You are on page 1of 410

Mohammed, Abdel Wahid Hago (1982) Direct design of reinforced

concrete slabs: a study of the ultimate and serviceability behaviour of


R.C. slabs and slap-beam systems designed using elastic stress fields.
PhD thesis.

http://theses.gla.ac.uk/1665/

Copyright and moral rights for this thesis are retained by the author
A copy can be downloaded for personal non-commercial research or
study, without prior permission or charge
This thesis cannot be reproduced or quoted extensively from without first
obtaining permission in writing from the Author
The content must not be changed in any way or sold commercially in any
format or medium without the formal permission of the Author
When referring to this work, full bibliographic details including the
author, title, awarding institution and date of the thesis must be given

Glasgow Theses Service


http://theses.gla.ac.uk/
theses@gla.ac.uk

DIRECT

OF

DESIGN

REINFORCED CONCRETE SLABS

A study

of

the

Ultimate

R. C. Slabs

and Serviceability

and Slab-Beam

Using

Elastic

Systems

Stress

Behaviour
Designed

Fields

by

ABDEL WAHID HAGO MOHAIMD

A Thesis

Submitted
Doctor

Department

of

of

University

the

for

Degree

Philosophy

ivil
of

Engineering
Glasgow

May 19 82
JD

of

of

By the name of AZZah, the Compassionate, the MercifuZ.

To my Parents

and my f=iZy.

C0NTENTS
Page
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
SUMARY
NOTATIONS
CHAPTER ONE
lNTRODUCTION
CHAPTER TWO

LITERATUREREVIEW

2.1

Introduction

2.2

Methods of Slab Design

2.2.1

Elastic

Methods

2.2.2

Plastic

Methods

11

2.3

The Yield Line Theory

11

2.2.2.2

Hillerborg

12

2.2.2.3

The Strip-Deflexion

2.2.2.4

Mini?m= Weight Designs

21

2.2.2.5

Lower Bound Solutions

24

Assessing
2.3.1

2.3*. 2

2.4

2.2.2.1

Serviceability

Analytical

Strip

of

Method
Method

R. C. Slabs

Procedures

16

26
26

2.3-1.1

Deflections

26

2.3.1.2

Cracking

29

Numerical

Nonlinear

Finite

Procedures

33

Element Models

33

2.4.1

Macroscopic'Models

2.4.2

Microscopic

2.4.3

Review of Layered Finite

34
36

Models
Element Models

38

Page
2.4.4

41

Idealization

Materials

in

41

Tension

2.4.4.1

Concrete

2.4.4.2

Bond Between Concrete

2.4.4.3

Idealization

2.4.5

Yield

2.4.6

Methods

Criteria

of Reinforcement
Plain

for

of Solution

for

48
49

Concrete
Nonlinear

42
45

in Compression

Concrete

2.4.4.4

and Steel

Analysis

52

CHAPTER THREE
DESIGN OF REINFORCED CONCRETESLABS

56

3.1

Introduction

56

3.2

Theory of Plasticity

in Slab Design

56

3.3

The Proposed Direct

Design Approach

5T

The Equilibrium

3.3.2,

The Yield Criterion

58

The Mechanism Condition

66

3.3.3
3.4

68

Moment Fields

68

Negative Moment Fields

69

3.4.3

Mixed Moment Fields

69

3.4.4

Rules for Placing Orthogonal Reinforcement

70

3.4.2

Positive

Loading

74

Cases

3.5

Multiple

3.6

Design of Reinforcement

3.8

Condition

Design of Orthogonal Reinforcement


3.4.1

3.7

5T

3.3.1

for

Membrane Forces

77

Combined Bending and Memfbrane Forces

82

Closure

83

Page
CHAPTER FOUR
THE FINITE
4.1

Introduction

4.2

The Finite

4.3

Used

4.2.1

The Stiffness

of

4.2.2

Element

Non-Linear

Analysis

94

Element

100

Concrete

of

Structures

101
101

4.3.2.1

Yield

4.3.2.2

The Yield

Materials

Criterion

Plain

for

Concrete

Criterion

Concrete

4.3.3.2

Reinforcing

Pseudo-Load

4.3.5

Details

lo4
lo8
Steel

109

Vector

of the

110

N=erical

ill

Procedure

114

and Comparison

Results

A Square

4.4.2

Simply

Slab

Under

a Central
114

Tested

*Tee-Beam. Bl

4.4.4

Supported

Load

The Slab

Haye's

102
103

Modelling

4.3-3.1

Point

4-5

a Layered

Subdivision

4.3.4

4.4.3

94

General

4.3.3

4.4.1

94
94

Element

4.3.1

4.4

ELEMENT METHOD

by McNeice

117

by Rao

118

Tested

Slab-Beam

119

System

122

Conclusions

CHAPTERFIVE

.1

5.2

THEORETICALINVESTIGATION

139

Introduction

139

Comparison Between Torsional


5.2.1

General

and Torsionless

Analyses

14o
14o

Page

5.3

Analyses

5.2.3

Discussion

5.2.4

Conclusions

5.4

142

Results

of

146
170

Experiments

Numerical

170

5.3.1

General

5.3.2

Designation

5.3.3

Proportioning

5.3.4

141

and Results

5.2.2

of Slabs

Tested

and Loading

5.4.1

Discussions
Test

Series

and Conclusions

5.4.2.1
5.4.2.2
5.4.3
5.4.4
5.4.5
5.4.6
5.4.7
5.4.8
5.4.9
5.4.10

Test

179

Subseries
Subseries
Series

1A
1B

Serie's

Series

Series

183

189

197
200

Conclusions
Test

179

197

Conclusions
Test

179

189

Conclusions
Test

175
175

Conclusions

5.4.2

172
173

Analyses

Results,

171

Conclusions

201
209

CHAPTER SIX

EXPERIMENTALINVESTIGATION
6.1

'Introduction

6.2

Parameters

6.3

Slabs Designation

6.4

Design*of

213
213

of Study

the Models

213
214
214

Page
6.5
6.6
6.7
6.8
6.9
6.10

Materials

217

Strain

218

Casting

Gauges

219

and Curing

220

Supports
Loading
Further

Rig and Loading

221

Systems

223

Instrumentation

224

6.3-1 Test Procedure


CHAPTER SEVEN
EXPERIMENTAL RESULTS: COMPARISONS.,DISCUSSIONS
AND CONCLUSIONS

247

7-1

Introduction

247

7.2

General Description

T-3

of the Behaviour of The Models

7.2.1

Model 1

247

7.2.2

Model 2

253

7.2.3

Model 3

259

7.2.4

Model 4

264

7.2.5

Model 5

269

7.2.6

Model 6

274

Limit

285

States

7.3.1

Serviceability

7.3.2

Ultimate

7.3.3

Possible Reasons for the Differences

Ultimate

7.5

285

Discussion of Test Results

Limit

Fields)

Between

True
the
and

Behaviour of the Models

Nonlinear Analysis
Conclusions

291

State

the Assumed (Elastic

7.4

247

of the Test Models

292
296
3o4

Page
CHAPTER EIGHT
CONCLUSIONSAND SUGGESTIONS FOR FUTURE WORK

320

8.1

Conclusions

320

8.2

Suggestions

for

Future

324

Work

APPENDICES:
APPENDIX (A)

325

Calculation
Certain

of the

Design

Steel

Required

for

Moment M*

APPENDIX (B)

327

Program

Description

and Implementation

APPENDIX (C)

341

Derivation

of the

Bounded Plastic

Loads

APPENDIX (D)

343

Comparison
by the

between

Torsional

Moment Fields
and Torsionless

Produced
Analyses

APPENDIX (E)
Calculations

REFERENCES

373
for

Serviceability

Limit

States

375

iACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

The work described


Engineering

Civil

the

facilities

of

the

Coull,

indebted

encouragement

supervision,

The

author

under

the

general

like

to

express

would

Professor

and to

H.

his

Sutherland

B.

for

department,

is

The author

Glasgow,

of

Coull.

Professor

to

appreciation

A.

in
the Department of
out

was carried

University

the

at

Professor

of

guidance

herein

to

P. Bhatt

Dr.

the

throughout

and advice

his

for

valuable
of this

course

study.
Grateful
Dr.

P. D. A.,thur,
the

with
Dr.

are

his

concrete

help

in

Dr.

I.

A. Smith,

Mr.

J.

Thomson,

the

Mr.

I.

program.

in

Engineering,

Lecturer,

J.

Coleman,

the

involved

in

connections
The Staff

of

the

procuring

Civil

for
Mr.

the

Strathclyde

of

his

for

with

and for
the

of

preparation

help

with

data

logger.
for

P. Hawthorn
the

all

te

jous

specimens.

Mr. W. Thomson and Mr. T. Montgomery for

for

Library

some references

the

of

help

their

and the operation


University

work

the

and Mr.

A. Galt

fabrication

A. Yuill

help

his

experimental

in the

Todd and Mr.

University
-

program.

in

help

help

his

for

Engineering

Computer

Mr. J. Love, Mr. R. Thornton,


their

Civil

Engineering

Senior
Mr.

assisting
work

Civil

Lecturer

Computer

the

in

mixes.

with

D. V. Phillips,

due to: -

also

Lecturer

Senior

W. Dimcan, Lecturer
for

Dr.

thanks

testing
with

rig.
the

electrical

logger.
the
data
of
for

inter
on

all

the

trouble

library

loan

taken
system.

in

ii
Mrs.

Carol

The Staff
Mrs.

John

for

her

help

he Computer
of '%.,

Williamson

(Astronomy

with

the

computer.

Centre.
Department)

for

the

neat

typing

of the

thesis.
My wife

Eitidal

and 3my daughter

Amal. for

their

cooperation

and moral

support.
The Sudan Government
the

research.

for

the. financial

support

during

the period

of

iii
. 'SUMMARY
This
behaviour
in

of reinforced

accorda: qce with

NyN

uncracked
Design

derived

reinforced

orthotmopically

XY

the

(M*
M* ) for
xy ,

were

the

concrete

membrane forces
the

used to

were

uniaxial

appropriate

checked
boundary

of

the

against

crack

indicated

satisfactorily

widths

and 0.3

by

N* ) for

edges.

and the

of

state

all

cases the

forces

using

the

study

the

In

stress.

element

to
used
model was

designed

by this

method,

on large

tests

of

of Nielsen-

equations

design

the

and

The core

model.

forces.

design

flexure

combined

a sandwich

design,

limit

slab

finite

laboratory

for

scale

were

and results
models

with

various

conditions.

Results
behaved

slabs

given

to

to withstand

ultimate

layered

A nonlinear

the

on Wood-Armer

XY

using

the

calculate

was designed

reinforcement

behaviour

in

initial

criterion

yield

general

parallel

calculated

was ignored

sandwich

Clark

were

stress
ultimate

the

using

were based

slabs

(M*
N*
M*
,
,
xyxy

forces

Design

at the

slab

method,

flexure

from

was provided

the

designed

slab.

M) (M* -MM2.
xyy
The reinforcement

) in

systems

The elastic

field.

element

for

stiffnesses

moments

which

equations

finite

and ultimate

service

and slab-beam

stress

XY ,MXSMy9M

by the

was calculated

elastic

slabs

concrete

the

with

conc6rned

a predetermined

(N
x,

distribution
load

is

work

research

were within

mm for

cracks)s

that
under

all

the

service

acceptable
and crack

designed

slabs
loads.

in

method

deflections

(spanJ250

limits
spread

Both

by this

an evenly

for

and

deflections

distributed

iv
pattern.

All

slabs

recorded

failure
in

loads

loads.

The average

without

edge beams was about 16%. and for

It
with

is then concluded

good ser-iice

at least

enhancement

that

and ultimate

10% above the

design

the

in

design

excess
loads

slab-beans

of their
for

the

design
slabs

485.
systems about

the proposed nethod provides

designs

behaviour,

strength

loads.

with

a reserve

of

N0TAT10NS
As
A

Area

Skeet

ol
Effective

ct

area per

unit

area

per

unit

width

area

in a direction

per

unit

width

directions

per

Steel

Am

Steel

Length

al, a2

Steel

a
MaX

Maximi Tn crack

Width

of

a section

Width

of

a rib

a plate

of

in

areas

principal

[B]

The Strain

[DI

The Constitutive

{d)

displacement

Effective

da

Depth to the neutral

Young's modulus

Ec

Young's modulus for

concrete

Es

Young's modulus for

steel

E.
1

Instantane;

E
se

Secant modulus at peak stress

EF
c

Reduced modulus for

Line
matrix

depth

Young's moduli

Bond stress

fbb

Bearing

fc

Conpressive

ft

Cylinder

L_

cracked

concrete

in x and y directi

in
an enisotropic
ons

function

fb

co
F:0 FP
j'

axis

us Secant modulus

Yield

matrix
vector

width

a beam

of

Centre

E,
xy

unit

spacing

C. L.

in tension

in x direction

A
x

width

stress
strength

compressive

Discontinuity
E xce ss

&S

of concrete
strength

of

stress
=ter nal

Stress
cxte.
vn

loct& Vectors

concrete

plate

vi
f

Cube compressive

cu

strength

fd

Equivalent

Modulus of rupture

ft

st

biaxial

in tension

"'ield

strength

of

steel

in

Yield

strength

of

steel

Plastic

load

Stress

Yield

in

of

in

Shear Modulus

GP

Gauss Point

G
red

Reduced shear

Plate

Torsional

Grid

Moment of inertia

I
I

cr

at

2'

the

x axis

modulus.

rigidity

plate

of an anisotropic

index

13 First,

L"j

Stiffness

K
b

Constat

of a cracked

section
section

of uncracked

inertia
moment of

of a section
invariants

second and third

of stress

inatrix
to account

characteristics

K1K2

a to

angle

thickness

Effective

eff

K
y

steel

Gross moment of inertia

compression

steel

laid

steel

concrete

vector

x direction
of

of

concrete

increment

strength

Stress

cl

strength

of steel

strength

compressive

strength

Tensile

concrete

Yield

ft
p

of

for

of bar

Principal

curvatures

Curvature

in. x direction

Curvature

in y direction

the distribution
the bond

for

at a point
=
=

stress

on a plate

3X2
''IL
Y2

and surface

vii
K

XY

Torsional

KtA

32W

curvature

DXDY

to. account for

constant

the distribution

of tensile

stress
K0

Initial

stiffness

Short

span length

Lx, Ly

Span lengths

Ratio

Bending

M
cr

Cracking

moment of

a section

M
P

Ultimate

moment of

a section

M9M9M
xy

Xy

in X and Y directions

between tensile
moment at

Applied

Design

normal

M*9 M*
xy

Design

moments in

nt

Applied

Coordinate

M*2 M*
t,
n

M*
nt

and compressive

any stage

moment component

M
et

Mn9MtSM

matrix

X and Y directions

Design membrane force

M, N

Stress

N. A.

Neutral
17

Coordinates.

system

analysis
respectively

a point

in

the

n-t

moments at a point

in the n-t

system

N
et

Nx9NysN

at

Cartesian

System

Component of resisting

Coordinate

in

a point

on elastic

moment components

of concrete

of loading

at

moment based

strengths

based on elastic

analysis

resultants
Axis

Membrane force

Coordinate

components at a point

in the Cartesian

System
in X and Y directions

N*
N*
xy ,
CPI

Design membrane forces

Mean normal stress

Total load at any stage of a monotonic 1.oading

Load vector

viii
P

cr

load

Cracking

Pd

Design

P6L

Service

Py

First

P
U

Ultimate

Design

Cracking

uniform

qj

Johansen

load

Qx, Qy

Shear

qjj

Intensity

of

uniform

qx

Intensity

of

load

on x strips

qY

Intensity

of load

on y strips

Transformation

R
c

Cover

ratio

R
p

Total

force

RU

Flexural

St

Bar spacing.

Transformation

Displacement

along

the

X-axis

Displacement

along

the

Y-axis

Total

moment volume

Total

steel

Vertical

W
n4x

Maximum crack

XSY9Z

Rectangular

Section

cr

load
load

deflection
load

yield

load
load

uniform

force

load

in

components

Cartesian

lo ad in

element

matrix

imbalance

rigidity

of

in

vector
a section

transverse

direction

matrix

volume

displacement

along

the

Z-axis

width
Cartesian

Coordinates

modulus

xx

x9y, Z

Distances

xl

Depth

of

Coordinates

along
stress

X, Y and Z respectively
block

ii

ix
Angle

a
a

a
SX9 sy

Moment coefficients
Shear

factor

retention

Mass density

Nodal

skew

of

cr

displacement

Displacement

at

Displacement

at the

a point

Total

displacement

Strain

at a point

ex se ge
y XY
e

cr

Strain

components

Strain

Peak strain

Steel
Middle

Plane

strain

{e

Strain

vector

a.

of

at

a point

in

Cartesian
to

a stress

distant

a point

of

ft

Z from

a plate

eb

strains

ep

Plastic

strain

co

Nondimensional

Angle

Rotation

about

X-axis

Rotation

about

Y-axis

components
vector
local

of principal

Rotation

about

coordinate
plane

t-axis

-aw
ay
aw
ax
aw
Dn

6
cr

Coordinates
in

concrete

vector

Bending

et

load

strain

{C

cracking

corresponding

ep
s

vector

Angle of crack
Degree of orthotropy

Sides ratio

eq

Dlel StrIOCI
n

of a slab

( <1.0)

system

the middle

plane

in X and Y directions

P. y
x9P

Steel

Pa

Steel

ratio

Stress

at

ax sa ST
y
XY

Stress

components in Cartesian

al9a 2

Principal

aeq

Equivalent

Mean no=a!

Peak stress

T
Oct

in the a direction
a point

stresses
s".-ress
stress

Octahedral
Bar

ratios

shear stress

diameter

Curvature

vector

Coordinates

.. CHAPTER ONE

INTRODUCTI'O

designs

Present
States

designs,

Mozt of

on Limit

to

the

viz:

analysis

for

ensure

the

exact

(a)

to

Postulate

a number of

the

limit

design,

it

is

by such

of

limit

on the
is

are based

ultimate

the

ultimate'
)
... etc.

ratio

span/depth

Limit

Serviceability

calculate

slab.

concrete

a reinforced

State.

to

difficult

generally

loading.

of

which

methods

(e. g.

at the

load

to

this

thus

The yield

a stress
applied

externally

are

the

the

and derive

slab,

Thetrue

collapse

compatible

mechanisms

load

collapse
giving

mechanism
provide

an upperbound

line

for

method

least

the
to

slabs

the

is

of

nature.

Postulate

of

the

load.

ultimate

of

accordingly.

Such methods

load.

collapse

edge conditions

corresponds

or

any stage

either

with

(b)

at

the

serviceability

slabs

of these

load

limit

ensure

exclusively

rules

analysis,

the

of

concern

empirical

limit

and the

state

concentrate

main

that

to

have to be satisfied

performance

for

value

requirements

methods

concepts

satisfactory

The methods

limit

is

on Limit

are based

slabs

designs

such

criteria

existing

slab, with

According
the

state

Thus the

state.

of

ultimate

the

concrete

prescribed

two limit

Accordingly,

load

the

satisfies

structure

limit

The object

concepts.

state.

of reinforced

the

slab

called

at

field
load,

any point

admissible-stress

which

is

in

equilibrium

and does not


on the

slab.

fields.

with

exceed

I
the

strength

Such stress
The load

the

fields

corresponding

2
to

an admissible
to

or equal
methods

the

true

b, lower

provide

when the

loads

bound

solutions

bound,

which

are

always

(M
x0My,

where
and

is

2.2.2.2),

solution

to equation

variables

(M
x2Mytm

D
x

; X4

For

exist
- Upper

coincide

those

lower

of

the

+ 2H

is

three

by adopting

slab

employed

to obtain

contains

on the

any point

method

possible

it

a non-trivial

independant

linear

elastic

moment.

2.2.1)

a 4W.

+D4
y
DX2a5r2

in

equation

oj

Limit

have:

we will

; y4

of the plate.

stiffnesses
it

can be found,

of these stiffnesses

(1.1)

(1.2)

in the moment-curvature

From the-ultimate

at

Hillerborg's

since

(section

equilibrium

3 Y2

However,

XY

the

slabs,

a2M

is not directly
(1.1).

the

satisfy

2) is

Chapter

moments components

Unless

).

to

concrete

flexural

patterns.

obviously

with

is

to (1.1)

values

load.

bound methods

And hence a solution

different

Such

nature.

will

contrast

than

slab.

ultimate

load

Where D, D and H are the anistropic


xy
A solution
to (1.2) can be obtained since

stiffnesses

the

this

of

approach

2-y=ax Dy

relationships
3443'

in

32 Ma

it

is

conditions.
(see

(Section

curvature

yield

load.

the

and lower

by this

M ) are the
XY

the

of

be less

safe.

to be satisfied
32M

load

collapse

be unsafe,

requirement

and the

equilibrium

true

by upper

can thus

always

bound to

Method

the

obtained

The basic

equation

for

value

will

collapse

The Hillerbgr-SIsStrip
An exact

field

stress

involves
by using

only one variable.


any values

give

different

State

point

of view,

the

Of course

relationships.

will

for

reinforcement
all

such

3
distributions

are

is

to be satisfied

criterion

In the
to

the

obtain

This

present

elastic

finite
the

necessary

Both

criteria

analysis

under

satisfied
a lower

Limit

on the

the

by this
analyse

Experimental

work

the

theoretical

ultimate

criterion

will

the
for

predicted
a safe

on the

check

the

load,

the
with

be based

will

slab

on large

predictions.

under
scale

and economy.

the

will

be done using

the

be used to

provide

distribution.

stress

is

stress
expected

monotonic
will

limit

ultimate
of
finite
loading

load.

ultimate

then

method

layered

are used

stiffnesses

admissible

serviceability

slabs

and the

minimum reserve

on the

A nonlinear

method.

be used to

load

and accordingly

design
to

under

ultimate

resist

analysis

way,

becomes essential
designed

to

strength

bound

Since

A yield

method.

in this

the

The major

acceptable

uncracked

distribution

from

design.

serviceability

initial

the

study,
stress

of

be of

derived

all
in

is

solutions

will

elastic

element

are

and are followed

cX all-these

which

they

since

considerations,

equilibrium
question

acceptable,

the

of

be used to

are

to yield
strength.

state,

it

slabs

element
till

field

model will

failure.
check

against

CHAPTER TWO
LITERATURE

REVIEW

INTRODUCTION:

2.1

In this

various

In normal

are discussed.
be subjected

the

chapter,

stress

distribution

in

the

stress

distribution

in

the

conditions

state

Accordingly,

plastic.

.
The stress

procedures,
conveniently

slab

for

slab

is

the

of
the

viz:

main categories,

and it

known,

are normally

and the

is

both

by analytical

is the finite

into

finite

is
used extensively
element method, which

two

can be

effects

in
obtaining
used

procedure

stress

or

elastic

or numerical

and plastic

distributions

boundary

design.

of

methods

elaszic

The most popular

geometry$

can be classified

methods

The

areas.

whether

slab

the

find

to

steel

upon the

in the

material

and plastic

and in the latter,

the

will

structure

desirable

first

calculating

can be found

distribution

the

to which

dependant

design

elastic

included.

loads

practice,

design

slab

concrete

of reinforced

methods

element method.

the

Accordingly$

in this

study,

will

is used to obtain

the

also be reviewed.
2.2

METHODSOF SLAB DESIGN


Elastic

2.2.1

Methods:

In these methods,
stress
which

is

bending
should

adopted,

be sufficiently

distribution

obtained

are

and inplane

deformations
ignored.
be
can

boundaries

plate

Such methods

distribution.
shear

classical

with

In most
the

small

theory
adequate

compared

using'elastic

the

cases,

that
to

elastic

due restraints

effects

prerequisite

for

the

methods

first
the

slab
satisfies

order
lateral
thickness.
both

slabs
at

in

the

theory

of

deflections
The stress
equilibrium

5
of

and compatibility

stresses

By considering
(2.1),

in Figure

the equilibrium

of forces

following

on the slab element

acting

dx and dy in the x and y directions

side lengths

with

the

respectively-i

deformations.

of

equilibrium

can be derived:

equations

a Qx

j-

am

rx

am

x+

--ZX
ay

am

x-y+
ay

Qy =0

Qx and Q7 between

Eliminating
combined

-Q0 x

am

y+
gy

in

+q0

-hray

of the

one equation
a2m
XY
.2 ax ay

32M
X--

(2.2)

Equation

+ ---Z
ay?.

-.; -q

one in

relating

the moments to the lateral

of

normal

exSey9e

XY

ayIT

xxx
vith

similar

the

plate

expressions
.

w through

the slab

middle

if

Thus,

Z is

the

plane . then

(2.3)

and shearing

to strains

are related

=Ec+EE

by

and strains.

system of coordinates.

ICY

displacements,

32W
z -57-7

are the normal

in the x, y cartesian
a.,

of

g 21,r
2Z
ax ary

C=XY

stresses

terms

The

equation.

equilibrium

deflection

stress
to

32W
=ax

CZ

where

to

law for

any point

equationsl

(2.2)

is known as the plate

and Hook's

can be

they

a2M

equation

distance

three

form

can be transformed

curvatures,

the

strains

at the point

And from Hook's law,

the

by

(2.4)
xi
for

y
ay and

TXY

The moments are given by

m
y

MYX

"I

L Mx
Mx +

m
XY

Mxy + 7-, "4 dx


x
aK
Y dy
Ilyx +

zy

am
My +
-I-

dy

DY

ay

dy

Figure

(2.1)

ax

Equilibrium

of a slab

el'ement

Qx+

ax

dx

dx

T
h/2
-h/2
h

where

is the thickness

of the plate.

h/2
Mr

000x

dz

Cr
xz

32W

(E

-j

57

+E

32W )z 2
dz
7

xi

-h/2
a2w

(D

xa XZ

+D

32 W
7
35:

(2-5)

S imilarly
32w

(D

aF

yy

in which

x2,

azw
xy ax ay

M2D
yx

XY

+Dia

ExPDEY,
Dx

12

h3

Ex, h3
D1

D
XY

12

Substituting

expressions

(2-5)

12

(2.6)

GP
12
in the

equilibrium

equation

we obtain

D-+

34W

2(D

77
x2

introducing

the

+D

Xy

;4W4,
-a-X7-;
y2

+ Dy

(2-7)

377

notation
1

XY

we obtain
34W

D+ 5-7
x

2H

In the particular
E=EE
xy

and
(2.8)
and

;4w

ax

reduces

ve have

vE

2(1+v)
to

case of isotropy
VZ

GE

+ Dy

34 w

v2

(2.8)

(2.2),

8
; 4w

57

;4w+

+2

axzayz

(2.8a)

q/D

ay-Ir

h3

DE

where

a4W

12(l-V2)
Thus if
distribution

approximate
finite

is

obtained

readily

differences

of

account

and finite

The concept
Ritz

based

on the

The solutions
in
the

boundary
in the

energy

The terms

in

of

method

solutions

differences.
equation

equation

is

the

to

plate

falls

solution

the

more freedom.

function

satisfies

the

this

fourth

of linear

in the

general

class.

and sometimes,

The discovex7

of suitable
and approxi-

conditions

difficult.

procedures
numerical

successive

potential

or trigonometric,

(3).

by

here

for

within

potential.

total

both the boundary

use of the

by a series

as the

the

minimize

analytical

replaces

but

Coefficients

problem.

of

form,

(192)

was developed

plates
total

as long

Solutions)s

Theory

on Plate

of the

solution

have been used

to these

The method
of the

to

shape has been generally

An alternative
plate

applied

plate

A detailed

solutions)
books

given,

which satisfies

deflected

of

(Netier

series

in text

may be polynomial

series

series

the

the

selected

and Hankel functions

the

is

series

Bessel

mates

series

of

the

the

of the

surface

Fourier

(Levy's

series

conditions
are

relationships,

methods

numerical

deflected

of minimization

type

series

the

infinite

solutions

principle

The Galerkin

system.

the

can be found

are usually
the

selecting

terms

of

stress

elements.

sine

such methods

the

common to both

quite

and to

a double

infinite

then

the moment-curvature

is

procedures,

by either

or by a single

from

procedures,

analytical

represented

can be found,

Such an approach

analytical

In the
is

to

(2-5).

equations

(2.8)

a solution

for

the solution

method of
order

partial

simultaneous

the

of

finite

differential
algabraic

equations

9
in the

deflections

deflections
from

at these

difference

larger

the

number of

large

space
in

involved

the

design

tables

by bending

Compatibility

and thus,

The effort
method

is

of

load

carried

beams,

torsional

are

the

and thus

strips

generally

load

is

ignored.

For a uniform

by orthogonal

course

methods

moments are

satisfied.

inappropriate,
of

unless

The simplified

approximately

the

too

been resorted

of parallel

in which

described

in

load

q.

x and y

are such that

distributions

of deflections

(2.9)
qx and cjy are determined

at the centre

strips.

Thus using

qx L4L

x5

and assuming

equal

(2.10),
and

fle=al

we have

rigidities

by the compatibility
deflections:
beams
simple

(2.10)

384 EyIy

384 ExIx

(2.9)

requires

and the

(IX + q, =q
y
The actual

kccordingly,

obtained.

increases,

methods

available.

a set

action,
only

proportions

directions

used,

points

grid

problems.

small

the

always

are

to

slab

is

all

have

and charts
the

approximate
carried

accuracy

also

equations

engineer,

methods

and simplified

the

these

number of

increases,

even for

of the

automate.

For the

design

the

and its

The accuracy

on the

equations

computer,

setting

to

difficult

simultaneous

in

of

elsewhere
depends

equivalent

the method

(1,20,4).

the better

number,

by its

curvatures

The derivation

solutions

the

the

the

Once the

slab.

moments can be obtained

are found,

by replacing

operators.

difference

on the

number of points

points

can be found

application
finite

grid

(2-5),

equations

finite

a finite

at

in the

two strips

solving
and
s

10

L4
yq

clx

I
(2.11)

f,
x

zr

and
(2.12)
44q
Lx+L7

The bending
as for

moments in

the

x and y directions

be obtained

can thus

beams :

simple

4
my
xxL

8(L4 + L4
x
7
L2
L2

Myx[
Coefficients
in

(2-13)

Table

can be evaluated

is

The method

loads

on the

principle
This

of

side

ratios,

-and

method,

ixe

in

given

the

finite

loads

concentrated

and applies

loads.

under uniform

are used.

dimensions.

plate

For concentrated
area,

over a-finite

In

acting.

cases,

such

be. the

to
if

and
depends

The moment distribution

area and its sides ratios


I
The method becomes complex

are

to

a group

of

superposition

can be applied.
section

elastic

solutions.

methods

are

at high

loads,

in'practice.

slabs

procedures

dimensions

separate

various

terms

to the bracketed

corresponding

are assumed to be distributed

analytical

respective

SY

known as Rankine-Grashof

sim'Ply supported

rectangular

Simmilar

for

L2'
X

Cp 110(5).

12 of

loads,

asy

(2.13)

-qa
8(L4 + L4)
xy

asx and

CL
sx

In most

further

the

shows clearly

restricted

and the

wide

cases,

the

by the
variability

difficulty

of

methods
inability
of

lack
to

support

analytical

obtaining
generality.
account
conditions

of

The
plasticity
encountered

11

(or

Plastic

2.2.2

Limit

The assumption

strength

of concrete

rigidity

deteriorates.

concrete

in tension,

slabs

is

theory
the

slab

slab

is

is increased

perfectly

capable

of

plastic,

the slab flexural

of

changes, plasticity
the

assumes that

plastic

and at higher

by plastification

means that

which

indefinite

due to the limited

these material

theory

of stress.

the

straining,

material
of

material

once the

of
the

conditions

have been reached.

The plastic

methods

in two

classified
viz:

for

The plasticity

used.
is

of yield

To account

steel.

crack

induces nonlinearityg

Cracking

the slab

to low levels

and accordingly,

the degree of nonlinearity

reinforcing

that

theory

plate

and homogeneous is limited

As the load is increased,

loads,

Methods:

of the classical

is elastic

material

States)

bound

upper

groups

of

concrete

slabs
to

- according

and lower

the

bound methods

design
theory
(Chapter

broadly
be
can
of Plasticity
1).

These methods

include: 1.

The Yield

2.

Hillerborg

3.

The Strip

4.

Minimum Weight Designs.

5-

Lower Bound Solutions.

first
the
of which only
2.2.2.1

The Yield

Line

Line Theory.
Strip

Method.

Deflection

Method.

is an upper bound method.


Theory

introduced by Johansen
The yield line theory of slabs was first
(798,9).
load based on a preThe method derives the slab ultimate
postulated
crossing

failure
the

yield

mechanism.
lines

defining

It

is
the

assumed that
postulated

All

the

mechanism

reinforcement
is

yielding.

12

The shape of the


support

the

of the

capacity

is

would

forced

mechanism
to

corresponds

provides
to

all

geometry,

the

in

ultimate
load.

smallest
load,

ultimate

modess for

especially

the

the

one giving

theory

to the

determines

which

failure

modes of

and according

possible

some difficulty

create

slab

Several

bound to the

an upper

seek

on the

of loading.

one problem,

correct

slab

The method thus


designer

type

even for

possible

of plasticity,

This

and the

conditions

are thus

depends

assumed mechanism

correct

and the

analysis.
of

slabs

case of

uncomnon shapes.
In

the

spite

hardening

strain

Although

of

higher

the yield

the

theory
it

and any edge conditions,


thickness,

constant

information

on the

be used to

analyse

Furthermore,

the
at

or cracking

loads

are

any combination

(2.2)
problem,

to

applies

in

each of the
does not

within

Prediction
can be very

the

any
but

can

of

steel.

deflections

the

mechanism

difficult,

with

especially

Method:

points

a valid

two mutually

on the*slab
of

slabs

acting.

My and M
of M
which
xS
INY

is

slab,

any

to
-

give

distribution

to the lower bound theorem of plasticity

at all

slab,

in
practice
-

no information

loads

load.

any shape of

restricted

of

effects

to make the

tend

ultimate

a predetermined

of loading.

Strij2

calculated

The method

provides

also

approach 0 the

general,

reinforced

with

concentrated

Hillerborg-

According

in

distribution

steel

any stage

when uniform

the

best

method

of

equation

uniformly

a slab

a combination

2.2.2.2

is

or skew directions.

perpendicular

of

than
line

bound

an upper

and membrane forces,

load

experimental

load

method being

satisfy

on the slab,
solution.

the

(Chapter
equilibrium

and the boundary


(13)

Hillerborg

1) 9

conditions

made use of the

13

strip

in

action

the

in the

everywhere

created

by parallel

and Y.

Thus,

direction

if

and chose his

slabs

strips
a is

strips,

spanning

the

thus

(2.2)

the

of

load

the

slab vif

a=1.0,

if

equal

of

courseq

to

all

zero,

gives

as far

all

in
moments
strips

of banded

band is

with

by bending

is

load

dividing

patterns,

although

all

is

concerned.

X strips,

and

of

of Y strips.
lead

however,

will,

to

are

such solutions

The designer

some

needs

and in

distributions

under

uniform

load

distribution

can be designed
In

cases

discontinuity
based

reinforcement

loads,

when the
lines),

on average

composed of a number of strips.

according

Hillerborg

is

method

is
to

load,

the theoretical
over a part

each

the bending
changing
the

suggests
the

Design on basis

because at ultimate

easy

determineds

moments across

not in accordance with

moments of resistance

the

moments are rapidly

moments is strictly

ultimate

the

by bending

carried
load

Once the

strip.

carried

throughout

have to be considered.

as a beam,
the

and can vary

the

slabs

and straightforward.
acting

the

chosen,

at the most economical

cases

For rectangular

is

load

as equilibrium

several

practice,

(e. g.

the

ways of

to arrive

experience

strip

arbitrarily

reinforcement

valid,

M=0.
XY

then

different

different

the

a is

The factor

in

carried

(2.14)

that

proviso

= aq

ayz
with

action

directions

3211V

and

M
0 09
Xy

by bending

carried

in two orthogonal

proportion

equation

32M
x
XZ

is

The load

slab,

so that

solution

use

band.

of average

the lower bound theory,


moments will

exceed the

of each band..

However,

Each

14
once yielding

(2.2)

Figure
under

In

distributions.
both

the

of view,

a theoretical

large

as well
than

12% more steel$


This

For

the

simple

is

strip

it
as

is

of

point

thus

method

The design

shear. force.

point

with

into

types

Element Types (1) and (2)

loads

Hillerborg

and secondary

Finally

the column.
for

rules

reinforcing

Hillerborg
problem

of

point

certain

(flat

or supports

suggested

In this

Method"(13).

lines
by
bounded
elements

with

zero shear lines,

design loading.
of elements

of zero

in
and which are

The slab can be divided

Hillerborg

he achieves

his

uses a radial
the loads

to transfer

(2.3).

in
Figure
shown
as

can be designed by the simple

But Type (3) is more complex.


load actions

requires

found
throughout
bending
the
moments
moments are

the applied

different

three

from

it

to

restricted

fails.

utterly

into

the slab which are compatible


equilibrium

an even

although

view,

is

presented

involving

divided

gives

can be reconmended

the use of what is known as the "Advanced Strip


method, the slab

is

distribution.

method
cases

considered.

From a design

steel.

and therefore

first

the

of

Layout

as a practical

load

distribution

first

the

more suitable,

areas,

strip

simple

problems.

slabs),

second

over

but

are

slab

square

supported

distributions

varying

value

required

show some possible

are valid,

requires

the

to

moment
(3).

a simply

two

case,

ultimate

available

to

intended

distributions

distribution

slab

this

as it

impractical
point

is
and

of

the moments to

expect

total

equal

an example

load,

uniform

However,

is

the

is

ac--Oss a band

resistance

to

reasonable

Alsot

themselves.

redistribute
of

is

it

occurs,

solution

method.

strip
stress

field

from the element to

by proposing

a set of

the element.

has devoted considerable


supports

by the

effort

(3)
Type.
use of

to overcome the
elements.

Nevertheless,

15

qa2/8

WO
9\\\",

Z \NS

-%x -%Z

Mx Along

a/2

x=

Mx along

AA

qy,2/2
y

kl% ...

--.

-.

cl I

a/4

-.

-...

P'll

12

q
1

+
.211..
a/2

5qa2/64

q/2
q

q/2

a/4
21
N\\

&2\
-\-

a/4
q/2

'\ \\

a/2

-F------3.
II

171777\

-1

Mx along x=

1
a/4
i-

a/2

-,"uf

q/2
q
x

Along
Edge Strips
0<y<
a/4

qx

Along
Central

4mx
q/2

5 qa 2/64

Strip

Method Solutions

mx

a/4

Strips

<y<

3a/4

(13)
-for a Simply supported

Slab
c

16

the

simplicity

case of

load

difficult

to

and this

The method
the

within
find

lost

as described
and it

element,

a suitable

approach

not

is

for

be

will

field

stress

is

for

any other

of loading.

type

A further

drawback

of simple

pursuit
which

depart

which

impairs

far

the

of

from

those

To overcome
a in the

factors

as a development
torsional

by bending

Hillerborg

ignored

action

Considering

the

(2.4),

the

giving

16 grid

Figure

direction
(ij)

another.
direction

is

distribution

any grid
(qx)ij,

chooses

conditions.
the

deflections

distributions

at points

loading.

of

is

first

divided

rectangles.

(ij),

the

and from

selected

will
values

q.

in

of
the

such

in

each

cj1j on each
id
to
gr,

from

in

distribution

x
load

corresponding

(qx)ij.

=q-

distributions

strip-deflection

and qy by considering

of intersection

shown

strips

can vary

the

be (qy)ij

load

four

is

load

strips.

intensity

unknown load

equilibriums

However,

into

but

be uniforms

sense that

and the

slab

uniform

The load

the

developed

orthogonal

of

under

dispersion

load

in the

on the

by a set
slab

in the y direction

Any arbitrarily
equilibrium

every-where

rectangular

must theoretically
For

distributions

can be considered

methodq

strip

created

slab

on

behaviour,

stages

at early

that,

stress

a good service

The method

method.

of the

may choose

suitable
choosing
(15)
Fernando and Kemp

method,

moments are

slab

general)

in

difficulty

strip

for

is

Method:

stril)--deflection

generalized

resisted

the

designer

of the

(in

method

required

function

the

strip

the

solutions,

The St rip--De flexion

2.2.2.3

grid

is

method

procedure.

a uniform

increasingly

in

strip

as a design

satisfactory
the

the

of

will

methods

compatibility

of the centre lines

satisfy
one
of

X
the
and
of

17

Type 1
column

Type 3+
1 %-.,Type 2

-1
I
0.
.
11
10 ..,

Figure

(2.31

Elements

Types

in

the

Advanced

Strip

Method

x
C\j

oi
CP
1.. '

CIJ

CM

cu
m

or
6

-o

Strip
Yl

(qx)
31

t\
Figure

(2.4)

Strip

(Ax )
JI

The Strip-deflection

(Ax )

32

(Ax )/*

33ol"
34

Method

X3

Y2

18

The method

Y strips.
independent

loading,

of

of the

conditions

but

coefficients,

depend on the
The elastic

problem.

X 'loading

due to

points

flexibility

uses

geometry

deflection

is

on X strips

and the

boundary

at the

intersection

these

from

obtained

are

which

coefficients

as
k
E

AX

Fx

n=l

qx

in

(2-15)
in

where
Ax.
-=
ij
Fx.
in

= the

qx in

=x

at the

deflections
of

load

distributions
loads

For patch

can be chosen

system
and the

analysis
If

loading.
that

the

It

grid

moments would

initial

region

of

load

is

to

that

described

is

is

small,

for

analysis

exactly

assumption

grid
of

for

as for

containing

spreading

the

do not

load

concentrated
over

the

chosen so
grid

distributed

satisfy

area,

distributed

the

within

over

the

and bending

equilibrium
load
whole

(2-5)).

(Figure

loading

distributed

the

is

distributions

load

strip

one grid

uniformly

system

strip

positioned

centrally

moments so derived
the

the

in terms

the

within

contained

be assumed to be uniformly

and the

The bending
local

area
load

proceed

such

equations

simultaneous

the

identical

can then

area,

Equating

t.
qx and qy on each grid elemen
.
the
slab,
of
areas
covering
extensive

loaded

the

'whe deflection

for

on Y strips.

linear

of

so that

concentrated

rectangle.
whole

is

a set

on x strip.

points

can be written

Y loading

due to

results

at node

of x strip

coefficient

(2.15)

to

in

on x strips

on x strips

expressions

same'points

the

flexibility

load

x loading

due to

intersection
number of

k=
Similar

deflection

the

in the

due to the

grid

area.

To

19

obtain

an exact

for

solution

the

moments must be added within


load,

concentrated

is

these

shown within
then

By the
the

for

the

of

loads

rather

spreader

systems.

is

for

simple

than point

simple

flexibility

of special

loads.

grid

equilibri,

in

AA and
produces

area which
the
is

area.

grid

within

satisfied
Additional

load.

accordance

Similar

moments

two strips

within

the

with

moments

can be used

procedures

numbers . but

grid

coefficients
In addition,

but

equations

it

requires

dealing

increasing

with

to-be

the
the method

which renders

solved,

patch

the number of

increasing
the
expense of
at

and thus the simplicity

The method resembles

is
lost
the
method
of

analogy method and the Rankine-

the grid

method.

The strip
be unsuitable

(both
methods
for

and Ferndndo and Kemp) would

Hillerborg

cases involving

high torsional

cases, both methods would give solutions

strip

whole

concentrated

to the

supports.

to be computer oriented,,

elastic

the

The

the bending

from

(2-5c)

to be provided

nunber of simultaneous

Grashof's

the

systems,
the

improves the accuracy,

strips

to

system

equally

giving

Figure

two spreader

The method

the formation

(2.5b),

The load

containing

concentrated

the

(2-5c).
and

distributed

uniformly
Figure

spreader

(2.5b)

Figures

uniformly

has then

reinforcement
in both

first

moments shown in

element

additional

element containing

equilibrium.

two strips.

use of these

grid

shown in

distributed

the bending

the grid

a simple

AA and BB in

two strips

BB is

is

load

concentrated

load,

collapse

(16)

using

Such a system

plastic

solutions(18).
methods

is

because

The only

reason

it

to

leads

moments.

which are far


for

a simple

neglecting
procedure

In such

from the
torsion
for

hand

in the

20

(a)

(b)

Strip

BB

Strip

AA

II

f-I
t"
tt

I W/2
t- t---tw/2

(a-c)

it-

KO

(c)

C\j

II
tttt

W/2
Fr

FiElire

(2-5)

Spreader

System for

W/2
la-c)

Concentrated

Loads

21

The main

calculations.

decide the appropriate


the behwriour
to analyse

the slab,

the best

By assuming
to

concrete

a2 are the

distributed

without

is to include

thickness,

slab

torsional
analogy

forces,

Morley(lo)
in

of the

areas

concrete

ability

derived

the

sufficient

slabs.

If

a,

the

direction

steel

reinforcing

an area A is

over

the

and neglecting

moments M, and M2 respectively,

Vs required

jeopardizing

is done by the grid

minimum reinforcement

principal

to

one has to use a computer program

procedure

tensile

resist

for

steel

factors

difficult

Designs:

a uniform

conditions

of the

is

element method.

Minimum Weight

2.2.2.4

If

the analysis

whether

method or the finite

of

loads.

it

that

load distribution

at working

moments as well,

is

disadvantage

then

in
the

volume

and

of

by

given

JA
Vf
s

where the steel

kal

(2.16)

dA

+a2)

areas are given by


I M11

I M21

fd2
y

f7

a,

fy

where

Substituting

is

the

yield

for

the

for

stress
steel

areas

fA

Vs=f1d

the
a,

steel,

and

and a2 in

(IM11 +Im
21

(2.16)

is

lever

the

arm.

we have

(2-17)

dA

y
Accordingly
$

the

reduces

that
V=

of

volume

is

to

proportional

Hence the problem of minimizing

volume on the slab.


to

steel

finding
f

(IM11

the

minimum volume

+ IM21 ) dA

the

moment

the reinforcement

which

is

given

by

22

is

A moment field

"correspond"

to

said

M, and M2 and the principal


curvatures
(10)
Morley
and direction.
proved that
corresponding

The sufficient

one.
If
the

is

field

for

field

(c)

Ik
21

such

a distribution

slab

a non corresponding

"0"

moment distribution

lk

=k,

Ik,

21

K throughout

21

and M2=0

Ik

to

corresponds

in

except

or

and M, =0

is

field

purely

Jkli
area where

0 0.

Figure

lk

the

ks it

=+
21

any direction

in any direction.
(2.6)

The problem

finding

of

geometrical.

M, and M2 can be in

too can be distributed


in
shown

of

can be summarized as follows:

k1l

=k,

a neutral
and t

that

to

has a minimurn moment volume.

that

M, A0

the moment volume for

has

which

lk

field

then

=ments

principal

where

regions
Jkll

the

k1 and k2 have the same sign

or equal

a particular

The curvaturesl

(b)

than

conditions

a slab

displacement
(a)

less

if

is possible

that

and the

loads

For the simply

supported

JEH and FKG are such neutral

regions

areas.
If

k,

is less

there

freedom since

deformation

for

in the directions

distributed
regions

the

=-k2=k,

is

surface

correspondence

of the principal

such AEJ, loads must be distributed

the loads must be


curvatures,

parallel

i. e. for

or perpendicular

of such distributions

to side EJ as shown, though the ratio

and

anticlastic,

can be

arbitrary.
In the regions
must be zero.
be caxried

only

where

The region
in the

Jkli

=k

EFGH is

direction

and
such

Ik

<k
21

an example

the moment M2
and the

loads

the
(i.
FG)
EH
and
k1
or
e.
of

must
signs

23

-AEFB
_____

Fipre__(2.6)

Minimum'Weight
Simply

Gf

ii:

Supported

Solution
Slab

for

a Rectangular

24

of 1 and k,

must be the

(2.6)

Figure
the

three

types

displacement

the slab ABCD and illustrates

for

shows the solution


of

minizourn weight

same.

fielcls

which

The moment volume

solution.

are

for

sufficient

due to

load

a uniform

is
V= (0.0834 L7 - 0.0313 L.
or
which reduces to 0.0521 q L4
x
The method

2.2.2.5

fulfil

supported

a simply

directions.

reinforcement

as they
is

The method

on the serviceability

could
also

slab.

yield
deficient

of the slab.

Lower Bound Solutions:

In this
to

on the

patterns.

any information

in providing

for

to be impractical,

reinforcement

curvilinear

5L4
q
96
x

assumes no constraints

are likely

Such methods

(2.19)

q L3
x

method,

the

simple

in moment components

polynomials
(2.2)

and the boundary

are

chosen

conditions

of

equilibrium

equation

the problem.

To determine

intuitively
are

assumed.

fields
the
the slab ultimate
moment
capacity,
(4)
the
Wood
method
of
gives a good account

how
the
shows
and

procedure

can be used to

determine

the

ultimate

The concept was later

concrete slabs.
capacity of reinforced
(11,12)
to cover continuous
by Vijaya Rangan
it

has been shown that

slabs.

In general

*for
loads
such slabs

the collapse

extended

can be written

in the form
qL2
mx

in which:

Lx=

short

11 = degree

span length
of

p=

sides

Ly=

Long span,

M=

yield

X=a

(2.20)

(8 11 + 2Xp + 16pz)

ratio

of the slab

orthotropy
of the

moment in the

constant

slab

L /L
xy

X direction

(along

termss

the Y-axis)

25

'he

of the

value

degree of orthotropy
is

A depends

constant

on the

sides

The value which satisfies

V.

the yield

Irp
/1
Y
4
The collapse

load

(2.21)
by (2.20)

given

bound

upper

corresponding
q L2

24u
(/3

latter

(2.22)
r2

by 4%, to

has been reduced

The two solutions

effects.

the

was compared with

solution

mx

after

criterion

by

approximated

the

and the

ratio

10% of the

within

agree

for

account

the

corner
upper

reduced

bound solution.
In
truncated

sixth
is

It

fields.
is

to

polynom., als

evident

from the

great

has the

advantage

and load
in

considered

yield

are

yield

lines.

obtaining

serviceability

the

over
at

But the
the
of

the

diameter
be limited

expressions
and spacing

approach

every

fields,

the

in

the

line

used a

lower

bound moment

paper

how difficult

can be produced
Point

combinations.

loads

simple
method

in

addition
does not

slab,
to

the

provide

that

for

only

moment fields.

on the

point
in

Rangan

limited

or supports
The method
of

conditions

and not

it

just

difficulty

at the
encountered

information
any

on the

slab.

To overcome this
derived

yield

Vijaya
define

selecting

method,

stress

to

and they

solutions,

difficulty

present

in

solution

end conditions

of

(2.20).

order

such

obtain

cases

the

obtaining

(11,12)

difficulty,
to
to

limit
satisfy

by a suitable-choice

recently
crack
the
of

widths

Vijaya

(12)
has
Rangan

by choosing

code limits.

the

reinforcement
can then

Deflections

depth.
0

26

ASSESSINGSERVICEABILITY OF REINFORCEDCONCRETE
SLABS:

2.3

In the cont'ext

of limit

state

are *uItimate-

strength

and serviceability.

design
a first
of the

as a function

slab

For design

purposes,
the

analysis,

are

element

2.3.1

Deflections:

permissible,
by the

of the

slope
the

Ig

slab

stiffness

and finite

difference

finite

any stage

moment-curvature

diagram

This

the

using

load

(21)

use of
range.

transformed

of

loading

of

Figure

with

the

rigidity

(2.8).

moment of
is

moment-curvature

The reduced

rigidity

section

rigidity

also

the yield

a bi-linear

after
the

Before

deflections

gross

up to

in

are

represented

the behaviour

cracking,

flexural

is

and hence

elastic,
theory,

After

reduced
the

cracked

linear

elastic

section.

implies

working

fully

is

failures

flexural

only

at

by a linear

in the

the

For elaborate

may be used.

in which

model

material

of the

approximated

is

slab

slab

can be calculated

moment.

in many ways.

may be obtained

the

of

The stiffness

stiffness.

slab

may, as

Procedures:

the

inertia.

load

values

methods

a macroscopic

cracking,

the

The latter

employed.

