Mohammed, Abdel Wahid Hago (1982) Direct design of reinforced concrete slabs: a study of the ultimate and serviceability

behaviour of R.C. slabs and slap-beam systems designed using elastic stress fields. PhD thesis.

http://theses.gla.ac.uk/1665/

Copyright and moral rights for this thesis are retained by the author A copy can be downloaded for personal non-commercial research or study, without prior permission or charge This thesis cannot be reproduced or quoted extensively from without first obtaining permission in writing from the Author The content must not be changed in any way or sold commercially in any format or medium without the formal permission of the Author When referring to this work, full bibliographic details including the author, title, awarding institution and date of the thesis must be given

Glasgow Theses Service http://theses.gla.ac.uk/ theses@gla.ac.uk

DIRECT

DESIGN

OF

REINFORCED CONCRETE SLABS

A study

of

the

Ultimate

and Serviceability Systems Fields

Behaviour Designed

of

R. C. Slabs Using

and Slab-Beam Elastic Stress

by

ABDEL WAHID HAGO MOHAIMD

A Thesis

Submitted Doctor of

for

the

Degree

of

Philosophy

Department

of

ivil of

Engineering Glasgow

University

May 19 82 JD

By the name of AZZah, the Compassionate, the MercifuZ.

To my Parents

and my f=iZy.

C0NTENTS Page ACKNOWLEDGMENTS SUMARY NOTATIONS CHAPTER ONE lNTRODUCTION CHAPTER TWO

LITERATUREREVIEW 2.1 2.2 Introduction Methods of Slab Design

4 4 4

2.2.1 2.2.2

Elastic Plastic 2.2.2.1 2.2.2.2 2.2.2.3 2.2.2.4 2.2.2.5

Methods Methods The Yield Line Theory Hillerborg Strip Method Method

4 11 11 12 16 21 24
26 26 26 29 33

The Strip-Deflexion

Mini?m= Weight Designs Lower Bound Solutions

of R. C. Slabs

2.3

Assessing 2.3.1

Serviceability

Analytical 2.3-1.1 2.3.1.2

Procedures Deflections Cracking Procedures

2.3*. 2

Numerical

2.4

Nonlinear 2.4.1 2.4.2 2.4.3

Finite

Element Models

33 34 36 Element Models 38

Macroscopic'Models Microscopic Models

Review of Layered Finite

Page 2.4.4 Materials 2.4.4.1 Idealization Concrete in Tension 41 41

2.4.4.2 2.4.4.3 2.4.4.4

2.4.5 2.4.6 Yield

Bond Between Concrete Concrete Idealization

Criteria for

and Steel

42 45 48
49

in Compression of Reinforcement
Plain for Concrete Nonlinear Analysis

Methods

of Solution

52

CHAPTER THREE DESIGN OF REINFORCED CONCRETESLABS 56

3.1 3.2 3.3

Introduction Theory of Plasticity The Proposed Direct 3.3.1 3.3.2, 3.3.3 in Slab Design Design Approach Condition

56 56 5T 5T 58 66 68 68 69 69 70
74 for Membrane Forces 77 82 83

The Equilibrium

The Yield Criterion The Mechanism Condition

3.4

Design of Orthogonal Reinforcement 3.4.1 3.4.2 3.4.3 3.4.4 Positive Moment Fields

Negative Moment Fields Mixed Moment Fields Rules for Placing Orthogonal Reinforcement
Loading Cases

3.5 3.6 3.7 3.8

Multiple

Design of Reinforcement

Combined Bending and Memfbrane Forces Closure

Page CHAPTER FOUR THE FINITE 4.1 4.2 Introduction The Finite 4.2.1 4.2.2 4.3 Element Used of a Layered Element ELEMENT METHOD

94
94 94 94 100 Structures 101 101

The Stiffness Element

Subdivision of Concrete

Non-Linear 4.3.1

Analysis

General 4.3.2.1 4.3.2.2 Yield Criterion for Plain Concrete

102 103 lo4 lo8

The Yield Modelling Concrete Reinforcing Vector

Criterion

4.3.3

Materials 4.3-3.1 4.3.3.2

Steel

109 110 Procedure ill 114

4.3.4 4.3.5 4.4 Results 4.4.1

Pseudo-Load Details

of the

N=erical

and Comparison A Square Point Simply Supported Slab Under a Central

Load Tested by McNeice by Rao System

114 117 118 119 122

4.4.2 4.4.3 4.4.4 4-5

The Slab

*Tee-Beam. Bl Haye's

Tested

Slab-Beam

Conclusions

FIVE CHAPTER THEORETICALINVESTIGATION 5 .1 Introduction Comparison Between Torsional 5.2.1 General and Torsionless Analyses 139 139 14o 14o

5.2

Page 5.2.2 5.2.3 5.2.4 5.3 Analyses Discussion Conclusions Experiments and Results of Results 141 142 146 170 170 of Slabs Tested 171 172 173 and Conclusions 1 175 175 179 1A 1B 179 179 183 189 3 189 197 4 197 200 5 201 209

Numerical 5.3.1 5.3.2 5.3.3 5.3.4

General Designation Proportioning Analyses Discussions Test Series

and Loading

5.4

Results, 5.4.1 5.4.2

Conclusions 5.4.2.1 5.4.2.2 Subseries Subseries Series 2

5.4.3 5.4.4 5.4.5 5.4.6 5.4.7 5.4.8 5.4.9 5.4.10 CHAPTER SIX

Test

Conclusions Test Serie's

Conclusions Test Series

Conclusions Test Series

Conclusions

INVESTIGATION EXPERIMENTAL 6.1 6.2 6.3 6.4 'Introduction Parameters of Study

213 213 213 214 214

Slabs Designation Design*of the Models

Page 6.5 6.6 6.7 6.8 6.9 6.10 Materials Strain Casting Supports Loading Further Rig and Loading Instrumentation Systems Gauges and Curing 217 218 219 220 221 223

6.3-1 Test Procedure

CHAPTER SEVEN EXPERIMENTAL RESULTS: COMPARISONS.,DISCUSSIONS AND CONCLUSIONS

224

247 247 of the Behaviour of The Models 247 247 253 259 264 269 274 285 States 285 291 Between

7-1 7.2

Introduction General Description 7.2.1 7.2.2 7.2.3 7.2.4 7.2.5 7.2.6 Model 1 Model 2 Model 3 Model 4 Model 5 Model 6

T-3

Discussion of Test Results 7.3.1 7.3.2 7.3.3 Serviceability Ultimate Limit Limit State

Possible Reasons for the Differences the Assumed (Elastic Ultimate Fields)

True the and 292 296 3o4

Behaviour of the Models of the Test Models

7.4 7.5

Nonlinear Analysis Conclusions

Page CHAPTER EIGHT CONCLUSIONSAND SUGGESTIONS FOR FUTURE WORK 320

8.1
8.2

Conclusions
Suggestions for Future Work

320 324

APPENDICES: APPENDIX (A) Calculation Certain APPENDIX (B) Program APPENDIX (C) Derivation APPENDIX (D) Comparison by the APPENDIX (E) Calculations for Serviceability Limit States between Moment Fields and Torsionless Produced Analyses 373 of the Bounded Plastic Loads 343 Description and Implementation 341 of the Steel Required for a 325

Design

Moment M* 327

Torsional

REFERENCES

375

iACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

The work described

Civil Engineering of at the A.

herein
University Coull. Coull,

was carried
of The

in the Department of out

under like H. B. the to general express his for

Glasgow, would

guidance appreciation the

Professor to

author

Professor of the

and to

Professor

Sutherland

facilities

department,

The author supervision, study. Grateful Dr. P. D. A., thur, with Dr. the

is

indebted

to

Dr.

P. Bhatt throughout

for

his the

valuable course of this

encouragement

and advice

thanks Senior concrete

are

also

due to: in Civil Engineering for his help

Lecturer mixes. in Civil the

W. Dimcan, Lecturer for his help with

Engineering

University -

of

Strathclyde

Computer in Civil

program. Engineering, for his help with

Dr.

D. V. Phillips, the Computer

Lecturer program.

Dr. Mr.

I. J.

A. Smith, Thomson, assisting work

Senior Mr. in J. the in

Lecturer, Coleman,

for Mr.

his

help

with

the

data

logger. for

A. Galt work of

and Mr. and for the all

P. Hawthorn the te jous

experimental the preparation

involved

specimens.

Mr. J. Love, Mr. R. Thornton,

their Mr. I. help in the

Mr. W. Thomson and Mr. T. Montgomery for

of their the help testing with the rig. electrical

fabrication for

Todd and Mr.

A. Yuill

connections
The Staff of the

and the operation

University Library

logger. the data of

for all the library trouble loan taken system. in

procuring

some references

inter on

ii
Mrs. Carol John for her help with the computer.

The Staff Mrs.

he Computer of '%., (Astronomy

Centre. Department) for the neat typing of the

Williamson

thesis.
My wife Eitidal support. The Sudan Government the research. for the. financial support during the period of and 3my daughter Amal. for their cooperation and moral

iii
. 'SUMMARY This behaviour in research work is conc6rned with the service and ultimate systems designed stress ultimate initial

of reinforced

concrete

slabs

and slab-beam field. the

accorda: qce with (N x,

a predetermined NyN XY ,MXSMy9M finite for

stress XY ) in

The elastic slab at the the

distribution load elastic

was calculated uncracked Design

by the stiffnesses

element the slab.

method,

using

moments were

(M* M* ) for xy , derived from concrete

flexure the

were based yield by

on Wood-Armer for

equations

which

general

criterion

orthotmopically

reinforced

slabs

given

M) (M* -MM2. xyy The reinforcement Design forces was provided parallel 9

XY to slab edges. flexure and of

(M* N* M* , , xyxy calculated in the the

N* ) for

combined

membrane forces the Clark sandwich were

were

using design, design

a sandwich and the forces. the of

model. equations In all forces

The core

was ignored used to

of Nielsencases the using the

calculate

reinforcement appropriate

was designed uniaxial ultimate

to withstand limit state

design stress.

A nonlinear behaviour checked boundary of the

layered slabs

finite designed tests

element by this on large

to used model was method, scale and results models with

study were

the

against

laboratory

various

conditions. indicated that under all the slabs loads. limits spread in designed Both by this deflections for method and

Results behaved crack

satisfactorily were within cracks)s

service

widths

acceptable and crack

(spanJ250 an evenly

deflections

and 0.3

mm for

distributed

iv
pattern. loads. All slabs recorded failure in loads the in excess loads of their for the design slabs

The average

enhancement

design

without It
with

edge beams was about 16%. and for is then concluded that

slab-beans

485. systems about designs

strength

the proposed nethod provides

behaviour, loads. with a reserve of

good ser-iice

and ultimate design

at least

10% above the

N0TAT10NS As A ct ol Effective Steel Steel Length Steel Area Skeet area per unit width per per in tension unit unit width width

A x Am a al, a2 a MaX b b w

area area of

in x direction in a direction a plate in principal spacing

areas

directions

per

unit

width

Maximi Tn crack Width Width Centre of of

a section a rib of a beam

C. L. [B] [DI {d) d

Line matrix matrix vector depth

The Strain

The Constitutive displacement Effective

da E Ec Es E. 1 E se EF c E, xy F fb fbb fc
ft f c

Depth to the neutral Young's modulus Young's modulus for Young's modulus for Instantane;

axis

concrete steel

us Secant modulus

Secant modulus at peak stress Reduced modulus for E Young's moduli Yield function cracked concrete in an enisotropic ons plate

in x and y directi

Bond stress Bearing stress strength of concrete

strength of concrete

Conpressive
Cylinder

compressive stress =ter nal

Discontinuity E xce ss &S

co F:0 FP j'

loct& Vectors

L_

Stress cxte. vn

vi
f
cu Cube compressive Equivalent biaxial strength of concrete strength of concrete

fd f f ft f ft f p r s s st

compressive

Modulus of rupture Yield

"'ield Yield Tensile Plastic Stress Yield Stress

strength
strength strength strength load in

of steel
of of steel steel of

in tension
in compression

concrete vector steel

increment

f f f y cl

x direction of steel

strength in steel

laid

at

angle

a to

the

x axis

G GP G red h H I

Shear Modulus

Gauss Point
Reduced shear Plate thickness modulus.

Torsional Grid index

rigidity

of an anisotropic

plate

I I I

cr 9 eff 1 2'

Moment of inertia

of a cracked

section section

Gross moment of inertia Effective 13 First, Stiffness Constat

of uncracked

inertia moment of second and third inatrix to account for

of a section invariants of stress

L"j K b

the distribution
for the bond stress

and surface

characteristics

of bar

K1K2

Principal Curvature

curvatures

at a point = =

on a plate

in. x direction in y direction

3X2 ''IL Y2

K y

Curvature

vii
K XY Torsional curvature DXDY 32W

KtA

constant stress

to. account for

the distribution

of tensile

K0 L Lx, Ly M
M M cr M P M9M9M xy M et M*9 M* xy Mn9MtSM

Initial Short

stiffness span length

matrix

Span lengths Ratio

in X and Y directions and compressive

of loading

between tensile
moment at moment of moment of

strengths

of concrete

Bending Cracking Ultimate Xy Applied

any stage a section a section

moment component moment based

at

a point

in

Cartesian

Coordinates.

Design Design

normal

on elastic

analysis respectively in the

system

moments in

X and Y directions at

nt

Applied

moment components System

a point

n-t

Coordinate

M*2 M* t, n N et M, N N. A. Nx9NysN

M* nt

Component of resisting system

moments at a point

in the n-t

Coordinate

Design membrane force Stress Neutral 17 resultants Axis

based on elastic

analysis

Membrane force System

components at a point

in the Cartesian

Coordinate N* N* xy , CPI

Design membrane forces Load vector

in X and Y directions

p p

Mean normal stress Total load at any stage of a monotonic 1. oading

viii
P cr Cracking Design Service First load load deflection yield load load

Pd P6L Py P U q q cr

Ultimate Design Cracking Johansen Shear Intensity Intensity Intensity

load uniform uniform load components of of uniform load in Cartesian element Coordinates ii load load

qj Qx, Qy qjj qx qY R R c R p RU St T u v V V W W n4x XSY9Z z

force

lo ad in

on x strips on y strips

of load

Transformation Cover Total Flexural ratio force

matrix

imbalance of

vector a section direction

rigidity in

Bar spacing. Transformation Displacement Displacement Total Total Vertical

transverse matrix

along along

the the

X-axis Y-axis

moment volume steel volume along the Z-axis

displacement width Cartesian

Maximum crack Rectangular Section

Coordinates

xx Distances Depth of

modulus along stress X, Y and Z respectively block

x9y, Z xl

ix
a a a SX9 sy Angle of skew

Moment coefficients Shear retention factor

Mass density Nodal displacement at vector a point cracking at a point load

Displacement 6 cr Displacement Total Strain Strain Strain

at the

A e ex se ge y XY e cr

displacement at a point components corresponding

in

Cartesian to a stress

Coordinates of ft in concrete

ep e s

Peak strain Steel Middle z Strain of strain Plane vector strain a. vector a point distant Z from the middle plane

{C {e

a plate strains strain components vector local coordinate plane X-axis Y-axis t-axis -aw ay aw ax aw Dn system

eb ep co e 6 6 et

Bending Plastic

Nondimensional Angle Rotation Rotation Rotation of principal about about about

6 cr

Angle of crack Degree of orthotropy

Sides ratio

of a slab

( <1.0)

eq

Dlel StrIOCI n

P. y x9P
Pa a
ax sa ST y XY

Steel Steel
Stress

ratios ratio
at

in X and Y directions in the a direction

a point

Stress Principal

components in Cartesian stresses s". -ress stress

Coordinates

al9a 2 aeq a a p

Equivalent Mean no=a! Peak stress Octahedral

Bar diameter

T Oct

shear stress

Curvature

vector

.. CHAPTER ONE

INTRODUCTI'O

Present States structure Accordingly, designs, state. on Limit limit load to viz:

designs

of reinforced of

concrete such designs

slabs is to at

are based ensure

on Limit the of loading.

concepts. satisfies

The object the

that

prescribed state criteria limit

requirements

any stage

two limit the

have to be satisfied and the of slabs serviceability design, which

by such limit are based

ultimate existing

state

Mozt of analysis

the

methods concentrate concern

concepts main

exclusively of these (e. g.

on the is

ultimate ultimate' ) ... etc. State. calculate

state. for the

Thus the slab, with

methods

the ratio

empirical performance analysis, limit

rules

span/depth

ensure

satisfactory to limit the

at the it of is

Serviceability difficult

Limit to

According the exact value

generally

for

load

a reinforced

concrete

slab.

The methods (a)

either a number of collapse of mechanisms the slab, compatible the

Postulate with limit the

edge conditions accordingly. to the

and derive load the to

load

Thetrue

collapse giving

corresponds load. ultimate this or (b)

collapse thus

mechanism provide line

least the of

Such methods load.

an upperbound method for slabs

The yield

is

nature. a stress applied slab at field load, which is in equilibrium exceed I the with the

Postulate externally of are the

and does not on the slab.

strength fields

any point

Such stress The load

called

admissible-stress

fields.

corresponding

2
to an admissible to the stress true field will load always of the be less slab. than Such load.

or equal methods

collapse

provide

b, lower

bound to is

the of

ultimate nature.

The Hillerbgr-SIsStrip An exact when the bound bound, loads value for the true

Method

this will

collapse and lower in

load

obviously

exist - Upper

obtained can thus are always

by upper

bound methods with those

coincide of lower

solutions which The basic

be unsafe, safe. by this conditions. (see Chapter

contrast

requirement yield

approach For 2) is
a2M

is

to

satisfy slabs,

the the equilibrium

equilibrium equation

and the

concrete

to be satisfied
32M x

32 Ma

2-y=ax Dy

3 Y2 at any point is on the slab

where and q

(M x0My, is the

M ) are the XY load. Unless

moments components the Hillerborg's

method

employed

(Section solution
variables curvature

2.2.2.2), to equation
(M x2Mytm relationships 3443' ; X4

it

is not directly (1.1).

).

possible contains
by adopting in

to obtain three
linear

a non-trivial

since
However,

it

independant
elastic (1.1) moment. have:

XY

(section a 4W.

2.2.1)

equation

we will

D x

+ 2H

+D4 y DX2a5r2

oj ; y4

(1.2)

Where D, D and H are the anistropic xy A solution to (1.2) can be obtained since And hence a solution flexural different patterns. stiffnesses values to (1.1) can be found,

stiffnesses it involves by using

of the plate. only one variable. any values for the

in the moment-curvature will State

relationships. give point different of view,

Of course reinforcement all such

of these stiffnesses Limit

From the-ultimate

3
distributions equilibrium question criterion is are acceptable, since they are all in derived design. from The major and the and economy. stiffnesses the ultimate are used load. the provide

considerations, which cX all-these

and are followed solutions be of initial is

acceptable

to be satisfied present elastic analysis method. strength of in this bound the Limit way, study,

will the

serviceability uncracked under load will

In the to obtain elastic

the

stress under

distribution the ultimate criterion the for

This finite the Both

will then

be done using be used to distribution. stress expected of field

element necessary criteria

A yield to resist

predicted a safe the with

stress

analysis

admissible method is

are

satisfied a lower

and accordingly load, be based on the

to yield strength. it

on the design to

ultimate will check

minimum reserve ultimate of finite loading limit the

Since

on the

state, slabs

becomes essential designed by this analyse work

serviceability layered

method. the

A nonlinear slab under scale

element till

model will

be used to Experimental the

monotonic slabs will

failure. check against

on large

be used to

theoretical

predictions.

CHAPTER TWO LITERATURE REVIEW

2.1

INTRODUCTION: In this chapter, the various practice, known, slab slab the design methods loads and it for is is of reinforced to which first the concrete structure to find slab will the The boundary or design

are discussed. be subjected stress stress

In normal are normally in in state the the

desirable the steel

distribution distribution and the Accordingly, viz:

calculating dependant

areas.

upon the slab

geometry$ whether

conditions plastic.

of the

material methods

in the

elastic into two

can be classified methods of design.

main categories, . The stress

elastic

and plastic can be found

distribution

by analytical

or numerical

procedures, conveniently stress finite

and in the latter, included.

both

elaszic

and plastic

effects

can be

The most popular is the finite

procedure

in obtaining used Accordingly$ study, the will

distributions

element method.

is used extensively element method, which

in this

also be reviewed.
2.2 2.2.1 METHODSOF SLAB DESIGN Elastic Methods:

In these methods,
stress which distribution. shear deformations

classical

plate
are

theory
adequate

is used to obtain
for elastic slabs at

the
in

Such methods and inplane In most the small

effects cases,

due restraints the that first the slab satisfies order lateral thickness. both

the of

boundaries bending should is

ignored. be can adopted, with

theory

prerequisite compared to

deflections The stress equilibrium

be sufficiently obtained

the

distribution

using'elastic

methods

5
of stresses and compatibility of deformations.

By considering in Figure
respectively-i
a Qx

the equilibrium side lengths

of forces

acting

on the slab element

(2.1),
the

with

dx and dy in the x and y directions

equations can be derived:

following

equilibrium

j-

-hray am

+q0

am

rx

x+

--ZX ay am

-Q0 x

y+ gy

am

x-y+ ay

Qy =0
the three equationsl they can be

Eliminating combined in

Qx and Q7 between of the a2M + ---Z ay?.

one equation a2m XY .2 ax ay

form

32M X--

-.; -q

(2.2)

Equation
equation

(2.2)

is known as the plate

to one in

equilibrium
of

equation.
by

The

can be transformed

terms

displacements,

relating
curvatures, distance

the moments to the lateral

and Hook's of any point law for normal to stress the

deflection
and strains. plate 32W z -57-7 middle

w through
Thus,

the slab
if Z is the

plane . then

CZ

32W =ax
g 21, r 2Z ax ary

(2.3)

C=XY

where

exSey9e

XY

are the normal

and shearing

strains

at the point the

in the x, y cartesian stresses a., ayIT ICY

system of coordinates. are related to strains

And from Hook's law, by

xxx
vith similar

=Ec+EE

(2.4) xi
for

y
ay and TXY The moments are given by

expressions .

m y

MYX
"I

x
L Mx Mx +

m XY

z
aK Y dy Ilyx +
am

ax

dx

Mxy + 7-, "4 dx x

zy
dy ay dy

Qx+

ax

dx

My + -I-

DY

Figure

(2.1)

Equilibrium

of a slab

el'ement

T
h/2 -h/2 where h is the thickness h/2
000x

Cr xz

dz

of the plate.
(E x

Mr

-j -h/2 (D

32W
57

+E

xi

32W )z 2 dz 7

a2w xa XZ

+D

32 W 7 35:

(2-5)

S imilarly
(D 32w

yy M2D yx

aF

+Dia

x2,

XY in which Dx

azw xy ax ay

ExPDEY,

h3

12 Ex, h3

y
D XY (2-5)

12 GP
12 in the equilibrium

(2.6)

D1 Substituting we obtain

12 expressions

equation

(2.2),

D-+

34W

77 x2
the

2(D

+D

Xy

;4W4, -a-X7-; y2

+ Dy

377

(2-7)

introducing

notation 1 XY

we obtain

D+ 5-7 x

34W

2H

;4w

ax

+ Dy

34 w

(2.8)

In the particular E=EE

xy and (2.8) and GE to

case of isotropy E
VZ

ve have vE
v2

2(1+v)

reduces

8
; 4w
;4w+ a4W

57
where DE

+2

axzayz
h3

ay-Ir

q/D

(2.8a)

12(l-V2) Thus if distribution equations approximate finite a solution is (2-5). readily to (2.8) can be found, from is then the stress relationships, the of

obtained

the moment-curvature quite common to both the numerical

Such an approach procedures, and finite

analytical

and to

methods

differences In the analytical

elements. the infinite (Levy's in text applied deflected Fourier solutions) books to on Plate surface series of the (Netier plate Solutions)s

procedures, a double sine series

is

represented

by either infinite

or by a single account of

A detailed Theory (192) a by

such methods of

can be found solutions

The concept Ritz based on the

energy

plates total but

was developed potential. here function for the

principle of type of

of minimization series is solution

of the form,

The solutions in the selecting boundary in the

are usually the series

more freedom. satisfies successive in the class.

given, problem. to

as long

as the

conditions series are

the

Coefficients the total

terms system.

selected of

minimize falls

potential this general

The Galerkin in the series

method

solution

within

The terms

may be polynomial

or trigonometric,

and sometimes,

Bessel series
mates

and Hankel functions solutions

the deflected

have been used

(3).

The discovex7 conditions

of suitable and approxi-

which satisfies

both the boundary

difficult.

shape has been generally

An alternative
the plate equation

to these
is the

analytical

procedures
numerical fourth

for

the solution
the finite

of

use of the replaces the

method of order partial

differences. equation

The method of the plate

differential algabraic equations

by a series

of linear

simultaneous

9
in the deflections a finite on the Once the

at

number of points

slab.

deflections
from finite

at these
(2-5),

grid

points

are found,
the

moments can be obtained

by its equivalent and its of the used,

equations difference

by replacing

curvatures of

operators.

The derivation (1,20,4).

the method The accuracy

application finite the the large involved difficult

can be found solutions number,

elsewhere depends on the

difference larger the

number of

grid

points

the better

the

accuracy increases, small

obtained. and thus,

kccordingly, requires a

number of space in to in

simultaneous the computer, these

equations even for

problems.

The effort and the method is

setting

equations

also

increases,

automate. design engineer, have are a set all always the methods described too are inappropriate, of course generally is

For the and simplified design tables

methods and charts the slab to

been resorted

unless

available. of parallel

The simplified beams,

methods the

approximate carried

and thus

load

by bending is

action, only

in which

torsional satisfied.

moments are

ignored. load x and y q.

Compatibility the proportions

approximately load carried

For a uniform strips in

of

the

by orthogonal

directions

are such that

(IX + q, =q y The actual distributions qx and cjy are determined strips. Thus using

(2.9) by the compatibility deflections: beams simple

of deflections

at the centre
qx L4L

x5 384 EyIy
fle=al rigidities in the

384 ExIx
and assuming equal

(2.10)

two strips

solving and s

(2.9)

(2.10), and

we have

10

clx x

L4 yq f, zr

I (2.11)

and
(2.12) 44q Lx+L7

The bending as for simple

moments in

the

x and y directions

can thus

be obtained

beams :
4 my xxL 8(L4 + L4 x 7 L2 L2 -qa 8(L4 + L4) xy CL sx L x

(2.13)
SY L2' X

M yx[
Coefficients in (2-13)

asx and

asy for

corresponding various side

to the bracketed ratios, -and ixe given

terms in

can be evaluated Cp 110(5). is

Table

12 of

The method

known as Rankine-Grashof

method,

and applies

to

rectangular loads,
Simmilar on the

sim'Ply supported

slabs

under uniform

loads.

For concentrated area, and

depends be. the a group of

loads

are assumed to be distributed

procedures of the finite are used.

over a-finite

analytical dimensions plate

The moment distribution to if

respective separate

dimensions. loads

area and its sides ratios I The method becomes complex acting. In such cases,

concentrated

are

superposition

principle
This elastic methods at high in'practice.

can be applied.
section solutions. are further shows clearly In most restricted wide cases, the difficulty methods inability of of lack to obtaining generality. account conditions of analytical The plasticity encountered

the

by the variability

loads,

and the

support

11

2.2.2

Plastic

(or

Limit

States)

Methods:

The assumption material is elastic

of the classical

plate

theory

that

the slab of stress.

and homogeneous is limited concrete slabs crack

to low levels

As the load is increased, strength rigidity loads, of concrete deteriorates.

due to the limited the slab flexural and at higher of

in tension, Cracking

and accordingly,

induces nonlinearityg is increased for

the degree of nonlinearity steel.

used. is

by plastification

reinforcing
theory the slab slab is is

To account
The plasticity plastic, indefinite

these material
assumes that means that straining,

changes, plasticity
the material of of the

theory which plastic

perfectly of

the

material

capable

once the

conditions

of yield

have been reached. methods groups of concrete slabs to the design theory (Chapter broadly be can of Plasticity 1). -

The plastic classified viz: upper in two bound

- according

and lower

bound methods

These methods

include: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5The Yield Hillerborg The Strip Line Theory. Strip Method. Method.

Deflection

Minimum Weight Designs. Lower Bound Solutions. is an upper bound method.

Theory

first the of which only

2.2.2.1 The Yield Line

introduced by Johansen The yield line theory of slabs was first (798,9). load based on a preThe method derives the slab ultimate
postulated crossing failure the yield mechanism. lines defining It is the assumed that postulated All the reinforcement is yielding.

mechanism

12

The shape of the support are thus conditions possible

assumed mechanism and the even for type

depends

on the

slab

geometry, failure theory

of loading.

Several

modes of to the the

one problem, mechanism to

and according determines the

of plasticity, capacity of the

the slab

correct

which the

ultimate load. and the

corresponds an upper all

one giving

smallest load,

The method thus designer This would is

provides to

bound to the

ultimate

forced create

seek

possible

modess for in

correct

analysis. of

some difficulty

especially

case of

slabs

uncomnon shapes. In strain spite the method being an upper in bound approach 0 the tend effects of

hardening load

and membrane forces, higher than line the

general,

to make the load. slab, to any slabs

experimental Although load of

calculated applies restricted in to

ultimate

the yield

theory it is

any shape of in practice each of the does not the give slab,

and any edge conditions, thickness, uniformly

constant

reinforced

two mutually any but of can steel.

perpendicular information be used to Furthermore, or cracking a combination when uniform

or skew directions. on the analyse the at best a slab method steel with provides

The method distribution

within

a predetermined no information Prediction can be very

distribution on the*slab of the

deflections with

any stage of

of loading. loads acting.

mechanism

concentrated are also

difficult,

especially

loads

2.2.2.2

Hillerborg-

Strij2

Method: (Chapter
equilibrium

According
any combination

to the lower bound theorem of plasticity

My and M of M which xS INY satisfy the

1) 9

equation
of the

(2.2)
problem,

at all
is

points

on the slab,
solution.

a valid

Hillerborg

and the boundary (13)

conditions

made use of the

13
in

strip

action

the

slabs

and chose his The load is thus

solution carried

so that

M 0 09 Xy action

everywhere

in the

slab,

by bending

created
and Y. direction

by parallel
Thus, if

strips
a is the

spanning
proportion (2.2)

in two orthogonal
of the load

directions
in the

X
X

carried

strips, 32M x XZ

equation

gives

= aq

and

3211V ayz = M=0. XY arbitrarily the all load the is chosen, carried is and can vary by bending carried the load all

(2.14)

with

the

proviso

that a is all

The factor slab vif if of equal courseq a=1.0, to zero,

throughout X strips,

the and

of

then

load

by bending will,

of Y strips. lead are some to

different reinforcement

ways of

dividing

however,

different valid,

patterns, is

although concerned.

such solutions needs

as far

as equilibrium

The designer

experience
practice,

to arrive
several

at the most economical

have to be considered. under uniform

distributions

and in

cases

For rectangular and straightforward. strip acting

slabs

loads,

the is to

method

is

easy each

Once the

load

distribution according

determineds the bending

as a beam, the strip.

can be designed In cases when the lines), on average

in moments (e. g. strips

moments are rapidly Hillerborg suggests the

changing the use Each

with

discontinuity based

of banded

reinforcement

moments across

band.

band is

composed of a number of strips.

Design on basis

of average

moments is strictly because at ultimate ultimate

not in accordance with load, the theoretical over a part

the lower bound theory, moments will exceed the However,

moments of resistance

of each band..

14
once yielding redistribute of resistance Figure under uniform occurs, themselves. it is reasonable the equal of to expect available the required supported the moments to ultimate (3). value square slab moment

Alsot is

total to

ac--Oss a band (2.2) load, In is

an example is and

a simply to

intended two

show some possible are the of first

load

distributions. However, impractical point both

this

case,

distributions but

considered. distribution From a design is

distributions as it the over requires second large

are valid, varying is

Layout

steel. it as

of view,

more suitable, and therefore point

gives

an even from requires

distribution a theoretical

areas,

can be reconmended of view, although it

as well than strip For

as a practical the first

12% more steel$ This slab slabs), simple

distribution. thus presented point is restricted or supports Hillerborg to certain

method cases

problems. the

involving method

loads fails.

(flat suggested

simple

strip

utterly

the use of what is known as the "Advanced Strip method, the slab shear. force. is divided into

Method"(13).

In this of zero

lines by bounded elements

The design

found throughout bending the moments moments are with zero shear lines, in and which are

the slab which are compatible equilibrium into three with the applied types

design loading. of elements

The slab can be divided (2.3). strip stress method. field

different

in Figure shown as

Element Types (1) and (2)

can be designed by the simple Hillerborg uses a radial the loads solution

But Type (3) is more complex. and secondary the column. rules for load actions Finally

to transfer his

from the element to a set of

he achieves the element.

by proposing

reinforcing

Hillerborg
problem of point

has devoted considerable

supports by the

effort

to overcome the
elements. Nevertheless,

(3) Type. use of

15

qa2/8

WO 9\\\", -

A
-%x -%Z

Z \NS

Mx Along

x=

a/2

Mx along qy,2/2 y

AA

kl% ...

--.

-.

-.

-...

P'll

a/4

cl I
+ .211..

q
1 q/2

12

5qa2/64
q

a/2 q a/4 21
N\\ -\-

q/2

&2\
'\ \\ 17 1777\ -1

a/4
q/2

a/2

1 a/4 i-,"uf

Mx along x=

a/2

-F-----3.
II 4mx
q/2

q/2 q x
Along Edge Strips 0<y< a/4

qx mx

Along Central a/4 <y<

Strips 3a/4

5 qa 2/64

Strip

Method Solutions

(13) -for a Simply supported Slab

c

16

the

simplicity

of

the

strip

method

is

lost

and this

approach

is is be

not for

satisfactory the case of

as a design a uniform difficult

procedure. within find the

The method element, stress

as described and it field will for

load to

increasingly type

a suitable

any other

of loading. A further drawback of the strip method (in general) is that, on

pursuit which which 2.2.2.3

of simple depart impairs far the

solutions, from those

the

designer for slab

may choose

stress

distributions

required of the

a good service at early stages

behaviour, of loading.

function

The St rip--De flexion To overcome the strip difficulty method,

Method: suitable choosing (15) Fernando and Kemp method. The method strip methodq on the of in load dispersion the

factors

a in the

developed

generalized

stril)--deflection of the

can be considered in the slab sense that load is

as a development torsional resisted

Hillerborg

moments are by bending the the

ignored

every-where

and the

action

created

by a set slab under

orthogonal load strips

strips. q shown in each

Considering in Figure (2.4), giving

rectangular slab is first

uniform into four

divided

direction grid (ij)

16 grid

rectangles.

The load but

intensity can vary distribution corresponding from

cj1j on each id to gr, in x load

must theoretically For is any grid (qx)ij, (ij), and from

be uniforms the

another. direction

unknown load the

equilibriums

distribution

in the y direction
selected

will
values in

be (qy)ij
of the such

=q-

(qx)ij.
will satisfy one of

Any arbitrarily equilibrium chooses the conditions. distributions

distributions

However, q.

strip-deflection

methods

and qy by considering

compatibility

deflections

at points

of intersection

of the centre lines

X the and of

17

Type 1 column

Type 3+
-1 I 0. . 11 10 .., 1 %-., Type 2

Figure

(2.31

Elements

Types

in

the

Advanced

Strip

Method

x
oi
CP 1.. '

C\j

CM

CIJ

cu m

or
6

-o

Strip
Yl

Y2

(qx) 31 Strip JI X3

t\
Figure (2.4)

(A x )

(A ) x

32

(A )/* x

33ol" 34

The Strip-deflection

Method

18

Y strips. independent conditions points as

The method of loading,

uses but

flexibility

coefficients, geometry

which and the at the from these

are boundary intersection coefficients

depend on the The elastic is

of the

problem.

deflection obtained

due to

X 'loading

on X strips

AX

k E n=l

Fx

in

qx

(2-15) in

where Ax. -= ij Fx. in qx in the = the =x deflection flexibility on x strips due to x loading on x strips at node

coefficient

of x strip

load

k=
Similar at the

intersection number of
to (2.15)

points

on x strip.
for 'whe deflection such in terms

expressions due to in

can be written on Y strips. simultaneous

same'points results

Y loading of linear

Equating

deflections of the load

a set

equations

distributions loads

For patch system and the loading. that the

t. qx and qy on each grid elemen . the slab, of areas covering extensive so that the to is load that small, is contained for within

the

strip area,

can be chosen analysis If the is

one grid

identical area load is

described the strip

uniformly is

distributed chosen so

loaded

system within

concentrated It area,

centrally

positioned

the

grid over the

rectangle. whole grid

can then and the

be assumed to be uniformly analysis for load

distributed

distributions loading

and bending (Figure (2-5)). in the

moments would

proceed

exactly

as for

distributed do not the load satisfy

The bending local initial region of

moments so derived the grid of containing the

equilibrium load whole

concentrated over the

due to the area. To

assumption

spreading

grid

19

obtain

an exact

solution

for

the

plastic

collapse

load,

additional

moments must be added within

concentrated load, using is is

the grid

element containing
spreader (2-5c). and equally the bending the grid

the
(16) system The to the moments AA and produces 0

a simple

equilibrium. (2.5b) distributed giving from whole

Such a system concentrated two strips shown within BB is then load

shown in first

Figures

uniformly Figure (2.5b),

AA and BB in these distributed

two strips. uniformly

The load to the

two strips area which the grid satisfied Additional with the

the bending By the the grid

moments shown in spreader

Figure systems, the

(2-5c)

within = load.

area. within

use of these element

equilibri,

is

containing

concentrated in

reinforcement in both for of the

has then

to be provided systems.

accordance

moments

two spreader supports. is simple for

Similar

procedures

can be used

concentrated The method

simple

grid

numbers . but

it

requires

the formation loads strips rather

of special than point

flexibility loads.

coefficients In addition,

dealing

with

patch

increasing

the number of the the method

improves the accuracy,

but

increasing the expense of at to-be solved, which renders

nunber of simultaneous to be computer oriented,,

equations

and thus the simplicity the grid

is lost the method of

The method resembles Grashof's method. (both methods for

analogy method and the Rankine-

The strip be unsuitable

Hillerborg

and Ferndndo and Kemp) would moments. In such

cases involving

high torsional

cases, both methods would give solutions

which are far

for neglecting procedure

from the
torsion for hand in the

elastic
strip

solutions(18).
methods is because

The only it leads

reason to

a simple

20

(a)

(b)

Strip
II

BB

f-I t" tt

I W/2
t- t---tw/2

(a-c)
Strip
it-

AA

KO

(c)

C\j

II tttt

W/2 Fr W/2 la-c)

FiElire

(2-5)

Spreader

System for

Concentrated

Loads

21

calculations.

The main

disadvantage

is

that

it

is

difficult

to

decide the appropriate the behwriour to analyse

load distribution loads. If

factors

without

jeopardizing

at working

one has to use a computer program is to include torsional analogy

the slab,

the best

procedure

moments as well,

whether

the analysis

is done by the grid

method or the finite

2.2.2.4

element method.
Designs: slab thickness, forces, and neglecting derived slabs. steel then in the the the If the ability sufficient a, and

Minimum Weight

By assuming of concrete to for

a uniform resist tensile

Morley(lo) in concrete

conditions a2 are the of the steel

minimum reinforcement areas of the

distributed

reinforcing

direction of

principal Vs required Vf s

moments M, and M2 respectively, over JA kal +a2) dA an area A is given by

volume

(2.16)

where the steel

a,

areas are given by

I M11 fd2 y I M21 f7 d

where

fy

is

the for

yield the

stress steel

for

the a,

steel,

and

is

the

lever

arm.

Substituting

areas

and a2 in

(2.16)

we have

Vs=f1d y
Accordingly
$

fA

(IM11 +Im 21
is

dA

(2-17)

the

steel

volume

proportional

to

the

moment

volume on the slab.

reduces to that V= of

Hence the problem of minimizing

finding f (IM11 the minimum volume V

the reinforcement
is given by

which

+ IM21 ) dA

22

A moment field

is

said

to

"correspond"

if

the

principal

=ments

M, and M2 and the principal curvatures (10) Morley and direction. proved that
corresponding field is less than

k1 and k2 have the same sign the moment volume for

to that of

or equal

a non corresponding

one.
If the

The sufficient
for a slab

conditions
a particular field which k1l has

can be summarized as follows:

moment distribution "0" corresponds to

displacement (a)

The curvaturesl regions where =k, =k, lk

lk

21

K throughout

except

in

(b) (c) then such that

Jkll Ik 21 field

21 Ik, Ik

and M2=0 and M, =0

or

has a minimurn moment volume. field is purely geometrical.

The problem

of

finding

a distribution

a neutral
M, A0 and t 0 0.

Jkli area where

lk

=+ 21

ks it

is possible
and the

that
loads

M, and M2 can be in

any direction

too can be distributed

slab in shown Figure

in any direction.
(2.6) the regions

For the simply

supported

JEH and FKG are such neutral

areas.
If k, =-k2=k, the deformation surface is anticlastic, and

there

is less

freedom since

for

correspondence

the loads must be curvatures, i. e. for

distributed regions

in the directions

of the principal

such AEJ, loads must be distributed

parallel

or perpendicular can be

to side EJ as shown, though the ratio arbitrary. In the regions

must be zero. be caxried only

of such distributions

where

Jkli

=k

and
such

Ik

<k 21

the moment M2
and the loads must signs

The region in the

EFGH is

an example

direction

the (i. FG) EH and k1 or e. of

23

-AEFB _____

ii:

Gf

Fipre__(2.6)

Minimum'Weight Simply Supported

Solution Slab

for

a Rectangular

24

of 1 and k,

must be the

same.

Figure
the three

(2.6)
of

shows the solution

displacement fielcls

for

the slab ABCD and illustrates

are sufficient a uniform for a

types

which

minizourn weight

solution.

The moment volume

due to

load

is V= (0.0834 L7 - 0.0313 L.
or which reduces to 0.0521 q L4 x
The method Such methods curvilinear
q L3 x

(2.19)
for a simply supported slab.

5L4 q 96 x

assumes no constraints to be impractical, patterns.

on the

reinforcement could also

directions. yield deficient

are likely reinforcement

as they is

The method

in providing
2.2.2.5

any information

on the serviceability

of the slab.

Lower Bound Solutions:

method, simple polynomials equation (2.2) in moment components and the boundary are chosen of

In this to fulfil the

equilibrium

conditions

the problem. intuitively are

To determine assumed.
procedure

fields the the slab ultimate moment capacity, (4) the Wood method of gives a good account
can be used to determine the ultimate

how the shows and

concrete slabs. capacity of reinforced (11,12) to cover continuous by Vijaya Rangan it has been shown that the collapse

The concept was later slabs. In general

extended termss

*for loads such slabs

can be written

in the form
qL2 mx (8 11 + 2Xp + 16pz) (2.20)

in which:

Lx=

short

span length
of ratio orthotropy of the

of the slab

(along

the Y-axis)

11 = degree p= Ly= M= sides

slab

L /L xy

Long span, yield moment in the X direction

X=a

constant

25

'he

value

of the

constant

A depends

on the

sides

ratio

and the

degree of orthotropy
is approximated by

V.

The value which satisfies

the yield

criterion

Irp /1 Y 4 The collapse corresponding q L2 mx (/3 the latter + load by (2.20)

(2.21) given was compared with the

upper

bound

solution

24u P r2 2

(2.22)

after effects.

has been reduced agree

by 4%, to within

account

for

the

corner upper

The two solutions

10% of the

reduced

bound solution.
In truncated fields. is to It obtain of obtaining sixth is the order evident solution (2.20). to Vijaya define in Rangan the the lower paper (11,12) used a bound moment how difficult only loads for limited it

polynom., als from the

approach

such

solutions,

and they

can be produced Point

cases present

end conditions great difficulty over at

and load in the

combinations. simple method on the

or supports The method of at the encountered on the

selecting yield line

moment fields. in that conditions just

has the yield yield in

advantage

are lines.

considered But the the of

every

point in

slab, to the

and not difficulty

method, fields, slab.

addition does not

obtaining

stress the

provide

information any

serviceability

To overcome this
derived diameter be limited expressions and spacing to

difficulty,
limit satisfy crack

recently
widths

Vijaya

(12) has Rangan

the reinforcement can then

by choosing

to

the of

code limits. depth.

Deflections

by a suitable-choice

26

2.3

ASSESSINGSERVICEABILITY OF REINFORCED CONCRETE SLABS: In the cont'ext of limit

strength

state

design,

the two main criteria

The latter stiffness.

for

design a first of the

are *uItimateapproximation, slab

and serviceability. to load the slab

may, as The stiffness

be related of the

as a function purposes, the numerical

may be obtained may be used. finite

in many ways. For elaborate and finite

For design analysis, element

empirical methods

values of the

difference

are

employed.

2.3.1 2.3.1

Analytical Deflections:
In

Procedures:

a macroscopic the slab

slab

model

in which at

only of of

flexural loading Figure

failures is

are

permissible, by the cracking, slope the

stiffness

any stage diagram elastic, theory, cracking,

represented Before

of the slab

moment-curvature material is linear

(2.8).

and hence with the gross

deflections moment of is also

can be calculated inertia. approximated moment. ship is This Ig

using

the

elastic After

of the

section.

the behaviour up to

by a linear implies the load

reduced use of range.

flexural a bi-linear

rigidity

the yield relationcracking

moment-curvature rigidity in after the

in the fully (21)

working cracked Thus

The reduced section

the

transformed

rigidity

Beeby's

method

Er 1 cr c
where R = The flexural U. El = 0.57 c Ec= cr Ec for concrete of a fully cracked rigidity of the section

(2-23)

Youngs modulus = moment of section.

inertia

transformed

27

While inertia stage of is

in

the

Branson's

(21) method =ment by: cr cr -(M 3 an effective . of inertia moment of depends of the

used.

