STAAD – Slab design

If you are using the batch mode design, you need to model the slabs using plate elements.
STAAD does calculate the reinforcements for the plate elements for the span moments Mx
and My. The Mxy term though is not considered in slab design.
There are 3 aspects involved.
1) Generating the model consisting of the slab and other entities such as beams and
2) Analyzing the model to obtain the displacements at the nodes, forces and moments in
beams and columns, and stresses in the plate elements used to model the slab.
3) Designing the slab to obtain the reinforcing details
1) Generating the model
The slab itself should be defined using a mesh of plate elements. There are various
methods available for creating a plate mesh. Tutorial 3 of the Getting Started manual
shows four methods of which two involve mesh generation.
If you plan to include beams and columns in the model, those should be defined using
frame members (line entities).
With this, the geometry of the model will be complete. Go on to assign properties to the
members, thickness for the elements of the slab, supports for the structure, and loads. The
three tutorials in the Getting Started manual all illustrate the steps for doing these.
2) Analysing the model
After you complete the model generation, run the analysis. Again, any of the tutorials in the
Getting Stared manual show you the procedure. After the analysis is completed, go to
post-processing, view the displacements, member forces and plate stresses to ensure that
they look reasonable. Also, check the output file for warnings or errors, and if there are
any, make the necessary changes to avoid those. After you get a successful analysis run,
come back to the Modeling mode.
3) Designing the slab
Method 1 : As Suro mentioned, this method involves specifying design parameters such
as Steel and concrete strength (FYMAIN, FC), Clear cover for the bars, etc. and the

using this method."DESIGN ELEMENT" command from the Design page of the STAAD Modeling mode. It does not do a full-scale RC detailing of the slab in its entirety. 2 . go to Help-Contents-Graphical Interface Help-Advanced Slab Design Mode Elsewhere in this forum. etc. the program executes the instructions for designing individual elements of the slab. supports. go to Help-ContentsGraphical Interface Help. reinforcement bar details. will then get embedded into the STAAD input file along with the geometry. enter the Concrete Design mode.elevated floor slabs (RC and post-tensioned) and foundation slabs. It does not include checks such as oneway and punching shear. the slab in the STAAD. example 9 illustrates this method.Pro model is exported to RAM Concept and the design of that slab is done by RAM Concept. loads and such data that you specified while creating the model.Concrete Design Mode-Examples-BS8110 British Code Examples-Slab Design Method 3 : Using RAM Concept . properties. For help on designing a slab using this method. Those instructions. The procedure for designing a slab using this method. called parameters and design commands. So. Method 2 : Using the Concrete Design item that is available from the Modeling Mode. At that time. This is a program exclusively for designing slabs . You will then have to run the analysis again. This method is just an approximate way to find out if the thickness of the slab is sufficient to carry the loads. you will find numerous discussions on designing slabs using RAM Concept. You will require a license for this program to use this feature. bond.a powerful slab design software offered by Bentley. After the analysis is completed. This is also called the "RC Designer" mode. It is something similar to a "code check" for individual elements comprising the slab. In the Application examples section. Once inside that mode. the elements that constitute the slab have to be selected and you have to form a slab which subsequently have to be designed using the facilities of this mode.

