Analysis and testing of reinforced concrete cantilever

slabs subjected to point loading

H SCHOLZ' (Member)

Synopsis
II Is disturbing to notice that large differences can occur when designing H Scholz, born in West Germany, obtained his degree of Dipllng (Civil
reinforced concrete cantilever slabs for strength by elastic methods or, alternative- Engineering) in 1970 at the Technical University of Munich. From 1970
ly, by ultimate approaches such as the yield-line analysis. The results are therefore
to 1975 he was engaged with the large-scale extension programme of
reported of a comparison between elastic analysis, yield-line analysis and
ISCOR and gained experience in construction, design and project
laboratory tests for reinforced concrete cantilever slabs subjected to point loading.
In essence, the theoretical study embraces a number of different reinforcement management covering a broad field of civil engineering structures. Since
arrangements In a slab of Infinite length and finite span. 1976 he has been a member of the staff of the Civil Engineering
The laboratory tests were performed on three slabs with a length to span ratio of Department at the University of the Witwatersrand, Johannesburg. In
6 and on three further slabs with a length to span ratio of B,B. The major purpose of 1981 he was awarded a PhD for his work on instability of plastically
these tests was to measure the actual failure loads for comparison with theoretical designed sway frames.
results.
A conclusion has been drawn regarding the suitability of the yield-line approach
In analysing slabs of the nature Investigated In this study. In addition, the slab having a span approximately equal to the width of one traffic lane.
serviceability limit state of deflection Is discussed In some detail using the load-
In this paper some of the foregoing elastic results are compared with
deflection curves recorded during the experiments.
the load-carrying capacity of cantilever slabs analysed by the yield-line
method. In addition six model slabs were tested in the laboratory and the
Introduction
In current design codes little and inadequate information is given
when it comes to the bending strength analysis of reinforced concrete
cantilever slabs subjected to concentrated loads. No specific reference
is made in the American Building Code. ACI 318:1971', the
Canadian Code for the Design of Concrete Structures for Buildings,
CSA-M77 2 • the British Code of Practice, CP110:1972 3 , and the South
African Code of Practice for the Structural Use of Concrete, SABS
0100:1980", so that the designer is left virtually to his own devices to deal
with the problem. I n these regulations, tabulated results for standard flat
slabs and solid slabs are essentially based on elastic analysis. As an x
alternative, Johansen's yield-line method or Hillerborg's strip method FULL ~------. ? L -+
Reproduced by Sabinet gateway under licence granted by the Publisher (dated 2011).

00

are recommended for slabs. y

A design code which provides results for the problem of cantilever FIXE
slabs is the German Code for Reinforced Concrete Design, DIN
1045:19725 . This code suggests results which were derived elastically. a
Design bending moments are obtained by calculating the total moment
M = Pa and dividing this by an effective width be as in Eqn 1.
m;=; Pa (1)
''be"
""herem = bending moment per metre '!"Iidth
P = concentrated load
a = lever arm with respect to support
h = slab thickness
be = effective width =,1',5a + h
The slab is assumed to be fully fixed over the support, the slab length is
taken as infinite and the slab is of uniform thickness, h (Fig 1). When it
comes to the slab reinforcement, DIN 1045 recommends a minimum
transverse reinforcement quantity of O,2A s in the top and O,6A s in the
bottom of the slab, As being the main top reinforcement in the direction a
of the span a, Fig 1: Infinite slab subjected to point load
In a recent study Kugler"hasshown that a more accurate result can be
obtained for the conditions depicted in Fig 1 by using Pucher's
singularity method 7 and evaluating the relevant influence areas, Kugler
suggested a result of 2,22a+h'for be for the specific slabs investigated in
this study. FULLY FIXED
A common design office procedure is based on a 45° dispersion angle
from the point of load application leading to an equivalent effective width
of be = 2a (Fig 2),
A method proposed by the American Association of State Highway
and Transportation Officials, AASHT08, applies to bridge decks and a
amounts to be ~ 1,15a for wheel loading near the edge of a cantilever

FREE EDGE p
• Senior Lecturer in the Department of Civil Engineering. University of the Witwatersrand.
Johannesburg fig 2: Effective width by 45° -dll\perslon

THE CIVIL ENGINEER in South Africa - June 1982 239

 test results are compared with DIN 1045, the solution by Kugler and the load-carrying capacity of the actual orthogonal slab:
yield-line method. P= v'f.i' [m(i+1) <I> + 2m\l TT (6)