The effective is and cr 9m given 3+11

loading,

II( e ff where I eff

(2.24)

o Effective

moment of

inertia

19= M= M cr The cracking

Gross moment of

inertia moment in the span

The maxiTnum applied = The cracking moment is moment.

calculated

from

the

flexural

formula

as

cr where fr=

=fr19

/Y

(2.25).

modulus of rupture.
method is for more realistic use in the then ACI Code the (3). Beebylssand

The Branson's hence, it is

recommended

The applicability

of such methods is well

established

for

two-way beams For slabs. concrete one-way and slabs. reinforced (22) short-time Desayi and Muthu proposed a method for estimating deflections. The load-deflection curve is predicted in two stages:

prior
are

to and after
calculated 6=Bx using

cracking.
elastic

In the uncrac--ked stage,

plate theory. Thus

the deflections

q L4 EI cg

(2.26)

where
problem.

is a constant

depending on the boundary

conditions

of the

At the cracking

initiation q is

of

crackings from

the

deflection

6cr under

the

load

cr

estimated

28

cr

=E

qL4 er 1x

(2.27)

After rigidity

cracking, of the slab,

due to

the

continuous noment

decay of the of inertia

flexural

an effective is [1

can be used.

The proposed

equation

eff is

Ig

- k,

cl - cl -cr ('
qj -q cr

(2.28)

where

qj

the Using

Johanson the

load,

k1 and k2 are moment of in this )L4 cr x eff

constants after

to be cracking as

determined. (equation

effective

inertia

2.28),

the

deflection (q -q

range

can be calculated (2.29)

cr

EI c

The expression and k 2' Experimental

for

eff

in

results

depends on the constants k1 (22) that have Muthu Desayi shown and of

(2.28)

k, = 0.87761 - 4..1604 xlo-4 X0 k2 = 0.025227 + 8.28 x 10-4 Xo

where x= 0x where PX and py= percentage respectively
LxLy= h= V= c
f Equations Y

(2.30) (2.31)

(p

f LX W)(h + P7Xf--Z -

11)

of steel

in X and Y directions

short slab

and long thickness

spans

compressive
=. Yield and strength (2.31)

strength
of said

of
steel to

concrete

(2-30)

are

be valid

in

the

range

4o

x0< -<

270.

29

The method concrete application Upt *ill now, slabs to it

predicts with

the

maximum defle. ctions accuracy, uniformly but is

in two-way restricted in

reinforced its slabs.

excellent

uniformly is the

loaded, only simple slabs to

reinforced estimating the (23) et al types of

concrete

method slabs.

known for Recently,

deflections

of two-way extended needs loading 2.3.1.2 to

rectangular cover fixed

method has been The method supports still

by Desayi cover

further

investigation

other

and

conditions. Cracking: of predicting natures the maximinn crack of crack width widths is very complex. be

The problem Due to its

stochastic empirical a lot for

assessment using

can only

made using Although suggestions

means derived has been are far

statistipal still

procedures. continuing, the

of work design

done and is from being

conclusive. which deal with the prediction

At present, of crack 1. widths The "Slip"

two theories in structural Theory,

are known, members,

These are: the crack widths Here crack

-which assumes that in the of

depend on the widths

am unt

of bond slip expressed Theory face of in

reinforcement. steel the stresses. crack bar.

are normally 2. The "No Slip"

terms

which of the

considers reinforcing

width Here

to be crack widths

effectively are expressed

zero in

at the terms

strains.

Beeby that,

(24)

investigated theory

cracking

in one-way slabs prediction

and concluded

the "no slip"

gives better

of crack widths.

He also found that related

the crack width

and spacing

are both linearly

to the distance

from the point bar.

is the measured crack where

to the surface

of the nearest

30

For two-way and Nawy (25)

extensive (26) and Nawy et al .

slabs,

work has been done by Orenstien Their proposed equation to estimate

the Tnqxiyninn crack width

w

is
VIT: fs

max where

=kRc

(2.32)

W max kA

The maximin crack width constant

the sides ratio stress index in S t/pt direction.

depending on the support

ratios and the )/(d type

conditions,

of loading

Rc= fs I=

Cover = steel

(h = -d

-d n)

The grid = Bar

diameter

longitudinal

St= Pt d, dn It
whether 160 in2 in the

Bar spacing = Steel ratio

in transverse

direction, direction. respectively. in"checking

(I) early low ''

in the longitudinal and neutral axis

= effective

depths,

has been found that -the 'grid

wide the loading of the cracks slab would would form develop Cracks or not.

index is a good ifidication

Only if the grid line in width index cracks for

a pronounced tend

yield

history. grid index.

to be finer

values

Orenstien

and Navy's loaded,

equations simply

are restricted supported,

to very special slabs with meshes were

cases of uniformly central

used,

and fixed welded vire

point
which is

loads.
not the

In their

experiments,

Desayi reinforced

in situations. case most practical (27) two-waY did Kulkarni on work also extensive and concrete slabs. On the same principles, Desayi and

31
(28) extended the the

Prabhakara rests

their

work

to

cover spacing is of laid the

skew slabs. at the along cracks

The work moment. 1

on estimating Assuming that (2-7),

maximum crack reinforcement the spacing

cracking

the

directions in

and 2,

Figure

then

formed

direction

is kt ft a, l
similarly the spacing

Actl (2.33) fbblr'2)

formed in direction 1 is

kb fblsl)+(2
of the cracks

2
where

2 (7r 2 kb fb'52)+(j

kt ft

Act: (2.34) fbb/11)

Act 1,

Act 2
ft=

`2 Effective directions
tensile

area per unit 1 and 2=

strength of

width s

in tension

in

2(h-d)-A
concrete

l s11

1 S2 .kta
f= b

bar diameters

in directions

1 and 2

= spacing between bars constant tensile

bond

in direct ions 1 and 2 for distribution of

to account

stress
stress

fbb

= beiring

stress
is then estimated loading of stage at any

The maximum crack width

from

w=AeR max

max

sc

(2.35)

where amax is the maximum crack spacing, stage of loading equation (2.32) considered, before. and Rc=

es = steel

strain

at the in

the co-7er ratio

as defined

32

cract direction 2

Section

AA

ft

____

12

direction'l

Figure

(2.1)

Distribution

of

Bond Stress

and Tensile

Stress

over a Section

33

Test fff, bb ultimate 1 t'

results =f b

have

indicated for

that

the

constants slabs,

kb=1.0, and f (Section ub the 3.11.6). of

M/M P Ub

rectangular from

bond stress

can be taken

p 1.10(5) C: moments in

M and MP are the

applied

and ultimate

the

direction

reinforcement. The proposed method estimates crack widths it with reasonable accuracy.

One good aspect of the method is that loading for and the aspect supported ratio

is independent

of the type of

of the slab. and fixed types slabs,

The method is established and thus needs further

simply

slabs

investigation 2-3,2 Numerical Deflections calculated elements. cracking conjunction

analyse

to cover other Procedures: and cracking the numerical

of supports.

of reinforced

concrete

slabs

can be and finite

using

methods of finite in material

difference

Due to nonlinearity and yielding with

behaviour

caused by progressive procedure is used in

of reinforcement,

a nonlinear difference

these methods.
et

The finite

had been used to

using the using Tresca the

plates

by Bhaumik Criteria. methods

1(29)

and May et slabs it

(30) al

and Von Mises finite element

Concrete accordingly

had been analysed will be reviewed

here.

2.4 NONLINM

FINITE ELEMENTMODELS: for nonlinearity adopted, viz. due to cracking a macroscopic stiffness etc., two types of a moment-

To account

models are normally curvature stages relationship

model employing

to reflect or,

degradation

at various in

of loading,

a microscopic individually

model treating as they occur.

nonlinearities

each constituent either uniaxial

material or biaxial

Such models adopt for plain concretes

stres*s-strain

properties

34
and the uniaxial properties of steel to treat individual nonlinearities

arising

from progressive flow

microcracking

in concrete, of stress

yielding

of steel,

and plastic

under compressive
Models:

states

in concrete.

2.4.1

Macroscopic

In this homogeneous is usually

case,

the

reinforced isotropic. reinforced the

concrete

element

is

assumed to be which

and initially the little case in to is

For low steel concrete slabs,

percentages, the reinforcement

(21) moment of logical. with the resistance In this initial of uncracked case, elastic the sections 9

contributes thus

the- assumption is linear 0

quite

material derived in

behaviour the normal

elastic,

matrix

way(31)

On the onset of cracking

element starts to decrease.

in. the element,

The new stiffness

the stiffness
at any stage in shown

of the
of loading Figure (2.8a).

can be derived

from

the moment-curvature

diagram

Jofriet

and McNiece Ru=EcIg Ru=EcI

(21)

used a bilinear prior

relationship

of the type (2-36) (2.3T)

to. cracking cracking.

cr
Ec0 calculating

after

where

EC -2 0-5T This, method of

the

rigidity

is

due to

Beeby.

In their

analysis, give

they

did not consider

yielding

of steel,

and thus . could not

(6,32) *

information any
Macroscopic

about ultimate
were also

behaviour.
used by Bell Elms and In

models

their

model, the behaviour

Figure loading (2.8a).

is idealised
Using were the

by a four
square

stage moment curvature

assumption Figure several (2.8b).

relationship, intermediate

yield

surfaces

defined

in as shown

The point

on the moment-curvature

curve corresponding

to each surface

is

Moment i'M

35

m u m y

AM
m

cr

AC //e0, ////

EI

AM = AC (R (RU) (R iI i+l U)

AK =

U)i

k.

%.;L"

V C6 V L"

IU

(a)

.0

Figure

(2.8)(a) (b)

Relationship - Moment- Curvature Reinforced Section Square Yield Surfaces

for

an Under-

36

established, of an element

and using satisfying

the

relative

change of criterion is

rigidity, appropriately stiffness

the

stiffness modified.

a yield is

A secant A direct the are

modulus iteration is until

approach

used in making

the

reduction. in which

procedure(31,34) solved successively is

was used in the under reached. relationship of is the load

analysis, while

structure changed,

stiffnesses

equilibrium

The use of elementary investigated compressive reinforcement needed effects for of theory in

a moment-curvature of bending. detail, along but only

an extension is not

of the being and if

The behaviour treated

concrete in the

grossly directions.

tensile

zones

two principal vary, several

Furthermore, curves

patterns a single constraints the

Tnoment-curvature

may be effects, neglected. by the in elements within reflect in can

analysis. in the behaviour

Load enhancement plane of the

due to biaxial are both is judged

structureq element Recent integrated of material all these depth,

In most elements, state these for the the of stress

of the whole in the element.

at one point the so that

developments high order

models

involved

use of numerically the variability Although through the

discretizatioh, element true

properties models the do not

can be traced of

(35).

variation

stress

slab

response

most cases be predicted 2.4.2 Microscopic

In a finite Each layer a linear deflection for

in a satisfactory

manner.

models:
the layers slab thickness to is its divided middle hypothetically planes stress is Figure condition, the into (2-9). and small Thus is assigned

such models number of is strain theory.

paxallel

assumed to be in variation with

a state the slab

of plane depth

assumed for material. material

Each layer concrete

can be of

a different

a reinforced

element,

each constituent

37

Figure

(2.9)

Layered Plate

Model

38
a different although in layer. Perfect bond between relations stiffness all layers is normally assumed,

some cases,

bond slip in the layers the slab

can easily is

be acconmodated. by approoccur. reflected analysing and for plate

The deterioration priately Crack by this bending steel changing penetration model. problems layers the

represented nonlinearities

properties, slab

whenever

through The basic are

can thus for

be conveniently this model for (Sebtion stresses. in

requirements

a stress-strain and a yield in terms

relationships criterion of principal Models:

concrete 2.4-5)

separately, expressed Layered of

concrete 2.4.3

layers, of

Review Various

Finite elements the types

Element

types

have been used by different of layered in elements used,

investigators, n=ber of All

and Table degrees the of

(2.1)

gives

freedom given (36,3T)

and the

reference

each that except (38) al the

had been used. one used by is a three-

elements

Schnobrich dimensional computes in the addition element

are two-dimensional, a and Mubbad/Suidan et integrated

which

numerically the shear to the

isoparametric normal to

element. the plate

The element middle plane

stresses normal

in planes and torsional to solve For the

bending

stresses.

Accordingly, punching shear

was developed columns with is

three-dimensional

failure

around

heads. a plane

such problemss assumption problems can only in Table

an ordinary fails to

tworecognize such failures

dimensional such failures,

element but

stress

quite

good for the elements

other element given

in which fail (2.1) in

are prevented, All the within of stress the the in

and accordingly, two-dimensional each layer except is is

flexure.

assume that

constant, the

and do not

element, stress

one developed idealization,

of stress allow variations (39) The assumption by Rao after cracking.

constant

a crude

especially

39
Table (2.1) Layered Plate Bending Elements

No.

Element

Nodal Degrees of Freedom

Total degrees of free dom . 12 40

References

W, exq 6y

us V9 WS ex y

20

39,419

429

43$ 449 45

us vs w

12

46

ex S6y
Reduced bending stiffness

WSexq 6y
k XY

16

479 48

5 12 W

corners: Us V, WS 0 kxq ky2k Midside U$ V2 6t X9 0y

33

49-

XY nodes:

us VS WS OX9ey

15

50

us V, w
three dimensional

6o

36,37,38

4o

In the

finite

element forces to to

models simulate

which

rely

mainly

on the

released such an assumption

imbalanced would lead

stiffness of these

degradatim, forces. problems

underestimation not all-owed,

Because variability can arise This problem in and will such be treated

of stress cases, in

is

convergence

equilibrium in this

can hardly research. element.

be satisfied.

depth

The first three-degrees effects, plate.

used by Wegmuller per

(40)

is

the

simplest,

as only inplane of the in which

of

freedom

node were used. position be restricted for

The element the middle only to

ignores plane

and thfis

assumes a fixed would

Such an assumption

problems

membrane forces For initial deeper layered the concrete position into finite the

are negligible. slabs towards slab element in bending the the neutral face axis due to shifts cracks in from its

compression The normal is to

progressing nonlinear

depth.

procedure this

adopted shift

models,,

simulate

by prefixing action degrees

position section.

of the

neutral would

axis, of

and superimposing require element the

inplane an

on the of

This

course in the

additional-inplane derivation. constitutive

freedom In

to be incorporated once

such models

cracking

occurs,

relations

exhibit that

coupling

between inplane

and flexural laminated effects

components, plates.

similar

to

which occurs is that

in unsymmetrically and bending

A consequence uncoupled, pure bending

of this

inplane

longer no are

and membrane boundary problems.

conditions (42) has shown that Hand et al

must be specified inplane

even for boundary response.

conditions Cope and that the

have a large effect (45) Rao also studied neglect of inplane

on computed load deflection this effect on fixed slabs

and concliided effects

boundary

conditions

has greater

than relaxing

41

restraints

to

flexural

boundary

conditions.

The effects

of

inplane

boundary
In

conditions
an attempt

will
to

be further

investigated

in this
effort, in their

study.
Dotreppe layered (46) et al finite

reduCe the stiffness approach, bending

computational approximation it

used a reduced element forces model. are zero, of

bending In this

has been assumed that was derived this

membrane

and the

stiffness slab using the

accordingly.

Responses the ultimate

a simply load

supported

model underestimated cannot be applied

by 10%. there

However, are

assumption restraints.

to problems

in which

inplane

2.4.4, Materials

Idealization

2.4.4.1

Concrete in Tension:
in tensions its ultimate concrete strength can resist in only low stresses, Up to isotropic direction due to shear are factor for calculated $ is uncracked this material. normal

When loaded up to loading about

10% of the

compression. elastic

stage,

material

behaves properties

as a linear are created.

Upon cracking, to. the crack,

anisotropic concrete is

In the Howeverg

given is In

a null still

stiffness. capable of

aggregate stresses using called sections

interlock, in cracked shear

concrete zones. modulus

resisting stresses

such BG.

cases,

shear

a reduced the sheax

The constant and lies cracked

reducing unity

retention for

factor,

between sections.

and zero

extensively

The value
it is arbitrari3,

of a to be used is still
v assumed. It

uncertain$

and in most cases.

that variations in

has been postulated

the numeric value

of $ produced little concrete

in which

differences (42,48)

in the computed This might not be

by

response of reinforced
the case for problems

slabs
the response is

laxgely

influenced

42

shear. plane

Values stress

as high and plate several

as 0.5 bending

(38)

or 0.6

problems.

had been used for (51) Labib and Edwards 0.2 to 0.5

(48 )

both

investigated

values

of 6 in 'the range

and used a

value

of 0.4 in their
members. shear

study of cracking

in concentric

and eccentric

concrete

The reduced using empirical

modulus

in

cracked (52).

concrete

is

sometimes

computed

equations,

such as

[0.4 G G red for e

G '0 re d in the paper 0.4

+ (i -c /c tmax cr <c<c
c>

x 0.61

(2-38)

tmax
etmax it (2.39)

for

the

terms

are not

defined, in in

but cracked concrete

is concrete

logical

that

G ' reduced red initial

shear shear

mcdulus modulus

C= ecr etTn. q-x A zero value

these modelss

strain cracking yield for

in concrete strain

at any load level

of concrete

strain

of steel However in all

due to

(439 46,4T) B is also common

value is difficult to

a definite

determine,

differences at hand.

in idealizations,

and the nature

of the structural

problem

The problem needs further Bond Between Concrete

investigation.

2.4.4.2

and Steel: and steel,

stresses in

Due to bond effects

cracks offers s=e

between concrete
to normal

concrete
cracked

between
elements.

resistance

To account

for

this

"stiffening"

effect,,

the stress-strain

curve for

43

concrete

in

tension

is

modified

so that,

some stresses

will

be

transferred
effect slab

by concrete

after

cracking.

Ignoring

tension
in the

stiffening
computed

has been known to produce deflections stiffening are based zero, (48) Various in fact

up to 10001oerrors theories

can be used to finite element stress

incorporate All the with such element an

tension theories is not

effects on the

layered that

models. over curve

the

average

and accordingly, (Figure is due to is 2.10)

an average

stress-strain

unloading

portion

Such a concept the various

cracking. after can be used for concrete (50) between The only difference Scanlon the shape of this shown in descending (2.10) portion and its

theories

length.

Various

theories

are

Figure

include: and

(a) Stepped response

(b) (c) Gradually unloading

after

cracking.

response. after cracking.

Discontinuous

unloading

Gilbert with

and Warner bending

(48)

investigated

the three

theories while

in connection theory

plate

problems.

They found that with

the first

produced very good correlation unloading using response predicted theory

experimental

results,

the gradual obtained

an overstiff

behaviour.

Results

the third

produced cost.

good results,

but at the expense of slow

convergence

and high

The strain is e arbitrarily is cr the strain

up to which selected.

tension Gilbert to

stiffening and Warner a stress

is (48)

considered

effective

corresponding bond between strain of

of

where used 10 r, crs (53) Shirai ft. et al used is lost, and this unloading was

the taken

strain

at which yield

concrete

and steel

as the they

steel. function

For the in the

the of shape form

curve,

used a polynomial

STRESS

ft

E/e

er
(a) Stepped Ilesponse After Cracking

Kass

10

(b)

Gradually

Unloading

Response

After

Cracking

STRESS ft

4 (c) Discontinuous
Figure -(2.10)Tensile

10 Cracking
Concrete

Unloading
Stress-Strain

Response After
Curves for

45

(a eq 0

+ alx

+ a2. %2 + a3x3)

ft

(2.40)

Razaqpur ultimate concrete cases This reinforced discussed aspects

and Ghali(54) of 10 e Values cr ,

used a linear in studying as 25 e

unloading shear cr lag

curve, in

with

an

strain T-beams.

reinforced been used in some

as high

had also

(55). the lack

reflects concrete in this

of objective stresses.

criteria

to

treat

cracking of the

of

under section

biaxial can not

The effects from other of

factor

be separated

numerical

involved criteria

in

the

discretization which in

e. g. method general,

solution, problem at

convergence

etc.,

depend on the

hand.

2.4.4.3

Concrete in-Coaression:

Under compression, concrete diviates from linearity very early in (56,5T9 589 59) have indicated Tests results the loading history.
that the ultimate
than

strength

of concrete
compression,

under biaxial
is and dependant

compression
on the

is

greaier

in uniaxial

ratio

of the principal
The earlier concrete

stresses.
works in obtaining Liu et al biaxial (60). stress-strain His proposed curves equation for is

were those

due to

a=
where

(2.41) (1-va) (1 +Ce+

stress and strain

DeZ)
in concrete ratio for concrete,

a9

F- =

Ec,, j =

Youngs modulus and Poisson's

respectively.

a=

ratio

of the

principal

stresses

in

concrete.

46

The constants on the

Ag B, C and D are curve in

found

from

the

following (2.11)):

conditions

stress-strain

compression

(Figure

(a) ? or c=0,
(b) (c) For c=0 For c=c For c=c

cr =
dcr

Ec

CIE Ia

1 -va =a
d(T ds peak stress Substituting E se and peak strain these /C =ap p in in biaxial (2.41) introducing and

where aP and c=pression, the secant

eP are the respectively.

modulus

at peak stress

ve have

a=cE 1+(1c1va E se was further 2) cpcp investigated

(2.42)

Later

this

equation

by Tasuji

(59) et al

and vas found to represent and compression. Ec, v, 1. ep9ap

the behaviour

of concrete

in both tension constants

For uniaxial

cases a= 0. (2.42)

The material

to be used in equation

from: found are

Ec from CP110 or the ACI code equations T', ff cL in KN/mm2 E=5.5 c5 E=o. ccc
yc=

(2.43)

or

o43 Y3

in N/mm2 Yrf-I
concrete by only in kg/m3. 0.5% for

(2.44)

where

unit

mass of differ

The two equations

2400 kgjm3

concrete

and f1=0.78

cu*
ratio
of 0.19

2. Poisson's
average

0.21 O'ell between v ranges

(59) or 0.15 (43 ) has extensively

(61)

An
been used.

4T

STRESS

cp

Figur

(2.11)

Stress-Strain

Curve

for

Concrete

in

Compres-sion

48

The peak strain Test results biaxial e=p

eP: by Liu et al (60) indicated that for

c=pression 2500 microstrains (major (minor direction) direction)

ep = 500 + 79.8 ap where aP is the peak stress.

ap: from

The peak stress This

can be obtained

the biaxial

strength

(see Section 2.4-5). envelope

Finally, stress-strai stress. softening descending equation behaviour Beyond peak, of concrete. of the (2.42) of the can then in be used to compression to hold is curve describe the peak strain

concrete equation

up to the due to the this

ceases little

At present, stress-strain

known about of concrete.

branch

For plate
be neglected, to possess effect

benging
and in

problems,
cases.

strain
the ('16) .

softening

effects

can safely
assumed the major due to

most

stress-strain Due to the

is cUrVe fact that

a horizontal response

plateau of

on the

under-reinforced

flexural

members is

cracking, ignored. 2.4.4.4

post-peak

behaviour

of concrete

in compression

can safely

be

Idealization

of Reinforcement
finite element models, each layer of reinforcement

In most layered

is represented
only in the steel

by an equivalent
of the is in

smeared layer,
bars.

which can carry

The equivalent

stresses

direction layer

original

thickness area of

of the the

determined the element

such that remains

the

corresponding The steel

reinforcement 11

unchanged.

layer

49
is then assumed to be elastic-plastic a definite yield point steel with with in both tension and compression hardening. by an In such

and to have

or without

strain

In some cases, equivalent cases,, the

two reinforcing layer treated yield

layers

can be represented properties. steel plate,

orthotropic layer is

two-dimensional

obeys the very useful

Von Mises

as a two-dimensional (43944) criterion 0

which is

Such an assumption Even in orthogonal by one, is of but

in treating two layers no interaction care to

skew reinforcement. of steel

reinforcement, this In case,

can be represented the orthogonal

in

between

directions yielding in the

assumed. in one

such cases, not

can

has to be taken the state

in treating of stress
bar

steel

direction
Steel

influence

also

be modelled

as discrete

other direction. (39963964)

9

elements

Such steel to be laid

coordinate

representation along certain

(64) system .

is restricted directions,
In addition,

by the fact normally

a special

that

steel

bars have

the element local

element stiffness

derivation

is needed, in contrast

in the to which smeared approach is used for both concrete and

the same element stiffness

steel layers. In both idealizations,

derivation

perfect

bond between

steel

and concrete

is assumed.

Bond slip

is also sometimes represented

by reducing

the

modulus of steel(52)0 2.4.5 Yield Criteria finite for Plain Concrete: each layer And since in plane
reinforcing

In layered in a state separately

required

element models, stress yield condition. criteria

and the

is treated each materia; condition

as being is are
lattert

of plane treated,
for both

stress
steel.

concrete

For the

50

owing usually

to

its

unlimited For

plasticity, concrete,

the

Von Mises

yield

criterion since

is

adopted. is brittle

the problem and of limited are

is more complex, ductility (or of in

concrete Accordingly, for

in tension two criteria

compression.

at least under

required states

an eq7aivalent) stress.

yielding

tensile for

and compressive cracking, theory, the

As a criterion (a) in concrete

two theories which

are known: cracking exceeds al(56) and biaxial the

The maximum stress occurs of the whenever concrete. latter

assumes that stress et

mximum Test

principal

tensile indicated

strength that

results

by Kupfer in both

has the

same value

uniaxial

stress

states.
(b) Maximurn strain theory, strain assumes that exceeds the cracking tensile occurs whenever of

the

maximum principal

limited

strain

concrete. theory, however, is more popular thanthe second. (65) found that the second theory predicts stiffer However, Phillips The first
behaviour
For

thau
yielding

the

first.
under biaxial, compression states of. stress3 various

criteria

had been used by many researchers.

The Von Mises

yield

Gilbert Lin et al et al was used by Valliappan , criterion (55) (38) PT), (48) Hinton al et Suidan and Wanchoo Warner et al et al. and . The applicability nonlinear in metals, propagation. plasticity action but of this criterion to concrete is debatable, plastic because flov as

(63),

(50)

in concrete is dictated

is not caused by actual by the cumulative effect

of microcrack flow rule of in concrete

In such applications, is normally adopted,

the associated and the limited

plasticity

51

is

represented surface,

by the but

use of

a crushing in terms of

surface strains

analogous (50).

to

the

yield

expressed

well

Columb-Mohr law is more popular, because it (66) Following Nadai failure the behaviour of concrete. , The modified
in terms of the octahedral shear and normal stresses

represents can be
in

expressed the

following

manner

ii

=a1a2+ a+a+aa 2122331 31a2a3

cr3 (2.45)

with

the generalized

failure is

criterion zero,

F(Ill

121 13 )=0. 0' Ill

If

one

of the principal called

given

stresses

then 13=

12 and 13 are is

the stress
by

invariants.

Now the octahedral

shear stress

[(a, Oct

-a2

)2

+(72 - '13
stress

)2+(

'73 -

al)2

1.2

(2. 46)

and the mean normal octahedral

a0 is

q=1
i. F(I

(a

+a)=1 231
12)

/3

(2.47. )

1'

(2.48)
the they because occur on are so named

Octahedral sides
equal .

tresses

of an octahedral
angles with shear the stress

element
principal failure

formed by planes whose normals make

stress criterion axes. In general form, in the the form

octahedral

can be written

TOct - acro -b= The constants a and b are normally

(2.49)
determined from

52

experimental

data.

Test in

results

by Kupfer with in this

) et al(56 criterion (4) of this

by many researchers problem 2.4.6 will Methods further of

connection

had been used (42944) The thesis.

be treated for

Chapter

Solution problem

Nonlinear to be solved

Analysis: at any stage of loading is

The structural

[ k]
where C k]

Cd]

-C

P] =0

(2-50)

the

stiffness

matrix

of the

structure

C PI

Cd] =

Load and displacement the stiffness

is thus

vectors,

respectively. is a

In equation
stress-dependant.

(2-50).

matrix

of the structure
and for

The equation

nonlinear2

solutions

it

is preferable

to proceed along a sequence of linearized

is common to solutions of nonlinear its or freedom

steps.

Such an approach equationss (31). version such

algabraic modified system will be

as the

Newton-Raphson a'one

technique degree of

For simplicity,

examined: Let the root of the nonlinear states equation that f(x) =0 be required.

The New-ton-Raphson
Xi+i -2 Xi

procedure
+ Ax

(2-51) iterates, and Ax, the

where

x1 and

x i+l

are two successive

correction

to xi Ax =-

is given by f(xi)/fl(xi) the gradient ff(Xi) (2.52) is evaluated

In Newton-Raphso'n procedure,

in each iteration.
expense of slow-down

In the modified Newton-Raphson procedure,

in rate of convergence,, the initial

at the

gradient

53

f I(x

0)

is

used throughout,

thus

Ax =-f(.
The approach, tangents dotted modified is

Xl)jf

I (.xO)
shown in lines to the Figure (2.12),

(2.53)
where the The the

schematically

drawn as continuous lines are parallel

instantaneous axe initial (31). the tangent,

gradients. and represent

Newton-Raphson to the

procedure structural

Referring

problem.,

nonlinear

equation

can be written

in the form -FP]=

to the gradient in

f (d) = Ck] [d]

The stiffness above. is [k]

(2-54)
(2.52) used, then it

corresponds if

equation

Accordingly, to

a variable

stiffness procedure,

approach*is while

analogouz

a Newton-Raphson

a solution

employing

the initial
modified

stiffness
Newton-Raphson

matrix

(constant

stiffness)

corresponds
stiffness"

to the (68)

technique.

The"initial

method

is also identical
Both The variable Dotreppe et methods

to the modified
have been

Newton-Raphson procedure.
used by research workers. al(42) and

extensively

stiffhess approach had been employed by Hand et (46) (37). (32) Jofriet Schnobrich Bell and Elms al, , ,

McNiece

(21)

Darwin and Pecknold , the rate

(67)

Johnarry and ,

(43) stiffness method

Although is fast,

of convergence

of the variable

a long time

is spent in each load increment is lost

in the updating as normallY

in most

process.

Most of the time

call for

in the housekeepings
use of backing stores

such procedures

extensi-7e

computers.

54

On the

other

hand,

the

initial

stiffness

method

converges

very

slowly

to the correct

solution, it

and depending on the severity might need a very large

of

nonlinearity iterations

in the structure,

to achieve an equilibrium position. (44) Duncan et al have claimed that demanding static each load level although their normally statement stiffness leads to expensive was not supported

n=Ier of (43) Johnarry and equilibrium at

analy3is

and poor results, evidence.

by any numerical

methods have been used by Valliappan and (63) (53) (38) Doolan Shirai et al Suidan Dietrich Schnobrich and et , . , (45) (45), (44) (43), Cope Rao Rao(39), Duncan Johnarry al and and and , Hinton et al(55). (43) Johnarry compared the constant bending applications.

Constant

and variable that for

stiffness

methods

in plate

He concluded and least

the constant

stiffness

is the best similar study, efficiency

such problems$ (97) Cope et al expensive. that no significant

had also undertaken increase

and concluded

in computational matrix. ). et al(55.

could be achieved by recomputing were also arrived at by

the stiffness Hinton

Similar

conclusions

55

Load P

AP

displacement

Figure

(2.12)-

The Newton-Raphson

Procedures

56
CHAPTER THREE DESIGN*OF'PIINFORCED'CONCRETE'SLABS

3.1

INTRODUCTION In the previous chapter, concrete exclusively in terms the slabs various methods available for the

design methods

of reinforced concentrated either of rigid steel

have been

discussed. loads,

Most of these all on the

on ultimate of the

and were they - with for

unsatisfactory3, distribution about service the

information Line Theory

provide

(e. g. the

Yield

information no a satisfactory

regions), under

or the best working based loads.

distribution

behaviour

A design behaviour both

procedure at service

on realistic loads

understanding is

of material The

and ultimate

now suggested.

proposed direct
and will

design

approach is based on the theory

in this chapter.

of plasticity,

be discussed

OF PLASTICITY IN SLAB DESIGN 3.2 THEORY Any solution

of classical

to the ultimate
This

load has to satisfy

can be stated in the

the conditions
following manner: -

plasticity.

1. The Equilibrium
in ecjdlibrium

Condition:
with the

internal The externally applied

stresses
loads.

must be

2. The Mechanism Condition: sufficient structure The Yield plastic into

- Under the ultimate must exist

load, the

hinges

to. transform

a mechanism. - The ultimate strength of the member

Criterion:

must nowhere be exceeded.

For reinforced concrete slabss it is very diffic'ult (if not

5T

impossible) Existing (a) collapse to the

to

find are

a design either: conditions

procedure

satisfying

the

three

conditions.

methods satisfying

(1)

(2) and usually

by assuming render loads

a suitable higher provide or equal an

mechanism. true collapse on the line

Such methods load. true of

Accordingly, load

such methods of the slab, slabs (3)

upper

boirid

collapse reinforced check

which is of

may be unsafe. this nature. ' portions

The yield However of or stress load the

method

concrete condition

such methods slab. Satisf)ring (safe is lower of lower i. e. the

do not

on the

"rigid!

(b)

conditions admissible or equal

(1) stress to the

(3) and fields). true

by assuming

a suitable render slab, is a

field which

Such methods load the

collapse

of the

and thustone a safe load. load

bound nature. true ultimate

Accordingly,, loed is greater

load

calculated calculated

than

the

3.3 THE PROPOSED DIRECT DESIGN APPROACH: For a safe design, The proposed design it is we. 11 advised to use a lower bound approach. simple and straightforward. the three conditions be discussed The of in

approach is very

method suggested here will the theory relation 3.3.1 of plasticity. to these conditions

be shown to satisfy The steps

in the method will manner:

in the following

The Equilibrium
The stress

Condition:
under by the the finite design loads will be obtained Accordingly, conditions Owing'to its

distribution analysis will derived

using

the

elastic

element satisfy

method. the

such a distribution as the method is

automatically from equilibrium

equilibrium

considerations.

58
simplicity of slab and versatilitYs problem - with will the the method can be applied to any type

any edge conditions. be made assuming distribution the distribution amount of it is elastic is greatly of steel properties affected for the

The analysis slab. in the Although slab

stress loads,,

by cracking

at high is

stresses provided here follow

at ultimate for to under reinforce the elastic

conditions reinforced the slab

dependint,

on the Accordingly,

sections. so that of the

proposed will

strength

at

any section

distribution

stresses. ultimate load load for the slab so designed elastic should at least

The actual reach the ultimate

predicted

by the

analysis.

3.3.2

The Yield The yield

Criterion: condition flow defines tle combination The condition of stresses will necessary if

to cause plastic the strength stresses. An elastic finite

laterally predicted proportioned necessary components. Consider field M2M, xy here to

at a point.

be satisfied

at any point

is made equal to or greater

than the applied

analysis

on the slab under the ultimate the stress

the Limit yield

loads by the

element method provides

loaded plates. at

resultants
reinforcement state 9 the

M, * Mys M,, for y

to steel fit should the be it becomes

To provide ultimate by the yield

moment field as required derive the

criterion. in terms

Accordingly$ of the three

criterion

moments

. ng the M with q xy is

slab

element

in

Figure

(3-1),

under

the

moment

anisotropic all

properties.

The sign in the

convention are positive.

adopted

such that

moments acting

element

59

XY

Figure

(3.1)

Notation for Moments on an Element (Positive as shown)

MY

CY

21

FikLxe

3.2)

Element with

Orthogonal

Reinforcement

60

Simplifying

assumptions

are

further

made . and these

can be summarized

in the following:
1. The concrete is assumed to hwre a tensile strength equal to

zero.
2. Bar diameters and that direction. is not they are snall in comparison only with the slab depth,

can carry

stresses kinking

in their across

original a yi6ld line

Accordingly, considered. element are not This slab is is lightly

of bars

The slab failures allowed. that the

reinforced, and only for

so that ductile

compression failures are so at a

permissible necessary

moment redistributions ultimate the strength slab into

elements

can reach'their sections, to

sufficient mechanism.

number of

convert

Membrane forces co-existence elements, will

do not exist.

It with

is acknowledged that flexural fields

the

of such forces considerably

slab element,,

on the slab

the resisting reduce enhance or

depending on. whether they are

moment of the

compressive (Membrane forces For simplicity, will will

or tensile, be treated

respectively. later in Sections reinforcement 3.6 and 3-7). in the element (Figure 3.2). although

the anisotropic parallel

be assumed to lie

to the element sides

The element may be reinforced*on the degree of orthotropy The basic

(Figure 3.2).

the top and bottom surfaces,

in the two faces may be different. if at any point

n

idea is that,
a line with

in the slab
t

element
is examined,

a normal

and direction

61

then

the

normal

moment M must not nnn

exceed

the

value

M*, vhere

M* is

the moment of resistance

develop which It is in direction in n. every that different

that
This

the reinforcement
is therefore

in the slab could

moment criterion

a normal

tested

direction,, a lower points

as has been shown by Kemp(72). stress field with variable for yield lines multiple

should

be noted at

bound

reinforcement in

must make provision there

any conceivable collapse the

direction, (19)

because

may be simultaneous

modes of

Taking

no=al the

to

the

yield of

line the

at

an angle a to shown in

the

x-axis, (3.3),

and considering we will have

mn M ty Mnt

equilibrium

element

Figure

X Co,. 52a+ My sin2aX Sin2a+ (Mx M Cos2cl+ 2a/2

M s in XY Ms XY in cos

2a 2a 2a

(3-1)

My)s'n

+ Mxy

(3-3)

The resisting follows

moments at the yield

line

can be expressed

as

M* = M* cos2a+

axy*

M* sin2a M* cos2a

(3.4)
(3-5)

M* = M* sin2a+ txy

M* nt

(M* 14*) = sin xy

2a/2

(3.6)

Therefore,

when designing

the steel,

the resistance Accordingly

to normal

in be checked every direction. moment should 0 substituting (3.1)

(M* -m) xxyy dividing

(3-7)
in (3-7) we have
in: 2 a-M a sin .2a XY

(3.4) and
COS2 a+

(M* -M)s k= tan

by cos2 a and putting

62
L
CL

XY

C', 0 ()

sin

m Xy
Figure (3-3) Equilibrium of Moment Field a Slab Element under Applied

M* y

x stepped "ield y line

I..

actual . yield line

Y FiEure (3.4) Idealized Yield Line (Johansen's stepped yield criterion)

63

(M* -M+ xxyy If

f(k) is

k2-(M* -M+

2k M0 XY (3-8)
resistance

(3-8)

the left
related

hand side of equation

to the the excess required normal normal

is denoted by f(k),
provided by the field. to

then

reinforcement

over

As has been shown by Lenschow along lines with df(k)/da least =d reistance. f(tan da d f(tan d tan d f(k) dk
=

moment in the stress (77), is liable and Sozen yield Accordingly, along

occur

such lines

a) a) ada SeC2 a d tan a

(3-9)

Since

sec

ct cannot df (k) dk =2k -7

be zero,

hence

from

(3.8)

(3-9) and

M* - 2)c MV, +2M.

X7

or

(M*- my)=-1m yk
If f(k) is to represent

xy a minimum excess

(3010)

moment of

resistance

then
d 2f (k) -dkz=2 M* - 2M yy 0

Hence 11 > My and accordingly, (3.10) from and k= tan a MXY

-

(3.11) (3-10), M /k XY ;s0 (3.12a)

in

(3-12b)

Iy

64

This

gives

the

orientation

of

the

plane

of minimum resistance. at the yield of the line external line, external

As has been shown by Lenschow resulting normal while twisting line in the moments is the internal moment.

and Sozen(77),, the

minimum resistance, equal to the

components across

moment capacity in

the yield with the

twisting

is moment of Figure (3.8) the

equilibrium

The variation is given in in

normal

moments with

the yield

orientation Substituting

(3-5). and using the equality sign for

(3.12b)

minimum resistance3,

then 22

(M* -m+ xxyy

Rearranging, we have
(M* -M xxy )(I -M)=

(M* -M)-

xy 0 (M* - my)

M2

(3.13)

M2 XY

(3.14)
(73), (94) 1)

which is the same equation Lenschow et al(77),

Equation (3-14)

arrived

at by Save

Nielsen

and Kemp(72).
is the yield criterion for orthotropically

reinforced
then the

concrete
equation

slabs.
reduces to

If

M* = M* =M y
of isotropic

(isotropic
slabs

that

reinforcement), (72).
The

Johansen (or Prager's) obtained It from equation is evident

square criterion (3.14) for

(Figure

3.6)

is readily

isotropic condition

slabs. (3.14) that twisting

from the yield

by the been This has lines. confirmed the yield moments do exist on (92) (77) Lenkei(95). Sozen Cardenas Lenschow and et al works of . , (90) the on work The Jain extensive experimental et al and Satish
above yield criterion provided by the above mentioned research workers

65

Co

Figure

(3-5)

Variation of Applied and Yield Yield Line Orientation

Moments with

Figure _(3.6)

The Square

Yield

Criterion

66

confirmed

the

validity

of this

criterion.

It

has further

been

established
coincide the with

that
the

the yield
principal

line

orientation
of

will
neither

not in general
the applied nor Consequently, existence do

directions for

resisting

moments,

except

isotropic yield lines,

reinforcement. but the their

twisting not

moments do exist the flexural

at the yield

reduce

capacity

due to

interaction represents (3-7).

between a pair The of

flexural intersecting derivation similar

and torsional cones of the lines in yield

moments. the M5M2M xy

Equation XY in

(3.14)

space,

Figure of principal

criterion given negative

terms (72) at the

moments on

has been in the

by Kemp steel

For yield

top

of

the

slabs

similar

procedure
If the with the top

to the one just

steel layers

described
are laid

for

positive

yield,

can be applied.
to provide yield condition

Jin the

x and y directions then the

resisting negative

moments M*' and M*I xy steel can be written

respectively. as

(M*l +m )(M*l xxIy

+m

M2 XY moments'(see Figure

(3-15)

M are negative and where both M xy 3.3.3 The Mechanism Condition

The elastic analysis under

(3.1)

the

ultimate

load

by the

finite

element will
provide the

be linked
necessary

with
strength

the yield

conditions
the

just

derived

to

according

elastic

moment field.

The derivation

of such design

equations

will

be outlined

in subsequent

sections.
Because the necessary resistance is made equal to the calculated

stress

at every point

in the slab,

it

is anticipatea

that

all

slab

cloreChomOf svrain rcJer.

mx
m XY

Figure

(3. Z) Yield Surface for Concrete Slab

an ort-hotropically

Reinforced

68

parts

will

attain , with a plastic

their

ultimate

strength

under

the

design every

load. point will the achieve emphasized slab

Accordingly, turn into into

minimum hinge Because method, theory

amount of redistribution, at the of the design load, thus

converting to

a mechanism. by this classical

minimum redistribution ductility obviously

collapse by the 3.4

the of

demand for

as normally drop.

plasticity

will

REINFORCEMENT DESIGN OF ORTHOGONAL

3.4.1

Positive Referring

Moment Fields: to equation (3-10), substituting it into equation (3.8)

we will

have
k 14 XY

(3.16)
then k<0 and vice versa. Equations

(3.12a), from and (3-10) (3.16) and M* =M xx

if

M >0 XY

then become +KIM I XY

(3.17)

m* =M+KI Mxyl yy is now taken to be a positive in which K= IkI

The value steel of is of K may be determined As has been is so that

(3.18)
arbitrary
the total (2.2.2.4),

constant.
amount Of the volume

minimim. to be used at

shown in Section to slab, the this total will

steel

proportional on the

moment volume. be minimum if the

Accordinglyl

any point

sum
have

(3-18) (3.17) is we will and + M*) minimum. Using equation y

M* + M* =M+M+IM. xyxyv
so that for a minimum
(M* + M*) mI (i

YJ

(K +1

xy

XY

-1)=0

F07

69.

whence

Hence the most effective

arrangement

of reinforcement

would be

m+ x1
m* =M yy 3.4.2

MXY1
Im + 1 XY

(3-19)
(3.20)

Negattive Moment Fields:

In this case, to f(k) zero. in equation would in of this k (3.8) yield case is must be algabraically M* <, M xxy ef(k)/d given and M* < M y an (3.13), less And

than

or equal

This

as before, algabraic

df(k)/dk maximilym.

= 0, but The value

k-2 4< 0 for by equation

still

and hence the corresponding M*1 =MM xx M*1 =M-IM1 yy

In which been taken

equations

to (3.19)

(3.20) and (3.21) (3.22)

would become

XY Xy
negative. steel, The value although

x and M are both y for most

of k had also a different value

unity

economical

could have been used. 3.4.3 Mixed Moment Fields: Awkvard cases occur when one of the applied the other calculate is negative. Thus if equations (3.19) is positive, moments (3.20) or is used to

the design moments M* or M* result, may value negative ,a xy (bottom) steel is useless. Accordingly, for which a positive resisting
normal moment can be set equal to zero and . steel will then be

provided

in one direction.

Thus two cases may arise: only:

(a) Case of steel

In this

in x direction

case M* y

70

Using this resistance, then

(M* -M xxy

in (3.8)

and adopting

the equality

for

mini

k2- M+

2k M0 Xy

and as before so that

M*

d f(k)/dk

=0

and insisting

on M* =0 y

then

k=M

/M XY y

M+

M2 XY

xxImy with (b) M* y = 0.0

(3.23)
(3.24)

Case of steel In this

in

Y direction

only:

case M* x

Again using
df (k) / dk =0

(3.8),

and following

the normal procedure

with

we will

have

k =-M
then

/ (M; - MY) XY m2 m

M* =m+I yy with M* =0 x

-M

(3.25)

(3.26)

Similar

procedures

can be used when positive

moments occur

with

negative

ones.

Again no top steel equations-to below.

will those

then be needed for derived

the positive

moments, and similar and will 3.4.4 be listed

can be established,

Rules for

Placing

Orthogonal'Reinforcement: (M ) at any point X SM y 'MXY will be placed on the slab, according the

Given the stress reinforcement

following rules:

field

in the X, Y directions

to the

71

3.4.4.1

Bottom Steel

Compute the normal moments M* xx M* yy

if M* <0 x then I Yl M* =M+ ymx -Y M* <0 y then
Im

M+M -XY M+M XY (3.27)

with x

M*

(3.28)

M* xx
(2) If still in

=m+

kz XY
with
y

M* y

(3-29)

(3.28)

(3.29) or

one gets a negative

sign,

then is required. is required.

put such normal moment (3) If

equal to zero i. e. no reinforcement then no bottom steel

both M* add M* are negative, xy

3.4.4.2 (1)

Top Reinforcement

Compute the normal moments

Im I M* =Mxx XY M* = my - Im I y XY
if M* >0 x then
im

(3.30)

M2
x

M* yy
If M* >0 then

XY

=M

with

M* x

(3-31)

M* =Mxx (2) If still in (3-31)

I&LI IM y

with

1* =0

(3.32)

(3-32) or

one gets a positive

sign,

then is required.

put such normal moment equal to zero, (3) If both M* and M* are positive, xy

i. e. no reinforcement then no top steel

is required.

