Finite Element Analysis

How to design reinforced concrete flat slabs using

Finite Element Analysis
First edition: O Brooker BEng, CEng, MICE, MIStructE | Second edition: E Halliwell MA(Cantab) MEng CEng MICE

FE Analysis
Advantages
■ It assists in the design of slabs with complex
geometry where other methods require
conservative assumptions to be made.
■ It can be used to assess the forces around large
openings.
■ It can be used to estimate deflections
where other methods are time-consuming,
particularly for complex geometry. This
is provided that the advice on deflection
calculations later in this guide is followed.
Introduction
The use of finite element (FE) analysis packages for flat slab design has
become increasingly common in recent years. The ability to generate analysis
models from BIMs (building information models) and to use graphical
modelling methods has made the use of FE analysis packages easier and
quicker. Additionally features such as reinforcement design, seismic design
and automated wind loading allow analysis packages to be used for a wider
range of design tasks. However, there is no single source of clear advice on
how to correctly analyse and design using this type of software. This guide
seeks to introduce FE methods, explain how concrete can be successfully
modelled and how to interpret the results. It will also highlight the benefits of
FE analysis, some of the common pitfalls and give guidance on best practice.

■ It can be used for unusual loading conditions,

e.g. transfer slabs.
■ The model can be updated should changes
occur to the design of the structure, saving
time compared to methods such as hand
calculations.
What is FE and why use it?
What is FE analysis?
Finite element analysis is a powerful computational method of analysis
that can be used to obtain solutions to a wide range of one-, two- and
three-dimensional structural problems involving the use of ordinary or
partial differential equations. For the majority of structural applications, the

Disadvantages
■ The model can take time to set-up, however
this may be reduced by importing geometry
from CAD drawings and 3D models.

■ The redistribution of moments is not easily

achieved.

■ There is a steep learning curve for new

3D view of structure from FEA software.
users and modelling assumptions must be
understood.

■ Human errors can occur when creating the Contour plot showing deflection
of the slab.
model; these can be difficult to locate during
checking.

■ Design using FE analysis requires engineering

judgement and a feel for the behaviour of
concrete.

Images courtesy of Trimble

Solutions Corporation

1
How to design reinforced concrete slabs using finite element analysis

How to design reinforced concrete flat slabs using finite

to be analysed is broken into elements that have a finite size. For a
element analysis
calculations using cracked section properties has been included in
2D surface such as a flat slab, these elements are either triangular or some software.
quadrilateral and are connected at nodes, which generally occur at the
corners of the elements, thus creating a ‘mesh’. When to use FE analysis
A common myth is that FE will return lower bending moments and
displacement FE method is used, where displacements are treated Many different solvers were developed, often by academic institutes.
Parameters and analytical functions describe the behaviour of each deflections than would be obtained using traditional methods. This
as unknown variables to be solved by a series of algebraic equations. During the 1980s and 1990s graphical user interfaces were developed,
element and are then used to generate a set of algebraic equations is a false assumption as, unless previous techniques were overly
Each member within the structure to be analysed is broken into which created the coded input files for the solver and then gave
describing the displacements at each node, which can then be solved. conservative, it is unlikely that a different method of analysis would
elements that have a finite size. For a 2D surface such as a flat slab, graphical representation of the results. The user interface that creates
The elements have a finite size and therefore the solution to these give more favourable results. In fact a comparative study carried
these elements are either triangular or quadrilateral and are connected the input files for the solver6 is often known as the pre-processor and
equations is approximate; the smaller the element the closer the out by Jones and Morrison demonstrated that using FE methods
at nodes, which generally occur at the corners of the elements, thus the results are manipulated and presented using a post-processor.
approximation is to the true solution. for a rectangular grid gives similar results to other analysis methods
creating a ‘mesh’.
including yield line and equivalent frame analysis. Therefore, for simple
These developments simplified the process of creating the model and
History
Parameters and analytical functions describe the behaviour of each
structures, there is no benefit in using FE analysis, and hand methods
interpreting the results. During the late 1990s and early 2000s the
FE methods generate numerous complex equations that are too or specialised software are probably more time-efficient.
element and are then used to generate a set of algebraic equations software was enhanced to carry out design as well as analysis. Initially
complicated to be solved by hand; hence FE analysis was of interest
describing the displacements at each node, which can then be solved. the software post-processors would only calculate areas of reinforcing
only to academics and mathematicians until computers became FE analysis is particularly useful when the slab has a complex
steel required, but now a range of additional features are available
available
The in thehave
elements 1950s. FE methods
a finite size and were first the
therefore applied to the
solution todesign
these geometry, large openings or for unusual loading situations. It may
including deflections calculations, seismic design and automated wind
of the fuselage of jet aircraft, but soon it was civil and structural
equations is approximate; generally, the smaller the element, the closer also be useful where an estimate of deflection is required.
loading.
engineers
the who saw to
approximation thea potential for the
theoretically designsolution.
accurate of complex structures.
However, this
The first application to plate structures was by R J Melosh
should be balanced against the uncertain nature of reinforced concrete in 1961 5. Initial to
When sizing
use FE analysis
Initially, theand
properties useatofvery
FE required the designer
small element to define the high
sizes, unrealistically location of
stresses Where FE is considered to be the correct tool for a project it will
every node for
may be predicted. each element by hand and then the data were entered Agenerally
commonbemythused isonly
thatforFEdetailed design.
will return Initial
lower sizingmoments
bending should still
andbe
as code that could be understood by a computer program written carried out using hand calculation methods such as:
deflections than would be obtained using traditional methods. This
to solve the stiffness matrix. Nowadays this is often known as the
History is■ a Span-to-effective-depth
false assumption as, unless ratios
previous techniques were overly
‘solver’. The output was produced as text data only. ■ Slab depths obtained from the publication Economic concrete
conservative, it is unlikely that a different method of analysis would
giveframe
moreelements
favourable(see TableIn1)fact a comparative study carried
FE methods generate numerous complex equations that are too 7
results.
Many different
complicated to solvers
be solvedwereby developed,
hand; henceoften by academic
FE analysis was ofinstitutes.
interest ■ Previous experience {2}
out by Jones and Morrison demonstrated that using FE methods
During
only to the 1980s and
academics and 1990s graphical user
mathematicians untilinterfaces
computers were developed,
became for a rectangular grid gives similar results to other analysis methods
which created
available in thethe coded
1950s. FE input
methodsfiles were
for the solver
first andtothen
applied thegive
design Using FE methods is unlikely to give a slab that is significantly thinner
including yield line and equivalent frame analysis. Therefore, for simple
graphical representation of the results. The user interface
of the fuselage of jet aircraft, but soon it was civil and structural that creates than when using simple hand methods.
structures the continued use of hand calculations and traditional
the input files for the solver is often known as the pre-processor
engineers who saw the potential for the design of complex structures. and methods could be more time efficient.
the results
The are manipulated
first application to plateand presented
structures wasusing
by R aJ Melosh
post-processor.
in 1961{1}. Assumptions
Initially, the use of FE required the designer to define the location of In preparing
FE analysis isthis guide a number
particularly of assumptions
useful when the slab hashave been geometry,
complex made to
This has
every nodeconsiderably simplified
for each element by the
handprocess of creating
and then the datathe
wasmodel and
entered avoidopenings
large over-complication; the assumptions
or for unusual and their
loading situations. implications
It may are
also be useful
interpreting the results. During the late 1990s and early
as code that could be understood by a computer program written to 2000s the as follows.
where deflections need to be estimated, in particular in situations
software
solve the was enhanced
stiffness matrix.toNowadays
carry out design as wellknown
this is often as analysis.
as theInitially
‘solver’. where
■ Onlynon-standard deflection
flat soffits limitsOnly
considered apply.
slabs with completely flat
the software
The output was post-processors would
produced as text only
data calculate areas of reinforcing
only. soffits are considered in this guide. Where drop heads and beams
steel required, but more recently the ability to carry out deflection are also included in a model the following should be considered:

Table 1
Economic depths (mm) for multiple span flat slabs
Imposed Span (m)
load
4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
2.5 200 202 222 244 280 316 354 410 466
5.0 200 214 240 264 300 340 384 442 502
7.5 200 226 254 284 320 362 410 468 528
10.0 200 236 268 304 340 384 436 490 548
Assumptions
• Class C28/35 concrete • Fire resistance 1 hour (increase depth by 10 mm for two hours)
• Super-imposed dead load of 1.5 kN/m2 • Multiple spans (increase depth by 10 mm for two spans)
• Perimeter load of 10 kN/m for cladding • No holes

