ACISTRUCTURAL
JOURNAL
Title no. 86-S10
MembraneAnalysis of Flat Plate Slabs
.illI
"-'
'''', '~.'." '.'.'.:
~'. ~ '. ..' .
by Leslie K. Guice, Thomas R. Slawson, and Edward J. Rhomberg
Tests 0147 one-way reinlorced concrete slab strips subjected to uni-
lormly distributed loads are reported. The slabs are typical 01 those
used in the Ilat-plate designs 01 protective construction. An ana/yti-
cal procedure modified Irom previous investigations is used as a ba-
sis lor determining the peak flexural capadty 01 the s/abs. Results 01
compressive and tensile membrane ana/yses are compared and shown
to predict reasonab/y the peak capacity and tensile membrane re-
sponse.
Keywords: compression; concrete slabs; tlat concrete plates; flexural strength;
lateral pressure; restraints; structural analysis; supports; tension.
The reinforced concrete slab, one of the most com-
mon structural elements, behaves in a way that is not
entirely understood, particularly under large deflec-
tions. Researchers involved in investigations of thé cat-
astrophic failure of slabs need to have a much better
understanding of a slab's behavior beyond the working
load and serviceability criteria typically used in conven-
tional designo
Currently, no procedure has been developed that ac-
curately predicts the load-deflection relationship of
slabs throughout the entire range of loading. Signifi-
cant advances have been made in predicting the peak
flexural capacity and tensile membrane behavior of
slabs. However, there has been relatively little verifica-
tion for the analyses, particularly with regard to rela-
tively thick slabs (span/thickness ratios of 5 to 15) and
slabs with larger quantities of steel (tension, compres-
sion, and shear). Compressive membrane analytical
procedures require an empirical relationship for deter-
mining the deflection at which the peak capacity is
reached. The es~imated peak capacity deflectio~ rec-
ommended for use in the design of conventional slabs
has pro ved to be highly conservative for the thicker
slabs.
This paper presents analysis results of 47 one-way
flat plate specimens of the type typically found in pro-
tective construction, Le., structures designed to with-
stand blast-induced loads. The test program for 16 of
the specimens is presented in Reference 1. However,
results of the remaining tests have not yet been pre-
sented. A modification of the theory developed by
Park,2.J refined by Park and Gamble,4 and combined
ACI Structural Journal I January-February 1989
TECHNICAL
PAPER
with a relationship proposed by Keenans is used to de-
termine the peak flexural capacity of these slabs. Re-
sults of tensile membrane analyses are also presented.
RESEARCH SIGNIFICANCE
It has been established for some time that yield line
theory significantly underpredicts the ultimate capacity
of laterally restrained slabs. A procedure is presented
that pro vides analysts with an effective tool for pre-
dicting the peak flexural capacity of fully supported flat
plates with reasonable accuracy. AIso, standard plastic
tensile membrane theory is shown to represent fairly
accurately the tensile membrane response of slabs.
Tests reported herein provide significant data on the
large deflection behavior of slabs.
TEST CONFIGURATION
Investigations into the design and vulnerability of
shallow-buried structures have led to the testing of nu-
merous slab- and box-type structures at the U .S. Army
Engineer Waterways Experiment Station (WES),
Vicksburg, Miss., in recent years. The data presented in
this report ar~ limited to static tests of one-way rein-
forced concrete slab strip elements designed to repre-
sent the roof portion of box-type structures typically
found in protective construction. Most of the tests were
conducted to provide information on the effects of
various parameters such as steel percentage, reinforce-
ment configuration, and stirrup details on the com-
pressive and tensile membrane behavior of slabs.
All slabs tested were 24 x 36 in. (610 x 915 mm), with
only 24 in. (610 mm) of the length effectively loaded
and 6 in. (150 rom) integrated into the supports at each
end. Thicknesses of the slabs ranged froro 1.625 to 4.80
in. (41.3 to 122 mm) resulting in span/thickness ratios
of 14.8 to 5. All slabs had continuous reinforceroent in
the top and bottoro faces and a small percentage of
ReceivedSept. 25. 1987. and reviewed under Institute publication policies.
Copyright @ 1989.American Concrete Institute. All ríghts reserved. including
the making of copies unless permission is obtained from the copyright propri-
etors. Pertinent discussion will be published in the November-Oecember 1989
ACI Structurat Journat if received by July 1, 1989.
83

. ~ - -'= 0'
ACr m~m~r L.",. K;.Guletds Associatt 'Prolessor 01 CiVil Engineering al
Louisiana Tech UniversilY. He has conducled research allhe U.S. Army Engi-
neer Waterways Experimenl Station (WES) Structures Laboratory, Vicksburg,
Miss., for several years in the area of blast resis/ance 01 reinforced concrete
slabs. Dr. Guice obtained his PhD from Texas A & M Universi/y.
Thomas R. Slaw,on is Research S/ructural Engineer at WES. He has con-
ducted research investigating the behavior structures designed for blast proiec-
tion since 1981, Mr, Slawson obtained his 8S and MS degrees in civil engineer-
ing from Mississippi State Universi/y.
Acr member Edward J. Rhombur is Prolessor 01 Civil Engineering at Texas
A & M University, Colle,e Station, Texas. He is a member 01 ACI Committee
E702. Designing Concrete S/ructures.
temperature reinforcement running in the transverse
direction. Nearly aIl the slabs contained either single-
legged, double-Iegged, or c1osed-hoop shear reinforce-
ment throughout the span. As ilIustrated in Fig. 1, this
steel configuration resulted in a structural cage that
_o o' . . "---~~" 11:''''", ~'''''-. :'-
-~ o -
provided confinemem--for-the inner -coreo[concrete.
Typical construction details for the slabs are shown in
Fig. 2. Specific design 'parameters for each slab are
provided in Table l.
Two reaction structures were used in the tests. The
structure ilIustrated in Fig. 3 was designed to provide
rigid support for the slabs and eliminate in-plane
thrusts due to lateral earth pressures. A second struc-
ture (See Fig. 4) was designed to allow the slabs to
undergo rotation and translation at the supports. Ad-
ditional details of the latter structure were reported in
Reference l. In both cases, load was applied to the slab
by pumping water into the chamber above the slab at a
controIled rate.
Because different objectives were stated for each se-
ries of tests, different types of data were generated.
However, applied pressure, midspan deflection, and
steel strain gage records were obtained for each of the

