Yield-line formulae for slabs

K. W. Johansen
Yield-line formulae
for slabs
K. W. Johansen
P ro fesso r, DrTechn,
Technical University of Denmark

CRC Press
Taylor & Francis Gr oup
' Boca Raton London New York

CRC Press is an imprint of the

Taylor & Francis Group, an informa business
The cost of translating this standard work by Professor Johansen has been
met by a group of his friends among Danish consulting engineers

CRC Press
Taylor & Francis Group
6000 Broken Sound Parkway N W , Suite 300
Boca Raton, FL 33487-2742

First issued in hardback 2017

This English edition © 1972 by K. W. Johansen

CRC Press is an imprint o f Taylor & Francis Group, an inform a business

N o claim to original U.S. G overnm ent works

ISBN-13: 978-0-7210-0819-6 (pbk)

ISBN-13: 978-1-1384-7039-2 (hbk)

This b o o k contains inform ation obtained from authentic and highly regarded sources. Reasonable
efforts have been made to publish reliable data and inform ation, but the author and publisher
cannot assume responsibility for the validity o f all materials or the consequences o f their use. The
authors and publishers have attempted to trace the copyright holders o f all material reproduced
in this publication and apologize to copyright holders if perm ission to publish in this form has
not been obtained. If any copyright material has not been acknowledged please write and let us
know so we may rectify in any future reprint.

Except as perm itted under U.S. Copyright Law, n o part o f this b ook may be reprinted, reproduced,
transmitted, or utilized in any form by any electronic, mechanical, or other means, now know n or
hereafter invented, including photocopying, m icrofilm ing, and recording, or in any inform ation
storage or retrieval system, without written perm ission from the publishers.

Trademark Notice: Product or corporate names may be trademarks or registered trademarks,

and are used only for identification and explanation without intent to infringe.

Visit the Taylor & Francis W eb site at

http://www.taylorandfrancis.com

and the CRC Press W eb site at

http://www.crcpress.com

Designed and published by the

Cement and Concrete Association,
52 Grosvenor Gardens, London, SW1W OAQ
Contents

Foreword by Troels Brpndum-Nielsen ix

List o f K. W. Johansen's scientific publications xi

Introduction 1

0 Slabs spanning in one direction (beams) 2

0.1 Uniformly distributed load 2

0. 2 Point loads 3

1 Rectangular slabs 5

1.1 Supported on all four sides 5

1.11 Uniformly distributed load 5
1.12 Triangular load distribution 7
1.13 Line loads 8
1.14 Point loads (wheel loads) 9
1.15 Slabs with holes 10
1.16 Extent of reinforcement at the restrained edges 13
1.17 Deflexions 14
1.18 Orthotropic slabs 17
1.19 Numerical example 17

1. 2 Supported along three sides 19

1. 21 Uniformly distributed load and line load 19
1. 22 Triangular loading 24
1.23 Point load 26
1. 24 Slabs with holes 26
1. 25 Extent of top reinforcement 27
1.26 Deflexions 29
1.27 Numerical example 29

1. 3 Supported along two adjacent sides 29

1.31 Uniformly distributed load and line load 29
1.32 Point load 30
1.33 Deflexions 31
1.34 Numerical example 31

1. 4 Supported along two opposite sides 32

1.41 Uniformly distributed load and line load 32
1.42 Point load 34
1.43 Wheel loads 36

1. 5 Cantilever slabs (restrained along one side) 38

1.51 Line load 38
1. 52 Point loads 39

v
 1. 6 Supported on one side and columns 41
1. 61 Column at the middle 41
1. 62 Column at the corner 42
1. 63 Columns at both corners 44

1. 7 Supported on two adjacent sides and a column 48

1. 71 Column at the free corner 48
1. 72 Column inside the free corner 51

1. 8 Supported on four columns 52

2 Skew slabs 55

2.1 Parallelogram-shaped slabs 55

2.11 Supported on all four sides 55
2.12 Supported on two sides 56

2. 2 Trapezoidal slab 58
2. 21 Supported on all four sides 58
2. 22 Supported on three sides 60
2. 23 Supported on two sides 61

2. 3 Convex quadrilateral slab supported on four sides 63

3 Triangular slabs 65

3.1 Supported on three sides 65

3. 2 Triangular slab supported on two sides 68

3. 3 Isosceles triangle simply supported on one side and a column 70

3.4 Equilateral triangle supported on columns at the corners 71

4 Circular slabs 73

4.0 Polar reinforcement 73

4.1 Simple circular slab 75

4.11 Isotropic reinforcement 75
4.12 Polar reinforcement 76

4. 2 Ring-shaped slabs 77
4.21 Supported along the inner edge, free at the outer edge 77
4. 22 Supported along the outer edge, free at the inner edge 79
4. 23 Supported along both edges 80

4. 3 Slabs on soil 82
4. 31 Plastic soil 82
4. 32 Non-plastic soil 83

4. 4 Slab supported on columns 84

5 Flat-slab structures 87

5. 0 Conditions at the columns 87

5.1 Inner panels 88

5.11 Square panels 88
5.12 Rectangular panels 89

5. 2 Outer panels 90
5. 21 Edge panel 90
5. 22 Corner panels 90

5. 3 Single row of columns 91

5.4 Bottom of circular tank on columns 92

5.41 Supported on four columnsat the middle 92
5. 42 Supported on four columns at the middle and around the
circumference 93

6 Choice of reinforcement 96

6.1 Isotropic reinforcement—Orthotropic reinforcement 96

6. 2 Polar reinforcement 97

6. 3 Degree of restraint 98

Subject index 101

Sign convention, signs and symbols 105

vii
Foreword

On 26 August 1971, P rofessor K. W. Johansen, Dr techn, celebrates his seventieth

anniversary, and this means that he will be retiring after forty years of in­
spiring work at the Structural Research Laboratory of the Technical University
of Denmark.
K. W. Johansen has been a member of the board of the Danish Society for
Structural Science and Engineering for many years, with two long periods as
Chairman; in 1970, he was made an honorary member of the Society. Since
1949, he has been a member of the Danish Academy of Technical Science. In
1955, he received the Augustinus Award, a scientific grant conferred by a
foundation, the administrative board of which includes the vice-chancellors of
three Danish universities, and in 1971, the Institution of Structural Engineers,
London, honoured him with its Gold Medal.

Internationally, P rofessor Johansen is known for his work in the International

Association for Bridge and Structural Engineering, and for several years he
has been a member of the Executive Council of the International Association
for Shell Structures. Although, in international circles, our retiring professor
is usually referred to as P rofessor Johansen, among Danish colleagues he is
best known as K. W.
K. WTs first paper on the ultimate bearing capacity of reinforced concrete
slabs was "Beregning af krydsarmerede jernbetonpladers brudmoment"
(Calculation of the yield moment of cross-rein forced concrete slabs), Bygnings-
statiske Meddelelser, Vol. 3, 1931, pp. 1-18. The German version of this paper,
wBruchmomente der kreuzweise bewehrten Platten", was published in the Inter­
national Association for Bridge and Structural Engineering’s "Publications", Vol.
1, 1932, pp. 277-296. In the same year, Johansen published another paper on
slabs, "Nogle pladeform ler" (Some formulae for slabs), in Bygningsstatiske
Meddelelser, Vol. 4,1932, pp. 77-84.

K. W. Johansen’s yield-line theory for slabs was adopted very early by Danish
engineers. This was possible because of Denmark’s very liberal traditions as
regards codes of practice. As long ago as 1908, the Danish codes for reinforced
concrete structures specified a beam analysis that can be characterized as a
modified yield-hinge theory, and in 1921, the yield-line theory for slabs p ro­
posed by the Danish engineer Aage Ingerslev came into use.
In 1943, K. W. Johansen published his thesis, "Brudlinieteorier" (Yield-line
theories), which resulted in increasing use of his method. Unfortunately, only
a few engineers outside Scandinavia were able to read Johansen’s thesis
because it was in Danish; some engineers even went to the trouble of learning
Danish in order to get the full benefit of this important book. Fortunately, in
1962, it was finally translated into English and Portuguese ("Yield-line theory",
London, Cement and Concrete Association, 1962; "Linhas de ruptura; teoria e
pr£tica",R io de Janeiro, Ao Livro Tecnico S. A., 1962).

In the meantime, Johansen published further papers in which he developed a

large number of formulae for slabs: "Pladeform ler" (Formulae for slabs).
These were first published in 1946. Because they are easy to apply in practice,
these formulae have been widely used in Denmark ever since. A certain amount
of practice is necessary in using the yield-line theory because the type of
yield-line pattern to be considered has to be estimated in each case. The
present book, which is a translation of Johansen’s Danish book, "Pladeform ler",
should eliminate this obstacle for all the cases it covers. However, a study
of the original thesis, "Yield-line theory", is recommended for those wishing to
derive full benefit from the present book.

One great advantage of the yield-line theory is that it covers many different
shapes of slab and complicated cases of loading. It is a difficult problem to
analyse the elastic stress distribution in such cases, whereas a solution can
usually be reached quite easily by means of the yield-line theory.
Johansen’s papers cover the entire field of the theory of structures, elasticity,
plasticity, stability, dynamic problems, plates, shells, folded plates, steel, rein­
forced concrete, prestressed concrete, timber, etc. This is amply illustrated
by the bibliography in this book, which covers sixty of his papers.
Most engineers know Johansen for his work on yield-line theory. He sometimes
finds this a little depressing, remarking that people seem to think he knows
little or nothing else, and that he is thoroughly fed up with his theory. We were,
therefore, somewhat apprehensive about suggesting that this English edition
of his " Formulae for slabs” should be published, but fortunately our idea met
with his approval.
As most of Johansen’s other works have only been published in Danish, we
would like to mention a few of the most important papers here.
As early as 1928, he wrote nOm virkningen af b0jler og skraajern i jernbeton-
bjselker” (On the effect of stirrups and bent-up bars in reinforced concrete
beams), in which he presented an original discussion of the action of reinforce­
ment in concrete beams, which departed completely from the conventional
views of the time. The same questions were touched upon in his paper,
wBeregning af jernbetonbjaelker” (Design of reinforced concrete beams),
Bygningsstatiske Meddelelser, Vol. 16,1945, pp. 35-64, and in his contribution,
"Critical remarks on the effect of bent-up bars and stirrups in reinforced
concrete beams", made to International Association for Bridge and Structural
Engineering, Fifth Congress, Lisbon-Oporto, 1956, Final Report 1957, pp. 507-
512. Some of the ideas presented in these papers differ very little from those
adopted at a much later date in codes and recommendations.
In 1937, Johansen wrote a paper, "B0jningsfri spaendingstilstande i skaller"
(Membrane stresses in shells), and in 1944, "Skalkonstruktion paa Radiohuset.
Beregning og fors0g" (Shell at the Radio Centre. Design and tests). In the
latter he presented a theory of rupture for cylindrical shells. The method was
used for the design of a large roof structure in Copenhagen, and his ideas were
later adopted and further developed by H. Lundgren in his thesis, "Cylindrical
shells", Copenhagen, The Danish Technical P ress, 1949.
Johansen’s paper, "Pladetrapper" (Staircase slabs) from 1940 provides a good
example of his simple approach to practical problems—in this case, folded-
plate structures.
Although Johansen is a very fine mathematician, he disapproves of the use of
complicated mathematical solutions in cases in which a sound engineering
approach can solve the problem. He constantly emphasizes the importance
of the real physical behaviour of the materials and of simple and logical
analysis. He is known to be very critical, but his contributions to discussions
have always held the attention of his audience. We cannot resist the temptation
here to quote his comment on safety from "Forspaendt beton" (Prestressed
concrete), Copenhagen, 1951:
"It should be noted that the antiquated concept ’perm issible stresses’ has
been completely abandoned in the foregoing considerations. We are left with
the concept of safety, which is generally settled more or less conventionally
in the form of a factor of safety, the magnitude of which is usually agreed upon
by a suitable commission of nice, elderly engineers. The factors of safety are
preferably selected from the positive integers higher than unity, although such
values as 1-5 and 2*5 are also encountered."
Troels Br0ndum-Nielsen
on behalf of the
Structural Research Laboratory of the
Technical University of Denmark

x
List of K. W . Johansen's scientific publications

The papers are arranged in chronological order. Papers published within the
same year are arranged in alphabetical order.
Most of the papers are in Danish. The language of each particular paper is
that in which the title is first given.

Nomogram til beregning af T-bjaelker med tynd plade uden hensyntagen til
kroppens trykspaendinger. (Nomogram for the analysis of T beams with thin
plate without regard to the com pressive stresses in the web.) Ingeni0ren.
Vol. 35, No. 9. February 1926. pp. 101-103.

Symmetriske jaernbetontvaersnit. (Reinforced concrete beams with symmetrical

sections.) Ingeni0ren. Vol. 36, No. 45. November 1927. pp. 542-546.

Om virkningen o f b0jler og skrajern i jernbetonbjaelker. (On the effect of

stirrups and bent-up bars in reinforced concrete beams.) Copenhagen,Danmarks
Naturvidenskabelige Samfund, 1928. pp. 52. A No. 17.

Bjaelkes0jler. (Beam-columns.) Bygningsstatiske Meddelelser. Vol. 2, No. 5.

October 1930. pp. 85-94.

Styrkeforholdene i st0beskel i beton. (The strength of concrete in construction

joints.) Bygningsstatiske Meddelelser. Vol. 2, No. 4. August 1930. pp. 67-68.

S0jler med variabel kraft og stivhed. (Columns with variable axial force and
rigidity.) Bygningsstatiske M eddelelser. Vol. 2, No. 2. March 1930. pp. 23-38.

Beregning af krydsarmerede jernbetonpladers brudmoment. (Calculation of

the yield moment of cross-rein forced concrete slabs.) Bygningsstatiske
Meddelelser. Vol. 3, No. 1. February 1931. pp. 1-18.

Bruchmomente der kreuzweise bewehrten Platten. (Yield moments in c ro s s ­

reinforced slabs.) Zurich, International Association for Bridge and Structural
Engineering, 1932. Publications. Vol. 1. pp. 277-296.

Nogle pladeformler. (Some formulae for slabs.) Bygningsstatiske M eddelelser.

Vol. 4, No. 4. December 1932. pp. 77-84.

B0jningsfri spaendingstilstande i skaller. (Membrane stresses in shells.)

Bygningsstatiske Meddelelser. Vol. 9, No. 2. 1937. pp. 61-84.

Pladetrapper. (Staircase slabs.) Bygningsstatiske Meddelelser. Vol. 11, No. 2.

1940. p p .13-21.

R itz’s tilnaermelsesmetode. (The approximate method of Ritz.) Bygningsstatiske

Meddelelser. Vol. 11, No. 2. 1940. pp. 25-26.

Specielle traekonstruktioner. (Special timber structures.) (Co-author: J.-E .

Ekstrom). In Willy Hansen (Ed.): T0m rer- og bygningssnedkerarbejde. Copen­
hagen, Emil Wienes Bogforlag, 1940. pp. 232-272.

Strengbeton. (Pre-tensioned concrete.) Bygningsstatiske Meddelelser. Vol. 11,

No. 2. 1940. pp. 22-24.

Udmattelsesfaenomener. (Fatigue problem s.) Bygningsstatiske M eddelelser.

Vol. 11, No. 2. 1940. pp. 31-32.

Vridning af trappetrin. (Torsion of stairs.) Bygningsstatiske M eddelelser.

Vol. 11, No. 2. 1940. pp. 27-30.
Brudlinieteorier. (Yield-line theories.) Thesis. Copenhagen, Jul. Gjellerups
Forlag, 1943. pp. 191. Reprinted 1952, 1958 and 1961.
Superpositionsloven og Hooke's lov. (The law of superposition and Hooke's
law.) Bygningsstatiske M eddelelser. Vol. 14, No. 2. 1943. pp. 53-58.

Skalkonstruktion paa Radiohuset. Beregning og fors0g. (Shell at the Radio

Centre. Design and tests.) Bygningsstatiske Meddelelser. Vol. 15, No. 1. 1944.
pp. 1-26.

Beregning af jernbetonbjaelker. (Design of reinforced concrete beams.)

Bygningsstatiske Meddelelser. Vol. 16, No. 2. 1945. pp. 35-64.

Laboratoriet for Bygningsstatik: Indmurede trapper. (Built-in stairs.)

Bygningsstatiske M eddelelser. Vol. 16, No. 1. 1945. pp. 27-34.

Fors0g med hulstensdaek. (Tests with hollow-pot floors.) Bygningsstatiske

M eddelelser. Vol. 17, No. 1. 1946. pp. 18-44.

Pladeform ler. (Formulae for slabs.) Copenhagen, Polyteknisk Forening, 1946.

pp. 186. Second edition, Copenhagen, Polyteknisk Forening, 1949. pp. 186. Third
edition, Copenhagen, Polyteknisk Forlag, 1968. pp. 240.

Vridningsfors0g med trappetrin. (Torsion tests with stairs.) Bygningsstatiske

M eddelelser. Vol. 17, No. 1. 1946. pp. 11-17.

Plader pa jord. (Plates on soil.) Dansk Vejtidsskrift. Vol. 26, No. 8. August
1949. p p .146-157.

Theory of timber connections. Zurich, International Association for Bridge

and Structural Engineering, 1949. Publications. Vol. 7. pp. 249-262.

Critical notes on the calculation and design of cylindrical shells. International

Association fo r Bridge and Structural Engineering. Third C on gress,1948,
Liege. Final Report, 1950. pp. 601-606.

Foreldesninger over elasticitets- og styrkelsere,l-5. (Lectures on the theory

of elasticity and strength of materials.) Copenhagen, Polyteknisk Forening,
1950-53. pp. 125. Second edition, Copenhagen, Polyteknisk Forening, 1958-59.
pp. 161. Third edition (abbreviated edition in one volume), Copenhagen, Akade-
misk Forlag, 1967. pp. 96.

Hjultryk pa indspaendt plade med fri forstaerket rand. (Concentrated loads on

built-in slabs with a free, strengthened edge.) Bygningsstatiske M eddelelser.
Vol. 21, No. 5. 1950. pp. 145-160.

Om differensligninger. (On difference equations.) Copenhagen, Structural

Research Laboratory, Technical University of Denmark, 1950. Bulletin No. 1.
p p .64-70.

On integration of the differential equation for thin shells without bending.

International Association fo r Bridge and Structural Engineering, Third Congress,
1948, Liege. Final Report, 1950. pp. 597-600.

The ultimate strength of reinforced concrete slabs. International Congress fo r

Bridge and Structural Engineering. Third Congress, 1948, Liege. Final Report,
1950. p p .565-570.

Forspaendt beton. (Prestressed concrete.) In: Dansk Ingeni0rforenirig (Ed.):

Forspdendt beton. Copenhagen, Teknisk Forlag, 1951. pp. 37-44.

Ekscentrisk pavirkede nittegrupper. (Eccentrically loaded groups of rivets.)

Bygningsstatiske M eddelelser. Vol. 23, No. 2. 1952. pp. 17-22.

Bjaelker og buer. (Beams and arches.) Copenhagen, Structural Research

Laboratory, Technical University of Denmark, 1954. Bulletin No. 3. pp. 33-52.

xii
?lasticitetsteorien for plankrumme bjaslker belastede vinkelret pa deres plan.
The theory of plasticity for plane-curved beams loaded at right-angles to
:heir plane.) Copenhagen, Structural Research Laboratory, Technical University
)f Denmark, 1954. Bulletin No. 3. pp. 33-52.

Skaev b0jning. (Unsymmetrical bending.) Copenhagen, Structural Research

Laboratory, Technical University of Denmark, 1954. Bulletin No. 3. pp. 21-32.

For el x suing er over svingningsteori. Faseplanmetoden. (Lectures on vibration

theory. The phase plan method.) Copenhagen, Polyteknisk Forening, 1955.
p p .51.

Critical remarks on the effect of bent-up bars and stirrups in reinforced con­
crete beams. International Association fo r Bridge and Structural Engineering.
Fifth Congress, Lisbon-Oporto, 1956. Final Report, 1957. pp. 507-512.

M atricer. Teori. Praksis. (Matrices. Theory. Practice.) Copenhagen, Poly­

teknisk Forening, 1957. pp. 128.

M atricer. Formelsamling. (Matrices. Formulae.) Copenhagen, Polyteknisk

Forening, 1957. pp. 19.

Et par abenhjertige ord i anledning af en 100-arsdag. (A few plain words on

the occasion of a centenary.) Ingenipren. Vol. 66, No. 29. November 1957.
p p .805-806.

Brudbetingelser for sten og beton. (Criteria of strength for stone and concrete.)
Bygningsstatiske Meddelelser. Vol. 29, No. 2. November 1958. pp. 25-44.
Discussion, ibid. Vol. 30, No. 2. September 1959. pp. 88-89.

Shell roof construction. Discussion. Proceedings o f the Second Symposium on

Concrete Shell R oof Construction, 1-3 July, 1957. Oslo, Teknisk Ukeblad, 1958.
p p .101,270-272,336-337.

Strength of concrete under combined tensile and com pressive stresses.

Discussion. Journal o f the American Concrete Institute. Proceedings Vol. 54,
No. 6, Part 2. December 1958. pp. 1303-1305.

Nogle fo r ml er fo r laveste svingningstal ved bpjningssvingninger. (Some

formulae for the lowest frequency of transverse vibration of beams.) Copen­
hagen, Structural Research Laboratory. Technical University of Denmark, 1959.
Bulletin No. 10. pp. 139-151.

Strength of concrete under combined stresses. Discussion. Journal of the

American Concrete Institute. Proceedings Vol. 55, No. 9. March 1959.
p p .1043-1045.

An iterative method of calculation for axial symmetric plates with bending—as

well as membrane stresses. (Co-author: C.Dyrbye.) Bygningsstatiske Medde­
lelser. Vol. 31, No. 3. December 1960. pp. 77-92.

Svingningsteori I-IV. (Theory of vibration.) Copenhagen, Polyteknisk Forening,

1961-1964. pp. 230. Second edition, Copenhagen, Akademisk Forlag, 1964-65.
pp. 267. Third edition (in one volume), Copenhagen, Akademisk Forlag, 1969.
pp. 246.

Linhas de ruptura. Teoria e prdtica. (Translation into Portuguese by J. Mason

of parts of: Brudlinieteorier, 1943, and Pladeformler, 1946). Rio de Janeiro,
Ao Livro Tecnico S.A., 1962. pp. 380.

Yield-line theory. London, Cement and Concrete Association, 1962. pp. 181.

The yield-line theory. Notes for lectures, 16 March 1962. Institution of Struc­
tural Engineers, Lancashire and Cheshire Branch, pp. 16.

xiii
Forskningen. (Research.) Ingenipren. Vol. 72, No. 11. June 1963. pp. 380-382.

Limit analysis of reinforced concrete shells. In: Olszak, W. and A. Sawczuk

(Ed.) N on-classical shell problem s: Proceedings, IASS symposium, Warsaw,
September 1963. Amsterdam, North Holland Publishing Company and Warsaw,
PWN-Polish Scientific Publishers, 1964. pp. 937-940.

Plastisite teorisinin uygulanmasi userine dusunceler. Teknik brosur. (Trans­

lation into Turkish of: Beregning og dimensionering, 1969; Theory of timber
connections, 1949^Ekscentrisk pavirkede nittegrupper, 1952; Pladetrapper, 1940.
Translated by G.Ozmen.) Istanbul, Insaat Muhendisleri Odasi Yayinlari, 1967.
p p .44.

Anvendelser af energiprincipperne. Tilnaermelsesmetoder. (Application of the

energy theorems. Approximations.) Copenhagen, Laboratoriet for Baerende
Konstruktioner, Danmarks Tekniske H0jskole, 1969. pp. 19. Forelaesningsnotater
nr. 7.

Beregning og dimensionering. (Analysis and design.) Copenhagen, Laboratoriet

for Baerende Konstruktioner, Danmarks Tekniske H0jskole, 1969. pp. 13. F ore­
laesningsnotater nr. 14.

Energi- og arbejdsprincipper. (Energy and work theorems.) Copenhagen,

Laboratoriet for Baerende Konstruktioner, Danmarks Tekniske H0jskole, 1969.
pp. 19. Forelaesningsnotater nr. 3.

Foldning af plader. (Buckling of plates.) Copenhagen, Laboratoriet for Baerende

Konstruktioner, Danmarks Tekniske H0jskole, 1969. pp. 20. Forelaesnings­
notater nr. 8.

Symmetri. (Symmetry.) Copenhagen, Laboratoriet for Baerende Konstruktioner,

Danmarks Tekniske H0jskole, 1969. pp. 11. Forelaesningsnotater nr. 10.

S t a b i l i t e t s p r o b l e m e r . (Stability problems.) Copenhagen, Afdelingen for Baerende

Konstruktioner, Danmarks Tekniske H0jskole, 1971. pp. 26. Forelaesningsnotater
nr. F28.

xiv
Introduction
In this book a first attempt is made to establish
simple formulae for the calculation of various
types of slab that are of interest in practice. The
book includes a large number of examples of the
application of the yield-line theory for slabs, as
presented in my book "Yield-line theory", which will
be referred to throughout this book by the abbrevia­
tion "Y LT".
The same notation and sign convention are used as
in YLT. As regards the term "restraint", the follow­
ing remarks should be noted. It is necessary to
differentiate between geometric and static restraint.
With geometric restraint, movements of the slab are
completely prevented at the restraint and the re­
straining moment is statically indeterminate. With
static restraint, the restraining moment is given and
is equal to the ultimate moment in the section of
restraint. The movement of the section of restraint
is geometrically indeterminate. The older term,
partial restraint, corresponds more closely to static formulae and figures.
restraint, although it does not cover this completely,
as partial restraint can only give restraining
moments that are smaller than those corresponding
to geometric restraint, whereas static restraint may
well result in greater restraining moments. In the
following, restraint should be taken to mean static
restraint, unless otherwise stated.
The true value of the ultimate moment m corresponds
to the failure load. However, in practical calculations,
only a fraction of this—the working load—is used, and
the corresponding value of m should then really have
another name, for example, yield-line moment, which,
is the same fraction of the true ultimate moment.
However, this distinction is not made in the following,
the term ultimate moment or, simply, the moment m
being used instead of yield-line moment, so the possi­
bility of mistakes is precluded.
Decimal classification is used throughout, both for
chapters and sub-sections and for the corresponding
1
0 Slabs spanning in one direction (beams)

0.1 Uniformly distributed load By applying the common approximation

A continuous slab (beam) with a uniformly distribu­ m = mQ - 1/2(mi + m2),

ted total load (live load plus dead load) q per unit
length usually yields at the supports and also in the we get 2/3 and V2>respectively, for m /m 0, so this can
span. The positive ultimate moment (see Fig. 0.11) perfectly well be used, i.e.
being m and the negative ultimate moment being —m',
we have at m that the shear force Q = 0, as the q l2
m = (0.13)
moment is maximum. 4(2 + i i + i2)

Fig. 0.12

By intersecting between the moment parabola

V2gx(l — x) for dead load and the straight line
m^[(l — x )/l] + m 2(x /l), we obtain the limits for the
The moment equations about 1 and 2 respectively top reinforcement.
yield
mi m2
m + m^ - 1/2qx15 gl2
1 2 +
and
m^ + m 2 y^m^ m2^ 2
m + m2 = 1/2q x22 g l2 gl2

(0.14)
Defining the reduced span lr by means of m = V8qlr 2
and the degrees o f restraint by i x = m^/m; i 2 = m2 — ml
m'2 /m , we get g l2

1r2(1 + ii) = 4x12, l r 2(l + i2) = 4x22 mi - m2^ 2

(0. 11) gi 2 gl2
2xx + 2x2 = 21 = lr (Vl + ii + Vl + i2)
In practice, we usually have i x = i 2 = i in inter­
It will be seen that lr is the distance between the mediate spans and i 1 = i, i 2 = 0 in outer spans.
points of zero moment. The reactions from the span Thus, from (0. 13) and (0.14), we get:
under consideration will be
For outer spans:
R 1 = qx1 = V2qlrVl + i x
(0 . 12) ql2 a,
R 2 = ^x 2 = ^ ^ r ^ i2 m = (0.15)
4(2 + i) 1 2(2 + i) g

In practice, m^ and m 2 will usually be m or 0, so For intermediate spans:

l r / l becom es 2/(1 + V2) = 0*83 and 1/V2" 0*71 in
the outer and the intermediate span, respectively. By ql2
dividing the slab so that the outer span is 0*85 of the m = 1-
8(1 + i) 1 1 1 + ig
intermediate spans, the same l r is obtained in all
spans. If m0 is the simple moment V8q l2, we get (0.16)
m /m 0 = l r 2/ l 2, which is 0*69 and 0*50 in the outer
span and intermediate span, respectively. It will be seen from this that in the intermediate
 Fig. 0.13

spans the top reinforcement must be carried through or

the entire span when
m = — (1 — x) ( x — c) — m^ — — — -
q ^ 1+ - (0.17) i 1 i
g i
m/ x■
If the top reinforcement in the intermediate spans is 1
only to be taken as far as the quarter-points, we put
2lJ\ — V4 in equation (0.16) and find that assuming that failure occurs under the load nearest
1, where the deflexion is 6.
1 3g (0.18) This shows that m can be determined by means of
4q — 3g
the free-moment diagram due to the uniformly dis­
Then, in the outer spans, tributed load 4P/1 on a beam from x = c to x = 1
and a support-moment diagram that has the ordi­
ai 3q nates m { and mj_(c/l) 4- m£[(l — c )/l] at x = c and
(0.19) x - 1, i.e. the degrees of restraint ic = i 1 and =
1 2(8q - 3g) i1(c /l) + i 2[(l — c )/l]. We thus obtain the reduced
If these rules are not observed, the slab will fail by span
cracking at the top, just at the ends of the top rein­
forcement, and it will not be possible for the yield­ 2(1- c)
ing at the intermediate supports assumed in the cal­ - ,( h
culation to take place (Fig. 0.13). / r + i-.

0.2 Point loads (0 . 22)

When a point load, P, traverses the slab (beam), the and

apex of the triangular moment diagram describes
the parabola (P/1) x(l — x), which corresponds to the
moment curve for the uniformly distributed load
2P/1. In the most dangerous position, the load is, of
course, located at the yield section, and the moment
becom es
1 2 ( 0 . 21 )
Lr
The approximation (0.13) can, of course, also be
used when q is increased by 2P/1.
,(
L-x
4P
m = o- 1 1Lc 2 (0. 23)
If the failure occurs under the other force, then
i 1 > i 2, since these must be interchanged in (0. 22)
and the value of lc thereby determined must be
greater than the previous value.
For intermediate spans, where i 1 = i 2 = i, we there­
fore get lc = (1 — c ) / >/1 + i, and in outer spans,
where i x = 0, i 2 = i, lc = 2(1 — c ) /[ l + Vl + i — i(c /l)]
If the approximation (0.13) is used, it will prove to
be correct for intermediate spans, but for outer
spans it will not prove to be as good in the case of
point loads as in that of uniformly distributed loads.
As is known, a single wheel load will be more
dangerous when c exceeds a certain value. This
value can be found from (0.21) and (0. 23):

Fig. 0.21
1 2P
T lr2 = i T lc2 ’ lr = ^ ~ lc
According to the work equation, two forces of equal
magnitude P, at a distance 2c from each other, give
From this, by using (0.11) and (0. 22), we find that
for intermediate spans:
(m + m^) ----- + (m + m2 )
x + c
1-x -
P6 + P c = 1 1- = 0*293 1
1 — X + c

3
and, similarly, for outer spans:
l + j l + i — i y = V2/1 + V T T T )
which gives the above value for i = 0 and c /1 =
0#328 for i = 1. The variation is of no practical
importance so we can always reckon with c = 0*3 1.
The foregoing shows that the calculation of restrain­
4
ed slabs can be converted to the calculation of sim­
ply supported slabs by reducing the span to lr .
Analogously, the calculation of slabs subjected to
point loads can be converted to the calculation of
slabs subjected to a uniformly distributed load 2P/1
for one load and 4P/1 for two loads. The reduced
span is l c -
The following will show that corresponding pro­
cedures can be adopted for various types of two-way
slab. In these cases, the line load p corresponds to
the point loads.
1 Rectangular slabs

1.1 Supported on all four sides is introduced, n and IV both yield

1.11 Uniformly distributed load

Let p be the constant load per unit area. The sides Par
m = (1.114)
are assumed to be restrained with the restraining "24" b.
moments = ^ m , m 2 = i 2m, m 3' = i 3m and m4 =
i4m. For i = 0 we get simple support. It will now be seen that equations (1.112) and (1.114)
have the same form as those to which the original
equations are reduced when the slab is simply
supported, i.e.:
The yield moment in a restrained slab is equal
^ IY
to the yield moment in a simply supported slab
with the sides ar and br .
? q1 \
i - 1 y /VS TTT q 3 3 i

This elegant theorem was given by Ingerslev already

II in 1921. From (1.112) and (1.114), we find without
difficulty:
h3 H 2,3
2— h !.—
_______ b ______
h ar \2 ar
2— = 3+[ — (1.115)
ar br br
Fig. 1.111
pa„2
m = (1.116)
The moment equations for I and El in the yield 24
pattern shown in Fig. 1.111 give
The formulae only apply in the case of ^ + h3 ^ b,
I m + m 4 = m (l + i x) = V6 ph42 which can also be written 2h ^ br , after which (1.115)
gives br ^ ar . The formulae must thus be used in
IE m + m 3 = m (l 4- i 3) = V6 ph32 such a way that br is greater than ar .

For II and IV, we obtain from equation (36) in YLT:

1 / hi + ho \
n m + m'2 = m (l + i 2) = ^- ph22 f3 — 2 —i —— 1

I / h1 + h3
IV m + m ; = m (l + i4) = — ph42 (3 — 2 -----------
6 \ b

From these four equations and h2 + h4 = a, we can

determine m, h1? h2, h3 and h4 the i Ts being assumed
to be given.
From II and IV we find that

h2 h4 a ar
F or the simply supported slab, the work equation for
>/1 + 4TT V1 + i2 + \/l + i4 2
the yield pattern shown in Fig. 1.112, in which all
( 1. 111) parts of the slab have the same rotation, gives
where ar is the r e duced side length, while I and El
give h± = hVT + i 4, h3 = hVl + i 3, as 2ma + 2mb = 2 x i- pa— — + 2 x — pb— —
226226
m = 1/6 ph2 ( 1 . 112 ) + 2 x | p (b -a )| y
Further, if the quantity
pa2 3b — a
m = (1 . 1 1 6 '
b~ b 24 a + b
(1.113)
2 \l 1 + i-^ + VI + i 3 with a maximum deviation of about 2% from the

5
value of m determined by means of (1.116). Inciden­
tally, the formula is identical with the formula known
from the Danish standards of 1930, which was due to
E.Suenson. By including the restraining moments,
we get m = m0 — m^, where m0 is the moment in a
simply supported slab and m^ is the mean value
m^a 4- m 2b 4- m^a 4- m4b
2(a 4- b)
(ix + i 3) a + (i2 + i4)b
m
2(a + b)
For checking purposes, we know that the sum of all
reactions must be pab, and we can easily see that
this is the case.
With the knowledge we now have of moments and
reactions and of the relationship between restrained
slabs and simply supported slabs, we can easily
formulate a simple approximate formula. Let us
consider a simply supported slab and the beams sup­
porting it. The beams parallel with a have the ulti­
mate moment Ma, and the beams parallel with b, the
ultimate moment M^. Then, in the m id-sections
through slab and beams, we have

2Ma 4- mb = V8 pa2b; 2Mb 4- ma = V8 pab2

The reactions q are uniformly distributed on all
four sides and, in accordance with equation (109) in
We know that the reactions of the slab on the beams
YLT, we get
are uniformly distributed, so

2 2 —
q i = y P hl = j Vl + ii Ph; q3 = \ Vl + i3 ph Ma = V8 qaa2; Mb = X/8 % b 2
( 1 .117a) which gives
h , + hr
q 2 = - ph2 2 + 21 1 b - 1 . a
qa = — pb —4m — ; qh = — pa — 4m —
4a 2 a2 b 2 b2
h, 4-h,
For reasons of symmetry, the corner forces are
equal in magnitude, as explained in YLT, § 8.
(1.117b)
= ^ v m H = m (cota 4- tana)^ 2m
par
since the minimum value of the parenthesis is 2 for
h \2 a = 45° and does not vary much from 2 even when
q4 = - V l + i4 par a deviates quite considerably from 45°.
Finally, an equation of vertical projection for the
entire slab gives
since
a a 4H + pab = 2aqa + 2bqfo = 2pab — 8m ( — + —
h, -^ V l + i2, h4 = ——V1 4- i4 and \b a
When H is expressed by means of m, we get
hi 4- h3 2h
pab
bZ (1.116")
8(1 + - + -
At the corners we get anchorage forces H(§ 8 in
YLT), which, for example, at the corner formed by which is a few per cent on the safe side when the
lines 1 and 2, will be equality sign is used. With this value of m, we get
h li
h i,2 = (m + m 4) - ? + (m + m'2) - i ^ = % = / ■ Pia + bl = 4 m A + 1 \ (1.117)
‘2 2 1+ a \a b)
= m (l + ij) — + m(l + i2)
K b a
It should be noted that a and b occur symmetrically
in these formulae, which are therefore valid whether
and correspondingly. By substituting m from a > b or a < b, and this is one of the advantages of
(1.112) in the first term and m from (1.114) in this formula.
the second term, together with h± and h2 from
(1. I l l ) , we obtain the corner force In the case of restrained slabs, ar and br are sub­
stituted for a and b. A glance at the exact expres­
sions in (1.117) and (1.118) will show that q1 is
H1>2 = ~ V(1 4- i x) (1 4- i 2) |l — - ^ p a rh multiplied by \/l 4- i l9 q2 by Vl + i 2, etc. The corner
forces are determined by means of
(1.118)
Hi 2 = 2mVl 4- i x Vl 4- i 2 (1.119)
and correspondingly in the other corners when the
appropriate values of i are substituted in (1.118). and correspondingly.