I /Im y XY

72

x=0.1 M*Zr =M+I M2 IM II 7 xy xI

M*

M* xx

M+

Im XY

M* =m+

yy

Im I-\ XY
M, .

M* =0xx x

M*

M+1

M2 /M XY y

M* =0

M* = 0. y

mm=

xvx

M7

Figure

(3.8)

Design Equations

for

Bottom Steel

my

1 /IM XY
MxMv=

m*, = m
M* y 0

M2 /M, XY

=0

x
=0

I (1,1)
mx

\\

\\\'\ M*, = M -IM

Im XY

/IM XYI

1
1

M* ?=0 x

M*f= yy

M-

IM2 /M I x xy

Figure

(3-9)

Design

Equations

for

top

Steel

73

AM. 1 y XY

Top X only Bottom Y only

Bottom

Steel

only

M*
M*

xy

M*
M*I M*?

-0

M* M* xy

Ba To-

anom

I ,/Im XY
I I

II M* 9 M* M* y xy -Bottom X only
Top M*
xy

Top Steel M*I, M*, xy

only

Y M*

only

zI

Figure

(3.10)

Reinforcement

required

for

a given

Moment Triad

74

Figures

(3-8)

to

(3-10)

give

a detailed

picture

of

these

rules.

For general
The designer, diagram, design (3-8), the of top

use, the diagrams are sketched

after establishing know which Bottom top steel the point to

in a nondimensional
.MX,

form(71).

AY

can easily normal while

equation steel in

M XY use to are

(I

'S MI) . -Xy get the given Figure the

on the required in Figure shows

moments. those for of the

equations Figure (3.9).

(3-10)

two branches the steel

yield at

hyperbola, any point.

and indicates Primed

directions to

to be provided

moments refer

steel. The equations in this section to had been derived by Wood(19), and (20) by Armer 0

on a similar

basis

were

extended

skew reinforcement

3.5 MULTIPLE LOADING CASES:

The above field slabs resulting rules from apply only when the load decks case. are slab is subjected to a moment many

a single bridge

In practice, subject to

however,

and particularly

to multiple satisfy by the the

loading. multiple loading,

The reinforcement moment triads vhere is n the

must then

be proportioned

(M ) i=l,, n, M M X3.' Y11 xyi number of such loading

produced cases.

multiple

If

the slab

is reinforced

to resist

the severest

load

case, then

bound solution upper an which is economical

minimum value of the

to the minimum reinforcement the solution lies

all

is thus provided, to some stationary

Such a

Only if

close
load

(M* ) M* for + sum xy

cases.

stationary

minimum value

is represented

by point

of Figure case.
in

(3-11),

which represents
For multiple following steps.

the reinforcement
loading cases,

needed for
the problem

one loading

can be attacked with

the to

The solution

presented

can be viewed

respect

M*

m y

75
Yield

Positive

'S 'S

'S

I
'5 \

'

I I
450

Safe ) XY
m x
M*

Negative Yield

Safe
Sb

04,

Figure

(3-11-)

Yield

Curve

for

Orthogonal

Reinforce=-nt

M* x

Figure

(.3.12)

Optimim

Yield

Moments

for

Multiple

Moment Triads

76
(3.12).

the

case of the

three

loading

cases

shown in Figure

For

simplicity, It

only

design moments for bottom a moment field

and will are

steel

will

be considered. for each load

The

is assumed that

has been established

by (Mxi, M yl,

case separatelys steps (1) in For the

be designated as follows: the design

). m NY3.

solution case,

each load

find

moments using

equations

(3.27)
of

to (3.29)-

This will

define

a stationary
load

minimirr value
pl, P2

(M* + M* ) for xy Figure

individual each (3.12). of the This will

case as points

in P3 and (2) Find the

maxiyni3m values

design

moments for

all

load bound B in

cases on the

CM! i. e. M*] xy 9 max optimum yield This moments, point

represent represented lie on the

an upper by point safe

is and always

Figure

will

region.

Closer upper bounds are given by points

To find the design moments values for point is of C. the at

C and D in Figure
such points, then

(3.12).

proceed

as follows: B. the Its yield y-coordinate equation

x coordinate

is lm max of point of this value the into

found

by substitution case,

each load

and selecting

maximum.

Whence3, for point

fm* 1 M* = xx M* = max 71
Similarly
m* =

(3.33) MZ XY (MX* - x (3.34)

M7 +

for

point

cm* y Max x Xy (m* -M yy

(3-35) (3.36)

M* = max x

77

A further (M* + R* xy

optimization and 3, satis:

is EY the

done by yield

looking criterion

for at

the all

minimim grid

of points

in

the

region the the

CBD. same procedure can be adopted the for negative the steel,

However, in which case,

minimum replaces be solved case, (3.12)

maximum in

above steps. the yield value of (M* + M*)s xy of

The problem curve for

can also each load

graphically, selecting

by drawing the which least is the

and then

as point two yield

A in

Figure

by inspection,

intersection

curves.

as explained

The above procedure (69)

by Kemp

can also be used in case of skew reinforcements

3.6 DESIGN OF REINFORCEMT FOR MEMBPJUTE FORCES: Equations also resist inplane derived tensile forces analogous to those by Nielsen(74) given for flexural reinforcement to were

to design

orthogonal

reinforcement if

membrane forces. are compressive,

He assumed that, then all

both principal can be supported

such forces is needed.

by concrete

only,

and no reinforcement

He also considered

skew reinforcement, for flexural

to that used and the procedure adopted is similar (75) Nielsen the Clark approach reinforcement. extended state of stress. to Provide equations Clark pointed out that even. for it may

to cover a general be of practical compressive of Nielsen

interest

reinforcement

inplane than those

forces.

Clark

are thus more general the

or Eorley(88),

who considered

flexure combined of case later in

and membrane forces. section (3-7).

This problem will

be discussed

78

3.6.1

Rules for

Designing triad

for

In2lane

Forces:

Given the stress is required and

theory obtained In addition

(N ) at any point in the slab, X9Ny9N -37 to design reinforcement according to the lover bound
In finite this research, program of the stress vector in will be 4. will obeys

of plasticity. using to the

element (1)

described Section

Chapter it

assi3mptions

(2) and plane

(3.3.2),

further the

be assumed that yield criterion

under

stress Figure

conditions,, (3-13),

concrete

square

shown in plastic flow

and that of

failure the section. Figure two directions and

occurs

by unrestricted Sign convention A general

and not by buckling is tension

for

membrane forces

positive, in the

case of providing

reinforcement in

x and a will

be considered.

The reinforcement

these

directions

their

associated

stresses

will

be Ax9Aa
are taken the x-axisq

and fX arid f.

respectively.
the (3.15).

The principal major principal

concrete stress

stresses at e to

to be cr and a2 with 1 in as shown Figure

a, is

always algabraically By considering Figures

greater

than a2* (3.16). the following equilibrium

(3-15)and

equations

may be written: N=Afx+A f COS2 a+ cr1h COS2 6+a2 sin2 6

A jsin2 a at N =-Aafa XY
On dividing through

a+ ah 12

sinz 6+ ah hsin

cos2 6 cOS6+cT,
(h)

(3.37)
h sin 6 COS6
the

sin a cos a-a1

by the

slab

thickness

and defining

normal and shear stresses

as
Txzr

ax
and the

/h .=Nx

=Ny cry 9
ratios as

=N

17

/h

(3-38)

reinforcement

ov

79

71

Figure

(3-13)

Yield

Criterion

'for Concrete

in Plane Stress

.. y,

Figure

(3.14)

Sign per

Convention Unit Length

for

Direct

and Shear

Inplane

Forces

80

pA ct

(3.39)

we obtain
a=pf xxaa
cr =pf yaa Vaa pf

+p
Sin2 sin

+a1 COS2 CL 1s

COS2e +a2

2 e Si.

a +0 a

in2 e +a
1-a

COS2 6

(3.40)

Cos

2)

sin e cos e

There the yield variables in Table

are seven criterion

unknowns for

in

equations state of

(3-40). stresses,

By considering some of the

a certain for

can be predetermined (3.1). except from It for the

nine

possible

cases solution

surnmarized can be are to be equation the element

can be seen that cases three (1) (4), and

a direct where (3.40).

obtained determined

four

unknowns The fourth in

equations the

of total

can be obtained thus

by minimizing

reinforcement

(px +p
tan e
In Table provided (3.1), a, is given as zero that when tension concrete

(3.41)
reinforcement carry is tensile

because

of the

assumption

does not

forces,

and a20fC

when compression

reinforcement

is Drovided

to make I

the optimum use of concrete. Table

principal synbols

(3.2)

sirmarizes

the expressions
and e for

for

the areas of reinforcement,

The following

stresses-in in are used

a

concrete, Table (3.2)

each case.

Xf
a f y. =

ax

a - f 7 c

81

Y
Figure (3.15) Directions ,P Reinforcement oL. and Principal

Stresses

in

Concrete

av
XY

Applied
CYX
-4-

Stresses

ax

TXy

2 in 6+ a2 cr, s 1--.
CD N

OS26 (al )sin 22 26

7-a sin Paf (I

c'J
"rl ('J

/a
C\j -0111N w 0 Q r-i 0

Ct.

06

IF

>4 cl

Resisted Figure (3.16)

by Concrete Equilibrium. of a slab

Resisted element under

by Steel Membrane Forces

82

+ a7 c

cot

a)(T.

X7

+ a.,

cot

Having established '(3.1)9 it is necessary

the equations to establish

relevant

to each case in Table which set This can

a means of determining stress triad.

of equations

should be used for

a particular in stress

be achieved by deriving boundaries adopted for

can be plotted Typical curves

the surfaces pertinent

space which form the Following the procedure

to regions flexural
on the are

to each case. (Section

plane (3-17) for

reinforcement
non-dimensional in Figure

3.4.4
/IT ax a=

), the design equations

19ay XY 60 0 and /1-C Xy fc /Irxyl I-

shown

The equations To cover

of all

the boundary the

curves real

are

given

in

Table curves p it is required

cases with

boundary

that fc -2 1T I cosec a Nzr parallel to ax/IT I axis XY extends to t -. reinforcement,

reduce the those given

The boundary line When a=

the complex (3.4)

iT/2, we have the case of orthogonal

expression; (3-5) and in in Table (3.2) (3.3) and In reduce addition, to

and
in

Table graphs

respectively. Figure (3-lT)

case boundary of Figure (3-18).

illustrated

one graph

FORCES: BENDINGAND 14EMBRANE 3.7 COMBINED The stress and to design used(74,75,70. resolved into triad for all in this six (N becomes case 9N2N0M9M9M xyVxy a filled all six is sandwich element stress acting resultants are XY

components,

In such an approach, inplane a set of stress

resultants

in the outer

83

shells

of the

sandwich.

Figure

(3-19)

shows such an element,

whereas

Figures they

(3.20)

(3.21) and

show the resolution

of these forces

and how

are all

lumped at the level

of the reinforcements. the reinforcement Further

The basic will be centrally the

assumption behind positioned

problem for x

such methods is that shells

it xx is

in the outer
designers,,

of the element.
best to assume that

to simplify

X =X xy xy
where of the

=X

xx xx
average of the values plate. forces at the for section of the distances

=y=y

X Z some and are reasonable xx ,Y xx xx steel layers stress level, only. from the resultants the problem middle are plane

When all reinforcement forces membrane can then

simmed up as menbrene to the problem in of the

reduces equations

designing previous

And the

described

be used.

3.8 CLOSURE
The rules or a close These rules that a state it set in this chapter the provide either an optimum in reinforcement slabs. and

upper will

bound to ensure

minimurn reinforcement the yield criteria

concrete

that

are nowhere portions,

exceeded, to equili-

of yield into

will

exist at

in most slab failure.

sufficient of field in the

convert brium from

a mechanism conditions

The other

conditions

and boundary a finite

will

be satisfied will

by a stress be discussed

obtained following

element

program,

and this

chapter.

:yl

(a)

Negative

Shear

Stress

xy,

rxyl

(b)

Positive (3

Shear

Stress

T. XY Graphs for 600 a= ;fC=-4 Curves (T XY Nos.

Fi gure

Cas e Boundary

Plain Numerals Represent Boundary bracketed for case nos. numerals

/ I-C 1 y XY
inadmissible
1 CO

85

66
inadmissible
- (ID

Figure

(3.18)

Case boundary graphs for orthogonal reinforcement. Plain numerals represent boundary curves Nos. bracketed numerals represent case nos.

86

Top Layer:

Centrally

Reinforced

C7---eFilling:

of the Slab

.---e

Unreinforced

Middle

Plane

xx

Bottom

Layer:

Centrally

Reinforced

Figure

(3-19)-

Filled

Sandwich

Model

N y N XY NxNx

87

YX
N XY zx

N XY Ny

N +YX Tx
XY @Z

xx

yy Z

'Z" xx xy Z x*

Zi
Ny. yz yy Y, Ny. xy z Figure (3.20) Membrane Stress y

x.

zy

Resultants

on a Filled

Sandwich

Element

M, XY
mmx im y ly

ym y

x
m /Z xy x

m /Z

A
xyAy xy

/Z XY y
/Z y y

7/M m xx
/Z
m /Z zy

mxy/zy

' zz
Yv Figure 3.21)

YL

/my/ ir
Stress Resultants on a Filled Sandwich Elem6nt.

Bending

88
Table 3.1 Simnary of Various of Reinforcement.
Reinforcement description Both tension f= x f

Possible

Combinations

Case

Known, values . .... a =f s 0

Method . ......

of

Solution

minimization (P +P y x
0

of

No x a tension

f= a

fI

03'a

direct

solution

No a x tension

fx

= fs

Pa

00

direct

solution

Both

compression

f= x

f'9 s

af2c

nimization (P +P y x direct solution

of

No x a 6ompression

f= a

f,

= O, a 2=f x

No a x compression

f=

f,

Is

= 03'a 2 =f

direct

solution

x tension a compression

f= x a1=

fa =2 f f. S 09 a2= fc

direct

solution

8.

x compPession a tension

f= x Cr 1=

f? f =f s 9 a 0, a2= f

direct

solution

No reinforcement

IS x=

P =0 Ct

direct

solution

4-4 0

89

CD

0 0

tj 4)

0
+3 0

U
4-1 0

4) 0 0
u

;Ei

+1 4J 0

4-)
4-2 0 + 0 +

02 tl 43 g(02 N 4-3

0 u
4-) N TO u >-, 0 + U 4) m 0 0 +1

+
ts 4J 0 4-) 0 C)

11 + s 0 C)
d

(U '-, 41

c) 41

CM +

Cq,
+

-0 4 0

4-3 0

C\j

ej

0 L

--, L%n *

? 1x

>-4

c3 u

0 V

0
u

0 +

V) 0 U +i
4-3

%-0 cli
+

4-) 0
0 0

7 cq

-Its"

4-3 0 (U lw ca N 0 4-4 r. 0 . r.4 43

+3

cli ul 0 C)

0 Cj 0

04

43 0

+
04 u 4) m >1 to f+4 t) +

0 u C\j
+

0 +

0 0 ci

>41

t)

>4

bo .H En W p

0
x CL 4-) 0 ci + 1 C\j
+ >4

rn ts 0 u >1
t) +

d 0 C94 IC\j d N 4-3

0 >4

4-3 0 U

r-",',l

C\j

d
41 0

; _4
>1
tD +

E-4,

co Cl

(D to Cc C-)

C\j

CY)

43 0

ci
CD 9 4-) 00 VQ
;

ca + f-I

4-4
4-3 0,

90

00
Ca
+ 4.3
0

14 +

+ r-i
CQ

cj
-4

04 4-3
0 ci

C\j

ci 1 +

m C\j
-0

43 0+
Cj

1.

-4

+0

10

CM

ci

IW

4) 4-3 0

43

r-i
r _5 I C14 4-)
0 U

_zr

04 l C, 0 r-i 00 0U 43 0 u + q.-I >4 q-. 4 C\j >14 ID 4-3 + > 0 C\i

a) 0

C +

1-01 L-1 + >1

0

Q)

40, 0

C)
CL

I 4-) 0

0 C4

4-)

0 0

eq

S
rn
+

C\j
j C\j rl q.4 4.4 C\j :u
4. ) 0 tD

10

0 Q

+ >4
r-i qH

>4
C\j 4-4 ; -iu

ca H
E-i

rn

M,

UN

\. O

t--

co

C\

91
Table 3.3 Boundary Curves for Skew Reinforcement

uati
Cr 1 tan a 21 T XY
r--

sec a

27

Y-, 17,2 r `cI[.

-2x

Tr XY

t.

: T)2 XY

' c

-4

-':

31a=-

r, y7 , =I r
a

(cosec a

cot a)-l

4afc

cosec a cota)-l

x7y
fc

--Y-F =1E7-2 xy XY af Lt an cL f

XTf

fc

4]

XY c 1r 2 I+ xy Isec al

r-xyy-F
CY

TI
fc
xyl 11

7y r-,
a T4

2 cot a -4Cot aa co,

"r

a cot

xY -;7-

+iT XY

'T (YT
axf -r,,
10 a XY 11 ax

cot a(cot

cosec

+ cosec a 2 cot a0

ay -rxy
Cy

(-cota cota

I coseca)-coseca 2cota+fc =0

cosec a

cosec a cota)

12

Cr -rx .1+r XY
a-x 1'r. II y

(cota 2cota coseca)+coseca cota

(cosec a cosec a cota) =0

fc XY

13

cry -Cv F cota fc

Tx

(-cota

coseca) - cosec a 2 cot a0

fc k 2c

14
Note: Alternative

ax
sign is the

7
T

ot

+2'cot a-4 7y
of

TT -c r7, 77 xy

v C, a cot a 1- 11 Irxyl
A

same as that

r XY

14

92

o 7

A )
1 N

+ H
; -4 N

+ r-i 0.4tj

cli
tll 1

>41

C%j 0 --t 4-4 4-4 ; -4 4-4

>1

1 >4

11

i-11

U 4-4

0x

>10

04
0

cu
lr4

W 0
1

1 >4

14

1-

>4

0
4 0 qH

CL
H

4-4 tD H to

rn

-m

Co
ca +

CL

>1

CH >)

+ >4 10 ;. 4M
,- 14-4 1CH ', 14. " -

-T
ID
I q" 'i 17H,

C) E-i

ta

--I

r _:

L-N

10

L--

0%

93
Table 3.5 Boundax7 Curves for Orthogonal Reinforcement

Curve

I.........

.....

Equation

.....

...

..........

...

ay
T XYI

ax
JTXYJ Cry TXY
ay T xy

+ -I. _Lc2- 1
TX71 -1
c+1 Txy II :fcf IT /T I

:,o
TxYll

CFX

1014
Ir xv

1T. YJ

--.

xyl

2., YiTxyl

=-a0
f

IT-VI

12

I-4 zr

ax, Xy

91
10

Txy

1r.,

Yl

ax -=1 Xy ax 'r Xyl 1

I

I Xy fc
Txyl

+1

12 13
14

Inapplicable Inapplicable ax
T.

rc 1 xy I

fc

2-7-+4 xy

94
CHAPT M- FOUR THE PINITE'EL='T M=OD

4.1 IINRODUCTION: In the previous in concrete moment triad slabs for chapter, the rules for . designing the reinforcement The

a given moment triad by the elastic chapter,

have been established. the finite

is obtained In this

analysis-using

element method.

the finite

element method, which will but also to carry be described. Some

be used not only to obtain out a detailed nonlinear

the elastic analysis

moment fields

on the slab will of the finite

examples demonstrating will also be given.

the validity

element model adopted

4.2 THE FINITE ELEMENT USED: 4.2.1 The Stiffness In this is used. the plate plate
stress plates

of a Layered Finite a rectangular plate a finite is fot=

Element: noded layered finite element by dividing to the of, plane

theory layered of

study,

In such models, thickness plane. into

bending problems =ber of layers

are treated parallel

Middle

Each layer
The usual in this

assumed to be in a state
of the first order the

condition. axe adopted

assumptions resea--ch(l).

Accordingly,

element is built 1. rectangular

up as a combination four noded plane

of two standaxd stress

elements. eight

elementv rith

degrees of freedom. the inplane

following

The two nodal u and

degrees of freedom are v, axe represented by the

defor-mations
bil-4neax functions

a, + a2x +a 3y +a ey

v=a5+
with a linear

a6x +a 77 + axy
strain variation within

(4.2)
the element*

95 2. A rectangular
developed

by j1dini-Clough

four-noded plate bending elementp originally (68)

and Melosh twelve degrees of freedcm, (S}

This norr-conforming has the and is

type element employing vector defined

deflection

of nodal deformations by a truncated

w given by

aw ;wT j, 5v ay

fourth

order polynomial

in the lateral

W=a9+

alox + ally

+ alx2

+a1 3'cy +a 14y2 +a 15X2 + 3y +a 20Xy3 by combining (4-3)

a, 62y + a, 7xy2 + al, y3 + a, 9x Accordinglyq the layered

element model defined

the above

two elements will

have the vec-, or of nodal

deformations

aw U Vo Wo - -Y I
The constants writing

aw rx

IT

(4-4)
by

of the polynomials simultaneous

a, to a20 can be evaluated equations linking the nodal

down the twenty

displacements In matrix
written as

when the coordinates

take up thei= vector for

appropriate

values.

form,

t%e nodal displacement

the element can be

[C)

{a}
depending

(4-5)
on nodal coordinatesq and

where
(al

[C]
a vector

is a 20 x 20 matrix
of

20 unkno, m constants.

Inverting

a)
The strain plates will

cc]
vector by

-1

w
first order

(4.6)
theory of

from the classical

be given

au

5-X 9 5-Y 9 5-Y ax

in which the first components three axe inplane

av

au

3vbbb

xy

XY

} (4-7)

components.

The bending strain at the middle plane

eb axe obtained

from the curvatLxes

96
of the plate. of the plateg Accor-dinglyp plane axe
au

For a layer th; bending

at a distance strains are eb x

from the middle 32W -Z 57 at Z etc.

plane

the total

strains

in each layer

from the middle

a0c
CY av ;)3r au

a 2w Z =a x
; 2W Z =, ay

XY which can be written

+- g+

arv

2Z

a 2w

ay aDc
au ax av Dy au ay

in the form 00Z0

1

c x1 c y
c xy J

El
=

0 0

-T-

TX

av

(4-8)

0100

a2w ax, D2w 7 ; 2w 2axay

In matrix

form,

equation

(4-8)

can be written

as

{C I=
where strain e

[R]

(cm }
of total plane strains at level and

(4-9)
z, and ERJ is c is the 3x6

is the vector

vector

at the middle matrix vector defined {e m}

of the plate, above.

transformation The strain displacement (4.7). to (4-3)

in (4-8)

is related the differential

to the element nodal operators functions defined equations in (4-1)

vector

through

Thus operating we have:

on the displacement

9T
*2 ae abx

a7

*3
cm '2

a
12 14 13 -6a 15x -2a, 7x 4a, 6x

a6
-2a, 6y -6a, 4a y 17Y

aBy
-a, xy -a 2CPcy 6algX2 6a 20Y

2a 2a

2a

we can w=ite e {Cm {aI

[B] in which [B ] is a6x

e 61

(4-10)

20 matrix at each Gauss point, called the is a vector of middle plane strains. {E: strain matrix, and mIe Using (4-10) in (4-8) we will have ER
The stress vector

[13

le.
is given by

(4-11)

IM any layer {e

Cr = [DI where LD] [D]

(4-12)

is given by Hooks law as 0 -V E1 z V10 -, V, l_IV 02 LO matrix. (68) p--oced=es

(4-13)

called

the constitutive Following

the standaxd

he aktment stiffness 9t,

matrix

is given by

[K]
and using is

jil

BT D3 dx dy dz
in (4-14)9

(4-14)
matrix

equation

(4-11)

thealement stiffness

given by [K] = (R B7D (R B) dx dy dz

BT (RT D R) B dx dy dz
only the bracketed term in (4-15) is dependint

(4-15)
on the Z coordinatep

98
and the integration can be performed Accord-4nglyv equation by sli=Lng (4-15) the layers

cont: ributions.

becomes

I Y-1 =
in which the

ff

BT DI B dx dy
matrix DI represents the

(4.16)
eqnivalent

constitutive

constitutive

matrix of the layered f T ER [D] [3 dz 3 DI

E 1 -'YZ
1

element and is given by

Vi

o
0

z Z. 11i V.
vZZ iii 00 j2 , Z
0 1-Vi

0
0 v

Vi 0 Z j-v i 0 2 i V.: z . 1i

0 0

, Z ii
122 vZZ iii

(U.

vZZ ii

i 2 v-i 02:: Z 10

ji Z. D.

Z i : Z?

D i D

(d Z)i

where N is the total Equation

treating
cOnSt

number of layers dictates

materials the element

in the element. feature of this

of with

(4-17)

the important

model in

composite
.6

made up as a combination is made up cf of the plate, constitutive layers the

various symmetric terms

4tuents. about (4-17)

If

properties of ZdZ in

the middle would

Plane

summation matrix

vanish,

and the

exhibits.

uncoupling concrete, cracking,

between membrane and fle = such a coupling even if the slab effect

al effects.

For reinforced

is bound to occur due to unsymmetric isotropic. exactly even if using the

element was initially

The membrane terms Di dZ in (4-17) i any =ber

slab whole

can be evaluated of the slab,

But

of layers
thickness

across
is

the thickness

considered

layer. one as

the flexural

terms plate,

E. dZi) representing the flexural Z1Z? rigidity l--!Y II depend" on the rramber of layers used. Table (4-1) obtained in computing N. the flexural stiffness

99
of the gives the

accuracy

as a function to the from the

of the number of layers conventional table, plate

The convergenoe rigidity is

r=ber

of the integral is clear

flexural

Eh3/12(1--V2) increased.
of layers

as the =
Although

ber of layers
the

increasing

would

enable

a close

monitering

of nonlineaxities, The fle=al

(4-1) equal

it

req7aires both a large stiffnesses

space and time by the

in the compater.
factors plate given with

can be co=ected
derived assuming

in Table of

which

were

one material

layers

thicknesses.

Table

(4-1)

Flexural of a layered plate rigidities of =ber as a function of layers . co=ection fac tor

x 2

% e=or

4 6 8 10 12

25*0 6-25 2-78 1-56 1-00 0*70

1-333 1-o66 1-028 1-015 1-010 1-007

of the stiffness matrix (68)
it is found that

The area integration

performed problems four true using tested

in (4-16) is

the Gaussian. quadrature in this study,

For the range of a reduced number of good results. It is

station that

points =

is quite

adequate

to yield will

a higher

ber of such points

enable a close

monitor and

of plastification, the computation

but the stiffness time is substantially

integration increased.

is not affected,

4.2.2

Element Subdivision: This element has been tested extensively

the

100 by the authorp

element slab under

and
subdivision. uniformly

is In

found

to

converge the load

very

well

with

increasing supported

bending,

case of will

a squaxe

simply

distributed is very

be given accuracy the case

as an example. of of of both a rough this the

The rate

of convergence and moments elements. layers are across those

good,

and the

deflections 2x2 six

can be seen even for Table the used (4.2) slab gives

mesh of using in

the results

study, given

depth.

The mesh subdivisions quadrant.

the

table,

on a symmetric

Table 4.2 ...

Convergence study for the case of a Simply Supported Plate under uniform

loading.

Mesh 2. x 2

Deflection

x 103/224 D

Moment x 100

qa 2.

4*303 4"127 A.094 . 4*092 4-077 4-060

and moments refe=ed

4918 4-22 ") 4-2; 4-24 4-24 4*57

to axe those mpas=ed at

4x4 6x6 8x8 10 X 10

Exact(') The deflection the centre in Figure

of the plate. (4-13b)v

The boundary conditions integration order

axe those of Type of 2x2 was used in

and a reduced

the computations. The inplane element has also been tested by the author. of this As element

has been shown in the previous is independant

section,

the stiffness if the element

of the number of layersq

is made uP of

101

one materialg material, constituting

and thus only

one layer

can be used.

For more than one

the =ber materials.

of layers

may be taken equal to the number of

The problem considered under an edge point convergence refined. layer load.

for Table

convergence (4-3)

is the cantilever the excellent

problem rate of is

reflects solution

of the results

to the exact

as the mesh size

The beam is assumed to be of one material, was adopted and a reduced referred 4-1) integration of 2x2

thus only one was used. The

maximum stress point

to in the table

is that

given at the Gauss

No-4 (Figure Table

of element No. lp-neax

the support. the case of a cantilever load P at the free edge.

maxinnTn stress PL/z -*xx at GP

(4-3)

Convergence study for beam carrying a point

deflection/; P13 --" Ei

Mesh

Maximm

4x4 6x6 8x8 10 x 10 t P. cac

*Z xx

0*24774 0-29a96 0-3226o 0-33507 0*33333

= the. section modulus = bd2 g-

0*55208 0-72017 0-82292 0-88021 0-93497

4-3

NONLINEARANALYSIS OF CONCRETE STRUCTURES.

4-3.1 General
The behaviour stress-strain less elastic curve of concrete of FigL=e ultimate can be explained (4.2). strength, with the aid of the

Under small concrete

compxessve loads behaves as a linear behaves in a non

than 309/6 of its material.

Under increasing

loads,

concrete

102 linear way. The material stresses, valuep has got but a limited the material normally fails ductility, by crushing and under when attaining purposes, of loading it The The latter

high com; ressive a limiting strain

taken as 0-0035 for c. -aqks at very early

design stages

On the other ow. ng to its also loses reinforcing willt all small its

hand, concrete tensile strength

strength.

Once the material

cracks,

in a direction to carry

normal to the crack. all such stresses.

layers

axe thus left states finite

under increasing A valid nonlinear

of stress,

become plastic. all like

element model has thus to consider Other sources axe still difficult of nonlinearities to treat,

thsse

sources

of nonlinearities. and dowel-action

bond effects cases,

they

and in most

they are probably

not be considered

unimportant
in this

in slab problems.
study.

Accordingly,

will

4.3.2.1

Biaxial. Yield Criteria

states

for Plain

Concrete:
strength increases in ultimate of the two strength of in

Under biaxial comparison strength

of stress,

concrete

to uniaxial(56957958977P78), stressing

The increase

due to biaxial

depends on the ratio in compressive

principal-stresses. 25Y6is achieved

A maximum increase at a stress ratio

of lateral/axial

st=e'ss of 0*5 to equal biaxial the as the the strength

the minimum increase whereas compressive compressive applied stresses. strength stress

of 16Y6corresponds

Under biaxial

comp: cession-tension, almost linearly tensiont

was found to decrease is increased.

tensile

For biaxial strength. applications

is almost

the same as that with

of the uniaxial elements has largely (4-3). This

In connection results in this of Kupfer study

finite

the experimental and is adopted envelope had

et al(56)

been employed, biaxial failure

toog Figure

103
(82) by the Buyokozturk been of works confirmed also (58) The Mohr-Coulomb failure Tasuji et al surface (see the following same tension-compression
predicts (16) a higher

and is nearly the

section),

except

in the region

of combined si=face
Johansen of

stresses,
strength. ignores

a region
The square

over which the Kupfer's

yield criterion due to between

and Pxager(l)

any possible

interaction

a set

orthogonal compressive
that under

stressest states,
uninxial

which implies the ultimate

states, Fig=e properties

that strength

for

failures of concrete

under biaxial is the same as

The use

of uniaxial

is

thus

more conservative,

and

hence justifiable nonlinearities plastic action

from the design axe largely dictated

point

of View.

Tn cases--where propagation than

more by crack

under compresaive

states

of stressest

such differences the concrete collapses.

in the yi4eld conditions ccmpressive strength

axe insignificant,

as in such cases, before the structure

may not be reached

4.3.2.2

The Yield Criterion:

fit for the yield surface (4-3) Fi6m=e of of the fo=(43) can be

A multi-linear obtained

in terms of the octahedral

IL2
(a2

sheax stress
'a

Oct
as
Toct

3xyxy

+ Cy2 -a

+3

T2

XY (4-19)

-a-ba0=

the is a0 mean normal where determined strength from experiments. of concrete and fd

stress,

a and b axe constants, fC as the uniaxial compressive

to be compressive strength

Taking

as the equivalent

under biaxial

compressionp

and defining and n=f

the ratios d/: Cc (4.20)

m =. f t/fc

(4-19) be can established equation

in the following

manner:

(a)

lo4
compression yielding:

(i)

For uniaxial
mean stress

compression -r Oct
is fc/3,

r2-3 f.

and the

then by (4-19)

V2fo 3
(ii) for biaxial

bf

/3 +a
Oct
then

(4.21)
r2 f 3d and the

compression
is -2 fd/3t

mean stress

V-2 f `7 3d
Solving (4.21)

2b fd/3

+a

(4.22)

(4_. (4.2) 22) then and and using (n 1) nf=0 V-2 VT + (2n (-n-o3 1) Oct 0 ---'17

(4.23)

Taking n=

1-16 from Fig-are (4-3)v

then

(0*1714 0*4143 Toct/fc + =0 aolfc) (b) Terlsion-Compression Using the same procedure, it can be shown that

(4.24)

TOct/f

cn

+ V7

R+

m) cr lfc M) 03

V2 _2

m0 T-M-)

(4-25)

(c)

Tension-tension: Since no increase in ultimate

circular

tensile

strength

due t& bia. -cial

stressing,

the (a If

simple t)2

condition: (4.26)

(7 )2 + -1=0 21f t

is sufficient,

although

equation

(4.25)

can also be used in this

case.

4-3.3 Materials Modelling.

In the present to be in a state one material although layered finite stress. element model, A layer is also each layer is assumed

of plane

assumed to be of

whose properties the present

are represented formulation,

at the Gauss points, materials properties

using

different

can be assigned

at each Gauss point.

105
prior assi=ed to crackingg a Gauss point and isotropic, in a concrete having layer is to be elastic the following

constitutive

matrix
1

V(4.27)

Dcv10

200

1-, v

2 Upon cracking, the crack (FigUre the x-coordinate (4-5)), axis is placed parallel to direction

and the stress matrix

the axes,

normal to the crack then modified

be

is removed.
with

The constitutive
of

is
to

accordingly,

the new orientation

-E00 D000 LO in which $ is 0a GI factor in cracked concrete. unoracked and (4.28)

the shear retention value of

The =merical cracked for all

s ranges between 1 and 0 for In this here. study 6 is

concrete,

respectively. investigated

taken as 0.4 reveals a good

the problems for

Literatu=-e

justification It gives

the use of srdch a valueq bond between concrete to stresses stiffening

see section

(2-4.4-1). steel To

is known that some resistance this

and reinforcing after cracking.

in concrete effect,

account for diagram for

tension

the modified FigL=e responsible

stress-strain

concrete

in tension

is used, stress

The direction is given by Tan 26

of the principal 2 cr XY a. a. xy

for

the crack

(4-30)

However, the angle 6 given The actual crack di=eq"jion

by (4-30)

will

lie

between 0 and 4500'

Oc. is dete=ined

from a Mohr Is circle.

lo6
The constitutive matrix D* is defined to the global in the crack directions. directions The be to transformed has thus and transformed matrix D' =TTDT
where the transfcrmation 2 TS2c2 2 'S 2CS S2 matrix CS -cs C2-S2 (4-32) T is given by

becomes

(4-31)

where

Cos ec: r,
However, during might closep on the yield of Figure if

S=

sin e,,
of Ne struct=eq turns an open crack one. CB

the load history across

the stress this

the crack

to a compressive to the region exist

surfacep

behaviour

is restricted and cleavage of the yield

(4-7),

unhere dowel action occur in this region

behaviour surface. in this

they would also little it

the the

Since very region, of

is understood be possible
s=face in

about the behaviour to allow

this

of concrete

will
yield

f or such f eatures

by a modif ication

zone(43). stresses

tension-compression

done by corrverting This is usually e.lFechve 1to an7, -. and using the compression,

corresponding

intermediate

compression

yield

surface

(see section

4.3-3-1), tlaus
(i) dowel action is allowed for since the loss of stiffness failure. for the

is substantially the possibility

less. than the case of tensile of cracks closing can be avoided

same reason.
The yield in Figure (4.7): surface can thus be divided into four regions as shown

107
1. 2. Failure Failure under under combined tension tension - ED - DC

compression-stresses

Cleavage failure-

CB.

Biaxial

c=piession
f ailure

failure

BA. a state In this

treated

The term cleavage intermediate

cleavage

is u sed to describe and crashing.

the point is

of f ailur e study whenever

as for compression

between splitting
is detected,

yielding

yielding

as far

as the constitutive

matrix

is concerned.

4-3.3-1 Concrete:
It behaviour has already for been established that an initial is limited linear elp-stic load

concrete

under compression

only to small

range up to about 30 to 50% of the ultimate this rangeg some plastic action is involved.

capacity(58,59). Accordingly, the analysis two

Beyond

approaches can be defined, under compressive 1. Perfect forces:

which deal with

of concrete

and work-hardening of a given methods.

plasticity stress-strain

theorems relationship using

2. Representation ourve fitting 4.3-3.1(a) Perfect

and work hardening concrete it flow

plasticity: a ductile strain. material on the for

In compressiong yield its surfacep limited before

can f low like its crushing

reaches ability

To account

plasiic

befcre

crashing, stress-strain yield,

a perfectly relationship plastic

plastic is flow,

be introduced. can model developed in three parts:

The-complete (1) before

(2) during

(3) after and

fracture. a linear surface elastic model can be used. During the

Before yieldv plastic flowv

a yield

is needed to define defined in te=s-of

the onset of yield. an effective stress

The famous Von Mises criterion

108 as (a2 + crz -aay xy +3r)i-a xy 0 (4-33)

has been used by many investigators(47948950)0 To const--uct the normality surface the stress-strain relationship rate in the plastic vector Thus to the yield range,

of the plastic

deformation rule)

(mown as the no=ality aF ac

is used.

(4-33)
proportionality
a crushing

in which
fracture

X>0

is a scalar
using of

factor.
surf ace,

The onset of
to (4-33) is

can be def ined in terms

analogous

and expressed

strains(50).

After

fracture,

concrete

lose to assumed

all

its
of

strength.
this approach is that nonlineax action is

One disad: vantage

ignored

until

the yield

surface

is reached.

In case 'of planar

structures

may lead to stiff

subjected in plane compressive forces, (43)

predictions

such an assumption

4.3-3.1(b)

Representation

of a given stress-strain
methods: equations and strain

Curve using
Various their

curve fitting

empirical principal

stress-strain stress

expressed values

in

terms

of

respective

have been

established data. axe all

test curves. to the laxge amounts of biaxial (60) '8P59) -O' Works by Liu et al, Irasuji Buyokoz tLk(82) et and al(r. , of this type. The following equation
12

by fitting

a e: a 1+
21[c-

(4-34)

1+

.p*7Pct

represents

a uni; xial

stress-strain

curve

for

concrete,

and was

109
originally are a=E CP = 10 C initial 0*0025 for f cu for elastic corpression modulus proposed by Liu, Mcperiments indicate that, the constants

uniax-, al compression. e

(4-34) Equation may also be used for concrete in tension(58978)9

in this case

and

ep = 00000159 up = ftprocedure during adopted in this the monotonic

loading

For the rz-, merical is incrementally

studyg loading.
after

equation This
Bell

(4-34) is
and

linearized

usually Elms (6)

done by using Chen et and ,

intermediate al(78).

surfaces are

Such surfaces

shown in Figure

The first

loading

surface diagram.
the

oo=esponds

to the initial

discontinuity

in

the stress-strain
have 4. -he shape of

Subsequent loading
yield surface.

surfaces
Accordingly,

are-ass, =*ed to
the inter-

limiting

mediate

surfaces

will

be represented f

by equation

(4424) but with

an An

in-ermediate empirical

strength f cc

form for f

f the strength ult -imate replacing c cc (43) -as has been suggested by Johnaxry (Ec/Ei) is the initial (4-35) modulus. (4-34). In this

=f -ft+ft co cc cc fE C* C

subject

to

research,

the instantaneous

modulus i's computed using

The discontinuity

stress

fco

fcuo is taken as 505/6

4-3-3.2 Reinforcing Steel: In the present layered approach, steel b, =s axe represented by a
layert smeared bars. the of bilineax whL; h can carry The stress-st=ain, stresses only in the original direction

curve for

steel

ba--s is taken as a Fiouxe (4.8).

relationship

in both tension

and compression,

110

Steel in

bars

are

thus yield

assumed to have a definite bars, P- proof stress

yi eld

point

fy,

and

case of high

corresponding

to 0.2yo strain

is used. Prior After to yieldingg stresses are omputed uzing the initial modulus.

yielding,

a secant modulus is calculated as

-md used in the subsequent

load increment,

(4-36)
Linear 4-3-4 strain hardening can also be incorporated, if so desired.

Pseudo-load

vector:
forces resulting from lack of equilibrium during

"'he out-of-balance

a certain the current

load increment load vector. ex F =p_BG vector

in a nonlinear Such forces dv

analysis axe obtained

axe used to supplement f==: (4-37) the material yield beyond back

where the stress surf ac e. the yield

is always kept within results

Lack of"equilibrium surfaces

whenever excess stresses state is brought

axe removedg and the stress Within any material,. matrix step. (4-37)

on the yield state for existag their

su::face.

whenever such a stress of the material is modified,

the cur=ent

constitutive loading in

use in the subsequent

study, (68) for Gauss (padrature and , as that used for the stiffness

In this

the integration

is Performed using

the

consistency, computation,

the same order

of integration

is also adopted.

The =erical procedure used in this study employs a total strain (43) technique at each load level. Using such procedures would eventually lead to large going extensive ps-eudo-forcesl plastification. Paxticulaxly And if when the st=icture is under-

the load increment-is-made

ill

sufficiently predictions, level

smallt

these induced if

forces is

will

lead

to unacceptable at each load Accordingly,

especially

equilibrium

satIsfied .

by allowing

the required

namber of ite=ations.

bounds can be set on the load increments,

which depend on the degree Johnar--y(43),

(C). However, the load predictions

of plasti. fication
derivation analysis increment of with

in the structure.
is given in load

Following
Appendix

the

such bounds such bounds than

on the

increment , requires although acceptable

to be less

0*15 Pcr

(43),

with in

a load increment (4-4-1).

have been obtained of 0-2 P or

as will

be shown

4-3.5 Details

of the Numerical Procedure:

total matrix strain, is used iterative (43,68945) proced=e using the

An incremental, initial in small followed stiffness

The load is applied problem until is first tried,

increments,

within

eachg an elastic

by a succession

of linearized

iterations

equilibrium equation to

is maintained. be satisfied ex ter-ding F equilibrium

At any stage of loading, is represented by equation

the equilibrium (4-37)9 with

the excess forces the lack of

to zero.

The excess force

representing until equilibrium

at any stage is recycled

is achieved. at

At any moment, these excess forces the start solution fictitious of the next

axe added to the load vector Accordingly, increment all the elastic using

load increment. of a load that contains effects

at the beginning load vector,

is obtained loads

applied

in addition load

to the accumulated increments.

nonlinear

resulting

from previous

The convergence generally

of the residual

load vector

ex P towards

zero is

slowq particularly

when the initial

stiffnesses

axe used.

112 Accelerators hese have been used, Phillips but since (65) examined various with any one type. no universal procedure exists, but

were not -tried.

techniques, However,

could not obtain during

successful

results study, it

the -course of this yields

was found that for

a limit

between

10 to 15 iterations considered in this

goods results

most of the problems

research.
proceeds along the following steps:

The solution

1.

Elements stiffness using

matrices

are formed from the layers A reduced integration in this order study.

stiffnesses, of 2x2

Gauss quadrat=e. all

is used for 2. The global using using

the problems matrix

considered

stiffness

is formed from the elements matrices, The matrix is then decomposed (68) procedure and the structure displacementsq is solved middle plane

standard

procedures(31).

the Gaussian-elimination load increment displacements. is

A small for

applied,

nodal

From nodal

strains

and curvatures point

are found at the Gauss points. in a layerg the total strains axe found

For each sampling

from: -

+ZX
Using the current and principal The stress stresses state constitutive axe found. at the point matrix D for

(4-38)
the point, stresses

is checked against

the -. elevant

transition
repeated If for

criteria.
all

If

none axe violatedv

points in all

stePs 4 and 5 are

in all elements. matrix D

sampling

layers

any of the criteria point

are violated, is changed.

the constitutive

at the s=pling matrix

The change in the stiffness and the stresses

D is used to compute the excess stress,

113
axe then brought contribution calculated N=a back to within the yield surface. NIM The point is

to the stress from dz IM=

resultant

vectors

az dz fox- all

(4-39)
sampling points in all layers

Previous
and in all

steps are repeated

elements.

e.

For each element, nodal forces FfN)_,

r=erical

integratian

is used to evaluate resultants

the

resulting

from the stress

N and MO thus

(4-40) is assembled from elements contributions

is then examined, using

The global force vector

at the nodes, lip "I =

and equilibrium [PI -E vector F1

(4-41)
ex is added to the load vector, F using [, ex 1, wid stePs 4 to 8 the displacement

The excess force and the structure are relpeatedf

is analysed

and convergence

is checked,

using

norm
NCEM=([
Iterations'are

6d aT
ass=ed

{ Adl /[d

IT

12'

{d

1)

(4-42)
iterate Norm 10-4.

to converge

when the

10.

If is

convergence exhaustedt

is achievedg a new load

or a predefined

limit

on the iterations

increment

is added to the load vector, iterations

and steps limit,

3 to 9 are repeated. 4-5)for

(For the required

see section

A schematic Fig=e (B), (4-9). together

illustration Details

the numerical

procedure

is

given

in

of the computer progran, are given for data preparationo

between

in Appendix

with

the instructions
is -imminentv

When failure

a ! a-rge disparity

internal

and

114
external forces at faster is can be seen. quite a large At such number a stage, of points, the reinforcement could

have yielded increase at

and displacements does not occurt

rates. approached.

