Cope, R.J. & Rao P.V. (1983), Moment Redistribution in Skewed Slab Bridges

Proc. Instn Civ. Engrs, Part 2, 1983,15, Sept.
, 4 1 9 4 5 1
PAPER 8656
Moment redistribution in skewed slab bridges

R. J. COPE, BSc, PhD,MICE,MIStructE*
P. v. RAO, BSc, PhD, MIE(India)*
The behaviour of reinforced concrete, skewed slab bridges designed for standard highway
loading is described. It is shown that the response at the serviceability and ultimate limit
states is strongly influenced by the directions of reinforcing bars. However, redistributing
reinforcement to avoid congestion did not greatly influence response to loading. Sufficient
test data is provided to enable engineersto validate proposed analytical methods.
Since moments are redistributed by cracking and yielding of reinforcement, non-linear
methods of analysis are needed to predict the behaviour of skew slabs. A method based on
finite element procedures is described. The modelling of constitutive equations is discussed
in detail. It is shown that with suitable representation of cracking, tension stiffening and the
in-plane shear modulus, good predictions can be made with a diagonal constitutive matrix
for cracked concrete.
Monitoring indices to control the number of iterations to be taken in a solution are
discussed, and suitable parameters for use with reinforced concrete slabs are proposed. The
relative costs of numerical procedures are assessed and recommerldations are made for a
relatively economicapproach.
coefficients relating concrete stress and strain

equilibrating nodal forces
coefficient relating concrete shear stress and strain
initial and tangent stiffness matrices
bending moment
twisting moment
design moment for x-direction steel
applied nodal loads
out-of-balance forces
vertical out-of-balance force norm
iterative work
cracked shear stiffness parameter
iterative displacements
tensile strains in concrete for defining tension stiffening
concrete strains in n-t axes
concrete stresses in n-t axes
Introduction
Linear elastic theories of plate analysis are used to predict strain and deflexion
distributions under working loads to assess criteria for the serviceability limit
states. They are also used to predict moment fields and shear forces for the ulti-
Written discussion closes 15 November 1983; for further details see p. (ii).
* University of Liverpool.
419
Downloaded by [ TU Delft Library] on [08/02/17]. Copyright ICE Publishing, all rights reserved.
COPE A N D R A 0
401-
Analytical representation
Strain
Fig. 1. Compressive stress-strain curve
mate limit states. It is generally accepted that the theoriesof linear elastic analysis
for plates can provide only a very approximate description of the behaviour of
reinforced concrete slabs. At working load levels, this is due mainly to the varia-
tion in stiffness parameters due to cracking, but coupling of membrane and flex-
ural effects when there is a stiff surroundingstructural systemcanalsobe
important. Use of moments from linear analysis for design for ultimate loading
conditions is justified not on the accuracy of the analytical prediction, but because
any load equilibrating moment system satisfies the requirements of rigid plastic
design theories.
2. To provideinformationonthebehaviour of 45" skewed bridgeslabs
designed for standard highway loading, with which to assess the predictions of
analysis, four one-fifth scale models were tested. All the designs were based on the
same moment envelopes,which were determined using linear plate theory.Two of
the models were reinforced with steel perpendicular and parallel to the supported
Table 1. Concrete properties
Model Compressive strength Tensile strength,* Initial elastic

100 mm cube, modulus,150 X 300mm cylinder kN/mm2t
N/mm2
Average Standard
deviation
1A 42.1 3.0 3.07 31.3

2A 44.8 2.5 2.97 30.5
1B 47.9 2.6 3.41 33.2
2B 44.1 2.0 3.10 30.0
* Average of four tests.
t From strain gauged cylinder.
420
M O M E N T REDISTRIBUTION IN S L A B BRIDGES
edges and two had orthogonal reinforcement oriented with respect to the free
edges.
3. Each model was subjected to a sustained load component and live loading
consisting of one bogie of the HB design vehicle. This loading was applied repeat-
edly at five locations and then its intensity was increased to cause failure. As
moments cannot be measureddirectly,reactions, deflexions and strains were
recorded to provide a basis for assessing the response of the slabs to loading.
Values of these quantities are presented here to provide data for the validation of
analytical methods.
4. A simplenon-linearanalyticalprocedure is presented for analysingsuch
slabs. It is based on the finite element approach with an iterative solution to the
stiffness equations. A smeared crack approach is used with non-linear orthotropic
plane stress material equations applied at a three-dimensional grid of stations. The
material modellingand numerical techniques areassessed in the light of the experi-
mental results,and their relative accuraciesand costs are compared.
Model skew slabs

5. Model dimensions were selected to be reasonably large to reduce scaling
effects. One-fifth scale models of a solid skew slab bridge with prototype dimen-
sions of: right span 9-4 m, right width 9-4 m, traffic lanes 3.7 m, footpaths 1 m,
depth 0.5 m and askew angle of 45" were selected.
Concrete
6. Concrete mix proportions were designed to give theratio of tensile to
compressive strengths produced by the model concrete in the range obtained for
concrete in prototype slabs. The maximum sized aggregate was 7 mm, to reduce
600 -
Analvtical remesentation
f Typical test
400 -
.
N
E
E
2
g!
5
200 -
Analytical data
E = 219.2 kN/mmz
Ultimate stress: 620.0 N/mmz
Ultimate strain: 0.0675
0
0 0002 0004 0.006
Strain
Fig. 2. Stress-strain curvefor 8 m m Torbar

