You are on page 1of 102

# Two-way Slab Design with Column

Capitals

Wayne Hoklas
Brendan Nee
Justin Zimmerman

## Dec 16, 2003

Two Way Slab Design with Column Capitals

Page
Introduction 4
Design Summary 6
Calculations 11
Slab Thickness 11
Direct Design Method 15
Mo 15
Plan View of Panels 19
Lateral Distribution of Moments 20
Plan View of Moment Regions 26
Flexural Design 27
One Way Shear 42
Corner Panels 42
E-W Edge Panels 43
N-S Edge Panels 44
Interior Panels 45
Punching Shear 46
Corner Columns 46
E-W Edge Columns 47
N-S Edge Columns 48
Interior Columns 49
Unbalanced Moment Transfer 50
Corner Columns 50
E-W Edge Columns 53
N-S Edge Columns 56
Interior Columns 59
Negative Moment Reinforcement Checks 62
Equivalent Frame Calculations 63
Exterior Frame 63
Interior Frame 66
EFM Analysis 69
Node Diagram with Coordinates 69
Exterior Frame 70
Output 70
Moment Diagrams 79
Shear Diagrams 79
Member 10 80
Member 21 81
Member 32 82
Interior Frame 83
Output 83
Moment Diagrams 91
Shear Diagrams 91

-2-
Two Way Slab Design with Column Capitals

Member 10 92
Member 21 93
Member 32 94
Moment Location Diagram 95
DDM to EFM Moment Comparison Chart 96
Drawings and Diagrams 97
Elevation Reinforcement Detailing 97
Column Strip Detailing 98
Middle Strip Detailing 99
Cost Breakdown 100
Rebar Quantities 100
Concrete Quantities 101
Total Costs 102

-3-
Two Way Slab Design with Column Capitals

Introduction
The goal of this project was to design an intermediate floor of a six story concrete building in one

direction using the Direct Design Method (DDM) outlined in ACI-318-02. In addition, the Equivalent Frame

Method (EFM) for obtaining bending moments in the slab, also outlined in ACI-318-02, was performed. The

bending moments obtained from the EFM were then compared to those found using the equations of the DDM.

## c/c story height = 12 ft

min. c/c column spacing = 22 ft
cladding weight = 250 plf
partition weight = 20 psf
electrical/mechanical system weight = 6 psf
service live load = 80 psf
fc’ = 5 ksi
fy = 60 ksi
preliminary dimensions:
columns – 18x18 in

In addition to this information, our design team was instructed to follow a flat slab design that had no beams

## between columns and included column capitals.

Our preliminary estimates of the shear capacity of the slab showed that column capitals were probably not

needed. However, since their use was required, we arbitrarily chose to use 9” column capitals. Upon making this

decision, the minimum slab thickness allowed by ACI-318-02 was used and the general procedures of the DDM

were followed for the North-South direction of the floor. Following this, checks for one and two way shear were

made, as well as a check for unbalanced moment transfer. For the EFM analysis, two equivalent frames were

analyzed. One frame consisted of a column line on an exterior edge of the building, and the other frame consisted

## of an interior column line.

Five computer programs were used to assist in our design. Mathcad was used to assist performing the general

calculations. Excel was used for designing the flexural reinforcement and performing cost and quantity

-4-
Two Way Slab Design with Column Capitals

calculations. Fast Frame 2D frame analysis software was used for the EFM analysis. Adobe Photoshop 7.0 and

Autocad 2002 were used to prepare figures and diagrams for this document.