Analytical

In

to

the

of

empirical

numerical

2.3.1

ship

be related

approximation,

for

the two main criteria

design,

relationcracking

Beeby's

Thus

method

(2-23)

Er 1 cr
c
where
R = The flexural
U.
El = 0.57
c
Ec=
cr

of the

rigidity

section

Ec

Youngs modulus
= moment of
section.

for

inertia

concrete
of

a fully

cracked

transformed

27

in

While
inertia
stage

is

Branson's

the

method

The effective

used.

loading,

of

(21)

II(
e ff

is
and

given

cr

3+11

an
effective
.

=ment

inertia

of

moment of
of the

depends

by:
3

cr

9m

(2.24)

-(M

cr

where
I

o Effective

eff

19=

Gross moment of

M=

The maxiTnum applied


= The cracking

M
cr

moment is

The cracking

where fr=

it

moment in

the

span

moment.
from

calculated

formula

flexural

the

as

(2.25).

modulus of rupture.

The Branson's
hence,

inertia

/Y

=fr19

cr

inertia

moment of

is

is

method

for

recommended

use in the

ACI Code

of such methods is well

The applicability

Beebylssand

the

then

more realistic

(3).

for

established

two-way
beams
For
slabs.
concrete
one-way
and
slabs.
reinforced
(22)
short-time
Desayi and Muthu
proposed a method for estimating
The load-deflection

deflections.

to and after

prior
are

elastic

predicted

plate

theory.

where

two stages:

the deflections

Thus

q L4
6=Bx

in

In the uncrac--ked stage,

cracking.

using

calculated

curve

is

(2.26)

EI
cg

is a constant

depending on the boundary

conditions

of the

problem.
At the
cracking

initiation

load

cr

of
is

crackings

estimated

from

the

deflection

6cr under

the

28

After

=E

cr

The proposed

(2.27)

1x

due to

cracking,
of the

rigidity

qL4
er

slab,

the

an effective

[1

qj

where

is

Ig

Using

determined.
(equation

2.28),

the

the

qj

load,

can be used.

The expression

in this

Experimental

eff

results

inertia

range

to be

constants

cracking

after

can be calculated

)L4
cr
x

EI
c

for

(2.28)

cr

moment of

deflection

cr

-q

k1 and k2 are

effective

(q -q

and k 2'

of

cl - cl
-cr
('

- k,

Johanson

the

noment

inertia

flexural

is

equation

eff

decay of the

continuous

(2.29)

eff

(2.28)

depends on the constants k1


(22)
that
have
Muthu
Desayi
shown
and
of

in

k, = 0.87761 - 4..1604 xlo-4 X0

(2.30)

k2 = 0.025227 + 8.28 x 10-4 Xo

(2.31)

where
(p

x=
0x

as

f
LX
+ P7Xf--ZW)(h
-

11)

where
PX and py=

percentage

in X and Y directions

of steel

respectively
LxLy=

short
h=
V=
c
f

Equations

4o

x0<
-<

270.

(2-30)

slab

and long
thickness

compressive
=. Yield
and

spans

strength

strength
(2.31)

are

of
said

of

concrete

steel
to

be valid

in

the

range

29

The method

with

slabs

concrete

to

application
Upt *ill

of two-way

conditions.

2.3.1.2

Cracking:

The problem
its

At present,
of

crack

in

The "Slip"

1.

depend on the

structural
Theory,

am unt

are normally

widths

are far

two theories

widths

are

expressed

Beeby
that,

(24)

in

terms

the "no slip"

theory

deal

These are: -

the

terms

of the

the

with

Here

crack

stresses.

steel

considers

prediction

widths

crack

reinforcement.

of

the

the

crack

Here

bar.

reinforcing

width

to be
crack

widths

strains.

in one-way slabs

cracking

gives better

the crack width

to the distance

to the surface

face
of

conclusive.

members,

in

be

the

continuing,

which

in

complex.

procedures.

are known,

which

investigated

He also found that


related

Theory

at the

zero

effectively

from being

very

can only

widths

still

-which assumes that

expressed

width

crack

done and is

is

still

and

supports

of

statistipal

using

of bond slip

2. The "No Slip"

of

assessment

has been

design

types

other

maximinn crack

means derived

of work

for

suggestions

cover

the

natures

empirical
a lot

to

deflections

The method

al

et

slabs.

method has been

the
(23)

by Desayi

slabs

its

concrete

estimating

Recently,

reinforced
in

restricted

reinforced

known for

slabs.

predicting

stochastic

made using
Although

simple

of

uniformly

method

investigation

loading

Due to

only

fixed

cover

further

needs

the

is

but

accuracy,

loaded,

rectangular
to

extended

is

in two-way

maximum defle. ctions

excellent

uniformly

it

now,

the

predicts

and spacing

from the point

of the nearest

bar.

prediction

and concluded

of crack widths.

are both linearly

is
the
measured
crack
where

30

For two-way
and Nawy

work has been done by Orenstien

slabs,

extensive
(26)
and Nawy et al
.

(25)

the Tnqxiyninncrack width


w

proposed

to

equation

estimate

is
(2.32)

fs

VIT:

=kRc

max

Their

where

W
max

The maximin crack width

kA

the
Rc=

sides

Cover

fs

= steel

I=

St=

160 in2

the

slab

t/pt

of the

grid

which
Desayi

reinforced

Cracks

axis

depths,

respectively.
in"checking

index is a good ifidication

or not.

Only

a pronounced
tend

direction.

if

the

yield

to be finer

(I)

index

grid
line

early

cracks
for

in width

low

loaded,

equations
simply

In their

are restricted
supported,

experiments,

to very special

and fixed
welded vire

slabs with
meshes were

in
situations.
case
most practical
(27)
two-waY
did
Kulkarni
on
work
also
extensive
and
is

not

concrete

''

index.

loads.

point

central

form

and Navy's

cases of uniformly

direction,

in the longitudinal

develop

would

direction.

longitudinal

and neutral

history.

loading

-d n)

in transverse

ratio

would

cracks

Orenstien

used,

S
in

diameter

= effective

wide

whether

values

index

has been found that -the 'grid

It

of loading

type

)/(d

conditions,

stress

= Steel

d, dn

the

(h
=
-d

Bar spacing

Pt

and the

ratios

ratio

The grid
= Bar

in

depending on the support

constant

the

slabs.

On the

same principles,

Desayi

and

31

Prabhakara

(28)
the

on estimating

rests

Assuming
Figure

and 2,

their

extended

that

the

(2-7),

to

work

cover

maximum crack

then

the

at the

spacing
is

laid

of

the

reinforcement
spacing

The work

skew slabs.

cracking

the

along

directions

formed

cracks

moment.

in

direction

is
kt ft

Actl
(2.33)

a,
l
similarly

the

spacing

kb fblsl)+(2
of

the

kt ft

fbblr'2)

cracks

1 is

direction

Act:

2
(7r 2 kb fb'52)+(j

in

formed

(2.34)
fbb/11)

where

Act

Act
1,

`2 Effective

tensile

bar diameters

s11

S2

constant
tensile

f=
b

fbb

bond

from

w=AeR
max

max

equation

(2.32)

considered,
before.

in direct ions 1 and 2

to account

for

distribution

of

stress

stress
is then estimated

loading
of
stage
at any

(2.35)

sc

where amax is the maximum crack spacing,


stage of loading

1 and 2

in directions

stress

= beiring

The maximum crack width

concrete

of

= spacing between bars

.kta

strength

width

2(h-d)-A

1 and 2=

directions

ft=

area per unit

in

in tension

and Rc=

es = steel

the co-7er ratio

strain

at the

as defined

in

32

cract
direction

Section

ft

AA

direction'l

12

Figure

____

(2.1)

Distribution

Stress

of

Bond Stress

over a Section

and Tensile

33

Test
1

fff,
bb

=f
b

t'

M/M
P
Ub

bond stress

ultimate

indicated

have

results

M and MP are the

that

for

the

rectangular

can be taken

the

the

ub

(Section

moments in

and ultimate

applied

and f

slabs,

C:p 1.10(5)

from

kb=1.0,

constants

3.11.6).

direction

of

reinforcement.
The proposed method estimates

crack widths

One good aspect of the method is that


loading
for

and the aspect

simply

supported

investigation
2-3,2

and fixed

slabs

and cracking

using

elements.

Due to nonlinearity
and yielding

finite

Criteria.

for

models are normally

either

of loading,

uniaxial

1(29)

slabs
it

caused by progressive

behaviour

had been used to

(30)

the

using

al

had been analysed


will

is used in

procedure

difference

and May et

accordingly

be reviewed

due to cracking

nonlinearity
adopted,

viz.

to reflect

relationship

each constituent

et

and finite

difference

a nonlinear

The finite

can be

slabs

concrete

Tresca
the

using

here.

FINITE ELEMENTMODELS:

To account

stages

in material

Concrete

methods

element

curvature

and thus needs further

of supports.

of reinforcement,

by Bhaumik

plates

2.4 NONLINM

slabs,

methods of finite

these methods.

with

and Von Mises

The method is established

of reinforced

the numerical

calculated

analyse

of the type of

Procedures:

Deflections

conjunction

types

accuracy.

reasonable

is independent

of the slab.

ratio

to cover other

Numerical

cracking

it

with

or,

a macroscopic
stiffness

a microscopic

material
or biaxial

etc.,

model employing

degradation

model treating

individually
stres*s-strain

as they

two types

a moment-

at various

nonlinearities

in

Such models adopt

occur.

properties

of

for

plain

concretes

34
and the

uniaxial

arising

from progressive
flow

and plastic

In this

thus

the

is

the normal

the

is

linear

Jofriet

from

give

their

of

intermediate

The point

initial

the

reinforcement

the

sections

material
derived

matrix

elastic

in

(21)

used a bilinear

after

loading

at

in
shown

diagram

of loading

any stage

(2.8a).

Figure

of the type

relationship

to. cracking

(2-36)

cracking.

(2.3T)

Ec0
the

calculating

were

also

surfaces

on the moment-curvature

In their

Beeby.

and thus . could not

of steel,

used by Bell

Using
were

due to

behaviour.

is idealised

(2.8a).

is

rigidity

yielding

about ultimate

models

Figure

of the

the stiffness

The new stiffness

the moment-curvature

model, the behaviour

relationship,

which

percentages,

case,

in. the element,

did not consider

information
any
Macroscopic

the

with

cr

EC -2 0-5T

they

assumed to be

of uncracked

In this

prior

Ru=EcI

analysis,

is

slabs,

resistance

logical.

quite

Ru=EcIg

This, method

concrete

moment of

decrease.

and McNiece

where

element

in concrete.

to

can be derived

concrete

of steel,

(21)

elastic,

way(31)

starts

of stress

nonlinearities

yielding

For low steel

reinforced

On the onset of cracking


element

states

isotropic.

to

the- assumption

behaviour

reinforced

in

case

little

contributes

in concrete,

microcracking

and initially
the

individual

treat

to

steel

Models:

case,

homogeneous
usually

of

under compressive

Macroscopic

2.4.1

is

properties

the

Elms
and

by a four
square

defined

(6,32)
*

In

stage moment curvature

yield

assumption

in
as shown

curve corresponding

Figure

several
(2.8b).

to each surface

is

35

Moment i'M

m
u
m
y

AM
AC //e0,

cr

EI

////

AM
= AC
(R

AK =

%.;L"

U)i

V C6 V L"

(R

(RU)

IU

i+l
U)

k.

iI

(a)

.0

Figure

(2.8)(a)
(b)

Relationship
- Moment- Curvature
Reinforced
Section
Square

Yield

Surfaces

for

an Under-

36

established,
of

an element

satisfying

A secant

modulus

A direct

iteration

the

structure

is

are

changed,

until

The use of
elementary

theory

investigated

in

needed

for

effects

of

solved

these
for
the
the

true

vary,

the

variation

of

Microscopic

2.4.2

In

Each layer
a linear
deflection
for

number of
is

theory.

a reinforced

in the

of the

tensile

and
if

may be

is

neglected.

judged

by the
in

developments

integrated

these

all

effects,

are both

Recent

slab

in a satisfactory

being

not

due to biaxial

high

models
the

depth,

order

elements
within

properties

of material

the

through

is

curves

element

variability

of the

Furthermore,

structureq

element.

Although

the
layers

slab

thickness

paxallel

assumed to be in

strain

stiffnesses

do not

response

reflect
in
can

manner.

models:

such models

a finite

the

stress

most cases be predicted

grossly

of the whole

(35).

can be traced

concrete

use of numerically

so that

in which

an extension

Tnoment-curvature

in the

at one point

while

directions.

plane

behaviour

reduction.

of

Load enhancement

in the

involved

treated

several

analysis.

the

is

The behaviour
only

modified.

analysis,

load

the

relationship

two principal

along

discretizatioh,
element

but

stiffness

stiffness

reached.

a moment-curvature

detail,

the

under

is

of bending.

appropriately

was used in the

successively

constraints

models

used in making

equilibrium

a single

stress

is

the

rigidity,

is

criterion

procedure(31,34)

In most elements,
of

change of

a yield

patterns

reinforcement

relative

approach

zones

compressive

state

the

and using

variation

with

Each layer
concrete

to

a state
the

is
its

slab

depth

planes
stress

of plane

can be of

element,

middle

is

a different

each constituent

into

hypothetically

divided

(2-9).

Figure
condition,

assumed for

the

small
Thus

material.
material

and

is

assigned

37

Figure

(2.9)

Layered Plate

Model

38
a different

layer.
in

although

Perfect

bond slip

some cases,

The deterioration
priately
Crack
by this

model.

bending

problems

layers,

(2.1)

and Table
degrees

elements

given
(36,3T)

Schnobrich
dimensional

the

computes

to

addition

the

around

dimensional
such

but

are prevented,

the
within
of

the

constant

with
is

For

a plane

quite

the

two-dimensional

in

each layer

element,
stress

except
is

elements
is

constant,
the

a crude

is

bending

the

plate

The element

stresses.

such problemss
assumption

punching

an ordinary
fails

problems

plane

middle

Accordingly,

three-dimensional

other

All

a three-

element.
to

of

one used by

which

normal

stress

good for

and accordingly,

the

stress

heads.

the

al

n=ber

had been used.

each that

(38)

the

solve

for

investigators,

used,

elements

except

and torsional
to

and

stresses.

isoparametric

in planes

normal

columns

element

failures,

All

the

in

reference

stresses

2.4-5)

plate

Models:

of layered

integrated

was developed

element

failure

shear

analysing

concrete

(Sebtion

of principal

are two-dimensional,
a
and Mubbad/Suidan
et

numerically

for

occur.
reflected

have been used by different

types

and the

in

model

criterion

Element

elements
the

gives

freedom

of

of

Finite

nonlinearities

relationships

in terms

by appro-

represented

this

assumed,

be acconmodated.

be conveniently

for

and a yield

Layered

types

can thus

slab

a stress-strain

expressed

of

Various

in

are

is

whenever

requirements

separately,

Review

2.4.3

the

The basic

layers

concrete

the

normally

can easily

stiffness

properties,

is

layers

all

relations

slab

layers

through

penetration

steel

in the

the

changing

bond between

to

element

fail

given

in Table

(2.1)

tworecognize

in which

can only

shear

such

in

failures

flexure.

assume that

and do not

one developed
idealization,

of stress
allow variations
(39)
The assumption
by Rao

especially

after

cracking.

39
Table

Element

No.

(2.1)

Layered

Plate

Total
degrees of
free dom
.

Nodal Degrees
of Freedom

W, exq 6y

us V9 WS
ex

References

12

40

20

39,419

429

43$ 449 45

us vs w

Elements

Bending

12

46

16

479 48

33

49-

15

50

6o

36,37,38

ex S6y
Reduced bending
stiffness

WSexq 6y
k

XY

corners:
12
W

Us V, WS 0
kxq ky2k
Midside

X9

0y

XY
nodes:

U$ V2 6t

us VS WS
OX9ey

us V, w
three

dimensional

4o

In the

finite

imbalanced

forces

lead

would

to
is

of stress

not

The first

initial

finite

layered

on the

In

exhibit
that

per

the

position

would

once

of

as only

simplest,

the middle
to

only

inplane

ignores

The element

of the

plane

in which

problems

in the

cracking

the

and flexural

and bending

plates.

boundary

conditions

degrees

slabs

similar

boundary
response.

uncoupled,
pure bending

conditions
Cope and

and concliided

has greater

to

A consequence

even for

inplane

on fixed

action

relations

longer
no
are

on computed load deflection


effect

inplane
an

components,

must be specified

this

by prefixing

shift

constitutive

laminated
effects

nonlinear

derivation.

element

occurs,

in

additional-inplane

require

conditions
(42)
has shown that
Hand et al

of inplane

this

progressing

cracks

adopted

procedure

and superimposing

in unsymmetrically

inplane

due to

face

its

from

shifts

axis

neutral

simulate

course

between inplane

coupling

to

axis,

to be incorporated

such models

is

models,,

neutral

This

the

The normal

depth.

slab

have a large effect


(45)
Rao
also studied
neglect

such
be treated

will

problem

the

for

compression

and membrane boundary


problems.

is

be restricted

would

towards

which occurs

of this

(40)

node were used.

in bending

element

is that

can arise
This

used by Wegmuller

slabs

section.

freedom

problems

in
and

are negligible.

of the

position

such an assumption

Because variability

forces.

be satisfied.

assumes a fixed

position

deeper

degradatim,

convergence

freedom

concrete

the

released

research.

of

into

on the

mainly

of these

Such an assumption

For

rely

stiffness

can hardly

membrane forces

of

all-owed,

and thfis

plate.

the

simulate

element.

three-degrees
effects,

which

underestimation

in this

depth

models

to

equilibrium

cases,
in

element

effects

that

the

than relaxing

41

to

restraints

boundary

flexural

conditions

In

the

of

a simply
load

ultimate

2.4.4, Materials

loading

Upon cracking,

interlock,
in

the

sections

is

was derived
this

using
the

inplane

sheax

et al

layered

finite

membrane

accordingly.

model underestimated
be applied

cannot

assumption
restraints.

arbitrari3,

for

strength

behaves

is

given

In

as a linear

still

capable

such

cases,

The constant

extensively

v assumed.

It

problems

uncertain$

has been postulated

of $ produced little

response of reinforced

between

differences
(42,48)

concrete
in which

are

calculated

factor

$ is

for

uncracked

response

and in most cases.


that

is

in

variations

in the computed
This might

slabs
the

unity

due to

sections.

cracked

of a to be used is still

reducing

normal

shear

resisting
stresses

material.

direction

Howeverg
of

this

isotropic

In the

shear

and lies

factor,

Up to

elastic

created.

stiffness.

BG.

modulus

in

are

low stresses,

compression.

a null
is

only

can resist

properties

retention

and zero

case for

ultimate

zones.

shear

the numeric value

the

slab

concrete

concrete

cracked

The value
it

are

material

concrete

a reduced

called

its

anisotropic

crack,

aggregate

using

there

Dotreppe

has been assumed that

stiffness

However,

in tensions

the

stage,

stresses

by 10%.

10% of

about

the

in their

(46)

Idealization

When loaded

to.

approximation

study.

Concrete in Tension:

2.4.4.1

up to

effort,

inplane

of

in this

computational

it

bending

supported

in which

to problems

investigated

approach,

and the

zero,

Responses

stiffness

In this

model.
are

reduCe the

bending

used a reduced

forces

to

The effects

conditions.

be further

will

an attempt

element

boundary

laxgely

not be

influenced

by

42

Values

shear.
plane

stress

investigated

as high

as 0.5

and plate

bending

several

concrete

(48 )

or 0.6

had been used for


(51)
Labib and Edwards

problems.

of 6 in 'the range

values

of 0.4 in their

value

(38)

0.2

to 0.5

in concentric

study of cracking

both

and used a

and eccentric

members.

The reduced

shear

in

modulus

is

concrete

cracked

computed

sometimes

(52).
empirical

using

[0.4
G
G
red

+ (i -c /c
tmax

for e
G
'0
re d
in

the

paper

0.4

for

the

terms

initial

strain

ecr

cracking
yield

A zero value

2.4.4.2

cracked

modulus

in

concrete

for

value

Bond Between Concrete

offers

To account

for

s=e

this

"stiffening"

that

at any load level

of concrete

of steel

is

to

difficult

and the nature

However in all

determine,

due to

of the structural

problem

investigation.

and Steel:

between concrete

resistance

logical

concrete

(439 46,4T)
B is also common

Due to bond effects


cracks

mcdulus

The problem needs further

hand.

is

it

but

defined,
in

strain

in idealizations,

differences
at

shear

(2.39)

etmax

are not

strain

a definite

modelss

c>

shear

(2-38)

x 0.61

tmax

in concrete

C=

etTn.
q-x

<c<c

cr

G
' reduced
red

these

such as

equations,

to

normal

effect,,

and steel,
stresses

in

concrete
cracked

the stress-strain

between
elements.

curve for

43

in

concrete

after

(48)

deflections

slab

tension

stiffening
are based

theories

zero,

not

is

Such a concept

layered

on the

fact

that

is

Various

(c)

Discontinuous

the

and Warner

Gilbert
with

bending

plate

shown in

are

after

unloading

using

and high

convergence

The strain
is
e

is
cr

the

the

strain

at which

taken

as the

curve,

they

yield

curve

such
element

with

an

descending

portion

include:
and

(2.10)

Figure

and its

while

the first

Results

behaviour.

an overstiff

theory

the gradual

results,

experimental

with

in connection

theories

the three

obtained

but at the expense of slow

good results,

cost.

selected.
strain

the

over

stress

stress-strain

They found that

produced

tension

up to which

arbitrarily

All

cracking.

after

investigated

problems.

theory

incorporate

models.

element

average

computed

response.

response predicted

the third

the

cracking.

produced very good correlation


unloading

the

shape of this

unloading

(48)

in

stiffening

cracking.
after
can be used for concrete
(50)
between
The only difference
Scanlon
-

(a) Stepped response


Gradually

finite

an average

theories

(b)

tension

2.10)

due to

theories

various

length.

effects

in

be

will

can be used to

theories

and accordingly,

portion

unloading

Ignoring

up to 10001oerrors

Various

(Figure

some stresses

cracking.

has been known to produce

effect

the

so that,

modified

by concrete

transferred

is

is

tension

to

of

used a polynomial

of

a stress

concrete

steel.
function

considered

effective

(48)

and Warner

bond between
strain

stiffening

Gilbert

corresponding

is

where
used 10 r,
crs
(53)
Shirai
ft.
et al used

and steel

For the
in the

is

lost,

the
of
shape
form

and this
unloading

was

STRESS

ft

E/e

er
(a)

Stepped

Ilesponse

After

Cracking

Kass

10

(b)

Gradually

Unloading

Response

After

Cracking

STRESS
ft

4
(c) Discontinuous
Figure
-(2.10)-

Tensile

Unloading
Stress-Strain

10

Response After

Cracking

Curves

Concrete

for

45

(a
eq

Razaqpur

of 10 e

T-beams.

concrete

+ a2.%2 + a3x3)

and Ghali(54)

strain

ultimate

+ alx

used a linear
cr ,

Values

in

studying

as high

(2.40)

ft

unloading
shear

as 25 e

(55).

in

lag

an

reinforced
been used in

had also

cr

with

curve,

some

cases
This
reinforced

concrete
in

discussed
aspects

the

reflects

this

under
section

involved

in

of objective

etc.,

stresses.

can not

be separated

treat

from

cracking
of the

The effects

e. g. method

in

which

to

criteria

biaxial

discretization

the

criteria

convergence

lack

factor

numerical

other

solution,

of

depend on the

general,

of

problem

at

hand.

2.4.4.3

Concrete in-Coaression:

Under compression, concrete diviates from linearity


very early in
(56,5T9 589 59)
have indicated
Tests results
the loading history.
that

the ultimate

greaier

than

strength

in uniaxial

stresses.

The earlier

in

concrete

were those

a=

of concrete

is
and

compression,

of the principal

works

under biaxial

biaxial

obtaining

due to

Liu

(60).
et

al

compression

dependant

on the

His

proposed

ratio

curves

stress-strain

is

equation

for
is

(2.41)
(1-va) (1 +Ce+

DeZ)

where

a9

F- =

Ec,, j =

stress

and strain

in concrete

Youngs modulus and Poisson's

ratio

for

concrete,

respectively.
a=

ratio

of the

principal

stresses

in

concrete.

46

The constants
on the

Ag B, C and D are

stress-strain

curve

(a) ? or c=0,
(b)

cr =

Ia

the

secant

(2.11)):

(Figure

compression

eP are the

peak stress

in biaxial

and peak strain

Substituting

at peak stress

modulus

se

in

these
/C
=ap

(2.41)

(2.42)
1+(1c-

this

1va E
se

equation

1.

or

ep9ap

by Tasuji

investigated

The material

(2.42)

yc=

unit

The two equations

and f1=0.78

(2.44)

in kg/m3.

concrete
by only

0.5% for

2400 kgjm3

cu*

2. Poisson's
average

differ

ratio
of 0.19

0.21
O'ell
between
v ranges
(59)

or 0.15

constants

(2.43)

in
N/mm2
Yrf-I

mass of

et al

from:
found
are

Ec from CP110 or the ACI code equations


T', ff
cL
in KN/mm2
E=5.5
c5
o43 Y3

(59)

in both tension

of concrete

cases a= 0.

to be used in equation

E=o.
ccc

where

cpcp

the behaviour

For uniaxial

and compression.

2)

was further

and vas found to represent

Ec, v,

introducing
and

ve have

a=cE

Later

conditions

d(T
ds

respectively.

c=pression,

following

=a

For c=c

where aP and

the

1 -va

CIE

For c=c

from

Ec

dcr

For c=0

(c)

in

found

(43 )

has extensively

(61)

concrete

An
been used.

4T

STRESS

Figur

(2.11)

cp

Stress-Strain

Curve

for

Concrete

in

Compres-sion

48

The peak strain


Test results
biaxial

eP:
(60)

by Liu et al

for

that

c=pression
2500 microstrains

e=p

ep = 500 + 79.8 ap
where

indicated

(major

direction)

(minor

direction)

is the peak stress.

aP

The peak stress


This

ap:

can be obtained

from

the biaxial

strength

(see
Section 2.4-5).
envelope
Finally,

(2.42)

equation
behaviour

stress-strai

of

Beyond peak,

stress.

of

softening

For plate

and in

on the

cracking,

compression

up to the

peak

to hold

due to the

strain

equation

ceases

cases.

plateau

behaviour

is
cUrVe

of concrete

that

fact

the

flexural

under-reinforced

can safely

effects

stress-strain
Due to

this

concrete.

softening

strain
the

describe

known about
of

curve

('16)

of

is

little

stress-strain

most

response

post-peak

in

concrete

problems,

a horizontal

to possess
effect

the

of

benging

be neglected,

be used to

At present,

concrete.

branch

descending

the

the

can then

assumed
the

members is

major
due to

be

in compression

can safely

each layer

of reinforcement

ignored.
2.4.4.4

Idealization

of Reinforcement

In most layered

is represented
only

in

of the
the

finite

element

by an equivalent

the

direction

steel

layer

reinforcement
11

of the
is

in

the

smeared layer,

original

determined
element

models,

bars.

such that
remains

which can carry


The equivalent

the

thickness

corresponding

unchanged.

stresses

The steel

area

of

layer

49
is

then

and to have

a definite

In some cases,

obeys the

In

yield

of

Steel

can

Such steel

influence

to

the

directions,

along certain
(64)

In

system

derivation

is needed, in contrast

the same element stiffness


steel

is

of

assumed.
in

steel

elements

that

by the fact

bars have

steel

the element local


stiffness

element

in
the
to
which
smeared approach
is used for both

derivation

and

concrete

layers.
idealizations,

In both

is assumed.

Bond slip

perfect

bond between

steel

is also sometimes represented

and concrete

the

by reducing

modulus of steel(52)0
2.4.5

for

Criteria

Yield

In layered

finite

of plane

stress

separately

treated,

yield

for

both

Concrete:

element models,

in a state

required

Plain

concrete

condition.
criteria
and the

is treated

each layer
And since

in plane
reinforcing

as being

each materia;

stress
steel.

one

other direction.
(39963964)

in the

bar

a special

is

directions

in

but

by one,

yielding

stress

normally

addition,

coordinate

which

Even in orthogonal

as discrete

is restricted

such

Such an assumption

orthogonal

of

In

plate,

steel

in treating

state

be modelled

also

representation

to be laid

the

has to be taken

care

not

between

by an

properties.

can be represented

steel

hardening.

strain

two-dimensional

with

and compression

can be represented

skew reinforcement.

two layers

such cases,

layers

as a two-dimensional
(43944)
criterion
0

no interaction

case,

direction

treated

tension

or without

with

steel

layer

in treating

reinforcement,
this

is

Von Mises

useful

point

two reinforcing

layer

the

cases,,

yield

orthotropic

equivalent

very

in both

assumed to be elastic-plastic

condition
For the

is
are
lattert

50

its

to

owing
usually

unlimited

is

concrete
Accordingly,

at least

for

under

As a criterion
(a)
in

theory,

that

the

of

stress

same value

in both

uniaxial

assumes that

cracking

occurs

et

the

exceeds

by Kupfer

has the

latter

the

cracking

results

Test

concrete.

are known:

principal

mximum

compression.

stress.

assumes that

which

since

an eq7aivalent)

of

states

two theories

cracking,

in

(or

is

criterion

ductility

required

and compressive

whenever

occurs

strength

indicated

al(56)
and biaxial

states.

stress

(b)
the

for

are

yield

is more complex,

and of limited

two criteria

The maximum stress

concrete

tensile

concrete,

tensile

Von Mises

the problem

in tension

brittle

yielding

plasticity,

For

adopted.

the

theory,

Maximurn strain

maximum principal

strain

exceeds

the

limited

tensile

whenever
of

strain

concrete.
theory, however, is more popular thanthe second.(65)
found that the second theory predicts stiffer
However, Phillips
The first

behaviour
For

criteria

the

thau

first.
biaxial,

under

yielding

compression

had been used by many researchers.

various

of. stress3

states

The Von Mises

yield

(50)

(63),

Gilbert
Lin
et al
et al
was used by Valliappan
,
criterion
(55)
(38)
PT),
(48)
Hinton
al
et
Suidan
and
Wanchoo
Warner
et
al
et
al.
and
.
of this

The applicability
nonlinear
in metals,
propagation.
plasticity

action
but

criterion

in concrete
is dictated

is debatable,

is not caused by actual


by the cumulative

In such applications,
is normally

to concrete

adopted,

effect

the associated
and the limited

plastic

because
flov

as

of microcrack
flow

plasticity

rule

of
in concrete

51

is

by the

represented

but

surface,

yield

use of

surface

a crushing
in

expressed

terms

of

to

analogous
(50).

the

strains

Columb-Mohr law is more popular, because it


(66)
Following Nadai
failure
the behaviour of concrete.
,
The modified

well

expressed
the

in terms

of the

following

manner

ii

=a1a2+

octahedral

shear

and normal

represents
can be
in

stresses

cr3
(2.45)

a+a+aa
2122331
31a2a3
with

of the principal
called
given

failure

the generalized

stresses

criterion
is

zero,

invariants.

the stress

121 13 )=0.

F(Ill

Ill

0'

then 13=

Now the octahedral

If

one

12 and 13 are

shear stress

is

by

[(a,

-a2

Oct

)2

and the mean normal octahedral

(a

q=1

)2+(

+(72 - '13
stress

'73 -

(2. 46)

a0 is

(2.47. )

/3

+a)=1
231

al)2

1.2

i.
F(I

Octahedral
sides
equal
.

1'

octahedral

the
they
because
occur
on
are so named

tresses

of an octahedral
angles

with
shear

(2.48)

12)

the

element
principal
failure

stress

formed by planes whose normals make


stress

axes.

criterion

and

general

can be written

form,
in

(2.49)

TOct - acro -b=


The constants

In

are normally

determined

from

the

the
form

52

data.

experimental

Test
in

by many researchers
problem
2.4.6

further

will
Methods

by Kupfer

results

connection

The structural

for

problem

[ k]

Cd]

C k]

C PI

Cd] =

criterion
(4)

Chapter

Nonlinear

thesis.

of this

Analysis:

to be solved

is

of loading

any stage

at

(2-50)

P] =0

-C

had been used


(42944)
The

et al(56

this

with
in

be treated

Solution

of

where
the

is preferable

is

common to

as the

such

(31).

is

thus

respectively.

vectors,

solutions

and for

nonlinear2

a'one

of

its
or

steps.

modified

freedom

of

solutions

algabraic

nonlinear

technique
degree

is a

of the structure

matrix

Newton-Raphson

For simplicity,

version

structure

to proceed along a sequence of linearized

Such an approach
equationss

the stiffness

The equation

stress-dependant.

of the

matrix

Load and displacement

(2-50).

In equation

it

stiffness

system

will

be

examined: Let

the

of the

root

The New-ton-Raphson
Xi+i

where

x1 and

Ax

procedure

states

be required.

(2-51)

x i+l

are two successive

iterates,

Ax, the

and

is given by

=-

in each iteration.
of

=0

that

+ Ax

(2.52)

f(xi)/fl(xi)

In Newton-Raphso'n procedure,

expense

equation

-2 Xi

to xi

correction

nonlinear

f(x)

slow-down

the gradient

ff(Xi)

is evaluated

In the modified Newton-Raphson procedure,


in

rate

of

convergence,,

the

initial

at the

gradient

53

f I(x

0)

is

used throughout,

Ax =-f(.
is

The approach,
tangents

I (.xO)

Xl)jf

Newton-Raphson

modified

Referring

to

the

[k]

The stiffness

structural

to

the initial

Both

methods

et

(21)

fast,

process.

a variable

matrix

procedure,

(constant

technique.

have been

gradient

stiffness

in

(2.52)

equation

used,

approach*is

corresponds

stiffness)

the rate

call

to the
(68)

method

stiffness"

extensively

used by research

(67)

workers.

Johnarry
and
,

is lost

of the variable

extensi-7e

and

stiffness

method

in the updating

in the housekeepings
use of backing

al(42)

(43)

is spent in each load increment

for

it

Newton-Raphson procedure.

of convergence

Most of the time

then

employing

a solution

while

The"initial

to the modified

a long time

such procedures

computers.

equation

(2-54)

to the

Darwin and Pecknold


,

Although
is

nonlinear

stiffhess
approach had been employed by Hand et
(46)
(37).
(32)
Jofriet
Schnobrich
Bell and Elms
al,
,
,

The variable
Dotreppe

the

problem.,

a Newton-Raphson

stiffness

is also identical

McNiece

if

Newton-Raphson

modified

the

and represent

-FP]=

corresponds

Accordingly,

analogouz

The

gradients.

(31).

procedure

f (d) = Ck] [d]

is

tangent,

the

where

instantaneous
axe
initial

the

(2.12),

Figure

in the form

can be written

above.

lines
to

are parallel

(2.53)

shown in

schematically

drawn as continuous
lines

dotted

thus

stores

as normallY
in most

54

On the

hand,

other

to the correct

slowly

nonlinearity

the

initial

method

it

although

their

Constant

leads to expensive

statement

of

n=Ier
of
(43)
Johnarry
and

to achieve an equilibrium
position.
(44)
Duncan et al
have claimed that demanding static
normally

very

might need a very large

iterations

each load level

converges

and depending on the severity

solution,

in the structure,

stiffness

was not supported

equilibrium

analy3is

at

and poor results,

by any numerical

evidence.

methods have been used by Valliappan


and
(63)
(53)
(38)
Doolan
Shirai et al
Suidan
Dietrich
Schnobrich
and
et
,
.
,
(45)
(45),
(44)
(43),
Cope
Rao
Rao(39),
Duncan
Johnarry
al
and
and
and
,
stiffness

Hinton

et al(55).
(43)
Johnarry
compared the constant

in plate

bending

the constant

had also undertaken


increase

Hinton

is the best
similar

in computational

the stiffness

He concluded

applications.

stiffness

matrix.
).
et al(55.

and variable

study,
efficiency

Similar

and least

that

stiffness

methods

for

such problems$
(97)
Cope et al
expensive.

and concluded

that

no significant

could be achieved by recomputing

conclusions

were also arrived

at by

55

Load P

AP

displacement

Figure

(2.12)-

The Newton-Raphson

Procedures

56
CHAPTER THREE
DESIGN*OF'PIINFORCED'CONCRETE'SLABS

3.1

INTRODUCTION
In the

design

previous

of reinforced
concentrated

methods

of

the

about

rigid

in

terms

and were
they

Theory

all
on the

provide

information
no

- with
for

a satisfactory

understanding

of material

distribution

loads.
on realistic
loads

is

The

now suggested.

approach is based on the theory


this

the

Most of these

discussed.
loads,

Line

and ultimate

in

be discussed

Yield

for

available

information

the

of

working

at service

design

have been

or the best

based

methods

on ultimate

(e. g. the

procedure

both

various

exclusively

under

proposed direct
and will

slabs

regions),

A design
behaviour

concrete

steel

behaviour

service

the

either

unsatisfactory3,
distribution

chapter,

of plasticity,

chapter.

3.2 THEORYOF PLASTICITY IN SLAB DESIGN


Any solution
of

classical

This

plasticity.

1. The Equilibrium
in

2. The Mechanism Condition:


sufficient

plastic

structure

into

The Yield

Criterion:

in the

internal
The
-

Condition:
with

ecjdlibrium

can be stated

the

the conditions

load has to satisfy

to the ultimate

stresses

applied

externally

following

must exist

must be

loads.

load,

- Under the ultimate

hinges

manner: -

to. transform

the

a mechanism.
- The ultimate

strength

of the member

must nowhere be exceeded.


For reinforced

concrete

slabss

it

is

very

diffic'ult

(if

not

5T

impossible)
Existing

to

methods

(a)

However
of

the

load

load.
true

method

three

by assuming

usually

conditions.

reinforced
check

a suitable

loads

render

higher

such methods

load

collapse
of

(2)
and

Accordingly,

do not

Satisf)ring

of the

concrete

or equal
an

provide

slab,

which

may be unsafe.

slabs

is

this

(3)

condition

load

admissible

lower

or

of lower

and thustone

(1)

conditions

(safe
is

which

a safe

the

satisfying

of

on the

nature.

"rigid!

' portions

slab.

field

stress

Such methods

such methods

(b)

or

(1)

conditions

on the
line

The yield

procedure

either:

collapse

boirid

upper

are

mechanism.
true

the

a design

satisfying

collapse
to

find

i. e. the

(3)
and
fields).

stress
to

equal

the

true

bound nature.
true

by assuming

Such methods
load

collapse

loed is

than

greater

render

of the

load

the

Accordingly,,

ultimate

a suitable

slab,
is

calculated

the

calculated

load.

3.3 THE PROPOSED


DIRECT DESIGN APPROACH:
it

For a safe design,

is we.11 advised to use a lower bound approach.

approach is very

The proposed design

and straightforward.

simple

method suggested here will

be shown to satisfy

the theory

The steps

of plasticity.
to these

relation

The Equilibrium

3.3.1

The stress
using

the

such a distribution
as the

method

is

conditions
be discussed

of
in

manner:

Condition:

distribution

elastic

the three

in the method will

in the following

conditions

The

the

under

finite

analysis

by the

will

automatically

derived

from

equilibrium

design

loads

element
satisfy

will

method.
the

be obtained
Accordingly,

equilibrium

considerations.

conditions
Owing'to

its

58
simplicity

problem

of slab

- with

The analysis
slab.

Although

in the

slab

be made assuming

elastic
is

the

stress

distribution

at high

loads,,

the

distribution

on the

amount of

Accordingly,

it

is

reinforced

sections.

dependint,

so that

slab

can be applied

method

distribution

the

of

the

3.3.2

The Yield

load

at

greatly
of

steel

the

by cracking

affected

stresses

at ultimate

provided

for

here

proposed

any section

for

the

to

follow

will

so designed

slab

by the

predicted

under
reinforce

the

elastic

at least

should

analysis.

elastic

Criterion:
defines

condition

to cause plastic
the strength

load

ultimate

ultimate

The yield

strength

is

for

properties

stresses.

The actual
reach

any type

to

any edge conditions.

will

conditions

the

the

and versatilitYs

flow

tle

The condition

at a point.

at any point

of stresses

combination

necessary
if

be satisfied

will

is made equal to or greater

than the applied

on the slab under the ultimate

loads by the

stresses.
An elastic
finite

analysis

the stress

element method provides

laterally

loaded

predicted

moment field

at

to

derive

ultimate
by the

as required

proportioned
necessary

To provide

plates.

the

yield

the
Limit

yield

criterion

M, * Mys M,, for


y

resultants

to

reinforcement
state

the

steel

fit
should

Accordingly$

criterion.
in terms

of

the

the

three

under

the

be
it

becomes

moments

components.

field

Consider

. ng the

M2M,
xy

M
with
q xy

adopted

here

is

slab

element

anisotropic

such that

all

in

Figure

properties.

moments acting

(3-1),

The sign
in the

moment

convention

element

are positive.

59

XY

Figure

(3.1)

Notation for Moments on an Element


(Positive
as shown)

MY

CY

21

FikLxe

3.2)

Element with

Orthogonal

Reinforcement

60

Simplifying

assumptions

further

are

can be summarized

made . and these

in the following:
1.

is

The concrete

assumed to

hwre

a tensile

strength

to

equal

zero.
2. Bar diameters
and that

they

not

in

snall

can carry

only

kinking

the

with

in their

of bars

depth,

slab

original
line

a yi6ld

across

considered.

The slab

element

is

failures

are not

permissible

is

This

allowed.
that

comparison

stresses

Accordingly,

direction.
is

are

the

slab

sufficient

lightly

and only

necessary

elements

so that

reinforced,

for

compression
failures

ductile

are
so

moment redistributions

the

into

sections,

to

convert

do not exist.

It

is acknowledged that

number of

at

strength

ultimate

can reach'their

slab

mechanism.

Membrane forces

of such forces

co-existence
elements,

will

moment of the

compressive
(Membrane forces

will

For simplicity,
will

element,,

or tensile,

(Figure

3.2).

parallel

with

are

reinforcement

in the element
(Figure

the top and bottom surfaces,

3.2).
although

in the two faces may be different.

idea is that,
a line

they

3.6 and 3-7).

to the element sides

The element may be reinforced*on

The basic

on. whether

in Sections

later

the anisotropic

the degree of orthotropy

depending

respectively.

be treated

be assumed to lie

on the slab

fields

the
resisting
reduce
enhance or

considerably
slab

with

flexural

the

if

at any point

a normal

in the slab

and direction

element
is

examined,

61

then

the

moment M must not


nnn

normal

that

the moment of resistance


in

develop
is

which
It

direction

n.

in

every

tested

be noted

should

in

a lower

therefore

M* is

in the slab could

a normal

moment criterion

as has been shown by Kemp(72).

bound

field

stress

must make provision

points

because

direction,

any conceivable

is

M*, vhere

value

the reinforcement

This

different

at

reinforcement

exceed

direction,,

that

the

with

variable
for

yield

may be simultaneous

there

lines
multiple

(19)
modes of

collapse

Taking

the

no=al
the

and considering
we will

to

the

line

yield

equilibrium

of

the

at

the

x-axis,

Figure

(3.3),

an angle a to
shown in

element

have
mn

X Co,.52a+ My sin2a-

M
ty

X Sin2a+
(Mx -

Mnt

My)s'n

Cos2cl+

M
s in
XY

2a

in

2a

cos

2a

Ms
XY

+ Mxy

2a/2

line

moments at the yield

The resisting

(3-1)

(3-3)

can be expressed

as

follows
M* = M* cos2a+

axy*

M* = M* sin2a+
txy

M*
nt

M* sin2a

(3.4)

M* cos2a

(3-5)

(M*
14*)
=
sin
xy

Therefore,

(3.6)

2a/2

when designing

the resistance

the steel,

in
be
checked
every direction.
moment should

substituting

(M* -m)
xxyy
dividing

(3.4)
and
COS2 a+

by cos2 a and putting

Accordingly

(3-7)

0
(3.1)

to normal

in

(3-7)

(M* -M)s
k=

tan

we have
in: 2 a-M
a

sin .2a
XY

62
L
CL

XY

C',
0
()

sin

m
Xy
Figure

(3-3)

Equilibrium
of
Moment Field

a Slab

Element

under

Applied

M*
y

stepped
"ield
y

line
I..

actual
.
yield
line

Y
FiEure

(3.4)

Idealized

Yield

Line

(Johansen's

stepped

yield

criterion)

63

(M* -M+
xxyy

f(k)

If

the left

is

related

reinforcement

k2-(M* -M+

lines

(3-8)

hand side of equation

is denoted by f(k),

to

the

excess

normal

over

the

required

moment in the stress


(77),
is
liable
and Sozen
yield

least

with
df(k)/da

Accordingly,

reistance.

=d

f(tan
da

a)

d f(tan

a)

d tan

resistance

provided

d tan

field.
to

such lines

along

ada

d f(k)

SeC2 a

dk

(3-9)

Since

sec

ct cannot
(k)

df

dk

hence

be zero,

=2k

from

M* - 2)c MV, +2M.

-7

(3.8)

(3-9)
and

X7

or

(M*- my)=-1m
yk
If

f(k)

is

to

(3010)

xy
a minimum excess

represent

moment of

resistance

then
d 2f (k)
-dkz-

=2

M* - 2M
yy

(3.11)

Hence 11 > My
and accordingly,

in

(3-10),

M /k
XY

;s0

(3.12a)

(3.10)
from
and
k=

tan a

MXY
-

Iy

then

by the

normal

As has been shown by Lenschow


along

(3-8)

2k M0
XY

(3-12b)

occur

64

This

the

gives

orientation

As has been shown by Lenschow


in the

resulting

while
twisting
line

internal

the

the

the

The variation
is

given

(3.12b)

Substituting

of minimum resistance.
at the yield

of

in

Figure

in

(3.8)

the

in

across

(M* -m+
xxyy

(M* -M
xxy

and using

the

)(I

xy
0
(M* - my)

(3.13)

Equation

(3-14)

concrete
equation

(3.14)

M2
XY

-M)=

arrived

at by Save

(73),

Nielsen

(94)
1)

and Kemp(72).

Lenschow et al(77),

is

the

yield

If

slabs.
reduces

Johansen (or Prager's)

It

for

sign

equality

M2

(M* -M)-

which is the same equation

obtained

the yield

we have

Rearranging,

the

external

(3-5).

22

then

the

moments with

normal

line,

the yield
with

equilibrium

external

then

minimum resistance3,

reinforced

line

the

of

components

moment capacity

is
moment

twisting

moment.

orientation

to

equal

plane

and Sozen(77),,

minimum resistance,

moments is

normal

the

of

from equation
is evident

to

M* = M* =M
y

that

of

square criterion
(3.14)

for

criterion

for

from the yield

orthotropically

(isotropic

isotropic

reinforcement),
(72).
The

slabs

(Figure

3.6)

isotropic

slabs.

condition

(3.14)

is readily

that

twisting

by
the
been
This
has
lines.
confirmed
the
yield
moments do exist on
(92)
(77)
Lenkei(95).
Sozen
Cardenas
Lenschow
and
et al
works of
.
,
(90)
the
on
work
The
Jain
extensive experimental
et al
and Satish
above yield

criterion

provided

by the

above mentioned

research

workers

65

Co

Figure

(3-5)

Figure
_(3.6)

Variation
of Applied and Yield
Yield Line Orientation

The Square

Yield

Criterion

Moments with

66

the

confirmed

that

established

the

moments do exist

twisting
not

reduce

flexural

flexural

the

of the
lines

similar

the

yield

M5M2M
xy

XY
in

criterion

in the

negative

steel

layers

steel

are laid

steel

negative

due to

the

interaction

(3.14)

do

between
a pair

(3-7).

of

The

moments on

of principal

(72)
top

the

of

can be applied.
to provide

x and y directions
then

respectively.

similar

slabs

yield,

positive

the

condition

yield

as

(3-15)

M2
XY

+m

existence

represents

Figure

space,

for

can be written

(M*l +m )(M*l
xxIy

their

Jin the

moments M*' and M*I


xy

Consequently,

but

at the

described

nor

applied

lines,

terms

by Kemp

the

reinforcement.

Equation

given

resisting

with

the

to the one just

top

the

capacity

has been

For yield

procedure

yield

moments.
in

cones

derivation

If

yield

and torsional

intersecting

at the

not in general

neither

isotropic

for

except

of

been

has further

will

orientation

directions

principal

moments,

resisting

It

criterion.

line

the yield

the

with

coincide

of this

validity

where both Mxy and M are negative

(3.1)

Figure

moments'(see

The Mechanism Condition

3.3.3

The elastic

element will
the

provide

The derivation

under

analysis

be linked
necessary

the

ultimate

the yield

with
strength

of such design

conditions
the

according

will

equations

by the

load

just

elastic

finite

derived

to

moment field.

in subsequent

be outlined

sections.
Because

stress

the

necessary

at every point

is

resistance

in the slab,

it

made equal

is anticipatea

to

the

that

calculated

all

slab

cloreChomOf svrain rcJer.

mx
m
XY

Figure

(3. Z) Yield Surface


for
Concrete Slab

an ort-hotropically

Reinforced

68

will

parts

their

attain
, with

Accordingly,
turn

into

into

a mechanism.

minimum

by the

at the

Because

theory

of

load,

plasticity

ductility

will

the

converting
to

minimum redistribution

demand for

slab

achieve
emphasized

as normally

obviously

will

point

every
thus

load.

drop.

DESIGN OF ORTHOGONALREINFORCEMENT

3.4

Positive

3.4.1

Moment Fields:

Referring

(3-10),

to equation

it

substituting

(3.12a),
from
and

if

(3.16)
and

(3-10)

equation

M >0
XY

then k<0

+KIM

is

of

K may be determined
As has been

minimim.
to be used

steel

Accordinglyl

at

Equations

(3.17)

I
XY

(3.18)

m* =M+KI
Mxyl
yy
is now taken to be a positive
in which K= IkI
The value

versa.

and vice

then become

M* =M
xx

sum

(3.8)

(3.16)

k 14
XY

steel

into

have

we will

of

design

the

under

design

of the

the

method,

classical

strength

amount of redistribution,

hinge

a plastic

by this

collapse

ultimate

is

the

so that

shown in Section
to

proportional

any point

arbitrary

on the

slab,

the
this

total
will

constant.

total

amount Of

(2.2.2.4),

the

volume

moment volume.
be minimum if

the

(3-18)
(3.17)
is
we will
and
+ M*)
minimum. Using equation
y

have

M* + M* =M+M+IM.
xyxyv

YJ

(K +1

so that for a minimum


(M*

xy

+ M*)

mI

XY

(i

-1)=0

F07

69.

whence

Hence the most effective

m+
x1

would be

of reinforcement

(3-19)

MXY1
Im
+

m* =M
yy

arrangement

(3.20)

XY

Negattive Moment Fields:

3.4.2

In this
than

or equal

as before,
algabraic

f(k)

case,
to

in

equation

This

zero.

df(k)/dk

= 0, but

maximilym.

The value

and hence the corresponding


M*1 =MM
xx

been taken

would
in

case
is

M* <, M
xxy
ef(k)/d

still

and M* <

for

less
M
y

k-2 4< 0 for

given

And
an
(3.13),

by equation

(3.20)
and

to (3.19)

equations

would become

(3.21)
(3.22)

Xy

x and M are both


y

unity

yield

this

of

must be algabraically

XY

M*1 =M-IM1
yy
In which

(3.8)

most

The value

negative.

economical

steel,

although

of k had also
a different

value

could have been used.