6
In calculating the beams supporting the slab, only The exact calculation shows that this is actually an
the q’ s are used, while the corner forces H should excellent approximation and that restrained slabs
be taken into account in the calculation of the can be calculated as simply supported slabs with
columns as they reduce the reactions of the beams the reduced spans ar and br in accordance with
on the columns because they act in the opposite (1.111) and (1.113).
direction to q.
Formula (1.116" ) and expressions for the reactions
The influence of the corner levers can be investi­ can be derived in a similar manner.
gated as shown in YLT, page 99, but as they only
The simply supported slab has the reactions qx and
entail a maximum increase in m of 8°/0, they are of
q3, uniformly distributed, and the equal reactions
no practical importance in these slabs.
q2 and q4, which are not uniformly distributed. If,
however, q2 and q4 are assumed to vary linearly, the
beam moments can be reckoned to be M2 = M4 ~
1.12 Triangular load dislribulion
Vs q2b2, where q2 is the mean value. In a section
Applying the work equation for the yield pattern in
through slab and beams we get, as previously, the
Fig. 1.112, we get EM^ + EMU = 0 since 6 is identi­
following equations, in which P is the total load:
cal for all parts of the slab. In this equation, Mi
denotes the component in the direction of the axis
of rotation of the resultant of the ultimate moments
M, + Mo + mb = — a
for one of the parts of the slab, and Mu denotes the 1 3 8
moment of the external forces on this part of the
slab about the axis of rotation, see also YLT, p. 63.
Let us now imagine that the triangular loading is 2M9 + ma ~ — b
composed of a uniformly distributed load that results 2 8
in the same total load as the triangular loading, i.e.
that is equal to the mean load, and a positive triangu­ Further,
lar loading on one half of the slab, and a correspond­
ing, negative loading on the other half. Two of the
(qi + q3) a + 2q2b = P + EH
four parts of the slab in the yield pattern receive
equal contributions from the positive and the nega­
tive triangular loading, so the total contribution only and, as M — V8 ql2 for all four beams, we get, as
corresponds to the uniformly distributed part of the before,
load. One of the remaining two parts of the slab
receives a contribution from the positive triangular
loading, and the other, a corresponding contribution P = 8m|— + ~\+ SH
\b zj
from the negative loading. Therefore, in £MU, we
only get the contributions from the uniformly distri­
buted part of the load, i.e. the ultimate moment will where all H ^ 2m, i.e. EH ^ 8m, which immediately
be the same as in a slab with the same total load, gives (1.116") and
uniformly distributed. This result corresponds
to the conditions in a one-way slab with triangular
loading. 2q2 = cU + q3 = (1. 121)

^1,2
In this way we can thus determine only the sum of
qi and q3.
The exact calculation now shows that the resultant
of the reactions q2 on side 2 lies at a distance of
0*54-0*58b from side 1, where p = 0, corresponding
to a variation of b /a from 0 to 4. This distance can
thus with good approximation be reckoned as 5/9b.
As q2 is assumed to vary linearly from qx to_q3,
this distance depends upon the ratio between q4 and
q 3, and when q3 = 2q4, we get precisely 5/9b. With
this value we then have

qi = f - q 2;q 3 = f - q 2;q2 = 4 m (~ + j~) U - 122)

This distribution of the reactions corresponds to the

conditions in the one-way slab with triangular
loading.
In the case of restrained slabs, the reduced spans
F ig .1.12 ar and br are substituted, and q4 is multiplied by

7
VI + il9 etc., H1>2 by Vl + Vl + i2, i.e. we get and

q i= F m( - + 4 \ v n n 7 m (l + i2) = —ph22 [ 3 ------ (h4 + h3) + 3 —

\ar br / 6 \ b pb

q2 = 4m (— + — ) Vl + i Q
ar br
(1. 132)
16 /l ^ 1
q 3 = - r m (— + — W l + i 1 / 2 pa
3 \ar br (1. 123) m (l + i4) = - p h 42 3 - + h3) + 3
6 \ b Pb
= 4m (— + — ] V l,+ id / h.. +
ar br +P4h4 I1 ----------

HXj 2 = 2m Vl + i 1 Vl + i2
From the last two we get
H2;3 = 2m Vl + i2 Vl + i 3
m£ l h + 1 + i* 1 pa 3 1 + Pa (1.133)
etc., and pb

V2Parbr - ~ ( hi + h3) + P b ( i - — 1,3

m = b
r ar br»
1+— + r
bj> a^i As 3m/0h2 = 0,Pk being assumed to be placed in
the most dangerous position, we immediately find
that, since h2 + h4 = a,
1.13 Line loads
As, in practice, a line load p is caused by light parti­
tion walls, we will only treat it here as a supplemen­
tary load to a uniformly distributed load. The —ar
following formulae are therefore not applicable in Vl + i9 Vl + iA Vl + i9 + Vl + L,
cases in which the line load is predominant, as this (1. 111)
would lead to curved yield lines (YLT, example 30).
It will be seen from (1.131) that
As partition walls are likely to be pulled down and
others built, they must be considered as a live load.
Therefore, in the following, the moment is determined hi
= h
for the most dangerous position of the line load. Let Vl + Vl + i3
us then consider pa parallel with side a and acting on
the middle part of the slab, and p^ parallel with side
Substituting br as earlier (1.113), we get

m = V6 ph2(l + 3p) (1.134)

and

1
m = — par ^ 3(1 + a + 2/3) - 4(1 + 3/3)iL (1.135)
24 r

where <7 = pa/pb = paa/pab and ft = p^/pa = p^b/pab

are the ratios between the entire line load in the a
and the b direction, respectively, and the entire
uniformly distributed load. The introduction here of

Fig. 1.13 p' = p(l + a + 2/3) = p + + 2— (1.136)

b a
b and acting in the yield line (see Fig. 1.13). The
latter is distributed with p2 to slab part II and p4 to a — ar ,
slab part IV, where p2 + p4 = p^. The equilibrium
equations used earlier then become
b- = br / . t « +. ?g>h>= h . / . . J + 3 P , (1.137)
rv 1 + 3 /3 v i + a- -t- 2/3
mtt + + 3? b
results in equations (1.112) and (1. 114) for uni­
formly distributed load only. This means that the
m (l + i 3) = 4 ph3V l + 3 ^ (1.131) slab with p, pa and p^ has the same ultimate moment
m as the slab with only p' and the sides a' and b'.
If, in particular, the two total line loads are of equal
magnitude, we get a = j3, a' = ar and b' = br , so we
have the same slab, but with p' = p(l + 3 a).
Normally, pa = p^and then a = /3 for ar = br . The
supplementary load will then be 3(p/ar ). If the wall
has a height hv and weight V per m2, then p = Vhv
and the supplementary load is 3(hv/ a r )V. For each
wall we get (3hv/2 a r )V. This value does not exceed
V as long as hv ^ 2/3ar .
1.14 Point loads (wheel loads)
As shown in YLT, page 82, the yield pattern in the
case of a point load P is a circle and P = 27r(m + m ').
Therefore, for any position of P in a simply sup­
ported, rectangular slab, we get
m = P/277 (1.141)
If all four sides are restrained with identical
m' = im, we find that
m = P /2 (l + i)?r (1.142)
If only three sides are restrained, the following will
apply at the simply supported edge, in accordance
with YLT, page 83, formula (45):
m - P /2 Vi + (1 + i) f ~ + arccot VI (1 143) V 1 + ^ + i) times the restrained side; when this is
In particular, i = 1 yields
m = P /(2 + 3tt) = P/11-4
If two opposite sides are restrained and the load is
applied half-way between them, we obtain, in a ccor­
dance with YLT, example 27, page 111,
m = P/4[VI + (1 + i) arccot VT] (1.144) corresponding to m = P/277 and of appropriate radius
and, in particular, for i = 1,
m = P /(4 + 2?t) = P/10-3
However, the yield pattern can only be formed if the
length of the simply supported sides is greater than
or equal to Vl + i times that of the restrained sides.
If this is not so, we get a lower value of m.
Fig. 1.141
If two adjoining sides are restrained, the yield
pattern shown in Fig. 1.141 again results in (1.144).
With one side restrained, the yield pattern shown
in Fig. 1.142 gives
P = (m + m ') (6y — tt) + m X 6 cot y, cot y = Vi
m = P/6 Vi + (1 + i) (arccot VI — 1 (1.145)
and, in particular, for i = 1,
m = P/(6 + tt) = P/9-14
For this yield pattern to be formed, the simply
supported side at the restraint must be at least
not the case, more favourable conditions prevail.
The formulae derived (1.141 to 1.145) can be
approximated with sufficient accuracy as follows,
as long as i ^ 1:
m - P/[6*3 + (1-8 + l-ln )i] (1.14)
where n is the number of restrained sides. It should
be noted that the top reinforcement must be carried
through the entire slab as, otherwise, the circle
may form .
In general, wheel loads are assumed to be distributed
over a small rectangle, and formulae for this case
are specified in Bygningsstatiske Meddelelser, Vol.
IV, page 77, so it will suffice here to intimate their
derivation in brief. As the moment in a beam with
span a and the load P distributed over a short length
1 is V8P (2a — 1), we can expect the following to apply
in a rectangular slab with P distributed over the
rectangle with the sides k and 1:
P 2a - k 2b - 1
m p = (1.146)
24 a b
provided the lengths of sides a and b do not differ
too much. This assumption is confirmed by detailed
investigations in the paper cited.
If there is a possibility of two equal wheel loads P
acting on the slab, the work equation for the yield
pattern shown in Fig. 1.143 in a square slab gives
a , m ---------------
m— * + 2m a— = 2P x 1
x a — c —x a
9
which gives maximum m for x = y2 (a — c )> i*e*the load p and a line load pm (m = 1, 2, 3, 4) acting
loads must be equidistant from the middle. We then along the edge of the hole, we find from the work
get equation when there is unit deflexion at the hole,
whereby the rotations are l/ cl9 l / c 2, etc., that
P a —c . a —c
m2P = — ------- = 4m t (1.147)
2 2a — c 2a — c mi a + m (c2 + c 4) i- + m^b + m (Cl + c 3)J ± -

since c = 0 yields m2P = 2m p. When one of the

loads acts partly outside the slab, we get, by inter­ m 3a + m (c2 + c 4) + m4b+ + c 3)j ^
polation,

m. (1.148) Y pacx2 - p (c2 + c 4) c x2 + p4 (a - c 2 - c 4)

+ \ pbe22 — | P(c i + c 3)c22

In the case of restrained slabs, we assume that
m = m0 — m^, where m^ is the mean value of m^
m2, ni^, m^-
+ p2(b — c x — c 3) + etc.

Rearranging the equations and introducing the i Ts, we

obtain

m
.fe+r)a+(^+^)b+(c‘ +C3,fe +^
+ (c2 + C a) [----- 1-

= j Pa(cx + c 3) + -| pb(c2 + c 4)

- y p f c i + c 3)(c2 + c 4) + (p4 + p 3)(a — c 2 — c 4)

+ (P2 + P4>(b - C1 - c3)

= | p + P - i p ( Cl + c 3)(c2 + c 4) (1.151)
The formulae developed are too conservative when
there is a considerable difference in the sides.
However, as long as the ratio between the longest where P is the total uniformly distributed load and
and the shortest side does not exceed 3/2, the fo r ­ P is the total line load, i.e.
mulae can be used to advantage.
P = p[a(c4 + c 3) + b(c2 + c 4) — (c4 + c 3)(c2 + c 4)]
1.15 Slabs with holes
In the case of a central hole, the yield pattern will be P = (Pi + P3)(a — c2 ~ c4> + (P 2+ P4)(b - ci - c3)
as shown in Fig. 1.151. With a uniformly distributed
In the particular case in which all i = 0 and c x = c2
= c 3 = c 4 = c, we get

P ^ P pc2
m = — + ------ — (1.152)
16 8 12

For all i = 0, c 4 = 0, and c x = c 2 = c 3 = c, we get

the yield pattern shown in Fig. 1.152, for which the
work equation gives

2mc — + 2m(c + x) — + 2mc —

x c c

= 2 ^ pcx2 + j px2 + 2 — pac2 — y p (x + c )c 2

10
 where
+ p(a — x — c)c
P = pc(a + b — c)
y pbc2 — y p c 3 + p(b — 2c)c
P = p(a + b — 2c)
0r / \
Thence, as above, we get
2m(2 +1 +i) =1 p + pc2_ x(ypc +p
p c^
2^<m < — + - - (1.154)
where 12 6 12 6 12 6 36
P = pc(2a + b — 2c)

P = p(2a + b — 4c)

It will immediately be seen that

JP pc 2 pc
n ^ / P , P _pc_2 (1.153)
16 12 16 8 24

where we get the lower bound for x = c and the upper

bound by omitting the last negative term on the right-
hand side and using the minimum value of the left-
hand side.
By putting 3m/dx = 0, we could find the exact value
of m, but this will seldom be necessary. The correct
value of x is slightly lower than c.
When c 3 is also equal to zero, the yield pattern
shown in Fig. 1.153 gives the following equation (the
fact that x must be the same at both ends is obvious When c is small in relation to a or b, more dangerous
from the moment equation for the triangular parts yield patterns arise, and these will be dealt with in
section 1. 21.
of the slab):
In the case of small holes we can, as an approximation,
reckon on loading over the hole, whereby the contri­
2mc — + 2mx — + 2mc — = 2 y PCX2 + y px2
x c c bution from the external forces remains unaltered.
As far as the internal forces are concerned (Fig.
1.154), we get m (l + ig)b changing to m(b — c) +
pac^ p(x + c )c 2 !C + pbc2 i2mb = m[l + i 2 — (c/b)]b and correspondingly on
the opposite side. In other words, the degrees of
restraint i2 and i4 are reduced by c/b . In the case
— + p (a — x — c + b — x — c) of simple supports we thus get, purely formally,
— y p(x + c)c2
c negative degrees of restraint —(c/b). The "reduced"
or span ar will then be greater than a. As 1 — (c/b) is
always positive, the square root will always be real.
2 m ( l+ | + | ) = f P + P - | - p c 2 - x ft-p c + p If the hole lies slightly eccentrically, we get the
further reduction d /a in the degree of restraint at

11
one of the sides a. If the slab is nearly square, we In the special case of a square hole (c = d), we get
get a reduction in the degree of restraint on all four
sides. m [(l + ix)(a — c) + (1 + i2)(b — c) + (1 + i3)a
In the case of medium-sized eccentric holes, a large
number of different yield patterns arise, so these + (1 + i4)b] = g f (3b - a) - j pC3 + i Pc
cases do not lend themselves to the establishment
of ready-made formulae. However, m can be
determined quite quickly by means of the work
equation and a suitably estimated yield pattern.

In the case shown in Fig. 1.156, we get the rotations

Q1 = 1/d , 02 = 1/ c , 03 = 2/a , 04 = l /( a — c) and the
work equation

1 + ii 1 + i9 p
m(a — c) — ------ + m(b —-d ) -------- -- + ma — (1 + i J
d c a

1 + i4
+ mb p(a — c)d 2 + ^ P dd 2
a—c

We shall demonstrate this fact in two common cases.

When there is a hole in one corner, the yield pattern 1 1 a2
p(b - d)c2 ~ J P f c2 + -| pcc2
c + 6 pa T
shown in Fig. 1.155 can be used, with a yield line
passing through the corner of the hole and using the
bisectors of the corner angles for the other two j pb(a - c )2 - j p(d + j ) (a - c )2
yield lines through the corners. Three of the parts of
* f + a—c
the slab thus get the same rotation, which is fixed at
1. The fourth part then gets 6 = c /d . We then have
= ^ p a ( 6b - a ) - ^ - p d ( a + 2c) + | p . (1.156)

m (l + i-^ a — c) j + m (l + i2)(b — d) + m (l + i 3)a

The formula that gives maximum m should be used.

+ m(l + i 4) b _1 p a _d2_ a2
_ _ 1p c djo2 _
+i_ _^ p d d 2

^ 1 d a a2 1 j o j_ 1 L d a\ a2 1 „ a a2
+ 6 P c 2 T “ 6 pdc2 + 2 P b “ c 2 I “ 3P2 l

,1 aa2 ,l , a4 1 / a , d a \ a 2 l - 9
+ 6 p 2 l + 2 pbl - 3 p 2 + c 2 T + 2 PcC

= (6b - a) + Pc - ^ (a2 + 8c 2)

_ pa2
6b - (1 + ^ ) a y p c 2d + y P c (1 .1 5 5 )
” 24
When there is a hole at the edge, as shown in Fig.
where P = pc c + p^d. 1.157, we get the rotations 61 = l / c 4, 02 = 1 /c, etc.,

12
and the work equation As previously, it is the formula that gives maximum
m that should be used. Formulae (1.155) to (1.158)
i + iQ 1+1 are lower bounds for m, as they are derived by
ma + + m (cx + c 3) means of the work equation. If the load on the edge
of the hole does not greatly exceed the load pcd c o r ­
responding to the area of the hole, an upper bound
for m can be obtained by reducing the degrees of
= Pdd + 2pcj + -g- pacx2 —
restraint along the sides a and b by c /a and d/b,
respectively, and reckoning the slab to have no hole,
i.e. applying (1.116") with the transformed spans
,1 o l ^ l ol x 1 ol
+ TT p ci c p~ fi" p c 3c2 7T + TT Pa c327T
2a
at =
2 pbc42 g p(c^ + Cg)c4^ / l + i2 - - + / l + i4 - -
and
2b
= j pa(2b + d) - j pdc + pc c + pdd bt =
1 + ii - ^ + A + i3 —
(1.157) (1.159)

Similar expressions can be used for slabs with more

than one hole. In these cases it is also necessary to
bear in mind the possibility of local failure between
the holes.

1.16 Extent o f reinforcem ent at the restrained

edges
When the reinforcement is carried a distance o^b
into the panel at the restrained edge 1 and a distance
a 2a into the panel at edge 2, etc., and the panel is

The yield pattern shown in Fig. 1.158 results in the

same rotation 0 for three of the parts, and making
this rotation equal to 1, we get 9 = b / 2c for the fourth
part. The work equation then yields

ma(l + ijL + 1 + i 3) + mb(l + i4)

+ 111(0! + c 3)(l + i 2) = pdd | + 2pc c|-

+ 2 x | p (a -c)j _ 2 x I pI T + l pbT

b_
+ PC(C! 2 + C 32 ) + j p ( c x + C3)C2
2c
or
only subjected to the dead load g, while the adjacent
panels are fully loaded, the yield pattern shown, with
m t t (2 + ii + 13) + 2(1 + i 4) + (1 + i2) negative moments, may arise. The middle part of the
panel is lifted up. The ultimate moments are zero at
the boundary of the top reinforcement and im along
= (6a — b — 6c) + | p 5 [ 2 Cl2 + 2c 32 the yield lines to the corners. The restraining
moments are i xm, i2m ,. . . etc., where the i Ts are
either equal to i or zero. There are thus also bent-
+ b(b — a)] + pc c + pdd (1.158) up bars in the case of simple supports.

13
When the middle of the slab is lifted 1, the work n
equation gives
a 4 3 2 1
[i1ma — (a 2 + a 4)ima]
Ojb 0*1 1*22 1*55 2*44 12*2
0*15 .1*88 2*56 4*92 —
+ [i2mb — ( olx + Qf3)imb]-^-^ + . . . etc.
0*20 2*61 3*92 11*8 —
0*25 3*50 6*11 00 —
= ga(l - a2 - a 4)b(l - ^ - a 3) x 1
0*30 4*69 12*5 — —
0*35 6*48 34*0 — —
| g a a 12b2 - i g a ( a 2 + a ^ a ^ b 2 - ~ h
0*40 9*94 — — —
0*45 20*0 — — —
or
0.50 00 — — —
h , x3 , v/1 . 1\ -
m- — + (a 2 + a 4) — + — )i
a, a-.
*3 Va l “ 3/
It will be seen from this that a = 0*2 will usually
J. b suffice. For rectangular slabs with b = 2a, we get
— + (a^ + a 3) (— + — \ i
+ ma a2 a4 \a2 OLqj
qab m ,
m = ~28~ 7 < h + 2 i 2 + i 3 + 2 i4)
= gab 1 ~ + a 2 + a 3 + a 4)

and then (1.163) gives

+ - ( a 1 + a 3)(a2 + a4) (1.161)
q 14 6 + na + 2nb / 3 2 .
- = T --------— o f l l a + — a2 ) (1.165)
g 3 na + nb — 8o \ 2 3
In the special case in which all a Ts are identical, we
get
where na is the number of restraints along the sides
a b a, and n^ the number of restraints along the sides b.
m -(i-L + i3 — 4ai) + — (i2 + i4 — 4ad)
b a The values of q /g are given in the Table on page 15.
In the above investigation, the slab was only subjec-
= a[ 1 — 2a + — q?2 ) gab (1.162) ted to its dead load g. When the slab is totally loaded
with q, the top reinforcement has to be carried so
far in that the moment in the part of the middle
The reinforcement can also be carried in an equal panel without top reinforcement does not exceed the
distance on all sides, i.e. a^b = a 3b = a 2a = a4a moment of the whole slab. As the middle is calcula­
= oa, whence ted as a simply supported slab with the spans
a(l — a 2 — qi4) and b(l — a ± — a 3), and the slab is
calculated as a simply supported slab with the spans
m [ii + i 2 + i3 + i4 - 8ai] ar and br , it follows that

= a gab (1.163) a(l — a 2 — a 4) « ar , b(l — — a 3) br

(1.166)

For a square slab, with n restraints and With i 1 = i 3 = 1, we get br = 0*7b and = a3=
0*15. With i 1 = 1 and i 3 = 0, we get br = 0*83b, a ± =
0*17 and o?3 = 0.
qaz m /. , . , . , .
m = m0 - mi = — - (i4 + i 2 + x3 + 1 The results are even more favourable than in the
case of the square slab.

we get, when i = 1: 1.17 Deflexions

Two-way slabs must be regarded as a rather flexible
type of structure, and restrained slabs are, in parti-
l = 6A ± I L a 1 ^ 2a + ± a2 (1.164) cular, often surprisingly thin. Therefore, in the many
g n — 8q? \ 3 cases in which stiffness is important, it is necessary
to have a thicker slab than is actually required for
which yields the following values for q /g : the bearing capacity. In order to decide this point,

14
 2 2 1 2 1 0 1 0
na
2 1 2 0 1 2 0 1
nb
a
0*1 1 -5 0 1*82 2*00 2 -6 7 3 -0 0 3*33 14*0 1 6 -0

0*1 5 2*37 3*07 3*38 5*53 6*21 6*90 — —

0*2 0 3*39 4 *8 5 5 -3 4 13*6 15*3 17*0 — —
0 *2 5 4*6 6 7*77 8*55 00 oo 00

0*3 0 6*40 14*2 1 5 -6 — — —

0*35 9*10 45*5 50*0 — — —
0*4 0 14*1 — — — — —
0*45 29*0 — — — — —

0-50 oo

it is necessary to determine the maximum deflexion
under the perm issible load. As the modulus of elas­
ticity of concrete may lie between 200 000 and
400 000 k g /cm 2 and as, m oreover, the contribution
from creep is rather uncertain, there is not much
point in making a particularly accurate calculation.
After all, it is not a case of deciding whether the de­
flexion is 5 mm or 6 mm, but whether it is 5 mm or
5 cm.
As the slab can be reckoned to be in the elastic
stage under the working load, the deflexions can be
calculated in accordance with the theory of elasti­
city. Unfortunately, this calculation is often rather
inconvenient and, in practice, downright impossible
in most cases. We therefore have to seek a simpler
method.
We can now use the following property of elastic
slabs. If we cut a narrow, straight strip out of a
slab, we can determine its deflexions solely on the
basis of the bending moments about axes perpendi­
cular to the direction of the strip, whilst the bending
and torsional moments acting on its sides are with­
out influence provided we neglect the effect of P ois-
son1s ratio. We get:
El kx = mx
when the X -axis is located in the axis of the strip
and kx = — 92u /0 x 2. It will be seen that the de­
flexions in the strip can be determined in the same
way as for a beam. If the strip is now cut out in
such a way that it is supported at both ends and
contains the maximum moment in the slab, mmax,
then the maximum deflexion will be
EIu = am maxl 2,
where 1 is the length of the strip and a is a constant
which only depends upon the way in which the mo­
ment varies along the strip. If the moment is con­
stant or varies linearly, then a — 1/8. If the moment in the elastic stage must be reckoned to act in the
curve is a parabola or a triangle with the apex at
the centre, we get l / 9 ’ 6 or 1/12. It will be seen that must therefore be orientated parallel to the short
the maximum deflexion can be expressed by mmax,
and that the constant a lies between 1/8 and 1/12
when the moment curve lies between a rectangle and
a triangle, which is normally the case.
Regarding mmax, we know that this must naturally
be greater than the value of m corresponding to the
perm issible load because m is assumed to be con­
stant along certain sections, whilst the theory of
elasticity gives a variable moment If, for example,
the moment varies parabolically, its mean value will
be mmax. It can now be assumed that this mean
value corresponds approximately to m, so EIu ~
\ am \ 2. The study of a large number of cases that
can be calculated according to the theory of elasti­
city shows that we can reasonably substitute % a =
Vg.
In the case of statically restrained slabs, u = u0 --
Ui, where u0 corresponds to simple support and U*
to the restraining moments only. According to the
foregoing, EIu0 ~ V8m0l 2, where m0 is the moment
for simple support As m = m0 - mi, the restrain­
ing moments must give m* at the middle of the strip
under consideration, so we can assume that Elui ~
V8m il2. We thus get EIu = EI(u0 - ui) ~ V8(m0 -
m ^ l2 = V8m l2.
As the restraining moments at the permissible load
are usually greater than those assumed in the yield-
line theory, which are used in the calculation of uj,
the value of u thereby determined will at any rate
not be too low. Thus, by suitable choice of strip, we
can estimate the maximum deflexion for both stati­
cally restrained and simply supported slabs by
means of the following formula:
m l2
(1.17)
8EI
In the case of the rectangular slabs considered here,
one yield line is parallel to the long sides, so mmax
same section. The strip must contain mmax and
sides.

15
For simply supported rectangular slabs with a uni­ seen that the stiffness increases with the load in all
formly distributed load, the results of the theory of cases. For the point loads, the stiffness decreases
elasticity can, to a good approximation, be expressed with the size of the slab.
as follows:
The weakest slabs are therefore large slabs with a
pa2b2 small but concentrated load.
EIu = (1. 171)
384 i + ** + ¥. Finally, we shall compare the stiffness in a one-way
b2 a2 and a two-way, square slab, with the same span and
uniformly distributed load. As both slabs are
The introduction of m from (1.116") yields reckoned to be simply supported, we get:
For the one-way slab: the moment m v thickness
b a2
h± = cVm^, and the deflexion,
m a2 a b2 m a2
EIu = 1 +
9*6 1 + ± . + b2
a2 K 5 pl4
b 2 a2- 384
E x — h-,3
where K varies between 9*6 and T2, so that a suit­ 12 1
able mean value is 8, which leads exactly to (1.17).
For the two-way slab: m = V3m 1, h = cVm, and the
In order to judge whether a calculated deflexion is deflexion (in accordance with 1. 171),
perm issible, two factors may be decisive, the abso­
lute value of the deflexion and its order of magnitude 5 pl4
in relation to the span of the slab. In a comparison
with one-way slabs it must be remembered that 384
3 E x ^ -h 3
these have their maximum deflexion over the entire 12
section, whereas two-way slabs have it only at a whence
single point. In cases in which the absolute magni­
tude of the deflexion is not decisive, we may perhaps
content ourselves with keeping the mean deflexion
= =v3
ux 3 h3
under a certain limit, so the maximum deflexion can
be 50°/o higher than that in one-way slabs. In struc­ This demonstrates clearly that two-way slabs have
tural engineering, for example, 1/500 of the span lower stiffness than one-way slabs. As technical
could be the upper limit for the maximum deflexion, advances have also entailed constantly increasing
when (1. 17) is used and E is reckoned as 200 000 perm issible stresses, it is clear that we must now
k g /cm 2. also pay attention to the stiffness.
The question of which dimension of the slab is to be The deflexions calculated here correspond exactly
regarded as the span must be carefully considered to those forming the basis of an evaluation of the
in each individual case. In the case of the rectangu­ stiffness of steel and timber structures. They must
lar slabs dealt with in the foregoing, the shorter not be confused with the permanent deflexions, which
side should be taken as the span. are caused by the shrinkage and creep of the con­
It may be useful to compare the stiffnesses of slabs crete. A slab may well fulfil the stiffness require­
having the same shape and method of support, but ments and still have large permanent deflexions,
different size and load. just as the reverse has, in fact, been observed in
practice. The quality of workmanship plays a very
(a) Uniformly distributed load p. When 1 is one of large role as far as these permanent deflexions are
the slab dimensions, we get, since m = C xpl2 concerned. On the basis of measurements on slabs
and the thickness h = cVm = cVC-jp 1: constructed in practice, the permanent deflexion,
with standard methods of construction, can be
3ml2 1 1 reckoned to be y = el2/4h, where e = 0*025 + 0*0015
u= K^Vp x % in per cent. Reckoning 1 in metres, in k g/cm 2,
2Eh3 2E c3 VC1 Vp ’ u and h and y in cm, we get:
(b) Line load p. As m = C2pl andh cVm, we 5 + 0*3 %
obtain correspondingly l2
8h
1
= K0
Here, 1 is the span of the strip used for investigating
the stiffness, and h is the thickness of the slab.
(c) Point load P. As m = C3P and h = cVm, we Whether the concrete stress cr^ should correspond
obtain to dead load or to total load depends upon the actual
conditions. These usually large deflexions are best
Vp avoided by careful construction, late stripping, and
-■ = k q
i
possibly by supporting the slab with a couple of
props for as long as possible. The deleterious effect
As the stiffness increases with l/u ,th e latter can be of the deflexions can be limited by erecting partition
taken as a measure of the stiffness. It will then be walls and similar as late as possible.

16
 1.18 Orthotropic slabs 1.19 Numerical example
The calculation of orthotropic slabs can be conver­ In a warehouse with the dimensions 18*5 x 10*8 m,
ted, by means of the affinity theorem, to the calcula­ and p = 1000 k g/m 2, the floor shown in Fig. 1. 19
tion of isotropic slabs. consists of two-way slabs supported on beams. As
the degree of restraint used is i = 1, we get the ratio
0*85 between the outer bays and intermediate bays
when we use the same reduced span. Division into 3
and 4 bays gives respective spans of 10*8/(1 + 2 x
0*85) = 4*0 m and 18*5/(2 + 2 x 0*85) = 5*0 m for
the intermediate bays. For the outer bays, we get
0*85 x 4*0 = 3*4 m and 0*85 x 5*0 = 4*25 m respec­
tively. This division results in the same reduced
spans for all slabs. Thus,

2 x 4 2x3*4
; br — (1. 111)
ar 42 + 42 42 l + / 2 ’ Ur 42

Assuming the dead load to be 220 k g/m 2, we get

Fig. 1 .18a 1220 x 4 x 5

m= = 500 kg (1.116")
2 x 8(1 + 0-8 + 1-25)

The uniformly distributed reaction at a simply sup­

ported side is then

4 X 500 + Y )= 1270 kg/m (1.117)

and at a restrained side,

4 X 500 + Y ^ 2 = 18 00 k s /111

The negative corner reactions for corners with no

Fig. 1 .18b restrained sides and with one and two restrained
sides, respectively, are
In the slab shown in Fig. 1. 18a, where the sections
parallel with b have the ultimate moment m, and the 2 x 500 = 1000,1000-/2 = 1410 and
sections parallel with a, the ultimate moment jiim,
1000/ 2-/2 = 2000 kg (1.119)
the moment m is the same as in an isotropic slab
with the sides a and b/Vju. In accordance with Fig.
We thus get the loads on the beams shown in Fig.
1 .18b, we then get
1. 19.
2a As a check, we have
ar =
Vl + i2 + VT~+ 14
1220 x 10*8 x 18*5 = 2(10*8 + 18*5)1270
2b
br = (1. 181)
Vm(V 1 + i x + V1 + i3) + (3 x 10*8 + 2 x 18*5)3600

for the calculation of m by means of (1. 116"). - 4 x 1000 - 10 x 2820 - 6 x 8000

For the reactions we get
With the stresses 75/1300 k g/cm 2, we get

qi = qiA^, q2 = q2 hn = 0-260/500 = 5*81 cm

Hi, 2 = H'1>2//m etc. f = 0*348/500 = 7*8 cm 2 per m

Substitution of q-,, q2, H-. 2, etc., from (1. 117) and This gives a slab thickness of 8 cm, which results in
(1. 119) gives the following deflexion in the intermediate panels:
V8 x 500 x 4002
u= = 1*17 cm
200 000 x V12 x 83
■'1 + i. which exceeds 400/500 = 0*8 cm. Therefore, the
thickness of the slab should be increased in order
E'1 2 = 2m Vl + i ± V 1 + i 2 /m (1. 182) to improve the stiffness. With 9 cm, we get

17
 q = 1270 kg/m q =1270 kg/m
H=-1000 kg
E
oi
o
o
p= 1000 kg/m2 CO

ii
lo­
q = 3600 kg/m
in=-2820 kg
in H=-8000 kg
CM
E E
xoi oi
oo o
p=100kg/m p=300kg/ o
o CO

2.75 1.5 2.0

in 1.5
CM
q = 3600kg/m H=-8000 kg
H =-2820 kg
1.25 3.0

p=400kg/m

q=1270kg/m q = 1270 kg/m

H =-1000 kg
4.25 5.0 5.0 A. 2 5 ______
18.5

Fig. 1.19

u = 1*17 x (8 /9 )3 = 0*82 cm, which is hardly suffi­
cient, so a thickness of 10 cm should be selected.
With 10 mm bars, we thereby get hn = 8*0 cm and
f = (7*8/8*0) x 5*81 = 5*66 cm 2 per m.
The extent of the reinforcement at the restrained
edges can be found by means of (1.163), which yields
i.e. a = 0*16. The distance is then 0*16 x 3*4 =
0*55 m.
According to (1.166), we need a = 0*17 in both d irec­
tions, i.e. 0*57 and 0*71 m, respectively. If we take
the mean value 0*64 in both directions, we get the
following value of m in the middle panel of the slab:

500(4 - 8a ) < a (l - 1*8a + % x 0*8a2)240 x 20 1220 x 2*76 x 3*61

m = 495 < 500 kg
8 / 1 + 2^76 + 3M3l\
for slabs with four restraints. We find that a = 0*3, V 3-61 2-76/
so the top reinforcement should extend 0*3 x 4 =
l*2 m into the slabs. The same value can be utilized
In one of the intermediate panels, there is a hole as
in the outer panels, but the exact values can also be
shown in Fig. 1.19. The line load along the edge of
found.
the hole is p = 300 kg/m . As we are only going to
For the outer panels with sides of 3*4 and 5 m, we strengthen the bottom reinforcement, the restraining
get moment must still be reckoned as 500 kg. With
m i± = m i2 = m i3 = m i4 = 500 kg, a = 4, b = 5, c ± =
500(3 - 8a) = a (l - l*68a + % x 0*68a 2) c 2 = c 4 = 1’ 5, and c 3 = 2*0, equation (1. 151) gives
x 240 x 3*4 x 5
5(M)(— + — + — + — ) I■+ m x 3*5 x
\1*5 2-0 1-5 1-5/ 1*5
i.e. a = 0*22. The distance is then 0*22 x 3*4 =
0*75 m.
+ m x 3*0
For the outer panels with sides of 4*0 and 4*25 m, (\1*5
- +-2*0/
)
we get
= V2 x 1240(4 x 5 - 1 x 1-5) + 300 x 5
500(3 - 8a) = a (l - l*94a + % x 0*94a2)
— \ x 1240 x 3*5 x 3*0
x 240 x 4 x 4*25
This results in m = 641 kg, hn = 0* 260/641 = 6*59
i.e. a = 0*23. The distance is then 0*23 x 4 = 0*72 m. cm and f = 0*348/641 = 8*80 cm 2per m.
For the outer panels with sides of 3*4 and 4*0 m, we With hn = 8*0 cm, we get f = 8*80 x (6*59/8*0) =
get 7*25 cm 2 per m.
500(2 - 8 a) = a (l - l*85a + % x 0*85a2) In one of the outer panels, which measures 4*0
x 4*25 m, there is a lift well measuring 1*5 x 1*5 m,
x 240 x 3*4 x 4*0 as shown, and with p = 100 kg/m on the edge. With

18
i2 = 0, mi1 = mi3 = mi4 = 500 kg, a — 4*25, b= 4*00, or
1*25, c = 1*5, and c 4 = 2*75, equation
(1.157) yields (1+I‘ - ¥ K Ph‘2(1+3i5)
4*25(m + 500) + m x 2*5 (-L + - U and correspondingly for HI:
1*25 \1*5 2*75/

+ 500 x 2*5 x
2*75 m(1+‘3 - ¥ ) =i'Ph32(l+ 3i
= V6 x 1240 x 4*25 x 9*5 V2 x 1240 x 1-52 If we introduce h4 = hVT^TI^ and h3 = hV 1 + i 3,
both equations yield
+ 100 x 3

We get m = 500 kg, so no alteration to the rein­

m
(i - S K ph2(i+35 ; K ph2a + 3/3)
forcement is called for here. Finally, in the corner
panel, there is to be a stairway opening measuring (1)
2*0 x 1*25 m, with p = 400 kg/m on the short edge. For II we get the moment equation
It is obviously formula (1. 156) that should be used. / h, h„
With a = 3*4, b = 4*25, i 1 = i 2 = 0, m i3 = m i4 = 500 i 9m b + m (h , + h J + m — a + ih — a
^ 1 J a a
kg, c = 2*0, d = 1*25, we then get
= V2pba2 — VaPlhi +h3)a2 +V2paa2
m x + m x + (m + 500)^2 +
1-25 2-0 + Pb(b - hx - h3)a

1240 Introducing here h and br = 2b/(V l + i, + V l + i,),

x 3*4(6 x 4*25 - 3*4) we get
12

1240 x 1*25 x 7*4 + - x 500 J h +H)

\4 b -/
6 2
h / h
from which we get m = 467 kg, so the reinforcement = — pa2 3 - 4 — + 3a + 6/3 1 - 2 — (2 )
24
can be reduced to (5*66/500) x 467 = 5*3 cm 2 per m.
where a and p have the same meaning as in 1. 13.

