield line Theory for Concrete Slabs Subjected to Axial Force 7 Theory 7. respectively. α and u has to be calculated from one of the following cases: . Displacement for two slab parts.1. see [5].1.

2) (7.11 - .Tim Gudmand-Høyer Case 1: uI>0 & uII>0 -α uI uII u u = u I 2 + u II 2 − 2uI uII cos (π − w ) π u 2 + u II 2 − uI 2 cos + − α = − v Arc 2 2uII u (7.7) .5) u = u I 2 + u II 2 − 2 ( −uI ) u II cos ( w ) π u 2 + u II 2 − ( −u I )2 α = − + v + Arc cos 2 u u 2 II Case 3: uI>0 & uII<0 α u -uII uI u = u I 2 + u II 2 − 2uI uII cos (π − w ) (7.6) u 2 + uII 2 − uI 2 α = − v − Arc cos 2 −2u II u π (7.4) (7.3) Case 2: uI<0 & uII>0 -α uII -uI u (7.

II y sin(v) II 1 v w I •δ sin(w-v) I sin ( w − v ) x ω II = sin ( v ) δ w-v ω = I δ ω= δ 1 Figure 7.9) α= π u 2 + u II 2 − ( −u I )2 − v + Arc cos − u u 2 2 II It is seen that the calculation of u is the same in all the cases and u may in general be calculated as: u = u I 2 + u II 2 + 2uI uII cos ( w ) (7.10) The angle between the displacement and the yield line α varies with respect to uI and uII depending on whether they are positive or negative. Geometrical relation between the rotations. The relation between the two rotations about I and II may be found from the geometrical conditions demanding the same displacement at a point of the yield line. .12 - .2.8) (7.Yield line Theory for Concrete Slabs Subjected to Axial Force Case 4: uI<0 & uII<0 α -uII u -uI u = u I 2 + u II 2 − 2uI uII cos (π − w ) (7.11) Here ω is the rotation of slab part line about an axis along to the yield line. It appears from Figure 7.2 that the rotations may be calculated as ωI = ω II = sin ( w − v ) sin ( v ) ω ω (7.

14) π u 2 + u II 2 − uI 2 α = − 2 + v − Arc cos 2uII u Case 2 (uI<0 & uII>0): π u 2 + u II 2 − ( −u I )2 α = − + v + Arc cos 2 2 u u II Case 3 (uI>0 & uII<0): (7.Tim Gudmand-Høyer In the calculation of the displacement it is assumed that the rotation is small and the displacement may therefore be calculated as the rotation multiplied with the height.15) (7.17) u 2 + u II 2 − ( −u I )2 α = − v + Arc cos − 2 2 u u II π (7.13) ω ω hII z hI z h − + − h sin ( w − v ) h h sin ( v ) h h u= ⇔ ω ω hII z hI z +2 − h − h sin ( w − v ) cos ( w ) h h sin ( v ) h h hI z hII z z h z h − − 2 I − II − cos ( w ) u h h h h h h h h = + + hω sin ( w − v ) sin ( v ) sin ( w − v ) sin ( v ) The angle α may be calculated as: Case 1(uI>0 & uII>0): 2 2 2 2 (7.12) and (7.13) into (7. The displacements uI. uII and u may be calculated as uI = h hI z − ⇔ sin ( w − v ) h h ω 1 uI hI z = − hω sin ( w − v ) h h uII = h hII z − ⇔ v sin ( ) h h (7.12) ω u II 1 hII z = − hω sin ( v ) h h Inserting (7.18) .16) α= Case 4 (uI<0 & uII<0): π u 2 + uII 2 − uI 2 − v − Arc cos 2 −2u II u (7.10) leads to: (7.13 - .

2 sin ( v ) 1.hI sin ( v )2 . hII. However. Distinctions must be made whether h1 is larger than h2 and whether these are larger than h.25π may be seen in Figure 7. As an example it is seen that if h1<h2 and h2>h the formula becomes: h ω fc 2 1 1 u z z 1u 1 − sin (α case1 ) ) d + ∫ 1 − sin (α case 2 ) ) d ( ( h h1 2 h h 2h Wc =∫ h1 0 (7.2 hII cos ( v )2 + hI .cos ( v ) + 1 + h h h h h h h h h 2 h 2 2 4 2 I II . I . h2 and h lead to the result given in (7. These plots show which case has to be used in the calculation. The dissipation may be calculated in a dimensionless form as: h ω fc 2 Wc =∫ 1 0 z 1u 1 − sin (α ) ) d ( h 2h (7. . II cos ( v ) .Yield line Theory for Concrete Slabs Subjected to Axial Force It is seen that the contribution to the dissipation from the concrete is a function of both the position of the axes of rotation hI.6.hII cos ( v )2 h h h h h h 2 2 hI 2 hII 2 2 2 hI hII v v sin cos v + sin + ( ) ( ) ( ) cos ( v ) h h h h + log 2 hI hII hI 2 hI hII 2 hII 2 2 2 .14 - .sin ( v ) .19) A general analytical expression has not been found.1 to Figure 7.20).20) This expression is found from integrating by parts over the interval in which the expressions for α are valid. the rotation ω and the compressive strength fc.5π and v=0. the depth h.2 hI sin ( v )2 1.21) Fortunately all the combinations of h1.2 cos ( v ) + .19) depends on the height and finally the function it self.5 w=0.cos ( v ) ⋅ h h h h ( ) (7. Plots of results of calculations for hII/h =0. how the different parts in the function (7. for the special case of right-angled corners (w=π/2) the dissipation becomes: h ω fc 2 Wc = 1 ⋅ 4sin ( v ) cos ( v ) 2 2 h 2 2 h 2 2 hI hII -1 + 2 + sin ( v ) + cos ( v ) I sin ( v ) + II cos ( v ) h h h h 2 2 + 1 + hII .

5 2 2.3 0.6667 h /h=1/2 w=1/2π v=1/4π I II h /h=1/2 h /h=1/2 w=1/2π v=1/4π I II 0. .1 0 1 1.3.5 2 1-sin(α ) Figure 7.5 caseno Case no 3 3.5 1 1.5 4 Figure 7.3 0.4 0.9 0.15 - .6667 h /h=1/2 w=1/2π v=1/4π I II h /h=1/2 h /h=1/2 w=1/2π v=1/4π I II 0.Tim Gudmand-Høyer 1 0.2 0.5 0.2 0.4 0.1 0 0 0.8 0. z/h as a function of the case no.7 0. z/h as a function of 1-sin(α).7 0.6 z/h h /h=0 h /h=1/2 w=1/2π v=1/4π I II h /h=1/8 h /h=1/2 w=1/2π v=1/4π I II h /h=1/4 h /h=1/2 w=1/2π v=1/4π I II h /h=1/2.9 0. 1 0.8 0.4.5 0.6 z/h h /h=0 h /h=1/2 w=1/2π v=1/4π I II h /h=1/8 h /h=1/2 w=1/2π v=1/4π I II h /h=1/4 h /h=1/2 w=1/2π v=1/4π I II h /h=1/2.

4 1.4 0.3 0.2 0. z/h as a function of ∆W.4 0.8 1 1.5.1 0 0 0.7 0.8 0.3 0.5 0.6.2 1.5 2 Figure 7.5 1 ∆W =u/(hω)(1-sin(α )) 1.16 - .6 z/h h /h=0 h /h=1/2 w=1/2π v=1/4π I II h /h=1/8 h /h=1/2 w=1/2π v=1/4π I II h /h=1/4 h /h=1/2 w=1/2π v=1/4π I II h /h=1/2.6 u/(hω ) Figure 7.8 0. most of the contribution to the dissipation is from the top (z/h is small).4 0. 1 0.2 0.7 0.Yield line Theory for Concrete Slabs Subjected to Axial Force 1 0. z/h as a function of u/(hω).6 0. As expected.5 0.9 0.6 z/h h /h=0 h /h=1/2 w=1/2π v=1/4π I II h /h=1/8 h /h=1/2 w=1/2π v=1/4π I II h /h=1/4 h /h=1/2 w=1/2π v=1/4π I II h /h=1/2.9 0.1 0 0 0.6667 h /h=1/2 w=1/2π v=1/4π I II h /h=1/2 h /h=1/2 w=1/2π v=1/4π I II 0. .2 0.6667 h /h=1/2 w=1/2π v=1/4π I II h /h=1/2 h /h=1/2 w=1/2π v=1/4π I II 0.

Tim Gudmand-Høyer Plots of results of calculations for hII/h =0 w=0.17 - .1 0 0 0.1 0 3 3.2 0.5 0. z/h as a function of the case no.3 0.7.8 0.6 3.9 0.9 0.7 0. z/h as a function of 1-sin(α).6 z/h h /h=0 h /h=1/Inf w=1/2π v=1/4π I II h /h=1/8 h /h=1/Inf w=1/2π v=1/4π I II h /h=1/4 h /h=1/Inf w=1/2π v=1/4π I II h /h=1/2.2 0. .5 0.5 2 1-sin(α ) Figure 7.5 1 1. 1 0.10. 1 0.6667 h /h=1/Inf w=1/2π v=1/4π I II h /h=1/2 h /h=1/Inf w=1/2π v=1/4π I II 0.8 0.4 0.7 to Figure 7.6667 h /h=1/Inf w=1/2π v=1/4π I II h /h=1/2 h /h=1/Inf w=1/2π v=1/4π I II 0.8.5π and v=0.25π may be seen in Figure 7.4 caseno 3.8 4 Figure 7.4 0.3 0.2 3.6 z/h h /h=0 h /h=1/Inf w=1/2π v=1/4π I II h /h=1/8 h /h=1/Inf w=1/2π v=1/4π I II h /h=1/4 h /h=1/Inf w=1/2π v=1/4π I II h /h=1/2.7 0.

6 z/h h /h=0 h /h=1/Inf w=1/2π v=1/4π I II h /h=1/8 h /h=1/Inf w=1/2π v=1/4π I II h /h=1/4 h /h=1/Inf w=1/2π v=1/4π I II h /h=1/2.7 0.6667 h /h=1/Inf w=1/2π v=1/4π I II h /h=1/2 h /h=1/Inf w=1/2π v=1/4π I II 0. 1 0.5 0.9 0.6667 h /h=1/Inf w=1/2π v=1/4π I II h /h=1/2 h /h=1/Inf w=1/2π v=1/4π I II 0.2 0.3 0.4 Figure 7.6 0.8 0.3 0.8 0.5 1 1.2 1.2 0.7 0. z/h as a function of ∆W.18 - .4 0.9.1 0 0 0.1 0 0 0.10.4 0. In the case where one of the axes of rotation is in the top face it is seen that the main contribution is from the top of the slab.5 0.4 0.2 0.5 2 u/(hω ) Figure 7. z/h as a function of u/(hω).8 ∆W =u/(hω)(1-sin(α )) 1 1.9 0.6 z/h h /h=0 h /h=1/Inf w=1/2π v=1/4π I II h /h=1/8 h /h=1/Inf w=1/2π v=1/4π I II h /h=1/4 h /h=1/Inf w=1/2π v=1/4π I II h /h=1/2. .Yield line Theory for Concrete Slabs Subjected to Axial Force 1 0.

0.4 1.4 0.Tim Gudmand-Høyer A plot of the dimensionless dissipation contribution from the concrete is shown as a function of hI/h and hII/h for w=0.5 . 0.6 0.2 0 0 0.5 0.1 0.4 0.7 0.4 00 0.11.12.5 0.19 - .8 7 0.12Contour plot of the dimensionless dissipation contribution from the concrete.3 0 .5 00 0.1 0 0 0.7 0.3 0. These values are found from numerical integration over the depth of the section.4 0.8 0.4 0.2 0.6 0.6 .4 0.5 0.2 0.1 .5π and w=0.3 0.2 1 Wc/(h2ωf c) 0.8 1 Figure 7.25π in Figure 7.4 0 0.6 0.3 0. Wc/(h2ω f c) for w=1/2π v=1/4π 1. 0. .6 0.5 3 0. 0.9 0.3 .4 0. 3 0 0 0.6 hII/h 0.6 0.9 1 1 hI/h .5 0.4 0.4 Figure 7.5 6 6 0 0.5 0.2 0.2 0.5 0 ..4 hI/h 0.9 0..1 0.8 hII/h Wc/(h2ω f c) for w=1/2π v=1/4π 1 0.7 0.2 0. 2 7 0. Surface and contour plot of the dimensionless dissipation contribution from the concrete.2 0.11 and Figure 7.3 00 .5 .6 0.2 0.8 0.2 0.1 0.6 0.8 0.4 0.

W .W . In this case Wc _ K . P. assuming a displacement perpendicular to the axis of rotation. . K.18 along with the deviation. J 1 f c u (1 − sin (α ) )dz 2 hI 1 hII 1 =∫ f u 2 cos ( w . the dissipation contribution from the concrete might be calculated from the rotation about the axis.20 - . Nielsen in [5].13 to Figure 7. This may be calculated quite easily since only the compression zone contributes to the dissipation and the displacement is perpendicular to the axis of rotation.W . Johansen’s proposal has been demonstrated by M. W. J = f c h w v dz h v dz cos cos( ) ( ) ∫0 sin ( v ) h h ∫0 sin ( w − v ) h h cos ( w − v ) hI hI z cos(v) hII hII z Wc _ K . W. They are made for different values for v in order to illustrate the influence of such a variation.W .Yield line Theory for Concrete Slabs Subjected to Axial Force It appears that the actual calculations are somewhat comprehensive and a simplification is therefore desirable. J = h 2ω f c I + II 2 h tan ( w − v ) 2 h tan ( v ) (7.W .22) A numerical comparison between the simplified calculation and the theoretical one may be seen in Figure 7. J = ∫ Wc _ K . see [1]. J = hω f c dz − + − dz ∫0 h h sin ( v ) ∫0 h h sin ( w − v ) 2 1 h 2 1 1h 1 Wc _ K . proposed that the bending moment in a section perpendicular to the yield line may be calculated as if the principal directions were coinciding with the directions of the reinforcement. J = f c (∫ hI 0 uI cos ( w − v ) dz + ∫ uII cos(v)dz hII 0 ) hI hII ω ω hII z hI z − − + − Wc _ K . If a similar relation is valid for the dissipation. The agreement between the yield condition and K. Johansen. J = hω f c − dz + − dz sin ( w − v ) ∫0 sin ( v ) ∫0 h h h h cos ( w − v ) hL hI z cos(v) hII hII z Wc _ K .W . These plots illustrate how large the difference is and how it depends on the position of the axis of rotation.v ) dz + ∫ f u 2 cos(v)dz 0 2 c I 0 2 c II h 0 Wc _ K .W .

6 0.7 9 .J.5 0.1 0.6 0. 8 0.6 0.8 1 Figure 7. 7 .J.3 0.6 0.1 -0 .1 0 0 0.8 0. Theoretical 0 0.5 0.2 0.4 0.Tim Gudmand-Høyer Wc/(h2ωf c) for w=1/2π v=1/4π 1 0.3 0.W.-Wc)/Wc for w=1/2π v=1/4π 1 0.5 0.7 0.1 -0 .4 0.1 0 0 -0 .1 0.1 0.5 0.4 hII/h 0.9 0.6 0.4 0. 2 0.6 0 0.3 0.7 0.2 0. 0. Deviation plot for the two calculation methods.8 0.2 0.4 0.8 1 0 0.1 0 -0 -0.9 0.5 0.3 0.5 0.3 0.14.4 0.2 -0 .3 -0 .3 0.W.6 -0 .2 0.7 0 0 0.2 0.21 - .6 0.2 .6 0.4 0.4 8 0. .3 0. 1 0 0 -0.4 0.2 0.1 0.5 3 0.4 .3 0.5 0.2 0.5 0.2 hII/h 0.6 0.7 0.4 hI/h 0.2 0 0.0 .1 -0 . Simplification 0.4 hI/h Figure 7.5 0.13 Contour plot of the dimensionless dissipation contribution from the concrete (Wc K.9 0.2 0.6 K.2 0. 0 0.1 0 1 -0 .

9 0.5 0.6 0.2 0.22 - .8 0.1 0 0 0 0. .5 0.4 -0 .1 0.8 0 K.1 0 0 0 hII/h 0.15 Contour plot of the dimensionless dissipation contribution from the concrete (Wc K.4 0.2 0.2 0.W.8 0.6 0 .8 0.J.6 0.6 0.4 0.6 -0 .2 0.2 1 0 -0 .3 -0 -0.1 0 -0 .6 hII/h 0.6 0.2 0.J.2 -0 .4 hI/h 0.2 0.2 -0 . Deviation plot for the two calculation methods.8 0.1 0 0.2 -0 .7 0.2 0.16. .1 0 -0 .W.4 hI/h 0.1 0 0 0.6 0.2 0. 3 -0 .4 0.6 0.7 0. 8 0.3 0.6 1 Theoretical 1 0.3 0.2 0.Yield line Theory for Concrete Slabs Subjected to Axial Force Wc/(h2ωf c) for w=1/2π v=1/6π 1 0.4 0.4 0. Simplification 1 .1 -0.4 0.9 0.8 1 Figure 7.8 0.4 0.2 0.4 0.-Wc)/Wc for w=1/2π v=1/6π 1 0.8 0.8 1 Figure 7.

