Two Way Slab Design With Column Capital PDF

Two-way Slab Design with Column
Capitals
Wayne Hoklas
Brendan Nee
Justin Zimmerman
Dec 16, 2003
Two Way Slab Design with Column Capitals
Table of Contents
Introduction
Design Summary
Calculations
Slab Thickness
Loads
Direct Design Method
Mo
Plan View of Panels
Lateral Distribution of Moments
Plan View of Moment Regions
Flexural Design
One Way Shear
Corner Panels
E-W Edge Panels
N-S Edge Panels
Interior Panels
Punching Shear
Corner Columns
E-W Edge Columns
N-S Edge Columns
Interior Columns
Unbalanced Moment Transfer
Corner Columns
E-W Edge Columns
N-S Edge Columns
Interior Columns
Negative Moment Reinforcement Checks
Equivalent Frame Calculations
Exterior Frame
Interior Frame
EFM Analysis
Node Diagram with Coordinates
Exterior Frame
Output
Loaded Structure
Moment Diagrams
Shear Diagrams
Member 10
Member 21
Member 32
Interior Frame
Output
Loaded Structure
Moment Diagrams
Shear Diagrams
-2-
Page
4
6
11
11
12
15
15
19
20
26
27
42
42
43
44
45
46
46
47
48
49
50
50
53
56
59
62
63
63
66
69
69
70
70
79
79
79
80
81
82
83
83
91
91
91

Member 10
Member 21
Member 32
Moment Location Diagram
DDM to EFM Moment Comparison Chart
Drawings and Diagrams
Elevation Reinforcement Detailing
Column Strip Detailing
Middle Strip Detailing
Cost Breakdown
Rebar Quantities
Concrete Quantities
Total Costs
92
93
94
95
96
97
97
98
99
100
100
101
102
-3-
Introduction
The goal of this project was to design an intermediate floor of a six story concrete building in one
direction using the Direct Design Method (DDM) outlined in ACI-318-02. In addition, the Equivalent Frame
Method (EFM) for obtaining bending moments in the slab, also outlined in ACI-318-02, was performed. The
bending moments obtained from the EFM were then compared to those found using the equations of the DDM.
The following information was given to our design team:
c/c story height = 12 ft
min. c/c column spacing = 22 ft
cladding weight = 250 plf
partition weight = 20 psf
electrical/mechanical system weight = 6 psf
service live load = 80 psf
fc = 5 ksi
fy = 60 ksi
preliminary dimensions:
columns 18x18 in
In addition to this information, our design team was instructed to follow a flat slab design that had no beams
between columns and included column capitals.
Our preliminary estimates of the shear capacity of the slab showed that column capitals were probably not
needed. However, since their use was required, we arbitrarily chose to use 9 column capitals. Upon making this
decision, the minimum slab thickness allowed by ACI-318-02 was used and the general procedures of the DDM
were followed for the North-South direction of the floor. Following this, checks for one and two way shear were
made, as well as a check for unbalanced moment transfer. For the EFM analysis, two equivalent frames were
analyzed. One frame consisted of a column line on an exterior edge of the building, and the other frame consisted
of an interior column line.
Five computer programs were used to assist in our design. Mathcad was used to assist performing the general
calculations. Excel was used for designing the flexural reinforcement and performing cost and quantity
-4-

calculations. Fast Frame 2D frame analysis software was used for the EFM analysis. Adobe Photoshop 7.0 and
Autocad 2002 were used to prepare figures and diagrams for this document.
-5-
Design Summary
Initial Design Work
The first step in the design process was to take the given information and determine the geometry of the
floor system. In order to make calculations simpler, all center to center column spaces in the same direction were
made equal for all panels. This was accomplished by subtracting two one half column widths from the out to out
dimensions in the North-South and East-West directions. The remaining dimension was then divided into thirds
in the North-South direction and into four panels in the East-West direction to obtain center to center column
spacing. Next, some preliminary estimates of the required column capital size were made to ensure adequate
capacity for punching shear, because this often controls the acceptable slab thickness and the need for drop
panels and column capitals. It was determined that column capitals would likely not be needed. Because of this,
relatively small, nine inch column capitals were chosen.
After defining the columns and capitals, the minimum allowable slab thickness was determined using the
clear span distance. From Table 9.5 (C) in ACI-318-02, the controlling minimum thickness was for exterior
panels without drop panels and without edge beams. This thickness was rounded up to 8.5 inches and used for
the rest of the design. Once all dimensions of the floor system were known, the widths of column and middle
strips and the factored dead and live loads were calculated. To handle the effects of the cladding load on the
exterior equivalent frame, all area loads were multiplied by the width of the frame to create line loads. The line
load of the cladding was then added to the dead weight line load and the resulting dead and live line loads were
subsequently factored. The effects from cladding located on East-West building edges were neglected in the
DDM calculations since they will not create significant bending moments in the North-South direction. The effect
of this cladding must be taken into account when the building is designed in the East-West direction.
-6-
Direct Design Method

