You are on page 1of 9

Build. ScL Vol. 7, pp. 215-223. Pergamon Press 1972.

Printed in Great Britain ] 1(23"4)1 / (A3) I

Beam and Slab Floor Systems

Composite Design by Yield Line Theory
M. H O L M E S , * B.Sc., Ph.D., C.Eng.,

R. I. M A J E D , B.Sc.1-

This paper describes how beam and slab floor systems may be designed using
yield line theory. For given geometry and loading, the slab design is carried out
so as first to prevent a "slab alone" failure, beams are then selected so that
the desired load factor is provided against a combined beam and slab failure
mechanism. This is accomplished by considering three basic modes of failure,
A, B and C or D in such a way that collapse would occur by any of these basic
mechanisms at the same applied load, thus producing an economical design.
In designing the floor system any one of five different degrees of composite
action may be considered between the beams and slab. These different degrees
of composite action involve such parameters as the inclusion or not of composite
action in hogging and sagging bending, and the effect of slab reinforcement on
conposite fully plastic moments.
Experimental results are presented to show that the design method satis-
factorily predicts the mode of failure and the load at which it occurs, provided
that the correct degree of composite action is taken.
A number of design examples were considered and the effects of degree of
composite action, concrete strength, slab thickness, sides ratio etc. on structure
weight are determined, thus enabling general recommendations to be made on
efficient design offloor systems.


L, l dimensions of bay in X-direction and Y-direction F I G U R E 1 shows that in a floor system typical
internal bays are present which are c o n t i n u o u s in
Mb fully plastic moment of the secondary beam (in Y-
direction) f o u r directions. It also indicates t h a t edge b a y s will
Ma fully plastic moment of the main beam (in X-direction) occur which are c o n t i n u o u s in three directions.
Mc fully plastic composite moment of the slab and the
secondary beam at mid-span
Me fully plastic composite moment of the stab and the
main beam at mid-span
M, fully plastic composite moment of the slab and the
secondary beam at support
M fully plastic composite moment of the slab and the
main beam at support %"
Ms fully plastic moment of the slab /Internol bay ' External bay
mode A
Mx sum of fully plastic moments at mid-span and support
of the main composite beam, in case of non-composite
design for type (1) assumption Mx = Mn 1
My sum of fully plastic moments at mid-span and support Intemol boy External bay
of secondary composite beam, for type (1) assumption mode C mode A
p uniform loading per unit area
U internal work done in a system
V external work done in a system Fig. 1. Multi-bay continuous beam and slabfloor system.
p ratioofthesidesofaslab = I/L
0 rotation of a plastic hinge
Mc + Mb C o r n e r bays m a y also occur which are only con-
Yc M, .L/2 tinuous in two directions. This figure also indicates
Me+ M~ the three basic m o d e s o f failure which m a y o c c u r
7~ M,. t/2
due to self a n d a p p l i e d u n i f o r m l o a d for u n d e r
* Professor of Civil Engineering, University of Aston. reinforced slabs. The basic m o d e s are shown in
1"Post-Graduate research student, University of Aston. m o r e detail in figure 2.
216 M. Holmes and R. 1. Mq/ed

Depending upon whether or not a shear connec- figure 1. The failure is due to three plaslic hinges
tion is provided between the beams and slabs, forming in the secondary beam, with a sagging
composite action may need to be considered. Such yield line running down the centre of the slab and
consideration may be limited to areas in which two hogging yield lines running along the main
sagging yield lines are formed or extended to beams at support as shown in figure 2.
include the formation of both sagging and hogging For a unit of deflection at the centre yield line,
yield lines. then
I 2
0- -
Ms Ms I/2 /
,- L/2
~Mb a 0 Mb [ For UDL p/unit area of slab,
Mb External work ( V ) = ~ ( t o t a l load on an
i M,; I ,M. J element deflection at
the centre of gravity of
the load)
Col lapse by mode A
I 1 ! I
=- pL ~ x ~ +pL 2- x 2-
!~ L/2
MB v-- T tl)