42 1
C O P E AND R A 0
scale effects on aggregateinterlockactioninshear and on growth of cracks.
Concrete properties based ontests of control specimens at the timeof loading the
slabs to failure are given in Table 1. A typical uniaxial stress-strain curve for the
four slabsis shown in Fig. 1.
7. Eachslabwascast on a specially-built table, withattachedvibrators to
provide the necessary compaction.Six mixer loads were requiredto cast each slab
and its control specimens. Both slaband controlspecimens were cured under wet
burlap for 28 days, after which they were left exposed in the laboratory. The slabs
were tested over a three-week period, about two monthsafter being cast.
8. Concretematerialpropertiesarestochastic in nature.Non-destructive
testing indicated a variation in strength over plan, but the range of extreme values
was smaller than that of the test specimens. It seems likely that the variation in
strengththroughthethickness of themodelswould beless thanthat to be
expected in prototypeslabs.
Reinforcement
9. Eight mm Torbar was used forthereinforcement. A typicalstress-strain
curve is shown in Fig.2. There was little variation in the propertiesof bars before
the onsetof yielding. The ranges for the ultimatestress and strainfor the specimens
tested were 58C620 N/mm2 and 0.06754085, respectively.
(b)
Fig. 3. Reinforcement for slab 1 A : (a) so@t steel; (b)top steel
422
MOMENT REDISTRIBUTION I N S L A B BRIDGES
10. Reinforcementforthemodelslabs of series 1 was placedparallel and
orthogonal to thelines of the supports,while that for slabs of series 2 was arranged
parallel and orthogonal to the free edges. Quantities of steel for slabs 1A and 2A
were determined using the Wood-Armer equationsfor each loading case, without
reference to the amountof orthogonal steel (i.e., M: = M , + 1 M,, I and so on). To
follow design oftice practice, additional reinforcement was provided in softitthe to
ensure maximum spacings of 150 mm and 300 mm for main and secondary steel
directions, respectively. Reinforcementquantities for slabs 1B and 2B were
obtained by using judgementto reduce theamounts of steel in congested areasand
by adopting a more uniform spacing of bars. The behaviour of these slabs was
assessed using non-linear analytical methods (whichwill be described later) before
they were constructed.
11. Layouts of reinforcement are illustrated in Figs 3-6, and a comparison of
steel quantities is given in Table 2. Nominal stirrups fabricated from3 mm round
bars were provided at about 70 mm centres along lines of support, and at about
40 mm centres for 1 m from the obtuse corners along the free edges.
Test procedure
12. Since the densities of materials for the prototype and model slabs are the
same, additional loading was added to the slab to simulate prototype self-weight
(b)
Fig. 4 . Reinforcement for slab I B : (a)sofit steel; (b)top steel
423
COPE AND R A 0
effects. For most of the tests, thetotal,sustained,distributedloadona slab,
excluding the self-weight of the concrete, was 52 kN. For the tests to fai1ure;this
loading was increased to 64 kN.
13. As the HB bogie was appliedat five positions, Fig. 7, HA loading could not
easily be applied and was omitted. Except for slab 2A, all the slabs were subjected
to five cyclesof loading at each of the stationsPl-P5 in turn. Loading totwo load
l e v e l s 4 0 kN (corresponding to serviceability load intensity)and 60 kN (partly to
simulate long-term effects and additional cracking that would be caused by the
Table 2. Total length of 8 mm bars in metres
~ ~~
S o a t steel Top steel
Longitudinal Longitudinal Transverse Transverse
Slab 1A 39 39 92 21
Slab 1B 66 39 21 41
Slab 2A 108 71 54 31
Slab 2B 84 43 19 24
U l 1 l L l I l l l t i i i i i i W /
(b)
Fig. 5 . Reinforcementfor slab 2 A : (a)sofit steel; (b)top steel

424
MOMENT REDISTRIBUTION IN SLAB BRIDGES
HA load componentkwas completed before loading the slab to failure with the
bogie stationed atP2.
Instrumentation
14. Reactions, deflexions, strains, and crack widths were recorded. The model
skew slabshad six supports on eachside. To represent prototype bearing pads, the
slabs were supported on 150 X 150 X 30 mm steel bearing pads lined with hard
rubber. To minimize in-plane restraints, a thrust bearing assembly was incorpo-
rated between each load cell and steel pad. The average support assembly stiffness
was about 250 kN/mm.
15. Deflexionswere measuredusingmechanical dial gauges.The datum for
measurements is given by the deflexions that prevailed under the weight of con-
crete only. Because testing for load cycles at each load position took about one
day,some drift of readings was unavoidable and there was somerecovery in
residual deflexions overnight.
16. Measurement andinterpretation of surfacestrainsonconcreteslabs is
made particularly difficult by the discrete nature of cracking. In areas susceptible
to cracking-most of the sofit andthe top surface at the obtuse corners-Demec
. 18 mm cover
(b)
Fig. 6. Reinforcement for slab 2B: ( a )soffit steel; (b)top steel