1. 2 Supported along three sides Multiplying (l) by a/h and (2) by br /a , we get, by
addition,
/ i 9 br a\ 1
1.21 Uniformly distributed load and line load m l- + — ) - — pabr (l + a + 2/3) (3)
We will at once derive equations for the uniform­ \4 a h/ 8
ly distributed load p and the line load pa parallel
with side a and p^ on the free edge. The yield
pattern shown in Fig. 1. 211 gives the following From (1) and (3) we get a second-order equation for
a/h, so that
moment equations about the edges for the parts of
the slab shown, the nodal forces at the edge being
m(h4/a ) and m(h3/a): —= K + 'K 2 + — i2 — K + 1 (4)
h 2 a
For I:
X 1 2 1 + 3/3
m (l + i 4)a — m — h1 = — pahx2 + — P]3h12 K
3 1 + a + 2/3 br
after which we find m from (3).
It will be seen that the calculation of slabs restrain­
ed along the sides a is thus converted to the calcula­
tion of slabs that are simply supported along the
sides a. As earlier, we do this by introducing the
reduced span br . In the same way, the calculation of
slabs subjected to a line load is converted to the
calculation of slabs without a line load by means of
the following transformation:

1 + 3j3
p' = p(l + a + 2/3); i ' = i 2
1 + a + 2p

,3 = / 1 + 3/3 b, = bJ k ± a +
V 1 + a + 2/3 rV 1 + 3/3
( 1 . 211 )

19
which is closely related to the transformations in
1.13.
In particular, a = 0 again gives the same slab, but
with p' = p(l + 3a).
For the slab without a line load, comparative calcula­
tions show that the moment is closely approximated
by the following formula, which is somewhat on the
safe side:

p 'a 'b '

m = for a' « b' (1. 212)
8 + 6 + ii— +
b' \b a '/ 2

When a' ^ b', the value of m given by this formula is

at most 7% on the safe side. For higher values of a',
the formula is no longer of interest because the
yield pattern then becom es as shown in Fig. 1. 212.
Before dealing with this pattern, we should note an
important difference between the slabs with i 2 = 0
and the slabs with i 2 4= 0.
In the first case, when br is large in relation to a, F ig .1.212
and a /b r and a both approach zero, the limiting
value of m is
large is that there is no bending moment in the s e c ­
tion in question in the form er, whereas there is a
m-> V8pabr + V4Pbbr for *2 = 0 certain moment in the latter. However, this differ­
ence has no effect upon the equilibrium equations
which approaches oo when br -> oo. in the other case, for I + I' and III + III', as these are moment equa­
with m '2 = i 2m, we get tions about the edges 2a, which are perpendicular to
the section in question, so its bending moment has
m2 1/2Pa2 + Pba *2 ^ 0 no component in the direction of the side 2a. Because
of the symmetry there are no transverse forces or
which is also found directly as the moment in a torsional moments in the section at the plane of
cantilever slab. symmetry. Using formulae (1.13) and noting that
the side parallel to the middle yield line should be
This moment is finite and is therefore of a com ­
denoted b" (Fig. 1. I l l ) and that ar = a/Vl + i2, we
pletely different order of magnitude than the
get
moment found above for i2 = 0 .
As mentioned, higher values of a will result in the : p ( l + 0 + 2a) = p'; a" = br
yield pattern shown in Fig. 1. 212. The transition
from the first yield pattern to the latter does not
2a 0+2 a
occur when the two yield lines meet at the edge, i.e. b" -
Vl + i ; v i + 3a (1.213)
when hx + h3 = b, but before this, i.e. when the value
of m determined by means of Fig. 1. 212 is equal to
that determined by means of Fig. 1. 211. after which m is calculated from (1.116"), with p ",a "
and b". As both this formula and formula (1. 212) are
If the transition did occur in the form er manner, we
approximate, they cannot be utilized for determining
would get nodal forces at the edge in the transition
the transitional case, but the value given for (1. 212)
pattern if this were assumed to have arisen from
can always be used. As m does not vary much in
Fig. 1.211, but none if it were assumed to have
different yield patterns, both formulae give practi­
arisen from Fig. 1.212. This discrepancy shows
cally the same value of m for cases close to the
that the transition cannot occur geometrically
(h1 + h3 = b), but must occur statically (maximum transitional case. As mentioned earlier, these cal­
m is decisive). culations are only valid when the line loads do not
predominate, so that a and 0 are of limited size.
The calculation of the yield pattern in Fig. 1. 212 can
Other approximate formulae can be derived by
immediately be related to the calculation of the r e c ­
methods corresponding to those used in 1.11. If it
tangular slab with sides 2a and b, supported on all
is assumed that the yield lines follow the corner
four sides, with the degree of restraint i4 = i2, and
bisectors corresponding to Fig. 1.112 and that the
loading p, pa and 2pb, whereby a and 0 remain un­
load is uniformly distributed, the work equation
altered. If, namely, we imagine this slab to be cut
along the symmetry line through the middle of the becomes
2a Ts, we get the given slab with free edge and a c o r ­
m (l + i x)a + 2ma + m i2b + m (l + i 3)a
responding, symmetrical slab. The only difference
between these two slabs and the slab that is twice as = V2 pab - V3 pa2

20
or

pab pa2 m /. , . b , . v
m= V _ % _ T (li + 12i ' + x3) = : mi

pab / 2 aN a(m£ + m'3) + bm'2

m0 = ---- ( 1 -----------); mi =
8 \ 3 b 1 4a

However, the approximation is not as good here as

in 1.11 because the error may be as much as 10%,
and on the unsafe side. When b < 2a, we get, c o r ­
responding to (1.116'), with i 2 = i 4 and the sides 2a
and b, of which 2a is the greater,
pb2 6a — b a(m£ + m'3) + bm£
mn = — mi = -
24 2a + b ’ 2a + b

By utilizing our knowledge of the distribution of the
reactions, we can, as in 1. 11, derive a safe approxi­
mate formula. By means of the transformation
(1.211) or (1. 213), we reduce the problem to that
of a slab a' b', which is simply supported along a'
and subjected to the uniformly distributed load p'.
According to YLT, §11.3, page 139, the reaction Qb
on b' is uniformly distributed. On a', according to
§11.4, page 140, we get a concentrated reaction R0 =
2m at the corner at the free edge; the remaining
reaction Qa is distributed as shown in Fig. 1. 213.
Let us imagine the slab to be supported on simple
beams with the moments Ma and M^. A section
parallel with a' through the middle of the slab and
the beam at b' then immediately gives
ma' + Mb = V8p 'a '(b ') 2 = ma' + VgQfob'
The moment equation for side b' gives
2RQa' + 2Qaz + i'2b'm = 1/2p '(a /)2b'
and, further,
p 'a 'b ' + 2H = 2Qa + Qb + 2R0
Qa and Qb can be found from (1) and (2), and
R 0 = 2m. The corner forces H are m (l + i 2) cot cp
+ m tan the minimum value of which is 2mVl + i 2. the corners (YLT, §8) are neglected. The calculated
Inserting these in (3), we get
p 'a 'b '
m^ ^
(4) (55), with co = 90° and u ~45°), which is easily
8 + 16§> + 2i 2 !>' + 8 |> (Vl + ii. 1)
It will be seen from the distribution shown for Qa
that z must be slightly greater than V3a'. If we take
z = 3/8a', we get from (4) a formula that is identical
with (1. 212), apart from the last term in the deno­
minator.
On the same basis, the reactions for the given slab
can also be determined, although only for pa = 0 as
it is only in this case that Qb is uniformly distri­
buted. We find, for example (Fig. 1. 211), H1<2 =
m (l + i-t) tan q> + m (l + i2) cot cp, which has mini­
mum 2mVl + i 1 V1 + i 2. According to YLT, page 141,
we find,for instance, that Rx = 2mVT~+ i x. The slab
and supporting beam are considered as a statically
restrained beam subjected to a uniform load pa
+ Pb “ 0.2 >whereby ma = V8(pa + Pb — 02)br 2* From
this we find q2. On the same basis, formulaeJO. 12),
for example, give R x + Qx — H1 2 = V2(pa + Pb
— q2)brVl + i~, which determines Q r By this means
we find that
q2 = pa + pb - ^ ; H 1>2 = 2mVTTT1V m ^
br
Qx = 2 m (fl+ T 2 - 1 + 2 ^ V r + l i ;
Rx = 2mVl + ix (1.214)
and corresponding expressions for R3 and Q3. The
(1) Qfs are distributed in such a way that they give the
moment V8Qa in a simple beam (YLT, page 142).
For the yield pattern in Fig. 1. 212, it is only the side
of length 2a that is subject to the same reaction as
(2) that of the equivalent rectangular slab because the
missing bending moment in the section at the plane
of symmetry affects the calculations for determin­
ing the distribution of the reactions. As neither of
the two yield patterns is specifically assumed in the
(3)
considerations leading to the equations in (1. 214),
these equations apply to both cases.
In the foregoing, the special conditions applying at
corner forces thus assume top reinforcement at the
corner. In the case of a simply supported corner,
this corresponds to m ' ~ m (YLT, page 91, formula
achieved.
At the restrained corner, a much higher degree of
reinforcement is required, which is hardly practi­
cable, so the assumed yield patterns are not com ­
pletely correct in this case. The yield lines cannot
pass through the corners, but corner levers are
formed, which are of much greater importance in
this type of slab than in the type in 1.1. This is
because the vertices of the corner levers fall out­
side the free edge (Fig. 1.214a). The slabs that
could previously be considered as one half of slabs
with four supported sides can no longer be regarded
in this manner. With four sides supported, we get
corner levers of the type shown in Fig. 1. 214 b,
while in the corresponding slab with three sides

21
 Fig. 1.214a Fig. 1. 214b and c

supported, we get corner levers of the type shown
in Fig. 1. 214c on account of the free edge. However,
it is very difficult to calculate these yield patterns,
so we select instead the pattern shown in Fig. 1. 215.
At the free edge we find the nodal forces m(y1/a )
and m (y3/a ). At the opposite edge, in accordance
with Fig. 46 in YLT, the nodal force for slab part B
is found to be
m cot y + mb cot y + m^
where, in accordance with (28) and (29), page 52 in
YLT,
mfc = m2 c o s 2 y + sin2 y
my = (m£ — m£) sin y cos y
0 and (m + m2) cot y (YLT, page 51) and then apply­
ing (26), page 48 in YLT, which states that the sum
of the nodal forces at the point is zero.
Correspondingly, for the nodal force at slab part C,
we get m (l + i2)(Y3/ a)« With these nodal forces,
moment about the free edge for slab part B gives
yi
myx + m(l + i2) — a -
= m[(2 + i 2) y x - i 2x 1] = ~ pa2(x1 + y x)
(Bl)
For the same slab part, moment about side a gives
Yi Yi
ma + m£a + m (l + i2) — x x - m — (xx + y x)

1 2x. + y. 1_
since the slab is orthotropically reinforced at the
top, corresponding to and m2. With these values, = jj Pa(x i + y i) 3----- + 2 pb(x i + y i )2
the nodal force at B becomes or
Yi m [(l + ij_)a2 + y iC i^ ! - y x)]
(m + m£) cot y = m (l + i2) —
a
This is also obtained by noting that the edge nodal = ^pa2(xx+ y 1)(2x 1 + y x) + g Pba(xx + y x)2
forces Qr at the same point are (m'2 — m2) cot 6 = (B2)

22
For slab part C we get corresponding expressions When solving this equation by the usual formula, the
with the suffix 3 instead of suffix 1. If we now sub- square root must be taken as positive.
stitute x x = xVl + i-,;y-| = yVl + i i ; x 3 = xVl + i 3
In the special case of the slab simply supported
and y 3 = yVl + i 3, we get the same equations for along b, we get:
the two parts B and C of the slab, i.e. the calcula­
tion of the slab restrained at the sides a is con­
verted to the calculation of the slab simply suppor­ 3p
m= - a 2 + (1 + oi+ 2/3) 2br 2
ted along a. We get 32(2 + 3/3)

m[(2 + i2)y - i 2x] = jr pa2(x + y) (bl) 3 1 + 0 + 2 /3 1 + 2 /3

x— a
4 2 + 3 /3 2 + 3/3 1 + a + 2/3 br
m[a2 + y (i2x - y)] = 1 pa2(x + y)[(2 + 3/3)x
1
+ (1 + 3/3)y] (b2)
3 1 + a + 2/3 br
where, as previously, /3 is pp/pa.
For slab part A, we get the moment equation about (1.217)
side 2
When b and thereby br are large in relation to a,
Yi y3
m(yx + y 3) + m — a + m — a + m£(b — x x - x 3) m will approach
= m[2(yx + y 3) + i2(b - x x - x 3)]
_3p_
( l + o + 2/3) 2br 2
32(2 + 3/3)
= |pa2(b - x x - x 3) - | pa2(yx + y 3)
i.e .a moment of quite a different order of magni­
+ pba(b - x x - x 3 - y x - y 3) + j paa2 (A)
tude from that obtained in the case of the restrained
slab (1. 212).
The introduction of x, y and br leads to
When i 2 > 0,we cannot, as earlier, specify a simple
m[4y + i 2(br - 2x)] transformation that will relate the general case to
the special case o = 0, /3 = 0. In the latter case,
which is the most frequent, comparative calculations
= i-pa2[3br (l + a + 2/3) - 6(1 + 2/3)x
show that m is approximated by the following formu­
la, which is only valid for slabs restrained along b:
- 4(1 + 3/3)y] (a)

where, as previously, a is pa/pb. pabr

m (1.218)
By eliminating x and y from these equations, we get
an equation for determination of m. From (bl) and 3+i 2+ K i++
(a), which are linear in x and y, we find, by intro­
ducing k = pa2/ 6m, Formulae (1. 216) to (1. 218) are only valid when br
exceeds a, and only in such cases do the corner
2 + i2 — k levers have a major influence. For slabs where a
x= exceeds br , it is sufficiently accurate to reckon on
i2 + k an increment of 10% in the value of m determined
earlier in the case of anchored slabs (1. 213) and
(1.116"), as we saw (Fig. 1.214b and c) that the in­
y = ^br(k + *2) fluence of the corner levers here was slightly
greater than the 8% for slabs with four supported
3(1 + a + 2/3}k - i2 sides.
2k(4 + 3i2) + 12/3k(l + i2) - k2 - i 22 (1.215) As already mentioned on page 11, more dangerous
yield patterns arise for the type of slabs treated
When these expressions are introduced in (b2),we there, and as Fig. 1.216 shows, such a pattern would
get, after rearrangement, the following quadratic be of precisely the type dealt with here (Fig. 1. 215),
equation for determination of k and thus of m: with a = c and b = 1. Without top reinforcement, we
a2 then get from (1. 217), with a = 0,
k2 9(1 + i2)(l + a + 2/3)2 + 4,
br .
3p P_
m= (1 + 2/3)12 + - c2
— 2k[3(l + a + 2/3) (1 + i 2)i2 32(2 + 3/3) pc
(1.219)
+ 4^ (4+ 312 + 6/3(1+12))]
r which must be used if it yields a higher value of m
(1.216) than (1.152) to (1.154). In the case of top reinforce-
+i*2(i+i2+4$ ) = °
23
 1L.y c i c c
W ~ X N ,
Yf7777777777z77kr

Fig. 1.216

ment, lr must be used instead of 1. By comparison Here we will only consider the triangular loading
with (1.152), we thus obtain that arises in practice, which is zero along the free
edge and p at the opposite edge.
pc^ 3pr 4
— f2c(a + b) — 4c2l < — [(b — 2c)2+ —c 2] When the yield patterns are as shown in Figs. 1. 211
16 12 64 L 9 and 1.215, we get triangular slab parts with the base­
line s on the free edge and height a, and a trapezoidal
part. For the form er slab parts we formulate
moment equations about two axes, and for the latter
slab part only about side 2. Fig. 1. 221 shows one of
as conditions for the validity of (1.219). This gives the triangles mentioned, with a load equal to V6 pas,
acting at the mid-point T of the median. On the right
of the same Figure is shown a uniformly distributed
- + 2‘ 5 + /E 0*25 load V2P and a line load — V12pa acting along the
V b2
free edge. A simple calculation shows that this
combined load results in exactly the same total load
which varies from 6*1 to 7*9 when a /b varies from acting at exactly the same point T as the triangular
0-5 to 1. load (total load is \ p x i/2as — 1/12pa x s = V6pas;
The other two equations can be dealt with in a sim i­ the moment equation about 2 is V4 pas x 2/3 a 12
lar manner. In the case of (1.154), we get, co rre s­ pas x a = V12pa2s, i.e .T is located a/2 from 2
pondingly, b /c > 3’0-4*7, whilst in the case of (1.153). and must clearly also lie on the median). It is there­
we get b /c > 5*0 for both a /b = 0*5 and a/b = 1. fore immaterial which of the two loads we use for
When a = 2b, we get b /c > 2, i.e. (1. 219) must always all equilibrium conditions for this part of the slab.
be used in this case. The trapezoidal part of the slab can be divided into
a rectangular and two (negative) triangles, as above.
When the slabs discussed in this section are pro­ In the case of the triangles, the triangular load can
vided with a parapet at the free edge and this is to be replaced by the combined load. In the case of
be calculated for a horizontal load v per m, the free the rectangle, the triangular load and the combined
edge gets the moment mR = vh, where h is the height load have the same moment about side 2, namely,
of the parapet. There is no difficulty in including V6 pa2 = V4 pa2 — V12 pa2 per unit of length. As we
this in the equations derived in connexion with Fig. only use this moment equation for this particular
1. 211, and thereby finding its influence on m. As part of the slab, it follows that the two loads result
mR is usually small in relation to m, we can use in the same moment equations for all parts of the
the law of superposition without being too conserva­ slab. We have thus proved that, for the yield pat­
tive, so in this case, the slab is calculated for terns in question, the triangular load can be r e ­
m + mR. placed by a uniformly distributed load V2 p and the
edge load pb = — V12 pa; i.e. /3 = —
1.22 Triangular loading Then, for an anchored slab with i 2 = 0, we obtain
from (1. 212) and the transformation (1. 211):
P = " 12 Pa
-pabr
m= ( 1 . 221 )
1 2 + 6’ 75b-

When the slab is not anchored or when i2 > 0,

equation (1. 216) must be used. This gives

4k2 1 + i2 +

P + 2(3 + 2i2)
2
Fig. 1.221 (1 .2 2 2 )

24
with k = pa2/12m . In the special case in which i2 = of the simply supported slab by inserting =
0, we find V2 br Vl + and h3 = V2 brVl + i ? , where br iI S
the usual reduced span and ar = a / / 1 + i2. Thence,
(1.223)
m = 72 + b r^ h2
P oI b
m = — b 2 (6 - 8 - + 3
When i 2 > 0, comparative calculations show that we 96 r
have, to a good approximation,
(1.226)
f-p a b r P oI h\h2
m = — av2 [ 2 ----- 1—
m=

6+16i+(2+3^
For the yield pattern corresponding to Fig. 1.222,
(1.224) 12

i = 0 and h-, = 1
li ~ h^
43 — b / 2.
a /a ^

which is precisely the form taken by (1. 225) when all

there is no longer any advantage in considering the By division we get

slab as half of a slab supported on four s id e s ,b e ­
cause the load is no longer uniformly distributed.
h2
We will therefore formulate moment equations for 6 - 8 - + 3 2
the slab parts shown. Now the load on a strip at a a a
(1.227)
distance x from the free edge is p(x/a), and we get

I: m (l + ix)a = 2-/0 ' p-| V d x

which, together with one of the equations (1. 226),
, 1 ra x /, a —x \ gives a parametric representation of the relation
+ 2 i a - h p T ) dx between m and ar/ b r , with h/a as parameter. Com­
parative calculations then show that the following is
and an excellent approximation:

II: m (l + i2)b = f *_h p £-(h - a + x)(a - x) dx

Parb r
m= (1.228)
and a corresponding moment equation for III. We a^ br
then find 6-5 + 8 — + 2-5 —
br ar

m(1 + il} = M hi 2 f 6 - 8 ! + 3 I * ) ’ hl + h3 = b In the case of restrained slabs, the influence of the

corner levers can be taken into account by increas­
ing m by 10%.
h2
m (1 + *i3)
3 '== 2^4hu3~
2\/v
6~_ 8° ^a + °3
a ^ - I^- I (1.225) The transition from the previous formulae (1. 221)-
(1.224) to (1. 228) takes place at values of a /b r of
pa^
approximately 0*5 to 0*6.
m (l + i 2)
12
2-*V4
The reactions are determined in the same way as
in (1. 214), and it will immediately be seen that we
These equations show that the calculation of the get the same formula, but with V2 p instead of p, and
restrained slab can be converted to the calculation Pb = °.

25
1.23 Point load
The most dangerous position for a point load is at
the free edge, a case that is dealt with in YLT,
page 84. With this load, top reinforcement right out
to the edge is required. With m ' = im, we get, from
(46) in YLT,
m (1.231)
2J7 T+ (1 + i) arctan vT]
1.24 Slabs with holes
These slabs can, for example, be dealt with by
means of the work equation in the same way as we
dealt with the slabs in 1.15. In the case of small
holes with loading, the degrees of restraint are re ­
duced as mentioned in section 1.15. Thus, in Fig.
1. 241, the degree of restraint is reduced by c /a on
side 1 and by d/b on side 2. In Fig. 1. 242, the slab
is regarded as half of a slab, which is supported on
four sides and has two holes. On sides 1 and 3, the
degrees of restraint are reduced by c/a , and on
side 2, by d /b . As these slabs are hardly of much
practical importance either, we will conclude with
the calculation of the slab in Fig. 1.243.
When there is unit deflexion of the free edge, where­
by all slab parts get the rotation 1/c , the work
equation is as follows:

4mc pac
%
pc*

2 _ PC'
£
+ 2x p c2 — + p (2a + b — 4c) x
Li C

or

m _ Z , P Pc2 Pc (1.241)
In particular, m ' = m, i.e. i = 1, means that m = m ~ 8 4 12 4
P /(2 + 7r) ~ P /5 . If the slab is not restrained, more
dangerous yield patterns are found. Thus, for the
pattern in Fig. 1. 23, with unit deflexion at P, where­ where P = pc(2a + b — 2c) and P = p(2a + b — 2c).
by the slab parts get the rotations 2/b and 1/a , we We further find that
get the work equation
m 's = psh2 + p(a — c + c) ^
1 = 2ma + mb — m (1.232)
b a
where hs = c(a — c), s 2 = c 2 + (a — c ) 2. Multiplica­
which, when 4 > b /a > 1, gives a higher value of m tion by s then gives
than P /5 , which was found above when i = 1. The
highest value of m is P /4 , which is obtained for b = m' = R A 2> ~ c>2 _ + * pa _ _ c (a - ,c)
2a. However, point loading does not usually occur 6 c 2 + (a — c )2 2 c 2 + (a — c )2
in the practical applications of this type of slab and
is mostly of theoretical interest, so we will not give (1.242)
the matter more detailed attention here. It may be
noted that the results in 1.4 are, to a certain extent, It is also possible to use formula (1. 219) for the
also valid for this type of slab. slab part at b and the corresponding formula with

26
 mine x by means of (1. 217), with 1 and X instead of
b and a.
For X = 0 and /3 = 0, we get the following values for
the ratios and q?2 shown in Fig. 1. 251:

a/b “i <*2
o-i 0*25 0-42
0*2 0*17 0*38
0*3 0*11 0*34
0*4 0*07 0*30
0*5 0*04 0*25
0*6 0*02 0*19

2 1 for the slab part at a. (Regarding the latter 0-7 0 0-13

formula, cf.the following section 1. 3.) 0*8 — —

1. 25 Extent o f top reinforcem ent

In the case of anchored slabs, which are only practi­
cable in the case of simple support, i.e. when i x = When the load is so large that 0 = 1, we get, corres­
pondingly, with X = 0,
h i 3 = 0, the top reinforcement corresponds to
m ' = m. With br jt _ b, equations (1. 211) and (1. 212)
give
a/b ai a2
p (l + a + 2/3)2 ab
m = (1.251) 0*1 0*28 0-48
8(1 + a + 2/3) + 6(1 + 3/3)
0*2 0*20 0-46
0-3 0*14 0-44
The top reinforcement is carried out as shown in
Fig. 1.251 and must be taken out far enough for the 0*4 o-io 0*42
panel with spans 1 and a, which has no top reinforce­
0*5 0*07 0*40
ment, not to get a greater moment. This panel is
calculated in exactly the same way as a simply 0*6 0*05 0-38
supported slab that is not anchored, cf. (1.217).
0*7 0*02 0*35
Thus:
0-8 0*01 0*32
m 3p - a2 + (1 + A + 2/3)2l 2 (1.252)
32(2 + 3/3) 9
For smaller values of /3, we interpolate between the
where 0 = p^/pa, as usual, and X = p a/p l. We can two Tables.
determine 1 from these two equations and then deter­
Point loads on the free edge require a certain degree
of top reinforcement, which has to be taken right out
to the edge.

27
For the restrained slabs, which are calculated in
accordance with (1.218) or (1.216), we have to deter­
mine how far the top reinforcement at the restrained
a/b 1/4 1/3 1/2 2/3 3/4
edges should extend into the slab. We then assume
that the slab is only loaded with its weight g and that
0*5 1-6 2*0 3*4 5*5 7*5
adjacent slabs are loaded with the total load q. The
yield pattern with negative moments shown in Fig. 0-4 2*0 3*3 7 .7
1-5 5*6
1. 252 is thus formed. It will immediately be seen
0*3 1-5 2*0 3*4 5*8 8*0
by comparison with Fig. 1.16 that the equilibrium
equations will be exactly the same as for the slab 0*2 1-6 2*1 3*7 6*5 9*0
supported on four sides, with the side 2a and i4 = i 2.
Formulae (1.161) to (1.163) are thus directly appli­ The middle part of the panel, with the sides a — Xa
cable, but not the following formulae as we now have and b — 2xa, can be regarded as a simply supported,
a different expression for m. If the reinforcement is unanchored slab. The top reinforcement must there­
carried an equal distance in on all sides, and we fore be carried out far enough for this panel not to
denote this distance Xa, then we obtain from (1.163), get a greater moment than the whole slab, i.e., from
with i 4 = i 2, and 2a instead of a, xa = a x 2a, i.e. (1.217):
X = 2a,
3c[af (1 -A )2 + (1.254)
m (i1 + 2i 2 + i 3 — 4xi)
64 (M l
from which X can be determined. Here, the limit of
= J i _ ( I + l \X + 2 L x5 gab (1. 251') the top reinforcement is placed obliquely (Fig. 1. 253)
L \2 b/ 3 b and xx is determined by means of x in (1.217). We
find
where i x, i 2 and i 3 are equal either to zero or to i.
As m is determined by the total load q, the equation _3 b _X 1 ( l - x ) 2
(1. 255)
8 a 4
gives values for q /g . 2 — — 2X
a
These slabs are often used as flights of stairs, where
i 2 = 0. Putting i x = i3 = i = 1, formula (1. 217), with
b r = b / / 2", gives

1 9 2 x [l-(- + -) x + - - X2
q L \2 b / 3 b .
(1. 252")
g

From this we find the following values for q /g :

a/b 0-15 0*20 0-25 0*30 0*35 0*40

0*5 1*6 2-4 3*6 4*8 8*0 11-4

0*4 1-4 2*1 3-1 4*2 6*9 1.0-2
As m depends upon q, it will be seen that X and
0-3 1-1 1*7 2-5 3*5 5-5 8*5 are independent of the ratio q/g.
0*2 — 1*2 1*8 2-5 3*9 6*1 For the special cases considered above, we thus
find:
when i 1 = i 3 = i ; i 2 = o
And further, in a corresponding manner, i x = i 2 =
a/b = 0*5 0*4 0*3 0*2
i 3 = i = 1 gives
X - 0*26 0*33 0*46 0*71
Xx - 0*63 0*90 1*30 2*05
— ( 3 -5 + 1 2 - ^ + - )
g 21- X \ b a)
I— 1
t-*.
II

when i x = i 2
CO
II

0*2
+F)x+l f x2] (1-253) a/b = 0*5 0*4 0*3
X = 0*35 0*48 0*75 O l)
from which we obtain the following values for q/g: Xx = 0*68 0*97 1*42 -

28
These are normally the decisive values. The slabs 60 and 1000 kg /c m 2, we get hn = 0*289/285 = 4*9
with a >b are treated as half slabs with four suppor- cm, f = 0*410/285 = 6*9 cm 2 per m. With h = 8 cm,
ted sides. we then find the maximum deflexion,

285 x 4002
1.26 Deflexions u= = 0*67 cm
The maximum deflexion obviously occurs at the 8 x 200 000 x V12 x 83
middle of the free edge, so the strip must be placed
^ 400 n.Q
along this edge, and 1 = b, (1.17). If it is now re­ 500 _
quired that u ^ b/500, the thickness must be in­
creased considerably for slabs for which the free so the stiffness requirements are fulfilled.
edge is the longest side, whilst where the opposite
The influence of the corner levers is neglected when
is true, we get the same conditions as in slabs with
calculating the reactions, so formula (1. 214) is used
four supported sides. When the slab thickness is
with V2p = 1000 k g/m 2 instead of p, as mentioned
large, the degree of reinforcement will be low, and it
at the end of 1. 22. From this, we find
it may then be too low. The limit can be said to be
reached when the yield moment is equal to the ulti­
mate bending moment of the concrete cross-section, q 2 = 1000 x 2 - 8 X 2^5 X 2 = 1430 kg/m
i.e. equal to V6crh2. As we usually have a factor of
safety of 2 against yielding, m Y = 2m, i.e. the limit
is reached when m = V12ah2. The bending strength o h i ,2 = H2,3 = 4m = 1140 kg
of the concrete lies at about 40 k g /cm 2, and if we
insert the slightly generous value of 48 k g /cm 2, we
get m = 4h2, i.e. h = 0*5Vm. Lower values of cr re ­ Qx = Q3 = 2 x 285^/2 - 1 + 2 = 1475 kg
sult in higher values of h, i.e. more favourable con­
ditions since this is an upper bound for h. If a R i = R 3 = 2/2 x 285 = 805 kg
higher value of h than this is required on account of
the stiffness, the reinforcement should not be calcu­
Check: reactions = load
lated by means of m but by means of 4h2. Such
slabs are, of course, not very economical and should
be avoided, not only for reasons of economy, but also 4 x 1430 + 2 x 1475 + 2 x 805 - 2 x 1140
because the assumptions of the yield-line theory r e ­
garding a well developed plastic collapse state can = 1000 x 2 x 4
be called into dispute. The tests carried out do not
cover this case either. These considerations apply The reactions q2 call for tensile reinforcement in
quite generally and therefore give the bottom slab, Q in the side walls, and R at the free
edge. The forces are so small that they do not affect
h < 0*5\/m (1.26) the above design.

as the limit for the total thickness of the slab.

Finally, we will compare the stiffness of the simply 1. 3 Supported along two adjacent sides
supported, anchored slab with uniformly distributed
load with that of the corresponding cantilever slab.
For the form er slab, (1. 212) gives m and (1.17) 1. 31 Uniformly distributed load and line load
gives u. For the cantilever slab with span a, we getThis type of slab can immediately be related to the
from elementary beam theory, u = pa4/ 8EI. The two foregoing by imagining a symmetrically located and
slabs get the same m when pa4 = mb2, which gives corresponding slab added, as shown in Fig. 1. 31. We
8 + 6(a/b) = (b /a )3;b = 2*2a. Slabs with a lower thus get a slab that is supported along three sides
value of b thus have a greater stiffness than the and free on the fourth side. This slab has the side
corresponding cantilever slabs. lengths a and 2b and the loads p,Pb and 2pa,so a =
2pa/2pb = pa/pb and )3 = p^/pa are the same for
The permanent deflexions due to creep and shrinkage both slabs. That this way of treating the problem is
can be estimated as explained at the end of section
1.17, with 1 = b.
Pb Pb
1.27 Numerical example
A square water tank, measuring 4 x 4 x 2 m, is con­
structed from reinforced concrete slabs. The walls
are free at the top and are restrained at the bottom
and by each other. With the degrees of restraint
i x = i 2 = i 3 = 1 and p = 2000 k g/m 2, equation
(1. 224) gives m = 240 kg with br = 4 / / 2 = 2*83 and
a = 2*0. On the other hand, with the same values and
ar = 2 //2 , equation (1. 228) gives m = 258 kg. Be­
cause of the corner levers, this is increased by 10%
to m = 285 kg. With this value of m and the stresses
29
correct can be seen in the same way as with Fig.
1. 212. This assumes that the yield line intersects
the free edge b. If this is not the case, we have in­
stead to consider the slab with the sides 2a and b
and the loads p, pa and 2p^.
Assuming the conditions in Fig. 1. 31, we obtain from
(1. 212) and (1. 218) respectively
must equal the load on the slab, the reactions on b
can easily be found. We now get from (1. 214), with
2b/V 1 + i x instead of br :
Qx = 2m ^/l + i 2 — 1 + Vl + i 1 ~^Vl + i 1
Rx = 2mVl + i x; Q2 = pab + paa + p^b

pa'b'
m= - for i x = i 2 = 0 (1. 311) — 2m^Vl + i2 + (1 + i 1) ^ ; R 2 = 2m Vl + i
4 + 1*5 —
b'
H = 2mVl + i 1 Vl + i 2 (1.315)
where a' and b' are determined from (1. 211), and where the latter is negative. It will be seen that the
sum is equal to the load.
pab
m= 1.32 Point load
1-5V1 + ij_ + 3(1 + i x) ^ ^

(1. 312)

where br = b/Vl + i 1 has been used. This only

applies when a = j3 = 0; when this is not the case,
(1. 216) must be used, with br = 2b/V 1 + i1? which
gives

1 ^ 9 (1 + i 2)(l + a + 2j3)2 + (1 + i 1) —
L b2.

- 2k |3(1 + a +■ 20H1 + i2)i2 + (1 + i x) (4+ 3i2

+ 60(1 + 12) - 0

(1. 313)

where k = pa2/ 6m, i.e. m = pa2/ 6k.

The most dangerous location is obviously at the free
In the diagonal section from R 1 to R 2, we find the corner. According to YLT, page 85, it is then requir­
negative moment ed that
pab + 3(paa + p^b) P + 3P m = m' = V2P (1. 321)
m = (1. 314)

<f+r) e( H ) The yield pattern shown in Fig. 1. 32 gives the nodal

force m (x/a) at the free edge. The moment equation
for A gives
which is derived in the same way as (1. 242). From
the diagonal section, the negative moment increases
towards the corner, to m in simply supported slabs m (l + i x)a = m — x; — = Vl + i x
a. a
and to the restraining moment in restrained slabs.
There are thus negative moments throughout the For B, we get
slab, so top reinforcement has to be provided
throughout the slab, although it does not have to be
equally heavy everywhere. m iQb + mx = Pa — m — a
2 a
The influence of the corner levers is neglected when
determining the reactions. A comparison between from which we get, by inserting x,
the slab supported on two sides and that supported on
three sides (Fig. 1. 31) then shows immediately that P (1. 322)
m=
the reactions at side a are the same for both slabs.
2V1 + i1 + - i
On the other hand, the reactions on side b are no
longer uniformly distributed as a consequence of the
free edge, but get instead a distribution similar to which only yields the same as (1. 321) in the case of
that at a, i.e. a concentrated load R 2 = 2m Vl + i 2 simple support, but otherwise gives less, so (l. 321)
at the edge and Q2 distributed in the same way as is always valid. Restraint thus has no effect. It may
Qr As the reactions on a are known, and the sum be noted that with simple support we get R.,^ = R 2 =

30
H = 2m = P, where H acts in the opposite direction
to R-l and R 2. Qx = Q2 = 0. Thus, we only get reac­
tions at the corners, and it will immediately be seen
that in this case we have one of the classic solutions
from the theory of elasticity. The deflexion surface
is
z= ^y
2EI
and the slab is subjected to pure torsion.
1.33 Deflexions
As the deflexion surface has horizontal tangents at
the supports, it has two horizontal tangents at H, i.e.
a horizontal tangent plane. A rectilinear strip from
H to the free corner can therefore be regarded as a
beam clamped at H. The maximum moment occurs
at H and is m' according to the yield-line theory and
generally slightly less than according to the theory of
elasticity, which approximately applies at the stage
at which the deflexions are calculated. Analogously
with 1.17, the maximum deflexion u, which occurs at
the free corner, is estimated by using the value m'
and by assuming that the moment in the strip de­
creases linearly to zero at the edge. Hence,
EIu V3m 'l2 = V3m '(a 2 + b 2)
Because the corner is anchored we must always
have m' = m at the corner, whether the slab is re ­
strained or not. Therefore,
EIu ~ V~m(a2 + b 2)
For simply supported slabs, u can incidentally be
calculated correctly. Since a force 1 acting at the
free corner gives the deflexion surface z x = xy/2EI,
an arbitrary load p will, according to Betti1s
theorem = 2 Rizk> give the deflexion u at the
corner,
u x 1 = f f zPzx-y —
dxdy
2EI
Thus we get EIu = Vgpa2b 2 for a uniformly
distributed load p, while according to (1. 331)
pab(a2 + b 2)
EIu =
12 + 4 -5 ^
which agrees well with the correct value,provided
the lengths of the sides do not differ too much.
The contribution from the line loads in (1. 333)
becom es EIu = V4(paa + p^bjabji.e.a total from
p, pa and Pb of
pab + 2 paa + 2 p + 2P
u = ------------------------------- ab= -------------ab (1. 334)
8EI 8EI
Statically and elastically, a restrained beam may be
said to correspond to half a beam supported at both
ends, so a suitable requirement for stiffness would
be as follows
21 Va2 + b2
500 250
This type of simply supported slab is naturally
highly flexible. It is of some interest to compare it
with a cantilever slab of length c. With a uniformly
distributed load the two slabs get the same deflexion
when c 2 = ab. A square slab with two simply sup­
ported sides thus has the same stiffness as the co r­
responding cantilever slab.
(1. 323)
1. 34 Numerical example
300 kg/m
■2=7 ^
4.0
(1. 331) Fig. 1.34
An oriel in a house is to be supported by a rein­
forced concrete slab. The dimensions in metres
and the load are as shown in Fig. 1. 34. The de­
grees of restraint are V2 and 1. The deadweight is
(1. 332) estimated to be 300 k g/m 2, so p = 500 k g/m 2. The
ratios between the loads are 300/(500 x 3) = 0*2
and 300/(500 x 4) = 0*15. Formula (1. 313) must
be used, but as the restraints are unequal, it cannot
be decided in advance which of the sides is to be in­
serted as a or b. Both possibilities must therefore
be investigated.
With a = 3*0, b = 4*0, we get a = 0*15, /3 = 0*20,
(1.333) i x — 1 and i 2 = 0*5.
Thence,
k2[9 x 1-5 x 1-552 + 2 x 0*752] - 2k[3 x 1*55
x 1*5 x 0*5 + 2(5*5 + 1-2 x 1*5 x 0*752)]
+ 0-25(1-5 + 2 x 0-752) = 0
33*5k2 - 2k x 16*5 + 0*66 = 0;k = 0-967
500 x 9
m = 775 kg
6 x 0-967
On the other hand, with a = 4*0, b = 3*0, a = 0*2,
p = 0*15, i4 = 0*5 and i2 = 1, we get
k2[9 x 2 x 1-52 + 1-5 x 1 *332]
— 2k[3 x 1-5 x 2 + 1-5(7 +0*9 x 2 x 1 *332)]
+ 2 + 1-5 x 1-332 = 0
43-2k2 - 2k x 24*3 + 4*67 = 0 ;k = 1*017
31
 500 x 16
m = = 1310 kg
6 x 1-017

With the stresses 75 and 1300 k g/cm 2, we therefore

get hn = 0*260VT310 = 9-4 cm and f = 0*348vr13l0 =
12*6 cm 2 per m, h = 13 cm. As m ' = 1310(16 4-
V2 x 9)/25 = 1070 kg, the deflexion will be
1070 x 5002
= 2*4 cm
3 x 200 000 x -L x 133
500
> 250 = 2 0 cm
It may be of some interest to compare the results
The thickness of the slab should therefore be in­
in 1.13 with those obtained by superposition. For a
creased to 14 cm, whereby u = 1*9 cm. In the
square slab, simply supported on all four sides and
diagonal section, the negative moment will be (6000
4-3 x 2100)/(6 x 2*08) = 1000 kg. In this section, the subjected to a uniformly distributed load P and a
uniformly distributed line load P, superposition
top reinforcement required at the restrained edges
gives
gives only 1310 [(V2 x 16 4- 9)/25] = 900 kg, so a
little extra reinforcement is necessary at the top.

