Reinforced Plate Design

Design for Mxy Twisting Moment

By

John Li

9 April 2002

Solutions Research Centre

603 Eton Tower, 8 Hysan Avenue
Causeway Bay, Hong Kong

Phone: + 852 3185 9500

Fax: + 8523102 0612
Email: johnli@src-asia.com
Web: www.src-asia.com
 Introduction
Reinforced plate design is a simple extension of the beam design. However,
the Lagranges 4th order partial differentiation equation for plate is difficult to
solve except for simple geometry and support conditions. Furthermore, the
twisting moment and the Poisson ratio add complexity to an already difficult
problem.
The many classical approaches that are still popular today mainly focus on
deriving alternative moment fields for reinforcement design by eliminating the
mxy twisting moment. Although there are many papers and texts on such
approaches, most go into lengthy, complicated derivations instead of
simplifying our understanding.
This paper is an exercise to extract from many sources both the classical
theory and the modern finite element method to present a simple physical
understanding of the behavior of plate without going through involving
mathematical formulation. The later sections of this paper address the
confusion surrounding the mxy twisting moment and how to indirectly design
for it. Ultimately, with software available today, reinforced plate design should
be fast and easy.
Detail derivations of theories are available in many texts and therefore not included in this paper. Also, this paper
does no include the discussion on Poisson ratio which is also an important topic in plate design.

Structural Mechanics
All structural mechanics theories, including the beam and plate theories, must
satisfy the following three conditions:
1. Stress-strain relation material.
2. Equilibrium force.
3. Compatibility geometry.
The stress-strain relation can usually be satisfied using design equations.
However, an exact solution to satisfy both equilibrium and compatibility may
be difficult and sometimes unnecessary. When given a choice/decision
between them, satisfying equilibrium is essential to prevent collapse.
Beam Theory
With the plane-remains-plane assumption and shear deformation excluded,
the beam theory equations are simple:
Deflection w
dw
Slope
dx
d 4w q d 2w
Bending: = ; Moment Curvature
dx 4 EI dx 2
d 3w
Shear
dx3
 d 4w
Load
dx 4
T
Torsion: =
GJ
It is important to realize the followings:
1. The placements of longitudinal reinforcement and
torsional stirrup not coupled - governed by
separate equations.
2. Beam torsion results in circular shear stress. Beam
Classical Plate Theory
For plate, with the straight-line-remains-straight assumption and shear
deformation excluded, the Lagranges plate equation:
Deflection w
w w
Slope ,
x y

4w 4w 4w q 2w 2w
+ 2 + = ; Moment Curvature ,
x 4 x 2 y 2 y 4 D x 2 y 2
Eh3 2w
where D = Twisting Moment
12(1 2 ) xy

3 w 3 w
Shear ,
x3 y 3

4w 4w
Load ,
x 4 y 4

Slab Twisting Shear

The term mxy, the twisting moment, represents the twist, that is, the rate of
change of slope in the x-direction as one moves in the y-direction or vise
versa. The twisting moment results in shear stress parallel to the plate
surface except near the ends. Because of this shear flow difference, the
reinforcement to prevent torsional beam failure should not be confused
with the reinforcement to prevent twisting plate failure.
2w 2w 2w 2w 2w
With mx = D( + ) , m = D ( + ) & m = D(1 )
x 2 y 2 x 2 y 2 xy
y xy
The Lagranges Equation written in terms of mx, my and mxy:
2 mx 2 mxy 2 my
+2 + = q
x 2 xy y 2
This is the most important equation providing invaluable physical insight into
problem of reinforced plate design. It reveals that the load q can be
arbitrarily apportioned between mx, my and mxy for reinforcement design
as long as the LHS of the equation is larger than the RHS at all points of
the plate system. It also points out that design solutions are not unique.
It is extremely important to note if the design moment fields are such
that part of the load is carried by the mxy term, the design cannot just
ignore mxy as that would make the addition of the mx and my terms
smaller than the loads.
This interpretation of satisfying equilibrium with allowance to violate
compatibility leads to the Lower Bound Method.
Lower Bound Theory
The calculation of ultimate load using limit analysis methods is based on the
redistribution of moment and shear when the elastic limit is exceeded. To
determine the ultimate load of a given plate system, either a lower bound
theory or an upper bound theory may be used.
This paper will concentrate only on the lower bound theory because it is
conservative and that it can be easily programmed into a finite element
software.
The lower bound theory assumes a moment fields at ultimate load such that:
1. The equilibrium condition is satisfied at all points in the plate system.
2. The plate is reinforced according to the assumed moment fields.
3. Satisfy boundary conditions.
Actually, engineers use this theory all the time to find alternative design
moments without knowing it:
1. Moment redistribution.
2. 1-way slab design apportion loads only to mx.
3. 2-way moment coefficient chart method apportion loads to mx and my.
4. Equivalent frame method apportion loads to mx and my.
5. Strip methods including the Hillerborgs strip method apportion loads
to mx and my.
6. Wood-Armer transformation method geometric transformation to
apportion the mxy term to the mx and my terms.
Without the Lower Bound Theory, the validity of all these assumptions,
charts, cuts, strips and transformation methods would be in doubt.
The reasons for developing and using these procedures are:
1. Simplifying the search for alternative equilibrium design moment fields.
 2. Elimination of the mxy twisting moment because it is much easier to
design reinforcement for alternative mx and my fields.
Finite Element Method
In 1960s, the aircraft industry pioneers the finite element method in
calculating stress and strain. This method is now included in many structural
engineering software. Unfortunately, the concept of finite element is still not
well understood by practitioners. Many still think that, for example, the plate
finite element is just a smaller plate and that the nodal reactive moments mx
and my are the same as my and my in classical plate theory. Well, they are
not!
Lets take a look at the Lagranges equation again:
4w 4w 4w q
+ 2 + =
x 4 x 2 y 2 y 4 D
The major problem is finding a unique displacement field w(x,y) that satisfies
the equation at all points of the plate system. Once the displacement field has
been solved, all quantities can be derived easily using previously stated
formulae.
Using the finite element method, researchers formulate elements that have
the same stiffness as the real plate. Stiffnesses associated with out-of-plane
degrees of freedom, rx, ry and dz are lumped at corner nodes resulting in nodal
reactive forces mx, my and v when strained. An assemblage of such plate
elements forms a global stiffness matrix which would simulate the
displacements against imposed loads. The solution improves as the element
mesh is refined.
[ Stiffness _ Matrix]{Displacements} = {Forces}
The whole purpose of using finite element is to find the displacement
field. It is important to note that the set of nodal reactive forces are also
in equilibrium with external loads and therefore also valid for
reinforcement design.
Moment Fields for Reinforcement Design
For plate systems
Displacement w(x,y)
with complex
conditions or
where more
accurate designs Classical Theory Finite Element Nodal
are required, the Reactive Moment
finite element
2w 2w
method would give my = D( 2 + 2 ) x m 'x
x y
K y = m ' y
an accurate
solution of the w
2
2w
elastic mx = D ( 2 + 2 )
x y w V
displacement field.
Graphical plots 2w No mxy
and textural output mxy = D (1 )
xy