4 hII/h 0.8 0.4 -0 .8 1.4 0.6 0.17 Contour plot of the dimensionless dissipation contribution from the concrete (Wc K. .23 - .J.6Simplification K.Tim Gudmand-Høyer Wc/(h2ωf c) for w=1/2π v=1/12π 1 0.2 0.3-0 .6 hI/h 0.8 1.6 1.J.8 Theoretical1.1 -0.1 0 0.8 1.1 .2 0.4 0.W.6 1.20.4 0.1 0 0 0 0 0 -0 .4 1.2 -0 .2 1.8 0. 1.6 1.8 0. Furthermore.18.2 1 1 1 0.3 -0 .3 0.7 0.6 1.9 0.6 0.8 0.4 1.4 0.4 -0 .6 0. Deviation plot for the two calculation methods.6 0 0 hII/h 0.2 1.2 0 -0 .2 1.9 0.3 0.6 1.6 1.2 1 0.8 0.8 1.4 0.6 0.8 1. it also appears that an increasing difference between v and π/4 leads to a larger underestimation.7 0.1 0 0 0.4 1.2 0. It appears that the simplification underestimates the dissipation if w=1/2π.2 1 1 0.8 0.-Wc)/Wc for w=1/2π v=1/12π 1 0. The underestimation is large where the difference between hI/h and hII/h is large.4 1.8 1 Figure 7.4 0.5 0.6 hI/h 0.3 0.2 0.1 -0 .4 0.5 0.8 1 Figure 7.20.2 1.2 -0.8 0.4 -0 0.6 0.2 0.6 0.W.4 1.4 1.8 1.4 0.2 0.2 0.

0 0.24 - 0.1 5 1 .2 0.4 0.2 0.8 0.6 0.3 0. 0.3 0.1 5 0.21 to Figure 7. Simplification 35 5 0.2K.4 0.25 and Figure 7.1 0.26.6 0. 2 0.2 15 0.4 hI/h 0.3333π v=1/2.W.1 0.9 0.8 Figure 7.24. If w is very small the overestimation becomes quite significant as seen in Figure 7.3 Theoretical 0.3 0.Yield line Theory for Concrete Slabs Subjected to Axial Force The influence of w has also been studied and the following conclusions may be made: If w is larger than 1/2π the simplification underestimates the dissipation as seen in Figure 7. 0.1 5 0.0 5 0. Wc/(h2ωf c) for w=1/1.19 to Figure 7. hII/h 0.3 25 0.1 0 0 0.1 5 0.7 0.2 0.3 0.26) are illustrative representations of the different situations where w is larger or smaller than 1/2π.J.19 Contour plot of the dimensionless dissipation contribution from the concrete .2 0.2 0.3 0.1 .6667π 1 0. These figures (Figure 7. 0.5 0.2 0.2 3 0.4 0.4 0.20 If w is less than 1/2π the simplification overestimates the dissipation as seen in Figure 7.1 0 0.2 0.1 0.19 to Figure 7.

3 0.1 0. Deviation plot for the two calculation methods.Tim Gudmand-Høyer (Wc K.8 1 1 Figure 7.2 0.3 0.51.7 0. -0 .J.9 0.7 .4 -0.3 -0 .5 -0.8 0.7 0.7 0 .1 .3 .6 0. -0 .-Wc)/Wc for w=1/1.6 -0 .W. -00 06 .1 -0 1 -0 .12 -0 -0 .5 1 0.25 - .4 -0 . Wc/(h2ωf c) for w=1/4π v=1/8π 1 0.4 -0 . -0 -0 .4 hI/h 0.5 -.6 0. 2 -0 .6 -0 .4 -0 .2 0.8 1 Figure 7.9 0.20.1 0 0 .4 0.7 -0 . Simplification 2 1 1 0. 5 0..2 0.3 ..5 0.21 Contour plot of the dimensionless dissipation contribution from the concrete .3333π v=1/2.2 0.3 4 .5 1 1 1.Theoretical 2 5 K.6 0.4 hII/h -0 .3 -0 .4 hI/h 0.5 1 0.6 0.2 0.6 0. -0 .2 0. 2 -0 . 51.5 -0 .6 0 -0-0 . 3 -0 .5 0.4 0.5 -0 .1 0 0 0.6 -0 1 -0 .8 0.5 1. 5 1 hII/h 0.5 -0 .6667π 1 -0 .2 -0 -0 .2 5.W.J.5 0.

1 0.1 5 hII/h 0.0 5 0.2 5 0.5 0.1 0 0 0.1 0.2 5 0.5 .2 5 0.1 0.3 5 0. Deviation plot for the two calculation methods.W.7 0.5 0.3 0.5 2 2 3 Theoretical 22 3 .4 0.5 11 hII/h 0.3 0.5 0.5 22 2 1.5 0.6 0.8 0.4 0.2 0.6 0.3 5 0.3 0.4 0.2 5 0.8 1 Figure 7.8 0.6 0.7 0.5 0.9 0.1 5 .15 0.5 1 1 11 1.2 5 0.6 2 2 1.9 0.3 0.2 0. 0.22.0 5 5 0.-Wc)/Wc for w=1/4π v=1/8π 0.0 0.3 0.2 0.5 0.Yield line Theory for Concrete Slabs Subjected to Axial Force (Wc K.J.1 0 0 0.5 1 1 0.W.1 0.2 0.5 1.4 hI/h 0.4 hI/h 0.2 0.5 2. Simplification 22 .2 0.1 0 0.2 0.1 5 0.8 0.1 5 1 0.4 0.3 0.1 0.5 .5 K.5 1.2 0.1 5 0.26 - .2 0.0 5 1 Wc/(h2ωf c) for w=1/4π v=1/16π 1 0.5 0.51.3 5 Figure 7.J.2 0.0 5 0.23 Contour plot of the dimensionless dissipation contribution from the concrete .

6 0.6 4 4 4 Theoretical 8 8 K.8 1 1 Figure 7.7 0.25 Contour plot of the dimensionless dissipation contribution from the concrete 2 .8 0.2 0 0 0.4 0.6 Figure 7.6 hI/h 0.6 0.3 2 4 4 6 6 2 4 0.3 0.9 6 2 0.9 0.Tim Gudmand-Høyer (Wc K. Simplification 6 6 2 2 hII/h 0.6 hII/h 0.8 1 0.8 0.2 0.W.4 0.1 0.8 0.J.5 0.6 0.2 0.J.2 0.1 0 0 0.7 0.W.4 0.4 0.5 0.2 2 0.4 0.-Wc)/Wc for w=1/4π v=1/16π 1 0.2 4 0.27 - .4 hI/h 2 0. Wc/(h2ωf c) for w=1/16π v=1/32π 1 0.24.2 0.4 0. 0. Deviation plot for the two calculation methods.8 0.

J.7 0.-Wc)/Wc for w=1/16π v=1/32π 1 0.4 5 0.4 0.4 0. In these cases the following formula is valid: .7 0.2 0.W.7 0. Deviation plot for the two calculation methods.4 0 03 .1 0.Yield line Theory for Concrete Slabs Subjected to Axial Force (Wc K.60.1 0 0 0.0 .8 0.5 0.3 0.6 0.1 0.4 0.1 0.6 hII/h 0. One of the most common situations is a yield line starting from a right-angled corner and the formulas for this particular situation is therefore found.2 0.4 hI/h 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.3 0.7 0.2 0.4 0.8 0. It appears that the formula proposed by K. However.8 0.4 0.2 0.3 0. this does not necessarily mean that this way of calculating leads to a similar over.2 0. Johansen is not accurate if w derivates significantly from π/2.3 0. W.28 - . 0.26.and underestimations when calculating the load-carrying capacity of a slab since concrete dissipation is only a part of the dissipation.8 0.9 0.6 0.3 0.1 0.6 0.2 0.1 0.5 0.6 0.2 0.7 0.2 0.3 .8 1 Figure 7.1 0.6 0.

I 1 − 2 ω h f c tan ( w .23) 2 2 h1 2 2 h1 h2 -1 + 2 + sin ( v )2 + h2 cos ( v )2 sin cos + v v ( ) ( ) h h h h 2 2 + 1 + h2 .cos ( v ) + 1 + h h h h h h h h h 2 h 2 2 4 2 1 2 .h2 cos ( v )2 h h h h h h 2 2 h1 2 2 2 h2 2 h2 h1 .2 The contribution from the reinforcement If the reinforcement is placed in a direction perpendicular to the axis of rotation at a distance from the slab surface as shown in Figure 7. II ' II − cII Φ 0.2 h2 cos ( v )2 + + h1 .W .v ) h h h h hcII hII h ' h 1 − + Φ 0. II ' hII − hcII ' ) (7.2 sin ( v ) 1.25) where ωI and ωII are the rotations about axis I and II.Tim Gudmand-Høyer h ω fc 2 Wc = 1 ⋅ 4sin ( v ) cos ( v ) (7.2 cos ( v ) + + . 1 .v ) ( As .26) .27 the contribution from the reinforcement to the dissipation per unit length becomes: Ws = ω1 cos ( w .sin ( v ) . I ' I − cI + Φ 0. II 1 − h h h h tan ( v ) (7.2 h1 sin ( v )2 1. J h 2ω f c 2 1 h 2 1h 1 = I tan ( v ) + II 2 h 2 h tan ( v ) (7.cos ( v ) ⋅ h h h h ( ) The formula for the simplified calculation becomes: Wc _ K . respectively. 2 cos ( v ) .h1 sin ( v )2 .cos ( v ) + sin ( v ) + cos ( v ) h h h h + log 2 h1 h2 h1 2 h1 h2 2 h2 2 2 2 .24) 7. These are determined in (7.1. I h − hcI − hI + As . II h − hcII − hII + As .sin ( v ) .11) and the expression may be written as: Ws hcI hI 1 h h ' = − + Φ 0. I ' hI − hcI ' ) + ω 2 cos ( v ) ( As .29 - .

Yield line Theory for Concrete Slabs Subjected to Axial Force II h I hcII´ AsII´ v AsII hcII w AsI hcI hI z hcI´ AsI´ hII Figure 7. II ' II − cII Φ 0.2 Beam example For slabs the position of the axes of rotation are not always easily found. II 1 − tan ( v ) h h h h (7. Therefore. the load-carrying capacity always depends on the dissipation for a unit rotation ω=1 in the yield line. I 1 − cI − I + Φ 0. a numerical investigation has to be made in each situation. it may be assumed that the axes of rotation must be placed at the same position as the neutral axis. Therefore.30 - . . Reinforcement arrangement If the corner is right-angled the dissipation becomes: Ws h h h h ' = tan ( v ) Φ 0.27. For a beam this assumption may be shown to be correct and is therefore worth studying first. For all combinations of transverse loads.27) 7. However. it is sufficient to find the minimum dissipation in order to find the minimum load-carrying capacity. An exact analysis for a slab is impossible since no correct analytical expression may be found for the dissipation. I ' I − cI + 2 h h h h ω h fc hcII hII h ' 1 h − + Φ 0.

.28 it is seen that the position of the neutral axis may be found from a projection equation as: As bf y = by0 f c Φ 0 hf c b = by0 f c y0 = Φ 0 h (7.31) dW = 0 ⇔ y0 = Φ 0 h dy0 (7. Considering the beam in Figure 7. Furthermore. it is seen that the dissipation found by the upper bound approach is the same as the yield moment times the rotation.32) As seen.Tim Gudmand-Høyer fc y0 d h ω fy Figure 7.29) 1 1 y0 f c b d − y0 ⇒ 2 2 1 d 1 M p = Φ 0 h2 fcb − Φ 0 2 h 2 An upper bound approach leads to the following result: (7.28 Stresses in a beam.30) 1 f c bu (1 − sin (α ) ) dz + As bf yω ( d − y0 ) ⇔ 2 1 1 W = f c b y0ω y0 ( 2 ) + Φ 0 hf c bω ( d − y0 ) ⇔ 2 2 1 W = f c bω y0 2 − Φ 0 hf c bω y0 + Φ 0 hf c bω d ⇔ 2 dW = f c bω y0 − Φ 0 hf c bω dy0 W =∫ h 0 (7.31 - . the minimum load-carrying capacity is found where the position of the axis of rotation equals the position of the neutral axis.28) where Φ0 = The yield moment becomes Mp = As f y bhf c (7.

it may also be shown that the assumption is valid if an axial force is applied. Furthermore. Beam with axial force.36) h − hc σ + Φ 0 + Φ 0 ´≤ ≤ 1 + Φ 0 + Φ 0´ h fc y0 σ = − Φ 0 − Φ 0´ h fc . For the reinforced beam illustrated in Figure 7. hc ´ Φ0´hfc σ'c y0 h hc σh M Φ0hfc Figure 7.Yield line Theory for Concrete Slabs Subjected to Axial Force Similarly it may be shown that this assumption is valid if both top reinforcement and bottom reinforcement are included. In these situations the dissipation plus the work caused by the dissipation of the axial force equals the yield moment (including the contribution from the axial force) times the rotation.37) .33) For hc ´ σ hc ´ − Φ 0 − Φ 0 ´≤ ≤ − Φ 0 + Φ 0´ h fc h y0 hc = h h (7.35) For h − hc σ h − hc − Φ 0 + Φ 0 ´≤ ≤ + Φ 0 + Φ 0´ h fc h y0 h − hc = h h For (7.29.32 (7.34) For hc ´ σ h − hc − Φ 0 + Φ 0´≤ ≤ − Φ 0 + Φ 0´ h fc h y0 σ = + Φ 0 − Φ 0´ h fc (7.29 the position of the neutral axis may be calculated as: For 0 ≤ σ fc ≤ hc ´ − Φ 0 − Φ 0´ h y0 σ = + Φ0 + Φ 0´ h fc (7.

In the following examples the results of numerical calculations will be evaluated both regarding the assumption about the axes of rotation and the error made using K.30. W. Johansen’s simplification.39) mp L mp L Figure 7.3 Square slab without axial force For slabs in general the assumption about the neutral axes being the axes of rotation can not be shown analytically. it is known (see [5]) that the exact solution is: qPrager = 24m p L2 (7.33 - . 7. Prager’s exact solution for a square slab If it is assumed that the failure mode in Figure 7.Tim Gudmand-Høyer Knowing the position of the axis of rotation the dissipation per unit length may be calculated as: 1 y = 0 + Φ0 2 h ω fc 2 h W 2 h´ y hc y0 + Φ 0´ c − 0 1 − − h h h h (7. Considering a uniformly laterally loaded isotropic square slab with the same amount of reinforcement in the top and bottom and simply supported along all four edges.31 is the one that will occur the load-carrying capacity found from the above dissipation formulas is as follows: .38) It appears that since the assumption about the neutral axis being the axis of rotation is valid the dissipation may be calculated quite easily for a beam.

32 and Figure 7. Dy Failure mode 1: The external work becomes: 1 1 We = δ q Dy L + ( L − Dy ) L 2 3 The dissipation becomes: Wi = 4 Ls W W δ Wc . respectively.0 h ω fc h ω fc h ω fc h ω fc q1 = ( Dy + 2 L ) L2 (7.42) Here Wc.v + Dy 2 c .Yield line Theory for Concrete Slabs Subjected to Axial Force mp L mp Ls L Failure mode 1 Figure 7.31.0 h 2 f c 2 L h ω fc h ω fc Ls h ω f c h ω f c 2 The work equation leads to: W W W W 24 f c h 2 L 2 c .0 + 2 s . Similarly. Failure mode 1 for square slab.v δ W + 2 s .v and Ws.v are the contributions to the dissipation per unit length for the yield line (Ls) from the concrete and reinforcement.40) (7.v h 2 f c + Dy 2 2 c .41) (7. Calculating all possible combinations of the positions of the two axes of rotation and plotting the lowest load-carrying capacity for a given Dy leads to the results shown in Figure 7.0 are the contributions to the dissipation per unit length for the yield line (Dy) from the concrete and reinforcement.v + 2 s . Wc.33. . respectively.0 + 2 s .0 and Ws.34 - .

hc/h= hc´/h=0.1.4 0.3 0.2 0. Φ0=Φ0´=0.05 0 0 0.2 0. fc=30MPa (solid) and load-carrying capacity according to (7.8 1 Figure 7.1.35 - .1 0 0 0. .25 0.4 Dy/Ly 0.7 0.6 0.15 0.1.2 q 0.6 0. Load-carrying capacity q1 for a square slab with L=2000mm.3 24mp/L2 q1 0.9 0.8 0.33 Position of the axes of rotation for a square slab with L=2000mm.1 0.4 Dy/Ly 0. hc/h= hc´/h=0.39) (dashed).6 hx/h hy/h hx/h 0.5 0.8 1 Figure 7. 1 0.Tim Gudmand-Høyer 0.32. fc=30MPa. Φ0=Φ0´=0.2 0.1.

45) For µ < 1 − 1 hc Φ0 h h h 1 m p = 1 − 2 c + (1 − µ ) c − Φ 0 (1 − µ ) Φ 0 h 2 f c h h 2 (7. .34 (Ingerslev´s solutions).33 shows that the axes of rotation are at the same depth and this depth corresponds to the neutral axes. Furthermore. More plots for different degrees of reinforcement and different values of hc/h are shown in section 11. For isotropic square slabs it may be concluded that the position of the axes of rotation corresponds to the neutral axes and that the load-carrying capacity found from the above dissipation formulas corresponds to the exact solutions found from the yield conditions.44) (7.43) h h 1 m p = 1 − 2 c + (1 + µ ) c − Φ 0 (1 + µ ) Φ 0 h 2 f c h h 2 For µ ≥ 1 − 1 hc 1 hc and Φ 0 ≥ 1+ µ h Φ0 h 2 h 1 1 hc m p = 1 − 2 c + Φ 0h2 fc h 2 Φ0 h (7.1.46) From Figure 7.1.1. 7.1. However.32 it appears that the numerical calculations using the dissipation formulas above leads to the same solution as the one found using the yield condition for the slab when Dy=0.Yield line Theory for Concrete Slabs Subjected to Axial Force The yield moment mp used in these calculations is calculated as described in [5] (having hc/h= hc´/h): Φ0´ Φ0 µ= For µ ≥ 1 − 1 hc 1 hc and Φ 0 ≤ 1+ µ h Φ0 h (7.1 Rectangular slabs For rectangular slabs the failure modes assumed in this paper are illustrated in Figure 7. Figure 7. These failure modes are not exact solutions to the problem.3. it is believed that the results are close to the exact solution and therefore acceptable.36 - .