Mixed Moment Fields:

3.4.3

Awkvard cases occur when one of the applied


the other

is negative.

Thus if

equations

(3.19)

is
positive,
moments
(3.20)
or

is used to

the design moments M* or M*


result,
may
value
negative
,a
xy
(bottom) steel is useless.
Accordingly,
for which a positive
resisting
calculate

moment can be set

normal

provided

in one direction.

(a) Case of steel


In this

equal

zero

and .

steel

Thus two cases may arise:

in x direction

case M*
y

to

only:

will

then

be

70

in (3.8)

Using this

the equality

and adopting

for

mini

then

resistance,

(M*
-M
xxy

and as before

k2- M+

d f(k)/dk

=0

2k M0
Xy

and insisting

on M* =0
y

then

k=M

/M
XY y

so that
M*

M2
XY

M+

(3.23)

xxImy
with

M*
y

(b)

Case of steel
In this

= 0.0

in

Y direction

only:

case M*
x

(3.8),

Again using
df (k) / dk =0

(3.24)

the normal procedure

with

have

we will

k =-M

and following

/ (M; - MY)
XY

then

m2
m

M* =m+I
yy
with

(3.25)

-M

(3.26)

M* =0
x

Similar

negative

Again no top steel

ones.

moments, and similar


and will

be listed

Rules for

3.4.4

equations-to

reinforcement
rules:

will
those

moments occur

then be needed for


derived

with

the positive

can be established,

below.

Placing

Given the stress

following

can be used when positive

procedures

Orthogonal'Reinforcement:

field

(M
) at any point
X SM
y 'MXY

in the X, Y directions

will

be placed

on the slab,
according

the

to the

71

Bottom Steel

3.4.4.1

Compute the normal moments


M*
xx
M*
yy
if

M* <0
x

M+M
-XY
M+M

XY

then
I Yl
M* =M+
ymx
-Y
then

M* <0
y

If

still

in

=m+

If

3.4.4.2
(1)

M*

(3.28)

with

M*
y

(3-29)

kz
XY
y

(3.28)

put such normal moment


(3)

with

Im

M*
xx
(2)

(3.27)

(3.29)
or

both M* add M* are negative,


xy

then no bottom

steel

Compute the normal moments

M* >0
x

then

(3.30)

im

M2

XY

=M

with

M*
x

(3-31)

with

1* =0

(3.32)

M* >0 then
M* =Mxx

(2)

If

still

in

(3-31)

I&LI
IM
y

(3-32)
or

one gets a positive

put such normal moment equal to zero,


(3)

is required.

Top Reinforcement

M*
yy
If

is required.

equal to zero i. e. no reinforcement

Im I
M* =Mxx
XY
M* = my - Im I
y
XY
if

then

sign,

one gets a negative

If

both M* and M* are positive,


xy

sign,

i. e. no reinforcement
then no top steel

then
is required.

is required.

I
/Im
y
XY

M*

M*
xx

x=0.1
M*Zr =M+I
M2 IM II
7
xy
xI

72

Im

M+

XY

M* =m+

Im I-\
XY

yy

M,.
M*

M* =0xx
x

M* =0

M* = 0.
y

mm=

M7

xvx

Figure

(3.8)

M2 /M
XY y

M+1

Design Equations

for

Bottom Steel

my

1
/IMXY
MxMv=

m*, = m
M*
y

M2 /M,
XY

=0

=0

I
(1,1)
mx

\\

\\\'\
1

M*, = M -IM
Im

M* ?=0
x

M*f=
yy

XY

Figure

(3-9)

Design

Equations

for

top

Steel

M-

IM2 /M I
x
xy

/IM
XYI

73

AM. 1
y XY

Bottom

M*

xy

M*

Y only

M*
M*I

M*?

only

M* M*
xy

-0

Ba
To-

I
,/ImXY

anom

Top Steel

Steel

Bottom

Top X only

II

M*II M* 9 M*
y
xy
-Bottom X only

only

M*I, M*,
xy

Top
M*

xy

only

M*

zI

Figure

(3.10)

Reinforcement

required

for

a given

Moment Triad

74

(3-8)

Figures

For general

(3-10)

to

a detailed

give

picture

diagram,
design

establishing

can easily

know which

equation

those

while

two branches

the

the

top

Bottom

moments.

normal

(3-8),

of

after

for

top

of the

equations

in

at

are

Primed

Figure

(3-10)

Figure

and indicates

any point.

required
in

given

(3.9).

Figure

on the

'S MI)
.
-Xy
get the

M
XY
use to

to

hyperbola,

yield

to be provided

steel

steel

steel

(I

point

form(71).

AY

.MX,

the

rules.

in a nondimensional

use, the diagrams are sketched

The designer,

these

of

shows

directions

the

to

moments refer

steel.
in

The equations
basis

on a similar

this

were

had been

section
to

extended

by Wood(19),

derived

and
(20)
by Armer
0

skew reinforcement

3.5 MULTIPLE LOADING CASES:


The above

rules
from

field

resulting

slabs

and particularly

The reinforcement

vhere

If

bridge

are

the

number of

the slab

minimum value

steps.

to resist

the solution

is represented

the reinforcement
loading

cases,

The solution

loading,

multiple

lies

is thus provided,

all

close
load

by point

problem

presented

case, then

load

the severest

needed for
the

multiple

cases.

(M*
)
M*
for
+
sum
xy

minimum value

For multiple

by the

many

loading.

the

satisfy

to the minimum reinforcement

Only if

of the

which represents

such loading

is reinforced

to

a moment

however,

to multiple

subject

produced

to

subjected

In practice,

case.

decks

is

slab

be proportioned

must then

which is economical

following

load

a single

bound
solution
upper
an

stationary

when the

only

(M
) i=l,, n,
M
M
X3.' Y11 xyi

moment triads
is
n

apply

to some stationary
Such a

cases.

(3-11),

of Figure

one loading

case.

can be attacked

can be viewed

with

in

the

respect

to

m
y

M*

75

Positive

'S

'S
'S

Yield

'

'5

I
I

Safe
)
XY

450

m
x
M*

Negative
Yield

Safe

04,

Sb

Figure

(3-11-)

Yield

Curve

for

Orthogonal

Reinforce=-nt

M*
x

Figure

(.3.12)

Optimim

Yield

Moments

for

Multiple

Moment Triads

76

case of the

the

simplicity,
It

three

steps
(1)

For

the

of

solution

each load

(3.27)

(2)

Find

the

Figure

the

This

load

B.
the

Its
yield

design

represented

always

point
is

y-coordinate
equation

Whence3, for point

on the

lie

M* = max
71

m*

point

of

found

P2

pl,

an upper

bound

by point

B in

then

such points,

this

of

and selecting

(3.34)

(3.12).

proceed

the

(MX*- x

(3-35)
Xy
(m* -M
yy

Figure

value

(3.33)

M7 +

on the

is lm max of point

MZ
XY

cases

region.

safe

x coordinate

case,

load

all

C and D in Figure

by substitution

cm*
y
Max

M* = max
x

at

C. the

each load

fm*
1
M* =
xx

for

minimirr value

case as points

represent

will

moments values
for

Similarly

The

equations

moments for

design

is
and

will

point

as follows:

).
m
NY3.

M
yl,

a stationary

Closer upper bounds are given by points


To find

each load

for

moments using

define

of the

moments,

This

be considered.

will

(3.12).

maxiyni3m values

yield

design

individual
each

CM!
i. e.
M*]
xy 9
max
optimum

the

This will

(M* + M* ) for
xy

(Mxi,

by

For

as follows:

find

case,

steel

has been established

be designated

are

to (3.29)-

in
P3
and

cases

a moment field
and will

case separatelys

(3.12).

shown in Figure

design moments for bottom

only

is assumed that

in

loading

(3.36)

into

maximum.

77

A further

optimization

(M* + R*
xy

and
3,

in

the

in which

the

case,

The problem
for

curve

the

two yield

EY the

yield

criterion

for

the
at

can be adopted

of

minimim
grid

points

negative

steel,

all

be solved
case,
(3.12)

Figure

the

by drawing

graphically,

and then

for

maximum in

the

minimum replaces

can also

A in

looking

same procedure

each load

as point

done by

CBD.

region

However,

satis:

is

the

selecting

by inspection,

which

the yield

least
is

above steps.

of

value

the

(M* + M*)s
xy

intersection

of

curves.

The above procedure


(69)

can also be used in case of skew reinforcements

by Kemp

as explained

3.6 DESIGN OF REINFORCEMT FOR MEMBPJUTE


FORCES:
Equations
derived

also
resist

inplane

by Nielsen(74)

tensile
forces

by concrete

analogous to those

to design

membrane forces.
are compressive,

only,

given

for

flexural

orthogonal

He assumed that,
then all

if

were

to

reinforcement

both principal
can be supported

such forces
is needed.

and no reinforcement

reinforcement

He also considered

to that used
and the procedure adopted is similar
(75)
Nielsen
the
Clark
approach
reinforcement.
extended

skew reinforcement,
for

flexural

to cover a general
be of practical
compressive
of Nielsen

interest

forces.

(3-7).

of stress.
to Provide

Clark

or Eorley(88),

and membrane forces.


section

state

equations

Clark

pointed

reinforcement

out that
even. for

are thus more general

who considered

This problem will

the

it

may

inplane
than those

flexure
combined
of
case

be discussed

later

in

78

Rules for

3.6.1

Designing

is
required
and

In

to

Sign

A general

The principal

shown in

Figure

(3-13),

stress

e to

at

always algabraically

greater

in
as shown

x-axisq

Figure
two directions

directions

and

respectively.
the
(3.15).

Figure

than a2*

(3-15)and

Figures

By considering

section.

to be cr and a2 with
1

are taken
the

the

these

and fX arid f.

be Ax9Aa

will

concrete

a, is

reinforcement

obeys

the

of

positive,
in

in

will

failure

and that

tension

The reinforcement

stresses

principal

is

it

concrete

and not by buckling

flow

case of providing

major

(3.16).

the following

equilibrium

may be written:
N=Afx+A

A jsin2
a at

On dividing

by the

normal and shear stresses

ax

/h
.=Nx

reinforcement

sinz 6+ ah

sin2

(3.37)

6 cOS6+cT,
(h)

thickness

h sin

and defining

as

=Ny
cry
9
ratios

slab

cos2

hsin

sin a cos a-a1

through

COS2 6+a2

COS2 a+ cr1h

a+ ah
12

N
=-Aafa
XY

and the

conditions,,

membrane forces

stresses

associated

equations

stress

be considered.

x and a will

their

for

of

4.

Chapter

(3.3.2),

Section

plane

plastic

convention

in

be

will

vector

stress

described

program

(2)
and

under

by unrestricted

occurs

(1)

criterion

the

research,

element

assi3mptions

yield

square

this

finite

be assumed that

further
the

In

the

using

addition

Forces:

triad

of plasticity.

obtained

In2lane

(N
) at any point in the slab,
X9Ny9N -37
to design reinforcement
according to the lover bound

Given the stress

theory

for

as

Txzr

=N

17

/h

(3-38)

6 COS6
the

ov

79

71

Figure

(3-13)

Yield

Criterion

'for Concrete

in Plane Stress

.. y,

Figure

(3.14)

Sign
per

Convention
Unit Length

for

Direct

and Shear

Inplane

Forces

80

pA
ct

(3.39)

we obtain
a=pf
xxaa

+p

cr =pf
yaa

Sin2

a +0

pf

Vaa

There

sin

are seven

COS2 CL+a1

Cos

unknowns

the yield

criterion

variables

can be predetermined

in

in

a certain
for

except

for

cases

(1)

the

three

can be obtained

(4),
and

the

possible

where

of

some of

cases
solution

four

(3.40).

total

By considering

stresses,

a direct

equations

by minimizing

sin e cos e

(3-40).

of

nine

can be seen that

from

2)

state

(3.40)

COS2 6

equations

It

determined

1-a

(3.1).

Table

obtained

for

COS2e +a2

in2 e +a

1s

2 e
Si.

surnmarized
can be
are to be

unknowns
The fourth
in

reinforcement

the

equation
the

element

thus

(px +p

(3.41)

tan e
In Table

(3.1),

provided

because

forces,

and a20fC

a,

of the

is

given

as zero

assumption

that

when compression

when tension
concrete

reinforcement

does not

carry

is Drovided

reinforcement

is
tensile

to make

the optimum use of concrete.


(3.2)

Table
principal
synbols

in
are used
a

concrete,
Table

ax

Xf
a f
y.

the expressions

sirmarizes

stresses-in

(3.2)

a - f
7
c

and e for

for

the areas of reinforcement,

each case.

The following

81

Y
(3.15)

Figure

Directions

and Principal

oL.,P Reinforcement

in

Stresses

Concrete

av
XY

Applied
CYX

ax

Stresses

-4-

TXy

2
in
6+ a2
cr, s
1--.

7-a
sin
Paf (I

OS26
(al

CD
N

)sin
22

c'J
"rl ('J

26

/a

C\j

-0111N
w
0
Q
r-i
0

Ct.

06

IF

>4
cl

Resisted
Figure

(3.16)

Resisted

by Concrete
Equilibrium.

of

a slab

element

under

by Steel
Membrane Forces

82

+ a7

a)(T.

cot

Having established
'(3.1)9

it

is necessary

the equations
to establish

should be used for

of equations

be achieved by deriving
to regions

boundaries
adopted for

flexural

can be plotted
Typical

curves

The equations

are

To cover

Figure

all

the

Following

(Section

3.4.4

plane

/IT
ax

curves

cases with

for

real

the procedure

), the design equations


19ay

Xy

60 0 and

in

fc /Irxyl

Table
curves p it

boundary

I-

/1-C

XY

a=

given

are

This can

space which form the

to each case.

(3-17)

which set

triad.

stress

in stress

non-dimensional

the boundary

of

a means of determining

reinforcement

shown

cot

to each case in Table

relevant

the surfaces

in

X7

a particular

pertinent

on the

+ a.,

is

required

that
fc

-2

The boundary line

complex

Table

(3.4)

parallel

expression;
(3-5)
and
in

illustrated

graphs

to ax/IT

I axis
XY

extends to t -.

iT/2, we have the case of orthogonal

When a=
the

1T I cosec a
Nzr

in

(3.2)

Table

(3-lT)

reduce

In

addition,

reduce

to

respectively.
Figure

(3.3)
and

reinforcement,

the

one graph

those

and
in

given

case boundary
of Figure

(3-18).

FORCES:
3.7 COMBINEDBENDINGAND 14EMBRANE
The stress
and to design
used(74,75,70.
resolved

into

triad
for

all

in this
six

(N
becomes
case
9N2N0M9M9M
xyVxy

components,

In such an approach,
inplane
a set of

stress

is
sandwich element

a filled
all

XY

six

resultants

stress
acting

resultants

are

in the outer

83

of the

shells

they

sandwich.

(3.21)
and

(3.20)

Figures

in the outer

problem

it

designers,,
x

best

to

xy

the

Further

to simplify

the

assume that

=X

=y=y

xx
xx

X
Z
some
and
are
reasonable
xx ,Y xx
xx

where

be centrally

will

xx

X =X
xy

of

is

and how

The basic

the reinforcement

of the element.

shells

whereas

of these forces

of the reinforcements.

such methods is that

assumption behind

for

shows such an element,

show the resolution

lumped at the level

are all

positioned

(3-19)

Figure

layers

steel

When all
reinforcement

from the

stress

resultants

level,

the

forces
membrane

middle
are

problem

And the

only.

average
of the

plane

values

to

the

forces

at the

in

designing

of

problem

described

equations

distances

plate.

simmed up as menbrene

reduces

of the

the

previous

for
section

be used.

can then

3.8 CLOSURE
The rules

set

or a close

upper

These rules

will

that

a state
it

convert
brium
from

bound to
ensure

of yield
into

chapter.

chapter
the

that

will

a mechanism

and boundary
a finite

in this

element

at

yield

criteria

in most slab

exist

program,

in

minimurn reinforcement
the

conditions

an optimum

either

provide

failure.
will

be satisfied

and this

will

concrete

are nowhere
portions,

The other

reinforcement

exceeded,

sufficient

conditions

by a stress
be discussed

slabs.

of
field

in the

and

to
equiliobtained
following

:yl

(a)

Negative

Shear

Stress

xy,

rxyl

(b)

Positive

Fi gure

(3

Shear

Stress

Cas e Boundary

T.
XY
Graphs

for

600
a=
;fC=-4

Plain
Numerals Represent
Boundary
bracketed
for case nos.
numerals

Curves

(T
XY
Nos.

85

/ I-C 1
y XY
inadmissible
CO

66
inadmissible

Figure

(3.18)

- (ID

Case boundary graphs for orthogonal reinforcement.


Plain numerals represent boundary curves Nos.
bracketed numerals represent
case nos.

86

Top Layer:

Centrally

C7---e-

Filling:

Middle

Reinforced

Plane

.---e

Unreinforced

of

the

Slab
xx

Figure

(3-19)-

Filled

Bottom

Layer:

Sandwich

Model

Centrally

Reinforced

87

N
y
N
XY

YX

NxNx

N
XY zx

N +YX
Tx

N
XY
Ny

xx

XY @Z

xy'Z" xx
x*Z

yy
Z

Zi

x.

zy
Ny.

yy

yz

Y,
Ny.

xy
z

(3.20)

Figure

Membrane Stress

M,
XY

y
Resultants

on a Filled

ym
y

Sandwich

Element

x
m /Z
xy
x

m /Z

mmx im
y
ly

7/M
m
xx
/Z

/Z
XY
y

A
xyAy
xy

'

YL

/Z

yy

mxy/zy

m /Z
zy

/my/

zz
Yv

Figure

3.21)

ir
Bending

Stress

Resultants

on a Filled

Sandwich

Elem6nt.

88
Table 3.1

Simnary of Various

Possible

Combinations

of Reinforcement.

Case

Reinforcement
description
Both

tension

No x

Known, values
. ....
f=
x

f=
a

fI

fx

= fs

=f

Method
. ......

03'a

of

Solution

minimization
(P +P
y
x
0

direct

solution

direct

solution

of

a tension

No a

00

Pa

x tension
4

Both

compression

No x

f=
x

f=
a

f,

f=

f,

f'9
s

nimization
(P +P
y
x

af2c

= O, a 2=f
x

direct

solution

direct

solution

a 6ompression

No a

Is

= 03'a 2 =f

x compression

x tension
a compression

8.

x compPession
a tension

No reinforcement

f=
x
a1=

fa =2 f
f.
S
09 a2=
fc

direct

solution

f=
x
Cr1=

f?
f
=f
s 9 a
0, a2= f

direct

solution

direct

solution

IS
x=

P =0
Ct

of

4-4
0

tj
4)

0
0

CD

+3
0

;Ei

4)
00

89

4-1
0

+1

4-)

4J
0

4-2
0

02 tl
43
g(02
N
4-3

0
u
+

4-)
N
TO

11
+

U
4)
m
0
0
+1

u
>-,
0
+

ts

0
C)

4-)
0
C)

4J
0

4-3
0

C\j

ej

?
1x

>-4

c3
u

L%n *--,
L

0
V

0
+

0
u

V)
0
U
+i
4-3

%-0
cli
+

4-)
0
0
0

-Its"

cq

4-3
0
(U
lw
ca

+3

cli

04

ul
0
C)

0
u

+
04
u
4)

0
0
ci

>1
to
f+4

t)
+

N
0
4-4

43
0

r.
0
. r.4
43

Cj

0
+

C\j
+

>41

t)

bo
.H
En
W
p

>4

0
x
CL

4-)
0
ci

rn

+
1
C\j

41
0

>4

0
u

C94
I-

C\j

>1
t)
+

>4

; _4
>1

tD
+

co
Cl

C\j

CY)

C\j

4-3
0
U

N
4-3

(D
to
Cc
C-)

r-",',l

ts

c)
41

Cq,

CM

(U '-,
41

E-4,

-0
4
0

ca
+
f-I

43
0

ci
00
VQ

4-)

CQ

-4

Ca
+
4.3

04
4-3
0
ci

43
0+

14
+

C\j

ci

m C\j

1
+

1.

-4

CM

cj

-0

Cj

+0

10

4) 4-3
0

IW

ci

43

r-i

_zr

r _5 I
C14
4-)
0
U

a)
0

04
C,l
0

4-3

00
0U

r-i

43
0
u

>

+
q.-I
>4

C\i

q-.4
C\j
>14

ID

1-01
L-1
+
>1

C
+

Q)

40,
0

C)

CL

4-)
0
0

4-)

C4

eq

S
rn

C\j

C\j

rl

q.4

4.4

C\j

10

:u
4. )
0
tD

0
Q

+
>4
r-i

M,

UN

90

00

4-3
0,

+
r-i

CD
9

4-4

qH

\. O

ca
H

>4

E-i

rn

C\j

t--

4-4

co

-iu

C\

91
3.3

Table

Boundary

Curves

for

Skew Reinforcement

uati
Cr

1
tan a
21 T

Y-,
17,2
r `cI[.

27

31a=-

4afc

Tr
XY

,r, y7
=I r

-4

'
c

x7y

af

fc

XTf

4]

XY

Lt

c
1r
2

an cL

r-xyy-F

Isec al

I+
xy

CY

TI

2 cot a -4-

7y
r-,
fc

T4

+iT

cot a(cot

'T
(YT

XY

axf
-r,,

ay
-rxy

Cy

a cot

Cot aa
co,
"r

xyl
11

10

-':

cot a)-l

fc

xY
-;7-

XY

: T)2
XY

--Y-F =1E7-2
xy
XY

cosec a cota)-l

t.

(cosec a

-2x

r--

sec a

+ cosec a 2 cot a0

cosec

XY
a

ax

11

(-cota
cota

I
coseca)-coseca 2cota+fc

cosec a cota)

Cr
-rx
.1+r
XY

12

a-x
1'r. II
y

13

(cosec
a
cosec a

-Cv

Alternative

sign

cota)

is

the

fc

+2'cot
a-4
7y

same as that

fc
XY

=0

coseca) - cosec a 2 cot a0

fc
Tx

Note:

(-cota

F cota

ax

14

=0

(cota
2cota

coseca)+coseca
cota

cry

cosec a

of

2c

-cTT
r7,
77
xy

r
XY

7
T

ot

v
C,
a cot a
1- 11 Irxyl
A

92

14

o
-

+
H

-4

+
r-i
0.4tj

cli
tll
1

C%j
0

>41

>1

1
>4

4-4

--t

4-4

11

U
4-4

i-11

0x

4-4

-4

04

>10

cu
lr4

W
0
1

1
>4

14

>4

1-

CL

4
0
qH

4-4

rn

to

tD
H

-m

Co
ca
+

CL

CH
>)

>1

-T

+
>4
10
;. 4M

ta

--I

C)

,-

14-4

1CH

r
_:

',

L-N

14.

10

E-i

ID
"
-

I q"

L--

'i

17H,

0%

93
Table

3.5

Boundax7

Curves

for

Orthogonal

Reinforcement

Curve

I.........

Equation

.....

ay

.....

ax

+
-I.
_Lc2- 1

JTXYJ

TX71

Cry
TXY

:,o
TxYll

-1

ay
T
xy

c+1
Txy II

1T. YJ

2.,Y-

/T

:fcf

CFX

--.

IT

xyl

1014
Ir xv

=-a0

iTxyl

IT-VI

I-4
zr

ax,
Xy

91
10

Txy

13
14

1r.,

Yl

ax
-=1
Xy
ax
'r Xyl
1

12

..........

T XYI

...

I
Xy
fc
I

Txyl

+1

Inapplicable
Inapplicable
rc

ax

T.

2-7-+4 xy

1 xy I

fc

12

...

94
CHAPTM- FOUR
THE PINITE'EL='T

M=OD

4.1 IINRODUCTION:
In the previous
in concrete

for

slabs

moment triad

by the elastic

In this

nonlinear

examples demonstrating
will

the elastic

designing

the validity

The

the finite

analysis-using

element method, which will

moment fields

of the finite

but also to carry


be described.

on the slab will

analysis

the reinforcement

have been established.

the finite

chapter,

be used not only to obtain


out a detailed

for
.

a given moment triad

is obtained

element method.

the rules

chapter,

Some

element model adopted

also be given.

4.2 THE FINITE ELEMENTUSED:


4.2.1

The Stiffness
In this

of a Layered Finite

study,

is used.

In such models,

the plate

thickness

plate

Middle

into

a finite

stress

condition.

The usual

plates

axe adopted

in

1.

this

four

degrees of freedom.
the inplane
following

noded plane

The two nodal

bil-4neax

order

theory

Accordingly,

the

layered

of two standaxd
stress

and

elements.

elementv rith

eight

degrees of freedom are


v, axe represented

functions

a, + a2x +a 3y +a ey

with

v=a5+

a6x +a 77 + axy

a linear

strain

variation

of, plane

first

of the

resea--ch(l).

by dividing
to the

parallel

assumed to be in a state

is

assumptions

defor-mations

element

are treated

of layers

=ber

up as a combination

rectangular

finite

noded layered

bending problems

plate

Each layer

plane.

element is built

fot=

a rectangular

Element:

(4.2)
within

the element*

by the

of

95
2.

four-noded plate bending elementp originally


(68)

A rectangular
developed

by j1dini-Clough

type element employing

degrees of freedcm,

twelve

of nodal deformations

vector

by a truncated

defined
deflection

W=a9+

aw
;wT j,
5v
ay

(S}

fourth

+ alx2

the layered

+a1 3'cy +a 14y2 +a 15X2 +


3y

aw
UI Vo Wo - -Y

form,

In matrix

(al

(4-4)

a, to a20 can be evaluated


linking

take up thei=
for

vector

by

the nodal
values.

appropriate

the element can be

as

[C]
a vector

of

The strain
will

[C)

(4-5)

{a}

is a 20 x 20 matrix

a)

plates

deformations

IT

t%e nodal displacement

where

the above

by combining

equations

simultaneous

when the coordinates

displacements

written

of the polynomials

down the twenty

writing

aw
rx

(4-3)

+a 20Xy3

element model defined

have the vec-, or of nodal

The constants

and is

in the lateral

order polynomial

a, 62y + a, 7xy2 + al, y3 + a, 9x

two elements will

has the

by

given

alox + ally

Accordinglyq

This norr-conforming

and Melosh

depending

cc]

be given

(4.6)

from the classical

vector

av

au

order

theory

3vbbb

5-X 9 5-Y 9 5-Y ax

components

first

of

by
au

in which the first

and

Inverting

20 unkno, m constants.
-1

on nodal coordinatesq

three

axe inplane

eb axe obtained

xy

components.

from the curvatLxes

XY

} (4-7)

The bending strain


at the middle

plane

96
For a layer

of the plate.
of the plateg

bending

the total

Accor-dinglyp
plane

th;

at a distance
strains

strains

are

from the middle

32W
-Z 57

eb
x

in each layer

at

plane

etc.
from the middle

axe
a 2w
Z =a
x

au

a0c

; 2W
Z =,
ay

av
;)3r

CY

au

XY

arv

cx1
cy

J
xy

a 2w

ay
aDc

in the form

El
=

2Z

+- g+

which can be written

00Z0

0100

au
ax
av
Dy
au
ay

-T-

(4-8)

av

TX

a2w
ax,

D2w
7
; 2w
2axay

In matrix

where
strain

form,

equation

(4-8)

{C I=

[R]

(cm }

is the vector

transformation

matrix

The strain
displacement
(4.7).
to (4-3)

defined

vector

vector

m}

through

Thus operating
we have:

{e

as

(4-9)

of total

at the middle

vector

can be written

plane

strains

at level

of the plate,

in (4-8)

z, and

and

ERJ is

is the

3x6

above.

is related
the differential

on the displacement

to the element nodal


operators
functions

defined
equations

in
(4-1)

9T

cm '2

*2

ae

a7

abx

*3

2a

12

-6a 15x

-2a, 6y

14

-2a, 7x

-6a,

13

4a, 6x

4a

2a
2a

aBy

a6

-a, xy

-a 2CPcy
6algX2

17Y

6a

20Y

we can w=ite
e
{aI

{Cm

e
61

[B]
in which [B ]

(4-10)

20 matrix at each Gauss point, called the


is a vector of middle plane strains.
{E:
strain matrix, and
mIe
Using (4-10) in (4-8) we will have
is a6x

ER
The stress

vector

Cr = [DI
where

LD]

the constitutive
Following

matrix

is given

IM any layer

by
(4-12)

{e

(4-13)

matrix.

the standaxd

(68)
p--oced=es

he aktment stiffness
9t,

is given by

[K]
and using
is

(4-11)

le.

is given by Hooks law as


0
-V
E1
z
V10
-, V,
l_IV
02
LO

[D]

called

[13

equation

jil

BT D3 dx dy dz

(4-11)

in (4-14)9

(4-14)

thealement stiffness

matrix

given by
[K]

(R

B7D (R B) dx dy dz

BT (RT D R) B dx dy dz
only

the bracketed

term in

(4-15)

is dependint

(4-15)
on the Z coordinatep

98
and the

can be performed

integration

Accord-4nglyv

cont: ributions.

ff

I Y-1
=
in which

the

constitutive

by sli=Lng
(4-15)

equation

the

layers

becomes

(4.16)

BT DI B dx dy

constitutive

matrix of the layered


f
T
ER3
[D] [3 dz
DI

Vi

Vi

-'YZ

Z.
11i V.z

vZZ
iii

j-v i
0
2

0
Z

eqnivalent

element and is given by

E
1

the

DI represents

matrix

00
,
Z

(U.

122
vZZ
iii

vZZ
ii

v
2

,
Z
ii

V.: z
. 1i

j-

0
1-Vi

i
2
v-i
02:: Z 10

Z
i

D
i

: Z?

ji
Z. D.

where N is the total


Equation
treating
cOnSt

composite

ZdZ in

uncoupling

the

.6

about
(4-17)

element

is

Plane

made up cf
of

between membrane and fle =


such a coupling

cracking,

even if

effect

the slab

constitutive

al effects.

of layers

across

slab

thickness

is

whole

element was initially

the thickness

considered

of

various
symmetric

with

the

model in

summation
matrix

terms

exhibits.

For reinforced

is bound to occur due to unsymmetric

The membrane terms Di dZ in (4-17)


i
any =ber

layers

the plate,

and the

vanish,

concrete,

of this

feature

made up as a combination

the middle
would

in the element.

the important

dictates

(d Z)i

number of layers

materials

If

4tuents.

properties
of

(4-17)

isotropic.

can be evaluated
of the slab,

layer.
one
as

But

exactly
even if

using
the

the flexural

terms
plate,

E.
dZi) representing
the flexural
Z1Z?
rigidity
l--!Y
II
depend" on the rramber of layers used.
Table (4-1)
in computing

obtained

accuracy

of the number of layers

as the =
Although

monitering

increasing

plate

the

layers

with

Table

of

which

10
12

1-00
0*70

The area integration

problems

tested

four

station

true

that

were

derived

assuming

space and time


by the

one material

1-333
1-o66
1-028
1-015
1-010
1-007
of the stiffness
matrix
(68)

the Gaussian. quadrature


in this

study,

is quite

points

a higher

a close

fac tor

co=ection

using

enable

Flexural
of a layered plate
rigidities
of =ber
as a function
of layers
.

2-78
1-56

performed

from the

can be co=ected

25*0
6-25

4
6

would

req7aires both a large

% e=or

is clear

thicknesses.

equal

(4-1)

layers

of

stiffnesses

(4-1)

to the

increased.

r=ber

it

The fle=al

in Table

is

the

gives

of the integral

Eh3/12(1--V2)

rigidity

of the

as a function

stiffness

The convergenoe

of nonlineaxities,

given

the flexural

ber of layers

in the compater.
factors

N.

flexural

plate

conventional
table,

99

it

For the range of

is found

adequate

but the stiffness

the computation

time is substantially

that

a reduced number of

to yield

ber of such points

of plastification,

in (4-16) is

will

good results.
enable a close

integration
increased.

It

is

monitor

is not affected,

and

100

Element Subdivision:

4.2.2

This element has been tested


to

is

found

In

bending,

distributed
is

very

converge
the

case of

load
good,

very

will

and the

can be seen even for


Table
the

(4.2)
slab

used

Table 4.2
...

Mesh

increasing

as an example.

accuracy

of

case

element

supported

be given

the

both

the

of

a rough

of

this

slab

study,

in

given

the

table,

x 103/224
D

Moment x 100

2. x 2

4*303

4918

4x4

4"127

4-22

6x6

A.094
.
4*092

4-2;")

10 X 10

4-077

4-24

Exact(')

4-060

4*57

across

are

those

loading.

qa 2.

4-24

to axe those mpas=ed

and moments refe=ed

of the plate.
(4-13b)v

layers

Convergence study for the case of a


Simply Supported Plate under uniform

Deflection

The deflection

of convergence

elements.

six

using

uniformly

and moments

2x2

mesh of

subdivision.

under

The rate

deflections

and

quadrant.

8x8

in Figure

simply

The mesh subdivisions

on a symmetric

the centre

the

with

a squaxe

the results

gives

depth.

well

by the authorp

extensively

The boundary conditions

and a reduced

integration

at

axe those of Type

order

of 2x2

was used in

the computations.
The inplane

element has also

has been shown in the previous


is

independant

been tested

section,

of the number of layersq

by the author.

the stiffness
if

the element

of this

As
element

is made uP of

101

the =ber

material,

one layer

and thus only

one materialg

constituting

of layers

load.

under an edge point


convergence

for

is the cantilever

convergence
(4-3)

Table

of the results

to in the table

referred

No-4 (Figure
Table

Mesh

4-1)

(4-3)

of element No. lp-neax

Convergence study for


beam carrying
a point

Maximm

of 2x2

is that

deflection/;

P13
--"
Ei

was used.

the case of a cantilever


load P at the free edge.
maxinnTn stress
PL/z -*xx

6x6

0-29a96

0-72017

8x8

0-3226o

0-82292

10 x 10

0-33507

0-88021

P.cact

0*33333

0-93497

xx

The

the support.

0*55208

modulus

is

given at the Gauss

0*24774

= the. section

of

thus only one

4x4

*Z

rate

as the mesh size

solution

integration

problem

the excellent

reflects

to the exact

was adopted and a reduced

maximum stress

4-3

may be taken equal to the number of

The beam is assumed to be of one material,

refined.

point

For more than one

materials.

The problem considered

layer

can be used.

at

GP

bd2
g-

NONLINEARANALYSIS OF CONCRETESTRUCTURES.

4-3.1 General
The behaviour
stress-strain
less
elastic

curve

than 309/6of its


material.

of concrete
of FigL=e
ultimate

can be explained
(4.2).
strength,

Under increasing

with

the aid of the

Under small

compxessve loads

concrete

behaves as a linear

loads,

concrete

behaves in a non

102
linear

The material

way.

high com; ressive


a limiting

valuep

On the other

also loses

its

A valid
thsse

nonlinear

sources

cases,

4.3.2.1

states

25Y6is achieved

compressive

strength

tensile

is almost

In connection
results
in this

concrete

of Kupfer
study

et al(56)

toog Figure

of lateral/axial

of the two
strength

to equal biaxial

almost

For biaxial

has largely
This

of

st=e'ss of 0*5

comp:cession-tension,

elements

in

in ultimate

in compressive

of the uniaxial

(4-3).

increases

strength

of 16Y6corresponds

finite

Accordingly,

The increase

is increased.

with

and in most

Concrete:

was found to decrease

the same as that

like

study.

Under biaxial

stress

to treat,

depends on the ratio

ratio

all

of nonlinearities

in slab problems.

for Plain

stressing

the
minimum increase
whereas

applied

this

of stress,

at a stress

stresses.

The latter

such stresses.

difficult

axe still

A maximum increase

compressive

The

become plastic.

to uniaxial(56957958977P78),

principal-stresses.

all

Other sources

in

it

cracks,

normal to the crack.

to carry

unimportant

due to biaxial

strength

of loading

element model has thus to consider

Biaxial. Yield Criteria

comparison

stages

finite

be considered

Under biaxial

purposes,

Once the material

of nonlinearities.

not

design

of stress,

they are probably

will

early

when attaining

states

and dowel-action

bond effects

and under

by crushing

at very

in a direction

axe thus left

under increasing

willt

c.-aqks

strength.

strength

layers

reinforcing

they

tensile

fails

ductility,

taken as 0-0035 for

normally

hand, concrete

small
all

the material

stresses,

strain

ow. ng to its

has got but a limited

the

linearly

as the

tensiont

the strength

strength.
applications

the experimental

been employed,
biaxial

failure

and is adopted
envelope had

103
(82)
by
the
Buyokozturk
been
of
works
confirmed
also
(58)
The Mohr-Coulomb failure
Tasuji et al
surface
(see
the following
same
tension-compression

strength.

and Pxager(l)

ignores

The use

of uniaxial

hence justifiable

4.3.2.2

for

between

failures

Johansen

a set

of

under biaxial

of concrete

thus

is

properties

point

is the same as

more conservative,

more by crack

dictated

states

than

propagation

of stressest

axe insignificant,

and

Tn cases--where

of View.

such differences
the concrete

as in such cases,

may not be reached

strength

ccmpressive

that

si=face

due to

criterion

interaction

strength

under compresaive

in the yi4eld conditions

of combined

Fig=e

axe largely

action

yield

any possible

from the design

nonlinearities
plastic

The square

states,

uninxial

under

the

over which the Kupfer's

a region

the ultimate

states,

compressive

is nearly

in the region

except

which implies

stressest

orthogonal

that

stresses,

a higher

predicts
(16)

section),

and

the structure

before

collapses.

The Yield Criterion:


fit

A multi-linear
obtained

for

the yield

in terms of the octahedral


IL2

(a2

3xyxy

Oct

+ Cy2 -a

surface

(4-3)
Fi6m=e
of
of the fo=(43)

sheax stress

+3

'a

can be

T2

XY

as
Toct

(4-19)

-a-ba0=

the
is
a0
mean normal
where
from experiments.

determined
strength

stress,

of concrete

under biaxial

and

compressionp

m =. f t/fc

a and b axe constants,

Taking

fd

fC as the uniaxial

as the equivalent

and defining
and

(4-19)
be
can
established
equation

n=f

to be
compressive

compressive

the ratios
d/:

Cc

(4.20)

in the following

manner:

strength

(a)

lo4
yielding:

compression

(i)

For uniaxial

compression -r
Oct
is

mean stress

for

biaxial

bf

/3 +a

(4.21)

compression
is

mean stress

r2
f
3d

Oct

fd/3t

-2

V-2
f
`7
3d
Solving

and the

then by (4-19)

fc/3,

V2fo
3
(ii)

r2-3 f.

and the

then

2b fd/3

(4.22)

+a

(4.21)

(4_.
(4.2)
22)
then
and
and using
(n
1)
nf=0
V-2
VT
+
(2n
(-n-o3
1)
Oct
0
---'17

1-16 from Fig-are (4-3)v

Taking n=

(4.23)

then

(0*1714
0*4143
Toct/fc +
=0
aolfc) -

(4.24)

(b) Terlsion-Compression
Using the same procedure,

TOct/f

(c)

cn

+ V7

R+

it

can be shown that

m) cr lfc
M) 03

V2

m0
T-M-)

_2

(4-25)

Tension-tension:
Since no increase
the

stressing,

(a If

is sufficient,

simple

in ultimate
circular

tensile

strength

condition:

(7
)2
+
-1=0
21f t

t)2

although

due t& bia. -cial

equation

(4.26)

(4.25)

can also be used in this

case.

4-3.3 Materials Modelling.


In the present
to be in a state
one material
although

layered

of plane

finite
stress.

whose properties

using

can be assigned

the present

element model,
A layer

is

are represented
formulation,

at each Gauss point.

also

each layer

is

assumed

assumed to be of

at the Gauss points,

different

materials

properties

105
to crackingg

prior

a Gauss point

to be elastic

assi=ed

in a concrete
having

and isotropic,

layer

is

the following

matrix

constitutive

V(4.27)

Dcv10

200

1-, v

2
the x-coordinate

Upon cracking,
(FigUre

the crack

(4-5)),

the new orientation

with

and the stress

The constitutive

is removed.

is

matrix
the

of

is placed

axis

axes,

to

parallel

normal to the crack


then modified

to

direction

accordingly,

be

-E00
(4.28)

D000
LO
$ is

in which

The =merical

for

the problems
for

gives

this

diagram for

concrete

concrete.

Literatu=-e

stiffening

in tension

of the principal

after

a good

(2-4.4-1).
steel

and reinforcing
cracking.

the modified

effect,

is used,

reveals

see section

in concrete

and

taken as 0.4

6 is

study

bond between concrete


to stresses

unoracked

To

stress-strain

FigL=e

stress

responsible

for

the crack

by
Tan 26

2 cr
XY
a.
a.
xy

However, the angle 6 given


The actual

here.

investigated

tension

account for

is given

in cracked

the use of srdch a valueq

some resistance

The direction

In this

respectively.

is known that

It

factor

s ranges between 1 and 0 for

of

value

cracked

justification

GI

the shear retention

concrete,

all

0a

crack

di=eq"jion

(4-30)

by (4-30)

Oc. is dete=ined

will

lie

between 0 and 4500'

from a Mohr Is circle.

lo6
The constitutive

D* is defined

matrix

be
to
transformed
has
thus
and
transformed

in the crack

directions

directions.

The

to the global

becomes

matrix

(4-31)

D' =TTDT
transfcrmation

the

where

T is

matrix

S2

by

given

CS

TS2c2

(4-32)

-cs
2 'S

2CS

C2-S2

where

S=

Cos ec:r,

the load history

However, during
might closep

if

on the yield

surfacep

the stress

(4-7),

of Figure

they would also

it

this

will

in

the

yield

the

tension-compression

corresponding

region

this

zone(43).

an open crack

to a compressive
the region

to

and cleavage

behaviour

of the yield

surface.

of concrete

one.
CB

exist
Since very

in this

region,

by a modif ication

f or such f eatures

stresses

intermediate

turns

is restricted

about the behaviour


to allow

be possible
s=face

behaviour

occur in this

of Ne struct=eq

the crack

across

unhere dowel action

is understood

little

sin e,,

of

done by corrverting
This is usually
e.lFechve
1to an7, -.
and using the
compression,

compression

yield

surface

(see section

4.3-3-1), tlaus
(i)

dowel action

is allowed

is substantially
the possibility

for

since

the loss

of stiffness

less. than the case of tensile


of cracks

closing

can be avoided

failure.
for

the

same reason.
The yield
in Figure

(4.7):

surface

can thus be divided

into

four

regions

as shown

107
1.

Failure

under

combined

2.

Failure

under

tension

Cleavage failure-

Biaxial

CB.

failure

cleavage

yielding

yielding

as far

is

BA.
-

is u sed to describe

f ailure

between splitting

intermediate

- DC

compression-stresses

c=piession

The term cleavage

- ED

tension

and crashing.

detected,

the

is

point

as the constitutive

a state

of f ailur e

In this

study whenever

treated

as for

compression

is concerned.

matrix

4-3.3-1 Concrete:
has already

It

for

behaviour

been established

concrete

rangeg some plastic

approaches can be defined,

of a given

ourve fitting
Perfect

yield
its

limited

before

in three

(3)
after
and

it
flow

reaches

its

ability

befcre

flowv

crushing

The-complete

parts:

(1) before

a ductile

stress-strain

on the

To account

strain.

crashing,

yield,

material

a perfectly

for

plastic
is

relationship

(2) during

plastic

flow,

fracture.

Before yieldv
plastic

using

plasticity:

can f low like

concrete

plasiic

relationship

methods.

be
introduced.
can
model
developed

of concrete

theorems

stress-strain

and work hardening

In compressiong
surfacep

the analysis

plasticity

and work-hardening

2. Representation

4.3-3.1(a)

two

Accordingly,

forces:

under compressive
1. Perfect

which deal with

load

Beyond

capacity(58,59).

involved.

is

action

elp-stic

only to small

is limited

under compression

range up to about 30 to 50% of the ultimate


this

linear

an initial

that

a linear

a yield

surface

The famous Von Mises criterion

elastic

model can be used.

is needed to define
defined

in te=s-of

During

the

the onset of yield.


an effective

stress

108
as
(a2 + crz -aay
xy

+3r)i-a
xy

(4-33)

has been used by many investigators(47948950)0


To const--uct

the stress-strain

of the plastic

the normality

deformation

(mown as the no=ality

surface

in the plastic

relationship

rule)

rate

Thus

aF
ac
X>0

in which

in

and expressed

lose
to
assumed

is a scalar

all

of

its

their

axe all

of

After

The onset of

analogous

fracture,

to

(4-33)
is

concrete

this

approach

that

is

is reached.

surface

nonlineax

action

is

In case 'of planar

such an assumption

predictions

of a given stress-strain

curve fitting

empirical

respective

methods: -

stress-strain

principal

equations

stress

and strain

expressed
values

in

terms

of

have been

by fitting

test
curves. to the laxge amounts of biaxial
(60)
'8P59)
-O'
Works by Liu et al,
Irasuji
Buyokoz
tLk(82)
et
and
al(r.
,

established
data.

surf ace,

strains(50).

Representation

Curve using
Various

a crushing

subjected in plane compressive forces,


(43)

may lead to stiff

4.3-3.1(b)

factor.

proportionality

strength.

the yield

until

structures

using

terms

One disad: vantage

ignored

(4-33)

can be def ined

fracture

to the yield

vector

is used.

range,

of this

type.

The following

equation

a e:
a

1+

represents

a uni; xial

12

1+

.p*7Pct

(4-34)

21[c-

stress-strain

curve

for

concrete,

and was

109
originally

proposed by Liu,

Mcperiments

initial

modulus

indicate

that,

the constants

are
a=E
CP =

0*0025 for

C10

cu

for

elastic
corpression

uniax-, al compression.
e

(4-34)
Equation
may also be used for concrete in tension(58978)9
in

this

ep = 00000159 up = ft-

case

For the rz-,merical


is

Elms

(6)

intermediate

Chen et
and
,

al(78).

loading

surface

the stress-strain

diagram.

have 4.
-he shape of

the

mediate

surfaces

in-ermediate

cc

fE
C*

cc

the instantaneous

stress

oo=esponds

yield

fco

This
Bell

after

Accordingly,

the

inter-

(4424) but with

f
the
strength
ult
-imate
replacing
c
cc
(43)
-as
has been suggested by Johnaxry

an
An

(4-35)

(Ec/Ei)

in

are-ass, =*ed to

surfaces

by equation

and

discontinuity

to the initial

surface.

is

shown in Figure

are

Subsequent loading

=f
-ft+ft
co
cc

to

loading.

surfaces

(4-34)

equation

strength
f

loading

Such surfaces

limiting

studyg

the monotonic

be represented

will

form for

empirical

subject

during

done by using

The first

adopted in this

procedure

linearized

incrementally

usually

and

is the initial

modulus.
(4-34).

modulus i's computed using

In this

research,

The discontinuity

is taken as 505/6fcuo

4-3-3.2 Reinforcing Steel:


In the present layered approach, steel b,=s axe represented by a
layert
smeared
bars.
the
of
bilineax

whL; h can carry


The stress-st=ain,

relationship

stresses

only

curve for

in both tension

in the original

steel

direction

ba--s is taken as a

and compression,

Fiouxe

(4.8).

110

bars

Steel
in

thus

are

case of high

assumed to have a definite


bars,

yield

P- proof

stress

yi eld

fy,

point

and

to 0.2yo strain

corresponding

is used.
Prior
After

to yieldingg

stresses

load increment,

modulus.

-md used in the subsequent

a secant modulus is calculated

yielding,

the initial

are omputed uzing

as

(4-36)
hardening

Linear

strain

4-3-4

Pseudo-load

surf ac e.

surfaces

on the yield
state
for

is always kept within

Within

the cur=ent

In this

the stiffness

in

the material

yield
beyond

state

is brought

back

whenever such a stress

matrix

loading

the integration

used for

f==:

whenever excess stresses

any material,.

constitutive

study,
(68)
for
Gauss (padrature
and
,
as that

results

use in the subsequent

during

equilibrium

(4-37)

axe removedg and the stress

su::face.

existag
their

axe obtained

Lack of"equilibrium

of

axe used to supplement

Such forces
dv

vector

lack

analysis

=p_BG

where the stress

from

resulting

in a nonlinear

load vector.
ex
F

the yield

forces

load increment

the current

so desired.

if

vector:

"'he out-of-balance

a certain

be incorporated,

can also

of the material

is modified,

step.
(4-37)

is Performed using

the same order

consistency,
computation,

the

of integration

is also adopted.

The =erical
procedure used in this study employs a total
strain
(43)
technique at each load level.
Using such procedures would eventually
lead to large
going

extensive

ps-eudo-forcesl

Paxticulaxly

plastification.

And if

when the st=icture

is under-

the load increment-is-made

ill

these induced

sufficiently

smallt

predictions,

especially

level

by allowing

if

forces
is

equilibrium

the required

derivation

of
with

analysis
increment

is

such bounds

on the

a load increment

with
in

such bounds

in

given

Johnar--y(43),
(C).

Appendix

load

Accordingly,

which depend on the degree

Following

0*15 Pcr

than

at each load

namber of ite=ations.

in the structure.

to be less

to unacceptable

satIsfied
.

bounds can be set on the load increments,

of plasti. fication

lead

will

the

However,

increment , requires

the

load

(43),
acceptable

although

have been obtained


of 0-2 P
or

predictions

be shown

as will

(4-4-1).

4-3.5 Details

of the Numerical Procedure:

An incremental,
initial

stiffness

total

in small

increments,

followed

by a succession

is maintained.
be satisfied

is used

matrix

iterative

strain,

within

(43,68945)

is represented
to zero.

equilibrium

at any stage is recycled

The excess force

At any moment, these excess forces


the start
solution

at the beginning

fictitious

load vector,

to the accumulated

(4-37)9

nonlinear

contains
effects

tried,

equilibrium

the excess forces


the lack

of

is achieved.

equilibrium

Accordingly,
increment
all

loads

using

in addition

from previous

resulting

at

the elastic

is obtained

applied

to

equation

axe added to the load vector

of a load
that

with

representing
until

load increment.

of the next

until

the equilibrium

by equation

ex
ter-ding
F

is first

problem

iterations

At any stage of loading,

the

The load is applied

eachg an elastic

of linearized

using

proced=e

load

increments.
The convergence
generally

of the residual

slowq particularly

load vector

when the initial

ex
P
towards

stiffnesses

zero is

axe used.

112
have been used,

Accelerators
hese

successful

the -course of this

during

10 to 15 iterations
in this

considered

2.

The global

the

along

the problems

all

stiffness

the Gaussian-elimination
is

displacements.

and curvatures

For each sampling

steps:

integration

considered

order

in this

stiffnesses,
of 2x2

study.

The matrix is then decomposed


(68)
procedure

procedures(31).

load increment

strains

between

a limit

is formed from the elements matrices,

matrix

using

nodal

following

A reduced

standard

for

However,

are formed from the layers

matrices

using

A small

but

most of the problems

for

goods results

Gauss quadrat=e.

is used for

was found that

it

study,

proceeds

Elements stiffness
using

techniques,

any one type.

with

exists,

research.

The solution

1.

procedure

examined various

results

yields

no universal

(65)

Phillips

were not -tried.

could not obtain

but since

is solved

and the structure

applied,

From nodal

displacementsq

middle

plane

are found at the Gauss points.


in a layerg

point

the total

strains

axe found

from: -

(4-38)

+ZX
Using the current
and principal

constitutive

state

transition

criteria.

If

for

all

at the point

matrix

If

sampling

any of the criteria

at the s=pling

the point,

stresses

axe found.

stresses

The stress

repeated

D for

matrix

point

is checked against

none axe violatedv


points

in all

are violated,
is changed.

the -. elevant

stePs 4 and 5 are

layers

in all

the constitutive

elements.
matrix

The change in the stiffness

D is used to compute the excess stress,

and the stresses

113
back to within

axe then brought

to the stress

contribution

N=a

dz

NIM

vectors

is

(4-39)

az dz

IM=

fox- all

steps are repeated

and in all

e.

resultant

The point

surface.

from

calculated

Previous

the yield

sampling

in all

points

layers

elements.