-..
WATEAPAOOF
MEMAANE

SAND
BACKFILL

Fig. 3-Smal/ blast load generator facility and rigid re-

Fig. l-Construction details for a typical slab element action structure
24" 1:

~'~ STIRAUP
7 .OCATION

~
z
en
a:
«
~: w
-'
o

Í::' -
h
-.- fr' THICKNESS

w;\;:;:~.\]
PRINCIPAl. sreEL
lal PLAN

"t

~ j '-..
~
1- I

lb) SECTION
~~
d,,=O.1T

Fig. 2- Test slab with detai/s of reinforcement (1 in.

.

"",
,-

PA~
~
-
STEEL
d..DfAMETEA

=
\~ S'S"

Fig. 4-Load generator facility and reaction structure

1 ;.~
dt

2.54 cm) for partial/y restrained slabs .!

~ 84 ACI Structural Journal I January-February1989 ;¡

- ~
 Table1 - Design parameterssummary
Midspan Support
p, p', p, p', J,,* J,,* J:,* t,' d,' d','
Slab Restraint Lit percent percent percent percen t ksi ksi ksi in. in. in.
1 Rigid 8.3 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 90.2 99.0 6.7 2.9 2.40 0.50
2 Rigid 8.3 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 90.2 99.0 6.8 2.9 2.40 0.50
3 Rigid 8.3 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 90.2 99.0 6.9 2.9 2.40 0.50
4 Rigid 10.0 0.47 0.47 0.47 0.47 77.7 81.5 6.1 2.4 1.95 0.45
5 Rigid 10.0 1.04 1.04 1.04 1.04 70.1 78.3 6.1 2.4 1.88 0.53
6 Rigid 5.0 0.46 0.46 0.46 0.46 70.1 78.3 6.1 4.8 4.30 0.50
7 Rigid 10.4 0.74 0.74 0.85 0.85 59.8 65.5 4.8 2.3 1.94 0.63
8 Rigid 10.4 0.74 0.74 0.85 0.85 59.8 65.5 4.9 2.3 1.94 0.63
9 Rigid 10.4 0.74 0.74 0.85 0.85 59.8 65.5 5.1 2.3 1.94 0.63
10 Rigid 10.4 0.74 0.74 0.85 0.85 59.8 65.5 4.9 2.3 1.94 0.63
11 Rigid 10.4 0.74 0.74 0.85 0.85 59.8 65.5 5.1 2.3 1.94 0.63
12 Rigid 10.4 0.74 0.74 0.85 0.85 59.8 65.5 4.9 2.3 1.94 0.63
13 Rigid 10.4 0.74 0.74 0.85 0.85 59.8 65.5 5.0 2.3 1.94 0.63
14 Rigid 10.4 0.74 0.74 0.85 0.85 59.8 65.5 5.1 2.3 1.94 0.63
15 Rigid 10.4 0.75 0.75 0.86 0.86 62.4 74.4 4.7 2.3 1.94 0.63
16 Rigid 10.4 0.75 0.75 0.86 0.86 62.4 74.4 4.9 2.3 1.94 0.63
17 Rigid 10.4 0.74 0.74 0.85 0.85 66.0 73.2 4.5 2.3 1.94 0.63
18 Rigid 10.4 0.79 0.79 0.79 0.79 66.0 73.2 4.5 2.3 1.81 0.50
19 Rigid 10.4 1.14 0.40 0.40 1.14 63.5 81.0 4.5 2.3 1.81 0.50
20 Rigid 10.4 1.14 0.40 1.19 1.14 63.5 81.0 4.5 2.3 1.81 0.50
21 Rigid 10.4 1.14 0.40 1.19 1.14 63.5 81.0 4.5 2.3 1.81 0.50
22 Rigid 10.4 1.58 0.00 1.58 0.00 66.0 73.2 4.5 2.3 1.81 0.50
23 Rigid 10.4 1.13 0.45 1.13 0.45 66.0 73.2 4.3 2.3 1.81 0.50
24 Rigid 10.4 1.13 0.45 1.13 0.45 66.0 73.2 4.3 2.3 1.81 0.50
25 Rigid 10.4 1.13 0.45 1.13 0.45 66.0 73.2 4.0 2.3 1.81 0.50
26 Rigid 10.4 1.13 0.45 1.13 0.45 66.0 73.2 4.0 2.3 1.81 0.50
27 Rigid 10.4 1.13 0.45 1.13 0.45 66.0 73.2 4.2 2.3 1.81 0.50
28 Rigid 10.4 1.13 0.45 1.13 0.45 66.0 73.2 4.2 2.3 1.81 0.50
29 Rigid 10.4 1.13 0.45 1.13 0.45 66.0 73.2 4.2 2.3 1.81 0.50
30 Rigid 8.3 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 60.3 76.7 3.6 2.9 2.40 0.50
31 Rigid 10.4 0.79 0.45 0.79 0.45 66.0 73.2 3.6 2.3 1.81 0.50
32 Partía! 10.4 0.52 0.52 0.52 0.52 50.0 61.4 4.4 2.3 1.94 0.38
33 Partia! 10.4 0.52 0.52 0.52 0.52 50.0 61.4 4.3 2.3 1.94 0.38
34 Partial 10.4 0.74 0.74 0.74 0.74 58.5 76.7 4.4 2.3 1.94 0.38
35 Partía! 10.4 0.74 0.74 0.74 0.74 58.5 76.7 4.3 2.3 1.94 0.38
36 Partia! 10.4 0.74 0.74 0.74 0.74 58.5 76.7 4.2 2.3 1.94 0.38
37 Partia! 10.4 0.74 0.74 0.74 0.74 58.5 76.7 4.2 2.3 1.94 0.38
38 Partía! 10.4 1.06 1.06 1.06 1.06 58.5 76.7 4.4 2.3 1.94 0.38
39 Pial :0.4 1.06 1.06 1.06 1.06 58.5 76.7 4.3 2.3 1.94 0.38
40 Partia! 14.8 0.58 0.58 0.58 0.58 67.3 77.7 5.0 1.6 1.25 0.38
41 Partia! 14.8 0.58 0.58 0.58 0.58 67.3 77.7 5.0 1.6 1.25 0.38
42 Partia! !4.8 1.14 1.14 1.14 1.14 58.5 76.7 5.0 1.6 1.25 0.38
43 Partia! 14.8 1.14 1.14 1.14 1.14 58.5 76.7 5.0 1.6 1.25 0.38
44 Partia! 14.8 1.14. 1.14 1.14 1.14 58.5 76.7 5.0 1.6 1.25 0.38
45 Partia! 14.8 1.14 1.14 1.14 1.14 58.5 76.7 5.0 1.6 1.25 0.38
46 Partial 14.8 1.47 1.47 1.47 1.47 58.5 76.7 5.0 1.6 1.25 0.38
47 Partia! 14.8 1.47 1.47 1.47 1.47 58.5 76.7 5.0 1.6 1.25 0.38