The next step in the design process was to use the DDM to determine the bending moments for which
the slab system in the North-South direction must be reinforced for. Mo was calculated and distributed to positive
and negative moment regions and between column and middle strips. Using these distributed moments, a map of
where moments occurred was developed and the design moments were determined. According to ACI-13.6.3.4,
negative moment regions must be designed for the larger of the two moments that they are subjected to, thus
both moments were compared and the largest was selected for design. Fifteen different moment regions were
identified and labeled Type1-15. The moments in each region were divided by width of their region to obtain
moments per foot.
By inputting these moments per width into an Excel spreadsheet, a design for reinforcement for all fifteen
regions was developed. The spreadsheet required the input of Mu, hs, fy, fc, 1, clear cover depth, and an initial
assumption of a bar size. Using a series of If() statements and equations, the spread sheet retrieved the correct bar
diameter and area from a table, calculated d, and then solved a quadratic equation for the required reinforcement
ratio to resist the specified moment. This reinforcement ratio was multiplied by b*d to obtain As_req. From this
As_req per foot, the spreadsheet displayed the required spacing for bar sizes from 3 to 18 to provide the necessary
area of steel per foot. Using this information, a spacing and bar size could be specified causing the spreadsheet to
calculate Mn, the depth of the Whitney stress block, As_min, As_max, the strain in the tension steel, and the
maximum allowable spacing for shrinkage and temperature as well as flexural requirements. Lastly, a series of If()
statements checked this output against code specifications and displayed a corresponding text box stating if the
results were acceptable. Thus, with half a dozen key strokes per region, our team rapidly designed the slab
reinforcement for the 15 different sections.
-7-
Shear Checks
The next step was to check the slab system to see if it possessed adequate shear capacity. First, the oneway, or beam shear, method of failure was checked. After some consideration, it was decided to assume that the
cladding weight was distributed over the entire panel. While this is probably not an ideal assumption, it should be
satisfactory because the one-way shear capacity was three to four times greater than the applied shear loading.
ACI-318-02 provided no guidance on this issue, thus it is up to the designers discretion.
Two-way, or punching shear, was the next check performed. Four separate regions were identified: corner
panel columns, E-W edge panel columns, N-S edge panel columns, and interior panel columns. The edge columns
have the same shear capacity but not the same loading. All regions were found to have excess shear capacity.
Unbalanced Moment Transfer

In accordance with the DDM, the slab systems capacity for transferring unbalanced moment was
checked. Four separate regions were identified for this check: corner columns, E-W edge columns, N-S edge
columns, and interior columns. All regions were found to have sufficient shear capacity to transfer the shear
portion of the unbalanced moment. However, several columns were found to have insufficient flexural capacity to
transfer the flexural portion of unbalanced moment. The total amount of steel required per foot in these regions
was calculated. The amount of steel in the column strips was increased where needed to provide adequate flexural
capacity. Specifically, all of the edge column strips areas of steel per foot were increased to handle the moment
due to unbalanced moment transfer.
Equivalent Frame Method

Having the slab system completely designed, the bending moments for slab system were determined using
the EFM from ACI-318-02 for comparison purposes. First, the slab/column system was idealized as a two
dimensional frame. This frame was constructed of a series of individual members with varying moments of
-8-

