1: (2% TECHNICAL “4% REPORT 5EO Cement and Concrete Associat J. W. E. Chandler June 1982 ‘Thisdocument contains 23 pages42.590 First published June 1982 ISBN 0 7210 1257 4 ISSN 0528-3701 Price Group E Designed. printed and published by the ‘Cement and Concrete Association ‘Wexham Springs, Slough SL3 6PL, © Cement and Concrete Association 1982 Although the Cement and Conerete Assocation docs its best to ensure that any advice, recommendation or information it may ve is accurate, no liability or responsibility of any kind {retin ality for negigencs) accepted ints respect ‘the Association, its servants or agents, aadTechnical Report 550 Design of floors on ground J. W. E. ChandlerContents 4 Summary 4 Notation 4 Introduction Design considerations Modulus of subgrade reaction Concrete parameters Combinations of loading Load safety factors Position of loading Load transfer between slabs Stress due to rack or wheel loading Stress due to uniform loading 11 Stress due to adjacent loads 12 Combinations of loading 14. Design examples 14 Example 1: Fork-lift truck with uniform loading 16 Example 2: Fork-lift truck with rack loading 21 General design table 22. ReferencesSummary Notation introduction ‘The report proposes two basic methods of floor-slab design, One utilizes the modified ‘equations of Westergaard and is used for wheel and rack loading; the other is based upon a discrete element analysis and is used for uniform loading. The problem of more than one load inducing stress at any point is accommodated in the design. A tableis given showing ‘the maximum loads that may be imposed on different thicknesses of floor slab, equivalent radius of loaded area (mm) static modulus of elasticity (kN/mm?) depth of slab (mm) modulus of subgrade reaction (MN/m!) ame . we et E10 ag radius of relative stiffness = if met om) applied load (rack or wheel) (tonnes) radius of loaded area (mm) 12 Poisson's ratio aay ‘The majority of slab designs for warehouses and other heavily loaded areas are either adopted from pavement design or arbitrarily based on the designer's past experience. ‘Westergazrd"” provides a sound basic for stab design, although his original theoretical paper has been modified as a result of experimental studies by Teller and Sutherland’ and indeed by Westergaard’*' himself These pavement designs deal solely with wheel loading, but the problem of designing flocis 91 the ground is one of more complex loading systems. There are three basic types of loading to be considered: whee! loading due to fork-lft trucks, trolleys, etc.; uniform Toading due to materials, storage bins and other items placed directly on the floor; and rack loading due to the legs of racking systems used to store materials off the floor. Existing design methods are proving inadequate for two main reasons, The first is the introduction into warehouses of racking systems which impose a grid of static loads over small areas of the floor. These loads tend to be larger and to be applied over smaller areas than the wheel ioads; consequently, they are usually the critical loads on the floor. The second reason is the increase in the magnitude of other toads being imposed upon floors. ‘Any method of designing floors on ground should take into account the characteristics of the subgrade and sub-base, the grade of concrete, the type of loading, the number of repetitions of loading, the area of loading on the floor, the cumulative effect of more than one load or type of load and the efficiency of the load-transfer devices. The floor is assumed to be a plain concrete section in which the mesh reinforcement merely controls any cracking, should it occur, and determines the spacing of the transverse joints. In the consideration of floor design, the question of economics is of paramount importance. It may be possible to construct a floor relatively cheaply, but it might needagreat deal of maintenance and repair at a later datc. Consequently, the economic ‘considerations should cover the whole design life of the floor. tis