Elastic methods of analysis It should be noted that Eqn 6 does not cover the case of different and
The following five major assumptions are common when analysing independent degrees of orthogonality for the top and the bottom
the strength of slabs on an elastic basis: reinforcement. A conservative combination of moment capacities would
ignore the presence of distribution reinforcement and, assume that the
1. Material properties are ideally elastic, homogeneous and isotropic. main reinforcement in the top with a moment capacity mt runs in the
2. Stresses and strains are proportional. short direction and the major bottom reinforcement with a moment
3. First-order theory applies, ie displacements are small compared with capacity mb is placed at right angles to the top steel. This case with the
the slab thickness. load acting downwards is presented in the following paragraph.
4. The slab thickness is small compared with the slab dimensions in
plan , so that Bernoulli's and Navier's theorems regarding the linearity Orthotropic slab: one-way reinforcement
of bending strains are valid. A schematic simplified yield-line pattern forthis case is shown in Fig 4,
5. The strains at right angles to the centroidal horizontal axis and the which also gives the moment axes at right angles to the corresponding
shear displacements are neglected. reinforcement. The solution for this yield-line pattern, which as such
Considering equilibrium on a rectilinear element dx by dy the classical does not appear in the literature, is derived below using the Work-
plate equation is obtained: Method' of analysis, ie equating energy expenditure by external loads to
energy dissipation on the yield lines.
o2Mx + 202Mxy + o2My + P = 0 (2)
axr 3xOY ~ r external work by load = r energy dissipation on yield lines
A consideration of compatibility on the element dx by dy yields the P = 1,5mt ~+ i,mt ~
bending moments in the x and y direction and the twisting moments in a c
Partial differentiation with respect to the variable c and equating the
the following format:
resulting expression to zero will lead to the worst yield-line layout of the
Mx = - K (02W+
()X2
V 02W) (3a) assumed pattern.
oy2
~= 1,5 '!!.f- 2 ~2 i,mt=O
My = - K (02W+ V 02W) (3b) oc a c
oy2 '. ox 2
Solving the expression for the variable c gives
Mxy = Myx
:.
=- (1-v) K oxoy
02W (3c) c = 1,15a \Ii,
where w = transverse displacement Substituting c into the expression for P results in Eqn 7.
K = plate stiffness per unit width
P = 3,47 mt\lT;' (7)
v = Poisson's ratio
. . p = loading

The solution to Eqn 2, in conjunction with Eqns 3a to 3c, is possible by Slab of finite length
establishing a compatible relationship between the displacement If the slab is of finite length L it may occur that the cantilever fails along
Reproduced by Sabinet gateway under licence granted by the Publisher (dated 2011).

function wand the loading P, satisfying the boundary conditions of the

slab at the same time. A number of approaches to the solution are
FULLY FIXED
known.
The singularity method by Pucher 7 and a finite element analysis are
two of them. The results of the singularity method and a finite element
analysis for the case of a cantileverslab subjected to pOint loading do not I
differ by more than about 0,5 per cent 6 . For example, for the maximum \ / /
bending moment Mx per unit width at the support, with the load " \ H / ....... im
positioned at the edge, the following values were obtained: '<:\i7 FREE EDSE
Puc her: Mx = 0,4919 P p
Finite element analysis: Mx = 0,4891 P - - - - YiELD LLlE ::lCl SIDE ,)PPClSITE nl' LOA:)
The above results apply to a Poisson's ratio of 0,2. YIELD LINE ON SIDE OF LOAD
Yield-line method of analysis FIg 3: Fan mechanism
Fan mechanism - isotropic mesh
The standard sol.ution for a slab isotropically reinforced in both faces c
has been presented by Jones and Wood 9 and is given in Eqn 4 without
further derivation.
FULLY FIXED
P = m(i + 1) <I> + 2m \li- (4)

where m is the bending capacity of the top reinforcement and im the

capacity of the bottom reinforcement. The parameters are further
explained in Fig 3 which also demonstrates the fan mechanism.
The expression for the fan angle, <1>, which can also be found in Ref 9,
is given in Eqn 5.
cot~=\l1 (5)
2 FREE EDGE I~_.__~c____~P____~c__~.I

Fan mechanism - orthotropic mesh YIELD LINE 0N SIDE OPPOSITE OF LOAD

The laws of affinity, first observed by Johansen '0, can be applied if the _________ YIELD LINE O~ SIDE OF LOAD
slab is orthogonally reinforced such that the transverse moment
capacities in the direction of L are pm on the side of the load and,.am on
FIg 4: Yield-line pattern, one-way reln'~rcement each 'ace
the side opposite the load. Eqn 4 is then modified as follows to give the

240 THE CIVIL ENGINEER in South Africa - June 1982

Reproduced by Sabinet gateway under licence granted by the Publisher (dated 2011).
 Ready mixed concrete
RMC-Natal -
Reproduced by Sabinet gateway under licence granted by the Publisher (dated 2011).