For each element,


nodal forces

is assembled from elements contributions

are relpeatedf

ex
is added to the load vector,
F

vector

and the structure

(4-41)

F1

-E

The excess force

then examined, using

is

and equilibrium
[PI

N and MO thus

resultants

at the nodes,

the

(4-40)

The global force vector

lip "I

is used to evaluate

from the stress

resulting

FfN)_,

integratian

r=erical

is analysed

using

[, ex 1,

is checked,

and convergence

wid stePs 4 to 8

using

the displacement

norm
6d aT

NCEM=([

10.

ass=ed

If

convergence

is achievedg

is

exhaustedt

limit,

(4-9).
together

with

When failure

increment

for

iterate

limit

Norm 10-4.

on the iterations

is added to the load vector,

(For the required

iterations

the numerical

procedure

of the computer progran, are given

the instructions
is

when the

(4-42)

4-5)-

illustration
Details

{d

1)

or a predefined

3 to 9 are repeated.

A schematic

(B),

a new load

see section

IT

to converge

Iterations'are

and steps

Fig=e

{ Adl /[d

12'

-imminentv

for

is

given

in

in Appendix

data preparationo

a ! a-rge disparity

between

internal

and

114
external

have yielded
increase

at

at

At such

a large

quite

faster

rates.

is

approached.

when failure

4.4

can be seen.

forces

number

could

and displacements

of points,

In most casesp

reinforcement

does not

convergence

occurt

AND COY2ARISONS.
_RESULTS
the validity

To examine

the

of

of problems have been analysed,


test

reliable

existing

this

bqth the deflections

be used to predict

developed

model,

and the results

data.

wide range of problems,


for

the

a stage,

The logic
model could

the behaviour

were compared with


is that,

followed

produce accurate

and the ultimate

if

over a

predictions

the program can then

loads,

of similax

types

va=ious

problemsq when using

different

design procedures.

In the end, the program is aimed at

ex=ining

the

design

validity

the

of

Chapter

of

equations

3 in

this

reseaxch.
A Square Sinply

4.4.1

A square simply
with

point

isotropic

Supported
supported

Dotreppe

Cement Association

The materials

et al

fcjA = 47,17 X/=


%=

139-7cm
FigLLre (4-10)

gives

using

this

using

model with

The analysis

curve for

a mesh of 6x6

order

and without

considering

and was analysed by

206850 IT/=

the load-deflection

an integration

under a central

d, = 114-3 mm.

Due to symmet--y, one quadxant with


analysedq

=-d 139*7 mmdeep

2
30394 I,/=

Es=

Load.

iDroDe=ties used were as follows

2
27580 I,/=

Point

1828-8 mm side length

slab

0-99916which was tested

reinforcement

load by the Portland


(46)

Slab under a Central

of 2x2.

considering

tension

stiffening

this

elements

slab.
was

The slab was analysed


tension

stiffening.

shows the high

115
accuracy

of the model in predicting

ultimate

load.

behaviour.

and Waxner(48),

s1wiffening

by ignoring

that

between adjacent

cracks,

tension

and the
produced a

is in good agreement with

This

who concluded

in concrete

effects

tension

ignoring

The analysis

more flexible

both the displacements

Gilbert
stiffening

in the calculated

e=o=s

can be as high as 100yo.

deflections

Although

neglecting
this

load,

the ultimate

than the actual

ultimate

The computed deflections

tension

stiffening

model predicts

load 10% less

an ultimate

load when tension


show that,

must not affect

effect

is not considered.

stiffening

was not terminated,

i the analysis

the ultimate

load could have been -&eached, but at very high deflections.

Dotreppe(46)

using

by 100/-C. Although

is underestimated

the author

one reasont

(see Figure

(4-11)

slab with
size.

difference
6x6
and

aspects

as mesh refinement

is obtained
elements.

of the response

predicted

is concernedg

Materials

FigL=e
by different

with

this

(4-10)

gives

sizes

made using

improve with

different

using

its

size

ability

sizes

of load

between the responses

increments.

a reduced

model indicates

to

the two mesh subdivisions.

a comparison

of load

a4x4

axe predicted

nonlinearities
for

the same

for

no significant

between 4.
-he predictions

the same loads

how the predictions


Experience

stiffening

the same load increment

using

The same slab was also reanalysed


increments.

tension

model had also been investigated..

of this

mesh subdivisions

occur at exactly

to any

svch an underestimation

due to the neglected

compares the predictions

various

As far

this

(4-10)).

Other rmmerical
Figure

that

load

the ultimate

he did not attribute

is of the opinion

load is mainly

in the ultimate
effect

model also found that

a different

It

is appaxent

of load incremente
in producing

116

of the

load

cracking

(4-13).

Figure

considered.

when the

same slabs

59 10,15

30.

and then

equilibrium

satisfied

predictions

is

shown to

in

is

lead

level,

its

lead

never

number of

accuracy,

analysis

formulation

a limit

satisfy

static

t9

poor

iterations.

(44)

of

iterations.

have

found.

at

is

obvious

leads

to

expensive

However,

As a compromise

this

model
with

response

between

normally

each load

It

good desirable

20 iterations

of 15 to

level

results.

shows a vex7

of the

nunber

resultsit,

each load

from

static

equilibrium

and poor
at

increased

The accuracy

Duncan and Johnarry

equilibrium

should

present

increasing

to

for

predictions

mean the

increased

the

has also been

is

would

level.

with

to what

expensive

iterations

this

any load

improve

of the

results

number of

at

static

but

analysiss
in

to

the

any case,

that"attempts

demanding

that

total

contradiction

They claimed

around 0.08

the number of iterations

gives

In

is

This

is taken

cr"

of increasing

The effect

the

when. the load increment

predictions

accurate

cost

produces

and

acceptable

results.
The effect
also

been studied

using

bound'ary

flexural

imposing

of

various

this

conditions

For

model.
are

Such a slab

different

ways, and each can be considered

their

inplane

effect

load.

on the

boundary

investigated

restraints

is

The predicted

response'for

supported
the

to membrane
quite

support.

In this

movements have been tried,


model.

in
Figure
are shown

same simply

in

the

slab,

restraints

as a simple

made by this

predictions

conditions
the

to inplane

the

can be supported

movements

different

but

have

conditions

supported

a simply

obvious,

are

study,

ambiguous.

membrane boundary

slab

slab

Four

(4.14b).
under

types

of

The prob.',.em

a central

corresponding

to see

to

point
each type

of

117
boundary

condition
(4.14a)

Figure

various

solutions,

elastic

the effect

usually

in

obtained

to inplane

However,

load.

inplane

of various

each

movements

and the ultimate

load is not affected

Even the cracking

is insignificant.

predictions

the restraint

both the computed deflections

affected
for

the

compares

(4.14a).

Figure

increasing
of

The effect

case.

shown in

is

restraints

by such

variations.
(4.14a),

From Figure
gives
load.

4.4.2

for

type

this

will

both

boundary

the

that

clear

the

response
in

be adopted

type

conditions

and the

ultimate

simply

analysing

slabs.

The Slab Tested by McN61ce:


This

tested

is

predictions

accurate

Accordingly,

supported

it

slab

was a square

by Jofriet

simply

and McN41ce

44.7 =a deep, isotropically


The slab was tested

supported

(21)

under a central

was
and
.

mm.square

0-85%, reinforcing

with
point

corners

was 914.4

The slab

reinforced

four

at

and

steel.

load,

and had the following

fy=

331 11/=2

properties:

fcu = 48.62 N/=2

N/=2

= 2.413

ft

N/=2

ES = 200000

28614 N/=2

Ec=

= 33-3 =

d,

N/=2

v=0.15

44.7 =
A mesh of

with

4x4

elements

increment
load
a

in Figure

(4.16),

Two results

of

size

over

of 0.1 P
cr.

and the results

analyses

had been

quadrant

asymmetric

Details

of the analysis
given

here,

was used,

of the slab

are shown

in Figure

one for

the

together

slab

(4-15).
with

pin

118
at the

supports
in both

in

model

analysing

In both

in

here

one obtained

reported

which

using

inplane

boundary
here

obtained

predictions

pin

are

supports

shows a

stiffness
it

supports.

was actually

the

computed

The results

conditions.

Since

considered

in

difference

the

bending

condition

stiffer

predicts

cases, the discrepancy with


(42)
Hand
layered
a
using
,

boundary

a reduced

using

supports

roller

noticed

inplane

The agreement

supports.
pin

one with

also

slabs

variation
(46)
by Dotreppe

obtained
the

this

due to

response

4.4.3

the

while

with

is not too serious.

results

experimental

roller

Analysis

good.

loads,

with

other

response at high levels.

flexible

the

quite

at high

behaviour

to

is

cases

the

corners,

are

identical

had not

been

used in

the

test,

satisfactory.

Tee-Beam BI Tested by Rao:


This problem was chosen to demonstrate

to analyse

by Rao(39) using
and plain
analysis

of beam elements

a combination

stress

elements

tested

This beam was first

complex structures.

for

the flanges.

of this

the ability

for

model

and analysed

the web of the beam,

The data needed for

the

were as follows:
48 NI=2-

fy=

340

Ec=

35000 N/mm2

E!
s

200000 N/mm2

ft

4.8 N/mm2

fau

N/=2

v=0.2

Other geometrical
The beam was analysed

Due to symmetry,
the span and half
here

comprised

of

subject

to

a single

only one quarter

the flange
six

of the beam are given

properties

elements

width

point

at the

the

spans

here.
and four

(4.18).

centre.

of the beam represented

was analysed

along

load

in Figure

by half

The mesh used


across

the

flange.

119
The computed load-deflection
beam is given
(of

load

16 kN) in- comparison

low

cracked

the

tensile

the

beam, but

the

present

of 5% f

a value

of the

load

the

and suggested

load

cracking

of 9 kN,, but

Rao(39)

in his

that

the beam being

use of 0.96

he later

value

were too

predictions

a higher

He suggested

be due to

could

This

bean.

load.

cracking

concrete.

load

made are

predictions

if

his

still

cracking

of the

point

predicts

actual

load

a high

test,

of

ultimate

As for

to

prior

the

ultimate

such

the central

This analysis
with

cracking

strength

the

predict

the

obtained

experimental

already

exactly

also

analysis,
the

(4-17).

in Figure

predict

could

curve for

flexible,

N/=2

used to

for

analyse

and could

not

correctly.

model3, apart

from

the high

The cracking

acceptable.

is used for
CLL

the tensile

cracking

load,

could

have been

load

strength

the
reduced

of concrete.

4.4.4 Hayes'--Slab-Beam System


This is a square slab which is monolithically
beams.

supporting

The slab was chosen from a series

supported

simply

designated

by edge beams of

ca

ft

same flexural

at the corners.

supported
=

35.3

N/mm2

2.65

N/=2

Ec=

stiffness,

The relevant
fy

on integral

The slab was

Al by Hayes et, al

the

of tests

its

The present slab represents


(84)

by
Hayes et al.
conducted
systems
slab-beam
the slab-beam test

cast with

which

were

data is as follovs:
300 N/mm2
210000 N/=2

24710 N/=2

v=0.15
Other dimensions

and reinforcement

data are given

in Figure

(4.19).

120
The slab

reinforcement

The slab

was analysed.

using

quadrant.

The load

and an increment

size,

synmetric
load,

was uniformly

Tension

stiffening

incremental
30 iterations

are

excellent

ability

of

systems.

The analysis

beams to

in

was allowed

The results

occur

is exactly

the

of steel

convergence

56 kN),

to the

yield

The solution
was further
pre-sent

the

would
reduced

model

beam system.
with

in

Figure
very

(84)

slab-beam

slab

and the

18 M).

in his

load,

only
First

convergence.

beams, at

of the supporting

After

This

experiments.

which again agrees very well

the

with

of the steel,

yielding

and the total

was not obtaineds

desired

levels

(4.19)

is

first

Under

the

ultimate
the

predict
load
supporting

the

size

yield.
the

ultimate

a mechanism

the

achieved,

appearing

of
In

load

problems.
increment
the

any case,
load

of

had already

beams yieldings

the

after

caused by convergence

attaining

accurately

was not
effects

if

in

the

of

of

was reached in each load increment.

could

reinforcement

by Hayes

much improve

after

shows the

5 kN/m2 (about

of

The stiffening

great.

on the

set

behaviour

cracking

a load

limits

Although

load

first

in the paper..

allowed

first

the

predicting

at the centre

to the specified

was not

The figure

were needed to achieve

number of iterations

disparity

were

and up to 75% of the ultimate

was detected

convergence

analysis.

A maximum number of

(4.19).

the
at

range,

of 54 kN reported

value

4-3.4).

load reported

(about
15.4
kN/m2
about

the

bounds

distributed

as a uniformly

but

over

analysis.

in

predicts

elements

in
was used

cr

Figure

model

an average of 9 iterations
yield

the

simultaneously

cracking

section

in
shown

the cracking

In the post

of 0.1

(see

loads

plastic

a mesh of

was applied

each direction.

5x5

were neglected,

effects

in

spaced

this

slab-

formed,

and also

along

121
the

lines

two centre

and at the

slab

of the

centre,

Deflections

slab.

the'deflection

were

also

the

was greater'than

high,

very

slab

thickness.
just
of mechanism

The state

in
which
mode

rectangular
the

supports

Perhaps,
the

stress
neglect

of

plates,

this

the

the

example.

In

only

of
in

if

shear

the

analysis
state

felt,

that

conclusion

the behaviour

accurately

in

the

stresses

in

this

able

failed.

This

to predict

the

to high

plane.

middle

the

torsional

definitely

model

of plane

assumption

an assumption

beams,

for

of this

formulation

such

Figure(4.20)

is

the

For

thin

may be

effect
stress$

for

underestimate

below).

Predicted
y
The Layered Model

Actual
Shear Flow

Figure-(4.20)

to

model would

the beam (see

is

in the

of

But

be subjected

case,

the

lies

normal

has no effect.

beam will

in

The effect
shear,

model

actually

systems.

slab-beam

systems

the composite

represents

system

present

disadvantage

layer.

vertical

this

slab-beam
the

slab-beam

the

shear

of

described

Shear

Flow

in

a layered

Plate

Bending

Model

the

122

4.5 CONCLUSIONS.
This
tested

1.

in

its-present

author,

and the

element

by the

formulation
following

which is valid

A mesh division

had been

conclusions

for

analysis

Acceptable

can be obtained

predictions

are

an elastic

adequate for nonlinear

extensively
arrived

is also

analysis

structures.

planar

of concrete

even with

at:

a rough

mesh

subdivision.
2.

boundary

Inplane

conditions

The computed

nonlinear

analysis.

affected

by varying

is

It

chapter.

true

the

range

ii higher

-that

is

2x2

order

to be greatly

movements.

adequate

of problems

to

produce
in

consiaered

would

order

a successful

found

inplane

to

close

enable

increases

However-$ the cost of the analysis

convergence.

dramatically

when using higher

in addition,

no significant

this

in
thus
achieving
aid
and can

of the nonlinearities,

monitoring
faster

for

results,

acceptable

of

for

is

response

edge restraints

integration

A numerical

important

are very

orders

of numerical

integration,,

improvement

on the computed response

by concrete

between adjacent

was observed.
Tension
has very
Taking
reduces

provided

stiffening

influences

significant

this
the

in

factor
cost

though

are not

forces

which

effect

can be produced

increments,

consideration

the

of

affected,

occur

on the

not

when neglecting

in which

aids

by setting
case tension

of the

and yielding
large

produce

the

tension

stiffening.

bounds
stiffening

on the

plastic

predictions.
and thus

convergence,

Cracking

analysis.
would

accuracy

cracks

initiation,

imbalance
The same
load

can be ignored.

123
In all
is

size

between

taken

to yielding

of

of the order

0.08

can be obtained
After

present

The lack

of convergence
is

structure

undergoing

is
indicative
and
Analysis

is

at

found

to

have found.

extensive

model

each load

improve

cannot
the
In

yielding.

reduced

size

the

its

half

to

be

value

that

very

happens when the

normally

Experience

plastification.

this

occurs near ultimate


of the structure.

failure

indicates

the

increment.

conditions,

of

attaining

The accuracy

of the

effect

much by demanding

predictions

to

convergence

small

(44)

to what Duncan and Johnarry


(43944)
The Duncan and Johnarry's
model was a crude one$
the

because

of

layer.

As their

imbalance

is

are produced.

This is in contradiction

tolerances.

(successive

forces

by reducing

starts

yielding

of the imminent

this

with

equilibrium

increment

after

model indicates

this

with

steel

cases.

convergence

be treated

tolerances

small

most

excessive
loads,,

a load

to

in

the

with

in steel.

to yield

prior

load

the

program,

the

after

With

convergence

plastic

can further

increment

load.

large

tolerances

small

considered,

10 iterations,

than

on the

set

The problem

load

load,

cracking

Prior

can be achieved within

problems

cracking

reinforcement,

are not

achieved.
of the

of

the

less

to 'very

(4-3-5)

of the

load.

cracking

convergence

most

0.15

the

with

yielding

bounds

for

around

of

of the

in section

specified

when the load increment

fast

and 0.1

reinforcement,

increment

increment

If

0.08

15 iterations,

10 to
load

is very

casesq convergence

numerical

approximations)
forces,

the

of

assumption

restricting

involving

procedure
in

relied

assumption

of

constant

its

total

success

constant

stress

stress

over

the

strains
on the

released

always

under-

124

estimated

these forces.

their

predictions

their

model

were stiffer

was not

In the present

formulation,

points,

which allows

layer.

In this

was achieved.

able

for

it

Accordingly,

to

was not strange

than what they


achieve

equilibrium

stresses

that

should be, and


in most

cases.

are sampled at the Gauss

the variability

way, a good improvement

of stresses

over the

in the element performance

125

(-,

v
C,

Gauss points
N. B. Encircled

in a finite
element
axe the nodal =bering

12

11

7
8

15

14

13

5
6

in element local

10

9
4

Pigure

(4-1)

Elements and nodal numbering


f inite
element program

the
in
system

coordinate

26

STRESS

Figure

FigL=e

cu

(4.2)

(4.3)

Stress-Strain

Biaxial

relationship

strength

for

of concrete

concrete

in compression

a 2/1 cul
127
cr

Fi; rure--(4-4)

The square yield

criterion

for

plain

concrete

Y
vi

xf

x
Figi=e

-(4.5)

Transformation
directions

of

cracked

stiffness

to

global

If4

128

STRESS

ft

I- cr

Figure

(4.6)

Tensile

Stress-Strain

STRAIN

curve for

CC

concrete

"fCu
21

129
111f

pigure-(4-7)

the yield
"Zoning"
loading
subsequent

surface
surfaces

initial
-

STRESS

II

STRAIN
Figure

(4.8)

Stress-Strain

curve

for

a steel

layer

and

STIFFNESS MATRIX
FORM INITIAL
Ek-1
AND DECOMPOSEIT

[Pll

IAIOZE WO LOAD VECTORS


P2.1 =tNI;

rpll

ADD AN INCREMENTOP LOAD


[A
P
1
I'&
IP12
PI
P21
pI:
+
+

DISPLA' EZ=S
-' [ID
Ckj
=

dj

DETERMINE PRINCIPAL STRAINS9


STRESSES. THEN DETEMMINE
THE NODAL FMCE VECTOR [F
[F]

[a]

=Z]

dv

EDUMNE EQUILIERIUM9 GET


EXCESSFORCEVECTOR
I
[Fex]
=lp 21 _[F

ADD THE EXCESSFORCEVECTOR


TO VECTOR P1
[pil

+r P"

= [pil

-SOLVE FCR ITERATION


DISPLACMfYT
ex,
[j&dl = [kj
LF

NO

---

IS NORM [ad]
Fi =e

(4.9)

Details

of

the

SMALL?

numerical

-7-1-

procedure

YES

130

131

90
80
-

a-

70

-------

__

60
Cd
0

50

Experiment

40

DOTREPPEANALYSIS

30

tension
THEORY(without
stiffening)

20

THEORY(with tension
stiffening)

P4

Cd

r-4
0
E-1

10

4
Figure

(4.10.

a)

a
Central

A square simply
load
point

12
Deflection
supported

16
(mm)
slab

CU

under

20

a central

47971 Nl=

303,14
N/=2
=
y
2
Ec = 27580 Nl=
2
Es=
2o6850 11/=
1828-8

h=

139.7 mm

d1=

114-3 mm

px

e_(4.10. b),

Details

of DOTREPPEslab

Py

0-0099
=

132

80

70

60
PL4
%. -I

50

r-i

Cd

40

30

20

10

48

12

16

20

CENTRALDEFLECTION(=)
Figure

(4-11)

Comparison between the predictions


made by
different
for the square
mesh subdivisions
load
simply supported slab under a central

24

85

75

65

55
0

r-4

Cd

45

35

25

15

5
12
Central
Pigixre

(4-12)

Deflection

20

16

24

(mm)

Effect of using various load increment


response of a simply supported slab.

sizes

on the

85

75

65

55

P4

45

35

25

15

dent.ral Teflection
FigL=e

(4-13)

(=)

A 8imPlY SuPported
slab under a central
Effect
of satisfying
static
equilibrium
each load level
on the deflections.

load.
at

135

100

so

00-%

60

P-1
Id
Cd

40
Cd
20

48

12

16

20

Central Deflection
Figure (4-14a)

Effect

of various

boundary conditions

v0

L.

0x=C..

60C.
x
u=O
-,--0
w=O
0x =o

y--0

on the response

U--o
V--o
W--o

L.

U=o
ey.
=O

e
X=o

TYPE 1

U---V--W= fj

TYPE 2

=U

v= x--0

U--V=W--Ii

=U

C. L.
N. B.

IY

w=O
6

=o

u=O

Type 4= Type 2+
shifting
the N. A. to the bottom of the
slab.

=O
1
ZYPE

u--Iw=e =0 -I
y
Figure

(4-14b)

Types

of

boundary

conditions

for

a simply

supported

slab

136

16

i-'

12

0
A
$.

P4

P-4
:4
H
Cd
421
0

E-4

246a
Central Deflection
Figure

(4-15)

McggiOe COrner supported,

-slab.

cu

2e614

Es

200000

914.4 h
d1

Px

Figure

(4-16),

Details

of McNeice

Slab.

331

Ec

ft

14-4

48.6 Nl=

2*413
44*7
33-3
0-0085
p7 =

137
45

Experimental
Failure Load

40
35

D,

30
25
20
P4

Experiment
v

15

RAOTheory

-I
.C4
r-i
Cd 10
+,
01
.IY
5ff

Present Theory

8
Central
Fi

(4-17)
e

20

16
12
(=)
Deflection

RAO TEE-B.EUl Bl

a-w7"

1650

3300

1000

'

/gmm
@
15()c

120

Figi=e

(4.18) Details
of RAO TEE-BEAYIB1
(For materials
see section
properties

3.4-3)

15

138
C. L.
L.
C
v.

4*8
mm
A23
1

co

4,0*5
152
76

24

9-5
and

4`8 min

T
St'i='UPS @ 76 mmc/c

COA

20

16

Ebcperiment

12

Theory

10

30

20
Central

Fig=e

(4-19)

Deflection

Details
and load-d-+Splacement
slab-beam system.

50

40
(mm)
c=e

for

Hayes'

I SY -

139
CHAPTER'FIVE
INVESTIGATION

5.1*INTRODUCTION
In the previous
In this

established.
(Chapter

3) will

finite

a reliable

chapter

element program was

the proposed direct

chapter,

be critically

is

The design procedure

examined.

dependant on the avdilability

design procedure

of a finite

and can be

element program,

summarized as follows:
(1)

The geometric
loads
program

performs

initial

uncracked

at

the

Using

the

design

Using

to

required
in

forces
then

provide

inserts

(2)

the
in

directions

equations
at

are

calculated
steel

proper

areas

Xy
load.

design

resisting

required

slab.

A)9 the

areas

steel

moments and membrane


The program

each element.
in

in the

places

the

on the

resisting
for

14
ICY xy9M0M

ultimate

(3)9

(Appendix

design

computed

their

point

every

Theory
the

chapter

of

The analysis

Xy9N9N

specified

the

using

slabg

properties.
(N

at the

slab

State

step

section

The

program.

on the

distribution

stress

the

for

analysis

concrete

calculated

Limit

the

data

an elastic

on the

any point

moments are
(3)

input

and the design

properties

materials

are used as the

establishes

(2)

details,

the

two orthogonal
finite

layered

element

model.
(4)

To check
in

this

A wide
will

the
way,

range

be presented

service

a ful. 1 incremental
of problems
in this

behaviour

and ultimate

nonlinear

has been

chapter.

of

the

analysis

investigated

slabs
is

designed

performed.

and their

results

AI

14o
5.2

CONPARISONBETWEEN'TORSIONAL'AND'TORSIONLESS'ANALYSES:

5.2.1

General:
The provision

in laterally
14 MSM
xy
XY
to the well
the strip

This

is

method provides

dominant.

slabs

to

two design
study

is

design

procedures
to

compare

show their

developed
slab

in

relative

lcadss

Chapter

element

method

provides

and is

thus

in

moments
designer

elastic
behaviour.
for

Code provisions

cases

where

slabs

loads9

or torsional

the

are
Code

the

(4)

in terms

merits
cases,

analysis.

in

finite

the

econony
element

For, Hillerborg's

was used.
possess

the

of

zero

torsional

Such a numerical

to

The object

here.

compare
of

two methods,

by comparing
program
strip

stiffness

all

resist

A study

more general.

moment fields

design

to

reinforcement

has been undertaken

In both

was assumed to
finite

but

this,

the

load

the

uniformly

method would

solutions,

service

of

Such

torsional

from the

depart
the

the

in which

ignored.

as a series

stiffness.

Firstg

simple

is

M
Xy

be applicable.

the moment volumes.

in the

jeopardize
are loaded

moment components,

and to

which

designed

torsional

cases

of

concentrated

may not

The proposed

the

will

which

eccentric

provisions

the

in pursuit

moments may circumvent

subject

the

for

In fact,

component

is

sltb

two ways.

moment fields

which

stress

the

as an extension

the normal moment

to resist

without
in

stress'distributions

In the

three

assuming

Secondly,

distributions,

torsional

that

moment components

design.

method of slab

torsional

each direction)

unacceptable

nay choose

the

the three

can be regarded

reinforcement

is. unsatisfactory

an assumption

are

to

beams (in

produce

strip

Mx and My. while

equivalent

parallel

loaded slabs

known Hillerborg's

components

to resist

of reinforcement

method,
i. e. G=0.0

simulation

would

yield

141
distribution

a stress

torsional

zero

torsional

modulus

in

equilibrium

distribution

to the

opposed

0.0.

equations

Analyses

5.2.2

of

slabs

distributed

uniformly

with

also

the

present

were assumed,

produce

obtained

a stress

with

0 0.
M
XY

with

G00.0

but

As
are

"torsionas

be termed

and will

The slabs

lateral
the

and gives

considered,

rosults

volumes

Figure

for

moment fields

the

two

the

Figures

(5-3)

slabs.

Results

the

Appendix
of the
those

for

(D).

In

a regular

torsionless

edge can easily

strip.

full

lines

that

10 x 10 elements.
be calculated

For general

give

the

use,, the

slabs

tenths

variation
results

of

on the

in

the
the

the

in
results
are

------indicate

curves

had been

and 2.0

(D56)

to

the

near

of the

moment

square

1.5

lines

the broken

Accordinglys
in

(Dl)

Figures

diagrams
all

for
of

ratios

The numbers
small

the

indicate

while

analysis.

be mentioned

curves

in

cases

Comparisons

(5.1)

Table

sides

with

given

the

in

are presented

prodedures

are

for

(5.2).

Figure
and

cases

slabs

analysis,

in
shown
as

mesh of

design

seven

figures,

torsional

should

Individual

the

considered

all

nunber
It

figure.

for

rectangular

cases

proposed

strip

(5-9)

to

seven

of the

for

the

summarizes

The results

(5-1)

under

analysed

all

(5-1)

obtained.

in

and differing

conditions

were

Table

load.

have been plotted

the

slab

loads,

boundary

various

was investigated.

ratios

sides

the

(3),

for

and Results:

A series

the

would

hand,

analysis".

al

for

will

concrete

solutions

Chapter

of

such an analysis

for

applied

analysis,

with

other

This
the

with

torsionless

the

with

but

On the

properties

loads,

applied

Accordingly,

analysis.

isotropic

the

with

moments everywhere.

procedure.,

and the

linked

equilibrium

a "torsionless"

be called
design

in

curves

in

using

analysed

strip

each

distance

span length.

design

moment along

had been expressed

in

from

142

tension

those

causing

5.2.3

'Discussion

This

is

along
only

always
true

(5-1)'and

for

in

the

moment volumes

the

of the

the
to

moment volumes
torsionless

The results

results.

final

in

(5.2),

very

the

the

torsional

the

torsionless

Large

differences

can also

produce

moment volumes

the

difference

Dl)

(see

concentrated
torsional

percentage

discontinuous

which

(5-1).

that,

edges.

case of

types

of

moment volumes

or higher

slabs
10%

at least

other

either
20%.

by up to

free

edges.

The

considerably

from

each

cases with

differ

in
is

For
gives

analysiss

have

moment volumes

analysis

analysis

steel

to the
and
added
,

indicate

analysis.

Table

two analyses

as a certain

cases with

torsional

is

the

practice,

total

be seen in

as can be seen from Figure

(case'C),
edge

the

Tnum

value

are

steel

k5)
torsional
Cp 110
.

Appendix

torsionless

close

other.,
free

edges,

the

of

In

The resulting

to

two methods

that

which

corners.

for

the

between

moments,

moment volumes

on all
than

Table

(5.2),

the bottom

to

added at such corners,

calculated

more economical
slabs

torsional

supported

simply

torsionless

differences

(see

supported

slabs

two analyses,

were

the

of no torsion.

corresponding

Following

Table

that

With

reinforcement.

in

of

only

supported

analysis

been compared

simply

the

than

8% of the

apparent

is normally

midspan

are positive.

the torsional

same in the

the

discontinuous

reinforcement

slab

that

that

considered.

case is

this

can be attributed
near

is

=ments

is evident

moment volumes

cases

Accordingly,

5-1).

it

all

are approximately

difference

the

of the

underside

(5.2),

higher

gives

sides,

all

on the

for

convention

of'RLisults:

From Figures
analysis

The sign

form.

nondimensional

For the case of slabs vith

due. to

two reasons:

one

143
(a)

The torsionless

normal to the free


(DI8

Figures

steel

confined

corners.

can be done about

can be added according


This

has the

the

reason

to

Cpllo(5).

effect

of

(Table

in
moments

this

(a)

cause

case,

above,

effect

in the

reduction

discontinuous

the

of

n=ber

of

effect

confined

example, the case of a slab simply


and supported
(5.1),

is

sides

thus

(between

by a column at the opposite

32.2% and 44-TOO. Addition


between the two simply

of torsional

orthogonal

Take for

along two orthogonal


(case G).

corner

supported

steel

to

the

with

sides$

From Table

in moment volumes in the two analyses

the difference

due to

of the normal moments

the effect

supported

in

tends

ratio

(a)
(cause
above).
moment volume

the total

two

of the torsional

moments reduces

corners

the

5-1) to a maximum of

difference

torsional

the

difference

the

reducing

as the

increases
which

edges),

in determining

in

and reduces

But the

mity.

(9.5%)

The slight

but

over

This shows the importance

5.2).

(a),

in

the moment volumes from an average of 48% (Table


9.5% only

(5.5b),

Figures

edge, as can be seen fr=

reinforcement.

nothing

torsional

reinforcement

and D22).

(b) The torsional


However

the

'underestimates

analysis

between
ranges

over the confined

corner
to a

edges reduces the difference

'v,
18.6,
maximum of
The difference

the moment fields.


by the

two analysis

(5.3)

Figures

fields

are

given

such

cases

is

due to

the

large

differences

A comparison between the moment fields


for

to (5-9)

Considering
.

in

the

seven

in Table

cases

and in Appendix

by Figures

b.

produced

is

given

in

(D).

the case of the simply


(5.3a,

(5-1).

in

supported
c,

slabs,

d) and Figures

the moment
(Dl

to

D8).

144 While
design
with
Me

torsional

the

the

moments,

of

smooth variation

Unlike
torsional
of the

moment,

an advantage
which

without

requires
For
in

given

clamped

differ

slabs

to

B),

give

in slabs with

reinforcement

in the two cases.

For slabs with


on the

on a column
different

The torsionless

analysis

centre

torsional

little

with
is

steel

produces

Finally

D16).

Although

the

the
analysis

very

about

strong

steel

at the

214)-

On the

present
is

design

compared

approach,
with

the

bands

and supported

(5.9,

which

line

D49 to

steel

along

(the

ratio

of

hand, 'the

is

produce

of

even for

yield

strips.

two methods

other

a more even distribution,

agrees very

extends the full

supported

centre

between

of the supports

than 1.0,

steel

(case G) the

do not

the ratio

The extension

this

are

torsionless

two methods

the

edges simply

requires

analysis

edge strips,

edge to

moment distributions

Figures
from,
be
seen
as can

distributions,

principles

of the

greater

ratios

corner

also

pattern.

In the two analysis,

For edge strips,

opposite

value
is

This

miniTninn weight

moment values,

two adjacent

the

average

difference.

in
the central
L
0.2
to
and extends
about

length,

strip

on the

(D9 to

sides

in

strip.

(10)

is
about 2.
moment

to central

the

maxiTninn or the

on the

results

and Figures

in
design

reinforcement

slab.

analysis

reinforcement

reinforcement

very much from each other.

the support

free

varying

higher

torsional

the

variation,

zone of the

central

a significant

based

(case

(5.4)

tends

analysis

producing

continuously

Figure

be based

the- designs

over

the

analysis,
can thus

the

the

way of placing

torsionless
analysis

in

of

variation
a parabolic

produces

moments in

design

of

gradual

analysis

reinforcement

a convenient
the

a fairly

gives

torsionless

concentration

provides

well

analysis

this

the

free

torsional
case.

represented
designs.

D56).

by the
The case

145
is the square simply

considered

be assumed in the yield

will

in a banded form

strip

in the

to

proportional

the

the

in Figure
loads

ultimate

L where

x=0.375

(5.12).

L is

span length,

the

is ml.

the
is

is

two modes of
minimum when

This

same.

Differences

volume

steel

of steel

volume

two modes are the

the

of

the

then

the

By considering

moment volume.

in the

moments provided

so that

two

a centraland

of edge strips

be neglected$

arms will

into

divided

The ultimate

It

the slab is reinforced

design that

2x is m2, that

of width

lever

failure

line

in each direction.

edge strips
central

supported

the slab being

with

(5.1).
Table
slab of

will

give

and

0.0746 q L4
0.0241 q L2
m2 = 0.0475 q LZ
Now for

the same slab,

from Table (5-1)

(5-3)

and Figure

we have:

q L4

V=0.0744

(5.2)

m, = 0.0225 q L2
0.0475 q L2
=
m2

at

the

mid of
This

support.
L in

0.375

the

Equations
same results.
used in
method
line
in

are the
(5-3),

Figure
is

distance
line

(5.1)

(5.2)
and

failure

in

the

modes,

is

yield

had been based


it

L from the

at 0.15

Z, as compared

x=0.35

that

line

Since

two methods

the

show that

assumes many more bands.


here

is

value

to

analysis.

difference

The only

to

and the

value

central
which

equivalent

yield

each direction

theory
tvo

2 in

strip

(5.2)

in

The moment values

the

analysis,
the

derivation

on an assumption

can be concluded

that

of
the

present
in

equal

the

bands

three

only

vhile

yield

the

are

design
yield

ultimate

use of banded

loads

146
reinforcement
collapse

to

the

form

modes will
slab

limit

design

at the
just

infinite
an

load,
the

along

formation

due to

is

point

when every

distribution,

stress

and not

by simultaneous

failure

In. the

mechanisms.

according

of the

involve

will

of many

designed

number of

the yielding

of

collapse
portions

all

lines.

yield

5.2.4 Conclusions:
Based on what

has been presented

following

the

can be

conclusions

drawn: (1)

The distribution

be obtained

conveniently
Putting

the

solutions
the

Fernando

Using

to

Hillerborg's

in the finite

G00.0

which were linked

takes

'ith

slab

of

moments as well

design,

Solutions).

the

shear

modulus

were obtained

of Chapter

in
design
concrete
of
moments

torsional

to

equivalent

solutions

analysis.

method.

produces

method

the design equations

with

in the calculation

is

which

(Torsionless

properties

element

produce distributions
procedure

strip

can

element

analysis

deflection

method

material

finite

the

moments,

slabs

concrete

the
in

G=0

torsional

and Kemp's

isotropic

by using

modulus

without

and thus
(2)

shear

moments in

design

of

(3) to

slabs.

The

as the normal moments

(Torsional
of the normal design moments

Solutions).
The strip
produces
with

method represented
moment volumes

those

provided

obtained

which

fromi the

the additional

here by the torsionless


compare within
proposed

torsional

steel

direct

analysis

acceptable
design

is included.

variance

method,

t"

147
For slabs

discontinuous
the direct

around),,

(i.
edges
e. simply

on all

design method produces more economical

than the strip

method.

suggested here a saving

in steel

solutions

of between 10 to 19% of that


The suggested torsional
in the

variation
the

designer
the

either
the

strip,

(6)

In

this

moments.

value

method.
smooth
Accordingly,

design

in

of the

design

the

from

both

the

strip

on

moment in

distribution

original

the

some cases,
and the

length

is

a steel

strip

simple

designer

only

as a certain

Codes of Practice.
of transverse

distribution

method
provide

will

taken

by the

amount and the

should

such steel

which

over

of torsional

quantity

required

as prescribed

steel,
the

the

such

practice,

of midspan

direction,

design

far

and the

corners,

The method also provides


steel.

a fairly

average

provides

In normal

percentage

provides

case

strip.

method

at the

extend.

(7)

the

by the strip

reinforcement

analysis

in this

can be obtained

of

departing

without

The proposed
steel

distribution

maxiTnurn or the

Using the torsional

required

analysis

can base the

of moments in

a.11

supported

requires

no steel

such steel

based

in
on

Code requirements.
(8)

The method
line

yield
modes.

found

to

permitted
conclusion
yielding

simultaneous

compare

involving

theory

The present

of providing

for

is

direct

distributions
by the
that
of

yield
the
all

collapse

line

proposed
portions

with

accurately

failure

under

designs

based

collapse

simultaneous

approach

has the

advantage

of moments with

a wider

choice

design

direct
of

the

lead

The comparison

theory.

design
slab)

modes under. the

permits

design

than
to

which

approach

failure

ultimate

on the

load.

the

allows
with

that

148
C>l c)
11. m

2 0

'
1

CM

Ul\
ri

CM

CM
cm

UN
Pl

A
1;

Co

O\

\M

\Z

r-i
t'-

Co
O\

0
c;

0
M
r-i

r-i
%z
r-i

Ic;

cu
Co

0
C)

0
0

:t
(Yl

"

4j

Co
(D

cli
r-i

C\i

\M
r-i

ri

A
A
1;

0
C
r-i

r-i
ni
CU
0

Co
m
m
0

Co
m
t
_:
0

<5

c5

c;

(5

Lr\
CY%

tVN -

CYN
0

e
_:e

O\
r-i
c

CM

ri CM

(Yl
0

_-r
C

.1

sq

H
Co
H
0

Co
CM
C%i
0

\M
ID
cm
CD

f-A
(:
CM
0.

UN

t0

45 11

gq
0.

zr
tC)

m
CD

Co

O\

Co

c\
\M
P-1

1,0

ri

CM
CM
CM
0

r
--.
Lr\
H
0

ch

c%
ri

r-i
ri
0

"0

ri
cm
0

(D

(D

C>
H

cu
t--

C\
r-i
t--

1%0
\M

r
_:
u-\

C\j

CM

CM

CM

c)

C)

c)

C)

ri
0

U'\
t. -

r-1
n

to
(L)
Co

CD
m
ri
0

r-1
C>
(1
0

r-i
M

Co

(\i

CD

(:
CY

tC\i

\O
"0

ri

CM 0
0
0
(D

_-r

cl

0
0

4j

0
W
4
0

O\

(Yl

C)

4
C
14

44'4

-r4

>Co
CM
0

\D

CD

0
Ul\

%o
CM

c;

ri
2
Co

ri

CYN
r-i
C\i

14

2
LI%o
U-%
Co
t.
0
0C)

H
m

Cti
\M
0

Co

m
ci

Co
CD

,
0
ri

cl

%0

c; c; c;

m
ri

ni
(n
Lr\
0

CM

c;

ull
C\j

to

Ul% Z
0
0
A

C\i

c;

( c; c; (5
e
o
A

r-i
m

c;

c; c; c (5 c;
Co
ci

(>
Lr\

_e
H

\.0
P-4

E-4 0

CM
CD

Co
m

CM

LIm

ri

rn
0
0

. r4
4-)
0

(D
W
Fo
H
r
0
pq

m0

Cd
E-41

ri

0
rd

to

>4 bD
-r i rd
a)

149
0

c>
UN
t
.:

\Z
r-i
Lr\

P.A

r
--:

tCM
Ul\

D
>lo
A
11A A
_0f5k
0

4-1
0

11

E-1

0
CM
t
_:

UN
Co
CM

IZ

C>

Lr\
Co
N

-t
_e
r-1

tm
cu

LN
\Z
M

tN
\M

H
m
_e

0
\z

Lrl%

*D
CO
_e

Lr\
H

CD

CM

ni
t-LI-

A
Lr\
m
LA

C)

ON
Ul\
Je

CM
cli
\M

0
0

c; c;
c
CD
\Z

%Z

m
UN
C

(D

r-i
Co
CD

Co

0
H

r-i
H

c; c; c; (5
0

\Z
mi
r-i

Lr%
C%i
C\i

UN
tH

cq
tCM
C)

c;

C.
Lr\
H

UN
-tm

Co
Ul\
\M

c5 c;

010

\Z
cli

Co
CM

m
9

Co
Co

\D

Co
tPl

--t
cu

Lr\
C\i

n
cli

UN
H

c)

Co
r-i

H
ri

tr\
CM

00AAA4A414

ri
c\

tCD

4J
0
pq

Ill

0
0

0
cn
_e

c;

c;
Ul\
cu

C\i

\. 0
r-1
(n

LN

UN
C*i

.4
Lr\
tM
CU

:t
-e

r
_Z
r-i

ON

-_J,

\Z
a',

Co

Lr\
CD
CM

tc
ri

Lr\
0

Wl
0
\lo
CD

t-

0
,
Lr\

140
U-N
%o

CN
Lr\

c>
\,0
rA
0

Co

C\i

Pl

CM
O\

rA
ci
c)

Lr\
ri
0

Lr%
CU

CU
M

UN
CD

O\
_e

cn
\lo

u.\

t-

c; c;
m0
0
ro

:b

UN

Ul\

CM

AA

c:
0

cu

4-3
0
0

Q
PC

Q
41

0
P,

p4

10
Cd
E-4

0
pq
a,

t-

150
1

Co
c\
0

o
c\

c\
Co

-e
CD

c
c

l 1:
H
H
r-i
mi

CM

%Z

p;

-t

Co

\Z

CU

r-i

cu
A A 4

%o

Co

t
_:
O\
cli

C\i

t-

"0
Co

1
4J

o
Erf

t--

t-Z

UN
\M

r-i
m
0

.t>

0
lif

00

CY\
\. 0

H
0

rH
0

C%
e
_CU

Je
Lr\
r-i

0.
0

11

r-i

cm 2

Lr\
UN

o
t--

-t
Co

-zr
0
t0

0
r-i
O\
0

%10
(>

t-ri

0
CM

U-%

O\
0

C\i
0

r-i
(n

CM
0

Zt

u'\

C\i
(D

H
o

H
0

"0
Lr\
r-i
c)

H
m
cm
c)

CD
ri
m

1%0
C
_zr

m
Ul\
=r

CD

CD

H
CM

Ul\

0
r-i

ri

CM

Lr\
_e

c>

CU
\M

CM

CN
H

m
CU

Pl
tC\i
CD

.e
c\
CM

Co
_e
(Y)

UN
9

(5 c;

00

Co
r-i

O\

t-

cli

--rt
_:
H

c;

Eri

H
9

Co
C\i
-t

ei
CM
CM

4-1

c;

t-

(n

Co

CM

r-i

cu

CM
cu

Co
mi

t-r-i

ri
Co
10
9

0
Lr\
c\
0

IND
H
cu
r,

m
tcu
(D

CM
0

m
H

(n
H
"0
0

(n
r-i
LIC

ri

%I0

Co

t-

\M

t. -

c)

(D

CD

c;

t-

cli
c>
4
C)

\M
9

*%0
ri
UN
. (D
0
0

lIZ
H
H
0
CD

Co
Cti

_e

110
Co
CD

0
Z
0

>1
r4 A
rZI I ,

C)

U-%

cli

0
LCI%

4 r4

Lrl%
tl-

0
0

Lr\

Lr\

0N

44

1; C

oj
LA

m
8

4)
r-i

Id

00,

00

C\j

. ri rtl

rd

.1

rn a

.,. 1
to

A
Cd
E-4

P4
P4

04

4-) U3

rn

>4 to
-ri
; T-4

P
5 44
4-)
0

P4

., 1 rcl

r4

;Tw

151
VN

Lr\

C\i

(n

Co

C\i

cl

_e

4J
0

C%J

mi

r-1

CU

Co
m

Lr\
C
Lr\

Z
"0
Co

Lr%

01

lit,
>

Lr\

UN

t. -

_-r

c\

ri

Ll\
Lr\

(D

tt--

CD

Co

c\
_zr
C)

\m
Co
0

C)

(D

0
m
A

CY\
cm
A

Lr\
N
A

(NI
L-H

UN
p
\m
cm

A
0

r
--.
_e
Co

_e
(n
cu

t-\M
m

tcm

%Z
cu

ri
\M
C)
mi

4j
0

M
CD
m

pq

cu

t-CM
0

W\
r-f

E-t

-%. 11

_-:r

Co

CD (D

Co

I
c C), (5 ( (

t--

O\
cn
ri 6

rd
Z

Q) ri sz
rcj 1-,
. f-4

Co Pz

4-)
0
0
C.)

tr\

cm

A
1;

1;

0.
rl

Z:
0

. ri
4-1

rd
0
0

$4

P,

01

4-2

A
>b

r.

AH

to
ro
00

0
A
A

o
,i

4.
Cd
E-1

Z
t)

ci

152

Comparison betweenzoment,
volumes produced by
Torsional
analyses
-'Additional
andTorsionless
reinforcement
moment volume due to torsional
is
CP110
to
added to the case of
according
torsionless
analysef.

Table'(5.2):

N. B.

All

moment volumes

are in terms

G -'O

LxG00........
Slab

Type
vvv
total

Vl
..

, ...

a...

qL4
Y.
....
......
I..

....
-

+V
l.. a

.........
''TOTAL'
vG0
vG=0

813

0715
.

037.
.

1085
.

1200
.

0988
.

0487
.

1475
.

1.50

16oo
.

1309
.

05952
.

1go4
.

1.75

1995
.

1616
.

0655
.

2271
.

2.0

2357
.

1go6
.

o6gi

260
.

84o
.
878
.
907
.

1150
.

0791
.

0396
.

1187
.

970
.

1.25

2189
.

1444
.

0648'
.

2092
.

i. o46

1.50

3627
.

2385
.

096
.

l. o86

1.75

5431
.

3656
.

1304
.

1.095

2.0

7609
.

5359
.

1728
.

334
.
496
.
7089
.

1.0

0520
.

0378
.

0054
.

0432
.

1.2o4

1.25

07o4
.

0557
.

0071
.

0628
.

1.12

1.50

0910
.

0709

0085
.

0794
.

1.146

1.75

1096
.

0847
.

009
.

0937
.

1.17

2.0

1262
.

0986
.

00912
.

1077
.

1.172

1.0

1538
.

1063
.

0324
.

1387
.

1.109

1.25

2505.

1727
.

o438

2164
.

1.157

1.50

3866
.

0564
.

1.186

0090
--

3259
.
474
.
6744
.
...
....

1.0
1.25

1.0

AAAoleW

of

0882
.

1.75

5594
.

2695
.
4039
.

2.0.1

7727
.

-5844

0704
.

V, = moment volume without torsional steel


V = additional torsional
steel moment volume
a
V= total moment volume =V 1 +V
a

814

1.073

1.180
1.146

...

Torsional

153

Analysis

Torsic. -iless

Analysio

0-9

Gr

\\"

0-8
G

..

007

-qzr>)
1-4

o-6
GI
//
/

r-i
0

'it;

0-5

1
'.

1
ii

0
:4

/i
I,

r-I
ci
4-)
0
E-4

0*4

I,
/

0-3
',

JA

0-2*

0-1

'Ili
,SN
-

1-0

1-25

1,50

Sides Ratio Lk/L


Figure

(5-1)

2-00

1 *75
y-

Comparison
of moment volumes produced
torsional
and torsionless
analyses

by

be

154

Torsional
0-13P

Analyses

Torsionless

Analysis

0-20
J-E

Oo15
4-'

r:3
d

odl
ol
0-10

.00,

0
E-4

F
-.*,
F

LD

:, 0.

0-05

1-0

1-25

Sides Ratio
Figure

(5-2)

2-0

1-50,1-75
L /L

Compaxison of moment volumes


and torsionless
analyses

produced

by torsional

155

T
LY
I

0*08

(5)
C4

0-06

.01

0004

c\j

(4)
M

2)
loe

V//

(i )

<2 "'

1--,
0-1

0-02

.,
.0.,
000

0-1

(S. 3a)

Figure

0.081

Positive

Moment M* (L /L
xxy

160)
=

T
,,y

(5)
x

"\\---

-6

0-06

--

-----.

'---

/
-.

0004

--

-.

-------

(4)
(3)
2)

0-02

(1)
0-0
Fig=e

(5-3b)

Uel
Positive

-- u, z-

04

0- 3

Moment M* (L /L
yxy

0)
=

156

0-06

0004

0-02

0-0

Figure

(5.3c),

Negative

A/. Ux
Moment M* (L /L
xxy

1-0)
=

O-C
C'4
4

0-0

0-0

Y/LY
Figi=e

(5.3d)
.

Negative

Moment M

1 -0)

*04

0-03

157

1
LY

Ix

ply

..'

clj,4

el

',
.e*.

0-02

0-01

L(2

(1)
----

--

-- --

0*3

0-2

0-1

Positive

-\ ".-I

0,

0-0
--

,.

.1..,

-.

X/Lc
(Lx/L7
1-0)
M*
Moment
=
x

0-

U-

IL

0-04

LY

0-03
A

(5)
' (z4i

t>ll

al

we

0-02

0-01

(22)
-------

ol
0-01

A//Z-1
0-1

0-2

0-3
y/L y

Figare

(5-4b)

Positive

Moment M-e-(Lx/LY = l10)

0-4

0-5

0-05

58

0,,04

0-03

cm
b-ip.

0-02

0-01

O-C

Finire

(5.4c)1

Negative

XAX
Moment M (Lx/lr-

1 -0)

0-0

0-0

0-0

0-0
0.0:

0. (
Y/Ly
Figure

(5-4d).

Negative

Moment M*y (Lx/L7=

1*0)

159

t", ax

0-16

MX

0-12

LX
1,
l
cr

0.1
."

10.001

//

0-08

.*

"
..

0*04
Z
1.01
c
zo
/
,. 00

0-0

(1)

----

U0L

ue 2

XAX

Fig=e 5,.5a), positive MomentM* (LJL 1-0)


x
y=

I?

