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 noncommercial 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
DIRECT
OF
DESIGN
A study
of
the
Ultimate
R. C. Slabs
and Serviceability
and SlabBeam
Using
Elastic
Systems
Stress
Behaviour
Designed
Fields
by
A Thesis
Submitted
Doctor
Department
of
of
University
the
for
Degree
Philosophy
ivil
of
Engineering
Glasgow
May 19 82
JD
of
of
To my Parents
and my f=iZy.
C0NTENTS
Page
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
SUMARY
NOTATIONS
CHAPTER ONE
lNTRODUCTION
CHAPTER TWO
LITERATUREREVIEW
2.1
Introduction
2.2
2.2.1
Elastic
Methods
2.2.2
Plastic
Methods
11
2.3
11
2.2.2.2
Hillerborg
12
2.2.2.3
The StripDeflexion
2.2.2.4
21
2.2.2.5
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
2.31.1
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
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
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
Design Approach
5T
The Equilibrium
3.3.2,
58
66
3.3.3
3.4
68
Moment Fields
68
69
3.4.3
69
3.4.4
70
3.4.2
Positive
Loading
74
Cases
3.5
Multiple
3.6
Design of Reinforcement
3.8
Condition
3.7
5T
3.3.1
for
Membrane Forces
77
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
NonLinear
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
PseudoLoad
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
*TeeBeam. Bl
4.4.4
Supported
Load
The Slab
Haye's
102
103
Modelling
4.33.1
Point
45
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
SlabBeam
119
System
122
Conclusions
CHAPTERFIVE
.1
5.2
THEORETICALINVESTIGATION
139
Introduction
139
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
221
Systems
223
Instrumentation
224
247
71
Introduction
247
7.2
General Description
T3
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
Ultimate
7.5
285
Limit
Fields)
Between
True
the
and
Nonlinear Analysis
Conclusions
291
State
7.4
247
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
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.
for
Library
some references
the
of
help
their
work
the
and Mr.
A. Galt
fabrication
A. Yuill
help
his
experimental
in the
University

program.
in
help
help
his
for
Engineering
Computer
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
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
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 WoodArmer
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 slabbeam
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
It
with
is then concluded
good seriice
at least
enhancement
that
and ultimate
design
the
in
design
excess
loads
slabbeans
of their
for
the
design
slabs
485.
systems about
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
Young's modulus
Ec
concrete
Es
steel
E.
1
Instantane;
E
se
EF
c
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
of stress
inatrix
to account
characteristics
K1K2
a to
angle
thickness
Effective
eff
K
y
steel
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
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
M, N
Stress
N. A.
Neutral
17
Coordinates.
system
analysis
respectively
a point
in
the
nt
moments at a point
in the nt
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
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
Xaxis
Displacement
along
the
Yaxis
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
Zaxis
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
Xaxis
Rotation
about
Yaxis
components
vector
local
of principal
Rotation
about
coordinate
plane
taxis
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
admissiblestress
which
is
in
equilibrium
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 nontrivial
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 momentcurvature
From theultimate
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
different
Such
nature.
will
contrast
than
slab.
ultimate
load
stiffnesses
the
this
of
approach
2y=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 HillerbgrSIsStrip
An exact
field
stress
involves
by using
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
cX allthese
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
geometry$
can be classified
methods
The
areas.
whether
slab
the
find
to
steel
upon the
in the
material
and plastic
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
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
acting
side lengths
with
the
respectivelyi
deformations.
of
equilibrium
can be derived:
equations
a Qx
j
am
rx
am
x+
ZX
ay
am
xy+
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
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 577
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)
and Hook's
can be
they
a2M
equation
distance
three
form
can be transformed
curvatures,
the
strains
at the point
the
by
(2.4)
xi
for
y
ay and
TXY
m
y
MYX
"I
L Mx
Mx +
m
XY
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:
(25)
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
(25)
12
(2.6)
GP
12
in the
equilibrium
equation
we obtain
D+
34W
2(D
77
x2
introducing
the
+D
Xy
;4W4,
aX7;
y2
+ Dy
(27)
377
notation
1
XY
we obtain
34W
D+ 57
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
ayIr
h3
DE
where
a4W
12(lV2)
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
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
to these
The method
of the
to
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
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 momentcurvature
is
procedures,
by either
or by a single
from
procedures,
analytical
represented
can be found,
Such an approach
analytical
In the
is
to
(25).
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
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.
are found,
by replacing
operators.
difference
on the
number of points
points
can be found
application
finite
grid
(25),
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
(213)
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 afinite
In
acting.
cases,
such
be. the
to
if
and
depends
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
analytical
respective
SY
known as RankineGrashof
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,
of
changes, plasticity
the
assumes that
plastic
and at higher
by plastification
means that
which
indefinite
these material
theory
of stress.
the
straining,
material
of
material
once the
of
the
conditions
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,
reinforcing
that
theory
plate
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.
5
first
the
of which only
2.2.2.1
The Yield
Line
Line Theory.
Strip
Method.
Deflection
Method.
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
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
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
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
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
load
experimental
load
method being
satisfy
on the slab,
solution.
the
(Chapter
equilibrium
Hillerborg
1) 9
conditions
13
strip
in
action
the
in the
everywhere
created
by parallel
and Y.
Thus,
direction
if
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
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
moments of resistance
the
moments is strictly
ultimate
the
by bending
carried
load
Once the
strip.
carried
throughout
have to be considered.
as a beam,
the
the
slabs
and straightforward.
acting
the
chosen,
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
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
For
the
simple
is
strip
it
as
is
of
point
thus
method
The design
shear. force.
point
with
into
types
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
design loading.
of elements
of zero
in
and which are
Hillerborg
he achieves
his
uses a radial
the loads
to transfer
(2.3).
in
Figure
shown
as
requires
found
throughout
bending
the
moments
moments are
the applied
different
three
from
it
to
restricted
fails.
utterly
into
an even
although
view,
is
presented
involving
divided
gives
can be reconmended
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
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
acOss a band
resistance
to
reasonable
Alsot
themselves.
redistribute
of
is
it
occurs,
solution
method.
strip
stress
field
by proposing
a set of
the element.
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
F3.
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
stripdeflection
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
everywhere
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,
2.2.2.3
grid
is
method
procedure.
a uniform
increasingly
in
strip
as a design
satisfactory
the
the
of
will
methods
compatibility
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 Stripdeflection
(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
(215)
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
(25)).
(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
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
tobe
the
the method
which renders
solved,
patch
the number of
increasing
the
expense of
at
is
lost
the
method
of
the grid
method.
The strip
be unsuitable
(both
methods
for
Hillerborg
cases involving
high torsional
strip
whole
concentrated
to the
supports.
to be computer oriented,,
elastic
the
The
the bending
from
(25c)
to be provided
nunber of simultaneous
Grashof's
the
systems,
the
strips
to
system
equally
giving
Figure
two spreader
The method
the formation
(2.5b),
The load
containing
concentrated
the
(25c).
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.
a simple
neglecting
procedure
In such
from the
torsion
for
hand
in the
20
(a)
(b)
Strip
BB
Strip
AA
II
fI
t"
tt
I W/2
t ttw/2
(ac)
it
KO
(c)
C\j
II
tttt
W/2
Fr
FiElire
(25)
Spreader
System for
W/2
lac)
Concentrated
Loads
21
The main
calculations.
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
Vs required
jeopardizing
minimum reinforcement
principal
to
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
of
loads.
it
that
load distribution
at working
moments as well,
is
disadvantage
then
in
the
volume
and
of
by
given
JA
Vf
s
kal
(2.16)
dA
+a2)
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
(217)
dA
y
Accordingly
$
the
reduces
that
V=
of
volume
is
to
proportional
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
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
of
k1l
=k,
a neutral
and t
that
to
that
M, A0
has
which
lk
field
then
=ments
principal
where
regions
Jkll
the
or equal
a particular
The curvaturesl
(b)
than
conditions
a slab
displacement
(a)
less
if
is possible
that
and the
loads
supported
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
parallel
i. e. for
or perpendicular
of such distributions
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
for
minizourn weight
same.
fielcls
which
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.
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)
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
concrete slabs.
capacity of reinforced
(11,12)
to cover continuous
by Vijaya Rangan
it
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 Yaxis)
25
'he
of the
value
degree of orthotropy
is
A depends
constant
on the
sides
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
effects.
the
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 suitablechoice
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
momentcurvature
diagram
This
the
using
load
(21)
use of
range.
transformed
of
loading
of
Figure
with
the
rigidity
(2.8).
moment of
is
momentcurvature
The reduced
rigidity
section
rigidity
also
the yield
a bilinear
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
design,
relationcracking
Beeby's
Thus
method
(223)
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=
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
The applicability
Beebylssand
the
then
more realistic
(3).
for
established
twoway
beams
For
slabs.
concrete
oneway
and
slabs.
reinforced
(22)
shorttime
Desayi and Muthu
proposed a method for estimating
The loaddeflection
deflections.
to and after
prior
are
elastic
predicted
plate
theory.
where
two stages:
the deflections
Thus
q L4
6=Bx
in
cracking.
using
calculated
curve
is
(2.26)
EI
cg
is a constant
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)
in
(2.30)
(2.31)
where
(p
x=
0x
as
f
LX
+ P7XfZW)(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.
(230)
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 twoway
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
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 oneway slabs
cracking
gives better
to the distance
to the surface
face
of
conclusive.
members,
in
be
the
continuing,
which
in
complex.
procedures.
are known,
which
investigated
Theory
at the
zero
effectively
from being
very
can only
widths
still
expressed
width
crack
done and is
is
still
and
supports
of
statistipal
using
of bond 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.
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 twoway
excellent
uniformly
it
now,
the
predicts
and spacing
of the nearest
bar.
prediction
and concluded
of crack widths.
is
the
measured
crack
where
30
For twoway
and Nawy
slabs,
extensive
(26)
and Nawy et al
.
(25)
proposed
to
equation
estimate
is
(2.32)
fs
VIT:
=kRc
max
Their
where
W
max
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
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)
twowaY
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
It
of loading
type
)/(d
conditions,
stress
= Steel
d, dn
the
(h
=
d
Bar spacing
Pt
and the
ratios
ratio
The grid
= Bar
in
constant
the
slabs.
On the
same principles,
Desayi
and
31
Prabhakara
(28)
the
on estimating
rests
Assuming
Figure
and 2,
their
extended
that
the
(27),
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.
to account
for
distribution
of
stress
stress
is then estimated
loading
of
stage
at any
(2.35)
sc
1 and 2
in directions
stress
= beiring
concrete
of
.kta
strength
width
2(hd)A
1 and 2=
directions
ft=
in
in tension
and Rc=
es = steel
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
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
simply
supported
investigation
23,2
and fixed
slabs
and cracking
using
elements.
Due to nonlinearity
and yielding
finite
Criteria.
for
either
of loading,
uniaxial
1(29)
slabs
it
caused by progressive
behaviour
(30)
the
using
al
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
of supports.
of reinforcement,
by Bhaumik
plates
2.4 NONLINM
slabs,
methods of finite
these methods.
with
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*sstrain
as they
two types
a moment
at various
nonlinearities
in
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
(236)
cracking.
(2.3T)
Ec0
the
calculating
were
also
surfaces
on the momentcurvature
In their
Beeby.
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 momentcurvature
relationship,
which
percentages,
case,
information
any
Macroscopic
the
with
cr
EC 2 05T
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
reinforced
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
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
grossly
of the whole
(35).
can be traced
concrete
use of numerically
so that
in which
an extension
Tnomentcurvature
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 momentcurvature
detail,
the
under
is
of bending.
appropriately
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
(29).
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
twodimensional
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,
threedimensional
other
All
a three
element.
to
of
one used by
which
normal
stress
good for
and accordingly,
the
stress
heads.
the
al
n=ber
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
2.45)
plate
Models:
of layered
integrated
was developed
element
failure
shear
analysing
concrete
(Sebtion
of principal
are twodimensional,
a
and Mubbad/Suidan
et
numerically
for
occur.
reflected
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 stressstrain
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
inplane
an
components,
must be specified
this
by prefixing
shift
constitutive
laminated
effects
nonlinear
derivation.
element
occurs,
in
additionalinplane
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
such
be treated
will
problem
the
for
compression
is
be restricted
would
towards
which occurs
of this
(40)
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
allowed,
and thfis
plate.
the
simulate
element.
threedegrees
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$
of $ produced little
response of reinforced
between
differences
(42,48)
concrete
in which
are
calculated
factor
$ is
for
uncracked
response
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
slab
concrete
concrete
cracked
The value
it
are
material
concrete
a reduced
called
its
anisotropic
crack,
aggregate
using
there
Dotreppe
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
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
offers
To account
for
s=e
this
"stiffening"
that
of concrete
of steel
is
to
difficult
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
mcdulus
hand.
is
it
but
defined,
in
strain
in idealizations,
differences
at
shear
(2.39)
etmax
are not
strain
a definite
modelss
c>
shear
(238)
x 0.61
tmax
in concrete
C=
etTn.
qx
<c<c
cr
G
' reduced
red
these
such as
equations,
to
normal
effect,,
and steel,
stresses
in
concrete
cracked
the stressstrain
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
good results,
cost.
selected.
strain
the
over
stress
stressstrain
produced
tension
up to which
arbitrarily
All
cracking.
after
investigated
problems.
theory
incorporate
models.
element
average
computed
response.
response predicted
the third
the
cracking.
the
shape of this
unloading
(48)
in
stiffening
cracking.
after
can be used for concrete
(50)
between
The only difference
Scanlon

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.
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
StressStrain
10
Response After
Cracking
Curves
Concrete
for
45
(a
eq
Razaqpur
of 10 e
Tbeams.
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 inCoaression:
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
stressstrain
is
equation
for
is
(2.41)
(1va) (1 +Ce+
DeZ)
where
a9
F =
Ec,, j =
stress
and strain
in concrete
ratio
for
concrete,
respectively.
a=
ratio
of the
principal
stresses
in
concrete.
46
The constants
on the
Ag B, C and D are
stressstrain
curve
(a) ? or c=0,
(b)
cr =
Ia
the
secant
(2.11)):
(Figure
compression
eP are the
peak stress
in biaxial
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
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
YrfI
mass of
et al
from:
found
are
(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
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
StressStrain
Curve
for
Concrete
in
Compression
48
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)
aP
ap:
can be obtained
from
the biaxial
strength
(see
Section 2.45).
envelope
Finally,
(2.42)
equation
behaviour
stressstrai
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
underreinforced
can safely
effects
stressstrain
Due to
this
concrete.
softening
strain
the
describe
known about
of
curve
('16)
of
is
little
stressstrain
most
response
postpeak
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
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
is
of
assumed.
in
steel
elements
that
by the fact
bars have
steel
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
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
twodimensional
with
and compression
can be represented
skew reinforcement.
two layers
such cases,
layers
as a twodimensional
(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 elasticplastic
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
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
various
of. stress3
states
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,
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
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=
If
one
12 and 13 are
shear stress
is
by
[(a,
a2
Oct
)2
(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
axes.
criterion
and
general
can be written
form,
in
(2.49)
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
(250)
P] =0
C
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
NewtonRaphson
For simplicity,
version
structure
Such an approach
equationss
the stiffness
The equation
stressdependant.
of the
matrix
(250).
In equation
it
stiffness
system
will
be
examined: Let
the
of the
root
The NewtonRaphson
Xi+i
where
x1 and
Ax
procedure
states
be required.
(251)
x i+l
iterates,
Ax, the
and
is given by
=
in each iteration.
of
=0
that
+ Ax
(2.52)
f(xi)/fl(xi)
In NewtonRaphso'n procedure,
expense
equation
2 Xi
to xi
correction
nonlinear
f(x)
slowdown
the gradient
ff(Xi)
is evaluated
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
NewtonRaphson
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
extensi7e
and
stiffness
method
in the updating
in the housekeepings
use of backing
al(42)
(43)
for
it
NewtonRaphson procedure.
of convergence
then
employing
a solution
while
The"initial
to the modified
a long time
such procedures
computers.
equation
(254)
to the
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 NewtonRaphson
stiffness
is also identical
McNiece
if
NewtonRaphson
modified
the
and represent
FP]=
corresponds
Accordingly,
analogouz
The
gradients.
(31).
procedure
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
iterations
converges
solution,
in the structure,
stiffness
equilibrium
analy3is
at
by any numerical
evidence.
Hinton
et al(55).
(43)
Johnarry
compared the constant
in plate
bending
the constant
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
conclusions
at by
55
Load P
AP
displacement
Figure
(2.12)
The NewtonRaphson
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.
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.
classical
This
plasticity.
1. The Equilibrium
in
plastic
structure
into
The Yield
Criterion:
in the
internal
The