37 - . Dy Ls Dx Failure mode 2 An upper bound solution leads to the following load-carrying capacity for a uniformly loaded slab: µm = For Ly ≥ Lx m py m px (7.50) and µ m Ly Dx = 1− Lx Lx 2 µ m Ly − µ m Ly + 3 + L L x x (7.34. Failure modes.51) .47) µm qIngerslev = 24 µ m m px 2 1 Lx 1 Lx 2 − Lx 3+ µm µ m Ly Ly 2 (7.48) and Dy 2 Ly Ly = 1− − + 3+ Ly µ m Lx µ m Lx µ m Lx Ly (7.49) For Ly ≤ Lx µm qIngerslev = 24m px 2 Ly Ly 2 Ly 3 + µm − µm L L x x 2 (7.Tim Gudmand-Høyer mpx Ly mpy Ls Lx Failure mode 1 Figure 7.

v are the contributions to the dissipation per unit length for the yield line (Ls) from concrete and reinforcement. .v δ Wc .0 + 2 s .38 - .0 + 2 s .0 2 L h ω f h ω f Ly Ly h ω f c h ω f c c c y Ly Lx L y 2 Dy Dy − 1 + 2 L L y y (7. respectively.v + x 2 h ω f c h ω f c Lx 2 q2 = W Wc . The yield moments mpx and mpy are calculated from cross-section analyses perpendicular to the x-axis and the y-axis. The work equation for failure mode 2 leads to load-carrying capacity: 6 f c h 2 Dx Ly − 1 4 Lx 2 Lx Lx W D Wc .0 2 h ω fc h ω fc Ly Dx Dx − 1 + 2 Lx Lx Lx (7.53) (7.0 and Ws.55) Calculating all the possible combinations of the position of the two axes of rotation and plotting the lowest load-carrying capacity for a given Dy lead to the results shown in Figure 7.v + 2 s .Yield line Theory for Concrete Slabs Subjected to Axial Force Formula (7.48) corresponds to failure mode 1 and (7. respectively.v h 2 f c + Dy + 2 s .0 h 2 f c 2 Lx h ω f c h ω f c Ls h ω f c h ω f c 2 The work equation leads to: (7.0 2 2 + 2 s .v 4 − 1 2 + 2 s .50) to failure mode 2.54) where Wc. respectively. Similarly.0 are the contributions to the dissipation per unit length for the yield line (Dy) from concrete and reinforcement.52) q1 = W D W W 6 f c h 2 Dy Lx Wc .35. Wc.v and Ws. For the two failure modes the equations according to the dissipation formulas becomes: Failure mode 1: The internal work becomes: 1 1 We = δ q Dy Lx + ( Ly − Dy ) Lx 3 2 The external work becomes: We = 4 Ls W W δ Wc .v + y 2 c .

36 Position of the axes of rotation for a rectangular slab with Lx=2000mm. 1 0.7 0.1 0 0 0.2 0. fc=30MPa and load-carrying capacity according to (7.4 Dy/Ly 0.9 0.50) (*).06 0. Ly=16000mm.39 - .1.hc/h=0.1.h=100mm. hc/h= hc´/h=0.1.2 0.8 1 Figure 7.fc=30MPa.Tim Gudmand-Høyer Φ0x=Φ0x´0.54) (dashed dotted) and (7.1.02 0 0 0. Φ0=Φ0´=0.6 0. Φ0=Φ0´=0. .Lx=2000mm and Ly=16000mm 0.4 0.2 0.04 0.35.1.5 0.6 Dy/Ly for q1 or Dx/Lx for q2 0.1. Ly=16000mm. Load-carrying capacity q1 and q2 .4 0.1 q1 q2 Ingerslev 0.8 1 Figure 7.1. hc/h= hc´/h=0.48) or (7.according to (7. for a rectangular slab with Lx=2000mm.3 0.8 0.The vertical line indicates the minium for the numerical calculculations.Φ0y=Φ0y´=0. fc=30MPa.6 hx/h hy/h hx/h 0.08 q in MPa 0.55) (dotted).

Φ0x=Φ0x´=0.05.37.55) (dotted).6 Dy/Ly for q1 or Dx/Lx for q2 0. . Φ0y=Φ0y´=0.1 hy/h as expected.03 0.54) (dashed dotted) and (7.05 0. Φ0x=Φ0x´0.1. Load-carrying capacity q1 and q2. the assumption about the neutral axes being the axes of rotation is correct and this may also be shown for isotropic slabs. However.39 where the load-carrying capacity is plotted as a function of the position of the axis of rotation in the x direction.1 and Φ0y=Φ0y´=0.05 and not at 0. as shown in Figure 7. hcx/h= hcx´/h= hcy/h= hcy´/h=0. the assumption is not always correct. for a square slab Lx=2000mm. fc=30MPa and loadcarrying capacity according to (7.38.01 0 0 q1 q2 Ingerslev q in MPa 0.14 hx/h and 0.hc/h=0.05.38 it is seen that the minimum load-carrying capacity is found where the axes of rotation are at positions 0.40 - .Lx=2000mm and Ly=16000mm 0.h=100mm. according to (7. the minima of these curves are very flat as seen in Figure 7.2.1 hy/h in a slab with the reinforcement degrees Φ0x=Φ0x´=0.8 1 Figure 7.4 0.Yield line Theory for Concrete Slabs Subjected to Axial Force Apparently.2.1. In Figure 7.Φ0y=Φ0y´=0.02 0. Numerical calculations show that the assumption is incorrect if the slab is orthotropic.fc=30MPa. Ly=16000mm.50) (*).2 0.04 0. Nevertheless.48) or (7.06 0.2 hx/h and 0.

2 hx/h 0.03 0 0.039 0.Lx=2000mm and Ly=16000mm 0. .037 q in MPa 0.h=100mm.2 0.25 0.15 0.4 Figure 7.04 0.fc=30MPa.38 Position of the axes of rotation for a rectangular slab Lx=2000mm.1 0.5 0.hc/h=0.032 0.41 - .2. fc=30MPa.Tim Gudmand-Høyer 1 0. hcx/h= hcx´/h= hcy/h= hcy´/h=0. Φ0x=Φ0x´=0.1 0 0 0.1. hx/h hy/h 0. Dy/Ly=0.1.3 0. Φ0x=Φ0x´=0.05.034 0. Φ0x=Φ0x´0.73.35 0.1.39 Load-carrying capacity as a function of the position of the axis of rotation in the x direction for a rectangular slab Lx=2000mm.6 hx/h 0.9 0.1. hy/h=0.05. Ly=16000mm.05. hcx/h= hcx´/h= hcy/h= hcy´/h=0. Φ0y=Φ0y´=0.4 0.031 0.038 0.8 1 Φ0y=Φ0y´=0.036 0.033 0.4 Dy/Ly Figure 7.05 0.2 0.3 0.8 0. Ly=16000mm.6 0.2. fc=30MPa.Φ0y=Φ0y´=0.035 0.7 0.2.

40. fc=30MPa and loadcarrying capacity according to (7.02 0 0 q1 q2 Ingerslev 0.1. hcx/h= hcx´/h= hcy/h= hcy´/h=0.14 0.Φ0y=Φ0y´=0.Yield line Theory for Concrete Slabs Subjected to Axial Force If the slab is reinforced in the top and bottom and Φ0+Φ0´>hc´/h the axis of rotation will be at the neutral axis (assuming Φ0=Φ0´).06 0.4hx/h and 0.6 Dy/Ly for q1 or Dx/Lx for q2 0.48) or (7.1 q in MPa 0. This is illustrated in Figure 7. respectively.1.hc/h=0.1.h=100mm.fc=30MPa. Load-carrying capacity q1 and q2. Φ0x=Φ0x´0.1.42 - . according to (7. If the slab is not reinforced in the top the assumption is incorrect and the error may become noticeable.55) (dotted).40 and Figure 7. Even though the position of the axes of rotation is wrong in the x direction it is seen that the loadcarrying capacity is only underestimated about 5% in this case. for a square slab Lx=2000mm.1 are at 0.12 0.Lx=2000mm and Ly=16000mm 0.2 0.08 0.54) (dashed dotted) and (7. If Φ0+Φ0´<hc´/h the assumption is incorrect but the error made by such assumption is negligible.50) (*).4 0.8 1 Figure 7. Ly=16000mm.7. Φ0y=Φ0y´=0. Φ0x=0. .7 and Φ0y=0.04 0.41 where the positions of the axes of rotation for a slab with Φ0y´=Φ0x´=0.7. Φ0x=Φ0x´=0.1hy/h.

However. Φ0x=0.8) which lead to an error less than 4%.8 1 Φ0y=Φ0y´=0. Φ0x=Φ0x´=0. Keeping in mind that the assumption about the neutral axes being the axes of rotation leads to an underestimation of less than 4% for rectangular slabs.7. The fact that an increasing difference between the two degrees of reinforcement increases the error is also quite obvious.4 Dy/Ly Figure 7. Φ0x=0. In other words the slab starts to carry the load as a beam.8 0.2 (see Figure 11. hx/h for q1 hy/h for q1 0. hcx/h= hcx´/h= hcy/h= hcy´/h=0.3 and Φ0y=0.5 0.1.05 Ly/Lx=2. in order to estimate the largest error a slab with the largest difference in the degrees of reinforcement and a side length ratio leading to almost no parallel parts of the yield line is considered. A realistic guess on the limits found in practice may be found for Φ0y´=Φ0x´=0.9 0.43 - .9 and Φ0y=0.41 Position of the axes of rotation for a rectangular slab Lx=2000mm.3 0. since a larger difference leads to larger contribution from the yield line parallel to the supports (Dx or Dy) where the assumption is correct.Tim Gudmand-Høyer 1 0.6 0.4 0.2 (see Figure 11.6 hx/h 0. .7 0. Setting Φ0y´=Φ0x´=0. Ly=16000mm. It is obvious that the error decreases for increasing difference between the two side lengths. such a degree of reinforcement is quite unrealistic. it is believed that the assumption may be acceptable for such slabs.2 0. fc=30MPa.1 0 0 0.1.1 Ly/Lx=2.7) leads to an error of about 17%.2 0. Therefore.

They are shown in Figure 7.44 - .Yield line Theory for Concrete Slabs Subjected to Axial Force 7.43.57) . Failure modes for rectangular slabs with axial force.42.43 the yield moments becomes: For 0 ≤ σ fc ≤ hc ´ − Φ 0 − Φ 0´ h y0 σ = + Φ0 + Φ0´ h fc 1 y0 y0 1 hc 1 hc ´ m p = h2 fc 1 − + Φ 0 − − Φ 0 ´ − h 2 h 2 h 2 h (7.42. Dy Ls Dx Failure mode 2 An approximate solution to this problem is to calculate the yield moments in each direction including the axial force and then use these yield moments in Ingerslev´s solution. W. hfcΦ´ hc´ h hc hfcΦ Figure 7. This calculation corresponds to the assumption about the neutral axes being the axes of rotation. Johansen´s method for calculating the dissipation. σy mfx σx Ly mfy Ls Lx Failure mode 1 Figure 7.Cross section in a slab.56) (7. The result is the same as if the dissipation is determined according to K. For the cross-section shown in Figure 7.4 Rectangular slabs with axial force For rectangular slabs with axial force the failure modes assumed are the same as for slabs without axial force.

0 + 2 s .61) For h − hc σ h − hc − Φ 0 + Φ 0 ´≤ ≤ + Φ 0 + Φ 0´ h fc h y0 h − hc = h h 1 y0 y0 y0 σ 1 h 1 h ´ 1 − + − + Φ 0 ´ − c + Φ 0 ´ − c m p = h2 fc 2 h h h fc 2 h 2 h (7.67) + σ y h 2 Lx hx − We = δ q Dy Lx + ( Ly − Dy ) Lx + σ x h 2 Ly hy − L 3 2 x 2 ( Ly − D y ) 2 2 2 .45 - .65) The formulas above are valid in both the x and y direction.62) (7.64) (7.Tim Gudmand-Høyer For hc ´ σ hc ´ − Φ 0 − Φ 0 ´≤ ≤ − Φ 0 + Φ 0´ h fc h y0 hc ´ = h h 1 y0 y0 1 hc ´ 1 hc y0 σ 1 m p = h2 fc − + Φ − − − − Φ − 0 0 2 h h 2 h h fc 2 h (7.59) For hc ´ σ h − hc − Φ 0 + Φ 0´≤ ≤ − Φ 0 + Φ 0´ h fc h y0 σ = + Φ 0 − Φ 0´ h fc 1 y0 y0 1 hc 1 hc ´ m p = h2 fc 1 − + Φ 0 − + Φ 0 ´ − h 2 h 2 h 2 h (7.v δ Wc .58) (7.66) 1 h δ h δ 1 (7.0 h 2 f c 2 2 2 Lx h ω f c h ω f c Ls h ω f c h ω f c 2 The external work becomes: (7.v h 2 f c + Dy + 2 s . For the two failure modes the equations using the dissipation formulas above becomes: Failure mode 1: The internal work becomes: Wi = 4 Ls W W δ Wc .63) For h − hc σ + Φ 0 + Φ 0 ´≤ ≤ 1 + Φ 0 + Φ 0´ h fc y0 σ = − Φ 0 − Φ 0´ h fc 1 y0 y0 1 hc 1 hc ´ m p = h2 fc 1 − − Φ 0 − + Φ 0 ´ − h 2 h 2 h 2 h (7.60) (7.

v + x 2 c .v W D W W − 1 x 2 + 2 s .44 to Figure 7. Wc. The work equation for failure mode 2 leads to: q2 = Dx Ly Wc .v + y 2 c .0 2 Ly h ω f c h ω f c Ly h ω f c h ω f c 12 f c h 2 Ly 2 Ly 2 σ D σy L h h D y y y x + x − 1 + 2 1 − 2 x − 1 + f c Ly h Ly f c Ly h Lx L y 2 q1 = Dy Dy − 1 + 2 L L y y (7.0 + 2 s .0 and Ws.69) Calculating all possible combinations of the position of the two axes of rotation and plotting the lowest load-carrying capacity for a given axial force in one direction lead to the results shown in Figure 7.0 + 2 s .v are the contributions to the dissipation per unit length for the yield line (Ls) from concrete and reinforcement. respectively.68) where Wc.Yield line Theory for Concrete Slabs Subjected to Axial Force where hx and hy are the distances from the top surface to the axes of rotation in the x and y direction. respectively.v and Ws. . Similarly.46 - .0 2 Lx h ω f c h ω f c Lx h ω f c h ω f c 12 f c h 2 Lx 2 Lx 2 σ y D hx Dx σ x Ly hy x + f L − 1 + 2 h 1 − L + f L 2 h − 1 c x x c x Ly Dx Dx − 1 + 2 Lx Lx Lx 2 (7. respectively.48. The work equation leads to: Dy L Wc .v W D W W − 1 2 + 2 s .0 are the contributions to the dissipation per unit length for the given line (Dy) from concrete and reinforcement.

25 0.6 0. Φ0y=Φ0y´=0. Ly=2000mm. increasing σx and σy=0. Φ0y=Φ0y´=0.-min(q1. increasing σx and σy=0. fc=30MPa.1.15 0.6 σx/f c 0.1.2 0.4 0.47 - .44.8 1 1.2 0. fc=30MPa.3 0. h=100mm. Φ0x=Φ0x´=0. 40 |qIngerslev mod.8 1 1.2 1. Load-carrying capacity for a rectangular slab Lx=2000mm.1. hcx/h= hcx´/h= hcy/h= hcy´/h=0.45 Difference between the calculation methods for a rectangular slab Lx=2000mm. hcx/h= hcx´/h= hcy/h= hcy´/h=0.2 0.1.q2)*100% 35 30 25 diff % 20 15 10 5 0 0 0.1 0.4 0.35 0. . h=100mm. Φ0x=Φ0x´=0.4 0.2 q q1 q2 Ingerslev modified Figure 7.4 σx/f c Figure 7.1.1.05 0 0 0.q2)|/min(q1. Ly=2000mm.Tim Gudmand-Høyer 0.