RMC-Cape

QUarrtee - stone &sand

D&H Quarries
Evander Crushers
Shires Quarry
Clairwood Quarries
Cape Blue Rock Quarry
POBox 4 11 04, Craig hall 2024

ro:H Materials Division

----=:
Hyde Park Corner, .
Jan Smuts Avenue, Hyde Park,
Sandton
Telephone (011) 788-7300
Telex 4-24530 SA

RMCNatal (031) 72-0434 RMC Cape (021) 51-2117 D&H Quarries (011 ) 795-3711 EvanderCrushers (01363) 22241 Shlres·Quarry (031) 28-7151
ClalrwoodQuarrles (031) 45-1306Cape Blue Rock (024) 21164 Embecon (011) 51-8263 D&H Ash Resources (Oll ).788-7300Mazlsta Slate (011) 705-3753

242 THE CIVIL ENGINEER in South Africa - June 1982

 the total length L rather than developing any of the mechanisms and not a constant as implied by simple elastic analysis.
discussed in the preceding paragraphs. The load-carrying capacity 6. Most effective in terms of load capacity to reinforcement ratio appears
associated with this failure mode is given in Eqn 8. to be a solution with approximately equal moment capacity in the top
of the slab and in the bottom in the short and the long direction
P=mt~ (8)
a respectively with nominal transverse reinforcement at right angles.
This should also satisfy cracking requirements at the serviceability
The parameters in Eqn 8 have been explained previously. limit state.

Comparison of theoretical results

Model tests
The theoretical results for a slab of infinite length have been compiled
Purpose and scope of tests
in Fig 5. The horizontal axis depicts the ratio of the moment capacities;
The preceding theoretical comparisons between elastic and yield-line
or;, respectively. Eqn 6 has been evaluated for a number of ratios,u. In
analysis show that especially large discrepancies in the load-carrying
addition, the results of DIN 1045, Kugler and Eqn 7 have also been
capacity for cantilever slabs are predicted for larger values of ; and,u. A
plotted in the same graph. The results of DIN 1045 and Kugler
ratio of up to 3 in favour of the yield-line method is apparent from Fig 5.
incorporate the thickness h=50 mm as applicable to the test slabs. The
To support the theoretical findings for such slabs six small scale
additional term h stems from the fact that elastic solutions are derived for
reinforcement concrete slabs were tested in the laboratory with the
the centroidal horizontal slab axis whilst the load is actually applied at
purpose of establishing their load-carrying capacity at failure. Two
the slab surface. Therefore, the load is distributed transversely through
series of tests were undertaken - slabs A and slabs B. Details of their
half the slab thickness on either side.
material and geometriC properties appear in Table 1 and Fig 6
As indicated in a previous paragraph of this paper, there is practically
no difference between the effective width taken from the work by Kuglere SLABS ,~1 ... A3

~j:::
and equivalent results based on a finite element analysis.
The following findings are apparent from the curves of Fig 5:

1. Without transverse reinforcement (.u=O; ;,=0) no feasible solution is

theoretically possible by the yield-line method. This underlines the
importance of distribution steel in slabs.
2. For a moderate moment capacity in the transverse direction (I, Co< 0,3;
,u "" 0,3) the results of the yield-line approach are near the elastic
I 1 500 mm I
solutions. An increased moment capacity in the short or long span
direction in the bottom face (i-1; ;,-1) will improve the load-carrying
capacity. SLABS 81 ••• B3

~j:::
3. Large deviations from elastic results can be observed when the yield-
line analysis is applied to reinforcement arrangements for which i-1
and ,u-1, the isotropically reinforced slab.
4. The solution including top reinforcement in the short span direction
and 60 per cent of this in the transverse direction in the bottom (DIN
1045) gives a be = 2,64a.
Reproduced by Sabinet gateway under licence granted by the Publisher (dated 2011).