2

Initial sizing
Where FE analysis is considered to be the correct tool for a project,
it will generally only be used for detailed design. Initial element sizing
should still be carried out using hand calculation methods such as:
■ Span-to-effective-depth ratios
■ Slab depths obtained from the publication Economic Concrete
Frame Elements[3] (see Table 1)
■ Previous experience
Using FE methods should never result in a slab that is
significantly thinner than calculated using the hand calculation
methods above.
Assumptions
In preparing this guide a number of assumptions have been made to
avoid over-complication; the assumptions and their implications are as
follows.
■ Only flat soffits considered Only slabs with completely flat
soffits are considered in this guide. Where drop panels, column
heads and beams are also included in a model the following should
be considered:
● Most software will assume the centre of elements with different
thickness will be aligned in the vertical plane, however, the
offsets of drops or beams may be defined in which case element
axial loads may develop and some care should be taken to
ensure these are considered in the design.
● Where output is in the form of contour plots, care should be
taken at the interface of elements with different thicknesses,
ideally results should not be interpolated across the boundary.
For further guidance on the modelling of column heads, refer to The
Concrete Society Technical Report 64.[4]
■ The frame is braced It has been assumed that the lateral stability
is in the form of stability cores or an alternative system and that
no additional moments are imposed on the column/ slab interface
due to frame action. Where a moment frame is used with a flat
slab (recommended only for buildings with a limited number of
storeys), the impact on the modelling assumptions should be
carefully considered. In particular where the horizontal forces are
due to geometric imperfections, the elastic modulus should reflect
the duration of the loads.
■ The concrete is not prestressed The guidance in this document
is not intended to be used for the design of post-tensioned flat
slabs.
Finite Element Analysis
Flat slab construction
Definition
The term ‘flat slab’ has no universal definition. Eurocode 2[5] defines
flat slabs as slabs supported on columns. For the purpose of this guide,
a flat slab is considered to be a reinforced concrete slab of constant
thickness.
Types of software available
It is possible to model the whole building using a 3D frame analysis
package; the main advantages are that column stiffness can
automatically be included and that load takedowns are carried out.
However, models may become large and complex, requiring significant
computing power to solve the stiffness matrix as a complete model.
Additionally, the effects of column shortening over the height of the
building can start to significantly affect slab design and care is required
to select appropriate load cases to avoid locally underestimating
moments. It is therefore preferable to carry out an analysis on a floor-
by-floor basis, either using a 3D package that allows this or by treating
each slab as an individual model.
Increasingly, FE packages have been adapted for particular uses (e.g.
reinforced concrete design) and many now include the ability to semi-
automate the design of the reinforcement as well as carry out the
analysis. Another feature that is almost standard is that CAD drawings
or models can be imported to simplify the modelling of the geometry.
Although the software is now relatively simple to use, engineers should
still understand what the software is doing on their behalf and what
default parameters have been assumed in the package, particularly for
deflection calculations.
When selecting an FE software package it is important to understand
what it is capable of calculating. A list of features and their importance
are given in Table 2.
FE solvers can either use linear or non-linear analysis and the merits of
these are discussed below.
3
design procedure ‘free bending moment’, i.e. calculate wL2/8 for a span and then check
that the FE results give the same value between the peak hogging
A recommended process of design using FE analysis is given in Figure 1, and sagging moments. A discrepancy of 20% is acceptable; outside of
and commentary is provided below.
How to design reinforced concrete flat slabs using finite element
this limit analysis should be carried out to determine the
further investigation
reasons. Calculate the total load on the slab and compare these against
What results are to be expected? the sum of the reactions from the model. Always include any hand
Before any analysis is carried out using computer software it is always checks in your calculations.
good practice to carry out some simple hand calculations that can

Table 
Software features

Feature Benefit Is it required?

Features applicable for all types of FE analysis

The bending moments in orthogonal directions take Allows the design of the reinforcement to resist the Essential
account of the torsion moment (e.g. are Wood Armer full design moments
moments or similar methods included?)

Automatic mesh generation Saves time on creating the mesh. A good mesh No, but extremely useful
generator will save much time on refinements at
critical locations

Columns and walls are entered as features in the This is a more efficient method than calculating No, but extremely useful
model and their stiffness is calculated by the software rotational spring supports by hand

The area of the columns is automatically modelled as This will realistically reduce the deflections compared No, but will give more realistic results for edge
relatively stiff elements by software with a point support columns and will have economic benefits

Area of reinforcement calculated by the software Enables contour plots to be generated showing areas No, but useful
of steel as well as bending moments

Software analyses in-plane slab forces and considers Allows realistic analysis of slabs with varying If slab is not of uniform thickness (unless slab
variations in slab centroid elevation thicknesses centroid elevation is uniform) or contains beams

Automatic application of load patterns to determine Ensures the worst combinations of forces No, the ‘worst credible’ load arrangements can be
worst case design forces are obtained found using a limited number of load patterns

Features applicable where estimated deflections are required

Curvature due to free shrinkage strain calculated A requirement of BS 8110 and Eurocode 2 for Yes, where estimated deflections are required
determining deflections

Cracked section properties* calculated for every Cracked section properties vary throughout the slab Yes, where estimated deflections are required
element and recalculated for subsequent iterations

Cracked section properties calculated in each direction Cracked section properties vary in each direction Yes, where estimated deflections are required

Partially cracked properties are calculated Tensioning stiffening will prevent a fully cracked Yes, where estimated deflections are required
situation

Separate analysis used for ULS and SLS Less cracking occurs at the SLS, so the slab is Yes, where estimated deflections are required
more stiff

Software calculates creep coefficients, tensile strength Saves calculating by hand No

and free shrinkage strains for each change in loading
throughout the life of the slab.

Proposed reinforcement arrangements can be applied The size and distribution of the bars affects the Yes, where estimated deflections are required
to the model cracking and crack patterns

Features applicable for design using FE software

Areas of required reinforcement can be averaged over This automation saves time No, but useful
a specified width

* Some software may assume the section is fully cracked or uncracked, whereas some mimics the loss of stiffness based on how cracked the element is.

4

Linear analysis
This is currently the most widely used method of FE analysis, but it
is less sophisticated than non-linear analysis. Reinforced concrete
(RC) is treated as an elastic isotropic material, which it evidently is
not, and a number of assumptions have to be made to allow this
method to be used. These assumptions in the modelling can lead to
misunderstanding of the results and further explanation of implications
are discussed in the relevant sections throughout this guide.
A linear analysis is more than adequate for carrying out a design at
the ultimate limit state. The serviceability limit state can be checked
by using ‘deemed to satisfy’ span-to-effective-depth ratios or by using
conservative values for the elastic modulus and slab stiffness. Typically,
85% of elements are designed using the span-to-effective-depth
rules and this is considered to be perfectly adequate for the majority
of designs. Even the most sophisticated analysis will only give an
estimate of deflection in the range +15% to –30%.
Non-linear analysis
Many FE packages are capable of carrying out non-linear (iterative)
analysis, but this is useful only for reinforced concrete design where it
can be used to model the cracked behaviour of concrete. Non-linear
analysis is used for RC design because as the slab is loaded it will crack
and this affects its stiffness. The program carries out an analysis with
uncracked section properties; it can then calculate where the slab has
cracked, adjust the material properties and run the analysis again. This
process continues until the variation in section properties between
runs reaches a predetermined tolerance.
In addition, more sophisticated methods also model the yielding of
the reinforcement where it reaches the elastic limit and can include
the effects of creep and shrinkage over time and even early thermal
effects. These methods require advanced software and are generally
used only for specialist situations; they are outside the scope of
this guide.
FE analysis and design
procedure
A recommended process for design using FE analysis is given in Figure
1, and commentary is provided below. This process recommends
using linear analysis for the ultimate limit state design and provides
an option to use non-linear analysis for serviceability checks. The
ultimate state design may also be carried out using non-linear analysis,
however users should be aware that significant moment redistribution
may occur as part of the analysis and therefore this approach is
recommended only for those who are specialists.
Finite Element Analysis
What results are to be expected?
Before any analysis is carried out using computer software it is
good practice to carry out some simple hand calculations that can
be used to verify that the results are reasonable. It is particularly
important to do this when using FE, and not treat the computer as
a ‘black box’. Simple calculations can be carried out to determine
the ‘free bending moment’, i.e. calculate wL2/8 for a span and then
compare with the difference between the peak hogging and sagging
moments from the FE analysis. A discrepancy of 20% is acceptable;
outside of this limit further investigation should be carried out to
determine the reasons. Additionally the total load on the slab should
be calculated and compared with the sum of the reactions from the
model. Always include any hand checks used to verify your model in
your calculations.
Analysis
Having carried out the initial sizing and calculated the expected
magnitude of the results, an FE model can be created. The initial
results should be used to determine the ultimate limit state (ULS)
requirements. From these results a preliminary bar size and layout
can be determined and this can be used as the basis for checking the
serviceability criteria.
Check serviceability criteria
There are a number of approaches that may be adopted to check the
design meets the serviceability requirements, these are as follows.
■ Check the span-to-effective depth ratio is within acceptable
limits: Guidance on this approach is available in Eurocode 2. If
the deflection exceeds the limit, additional reinforcement may be
added in the mid-span to control deflection. It is important to note
that the UK National Annex to Eurocode 2 only allows 50% extra
reinforcement (compared to the reinforcement required at ULS) to
be used for deflection control. Note that this approach does not
provide an estimate of deflection.
■ Check the deflection using the FE model: Calculate the estimated
cracked slab stiffness and adjust the slab stiffness in the model.
Approaches to estimating and modeling the stiffness are discussed
further later in this guide. Re-run the linear analysis with the revised
properties and check if the deflection is within acceptable limits.
■ Check deflection using non-linear analysis or iterative linear analysis:
This method is only recommended if the previous two methods
indicate that the deflection exceeds acceptable limits or if a refined
estimate of the deflection is required. This approach can give a
more realistic assessment of the deflections and is an iterative
process involving analysis of the cracked section. The slab stiffness
will depend on the amount of reinforcement, the level of cracking
and the concrete stiffness, including the effects of creep and
shrinkage where relevant. The stiffness will vary across the slab and
additional reinforcement may be added to control the deflection.
5
How to design reinforced concrete flat slabs using finite element analysis

Once the stiffnesses have been calculated, the model can be created
or updated and run, and the deflection can be checked against
acceptance criteria.
Governing criteria
to calculate the creep factors. A typical loading sequence is shown
in Figure 2. This shows that in the early stages relatively high loads
are imposed due to the slab supporting the newly cast slab above.
Once a slab has ‘cracked’ it will remain cracked and the stiffness is
permanently reduced.