425
COPE AND R A 0
426
mechanicaldemountablegauges were used. Measuredstrains were found to
depend critically on the gauge lengthused and the number of cracks crossing the
gauge length. For the slabs tested, the average spacing of the sofit cracks was of
the order 6&70 mm. Strains over a gauge length of 100 mm were large when one
or two crackswere included, but very small when irregularities in the crack pattern
left uncracked concrete over a gauge length. Attempts to derive principal strains
from readings over 100 mm produced very peaky distributions. Principal strains
based on readings over gaugelengths of 200 mm and 300 mm were broadly
similar.
17. In Fig. 8, typical distributions of principal strains across the soffit centre-
line of slab 1A are shown. The degree of similarity for 200 mm and 300 mm gauge
lengths (2 and 3 times the slab depth respectively) suggests that use of 200 mm is
2500- / \
(D 2000-
0
7
X
C
.-
l
\
-_--
500 -
- l00 m m
200 mm
-c- 300 mm
\
l
Fig.8. Comparison of midspan sofit strains--5th cycle, 60 kN vehicle load (P2, P4)
427
MOMENT REDISTRIBUTION IN S L A B BRIDGES
towards both freeedges along lines roughly parallel to the supports and at a
spacing of about 65 mm. The directions of additional cracks in the edge zones,
which formed when the loading was applied at positions P2 and P4, were approx-
imately orthogonal to the free edges.
20. Under 60 kN load cycling, the extent of the soffit cracking spread towards
the obtusecorners, and the short lengths of cracks, initiated during the40 kN load
cycling, grew parallel to the initially established cracks to produce a more uniform
spread of cracking. Fig. 9(a) shows the soffit crack pattern after the 60 kN load
sequence hadbeen completed.
21. Loading to 60 kN at positions P2 and P4 also produced hogging cracks in
the obtuse corners, a fewof which continued as inclined cracks down the sup-
ported edges, between the first and second supports. Thefull extent of top surface
cracking could not be seen during testing becauseof the presence of the sustained
load component.
22. Initial cracking of slab 2A was observed at about 16 kN with the vehicle
bogie at P1. When the live loading reached 40 kN the soffit cracks extended over
the entire width of the slab. They were straighter and more continuous than the
cracks in slab lA, but had about the same average spacing. Hogging cracks in the
obtuse corner became noticeable at about 40 kN with the vehicle bogie at posi-
tions P2 and P4.
23. The development of cracking in slab 1B was similar to that in slab 1A, but
there were a few intersecting cracks on the soffit,i.e. cracks running between
nearly parallel cracks. Slab 2B behaved in a similar manner to slab 2A. The sofft
crack pattern for this slab at the end of the 60 kN loadcycling is shown in
Fig. 9(b).
24. Comparison of thecrackpatternsshown in Fig.9indicatesclearlythe
influence of the reinforcement directions. In the stiffer slabs of series 1, the edge
zones cracked under the influence of loading close to the edges; the cracks there
tend to be orthogonal to thesides. The crack patternis discontinuous and does not
reach the acute corner zones. In contrast, the centre loading cracked most of the
soffits of the moreflexible slabs and the crack pattern consists of more continuous,
and more nearly straight lines.
25. Just as the responses to working loads were strongly influencedby the steel
directions so too were the modes of failure. For slab IA, with a load of 100 kN on
the vehicle bogie at position P2, a shear crack opened suddenly right through the
depth of the free edge near the line of supports in the obtuse corner.A local shear
failure appeared imminent, but on further loading, midspan deflexions continued
toincrease af about thesame rate. Soffit cracks began to spread towards the
loaded acute corner,and from about 120 kN, offshoots of cracks beganto produce
an intersecting crack pattern. When the applied load reached 180 kN, there was a
sudden punching shearfailure in the obtuse corner.
26. The sofft crack pattern after failure is shown in Fig. lqa). It can be seen
that a band of sagging failure cracks was in the process of forming from the load
position (at the topof the figure) towards the opposite obtuse corner bearing. The
corresponding crack pattern on the top surface is shown in Fig. 1l(a), where awide
band of hogging cracks canbe seen.From the distributionsof sagging and hogging
cracks it would appear that if the shear failure had been prevented, a yield-line
flexural mechanism might have formedwith a sagging yield-line running from the
vehicle to the opposite obtuse corner and with a hogging yield-line between the
obtuse corners.
43 1
COPE A N D R A 0
27. The behaviour of slab 1B was broadly similar to that of slab 1A. At about
90 kN, flexuralshearcracks at theloaded free edgewidened and progressed
through the depthof the slab. At this load level the sofft cracksbegan to spread in
a manner similar to that described for slab 1A. Ata load of 160 kN the capacity for
rotation at the obtuse corner bearing was reached (the maximum deflexion was
three-quarters of the slab depth) and testing was discontinued. The sofit crack
pattern was similarto thatshown for slab 1A. On the topsurface a narrow bandof
crushing started at thefree edge, about l m from the obtuse cornerand progressed
to about the centroid of the load position.Top surface crackingwas similar to that
shown for slab 1A. Inspection of the slab near the obtuse corner bearing revealed
effects of punching shear, andit was thought that a shear failure had been immi-
nent.
28. Slabs of series 2 responded to increased loading in a more ductile manner,
and with better moment distribution across the widths of the slabs. However, for
slab 2A, at a load of about 140 kN, a crack progressed from the top surface
between thetwoobtusecornersupportsand waswide enoughtoproducea
discontinuity in slope about a normalto the supported side. From about 180 kN,
midspan sofit cracks at the free edge widened noticeably and concrete at the top
surface began to crush. When the central yield-line had reached about half the
width of the slab, deflexions became excessive and testing was stoppedat 200 kN.
29. Behaviour of slab 2B was similar to that of slab 2A, but events occurred at
lower load levels and the test was stopped at 169 kN. The sofit crack pattern of
this slab, after failure is shown in Fig. lqb), and the top surface is shown in
Fig. 1 l(b). Itis clear that the slabwas folding into two halves. The yield-line is not
quite parallel to the supported edges andthis is possibly due to thedisplacements
of the supports. It was thought unlikely that a full yield-line would have formed
because of incipient instability of the bearings. Even if the yield-line had pro-
gressed further, it is notclearwhethergreaterloadcapacitycouldhave been
mobilized, as the crushed concrete appeared incapable of sustaining a large com-
pressive stress.
30. The test results show clearlythat the amountof moment redistribution in a
reinforced concrete skewed slab is largely in the hands of the designer. Placing
orthogonal reinforcement with respect to the line of supports produces a stiff slab
withconcentration of reactiveloadin theobtusecorner.Withorthogonal
reinforcement oriented with respectto the free edges, a moreflexible slab results. A
reasonable amount of redistribution of the reinforcement designedon the basis of
linear elastic momentenvelopes to reducecongestiondoesnotgreatly affect
behaviour in eithercase.
Numerical procedures
31. Analysis of the slabs was conducted using the finite element (FE) method.
The displacement functions selected for flexural effects are those of the Baldwin,
Irons, Razzaque' constrained quadrilateral element. Those for in-plane displace-
ments are the quadratic serendipity shape functions for an eight-node quadrilat-
eral element.2 Taken together, these provide the basis forflat a shell element with
linear strain variation over thicknessand bi-linear variationof in-plane strains.
32. To start an analysis, the finite element stiffness equations are set up and
solved to provide an initial estimate of strains. At this stage the stiffness matrix is
based on unstressed material properties, with no coupling of flexural and in-plane
components. Strains are sampledat a three-dimensional gridof stations over each
432
element. In plan, the sampling stations are located at the 2 X 2 Gauss-Legendre
integration stations and there are five equally-spaced stations through the thick-
ness. For the analyses reported, an8 X 8 mesh of elements was used, so strains are
sampled at a grid of 16 X 16 X 5 points in a slab.
33. Using the material property relationships, which are described in 4 6 5 6
the stress state corresponding to the prevailing strains
is determined. Virtual work
is invoked to determine a vector of equilibrating nodal forces [F]. If the applied
loading is represented by the consistent nodal force vector [P], the basic non-
linear equation tobe solved is
where [ R ] is the vector of out-of-balance nodal forces. Equation (1) is solved

