You are on page 1of 4

# MOMENT COEFFICIENTS OF TWO -WAY SLABS BY FINITE ELEMENT ANALYSIS

## Chamnan Duangjaras1, Dr. Sittichai Seangatith2, and Dr. Amnat Apichatvullop3

ABSTRACT: The objective of this paper is to determine the moment distribution for two-way slabs with continuous drop panels along column lines by using the finite element method (FEM). First, the FEM was applied to three cases of two-way slabs with geometries and boundary conditions covered by the Engineering Institute of Thailand (EIT) standard. The resulting moment at critical sections in the slab strips using the FEM are in good agreement with the EIT specifications with a maximum difference of less than 11.5%. The beam stiffness has significant effect on the distribution of moments in the slabs. For beam-to-slab flexural stiffness ratio of 2.49, the moments in the beam differ from the EIT specifications by up to 30.3%. The FEM was then applied to two-way slabs with continuous drop panels along column lines, having the beam-to-slab flexural stiffness ratio of 2.63. The longitudinal distribution of moments is consistently close to the EIT specifications. However, the lateral distribution of these moments differ significantly. The FEM results also agree well with the study by Paultre and Moisan (2002). This suggests that the EIT standard may need a revision with some provisions for two-way slabs with continuous drop panels. KEYWORDS: Moment Coefficients, Two-way Slabs , Finite Element Analysis, Drop Panels 1. INTRODUCTION According to the elastic theory, the governing differential equation for a plate under a uniform load can be derived. Closed form solution can be obtained by assuming deflection shapes and loadings, for example, in Fourier Series forms (Timoshenko and Kreiger 1959). Such method of solution is complicated and of limited application since real-life structures are of complex geometries and boundary conditions. The finite element method is a powerful tool in dealing with the analysis of such structures. The method can be useful in various aspects such as to verify and simulate the laboratory testing (Loo and Guan 1997), to analyze plates with stiffeners (Kolli and Chandrashekhara 1996), and to validate provisions in the design code in the case of slabs with continuous drop panels (Paultre and Moisan 2002). This paper presents the results of finite element analysis of two-way slabs having geometries and boundary conditions covered by the EIT standard and two-way slabs with continuous drop panels. 2. STRUCTURAL MODELS Four cases of two-way slabs were considered. The dimensions of structural elements are summarized in Table 1. Storey height above and below the floor is 3.7 m. The widths of all edge beams are a half
1

Ph.D. Candidate, School of Civil Engineering, Institute of Engineering, Suranaree University of Technology Assistant Professor, School of Civil Engineering, Institute of Engineering, Suranaree University of Technology Associate Professor, School of Civil Engineering, Institute of Engineering, Suranaree University of Technology

of those of interior beams. All slabs were subjected to a uniform load of 4.8 kPa and a superimposed dead load of 1.0 kPa. The finite element program, SAP2000, was used in the analysis. Beams and slabs were modeled by using four-node quadrilateral shell elements. Cracking effects were accounted for by multiplying the slab and column stiffness by factors of 0.5 and 0.8, respectively. The high rigidity at slab-column connections was simulated by increasing the slab stiffness at the common areas with columns by a factor of 5 and by introducing rigid bodies at column ends. Each column was fixed at its ends, both above and below the floor.
No. of Span Table 1 Description of Structures Column Sizes(m) Span Length Interior Edge Corner (m) 6 6 0.30x0.30 0.30x0.30 0.25x0.25 0.25x0.25 0.25x0.25 0.25x0.25 Slab Thic. (m) 0.15 0.15 Interior Beams Depth Width (m) (m) 0.36 0.90

Case 1

Slab Boundaries

Exterior Edge 3x3 Unrestrained With Beams 2 Between All 3x3 Supports Without Beams 3 3x3 Between All Supports Continuous 4 Drop panel in 4x4 One direction Note: * dimension of the drop panel

0.30x0.30

0.25x0.25

0.25x0.25

0.15

0.50x0.50

0.40x0.50

0.40x0.40

0.20

0.40*

2.44*

The typical finite element models are shown in Figure 1. The mesh size of case 1, 2 and 3 was 0.15x0.15 m. and that of case 4 was 0.25x0.25 m. According to the symmetry of the structures, only one quarter of the structural model was used for cases 1, 2 and 3. The full model was only used for case 4.
z z x

Columns

Columns

Floor Meshes

Floor Meshes

b) Full Model

## Figure 1 Typical Finite Element Structural Models.

3. RESULTS The average moments in the slab strips at critical sections are presented in Table 2. The lateral moments at mid-spans and at interior columns of the exterior panels for case 4 are presented in Table 3. It should be noted that the negative moments in exterior panels at exterior columns occurred only in the vicinity of columns. These moments, shown in Table 2, were calculated from the difference of the