Punching shear and deflection control are usually the governing criteria
for flat slabs. Punching shear should be checked using code rules.
Deflection in concrete is a complex phenomenon, which is dependent
on the final tensile and compressive strength, elastic modulus,
shrinkage, creep, ambient conditions, restraint, loading, time and
duration of loading, and cracking of the member (see Panel 1). Many of
these factors are inter-related and often difficult to assess. Deflection
prediction is based on assumptions and is therefore an estimate – even
when using the most sophisticated computer software.
Importantly, deflection in a reinforced concrete slab is dependent on
the age at first loading and the duration of the load because it will
influence the point at which the slab has cracked (if at all) and is used
Methods of analysis and code requirements
FE is not the only method for analysing flat slabs. In addition to the
tabular method and elastic frame methods described in the code, yield
line or grillage methods can also be used (subject to clause 9.4 of
Eurocode 2).
Some engineers are inclined to believe that by using FE analysis the
Eurocode requirements do not apply; in particular they consider that
there is no need to check the maximum permissible transfer moments
between the slab and column. However, it needs to be understood
that FE is an elastic method, just like the elastic frame method
described in the code, and the provisions of Eurocode 2 Annex I.1.2(5)
should still be applied.

Figure 1
Design process using FE analysis

START

Use hand methods to determine slab depth

Carry out hand calculations to verify results

to be obtained from the FE analysis

Create model and run linear analysis

Carry out verification checks for model e.g. compare sum of

reactions with total applied load, compare bending moments
with hand calculations

Determine area of reinforcement required at ultimate limit state Revise structural design to reduce deflection e.g. increase slab depth

NO
Check deflection

Non-linear analysis* possible?

By hand: Check span-to-
Using model: Calculate NO
effective-depth ratio is within
estimated cracked slab stiffness
acceptable limits (this may YES
and adjust stiffness in the model.
be achieved with additional
Run linear analysis and check if
reinforcement but this should
deflection is within acceptable Calculate the tensile strength, creep coefficients and cracked stiffnesses
be limited to 50% extra
limits.
reinforcement)

Create model and run iterative cracked section analysis

Is deflection / span-to-depth ratio within limit?

YES
Check transfer moments at edge and corner columns Check deflection - revise model and rerun non-linear analysis if required

Check punching shear and design reinforcement if required *Note: Where a refined calculation of actual deflections is required, non-
linear analysis should be used - this may either be automated non-linear
analysis or iterative linear analysis.
FINISH

6
 Finite Element Analysis
How to design reinforced concrete slabs using finite element analysis

influence the point at which the slab has cracked (if at all) and is used to Codes, the yield line or grillage methods can also be used. (subject to

Creating an FE model
calculate the creep factors. A typical loading sequence is shown in Figure 2,
which shows that in the early stages relatively high loads are imposed
Cl 9.4 of Eurocode 2-1-1).
What affects deflection?
immediately after casting the slab above. Once a slab has ‘cracked’ it will Some engineers are inclined to believe that by using FE analysis the
Properties of the
concrete There are numerous factors that affect deflection. These
remain cracked and stiffness is permanently reduced. Code requirements do not apply; in particular they consider that there
factors are also often time-related and interdependent, which
is no need to check the maximum permissible transfer moments
Reinforced concrete is a complex material, consisting of reinforcing makes the prediction of deflection difficult.
Methods of analysis and code requirements between the slab and column. However, it needs to be understood that
steel, aggregates, water, cementitious material, admixtures, and
FE is not the only method for analysing flat slabs. In addition to FE The
is anmain factors
elastic are:just like the elastic frame method described in
method,
probably voids and un-hydrated cement. The properties of concrete
the tabular method and elastic frame methods described in the the■Codes, and the provisions
Concrete tensile strength of Eurocode 2 Annex I.1.2(5) or BS 8110
are affected significantly by the different types of aggregate and by
Cl.3.7.4.2 and 3.7.4.3 should still be applied.
the varying proportions of the constituent materials. The properties of ■ Cracking of the concrete
What
concrete affects
are also affecteddeflection?
by workmanship, weather, curing conditions
■ Creep
and age of loading.
There are numerous factors that affect deflection. These
factors are also often time-related and interdependent, which
Eurocode 2 allows reinforced concrete to be modelled as an elastic
Creating
Elastic modulus
■
an FE model
makes the prediction of deflection difficult. ■ Loading sequence (time, magnitude and duration,
isotropic material. Clearly this requires a number of assumptions to
be made
Properties ofearly
particularly concrete
age loading)
The and
mainthe limitations
factors are: of these assumptions should be fully Reinforced concrete is a complex material, consisting of reinforcing
understood by the designer. The impact of these assumptions will
■ Concrete tensile strength
Other factors include:
steel, aggregates, water, cementious material, admixtures, and probably
be discussed
■ Creep
later in this guide. The deflection of the slab is mainly
■ Degree
voids of restraint
and un-hydrated cement. The properties of concrete are affected
dependant on tensile
■ Elastic modulus
strength, creep, elastic modulus, loading
significantly by the different types of aggregate and by the varying
sequence and cracking. ■ Shrinkage
proportions of the constituent materials. The properties of concrete
Other strength
■ Tensile factors include:
The tensile strength of concrete is an important Ambient
are■also affectedconditions
by workmanship, weather, curing conditions and age
■ Degree of restraint
property; the slab will crack when the tensile stress in the extreme of ■
loading.
Secondary load-paths
Magnitude
■ exceeds
fibre the of loadingEurocode 2 provides the mean tensile
strength.
■ Time
strength, of, which
fctm loadingis appropriate for deflection calculations, and ■ Stiffening by other elements
Both BS 8110 and Eurocode 2 allow reinforced concrete to be
■ Duration
increases as theofcompressive
loading strength increases. The loss of tension modelled as an elastic isotropic material. Clearly this requires a number
■ Cracking of the concrete and in the long-term the additional
stiffening also affects deflection of assumptions
■ Creep This istothe
beincrease
made and the limitations
in compressive of these
strain assumptions
in a concrete
■ Shrinkage
stiffness reduces to about half its initial value. Further information should
element under constant compressive stress. It increasesthese
be fully understood by the designer. The impact of with time.
on■thisAmbient
phenomenonconditions
may be found in The Concrete Society assumptions will beconsidered
discussed later
Creep is usually in theindesign
this guide. The deflection
by modifying of
the elastic
■ Secondary
Technical Report load-paths
59 [6]. In Eurocode 2, the loss of tension stiffening themodulus
slab is mainly
using dependant on tensileΦ, strength,
a creep coefficient, creep and
which depends elastic
on the age
is ■ Stiffening
accounted for by
by other
the ß elements
factor in Expression 7.19. modulus.
at loading, element size and ambient conditions. Eurocode 2 gives

Figure 
Loading history for a slab

14

h
12
b g

10 f
c
e
8 d
a
Load (kN/m)

6 Loading sequence
a Slab struck
4 b 1st slab above cast
c 2nd slab above cast
2 d 3rd slab above cast
e Floor finishes applied
f Partitions erected
g Quasi-permanent variable actions
h Frequent variable actions

0
0 50 100 150 200 250 300

Duration (days)

7

 How to design reinforced concrete flat slabs using finite element analysis
Finite Element Analysis

Tensileonstrength
■ advice the appropriate relative
The tensile humidity
strength for indoor
of concrete is anand outdoor
important cases. Early-age
design of the ULSloading canelastic
only, the causemodulus
cracking isthat
notwould not
usually have
critical
conditions.
property; the slab will crack when the tensile strength stress in the been expected
because at later
the results stages
should under
always be service loading. These cracks
in equilibrium.
extreme fibre is exceeded. In BS 8110 the flexural tensile strength is are unlikely to heal and so will affect the long-term deflection. [11]
■ Elastic modulus The elastic modulus of concrete varies depending ■ Poisson’s ratio A value of 0.2 should be used for Poisson’s ratio.
always taken as 1 N/mm2 at the level of the reinforcement, whereas
on aggregate type, workmanship and curing conditions. It also ■ Poisson’s ratio A value of 0.2 should be used for Poisson’s ratio.
in Eurocode 2 the tensile strength, fctm, is compared with the stress
changes over time due to the effect of creep. These factors mean Element types
at the extreme fibre. fctm is a mean value (which is appropriate for
that some judgement is required to determine an appropriate Element
When carryingtypes
out FE analysis, the selection of a particular type
deflection calculations) and increases as the compressive strength
elastic modulus. Eurocode 2 gives recommended values for the of element is no longer necessary as most commercially available
increases. When carrying outfor
FEflat
analysis, the selection
short-term elastic modulus with recommendations for adjustments software packages slab design do not of a particular
offer an option.type
For
■ depending
Creep Thison type of aggregate
is the increase used. A
in compressive long-term
strain elastic
in a concrete of element
reference no longer
it is usual necessary
to use a ‘plate’ as most commercially
element; available
this will provide results for
modulus
element underis obtained fromcompressive
constant applying a creepstress.factor, and advice
It increases is
with time. softwareshear
flexure, packages for flat slab design
and displacement. In the do not it
future offer an option.
is likely For
that membrane
given
Creepfor calculating
is usually this in Eurocode
considered in the design2. by modifying the elastic action will be modelled and considered in the design, in which case afor
reference it is usual to use a ‘plate’ element; this will provide results
modulus using a creep coefficient, h, which depends on the age at flexure,
‘shell’ shear and
element displacement.
would be used. If membrane action will be modelled
The assessment
loading, size andofambient
the long-term elastic
conditions. BS modulus
8110 andcan be carried
Eurocode 2 both and considered in the design, a ‘shell’ element would be used instead.
out
givemore
adviceaccurately after a contractor
on the appropriate relativelyhas been appointed
humidity for indoorbecause
and Plate and shell elements are generally triangular or quadrilateral with
they should
outdoor be able to identify the concrete supplier (and hence
conditions. aPlate
nodeand shell elements
at each corner (seeareFigure
generally triangular elements
3). However, or quadrilateral with
have been
the type of aggregate) and also the construction sequence (and a node at each corner (see Figure 3). However, elements
developed that include an additional node on each side, this gives have been
■ Elastic modulus The elastic modulus of concrete varies, depending developed that include an nodes
additional
hence the age at first loading). triangle elements with six and node on each elements
quadrilateral side, this gives
with eight
on aggregate type, workmanship and curing conditions. It also triangular elements
nodes. Since the onlywith six nodes
places whereand
the quadrilateral elementscalculated
forces are accurately with eight
changes
The choice over of time
elasticdue to the effect
modulus of creep.critical
is particularly These when
factorsusing
mean nodes. Since the only places where the forces are accurately calculated
are at the nodes (they are interpolated at other positions), the accuracy
that some judgement is required to determine an
linear FE analysis to check serviceability criteria, as the deflection appropriate arethe
at model
the nodes (they are interpolated at otherofpositions),
of is directly related to the number nodes. Bythe accuracy
introducing
elastic are
results modulus.
directlyBSrelated
8110 and to itsEurocode 2 both
value. Where FEgive recommended
is being used for of the model is directly related to the number of nodes. By introducing
more nodes into an element the accuracy of the results is increased;
design at the ULS only, the elastic modulus is not usually acritical
values for the short-term elastic modulus. BS 8110 gives range more nodes into
alternatively, an element,
the number the accuracy
of elements can beof the resultsforisthe
reduced increased;
same
and a mean value, whereas Eurocode
because the results should always be in equilibrium. 2 gives a single value with alternatively, the number of elements can be reduced for the same
number of nodes, so reducing computational time.
recommendations for adjustments depending on the type of number of nodes, so reducing computational time.
■ Loading
aggregatesequence
used. The Early-age
latter is moreloading of the
useful, if itslab
canmay lead to a
be established
greater deflection than expected underApermanent Where the slab is deep in relation to its span (span-to-depth <10)
which type of aggregates will be used. long-term loading. This
elastic modulus Where the slab is deep in relation to its span (span-to-depth <10)
is typically due to high construction loads (often resulting from plate elements are not the most appropriate (unless shear deformation
is obtained from applying a creep factor, and advice is given in both plate elements are not the most appropriate (unless shear deformation
propping floors above) and is modelled) and 3D elements should be used; these are outside the
BS 8110 and Eurocode 2. low-early age tensile strength. This is modelled) and 3D elements should be used; these are outside the
situation is typically most critical in cases where the imposed load scope of this guide.
Thedead
assessment ofisthe long-term elastic modulus can be carried out scope of this guide.
to load ratio low, for example in car parks and residential
more accurately after a contractor has been appointed
buildings. Creep due to early-age loading will be higher than would because he Meshing
should be able to identify the concrete supplier
[11] (and hence the type Meshing
The term ‘mesh’ is used to describe the sub-division of surface
be expected for loading at a later stage.
of aggregate) and also the construction sequence (and hence the members into elements (see Figure 4), with a finer mesh giving more
Cracking The term ‘mesh’ is used to describe the sub-division of surface
■ age at firstEstimating
loading). the time and extent of cracking is important accurate results. The engineer has to assess how fine the mesh should
for estimating deflection, as it will affect the stiffness of the slab. members into elements (see Figure 4). The engineer has to assess how
The choice of elastic modulus be; a coarse mesh may not give an accurate representation of the forces,
Typically slabs are cracked but is
notparticularly
fully cracked critical
and when using 7.18
expression fine the mesh should be; a coarse mesh may not give an accurate
linear FE analysis to check serviceability criteria, as the deflection especially in locations where the stresses change quickly in a short space
in Eurocode 2 allows designers to calculate parameters for these representation of the forces, especially in locations where the stresses
results are directly related to its value. Where FE is being used for e.g. at supports, near openings or under point loads. This is because