inertia connected rigidly together. Once the members lengths were calculated, a sketch of the frame was drawn
and the moment of inertia for each member was calculated. Some of these, such as the moment of inertia of the
slab away from the supports, could be calculated directly. However, most of the moments of inertia were more
complicated. Given that the idealized two dimensional frame was really a complex and non-homogenous three
dimensional frame, special considerations were necessary for many members. The equations for the EFM from
ACI-318-02 were followed where applicable for these calculations.
One area where the code provided no guidance was the column capital region. The code specifies in ACI13.7.4.2 that Variation in the moment of inertia of along the axis of columns shall be taken into account, but
provides the designer with no recommended means of doing so. The technique used was to average the moments
of inertia for the columns in the column capital region. First, the moment of inertia for an 18 inch square column
and slab system was calculated. Next, a column having dimensions of the actual column plus the column capital
width was considered. The moment of inertia of this fictitious composite column was calculated. These two
values were then averaged and used as the moment of inertia for the entire 9 inch region of the column where the
capital is located.
Once all needed properties and dimensions were determined, two frame models were constructed using
FastFrame, the powerful and user friendly two dimensional frame analysis software available at no cost from
Enercalc. The analysis was run using the loads calculated for the DDM design. However, the area at the end of
each frame between the center of the column and the edge of the floor had been neglected in the DDM design.
The contribution from dead and live load was factored and added into the EFM model. The most significant load
in this area was the cladding weight. A point load of 6.31 kips and a moment of 3.70 ft-kips was applied to the
corner columns. To the south and north edge columns, a point load of 11.28 kips and moment of 6.72 ft-kips
was applied. These loads can be clearly seen in the loading diagram for each EFM analysis.
After running frame analysis, the moments at the i and j ends of members 10, 21, and 32 were compared
to those found using the DDM. The moments on the East-West oriented edge columns were approximately twice
-9-

the magnitude of the same moments calculated using the DDM. At first it seemed that the slab might have
insufficient flexural capacity in these regions. However, the amount of steel in these regions was significantly
increased when the effects of unbalanced moment transfer were taken into account. The net amount of
reinforcement in these regions would likely be equivalent whether the reinforcement was designed for EFM or
DDM moments.
Costs and Detailing

Detailing of the slab steel was done using figure 13.3.8 in ACI 318-02. Once the detailing was completed,
the quantities of steel and concrete used were calculated. From these quantities, material and design costs were
determined.
The total costs:
Item
Concrete
Steel
Design
Formwork
Unit Cost
$100/yd3
$1200/ton
$200/hr
$9/ft2
Amount
161.774 yd3
11.378 tons
140 hours
6612 ft2
Total Cost
$ 16,177.40
$ 13,653.60
$ 28,000.00
$ 59,535.00
Cost Per Floor

$ 16,177.40
$ 13,653.60
$
4,666.67
$
9,922.50
Total per floor
44,420.17
Total for building
$ 266,521.00
It can be seen that the formwork and design add significant costs to the floor system. However, the
formwork is reusable for each of the six floors and the design need only be performed once, so long as the
column size does not vary. This allows these costs to be divided among all six floors. The material cost applies to
each floor. Thus, the material cost of steel and concrete makes up only 68% of the total flooring cost. This cost
estimate does not consider columns, cladding, roof material, foundations, or partitions.
Finally, drawings and diagrams to make our design clear and understandable were constructed using
Autocad, and our results were reviewed for errors. These drawings can be seen throughout the calculations
section of this report.
- 10 -
Selection of Slab thickness

ln := 24.167ft
18 in 2 9 in
ln = 21.167ft
From table 9.5 (C) for exterior panels with no drop panels and without edge beams
h s_min :=
ln
30
h s_min = 8.4668in
From table 9.5 (C) for interior panels with no drop panels and without edge beams
h s_min :=
ln
33
h s_min = 7.6971in
So exterior panel controls. Round h
s_min
up to 8.5 inches
h s := 8.5 in
- 11 -
- 12 -
Exterior Frame Load Calculations
- 13 -
- 14 -
- 15 -
- 16 -
Summary of Direct Design Method Moments (kip-in)
Mo
Mexterior
Exterior
Frame
Interior
Frame
End span
Minterior
interior span
M+
M-
M+
2478
644
1734
1288
1610
867
4262.4
1108
2984
2217
2771
1492
- 17 -
Middle Strip and Column Strip Calculations

Column strip width for interior equivalent frames
l1 := 24.167ft
l2 := 22.125ft
CSwidth_int := 2 .25 min l1 , l2
CSwidth_int = 11.063ft
Column Strip width for exterior equivalent frames

l2
CSwidth_ext :=
+ 9 in
2
CSwidth_ext = 11.813ft
Middle strip width for interior equivalent frames and exterior equivalent frames
MSwidth := l2 CSwidth_int
MSwidth = 11.063ft
- 18 -
Plan View of Panels
- 19 -
- 20 -
- 21 -
- 22 -
- 23 -
- 24 -
Summary of Lateral Moment Distributions in kip-in