1 .4 Supported along two opposite sides

1. 41 Uniformly distributed load and line load
As the treatment of uniformly distributed load and
line load parallel with the supports is trivial, we
will only investigate a line load acting perpendicular
to the supports. The case in which the line load is
the only load has already been dealt with in YLT,
example 30, page 117, for simple supports. When 1
is the span, the result can be represented by means
of the approximate formula
On the other hand, from the transformations (1. 136)
and (1. 137), with a = 0 and (1. 116"), we get
P (1 + 2/3)2
m ——
8 2 4-5/3 4- V(1 + 2/3)(1 4- 3/3)
The fact that it is a and not /3 that is to be put at
zero can be seen from Fig. 1. 411, since b is the side
that is parallel with the middle yield line (cf. Fig.
1.111).

m' The two formulae yield the following values:

Pi
(1.411)
12 + 71’ 1 m
P /m P /m
If there are the restraining moments m' at both 13 by superposition by combination
supports, we obviously get m 4- m' = Vi2Pl>as the
yield pattern is the same as for i = 0, but the inter­ 0 24 24
nal moments are now given by m + m' instead of
16 17*3
by m(cf. example 8 in YLT, page 24). With a single
restraint, we take the mean value between 0 and 2 12 13*5
restraints. This results in the following formula
for restrained slabs: \ 9*6 11*0
1 8 9*3
Pi
(1.412)
12 + (7 4- 2*5n)i It is thus up to 16°/0 on the safe side to use super­
position for these values of /3. Using superposition
where n is the number of restraints, i.e. n = 0,1
or 2. in the case of a corresponding slab with b = 2a, we
get
Taking the width of the slab as b and calculating
the slab as a beam, we get P 4- —
P
m= —
28 12
1 pi2 1/ , , , V
8 -b- ' m _ a(mi + my When P is parallel with b, the formulae in 1.13, with
a = 0, give
or, since m^ and m^ are equal either to m' or to
zero, P (1 + 2/3)2
m= —
pi2 8 2*5 4- 5*5/3 + V(1 4- 2/3)(l + 3/3)
m (1.413)
(8 4- 4ni)b and when P is parallel with a,
This formula must be used when it gives a higher
P (14- a )2
value of m than the above two formulae. m=
8 2*5 4- 2a + Vl 4- a
32
From this we get the following values: By inserting this in (1.414) we get

16z4 + 4(3 + i)z2 = i(2 + i)

P /m P /m
P /m by by
p /p by from which z can easily be calculated, and thereby
combination combination
superposition also K, which in turn gives m.
for P 4= b for P 4= a
It will be seen from (1.415) that i = 0 gives K = 0,
0 28 28 28 i.e .m = co or p = 0.
v4 17*7 19*6 21*1 In other words, a line load only, acting on a free
edge, calls for top reinforcement right out to the
\ 12*9 15*0 16*8
edges just as in the case of point loads. We further
% 10*2 12*1 13*9 find the following values:
l 8*4 10*2 11*8
i z plr/m = K
which shows that the use of superposition here is
considerably more on the safe side, so it pays to use v4 0*203 3*6
the formulae in 1.13. 0*286 5*05
\
\ 0*349 6*15
1 0*401 7*0
2 0*565 9*8
3 0*689 11*9
4 0*794 13*6

We see that K ~ 7VTand thereby find the approxi­

mate formula
Plr
m = (1.416)
7 /r
Fig. 1.412 or

When the line load acts on the free edge, we can, as /m m ' = 1f1
an approximation, use the yield pattern shown in
Fig. 1. 412, which will be seen to be the same as that which shows that neither m nor m' can be equal to
in Fig. 1. 215, with b = 1, a = h and i 2 = i. A ccor­ zero. The required amount of reinforcement can be
ding to the maximum principle, h is determined so taken as proportional to m + m' = m (l + i) =
that the moment is maximum. This is determined V7 plr [ /i + / ( l / i ) ] , which is minimum for i = 1. The
from (1.216), with a. = 0. most economical reinforcement is thus obtained at
When p 0, /3 —>oo but k/3 pa/6m. Introducing K = m m' = V7 plr (1.417)
pbr/m = 6(br /a)kj8, we get
Here, too, we can investigate the use of superposition
1
Ar 2 = 0 for the slabs dealt with in section 1.21. With i 1 =
K2 - 2 K ( i ^ + 4 + i T+
1+i h2 0 and i 2 = 1, we get, for example for b = 2a
(1. 414) from (1. 218) and (1. 416):
when a and br are replaced by h and lr , and lr : P . P
2 1 /(Vl + i-^ + VI + i2) . m = "15 "7
The equation can naturally also be developed from
the original equilibrium equations with p and pa For j3 = 1, i.e. P = P, we get m = P/4*77, whilst
equal to zero. If we introduce h = zlr for the sake (1. 216) gives k = 0*409 and m = P/4*90. With b = 3a
of brevity, the maximum principle gives dK/dz = 0, and the remaining values unaltered, superposition
and differentiation of (1.414) with regard to z yields yields the same values as above, whereas combina­
tion now gives k = 0*270 and m = P /4 *86. Thus^in
these cases and, of course, for lower values of P, we
2K[— - 4 + 4 + = 0 would do well to use the far simpler calculation
achieved by superposition.
or When i 2 = 0, superposition becomes meaningless, as
(1. 416) no longer gives finite values. If, for example,
K= (1.415) we attempt to use (1. 416) with i =_1 in the case of
z(i — 4z2) an anchored slab with b = 2a and P = P, superposi-

33
tion using (1.212) gives m = ( P / l l ) + (P /7) =
P /4 #28, whilst combination by means of (1.211) and
(1.212) gives m = P /4 , i.e .a slightly higher value
of m. For b = 3a we get, correspondingly, P/4-11
and P/3*56.
1.42 Point load
For a point load acting on the free edge, formula
(1. 231) can be applied unaltered. Reinforcement is
required at the top right out to the edge. For a point
load acting at a considerable distance from the edge,
(1.141) and (1.142) apply, and reinforcement is not
necessary at the top. In the following we will study
the transition from one case to the other, i.e. a point
load acting near the free edge, and will, in particular,
determine how far from the edge the load has to be
located to render top reinforcement unnecessary.
Let the load act at a point at a distance c from the
edge. Around the load we can expect a circular
yield line, which possibly continues in two tangents.
With the yield pattern shown in Fig. 1.421, all slab
parts get the same rotation, namely, 1 /r when P gets
unit deflexion. The work equation then gives
P x 1 = (m + m ') 2ar — + 2mc sin a —
+ 2 m' + r cot a
sin a / r
P = (m + m ') 2a + 2m' cot a
m'
+ 2 m . sin a H— r
sin a r
According to the maximum principle, m must be
maximum or P minimum. This means that r has to
be as large as possible, i.e. the yield pattern must
be such that the yield lines reach the corners of the
slab. In this case, r = (1/2) sin a — c cos a. By
inserting the angle v defined by tan v = 2 c/l, we get
P = 2(m + m')oi + 2m' cot a
m' \ sin v
+ 2 m sin a +
sin a I sin (a — v)
= 2(m + m')o! + 2(m + m ') cot (a — v)
cos a cos v
*— 2m (1.421)
sin (a — v)
34
where a is determined by means of dP /d o 0. This
gives
m
cos (a — v) = COS V (1.422)
m + m'
for determination of a . As a ^ 7i/2, we must have
tan v ^ Vm/(m + m ').
With this value of a, we get from (1.421)
P = 2(m + m') v + arccos m
y COS V
m + m
+ 2 cos v [\/m(m' + m sin2 v) + m sin v]
(1.423)
For m' = 0 we get the special case of a = 2v; P =
2m(2v + sin 2v). This expression shows that, when
v > 0, the top reinforcement can be omitted, but for
small values of v, we get such large moments that it
would be uneconomical to omit top reinforcement.
As the reinforcement required can usually be con­
sidered as proportional to m + m ', we can find the
most economical reinforcement by choosing such a
ratio of m '/m that m + m ' is minimum. As d(m +
m ') = 0, by differentiation with regard to m, (1.421)
immediately gives cos a = 0, a = 7 t /2 , tan v =
/ m /(m + m '). With these values we obtain
m + m' = ---------- ; ------------- = 4 — ^ 1 (1.424)
n + 4 <L m + m' l2
It will be noted that the restraint conditions of the
slab do not appear in the formulae. In order to
include these, we must let the yield pattern intersect
the supports, whereby we get the yield pattern shown
in Fig. 1.422, in which we have assumed the same
conditions at both supports, thereby obtaining a
symmetrical yield pattern.
We apply the work equation with unit deflexion at
point P.
We then get
P x 1 = (m + m ')r x 2 a ^ + 2(m + m') r tan ft
+ 2(m + m'2) (c + — cot (a + /3)
Here, a and /3 are determined by means of the maxi­ corresponding to the two yield patterns. In Fig.
mum principle. 1. 423, the quantity m + m' proportional to the rein­
forcement required is plotted as ordinate, and
8P m + m'x m /(m + m') as abscissa. Formula (1.423) must
— = 0 gives: m + m' = ---------- give a curve like ABC with minimum for
dol sin2 (a + 0)
m /(m + m') = 4(c2/ l 2), while formula (1.426) gives
a curve like DE, with its lowest value at m' = 0.
and
For any value of m / (m + m '), the valid formula is
9P m + m' m + m'x that which gives maximum m + m ', i.e. the curve in
— = 0 g iv e s :--------- = i.e. j full line gives m + m '. It will immediately be seen
a/3 c o s2 /3 sin2 (a + /3) that the most economical reinforcement corresponds
to the point of intersection S for the two formulae,
+ mi /m' — m'-, provided DE lies above B, which is the case here.
sin a = or cot a
m + m' fm + mi

With these values we find that

P = 2 (m + m ') arccot
/ m'
m + m'-,

+ (m + m i) 4— + 2 V(m' — m i) (m + m;

(1.425)
We can assume that m'x = m' for the restrained
slab. Then a = ir/2 and (1.425) gives the same
m + m' as (1. 424) but, in this case, for all values
of m /m '. When c > (tt/4) 1, (1. 142) applies, i.e. P = Fig. 1.423
27r(m + m '). When c < v Vm/(m + m ), m /m ' can
no longer be selected arbitrarily if an economical With arccot /m '/m = arcsin / m /(m + m '), we find
reinforcement is desired, but must be determined that
by m /(m + m') = 4(c2/ l 2), Thus, for restrained
slabs, and for c > V21 Vm/(m + m'), m
■= v + arccos COS V
2(m + m') m + m'
m + m' = for c ^ 1; with m /m '
arbitrary m
(1.424') y^sin v + / — + sin2 v ^COS V
m + m J m
P , 77 . ^
m + m' = ----------- for — 1 ^ c; with m /m '

Otherwise,
,
7r +4-y A c 4
^ arbitrary m , . VmrrT' .
-,tan v + ——r— , + arcsin ;
m + m' m + m'
/ m
v
m + m'
r

(1.427)
m c2
----------- = 4 — For the load on the edge we get v = 0, m = m'
m + m' l2
P
For simply supported slabs, m^ = 0. We then find m = m' =
2 + 7T
from (1. 425) that
When c varies from \\ to 0, m' will vary between
P = 4m — + 2 / mm' + 2(m + m ') arccot / 0 and m, while in both cases, m is P /(2 + 77) ~ P /5.
l v m We further find, from solution of (1.427):

(1.426)
m' 2 c /l m
If it is assumed, as above, that the reinforcement m = tan v P /m m + m' 1^(1 -I- tan v)
required is proportional to m + m ',the most econo­
mical reinforcement is found in a corresponding 0 1 5*14 1 1
manner for m ' = 0. We then again get (1. 424), al­
though now with m' = 0. Equation (1. 424) with m' = 0 \ 0*502 4-78 0*8 0*751
therefore applies for (?r/4)l s* c ^ \ 1, and (1. 141) 0-293 4*87 0-667 0*647
\
for c ^ (ff/4)l, i.e., P = 27rm. When c < V21, m'
must be >0, so the two formulae are no longer \ 0*132 5-00 0*571 0-566
comparable. 1 0 5-14 0-5 0*5
We shall now return to formulae (1.423) and (1.426),

35
It will be seen that we have, to a good approximation, If one of the wheel loads is applied near the edge, we
get the yield patterns in Fig. 1. 432, which c o rr e s ­
P m 1 c c pond exactly to those dealt with in section 1.42. In
m (1.428)
5’ m + m ' 2 r i the corresponding formulae, P must be replaced by
2P as the work done by the external forces is
As mentioned above, for higher values of c, the P x 1 + p x 1 = 2P.
following applies:
P ^ 77 , P.c ^
^ —
7T i1
m' = 0, m = -------------- , c ^ — 1, m —
= —
7r + 4(c/l) 4 2tt 4
(1. 424")

It will be seen from this that the top reinforcement

can be omitted as long as c > V2 1* In practice, it is
usually preferable to avoid top reinforcement even
though the total reinforcement has to be increased
slightly. In this case it is necessary, as mentioned,
to put
The value of m calculated according to these form u­
m = (1.423') lae must, of course, not be lower than that c o r r e s ­
2(2v + sin 2v) ponding to one of the point loads. Thus, correspond­
4 -/4 - 3-
1 1 ing to Fig. 1. 431 with economical reinforcement
which, however, gives an approximately 20% increase (m' = 0), the following obtains for a simply suppor­
in the amount of steel, even at c = V3I. ted slab:

When the area over which the load is distributed is 77

not too great, the contribution P x 1 in the work m = (1.431)

77 + 2 - 277
equation changes to 1

/ / pzdf = P ? For the restrained slab, m is replaced by m + m '.

where z is the deflexion, and £ its mean value over
the loaded area. As the deflexion under the force
resultant is 1, we get ? = 1 — 2/3(p/r), in the case of
a conical surface of deflexion and £ = 1 — V2(p/r) in
the case of a prismatic (roof-shaped) surface of
deflexion, where p is the distance to the contour of
the loaded area, and r the distance to the axis of
rotation of the slab part in question. In the case of
the figures under consideration here, we have as a
rule r = ^1, whilst the surface of deflexion is partly
conical and partly roof-shaped. If the loaded area is
rectangular, with the sides a and b, then 7rp2 ~ ab,
and
2 Vab
(1.429)
3 1
1.43 Wheel loads
We will next establish formulae for the case of two
equal wheel loads P, the distance between the loads
being a. When they are applied on the mid-line, we
get the pattern shown in Fig. 1. 431, which is immedi­
ately seen to give the same values as Fig. 1.422 with
c
When a > ( 77/ 2)1, m or m + m' is equal to P/277.
When one load is applied near the free edge, we
must utilize formulae (1.423) and (1.425), either
with 2P and c = a + d or with P and c = d, and it is
the largest value that applies. The economical
reinforcement is obtained at the "intersection* of
these formulae in a similar manner to the case in
Fig. 1.423. In practice, the simplest way of doing
this is to use the formulae for several different
values of m '/m . Four moments are obtained for
each value, as both formulae have to be used in two
ways, as mentioned above. It is then the greatest of
these moments that is valid. In this way we get a
series of values for various m '/m . The most
economical of these is the one that gives the lowest
value of m ' + m.
When (1.144) is being used, the load applied furthest
from the edge must not give a higher value of m
than that stated above.

Fig. 1.431

36
When the line connecting the wheel loads is perpendi­ r-L sin a = \ { l — a), h = r 2 sin a
cular to the supports, we can try the yield pattern in
Fig. 1.433. If we limit ourselves to the case of y = ^ (1 — a) + r 2 cos a
simply supported slabs with m' = 0 and to slabs
restrained on both sides with a support moment
equal to m ', the curved yield line will touch the edge
(YLT, page 111 at top).
With the two circles shown, the work equation gives

P x 1 + p 1---- v-— - x 1 = (m + m ')2ax JL

x

+ (m + m') (27t — 2 a) (1

+ 2(m + m')a sin a —

P - = 2(m + m') [2a — 77 + (77 — a) ---- -

X L X

+ — sin a ]
x J

with

1 — a — 2x 1„ N
cos a = , x = ~rt(l — a — a cos a)

Introducing this, we get
P = (m + m')
77 + Y — %. i s i n 01
The wheel loads are distributed with PA, PB and P c
on the slab parts shown. The moment about the edge
now gives
~ a
PA = 2(m + m') cot a

The most dangerous position corresponds to Further, formula (79c) in YLT, page 107, gives
d P /d o = 0, which immediately gives a = tt/2, i.e.
the wheel loads must be applied at equal distances m + m' 77
from the middle. We then have Pb -
sinz a 2

m + m' = (1.432) The equation of projection for C yields

2a
77 +
1-a
Pc = (m + m') cot a
A single load is more dangerous when 2a/(l — a) > tt,
i.e .a /l > 77/(2 + 77) = 0*61. For simply supported whilst from the moment equation about a, we get
slabs, we put m' = 0.
(m + m') (1 — 2y) = 2(m + m') cot a h
The yield pattern used is not correct because the
equilibrium equation for the quadrangular slab part When y and h are expressed by 1 and a, we obtain
is not satisfied as the moment about a is not zero. the following equation for determination of cot a:
It will be seen that we need some upward-directed
nodal forces at the transition to the curved yield
= 2 C O t GL e ^ / z ) c o t a (1.433)
line. A correct pattern can be obtained by the use 1 —a
of logarithmic spirals (YLT, page 107).
after which P is found by means of P = PA + 2PB
As we will limit ourselves to the symmetrical + 2PC, i.e.
position, the yield pattern must have yield lines
parallel with a. This results in the pattern shown
in Fig. 1. 434. P = 4(m + m') cot a + — (1 + cot2 a) (1.434)
4
As the spiral has to touch both the edges and the
yield line perpendicular to these, the two radius When P = 277 (m + m '), one load is more dangerous.
vectors become perpendicular to each other, and This gives cot a = 0*55; a/1 = 0*72.
With cot a as parameter, we now get related values
= r^e^/2) cot a of a/1 and P /(m + m '):

37
 The most economical reinforcement is obtained at
P P dP/dm ' = 0, as d(m + m') = 0. Thence we get cos a
a
m + m' m + m' + a /(l — a) = 0, i.e. a >n/2, which is impossible. If
cot a 1 (exact) (approx.) (1. 436) is used, a = n/2 gives m = 0 and

0 0 3-14 3*14 2P
m ' =
0*1 0*19 3*57 3*61 2a
77 +

0*2 0*35 4*07 4*23 1- a

0*3 0*49 4*62 5-06 i.e. twice the value obtained from (1.432). When the
correct yield pattern with the spirals is used, we can
0*4 0*60 5*24 6-14
therefore reckon with twice the value of (1. 435), i.e.
0*5 0*69 5*93 6*28
2P
0*55 0*72 6*28 m = 0, m' (1.437)
l - 4a
7r +
1-a
These figures show that the approximate formula
(1.432) results in rather serious errors at the When the loads are distributed, we proceed as in
higher values of a/1. This can be remedied by 1.42.
means of the following correction:
It might be imagined that the yield pattern in Fig.
1. 434, turned 90°, would be more dangerous than the
m + m' = (1.435) pattern in Fig. 1. 431. However, it will be found that
l*4a cot a = 2 a /31 in such a case, and (1. 434) then gives
7T +
1 —a sm aller moments than (1.431).

1. 5 Cantilever slabs (restrained along one side)

1.51 Line load

Fig. 1.435
F ig .1. 51
When the wheel loads are applied on the edge, the
work equation for the approximate yield pattern As the treatment of uniformly distributed load and
shown in Fig. 1. 435 gives a line load parallel with the support is trivial, we
can limit ourselves to an investigation of the line
load perpendicular to the support. As an approxima­
2P x 1 = (m + m ') x 2oir — + m 'a — tion, we will use the yield pattern in Fig. 1.51, with
r r
the nodal forces indicated. The moment equation
+ 2m 'r cot a — for slab part A gives
r
(m + m') x 2x = V2 PY2 (1)
where r = \ (1 — a) sin a. We then get
1
The equation of projection for B gives
P = (m + m ')o + m' cot a + m'
1 — a sin a ^t+—fM
(m + m') ( -f j — gp a -y ) (2)
d P /d a = 0 gives the following for determination
of a: The moment equation for B about p gives
m' a m
c o s2 a + cos a = (m + m') 1 = (m + m ')^ (x + z) + (m + m') x
m + m ' 1— a m + m'

(1.436) (3)

38
The moment about the support for A and both B Ts
gives
pi2 = 2m' (x + z) + 2(m + m ') -^1
^ 1
We see that m ' i n a restrained slab with m = 0 is
the same as m in a simply supported slab with
double the span and m' = 0, (1.411), i.e. exactly the
same as in the case of the beam with the same
(4) loading.

getting from the second:

Fig. 1.521

When a point load P is applied at a distance c from

the free edge, the work equation for the yield pattern
shown (corresponding to Fig. 1.421) gives
after which, the last gives
P x 1 = 2(m + m') a + 2(m + m ')c sin a -
(kC)2 X + (9 + 5A)k? + 4A - 9 = 0 (1.511) 1- c
from which k£ can be determined and thus also r\
+ 2m' (1 — c + c cos a) cot a
and £. From (3') we now get 1- c
since the rotation is 1/(1 — c). From this we get
k2 - k 2 ? 2 = + k?) = + ( 1 + W ( l - - g k^2
P — a + sin a
For determination of k and thus also of m + m ', we 2(m + m ' 1
find from this that

1+ cos a cot cl (1. 521)

k2 = k2? 2 + (l - ^ k ? J 2 (1. 512) m' + m 1

from which we get the following values: Putting dP/da? = 0, the maximum principle now
gives
m Pl Pl
m' kC k m + m' m' 1+ cos a sinz a
1— c
0 0*348 0-628 6*36 6-36
m' 1+ cos a (1 + sin2 a)
\ 0-467 0*688 5*81 7*26 m' + m 1— c
\ 0*525 0*722 5-54 8-30 (1.522)
\ 0-552 0*739 5*41 9*46 which results in a cubic equation for cos a . How­
ever, for m = 0 , we get as a special case, a = t t / 2 .
1 0-593 0*765 5'23 10*46
The most economical reinforcement can be found
by differentiating (1. 521) with respect to m '/(m ' +
As k is proportional to the amount of steel required, m),and we then again get a = tt/ 2 .
it will be seen that the most economical reinforce­ Thence,
ment is obtained for m = 0. As the values are
P C 7T
approximate, we may use the slightly conservative m = 0, m' = --------------^ -------------- = 0*61
values given by 2c 1 2+77
77 +
1 —c (1.523)
pl 6 —— (1.513)
m + m' m' When 2 c /(1 — c) exceeds 77, we must use m' = P /2 7 7 .

39
 m 'cotp

Fig. 1.522
It will now be seen that we have a formula c o r r e s ­
ponding to (1. 432). It is also obvious that, if we
divide into two halves the slab that is restrained on
two sides and subjected to two equal wheel loads
applied symmetrically, we get the same moment as
in the cantilevered slab with a single point load.
This will be realized by considerations analogous to
those made in connexion with Fig. 1. 212.
As in 1. 43, the yield pattern is not correct, but the
pattern shown in Fig. 1. 522, with logarithmic spiral
at B, is correct. P is divided between the slab parts
with PA, PB and P c . As in 1. 43, we get
m + m'
PA = 2(m + m') cot a, P B = ----------- p
sin2 a
Then, from the projection for slab part C,we get
_ sin2 p cos {2a — 13) — cos p sin2 a
sin2 p — c o s 2 P
= -------- sin2 a e-0 cot a
1- c
As the expressions have to be positive, cos p must
be negative, i.e. p > tt/2. Thus we do not obtain
the solution corresponding to Fig. 1. 434. With (3
as parameter, the equations give the ratio between
c and m '. Thus, from the purely trigonometrical
equation, we get
cot a = cot p and cot a + 3 cot f3 = 0
the first of which cannot be used as a < t t /2 , but
(3 > n/2. With the last, we get

P c = (m + m') cot a + m' cot p C _________ 8 C O t (3 0" 3 B cot B

The moment equations for C about the axes through 1— c Vl + cot2 /3

P, parallel and perpendicular to the edge, respec­
tively, now give = 2/3(1 + 9 C0t2 p) - 10 cot /3

m r2 cos (a — p) — m ' [r2 sin (a — (3) +c] cot p which gives

+ (m + m ') cot a r 2 sin (a — p)

P P
— m' cot p x c = 0 c m' m'
cot P 1 (exact) (approx.)
and
0 0 77 77

(m + m ') [r 2 sin (a — (3) + c] -0 -0 5 0-334 3-61 4-14

= (m + m ') cot a r 2 cos (a? — (3) -0*10 0-554 4-20 5-62
-0*15 0-691 4-92 277
+ m' cot (3 I— si n a + c cot p\
\sin p / -0 -2 0 0-780 5-74 277

-0 -2 5 0-834 6*65 277

where

r x sin a = 1 — c, r 2 = r cotcl
These values show that the approximation (1. 523)
From these, a and fi can be determined, after which is rather poor. It can be improved by replacing
P = PA + 2Pb + 2PC gives the moment. We will the factor 2 by 7r/4, whereby
now limit ourselves to the economically reinforced
slab with m = 0. The moment equations thereby m ' = — --------------- for 0-8 (1.524)
give

c sin a _ _ sin2 (a — /3)

r2 ~ 2 cos (3 Otherwise, m' = P / ( 2 7 t) .

40
 in (1. 611). Then, eliminating m from both of them,
we find

2(a2 - c2)
1= (1. 613)
aVl + i + Va2 + ic2

whereby m is again determined by means of (1. 612).

The column reaction is statically determinate. We
Fig. 1.523 find

When the loads are distributed, we proceed as in 4p b (a + c )2 — imb

section 1. 42. The treatment of wheel loads becomes
analagous to that in section 1. 43. Thus, for two
equal wheel loads on the free edge, with the yield
pattern shown in Fig. 1. 523, where m = 0, we get
(1. 614)
With the yield pattern in Fig. 1. 611, the negative
moment at the cantilever end will be

2P x 1 = 2 m '-| 1 -j + m '
m' = j p c2 (1. 615)
2P
m' = (1. 525) By using the formula in example 12 in YLT, page
ff+ l 32, we get

When a >(7rl),the case of one load becomes m'

d ecisive, and m' = P/77. » ' = £ p ( ? + c2) (1- 616)

which gives a higher value when c < b/(2V2) = 0*35b.

1. 6 Supported on one side and columns
As these slabs are mainly encountered in the form
of roof structures, where the dead weight is the
dominant load, they will only be calculated for the
case of a uniformly distributed load.
When a < b2/4 c, the yield line will intersect the
support, and (1. 616) will no longer be applicable.
With a yield line that just intersects the edge we
get m 7 = V6ph2, where h = (a + c) sin v and tan v =
b/2a, i.e.

1. 61 Column at the middle m' = i p (a + c)2 -----—— (1. 617)

6 b 2 + 4a2

By taking the moment about the centre-line 1-1
through the column for slab part B, it will be seen
that equilibrium is not possible for an oblique yield
line as the moment from the yield line acts in the
same direction as the load.
For the yield line parallel to b we get, as in the case
of a beam,
m (l + i) = y px2, m = y p [(a — x )2 — c 2]
(1.611)
Introducing the reduced span 1 by means of
m = -g pl2 (1. 612)
If the column is located near the edge, i.e. if c is
small, the local conditions at the column must be
investigated by means of formula (90), page 123 in
YLT.
We can easily find the deflexions at the centre-line
1-1 on the basis of the positive moment m. The
deflexion increment when we move from the centre
to the edge is found by means of the negative moment
m', as the strip parallel with b can be considered
as geometrically restrained at the centre-line
because of the symmetry.
We thereby get (cf. Fig. 1. 612)

1 ma2
EIu ~ g 9 + ^1 m / -j-
b2 (1.618)
we get lVT + i = 2x from the first of the equations

41
the negative moments being assumed to increase or
linearly from zero at the edge. For these roof
structures, the requirements to stiffness can be m (l — cot2 a)
somewhat relaxed in relation to the requirements
in 1.17; the perm issible value may, for instance,
be doubled. = { p | a - xj — p c2 + ^ cot2 a (2)
Numerical example
For the same slab section, taking moments about
A simply supported roof slab measuring 4 x 6 m, the centre-line parallel with a, we obtain
with the column 2 m from the edge, whereby a = b
= 4 m and c = 2 m, is estimated to be 10 cm thick. mb cot a + m cot a x b
The total load, including snow and wind, then
amounts to 400 k g/m 2. With i = 0, we get 1 = 3, m =
V8 x 400 x 32 = 450 kg, whilst m' = \ x 400 x 22 =
800 kg, which, with the usual stresses, gives a slab
or, as S is still given by (1. 614),
thickness of 10 cm. The deflexion is therefore

X 450 X 4002 + y X 80 0 X 22 m^2 cot a + i b- 2a2C) = \ -^ -(b — 2c)

u = ---------------------------
2 x 105 x -J2 x 103
-«gcot« (3)

= 1*2 cm < 4 ft! = l -6 cm Subtracting (2) from (1), we get

im = ~ p (2ax — a2 + c 2j (4)
1. 62 Column at the corner

which, when inserted in (3), gives

m = (b — 2c) (a + c — x) tan a — (5)

For i = 0, we get, in particular, from (4),

x = (a2 — c 2)/2a, which is the same value as when
the column is located at the centre. With this value
we arrive, after some calculation, at the following
solution:
Fig. 1.621 tan a = K + VKT + l

Let us assume that the column is located at the K — 3(a2 — c 2)2 + a2b2
same distance c from both the free edges, and that
a is so large in relation to b that the yield pattern 6a(a + c)2(b — 2c)
shown is formed. We then get the moment equation
for slab part A about b:
m = p i2 (l + — cot a) (1. 621)
° V (a — c )2 /
m (l + i) b — m cot a b cot a
where 1 is the reduced span determined by means
of 1. 613, with i = 0. We now find the following
- pbx2 + 2 x i p | | c ° t a | c° t a
approximate formula by means of comparative
calculations:
or
m==i Di 2 _____a ~ 1-6c____ (a » b ) (1.622)
m(l + i — cot2 a) = j px2 + b 2 cot2 a (1) 8 P a — 0‘ 35b — 0 -9c 1

For c = V2b, this passes into (1. 612), which applies

For slab part B, we get the following moment for the column at the centre.
equation about an axis parallel with b through the
When i > 0, we may naturally expect (1. 622) to
column: retain its validity. This is obviously the case for
c = V2b, so it must be sufficient to investigate the
mb — m cot a b cot a conditions for the other limiting case, c = 0. With
this value and i = 1, we get, in particular, with
= pb(a — x)2 + cot2 a — pbc2 x = k(a/2)

42
 2- k positive yield line, and d2 to the negative yield line.
tan a — —
a 8 ( k - 1 ) - k2 At the point of intersection between the two strips,
we have the deflexion ul9 which is determined on the
basis of the positive moment by means of EIu-l
b2 3(k _ 1} 8 ( k - l ) - k 2 ~ \ md-L2. Fig. 1. 623 shows the strip d2 and its
^ k2 - 5(k - 1)

m = pl2(l + / 2)2 (k — 1) (1. 623)

With k as parameter, we get from this related

values of m and b /a . Comparison with (1. 622)
shows that the above assumption is correct, i.e.
(1. 622) also applies to restrained slabs.
The formula is only derived for a ^ b, as we would
otherwise provide two columns.

conjugate beam, which serves to determine u2.

When the slab is simply supported, we get the follow­
ing fictitious support moment for the triangular
moment surface shown, which forms the fictitious
load:

2 2 ,A 2
EIu2 = m m — — = — m d92
2 2 6 2
By means of the yield pattern in Fig. 1. 622, with
the yield line going from the corner of the slab
to the column, we find the negative moment
I (a + c )2 (b — c )2
m' = -g ph2 (1. 624)
6 ^ a2 + (b — c )2

When a > (b — c)2/c , we get the formula correspond­

ing to (1. 616):

m' = A P [(b — c )2 + c 2 (1. 625)

When the column is located near the centre-line, a

more dangerous yield line, going from the long side
of the slab through the column may form, as shown
r-
in Fig. 1. 622. A detailed investigation of this is 1 ^^
rather complicated, so we will confine ourselves
to just giving the result. The investigation proves 1 ^ -^ 1
1 .— m’
that we can, to a good approximation, assume that
d4
d3
m : pbc, c > y b (1.626) r d2

Fig. 1.624
The local conditions at the column are dealt with
in equation (90) in YLT. The column reaction is
determined as mentioned, still using (1. 614). If the slab is restrained corresponding to m^, we
further get the following increment due to the dotted
The maximum deflexion normally occurs at the free curve:
corner that is furthest from the column. One strip
is not sufficient to determine this deflexion, but if 1 d2 d2 1 1
we consider the two strips in Fig. 1. 622, dx through — m '-,------------= — = — imb2
6 1 2 2 24 1 2 24
the column, and the diagonal d2 to the corner at
which the deflexion is to be determined, we find since m'x = im c o s2 v ,c o s v = b /d 2. The total
that d-, is approximately perpendicular to the deflexion is u = 2u1 + u2, which gives

43
 EIu m[a2 + (b — c )2] + -g- m '[(a + c) 2 + b2] = 5-0 cm > = 2*0 cm
Despite the considerable increase in the slab thick­
+^ im b2 (1.627) ness, we get far too great a deflexion.

This formula assumes the column to be located

near the corner. When the column is closer to the
centre, it is no longer certain that the maximum
deflexion is found at the corner. Fig. 1. 624 shows
which strips are to be used. It also shows the strip
d2 = d3 + d4 and its conjugate beam. In the same
way as above, with m^ at the support, we get
EIu, 4 mdi 2 -g m [a2 + (b — c)2]
When c is small, we can with good approximation
disregard the slab parts shown in Fig. 1. 625 and
calculate the slab as though c = 0, but with b' instead
of b. In this way, with b' = b — c, we find the approxi­
mate expression:
m = — p l2 ------------------------ (1. 629)
8 a — 0*35 (b — c)

d2
u0 = u

+ 4 m'd3d4 + l m'd42

When ux is near the centre of d1, we have

b + c Fig. 1. 625
d2 2 b 2 (1 +
(b + c )2/ d 2b
where 1 = 2a /(l +■ Vi + 1). We thus find a somewhat
higher value of m. However, as the above calculation
does not take into account the live load, m will
actually be somewhat higher, so (1. 629) can be used
in cases in which the live load has to be considered.
As m', The difference between the two values does not
exceed 10% when c < 0-45b — 0#2a.
EIu ~ — m —- — [a2 + (b — c)2]
4 b + c
1.63 Columns at both corners
az
+ — m'b (b — c) 1 +■ + 24 im (b2 c 2)
6 (b + c)2_
(1.628)
Numerical example
We take the same roof as in 1. 61, but with the
column at the corner, 1 m from both edges. We thus
get a = 5m and 1 = 4*8 m, after which (1. 622) gives
m = V8 x 400 x 4-82 x (5 - 1*6)/(5 - 1*4 - 0’9)
= 1450 kg. Accordingly, h = 14 cm, so we must
recalculate with the load 500 kg/m 2 instead of
400 kg/m 2. We then get m = 5/4 x 1450 = 1810 kg.
By means of (1. 625) we find that m' = V6 x 500
x (32 + l 2) = 833 kg. In accordance with (1. 614), the
column load will be 7200 kg. Neglecting the capital,
equation (90a) in YLT, with = i t / 2, gives
As it must be possible to consider this case in
S = 1*57 x 1810 + 0*43 x 833 the same way as above, we will at first limit our­
selves to considering the case where the columns
+ 4x1 x V500 x 2643 = 7800 k g > 7200 kg are located right at the corners. With the yield
pattern shown in Fig. 1. 631, where the nodal forces
i.e. the local yield pattern at the column is not are 2m (x/b), a moment equation about the support
critical. yields for slab part A:
We find the deflexion by means of (1. 627):
m (l + i) b + 2 x 2m (a y)
■J x 1810 (3002 + 5002) + 4 x 833 (60° 2 + 40° 2)
= pb(a - y) 2 + 4 pbx |a - y +
2 x 105 x _L x 143
12 or

44
 m ^ + i + 4 X (E _Z j))

= ^ P (a — y)2 + xfa — y + -| (1) + ( 1- i)1 = 2

v a (8 )
2

For slab part B, a moment equation about edge b from which y can be determined, and then x by
gives means of (7) and m by means of (4).
If the slab is simply supported, we get the special
mb — 2 x 2m — y = — pby2 pbxfy — —
case,

or y\s b 2/ y \2 l b _ 4y + I ^ = 0 (9)
a"2\a. 12 a 4 a 6 a4
» xy" 1
m j2 —x y — (2 ) We can avoid having to solve a cubic equation by
1 - 4 P 2P
adopting y /a as parameter. We then get a quadratic
Subtracting (2) from (1), we get equation for b2/a 2.
Related values of m and b /a can be calculated by
m (\ +4 — \ = — pa(a — 2y + x) (3) means of equations (8) and (9). These values show
\ b2/ 2 that we have, to a good approximation,
Finally, a moment equation about a for the same pab / 5 + 2i a\ b 1.
slab part yields ------------- [ 1 H--------------- ], < 2 i
18 + 12i \ 4 b /a 2
1 pyb2
my = — u2 1p —
bx —
b for i < 1 (1.631)
8 2 2 3
When x = 0, we get the yield pattern in Fig. 1. 611.
or We then find from equations (5) and (6) that

my = 2 g ( 3 y - 2 x ) (4) r _ a _ ib^ _ b h _ 2a 1
y _ 2 8a 2’ 1 + Vl + i
Dividing (3) by (4), we get
which is equation (1. 613) with c = 0. From (4) we
ib2 ib2 find m = V8pb2 = Vgpl2. When b < 1, we get m =
4a 4 x _ a — 2y + x _ a 4a %8?pi2
2
y - y x 1 X

or

o 9 i ib2 1 2 2 ,1 . b2
(5)
7 ,a_ W y = J X 6 X1T

Dividing (2) by (4), we get

b2 bl
xy y* x\ y - 3, 4 y2
2 Fig. 1.632
y - j x
3 X
For the yield pattern in Fig. 1. 632, the moment
or equations for B about the free edges show that these
can only be satisfied when y = z = 0. As the column
reaction is
(6)
y ( t ~ y2J =i b2x_ i yx2
1
~2 pba2 — imb
We now eliminate x2 from (5) and (6), and find
S= (1. 632)
2a

we get m = m' = V2S (YLT, page 85, at top), i.e.

(7)
2 + li pab
m (1. 633)
8 + 2 i|
which, inserted in (6), gives the following equation:

45
The transition from (1. 631) to (1. 633) takes place
around b = a. Thus, the yield pattern shown in
Fig. 1. 631 is only likely to arise in a few cases.
However, as we can prevent local failure at the
column by providing this with a suitable capital,
we can use (1. 631) for higher values of b. If the
capital found necessary is too large, a capital of
suitable size can be selected, but then, of course,
the local conditions at the column will be more
critical. These conditions are investigated by means
of equation (90) in YLT, which thus replaces (1. 633).
However, the yield pattern in Fig. 1. 631 assumes
that x < y, which gives the limit for b /a indicated in
(1. 631).
When the slab is simply supported, the yield patterns The other yield pattern has already been dealt with
in Figs. 1. 633 and 1. 634 may occur if the corners in section 1. 21, and (1. 217) gives m, but only for load
of the slab are not anchored or if no top reinforce­ on one side of the axis of rotation, whereas we have
ment is provided. all the time assumed load over the entire slab.
Continuing with the latter assumption, the equations
on page 22 will be altered as follows:

2my = ^ pxa2 + -g- pya2 (Bl)

ma — m — = i p a [x2 + x(x + y) + (x + y )2]

a u
(B2)

4my = ~ pa2(b — 2x) — y pa2 2y (A)

Eliminating x and y and with k = pa2/m , we get

k2 + 2 ( 3 - 4 A J k - 1 9 2 - H = 0 (1. 635)
b 2y b2
In the first case, we get at slab part A:
from which k and thus m can be determined.
m = pxz (1 ) Now, comparing (1. 631), (1. 634) and (1. 635), we find
that (1. 634) will never be decisive and (1. 635) only
For slab part B, a moment equation about the free when b > l-8a, but in this case, the slab will have
edge gives such a shape that it would be most natural to pro­
vide more than two columns.
The yield patterns shown in Fig. 1. 623 and 1. 624
my + m x a = 2 P 2 a 2 pXy( a ~ 3 might also arise in the case of a restrained slab,
since there would be a negative yield line at the
Inserting m from (1) in this equation, we get axis of rotation. In the latter Figure, m can im­
mediately be calculated by means of (1. 218), which,
however, gives a lower value of m than (1. 631).
xy = -g ab (2 )
In slabs encountered in practice, we can thus dis­
For the same slab part, a moment equation about regard the yield patterns in Figs. 1. 633 and 1. 634.
the free edge a gives

b2
ma y =9^ pa pxy

Inserting in this equation m and y from (1) and (2),

we get

x 3 = 32ab2 (3)

which again gives

pab /3F
m (1.634) Fig. 1.635
16 v 2a
46
When the columns are located at some distance or
from the corners, the calculations become rather
b
difficult, and we shall therefore not reproduce them
c 2 a Ia ~ i6
here. It will be on the safe side to neglect the 1 + Vl + i 1 +
hatched part of the slab, i.e. we can use (1. 631), as ,i < 1 (2a)
1 + -
might be expected in accordance with the result
at the end of section 1. 62. However, a comparison 1 + Vl + i
with the exact calculation shows that this is only
a good approximation when the columns are located and
rather close to the corners. At greater distances,
we get too conservative a solution. It is found that - 1 + .
we can find m by interpolating between the value m0 m i = ¥ P b2 — 4a2 (3a)
for c = 0 and the value of mx that is found when c 1 + -
is so large that we get the yield pattern shown in
Fig. 1. 635.
With these values for c 1 and m^ and m 0 in accor­
This is precisely the pattern that form s the transi­
dance with (1. 631), we can find m by means of (4).
tion to the cases in which the slab is simply calcu­
For i = 1, we get
lated as a beam that spans from the support to the
columns, i.e. by means of formulae (1. 612) and
P
(1.613). In the transitional case, we obviously m 4a2 + 7ab — 50c2 + 17*5 — c : ,i = 1
have 120 a (1. 637)
m = pi2 = i- pb2 — pCl 2 If we now compare the values found by means of
(1. 636) and (1. 637) with the exact values, we will
find that the approximation is on the safe side. In
i.e.
slabs likely to arise in practice, the deviation does
not exceed 10%. In the least favourable case (with
1 = ------- 2 ( a 2 - c ,3) _ / b 2 _ 4Ci2 (1)
the columns near the centre), the deviation does not,
aVl + i + ^ a 2 + ic12 moreover, exceed about 20%.