5. The effective width be is a function of the reinforcement arrangement 2 200 ~,lm

r1r-----...,-~~,..".~"rT-__r--__rr__-_.___r-__r__,----_.___r--..._--, Fig 8 (top): Geometry of te.t .Iaba

1,

l. KU GLER -i---*---I

°,
'"
s-
"0

c::
D I ~I

0,6
'"OJ
....,
u
co
'"C"
'"
U
....,
c 0,4
Q) Lf")
E
0 z:
r= .....,
0"
....o s-
o
o ....

~
/
/
s- /
o
EQN, 7 / I

-_ .... -,,'Y"

° 2 3
effective width _
4
~
5 6

short s~an a Fig 5: TheoretIcal ,...111

THE CIVIL ENGINEER in South Africa - June 1982 243

 Table 1: Parameters of test slabs

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

fo,2 As d feu m m,
Slab i f1 (N/mm2) (mm2/m) (mm) (N/mm2) (kNm/m) (kNm/m)
-
A1 1 1 610 59,6 45,2 27,8 1,389 1,590

A2 1 1 610 59,6 45,2 24,5 1,382 1,581

A3 1 1 610 59,6 45,2 41 1,404 1,610

B1 1 1,32 720 61,9 44,7 34,6 1,686 1,930

B2 . 1 1,32 720 61,9 44,7 34 1,685 1,928

B3 1 1,32 720 61,9 44,7 32,7 1,682 1,925

respectively. The derivation of the moment capacities m and m, is
presented in a later section of this paper. The relevant reinforcement
stress has been taken as the 0,2 per cent proof stress, since cold-worked
wires have been used. The stress-strain curves of the reinforcement are
shown in Fig 7. . load interval deflection measurements were recorded and later plotted
Testing rig and apparatus
The model slabs were tested using the testing rig shown in Fig 8. Atthe
fixed support the slab was clamped between two stiffened I-sections and
the pOint load was applied by means of an hydraulic jack acting upwards
and beari ng against the laboratory floor. The appl ied load was controlled
by a load cell coupJe,d to a digital strain meter calibrated to read directly
in kN. Deflection gauges were placed in a number of posl1lons around
the point of load application.
Load was initially applied in increments of about 1 kN. This was
reduced to 0,5 kN in the vicinity of the expected failure load. For each
against the relevant load magnitude. The failure load was eventually
defined as the load corresponding to the peak of the load-deflection
curve.
The experimental failure loads appear in column 5 of Table 2. The
load-deflection curves, referring to the deflection at the position of the
point load, are depicted in Fig 9forthesix test slabs. In the determination
of the absolute deflection values at the loading point, dial gauges were

720
SLABS B
700

SLABS A
600
/
Reproduced by Sabinet gateway under licence granted by the Publisher (dated 2011).

/
/
500
/
N
E
I
E /
---
:z: 400 /
/
'"'" /
Q)

...,"- 300
/
'" /
/
/
200 I
I
/
100
/
Es= 200 kN/mm2
/
/
a
a 0,001 0,002 0,003 0,004 0,005 0,006 0,007 '0 ,008
Fig 7: Stress-strain curves of
strain reinforcement

DIAL
--GAUGES
EZ::~:::::z::z;4)- S LAB
HYDRAULIC
JACK
/

FLOOR LOAD
CELL Fig 8: Testing arrangement

244 THE CIVIL ENGINEER in South Africa - June 1982

/
 Table 2: Ultimate failure load results of analyses and teets paper.

1 2 3 4 5 Theoretical results
To compare theoretical results for the load-carrying capacity P for
Slab DIN 10455 Kugler 6 Yield-line Yield-line Test slabs A and B, Eqn 1 and Eqn 60ught to be evaluated. To account forthe
(kN) (kN) (kN) (kN) (kN)
possibility of failure as a finite slab, Eqn 6 needs to be compared with Eqn
P=1,7m P=2,42 m P=5,14 m P=5,14 m, 8 and the lower value should be taken as the representative failure load
on the basis of the yield-line approach. The various results so obtained
A1 2,36 3,36 7,14 8,17 8,50
are given below.
(1,7) (2,42) (5,14) (5,14) (6,12)
For the yield-line solutions the parameters of Table 1 apply. The lever
A2 2,35 3,34 7,10 8,13 8,20 arm of the load equals a=250 mm.lt has been found that the effect of the
(1,7) (2,42) (5,14) (5,14) (5,93) slab weight is negligible. The numerical values which appear on the right
A3 2,39 3,40 7,22 8,28 8,40 side of the expressions for P are the corresponding be/a-ratios.
(1,7) (2,42) (5,14) (5,14) (5,98)
Slabs A:
P=1,7m P=2,42 m P=5,91 m P=5,91 m,
Eqn 1: DIN 1045: P = 1,7 m
B1 2,87 4,08 9,96 11,41 11,80
(1,7) (2,42) (5,91) (5,91) (7,0 ) Kugler: P = 2,42 m
Eqn 6: P = 5,14 m (fan mechanism)
B2 2,86 4,08 9,96 11,39 11,60 Eqn 8: P = 6 m (complete break away)
(1,7) (2,42) (5,91) (5,91) (6,88)