Pannel
SE Col Strip ME Col Strip M+
NE Col Strip MSE Mid Strip ME Mid Strip M+
NE Mid Strip MSW Mid Strip MW Mid Strip M+
NW Mid Strip MSW Col Strip MW Col Strip M+
NW Col Strip M-
1
554
1,330
1,019
0
887
373
0
515
434
644
773
1,301
2
1,039
448
1,039
346
298
346
403
347
403
1,208
520
1,208
3
1,019
1,330
554
373
887
0
434
515
0
1,301
773
644
4
554
1,330
1,119
0
887
373
0
887
373
554
1,330
1,119
5
1,039
448
1,039
346
298
346
346
298
346
1,039
448
1,039
- 25 -
6
1,119
1,330
554
373
887
0
373
887
0
1,119
1,330
554
7
554
1,330
1,119
0
887
373
0
887
373
554
1,330
1,119
8
1,039
448
1,039
346
298
346
346
298
346
1,039
448
1,039
9
1,119
1,330
554
373
887
0
373
887
0
1,119
1,330
554
10
554
1,330
1,019
0
887
373
0
515
434
644
773
1,301
11
1,039
448
1,039
346
298
346
403
347
403
1,208
520
1,208
12
1,019
1,330
554
373
887
0
434
515
0
1,301
773
644
Plan View of Moment Regions
- 26 -
- 28 -
- 29 -
- 30 -
- 31 -
- 32 -
- 33 -
- 34 -
- 35 -
- 36 -
- 37 -
- 38 -
- 39 -
- 40 -
- 41 -
- 43 -
- 44 -
- 45 -
- 46 -
- 47 -
- 48 -
- 49 -
- 50 -
- 51 -
- 52 -
- 53 -
- 54 -
- 55 -
- 56 -
- 57 -
- 58 -
- 59 -
- 60 -
- 61 -
- 62 -
- 63 -
- 64 -
- 65 -
- 66 -
- 67 -
- 68 -
EFM Node Diagram
- 69 -
Exterior Frame EFM Output
- 70 -
- 71 -
- 72 -
- 73 -
- 74 -
- 75 -
- 76 -
- 77 -
- 78 -
Loaded Structure (Exterior Frame)
Moment Diagram (Exterior Frame)
Shear Diagram (Exterior Frame)
- 79 -
Member 10 Analysis (Exterior Frame)
- 81 -
- 82 -
Exterior Frame EFM Output
- 84 -
- 85 -
- 86 -
- 87 -
- 88 -
- 89 -
- 90 -
Loaded Structure (Interior Frame)
Moment Diagram (Interior Frame)
Shear Diagram (Interior Frame)
- 91 -
Member 10 Analysis (Interior Frame)
- 93 -
- 94 -
Moment Location Diagram for EFM Analysis
- 95 -
Comparison of DDM to EFM moments

Moments
(see preceding
diagram for
locations)
DDM moments
(k*ft) for exterior
frame
EFM moments (k*ft)

for exterior frame
DDM moments
(k*ft) for interior
frame
EFM moments (k*ft)

for interior frame
M1
53.7
113.6
92.3
231.9
M2
107.3
109.1
184.8
190
M3
144.5
81.7
248.7
88.2
M4
134.2
111.6
230.9
173.8
M5
72.3
94.9
124.3
172.6
M6
134.2
111.6
230.9
173.8
M7
144.5
81.7
248.7
88.2
M8
107.3
109.1
184.8
190
M9
53.7
113.6
92.3
231.9
Reinforcement Detailing Diagram
- 97 -
Column Strip Detailing
- 98 -
Middle Strip Detailing
- 99 -
Rebar Quantities
ln
(ft)
20.5
Distance
between
column faces
in L1 Direction
(ft)
21.92
Steel
Density
(pcf)
490
Specified Rebar Spacing Requirements