0008

LY

0-06

3)
0*04

4)
5).

01

0002

(2)

000
A
.01
0-0

U*4

06

0*8

Y/Ly

ELZEe-15 ):]a
,',

Positive Moment1' (L, /Ly= '-O)

160

0.

*1

0.

0.0
Figure_(5.5c)

0.1

0.2

0.3

o. 4

0.5

Moment *x (L /LZr= '. 0)


x

Negative

0.

0.

0.

0.

Ulu
.
Figure

(5.5d)

0.2
Negative

o. 4
Moment M* (L /L
xxy

o. 6
1-0)

0.8

1.0

161

o. o4
( 3), -, -'-

0.03
L
x

WO,

04

V,

0.02

0.01
j5 X-

0.0

0.1

X/L
Figure

(5.6a)

0.5

Moment M* (L /L
xxy

Positive

o. 4

0.3

0.2

= 1.0)

0.
L
y
0.03-

1111111,
lV\1111>XA/IX
1,
IXXX .

(5)
11-1

.1..

.01
10

11

14 )'

--

(3

0.023)
/

0.01-

\\ lk

\01
000

0.2

L
o. 6

o. 4
y/L

Figure

(5.6b_)_ Pos't've

Moment M* (L /L
yxy

= 1.0)

o. 8

1.0

162

0.08

o. o6

"-

o. o4

0.02

0.0

0.1

U, 4

o. 3

0.2

X/Lx
Figure

(5.6cl

Negiltive

Moment M* (L /L'
xxy

= 1.0)

0.05

o. o4

0-03
c4 >,

0.02

0.01

0.0

0.2

o. 4

0. b
y/L

Figure

(5.6d)

Negative

/L
(L
M*
= 1-0)
Moment
yxy

U. 0

u69

0.05

163
,

cq

o. o4

(4)

0.03

(5)
(4)

x
Lx

(3)
(2)

0.02
100,
(2)

0.01

.00

0.0
Figure

(5-7a)

0.1

0.2

Moment M* (L /L
y
x
x

Positive

o. 4

0.3

0.5

x Ax
1.0)

o. o4

0.03

\"-,

9.02

0.01

I-y

0.0
Figure

(5-Th)

positive

(2)

0.1
Moment M*
y

0.2
(Lx/Ly

0.3
Y/Ly
:-- 1-0)

0.

-I-0.5

64

Os O

0.06
r4

>%,

c31 0.04
1-
5:x
0.02

0.0

Figure

"1

(5-7c)

-.

-1.1 -0.2
0.3
X/Ix

0.1
Negative

Moment M* (Lx/I
x

; N.

-.

o. 4

0.5

= 1.0)

0.018

o. o,14

0.01
N
1.4

0.006

0.002
0.0

0.1

0.2

0.3

o. 4

Y/L

Figure

(5-7d)

Negative

y
Moment M* (lk/L
yy

1.0)

0.5

0.05
165
11

'o.
Adr

0.01

mx

-4

(4)
J2

0.03

f; 7 5-t: 5,.
(2)

0.02-

0.01-

00o'
.
0.2

0.0

0.4

1.0

ulfo
.X/LX

Figure (5.8al

Positive

Moment M* (L /L = 1.0)
xxy

/
/

0.
/

/
("4)

/
II//

/\

/
\

_L21

0.0
C14

2)/7\

0.0

0.01-

0.0

Figure

0.2

(5-8b)

'Positive

o. 4

o. 6
YA3,

Moment M* (LX/Ly
y

o. 8

1-0)

1.0

144

0.08

o. o6

o. o4

0.02

0.0

1
XIT,X

Figure

(5.8c)

Negative

Moment Mx* (LX/L5r

0.2

o. 4

0.08

CO

o. o6

o. o4

0.02

0.0

o. 6

0.8

y/L

Figure

(5.8d)

Negative

y
Moment M* (L /L
yxy

= 1-0)

1.0

167

o. o4

0.03

Lx
00,
'4" 0.02
c',
-

. 111111`

0.1 -/

4)
I-ftIIIIIIZZ7....
(4)
2)

" (3)
O

JI/

111

0.0

1
--o. 6

o. 4.

0.2

0.8

1.0

x/Lx
Figure

(5.9a)

Positive

Moment M* (L /L
xxy

= 1.0)

o. 4

0.3
00
100

C4 >,

. 1%

lop

0.2-

5)

(3)

1000

(2)\

(3)
1
0.2

0.0

o. 6

o. 4

o. 8

y/L

Figure

(5.9b)

Positive

y
Moment M* (L /L
yxY

1-0)

1.0

0.10

0.08

o. o6

o. o4

0.02

0.0
X/L
Fi; rL=e (5.2c)

Negative

Moment M* (L /L

xxy

= 1.0)

0.10

0.08

o. o6

o. o4

0.02

0.0

0.2

o. 6

o. 4
y/L

Figure

(5.9d),

Negative

0.8

Moment 14* (Lx/L


yy

= 1.0)

1.0

169
Mi

z
LL

2x

1-

2x

For unit
lines*
Mode 1:

4(=,
(t
=

[(Z
q

intersections

at the

- 2x)

24

qx

Mode 2

Mode 1

deflection

qX2/3

Mode 2:

+ m2 2x)
x)

)2,
2x
/3 ,+
-

of the

yield

x-2

+ 2m2x/. Z )

4(L - 2x) x/2 + 4x2

4m,
=.
(Z
2x)
24mi
Z2(1
.
For a given
loads

from

x.
the
V=2

and for

will.

minimum moment volume

two modes are the


(MJ(12

when the

ultimate

same.

4X2) +m2
-

(2x)2)

give,

0
x=0.375
V=0.0746

Figure

is

minimum volume
dy

This

the

(5.12)

and,
q Z45I'll

= 0.0241

Weight
Optimuni Minimi=
Slab.
Simply Supported

qZ29M2=0.0475

Solution

for

a Square

qZ2

170
5.3'NUMERICAL EXPERIMENTS:
5.3.1. 'Geteral.

A series

of computer experiments, using the layered finite

element program were conducted on a number of rectangular


The slabs were all

designed by the proposed direct

slabs.

design method,

except two, which were intended for comparison with the direct
design method.

of these numerical experiments is to

The object

study the service

behaviour of the slabs designed by this

and ultimate

method.
The proposed
elastic
that
in

analysis
the

the

resulting

slab

(a)

under

the

slab

The yield

the

it

though,
it

is

is

criterion

adopted
to

behaviour

anticipated
the

on the

steel

of

extent

service

under

on the

cracking.

of

loads

will

stiffness
Accordingly,

the

design

is

would

is

(a)

Boundary

in the study
Conditions.

load

is,

two reasons:
increasess

after

bound to
be

all

cracked

such numerical

are as follows:

occur,
Although

minimum.

is

sections

no guarantee

justified.
The variables

occur

criterion.

yield

be satisfactory.

of the

likely

not

actually

under-reinforced

there

provided,

is

deteriorate.

stresses
this

that

strength

in

exact
of

here

that

more dependant

the

redistribution

believed

dependAnt

gradually

it

following

as the

in the

stiffnesses

would
the

cracking

progressive

an approximation
Accordingly,

for

conditions,,

stiffnesses

However,

distributions

stress

ultimate

uncracked

load.

ultimate

elastic

Owing to

(b)

the

under

initial

uses. the

method

that

the

The 166tter
sections

and the

experiments

are

is

171
(b) Sides ratios.
(c)

Materials'properties.

in this

The slabs

into

can be divided

study

five

series

as

follows:
Test

Series

1: -

includes

ten

Test

Series

2: -

includes

five

Test

includes

3: -

Series

4: -

sides.

on all

supported

simply

slabs

edges,

resting

Test Series

slabs

five

adjacent

simply

supported

on three

supported

along

one edge free.

with

sides,

slabs

simply
the

while

two
is

corner

opposite

on a column.

includes

three

slabs

supported

by edge beams all

around.
Test Series

includes

5: -

two slabs

on the

free

1.0

between

All
In

and 2.0 were

Designation

5.3.2

load
design

analysed
a full
serial

the

the

using
load

test

three

seriess

simple

computer

is

sides,

intended

strip

method.

sides

ratios

loads

only.

examined.

of Slabs tested:

slab

was first
design

direct

and the

under

series

slabs with

slabs were designed to carry

test

each runs

and the

approach

In each of the first

This

fourth.

on three

supported

direct
the
between
proposed
a comparison

to provide
design

simply

materials

incremental
an
experiment.

names N1JMEX1,

for

designed
approach.

All

were taken
load

etc.,

safety

failure.

till

ultimate

a specified

as'unity,

The computer

NUMEX 2...

uniform

factors
the
This

experiments

and Tables

on the
was then

slab
would
were

(5-3)to

constitute
given

(5-7)

the

172
the

describe

type

in

each problem

of

each numerical

experiment.

5.3.3'Proportioning'and'L6Acling.
In the
2000 mt.

the

while

for

varied

four
of

as the

length

under

slab

program.

in

this

were

initial
deflections
under

service

slab,

the

research,

load

loads.

flexural

deflections

in Appendix

(E).

6es the predicted

also

the

edgess

the

obtained

would

penetration

crack

inertia

load,

and the derivation


Using the elastic
Tnaximim deflection

through

the

predict

IS(93)
Branson
the
using.

elastic

deflections
depth
the

(5-3)

the

the

method.

under the ultimate

under the service

of

present

equations*are

1
x
-a
-.
I
LF
eff

the

was used to

deflections

the

these

In

of the necessary

(3)

Chapter

reduced.

be greatly

would

of

the

choqen. load.

Since

analysis,

indication
as an

directly

moment 6f

of

program,

in the

include

the

equations
the

element

normally
under

for

analysis

finite

from the

design

were used

side

short

span length

and an elastic

from

along

edge.

an analysis

using

rigidity

6.

free

the

of

free

depends

supported

length

moment distribution

under the service

The assumptions

as the

was obtained

such

Due to

an effective

For slabs

as span/20.
depth

the

calculating

was chosen,

load

along

each case was taken

problem.

longer

be used

cannot

in

depth

of the

stiffnesses

uncracked

was

used in

and the

research,

the X-axis)

was taken

moments derived

The design

(always

of the

from

deflections

elastic

to be

cases

design

The output.

was chosen

involving

design
the

one dimension

"span"

span length

An arbitrary
the

term

For other

slab.

was taken

The slab

conditions

the

edges,

1 to 3,

dimension,

other

of the

boundary

the

Series

each run.

The definition
on the

in

slabs

given
load,

load is given by

173
where
6=
P

predicted

4=
e

maximum elastic

maximinn deflection

under

deflection

load

sex-vice

design

ultimate

under

load
(-*

LF = Load factor
19=
Ieff

In this

that

in

value,

design

ultimate

5.3.4

Analysis:

supports

one quadrant
one axis

was analysed

For
concrete

all

tested

layers,

or the

slab,

in
test
cases

analysiswas

tvo

to

design

only

In cases with
6x6
a. mesh of

using

3 were analysed

series

thickness

steel

according

aone by using

lines,

centre

over a symetric

slab

four

For slabs

using

For the slab-beam systems in

elements
the

the nonlinear

subdivisions.

a4x4

and

cracking

two orthogonal

from

resulting

chapter.

the slab was analysed

models,

plus

by the reinforcement
elastic

was taken
was limited

using

in the previous

over the whole 'slab.

4. a mesh of 5x5

series

using

The unsymmetrical

elements

has been traced

symmetry about their

of symmetry, half

elements.

the

of

due to progressive

described

element program,

having

6L

behaviour

deformational

under increasing-load,

finite

8x8

the

changes in slab material

yielding

depth

suitable

section.

load.

For each experiment,

various

of the

deflection

the predicted

the

choosing

section

deflection

service

Accordingly,

of the

inextia

moment of

the limiting

study,

inertia

moment of

= Effective

as the span/250.
to

gross

six

layers,

quadrantwas

as might

to the elastic
concrete

into

was divided

layers

used.
six

be required

analysis.
with

The
no steel.

174
k1l

experiments

test

except

were

compressi-7e

Concrete tensile

Poisson ratio

of varying

to

NUM
test,

to

on the behaviour

of

33.3

used, for

in most cases (except

in the slab-beam

which

In

force

following

the

have been investigated:


(1) Deflections:

will
(2)

load of the slab)

15 iterations

systems,

were used

where 30 were used),

The displacement

the iterations

used to limit

and

were

aspects

of

behaviour

structural

te=

short

deflections

For simplicity,

failure.

cracking

as 0.05).

norm was taken

evez7 test,

410 N/mraZ. In each

(e.:ecept the slab-beam systems3, for

10-4 and 0.01 respectively,


the

strengths

fcu.

ft=0.075

st

in each element.

force norms (see Section 4.3-5)


1x

The

LxAy=1.50s

The concrete

with

effect

slab.

KN/mm2

slabs.

all

of the

the

with

2, but
20 N/mm:

cu

study

supported

359 40 N/=2

points

to

designed

(the
0.1
P
size. of
cr

increment
load
a

sampling

300 NIMMZ
210000 N1=2

was the maxiMUTO


value

with

14000 N/nm2

10 were

load

Njmmz

E
c

was simply

series

a uniform

cu

Es=

steel,

properties

10 was assigned

2x2

properties,

= 20 N/'MM2

fst

were 20,25,309

considered

materials

v=0.15

steel,

NUNEX 3.6

in this

and subject

following

ft=1.5

concret -e,

for

materials

tested

concrete,

of

modulus

Experiments

slab

for

strength

Young's

strength,

strength,

Young's modulus for

Yield

the

4: -

series

Concrete

assigned

under increasing

only the point

load till

of maximum deflection

be considered.

Redistribution
bending

of

internal

in
moments

nonlinearity

will

the

stresses:
reinforcement

be considered.

The redistribution
directions

of

due to material

175
Cracking

and yielding
is

cracks
employs

a smeared

can be related

(4)

of the

in

study.

Failure

load

the

lower

be investigated

will

proposed

bounds

design
loads,

on collapse

and membrane forces

then

will

widths

can be used as a

hardening

strain

The analysis

possible.

the

use of

the model

crack

and accordingly

to yield

due to

enhancements
also

are

expected

since

the latter

of

measure
since

model,

But,

strains,

Although

is

present

approach.

widths,

crack

loads:

philosophy

crack

to steel

measure
this

by the

feasible

not

A quantitative

steel:

of

try

to

these

study

effects.

5.4

RESULTS, DISCUSSIONS AND CONCLUSIONS:

5.4.1 Test Series 1.

along

This

series

includes

all

edges,

and can be divided

into

includes
and

the

1.

Subseries

1A:

tests

on slabs

two subseries.
test

runs

and were aimed to study the behaviour


slabs

with

various

2. Subseries

sides

ratio

tests

were aimed to study

Results

Table

(5.4),

396979899910
slab with

supported

2.
33.3
KN/m.
load of

the effect

of various

The

materials

on the response,

of both

For convenience,

simply

under a uniform

sides

properties

of SiMPlY supported

runs NUM

the test

which were made on a rectangular


= 1.5,

NUMEX 1 to

ratios.

and includes

1B:

supported

are simply

which

subseries

a sim=ary

respectively.

in
Figures
are shown

of the results

is

given

(5-13)
in Table

to (5-18)(5-3)

and

176
)CA

-DA
'0

90.
a

p dk

NUMEX 1

60 -

NUMEX 2

See Table
5.3

NUMEX 3

0 NumEx4
NUIEX 5

OIk
30 Fa

08
.

0.0

0.16

0.24

0.32

o. 4o

0.48'

6/h

Figure (5-13) Load-Deflection


Series 1A

Curves for the Slabs in

1.20

0.9
00
p

Pd

bKO

o. 6

NUMEX1
X NUMEX2
A NUMEX3
4
NUMEX
o

0.3

C NUMEX5

1.0

Figure

(5.14)

2.0

Load-Ma:Zimum Steel
Series 1A

3. o
.cy
ej
Strains

4. o

5.0

in the Slabs in

6. o

,Z1-

177
C. L.

C. L.

68 68
76
.
.
.

92
.

091

6d C.L.
76
.
.

04
.81
.

73
.

1.12

H-2.
92
766
.
.8
.

91
.

NUMEX I

65

74
70
.
.
1
82

78
.

l. o4

99
.

i. o4

CoLe

NIJNEX 2

C. L.

C L.

91
.

78
.

1.03

82

83

70
.

69

78
.

65

96
.

69

1.0

78
.

74
.

74
.

o83

78
.

74
.

91
.

87

83

C.LO
0.91

82

1.04

78
.

1.129

1.04
NUMEX

NUMEX

C. L.

93
.
i. o4

78
.

74
.

74
.

*83

78
.

78
.

0.91

0.87

87

C.L.

NUMEX
P/P

Figure

(5.15)

Causing Yield
d

Spread of Yield

in the Slabs in Series

1A

a
C, L

-1
1.1291

ze

178

0
E-4

Cd

Id

01 Id
P-4
P

-4

cli

0.

T-

1-

IL
H

Itt
co
P-4

t-\Z

4 1

CD

CD

P-4 P,

;4

C,
j
"Zi-

\-O

U11%

C)
'd
P-4
P4

10114

4a)
P(I\

LCI\

1.0

K'\

";I-

a, \
04

CC)
cli

co
C\j

co
C\l

(D

Id

04
Id

4-2

0i

Lr\

C\j

P4

Cd

r=

4
M
44

0
0

U"\
N
P4
ri

.0
1-1

P
P4
P4

(D

E-1

77

r-4

E-4

179
5.4.2

CONCLUSIONS:
1A.

5.4.2.1'Subseries
1.

The service

behaviour

The deflection

satisfactory.

in this

the slabs

of all

of span/250 has been

limit

67%
reached at an average of
of the design loads.
load in terms of deflections.

a high service
first

strains,

All

2.

Yield

of steel

Irrespective.

completely

when failure

This percentage
3.

close
short

span direction.

the

than

this

ultimate

slab

An improved
compressive
'cracking

ratio.

predicted

by the

the

did

not

record

Under

the

design

from

the

the

ratio.
increase

many collapse

yielding

extensive

moments

significant

load,

the

analysis.

elastic

in'sides

increase

in

on most

of

portions.

5.4.2.2-Si! b8eries'B:
1.

yields.

only

analysis,

span directions

with

series
load.

elastic
long

the

those

can combine

mechanisms
the

In

increases

The difference

in

in sides

the increase

by the

predicted

are much smaller

The slabs

hand, only

On the other

is
load
design
the
very
of normal moments at

to

in

of the slab at

in the long span direction

of steel

reduces with

The distribution
that

in this

steel

was reached.

reaches the boundaries

direction

percentage

span direction.

81% of the total

yielded

behaviour.

service

in the short

about 91 to 96% of the design load.


a small

In tezms of steel

showed an identical

of the side ratio,

in this

Yield

slabs

was concentrated

directionhas

This gives

69-0%
was observed at an average of
of the

yield

design load.

was

series

(Variables.

service
strength

loadsq

low

behaviour
of

StrenEhs)

"Coricrete'and'Ste6I
is

concrete.

deflections

by increase

obtained
This

is

and reduced

represented
steel

in the
by high

strains.

180
1.20-

0.90

p
Pd

NUMEX3
NUWEX6

o. 6o-

See Table
5.4

NUMEX7
NUMEX8
0.30

0.'0
Figure

NUMEX 9

x- - --x--x
4- - 0, - -10

0.08
(5-16)

0.16

NUMEX 10

0.32

0.24
Curves for

Load-Deflection
Dub Series 1B

0.4

0.48

the Slabs in

1.20

0.90
opie
p

Pd

NUMEX 3

100

o. 6o
A

NUMEX6
NUMEX7
NUMEX 8

.1

NUMEX9
NUMEX10

4- .41.
04

0.30

1.0

0.0i

3.0

2.0

See Table
5.4

4. o

5.0

E/c y
Figure

(5-17)

Load-Maximum Steel
Sub Series

1B.

Strains

in the Slabs in

6. o

C.L.

C. L.

0.91

0.78

0.69

0.65

1.0

o. 81

0.73

0.73

1.04

0.82

0.74

0.69

1.04

0.85

0.77

0.77

0.91

C.L.

10.92

0.82

0.78

0.88

0.85

1A

1A

1.15

1.15

o*.86

0.86

0.89

0.89

1.6

1.0

NUMEX

NumEx

C. L.

C. L.

i. o4

0.87

o. 8o

0.77

0.92

l. o6

0.90

o. 84

0.8

0.95
C.L.

0.97

0.93

0.9

1.197

1.197.

11.03-7

C. L.

C. L.

1.18

1.01

o. 84

o. 94

0.99

0.78

0.73

T0.73

1.18

l. o4

0.98

o. 96

1.08

0.82

0.76

0.73

1.11

1.08

1 1.06

C.L.

o. 91

NUMEX10

NLMX
P/P
Yield

Spread

Causing
in

the

Yield
Slabs

in

C.L.

1 0.86 1 0.82
1.12

(5-18):

C.L.

NUMEX

NUMEX7

Figure

C.L.

Subseries

1B

1.12

182

E-4

(D
(D
0
C/I

CD

CrN

Ll-

pq

A4

%o

cl-

E--

co

CO
rl-

\0

"I I

40

E-

.1d

914

P4

W\

U'%

co

I: t

K'\

W\

10

co
144-

co
\o

EON

E-

co

C*\

'Cl-

\10

WN

P4

P4

cr\

o
co
Ul%
co
Itzr
N
W\

Lr\

WN
C\j

. ri

P4

04
1
0

4-3

m 3

liZ
4p.

+)
H

Cl

(D
C\j

.Il
4

C\j

trN

PC\

C\j
11

Lr

04

op

0
P4
P4 E-4

11

le

II
NN

110

t-

co *

ON

0
T-

to

183
2.

The service
deflection

behaviour
limit

of 0.78 Pd.
deflection
in this
3.

With high
limits

test

compressive

occur at loads

concrete

strengths,

close to the design loads,

series.

No yield

of steel

occurs within

In fact,

for high

grades of concrete,

for

obtained

The

slabs was satisfactory.

of spanJ250 was reached at an average load

close to the'design

4.

of all

loads.

the first

to a slightly

steel

flexible

load range.

first

loads were

yield

An average value

yield

The use of high yield

the service

of 0.78 Pd was

loads.
low grades of concrete

with

behaviour.

lead

the overall

But still

response was satisfactory.


5.

Similar

to the slabs

in the previous

of the normal moments in the short


close to that
slab

analysis$

was very
on most of the

in
long
the
the
of
normal moment

The distribution
is different

span direction

the distribution

span direction

by the elastic

predicted

area.

series,

from that

predicted

by the elastic

analysis.
For the same steel
force

strength,
loads

at ultimate

the induced

in magnitude with

increased

membrane

compressive

higher

grades of concrete.

5.4.3

This series
slabs
free

2: (Slabs'simply'saported'6n

Test'Series

in this

includes

series

on the fourth.

the test

were all

NUMEX
15.
to
NUMEX
11
runs

simply

supported

The slabs were designed

20 KN/m2-q and the analysis

3 sides)

was intended

on three
for

sides,

a uniform

The
and

load of

to study the behaviour

for

184
In these slabs,

sides ratios.

various

the free

edge has always been

taken as one of the long edges, along the X-axis.


The distribution
this

(D).

The distribution

(5-19).

Figure

(5.19)

shows that

by strips

carried
with

by bending

for

to the free

by these strips.

proportion

of the load

side

of free

ratio

50% of the total

most of the load

if

In

free

long

the

fact

this

such

was too

The results
that,

yield

deflection

edge,

conservative,

for

limit

steel

depths

were

chosen

are

started

were

at

redes, igned

such that

the

with

gives

38% of it

to be
that

span strips.
was taken

ratio

it

but

sides

load

as

be satisfactory.

would

that

was found
greater

ratio

not. shown here,

an average

at 0.9

the

indicates
which
edge,

undertaken,

slabs

an analysis

was reached

The same slabs

element gives

behaviour

resulting

an analysis

of

load to

For a slab with

the span in the span/depth


the

In this

0
45
distribution
the

by the short

was first

of such

finite

well

to the free

parallel

ratios.

to the free

parallel

is carried

Accordingly,

in sides

the

while

by the strips

carried

by the strips

edge of 2.0,

to short

load,

load is

However, in both distributions,

carried

edge.

This agrees quite

give 75% of the total

will

the increase

edge reduces with

to the free

82% of the total

edge.

in

most of the

recommended by CP110(5).

distribution

be carried

is given

reactions

parallel

a square slab,

distribution

0
45
load
case, the

(D17 to D24) in

can be seen that

of the strips

parallel

0
45
load
the

it

in

some of the slabs

and Figures

of the support

From these figures,

load is carried
Figure

(5-5)

can be found in Figures

series

Appendix

of the design moments for

it

but

than

was found

Pd. while

of-0.92

1.25.

the

Pd.
with

predicted

reduced

depths.

deflection

The assumed

did-not

exceed

CQ

185

Lr%
m

co
N

cyl

rq H

_:r

Lr\

rl

LrI

4j

Lr%
oj

/
01
/

00
1
1 co

0
0S
0
IIS

C)

rl

cyl

co

ILL
CY)

c'J
0

(r4
\M

t%lo

\0

m
0
. r-j
4-)

(D
q
"0

0/,

),
0
0.1

,/

4-)
$4
0

\JD

P4

4-
0
P4

0
-H
1
IL4

m
Q
o

Co

0m
0
0
0
., j

CYI

U, N

m
4

$-4

0m >

C2

4-3
ci
Cd
(1)
lz

i s6

1.20

0.9

7d

NUMEXM

0.6 -f
x

to
io

See Table
5*5

NUMEX12
NUMEX13

0.3

miEx

14

NUMEX15

0.0

0.1

0.2

0.3

o. 4

0.5

0.6

61h
Figure

(. 20):

Loacl-deflection
.
in Series 2.

Curves for

the Slabs

1.2

0.9

Pd

o. 6

NUNEX11
See Table

NUNEX12

0.3-

0.0

1.0

5*5

NUMEX13
NumEx14
NLWX 15

2.0

3.0

4. 'o

5--0

C/Cy
Figure

(5.21):

Load-Maximim
in

Series

2.

Steel

Strains

in

the

Slabs

1"
I

Free

P
0
P4
M-IIC.

H
.,.4

1 91 85 1.85 83
1-04 .
.
.

1-12 9 . 8d. *8. 85


1-12. 961.88. 85 . 81

4-3

P4

Free

I.-121.9d.93.85 . 81;

.
1. 961.93-88-q5

4-3
; -4
0
P4
P4

L.

1-1.0 .96 .96 .93,

851
91
87
95
1-04-.
C. L.
.
.
.
1
5,11.0 93 91 871
.
.
.
1-051-02,..97. . 971
.
1 1 i
1-1
.1

P4
E:
. r4
w

6
1.2
L-1
-241
I:
simply

6
63;
85
9
o4.
i,
.
.
.
.

supported

supported
-NUMEX 12

simply

NUMEX 11

Free

Free

86

*97
_.
89
97.
.
-97
.
1.001
1.0 *93
-93

1.711

93
.

1.08

75
75
.
.
1.75
82 78
.
.

86 82
78
.
.
.
89 86
82
i. o4l .-93
93
.
.
.
k.
04 1.01 -.97
*93

w2
.

;1
(n

93

97

1
67

67

82

71
.

86

78

75
.

71
-

82

78
.

75

89

93
08
.
.J..
l. o4

86

97
.

82

.
.

C. L.

82

93
.
l. o8

simply

supported

simply

NUNEX 13

supported

Num

14

Free
rd

1.12

0
P4
P4
:j

93
.

93
.

96
.

1.12

65

81

70
.

70
.

81

76
.
81
.
88
.

73
.

70*
.

76
.

73
.

81

81

88

93
.

P4

93
.

U)

1.12
simPlY

supported

NUMEX*15

Figure

(5.22)

P/P d Causing

Yield

in

Series

2.

C. L.

188
0
. ri
4j
42

cli

m
Co

Ul\
Co

ro

01

NZ

ro

H
t-

cu

CU

t1%D

t%Z

%I0
GD

t
_:

r-i

c;

c;

cc;

c;

c;

c;

CZ

1
111

114 914

C)

c\
cm

CM

,ri

(D

ri
t0i,

rn
41
r4
0)

CU
t-C\i

cu

0
4-1
ri

CY

(n

LA
CM

UN

LA,

cz

00

00
001

7777/

ir

Ul%

CD

189

the

limiting

deflection

these

slabs

given

in Table

are

of
in

given

The results

span/250.
(5.20)

Figures

of the

(5.22),

to

analysis

of

and a summary is

(5-5).

5.4.4 Conclusions:
(1)

The service

behaviour

An average
load
(2)

of 0.76

and 0.75

The response

of the

first

slabs

in

gradual

distribution

that

service

behaviour

the

free

the

steel

edge.

the

strip,

free

ensure

full

of load

to

obtained

for

caused by the

the

slabs

in the

steel,

the

deflection

free
it

it

As this

edges.
is

the

to

sensitive

method

to be expected

by the*conditions
is

suggested
to the

according

Adequate

on

here

that

maximun

anchorage
to

be provided

edges should
supports.

ultimate

in this

developed

is

series

curtailment.

on the

was satisfactory.

load.

performance,

reinforcement

enhancement

service

the

be governed

of the

An average

for

on the

will

without.

transfer

series

to be provided

on each strip

in
moment

this

of

For better

in this

yield

elements

provides
the

slabs

the

the

of

all

Pd was obtained

Pd for

cracking

early

of

series.

menbranC- action

load

of

about

12% is

The enhancement
on the

is

slabs.

5.4.5 Test Series 3


This includes
in this

th e test

series were all

supported on a colu=
free.
were
edges

the
the
other two
while
on
opposite corner,

The slabs were designed for a uniform load of

sides ratios.

along the X-axis.

The slabs

simply supported on two adjacent edges and

20 KN/M2. and the analysis


various

X 20.
runs NUMEX16 to NTJMF.

for
behaviour
the
intended
to
was
study

In all

slabs,

the long free edgewas always

190
The distribution

(5. *28)*gives

the

five

cases

load

dispersion

supported
the

of

is

in the

increasess

For a side

ratio

that

span direction,,

constant.

(5.28)

in this

in
shown

apart

occurs

edge.
distance

at

For the

plotted

in

strains

are

nonlinear

from

square

Figure
at 0.3

the

the

(5.23)

Lx 13 from

the

point

the

the
long
long
in

But

25%

slab.
side
support
general,
to

equal

that,

those

gradual,

the

long

free

the

of

to

slabs
is

load

the
in

edge,

free

edge.
series

in

given

the

to

these

points.

in
long

is

Points
free

(5.6).

at

the
free

The deflections

diagonal.

column , on the

are

Table

the

of maximum deflection

and

dispersed

this

along

the

the

very

column,

along

the

takes

the maximum deflection

column

refer

from

slab,

the

closer
the

slab.

is

and a suamary

square

of

slab

from

(5.27).

to

to

to note

end of

of

the

maximuca moments in

the

strips

analysis

of

almost

are

proportion

by the

carried

a distance

of 0-53L

a large

ratio

by the

each strip

at the

the

support.

interesting

that

always

carried

side

the

each of the

carried

span strips

very

that

(5.23)

Figures

general,

slab

the

of

short

The reaction

is

is

for

of

corner
sides

load

moments along

indicates

the

Figure

found

goes to

and represent

also

design

direction

Results

is

It

is

almost

long

is

load
opposite

2. the

by the

it

ratios

the

in this

slabs

reactions,

sides

more load

moments in the

short

total

of

of

carried

support

figures,

at the

ratio

of the

In

the

sides

variation

Figure

37.5% of

-irrespective

times

the

the

(D49-D56).

and Figures

upon the

The column

as a whole.

slab

dependsnt

slab,

moments for

From these

load,

bending

the

of

edges.

support.
1.4

distribution

total

As the

is

(5-9)

considered.

For a square

design

Figures

in

are given

series

of the

edge.

of

ax-Imum

191
1.2 J-

0.9

00.

.,0

p-

Pd

. 1.0

o. 6
NUI4EX 16
NUMEY.17

See Tp.ble

NUMEX 1

0.3

5-6

NUMEX 19
0 NUMEX 20

0.0

0.1

0.2

o. 4

0.3

o. 6

0.5

6/h
(5-23):

Figure

Load-deflection

Curves

for

the

Slabs

in

Series

1.20
_o

0.9

Pd

o. 6
NUM

16

NUNEX17

See Table
5*6

18
NTJMEX

0.3

NUMEX19
NUMEX20
0.0

1.0

2.0

3.0

I
4.0

5.0

Ay
c
Figure

(5.24):

Load-maxinum Steel
Series 3.

Strains

in the Slabs in

.0

Free

90
.

69 69
.
.

80

090 *80
95
.

95
.

69

74
.

.9

*85

95
.

7L
.

85

69,

*8C *80

80

1
85 90 1.0
.
.

85

90
.
.01

90
.

80

69

95
.

95
90
.
.

1.16 l. o6

85
95
.
.

1.06
c1

192

.
,

1.16 1.06 . 95

85

80

80

80

90
.

95

69

G)
Q)

801

90
.

I 16 Supported

AS'

k,

Free

091

*82

77
.

96
.

87

77
.

87

82

1.0
0

91
.

1.05

96
.

96
.

l. 14

1.05

1.05

1.0

>1

NUMEX 17
P/P

Figure

(5-25)

Yield

Causing
d
Spread

96
.
87

73
.
82

82

91
.

96
.

91
.

. -87-

87.

82

73
.

1.0

96
.

1.10

.
.

87

77
.
77
.

1.00

91
.

82

1.14

1.10

1.05

supported

Yield
in

the

Slabs

82

87

96

1.05

Simply

in

Series

0
Q)
N
P:
4

193
free

1.05
1.05
1.12

.
.
.

84

72
.

88

76
.

88

80

72
.

o76

84

76
.

84

92
.
97
.
1.05

.
.
.

88

92
.

.
.

68

68

68

84

72
.

72
.

80

72
.

64

92
.

76
.

92
.

88

76
.

1.00

92
.

1.00

1.00

1.05

1.05

8o

84

88

Ik
:
84

84

72
.

88

76
.

1.09

97
.

80

64

72
.
80

free

simply
supported
NUNEX 18

free

i. o4
i. o4

.
.
.

rd

80

68

84

72
.

88

8o

92
.
96
.
1.08

.
.
.

.
.
::.

68

72
.

72
.

7:2

72
.

80

76
.

84

80

92
.
l. o4

i. oo.

92.

(5.26)

P/P

84

96
.

88

76
.

*92

1.12

80

76
.

1.00

84
.

l. o8

.
.

supported

Causing
d

8o

76
.

NUMEX19
Figure

80'

92
.

80

80

88

88
.

simply

68

80

68

Yield

in

Series

3.

free

194-

frpp

1.00
l. o4

*83
.

88

67

71
.

.
.

67

67
1

.
4-3
p
0
P4
P4

88
92

.
.
.

67

63

71
.

92
.

71
.

80

88

67

80

71
.

*71

080

92
.

83

75
.

75
.

83

l. o8

*83

92
.

96
.

75
.

l. o4

1.00

80

88

P4

96
.
l. o8

80
88

92*
.

96
.

1
--Simply

1.00

P/pd

Causing

-1

in

Series

3.

8o

75
.

.
.
1

supported

Yield

1.12

NUMEX20

Figure-(-5.27)

free

83

195

,
M;
0

UN

co CY\ 0
ri
r-i C\j
>4 8
>4

\.D tr-4 r-i

CN
LrN

m
rl
H
-

co

Fd

rt:%

P 4
(D

U-\
N

Cj

C;

I!
H

%lo
0

co

48

\0
r-i

0.

(YI
CY)
CVI

CO

4-3
CO.

.1

CY)

P4

y
;4
;q0
0 ., 1 4)
1:11 X-4 M

oly
'D

A
0>

Cc

-Yi
(Y)
CY)

- IR

rq

CO
C\j
U

4-4 a
00
S:
0
-rq
t

>-h
>-41 4

to

*
M 4
r.
0
-rq
4J

to

$4 Cd rd
cd (1)-H
>

4-3
w

0
0
., i
4-)
(L)

196
0
.H
4J
C)

4j
ci

:11 ro
P-4 gl,

\D
r-i

Co

_e

CY
ri

1:

rd
914-

(>
\Z

K-N

t-

\M

ni

O\

e-

Co

Co

%Z

%Z

b-

t"

c;
94

rcj

Co
m

Lr\
_e

O\
M

ON

Co

cl
CU

\M
CM

t-CM

c;
U-%

40 si

\M

4-)
0
(D
0

CM

r-4

CD

4-2
CH
0
Z

CD
C\i

0
4-)

CM

C\j
II

CD
.X

cm
A

LA
A

00
pl A
m

Co

Oj

"'

197
5.4.6-coriclusions:
(1)

behaviour

The service
The deflection

of

li=*t

of

in this

slabs

all

spanJ250

series

was reached

was satisfactory.
load

at an average

of 0.70 Pd.
(2)

Yield

of

of yield
inward

started

steel

on the

starts
towards

the

to

close

increase

in

ultimate

load

elastic

long

free

of 0.67

load

an average

edge strips

Pd.

The spread

and progresses

centre.

of the long span moments at the design load is

The distribution
very

at

that

sides
is

by the

predicted
the

ratio,

analysis,

direction

other

the

to

at

by the

predicted

close

strips

With

analysis.

the

that

than

on the

except

in

moment

much less

very

elastic

short

free

edge.

governed

by the

ment

in these

strip

without

provided

This

23.

their

supporting

of

beams are given


The tests
the

slabs

maximum on the

Adequate anchorage has to be

curtailment.

the load to the supports.

the

Systems)*

test

All

beams.

supporting
reinforcement.

NWEX 21,

runs

NUMEX 22 and

to be monolithically

The slabs were ass=ed

distribution

Reinforce-

edges.

on the

based

edges can be provided

includes

identical
had
and

free

on the

conditions

4: (Slab-Bean

series

N=

of

stress

to transmit

Test Series

5.4.7

the behaviour is

to the slabs in the previous series,

Similar

three

cast with

slabs had the same dimensions,


but

beams.

differed

The dimensions

in the
of the

amount

slabs

and

and the

in Table
in

this

designed

series
by the

were

at

studying

direct

design

aimed

proposed

the

behaviour

procedure,

and

198

to

compare the

NUM

Accordingly,

load

distributed

NTJMEX22 by the

Accordingly,

line

yield

these

load

20.8

of

model

A sandwich
was designed

using

which

procedure
In this

On the other
of the slab
resistance
that
the

required

in the

slab

reinforcement

composite
(5-29).

Figure
to

carry

designed

both the yield


give

of

equations
by the

and the

model

(3.6).

moments and steel

line

(3.4).

Section
design

direct

case,

of. Section

(5-31),

considered,

and membrane forces.

flexural

design

in Figures

only)

My, M ) were
-V

design

equatioms.

and Table

in

volumes

(5.8).

At the
design

and the present


2
moment Of -SL
24

theory

an ultimate

case, both the upper and lower bourid'solutions

hand, if

by the

account,

at the middle
design

for

required

by the

reinforcement
of the

yield
is

supporting

collapse

mode for

membrane force

the compressive

is taken into
required

the diagonal

increase
beams
moments
edge

above that

for
designed

fact

slab,

was used in this

the

when considering

coincide,

the

combined
3.7)

between

flexure

particular

load

the

designed

(M
x,

forces

design

the two.. methods is given

(for

the

theory.

a uniformly

22 was in

were

line

design

by combining
t

systems

was also
for

the

of the slab,

for

mode of

using

(Section

A comparison

middle

diagonal

was designed

model

designed

N=

(84)

flexural

was designed

approach,

yield

KN/m2.

only

NUMEX 23,

on the

was the

which
.

theory.

slab-beam

In NUMEX 21,

However,

KNjm2

mode and the

rectangular

and the

20.8

23 were

by Hayes and Taylor

and tested

uniform

21, ana N=
of

based

designs

methoawith

the corresponding

the slab.

at the centre
moment of

of the slab reduces by 15% of


pure

flexure

by about
line

more than
beans.

(see

Table

18%, and is

analysio.
offset

5-8).

about

Thus$ the
by an. increase

But

55/'-',
reduction
in

the

199

r
L
(Integral

and Unintregal

Composite

(Unintegral

Systems)

Rectangular

Syste=

Modes

Hinge Required
Torsional
if Beams are connected
(Integral
systems)

Hogging
Yield

(Integral

Figure

(2.29):

Line

systems)

Diagonal

Collapse

Modes

Possible

Collapse

Modes in Square Slab-Beams Systems

200
Although
than

steel

that

both

But still
yield

line

in

only

are

given

(5-7).

Table

only,

increase

and Table

(5-8)

gives

for

the

than

of

the

in

Figures

of up to

nonlinear
(5-30)

From these

for

(5.35)

to

the

results,

this

a difference
case at hand.

the

corresponding
in this

30% was achieved

analysis

more

in

particular

are more economical

A saving

design.

requires

the

two designs

the

used here

model

flexure

slight,

designs

The results
series

for

required

7/%between

only

sandwich

unfilled

is
case

particular
of

the

the

in

slabs

which
.

this

simmarized

are

following

case.

can

conclusions

be drawn:

5.4.8 Conclusions.
1.

All
In

the
all

the
2.

slabs

yield

the

of

at

(NUMEX 21,23),

3.

steel

corners
along

spreading

The diagonal

collapse

mode formed

The slight
consideration

the

increase

beams started
in

reinfoxcement

of membrane forces

0.67

about

at the

by yield

in

yield

of

in

slabs.
steel

Pd, whereas

design

at the

started

two beams at

of yield

first

direct

present

was followed

reinforcement
4.

the

of

the

0.75
beams
at
edge

the

by the

yield

between

The initiation

of

in

loads

(NUMEX 22),

design

centre

range*

different

at

occurred

were vithin

strains

load

woetting

behaviour.

service

and steel

in the

line

designed

systems

junction

deflections

steel

the

had identical

series

limits

case of yield

started

this

both

cases,

acceptable

First
In

in

in

approach

corner

at

the

Pd.

23
21
NUMEX
NUMEX
and
of
diagonalvof

the
these

the

before

slabs

slab.

the

t6 yield.
volume
in the

due to

design

of

the
this

system

201
produced

load

service
first

yield

Extending
along

the

range,

but

in the

slab.

modes of

not

of

length

at

in the

In

such

collapse

direct

design

formed

when the

difference

taken

were

designed

after

beams of ITUM
effect

case,

approach,

the

of

22

enforcing

diagonal

mode

between

by this

into

account

method would

in

was reached.

behaviour

the

simultaneous

several
load

design

NUMEX 21 and NUMEX 23 was obtained.


forces

deflections

the beam had the

failure.

the

within

all.

present

No significant

slab

the

affect

full

mode of

Under the

did

in the

reinforcement

form

not

deflections

the midspan

rectangular
did

less

slightly

Accordinglyq
design

the

behave

the

of

two slabs

whether

or not,

both

membrane
systems

satisfactorily-.

5.4.9 Test Series 5:


Two slabs in this

series were considered.

supported on three sides,


ratio

free on the fourth

Th6 slabs were simply


long edge, with a side

Both slabs had the same dimensions and were designed

of 2.0.

for an ultimate

load of 20 KN/m2-. The test

slabs were designated

NUMEX15 and HILLERBORG,and were intended to study the behaviour


of slabs designed
the direct

adcording to the two design procedures, viz.,

design (NUMEX15). and the strip

In HILLERBORG,the shear modulus G=0


(Torsionless

(HILLERBORG).
method

in the elastic

analysis),

while the nonlinear

on the slab with G00,

in the normal way.

A comparison of the design moment fields

analysis

analysis was performed

in the two slabs is

(D).
(D21,
in
Appendix
in
Figures
D24)
D22,
D239
given

And as has

202
C.
4.8

23

950

1
10
1

Co

_zr

CM

150.5

-T
152

1.20

9.5 rm

76
950
mid

1.00
K

K
K

0.80

Pd

o. 6o

o. 4o

0.20

7.
.
o. 4

0.2

Deflection

Figure

(5-30):

NUMEX21
22
NUMEX
x
23
NUMEX
9

0.6

0.8

1.0

1.2

S/h

at the Centre

Load-Deflection

See Table
5-7

of the Slab

Curves for

the Slabs in Series

4.

203
a-e

NUM

21

NUMEX 22

23
ANUMEX

1.2

MO

1 L,
24

1.0
0.8

! LX
o. 6
m
0
o. 4
0.2 L.

0-0

0.04

.1

.3

.2

.4

.5

o. 4

0.5

Y/Ly
.

Design Moments in the Slab

1.6
1.4
1.2

1.0
Mxbw

o. 8

MOL

o. 6
o. 4
0.2
0.0

0.1

0.3

0.2
x/L

x
Design Moments in the Beams
Figure

(5.31)

Design Moments in the Slabs

in Series

204
TENSION
y

1000

800
6oo

Nx
c1h

141------

4oo 200 0010.2

0.0
-200

0.3
y/L

COMPRESSION
Design

o. 4

Membrane Forces
Slab

along

the

Centre

NX
qh

x/L x
Membrane Forces

Figure
,

(5-32),

along

Membrane Forces

the Edge Beam

in

0.5

the-Slabs

in

Series

Line

of

the

205

L.

81 78 76*
96
98
.
.
.
.
.
83 78, 78 781 C.L.
931,
.
.
.
.
.
III
"
91
78
.
.

78
.

NUMEX21

78 . 811

66, 76 78 83 981
.
"
.
.
.
66, 66 91 93 96i
.
.
.
.
.

C. L. '
75
.

91
.

91
.

89
91
.
.

96

89
94
.
.

-77
.

84

C.L.
NUMEX22

89
99
.
.

091

.
91

84

89

751
75
.
.

C.L.
99
.

99

86
91
t.
.

.
.

83

78
75
.
.

81

78
78
.
.

C. L.

;.
81 78 81 81 83
.
.
.
.
86 99
78
73
78
1;
.
.
.
.
.

Figure

(5.33)

68

73 . 81 . 91 . 99

P/Pd Causing Yield

in Series

23
NUMEX

206
1.0

0.8

o. 6

Pd

o. 4

0.2

e/e y
Figure--(5-3)

Load-steel
strains
(mid span section)

in the supporting

beam

1.10

1.0
0.9
0.8

-C, 0.7
o. 6
0.5
o. 4

e:/ cy

Figure

(5-35)

Load-maxinji-m steel
Series 4.

in
in
the
slabs
strai ns

207

4-1
C)
er-j

0
1
0

0
4J M0
Q) 9) -H il
CJ
>b 4-1
'd
ro

LN
t-

bD

$-4 a) e 's, zi
C) 0
cd 0

QO)G
A Dc
i7
H 0
- ri ni

4)

Z: -

'to ri

HH

00
U0

(L) -H
fcj =

(1)
:Z

CM

CM

ri

Co
\lo

U;
rd
to

Ul\

Lr\

\o
C\i

_e
CY

1IM
CY

Co

CD

CO

LIJe

CM

Ea
Q)
., -I

m
4-)

CM
0

4-4 1-

;J c4

(n

ri

(n

c) 1
4-1

%.

UN

(n

ci

C\i

C\i

0)

0
LA

U'\
H

Lr\
rA

4-3
4-4
0

c\
mi

CD
cli

Cii

ci

cl

D
0

'
CU

CM
CY

_e

C\i

ri

2,loqaalT. TH

Lr\

*0

208
Table

(5.8):

Comparison of Steel

Quantities

Slab-Beam Systems in Series

NUMEX21

Design

Load

Method

of

(KN/m)

4.

NUMEX23

NTJMEX
22

20.8

Design

in the

20.8

20.8

Direct
design
for
flexure

Direct
design
for
combined
flexure
and
forces
membrane
(unfilled
sandwich

Yield
line
Theory

model)

Maximum Slab Moment


(Nmm/mm)
Ma
.

Maximum
moment

Steel

edge beam
Mb (Nmm/mm)

volume

2800

2880

2344

87000

6gooo

103000

in

beams (MM3)

2.606 x los

2.7 )( 10S

3.119 x 105

Steel volume in
(=)
slabs

2.034 x 105

3.392 x 105

1.851 x 105

4.644 x 105

6.092 X

4.97 x 105

Total

I--

st el,, r 1ume,

1-

1* For reinforcement

layout

105

II

in NUMEX22 see Figure

(5.30)

11

209
been

shown in

Section(5-2-3)s

the

design

in

the

two

cases

two slabs

are

given

moments

are

different.

quite

Resulti

the

of

in Figure (5-36),

nonlinear

of the

analysis

tO Figure (5-38),

is
in
Table
siumary
a
and
given

(5.7).
5.4.10 Conclusions
1.

The increased

amount

had the effect


2.

The service
deflection

of

steel

the

of raising

behaviour
limit

in

outer

of the slab.
A

was satisfactory.

slabs

was f irst

span/250

(HILLERBORG)
of

strips

load

cracking

of both

of

the

reached

in

NTJMEX15 at

0.69 Pd.
In thq post yield
design
the

strains
The

(NTJMEX 15)

method

one

designed

by

very

were

spread

behaviour,

of

the

much
in

yield

inner

load.

In the

at 0.65 Pd.
area,

strips

Subsequent

identical

in the two cases.


in both

.1,1

two

was

cases

of the long-span
to that

predicted

The other

cases at the

design

no=al
load.

than
and

steel

HILLERBORG.

different.

to the design

closer

free

at or after
started

spread of yield
a r'egular

in

quite

near the

either

way

deflections

NUMEX 15 than

at loads

occurred

and does not follow

is

in

fle. xible

Both

method.

greater
the

a more

case of NTJMEX15, yield

The distribution
load

strip

on the strips

and was concentrated


in th

in

behaved

in HILLERBORGstarted

Yield

designed by the direct

the slab

edge.

load,

Yield

the design
on the

free

edge

covers most of the slab

pattern.
the
under
moments
by the

elastic

is
moment

quite

design
analysis.
different

210
Both slabs

supported

loads

While NUMM 15 recorded

in excess of their

12% above the design

Enhancement in the ultimate


compressive

In

loads

is caused by the induced

which was higher

membrane force,

exanples

design

given

procedure

The effect

here,

requires

although

the

in HILLERBORG

proposed

about 35% more steel

the slab

designed

by the strip

way than that

designed

by the direct

method,

a better

free

HILLERBORG

in NUMEX15.

the

strip

load,

load.

22% enhancement at failure.

recorded

than

design

is

caused by concentrating

edge strips

in the strip

method.

direct

than the simple


in
behaved
method
design method.

the reinforcement

in the

1.20

0.90

Pd

o. 6o

0.30

o. 16

0.32

/h

Figure (5-. 36): Load-Deflection

o. 48

o. 64

0.8

o. 96

Curves for NUIAEX15 and HILLERBORGS

1.20

0.9
p

Pd

o. 6

0.3

1.0

Figure

(5-37):

2.0

Load-Maximum

3.0
E/Cy
Steel

and HILLERBORGS

Strain

4.0

for

5.0

NUMEX 15

6. o

212
I
Free
1.12

93
.
93
.

4-1
P
0
P4
pq
0

96
1.12

.
.
.

81

70
.

70
.

65

81

76
.

73
.

70

*76

73
.

81

81

88

93
.

81
88

1.0

93
.

a)

.
.

a)
+
a)
C)

88

1.12
Simply

Supported

P/Pd Causing Yield

in NUMEX15

Free

4-3
p
0
P4

o. 96 o. go

0.90

o. 86

0.90

0.93

0.93

o. 96

0.93

o. 96

1.0

1.0

0.96

0.93

1.0

a)
"r4

CO

1.22

1 .01 0.96
P/P

1.16

Yield
Causing
d

-Figure-(538)

Yield

0.93

1.08

1.18

1.18

1.08 a)
-1
1.22

1
i
in HILLERBORGS

Spread in NT24EX15 and HILLERBORGS

213
CWTER

SIX

EXPERIMENTAL MESTIGATION

6.1

INTRODTTCTION
The theory

given

in Chapter

the experimental

slabs.

on the practical

problems

design

method,

the behaviour

into

chapterl

full

of the
of the

account

PARAMETERS OP STUDY:

slabs

dimension

a minimt=

procedure

would yield

the use of such large


vaxiation
all

In this

information

the proposed

in implementing

insight

a clear

accordingly.