Condition:
with
ecjdlibrium
can be stated
the
the conditions
to the ultimate
stresses
applied
externally
following
must exist
must be
loads.
load,
hinges
manner: 
to. transform
the
a mechanism.
 The ultimate
strength
of the member
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.
approach is very
and straightforward.
simple
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 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
will
conditions
the
the
and versatilitYs
flow
tle
The condition
at a point.
at any point
of stresses
combination
necessary
if
be satisfied
will
loads by the
stresses.
An elastic
finite
analysis
the stress
laterally
loaded
predicted
moment field
at
to
derive
ultimate
by the
as required
proportioned
necessary
To provide
plates.
the
yield
the
Limit
yield
criterion
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
(31),
The sign
in the
moment
convention
element
are positive.
59
XY
Figure
(3.1)
MY
CY
21
FikLxe
3.2)
Element with
Orthogonal
Reinforcement
60
Simplifying
assumptions
further
are
can be summarized
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
coexistence
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
3.2).
although
idea is that,
a line
they
The basic
on. whether
in Sections
later
the anisotropic
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
normal
that
develop
is
which
It
direction
n.
in
every
tested
be noted
should
in
a lower
therefore
M* is
a normal
moment criterion
bound
field
stress
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
xaxis,
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
The resisting
(31)
(33)
can be expressed
as
follows
M* = M* cos2a+
axy*
M* = M* sin2a+
txy
M*
nt
M* sin2a
(3.4)
M* cos2a
(35)
(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+
Accordingly
(37)
0
(3.1)
to normal
in
(37)
(M* M)s
k=
tan
we have
in: 2 aM
a
sin .2a
XY
62
L
CL
XY
C',
0
()
sin
m
Xy
Figure
(33)
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
(38)
is denoted by f(k),
to
the
excess
normal
over
the
required
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
(39)
Since
sec
ct cannot
(k)
df
dk
hence
be zero,
=2k
from
7
(3.8)
(39)
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
(310),
M /k
XY
;s0
(3.12a)
(3.10)
from
and
k=
tan a
MXY

Iy
then
by the
normal
(38)
2k M0
XY
(312b)
occur
64
This
the
gives
orientation
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
(314)
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
It
for
sign
equality
M2
(M* M)
obtained
the yield
we have
Rearranging,
the
external
(35).
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
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
(35)
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
(37).
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
(315)
M2
XY
+m
existence
represents
Figure
space,
for
can be written
(M*l +m )(M*l
xxIy
their
Jin the
Consequently,
but
at the
described
nor
applied
lines,
terms
by Kemp
the
reinforcement.
Equation
given
resisting
with
the
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
(3.1)
Figure
moments'(see
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
mx
m
XY
Figure
an orthotropically
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
(310),
to equation
it
substituting
(3.12a),
from
and
if
(3.16)
and
(310)
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
(318)
(3.17)
is
we will
and
+ M*)
minimum. Using equation
y
have
M* + M* =M+M+IM.
xyxyv
YJ
(K +1
xy
+ M*)
mI
XY
(i
1)=0
F07
69.
whence
m+
x1
would be
of reinforcement
(319)
MXY1
Im
+
m* =M
yy
arrangement
(3.20)
XY
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
been taken
would
in
case
is
M* <, M
xxy
ef(k)/d
still
and M* <
for
less
M
y
given
And
an
(3.13),
by equation
(3.20)
and
to (3.19)
equations
would become
(3.21)
(3.22)
Xy
unity
yield
this
of
must be algabraically
XY
M*1 =MIM1
yy
In which
(3.8)
most
The value
negative.
economical
steel,
although
of k had also
a different
value
3.4.3
is negative.
Thus if
equations
(3.19)
is
positive,
moments
(3.20)
or
is used to
normal
provided
in one direction.
equal
zero
and .
steel
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)
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
ones.
be listed
Rules for
3.4.4
equationsto
reinforcement
rules:
will
those
moments occur
with
the positive
can be established,
below.
Placing
following
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
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
(329)
kz
XY
y
(3.28)
with
Im
M*
xx
(2)
(3.27)
(3.29)
or
then no bottom
steel
M* >0
x
then
(3.30)
im
M2
XY
=M
with
M*
x
(331)
with
1* =0
(3.32)
M* >0 then
M* =Mxx
(2)
If
still
in
(331)
I&LI
IM
y
(332)
or
is required.
Top Reinforcement
M*
yy
If
is required.
Im I
M* =Mxx
XY
M* = my  Im I
y
XY
if
then
sign,
If
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
(39)
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
(38)
Figures
For general
(310)
to
a detailed
give
picture
diagram,
design
establishing
can easily
know which
equation
those
while
two branches
the
the
top
Bottom
moments.
normal
(38),
of
after
for
top
of the
equations
in
at
are
Primed
Figure
(310)
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
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
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
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.
(311),
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
(311)
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
ycoordinate
equation
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
(335)
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
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
be designated
are
to (3.29)
in
P3
and
cases
a moment field
and will
case separatelys
(3.12).
shown in Figure
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.
by Kemp
as explained
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.
(37).
of stress.
to Provide
Clark
or Eorley(88),
state
equations
Clark
pointed
reinforcement
out that
even. for
who considered
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
(313),
stress
e to
at
always algabraically
greater
in
as shown
xaxisq
Figure
two directions
directions
and
respectively.
the
(3.15).
Figure
than a2*
(315)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
flow
case of providing
major
(3.16).
the following
equilibrium
may be written:
N=Afx+A
A jsin2
a at
On dividing
by the
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
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
theory
for
as
Txzr
=N
17
/h
(338)
6 COS6
the
ov
79
71
Figure
(313)
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
(340).
of
nine
from
2)
state
(3.40)
COS2 6
equations
It
determined
1a
(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
Table
principal
synbols
in
are used
a
concrete,
Table
ax
Xf
a f
y.
the expressions
sirmarizes
stressesin
(3.2)
a  f
7
c
and e for
for
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.
7a
sin
Paf (I
OS26
(al
CD
N
)sin
22
c'J
"rl ('J
26
/a
C\j
0111N
w
0
Q
ri
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
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
Xy
60 0 and
in
fc /Irxyl
Table
curves p it
boundary
I
/1C
XY
a=
given
are
This can
to each case.
(317)
which set
triad.
stress
in stress
nondimensional
the boundary
of
a means of determining
reinforcement
shown
cot
relevant
the surfaces
in
X7
a particular
pertinent
on the
+ a.,
is
required
that
fc
2
complex
Table
(3.4)
parallel
expression;
(35)
and
in
illustrated
graphs
to ax/IT
I axis
XY
extends to t .
When a=
the
1T I cosec a
Nzr
in
(3.2)
Table
(3lT)
reduce
In
addition,
reduce
to
respectively.
Figure
(3.3)
and
reinforcement,
the
one graph
those
and
in
given
case boundary
of Figure
(318).
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.
assumption behind
for
are all
positioned
(319)
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
/ IC 1
y XY
inadmissible
CO
66
inadmissible
Figure
(3.18)
 (ID
86
Top Layer:
Centrally
C7e
Filling:
Middle
Reinforced
Plane
.e
Unreinforced
of
the
Slab
xx
Figure
(319)
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
44
0
tj
4)
0
0
CD
+3
0
;Ei
4)
00
89
41
0
+1
4)
4J
0
42
0
02 tl
43
g(02
N
43
0
u
+
4)
N
TO
11
+
U
4)
m
0
0
+1
u
>,
0
+
ts
0
C)
4)
0
C)
4J
0
43
0
C\j
ej
?
1x
>4
c3
u
L%n *,
L
0
V
0
+
0
u
V)
0
U
+i
43
%0
cli
+
4)
0
0
0
Its"
cq
43
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
44
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
43
0
U
N
43
(D
to
Cc
C)
r",',l
ts
c)
41
Cq,
CM
(U ',
41
E4,
0
4
0
ca
+
fI
43
0
ci
00
VQ
4)
CQ
4
Ca
+
4.3
04
43
0
ci
43
0+
14
+
C\j
ci
m C\j
1
+
1.
4
CM
cj
0
Cj
+0
10
4) 43
0
IW
ci
43
ri
_zr
r _5 I
C14
4)
0
U
a)
0
04
C,l
0
43
00
0U
ri
43
0
u
>
+
q.I
>4
C\i
q.4
C\j
>14
ID
101
L1
+
>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
ri
M,
UN
90
00
43
0,
+
ri
CD
9
44
qH
\. O
ca
H
>4
Ei
rn
C\j
t
44
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
rxyyF
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
YF =1E72
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
ax
1'r. II
y
13
(cosec
a
cosec a
Cv
Alternative
sign
cota)
is
the
fc
+2'cot
a4
7y
same as that
fc
XY
=0
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
+
ri
0.4tj
cli
tll
1
C%j
0
>41
>1
1
>4
44
t
44
11
U
44
i11
0x
44
4
04
>10
cu
lr4
W
0
1
1
>4
14
>4
1
CL
4
0
qH
44
rn
to
tD
H
m
Co
ca
+
CL
CH
>)
>1
T
+
>4
10
;. 4M
ta
I
C)
,
144
1CH
r
_:
',
LN
14.
10
Ei
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
ITVI
I4
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.
27+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
analysisusing
moment fields
of the finite
analysis
the reinforcement
the finite
chapter,
for
.
is obtained
element method.
the rules
chapter,
Some
also be given.
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
bil4neax
order
theory
Accordingly,
the
layered
of two standaxd
stress
and
elements.
elementv rith
eight
functions
a, + a2x +a 3y +a ey
with
v=a5+
a6x +a 77 + axy
a linear
strain
variation
of, plane
first
of the
reseach(l).
by dividing
to the
parallel
assumed to be in a state
is
assumptions
deformations
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.
A rectangular
developed
by j1diniClough
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
aw
UI Vo Wo  Y
form,
In matrix
(al
(44)
take up thei=
for
vector
by
the nodal
values.
appropriate
as
[C]
a vector
of
The strain
will
[C)
(45)
{a}
is a 20 x 20 matrix
a)
plates
deformations
IT
where
the above
by combining
equations
simultaneous
displacements
written
of the polynomials
writing
aw
rx
(43)
+a 20Xy3
The constants
and is
in the lateral
order polynomial
has the
by
given
alox + ally
Accordinglyq
This norrconforming
and Melosh
depending
cc]
be given
(4.6)
vector
av
au
order
theory
3vbbb
components
first
of
by
au
and
Inverting
20 unkno, m constants.
1
on nodal coordinatesq
three
axe inplane
eb axe obtained
xy
components.
XY
} (47)
plane
96
For a layer
of the plate.
of the plateg
bending
the total
Accordinglyp
plane
th;
at a distance
strains
strains
are
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+
00Z0
0100
au
ax
av
Dy
au
ay
T
(48)
av
TX
a2w
ax,
D2w
7
; 2w
2axay
In matrix
where
strain
form,
equation
(48)
{C I=
[R]
(cm }
is the vector
transformation
matrix
The strain
displacement
(4.7).
to (43)
defined
vector
vector
m}
through
Thus operating
we have:
{e
as
(49)
of total
at the middle
vector
can be written
plane
strains
at level
of the plate,
in (48)
z, and
and
ERJ is
is the
3x6
above.
is related
the differential
on the displacement
defined
equations
in
(41)
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 ]
(410)
ER
The stress
vector
Cr = [DI
where
LD]
the constitutive
Following
matrix
is given
IM any layer
by
(412)
{e
(413)
matrix.
the standaxd
(68)
poced=es
he aktment stiffness
9t,
is given by
[K]
and using
is
(411)
le.
[D]
called
[13
equation
jil
BT D3 dx dy dz
(411)
in (414)9
(414)
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
(415)
is dependint
(415)
on the Z coordinatep
98
and the
can be performed
integration
Accord4nglyv
cont: ributions.
ff
I Y1
=
in which
the
constitutive
by sli=Lng
(415)
equation
the
layers
becomes
(4.16)
BT DI B dx dy
constitutive
Vi
Vi
'YZ
Z.
11i V.z
vZZ
iii
jv i
0
2
0
Z
eqnivalent
E
1
the
DI represents
matrix
00
,
Z
(U.
122
vZZ
iii
vZZ
ii
v
2
,
Z
ii
V.: z
. 1i
j
0
1Vi
i
2
vi
02:: Z 10
Z
i
D
i
: Z?
ji
Z. D.
composite
ZdZ in
uncoupling
the
.6
about
(417)
element
is
Plane
made up cf
of
cracking,
even if
effect
the slab
constitutive
al effects.
of layers
across
slab
thickness
is
whole
the thickness
considered
of
various
symmetric
with
the
model in
summation
matrix
terms
exhibits.
For reinforced
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
(417)
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 (41)
in computing
obtained
accuracy
as the =
Although
monitering
increasing
plate
the
layers
with
Table
of
which
10
12
100
0*70
problems
tested
four
station
true
that
were
derived
assuming
one material
1333
1o66
1028
1015
1010
1007
of the stiffness
matrix
(68)
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
.
278
156
performed
from the
can be co=ected
25*0
625
4
6
would
% e=or
is clear
thicknesses.
equal
(41)
layers
of
stiffnesses
(41)
to the
increased.
r=ber
it
The fle=al
in Table
is
the
gives
of the integral
Eh3/12(1V2)
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
is found
adequate
the computation
time is substantially
that
a reduced number of
to yield
of plastification,
in (416) is
will
good results.
enable a close
integration
increased.
It
is
monitor
is not affected,
and
100
Element Subdivision:
4.2.2
is
found
In
bending,
distributed
is
very
converge
the
case of
load
good,
very
will
and 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
422
6x6
A.094
.
4*092
42;")
10 X 10
4077
424
Exact(')
4060
4*57
across
are
those
loading.
qa 2.
424
of the plate.
(413b)v
layers
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
on a symmetric
the centre
the
with
a squaxe
the results
gives
depth.
well
by the authorp
extensively
and a reduced
integration
at
order
of 2x2
was used in
the computations.
The inplane
independant
been tested
section,
by the author.
the stiffness
if
the element
of this
As
element
is made uP of
101
the =ber
material,
one layer
one materialg
constituting
of layers
load.
for
is the cantilever
convergence
(43)
Table
of the results
to in the table
referred
No4 (Figure
Table
Mesh
41)
(43)
Maximm
of 2x2
is that
deflection/;
P13
"
Ei
was used.
6x6
029a96
072017
8x8
03226o
082292
10 x 10
033507
088021
P.cact
0*33333
093497
xx
The
the support.
0*55208
modulus
is
0*24774
= the. section
of
4x4
*Z
rate
solution
integration
problem
the excellent
reflects
to the exact
maximum stress
43
refined.
point
materials.
layer
can be used.
at
GP
bd2
g
NONLINEARANALYSIS OF CONCRETESTRUCTURES.
43.1 General
The behaviour
stressstrain
less
elastic
curve
of concrete
of FigL=e
ultimate
can be explained
(4.2).
strength,
Under increasing
with
Under small
compxessve loads
concrete
behaves as a linear
loads,
concrete
behaves in a non
102
linear
The material
way.
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:cessiontension,
elements
in
in ultimate
in compressive
of the uniaxial
(43).
increases
strength
of 16Y6corresponds
finite
Accordingly,
The increase
is increased.
with
and in most
Concrete:
like
study.
Under biaxial
stress
to treat,
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),
principalstresses.
all
Other sources
in
it
cracks,
to carry
unimportant
due to biaxial
strength
of loading
comparison
stages
finite
be considered
Under biaxial
purposes,