proposed that the design should be based on the thickness design principle, whereby an adequate thickness of floor is constructed to withstand the induced tensile stresses. For any given set of lading conditions, the necessary thickness of floor will depend upon the grade of concrete used. The optimum design is the most economic combination of floor thickness and grade of concrete. Design considerations Modulus of subgrade reaction ‘The modulus of subgrade reaction. may be found by performing a plate test as described by Teller and Sutherland” and by Panak, McCullough and Treybig'*’. An approximate ‘modulus of subgrade reaction may be obtained from the CBR value by using Figure ‘The estimated laboratory values of CBR for some British soils compacted at the natural ‘moisture content are given in Table 1, which is taken from Road Note 29". B 8 e288 8 MODULUS OF SUBGRADE REACTION Mim zg 2 3 4s ere9o % m ® ‘CALIFORNIA BEARING RATIO Figure 1: Approximaie relationship berscen CBR and modulus of subgrade reaction, ‘Table { The estimated laboratory values of CBR for a selection of British soils compacted at the natural moisture content™. cor . o Type of sit a -—— a set formation nel 3600 am <00000 050 200 90000 ost 196 300000 032 192 220000 033 187 180000 ose Las 130000 oss. 182 100000 056 179° 75000 ost 175 $7000 5K 1 ‘2000 039 +70 32000 «0 167 24000 os! 164 $8000 oe ber 14000 063 139 11000 O64 136 8000 65 bse <_3000 066 150 A floor when constructed is divided into a number of smaller slabs. For wheel and rack toading, there are three basic positions of loading on a slab to be considered: the internal loading position, when the centre of the load is at least half a metre from the perimeter of the slab; and the edge loading position and the corner loading positions, which are self-explanatory. The area of loading on the floor is considered as circular at the comer and internal loading positions and semi-circular at the edge. Internal and edge loading Produce a maximum tensile stress at the bottom of the slab, directly beneath the lozd. Corner loading produces a maximum tensile stress at the top of the slab, at a distance 2y/(\/2) 1 from the comer. This position of maximum corner stress was suggested by Westergaard"” and confirmed experimentally by Teller and Sutherland”, Research by Childs and Kapernick'"” suggests that, for flat slabs, the free edge loadings critical. However, it is unlikely that the slab will remain flat, as drying out from the exposed surface tends to make the slab curl upwards at the perimeter. This curling does not have a significant effect upon the tensile stress in the cases of internal or edge loading, but it does considerably increase the tensile stress in the corner loading case. The corner loading is usually critical for a curled, isolated slab. Load transfer between slabs If the floor is considered as a collection of slabs, the edge and corner stresses may be reduced in each slab by transferring some of the load to the adjacent slabs. Childs and Kapernick'" found that, if load transfer was provided between slabs, by means of dowel- bars for example, the corner stress in curled slabs was reduced by approximately 30% and the edge stress by approximately 15%, making the edge stresses critical in some cases. Load-transfer devices between slabs also reduce differential settlement, resulting in greatly reduced damage at joint arrises. Childs and Kapernick also found that corner deflections of curled free slabs were reduced by 30-40% when dowel-bars were used for load transfer. ‘Stress due to rack or wheel loading ‘The tensile stress beneath a load at the free edge of a slab is calculated from Kelley's” modification of Westergaard’s equation. The stresses computed from this equation were found to correlate well with the experimental stresses of Childs and Kapernick'"” for free ‘edge loading. This is the same equation as that evolved by Teller and Sutherland” from their experiments on curled slabs. The tensile stress computed from Teller and Sutherland's