B3 2M 4,07 9,94 11,38 11,50 Slabs B:

(1,7) (2,42) (5,91) (5,91) (6,84)
Eqn 1: DIN 1045: P = 1,7 m
bela - values in brackets Kugler: P = 2,42 m
Eqn 6: P = 5,91 m (fan mechanism)
affixed to the laboratory floor as well,as to the testing rig to eliminate the
Eqn 8: P = 8,8 m (complete break away)
effect of a possible rotation of the rig structure.
Comparing the results of Eqns 6 and 8 for slabs A and B suggests that the
Pattern of major cracks at failure fan pattern governs for both slab types. However, the crack pattern of
An example of the typical crack patterns and dimensions observed at Figs 10 and 11 indicates that for slabs A the values are sufficiently close
failure are shown in Fig 10 for a slab of type A and in Fig 11 for a slab of to cause a combined failure mode.
type B. It should be noted that slabs A did not fully develop the complete The evaluation of the failure load P requires the computation of the
fan mechanism predicted by the yield-line analysis. In fact, a transitional design bending moment capacity m corresponding to the top reinforce-
pattern occurred because of the proximity of results obtained from Eqns ment in the direction of the span a. The moment capacity can be found
6 and 8. This will be further discussed in the following section of this from Eqn 9. A partial safety factor of 1,15 is initially applied to the 0,2 per
Reproduced by Sabinet gateway under licence granted by the Publisher (dated 2011).

..

f Al
-A3
J'"
8 A2
2:
"'"
a..
"0

'"
0

o t-----------i-~~T.f----~----------_r----------~----------_r----------_+----------_+----------~
81

A2
5 t-------~~~L---------~----------_r----------~----------_r----------_+----------_+----------~

4 ~----~~_rr----------+----------4----------+_~------~----------~----------r_--------~
3 4 6 8
deflection Imml
Fig 9: Load-deflection curves

THE CIVIL ENGINEER in South Africa - June 1982 245

 WIthout Hennie Meyer,
James Mashaba and Ian Cox,
the Bloukrans River
would still be The challenge - a gorge
e 300 metres high. Only tremen-
.
a b19 step. dous skill in engineering could .
bring about the bridge that would cr _---------- .
it. An all-round capacity to look at ,
every angle of the problem. An
abUlity to sift the good solutions
from the impractical.
The kind of mastery that
has resulted in th krans
Reproduced by Sabinet gateway under licence granted by the Publisher (dated 2011).

River Bridge.
The kind
of mastery found '.,
in our people. .
Men and women
with initiative. And
with know-how they're
not afraid to use.
Experienced people - ..
because at Murray & Roberts we can only afford
the best.
Murray & Roberts Construction(
It's our people who make us. MURRAY & ROBERIS
I
MURRAY & ROBERTS CONSTRUCTION LIMITED, P.O. Box 1000, Bedfordview 2008, Tel. (011) 53-9450