2 hx/h for q1 hy/h for q1 Ingerslev modified Figure 7.1.2 0.2 Dy/Ly for q1 Dx/Lx for q2 Ingerslev Figure 7.1.48 - .4 0.2 0.6 0.2 0. Φ0y=Φ0y´=0. Φ0y=Φ0y´=0.1. Ly=2000mm. 1 0.7 Dy/Ly or D x/Lx 0. fc=30MPa. hcx/h= hcx´/h= hcy/h= hcy´/h=0.6 σx/f c 0.8 0.4 0.4 0.47.4 0. Φ0x=Φ0x´=0.6 0. increasing σx and σy=0.46.9 0.1 0 0 0.5 0.Length of the part of the yield line parallel to the axes of rotation for a rectangular slab Lx=2000mm. increasing σx and σy=0. Ly=2000mm.8 0.1 0 0 0. hcx/h= hcx´/h= hcy/h= hcy´/h=0.6 σx/f c 0.3 0.3 0.9 0. .Yield line Theory for Concrete Slabs Subjected to Axial Force 1 0.1. h=100mm.7 hx/h or hy/h 0.1.Position of the axes of rotation for failure mode 1 for a rectangular slab Lx=2000mm. fc=30MPa.5 0. h=100mm.1. Φ0x=Φ0x´=0.8 1 1.8 1 1.2 0.

fc=30MPa. As seen in Figure 7. hcx/h= hcx´/h= hcy/h= hcy´/h=0. The position found by using the dissipation formulas determined by hy/h. is in general lower. increasing σx and σy=0.5 0.1. an extreme slab is considered.Tim Gudmand-Høyer 1 0. h=100mm. . Ingerslev´s solution also leads to changes in failure mode at this stress but has no part of the yield line parallel to the axes.1.48 Position of the axes of rotation for failure mode 2 for a rectangular slab Lx=2000mm.4 0.7 hx/h or hy/h 0. Ly=2000mm.9 0.49 - .6 0.6 σx/f c 0.1 0 0 0.4 0.8 1 1. It is seen that the normal force dose not effect the position as assumed.2 0.46 the length of the part of the yield line parallel to one of the axes for the Ingerslev solution is not the same as the one found from the dissipation formulas. In order to evaluate the overestimation.8 0.3 0. This underestimation is caused by the underestimation of the dissipation contribution from the concrete. Φ0y=Φ0y´=0. It is seen that for σx=fc the load-carrying capacity found for failure mode 1 is the same as the load-carrying capacity found for failure mode 2 and both have a part of the yield line parallel to the axes. As expected the calculations using the method based on Ingerslev´s solution lead to an underestimation of the load-carrying capacity. The positions of the axes of rotation found from the two methods are also different.2 0. This means that the axis of rotation is placed closer to the top of the slab and therefore the positive effect for the load-carrying capacity is higher.2 hx/h for q2 hy/h for q2 Ingerslev modified Figure 7. In general the underestimation increases as the axial force increases. Φ0x=Φ0x´=0.1.

fc=30MPa. Maximum (*) and minimum (+) difference between the two calculation methods for a rectangular slab Lx=2000mm.04 0.50 and Figure 7.49. .51 extreme combinations of Lx and Ly changes along with the degree of reinforcement. In these plots * and + represents the maximum and minimum difference between the two calculation methods.Yield line Theory for Concrete Slabs Subjected to Axial Force Knowing that the contribution to the dissipation from the concrete is calculated differently in the two methods it is obvious that a lower degree of reinforcement leads to a larger difference between the methods.12 Φ0x=Φ0x´=Φ0y=Φ0y´ 0.50 - .1. σx variation from 0 to fc(1+Φ0x+Φ0x´). hcx/h= hcx´/h= hcy/h= hcy´/h=0.06 0.14 0. 50 45 40 35 30 diff % 25 20 15 10 5 0 0.16 Figure 7. When it comes to the Lx/Ly ratio an extreme case cannot be found from similar simple considerations. Ly=2000mm. h=100mm. As illustrated in Figure 7.1 0. σy=0 and different Φ0x=Φ0x´= Φ0y=Φ0y´.08 0.

.Tim Gudmand-Høyer 40 35 30 25 diff % 20 15 10 5 0 0 1 2 3 Lx/Ly 4 5 6 Figure 7.1.51. fc=30MPa. hcx/h= hcx´/h= hcy/h= hcy´/h=0.1. Φ0x=Φ0x´=0. h=100mm.50.1. Φ0y=Φ0y´=0.05. 50 45 40 35 30 diff % 25 20 15 10 5 0 0 1 2 3 Lx/Ly 4 5 6 Figure 7. Φ0x=Φ0x´=0. Maximum (*) and minimum (+) difference between the two calculation methods for a rectangular slab Lx=2000mm.1. σx variation from 0 to fc(1+Φ0x+Φ0x´). h=100mm. σx variation from 0 to fc(1+Φ0x+Φ0x´).05. σy=0 and different Lx/Ly ratios. Maximum (*) and minimum (+) difference between the two calculation methods for a rectangular slab Lx=2000mm. Φ0y=Φ0y´=0.51 - . hcx/h= hcx´/h= hcy/h= hcy´/h=0. fc=30MPa. σy=0 and different Lx/Ly ratios.

51 shows that the maximum positive deviation is found for a Lx/Ly ratio of approximately 0.2 0..4 0.57) to (7.02 0 0 0.04 0.2 0.54) or (7.6 σx/f c 0.16 0. Load-carrying capacity for a rectangular slab Lx=2000mm.65)) and Ingerslev 1 and Ingerslev 2 refers to the solutions for the two yield patterns.05.12 0.Yield line Theory for Concrete Slabs Subjected to Axial Force Figure 7. In Figure 7. fc=30MPa.8 1 q1 q2 Ingerslev modified q Figure 7.1 0.52. increasing σx and σy=0.08 0. Ingerslev modified refers to calculations using Ingerslevs solution ((7.05 are shown.18 0.5 if the degree of reinforcement is 0. Ly=4000mm.05. 0. Φ0y=Φ0y´=0.1.14 0.5 and a degree of reinforcement of 0. Φ0x=Φ0x´=0. hcx/h= hcx´/h= hcy/h= hcy´/h=0.55)) with the yield moment found when including the axial force ((7.06 0. .05. It is also seen that the minimum deviation is always positive and this means that the simplified calculation always underestimates the load-carrying capacity.56 the results of the calculations for a slab with the Lx/Ly ratio of 0.52 to Figure 7.52 - .

**Tim Gudmand-Høyer
**

50 45 40 35 30 diff % 25 20 15 10 5 0 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 σx/f c 0.8 1 (qIngerslev mod.-min(q1,q2))/min(q1,q2)*100%

Figure 7.53 Difference between the calculation methods for a rectangularslab Lx=2000mm, Ly=4000mm,

Φ0x=Φ0x´=0.05, Φ0y=Φ0y´=0.05, hcx/h= hcx´/h= hcy/h= hcy´/h=0.1, fc=30MPa, increasing σx and σy=0.

1 0.9 0.8 0.7 Dy/Ly or D x/Lx 0.6 0.5 0.4 0.3 0.2 0.1 0 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 σx/f c 0.8 1 Dy/Ly for q1 Dx/Lx for q2 Ingerslev1 Ingerslev2

Figure 7.54.Length of the part of the yield line parallel to the axes of rotation for a rectangular slab Lx=2000mm, Ly=4000mm, Φ0x=Φ0x´=0.05, Φ0y=Φ0y´=0.05, hcx/h= hcx´/h= hcy/h= hcy´/h=0.1, fc=30MPa, increasing σx and σy=0.

- 53 -

**Yield line Theory for Concrete Slabs Subjected to Axial Force
**

1 0.9 0.8 0.7 hx/h or hy/h 0.6 0.5 0.4 0.3 0.2 0.1 0 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 σx/f c 0.8 1 1.2 hx/h for q1 hy/h for q1 Ingerslev modified

Figure 7.55.Position of the axes of rotation for failure mode 1 for a rectangular slab Lx=2000mm, Ly=4000mm,

Φ0x=Φ0x´=0.05, Φ0y=Φ0y´=0.05, hcx/h= hcx´/h= hcy/h= hcy´/h=0.1, fc=30MPa, increasing σx and σy=0.

1 0.9 0.8 0.7 hx/h or hy/h 0.6 0.5 0.4 0.3 0.2 0.1 0 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 σx/f c 0.8 1 1.2 hx/h for q2 hy/h for q2 Ingerslev modified

Figure 7.56 Position of the axes of rotation for failure mode 2 for a rectangular slab Lx=2000mm, Ly=4000mm,

Φ0x=Φ0x´=0.05, Φ0y=Φ0y´=0.05, hcx/h= hcx´/h= hcy/h= hcy´/h=0.1, fc=30MPa, increasing σx and σy=0.

- 54 -

Tim Gudmand-Høyer It appears that the deviation between the two methods in general increases with the axial force. The largest deviation is approximately 50% and it is larger for axial stresses closer to fc + Φ0+Φ0´. However, this deviation is valid for an axial stress larger than fc and such a stress would not be allowed in practice because of problems of stability. Assuming that the maximum axial stress is fc, the deviation is 40%. From this it may be concluded that the simple way (Ingerslev modified) of calculating the loadcarrying capacity for a rectangular slab loaded with axial force is always safe and the method underestimates the load-carrying capacity with max 40%. A 40% deviation is an extreme case and it is believed that the simplification is acceptable for most practical purposes.

**7.5 Rectangular slabs with axial force and with deflection
**

If the slab is deflected, the calculation of the dissipation must be changed since the distance to the axes of rotation changes along the yield line. In these calculations it is assumed that the deflection follows the yield line pattern as shown in Figure 7.57.

um

**Non deflected form Deflected form
**

Figure 7.57. Deflection assumption for rectangular slabs.

Compared with the calculations for a slab without deflection the only difference is the calculation of the dissipation. In these calculations the vertical distance to the axes of rotation changes and this leads to different values of Ws,0 Ws,90, Ws,v, Wc,0, Wc,90, Wc,v. Regarding Ws,0 Ws,90, Wc,0 and Wc,90 the distance from the top of the slab to the axes of rotation changes from hx to hx-u and from hy to hy-u. Regarding Ws,v and Wc,v the distance from the top of the slab to the axes of rotation varies along the yield line. This means that Ws,v and Wc,v must be calculated as average values. The calculations are made numerically. When calculating the dissipation as described above, the formulas ((7.68) and (7.69)) for nondeflected slabs may be used to determine the load-carrying capacity. - 55 -

58 to Figure 7. hcx/h= hcx´/h= hcy/h= hcy´/h=0.60.4 .5 0.6 0.1. fc=30MPa. σx and σy=0 q1 q2 Ingerslev modified1 Ingerslev modified2 q 0.2 1.9 0.2 0.2. Φ0x=Φ0x´=0.2.3 0. Since the slab is square and the reinforcement is the same in both direction the two yield patterns leads to the same results. Ly=2000mm.7 0.6 u/h Figure 7.8 0. 1 0.56 - .4 0.58 Load-carrying capacity for a rectangular slab Lx=2000mm.2 0.8 1 1.Yield line Theory for Concrete Slabs Subjected to Axial Force For a square slab the calculations lead to the results shown in Figure 7. Φ0y=Φ0y´=0.4 0.1 0 0 0.

4 0.5 1 u/h 1. σx and σy=0 1 0. Ly=2000mm. Φ0y=Φ0y´=0.7 hx/h and hy/h 0. Ly=2000mm.2 0. Φ0x=Φ0x´=0.1. . Φ0x=Φ0x´=0.1 0 0. hcx/h= hcx´/h= hcy/h= hcy´/h=0.5 2 Figure 7.9 0.5 0.5 1 u/h 1.Tim Gudmand-Høyer 60 50 40 diff % 30 20 10 0 0 0. σx and σy=0.2.2.6 0.2.8 0.59 Difference between the load-carrying capacity for a non-deflected and a deflected rectangular slab with Lx=2000mm.60 Position of the axes of rotation for failure mode 2 for a rectangular slab Lx=2000mm.57 - . Φ0y=Φ0y´=0. fc=30MPa. fc=30MPa. hcx/h= hcx´/h= hcy/h= hcy´/h=0.3 0.1.2.5 2 q1 q2 Ingerslev modified1 Ingerslev modified2 Figure 7.

the stresses are not known in the upper bound solution.25. which means that the deflected slab is calculated as a shell with the shape corresponding to the deflection.5 1 u/h 1.25. 1 0.4 0.2 0.5 2 q q1 q2 Ingerslev modified1 Ingerslev modified2 Figure 7. The calculations of this slab lead to the results shown in Figure 7. In these calculations only the displacements at failure are included in the work equation.61 Load-carrying capacity for a rectangular slab Lx=2000mm. hcx/h= hcx´/h= hcy/h= hcy´/h=0 is used here to demonstrate the result mentioned.58 - . This phenomenon is well-known and may be explained by the change in geometry from a slab to a shallow shell. σx and σy=0 .9 0. Φ0y=Φ0y´=0. However.Yield line Theory for Concrete Slabs Subjected to Axial Force In these figures it is seen that the load-carrying capacity increases as the slab deflects.5 0.62.7 0.6 0. Φ0y=Φ0y´=0.8 0.25. some simple cases may be used to demonstrate the result. hcx/h= hcx´/h= hcy/h= hcy´/h=0. Ly=2000mm.25. but if we assume that the concrete stresses equal fc in the direction of the displacement and the reinforcement stresses equal fy it is found that the axes of rotation correspond to the neutral axes. As for non-deflected slabs it is interesting to investigate if the axes of rotation correspond to the neutral axes. Calculations verifying this result are usually very complicated since the direction of the displacement changes along the yield line area.3 0. A square slab with Φ0x=Φ0x´=0.1 0 0 0.60 to Figure 7. Φ0x=Φ0x´=0. Of course. fc=30MPa.

**Tim Gudmand-Høyer
**

50 45 40 35 30 diff % 25 20 15 10 5 0 0 0.5 1 u/h 1.5 2

Figure 7.62 Difference between the load-carrying capacity for a non-deflected and a deflected rectangular slab with Lx=2000mm, Ly=2000mm, Φ0x=Φ0x´=0.25, Φ0y=Φ0y´=0.25, hcx/h= hcx´/h= hcy/h= hcy´/h=0, fc=30MPa, σx and σy=0

1 0.9 0.8 0.7 hx/h and hy/h 0.6 0.5 0.4 0.3 0.2 0.1 0 0 0.5 1 u/h 1.5 2 q1 q2 Ingerslev modified1 Ingerslev modified2

Figure 7.63 Position of the axes of rotation for failure mode 2 for a rectangular slab Lx=2000mm, Ly=2000mm,

Φ0x=Φ0x´=0.25, Φ0y=Φ0y´=0.25, hcx/h= hcx´/h= hcy/h= hcy´/h=0, fc=30MPa, σx and σy=0.

- 59 -

Yield line Theory for Concrete Slabs Subjected to Axial Force It appears that the axes of rotation move downward as the deflection increases. For the situation where u/h equals 2 it is seen that the relative position of axes of rotation is 1. This situation is illustrated in Figure 7.64. From a projection equation in the x-direction it appears that if u/h =2 and hx=hy=h the degree of reinforcement becomes: f c ½ h½½ L 2 = Φ 0 f c h½ L ⇔ 2 Φ 0 = 0.25 This corresponds to the degree of reinforcement used in the calculations. (7.70)

**Φ0´fch½½L Φ0´fch½½L Φ0fch½L
**

f c ½ h½½ L 2

Figure 7.64 Failure mode for a square deflected slab.

Similar observations may be made for slabs with axial force. In Figure 7.65 to Figure 7.67 the results of calculations for a square slab with Φ0x=Φ0x´=0.15, Φ0y=Φ0y´=0.15, hcx/h= hcx´/h= hcy/h= hcy´/h=0 and σy=σx=0.1fc are shown. It appears that the axes of rotation correspond to the neutral axes.

- 60 -

**Tim Gudmand-Høyer
**

0.48 0.46 0.44 0.42 0.4 0.38 0.36 0.34 0.32 0 0.5 1 u/h 1.5 2 q q1 q2 Ingerslev modified1 Ingerslev modified2

Figure 7.65 Load-carrying capacity for a rectangular slab Lx=2000mm, Ly=2000mm, Φ0x=Φ0x´=0.15, Φ0y=Φ0y´=0.15, hcx/h= hcx´/h= hcy/h= hcy´/h=0, fc=30MPa, σx=σy=0.1fc

25 20 15 10 5 0 -5 -10 0

diff %

0.5

1 u/h

1.5

2

Figure 7.66 Difference between the load-carrying capacity for a non-deflected and a deflected rectangular slab with Lx=2000mm, Ly=2000mm, Φ0x=Φ0x´=0.15, Φ0y=Φ0y´=0.15, hcx/h= hcx´/h= hcy/h= hcy´/h=0, fc=30MPa, σx=σy=0.1fc

- 61 -

show that this is not the case.1fc). hcx/h= hcx´/h= hcy/h= hcy´/h=0 and σy=0.5 1 u/h 1. .15.4 0.68 to Figure 7.67 Position of the axes of rotation for failure mode 2 for a rectangular slab Lx=2000mm. Since the axial load equals the difference in the reinforcement the slab behaves as if the reinforcement was isotropic. Φ0y=Φ0y´=0.Yield line Theory for Concrete Slabs Subjected to Axial Force 1 0.15. One might suspect that the assumption about the axes of rotation being the same as the neutral axes is only valid for isotropic slabs.1fc.3 0. However. Ly=2000mm. σx=σy=0.2 0. numerical calculations as the one shown in Figure 7.1 0 0 0.70.25. σx=0.62 - . hcx/h= hcx´/h= hcy/h= hcy´/h=0. Φ0y=Φ0y´=0.9 0.5 0. Φ0x=Φ0x´=0.6 0.15.5 2 q1 q2 Ingerslev modified1 Ingerslev modified2 Figure 7.7 hx/h and hy/h 0.8 0. In the calculations the reinforcement is orthotropic and the slab is only subjected to axial load in one direction (Φ0x=Φ0x´=0. fc=30MPa.