of nonlinearities.
not
design
of stress,
will
early
when attaining
states
and dowelaction
bond effects
and under
by crushing
at very
in a direction
under increasing
willt
c.aqks
strength.
strength
layers
reinforcing
they
tensile
fails
ductility,
normally
hand, concrete
small
all
the material
stresses,
strain
ow. ng to its
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 MohrCoulomb failure
Tasuji et al
surface
(see
the following
same
tensioncompression
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 caseswhere
of View.
such differences
the concrete
as in such cases,
strength
ccmpressive
that
si=face
due to
criterion
interaction
strength
under compresaive
of combined
Fig=e
axe largely
action
yield
any possible
nonlinearities
plastic
The square
states,
uninxial
under
the
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.
A multilinear
obtained
for
the yield
(a2
3xyxy
Oct
+ Cy2 a
surface
(43)
Fi6m=e
of
of the fo=(43)
sheax stress
+3
'a
can be
T2
XY
as
Toct
(419)
aba0=
the
is
a0
mean normal
where
from experiments.
determined
strength
stress,
of concrete
under biaxial
and
compressionp
m =. f t/fc
Taking
fd
fC as the uniaxial
as the equivalent
and defining
and
(419)
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
V2
f
`7
3d
Solving
and the
then by (419)
fc/3,
V2fo
3
(ii)
r23 f.
and the
then
2b fd/3
(4.22)
+a
(4.21)
(4_.
(4.2)
22)
then
and
and using
(n
1)
nf=0
V2
VT
+
(2n
(no3
1)
Oct
0
'17
Taking n=
(4.23)
then
(0*1714
0*4143
Toct/fc +
=0
aolfc) 
(4.24)
(b) TerlsionCompression
Using the same procedure,
TOct/f
(c)
cn
+ V7
R+
it
m) cr lfc
M) 03
V2
m0
TM)
_2
(425)
Tensiontension:
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
equation
(4.26)
(4.25)
case.
layered
of plane
finite
stress.
whose properties
using
can be assigned
the present
element model,
A layer
is
are represented
formulation,
also
each layer
is
assumed
assumed to be of
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 xcoordinate
Upon cracking,
(FigUre
the crack
(45)),
with
The constitutive
is removed.
is
matrix
the
of
is placed
axis
axes,
to
parallel
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
(24.41).
steel
and reinforcing
cracking.
the modified
effect,
is used,
reveals
see section
in concrete
and
taken as 0.4
6 is
study
unoracked
To
stressstrain
FigL=e
stress
responsible
for
the crack
by
Tan 26
2 cr
XY
a.
a.
xy
here.
investigated
tension
account for
is given
in cracked
some resistance
The direction
In this
respectively.
is known that
It
factor
of
value
cracked
justification
GI
concrete,
all
0a
crack
di=eq"jion
(430)
by (430)
Oc. is dete=ined
will
lie
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
(431)
D' =TTDT
transfcrmation
the
where
T is
matrix
S2
by
given
CS
TS2c2
(432)
cs
2 'S
2CS
C2S2
where
S=
Cos ec:r,
However, during
might closep
if
on the yield
surfacep
the stress
(47),
of Figure
it
this
will
in
the
yield
the
tensioncompression
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
be possible
s=face
behaviour
occur in this
of Ne struct=eq
the crack
across
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
4.331), tlaus
(i)
dowel action
is allowed
is substantially
the possibility
for
since
the loss
of stiffness
closing
can be avoided
failure.
for
the
same reason.
The yield
in Figure
(4.7):
surface
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
compressionstresses
c=piession
 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
43.31 Concrete:
has already
It
for
behaviour
been established
concrete
of a given
ourve fitting
Perfect
yield
its
limited
before
in three
(3)
after
and
it
flow
reaches
its
ability
befcre
flowv
crushing
Thecomplete
parts:
(1) before
a ductile
stressstrain
on the
To account
strain.
crashing,
yield,
material
a perfectly
for
plastic
is
relationship
(2) during
plastic
flow,
fracture.
Before yieldv
plastic
using
plasticity:
concrete
plasiic
relationship
methods.
be
introduced.
can
model
developed
of concrete
theorems
stressstrain
In compressiong
surfacep
the analysis
plasticity
and workhardening
2. Representation
4.33.1(a)
two
Accordingly,
forces:
under compressive
1. Perfect
load
Beyond
capacity(58,59).
involved.
is
action
elpstic
only to small
is limited
under compression
linear
an initial
that
a linear
a yield
surface
elastic
is needed to define
defined
in te=sof
During
the
stress
108
as
(a2 + crz aay
xy
+3r)ia
xy
(433)
the stressstrain
of the plastic
the normality
deformation
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
(433)
is
concrete
this
approach
that
is
is reached.
surface
nonlineax
action
is
such an assumption
predictions
of a given stressstrain
curve fitting
empirical
respective
methods: 
stressstrain
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
4.33.1(b)
factor.
proportionality
strength.
the yield
until
structures
using
terms
ignored
(433)
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
(434)
21[c
stressstrain
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
(434)
Equation
may also be used for concrete in tension(58978)9
in
this
ep = 00000159 up = ft
case
Elms
(6)
intermediate
Chen et
and
,
al(78).
loading
surface
the stressstrain
diagram.
have 4.
he shape of
the
mediate
surfaces
inermediate
cc
fE
C*
cc
the instantaneous
stress
oo=esponds
yield
fco
This
Bell
after
Accordingly,
the
inter
f
the
strength
ult
imate
replacing
c
cc
(43)
as
has been suggested by Johnaxry
an
An
(435)
(Ec/Ei)
in
areass, =*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
(434)
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.
(434).
In this
research,
The discontinuity
is taken as 505/6fcuo
relationship
stresses
only
curve for
in both tension
in the original
steel
direction
bas is taken as a
and compression,
Fiouxe
(4.8).
110
bars
Steel
in
thus
are
case of high
yield
P proof
stress
yi eld
fy,
point
and
to 0.2yo strain
corresponding
is used.
Prior
After
to yieldingg
stresses
load increment,
modulus.
yielding,
the initial
as
(436)
hardening
Linear
strain
434
Pseudoload
surf ac e.
surfaces
on the yield
state
for
Within
the cur=ent
In this
the stiffness
in
the material
yield
beyond
state
is brought
back
matrix
loading
the integration
used for
f==:
any material,.
constitutive
study,
(68)
for
Gauss (padrature
and
,
as that
results
during
equilibrium
(437)
su::face.
existag
their
axe obtained
Lack of"equilibrium
of
Such forces
dv
vector
lack
analysis
=p_BG
from
resulting
in a nonlinear
load vector.
ex
F
the yield
forces
load increment
the current
so desired.
if
vector:
"'he outofbalance
a certain
be incorporated,
can also
of the material
is modified,
step.
(437)
is Performed using
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
pseudoforcesl
Paxticulaxly
plastification.
And if
is under
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
Johnary(43),
(C).
Appendix
load
Accordingly,
Following
0*15 Pcr
than
at each load
namber of ite=ations.
in the structure.
to be less
to unacceptable
satIsfied
.
of plasti. fication
lead
will
the
However,
increment , requires
the
load
(43),
acceptable
although
predictions
be shown
as will
(441).
43.5 Details
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 the beginning
fictitious
load vector,
to the accumulated
(437)9
nonlinear
contains
effects
tried,
equilibrium
of
is achieved.
equilibrium
Accordingly,
increment
all
loads
using
in addition
from previous
resulting
at
the elastic
is obtained
applied
to
equation
of a load
that
with
representing
until
load increment.
of the next
until
the equilibrium
by equation
ex
terding
F
is first
problem
iterations
the
eachg an elastic
of linearized
using
proced=e
load
increments.
The convergence
generally
of the residual
slowq particularly
load vector
ex
P
towards
stiffnesses
zero is
axe used.
112
have been used,
Accelerators
hese
successful
during
10 to 15 iterations
in this
considered
2.
The global
the
along
the problems
all
stiffness
the Gaussianelimination
is
displacements.
and curvatures
steps:
integration
considered
order
in this
stiffnesses,
of 2x2
study.
procedures(31).
load increment
strains
between
a limit
matrix
using
nodal
following
A reduced
standard
for
However,
matrices
using
A small
but
for
goods results
Gauss quadrat=e.
is used for
it
study,
proceeds
Elements stiffness
using
techniques,
with
exists,
research.
The solution
1.
procedure
examined various
results
yields
no universal
(65)
Phillips
but since
is solved
applied,
From nodal
displacementsq
middle
plane
point
the total
strains
axe found
from: 
(438)
+ZX
Using the current
and principal
constitutive
state
transition
criteria.
If
for
all
at the point
matrix
If
sampling
at the s=pling
the point,
stresses
axe found.
stresses
The stress
repeated
D for
matrix
point
is checked against
in all
are violated,
is changed.
the . elevant
layers
in all
the constitutive
elements.
matrix
113
back to within
to the stress
contribution
N=a
dz
NIM
vectors
is
(439)
az dz
IM=
fox all
and in all
e.
resultant
The point
surface.
from
calculated
Previous
the yield
sampling
in all
points
layers
elements.
are relpeatedf
ex
is added to the load vector,
F
vector
(441)
F1
E
is
and equilibrium
[PI
N and MO thus
resultants
at the nodes,
the
(440)
lip "I
is used to evaluate
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,
(49).
together
with
When failure
increment
for
iterate
limit
Norm 104.
on the iterations
iterations
the numerical
procedure
the instructions
is
when the
(442)
45)
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 ! arge 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
reliable
existing
this
be used to predict
developed
model,
data.
the
a stage,
The logic
model could
the behaviour
followed
produce accurate
if
over a
predictions
loads,
of similax
types
va=ious
different
design procedures.
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
1397cm
FigLLre (410)
gives
using
this
using
model with
The analysis
curve for
a mesh of 6x6
order
and without
considering
206850 IT/=
the loaddeflection
an integration
under a central
d, = 1143 mm.
2
30394 I,/=
Es=
Load.
2
27580 I,/=
Point
slab
reinforcement
of 2x2.
considering
tension
stiffening
this
elements
slab.
was
stiffening.
115
accuracy
ultimate
load.
behaviour.
and Waxner(48),
s1wiffening
by ignoring
that
between adjacent
cracks,
tension
and the
produced a
This
who concluded
in concrete
effects
tension
ignoring
The analysis
more flexible
Gilbert
stiffening
in the calculated
e=o=s
deflections
Although
neglecting
this
load,
the ultimate
ultimate
tension
stiffening
model predicts
an ultimate
effect
is not considered.
stiffening
i the analysis
the ultimate
Dotreppe(46)
using
by 100/C. Although
is underestimated
the author
one reasont
(see Figure
(411)
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
(410)
gives
sizes
made using
improve with
different
using
its
size
ability
sizes
of load
increments.
a reduced
model indicates
to
a comparison
of load
a4x4
axe predicted
nonlinearities
for
the same
for
no significant
between 4.
he predictions
stiffening
using
tension
of this
mesh subdivisions
occur at exactly
to any
svch an underestimation
various
As far
this
(410)).
Other rmmerical
Figure
that
load
the ultimate
is of the opinion
load is mainly
in the ultimate
effect
a different
It
is appaxent
of load incremente
in producing
116
of the
load
cracking
(413).
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
equilibrium
should
present
increasing
to
for
predictions
mean the
increased
the
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
gives
In
is
This
is taken
cr"
of increasing
The effect
the
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
their
inplane
effect
load.
on the
boundary
investigated
restraints
is
The predicted
response'for
supported
the
to membrane
quite
support.
In this
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
is insignificant.
predictions
the restraint
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.
tested
is
predictions
accurate
Accordingly,
supported
it
slab
was a square
by Jofriet
simply
and McN41ce
supported
(21)
under a central
was
and
.
mm.square
085%, reinforcing
with
point
corners
was 914.4
The slab
reinforced
four
at
and
steel.
load,
fy=
331 11/=2
properties:
N/=2
= 2.413
ft
N/=2
ES = 200000
28614 N/=2
Ec=
= 333 =
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.
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
(415).
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
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
results
experimental
roller
Analysis
good.
loads,
with
other
flexible
the
quite
at high
behaviour
to
is
cases
the
corners,
are
identical
had not
been
used in
the
test,
satisfactory.
to analyse
by Rao(39) using
and plain
analysis
of beam elements
a combination
stress
elements
tested
complex structures.
for
the flanges.
of this
the ability
for
model
and analysed
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
the flange
six
properties
elements
width
point
at the
the
spans
here.
and four
(4.18).
centre.
was analysed
along
load
in Figure
by half
the
flange.
119
The computed loaddeflection
beam is given
(of
load
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
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
(417).
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.
supporting
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
Al by Hayes et, al
the
of tests
its
by
Hayes et al.
conducted
systems
slabbeam
the slabbeam 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
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
present
the
would
reduced
model
beam system.
with
in
Figure
very
(84)
slabbeam
slab
and the
18 M).
in his
load,
only
First
convergence.
beams, at
of the supporting
After
This
experiments.
the
with
of the steel,
yielding
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
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
number of iterations
disparity
were
was detected
convergence
analysis.
A maximum number of
(4.19).
the
at
range,
of 54 kN reported
value
43.4).
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
is
in the
of
But
be subjected
case,
the
lies
normal
has no effect.
beam will
in
The effect
shear,
model
actually
systems.
slabbeam
systems
the composite
represents
system
present
disadvantage
layer.
vertical
this
slabbeam
the
slabbeam
the
shear
of
described
Shear
Flow
in
a layered
Plate
Bending
Model
the
122
4.5 CONCLUSIONS.
This
tested
1.
in
itspresent
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
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
convergence.
dramatically
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
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
normally
Experience
plastification.
this
failure
indicates
the
increment.
conditions,
of
attaining
The accuracy
of the
effect
much by demanding
predictions
to
convergence
small
(44)
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
problems
cracking
reinforcement,
are not
achieved.
of the
of
the
less
to 'very
(435)
of the
load.
cracking
convergence
most
0.15
the
with
yielding
bounds
for
around
of
of the
in section
specified
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
equilibrium
stresses
that
cases.
the variability
of stresses
over the
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
(41)
the
in
system
coordinate
26
STRESS
Figure
FigL=e
cu
(4.2)
(4.3)
StressStrain
Biaxial
relationship
strength
for
of concrete
concrete
in compression
a 2/1 cul
127
cr
Fi; rure(44)
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
StressStrain
STRAIN
curve for
CC
concrete
"fCu
21
129
111f
pigure(47)
the yield
"Zoning"
loading
subsequent
surface
surfaces
initial