-5-
Two Way Slab Design with Column Capitals

Design Summary

## Initial Design Work

The first step in the design process was to take the given information and determine the geometry of the

floor system. In order to make calculations simpler, all center to center column spaces in the same direction were

made equal for all panels. This was accomplished by subtracting two one half column widths from the out to out

dimensions in the North-South and East-West directions. The remaining dimension was then divided into thirds

in the North-South direction and into four panels in the East-West direction to obtain center to center column

spacing. Next, some preliminary estimates of the required column capital size were made to ensure adequate

capacity for punching shear, because this often controls the acceptable slab thickness and the need for drop

panels and column capitals. It was determined that column capitals would likely not be needed. Because of this,

## relatively small, nine inch column capitals were chosen.

After defining the columns and capitals, the minimum allowable slab thickness was determined using the

clear span distance. From Table 9.5 (C) in ACI-318-02, the controlling minimum thickness was for exterior

panels without drop panels and without edge beams. This thickness was rounded up to 8.5 inches and used for

the rest of the design. Once all dimensions of the floor system were known, the widths of column and middle

strips and the factored dead and live loads were calculated. To handle the effects of the cladding load on the

exterior equivalent frame, all area loads were multiplied by the width of the frame to create line loads. The line

subsequently factored. The effects from cladding located on East-West building edges were neglected in the

DDM calculations since they will not create significant bending moments in the North-South direction. The effect

of this cladding must be taken into account when the building is designed in the East-West direction.

-6-
Two Way Slab Design with Column Capitals

## Direct Design Method

The next step in the design process was to use the DDM to determine the bending moments for which

the slab system in the North-South direction must be reinforced for. Mo was calculated and distributed to positive

and negative moment regions and between column and middle strips. Using these distributed moments, a map of

where moments occurred was developed and the design moments were determined. According to ACI-13.6.3.4,

negative moment regions must be designed for the larger of the two moments that they are subjected to, thus

both moments were compared and the largest was selected for design. Fifteen different moment regions were

identified and labeled Type1-15. The moments in each region were divided by width of their region to obtain

## moments per foot.

By inputting these moments per width into an Excel spreadsheet, a design for reinforcement for all fifteen

regions was developed. The spreadsheet required the input of Mu, hs, fy, fc’, β1, clear cover depth, and an initial

assumption of a bar size. Using a series of If() statements and equations, the spread sheet retrieved the correct bar

diameter and area from a table, calculated d, and then solved a quadratic equation for the required reinforcement

ratio to resist the specified moment. This reinforcement ratio was multiplied by b*d to obtain As_req. From this

As_req per foot, the spreadsheet displayed the required spacing for bar sizes from 3 to 18 to provide the necessary

area of steel per foot. Using this information, a spacing and bar size could be specified causing the spreadsheet to

calculate φMn, the depth of the Whitney stress block, As_min, As_max, the strain in the tension steel, and the

maximum allowable spacing for shrinkage and temperature as well as flexural requirements. Lastly, a series of If()

statements checked this output against code specifications and displayed a corresponding text box stating if the

results were acceptable. Thus, with half a dozen key strokes per region, our team rapidly designed the slab

## reinforcement for the 15 different sections.

-7-
Two Way Slab Design with Column Capitals

Shear Checks

The next step was to check the slab system to see if it possessed adequate shear capacity. First, the one-

way, or beam shear, method of failure was checked. After some consideration, it was decided to assume that the

cladding weight was distributed over the entire panel. While this is probably not an ideal assumption, it should be

satisfactory because the one-way shear capacity was three to four times greater than the applied shear loading.

## ACI-318-02 provided no guidance on this issue, thus it is up to the designers discretion.

Two-way, or punching shear, was the next check performed. Four separate regions were identified: corner

panel columns, E-W edge panel columns, N-S edge panel columns, and interior panel columns. The edge columns

have the same shear capacity but not the same loading. All regions were found to have excess shear capacity.