empirical equation forcorner, loading agreed with the experimental stresses obtained by Childs and Kapernick, but underestimated the stress for smaller areas of loading. Pickett's'”” equation gives results which agreed better with the experimental stress for smaller areas of loading and also agreed equally well for the larger areas of loading of upward-curled slabs, ‘The tensile stress beneath an internal load is determined from Westergaard’s equation. This internal case is more important for rack loads than for wheel loads, because with racks there are several interacting loads in close proximity on the slab. ‘The three equations for determining the tensile stress induced in a free, curled slab are given below. . Edge stress ~ Kelley's equat a= 519(1 +0542 [4tog (1) +108 (aq) ] <0 em? a Comer stress ~ Pickett’s equation: =a2t (rAay* J 2 a= 41255 [i Bois ror | 1 N/m? 2. @) Internal stress — Westergaard’s equatior a= 271+) 5 [ atog (+) + 1069 ] 106 NY oe and b= (L6P + RY? —O675h for r< 1-72 or bar forr> 17h‘Table 3 Values of tensile str. s in KN/m? for a loading of I tonne. oe Loading pasion on slab Dee Modulus of| epvof | cer | subgrade Con Ege Lonel Radius of area of loading {omm) timmy | | MN [TR 1001803003503 To) 13000350] 10018 300250 <2 a 137 1181050 940 AO | 1250 1110 980 880 790 | 780 680 390 SIO 450 i 3 2 120 120 90 60 770 | 1170 1030 900 00 720 | 740 640 540 470 410 | 0 s Ym 1070910790 «a0 | 1100 960 8M 730 640 | 700 «00 300 430 370 0 x F250 10% #70740 640 | 1080 910 780K GOO | GRO S70 —4RO_—400 340 <2 #90 800 720 650 | OM RAD 760 GEO 620 | $A S10 480 400. 350 wi 3 x50 750 670 400 | R70 790 700 630 570 | 550 480 420 370 320 0 10700 620. $40 | 20 740 680 $70. S10 | 520 430 390 340 290 20 390670 $80 S10 | 790 700 601 S40 4x0 | S00 440 370 320 280 <2 79 630 $70 $20 | 720 640 600 550. S10 | 440 400 360 320. 290 xo + 67 «OO $40 48D} GRO 620. S40 SIO 460 | 420 380 340 390 260 0 610 $40 $00 HO! 630 SRY S20. 470.420 | 400 360 HO 270 240 0 e20 $40 70 20 | G10 S80 400 440 400 | 3K 340100 260 220 bas sto 0 0) sy sm 4 480 420 | 350 320 290 20 240 Poe S30 0 gon S40 500 440) 430 HAD | 330 300 270 240-220 10 S20 so 30 | S00 477 420390350 | 319 290 250 230 200 » 50 30 350 | 90489410 370330 | 300 270 MO 210190 <2 60420 00, 6 | a7 440 AIO MO_350 | 289 260 240 0206, ‘ 3 480 wo Fo Mu | 499410. 380350330 | 270 250 230 200 180 10 30 30 Xo Mo | s10 390 380 320 300 | 250 230 210 190 170 leet L 420 Sas Sy | son 370 Mo_310_ 280 | 240 230 200 180 160 p ras0 tt | x et 2 ! = to wo | ” t0 ti ie oy 950 | 1000 | ia ba ie t A v0 i310 3 bi io a) ss 1020 1070 = 0 - Se er i é 2 z i g 2 3 . +s 2 Bs 3 an * “8 5 [ASLEWIOTH m Figure 3: The critical bending moment for a loading of 1 kN/nt.bending moment, The critical bending moment is usually the negative moment in mid- lc but in the casc of large aisle widths may be the positive moment. The critical bending ‘moment is shown in Figure 3 for a 1 KN/m? uniform loading. This Figure assumes that the aisle is loaded on both sides. If the aisle is loaded on only one side, the bending, moment from Figure 3 should be halved. The design moment is the bending moment from Figure 3 multiplied by the loading in kN/m? and by the load safety factor. The required tensile strength of the concrete is the design moment divided by the section modulus. The section modulus for unit width is 42/6, The grade of concrete required to withstand a given design bending moment for a given depth of slab may be found from Figure 4. DESIGN BENOONG MOEN AN m en un ‘Figure 4 Shaws the required grade of concrce to withstand the deven Bending moment lor eiferen depths of sla For uniform loading. the slab and sub-base have virtually no load-spreading abi avoid shear failure. therefore. the loading on the slab may have to be limited in the case of organic soils and clays to the bearing capacity of these layers. Loads may also have to be limited to avoid unacceptable consolidation. Stress due to adjacent loads ‘The stress ata position A due to a load at position B may be determined by using