Table 2 Moments in Slab Strips at Critical Sections as Percent of Static Moment (%Mo). Exterior Panel Case 1 2 3 4 FEM EIT FEM EIT FEM EIT FEM EIT Exterior Column 0.0 0.0 20.6 16.0 29.0 26.0 26.0 26.0 Mid Span 64.2 63.0 53.2 57.0 52.2 52.0 50.0 52.0 Interior Column 77.0 75.0 73.0 70.0 66.6 70.0 74.0 70.0 Exterior Column 68.3 65.0 64.3 65.0 61.1 65.0 68.0 65.0 Interior Panel Mid Span 32.1 35.0 24.4 35.0 33.1 35.0 33.0 35.0 Interior Column 68.3 65.0 64.3 65.0 61.1 65.0 62.0 65.0

Table 3 Lateral Moments as Percent of Moments at Critical Sections for Case 4. Exterior Panel Mid Span Interior Column Column Strip Column Strip Middle Strip Middle Strip Beam Slab Beam Slab 77 80 64 6 4 11 17 16 25 85 90 64 6 4 11 9 6 25

Case 4

## FEM Paultre and Moisan EIT

static moment (Mo) and the FEM moments at mid-spans and at interior columns. These figures are higher than those from the FEM. Most building codes take this occurrence into account by specifying the negative moment at exterior columns in exterior panels to be mostly resisted by column strips. According to the present EIT standard, there are no provisions for two-way slabs with continuous drop panels in one direction (case 4). However, as an approximation, the slabs with such drop panels may be categorized as slabs without beams between interior supports, for which the corresponding moment apportioning figures are shown in Table 2. 4. DISCUSSIONS From Table 2, the FEM results for cases 1, 3 and 4 are in good agreement with the EIT specifications. The maximum difference is 11.5% at the exterior column in the exterior panel for case 3, while the differences in the other sections for the other cases are less than 9.0%. It is noted that, for cases of slabs without beams with different boundary conditions, the FEM results are quite consistent with the EIT specifications. For case 2, the width-to-depth ratio of the beam is 2.5 and the ratio of the beam depth-to-slab thickness is 2.1. Hence, the beam is generally shallow and the ratio of the flexural stiffness of the beam to that of the slab () is 2.49. The FEM results show that the variation of the positive and negative moments are scattered and greatly affected by the beam stiffness. Comparing with the EIT specifications, the FEM gives the lowest positive moment at the mid-span in the interior panel and it is lower than the EIT specification by 30.3%. However, the FEM gives the highest negative moment at the exterior column in the exterior panel and it is higher than the EIT specification by 28.8%. Slabs with continuous drop panels in one direction (case 4) are not covered in the present EIT standard, even though they are found to be superior to conventional slab system for long span slabs since the

continuous drop panels function as beams in the column lines. With a beam-to-slab flexural stiffness ratio of 2.63, the FEM results show that the slabs still behave as two-way slabs. The longitudinal distribution of the moments at the critical sections are in good agreement with the EIT specifications with differences of less than 6%. However, the corresponding lateral distribution of moments is quite different. Both positive and negative moments in the beam are about 25.0% and 40% respectively higher than the EIT specifications. However, the slab moments in column strips and middle strips are much lower than the EIT specifications and these are as much as 64 % and 76 % respectively. Results from the study by Paultre and Moisan (2002) are also consistent with the FEM results as shown in Table 3. This suggests that the EIT standard may need a revision with continuous drop panels in one direction. 5. CONCLUSION For general two-way slab systems without beams, the FEM may be used as an alternative method for determining the moment coefficients. The FEM results are in good agreement with the EIT specifications. For the slab system with beams between interior supports, the beam stiffness has significant effect on the distribution of moments. For the beam-to-slab flexural stiffness ratio of 2.49, the positive moment in the interior span of the beam is 30.3% lower, but the negative moment in the beam at the exterior column is 28.8% higher than the EIT specifications. However, all the other moments at critical sections are in good agreement. For slabs with continuous drop panels with the beam-to-slab flexural stiffness ratio of 2.63, the longitudinal distribution of the moments at the critical sections are also in good agreement with the EIT specifications. However, the EIT standard gives too low beam moments and too high moments of slabs in column strips and middle strips. It is suggested that the EIT code should be revised. Until such time, the design engineers should make the necessary adjustment. 6. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS The authors gratefully acknowledge the financial support of the National Research Council of Thailand for this study which is a part of the research project The development of segmental precast slabs currently under taken by the School of Civil Engineering, Institute of Engineering, Suranaree University of Technology. 7. REFERENCES Kolli,M. and Chandrashekhara, K. (1996). Finite Element Analysis of Stiffened Laminated Plates Under Transverse Loading. Composite Science and Technology. Vol. 56, 1355-1361. Loo,Y.C. and Guan, H. (1997). Cracking and Punching Shear Failure Analysis of RC Flat Plates. Jounal of Structural Engineering. Vol. 15.,No. 10.,1321-1330. Paultre, P. and Moisan, C. (2002).Distribution of Moments in Reinforced Concrete Slabs with Continuous Drop Panel. Canadian Journal of Civil Engineering. Vol. 29,119-124. Timoshenko, S.P. and Krieger, S.W. (1959). Theory of Plates and Shells (2nd ed). New York: McGraw-Hill.