Software Verification

PROGRAM NAME: SAFE

REVISION NO.: 0

EXAMPLE 10
PCA Flat Plate Test

PROBLEM DESCRIPTION
This example models the flat plate structure tested by the Portland Cement
Association (Guralnick and LaFraugh 1963). The structure consists of nine 5.25-
inch-thick 15-foot × 15-foot panels arranged 3 × 3, as shown in Figure 10-1.
Deep and shallow beams are used on the exterior edges. The structure is
symmetric about the diagonal line through columns A1, B2, C3, and D4, except
the columns themselves are not symmetric about this line. The corner columns
are 12 inches × 12 inches and the interior columns are 18 inches × 18 inches.
Columns along the edges are 12 inches × 18 inches, with the longer dimension
parallel to the plate edge. A typical section of the plate and details of edge beams
are given in Figure 10-2. The total moments in an interior frame obtained
numerically from SAFE are compared with the test results and the numerical
values obtained by the Equivalent Frame Method (EFM).

A finite element model, shown in Figure 10-3, with 6 × 6 mesh per panel is
employed in the analysis. The slab is modeled using the plate elements in SAFE.
The columns are modeled as point supports with vertical and rotational
stiffnesses. The reduced-height columns in the test structure are fixed at the base.
Hence, rotational stiffnesses of point supports are calculated using a stiffness
coefficient of 4 and an effective height of 39.75 inches (Kc = 4EI / lc). In order to
account for rigidity of the slab-column joint, the portion of slab occupying the
column area is modeled as rigid by using a special stiff area element. A total
uniformly distributed design load of 156 psf (not factored) is applied to all the
panels.

To obtain design moment coefficients, the plate is divided into column and
middle strips. An interior design frame consists of one column strip and half of
each adjacent middle strip. Normalized values of design moments are used in the
comparison.

EXAMPLE 10 - 1
Software Verification
PROGRAM NAME: SAFE
REVISION NO.: 0

A B C D

15'− 0" 15'− 0" 15'− 0"

12"
Shallow Beam 12" x 8 ¼"
1
12" 18" 18" 12"

Deep Beam 6" x 15 ¾"

Shallow Beam 12" x 8 ¼"

15'− 0"
Design Frame
Shallow Beam Side
2

18"
A A
15'− 0"
18"

3
Design Frame
Deep Beam Side
15'− 0"

4
Deep Beam 6" x 15 ¾"
12"

Figure 10-1 PCA Flat Plate Example

EXAMPLE 10 - 2
 Software Verification
PROGRAM NAME: SAFE
REVISION NO.: 0

A B C D
15'−0" 15'−0" 15'−0"
Shallow Beam Deep Beam
8 ¼" 15 ¾"
5 ¼"
3' −3 ¾"
12" 18" 18" 12"

2'−9"

Anchor Bolts
SECTION A-A

Figure 10-2 Section and Details of PCA Flat Plate Example

Figure 10-3 SAFE Mesh (6 × 6 per panel)

EXAMPLE 10 - 3
Software Verification
PROGRAM NAME: SAFE
REVISION NO.: 0

GEOMETRY, PROPERTIES AND LOADING

Concrete strength fc' = 4.1 ksi
Yield strength of steel fy = 40 ksi
Concrete unit weight wc = 150 pcf
Modulus of elasticity Ec = 3670 ksi
Poisson's ratio v = 0.2

Live load w1 = 70 psf

Dead load wd = 86 psf

TECHNICAL FEATURES OF SAFE TESTED

 Calculation of factored forces in slab.

RESULTS COMPARISON
The SAFE results for the total non-factored moments in an interior frame are
compared with test results and the Equivalent Frame Method (EFM). The test
and EFM results are all obtained from Corley and Jirsa (1970). The moments are
compared in Table 10-1. The negative design moments reported are at the faces
of the columns. Overall, the agreement between the SAFE and EFM results is
good. The experimental negative moments at exterior sections, however, are
comparatively lower. This may be partially the result of a general reduction of
stiffness due to cracking in the beam and column connection at the exterior
column, which is not accounted for in an elastic analysis. It is interesting to note
that even with an approximate representation of the column flexural stiffness, the
comparison of negative exterior moments between EFM and SAFE is excellent.

EXAMPLE 10 - 4
 Software Verification
PROGRAM NAME: SAFE
REVISION NO.: 0

Table 10-1 Comparison of Measured and Computer Moments

Moments in an Interior Design Frame (M / Wl 1 *)

End Span End Span

Middle Span
(Shallow Beam Side) (Deep Beam Side)

− +M − − +M − − +M −
Method M M M M M M

PCA Test 0.037 0.047 0.068 0.068 0.031 0.073 0.073 0.042 0.031

EFM 0.044 0.048 0.067 0.062 0.038 0.062 0.068 0.049 0.043

SAFE
0.040 0.051 0.069 0.062 0.041 0.062 0.068 0.052 0.039
(Shallow Beam Slide)

SAFE
0.040 0.051 0.068 0.062 0.041 0.062 0.068 0.052 0.039
(Deep Beam Slide)

* Wl 1 = 526.5 kip-ft

COMPUTER FILE:
S10.FDB

CONCLUSION
The SAFE results show an acceptable comparison with the independent results.

EXAMPLE 10 - 5