*Multiply ksi by 6.894757 to obtain megapascals.

'Multiply in. by 2.54 to obtain cm.

ACI Structural Journal I January-February 1989 85

~. 'u '°, H. -- n'.-' ..--

tests. Load-deflection curves were generated for each
test and are presented in References 6 through 9. In
general, load was applied beyond the peak flexural ca-
pacity and well into the tensile membrane region. In a
few cases, slabs were actually loaded to collapse.
ANALYSIS
The flexural analysis of reinforced concrete slabs has
received a great deal of attention by engineers for many
years. Early investigators were primarily concerned with
the initial flexural behavior since conventional failure
criteria were originally based on small deflections. More
recently, with an evolution into limit state design, en-
gineers have become more concerned with evaluating
the true collapse load of slabs. However, even the term
"collapse load" may have different connotations for
those practicing in different areas. Engineers involved
in designing structures to withstand catastrophic loads,
such as those induced from blast and shock, generally
consider failure to be at much larger deflections than
the conventional design community.
The predominant response of slabs under heavy loads
and large def1ections is controlled by plastic behavior at
various critical sections. Consequently, analytical pro-
cedures must account for that plasticity to accurately
predict the response. Because of their relative simplic-
ity and ease of application to more complex slab geo-
metries, plasticity-based theories have received a lot of
attention in recent years.
J ohansen' s yield line plasticity theorylO offers a
means for determining the pure ultimate flexural ca-
pacity of slabs, i.e., the capacity neglecting in-plane
forces in the slab. The yield line theory is based on the
postulation of 3. mechanism that forms with a combi-
nation of real and plastic hinges in the slab. For fixed-
end slabs, plastic hinges must form at midspan and
both supports for a mechanism to occur. Portions of
the slab between yield lines are considered to behave
elastically and have a negligible effecf on the ultimate
capacity. The load that theoretically produces a mech-
anism is known as Johansen's loado Provided a correct
failure mechanism is assumed and neglecting thrusts,
the yield line method will provide an upper bound so-
lution for the ultimate capacity of a slab.
Johansen's load for a slab may be derived by equat-
ing the work caused by external forces to the internal
work performed along the hinge lines. The ultimate ca-
pacity for a uniformly loaded, fixed-end, one-way slab
is written as follows
w= 8 (Mns+ Mnm) (1)
VB
where w = the maximum uniform load on the slab;
Mnm, Mns = the nominal moments of resistance along
the plastic hinge line at midspan and supports, respec-
tively; L = the length of the slab in the principal direc-
tíon; and B = the width of the slab.
Yield line analyses were conducted for all slabs and
are provided in Table 2. The nominal moment capaci-
RR ..
'.
ties for the critical cross sections were calculated in ac-
cordance with the procedure contained in the ACI
Building Code.11The analyses accounted for the contri-
butions of the compressive reinforcement to the total
moment of resistance.
Compress!ve membrane analysis
As evidenced by the results in Table 2, yield line the-
ory significantly underpredicts the ultimate capacity of
slabs when the slabs are laterally restrained. The en-
hancement in strength over the yield line capacity is at-
tributable to compressive membrane action. Compres-
sive membrane thrusts resulting from the restricted
movement of the slab's edges increase the moment ca-
pacities of the critical cross sections and, consequently,
enhance the total capacity of the slab.
Analytical procedures have been developed to pre-
dict the peak capacity of slabs with compressive mem-
brane forces.3.5.lz.13Most of the procedures are quite
similar and are developed by considering the equilib-
rium and deformations of a slab strip similar to that
shown in Fig. 5. Each procedure requires the assump-
tion of the deflection at ultimate load, and excellent re-
sults may be obtained if the proper ultimate deflection
is assumed. Park3 suggested an empirical value for the
ultimate deflection to be 0.5 times the slab thickness.
However, tests conducted at WES ha ve indicated that
this estimate is somewhat large for the thicker slabs
used in protective construction. Other investigatorslZ