50%
50%
Top
Top
Rebar
Rebar
Rebar Spacing Length
Length
No.
in.
ft.
ft
T1
4
4
6.15
4.1
T2
4
12
T3
4
8
6.15
4.1
T4
4
12
T5
4
12
T6
5
10
T7
4
12
T8
4
12
T9
5
8
6.15
4.1
T10
6
8
T11
6
9
6.15
4.1
T12
5
16
T13
6
12
T14
4
12
T15
4
12
Quantities By Bar Size
Bar
#
Length Volume
ft
in^2
4
814.7
1955.2
5
546.3
2032.4
6
511.4
2700.0
Total Steel (lbs)
100%
Bottom
Rebar
Length
ft.
50%
Bottom
Rebar
Length
ft.
50%
Bottom
Rebar
Length
ft.
22.92
22.92
5.01
22.92
17.925
22.92
17.925
22.92
17.925
4.51
22.92
22.92
5.01
4.51
Weight
lbs
6653.1
6915.8
9187.6
22756.4
- 100 -
Strip
Width
ft
6.3
6.3
6.3
6.3
11.1
11.1
11.1
11.1
11.1
11.1
11.1
11.1
11.1
11.1
11.1
Quantity
of
Rebar
Rebar
Length
ft
18.9
6.3
9.4
6.3
11.1
13.3
11.1
11.1
16.6
16.6
14.8
8.3
11.1
11.1
11.1
96.7
144.2
48.4
144.2
55.4
271.1
49.9
225.9
85.0
380.3
75.6
190.2
55.4
49.9
225.9
Concrete Quantities
Slab Thickness
in
Slab
Width
ft
Slab Depth
ft
8.5
74
90
Column
Quantity
Column
Area
in2
20
324
V=1/3(a2+a*b+b2)*h-182*h
Vol.
Capital
ft3
Vol. Capital
in3
3888
2.25
Capital
Dimensions
a
18
36
Quanitity
Volume
ft3
Slab
Volume
ft3
Slab Area
ft2
6660
Item
Corner Capitals
Edge Capitals
Interior Capitals
Slab
4335.0
Item Vol.
ft3
0.984375
1.546875
2.25
4335.0
4
10
6
1
Total
4367.9
Formwork
Area (ft2)
3.9
15.5
13.5
4335.0
6615
- 101 -
Edge
Capitals
ft3
Corner
Capitals
ft3
1.546875
0.984375
Total Costs
Item
Concrete
Steel
Design
Formwork
Unit Cost
$100/yd3
$1200/ton
$200/hr
$9/ft2
Amount
161.774 yd3
11.378 tons
140 hours
6612 ft2
Total Cost
$ 16,177.40
$ 13,653.60
$ 28,000.00
$ 59,535.00
Cost Per Floor

$ 16,177.40
$ 13,653.60
$
4,666.67
$
9,922.50
Total per floor
Total for building
$ 266,521.00
- 102 -
44,420.17

Two Way Slab Design With Column Capital PDF

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Two Way Slab Design With Column Capital PDF

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Two-way Slab Design with Column

Two Way Slab Design with Column Capitals

Two Way Slab Design with Column Capitals

Two Way Slab Design with Column Capitals

Two Way Slab Design with Column Capitals

Two Way Slab Design with Column Capitals

Two Way Slab Design with Column Capitals

Direct Design Method

Two Way Slab Design with Column Capitals

Unbalanced Moment Transfer

Equivalent Frame Method

Two Way Slab Design with Column Capitals

Two Way Slab Design with Column Capitals

Costs and Detailing

Cost Per Floor

Total per floor

Total for building

Two Way Slab Design with Column Capitals

Selection of Slab thickness

So exterior panel controls. Round h

Two Way Slab Design with Column Capitals

Two Way Slab Design with Column Capitals

Exterior Frame Load Calculations

Two Way Slab Design with Column Capitals

Two Way Slab Design with Column Capitals

Two Way Slab Design with Column Capitals

Two Way Slab Design with Column Capitals

Summary of Direct Design Method Moments (kip-in)

Two Way Slab Design with Column Capitals

Middle Strip and Column Strip Calculations

CSwidth_int := 2 .25 min l1 , l2

Column Strip width for exterior equivalent frames

Two Way Slab Design with Column Capitals

Plan View of Panels

Two Way Slab Design with Column Capitals

Two Way Slab Design with Column Capitals

Two Way Slab Design with Column Capitals

Two Way Slab Design with Column Capitals

Two Way Slab Design with Column Capitals

Two Way Slab Design with Column Capitals

Summary of Lateral Moment Distributions in kip-in

Two Way Slab Design with Column Capitals

Plan View of Moment Regions

Two Way Slab Design with Column Capitals

Two Way Slab Design with Column Capitals

Two Way Slab Design with Column Capitals

Two Way Slab Design with Column Capitals

Two Way Slab Design with Column Capitals

Two Way Slab Design with Column Capitals

Two Way Slab Design with Column Capitals

Two Way Slab Design with Column Capitals

Two Way Slab Design with Column Capitals

Two Way Slab Design with Column Capitals

Two Way Slab Design with Column Capitals

Two Way Slab Design with Column Capitals

Two Way Slab Design with Column Capitals

Two Way Slab Design with Column Capitals

Two Way Slab Design with Column Capitals

Two Way Slab Design with Column Capitals

Two Way Slab Design with Column Capitals

Two Way Slab Design with Column Capitals

Two Way Slab Design with Column Capitals

Two Way Slab Design with Column Capitals