Internal work (U) = Y, (total moment along the

fracture line x rotation
Collapse by mode B
about corresponding
'%q /li axis of rotation) +
(plastic moment of the
beam x rotation of
plastic hinge at that
:~ L ~,
, I = (M~.L.20+2M~.L.O)
Collapse by mode C +(Mb.O+ M~. 20+ Mh.O)
U =8M~.L+8M~
Collapse by mode D l / (27
Fig. 2. htternal bay of multi-bay continuous frame. Basic
modes of collapsefor UDL. Equating the external and internal work done, an
expression for the collapse load is obtained,
In the first instance equations will be derived namely:
for the three basic modes of failure, assuming that plL 16M~L 16M b
- ' F - - (3)
composite action is not present, for a typical 1 l
internal bay. Subsequently in Appendix 1 it will be
shown how these basic equations are modified for Re-arranging equation (3) the required plastic
edge and corner bays and for various degrees of moment of the secondary beam for collapse by
composite action. mode A to occur is obtained from:


(a) Mode A (b) Mode B

This type of failure consists of a "repeating Here failure consists of a "repeating element" of
element" of one secondary beam of length l, and a one main beam and a slab of width I as shown in
slab of width equal to the average length of the two figure 1. The failure is due to three plastic hinges
adjacent bays. In the case of equal bays, the slab forming in the main beam, with three correspon-
width equals the length of the bay L as shown in ding yield lines in the slab, as shown in figure 2.
Beam and Slab Floor Systems--Composite Design by Yield Line Theory 217

Following the previous method, for unit deflec- V = p (volume of two half-pyramids + central
tion at the centre yield line, portion)
1 2 V = p (~.l-l.tan q~. 1 +.l-1 . ( L - I tan ~b))
C/2 L
hence, V = plL__( 3 - p tan q~) (10)
"" 6
[plL 1\
Equating the internal and external work done,
thus, and re-arranging the collapse load by mode C is
p/L given by:
V = -- (as for mode A) (5)
and plL = p ( 3 - p t a n 4)) t a ~ 1 M, (11)
U = (Mfl.O+MJ.20+MJ.O)
Where for a minimum value of p, tan q~ =
+(Mn.O+ Mn.20+ Mn.O )
~ / ( p 2 + 3) - p .
.. U = 8Mfl q_8M~ (6) The value of M s to cause independent collapse
L L of the slab by model C is therefore:
Equating equations (5) and (6), the collapse load M s = plL p ( 3 - p tan q~) (12)
plL = 16Mfl+ 16MB (7) 4 8 I t a n ~ + 11
Collapse by mode D, occurring when p > 1.0, can
Re-arranging equation (7), the required plastic by similar means be shown to occur at a total
moment of the main beam for collapse to occur applied load of:
by mode B is:
plL 2 pIL - (3p-tan~)48p [ t~n1 ~ +p 1 M s (13)
Mx = M8 = ~ - M f l (8)
Where for a minimum value of p, tan ~ =
(c) Independent collapse of the slab
For a uniformly distributed load, depending on
the ratio of the sides, p = l/L, the two modes of
collapse C or D shown in figure 2 are possible.
Applying the virtual work theory, and letting the Re-arranging equation 13 to find the value of Ms
centre fracture line displace a unit distance down- to cause independent slab collapse by mode D,
wards: (3p - tan ~b)
U = ~ (total moment along a fracture line M,=plL 48PItan@ ] + p (14)
rotation of the two elements about that
Failure loads for other conditions
Each of these products can be resolved into the
sum of two components, namely, (the projection The way in which the basic equations above,
of the moment on to each rectangular co-ordinate equations (4), (8), (12) and (14) are modified for
axis rotation of the elements about that axis), edge and corner bays and for two different types
where the axes are parallel to the supporting sides of composite action, is shown in Appendix 1.
of the rectangle. The detailed derivation of these equations is given
For mode C, occurring when p < 1.0 elsewhere[l].
In calculating the composite fully plastic moment
U = 4. tan 4~ M~'-I+2"LMs'-1 of the secondary beams (Me) and main beams (Me),
the following assumptions are made for sagging
yield lines:
+(L-/tan ~b)Ms. +4. Ms./tan
(1) The whole of the area of steel beam below the
plastic neutral axis is stressed to the tensile
+2"lM~'l tan ~b yield stress.
(2) The whole of the area of steel beam above the
[ 8 + 8p]jM s plastic neutral axis is stressed to the compressive
.. U=lta~ (9) yield stress.
218 M. Holmes a n t / R . I. Mq/ed