STRESS
II
STRAIN
Figure
(4.8)
StressStrain
curve
for
a steel
layer
and
STIFFNESS MATRIX
FORM INITIAL
Ek1
AND DECOMPOSEIT
[Pll
rpll
DISPLA' EZ=S
' [ID
Ckj
=
dj
[a]
=Z]
dv
+r P"
= [pil
NO

IS NORM [ad]
Fi =e
(4.9)
Details
of
the
SMALL?
numerical
71
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
r4
0
E1
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/=
18288
h=
139.7 mm
d1=
1143 mm
px
e_(4.10. b),
Details
of DOTREPPEslab
Py
00099
=
132
80
70
60
PL4
%. I
50
ri
Cd
40
30
20
10
48
12
16
20
CENTRALDEFLECTION(=)
Figure
(411)
24
85
75
65
55
0
r4
Cd
45
35
25
15
5
12
Central
Pigixre
(412)
Deflection
20
16
24
(mm)
sizes
on the
85
75
65
55
P4
45
35
25
15
dent.ral Teflection
FigL=e
(413)
(=)
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
P1
Id
Cd
40
Cd
20
48
12
16
20
Central Deflection
Figure (414a)
Effect
of various
boundary conditions
v0
L.
0x=C..
60C.
x
u=O
,0
w=O
0x =o
y0
on the response
Uo
Vo
Wo
L.
U=o
ey.
=O
e
X=o
TYPE 1
UVW= fj
TYPE 2
=U
v= x0
UV=WIi
=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
uIw=e =0 I
y
Figure
(414b)
Types
of
boundary
conditions
for
a simply
supported
slab
136
16
i'
12
0
A
$.
P4
P4
:4
H
Cd
421
0
E4
246a
Central Deflection
Figure
(415)
slab.
cu
2e614
Es
200000
914.4 h
d1
Px
Figure
(416),
Details
of McNeice
Slab.
331
Ec
ft
144
48.6 Nl=
2*413
44*7
333
00085
p7 =
137
45
Experimental
Failure Load
40
35
D,
30
25
20
P4
Experiment
v
15
RAOTheory
I
.C4
ri
Cd 10
+,
01
.IY
5ff
Present Theory
8
Central
Fi
(417)
e
20
16
12
(=)
Deflection
RAO TEEB.EUl Bl
aw7"
1650
3300
1000
'
/gmm
@
15()c
120
Figi=e
(4.18) Details
of RAO TEEBEAYIB1
(For materials
see section
properties
3.43)
15
138
C. L.
L.
C
v.
4*8
mm
A23
1
co
4,0*5
152
76
24
95
and
4`8 min
T
St'i='UPS @ 76 mmc/c
COA
20
16
Ebcperiment
12
Theory
10
30
20
Central
Fig=e
(419)
Deflection
Details
and loadd+Splacement
slabbeam 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
chapter,
be critically
is
examined.
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
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
properties
materials
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
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.
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
subject
the
for
In fact,
component
is
sltb
two ways.
moment fields
which
stress
the
as an extension
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
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
(53)
slabs.
Results
the
Appendix
of the
those
for
(D).
In
a regular
torsionless
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
(59)
to
seven
of the
for
the
summarizes
The results
(51)
under
analysed
all
(51)
obtained.
in
and differing
conditions
were
Table
load.
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
in
from
142
tension
those
causing
5.2.3
'Discussion
This
is
along
only
always
true
(51)'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
(51).
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
(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
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,
51).
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
due. to
two reasons:
one
143
(a)
The torsionless
Figures
steel
confined
corners.
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
is
sides
thus
(between
of torsional
orthogonal
Take for
corner
supported
steel
to
the
with
sides$
From Table
the difference
due to
the effect
supported
in
tends
ratio
(a)
(cause
above).
moment volume
the total
two
of the torsional
moments reduces
corners
the
51) 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
5.2).
(a),
in
(5.5b),
Figures
reinforcement.
nothing
torsional
reinforcement
and D22).
the
'underestimates
analysis
between
ranges
corner
to a
'v,
18.6,
maximum of
The difference
two analysis
(5.3)
Figures
fields
are
given
such
cases
is
due to
the
large
differences
to (59)
Considering
.
in
the
seven
in Table
cases
and in Appendix
by Figures
b.
produced
is
given
in
(D).
(51).
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
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
agrees very
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.
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
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
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
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
design that
2x is m2, that
of width
lever
failure
line
in each direction.
edge strips
central
supported
with
(5.1).
Table
slab of
will
give
and
0.0746 q L4
0.0241 q L2
m2 = 0.0475 q LZ
Now for
(53)
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
(53),
Figure
is
distance
line
(5.1)
(5.2)
and
failure
in
the
modes,
is
yield
L from the
at 0.15
Z, as compared
x=0.35
that
line
Since
two methods
the
show that
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
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
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
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
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
(Torsional
of the normal design moments
Solutions).
The strip
produces
with
method represented
moment volumes
those
provided
obtained
which
fromi the
the additional
torsional
steel
direct
analysis
acceptable
design
is included.
variance
method,
t"
147
For slabs
discontinuous
the direct
around),,
(i.
edges
e. simply
on all
method.
in steel
solutions
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
should
such steel
which
over
of torsional
quantity
required
as prescribed
steel,
the
the
such
practice,
of midspan
direction,
design
far
and the
corners,
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
required
analysis
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)
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
ri
t'
Co
O\
0
c;
0
M
ri
ri
%z
ri
Ic;
cu
Co
0
C)
0
0
:t
(Yl
"
4j
Co
(D
cli
ri
C\i
\M
ri
ri
A
A
1;
0
C
ri
ri
ni
CU
0
Co
m
m
0
Co
m
t
_:
0
<5
c5
c;
(5
Lr\
CY%
tVN 
CYN
0
e
_:e
O\
ri
c
CM
ri CM
(Yl
0
_r
C
.1
sq
H
Co
H
0
Co
CM
C%i
0
\M
ID
cm
CD
fA
(:
CM
0.
UN
t0
45 11
gq
0.
zr
tC)
m
CD
Co
O\
Co
c\
\M
P1
1,0
ri
CM
CM
CM
0
r
.
Lr\
H
0
ch
c%
ri
ri
ri
0
"0
ri
cm
0
(D
(D
C>
H
cu
t
C\
ri
t
1%0
\M
r
_:
u\
C\j
CM
CM
CM
c)
C)
c)
C)
ri
0
U'\
t. 
r1
n
to
(L)
Co
CD
m
ri
0
r1
C>
(1
0
ri
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
ri
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
ri
m
c;
c; c; c (5 c;
Co
ci
(>
Lr\
_e
H
\.0
P4
E4 0
CM
CD
Co
m
CM
LIm
ri
rn
0
0
. r4
4)
0
(D
W
Fo
H
r
0
pq
m0
Cd
E41
ri
0
rd
to
>4 bD
r i rd
a)
149
0
c>
UN
t
.:
\Z
ri
Lr\
P.A
r
:
tCM
Ul\
D
>lo
A
11A A
_0f5k
0
41
0
11
E1
0
CM
t
_:
UN
Co
CM
IZ
C>
Lr\
Co
N
t
_e
r1
tm
cu
LN
\Z
M
tN
\M
H
m
_e
0
\z
Lrl%
*D
CO
_e
Lr\
H
CD
CM
ni
tLI
A
Lr\
m
LA
C)
ON
Ul\
Je
CM
cli
\M
0
0
c; c;
c
CD
\Z
%Z
m
UN
C
(D
ri
Co
CD
Co
0
H
ri
H
c; c; c; (5
0
\Z
mi
ri
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
ri
H
ri
tr\
CM
00AAA4A414
ri
c\
tCD
4J
0
pq
Ill
0
0
0
cn
_e
c;
c;
Ul\
cu
C\i
\. 0
r1
(n
LN
UN
C*i
.4
Lr\
tM
CU
:t
e
r
_Z
ri
ON
_J,
\Z
a',
Co
Lr\
CD
CM
tc
ri
Lr\
0
Wl
0
\lo
CD
t
0
,
Lr\
140
UN
%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
43
0
0
Q
PC
Q
41
0
P,
p4
10
Cd
E4
0
pq
a,
t
150
1
Co
c\
0
o
c\
c\
Co
e
CD
c
c
l 1:
H
H
ri
mi
CM
%Z
p;
t
Co
\Z
CU
ri
cu
A A 4
%o
Co
t
_:
O\
cli
C\i
t
"0
Co
1
4J
o
Erf
t
tZ
UN
\M
ri
m
0
.t>
0
lif
00
CY\
\. 0
H
0
rH
0
C%
e
_CU
Je
Lr\
ri
0.
0
11
ri
cm 2
Lr\
UN
o
t
t
Co
zr
0
t0
0
ri
O\
0
%10
(>
tri
0
CM
U%
O\
0
C\i
0
ri
(n
CM
0
Zt
u'\
C\i
(D
H
o
H
0
"0
Lr\
ri
c)
H
m
cm
c)
CD
ri
m
1%0
C
_zr
m
Ul\
=r
CD
CD
H
CM
Ul\
0
ri
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
ri
O\
t
cli
rt
_:
H
c;
Eri
H
9
Co
C\i
t
ei
CM
CM
41
c;
t
(n
Co
CM
ri
cu
CM
cu
Co
mi
tri
ri
Co
10
9
0
Lr\
c\
0
IND
H
cu
r,
m
tcu
(D
CM
0
m
H
(n
H
"0
0
(n
ri
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)
ri
Id
00,
00
C\j
. ri rtl
rd
.1
rn a
.,. 1
to
A
Cd
E4
P4
P4
04
4) U3
rn
>4 to
ri
; T4
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
r1
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
LH
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
tCM
0
W\
rf
Et
%. 11
_:r
Co
CD (D
Co
I
c C), (5 ( (
t
O\
cn
ri 6
rd
Z
Q) ri sz
rcj 1,
. f4
Co Pz
4)
0
0
C.)
tr\
cm
A
1;
1;
0.
rl
Z:
0
. ri
41
rd
0
0
$4
P,
01
42
A
>b
r.
AH
to
ro
00
0
A
A
o
,i
4.
Cd
E1
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
.
814
1.073
1.180
1.146
...
Torsional
153
Analysis
Torsic. iless
Analysio
09
Gr
\\"
08
G
..
007
qzr>)
14
o6
GI
//
/
ri
0
'it;
05
1
'.
1
ii
0
:4
/i
I,
rI
ci
4)
0
E4
0*4
I,
/
03
',
JA
02*
01
'Ili
,SN

10
125
1,50
(51)
200
1 *75
y
Comparison
of moment volumes produced
torsional
and torsionless
analyses
by
be
154
Torsional
013P
Analyses
Torsionless
Analysis
020
JE
Oo15
4'
r:3
d
odl
ol
010
.00,
0
E4
F
.*,
F
LD
:, 0.
005
10
125
Sides Ratio
Figure
(52)
20
150,175
L /L
produced
by torsional
155
T
LY
I
0*08
(5)
C4
006
.01
0004
c\j
(4)
M
2)
loe
V//
(i )
<2 "'
1,
01
002
.,
.0.,
000
01
(S. 3a)
Figure
0.081
Positive
Moment M* (L /L
xxy
160)
=
T
,,y
(5)
x
"\\
6
006

.
'
/
.
0004

.

(4)
(3)
2)
002
(1)
00
Fig=e
(53b)
Uel
Positive
 u, z
04
0 3
Moment M* (L /L
yxy
0)
=
156
006
0004
002
00
Figure
(5.3c),
Negative
A/. Ux
Moment M* (L /L
xxy
10)
=
OC
C'4
4
00
00
Y/LY
Figi=e
(5.3d)
.
Negative
Moment M
1 0)
*04
003
157
1
LY
Ix
ply
..'
clj,4
el
',
.e*.
002
001
L(2
(1)


 
0*3
02
01
Positive
\ ".I
0,
00

,.
.1..,
.
X/Lc
(Lx/L7
10)
M*
Moment
=
x
0
U
IL
004
LY
003
A
(5)
' (z4i
t>ll
al
we
002
001
(22)

ol
001
A//Z1
01
02
03
y/L y
Figare
(54b)
Positive
04
05
005
58
0,,04
003
cm
bip.
002
001
OC
Finire
(5.4c)1
Negative
XAX
Moment M (Lx/lr
1 0)
00
00
00
00
0.0:
0. (
Y/Ly
Figure
(54d).
Negative
1*0)
159
t", ax
016
MX
012
LX
1,
l
cr
0.1
."
10.001
//
008
.*
"
..
0*04
Z
1.01
c
zo
/
,. 00
00
(1)

U0L
ue 2
XAX
I?
0008
LY
006
3)
0*04
4)
5).
01
0002
(2)
000
A
.01
00
U*4
06
0*8
Y/Ly
ELZEe15 ):]a
,',
160
0.
*1
0.
0.0
Figure_(5.5c)
0.1
0.2
0.3
o. 4
0.5
Negative
0.
0.
0.
0.
Ulu
.
Figure
(5.5d)
0.2
Negative
o. 4
Moment M* (L /L
xxy
o. 6
10)
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)
111
.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
003
c4 >,
0.02
0.01
0.0
0.2
o. 4
0. b
y/L
Figure
(5.6d)
Negative
/L
(L
M*
= 10)
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
(57a)
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
Iy
0.0
Figure
(5Th)
positive
(2)
0.1
Moment M*
y
0.2
(Lx/Ly
0.3
Y/Ly
: 10)
0.
I0.5
64
Os O
0.06
r4
>%,
c31 0.04
1
5:x
0.02
0.0
Figure
"1
(57c)
.
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
(57d)
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 5t: 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
(58b)
'Positive
o. 4
o. 6
YA3,
Moment M* (LX/Ly
y
o. 8
10)
1.0
144
0.08
o. o6
o. o4
0.02
0.0
1
XIT,X
Figure
(5.8c)
Negative
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
= 10)
1.0
167
o. o4
0.03
Lx
00,
'4" 0.02
c',

. 111111`
0.1 /
4)
IftIIIIIIZZ7....
(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
10)
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
= 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
x2
+ 2m2x/. Z )
4m,
=.
(Z
2x)
24mi
Z2(1
.
For a given
loads
from
x.
the
V=2
and for
will.
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
slabs.
design method,
except two, which were intended for comparison with the direct
design method.
The object
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
underreinforced
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
with
sides,
slabs
simply
the
while
two
is
corner
opposite
on a column.
includes
three
slabs
supported
around.
Test Series
includes
5: 
two slabs
on the
free
1.0
between
All
In
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
test
each runs
and the
approach
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
(53)to
constitute
given
(57)
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).
also
the
edgess
the
obtained
would
penetration
crack
inertia
load,
through
the
predict
IS(93)
Branson
the
using.
elastic
deflections
depth
the
(53)
the
the
method.
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
The assumptions
as the
was obtained
such
Due to
an effective
For slabs
as span/20.
depth
the
calculating
was chosen,
load
along
problem.
longer
be used
cannot
in
depth
of the
stiffnesses
uncracked
was
used in
and the
research,
the Xaxis)
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
sexvice
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
elements
the
the nonlinear
subdivisions.
a4x4
and
cracking
two orthogonal
from
resulting
chapter.
models,
plus
by the reinforcement
elastic
was taken
was limited
using
in the previous
4. a mesh of 5x5
series
using
The unsymmetrical
elements
of symmetry, half
elements.
the
of
due to progressive
described
element program,
having
6L
behaviour
deformational
under increasingload,
finite
8x8
the
yielding
depth
suitable
section.
load.
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
compressi7e
Concrete tensile
Poisson ratio
of varying
to
NUM
test,
to
on the behaviour
of
33.3
used, for
in the slabbeam
which
In
force
following
the
will
(2)
15 iterations
systems,
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).
evez7 test,
strengths
fcu.
ft=0.075
st
in each element.
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
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,
Yield
the
4: 
series
Concrete
assigned
under increasing
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
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
along
This
series
includes
all
edges,
into
includes
and
the
1.
Subseries
1A:
tests
on slabs
two subseries.
test
runs
with
various
2. Subseries
sides
ratio
tests
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
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
(513)
in Table
to (518)(53)
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
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
LoadMa: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
H2.
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
1A
a
C, L
1
1.1291
ze
178
0
E4
Cd
Id
01 Id
P4
P
4
cli
0.
T
1
IL
H
Itt
co
P4
t\Z
4 1
CD
CD
P4 P,
;4
C,
j
"Zi
\O
U11%
C)
'd
P4
P4
10114
4a)
P(I\
LCI\
1.0
K'\
";I
a, \
04
CC)
cli
co
C\j
co
C\l
(D
Id
04
Id
42
0i
Lr\
C\j
P4
Cd
r=
4
M
44
0
0
U"\
N
P4
ri
.0
11
P
P4
P4
(D
E1
77
r4
E4
179
5.4.2
CONCLUSIONS:
1A.
5.4.2.1'Subseries
1.
The service
behaviour
The deflection
satisfactory.
in this
the slabs
of all
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.
5.4.2.2Si! 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
The slabs
hand, only
On the other
is
load
design
the
very
of normal moments at
to
in
of the slab at
of steel
reduces with
The distribution
that
in this
steel
was reached.
direction
percentage
span direction.
yielded
behaviour.
service
in the short
In tezms of steel
showed an identical
in this
Yield
slabs
was concentrated
directionhas
This gives
690%
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  xx
4  0,  10
0.08
(516)
0.16
NUMEX 10
0.32
0.24
Curves for
LoadDeflection
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
(517)
LoadMaximum 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.
11.037
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
(518):
C.L.
NUMEX
NUMEX7
Figure
C.L.
Subseries
1B
1.12
182
E4
(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
43
m 3
liZ
4p.
+)
H
Cl
(D
C\j
.Il
4
C\j
trN
PC\
C\j
11
Lr
04
op
0
P4
P4 E4
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,
series.
No yield
of steel
occurs within
In fact,
for high
grades of concrete,
for
obtained
The
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 service
of 0.78 Pd was
loads.
low grades of concrete
with
behaviour.
lead
the overall
But still
Similar
to the slabs
in the previous
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
3 sides)
was intended
on three
for
sides,
a uniform
The
and
load of
for
184
In these slabs,
sides ratios.
various
the free
(D).
The distribution
(519).
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
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
an average
at 0.9
the
indicates
which
edge,
undertaken,
slabs
an analysis
was reached
element gives
behaviour
resulting
an analysis
of
load to
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
carried
edge.
will
the increase
to the free
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
of the strips
parallel
0
45
load
the
it
in
and Figures
of the support
load is carried
Figure
(55)
series
Appendix
it
but
than
was found
Pd. while
of0.92
1.25.
the
Pd.
with
predicted
reduced
depths.
deflection
The assumed
didnot
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
. rj
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
43
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):
Loacldeflection
.
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
50
C/Cy
Figure
(5.21):
LoadMaximim
in
Series
2.
Steel
Strains
in
the
Slabs
1"
I
Free
P
0
P4
MIIC.
H
.,.4
1 91 85 1.85 83
104 .
.
.
43
P4
Free
I.121.9d.93.85 . 81;
.
1. 961.9388q5
43
; 4
0
P4
P4
L.
851
91
87
95
104.
C. L.
.
.
.
1
5,11.0 93 91 871
.
.
.
105102,..97. . 971
.
1 1 i
11
.1
P4
E:
. r4
w
6
1.2
L1
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
_:
ri
c;
c;
cc;
c;
c;
c;
CZ
1
111
114 914
C)
c\
cm
CM
,ri
(D
ri
t0i,
rn
41
r4
0)
CU
tC\i
cu
0
41
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
(55).
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.
th e test
supported on a colu=
free.
were
edges
the
the
other two
while
on
opposite corner,
sides ratios.
The slabs
X 20.
runs NUMEX16 to NTJMF.
for
behaviour
the
intended
to
was
study
In all
slabs,
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
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 053L
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
(D49D56).
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
(59)
considered.
For a square
design
Figures
in
are given
series
of the
edge.
of
axImum
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
56
NUMEX 19
0 NUMEX 20
0.0
0.1
0.2
o. 4
0.3
o. 6
0.5
6/h
(523):
Figure
Loaddeflection
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):
Loadmaxinum 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
(525)
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
.
43
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
ri C\j
>4 8
>4
CN
LrN
m
rl
H