## Unbalanced Moment Transfer

In accordance with the DDM, the slab system’s capacity for transferring unbalanced moment was

checked. Four separate regions were identified for this check: corner columns, E-W edge columns, N-S edge

columns, and interior columns. All regions were found to have sufficient shear capacity to transfer the shear

portion of the unbalanced moment. However, several columns were found to have insufficient flexural capacity to

transfer the flexural portion of unbalanced moment. The total amount of steel required per foot in these regions

was calculated. The amount of steel in the column strips was increased where needed to provide adequate flexural

capacity. Specifically, all of the edge column strips’ areas of steel per foot were increased to handle the moment

## Equivalent Frame Method

Having the slab system completely designed, the bending moments for slab system were determined using

the EFM from ACI-318-02 for comparison purposes. First, the slab/column system was idealized as a two

dimensional frame. This frame was constructed of a series of individual members with varying moments of

-8-
Two Way Slab Design with Column Capitals

inertia connected rigidly together. Once the members’ lengths were calculated, a sketch of the frame was drawn

and the moment of inertia for each member was calculated. Some of these, such as the moment of inertia of the

slab away from the supports, could be calculated directly. However, most of the moments of inertia were more

complicated. Given that the idealized two dimensional frame was really a complex and non-homogenous three

dimensional frame, special considerations were necessary for many members. The equations for the EFM from

## ACI-318-02 were followed where applicable for these calculations.

One area where the code provided no guidance was the column capital region. The code specifies in ACI-

13.7.4.2 that “Variation in the moment of inertia of along the axis of columns shall be taken into account”, but

provides the designer with no recommended means of doing so. The technique used was to average the moments

of inertia for the columns in the column capital region. First, the moment of inertia for an 18 inch square column

and slab system was calculated. Next, a column having dimensions of the actual column plus the column capital

width was considered. The moment of inertia of this fictitious composite column was calculated. These two

values were then averaged and used as the moment of inertia for the entire 9 inch region of the column where the

capital is located.

Once all needed properties and dimensions were determined, two frame models were constructed using

FastFrame, the powerful and user friendly two dimensional frame analysis software available at no cost from

Enercalc®. The analysis was run using the loads calculated for the DDM design. However, the area at the end of

each frame between the center of the column and the edge of the floor had been neglected in the DDM design.

The contribution from dead and live load was factored and added into the EFM model. The most significant load

in this area was the cladding weight. A point load of 6.31 kips and a moment of 3.70 ft-kips was applied to the

corner columns. To the south and north edge columns, a point load of 11.28 kips and moment of 6.72 ft-kips

was applied. These loads can be clearly seen in the loading diagram for each EFM analysis.

After running frame analysis, the moments at the i and j ends of members 10, 21, and 32 were compared

to those found using the DDM. The moments on the East-West oriented edge columns were approximately twice

-9-
Two Way Slab Design with Column Capitals

the magnitude of the same moments calculated using the DDM. At first it seemed that the slab might have

insufficient flexural capacity in these regions. However, the amount of steel in these regions was significantly

increased when the effects of unbalanced moment transfer were taken into account. The net amount of

reinforcement in these regions would likely be equivalent whether the reinforcement was designed for EFM or

DDM moments.

## Costs and Detailing

Detailing of the slab steel was done using figure 13.3.8 in ACI 318-02. Once the detailing was completed,

the quantities of steel and concrete used were calculated. From these quantities, material and design costs were

determined.

## Item Unit Cost Amount Total Cost Cost Per Floor

Concrete \$100/yd3 161.774 yd3 \$ 16,177.40 \$ 16,177.40
Steel \$1200/ton 11.378 tons \$ 13,653.60 \$ 13,653.60
Design \$200/hr 140 hours \$ 28,000.00 \$ 4,666.67
Formwork \$9/ft2 6612 ft2 \$ 59,535.00 \$ 9,922.50
Total per floor \$ 44,420.17
Total for building \$ 266,521.00

It can be seen that the formwork and design add significant costs to the floor system. However, the

formwork is reusable for each of the six floors and the design need only be performed once, so long as the

column size does not vary. This allows these costs to be divided among all six floors. The material cost applies to

each floor. Thus, the material cost of steel and concrete makes up only 68% of the total flooring cost. This cost

estimate does not consider columns, cladding, roof material, foundations, or partitions.