(3) The area of concrete below the plastic neutral against collapse of 1.75. Turning now to ligure 4
axis is neglected. for independent collapse of the slab, then 7, > 17.0

(4) The area of concrete above the neutral axis
is stressed to where U~ is ~th of the cube
and 7,- > 6.5.
Me+ Mn
(5) In calculating the values of M c and M e the >_ 17.0
M,(I/2) -
effect of slab reinforcement acting at its yield
stress may be included or not. (See later .. ( M , . + M s ) > 17.0 x 3600 x101b ft.
comments on effect of inclusion or exclusion.) > 612-2 kips ft.
(6) The usual assumptions are made with regard and
to the equality of total tension and total com- M,. + M h
~ > 6 " 5
pression, and the linearity of strain distribution. M,(L/2) -

Three neutral axis positions are possible i.e. (M,.+ M b) > 6.5 x 3600 x 15 lb ft.
neutral axis in the slab, beam flange or beam web. > 351.1 kips ft.
For the purpose of calculating M~ or Me the full
width of slab is taken as effective. This is because ;"c )'e Fal~urt M~I

~o~e c Abo~ e SlO~ ~=y C~ D oc~ ol

the composite moment calculated from the effective
I S~ob and
width taken as composite plus the remaining width
at slab ultimate moment is approximately equal Mode B
to the composite moment calculated from the full
width of slab taken as composite.
Mode A o r B
Similar assumptions are made when calculating
the fully plastic hogging moments for the secondary (Mc+Mb) (MeMB)
X = Ms.L/2 ; )'e= MS.L/2
beams (M,) and main beams (MN), where three
neutral axis positions are again possible.
io 15 20
The use o f design charts p,L/L

Design charts may be used to minimise com- Fig. 4, Boundary equations UDL composite action at
putational work. For example equations (11) and middle span of secondary and main beams. Slab con-
(13) may be plotted to show M J p l L against p as in tinuous in four directions.
figure 3, and these same equations may be com-
bined with equations 9A and 10A of Appendix 1 For the main beam with a slab width of 20 ft. for
to give figure 4. The way in which these two figures 6,000 lb/in 2 concrete and using a 6 in. slab thick-
may be used to design a beam and slab floor system ness, the minimum size of beam, from tables of
is best illustrated by an example. composite section properties, is a 16 x 7 x 36 U.B.
plus a 6 in. thick slab. The value of ( M e + M n ) of
the chosen composite beam is 621.6 kips ft., which
is more than the minimum required value of
612.2kips ft. Other allowable combinations of
main beam and slab sizes to satisfy the required
~n~,) 'pkL =l'1[ J --
(Me + M s ) value are as follows :

15 x 6 x 40 U.B. + 5 in. thick slab (632. l kips ft.)

14x 6 x 38 U.B. + 7 in. thick slab (642.3 kips ft.
1 I I I t I I t I I i i I I J I ; i I i I 15 x 6 x 35 U.B. + 8 in. thick slab (642.2 kips ft.)
05 IO 15 20

p L/L Similarly for the secondary beam, a beam size of

Fig. 3. Graph of M../plL against p. 1 2 x 5 x 2 5 U.B. plus a 6in. slab thickness would
give an ( M e + Mb) value of 356.7 kips ft. which is
Consider an internal bay 30 ft long by 20 ft wide greater than the minimum required value of
(i.e. p = ~) which is required to support a load of 351"1 kips ft.
175 lb/ft 2 (including an allowance for dead load). In the above example the effect of the slab
Shear connection is to be provided to give com- reinforcement on the plastic composite moment
posite action in sagging bending only. was neglected for ease of computation. If the
From figure 3 for p = ~ a minimum slab moment reinforcement is neglected than values of Mc or
of 3600 lb ft/ft is indicated using a load factor Me can readily be tabulated for various slab widths
Beam and Slab Floor Systems--Composite Design by Yield Line Theory 219