co
Fd
rt:%
P 4
(D
U\
N
Cj
C;
I!
H
%lo
0
co
48
\0
ri
0.
(YI
CY)
CVI
CO
43
CO.
.1
CY)
P4
y
;4
;q0
0 ., 1 4)
1:11 X4 M
oly
'D
A
0>
Cc
Yi
(Y)
CY)
 IR
rq
CO
C\j
U
44 a
00
S:
0
rq
t
>h
>41 4
to
*
M 4
r.
0
rq
4J
to
$4 Cd rd
cd (1)H
>
43
w
0
0
., i
4)
(L)
196
0
.H
4J
C)
4j
ci
:11 ro
P4 gl,
\D
ri
Co
_e
CY
ri
1:
rd
914
(>
\Z
KN
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
tCM
c;
U%
40 si
\M
4)
0
(D
0
CM
r4
CD
42
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
5.4.6coriclusions:
(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.
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
slabs
maximum on the
curtailment.
the
Systems)*
test
All
beams.
supporting
reinforcement.
NWEX 21,
runs
NUMEX 22 and
to be monolithically
distribution
Reinforce
edges.
on the
based
includes
identical
had
and
free
on the
conditions
4: (SlabBean
series
N=
of
stress
to transmit
Test Series
5.4.7
the behaviour is
Similar
three
cast with
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
(529).
Figure
to
carry
designed
of
equations
by the
and the
model
(3.6).
line
(3.4).
Section
design
direct
case,
of. Section
(531),
considered,
flexural
design
in Figures
only)
My, M ) were
V
design
equatioms.
and Table
in
volumes
(5.8).
At the
design
theory
an ultimate
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,
the
when considering
coincide,
the
combined
3.7)
between
flexure
particular
load
the
designed
(M
x,
forces
design
(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.
slabbeam
In NUMEX 21,
However,
KNjm2
rectangular
and the
20.8
23 were
and tested
uniform
21, ana N=
of
based
designs
methoawith
the corresponding
the slab.
at the centre
moment of
flexure
by about
line
more than
beans.
(see
Table
18%, and is
analysio.
offset
58).
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
200
Although
than
steel
that
both
But still
yield
line
in
only
are
given
(57).
Table
only,
increase
and Table
(58)
gives
for
the
than
of
the
in
Figures
of up to
nonlinear
(530)
From these
for
(5.35)
to
the
results,
this
a difference
case at hand.
the
corresponding
in this
analysis
more
in
particular
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
deflections
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.
of 2.0.
for an ultimate
(HILLERBORG).
method
in the elastic
analysis),
analysis
(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
(530):
NUMEX21
22
NUMEX
x
23
NUMEX
9
0.6
0.8
1.0
1.2
S/h
at the Centre
LoadDeflection
See Table
57
of the Slab
Curves for
4.
203
ae
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.
00
0.04
.1
.3
.2
.4
.5
o. 4
0.5
Y/Ly
.
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)
in Series
204
TENSION
y
1000
800
6oo
Nx
c1h
141
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
,
(532),
along
Membrane Forces
in
0.5
theSlabs
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
in Series
23
NUMEX
206
1.0
0.8
o. 6
Pd
o. 4
0.2
e/e y
Figure(53)
Loadsteel
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
(535)
Loadmaxinjim steel
Series 4.
in
in
the
slabs
strai ns
207
41
C)
erj
0
1
0
0
4J M0
Q) 9) H il
CJ
>b 41
'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
44 1
;J c4
(n
ri
(n
c) 1
41
%.
UN
(n
ci
C\i
C\i
0)
0
LA
U'\
H
Lr\
rA
43
44
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
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
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
(5.30)
11
209
been
shown in
Section(523)s
the
design
in
the
two
cases
two slabs
are
given
moments
are
different.
quite
Resulti
the
of
in Figure (536),
nonlinear
of the
analysis
tO Figure (538),
is
in
Table
siumary
a
and
given
(5.7).
5.4.10 Conclusions
1.
The increased
amount
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
.1,1
two
was
cases
of the longspan
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
is
in
fle. xible
Both
method.
greater
the
a more
The distribution
load
strip
on the strips
in
behaved
in HILLERBORGstarted
Yield
the slab
edge.
load,
Yield
the design
on the
free
edge
pattern.
the
under
moments
by the
elastic
is
moment
quite
design
analysis.
different
210
Both slabs
supported
loads
in excess of their
In
loads
membrane force,
exanples
design
given
procedure
The effect
here,
requires
although
the
in HILLERBORG
proposed
the slab
designed
by the strip
designed
by the direct
method,
a better
free
HILLERBORG
in NUMEX15.
the
strip
load,
load.
recorded
than
design
is
caused by concentrating
edge strips
in the strip
method.
direct
the reinforcement
in the
1.20
0.90
Pd
o. 6o
0.30
o. 16
0.32
/h
o. 48
o. 64
0.8
o. 96
1.20
0.9
p
Pd
o. 6
0.3
1.0
Figure
(537):
2.0
LoadMaximum
3.0
E/Cy
Steel
and HILLERBORGS
Strain
4.0
for
5.0
NUMEX 15
6. o
212
I
Free
1.12
93
.
93
.
41
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
in NUMEX15
Free
43
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
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
In this
information
the proposed
in implementing
insight
a clear
accordingly.
Only rectangular
with
involved
to provide
in steel
designed
of about
dimensions
is
obligatorypin
the slabs
covering
patternp
the limiting
tested,
length
the
that
The thickness
of Cp, 10(5).
order
represented.
(338)
models
reinforcement
varying
a continuously
by Section
Laxge scale
can be properly
slabs
ratios'specified
A fixed
The support
span length
and accordingly,
support,
following
considered
and integral
slabbeam
included
systems.
were recorded:
1. Lateral
2. Steel
deflections
and concrete
strains
loads.
the
conditions
ofJk\
span/depth
of 1.0,1.30
and
1.5.
point
6f
work is given.
experimental
6.2
and give
models designed
the simple
support,
the
214
6.3 SLABS DESIGNATION:
In all,
of boundary conditions
Tab
Test
Table (6.1)
Tested
of each slab.
and dimensions
Slabsdesignation
.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
Model 4
Model 5
5imply supported
sides
it
simply
Model 6
system
an elastic
load,
the design
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
For a given
theoryq
given
prograrip
on the slab
with
all
theone
at any point
is
factors
safety
is made
like
and
design
calculated
Appendix
in
shown
pattern
by performing
element
at any point
state
taken
to the assumed'stress
(6.1).
the finite
analysis
the design
Fig=e
on all
supported
sides
slabbeam
6.4
on all
A.
This
given
in
215
Two methods can be used to repls; Lce the distributed
length.
axeas by reinforcing
(a)
bars:
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
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
parallel
on the
width.
reduces
area.
sectional
steel
width,
can be based
design
over a certain
by =ultiPlYing
then obtained
Over a certain
This
area is
steel
steel
to pointt
The total
width.
steel
of one element.
of Figures
(6.2),
(63)*
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
locally
across
a strip,
steel
the elements
area is usually
isused
seen in those
throughout
the load.
right
4o the
one
the difference
as is usually
an average value
along
and accordingly,
of the maximum.
within
length,
ment in this
process
the
done
only
when
was
is a high,
containing
the strip
provided
is added
to ensure
216
adequate
transmission
of load to
still
is
done in order
some bars
of Section
Torsional
(33.6)
the finite
The flexural
One important
in choosing
ends,
(337)
was only
he is
until
In this
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
so that
strong
In one
the supporting
the
layout
to
have
changd
may
The designer
is nowhere exceeded.
stress
the additional
Section
with
factor
both
but
bond stress.
the sheax
supporting
the slab
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.
This
corner
might
account,
requirements
it
on to the supports.
code requirements.
in this
shear resistance.
into
stresses
will
normally
the edges.
of Section
(3.11.6)
of C2110(5)
followed.
to achieve
by the elastic
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.
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
cube strength
workability
but
Nos1,5
were
tests.
all
used
for
used was 10 =,
gravel
mixes.
all
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.
6.
and
large
sizes,
in the laboratory.
18 batches
were
mixes
ready made
was convenient
models,
and therefore
each model,
the
150 mm diameter
in
water,
was cured
a polythene
control
in 14 to
Half
cylinders.
the other
were
specimens
half
eight
the control
was kept
100 mm cubes
specimens
cover.
control
=dels.
Standard
tests
splitting
to determine
tests,
the
cube compressive
strengths
modulus of concrete
it
concrete
of 70 kg each.
and eight
cylinder
of
mixes,, supplied
respective
and gravel
The concrete
different
in the laboratory,
All
sand
of the uncrushed
mixes:
same strength
For
in
was Zone 2.
Concrete
average
Portland
were
218
conducted
The concrete
test
to
according
tensile
British
the
strength
(61).
Standards
from
obtained
the
splitting
cylinder
as
2P
ft
7r DL
(6.10)o
in
Figure
as shown
for
properties
different
Stype
electronic
steels
Figure
(6.11)
initial
stress
the stressstrain
gives
Tests on several
.
the
proof
as
bars
bars
for
an
followed
the
for
to 0.2% strain.
the type
for
point
different
with
corresponding
curve
random
fitted
point
of steel
used.
4T3
N/mm2q and an
of
very
certain
procedure
The yield
manilal.
only
machine,
The testing
extensometer.
amount of reinforcement
of the steel
in an Oslen testing
instruction
rnnufacturer's
sizes,
(6.3).
in Table
Because a considerable
bar sizes
the materials
High yield
6.
model
except
involving
for
Reinforcement:
models,
Average values
small,,
bar
available
diameter
steel
of steel
used is
6.6'STPAIN
Prior
reinforcing
for
was 8 mm,for
and mild
300 N=Z
of surrounding
given
the yield
high
beams.
Since the
it
steel,
The stressstrain
in Figure
point,
yield
was discarded$
curves
Average values
Young's
smallest
for
the type
obtained
were
modulus.
GAUGES:
to casting
bars.
each model,
The strain
strain.
to the
resistance
219
gauges of the type
FA06250BG120 with
foil
backing.
polyl'=*de
filing
The strain
are then
protected
against
humidity
McoatD
protect
the
after
to the
Araldite
The strain
connected
6.7
The
drying
acrylic
checked.
To
by an air
damage during
the casting
hardening
rapid
an
mechanical
to the reinforcing
instructions.
strain
and temperature
connections
temperature
the namufacturer's
soldered
flexible,
is made in self
alloy
of the bar,
following
wires
a tough,
with
the ribs
off
combination
The constantan
compensated form.
bar after
in
Constantan
of
0.15% resistance
.
The gauges are made of a
at 750F.
1PO0 n
process.,
epoxy adhesive.
to a data logger.
fixing
the strain
the proper
compacted using
to the loading
would later
rig,
used for
the concrete
The position
the positions
immersion
an
of the holes
bolts
the
of
be used to lif
loading
in several
batches
type
yas complete,
mesh was
reinforcing
positions
pen.
These bolts
the
for
about
on the model
for
provided
that
which they
leave
on the
the slab.
hasset,
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,
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
(613b)
in Figure
free
and a high
tension
orthogonal
flatsrollers
had an ultimate
prevent
(6.14)
plates
high
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
flatsrollers
of a system of orthogonal
in all
to
through
1750
N/mm2,
pass
was
made
and
of
corner
provided
at the time
system,
arrangement
resulting
intact,
then through
of casting,
shear stresses
This
by applying
thus
all
system
at the corners.
this,
diameter
supports
was effected
supports
supports".
flatsrollers
Figure
Spreader
steel
strength
the orthogonal
rig.
rotation
in the slab
except
consisted
to provide
of the model,
To prevent
of the slab.
capacity
This
all
models consisted
by a round 25 =
(613a).
on the
of gypsum plaster
supported
five
the first
separated
Figure
as a roller,
For a slab
a hole
thick
extends
using
support
of the slab
steel
corner
pulls.
to
To
221
was slightly
Each slab
of
the
allowed'100
The effective
the
subtracting
6,
were
flatrollers
at
6.9
(6.1)
Table
from
obtained
are
gross
by
these
of
Veesrollers
orthogonal
is
The system
were
pinned
with
cast
were monolithically
and orthogonal
that
so arranged
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
slab
the
loads
lateral
ratio
from
surface
loads.
This
1m
up
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
by the
tested
were
was designed
1.09
of
in
given
corners.
it
the'centreline
The rig
to
act
other,
All
It
by sets
if
as
the'test.
each support.
over
alternate
of
beyond
are
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
$I
at the time
of the laboratory.
7wires
to the total
application
mariner. *
I
in the slab
in the floor
prestressing
yield
of 150 KN.
provided
tendons,
load
can be divided
having
applied
in the
222
(1)
Tvo_'poirits_system:
4
model
and consisted
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 ofthe
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 tonhydraulic
tensioned
via
pump at
arrangement
on theseparate
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
(617).
Figure
of
500 mm apart,
Eightpointssystem:
This
tach
In
about
The cable
beam.
arranged
four
on the
anchored
cable
sZstem:
through
passed
at two Points
spreader
symmetrically
cabless
of the model.
centre
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.
totests
the load
4 load
using
loading
spreader.
of 5 tons
capacity
All
each.
the load
small
load
electrical
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
controlled
to process
step
in DVM (Digital
consists
strains
and
the language
load
the
values
of
units,
using
200
of each test.
the results
Voltmeter)
converted
cell.
for
check
mm.
was used to
at each loading
The output
curves
measuring
number
0.01
the load
data
Surrey.
of
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
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
sources.
the
with
were monitored
aid of a magnifying
four
of the slab
surface
Crack widths
glass.
a crack measuring
microscope,
TEST PROCEDURE:
All
electrical
Deflection
truly
disconnected.
The load
also
and if
cells
the initial
detected,
of 5 KN per load
The loading
of the
at this
load level
scan.
Results
was maintained
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,
10
minutes,
about
When all
was reached,
for
and unloading$
An amplifier
cell.
desired
a complete
test
was started
a small,
The
immediately
were
ones
checked by applying
were also
they were
under test.
properly
appear during
were then
were first
connections
transducers
vertical$
strain
for
pointspusing
using
up to 0.01 mm.
reading
6.11
of each. test
increment
the ultimate
taken
was applied,
225
cm
\M
ch
(n
CD
41
Co
0
41
Co
\. 0
tki
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
r1
(D
H
C)
Co
Co
cm
CD
p4
e
43
U
Cd
43
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
tt
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
E4
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
ri
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*
ri
CM
Ul\
ri
CM
ri
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
ri
ri
_e
Lr\
\M
la
E1
227
(D
H
r4
m
X
02
c3 (L)
94
A
H
je3 43
01 0
PA
Q) u2
9.6 (U
44
>b
Co O\
C
A
00
41
43
(D
E4
Q
.
C.)
Cj
UN
Co
ri
47,
43
0
W
t
tl C\j
tm
Ll(v
H0
co
r,t 11
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
tT
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
rf
r4
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
ri M
0000000004100
cm cm
M.
t
ci tr\
1 t tr1 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. 29
47'7]
l'2'.
5
in a central
x steel
strip.
C. L.
113.9
145
126.9714959162.20
b) Lumped steel
areas
6917174.2
(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
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
__
aa.
Lr\
t
0______

k
I
H
___
"_
a...
_j
II
II
C\j
ri
___
II

LL.
0
0
rI
0
Ll0
C\j
P4
ri
cu
Q)
4)
w
10,
I
 

4  q
 
0
Lr%
4
0
r
Cd

.