Only rectangular
with

involved

to provide

in steel

designed

of about

of 2000 mm were tested.

dimensions

is

obligatorypin

the slabs

covering

patternp

the limiting

tested,

length

the

that

The thickness

of Cp, 10(5).

at 100 mm. The other

from 2000 mm to 3000 =,

order

represented.

(3-3-8)

models

Since the design

reinforcement

was chosen to comply with

2000 mm is used in all

depth, was fixed

varying

a continuously

by Section

Laxge scale

have been considered.

can be properly

slabs

ratios'specified

A fixed

The support

span length

and accordingly,

support,

following

considered

and integral

slab-beam

included
systems.

were recorded:

1. Lateral
2. Steel

deflections
and concrete

strains

Crack widths and development of cracks


Fail=e

loads.

the

of the models was va--ied

three sides ratios

conditions

of-Jk--\

span/depth

of 1.0,1.30

and

1.5.

point

6f

work is given.

experimental
6.2

The work is intended

and give

models designed

Three has been used in the design

the simple

support,

For each tests

the

214
6.3 SLABS DESIGNATION:

In all,

and the dimensions

of boundary conditions

Tab

Test

Table (6.1)

six Silabs were tested.

Tested

gives the details

of each slab.

and dimensions

Slabs-designation

.t..
.
.
Supp or c.o.n.d.i. ti OnS

Designation

Dimens io ns
3100 x 2140 x 100

Model 1

Model 2

'Model 3

2100 x 2140 x 100

Model 4

2040 x 2000 x 100

Model 5

3100 x 2140 x 100


.

5imply supported
sides

2600 x 2140 x 100

it

simply

Model 6

3120 x 2180 x 100

All beans axe


200 x 300 mm
cast..
monolithic

system

DESIGN OF THE MODELS


For a given

an elastic

load,

the design

moments axe obtained

of Chapter

equations

Three.

)
(M*
the
M*
reinforcement
moments
xy 9
designed

according

on both loads
according
results

to the limit

and materials

in a variable

as unity,

block

reinforcement

The amounts of steel

For a given

theoryq

given

prograrip

on the slab

with

all

the-one

at any point

is
factors

safety

is made

and the design

like

and

design

calculated

Appendix
in
shown
pattern

by performing

element

at any point

state

taken

to the assumed'stress

(6.1).

the finite

on the slab using

analysis

the design

Fig=e

on all

supported
sides

slab-beam

6.4

on all

A.

This

given

in

axe per unit

215
Two methods can be used to repls; Lce the distributed

length.

axeas by reinforcing
(a)

bars:

Since the variation


from point

of the distributed

(b)

by the corresponding

the

width,

of the distributed

value

maximum

area needed

steel

by the

by multiplying

the problem

to one of providing

each having

stripsg

the design

a width

equal

bars in

reinforcing
to the width

by the aid

can best be illustrated

was

each element.

areas within

steel

in each

the reinforcement

herel

and accordinglyt

constantp

the distributed

based on averaging

The procedure

Total

areas.

tested

of. problems

element was approximately

parallel

on the

width.

For the range

reduces

area.

sectional

can thus be obtained

over such a width


co=esponding

steel

and hence can

width,

can be based

design

over a certain

by =ultiPlYing

then obtained

by one bar of an equivalent

Over a certain

This

area is

steel

the average value,


be replaced

areas is not severe

steel

these areas can be averaged

to pointt

The total

width.

steel

of one element.

of Figures

(6.2),

(6-3)*
Along
distributed

ste'el

Normallythe
strip

is

the averaging

the strips,

variation
smooth,

an average value

gradient

concentrated

to element

from element

or a maximum value

(6.2)9

loadsq

and the extra

locally

across

a strip,

steel

the elements

area is usually

is-used

seen in those
throughout

needed over the average


containing
carried

the load.
right

4-o the

one

the difference

In cases where there

as is usually

an average value

along

and accordingly,

can be used until

of the maximum.

within

length,

ment in this

by more than 25Y6of the larger.

as can be seen from FigL=e

exceeds the 259%value


stress

process

areas do not differ


of steel

the
done
only
when
was

is a high,
containing

the strip

provided

is added

The average reinforcesupports

to ensure

216
adequate

transmission

of load to

In cases where no steel


happen that

still
is

done in order

a bar has to be carried


to comply with

and thus extending


increased

some bars

of Section

Torsional

(3-3.6)

the finite

The flexural

One important

in choosing

ends,

(3-3-7)
was only

he is

until

In this

and was adequately

secured

were strictly
In trying
requirea

beams

torsional

had to

steel

Erheax

of CpjjO(5).
in the

provided

to CP110.
baxs is

the reinforcing

sure that
work,

the

of the

the permissible

bond

each bar was hooked at

so that

mesh, and the. bond requirements

strong

In one

the supporting

the
layout
to
have
changd
may

The designer

is nowhere exceeded.

stress

the additional
Section

with

factor

bars more than one timet

both

but

in the form of stirrups

bond stress.

the sheax

in the beam was provided by

beams of model 6, according

supporting

the slab

over the concentrated

for
also
needed
was

reinforcement

in accordance

reinforcement

as providing

of model

element program,

be provided

ustified

were followed.

in Cpllo(5)

had to be provided

reinforcement

in model 6.

is

be high,

might

Accordinglyq

shear failure.

caseq shear reinforcements


support

S)-ich areas are

where shear stresses


region

This

Since the p=ogram does not take shear

not have a premature

corner

might

a check has to be made to ensure that

account,

requirements

it

on to the supports.

code requirements.

in this

shear resistance.
into

stresses
will

is needed over an element,

found near the supportsq

normally

the edges.

the bars formed

of Section

(3.11.6)

of C2110(5)

followed.
to achieve

by the elastic

the code regulations,

a reinforcement
analysis,

the total

distribution

time
the
same
and at
steel

volume provided

close

to that

to comply with
is

in general

21
t. .
much more than

is

what

required.

between the theoretici

the

reinforcement

investigation.
in

provided

'gives,

'Wd
that
needed

steel

in this

models tested

(6.2)

'Table

a comparison

(6.4)

Figures

the six

for

provided

to (6.9)

give

each model.

6.5 MATERMS
Ordinary

Cement:
Aggregates:

Hynford

The maximurn size


grading

cube strength

workability

but

Nos-1,5

were

tests.

all

used

for

used was 10 =,

gravel

mixes.

all

and the sand

40 N/mmZ at

the

for

models

to

Two mixes

the

which

give

an
the

with

A medium

were used.

workabilities
for

designed

28 days.

was used for

and a high workability

6.
and

large

These models had very

sizes,

to use ready made mixes rather

in the laboratory.
18 batches

were

mixes

mix was produced

ready made

by a ready mix Company, and was used to cast models

was convenient

For the other

models,

and therefore

than make the

each model,

the

150 mm diameter

in
water,
was cured
a polythene

control

in 14 to

the mix is produced

Half

cylinders.

the other

were

specimens

half

eight

the control

was kept

100 mm cubes

specimens

near the model under

cover.

control

on the same day as their

specimens were tested

=dels.

Standard

tests

splitting

to determine
tests,

the

cube compressive

and the static

strengths

modulus of concrete

it

concrete

of 70 kg each.

and eight

cylinder

of

mix was used

mixes,, supplied

respective

and gravel

The concrete

different

in the laboratory,

All

sand

of the uncrushed

mixes:

same strength

For

in

Cement was used

was Zone 2.

Concrete
average

Portland

were

218
conducted

The concrete
test

to

according
tensile

British

the

strength

(61).

Standards
from

obtained

No. BS. 1881: 1970-

the

splitting

cylinder

as
2P

ft

7r DL

(6.10)o

in
Figure
as shown
for

properties

different

and were tested

S-type

electronic

steels

used was taken

Figure

(6.11)

initial

stress

the stress-strain

gives

Tests on several

.
the
proof
as

bars

bars

for

an

followed

the

the high yield

for

to 0.2% strain.

the type

for
point

gave an average yield

different
with

corresponding

curve

random

fitted

point

of steel

used.

4T3
N/mm2q and an
of

modulus of 214 KN/mm2 .


For model No. 6, the amouniS of reinforcement

very

certain

procedure

The yield

manilal.

only

machine,

The testing

extensometer.

amount of reinforcement

of the steel

in an Oslen testing

instruction

rnnufacturer's

have been used,

from the batches

sizes,

(6.3).

in Table

and are given

Because a considerable

bar sizes

samples were cut off

the materials

deformed bars were used in all

High yield

6.
model

except

involving

for

each model were calculated

Reinforcement:
models,

Average values

due to the effect

small,,

bar

available

diameter

steel

of steel

used is

6.6'STPAIN
Prior
reinforcing

for

was 8 mm,for

was used instead.

and mild

300 N=Z

of surrounding

given

the yield

high

beams.

Since the
it

steel,

The stress-strain

in Figure
point,

yield

in the slab was

and 214 KNJmm2for

was discarded$

curves

Average values
Young's

smallest

for

the type

obtained

were

modulus.

GAUGES:
to casting
bars.

each model,

The strain

strain.

gauges were attached

gauges used were electrical

to the

resistance

219
gauges of the type

F-A-06-250BG-120 with

foil

backing.

polyl'=*de

filing

The strain

are then

protected

against

humidity

M-coat-D
protect

the

after

to the

the gauges against

the gauges were coated with

Araldite

The strain

connected

6.7

The

drying

acrylic

checked.

To

by an air

damage during

the casting

hardening

rapid

an

gauges and were

have been thoroughly

mechanical

gauges were then

to the reinforcing

instructions.

strain

and temperature

connections

temperature-

and were bonded using

the namufacturer's

soldered

flexible,

is made in self

alloy

of the bar,

following

wires

a tough,

with

gauges were attached

the ribs

off

M-bond 200 adhesive


connection

combination

The constantan

compensated form.
bar after

in

Constantan

of

0.15% resistance
.
The gauges are made of a

at 750F.

and 2.095 *0.5% gauge factor


thin

1PO-0 n

process.,

epoxy adhesive.

to a data logger.

CASTING AND CURING:


After

fixing

the strain

gauges on the steel$

assembled on the form after


marked by a marking
of concrete,
When casting
5 hours

the proper

compacted using

and was properly


and compacting

to dry in the open air.

were checked by measuring


purpose.
framework

to the loading

model were later


After
the control

would later
rig,

used for

the concrete

The position

the positions

immersion
an

of the holes

bolts
the
of

be used to lif

and the holes

loading

in several

batches

type

the model was left

yas complete,

mesh was

reinforcing

of the bars have been

positions

Each model was then cast

pen.

These bolts

the

for

about

on the model
for

provided

that

t the model from the

which they

leave

on the

the slab.

has-set,

the whole of the model together

then

cover,

specimenswere

vibrator.

covered with

a polythene

with
to

220
humidity.

the

control
from

day of

the

five

days using

over

the

load

is

then

and left

to

dry

casting,

laboratory.

of the

The cover

The model
the

electric

removed
in

was lifted
in

crane

the

the

natural

days

conditions

forms

the

off

three

after

a further

after

laboratory,

and was placed

supports.

6.8 suppons
The simple
of two steel

flats

invar

black

bar

12 =

Proper

seating

a thin

layer

of the slab

are liable

corners

to lift

"corner

a separate
(6-13b)

in Figure

free

and a high

tension

orthogonal

flats-rollers

had an ultimate

prevent

(6.14)

plates
high

and the slab.

were held

corners

system,

supports

bar

directions

just

5 mm in diameter

system at their

the

loadeds

like

shown

a ball

seat,

through

the

The steel

bar

passing

midpoint.

down

flats-rollers

of a system of orthogonal

in all

to
through
1750
N/mm2,
pass
was
made
and
of

corner

provided

at the time

system,

shows the corner

arrangement

resulting
intact,

then through

of casting,

and was anchored to the loading


arrangement

were used on the top surface

shear stresses

keep the corner

This

by applying

reduce the ultimate

thus
all

system

at the corners.

around and transversely

this,

diameter

supports

was effected

supports

supports".

flats-rollers

Figure

Spreader

steel

strength

the orthogonal
rig.

rotation

in the slab

except

up, and might

consisted

to provide

of the model,

To prevent

of the slab.

capacity

This

between the flats

all

models consisted

by a round 25 =

(6-13a).

on the

of gypsum plaster
supported

five

the first

separated
Figure

as a roller,

For a slab

a hole

thick

over the whole length

extends

using

system used for

support

in one of the models.

of the slab

from the corner


the

steel

corner

pulls.

to

To

bar in the arrangement

221
was slightly
Each slab
of

the

allowed'100

The effective
the

subtracting

6,

were

flat-rollers

at

each beam will


at the

6.9

(6.1)

Table
from

obtained

are

gross

by

these

of

Vees-rollers

orthogonal

is

The system

were

pinned

with

cast

were monolithically

and orthogonal
that

so arranged

one end and freely

at

the

supported

(6.15).

Figure

models

was designed

1.25o

3.0

to

1.509

to

A height

1.5.

rig,

to

was'made

1.5

facilitate

m under

span

600 KN, with


bottom

slab

the

loads

lateral
ratio

from

surface

loads.

This

1m

up

beams and stanchions,


a safety

surface

bottom

only.

including

can vary

steel

universal

the

to
sides

various

up to

studying

rig

longer

of

loads

support

of

Thi

and 2.0.

The rig

metres.

with

(6.16).

shown in Figure

subjected

slabs

slabs

support

loading

on the

testing

for

1.75

and was designed

by the

tested

were

was designed

1.09

of

in

given

corners.
it

the'centreline

LOADING RIG AND LOADING SYSTEMS:

The rig

to

act

other,

All

It

by sets

if
as

the'test.

each support.

over

alternate

of

beyond

are

the beams which

supported

start

dimensions

dimensions

overhang

For Model

the

mm overhang

The slabs

support.

values.

model,

before

pretensioned

of

factor

is

provided

the

tested

models.
Loads

loading

were

cables

applied

passing

as concentrated

of castings

and corresponding

The loading

were high

an ultimate

cables
strength

holes

through

holes

According

on each models the methods of load


fol lowing

$I

at the time

of the laboratory.
7-wires

to the total

application

mariner. *
I

in the slab

in the floor
prestressing

yield

of 150 KN.

provided

was done by using

tendons,
load

can be divided

having

applied
in the

222
(1)

Tvo_'poirits_system:

4
model
and consisted

This was used for


through

passing

its

transmits

(2)

Four

supported

Points

This

at the

for

was used

3 only.

model

in

holes

top

the

surface

four

a spreader

beam.

points,

eight

for

used

is

system

Each of-the

the

of

using

the

rest

The cables

were

were

then

and a spreader

flat

distribute

to

lines,

centre

load

the

each point.

at

jack

the

of

cable
the

up to

to

connected

the

bottom

jacks,

Loads

of

applied

at

loading

systems

are

was

shown in

10000 psi

to

pressure.

oil

thus

ensure

floor

points

equal

electric

eliminate

The four
using

pressure
unequal

laboratory.

of the

a regulating

one connection

was made to
and would

of

the

of

surface
hoses

jack

by a 20 ton-hydraulic

tensioned

via

pump at

arrangement

on the-separate

is

slab

system

The loading

by

at two points

load

on the
This

cables.

models.

is

was connected

sustaining

four

only

its

load

two systems.

previous

transmits
the

four

the

against

resting

the

using

loading

four

case,

model

model,

of

cables

Accordingly,

Each loading

This

this

the

slab.

a combination

loading

(6-17).

Figure

of

500 mm apart,

Eight-points-system:
This

tach

In

about

200 nm x 200 mm x 10 mm was used


(3)

The cable

beam.

arranged

four

on the

anchored

cable

sZstem:

through

passed

at two Points

spreader

symmetrically

cabless

of the model.

centre

load to the slab

simply

short

a hole

of one loading

capable

pump,
hoses

were

a distributor.
in

distribution
frictional

effects

jacks.

on the

top

surface

of

the

slabs

were measured

using

50 tons

223
load

electrical
Prior

cells.

to-tests

the load

4 load

cable was passed through


a flat

using
loading

spreader.

of 5 tons

capacity

All

each.

the load

small

load

electrical

are then connected

cells

to a data logger.

and further

FURTHER INSTRUMENTATION:
Deflections

were

displacement

linear

The transducers

were

the

connected

transducers
at the

bottom

is

The data

data logger

by a dial

up to

used,

A. cross

processing.
gauge located

the

under

slab

of measuring

measure

the

the

loads.,

cells

transducers,
by
the
measured
The DVM units
for

are later

each load

by a PDP8 computer using

controlled

to process
step

in DVM (Digital

consists

strains

and

the language

load
the
values
of
units,

and then the strains


to loads

using

200

of each test.

the results

Voltmeter)

converted

cell.

for

check

mm.

was used to

at each loading

The output

curves

measuring

and was then

number

gauge used was capable.

0.01

FOCAL. Programs were written

the load

data

Surrey.

of

This was an IBM 5000 type which has 'an MB-Metals

deflections.
channels

50 mm were

The dial

centre.

logger

up to

for

provided

50 mm, reading

up to

supported

given

logger

data

independently
on an

identification
an

were

which

by Nouatech

manufactured

of measuring

capable

was then

Each transducer
to

mounted

transducers,,

by electrical

measured

potentiometers

Transducers

frame.

the

of the

shows the details

were also measured using

to a load amplifier,

6.10

(6.18)

top

arrangement.

Corner reactions
cells

its
and, was anchored on

cell

Figure

Each loading

were calibrated.

cells

deflections
in micro
the

read on
in

(mm.)

mm/mM.

calibration

224
The underside
light

powerful

Cracks on the bottom

sources.
the

with

were monitored

aid of a magnifying

were measured under the load

four

of the slab

surface

Crack widths

glass.

a crack measuring

microscope,

TEST PROCEDURE:

All

electrical

Deflection
truly

and they would operate

disconnected.

The load

load to the slab,


jacks

also

and if

cells

the initial

detected,

of 5 KN per load

The loading
of the
at this

load level

scan.

Results

was maintained

slab was studied


stage.

loading

for

for

this

by applying

cracks.

was repeated

the load

checks
in increments

on the load

increment

load

The dial

while

reading

a new load
until

primary

cells,

the computer was started

10
minutes,
about

The pump was started,

and the whole procedure

When all

was reached,
for

and unloading$

read the loads

An amplifier

cell.

desired

a complete

test

was started

a small,

Leaks on the hoses and the

they were soon remedied.

have been made, the test

The

immediately
were
ones

checked by applying

were also

and then unloading.

they were

under test.

properly

checked and defective

appear during

and when the

checked to ensure that

were then

gauges were also

checked by the computer.

were first

connections

transducers

vertical$

strain

for

pointspusing

using

up to 0.01 mm.

reading
6.11

model was illuminated

of each. test

were then printed.


the underside
was also

increment

the ultimate

taken

was applied,

load was reached.

225

cm

\M
ch

(n

CD

4-1
Co

0
41

Co
\. 0

tk-i

10

_e

tri

t\Z
ri

0
0

(A
m

Co
toi

zr
UN
Je
C)

c;
10
t
rl
g
0

CM
Lr\
H

&1 0

(D

_e
r-1

(D

H
C)

Co

Co

cm

CD

p4
e

4-3
U
Cd
4-3
cd

.0
4-)

LQ

rl
4J
to

I
u

ri
Co
\M
\M

4j

(D
CD

Co
CM

rA

(D
CD

(D

CM
m
m

0
(D

N\
Igt
CID

CD
(D

riZ0

0
4)
10
4-)

0
4J

4J
Co

+i
0
PQ

4-)
0
A4

UN
0

Co
cm
CU
C)

(5

Lr\
_e

--t
LI-

(n
LI-

t-t-

Co

gz
0
. f.4

CD

ri

O\

LA
UN

cli
P4
14
0
u

rn

CM
93
to
r4
Co ca
Q

Q
rzi
0

ri
4)
rd
0

I
ro
cd
E-4
19

r
0

226

ri
+

gz %--

cq

cu

\M

cu

C\i
0
0
mi
CM

c4
0
-:0t
cu

CM

CM

2
:

PZ

0
0
r-i

0
cm
H
01

9
0)
pq

rn
12
rlM
cli

CM

C\i

C\i

cu

CU

43
M

>i

pol
4
P4

Lr%

Lr\
CU

Ul\

cm

Je
C\i

Co

\Z
1Z .

'l-

,0

,
u

Co
0

0.

cn,

A*

r-i

CM

Ul\

ri

CM

r-i

ri

t-

rd
9

0.

4-)
9

cl

\j

UN
ti de
1) 0

Z
42 bo
c2 . r f

H
tz

ri
ri(L)

mi

Co

Co

cm

(Yl

r-i

r-i

_e

Lr\

\M

la
E-1

227

(D
H
r-4

m
X
02
c3 (L)
9-4
A

H
je3 43
01 0

PA
Q) u2
9.6 (U

4-4

>b

Co O\

C
A
00

41
43

(D

E-4
Q
.

C.)

Cj

UN
Co
r-i

47,

4-3
0
W

t-

tl- C\j

tm
Ll(v
H0
co
r-,t- 1-1
C
co
-1
iT
C%

0
Lr\
N

t'
_e -

09
r
_:

_e c

c"

--r Co

ON N

N CY)

a\ _zr
rN

C\j \o

t-

0
U'\
Oj

-. r co

ri

C\j Lr\
\D
0

Co

CN \10
t-T
41 0

Co CM

---

U-\
C7\
*0

cli -T

c\ CD

e- Co
m Lr\

N0
Lr\ C\j

0m
U-\ co

_: r00 10

40

r-f

r-4

CD
0

4-)
0
. f. j
0

cm (n
00

00

\10 H

_-::r0

HW
H
Wk
Lr\
LrN
C\j

1
1
,\,''1 CD
1t0
"\ o
c" c,>1 - c,,1
CO

LA
M Lr\
606400040006

\z

-.r \M

Co

-r
.

C\i UN

\.0 0
U'\

bo
Cd

ca

(U

4-)

1
UN
Lt\
cm

1
t- 01
\4) rl
Co At
C\i _e
r-i M
0000000004100

cm cm
M.
-t
ci tr\

1 t- tr-1 0
_e \lo

c\ \m
t- Cl%
e Lr\

2
.e

CY\
H
U-\

4)

43
(a

Op
LN

O\ CM
Co Lr\
ri

cm C\i
Co Ul\

(1 w\
t- --t
CM m

u-%H
\M M

_-r Co
_r CD

H lID
Co C3N

I-_:
Lr\
r

UIN
_r

tl-

cli

228
C. L.
L.
18

145

TI

(a) Distributed

.
34. 2-9

47'7]

l'2'.
-5

in a central

x steel

strip.

C. L.
113.9

145

126.97149-59162.20

b) Lumped steel

areas

69-17174.2

(mm?
- in the same strip.

75
50
25

(c)

Choice of bars
(6.2)

Figae

Design

in

x steel

of

strip

a central

C. L.

192
.

185

482

(a) Distributed

80

y steel

1
33.7

89.1J49.7

837

772
.

in a central

C. L.

strip

1
d
d
180. 154. 142.8i

(mm2)
in
the same strip
areas

(b) Lumped steel

200
150
100

50

Figure

(6.3)

Design

of

3r steel'in

a central

strip

C. L.

229
Is

Co

0
H

C-)

m
--L

L.

--

01_. "

-ea--

-.

___

--

a-------

i_..

C\j

a
----------

---

-_-

--

_j"

0__J

II
---..

__

_j

III

__

a-a.

Lr\
t

0-______

--

--k--

I--

H
___

"_

--a...

_j

II
II

C\j

ri

-___

II
--

--L--L-----.

0
0
r-I
0
Ll0
C\j

P4
r-i
cu
Q)
4-)
w
10,

I-

- --

--

4- - ---q---

- --

0
Lr%

4-
0

r
Cd
-

-.

--

--

-4

--

---

U-'

Lr\
t--.

zr
r-i

00
LA

.H8

Ul%
r-i

Lr%
mm
H

A-

A- ---

--

ri

0
UN

Co
r-i

230

10
0
10

1%c
1:71

Lr\
(n

mi

LA
(n

Co

ri

231
0
\o
r-4
C\j

co

rl

0
Ll-

--F--

I
0
Co
CM
VN

0'
t'ri
H
c>

C\j
0
z

UN

0
., -j

0
4-)
0
A

8
cli
UN
Co
H

000000000
Lr\
VN

cu ,1

cm

Ul\

CU

Co

iH.

\lo

Co

Lr\

ri .

r-1 1

cm

Lr\

U'\

cm

CU 19

0-

Cd

232

LN
Co

CM

rJ2
A
0
ID
Co

UN

Co

Lrl%

UN

00
Lr\

C\j

C\j

C\j

Lr\

NI-

Lr\

C\j

U-\

C\j

1.
%Z

-11

233-.

C\i

clcl

H-

co

0
. rj
H
(D

LrI%
U-N

0
0

P4
0
E-4

11

ID

C\l
C\j

-H

LrN
;r

Lf"\
llq*
Irl

C/2

Ul\

Ul\
p

Fl
0
-61
4-)

Lr\
n

Cd

WN

0
KN

ul\

U-N U-%

0
,o

C)

C\l

C-4

234

co

0
IAxlp-,
0
c
l
i
P:

OOT
OOF,
OOF,

00i
oo

ocf

oot

0
z

o0a
oof

OOT

Q6T
06T
-1
061
,*
06T
A

0
0

0
0

0
0

0
0

0
0

0
0

0
o

0
0

0
0

0
0

C'l11

0
o
C\l

Lil%
\o

Lr\

cl- CC)

4-4

or+1
-

"o

235

04

H
a)
Id
0

0
CD
M-%

r-4

P4
0
E-4

0
C-

8
Kl%

KIN

LN
\Z
Kl%

Ul%
cl- 0
CO
r-i

c,cl

236*

CC)

0
0

IQ.
(D

r -4

%Z
T04

00 L
ooz

00
00
00
9LI
ON
09
06
0
00
Z

UN

9)
le

0
o6

ON
F.

00
00 L
00 L
ON
00 L
80000008
08
00
C14
T- I'V-' I T- .

G
-r-

01%
0
T, "zl-

(7\
. r-

Cl%
T-

C\j

000
000
II-

I-

Cd
CD
l

237

0
0
cli

Lf'
C-

0
0

'7

P4
0
E-4
0
0
cli

co

0
PC4

000000o0
00

Cl\

KIN

00
CN

(7%

C%J

238

cli

ISL

--

I'D

Co
1.

N
I-

S
S

C,

%Z

0
z
CH
0

CD
(D
42

;2
Cl\

cli

C'N

239

ei

'

co
'IQ.

0
R:t

Cd

0
0
1-t
0

%4;

0
C\j
4-1

r-4
ID
Id
0

P
0

E2

0
0
cli

00
oo
'-Ic"

Co
ri
. r-j
Cd
4-3

b,O
4.3
P
0

r-I
. rj

Cd
4-3
Q)
P

co
'IQ.
C
1

0
0

04

C\j

240

L= Length of
the cylinder

150 mm

300
mm
=
2P
7=T

Figure

(6.10)

Cylinder

Splitting

Test for

Concrete

Stress
Nl=

500

400

300

200

100

000

001

093

0-5

0-7

0.9

Strains
FiMe

(6.11)

Stress-Strain
Steel Used.

Curve for

the High Yield

241

Stress
N/MM2

300

Q 144;U. 1.11

Figuxe

(6.12)

Stress-Strain

Cuxve for

the mild

steel

used.

242

FLAT
ROLLER

FLAT

(a) Flats-Roller

System

II

"--

--

__"

--+-

PLAN

FLAT
ROLLER
ELEVATION

FLAT
ROLLER
FLAT
(b)

Corner

FigL=e_-(6-13)

support

system

The Support Systems

243
High Yield

FigL=e

(6.14)

Holding

the

Prestressing

Corners

Bar

using

"Corner

Holders"*

Edge Beam

Figure

orthogonal

orthogonal
V-roller

Flat-Roller
System

System

(6.15)

Support

Systems used in Model 6

7!Z7

244
2000

UB 305 x 127 x 37
loft

3400

CD

Isr

In

ln. -L, 9w9sJ-m-V-

:6..

WAm ICLIW
1

UC 4o6 x 173 x 60

FigL=e

(6.161

The Loading

Frame

Il
11

245

(a) Two points

Loading

D) Four points

System.

Loading

System

(c)

500 370 I-500


I
II-I-- T
-1,1
Fig=e

(6-17)

The Loading

Systems

Eight

points
I

Loading

System

246

02

rZ

. f. 4

0
m
H
.H
cl

0-1-1
co

247
'CHAPTER'SEVEN

'CONPARISONS; 'DISCUSSIONS AND'CONCLUSIONS

T-1* INTRODUCTON
In this
in

described
increasing

(a)

chapter

the results

chapter

6,

load

service

information
this

were

of the proposed

to

respect

Provide
with

The tests

examined.

method,

"models"

on the large
The behaviour

are presented.

Check the validity


with

(b)

is

of tests

designed

of

the

slabs

under

to:

design procedure,
behaviour.

and ultimate

on the

deailing

problems

and the

resulting

effects

associated
on the

slab

behaviour.
(c)

Carry

a detailed

out

to gain
forces

a proper
at high

A32 the slabs


of the test

Details

have been given

numerical

were tested
slabs,

T. 2 GENERAL DESCRIPTION'Of

under the action

of concentrated

loads.

and method of testing

properties

chapter.

THE BERAVIOUR OF THE MODELS

Model 1, (L /L
x y=1.5,

simply

supported):

This was a rectangular

simply

supported

7.2.1

of

of loading.

material

in the previous

Uabs

of the redistribution

understanding
levels

on these

analysis

slab with

an aspect

(L_,/L

The slab was designed for a total load of


1.5.
of
y)
416 KN. This design load was chosen in order to obtain reasonable

ratio

percentages
exactly
of steel

of steel

at the'points

in the structure.

The steel

where they were no longer

was done using

the design

bending

bars were curtailed


needed.

The curtailment

in
each strip
moments

of

248

Figure

(7-1)

A Slab

Model

Under

Test

249
to

according

elements,

the

bars
to
connect
used
was
according

this

CP110 rules

to

including

model,

deflection

(7.2).

slight

nonlinearity

This

is

First

caused

the loading

by the

the

curve

early

observed

towards
rather

in

provided

(6.2).
in

given

at about 0.29 Pd, but


a load

at
which

the

under

of

0.18

formed

probably

load

points

With increasing

of 0.13 mm at 0.29 Pd*

d*
during

they

the cracks

central

zone

spread along the

the corners.

There was a general

then widening

of the

existing

and were

loads,

and to cover the

points

Subsequently*

bounded by the load points.

new cracks

visible

out

to test.

prior

to spread from the load

diagonals

is

steel

model is

this

started

microcracks,

were

cracks

maximum width
tended

in

and unloading

The first

dracking

visible

of

in Table

curve for

Welding

and was carried

volume

is given

(6.4).

section

diameterss

The total

hooks etc.,

The load-central
Figure

of different
(5).

in

described

method

tendency

cracks.

to form

Deflections

continued

to increase

deflection

8
the permissible
service deflection
was
mm. This represents
(5).
At this load, the cracks covered the entire
to CP110

according
central
P

d'

Yield

tiny

the

cracks

of the slab.
vere

points

was first

span direction

visible

corners
49
the

under

of steel

the short

rate,

'The maximum crack width

zone.

directly

at a higher

evenly

of

observed

at the centre

the

slab

This

at 0.69 Pd .
of the

slab.

distributed

stage,

corners

no major

over the bottom

in

occurred

At this

load-,
the

reached

crack had formed,


surface

and

of the slab.

appearecl on the top surface

near the-corner

of 0.45

load.

of the

in a narrow band along the diagonals


UP to this

central

reached 0.3 mm at a load

application

At about 0.63 Pcjq a few cracks


at the four

and at 0.4 Pd' the

hold6: rs. * By a load

of
PdI
0.73
of

250

1-06

0-875
19
0

Oo75
"A

1-4

0-625

"A
r-4
P4

H
Cd
+2
E-4
0

Os5O

0-375

0-25

0-125

0-0

0-1

0-2

0-3

0-4

0-5

6/h
FigL=e_(7. -2)

Load Central

Deflection

Curve for

Model 1

o-6

251

1.0

0*875

0 e75
0

(D

o-625

Cd
9
0-50
H
P4
P4
4:4

H
Cd

0-375
+3
E-4
0

0-25

0-125

Oo5

0-0
Figure

(7-3)

1-0
LoadrSteel

1-5

1-0
E/ey .

Strains

2o5

in Model 1

3-0

252

r-I

0
0
0
A

co

co
o
P4

P4
0

0-4..

Pri

253
defined

a well

steel

reinforcing
the

at

0.38

centre

h.

near

were

Due to

the

(see

small

At 0.8

failure.

surface
sudden

the

The strains

7-3)

This

long

the

crack

The concrete

along the shear

off

whole

of

the supports

relative*to

steel

was about

edges.

spalled

the

the

was a deep long

supported

failure.,

in

and only

Pd, when the'deflection

of the slab
shear

dropped down significantly

Figure

occurred.

to

and parallel

cover on the bottom


crack.

also

shear

was developing.

pattern

was yielding.

a sudden

running

line

yield

the

with

central

zone

a clinking

This was a bit unfortunate.


However a check on the shear
(5)
using CP110
strength
revealed that the slab was in fact weak in
sound.

shear.

Model 2 (L /Ly -2 1.3,


x

7.2.2

is

This
(LX/L

1.3.

of

y)

The slab
the

crack

As in

the

previous

load

5 KN per

of

(T. 6),

a load

the

load

curve

for

visible

Also these

first

cracks

direction
of these
of

of the

to twice

of

in

the

a load

of

an aspect
213 KN.

is

given
in

in

ratio
A

Figure

increments

cracks

their
central

this

is
in
shown
model
in Table

cracking

was observed

before

zone tended

at

appeared under the load

under the cracking

56
P
0.8
P
cracks
and
.
d
d'

values

(7-1).

is given

diagonals.

zone bounded by the load points,

increased

with

was applied

first

Between a load

the central.

slab

underside

model,

The maximum width

cracks

on the

model,

deflection

in
the
and were

0.12

for

and a summary of the behaviour

of 0.56 Pd*

points,

supported

was designed

pattern

to the previous

Similar

supported):

cell.

The load-central
Figure

simply

of

photograph
(7-5).

a rectangular

simply

the

spread

all

over

the deflections

while
cracking

to be along

load was

the

load.

The spread

diagonals.

During

54

Figure

(7-5)

Crack

Pattern

on the

'Underside

of Model

255
load increment,

the next

the

to a total

corresponds

cracks

spreaa further

loads,

and verir

new surface
between

which

most of the'central

covering
the

near

corners

boundaries.
Pd
did
they
the
reach
slab
at
line

formed under this

pattern

limit

The deflection

very

high

service

that

steel

did

of

load.

not

centre.

This

in

strains

seen

from

spanJ250

In

addition,

at

all

yield

(7.7).

Figure

be heard

strains
surface

cracks

started

a load

started

strain

service

Pd.

first

of

measurements

P.,

the

a rapid

load,

yield

0.98

around

-However,

yield
slab
increase

as can be
tended

cracks

showed
First

load.

span steel

0.94

Pd2 and a

represents

The sound of concrete

to

cracking

was very

bars

gauges on the steel

for

At this

steel.

could

indicated

load level

At 1.31 Pds the dial

to appear.

top

gauge at the

and the load on the load

freely

of the slab was rotating


It

yield

stage.

than yield

drop.

high

the

after

in width.

higher

to

defined

definitely

strain

short

at

At 1.13 PdI 'nost of the strain

centre

This
the

the

occurred

After

at this

But only

slab.

at 0.75

was reached

at this
in

was observed

and increase

intensify
clearly

first

zone

load.

was detected

reinforcement

steel

yield

the

of

Thus a well

of 0.3a= at 0.85 Pd*

limit

crack width

of

load of 0.9 P
d'

difficult,

--* to

maintain

the

load

cells

at that

level.
The load
slab.

deflection

An ultimate

the value

taken

A clear
Fhen the slab
failure

P
1.31
then taken
was
of
d

load

well

just

before

defined

failed.

of 50 nm at the
the

yield

dial

centre

load

for

this

of the slab was

was removed.

lines

Each corner

at collapse.

as the failure

pattern

reaction

has already

developed

measured onlY 7% of the

256

1-3
Id
Cd
0

0
1-4

0.9

P4

0-7
Cd
-fj
0
E-4
0-5

Oe3

0-1

04

6
6

FigL=e

(7-6)

Load-Deflection

Curve-for

Model 2

257

1-4
1-3
1-2

1-0
0

0-8

0-6

E-4

0-4

0-2

0-0

0-,5
Figure (7*7)

1-0

105

C/C
y

'Load-Steel

Strainsin

2*0
Model 2

2-5

3-0

258

P-4

P4
C'4

914

0
P4
0

Cd
co
P-4

P-4

C14
I

c;

P-4
KIN

CO

,0

P4

Id
P-4

P-1
4C\l
T0

0
co
Y-

P-1
co l7
Er

S
N
0
P.,
zr
co

KIN

T-

CM
- 1
.

Id
cd

19
Tr-

0-1
co

259
10

3 (LX/L

T. 2.3*Model

This is

y=1.0,

a square simply

load of 210 KN.

system,

as can be seen from Figure

The'load

of 5 KN per load

First

this

is

slab

directly

the

under

in
the
appeared

no cracks

of these

in this

cracks

Under the

the

extend

The first

in this

cracks

model

towards

the

boundaries

(see

7-9).
deflection

The limiting

the crack 1=**t

while

Pd the diagonal

width

bounded by the loading


Intensive

and further

surface

cracks

A fle-n=al

the

central

development

new cracks

fo=ed

outside

a load of
I
the central
zone

load points

(Figure

(7-13)).

increased
to that

after

of the slab

corners

At 0.95 P more corner


d.

similar

of

occurred

appeared near the

failure,

cracks

Top
at this

load

were forming.
W-

rapidly.

obtained

2,
occurred
model

with
I

Pd*
1.16
at about

square

cracks

cracks

the deflections

load,

by fast

of the diagonal

(7-10)).

(Figure

Beyond this

also

At 0.76

to the corners,

to form outside

represented

formed by the four

slab,

at 0.67 Pd*

through

right

continued

The newly developed

o. 86 Pdo
on the

of 0.3mm was reached

points.

cracking

widening

Pd,
0.72
at about

of span/250 was attained

cracks were running

some new cracks

although

I/

cracking

Under the load of 0.48 Pd'

two models.

to

continued

cracks

surface

Figure

level

The spread of surface

than in the previous

was faster

points

at about 0.48 Pd' and were

zone was observed

diagonals.

along the slab

load

four

zone of the slab.

central

(T-11).

in Figure

given

Pd
0.04=.
0.38
of
and
measured
a
maximum
about
at
load,

in

The model was loaded

cell.

was observed

cracking

visible

(T-13).

for

as a four-points-load

was applied

curve for

The load7deflection

slab which was designed

supported

a total

increments

supported):

simply

260

Figure

(709)

'igure

(7-10)

Crack

pattern

Crack pattern

on the

underside

face
tor,
the
on

of Model

of ',Odel

261

Ici
W
0

1-2

1.0
19.

Cd
-P
0
E-4

o-6

0-4

0-2

0'
6/h
Figure

(7-11)

Load-Deflection

Curve

for

Model

262

1-4

,zi

Cd
0

p1
Ici

1-2

00

r-I
Cd
4.3
0

E-t

o-6

0-4

0-2

04

Figt=e

(7-12_

Load-Steel

S+rains in Model

263

cu

cc)
ON

coC,%

4-)
'
d
Q)

-P
p
0
P

4
P
,

KN

K-N
7
T-

PL4

Co

CD
P4

Xt*

264
IC'1 -4 (P JL y
T. 2.4 m6c

is a square slab

This
adjacent

sides

designed

for

only,

pinned

of loading

For deflectionsg

First

visible

at t hree points:

at o*pp osite

simply

supported

along two

The slab was

corner.

and the resulting

points

and the point

Accordingly,

are given

points

the critical

(T. 16))9

(7-17).

Figure

1.02)

as two point

support

reactions

are

(T. 19).

in
Figure
given

(see Figure

(L JL

load of 90 KN, and was applied

a total

Details

loads.

1.02

in Figure

on the slab

at the middle

of the free

the load-displacement
(7.16)

are point

curves

for

edge,
these

and Figu re (7-17).

cracks were observed on the underside of the slab

under the two load points,

and around the middle

These
free
the
edges.
occurred at a load of 0.39 Pd and were 0.04,
of
0.05 and 0.06 mmin width respectively.

With increasing loads, the

to
from
tended
the centre of tbe
spread
cracks
edgess running almost parallel

slab towards the free

to the slab diagonal Joining


the ends f
J0

(see
Figure (7.14)).
the orthogonal supporting system

Cracks developed

band covering the zone between the load points and the
wide
a
-over
Cracks
reached the confined corner at a load of 0.60 Pd*
corner.
propped
of span/250 was reached at 0.64 Pd and the maximumcrack
0.3
was
mm.,under one of the point loads. At the centre
width measured

deflection
A
,,

the
free
this
load level
the
crack
maximum
width
edgeg
measured
at
of
the
deflection
0.18
mm,
and
was only
By a load of 0.67 Pa
d

definite

6
the
near
samepoint was only
mm.

Te-e-shapedcrack pattern had developed,

but still

(see
developing
the
Figure
near
corner prop
new cracks were

(7.14))..

Strain measurementsindicated that yielc ling of steel first

the
between
two
load
the
points,
centre
at
started

at a load equal to

265

Figure

FiLn=e

(7-14)

(7-15)

Crack

Pattern

on the

Crack

Pattern

on the

Underside

Top Face

of Model

of Model

266
1*10
VL
0-88

o-66

Experiment
w.

Cd
19

Theory

L
X

0044

'211
LY

1-02

LX/Ly

P
4

-,E-4
0

21L

0-22

0-08

0-0

Figt=e

? 24
0-32
0040
S/h near cent re
Load-Deflection Curve for Model 4
0916

(7-16)

1 010

0048

74

0-68

o-66
Id
HA

H
Cd
-4j
0
E-4

0-44

0-22

0-08

0-0
FigL=e

0-16

0-24
0-32
6/h (at Mid Free Edge)

17)* T-oad-Deflection

0040

Curve f or Model 4

0! 48

267

Ici
ci
0

00

00

00
Ici
0
. ri
r-i

00

ce
-p
E-4

oo

Oe(

cAy

Fig=e

(7-18)

Load-Steel

Strains

in Model

268

(D
'd
0
ON
m
0

02

P4

All
0
cli

Cd

Cd

P4

CM

c'j
S

269
the

load,

design

and then at-the

The model failed.

The load

Of 1.1p Pd*

deflection

near the'dentre,

at the corner

cell

measured a holding

corner

propped

by excessive

of the free. edges at 1.1 Pd'

centres

diagonally

at a load

opposite

to the

of 15% of the failure

reaction

load

at collapse.
The top surface

cracks near the held

sides were first

supported

T. 2-5 Model 5 (Simply

formed at a load

L. /L

Supported,

a lower

of 2.16 KN.

load

r esulting

supports

according

to the

was curtailed

at points

where

of the loading

reactions

Figure

(7.22).

Unlike

are given

curve

behaviour

flexible

25%
higher
1,
which
was
model

Similar
pattern,

visible

to previous

At the cracking

load,

nearone load point


Cracks-reached

the

grade of concrete,

were observed

square

maximum crack widths

near the
corners

given

started

in
earlier,

had the effect


history.

This

than in the

case of

centre,
of the

under the load points.

spread in a fine

cracks

in. the central

particularly

(7-1).

cracking
loading

the

than model 5.

cracks
models,

early

slab

with

Design loads

model is

this

over the slab

(7.24-).

in Table

in this

This

the
due
to
lower
be
use
of
a
could

The first

for

model 1, cracking

at about 0.46 Pd'

and was observed


of producing

deflection

together

arrangement

in Figure

are given

and a summary of the slab behaviour


The load-central

as model 1. but was designed

and steel

Details

was not needed.

of 0.94 Pd*

The model was reinforced

in
the strips,
average moment
it

between the two

1-5):

This model had the same dimensions


for

down corner

defined

evenly

by the loading

holes.

measured, 0.15 mm and 0.18 nm

and at the mid point


slab

distributed

at a load

of the slab.

0.69
P
of
d.

Both the

Figure

Figure

(7-20)

(7-21

Crack

Crack

Pattern

on the

Pattern

on the

Underside

of Model

Top Face of Model

271

1-4

1-20

19
0

1-0

0-8

HP4
P,

o-6

H
co
-P
0
E-1
0*4

0-2

O-C

O/n
Figure

(7-22),

Load-Deflection

Curve

for

Model

272

1-2

I0

r-A
.1

.0

P
I

0-8
P4
H

Cd o- 6
0
E0*4

0-2

0-0

0*5

100

2 0'0

2r-/E:

Figare

(7-23)

Load-Steel

Strains

in Model 5

273

7I

274
limit

deflection
reached

increasing
widening

loads

new top surface

the existing

and bottom

this

model are given


The elastic

L /L

by monolithic

edge beams

plane

flexural

the present

that

the torsional

additional
according

to CP 1-10

form of longitudinal.

for

forces

loads

NNMMM
y
XY

finite

for

Xy

XY

resultants

for

finite

and
'

element model under-

in the supporting

on the beams, tensile

model,

In addition.

in the beams (see Section

and links.

this

of that

were neglected,

components only.

The'torsional

element

of the beams, to the level

layered

reinforcement
(5)
bars

dimensions

and design

properties

(N.,

resultants

of the middle

torsional

i'torsional

load

= 1-5):

model by the layered

of this

analysis

the system was designed

forces

on

(T-1).

membrane components of the stress

-estimates

pattern

to previous

mode similar

su; ported

materials

in Table

the stress

due to the fact

line

when the design

However$ in the design. of reinforcement

of the slab.
-the

slab

The dimensions,

due to the shift

than

redistribution

The beams had the same cross-sectional

sides.

model predicts

a large

yield

fo=ed

in a flexure

system,

This was a rectangular

all

developed

of the slab was clearly

T. 2.6 Model 6 (A slab-beam

around.

that

With

bf 1.07 Pdo

load
a
at
models

on the four

tended to form rather

cracks

A well

place.

The slab failed

was reached.

of 0.3 nm were

at 0.69 Pd*

were observed

which indicates

cracks,

is not taking

of forces
the top

at the top surface

cracks

limit

at a load of 0.63 P
d'

simultaneously

First

and the crack width

of span/250

reinforcement

4.4.4).

beams was added,


vas provided

in the

Also because of the underestimated


reinforcement

on the top surface

75

Fi, z=e

Figure

(7-25)

(7-26)

Model

6 TJnder Test

Cracks

on the

long

beam of Model

276
between

the

and beams was vex7

slab

ment was also

provided

The total

design

and for

the

by applying

As far

Accordingly,

for

generally

cracks

load level

beams.

d*

under

test.

cracks

These tiny

had a maximum width

but

points

to form at the middle


were running

visible

(7.29)

in Figure

(7-33).

third

of the slab

at
However,

manner.

than

earlier

in the edge
in the middle
face

outer

of the beam
at a load

to the short

to the bottom

(7-31),

to

by cracking

were spreading

at 0.533 Pd*- At this

of the beams.

of the model

first

did not reach the

parallel

are

marked in Figure

at the middle

cracking

are

of the long beams,

microcracking

of the rib,

(T. 25)

of each beam.

of the long beams starts

side

faces

points

in an elastic

behaving

cracks

beams
long
the
were extending
on
the
outer
reached

curves

failure

Figure

The behaviour

holes

to invisible

of 0.03 =

to

cell.

critical

side of the ribs

of 0.46 Pd'

cracks

load

of 0.38 Pd2 when the

load

This

was tested

is not very much affected

the slab

(6.9a),

at these three

curves

the loading

in the deflections

inner
the
of

the

(7-31).
and

and was probably

At a total

caused tiny

5 KN per

the load-deflection

beams.
long
the
of

with

be
can
attributed
and

this,

third

(7-30)

reinforce-

Resulting

Figure

and at the mid point

on the inner

in line

that
be
seen
can

nonlinearity

of

concerned,,

up to a load

were observed

in
shown

The model

model

of the slab,

linear

was 240 KN.

is

(6.9b).

are

(7.29),

By examining

this

the'slab

this

(5).

model

the load-displacement

around points

it

in

this

as deflections

in Figures

given

this

increments

in

CP110

for

Figure

load

the

at the middle

those

is

beams in

a photograph

gives

load

distribution

reinforcement

to

according

Accordingly,

small.

load,

of 0.533

edge beams, and


the

face of the rib,

The depth of these

cracks

cracks
and
on

277
r--

FiFare

(7-27)

FioEare (7-28)

'rack

Pattern

Crack Pattern

on the :nderside

of ',Icdell -,

on the Top Face of Model

278

the

inner

depth

the

of

rib

to

the

of

ribs

this

at

than

rather

cracks

of the

side

load.

long

A general

open up the

trend

existing

in the middle

maximum crack width

beams did

not
to

form

cracks

third

the

reach

-mid

new surface

was observed.

of the ribs

The

of the long beams

load
0.10
at
mm
a
of 0.533 Pd'
was
At

a load

beams.

line

with

the

at points

in

midheight

of the
as the

be taken
very

inner

the

loading

load

service

the

ribs

At

the

short

outer
width

than

the

load,

the

towards

holes

At

third

a load

load,

the

cracks

first

centre

width
holes

inner
the
on

face of the ribs.

d'

most

of

the

first

their

mid

between the slab

of the ribs

line

mm near
with

on the
in

Also

spreading

inclination

a general

cracks

height

but

still

in

reached the

extended

no cracks

the

middle

of the rib

and the rib.

Cracks on the outside

depth,

in

were

from inside,

The

Imum

under the loading

of the long beams.

most of the cracks

depth of the beams.

still

0.13

measured.

cracks

crack measured 0.2 nm, just


side

generally

observed

not

slab

Some of these

of the long beams covered the full

largest
the
of

were

beams, with

supporting

may

were much smaller

cracks

the

of

the

load

was only

were

beems

of 0.625 Pd'
P

0.72

These

this

at points

cracks

long
reached

were

load

beams,

and thus

slab,
the

at

the long

junction
the
and reached

reached

long

cracks

this

at

middle

(7-33)),

Although

model,

edge beams.

at a load
of

Pd*

width

to
beams.
350
the
edge
of about
loading

0.625

the

on the

cracks

(Figure

this

the

first

holes

of

for

of

this

in

cracks

the

loading

a load

at

holes.
of

outwards

the

ribs

edge of

face

at this

However,

in

formed

more new cracks

The maximurn crack

narrow.

the

Pd'

long

of

third

0.625

of

On the outer

to about half

of the short
appeared

the total

beams als. 0
on the

inner

face

279

1.6

1-4
Id
Cd .
0
r-4

1000,

1-2
(D

.j. /II

-Q.
1-0

i+

1(

11

P4
0.8

Expetiment

0
E-4

Theory

o-6

(Pin)

I
Theory (Roller)l

xx

0*4
A

Theory

(Pin)

Theory

(Roller)

Sandwich

Fle=e

0-2

0-0

0-1

092

0*3
/h

FigL=e (7-, 29)

Load-Central

0-4
Deflection

095
In Model 6

0-6

280
of

their

On the

ribs.

bottom

the

of

slab . the

were observed to reach the supporting


step towards

the formation

of one collapse

indicating

form

the first

Crack widths

mechanism.

load.

this

of 0.8 P.,

At a load
was only

centre
this

but

generally

This

4id

corner,
not

and were

form

cracks

covering

on the

of the slab,

face

outer

corner

third

middle

of the rib
the major

the long beams., and joined

cracks
with

of the rib

one third

the

depth

These

rib.

depth,

the

of

were

of the long

cracks
load

on the inner
and were
of these

and did not extend

from the bottom


at the centre

the main crack

near

cracks

The maximi= extension

zone.
the rib

inclined

the first

side

at this

observed

breadth

inner

The first

deflection

service

load,

the

of

at the slab

the centreline

side.

beams were also


its

to

extending

did not exceed one third

beyond the middle


side

At this

0
at about 150 with

inclined

of the short

rapidly

deflection

the limiting

represents

to CP110(5).

beams, measured from the


side

the maxilnum total

on the long beams were formed on the

supported

rib,

8 =.

model according

cracks
the

long beans,

to

cracks

of the slab measured a Tna-ximumof 0.08mm only under

on the underside

for

first

face.