5 1 u/h 1. hcx/h= hcx´/h= hcy/h= hcy´/h=0.6 0.7 0. hcx/h= hcx´/h= hcy/h= hcy´/h=0.5 2 Figure 7. Ly=2000mm.5 1 u/h 1. Φ0y=Φ0y´=0. fc=30MPa.45 0.35 0 q1 q2 Ingerslev modified1 Ingerslev modified2 0.1fc. fc=30MPa.25. σy=0 40 35 30 25 diff % 20 15 10 5 0 0 0.4 0.63 - .55 q 0. Φ0x=Φ0x´=0. Φ0y=Φ0y´=0.69 Difference between the load-carrying capacity for a non-deflected and a deflected rectangular slab with Lx=2000mm.5 0.25.15. Φ0x=Φ0x´=0. σx=0. σy=0 .1fc. σx=0.15.65 0.68 Load-carrying capacity for a rectangular slab Lx=2000mm. Ly=2000mm.5 2 Figure 7.Tim Gudmand-Høyer 0.

2 0. assuming that the contribution to the dissipation from the concrete may be calculated according to the simplified formulas given in section 7. However.25. Φ0x=Φ0x´=0. fc=30MPa.1 0 0 0. σy Lx Dx u hcx´ Φ0x´hfc hcx Φ0xhfc σx Ly Dx Ly Lx Failure mode 2 u hcy´ Φ0y´hfc hcy Φ0yhfc Figure 7. σy=0.4 0.Yield line Theory for Concrete Slabs Subjected to Axial Force 1 0. it may be shown that the axes of rotation corresponds to the neutral axes. Φ0y=Φ0y´=0.3 0.7 hx/h and hy/h 0. Ly=2000mm.1. hcx/h= hcx´/h= hcy/h= hcy´/h=0.1.64 - . Yield pattern and cross sections. .5 1 u/h 1.15.8 0.71. σx=0.5 2 q1 q2 Ingerslev modified1 Ingerslev modified2 Figure 7.6 0.5 0.9 0.70 Position of the axes of rotation for failure mode 2 for a rectangular slab Lx=2000mm. Since the calculations are made numerically it is not possible to prove strictly that the axes of rotation and the neutral axes are identical.1fc.

Tim Gudmand-Høyer For a failure mode as the one shown in Figure 7.72) The load-carrying capacity becomes: .71 the calculations becomes as follows.65 - .71) + σ y h 2 Lx hx − We = δ q Dx Ly + ( Lx − Dx ) Ly + σ x h 2 Ly hy − 3 2 Lx − Dx 2 Ly 2 2 2 The internal work becomes: 1 1 1 2 ( Lx − Dx ) u hx − u + u + Lx ( h − u ) 3 2 2 2δ 1 +Φ 0 x ´h ( Lx − Dx ) hx − u − hcx ´ + Dx ( hx − u − hcx ´) 2 Ly 2 1 Wi = f c h − hcx + u − hx + Dx ( h − hcx + u − hx ) +Φ 0 x h ( Lx − Dx ) 2 2 1 1 1 L y u hy − u + 3 u + L y 2 ( hy − u ) + 2δ 2 Lx − Dx 1 1 +Φ 0 y ´hLy hy − u − hcy ´ + Φ 0 y hLy h − hcy − u − hy 2 2 2 (7. The external work: 1 h δ h δ 1 (7.

Yield line Theory for Concrete Slabs Subjected to Axial Force q= 24 f c h 2 1 ⋅ 2 2 Lx Ly Dx Dx + 2 −1 + Lx Lx Lx D D σ y Dx Φ 0 x 1 − x + Φ 0 x ´ −1 + x + 1 − Lx Lx f c Lx h x 2 h 1 u Dx 1 hx Dx 1 − + + − 1 2h L 2 h Lx x 2 2 2 Ly Ly σ x Ly Φ 0 y − Φ 0 y ´ + f c Lx Lx Lx + hy 2 2 h 1 u L y 1 hy L y + − 2 h L 2 h L x x Dx hcx 1 Dx u hcx 1 u − + − + + − 1 1 +Φ 0 x Lx h 2 Lx h h 2 h 2 1 u h ´ 1 D u h ´ D cx x cx x + − − +Φ 0 x ´ 2 h h 2 Lx h h Lx 2 2 +Φ Ly hcy + 1 u − 1 + Φ ´ Ly 1 u + hcy ´ 0y 0y L h h L 2 2 h h x x 2 2 2 2 σ 1 1 D 1σ L 1 Ly 1 Dx 1 Dx u y x x + y − + 1 − + − − + − f c 2 2 Lx 2 f c Lx h 6 Lx 3 Lx 6 Lx The minimum load-carrying capacity is found for: dq =0⇒ hx d h hx σ y 1 u Dx = + 1 + + Φ0 x − Φ0 x´ h fc 2 h Lx dq =0⇒ hy d h hy σ x 1 u = + + Φ0 y − Φ0 y´ h fc 2 h (7.66 - .74) (7. Similar calculations may be made for other positions of the axes of rotation and deflections and they all show that the axes of rotation correspond to the neutral axes. .75) It appears that the axes of rotation correspond to the neutral axes for each slab part since the minimization leads to the same result as a projection equation.73) (7.

This means that there are quite a lot of intervals to consider. The projection equation used for the determination of the compression zone depends on both the deflection and the compression zone it self. The following equations are obtained from a projection equation of a deflected section of a slab.An example is given below for the situation where 0<u<hc & hc´<u+ hc´<h+ hc & h-hc<u+h-hc<h.72.78) . as shown in Figure 7. if 0<u<hc & hc´<u+ hc´<h+ hc & h-hc<u+h-hc<h and 0≤=y0<u Duσ 2 1 − + Φ '+ Φ L h fc y0 = h D 1 − L and u≤y0<hc (7.67 - .W. They may all be seen in 11.76) y0 1 σ u u D = 2 + 2Φ´+2Φ + + h 2 fc h h L and hc≤y0<u+hc 2 σ u hc D Du -1 + −2 + Φ´+Φ + 4Φ´ − 1 Lh hL y0 1 fc h = D u h 2 -2Φ´+2Φ´ L h (7. ½L ½D hc hc y0 u Φ0´hfc Φ0hfc σ Figure 7.2. Johansen’s method).77) (7.Tim Gudmand-Høyer For a given axial stress and deflection it is thus possible to determine the axes of rotation and thereby also the dissipation in the yield line (the simplified dissipation according to the K.72. Cross-section of a deflected slab subjected to axial load.

Using the K.2Φ ≤ ≤ 1. M f = M f . + Φ´+Φ + 12 L h h L fc 2 L h h and h<y0≤u+h (7.Φ + + Φ´ L h fc 2 2 L h h 2 2 L h (7. + Φ´+Φ + 1.79) and u+hc<y0<h-hc y0 σ 1 u 1 u D = − Φ´+Φ + + 2h 2h L h fc and h-hc≤y0<h-hc+u (7.Φ´-Φ + 1 + 2 h h fc L and u+h-hc=y0 (7. + .+ Φ´-Φ + 2Φ ..83) D u D u D u σ + 1. L h 2 (7. L h f c h y0 2 L h = h D u -2Φ 1.c + M f .68 - .80) u hc D u σ 1 D -1.c we get: if u≤h and y0≤u (7.Yield line Theory for Concrete Slabs Subjected to Axial Force and u+hc=y0 hc σ 1 1 D u hc D 1 1 Du + Φ´-2Φ´ .81) and h-hc+u≤y0<h y0 σ 1 u D = .84) The dissipation is most easily calculated as the dissipation per unit rotation about the neutral axes.2Φ 1.Φ + ≤ ≤ .( Φ´+Φ ) 1.82) hc hc D σ 1 Du 1 Du 1. 2 − 1. Johansen method this may be done by taking moments about the rotation axes for each slab part.± . L h fc L h L y0 h = D h 1L 2 (7. s for Mf. s ' + M f . The moments are most easily calculated as contributions from the top and bottom reinforcement and the concrete. W.85) . .

2 0 + 2 c + .Φ´ .91) for Mf.87) and h<y0≤h+u u 2 y 0 u 3 u 2 D y 0 u 3 D u y 0 2 + -3 +2 +3 -3 h h h L h h h h L h 2 3 D + 1 − 3 y0 + 3 y0 − y0 h h 1 − L h M f .c fc h L 2 =- 1 12 D 3 -1 + y0 L u h h (7.69 - . -2 4 fc h L h h h h h h L L h h h (7.2 0 + .s ' 2 y h u y D D hc u y0 1 h u = .c 1 D h h = .c 1 = u f c h 2 L 12 h 2 (7. u 12 h fc h2 L h M f .92) if hc<y0≤u+hc .3 0 +1 M f .2 c + .c fc h2 L and u<y0≤h M f .90) (7.89) (7. -1 + 2 u 12 fc h L L h and u<y0≤h+u 2 3 u 2 y u 3 u 2 D y0 u y u D + 2 +3 0 -3 0 + .c and h<y0≤u y y 3 0 .3 h h h L h h L h h h 2 3 D + 1 − 3 y0 + 3 y0 − y0 − 1 h h h L M f .c 1 = 2 u f c h L 12 h if u>h and y0≤h (7.88) D 3 -1 + 1 y0 L =.s’ we get: if y0≤hc M f .Tim Gudmand-Høyer M f .86) = 1 u y0 u u D y0 u D y0 -3 + -3 +2 +3 h h h 12 hL h h L h 2 2 2 (7.

93) if u+hc<y0≤h+u M f .c + u _ h .2− 2 c + -2 0 + 2 − 2 c + -2 0 . + 2 c + .0 (7. + σ y h 2 Lx hx .0 -4 h h h h h h h h h h L h h h M f .70 - .2 1.0 (7.2 0 +2 + .96) -2 .Yield line Theory for Concrete Slabs Subjected to Axial Force 2 2 2 y h hc u u h u y D u u y0 hc y0 D 0 c -2 +2 + + 2 + 2 1.s 2 From the formulas above the load-carrying capacity may be found as: Failure mode 1: The internal work becomes: Wi = 2 M fy δ Lx 2 + 2 M fx δ Ly 2 − Dy 2 (7. .97) 4 fc h L h h h h h h L L h h h M f .2− 2 c + -2 0 + 2 − 2 c + -2 0 .99) We = δ q1 Dy Lx + ( Ly .94) for Mf.0 fc h L h L h h L L h h y0 2 hc 2 y h y h D (7.2 .95) 4 fc h L h h h h h h L L h h h M f .s 2 if h-hc<y0≤u+h-hc y h h y D D D u = -1/ 4Φ -1 -1/ 4Φ 2 0 + 2 c .Dy ) Lx + σ x h 2 Ly hy .Φ. fc h L 4 h h h h h h L L h h h (7.Φ.2 1.s ' 1 L = Φ´ 2 u fc h L 4 h (7.2 1 − c + . 2 2 1 L 2 1 L −D 2 ( y y) x 2 2 The work equation leads to: .s we get: if y0≤h-hc h u y h u y D D h u y 1 = .98) The external work becomes: 1 h δ h δ 1 (7.2 + 4 0 + 4 c . h h h h h L h -1/ 4Φ u h M f .2 0 − 2 c + .2 1 − c + .s 2 if u+h-hc<y0≤h+u h u y h u y D D h u y 1 = .s ' 2 y h u y D D hc u y0 1 h u = Φ´ .4 0 c 1.2 c + .

σ y h 2 Lx 2 .eq indicates that the axes of the rotation are found from equilibrium of a slab part as described above.75 and Figure 7.2σ x hLy hy Dy . In order to find the minimum load-carrying capacity for a given deflection the most optimal failure mode has to be found.eq σ M fx Dx σ x L M fy σ y 2 y + -2 y 0 x + y + 2 1+ 2 2 fc f c h 2 Lx Lx f c h Lx f c h Ly f c h = 12 f c 2 2 Lx Dx Ly Dx + 2 1 Lx Lx Lx (7.σ x h 2 Ly 2 + σ x h 2 Ly Dy + 2σ y hLx 2 hx . In these plots both the results of the simplified way of calculating the load-carrying capacity (index eq) and the results of the numerical calculations (index up) are shown.4 respectively.2M fy Ly + 2M fy Dy q1. This leads of course to a substantial reduction of the calculations since a theoretically correct calculation involves integration over the yield line (the Ls-part). the index .eq L M fx σ x y0 y σ x M fy Dy 2 x + -2 + + 2 1Ly f c h 2 Lx fc h fc f c h 2 Ly h2 Ly = 12 f c 2 2 Ly Dy Lx Dy + 2 1 L L L y y y (7.76 to Figure 7. In Figure 7. In the following.73 to Figure 7.71 - .101) 2 y0 y Ly 1 − 2 h Lx 2 For a given slab having a certain deflection and failure mode (u and D/L) it is now possible to calculate the load-carrying capacity without making any numerical integrations. The index . Index 1 and 2 refers to the yield line pattern.100) 2 σy + f c Lx L y y 1− 2 0x h 2 A similar formula is obtained for failure mode 2: q2.eq = 12 or ( -L y + Dy ) Lx 2 ( Dy + 2 Ly ) q1.up indicates that the axes of rotation is found numerically from the minimum of upper bound solutions.78 the results of calculations for a square slab with axial force in two direction are shown for σ/fc=0.Tim Gudmand-Høyer -2 M fx Lx + 2σ x hLy 2 hy .1 and σ/fc=0.75 the contributions from reinforcement (index s) and concrete (index c) to the work are plotted and thereby showing the difference between the two calculation methods. . In Figure 7.

eqmin q1.hc/h=0.eq hx1.76) to (7. u/h=1 and σx/fc=σy/fc=0.upmin 0.1. q1.8 1 .101) (solid) and numerical calculations (dashed) on a slab with Lx=Ly= 2000mm.6 0.1.6 0. hx1.Results of calculations by equations (7.74.Results of calculations by equations (7.2 0.1 0.eq q1.1.1. fc=50MPa.hc/h=0.1.2 0.76) to (7.05 0 0 0.eq hy1.15 0.101) (solid) and numerical calculations (dashed) on a slab with Lx=Ly= 2000mm.Φ0x=Φ0x´=Φ0y=Φ0y´=0. fc=50MPa.3 0.25 q [MPa] 0. h=60mm.up hy1.72 - .4 0.8 1 100 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 0 0.73.4 D/L Figure 7. h=60mm.up h 0.1.Φ0x=Φ0x´=Φ0y=Φ0y´=0.2 0.35 0.up q1. u/h=1 and σx/fc=σy/fc=0.Yield line Theory for Concrete Slabs Subjected to Axial Force 0.4 D/L Figure 7.

Results of calculations by equations (7. u/h=1 and σx/fc=σy/fc=0.8 1 .2 0.eq q1.2 0.up 0.eq Wisq1.3 0.eq Wicq1.2 0. u/h=1 and σx/fc=σy/fc=0.8 1 0.up Wicq1.1.15 0.4 D/L Figure 7.Tim Gudmand-Høyer 10 9 8 7 6 Wi/ω 5 4 3 2 1 0 0 0.1 0.4.1.101) (solid) and numerical calculations (dashed) on a slab with Lx=Ly= 2000mm.upmin 0.05 0 0 0. h=60mm.6 0.101) (solid) and numerical calculations (dashed) on a slab with Lx=Ly= 2000mm.75.25 q [MPa] 0. h=60mm. fc=50MPa.eqmin q1. q1.1.Φ0x=Φ0x´=Φ0y=Φ0y´=0.4 0.35 0.up Wisq1.76) to (7. fc=50MPa.76) to (7.6 0.Φ0x=Φ0x´=Φ0y=Φ0y´=0.1. x 10 5 Wiq1.4 D/L Figure 7.hc/h=0.Results of calculations by equations (7.hc/h=0.73 - .1.eq Wiq1.up q1.76.

hc/h=0.1.up 0 0 0. u/h=1 and σx/fc=σy/fc=0.up Wisq1.76) to (7.eq Wiq1.78.eq hy1.up hy1.Results of calculations by equations (7. fc=50MPa.eq hx1.101) (solid) and numerical calculations (dashed) on a slab with Lx=Ly= 2000mm.Results of calculations by equations (7.1.4.6 0.77.4 D/L Figure 7. h=60mm.4 D/L 0.Φ0x=Φ0x´=Φ0y=Φ0y´=0. 5 h hx1.76) to (7. .74 - .1.Yield line Theory for Concrete Slabs Subjected to Axial Force 100 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 0 0.up 0. h=60mm. fc=50MPa.6 0.8 1 Figure 7.eq Wisq1.2 0.hc/h=0.2 0. u/h=1 and σx/fc=σy/fc=0.eq Wicq1.4.101) (solid) and numerical calculations (dashed) on a slab with Lx=Ly= 2000mm.up Wicq1.Φ0x=Φ0x´=Φ0y=Φ0y´=0.1.8 1 10 9 8 7 6 Wi/ω 5 4 3 2 1 x 10 Wiq1.

Tim Gudmand-Høyer In the case σ/fc=0. Results of calculations for such a case may be seen in Figure 7.4.80. A difference in the axial force in the two directions leads to a difference in the position of the axes of rotation. As described previously it may be proven that equalizing the axes of rotation with the neutral axes leads to the minimum load-carrying capacity if the concrete contribution to the dissipation is calculated in the simplified way. The same conclusions may be made when the axial force is increased to σ/fc=0. Therefore. it is expected that the agreement is less good if the slab is only subjected to axial force in one direction. .75 - . However. It appears that the agreement is good. It is previously shown that the simplified way of calculating the concrete contribution to the dissipation is less accurate for small values of the angle v and for large differences between the positions of the two axes of rotation.1 it is seen that the agreement is very good for both the load-carrying capacity and the internal work per unit deflection increase even though the position of the axes of rotation is not quite the same. Part of the error is of course due to the limited accuracy of the numerical calculations.79 to Figure 7. It is therefore believed that the simplified method is sufficiently accurate for practical purposes. It is also seen that the simplified calculations lead to both over. Despite this it is seen that the position of the axes of rotation has the right performance but not entirely the correct value. It may be seen in these plots that it is not quite the same if the correct dissipation formulas are used but the results are close enough to furnish the correct loadcarrying capacity.and underestimations for different values of D/L in failure mode 2. it is also seen that the minimum load-carrying capacity is almost the same.