iteratively to some prescribed tolerance on the length of the vector of out-of-
balance forces and/or on the displacement increments. It is customary to apply
loading in steps and to solve equation (1) at each load level. Details of the pro-
cedure for setting up the equations have been described e l ~ e w h e r e . ~ . ~
34. In the past few years a considerable effort has been expended to produce
efficient procedures for solving the equations. In a full Newton-Raphson scheme,
thetangent stiffness matrixwould be computed at eachiteration. As this is
extremely expensive, the method is prohibitively costly for the large system of
equations involved. In a modified Newton-Raphson scheme, the stiffness matrix is
recomputed occasionally.As equation (1) does not contain thestiffness matrix it is
perfectly acceptable to use an approximate matrix, but the number of iterations
required diminishes with increasing accuracy of the estimate.
35. As an alternative to the Newton-Raphson approach, a class of procedures
known as matrix update methods or Quasi-Newton methodshas been developed.
These methods involve updating the inverse of the stiffness matrix to provide
secant approximations during each iteration. The method used for this work is
known as theBFGS (Broyden, Fletcher, Goldfarb, Shanno) method,and its use in
finite element analysiswas first suggested by Matthies and Strang.
36. No matter which of the analytical techniques is used, equation (1) is not
completely satisfied; iterations are stoppedwhen specified tolerances are satisfied.
For the slabs studied, it was found that measures of out-of-balance vertical forces
and of released energy couldbe used to control operations.6
37. In particular, the normof out-of-balance vertical nodal forcesR , given by
was found to be useful. In the equation, Pi and F iare the applied and internally
mobilized vertical forces at node i. The value of R , can both increase and decrease
during iterations and the use of the BFGS procedure leads to a more rapid, though
less uniform, decrease. For some modified Newton-Raphson solutions, R , stabil-
ized at a relatively high value, while analysis of the same slab using the BFGS
solution produced small R , values. The updating and scaling techniques involved
must disturb thesettled patterns of self-equilibrating out-of-balanceforce systems.
In general, for the skew slabs, R , = 0.02, for two successive iterations, has been
found to be satisfactory.
38. The released energy W can be assessed by the work done by the out-of-
433
C O P E AND R A 0
iterative displacements (Si).
balance loads moving through the corresponding
W = c L1 ( P i
i
- F#,
)
where j is taken for each degree of freedom. In Modified Newton-Raphson solu-
tions, the approximated tangent stiffness matrix is greater than that prevailing
after the load increment is applied and, although the out-of-balance forcesfluctu-
ate, the iterative work decreasesfairly smoothly. With the BFGS method, deflex-
ionscan be overestimated duringiterationsleading to fluctuationsand sign
changes in W . This feature is illustrated in Table 3, which lists values of iterative
work during a loadincrement in which considerable cracking occurred.
39. To provide a norm for monitoring convergence involving both forces and
Table 3. Variation of iterative work
Without acceleration With BFGS procedure
Iteration W Iteration W Iteration W
number number number
1 5082 1 238 12 -4
10 1030 2 - 86 39 14
298 20 3 463 16 -2
30 135 4 18 162 -0.01
40 101 5 367 20 0.0 1
50 94 6 - 27 22 0@005
60 42 7 24 345 6
70 15 8 14 26 0.3
80 - 72 9 265 27 O~ooool
90 0.8 10 9
95 0.5 186 11
Table 4 . Computer mill time ( E C P : energy control parameter)

-
Load K,/BFGS KT K,/BFGS CSP
(ECP for K,,: 0.005; (ECP: 0405) (ECP for K T and
ECP for BFGS: 0.001) BFGS: 0.005)
-
1.2 Self-weightt 519 15* 617 0.94
20 k N 46/20 46* 55*/25* 0.13
40 57/25 23* 32*/22* 0.07
60 52/22 28* 20116 0.08
80 6414 l 32* 35/20 0.07
90 155t/56 165t* 156t/95 0.06
100 l55tj51 165t* 1567159 0.06
110 99/50 36* 42/20 0.05
120 88/24 34* 57*/31* 0.04
130 155t/65 165t* 165t*/59* 0.01
718 7241354
* Stiffness recomputed.
t Maximum number of iterations.
434
MOMENT REDISTRIBUTION I N SLAB BRIDGES
displacements, the ratio of energy released during an iteration, to the maximum
energy released in a previous iteration of that particular increment can be used. A
limiting value of between 0.005 and 0.001 on this ratio hasbeen found to give good
results, but with a BFGS solution at least two further iterations should be per-
formed to ensure that thevalue stays small.
40. As the above non-linear methods of analysis have been well described and
now appear in a student text, only theirrelative efliciencies for use with reinforced
concrete slabs is discussed here. In Table 4, the computermill times for analyses of
slab 2B with monotonically increasing load on the bogie at position P2 are com-
pared. Slab 2B is the most flexible of the slabs tested and exhibited the greatest
- non-linearities.
41. In Table 4, K , indicates use of the initial stiffness matrix throughout, K ,
indicates use of an approximate tangentstiffness matrix which is calculated at the
end of a load increment. The current tangent stiffness coefficients for uncracked
concrete and reinforcement were taken from the assumed curves, butcracked
concrete was given a small positive modulus.6 This procedure avoids the numeri-
cal instabilities reported byCrisfield.* Values in theTableundertheheading
BFGS used the matrix update technique on the decomposed stiffness matrix used
for each load increment.
42. There are several means for checking the integrity of a structure during
analysis. Strains canbe monitored to assess crack widths, possible loss of ductility
and extent of yielding. For automated decision-makirig, Bergan et aL9 have advo-
cated the use of a current stiffness parameter (CSP), which attempts to express the
stiffness at any load level in terms of the initial linear stiffness. The parameter is
defined such that it has the value of unity for an undamaged structure. However,
since the rate of stiffness degradation in reinforced concrete slabs is not uniform,
the variation of this parameter with load is not uniform, as can be seen from the
values that aregiven in the last columnof Table 4.
43. During an analysis, incremental changes in the CSP can be used to deter-
minewhen it islikely to be advantageoustorecomputethetangent stiffness
matrix. A reasonable value for effecting a change seems to be when the CSP
reduces to less than 70% of its value when the stiffness matrix was previously
changed. In the penultimate column of Table 4, the cost of an analysis of slab 2 8
based on this procedure is given, but for this slab, it can be seen that the method
provides no significant cost advantage.
44. Other factors that indicate incipient structural failure are the growth of
displacements in ductile structures, the behaviour of out-of-balance force norms,
and the quantity of energy released. When a slab is close to failure, R , and W
remain very large, even after many iterations.
45. For all the analyses listed in Table 4, iterations at a load level were stopped
when the energy control parameter dropped to the indicated value, or when the
number of iterations performed reached 200. The predicted states of the slab at
each load level were substantially the same, no matterwhich analytical procedure
and controlling parameter were used. The values in the Table show the advantage
of using the BFGSmethod.
Material modelling
46. At the heart of any analytical method are the constitutive equations which
relate the changes in stress to the changes in strain. In slab theories, plane-stress
conditions are assumed to prevail in the plane of a slab. With linear elastic formu-
435
COPE AND R A 0
lations, the moments produced by the distribution of stress over thickness are
usually related to slab curvatures. This approach is difficult to justify for non-
linear analysis, because lack of symmetry about the median plane couples mem-
brane and flexural effects, and the interaction between in-plane and bending stress
resultants is not known. When the edge conditions are represented by displace-
ments of the median plane, this lack of symmetry affects boundary conditions in
addition to stiffness. In the method described below, the constitutive equations
relate stress to strain and plane stress conditions areassumed.
47. Forthe reinforcement,axialstress-straincurves of the formshown in
Fig. 2 are used. Individual bars are not treated, although each layer of reinforce-
ment is individually modelled. Instead, bars are grouped in plan, at the sampling
stations for strainlevels. As these stations arespaced at intervals of approximately
two slab depths apart, a reasonable representation of strain variationis obtained.
48. The treatment of the stress-strain equations for concrete is complicated
and empirically based. Becauseof the degree of uncertainty and scatterof material
properties,it is believed thatapproximatemethodsare justified. It has been
suggested" that a full, unsymmetric, 3 X 3 constitutive matrix is necessary, but
here it is assumed that normal stresses are independent of shear strains.
49. For uncracked concrete, a non-linear, uniaxial stress-strain curve based on
specimen tests is used, but with an extended yield plateau to a strain of 0.0035, to
allow for biaxial effects, Fig. 1. Poisson's Ratio is assumed to be constant. In order
to use a uniaxial curve,the directions of the principal strains at each load level are
determined, and the equationis applied in those directions. Analysesof a number
of skew slabs have shownthat predictions of slab behaviour are relatively insensi-
tive to theprecise formof the curve,and anyof a number of procedures' ' * l 2could
be used.
50. The cracking strength of plain concrete specimens is subject to consider-
able scatter and appears be to affected by the strain gradient and the normal stress.
The structural cracking strength of reinforced concrete seems also to be affected by
Fig. 12. Concrete stress-strain curvefor cyclic loading