Figure 5, which is derived from Westergaard’". The displacement is taken as the distance from the point of maximum stress (position A) to the nearest edge of the adjacent load (at position B). If the adjacent load is at the edge of the slab, a percentage of the edge stress is considered. The edge stress is determined from Table 3 and the percentage to be used from Figure 5. If the adjacent load is internal. a percentage of the internal stress is considered. The internal stress is also determined from Table 3 and the percentage to be used from Figure 5. ‘An edge load at position B induces a radial stress atong the edge. However, aninternal load at position B induces a radial and a tangential stress at position A. The negative portion of the radial stress curves (see Figure 5) means that the stress is tensile on top of the slab. This would therefore increase the corner stress but reduce the edge and internal stresses. The stress at position A may be influenced by more than one adjacent load, as indicated in Figure 6. tnPERCENTAGE OF STRESS BENEATH THELOAD Figure S: Additional sexs due 10 an adjacent load. Combinations of loading n ‘There are two combinations of loading to consider. (1) Wheel and rack loading. Usually two rows of racks are placed “back to back’: therefore the two rear legs of each row impose loads on the floor in close proximity to each other. This ‘double rack leg’ usually controls the design, because it imposes a large load over a small area in comparison with the wheel load. Ifthe racks are placed back to back, the two rear legs should be considered as standing on one base plate equal in area to the two individual base plates. ‘The critical stress is either beneath ‘ede rack leg at the edge or. with the double rack leg at the corner. at a position 2 \/ (4/2)! from the corner ~ see Figure 6a(1). The radial stress from other loads at the edge (whether rack or whee!) will increase the corner stress and decrease the edge stress when displaced more than 07 from the position of critical stress; the reverse is true for displacements less than 0-7/". Ifthe edge position is critical, the tangential stress from any internal loads that are perpendicular to the edge at the critical position will increase the edge stress, providing they are displaced less than 2:51 from the edge. If the racking system is placed internally on the slab. i.e. at least half a metre from any joint, there are three possible positions of critical stress ~ see Figtite 6a(2). These are beneath the wheel at the edge. at 2y/(\/2) ri from the corner for a wheel at the corner and beneath the double rack leg internally. In the first case. the wheel at the edge. the edge stress is increased by the radial stress from the second wheel at the edge ifit is displaced less than 0-71. The edge stress is also increased by the tangential stress from all the internally placed double rack legs which are displaced less than 2-5/ from the edge, on a ¢ perpendicular to the edge. at the critical position. In the second case, owing to the wheel at the corner, the critical stress will be increased by the second wheel at the edge when it is displaced more than 0-7/ from the position of critical stress. In the third case, beneath the double rack leg, the critical stress will be increased by the tangential stress from the adjacent double rack legs up to a displacement of 2-5/ and also by the radial stress from the other legs in a line perpendicular to the double legs through the critical load, and displaced less than 1-0/. ‘The ‘mezzanine’ type of racking system imposes a grid of loads equally spaced on the slab. In this type of racking, the inside legs of the grid impose twice or four times the load of the legs at the perimeter of the grid. The base plates ofthe legs are usually all the same size; consequently the inside legs control the design and are analysed in the same manner 1s the double legs in the back-to-back situation.evn ‘ oreo costo coon rear a“ | | OT - . seen yt oneal ese beneath oad “en 07 eee ‘wean omen crs remot aly ana oO po To fs ov oe cite nanan WHEEL ATEDGE “ ae WHEEL AT CORNER o Figure 6: Positions of maximum stress for different combinations of loading. (2) Wheel and uniform loading. The whee! loading will probably control the design. The comer and edge loading cases should both be checked - see Figure 6b. The second wheel at the edge will increase the edge stress when displaced less than 0+7/ and increase the ‘corner stress when displaced more than 0-7! from the position of critical stress. In the edge case, ifthe second wheel is displaced more than 0-7/, it should be considered internally; the internal tangential stress will then increase the edge stress. Finally the uniform load should be checked to ensure it does not control the design. 13Design examples Example 1: Fork-lift truck with uniform loading Design a floor to withstand the following loadings: (a) A fork-lift truck of 6 tonnes capacity, with a maximum axle load of 15 tonnes, making 130 000 repetitions of loading in the design life of the floor. Wheels are at 1500 mn centres, ‘and the radius of equivalent circular loading area is 150 mm. (®) A uniform loading of 50 KN/m? with aisle widihs of 3:5 m. The modulus of subgrade reaction is 27 MN/m? (equivalent 10.4 CBR value of 3%). Poisson's ratio is O15, There is to be load transfer between slabs. Start by assuming that 30 grade concrete is to be used. From Figure 2, the 28 day ‘modulus of rupture = 3-78 MN/m?. Therefore Allowable 90 day modulus of rupture = 3780. 1-1 For wheel loading, from Table 2, Load safety factor = 160 KN/m? +82 whilst for uniform loading, Load safety factor = 1-5 Hence Design load per wheel (assuming two wheels per axle) = 15/2 1-82 = 1365 tonnes and Radius of semi-circular loaded area (at edge) = 150 (\/2) = 212 mm Initially try a 250 mm deep slab. From Table 4, for a 250 mm slab, /= 1080 mm, Edge loading. Consider the edge loading from Figure 6b for the wheel and uniform loading. rt = ‘The displacement of W/;from Wis (1500 212) = 1288 mm = 1-19/. Asthis displacement is more than 0-71, consider the second wheel located internally (see Figure 6b). ‘The displacement of 1; from W, is now (1500 ~ 150) = 1350 mm = From Table 3, ‘Stress at t +251. edge (¢ = 212 mm} 345 KN/m? per tonne and Stress internally (r= 150 mm) = 230 kN/m? per tonne 14From Figure 5, Additional stress at W, due to W; (internal and tangential) = 8: Hence Stress at Wi; due to W, = 345 x 13-65 = 4710 kN/m? and Stress at W, due to W, = 230 13°65 X 0-085 = 270 kN/m? Introducing the factor of 0-85 for loac transfer at the edge gives Total stress at W, = (4710 + 270) 0-85 = 4230 KN/m? Comer loading. Now consider the corner loading from Figure 6b. The critical position is along the broken arc. ‘The displacement of W, from the critical stress = 1500+ 150-212 - 2 /(/2) x 150 x 1080 = 480 mm = 0-441, As this displacement is less than 0-71, ignore W. (simulating the case when this wheel is on an adjacent slab giving, no stress reduction). From Table 3, ‘Comer stress = 400 KN/m? per tonne ‘Therefore. introducing the factor of 0-7 for load transfer at the corner, Total corner stress = 400 x 13-65 X 0-7 = 3820 kN/m? Uniform loading. The design uniformly distributed load is 1-5 x $0 = 75 KN/m? and from Figure 3, the bending moment (for /= 1080 mm) = 0-32 kN m/m run. Therefore Total bending moment = 0-32 75 = 24 kN m/m run From Figure 4, this bending moment may easily be carried by a 250 mm slab of 30 grade concrete, ‘The actual tensile stress in the slab may be calculated as follows: Stress = Désitn moment _ 24x 10° 6 _ Section modulus (2507 Thus the calculated stresses are: Edge stress 4230 kN/m? ‘Corner stress 3820 kN/m? U.D.L. stress 2300 kKN/m? It is obvious from these calculations that the edge loading condition controls the design and that the calculated edge stress is just above the allowable stress of 4160 kN/m?. Now recheck the edge loading using a 275 mm slab. From Table 4, for a 275 mm slab, 1= 1160 mm. The displacement from I; (as previously) = 1350 mm = I-16! From Table 3, Stress at edge = 295 KN/m? per tonne and Stress internally = 196 kN/m* per tonne From Figure 5, 15Therefore Total stress at HW, ~ {(295 13°65) + (190 X 13:65 X 0-1)] 0°85 = 3640 KN/m? This stress is well inside the allowable stress. Hence the actual stab thickness specified ‘would probably be 275 mm, the optimum thickness being approximately 255 mm. Alternatively, if 40 grade concrete were to be used, we would have, from Table 4, or a 225 mm slab. 1 = 1030 mm. From Figure 2, 28 day modulus of rupture = 4°77 MN/m? Therefore Allowable 90 day modulus of rupture = 4770 X 1-1 = 5250 KN/m? For the edge case. the displacement of Ws from W, =1350 mm = 1-310 From Table 3, Stress at edge = 410 KN/m* per tonne and Stress internally = 270 kN/m* per tonne From Figure 5. Stress at W, due to Ws (internal and tangential) = 7-5% Therefore Total stress at W/, = (410 X 13:65) + (270 13°65 x 0-075) 0:85 = 4990 kN/m? Hence a 225mm slab would be acceptable with a 40 grade concrete and a 255 mm slab with 30 grade. Example 2: Fork-lift truck with rack loading 16 Design a floor slab to withstand the following loadings: (a) A fork-lift truck of 25 tonnes capacity, with a maximum axle load of 6 tonnes, making 100000 repetitions of loading in the design life of the floor. The wheels are at 1000 mm centres. The radius of the circular loaded area is 100 ram. (6) Back-to-back racks with leg loads of 4 tonnes at 2-5 m wide by 1-0 m deep centres. The Joading area on the slab is 100X100 mm. The modulus of subgrade reaction is $4 MN/m? (equivalent to a CBR of 10%). Poisson's ratio is O15. There is to be load transfer bemween stabs. Start by assuming that 40 grade concrete is to be used. From Figure 2, the 28 day modulus of rupture = 4°77 MN/m?. Therefore 90 day modulus of rupture = 4770 I-1 = $250 kN/m? For wheel loading, from Table 2. Load safety factor = 1-79 whilst for rack loading Load safety factor = 1-5 622% 1-79 15= 6 tonnes Design load per wheel (assuming two wheels per axle) 37 tonnes Design load for rack (single leg) = Design load for rack (double leg) Radius of semicircular wheel load (at edge) = 100 (\/2) = 141 mm Radius of equivalent circular area (single leg) =/(100)'7m = 56 mm Radius of equivalent semicircular area (single leg) = 56 (/2) = 80 mm Radius of equivalent circular area (double leg) = 200% T007m = 80 mm 112mm 155 12 tonnes Razlius of equivalent semicircular area (double leg) = 80 (V/2) Initially try a 250 mm deep slab. From Table 4, for a 250 mm deep slab, / = 930 mm.Rack at the edge, Consider the edge loading from Figure 6a(1) for the wheel and rack loading. ‘Reand wo ou 0 ‘and fae sna ase The displacement -of Rz from R, is 2500+ 50~80= 2470 mm = 2-65) and the displacement of R; and R, from R, is 1050 ~ 80 mm = 1-041. From Table 3, Edge stress beneath R, ( 80 KN/m? per tonne and Edge stress beneath R, and R, (r= 80 mm) = 398 KN/m? per tonne Also from Table 3, Internal stress beneath R, (r= 80 mm) = 238 kN/m® per tonne From Figure 5, Stress at R, due to R; (internal and tangential) = 0 and Stress at R; due to Ry and R, (edge and radial) = ~ 89% Hence Stress at R, due to R, = 380 X 12= 4560 kN/m* and Stress at R, due to Ry and Ry =~ 2X 398 X 6 X 0-08 = ~382 KN/m? Therefore Total stress at Ry = (4560 ~ 382) 0-85 =3550 kN, ‘The 0-85 is the factor for load transfer at the edge. Rack at the comer. Now consider the corner loading from Figure 6a(1). The critical position is along the broken arc. Fa Ry and Ry 28 ob ops Displacement of R; from position of maximum stress = 2500 + 80 ~ 112 ~ 2y/(/2) x 80 X 930 = 1818 mm = 1-957 Displacement of R; from position of maximum stress = 1818 + 2500 = 4318 mm = 461 71B From Table 3, Corner stress due to Ry (r= 80 mm) = 454 KN/m? per tonne and Edge stress due to R: and Ry(r = 112 mm) = 380 kN/m? per tonne From Figure 5, Stress at critical position due (o Ry (radial and edge) 1% and Stress at critical position due to R; (radial and edge) = 0 ‘The negative edge stress means tensile stress at the top of the stab; therefore the stress is added to the comer st ess, Hence. Stress at critical position due to R, = 454 x 12 = 5450 kN/m? Stress at critical position due to R: = 380 X 12 0-11 =500 KN/m? and Stress at critical position due to Ry = 0 Therefore Total stress at critical position = (5450 + 500) 0-7 = ‘The 0-7 is the factor for load transfer at the corner. 