As above, the local conditions at the column must

In the special case of simple support, we get
be investigated by means of equation (90) in YLT.
c -l2 = a(b — a) (2)
The negative moment is m' = V2p c2.
The deflexions are estimated in the following man­
ner. At a strip between the columns, the maximum
m i - j P ( 2a — b )2 (3 ) deflexion between these is

This solution is normally only practicable when

EIu, mb2
the slab is almost square, but it can be used for the
purpose of interpolation. As we know that (1. 631)
can be utilized for small values of c, linear
interpolation cannot be used. With quadratic
interpolation we get

= m 0 - (m0 - m ,) (— (4)

where m0 is the value corresponding to c = 0 that

is given by (1. 631). Inserting this and m1 and c x Fig. 1.636
from (2) and (3), we get

4ab + 5a2 31c2 + 9^- c 2 , i = 0 For the strip half-way between the columns and
72 a parallel with a, we have (Fig. 1. 636),
(1.636)
When i > 0, the exact solution of (1) cannot be
Elf ~ 2~ mx(a — x)
found when c x is considered as unknown. On the
other hand, b /a can be expressed by means of c 1?
and if we do this we find that quadratic interpola­ We then find the maximum total deflexion u from
tion between the value corresponding to c x= 0 and
that corresponding to c ^ a is very accurate. As X , r
U = U, — + f
the form er value is 2/(1 + Vl + i) and the latter is a
2, we thus have, to a good approximation,
We thereby find that
b
2- 1 / b2\2
a 1 + Vl + i EIu - -g- m (a + _ j , (b 2a) (1. 638)
1 + Vl + i

47
A diagonal strip gives, more simply but somewhat Unit deflexion at the point of intersection (x, y) will
less accurately, result in the following rotations of slab parts A, B
and C:
EIu ~ — m(a2 + b2)
8

Numerical example
According to (1. 636), a simply supported roof slab,
with c = l m , a = 3 m ,b = 4 m and p = 400 k g/m 2,
will get the following moment: c, a — v ’ c >b _ ^ U
y +x - x + y—
J a J b

m = — 14 X 3 X 4 + 5 X 3 2 — 3 1 x l 2
72 L the last two of which are components of 6C with
regard to a and b. The internal moments are
+ 9 x -4 x l 2j = 411 kg
= —m (l + ia)a, = —m (l + ib)b
In example 21 in YLT, the exact value is found to be
400 x 0*96 = 384 kg. The column investigation is a = —m(a — z '), ^ = —m(b — z)
given on page 132 in YLT. With a slab thickness of
10 cm, we find the following deflexion by means of
(1.638): The external moments are

(300 + 400 X 400)2

411(300 p(a + u)(b — y)2 puz3
V 4 x 300 /

8 x 2 x 105 x — x 103
12 M r = — p(b + v)(a — x)2 — p v (z')3
= 2*4 cm > — 1*6 cm
250
i.e. the thickness should be increased to 12 cm. ^ c, a — P(a — x — z ')y 2

+ i- px[y2 + y(b — z) + (b — z)2]

1. 7 Supported on two adjacent sides and a column

1. 71 Column at the f r e e corner Mc =1- P ( b - y - z ) x 2

c ,, bd - 6

+ py[x2 + x(a — z ') + (a — z ') 2]

Formula (37), YLT, page 60, is used for the last two.
After rearrangement, the work equation gives

2+- U
pab au + x b v + y
m =
6 a(l + ia) a b(l + i^)
a + ------ + — +
b -y v+y a —x u +x

(1.711)

We will first use this to find approximate values of

m with the aid of estimated yield patterns. If the
axis of rotation is assumed to lie at an angle of 45°
with the sides, we get u = b and v = a. We will
Fig. 1.711 further assume that (x, y) lies at an equal distance
from the supported sides, i.e. that a — x = b — y
We will formulate the work equation for a uniformly = k(a + b), where k is an unknown constant that is
distributed load. The yield pattern will be as shown determined by means of the maximum principle.
in Fig. 1. 711, where u/b = a/v, i.e. With these values, (1. 711) gives the following mo­
ment for simple support:
uv = ab
We further find that m =E *k
- ( 2+f 4 ) ]
b —y , a —x
z = u , z = v --------
u+ x v + y which will be maximum for k = 3/[2(2 + a /b + b /a )].

48
We thereby obtain When the point of intersection (x, y) in Fig. 1. 711
falls outside the slab, we get the yield pattern in
3pab
rru = (1.712) Fig. 1. 712. P recisely as in the corresponding yield
pattern, Fig. 1. 632, the yield line at C must be im­
8(2+l +i ) ’ mediately adjacent to the column, and S =2m . The
moment equation for A is then
Assuming the yield line to lie along one diagonal
and the axis of rotation to lie parallel with the other, m (l + ■
a) a - na - x 1 pax2
: g- 9
we get u = a, v = b and x /a = y /b = k. If we are
using (1.711), with i = 0, this gives

m = (1 - k)(l + 2k)

5( K )
3P
mmax =
’k = I
16

Taking the axis of rotation as perpendicular to the

diagonal to the column, and the yield line from the
corner as lying symmetrical to the same diagonal
with regard to the bisector, we get u = b2/a , v = a2/b
and (a — x )/b = (b — y )/a = k and

m
12 -K K ) For B, we get the moment equation

with the same maximum as above when k = x 1 o,

3 /[2(a/b + b/a)]. m — a = j pa2b pa2x — Sa

We have obtained the same value of m for two dif­

ferent yield patterns. Therefore, a pattern lying These are solved by
between the two must be expected to give a better
approximation, and it is just such a pattern that led 3 + 2 — + ib
to (1.712), which must thus provide a particularly x _ 3 b P
K = 3
good approximation. It will easily be seen that this b ~ l + VTTk ’ p2
gives a higher value of m than the other formula. (1 + ia) —
b2
In the case of restrained slabs, the same yield
pattern gives 3 b - 2x
m — pa2
2(x + a) + ibb

_ pab k[3“ (2+F +f ) k For simple support, we get the special case
m
6 aia + bib
1 + (1 - k) pab
a + b mn = (1.714)

where the exact determination of k leads to a

quadratic equation. Equation (1. 713) can be used to a good approxi­
By substituting in the numerator the same value of mation for restrained slabs.
k as for simple support (a value that deviates only A comparison between (1. 712) and (1. 714) shows
slightly from 3/8 as long as a and b do not differ that they both give the same value of m for a = b,
greatly), and in the denominator 1 — k = 5/8 ~ 0*6, but apart from this, (1. 714) gives the higher value of
we get m. The yield pattern in Fig. 1. 712 is therefore the
mr more dangerous and, as (1. 713) applies for both
m = (1.713) yield patterns, this is also the case for restrained
aia + bib slabs. However, the possibility of local failure at
1 4- 0-6 the corner can be avoided by providing the column
a+ b
with a suitable capital, and then equation (90) in YLT,
where m0 is determined by means of (1. 712). The page 123, must be used instead of (1. 714). We can
thus as a rule use (1. 712) to determine m and (90)
error in these formulae is only a few per cent, as
to determine the capital.
will be seen from the exact calculation in the
following. A more accurate determination of the yield pattern

49
is necessary for calculating the column reaction S. been determined, the equilibrium equation for the
The unknown quantities x, y, u and v can be deter­ slab part C in Fig. 1. 711 gives the column reaction:
mined by means of the maximum principle, bearing
in mind that u and v are related by uv = ab, i.e.
udv + vdu = 0. According to equation (40) in YLT, + 2xy + y2 + m b- y
page 64, we now get + x v + y_ U+ X
X
+ m (1.715)
0T , , 0T , 0T 0T v + y
— du + — dv u ---------v —
T dT 0U 0V 0 U ________ 0V _
( )1
N dN 0N . , 0N , 0N 0T where the last two terms are the contributions from
— du + — dv u v—
0U 0V 0U 0V the nodal forces shown.
In the same way, we get the reactions on sides a
as du/u = — dv/v, in accordance with the above.
and b:
From (1.711) we get the following new expressions
for m:
By differentiating with regard to x in the numerator Ra = f - p ( b - y ) a + u h! _ 1
u + xJ
and denominator:
/<g . . v a — x b —y
+ m (l + ia) ------------ m -------
b -y u+ x
pab a(u + x)2
(2)
6 b (l + i^) b + v
v + y_
(a — x)2 (u + x)2
a —x
+ m (l + ib ) ---- %- m (1.716)
By differentiating with regard to y: a —x v + y

pab At the corner, we get the anchorage force:

b(v + y)2
m = (3)
~G~ a 0- + h
H = m (l + ia) - ---- — + m (l + i^) ---------- (1. 717)
(b - y)2 (v + y)2 b —y a —x
By differentiating with respect to u and v, (1) yields
The longest side can be assumed to be less than
twice the shortest side, as we would otherwise ar­
range more columns, so the calculation is only
Pab (u + x)2 (v + y)2 carried out for a ^ b ^ 2a in the case of simple
m = (4)
bu av supports. At restraints, the yield pattern is im­
(u + x)2 (v + y)2 possible for b = 2a.
The results, which are given in the following Table,
In connexion with (1. 711), we have here four equa­ show clearly that S /P ,H /P and (Ra + R b)/P vary only
tions, which, in principle, determine the unknown slightly with a/b, i.e. they can be assumed to be
quantities, but such a determination is not practi­ equal to the values for the square slab with the
cable. However, as the approximate formulae pro­ same degree of restraint. Further, we know, with
vide us with m, we can find x and y from (2) and (3), sufficient accuracy for practical purposes, that
estimating u and thus also v. The correctness of u Ra/R b = a Vl + ia/(b VI + i^), and as the exact values
can be checked by substituting the calculated values of P /m are specified, the suitability of the approxi­
in (4). When the correct values of x, y, u and v have mate formulae established earlier can be checked.

a u X y P S *a Rb H
ia *b
b a a b m P P P P

1 1 0-25 0-25 10-7 0-212 0-487 0-487 0-187

0 0 2/3 2*2 0-115 0-354 11-0 0-217 0-403 0-563 0-183
1/2 4*36 0-001 0-415 11-5 0-225 0-344 0-608 0-177

1 1 0-162 0-162 17-1 0-130 0-551 0-551 0-232

1
1 1
I
2/3 1-93 0-035 0-257 17-7 0-130 0-450 0-648 0-228

1 0-9 0-290 0-112 13-6 0-168 0-603 0-439 0-210

1 0
2/3 1-9 0-176 0-230 13-3 0-172 0-511 0-530 0-213

50
The following formulae apply to a good approxima­
tion:

PaVl + in
S= ■
iaa + ibb ’ Ra
1 + 0-6 aVl + ia + bVTT *b
a + b

PbVl + ib
S0 = 0*22 P Rb
aVl + ia + bVl + ib
(1.718)
H can, as usual, be determined by means of (1.119).
Because of the approximations, the check P + H
= Ra + R^ + S does not agree exactly.
For the simply supported slab, S can be calculated
from the theory of elasticity by means of the results
in sections 1. 32 and 1. 33. As the resultant deflexion
due to the column reaction S0 and the load p, accord­
ing to (1. 323) and (1. 333), is
Fig. 1.721
EIu = pa2b2 - j S0ab = 0
unit deflexion of the point of intersection. This
results in the rotations,
we get S0 = 0*25 pab, which is independent of a/b
1
and almost equal to S0 in (1. 718).

1. 72 Column inside the fr e e corner

We will here limit ourselves to the square slab
B (a - x)V2
since, as in the previous sections, the results can
also be assumed to apply to a rectangular slab. For
the sake of simplicity we will assume that ia = i^, so for slab parts A and B. For the internal moments
the yield pattern is symmetrical (Fig. 1. 721) and for A and V2B, we get
dependent only upon the distance from the point of
intersection of the yield lines to the sides. We find
MA = m (l + i)(a + c), MB = m(cV2^ + y \ )
that i i v ^

a —c x
z —--------- and for the external moments,
2a
a —x M j + p x 2ax2 - 1 p(a - c)z 2
y = 2 (a — c)
2a — x

Mg = A. paV2(a — x)2 x 2
We can then establish the work equation, assuming D

—™ p(a — c)V 2y2 x — ~ pcV2 c 2 x 2

After rearrangement, the work equation gives

P 3(a + c)2(a — c)a — x(a + c)(5a2 — 2ac — c 2) + 2a2x2

m - — x -------- :--------------------------------------------------------------------------
6 2 (1 + i)(a + c)a2 — x(2 + 3i)(a + c)a + [ia + (1 + i)c]x2
(1.721)
and, differentiating the numerator and denominator
with respect to x, we get, by means of the maximum
principle,
p 3(a + c )2(a — c)a — 2x(a + c)(5a2 — 2ac — c 2 ) + 6a2x 2
m ~ 6 —(2 + 3i)(a + c)a + 2[ia + (1 + i)c]x
(1. 722)

51
These equations are treated in the same way as in \
section 1. 71. With an estimated value of x, we get
an approximate value of m by means of (1. 721) that
is slightly on the low side. With a slightly higher
value of m, (1. 722) is used to determine x, which
gives a better value of m in (1. 721), etc. The cal­
culations have been carried out for i = 0 and i = 1,
and the results show that we have, to a good approxi­
mation, *yyyyyyyyyyy7yyyyyyyyyy77^yyy7yyl,
b d
mQ — 0*15pc2
m = (1.723)
i a ( a + c ) 4- i b (b 4- c ) Fig. 1.722
1 + 0-
a + b 4- 2c
The local conditions at the column must be investi­
where m0 is the value determined by means of gated by means of equation (90) in YLT, page 123.
(1. 712) (using a and b). The effect of the restraint To determine the maximum deflexion, we could
is thus the same as in (1. 713) (with a + c x and simply use a strip along the diagonal to the column,
b 4- c). The column reaction is found by the equation and we would then get EIu ~ 1/8m(a2 + b2). However,
of projection for slab part B: a more accurate value can be obtained by means of
the strips shown in Fig. 1. 722, which fit the yield
pattern better. At the middle of a, we have EIu-l
S = p[(a — x)Vif aV2~— (a — c)V2~ y ^ /y + 2c2] ~ V8ma2,and at the middle of b, EIu2 ~ V8mb2. The
strip from u± to u2 has the dip Elf ~ V8m(a2/4 + b2/4 )
and as u ^ f 4 V2 u2 4 V2 u1? we get
4- 2m (1.724)
2a — x
EIu ~ — m(a2 4- b2) (1.728)
The results obtained from the above calculations 32
show that we have, to a good approximation,
Numerical example

S = ------------- Q~— --------—------ + — p(a 4- b)c In example 22 in YLT, page 79, a = 4-5 m ,b = 3*0 m,
ia(a + c) + ib(b + c) 2 c = 1*5 m, and d = 1*0 m. As i0 ib = 0, we get
1 + 0-6 from (1.726) and (1.727)
a + b + 2c
4- 2-5pc2 (1.725) 3p x 4-5 x 3 „ „_ , „ _
m = —7- -v.r------- o—:------0*15p x 1*5 x 1 = 0*99p
s6 + « +J_)
As H ~ 2mV 1 + ia VI 4- ib,w e get Ra + Rb = p(a + c) V 3 4-5 /
x (b 4- c) + H — S, where we can assume that Ra/R b
= (a 4- c) Vl 4- ia/[ ( b 4- c) Vl 4* ib].
S = 0*22p x 4-5 x 3 4- - p(4-5 x 1 4- 3 x 1*5)
When the column is not equidistant from the edges, 2
but stands at a distance c from edge b and a distance
4- 2*5p x 1*5 x 1 = ll-2 p
d from edge a, whereby the slab has the side lengths
a 4- c and b 4- d, the formula must be assumed to be
The exact calculation in YLT gave the same value of
as follows:
m, and S = ll*6p, for the dead load.
m0 — 0*15 pcd
m = (1.726) With p = 400 k g/m 2, we get m = 400 kg, which gives
l a (a 4- c ) + i b (b 4- d ) h = 8 cm. The deflexion is thus
1 + 0-6
a 4- b 4- c 4- d
3 400 (4502 + 30Q2)
0 *22p a b u = 1*3 cm
i a (a + c ) + i b (b + d )
4- Y p(ad 4- be) 32 2 x 105 x - i x 83
12
1 4- 0*6
a + b 4- c 4- d 450 , q
< ----- = 1-8 cm
4- 2*5 pcd (1.727) 250
The slab is thus sufficiently stiff as a roof structure.
This can be seen if we divide the slab as shown in The investigation of the conditions at the column is
Fig. 1. 722. For the innermost part of the slab, with given on page 133 in YLT.
the sides a and b, we get the first term in the ex­
pression for S, and for the outer parts, we get the
second term pcd. The excess 1-5 pcd can be attri­
buted to the fact that the load acts on the cantilever
part of the slab [cf. a simply supported beam with
span 1 and a single cantilever end of length c; the 1. 8 Supported on four columns
reaction in this beam is then increased by pc
+ V2P (c2/l) ] . With a uniformly distributed load and symmetrically

52
placed columns, we get one of the yield lines shown EIu ~ V8 m(a2 + b2), where m is the greater of the
in Fig. 1. 81, which gives moments ma and m^. In the section perpendicular
to the diagonal, we have moreover, m^ = macos2 v
+ m^sin2 v, and when this is used, we again get
ma = ! p ( a2 — 4c2)
(1.84).

mb = -g- (b2 — 4d2) (1. 81) Numerical example

In the case of the square slab corresponding to
(1. 83), the total load is P = p x l-7 2a2 = 2*89 pa2,
S = 0*722 pa2, m = m '= pa2/16 = P/46*2. If a square
capital is used, we get pc = s/12 = 0’ 722 pa2/ l 2,
The negative moments are and equation (90) gives

ma = \ Pc2>mb = - pd2 (1.82) 0-722 pa* ( 1 - $ ^ )

2

= 2m + 4 x 0*35a Vp(m + m ')

= -|pa2 + l-4a = 0‘625pa2

so that
j. (0*722 - 0*625)3/2 ^ \
a 0-722 ~~ 24

Fig. 1.81

It will be appropriate to design the slab as an ortho­

tropic slab according to these moments.
The local conditions at the column can be investi­
gated by means of equation (90) in YLT. This only
covers isotropic slabs, but by means of an affine
transformation, the calculation of the orthotropic
slab can be converted to that of an isotropic slab.
However, this calls for the same reinforcement
ratio at top and bottom, which in turn requires that
a/b = c/d , which can usually be arranged. The affine
slab will then be square, with the largest of the sides
as side length.
Fig. l k82
With c = 0-35a and d = 0*35b, we get, in particular,
We must next determine how far the top reinforce­
ma — ma ~ Pa2>mb = mb = Pb2 83> ment has to be taken past the column because of the
local conditions here. As m s = nig = m, we can use
Table IV on page 135 in YLT for this purpose. As
At strips between the columns, one parallel with a
£ = 0*35a yp/m = 1*4, we get T = 2-9, where | and T
and the other with b, we get respectively
are defined by means of equations (86) and (96) in
YLT. A s m ' = 0, where the top reinforcement ends,
EIua ~ i maa2>EIub ~ | mbb2 we get t VV2 = T Vm/p =0*72a. As t is the distance
from the corner to Uie limit of the reinforcement
(Fig. 84 in YLT), t VV2 will be its distance from the
The dips for the strip between the uaTs and the strip edge, and (0*72—0*35)a = 0*37a, the distance that the
between the ub Ts are EIfa ~ \ mb^2 anc* EI*b ~ top reinforcement has to be taken into the inner part
V8 maa2,respectively. As u = ua + fa or u^ + f^,it of the slab. This is considerably more than the 0-15a
will be seen that both methods yield the same obtained by means of (1. 166) or (0.16) withi = 1. We
result, i.e. assume here that the top reinforcement is arranged
in square panels at the columns as in the case of
EIu ~ -g-(maa2 + mbb2) (1. 84) flat-slab structures (Fig. 1. 82).
A somewhat less accurate estimate can again be With p = 400 k g/m 2 and a = 4 m, we get the moment
obtained by utilizing a diagonal strip, which gives m = 400 kg, which gives a slab thickness h = 8 cm.

53
The deflexion will then be
4 x 400 x 4002
4
u = ---------------- j---------
2 x 105 x — x 83
12
The thickness must be increased to 9 cm. The side
of the capital 1 = 400/24 = 17 cm. The column
reaction is 0*72 x 400 x 16 = 4600 kg. The shear
400 stress is r = 4600/(4 x 17 x 9) = 7*5 k g /cm 2.
1*9 cm > ----- = 1*6 cm
250

54
2 Skew slabs

Skew slabs are of minor importance in practice Multiplication by sin w of the equation
and can usually be dealt with in the same way as
rectangular slabs, so the following treatment can 2qaa + 2%b = pab sin co + £ H
be kept quite short.
for the skew slab gives the corresponding equation
for the rectangular slab, the contributions with cot cu
cancelling out.
2.1 Parallelogram-shaped slabs
Because of the acute angle, the influence of the
These are most frequently encountered in skew corner levers is somewhat greater than in the case
bridges. of the rectangular slab. For calculations similar
to those in the following chapter 3, we find a co r ­
rection factor,
2.11 Supported on all fou r sides

k = 1-75 — y sin ( 2 . 112 )

for w ^ 30°, by which the moment must be multi­

plied. For example, co = 60° gives k = 1*17, i.e. an
increase of 17%.
In Fig. 2.111 it is assumed that the negative yield
lines are located above the supports. However, in
certain types of slab, yield lines like AB' and CD'
in Fig. 2.112 may result in a greater moment be­
cause the distance AC' between these is greater
than the distance between the sides AB and CD.
D*

In the case of a uniformly distributed load p and the

line loads shown, pa and Pb,the equilibrium equations
for the yield pattern shown in Fig. 2. I l l are derived
and dealt with in exactly the same way as in s e c­
tion 1.13.
The expressions show that the skew slab has the
same moment m as a rectangular slab with the
same spans and same loads. By span we mean the
perpendicular distance between opposite sides, and
for the skew slab, we get a sin w and b sin co. If
pa is not parallel with a, but form s the angle u 4= w
with b, we get, by means of the corresponding As C' is located on the circle which has AC as
rectangular slab, pa' = pa sin co/sin u. For p alone, diameter, the greatest value of AC' is obtained when
formula (109), page 139 in YLT, gives the same C' coincides with C, i.e. when the yield lines are
reaction qas in the corresponding rectangular slab perpendicular to the short diagonal AC of the
(with the sides a sin w, b sin u>). On the other hand, parallelogram. It will be seen from this that, when
the corner forces are as follows (cf.the derivation the angle between a and the short diagonal d is
in section 2. 21): obtuse, we have to use the short diagonal instead
of the span b sin cu.
H o= 9) cot u> For a point load, formula (1.14) applies without
sin — HiL 2
L2 2 + m (l
v + ii1 + 1 + i 2
alteration, as the derivation shows that only the
number of restrained sides, and not the shape of the
and correspondingly for H3 4,
slab, is of importance.
1 In the main, the interpolation formulae (1.146-8)
H2,3 = sin a) 2,3 m (1 4- i2 + 1 + i3) cot a)
would apply if the wheel loads were distributed
(2 . 111 ) over parallelograms with the sides k and 1 parallel
with a and b (Fig. 2.113). However, no significant
and correspondingly for H4 4, where H' applies to change in m can be expected if these parallelo­
the corresponding rectangular slab. grams are replaced by rectangles, the sides of

55
which are 1' = 1 sin to and k, as shown in the Figure.
In other words, formulae (1.146-8) are used with
1 = l'/s in co. In the limiting case,k = 1' = 0 ,form u­
la (1.146) gives m = P /6 , which differs less than 5%
from the correct value, P/27r. In the limiting case,
k = 1 = a = b, we get m = P /24, whilst the correct
value is
pa2 sin2 to P / 2
m = k -----------------= — sin to 1*75 sin to
24 24 V 3
= ^ (1 ± 0-08)
for to > 45°, in which the corner levers are taken
into account.
It would be natural to arrange the reinforcement
parallel with the sides, but this would be very un­
economical. If the same reinforcement, c o r r e s ­
ponding to mw, were provided in the direction of
each side, then in accordance with YLT, page 56,
the slab would have to be treated as an orthotropic
slab with reinforcement parallel with and perpen­
dicular to the bisector, in the ratio tan2 {to/2). In
accordance with the affinity theorem, mw could
56
then be calculated by means of an isotropic slab
affine to the given slab in the ratio cot (to/2). This
slab (see Fig. 2.114) is rectangular, with the sides
a' = a VsTcos (to/2) and b' = bV2 cos (to/2), which
have the same ratio as a and b and as the spans
a sin to and b sin to. The moment m^ and the
moment m that is found in the skew slab when this
is isotropically reinforced would then have the
same ratio as the loads on the rectangular slabs
a'b' and a sin to x b sin to, i.e.
m Cl) 2 C0S2f (2.113)
m sin2 co cos to
It will be seen that to = 60° would already give
m^ = 2m; and even so slight a degree of skewness
as corresponding to to = 80° would result in a 20%
increase in the reinforcement if we were to rein­
force in the direction of the sides.
2.12 Supported on two sides
For a uniformly distributed load p, we get the
following moment for the yield pattern shown in
Fig. 2.121:
m = -q plr (2 . 121 )
where the reduced span lr is determined from 1 by
means of formula (0. 11). If b form s an obtuse
angle with the short diagonal, we must use d in­
stead of 1, as the negative yield lines are not form ­
ed along the supports but perpendicular to d. When
i x 4= i 2, we may get cases in which only one of the
yield lines is located over the support. The trape­
zoidal yield pattern thus formed can be dealt with
by means of the formulae in section 2. 23. In the
case of simple supports, the reactions R 1 and R2
lie on a line perpendicular to b and through the
midpoint of the slab and not, as might be supposed,
on a line parallel with a. They act within the sup­
port when the angle between b and d is acute, i.e.
when m is determined by 1. In the opposite case,
the slab parts rotate about axes perpendicular to
d, and the reactions act at the obtuse corners. In
this case we can obtain the more favourable yield these lines must be drawn so that the distance
pattern shown in Fig. 2.121 by anchoring the acute between them is 1.
corners and placing top reinforcement at these.
For a point load P, we easily get (cf. example 0. 21):
In accordance with the above rule, R acts at a dis­
tance z = (1/2) cot oo — b /2 outside the support. The P lr 2 PI
anchorage force H is then determined by means of m = (2.124)
Hb = Rz, where R - V2 pbl. From this we get 4bl b(VT + i x + + i 2) 2

H = |-pl2^cot CO (2 . 122 ) when the yield pattern is as shown in Fig. 2.121.

-t ) When the negative yield lines are not located along
the supports, but form an angle with these (see Fig.
after which the formulae on pages 84-85 of YLT give
2.122), the same formula can be used as long as
we insert b' and 1' from the parallelogram AB'CD'
b \ . oo
m ' = 2" H cot cot oo lm determined by these yield lines. It is then a case of
Y ) 2 ~ determining the directions of b' and 1' that will
(2.123) make l '/ b ' maximum or will make b '/ l ' minimum,
which is the same thing. If we draw a circle of
In the sections perpendicular to d, the top reinforce­ radius 1 about C, b '/ l ' will be equal to the length
ment m" — i'm must be such that d~ < 1, i.e. of the tangent t to this circle between a and the

(
short diagonal d. It will now be seen that the short­
d^ b2 est of the tangents to the arc is the one that lies
1 + i' 2 j cot
12 12 sm z oo symmetrically, i.e. the one for which 1' bisects the
angle between a and d, and then the yield line b'
which gives bisects the obtuse angle between d and the exten­
sion of a. If we draw a line parallel with 1' through
If cot. Cl’ ~~ybV) A (see Fig. 2.123), we get CS -= CD' = d, KS
a + d — b cos co and AK -= b sin oo. Further,

which is always less than i. If the top reinforce­ V KS a + d — b cos oo

ment is limited by lines through the obtuse corners, b' 2 tan 2 x AK 2b sin oo

A' A B* B.

Fig. 2. 122

57
 U - -U

Fig. 2.123

This finally gives will immediately be seen from Fig. 2.122 that t
must have the same length as that corresponding to
a+ d b, i . e . r and 1 must be symmetrical about the b i­
cos oo^j
2(Vl + i 1 + Vi + i 2) 2 sin co ' - b
- ( sector of the angle ACD, and consequently, b and b'
(2.125) must be symmetrical about the bisector of the angle
A 'A C ,i.e .b ' must form the angle oo with the short
diagonal d.
This should only be used if D' is located inside the If the slab is very wide, m cannot be less than the
support, i.e. a > d. It is here assumed that P acts value corresponding to P = 2ti (m + m ') for the
near the mid-line parallel with a. When this is not circular yield pattern.
the case, or when i 1 =t= i 2, we may get yield patterns
with one yield line along the support. These cases
can be dealt with using the formulae for trapezoidal 2.2 Trapezoidal slab
slabs given in section 2. 23.
2.21 Supported on all four sides
In the case of simple supports, the reactions R x and
We will find an approximate formula by means of
R2 act on a line through P, which form s an angle
the work equation and will use as yield pattern that
— co with b (see Fig. 2.124). When a < d, the rea c­
determined by the bisectors and the mid-line, which
tions are located inside the supports; when a > d,
gave very good results in the case of rectangular
they are located outside, but then the slab rotates
slabs. As all slab parts get the same rotation, this
about the axes b' (Fig. 2.123) and the reactions act
is reckoned to be equal to 1. The work equation
only at the obtuse corners; m is determined by
then gives
means of (2.125). By anchoring the acute corners,
we can produce the yield pattern in Fig. 2.121, and
m (l + i x) a + m (1 + i2) b + m (1 + i3) c + m(l + i 4)d
m is then determined by means of (2.124). As the
reaction acts a distance z = 1 cot co — V2b outside = V6p r 2(a + b + 2s + c + d + 2s)
the support, we get the anchorage force H and the
negative moment in the same way as before: and as 2s = b + d — a — c, we get

m(a + b + c + d) + m (ixa + i2b + i 3c + i 4d)

2 cot
~ 4b \ -*) = V6p r2 (3b + 3d — a — c)
b \ .C D
(2.126) or
m' =
—m ^
( cot oo
21 j COt 2
i-La + i 2b + i 3c + i 4d
The limit for the top reinforcement can be a line m + m ---------
a +, —
t~ + c + rz5
through the obtuse corner, such that l '/ b ' = 1/b. It b d ----- = m + m,1

Fig. 2.124

58
 cot u = cot ol + J \ ~ \ I 1
V 1 + i9 sm a
- r- ^ —

As the correct yield lines do not deviate much from

the value thus determined, and as the variation at a
minimum value is slight, this can be used to a good
approximation. We thus get
2niy/(l + i x)(l + i 2)
+ (2 + i 1 + i2) m cot a
sin a
(2.213)

F ig .2.211 and correspondingly for the other corner forces.

When these have been determined, the uniformly dis­
tributed reaction is found from the equation of pro­
fb + d - 1
jection:
a + c (2 . 211)
= mf
b 4- d q(a ,y i + i 1 + b / T T T ; + c ^ /l + i~3 + d J 1 + i 4)
+ 1
a + c

where the right side is the moment in a rectangular = P + Z H (2. 214)

slab with the same height 2r as that of the given
slab and the length
0 b + d . b + d
2r — ;— < — s—
a + c 2 an angle with these (see Fig. 2. 212). If a', c' are
It is thus on the safe side to use the mean value.
The influence of the corner levers is exactly the
same as in the previous slabs, as both types have
two acute and two obtuse angles. Corresponding to
(2.112) we thus get
k = 1* 75 — V3 (sin a + sin y ) ( 2 . 21 2 )
As the slab parts are triangles or trapezia, the
reactions will still be uniformly distributed. As in
the case of rectangular slabs, they can be reckoned
to be equal to q Vl + i v <qVl + i 2, etc. For the
corner force K 1 2,w e have, for example,
Hi 2 = ni(l + i x) cot (a — u) + m (l 4- i2) cot u
which is minimum for
1 + i. 1 + irj
sin2 {ol — u) sin2 u
As in the case of the previous slabs,m ore danger­
ous yield patterns may arise, the negative yield
lines of which are not located along a and c, but at
these yield lines, (2. 211) must be used, with a', b\
c', d instead of a, b, c, d, and u and v are found by
means of the maximum principle. If the height is h,
we find that
2 r- + tan u + tan v
d + b' h
sm u sm v
a' + c'
cos u cos v
(2.215)
where the last terms are obtained by means of the
condition for a maximum, (40) in YLT, page 64. We
find that tan u = tan v = h/d, i.e. a' and c ' are per­
pendicular to the diagonals in the rectangle hd, the
diagonal 1 of which is exactly the length in the r e c ­
tangular slab lh, which has the same moment as the
given slab. The yield pattern only arises if a' and
c ' are located within a and c. If this is not the case
with a, but is so with c, only the first equation in
(2. 215) is used for determination of u, as v is now

59
given. As the length for determination of the m o­ formed by the bisectors (see Fig. 2.221) gives the
ment is 1 = h (d + b ')/(a + c') = (h/sin u), we find in following, with all slab parts getting the same rota­
this case that tion:

1 + A2 2mh cot oi + 2mh cot p + am^ + bm^ + cm^

1= h
A sec v + VA2 — tan2 v = 1/6pah2 + VgPch2 + Vgpbh2
where
A = 2-t- + tan v (2.216) — V3ph3 (cot a + cot p) + V2pah + V2pch
h
+ p(d — a — c)h
In the special case of v = 0, we get where
h(cot a + cot 0) = a + b + c — d
, u 1 h -j . , h2
2"= "2 "d ’ 4d Inserting this and rearranging the equation, we get
In the latter calculations, the fact that is also
dependent upon a ',b ', c ' when the degrees of r e ­ m + m^
straint are unequal is neglected. However, the in­ 1 u9b + 2 d — a — c . 1 2d — a — c
vestigation is mostly of theoretical interest as it — ph2----------------------- + — ph
12 a + b + c —d 4 a + b + c —d
does not apply at all when the mean width V2(b + d)
is used in the calculation. ( 2 . 221 )

When the height is great, we get triangular slab where

parts at b and d and trapezoidal parts at a and c. am^ + bm2 + cm'3
m« =
Exact calculations confirm the obvious assumption 2(a + b + c — d)
that the slab should be calculated as a rectangle
with the same height and the length V2(b + d). Such As shown in section 1. 22, a triangular load that in­
calculations also show that the procedure is slightly creases from zero at the free edge to p at b gives
on the safe side (cf. also IngerslevTs rule discussed the same moment as the uniformly distributed load
in section 2.3). The corner forces and reactions V2P and the line load p = — (l/12)ph.
are calculated as above, as is also the influence of
the corner levers. The treatment of triangular This immediately gives the following equation for
loads, line loads and point loads presents no the triangular load:
difficulties either.
Ph2 2b + 2d - a - c
(2 . 22 2 )
2. 22 Supported on three sides 48 a + b + c —d
If we recall our investigations in 1.2, we will
immediately see that the formulae derived there, Dealing only with symmetrical cases, the work equa­
(1.217) and (1.218), together with (1.223) and (1.224) tion for the yield pattern in Fig. 2. 222 gives
for the rectangular slab with the sides d and h, can
be used directly provided the corresponding yield
pattern falls within the slab. This is always the case 2 m ^ a -^ -co s aj + mb + 2m/1a + 2m2b
when the free edge d is shorter than b,but when d
is longer than b, it is only the case when a and c are
not too skew. When the yield pattern is not contained =2 x -5p [ r s s i ; ( l si” “ ) 2 COS OL
within the slab, new formulae have to be derived. We
will here limit ourselves to simple approximate 2 d .
formulae derived by means of the work equation. + 2p sin a ,
For uniformly distributed load p and line load p on
x( ! cotf)2] +i pb(f 00tf)a
+ 7 P b( 7 2 4

the free edge, the work equation for the yield pattern (d = b + 2a cos ot)

Fig. 2. 221

60
After rearrangement we get

m + = m0 As a correct solution to the problem presents no

difficulties, the accuracy of this assumption can
p 1 + cos a 2a(b2 + bd + d2) — d3 easily be investigated.
24 1 — cos a 2a + d We write the moment equation about the support for
+ p d2 sin a_____ (2.223) slab part A and find
4 (2a + d) (1 — cos a)
iQm -------- + m cos (o? — v)
with a cos a cos v
2m'1a + m^b h
+ m tan v sin (a — v)
COS V
(2a + d) (1 — cos a)
1+ h 1+ h . ,
; _1p ------------------ - sm ( a v)
As a result of the long free edge, these slabs may 5 ^ cos a cos v
be rather flexible. 1 1 1
sin (a — v)
Numerical example 6 cos a COS V

A water canal with a depth of 2 m, a width of 2 m at or

the bottom, and a 1 :1 slope of the sides, is limited
by a vertical reinforced concrete slab. With a = c
co s 2 V
= 2 VsT, b = 2, d = 6 and p = 2 t /m 2, we get, by means m - 1
sin2 (a — v)
of (2.222),
2 x 4 4 ( 4 - V2) = “ P (3 12 + 31h + h2) (1)
m 1*04 t
48 4(V2 - 1)
We find a corresponding equation for slab part B,
With the stresses 60 and 1000 k g /cm 2, we get a with i^, f3 and — v instead of ia, a and v, respectively.
slab thickness of 12 cm and the deflexion The right side thus remains unaltered. The two left
1 1040 x 6002 sides then give the following equation for determina­
u= — = 1*6 cm tion of v:
8 2 x 105 x ± x 123
sin (a — v) sin (ft + v)
V1 + ia (2)

500
which is easily solved, i.e .
The thickness must be increased to 14 cm.
Vl + ib - / T T i
a tan
2.23 Supported on two sides + ib + V T T T 2
It seems natural to assume that this slab can be cal­ (2.231)
culated as a rectangular slab with the same height
h and length equal to the mean span s, which, with the
notation in Fig. 2. 231, is as follows: It will be seen that v — (a — f3)/2 is the angle of the
yield line with the bisector for a + p. When ia = i^,
s = (1 4- i/2h) (tan a + tan /3) the yield line therefore coincides with the bisector.

61
From (2) we now find, by dividing by cos a cos v In such cases, the same formula is used, but with
and cos p cos v in the numerator and denominator, a ', 13' and 1' corresponding to the yield lines.
that
Between these quantities, the condition l'(tan a' +
tan pf) = l(tan oi + tan p) applies as the shorter of
sin (a — v) _ tan a — tan v _ tan p + tan v
the parallel sides is the same for both yield pat­
V 1 + i a cos v V 1 + ia sec a Vl + i^ sec terns. a' and p' are then determined by means of
tan a + tan the maximum principle. As these calculations are
(3)
complicated, we will not go into them in detail but
V 1 + i a sec of + V 1 + i^ sec P
will just note that, in symmetrical slabs (a = p),
these cases only occur for restrained slabs with
By this means we immediately get the following from
rather skew ends because less skew yield lines give
(1) for the determination of m:
a smaller restraining effect.
[/Vl + ia sec a + Vl + i sec We will now turn to the treatment of a point load
m
[i tan a + tan p -)2- moving at a distance c from the shorter of the paral­
lel sides. The load is distributed with PA to slab
(2.232) part A and P b to slab part B. In the moment equa­
4 P(12+lh+H tions formulated earlier it is only necessary to alter
the load terms, which become
For simple support we get the special case of ia
i]j = 0 and
Pa 0 + c)-sf rCOS
j g -TJ< and P , (1 + c) ? v>
V COS V

m = 7t p I l 2 + lh 4- h2 ^ (tan a + tan j3)2 respectively, and thence

= F P( ]
cos a cos P mh COS V sin (a — v)
o &+ P 1 + c [(’ + ia) 5sin (a — v) cos v cos a
cos2 — (2.233)
and
The approximate value is
mh cos v sin (p + y)
Pb -
mt ~ V8 p s2 = V8 p(l2 + lh+ V4h2) (tan a + tan p)2 1 + c V + i b/ )SI
-
sin {p + v) cos v cos p
By addition we then find P = PA + PB. The most
o Oi + P dangerous location of P is obtained when dP/dv = 0,
m^ l 2 + lh + V4h2 cos 2
which gives (2) again, so we get the same yield line
m l 2 + lh + i/3h2 cos a cos P as before. Finally, by means of the expressions in
(3), we get
With a high 1/h ratio, i.e. when the trapezium is
fairly elongated, the first factor will be only slightly
^ _ mh ^ 1 + *a mh + ib
smaller than 1, and so the suitability of the approxi­ K, PB = K
mation depends only upon the last term. This is * A ~ T T ~ c cos a 1+ c COS p
exactly 1 when a = p, but is otherwise greater, i.e. mh /VTT+ ia j 1 + ibN
the approximation is on the safe side. Thus we get p =- IK
20°/o for a = 45° and p = 0. Even greater degrees COS P >
of error are found when p is negative, i.e. when the where
trapezium approaches the shape of a parallelogram.
Thus, for a = 45° and p = — 15°, we get a value that V l +ia sec a + V 1 + i^ sec p
K =
is 37°/0 too high, and for a = 45° and p = — 30°, a tan a + tan p
value that is 60°/o too high. In such cases it will be
_________ tan a + tan p________
necessary to use the exact formulae.
V l + iasec a + V 1 +i^ sec P (2. 235)
In the special case of ia = ib = i and a - j3, we get
symmetry and
i.e.
tan2 a _________ mh_________
m = V2p(l2 + lh + V3h2) P =
1 + i sec2 a (1 + c) (tan a + tan jS)
tan2 a (2.234)
mt = V2p(l2 + lh + V4h2) x [(Vl + ia sec a + J l + i^ sec P)2
1 + i'
Neglecting the insignificant difference in the paren­ — (tan a + tan P)2]
theses, we get the same value when the correspond­
ing rectangular slab is given the restraints i' = For simple support, we get the special case of ia
i s e c 2 a , i.e. the oblique restraints have a signifi­ = i^ = 0, and thus
cant effect.
P (1 + c) 0 a + P
In certain cases, the negative yield lines are not m = — ------- 2tan--------- (2.236)
4h 2
located along the supports but at an angle to these.