436
the inclination of the reinforcement to the direction of principal tensile stress. In
particular,cracking is initiated at alowerload when there is aconsiderable
amount of 'distribution steel' parallel to the crack directions.
51. The smeared crack approach has been adopted for cracked concrete. With
this technique, strainsare assumed to vary continuously over an element. Concrete
and steel at a point are assumed to be strained by the same amount.To represent
the effects of tension in the concrete teeth between cracks, the transmission of
in-plane shear forces across cracks, and the stiffness of concrete parallel to the
crack direction with an orthotropic model, an analyst has the stiffness parameters
E,, E , , E , , G, at his disposal, where
52. For cracked concrete, Poisson's Ratiois assumed to be zero, so E , = 0 and

the constitutive matrix reduces to a diagonal matrix. Two approaches have been
investigated to deal with the remaining parameters. In the first method, material
properties are assigned in the current principal strain directions as is done for
uncracked concrete. This technique does not require an explicit value for G, and
transfers the effects of material damage to current principal strain directions. The
method is referred to as the variable orthotropic model. In the second method, the
material axesare fixed by the directions of initial cracking and a model is required
for the shear modulusG. This methodis referred to as thefixed orthotropic model.
In a variationof this a p p r ~ a c h , the
' ~ material axeswere rotated when it was clear
from the inclination of the principal tensile strain direction that inclined cracks
could form at more than about 30" to the current cracks, and would dominate
response to subsequent loading.
53. To represent the stiffness of concrete between cracks, a number of models
have been proposed.14 For this work, a curvethat gave good predictionswith the
results of beam tests was used as a basis4 The shape of the curve is shown in
Fig. 12; it can be seen that three parameters have to be specified. These are, the
cracking strength of the reinforced concrete f , , the maximum strain E, and the
unloading strain for zero stress (E,,).
0 EO m
'
Tensile strain
Fig. 13. Variation of in-plane shear modulus
437
COPE AND R A 0
60
40
5
U-
-8
2!
3
20
Self-
weight
0 4 0 0 4 a 12
(a) (W
Fig. 14. Central deflexion withbogie at P I : ( a )slab I A ; ( b )slab 2B
/n
5 B
A A
7-7l l l
--X- V 0M
-+-FOM
A B A B A 5
('4
Fig. I S . Midspan deJexion profiles at peak cyclic load-skew slab I A : ( a ) vehicle