Wood-Armer
mux & muy
can then be generated easily by substituting the displacement field into the
classical formulae.
For reinforcement design, two sets of moment fields, both in equilibrium
with the external loads, are available using the classical theory or the finite
element (nodal reactive moments) method.

Wood-Armer Formula
Many designers prefer to use the classical route because they are more
comfortable with the classical plate theory. The problem now is to find a set of
orthogonal reinforcement to resist mx, my and mxy.
The Wood-Armer Formula is most popular approach to convert mx, my and
mxy to orthogonal design moments mux and muy again eliminating mxy. In
essence, this method uses the Mohr circle geometric approach to derive
optimum orthogonal design moments that would prevent yielding in all
directions. The yield condition is based on the Johansens Yield Criterion.

Nodal Reactive Moments Method

When using finite element method to solve for the displacement field, the
stiffnesses of all elements are already calculated when assembling the global
stiffness matrix. It is therefore more natural and easier to use the nodal
reactive moments method for reinforcement design because these nodal
reactive moments can easily be obtain by multiplying the solved displacement
vectors with element stiffness matrixes.

Reinforcement Design
Regardless of the approach to take for reinforcement design, because of the
need to consider many load combinations, the right locations for
reinforcement calculations present another problem. Manual point method of
selecting all the maxima and minima for design would not only be very
tedious, it would be too conservative and therefore not acceptable.
Using section cuts of mx, my and mxy and then using the Wood-Armer formula
to calculate mux and muy would again be very tedious. Furthermore, there is
not guarantee that such cuts would result in the correct mux and muy design
envelops unless many closely spaced section cuts are used.
Many classical methods use the strip approach because the reinforcement
design is based on the total load on the strip and therefore total equilibrium,
not point equilibrium, is maintained. The strip approach is also very suitable
for finite element method because the design moment envelop along a strip
can be easily obtained by adding the nodal reactive moments of the elements
that make up the strip.
It is important to note that when a strip is large, it would inevitably include
reactive moments of different signs. Theoretically, the reactive moments of
different sign should be integrated separately because they produce top and
bottom reinforcements and should not cancel out each other.
Summary
The shear flows and therefore failure modes for beam torsion and plate
twisting are very different and therefore should be reinforced differently. The
Lagranges equation for plate shows that mx, my and mxy are coupled and
therefore, according to the Lower Bound Theory, allows the apportioning of
loads carry by the mxy term to the mx and mx terms. For slab, this is very
natural and can be easily achieved by increasing the orthogonal mx and mx
reinforcement.
Many conventional reinforced plate design methods, based on the Lower
Bound Theory, had been formulated to find alternative mx and my moment
design fields that satisfy the following equations:
2 mx 2 mx my
2

q or + q
x 2 x 2 y 2
However, these conventional methods are limited to simple structural forms
and loads. Fortunately, with high-speed computer, the finite element method
can solve complicated plate design problem and produce two sets of
equilibrium moment design fields:
1. Wood-Armer Method.
2. Nodal Reactive Moments.
These methods would produce different but equally valid reinforcement
layouts. However, the Wood-Armer Method would result in more
reinforcement because it is based on BOTH the prevention of yielding in all
directions AND the satisfaction of equilibrium whereas the Nodal Reactive
Method is based on the satisfaction of equilibrium only.
Finally, the use of strip method with separate integration of moments with
different signs is recommended over section cut method and point method
because it achieve total equilibrium, theoretical correctness and computational
efficiency.