62
which is the same as in a rectangular slab with the uniformly distributed load. This has to be corrected
span 2(1 + c) tan {a/2 + /3/2). The span is thus found for the influence of the corner levers, which is done
by drawing a line perpendicular to the bisector of in the same way as for the triangular slabs in the
a + 13. The reactions on the sides a and b are Ra next chapter.
= PA and Rfo = P B, which are proportional to the
In the general case, we use the yield pattern formed
sides on which they act. Their distance from P must
by the bisectors (Fig. 2. 31). All slab parts thereby
be proportional to cos a and cos /3. We thereby
get the same rotation, which is put at 1, and the work
arrive at the determination of the location of Ra and
equation then gives
R]3 shown in Fig. 2. 232. We draw a line through P,
symmetrical to AB with regard to the bisector. The
maximum moment occurs when c = h, and R^ then m(a + b + c + d) = 2 x 1. parx2 + 2 x g- p c r 22
acts outside the support. With a symmetrical yield
pattern, both Ra and R^ act at the corners, i.e. slab
+ 2s x p f r ^ + r-,r2 + r 22) (2. 31)
part B (in Fig. 2. 231) rotates about a line symmetri­
cal to side a through the outermost corner. We then
get where r x and r 2 are the radii of the two tangential
circles for b, d and a or c. We have 2s + a + c =
b + d.
m = —1 2 tan a (2. 236')
4 h In accordance with Ingerslev, we determine the point
of intersection 0 between the bisectors of the angles
Finally, in the symmetrical case, ia = i^ = i, a = /3, formed by opposite sides (Fig. 2. 32). The distance of
we get this point from the sides is r and R, respectively.
The moment is then the same as in a rectangular
P(1 + c) 2 tan a (2.237) slab with the sides 2r and 2R. This approximation
4h 1 + i se c2 a is acceptable as long as the projections of 0 on the

which again shows that the oblique restraints act

with i sec2 o'.

2. 3 Convex quadrilateral slab supported on four

sides

This type of slab has already been dealt with by

Ingerslev in a paper in "Ingenidren", 1921, page 510,
which was of fundamental importance for the yield-
line theory. If we use the approximation, m + mi
= m0, where m0 is the moment for simple support
and m^ the mean restraint moment, we will only have
to determine m0. For the special case of a circum ­
scribed quadrilateral, with the radius r of the
inscribed circle, we get (YLT, page 60), m = V6p r2 for

63
sides are located on the periphery of the quadri­
lateral. For a parallelogram and for a symmetrical
trapezium, this method of calculation coincides with
that specified earlier. In these cases we get the
degenerate yield patterns (Figs. 2.112 and 2. 212)
64
precisely when the projection of 0 is located outside
the periphery. From this we can take it that such
degenerate yield patterns must be used in this case.
Formula (1.14) still applies for point loads.
3 Triangular slabs

These slabs are more of theoretical than of practical In accordance with YLT (108), page 138, the reaction
interest, but they are encountered in reinforced con­ on side a is
crete structures in the form of wing walls at bridge
piers and in steel structures in the form of base­ 5a = ~ Pha = - P -■ + ia __= = =
plates. 3 3 aVl + ia + bVl + ib 4- cVl + ic

A special characteristic of these slabs is the signi­ (3.12)

ficance of the corner levers. and correspondingly for the other sides. When the
i's are equal, we get the same value of q on all three
sides.
3.1 Supported on three sides At the corner at A, we get the corner force

Ha = m (l + ic ) cot y + m (l + ib) cot 0

where j3 + y = A and sin /3/sin y — Vl + + *c

= hb/h c . From sin /3 = sin (A — y), we find that
Vl + ib + Vl + ic cos A
cot y =
Vl + ic sin A
and
Vl + ic + Vl + ib cos A
cot /3 =
Vl + ib sin A

When these are inserted, we get

ha = - ^ [ 2^1 + ib Vl + ic + (2 + ib + iC) cos A ]

(3.13)
When the degrees of restraint on the sides a, b and
c are ia, ib and ic , respectively, the moment equa­
tions about the sides are as follows in the case of a It will be seen that HA is exactly the minimum value
uniformly distributed load: in (2. 213).
As 2T = be sin A and a2 = b2 + c 2 — 2bc cos A,
m (l + ia) = ^ pha2, m (l + ib) = ^ phb 2, sin A and cos A can hereby be expressed by means
of the sides, and we find
m (l + ic ) = jjrp h c 2
HA = t [ 4 b V T T ^ c V T T ^
Further, aha + bhb + chc = 2T, where T is the area
of the triangle. Introducing here the hTs expressed + (2 + ib + ic )(b2 + c 2 — a2)] (3.13')
by means of the first three equations, we get, with
P =pT,
and corresponding expressions for HB and Hc . _We
find that HA + HB + Hc = V3P. Further, qaa + qbb
m = —P + qc c = t 3P, so the check agrees as the difference
3 (aVl + ia + bVl + ib + cVl + ic)2 is exactly P.
P _______________ sin A sin B sin C_______________ When the i rs are equal, we get, in particular,
3 (Vl + ia sin A + Vl + ib sin B + Vl + ic sin C)2
m + m'
Ha = ■(a + b + c)(b + c — a) (3. 13")
(3 .U ) 2T

In particular, when ia = ib = ic , we get

Because of the acute angles it is not possible to
9 T reinforce the top sufficiently heavily to avoid corner
m + m' = — P 1 p r2
= — 9 levers, and as these are of such importance here,
3 (a + b + c )2 6 they must be investigated in detail. However, we will
assume that ia = ib = ic = i and will not reinforce
where r is the radius of the inscribed circle. the corners more strongly than is required for i.

65
As all slab parts experience the same rotation when which can, however, only be utilized in the case of
ha = h^ = hc = r, we obtain triangles with angles that are equal to or greater
than 30°.
(m + m ')(a + b + c) — AA — AB — AC = P 5- In the case of a triangular load, with p = 0 along side
o
a, and elsewhere p = /cx, where x is the distance
= — p r2(a + b + c) from side a, we get for the slab part at a:
6

as the corrected work equation, A A, A B and A C being m (l + ia)a = /cla = JL ah

the corrections for the corners A, B and C. (We
here assume that 0 = 1.) Denoting the height of the for the slab part at b (see Fig. 3. 11),
corner lever h, we get
m (l + ib )b = KZab = k 4 bhb 1 u 1 U
2 hb x 2 ha
m + m ' = — ph2
6
Kbhb 2
Further, as A A has the form 2h (m + m ') VA [cf. + \ hb X \ (ha + Ka) 12 (ha + J hA)
YLT, page 96, (69)], we have the following equation
for the determination of h and thus of m + m': and for the slab part at c,

vA+ vR+ v °c
h2 - 2h3
a + b + c
= r2 m ( ! + i c )c = h c 2 (h a + Jh A
As the ratio between the moment that takes account For the determination of I and Z, we can use the
of the corner levers and the moment neglecting following little-known but very useful theorem* :
these is k = h2/ r 2, we get the following for determi­ Statical moments, centrifugal moments and moments
nation of the correction factor k: of inertia for a triangle with regard to arbitrary
orthogonal or oblique axes can be found by imagining
that the area of the triangle is concentrated at the
k = 1 + SkVk", 6 - r r h - c<v. + vE+ vc) mid-points of its sides, with one-third at each.
(3.14) From the last two equations it will immediately be
seen that h^/hc = VI + i^/Vl + ic . We therefore put
which is easily solved by trial and error or by
iteration since 5 is small in comparison with 1.
M oreover, comparative calculations show that we , /I + ib /I + ic
hb = hA/ - and hn = h^
have, to a good approximation, 1 + in v

k = 2 - Vl - 2-86 (3.14') and get

According to (69), y
12 m (l + ia) = h2^ha + 1 hA) = ha3 (3.17)

K 2(K - 1)2
VA = Further, aha + bh^ + chc = 2T = ahA, or
K - 1 (Vl + 3K)3 + 9K - 1
where K is given by (66) and 0A = 0B = 1. Further, bVl + ifc + cvl + ic
m ' in (66) must be assumed to be zero in accordance ^a h = tvh
with the observation concerning the corner levers of iVl + ia
i
restrained slabs in YLT, page 98.
Inserting this in (3. 17) and with P = V6 /cahA2 and
Comparative calculations now show that this com ­
a = (cot B + cot C) ha, we find
plicated expression can, to a good approximation, be
replaced by the simpler expression,
rhA\3 hA
— = 3 — + 2(a2 - 1)
ha
Va=i cotf (x- sinf)(2- sinf) (3-15) (3. 18)
= 2(cot B + cot C)
6 and thus k can thereby be determined. A number of m (l + ia)
examples are given in the table on page 67.
It will be seen that the corner levers increase the Vl + i^ sin B + Vl + ic sin C
moment by from 20 to 40%. a = ■
Vl + ia sin A
From the values for k, we find that the following is
an acceptable approximation:
* c f.,fo r example, Jacob Nielsen: Dynamik.
Copenhagen, Jul. Gjellerup, 1945, page 189,
k = 1-85 (sin A + sin B + sin C) (3.16) example 16.
4
66
 Table

P /(m + m') for

P /(m + m') for uniformly triangular loading,
Angles distributed load p = 0 at

A B C uncorrected k corrected a b c

60° 60° 60° 31*2 1*20 26*0 30*0 30*0 30*0

90° 45° 45° 35*0 1*25 28*0 32*0 34*8 34*8
90° 60° 30° 38*8 1*30 30*0 35*4 36*7 41*5
48*2 34*5
CO

120° 30° 1-40 42*5 49*0 49*0

O
o

On the right in the above Table, the values of With m = P /3 1 ‘ 2, we thus get the exact deflexion for
P /(m + m ') are given for the same slabs with the equilateral triangle.
triangular loading, where p = 0 at a, b and c,
For an arbitrary triangle, the maximum deflexion
respectively.
occurs at N, where the tangent plane of the surface
A comparison with the values for uniformly distri­ or deflexion is horizontal. The three strips shown
buted load shows that when the triangular loading therefore have the same deflexions as beams built
is zero at the longest side, the moment is slightly in at N.
higher (9 to 13°/o) than in the case of uniformly When ia = i^ = ic , we can, at any rate approximately,
distributed load. When the triangular loading is assume the same variation of the moment in the
zero at the shortest side, we get a slightly smaller three strips, and as these have to give the same
moment. When correcting for the corner levers, we
deflexion, they must be of equal length. Consequently,
can use the same value of k as for uniformly distri­ N will be the centre of the inscribed circle. With
buted load. constant moment equal to m, we again get (3.19).
For a point load, we get the same conditions as in When there are different degrees of restraint at the
1. 14, so formula (1. 14) can still be used, although sides, we may still use (3.19) because we are only
only up to n = 2. For n = 3, we now have P = seeking an estimate of the deflexion.
27r(m + m').
When calculating the deflexions, we must select a
suitable strip that includes the maximum deflexion
and maximum moment.
It is obvious that this strip must pass through the
intersection of the yield lines and must be approxi­
mately perpendicular to one of these. We thereby
usually get three possibilities giving slightly dif­
ferent spans. This indeterminateness, which is
really insignificant, can be avoided by discarding
the straight strips and using, instead, torsionless
strips along broken lines. For the equilateral
triangle, the radii of the inscribed circle shown in
Fig. 3.12 are axes of symmetry and therefore
Numerical example
torsionless.
A right-angled slab with sides of 6, 8 and 10 m is
simply supported and subjected to a load of p =
600 k g/m 2. We get r = 2 and m = \ x 600 x 22 =
400 kg. This must be corrected for the corner
levers, and (3.16) gives k = 1*85 — 0*25(1 + 0*6
4- 0*8) = 1*25, i.e. m = 500 kg. From this we get a
slab thickness of 8 cm, which results in the following
deflexion:

F ig .3.12 500 x 2002

= 1*17 cm
2 2 x 105 x — x 83
The deflexion at the centre will then be the same 12
as for a straight strip of length 2r. Assuming, as
usual, that the moment is constant and equal to m, -s 400 = 0*8
> ------ A.Q cm
we get 500

EIu = y mr2 (3.19) as the span is assumed to be 2r. To improve the

67
stiffness of the slab, the thickness must be increased The maximum principle then gives
to 10 cm.

1 + in 1 + ib
3.2 Triangular slab supported on two sides

If it is assumed that 0A = l/h~ and 0B = l/h b in the in2(s- +e) sin2 ( j _e)
yield pattern shown in Fig. 3. 21, the work equation
iin (— + (?) i, . , tan — + tan
gives
\2 J = A + ia = ^ =

(ms + iama) + (mt + i^mb) xb tan tan

hQ hb

VTTT v r + i^
= g- Paha + 4 pbhb = | tan tan — (3.22)
Vl + ia + Vl + ib ^
for uniformly distributed load. With triangular
loading proportional to the distance from the free which, inserted in (3. 21), gives

ftan —
y
2P
m =-
(Vl + T& + Vl + i ^ 2 + 2 tan — (ia cot p + cot a) — tan2 — (VT+ ia — Vl + ib) 2
2 2
(3.23)

edge (and zero here), the right side becomes P /4 , When ia = ib = L we 0 = 0 and
since the resultant of the triangular load lies at a
distance of V4 hb(ha) from b(a).
m = (3. 23')
3 [2(1 + i) cot — + i(cot a + cot p)]
2

It should be noted that

cot a + cot p = ( — + —^ — 2 cot

\b a / sm y

In the special case of right-angled triangles, y = t t /2 ,

we get

m =
3[2V(1 + ia)(l + ib) + ia tan a + ib cot a]
(3.23")

It should be noted that 0 in (3. 22) does not depend

upon the ratio between the sides.
In the case of triangular loading with p = 0 at the
Introducing the angle 0 between the yield line and the free edge, P /3 is replaced by P /4 , and in the case of
bisector, we get line load on the free edge, it is replaced by P /2 , since
in this case the resultant load on A acts a distance
JL = c o t ^ + e ) , ± = c°B( { - j V2ha from A, and correspondingly for B. The three
loading cases thus give the same yield pattern and
can consequently be superposed without approxi­
a ry \ b /y \ mation. Thus,
Thus, for
tor a slab subjected to a unitormiy
uniformly
— = cot f + 0\+ cot P>— = cot r~ ~~ 0 j + cot a distributed load P e , a triangular load P^ and a line
a V / b \2 / ioad p ?we can, for example, in (3.23), replace 2/3P by
2/3P e + V2Pk + P.
This immediately gives For the sake of simplicity we will only investigate
the influence of the corner levers for a = b and ia
= ib = i. Because of the symmetry, we then get the
(1 + ia) cot + 0 ^ + (1 + ib) cot - 0^
yield pattern shown in Fig. 3. 22. The negative yield
line is assumed to have the same ultimate moments
+ iQ cot p + iu cot a? = ---- (3.21) as the restraints, i.e. m ' = im.
a D 3m
68
 3P y tan 0 + tan -
m = — tan —
8 2
(1 + tan2 0)^tan 0 + tan —^

(3.25)
As 3m/9 tan 0 = 0,we then get from the latter
equation

tan3 0 + — tan — tan2 0 + 2 tan2 — tan 6

1 tan
= — * y
—
2 2

from which tan 6 can be determined. The ratio

between the moment with corner levers and that
without is

Fig. 3.22 tan 6 + tan r

k = (3.26)
For a deflexion 6 = 1 at the middle of the free edge, ^ (1 + tan2 6) ^tan 9 + 2 tan
we get

JL The usual corner lever with its vertex on a yield

x line may also occur. Neglecting the corner levers,
we have m0 = Vc ph02 = \ P tan (y/2) =
where
V6 pa2 sin2 (y/2), so hQ = a sin (y/2). With 0= 1,
h= sm the work equation, with the corner lever correction
cos 9 K ) A A, gives
Then, with the contribution from A and half of B*.
written in the order mentioned, the work equation 2ma cos2 — — AA = 2 x — paa2 cos2 — sin2 —
becomes 2 6 2 2

where AA = 2mhV with the notation from section

0= —m cos 3.1. Inserting h = (h/h0) a sin (y/2), m = V6 ph2,
cos Y we get
cos 2

, 1 x x2 cos
+ — p -------------------
6
cos —
y cos2

—mx tan 9
x sm

r
"■ ( *

im/a sin — — x tan — )

+1) 'i > y

vh° /
/ h \ 3 sto?

\7 cos2|
V = 1

V 2 2/ or, by means of (3.15),

px2 /a sin — —x tan — j — ~ px3 tan sin — 1 — sin -

2 F V 2 2/ 3F

or, when rearranged,

6=
cos'5
Y
V =
5 cos 2
T ( - s,nl)
Y
cos —
2 Corresponding to k we then get k' = (h/h0)2, which is
found from the above equation, which corresponds
i cos 9 sin exactly to (3.14). The calculations now show that,
for y ^ 60°, we get the corner levers first dealt with,
1
= — pax sin 2 -
* i / y
px2(tan 0 + 2 tan — )
\ and we can, with excellent accuracy, put
226\ 2/
11 — 2 sin —
(3.24)
We will first deal with the simply supported slab, k = for y ^ 60° (3.271)
8
i.e. i = 0. The maximum principle then immediately
gives 3m/3x = 0,thus: If we assume the same value when a + b, we get the
following for simple support:
a sm
x ?= m = -5- (11 — 2 sin - ) tan - for y » 60° (3.272)
2 tan 0 + 2 tan 48 r 2J 2
69
which applies for uniformly distributed load. This For y < 90°, the calculations show that we have, to
equation can also be used as an approximation for a good approximation,
triangular loading and combinations of these and
line loading when the factors from page 68 are in­
serted.
k' = 0*8 (3.28)
Now it is found that k' is closely approximated by sin — + 0*1
the following expression: 2

For other degrees of restraint, we interpolate be­

sin — + — tween the values for i = 0 and i = 1, just as the slab
k' = 0 -9 ----- 1----- — for y « 60° (3.273) restrained only at one side is assumed to have the
sin — + 0*1 mean value for i = 0 and i = 1 on both sides. This
2 applies to the correction factors k or k', since the
introduction of approximate values of these quantities
and we thus get
has only a slight effect upon the final value of the
moment.
. y ^ l
sin — + —
The deflexion is, of course, determined at the free
m = 0-15 P £ ----- — tan for y « 60° edge in the usual way.
^ n - + 0-1 2
2 (3. 274)
Numerical example
We will now turn to the restrained slab with i = 1. A right-angled wing wall with sides of 6, 8 and 10 m
is free along the hypotenuse, simply supported along
In the calculation of the usual corner levers, we the long side enclosing the right-angle and restrained
have m + m' = 2m = V6 ph2. Without corner levers, along the short side with i = 1. The wall is
loaded with a triangular earth pressure, which is
zero at the free edge and 2000 k g/m 2 at the right-
sm 2 _ L angled corner. This gives P = V3 x 2000 x 24
m0 =
= A. na 2 ----------- — - — ph02
- pa = 16000 kg. By means of (3. 23"), with i = 1 and 0,
D
2 + tan2
y 12 we get

i.e. 16000
m = = 1120 kg
. y *(2/2 +
a sm —
2
ho =
V l + — tan2 — for the triangular loading. With two restraints, the
2 2 correction factor is l,and with simple supports,
1*20, in accordance with (3. 271). With a single
With 0 = 1, the work equation becomes
restraint, we put k = 1*10, which gives m = 1230 kg.
2ma c o s 2 — + ma — AA We find a slab thickness of 13 cm, and the deflexion
2 is found to be
l y y
— 2 x — paa2 c o s 2 — sin2 — 1230 x 10002
6 2 2 = 4-2 cm
8 x 2 x 105 x — x 133
where 12
AA = 2(m + m')hV = 4mhV.
V
>s -------=
We then find the usual equation, 1000 4^cm
(h/h0)2 - (h/h0)3 6 = 1, 250
but now with
The modified requirements to stiffness from 1.61
are applied. The slab thickness must thus be
increased to 14 cm.

1 + I , . „ 3 X V '2
2 2
i.e. a considerably lower value than for i = 0.
Calculations for i = 1 sim ilar to those above for
i = 0 show that the transition from the usual corner
lever to the special corner lever in Fig. 3. 22 takes
place at y = 90°. The calculations further show that
the maximum correction for y > 90° is 7%, but in­
creases rapidly when y < 90°. We can therefore
assume that k is constant and equal to 1 for y ^ 90°.
3.3 Isosceles triangle simply supported on one
side and a column
The same observations apply to this as to the slabs
in section 1. 6.
Because of the symmetry, the yield line can be as­
sumed to be parallel with the base a at a distance x
from the free corner and thus has a length of (a/h)x.
The two nodal forces shown act at the edges.

70
 The column reaction is statically determinate:

S= ph2 p (3. 35)

The negative moment is V6 p c2.

The conditions at the column are investigated by
means of the formulae in YLT, pages 123-124.

3.4 Equilateral triangle supported on columns at

the corners

The observations made in section 1. 6 also apply to

this type of slab.
With the yield pattern in Fig. 3. 41, where all nodal
forces are zero, the moment equation about the
axis of rotation shown for the corresponding slab
part yields

a P / \
The moment equation about a yields m 2" = 3- (x — ej

m 7- x + m ^ (h — x) = p(h - x)2 + 2 x^ where x is the distance to the centroid, which is

h
1/3(2/3h + V2h) = 7/18h = 7/18a(V3/2). Inserting this,
we get
or
m = p /_ I i£ .\ (3.41)
m = i ph2 ^ _ iJ ^ 1 + 2 ^ (3.31) ll8V3 3 a / V3U8 hj
The moment equation about an axis through the
column parallel with a yields

a 3. / v i a 9/2 \
m —x —m — (x —c) = — p — x2 — x —c)
h h 2 h \3 /

or

m
<3- 32)

From these equations we find that

(3.33)

from which x and thus also m can be found. Com­

parative calculations show that we have, to a good
approximation,
(3.34)
For c = 0, the correct formulae and the approxi­
mation give m = V6 ph2 (x = 0). When the column
is located at the centroid of the triangle, we get
m = 0, x = h.
For c = 0, we get m = P /4 ’ 45.
There is, however, also a possibility that the yield
pattern in Fig. 3. 42 may occur. In this case, the
nodal forces are m cot 60° = m/ViT.
Each of the small triangles has the load P(x2/h 2).
For slab part A, the moment equations about the
axes of symmetry are automatically satisfied. The
equation of projection gives
m x2
6 P - 3P
V3 " h2

71
 For slab part B,the moment equation about the
yield line gives

2x P , x -rj x2 x
m — _ = — (x — c) — P -------
VT 3 h2 3
From these two equations, we find that

X'5_ c
(3.42)
h3 ~~ 2h
and thereby that
2/3
P
m = l - 3 (- (3.43)
2 /3 ,2h/
For c = 0, we get m = P/3-47, i.e. more than ob­
tained from (3. 41). When c/h = 0*125, the two yield
patterns give the same value of m, so (3. 41) should
only be used for higher values of c/h .

72
4 Circular slabs
Circular slabs are encountered in the form of
bottom plates and covers for containers, wells and
sim ilar structures, and as footings for columns,
foundation slabs, etc.
The load is frequently symmetrical about the centre,
so we will confine ourselves to this case (a number
of asymmetrical cases are dealt with in YLT, pages
23-25).
The worst, but still the most frequently used type
of reinforcement is isotropic reinforcement, i.e.
the same reinforcement in two directions at right -
angles to each other. We will therefore begin with
the treatment of the polar method of reinforcement,
i.e. rings about the centre and straight bars along
the radii. The rings may possibly be replaced by
spirals whereby the number of laps can be reduced.
At the centre we let two bars intersect at right -
angles.
4.0 Polar reinforcement
We will begin by assuming that the reinforcement
is variable, and so the bending moments m^ in
radial sections and mr in circular sections are
variable. Because of the symmetry, however, they
are only functions of the radius r.
Let us consider the equilibrium conditions for the
section shown: r dcp x dr. The sides dr have no
shear forces and the same moment, m<p x dr, as a
consequence of the symmetry. The side r dcp has
the shear force qr dcp and the moment mr r dcp. The
corresponding side, (r + dr) dcp, has the moment
mr r dcp + d(mrr) dcp. The moment equation about
this side immediately gives
mr r dcp + dr dcp — mr r dcp — d(mr r) dcp
= q r dcp dr
since the moment due to the load is an infinitesimal
of third order, and can therefore be neglected.
Dividing by dcp dr, we get
d(rmr )
m cp ---- = qr (4.01)
^ dr
The equation of projection for the entire circle with
radius r immediately gives
r
2ffrq = 2n pr dr = Pr
where Pr is the load within the circle mentioned.
We thereby get
p r
q r = — = / pr dr (4. 02)
27T 0
\
32 1
1
|
•iI V 1v^.1
i 1—QR
> 8 i i |1
1 "
r
Fig. 4. 02
The ring reinforcement corresponds to m^ and the
bar reinforcement to mr . As long as the number of
bars per circle remains unaltered, rmr will remain
constant. The slab shown in Fig. 4. 02, in which there
are 8,16 and 32 bars per circle for the inner, inter­
mediate and outer thirds of the slab, respectively,
will, in theory, have the "stepped" curve for rm r
shown on the right. However, as the bars cannot
transfer their force suddenly at the end c ro ss-
section, but only over a certain anchorage length, the
actual course of rmr will be as shown on the left in
the Figure. It should be noted particularly that rmr
must be zero at the centre as mr is finite.
If the bars were welded to a ring, the theoretical
course could be realized. The ring should then be
designed according to the tension in the bars. The
corresponding compression at the top could then be
imagined to be absorbed by a concrete compression
ring at the top. The compression in this and the
tension in the bottom ring correspond to a moment
M^, which can incidentally be found by means of
(4. 01). Multiplying this by dr and integrating, we
get
2 2
/ m^dr = / qr dr + (rmr) 2 — (rm r) j (4.03)
73
If we now let the limits of integration approach each
other, the integral of the finite quantity qr will
approach zero, while the difference corresponding
to rm r will assume the value A rm r of the jump, ir
<P
must therefore tend towards infinity in such a way
that its integral assumes the non-zero value:
M■cp (4.04)
lim I dr = A rm r
If the reinforcement is arranged as shown in Fig.
4.03, the short bars can be anchored without welding
if they are imagined to be anchored in a concrete
compression ring by means of hooks. The com pres­
sion at the top corresponding to the bars must, on
the other hand, be absorbed by a tension ring. This
means that is now negative. If there are r e ­
actions or a line load at the ends of the bars, the
anchorage can be effected by means of these exactly
as in beams (cf. Bygningsstatiske Meddelelser, 1945,
No. 2). Whereas, in beams, the tensile bars must not
end in the tensile zone inside the supports unless
stirrups are arranged, this is possible in circular
slabs if the ring corresponding to is provided.
If we assume the continuous variation of rm r shown
on the left in Fig. 4.02, the ring reinforcement will
ensure the anchorage of the bar reinforcement.
The ring reinforcement can easily be completely
adapted to a given moment curve, e.g. if the rings
are to have the same dimension, the m^ curve is
divided into equal areas corresponding to the
moment A that can be absorbed by one ring, and
one ring is placed in each area (Fig. 4. 04). The
rm r curve, not the mr curve, is used for the bar
reinforcement.
Rings
Fig. 4. 04
74
The reinforcement can then be adapted to this by
means of a stepped line, as shown. The circular
yield lines will then only form where the stepped
line touches the curve, i.e. at max(rmr ) and possibly
at the jumps in the stepped line. As max(rmr ) does
not usually coincide with max mr , we have here a
case in which failure does not occur at maximum
moment. Because of the special reinforcement, the
maximum stress in the steel occurs at max(rmr ),
and the maximum stress in the concrete, at max mr .
However, we can safely design the slab for max(rmr ),
even though we may thereby get a concrete stress at
max m r that is slightly in excess of the perm issible
value. The fact is that when we increase the load be­
yond the perm issible value, until yielding begins at
max(rmr ), the concrete stress at max mr lies far
from the ultimate value since, according to the as­
sumptions of the yield-line theory, the slab is weakly
reinforced. When the load is further increased up
to failure, the concrete stress will not increase
greatly at max mr , but only at max(rmr ), where the
yielding results in wide cracks and reduced com pres­
sive zone, so that the concrete is finally crushed
here.
We have only one equation for determining the
moments m^ and mr , so we can select one of these
and then determine the other. However, in this
choice, due account must be taken of the geometrical
conditions that determine the signs for the moments.
As the surface of deflexion is a surface of rotation,
the radius of curvature corresponding to mr will be
equal to that of the meridian curve, and the radius of
curvature corresponding to will be equal to the
length of the normal reckoned to the axis of rotation.
Consequently, m r changes its sign at the points of
inflexion of the meridian curve, and m^ at the points
with horizontal tangent, i.e. at the points of maximum
or minimum deflexion. As the bar reinforcement
cannot be completely adapted to the rmr curve, the
meridian curve usually gets a corner at max(rmr ),
where the yield line is formed. It follows from the
foregoing remarks that m^ changes its sign here.
If m^ is continuous, it must consequently be zero,
and according to (4.01), qr will then also be zero
since d(rmr ) = 0.
If only ring reinforcement is used, we get from
(4.01)
m„ (4.05)
which can only be used for simple support since the
restraining moments correspond to mr .
If only bars are used, we get, by differentiating yield pattern with the radii as positive yield lines
(4.01) and (4.02), and, in case of restraint, a negative yield line at
the support. Because of the symmetry, there are no
d2(rmr ) shear forces along the radii of the sector shown in
(4. 06) Fig. 4. 111. The equation of projection gives the
m<P= 0 ~ ------ = - P r
reaction as follows:
which shows that rm r is determined as the moment
in a beam with the load pr. This can also be seen qa dcp = f pr dr dcp
directly by means of a sector element with dcp = 1.
In practice, we do not usually use either of these
two special arrangements but a combination of
both. It is therefore reasonable to seek the variation
of m^ that gives the smallest amount of reinforce­
ment. If m^ and mr are both positive throughout
the slab, the amount of reinforcement will be p ro­
portional to
277 D D
k ' d(rmr ;
fQ / (m^ + mr )r dr = 2tt f t qr2 + r ■
a a\ dr

+ rm r j dr = 277 J q r2 dr + bm^ — ama

/ a
The moment equation about the axis shown further
where the integral depends solely upon the load and
gives
the last terms depend upon the restraining moments.
If these are zero, the amount of reinforcement will
not depend upon the choice of m^, and so the problem (m + m')a dcp = aqa dcp — f p r2 dr dcp
in this case is indeterminate. As only ring reinforce­
ment can be completely adapted to the moment curve,
the solution will, in practice, be mr = 0.
From these we get
When m^ and mr have opposite signs, we get the
a
minimum amount of reinforcement for m,■<p 0, as
will be demonstrated in chapter 6. In this case, + m ' = J0 Pr ( i - i ) dr (4.111)
(4.06) applies, i.e. the slab can be considered as
divided into sector-shaped beams, so the true slab
effect with beam action in two directions is no longer Thence, for a uniformly distributed load p, a line
present. This means that the moments become very load p acting along the circle with radius b, i.e.
great in relation to the moments in the case of
isotropic reinforcement. The saving in steel is thus / Pdr-> p
obtained at the cost of the slab thickness and is
therefore usually of no practical importance. In the and a point load P at the centre, i.e. 277pb -> P for
case of very flexible slabs (4. 21 and 4. 22), the slab b-> 0, we get
thickness may have to be increased so much with a
view to the stiffness that the arrangement with weak
ring reinforcement or none at all can be used. m + m' = — pa2 + p b fl — —) + — (4. 112)
6 v a/ 277
In the case of stiff slabs, we arrange the reinforce­
ment in such a way that the moments and thus also For a conical load distribution that is p at the centre
the thickness of the slab are the same as for iso­ and zero at the edge, we get
tropic reinforcement. This can usually be attained
by making m^ constant and equal to the value of m
corresponding to isotropic reinforcement. The m + m ' = / o pr( ! - ) 2 dr = ^ (4.113)
value of rm r can then be determined by means of
(4.01). We thereby usually achieve a not inconsider­
able saving in steel in relation to isotropic rein­ The same value is obtained when the load is zero at
the centre and p at the edge.
forcement. When m^ is constant, the rings must
lie at constant intervals or they can be replaced by In restrained slabs, the top reinforcement must be
a spiral with constant pitch (Archimedes’ spiral). carried in to the circle with radius p, which is
determined by the following condition: if the slab
part enclosed by the circle is calculated as a simply
supported slab, the moment obtained must not exceed
4.1 Simple circular slab
the value calculated previously, i.e.
4.11 Isotropic reinforcem ent
rP
An isotropic slab with symmetrical loading has a m J0 pr 1 - ^ dr (4. 114)

75
From this, we get the following. from which p can be determined. We determine
m + m by means of (4. I l l ) or by means of the
For uniformly distributed load:
following, with p + g instead of p. For uniformly
1 m distributed load, we get the special case of m + m'
m=-pp*, v = V6 (p + g) a2, which, using (4. 115), gives
6 a v m + m'

For line load p:

7 * (4. 116)
m + m' m \p a2/
m
m + m' — The transition to this form ula from that found
earlier, p /a = Vm/(m + m'), takes place when
For point load:
p = 0 P > m +
For conical load: g m' V m

£1 In particular, m = m' gives p ^ 0*83 g.

a2 K
\ )a /- m + m' The deflexion is maximum at the centre and is
determined by means of a strip along a diameter,
when p is zero at the edge, and
which immediately gives
3
P m
a - yV
-Ym + m' EIu = — ma2 (4. 118)
2
when p is zero at the centre. When m = m', we get
In accordance with this, a simply supported slab with
p/a = 0*7, 2b/(a + b), 0, 0*6 and 0*8 respectively.
uniformly distributed load gets EIu = pa4/12, whilst,
according to the theory of elasticity, EIu = pa4/12*8.

4 . 12 Polar reinforcem ent

With m^ = m = constant, (4. 01) immediately gives
r
rm r = rm — / qr dr = rm — / pp (r — p) dp
o
(4. 121)
For r = a, the integral, according to (4. I l l ) , is
equal to a(m + m'), i.e. mr = —m '.
Corresponding to (4. 112) and (4. 113), we get, by
means of (4.121),

Lr m p r3 r for r < b
2tt
rm r
1 P
rm p r 3 — pb (r — b ) r for r ^
6 2tt
If the restraint is such that m' may occur even 1 / r\ (4. 122)
though the slab is unloaded, as for example in the rmr = rm — — p r3 ( 2 J(p = 0 at the edge) \
case of a cantilever slab, the values specified for
p are not always sufficient. When the slab is sub­
jected to m' and the dead load g, the yield pattern 1 r4 i
rm r = r m p — (p = 0 at the centre) /
shown in Fig. 4. 112 may be formed, in which the 12 a
middle part is lifted 6 and negative yield lines are (4.123)
form ed along the limit of the top reinforcement and With r = a and mr = —m', we again get from this
along the radii between this and the edge. For (4. 112) and (4. 113). Substituting m' for m, we obtain
the sector shown, with 6 = 1, the work equation
immediately gives
^ r |^~ P (a2 ~ r2) + pb ^1 — —jj| — rm' for r < b
rm r
m'p dcp
a- p h p (a2 — r 2) r + pb2 (l — *-) rm' for r ^ b.
o \ a/ (4.124)
- gp2 dcp x 1 + ( i ga dcp + - g f i d j (a - p)2 _ L
2 \6 3 / a— =i pa2r(‘ - S ) - rm' i
1 a 3 — p3
m' = - g — = ^ P l2 r( ‘ - a ) ( 1 + ^ - S ) - r m^
6 p (4.115) (4. 125)
76
The bar reinforcement is determined from these rm r = max (rmr ) = pa3/15*6, we get
formulae.
For simple support, m' = 0, we get only positive pa4 pa4 pa4
values of rm r , and the maximum value is decisive. ~12^ 15-6 frlT
For a point load only, we get rm r — 0. If there is
also a uniformly distributed load, we get max (rmr ) If rm r is stepped down to half, which can be done
= pa3/9Vjf = pa3/l5*6. When there is a line load as at r = 0*2a and r = 0*89a (Fig. 4.113), we get
well, the maximum value will normally occur for 1/2(0,2 + 0*ll)a (pa3/15*6) less, i.e. Jp = pa4/7*3.
r = b, which gives Isotropic reinforcement thus requires 13°/0 more
steel in the first case and 22°/0 more in the second.
max (rmr ) = — pa2b
6

It is on the safe side to assume that

max (rmr
pa3
15*6
+ pb2
K)
For a conical load distribution we get
(4. 126)

5pa3 a
max (rmr ) = for r = —
r 192 2
pa3 pa3 a3 In the case of restraint, with m' m, isotropic
= = for r 3 = — (4. 127) reinforcement gives m^ = mr pa2/12 over the
16 3V4 25-4 4 whole slab and m'^ — = pa2/12 from r = a / / 2
to r = a. We thus get
In the case of restraint, rm r assumes the value zero
at a point determined by
Jj
T = P-----
a V (a2
2 +
^ —
1 a-■

12 \ 2

= f 0 pp(i - f ) dp For polar reinforcement, with m^ = m = pa2/l 2 , rm r

changes signs at r = a/V2^ The part lying within
which corresponds exactly to (4. 114) when the this, which can, as mentioned, be considered as simply
supported, contributes pa4/(4 x 6*8), and the remainder
symbols p and r are interchanged. This means that
rm r assumes the value zero exactly at the limit of contributes V2 (pa2/12) (a2/2) from m^ and (pa3/l 2 )
the top reinforcement in the corresponding isotropic x (1 — 4 \ ) a from rmr = constant = — am', making a
total of Jp = pa4/12-2. Thus, in this case, isotropic
slab. In other words, isotropic reinforcement and
reinforcement requires 53°/0 more steel.
polar reinforcement give the same limit for the top
reinforcement at the restrained edges. As isotropic reinforcement obviously entails greater
waste, it actually requires even more steel.
The slab part enclosed by these limits can be
considered as simply supported and be reinforced
according to the foregoing formulae. The negative
4.2 Ring-shaped slabs
values of rm r are maximum at the restraint, and
here equal to —am'. For uniformly distributed load
If the slab is only supported around one circle, the
we can, once and for all, plot the curve y = x (l — x 2),
ring inside and outside this can be calculated by
which, together with the straight line y = (6m '/pa2)x
means of the formulae in 4. 21 and 4. 22.
corresponding to m', determines rm r = V6 pa3y for
x = r /a . The location of the ends of the bar rein-
4.21 Supported along the inner edge, fr e e at the
forcement is then determined by means of stepped outer edge
lines parallel with the straight line.
Finally, we will compare the amount of steel r e ­
quired for slabs of equal thickness, subjected to a
uniformly distributed load, with isotropic reinforce­
ment and polar reinforcement respectively. As the
amount of steel is proportional to

+ |mr |)r dr = J
.U K

simple support and isotropic reinforcement, i.e.

m = X/6 Pa2, give Ji v6 pa4. In the case
of polar reinforcement, with m^ m = V6 pa2 and We will first consider the isotropically reinforced

77
slab. The slab is only provided with top reinforce­ In the special cases, i = 0 and i = 1, we find
ment. The moment at the restraint is m^ = im'
where m' is the moment in the slab. In the case of
simple support, we have i = 0, and in the case of rm r = — p (a — r) (r — b) (a + b + r)
restraint, i = 1. With the loads indicated, the moment with mr positive (4. 216)
equation about the support for the sector shown gives
rm ; ^ p ^3ab — ar — r 2 ^ + pb (a - r)
im 'b dcp + m'(a — b) dcp = -g- p (a — b)2b dcp
(4. 216')

+ y p (a — b) a dcp + pa (a — b) dcp For simple support, we get a very nearly parabolic

variation of rm r, and the maximum value can, to a
or good approximation, be found by putting r = (a + b )/ 2 ,
m '[a — (1 — i)b] - -g-p (a — b)2 (2a + b) + pa (a — b)
max(rm ) (a — b)2(a + b) (4.217)
(4.211) 16
For i = 0 we get
In the case of restraint, there will usually be a point
(4.212) at which rm r = 0. Outside this, the conditions are as
m' = g- p (a — b) (2a + b) + pa
in the simply supported ring, and max (rm r ) can be
found by means of (4. 217) when b is replaced by the
and for i = 1 radius to the point of zero moment. Inside, rm f in­
creases to the restraint value bmA, which is the
maximum value for the top reinforcement.
m' = g- p (a — b )2 ^2 + ^ + p (a — b) (4. 212')
By comparison with (4. 212), (4. 217) usually gives
The deflexion is found by means of the strip shown in only a very light bar reinforcement. As this rein­
forcement has to lie at the bottom, and the rings or
Fig. 4. 212, which gives
spirals at the top, it would be convenient simply to do
without it. We then get, for simple support,
EIu ^ m' (a2 - b2) x 1 = 2 ^ a 2 - b 2 (4.213)
m^ = - m^ = — qr = j p(a2 — r 2) + pa (4. 218)

with maximum value ty2 P (a2 — b2) + pa.