On the under

of the slab had reached


at the middle

of the

beams.

At 0-9 Pd more inclined


the

corners.

This time

this

cracking

the beam ribs

and were running

inside
the
on

of the ribs.

interaction

torsional
level,

cracks
the earliest

in a direction

was seen to cancel

cracks

face

normal to those

the simultaneous
of the

were noticed

face

of

formed

may be due to the interaction

In the previous

effectd.

onkthe outer

occurred. on.the outer

also

These cracks

between shear and torsional


this

on the long beams appeared near

cracks

increment,

appearance

long beams.

to widen.

load

At this

The maxi=m

of the
load
crack

o5(

1*33

1*17

19
0

1-0

0-83

0-67

ti

-P
0

E--4

0,50

0-33

0-17

000

6/h
FigL=e (7-30)

Load-Mid Beans Deflectionsin

Model 6

282

1-5

1-33

1-17
1:1
Cd
0
H

Q)

0
1-4

1'O

0-83

o-67
0
E-4

0-50

0-33

0-17

0- -0

0-02

0-04

0-06

0-08

0-10

0-12

6/h

Figure

(7-31)

Load-Relative Deflection
Long'Beams in Model 6

between Slab and

0.14,

283

lZ

C/I

r.
4-4
Cd
P
4-2

9
A
N
WN

t-\M

K\
Kl%

t-0
%,

Kl\
Kl\

psol USTSO
Cl/peoI T-.
eloz

9
0

284

Loading

N. B.

4oles

Maxked

a.,

II

II
II
I
II
II
II
II
II
II
II

I.

1125

1".
.
870 3120

1125

II
II
II

L-

870

655

2180

Fig=e_

(7-33)-

Dimensions

and Loading

655

Positions

6
Model
on

285
was 0.3 =

width

near the loading

Th.e change in stiffness


load

this

of

increments,

two beams was formed at about a load


disruption

of

load

this

around
and the

the

near

On the

slab.

was wideningt

centre

beams.

dial

gauge under

was very

the

bottom

the

difficult

centre

of

to maintain

increased
the

slab

the load

1.48 pd was taken as the ultimate

at

the
that

corners

major
the

by a load'of

the

the
were

observed

between

at

and

between

cracks

junction

slab,
with

due to excessive

was then stopped,

the

of the

and was continuous


rapidly

junction

corner

along

face

near the

cracks

Top surface

corners,

formed,

of 1.19 Pd' indicating

connection.

Deflections

long

test

corner

of old
the

cracking

(7.30).
few new cracks

very

through

crack

of the long beams.

beams due to'extensive

to the extensions

A major

slab.

on the ribs

be seen from Figure

load

these were confined


the

of the short

can clearly

On subsequent

holes

the

at the

crack
middle
1.48

beams

Pd. the
9

was rotating

freely,,

and it

at a certain

value.

The

deflection,

the

of

and the load

of

load.

7.3 DISCUSSION OF TEST RESULTS:


States.

Ser7iceability_Limit

T. 3-1

(7-I)

Table
is taken

sin= rizes

the test

as the mininum of two values:

of span/250,

the other

Accordingly,

the general

the service
1.
model

all

behaviour

results.

This model actually

slabs

is satisfactory,

tested

failed

in shear,

limit

of 0.3 M(5).

to be drawn from the table

conclusion

load

one based on a deflection

on a maximum crack width

of all

The service

is

that

except

due to an error

in its

design.
In the adoption
the
elastic
of
made

of the present
stress

distribution

design

procedure,

use had been

under the design

load by the

286

-ri
Im

1-

%Z

t-

CD

Co

PL4

ro

C%

cr%

GD

M
lid

Lr%

Lr\
OD

\.0

N-\
1%0

E-1

Kl%

a)

J
0
43
.H

02

CO-4
0

?4
0)

lid

(D
e

-l

Ul\
t--

t-

%Z

%0

CD

CH
0

19
0
Cd
0
CM

CM

Cd
cc

0
C-4 P.,
m
cm

CQ
0

cy

C\i

CM
Cd
0
H

CD

0
r-i
b.0

\M

Id
H
a)

Y.
,
ab-

P:4
0

(D

-d -,> rd 5
;1

CD

'Ire,

(D

cli

CD

CD

CD

cm

C)
-

-0

CD
TP-4

qb-

112

r-i

cli

Kl%

142-

Ul\

%Z

P-
P4

to
'-I
.

287'
finite

However, such an analysis

element method.

"elastic"

deflections

under the

have been used'in

stiffnesses

would be a serious

the

loads,

design

to Limit

Theox7 should

normal

practice

is to design

for

deflections
they

under the service

deflections

under the design

deflection

an effective

loads.
load,

ultimate

a valid
and the
and then

design

procedure,

be used to check for


Partially

So if
the

cracked

the elastic

study,

(Section
method

the Branson's

under

state,

the present

In this

deflections

criteria,

limit

directly

if

useful

uncracked

deflections

serviceability

cannot

can'be

elastic

However,

the ultimate

had been used.

properties

have been used with


the

satisfy

predicts

such elastic

of the true

Accordinglylin

serviceability.

serviceability,
section

Since

as has been shown in Chapter

the elastic

since

load.

analysis,

underestimation

service

check for

design

normally

2.3-1.1),

deflections
to predict

6e is the elastic
deflection

service

will

be
r

pe9
where

(
c/ LF x. I

6xI

6p

Predicted

6e

elastic

19=

gross

def lect Ion


deflection,

moment of

LF

described

A sunmary of the predicted


(7.2).

assumptions

in most tested
the serice

cracked
slabs

load

in Appendix

behaviour.

sections(Appendix

the li-ve

is taken

of all

have been predicted,

Deflections

for

of the section

= Load Factor

The method is fully

in Table

inertia

moment of inertia

:'-- effective

eff

eff

load

as Pd/1.6

E).

(E).
test

models is

using

the simplifying

Due to the fact

is about 10 times
(i. e. 0.625 Pd).

the

given

that

dead load,

288

U-%

\0

C\j
C--

co
C\j

Ul\

C-

ul

4OP4
0
Id
v -H
Id

LCI%
*

P4

Q) 4-4

(D (10

tc\

::r

r-

10

.0

0
C\j
a) to

C\j

Kl\

04

\. O
U,,%

LIcr \

,a
Cd

E-4
0
--4
Cd a)
Cu (1)

C\j
a, \

C\j
Kr\

cr\
Kl\

04
02
04

-:

co
0
K'\
0
0

E(D

. \-O

a\

W\

LCI%

cd

' r=z9 0.
Zo
C/2
(1)

o-,

a ,\

8
C\j

C\j

cr\

co 0
T-

ON
co
Kl\
0

co
C\j

4-3
+3
CH
0

0
-H
44

Cl\
T-

UN

C14

LC\

U-11

U-\

0
0

T-

Ll-

Ir"

r
4-4

Cd

it
40

co
4-)
19

a)

4
P4

0p

co

(D
P4

(1)%..oo

Ir.

4-2 P4

0
44

r-

%D

E-4

ON

ON

a\
r-I

E-4

cq

r-4

ON

41
4.4

4)
Id
o

C\j

4.3
14-4

r-i

cli

K%

UN

\D

E-4

289
As can be seen from

yields

adopted procedure

this

that

model

The Tria i TnlTn crack

in

width

of

each test

of the total

maximum width

had always been one of the first

pointso

except

occurs,

rate

is

departs

from the elastic


is liable

few
by
major
governed

cracks,

if

then service

loads

for

a limit

five

distribution

models.

all

state
J,

of the

in all

is

close

reinforcement
increase

the models
was not

exceeded.

limits

to each other

of spanJ250 is taken

of deflection

on the

models behaved in a

Both serviceability

by deflections

or rapid

sharp and rapid

load

tested

or at loads

deflection

smooth and

and the behaviour

the design

Model 1).

are defined

An average limit

the last

the

with

of cracks

Opposed to this,

behaviour,

simultaneously

Accordingly,

widths.

until

is

of even spread

were always forming,

(except
manner

either

in line
.

No sharp increase

of the stresses,

to occur..

In texms of service

reached

result

analysis

heres new cracks

satisfactory

the maximum width

beams

supporting

' In cases where the

surface

tested

the

to appear on the

cracks

in the me imum crack width

a natural

of the slabs.

in crack widths

(7-34),

Figwe

of the'loads.

increase
of

which

shown in

The crack having

crack having

as can be seen from the figures.

uniformg

due to the

crack had always been 'under the load

of the long

of application
The rate

is

on the slab.

in model 6. where the

on the soffit

occurred
points

This

of the model.

serviceability

cr/pd*

slab

as a function

underside

load

the

case of model 1 is

ratio

the

transformed

checks on the

in-the

that

Accordingly,

by the-cracked

acceptable

a low

1.

model

predictions.

deviation

has got

for

except

nodified

yield

The large

of the slab.
fact

will

properties,

section

excellent

deflections

of elastic

adoption

(7.2)

Table

xather
load

were

(Table

as a criterion,

than by crack
of 0.735 Pd is

obtained

290

ca
op

4
pa
0
r.

4
+2

CQ
4)
E-4

cli
4
+21

I
cc

1
I

N-

I
Iz:t-

C\i

Co

\Z

lle

P114d

cli

291

limits

serviceability
It

6. showed an excellent

in model

The slab

were reached
here that

be
mentioned
should
(7-1)

table

actually

If

slab.

the deflections
limit

the deflection
(Figure

values

design

load.
to in

of the

centre

edge beams were considered,

on the slab wLs reached


the LizLtinj

Both

referred

at the

values

to the

to the

close

the deflection

relative

Furthermore,

7.31).

at loads

to the total

refer

behaviour.

service

at a load

crack width

of 1.29 Pd

was reached

at

1.2 Pd*

Limit

7.3.2 Ultimate
(7-1)

Table

the first

As far

as first

yield

within

place

in model ls

value

loads

its

although

the first

in all

load

for

models,

all

the

truncated
rest

four

in the

except

model

"flexural"

be considered

from

loads.

no yield

of steel

in
range
all

models.

Even the slab

within

stressed

the

service

due to early
load.

cracking,

An average

88
o.
P
to
was
models
equal
d'

loads were all

The measured failure

will

and the failure

was highly

steel

the ultimate

concerning

are concerned,

load

did not yield

the reinforcement
for

yield,,

the service

obtained

The behaviour

models.

viz.

two criteria,

the results

suanarizes

of the tested

behaviour-

took

State:

1.

ultimate

in excess of the

design

this

model

The shear

failure

behaviour

of

of the slab.

loads

For'the

edge beams, an average enhancement of 16%


possooLy indicates
is observp-d.
This
that very little
-/,

models without

design

redistribution

load

had actually

taken

place

the slab became a

before

mechanism.
The slab-beam
In fact,

both the

6
in
model
system.
recorded
service

and ultimate

a higher

behaviour

of this

load

enhancement.

model are

292
by the

affected

of having

presence

membrane forces
load

in the slab

is

the slab

runs right

results

of the slab.

the slab

bars may rupture

prevent

the development

of the tensile

stage.

at failure,

no increase

deflections

of the slabs

perhaps

the

the development

contributing

in the following

at the

centre

because at very

of
depend

of course will

large

This will

to

possible

were undergoing.
was observed.

were rapidly

increasing,

of the tensile

develops

then

membrane action.

was not

the loads.

reach

this

very

large

The central
which made it

In case of model 6,
the
top connection
and

connection,

and the supporting

to this

This

which

slab undergoes

altogether.

(7.28)),

beans (Figure

membrane action.

48%
in
its
enhancement
of
an

model recorded

me=brane action

crack

in the loads

of the corner

failure

between the slab

it

the slabs

to maintain

difficult

extremely

here,

tested

deflections,

the

in the reinforcement,

the reinforcing

Although

considerably

membrane action

depth.

strains

inplane

of compressive

compressive

and in most cases,

amount of strain

models

which will,

This

on the

In the

the'lateral

would Occur only when the

through

The effect

in the development

from the tensile

The latter

deflections,

beams.

supporting

capacity.

carrying

different

loads.

large

very

This

at the . centre

its
enhance

strong

beems is to restrain

supporting

strong

in
the slab.
movements

at high

the

of

In any case,
load.

design

enhancement in the ultimate

prevented

loads

this

The factors
will

be discussed

section.

Atumed

7.3.3'Pogsible'Reason8'f6t'the'DiffLir6rices*B6tv66h'thO-'A:
.. Elastic-'F'lelds)*and'Tru6'Ultimat6'Behavi6ur'6f*the'Md6ls.
To explain
on the models,

some of the phenomena enco-untered


the following

factors

contributed

during
to the

the experiments
deviations

293
between the assumed (elastic)

This factor

does not

in
Chapter
been
has
shown
as
criterion

yield
infinite

used

For

strength.

needed is

(80)

Clark

concrete

exact
finite

with

but the inaccuracy

insignificant
showed that

for

only

of

-effect

almost

and Morley(71)

is

3.14)

The

procedure.

concrete
the

strength,,

yield

was shown to be insig-

0
in concrete

But the variation

of the slab,

on the stiffness
The concrete

of which

by crack

affected

initiation

by the concrete

strength,

the stiffness.

This

factor

the
and

both the service

In the former

case, by providing

not affecting

the cracking
characteristics.
but

'not. be affecteds
restricting

deflections.

and the

the working

within

which

the strength

cracking
load

are in turn

the higher

to the good service

contributed

range.

modulus and the tensile

and propagation,
the higher

cracking

will

is
governed
be

behaviour

amounts of steel

Affects

deflection

stiffness

effects

6.
in
system
model

of the slab-beam
(2) Increased

the slab

control

has significant
in the post

to Young's

As the slab

of the slab.

strength

particularly

relates

strength

both

strength

crack

depths.

slow stiffness
in

behaviour.

service

load

ultimate

extra

behaviour

stiffness

significantly)

has the

Consequently$

leads

The'total

desirable
less
effect-is

of the slab.

to the slab

(although

to improved

Crack spread over the slab

the factor

degradation*

the

design

(80)

nificent

load

5.

(equation

is not as exact,

criterion

the

affect

on the amounts of steel

strength

concrete

with

at

Strerigth

Cnrete

the

of forces

loads.

ultimate
(i)

distribution

and real

surface

influence

crack widthss
an overall

will

of
and hence
improvement

294
Increasing

the amount of steel

of yield.

In the experiments.

with

steel,

extra

the extra

was not an additional


the reinforcing

not curtailing

and additional

but

was added to resist

steel

some of this

And definitely

improved behaviour

(3)

steel,

In case of model 2,
rather

bars near the supports

over those predicted

stresses

Table
Typical

(7-3)

to avoid

lists

curves

mild

flexure

the excess torsional


(see
Section
model
has contributed

4.4.4).

to the

will

be discussed

of the

steel

used in the

This

in

but

(as will

generally

in the

defini. t6ly

contributes

be shown in Section

experiments.

(6.12).
and

used had a good

of steel

both

factor

(6.11)

in Figures

the type

the yield,

steel.

behaviour,

of the. slab

for

effect

are given

(7-3),

after

of strength

service

This

the properties

As can be seen from Table

and ordinary

steel

shear

of'steel

stress-strain

reserve

additional

from

resulted

(7.4).

hardening

Strain

by the layered

of the model.

in Section

detail

(6.2).

In case of model 6, the model had been designed

failures.
only,

the initiation

both model 2 and model 6 were provided

as can be seen from Table

steel

delays

provided

case of high

yield

does not affect

to the ultimate

the

strength

7.4).

(4) Membrane forces


Inplane
slabs

effort

contributes

Figure

increase

wasmade to eliminate

some frictional
6.13)

resistance

loaded

in two groups: -

Compressive membrane action


to the

in laterally

from edge restraints

resulting

can be classified
(a)

which

forces

developing

in ultimate

edge restraints
between the rollers

is bound to occur.

In any case,

at low deflections,
loads.

Although

every

in the experiments,
and the flats
the effect

still

(see

of this

factor

295

0'

C14
s

0
CO
n
U-N

CH

K\
T-

M-

Cl%
t;

rlLr%

C\j

U'l%
c li

)
U'N

06

11-

co
"::I,

cr\

Ul\

C\j
C14
z

ctl
+3

.0

lid
0)
,o

co

co

ON
C14

L--

Ll-

Ll-

LlC\l

\10
Lr%
4-2

^4

4Z,
%lo
CD
C\j

CD
co

co
GN

Kl\
CM

4-4
0

C\l

P4
0
H

(D
+)
02

00
0-%

(D
4-3

12)0

co

C)

\.O

CC)

e4l

296
is

low

the

from

enhancement

6, the

model

inward

observed

in

up in

sets

the

ultimate

load

element

model

can deal

the

with

the

slab,

this

load.

a strong

in

But
to

restraint

the

Such a restraint

surface.

the

of

long

Accordingly,
which

is

beams and the

an induced
to

contributed

Fortunatelys

model.

as can be seen

models.

ultimate

bowing

beams.

this

of

five

provided

bottom

slab

outward bowing of the short


force
membrane

first
in

obtained

of the'

by the

represented

the

edge beans

strong

movement

outward

in

significant

not

probably

the

compressive

the

layered

as wi3.1 be shown in

problem,

enhancement
finite
the

next

section.
(b)

Tensile

happens .t high
the

through

that

reveals

loads.

whole

by the tension

developing

membrane action

At this

of the

slab

bars with
this

slab

stageg bottom

thickness.

acting

occurs

action

at

large

deflection,

surface

cracks

load

and the

as a cat46nary.

will

would run

be carried

(99)

Literature
is

when the deflection

and

approximately

equal to the slab thickness.


This

situation

due to the limitation


finite

present

of the. loading

the models tested,


Unfortunately,

apparatus.

element model cannot treat

displacement

large

in all

could not be achieved

this

probIem,

since

the
it

ignores

effects.

7.4'NONLINEAR ANALYSIS OF THE'TESTMODELS.Using the nonlinear


study,

incremental
an

Details

of the materials

finite

analysis

Table

(7-5).

program developed

of the test

properties,

iterations
the
number of
and
in
gi-7en

element

The materials

models was perfo=ed.

mesh size,

used in the

in this

analysis

properties

load

increment

size

of each. model are


used

are

those

297
Table

(794):
.

Service-Load
s
l/s,
-61162

Model
No.

Results of the nonlinear


experimental
models

cr2

of the

analysis

P /%
2
ul

Design Lo d
6dl/6d2
Cd1

-. 2

d2

0-75

1-09

1015

0.90

0-68

0-82

100

0 73

0.98

0-83

0.98

0,,72

0.98

1-15

0*97

0-93

1-0

0-83-

0-81

0-54

0,,97

0-87

0-86

0078

1-00

0-85

1-00

1-00

1-00

1*12

1-12

1 04

1-00

The Cracking

Load

Maximum deflection
es
6d'

Maximum
steel*st=ain
=
Maximum
deflection
=

under

Suffix

for

Suffix

for

experimental

Ultimate

load

service

under

under
load of the slab
theoretical
results

P=

service

design

results

(0-625

load

load

(Pd)

Pd)
--

298

Ul\

LN

Lr%

-p

CY

C)
bi
u2

S.,
.02

le

Q)
x

kt

\.0

%Z

\o
%M

CD
Co

Ict
le

clt-

(D

Cd
-P
Cd
Id
r-4
Cd

MIN
l;t
=A

\I

l\o

C\i

c"i

C)

c)

(D

Id
0

G2
CNJ

r4

C\i

CM
M
r-q 4-4
Cd 0

C/I

c4

0
%,
txt

CD
%Z
Kil

CD
%I0
-e

N'\
cl-e

K"%
r,Igt

H
Cd

C)
0

0
F1
4-4
0

cq

Ul%

C)

l
CM

c
c"i

CM

CM

0
0
cli

H
4)
CD

P4

t-

C"

T
CM

C
rc\
%-o

N_

CM

K'\

CD

KN

E-4

Id 0
0

cli

299
in

measured

the. laboratory
1 to

For models
Figure

(7.35)

strain

hardening

has been

strength.

In

The reason

for

in

the

and the

short

centre

membrane forces

for

designed
was
model
ignored.

completely
flexure

designed

moments

The design

for

(3.4).

conbined

flexure

sandwich model,
is

completely.

of all

beams in

elastic

in the slabs

this

this

(T. 49)

is

that,

the

by

two types

In the first,

case was done using

contribution

the

along

are balanced

model.

in section

model

Figure

However,

beams.

6,

enalysis.

shown in

and membrane forces,

analyses'are

in Table

and are surmarized

case of model

Due to the

the

were
the equations

the model was

using
(3-7).

the open
In this

in resisting

the

forces

ignored.

The results

between theory

plateau.

In the second analysis'.

(filling)
core

hardening

and the membrane forces

been
described
has
as
modelq
sandwich
the

Strain

and membrane forces


6 are

yield

actual

of such distributions

here for
only,

the

only.

by the

flexure

their

the

was assumed.

used.

flexure

in the supporting

in section

for

steel

for

of model

had been undertaken

of analysis

attain

for

predicted

membrane forces

compressive

(6.12)

supporting

normal
line

bars

eccentric

The effect

respectively.

predicted

are

account

a long horizontal

after

by the

the

of

of mild

into

harden#g

Figure

in

given

takes
the

after

were designed

membrane forces

(T-51)
and

for

starts

curves.

6,, no strain

the type

was tested.

model

idealization

be
seen from
can

produced

variations

tensile

This

models analysed

significant

long

used.

case of model

of steel

edge restraints

Typical

ed stress-strain

reinforcement

curve for

in such a type

same day the

idealiz

the

this

stress-strain

All

5. the

on the

and experiment
4,

it

(7.4).

given

In general,

a very

can be seen from, these

can be se6n that

the

(7.2)

in 7igures

response

(7-51),

good agreement

results.

up to

to

the

In the
service

load

300

STRESS

f
0-8

High

Yield

Steel

STRESS

f
I

F-y

(b) Mild

Fig=e

Steel

(7*35) Idealized Stress-Strain


Curves for
used in the experiments

Steel

301
is

Fell

very

the

theoretical

model

stiffening

effect

This

beyon'd
is

by the

predicted

the

by poor

caused

with

and probably
would lead
desired

this,

a larger

a smaller

size

after

load,

The analysis

of

in the ultimate

loads

of individual

the figure,
the slab

under working

ultimate

strength

to

slightly
on ultimate
and the
on the
Similarly,

will'

the

behaviour

are

membrane forces.
section
the

is

was model 2.
influences

Figures

the

of
due to

ultimate

but

behaviour

membrane

contributes

also

very
influence

The biggest
amount
the

action

moment capacity,

to, (7.48)

of

the strain

of

amount

moment at'the

ultimate

has been

much to the

hand,

increased

increasing

of

conpressive

(7.40)

the

slab.

the

As can be seen from

does not contribute

response,

strain

(T-36)

Figure

the. service

On the other

the

enhance its

the

enhancement

To quantify

on the response,

The effect

of

that

to membrane forces,

service

those

increase

existence

considerably
(4)

Wood
by
shown

to

up to

the

behaviour

ultimate

the

yield

indicated

models

but

the

However, this

five

strength

affect

could be used,

satisfactory.

of the section.

does not

hardening

the

are considered

considered

loads,

in

yield

the results

parameters

the concrete

and

here was successful

in the amounts of steel.

The problem

computed.

first

one,

but would definitely

can be attributed

increase
and

hardening,

and 7.42)

a numerical

the

loads,

does not seem any need to refine

first

the

(7.16,7.17

increment.

conducted

there

at high

the'experiment.

number of 'iterations

analysis,

And thus

that.

is

after

of load

As the analysis

80% of the ultimate

effects

convergence

to an expensive

result.

analysis

of

than

Figures

The effect

range.

But

model.

response

can be seen from

rate

To eliminate

slab.

element

shows a stiffer

load

service

finite

steel,
of

steel

section.
on the

section

as has been

show this

fact.

302

1-4

. -0

--

1-20
0**
.
.00
100

0-8
p
Pd
0*6

Actual

Steel with strain


hardening

Actual

steel without
hardening

Theoretical
strain
0-4

strain

steel. without
hardening

Theoretical
steel with
30)
Grade
fcu
reduced

AA

0-2

0-0

0-1

0-2

0*3
S/h

Figiare (7-36) Effect of*Vaxious


of Model 2

70

0-4

095

0-6

paxameters on the response

303.
IIhe

moments

increased

due

levels.

The

Analysis

A in

the

of

Stiffness

Since

in

it

iLmored,

high

at

design

in

6.

of model

using

forces

less

only

A).

flexure

over

reinforcement

whether

loadd,

strength

additional

improved

service

cases

response

flexure

for

the

althought

behave better.

that

of

the
this

designs

system
for

will

combined

(no experimental

in

design,

the

the

for
needec,

than that

satisfactorily

in

forces

than that-required
in
total
the
25%
of
is

forces
membrane

flexural

strengths

this-analysis,

justifies
of

and membrane forces

behave

(designated

that
found
was

The analysis

mdql.

or combined flexure

designed

in

beams which

supporting

including

and materials

However, an increase

needed by disregarding
to

completely

an analysis

in them was higher

A).

analysis.

of

effect

tensile
the
of

But as a result

(Analysis

only

It

torsional

the

were

were considered

in the slab was generally


(Analysis

loads

load

experi-

the

model

was thatt

difference

the edge beams, the reinforcement

both

design

3-7)-

-"l-xure

This

do thisl

was done on a hypothetical

and flexural

by

membrane forces

to

the

in

the

high

6 (designated

caused

investigate

dimensions,

at

than

underestinated

6, the

models

model

flexible

mainly

the open sandwich model (Section

reinforcement

for

being

In order

design.

The min

membrane forces

is

test

forces
of

analysis
more

to

worthwhile

identical

with

equivalent)

both

of model

the

the

This

beams,

the

menbrane

slightly

levels.

Fig. (7.29))

Analysi. -; B in

to

load

was thought

mein-brane forces

those

were

supporting

the

of

in

sections

compressive

results

(7.29))

Fig.

critical

induced

the

analytical

curve

ncntal

to

the

at

capacity

the

required.
the

model

show that
under

in

service

an' membrane forces

would

304
T-5 CONCLUSIONS
The general

to be'drawn

conclusions

siumnarized as follows:

Although

(Equation

the

3.14)

is

true

strictly

and does not necessarily


width

of a strip

Tests

criterion

variation

of steel

pattern.

a reasonable

width,

strip

The maximum

wide strips.

where L is the

indicated

results

that

the behaviour

of the slabs

by the proposed method was satisfactory.


in the working

crack widths
limits,

as defined

and crack widths

No yield

of steel
First

range.

load

by Cpllo(5)

span/250

span

occurred
loads

yield

design

deflections
,

the

in all

tests

were very

is

the

average

design moment in the strips,

behaviour

will

steel

ultimate

curtailed

load behaviours

The ultimate

behaviour

reinforcement

yielding

If

pattern
will
of all

acceptable
than

not greater

within

the service

to the design

close

based

on the

loads,

maximum or the

the resulting

service
case were

the maximum moment in the


is used, both

the service

be greatly

improved.

models-was

satisfactory,

at loads

load

load was obtained.

Two examples in this

be satisfactory.

by model 2 and model 5.

or the exactly

and

mm.

<0.3

Whether

of

designed

Both deflections

range were within

and an average of 90% of the design

given

of

the yield

here was L/8,

considered

are

with

within

cover very

of

in any direction.

length
2.

Tnoment fields

elastic

in a gradual

layout

a practical

when linked

nature.

results

T"his statement

provides

theoretical

varying

continuously

can be

The proposed method of design


steel.

from these tests

very

blose

to the

and

with

design

strips

the

loads.

305
Failure

in

loads

An average

load

hardening

of

models

enhancement

the

by considering

design method.

the

of the

ultimate

loads

compressive

design

loads.

16% were

of

and the

action

systems,

25% more steel

strain

In fact

can be

the proposed

when menbrane forces

than when neglected.


is overbalanced

in steel

no saving

membrane action.

required

were considered
reinforcement

excess

reinforcement.

In the case of slab-beam


achieved

in

were
in

by the*induced

caused

mainly

all

in the slab

A reduction

in the beam

increase

by a larger

reinforcement.
In

slab-beam

the

design

proposed

systems,
of the

method

Consideration,
produces

whether

system

will

the

or not,

behave

in

on the

are

in

the

behaviour

the

the

of

by the

two

cases.

(Sandwich

design

in

considered

designed

system

sati$factorily

of membrane forces

improvements

forces

membrane

Models)

than

system

when

neglected.
Both the experiments
on slab-beams

and theoretical

systems,
Initiation

connection.

the two beams expedites


fact

that

the

torsional

by the finite

analysis
the importance

indicated
of failure

at the corner

the collapse
fixity

of the

of the

beams is

corner

junction

of the system,

elements

between

due to the

considerably

reduced.
Prediction

of the sersrice

methods described
(E) are adopted,

behaviour

in Chapter

2.

If

can be made using


the assumptions

the use of an effective

a cracked

transfo=ed

behaviour

of the

slabs

section
designed

any of the
in Appendix

inertia
moment of

can very well

predict

by the present

using

the service

method.

The

306

on the

40% of the

of

behaviour.

service
design
10.

procedure,

between
method

to

proved

concrete

slabs
the

of
with

layered

The nonlinear,,
study

load

cracking

excess

of the

and reliability

accuracy

and the

the

slab.

design

load,

of

the

acceptable
finite

and slab-beans

actual

behaviour

depends

calculation
loads

cacking
method

the

predicts

by the

in

direct

proposed

accuracy.
model

for

systems.

predictions
slab

this

element
tool

of

With

designed

slabs

be a powerful

theoretical

method

the

in

developed
analysis

Excellent

made by the
has been

of

this

reinforced

agreement
finite

obtained.

element

307

I.

L.

C L.
..

Figure

(7*37)

P/Pd causing

yield

in Model 1

2,10
1 *5

m
V7

1.0
0-5
000

2-0
s-

1-5
1-0
0-5
090

10

Distance
Figure

(7-38), Ultimate

along Short C. L.
1
Model
behaviour
of

308
L.

1-.11

1-0

-11

*96

l-o6

1-11

-81

081

o85

-81

-81

-90

-85

-81

1-06

1-06

1-06

e96

1-21

. 91

---1-06

Figur

'D/pd
causing
J.

I1

1-06

I
1

1*15

Model

yieldin

C. L .

AT 1- 31 Pd
AT Pd

first
..,-AT
2-0

1-5
m
MP

1-0
0-5
000

2-0

1-5
1-0
0*5
. 0-0

0
Distance
pigt=e

(7.40)

along

Ultimate

short

C. L.

Behaviour

of Model 2

yield

load

309
C. L.

100

0"80

-,77

*77

o. 96

0.8

-77

*77

0..8

p/pd

causing

yield

80

-80

98

. 98

C.L.

in Model

T first

yield

TPd

260

1-5
m
mp
00
I

0*5

50

0-0

Distance
FigL=e

along

(7-41)-Ultimate

C. L.
behavio=

of Model

310
free
1.08

1.08 1-081

1904 -93 1-041


s87

1
1

- 72

*9711-01

1-04 @87 -87 *93 097 1.0 1-11 free

0
pl
p4
;2

1-08

-93

-93

9c
.
993

-93

072

1 -11

993

simply

.9 1-11

,87 1904

supported

MY

2-0
AT Pu

1-5

MY
Ilp
AT fimst

1-0

0-5

Fig=e

(7-42)

-25

.
-Distance'along
Ultimate

-50

-75

A-A

behaviour

of Model 4

1-0

yield

load

311
C. L.

1913

P/P

iing
caus
d

94
s94

-86

-81

99

. 89

. 89

yield

in Model

U. L.

2-0

105
m
ir
p

AT Pu

1-0

first
yield
load

095
0-0

2.0

mp

1*5

u
first
load

1.0
005
0-0
Distance
Figi=e

(7-43)

along long C. L.
Ultimat'e behavio=
of Model
1

yield

312

C. L.

Fl.

-92

1-,39

1-39

1-33

1,18

107

-92

139

1-39

1,33

l*07

107

le07

-97

1054

139

le13

1-07

l*07

107

97

1-59

1-23

1-07

le07

1-23

1-28

1-02

le33

l"18

1-,18

1-33

139

1-39

-97
.

1-18

1-18

1,49

1-49

1944

le39

1-02

97

97

87

-87

'187

07

C.L.

Ple=al

1187

Design

C. L.

*93

1* 41

1 *35

1-20

1.09

1.09

-99

1- 56

1-35

1009

T"09

1,004

-99

1,,51

1014

1009

1914

1014

"99

1*30

1014

1-20

1*35

1-51

1*04

1041

1- 30

1035

1104

1 o25

1-30

1-62

1004

1*04

1-04

Combined Flexure
Figqe

7*44)

P/pd causing

1 *04

1004

-99

and Membrane Forces


yield

in Model 6

-1

C.L.

. 93

313

1*25
1-0
m

meje

0-75
0-5
0-25
0-0

0-2

0-1

093

4 .

0-4

Oe5

Y/Ly
Distance

along

the short

beams

5*0

4,10

Met

3*0

2-0
AT 14 31 Pd
AT Pd

1-0

AT Pcr
0-0
0-1

Distance
Fig=

0-2

YA7

along

0-3

0*4

BB

Moments Redistribution

in Model 6

0-5

314

1-25
AT 1- 31 Pd
AT Pd

1-0
MX

Me

0975
0950
AT Por

0-25
0-0
along. the long Beam

Distance

LA

4o

3eO
Ilym
et

d.
2-0

1-0

0-0

0-1

002
Distance

(7-46)

Figure

I/

along

0; 3

0*4

AA

Moments Redistribution

in Model 6

0*5 x/Itc

315
TENSION
NA

membrane force predicted


(see
Fig-7'. 50)analysis

by elastic

1-0

AT Pd & le3l

Pd

N
Ne-

0*5

O-u

AT Pcr

001
Distance

0-2 x/I%
4along the long

0-3

0*4

i
0-5

beam

A_
__

4*0

3*0
1-31 Pd
N
F

2-0
AT Pd

e.j-

1-0

AT P
cr
0-0

05

-1'O

Figure

(7-47)

Redistribution

of Membrane forces

in Model 6

316
rl'rMqTr)T,

1-0

AT 1 1,31 Pd
AT Pd
Ne.t

0-5
AT P
or
0-0

-1'O

x
, o4 t",

m in

e4m

^v

LX

300
AT 1 *31 Pd
2-0
NX
Ne'l

AT P

1-0
AT P
cr
0-0

Figure

(7-48) Redistribution

of Membrane Forces in Model

317

8! 0
7-0
69Q
5-0.
Th;

490-

014

Lx

39Q
21G

1 OG
0-0

01

Vaxiation
Analysis)

0*2

003

0-4

X/IC

of the normal moment

along

section

0-5
(Elastic
xx

8
0

6
rts
N

SE
2

0-0

Compression
-2
Pigure

(7-49),

Vaxiation

of Membrane force
(Model 6)

Ny along xx

318

4.)

tm
4-D

E
0
r-4
Cd

0
z
r-4
Cd

4-4
0

0
0
. r4
N

C
)

10

. 1.4

1%

000
C\j

9UTT 9ZE;Uao qz:oqs SUOIL, aoue; sTa

P-l

m
-P
P
0
P4
pq

P4

m
4-3
P
0
P4
P4

319
0

H
0
P

ft
0

02

.0

ci
cu

14-

5i
%I0

,%-.0

P
A
0
0

0
0

cl,

H
Cd

a)
C)
0

f44

le

10
%Z

0
PN
CD
0
Cd
P
P
Ei
W
:4
4-4
0
9
0
. rj

4-2

Co

C
1

CD

c'J
1

0
0

E-4

320
.' MAPTER'EIGHT
'CONCLUSIONS'AND*SUGGESTIONS*FOR'FUTURE*WORK

Although
its
at

has been provided

each chapter

the most important

end,, for. -clarity

with

a set of conclusions

of these

be summarized

will

below: -

8.1 Conclusions:
(1)

In the

finite

element

for

satisfactory
for

nonlinear

quite

the elastic

analysis

laterally

loaded

slabs

Using the formulation


in this

suggested

study,

can also be obtained

In this

a limit

study,

iterations
produce

it

acceptable

0.10 of the

cracking

predictions

for

element
for

the

by demanding
predictions
to

increment

nunber to be reached.
an average

is

increment

for

predictions

load.

is

of 2x2

norms prior

of the load

iterations

provided

finite

reasonable

the size

planar

systems.

Acceptable

level.

adequate

results

can be obtained

was found that

per load

concrete'slabs,

systems,

with

and by reducing

and allowing

acceptable

accurate

slabs

also

order

and slab-beam

at each load

equilibrium

yield,

integration

is

which

concrete

of the layered

of concrete

response

analysis

to produce

sufficient

is

of reinforced

A numerical

structures.

a mesh division

analysis,

thats

quite

of 10

adequate to

the response

the increment

is

of
about

In the case of slab-bean

iterations
30
an average number of

may be needed.

321
(3) In the analysis

proposed heres. accurate

limitations

described

stresses
to

the

neglect'of
4).

that

the

half

includes

the
the

torsional

this

element
torsional
shear

vertical

A comparison

model

component

which

additional

considering
as suggested

design

"torsional

in Cp 110(5)

torsionless

used here,

represent

An element
in

its

that

formulation

and the Hillerborg's

steel"

analysis,

slab.

different.
at the

in the Hillerborg's
close

the direct

in most cases a- smooth variation

moments in the

without

was

edge beams

are generally

tvo methods produce moment volumes

either

it

of

the two methods produce

methods showed that

distributions,

produces

strength

research,

moments.

between the direct

(Torsionless)

Unlike'the

design

recommended.

strongly

stress

In

due
(see

component

moments on the

finite

actual

beams,

direct

on the

a check

torsional

by the

predicted
only

the

shear

if

of

the torsional

supporting

vertical

beams has to be made.

assuned

is

used,

One disadvantage

the

Accordingly$
is

procedure

of

the

and nmaber of

underestimates

and stiffness

Chapter

the

it

the

case using

increment

above. .

is
that
method

this

in'any

on the load

iterations

of the flexural

predictions

can be obtained

response

systems by the'method

of slab-beam

The design

By

corners

method,

to

each other.
design

of the

procedure
design

can then be based on

the maximum or the average moment in the strip,


departing

far

from the original

the

distribution.

322
In the

case of slab-beam

considered

30% more steel

requires

this

procedure,

type

the yield
*

which

connection,

By appreciating

is

to a very

be advisable

midspan section

In the slab-been

steel

it

may

steel

at

end of the

anchored.

systems,

in the supporting

flexure

for

only,

loads,

volume could

of membrane

consideration

of the reinforcement,

require

steel

zone

in the beans near the

on to the

in the slab,

the reinforcement

For concentrated

this

system,

can be carried

membrane forces
for

complex stress

that

50% of the

in the design

reduces

the rotational

cpl, 10(5)9

beam, and properly

and

the torsional

reduces

the fact

to add more steel

Following

corners.

cornerss

cause the disruption

would eventually

restraints.

forces

near the

starts

of the system by reducing

subjected

solution

needed by the direct

over that

yield

of yield

of the corner
strength

line

In the system designed by the direct

design method.
design

(5),

in Chapter

load

system undex uniform

beams.

although

requires
including

Designs

than those

about 7% more steel


the case of uniform
the

difference

more

lateral

loads.

in the total

as 25% and sometimes even

be as high

=re.
Whether membrane forces
slab-beam
proposed
Inclusion

systems$
direct

axe considered

or not,

design

procedure

of membrane forces

improvements

the

in the service

in the design

of

igned
by
des.
the
system
will

beliave

in the design
behaviol4r

satisfactorilY.

produces

of the system.

323
All

the slabs

by the direct

designed

deflections

tests

In fact,
loads,
(10)

load

first

the working
loads

yield

than

rather

Accordingly,

the

by a few wide
after
All

the

the

occurred

load.

cases,

ultimate

load

very

close

which

membrane action,

their
of

is

even

approach

of

loads.

design
16% in

attributed

hardening

and strain

governed

design
to

new

cracks.

was not

loads.

enhancement

was obtained,

form

was observed

direct

by the

an average

to

formed

any stage

design

At

pattern.

already

process

the

of

loads

failure

In most

This

cracks.

designed

at

7).

to the design

close

was a tendency

open the

behaviour

attainment

slabs

recorded

to

lizaits

(Chapter

load range

distributed

there

the

acceptable

of steel

were very

evenly

of loading,

stages

cracks

both

an average of 90% of the design

with

Crack spread in a fine


all

No yield

satisfactorily

that

were within

range.

within

which were

indicated

and crack widths

in the working

study

design method-behaVed
Results

loads.

under working

in all

in this

considered

the

the
mainly

to

reinforcing

bars.
(12)

The nonlinear

layered

to be a powerful
slabs

tool*for

and slab-beams

the theoretical
been obtained,

finite

element
the

analysis
Excellent

systems.

predictions

developed

and actual

in most cases.

of

here

proved
concrete

reinforced
agreement

between

slab behaviour

has

324
8.2'SUGGESTIONS

FOR FUTURE. WORK

The procedure

and theoretical

exper=ental

and support

ratios

here can be extended

suggested

studies

can thus be found by systematic


The layered
effective

finite

using

means of treating

this

various

sides

occur.

In

of

relaxation

the

element

study

element

developed

here,

research,

of the experimental
taken

into

provides

developed

an

it

before

of
will

the

progressive
(43).
A

by Johnarry

in applying

be involved

will

panels

use can be made of

can be used

work is needed on slab-beams

the membrane forces


model.

is

It

were not

suggested

A comparison

consideration.

for

the technique
checking

the

between designs

of

loads

systems

by nearly
before

in

50%.

this

study

a more economical

design

to be

based on open

by experiments.

tended

A more detailed

In the

in the design

such forces

that

The design

slab-beams

systems.

considered

sandwich models can also be underta1zen

is-needed
phenomena

involved.

redistribution

and filled

the ultimate

orientation

procedure.

More experimental
present

sides

parameters

built-in

any significant

technique

edge rotation

steel

formulation

to include

method,

element

design

direct

finite

various

problem.

to check if

finite

detailed
to

the

isoparametric

can also be extended


ratios

effective

with

of the various

study

element

The study

on skew slabs

The nost

conditions.

to include

to

overestimate

of the
I
can be recommended.

study

APPENDICES

325

of the

Calculation

teel

M* per

Using the ultimate


stress

distribution

Figure

below:

limit

for

required

in the section

design

moment

width.

unit

state

a certain

it

theorys
will

can be assumed that

the

have the form shown in the


2f

cu

C
T,

X1

Ast

to
unity.
equal
section

steel
on both concrete-and
safety factors
I
ibrium
the
the
horizontal
of
by
equil.
considering
and

the partial

Taking

for

force:

no net

then

(1)

c=T

Using the stress


2

cu

distribution
xl =Af

at ultimate
(2)

st
Y

= 1.5 A
st, fy
cu
.
where

0=

Astjd

Jf
f
1.5dp
=.
cu

= reinforcement

ratio.

if

(3)

326
Taking
internal
and

the

about

moments

moments,,

force

compression

and equating

then'

T. (d

Af
st

(d - 1.5 O'd f /2 f
cu
yy.

(1
*P9
1.5 Pf
f
:-yy

ef
p
arranging

we get

(. 75

Solving

the

quadratic

fcu

and substituting

f
A
st

Equation

p2ef
75
yy .

p+

p=A

cu

21f

cu

in. :

M*
e fy

(5)

jd
st

cu d3

M*
d2- f

1.5 fy

(6) is used for

/2 f

both top

cu

and bottom

steel.

external

327
APPENDIX B
PROGRAM
DESCRIPTION AND IMPLEMENTATION
This
features

is

part

description

element reformulation,
details

of steelt

Mod6fications

and plastification

cracking

included

in the previous

feature

facilities.

of this

and these included:

4 of this

of design

study.

routines

and

program.

new program is

Accordingly,

in Strathclyde

of concreteg yielding

in Chapter

the introduction

of some routines

One basic

The program

study.

were introduced

of which was given

also

of the main

program developed by Johna=y(43)

Extensive modifications

University.

store

a brief

of the computer program used in this

stems from an existing

omission

to give

intended

the omission

the program running

time is

of back
greatly

reduced.
The program is built

up of twelve

subroutines

which are listed

routine

FOLA.AF is used to

the followling
1.

Program

2.

Subroutine

FEM
INTEGRATION

Sul=outine

LSTIF

Subroutine

BUTX

Sul=outine

MA=A

Subroutine

RMULT

7-

Subroutine

LNSRKM

8.

Subroutine

BOUNDARY

9.

Subroutine

NORSOL

10.

Subroutine

REACTIONS

11.

Subroutine

DESIGN

12.

Subroutine

LNPLANM

in addition,

the standard

master

library

in

328
invert

a matrix. pin

(section

ments polynomials

load vector

and uniform

The following
the vaxious

the coefficients

obtaining

4.2.1)9

is

which

of the displace-

matrix

needed in both the

stiffness

formulations.

sections

describe

will

in brief

and the structure

subroutines,

the functions

and organization

of
the

of

main program.
1.

Program
This

FEM:
the monitoring

is

in appropriate

called

mod-ale in which

Allfinput

places.

modulev and control

data pertaining

of nodal

parameters

are all

The flow

operation

a. Major

b. Stiffness

and control

is formed

c. The load vector

for
e. Middle

plane

and stresses
f.

Results

point,

strains

and assembled in

a=angement
the program.

as follows:

loadt

a, )banded form.

concentrated

loads

is assembled.
the Gaussian

and the equations

are solved

and step

axe computedg and strains

and curvatures

at the Gauss points

are computed.

up or down to these

the first

causing

increments

read in this

displacements.

axe then scaled

the load

are

is computed.

is decomposed using

proced: ure,

the nodal

data

cont-xibutions,

matrix

elimination(31)

is first

explained

made up of uniform

or membrane force
d. The stiffness

routines

to mesh generation,

module is well

is read,
matrix

data

other

computed at the beginning-of

in this

data

all

cracks

in the most highly


Subsequent

c to e are repeated.

axe later

gi7en

co=esponding

in terms

of this

to

stressed

load

cracking

load

P
or
g. The state

of stress

pseudoforces

at a Gauss point

is found.

is

checked and a set

Of

329

Results

output.
INTEGRATION:

2. Subroutine

is called

This routine

The routine

module.
factorst

of these

effect

is maintained.

equilibrium

until

pseudoforces,
i.

under the

is reanalysed

h. The structure

only

the Gauss points

sets

to the order

according

of the FEM

once at the beginning

and weigh-ting

coordinates

of integration

in the data.

specified

Subroutine LSTIF:
This routine

the equivalent

calculates

element

from the layers

routine

is

contributionst

of a layer

a layered

(4-17).

equation

using

the stiffness

everytime

called

for

D matrix

The

is needed.

Subroutine MTX:
This routine

two functions:

performs

the coefficient

a. Calculates

the displacement

using

elements, equations

the strain

the element

dimensions

The routine

is called

sides

stiffness

is

formation

in the calculation
Different
phase,

elements
middle

plane

matrix

and the strain

Both the interpolation

its

the

and the corner

only

strain
strains

of the layering

element
is

The routine

and the coefficient

of the consistent
matrices
phase,

axe stored

type

defined

called

during

matrix

load vector

and later

axe dependant

matrices

and axe independent

encountered.

strain-displacement

(4-10)-

whenever a different

phase,

the

B using

given by equation

relationshipsg

lengths

to (4-3)t

4-5)

equation
defining

functions

polynomial

(4-1)

C'in

of the element.

coordinates
b. Calculates

matrix

(matrix

on
system.
by
the

is needed only

from uniform

loads.

and used in the stiffness


used when integrating

the

330
stress

to get the internal

resultants

force

nodal

vector.

Subroutine WMA:
(nodal forces)
computed for a given
I
intensity
load is calculated
in this routine.
of uniform lateral
(68):
These nodal forces axe obtained from
The element

load vector

C is

where matrix

P is

routine.

the polynomial

dimensions,

a different

type

This routine
it

Subroutine
This

A restrained
phase,

inserts

the'nodes.

is

The integrand
the routine

is

and

ca=ied

depends on
called

whenever

encountered.

two matrices

elements

stiffness

to produce

stiffness

matrix.

methodg this

a third.

in the program.

routine

formation

matrices

in their

proper

Since the program employs a


is called

once only

for

each

phase.

BOUNDARY:

routine

identifies

displacement

such degrees

Prescribed

The inte6Tation

(4-3)9

INSM:

in the stiffness

This

is

from the previous

in equation

is used in more than one position

routine

8. Subroutine

load.

and accordingly,

multiplies

stiffness

element

given

in the routine.

of element

in the global

constant

obtained

RMULT:

Subroutine

Accordingly

function

dy

qdx

matrix

of the unifo=

the element

places

1T

and formulated

explicitly

I-P IT

the coefficient

the intensity

is

-1

cc]

I/

is

given

of freedom

displacements
This

the restrained

routine,

boundary

a code of 1.

Later

degrees
in the

the
from
stiffness
removed
axe

of freedom.
solution
matrix.,

at the nodes axe not treated

as restraints

once in

the program.

need be called

only

on

331
Subroutine

NMSOL:

In this

a triangular

into

the banded stiffness

routineq

form using

matrix

In subsequent

entriesp

displacements

nodal

the Gaussian

is decomposed only

The stiffness

only

on first

decomposed
(31).

elimination

the load vector

are obtained

is first

matrix

method

entry

to the routine.

is decomposed, and the

by back substitution

the

into

decomposed matrix.
This
beginning

is the most extensively

used routine.

of each load

and once during

Subrautine

10.

This
nodes.
only

the first

11 . Subroutine

only
12.

load

only

once,

and reactions

and during

incrementq

is called

is needed.

(3.4: ).

the design

axe obtained
phase.

only

when a design

The design

is

This is an optional

for

the flexural

done according

routine,

to the equations

and need be entered

once.
Subroutine

IlqPLANED:

This routine
is

is called

on the boundary

DESIGN:

routine

reinforcement

of section

at the

each iteration.

computes the nodal reactions

subroutine

This

is called

REACTIONS:

The routine

for

incrementg

It

needed.

is

called

The design

only when a design

is done according

This is an optional

routinev

for

to the

membrane reinforcement
equations

of section

and need be entered only once.

332
User

Manual

Inst=uctions

CAd Tormat
No

to

the

Program

FEM

'.Desdpi.
tion

'1

20 A4

TITLE:

1594F10

Nonelastic,
If

Any sentence

defining

UDULTInATE9 DPB, TIEAM

Elastiov

nonlinear

the problem.

analysis

needed,

NONELASTIC= 10

and zero otherwise.


To design flexural

1.0.
steel use Elastic
=
2
UDULTIMATE is the design uniform load in N1mm
DPB---;
design for the
-*1.0 Deep beams with elastic
DPB = 2.0 for

reinforcemdnt.
given

put DPB = 0.0

For slabs

reinforcement.