Figure  Figure 
Types of element Typical mesh

3 nodes 6 nodes

4 nodes 8 nodes
a) Surface member b) Surface member divided into mesh

8
Figure 4: Typical mesh
Figure 3: Types of element surface
Finite Element Fig 4 
 when a much finer mesh was used (up to 500 mm) it took 15 minutes Elements should be ‘well conditioned’, i.e. the ratio of maximum to
to analyse and gives the shape of bending moment diagram that minimum length of the sides should not exceed 2 to 1 (See Figure 6).
would be expected. However, a mesh up to 1000 mm took just four Again this is because the results are accurately calculated only at the
minutes to analyse; it gave very similar results and is considered to be Finite
node positions. It is important to ensure Element
that there Analysis
are more nodes
sufficiently accurate for the purpose of structural design. included in the model where the forces change rapidly because it is
How to design reinforced concrete slabs using finite element analysis
only at node locations that results are obtained directly; in between
As the processing speed of computers increases there will be less need the nodes the results given are based on interpolation.
to be concerned about optimising the mesh size; but it is worth noting
change
that,are quickly inthe
although a short mm space e.g. gaveat supports, nearmore openings or
there insufficient 500
nodes andmesh the resultsnotionally accurate
are based on interpolations Figure
For large models it is worth running the initial analysis with a coarse
under point
results, the loads.
the nodes. This
reinforcement is because there are insufficient nodes and forthe Element shape
between However,provision would
a very fine mesh have
willbeen
take an identical
excessive both mesh, which can then be refined when the model has been proved to
results
the are
500 based
and on
1000 interpolations
mm mesh between
spacings. the nodes. However, a
time to compute, and is subject to the law of diminishing returns. be free of errors or warnings and gives reasonable results. With most
very fine mesh will take an excessive time to compute, and at very
software packages the meshing is carried out automatically and the
small element
Theimportance
500 mm sizes,
mesh unrealistically
has produced ahigh
higherstresses
peaksizemay be predicted.
moment; this is in
The of selecting the correct mesh is illustrated software can even reduce the element size at critical locations to
due
Figure to ‘singularities’
5. The same or infinite
model was stresses and internal forces that occur obtain more data where it is most needed. This will give more detailed
The importance of selecting theanalysed
correct three
mesh times
size iswith the only
illustrated in
at
change the location of high point loads. This is due to assumptions that have results without a significant increase in analysis time.
Figure 5.being the maximum
The same model was mesh size. Where
analysed a verywith
three times coarsethemesh
only was
been
used made
(upbeing in
to 5000 the model.
mm) it took In flat slabs the
just size. concrete
30 seconds will crack and the
change the maximum mesh When a to analyse;
very coarsealthough
mesh
it reinforcement
is analytically yield locally
correct it and
does thus
not distribute
give the
sufficient forces
detail. to adjacent areas.
Conversely, Element shape
was used (elements up to 5000 mm), it did not give sufficient detail
when a muchitfiner
even though was mesh was used
analytically (up to
correct. When500 amm)fineritmesh
took was
15 minutes
used Elements should be ‘well conditioned’, i.e. the ratio of maximum to
to Definitive
analyse advice
and cannot
gives the be given
shape of as to the
bending ideal size
moment mesh that
diagram size, but a minimum length of the sides should not exceed 2 to 1 (See Figure 6).
(up to 1000 mm), the shape of the bending moment diagram was
good be
would starting point is for elements
expected. to betonot greater than just
span/10 or a) Well conditioned b) Poorlycalculated
conditionedonly at the
as expected. When aHowever,
much finer a mesh
meshup was used1000 mm
(up to took
500 mm),four Again this is because the results are accurately
1000 mm,analyse;
minutes whichever is the smallest.
althoughto the shape of it gave very
the bending similar
momentresults and is considered
diagram was as expected, to be node positions. It is important to ensure that there are more nodes
sufficiently accurate for the purpose of structural
it produced a higher peak moment. This is due to ‘singularities’ or design. included in the model where the forces change rapidly because it is
Fig 6: Element shapes
Figure  For large
only models
at node it is worth
locations runningarethe
that results initial analysis
obtained directly;with a coarse
in between
infinite stresses and internal forces that occur at the location of high
Bending moments: accuracy of results compared with mesh size
As
pointtheloads.
processing
This isspeed
due toofassumptions
computers increases
that havetherebeenwill madebe inlessthe
need mesh,
the which
nodes thecan thengiven
results be refined whenonthe
are based model has been proved to
interpolation.
to be concerned
model. In flat slabs about
the optimising
concrete will thecrack
mesh and size;
thebut it is worth noting
reinforcement yield be freeElement
Finite of errors
Fig or
6 warnings and gives reasonable results. With most
that, although640 the 500 mm mesh gave notionally more accurate 10.04.06
software packages the meshing is carried out automatically and the
locally and thus distribute the forces to adjacent areas. Figure
Job No. 
results, the590 reinforcement provision would have been identical for both Element
softwareshape
can even reduce the element size at critical locations to
the 500 5401000 mm mesh spacings.
and obtain more data where it is most needed. This will give more detailed
Additionally as the mesh size is decreased, the time taken to complete
490 results without a significant increase in analysis time.
the analysis increases. This is unlikely to be an issue where modelling is
Thea500 440mesh has produced a higher peak moment; this is
on floormm by floor basis but may be an issue for large and complex 3D
Bending moment (kNm)

390
due to ‘singularities’
models. It is also worth or infinite
notingstresses andreinforcement
that the internal forcesprovision
that occurwould Element shape
340
at the location of high point loads. This is due to
have been identical for both the 500 and 1000 mm mesh sizes. assumptions that have
290
been made in the model. In flat slabs the concrete will crack and the Where possible, elements should be ‘well conditioned’, i.e. the ratio of
240
reinforcement
Definitive yieldcannot
advice locallybeandgiven
thusasdistribute the forces
to the ideal to adjacent
size mesh areas.
size, but maximum to minimum length of the sides should not exceed 2 to 1
190
a good starting point is for elements to be not greater than span/10 (see Figure 6). Again this is because the results are accurately calculated
140
Definitive
or 1000 mm, advice cannot is bethe
given as to the
It isideal size mesh size,
that but
the a only at the node positions. It is important to ensure that there are
90 whichever smallest. recommended
good starting
minimum 40 point isof
dimension forthe
elements to be not greater
mesh should span/10
be less than the depthorof morea)nodes included in the model where
Well conditioned the forces
b) Poorly change rapidly
conditioned
1000
the mm,-10
slab. whichever is the smallest. because it is only at node locations that results are obtained directly; in
-60 between the nodes the results given are based on interpolation.
Fig 6: Element shapes
Figure  -110
0 2 6
4of results 8 10with12 16 18 20 26 28 30 32 34 36 38
Bending moments: accuracy compared mesh 14
size 22 24
Distance (m)
Finite Element Fig 6
500 mm mesh 1000 mm mesh 10.04.06 5000 mm mesh
640
Job No.
590
Fugure 5:540
Accuracy of results compared with mesh size