have shown that the empirical value may or may not be
design conservative for conventional slabs. Therefore,
a better estimate of the peak capacity deflection is
needed for an accurate analysis of the compressive
membrane behavior of slabs. Keenan5 presented a rela-
tionship that, when used with Park's analysis, yields
favorable results. The procedure, as presented by Park
and Gamble4 and Keenan5 and modified to conform
with notation used in this work, follows.
This derivation is based on a rigid plastic slab strip
formed as the result of a three-hinge mechanism in a
one-way slab. Consideration is given to axial deforma-
tions and lateral support movements. From Fig. 5(a)
and (b), the geometry of deformations of the flexurally .-...
rigid slab strip yields the following relationship
x + t
cosO = (2a)
x + (h - cs) tanO - Cm tanO - € X
in which € = the sum of elastic, creep, and shrinkage
strains; and t = the lateral movement of one support.
The other undefined terms are represented in Fig. 5.
Rewriting the equation using trigonometric identities
and considering small angles
Cs + Cm= h - ~-
2
€x2
O
X t
---¡ (2b)
In the previous expression there are essentially five
unknowns: the depths of the neutral axis at midspan Cm;
the depth of the neutral axis at the support Cs;the mid-
ACI Structural Journal I January-Februarv 1989
 Table 2 - Analysis summary
Moment capacity. Compressive membrane. psi Analysis/ experimental
kip-in. Yield line Tensile
A, W, W., W"
w,. membrane
Slab Midspan Support psi W" t W" t PA PA PA slope
1 49.4 49.4 57.2 179.2 0.03 180.0 0.071 0.33 1.03 1.03 30.1
2 49.4 49.4 57.2 138.3 0.28 181.8 0.071 0.07 0.17 0.22 30.1
3 49.4 49.4 57.2 165.7 0.16 183.6 0.071 0.33 0.97 1.07 30.1
4 35.0 35.0 40.5 87.6 0.23 103.7 0.106 0.66 1.44 1.70 19.8
5 59.4 59.4 68.8 101.2 0.29 125.7 0.106 0.68 1.00 1.24 38.1
6 140.0 140.0 162.0 340.6 0.14 401.4 0.025 0.56 1.17 1.38 38.5
7 42.4 33.3 43.8 65.6 0.32 86.6 0.114 0.73 1.09 1.44 23.8
8 42.6 33.4 44.0 66.3 0.32 88.0 0.114 0.67 1.00 1.33 23.8
9 43.0 , 33.5 44.3 67.7 0.32 90. 0.114 0.62 0.94 1.25 23.8
10 42.6 33.4 44.0 66.3 0.32 88.0 0.114 0.58 0.87 1.16 23.8
11 43.0 33.5 44.3 74.1 0.26 90.0 0.114 0.59 0.99 1.20 23.8
12 42.6 33.4 44.0 51.7 0.48 88.0 0.114 0.66 0.77 1.31 23.8
13 42.8 33.5 44.2 60.2 0.39 89.0 0.114 0.68 0.93 1.37 23.8
14 43.0 33.5 44.3 60.8 0.39 90.0 0.114 0.64 0.88 1.30 23.8
15 44.0 34.7 45.5 66.1 0.32 86.8 0.114 0.64 0.93 1.22 25.2
16 44.4 34.9 45.9 59.6 0.39 87.6 0.114 0.60 0.78 1.15 25.2
I7 45.3 35.9 47.0 57.0 0.43 86.6 0.114 0.71 0.86 1.31 26.3
18 39.9 39.9 46.2 63.4 0.35 86.2 0.114 0.72 0.99 1.35 26.3
19 52.0 24.2 44.0 46.2 0.52 - - 0.65 0.68 - 24.6
20 52.0 54.0 61.3 65.3 0.48 94.0 0.114 0.90 0.96 1.38 24.6
21 52.0 54.0 61.3 68.5 0.43 94.0 0.114 0.80 0.89 1.22 24.6
22 39.2 39.2 68.1 71.6 0.11 96.0 0.114 1.00 1.05 1.41 26.3
23 53.0 53.0 61.3 66.9 0.43 88.3 0.114 0.91 1.00 1.32 26.3
24 53.0 53.0 61.3 71.6 0.35 88.3 0.114 0.90 1.05 1.32 26.3
25 52.4 52.4 60.6 69.6 0.35 84.8 0.114 0.90 1.04 1.27 26.3
26 52.4 52.4 60.6 67.4 0.39 84.8 0.114 0.83 0.92 1.16 26.3
27 52.8 52.8 61.1 69.8 0.41 92.2 0.114 0.84 0.96 1.26 26.3
28 52.8 52.8 61.1 73.7 0.35 92.2 0.114 0.86 1.04 1.30 26.3
29 52.8 52.8 61.\ 75.8 0.32 92.2 0.114 0.95 1.18 1.44 26.3
30 76.4 76.4 88.4 129.4 0.28 160.3 0.071 0.70 1.03 1.27 41.0
31 38.2 38.2 44.2 50.2 0.43 71.1 0.114 0.85 0.97 1.37 20.6
32 24.1 24.1 28.0 66.7 0.159 66.6 0.16 0.36 0.86 0.85 13.9
33 24.0 24.0 27.8 59.0 0.227 62.5 0.17 0.53 1.13 1.20 13.9
34 37.2 37.2 43.2 61.0 0.407 81.3 0.16 0.60 0.85 1.13 23.2
35 37.0 37.0 42.8 52.1 0.513 77.0 0.17 0.60 0.73 1.08 23.2
36 37.0 37.0 42.8 63.3 0.356 76.3 0.17 0.54 0.92 1.11 23.2
37 37.0 37.0 42.8 63.2 0.363 79.4 0.16 0.56 0.82 1.03 23.2
38 51.0 51.0 59.0 84.4 0.318 97.1 0.16 0.60 0.86 0.99 33.2
39 50.8 50.8 58.8 71.7 0.464 93.1 0.17 0.65 0.79 1.02 33.2
40 16.0 16.0 18.4 29.1 0.290 28.2 0.32 0.58 0.91 0.88 13.6
41 16.0 16.0 18.4 27.5 0.331 28.0 0.32 0.80 1.20 1.22 13.6
42 24.0 24.0 27.8 37.5 0.265 37.4 0.32 0.70 0.94 0.94 23.2
43 24.0 24.0 27.8 37.8 0.256 37.4 0.32 0.68 0.92 0.91 23.2
44 24.0 24.0 27.8 - - 34.1 0.33 - - - 23.2
45 24.0 24.0 27.8 - - 34.1 0.33 - - - 23.2
46 29.3 29.3 34.0 44.2 0.302 43.3 0.32 0.74 0.96 0.94 29.8
47 29.3 29.3 33.8 48.0 0.045 43.1 0.32 1.54 2.18 1.96 29.8
Note:W" was calculated using actual support stiffness for Slabs 32 through 47; multiply kip.in. by 112.9848 to ob-
taln neWton-meters;multip1ypsi by 6.894757to obtaln kilopascals.