4


U'
Lr\
t.
zr
ri
00
LA
.H8
Ul%
ri
Lr%
mm
H
A
A 

ri
0
UN
Co
ri
230
10
0
10
1%c
1:71
Lr\
(n
mi
LA
(n
Co
ri
231
0
\o
r4
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 .
r1 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%
UN
0
0
P4
0
E4
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\
UN U%
0
,o
C)
C\l
C4
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)
44
or+1

"o
235
04
H
a)
Id
0
0
CD
M%
r4
P4
0
E4
0
C
8
Kl%
KIN
LN
\Z
Kl%
Ul%
cl 0
CO
ri
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
E4
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
1t
0
%4;
0
C\j
41
r4
ID
Id
0
P
0
E2
0
0
cli
00
oo
'Ic"
Co
ri
. rj
Cd
43
b,O
4.3
P
0
rI
. rj
Cd
43
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
05
07
0.9
Strains
FiMe
(6.11)
StressStrain
Steel Used.
Curve for
241
Stress
N/MM2
300
Q 144;U. 1.11
Figuxe
(6.12)
StressStrain
Cuxve for
the mild
steel
used.
242
FLAT
ROLLER
FLAT
(a) FlatsRoller
System
II
"

__"
+
PLAN
FLAT
ROLLER
ELEVATION
FLAT
ROLLER
FLAT
(b)
Corner
FigL=e_(613)
support
system
243
High Yield
FigL=e
(6.14)
Holding
the
Prestressing
Corners
Bar
using
"Corner
Holders"*
Edge Beam
Figure
orthogonal
orthogonal
Vroller
FlatRoller
System
System
(6.15)
Support
7!Z7
244
2000
UB 305 x 127 x 37
loft
3400
CD
Isr
In
:6..
WAm ICLIW
1
UC 4o6 x 173 x 60
FigL=e
(6.161
The Loading
Frame
Il
11
245
Loading
D) Four points
System.
Loading
System
(c)
(617)
The Loading
Systems
Eight
points
I
Loading
System
246
02
rZ
. f. 4
0
m
H
.H
cl
011
co
247
'CHAPTER'SEVEN
T1* 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.
(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
Details
numerical
were tested
slabs,
T. 2 GENERAL DESCRIPTION'Of
of concentrated
loads.
properties
chapter.
Model 1, (L /L
x y=1.5,
simply
supported):
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
ratio
percentages
exactly
of steel
of steel
at the'points
in the structure.
The steel
the design
bending
The curtailment
in
each strip
moments
of
248
Figure
(71)
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
which
the
under
of
0.18
formed
probably
load
points
With increasing
d*
during
they
the cracks
central
zone
the corners.
then widening
of the
existing
and were
loads,
points
Subsequently*
new cracks
visible
out
to test.
prior
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
volume
is given
(6.4).
section
diameterss
The total
hooks etc.,
The loadcentral
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,
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
in
occurred
At this
load,
the
reached
and
of the slab.
near thecorner
of 0.45
load.
of the
central
application
of
PdI
0.73
of
250
106
0875
19
0
Oo75
"A
14
0625
"A
r4
P4
H
Cd
+2
E4
0
Os5O
0375
025
0125
00
01
02
03
04
05
6/h
FigL=e_(7. 2)
Load Central
Deflection
Curve for
Model 1
o6
251
1.0
0*875
0 e75
0
(D
o625
Cd
9
050
H
P4
P4
4:4
H
Cd
0375
+3
E4
0
025
0125
Oo5
00
Figure
(73)
10
LoadrSteel
15
10
E/ey .
Strains
2o5
in Model 1
30
252
rI
0
0
0
A
co
co
o
P4
P4
0
04..
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
73)
This
long
the
crack
The concrete
off
whole
of
the supports
relative*to
steel
was about
edges.
spalled
the
the
supported
failure.,
in
and only
of the slab
shear
Figure
occurred.
to
and parallel
also
shear
was developing.
pattern
was yielding.
a sudden
running
line
yield
the
with
central
zone
a clinking
shear.
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
56
P
0.8
P
cracks
and
.
d
d'
values
(71).
is given
diagonals.
increased
with
was applied
first
Between a load
the central.
slab
underside
model,
cracks
on the
model,
deflection
in
the
and were
0.12
for
of 0.56 Pd*
points,
supported
was designed
pattern
to the previous
Similar
supported):
cell.
The loadcentral
Figure
simply
of
photograph
(75).
a rectangular
simply
the
spread
all
over
the deflections
while
cracking
to be along
load was
the
load.
The spread
diagonals.
During
54
Figure
(75)
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
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
to
cracking
was very
bars
for
At this
steel.
could
indicated
load level
to appear.
top
gauge at the
freely
yield
stage.
than yield
drop.
high
the
after
in width.
higher
to
defined
definitely
strain
short
at
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
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
was removed.
lines
Each corner
at collapse.
as the failure
pattern
reaction
has already
developed
256
13
Id
Cd
0
0
14
0.9
P4
07
Cd
fj
0
E4
05
Oe3
01
04
6
6
FigL=e
(76)
LoadDeflection
Curvefor
Model 2
257
14
13
12
10
0
08
06
E4
04
02
00
0,5
Figure (7*7)
10
105
C/C
y
'LoadSteel
Strainsin
2*0
Model 2
25
30
258
P4
P4
C'4
914
0
P4
0
Cd
co
P4
P4
C14
I
c;
P4
KIN
CO
,0
P4
Id
P4
P1
4C\l
T0
0
co
Y
P1
co l7
Er
S
N
0
P.,
zr
co
KIN
T
CM
 1
.
Id
cd
19
Tr
01
co
259
10
3 (LX/L
T. 2.3*Model
This is
y=1.0,
a square simply
system,
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
79).
deflection
The limiting
while
Pd the diagonal
width
and further
surface
cracks
A flen=al
the
central
development
new cracks
fo=ed
outside
a load of
I
the central
zone
load points
(Figure
(713)).
increased
to that
after
of the slab
corners
similar
of
occurred
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
(710)).
(Figure
Beyond this
also
At 0.76
to the corners,
to form outside
represented
slab,
at 0.67 Pd*
through
right
continued
o. 86 Pdo
on the
points.
cracking
widening
Pd,
0.72
at about
although
I/
cracking
two models.
to
continued
cracks
surface
Figure
level
was faster
points
diagonals.
load
four
central
(T11).
in Figure
given
Pd
0.04=.
0.38
of
and
measured
a
maximum
about
at
load,
in
cell.
was observed
cracking
visible
(T13).
for
as a fourpointsload
was applied
curve for
The load7deflection
supported
a total
increments
supported):
simply
260
Figure
(709)
'igure
(710)
Crack
pattern
Crack pattern
on the
underside
face
tor,
the
on
of Model
of ',Odel
261
Ici
W
0
12
1.0
19.
Cd
P
0
E4
o6
04
02
0'
6/h
Figure
(711)
LoadDeflection
Curve
for
Model
262
14
,zi
Cd
0
p1
Ici
12
00
rI
Cd
4.3
0
Et
o6
04
02
04
Figt=e
(712_
LoadSteel
S+rains in Model
263
cu
cc)
ON
coC,%
4)
'
d
Q)
P
p
0
P
4
P
,
KN
KN
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
corner.
points
Accordingly,
are given
points
the critical
(T. 16))9
(717).
Figure
1.02)
as two point
support
reactions
are
(T. 19).
in
Figure
given
(see Figure
(L JL
a total
Details
loads.
1.02
in Figure
on the slab
at the middle
of the free
the loaddisplacement
(7.16)
are point
curves
for
edge,
these
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.
to
from
tended
the centre of tbe
spread
cracks
edgess running almost parallel
(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.
but still
(see
developing
the
Figure
near
corner prop
new cracks were
(7.14))..
the
between
two
load
the
points,
centre
at
started
at a load equal to
265
Figure
FiLn=e
(714)
(715)
Crack
Pattern
on the
Crack
Pattern
on the
Underside
Top Face
of Model
of Model
266
1*10
VL
088
o66
Experiment
w.
Cd
19
Theory
L
X
0044
'211
LY
102
LX/Ly
P
4
,E4
0
21L
022
008
00
Figt=e
? 24
032
0040
S/h near cent re
LoadDeflection Curve for Model 4
0916
(716)
1 010
0048
74
068
o66
Id
HA
H
Cd
4j
0
E4
044
022
008
00
FigL=e
016
024
032
6/h (at Mid Free Edge)
17)* ToadDeflection
0040
Curve f or Model 4
0! 48
267
Ici
ci
0
00
00
00
Ici
0
. ri
ri
00
ce
p
E4
oo
Oe(
cAy
Fig=e
(718)
LoadSteel
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
The load
Of 1.1p Pd*
deflection
near the'dentre,
at the corner
cell
measured a holding
corner
propped
by excessive
centres
diagonally
at a load
opposite
to the
reaction
load
at collapse.
The top surface
supported
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,
the
grade of concrete,
were observed
square
near the
corners
given
started
in
earlier,
This
than in the
case of
centre,
of the
spread in a fine
cracks
particularly
(71).
cracking
loading
the
than model 5.
cracks
models,
early
slab
with
Design loads
model is
this
(7.24).
in Table
in this
This
the
due
to
lower
be
use
of
a
could
The first
for
model 1, cracking
deflection
together
arrangement
in Figure
are given
and steel
Details
of 0.94 Pd*
in
the strips,
average moment
it
15):
down corner
defined
evenly
by the loading
holes.
distributed
at a load
of the slab.
0.69
P
of
d.
Both the
Figure
Figure
(720)
(721
Crack
Crack
Pattern
on the
Pattern
on the
Underside
of Model
271
14
120
19
0
10
08
HP4
P,
o6
H
co
P
0
E1
0*4
02
OC
O/n
Figure
(722),
LoadDeflection
Curve
for
Model
272
12
I0
rA
.1
.0
P
I
08
P4
H
Cd o 6
0
E0*4
02
00
0*5
100
2 0'0
2r/E:
Figare
(723)
LoadSteel
Strains
in Model 5
273
7I
274
limit
deflection
reached
increasing
widening
loads
the existing
and bottom
this
L /L
by monolithic
edge beams
plane
flexural
the present
that
the torsional
additional
according
to CP 110
form of longitudinal.
for
forces
loads
NNMMM
y
XY
finite
for
Xy
XY
resultants
for
finite
and
'
in the supporting
model,
In addition.
and links.
this
of that
were neglected,
components only.
The'torsional
element
layered
reinforcement
(5)
bars
dimensions
and design
properties
(N.,
resultants
of the middle
torsional
i'torsional
load
= 15):
of this
analysis
forces
on
(T1).
estimates
pattern
to previous
mode similar
su; ported
materials
in Table
the stress
line
of the slab.
the
slab
The dimensions,
than
redistribution
sides.
model predicts
a large
yield
fo=ed
in a flexure
system,
all
developed
around.
that
With
bf 1.07 Pdo
load
a
at
models
on the four
cracks
A well
place.
was reached.
of 0.3 nm were
at 0.69 Pd*
were observed
which indicates
cracks,
is not taking
of forces
the top
cracks
limit
at a load of 0.63 P
d'
simultaneously
First
of span/250
reinforcement
4.4.4).
in the
75
Fi, z=e
Figure
(725)
(726)
Model
6 TJnder Test
Cracks
on the
long
beam of Model
276
between
the
slab
provided
The total
design
and for
the
by applying
As far
Accordingly,
for
generally
cracks
load level
beams.
d*
under
test.
cracks
These tiny
but
points
visible
(7.29)
in Figure
(733).
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
(731),
to
by cracking
were spreading
of the beams.
of the model
first
parallel
are
marked in Figure
at the middle
cracking
are
microcracking
of the rib,
(T. 25)
of each beam.
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
of 0.46 Pd'
cracks
load
load
This
was tested
the slab
(6.9a),
at these three
curves
the loading
in the deflections
inner
the
of
the
(731).
and
At a total
caused tiny
5 KN per
the loaddeflection
beams.
long
the
of
with
be
can
attributed
and
this,
third
(730)
reinforce
Resulting
Figure
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
is
(6.9b).
are
(7.29),
By examining
this
the'slab
this
(5).
model
the loaddisplacement
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
cracks
cracks
and
on
277
r
FiFare
(727)
FioEare (728)
'rack
Pattern
Crack Pattern
on the :nderside
of ',Icdell ,
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
beams did
not
to
form
cracks
third
the
reach
mid
new surface
was observed.
of the ribs
The
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
d'
most
of
the
first
their
mid
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
depth,
in
were
from inside,
The
Imum
still
0.13
measured.
cracks
generally
observed
not
slab
Some of these
largest
the
of
were
beams, with
supporting
may
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
(733)),
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
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
14
Id
Cd .
0
r4
1000,
12
(D
.j. /II
Q.
10
i+
1(
11
P4
0.8
Expetiment
0
E4
Theory
o6
(Pin)
I
Theory (Roller)l
xx
0*4
A
Theory
(Pin)
Theory
(Roller)
Sandwich
Fle=e
02
00
01
092
0*3
/h
LoadCentral
04
Deflection
095
In Model 6
06
280
of
their
On the
ribs.
bottom
the
of
slab . the
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
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
near
cracks
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.
to
extending
At this
0
at about 150 with
inclined
of the short
rapidly
deflection
the limiting
represents
to CP110(5).
supported
rib,
8 =.
model according
cracks
the
long beans,
to
cracks
on the underside
for
first
face.
On the under
of the
beams.
corners.
This time
this
cracking
inside
the
on
of the ribs.
interaction
torsional
level,
cracks
the earliest
in a direction
cracks
face
normal to those
the simultaneous
of the
were noticed
face
of
formed
In the previous
effectd.
onkthe outer
also
These cracks
cracks
increment,
appearance
long beams.
to widen.
load
At this
The maxi=m
of the
load
crack
o5(
1*33
1*17
19
0
10
083
067
ti
P
0
E4
0,50
033
017
000
6/h
FigL=e (730)
Model 6
282
15
133
117
1:1
Cd
0
H
Q)
0
14
1'O
083
o67
0
E4
050
033
017
0 0
002
004
006
008
010
012
6/h
Figure
(731)
LoadRelative Deflection
Long'Beams in Model 6
0.14,
283
lZ
C/I
r.
44
Cd
P
42
9
A
N
WN
t\M
K\
Kl%
t0
%,
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_
(733)
Dimensions
and Loading
655
Positions
6
Model
on
285
was 0.3 =
width
this
of
increments,
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
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
the
of the
junction
corner
along
face
near the
cracks
Top surface
corners,
formed,
connection.
Deflections
long
test
corner
of old
the
cracking
(7.30).
few new cracks
very
through
crack
to the extensions
A major
slab.
on the ribs
load
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
of
load.
Ser7iceability_Limit
T. 31
(7I)
Table
is taken
sin= rizes
the test
of span/250,
the other
Accordingly,
the general
the service
1.
model
all
behaviour
results.
slabs
is satisfactory,
tested
failed
in shear,
limit
of 0.3 M(5).
conclusion
load
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,
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
E1
Kl%
a)
J
0
43
.H
02
CO4
0
?4
0)
lid
(D
e
l
Ul\
t
t
%Z
%0
CD
CH
0
19
0
Cd
0
CM
CM
Cd
cc
0
C4 P.,
m
cm
CQ
0
cy
C\i
CM
Cd
0
H
CD
0
ri
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
TP4
qb
112
ri
cli
Kl%
142
Ul\
%Z
P
P4
to
'I
.
287'
finite
element method.
"elastic"
deflections
under the
stiffnesses
would be a serious
the
loads,
design
to Limit
Theox7 should
normal
practice
is to design
for
deflections
they
deflections
deflection
an effective
loads.
load,
ultimate
a valid
and the
and then
design
procedure,
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
properties
satisfy
predicts
such elastic
of the true
Accordinglylin
serviceability.
serviceability,
section
Since
the elastic
since
load.
analysis,
underestimation
service
check for
design
normally
2.31.1),
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
moment of
LF
described
assumptions
in most tested
the serice
cracked
slabs
load
in Appendix
behaviour.
sections(Appendix
the live
is taken
of all
Deflections
for
of the section
= Load Factor
in Table
inertia
moment of inertia
:' effective
eff
eff
load
as Pd/1.6
E).
(E).
test
models is
using
the simplifying
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) 44
(D (10
tc\
::r
r
10
.0
0
C\j
a) to
C\j
Kl\
04
\. O
U,,%
LIcr \
,a
Cd
E4
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
43
+3
CH
0
0
H
44
Cl\
T
UN
C14
LC\
U11
U\
0
0
T
Ll
Ir"
r
44
Cd
it
40
co
4)
19
a)
4
P4
0p
co
(D
P4
(1)%..oo
Ir.
42 P4
0
44
r
%D
E4
ON
ON
a\
rI
E4
cq
r4
ON
41
4.4
4)
Id
o
C\j
4.3
144
ri
cli
K%
UN
\D
E4
289
As can be seen from
yields
adopted procedure
this
that
model
in
width
of
each test
of the total
maximum width
pointso
except
occurs,
rate
is
departs
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
load
tested
or at loads
deflection
smooth and
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
(except
manner
either
in line
.
No sharp increase
of the stresses,
to occur..
In texms of service
reached
result
analysis
satisfactory
beams
supporting
surface
tested
the
to appear on the
cracks
a natural
of the slabs.
in crack widths
(734),
Figwe
of the'loads.
increase
of
which
shown in
crack having
uniformg
due to the
of the long
of application
The rate
is
on the slab.
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
inthe
that
Accordingly,
by thecracked
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)
E4
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
(71)
table
actually
If
slab.
the deflections
limit
the deflection
(Figure
values
design
load.
to in
of the
centre
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
(71)
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.
within
stressed
the
service
due to early
load.
cracking,
An average
88
o.
P
to
was
models
equal
d'
will
was highly
steel
the ultimate
concerning
are concerned,
load
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
models without
design
redistribution
load
had actually
taken
place
before
mechanism.
The slabbeam
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
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,
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
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
amount of strain
models
which will,
This
on the
In the
the'lateral
through
The effect
in the development
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
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,
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
insignificant
showed that
for
only
of
effect
almost
and Morley(71)
is
3.14)
The
procedure.
concrete
the
strength,,
yield
0
in concrete
of the slab,
on the stiffness
The concrete
of which
by crack
affected
initiation
by the concrete
strength,
the stiffness.
This
factor
the
and
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
contributed
range.
and propagation,
the higher
cracking
will
is
governed
be
behaviour
amounts of steel
Affects
deflection
stiffness
effects
6.
in
system
model
of the slabbeam
(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
effectis
of the slab.
to the slab
(although
to improved
the factor
degradation*
the
design
(80)
nificent
load
5.
(equation
is not as exact,
criterion
the
affect
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
of yield.
In the experiments.
with
steel,
extra
the extra
not curtailing
and additional
but
steel
some of this
And definitely
improved behaviour
(3)
steel,
In case of model 2,
rather
stresses
Table
Typical
(73)
to avoid
lists
curves
mild
flexure
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
of steel
both
factor
(6.11)
in Figures
the type
the yield,
steel.
behaviour,
of the. slab
for
effect
are given
(73),
after
of strength
service
This
the properties
and ordinary
steel
shear
of'steel
stressstrain
reserve
additional
from
resulted
(7.4).
hardening
Strain
by the layered
of the model.
in Section
detail
(6.2).
failures.
only,
the initiation
steel
delays
provided
case of high
yield
to the ultimate
the
strength
7.4).
effort
contributes
Figure
increase
wasmade to eliminate
some frictional
6.13)
resistance
loaded
in two groups: 
in laterally
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
UN
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%
42
^4
4Z,
%lo
CD
C\j
CD
co
co
GN
Kl\
CM
44
0
C\l
P4
0
H
(D
+)
02
00
0%
(D
43
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
an induced
to
contributed
Fortunatelys
model.
as can be seen
models.
ultimate
bowing
beams.
this
of
five
provided
bottom
slab
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
and
approximately
situation
present
of the. loading
apparatus.
displacement
large
in all
this
probIem,
since
the
it
ignores
effects.
incremental
an
Details
of the materials
finite
analysis
Table
(75).
program developed
of the test
properties,
iterations
the
number of
and
in
gi7en
element
The materials
mesh size,
used in the
in this
analysis
properties
load
increment
size
are
those
297
Table
(794):
.
ServiceLoad
s
l/s,
61162
Model
No.
cr2
of the
analysis
P /%
2
ul
Design Lo d
6dl/6d2
Cd1
. 2
d2
075
109
1015
0.90
068
082
100
0 73
0.98
083
0.98
0,,72
0.98
115
0*97
093
10
083
081
054
0,,97
087
086
0078
100
085
100
100
100
1*12
112
1 04
100
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
(0625
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
r4
Cd
MIN
l;t
=A
\I
l\o
C\i
c"i
C)
c)
(D
Id
0
G2
CNJ
r4
C\i
CM
M
rq 44
Cd 0
C/I
c4
0
%,
txt
CD
%Z
Kil
CD
%I0
e
N'\
cle
K"%
r,Igt
H
Cd
C)
0
0
F1
44
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
E4
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,
contribution
the
along
are balanced
model.
in section
model
Figure
However,
beams.
6,
enalysis.
shown in
analyses'are
in Table
case of model
Due to the
the
were
the equations
using
(37).
the open
In this
in resisting
the
forces
ignored.
The results
between theory
plateau.
(filling)
core
hardening
been
described
has
as
modelq
sandwich
the
Strain
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
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
(T51)
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 stressstrain
reinforcement
curve for
in such a type
idealiz
the
this
stressstrain
All
5. the
on the
and experiment
4,
it
(7.4).
given
In general,
a very
the
(7.2)
in 7igures
response
(751),
good agreement
results.
up to
to
the
In the
service
load
300
STRESS
f
08
High
Yield
Steel
STRESS
f
I
Fy
(b) Mild
Fig=e
Steel
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
response,
strain
(T36)
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
The problem
computed.
first
one,
can be attributed
increase
and
hardening,
and 7.42)
a numerical
the
loads,
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
effects
convergence
to an expensive
result.
analysis
of
than
Figures
The effect
range.
But
model.
response
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
14
. 0