Fig. 4.212

In the case of polar reinforcement, we get the fo l­

lowing from (4. 01), with qr = V2 P (a2 — r 2) — pa and
mcp = —m' = constant, Fig. 4.213

rm r = rm'
ir 4 p ( a - r ) 2(2a + r) + pa ( a - r) Thte u ght * » r reinforcement at the bottom of the
1 1 b outermost part is similarly inconvenient m the case
— m' (a r) (4 214) tlie restrainec* slab. It can be omitted by making
m^ = qr outside the point of intersection S between
the horizontal line corresponding to m^ = — m'
For r = b and m f = im ',w e again get (4.211). = constant and the qr curve (Fig. 4. 213). The
With this value of m', we then find derivative of rm r thereby becomes zero over this
length, and rm r has only negative values.

rm ' (a b + ib) = -g p (a - Tib (a — r) (2a + r) ^ the rin£ reinf° rcement is omitted altogether,
^ (4. 214), with m' = 0, gives
(a — b) (r — b) (a + b + r)] + ipb (a — r)
rm' = — p(a — r )2(2a + r) + pa (a — r) (4. 219)
(4.215)

78
the maximum value of which occurs at the restraint From (4. 214) we then get m^ = 1180 — 235 x 1*5/4
r = b and gives m^ = a/b times the value found from = 1090 kg, f = 8*55 cm 2, i.e. 10 mm dia. bars spaced
(4.212'). at 9 cm. The bar reinforcement at the bottom be­
comes so small that we can neglect it.
Formulae (4. 218) and (4. 219) give much thicker
slabs than the foregoing formulae, but as these
4. 22 Supported along the outer edge and fr e e at
slabs are very flexible, they must still be made con­
the inner edge
siderably thicker because of the stiffness require­
We get positive yield lines along the radii and
ments, so the latter formulae may well be used.
negative yield lines around the circumference. In
the case of isotropic reinforcement, the moment
Numerical example equation for the sector shown now gives
A circular tower with a radius of 4 m has a 1*5 m
wide outside gallery, which has to be calculated m'a + m(a — b) = -g- p(a — b)2(a + 2b) + pb(a — b)
for a load of 500 k g/m 2. If the tower is a brick
structure, simple support will be the most obvious (4.221)
solution, and if it is of reinforced concrete, restraint m ' = 0 and m ' = m give
can easily be provided. We will investigate both
possibilities. m = g- p(a b) (a + 2b) + pb (4. 222)
(1) Using (4. 212) and with the total load 500 4- 400
= 900 k g/m 2, simple support gives m' = i/6 x 900 , x9 a + 2b , a —b
m = m' = g- p(a
x 1*5 x 15 = 3375 kg, h = 18 cm. The deflexion is 2aT—"b 2a — b
then (4.223)
_ 1_ 3375(5*52 - 4-02)104
2 2 x 105 x x 183
12

„ , s 2V5-52 - 4-02 v inn , _

= 2-5 cm > -------------------- x 100 = 1*5 cm
500
The thickness of the slab must be increased to 22
cm, which gives a total load of 1030 kg/m 2 and m '=
3860 kg, f = 18*5 cm 2 per m. With polar reinforce­
ment, we get 16 mm dia. rings spaced at 11 cm. At
the bottom, bars are provided corresponding to
(4. 217): (1030/16) x 1*52 x 9*5 = 1375 kgm. From
this, we find that the moment at the wall is 1375/4
= 344 kg, which gives f = 1*7 cm 2 per m, 7 mm dia.
bars spaced at 23 cm. The form er corresponds exactly to (4. 212). The
With ring reinforcement alone, we use (4. 218) to deflexion is found in the same way and by means of
find the maximum value, the same formula as in section 4. 21, with m instead
of m '. In the case of polar reinforcement, with m^
m' = V9 x 1030 (5*52 - 4*02) = 7350 kg = m, qr = V2 p(r2 — b2) + pb, we get

which requires h = 26 cm, although only at the wall. rmj. = -g p(r — b)2(r + 2b) + pb(r — b) — m(r — b)

(2) Using (4. 212'), we find that restraint with i = 1 = -rm r (4.224)
gives m' = V6 x 900 x 1*52 x 2*73 = 921 kg, h = 11
cm. The deflexion is which gives (4. 221) for r = a and m^. = m'.
Corresponding to (4. 222), we get (4. 225) equal to
_ 1_ 921(5*52 - 4*Q2)104 (4. 216), and corresponding to (4. 223), we get
3*0 cm > 1-5 cm
2 2 x 105 x — x 113
12 (2a — b)rmj. = -g- (r — b)[r(r + b)(2a — b)

The thickness has to be increased to 14 cm. The

load is then 836 k g/m 2, m' = 856 kg, f = 7*0 cm 2
per m. If only bar reinforcement is used, (4. 219)
gives maximum m' = 856 x 5*5/4 = 1180 kg, which
does not require increased thickness, but f = 7*0
x 5*5/4 = 9*6 cm 2, e.g. 10 mm dia. bars spaced at
8 cm.
For practical reasons, a certain amount of ring re­
inforcement is necessary. If, for example, we take
7 mm dia. rings spaced at 20 cm, this corresponds
to m ^' = 856 x 1*92/7*0 = 235 kg = m'.
— a(a2 + b2)] + pab(r — b) (4. 226)
These formulae are used as in section 4.21.
Slabs with a hole at the centre are calculated in
accordance with these formulae. Eccentric holes
give asymmetrical yield patterns with complicated
calculations. For small holes, we may use an ap­
proximation similar to that given in section 1.15 in
connexion with reduced degree of restraint. For a
small hole at the centre, which is assumed to be

79
loaded in the same way as the slab, we now get
m'a + m(a — b) = m (l + i — b/a)a instead of
(m + m')a = m (l + i)a, on account of the hole. A
central hole thus reduces the degree of restraint
by b /a . A slight eccentricity will naturally not make
much difference to this. A hole with its centre on
the periphery will approximately reduce the con­
tribution from the moments to (2?ra — 2b)(m + m ');
i.e. the reduction in the degree of restraint is
Ai = (1 + i) (b /7ra), which will not exceed b /a as
long as i ^ 2*1. Denoting the eccentricity of the hole
c, we can interpolate parabolically between these
values by means of
(4- m >
where, for the sake of simplicity, v is approximated
by 3.
4.23 Supported along both edges
Taking an isotropic slab with uniformly distributed
load, we will formulate the work equation for the
element shown in Fig. 4. 231 with dcp — 1.
The yield pattern is formed by a positive yield line
with radius r between the supports and radial yield
lines that are negative in slab part B and positive
in slab part A. This follows from the observation
in 4. 0 regarding the determination of the signs for
mr and m^ when considering the deformations. We
find the maximum deflexion at the positive circular
yield line, so my changes sign here. We get
negative yield lines along the supports in the case
of restraint. We will assume that the negative yield
lines in slab part B all have the same moment m£.
The top reinforcement at the restrained edge must
thus be taken right out and past the positive yield
line. As the rotations can be put at l /( a — r) and
1 /( r — b), the contribution to the work equation from
the element under consideration is
(m + ma) + (m + 1% )
= 1 p ( a _ r ) 2 a ± 2 r + 1 ( r _ b ) 2 b ± 2£
6 ^ a —r 6 ^
= ± - p ( a - b ) (a + b + r ) (4.231) selected in this way.
80
We now estimate that r = Vab, which gives the simple
approximate formula
m ; + 2m + = j Pa(a - b )(l - 1 )
(4.232)
The exact solution is obtained by differentiating
(4. 231) with respect to r. We thereby get a fourth
degree equation for the determination of r and thereby
of the moments. These calculations give the following
approximate formula:
m'a + 2m + m^ = ^-75 + (4. 233)
which gives values that are a few per cent higher
than those from (4. 232). By using the same calcu­
lations, the following approximate formulae were
found for the reactions qa and q^ at the outer and
inner supports:
_ a — b (2a + b)m' + (3a + b)m -f arm'
qa = p -------------- ~------------------------------
4a ma + 2m + m^
(4.234)
_ a — b bm^ + (a + 3b)m + (a + 2b)m^
qb = P ~4b m' + 2m + m{,
The limits for the inner and outer top reinforcement
both lie between the positive yield line and the outer
edge, i.e. so close together that we would in practice
provide top reinforcement over the whole slab. If
only the outer edge is restrained, however, we can
make do with carrying the top reinforcement at this
edge a distance of ty5 (a — b) into the slab, provided
the degree of restraint does not exceed 1.
As regards the deflexion, a strip along a radius
gives EIu = ty8 m(a — b)2. In the case of polar
reinforcement we have
qr = — p(r2 — p2) (4. 235)
2
where p is an unknown quantity. Further, we saw
previously that m is negative at the inner edge and
positive at the outer edge, m^ changes sign at the
circular yield line, i.e. where rmr is maximum. If
m^ varies continuously, it will consequently be zero
where d(rmr ) is zero, but then qr is also zero in
accordance with (4.01). As this type of slab is not
particularly flexible, we will seek a polar reinforce­
ment that gives a slab thickness that is as close as
possible to that obtained with isotropic reinforce­
ment. If we now take m^ = — m' and = m in the
two slab parts, we get the conditions shown in
Fig. 4.JS32, where the hatched curve represents
m^ — qr = d(rmr )/d r. We then get the variation
of rm r shown in Fig. 4. 232.
r —b This shows that the maximum value of rmr does not
occur at r = p, as assumed, so m^ cannot be
If, on the other hand, is taken as constant until
it intersects the qr curve at r 1 and r 2 and we select
mcp = 5r between r ± and r 2, whereby d(rmr) = 0
here, we get the conditions shown in Fig. 4. 233,
where maximum rm r now occurs over the entire
length between r 1 and r 2. Our assumption will then
be fulfilled. It will be seen that this choice of m^
entails slightly greater moments than in the case of
isotropic reinforcement.
We immediately get from (4. 235)
m' = j P (P2 r 12), m = p (r22 — p2)
m + m ' = — p (r22 — r t 2) (4. 237b)
2
The latter equation is obtained by addition of the
equations in (4. 235'). Maximum mr in the yield
zone, which extends from r x to r 2, is obtained at
r-,^, and we should therefore have max (rmr ) = r xm.
Furthermore, ma and m^ must not exceed m', and,
in particular, we can assume m' = m^, as in the case
of isotropic reinforcement. Introducing these rela­
tions and ma = iam, m^ = i^m, we get the following
equations for the determination of r x and r 2:

or (4. 235') 3(rx + ibb)(r22 - r x2) = (1 + ib )(rx - b)2^ + b)

2 p^ 2z 2m 9 — p2
r Q2 q +i -----
2m 3(r i + iaa)(r 22 ~ r i 2) = (! + Jb)(a _ r 2)2(2r2 + a)
p 2 p
(4.238)
By means of (4. 01) and the boundary conditions, we
When these have been determined, we find the
further find that:
moments by means of (4. 237), p by means of
(4. 235'), and the reactions by means of (4. 235), with
for r < r-^
r = a and b. The numerical values are

rm r = p r 12( r — b) — jr p (r3 — b 3) — bm(j

and
for r > r 2:
rm r = — p r22(r — a) — — p(r3 — a3) — am^
2 6
The maximum value is obtained for r = r 1 and
r = r 2, respectively, and must be the same in both
cases. This gives one further equation which,
together with the two in (4. 235'), can be used to
determine p, r 1 and r 2. Inserting m and m' from
(4. 235'), we find that
max(rmr) = - b)2(b + 2rx) - bm£
a% = j P(a2 - P2), bqb = i p(p2 - b 2) (4. 239)
By selecting r 1 and r 2, we can find the correspon­
ding values of a and b comparatively easily. By doing
this for the various restraint alternatives, we find, by
means of comparative calculations, the following
approximate formula corresponding to (4. 233):
(4.236)
m^ + 2m + m^
p (a -b )2
9-5 + 3 ^ + (ib - ia) (l - ^
50
(4. 233')
It is further found that the point cor responding to
p divides a — b in the ratio Vl + ia/Vl + i^, i.e.

= |- P ( a - r 2)2(a + 2r2) - a a VT+i b + bVl + ia

(4. 237a) P=
Vl + ia + Vl + ib
i
81
which g iv es the following reactions:
2a Vl + ^ + (a + b)Vl + ia
aqa = ~ p(a - b) V l + ia
(Vl + ia + Vl + ib )2
,- 1 . . r- 2bVl 4- ia + (a + b)Vl + ib
b% = - P(a - b) Vl + ib ------- *----- S-
2 (Vl + ia + Vl + i^)2
(4. 234')
For ia = ib ?we get the same expressions as in
(4. 234), whilst for i a 4= i^, the difference is only
slight, so (4. 234) can be used, i.e. the reactions are
for all practical purposes the same as in isotropic
slabs.
With the above-mentioned value of p and the
moments determined by means of (4. 233'), r 1 and r 2
can, if desired, be determined by means of (4. 235')
and the variation of the moment by means of (4. 236).
am Q
Fig. 4.234
As we would usually make do with simple bar rein­
forcement that corresponds to the constant values
ama and bmjl for rm at the restraints and r xm at
the middle, it will suffice to determine the limits
for the top and bottom reinforcement, i.e. the points
at which rmr = 0 (Fig. 4. 234). These are found by
means of (4. 236), which has the form A = r(B — r 2),
which is easily solved by using a slide rule. Here,
we have
\b(6i t + 3ri2 _b2)
A =
(4. 236')
(6 I T + 3r22 - a2)
k3rx2
l3 r22
at the outer and inner support, respectively.
As a rule we would carry some of the innermost
reinforcement right out to the supports. The top re ­
inforcement can be carried a distance of V5(a — b)
into the slab, provided the degree of restraint does
not exceed 1. The exact calculations show that this
is on the safe side.
Between r 1 and r2,the ring reinforcement must be
lighter (Fig. 4. 233). Assuming a linear variation, we
82
see that the mean values are V2 m ' and V2 m for the
negative and positive moments, respectively.
Numerical example
A 300 m3 water tank is designed as a circular tank
with a diameter of 8 m and a depth of 6 m. The
bottom consists of a slab supported along the wall
of the tank and on a column at the middle. The slab
is considered as restrained in the wall and in the
capital of the column, which has a diameter of 2 m.
With a 20 cm thick bottom slab, the load will be
6480 k g /m 2. With the degrees of restraint ia = i^
= 1, we find from (4. 233'), with a = 4*0 m and b =
1*0, that m = (6480/200) (10*25 x 9) = 3000 kg. With
the stresses 60 and 1000 k g/cm 2, we then get h? =
0*289 V3000 = 15*8 cm, f = 0*410 V3000 = 22*4 cm 2.
With h = 20 cm and 20 mm dia. bars, hn = 16 *0 cm,
and f' = 22* 2 cm 2 per m, i.e. 20 mm dia. bars spaced
at 14 cm.
As p = V2 (a + b) = 2*5, (4. 239) gives 4qa =
\ x 6480 (42 - 2*52), qa = 7900 kg/m , and 1 x qb =
V2 x 6480/(2*52 — l 2) = 17000 kg/m . The shear
stress is r = 17000/(0*9 x 16 x 100) = 11*8 k g/cm 2.
Inclined bars have to be provided at the column
capital. At the wall, r = 5*5 k g/cm 2, so inclined
bars can be omitted here. We find from (4. 235')
that r 1 = 2*31 and r 2 = 2*68, in metres.
We now get the following reinforcement.
Ring reinforcement at the top from b to r l9 i.e. 131
cm, calls for 131/14 = 9-35 rings, and from r 1 to
p, 19 cm, rings at intervals of 28 cm, i.e. 19/28 =
0*68 rings, i.e. a total of ten 20 mm dia. rings.
Correspondingly, the ring reinforcement at the
bottom calls for 18/28 + 132/14, i.e. also ten 20 mm
dia. rings. The bar reinforcement at the top at both
restraints will be 20 mm dia. bars spaced at 14 cm,
which gives 2tt x 400/14 = 180 bars and 2n x 100/14
= 45 bars at the outer and inner edges, respectively.
Every fourth bar at the outer edge can be taken in to
the inner edge, while the remainder can end or be
bent down 60 cm from the edge.
The bar reinforcement at the bottom must be spaced
at intervals of 14 cm at radius r 1 = 231 cm. This
gives 27t x 231/14 = 104 bars, which can be taken
out to the edges. At the inner edge, however, al­
ternate bars can be bent up to resist the shear
force.
4. 3 Slabs on soil
These types of slab are encountered as roadways
and as airport runways and taxi way s. Obviously,
such slabs are never circular, but they are designed
for a point load, so the stress field is symmetrical
about the load and can therefore be dealt with as the
field in a circular slab with symmetrical loading.
4. 31 Plastic soil
The soil is assumed to be of such a character that
its reaction does not increase when the deforma­
tions exceed a certain value but remains constant at
the plastic limit ap . The part of the slab that is at the
yield stage and that consequently has considerable
deformations can therefore be assumed to be sub­
jected to the reaction ap. The conditions are then
the same (but just upside-down) as for a column
under a slab with uniformly distributed load ap.
Equations (48) and (49) in YLT, page 87, apply, and
so we get

m + m '= — 1 - /!£ ,- = (4.31)

277 Pc lilii
The point load P is assumed to be uniformly distri­ r r r m r r n r x r r r r ^ 11^
buted over a certain area, so the load on the slab
here is pc . For a circular surface of distribution
with radius c, we get pc = P / 7 7 C 2 . The yield pattern
is a circle with radius r and yield lines to the centre.
The circle is a negative yield line, and the radii are
Fig. 4.321
positive yield lines. If the slab is only reinforced
at the bottom, m ' can be assumed to correspond to
the bending strength of the slab without reinforce­
ment, since the negative circular yield line is formed where the transition to the last term corresponds to
last and, because of the symmetry, simultaneously, so the equation that is normally valid for q (YLT,pages
m' reaches its ultimate value simultaneously over 57 and 82). Eliminating pr from these two equations
by dividing the latter by 8 7 7 and subtracting, we get
the whole yield circle.
The formula naturally assumes that the slab is so Por "
large that the yield circle does not come too near m + m (4.321)
2ir \A 9 r ) 18
the edge, since other yield patterns would, in that
case, be more dangerous.
We cannot get any further without introducing an
4.32 Non-plastic soil assumption about pQ = k6, where 6 is the deflexion
In this case, the reaction of the soil is not known, and under the load. On the basis of model tests at the
we seem to be precluded from formulating a cal­ Institution for Structural Research at Chalmers
culation when one part of the system is plastic and Tekniska Hogskole with 2 to 3 cm thick reinforced
the other non-plastic. Indeed, to formulate such a concrete slabs on ultra-porous wood fibre-boards
calculation we must introduce new assumptions, (Kramfors) instead of soil, Johansson found that 6
the legitimacy of which can only be determined on can be calculated by means of Hertzfs formula for
the basis of tests. An important contribution to this an infinitely large, elastic slab. We then have p
= ky, AAy + p/E I = 0.
difficult problem has been made by Anders
Johansson, civil engineer, of Chalmers Tekniska
Hogskole (Investigations concerning reinforced (4. 322)
concrete slabs for runways at airports, Report No. 2, po=k6=! v |
1946, and Betong, 1947, vol. 3). We shall therefore
begin by reproducing this method of calculation and where El applies at the yield stage. If the stress-
strain curve in bending is OAB, see Fig. 4. 322, then
then will discuss its assumptions.
El can be determined by means of the chord OB.
It is assumed that the soil reaction is p = ky, where The unknown radius r is then determined by means
k is the so-called modulus of the reaction o f the of the maximum principle, which gives d(m + m ')
ground and y is the deflexion. = 0 ,i.e.
Under the plastic part of the slab, the surface of r_ 3 / 4p 3/32 6 AeT
deflexion is assumed to be a cone, whereby p is (4.323)
as shown in Fig. 4. 321. Within the negative yield
V m „r
77p0C 2 V 77 V kc4

line we can consider the slab as a restrained slab

with the load P — p, where p can be divided into a
uniformly distributed load pr and a conical load
distribution p0 — pr . Then, by means of (4. I l l ) and
(4.113), we get

m + m

The equations of projection give

P — p r77r2 — — (pQ — pr )77r2 = 277qr = 277(m + m ')

83
With this value, (4. 321) then gives

m + m ' = 2v
M f) = £ H 3vs
(4. 324)
Fig. 4.324
Tests showed that both P and r were in excellent
accordance with the values found from these
formulae. It is well known that k is dependent upon
the size of the loaded area. It is therefore deter­
This gives
mined as the ratio between the mean pressure and
the mean deflexion for the part of the slab that
: /r _ 1 0 \ _ 8EI (1
remains in contact with the ground. + i) (4.327)
\c 9/ kc4
To test the formulae in the case of a slab on soil,
we can use the slab in Report No. 1 from the above- and
mentioned investigation. For this slab, c = 40 cm,
El = 16 x 106 kg cm, k = 0*28 k g /cm 2, m = 3300 kg
m + m' = — (l - — (4.328)
and m ' = 950 kg. With these values, we find that 277 \ 9 r/
r = 145 cm and P = 42-2 t. In the test, r was found
to be about 160 cm and P = 52*6 t. The deflexion 6, This gives slightly lower values of r and P than the
calculated by means of (4. 322) is 3*1 cm, whilst the foregoing and must therefore be regarded as less
measured value is 2*2 cm. These differences show suitable than these. A distribution of p as shown in
that the formulae are not particularly good for soil. Fig. 4. 234 would give better agreement, but tests are
This is hardly surprising when we compare the necessary to establish the value more exactly. By
stress-strain curves for Kramfors boards with considering the formulae developed we find that we
those for soil, K and J, respectively, in Fig. 4. 323. can assume that
If, in the foregoing test example, we double the value
of El, we get r = 145 x 6V 2 = 163 cm, P = 40 t and
m + m = <4. 329)
6 = 3*1/V2 = 2-2 cm. We now have agreement as far 277 \ r/ c k c4
as concerns 6 and r,but the real ultimate load is 30%,
higher than the calculated value; this is, incidentally, where a and p must be determined by means of
known from ordinary slab tests with restrained slabs tests.
and can be attributed to the membrane action (see
A study of the tests mentioned shows that, for
YLT, page 175).
Kramfors boards, p lies close to the theoretical
The weak point of the theory is, of course, the value 3V32/t7 = 2*17, whilst a varies from the theo­
determination of p0 or 6 by means of (4. 322). We retical value 4/3 to 3. In the case of the slab on
might try using (4. 118), which gives soil, we find that y3 = 2*4 and a = 2. It thus appears
that p remains almost constant and near the theo­
m r retical value, whilst a may be considerably higher,
p0 = k6 = k (4.325)
2EI presumably on account of the membrane action.
(See also Report No. 3,1948, from Chalmers.)
Inserting this in (4. 321) and using the maximum
principle, with m' = im, we get

c 4.4 Slab supported on columns

r2 8cEI
m = (4. 326) j n the following, symmetrical loading is assumed.
277 k r4 k r3 kr5
1+ i +
36EI 9 El The slab is assumed to be free at both edges and
loaded with a uniformly distributed load p and a
line load p at a distance r from the centre (see
Fig. 4. 41). The columns are assumed to be located
symmetrically, so that they lie at the corners of
a regular polygon. The axes of rotation must thus
also form a regular polygon, and the yield lines will
then be the diameters of this. With n columns, we
get the column reaction S = P /n, where P is the total
load. The moment equation about an axis through the
centre and parallel with the axis of rotation gives,
for one part of the slab (Fig. 4. 41):

2m (a — b) sin a
2
Fig. 4.323 = sS p(a3 — b3) sin a + 2pr2 sin a

84
 This formula only applies when r ^ s. When
s cos (7r/n) < r < s , the contribution from p is found
Here, a = 77/n and nS = 77 p(a2 — b2) + 27t pr, so we to be 2pr/3 [r (sin /3//3) — r cos /3], where r cos /3 =
get s cos a (Fig. 4. 43). The contribution from p must
then be replaced in formula (4. 43) by
a + b , - _r \ 7 7/n
m
p - ^ - + p i — b j S sin(7r/n)
-(■ - rz
_ r 2 sin
P --------------
/3 cos
(4. 44)
p(a2 + ab + b 2) — p (4.41) ^ a sin a

where a = 77/n and cos j3 = — cos a.

The moment will be zero when

sin (jr/n) P(a2 + ab + b 2 ) + p ^ 7 ^

s = (4. 42)
Vn i p(a + b) + p ^

If the moment is found to be negative, the following

formulae will give higher values, so (4. 41) only
applies for positive moments.
The negative moment is determined by means of
the yield pattern in Fig. 4. 42, which is formed by
yield lines from column to column and radii from
Fig. 4.43
the columns to the edge. The moment equation about
the line between the columns for the slab part shown
gives
If there is a hole in the slab, the yield pattern
consisting only of the radii through the columns
2m' a sin a = p(a2o: — s 2 sin a cos a) t
may produce a higher value of m'. It will be seen
, 0_ / sin ot that the slab parts are then as in Fig. 4. 41, but the
+ 2pra I r — s cos a ^
a column reaction gets the moment arm s cos ot.
We can therefore immediately use (4. 41), which
gives
The distance t to the centre of gravity is found by
_ r^
m' = p(a2 + ab + b 2) + p
(a2a — s 2 sin a cos a)(t + s cos a)
2 2
= — a3 sin a — — s 3 sin a co s2 a

when s is replaced by s cos a.

whence
The deflexion at the middle is EIu = V2 m s2. The
1 o /s 3 o 77 t o oS77 . 77 \ deflexion at the edge is a maximum at the points
i' = — pa2 (— c o s 2 — + 2 — 3 -------cot —)
6 \a3 n an n/ furthest from the columns. However, in cases in
which the deflexion at the edge is. critical, we can
utilize a strip through a column as in Fig. 4. 212.
+ Pr ( i - f - H - ' o t j ) (4>43)
This gives EIu = ty2 m ' (a2 ~ s2)-

85
The capitals have been neglected in the foregoing.
This is correct for the positive moment found by
means of (4. 41), but not for the negative moment.
When the columns have capitals, corresponding
yield patterns can be used, where the yield lines
now touch the capitals. The formulae developed can
then still be used, but angles and distances must
correspond to the new yield pattern. Thus, for
example in the case of circular capitals with radius
c, we find that s in (4. 43) must be replaced by s +
c sec (7r/n), while the remaining quantities rem ain
unaltered. In (4. 45), s is replaced by Vs2 — c 2, and
the angle ir/n is reduced by arcsin (c/s).
The conditions at the columns must be investigated
in the usual way. If they stand at some distance
from the edge, the investigation must be made on the
basis of the formulae for inner columns. If, on the
86
other hand, they stand near the edge, it must be on
the basis of the formulae for edge columns. These
have only been developed for straight edges, so when
we have a circular edge, it must be replaced by an
edge of a suitable shape so that the formulae for
corner columns can be applied (YLT, pages 123-124).
However, these formulae cannot be used for the
bottom slabs of tanks as the wall of the tank supports
the edge, so the yield lines cannot be formed here.
Such bottom slabs must be calculated as a circular
slab supported along the edge and subjected to a
column reaction acting upwards and a downward
directed fluid load. Because of the symmetry, the
column reactions are already known, since they are
1/n of the total load (fluid load + load from the
walls). For the calculation of this type of slab,
reference is therefore made to the following chapter.
5 Flat-slab structures

Just as, in the case of continuous beams and one- If weinsert mg am's, these formulae can be re-
way slabs, we use the theory of plasticity in order to written as follows by means of (5. 01):
avoid heavy haunches at the intermediate supports, so,
in the case of flat-slab structures, we use the yield-
line theory in order to avoid heavy capitals and a
(5.03)
local increase in the thickness of the slab over the (1 + a)it
columns. In the following, therefore, we will only deal
with flat-slab structures with modest capitals, no
local strengthening, and the simplest possible rein­ £ - ( l +a)^
12 1 1 (5. 04)
forcement, viz. bottom reinforcement throughout the
slab and top reinforcement at the columns only (the
latter reinforcement may, as a special case, be a v 12
simple ring reinforcement).
When a is thereby calculated for various values of
The division of the panels into strips used earlier a and c / 1, we find that (a — c )/l only varies between
for the design of flat slabs must be considered x/3 and V4 as long as a > V3 and c/1 ^ V5. It will
rather questionable since this entails a very i r ­ therefore be on the safe side to carry the top rein­
regular distribution of the reinforcement, some forcement a distance outside the capital correspond­
zones getting far too much and others too little. It is ing to one-third of the side length 1, i.e.
particularly characteristic of a number of these
methods that the top reinforcement is generally not
a= c + 1, for c < 1, nig < 3mc (5.05)
carried far enough into the panels.

The radius R of the outer yield line is generally

found to be slightly less than y2l.
5.0 Conditions at the columns A corresponding investigation shows that the bottom
reinforcement must, to all intents and purposes, be
The conditions at the columns are of considerable taken right out to the capital.
importance in flat-slab structures. We will therefore
In the derivation of equations (48) to (53) of YLT, the
begin by using formulae (48) to (53) in YLT, pages
slab is assumed to be isotropically reinforced. How­
87 to 88. In the case of square panels with side
ever, as we have only assumed radial, negative yield
length 1, the column reaction is S = pi2, and the same
lines, the reinforcement for m's can just as well be
formula can be used in the case of rectangular panels
designed as rings (or a spiral) spaced at constant
with the side lengths l 1 and 12 if we put l 2 = l ^ . If
intervals, whereby 50% of the top reinforcement can
we assume the capital to be circular, with radius c,
be saved. In the following, we shall need the moment
we get pc = S/(ttc2), and the moments at the column,
resultant for a chord section, and we shall therefore
according to formula (49), are
derive a formula for this.

mc + ms = ^ ( 1 - (5.01) In Fig. 5. 0, the chord AB is determined by the angle

which can, to a good approximation, be written in

the simpler form,

Pl2
ms + m's = - when j (5.02)
2n( 1 + 5y)

Outside the zone at the column, reinforcement is

only provided at the bottom, corresponding to m — mg.
We therefore introduce in (53): ma = mg, m' = m^,
m' = 0 and m = mg, since there is no local thicken­
ing of the slab. With these values, we get

„ 2/p l2 \ p R 23 - r 3
Ri = r’ V = p ( ^ - ms / a = 3 - ^ 7 —

where a is the radius to the circle limiting the top

reinforcement corresponding to mg. Fig. 5. 0

87
2u. The chord intersects the ring reinforcement at
different angles. At C we get the contribution
sin2v x dy (YLT, pages 52-53), where dy =
(x /c o s 2 v) dv, as y = x tan v. For the whole chord,
we therefore get the moment,

M r = 2xm'g tan2v dv = 2 (tan u — u)xmg

= 2(sin u — u cos u) am' (5.06)

It should be noted in this connexion that bar

reinforcement corresponding to m^ at the limit,
i.e. rmj. = am^, gives the contribution mj. c o s 2v dy
= m'rx dv at C. As r = x /c o s v, we get the contri­
bution of the bar reinforcement for the whole chord,

_ rtf ama
Ms “ 2 Jn
O -T~~
X cos v x dv = 2am~a sin u

= AB x (5. 07)
Fig. 5. I l l
i.e. the same contribution as if the slab were isotro-
moment equation about the negative yield line for a
pically reinforced, corresponding to m^. Reducing
panel:
ma to ^2ma a* c ^r c ^e r a*dius V2a, we get

Me ( / a2 - x2 - i y ^ X2
or, by means of (5.06):
It is normally the moments that determine the slab
thickness and not the shear stress. The thinnest a 1
m + 2 y (sin u — u cos u)m's = p(l — 2a cos u) 2
slab is obtained when ms = mg. Then, the slab with
1 y (5.111)
the stresses 75 and 1300 k g /cm 2 has a thickness
of Differentiating with respect to u, the maximum
principle now gives
pl2
h ~ 0, 3 ,/
4 ir(l + 5 y )
ums = \ ~ 2 a cos u) (5.112)
from which we get the shear stress,
From these two equations, we obtain the following
p l2 for the determination of u:
(5. 08)
Y — ~ r = y (2 sin u — u cos u) (5.113)
2 ms 1
where p is in k g/cm 2. With p in kg/m 2, we get

The right side is always positive as u < 90°, whereas

'~ I 5 , ( 1 + k ) ^ <5- 09> the left side is only positive for small values of
m/mg, so this solution is of no practical interest.
which shows that the shear stress only becomes Maximum values are therefore obtained with the
important at high values of p. yield lines as close to the columns as possible,
i.e. for x = c. Then u is determined by means of
c = a cos u, and we find
5.1 Inner panels
m = | - p ( l - 2c )2 - 2m ^ y s i n u - u (5.114]
We will assume that there are so many identical
panels in both directions (at least three) that the
where
calculations can be carried out as though there
were an infinite number of identical panels in both
, 11 c
directions. a= c +-o 1, cos u = —
o a
5.11 Square panels
We will assume ring reinforcement for m's . The If we determine the contribution due to m.g for values
yield pattern shown in Fig. 5. I l l gives the following of c/1 varying from zero to 1/5, we find that, with a

88
m axim um e r r o r of 4°/0, it can be replaced by or
2/3 [ 1 -
( c /l ) ] mg, so

Mr _ p(lV 2 ~— 2 c )2
m +
m = -q p(l — 2c )2 1 - yjm g for lV2 - 2c 24
(5.115)
If either mg or the ratio a = mg/m g has been fixed which always gives a lower value of m than (5.115).
in advance, both mg and mg are determined by (5.02). In the case of steel mesh reinforcement and similar,
If the value of m determined by means of (5.115) we get isotropic reinforcement over the columns.
is lower than mg, the yield pattern in (5. I l l ) cannot It is then natural to arrange the mesh in square panels
be formed, and the calculation must be made on the with side length 2a over the columns, where a can
basis of (5. 02). If, on the other hand, we put m = mg now be slightly smaller, viz.
in (5.115), both mg and m' can be determined by
means of (5. 02) and (5.115). If we do this, we find a - 0*3 1 + c (5. 05')
that, when c / l varies between 0*05 and 0*15, mg
lies between pl2/14 and p l2/15, whilst a = mg/m 'g Corresponding to Fig. 5. I l l , we then get for x = c,
varies between 0*8 and 0*3.
However, for practical reasons, it is not always ml + 2amg = —p (1 — 2c)21
possible to use these values, and in the cases in
which m exceeds ms , bar reinforcement at the top
can be arranged over the column. A ccording to or
(5. 07), this makes the contribution m^ 2Va2 — c 2
to the equilibrium equation, and we then get m = -g- p(l — 2c ) 2 — 2 y mg (5.117)

2m« Va 2 — c 2 = (m — ms)l
Further, for x = a, we get
or, with a = V3 I + c,
m = g- p(l • 2a)2 (5.118)
3 m — ms
(5.116)
2 The yield pattern corresponding to Fig. 5.112 is of
+ 6t no interest here either.
It will as a rule be necessary to let m^ decrease to
If we insert m = mg in (5.117) or (5.118), m and
m^/2 at ^ a . We then get
mg can be determined in connexion with (5.02). It
is then found that only the lowest values of c / l give
2mi (m i s )l practicable solutions, so (5. 02) alone will be decisive
(5.116') in most cases.
When m < mg, we must reckon with mg because This always applies when mg = mg, which gives the
formula (5.02) assumes this. thinnest slab, in the case of both polar reinforcement
2c and isotropic top reinforcement at the columns. In
this case, the slab is calculated solely by means of
(5. 02). If, for example, the requirements to stiffness
call for a thicker slab, a saving in steel can be attain­
ed by selecting as high a value of mg as possible,
i.e. by using both (5. 02) and (5.115) or the corres­
ponding formulae for determination of mg and mg.