246 THE CIVIL ENGINEER in South Africa - June 1982

 cent proof stress of the reinforcement. The presence of compression
steel has been ignored.
M=fr>2 A s z/1,15
where As = reinforcement per metre width
z = distance between centroid of reinforcement and com-
pression resultant.
The evaluation of Eqn 9,using a parabolic rectangular stress distribution
in the compression zone, is given in column 8 of Table 1. Because of the
extensive testing of the reinforcement it was felt that a more realistic
correlation between test and analysis might be obtained by dropping the
partial safety factor 1,15. The results pertaining to this assumption, when
applied to the yield-line solution, appear in column 9 of Table 1.
Comparison of results and discussion
In Table 2 the results of the various analysis approaches are given
together with the test results. The values in columns 1,2 and 3 of Table 2
are comparable ultimate load values using m of Table 1 for the bending
moment capacity of the reference section . The numerical values that
appear in Table 2 on the right side of the expressions for P are the
relevant effective width to span rations, be/a.
In column 4 of Table 2 the yield-line solution is given omitting the
partial safety factor for the reinforcement, ie using m 1 of Table 1 for the
(9)
bending moment capacity of the reference section.
The test results are given in column 5 of Table 2. If these values are
linked to an effective width, be, and the span, a, on the basis of the
bending moment capacity, m, the be/a-ratios are obtained which appear
in brackets in column 5 of Table 2. For comparison purposes the be/a-
values corresponding to all other cases have also been entered in Table
2 in the same format.
The following two observations can be made comparing the results of
Table 2:
1. The design ultimate load predicted by the yield-line method (column
3) appears to be safe and a much better prediction of the failure load
than any of the elastic approaches.
2. Waiving the partial safety factor for reinforcement in this laboratory
experiment (column 4 of Table 2), results in a good correlation
between the yield-line solution and tests, with deviations of between
one and four per cent. At the same time an elastic analysis could be
out by as much as 72 per cent, taking the test result as 100 per cent.

50

210 ~ .. 160
support 150
~
width

60 300 mm
Reproduced by Sabinet gateway under licence granted by the Publisher (dated 2011).

55

60

I 50 I 80
MAJOR CRACKS ON SIDE OF LOAD
tlAJOR CRACKS ON SIDE OPPOSITE Fig 10: Typical pattern ot major
OF LOAD crack. - .Iab. A

50

. 160 210

40

300 mm

400 1
-1-
MAJOR CRACKS ON SIDE OF LOAD
520
-I
Fig 11: Typical pattern ot malor
-- - M~JO~ CRACKS ON SIDE OPPOSITE OF LOAD creeks - .'abs B

THE CIVIL ENGINEER in South Africa - June 1982 247

 Serviceability limit Btates reinforcement percentage of 0,15 for slabs A and 0,17 for slabs Band
Cracking ignoring the presence of compression steel.
In recent design codes3 ,4 the limit state of cracking is satisfied by The deflections in Table 3 refer to the serviceability limit state for
adhering to recommended bar spacing rules or by calculating a statistical which a load value of P11,6 was assumed for the purpose of this study.
crack width and showing that a desired crack size is not exceeded. In the The value P represents the design ultimate load suggested by the yield-
ex'periments of this study no visible cracks were observed at a load level line approach as it appears in column 3 of Table 2.
pertaining to service conditions and it was, therefore, concluded thatthe
slabs performed satisfactorily in this regard. In practice the service load Measured values at position of point load: Column 8 ofTable3 shows the
level is obtained by dividing the ultimate load by the partial factor of measured deflection values corresponding to the load level Pll ,6. These
safety applicable to loading. For building structures the maximum factor have been taken from the load~eflection measurements presented in
of safety is given as 1,4 for dead load and 1,6 for live load3 ,4. graphical form in Fig 9. A comparison between measured and calculated
values appears in column 9 of Table 3, taking the calculated values as
Deflection 100 per cent. A good correlation can be observed with the maximum
Recognizing the non-linearity between service and the ultimate limit deviation not exceeding 10 per cent.
states and due to the large number of variables involved, modern limit
state codes 1- S are typically calling for a separate elastic analysis to Deflection limits: It is of importance for the design engineer to compare
determine the likely deflection of a member or a structure. Standard calculated maximum deflection values with stipulated limits to assess
structural elements and loadings are covered in design codes 1- s by way the adequacy of the structure in this regard. In the case of concrete
of a permissible span to effective depth ratio. These ratios are meant to
limit the total deflection to a permissible value.
The cantilever slabs subjected to point loading investigated in this
study are not included in the codified standard span to effective depth
ratios and an analytical elastic approach is unavoidable in the general
case. A solution to calculate the elastic deflection, w, of such slabs has
been presented by Michell 11 and isgiven in Eqn 10. The parameters have
already been illustrated in Fig 1.
w =Ps [2ax - l(a-x)2 ln (r+xr] (10)
8nT< 2 a-x 2

For the speciai,-but most relevant case, ie where x = a, the following

E
dimensionalized expression is obtained: E

w = ~ Psa2 (mm)
'0
(11) '"o
....o
where K= Ec l in kNm
1~v2 c
o

Ps = pointload at service in kN ~

v= Poisson's ratio = 0,2 o

c.
Reproduced by Sabinet gateway under licence granted by the Publisher (dated 2011).

a= distance from support to load in m

Ec;= modulus of elasticity for concrete c
o
I= second moment of area of transformed cracked section per ..,
unit width .
u

The quadratic relationship between the slab deflection w, slab stiffness K .