490
 440
Finite Element Fig 5
Bending moment (kNm)

10.04.06 390
Job No. 340
290
240
190
140
90
40
-10
-60
-110
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 28 30 32 34 36 38
Distance (m)

500 mm mesh 1000 mm mesh 5000 mm mesh

Fugure 5: Accuracy of results compared with mesh size 9


Finite Element Fig 5
 problems that occur with linear-elastic models. In reality these peaks
column centreline and its perimeter (see Figure 7). Neither is a perfect do not exist in the concrete because it will crack and yield. Modelling
solution, but both are more realistic than a point support. Other problemsiswith
this behaviour supports
difficult using can occur
linear at the
elastic ends of but
behaviour, walls and
one method
Figure  where
is to use vertical spring supports near the ends of walls to spreadwill
columns are closely spaced. In these situations the results
How to design
Alternative reinforced
methods for concrete
modelling the flat slabs using
area of the column finite
show
element
sharp
analysis moments, shear forces and support
peaks reaction
in the bending
The stiffness of the columns should be modelled by using rotational the peak support on the end node to adjacent nodes. Some
spring stiffness. For a pin-ended column the stiffness can be taken as reactions
programs (see Figure
include 9). This
features is due to
designed tosingularity (infinite
deal with this stresses)
situation.
problems that occur with linear-elastic models. In reality these peaks
do not exist in the concrete because it will crack and yield. Modelling
this behaviour is difficult using linear elastic behaviour, but one method
Figure  Figure 
isSupport
to use forces
verticalinspring supports near the ends of walls to spread
interrupted line support
Alternative methods for modelling the area of the column
the peak support reaction on the end node to adjacent nodes. Some
programs include features designed to deal with this situation.

a) Deep region b) Rigid arms

Figure 
Support forces in interrupted line support
Interrupted
support
Figure 7: Alternative
Figure  methods for modelling the area of the column
Modelling column stiffness
a) Deep
Finite Element Fig 7region b) Rigid arms
10.04.06
Job No.

4 EI 1 3 EI 1 Interrupted
L1 System
L1 support
Figure 7: L1
Alternative methods for modelling the area L 1the column
of
Figure 
Modelling column stiffness
4 EI 2 3 EI 2 L2
L2
Finite Element
L2 Fig 7 L2
10.04.06 Interrupted
Job No. support
4 EI 1 3 EI 1 System
a) Far end fixed L1 b) Far end pinned L 1
L1 L1

4 EI 2 3 EI 2 L2
L2 Figure 9: Support forces in interrupted line support
L2 L2
Figure 8: Modelling column stiffness Interrupted
The stiffness of the columns should
Finite Element Fig 9
be modelled by using rotational
support

Finite Element a)FigFar

8 end fixed b) Far end pinned spring stiffness. For
10.04.06 a pin-ended column the stiffness can be taken as K
Job No.
10.04.06 = 3EI/l and for a fully fixed column K = 4EI/l (see Figure 8). However,
Job No.
for columns supporting the upper storeys, edges and corners, the
end condition
Figure 9: Supportwill not inbeinterrupted
forces fully fixedline
andsupport
cracking can occur that will
Figure 8: Modelling column stiffness reduce their stiffness. Further if edge and corner columns are made too
Supports stiff, Element
Finite they willFigattract
9 more moment to them, which may exceed the
10.04.06 
Finite Element Fig 8 maximum
Job No.
transfer moment.
10.04.06
It is
Job No.important to correctly model the support conditions to ensure
that resulting bending moments at the supports and in the mid-span The rules for governing the maximum moment that can be transferred
are realistic. It will also enable column moments to be derived and between the slabs and the column are given in Eurocode 2, Annex
punching shear stress to be realistically evaluated. Where bending is I.1.2.(5) and is normally 0.17 be d2 fck, where be is the breadth of
induced in the columns, i.e. for a monolithic frame, the stiffness of the strip. These rules are applicable even when using FE analysis.
the column should be modelled; this is particularly true for edge and If the maximum transfer moment is exceeded, the design sagging
corner columns. Where these columns are modelled with vertical point moment may be increased to reduce the hogging moment at the
supports only, the bending moments at the interior columns and spans critical support, however redistribution of moments should be limited
can be underestimated. This can also lead to inaccuracies in the local according to Eurocode 2 clause 5.5 [4].
forces around the supports.
For non-symmetrical columns the stiffness will be different in each
These potential errors, combined with the potential for deflection direction. Many modern FE packages will automatically calculate the
results at mid-span to be increased by 10% when using point supports, spring stiffness, and all the user is required to do is enter the column
mean that the area of the column should be modelled. This can be dimensions.
achieved in two ways. Either by inserting a thicker region in the slab to
Other problems with supports can occur at the ends of walls and
match the plan area of the column, or by using rigid arms between the
where columns are closely spaced. In these situations the results will
column centreline and its perimeter (see Figure 7). Neither is a perfect
show sharp peaks in the bending moments, shear forces and support
solution, but both are more realistic than a point support.
reactions (see Figure 9). This is due to singularity (infinite stresses)
problems that occur with linear-elastic models. In reality these peaks
do not exist in the concrete because it will crack and yield. Modelling

10
 Finite Element Analysis
How to design reinforced concrete slabs using finite elem

this behaviour is difficult using linear elastic behaviour, but one Figure 10 Loa
method is to use vertical spring supports near the ends of walls to Load arrangements for flat slabs
All so
spread the peak support reaction on the end node to adjacent nodes. the e
Some programs include features designed to deal with this situation. engin
arran
Loading Howe
deal w
All software will allow a number of load cases to be considered, and
the engineer must assess how to treat pattern loading. It requires
Wher
engineering judgement to determine the ‘most unfavourable
mom
arrangement of design loads’ for a floor plate with an unusual Load arrangement 1
the c
geometry. However, Eurocode 2 gives some specific guidance in Annex
bay a
I on how to deal with loading for unusual layouts.
lengt
Whe
Where pattern loading is to be considered, according to Eurocode 2
dead
the combination of the full factored dead load over the whole slab
on al
together with the factored live loading on alternate bays should be
consi
used (see Figure 10). These should be considered separately in each
‘cheq
orthogonal direction. Note that a ‘chequer-board’ pattern loading
Load arrangement 2 the m
is an unlikely pattern and may not give the most unfavourable
arrangements.
The e
The engineer should be aware that problems can occur in the way FE progr
programs assign forces to the nodes of the elements (see Figure 11). In Fig
In Figure 11a), a uniformly distributed load is applied to a beam using eleme
finite elements that are a third of the length of the beam. The software deter
will determine the load to be applied to each node based on the funct
parametric functions of the element type being used. In this case the appor
Load arrangement 3
load is apportioned equally to the node at either end of the element. gives
The analysis gives an approximation only of the bending moments In Fig
and shear forces. In Figure 11b) a central point load is analysed as one t
two point loads at one third distances, which gives incorrect bending forces
moments and shear forces. Finally, in Figure 11c) an upwards load on the b
the middle element of the beam leads the FE software to calculate the b
there is no load at all on the beam and hence no forces.
The c
The conclusions to draw are that the mesh needs to be more refined if Load arrangement 4 patch
patch loads are applied to a model and that a node should always be place
placed at the location of a large point load. Some software may apply a cor
a corrective moment where point loads do not coincide with nodes. this is
If this is the case and the user is relying on this feature, the results be va
should be validated.
For n
Validation be re
is alm
Load arrangement 5
As with any analysis it is necessary to validate the results in order to prope
identify errors in the modelling and input of data. There is a risk of Key assign
engineers assuming that because the computer can accurately and Eurocode 2
rapidly carry out complex calculations it must be right. The failure gG Gk Vali
of the Sleipner, a platform in the North Sea, in 1991 is a sobering As wi
gG Gk + gQ Q k
reminder of what can happen when it is assumed that the results to av
from a FE model are correct. As the platform was being lowered into ( Note gG is always the same engin
position one of the cell walls failed, which led to the destruction of value throughout slab) rapid

11
Finite Element Fig 10
10.04.06 10
Job No.
How to design reinforced concrete flat slabs using finite element analysis
Finite Element Analysis

thethe
of whole structure.
Sleipner One reason
a platform for theSea
in the North failure was that
in 1991 the mesh
is a sobering Figure 11
was too coarse in a critical location to detect the
reminder of what can happen when it is assumed that the resultspeak forces. The Support forces in interrupted line support
total financial cost of the disaster has been calculated
from a FE model are correct. As the platform was being lowered into as $700M;
fortunately [7]
position onethere
of thewascellnowalls
lossfailed,
of life.which led to the destruction of the 10 kN/m Real loading

whole structure. One reason for the failure was that the mesh was too 25 kN 50 kN 50 kN 25 kN
There are
coarse in anumber of simpletochecks
critical location detectofthe thepeak
analysis that
forces. Themust
totalbefinancial
carried FE nodal forces
out and the results of these checks should always be
cost of the disaster has been calculated as $700M; fortunately thereincluded when
15m
the calculations
was are presented.
no loss of life.
■ Are the supports correctly modelled? Bending moment
There are number of simple checks of the analysis that must be carried
■ Is the element size appropriate – particularly at locations with high
out and the results of these checks should always be included when
stress concentrations?
the calculations are presented.
■ Is there static equilibrium? Calculate by hand the total applied
■ Are the supports correctly modelled? 75 kN
loads and compare these with the sum of the reactions from the
■ Is the element size appropriate – particularly at locations with
model results.
high stress concentrations?
■ Carry
■ outstatic
Is there simplified calculations,
equilibrium? by making
Calculate by handapproximations if
the total applied Shear force

necessary.
loads and(This couldthese
compare be done
withby theusing
sumyield line
of the methodsfrom
reactions or the
the
RC results. [8]). If the FE results vary from these calculations by
Spreadsheets
model
■ more
Carrythan
out 20% the cause
simplified will need
calculations, bytomaking
be investigated.
approximations if 75 kN

necessary. (This could be done by using yield line methods or the a) Uniformly distributed load
■ Do the contour plots look right? Are the peak deflections and
RC spreadsheets11). If the FE results vary from these calculations 100 kN Real loading
moments where they would be expected? Sketch out by hand the
by more than 20% the cause will need to be investigated .
expected results before carrying out the analysis.
■ Do the contour plots look right? Are the peak deflections and 50 kN 50 kN
■ Ismoments
the span-to-effective-depth ratio in line with normal practice FE nodal forces
where they would be expected? Sketch out by hand
(see Table 1).
the expected results before carrying out the analysis. 15 m