you probably will end up replacing the reinforcing cut by the opening evenly on each side of it. and it is framed into concrete walls on all sides. I thought it would be easier to put everything accurately on STAAD and let STAAD give me a rough idea on what will happen. For rectangular and square openings. The roof slab needs to be designed for HS-20 (highway truck) loads. (This is my first post. I am using Polygonal Meshing in STAAD to create triangular plate elements. unless you let STAAD do the ACI concrete design for you. you should put in a pattern of beams around them. "it would be easier to put everything accurately on STAAD and let STAAD give me a rough idea on what will happen" is that you still need to reinforce your slab in a roughly orthogonal manner with a limited size and shapes of And if the openings are very large. I will wait a bit to see whether others have better ideas for my problem.) I have a concrete roof slab with a few circular openings and rectangular openings. Simple designs are easier to build and less likely to be messed up. what size should I use? If I use the diameter of my openings.cfm?qid=364507 Rainbowtrout (Structural) (OP) 8 May 14 18:14 Hi All. so for two way slab design you need to make the local axis and global axis line up for plates. Rainbowtrout (Structural) (OP) 8 May 14 23:42 I don't object to modelling circular openings as rectangular openings. If not. Thanks. As above poster noted. 3 .) makes think twice. 2) Do you typically use plate center stress or plate corner stress? I usually use plate center stress. best to just model the circles as squares and use the output to do your own design. why don't you consider them square? Now if you're just trying to challenge yourself. Unless the openings approach a large proportion of your slab. which means using quad plate elements... canwesteng (Structural)12 May 14 11:05 STAAD won't include Mxy in the global moment output. Question: 1) Has anyone used the Global Moment outputs given in STAAD? I couldn't find any documentation on how its calculated._______________ However. how do you design orthogonal reinforcement? Keep in mind triangular plates have their local axes all over the place. I will start simplifying the geometry by hand. But I don't blame you for wanting to find all this out for yourself. What do you use and what is your reasoning? Thanks! JedClampett (Structural)8 May 14 19:29 Seems like a pain to me. I think plate corner stress can be over conservative and there is no need to design for the moment occurring at the exact centerline intersections. am I being being conservative or not? And how will the answer change as the geometry changes? I can sketch things up and think through for different load cases. If you don't use global moments. If you're just worried about meshing to the round holes. and whether it follows the Wood-Armer formula (add Mxy to Mx and My). JedClampett (Structural)9 May 14 01:08 The circular openings should be modeled as squares with sides diameter by diameter. However. then they claim they allow for it. this post (http://communities. The guys (and gals) building them are not Swiss watchmakers. They're closer to lowland gorillas. that's another story. It's not worth refining these analyses to a very fine level. put in #5 corner The fallacy with your reasoning. However.eng-tips. with a lot of layout and stress concentration issues.

Large enough forces you can’t reasonably reinforce against. You're just plotting a bunch of data points against an interaction diagram. The values for the center of the plate are an average of the corner forces. Here in the US that would be considered major overkill for most structures. They use both the Wood-Armer and Clark-Nielsen methods and then plot everything agains an interaction diagram. The other 5% of the time where you have something screwy it may be worthwhile to consider the more exact approach. Who know's what's really. 4 . the forces/stresses will be more reasonable. If you look at a plate a couple of inches away from the corner of the opening. My guess is you will see very high stresses at the corners of your square openings. The local axes don’t coincide. aside from it being more time consuming and difficult. The folks that I've worked with from Europe are very concerned about both including twisting moments and in-plane shears when designing orthogonal reinforcement. I typically exclude them from the results.Splitrings (Structural)12 May 14 14:42 RISA recommends transitioning from rectangular to circular as shown in the attached. I believe the corner forces are the “exact” solution. physically happening. The big negative I see for using the more exact approach. I have not had good luck with triangular elements. is that it separates the engineer from what's really happening in the structure. 95% of the time I just use a rectangular mesh and consider local moments like Jed says. Gumpmaster (Structural)13 May 14 10:34 It's interesting the different approach that we in the US have versus our European counterparts.