TBEAM= depth

Deep beams with

2015

dnd supporting'bbans.
IQUTPUT = nodes numbers for which displacements
6utput is required.

2015

ICUTPUT = Elements
strains

1415

of slab

numbers for

axe requested

which

stresses

and

in output.

NREF11 NREF29 NREF3P NREF4s NREF59 NG9 NPNODES9


NDIFEL, NPOINT LOADS9 NBCS9.NLC9 INPLAY9 MOMEL9
NSTIF.
Control

NREF2 =1f
be 0.

t NREP1 = 1-

data
or

--bounded.

for unbounded plasticity


Only one of these

for
number
node
( 0 only when NREF4 0)=4
NREF3

relaxation

should
analysis

1 For fixed

1
For
0.
NREF5
nontorsional
only, otherwise =
in
0.
NG
No.
Gauss
points
analysis,
of
otherwise
=
=
the element (4 or 9) NPODES= No. of Inplane point
slabs

NDIFEL = No. of different


NPOINTLOADS= No. of point loads.
loads.

boundaxy conditions.
increments.
element.
be given
additional
6

INPLAY

elements

types.

NBCS = No. of

NLC = Total No. of load


1 for additional
steel to any

MOMEL= Element No. for which a summary will


NSTIP = No. of
at the end of the analysis.
stiffnesses.

SLX9 SLY, DIVX9 DIVY9 REGULAR9SPANX9 SPANY, GMOD-

333

Card
.
No. '

oA
SLX &'SLY are lengths

'of the slab'(or

DIVX*, DIVY divisions


REGULAR= 1.0 for

directions,

in the X and Y directions


equal

in the two

subdivisions

= 0.

otherwise

SPANX & SPANY axe total

1595P10

beam)

spans in the two directions

GMODnt-ed be specified
only when Nr6O in card 5
is 0. GMODis the shear modulus of concrete.
ITERTOTI SCALE LOADODISNORM9FNORM, ACCELERATCR9
TTNITERTOT = Max. No, of iterations
in a load increment
SCALELOAD= size of the load increment as a ratio
load.
Use around 0.1
of-thi-cracking
DISNORM= convergence
Use 0.00001

limit

limit

FNaRM= convergence
to 0.1

for

for

ACCELERATCR= 1.0
TTN = Tension stiffening

displacement

force

factor

norm.
Use 0.01

norm.

(4.6)

c in Figure

use between 1.0 and 10.


88

F10

PCUt FST, FTC, EC, ES9 Pq HARD1; HARD2


FCU = concrete

strength
2
in Nl=

compressive

FST = steel yield point


FTC = concrete tensile
strength

2
in NIMM

2
in I, /Mm

EC = concrete modulus in- N/MM2


ES = steel modulus in NIMM2
for concrete
P= Poisson's
ratio
H.ARD1.= hardening
HARD2 = hardening

q6

Flo
4 F5

1
modulus
modulus 2.

SXEWqSTEELANG19
Tq ASTXq ASTY,
STEELANG29
LS19 LS2, Lq3j LS4
SKEW= angle of skew in degrees
the
STEELANG"J.
the
steel
angle
=
direction

makes with

STEELANG2= the angle


direction

makes with

the x axis
the steel
the x axis

(900 for

orthogonal)

in the first
(OofOZ 03thogar.al)
in the second
(goo for

orthogonal)

334
, -06.-6C1
Fo=at
No. -.

.,, A

..........

T=

. "..

10

3 P12

(mm)

or beam thickness

slab

ASTX =1

.,.
'i ,, "* , *.' ,,, '. , '. , '. ,, '. ,,.,
Desicrip ion

for

main steel

in X

ASTY =u<1

proportion

of steel

LS19 LS3 =Y
LS29 LS4 =X

steel

layers

numbers

steel

layers

numbers

in Y direction

UD9 PRXO PRY


UD = intensity
distributed
of uniformly
PRX =X prestress
in N/MM2
2
PRY- =Y prestress
in N/mm

11

8 P10

XSIDE(I)

Total No. of
= lengths of X divisions.
such divisions
should be equal to DM.
and more

oaxds can be used if >8


1.0
in caxd IT6.6, this
=
12

13

14

8 F10

card is

IF REGULAR
not needed.

length
Total No. of
of Y divisions.
=
such divisions
should be equal to DIVY, and more
IF REGULAR
cards can be used if >8 divisions.

12 F6

1.0 in card No. 6, this card is not needed.


TT12(I) = layers 9/cagethicknesses.
Up to 12 layers

12 F6

can be used.
BEAML(I) = layers

2 F6

5 P10

for

T beam elements.

can be used.

of middle

plane

the default

unspecified,

2 179

Ycage thicknesses

DN9 DNBEAM
DN = depth

16

divisions.

YSIDE(I)

Up to 12 layers
15

load

2
in N/mm

of the slab.

value

of T/2 will

If
be used.

DNBEAM= depth of reference


plane in Tbeam problems9
from its middle plane.
which may be different
(NBOUND(I)v (NFIX(ItJ)p
J=1,5)9 PRESC (ItJ)9
J=1,5)9

I=

l9NB9S-

NBOUND(I) = boundaxy nodes where restraints


to be applIed.
NFIX (Ili)

axe to

for
Fixity
the five degrees of
code
=
Lw
aw
f,
-freedom in the order up v, w,
ay
x
If a certain
degree of freedom in a node is restrained,

335
..........................................

No.

? OTmat,....

...........

De-acrivtIori
I.

'it

'id 'o6d6 I 'othd: vii:j6 '0. '

--

PRESC(I, J) = the prescribed


displacement
in the
direction
of any of the degrees of freedom of
the boundary nodes.
17

13 12

((ILjIMOID(IjJ)O

J=1912)0

I=1,

NDIFEL)

IL =-secjUential*orde=
different
of'the
layers arrangements.
with different
LMOD(IqJ) = Type of layers
- element..
'The following

le

20 14

for*concrete

IMOD =2

for

steel

IMOD =0

for

zero layers

HEWEL(I),

imip(I),

systems.
LDIF = layering
all

of

layers

I=

11 NDIFEL

bers with

different

layering

to

system number corresponding

IL in previous
If

each type

codes are used


layers

IMOD =1

NEWEL= elements

for

elements

cards.

elements

have the same layering

system

then this

19

40 12

0-

20

blank.
caxd may be left
IELC(LE)q'LE = 19 NEL9 NEL = Total no. of elements.
IELC = element type no. as it appeaxs on the mesh.
According to their
sides lengths and layering
system,. elements can have different
type numbers IELC.

15,2F10

NPRES(I.

FNPX(I)q

FNPY(I)

NPRM(I)

boundary
=
in X direction

force

FNPY(I)

positive

21

155 F10

FNPX(I)

if

they

be equal

or in the Y direction

and the magnitude

of these forces.

of the global
will

node numbers where inplane

are appliedg

direction

element

These forces

in the positive

act

and
axe

directions

The number of such cards

axes.

to NPNODESin card No-5

NREST(I)q FIXITY(IjJ)qJ
NaEST(I)

='node

no.

at which

support

stiffnesses

336
'Cd:ed
No.

Format

................................

Descripti=
FIXITY(I,

J) in any direction

of the five

degrees

6f freedom can be assigned.


cards will
22

139 F10

The mmber of such


to NSTIF in card 5-

be equal

LOADPOINTS(I)v POINTLOADS(l),

PMOM(ivj)9J=192

LOADPOINTS(I) = Node nos. at which lateral


loads.
POINTLOADS(I) and concentrated
concentrated
PMOM(IIJ) axe applied.
moment in X and Y directions
Total

be equal
no. of cards will
in Card 5- If an elastic
design

to NPOINTLOADS
(with
is required

MASTIC = 1.0 in card 2) this set of cards should


the design point loads and accordinglyv
represent
(of
loads
1/15th the first
another set with small
design

loads)

set of point

axe also
loads

to be added.

This

is needed to start

last

the incre-

mental
23

213p F10

analysis.
NDNODEj LDT_R9DLOAD

NDNODE= node no. at which incremental


membrane
force in direction
If
IMIR is to be applied.
force
and if

DLOAD is

in

the X direction

in Y direction,

such card will

LDIR = 2.
be equal to MODES

use IMIR = 19
The number of
in caxd No-5-

Progrm

337

Flow Ch=t

RMU & F,MM MAJORDATA

is
DESIGN
REQUIRED

NO

YES
I FORM GLOBAL STIFIM'ESS CKI

FORMDESIGN LOAD VECTOR LR]

SOLVF.,PGR THE DISPLACHMENTS F d]


,
OBTAIN STRAINS9 STRESSESAND DESIGN STEEL lAYEaS

FORMTHE GLOBAL STIFFNESS MATRIX

INITIALISE

INCREMENT

TWO LOAD VECTCRS [R]

&

ADD A LOAD INCREMENTTO LOAD


ext
ext
VECTORS, R
p
P.
+A
=p+Ap
=R

SOLVE FCR NODAL DISPLACEMENTSUSING THE LOAD


VECTOR P

ITERATION

ITERATION LOOP

INITILIZE:
STRESS, STRAINS BENDING MOM!
ENTS,
X&ABRANEFORC ETC VECTORS
IN THE FIRST ITERATION

J-P ]

ELEMENTS

338

ELEMENTSLOOP

COMPUTEMIDDL PLANE STRIANS VECTOR

LAYERS

LAYERS LOOP

COMPUTETHE LATERS' DISTANCE FROMMIDDLE PLANE

INITIALIZE

GAUSSPOINTS

THE STRESSRESULTANTVECTM ELFRT

GAUSSPOINTS LOOP

COMPUTESTRAINS FROMMIDDLE PLANE STRAINS USING


THE KIRCHOFFS HYPOTHESIS

CALCULATETHE ST'RESSESpADD THE STRESSES&


STRAINS TO THEIR RESPECTIVE VECTCRSTO GET
TOTAL VALUES

COMPUTEPRINCIPAL STRESSES9STRAINS COMPUTETHE


STRESSRESULTANTS M, N

II

(D

FIND Ut

NO

339

DIAX. PRINCIPAL STRESSRSDIAS& MAX. PRINCIPAL STRAIN

, STEEL\
YIELDING

'N
CLONCRETE
AYER ?

YES
UPDATE STRESS &
COMPUTEA SECANT
MODULUS

SRMAX
6*0035?

ZERO D MATRIX

NO
C11ECKFOR CRACKING, YIELDING UNDER
BIAXIAL STATES OP STRESS

MODIFY THE CONSTITUTIVE MATX D, COMPUTEEXCESS


STRESSES& BRING THE STRESSVECTORON THE YIELD
SURFACE

COMPUTELAYER CONTRIBUTIONTO THE SMESS


RESULTANTVECTOR N, M

USING THE ELEMENT STRtSS RESULTANTVECTCRSN, M


JUM
fBTa
TEE STRAIN MATRIX B OBTAIN THE INTEGRAND
dv
& AID TO THE GLOBAL LOAD VECTCR R

340

YES

ITERATIONS
>
LIMIT

EXAMINE EQUILIERIUM
COMPUTEEXCESSFORCEVECTOR
ex
ext
F
R
R

ex
ADD F
TO LOAD VECTOR
ex
. .. PP+p

SOLVE FOR ITERATION DISPLACEMENTS


ex
USING F

CALCULATEDISPLACEMENTNORM& CHECK
FOR CONVERGENCE

NO

ISPIACEME
CIONVERGED?

OUT PUT RESULTS

STOP

341
C
'DERIVATION'OF'THE'BOUNDED'PLASTIC*L2ADS

Using
increment

the

principle

may be obtained

pp

Af

of

defo=ation,

uniform
from

the

current

the

plastic

plastic

load

load
R

as

(1)

p=XRp

where

Ia

(R -ZBT

RpZ

(2)

dV)
a

in which,

Rp
&f

and

total

increment

of

load

imbAance

force

vector
load

plastic

vector

Assuming the load- displacement

curve

can be fitted

degree curve

alx +a 2x

y=a0+
the nonlinearity

at any stage
Rp

is

alx -y
-a0-a2

and
for

X2

2a2x dx

dR
pa00
dR /R
p P=
AR
p=

or
If

the

2dx/x
p=

2R
d/d.
pA

degree of nonlinearity
Ad/d

where d and

Af

Af

p=

is mild,

AR/R

Ad are deformation

Hence the increment

vector

of plastic
2R AR/R
p

vectors.
load must be

by a second

342
ff+.

and

k d.
0

so that

where

Af
R

is the initial

vector.

The analysis

but with

the incremental

stiffness

then

matrix,

continues

plastic

and R is the total

along the

loads

bounded.

same lines

load

as before,

343

APPENDIX (D)-

Comparison Between Moment Fields


and Torsionless

Analyses,

for

Produced

Slabs with

by Torsional

Sides Ratios

of

1*5 and 2-0.

N. B.
The Strip
the same as that

numbering

system in the following

in FigL=es

(5-3)

to (5*9)

figures

in Chapter

5-

is

344

m
x

0.10

04

>&

0.08
5
3

o. o4
(2)

0.0

Figure

0.1
(Dl), Positive

0.2

x/LXO.

o. 4

Moment M* (L /L
xxy

0.5

1-5)

( 5)

0.10
0

1101
0.08

o. o4

(2)

zz;
0.0Z

Figure

4---'7-I
(D2)

Positive

0.2

0.3
y/L

o. 4

Moment M* (LX/Ly
y

= 1-5)

0.5

345

o. o6

o. o4
N

>-,

0.02

0.0

Fig=e

0.1

-I

0.2

-0.3

x/L '
x
(D31 Negative Moment M* (L /L

xxY

o. 4

0.5

1-5)
.

o. o6

.,

>,o. o4

0.02

0.0

0.1

0.2

0.3
y/L
y

Figure

(D4)-

Negative

A.
Moment M* (L
y.
xy

o. 4

0.5

%J%\'NJ4

346

mXu

o. o6 -

1)

(2

o. o4

(3
(4)

(5)
(4)

10

(5)
(2)
A

vO. 02

0.0

0.3

0.2

0.1

o. 4

0.5

x/L x
Figure--(D5)- Positive

(LX/Ly = 2.0)
Moment M*xc.

o. 16

(3)

0.12

"I

cq

// "

0.08

"

-
-0
.0
.1

'2

.0,
.101,

(3)

.00
.00

o. o4

0.0

0*1

o. 4

0.3

0.2

Y/Ly
Fi gure (D. 6)

POsitive

M=ent

M* (L /L
xy
y

= 2.0)

0.5

347

0.

0.

0.1
04

0.0

0.1

0.3

0.2

o. 4

0.5

X/L

Figure

(PI)

Negative

Moment M* (L /L
xxy

= 2.0)

0.08

o. o6

o. o4

0.02

0.0

0.1

0.2

0.3

o. 4

/
Y,,Ly
Fi-gwe

(D8

Negative

Moment M* (LX/L
yy

= 2.0)

0.5

348
0.020

(5)

15)

o. ol6

(3)
0.012.

0.008

0 . 004

0. D

Vel

0.5

0.2

U. 4

XAX
Figure-(D9)-

Positive

Moment M

(LX/Ly

0.0

0.0

O.C

O.C

0.1

0.0

FigL=e

(DlO)

--0.2-

Positive

Y/I7

0.5

(IX/Ly
Moment D

U-4

1-5)

0.0

49
0.0

0.0

C,J

>,

1--

0
Figt=e

(Dll)

Negative

Moment

M*x (LX/L7

0.08

Ni.t,

Q.o6

0.04

0.02

0.0
Ly

Fip=e_(Vl2),

Negative

Moment

M*

Y/

(LX/Ly

350
0.018-

'-,

-----

0.014-

(5)

-.

'-

--',.

(4)

/
1,

(5)

/'N

0.01
(1)

(4)'

iiIi

(3)
/_"

S.
5%

N..

0.006-

II,

.5

.5

I/I

'S
S

I,

(2)

0.002

0.0
Fimge

'N

0.1
(D13),

Positive

0.2

------U-. 3
X/Ijx

Moment. 14; (LX/Ly

004-7

2.0)

0.

5)
0.

cll).:
t
cm
0.

0.

0.
Y/Ly
Figure

(DT4)

Positive

Moment M* (Ic/Ly
y

2.0)

0.

351

a.

00

cy

4>,
CY,
1-

21
0.

0.
X/ Lx

Fig=e

(D15)

Negative

(Lx/Ly

Moment 14;

= 2.0)

0.

0.
C'i

0.0

0.0

-Ly

Figuxe

(D16)

Negative

Moment ll (L:

c/L7--

2.0)

352

0.04

0.3
WO
C'i

0.2

wo
(2)

(3)

0.1

(i)

-----.

(1)

0.0

wI

L--I
--

0.1

0.2

0.3

--L-

0.4

X/lOc
Fiogi=e (D17) Positive

Moment Mx*(Lx/Ly

' 0.6

1-5)

0.14(1)

C'i

(2)

0.10

(3)
(4)
0.06

A5)
(4)9(5

0.0
0*0

0: 6

0.4
Y/I7

Fig=e

(D18), Positive

Moment M;

(Lx/Ly

1.0

C)
LU

0
E

0001""N

V)
S%Uwoooo
LLJ

CL

353

0.12

cq

0.06

0.04

0.0
x/Lx

Figure (D19)

N,:

Negative-Moment M* (L /L
xxy

0.12

0.08
0

0-04

o-o

Y/Ly
Figure

(D201

Negative

/L

*x
Moment M.
,llx

354

0.8

o. 6

(4)
.00,

C\j

loo

0.4

. 01

10,

(2)

0.2

3
(2)

0.0

0.1

0.2

X/LX
Fip, ure
.
--(D21)

Positive

0.3

0.4

Moment M,* (c/L

2.0)
=
3r

o. 6

0.8

0.1

0.1

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.2

0.4
Y/Ly

Figt=e

(D221 Positive

Moment 1,1(LX/Ly

2.0)
=

0.5

355
o. 16

0.12

c,i

0.08

0.04

0.0

X/LX
FigL=e

(D23)

Negative

Moment M* (L /L
xxy

2.0)
=

o. 16

0.12

0.08

0.04

0.0
Y/Ly
Figure

(D24) Negative

Moment M* (L /L
yxy

= 2.0)

356
0.04

----(3)
0.03

'

0.02

0.01

0.0
x/L
Figt=e

(D25)

Positive

Moment 14; (LX/I,

0.08

C\J,
4,

0.06

0.04

0.02

0.
Y/17
Figurd

(D26) Positive

Moment M* (L /L
yXy

1-5)

(4)

---

(4)

0.08

0.06

0.04

0.02

0.0
Fizure

0.1

0.2

X/Lx

0.3

(D27) Negative-Moment M* (L /L
xxy

= 1-5)

0.10

0.08

C\j

o. o6

0.04

0.02

0.0
Y/LY
Figure

(D28)

Negative

Moment M* (L /L

yXy

0.05

358

0-04

0. ^3

(30)

ZI-4 --

0.02

(40)

0.01

(20)
(50)
0.0
Figure

0.2
(D29)Positive

-3

0.5

. X/LX

Moment M* (L /L = 2.0)
xxy

0.08

0.06
C\j >)
a,

0.04

0.02

Y/Ly
Figure

(D30)

positive

Moment Pl* (L /L
yxY

2.0)

0.10

0.08

0.06

0.04

0.02

figi=e

(D31)

X/Lx
Negative Moment X* (L /L
xxy

--I
=, 2.0)

0.1

0.08

0.06

0.04

0.02

0.0

Y/L
Figure

(D32)

Negative

Moment M* (L /L
yxy

2.0)
=

360

0.08

llx

0.

.,
WO,
.100

N
4
C7,

--

00,

--,,

0.0.2

04C

0.1

U. 2

U. )

U-4

U. )

X/Lx

Figure

(D33) Positive

Moment M* (L /L
xxy

1-5)

0.08

(4)
0.06
(5)

0.04(3)

(2)

0.02-

0.0

___(2)

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

Y/Ly
Figure

(D34)

Positive

Moment M* (Lx/Ly
"j,

1-5)

0.5

361
0. '.

csJ

0.

0.

0.

X/L.X
Figure

(D35) Negative

Moment M* (L /L
xxy

1-5)
=

0.04

0- 03

0.02

0.01

0.0
Ly

Figuxe (D36), Negative Moment M* (L /L


yxy

362

0.08

0.06

0.04

0.02

0.0

0.1
(D37)

Figure

Poditive

0.2

0.3

Moment M,* (I/LYF

2.0)

0.16

04

0.12

. -0

0-1
.
. 01

.0-.

-0
-11
0
.,

0.08

0.04

0. U Figi=e

0.!

(D38) Positive

--C. 20
.13
%r/T.
-Y
Moment J, (Lx/ly = 2.0)
1

9.4

--__ 1

0.5

0.2

0.16

IN
ca

0.12

0.08

0.04

0.0
Figure

0.1

- 0.2

(D39) Negative

Moment

0.3
x/ Itc -M* (L /L
xxy

0.4

2.0)
=

0.5
0.040

0.030
a)
"1-1
C,
'4
4
0
0

0.020

+'

a)

0.010

0.0

0. -1

0.2

c
711,0.3

Figure

(D40)

Negative

Moment M* (L /L
yxy

2.0)
=

0.5

0.05

364

c).o4

0.03

04 >1
0.02

0.01

0.2

0.0

o. 6.0.8

o. 4

1.0

x/Lx
Figure

(D41) Positive

Moment M* (L /L
xxy

o. o8 -

C14

(3)
4

o. o6 -

o. o4

0.02 -

(4)

(5)

0.0

&

0.2

o. 4

0.6
y/L

Figure

1-5)

(D42)

Positive

0.8

Moment M* (L-/L
xxy

1-5)

1.0

0.10

0.08

o. o6

o. o4

z
0.02

0.0

x/L x
Figure-(D43)

Negative

Moment M* (L /L
xxy

0.2

o. 4

= 1-5)

0.

C-4
4
V

0.

0.0

o. 6

o. 8

Y/Ly
Figure

(D44)

Negative

(L
/L
M*
Moment
yxy

= 1-5)

1.0

0.0

366
0.

0.0

(3)
>4
400

0.

_Q1

0.0

0.2

o. 4

o. 6

0.8

x/L x
Figure

_(D45)

Posiiive

Moment M* (L /L
xxy

0.2

o. 4

2.0)

0.08

o. o6

o. o4

0.02

0.0

o. 6
y/L

FiEure (D46), positive

0.8

(L
/L
M'
Moment
yXY

m 2.0)

1.0

0.0

o. o4

0.03

c4

>-, 0.02

0.01

0.0

0.2

o. 4

0.6

0.8

1.0

x/Lx
Figure-(D47)-Negative

MOment M* (L /L
xxy

= 2.0)

o. 16

0.12

0.08

o. o4

0.0

0.2

o. 6

o. 4
y/L

*Figure

(D. 48) Negative

0.8

Moment M*. (L /L
yxy

= 2.0)

1.0

368
0.50 -

L5)_

0.40-

(4)

0.30-

(5)
If",

0.20-

-.,

\I

\3)

(3)
(2)

0.10

ol

0.2

0.0

o. 6

o. 4

0.8

1.0

x/Lx
(D49)_Positive
e

Fi

Moment M* (L /L

xxy

='1.5)

0.

cy >,

0.

0.2

0.0

o. 4

O. b
y/L

Figure

(D50)

Positive

U.00

(L
/L
M*
Moment

yxy

= 1-5)

J.OV

369
0

o..16

0.12

0.08
Z

o. o4

0.2

0.0

u0 L+
x/L

Figure

(D51)

Negative

Moment M* (L /L
xxy

= 1-5)

0.

0.

0.0

0.2

U00

0.4
y/L

Figure

(D52) Negative

/L
(L
M*
Moment
yy x

1.5)

L*U

370

1.0

0.8

o. 6 -/

,44 ..
.
Iv

0.4 -//

JJI.\\

////

*:z >4

/
dr
dw

do

, --

L3)

\
\

0-1

I////

!
(2)

0.2 -

\\

1%
.

.10

-(5)
\

(4)

:s

(3)

(2)

0.2

0.0

o. 6

o. 4

0.8

1.0

x/L x
Figure

(D53)

Positiye

Moment Iq

(IX/Ir
.=2.0)

o. 4

0.3

0.2

0.1

0.0

0,2

U*4

U*u
; r/L

Figure

(D54)

Pos't've

UOU

Moment M* (L /L
yXy

= 2.0)

J.
. 0v

371
0'620

o. 16

0.12

0.08
S: K

o. o4

0.2

0.0

o. 4

o. 6

0.8

1.0

X/LX
Figure

(D55) Negative

Moment M* (L /L
xxy

= 2.0)

0.20

o. 16

0.1p

o. o8

o. o4

0.2

0.0

0.6

0.4
y/L

Figure

(D56)

Negat've

O. d

(L
/L
M*
Moment
yxy

= 2.0)

Illu

372
'APPENDIX(Dl)
Additional

reinforcement

discontinuous

at

edges

according

(5).

CP110

to

torsional

According

to

as four

provided

Section'(3.4-3.2)
layers

in

CP110,

torsional

has to be

steel

as shown
0 2L

0.2L

Ole

0.75Mrci

.1//I

-411

Where

Additional

L=

short

span,

ar

= 0.1p

volume

slab

V=4x0.12
vMc
0"0a=

at

centre.

steel-.

2
Mc L
r

the'moment

supported

simply

moment

Mc x (0.2L )2

V=4x0.75

which

design

due to torsional

moment volume

is

c
Mr=

with

due to torsional
four

at one corner.

corners

Mc L2

McL2=0.48
rr

'o. 48

steel

0.48

aI

qLqLI

Where the
Figures

(5.3'to

moment coefficient
5-9),

and from

a=the

can be obtained

from

q L2

Appendix

Figures

Dl to

D56.

In

373
'APPENDIX E
CALCULATIONS'FOR'SERVICEABILITY
LIMIT'STATES

Ass!a2tions:

loadq the following

Under the service

assumptions

are

made.
1.

Tension

2.

Linear

3.

in cracked

stiffening

concrete

is ignored.

across the depth of the section.

strain

distribution

Linear

elastic

behaviour

for

concrete

4.

Linear

elastic

behaviour

for

the reinforcing

5.

Uniaxial

is assumed for

behaviour

in compression.
steel.

concrete

CC

L7

dn

hd

For equilibrium:

C=T

EdAEe
ccnsss

(1)

dEcsI: 2 -.
nEc
m= modular

where

ec

.-. ec

ratio

=E

A2
sS
/E

S
mA
ec

(2)

diagram

But from the strain


- 'es

d. -7, d
n
-..

d2mA
ns

(3)

dn
(d

dn/dn)

arranging
*06

d + 2m Adhsns

2m Ad0

(1.)

374
solvi. ng gives

)d
)2
1/(3nA.
2(mA
+
MA + .

d
nssb
The. gross

9
and the

fully

cracked

I
then

using

the

is

inertia

moment of

transfo=ed

section

b. d3

cr

Branson's

(d
s2

methods

gives

dn )2

As (d

from

calculated

h)2

'h3
(m-1)
+
12

an effective

13

17
3
M
1
M
CM]

Mc!
I=I-+
eff

moment of

inertia

(8)

Cr[

in which
M
= cracking
cr
where

h=

total

tensile

The deflection
elastic

deflection

under

L. F.

of

and

section
of

strength
service

load

concrete.
is

found

from

as

6' =61
seg
where

moment =2ft19

depth

the

/h

= average

load

/(L. F.

factor

for

eff
ultimate

conditions.

the

is

375
REFERENCES
S. and S. WOINOSICY-KRIEGER

TIMOSHMO

Second Edition

2.

New York,

McGraw-Hill,

and Shells.

of Plates

Theory

1959.

SZILARD R.
Theory

Prentice

Methods.

of Plates

Analysis

of

Hall,

Classical

and Numerical

1974.

PARK R. and GAMBLEW.L.


Concrete

Reinforced

Wiley,

Slabs.

1980.

WOODR. H.
Plastic

and Elastic
London

and Hudson,

5.

Thames

196T.

Use of

I.,
B.
S.
-

Concrete

London.

Slab Behaviour.

SP30-159 March 1971 PP325-344.

Publications

HU#S B, P.
Limit

State

Theory of Reinforced

Second Edition,

Concrete

Design.

Pitman,

1977,

SIMMONDSS. H. and GHALI A.


Yield-Line
Division,
Engineers,

9.

and Plates.

El(; ment Approach to Post-Elastic

ACI Special

8.

Slabs

BELL J. C. and ELMS D. G.


A Finite

7.

of

CP110 - PART 1: 1972


The Structural

6.

Design

Design of Slabs.
Proceedings
Vol. 102,

Journal
American

of the
No. STI,

of the Structural

Jan.

1976,

Society

of

Civil

PP109-123.

R. H.
JONESL. L. and WOOD
Yield-Line

Analysis,

of Slabs.

London,
1967.
Windus
and
I

Thanes and Hudson, Chatto

376
10.

MORLEY C. T.

of Concrete

The Minimum Reinforcement


Journal
11.

Sciences.

of Mechanical

Journal

of the

Society

of Civil

PP305-319.

Continuous

for

Structural

Division,

Engineers,

Design

States

Journal

Civil

of

of

Slabs.

Orthotropic
Proceedings

American

of the

Vol. 99, No. ST3, March 1973, PP443-452.

Slabs

Structural

of the

Society

Lower Bound Approach.

using

Proceedings

-Division,

No. ST2,, Feb. 1974-, PP373-389.

Vol. 100,

Engineers,

American

of the

HILLERBORGA.
Strip

14.

Vol. 8,1966,

RANGANB. V.
Limit

13.

International

RANGANB. V.
Lower Bound Solutions

12.

Slabs.

Method

of

Publication,

A View Point

Design.

1975-

WOODR. H. and ARMERG. S. T.


The Strip

Method for

institution

of Civil

of The

Proceedings

Slabs -

Designing

Engineers, Part 2, V01.41, Oct. 1968,

PP285-311.
15.

FERNANDO
J. S. and KEMPK. O.
A Generalized
Design.

Strip-Deflexion

Proceedings

of the

Method

Concrete

of Reinforced

Institution

of

Civil

Slab

Engineers,

Part 2, Vol. 65, March 978, PP16-174.


16.

KEMPK. O. and FERNANDO


J. S.
Reinforced
Including

Concrete
Concentrated

Slab Technologyq
C6ncrete

Slab Design -A

Slabs,

Loads

Proceedings

and Supports.

PP232-241,

1979.

Strip

Advances

of the International

Dundee University

Munday, Pergamon Press,

Generalized

Edited

Method
in

Concrete

Conference
by Dhir

and

on

377
17.

WILBY C.B.
Computation

of the Strip-Deflexion

Institution

of Civil

Engineers,

Method.
Part

Proceedings

of the

2, Vol. 69, June 1980,

PP499-509.
18.

BHATT P.,
of Reference

Discussion
Civil

19.

Engineers,

Vol. 65,, Sept.

2,

of the Institution

Proceedings

of

1978s PP719-724.

WOODR. H.
The Reinforcement
Field

20.

Part

15.

of Slabs in Accordance

of Moments.

a Pre-determined

with

Vol. 2, No. 29 Feb. 1968, PP69-76.

Concrete,

ARMERG. S. T.
Contribution

to Discussion

on Ref3.9'.!- Concretes

Vol. 2, No. 8,

Aug. 1968, PF319-320.


21.

JOFRIET J. C. and McNEICE G.M.


Element Analysis

Finite

of the Structural
of Civil
22.

Division.,

Engineers , Vol -97,

Proceedings

Journal

Slabs.

of the American

Society

No. ST3 , March 1971, PP785-806.

DESAYI P. and MUTHUK. U.


Short-Time
Concrete

Deflexions
Slabs.

Proceedings

Dhir

of Rectangular

Advances in Concrete

of the International

Dundee University

23.

Concrete

of Reinforced

Simply

Supported

Slab Technology

Conference

Reinforced
-

on Concrete

Slabsj

1979, Pergamon Presss PP110-117, Edited

by

and Munday.

DESAYI P. and MUTHUK. U.


Deflexions

Short-Time
Concrete

Slabs.

Institution

PP529-536.

of Rectangular

Technical

of Civil

Restrained

Reinforced

Note TN221, Proceedings

Engineers,

of the

Part 2, Vol. 67, June 1970,

378
24.

BEEBY A. W.

Cement and Concrete

Report,

Technical

in Slabs Spanning One Way.

of Cracking

An Investigation

RTA4339

Association,

May 1970, PP3125.

ORENSTEING. S. and NAWAYE. G.


in Reinforced

Crack Width Control

American

Load.

Distributed

to

Subjected

Two-way Slabs

Concrete

Institution

Concrete

Vol. 6T9 No. 19 Jan 1970,, PP57-61.


26.

NAWAYE. G. and ORENSTEING. S.


Crack
of

Crack Width

of Maxim=

Proceedings

Slabs.

of

Society

American

the

in Two-way Reinforced
of Civil

of the Institution

Part 2, Vol. 61, June 1976, PP343-349.

Engineers,

DESAYI P. and PRABHAKARAA.


Width
Crack
Maximum
of

Determination

Skew and Rectangular

Civil

Slabs.

in Reinforced

Proceedings

of the

Concrete

Institution

of

Part 2. Vol. 679 Dec-1979s PP1077-1090.

Engineers,

BRAUMIK A. K. and HANLEY J. T.


Elastoplastic

Analysis

the Structural

of Civil
30.

Proceedings

Journal

Slabs.

DESAYI P. and KULKARNI A. B.

Concrete

29.

Two-way

Concrete

Vol. 96, No. ST39 March 1970, PP701-721.

Engineers,

Determination

28.

Reinforced

Division,

Structural

the

of Civil
27.

in

Control

Width

by Finite

Division,

Engineers,

Difference

Proceedings

Vol-93,

Method,

American
the
of

Journal.
Society

No. ST5s Oct. 196T9 PP2T9-294.

MAY G.W. and GERSTLEK. H.


Elastoplastic
Structural

Civil

Bending
Division,

Engineers,

of Rectangular
Proceedings

Vol-97,

Plates.

Journal

of the

of the American. Society

No. ST79 July 1971, PP1863-1878.

of

Of

379
31.

COOKR. D.
of Finite

Concepts and Application


32.

33.

Analysis

Concrete

Research,

Magazine

Slabs.

of

Vol. 249 No. 799 June 1972, PP63-70-

Characteristics

Journal

of

the

Concrete

Reinforced

of

American

Concrete

Institute,

1964, PP763-778-

DESAI S. C. and ABEL J. F.


.1
Introduction

for

to

Engineering

JAIN O. P.

the

Element

1972.

Proceedings

of Post Cracking

Solution

Concrete

Reinforced

Slabs.

1979*

Behaviour

Advances in Concrete

of the International

Dundee University,

Dhir

van Nostrand,

Analysis,

Method

A Numerical

Method.

Element

Finite

TRIKHA D. N. and AGARWALS.


9

A Finite

Conference

PP129-139.

Pergamon

of

Slab Technologys

on Concrete
Presss

Slabs,

Edited

by

and Munday.

SCHNOBRICHW. C.

Non-Linear Behaviour of Concrete Structures.


Research Laboratory,

Transport

Department of the Environment,

Report 164 UC-Structural

Analysis-Nonlinear

Crowth orne

Laboratory$

and Road

Supplementary

Behaviour Techniques,

Proceedings of a Symposium held at the Transport

37.

1974.

PFRANGE. O., SIESS C. P. and SOZENM. A.

july

36.

Concrete

of Reinforced

Nonlinear

Cross-sections.

35.

Wiley

BELL J. C. and ELMS D. G.

Load-Moment-Curvature

34.

Element Analysis,

Research
Road
and

1974.
December
.

W.C.
SCHNOBRICH
Behaviour
Finite

of Reinforced

Element Method,

PP365-376.

Concrete

Structures

predicted

Computers and Structures,

by the

Vol-7,19779

380
38.

SUIDAN M. and SCHNOBRICH,W.C.


Finite

Civil
39.

American

of the

Journal

of the

Society

of

PP2109-2122.

Vol. 999 No. ST101 Oct-1973t

Engineers,

RAO P. V.
Element Analysis

Finite

Nonlinear

Ph. D. Thesis,

4o.

Proceedings

Division,

Structural

Concrete.

of Reinforced

Analysis

Element

University,

Liverpool

Slab Structures,

of Concrete
1976.

A. W.
WEGMULLER

TN99,, Proceedings

Institution

of the

of

Civil

Note

Technical

of Plates,

Analysis

Element

Finite

Elasto-plastic

Part

Engineers,

2,

Vol-5Ts Sept. 1974, PP535-54341.

A. W.
WEGMTJLLER
Analysis

Full-Range
of

of

Divisions

The Structural

of Civil

Proceedings

Vol. 1001 No. Stlj

Engineers,

Plates,

Stiffened

Eccentrically

of

the

Jan-1974,

American

Shells,
American

Layered
Journal
Society

Analysis

Structural

of the
of

of

Reinforced

Civil

Concrete

Plates

Proceedings

Divisions

Engineerss

Society

PP143-159.

42. - HAND F. R., PECKNOLDD. A.


C.
W.
SCHNOBRICH
and
0
Nonlinear

Journal

and
of

Vol. 999 No. ST-7, July

the
1973,

PP1491-1505.

43.

JOIRIARRYT.
Elasto-Plastic
Elements,

44.

Analysis

Ph. D. Thesis,

of Concrete
University

Structures

Using Finite

of Strathclyde,

May 1979.

DUNCANW. and JOHNARRYT.


Further
Analysis
Civil
of

Studies

on the Constant

of Concrete
Engineers,

Structures$
Part

Stiffness

Method of Nonlinear

Proceedings

of the Institution

2, Vol. 67, Dec. 1979, PP951-969.

381
45.

COPER. J. and RAO P. V.


Finite

Nonlinear
Proceedings

Element

Analysis

Institution

of the

Concrete

of

Civil

of

Structures,

Slab

Part

Engineers,

2,

Vol. 63, March 1977, PP159-17946.

W.C. and PECKNOLDA.


DOTREPPEJ. C. 9 SCHNOBRICH
Finite

Layered
Reinforced

for

M.K. and
WANCHOO
Cracking
the
of

48.

Analysis

Civil

Vol-33,

Engineers,

Proceedings

Division,

Vol. 101,

and WARNERR. F.

Structural

No. 2,

of

the

Journal

American

Jan. 1975,

No. STlj

of

Society

PP201-215.

in Reinforced

Concrete

Proceedings

Division,

Plates.

of

Journal

Slabs.

the

American

of

Society

Engineers, Vol. 104, No.ST12, Dec. 1978, PP1885-1900.

of Civil

H.
M., and SCH*A*FER
KRISTJANSSON
G.
LINK
R.,
*

Finite

Element Analysis

Problems

of Material

Computational
College,
50.

of

International

of the

Concrete

Reinforced

of

Engineers,

GILBERT R. I.

KLIEN D.

Analysis

MAY G.W.

Tension Stiffening

49.

Publications

and Structural

Bridge

Structural

the

Inelastic

for

PP53-68.

1973,

47.

Slabs.

Concrete

Association

Procedure

Element

of Reinforced

of the Finite

London, Sept.

Slabs - Special

3rd Post Conference

NonlinearitY.

Aspects

Concrete

on

Element Methods Imperial

1975., PP337-358-

LIN C. S. and SCORDELISA. C.


Analysis

Nonlinear

the

Journal

of

Society

of Civil

PP523-538.

of Reinforced

Structural

Engineers,

Division,

Concrete

Shells

Proceedings

Form,
General
of
of

the

American

Vol. 101, No. ST3, March 1975,

382
51.

LABIB F. and EDWARDSA. D.


Investigation

An Analytical

of

Institution

the

Nonlinear

Finite

Subjected

to

Proceedings

of

of

March

Concrete

Reinforced

Advances

Loading.
International
April

Dundee University

Slabs,

in

Slabs

Concrete

Conference

1979,

on

PP14o-148,

and Munday.

SHIRAI N. and SATO T.

Shear Wall Structures

Inelastic

Analysis

of Reinforced

Concrete

Material

Modelling

of Reinforced

Concretes

Association
Delft
54.

Impulsive

Transient

by Dhir

Edited

Analysis

Element

Technology,

Concrete

53.

2, Vol. 65,

Part

TUOMALA M. T. E. and MIKKOLA M. J.

SINISALO H. S.,

Slab

and

Proceedings

Members,

Engineers,

Civil

of

Tension

Concentric

PP53-70-

1978,
52.

Concrete

Reinforced

Eccentric

in

Cracking

of

for

1981, PP197-210 Final

International
Colloquium

Engineers

and Structural

Bridge

Report.

RAZQPURA. G. and GHALI A.


Shear Lag Analysis
of Reinforced
Structural

in Reinforced

Concrete,

Engineers

Association

International

Colloquium

Advanced Mechanics

Concrete;

Delft
-

for Bridge

1981 - PP671-686,

and

Final

Report.
55.

HINTON E.

ABDELRHMAN
0-CC5L
H.
H.
d
ZIENKIEWI
an
,

Computational

Models for

Reinforced

Advanced Mechanics of Reinforced


Association
Delft

for

Bridge

19819 PP303-313,

Concrete

Concrete,

International

Engineers

and Structural
Final

Slab Systems.

Colloquium

Report.

HILSDORF H. K. and RUSCHH.

56.1 KUPFERH. ,
Behaviour

of Concrete

American Concrete

Under Biaxial

Institute,

Stresses.

No. 66-52,

Proceedings

of the

August 1969, PP656-666

383
5-7-

Behaviour

Concrete

of

Mechanics

Engineering

under

Division,

Journal

Stresses.

Biaxial

Proceedings

the

of

of the

American

Vol, 99, No. EM4, Aug-19739 PP853-866.

Engineers,

of Civil

Society
58.

K. II.

KUPFER11.9 GTRS=

TASUJI M. E. s SLATE F. O. and NILSON A. H.

Institute,

Concrete

American

of the

Proceedings

Loading,

in Biaxial

of Concrete

Response and Fracture

Stress-Strain

July

1978, P-l'.3o6-312.
591

TASUJI M. E. 9 NILSON A. H. and SLAE F. O.


Biaxial

Research,

Concrete
6o

LIU T. C-Y,

in Uniaxial

Concrete
American
the
of

May 1972, PP291-295*

NEVILLE A. M.
Properties

1978.

Pitmang Second Edition,

of Concrete,

KOTSOVOSM. D. and NEWMANJ. B.


Behaviour
the

of Concrete

American

Concrete

Sept-19779

Institute,

Proceedings

Stress.

Under Multiaxial

of

PP443-446.

VALLIAPPAN S. and DOOLAN T. F.

Nonlinear

Stress

the Structural

Civil
64.

of Concrete

Proceedings

Compression.

Institute,

63.

of

Vol. 319 No. 1093,Dec. 1979, PP217-224.

Response and Fracture

and Biaxial

62.

Magazine

Concrete,

NILSON A. H. and SLATE F. O.

Stress-Strain

61.

for

Relationships

Stress-Strain

Analysis
Divisions

Engineers,

of Reinforced
Proceedings

Concrete,

Journal

of'

of the American Society

Vol. 98, No. ST4t April

19729 PP885-89T.

PHILLIPS D. V. and ZIENKIEWICZ O. C.


Finite

Element Nonlinear

Proceedings

Analysis

of the Institution

Vol. 61, March 1976, PP59-88.

of Concrete

of Civil

Structures.

Engineers,

Part

2,

of

3e4
65.

PHILLIPS D. V.
Analysis

Nonlinear

of Walest

Element

Swansea 1973.

NADAI A.
Theory of Flow and Fracture

of Solids,

McGraw-Hill

1950,

15 PP175-228.

Chapter
6T,

by Finite

Concrete

University

Ph. D. Thesis,

Method.

66.

of Structural

DARWIN D. and PECKNOLD D.


Concrete

Reinforced

Analysis

of

Loadings

Journal

of the

American

Society

of

Shear

under

Divisions

Structural

Civil

Panels

Engineers,

Cyclic

Proceedings

of

No. ST2.

Feb-1976,

Vol. 102,

the

PP355-369.

68..., ziENKiEwicz

o. c.

The Finite

Element Method.

Expanded and Revised Edition,

London McGraw-HM 1977.


69.

KEmpK. o.
Optimu:m Reinforcement

in a concrete

Loading,,

of the

Publications

Bridge and Structural

Slab Subjected

to Multiple

Association

International

for

Engineers, Vol. 319 1971, PP93-105-

70.,, GUPTAA. K.
SEN S.
and
_.
Design
of

the

of

Flexural

Reinfor-ement

Structural

of Civil

Division,

Engineers,

in

Concrete

Proceeding*s

Vol-103,

Slabs.

of the

No.ST4, April

Journal

American

Society

19779 PP793-804.

71... MORLEYC. T.
Skew Reinforcement
Torsional
Engineers,

of Concrete

Moments, Proceedings
Part

Slabs against

Bending and

of the Institution

2, Vol. 42, Jan. 1969, PP57-74.

of Civil

385
72.

KEMPK. O.
The Yield

Slabs,

Journal

International

Reinforced

Orthotropically

for

Criterion

of Mechanical

Concrete

Sciences,

Vol-7.

1965, PP737-746.
73.

SAVE M.
Theory

LinIt-Analysis

A Consistent

Magazine of Concrete

for

Reinforced

Concrete

Slabs,

Vol. 19, No-58, March 1967,

Research,

PP3-12.
74,

T.
BRONDUM-NIELSEN
Optim=

Design

75,

Concrete

Laboratory

Research

Stnictural
Report

of Reinforced

Shells

and Slabs.
University

Technical
-

of

Dermark,

PP190-200.

NR R44-1974,

CLARKL. A.
The Provision
Resist

of Tension

Research,

Forces$ Magazine of Concrete

Inplane

to

Reinforcement
Compression
and

Vol-28%

No. 94, March 19T6, PP3-12.


76.

MORLEYC. T. and GULVANESSIANH.


OPtimum Reinforcement
the Institution

Slab Elementss

of Concrete

of Civil

Engineers,

Part

Proceedings

of

2, Vol. 63, June 1977,

PP441-454.
77.

LENSCHOW
R. and SOZENM. A.
A Yield

Criterion

for

Reinforced

Concrete

of the American concrete Institutes


78.

Slabs.

Proceedings

64.
Vol.
PP266-273,
May 1967s

CHENW.F. and TING E. C.


Constitutive

Models for

Mechanics Divisiong
Engineers,

Concrete,

Proceedings

Journal

of the Engineering

of the American Society

Vol. 106, No. EI41,Feb-19799 PF1-19.

of Civil

386
79.

TAYLOR R.,, MAHER D. R. H. and HAYES B.

Effect

of the Arrangement

Vol-18,
80.

Slabs

Concrete

of Reinforced

of Reinforcement
Magazine

on the Behaviour

NO-55, June 1966, PP85-94.

CLARKL. A.
Slab
Bridges
Skew
El
Slab
and
Tests on
ements
Accordance

with

Factored

the

in

Slabs.

Technical

Structural

Divisions

Proceedings

Engineers,

Vol. 104,

No. ST8, Aug.

Note.

Am6rican

of the
1978,

Journal

of

Society

the
of

Civil

PP1317-1321.

BUYUKOZTURK
0.
Nonlinear

Analysis

and Structures,
83.

Cement and

Moment Field,

Elastic

GUPTAA. K.
Skew Reinforcement

82.

Designed in

42-474, Sept-1972, PP1-47Report


Technical
-

Concrete Association
81.

Research.

Concrete

of

Concrete

of Reinforced

Vol-7s

Pergamon Pressl

Computers

Structures-$

1977s PP149-156.

LIN C. K.
Ultimate

Strength

of

Deep Beamss M. Sc.

Thesis,

Glasgow University

1979.
84.

HAYES B. and TAYLORR.


Some Tests
Concrete

85.

Concrete

Beam7-Slab Panels.

Vol. 219 No. 6T9 June

1969,

NEVILLE A. M., HOUGHTON-EVANS


W. and CLAM

C. V.

Deflection
Research,
86.

on Reinforced
Research,

Control

by Span/Depth Ratio*

Magazine

of

PP13-120.

Magazine of Concrete

Vol. 29, No. 98, March 177, PP31-41.

O.
K.
KENP
S.
J.
'
FERNANDO
and
The Strip

Lower
Unique
Bound?
Design
or
Slab
Method of
-

Magazine of Concrete

Research,

Vol. 27, No. 90, March 1975, PP23-43.

387
87.

HARRopi,

88.

Ultimate

Load Design of Simply Supported

Building

Science,

Slab-Bean Systems.

Vol. 4,1969, PP145-150.

MORLEYC. T.
Against
Elements
Slab
Concrete
of

Optimum Reinforcement

Concrete

89.

Magazine

Forces,
Membrane
Moments
and
of

Combinations

Research:

Vol. 22,

No-72,

of

1970P PP155-162.

Sept.

PRINCE M. R. and KEMPK. O.

Reinforced

Concrete

of, Isotropically

Criterion

A New Approach to the Yield

Magazine

Slabss

Research:

Concrete

of

Vol. 20, No. 62, March 1968, PP13-20.


go.

JAIN S. C. and KENNEDY J. B.


-

Yield
the

Criterion
Structural

of Civil
91.

Division,

Engineers,

Criteria

for

International
for

Bridge

of the

Proceedings

Of
Society

American

Vol. 100, No. ST3, March 1974,, PP631-644.

Elements

Conference

Slabs.

Concrete

of Reinforced

Association

International

on Plasticityl

and Structural

Yield

Capacity

Concrete Institute.

Copenhagen

Engineers,

1978s PP35-47-

of

Slabs,

Vol-70,

Proceedings

of

the

American

Feb. 1973, PP124-126.

BRANSOND. E.
Deformation

94.

Journal

Concrete Slabs.

CARDENASA. E. and SOZEN M. A.


Flexural

93.

Reinforced

MORLEYC. T.
Yield

92.

for

of Concrete

Structuxesq

McGraw-Hill,

1977.

NIELSENM.P.
Limit-Analysis
Scandinicat
Copenhagen

of Reinforced
Civil

1964.

Engineering

Concrete

Slabs.

Construction

Acta Polytechnica
Series,

No. 26,

388
95.

LENKEI P.
of the

Vol. 64, Nov. 1967, PP786-789.

American Concrete Institutes


96;

Proceedings

of Ref-77-

to the Discussion

Contribution

COPER. J. and RAO P. V.


Discussion

44,
Ref.
Proceedings
on

Engineers,

Part

97-- COPER. J.

1980, PP873-874.

K. R.
V. and EDWARDS
RAO
P.
0

Nonlinear

Finite

Proceedings
for

2, Vol. 69, Sept.

of Civil

of the Institution

Nonlinear

Conference

International

of the

Problems,

for-Concrete

Slabs,

on Numerical

Methods

Techniques

Analysis

Element

Press,

Pineridge

1980,

Sept.

Swansea,

PP445-456.
9 8.

PARK R.
The Lateral

Stiffness

Action

at the

'Floor,

Magazine

and Strength

Ultimate

Load of

Concrete

of

to

required

Concrete

a Reinforced

Research,

Membrane

Ensure

Vol-179

No-50s

Floor

Designed

Slab-Beam
march 1965,

PP29-38.
99.

PARK R.
Further

Tests

Procedures,
Slab

Cracking,

Systems

Publications,

100

NIELSEN,
On the

Deflections

- Symposium,
Sp. 30-11,

Concrete

and Ultimate

American

March

Concrete

Load of
Institute

by Limit
Concrete
Special

19719 PP251-269.

M. P.

strength

IngenirakademiReprinted

on a Reinforced

from:

Ccnstructio
and

of

reinforced

ecricrete

1971.

Bygningsafdelingeri,

Acta Pol5-technica
n Series

discs.

Bulletin

Scandinavica,

No. 702 1969. pp2,54.

LASGoV
NE

RAR

Aalborg,

Civil

Danmarks

Na. B2.

Engineering