and strengths and standard beam sizes. The linear up to a load of approximately 14 tons, after
inclusion of slab reinforcement into the calculation which there were easily seen cracks in the lower slab
of composite moment introduces a number of surface parallel to the transverse centre line. Failure
additional parameters, so that tabulation of values of the model occurred at a deflection of the slab
is no longer feasible. Thus each case must be centre equal to 1.1 in. and of the mid-spans of the
independently calculated which leads to an exces- main beams equal to 1.0 and 0.8 in. Tension cracks
size amount of hand calculation or the use of a seen at the supports on the upper surface were first
computer. In the above example, using a 6 in. slab, of the slab close to the secondary beams at a load of
and the same cube strength, the main and secondary 18-0 tons. By the end of the test, these cracks were
beam size are reduced to 1 5 6 x 3 5 U.B. and running along the full width of the slab and were
1 2 x 4 x 19U.B. if the slab reinforcement is ~6 1 in. wide and 2 in. deep into the slab.
included. This gives values of (Me+MB) and The crack pattern indicated that the mechanism
(Mc+Mb) of 645.5 kips ft. and 379.5 kips ft. of failure was mode B. Failure occurred at a load
respectively. of 35.6 tons.
Strain distributions are shown in figures 6 and 7.
EXPERIMENTAL VERIFICATION The first of these figures indicates the strain dis-
tribution perpendicular to the transverse centre line
To assess the validity of the assumptions made
on the upper slab surface. The compressive strain is
in deriving the theory three model floors were con-
nearly constant across the whole slab width up to
structed and tested to failure. In particular the
a load of 29 tons, indicating that the total width of
experimental work was used to ensure that the
the slab was acting compositely with the beams.
mode of failure could be reliably predicted, and to
examine which of the various assumptions on degree
of composite action were the most accurate. +CI C2 C3 394/T C4 C5
Gauge no. | 0 [ - - ,
Only one of the model tests will be described as ! m t I2T
this will serve to bring out all the essential points.
This model had two opposite sides continuous and i 500
two opposite sides non-continuous and was
designed so as to fail by mode B mechanism. The 6.
reinforced slab was 9 ft x 5 ft by 2 in. thick which U

was composite with main and secondary beams both

from 3 in. x 1 in. x 41b R.S.J. Uniform loading was
simulated by the application of sixteen point loads 1500
Strain x I0 "6
applied by means of a system of interconnected
hydraulic jacks. Shear connection was provided by Fig. 6. Distribution o f strain ~ the transverse centre line
of the slab upper surface. Test M,.
2 in. long by in. diameter stud connectors, whose
ultimate capacity and load/slip characteristics had
been determined from tests on push-out specimens.
7 .... 7-cg-- -1-
An overall picture of the behaviour is gained
from figure 5 which shows the load-deflection
'I ~IC4 'I
I mrc~-- -
graphs for the centre of the slab and the mid-spans I ~IC2
of the beams. The load-deflection relationship was 7-t
Upper slab surface
D5 D4 D3 D2 DI
35 -

#~/> . " ..
/// Gou no. +_0!C 7 C8 3.94,......C9 C8 C~



/# o,en:F::dgll:
D4 Ceneral deflection of secondary b e a m 8 IO00
D5 Central deflection of secondary beam

! ' , J I
O 015 030 045 0~60 075 09 105 120 I 5~ Strain x 10- 6
Deflection, in.
Fig. 7. Distribution of strain along the transverse centre line
Fig. 5. Load against deflection graph for test MI. of the slab upper surface. Test M,.
220 M. Holmes and R. I. Mqjed

The second of these figures shows the strain dis- Strain readings from similar cross seclional
tribution along the transverse centre line on the locations but which refer to the composite main
upper slab surface, and shows that the beams are beam at the support are shown in figure I0. Here
relatively so weak in torsion that no measurable the position is distorted by local effects which
"encastre support" condition is induced in the slab.
The strains at mid-span of the main beams and ..... ~ ompressive
in adjacent concrete areas are shown in figure 8.
C13 - - -
These indicate full plasticity of the cross-section. R7
Figure 9 shows the distribution of strain through
the composite main beam at mid-span (section I-I C 24

of figure 8). The strain distribution through the 243

section shows a high degree of composite action Be
between the slab and beam, although evidence of a
certain amount of slip particularly at higher load, Be
is also indicated. A neutral axis position at failure ,I
consistent with theoretical predictions is also B4
50~, 2(i00 i000 :~
Strain x t0 s Tensile ~ -

> Fig. 10. Distribution o f strain through main composite

beam at support. Test M~.