This method requires engineering judgment for column grids that are not perfectly aligned and rectangular. Therefore. Instead. Gumpmaster is correct when he cites Wood-Armer as a way to combine these moments together to get a final design moment. a) Now. If you look at the RISAFoundation program (or the soon to be released elevated slab design program). So. Mxy. I have included this discussion for your reference below. JoshPlum (Structural)13 May 14 12:33 Well. c) Even when you combine Mx and Mxy together to get a demand moment. So. b) How irresponsible is up for debate though. we strive to organize the results and present them in a way which is very intuitive and easy to understand. Some thoughts on the subject: 1) There are a a couple of different ways that I typically handle reinforcement design for slabs based on a plate element analysis. Though I did attempt to "categorize" some methods for establishing a reasonable design strip width as part of the RISAFoundation documentation. Splitrings (Structural)13 May 14 12:05 @JoshPlum. 5 .. In addition. there is not as much "plate theory" to slog through. But. the % difference in demand moment when including Mxy is much. et cetera) b) Using Corner Forces 2) When using Plate Forces. this is based on an FEM solution and can easily have an un-realistic stress riser.. There are certainly cases where Mx +/. In the end the "best" method is really whichever one the engineer feels most comfortable with and whichever one gives him (or her) the best feel for what is actually happening with their slab. the narrower the strip the higher the average stress! These stress risers certainly don’t appear to be converging on a solution. if you choose to ignore Mxy. 4) When done properly. However. anyone who tells you that you an always ignore Mxy (or any program that gives you a reinforcement requirement which ignores Mxy) is being somewhat irresponsible.Mxy and My_demand = My +/. you just sum up these forces over a representative width to come up with a total design moment for that width. So.JoshPlum (Structural)13 May 14 11:50 Interesting discussion. much lower than you would think. discussions about what a reasonable design strip width are could go on for awhile. a) Using Plate Forces (Mx. In RISA (not sure how other programs implement this concept) you're really just looking at the internal forces (not force per unit length) relative to the global axes of your structure.2 of ACI 318-11) This section of the ACI code is really intended for elevated slabs. You still have the nuts and bolts of the FEM solution to dig through should you desire.. You mention "averaging out" these stress risers over the width of a design strip. when the column strip becomes very small then the middle strip may become very wide so that the entire slab is included in either a column strip or a middle strip. the programs are based around the concept that the end user shouldn't have to be an FEM expert to understand the results of their plate element analysis. The key is that. I usually simplify this a bit to just Mx_demand = Mx +/. it is my experience that both methods produce approximately the same reinforcement design. Around openings and notches. My.Mxy is going to be dramatically different than just looking at Mx by itself. the Mx and the Mxy values will have their maximums at very different locations of the slab. though this does not have any specific discussion on openings and how those will affect the design strips: ACI Definition of Strips (Section 13. you need to know why you are ignoring it and when you should try to be more exact. in most common cases. you will spend most of your time on reviewing design strips and their shear and moment diagrams. Though we specifically do not endorse any one method over another. the effect combination of twisting moment (Mxy) and Mx or My is a excellent theoretical concern. at least for most common situations. Lately I have been using displacement convergence as an indicator. it can be easier to arrive at your final design. In the end it's a matter of engineering judgment for me. So. Then the "middle strip" is defined to span between the edges of the column strips. you will "average out" this demand moment over the width of a representative design strip instead of designing for the absolute maximum. The requirement for "column strips" is that the width on each side should be set to 25% of the span length or width whichever is smaller. We were just getting so many questions about it that we felt like we had to write something down. you don't have to. Most of the time. the concepts can be extended into mat foundations as well.. 3) When using corner forces to design the plate. How wide a strip to use has been a cause of uncertainty for me. But.Mxy.

This is especially true for situations where the column grid is not aligned or rectangular. As such. This would neglect lower moment regions between the column and middle strips.I would say <2d (?). but is a bit more theoretically derived for non-rectangular column layouts. If your plate is small enough . This is similar. Check Mxy despite it may not control in most regularly shaped structures unless it has openings. This reinforcement could then be extended into the lower moment regions between strips. Ideally. when the middle strip widths get too large. The hand calculation methods would have you design for the full tributary moments over this smaller width which should be conservative.The ACI strip method listed above is based on essentially 1/2 of the mid-span tributary lines. Circular tanks with holes and deep notches. though not identical. Stay away from irregularly-shaped plates. This method is described in greater detail in the PTI publication Design Fundamentals of Post-Tensioned Concrete Floors. The middle strip would normally be centered on the area with the highest midspan moments. This should provide a result very similar to using the mid-span tributary lines. Splitrings (Structural)13 May 14 13:05 These methods are all geared towards two way slab systems. This can be used to set the design strip width approximately equal to the distance between zero moments. Hybrid Method / Engineering Judgment A variation on these methods would be to start off setting the column strip using the ACI strip method. Zero Moment Method In a similar fashion to the zero shear transfer method. Computer methods (like RISAFoundation) will design for the average moment over the assumed design width which should result in a more efficient design. this method should give design strips of similar width to the ACI strip method. Or the user could set up another design strip for these lower moment regions. the width could be modified based on considering the other methods. However. Zero Shear Transfer Method The Zero Shear Transfer method used the shear force contours perpendicular to the span of the slab to set the design width. Shear Perimeter Method Another basis would be to set the design width equal to the pedestal width plus a distance 'd' or 'd/2' on each side. if necessary. special loads. you will be OK using the center stress. 6 . be careful at corners. the Zero Moment method uses the moment contours to identify where the moment changes sign. to a method given in the NEHRP document GCR 12-917-22 (Seismic Design of Reinforced Concrete Mat Foundations). Rainbowtrout (Structural) (OP) 3 Jun 14 14:18 Thanks for all of your thoughts! Here is what I think. it is more rationally derived and should work better for cases where uneven column spacing makes the strip method difficult to apply. Examples would also include cases where the pedestal is very large such as for a vertical vessel or grain silo. In addition. Take advantage of rectangular shapes. If you are using larger plates. etc. it would be more appropriate for situations where shear or punching shear failures are a primary concern. Then. Hence the strips would designed for a higher moment per unit width. etc. they could be set to values closer to the column strip width. I am looking more at generic shell and plate structures. This will end up being a more conservative assumption for flexure than the other methods listed.