load, 40 k N ; (b) vehicle load, 60 kN
438
54. The cracking strength was set to the cylinder-splitting strength for beams
and for slabs with no reinforcement lying approximately parallel to the crack
directions. For slabs with reinforcing bars approximately parallel to the crack
directions it was set to half the cylinder-splitting strength. The value of was set
to the strain corresponding to the adopted tensile strength. The maximum strain
was set to 15 c 0 . This corresponds to a strain level at which non-linearity in the
steel response is likely to reduce its ability to load the concrete in tension through
bond actionto a negligibleamount.
55. Thein-planeshearmodulusforcrackedconcrete is dependent onthe
normal strain across the cracks and the shearing strain. Locally, behaviour is very
complex, with interlocking aggregate particles transmitting shear, butin so doing,
generatingcompressionacrosscracks with additionalequilibratingtension in
reinforcement. A number of widely differing models for the shear modulus have
been suggested,' but all degrade the modulus with increasing normal strain. The
curve shown in Fig. 13 has been used for these studies and numerical experiments
have been conducted to assess the influence of the governing parameterct.
56. Adoption of these parameters for other problems cannot be firmly recom-
mended.Unfortunately,there is adearth of informationconcerningdetailed
behaviour of realistically designed reinforced concrete slabs with which to validate
the suggested models. Good results have been obtained for beams under short-
B B B
Fig. 16. Midspan deflexion projzles at peak cyclic load-skew slab 2B: ( a ) vehicle
loud, 40 k N ;( h )vehicle load, 60 k N
439
COPE A N D R A 0
.^
term loading, with different steel percentages: so it can be concluded that the
tensile force in cracked concrete, and its line of action, must be reasonably rep-
resented when reinforcement is normal to the crack direction. Results obtained for
the reinforced concrete slabsare described below.
Test results
57. In a limited space itis not possible to present full details of thetest results;
these can be found in reference 16. Here, the main aspects of the behaviour of the
skew slab models are described, and sufficient data are presented to enable the
predictions of analytical procedures to be assessed. The results of the particular
non-linear analytical method described aboveare compared with measured values
in $9 70-80.
Deflexions
58. Deflexions are relatively easy to measure, provide a good overall pictureof
slab behaviour and are invaluable for validating analytical procedures. However,
it should be borne in mind that similarity in load/central deflexion curves for
different slabs does not necessarily confirm similar internal behaviour.
59. In Fig. 14, the central deflexions of slabs 1A and 2B (the stiffest and most
flexible of the tested slabs) are compared for the bogie at the central position PI.
As described in $ 12 and 13, the bogie had been placed at positions Pl-P5, and
the load cycled to 40 kN at each position before loadingat P1 to 60 kN. It can be
seen that the greatestnon-linearity in responseoccursduring initial cracking.
Although the tensile strengths of plain concrete specimens for the two slabs are
similar, the presence of secondary reinforcement parallelto the initial crack direc-
tions in slab1A is believed to initiate structural crackingin the reinforced concrete
at a lower strain level than that required for slab 2B. However, once cracking
starts, smaller strains are required in the main steel of slab lA, which is approx-
imately normal to thecracks, to absorb the tensile forces releasedby the concrete.
It is believed that these reasons explain the greater deflexions of slab 1A under
self-weight, even though initial cracking was detected visually at a higher load for
slab 1A than for slab2B. On removal of the live loading, the residual deflexionsof
all the slabs werebetween 60% and 70% of their respective maximum values.
Cycling the loadfive times showed a hysteresis effect, but in part,this is a function
of time.
60. Althoughthecentraldisplacement gives anindication of theoverall
bending stiffness of a slab, it provides no information onits torsional resistance. In
Figs 15 and 16 the midspan deflexionprofiles for slabs 1A and 2B are comparedat
peak cyclic loads. For both slabs, the influence of load history is apparent in the
differences between curves for the loading at P2 and P4. The results confirm that
slabs of the B series are more flexible than those of the A series, and that they
possess better load distribution properties.
61. It can beseen from Fig. 17, that these features of behaviour are present
when the slabsare loaded to failure by increasing the intensityof the bogie loading
at position P2. Graphs of midspan deflexion profiles with increasing load illustrate
clearly the different modes of load transmission. For slab l A , the unloaded edge
deflexion increaseis only about 8% of that of the loaded edgefor 150 kN of bogie
loading, whereas the increase for slab 2B is approximately 36% at 120 kN. Slabs
1B and 2A behaved in similar manners to slabs 1A and 2B respectively, and for
completeness, their load deflexion profiles are included in Fig. 18.
441
COPE AND R A 0
Strains
62. Principal strains based on Demec readings over a gauge length of 200 mm
on the sofit centre-line of slab 1A are presented in Fig. 19. The self-weight strains
shown are those prevailing at the start of loading at each of the bogie positions.
After application of five loadings to 40 kN at P1, the maximum residual strain
under self-weight is approximately 60% of that recorded at maximum load inten-
sity. Loading at the eccentric positions P2 and P4 established a more uniform
distribution of residual strain across the centre-line, but did not affect the values in
the centre zonesignificantly.
63.After cycling theloadto 60 kN at stations PlLP5, and increasing the
self-weightby 20% ( + 12 kN), the residual strains were greater than the peak
strains under the 40 kN loadings. As the bogie load at was progressively
increased, the strains at the free edge did not change significantly; see Fig. 20.
0
- 1500[
(0
-X- VOM
-+- FOM
.-6
=
m
o
Self-weight ----
1500-
-
(D
0
X
0.
Fig. 19. Comparison of midspan sofjr strains-slab I A , 40kN uehicle load ( P I , PZ,
P4)
442
B
6000
c p2
Curve
0
1
1 2 xself-weight
40 kN
3 80 kN
5 120kN
ID
0
7
-Experimental
4000 -X- VOM
-+-
-
.-
m
m
-
FOM
m
a
.-
0
.-
E
L
0-
g 2000
I
A B
Fig. 20. Midspan sofit strains-slab 1A
Table 5 . Slab IA-midspan, soffit, principal strains across the centre-line
Principal tensile strain X 10"/Inclination, degrees
I* 2 3 4 5
1.2 X self-weight 808 935.!15 1200!'16 1093/30 1061/38
+40 kN at P2 1136 1986/13 1500;33
1736.!27 1464/38
+80 kN 1552 2281.19 3060/9 2603.125 1896/'38
+ 120 kN 2432 3911i4 5539/5 I
4686:u) 2698/38
Principal tensile strain X 1O6/1nclination. degrees
6 7 8 9*
1.2 X self-weight 1120,:27 1298,'16 963,'15 936