8 1 q2.25 q [MPa] 0.2 0.4 0.upmin 0. h=60mm.05 0 0 0.1 0. σy/fc=0.eqmin q1.Yield line Theory for Concrete Slabs Subjected to Axial Force 0.eq q2. fc=50MPa.8 1 .Results of calculations by equations (7.4 0.up q2.upmin 0.6 0.Φ0x=Φ0x´=Φ0y=Φ0y´=0.eq q1.4 D/L Figure 7. q1.4.2 0.79.1 0.6 0.up q1.hc/h=0.05 0 0 0.01.25 q [MPa] 0.3 0. u/h=1 and σx/fc=0.3 0.35 0.15 0.eqmin q2.35 0.2 0.1.76 - .2 0.76) to (7.101) (solid) and numerical calculations (dashed) on a slab with Lx=Ly= 2000mm.15 0.4 D/L 0.

σy/fc=0.01.101) (solid) and numerical calculations (dashed) on a slab with Lx=Ly= 2000mm.2 0.4. fc=50MPa.80.76) to (7.6 0.up h 0.Tim Gudmand-Høyer 100 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 0 0.eq hy2.77 - .up hy2.hc/h=0. hx1.eq hy1.8 1 hx2.4 D/L 100 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 0 0.8 1 .6 0.Φ0x=Φ0x´=Φ0y=Φ0y´=0.eq hx1.1.4 D/L Figure 7. Results of calculations by equations (7.eq hx2. h=60mm.up h 0.2 0.up hy1. u/h=1 and σx/fc=0.

h=60mm. u/h=1 and σx/fc=0.up Wisq1.2 0.up Wicq1. fc=50MPa.hc/h=0. σy/fc=0 .6 0.1.eq Wisq2.8 1 10 9 8 7 6 Wi/ω 5 4 3 2 1 Wiq2.eq Wisq1.4 D/L x 10 5 x 10 5 Wiq1.81 Results of calculations by equations (7.up Wisq2.2 0.eq Wicq2.up 0.eq Wicq1.Yield line Theory for Concrete Slabs Subjected to Axial Force 10 9 8 7 6 Wi/ω 5 4 3 2 1 0 0 0.8 1 Figure 7.101) (solid) and numerical calculations (dashed) on a slab with Lx=Ly= 2000mm.4.6 0.76) to (7.eq Wiq1.up Wicq2.up 0 0 0.Φ0x=Φ0x´=Φ0y=Φ0y´=0.eq Wiq2.4 D/L 0.78 - .01.

hc/h=0.08 0.2.79 - .2 0.04 0.82 the results of calculations of the load-carrying capacity as a function of the deflection are shown. How the load-carrying capacity should be determined in relation to the deflection is a question somewhat more difficult to answer. 0.12 0.01.4 100 150 For low axial force it is seen that the load-carrying capacity has a minimum with respect to the deflection.101) (solid) and numerical calculations (dashed) on a slab with Lx=Ly= 2000mm. Assuming that the slab is perfectly rigid plastic it is obvious that the load-carrying capacity is the maximum of the load carrying capacities found for different deflections.1. Instead the minimum value with respect to the deflection may be used.06 0.1 0.4 or 0.6 Interaction curves It is obvious that the load-carrying capacity must be determined as the minimum for all values of D/L.14 q [MPa] 0.Φ0x=Φ0x´=Φ0y=Φ0y´=0. taking into consideration the actual behaviour of a concrete slab it is equally obvious that the plastic behaviour does not give the correct picture for a non-deflected slab. For higher axial force the load-carrying capacity decreases as the deflection increases. . h=60mm.18 0.82 Results of calculations by equations (8.02 0 0 50 u Figure 7. σy/fc=0 σx/fc=0.2) to (7. This is of course conservative. In Figure 7.Tim Gudmand-Høyer 7. fc=50MPa and σx/fc=0.2 q1 eq q1min eq q2 eq q2min eq q1 up q1min up q2 up q2min up σx/fc=0. Nevertheless.16 0. A more thorough investigation would take into account the actual behaviour of the concrete to determine the deflection at failure but such calculations would be cumbersome.

101) (solid) and numerical calculations (dashed) on a slab with Lx=Ly= 2000mm. it is possible to calculate an interaction curve giving the load-carrying capacity for combinations of axial load and lateral load. σy/fc=0.1 q [MPa] 0.Φ0x=Φ0x´=Φ0y=Φ0y´=0.1 0.88 shows results for a slab with axial force in two directions. It should be noted that the results are obtained through numerical calculations and that the maximum deflection is set at 110mm. 0.85 shows results for a slab with axial force in one direction and Figure 7.88.45 0.eq q2.up 0. h=60mm.05 0.05 0 0 0.1. In both cases the deflection is determined in the one corresponding to the minimum of the load-carrying capacity.4 0. Figure 7.15 0.80 - .2) to (7.2 q1 0.hc/h=0.1.85 and Figure 7.Yield line Theory for Concrete Slabs Subjected to Axial Force Using the minimum value with respect to both D/L and the deflection.83 Results of calculations by equations (8.15 0.3 0.25 0.up q2. fc=50MPa.eq q1.2 q2 Figure 7. .35 σ/(f c(1+Φ+Φ´)) q1. Results from calculations with both methods are plotted in Figure 7.5 0.

eq Dx/Lx 2.hc/h=0.84 Results of calculations by equations (8.5 0.Φ0x=Φ0x´=Φ0y=Φ0y´=0.2) to (7.1 0.up u2.81 - .4 0.Tim Gudmand-Høyer 0.2 0.05 0 0 20 40 60 u [mm] 80 100 120 Figure 7.1.2) to (7.eq u2.5 0.1.15 0.1 0. .25 0.3 0.3 0. fc=50MPa.up 0.up 0. σy/fc=0.35 σ/(f c(1+Φ+Φ´)) u1.1.eq Dy/Ly 1.35 σ/(f c(1+Φ+Φ´)) 0.4 0.85.05 0 0 0.15 0.45 0. h=60mm.1.2 Dy/Ly 1.45 0. Results of calculations by equations (8.25 0. 0.hc/h=0.101) (solid) and numerical calculations (dashed) on a slab with Lx=Ly= 2000mm.2 0.8 1 Figure 7.Φ0x=Φ0x´=Φ0y=Φ0y´=0.4 0.101) (solid) and numerical calculations (dashed) on a slab with Lx=Ly= 2000mm. h=60mm. σy/fc=0.6 D y/L Dy yy L 0.up Dx/Lx 2.eq u1. fc=50MPa.

eq u2.eq u1.15 0.05 0 0 20 40 60 u [mm] 80 100 120 Figure 7.1.1 0.25 0.05 0 0 0.5 0.4 0.15 0.86Results of calculations by equations (8. fc=50MPa.Yield line Theory for Concrete Slabs Subjected to Axial Force 0.5 0.hc/h=0.eq q2.2 0.1.up 0. .87Results of calculations by equations (8.hc/h=0.1 q [MPa] 0. h=60mm.up u2.45 0.up q2.82 - .2 0.25 0.Φ0x=Φ0x´=Φ0y=Φ0y´=0.45 0.101) (solid) and numerical calculations (dashed) on a slab with Lx=Ly= 2000mm.eq q1. h=60mm.up 0.1. σy=σx.2) to (7.05 0. fc=50MPa.2) to (7.35 σ/(f c(1+Φ+Φ´)) q1.3 0.3 q1 0.101) (solid) and numerical calculations (dashed) on a slab with Lx=Ly= 2000mm.2 q2 Figure 7.4 0.Φ0x=Φ0x´=Φ0y=Φ0y´=0. σy=σx 0.1.15 0.1 0.35 σ/(f c(1+Φ+Φ´)) u1.

Φ0x=Φ0x´=Φ0y=Φ0y´=0.5 0.05 0 0 0.Tim Gudmand-Høyer 0. It is also seen that the failure form (D/L) and the deflection at failure is not found to be the same in the two methods.25 0. Results of calculations by equations (8.4 0.hc/h=0.eq Dy/Ly 1.up Dx/Lx 2.88.1. h=60mm.101) (solid) and numerical calculations (dashed) on a slab with Lx=Ly= 2000mm. 0. Nevertheless.83 to Figure 7.89 to Figure 7.45 0.2 0.2) to (7.1. σy=σx.35 σ/(f c(1+Φ+Φ´)) Dy/Ly 1.eq Dx/Lx 2. the most important issue here is the load-carrying capacity and it is seen that this is quite accurate.88) confirm that using the neutral axes as the axes of rotation and combining this assumption with the simplified way of calculating the dissipation lead to a loadcarrying capacity close to the theoretically correct one.83 - . Examples of this may be seen in Figure 7.95 .up 0. fc=50MPa.15 0.3 0. For rectangular slabs with a Lx/Ly ratio different from one.4 Dy y D Ly y/L Figure 7.8 1 These figures (Figure 7.2 0.1 0. This goes for slabs subjected to axial force in both one and two directions.6 0. the simplified calculation method is not as good as for the square slabs.

101) (solid) and numerical calculations (dashed) on a slab with Lx=2000mm.1.2) to (7.2 0.Φ0x=Φ0x´=Φ0y=Φ0y´=0.25 q1.2 q1 0.8 1 Figure 7. Ly=1000mm. .up σ/(f c(1+Φ+Φ´)) 0. σy=σx.3 0.1.89.84 - . Ly=1000mm.eq q1.35 0.2 Dy/Ly 1.4 Figure 7. 0. Results of calculations by equations (8.4 Dy y D y/L Ly 0.90 Results of calculations by equations (8. fc=50MPa.25 σ/(f c(1+Φ+Φ´)) 0.eq Dy/Ly 1.1.2 q1 0.101) (solid) and numerical calculations (dashed) on a slab with Lx=2000mm.05 0.05 0 0 0.hc/h=0. fc=50MPa.Yield line Theory for Concrete Slabs Subjected to Axial Force 0.1 0.15 0.6 0.25 0.eq q2.up q2.2) to (7.1. h=60mm.hc/h=0.15 0. h=60mm.1 0.1 q2 0.up 0.eq Dx/Lx 2.15 0.05 0 0 0.up Dx/Lx 2. σy=σx.Φ0x=Φ0x´=Φ0y=Φ0y´=0.

85 - .1 0.91 Results of calculations by equations (8. σy=0. 0.2 0.3 0.2 0.15 0.eq u1.hc/h=0.92 Results of calculations by equations (8.25 σ/(f c(1+Φ+Φ´)) 0.up σ/(f c(1+Φ+Φ´)) 0.Φ0x=Φ0x´=Φ0y=Φ0y´=0.05 0 0 50 100 u [mm] 150 200 Figure 7. .eq u2.Tim Gudmand-Høyer 0.101) (solid) and numerical calculations (dashed) on a slab with Lx=2000mm.1.4 Figure 7.hc/h=0. Ly=1000mm. h=60mm.15 0.eq q2.up q2.1.2) to (7. σy=σx.2 0. fc=50MPa. h=60mm.25 u1.eq q1. Ly=1000mm.101) (solid) and numerical calculations (dashed) on a slab with Lx=2000mm.up q1 0.1.1.05 q2 0 0 0. fc=50MPa.up u2.35 0.Φ0x=Φ0x´=Φ0y=Φ0y´=0.2) to (7.1 0.15 q1.1 0.25 q [MPa] 0.05 0.

4 Dy y DL /L y y 0. Ly=1000mm.6 0. σy=0.1.up 0.05 0 0 0.86 - .2) to (7.2 0.up 0.05 0 0 50 u [mm] 100 150 Figure 7.eq Dy/Ly 1. σy=0.eq u2.1 0.hc/h=0.1.hc/h=0.Φ0x=Φ0x´=Φ0y=Φ0y´=0.101) (solid) and numerical calculations (dashed) on a slab with Lx=2000mm.1.15 u1. . h=60mm.15 Dy/Ly 1.25 σ/(f c(1+Φ+Φ´)) 0.Φ0x=Φ0x´=Φ0y=Φ0y´=0. Ly=1000mm.94 Results of calculations by equations (8.2 0.2) to (7.1 0.1.2 0.up u2.eq u1. fc=50MPa.up Dx/Lx 2. 0.25 σ/(f c(1+Φ+Φ´)) 0. h=60mm.8 1 Figure 7.101) (solid) and numerical calculations (dashed) on a slab with Lx=2000mm.eq Dx/Lx 2.93 Results of calculations by equations (8. fc=50MPa.Yield line Theory for Concrete Slabs Subjected to Axial Force 0.

2) to (7.1.4 q2 Figure 7.3 σ/(f c(1+Φ+Φ´)) q1.25 q [MPa] 0.101) (solid) and numerical calculations (dashed) on a slab with Lx=2000mm.6 0. fc=50MPa.up Dx/Lx 2.95.eq Dy/Ly 1.96 Results of calculations by equations (8. h=60mm.up 0.2) to (7.eq q2.Tim Gudmand-Høyer 0. σx=0.2 0.1 0.1.05 0 0 0.1.2 0.101) (solid) and numerical calculations (dashed) on a slab with Lx=2000mm. σx=0.hc/h=0. fc=50MPa.eq Dx/Lx 2.up 0.2 q1 0.Φ0x=Φ0x´=Φ0y=Φ0y´=0.15 0.1.3 σ/(f c(1+Φ+Φ´)) Dy/Ly 1.05 0 0 0.3 0.2 0.05 0.up q2.1 0. Ly=1000mm.87 - .35 0.4 0.4 0.eq q1. Results of calculations by equations (8.25 0. .15 0.25 0. 0.hc/h=0.35 0.8 1 D y/L Dy yy L Figure 7.1 0.Φ0x=Φ0x´=Φ0y=Φ0y´=0.15 0.35 0. h=60mm.4 0. Ly=1000mm.

fc=50MPa.1. In an actual slab the level of stability found in this way is of course not quite correct since the slab may be far from a plastic state close to the non-deflected state and only gets closer to plastic states as the deflection increases.97 Results of calculations by equations (8.15 0.eq u2.2) to (7.hc/h=0. it is believed that the simplified calculation method is still useful due to the simplicity of the calculations.88 - . Ly=1000mm.Yield line Theory for Concrete Slabs Subjected to Axial Force 0.2 0. From the interaction curves it appears that the curve at a certain level of axial force almost makes a cut off.05 0 0 50 100 u [mm] 150 200 Figure 7.eq u1.101) (solid) and numerical calculations (dashed) on a slab with Lx=2000mm.3 σ/(f c(1+Φ+Φ´)) u1.25 0. In these figures the deflection is limited to 170mm in order to keep the number of calculations at a reasonable level.1. Therefore. h=60mm.up 0. σx=0. At this point the deflection actually goes towards infinity. It may be seen that the simplified calculations underestimate the load-carrying capacity somewhat for rectangular slabs with axial force in both directions and also for rectangular slabs with axial force perpendicular to the longer side.4 0.1 0. .35 0. a cut off level as the one seen in the interaction diagram Figure 7.Φ0x=Φ0x´=Φ0y=Φ0y´=0. Nevertheless.92 may not be expected to be verified by experiments. The slab may carry the load in a non-deflected state but a small deflection would lead to collapse of the slab.up u2. This axial force corresponds to stability failure.