. caused a reversal of stress in the lower flange of the

~?o ,,,' ,-- :
beam. These local effects were induced by rotation
of the secondary beam at the support. Again
// BI Tensile s!min ir, !ower flange
although slip is evident between slab and beam, the
B2 Tensile strain in the m~ddle of the web
I l / []3 Tensile strain in u~oer flange
/ C25 Tensile strc;in in lower slab surface
shear connectors were capable of developing the
5 ~/ R[ Tensile strain al longitLJdinal reinforcement fully plastic composite hogging moment.
CI Compressive strain in upper slab sclrface

01 Table 1 shows a comparison of the experimental

400 1200 }O00 2800 3600
train x I0 c
collapse load with theoretical values calculated on
various assumptions on the degree of composite
Fig. 8. Load against strain graph for composite beam and action. This comparison indicates that composite
slab at mid-span. Test M~.
action nearly doubled (0.56-0.98) the collapse load
of the non-composite system. It also indicates that
Compressive the effect of the steel reinforcement on the com-
C~ 0 tooo pooo
posite moment was significant (0.74-0.88 and
0.84-0.98). Unfortunately the inclusion of the steel
C~- ~ J J 7 - - reinforcement prevents the use of design charts and
therefore adds considerably to the required design
j" 1/~. computation. If design charts are used (adopting
type 2 of table 1) then the calculated collapse load
will be 74 per cent of the actual collapse load.


S t r a i n x I 0 ~6 Tensile
In the design of both non-composite and com-
Fig. 9. Distribution of strain through main composite posite beam and slab floor systems, only the upper-
beam at mid-span. Test M~.
bound solutions were considered. This was because
this type of solution can be relatively easily modified
indicated by figure 9. The shear connection was, to include composite action. It is true that a lower
however, very adequate in respect of developing bound solution gives a "safe value" for the collapse
the fully plastic composite moment. The strain dis- load of a structure and thus should be preferred to
tributions show the tendency of the neutral axis an upper bound solution. Nevertheless, in using an
to rise at higher loads and indicate that the slab upper bound solution, it should be remembered
reinforcement had high tensile strains before failure that there are many factors that play a part in
which would contribute considerably to the ultimate improving the safety of the solution, such as com-
strength of the composite section. pressive and tensile membrane action and strain
Beam and Slab Floor Systems--Composite Design by YieM Line Theory 221