+40 kN at P2 1394/31 1408119 1020/17 970
+ 80 kN l651.'34 1544,'22 1092/20 1016
+ 120 kN 2039,'36 1591:27 1138/24 1016
* Uniaxial gauge
443
COPE AND R A 0
-----+-
I
o b o p z w w
? v-?""
m m - 0 0 0
N I I I 1
- N m b m W
444
O d N r - - N
""v?90'?
~ 0 0 0 0 0
I I
O O W W M -
c?C\103bN
q ooooo
l I I
445
COPE AND R A 0
0 1.2 X self-weight
1 40 k N
3 80 kN
A' 5 100 k N
A B
Fig. 21. Midspan soSfit strains-slab .?B
Where the centre-line crosses the yielding zone, strains increased greatly. Further
towards the 'loaded' free edge the measured strains increased less rapidly as the
centre-line departed from the zone of yielding. As the centre-line strains represent
different regions of slab behaviour they provide a particularlygood basis for
validating analytical methods.
64. Values of principal strain and the inclinations of the principal directions to
the free edge during loading to failure are given in Table 5 which shows that the
residual principal strains are inclined to the free edges at about 15" in the edge
zones and that theangle of inclination increases gradually to 38" in the centre. As
the intensity of the bogie load is increased, the principal directions swing to be
more nearly parallel to the free edges in the loaded region, but to be at a greater
inclination in the 'unloaded' area.
65. When slabs 2A and 2B were tested, the difticulties imposed by the nature of
discrete cracking were not fully appreciated; only strainvalues based on a 100 mm
gauge length are available. Theseare toosusceptible to theinfluence of local crack
details to have much numerical value, but the main trends can be discerned. In
Fig. 21, principal strains during loading to failure of slab 2B are presented. If the
446
local peaks and troughs areregarded as distortionscaused by chance variations in
cracking, the main aspects of behaviour can be seen to confirm those indicatedby
the deflexionprofiles. In particular, the strains are more uniformly distributed
across the centre-line, and, for a given load level, are considerably greater than
those on slab 1A.
66. A further measure of the greater strains in slabs of the B series is provided
by crack widths. For slabIA, the maximum crack width at 40 kN was of the order
of 0.05 mm and at60 kN was 0.09 mm. The correspondingvalues for slab 2B were
0.09 mm and 0.18 mm. The maximum values during load cycling occurred when
the bogie load was in position P4.
Reactions
67. Incremental reactions due to live loading are presented in Tables 6-9. For
the loading at PI,Table 6 shows that there is some redistribution of reactions due
to cracking in slab 1A caused by application of the loading at positions P2-P5.
This feature is not present in the more flexible slab (Table 8) due probably to the
more extensive cracking of that slabcaused by the initial loading at PI. Compari-
son of the reactions in the obtuse cornerfor the two slabs shows clearly the greater
concentration of load there in slab 1A.
68. Live load reactions of slab I A during loading to failure are presented in
Table 7. It can be seen that the obtuse corner bearing consistently carries more
than half the applied loading. Even though a shear crack openedright through the
depth of the free edge at the line of support at 100 kN, there is no significant
redistribution of reaction alongthe line of supports. Itis not obvious why lessthan
half the total live load was carried to the edge with the load cells at higher load
intensities. Possibly, with relatively large deflexions, there was insufficient articu-
lation in the vehicle bogie to ensure a uniform spread of load.
69. Reactions during loading to failure of slab 2B are given in Table 9. It can
be seen that their distribution along the loaded edge is considerably different to
that for slab 1A. However, the obtuse corner bearing is, again, by far the most
heavily loaded and there is no significant redistribution of reaction along the line
of supports.
Analytical results
70. An attempt was made to predict the full load histories of the tested slabs
using thenon-linearmethodsoutlined in $0 31-56. However, as theassumed
material models makeno allowance for reducing stiffness due torepeated applica-
tions of loading, the bogie load was applied and removed twice only at the posi-
tions P1-P5for each of the40 kN and 60 k N load cycles. Results from the
variable orthotropic model are marked (VOM) and those from the fixed ortho-
tropic model (FOM). When no identification is given, results from thetwo
methods arevirtually indistinguishable.
Deflexions
71. Values of predicted deflexions are included in Figs 14-18. From Fig. 14 it
can be seen that the effects of initial loading and of the peak loads are well
represented. Residual deflexions and incremental stiffnesses to subsequent loadings
are less well predicted. This is due to the simple nature of the material models,
which were devised to give the values of most interest, inexpensively.
72. Results for the eccentric loadpositions (P2, P4) during the 40 kN load
441
C O P E AND R A 0
c??"???
v--ooo
f l I I I I I
/ P
v]
cycling are good, see Figs 15 and 16. Values at 60 kN are less well predicted, due
mainly to the underestimation of residual deflexionsat the end of the 40 kN cycle.
These results show that the variable orthotropic model tends to underestimate the
torsional stiffnesses of the slabs, but in doing so, it provides very good predictions
of the maximum deflexions. This feature can also be found in the deflexion profiles
during loading to failure, see Figs 17 and 18. Predictions from the fixed ortho-
tropic model become increasingly sensitive to the value of the parameter a, as the
load intensityis increased. The plottedvalues are from analyseswith a = 0.1.
Strains
73. Predicted values of midspan, sofiit, principalstrains are shown in Figs
19-21. For slab l A , the variable orthotropic model provides reasonable prediction
of maximum values at all load levels. As with deflexions, however, residual values
are underestimated, and this leads to underestimation of total strains in areas in
which these aredominated by residual values. Duringloadingto failure, the
maximum values from the fixed orthotropic model are strongly influenced by the
value given to the shear parameter a. Even with a = 0.1, peak strainsin the loaded
area are underestimated.
74. Predicted strains for slab 2B are presented in Fig. 21. Although a detailed
comparison with experimental valuesis not warranted, it can beseen that the
predicteddistributions of strainonthe centre-line are in broadaccord with
observed behaviour.
Reactions
75. Values of predicted reactions are compared in Tables 10 and 11. For slab
IA, the obtuse corner reactionand the uplift on the adjacent support are overesti-
mated by theanalyses.Inthe test, there was ahoggingcrack between these
supports, which formed during the 60kN load cycle, and a shear crack at the free
edge which formed at 100 kN. These discrete cracks causedvisible discontinuities
of slope of the slab surface and may have been responsible for the differences in
experimental and analytical reactions.
76. Reactions in the obtuse corner of slab 2B are overestimated, but there is
broad agreement between the analytical and experimental distributions of reac-
tions along the supportededge.
Failure loads
77. Failure of slab 1A was dueto shear failure in theobtusecornerand
occurred with a bogie load of 180 kN. Failure of the analytical slab given by the
variable orthotropic modeloccurred atabout 150 kN.Theindications were
intense damage to concrete and steel and non-satisfaction of the convergence
norms, with large continued values of out-of-balance loads,R , , and the measureof