Finally, drawings and diagrams to make our design clear and understandable were constructed using

Autocad, and our results were reviewed for errors. These drawings can be seen throughout the calculations

## section of this report.

- 10 -
Two Way Slab Design with Column Capitals

## Selection of Slab thickness

ln := 24.167ft
⋅ − 18⋅ in − 2⋅ 9⋅ in

ln = 21.167ft

From table 9.5 (C) for exterior panels with no drop panels and without edge beams

ln
h s_min := h s_min = 8.4668in
30

From table 9.5 (C) for interior panels with no drop panels and without edge beams

ln
h s_min := h s_min = 7.6971in
33

## So exterior panel controls. Round h s_min up to 8.5 inches

h s := 8.5⋅ in

- 11 -
Two Way Slab Design with Column Capitals

- 12 -
Two Way Slab Design with Column Capitals

## Exterior Frame Load Calculations

- 13 -
Two Way Slab Design with Column Capitals

- 14 -
Two Way Slab Design with Column Capitals

- 15 -
Two Way Slab Design with Column Capitals

- 16 -
Two Way Slab Design with Column Capitals

## Mo End span interior span

M- M-
exterior interior M+ M- M+
Exterior
Frame 2478 644 1734 1288 1610 867
Interior
Frame 4262.4 1108 2984 2217 2771 1492

- 17 -
Two Way Slab Design with Column Capitals

## Column strip width for interior equivalent frames

l1 := 24.167ft
⋅ l2 := 22.125ft

( )
CSwidth_int := 2⋅ .25⋅ min l1 , l2 CSwidth_int = 11.063ft

## Column Strip width for exterior equivalent frames

l2
CSwidth_ext := + 9⋅ in CSwidth_ext = 11.813ft
2

Middle strip width for interior equivalent frames and exterior equivalent frames
MSwidth := l2 − CSwidth_int MSwidth = 11.063ft

- 18 -
Two Way Slab Design with Column Capitals

## Plan View of Panels

- 19 -
Two Way Slab Design with Column Capitals

- 20 -
Two Way Slab Design with Column Capitals

- 21 -
Two Way Slab Design with Column Capitals

- 22 -
Two Way Slab Design with Column Capitals

- 23 -
Two Way Slab Design with Column Capitals

- 24 -
Two Way Slab Design with Column Capitals

## Summary of Lateral Moment Distributions in kip-in

Pannel 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
SE Col Strip M- 554 1,039 1,019 554 1,039 1,119 554 1,039 1,119 554 1,039 1,019
E Col Strip M+ 1,330 448 1,330 1,330 448 1,330 1,330 448 1,330 1,330 448 1,330
NE Col Strip M- 1,019 1,039 554 1,119 1,039 554 1,119 1,039 554 1,019 1,039 554
SE Mid Strip M- 0 346 373 0 346 373 0 346 373 0 346 373
E Mid Strip M+ 887 298 887 887 298 887 887 298 887 887 298 887
NE Mid Strip M- 373 346 0 373 346 0 373 346 0 373 346 0
SW Mid Strip M- 0 403 434 0 346 373 0 346 373 0 403 434
W Mid Strip M+ 515 347 515 887 298 887 887 298 887 515 347 515
NW Mid Strip M- 434 403 0 373 346 0 373 346 0 434 403 0
SW Col Strip M- 644 1,208 1,301 554 1,039 1,119 554 1,039 1,119 644 1,208 1,301
W Col Strip M+ 773 520 773 1,330 448 1,330 1,330 448 1,330 773 520 773
NW Col Strip M- 1,301 1,208 644 1,119 1,039 554 1,119 1,039 554 1,301 1,208 644