In most casesp

convergence

when failure

4.4

AND COY2ARISONS. _RESULTS

To examine the validity of the developed model, va=ious types

of problems have been analysed, existing reliable test data. this

and the results The logic followed

were compared with is that, if over a

wide range of problems, for bqth the deflections

model could

produce accurate loads,

predictions

and the ultimate of similax

the program can then

be used to predict different

ex=ining

the behaviour

problemsq when using

design procedures.
the validity of the

In the end, the program is aimed at

design equations of Chapter 3 in this

reseaxch. 4.4.1 A Square Sinply A square simply with isotropic Supported supported Slab under a Central Point Load. =-d 139*7 mmdeep

slab

1828-8 mm side length

reinforcement

0-99916 which was tested

under a central

point

Dotreppe

load by the Portland (46)

et al

Cement Association

and was analysed by

The materials

iDroDe=ties used were as follows

fcjA = 47,17 X/= %= 2 27580 I,/=

y
Es=

2 30394 I,/=
206850 IT/= 2

139-7cm
FigLLre (4-10) gives

d, = 114-3 mm.
curve for this slab. was

the load-deflection

Due to symmet--y, one quadxant with analysedq using this using an integration

a mesh of 6x6 of 2x2.

elements

order

The slab was analysed tension stiffening.

model with

and without

considering stiffening

The analysis

considering

tension

shows the high

115 accuracy ultimate of the model in predicting load. The analysis behaviour. ignoring both the displacements tension s1wiffening and the produced a Gilbert stiffening

more flexible and Waxner(48), effects

This

is in good agreement with that by ignoring cracks, tension e=o=s

who concluded

in concrete

between adjacent

in the calculated

deflections

can be as high as 100yo. neglecting load, this tension stiffening effect must not affect load 10% less is not considered. was not terminated,

Although the ultimate

model predicts

an ultimate stiffening

than the actual

ultimate

load when tension show that,

The computed deflections the ultimate Dotreppe(46)

i the analysis

load could have been -&eached, but at very high deflections. using a different model also found that the ultimate this load to any

is underestimated one reasont

by 100/-C. Although

he did not attribute that

the author

is of the opinion

svch an underestimation tension stiffening

in the ultimate effect

load is mainly (4-10)). aspects

due to the neglected

(see Figure Other rmmerical

of this

model had also been investigated.. of the response using for the same

Figure

(4-11)

compares the predictions mesh subdivisions

slab with size.

various

the same load increment no significant made using a4x4 to

As far

as mesh refinement

is concernedg

difference 6x6 and

is obtained elements.

between 4. -he predictions Materials nonlinearities for

axe predicted

occur at exactly

the same loads

the two mesh subdivisions. using different sizes of load

The same slab was also reanalysed increments. predicted FigL=e by different (4-10) gives

a comparison

between the responses It is appaxent

sizes

of load

increments. size

how the predictions Experience with this

improve with

a reduced its

of load incremente in producing

model indicates

ability

116
accurate
of the

predictions
cracking load

when. the load increment

P cr"

is taken

around 0.08

The effect
considered. the same slabs

of increasing
(4-13). total In at

the number of iterations

the results of the

has also been

predictions for from

Figure

gives

when the 30.

number of any case, any load with this

iterations would

is

increased static of the of have at It leads

59 10,15 equilibrium predictions This is in

and then is is

mean the

satisfied shown to

level. the

The accuracy increased nunber (44)

improve to what to

iterations. found.

contradiction that"attempts to expensive static should

Duncan and Johnarry static

They claimed level, that lead

satisfy

equilibrium resultsit, level

each load is to this obvious expensive model with and

analysis

and poor at t9

demanding but present

equilibrium never lead

each load results.

analysiss in its

poor

However,

formulation

shows a vex7

good desirable

response cost

increasing accuracy, results.

number of a limit

iterations.

As a compromise normally

between produces

of 15 to

20 iterations

acceptable

The effect also been studied bound'ary are

of

imposing using this

various model. are

membrane boundary For a simply but the

conditions slab,

have the

supported restraints in

flexural movements

conditions

obvious,

to membrane quite

ambiguous.

Such a slab

can be supported

different study,
their

ways, and each can be considered different restraints

predictions

as a simple

support.

In this to see
of

to inplane

movements have been tried,

model. Four types

effect

on the

made by this

inplane

boundary
is

conditions
the

in Figure are shown

supported the slab slab

(4.14b).
under

The prob.',.em
point each type of

investigated load.

same simply response'for

a central to

The predicted

corresponding

117
boundary condition (4.14a) is shown in Figure (4.14a). predictions obtained in each

Figure

compares

the

various

case. affected for

The effect

increasing of

the restraint

to inplane

movements load. However, restraints

both the computed deflections solutions, usually

and the ultimate of various

elastic

the effect

inplane

is insignificant. variations.
From Figure gives load. accurate

Even the cracking

load is not affected

by such

(4.14a),

it

is

clear for

that the

the

boundary

conditions ultimate

type

predictions this type

both

response in

and the

Accordingly,

will

be adopted

analysing

simply

supported

slabs.

4.4.2

The Slab Tested by McN61ce:

This was a square slab simply (21) supported The slab at four corners was and . and

tested

by Jofriet

and McN41ce

was 914.4

mm.square

44.7 =a deep, isotropically The slab was tested

properties:

reinforced

with point

0-85%, reinforcing load,

steel.

under a central

and had the following

fcu = 48.62 N/=2

Ec= ft 28614 N/=2 = 2.413 N/=2 N/=2

fy=

331 11/=2 N/=2

ES = 200000 d, = 33-3 =

v=0.15

44.7 =
A mesh of 4x4 elements over asymmetric quadrant was used, together

with

increment load a (4.16),

of

size

of 0.1 P cr.

Details

of the slab in Figure

the

are shown (4-15).

with pin

in Figure
Two results

and the results

had been

of the analysis
given here,

analyses

one for

slab

118
supports in both behaviour at the cases is corners, quite loads, the good. while other with roller with pin roller supports. supports The agreement predicts stiffer

Analysis the

at high

one with

supports

shows a

flexible

response at high levels. results

In both

experimental
model in

is not too serious.

this slabs in using using also inplane noticed

cases, the discrepancy with (42) Hand layered a using ,

the difference conditions. stiffness it in the computed

analysing due to

response obtained to the

variation (46) by Dotreppe one obtained which here

boundary

The results are identical been the test,

a reduced pin

bending

supports.

Since was actually

had not used in

reported the

inplane obtained

boundary here

condition are

predictions

considered

satisfactory.

4.4.3

Tee-Beam BI Tested by Rao: This problem was chosen to demonstrate the ability of this model

to analyse

complex structures. a combination elements for

This beam was first of beam elements the flanges. for

tested

and analysed

by Rao(39) using and plain analysis stress

the web of the beam, the

The data needed for

were as follows: fau

Ec= ft v=0.2 =

48 NI=235000 N/mm2 4.8 N/mm2

fy=
E! s

340

N/=2

200000 N/mm2

Other geometrical
The beam was analysed

properties
subject to

of the beam are given

a single point load

in Figure
centre.

(4.18).

at the

Due to symmetry, the span and half

here comprised of

only one quarter width

of the beam represented here.

and four

by half

the flange
six elements

was analysed
the spans

The mesh used

across the flange.

along

119
The computed load-deflection beam is given
load could (of

curve for

the central predicts

cracking bean.

point

of the cracking

in Figure

(4-17).
with

This analysis
the actual

a higher
load

16 kN) in- comparison exactly obtained . the

of 9 kN,, but , in his that

predict also

ultimate a high load

load

of the

Rao(39)

analysis, the low

such

cracking could

load.

He suggested the beam being N/=2

experimental cracked prior

cracking to of his test,

be due to the

already the the

and suggested This value

use of 0.96

for

tensile

strength still

concrete. predictions correctly.

he later flexible,

used to and could

analyse not

beam, but the As for

were too

predict

ultimate the

load

present

model3, apart

from

the high load

cracking could

load,

the reduced

predictions

made are

acceptable.

The cracking

have been

if

a value

of 5% f

is used for CLL

the tensile

strength

of concrete.

4.4.4 Hayes'--Slab-Beam System

This is a square slab which is monolithically supporting beams. The slab was chosen from a series cast with of tests its on integral

by Hayes et al. conducted systems slab-beam

the slab-beam test
supported

designated
the

Al by Hayes et, al
same flexural

The present slab represents (84)

The slab was
which were stiffness,

by edge beams of

simply

supported f ft Ec= v=0.15 ca = =

at the corners. 35.3 2.65 N/mm2 N/=2

The relevant fy =

data is as follovs: 300 N/mm2

210000 N/=2

24710 N/=2

Other dimensions

and reinforcement

data are given

in Figure

(4.19).

120
The slab reinforcement was uniformly using spaced in 5x5 each direction. elements over a

The slab synmetric load, Tension

was analysed.

a mesh of

quadrant.

The load size,

was applied P cr

as a uniformly the

distributed analysis. were set on the

and an increment stiffening plastic

of 0.1

in was used but

effects loads

were neglected, (see in section

bounds

incremental 30 iterations

4-3.4).

A maximum number of

was allowed are of

the

analysis. (4.19). The figure the cracking of behaviour of the shows the of slab slab-beam and the This

The results excellent systems. beams to ability

in shown the model

Figure in

predicting first

The analysis occur

predicts at

the

simultaneously

a load

5 kN/m2 (about

18 M).

is exactly In the post

the cracking cracking

load reported

by Hayes

(84)

in his

experiments. load, only First

range,

and up to 75% of the ultimate were needed to achieve at the centre

an average of 9 iterations yield of steel was detected

convergence.

of the supporting

beams, at with the

(about 15.4 kN/m2 about value of 54 kN reported

56 kN),

which again agrees very well After yielding

in the paper.. limits

of the steel, and the total

convergence

to the specified allowed

to the

was not obtaineds

number of iterations
Although disparity first yield convergence was not load

was reached in each load increment.

desired levels was not effects achieved, the after the

great. in Figure very after

The stiffening (4.19) is

appearing

caused by convergence if first the the size of In load

problems. increment the slab-

The solution was further pre-sent

would reduced could Under

much improve attaining predict load

yield. ultimate

any case, load of this

model

accurately the ultimate in the

beam system. with the

a mechanism

had already

formed, along

reinforcement

supporting

beams yieldings

and also

121
the two centre slab lines of the slab. Deflections were also very the high, slab

and at the

centre,

the'deflection

was greater'than

thickness. The state

rectangular supports accurately the

just of mechanism
the that of

described

represents
actually is able

the composite
failed. to predict This

in which mode conclusion

slab-beam the present

system model

the behaviour the of in the the only

slab-beam in

systems. the formulation in the such the of this model

Perhaps, in the analysis state of this if the In

disadvantage systems The effect shear, normal

slab-beam layer.

lies of to

assumption

of plane is For the thin

stress neglect plates, felt,

an assumption plane. the effect stress$

vertical

middle

shear

has no effect. be subjected this

But

for

beams,

may be for the

beam will this in case,

to high

torsional

example. shear

model would Figure(4.20)

definitely below).

underestimate

stresses

the beam (see

Actual Shear Flow

in

Predicted y The Layered Model

Bending

Figure-(4.20)

Shear

Flow

a layered

Plate

Model

122

4.5 CONCLUSIONS.
This tested element in its-present and the formulation following had been extensively arrived at:

by the

author,

conclusions

are

1.

A mesh division

which is valid analysis

for

an elastic

analysis planar

is also

adequate for nonlinear

Acceptable subdivision. 2. Inplane nonlinear affected boundary analysis. by varying integration results, It is true for predictions

of concrete

structures.
a rough mesh

can be obtained

even with

conditions

are very

important is

for found

a successful to be greatly

The computed edge restraints of the order range

response to 2x2

inplane is

movements. to produce in close this

A numerical acceptable chapter.

adequate

of problems order would

consiaered enable

-that

ii higher

monitoring faster

of the nonlinearities,

in thus achieving aid and can increases

convergence.

However-$ the cost of the analysis orders of numerical

dramatically in addition, was observed. Tension

has very Taking reduces though forces effect

when using higher no significant

integration,,

improvement

on the computed response

stiffening
significant factor cost of

provided

by concrete
on the

between adjacent
accuracy of the

cracks
predictions.

influences in consideration analysis. would

this the

aids

convergence, and yielding the large

and thus initiation,

the

Cracking not produce tension bounds stiffening

are not which

affected,

imbalance The same load

occur

when neglecting by setting case tension

stiffening. on the plastic

can be produced in which

increments,

can be ignored.

123 In all
size is

casesq convergence
taken of between 0.08

is very
and 0.1

fast

when the load increment

cracking to 'very load. small Prior tolerances

of the

to yielding

reinforcement,

convergence

of the order
10 to load

specified
for

in section
most the

(4-3-5)

can be achieved within

considered, With to a load small tolerances with the

15 iterations, increment of around 0.08 the

of the

problems load.

0.15

cracking load,

increment

cracking less than

convergence in

can be obtained After If yielding

with of

10 iterations, large

most forces

cases. are produced. cannot the In its the value be size

reinforcement, set on the

excessive loads,,

bounds

are not

plastic

convergence by reducing yielding. to half

achieved. of the present load

The problem increment the

can further after load the

be treated steel is starts reduced

program,

increment

prior

to yield

in steel. after yielding normally happens when the

Experience

The lack
structure

of convergence
is undergoing

extensive

plastification.

with

this

model indicates

that

this

occurs near ultimate failure

the

conditions,

is indicative and
Analysis equilibrium is found to with at this

of the imminent
model indicates increment.

of the structure.
effect of attaining of the to predictions small

each load very

The accuracy

improve

much by demanding

convergence

tolerances. have found.

because layer. of

to what Duncan and Johnarry (43944) The Duncan and Johnarry's model was a crude one$
the restricting numerical assumption procedure relied of in of constant stress over the

This is in contradiction

(44)

As their

involving its

total

strains on the released under-

(successive imbalance

approximations) forces, the

success stress

assumption

constant

always

124

estimated their
their

these forces.

Accordingly,

it

was not strange

that

predictions
model

were stiffer
able to

than what they

achieve equilibrium

should be, and

in most cases.

was not

In the present points, layer.

formulation, for

stresses the variability

are sampled at the Gauss of stresses over the

which allows In this

way, a good improvement

in the element performance

was achieved.

125

(-,

v C,

Gauss points N. B. Encircled

in a finite element axe the nodal =bering

in element local

coordinate

11

12

13

14
8

15

5
6
1

6 7
2 8

7 9 3

10

4 (4-1) the in system

Pigure

Elements and nodal numbering f inite element program

26

STRESS

cu

Figure

(4.2)

Stress-Strain

relationship

for

concrete

in compression

FigL=e

(4.3)

Biaxial

strength

of concrete

a 2/1 cul
127
cr

If4

Fi; rure--(4-4)
Y

The square yield

criterion

for

plain

concrete

vi

xf

x
Figi=e -(4.5)
Transformation directions of cracked stiffness to global

128

STRESS

ft

I- cr

STRAIN

CC

Figure

(4.6)

Tensile

Stress-Strain

curve for

concrete

"fCu 21

129 111f

pigure-(4-7)

the yield "Zoning" loading subsequent

surface surfaces

initial -

and

STRESS

II

STRAIN Figure (4.8) Stress-Strain curve for a steel layer

STIFFNESS MATRIX FORM INITIAL Ek-1 AND DECOMPOSE IT

130

[Pll

IAIOZE WO LOAD VECTORS P2.1 =tNI;

rpll

OP LOAD ADD AN INCREMENT [A P 1 I'& IP12 PI P21 pI: + +

dj

DISPLA' EZ=S -' [ID Ckj =

DETERMINE PRINCIPAL STRAINS9 STRESSES. THEN DETEMMINE THE NODAL FMCE VECTOR [F [F] =Z] [a] dv

EDUMNE EQUILIERIUM9 GET EXCESSFORCEVECTOR I [Fex] =lp 21 _[F

ADD THE EXCESSFORCEVECTOR TO VECTOR P1 [pil = [pil +r P"

-SOLVE FCR ITERATION DISPLACMfYT ex, [j&dl = [kj LF

NO

---

IS NORM [ad] Fi =e (4.9) Details of the

SMALL?

-7-1-

YES

numerical

procedure

131

90 80

70
60
Cd 0

a__ -------

50 40

Experiment

ANALYSIS DOTREPPE tension THEORY(without stiffening) x THEORY(with tension stiffening)

P4

Cd

r-4 0 E-1

30
20
10

4
Figure (4.10. a)

a Central

12 Deflection
supported

16 (mm)
slab under

20

A square simply load point

a central

CU

47971 Nl=

303,14 N/=2 = y 2 Ec = 27580 Nl= 2 Es= 2o6850 11/=

1828-8

h=
d1=
=

139.7 mm

114 -3 mm
Py

px

0-0099 =

e_(4.10. b),

Details

of DOTREPPE slab

132

80

70

60
PL4 %. -I

50

r-i

Cd

40

30

20

10

48

12

16

20

24

CENTRALDEFLECTION(=) Figure (4-11) Comparison between the predictions made by different for the square mesh subdivisions load simply supported slab under a central

85

75

65

55
r-4

0
P

Cd

45

35

25

15

5
12
Central Pigixre (4-12) Deflection

16
(mm)

20

24

Effect of using various load increment response of a simply supported slab.

sizes

on the

85

75

65

55

P4

45

35

25

15

dent.ral Teflection
FigL=e (4-13)

(=)
load. at

A 8imPlY SuPported slab under a central Effect of satisfying static equilibrium each load level on the deflections.

100

135

so

00-%

A
P-1 Id Cd

60

40 Cd
20

48 Figure (4-14a) Effect

12 of various

16

20 on the response

Central Deflection boundary conditions

0x=C..

L.

v0 60C. x L.

u=O -, --0 w=O 0x =o

TYPE 1

y--0

e X=o
TYPE 2

U--o V--o W--o

U=o ey.
=O

U---V--W= fj

=U

U--V=W--Ii

=U

v= x--0 0

C. L.
N. B. IY
0

w=O 6
=o

u=O
=O

Type 4= Type 2+ shifting the N. A. to the bottom of the slab.

1 ZYPE u--Iw=e =0 -I y
Figure

(4-14b)

Types

of

boundary

conditions

for

a simply

supported

slab

136

16

i-'

12

0 A $.

P4

P-4 :4 H Cd 421
0

E-4

246a Central Deflection

Figure (4-15) McggiOe COrner supported, -slab.

cu

48.6 Nl=

Ec Es ft

331 2e614
200000

914.4 h
d1

Px

2*413 44*7 33-3 0-0085 p7 =

14-4
Figure (4-16), Details of McNeice Slab.

137 45 40 35 30 25 20
P4

Experimental Failure Load D,

Experiment
v

-I .C4 r-i Cd 10 +, 01 .I Y 5ff

15

RAOTheory Present Theory

8 Central Fi (4-17) e RAO TEE-B. EUl Bl

16 12 (=) Deflection

20

a-w7"

1650

3300

1000

'

/gmm @ 15()c
120 (4.18) Details of RAO TEE-BEAYIB1 (For materials see section properties

15

Figi=e

3.4-3)

138 C. L. L. C v. 4*8 mm A23 1

co

4,0*5 152 76 9-5 and

T
St'i='UPS @ 76 mmc/c

24

4`8 min

COA

20

16

12 x

Ebcperiment Theory -

10

20 Central

30 Deflection

40 (mm) c=e

50

Fig=e

(4-19)

Details and load-d-+Splacement slab-beam system.

for

Hayes'

I SY -

139
CHAPTER'FIVE INVESTIGATION

5.1*INTRODUCTION In the previous established. (Chapter In this chapter chapter, a reliable finite element program was design procedure is

the proposed direct examined. of a finite

3) will

be critically

The design procedure element program,

dependant on the avdilability summarized as follows: (1) The geometric

loads program initial

and can be

details,

materials
input data

properties
for the

and the design

program. slabg The using the

are used as the performs uncracked the

an elastic concrete stress slab

analysis section

on the properties. (N 9N9N Xy

The analysis 14 ICY xy9M0M design Xy load. resisting

establishes at (2) any point the

distribution at the of every

on the

specified (3)9

ultimate the

Using

design

equations at

chapter point

required

moments are (3) Using required forces then in inserts the

calculated State

on the

slab. steel areas

Limit to

Theory the design

(Appendix resisting for areas

A)9 the

provide (2)

moments and membrane each element. in the The program

step the in

are

calculated steel places

computed proper

two orthogonal finite element

directions model. (4) To check in this

their

in the

layered

the way,

service

and ultimate

behaviour nonlinear

of

the

slabs is

designed

a ful. 1 incremental of problems in this

analysis

performed. results

A wide will

range

has been

investigated

and their

be presented

chapter.

AI

14o
5.2 CONPARISONBETWEEN'TORSIONAL'AND'TORSIONLESS'ANALYSES:

5.2.1

General: The provision of reinforcement to resist the three moment components as an extension In fact,

in laterally 14 MSM xy XY to the well the strip

components This is

loaded slabs strip

can be regarded method of slab to resist

stress sltb is

known Hillerborg's

design.

method provides
Mx and My. while to

reinforcement
the torsional that the

the normal moment

component designed M Xy is ignored. of

equivalent beams (in

assuming

as a series Such

parallel

each direction) in

without

torsional Firstg in which solutions, from the load

stiffness. the

an assumption produce are

is. unsatisfactory moment fields

two ways. for of cases simple depart the

method would moments designer

unacceptable

torsional the elastic behaviour.

dominant.

Secondly,

in pursuit

nay choose distributions, In the torsional subject provisions to

stress'distributions which slabs will

which jeopardize

service the in

which

are loaded

uniformly this, lcadss but

Code provisions where slabs the

for are Code

moments may circumvent eccentric may not concentrated be applicable. design method and is

cases

or torsional

loads9

The proposed three the the

provides thus

reinforcement

to A study

resist to

all compare of

moment components, two design study is to procedures compare relative

more general. here. in

has been undertaken the design merits cases, moment fields in terms the of

The object the

two methods,

and to

show their

econony element

by comparing program strip method, i. e. G=0.0 would yield

the moment volumes. developed the slab in Chapter

In both (4)

finite

was used. possess zero

For, Hillerborg's torsional stiffness

was assumed to finite element

in the

analysis.

Such a numerical

simulation

141
a stress zero distribution in equilibrium with the applied loads, but with will present torsional moments everywhere. analysis. properties G 0.0. with the This Accordingly, On the for other concrete also

such an analysis hand, slab for the

be called design and the distribution opposed linked al

a "torsionless" isotropic modulus equilibrium torsionless equations

procedure., torsional in

were assumed, a stress 0 0. M XY G00.0 As are

would

produce but with with

applied solutions (3),

loads,

to the with the

analysis, of Chapter

obtained

and will

be termed

"torsionas

analysis".

5.2.2

Analyses A series

and Results: of slabs with various boundary conditions all and differing under the the a

sides

ratios

was investigated. distributed and gives lateral the

The slabs load. Table obtained. (5-1) design

were (5-1)

analysed summarizes for

uniformly considered, volumes for the

cases moment

rosults in the the Figure two

The results Figure and prodedures in Table (5.2).

have been plotted moment fields (5-3) Results seven (D). proposed of the to (5-9) for cases In all for for

Comparisons in

are presented (5.1) of to for 1.5

Figures slabs. for the

seven slabs are full

cases with in

square and 2.0 in results are

rectangular considered figures,

sides

ratios (Dl)

given lines while

Figures

(D56) the -------

Appendix of the those the

indicate the broken lines

torsional

analysis, analysis. the

torsionless

The numbers small that all diagrams slabs

on the near

curves curves

indicate in each

strip

nunber It should mesh of

in shown as

the

figure. a regular the

be mentioned

had been the the

analysed

using from

10 x 10 elements. be calculated give the in

Accordinglys tenths of

strip

distance

edge can easily Individual

span length. moment along in a

curves For general

variation results

of the

design

the

strip.

use,, the

had been expressed

142
nondimensional those causing form. tension The sign on the convention for of the the slab =ments is that

underside

are positive.

5.2.3

'Discussion From Figures

of'RLisults: (5-1)'and
gives all the higher cases

(5.2),

it

is evident
than slabs

that
that

the torsional
of no torsion. supported steel

analysis This along only is all

always true for

moment volumes considered. With

simply to

sides,

moment volumes the

corresponding two analyses, torsionless

the bottom the value the

are approximately in this

same in the only

Tnum (see Table

difference 5-1).

case is the to the

8% of the differences

Accordingly,

apparent torsional

between which In are

two analyses

can be attributed near the

moments, corners.

concentrated torsional

discontinuous

supported

practice,

reinforcement
of the midspan

is normally
reinforcement. were

added at such corners,

Following (see

as a certain

percentage
steel

k5) torsional Cp 110 .

Dl) total

moment volumes torsionless

calculated results. (5.2),

Appendix

to the and added , moment volumes discontinuous that, in is other have

analysis in

The resulting for the

been compared The results simply of

Table final

cases with indicate

edges. slabs 10% of either 20%. The each

the

moment volumes edges, the

case of at least types

supported

on all than (5.2), the

torsional analysis. analysis analysiss

analysis For gives

more economical slabs very in close Large two methods Table to

torsionless torsional torsionless

the of the

moment volumes by up to edges. from

that

or higher free

differences produce

can also

be seen in which

cases with

moment volumes

differ

considerably

other.,
free

as can be seen from Figure

the difference

(5-1).
is

For the case of slabs vith

two reasons:

one

(case'C), edge

due. to

143
(a) The torsionless analysis 'underestimates the reinforcement

normal to the free

Figures (DI8

edge, as can be seen fr=

Figures

(5.5b),

and D22).

(b) The torsional

However torsional confined nothing

reinforcement.
can be done about the to of reason Cpllo(5). reducing in (a), over the but the the two in

steel corners.

can be added according This has the effect

difference

the moment volumes from an average of 48% (Table 9.5% only

in moments cause mity. reduction (a)

5-1) to a maximum of of the torsional

is thus due to to

(Table
this above,

5.2).
case,

This shows the importance

The slight in (9.5%) effect difference as the sides

and reduces effect n=ber of of the

ratio

tends with the

But the in the

torsional

moments reduces (between

confined

corners

orthogonal

discontinuous in determining

edges),

increases which

the effect

of the normal moments Take for sides$

the total

(a) (cause above). moment volume supported

example, the case of a slab simply and supported (5.1),

along two orthogonal (case G).

by a column at the opposite

corner

From Table between ranges corner to a

the difference

in moment volumes in the two analyses of torsional steel

32.2% and 44-TOO. Addition between the two simply 'v, 18.6, maximum of
The difference in such

over the confined

supported

edges reduces the difference

cases

is

due to

the

large

differences

in

the moment fields.

by the two analysis

A comparison between the moment fields

for the seven cases in Table (5-1). is

produced
given in

Figures

(5.3)

to (5-9)

and in Appendix

(D). supported
c,

Considering
fields . are given

the case of the simply

by Figures (5.3a, b.

slabs,

the moment
(Dl to D8).

d) and Figures

144 While design with Me the torsional the analysis torsionless of reinforcement of design gives a fairly gradual produces the central the variation a parabolic zone of the analysis in design the in strip. the value is also (10) on the miniTninn weight pattern. moment distributions Although the torsionless do not are principles of variation, slab.

moments, concentration

analysis in

smooth variation a convenient the torsionless analysis moment,

moments in the

torsional

provides Unlike torsional of the

way of placing analysis, can thus the

reinforcement

reinforcement on the

be based

maxiTninn or the difference.

average This

without

producing

a significant

an advantage which requires For given analysis in

over

the- designs

based varying B),

continuously slabs (5.4) to give (case

reinforcement of the D16). the

clamped Figure tends

results (D9 to

and Figures higher

moment values,

two methods

differ

very much from each other. to central

In the two analysis, The extension greater this

the ratio

between

the support reinforcement well strip

is about 2. moment sides ratios

of the supports agrees very

in slabs with

than 1.0,

in the two cases. length,

For edge strips,

steel

extends the full strips. and supported

produce D49 to along of free D56). the

in the central L 0.2 to and extends about two adjacent

opposite corner

For slabs with

on a column different on the

edges simply

supported

(case G) the

two methods (5.9, of (the steel ratio

distributions, analysis with steel is

Figures from, be seen as can requires little about steel 214)very strong bands

The torsionless free edge strips, centre

at the On the

centre other

edge to analysis

hand, 'the this

torsional case. by the The case

produces the analysis

a more even distribution, present is design approach, with the

even for which yield is line

Finally torsional

represented designs.

compared

145
considered will is the square simply line supported (5.1). Table slab of It

be assumed in the yield with

design that divided

the slab is reinforced into a centraland two in the Differences

is

in a banded form edge strips central

in the

the slab being

in each direction. of width

arms will to the

The ultimate

moments provided is ml.

volume

strip
lever

2x is m2, that
be neglected$

of edge strips
so that the steel

proportional failure the

moment volume. then the

By considering volume of steel same.

the is

two modes of minimum when will give

in Figure loads L where

(5.12). of L is the the

ultimate

two modes are the span length, and

This

x=0.375

0.0746 q L4 0.0241 q L2 m2 = 0.0475 q LZ Now for the same slab, V=0.0744 from Table (5-1) q L4 (5.2) and Figure (5-3) we have:

m, = 0.0225 q L2 0.0475 q L2 = m2
The moment values at the mid of This L in the strip in (5.2) Figure is are the (5-3), central which to is

value

and the

value

2 in

at 0.15

L from the to

support. 0.375

distance yield (5.1) line

equivalent analysis.

x=0.35

Z, as compared

Equations same results. used in method line in

(5.2) and

show that is that

the

two methods only the

yield

the are

The only

difference in the yield

vhile analysis,

three

bands

each direction

line

present in the

design yield loads

assumes many more bands. here had been based it

Since

the

derivation of the

theory tvo failure

on an assumption that

equal

ultimate

modes,

can be concluded

use of banded

t"

146
reinforcement collapse according modes will of the slab will involve failure limit by simultaneous when every infinite an due to yield point formation is of many

mechanisms. to the stress at the

In. the

designed collapse all portions

distribution, design along load, the

number of of

form

the yielding

and not

just

lines.

5.2.4 Conclusions:
Based on what has been presented the following conclusions can be

drawn: (1) The distribution conveniently Putting solutions the the of design moments in the in the concrete finite analysis is slabs element can method.

be obtained shear modulus torsional

by using G=0

produces equivalent of slab to design,

without

moments,

which

Fernando to

and Kemp's Hillerborg's material

strip

deflection

method

and thus (2) Using

method properties

(Torsionless 'ith the

Solutions). shear modulus

isotropic

G00.0

in the finite with

element

analysis.

solutions

were obtained (3) to The

which were linked produce distributions procedure takes

the design equations

of Chapter

in design concrete of moments moments as well

slabs.

torsional

as the normal moments

in the calculation Solutions). The strip

produces with

(Torsional of the normal design moments

method represented
moment volumes obtained

here by the torsionless

compare within proposed direct

analysis
variance

which

acceptable design

those

fromi the

method,

provided

the additional

torsional

steel

is included.

147
For slabs around),, solutions discontinuous the direct on all (i. edges e. simply supported 11 a.

design method produces more economical method. in steel Using the torsional can be obtained by the strip a fairly
moments. design of the the in

than the strip

analysis case

suggested here a saving

in this

of between 10 to 19% of that The suggested torsional

variation the in the

required

method. smooth
Accordingly, the strip on

analysis
of

provides
design

distribution

designer the

can base the maxiTnurn or the without the departing strip. provides

reinforcement average far value from

either the

design

moment in

strip,

original

distribution

of moments in (6) The proposed steel extend. percentage (7) at the

method corners,

both

the

required over which is

quantity

of torsional should

and the

length such

such steel taken

In normal

practice, steel, the the

a steel

only

as a certain

of midspan

as prescribed amount and the simple strip will

by the distribution

Codes of Practice. of transverse no steel based on in

The method also provides steel. this In some cases, and the

method provide

requires such steel

direction,

designer

Code requirements. (8) The method yield modes. line is found to compare accurately under approach with designs based on the

theory

involving direct

failure design

simultaneous has the a wider

collapse

The present

advantage choice lead which failure load. than to the that

of providing permitted conclusion for yielding

distributions by the that of yield the all line

of moments with theory. direct of the

The comparison design slab) approach permits

proposed portions

allows with

simultaneous

collapse

modes under. the

design

ultimate

148
C>l c) 11. m :t (Yl Ul\ ri CM cm UN Pl LIm Co m _e H r-i m CM CD (> Lr\

CM

CM

C\i

CM

CM

ri

C\i

CM

2 0

A
n

A
Co

4
O\

A 1;
\M \Z

A
r-i ni CU 0
c5

A
Co m m 0
c;

A A 1;
Co m t _: 0
(5

'
1
4j

"

r-i t'-

Co O\

0 c;
cu Co

0
0 C)

0 M r-i
Ic;

r-i %z r-i
c

0 C r-i
<5

ni (n Lr\ 0

%0

Cti \M 0

0 0

Co (D

cli r-i

\M r-i

Lr\ CY%

O\ r-i c

tVN -

CYN 0

ri CM

(Yl 0

e _:e

_-r C

2 LI%o U-% Co t. 0 0C)

c; c; to (L) Co CYN r-i C\i %o CM r-1 n

Co

c; \.0 P-4 c\ \M P-1

c; c; c (5 c;
E-4 0 Co ci H Co H 0 Co CM C%i 0 \M ID cm CD f-A (: CM 0. r --. Lr\ H 0

c;
CM CM CM 0 >Co CM 0 CD m ri 0 r-1 C> (1 0

ri 2 Co 0
4j

sq

.1

( c; c; (5
e o A
UN

c; c; c;
Co CD m ci 14
\D 0

m CD

A
Co

A
O\

Ul% Z 0 0 A
1,0

H m

r-i M

(: CY

tC\i

4
c ch

45 11
gq 0.

t0
0

Co

m ri
0 cu t-H

, 0 ri
0 C\ r-i t-ri

ri

(D

c% ri
CD 1%0 \M
C)

r-i ri 0 0 r _: u-\ c) c)
H

"0

ri 0
(D C\j

ri cm 0

\O "0

ri

0 W 4 0

0 C> H

CM 0 0 0 (D
O\

zr tC)

CM

Co

cl

CM

(\i

_-r

cl

CM

CD

(Yl

C)

C)

to
-r4

ull C\j

0 Ul\

U'\ t. -

44'4

4 C 14
ri

rn 0 0

. r4 4-) 0 ri

(D W Fo H r 0 pq m0

Cd E-4 1

0 rd to

>4 bD -r i rd a)

149

D >lo A 11 _0f5k AA
4-1 0

c> UN t .:

\Z r-i Lr\

tCM Ul\

*D CO _e

0 CM t _:

UN Co CM

CD

CM

A
Lr\ m LA

0
0
0

A P.

11

g
\z

E-1

-t _e r-1

r --:

tm cu

Lrl%

LN \Z M

IZ

C>

Lr\ Co N

C)

ON Ul\ Je

CM cli \M

ni t-LI-

l
2

c
tN \M

c
H m _e c CD \Z

c; c;
m (D UN C

0 0
%Z 0 H r-i H

Lr\ H

r-i Co CD

Co

c; c; c; (5
0

0
C.
Lr\ H UN -t m Co Ul\ \M

0
m 9

0
Co Co

\Z mi r-i

UN tH

Lr% C%i C\i

cq tCM C)

c;
LN 9

I
4J 0 pq

\D

UN H

C\i

\. 0 r-1 (n

Co tPl

c)

0 cn _e

c5 c;

c;
Ul\ cu Co r-i H ri

c;
tr\ CM --t cu Lr\ C\i n cli UN C*i

010

\Z cli

Co CM

00AAA4A414

.4
r _Z r-i
:t -e

ri c\

tCD

Lr\ tM CU

140 U-N %o

CN Lr\

c> \,0 rA 0

Lr\ CD CM

tc ri

Lr\ 0

UN CD

Wl 0 \lo CD

Ill

0
0

-_J,

Co

\Z a',

ON

Co

C\i

Pl

CU M

CM O\

rA ci c)

Lr\ ri 0

O\ _e

t-

cn \lo

0 , Lr\
t-

c; c;
m0 0 ro :b
UN 0 Ul\ 0

CM

Lr% CU

u.\
t-

AA

A
A

cu

4-3 0 0

c: 0

Q PC
m p4

Q 41
0 P,

10 Cd E-4

0 pq
a,
0 U

150
1 0 0
1

Co c\

o c\

-e CD

c\ Co

CM

%Z

p;

-t

\Z

Co

c c l 1: H H r-i mi
t-Z
t-H 9 H

r-i

cu A A 4
t-

CU

t _: O\ cli

C\i

A
t-

A
"0 Co

1
4J

o Erf

Co r-i

Lr\ _e

%o

Co

O\

t-ri

Lr\ UN

o t--

-t Co

c>

r-i m
0

UN \M
0

--r t _: H
0

CM
U-%

cm 2
r-i (n

r-i

0 CM

-zr 0 t0

0 r-i O\ 0

%10 (>

CU \M

CM

1 .t>

CY\ \. 0

O\ 0

H 0 Eri 0
lif

rH 0

C\i 0

CM 0

Zt

u'\

C\i (D

H o

H 0

CN H

m CU

Pl tC\i CD

c;
Je Lr\ r-i C% e _ CU

(5 c;
CD ri m CD 1%0 C _zr CD m Ul\ =r 0 "0 Lr\ r-i c) H m cm c) .e c\ CM Co _e (Y) UN 9 c;

Z
2

00
00

Ul\

cli
ri

H CM
0 r-i

Co mi

t-r-i

t-

(n

Co
r-i

CM

cu

CM cu

A
ri Co 10 9

A
0 Lr\ c\ 0

A
IND H cu r,

A
m tcu (D

A
CM 0

A
m H

A
(n H "0 0

A
(n r-i LIC

0. 0
4-1

0
11

ei CM CM

Co C\i -t

c;

0 l

tcli c> 4 C)

*%0 ri UN . (D 0 0

\M 9
c

lIZ H H 0 CD

Co Cti 0

_e

ri

%I0

Co

t-

\M c)

t. (D

H CD 0

110 Co CD
Z 0

>1 r4 A rZI I ,

C)

U-%

cli

0 LCI%

Lrl% tl-

0 0

Lr\ 0N

Lr\

4 r4 m 8
r
C\j 00

1; C

44
Id
rd 0

oj
LA 4) r-i

00,
N

A Cd E-4

.,. 1 to

P4 P4

. ri rtl

rn a

.1

4-) U3

04

rn
P 5 44 4-) 0 ., 1 rcl r4 0

>4 to -ri ; T-4

P4

;Tw

151
VN Lr\ C\i

(n

Co

_e

cl

C\i

o
4J 0 mi

C%J
r-1 CU _-:r

Co
UN

Co m
Lr%

Lr\ C Lr\

Z "0 Co

_-r

c\

ri

Ll\ Lr\

cu
tt--

t. -

(D 01 0

I ), (5 ( ( c C
Lr\
W\ r-f
0

lit,
>

t-CM 0
4

c\ _zr C)

Co

\m Co 0
4

CD

Co
O\ cn ri 6

E-t CD (D -%. 11 0 m A

C)

(D

CY\ cm A

Lr\ N A

ri \M C) mi

(NI L-H

UN p \m cm

A 0

r --. _e Co

4j 0

pq

M CD m

_e (n cu

t-\M m

t--

tcm

%Z cu

rd Z 4-) 0 0 C. )

Q) ri sz rcj 1-,
. f-4

cm

tr\

Co Pz

A 1;
rd 0
0 Z

1;

0. rl

. ri 4-1

Z: 0

l
P,
t) 0

$4

4. Cd E-1
01

o ,i

e ci

A >b 0 AH

4-2

r.

to ro 00

0 A A

152

Table'(5.2):

Comparison betweenzoment, volumes produced by Torsional analyses -'Additional andTorsionless reinforcement moment volume due to torsional is CP110 to added to the case of according torsionless analysef. moment volumes are in terms of qL4 Y. .... ...... I..

N. B.

All

.... -

......... ''TOTAL' vG0 vG=0

...

LxG00........ Slab Type vvv total Vl , ...

G -'O

..

a...

+V l.. a

1.0 1.25 1.50 1.75 2.0 1.0 1.25 1.50 1.75 2.0 1.0
AAAoleW

0882 . 1200 . 16oo . 1995 . 2357 . 1150 . 2189 . 3627 . 5431 . 7609 . 0520 . 07o4 . 0910 . 1096 . 1262 . 1538 . 2505. 3866 . 5594 . 7727 .

0715 . 0988 . 1309 . 1616 . 1go6 . 0791 . 1444 . 2385 . 3656 . 5359 . 0378 . 0557 . . 0709 0847 . 0986 . 1063 . 1727 . 2695 . 4039 . . -5844

037. . 0487 . 05952 . 0655 . o6gi 0396 . 0648' . 096 . 1304 . 1728 . 0054 . 0071 . 0085 . 009 . 00912 . 0324 . o438 0564 . 0704 . 0090 --

1085 . 1475 . 1go4 . 2271 . 260 . 1187 . 2092 . 334 . 496 . 7089 . 0432 . 0628 . 0794 . 0937 . 1077 . 1387 . 2164 . 3259 . 474 . 6744 . ... ....

. .

813 814

84o . 878 . 907 . 970 . i. o46 l. o86 1.095 1.073 1.2o4 1.12 1.146 1.17 1.172 1.109 1.157 1.186 1.180 1.146

1.25 1.50 1.75 2.0 1.0 1.25 1.50 1.75 2.0.1

V, = moment volume without torsional steel V = additional torsional steel moment volume a V= total moment volume =V 1 +V a

Torsional
Torsic. -iless

Analysis
Analysio

153

0-9

\\"

0-8 G
..

Gr

007

-qzr>) 1-4

o-6
GI // /

r-i 0

0-5

0 :4 r-I ci 4-) 0 E-4

/i I,
0*4
/ I,

1 ii

1 '.

'it;

0-3
',

JA

0-2*

0-1

'Ili , SN
1-0

be

1-25
Figure (5-1)

1,50

1 *75 y-

2-00
by

Sides Ratio Lk/L

Comparison of moment volumes produced torsional and torsionless analyses

154

Torsional 0-13P Torsionless

Analyses Analysis

0-20
J-E j

Oo15
4-'

r: 3
d 0-10

odl ol
.00,

F -.*, F
LD

0 E-4

:, 0.

0-05

1-0

1-25

1-50,1-75 Sides Ratio L /L

2-0

Figure

(5-2)

Compaxison of moment volumes and torsionless analyses

produced

by torsional

0*08

T LY I
.01

155

(5) C4

0-06

c\j
V//

0004
2) loe 0-02 1--, 0-1 <2 "' (i )

(4) M

., .0., 000 0-1

Figure

(S. 3a)

Positive

Moment M* (L /L xxy

160) =

0.081

T ,, y
"\\---

(5) x
6 ---

0-06
'---

. -----.

0004

-.

-.

--

-------

(4) (3)

0-02

2)

(1)
0-0 Fig=e Uel Positive -- u, z0- 3 0) = 04
0

(5-3b)

Moment M* (L /L yxy

156

0-06

0004

0-02

0-0

Figure

(5.3c),

Negative

A/. U x Moment M* (L /L xxy

1-0) =

O-C C'4 4

0-0

0-0

Y/LY Figi=e (5.3d) . Negative Moment M 1 -0)

157

*04

1 LY

Ix

0-03

ply
el

..'

', .e*.

clj, 4

0-02

0-01
-. -

L(2

(1)
0-0 --

0,
------ --

.1..,

,.

-\ ".-I

0-1

0-2

0*3

Positive

X/Lc (Lx/L7 1-0) M* Moment = x

0-

U-

IL

0-04

LY

0-03
A t>ll

(5) ' (z4i we

al 0-02

0-01

(22) ol
0-01

-------

A//Z-1 0-1
Positive

0-2
y/L y

0-3

0-4

0-5

Figare

(5-4b)

Moment M-e-(Lx/LY = l10)

0-05

58

0,,04

0-03

cm b-ip.
l

0-02

0-01

O-C

Finire

(5.4c)1

Negative

XAX Moment M (Lx/lr-

1 -0)

0-0

0-0

0-0

0-0
0.0:

0. ( Y/Ly Figure (5-4d). Negative Moment M*y (Lx/L7= 1*0)

159

0-16

t", ax
LX

MX

D
.*

" ..

0-12

0.1 ."

1, l
cr 0-08

//

10.001

0*04
Z 1.01 c zo / ,. 00
----

(1)
ue 2

0-0

U0L

Fig=e 5,. 5a), positive Moment M* (LJL 1-0) x y=

XAX

I?

0008

LY

0-06

3) 0*04

4) 5).
0002
A .01 0-0 U*4 Y/Ly 06 0*8
0

0 1
000

(2)

ELZEe-15 ): ]a , ,'

Positive Moment1' (L, /Ly= '-O)

160

0.

*1

0.

0.0
Figure_(5.5c) Negative

0.1

0.2

0.3

o. 4

0.5

Moment *x (L /LZr= '. 0) x

0.

0.

0.

0.

Ulu .
Figure (5.5d)

0.2
Negative

o. 4
Moment M* (L /L xxy

o. 6
1-0)

0.8

1.0

161

o. o4
( 3), -, -'-

0.03
L x
04

WO,

V,

0.02

0.01 j5 X-

0.0

0.1

0.2 X/L x

0.3

o. 4

0.5

Figure

(5.6a)

Positive

Moment M* (L /L xxy

= 1.0)

0. L y 0.031111111, lV\1111>XA/IX 1, IXXX . (5) 11-1

11

.01 10

.1..

--

14 )'

0.023)
/

(3

0.01-

\\ lk

\01
000 0.2 o. 4 y/L Figure (5.6b_)_ Pos't've Moment M* (L /L yxy = 1.0) L o. 6 o. 8 1.0

162

0.08

o. o6

"-

o. o4

0.02

0.0

0.1

0.2

o. 3 X/Lx
= 1.0)

U, 4

u69

Figure

(5.6cl

Negiltive

Moment M* (L /L' xxy

0.05

o. o4

0-03 c4 >,

0.02

0.01

0.0

0.2

o. 4
y/L y

0. b

U. 0

Figure

(5.6d)

Negative

/L (L M* = 1-0) Moment yxy

0.05

163 ,

o. o4

(4)

cq

0.03 Lx
0.02

(5) (4)
(3) (2) 100,
(2)

0.01

.00

0.0 Figure (5-7a) Positive

0.1

0.2

0.3 x Ax 1.0)

o. 4

0.5

Moment M* (L /L y x x

o. o4

0.03

\"-,

9.02

0.01

I-y

(2)

0.0 Figure (5-Th)

0.1 Moment M* y

0.2 (Lx/Ly

0.3 Y/Ly :-- 1-0)

0.