ACI Structural Journal I January-February 1989 87

~.
 ~
.:

L+2t span deflection ó; the axial strain E; and the lateral sup- . ,
-1
port movement t. Four more equations or assumptions
are required to find a unique solution to Eq. (2b).
One additional equation involving the same un-
knowns is derived by enforcing horizontal equilibrium
requirements on the rigid strip in Fig. 6

\a)
Ccs + Css - Ts = Ccm + C,m - Tm (3)

Theforces in the concrete Ccs and Ccm, in the

compression steel Cssand Csm,and in the tension steel
Ts and Tm can be computed if given a strain distribu-
tion along each section. Using Bernoulli's principie to
establish the variation of strains throughout each sec-
tion results in the following expressions for strains in
the tension and compression steels, respectively

Es = ~c-
" d -C c
(4)

).+t E; = " e
~c- -e d'
\bl
where Ec= the strain in the outer fiber of the concrete; ~
W and e, d, and d' are the distances illustrated in Fig. 6
for each section as appropriate. Eq. (4) essentially adds
two unknowns to the system of equations-the outer
concrete strains at each section. The strain in the con-
crete at each section typically is assumed to be at its ul-
timate value at the time the slab is at its peak flexural
capacity. However, this imposes some rather strict lim-
itations on the applicability of this theory, as is dis-
N} cussed in the following paragraphs.
x With the strains known, each of the sectional forces
can be computed readily and then substituted into Eq.
(3). Consistent with the assumption that the concrete is
(e) at ultiR1ate strain, Whitney's stress block relationship is
used to determine the forces in the concrete at each
Fig. 5-Geometry of deformation for (a) slab strip; (b) section
half-slab strip; and (e) free-body diagram
Ccs = 0.85 f: (3, Cs (5)
Ccm = 0.85 f: (3, Cm ~
CCs
css,
The steel forces are expressed in terms of the average
stresses over the respective steel areas. Stresses are de-
rived from the strains given by Eq. (4) and the speci-
fied constitutive model. Although any steel model may
BOTTOM REINFORCEMENT
be used, an elastic-perfectly plastic model is most com-
lal
mono The substitution of the expressions for s~eel and
concrete forces into Eq. (3) yields a second equation for
O,85f~ determining the load-deflection relationship of a slab.
I NITWIDTH Id'
-r C
-0,003 1-.1~ CS A third equation can be derived from moment equi-
:.
~
E

.A o t -F.=fFa
- - - - -t librium of the rigid strip in Fig. 5(c)

j
'TI,
: o ti í Th Mn C

hl' id '
'
\ 0
N
- -NEUTRALI a-B,c
~
T wV
o o ~I-L
N ELEVATI
TRAIN
DIS~RIBUTION
STRESS
DISTRIBUTION
Mns + M.m - Nó
8
(6)