120
0**
.
.00
100
08
p
Pd
0*6
Actual
Actual
steel without
hardening
Theoretical
strain
04
strain
steel. without
hardening
Theoretical
steel with
30)
Grade
fcu
reduced
AA
02
00
01
02
0*3
S/h
70
04
095
06
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 thatrequired
in
total
the
25%
of
is
forces
membrane
flexural
strengths
thisanalysis,
justifies
of
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
A).
analysis.
of
effect
tensile
the
of
But as a result
(Analysis
only
It
torsional
the
were
were considered
loads
load
experi
the
model
was thatt
difference
both
design
37)
"lxure
This
do thisl
and flexural
by
membrane forces
to
the
in
the
high
6 (designated
caused
investigate
dimensions,
at
than
underestinated
6, the
models
model
flexible
mainly
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
meinbrane 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
would
304
T5 CONCLUSIONS
The general
to be'drawn
conclusions
siumnarized as follows:
Although
(Equation
the
3.14)
is
true
strictly
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
crack widths
limits,
as defined
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
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 service
be greatly
improved.
modelswas
satisfactory,
at loads
load
be satisfactory.
or the exactly
and
mm.
<0.3
Whether
of
designed
Both deflections
given
of
the yield
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
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,
strain
In fact
can be
the proposed
in steel
no saving
membrane action.
required
were considered
reinforcement
excess
reinforcement.
in
were
in
by the*induced
caused
mainly
all
in the slab
A reduction
in the beam
increase
by a larger
reinforcement.
In
slabbeam
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 slabbeams
and theoretical
systems,
Initiation
connection.
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
a cracked
transfo=ed
behaviour
of the
slabs
section
designed
any of the
in Appendix
inertia
moment of
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 slabbeans
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
05
000
20
s
15
10
05
090
10
Distance
Figure
(738), Ultimate
along Short C. L.
1
Model
behaviour
of
308
L.
1.11
10
11
*96
lo6
111
81
081
o85
81
81
90
85
81
106
106
106
e96
121
. 91
106
Figur
'D/pd
causing
J.
I1
106
I
1
1*15
Model
yieldin
C. L .
AT 1 31 Pd
AT Pd
first
..,AT
20
15
m
MP
10
05
000
20
15
10
0*5
. 00
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
15
m
mp
00
I
0*5
50
00
Distance
FigL=e
along
(741)Ultimate
C. L.
behavio=
of Model
310
free
1.08
1.08 1081
1
1
 72
*971101
0
pl
p4
;2
108
93
93
9c
.
993
93
072
1 11
993
simply
.9 111
,87 1904
supported
MY
20
AT Pu
15
MY
Ilp
AT fimst
10
05
Fig=e
(742)
25
.
Distance'along
Ultimate
50
75
AA
behaviour
of Model 4
10
yield
load
311
C. L.
1913
P/P
iing
caus
d
94
s94
86
81
99
. 89
. 89
yield
in Model
U. L.
20
105
m
ir
p
AT Pu
10
first
yield
load
095
00
2.0
mp
1*5
u
first
load
1.0
005
00
Distance
Figi=e
(743)
along long C. L.
Ultimat'e behavio=
of Model
1
yield
312
C. L.
Fl.
92
1,39
139
133
1,18
107
92
139
139
1,33
l*07
107
le07
97
1054
139
le13
107
l*07
107
97
159
123
107
le07
123
128
102
le33
l"18
1,18
133
139
139
97
.
118
118
1,49
149
1944
le39
102
97
97
87
87
'187
07
C.L.
Ple=al
1187
Design
C. L.
*93
1* 41
1 *35
120
1.09
1.09
99
1 56
135
1009
T"09
1,004
99
1,,51
1014
1009
1914
1014
"99
1*30
1014
120
1*35
151
1*04
1041
1 30
1035
1104
1 o25
130
162
1004
1*04
104
Combined Flexure
Figqe
7*44)
P/pd causing
1 *04
1004
99
in Model 6
1
C.L.
. 93
313
1*25
10
m
meje
075
05
025
00
02
01
093
4 .
04
Oe5
Y/Ly
Distance
along
the short
beams
5*0
4,10
Met
3*0
20
AT 14 31 Pd
AT Pd
10
AT Pcr
00
01
Distance
Fig=
02
YA7
along
03
0*4
BB
Moments Redistribution
in Model 6
05
314
125
AT 1 31 Pd
AT Pd
10
MX
Me
0975
0950
AT Por
025
00
along. the long Beam
Distance
LA
4o
3eO
Ilym
et
d.
20
10
00
01
002
Distance
(746)
Figure
I/
along
0; 3
0*4
AA
Moments Redistribution
in Model 6
0*5 x/Itc
315
TENSION
NA
by elastic
10
AT Pd & le3l
Pd
N
Ne
0*5
Ou
AT Pcr
001
Distance
02 x/I%
4along the long
03
0*4
i
05
beam
A_
__
4*0
3*0
131 Pd
N
F
20
AT Pd
e.j
10
AT P
cr
00
05
1'O
Figure
(747)
Redistribution
of Membrane forces
in Model 6
316
rl'rMqTr)T,
10
AT 1 1,31 Pd
AT Pd
Ne.t
05
AT P
or
00
1'O
x
, o4 t",
m in
e4m
^v
LX
300
AT 1 *31 Pd
20
NX
Ne'l
AT P
10
AT P
cr
00
Figure
(748) Redistribution
317
8! 0
70
69Q
50.
Th;
490
014
Lx
39Q
21G
1 OG
00
01
Vaxiation
Analysis)
0*2
003
04
X/IC
along
section
05
(Elastic
xx
8
0
6
rts
N
SE
2
00
Compression
2
Pigure
(749),
Vaxiation
of Membrane force
(Model 6)
Ny along xx
318
4.)
tm
4D
E
0
r4
Cd
0
z
r4
Cd
44
0
0
0
. r4
N
C
)
10
. 1.4
1%
000
C\j
Pl
m
P
P
0
P4
pq
P4
m
43
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
44
0
9
0
. rj
42
Co
C
1
CD
c'J
1
0
0
E4
320
.' MAPTER'EIGHT
'CONCLUSIONS'AND*SUGGESTIONS*FOR'FUTURE*WORK
Although
its
at
each chapter
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
suggested
study,
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
per load
concrete'slabs,
systems,
with
and by reducing
and allowing
acceptable
accurate
slabs
also
order
and slabbeam
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
iterations
30
an average number of
may be needed.
321
(3) In the analysis
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
steel"
analysis,
slab.
different.
at the
in the Hillerborg's
close
the direct
moments in the
without
was
edge beams
are generally
either
it
of
distributions,
produces
strength
research,
moments.
(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
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 slabbeam
The design
By
corners
method,
to
each other.
design
of the
procedure
design
far
the
distribution.
322
In the
case of slabbeam
considered
requires
this
procedure,
type
the yield
*
which
connection,
By appreciating
is
to a very
be advisable
midspan section
In the slabbeen
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
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
and
the torsional
reduces
the fact
Following
corners.
cornerss
would eventually
restraints.
forces
near the
starts
subjected
solution
over that
yield
of yield
of the corner
strength
line
design method.
design
(5),
in Chapter
load
beams.
although
requires
including
Designs
than those
difference
more
lateral
loads.
in the total
be as high
=re.
Whether membrane forces
slabbeam
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
with
No yield
satisfactorily
that
were within
range.
within
which were
indicated
in the working
study
design methodbehaVed
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 slabbeams
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
The procedure
and theoretical
exper=ental
and support
ratios
suggested
studies
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
can be used
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
slabbeams
systems.
considered
isneeded
phenomena
involved.
redistribution
and filled
the ultimate
orientation
procedure.
More experimental
present
sides
parameters
builtin
any significant
technique
edge rotation
steel
formulation
to include
method,
element
design
direct
finite
various
problem.
to check if
finite
detailed
to
the
isoparametric
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
distribution
Figure
below:
limit
for
required
in the section
design
moment
width.
unit
state
a certain
it
theorys
will
the
cu
C
T,
X1
Ast
to
unity.
equal
section
steel
on both concreteand
safety factors
I
ibrium
the
the
horizontal
of
by
equil.
considering
and
the partial
Taking
for
force:
no net
then
(1)
c=T
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
/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
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
also
of the main
Extensive modifications
University.
store
a brief
omission
to give
intended
the omission
time is
of back
greatly
reduced.
The program is built
up of twelve
subroutines
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
stiffness
formulations.
sections
describe
will
in brief
subroutines,
the functions
and organization
of
the
of
main program.
1.
Program
This
FEM:
the monitoring
is
in appropriate
called
modale in which
Allfinput
places.
data pertaining
of nodal
parameters
are all
The flow
operation
a. Major
b. Stiffness
and control
is formed
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
are solved
and step
and curvatures
are computed.
up or down to these
the first
causing
increments
read in this
displacements.
the load
are
is computed.
is decomposed using
proced: ure,
the nodal
data
contxibutions,
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
in this
data
all
cracks
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
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
sets
to the order
according
of the FEM
and weighting
coordinates
of integration
in the data.
specified
Subroutine LSTIF:
This routine
the equivalent
calculates
element
routine
is
contributionst
of a layer
a layered
(417).
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
its
the
only
strain
strains
of the layering
element
is
The routine
of the consistent
matrices
phase,
axe stored
type
defined
called
during
matrix
load vector
and later
axe dependant
matrices
encountered.
straindisplacement
(410)
whenever a different
phase,
the
B using
given by equation
relationshipsg
lengths
to (43)t
45)
equation
defining
functions
polynomial
(41)
C'in
of the element.
coordinates
b. Calculates
matrix
(matrix
on
system.
by
the
is needed only
from uniform
loads.
the
330
stress
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
once only
for
each
phase.
BOUNDARY:
routine
identifies
displacement
such degrees
Prescribed
The inte6Tation
(43)9
INSM:
in the stiffness
This
is
in equation
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
IP 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.,
as restraints
once in
the program.
need be called
only
on
331
Subroutine
NMSOL:
In this
a triangular
into
routineq
form using
matrix
In subsequent
entriesp
displacements
nodal
the Gaussian
is decomposed only
The stiffness
only
on first
decomposed
(31).
elimination
are obtained
is first
matrix
method
entry
to the routine.
by back substitution
the
into
decomposed matrix.
This
beginning
used routine.
of each load
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
once.
Subroutine
IlqPLANED:
This routine
is
is called
on the boundary
DESIGN:
routine
reinforcement
of section
at the
each iteration.
subroutine
This
is called
REACTIONS:
The routine
for
incrementg
It
needed.
is
called
The design
is done according
This is an optional
routinev
for
to the
membrane reinforcement
equations
of section
332
User
Manual
Inst=uctions
CAd Tormat
No
to
the
Program
FEM
'.Desdpi.
tion
'1
20 A4
TITLE:
1594F10
Nonelastic,
If
Any sentence
defining
Elastiov
nonlinear
the problem.
analysis
needed,
NONELASTIC= 10
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
For slabs
reinforcement.
TBEAM= depth
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.
NREF2 =1f
be 0.
t NREP1 = 1
data
or
bounded.
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
boundaxy conditions.
increments.
element.
be given
additional
6
INPLAY
elements
types.
NBCS = No. of
333
Card
.
No. '
oA
SLX &'SLY are lengths
directions,
in the two
subdivisions
= 0.
otherwise
1595P10
beam)
GMODnted 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
ofthicracking
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
F10
strength
2
in Nl=
compressive
2
in NIMM
2
in I, /Mm
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
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
11
8 P10
XSIDE(I)
Total No. of
= lengths of X divisions.
such divisions
should be equal to DM.
and more
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
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.
I=
l9NB9S
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,....
...........
DeacrivtIori
I.
'it

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
IL in previous
If
each type
IMOD =1
NEWEL= elements
for
elements
cards.
elements
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
of these forces.
of the global
will
are appliedg
direction
element
These forces
in the positive
act
and
axe
directions
axes.
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
139 F10
be equal
LOADPOINTS(I)v POINTLOADS(l),
PMOM(ivj)9J=192
be equal
no. of cards will
in Card 5 If an elastic
design
to NPOINTLOADS
(with
is required
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
DLOAD is
in
the X direction
in Y direction,
LDIR = 2.
be equal to MODES
use IMIR = 19
The number of
in caxd No5
Progrm
337
Flow Ch=t
is
DESIGN
REQUIRED
NO
YES
I FORM GLOBAL STIFIM'ESS CKI
INITIALISE
INCREMENT
&
ITERATION
ITERATION LOOP
INITILIZE:
STRESS, STRAINS BENDING MOM!
ENTS,
X&ABRANEFORC ETC VECTORS
IN THE FIRST ITERATION
JP ]
ELEMENTS
338
ELEMENTSLOOP
LAYERS
LAYERS LOOP
INITIALIZE
GAUSSPOINTS
GAUSSPOINTS LOOP
II
(D
FIND Ut
NO
339
, 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
340
YES
ITERATIONS
>
LIMIT
EXAMINE EQUILIERIUM
COMPUTEEXCESSFORCEVECTOR
ex
ext
F
R
R
ex
ADD F
TO LOAD VECTOR
ex
. .. PP+p
CALCULATEDISPLACEMENTNORM& CHECK
FOR CONVERGENCE
NO
ISPIACEME
CIONVERGED?
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
curve
can be fitted
degree curve
alx +a 2x
y=a0+
the nonlinearity
at any stage
Rp
is
alx y
a0a2
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
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
along the
loads
bounded.
same lines
load
as before,
343
APPENDIX (D)
Analyses,
for
Produced
Slabs with
by Torsional
Sides Ratios
of
N. B.
The Strip
the same as that
numbering
in FigL=es
(53)
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
15)
( 5)
0.10
0
1101
0.08
o. o4
(2)
zz;
0.0Z
Figure
4'7I
(D2)
Positive
0.2
0.3
y/L
o. 4
Moment M* (LX/Ly
y
= 15)
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
15)
.
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
Figwe
(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
U4
15)
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
0047
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
LI

0.1
0.2
0.3
L
0.4
X/lOc
Fiogi=e (D17) Positive
Moment Mx*(Lx/Ly
' 0.6
15)
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,:
NegativeMoment M* (L /L
xxy
0.12
0.08
0
004
oo
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
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
0.08
C\J,
4,
0.06
0.04
0.02
0.
Y/17
Figurd
(D26) Positive
Moment M* (L /L
yXy
15)
(4)

(4)
0.08
0.06
0.04
0.02
0.0
Fizure
0.1
0.2
X/Lx
0.3
(D27) NegativeMoment M* (L /L
xxy
= 15)
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
004
0. ^3
(30)
ZI4 
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. )
U4
U. )
X/Lx
Figure
(D33) Positive
Moment M* (L /L
xxy
15)
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,
15)
0.5
361
0. '.
csJ
0.
0.
0.
X/L.X
Figure
(D35) Negative
Moment M* (L /L
xxy
15)
=
0.04
0 03
0.02
0.01
0.0
Ly
362
0.08
0.06
0.04
0.02
0.0
0.1
(D37)
Figure
Poditive
0.2
0.3
2.0)
0.16
04
0.12
. 0
01
.
. 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)
"11
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
15)
(D42)
Positive
0.8
Moment M* (L/L
xxy
15)
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
= 15)
0.
C4
4
V
0.
0.0
o. 6
o. 8
Y/Ly
Figure
(D44)
Negative
(L
/L
M*
Moment
yxy
= 15)
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
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
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
= 15)
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
= 15)
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)
\
\
01
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'(3.43.2)
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
59),
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:
assumptions
are
made.
1.
Tension
2.
Linear
3.
in cracked
stiffening
concrete
is ignored.
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
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
(m1)
+
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. WOINOSICYKRIEGER
TIMOSHMO
Second Edition
2.
New York,
McGrawHill,
and Shells.
of Plates
Theory
1959.
SZILARD R.
Theory
Prentice
Methods.
of Plates
Analysis
of
Hall,
Classical
and Numerical
1974.
Reinforced
Wiley,
Slabs.
1980.
WOODR. H.
Plastic
and Elastic
London
and Hudson,
5.
Thames
196T.
Use of
I.,
B.
S.