■ Is the span-to-effective-depth ratio in line with normal practice

These(see
checks
Tableshould
1). always be carried out before any attempt is made Bending moment
to design the reinforcement.
These checks should always be carried out before any attempt is made
The engineer should be confident the software is doing what is
to design the reinforcement.
expected. Most ‘solvers’ have a good track record and can be used with
confidence to obtain analysis results (provided the input data is correct
The engineer should be confident the software is doing what is 50 kN
and assumptions understood). However, the design post-processors are
expected. Most ‘solvers’ have a good track record and can be used with
less tried and tested. The engineer should be satisfied that the design Shear force
confidence to obtain analysis results (provided the input data is correct
of the reinforcement, particularly for the deflection calculations, is
and assumptions understood). However, the design post-processors are
being carried out as expected. When new software is being used some 50 kN
less tried and tested. The engineer should be satisfied that the design b) Point load
validation against known benchmarks should be carried out.
of the reinforcement, particularly for the deflection calculations, is 10 kN/m
Real loading
being carried out as expected. When new software is being used some
It would also be of assistance to the practicing engineer if a summary
validation against known benchmarks should be carried out.
sheet of assumptions and design methods built into the software were
provided so they can be easily assimilated.
It would also be of assistance to the practicing engineer if a summary 3x5m
sheet of assumptions and design methods built into the software were
provided so they can be easily assimilated. Finite element model

Ultimate limit state design

25 kN 0 kN 0 kN 25 kN

FE nodal forces
Member forces = Deflection = 0
Twisting moments
c) Exceptional loading
Treating reinforced concrete as an elastic isotropic material can lead
to problems in interpreting the bending moment results. The output Key
from an FE analysis of plate elements will give bending moments in FEM
Analytical results
the x and y directions, Mx and My. However, it will also give the local
twisting moment Mxy (see Figure 12). This moment is significant and

12

11
Finite Element Fig 11
 Mx(T) and My(T), and bottom (sagging) moments in each direction,
Mx(B) and My(B). The method is slightly conservative and these
Punc
moments form an envelope of the worst-case design moments. It is
Althou
possible to have both Mx(T) and Mx(B) moments at the same location
Finite Element Analysis model
in the slab (usually near the point of zero shear).
force i
is to ta
The four components can be used directly to calculate the required
norma
reinforcement for each of the four reinforcement layers in a flat slab.
autom

Ultimate limit state design Figure 1

Design bending moments compared with FE output If the
Y stresse
Twisting moments require
Mx the de
Treating reinforced concrete as an elastic isotropic material can lead M xy My
M xy
to problems in interpreting the bending moment results. The output
Some
from an FE analysis of plate elements will give bending moments in
the re
the x- and y-directions, Mx and My. However, it will also give the local
shear
twisting moment Mxy (see Figure 12). This moment is significant
My Mx
and must be considered in the reinforcement design. Mxy does not
Inte
act in the direction of the reinforcement and a method is required to
The re
allow for Mxy in the design. A popular method in the UK is known as M xy M xy
contou
Wood Armer moments, although it is not the only method used. Most
X contou
software will calculate Wood Armer moments for the user. They have
be obt
four components, top (hogging) moments in the x- and y-directions,
In12:
non-linear analysis, the su
Mx(T) and My(T), and bottom (sagging) moments in each direction, FigureDesign momentthe
moment
Bending software
for amodels
adjustment
output the yielding of the
plate element
reinforcement, automatically redistributing the moments andthe
finding peak m
Mx(B) and My(B). The method is slightly conservative and these Where high peak moments occur the concrete will crack and
an equilibrium solution. Where the design relies on redistribution lack of
moments form an envelope of the worst-case design moments. It is reinforcement may yield if its the elastic limit is exceeded. The forces
of moments, reinfor
possible to have both Mx(T) and Mx(B) moments at the same location are then shed the designer
to the should areas.
surrounding checkEven
that ifsufficient ductility
a slab were is
designed
Finiteavailable
Element inFig 12 the m
in the slab. to resist thisthe
10.04.06
reinforcement.
moment it is unlikely that it would actually achieve this
necess
Job No.
capacity for the following reasons:
Punching shear require
The four components can be used directly to calculate the required
■ The construction process often leads to construction stage overload.
reinforcement for each of the four reinforcement layers in a flat slab.
The reinforcement
■Although an FE modeliswill unlikely
produceto be placed
shear at exactly
stresses, wherethethepoint of
columns BS 811
arepeak moment.
modelled as pins they have no effective shear perimeter and flat sla
Design moment adjustment
the shear force is infinite. In this case the simplest way to check (Cl.3.7
Where high peak moments occur, the concrete will crack and the Itpunching
is therefore
shearnecessary
is to taketothe
acknowledge
reactions from that the
some shedding
model of
and carry sub-di
reinforcement may yield if the elastic limit is exceeded. The forces are the
outpeak moments
the checks to adjacent
in the normal wayareas willthe
using occur due to the
provisions material
in the codes design
then shed to the surrounding areas. Even if a slab were designed to properties
of practice.ofThis
concrete,
can beand not attempt
automated to design
by using against it.
a spreadsheet [8] In
forfact
the is take
resist this moment, it is unlikely that it would actually achieve this adesign
recentofpaper by Scott and Whittle 13 concluded that redistribution
reinforced concrete. The ß factor (Eurocode 2, clause 6.4.3) mome
capacity for the following reasons: occurs even at the factor
is a magnification SLS because
relatingofto thethe
mismatch
momentbetween the uniform
transfer which can Figure
flexural
either bestiffnesses
calculated assumed
for eachand the variation
column in actual stiffness
or an approximate value may thatbe (i.e. th
■ The construction process often leads to construction stage occurs because of the variations BS 811
used where spans do not differ inin length
the reinforcement.
more than 25% and lateral
overload.
stability does not depend on frame action.
■ The reinforcement is unlikely to be placed at exactly the point of When using FE, especially for slabs with irregular geometry, it is not If the
peak moment. If the area
usually of the
possible tocolumn hasredistribution
carry out been modelled, then
of the realistic for
moments shear
the be as
stresses can
following be obtained, but some engineering judgement may be
reasons: total m
It is therefore necessary to acknowledge that some shedding of required in using them because there will be peaks which may exceed
the peak moments to adjacent areas will occur due to the material the design limits in the codes.
properties of concrete, and not attempt to design against it. In fact
a paper by Scott and Whittle[9] concluded that redistribution occurs Some software packages can undertake the punching shear checks
1
and design of the reinforcement, and the user should ensure that any
even at the SLS because of the mismatch between the uniform flexural
stiffnesses assumed and the variation in actual stiffness that occurs openings within the shear perimeter are considered in the software.
because of the variations in the reinforcement.
Interpreting results
When using linear analysis, especially for slabs with irregular geometry,
it is not usually possible to carry out redistribution of the moments for The results from FE analysis will generally be in the form of contour
the following reasons: plots of stresses and forces, although a ‘section’ through the contour
plots (either bending moment or areas of steel) can usually be
■ It is not simple to determine where to distribute the hogging
obtained. These will show very large peaks in bending moment at
moment to.
the supports. The temptation to provide reinforcement to resist this
■ If the software is carrying out the design there is usually no method peak moment should be avoided. This potential error stems from a
for changing the analysis output. lack of understanding of the assumptions made in the modelling. The