Ibl

The moments and thrust required for Eq. (6) can be

Fig! 6-(a) Forees on yield seetions of slab strips and expressed in terms of the sectional forces shown in Fig.
(b) details of yield sections 6 as
88 ACIStructuralJournal I January-February1989
~---
 N == Cc + Cs - T
~-
M
. == C
(
e2
~IC
2 ) +
C,(~ - d)
(7)
+ T (d - ~)
where the forces and distances are substituted for each
section as appropriate. Substitution of Eq. (7) into Eq.
(6) yields the third equation in terms of the unknowns
C,and Cm.
Eq. (2) accounts for the effects ofaxial shortening
and support movements. As is the case for actual slabs,
the equation is very sensitive to those secondary ef-
fects. The magnitude of thrust is reduced as supports
are displaced and as elastic, creep, and shrinkage axial
strains occur. Accompanying that relief in thrust is a
reduction in the internal moment of resistance.
The final two equations are expressed in terms of the
axial thrust. The strains due lO axial deformations of
the strip can be computed by summation of the strains
due to elastic shortening and strains due to creep and
shrinkage
N the midspan curvature
E == -- + (8)
Ec A" Ep
where Ec == modulus of elasticity of the concrete and A,.
==gross cross-sectional area of the strip. Effects of the
longitudinal reinforcement on the axial stiffness are ne-
glected.
If lateral support movement is considered, and if it is
due to elastic displacement of the support, then
N It is implied that those deformations are due to curva-
(9)
t == S
where t == the lateral displacement of one support and
S == the surrounding support stiffness.
With all terms defined, Eq. (2) through (9) can be
used to solve for the response of the slab. Eq. (6) re.
lates the deflection of the slab to the load imposed on
it. The sectional forces and moments defined in Eq. (6)
are computed from Eq. (7) and are based on an as-
sumed strain distribution at each cross section. Strains
in the concrete are implicitly assumed to be indepen-
dent of deformation or load since the concrete is al-
ways defined as being at its ultimate strain. .The ab-
sence of a true strain-deformation relationship is the
most significant drawback of this analytical procedure
because it requires the analyst to use an empírical estí-
mate of the peak capacity deflection. If too small a de-
flection is used in the equations, the peak capacity is
greatly overestimated and, in fact, gives extá:mely high
values as the deflection approaches zero. This can be
attríbuted to the assumptions for concrete strain. Al-
though the assumption of ultimate concrete strains is
valid near the peak capacity, such an assumption leads
ACI Structural Journal I January-February 1989
~.
to significant errors when the slab is behaving elasti-
cally or partially elastic. Consequently, the previous
theory is only valid for the deflection at which the peak
capacity actually occurs (and for some incremental de-
flection thereafter if spalling, strain-hardening, etc. are
neglected) .
Rather than use an empirical approach for determin-
ing the peak capacity deflection, Keenans proposed a
strain-deformation relationship valid for the strip ge-
ometry of Fig. 5
[, == ~ (lOa)
tanO == x + t Cm
Assuming the deformation e can be re1ated to the ulti-
mate strain in the concrete by the expression
X E.
e == 2 (lOb)
then Eq. (lOa) and (lOb) can be rewritten to yie1d the
midspan deflection in terms of the concrete strain or
[, == X E. (x + t) == x 1>m (x + t) (lOc)
2 Cm 2
where E. == ultimate strain in the concrete and rPm ==
curvature at midspan. Eq. (IOc) can be used to solve for
the deflection at which the peak capacity is reached.
Note that the previous expression essentialIy lumps
the total deformations at the support and midsection.
tures. That is somewhat inconsistent with the assump-
tion of a rigid strip that only undergoes rotations and
axial deformations and by definition is not permitted to
bend. However, Keenan demonstrated that the equa-
tion provides a reasonable estimate of the peak capac-
ity detlection. Similar results were obtained in the re-
search reponed herein.
Keenan suggested that the deflection predicted by Eq.
(lOc) should be limited to some upper value as the span-
thickness ratio increases. In those cases where the slab
was reIatively thin, Le., span-thickness ratio greater
than about 18, Keenan indicated that failure would
probably occur by geometric instability rather than
. material instability. Research at WES 14 has indicated
that some geometric instability can be observed even in
thicker slabs with little rotational restraint.
Eq. (IOc) is very sensitive to the lateral movement of
the supports, which is in turn dependent on the stiff-
ness of the surrounds. Since there is very little infor-
mation on the lateral stiffness of the supports for most
experimental programs including the previous pro-
grams at WES, Eq. (lÚe) has not been rigorously veri-
fied.' However, analyses of rigidly restrained slabs
tested at WES have revealed that an upper bound so-
89
 '00
2.5
CM

5.0 '00
2.5
CM
5.0 7.5
700 :1
WU2

80 580 80 sao
Ty
¡¡;
Q.
420 ¡¡;
Q.
'" 420
Q. ci 80
~ '" «
a: e..J
e... 40 280
~
Z a: '"
:> ~ 40
280 ~
Z
20 140 :>
W,.
I
i 20 WI' '40
o
o

OEFLECTIO,'., !"
o
o 2
OEFLECTION.IN.
Notation: . NOlation:
~!';. = yield line capacity assumio'g simpk supports ~. = yield Une capacily assuming simple supports
W¡J = yieldUnecapacityassumingfixed mportS w;¡ = yield Une capacily assuming fixed suports
IV" = eompressive membrane capacity usil1g',xperimental detlt'Ction at peak ~, = compressive membrane capacilY using experimenlal detleclion at peak
eapacity capacilY
IV" = compressive memL¡ane capacity u,ing Eq. (IDe) for predicting de- W" = compressive membra!1e capacilY using Eq. (lOc) for predicling de.
tleclion al peak capacilY tlection al peak capacilY
T, = ,Iope of lensile membrane curve using yield ,Irenglh of sleel !:t = slope of lensile membrane curve using yield slrength of sleel
r. = slope of tensile membrane curve using ruplUre strenglh of 51eel l. = 510peof lensile membrane curve using rupture slrength of steel