Table 1. Comparison of theoretical and experimental values As mentioned earlier a computer programme
for beam and slab floor. was written[2] to enable designs based on all types
of composite action to be obtained. For the design
Theoretical example given earlier in the paper, which was
collapse load
Type of assumption on Theoretical designed using type (2) composite action, it was
degree of composite collapse load Exp. found that redesign by type (5) composite action
action (mode B) (tons) collapse load resulted in a 14 per cent saving by weight in the
main beams. For this same example type (5) shows
(l) No composite action 20-0 0.56
a 38 per cent saving compared with type (1) which
(2) Composite action in ignores composite action completely.
sagging bending, Other points which became evident from the
ignoring the effect of 26.3 0'74
slab reinforcement on design of a large number of examples were:
the composite plastic
moment (1) The best slab thickness was the minimum
(3) As (2) above but needed to provide the required Ms value with
including the effect of an under reinforced condition. Increasing the
slab reinforcement on 31"5 0-88 slab thickness above this value normally
on the composite
plastic moment. resulted in the use of the same or heavier beam
(4) Composite action in
sagging and hogging
bending, ignoring the (2) A considerable reduction in the deflection of
effect of slab rein- 29'8 0'84 the selected supporting beams, as well as saving
forcement on the in weight, results by using composite rather
composite sagging than non-composite construction.
plastic moments.
(5) As (4) above but (3) The relationship between live load and the
including the effect of weight of the selected supporting beams and
slab reinforcement on 35'0 0.98
the composite sagging slab reinforcement is approximately linear.
plastic moments.
(4) The minimum weight of steel supporting beams
Experimental collapse by mode B at 35'6 tons. and the minimum overall structural weight were
both given by type (5) composite action. The
next lowest beam and total structure weight
hardening effects. Similarly "fan modes" were not were given by type (3) composite action.
considered since, for uniformly loaded slabs, the
reduction in the collapse load is not large. (5) There is no advantage in increasing the cube
The experimental work showed clearly that strength in terms of saving in weight of the
theoretical values based on composite action of supporting beams of the non-composite and
type (5) gave the best agreement with the experi- composite structures. Only a slight reduction in
mental results, followed by type (3) assumption. the weight of the slab reinforcement occurs
If design charts are used then theoretical values when the cube strength increases to provide
based on composite action of type (2) must be the same ultimate slab moment M~. A minimum
used, and this will result in an under estimate of the cube strength is recommended for the design of
collapse load of the structure. beam and slab floor systems.

1. R . I . MAJED, The plastic behaviour of composite floor systems in relation to multistorey
structures. Ph.D. thesis, University of Aston, to be presented.
2. M. HOLMESand R. I. MAJED, The design of beam and slab floor systems by computer.
International Symposium, University of Warwick (1971 ).

Ce texte d6crit comment des syst6mes de sols h poutres et ~ dosses peuvent ~tre
conqus en utilisant la th6orie de ligne de fl6chissement. Pour une g6om6trie et une
charge donn6es, la conception de la dosse est pr6vue d'abord de fagon ~ 6viter une
d6faillance de la "dosse seule", les poutres 6tant alors choisies de sorte que ie facteur
de charge voulue soit fournie contre un m6canisme de d6faillance combin6 de la
poutre et de la dosse. Ceci est possible en consid6rant trois modes fondamentaux de
d6faillance A, B e t C ou D de sorte qu'un effondrement aurait lieu par n'importe
lequel de ces m6canismes fondamentaux sous la m~me charge, produisant ainsi une
conception 6conomique.
222 M. Holmes amt R. I. Maied
En concevant le syst6me de sol Fun de cinq degr6s diff6rents &action combin6e
peut &re consid6r6 entre les poutres et la dosse. Ces diff6rents degr6s d'action
combin6e impliquent des param6tres tels que l'inclusion ou non d'action combin6e de
courbature et de fl6chissement, et l'effet de renforcement de la dosse sur des moments
compos6s enti6rement plastiques.
Les r6sultats exp6rimentaux sont pr6sentds pour montrer que la m6thode de con-
ception pr6dit de fa~on satisfaisante le mode de d6faillance et la charge fi laquelle la
d6faillance a lieu, pourvu que le degr6 correct d'action combin6e soit choisi.
Un nombre d'exemples de conception ont 6t6 consid6r6s, et les effets de degr6
d'action combin6e, la solidit6 du b6ton, l'6paisseur de la dosse, le rapport des c6t6s,
etc. ont 6t6 d~termin~s, permettant ainsi de donner des recommandations g6n6rales
pour la conception efficace de syst6mes de sols.