- 25 -
Two Way Slab Design with Column Capitals

## Plan View of Moment Regions

- 26 -
Two Way Slab Design with Column Capitals

- 28 -
Two Way Slab Design with Column Capitals

- 29 -
Two Way Slab Design with Column Capitals

- 30 -
Two Way Slab Design with Column Capitals

- 31 -
Two Way Slab Design with Column Capitals

- 32 -
Two Way Slab Design with Column Capitals

- 33 -
Two Way Slab Design with Column Capitals

- 34 -
Two Way Slab Design with Column Capitals

- 35 -
Two Way Slab Design with Column Capitals

- 36 -
Two Way Slab Design with Column Capitals

- 37 -
Two Way Slab Design with Column Capitals

- 38 -
Two Way Slab Design with Column Capitals

- 39 -
Two Way Slab Design with Column Capitals

- 40 -
Two Way Slab Design with Column Capitals

- 41 -
Two Way Slab Design with Column Capitals

- 43 -
Two Way Slab Design with Column Capitals

- 44 -
Two Way Slab Design with Column Capitals

- 45 -
Two Way Slab Design with Column Capitals

- 46 -
Two Way Slab Design with Column Capitals

- 47 -
Two Way Slab Design with Column Capitals

- 48 -
Two Way Slab Design with Column Capitals

- 49 -
Two Way Slab Design with Column Capitals

- 50 -
Two Way Slab Design with Column Capitals

- 51 -
Two Way Slab Design with Column Capitals

- 52 -
Two Way Slab Design with Column Capitals

- 53 -
Two Way Slab Design with Column Capitals

- 54 -
Two Way Slab Design with Column Capitals

- 55 -
Two Way Slab Design with Column Capitals

- 56 -
Two Way Slab Design with Column Capitals

- 57 -
Two Way Slab Design with Column Capitals

- 58 -
Two Way Slab Design with Column Capitals

- 59 -
Two Way Slab Design with Column Capitals

- 60 -
Two Way Slab Design with Column Capitals

- 61 -
Two Way Slab Design with Column Capitals

- 62 -
Two Way Slab Design with Column Capitals

- 63 -
Two Way Slab Design with Column Capitals

- 64 -
Two Way Slab Design with Column Capitals

- 65 -
Two Way Slab Design with Column Capitals

- 66 -
Two Way Slab Design with Column Capitals

- 67 -
Two Way Slab Design with Column Capitals

- 68 -
Two Way Slab Design with Column Capitals

## EFM Node Diagram

- 69 -
Two Way Slab Design with Column Capitals

## Exterior Frame EFM Output

- 70 -
Two Way Slab Design with Column Capitals

- 71 -
Two Way Slab Design with Column Capitals

- 72 -
Two Way Slab Design with Column Capitals

- 73 -
Two Way Slab Design with Column Capitals

- 74 -
Two Way Slab Design with Column Capitals

- 75 -
Two Way Slab Design with Column Capitals

- 76 -
Two Way Slab Design with Column Capitals

- 77 -
Two Way Slab Design with Column Capitals

- 78 -
Two Way Slab Design with Column Capitals

## Shear Diagram (Exterior Frame)

- 79 -
Member 10 Analysis (Exterior Frame)
Two Way Slab Design with Column Capitals

## Member 21 Analysis (Exterior Frame)

- 81 -
Two Way Slab Design with Column Capitals

## Member 32 Analysis (Exterior Frame)

- 82 -
Exterior Frame EFM Output
Two Way Slab Design with Column Capitals

- 84 -
Two Way Slab Design with Column Capitals

- 85 -
Two Way Slab Design with Column Capitals

- 86 -
Two Way Slab Design with Column Capitals

- 87 -
Two Way Slab Design with Column Capitals

- 88 -
Two Way Slab Design with Column Capitals

- 89 -
Two Way Slab Design with Column Capitals

- 90 -
Two Way Slab Design with Column Capitals

## Shear Diagram (Interior Frame)

- 91 -
Member 10 Analysis (Interior Frame)
Two Way Slab Design with Column Capitals