Fig. 7-Experimental and analytical camparisons far Fig. 8-Experimental and analytical comparisons for ~
51ab 42 51ab 11

lution for the peak capacity can be obtained by using
Eq. (lOc) and assuming an infinire lateral stiffness at
the supports.
A computer code was developed incorporating an it-
erative solution scheme for Eq. (2) through (lO). Park
provided a direct solution of the equations which is
valid only if all steels are assumed to be at yield stress.
An iterative scheme provides the ability to use actual
stresses if the stress is either less than yield or in the
strain-hardening region.
Two compressive membrane analyses were per-
formed .on each slab. Results for both analyses are pre-
sented in Table 2. The first analysis Wu! incorporated
the actual experimental deflections as a basis for deter-
mining the peak capacity. The second analysis W.2 uti-
lized Eq. (lOc) for predicting the peak capacity deflec-
tion. Typical results for the compressive membrane and
yield line analyses are compared with experimental re-
sults in Fig. 7 through 10.
Tensile membrane analysis
Tensile membrane action occurs after the slab has
exceeded its compressive membrane capacity and has
begun to undergo large deflections. Ir sufficient lateral
restraint is provided. the tensile strength of the steel can
supply a reserve capacity that will defer the progressive
collapse of the slab. Tensile membrane action is usualIy
accompanied with full-depth cracking, inward support
movement, and large deflections. The largest deflection
a slab can withstand before a loss in tensile membrane
capacity is referred to as the incipient colIapse deflec-
tion.
ParklS used standard plastic membrane theory to es-
tablish relationships between load and deflection for
90
....
rectangular slabs. The theory assumes that tensile
membrane forces are carried entirely by the steel. It
does not account for combined bending and tensUe
membrane action, which would serve to enhance the
capacity of the slab. For slabs with large aspect ratios
idealized as one-way slab strips, the standard plastic
tensUe membrane theory formula is written
w 8T
(11)
r; =U
where T = the total tensile force carried by the steel for
a unit width.
Comparisons of tensile membrane theory with the
actualload-deflection curves for some of the WES tests
are illustrated in Fig. 7 through 10. Tensile membrane~
slopes were computed using both the yield stress and
the rupture (taken as ultimate) stress of the reinforce-
mento Since at large deflections the strains in the rein-
forcement would be quite large, it is probable that some
strain hardening would occur as tensile membrane ac-
tion is induced. Strain hardening would definitely have
occurred prior tOJhe incipient collapse deflection. Fig.
8 through 10 show that the experimental tensile mem-
brane capacity is shifted to the rigbt of the analytical
prediction. This is explained by the premature rupture
of the deformed wire reinforcement used in these tests.
DISCUSSIONOF RESULTS
Results of the compressive membrane analyses given
in Table 2 demonstrate that Eq. (2) through (9) per-
form extremely well in predicting the peak capacity of
slabs when the peak capacity deflection is known. For
ACI Structural Journal I January-February 1989
 !¡
4.\
CM CM
2.5 5.0 1.5 '00 2.5 5.0 15 100 '2.5
100 100 200 "00

WU2
80 560
I
WU2
150 '050

¡¡;
420 ..
f 80 c:i
I
c:i
o(
o(
::>
....
f
9 < ::E '00 700
::E 40 :z:
'" 280 !J¡
~ :?
Z z
::>
<
..
'"
::>
20 ..o
50 350

o
O
O
DEFLECTlON, IN. o 2 3
DEF LECTlON, IN

Notation: Notation:
~, ,. yield line eapacily assuming simple supports W ,. yield line capacity assuming simple supports
,!,,, ,. yield line eapacity assuming fixed suports ~v"1 ,. yield line capacilY assuming fixed suports
W" ,. eompressive membrane eapacity using experimental dellection at peak ¡¡I" = compressive membrane capacity using experimental detlection at peak
eapacity eapacity
W.. = eompressive membrane capacity using Eq. (IOc) for predicling de- W" ,. compressive membrane capacity using Eq. (lOc) for predicting de-
Ileelion al peak eapacilY Ilection al peak capacilY
T ,. slope of lensile membrane eurve using yield slrenglh of sleel T, = slope of tensile membrane curve using yield strength of steel
1, = slope of tensile membrane curve using ruplure slrenglh of steel r, = slope of lensile membrane curve using rupture strength of steel

Fig. 9-Experimental and analytical comparisons for Fig. lO-Experimental and analytical comparisons for
Slab 8 Slab 30