5.12 Rectangular panels

As mentioned, formulae (5.02) and (5.05), with l2
= l ^ , apply for these slabs. When l ± > 12, we get,
corresponding to (5.115),

m = I p fl, - 2c )2 - 2 ( J h _ (5 .121)

since the yield pattern corresponding to Fig. 5. I l l now

gives the equation,

ml2 + Mr =-J- p (l1 — 2c )212

The yield pattern in Fig. 5.112 gives
where MR can still be assumed to be

m(bl2 - 2c) + Mr = § ( lV2 ~2 2° ) 2 2 c) M r = 2mg (a sin u — uc) ~ 3^ mg (1 — c)

89
We proceed as in the case of square panels. If we
put m = nig, then ms and mg are determined by
(5. 02) and (5.121). If, on the other hand, we select
a value of nig or the ratio ms/nig, then m is found
from (5.121), and if the value arrived at is smaller
than nig, (5. 02) only is decisive. If, on the other
hand, it is greater than ms , bar reinforcement must
be provided at the top, and this is determined by
corresponding to (5.116). When m^ is reduced to
V2ni^ at y2a., we get
(m - m ) 12
- — — 7 r f = 1 2 2 '>
2Va2 — c 2 — — c2
v 4
With isotropic reinforcement at the column within
the square with the side 2a, where a = 0*3 1 + c, we
get, corresponding to (5.117) and (5.118),
m = g- p(l1 — 2c ) 2 — 2 — nig (5.123)
and
m = K-pdi — 2a)2, where a = 0-3VJ^l^ + c
(5.124)
The deflexion is determined by means of a diagonal
strip with the span d — 2c:
EIu = ms (VI-l2 + 122 - 2c)2 (5.125)
5.2 Outer panels
If the outer panel is supported by walls along one
or two sides, we can generally only regard the slab
as simply supported along such walls. In frame
structures, the outer columns can be connected by
beams, whereby the slab can be considered as simply
supported. If the outer columns are designed so that
Fig. 5. 21
90
they can resist the moment MR from the column
capital, the outer panels can be designed in the same
way as the inner panels. In the following, therefore,
we will only deal with outer panels with simple
support.
5.21 Edge panel
The yield pattern in Fig. 5. 21 shows that the panel
can be treated as a panel with the span 13 — c and
the restraining moment MR/12 at one side, i.e.
1 1
“ r ~ 3-P&3 - c ) 2 - 2 ~ - S
2
or
mR = ^ P (l3 - C)2 - 5 - ms ( l - (5- 211)
if polar reinforcement is adopted over the columns.
If there is also bar reinforcement, we get the further
reduction ^ (m — ms). Correspondingly, with isotropic
reinforcement, we get
mR - g 'P ^ - c ) 2 - Ej ms (5.212)
and
mR = g -p (l3 - a ) 2 (5.213)
13 can be determined by means of these formulae
in such a way that the edge panels get the same value
of m as the inner panels. Corresponding formulae
are obtained for the edge panels corresponding to
and 14. For bar reinforcement, we now get the
reduction ^ (m — mg)(l2/ l 1). The formulae show
that the edge panels must in all cases have spans
that are somewhat more than the spans of the inner
panels reduced by c, i.e. 13 < 11 - c , 14 < 12 - c .
With nig = mg, l1 = 12 and polar reinforcement,
(5. 211), in connexion with (5.02), gives
corresponding to the conditions in one-way slabs.
5.22 Corn er pan el s
Corner panels get the above-mentioned spans 13
and 14. However, only yield patterns as shown in Fig.
5.22 can be formed, that is, as for a triangular slab
with corner levers. Neglecting the restraint at the
column capital, we get m = Vg Pr2>where r is the
radius of the inscribed circle. The corner levers
increase this moment by about 25% (see the Table
on page 67), so m = p r2/ 4 ‘8. The largest inscribed
circle is the one that touches the capital and the
sides enclosing the corner. The radius of this circle
is determined by (r + c ) 2 = (13 — r) 2 + (12 — r )2, i.e.
r = 13 + 14 + c — V213l 4 + 2c ( 1 3 + 14 + c)
(5.221)
 20 mm dia. bars spaced at 15 cm. Over the column
we therefore have to arrange a 20 mm dia. spiral
with 15 cm thread or corresponding rings over a
length of a = 1/3 x 600 + 60 = 260 cm. Throughout
the bottom of the slab we must have 20*7 x (2500/3900)
= 13*2 cm2 = 20 mm dia. bars spaced at 24 cm.
Using (5. 211) for the edge panels, we get mR = V8 x
1880 x 4*22 — 0*3 x 3900 = 2530 kg, i.e. practically
the same value as for the inner panels. According
to (5.125), with 600 V2~— 2 x 60 = 730 cm as strip
length, the deflexion is

1 2500 x 7302 730

= 1*3 < = 1*5 cm
U 8 ' 500
x 105 x ^ x 203
Fig. 5.22

By making use of the work equation for yield

patterns without corner levers, it will be seen that 5.3 Single row of columns
the contribution from the moment MR from the
capital is MR/s , where s is the periphery of the
triangle. Because of the corner levers, s must be
replaced by a somewhat lower value, and if, for the
sake of simplicity, we take 2(13 + 14), we get the
following estimated value, which is on the safe side:

m, .p r 2
4*8
1 ,
~ ms r
3 S13 + 1/1 H)
This value will always be considerably lower than
(5. 222)

those found earlier, so the corner panels do not

affect the design. However, we cannot reinforce for
this smaller value of m as the conditions at the
column expressed by (5. 02) require mg over most
of the panel.

Numerical example
A 1 5 * 6 x 3 3 * 6 m floor with a load of 1200 kg/m 2 is
to be supported by a flat-slab structure. It is decided
to have two rows of columns in the longitudinal
direction. A distance between the rows of 6-0 m is
selected, so that the outer panels become 4*8 m,
which is suitable according to (5. 214). With square
panels, we get four inner panels and two outer panels
of 4*8 m in the longitudinal direction. The corner
panels are thus square. The deadweight is estimated
at 480 k g/m 2, so the total load is 1680 k g/m 2. The
column reaction is S = 1680 x 62 = 60480 kg. This
results in a column with a side of about 30 cm. A
radius of 60 cm for the capital is then suitable.
With c /l = 0*1, equations (5. 02) and (5.115) give
60480
m s + m's = 6400 kg
3IT
and
m + 0*6 nig = -g- x 1680 x 4-82 = 4840 kg
Selecting m = ms, we find from the above that m'g =
3900 kg and mg = 2500 kg, which gives hn = 16*2 cm
and f = 21*7 cm 2 = 7 x 20 mm dia. bars per m for
the stresses 75 and 1300 k g/cm 2. The slab thus has
a thickness of 20 cm, h^ = 17*0 and f' = 20*7 cm2 =
Fig. 5. 32
In Figs. 5.31 and 5.32, there are only corner panels
and edge panels, and the column reactions are static­
ally indeterminate. In the yield-line theory, the latter
condition means that the reactions from the columns
are dependent upon the reinforcement, since the re­
action from a column must not exceed 27r(l + 5 c /l)
x (ms + m^). In other words, the column reaction
can be selected within certain limits. It is then
natural to select a value about p l ^ , corresponding
to structures with a number of rows of columns,
whereby (5. 02) remains valid. Instead of the yield
patterns in Fig. 5. I l l , we get yield patterns
corresponding to rectangular slabs, as suggested in
Figs. 5. 31 and 5. 32. Then, by means of the formulae
in 1. 11, we get
Mr
2 (1 3 - c + 2 12 )
or

91
 p(l3 - c) 12 1— c
m= m
1, — c 212 \ 3(1 o — c + 215 8 i + + 18*5 ’
4 1+ 18*5 4*85
,
21a2 lo - c/ (5.31)
Therefore m = 2760 kg.
for the outer span in Fig, 5. 32.
In Fig. 5. 31, this is used with 13 = 1!. For the If we design the slab for the larger of these values,
intermediate span in Fig. 5. 32, we get 2840 kg, it will be able to resist a column reaction
o fS = l #45 x 47r x 2840 = 52000 kg, which is close
p (lx - 2c ) 12 2(1 - c) to the value calculated above, which moreover co r ­
/ 1, - 2c 219 \ 3(11 - 2 c - 2 1 2) s responds to the maximum span. Inserting the mean
span of 6*4 m, we get only 51000 kg instead of 56000 kg,
<i+ ^ i r - +ir^2E) (5.32)
so we can adopt the value of 52000 kg.
The design gives h = 17 cm, and the deflexion is
In the other direction, corresponding formulae can
therefore
be utilized, but if there is a large number of spans, the
formula corresponding to (5.211) can be used: 2690 x 8302
2*8 cm
1 /-. \9 1 1 C / 8 x 2 x 105 x x 173
m = -g p (12 - c ) 2 — g---------- mg (5.33)
. 830 __ 1>r7
The deflexion can be calculated as follows: 500 ~
The slab thickness must be increased to 20 cm.
EIu = — m (V li2 + 122 — c) (5. 34)
8 Over the columns, rings are arranged out to the
circle with radius a = V3 x 615 + 55 = 260 cm.
Numerical example
The floor dealt with in section 1.19 is to be
supported by a flat-slab structure. With one row of 5.4 Bottom of circu lar tank on columns
columns, we immediately get 12 = 5*4 m. In the
other direction, the spans l x = 7*0 m and 13 = 5*75 m In the following we will deal with the case of four
are adopted. The deadweight is estimated to be columns, because cases with three columns are
480 k g/m 2, so the total load is 1480 k g/m 2. The unlikely to be encountered in practice, although they
value of the column reactions will then be approxi­ can be treated in a corresponding manner. Cases
mately 1480 x 7 x 5*4 = 56000 kg, corresponding to with more columns in the same circle differ only
a column diameter of about 35 cm. With a view to slightly from those dealt with in chapter 4.
the span, a radius of 55 c m is adopted for the capital
of the column. With 1 = V7 x 5*4 = 6*15, we get 5. 41 Supported on four columns at the middle
c/1 = 0*09. We must now first calculate the moments The columns are spaced at equal intervals around
in the panels by means of formulae (5. 31) and (5. 32), the circle with radius b. There is an edge load p
selecting m = ms = mg: around the circumference, and the bottom can be
assumed to be restrained in the wall, corresponding
m / j + 1 - g;6 _„. A l*117m to the restraining moment mR (positive). The loads
V 3 5-2 + 10*8 / on the columns are statically determinate:

1480 5*2 x 5*4 4S = pTra2 + p x 27ia = 4pl2 (5.411)

2920 kg
5*2 I(T8
1+
10*8 5*2 whereby the quantity 1 is determined. The column
therefore m 2610 kg; moments mg and m'g are determined by means of
(5. 02). Reinforcement is provided over the entire
5*6 top of the slab.
m l + l*224m
3 5*9 + 10 •8 )

1480 5*9 x 5*4

= 3490 kg
5*9 + 10*8
1+
10*8 5*9
therefore m = 2840 kg;

As there are now only three panels in the length

18*5m, we analyse the portion (5*4 — 0*55)m x 18*5m
as a rectangular slab that is restrained at the c o l­
umns with a moment corresponding to 2Mh because
there are two columns:

Fig. 5. 41
m (, + 2 x l w r r n ^ = 116m
92
For the circular ring limited by the radii b + c and Numerical example
a, which is restrained at the inner circle and free
The water tank calculated on page 82 is to be sup­
at the outer, but here loaded with p and the favourable
ported on four columns. Estimating the deadweight
restraining moment mR, we get, corresponding to
at 600 kg/m 2, we get p = 6600 kg/m 2. The load on
(4. 212'), page 78: the edge is p = 4000 kg/m . With a = 4*0 m, we then
m . + m' get from (5. 411):
S = j(6 6 0 0 x 42 + 2 x 4 x 4000) = 108 000 kg,
= 7T P (a — b — c ) 2 + p(a — b — c)
b ( 2+b- ^ )
(5.412) 1 = 40 5

The inner circle corresponding to b — c gives, by The column reaction gives a column of about 40 x
means of (4.112), m + m' = V6p(b — c)2, whilst the 40 cm, so 60 cm is a suitable value for c. We thereby
rectangle with the sides bV2^— 2c and approximately get c / l = 0*148, and (5*02) gives
2a, because of its elongated shape, gives very nearly
the greater value 108 000
= 4950 kg
4tr x 1*74
m + m' = —p (bVsT— 2c)2 (5.413)
8 With the same stresses as on page 82, we get from
this hn = 20*2 cm, f = 28*8 cm 2 per m, or 28 mm dia.
As p is usually relatively small, 1 ~ a. If we select bars spaced at 21 cm. This again gives h = 25 cm,
c = 0*la, we then get from (5. 02), mg + mg = pa2/12. corresponding to the estimated deadweight. We now
Then, using (5. 412), with mR = mg and m' = m^, have to determine b. If the reinforcement at the top
is taken right out to the wall and the lower part of
and neglecting p, we get b = 0*45a, whereby (5. 413)
the wall is constructed in the same way as the
gives smaller moments.
bottom, whereby mR = ms , equation (5. 412) yields the
If the top reinforcement is only taken out a distance following expression for determination of b:
r from the centre, m' in (5. 412) and (5. 413) must be
replaced by m '(r/a ). For the determination of r we
2 x 4950
have partly the fact that the top reinforcement is to
be carried a distance of 0*3 1 outside the capital 6600
(5. 05'), and partly the equation for the circular ring
with the radii r and a, m' now being zero. Analogously
6 (3-4 - b)2 ^2-15 + f - ) + 4000 (3’ 4 - b)
with (5. 412), we get or

mT = - i p ( a - r)2 ^2 + + p ( a - r) (5.414) b - 0 ‘ 93 = (3-4 - b)2^0-59 +

from which r can be determined. The first Therefore b = 2*12 m.

requirement is generally decisive, i.e.
The columns must therefore be spaced at intervals
r = b + c + 0*3 1 (5-415) of 2-12 xV2"= 3-00 m.
It will be seen from (5. 415) that the reinforcement
We get a slightly higher value of b than above. In at the top must be taken out a distance of a least
the special case above we thus find that b = 0*47a 2*12 + 0*6 + 1*22 = 3*94 m from the centre, i.e.
and r = (0*47 + 0*1 + 0*3)a = 0*87a, since mg = mg practically all the way to the wall, as assumed.
= pa2/24.
5. 42 Supported on four columns at the middle and
A circular access duct is frequently provided at the
around the circum ference
centre. This does not alter (5. 412), but (5. 413) no
The column reactions are not statically determinate
longer applies. Instead, we must consider the inner
but must be estimated. A reasonable figure can be
circular ring with the radius of the duct p and outer
obtained by imagining the slab to be supported
radius b — c. For this, (4. 221) gives
around the whole circle b and then distributing the
m'(b — c) + m(b — p — c) reactions thereby determined over the columns. In
this way, we get V2 pb from the inner circular part
= -g-p(b — p — c )2(b — c + 2p) + p'p(b — c — p) and q^ from the outer ring-shaped part, by using
(4. 234). We therefore get a total per column of
(5.416)

where p' is the load from the duct. No restraint is s = j b ( j Pb + 5h)

assumed in the slender duct. It is assumed that the
duct is so small that it has no other effect upon the m^b + m(a + b) + m^a
(5.421)
conditions at the columns than that due to the mR + 2m + 1%'
alteration in the reaction S from the column due to
the changed load. In the special case m^ = m^, we get

93
 7TO
S = — (a + b)2, 1 = 0*443(a + b (5.422) and the restraining moment of the wall, m^. With
16 m^ = mg, we get, especially,
This value can also be used when deviates som e­
what from m^ because S, just as in 5. 3, depends upon , 0*3a + b — 1 *7c ,
m + —------ —— m' :|W 2- 2c)2 (5.427)
the reinforcement. a + 0*7b — c s
From (5. 02), we then get
The treatment of the panels between the columns and
p(a + b)2 the wall, on the other hand, is much more difficult,
ms + m's = (5.423)
because the reinforcement at the top consists partly
32(1 + 11*3
a + b) of rings around each column and partly of bar rein­
forcement at the wall. However, it is a reasonable
For the slab ring determined by means of b + c and assumption that (5.424) must be approximately
a, equation (4. 233) gives applicable provided we replace m^ by

m^ + 2m + = “ “ (a — b — c )2 ^275 + ^ 4Md 1— c
0*4 m'Q
(5.424) 2n (b + c) b + c "
Further, (5. 413) is valid.
If we assume that m^ = m^ = m's and that m = ms , where the latter expression is slightly on the low
equations (5. 423) and (5. 424) yield an equation for side. We also insert MR with its earlier value, which
the determination of b when c has been chosen. When corresponds to the section along the tangent, although
c varies from 0*05a to 0*2a,we get b = 0*34a to we really ought to use the intersection with the circle
0*36a. From (5. 423), we can then get values that can with radius b + c, which would give a higher value.
be represented by means of Instead of (5. 424), we then get
pa2 0*2 (5.425)
m t + ms = ■ for m' + 2m + 0*4 - C m~
18(1 a b + c s
b + c
For c = 0, this is on the safe side. The = — (a — b — c ) 2 (2-75 + (5.428)
corresponding column reaction, according to (5. 422), 15
is S = 0*36 pa2 when b is assumed to be 0*36a. where 1 is given by (5. 422).
It will easily be seen that (5. 413) gives lower moments.
In (5. 423), (5. 426) and (5. 428), we have three
We could also have determined b in such a way that equations for determining m = ms , mg and b, when
(5. 423) and (5. 413) gave the same value of m + m', the restraining moment m^ in the wall is known.
but we would then get b = 0 * 5 5 a ( 0 ^ c ^ 0-la) and However, as it is not given that the solution thus
a considerably higher value of S, and thus also a higher obtained is the most advantageous, and as (5. 423) is
value of m + m' than above. Formula (5. 424) then only based on an estimate, it is best to make a few
gives smaller moments than (5. 423) and (5. 413), so calculations for some values of b between ty3a and
this is a possible solution, although obviously un­ V2a, and select the most favourable of these.
economical. Finally, we could determine b in such
In order to determine how far the reinforcement
away that (5. 413) and (5. 424) gave the same moments,
corresponding to m^ should be carried into the slab,
which means that b = 0*52-0*55a when 0 ^ c ^ 0*2a,
we consider the circular ring with the radii b + c
i.e. m + m' = ^ ( O ^ a — 2c)2, which only gives lower
and r, where r corresponds to the circle where m^
moments than (5. 425) when c > 0*16a, so this
is zero. For this, an equation corresponding to
formula is not of practical interest either. The
(5. 428), with m^ = 0 and a = r, applies, i.e.
column reaction is here determined by means of the
moments and is therefore somewhat greater than b + c
0*36 pa2. 2m + 0-4 ------ m 75 +
b + c s = ^
lb ( r - b - c)2 (x2‘ r /
When there is a hole at the centre, we proceed as in (5.429)
section 5. 41.
Since the other quantities in this equation are already
These formulae assume isotropic top reinforcement known, we can find r from it.
throughout the slab. If we use ring reinforcement over
the columns, this will not affect (5. 421) and (5. 422).
Numerical example
The limit for ring reinforcement is, as previously,
^ 1 + c. Formula (5. 413) is now altered to A 1000 m 3 water tank has a height of 9 m and a
diameter of 12 m, i.e. a = 6 m. The load is p = 9720
2M , + ma(bV2 - 2c) _ p ^ kg/m 2. We will try with b = 2*3 m, and we choose
m + c = 0*5 m. With m Q = m' = m' = m, equation (5. 423)
2a + b yf2 — 2c (5.426) gives
which is obtained by considering the rectangle with
the sides 2a and b ^2 — 2c, the value of m0 being as 9720 x 8*32
m = 6240 kg
before, while m^ is determined by MR = 2/3 m'g (1 — c) 2 x 32 (l + 11-3 ~ | )

94
whilst (5. 427) gives Repeating the calculation with b = 2*5 m, we get
m = 6600 kg, 5310 kg and 5530 kg, respectively,
m (l + l-8 + 2 - 3 - 0j85\ = 9720 ^ _ Q)2 where the two lowest values are nearly the same.
\ 6 + 1 - 6 1 - 0-5 / 8 As the first value is based on the estimated column
reaction, we can just as well alter this slightly, and it
i.e. m = 4230 kg. As 1 = 0*443 x 8*3 = 3*68, equation would even be reasonable to reduce it a little since,
(5. 428) gives in the derivation, we replaced the four columns with
a ring-shaped support that naturally gets a slightly
heavier load. The slab can then be designed for
4 +0'4W ) = ^ 3'22(2'75+jr ) m = 5530 kg. As 1 = 376 cm, the limit for the ring
reinforcement is V3 x 376 + 50 = 175 cm. By means
Therefore m = 6200 kg. of (5. 429), we get (r - 3)2 [2*75 + (3/r)] = 20*8,
r = 5*5, i.e. the reinforcement at the restrained edge
We therefore get practically identical maximum must be taken 50 cm into the slab.
values.

95
6 Choice of reinforcement

It is characteristic of the yield-line theory that, which, if we use equation (40) on page 64 of YLT,
within certain limits, it permits an arbitrary dis­ gives
tribution of the reinforcement. In the following, we
shall investigate the most economical distribution 1 b2
- = 3 ^ - 2 (6 . 12)
and the requirements that must be made with a view fi a2
to the prevention of cracking.
The moment is then

6 .1 Isotropic reinforcement—Orthotropic m (6.13)

reinforcement

In most of the types of slab investigated, isotropic
reinforcement is assumed because it is a relatively
simple matter to convert the calculation of ortho­
tropic slabs to that of isotropic slabs by means of
the affinity theorem in YLT, page 67 and onwards.
If we reinforce a rectangular slab with the sides a
and b in such a way that sections parallel with a
get the ultimate moment jum, and sections parallel
with b, the ultimate moment m, and the same applies
to the reinforcement corresponding to the negative
moments, the slab will have the same ultimate
moment m as the isotropic slab with the sides a
and b/Vp", and the same load per unit area.
If the moment for an isotropic slab is m (a,b), where
m, as indicated, is a function of a and b, the moment
for the orthotropic slab will be m(a, b/Vju). A
general investigation of the most economical value
of the reinforcement ratio p is not possible because
so many factors are involved besides the required
steel and concrete quantities. On the other hand, in
cases in which the slab thickness is dependent not
upon the moment but, for instance, upon the require­
ments for stiffness or sim ilar considerations, we
can determine the value of ju that gives the smallest
amount of steel. When the slab thickness is
independent of m, it is also independent of p,, and the
quantity of steel is then proportional to
The same formulae, with ar and br instead of a and
b, apply for restrained slabs.
The result is not of much practical importance, as
the saving in steel at the transition to orthotropic
reinforcement is slight in relation to the increase
in m. Thus, b = a V2 and b = 2a give an S°/Qand a
197o saving respectively but, in both cases, a 48°/0
increase in m. Our assumption that the slab thick­
ness is independent of the moment is therefore only
valid in the case of rather thick slabs (the thickness
being determined by stiffness requirements or
sim ilar); however, such cases seldom arise in
practice.
If we now consider the rectangular slab that is
simply supported along three sides and free on the
fourth, the exact formula (3), page 19, with a/Vpt
and b, gives the following (in this case we assume
m in sections parallel with a, and fjm in sections
parallel with b):
pab I + Ii
J=
8 2 a + /4 a2
3 b Vo
which assumes its minimum value at

J = (1 + jui)m
(a^) (6 . 11)

Thus, using the exact formula (1.116), which gives

p = 1 “ I t for t * 0-45

For this value, we get

(6.14)

sim pler calculations than the approximate formulae,

we get the following quantity of steel for a rectan­
gular slab that is simply supported along the entire
boundary:
J=
We thus have to find the minimum of
m = i pab (6.15)
When the yield pattern is as shown in Fig. 1. 212,
the slab is calculated as a slab with the sides 2a
and b (2a > b), simply supported along the entire
boundary. Then (6.12) yields

VT + ju(,/3
- = 12 2 for 0 55 (6.12')
fj. D* b
or, which com es to the same thing, the minimum of
and the moment is
VTT"
l ^b2
m = L pb2 (6.13')
8 6 a2

96
As the transition from the yield pattern in Fig. 1.211 quantity of steel in the bar reinforcement is propor­
to that in Fig. 1.212 takes place when the ratio tional to the numerical areas of the rmr curve. The
between the sides exceeds 0-71, formulae (6.14) and corresponding contribution from the ring is rM^,
(6.15) only apply if the ratio between the sides a/Vjti where is the moment corresponding to the ring,
and b in the corresponding isotropic slab does not the factor 2n being omitted in both cases.
exceed 0*71, i.e. fi ^ 2 a2/ b 2, which, by means of
(6.14), immediately gives the limit indicated in con­
nexion with this formula. In the same way, (6.12')
and (6.13') only apply for ji^ 2 a2/ b 2, which, together
with (6.12'), gives the indicated limit. In the interval
from 0*45 to 0*55, the value of pthat gives the mini­
mum cannot be used for any of the formulae, pt
should therefore be determined as the value for
which both formulae give the same moment. As the
interval is so small, we can, as more detailed cal­
culations will show, use simple interpolation between
the values for a /b = 0*45 and 0*55, thus obtaining
It can be seen directly from equation (4.04) that the
a Pb2 a
pt = 2 j- — 0*5, m —p p g for 0*45 < g- < 0*55 insertion of a ring corresponding to entails a
jump of the same magnitude in the rmr curve.
(6.16)
Using these formulae, we find for b = a, 2a and 3a, Fig. 6. 21 shows the rmr curve for a restrained slab.
a saving in steel of 19%, 7°/0 and 3% respectively, The base line* is located in such a way that the
and an increase in moment of 48°/0, 25°/0 and 25% quantity of steel J is as small as possible, i.e. a
respectively. It will be seen that savings can only slight shift 6 of the base line should give AJ = 0.
be made in the case of the stiff slab, but the increase With rQ as the radius to the point of zero moment,
in the moment renders this impossible. In the case we get a reduction of the positive area and an increase
of flexible slabs, the increase in moment corre s­ in the negative area, so AJ = — Sr0 + 6 (a — r 0)
ponds quite well to the increase required by the = 6 (a — 2r0), which is zero for r 0 = V2 a. A ccord­
stiffness, but the saving in steel is, on the other hand, ing to the geometrical conditions on page 74, m^
insignificant. must be positive, so a single ring corresponding to
= 6 causes the jump in the rm r curve shown in
These and sim ilar investigations show that no major Fig. 6. 22.
savings in steel can be made. We will therefore con­
clude this section by drawing attention to a number of
cases in which orthotropic reinforcement produces
a definite saving without any increase in moment.
This applies to the slabs treated in 1. 4 and 1. 5, with
line loads and wheel loads. If the width b of the
slabs is so small that the moment m^ = M /b, which
is found by considering the slab as a beam, is c r i­
tical, i.e. is greater than m, the slab can be provided
with lighter reinforcement in the transverse direc­
tion. We then choose the reinforcement ratio in
such a way that m^ = m^. According to the affinity
theorem (YLT, page 68), m^ is found as the moment As the ring contributes r6 to AJ, and the bar
in an isotropic slab with the same span and the load reinforcement contributes 6(r0 — r) — 6(a — r 0)
P/VpTor p/vji, i.e. m^ = m/Vju, where m has the value = 6(2r0 — r — a) when r < r0, and — 6(a — r) when r
determined by the formulae of sections 1. 4 and 1. 5. > r0 , we get AJ = 0 and AJ = 6(2r — a) respectively.
From m^ = m/VjT = m^, we then immediately find The first result shows that the quantity of steel is not
the ratio of reinforcement, changed by the insertion of ring reinforcement in
the inner part of the slab, which behaves as a simply
supported slab with positive m^ and mr - a result
already arrived at (page 75). Tne other result
shows that AJ = 2 6(r — r0) > 0 when r > rQ, i.e.
the quantity of steel is increased by the use of ring
6 .2 P olar reinforcement
reinforcement, and the minimum is consequently
obtained using only bar reinforcement.
As we saw in Chapter 4, we can have an arbitrary
distribution of the reinforcement between ring
reinforcement and bar reinforcement, and it was
mentioned that the lowest steel requirement was
* The values of rm r are here represented as the
achieved by using only bar reinforcement, provided
ordinates of the curve measured from a certain
the slab thickness was kept constant.
straight line. This line is referred to in the following
This can be proved by considering the change in the as the base line. In the case of Fig. 6. 21, the base
quantity of steel caused by the insertion of a single line is the horizontal line shown in the Figure.
ring in a slab with only bar reinforcement. The (Translator’ s note.)

97
As a shift in the base line does not alter J, for r 0
was determined in just such a way, we could also
have reduced rm r by 6 over the length from the
centre to r, whereby we would find that AJ =
6r — 6r = 0.
For a simply supported circular ring, m^ must be
negative at the innermost support and positive at the
outermost, as it changes signs at a point in the
middle, where the surface of deflexion has a hori­
zontal tangent plane.
rmr
Fig. 6. 24
The above-mentioned theorem derived earlier now
no longer applies because m^ changes signs. If a
ring corresponding to = —6 is placed at r x and
another ring corresponding to = + 6 at r 2, the
edge moments will still be zero because the rm r
curve will be as shown in Fig. 6. 23. The rings
increase J by 6rx + 6r2, whilst the bar reinforce­
ment is reduced corresponding to 6(r2 — r x), so
AJ = 6(rx + r 2 — r 2 + r x) = 26 r x > 0. The arrange
ment of rings thus always means an increase in the
amount of steel, so the minimum is achieved by
using only bar reinforcement.
In the case of the restrained circular ring, the base
line is first determined in such a way that the
amount of steel is a minimum.
A slight parallel shift 6 gives
J = 6(rx - b) + 6(a - r 2) - 6(r2 - r x)
= 6 [a — b — 2(r2 — r x)]
At the minimum, AJ = 0, i.e. r 2 — r x = V2 (a — b),
or the distance between the points of zero moment
must be equal to half the span.
By a slight rotation about the mid-point, we find
that AJ = 0 when the points of zero moment are
located at equal distances from the middle. At the
bottom of Fig. 6. 24 are shown the points 1Tand 2’ ,
98
which are symmetrical to the points of zero moment
1 and 2. As the hatched areas cancel out, there will
be a positive contribution corresponding to the two
equal areas between 1 and 2', and 2 and 1'. Only when
these points coincide do we get AJ = 0.
A comparison with the above result shows that
the points of zero moment must lie at the quarter-
points, i.e. r x = (a + 3b)/4, r 2 = (3a + b)/4.
As the middle part of the slab may be regarded as
a simply supported circular ring, we know from
the foregoing that ring reinforcement entails an
increase in J. At the inner edge, m^ is negative,
and a ring corresponding to = — 6 gives AJ
= 6r — 6(r — b) = 6 b > 0. At the outer edge, m^
is positive, and a ring corresponding to = 6
gives AJ = 6r — 6(a — r) = 6(2r — a) > 6(2r2 — a)
= 6(a + b )/2 > 0 . We thus also get an increase
in J here if we use ring reinforcement. If the
circular ring is simply supported at one of the
supports, the base line that gives AJ = 0 will give
the point of zero moment determined by x = 1 W 2
(Fig. 6. 25), which is found by rotating the base
line slightly about the simple support. In a similar
manner as above, it can easily be shown that ring
reinforcement causes an increase in J.
Fig. 6. 25
As a circular slab with symmetrical loading and
without ring reinforcement can be calculated in
the same way as a beam with M = rm r and the
load pr, as mentioned on page 75, it can be said
that the true two-dimensional slab effect is not
utilized in such a slab. We have then arrived at the
paradoxical result that precisely such a slab gives
the lowest amount of steel. As, however, these slabs
have very large moments in comparison with slabs
with ring reinforcement, this result is principally of
theoretical interest, even though certain flexible
types of slab may require so great an increase in the
thickness that the result can be used for these.
6.3 Degree of restraint
In practice, a degree of restraint of 1/2 is often
adopted but, as will be seen from the following, it is
advisable to aim at higher values. The degree of
restraint is usually of minor importance to the
amount of steel, since the saving achieved by means
of a high degree of restraint is relatively small.
Thus, if we consider a square slab restrained along
all sides, the amount of steel is proportional to
ma2 + m ' x 0*64a2 when the reinforcement at the
restrained edges is taken a distance of 0*2a into the
slab. As m + m ' = P /24 , the amount of steel will be the yield-line theory, we must, in accordance with
proportional to (1 + 0*64i)/(l + i), i.e. proportional the above rule, not assume a value of m ' lower
to 1,0*88 and 0-82 for i = 0 ,1 /2 and 1, respectively. than P /60, and as m + m ' = P /24, we get m = P /40,
There is thus only a slight saving to be made by i = m '/m = 2/3.
putting i = 1 instead of i = 1/2.
If the slab is only geometrically restrained along
Because of the danger of cracking, we should not
one side, the maximum moment of restraint will be
deviate too much from the values given by the theory
P /12, i.e. twice the moment with simple support. In
of elasticity. If the stress-strain diagram for the
the yield-line theory, we must not assume m ' to
slab were straight up to the yield limit, and the factor
have a value of less than P /36, and as m + V4 m '
of safety were 2, we could not use a lower moment
= P /24, we get m = 5P/144, i = m '/m = 4/5.
of restraint than half the value given by the theory
of elasticity if yielding at the working load were to
We see that higher degrees of restraint than 1/2
be avoided. However, as the stress-strain diagram
are required. However, geometric restraint is
is not straight, we can actually deviate somewhat
seldom found in practice. Admittedly, symmetrically
m ore and, in the absence of more detailed investi­
loaded continuous slabs have horizontal tangents
gations, a value of 1/3 must be considered suitable.
at the supports, but these are generally beams and
Tests with beams have shown that, when half the
thus elastic, whereas the above values assume rigid
value given by the theory of elasticity is used, only
supports. In the case of elastic supports, the moments
the usual fine cracks occur, but with a quarter of that
of restraint will be smaller, so we can use
value, wide cracks occur at the working load. These
lower degrees of restraint in the yield-line theory,
tests show that the critical value lies between 1/2
depending upon the degree of stiffness of the
and 1/4 for beams. For slabs, where the maximum
supports.
moment only occurs at a single point, unlike beams,
where the maximum moment occurs over the whole
A rectangular slab with the sides a and 2a, where
section, conditions are perhaps more favourable.
the sides a are simply supported and the remaining
If we now consider a square slab that is geometrically two sides are free and restrained, respectively, has
restrained along all four sides, the theory of elasti­ the maximum moment of restraint 0-16P according
city gives the maximum moment of restraint as to the theory of elasticity. In yield-line theory, we
equal to P /2 0. The restraint has thus weakened the must then have m' s? 0*053P, which, by means of
slab, since the maximum moment has increased from (1. 218) on page 23, gives i/(9 + 6i) ^ 0*053, i ^ 0*7,
P /2 4 in the case of simple support. When we apply i.e. once again m ore than 1/2.

99
Subject index

Affinity theorem 17
Airport runway 82
Anchorage force 6, 8, 17, 59, 65
Anchorage of reinforcement 73

Bar reinforcement 73
Beam 2,7
Bottom slab 73, 86, 92

Cantilever slab 38
Capital 46, 87
Circular slab 73, 92
deflexions 76, 78, 79, 80, 83, 85
examples 79, 82, 93, 94
with central hole see ring-shaped slab
with conical load 75, 77
with eccentric hole 79
with isotropic reinforcem ent 75, 77, 79, 80
with line load 75, 77, 79, 84
with point loads 75, 82, 92
with polar reinforcem ent 76, 78, 79, 80
Column, local conditions at 41,46,87
reaction 41, 45, 50, 53, 71, 84, 87, 92, 93
supporting 41, 45,87
Conical load on circular slab 75, 77
Convex quadrilateral slab 63
Corner force 6
Corner levers 7
correction fo r 7, 21, 23, 25, 55, 59, 63, 66, 68, 90
Corner panels 90
Creep 15, 16, 29

Deflexions 14
o f circular slab 76, 78, 79, 80, 83, 85
o f flat slab structure 90, 92
o f rectangular slab 29, 31, 41, 43, 47, 51, 52, 53
o f triangular slab 67, 70
permanent 16, 29
Degree of restraint 2, 98

Edge panels 90
Examples (numerical), with circular
slab 79, 82, 93, 94
with flat slab structure 91, 92, 93, 94
with rectangular slab 17, 29, 31,42, 44, 48, 52,53
with skew slab 61
with triangular slab 67, 70

Flat slab 87
circular 92,93
deflexions 90,92
examples 91, 92, 93, 94
inner panels 88
on single row o f columns 91
outer panels 90
with corner panels 90
with edge panels 90
with rectangular panels 89
with square panels 88
Footings 73

Geometric restraint 1

Hole, in circular slab 79, 84, 93, 94

in rectangular slab 10, 26

Ingerslev’ s theorem 5
Isotropic reinforcement 73, 77, 96
Inner panels 88

Membrane action 84
Minimum reinforcement 34, 38, 40, 56, 75, 77, 96
Modulus of reaction 83
Modulus of elasticity of concrete 15

Nodal force see YLT

Non-plastic soil 83

One-way slab 2, 16
Orthotropic reinforcement 17, 96
Orthotropic slab 17, 96
Outer panels 90

Parallelogram-shaped slab, supported

on four sides 55
supported on two sides 56
Partial restraint 1
Partition walls 8
Permanent deflexions 16, 29
Plastic soil 82
Point load, local yield pattern 9
on circular slab 75, 82, 92
on rectangular slab 9, 16, 26, 30, 34, 36, 39
on skew slab 55, 57,62, 64
on slab spanning in one direction 3
on triangular slab 67
Polar reinforcement 73, 77, 80, 97

Reactions 6, 8, 17, 21
Reduced span 2, 5, 20
Rectangular slab, deflexions 14, 29, 31, 41, 43, 47, 51, 52, 53
examples 17, 29, 31,42,44, 48, 52, 53
orthotropic 17,96
supported on four sides 5
supported on one side 38
supported on three sides 19
supported on two sides 29, 32
with column supports 41, 42, 44, 48, 51, 52
with hole 10, 26
with point loads 9, 16, 26, 30, 34, 36, 39
with triangular load 7,24
with wheel loads 9, 36
see also point load
'Reinforcement, anchor age o f 73
arrangement o f 3, 9, 13, 21, 27, 34, 53, 56, 73, 77, 96
bar 73
isotropic 73, 77, 96
minimum of 34, 38, 40, 56, 75, 77, 96
near column 41, 53, 87, 89, 90

102
orthotropic 17, 96
polar 73, 77, 81
ring 73,87
Restraint 1
degree o f 2, 98
geom etric 1
partial 1
static 1
Ring reinforcement 73,87
Ring-shaped slab, free-su p ported 79
supported-free 77
supported on columns 84,93
supported-supported 80
Runways 82

Shear stress near column 88

Shrinkage 16, 29
Skew bridge 55
Skew slab, convex quadrilateral 63
example 61
parallelogram- shaped 55
trapezoidal 58
with point loads 55, 57, 6:
with triangular load 59
with wheel loads 55
Slab, on non-plastic soil 83
on plastic soil 82
spanning in one direction 2, 16
Span 16, 55
Static restraint 1
Stiffness 16
Strip method 15, 67
see also deflections

Trapezoidal slab, supported on four

sides 58
supported on three sides 60
supported on two sides 61
Triangular load, on rectangular slab 7, 24
on skew slab 60
on triangular slab 66, 68
Triangular slab
column supports 70, 71
deflexions 67, 70
examples 67, 70
supported on three sides 65
supported on two sides 68
with point loads 67

Ultimate moment 1

Wheel loads 9, 36, 55

see also point load
Wing walls 65
Wood fibre-boards 83

Yield line moment 1

YLT (Yield-Line Theory) 1

103
Sign convention, signs and symbols

Rotations and moments are represented by vectors along the axis of rotation,
in such a way that when one is facing the vector arrow they turn anti-clockwise.
For a yield line, the moment vectors are indicated on the parts of the slab on
which the corresponding moments act. The vectors thus form pairs (since they
must be drawn slightly apart so that they do not coincide), which with positive
yield lines turn anti-clockwise, i.e. in the positive direction of rotation. With
negative yield lines, the pair of vectors turn in the negative direction of rota­
tion.
Stresses are indicated in the usual way, i.e. outside the part on which they
operate.
Generally, a symbol is included in the following list only if it appears several
times in the book, i.e. when the symbol is used in sub-sections other than the
numbered sub-section in which it is defined.

First occurrence Only used

Symbol Meaning on page on pages

ar reduced span of rectangular slab 5 5-19

ar 20 20-25
br 5 5-25
c radius of capital 87 87-95
E modulus of elasticity of concrete 15
g dead load 2
H corner force 6
i degree of restraint 2
I moment of inertia of a unit length
of slab cross-section 15
J quantity of steel 77
k side length of wheel load 55 55-56
k ratio between moment with and
moment without corner levers 55 55-58
k 59 59-64
k 66 66-67
k 69 69
k 70 70
k' 70 70
k' 70 70
^x curvature 15
1 column distance for square panels 87 87-90
*1’ *2 column distances for rectangular
panels 87 87-90
reduced span 2 2-4
m positive ultimate moment 2
/
m negative ultimate moment 2
m0 simple moment 2
mi mean value of restraining moment 6
mi 10
mi 21
mi 58
mi 59
mi 61
mi 91
ms positive ultimate moment in slab
near column 87
ms negative ultimate moment in slab
near column 87
 First occurrence Only used
Symbol Meaning on page on pages

ny bending moment in radial sections 73

mr bending moment in circular sections 73
mR moment from ring reinforcement 88 88-89
Mr moment from column capital 89 89-95
MS moment from bar reinforcement 89 89-95
P triangular load 7
P uniformly distributed load 5
P uniformly distributed line load 4
Pc uniformly distributed column
reaction 87 87-95
P total line load 10
P total distributed load 10
P point load 3
q uniformly distributed total load 2
q distributed reaction 6
Q total distributed reaction on slab
side 21
R reaction 21
S column reaction 41
u deflexions 15
u angles etc.
YLT abbreviation for the book " Yield-
Line Theory” 1
a ratio between entire line load in the
a direction and entire distributed load 8 8-54
a angles, lengths, etc. 6
ratio between entire line load in the
b direction and entire distributed
load 8 8-54
P angles, lengths, etc. 34
M ratio between ultimate moments in
ortho tropic slab 17
U) acute angle between sides of
parallelogram-shaped slab 55 55-58
AA correction in work equation for
corner lever in A 66

------- r* yield line --------- axis of rotation --------- free edge

■ column restrained edge w / / simply supported edge
• point load • + transverse forces

106