MacGregor (see [4]) made a test series.6 523.0085 0.66 62.Tim Gudmand-Høyer 8 Theory compared with tests Only a few experimental investigations have been made on simply supported slabs subjected to both lateral and transverse loads.8 64. The results of the tests. fy=593MPa.0084 0.6 523. h=60mm.4 59.26 60.3 are obtained.009 523.0 1103. hcm/h=0.7 19394 593 0 61.1.37 61.6 523.6 523.4 66.48 35 0.) these tests are not very useful for the verification of the theory. Φx=Φy=0 if nothing else is mentioned. The main data are given in Table 8.008 0.1 and Table 8.5 58. Z.6 523.6 523.0086 0.0085fy/fc.0085 0. Gudmand-Høyer (see[6]) are used. No 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 16 q 2 Nx 0.0085 2000 Table 8.6 523. The data of the reinforced slabs. Equation Section (Next) No 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 fc 60. The following calculation are made for a slab with fc=60MPa.008 0.6 523.2 25.009 0.1 37 Material failure Table 8.2. If the conservative simplified method proposed in the previous chapter is used to calculate the loadcarrying capacity for the slabs tested the results in Figure 8.56 Layer 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Asx 2 hcx 35 35 35 35 35 35 35 ρ0x [] lx 2000 2000 2000 2000 2000 2000 2000 hcy 25 25 25 25 25 25 25 Asy 2 ρ0y [] ly [mm] [MPa] [MPa] [MPa] [mm] [mm] [mm /m] [mm] [mm] [mm] [mm /m] 523.0085 0.6 523.63 61.1 462.0 61.009 0. .3 436.5 21.009 0. concrete strength ect.1 41.89 - .4 u 78 29 53 46 61 42 17 Notes Material failure Rig failure Stability failure Stability failure Stability failure Stability failure Material failure [kN/m ] [kN/m] [mm] 74.5 33.2.03 61.0085 0.9 653.0 800.009 2000 25 0.99 61.1 1030.6 523.6 64.6 523. A.0 1084.7 8.0085 2000 2000 2000 2000 2000 2000 2000 16 66. O.5 16.6 0.5. Instead some of the tests made by L.008 0. Aghayere and J.6 523.6 523.6 0. but because of the variation of many parameters (reinforcement ratio. G.1 to Figure 8.6 523. Hansen and T.7 Ec 18081 17425 17662 18688 18466 17718 18744 fY 593 593 593 593 593 593 593 e 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 h 61. Φ’x=Φ’y=0.5 25. Lx=Ly=2000mm.

hcm/h=0.15 Figure 8.0085fy/fc.90 - . .eq u1. Lx=Ly=2000mm. h=60mm. hcm/h=0.up u2.1 0. h=60mm.up q2. Lx=Ly=2000mm. fy=593MPa. 3000 2500 2000 Nx [kN] 1500 1000 u1. Φ’x=Φ’y=0.up Exp 2500 2000 Nx [kN] 1500 1000 500 0 0 0.Yield line Theory for Concrete Slabs Subjected to Axial Force 3000 q1. Φx=Φy=0 and ν=1. Φx=Φy=0 and ν=1.eq q2.5.5.eq q1.eq u2.05 q [MPa] 0.up Exp q1 q2 500 0 0 20 40 60 u [mm] 80 100 120 Figure 8. Φ’x=Φ’y=0.0085fy/fc.2 Results of calculations for a slab with fc=60MPa. fy=593MPa.1 Results of calculations for a slab with fc=60MPa.

up Dx/Lx 2. In order to determine the effectiveness factor. h=60mm. Φx=Φy=0 and ν=1.up 1000 500 0 0 0. Lx=Ly=2000mm. Besides from the load-carrying capacity being much too high.6 0. Φ’x=Φ’y=0.91 - . interaction curves are found using the measured deflection (an approximate line close to the measured points).0085fy/fc.eq Dx/Lx 2.2 0.eq Dy/Ly 1. fy=593MPa. In Figure 8. This tendency is also expected to a certain extent. For instance it is obvious that for no axial force the conservative method of calculation corresponds to zero deflection whereas in the tests the slabs of course will have some deflection. Not only is it wrong when it comes to the numerical value but also when it comes to the relation between axial force and deflection. hcm/h=0.5. The experiments shows that the deflection decreases as the axial force increases and the conservative method of calculation shows the opposite relation. It is obvious that the theoretical load-carrying capacity is much too high.Tim Gudmand-Høyer 3000 2500 2000 Nx [kN] 1500 Dy/Ly 1.5 the results are shown for both ν=1 and ν=0.8 1 Figure 8.3 Results of calculations for a slab with fc=60MPa.4 D/L 0.4 and Figure 8.45 (fc is set to 0.45•60MPa) . This is of course expected since it is known that the concrete does not behave entirely according to plastic theory so an effectiveness factor should therefore be introduced. also the deflection is wrong.

Effectivenessfactor ν=0.92 - . h=60mm.1 Figure 8. Φ’x=Φ’y=0. fy=593MPa.up Exp 2000 Nx [kN] ν=0. 3000 u1.Yield line Theory for Concrete Slabs Subjected to Axial Force 3000 2500 ν=1 q1.02 0. hcm/h=0.up u2.4. .eq q1. It is seen that if ν is set to 0.08 0. Φx=Φy=0.04 0.eq q2.5 Results of calculations for a slab with fc=60MPa.up q2. Φ’x=Φ’y=0.5.0085fy/fc.eq u1.5. Results of calculations for a slab with fc=60MPa. Φx=Φy=0. fy=593MPa. Lx=Ly=2000mm.45 the calculations are in good agreement with the experiments.45 1500 1000 500 0 0 0. h=60mm.45 or ν=1.0085fy/fc. Lx=Ly=2000mm. hcm/h=0.up Exp 2500 2000 Nx [kN] 1500 1000 500 0 0 10 20 30 40 u [mm] 50 60 70 80 Figure 8.06 q [MPa] 0.eq u2.

7 are obtained. Lx=Ly=2000mm. Φx=Φy=0 and ν=0.0085fy/fc.465‰ for the reinforcement the deflection at the midpoint would approximately be um = 1 2 + 1. Assuming that the yield strain for concrete is 2 ‰ and that the yield strain is 1.eq q2.up q2. Results of calculations for a slab with fc=60MPa.1) if the stresses in the mid section should be close to the yield stresses.08 0.45 and the conservative simplified method is used to calculate the load-carrying capacity.5.Tim Gudmand-Høyer This effectiveness factor is quite small compared to the effectiveness factors normally used in calculations of moment capacities (approx. hcm/h=0. fy=593MPa. Figure 8.6.85). In evaluation of such an effectiveness factor one should keep in mind that the strains in the yield lines may be far from the yield strains. it may seem reasonable that the effectiveness factor of the magnitude found above has to be used.eq q1. If ν is set to 0.465 20002 = 66mm 10 30 ⋅1000 (8.04 0.1 Figure 8. h=60mm.6 and Figure 8. Φ’x=Φ’y=0.02 0.45. 3000 q1. .93 - . 0.06 q [MPa] 0.up Exp 2500 2000 Nx [kN] 1500 1000 500 0 0 0. Keeping in mind that a deflection of 66mm only leads to yielding in the top of the compression zone in the midpoint and not in the remaining parts of the yield line.

94 - . It is seen that this approximation does not lead to useful results since the deviation from the tests is very large. these results only represent one slab type and further investigations and tests have to be made in order to verify the approach.8 and Figure 8. h=60mm.9. .up u2. A similar approach is used in calculations of reinforced concrete columns and one might suspect that it might give useful results for slabs as well.eq u2. Results of calculations for a slab with fc=60MPa.7.5. Another approach could be to use the deflection corresponding to yielding in mid-section (in this case 66mm) for all axial forces.45. hcm/h=0. Lx=Ly=2000mm.up Exp 2500 2000 Nx [kN] 1500 1000 500 0 0 20 40 u [mm] 60 80 100 Figure 8. Φ’x=Φ’y=0. Results using this approximation may be seen in Figure 8.eq u1. Φx=Φy=0 and ν=0. It appears that the results are closer to the values from tests. Nevertheless.Yield line Theory for Concrete Slabs Subjected to Axial Force 3000 u1. fy=593MPa.0085fy/fc.

eq q1. Φx=Φy=0 and ν=0.up Exp 2500 2000 Nx [kN] 1500 1000 500 0 0 20 40 u [mm] 60 80 100 Figure 8. Results of calculations for a slab with fc=60MPa.eq q2. hcm/h=0. hcm/h=0.45.1 Figure 8.eq u1. fy=593MPa.up u2. Φ’x=Φ’y=0.95 - .06 q [MPa] 0.Tim Gudmand-Høyer 3000 q1.0085fy/fc. Φ’x=Φ’y=0.9. .up q2. h=60mm. h=60mm.02 0.5. Lx=Ly=2000mm.eq u2.8.45.0085fy/fc. 3000 u1. Φx=Φy=0 and ν=0. fy=593MPa. Results of calculations for a slab with fc=60MPa.08 0. Lx=Ly=2000mm.04 0.up Exp 2500 2000 Nx [kN] 1500 1000 500 0 0 0.5.

96 - . . Using a deflection corresponding to the yield strain in concrete and reinforcement in the mid section for all levels of axial force seems to lead to reasonable agreement with tests.Yield line Theory for Concrete Slabs Subjected to Axial Force These comparisons with test results show that the theory developed may be used if the deflection at failure is known and a proper effectiveness factor is introduced. From a critical point of view it may be said that this way of calculating the load-carrying capacity does not lead to any simple and useful calculation since the deflection has to be known from either experiments or from calculations that involve a much more detailed description of the behaviour of concrete. If the deflection at failure is unknown the conservative simplified method may be used but it will lead to a large underestimation for low axial forces.

However. . Only tests with seven rectangular slabs with axial force in one direction have been used for verification of the theory and the conclusions are therefore not general. Furthermore.W. Only rectangular slabs have been treated here but the agreement between the concrete contribution to the dissipation calculated according to the K. A conservative approach using the minimum load-carrying capacity for all deflections leads to a large underestimation in some cases and thus can only be recommended as a rough estimate. Johansen method and according to the correct dissipation formulas for a Coulomb material has been investigated in general. it should be noted that due to the small number of tests no great effort has been made in order to determine the effectiveness factor ν. it has been shown that if a proper effectiveness factor is used. If the deflection corresponding to yield strains of the concrete and the reinforcement is used for all levels of axial force. the calculations seem to be in good agreement under the condition that the deflection at failure is known.97 - . It is shown that if the corner angle w is larger than 1/2π the Johansen simplification underestimates the dissipation and if w is less than 1/2π the simplification overestimates the dissipation. predictions of the load-carrying capacity seem to be reasonable. Furthermore. it is shown that for a deflected rectangular slab with axial force the load-carrying capacity may be calculated in the same way if the axes of rotation correspond to the neutral axes of the slab parts. Johansen method agree with a calculation based on the correct dissipation formulas that is sufficiently correct for practical purposes.W.Tim Gudmand-Høyer 9 Conclusion In this paper it is shown that calculations of the load-carrying capacity of rectangular slabs using the K.

Brudlinieteorier (Yield line theories).. A. Cambridge. P. 1998 [6] HANSEN.. [4] AGHAYERE.. CALLADINE. GUDMAND-HØYER. Aalborg. Engineering Plasticity. O. P. Del 2 Skiver og plader. M. 615622.: Mekanik 5. and RATHKJEN. J.98 - . G. Simple Ideas in the Large-Deflection Plastic Theory of Plates and Slabs. Cambridge University Press. pp. Department of Structural Engeneering and Materials. 87. Technical University of Denmark. eds. Copenhagen. pp. . A. CRC Press. ACI Structural Journal.W. Danmarks Ingeniørakadami. A.: Limit Analysis and Concrete Plasticity. and LECKIE. C. [1] [2] JOHANSEN. 93-127. 1981. 1968 [3] NIELSEN. Gjellerup. Second Edition. Den Private Ingeniørfond.Yield line Theory for Concrete Slabs Subjected to Axial Force 10 Literature The list is ordered by year. V. No. F. K.R..: Instability of Concrete Slabs. 1990 [5] NIELSEN. R-042. Bygningsafdelingen. ISSN 1601-2917. ISBN 87-7877-101-3. M. Z. HEYMAN J. L. and MACGREGOR. T. Test of reinforced Concrete Plates under Combined In-Plane and Transverse Loads. 2001 .1. 6. 1943.

fc=30MPa (solid) and load-carrying capacity according to (7.1. Load-carrying capacity q1 for a square slab with L=2000mm.3 0.2 0.99 - .1.6 0.08 0.2 hx/h hy/h 0. hc/h= hc´/h=0.4 Dy/Ly 0.7 0.2 0. Φ0=Φ0´=0.1 0.1 0 0 0.1 Square slab without axial force 0.Tim Gudmand-Høyer 11 Appendix 11.12 0.6 0.8 1 q hx/h hy/h 0. fc=30MPa (solid) and load-carrying capacity according to (7.7 0.2.8 1 0.05 Figure 11.6 hx/h 0.06 0.6 0.1 0 0 0.8 1 0 0 0.1.4 Dy/Ly 0. .1.04 q 1 24mp/L2 q1 0.9 0. hc/h= hc´/h=0.1.2 0. Φ0=Φ0´=0.14 0.8 0.3 1 24mp/L2 q1 0.39) (dashed) at the left hand side and position of the axes of rotation at the right hand side.05.16 0.1.2 0.2 0.5 0.6 0.8 1 Figure 11.4 Dy/Ly 0.4 0.8 0.4 0.02 0 0 0.1 Results of calculations for different slabs 11.1 0.2 0.25 0.39) (dashed) at the left hand side and position of the axes of rotation at the right hand side.4 Dy/Ly 0.9 0.2. 0.6 0.15 hx/h 0.5 0. Load-carrying capacity q1 for a square slab with L=2000mm.3 0.

3 0.06 0.6 0.Lx=2000mm and Ly=16000mm 0.9 0. Φ0x=Φ0x´=Φ0y=Φ0y´=0.39) (dashed) at the left hand side and position of the axes of rotation at the right hand side.2 0.1 0 0 0.05.1 0 0 0.Φ0y=Φ0y´=0.6 0.6 hx/h q 0.1.fc=30MPa.6 Dy/Ly for q1 or Dx/Lx for q2 0.50) at the left hand side and position of the axes of rotation at the right hand side.4 Dy/Ly 0.7 0.2.6 0.3 0.8 1 Figure 11.08 q in MPa 0. fc=30MPa (solid) and load-carrying capacity according to (7.15 0.8 0. fc=30MPa (solid) and load-carrying capacity according to (7.05 0. Load-carrying capacity q1 for a rectangular slab Lx=2000mm.4 hx/h hy/h 0.06 hx/h 0.Lx=2000mm and Ly=16000mm 1 0.2 Rectangular slab without axial force Φ0x=Φ0x´0.4.8 1 hx/h hy/h 0.5 0.1.hc/h=0.2 0.5 0. Ly=16000mm. Φ0x=Φ0x´=Φ0y=Φ0y´=0. Φ0x=Φ0x´0.04 0.2 0.4 0. Φ0=Φ0´=0.4 Dy/Ly 0.8 1 hx/h hy/h Figure 11.2 0.04 q in MPa 1 q1 q2 Ingerslev 0.05 0.1.48) or (7.6 Dy/Ly for q1 or Dx/Lx for q2 0.4 0.9 0.2.6 0.2 0. 11.02 Figure 11.8 0.1 0 0 0.4 Dy/Ly 0.7 0.6 hx/h 0.48) or (7.7 0. hcx/h= hcx´/h= hcy/h= hcy´/h=0.Φ0y=Φ0y´=0. .2 0. hcx/h= hcx´/h= hcy/h= hcy´/h=0.5. Ly=16000mm. fc=30MPa (solid) and load-carrying capacity according to (7.1.2 0.1.1 q1 q2 Ingerslev 0.3.hc/h=0.3 0.05.h=100mm. hc/h= hc´/h=0. Load-carrying capacity q1 for a square slab with L=2000mm.2 0.4 0.1.1.100 - .Yield line Theory for Concrete Slabs Subjected to Axial Force 1 0.fc=30MPa.9 0.2 0.01 0.6 0.5 0.8 1 0 0 0.4 0.50) at the left hand side and position of the axes of rotation at the right hand side.1 0.8 1 0 0 0.2. Load-carrying capacity q1 for a rectangular slab Lx=2000mm.02 0.h=100mm.1.25 24mp/L2 q1 0.8 0.4 Dy/Ly 0.03 0.2 0.05.8 1 0 0 0.

50) at the left hand side and position of the axes of rotation at the right hand side.Lx=2000mm and Ly=4800mm 0. Φ0x=Φ0x´=0. fc=30MPa (solid) and load-carrying capacity according to (7.1 0 0 0.6 hx/h 0.8 0.05.1.6 Dy/Ly for q1 or Dx/Lx for q2 0.05.Lx=2000mm and Ly=16000mm 1 0.2 0.fc=30MPa.2 0.4 Dy/Ly 0.3 0.7.2 hx/h hy/h Figure 11.1.hc/h=0.4 0.1.3.5 0.6 hx/h 0.2 0. Φ0x=Φ0x´=0.06 0.8.4 0.1 0 0 0.6 0.7 q in MPa 0.1 0 0 0.Φ0y=Φ0y´=0. hcx/h= hcx´/h= hcy/h= hcy´/h=0.fc=30MPa.6. hcx/h= hcx´/h= hcy/h= hcy´/h=0.1 0.50) at the left hand side and position of the axes of rotation at the right hand side.03 0.8 1 Figure 11.1.8 1 0 0 0.2 0.8 1 0 0 0.50) at the left hand side and position of the axes of rotation at the right hand side.3 0.6 Dy/Ly for q1 or Dx/Lx for q2 0. Load-carrying capacity q1 for a rectangular slab Lx=2000mm.6 0.4 Dy/Ly 0.05 0.8 0.fc=30MPa. Load-carrying capacity q1 for a rectangular slab Lx=2000mm. Φ0y=Φ0y´=0. Load-carrying capacity q1 for a rectangular slab Lx=2000mm.hc/h=0.3 0.2 0. fc=30MPa (solid) and load-carrying capacity according to (7.2 0. Φ0y=Φ0y´=0. Ly=4800mm.7 hx/h for q1 hy/h for q1 0.3 0.1.h=100mm.Φ0y=Φ0y´=0. .2 0. Ly=16000mm.8 1 0.01 0.04 0.4 0.hc/h=0. Φ0x=Φ0x´=0.48) or (7.2 0.8 1 q1 q2 Ingerslev 0.2.4 0. Ly=4800mm.9.h=100mm.Tim Gudmand-Høyer Φ0x=Φ0x´0.2.15 0.05 0 0 0.05.48) or (7.4 0.1 q in MPa 0.101 - .05 0. Φ0x=Φ0x´0.7.02 0.6 hx/h 0.15 1 q1 q2 Ingerslev 0.5 0.25 0.8 1 q1 q2 Ingerslev 0.9 0.1. Φ0y=Φ0y´=0.48) or (7.3. Φ0x=Φ0x´0.1.2 hx/h for q1 hy/h for q1 Figure 11.4 Dy/Ly 0.4 0.9 0.1.6 0.7 q in MPa 0.9 0.8 0. fc=30MPa (solid) and load-carrying capacity according to (7.Lx=2000mm and Ly=4800mm 1 0.5 0.6 Dy/Ly for q1 or Dx/Lx for q2 0.05. hcx/h= hcx´/h= hcy/h= hcy´/h=0.h=100mm.Φ0y=Φ0y´=0.