Dieser Bericht zeigt, wie Trfiger und Bodenplattensysteme mit Hilfe der Bruchlinien-
theorie entworfen werden k6nnen. Der Plattenentwurf wird mit ei ner gegebenen
Geometrie und Belastung so durchgeftihrt, dass zun~ichst "Plattenschaden" vermieden
wird, dann werden Tr~iger gew~ihlt, sodass der erwiinschte Belastungsfaktor ftir einen
kombinierten Tr~iger und Plattenschadenmechanismus erhalten wird. Dies wird durch
Annahme yon drei Vorgfingen ffir Erleiden von Schaden A, B und C oder D in solcher
Weise erreicht, dass Zusammenbruch infolge jeder dieser drei grundlegenden Vorg~inge
bei gleicher Belastung erfolgen wfirde, wodurch ein wirtschaftlicher Entwurf erhalten
Beim Entwurf des Bodensystems kann jede, aus ffinf verschiedenen Schritten
kombinierte Funktion zwischen den Balken und Platten betrachtet werden. Diese
verschiedenen Schritte kombinierter Funktion umfassen Parameter, wie Einschluss
oder Ausschluss von kombinierter Funktion in Aufw61bung und Durchbiegung und
die Wirkung von Plattenbewehrung auf kombinierte vollplastische Momente.
Es werden experimentelle Ergebnisse gebracht, die zeigen, dass die Entwurfsmethode
die Art des Erleidens von Schaden befriedigend voraussagt und die Last, unter
welcher dies erfolgt, vorausgesetzt, dass die korrekte Art kombinierter Handlung
eingehalten wird.
Es werden mehrere Entwurfsbeispiele behandelt undes werden die Auswirkungen
yon kombinierter Funktion, Betonsffirke, Plattenst/irke, Seitenverh~iltnis usw. auf
das Strukturgewicht ermittelt, wodurch allgemeine Empfehlungen fiJr einen wirk-
samen Entwurf yon Bodensystemen gemacht werden k6nnen.

APPENDIX 1 (b) Continuous in two directions

Non-Composite pI2L MsL
(a) Continuous in three directions ModeA: My = Mb = (A5)
32 2
pl2L M,L pIL2 MJ
ModeA" My = Mb-- 3~ 2
(A1) ModeB: Mx = M s= (A6)
16 2
plL 2 3MJ M~ = plL p ( 3 - p tan ~b)
ModeB: Mx = M s - - - (A2) Mode C:
16 4 (A7)
24Itan-~+ 21
p(3-p tan ~b)
ModeC: M , = P / L 2 4 [-_! 3p +2-]1 (A3) tan 4) = ~[~/PZW6)-p] for minimump
I_2 tan q~ _] ( 3 p - tan ~)
ModeD: Ms = p l L
tan q5 = h/(p 2 + 4) - p] (A8)
for minimum p 2 4 P l t a - ~ + P1

(3p - tan ~b)

Mode D: M~ tan~=x/(p4~+6)- ~ for minimum p
=pIL I 2 +3 1 (A4)
24p ~ ~p

tan~, =~pp
4E( )I
~/ 1 + pZ _1 Composite action at mid-span
(i.e. sagging yield lines only)
for minimum p (a) Continuous in four directions
Beam and Slab Floor Systems--Composite Design by Yield Line Theory 223

pl2L Composite action at mid-span and supports

Mode A : My = ( M: + Mb) = 8 -MsL (i.e. sagging and hogging yield lines)

(A9) (a) Continuous in four directions

plL 2
Mode B: Mx = ( M e + M e ) = 8 - M J Mode A : My = (Mc + M.) = pI2L (AIS)
plL 2
Mode C and Mode D as equations (11) and (13) ModeB: Mx = (Me+MN) = 8 (A16)
(b) Continuous in three directions Mode C and Mode D as equations 11 and 13
pl2L MsL
(b) Continuous in three directions
ModeA: My --- (M~+Mb) = 16 2
ModeA: My = ( M c + M . ) = 1-'-6- (A17)
pIL 2 Msl
ModeB: M. = (Me+Me) = 8 2
Mode B: M x = (Me+O.5Mu+O.5Mo)
plL z
Mode C and Mode D as equations (A3) and
(A4) respectively
(c) Continuous in two directions Mode C and Mode D as equations (A3) and
pl2L M~L
ModeA: My = ( M c + M b) = 16 2 (c) Continuous in two directions
Mode A: My = ( M c + M . ) = pl2L (A19)
plL 2 16
Mode B: Mx = ( M e + M e ) = 8 (AI4)
plL 2
Mode B: Mx = ( M e + M e ) = 8 (A20)
Mode C and Mode D as equations (A7) and
(A8) respectively Mode C and Mode D as equations(A7)and(A8)