the analyses using experimental peak capacity deflec- sumed, Eq. (2) through (lOe) always resulted in an an-
tions, a mean value of 0.96 with a standard deviation alytical to experimental ratio greater than 1 and, there-
of 0.14 and variance of 1.9 percent was determined for fore, eould be eonsidered as an upper bound for the
the ratio of anal ytical to experimental capacity WjPA. solution.
Note that the results for Slab 2 were not included in the Tensile membrane behavior was typieally initiated
comparisons because the slab was actually buried un- when each slab's midspan defleetion equalled a value
der a shallow layer of sand and experienced significant that fell between the effective depth d and the thickness
soil arching, resulting in an extremely high eapacity. t of the slab. When sufficient ductility was provided in
Slabs 44, 45, and 47 were not included in the compari- the reinforeement, the slabs continued to show an in-
sons beeause of instabilities indueed by large support crease in load-carrying capacity under increasing de-
rotations. fleetions until the reinfcrrcement began to rupture.
Examination of the ratio of 10hansen's load with ex-
perimental peak eapacity Wy¡PAshows that yield line CONCLUSIONS
theory significantly and eonsistently underpredicts the Compressive membrane analyses as presented by
peak flexural capaeity of restrained slabs. A mean ratio ParkJ and others accurately predict the peak eapaeity of
of 0.68, standard deviation of 0.154, and varianee of relatively thiek and moderately reinforced slabs when
2.4 percent were computed for the analyses. In every the peak capacity deflection is known. Provided the
case, the actual eapacity was greater than or equal to analyst has a reasonable idea of the support stiffness,
(only Slab 22) 10hansen's loado Eq. (lOe) can be used to determine the deflection at
When used with Eq. (lOe) for predicting the peak ca- which Eq. (2) through (9) apply. This essentially elimi-
paeity deflection, the compressive membrane theory nates the somewhat empirical nature of determining
generally overpredicted the peak capacity. In other peak capacity deflections and replaees it with a theoret-
words, Eq. (IOc) almost always resulted in a defleetion ical relationship that can be computed readily if the
somewhat smaller than obtained experimentally. How- support stiffness ean be ealculated. In either case, good
ever, in the last series of tests (Slabs 32 through 47), engineering judgment must be used in obtaining rea-
when the surrounding support stiffness could be eom- sonable solutions. The actual solution should be
puted (see Reference 1) and used in conjunction with bounded by 10hansen's load and Eq. (2) through (IOe)
Eq. (lOc), the analytical results generally were im- if an infinitely stiff surround is assumed.
proved greatly. An average ratio of analytical to exper- Although tbis procedure can be used to determine the
imental eapacity of 1.023 with a standard deviation of ,peak flexural capacity of fixed-end slabs, it eannot be
0.119 and variance of 1.4 pereent was obtained for used in the early portion of the load-deflection curve.
those tests. When infinitely stiff supports were as- An analytical procedure is needed that can accurately
ACI Structural Journal I January-February 1989 91
t.:- -
------..
 represent the entire load-deflection relationship of
slabs. Further, a procedure that can account for differ-
ent types of boundary conditions and reinforcement
configurations is needed.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
Permission to publish this work was granted by the V.S. Army
Engineer Waterways Experiment Station and the Air Force Engineer-
ing and Services Center.
REFERENCES
1. Ouice, Leslie K., and Rhomberg, Edward J., "Membrane Ac- O>
tion in Partially Restrained Slabs," A CI Structural Journal. V. 85,
No. 4, July-Aug. 1988, pp. 365-373.
2. Park, Robert, "Vltimate Strength of Rectangular Concrete Slabs
Under Short-Term Vniform Loading with EJges Restrained Against
Lateral Movement," Proceedings. (nstitu¡ion of Civil Engineers
(London), V. 28, June 1964, pp. 125-150.
3. Park, Robert, "The Vltimate Strength and Long-Term Behav-
iour of Uniformly Loaded Two-Way Concrete Slabs with Partial
Lateral Restraint at all Edges," ,Hagazine o/ Concrete Research
(London), V. 16, No. 48, Sept. 1964, pp. \39-152.
4. Park, Robert, and Oamble, William L., Reinforced Concrete
Slabs, John Wiley & Sons, New York. 1980, pp, 5-'57~,
5. Keenan, W. A., "Strength anJ Behavior cf Re,:rained Rcin.
forced Concrete Slabs Under Static and Dynamic Lc;¡dings," Ti!ch-
nical Report No. R621, U.S. N;}>'alCivil Engineerín~ LaboralOry,
Port Hueneme, Apr. 1969, pp. 18-23.
6. Baylot, J. T., et al., "Response of Buried StructUres 10 Earth-
Penetrating Conventional Weapons," Technical Report No. ESL-TR-
92
~-
85-09, Air Force Engineering and Services Center, Tyndall AFB, Nov. "
1985, 294 pp.
7. Kiger, S. A.; Eagles, P. S.; and Baylot, 1. T., "Response of
Earth-Covered Slabs in Clay and Sand Backfills," Technical Report
No. SL-84-18, U. S. Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station,
Vicksburg, Oct. 1984,72 pp.
8. Woodson, Stanley C., "Effects of Shear Stirrup Details on VI-
timate Capacity and Tensile Membrane Behavior of Reinforced Con-
crete Slabs." Technical Report No. SL-85-4, U.S. Army Engineer
Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg, Aug. 1985, 177 pp.
9. Woodson, S. C., and Oarner, S. B., "Effects of Reinforcement
Configuration on the Reserve Capacity of Concrete Slabs," Techni-
cal Report No. SL-85-5, .u.S. Army Engineer Waterway~ Experiment
Station, Vicksburg, Aug.1985, 116 pp.
10. Johansen, K. W., Brudlinieteorier, Technical University of
Denmark. Copenhagen, 1943. AIso, English translation, Yield-Line
Theory, Cement and Concrete Association, London, 1962, 181 pp.
11. ACl Committee 318, "Building Code Requirements for Rein-
forced Concrete (ACI 318-83)," American Concrete Institute, De-
troit, 1983, 111 pp.
12. Hung, T. Y., and Nawy, E. O., "Limit Strength and Service-
ability Factors in Uniformly Loaded, Isotropically Reinforced Two-
Way Slabs," Cracking, De/lection, and Ultimate Load o/ Concrete
Slab Systems, SP-30, American Concrete lnstitute. Detroit, 1971, pp.
301-323. .
13. Wood, R. H., Plastic and Elastic Design o/ Slabs and Plates.
Thames and Hudson, London, 1961.344 pp.
H, Guice. L. K.. "Behavior of Partially ReStrained Reinforced
C'Dcrete Slabs," T€chnical Repon No. SL.36-32, U.S. Army Engi-
~ '
neer Waterways E.,periment Station, Vicksburg, Sep!. 1986, 184 pp.
15. Park, R., "T~nsile Membrane Behavior of Uniformly Loáded
Rectangular Reiniorced Concrete Slabs with Fully Restrained Edges,"
.'vfaga<.ineo/ Concrete Research (London), V. 16, No. 46, Mar. 1964,
pp. 39-44.
ACI Structural Journal I January-February1989