-I-0.5

positive

64

Os O

0.06
r4 4 >%,

c31 0.04 1- 5:x

0.02

0.0

"1

0.1 Negative

-1.1 -0.2 0.3 X/Ix Moment M* (Lx/I x

-.

; N.

-.

o. 4
= 1.0)

0.5

Figure

(5-7c)

0.018

o. o, 14

0.01 N 1.4

0.006

0.002 0.0

0.1
(5-7d) Negative

0.2 Y/L

0.3

o. 4
1.0)

0.5

Figure

y Moment M* (lk/L yy

0.05 165
11
Adr 0.01 mx

'o.

-4

(4)
0.03 J2

. f; 7 5-t: 5,
(2)

0.02-

0.01-

0.0

00o' . 0.2

0.4 .X/LX

ulfo

1.0

Figure (5.8al

Positive

Moment M* (L /L = 1.0) xxy

0.
/ / // II

/\

/
("4) / \

/
\

0.0
C14

_L21

0.0

2)/7\

0.01-

0.0

0.2

o. 4

o. 6 YA3,

o. 8

1.0

Figure

(5-8b)

'Positive

Moment M* (LX/Ly y

1-0)

144

0.08

o. o6

o. o4

0.02

0.0

1
XIT,X (5.8c) Moment Mx* (LX/L5r

Figure

Negative

0.08

CO

o. o6

o. o4

0.02

0.0

0.2
Figure (5.8d) Negative

o. 4
y/L

o. 6

0.8
= 1-0)

1.0

y Moment M* (L /L yxy

167

o. o4

0.03

Lx
00, '4" 0.02 c', -

0.1 -/
" (3) O 111

. 111111`

4) I-ftIIIIIIZZ7.... (4)
2)

JI/ 0.0

0.2
(5.9a) Positive

o. 4. x/Lx

--o. 6

0.8
= 1.0)

1.0

Figure

Moment M* (L /L xxy

o. 4

0.3
C4 >, 00 100 . 1%

lop

0.2-

5)

1000
(3)

(3)
(2)\

0.0

1 0.2 (5.9b) Positive

o. 4 y/L

o. 6

o. 8 1-0)

1.0

Figure

y Moment M* (L /L yxY

0.10

0.08

o. o6

o. o4

0.02

0.0 X/L Fi; rL=e (5.2c) Negative x

Moment M* (L /L

xxy

= 1.0)

0.10

0.08

o. o6

o. o4

0.02

0.0

0.2
(5.9d), Negative

o. 4
y/L y

o. 6

0.8
= 1.0)

1.0

Figure

Moment 14* (Lx/L yy

169
Mi

z LL

2x

1-

2x

Mode 1

Mode 2

For unit lines* Mode 1: qX2/3 qx

deflection

at the

intersections

of the

yield

4(=, (t = 24

- 2x)

+ m2 2x) x)

x-2

+ 2m2x/. Z )

Mo de 2:

[(Z q

)2, 2x /3 ,+ -

4(L - 2x) x/2 + 4x2

4m, =. (Z 2x) 24mi Z2(1 .

For a given loads from x. the V=2 and for the minimum moment volume same. (2x)2) is when the ultimate

two modes are the (MJ(12

4X2) +m2 -

minimum volume dy 0 x=0.375 V=0.0746 and, q Z45I'll = 0.0241 qZ29M2=0.0475 qZ2

This

will.

give,

Figure

(5.12)

Weight Optimuni Minimi= Slab. Simply Supported

Solution

for

a Square

170
5.3'NUMERICAL EXPERIMENTS: 5.3.1. 'Geteral.

A series

of computer experiments, using the layered finite slabs.

element program were conducted on a number of rectangular The slabs were all designed by the proposed direct

design method,

except two, which were intended for comparison with the direct design method. The object of these numerical experiments is to behaviour of the slabs designed by this

study the service method.

The proposed elastic that in the the analysis resulting under

and ultimate

method under

uses. the ultimate stress

initial load.

uncracked However,

stiffnesses it is not

in the likely occur

the

elastic ultimate the

distributions for the

would following load

actually

slab

conditions,,

two reasons: increasess

(a)

Owing to the slab

progressive

cracking gradually

as the deteriorate.

stiffnesses criterion to

(b)

The yield

adopted the

in

the yield

design

is,

after

all

an approximation Accordingly,
though, it is it is

exact of

criterion. is bound to
be minimum. sections

redistribution
anticipated that the here strength

stresses
this would

occur,
Although is

that of

believed

under-reinforced

dependAnt behaviour

on the under

steel

provided, loads will

there

is

no guarantee

that

the is

service on the

be satisfactory. cracked

The 166tter sections and the are

more dependant extent of

stiffness Accordingly,

of the

cracking.

such numerical

experiments

justified. The variables

(a) Boundary

in the study
Conditions.

are as follows:

171
(b) Sides ratios.
(c) Materials'properties.

The slabs follows:

Test Test Series Series 1: 2: -

in this

study

can be divided

into

five

series

as

includes includes sides,

ten five with five

slabs slabs

simply simply

supported supported

on all

sides.

on three

one edge free. slabs while simply the supported opposite along corner two is

Test

Series

3: -

includes adjacent resting

edges,

on a column.

Test Series

4: -

includes around.

three

slabs

supported

by edge beams all

Test Series

5: -

includes
free

two slabs
fourth.

simply
This

supported
test series

on three
is

sides,

on the

intended

to provide
design

direct the between proposed a comparison

and the simple strip method.

approach

In each of the first

between 1.0 and 2.0 were

three

seriess

slabs with

sides

ratios

examined.

5.3.2

Designation All test

of Slabs tested: uniform

for All

slabs were designed to carry

the slab was first design materials designed approach. were taken load till

loads

only.
ultimate on the was then constitute given (5-7) the

In

each runs using load

a specified safety factors the This

load design

the

direct

and the

as'unity, failure.

slab would were

analysed a full serial

under computer

incremental an experiment.

The computer etc.,

experiments

names N1JMEX1,

NUMEX 2...

and Tables

(5-3)to

172
describe the type of each problem in each numerical experiment.

5.3.3'Proportioning'and'L6Acling. In the 2000 mt. varied slabs the in Series 1 to 3, one dimension (always in along was chosen the X-axis) to be was as span/20. depth depends along side

while

other

dimension, depth

for

each run. of the

The slab term

each case was taken calculating For slabs length edgess edge. and an elastic from the would finite of the the

The definition on the four of boundary the

"span" of the

used in problem.

conditions span length

supported the short

edges, the slab.

was taken involving longer

as the free free

For other length design the design

cases of the load load such

span length

was taken

as the

An arbitrary the slab under

was chosen, was obtained an analysis

analysis element include

for

program. elastic

The output. deflections

from

normally under the of

the

and the

moment distribution using the design from

choqen. load. Chapter (3)

The design in this

moments derived were also

equations the program, analysis,

research, uncracked cannot

obtained

Since these the the In predict

the elastic

initial deflections under slab,

stiffnesses be used

were used directly crack would

in the

indication as an penetration be greatly inertia through reduced.

of

deflections depth the of the

service the

loads.

Due to rigidity

flexural

present

research,

an effective

moment 6f

was used to

the

deflections

under the service

load,

IS(93) Branson the using. of the necessary deflections

method. given load,

The assumptions in Appendix (E).

and the derivation Using the elastic Tnaximim deflection 1 x -a -. I LF eff

6. I

equations*are

under the ultimate

6es the predicted

under the service (5-3)

load is given by

173
where 6= P 4= e predicted maximinn deflection deflection under under sex-vice load design

maximum elastic

ultimate

load
LF = Load factor 19= Ieff gross (-* inertia of the section section.

moment of

= Effective

moment of

inextia

of the

In this

study,

the limiting Accordingly,

service

deflection deflection
of the

6L

was taken was limited

as the span/250.
to that value, ultimate in

the predicted
suitable depth

choosing

the

slab,

or the

design

load.

5.3.4

Analysis:
For each experiment, the deformational behaviour resulting from

various yielding finite having

changes in slab material under increasing-load, element program, supports described

due to progressive has been traced in the previous two orthogonal subdivisions.

cracking

and

using

the nonlinear For slabs lines, only

chapter. centre

symmetry about their using a4x4

one quadrant one axis elements. 8x8 series

was analysed

In cases with 6x6 a. mesh of using

of symmetry, half The unsymmetrical

the slab was analysed in test cases series

using

3 were analysed

elements

over the whole 'slab. elements

the to four slab

For the slab-beam systems in over a symetric

thickness layers,

4. a mesh of 5x5
For all tested models, tvo

quadrantwas
into

used.
six

was divided as might

concrete

layers,

plus

steel

be required

by the reinforcement
elastic analysiswas

design

according
six

to the elastic
concrete layers

analysis.
with

The
no steel.

aone by using

174
k1l except experiments series were 4: strength, f cu = 20 N/'MM2 assigned the following materials properties,

test Concrete

compressi-7e

Concrete tensile

strength,

ft=1.5 E c v=0.15
fst Es= 10 were =

Njmmz 14000 N/nm2

Young's modulus for Poisson ratio

Yield Young's strength modulus

concret -e, concrete,

for
of for

steel, steel, to

300 NIMMZ 210000 N1=2

Experiments of varying slab tested

NUNEX 3.6

designed

to

study of the

the slab.

effect The

materials in this to

properties series

on the behaviour supported KN/mm2

was simply load of 33.3

with

LxAy=1.50s strengths

and subject

a uniform

The concrete

considered NUM test,

were 20,25,309 f cu

359 40 N/=2 2, but 20 N/mm:

with f st

ft=0.075

fcu.

10 was assigned increment load a

410 N/mraZ. In each load of the slab) were used

(the 0.1 P size. of cr used, for all slabs.

cracking

was the maxiMUTO value in most cases (except with 2x2 sampling

15 iterations

in the slab-beam

systems,

where 30 were used), and

points

in each element.

The displacement

force norms (see Section 4.3-5) 1x

which

used to limit

the iterations

were

10-4 and 0.01 respectively,

the In force norm was taken the following

(e.: ecept the slab-beam systems3, for

as 0.05). aspects of structural behaviour

evez7 test,

have been investigated: (1) Deflections: failure. will

(2)

te= deflections under increasing load till

short

For simplicity,

only the point

of maximum deflection

be considered.
of internal the stresses: reinforcement The redistribution directions of

Redistribution bending

in moments

due to material

nonlinearity

will

be considered.

175
Cracking cracks employs and yielding is not feasible crack of steel: by the A quantitative present model, since since crack measure of

the model widths

a smeared

approach.

But,

can be related
measure in (4) this of the study. loads: is

to steel
crack

strains,

the latter

can be used as a
will be investigated

widths,

and accordingly

Failure

Although expected

the

use of lower

the

proposed

design loads,

philosophy load are

to yield strain

bounds

on collapse

enhancements also possible.

due to

hardening will then

and membrane forces try to study these

The analysis

effects.

5.4

RESULTS, DISCUSSIONS AND CONCLUSIONS:

5.4.1 Test Series 1.

This along all 1. series edges, Subseries includes tests on slabs into the which are simply supported

and can be divided 1A: includes and

two subseries. test runs NUMEX 1 to

and were aimed to study the behaviour

slabs with various sides ratios.

of SiMPlY supported

2. Subseries

1B:

and includes

the test

runs NUM supported

396979899910 slab with The

which were made on a rectangular sides tests ratio = 1.5, under a uniform

simply

2. 33.3 KN/m. load of of various materials

were aimed to study on the response, subseries

the effect

properties Results

of both

in Figures are shown is given

(5-13) in Table

to (5-18)(5-3) and

For convenience,
Table (5.4),

a sim=ary

of the results

respectively.

176
a
)CA

-DA 90. a . 60 NUMEX 1 NUMEX 2 NUMEX 3 See Table 5.3

'0

p dk

OIk 30 Fa

0 NumEx4 NUIEX 5

0.0

08 .

0.16

0.24 6/h

0.32

o. 4o

0.48'

Figure (5-13) Load-Deflection Series 1A

Curves for the Slabs in

1.20

0.9 00
p
bKO

Pd

o. 6

NUMEX1 X NUMEX2 A NUMEX3 4 NUMEX o C NUMEX5

0.3

1.0

2.0

3. o .cy ej
Strains

4. o

5.0

6. o

Figure

(5.14)

Load-Ma:Zimum Steel Series 1A

in the Slabs in

,Z1-

ze

177
C. L. 92 .
C. L.

68 68 76 . . . 6d C.L. 76 . .

091 1.12

73 . . 83

70 .

65 CoLe

04 .81 .

74 70 . . 1 . 82 78 . 99 .

H-2. 92 766 . .8 .

91 .

i. o4
NUMEX I

l. o4
NIJNEX 2

C. L. 91 . 78 . 69 65

C L.

96 . 1.0 C.LO

78 . o83 91 .

74 . 78 . . 87

74 . 74 . . 83 a C, L

1.03

82

78 . . 82

69

0.91

78 . 1.04

1.04
NUMEX

1.129
NUMEX

-1 1.1291

C. L.

93 . i. o4

78 . *83 0.91

74 . 78 . 0.87

74 . 78 . . 87
NUMEX

C.L.

P/P (5.15)

Causing Yield d in the Slabs in Series 1A

Figure

Spread of Yield

178

0
E-4 Cd

Id

01 Id P-4 P

cli

0.

T-

1-

-4

IL
Itt co
P-4 H

6
t-\Z CD

6
CD

4 1

P-4 P,
4a)

;4

C) 'd P-4 P4

C, j "Zi-

\-O
K'\

P(I\

";I-

LCI\

1.0

10114

U11%

a, \ 04

CC) cli

co C\j

co C\l

4-2

04 Id
Lr\ 0i C\j

Id

(D

P4

Cd

4 M 44

r= 0 0

U"\ N P4 ri

.0 1-1

P
P4 P4

(D

E-1

77

E-4

r-4

179
5.4.2 CONCLUSIONS: 1A. behaviour of all the slabs limit in this series was

5.4.2.1'Subseries 1. The service satisfactory.

The deflection

of span/250 has been This gives

67% reached at an average of of the design loads. a high service strains, first load in terms of deflections. yield All

In tezms of steel

69-0% was observed at an average of of the showed an identical in the short service behaviour.

design load. 2. Yield of steel

slabs

was concentrated of the side ratio, completely direction yielded

span direction. steel in this

Irrespective. directionhas Yield in this

81% of the total when failure

was reached. of the slab at hand, only yields.

reaches the boundaries

about 91 to 96% of the design load. a small percentage of steel

On the other

in the long span direction the increase in sides

This percentage 3. The distribution

close short to that

reduces with

ratio.

is load design the very of normal moments at

predicted by the In those with did Under from the elastic long analysis, only the in the

span direction. than increases this series load.

span directions by the elastic

moments

are much smaller The difference The slabs in the in

predicted the not the the

analysis. ratio. increase

increase record design a

in'sides significant

ultimate

load,

many collapse on most of

mechanisms the slab

can combine portions.

extensive

yielding

5.4.2.2-Si! b8eries'B:
1. An improved compressive 'cracking

(Variables.

"Coricrete'and'Ste6I
is obtained This is

StrenEhs)
by increase represented steel in the by high

service strength low

behaviour of

concrete.

loadsq

deflections

and reduced

strains.

180 1.20-

0.90

p Pd

o. 6o-

NUMEX3 6 NUWEX 7 NUMEX NUMEX8

See Table 5.4

0.30

x- - --x--x 4- - 0, - -10

NUMEX 9 NUMEX 10

0.'0 Figure (5-16)

0.08

0.16

0.24 Curves for

0.32

0.4 .

0.48

Load-Deflection Dub Series 1B

the Slabs in

1.20

0.90 opie
p 100 NUMEX 3

Pd

o. 6o
A .1

6 NUMEX 7 NUMEX NUMEX 8 9 NUMEX 10 NUMEX

See Table 5.4

0.30

4- .41. 04

0.0i

1.0

2.0 E/c y

3.0

4. o

5.0

6. o

Figure

(5-17)

Load-Maximum Steel Sub Series 1B.

Strains

in the Slabs in

C.L. 0.91 1.04 0.78 0.82 0.69 0.74 0.65 0.69

1.0

C. L. o. 81

0.73 0.77 0.88 1.15

0.73 0.77 0.85 1.15 C.L.

C.L.

1.04

0.85 10.92

0.91

0.82 1A

0.78 1A
NumEx

NUMEX

C. L.

C. L.

i. o4 l. o6

0.87 0.90 0.97

o. 8o o. 84 0.93 1.197

0.77 0.8 C.L. 0.9 1.197.

0.92

86 o*. 0.89 1.6

0.86 0.89 1.0 C.L.

0.95 11.03-7

NUMEX 7

NUMEX

C. L.

C. L.

1.18 1.18

1.01 l. o4 1.11

o. 84 0.98 1.08

o. 94 o. 96 1 1.06 C.L.

0.99 1.08

0.78 0.82
o. 91

0.73 0.76

T0.73
0.73 C.L.
i 1

1 0.86 1 0.82
1.12 1.12

NLMX
P/P Figure (5-18): Yield Causing in the Yield Slabs in

NUMEX10

Spread

Subseries

1B

182

E-4

(D (D 0 C/I

CD

A4

pq

%o

cl-

E--

co

CrN

Ll-

CO
P4

40

"I I
914

\0

rl-

E-

W\

E-

cr\

co
co

I: t

C*\

\10

'Cl-

.1d

6
U'% WN

P4

P4

o
co Ul% co Itzr N W\ K'\ W\ 10

co 144-

co \o

EON

WN C\j

Lr\

. ri

P4

04 1 4-3 0
m 3

liZ
4p. +) H

Cl C\j C\j trN PC\

(D

. Il 4

Lr

C\j 11
04

to

op

0 P4 P4 E-4

8
II

le

11

NN -

110

t-

co *

ON

0
T-

183
2. The service deflection of 0.78 Pd. deflection in this 3. No yield In fact, test behaviour limit of all slabs was satisfactory. The

of spanJ250 was reached at an average load compressive concrete strengths,

With high limits

occur at loads

close to the design loads,

series. occurs within the service first load range. yield loads were

of steel for high

grades of concrete, loads. yield steel

close to the'design obtained 4. for the first

An average value loads. with

of 0.78 Pd was

The use of high yield to a slightly flexible

low grades of concrete But still the overall

lead

behaviour.

response was satisfactory. 5. Similar to the slabs in the previous series, the distribution was very on most of the

of the normal moments in the short close to that slab area. predicted

span direction analysis$

by the elastic

The distribution is different

in long the the of normal moment from that predicted by the elastic

span direction analysis.

For the same steel force at ultimate

strength, loads

the induced

compressive

membrane higher

increased

in magnitude with

grades of concrete.

5.4.3

Test'Series This series

2: (Slabs'simply'saported'6n includes the test

3 sides) The and

NUMEX 15. to NUMEX 11 runs supported on three for sides,

slabs free

in this

series

were all

simply

on the fourth.

The slabs were designed was intended

a uniform

load of for

20 KN/m2-q and the analysis

to study the behaviour

184
various sides ratios. In these slabs, the free edge has always been

taken as one of the long edges, along the X-axis. The distribution this series of the design moments for (5-5) some of the slabs in

can be found in Figures The distribution

and Figures

(D17 to D24) in is given in

Appendix Figure

(D).

of the support it

reactions

(5-19).

From these figures, by bending shows that parallel distribution distribution

can be seen that parallel

most of the edge. load is well

load is carried Figure carried with (5.19)

of the strips

to the free

for

a square slab, edge.

82% of the total

by strips

to the free

This agrees quite In this

0 45 load the

recommended by CP110(5). will give 75% of the total

0 45 load case, the be carried proportion

load to the

by these strips. of the load carried

However, in both distributions, by the strips in sides ratios. parallel

to the free a

edge reduces with side ratio of free

the increase to short while parallel

For a slab with

edge of 2.0, the finite

0 45 distribution the element gives 38% of it

gives to be that

50% of the total carried

load,

by the strips

to the free by the short

indicates which edge,

most of the load Accordingly,

the In this long fact free such

is carried if

span strips. ratio was taken as

the span in the span/depth

the resulting was first for slabs are at behaviour undertaken, with sides

edge,

would but

be satisfactory. it was found greater but it that 1.25.

an analysis conservative, of such of steel

was too

ratio

than

The results that, yield

an analysis started

not. shown here, load

was found the

an average Pd. with

of-0.92

Pd. while

deflection

limit

was reached were

at 0.9

The same slabs depths were chosen

redes, igned the

reduced

depths.

The assumed exceed

such that

predicted

deflection

did-not

CQ

x
Lr% m

185

co
N cyl

rq H

_:r

Lr\

rl

LrI
4j
Lr% oj

/ 01 /

0 0S 0 IIS

00 1 1 co
rl cyl

C)

co

ILL
CY)

c'J
0

(r4 \M

t%lo

\0

m
0 . r-j 4-)
(D q
0/, "0

4-
0 P4

0 -H 1 IL4

), 0 0.1

,/

\JD

4-) $4 0

P4

m Q o

Co

0m 0 0 0 ., j U, N 4 CYI m

4-3 ci Cd (1) lz

$-4

0m >

C2

i s6

1.20

0.9

7d

0.6 -f to io 0.3 x

NUMEXM NUMEX12 NUMEX 13 miEx 14 See Table 5*5

15 NUMEX

0.0

0.1

0.2 61h

0.3

o. 4

0.5

0.6

Figure

(. 20):

Loacl-deflection . in Series 2.

Curves for

the Slabs

1.2

0.9

Pd

o. 6

11 NUNEX
NUNEX12 See Table

0.3-

13 NUMEX NumEx14 NLWX 15

5*5

0.0

1.0

2.0 C/C y

3.0

4. 'o

5--0

Figure

(5.21):

Load-Maximim in Series 2.

Steel

Strains

in

the

Slabs

1" I

Free 1-12 9 . 8d. *8. 85 1-12. 961.88. 85 . 81 I.-121.9d.93.85 . 81;

Free

4-3

1 91 85 1.85 83 1-04 . . .
L.
4-3 ; -4 0 P4 P4

P 0 P4
M-IIC.
P4

. 1. 961.93-88-q5 1-1.0 .96 .96 .93,

6 1.2 L-1 -241 I:

H 4 .,.

P4 E: . r4 w

simply

supported NUMEX 11

851 91 87 95 1-04-. C. L. . . . 1 5,11.0 93 91 871 . . . 97. 971 1-051-02, .. . . 1 1 i 1-1 .1

simply supported -NUMEX 12

6 63; 85 9 o4. i, . . . .

Free

Free

86 82 78 . . . 89 86 82 i. o4l . 93 -93 . . . k. 04 1.01 -.97 *93

simply supported

*97 _. 89 97. . -97 . 1.001 1.0 *93 -93

86

75 75 . . 1.75 82 78 . .

1.711

1.08

93 . . 93 97

. . .

82 86 89

71 . . 78 82 . 86

1 67

67

75 . 78 . . 82 93 . l. o8

71 . . 75 82 C. L.

w2 .

;1 (n

93 08 . .J.. l. o4

97 .

simply

supported

NUNEX 13

Num

14

Free
rd

1.12

93 . 93 . 96 . 1.12

. . .

81 81 88

70 . 76 . 81 . 88 .

70 . 73 . 76 . . 81 93 . 1.12

65

0 P4 P4 :j

70* . 73 . . 81
C. L.

M
P4 U)

93 .

simPlY

supported

NUMEX*15

Figure

(5.22)

P/P d Causing

Yield

in

Series

2.

188
0 . ri
4j 42

cli

cu

CU

Ul\ Co

m Co

H t-

t1%D

t%Z

01

ro

c;

NZ

ro

B
c;

%I0 GD c;

t _: cc;

r-i c;

e
c;

CZ
m

1 111 114 914 0 C) (D

CM

c\ cm

ri t0i,

CU t-C\i

rn 41 r4 0)

,ri

cu

0 4-1 ri

CY LA CM

(n UN

LA,

CD

cz

00

00 001

7777/

ir

Ul%

189

the

limiting slabs

deflection are given (5-5). in

of

span/250. (5.20)

The results to (5.22),

of the

analysis

of

these given

Figures

and a summary is

in Table

5.4.4 Conclusions:
(1) The service An average load (2) behaviour of 0.76 of all slabs in this for the series service was satisfactory. deflection

Pd was obtained the slabs first in yield this

and 0.75

Pd for of the of

load. is sensitive edges. is to As this the method

The response early cracking

series free it

the

elements

on the of steel,

provides that the the the free steel

gradual service edge.

distribution behaviour For better will

to be expected on that

be governed it

by the*conditions is suggested to the here

performance,

on each strip the strip,

to be provided curtailment. free to

according

maximun

in moment of the ensure

without. on the of load in the in this

Adequate

anchorage to

reinforcement full transfer enhancement for the slabs

edges should the supports. load of

be provided

An average obtained

ultimate series.

about

12% is is

The enhancement on the slabs.

caused by the

developed

menbranC- action

5.4.5 Test Series 3 This includes in this th e test X 20. 16 to NTJMF. runs NUMEX The slabs

series were all

simply supported on two adjacent edges and the the other two while on opposite corner,

supported on a colu= free. were edges

The slabs were designed for a uniform load of for behaviour the intended to was study slabs, the long free edgewas always

20 KN/M2. and the analysis various sides ratios.

In all

along the X-axis.

190
The distribution series are given the in of the Figures design (5-9) of moments for and Figures the support it the slabs in this Figure for that the the

(D49-D56). reactions, is found of

(5. *28)*gives five load cases

distribution

considered. is slab,

From these

figures, sides load opposite the the is

dispersion

dependsnt 37.5% of The column -irrespective increasess ratio of

upon the the total

ratios goes to corner sides carried carried support. are the

the

slab.

For a square supported of the total sides

each of the always of the takes the long long in 25%

edges. load, ratio

at the of

ratio to

slab. side support general, to those the

As the support. is the 1.4

more load 2. the short load

For a side times that

by the But

carried

by the long

side

bending short

moments in the span direction,, It is also

span strips

almost

equal

in the slab

and represent very interesting

maximuca moments in to note is the of that, the

as a whole. of the constant.

variation is almost

design

moments along

each strip end of

very long the

gradual, free

and

The reaction that carried nonlinear to the of

at the

edge, dispersed edge. series are (5.6). the free a

Figure in this

(5.28)

indicates is the

a large by the analysis (5.27). square

proportion strips of closer the

load free

direction of

to

the in

Results in shown In slab edge. distance plotted strains general, occurs

slabs is

this in

Figures apart at

(5.23) from

and a suamary slab,

given

Table in long at

the maximum deflection the column, along the is

a distance square from (5.23) L slab the

Lx 13 from point

For the

the

of maximum deflection the diagonal. Points free edge.

of 0-53L in are Figure at 0.3

column to

along these

The deflections of ax-Imum

refer the

points.

from

column , on the

191
1.2 J-

0.9
p.,0 . 1.0

00.

Pd

o. 6
NUI4EX 16 NUMEY. 17 NUMEX 1

See Tp. ble 5-6

0.3

NUMEX 19 0 NUMEX 20

0.0
(5-23):

0.1

0.2 6/h

0.3

o. 4

0.5
in

o. 6

Figure

Load-deflection

Curves

for

the

Slabs

Series

1.20
_o

0.9

Pd

o. 6
NUM

16
See Table 5*6

NUNEX17 0.3 18 NTJMEX 19 NUMEX NUMEX20 0.0 1.0 2.0 Ay c Figure (5.24): Load-maxinum Steel Series 3. Strains 3.0 I 4.0

5.0

.0

in the Slabs in

Free

k
. 69 74 . 95 . . . . . 85 80 80 80 .9 7L . . . . . 69, 69 69 801
G) Q)

192

90 .

80

69 69 . . *8C *80

090 *80 95 .
0

*85

. .

80 85

1 85 90 1.0 . . 90 . .01 95 90 . . 85 95 . . , 90 . . . 85 80 95

95 .
m

1.06
c1

95 .

1.16 l. o6

1.16 1.06 . 95

90 .

90 .

AS'

I 16 Supported

Free

k,
73 . . 82 73 . . 82 . 82 96 . . . 87 82 91 . 91 . . . 87 87

091 96 . 1.0
0

*82 . . 87 87

77 . 77 . . 82 87.

. -8796 . 1.05 1.10

96 . 1.0 96 1.00 1.14

1.0 1.05

91 . 96 . 1.05

77 . 77 . . 82
0 Q) N P:
4

>1

96 . 1.05

l. 14

91 . 1.10

1.05

NUMEX 17 P/P (5-25) Causing d Spread

Simply

supported

Yield in in Series 3

Figure

Yield

the

Slabs

193
free

1.05 1.05 1.12

. . .

84 88 88

72 . 76 . . . . 80 84 88

. .

68 68

68

64

72 . . 80

. .

Ik : 84
8o

72 . o76 . . 84 88

72 . . 84

72 . 76 . . 84

92 . . . . 88 84 88

76 . 76 . 72 . 76 . . 80
free

92 . 97 . 1.05

92 . 1.00 1.00 1.09

92 .

92 . 1.05

1.00 1.05

97 .

simply supported NUNEX 18

free

i. o4 i. o4
rd

. . .

80 84 88

68

. . ::.

68 68 7: 2

68

64

72 . . 80

. . .

80 80' 8o
free

72 . . . . 8o 80 84

72 . 72 . . . 80 84

72 . . . 80 88

92. 92 . . . 88 80

92 . 96 . 1.08

76 . . 80

76 . 76 . 76 . 84 .

96 . 1.12

92 . l. o4

88 . i. oo.

*92 l. o8

1.00

simply

supported

NUMEX19
Figure (5.26) P/P Causing d Yield in Series 3.

194-

frpp

1.00 l. o4

*83 . . 88 88 92

67

. .

67 67 1

. .

67 67

63

71 . . 80

92 . . . 88 8o

71 . . . . 80 83 88

71 . 080 . 83

71 . 75 . . . 80 88

*71 75 . *83 92* . 1.00

92 . l. o8 96 . 1.00 1.12

4-3 p 0 P4 P4

75 . 75 . . . 1 80 83

free

92 . l. o4

P4

96 . l. o8

96 .

1 --Simply

-1
supported

NUMEX20

Figure-(-5.27)

P/pd

Causing

Yield

in

Series

3.

195

, M;
UN 0 CN LrN

\.D tr-4 r-i

co CY\ 0 ri r-i C\j >4 8 >4

m rl H co

Fd

rt:%

0
U-\ N C;

P 4 (D

Cj

I! H

%lo 0

co
0.

\0 r-i

48

CO

(YI CY) CVI

4-3 CO. 0 .1

CY)
y oly v 'D

P4

A 0>

;4 ;q0 0 ., 1 4) 11 X-4 M 1:
Cc rq

4-3 w

-Yi m (Y) CY) - IR CO C\j U 4-4 a 00 S: 0 -rq

t

to

0 0 ., i 4-) (L)

* M 4 r. 0
-rq 4J to

>-h >-41 4

$4 Cd rd cd (1)-H >

196
0 .H
4J C) 4j ci

:11 ro P-4 gl,

\D r-i

_e

Co

CY ri

A
rd 914 (> \Z t\M
%Z .

1:

%Z

K-N

Co

ni

O\

e-

Co

b-

t"

c;
94 rcj Co m
Lr\ _e O\ M ON Co

c;
40 si
U-% \M

cl CU

\M CM

t-CM

4-) 0 (D 0

CM

r-4

CD

4-2 CH 0
Z CD C\i

0 4-)

CM

C\j
II 0

"'

CD .X

cm A

LA A

00 pl A m

Co

Oj

197 5.4.6-coriclusions:
(1) The service The deflection behaviour li=*t of of all slabs in this was reached series was satisfactory. load

spanJ250

at an average

of 0.70 Pd.
(2) Yield of steel starts towards started on the the at an average free load of 0.67 Pd. The spread

of yield inward

long

edge strips

and progresses

centre.

The distribution
very close in load to that

of the long span moments at the design load is

predicted ratio, very the by the moment than strips elastic in that the analysis. other With at

increase ultimate elastic edge.

sides is

direction by the short

much less on the

predicted to the

analysis,

except

close

free

Similar
governed ment

to the slabs in the previous series,

by the stress conditions on the based free

the behaviour is
edges. Reinforce-

in these

edges can be provided

on the

maximum on the

strip

without

curtailment.

Adequate anchorage has to be

provided

to transmit

the load to the supports.

5.4.7

Test Series
This series

4: (Slab-Bean
includes the

Systems)*
runs NWEX 21, NUMEX 22 and

test

N= their

23.

The slabs were ass=ed beams. All three

to be monolithically

cast with

supporting

slabs had the same dimensions,

but differed in the of the amount and

identical had and distribution of

supporting reinforcement.

beams.

The dimensions

slabs

and the

beams are given

The tests of the slabs

in Table
in this series by the were aimed at studying design the behaviour and

designed

proposed

direct

procedure,

198

to

compare the

methoawith

designs

based

on the designed

yield for design

line

theory.

Accordingly, distributed

NUM load of

21, ana N= 20.8 line KNjm2

23 were which . N=

a uniformly load fact for designed

was the

22 by the NTJMEX and tested rectangular Accordingly, uniform load

yield

theory. (84)

22 was in the

by Hayes and Taylor mode and the these of

by combining t mode of were the

composite Figure (5-29). a

diagonal

slab,

slab-beam KN/m2. flexural

systems

designed

to

carry

20.8 only

In NUMEX 21, and the However, approach, A sandwich was designed model

forces the

(M x, design

My, M ) were -V equations by the of

considered, Section design (3.4).

was designed which

using was also

NUMEX 23,

designed flexural

direct

was designed model using (Section the

for

combined 3.7)

and membrane forces. case, (3.6). volumes in and the model

was used in this equatioms. design

design the

of. Section

A comparison

between

moments and steel

the two.. methods is given middle of the slab, (for

in Figures

(5-31), line

and Table

(5.8).

At the design

both the yield only) give

theory

procedure In this coincide,

flexure

an ultimate

and the present 2 moment Of -SL 24

particular

case, both the upper and lower bourid'solutions the diagonal collapse mode for the slab.

when considering hand, if

On the other of the slab resistance

that the required

the compressive account,

membrane force

at the centre moment of

is taken into required

by the

the corresponding

at the middle
design for

of the slab reduces by 15% of

pure flexure (see Table 5-8). But

increase beams moments edge required by the yield is

by about line

18%, and is

about

55/'-', reduction in the

above that in the slab

analysio. offset

Thus$ the by an. increase

reinforcement of the

more than beans.

reinforcement

supporting

199

r
L
(Integral and Unintregal Systems)

Composite

Rectangular

Modes

(Unintegral

Syste=

Hinge Required Torsional if Beams are connected (Integral systems)

Hogging Yield Line

(Integral Diagonal

systems) Modes

Collapse

Figure

(2.29):

Possible

Collapse

Modes in Square Slab-Beams Systems

200
Although steel than that the unfilled for slight, sandwich flexure model only, used here the (5-8) requires in more this

required only the

increase gives

particular of only

is case 7/%between both

and Table for the

a difference case at hand. corresponding in this in this case.

two designs

particular than the

But still yield line

designs

are more economical of up to

design. of in

A saving the

30% was achieved for the slabs are

The results series in Table are given

nonlinear (5-30) results,

analysis to (5.35) the

Figures

which .

simmarized can

(5-7).

From these

following

conclusions

be drawn:

5.4.8 Conclusions.
1. All In the 2. First In the all slabs cases, in this series had identical and steel woetting at load service strains range* loads first in yield the of slabs. steel in behaviour. were vithin

both limits of steel

deflections in the occurred design of the

acceptable yield

different

case of yield at the

line centre

(NUMEX 22),

started the

0.75 beams at edge present started about direct design

Pd, whereas approach at the

systems

designed yield the

by the of

(NUMEX 21,23), junction 3. between

steel

at the 0.67

corner Pd.

two beams at at the spreading

The initiation was followed The diagonal reinforcement

of yield by yield collapse in the

corners along in

23 21 NUMEX NUMEX and of the these diagonalvof slabs before the the slab.

mode formed beams started in reinfoxcement

t6 yield. volume in the due to of the this system

4.

The slight consideration

increase

of membrane forces

design

201
produced service first slightly load yield range, in the less but slab. reinforcement of failure. in the beams of ITUM effect the of 22 a deflections did not in the affect the slab within the after

deflections

Extending along the

the midspan full length

the beam had the In such case,

enforcing mode

rectangular did not form

mode of at all.

diagonal

Under the modes of

present collapse

direct formed

design

approach, design the

several load

simultaneous

when the between

was reached. of the two slabs membrane systems

No significant

difference

behaviour Accordinglyq

NUMEX 21 and NUMEX 23 was obtained. forces designed were taken into account in the

whether both

design

or not,

by this

method would

behave

satisfactorily-.

5.4.9 Test Series 5: Two slabs in this series were considered. free on the fourth Th6 slabs were simply long edge, with a side

supported on three sides, ratio of 2.0.

Both slabs had the same dimensions and were designed load of 20 KN/m2-. The test slabs were designated

for an ultimate

behaviour intended the 15 and HILLERBORG, to NUMEX study were and of slabs designed the direct adcording to the two design procedures, viz., (HILLERBORG). method analysis

15). and the strip design (NUMEX

the shear modulus G=0 In HILLERBORG, (Torsionless analysis),

in the elastic

while the nonlinear in the normal way.

analysis was performed

on the slab with G00,

A comparison of the design moment fields

in the two slabs is And as has

(D). (D21, in Appendix in Figures D24) D22, D239 given

202 C. 23 4.8

950

1 10 1

Co
_zr

CM

-T 152
1.20

150.5 2 76 950 mid 9.5 rm

1.00
K K K .

p
Pd

0.80

o. 6o

o. 4o

0.20

7. .
0.2 o. 4 Deflection (5-30):

NUMEX21 22 NUMEX x 23 NUMEX 9

See Table 5-7

0.6 S/h

0.8 of the Slab

1.0

1.2

at the Centre

Figure

Load-Deflection

Curves for

the Slabs in Series

4.

203
a-e NUM 21

NUMEX 22
A

23 ANUMEX MO 1 L, 24

1.2 1.0 0.8

! LX o. 6 m 0 o. 4
0.2 L.

0-0

0.04

.1

.2 Y/Ly

.3 .

.4

.5

Design Moments in the Slab

1.6 1.4
1.2

1.0 Mxbw MOL o. 8

o. 6 o. 4
0.2 0.0

0.1

0.2 x/L

0.3

o. 4

0.5

x Design Moments in the Beams

Figure (5.31) Design Moments in the Slabs in Series

204
TENSION
1000 y

800
Nx c1h

6oo 4oo 200 0.0 -200 0010.2 0.3 y/L o. 4 0.5

141------

COMPRESSION
Design

y
along the Centre Line of the

Membrane Forces Slab

NX qh

x/L x Membrane Forces along the Edge Beam

Figure ,

(5-32),

Membrane Forces

in

the-Slabs

in

Series

205

L.

81 78 76* 96 98 . . . . . 83 78, 78 781 C.L. 931, . . . . .

III " 91 78 . .
1

78 .

78 . 811

NUMEX 21

66, 76 78 83 981 . " . . . 66, 66 91 93 96i . . . . .

C. L. ' 75 . -77 . 84 91 . 91 . 96 89 91 . . 89 94 . . 89 99 . . . 91 . 84 89 C.L.

NUMEX22

091

751 75 . .

C.L. 99 . 99 . . 83 81 78 75 . . 78 78 . . C. L.

86 91 t. .

;. 81 78 81 81 83 . . . . 86 99 78 73 78 1; . . . . . 68 73 . 81 . 91 . 99

23 NUMEX

Figure

(5.33)

P/Pd Causing Yield

in Series

206 1.0

0.8

o. 6

Pd

o. 4

0.2

e/e y
Figure--(5-3) Load-steel strains (mid span section) in the supporting beam

1.10

1.0 0.9 0.8

-C, 0.7 o. 6 0.5 o. 4

/ cy e:

Figure

(5-35)

Load-maxinji-m steel Series 4.

in in the slabs strai ns

207

Z: 4-1 C) er-j
0 1 0

bD
0

4)

0 4J M0 Q) 9) -H il CJ >b 4-1 'd ro

QO)G i7 A Dc- ri ni H 0
8

$-4 a) e 's, zi C) 0 d 0 c
00 U0 (L) -H fcj =

' to ri
HH

(1) :Z

CM H H H

CM ri

LN t-

Co \lo

U; rd
to

Ul\

Lr\
Ea Q) ., -I

\o C\i

_e CY

1IM CY

CM

LIJe

Co

CD

CO

m 4-)

CM
0 4-4 1- m m m m 0 (n

c) 1 4-1

;J c4

(n

ri

(n

ci C\i C\i 0)

%.

UN

0 LA
0

U'\ H

Lr\ rA

4-3 4-4 0

c\ mi

CD Cii cli M

cl

ci

*0

D
0 m

'
CU CM CY C\i ri _e

/
2,loqaalT. TH Lr\

208 Table (5.8): Comparison of Steel Quantities 4. in the

Slab-Beam Systems in Series

NUMEX21
Load (KN/m)

NTJMEX 22

NUMEX23

Design

20.8

20.8

20.8

Method

of

Design

Direct design for flexure

Yield line Theory

Direct design for combined flexure and forces membrane (unfilled sandwich model)

Maximum Slab Moment

(Nmm/mm) Ma . 2800 2880 2344

Maximum moment

edge beam Mb (Nmm/mm)

87000

6gooo

103000

Steel

volume

in

beams (MM3)

2.606 x los

2.7 )( 10S

3.119 x 105

Steel volume in (=) slabs

Total st el,, r 1ume,

2.034 x 105

3.392 x 105

1.851 x 105

4.644 x 105

6.092 X

105

4.97 x 105

I--

1* For reinforcement layout

1-

II
(5.30)

in NUMEX22 see Figure

11

209
been shown in Section(5-2-3)s the design moments in the two cases are

quite

different.
Resulti of the nonlinear analysis of the two slabs are given

in Figure (5-36),

tO Figure (5-38),

is in Table siumary a and given

(5.7).
5.4.10 Conclusions
1. The increased amount of steel in the outer strips (HILLERBORG) of

had the effect

2. The service deflection

of raising

the

cracking
slabs

load

of the slab.
A NTJMEX15 at

behaviour limit of

of both span/250

was satisfactory. reached in

was f irst

0.69 Pd.
In thq post yield
design the one method designed were of very yield

behaviour,

the slab
in

designed by the direct

fle. xible deflections in way than and steel

(NTJMEX 15) by the

behaved strip

a more Both

method. in

strains The

much in

greater the two

NUMEX 15 than was quite

HILLERBORG.

spread

cases

different.

Yield

in HILLERBORGstarted

at loads

closer

to the design free edge.

load,

and was concentrated in th load. inner In the strips

on the strips occurred either

near the

Yield

at or after started

the design on the free edge

15, yield case of NTJMEX Subsequent spread of yield a r'egular

at 0.65 Pd. area,

covers most of the slab

and does not follow

pattern. the under moments by the elastic quite design analysis. different

The distribution load is identical

of the long-span to that predicted no=al load.

in the two cases. in both

The other design

is moment

cases at the

.1,1

210 Both slabs supported loads in excess of their design load, load.

While NUMM 15 recorded recorded

12% above the design

HILLERBORG

22% enhancement at failure. loads is caused by the induced in HILLERBORG

Enhancement in the ultimate compressive than

In

membrane force,

which was higher

in NUMEX15.
exanples given here, although the proposed direct

the

design strip

procedure method,

requires

about 35% more steel by the strip by the direct

than the simple in behaved method design method. in the

the slab

designed designed

a better The effect free

way than that is

caused by concentrating in the strip method.

the reinforcement

edge strips

1.20

0.90

Pd

o. 6o

0.30

o. 16

0.32

/h

o. 48

o. 64

0.8

o. 96

Figure (5-. 36): Load-Deflection

15 and HILLERBORGS Curves for NUIAEX

1.20

0.9
p

Pd

o. 6

0.3

1.0

2.0

3.0 E/C y
Steel Strain

4.0

5.0

6. o

Figure

(5-37):

Load-Maximum

for

NUMEX 15

and HILLERBORGS

212 I Free 1.12

4-1 P 0 P4 pq 0

93 . 93 . 96 1.12

. . .

81 81 88

70 . 76 . . . 81 88

70 . 73 . *76 . 81

65 70
a)

73 . . . 81 88

a) + a) C)

93 . -

1.0

93 . 1.12

Simply

Supported

P/Pd Causing Yield

in NUMEX15

Free

o. 96 o. go
4-3 p 0 P4

0.90 0.93 o. 96

o. 86 o. 96 1.0 0.93

0.90 0.93 1.0 1.08

1.18

0.93

0.96

0.93

1.0

a)
"r4

CO

1.08 a) -1
1.22
0

1.22

1.18

1 .01 0.96
P/P

1.16

1 i
in HILLERBORGS

Yield Causing d

-Figure-(538)

Yield

Spread in NT24EX 15 and HILLERBORGS

213 CWTER SIX

EXPERIMENTAL MESTIGATION

6.1

INTRODTTCTION The theory given slabs. problems and give in Chapter Three has been used in the design to provide information 6f

the experimental on the practical design method,

The work is intended involved

in implementing into

the proposed of the of the

a clear

insight In this

the behaviour full

models designed experimental

6.2

accordingly.

chapterl

account

work is given.

PARAMETERS OP STUDY:

Only rectangular with a minimt=

slabs

have been considered.

Laxge scale

models

dimension

of 2000 mm were tested. varying

Since the design patternp that the of-Jk--\

procedure

would yield

a continuously dimensions is

reinforcement order

the use of such large vaxiation all in steel slabs

obligatorypin represented.

can be properly

The thickness the limiting A fixed

designed

was chosen to comply with (3-3-8)

span/depth span length the

ratios'specified of about

by Section

of Cp, 10(5). tested,

2000 mm is used in all

the slabs

and accordingly,

depth, was fixed

at 100 mm. The other

length

of the models was va--ied

from 2000 mm to 3000 =, 1.5.

The support point support, conditions and integral

covering

three sides ratios

of 1.0,1.30

and

considered slab-beam

included systems.

the simple

support, the

For each tests

following

were recorded: deflections and concrete strains

1. Lateral 2. Steel

Crack widths and development of cracks Fail=e loads.

214 6.3 SLABS DESIGNATION:

In all,

six Silabs were tested.

Table (6.1)

gives the details

of boundary conditions

and the dimensions

of each slab.