170 KN/m? Wheel at the edge. Now consider the wheel at the edgr from Figure 6a(2). The displacement of W from Wis 1000 - 141 = 859 mm = 0-92/and the displacement of Ry, from 1 is 500 ~ 80 = 420 mm = 0-451. ae Wy wee to 8 From Table 3. Edge stress due to W ind Ws (r= 141 mm) = 360 KN/m? per tonne and Internal stress due to Ry (r = 80 mm) = 238 KN/m? per tonne From Figure 5. Stress at W, due to W; (edge and radial) = ~5:5% and Stress at W’, due to R, (internal and tangential) = 33% Hence Suress at W, due to W, = 360 x 5:37 = 1930 kN/m? Stress at W, due to W; = ~360 X 5-37 & 04055 = =110 KN/m? and Stress at W, due to R, = 238 12 0-33 = 940 kN/m? Therefore Total stress at W, = (1930 - 110 + 940) 0-85 = 2350 kN/m?Wheel at the corner. Consider a wheel at the corner, Figure 6a(2). Displacement of W, from position of maximum stress = 1000 + 100~ 141 ~ 2. @/2) x 100 x 930 =232 mm = 0-251 As this displacement is less than 0-T/, ignore the wheel 1; (simulating when this wheel is ‘on an adjacent stab giving no stress reduction). From Table 3, Corner stress due to W, = 430 KN/m? per tonne ‘Therefore Total corner stress = 0-7 x 430 x 5:37 = 1620 kN/m? Racks internally. Now consider the racks internally, from Figure 6a(2). Rand Ay ara dou ops Fan ae sng os Displacement of R. and Ry from R, is 1000 mm = 1 Displacement of R, and R; from R, is 2500 ~ 8 From Table 3, Internal stress due to R,. Ry and R, (7 = 80) = 238 kN/m? per tonne and Internal stress due to R; and R; (r = 56) = 248 kN/m? per tonne In the x direction: From Figure 5, Additional stress at R, due to R, and R, (internal and tangential) = 0 and ‘Additional stress at R, due to Ry and R; (internal and radial) = ~2% Hence ‘Stress at R, due to R, = 12 X 238 = 2860 kN/m? Stress at R, due to R, and R, = -2 X 6 X 248 X 0-02 = -60 kN/m? and Stress at R, due to R, and Ry =0 Therefore Total stress at R, = 2860~ 60 = 2800 kN/m? 19In the y direction: nal stress at R, due to R, and Ry (internal and radial) =- 65% Additional stress at R, due to R; and R; (internal and tangential) = 11-59% Hence Stress at R, due to R, Stress at R, due to R; and R; 12. 238 = 2860 KN/m? % 6 X 248 0-115 = 340 KN/m? and ~2X 12% 238 x 0-065 = Stress at R, due to Ry and Ry 370 KN/m* Therefore Total stress at R, = 2860+ 340 - 370 = 2830 kN/m? ‘Thus the calculated stresses are: Rack edge stress = 3550 kN/m? Rack corner stress = 4170 KN/m? ‘Wheel edge stress = 2350 N/m? Wheel comer stress. = 1620 kN/m? Rack internal stress = 2830 kN/m? tis obvious from these calculations that the double rack leg at the corner of the slab controls the design. The calculated corner stress is well below the allowable stress of 5250 KN/m*: therefore reduce the slab depth to 225 mm and recalculate the stress. From Table 4. for a 225 mm slab. /= 860 mm. Displacement of R: from position of maximum = (2500 + 80) \/(/2)% 80 * 860 ~ 112 = 1843 mm = 2-14) um stress From Tabe 3. Corner stress due to Ry (r= 80 mm) = 552 KN/m® per tonne and Edge stress due to Ry (r= From Figure $ Stress at critical position due to R; (radial and edge) =~ 105% (negative means tensile on top of siab) 12. mm) = 458 kN/m! per tonne Hence Stress at critical position due to R, = 12 552 = 6620 kN/m? and 12. 