4 0.9 0. hcx/h= hcx´/h= hcy/h= hcy´/h=0.2 0.1.8 1 1.4 0. length of the part of the yield line parallel to the axes of rotation (middle left hand side).3 0.2 0.6 σx/f c 0.6 σx/f c 0.2 Dy/Ly for q1 Dx/Lx for q2 Ingerslev 1 0.4 0.8 0.1 0 0 0.7 hx/h or hy/h 0.3 Rectangular slab with axial force 0.4 0. Load-carrying capacity (top left hand side).Yield line Theory for Concrete Slabs Subjected to Axial Force 11. Φ0x=Φ0x´=0.8 0.4 0.6 σx/f c 0.35 0.2 diff % q q1 q2 Ingerslev modified 40 |qIngerslev mod.2 hx/h for q2 hy/h for q2 Ingerslev modified Figure 11.3 0.9 0.4 0. increasing σx and σy=0.7 hx/h or hy/h 0. difference between the calculation methods (top right hand side).5 0.2 0.1.6 0.5 0.2 0.4 0.1.1 0 0 0.8 1 1.1 0. position of the axes of rotation for failure mode 1(middle left hand side) and position of the axes of rotation for failure mode 2(bottom) for a rectangular slab Lx=2000mm.3 0.15 0.2 0.4 0.7 Dy/Ly or D x/Lx 0.8 0.-min(q1.2 0.4 0.3 0.8 1 1.1.9.1.6 0.8 1 1.2 0.2 hx/h for q1 hy/h for q1 Ingerslev modified 1 0. Φ0y=Φ0y´=0.2 0.4 σx/f c 1 0.6 0.1 0 0 0.25 0. .q2)*100% 35 30 25 20 15 10 5 0 0 0.9 0. fc=30MPa.102 - .5 0.q2)|/min(q1. Ly=2000mm.8 1 1.6 σx/f c 0.6 0.05 0 0 0.2 1.2 0.

q2)*100% 1 0.9 0. increasing σx and σy=0.05 0 0 0.3 0.1.2 Dy/Ly for q1 Dx/Lx for q2 Ingerslev 1 0.8 1 1.6 σx/f c 0.7 Dy/Ly or D x/Lx 0.9 0.2 0.6 σx/f c 0.7 hx/h or hy/h 0.7 hx/h or hy/h 0.8 1 1.10.6 σx/f c 0. hcx/h= hcx´/h= hcy/h= hcy´/h=0.4 0.2 -80 -100 0 0.2 0.4 0. Load-carrying capacity (top left hand side). length of the part of the yield line parallel to the axes of rotation (middle left hand side).4 0. 11.8 0.6 0. Φ0x=Φ0x´=0. fc=30MPa.5 0.9 0.6 σx/f c 0.8 1 1.8 0.8 1 1.2 0.8 1 1.4 0.6 σx/f c 0.2 hx/h for q1 hy/h for q1 Ingerslev modified 1 0.2 0.Tim Gudmand-Høyer 0.1 0 0 0.1 -60 0.4 0.25 0.6 0.q2))/min(q1.1 0 0 0.3 0.2 hx/h for q2 hy/h for q2 Ingerslev modified Figure 11. position of the axes of rotation for failure mode 1(middle left hand side) and position of the axes of rotation for failure mode 2(bottom) for a rectangular slab Lx=2000mm.3 40 0. Ly=16000mm.1.2 0.4 0.2 0.3 0.5 0.2 0.8 0.4 0.5 0.103 - .1 0 0 0.1.2 diff % q 20 0 -20 -40 q1 q2 Ingerslev modified 100 80 60 (qIngerslev mod. Φ0y=Φ0y´=0. difference between the calculation methods (top right hand side).35 0.-min(q1.2 0.4 0.6 0.15 0.4 0.2 Calculations of the compression depth if 0<u<hc & hc´<u+ hc´<h+ hc & h-hc<u+h-hc<h and 0≤y0<u .2 0.

5) (8. L h 2 (8.2Φ 1.Φ + ≤ ≤ .104 - . + Φ´+Φ + 1h L fc 2 L h h 2 L h (8.3) and hc≤y0<u+hc 2 σ u hc D Du -1 + −2 + Φ´+Φ + 4Φ´ − 1 Lh hL y0 1 fc h = D u h 2 -2Φ´+2Φ´ L h (8.+ Φ´-Φ + 2Φ ..7) and h-hc+u≤y0<h y0 σ 1 u D = . + Φ´+Φ + 1. + .2Φ ≤ ≤ 1.9) and h<y0≤u+h .6) and h-hc≤y0<h-hc+u u hc D u σ 1 D -1.Φ + + Φ´ L h fc 2 2 L h h 2 2 L h and u+hc<y0<h-hc y0 σ 1 u 1 u D = − Φ´+Φ + + h fc 2h 2h L (8.4) and u+hc=y0 hc σ 1 1 D u hc D 1 1 Du + Φ´-2Φ´ .Φ´-Φ + 1 + h fc L 2 h (8.8) and u+h-hc=y0 hc hc D σ 1 Du 1 Du 1. L h f c h y0 2 L h = h D u -2Φ 1.Yield line Theory for Concrete Slabs Subjected to Axial Force Duσ 2 1 − + Φ '+ Φ L h fc y0 = h D 1 − L and u≤y0<hc y0 1 σ u u D = 2 + 2Φ´+2Φ + + h 2 fc h h L (8.2) (8.

105 - . .14) y0 σ 1 u D = -Φ´+Φ + 1 + h fc 2h L and h-hc≤y0<h u hc D u σ 1 D -1.2Φ´ 1 − L h fc h L y0 2 h = h D u -2Φ´ 1 − L h 2 2 (8.12) (8. − Φ + + Φ´ 2 L h L h fc 2 L h h and u+hc<y0<h-hc (8.( Φ´+Φ ) 1. + . + Φ + Φ´+ h L fc h L y0 L = D h 1− L and u≤y0<u+hc u hc D D u σ 1 -1. L h fc L h L y0 h = D h 1L if hc´<u<h-hc & hc´<u+ hc´<h+ hc & h<u+h-hc and 0≤y0<hc Du σ 2 1. − + Φ´+Φ .Tim Gudmand-Høyer D u D u D u σ + 1. + Φ´+Φ L h fc y0 = D h 1L and hc≤y0<u hc D σ u D D 2 1.13) and u+hc=y0 hc hc 1 Du D σ 1 Du 1.± .2Φ 1.2 Φ´-Φ + + Φ´≤ ≤ 1. 2 − 1.+ Φ´-Φ + 2Φ . L h f c h y0 2 L h = h D u -2Φ 1. 2Φ´ +2Φ´ 1. L h 2 (8. .10) (8. 2Φ´+ 2 1.16) and h≤y0<u+h-hc .11) (8.15) (8.

2Φ ) 1 − ± h L y0 = h (8.19) if hc´<u<h-hc & h-hc<u+ hc´<h & h<u+h-hc and 0≤y0<hc Du σ ± 2 1. c 1. 1. + Φ´+Φ L h fc y0 = D h 1L and hc≤y0<u h D u D D σ u 2Φ´1 − + 2 1. L h f h h L 2 y0 c = h D u 2Φ´ 1.18) + Φ´+Φ .± 2 1.17) and u+h-hc=y0 1h D 1h D . + L h 2 (8. + 2Φ´2 +2Φ´ c 1. D hc D D hc L σ L 2 h 2 h (8. .106 - .2Φ + ≤ ≤ 1+ Φ´+Φ + 1u u L h L fc L h h h and u+h-hc<y0≤u+h 2 uD u D u D σ + 1.21) u hc D 1 D u σ 1 + + + Φ´+Φ + 2Φ´ 1.+ Φ´+Φ .Yield line Theory for Concrete Slabs Subjected to Axial Force D 2 u hc σ D 2 1 − Φ + Φ ´+ 1 2 + 4 Φ + 4 Φ 1 + L fc h h L D D hc u D -8Φ .8Φ + L L h h L D 1L 2 2 2 u D ( -1. h L h h L y0 L fc = D h 1L 2 2 (8. + ( Φ´+Φ ) L h L h L fc h y0 = D h -1 + L and u≤y0<h-hc (8.20) (8. c 1.22) and u+hc=y0 .

h D 2 h L L ≤ ≤ 1c (8.2 h fc h h L h h L -8Φ 2 D u D D hc + .2Φ − L h L 1- 1 hc 2 h 2 1 hc D D 1.28) .2Φ .4Φ h L h L u h u hc D 1 D u σ hc 1 + + + Φ´+Φ + 2 -Φ + Φ + Φ´ 1 − L h f c h h L y0 2 h = h D u 2 ( Φ + Φ´) 1 − + L h 2 (8.2Φ .± 2 1.+ Φ´+Φ 1. . + L h L h L y0 h fc = D h 1L 2 (8.2Φ + Φ´+Φ + + 2 L h L h and h-hc<y0<u+hc 4Φ hc D hc D + 2Φ . σ 1.4Φ + 2Φ h L h L u h (8.25) and h≤y0<u+h-hc D D u 2Φ 1 − + + 1 − ± L h L y0 = h D 2 u hc u σ u u D 2 + 2Φ´ 1 − + 4Φ + 4Φ 1 + 2 + 2Φ .24) and u+hc≤y0<h u hc D 1 D u σ 1 + + − Φ´+Φ + 2Φ − 2Φ 1 − L h f c h L 2 h y 01 = D u 2Φ 1 − + L h 2 (8.Tim Gudmand-Høyer hc D 1 Du 1.27) + Φ´+Φ − u u fc L h h h 2 and u+h-hc<y0≤u+h D u D u D u σ + 1.26) 2 2 and u+h-hc=y0 D hc D + Φ´+Φ . .2 ( Φ + Φ´) + Φ´+Φ + + L h 2 L h ≤ 4Φ σ fc hc D hc D .107 - .23) ≤ hc D 1 Du 1.8Φ L h L L h D 1− L (8.

+ 2 1.Φ h + Φ´ h 1 − L D D 2 ( Φ´+Φ ) 1 − ± 2 1. c 1. 2 h h 2 h L D D hc D + Φ 1. c 1.+ u L L h L h and u<y0<h u hc hc D 1 D u σ 1 + + + Φ´+Φ + 2 Φ + Φ´ − Φ 1 − L h f c h h L y0 2 h = h D u 2 ( Φ + Φ´) 1 − + L h 2 (8.+ c + 4Φ c . + Φ + Φ´ + 2Φ´2 +2Φ´ c 1. + Φ´+Φ L h fc D 1L (8. L σ u L + Φ + Φ´+ f h y0 c (8.33) .31) = D h 1L and u+hc=y0 h 1h 1 h D -2Φ .+ c + 4Φ c .Yield line Theory for Concrete Slabs Subjected to Axial Force if h-hc<u<h & h <u+ hc´ & h<u+h-hc and 0≤y0<hc y0 = h Duσ 2 1. h 2 h 2 h D D hc D L + ( Φ + Φ´) 1.108 - .30) 2 hc hc D 2 2 Φ´ +Φ + Φ + 2Φ´Φ .29) and hc≤y0<h-hc h D D D u σ −2Φ´1.2 + 1.+ u L L h L h ≤ 2 σ fc ≤ 2 (8. h L L L h fc y0 = ± D h 1L and h-hc≤y0<u (8.32) h 1h 1 h D -2Φ .2 + Φ´+ 1.

Φ´2 -Φ c + Φ´ c .-1 + + 2 1 − 1.4Φ´ c + 8Φ´Φ + 4Φ´ L h h u u σ D Du − 2 − Φ´ 1 + ( -2Φ . 1.2Φ ≤ 1+ Φ´+Φ 1u u h L L h L h h and u+h-hc<y0≤u+h 2 uD u D u D σ .37) if h <u & h<u+hc´ & h<u+h-hc and 0≤y0<hc . 1. + 4Φ 1 + c +Φ -2 L h h fc L L h D u D -8Φ + L h L 2 2 2 -1+ D L (8.+ Φ´+Φ + h L h L fc h L y0 = D h -1 + L 2 2 (8.-2Φ -1+ L h L -16Φ´Φ (8.36) (8.+ + +2 L h Lh h fc +8 h h D 2 -Φ . +2 + 2Φ h L h D 2 h h + 1 + +4Φ´2 +4Φ 2 + 4Φ c .Φ´ L h h D u D + L h L D -1 + L 2 2 y0 = h and u+hc≤y0<u+h-hc 2Φ D u D .109 - .35) and u+h-hc=y0 1 hc D 1 hc D 1.2Φ´−1) .Tim Gudmand-Høyer and h≤y0<u+hc u D u 1.34) + y0 = h D 2 h u σ D D hc 2 Φ´+1+Φ . hc D hc D D 2 h L 2 h L + Φ´+Φ .

2Φ + 2Φ´ 1.41) hc 1 1 hc 2 D h .2Φ .. + Φ´+Φ + 2Φ´2 +2Φ´ c 1 − L h L L fc y0 h = D h 1L and h-hc≤y0<h (8.+ .38) (8. ( 2Φ´+2Φ + 1) L and u≤y0<u+hc (8.2 Φ´+Φ + L h fc y0 = D h 1L and hc≤y0<h-hc u h D D D σ −2 1 − ± 2 1.. + 4Φ c .2Φ 1 − h 2 2 h h L D D hc D 1.Yield line Theory for Concrete Slabs Subjected to Axial Force Du σ 2 1.39) u h h σ D D D 2 ( -Φ´-Φ ) 1 − ± 2 1.42) .40) and u+hc=y0 hc 1 1 hc 2 D h .2Φ 1 − h 2 2 h h L D D hc D D 1. 2 1 − +Φ´ c − Φ c + 2Φ´Φ .2Φ + Φ + Φ´+ u L L h L h and h<y0<u σ u 1 hc hc D + Φ´+Φ + + 2Φ . + 4Φ c .2 Φ´+Φ + Φ´+ u L L h L L h ≤ σ fc ≤ (8.Φ´2 +Φ + Φ 2 + +Φ + + Φ´ L L h h fc L y0 h = D h 1L (8. h h L y0 f c h 2 = h D 1.+ .110 - .

44) 1h D .8Φ + 4Φ c L h L h L h u D D D D u D h D . c 1.8Φ + 4Φ c + 4Φ c L h h h L L h D D +4Φ .2Φ´+2Φ´ .45) 1h D . c 1.2 Φ´ h L L L L h L L h -2 u D u D D D + + 8Φ´Φ + 4Φ´ . D hc D L 2 h + Φ´+Φ .4Φ´ c + 2Φ´ + 4Φ´+2 h h h h h D hc D hc D h +8Φ´ .Tim Gudmand-Høyer 2 Dσ u σ u u D D -2 . D hc 2 h L + Φ´+Φ + 1u L h h .111 - .43) and u+hc≤y0<u+h-hc u uD u u 2 -2 Φ´+2Φ´ + 2Φ h h L h h uDσ Du σ u uD +2 -2 -2 Φ-2 h L fc fc h h L Lh h D hc u D D h + .2Φ -1 + 2Φ ± -4Φ´ c + 8Φ´ Φ .+ .8Φ 2 h L h L L L 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 y0 = h D D D +4Φ + 4Φ + 4Φ´2 -8Φ´2 + 4Φ´2 L L L D -16Φ´Φ L D -1 + L (8.2Φ + 1u L h L h ≤ 2 σ fc ≤ 2 (8.2 Φ .8Φ´ L fc h fc h h L L h h u u u +2Φ + 4Φ c .8Φ + 4Φ 2 L L D 1L 2 2 2 2 2 2 1- D D u + 2Φ − 2Φ + ± L L h y0 = h and u+h-hc=y0 (8.

46) .± + Φ +Φ + 2 11´ L h h L y0 h L fc = D h 1L (8.Yield line Theory for Concrete Slabs Subjected to Axial Force and u+h-hc<y0≤u+h 2 uD u D u D σ + 1.112 - .

- El Principe-Nicolas Maquiavelo
- Rutinas de Ejercicio Sin Pesas Y Sin Aparatos
- Nuevo Manual de Instalacion
- Mario Puzo - El Ultimo Don
- Asientos de Cimentaciones Superficiales
- manual2 concreto
- Norma de Tecno 0341-1979
- Diseño de Aducciones
- Curso de Finanzas Para Emprendedores
- Planificacion de Obras
- Tomografia Electrica Albuera
- Buena Presentacion Oral
- Red Act Ar Inform Es
- El Agua Tomo I
- Tecnica - Humedades en La Construccion - FL

- DA_PYLD2004
- Yield Line theory examples
- 2 Yield Line Analysis
- Lab_06
- Yield Line Analysis for Slabs Module12 Lesson30
- Gyroscope
- 14
- TC_V1_28_EN
- 17 - Yield Line Theory for Slabs
- Formularium
- NED frame
- ADA128307_UFO
- Fresnel Coeff
- Cartesian Coordinate Geometry and Straight Lines-1
- Chapter 14 Two-Way Slabs; Elastic and Yield-Line Analyses
- Field and Potential Due to Charge Distribution Notes 4b
- Cordic Architecture Survey
- Solucionario Capitulo 3 - Paul E. Tippens
- Cjc h2 Math p1 Solution
- 13. Directional Drilling
- Magic Hexagon for Trig Identities
- Thomas Pre Cession
- Pre-calculus / math notes (unit 9 of 22)
- Evalals.pdf
- Reinforced Concrete Slabs
- 155362 November 2012 Mark Scheme 43(Pure Mathematics)
- Limits of Function
- CHAPTER 3
- trigonometry
- Midterm 1 Solutions

Are you sure?

This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?

We've moved you to where you read on your other device.

Get the full title to continue

Get the full title to continue reading from where you left off, or restart the preview.

scribd