Tab

Tested

Slabs-designation

and dimensions

Test 1

Designation Model 1

.t.. . . d. i. ti OnS Supp or c.o. n. 5imply supported sides it on all

Dimens io ns 3100 x 2140 x 100 2600 x 2140 x 100 2100 x 2140 x 100 2040 x 2000 x 100

2 3 4

Model 2 'Model 3 Model 4

Model 5 Model 6

simply 1

supported sides

on all

3100 x 2140 x 100 . 3120 x 2180 x 100 All beans axe 200 x 300 mm cast.. monolithic

slab-beam

system

6.4

DESIGN OF THE MODELS For a given load, the design moments axe obtained the finite by performing prograrip and

an elastic the design

analysis equations

on the slab using of Chapter Three.

element

For a given at any point theoryq with

calculated

design is factors

) (M* the M* reinforcement moments xy 9 designed according to the limit state

on the slab all safety

on both loads according results Fig=e

and materials

taken

as unity,

and the design A.

is made This in

to the assumed'stress in a variable

block

Appendix in shown pattern given like the-one

reinforcement

given

(6.1).

The amounts of steel

at any point

axe per unit

215 length. Two methods can be used to repls; Lce the distributed bars: of the distributed steel areas is not severe over a certain steel

axeas by reinforcing (a)

Since the variation from point width. to pointt

these areas can be averaged area is then obtained width, sectional

The total

steel

by =ultiPlYing and hence can area.

maximum

the average value, be replaced

(b) Over a certain

by the corresponding

by one bar of an equivalent

width, the design

can be based

on the

value

of the distributed

steel

areas.

Total

steel

area needed by the

over such a width

co=esponding

can thus be obtained

by multiplying

width.

For the range

of. problems

tested

herel

the reinforcement

in each was

element was approximately based on averaging This reduces

constantp

and accordinglyt steel areas within

the design

the distributed

each element. bars in of one element. (6.2),

the problem

to one of providing a width equal

reinforcing to the width

parallel

stripsg

each having

The procedure (6-3)* Along distributed Normallythe strip is

can best be illustrated

by the aid

of Figures

the strips, ste'el

the averaging

process

the done only when was

areas do not differ of steel

by more than 25Y6of the larger. to element (6.2)9 along one

variation smooth,

from element

as can be seen from FigL=e or a maximum value

and accordingly, the difference is a high, containing

an average value

can be used until

value exceeds the 259% stress gradient within

of the maximum. a strip,

In cases where there seen in those throughout

as is usually is-used

concentrated length, locally

loadsq

an average value steel

the strip is added

and the extra across

needed over the average containing carried the load. right 4-o the

provided

the elements

The average reinforcesupports to ensure

ment in this

area is usually

216 adequate transmission of load to the edges. it might This

In cases where no steel still is happen that done in order

is needed over an element,

a bar has to be carried to comply with

on to the supports.

code requirements.

S)-ich areas are might be high,

normally

found near the supportsq some bars

where shear stresses region is ustified

and thus extending increased stresses will

in this

as providing

shear resistance. into account,

Since the p=ogram does not take shear the slab

a check has to be made to ensure that shear failure. Accordinglyq

not have a premature

the sheax

requirements

of Section

(3-3.6)

in Cpllo(5)

were followed.

In one

caseq shear reinforcements corner support Torsional of model reinforcement

had to be provided

over the concentrated

for also needed was

the supporting

beams

in model 6.
the finite be provided reinforcement supporting

The flexural
element program, in accordance

reinforcement
but with

in the beam was provided by

torsional of CpjjO(5). provided in the steel had to Erheax

the additional Section (3-3-7) was only

in the form of stirrups beams of model 6, according factor in choosing

to CP110. the reinforcing baxs is the

One important bond stress.

The designer

the layout to have changd may until he is In this secured sure that work,

of the bond

bars more than one timet stress both strong

the permissible

is nowhere exceeded. ends, and was adequately

each bar was hooked at the bars formed (3.11.6) a

so that

mesh, and the. bond requirements followed. to achieve a reinforcement analysis, the total

of Section

of C2110(5)

were strictly In trying requirea

distribution

close

to that

by the elastic

time the same and at steel volume provided

to comply with is in general

the code regulations,

21 t. .
much more than what is required. 'Table (6.2) 'gives, a comparison

between the theoretici models tested

the reinforcement

steel

'Wd that needed Figures

provided (6.4)

for

the six give

in this

investigation.
in

to (6.9)

provided

each model.

6.5 MATERMS
Cement: Aggregates: Ordinary Portland sand Cement was used and gravel were in used all for tests. all mixes.

Hynford

The maximurn size

grading

of the uncrushed

gravel

used was 10 =,

and the sand

was Zone 2. mixes: The concrete of mixes were designed to give with an the

Concrete average

cube strength

40 N/mmZ at

28 days.

Two mixes

same strength
workability

but

different
for

workabilities
the models

were used.
for which the

A medium
mix was produced

mix was used

in the laboratory, mixes,, supplied Nos-1,5 6. and

and a high workability

was used for

ready made

by a ready mix Company, and was used to cast models These models had very large sizes, and therefore it

was convenient

to use ready made mixes rather For the other models,

than make the

concrete in 14 to

in the laboratory. 18 batches

For

the mix is produced

of 70 kg each.
each model, the control specimens were eight 100 mm cubes

and eight

150 mm diameter

cylinders. half

Half was kept

the control

specimens

in water, was cured a polythene All respective cover.

the other

near the model under

control =dels.

specimens were tested

on the same day as their

Standard cylinder

tests

to determine tests,

the

cube compressive

strengths were

splitting

and the static

modulus of concrete

218
conducted according tensile to the British Standards from (61). the No. BS. 1881: 1970cylinder splitting

The concrete test as

strength

obtained

ft

2P 7r DL

in Figure as shown properties for

(6.10)o

Average values

for

the materials in Table (6.3).

each model were calculated High yield

and are given

Reinforcement: models, involving except

deformed bars were used in all amount of reinforcement only certain bars fitted for random different with an the

6. model

Because a considerable have been used,

different

bar sizes

samples were cut off sizes, S-type and were tested electronic

from the batches

of the steel machine,

in an Oslen testing The testing

extensometer. instruction manilal.

procedure point for

followed

rnnufacturer's steels Figure

The yield stress

the high yield to 0.2% strain. of steel used.

used was taken (6.11) gives

. the proof as

corresponding for point the type

the stress-strain

curve

Tests on several initial

bars

gave an average yield

4T3 N/mm2q and an of

modulus of 214 KN/mm2 . For model No. 6, the amouniS of reinforcement in the slab was Since the it smallest

very

small,,

due to the effect diameter

of surrounding high yield

beams. steel,

available and mild of steel 300 N=Z

bar steel

was 8 mm,for

was discarded$ for the type were

was used instead. given in Figure point,

The stress-strain

curves

used is for

Average values and 214 KNJmm2for Young's

obtained modulus.

the yield

6.6'STPAIN Prior reinforcing

GAUGES: to casting bars. each model, strain. gauges were attached to the

The strain

gauges used were electrical

resistance

219
gauges of the type F-A-06-250BG-120 with at 750F. 0.15% resistance . The gauges are made of a
with a tough, flexible,

1PO-0 n

and 2.095 *0.5% gauge factor

thin foil of Constantan in

combination

polyl'=*de

backing.

The constantan The strain off the ribs following

alloy

is made in self

temperature-

compensated form. bar after filing

gauges were attached of the bar,

to the reinforcing an The

and were bonded using instructions. gauges and were drying checked. the casting

M-bond 200 adhesive connection protected M-coat-D protect wires against after the

the namufacturer's to the strain

are then humidity

soldered

and temperature

by an air

acrylic To process.,

connections

have been thoroughly damage during rapid hardening

the gauges against

mechanical Araldite connected

the gauges were coated with The strain gauges were then

epoxy adhesive.

to a data logger.

6.7

CASTING AND CURING: After fixing the strain gauges on the steel$ the proper positions the reinforcing mesh was

assembled on the form after marked by a marking of concrete, When casting 5 hours pen.

of the bars have been in several type for batches vibrator. about

Each model was then cast compacted using yas complete,

and was properly and compacting

immersion an

the model was left of the holes

to dry in the open air.

The position

on the model for that

were checked by measuring purpose. framework These bolts

the positions

bolts the of

provided

would later rig,

be used to lif

t the model from the leave on the

to the loading used for

and the holes the slab.

which they

model were later After the control

loading

the concrete

has-set, then

the whole of the model together covered with a polythene cover,

with to

specimenswere

220
control from the the humidity. casting, The cover and left is to then dry removed in off the the the after three days

day of

natural forms

conditions after a further

of the five over

laboratory. the

The model electric

was lifted crane in

days using the load

laboratory,

and was placed

supports.

6.8 suppons The simple of two steel black invar support 12 = system used for thick separated Figure the first five models consisted diameter system

flats bar

by a round 25 = This except supports

as a roller,

(6-13a).

extends Proper a thin

over the whole length seating layer of the slab

of the model, supports

at the corners. by applying

on the

was effected

of gypsum plaster supported to lift all

between the flats

and the slab. loadeds the

For a slab corners capacity using

around and transversely thus all

are liable

up, and might this,

reduce the ultimate were held system, down

of the slab. "corner

To prevent supports".

corners supports

a separate (6-13b) free

This

shown

in Figure to provide and a high orthogonal

consisted rotation steel

of a system of orthogonal directions just like passing

flats-rollers a ball through The steel seat, the bar

in all bar

tension

5 mm in diameter

flats-rollers strength corner

system at their

midpoint.

had an ultimate a hole

to through 1750 N/mm2, pass was made and of provided system, at the time of casting, then through

in the slab

the orthogonal rig. Figure plates high

flats-rollers (6.14)

and was anchored to the loading arrangement in one of the models. corner To to

shows the corner

Spreader prevent

were used on the top surface resulting intact,

of the slab

shear stresses arrangement

from the corner the steel

pulls.

keep the corner

bar in the arrangement

221
was slightly Each slab of the support. pretensioned allowed'100 The slabs before the start of the'test. the'centreline Table from (6.1) these are by gross

mm overhang dimensions are

beyond given in

values. subtracting

The effective the overhang 6,

dimensions over

obtained

each support. were monolithically orthogonal Vees-rollers is cast with the

For Model model, were

the beams which by sets of

supported at

and orthogonal that supported

flat-rollers each beam will at the other,

alternate act if as it

corners. were

The system pinned at

so arranged

one end and freely

Figure

(6.15).

6.9

LOADING RIG AND LOADING SYSTEMS: All models were tested for support on the loading rig shown in Figure to sides span lateral ratio (6.16). only.

The rig It

was designed to

testing slabs

slabs with Thi of

subjected various

loads including from 1m

was designed 1.25o 1.509

1.09 to

1.75 The rig to of

and 2.0. was'made loads

longer universal

can vary

up

3.0

metres.

steel

beams and stanchions, a safety is the factor provided tested

and was designed of 1.5. A height rig, to

support 1.5

up to the slab

600 KN, with bottom

m under studying

surface of

by the models.

facilitate

the

bottom

surface

Loads

were

applied

as concentrated

loads.

This

was done by using

loading

cables

passing

through

holes holes yield

provided

in the slab

at the time

of castings The loading an ultimate

and corresponding cables strength were high

in the floor prestressing

of the laboratory. 7-wires tendons, load having

of 150 KN.

According

to the total

applied in the

on each models the methods of load fol lowing mariner. *

I

application

can be divided

$I

222
(1) Tvo_'poirits_system:

This was used for passing transmits short

(2)

4 model and consisted at the centre

of one loading

cable

through its

a hole

of the model.

The cable using a

load to the slab supported

sZstem: for model arranged holes surface in

at two Points beam.

500 mm apart,

simply
Four This

spreader

Points

was used symmetrically

3 only. about the of slab.

In the

this model

case, centre

four

loading were

cabless passed anchored

lines, then flat at

through on the

four top

The cables

were

the to

model,

and a spreader the load

200 nm x 200 mm x 10 mm was used (3) Eight-points-system: This Each of-the a spreader eight used Figure points, for the (6-17). Each loading resting tach of jack against system four beam. using rest , cable the is of is a combination cables

distribute

each point.

of

the

previous its on the load slab

two systems. at two points is of applied loading are at was by

loading

transmits the load

Accordingly, only the four

cables.

This

system

models.

The loading

systems

shown in

tensioned surface hoses of of to oil

by a 20 ton-hydraulic the floor of the

jack laboratory. pump, hoses capable

bottom via

was connected up to the

a regulating pressure. points

electric The four using

sustaining to

10000 psi

were

connected This the

pump at

one connection ensure equal

a distributor. distribution in effects

arrangement four jacks,

was made to and would jacks. top surface thus

pressure unequal

eliminate

frictional

on the-separate Loads

on the

of

the

slabs

were measured

using

50 tons

223 electrical Prior load cells. the load cells cell (6.18) were calibrated. Each loading top

to-tests

cable was passed through using loading a flat spreader.

4 load Figure

its and, was anchored on shows the details of the

arrangement. were also measured using each. All the load small electrical load

Corner reactions cells of 5 tons

capacity

cells

are then connected

to a load amplifier,

and further

to a data logger.

6.10

FURTHER INSTRUMENTATION: Deflections were measured by electrical manufactured transducers,, by Nouatech supported 50 mm were number which of were Surrey.

linear

displacement were

potentiometers mounted capable

The transducers frame.

independently on an of measuring up to

measuring used,

Transducers

Each transducer connected the to the

was then data is

given for

identification an data processing.

and was then check the slab for

logger

A. cross under

transducers at the

provided

by a dial

gauge located

bottom up to

centre.

The dial up to 0.01

gauge used was capable. mm. measure the loads., the

of measuring

50 mm, reading The data logger

was used to

strains

and

deflections. channels

This was an IBM 5000 type which has 'an MB-Metals data logger controlled by a PDP8 computer using to process step consists Voltmeter) the results

200

the language

FOCAL. Programs were written The output the load at each loading cells

of each test. read on in ) (mm.

load the values of units, deflections in micro the

in DVM (Digital

transducers, by the measured The DVM units curves for are later

and then the strains to loads using

mm/mM.

converted

calibration

each load

cell.

224 The underside powerful light of each. test model was illuminated surface glass. using four

sources. with the

Cracks on the bottom aid of a magnifying pointspusing

of the slab Crack widths microscope,

were monitored

were measured under the load reading

6.11

a crack measuring

up to 0.01 mm.

TEST PROCEDURE:

All Deflection truly strain

electrical transducers

connections were then

were first

checked by the computer. they were The

checked to ensure that properly

vertical$

and they would operate

under test.

gauges were also The load

checked and defective cells were also

immediately were ones a small,

disconnected.

checked by applying

load to the slab, jacks and if also

and then unloading. the initial

Leaks on the hoses and the test loading Wh en all and unloading$ primary checks in increments cells,

appear during

detected,

they were soon remedied. was started An amplifier load level Results for

have been made, the test of 5 KN per load and when the for a complete cell.

by applying

the load

read the loads

on the load

desired scan.

was reached, for this load

the computer was started increment while were then printed. the underside was also taken

The loading of the at this

was maintained for

10 minutes, about The dial

slab was studied stage.

cracks.

reading

The pump was started, was repeated

a new load until

increment

was applied,

and the whole procedure

the ultimate

load was reached.

225

CD

cm
(n

\M ch
_e

t\Z
ri

tri

0 0

4-1 Co
tk-i

0 41
10

Co \. 0
0

(A m

Co toi

zr UN Je
C)

c;
10 t rl
g 0
4-3 U Cd 4-3 cd

CM Lr\
H

2 _e r-1

(D
H C)

Co

Co

cm

p4 e

0
LQ

.0 4-)

&1 0

(D

CD

rl 4J to

ri
Co \M \M
4j

Co CM

(D CD

(D

rA

CM m m

N\ Igt CID

I u

(D CD

0 (D

CD (D

ri Z 0
0 4J ri gz 0 . f.4

0 4) 10 4-)

4J Co

+i 0 PQ

UN 0

Co cm CU C)

--t LI-

(n LI-

t-t-

Co

CD

(
0

(5
Lr\ _e m O\ LA UN cli
P4 14 0 u

4-) 0 A4

rn

CM 93 to r4 Co ca Q Q rzi 0 ri 4) rd 0 19 r 0

I ro cd E-4

226

ri
+

gz %--

cq

cu

C\i
0 0 mi CM

c4
0 t -: 0 cu

CM

CM

2 : PZ
9 0) pq

X
\M 0 0 r-i

x
0 cm H 01

cu

rn 12 rl M
cli CM C\i C\i cu CU

43 M

>i

pol
4 P4

Lr%

Ul\

Je
C\i

Lr\
CU

cm

r-i

CM

4-) 9 rd 9

\Z 1Z .
4 m .

Co
0. 0 0.

Co
4

m N

Ul\
0

cn,

ri

CM

'l-

0 ,

r-i

ri

t-

cl

, u

A*

\j

UN ti de 1) 0 H tz mi

Co
(Yl r-i
_e Lr\ \M

Co

la E-1

Z 42 bo c2 . r f

ri ri (L)

cm r-i

(D H r-4

227

m
X 02 c3 (L) 9-4 A PA Q) u2 9.6 (U

H je3 43 01 0

>b

4-4

Co O\

C
A 00 41 43

C. )

E-4 Q .

(D

4-3 0 W

UN Co r-i

tt- 1-1 m Ll(v H0 co r-, C co -1 iT

C% -. r co cli -T r-f r-4

Cj

47,

t-

tl- C\j

CD 0

0 Lr\ N

t' _e -

t-

ri

09 r _:

Co

_e c

Co CM

c"

--r Co

c\ CD

e- Co m Lr\

4-) 0 . f. j 0

cm (n 00

0 U'\ Oj

C\j Lr\ \D 0

ON N

CN \10 t-T 41 0

N CY)

---

a\ _zr rN

U-\ C7\ *0

0m U-\ co
40

C\j \o

N0 Lr\ C\j
_: r00 10

\10 H

00

r _-:: 0

HW H Wk
Lr\ LrN C\j

bo Cd

1 1 ,\, ,1 1t0 "\ o c" c, >1 - c, ''1 CD

LA M Lr\ 606400040006

CO

\z

-r .

\.0 0 U'\

Co

r \M -.

C\i UN

ca

4-)

(U

1 UN Lt\ cm

1 t- 01 \4) rl Co At C\i _e r-i M 0000000004100

cm cm M. -t ci tr\

1 t- tr-1 0 _e \lo

c\ \m t- Cl% e Lr\

2 .e

CY\ H U-\
4

4)

43 (a

Op
LN

O\ CM Co Lr\ ri

cm C\i Co Ul\

(1 w\ t- --t CM m

u-%H \M M

_-r Co _r CD

H lID Co C3N

I-_:
Lr\ r UIN _r tl-

cli

228 C. L. C. L. L. 18 (a) Distributed . 34. 2-9 1 . 47'7] : l'2'. -5 strip.

145

TI

x steel

in a central

C. L. 113.9 126.97149-59162.20

145

69-17174.2

b) Lumped steel

areas

(mm? - in the same strip.

75
50
25

(c)
Figae

Choice of bars
(6.2) Design of x steel in a central strip

C. L.

185

192 .

482

80

837

772 .

C. L.

(a) Distributed

y steel

in a central

strip

1 33.7 89.1J49.7

1 d d 180. 154. 142.8i

(b) Lumped steel

(mm2) in the same strip areas

200 150 100

50

Figure

(6.3)

Design

of

3r steel'in

a central

strip

229
Is

Co
I

0 H

C-)

m --L

0
-01_. "

L.
-ea--

--

___

-.

a-------

i_..
-_-

C\j

a
--

_j"

---

0__J
_j
a-a.
__

----------

II
---..
__

0
0-______

Lr\ t

--k--

--

I--

III
II II

H
___ "_ --a...

_j

C\j

0
-___

ri

II
--L--L-----.
--

0 0 r-I 0 Ll0 C\j

P4 r-i cu Q) 4-) w 10,

I-

--

- --

- --. --

4- - ---q--0 Lr%

4- 0

r
Cd -4 -----

U-'

A-

--

A- ---

0 UN

Lr\ t--.

zr r-i

.H8

00
LA

Ul% r-i

Lr% mm H

ri

Co r-i

230

10 0 10

1%c 1: 71

Lr\ (n

LA (n

Co

mi

ri

231
0 \o r-4 C\j

co

rl

0 Ll-

--F--

I
0 Co CM VN

0' t'ri H c> UN

C\j 0 z

0
., -j

0 4-) 0 A

8 cli
UN Co H

0-

Cd

000000000 Lr\ VN

cu ,1

cm

Ul\

CU

Co

\lo

Co

Lr\

iH.

ri .

r-1 1

cm

U'\

Lr\

cm

CU 19

232

LN Co

CM

rJ2 A 0 ID Co

UN

Co

Lrl%

UN

00 Lr\

C\j

C\j

C\j

Lr\

Lr\

U-\

NI-

C\j

C\j

1. %Z C\i

-11

233-.

clcl

S S

z
co

H0 0

0 . rj
H (D

LrI% U-N

P4 0 E-4

11

I
ID

C\l
C\j
-H

LrN ;r

Lf"\ llq* Irl Ul\

C/2 Fl 0 -61 4-)

Ul\ p Lr\ n

Cd

WN

0
KN

ul\

U-N U-%

0 o ,

C)

C\l

C-4

234

co

0 IAxlp-, 0 c l i P:
,

OOT OOF, OOF,

00i oo
oot
o0a
oof

ocf

0 z

OOT

4-4

Q6T 06T -1 061 ,* 06T A

or+1
-

"o

0 0

0 0

0 0

0 0

0 0

0 0

0 o

0 0

0 0

0
0

C'l11

0 o C\l

Lil% \o

Lr\

cl- CC)

235

04

H a) Id 0

0 CD M-%

r-4
0

P4 0 E-4

C-

8
Kl% KIN . LN \Z Kl% Ul% cl- 0 CO r-i

cl c,

236*

CC)

IQ.
(D

0 0

r -4

%Z T04

00 L ooz

00 00 00 9LI ON 09
06 0 00 Z 0 o6

UN

9) le

ON
F.

00 00 L 00 L ON 00 L
80000008 08 00 C14 T- I'V-' I T- . 000 000 II-

Cd CD l

G -r-

01% 0 T, "zl-

(7\ . r-

Cl% T-

C\j

I-

237

0 0 cli

Lf' C-

0 0

'7

P4 0 E-4 0 0 cli

co

0
PC4

000000o0 00

KIN

Cl\

00
CN

(7%

C%J

238

ISL N

cli
Co 1.
N
I-

--

I'D

S S

C,

%Z

0 z
CH 0

CD (D 42

;2
Cl\

cli

C'N

239

ei

'

co 'IQ.

0 t R:

0 0 1-t
0
0 C\j

Cd

%4;
4-1 r-4 ID Id 0

P 0

0 0
cli

E2

Co ri . r-j Cd 4-3

00 oo '-Ic"

b,O 4.3 P 0

r-I
. rj

co 'IQ.
C 1
0 0

Cd 4-3 Q) P

04

C\j

240

L= Length of the cylinder

300 mm =
2P 7=T

150 mm

Figure

(6.10)

Cylinder

Splitting

Test for

Concrete

Stress
Nl= 2

500

400

300

200

100

000

001

093

0-5 Strains

0-7

0.9

FiMe

(6.11)

Stress-Strain Steel Used.

Curve for

the High Yield

241

Stress
N/MM2

300

Q 144;U. 1.11

Figuxe

(6.12)

Stress-Strain

Cuxve for

the mild

steel

used.

242

FLAT ROLLER

FLAT

(a) Flats-Roller

System

II

"--

--

__"

--+-

PLAN

FLAT ROLLER FLAT ROLLER FLAT (b) Corner support system ELEVATION

FigL=e_-(6-13)

The Support Systems

243
High Yield Prestressing Bar

FigL=e

(6.14)

Holding

the

Corners

using

"Corner

Holders"*

Edge Beam orthogonal Flat-Roller System orthogonal V-roller System -

7!Z7

Figure

(6.15)

Support

Systems used in Model 6

244 2000

UB 305 x 127 x 37 loft

3400

CD

Isr

In

ln. -L, 9w9sJ-m-V-

WAm ICLIW 1

:6..

Il 11

UC 4o6 x 173 x 60

FigL=e

(6.161

The Loading

Frame

245

(a) Two points

Loading

System.

D) Four points

Loading

System

(c)

Eight

points I

Loading

System

500 370 I-500 I II-I-- T -1,1

Fig=e (6-17) The Loading Systems

246

02

. f. 4

rZ

0 m H .H cl

0-1-1 co

247
'CHAPTER'SEVEN

'CONPARISONS; 'DISCUSSIONS AND'CONCLUSIONS

ON T-1* INTRODUCT In this

described increasing in

chapter
chapter is

the results
6,

of tests

on the large
The behaviour were designed

"models"
of to: the slabs under

are presented. The tests

load

examined.

(a)

Check the validity

with respect to

of the proposed
service and ultimate deailing resulting

design procedure,
behaviour. problems effects associated on the slab

(b)

Provide with

information this method,

on the and the

behaviour. (c) Carry out a detailed numerical analysis on these Uabs

to gain forces A32 the slabs Details of the test

a proper at high

understanding levels

of the redistribution

of

of loading. under the action properties of concentrated loads.

were tested slabs,

material

and method of testing

have been given

in the previous

chapter.

T. 2 GENERAL DESCRIPTION'Of

THE BERAVIOUR OF THE MODELS

7.2.1

Model 1, (L /L x y=1.5, This was a rectangular

simply simply

supported): supported slab with an aspect

ratio

The slab was designed for a total load of 1.5. of y) 416 KN. This design load was chosen in order to obtain reasonable
of steel in the structure. The steel bars were curtailed needed. The curtailment of

(L_, /L

percentages exactly of steel

at the'points

where they were no longer the design bending

was done using

in each strip moments

248

Figure

(7-1)

A Slab

Model

Under

Test

249
elements, according to the method described in section (6.4). Welding

bars to connect used was

according to CP110 rules

of different
(5). The total

diameterss
volume

and was carried

of steel provided

out
in

this

model,

including

hooks etc., deflection visible

in the early

is given curve for

in Table this

(6.2). given in a

The load-central Figure

slight This is

model is

(7.2).

First

dracking
curve is

started
visible at which

at about 0.29 Pd, but

a load probably of 0.18 formed P d* during

nonlinearity caused

by the

microcracks,

the loading
The first

and unloading
cracks were

prior

to test.
under the load points and were a

observed

maximum width tended

of 0.13 mm at 0.29 Pd* points

With increasing and to cover the they

loads, central

the cracks zone

to spread from the load

bounded by the load points. diagonals new cracks continued deflection according central
P d'

Subsequently*

spread along the tendency to form

towards rather

the corners. then widening at a higher

There was a general of the rate, existing

cracks.

Deflections central

to increase

and at 0.4 Pd' the

8 the permissible service deflection was mm. This represents (5). At this load, the cracks covered the entire to CP110 zone. 'The maximum crack width
under the points of

reached 0.3 mm at a load

of the load.

of 0.45

directly

application

Yield the short tiny visible

of steel

was first

observed

at 0.69 Pd . of the slab. -

This

occurred load-,

in

span direction cracks

at the centre

At this

in a narrow band along the diagonals UP to this distributed stage, no major

reached

the and

corners 49 the

of the slab. vere evenly

crack had formed, surface

over the bottom

of the slab. of PdI 0.73 of

At about 0.63 Pcjq a few cracks the slab at the four corners

appearecl on the top surface hold6: rs. * By a load

near the-corner

250

1-06

0-875
19 0

Oo75
"A

1-4

0-625

"A r-4 P4

H Cd +2 E-4 0

Os5O

0-375

0-25

0-125

0-0

0-1
FigL=e_(7. -2)

0-2
Load Central

0-3
6/h Deflection

0-4

0-5
Model 1

o-6

Curve for

251

1.0

0*875

0 e75
0

(D Cd 9

o-625

0-50 H P4 P4 4 4:

0-375 +3 E-4 0

H Cd

0-25

0-125

0-0 Figure

Oo5 (7-3)

1-0 LoadrSteel

1-5

1-0 E/ey .

2o5

3-0

Strains

in Model 1

252

r-I

0 0 0
A co

co
o
P4

P4 0

0-4..

Pri

253
a well defined yield line also pattern small was developing. (see Figure 7-3) The strains and only in the the steel

reinforcing at the h. centre

steel

were

was yielding. shear failure. to

At 0.8

Pd, when the'deflection This supported

was about crack

0.38

a sudden near

occurred. the long

was a deep long edges.

running

and parallel

The concrete

cover on the bottom

crack. Due to the

surface
sudden

of the slab
shear failure.,

spalled
the

off

along the shear

of the central zone

whole

dropped down significantly sound.

relative*to

the supports

with

a clinking

This was a bit unfortunate. However a check on the shear (5) using CP110 strength revealed that the slab was in fact weak in shear.

7.2.2

Model 2 (L /Ly -2 1.3, x

This is of a rectangular The slab the the crack

simply
simply

supported):
supported for slab a load with of is an aspect 213 KN. given in in A Figure ratio

(LX/L y) photograph (7-5). of

1.3. of

was designed on the the

pattern model,

underside load

As in

previous cell.

was applied

increments

5 KN per

load

The load-central Figure Similar a load points, (T. 6),

deflection

curve

for

this

is in shown model in Table (7-1). at

and a summary of the behaviour model, first first visible cracks of the cracks

is given cracking

to the previous of 0.56 Pd*

was observed

Also these direction of these of

appeared under the load

in the and were

diagonals. load was all over

The maximum width 0.12 the central. increased

of cracks

under the cracking

Between a load

56 P 0.8 P cracks and . d d' while cracking

the

spread

zone bounded by the load points, to twice

in the

the deflections load. The spread

During

their
central

values

before

the

zone tended

to be along

diagonals.

54

Figure

(7-5)

Crack

Pattern

on the

'Underside

of Model

255
the next load increment, cracks
loads,

which

corresponds covering
the corners

to a total

load of 0.9 P d' zone

But only

new surface
between the

spreaa further
and verir near

most of the'central
of the slab.

boundaries. Pd did they the reach slab at line pattern formed under this
limit of

Thus a well

defined

yield

load.
spanJ250 was reached at 0.75 Pd2 and a

The deflection

crack width
very that of high steel

limit
service did not

of 0.3a= at 0.85 Pd*

load. yield In at addition, all in at this the at the

This
strain

definitely

represents
showed First the

measurements load. around

high

service span steel Pd.

yield slab increase

reinforcement This strains Figure first

was detected yield

short 0.94 first

centre. in steel from

occurred after

-However, yield P., load, cracks

a rapid

was observed (7.7). After

the of

as can be tended to

seen

a load

0.98

intensify clearly

and increase be heard at this

in width. stage.

The sound of concrete

cracking

could

At 1.13 PdI 'nost of the strain strains surface centre

started

gauges on the steel steel. At this

bars

indicated top

higher cracks

than yield started

strain

for

load level

to appear.

At 1.31 Pds the dial freely

gauge at the cells

of the slab was rotating

to drop. It was very

and the load on the load

--* to maintain the load

difficult,

at that

level.
The load slab. P 1.31 then taken was of d deflection before as the failure centre load for this

An ultimate taken well just

of 50 nm at the the dial lines

of the slab was

the value

was removed. pattern has already developed

A clear Fhen the slab failure load

defined

yield

failed.

Each corner

reaction

measured onlY 7% of the

at collapse.

256

1-3
Id Cd 0

0 1-4
P4

0.9

0-7 Cd -fj 0 E-4 0-5

Oe3

0-1

04 6

6
FigL=e (7-6) Load-Deflection Curve-for Model 2

257

1-4 1-3
1-2

1-0 0

0-8

0-6

E-4

0-4

0-2

0-0

0-,5
Figure (7*7)

1-0
'Load-Steel

105

2*0
Model 2

2-5

3-0

C/C y

Strainsin

258

P-4

P4
914

C'4 P

0 P4 0

Cd co
P-4 P-4 m

C14 I
P-4 KIN

c;

CO

,0

P4

Id P-1 4C\l T0 P-4

0 co Y-

Id cd

P-1 co l7 E r
P., zr co

S N
0

19
Tr-

0-1 co

KIN

T-

CM - 1 .

259
10 T. 2.3*Model 3 (LX/L y=1.0, simply supported):

This is a total system,

a square simply

supported

slab which was designed

for

load of 210 KN.

The'load

was applied (T-13).

as a four-points-load The model was loaded in

as can be seen from Figure of 5 KN per load cell.

increments

The load7deflection
First visible cracking

curve for
was observed

this

slab

is

given
the

in Figure
four load

(T-11).
points

directly

under

Pd 0.04=. 0.38 of and measured a maximum about at load, no cracks cracks in the appeared in this diagonals. central

Under the

cracking

zone of the slab.

The first

of these

zone was observed

at about 0.48 Pd' and were cracks in this model

along the slab was faster

the surface

The spread of surface two models.

extend towards

than in the previous

cracks continued to

Under the load of 0.48 Pd'

the boundaries (see

Figure

7-9). The limiting deflection width of span/250 was attained of 0.3mm was reached right through Pd, 0.72 at about At 0.76

while

the crack 1=**t

at 0.67 Pd*

Pd the diagonal although

cracks were running continued

to the corners, the central square

some new cracks

to form outside

bounded by the loading

Intensive cracking

points.
represented by fast development of new cracks

and further o. 86 Pdo on the surface level

widening

of the diagonal cracks

cracks fo=ed

occurred outside (Figure

The newly developed formed by the four also (7-10)). load,

a load of I the central zone after (7-13)). Top at this load

slab,

load points corners

cracks (Figure

appeared near the

of the slab cracks

At 0.95 P more corner d. increased to that

were forming. W-

Beyond this

the deflections failure, similar

rapidly. with I 2, occurred model

A fle-n=al

obtained

I/

Pd* 1.16 at about

260

Figure

(709)

Crack

pattern

on the

underside

of Model

'igure

(7-10)

Crack pattern

face tor, the on

of ',Odel

261

Ici W 0

1-2

1.0 19.

Cd -P 0 E-4

o-6

0-4

0-2

0'
6/h
Figure (7-11) Load-Deflection Curve for Model

262

1-4

,zi

Cd 0

1-2

p1
Ici

00

r-I Cd 4.3 0

E-t

o-6

0-4

0-2

04

Figt=e

(7-12_

Load-Steel

S+rains in Model

263

cu

cc) ON

4-) ' d Q)

coC,%

-P p 0 P

4 P ,

KN

K-N 7
TCo

PL4

CD
P4

Xt*

264 IC T. 2.4 m6c '1 -4 (P JL y

This adjacent designed loads.

1.02
(L JL y 1.02) simply corner. supported along two

is a square slab sides for only, pinned

at o* pp osite

The slab was as two point reactions are

a total

load of 90 KN, and was applied and the resulting support

Details

of loading (T. 19).

in Figure given

For deflectionsg (see Figure Figure points (T. 16))9

the critical and the point

points

on the slab

are point

at the middle

of the free curves for

edge, these

(7-17). are given

Accordingly, in Figure

the load-displacement (7.16)

and Figu re (7-17).

First

visible

cracks were observed on the underside of the slab

at t hree points:

under the two load points,

and around the middle

These free the edges. occurred at a load of 0.39 Pd and were 0.04, of 0.05 and 0.06 mmin width respectively. With increasing loads, the slab towards the free

to from tended the centre of tbe spread cracks edgess running almost parallel

to the slab diagonal Joining the ends f J0 Cracks developed

(see Figure (7.14)). the orthogonal supporting system

band covering the zone between the load points and the wide a -over Cracks reached the confined corner at a load of 0.60 Pd* corner. propped deflection A ,, of span/250 was reached at 0.64 Pd and the maximum crack 0.3 was mm.,under one of the point loads. At the centre width measured the free this load level the crack maximum width edgeg measured at of the deflection 0.18 mm, and was only By a load of 0.67 Pa d but still (7.14)).. definite 6 the near samepoint was only mm.

Te-e-shapedcrack pattern had developed,

(see developing the Figure near corner prop new cracks were Strain measurementsindicated that yielc ling of steel first at a load equal to

the between two load the points, centre at started

265

Figure

(7-14)

Crack

Pattern

on the

Underside

of Model

FiLn=e

(7-15)

Crack

Pattern

on the

Top Face

of Model

266 1*10 VL 0-88

o-66
Cd 19 L X

Experiment w. Theory

0044

'211
LY LX/Ly

1-02

P -,E-4 0
4

0-22

21L

0-0

0-08 Figt=e (7-16)

? 24 0-32 0040 S/h near cent re Load-Deflection Curve for Model 4 0916

0048

1 010

74

0-68

o-66
Id H A

H Cd -4j 0 E-4

0-44

0-22

0-0 FigL=e

0-08

0-16

0-24 0-32 6/h (at Mid Free Edge)

0040

0! 48

lection 17)* T-oad-Def

Curve f or Model 4

267

Ici ci 0

00

00

00 Ici 0
. ri r-i 00

ce -p E-4

oo

Oe(

cAy

Fig=e

(7-18)

Load-Steel

Strains

in Model

268

(D 'd 0 ON m 0

02

P4

All 0 cli Cd

Cd

P4

CM

c'j S

269 the design load, and then at-the by excessive cell centres of the free. edges at 1.1 Pd' near the'dentre, diagonally at a load to the load

The model failed. Of 1.1p Pd* propped

deflection

The load

at the corner reaction

opposite

corner

measured a holding

of 15% of the failure

at collapse. The top surface supported cracks near the held down corner between the two

sides were first

formed at a load

of 0.94 Pd*

T. 2-5 Model 5 (Simply

Supported,

L. /L

1-5): as model 1. but was designed according at points together to the where with the

This model had the same dimensions for a lower load of 2.16 KN.

The model was reinforced and steel was curtailed arrangement

in the strips, average moment it was not needed. supports Details reactions

of the loading are given

r esulting

in Figure

(7.24-).

Design loads (7-1). given in earlier,

and a summary of the slab behaviour The load-central Figure (7.22). Unlike deflection

are given for this

in Table

curve

model is slab cracking loading

model 1, cracking This

in this early

started

and was observed of producing

at about 0.46 Pd' behaviour

had the effect history. This case of

flexible

over the slab

the due to lower be use of a could 25% higher 1, which was model The first Similar pattern, visible cracks models,

grade of concrete,

than in the

than model 5. were observed cracks under the load points. evenly distributed holes.

to previous particularly load,

spread in a fine square defined

in. the central

by the loading

At the cracking

maximum crack widths centre, of the

measured, 0.15 mm and 0.18 nm of the slab. Both the

nearone load point Cracks-reached the

near the corners

and at the mid point slab at a load

0.69 P of d.

Figure

(7-20)

Crack

Pattern

on the

Underside

of Model

Figure

(7-21

Crack

Pattern

on the

Top Face of Model

271

1-4

1-20

19 0

1-0

0-8

H P4
P,

o-6

H co -P 0 E-1 0*4

0-2

O-C

O/n Figure (7-22), Load-Deflection Curve for Model 5

272

1-2
r-A
.1 .0

I0

P I

0-8
P4
H

Cd o- 6 0 E0*4

0-2

0-0

0*5
(7-23)

100
Load-Steel Strains

2 0'0 in Model 5

2r-/E: y

Figare

273

7I
1

274
deflection reached limit of span/250 and the crack width limit of 0.3 nm were

simultaneously cracks loads

at a load of 0.63 P d' were observed at 0.69 Pd* With than

First increasing widening of forces the top

at the top surface new top surface cracks, place.

cracks

tended to form rather that a large line

the existing is not taking and bottom

which indicates A well

redistribution pattern on load

developed fo=ed

yield

of the slab was clearly in a flexure

when the design to previous

was reached.

The slab failed bf 1.07 Pdo

mode similar

load a at models

T. 2.6 Model 6 (A slab-beam This was a rectangular on the four all this around. sides.

system, slab

L /L

= 1-5): by monolithic edge beams dimensions loads for

su; ported

The beams had the same cross-sectional materials (T-1). model by the layered (N., NNMMM y XY Xy finite properties

The dimensions, in Table

and design

model are given The elastic

analysis the stress

of this resultants

element XY of that model, and '

model predicts due to the shift of the slab. -the

of the middle

plane

of the beams, to the level for this

However$ in the design. of reinforcement resultants

membrane components of the stress for flexural

were neglected, In addition.

the system was designed due to the fact -estimates that

components only. finite

the present forces

layered

element model under4.4.4).

the torsional

in the beams (see Section

additional
according

torsional

to CP 1-10

reinforcement (5)
bars

in the supporting
reinforcement

beams was added,

vas provided in the

The'torsional and links.

form of longitudinal. i'torsional forces

Also because of the underestimated reinforcement on the top surface

on the beams, tensile

75

Fi, z=e

(7-25)

Model

6 TJnder Test

Figure

(7-26)

Cracks

on the

long

beam of Model

276
between the slab and beams was vex7 according load for in to this the'slab small. CP110 model is (5). was 240 KN. in shown Accordingly, this

reinforce-

ment was also The total reinforcement and for the

provided design distribution

Resulting (6.9a), to failure (T. 25)

Figure

beams in the load for

Figure in

(6.9b). of

The model 5 KN per test. the

was tested load cell.

by applying gives

increments this model are

Figure

a photograph As far

under

as deflections

concerned,,

critical

points

are

those

at the middle

of the slab,

and at the mid point curves (7-31). and

of each beam. points are

Accordingly, given is

the load-displacement (7.29), (7-30)

at these three The behaviour first

in Figures

of the model visible

generally

linear

up to a load on the inner with

of 0.38 Pd2 when the side of the ribs holes curves

cracks

were observed in line

of the long beams, (7-33). to (7-31), at However, than

around points

the loading

marked in Figure in Figure (7.29)

By examining it this that be seen can load level

the load-deflection the slab

is not very much affected behaving in an elastic

by cracking manner. earlier

and was probably

nonlinearity this, beams. third

in the deflections

of the long beams starts microcracking

be can attributed and At a total inner the of load side This

to invisible

in the edge in the middle outer face

of 0.46 Pd' of the rib, cracking

cracks but

were spreading

did not reach the third

beams. long the of caused tiny P d* cracks

at the middle

of the beam at a load of 0.533

to form at the middle were running

of the slab

These tiny

cracks

parallel

to the short load,

edge beams, and the cracks and on

had a maximum width

of 0.03 =

at 0.533 Pd*- At this to the bottom

beams long the were extending on the outer reached faces

face of the rib, cracks

of the beams.

The depth of these

277
r--

FiFare

(7-27)

'rack

Pattern

on the : nderside

of ', Icdell -,

FioEare (7-28)

Crack Pattern

on the Top Face of Model

278

the

inner of

side the rib

of the at

ribs

of load.

the

long

beams did trend cracks

not to

reach

the

-mid

depth cracks

this to

A general existing

form

new surface The

rather

than

open up the

was observed.

maximum crack width

in the middle

third

of the ribs

of the long beams

load 0.10 at mm a of 0.533 Pd' was

At third of a load the in of 0.625 beams. with ribs service the at Pd' more new cracks the holes 0.625 first formed cracks in the middle long reached this load beems the may still mm near with

long line

However, loading of

on the

at points midheight be taken very the the outer width at this

(Figure Pd*

(7-33)),

of the as the

a load load for

Although cracks load

this width

model, at this

were

generally 0.13 line

narrow. inner loading face than

The maximurn crack the At short in ribs this of

was only in

edge of holes. of the the

the

long first

beams, cracks

at points were

load,

observed

on the in

edge beams. the at slab, the

These and thus of

cracks were slab

were much smaller not measured. spreading Also

cracks the

load,

cracks

centre

the

were

outwards

towards

the long

supporting

beams, with

a general cracks

inclination

to beams. 350 the edge of about loading

At

Some of these

reached the

holes
a load

at a load
of 0.72 P

of 0.625 Pd'
d' most of the first cracks in the middle

third

of the long beams covered the full between the slab

height

of the rib The

from inside, Imum

junction the and reached width holes largest the of inner the on

and the rib.

crack measured 0.2 nm, just side of the ribs

under the loading On the outer the total

of the long beams. extended

face of the ribs.

most of the cracks

to about half

depth of the beams.

reached their mid

Cracks on the outside

but still no cracks

of the short
appeared

beams als. 0
on the inner face

depth,

279

1.6

1-4
Id Cd . 0
r-4

1-2
(D -Q. 1-0

1000,

.j. /II i+

1(

11

P4 0.8

0 E-4

Expetiment Theory (Pin) Sandwich

o-6
xx

I Theory (Roller)l Theory A Theory (Pin) (Roller)

0*4

Fle=e

0-2

0-0

0-1 FigL=e (7-, 29)

092 /h

0*3

0-4 Deflection

095 In Model 6

0-6

Load-Central

280
of their ribs. On the bottom of the slab . the first cracks to form

were observed to reach the supporting step towards the formation

long beans,

indicating

the first

of one collapse

mechanism.

Crack widths

on the underside this load. At a load centre for this was only

of the slab measured a Tna-ximum of 0.08mm only under

of 0.8 P., 8 =.

the maxilnum total represents

deflection

at the slab service the first deflection inclined near

of the were

This

the limiting At this load,

model according

to CP110(5).

cracks
the rib,

on the long beams were formed on the

corner, not form and were on the extending face to of

inner

side

of the rib
the depth

supported but 4id

one third the rib.

outer

These

cracks

generally

inclined

0 at about 150 with corner side.

the centreline The first at this

of the long on the inner and were of these

beams, measured from the side of the short covering

cracks load

beams were also its middle third

observed zone.

rapidly cracks

The maximi= extension depth,

did not exceed one third of the rib the major

the rib

and did not extend face. On the under

beyond the middle side of the slab,

breadth cracks

from the bottom at the centre

of the slab had reached at the middle of the

the long beams., and joined

beams.

with

the main crack

At 0-9 Pd more inclined the corners. This time this

cracks cracking

on the long beams appeared near also occurred. on.the outer normal to those face formed of

the beam ribs inside the on

and were running of the ribs.

in a direction

These cracks effectd.

may be due to the interaction load increment, of the load crack

between shear and torsional this interaction cracks the earliest

In the previous the simultaneous of the long beams.

was seen to cancel onkthe outer cracks face

appearance At this

torsional level,

were noticed

to widen.