:;:
'0

and distance a, for a given loading, is presented in Fig 12. This graph may
facilitate the deflection calculations in the design office.

Comparison of calculated and measured deflections

Calculated values at position of point load: For the six slabs of this study
the deflection W under the pOint load has been calculated from Eqn 11
and is given in column 7 of Table 3. In the relevant calculations the
modulus of elasticity, E c , has been found from Table 1 of SABS 0100 by
interpolation, using the strength values listed in Table 1 of this paper.
Young's modulus for the reinforcement, Es, has been evaluated as 200 load span a Iml --
kN/mm 2 from the stress-strain curves of Fig 7. The second moment of
area, I, has been calculated from first principles, using an average Fig 12: Elastic deflections for cantilever slabs subjected to point load

Table 3: Deflection results of test slabs

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

w w w
calculated measured (7) - (8) calculated
K P
Slab Ec ~ I
- -
atx=a atx=a at edge
Ec h3 1,6
(kN/mm2) (kNm) (kN) (mm) (mm) (%) (mm)

Al 27,1 7,38 0,0066 23,29 4,46 0,96 0,93 +3,1 1,10

A2 25,9 7,72 0,0069 23,27 4,44 0,95 0,96 - 1,1 1,09

A3 31,3 6,39 0,0058 23,64 4,51 0,95 0,94 +1,1 1,09

81 29.4 6,80 0,0069 26,45 6,23 1,18 1,22 - 3,4 1,36

B2 29.2 6,85 0,0070 26,61 6,23 1,17 1,25 -6,8 1,35

83 28.8 6,94 0,0070 26,25 6,21 1.18 1,21 - 2.5 1,36

248 THE CIVIL ENGINEER in South Africa - June 1982

 structures the final overall deflection, Wt, is made up of an elastic part,
we. and a deferred component due to creep and shrinkage, S ws.
Adopting the procedure of ACI-3181, the total deflection may be
related to the elastic portion once the load has been broken up into a
transient and a sustained component. The total maximum deflection can
then be expressed as in Eqn 12.
Wt =S Ws + we< wa. (12)
where S = factor considering load duration and reinforcement content
taken from Ref 1.
wa = allowable deflection
Ws = elastic deflection of sustained load
Applying the approach of ACI-318 to the maximum deflections of the
small-scale model slabs of this study requires the calculation of the
deflections at the slab edge, where x=1 ,2a, bearing in mind that the load
was applied at a position SO mm away from the edge. Eqn 10 has been
evaluated for this case and the resulting values are tabulated in column
10 of Table 3.
Two examples are considered for demonstration purposes:
1. The total load P11,6 is transient
Wt=we<wa
2. Half the total load, PI1,6, is sustained and half is transient. The factor
S equals 1,8 for the case of identical percentages of tension and
compression reinforcement, as applicable to the test slabs.
Wt = 1,8x D,S we+O,S we = 1,4 we< wa
where we is taken as the elastic deflection due to the total load P11,6.
Guidelines for the permissible maximum deflection, wa, are given in
design codes. A common value for buildings may be found as
span/2S(}J,4, If this limit is applied to the test slabS a value of wa = 300/2S0
= 1,2 mm would be obtained. Comparing this limit with the calculated
maximum deflections based on column 10 of Table 3 shows the
following:
1. Slabs A would meet the deflection requirement if all load we-re
Reproduced by Sabinet gateway under licence granted by the Publisher (dated 2011).
transient in nature but would be inadequate if more than approxi-
mately 10 per cent of the load is considered sustained.
2. Slabs B would not satisfy the deflection requirement of span/2S0.
If it should become necessary to reconsider the structure in the light of
the deflection check, the following design aspects may be helpful in the
case of a reinforced concrete member:
1. ,The deflection limit of span/2S0 may not be appropriate for the
specific case and a larger deflection may be acceptable.
2. A camber, opposing the:deflection, may increase the actual allowable
deflection margin. . .
3. If the deflection exceeds the desired limit an increase in concrete
thickness or a tapered section will reduce the deflection result.
4. An increase in the reinfprce'rnent amount will enhance the stiffness K
and thus reduce the defleCtiqn value.
;-.
Conclusion .' ".
The foregoing investigation'has shown for a number of reinforced
concrete cantilever slabs subjected to point loading that an ultimate