## Member 21 Analysis (Interior Frame)

- 93 -
Two Way Slab Design with Column Capitals

## Member 32 Analysis (Interior Frame)

- 94 -
Two Way Slab Design with Column Capitals

## Moment Location Diagram for EFM Analysis

- 95 -
Comparison of DDM to EFM moments
Moments
(see preceding DDM moments DDM moments
diagram for (k*ft) for exterior EFM moments (k*ft) (k*ft) for interior EFM moments (k*ft)
locations) frame for exterior frame frame for interior frame

## M9 53.7 113.6 92.3 231.9

Two Way Slab Design with Column Capitals

## Reinforcement Detailing Diagram

- 97 -
Two Way Slab Design with Column Capitals

## Column Strip Detailing

- 98 -
Two Way Slab Design with Column Capitals

## Middle Strip Detailing

- 99 -
Two Way Slab Design with Column Capitals

Rebar Quantities
Distance
between Steel
column faces Density
ln in L1 Direction
(ft) (ft) (pcf)
20.5 21.92 490

## Specified Rebar Spacing Requirements

50% 50% 100% 50% 50%
Top Top Bottom Bottom Bottom Quantity Rebar
Rebar Rebar Rebar Rebar Rebar Strip of Length
Rebar Spacing Length Length Length Length Length Width Rebar
No. in. ft. ft ft. ft. ft. ft ft
T1 4 4 6.15 4.1 6.3 18.9 96.7
T2 4 12 22.92 6.3 6.3 144.2
T3 4 8 6.15 4.1 6.3 9.4 48.4
T4 4 12 22.92 6.3 6.3 144.2
T5 4 12 5.01 11.1 11.1 55.4
T6 5 10 22.92 17.925 11.1 13.3 271.1
T7 4 12 4.51 11.1 11.1 49.9
T8 4 12 22.92 17.925 11.1 11.1 225.9
T9 5 8 6.15 4.1 11.1 16.6 85.0
T10 6 8 22.92 11.1 16.6 380.3
T11 6 9 6.15 4.1 11.1 14.8 75.6
T12 5 16 22.92 11.1 8.3 190.2
T13 6 12 5.01 11.1 11.1 55.4
T14 4 12 4.51 11.1 11.1 49.9
T15 4 12 22.92 17.925 11.1 11.1 225.9

## Quantities By Bar Size

Bar
# Length Volume Weight
ft in^2 lbs
4 814.7 1955.2 6653.1
5 546.3 2032.4 6915.8
6 511.4 2700.0 9187.6
Total Steel (lbs) 22756.4

- 100 -
Two Way Slab Design with Column Capitals

Concrete Quantities
Slab Column Column
Slab Thickness Width Slab Depth Quantity Area
in ft ft in2
8.5 74 90 20 324

V=1/3(a2+a*b+b2)*h-182*h
Vol. Capital Edge Corner
Vol. Capital Capital Dimensions Capitals Capitals
in3 ft3 a b h ft3 ft3
3888 2.25 18 36 9 1.546875 0.984375

Slab
Slab Area Volume
ft2 ft3
6660 4335.0

## Item Item Vol. Quanitity Volume

ft3 ft3
Corner Capitals 0.984375 4 3.9
Edge Capitals 1.546875 10 15.5
Interior Capitals 2.25 6 13.5
Slab 4335.0 1 4335.0
Total 4367.9

Formwork
Area (ft2) 6615

- 101 -
Two Way Slab Design with Column Capitals

Total Costs
Item Unit Cost Amount Total Cost Cost Per Floor
Concrete \$100/yd3 161.774 yd3 \$ 16,177.40 \$ 16,177.40
Steel \$1200/ton 11.378 tons \$ 13,653.60 \$ 13,653.60
Design \$200/hr 140 hours \$ 28,000.00 \$ 4,666.67
Formwork \$9/ft2 6612 ft2 \$ 59,535.00 \$ 9,922.50
Total per floor \$ 44,420.17
Total for building \$ 266,521.00

- 102 -