458 X 0-105 = $80 kN/m? ‘Stress at critical position due to Therefore Total stress at R, = (6620 + 580) 0-7 = 5040 kN/m? ‘This stress is slightly below the allowable stress of 5250 kN/m*; therefore a 225 mm slab would be specified. Now, if the concrete to be used was 30 grade. From Table 4, trying a 250 mm slab, /= 910 mm. From Figure 2, 28 day modulus of rupture = 3-78 MN/m? ‘Therefore Allowable 90 day modulus of rupture = 3780 X 1-1 = 4160 kN/m? If we consider the corner loading case, Displacement of R; from position of critical stress = 2500 + 80~ 112~ 2 /(/2) x 80 x 910 = 1826 mm = 24 From Table 3, Comer stress due to R, = 455 KN/m? per tonneand Edge stress due to Ry = 380 kN/m* per tonne From Figure 5, Additional stress at critical position due to R (radial and edge) =~ 11% (again negative means tensile on top of slab) Hence Stress at critical position due to R, = 455 12 = $460 kN/m? and Stress at critical position due to Ry = 380% 12% 0-11 = 500 kN/m? Therefore Total stress at critical position = (5460 + 500) 0-7 = 4170 KN/m? Although this exceeds the allowable stress by 10 kN/m?, a 250 mm slab would bedeemed acceptable. THence a 225 mm slab would be acceptable for 40 grade concrete and a 250 mm for 30 ‘rade concrete. General design table Table Sindicates the maximum loads that may be imposed upon a floor using the designs and assumptions outlined in this report. This Table assumes that there is load transfer between adjacent bays of the floor. that 30 grade concrete is to be used and that there isa good subgrade or sub-base (whichever is directly beneath the slab). The forklift trucks ‘were assumed to have pneumatic tyres. In the calculations, good subgrade was assumed to have a modulus of subgrade reaction of 54 MN/m’, which is equivalent toa CBR of 10%. A poor subgrade was assumed to have values of 13 MN/m? and less than 2% respectively. ‘The load factors at the foot of each section of the Table give the multiplying factor for cconditicns varying from those in the Table. The load from the Table is multiplied by the relevant load factor to obtain the maximum loading. ‘Table $ Maximum loads to be imposed upon different depths of floor slab of 30 grade concrete. vorcutmeess | aaxceromack maces Mrzzanine-ryPe RACKS | CRFORMLY DISTRIBUTED Fork capacity Leg toad Leg load Loading | Critical Depth of onnes) Gonnes) tonnes) (kN/ent) slab width (um) ‘Width of racks ‘Minimum plan dimension (mn) (eo (m) AB cp | oots 2127 ase as] 3 4 5 6 | lA 150 2423022 21 | rs 6 be te a7 er ey [ona 3232 | aoa | on rs 1s 353332 0 | 20 20 21 21 22 22 22] 41 42 42 42 | 4 94 | 25 pp. Road Note 29. WALKERS and BLOF. 1 Effects of aggregate sie on properties of concrete. Joumal of the “American Concrete Insitute. Proceedings Vol. ‘57, No. 3. September 1960. pp. 283-298. The structural we of concrete. Part |: Design, materials and workmanship. London, 1972. 184 pp. CP 110: Pare T: 1972, 10. Mn 2, " PANAK..and RAUHUT.J.8 Behavior and design ‘of industrial slabs on grade, Journal of the American Concrete Institute, Proceedings Vol. 72, No. 5. May 1975, pp. 219-224, ‘HMDS, D. Land KAPERRICK. J. W. Tests on concrete pavements on gravel sub-bates, Cheapo, Portland Cement Association, 1958. Develop- ‘ment Department Bulletin D2 Reprinted ‘rom: Journal of the Highway Division. Proceevings ‘American Sociewy of Clit Engineers. Vol. 84, No. HWA. October 1958. pp. 1800-11800: "1 KELLEY. KF Application “of the results of research to the structural design of conercte pavements. Journal of the American Concrete Insitute, Proceedings Vol. 38,No. 6. June 1239, pr. 437-464, TICKETT. G. A study of stresses on the comer region of pavement slabs under large corner loads. Concrete Pavement Design. ‘Chicago. Portland Cement Association, 1951. Appendix 3. pp. 77-81 HUDSOS.W Rand MATLOCK. 1. Diserete-element ‘analysis for discontinuous plates. Praceedines of the American Society of Civil Engineers. Vol. 94, No. ST 10. October 1968. pp. 2257-2279, PANAK. 3. and MATLOCK. Hd diterete element ‘method of multiple-loading analysis for two-way ‘ridge floor slabs. Austin. Center for Highwriy Research, The University of Texas, January 1970, Research Report 36-13, SIHLZIR, © Je and HUDSON. w R_A direct Computer solution for plates and pavement slabs. Austin, Center for Highway Research, The University of Texas, October 1967. Research Report 56-9. Ict.# + Design of concrete Roars on ground for warehouse loadings. Jounal of the American Concrte Institue. Proceedings Vol. 54, No. 2 ‘August 1957. pp. 105-113,