Concrete
London.
Slab Behaviour.
Publications
HU#S B, P.
Limit
State
Theory of Reinforced
Second Edition,
Concrete
Design.
Pitman,
1977,
9.
and Plates.
ACI Special
8.
Slabs
7.
of
6.
Design
Design of Slabs.
Proceedings
Vol. 102,
Journal
American
of the
No. STI,
of the Structural
Jan.
1976,
Society
of
Civil
PP109123.
R. H.
JONESL. L. and WOOD
YieldLine
Analysis,
of Slabs.
London,
1967.
Windus
and
I
376
10.
MORLEY C. T.
of Concrete
Sciences.
of Mechanical
Journal
of the
Society
of Civil
PP305319.
Continuous
for
Structural
Division,
Engineers,
Design
States
Journal
Civil
of
of
Slabs.
Orthotropic
Proceedings
American
of the
Slabs
Structural
of the
Society
using
Proceedings
Division,
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
Method for
institution
of Civil
of The
Proceedings
Slabs 
Designing
PP285311.
15.
FERNANDO
J. S. and KEMPK. O.
A Generalized
Design.
StripDeflexion
Proceedings
of the
Method
Concrete
of Reinforced
Institution
of
Civil
Slab
Engineers,
Concrete
Concentrated
Slab Technologyq
C6ncrete
Slab Design A
Slabs,
Loads
Proceedings
and Supports.
PP232241,
1979.
Strip
Advances
of the International
Dundee University
Generalized
Edited
Method
in
Concrete
Conference
by Dhir
and
on
377
17.
WILBY C.B.
Computation
of the StripDeflexion
Institution
of Civil
Engineers,
Method.
Part
Proceedings
of the
PP499509.
18.
BHATT P.,
of Reference
Discussion
Civil
19.
Engineers,
2,
of the Institution
Proceedings
of
1978s PP719724.
WOODR. H.
The Reinforcement
Field
20.
Part
15.
of Slabs in Accordance
of Moments.
a Predetermined
with
Concrete,
ARMERG. S. T.
Contribution
to Discussion
on Ref3.9'.! Concretes
Vol. 2, No. 8,
Finite
of the Structural
of Civil
22.
Division.,
Proceedings
Journal
Slabs.
of the American
Society
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
by
and Munday.
ShortTime
Concrete
Slabs.
Institution
PP529536.
of Rectangular
Technical
of Civil
Restrained
Reinforced
Engineers,
of the
378
24.
BEEBY A. W.
Report,
Technical
of Cracking
An Investigation
RTA4339
Association,
American
Load.
Distributed
to
Subjected
Twoway Slabs
Concrete
Institution
Concrete
Crack Width
of Maxim=
Proceedings
Slabs.
of
Society
American
the
in Twoway Reinforced
of Civil
of the Institution
Engineers,
Determination
Civil
Slabs.
in Reinforced
Proceedings
of the
Concrete
Institution
of
Engineers,
Analysis
the Structural
of Civil
30.
Proceedings
Journal
Slabs.
Concrete
29.
Twoway
Concrete
Engineers,
Determination
28.
Reinforced
Division,
Structural
the
of Civil
27.
in
Control
Width
by Finite
Division,
Engineers,
Difference
Proceedings
Vol93,
Method,
American
the
of
Journal.
Society
Civil
Bending
Division,
Engineers,
of Rectangular
Proceedings
Vol97,
Plates.
Journal
of the
of
Of
379
31.
COOKR. D.
of Finite
33.
Analysis
Concrete
Research,
Magazine
Slabs.
of
Characteristics
Journal
of
the
Concrete
Reinforced
of
American
Concrete
Institute,
1964, PP763778
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
A Finite
Conference
PP129139.
Pergamon
of
Slab Technologys
on Concrete
Presss
Slabs,
Edited
by
and Munday.
SCHNOBRICHW. C.
Transport
AnalysisNonlinear
Crowth orne
Laboratory$
and Road
Supplementary
Behaviour Techniques,
37.
1974.
july
36.
Concrete
of Reinforced
Nonlinear
Crosssections.
35.
Wiley
LoadMomentCurvature
34.
Element Analysis,
Research
Road
and
1974.
December
.
W.C.
SCHNOBRICH
Behaviour
Finite
of Reinforced
Element Method,
PP365376.
Concrete
Structures
predicted
by the
Vol7,19779
380
38.
Civil
39.
American
of the
Journal
of the
Society
of
PP21092122.
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
Elastoplastic
Part
Engineers,
2,
A. W.
WEGMTJLLER
Analysis
FullRange
of
of
Divisions
The Structural
of Civil
Proceedings
Engineers,
Plates,
Stiffened
Eccentrically
of
the
Jan1974,
American
Shells,
American
Layered
Journal
Society
Analysis
Structural
of the
of
of
Reinforced
Civil
Concrete
Plates
Proceedings
Divisions
Engineerss
Society
PP143159.
Journal
and
of
the
1973,
PP14911505.
43.
JOIRIARRYT.
ElastoPlastic
Elements,
44.
Analysis
Ph. D. Thesis,
of Concrete
University
Structures
Using Finite
of Strathclyde,
May 1979.
Studies
on the Constant
of Concrete
Engineers,
Structures$
Part
Stiffness
Method of Nonlinear
Proceedings
of the Institution
381
45.
Nonlinear
Proceedings
Element
Analysis
Institution
of the
Concrete
of
Civil
of
Structures,
Slab
Part
Engineers,
2,
Layered
Reinforced
for
M.K. and
WANCHOO
Cracking
the
of
48.
Analysis
Civil
Vol33,
Engineers,
Proceedings
Division,
Vol. 101,
and WARNERR. F.
Structural
No. 2,
of
the
Journal
American
Jan. 1975,
No. STlj
of
Society
PP201215.
in Reinforced
Concrete
Proceedings
Division,
Plates.
of
Journal
Slabs.
the
American
of
Society
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
PP5368.
1973,
47.
Slabs.
Concrete
Association
Procedure
Element
of Reinforced
of the Finite
London, Sept.
Slabs  Special
NonlinearitY.
Aspects
Concrete
on
1975., PP337358
Nonlinear
the
Journal
of
Society
of Civil
PP523538.
of Reinforced
Structural
Engineers,
Division,
Concrete
Shells
Proceedings
Form,
General
of
of
the
American
382
51.
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
PP14o148,
and Munday.
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
SINISALO H. S.,
Slab
and
Proceedings
Members,
Engineers,
Civil
of
Tension
Concentric
PP5370
1978,
52.
Concrete
Reinforced
Eccentric
in
Cracking
of
for
International
Colloquium
Engineers
and Structural
Bridge
Report.
in Reinforced
Concrete,
Engineers
Association
International
Colloquium
Advanced Mechanics
Concrete;
Delft

for Bridge
1981  PP671686,
and
Final
Report.
55.
HINTON E.
ABDELRHMAN
0CC5L
H.
H.
d
ZIENKIEWI
an
,
Computational
Models for
Reinforced
for
Bridge
19819 PP303313,
Concrete
Concrete,
International
Engineers
and Structural
Final
Slab Systems.
Colloquium
Report.
56.1 KUPFERH. ,
Behaviour
of Concrete
American Concrete
Under Biaxial
Institute,
Stresses.
No. 6652,
Proceedings
of the
383
57
Behaviour
Concrete
of
Mechanics
Engineering
under
Division,
Journal
Stresses.
Biaxial
Proceedings
the
of
of the
American
Engineers,
of Civil
Society
58.
K. II.
KUPFER11.9 GTRS=
Institute,
Concrete
American
of the
Proceedings
Loading,
in Biaxial
of Concrete
StressStrain
July
1978, Pl'.3o6312.
591
Research,
Concrete
6o
LIU T. CY,
in Uniaxial
Concrete
American
the
of
NEVILLE A. M.
Properties
1978.
of Concrete,
of Concrete
American
Concrete
Sept19779
Institute,
Proceedings
Stress.
Under Multiaxial
of
PP443446.
Nonlinear
Stress
the Structural
Civil
64.
of Concrete
Proceedings
Compression.
Institute,
63.
of
and Biaxial
62.
Magazine
Concrete,
StressStrain
61.
for
Relationships
StressStrain
Analysis
Divisions
Engineers,
of Reinforced
Proceedings
Concrete,
Journal
of'
19729 PP88589T.
Element Nonlinear
Proceedings
Analysis
of the Institution
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,
McGrawHill
1950,
15 PP175228.
Chapter
6T,
by Finite
Concrete
University
Ph. D. Thesis,
Method.
66.
of Structural
Reinforced
Analysis
of
Loadings
Journal
of the
American
Society
of
Shear
under
Divisions
Structural
Civil
Panels
Engineers,
Cyclic
Proceedings
of
No. ST2.
Feb1976,
Vol. 102,
the
PP355369.
68..., ziENKiEwicz
o. c.
The Finite
Element Method.
KEmpK. o.
Optimu:m Reinforcement
in a concrete
Loading,,
of the
Publications
Slab Subjected
to Multiple
Association
International
for
70.,, GUPTAA. K.
SEN S.
and
_.
Design
of
the
of
Flexural
Reinforement
Structural
of Civil
Division,
Engineers,
in
Concrete
Proceeding*s
Vol103,
Slabs.
of the
No.ST4, April
Journal
American
Society
19779 PP793804.
71... MORLEYC. T.
Skew Reinforcement
Torsional
Engineers,
of Concrete
Moments, Proceedings
Part
Slabs against
Bending and
of the Institution
of Civil
385
72.
KEMPK. O.
The Yield
Slabs,
Journal
International
Reinforced
Orthotropically
for
Criterion
of Mechanical
Concrete
Sciences,
Vol7.
1965, PP737746.
73.
SAVE M.
Theory
LinItAnalysis
A Consistent
Magazine of Concrete
for
Reinforced
Concrete
Slabs,
Research,
PP312.
74,
T.
BRONDUMNIELSEN
Optim=
Design
75,
Concrete
Laboratory
Research
Stnictural
Report
of Reinforced
Shells
and Slabs.
University
Technical

of
Dermark,
PP190200.
NR R441974,
CLARKL. A.
The Provision
Resist
of Tension
Research,
Inplane
to
Reinforcement
Compression
and
Vol28%
Slab Elementss
of Concrete
of Civil
Engineers,
Part
Proceedings
of
PP441454.
77.
LENSCHOW
R. and SOZENM. A.
A Yield
Criterion
for
Reinforced
Concrete
Slabs.
Proceedings
64.
Vol.
PP266273,
May 1967s
Models for
Mechanics Divisiong
Engineers,
Concrete,
Proceedings
Journal
of the Engineering
of Civil
386
79.
Effect
of the Arrangement
Vol18,
80.
Slabs
Concrete
of Reinforced
of Reinforcement
Magazine
on the Behaviour
CLARKL. A.
Slab
Bridges
Skew
El
Slab
and
Tests on
ements
Accordance
with
Factored
the
in
Slabs.
Technical
Structural
Divisions
Proceedings
Engineers,
Vol. 104,
Note.
Am6rican
of the
1978,
Journal
of
Society
the
of
Civil
PP13171321.
BUYUKOZTURK
0.
Nonlinear
Analysis
and Structures,
83.
Cement and
Moment Field,
Elastic
GUPTAA. K.
Skew Reinforcement
82.
Designed in
Concrete Association
81.
Research.
Concrete
of
Concrete
of Reinforced
Vol7s
Pergamon Pressl
Computers
Structures$
1977s PP149156.
LIN C. K.
Ultimate
Strength
of
Thesis,
Glasgow University
1979.
84.
85.
Concrete
Beam7Slab Panels.
1969,
C. V.
Deflection
Research,
86.
on Reinforced
Research,
Control
by Span/Depth Ratio*
Magazine
of
PP13120.
Magazine of Concrete
O.
K.
KENP
S.
J.
'
FERNANDO
and
The Strip
Lower
Unique
Bound?
Design
or
Slab
Method of

Magazine of Concrete
Research,
387
87.
HARRopi,
88.
Ultimate
Building
Science,
SlabBean Systems.
MORLEYC. T.
Against
Elements
Slab
Concrete
of
Optimum Reinforcement
Concrete
89.
Magazine
Forces,
Membrane
Moments
and
of
Combinations
Research:
Vol. 22,
No72,
of
1970P PP155162.
Sept.
Reinforced
Concrete
of, Isotropically
Criterion
Magazine
Slabss
Research:
Concrete
of
Yield
the
Criterion
Structural
of Civil
91.
Division,
Engineers,
Criteria
for
International
for
Bridge
of the
Proceedings
Of
Society
American
Elements
Conference
Slabs.
Concrete
of Reinforced
Association
International
on Plasticityl
and Structural
Yield
Capacity
Concrete Institute.
Copenhagen
Engineers,
1978s PP3547
of
Slabs,
Vol70,
Proceedings
of
the
American
BRANSOND. E.
Deformation
94.
Journal
Concrete Slabs.
93.
Reinforced
MORLEYC. T.
Yield
92.
for
of Concrete
Structuxesq
McGrawHill,
1977.
NIELSENM.P.
LimitAnalysis
Scandinicat
Copenhagen
of Reinforced
Civil
1964.
Engineering
Concrete
Slabs.
Construction
Acta Polytechnica
Series,
No. 26,
388
95.
LENKEI P.
of the
Proceedings
of Ref77
to the Discussion
Contribution
44,
Ref.
Proceedings
on
Engineers,
Part
97 COPER. J.
1980, PP873874.
K. R.
V. and EDWARDS
RAO
P.
0
Nonlinear
Finite
Proceedings
for
of Civil
of the Institution
Nonlinear
Conference
International
of the
Problems,
forConcrete
Slabs,
on Numerical
Methods
Techniques
Analysis
Element
Press,
Pineridge
1980,
Sept.
Swansea,
PP445456.
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
Vol179
No50s
Floor
Designed
SlabBeam
march 1965,
PP2938.
99.
PARK R.
Further
Tests
Procedures,
Slab
Cracking,
Systems
Publications,
100
NIELSEN,
On the
Deflections
 Symposium,
Sp. 3011,
Concrete
and Ultimate
American
March
Concrete
Load of
Institute
by Limit
Concrete
Special
19719 PP251269.
M. P.
strength
IngenirakademiReprinted
on a Reinforced
from:
Ccnstructio
and
of
reinforced
ecricrete
1971.
Bygningsafdelingeri,
Acta Pol5technica
n Series
discs.
Bulletin
Scandinavica,
LASGoV
NE
RAR
Aalborg,
Civil
Danmarks
Na. B2.
Engineering