The maxi=m

o5(

1*33

1*17

19 0

1-0

0-83

0-67

-P 0

ti

E--4

0,50

0-33

0-17

000

6/h FigL=e (7-30) Load-Mid Beans Deflectionsin Model 6

282

1-5

1-33

1-17
1:1 Cd 0 H

Q)

1'O

0 1-4

0-83

o-67
0 E-4

0-50

0-33

0-17

0- -0

0-02

0-04 6/h

0-06

0-08

0-10

0-12

0.14,

Figure

(7-31)

Load-Relative Deflection Long'Beams in Model 6

between Slab and

283

lZ

C/I

r. 4-4 Cd P
4-2

9
A N WN

t-\M

K\ Kl%

t-0 %,

Kl\ Kl\

9 0

psol USTSO Cl/peoI T-. eloz

284

N. B.

Loading

4oles

Maxked

a.,

II II I II II II II II II II

II

I.

1125

II II
II

L-

655

870 2180

1". .
870 3120
1125

655

Fig=e_

(7-33)-

Dimensions

and Loading

Positions

6 Model on

285 width was 0.3 = near the loading holes on the ribs of the long beams. cracking at

in Th. stiffness e change this load can clearly

of the short

beams due to'extensive (7.30).

few new cracks

be seen from Figure

increments, very

On subsequent

load

formed,

and

these were confined

of the slab.

to the extensions
crack through

of old
the

cracks

near the

corners
the

A major

corner

junction

between

two beams was formed at about a load

disruption around and the centre long dial this slab. of the corner near the connection. corners, face

of 1.19 Pd' indicating

Top surface along the slab, with cracks

the
were observed the beams

load

junction the that

between major crack middle 1.48 freely,,

On the

bottom

of the

at the of the

was wideningt beams. Deflections the

and was continuous rapidly centre of

at

the

increased the slab

by a load'of

Pd. the 9 and it

gauge under

was rotating

was very test

difficult

to maintain

the load

at a certain deflection,

value.

The of

was then stopped,

due to excessive

and the load

1.48 pd was taken as the ultimate

load.

7.3 DISCUSSION OF TEST RESULTS:

T. 3-1 Ser7iceability_Limit States.

Table is taken

(7-I)

sin= rizes

all

the test

results.

The service

load limit

as the mininum of two values: the other the general behaviour

one based on a deflection of 0.3 M(5). is

of span/250, Accordingly, the service 1. model design.

on a maximum crack width conclusion slabs failed

to be drawn from the table tested is satisfactory,

that

of all

except in its

This model actually

in shear,

due to an error

In the adoption the elastic of made

of the present stress distribution

design

procedure,

use had been load by the

under the design

286

-ri Im

1PL4

%Z

t-

CD

Co

ro

C%

cr%

GD

M lid

Lr%

Lr\ OD

\.0

N-\ 1%0

Kl%

E-1

02

J 0 43
.H ?4 0) lid

a)
CO-4 0

-l

(D e

Ul\ t--

t-

%Z

%0

CD

CH 0

19 0
Cd 0
CM CM

Cd
cc

0 C-4 P., m
CQ 0 cm cy C\i CM Cd 0 H 0 r-i b. 0 Id H a)

to
'-I .

CD

\M

Y. ,
ab-

P:4

-d -,> rd 5 ;1
qb-

CD

(D

(D

CD

CD cm

CD

'Ire,

cli

-0

C) -

CD
TP-4 P- P4

112

r-i

cli

Kl%

142-

Ul\

%Z

287' finite "elastic" stiffnesses element method. deflections However, such an analysis under the design load. normally elastic predicts uncracked deflections under a valid and the and then procedure,

Since

have been used'in

the

analysis,

such elastic deflections

would be a serious service design normal loads, to Limit practice

underestimation

of the true

as has been shown in Chapter Theox7 should is to design satisfy for serviceability limit

However, criteria, state,

the ultimate

check for since

serviceability. deflections they can'be

Accordinglylin cannot useful if

the present

design

the elastic

directly

be used to check for Partially the elastic 2.3-1.1), cracked deflections to predict

serviceability, section properties

an effective study,

had been used. the Branson's

In this

have been used with the deflections

(Section method loads. load,

r

under the service

So if the

6e is the elastic service deflection will

deflection be

under the design

ultimate

pe9 where 6p 6e
19=

6xI

( c/ LF x. I

eff

Predicted elastic
gross

def lect Ion deflection,

moment of

inertia

eff LF

:'-- effective

moment of inertia

of the section

= Load Factor described in Appendix of all (E). test models is given

The method is fully

A sunmary of the predicted in Table (7.2). for Deflections cracked slabs

behaviour.

have been predicted, E).

using

the simplifying that

assumptions

sections(Appendix load

Due to the fact the

in most tested the serice

the li-ve

is about 10 times (i. e. 0.625 Pd).

dead load,

load

is taken

as Pd/1.6

288
0 0

U-%

\0

4OP4 0 Id v -H
Id
Q) 4-4 P4

LCI% *
tc\

C\j C-0 .0

co C\j

Ul\

(D (10

r-

r ::

10

C-

ul

0
C\j

0
a) to Kl\

C\j
04

\. O U,, %

LIcr \

,a Cd

E-4
0 --4 Cd a) Cu (1) C\j a, \
-:

C\j Kr\

cr\ Kl\

04 02 04

co 0 K'\ 0 0

ON co Kl\ 0

co C\j

4-3 +3 H CH 0

Eo (D . \-O W\

a\

a ,\

o-,
LCI%

Cl\
TC14 LC\

0 -H 44

cd

UN

U-11

U-\

r 4-4

0 0

Cd

' r= 0. z9 Z C/2 o (1)

a)

8 C\j

C\j

cr\ T-

co 0

0
Ir"

T-

Ll-

it 40 co 4-) 19

4
P4 co

0p
0

(D P4

(1)%..oo

i
0

4-2 P4

Ir.

0
r-

0 44

E-4

%D

ON

ON

a\
r-I C\j

cq
41 4.4

E-4 ON 4.3 14-4 r-4 E-4

4) Id
o

r-i

cli

K%

UN

\D

289
As can be seen from Table (7.2) except for model 1. that the

adopted procedure adoption section of elastic properties,

yields

excellent

predictions.

Accordingly,

the

deflections will yield

nodified acceptable in-the

ratio

by the-cracked checks on the

transformed serviceability due to the

of the slab.
fact that this

The large
model

deviation
a low in

case of model 1 is
of P cr/pd* is shown in

has got width

The Tria i TnlTn crack

each test

slab

Figwe

(7-34),

as a function maximum width underside pointso occurred points

of the total

load

on the slab.

The crack having cracks

the

had always been one of the first This

to appear on the

of the model. except

crack had always been 'under the load crack having the maximum width in line . with the

in model 6. where the of the long of the'loads.

on the soffit of application

supporting

beams

The rate uniformg rate

increase of

in the me imum crack width

is

smooth and or rapid on the reinforcement increase

as can be seen from the figures. which is a natural result

No sharp increase of even spread distribution

occurs,

of cracks of the

surface departs

of the slabs.

' In cases where the analysis

from the elastic is liable

of the stresses,

sharp and rapid in all

in crack widths tested

to occur..

Opposed to this,

the models was not

heres new cracks

were always forming, cracks, until

and the behaviour load is

few by major governed

the design all tested

exceeded.

In texms of service satisfactory reached either if

behaviour, Model 1).

models behaved in a limits were

(except manner simultaneously a limit

Both serviceability close

or at loads

to each other

(Table

Accordingly, then service widths. for

deflection

of spanJ250 is taken xather load

as a criterion,

loads

are defined state J,

by deflections of deflection

than by crack of 0.735 Pd is obtained

An average limit five models.

the last

290

ca
op

4 pa
0 r.

4 +2

CQ 4) E-4

cli 4 +21

I
cc

1
I

N-

I
tIz: C\i 0 Co \Z lle cli

P114d

291
The slab in model 6. showed an excellent service behaviour. Both

serviceability It

limits

were reached here that refer

at loads

close

to the

design

load. to in

be mentioned should (7-1) If actually

the deflection values

values at the

referred centre

table slab.

to the total relative

of the

the deflections limit

to the

edge beams were considered, at a load of 1.29 Pd at

the deflection (Figure 1.2 Pd* 7.31).

on the slab wLs reached the LizLtinj

Furthermore,

crack width

was reached

7.3.2 Ultimate
Table behaviourtwo criteria, As far took place (7-1)

Limit

State:
the results obtained concerning will the ultimate from

suanarizes

of the tested viz. as first within

models.

The behaviour

be considered loads. of steel

the first yield

yield,, loads

and the failure

are concerned, in range all

no yield models.

the service its steel

load

Even the slab cracking,

in model ls

although

was highly within the

stressed service

due to early load.

the reinforcement value for the first

did not yield load in all

An average

88 o. P to was models equal d' in excess of the

failure of this

The measured failure

for all models, except

loads were all

model 1. The shear

design
model

loads

truncated rest four

the

"flexural"

ultimate

behaviour

of the slab.

For'the

models without load

in the

design

edge beams, an average enhancement of 16% possooLy indicates is observp-d. This that very little -/, taken place before the slab became a

redistribution mechanism.

had actually

The slab-beam In fact, both the

6 in model system. recorded service and ultimate

a higher of this

load

enhancement.

behaviour

model are

292
affected by the presence of the strong supporting beams. The effect

of having

strong

supporting This

beems is to restrain results

the'lateral

inplane

in the slab. movements membrane forces its enhance in the slab at high very load is

in the development which will, compressive

of compressive considerably me=brane action which develops

at the . centre carrying

of the slab. This

capacity.

different The latter

from the tensile

membrane action

loads.

would Occur only when the and in most cases, the crack

slab undergoes at the centre of depend

large

deflections, runs right

the slab on the strains prevent

through

the slab

depth.

This

of course will

amount of strain the reinforcing the development

models tested

in the reinforcement, bars may rupture of the tensile

here, it

because at very This will

large then

altogether. membrane action.

possible to

In the

was not

reach

this

stage.

Although

at failure,

the slabs

were undergoing. was observed. increasing,

very

large

deflections, deflections extremely perhaps

no increase of the slabs difficult

in the loads were rapidly

The central which made it

to maintain

the loads. connection,

In case of model 6, the top connection and (7.28)), prevented this

the

failure

of the corner and the supporting

between the slab the development model recorded contributing

beans (Figure

of the tensile

membrane action.

In any case, load. will

48% in its enhancement of an to this

design

The factors be discussed

enhancement in the ultimate

loads

in the following

section.

7.3.3'Pogsible'Reason8'f6t'the'DiffLir6rices*B6tv66h'thO-'A: .. Elastic-'F'lelds)*and'Tru6'Ultimat6'Behavi6ur'6f*the'Md6ls. To explain on the models, some of the phenomena enco-untered the following factors contributed during to the

Atumed

the experiments deviations

293
between the assumed (elastic) ultimate (i) loads. Strerigth does not affect the design procedure. The -effect of and real distribution of forces at

Cnrete

This factor concrete strength

on the amounts of steel 5. Clark

3.14) with

needed is

almost

insignificant showed that

concrete the yield

in Chapter been has shown as

the with yield infinite criterion used

(80)
is

and Morley(71)
exact finite only for

(equation For

strength.

concrete

strength,,

criterion

is not as exact,

but the inaccuracy

was shown to be insig-

nificent

(80) 0
in concrete strength has significant in the post effects range.

But the variation on the stiffness The concrete strength load both

of the slab, relates control

particularly to Young's the slab stiffness

cracking

strength of which

modulus and the tensile deflections. within and the cracking load is governed be

of the slab. by crack

As the slab initiation

the working which

affected

and propagation, the higher contributed

are in turn will

by the concrete the stiffness. of the slab-beam (2) Increased Affects In the former not affecting deflection

strength, This factor

the strength

the higher

to the good service

behaviour

6. in system model

amounts of steel both the service case, by providing the cracking load the and extra ultimate stiffness behaviour of the slab. (although

to the slab leads

significantly)

to improved surface of and hence improvement will

characteristics. but

Crack spread over the slab has the desirable less effect-is

'not. be affecteds restricting slow stiffness

in the service

the factor

influence

crack

depths.

Consequently$ The'total

crack widthss an overall

degradation*
behaviour.

294
Increasing of yield. with extra the amount of steel provided delays the initiation

In the experiments. steel, steel

both model 2 and model 6 were provided (6.2). but In case of model 2, rather resulted to avoid for from shear flexure

as can be seen from Table was not an additional steel,

the extra

not curtailing failures. only,

the reinforcing

bars near the supports

In case of model 6, the model had been designed steel was added to resist by the layered additional This steel effect

and additional

the excess torsional (see Section model has contributed will 4.4.4).

stresses

over those predicted some of this

And definitely

to the in

improved behaviour detail (3) in Section

of the model. (7.4). of'steel

be discussed

Strain Table

hardening (7-3) lists

the properties curves are given

of the

steel

used in the (6.11)

experiments.

Typical

stress-strain

in Figures of steel in the

(6.12). and

As can be seen from Table reserve of strength mild after steel. but

(7-3),

the type both

used had a good case of high yield the

the yield, This factor

and ordinary service

defini. t6ly

does not affect

behaviour, (as will

generally

contributes 7.4).

to the ultimate

strength

of the. slab

be shown in Section

(4) Membrane forces Inplane slabs forces resulting from edge restraints in laterally loaded

can be classified (a)

in two groups: developing at low deflections, loads. Although every still

Compressive membrane action to the increase

which effort

contributes

in ultimate

wasmade to eliminate resistance

edge restraints between the rollers In any case,

in the experiments, and the flats the effect (see

some frictional Figure 6.13)

is bound to occur.

of this

factor

295

0'

C14 s

0
CO n U-N

M-

CH

rlLr%

Cl% t;

C\j

11-

) U'N

co I, "::

06

ctl +3

K\ T-

U'l% c li

cr\

C\j
C14 z
. ,o co

l\ U

.0

lid 0)

ON C14

co

Ll-

L--

LlC\l

Ll-

\10 Lr%
4-2

^4 %lo CD
C\j N

4Z, CD co co GN Kl\ CM
C\l

4-4 0

P4 0 H (D +) 02

00 0-%

(D 4-3

12)0

co

C)

\.O

CC)

e4l

296
is probably the low not significant in the first in the five models. load. restraint as can be seen But to in the is

from model

enhancement strong

obtained

ultimate a strong

6, the

edge beans slab

provided

outward

movement

of the'

bottom inward

surface. bowing of

Such a restraint the long

represented

by the

observed

beams and the

outward bowing of the short

force membrane in the ultimate model sets load up in of

beams.
the slab, model. this

Accordingly,
which

an induced
to the the

compressive
enhancement finite the next

contributed

this with

Fortunatelys

layered

element section. (b)

can deal

problem,

as wi3.1 be shown in

Tensile

membrane action

developing

at

large

deflection,

and

t high happens .
through the

loads.
of the

At this
slab

stageg bottom

surface
load

cracks
will

would run

whole

thickness.

and the

be carried

by the tension reveals that

bars with this action

slab

acting

as a cat46nary.

Literature is

(99)

occurs

when the deflection

approximately

equal to the slab thickness. This situation could not be achieved of the. loading in all the models tested, Unfortunately, probIem, since it the ignores

due to the limitation present

large

apparatus. this

finite

element model cannot treat

effects.

displacement

7.4'NONLINEAR ANALYSIS OF THE'TESTMODELS. Using the nonlinear study, Details incremental an of the materials finite element program developed in this

analysis

of the test

models was perfo=ed. load increment size

properties,

mesh size, analysis

iterations the number of and

in gi-7en Table (7-5).

used in the

of each. model are

used are those

The materials

properties

297
Table (794): . Results of the nonlinear experimental models

analysis

of the

Model No.

F
p cr2

Service-Load s l/s, -61162

-. 2

Design Lo d 6dl/6d2 Cd1

P /% 2 ul d2

0-75
0.90

1-09
0-68

1015
0-82 100

0 73

0.98 0*97 0,,97 1-00

1-00

3 4 5
6

0-83 0-93 0-87

1-00

0.98 1-0 0-86

1-00

0,,72 0-830078
1*12

0.98 0-81 1-00

1-12

1-15 0-54 0-85

1 04

The Cracking

Load under service service design load (0-625 -Pd)

Maximum deflection es 6d' P= Suffix Suffix Maximum steel*st=ain = Maximum deflection = Ultimate 1 2 for for

under

load (Pd)

under load of the slab theoretical results

load

experimental

results

298

n -p

LN

Ul\

Lr%

CY

C)
bi u2

S., .02
Q) x

le

\.0

\o %M

CD Co

Ict le

clt(D

kt

%Z

Cd -P Cd Id

MIN l;t =A

r-4 Cd

\I

l \o

c)

C)

(D

Id 0

G2 C\i c"i CNJ r4 C\i CM

M r-q 4-4 Cd 0

C/I

c 4

0 %, txt

CD %Z
Kil

CD %I0
-e

N'\ cl-e

K"% r,Igt

C) 0

H Cd

0 F1 4-4 0
Ul% C)

cq

l CM

CM

CM

c c"i

0 0 cli P4

H 4) CD

C"

t-

T CM

C rc\
%-o

N_

CM

K'\

CD

KN

E-4

Id 0 0

cli

299
measured For models Figure strain strength. The reason in the. laboratory 1 to 5. the on the idealiz used. same day the model curves. takes the bars was tested. given into attain in account their the yield

ed stress-strain This idealization after

(7.35)

has been in the

hardening In for the

reinforcement

case of model

6,, no strain Figure

harden#g (6.12) for

was assumed. the actual

this

be seen from can

stress-strain in such a type All

curve for of steel

the type starts

of mild

steel

used.

Strain

hardening

after

a long horizontal for flexure

supporting by the

plateau. Due to the

model 6,

models analysed
produced

were designed
by the are normal line eccentric predicted

only.

edge restraints significant Typical long

beams in

membrane forces variations of the

elastic

enalysis. along the

moments of model

and membrane forces 6 are shown in Figure

and the

short

centre

(T. 49)

(T-51) and predicted tensile

respectively. compressive

The effect membrane forces

of such distributions in the slabs beams. this

is

that, by

the

are balanced However,

membrane forces

in the supporting here for only, for

two types the

of analysis

had been undertaken for flexure

model.

In the first, were

designed was model completely for flexure for ignored.

and the membrane forces this case was done using

The design (3.4). flexure

the equations

in section conbined

In the second analysis'. and membrane forces, in section

the model was the open In this the forces

designed

using (3-7).

been described has as modelq sandwich sandwich model, is completely. the (filling) core

contribution

in resisting

ignored. of all analyses'are (7.4). given in 7igures a very (7.2) to (7-51),

The results and are surmarized between theory

case of model

in Table

In general,

good agreement In the

service load

and experiment
4, it

can be seen from, these

the response

results.
the

can be se6n that

up to

300

STRESS

f
0-8

High

Yield

Steel

STRESS

f I

F-y

(b) Mild

Steel

Fig=e

(7*35) Idealized Stress-Strain Curves for used in the experiments

Steel

301
is the This very Fell predicted model effect load rate by the finite element response Figures is model. than But at high loads, theoretical stiffening the shows a stiffer the'experiment. and 7.42) one, in and the

can be seen from range. of The effect

(7.16,7.17 a numerical first yield

beyon'd is

service by poor

caused

convergence

after

the

slab.

To eliminate with

this, a smaller

a larger size

number of 'iterations of load increment.

could be used, However, this yield the up to the

and probably would lead desired

to an expensive

analysis,

but would definitely

result.

As the analysis load, there

conducted

here was successful

80% of the ultimate analysis after that.

of

does not seem any need to refine the results

five models

And thus
the first

are considered
indicated that

satisfactory.
the enhancement

The analysis

in the ultimate hardening, effects

loads

can be attributed

to membrane forces, To quantify Figure

strain the has been

increase and

in the amounts of steel. parameters considered strength loads, but on the response, was model 2. influences

of individual The problem

(T-36)

computed. the figure, the slab ultimate

hardening slightly on ultimate and the on the Similarly,

As can be seen from behaviour of

the concrete under working strength

does not

the. service

does not contribute On the other

response, the the slab.

much to the the strain

very influence of steel, of steel

of the section.
affect the

hand,
but

service of due to

contributes

to

the

ultimate are

behaviour those

The biggest amount the

behaviour

increased

membrane forces. section the is to

The effect the

of ultimate

increasing

amount

increase of

moment at'the membrane action

section. on the section

existence

conpressive

will'

Wood by shown

considerably (4)

enhance its
Figures

ultimate

moment capacity,
also

as has been
fact.

(7.40)

to, (7.48)

show this

302

1-4

. -0

--

1-20
0** . .00 100

0-8 p Pd 0*6 Actual Actual Steel with strain hardening steel without hardening strain

Theoretical strain 0-4 AA

steel. without hardening

Theoretical steel with 30) Grade fcu reduced

0-2

0-0

0-1

0-2

0*3
S/h

0-4

095

0-6

Figiare (7-36) Effect of*Vaxious of Model 2

paxameters on the response

70

303.
IIhe moments capacity to the at the critical sections in the test models at high load

increased levels. Analysis ncntal Stiffness

due The A in curve of

induced results

compressive of the

menbrane analysis more is of flexible

forces model than caused

analytical Fig. at the (7.29)) load

6 (designated the the the experitorsional analysis.

were levels.

slightly This being

high

mainly

by in

supporting

beams,

underestinated

Since iLmored, it

in

the

design

of model worthwhile design.

6, the to

membrane forces the

were

completely of including (designated

was thought in the

investigate to do thisl

effect

mein-brane forces Analysi. -; B in equivalent) to both those

In order

an analysis model

Fig. (7.29)) identical 6.

was done on a hypothetical dimensions, difference forces design loads

(no experimental strengths

with of model

and materials in this-analysis, in the

The min and flexural

was thatt

membrane forces

were considered

design,

using

the open sandwich model (Section in the slab was generally (Analysis A).

3-7)less

It

that found was

the

reinforcement -"l-xure only

than that

for needec, forces in

But as a result

tensile the of

the edge beams, the reinforcement for flexure only

over

in them was higher However, an increase

than that-required in total the 25% of

is required. the model

(Analysis
that

A).

reinforcement This additional

needed by disregarding to of the this supporting mdql.

forces membrane justifies of the

strength response

beams which The analysis

improved

service

whether
both loadd,

for

flexure
the

or combined flexure
system for will

and membrane forces

satisfactorily

show that
under service

in

cases

designed designs

behave

althought

combined

flexural

an' membrane forces

would

behave better.

304
T-5 CONCLUSIONS The general conclusions provides
elastic

to be'drawn

from these tests

can be

siumnarized as follows:

The proposed method of design

steel. Although the theoretical

a practical

layout
are

of
of

Tnoment fields

continuously (Equation

varying 3.14)

nature.

when linked

with

the yield of steel strip

criterion pattern. width,

results is strictly

in a gradual true within

variation

T"his statement

a reasonable

and does not necessarily width length 2. Tests of a strip

cover very

wide strips.

The maximum span

considered

here was L/8,

where L is the

in any direction. results indicated that the behaviour of the slabs Both deflections designed and

by the proposed method was satisfactory. crack widths limits, span/250 No yield range. in the working load

range were within

acceptable than

as defined

by Cpllo(5) <0.3

deflections , mm. tests

not greater

and crack widths of steel First yield occurred loads

in all

within

the service

load

were very

close

to the design

loads,

and an average of 90% of the design

Whether the design of the steel is

load was obtained.

based on the maximum or the

average behaviour given

design moment in the strips, will be satisfactory. If

the resulting

service case were strips and

Two examples in this

by model 2 and model 5. curtailed pattern will of all

the maximum moment in the is used, both the service

or the exactly ultimate

load behaviours behaviour yielding

be greatly models-was very

improved. satisfactory, to the with the

The ultimate reinforcement

at loads

blose

design

loads.

305
Failure loads load in all models were in in excess ultimate of the loads action design of loads.

An average mainly hardening

enhancement

the

16% were strain

caused of

by the*induced the reinforcement.

compressive

and the

In the case of slab-beam achieved by considering required

systems,

no saving

in steel

can be

membrane action. 25% more steel

In fact

the proposed

design method. were considered reinforcement reinforcement.

In the slab-beam design

when menbrane forces A reduction increase in the slab in the beam

than when neglected. is overbalanced

by a larger

systems, of the

whether

membrane the

forces

are

considered by the cases.

in

system

or not,

system

designed in the two

proposed

method

will

behave

sati$factorily in the

Consideration, produces

of membrane forces on the

design of the

(Sandwich system than

Models) when

improvements

behaviour

neglected. Both the experiments on slab-beams connection. systems, Initiation and theoretical indicated of failure the collapse
fixity of the

analysis the importance

by the finite of the junction

elements

corner between

at the corner

the two beams expedites

fact that the torsional

of the system,
beams is

due to the

considerably

reduced. Prediction of the sersrice behaviour 2. If can be made using the assumptions any of the in Appendix using

methods described (E) are adopted, a cracked behaviour

in Chapter

the use of an effective section designed

inertia moment of predict

transfo=ed of the slabs

can very well

the service The

by the present

method.

306
accuracy on the excess service design 10. and reliability cracking of load of of the the slab. load, method With this of calculation loads depends in the direct

cacking method by the

40% of the of with layered to

design the

predicts proposed

behaviour. procedure,

slabs

designed

acceptable finite

accuracy. model the developed analysis of in this

The nonlinear,, study proved slabs the

element tool for

be a powerful and slab-beans

reinforced

concrete between method

systems.

Excellent

agreement finite element

theoretical actual

predictions slab behaviour

made by the has been

and the

obtained.

I.

307

L.

C L. ..

Figure

(7*37)

P/Pd causing

yield

in Model 1

2,10 1 *5

m V7

1.0 0-5 000

2-0
s-

1-5 1-0 0-5 090

Distance Figure (7-38), Ultimate along Short C. L. 1 Model behaviour of
10

308
L.

1-.11 -11 l-o6 1-21

1-0 *96 e96 1-11

. 91 o85 -90 1-06 ---1-06 I 1

-81 -81 -85 1-06 1-06 I 1

081 -81 -81 1-06 1*15 C. L .

Figur

'D/pd causing J.

yieldin

Model

AT 1- 31 Pd AT Pd

first ..,-AT
2-0

yield

load

1-5 m MP 1-0 0-5 000

2-0

1-5 1-0
0*5
. 0-0

0
Distance pigt=e (7.40) along short C. L. of Model 2 Ultimate Behaviour

309
C. L.

100 o. 96

0"80 0.8

-,77 -77

*77 *77 -80 . 98 C.L.

0..8

80

98

p/pd

causing

yield

in Model

T first TPd

yield

260

1-5
m mp 00
I

0*5

0-0

50
Distance FigL=e along C. L. behavio= of Model (7-41)-Ultimate

310
free
1.08

1.08 1-081

1904 -93 1-041

s87
0 pl p4 ;2

1 1

- 72

*9711-01

1-04 @87 -87 *93 097 1.0 1-11 free

1-08 -93

-93
-93 1 -11

9c . 993 072

.9 1-11

87 1904 ,

993

simply

supported

MY

2-0 AT Pu

1-5 MY Ilp 1-0

AT fimst yield

load

0-5

. -Distance'along
Ultimate

-25

-50 A-A

-75

1-0

Fig=e

(7-42)

behaviour

of Model 4

311 C. L.

1913

94
s94 -86 -81 1 U. L.

99

. 89

. 89

P/P

iing caus d

yield

in Model

2-0

105 m ir p
AT Pu

1-0 095 0-0

first yield load

2.0

1*5 1.0 005 0-0

Distance Figi=e (7-43) along long C. L. Ultimat'e behavio= of Model 1

mp

u first load yield

312

C. L.

-92 -92 -97 97

1-02

1-,39 139 1054 1-59 le33 1-18 + 97

1-39 1-39 139 1-23 l"18 1-18 97

Ple=al

1-33 1,33 le13 1-07 1-,18 1,49 87

Design

1,18 l*07 1-07 le07 1-33 1-49 -87

107 107 l*07 1-23 139 1944 '187

Fl. 07 le07 107 1-28 1-39 le39 1187 C.L.

-97 .
1-02

C. L.

*93

1* 41

1 *35

1-20

1.09

1.09

-99 -99 "99 1*04

1104 1004

1041
1 o25 1*04

1- 56 1,,51 1*30 1- 30
1-30 1-04

1-35 1014 1014 1035

1-62 1 *04

1009 1009 1-20

T"09 1914 1*35 1 -1 -99

1,004 1014 1-51 1 . 93 1

C.L.

1004

Combined Flexure Figqe 7*44) P/pd causing

and Membrane Forces yield in Model 6

313

1*25 1-0 m

m eje

0-75
0-5 0-25 0-0
0-1
4 . 0-2

093 Y/Ly
the short beams

0-4

Oe5

Distance

along

5*0

4,10 M

Met

3*0

2-0 AT 14 31 Pd AT Pd AT Pcr
0-0 0-1

1-0

0-2 along BB

Distance Fig=

YA7

0-3

0*4

0-5

Moments Redistribution

in Model 6

314

1-25
1-0 MX

AT 1- 31 Pd AT Pd

Me

0975
0950
AT Por

0-25 0-0
Distance along. the long Beam

LA

4o

3eO
Ilym et 2-0

d.

1-0

0-0

0-1

002
Distance along

0; 3
AA

0*4
in Model 6

0*5 x/Itc

Figure

(7-46)

Moments Redistribution

I/

315 TENSION
NA membrane force predicted (see Fig-7'. 50)analysis by elastic

1-0

AT Pd & le3l N Ne0*5 AT Pcr

Pd

O-u

001 Distance

0-2 x/I% 4along the long

0-3 beam

0*4

i 0-5

A_
__

4*0

3*0
1-31 Pd N F e.j2-0 AT Pd

1-0

AT P cr
0-0

05

-1'O

Figure

(7-47)

Redistribution

of Membrane forces

in Model 6

316
rl'rMqTr)T, T

1-0

AT 1 1,31 Pd AT Pd
Ne.t

0-5
AT P or
0-0

-1'O

x
, o4 t", m in e4m ^v

LX

300
AT 1 *31 Pd 2-0 NX Ne'l 1-0 AT P cr
0-0

AT P

Figure

(7-48) Redistribution

of Membrane Forces in Model

317

8! 0 7-0 69Q 5-0. Th; 49039Q 21G 1 OG

0-0 01 f

014

Lx

0*2

003 X/IC
along

0-4
section

0-5
(Elastic xx

Vaxiation Analysis)

of the normal moment

8
0

6
rts
N

SE
2

0-0

Compression -2 Pigure (7-49), Vaxiation of Membrane force (Model 6) Ny along xx

318

4.)

tm
4-D 0 z r-4 Cd

E 0
r-4 Cd

4-4 0

0 0 . r4
N

C )

10

. 1.4

1%

P-l

000 C\j

Uao qz:oqs SUOIL, aoue; sTa 9UTT 9ZE;

m -P P 0 P4 pq

m 4-3 P 0 P4 P4 0

319

P4

H 0 P

ft 0
02

.0

ci
cu

14-

5i
%I0

,%-.0

0 0

P A 0 0

cl,

H Cd

a) C)
f44

0 PN CD 0 Cd P P Ei W :4
4-4 0 9 0 . rj

le

10
%Z

4-2

Co

C
1

CD

c'J 1

0 0

E-4

320
.' MAPTER'EIGHT 'CONCLUSIONS'AND*SUGGESTIONS*FOR'FUTURE*WORK

Although its at
below: -

each chapter

has been provided

with

a set of conclusions will be summarized

end,, for. -clarity

the most important

of these

8.1 Conclusions:
(1) In the finite element analysis, a mesh division which is

satisfactory for nonlinear

for

the elastic

analysis

is

also

adequate planar is

analysis A numerical

of reinforced integration acceptable

concrete order

structures. quite laterally sufficient

of 2x2 for

to produce slabs

results systems.

loaded

and slab-beam

Using the formulation suggested response equilibrium in this

of the layered study, accurate

finite predictions

element for the

of concrete

slabs

can be obtained Acceptable

by demanding predictions to

at each load with

level.

can also be obtained yield, and by reducing a limit it

reasonable

norms prior

the size iterations

of the load

increment

and allowing In this iterations produce study,

nunber to be reached. an average quite of 10

was found that increment predictions thats is

per load acceptable

adequate to of about

for

the response is

concrete'slabs, 0.10 of the systems,

provided cracking load.

the increment

In the case of slab-bean may be needed.

iterations 30 an average number of

321
(3) In the analysis of slab-beam systems by the'method of the flexural the

proposed heres. accurate response limitations iterations this can be obtained on the load described it

predictions in'any increment

case using

and nmaber of of

above. .

One disadvantage

is that method
and stiffness neglect'of 4). is

underestimates
of the supporting shear the on the In this direct

the torsional
beams, due (see

stresses to the

the

vertical if

component design

Chapter procedure the

Accordingly$ used, a check

torsional research,

strength it was

of

beams has to be made. that the torsional finite

assuned predicted only half

moments on the element model moments. component in

edge beams represent that

by the the the

used here,

actual vertical

torsional shear

An element its

includes

formulation

is

strongly

recommended. between the direct design and the Hillerborg's

A comparison (Torsionless) stress

methods showed that which

the two methods produce different. at the corners the By

distributions, additional

are generally steel"

considering as suggested

"torsional

in Cp 110(5)

in the Hillerborg's close to

method, each other. design of the

tvo methods produce moment volumes Unlike'the produces torsionless analysis,

the direct

procedure design

in most cases a- smooth variation slab. The design

moments in the either without

can then be based on

the maximum or the average moment in the strip, departing far from the original distribution.

322
In the case of slab-beam in Chapter 30% more steel system undex uniform (5), the yield * line load

considered requires

solution

over that

needed by the direct

design method. design this procedure,

In the system designed by the direct yield starts near the cornerss and

type

of yield

would eventually which

cause the disruption the torsional

of the corner strength restraints. is subjected

connection,

reduces

of the system by reducing By appreciating to a very

the rotational that this it zone may

the fact

complex stress

system,

be advisable corners.

to add more steel cpl, 10(5)9

in the beans near the 50% of the on to the steel at

Following

midspan section

can be carried anchored.

end of the

beam, and properly In the slab-been forces reduces steel

systems,

consideration

of membrane although more

in the design

of the reinforcement, in the slab, beams. Designs

the reinforcement

requires including

in the supporting require for loads,

membrane forces for flexure only,

about 7% more steel the case of uniform the difference

than those lateral loads.

For concentrated steel

in the total

volume could

be as high

as 25% and sometimes even

=re.
Whether membrane forces slab-beam proposed Inclusion systems$ direct axe considered the in the design of

or not,

igned by des. the system will beliave satisfactorilY.

design

procedure

of membrane forces in the service

in the design behaviol4r

produces

improvements

of the system.

323
All the slabs considered in this study which were satisfactorily both the lizaits

designed

by the direct loads.

design method-behaVed Results indicated were within No yield that

under working deflections

and crack widths load within yield range.

acceptable

in the working in all In fact, loads, (10) tests first with

of steel

occurred 7).

the working loads

load range close

(Chapter

were very

to the design load. At

form cracks. governed even new

an average of 90% of the design evenly

there

Crack spread in a fine

all stages of loading, than the to

distributed

pattern.
to

was a tendency already any stage formed

cracks

rather

open the at

Accordingly, by a few wide after All the the

behaviour This of the

was not

cracks.

process design direct close to

was observed loads. design their of .

attainment designed loads

slabs

by the very

approach design 16% in loads. the mainly reinforcing to

recorded In most ultimate

failure cases, load

an average was obtained, and strain

enhancement which is

attributed of the

membrane action, bars. (12) The nonlinear

hardening

layered

finite

element the analysis

developed of

here

proved concrete between

to be a powerful slabs

tool*for

reinforced agreement

and slab-beams

systems.

Excellent

the theoretical been obtained,

predictions

and actual

slab behaviour

has

in most cases.

324
8.2'SUGGESTIONS FOR FUTURE. WORK

The procedure exper=ental ratios

suggested

here can be extended studies on skew slabs effective

to include with steel various sides

and theoretical conditions.

and support

The nost study

orientation involved.
an

can thus be found by systematic

The layered effective finite element using this

of the various

parameters

isoparametric problem.

formulation

provides

means of treating

The study various

occur. relaxation

can also be extended ratios

finite

to include

built-in

panels

of will

sides
In the of

to check if
element

any significant

redistribution
the

method, technique

use can be made of developed

edge rotation

by Johnarry

progressive (43). A

detailed
to the

finite
element

element
developed

study
here,

will

be involved
it

in applying
for

the technique
checking the

before

can be used

direct

design

procedure. work is needed on slab-beams were not that systems. In the

More experimental present research,

the membrane forces model. It is

considered

in the design to be

of the experimental taken into

suggested

such forces

consideration.

A comparison

between designs

based on open

and filled
The design

sandwich models can also be underta1zen

of slab-beams systems in this study

by experiments.
to overestimate

tended

the ultimate

loads

by nearly before

50%.

A more detailed design

study

is-needed phenomena

a more economical

of the I can be recommended.

APPENDICES

325

Calculation

of the

teel

required unit

for width.

a certain

design

moment

M* per

Using the ultimate stress Figure distribution below:

limit

state

theorys will

it

can be assumed that

the

in the section

have the form shown in the 2f

cu

C
T,

X1

Ast

Taking

the partial

to unity. equal section then Using the stress 2 f cu for

steel on both concrete-and safety factors I ibrium the the horizontal of by equil. considering and force: (1) at ultimate (2) st Y = 1.5 A st, fy cu . Jf f 1.5dp =. cu (3)

no net c=T

distribution xl =Af

where

0=

Astjd

= reinforcement

ratio.

if

326
Taking internal and moments about then' the compression force and equating external

moments,,

T. (d

Af st

(d - 1.5 O'd f /2 f . cu yy
/2 f
21f

(1 *P9 1.5 Pf f :-yy

cu

ef p
arranging we get the

p2ef 75 yy .

cu

quadratic

in. :

(. 75

fcu

p+

M* e fy
jd st

(5)

Solving

and substituting

p=A

f A st

cu d3

1.5 fy

M* d2- f

cu steel.

Equation

(6) is used for

both top

and bottom

327
APPENDIX B PROGRAM DESCRIPTION AND IMPLEMENTATION This features part is intended to give a brief description study. of the main The program

of the computer program used in this

stems from an existing University.

program developed by Johna=y(43) were introduced

in Strathclyde

Extensive modifications cracking

and these included: of concreteg yielding

element reformulation,
of steelt details also

and plastification
in Chapter

of which was given included

4 of this

study. and

Mod6fications omission

the introduction in the previous

of design program.

routines

of some routines feature

One basic store facilities.

of this

new program is

the omission time is

of back greatly

Accordingly,

the program running

reduced. The program is built the followling 1. 2. Program Subroutine FEM INTEGRATION up of twelve subroutines which are listed in

Sul=outine Subroutine Sul=outine

Subroutine 78.
9. 10.

LSTIF BUTX MA=A

RMULT LNSRKM BOUNDARY
NORSOL REACTIONS

Subroutine Subroutine
Subroutine Subroutine

11. 12.

Subroutine Subroutine

DESIGN LNPLANM master library routine FOLA. AF is used to

in addition,

the standard

328 invert a matrix. pin obtaining

(section

the coefficients
which is

matrix

of the displacestiffness

ments polynomials and uniform

4.2.1)9

needed in both the

load vector

formulations. will describe in brief the functions of of the

The following the vaxious main program.

1. Program This FEM: is

sections

subroutines,

and the structure

and organization

the monitoring

mod-ale in which

all

other

routines

are

called

in appropriate

places.

Allfinput

data

is first

read in this a=angement the program.

modulev and control of nodal The flow parameters operation data

data pertaining are all in this is read, matrix

to mesh generation,

computed at the beginning-of module is well and control explained data

as follows:

a. Major

is computed. a, )banded form. loads

b. Stiffness

is formed

and assembled in loadt

c. The load vector

made up of uniform cont-xibutions,

concentrated

or membrane force d. The stiffness elimination(31) for e. Middle the nodal plane matrix

is assembled. the Gaussian are solved

is decomposed using

proced: ure, displacements.

and the equations

strains

and curvatures

axe computedg and strains are computed. co=esponding to

and stresses f. Results

at the Gauss points

axe then scaled causing

up or down to these cracks

the load point,

the first

in the most highly Subsequent of this load

stressed

and step

c to e are repeated. gi7en in terms

increments P or g. The state

axe later

cracking

load

of stress

at a Gauss point

is

checked and a set

Of

pseudoforces

is found.

329
h. The structure pseudoforces, i. Results output. INTEGRATION: is called sets only once at the beginning coordinates specified of the FEM and weigh-ting in the data. is reanalysed until under the effect of these

equilibrium

is maintained.

2. Subroutine

This routine module. factorst

The routine according

the Gauss points

to the order

of integration

Subroutine LSTIF:
This routine element routine calculates the equivalent using D matrix equation for a layered The

from the layers is called

contributionst the stiffness

(4-17). is needed.

everytime

of a layer

Subroutine MTX:
This routine a. Calculates using performs two functions: matrix polynomial (matrix C'in equation defining 4-5) the

the coefficient

the displacement

functions

elements, equations
coordinates b. Calculates

(4-1)

to (4-3)t

and the corner

of the element. the strain matrix B using the strain-displacement

relationshipsg
Both the interpolation the element The routine its sides dimensions is called lengths formation is

given by equation
and the strain

(4-10)matrices axe dependant on system. by the

only

and axe independent

of the layering type called defined during

whenever a different encountered. phase,

element is

The routine

stiffness

and the coefficient load vector axe stored and later

matrix

is needed only loads.

in the calculation Different phase, elements middle plane

of the consistent strain strains matrices phase,

from uniform

and used in the stiffness used when integrating the

330
stress resultants to get the internal nodal force vector.

Subroutine WMA:
(nodal forces) computed for a given I intensity load is calculated in this routine. of uniform lateral (68): These nodal forces axe obtained from The element load vector F where matrix routine. is C is cc] -1 I/ 1T I-P IT matrix function load. qdx dy from the previous (4-3)9 is and

the coefficient

obtained given

P is

the polynomial

in equation

the intensity

of the unifo=

The inte6Tation The integrand the routine is

ca=ied

explicitly the element a different

and formulated dimensions, type

in the routine. and accordingly, is

depends on called whenever

of element

encountered.

Subroutine

RMULT: multiplies two matrices to produce a third.

This routine Accordingly it

is used in more than one position

in the program.

Subroutine
This places constant element

INSM:
inserts elements stiffness matrices in their proper

routine

in the global stiffness

stiffness methodg this

matrix. routine

Since the program employs a is called once only for each

in the stiffness BOUNDARY: identifies

formation

phase.

8. Subroutine This A restrained phase,

routine

the restrained is given

boundary Later

degrees in the

of freedom. solution matrix., on

displacement

a code of 1.

such degrees

of freedom

the from stiffness removed axe

Prescribed the'nodes.

displacements This routine,

at the nodes axe not treated need be called only once in

as restraints the program.

331
Subroutine In this into NMSOL: routineq the banded stiffness the Gaussian matrix is first decomposed (31). method to the routine.

a triangular

form using

elimination entry

The stiffness In subsequent nodal

matrix entriesp

is decomposed only only

on first

the load vector

is decomposed, and the into the

displacements

are obtained

by back substitution

decomposed matrix. This beginning

10.

is the most extensively of each load incrementg

used routine. and once during

It

is called each iteration.

at the

Subrautine

REACTIONS:

This nodes. only for

subroutine

computes the nodal reactions is called load only once,

on the boundary axe obtained phase.

The routine the first

and reactions the design

incrementq

and during

11 . Subroutine This

DESIGN: is called only when a design is for the flexural to the equations

routine

reinforcement

is needed.

The design

done according

of section
only 12. once.

(3.4: ).

This is an optional

routine,

and need be entered

Subroutine

IlqPLANED: is called only when a design for membrane reinforcement equations of section

This routine is needed.

The design

is done according

to the

This is an optional

routinev

and need be entered only once.

332
User Inst=uctions Manual to the Program FEM

CAd Tormat No '1 2 20 A4 1594F10 TITLE:

'. Desdpi. tion

Any sentence Elastiov analysis defining the problem. NONELASTIC= 10

Nonelastic, If nonlinear

UDULTInATE9 DPB, TIEAM needed,

1.0. steel use Elastic = 2 UDULTIMATE is the design uniform load in N1mm DPB---; design for the -*1.0 Deep beams with elastic reinforcemdnt. given 3 2015 TBEAM= depth DPB = 2.0 for of slab Deep beams with put DPB = 0.0 a reinforcement. For slabs

and zero otherwise. To design flexural

dnd supporting'bbans. IQUTPUT = nodes numbers for which displacements 6utput is required. ICUTPUT = Elements strains numbers for in output. which stresses and

2015

axe requested

1415

NREF11 NREF29 NREF3P NREF4s NREF59 NG9 NPNODES9 NDIFEL, NPOINT LOADS9 NBCS9.NLC9 INPLAY9 MOMEL9 NSTIF. Control be 0. data or NREF3 t NREP1 = 1--bounded. for unbounded plasticity Only one of these relaxation should analysis -

NREF2 =1f

for number node ( 0 only when NREF4 0)=4

1 For fixed

1 For 0. NREF5 nontorsional only, otherwise = in 0. NG No. Gauss points analysis, of otherwise = = the element (4 or 9) NPODES= No. of Inplane point slabs NDIFEL = No. of different NPOINTLOADS= No. of point loads. loads. boundaxy conditions. increments. element. be given additional 6 INPLAY elements types. NBCS = No. of

NLC = Total No. of load 1 for additional steel to any

MOMEL= Element No. for which a summary will NSTIP = No. of at the end of the analysis. stiffnesses.

SLX9 SLY, DIVX9 DIVY9 REGULAR9SPANX9 SPANY, GMOD-

333

Card . No. ' SLX &'SLY are lengths DIVX*, DIVY divisions REGULAR= 1.0 for

oA 'of the slab'(or beam)

in the X and Y directions equal subdivisions in the two

directions,

otherwise

= 0.
spans in the two directions

SPANX & SPANY axe total

1595P10

GMOD nt-ed be specified only when Nr6O in card 5 is 0. GMODis the shear modulus of concrete. ITERTOTI SCALE LOADODISNORM9FNORM, ACCELERATCR9 TTNITERTOT = Max. No, of iterations in a load increment SCALELOAD the load increment as a ratio size of = load. Use around 0.1 of-thi-cracking DISNORM= convergence Use 0.00001 FNaRM= convergence to 0.1 limit for displacement norm. Use 0.01

limit

for

force

norm.