13
 How to design reinforced concrete flat slabs using finite element analysis

reinforcement in the concrete will yield at the support position and bay width) and method
An alternative of this two-thirds is apportioned
is to simply to the inner
average the bending column
moment over Both BS 8
the moment will be distributed across a larger area; it is not therefore strip. Theofremaining
a width columnif strip
slab. However, moments
designing are assigned
to Eurocode 2 theto the outer
requirements the design
necessary to design to resist this peak moment. However, a method areas and the
of clause middle
9.4.1(2) strip moment
should is distributed
be adopted. The widthsequally across
of these stripsthe
can Eurocode
is required for distributing this peak moment across a larger area. remaining bay width.
be determined by the designer; an example is shown by the green line for the de
Eurocode 2 deals with the peak in bending moment for flat slabs in Figure 13. This method has the advantage that it can be used for a of the sup
by averaging it over the column strip and middle strips (Eurocode 2, The
slabrules
withinirregular
Eurocode 2, Annexbecause
geometry, I (TableaI.1) allow
fixed baymore
widthflexibility in
is not required. because i
Annex I), with the columns strip sub-divided into inner and outerareas. apportioning
It can also bethe total
used withmoment
area of for theresults,
steel bay width to thethe
removing column
need andto the colum
This method can be used for designing reinforcement using the results middle strips.
calculate the However,
reinforcementEurocode
areas2byis hand.
more Itrigid
willinbeterms
seen ofthathow much
both
of an FE analysis. A section is taken across the bending moment reinforcement should be applied to the inner column
methods give a similar distribution of reinforcement when applied tostrip. Cl. 9.4.1(2) An altern
diagram (i.e. in the y- direction for moments in the x- direction) at requires
the same that half
strip the total reinforcement area for the bay width is
widths. a width o
the face of the column (the blue line in Figure 13). The total bending placed in a strip that extends to a quarter of the bay width and is of Cl.9.4.1
moment is the area under the blue line (i.e. the integral), which can be centred over theway
An alternative support.
of determining design bay width is to use the determine
method set out in The Concrete SocietyFinite [10]. This method
apportioned according to rules given in Eurocode 2. Element
report TR43 Analysis Figure 13
Figure 1
has been developed for post-tensioned concrete design, assuming been ado
Design bending moments compared with FE output
The rules in Eurocode 2, Annex I (Table I.1) allow some flexibility in the analysis is at the serviceability limit state and for a homogeneous the advan
apportioning the total moment for the bay width to the column elastic plate. However, the principle that the bay width is taken as because a
bay middle
and width) and ofWith
strips. this two-thirds is apportionedrequirements,
regard to reinforcement to the inner column
clause Both BS
being 600
the8110 (Cl. 3.7.2.6)
distance betweenand theEurocode 2 (Cl.shear’
lines of ‘zero 5.3.2.2
may (3)still
& (4))
be allow of steel re
strip. The remaining column strip moments are assigned to
9.4.1(2) requires that half the total reinforcement area for the baythe outer the design moment
Middle to
strip be taken at the
Column face
strip of the support,
Middle
applied (see Figure 14). This principle is particularly useful for unusual indeed
strip by hand. I
areas and
width the middle
is placed strip
in a strip moment
that extendsis to
distributed
a quarterequally across
of the bay the
width Eurocode
geometries 2 indicates this should be done. However, it may be prudent
500 where using the lines of zero shear give a good basis on
reinforcem
remaining
and bay over
is centred width.the support. for thetodesign
which moment
determine the at
bayedge columns to be taken at the centre
widths.
Bending moment (kNm/m width)

of the support. This is because of uncertainties in the modelling and An alterna

Eurocode 400 method is chosen, engineering judgement should be
The rules 2in(clauses
Eurocode 5.3.2.2
2, Annex(3) & (4)) indicates
I (Table I.1) allowthat theflexibility
more design in Whichever
because it is critical that the moment is transferred from the slab to method s
moment should be taken at the face of the support.
apportioning the total moment for the bay width to the column However, it may
and applied
the columnunusual
for in thesesituations,
locations, making sure
if this has thatassumed
been there is insufficient
the design. developed
be prudent
middle forHowever,
strips. the designEurocode
moment2atis edgemorecolumns to be of
rigid in terms taken
howatmuch reinforcement
300 to resist the applied moment, without being overly- is at the s
the centre of the
reinforcement support.
should This is because
be applied of uncertainties
to the inner column strip.inCl.
the9.4.1(2) conservative.
An alternative method is to simply average the bending moment over However,
modelling
requires thatandhalf
because it is reinforcement
the total critical that thearea
moment
for theisbay
transferred
width is a width of slab. However, if designing to Eurocode 2 the requirements between t
200
from
placedthein slab to the
a strip thatcolumn
extendsintothese locations,
a quarter of theif bay
this width
has been
and is A
of useful rule of
Cl.9.4.1(2) thumb
should befor verifying
adopted. Thethe results
widths ofisthese
that strips
top can be This princ
assumed
centred overin the
thedesign.
support. reinforcement in the column strip will be in the
determined by the designer; an example is shown by the order of twice
greenthe
linearea
in the lines o
of the bottom
Figure100 reinforcement
13. Here the sameOuter (i.e. not
strip widths the
as same
the BS as, or
8110 four times
method as
have bay width
Inner Outer
Figure 1 much as, the bottom
been adopted to showreinforcement).
column
how column
the results column
compare. This method has
strip strip strip
Design bending moments compared with FE output
the advantage
0
that it can be used for a slab with irregular geometry, Whicheve
because a0 fixed bay 3
1 width2 is not required. 4It can also 6
5 be used with7 area for unusu
Distance (m)
600 of steel results, removing the need to calculate the reinforcement areas to resist t
Ke y
Middle strip Column strip Middle strip by hand. It will be seen that both methods give a similar distribution of
Section though bending moment diagram from FE output
500
reinforcement when
Averaging applied
of bending to the same strip widths.
moment A useful r
in the col
Bending moment (kNm/m width)

An alternative way of determining design bay width is to use the reinforcem

400
method set out in Concrete Society report TR4314. This method has been reinforcem
developed
Figure for post-tensioned
13: Design bending momentsconcrete
compareddesign,
with FEassuming
output the analysis
is at the1serviceability limit state and for a homogeneous elastic plate.
Figure
Serv
300
Extract
However, of shear diagram
the principle indicating
that the bay lines
widthofiszero shear
taken as being the distance
Finite Element Fig 13
between the lines of ‘zero shear’ may still be applied (see Figure 14).
10.04.06
200 Job No.
This principle is particularly useful for unusual geometries where using stat
the lines of zero shear give a good basis on which to determine the
100
Outer Inner Outer bay widths. The desig
column column column requireme
strip strip strip
0 Whichever method is chosen, engineering judgement should be applied tensile an
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 for unusual situations, making sure that there is sufficient reinforcement shrinkage
Distance (m)
to resist the applied moment, without being overly-conservative. of loading
Ke y
are difficu
Section though bending moment diagram from FE output
Averaging of bending moment A useful rule of thumb for verifying the results is that top reinforcement be regard
in the column strip will be in the order of twice the area of the bottom in concret
Lines of zero shear
reinforcement (i.e. not the same as, or 4 times as much as, the bottom calculated
reinforcement).
14 13: Design bending moments compared with FE output
Figure

Figure 1
Extract of shear diagram indicating lines of zero shear
Finite Element Fig 13
Serviceability limit

Serviceability limit state
design
The design of flat slab floors is usually governed by the serviceability
requirements. Deflection is influenced by many factors, including the
tensile and compressive strength of the concrete, the elastic modulus,
shrinkage, creep, ambient conditions, restraint, magnitude, time and
duration of loading, and cracking. With so many influences, and many
which are difficult to accurately predict, the deflection calculation
should be regarded as an estimate only. The Concrete Society report
Deflections in Concrete Slabs and Beams[11] advises that the difference
between calculated and actual deflections falls in the range +15% to
–30% even for rigorous calculation methods such as non-linear FE
analysis.
The engineer would be well advised to include this caveat when
informing clients, contractors and other designers of predicted
deflections.
Of the influences listed above, the most critical factors are the
values of tensile strength, elastic modulus and creep and the loading
sequence, in particular early age loading.
There are several situations where deflections are critical:
■ Deflection of the slab perimeter supporting cladding brackets/
fixings on the slab perimeter prior to installation of the cladding.
■ Deflection of the slab perimeter after installation of the cladding.
■ Deflection of the slab after erection of the partitions.
■ Where it affects the appearance.
Eurocode 2 states that the appearance of the structure may be
impaired when the deflection due to quasi-permanent loading exceeds
span/250. In some cases short-term loading may be critical and the
designer will have to decide which of these apply to an individual
project. Often the load which affects the critical deflection (e.g.
deflection affecting cladding) is not applied at the same time as the
initial loading; in this case the critical deflection can be calculated as
follows:
Long term Deflection prior to critical
Critical Deflection = - deflection is not critical and not a tool to estimate deflection. This
deflection loading being applied
This is because deflection is related to creep and the deflection due to
a critical loading situation cannot be calculated directly.
The accuracy of the deflection calculation can be refined where
the age of loading can be confidently predicted and the type of
aggregates to be used is known. This is more likely to be the case
where the designer is working for a contractor or the contractor
Finite Element Analysis
is part of the design team. The time of striking and the time when
additional formwork loads from the slab above are applied will have
a major influence on the deflection. This is because the slab is most
likely to crack under these conditions and this will greatly influence
the subsequent stiffness of the slab. The elastic modulus can be more
accurately predicted when the type of aggregate in the concrete is
known, and this is more likely to be the case when the source of
concrete has been determined.
Where the loading sequence is known, the critical loading stage at
which cracking first occurs can be established by calculating K for each
stage where:
K = fctm (ç)/W
where
fctm = Tensile strength of the concrete
W = Loads applied at that stage
ß = 0.5 for long-term loads and 0.7 for construction loading [13]
The critical load stage is where K is at its minimum and is usually
when the slab above is cast (i.e. construction stage), and the tensile
strength should be calculated for this stage. The creep coefficient can be
determined from Figure 15 or Annex B of Eurocode 2. The Eurocode 2
creep factor allows for a decrease over time in effective elastic modulus.
Approaches to deflection calculation
The following methods can be used to carry out serviceability limit
state design. They are listed in order of increasing sophistication:
■ Span-to-effective-depth ratios – compliance with code.
■ Linear finite element analysis with adjustment of elastic modulus.
■ Non-linear finite element analysis.
The first method should need no further explanation (guidance is given
in Eurocode 2); it is the most popular method for checking deflection
and, where the criteria are met, there is no need to carry out any
further checks unless a predicted deflection is required. The other
methods are discussed below.
Linear FE deflection analysis
The linear finite element method should be used only to confirm that
method involves calculating the elastic modulus and slab stiffness
by hand and adjusting the parameters used in the analysis. A cracked
section analysis is carried out to determine the stiffness of the slab.
The cracked section properties vary with the reinforcement size and
layout, so this is an iterative process and should ideally be carried out
for each element in the slab. However, for initial sizing, R, the ratio of
the cracked to uncracked slab stiffness, may be approximated as 0.5
and the cracked section stiffness for a critical area of the slab may be
applied globally, provided that it is not used to estimate deflection.[4]
15
How to design reinforced concrete flat slabs using finite element analysis