method of analysis, such as the yield-line technique, will give a much
better indication of the strength failure load than the usual elastic
approaches. Elastic solutions which are established on the basis of
Bernoulli's and Navier's assumptions for the uncracked section and
which are independent of the r.einforcement arrangement can deviate by
a large margin as demonstrated in this paper.
Using the yield-line method the bending strength capacity of the
structure becomes a direct function of the reinforcement arrangement
and the concrete cross-section. This facilitates the identification of the
most viable solution in this respect for a given problem. Forthe cantilever
slabs subjected to point load it appears that a most effective arrangement
of reinforcement is obtained by providing equal quantities in the top and
bottom of the slab in the short and long span direction respectively, with
nominal transverse reinforcement at right angles.
The higher load values frequently associated with the yield-line
approach may, however, cause problems in regard to the deflection
requirements at the serviceability limit state. Some practical design
TI;iE CIVIL ENGINEER in South Africa - June 1982
.;',.
remedies have been suggested in this instance.
In addition, this study appears to confirm that elastic deflection
calculations are a suitable means of predicting the actual deflection
values at the serviceability limit state.
Acknowledgements
I wish to acknowledge the most valuable research contributions by Messrs G W
Blassoples, G C Botts, D Larkin, MCH Ainge and G M Baker. who at the time were
final-year students in the course of civil engineering at the University of the
Witwatersrand, Johannesburg.
References
1. ACI-318: 1977. Building Code Requirements for Reinforcement Concrete (ACI
318-71). ACI, Detroit. 1971.
2. CSA CAN3-A23. 3-M77. Code for the Design of Concrete Structures for
Building. Ganadian Standards ASSOciation. 1977.
3. BSI-CP110: 1972. Code of Practice for the Structural Use of Concrete. CPll0:
1972. BSI, London, 1972.
4. SABS-0100: 1980. Code of Practice for the Structural Use of Concrete, SABS
0100:1980. SABS. Pretoria, 1980.
5. DIN 1045:1972. Beton- und Stahlbetonbau. Bemessung und Ausfiihrung, DIN
1045. DeutsCher Ausschuss fur Stahlbetonbau, Berlin. 1972.
6. Kugler. P. Die Singularitiiten der Einflussfliichen von Einspannmoment und
Auflagerdruck der Kragplatte veriinderlicher Dicke. PhD thesis, Technische
Universitiit Munchen, 1976.
7. Pucher, A. Uber die Singularitiitenmethode an elastischen Platten. Ingenieur-
Archiv, Berlin, Vol 12. 1941, pp 76-100.
8. AASHTO-1977. Standard Specifications for Highway Bridges. 12th ed,
AASHTO, Washington. 1977, p 43.
9. Jones, L L, and Wood, R H. Yield-line analysis 01 slabs. Thames & Hudson,
London, 1967, p 269.
10. Johansen, K W. Brudlinieteorier. I commission hos Teknisk Forlag, Copen-
hagen. 1952.
11. Michell. J H. Proceedings. London Mathematical Society, Vol 34, London,
1902, p 223.
Discussion on papers
Written discussion on the papers in this issue will be accepted until 15 August 1982.
This. together with the author's reply, will be published in the February 1983 issue
of The Civil Engineer in South Africa, or later.
Such written discussion. which must be submitted in duplicate, should be in the
third person present tense and should be typed in double spacing. It should be as
short as possible and should not normally exceed 600 words in length. It should
also cOr)form to the requirements laid down in the 'Notes for the Guidance of
Authors and Contributors' as published in the September 1974 issue of The Civil
Engineer in South Africa
OvelHal contrtbutors
For the convenience of overseas contributors only, the closing date for
discussion will be extended to 31 August 1982 upon a receipt of a request
together with an assurance that the material will be received by the Institution by
that date. No request for any further extension can be considered.
Reference
Whenever reference is made to the above papers this publication should be
referred to as The Civil Engineer in South Africa and the volume and date given
thus. elY Eng S Afr, Vol 24, No.6, 1982.
249
Reproduced by Sabinet gateway under licence granted by the Publisher (dated 2011).