ACCELERATCR 1.0 = TTN = Tension stiffening use between 1.0 and 10. 88 F10

factor

c in Figure

(4.6)

PCUt FST, FTC, EC, ES9 Pq HARD1; HARD2 FCU = concrete compressive strength 2 in Nl= 2 in NIMM

FST = steel yield point FTC = concrete tensile strength

2 in I, /Mm

EC = concrete modulus in- N/MM2 ES = steel modulus in NIMM2 for concrete P= Poisson's ratio H. ARD1.= hardening HARD2 = hardening 1 modulus modulus 2.

q6

Flo 4 F5

SXEWq Tq ASTXq ASTY, STEELANG19 STEELANG29 LS19 LS2, Lq3j LS4

SKEW= angle of skew in degrees the STEELANG"J. the steel angle = direction makes with the x axis the steel the x axis STEELANG2= the angle direction makes with (900 for orthogonal) in the first (OofOZ 03thogar.al) in the second (goo for orthogonal)

334
, -06. -6 C1 Fo=at No. -. .,, A . . ".. .,. 'i ,, "* , *.' ,,, '. , '. , '. ,, '. ,,., Desicrip ion (mm)

..........

T=

slab

or beam thickness for main steel proportion steel steel layers layers in X

ASTX =1 ASTY =u<1

of steel numbers numbers

in Y direction

LS19 LS3 =Y LS29 LS4 =X 10 3 P12

UD9 PRXO PRY UD = intensity distributed of uniformly PRX =X prestress in N/MM2 2 PRY- =Y prestress in N/mm load 2 in N/mm

11

8 P10

XSIDE(I)

Total No. of = lengths of X divisions. such divisions should be equal to DM. and more divisions. card is IF REGULAR not needed.

oaxds can be used if >8 1.0 in caxd IT6.6, this = 12 8 F10 YSIDE(I)

length Total No. of of Y divisions. = such divisions should be equal to DIVY, and more IF REGULAR cards can be used if >8 divisions. 1.0 in card No. 6, this card is not needed. TT12(I) = layers 9/cagethicknesses. Up to 12 layers can be used. BEAML(I) = layers Up to 12 layers DN9 DNBEAM DN = depth unspecified, of middle plane of the slab. of T/2 will If be used. Ycage thicknesses can be used. for T beam elements.

13

12 F6

14 15

12 F6

2 F6

the default

value

16

2 179 5 P10

DNBEAM plane in Tbeam problems9 = depth of reference from its middle plane. which may be different (NBOUND(I)v (NFIX(ItJ)p J=1,5)9 PRESC (ItJ)9 J=1,5)9 I= l9NB9Saxe to

NBOUND(I) = boundaxy nodes where restraints to be applIed. NFIX (Ili)

for Fixity the five degrees of code = Lw aw f, -freedom in the order up v, w, ay x If a certain degree of freedom in a node is restrained,

335
..........................................

No. ...........

? OTmat,.... I. 'it

De-acrivtIori 'id 'o6d6 I 'othd: vii:j6 '0. ' --

PRESC(I, J) = the prescribed displacement in the direction of any of the degrees of freedom of the boundary nodes. 17 13 12 ((ILjIMOID(IjJ)O J=1912)0 I=1, NDIFEL) elements of IL =-secjUential*orde= different of'the layers arrangements. with different LMOD(IqJ) = Type of layers - element.. 'The following IMOD =1 IMOD =2 IMOD =0 le 20 14 HEWEL(I), for*concrete for for steel for

each type

codes are used layers

layers

zero layers I= = 11 NDIFEL different layering bers with

imip(I),

NEWEL= elements systems. LDIF = layering IL in previous If all elements then this

system number corresponding cards. have the same layering

to

system

19

40 12

0-

blank. caxd may be left IELC(LE)q'LE = 19 NEL9 NEL = Total no. of elements. IELC = element type no. as it appeaxs on the mesh. According to their sides lengths and layering system,. elements can have different type numbers IELC. element

20

15,2F10

NPRES(I. NPRM(I) force

FNPX(I)q

FNPY(I) node numbers where inplane FNPX(I) or in the Y direction and axe directions These forces and the magnitude in the positive

boundary = in X direction are appliedg if they

FNPY(I) direction positive

of these forces. act

of the global will be equal

axes.

The number of such cards

to NPNODES in card No-5

21

155 F10

NREST(I)q FIXITY(IjJ)qJ
NaEST(I) ='node no. at which support stiffnesses

336
ed 'Cd: No.

Format FIXITY(I,

Descripti= J) in any direction be equal of the five degrees

................................

6f freedom can be assigned. cards will 22 139 F10

The mmber of such to NSTIF in card 5PMOM(ivj)9J=192

LOADPOINTS(I)v POINTLOADS(l),

LOADPOINTS(I) = Node nos. at which lateral loads. POINTLOADS(I) and concentrated concentrated PMOM(IIJ) axe applied. moment in X and Y directions Total be equal no. of cards will in Card 5- If an elastic design to NPOINTLOADS (with is required

MASTIC = 1.0 in card 2) this set of cards should the design point loads and accordinglyv represent (of loads 1/15th the first another set with small design loads) axe also loads to be added. This last is needed to start the incre-

set of point mental 23 213p F10

analysis. NDNODEj LDT_R9 DLOAD

incremental NDNODE node no. at which membrane = force in direction If IMIR is to be applied. force and if DLOAD is in the X direction in Y direction, LDIR = 2. be equal to MODES use IMIR = 19 The number of in caxd No-5-

such card will

Progrm

Flow Ch=t

I RMU & F, MM MAJORDATA

337

NO

is DESIGN REQUIRED

YES I FORM GLOBAL STIFIM'ESS CKI I

FORMDESIGN LOAD VECTOR LR]

SOLVF., PGR THE DISPLACHMENTS F d] , OBTAIN STRAINS9 STRESSESAND DESIGN STEEL lAYEaS

FORMTHE GLOBAL STIFFNESS MATRIX

INITIALISE

TWO LOAD VECTCRS [R]

&

J-P ]

INCREMENT

ADD A LOAD INCREMENTTO LOAD ext ext VECTORS, R p P. +A =p+Ap =R

SOLVE FCR NODAL DISPLACEMENTS USING THE LOAD VECTOR P

ITERATION

ITERATION LOOP

INITILIZE: STRESS, STRAINS BENDING MOM! ENTS, X&ABRANEFORC ETC VECTORS IN THE FIRST ITERATION

338

ELEMENTS

ELEMENTSLOOP

COMPUTE MIDDL PLANE STRIANS VECTOR

LAYERS

LAYERS LOOP

COMPUTE THE LATERS' DISTANCE FROMMIDDLE PLANE

INITIALIZE

THE STRESSRESULTANTVECTM ELFRT

GAUSSPOINTS

GAUSSPOINTS LOOP

STRAINS FROMMIDDLE PLANE STRAINS USING COMPUTE THE KIRCHOFFS HYPOTHESIS

CALCULATETHE ST'RESSESp ADD THE STRESSES& STRAINS TO THEIR RESPECTIVE VECTCRSTO GET TOTAL VALUES

THE COMPUTE PRINCIPAL STRESSES9STRAINS COMPUTE STRESSRESULTANTS M, N

II

(D

339

FIND Ut

DIAX. PRINCIPAL STRESSRSDIAS& MAX. PRINCIPAL STRAIN

NO

, STEEL\ YIELDING

'N CLONCRETE AYER ?

YES UPDATE STRESS & COMPUTE A SECANT MODULUS

SRMAX 6*0035?

ZERO D MATRIX

NO C11ECK FOR CRACKING, YIELDING UNDER BIAXIAL STATES OP STRESS

MODIFY THE CONSTITUTIVE MATX D, COMPUTE EXCESS STRESSES& BRING THE STRESSVECTORON THE YIELD SURFACE

COMPUTE LAYER CONTRIBUTIONTO THE SMESS RESULTANTVECTOR N, M

USING THE ELEMENT STRtSS RESULTANTVECTCRSN, M JUM fBTa TEE STRAIN MATRIX B OBTAIN THE INTEGRAND dv & AID TO THE GLOBAL LOAD VECTCR R

340

YES

ITERATIONS > LIMIT

EXAMINE EQUILIERIUM COMPUTE EXCESSFORCEVECTOR ex ext F R R

ex ADD F TO LOAD VECTOR ex . .. PP+p

SOLVE FOR ITERATION DISPLACEMENTS ex USING F

CALCULATEDISPLACEMENTNORM& CHECK FOR CONVERGENCE

NO

ISPIACEME CIONVERGED?

OUT PUT RESULTS

STOP

341
C 'DERIVATION'OF'THE'BOUNDED'PLASTIC*L2ADS

Using increment

the f

principle

of

uniform from

defo=ation, the current

the plastic

plastic load

load R as

pp

may be obtained

Af
where

p=XRp Ia

(1)
(R -ZBT dV) a
vector load vector

RpZ
in which, and Rp &f P load total

(2)

force of

imbAance plastic

increment vector

Assuming the load- displacement degree curve

curve

can be fitted

by a second

y=a0+
the nonlinearity

alx +a 2x
is

at any stage Rp alx -y -a0-a2

X2

and for a00

dR p-

2a2x dx

dR /R p P= or If the AR p= Af

2dx/x p= 2R d/d. pA is mild,

degree of nonlinearity Ad/d AR/R

where d and

Ad are deformation of plastic 2R AR/R p

vectors. load must be

Hence the increment Af p=

342
and so that k ff+. k d. 0 R Af

where vector.

is the initial then

stiffness continues

matrix,

and R is the total same lines

load

The analysis

along the bounded.

as before,

but with

the incremental

plastic

loads

343

APPENDIX (D)-

Comparison Between Moment Fields and Torsionless Analyses, for

Produced

by Torsional of

Slabs with

Sides Ratios

1*5 and 2-0.

N. B. The Strip the same as that numbering system in the following (5-3) to (5*9) figures 5is

in FigL=es

in Chapter

344

m x

0.10

04

>&

0.08
5 o. o4 (2) 3 3

0.0

0.1 (Dl), Positive

0.2

x/LXO.

3 1-5)

o. 4

0.5

Figure

Moment M* (L /L xxy

0.10
0

( 5) 1101

0.08

o. o4

(2)

zz;
0.0Z

4---'7-I
(D2) Positive

0.2 y/L y

0.3

o. 4
= 1-5)

0.5

Figure

Moment M* (LX/Ly y

345

o. o6

o. o4
N >-,

0.02

0.0

0.1

0.2

-I -0.3

o. 4

0.5

Fig=e

x/L ' x (D31 Negative Moment M* (L /L

xxY

1-5) .

o. o6

.,

>, o. o4

0.02

0.0

0.1

0.2
y/L y

0.3

o. 4

0.5

Figure

(D4)-

Negative

A. Moment M* (L y. xy

%J%\'NJ4 mXu

346

o. o6 -

1)
(3 (4) 10 (5) (4)

(2

o. o4

(5)
(2) A

vO. 02

0.0 0.1

0.2

0.3

o. 4

0.5

x/L x
Figure--(D5)- Positive (LX/Ly = 2.0) Moment M*xc.

o. 16

0.12
cq
v

(3)
"I
// "

"

- -0 .0 .1

'2

0.08
.00

.0, .101,

(3)

o. o4

.00

0.0

0*1

0.2

0.3

o. 4

0.5

Y/Ly
Fi gure (D. 6) POsitive M=ent

M* (L /L xy y

= 2.0)

347

0.

0.

0.1 04

0.0

0.1

0.2 X/L
x

0.3

o. 4

0.5

Figure

(PI)

Negative

Moment M* (L /L xxy

= 2.0)

0.08

o. o6

o. o4

0.02

0.0

0.1

0.2 / Y,,Ly

0.3

o. 4

0.5

Fi-gwe

(D8

Negative

Moment M* (LX/L yy

= 2.0)

348
0.020

(5)

o. ol6

15)

(3) 0.012.

0.008

0 . 004

0. D Figure-(D9)-

Vel Positive

0.2 XAX Moment M

0.5 (LX/Ly =

U. 4

0.0

0.0

O.C

O.C

0.0 (DlO)

0.1

--0.2-

Y/I7

0.5

U-4

FigL=e

Positive

(IX/Ly Moment D

1-5)

0.0

49
0.0

0.0

C, J

1--

>,

0
Figt=e (Dll) Negative Moment M*x (LX/L7

0.08

Ni.t,

Q.o6

0.04

0.02

0.0
Fip=e_(Vl2), Negative Moment M*

Y/

Ly

(LX/Ly

350
0.018-

-----

0.014-

/ /

'-,
--',.

(5)

/ (5)
0.01
(1)
/ 1,

-.

'-

(4)

(4)'

/'N

N
(3)
S. 5%

'N

ii Ii
0.006II,
I,

/_"

N..

.5

I/I
(2)
-

.5

'S S

0.002

0.0 Fimge (D13),

0.1 Positive

0.2

------U-. 3 X/Ijx

004-7 2.0)

Moment. 14; (LX/Ly

0.

5)
0.

cll).: t cm
0.

0.

0.
Y/Ly Figure (DT4) Positive Moment M* (Ic/Ly y 2.0)

0.

351

a.

00

cy

4>, CY, 1-

21
0.

0.
X/ Lx

Fig=e

(D15)

Negative

Moment 14; .

(Lx/Ly

= 2.0)

0.

0.
C'i

0.0

0.0

-Ly

Figuxe

(D16)

Negative

Moment ll (L:

c/L7--

2.0)

352

0.04

0.3
WO
C'i 0.2

wo
(2)
0.1
-----.

(3)
(i) (1)

0.0

wI

L--I --

0.1

0.2 X/lOc

0.3

0.4 1-5)

--L-

' 0.6

Fiogi=e (D17) Positive

Moment Mx*(Lx/Ly

0.14(1)
0.10 (2)

C'i

(3) (4) 0.06

A5) (4)9(5

0.0
0*0 Fig=e (D18), Positive

0.4 Y/I7 Moment M;

0: 6 (Lx/Ly

1.0

C) LU

0 E

V) S%Uwoooo LLJ

0001""N

CL

353

0.12

cq

0.06

0.04

0.0
x/Lx

Figure (D19)

Negative-Moment M* (L /L xxy

N,:

0.12

0.08
0

0-04

o-o

Y/Ly Figure (D201 Negative *x Moment M. , llx /L

354

0.8

o. 6 00, . 0.4
10, 0.2

(4)

C\j

loo
. 01

(2)

3
(2)

0.0

0.1 Positive

0.2

X/LX
Fip, ure . --(D21)

0.3

0.4
2.0) = 3r

0.5

Moment M, * (c/L

0.1

0.1

0.0

0.0

0.0
Figt=e

0.2
(D221 Positive

0.4 Y/Ly

o. 6

0.8
2.0) =

Moment 1,1(LX/Ly

355
o. 16

0.12

c, i

0.08

0.04

0.0

X/LX
FigL=e (D23) Negative Moment M* (L /L xxy 2.0) =

o. 16

0.12

0.08

0.04

0.0
Y/Ly Figure (D24) Negative Moment M* (L /L yxy = 2.0)

356 0.04

----(3) 0.03
'

(4)

---

(4)

0.02

0.01

0.0
x/L
Figt=e (D25) Positive Moment 14; (LX/I,

1-5)

0.08

C\J, 4,

0.06

0.04

0.02

0.
Y/17 Figurd (D26) Positive Moment M* (L /L yXy

0.08

0.06

0.04

0.02

0.0 Fizure

0.1

0.2

X/Lx

0.3 = 1-5)

(D27) Negative-Moment M* (L /L xxy

0.10

0.08

C\j

o. o6

0.04

0.02

0.0
Y/LY Figure (D28) Negative Moment M* (L /L =

yXy

0.05

358

0-04

0. ^3

0.02

ZI-4 --

(30)
(40)

0.01

(20) (50) 0.0

Figure (D29)Positive

0.2

-3 . X/LX

0.5

Moment M* (L /L = 2.0) xxy

0.08

0.06
C\j >) a,

0.04

0.02

Y/Ly
Figure (D30) positive Moment Pl* (L /L yxY 2.0)

0.10

0.08

0.06

0.04

0.02

figi=e

(D31)

X/Lx Negative Moment X* (L /L

xxy

--I =, 2.0)

0.1

0.08

0.06

0.04

0.02

0.0

Y/L
Figure (D32) Negative Moment M* (L /L yxy 2.0) =

360

0.08

llx

x
., WO, .100

0.

N 4 C7,

00,

---,,

0.0.2

04C

0.1

U. 2 X/Lx

U. )

U-4

U. )

Figure

(D33) Positive

Moment M* (L /L xxy

1-5)

0.08

(4) 0.06 (5)

0.04(2) (3)

0.02-

___(2)

0.0
Figure (D34)

0.1
Positive

0.2 Y/Ly

0.3
1-5)

0.4

0.5

Moment M* (Lx/Ly "j,

361
0. '.

csJ

0.

0.

0.

X/L. X
Figure (D35) Negative Moment M* (L /L xxy 1-5) =

0.04

0- 03

0.02

0.01

0.0
Ly

Figuxe (D36), Negative Moment M* (L /L yxy

362

0.08

0.06

0.04

0.02

0.0 Figure (D37)

0.1 Poditive

0.2

0.3 2.0)

Moment M, * (I/LYF

0.16

04

0.12
0-1 . . 01 .0-.

. -0

0.08

-0 -11 0 .,

0.04

0. U Figi=e

0.!

--C. 20 .13 %r/T. -Y Moment J, (Lx/ly = 2.0) 1

9.4

--__ 1

0.5

(D38) Positive

0.2

0.16

IN ca

0.12

0.08

0.04

0.0 Figure

0.1

- 0.2 Moment

(D39) Negative

0.3 x/ Itc -M* (L /L

xxy

0.4

0.5

2.0) =

0.5 0.040

0.030
a) "1-1 C, '4 4 0 0 +'

0.020

a)

0.010

0.0 Figure (D40)

0. -1 Negative

0.2 711,0.3 Moment M* (L /L yxy 2.0) =

0.05

364

c).o4

0.03

04 >1 0.02

0.01

0.0

0.2
(D41) Positive

o. 4 x/Lx

o. 6.0.8

1.0

Figure

Moment M* (L /L xxy

1-5)

o. o8 -

(3) 4

C14

o. o6 -

o. o4

(4)

0.02 -

(5)

&

0.0
(D42)

0.2

o. 4 y/L y

0.6

0.8

1.0

Figure

Positive

Moment M* (L-/L xxy

1-5)

0.10

0.08

o. o6

o. o4

z
0.02

0.0

x/L x
Figure-(D43) Negative Moment M* (L /L xxy = 1-5)

0.

C-4 4 V

0.

0.0

0.2
(D44) Negative

o. 4 Y/Ly

o. 6

o. 8
= 1-5)

1.0

Figure

(L /L M* Moment yxy

0.0

366
0.

0.0

(3)
>4
400

0.

_Q1

0.0

0.2
Posiiive

o. 4
x/L x

o. 6

0.8
2.0)

1.0

Figure

_(D45)

Moment M* (L /L xxy

0.08

o. o6

o. o4

0.02

0.0

0.2

o. 4 y/L y

o. 6

0.8

FiEure (D46), positive

(L /L M' Moment yXY

m 2.0)

0.0

o. o4

0.03

c4

>-, 0.02

0.01

0.0

0.2

o. 4 x/Lx

0.6

0.8

1.0

Figure-(D47)-Negative

MOment M* (L /L xxy

= 2.0)

o. 16

0.12

0.08

o. o4

0.0

0.2

o. 4
y/L y

o. 6

0.8

1.0

*Figure

(D. 48) Negative

Moment M*. (L /L yxy

= 2.0)

368
0.50 L5)_

0.40-

0.30-

(4)

(5)
0.20If", -., \I

\3)
0.10

(3)
(2) 2

ol

0.0

0.2

o. 4 x/Lx

o. 6

0.8

1.0

Fi

(D49)_Positive e

Moment M* (L /L

xxy

='1.5)

0.

cy >,

0.

0.0

0.2

o. 4 y/L y

O. b

U. 00

J.OV

Figure

(D50)

Positive

(L /L M* Moment

= 1-5)

yxy

369
0

o..16

0.12

0.08 Z

o. o4

0.0
(D51)

0.2

u0 L+ x/L x = 1-5)

Figure

Negative

Moment M* (L /L xxy

0.

0.

0.0

0.2

0.4 y/L y

U00

L*U

Figure

(D52) Negative

/L (L M* Moment yy x

1.5)

1.0

370

0.8

o. 6 -/

JJI .\\

,44 .. . Iv
>4 * :z

0.4 -//

/ dr
dw do

////

, --

L3)
(2)
.

\\

\
\

-1 0

I////
0.2 .10

! 1%

-(5) \

(4)
(3)
(2)

:s
%

0.0

0.2
(D53)

o. 4

o. 6 x/L x
(IX/Ir

0.8

1.0

Figure

Positiye

Moment Iq

.=2.0)

o. 4

0.3

0.2

0.1

0.0

0,2

U*4 ; r/L y

U*u

UOU

J. . 0v

Figure

(D54)

Pos't've

Moment M* (L /L yXy

= 2.0)

371
0'620

o. 16

0.12

0.08
S: K

o. o4

0.0
Figure

0.2
(D55) Negative

o. 4 X/LX

o. 6

0.8
= 2.0)

1.0

Moment M* (L /L xxy

0.20

o. 16

0.1p

o. o8

o. o4

0.0

0.2

0.4 y/L y

0.6

O. d

Illu

Figure

(D56)

Negat've

(L /L M* Moment yxy

= 2.0)

372
'APPENDIX(Dl) Additional to CP110 (5). to Section'(3.4-3.2) layers as shown 0 2L in CP110, torsional steel has to be torsional reinforcement at discontinuous edges

according

According provided as four

0.2L

0.75Mrci

Ole

.1//I

-41 1

Where

L=

short

span,

c Mr=

design

moment

at

centre.

Additional

moment volume V=4x0.75

ar = 0.1p

due to torsional Mc x (0.2L )2

steel-.

2 Mc L r

which simply

is

the'moment slab

volume with

due to torsional four corners

steel

at one corner.

In

supported

V=4x0.12 vMc
0"0a= qLqLI 'o. 48

McL2=0.48 rr
= 0.48

Mc L2

aI

Where the Figures (5.3'to

moment coefficient 5-9), and from the

a=-

can be obtained q L2 Figures Dl to

from

Appendix

D56.

373
'APPENDIX E CALCULATIONS'FOR'SERVICEABILITY LIMIT'STATES

Ass!a2tions: made. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. Tension Linear Linear Linear Uniaxial

Under the service

loadq the following

assumptions

are

stiffening strain elastic elastic

in cracked

concrete

is ignored.

distribution behaviour behaviour for for

across the depth of the section. concrete in compression. steel.

the reinforcing concrete

behaviour

is assumed for
CC

L7
hd

C dn )

For equilibrium: EdAEe ccnsss

C=T

(1)
1 .-. ec =E A2 sS /E c S mA ec (2)

dEcsI: 2 -. nEc where m= modular

ratio diagram

But from the strain - 'es

ec

d. -7, d n -..

dn
(d dn/dn)

(3)

d2mA ns arranging *06 d + 2m Adhsns

2m Ad0

(1.)

374
solvi. ng gives

d nssb
The. gross moment of

)d )2 1/(3nA. 2(mA + MA + .
inertia is A (d s2 gives h)2

9
and the fully cracked

'h3 (m-1) + 12 transfo=ed b. d3

section

I
then the from

cr

As (d

dn )2
inertia is

using

Branson's

methods 13 Mc!

an effective

moment of

calculated

I=I-+ eff in which

17 3 M 1 M CM] Cr[

(8)

M = cracking cr where h= f The deflection elastic deflection t total tensile under as the

moment =2ft19 of section of load

/h and

depth

strength service

concrete. is found from the

6' =61 seg

where L. F. = average load

/(L. F.

eff
ultimate conditions.

factor

for

375
REFERENCES TIMOSHMO Theory S. and S. WOINOSICY-KRIEGER of Plates and Shells. 1959. McGraw-Hill, New York,

Second Edition

2.

SZILARD R.
Theory Methods. of Analysis Prentice of Plates Hall, 1974. , Classical and Numerical

W.L. PARK R. and GAMBLE Reinforced WOOD R. H.

Plastic and Elastic London Design 196T. of Slabs and Plates. Thames

Concrete

Slabs.

Wiley,

1980.

and Hudson,

5.

CP110 - PART 1: 1972

The Structural Use of Concrete I., B. S. London.

6.

BELL J. C. and ELMS D. G. A Finite El(; ment Approach to Post-Elastic Publications Slab Behaviour.

ACI Special 7. HU#S B, P. Limit State

SP30-159 March 1971 PP325-344.

Theory of Reinforced 1977,

Concrete

Design.

Pitman,

Second Edition, 8.

SIMMONDS S. H. and GHALI A. Yield-Line

Division, Engineers,

Design of Slabs.
Proceedings Vol. 102, of the No. STI,

Journal
American Jan.

of the Structural
Society of Civil

1976,

PP109-123.

9.

R. H. L. L. and WOOD JONES

Yield-Line Analysis, of Slabs. Thanes and Hudson, Chatto

London, 1967. Windus and I

376
10. MORLEY C. T.

The Minimum Reinforcement Journal 11. RANGAN B. V. Lower Bound Solutions

Journal of the Structural

of Concrete

Slabs.

International PP305-319.

of Mechanical

Sciences.

Vol. 8,1966,

for

Continuous
Division,

Orthotropic
Proceedings

Slabs.
of the American

Society
12. RANGANB. V. Limit Journal Society

of Civil

Engineers,

Vol. 99, No. ST3, March 1973, PP443-452.

States

Design

of

Slabs

using

Lower Bound Approach. Proceedings of the American

of the of Civil

Structural Engineers,

-Division, Vol. 100,

No. ST2,, Feb. 1974-, PP373-389.

13.

HILLERBORGA.
Strip Method of Design. A View Point Publication, 1975-

14.

WOOD R. H. and ARMERG. S. T. The Strip Method for Designing Slabs Proceedings of The

institution
PP285-311. 15.

of Civil

Engineers, Part 2, V01.41, Oct. 1968,

FERNANDO J. S. and KEMPK. O.

A Generalized Design. Strip-Deflexion of the Method Institution of Reinforced of Civil Concrete Engineers, Slab

Proceedings

Part 2, Vol. 65, March 978, PP16-174.

16. KEMPK. O. and FERNANDO J. S. Reinforced
Including

Concrete
Concentrated

Slab Design -A
Loads

Generalized

Strip

Method
in Concrete

and Supports.

Advances

Slab Technologyq C6ncrete Slabs,

Proceedings

of the International 1979. Edited

Conference by Dhir and

on

Dundee University PP232-241,

Munday, Pergamon Press,

377
17. WILBY C.B. Computation Institution of the Strip-Deflexion of Civil Engineers, Method. Part Proceedings of the

2, Vol. 69, June 1980,

PP499-509.
18. BHATT P., Discussion
Civil

of Reference
Part 2,

15.

Proceedings

of the Institution
1978s PP719-724.

of

Engineers,

Vol. 65,, Sept.

19.

WOOD R. H. The Reinforcement Field of Moments. of Slabs in Accordance Concrete, with a Pre-determined

Vol. 2, No. 29 Feb. 1968, PP69-76.

20.

ARMERG. S. T. Contribution to Discussion Concretes on Ref3.9'.! Vol. 2, No. 8,

Aug. 1968, PF319-320.

21. JOFRIET J. C. and McNEICE G.M. Finite Element Analysis of Reinforced Proceedings Concrete Slabs. Journal Society

of the Structural of Civil 22.

Division.,

of the American

Engineers , Vol -97,

No. ST3 , March 1971, PP785-806.

DESAYI P. and MUTHUK. U. Short-Time Concrete Deflexions Slabs. of Rectangular Simply Supported Reinforced Slabsj by

Advances in Concrete

Slab Technology

Proceedings

of the International

Conference

on Concrete

Dundee University Dhir 23. and Munday.

1979, Pergamon Presss PP110-117, Edited

DESAYI P. and MUTHUK. U. Short-Time Concrete Deflexions Slabs. of Rectangular Restrained Reinforced of the

Technical

Note TN221, Proceedings

Institution

of Civil

Engineers,

Part 2, Vol. 67, June 1970,

PP529-536.

378
24. BEEBY A. W. An Investigation Technical Report, of Cracking in Slabs Spanning One Way. Association, RTA4339

Cement and Concrete

May 1970, PP3125. E. G. ORENSTEING. S. and NAWAY Crack Width Control

Subjected to

in Reinforced
Load.

Concrete
American

Two-way Slabs
Institution

Distributed

Concrete

Vol. 6T9 No. 19 Jan 1970,, PP57-61.

26. NAWAY E. G. and ORENSTEING. S.
Crack of the Width Control in Reinforced Concrete of Two-way the Slabs. Journal Society

Structural

Division,

Proceedings

American

of Civil 27.

Engineers,

Vol. 96, No. ST39 March 1970, PP701-721.

DESAYI P. and KULKARNI A. B. Determination Concrete Slabs. of Maxim= Crack Width in Two-way Reinforced of Civil

Proceedings

of the Institution

Engineers,
28.

Part 2, Vol. 61, June 1976, PP343-349.

DESAYI P. and PRABHAKARA A. Determination Width Crack Maximum of Slabs. in Reinforced of the Concrete of

Skew and Rectangular

Proceedings

Institution

Civil
29.

Engineers,

Part 2. Vol. 679 Dec-1979s PP1077-1090.

BRAUMIK A. K. and HANLEY J. T. Elastoplastic the Structural Analysis Division, by Finite Difference Method, Journal. Society Of

Proceedings

American the of

of Civil
30.

Engineers,

Vol-93,

No. ST5s Oct. 196T9 PP2T9-294.

MAY G.W. and GERSTLEK. H. Elastoplastic Structural Bending Division, of Rectangular Proceedings Plates. Journal of the of

of the American. Society

Civil

Engineers,

Vol-97,

No. ST79 July 1971, PP1863-1878.

379
31. COOKR. D. Concepts and Application 32. BELL J. C. and ELMS D. G.
Nonlinear Analysis of Reinforced Concrete Slabs. Magazine of

of Finite

Element Analysis,

Wiley

1974.

Concrete 33.

Research,

Vol. 249 No. 799 June 1972, PP63-70-

PFRANGE. O., SIESS C. P. and SOZENM. A.

Load-Moment-Curvature Cross-sections. Characteristics of the of Reinforced Concrete Concrete Institute,

Journal

American

july 34.

1964, PP763-778-

DESAI S. C. and ABEL J. F.

.1 Introduction to the Finite Element Method. A Numerical Method

for 35.

Engineering

Analysis,

van Nostrand,

1972.

JAIN O. P.

S. TRIKHA D. N. and AGARWAL 9 Element Solution Slabs. of Post Cracking Behaviour of

A Finite Reinforced

Concrete

Advances in Concrete Conference

Pergamon

Slab Technologys Slabs,

by

Proceedings

of the International
1979*

on Concrete
Presss

Dundee University,

PP129-139.

Edited

Dhir 36.

and Munday.

SCHNOBRICH W. C.

Non-Linear Behaviour of Concrete Structures. Research Laboratory,

Transport

and Road

Department of the Environment, Analysis-Nonlinear

Supplementary

Report 164 UC-Structural

Behaviour Techniques, Research Road and

Proceedings of a Symposium held at the Transport Laboratory$ 37. W.C. SCHNOBRICH

Behaviour Finite of Reinforced Concrete Structures

Crowth orne

1974. December .

predicted

by the

Element Method,

Computers and Structures,

Vol-7,19779

PP365-376.

380
38. W.C. SUIDAN M. and SCHNOBRICH,
Finite Structural Element Analysis of Reinforced Proceedings Concrete. American Journal Society of the of

Division,

of the

Civil 39. RAO P. V.

Engineers,

Vol. 999 No. ST101 Oct-1973t

PP2109-2122.

Nonlinear

Finite

Element Analysis
University,

of Concrete
1976.

Slab Structures,

Ph. D. Thesis,

Liverpool

4o.

A. W. WEGMULLER
Elasto-plastic TN99,, Proceedings Finite Element Analysis of of Plates, Civil Technical Part Note 2,

of the

Institution

Engineers,

Vol-5Ts Sept. 1974, PP535-54341. A. W. WEGMTJLLER Full-Range of Analysis of Eccentrically Proceedings Stiffened of the Plates, American Journal Society

The Structural

Divisions

of Civil

Engineers,

Vol. 1001 No. Stlj

Jan-1974,

PP143-159.

42. - HAND F. R., PECKNOLD W.C. D. A. and SCHNOBRICH 0

Nonlinear Shells, American Layered Journal Society Analysis of the of of Reinforced Divisions Concrete

Plates

and of the 1973,

Structural

Proceedings

Civil

Engineerss

Vol. 999 No. ST-7, July

PP1491-1505.

43.

JOIRIARRYT. Elasto-Plastic Elements, Analysis of Concrete University Structures Using Finite May 1979.

Ph. D. Thesis,

of Strathclyde,

44.

W. and JOHNARRY T. DUNCAN Further Analysis Civil of Studies on the Constant Structures$ Part Stiffness Method of Nonlinear of the Institution

of Concrete Engineers,

Proceedings

2, Vol. 67, Dec. 1979, PP951-969.

381
45. COPER. J. and RAO P. V.
Nonlinear Proceedings Finite Element Analysis of of Concrete Slab Structures, Part 2,

of the

Institution

Civil

Engineers,

Vol. 63, March 1977, PP159-17946. A. J. C. SCHNOBRICH W.C. and PECKNOLD DOTREPPE 9
Layered Reinforced Association 1973, Finite Element Procedure for Inelastic of the Engineers, Analysis of

Concrete for

Slabs.

Publications

International Vol-33, No. 2,

Bridge

and Structural

PP53-68.

47.

M.K. and WANCHOO

Cracking the of

MAY G.W.
of Reinforced Concrete of Plates. the Journal of

Analysis

Structural Civil

Division,

Proceedings No. STlj

American

Society

Engineers,

Vol. 101,

Jan. 1975,

PP201-215.

48.

GILBERT R. I.

R. F. and WARNER

Concrete
of

Tension Stiffening
the Structural

in Reinforced

Slabs.

Journal

of

Division,

Proceedings

the

American

Society

of Civil
49. KLIEN D.

Engineers, Vol. 104, No.ST12, Dec. 1978, PP1885-1900.

H. M., and SCH*A*FER KRISTJANSSON G. LINK R., * Element Analysis of Material Aspects of Reinforced Concrete Slabs - Special on

Finite

Problems

NonlinearitY. of the Finite

3rd Post Conference

Computational College, 50.

Element Methods Imperial

London, Sept.

1975., PP337-358-

LIN C. S. and SCORDELISA. C. Nonlinear

Journal of

Analysis
the

of Reinforced
Division,

Concrete

Shells

Form, General of
of the American

Structural

Proceedings

Society

of Civil

Engineers,

Vol. 101, No. ST3, March 1975,

PP523-538.

382
51. A. D. LABIB F. and EDWARDS An Analytical Eccentric of the Investigation Reinforced Institution PP53-70TUOMALA M. T. E. and MIKKOLA M. J. Finite to Element Analysis Impulsive of of Reinforced Concrete in Slabs of Concrete Civil of Cracking Tension Engineers, in Concentric and

Members, Part

Proceedings March

2, Vol. 65,

1978, 52.

SINISALO H. S., Nonlinear Subjected Slab

Transient

Loading. International April

Advances

Concrete on

Technology, Slabs, by Dhir

Proceedings

Conference PP14o-148,

Concrete Edited 53.

Dundee University and Munday.

1979,

SHIRAI N. and SATO T.

Inelastic Material

Analysis Modelling for

of Reinforced of Reinforced

Concrete Concretes

Shear Wall Structures International Colloquium -

Association Delft 54.

Bridge

and Structural Report.

Engineers

1981, PP197-210 Final

RAZQPUR A. G. and GHALI A. Shear Lag Analysis of Reinforced Structural Report. in Reinforced Concrete; Advanced Mechanics for Bridge and

Concrete,

International Delft -

Association

Engineers

Colloquium

1981 - PP671-686,

Final

55.

HINTON E.

ABDELRHMAN 0-CC5L H. H. d ZIENKIEWI an , Models for Reinforced Concrete Slab Systems.

Computational

Advanced Mechanics of Reinforced Association Delft for Bridge

Concrete,

International Colloquium -

and Structural Final Report.

Engineers

19819 PP303-313,

56.1 KUPFERH. , Behaviour

HILSDORF H. K. and RUSCHH. of Concrete Under Biaxial Stresses. Proceedings of the No. 66-52, August 1969, PP656-666

American Concrete

Institute,

383
5-7 KUPFER11.9 GTRS=
Behaviour Engineering of

K. II.
Concrete under Biaxial Stresses. of Journal the of the

Mechanics

Division,

Proceedings

American

Society 58.

of Civil

Engineers,

Vol, 99, No. EM4, Aug-19739 PP853-866.

TASUJI M. E. s SLATE F. O. and NILSON A. H. Stress-Strain

Loading,

Response and Fracture

of the American

of Concrete
Concrete

in Biaxial
July

Proceedings

Institute,

1978, P-l'.3o6-312.
591 TASUJI M. E. 9 NILSON A. H. and SLAE F. O.
Biaxial Stress-Strain Relationships for Concrete, Magazine of

Concrete
6o LIU T. C-Y,

Research,

Dec. 1979, PP217-224. Vol. 319 No. 1093,

NILSON A. H. and SLATE F. O.

Stress-Strain and Biaxial

Response and Fracture Compression. Proceedings

of Concrete

in Uniaxial

Concrete American the of

Institute,
61. NEVILLE A. M. Properties 62.

May 1972, PP291-295*

of Concrete,

Pitmang Second Edition,

1978.

KOTSOVOS M. D. and NEWMAN J. B. Behaviour

the

of Concrete
Concrete

Under Multiaxial
Institute,

Stress.

Proceedings

of

American

Sept-19779

PP443-446.

63.

VALLIAPPAN S. and DOOLAN T. F.

Nonlinear

Stress

Analysis Divisions

of Reinforced Proceedings

Concrete,

Journal

of' of

the Structural

of the American Society

Civil
64.

Engineers,

Vol. 98, No. ST4t April

19729 PP885-89T.

PHILLIPS D. V. and ZIENKIEWICZ O. C. Finite Element Nonlinear Analysis of Concrete Structures. Part 2,

Proceedings

of the Institution

of Civil

Engineers,

Vol. 61, March 1976, PP59-88.

3e4
65. PHILLIPS D. V.
Nonlinear Method. Analysis of Structural University Concrete of Walest by Finite Element

Ph. D. Thesis,

Swansea 1973.

66.

NADAI A.
Theory of Flow and Fracture
Chapter 15 PP175-228.

of Solids,

McGraw-Hill

1950,

6T,

DARWIN D. and PECKNOLD D. Analysis Loadings American PP355-369. of Reinforced of the of Civil Concrete Structural Engineers, Shear Panels under Cyclic of the

Journal Society

Divisions Vol. 102,

Proceedings No. ST2.

Feb-1976,

68..., ziENKiEwicz

o. c. Element Method. Expanded and Revised Edition,

The Finite

London McGraw-HM 1977. 69. KEmpK. o.

Optimu:m Reinforcement
Loading,, Publications

in a concrete
of the

Slab Subjected

to Multiple
for

International

Association

Bridge and Structural

70.,, GUPTAA. K. SEN S. and _.
Design of the of Flexural

Engineers, Vol. 319 1971, PP93-105-

Reinfor-ement Division,

in

Concrete

Slabs.

Journal Society

Structural

Proceeding*s

of the

American

of Civil
71... MORLEYC. T.

Engineers,

Vol-103,

No.ST4, April

19779 PP793-804.

Skew Reinforcement Torsional Engineers,

of Concrete

Slabs against

Bending and of Civil

Moments, Proceedings Part

of the Institution

2, Vol. 42, Jan. 1969, PP57-74.

385
72. KEMPK. O.
The Yield Criterion for Orthotropically Reinforced Concrete

Slabs,

International

Journal

of Mechanical

Sciences,

Vol-7.

1965, PP737-746.
73. SAVE M.
A Consistent LinIt-Analysis Theory for Reinforced Concrete Slabs,

Magazine of Concrete PP3-12. 74, T. BRONDUM-NIELSEN

Optim= Stnictural Report Design

Research,

Vol. 19, No-58, March 1967,

of Reinforced Laboratory PP190-200.

Concrete

Shells

and Slabs. University of Dermark,

Research NR R44-1974,

Technical -

75,

CLARKL. A. The Provision Resist Inplane of Tension Reinforcement Compression and Research, to Vol-28%

Forces$ Magazine of Concrete

No. 94, March 19T6, PP3-12. 76. MORLEYC. T. and GULVANESSIAN H. OPtimum Reinforcement the Institution of Concrete Engineers, Slab Elementss Part Proceedings of

of Civil

2, Vol. 63, June 1977,

PP441-454.
77. LENSCHOW R. and SOZENM. A. A Yield Criterion for Reinforced Concrete Slabs. Proceedings

of the American concrete Institutes

78. CHENW.F. and TING E. C. Constitutive Models for Concrete,

64. Vol. PP266-273, May 1967s

Journal

of the Engineering of Civil

Mechanics Divisiong Engineers,

Proceedings

of the American Society

Vol. 106, No. EI41,Feb-19799 PF1-19.

386
79. TAYLOR R.,, MAHER D. R. H. and HAYES B.

Effect

of the Arrangement
Concrete

of Reinforcement
Magazine of

on the Behaviour
Concrete Research.

of Reinforced

Slabs

Vol-18,
80. CLARKL. A.

NO-55, June 1966, PP85-94.

Slab Bridges Skew El Slab and Tests on ements

Accordance with the Factored Elastic

Designed in
Cement and

Moment Field,

Concrete Association
81. GUPTAA. K.
Skew Reinforcement Structural Engineers, Divisions Vol. 104, in

42-474, Sept-1972, PP1-47Report Technical -

Slabs.

Technical of the 1978,

Note.

Journal

of

the of Civil

Proceedings No. ST8, Aug.

Am6rican

Society

PP1317-1321.

82.

BUYUKOZTURK 0.
Nonlinear Analysis of Reinforced Concrete Structures-$ Computers

and Structures, 83. LIN C. K.

Ultimate Strength

Pergamon Pressl

Vol-7s

1977s PP149-156.

of

Deep Beamss M. Sc.

Thesis,

Glasgow University

1979.
84. HAYES B. and TAYLORR.
Some Tests Concrete on Reinforced Research, Concrete Beam7-Slab Panels. 1969, Magazine of

Vol. 219 No. 6T9 June

PP13-120.

85.

NEVILLE A. M., HOUGHTON-EVANS W. and CLAM Deflection Research, Control by Span/Depth Ratio*

C. V. Magazine of Concrete

Vol. 29, No. 98, March 177, PP31-41.

86.

O. K. KENP S. J. ' FERNANDO and The Strip Lower Unique Bound? Design or Slab Method of Research, Vol. 27, No. 90, March 1975, PP23-43.

Magazine of Concrete

387
87. HARRopi, Ultimate
Building

Load Design of Simply Supported

Science,

Slab-Bean Systems.

Vol. 4,1969, PP145-150.

88.

MORLEY C. T. Optimum Reinforcement

Combinations Concrete

Against Elements Slab Concrete of

Magazine of

Forces, Membrane Moments and of Vol. 22, No-72, Sept.

Research:

1970P PP155-162.

89.

PRINCE M. R. and KEMPK. O. A New Approach to the Yield

Reinforced Concrete Slabss

Criterion
Magazine of

of, Isotropically
Concrete Research:

Vol. 20, No. 62, March 1968, PP13-20.

go. JAIN S. C. and KENNEDY J. B. -

Yield
the

Criterion
Structural

for

Reinforced

Concrete Slabs.
of the

Journal

Of
Society

Division,

Proceedings

American

of Civil
91. MORLEYC. T.
Yield

Engineers,

Vol. 100, No. ST3, March 1974,, PP631-644.

Criteria

for

Elements

of Reinforced

Concrete

Slabs.

International
for 92. Bridge

Conference
and Structural

on Plasticityl
Engineers,

International
Copenhagen

Association

1978s PP35-47-

CARDENASA. E. and SOZEN M. A. Flexural Yield Capacity of Slabs, Proceedings of the American

Concrete Institute.
93. D. E. BRANSON Deformation

Vol-70,

Feb. 1973, PP124-126.

of Concrete

Structuxesq

McGraw-Hill,

1977.

94.

NIELSENM.P.
Limit-Analysis Scandinicat Copenhagen of Reinforced Civil Engineering Concrete Slabs. Acta Polytechnica Series, No. 26,

Construction

1964.

388
95. LENKEI P. Contribution to the Discussion of Ref-77Proceedings of the

American Concrete Institutes 96; COPER. J. and RAO P. V. Discussion Engineers, 97-- COPER. J.

Vol. 64, Nov. 1967, PP786-789.

44, Ref. Proceedings on Part 2, Vol. 69, Sept.

of the Institution 1980, PP873-874.

of Civil

K. R. V. and EDWARDS RAO P. 0

Finite Element Analysis Techniques Conference Sept. 1980, for-Concrete on Numerical Pineridge Slabs, Methods Press,

Nonlinear Proceedings for

of the

International Swansea,

Nonlinear

Problems,

PP445-456. 9 8. PARK R. The Lateral Action 'Floor, PP29-38. 99. PARK R. Further Tests on a Reinforced Cracking, Deflections American Concrete Floor Designed Load of Institute by Limit Concrete Special Stiffness Ultimate of and Strength Load of required to Ensure Membrane Slab-Beam march 1965,

at the Magazine

a Reinforced Vol-179

Concrete No-50s

Concrete

Research,

Procedures, Slab Systems

and Ultimate Concrete

- Symposium, Sp. 30-11,

Publications, M. P. of

March

19719 PP251-269.

100

NIELSEN, On the

strength

reinforced

ecricrete

discs.

Aalborg,

Danmarks

IngenirakademiReprinted from:

Bygningsafdelingeri,

1971.

Bulletin

Na. B2.

Acta Pol5-technica n Series

Scandinavica,

Civil

Engineering

Ccnstructio and

No. 702 1969. pp2,54.

LASGoV NE

RAR