When using linear FE analysis to estimate deflection, R may again be
approximated as 0.5 or calculated more accurately using Eurocode 2,
expression 7.18, which considers sections which are cracked, but may
not be fully cracked (i.e. take α to be the stiffness calculated from
expression 7.18 and take R = α / Iuncracked). In some software packages
the cracked section stiffness (R x Iuncracked) may be input directly.
However this is not always possible as some finite element packages
calculate section properties from the thickness of the elements – in
this case, R may instead be applied to elastic modulus.
Eurocode 2 gives a deflection limit of span/250 under quasi-
permanent loading. This is considered a long-term load and the
long-term elastic modulus should be used. It may be calculated as
EST/(1 + φ) where EST is the short-term elastic modulus and φ is
the creep factor, which can be determined from Figure 15 or Annex
B of Eurocode 2. Where the uncracked section stiffness has not
been modified directly, the following expression should be used to
determine the value for the elastic modulus in the analysis: R x EST/(1
+ φ). It should be noted that in cases where a significant proportion of
the load is short-term, this approach is conservative.
As an approximation, it is usually conservative to calculate long-term
deflections in an elastic analysis finite element analysis with reduced
elastic modulus of 4·0, 5·0 and 6·0 GPa for C30, C40 and C50 concrete
(cylinder strengths) respectively [12]. These values correspond to
residential loading, however historically taking the long-term effective
modulus as 1/5 of the short-term elastic modulus has been shown
to be reasonable for office loading. It is important to recognise that
in following this advice the value used for effective long-term elastic
modulus is in some ways a ‘fudge’. It is modelling, in a single material
property, the effects of creep, cracked section properties and elastic
modulus.
Non-linear FE deflection analysis
When using non-linear software, several analyses will often be required
to obtain a final result. It is recommended that linear analysis is used
to determine an initial deflection; based on initial, assumed areas of
reinforcement. If this deflection exceeds the specified limit, non-linear
analysis may be carried out to provide a more detailed assessment and
additional reinforcement may be added to control the deflection.
As discussed previously an important aspect in achieving a realistic
estimate of deflection is to consider the loading history for the slab;
once the slab has cracked (and hence has reduced in stiffness) this
will affect the deflection throughout the life of the slab. This should be
considered in the model.
The slab may not be cracked everywhere; rather it may be fully cracked
in the zones of maximum moment, and in other places it may be
only partially cracked or not cracked at all. An accurate assessment of
deflection can only be made where the appropriate section properties
are calculated for each element in the slab.
Software giving the most accurate deflection calculations will consider
the shrinkage effects. Shrinkage depends on the water/cement ratio,
relative humidity of the environment and the size and shape of the
member. The effect of shrinkage in an asymmetrically reinforced

Figure 15
Method for determining creep coefficient h(∞,t0)

1 1
S N R S N R
2 2
3 3
5 5

t 0 10 t 0 10

20 20
30 30
50 50

100 100
7.0 6.0 5.0 4.0 3.0 2.0 1.0 0 100 300 500 700 900 1100 1300 6.0 5.0 4.0 3.0 2.0 1.0 0 100 300 500 700 900 1100 1300
h (?, t 0 ) h 0 (mm) h (?, t 0) h o (mm)
a) Inside conditions - RH = 50% b) Outside conditions - RH = 80%
How to use Nonogram
Key Notes
C20/25 C40/50 1 t0 = age of concrete at time of loading
A D
C25/30 C45/55 2 h0 = 2A c /u
C30/37 C50/60 3 Intersection point between lines D & E can also be above point A E C
B
C35/45 4 For t0 > 100 it is sufficiently accurate to assume t = 100

Figure 4

16
File How to Deflections Figure 4
29.03.06
Job No.
 Finite Element Analysis

section is to induce a curvature that can lead to significant deflection

in shallow members.
There will be different assumptions built into each piece of software
and so it is very important that the engineer is fully aware of the
assumptions and the effects they will have on the design.
Software design tools
Engineering software is developing all the time, particularly the
tools that are available to assist with design. Increasingly, software
will produce a reinforcement layout based on the analysis and
postprocessing.
The efficiency that can be achieved, especially when late changes
to the design occur, is substantial. It is important for the user to
thoroughly understand the software and the methods employed.
Summary
The use of FE analysis and design is widespread and is a particularly
useful method for slabs with irregular geometry, for dealing with
openings in the slab and for estimating deflections. However, it is
important to realise that the technique will not give lower design
bending moments for regular grids and that users should be aware
of the assumptions and limitations of each software package. Having
read this guide the practising engineer should be able to understand
the following issues:
■ How to correctly model concrete.
■ How the software works and the difference between the types of
software available.
■ How to validate the software and the models analysed.
■ How to interpret the results.

The particular areas to consider are:

■ How is deflection calculated?

■ How is the additional reinforcement required for deflection control

calculated and incorporated into the design?

■ How are the design moments apportioned to column and middle

strips and reinforcement layouts produced?

■ Is a check on maximum moment transfer to the columns included

or should this be carried out by hand?

■ Does the reinforcement layout consider the ‘shift rule’?

17
How to design reinforced concrete flat slabs using finite element analysis

Design using FE analysis – synopsis

1. FE analysis will not reduce the slab thickness 11. Understand the software. Ask for a summary guide
significantly compared with other methods of from software suppliers.
analysis.
12. Ensure that twisting moments are considered in the
2. Linear FE analysis is widely used and is more than design.
adequate for many situations.
13. Do not design the reinforcement for the peak
3. Non-linear FE analysis is more sophisticated and can moments; take an average moment over an
be used to estimate deflection. appropriate width.
4. It is important to carry out hand checks prior to FE 14. Even the most sophisticated deflection analysis will
analysis. be accurate only to +15% to –30%.
5. There should be sufficient nodes in the model to 15. With linear FE analysis, modify slab stiffness to
obtain accurate results, but it is possible to have account for cracking and modify elastic modulus to
too many nodes, especially at supports where the take account of creep in order to check deflections
peak moments are accentuated. Elements should be are within limiting criteria.
smaller than span/10 or 1000 mm and larger than
16. If using non-linear analysis to obtain deflection
the slab depth.
estimates, it is important to critically appraise the
6. The element shapes should be well-conditioned. An software and understand its limitations.
aspect ratio of less than 2 to 1 is appropriate.
7. The column stiffness should be modelled, i.e. ‘pinned’
supports are not recommended.
8. The area of the column should be modelled i.e. point
supports are not recommended.
9. Pattern loading should be considered, but
‘chequerboard’ loading is not necessary.
10. Validate your results by considering:

■ Element size in critical locations.

■ Is there static equilibrium?
■ Do hand checks give similar results?
■ Do the graphical results look right?
■ Are the results in line with those for similar
structures?

18
 Finite Element Analysis

References
1. MELOSH, R J. A stiffness matrix for the analysis of thin plates in bending. Journal of the Aerospace Sciences, Vol. 28, No. 1, Jan 1961. pp 34 – 42.
2. JONES, A E K & MORRISON, J. Flat slab design past present and future, Structures and Buildings, April 2005.
3. GOODCHILD, C H. Economic concrete frame elements. The Concrete Centre, 2010.
4. THE CONCRETE SOCIETY. TR64: Guide to the Design and Construction of Reinforced Concrete Flat Slabs. The Concrete Society, 2007.
5. BRITISH STANDARDS INSTITUTION. BS EN 1992–1–1: Eurocode
6. THE CONCRETE SOCIETY, TR59: Influence of Tension Stiffening on Deflection of Reinforced Concrete Structures, The Concrete Society, 2004.
7. COLLINS, M R et al. The failure of an offshore platform, Concrete International, August 1997, pp 29 – 42.
8. GOODCHILD, C & WEBSTER, R. RC Spreadsheets for concrete design to Eurocode 2, version 4. The Concrete Centre, 2020.
9. SCOTT, R H & WHITTLE, R T. Moment redistribution effects in beams, Magazine of Concrete Research, 1 February 2005, pp 9 – 20.
10. THE CONCRETE SOCIETY. TR43: Post-tensioned concrete floors design handbook (Second edition). The Concrete Society, 2005.
11. THE CONCRETE SOCIETY. TR58: Deflections in concrete slabs and beams. The Concrete Society, 2005 .
12. VOLLUM, R L, Multipliers for Deflections in Reinforced Concrete Flat Slabs, Magazine of Concrete Research, 2003, 55, No. 2, April, 95–104.
13. VOLLUM R.L & AFSHAR, N, Influence of construction loading on deflections in reinforced concrete slabs. Magazine of Concrete Research, Volume 61, Issue 1,
February 2009

19
How to design reinforced concrete flat slabs using finite element analysis

Acknowledgements

The content and illustrations have come from many sources. The
help and advice received from many individuals are gratefully
acknowledged.

Special thanks are due to the following for their time and effort in
commenting and providing technical guidance in the development of
this publication:

First edition: First and second edition:

Allan Bommer RAM International Kenny Arnott Trimble Solutions Corporation

Des Mairs Whitbybird Tony Jones Arup / The Concrete Centre
John Morrison Buro Happold
Robert Vollum Imperial College, London
Rod Webster Concrete Innovation & Design

Published by MPA The Concrete Centre

Gillingham House
38-44 Gillingham Street
London SW1V 1HU
Tel: 0207 963 8000
www.concretecentre.com

Ref: TCC/03/27 All advice or information from MPA The Concrete Centre is intended for those who will evaluate the significance and limitations
of its contents and take responsibility for its use and application. No liability (including that for negligence) for any loss resulting
ISBN 1-904818-37-4 from such advice or information is accepted by MPA The Concrete Centre or its subcontractors, suppliers or advisors. Readers
should note that publications from MPA The Concrete Centre are subject to revision from time to time and they should therefore
Published May 2006. Revised January 2021 ensure that they are in possession of the latest version. This publication has been produced following a contract placed by the
Department for Trade and Industry (DTI); the views expressed are not necessarily those of the DTI.
Price group M
© MPA The Concrete Centre