iterative work, W . Failure for the same reasons was deemed to have occurred
between 150 and 160 kN for the fixed orthotropic model with a = 0.1.
78. Testing of slab 1B was stopped at 160 kN because of excessive rotation at
theobtusecorner for thesupport systemthen inuse. Inspection of theslab
revealed an incipient obtuse corner shear failure and some crushing of the top
surface near the bogie position. The variable orthotropic model was judged to
have failed between 100 and 120 kN, and thefixed orthotropic model with a = 0.1
between 130 and 140 kN.
79. Testing of slab 2A was stopped at 200 kN, because of excessive deflexions,
449
COPE AND R A 0
with the central deflexion greater than half the slab depth. Inspection revealed a
well defined central yield-line with crushing of concrete extending for almost half
the width of the slab. The variable orthotropic modelwas judged to have failed at
about 180 kN, and the fixed orthotropic model with 2 = 0.1 between 160 and
170 kN.
80. Testing of slab 2B was stopped at 169 k N because of excessive deflexions.
The analytical slab based on the variable orthotropic model was judged to have
failed between 130 and 140 kN, and the slabbased on thefixed orthotropic model
with a = 0.1 at 140 kN.
Conclusions
81. The behaviour of reinforced concrete skew slabs designed for multiple live
load patterns is strongly influenced by the directions of reinforcing bars. Although
slabs with themainreinforcementnormal to the supported edges havebetter
characteristics at serviceability, they d o not distributeheavy concentrated loading
well. In the slabs tested, thisled to shear failure in the obtuse corner. Behaviourof
slabs is not altereddrastically when reinforcement designed using moment
envelopes is redistributed to avoid congestion.
82. Non-linear numerical procedures can be used to predict the behaviour of
skew slabs.However, at the present time they are probably too expensive for
day-by-day design oflice use. In common with all analytical methods, they have to
be used with intelligence and theresults interpreted with care.
83. Success in analysing reinforced concrete structures depends critically on
the modelling of material behaviour. Because representation of cracked concrete
could involve so many parameters, the developmentof economic procedures that
rely on theuse of few material variables, should proceed hand-in-hand with experi-
mental investigations.
84. At present, there isinsufficient experimental data to justify the develop-
ment of a general method of non-linear analysis for reinforced concrete. The need
for economydictates the use of simple materialmodels and accelerationpro-
cedures to speed the solution of equations. Specialized techniques are, therefore,
likely to be required for particular forms of structure.
85. For slabs, the accuracy of analytical results forfirst loading iscriticaUy
dependent on the load tocause first cracking. Predictions for slabs away from the
controlled environmentof a laboratory can,therefore, only be approximate.
86. The simulation of tension stiffening in concrete is necessary to provide
reasonableestimates for serviceability conditions, and it is suggested that this
should be a function of the steel directions.
87. Specification of the load-unload path for cracked concrete strongly influ-
ences behaviour under cyclic loading. Due to the scarcity of experimental data, a
numerical study was performedi6 and thesecant unloading path shownin Fig. 12
is proposed.
88. In fixed orthotropic models, material axis directions are permanently
defined by the direction of initial cracking. For slabs with the main reinforcement
normal to the supported sides, behaviour is strongly influenced by the magnitude
of the post-cracking in-plane shear modulus. Althougha large numberof relation-
ships have been proposed,I5 they differ so much, and there is so little experimental
data, that a simple model was used. Results for slabs with the main reinforcement
parallel to the free edges are relatively insensitive to the degradation of the in-
plane shear modulus.
450
Acknowledgement
89. The Authors wish to record their indebtedness to the Science and Engi-
neering Research Council, which has funded the studies on skew slabs over the
past five years.
References
J. T. RAZZAQUE A. and IRONS B. M.Shape
1. BALUWIN function routineforan iso-
parametric thinplate element. Inr. J . Num. Meth.in Engng, 1973,7,431440.
2. ZIENKIEWICZ 0.C. The,finite element method.McGraw Hill, London, 1977.
3. COPER. J. and RAO P. V. Non-linear finite element analysis of concrete slab structures.
Proc. Instn Cic. Engrs,Part 2, 1977.63, Mar., 159-179.
4. COPER. J. et al. Non-linear design of concrete bridge slabs using finite element pro-
cedures. SolidMechanics Study Series No. 14. University of Waterloo Press, 1980,
379407.
5. MATTHIES H. and STRANG G. The solution of non-linear finite element equations. In?. J .
Num. Meth. in Enyny, 1979.14, 1613-1626.
6. COPER. J. and RAO P. V. Non-linear finite element strategies for bridge slabs. Proc.
Collqm Adad Mech. Rein. Concr., International Association for Bridge and Structural
Engineering, Delft, 1981,275-290.
7. BATHEK . J. Finite element procedures in engineering analysis. Prentice Hall Inc., Engle-
wood Cliffs, N.J., 1982.
8. CRlsFIELu M. A. Local instabilities in thenon-linear analysis of reinforced concrete
beams and slabs. Proc. Insfn. Cio. Enyrs, Part 2, 1982, 73,Mar., 135-145.
9. BERGAN P.G . et a/. Use of current stiffness parameters in solution of non-linear prob-
lems. Energymethods in finiteelementanalysis. J. Wiley & Sons. New York, 1979.
Chap. 14.265-282.
Report. Proc.Collqm A d d Mech.Rein.Concr. International Association forBridge
and Structural Engineering, Delft. 1981.7-40.
1 1 . Popovlrs S. A numerical approach to the completestress-strain curve for concrete. M a g .
Concr. Res., 1973,3,583-599.
12. CEBIFIP. Modelcodeforconcretestructures. ComiteEuro-Internationaldu Beton
(CEB), London,1978.
13. COPER. J . et al. Modelling of reinforced concrete behaviour for finite element analysis of
bridge slabs. Yumericalmethodsfornon-linearproblems. Pineridge Press, Swansea,
1980,457-470.
14.MoosECKER W. and GROSSERE. Evaluation of tension stiffening effectsin reinforced
concrete linear members. Proc. Co[[qmA d d Mech. Rein. Concr., International Associ-
ation for Bridge and Structural Engineering, Delft, 1981,541-550.
15. AL-MAHAIUI R. S. H. Non-linear,finireelementanalysis of reinforcedconcretedeep
memhers, Cornell University, New York, 1979, Report No. 79-1.
16. COPER. J . and RAOP. V. Non-linear response ofreinforced concrete, skewed, slah bridges.
University of Liverpool. 1981. 1. Research Report.
45 1

Cope, R.J. & Rao P.V. (1983), Moment Redistribution in Skewed Slab Bridges

Caricato da

Informazioni sul documento

Titolo originale

Copyright

Formati disponibili

Condividi questo documento

Condividi o incorpora il documento

Opzioni di condivisione

Hai trovato utile questo documento?

Questo contenuto è inappropriato?

Copyright:

Formati disponibili

Cope, R.J. & Rao P.V. (1983), Moment Redistribution in Skewed Slab Bridges

Caricato da

Copyright:

Formati disponibili

Proc. Instn Civ. Engrs, Part 2, 1983,15, Sept.

Moment redistribution in skewed slab bridges

coefficients relating concrete stress and strain

Table 1. Concrete properties

Model Compressive strength Tensile strength,* Initial elastic

1A 42.1 3.0 3.07 31.3

Model skew slabs

Fig. 2. Stress-strain curvefor 8 m m Torbar

S o a t steel Top steel

Longitudinal Longitudinal Transverse Transverse

Fig. 5 . Reinforcementfor slab 2 A : (a)sofit steel; (b)top steel

Fig. 6. Reinforcement for slab 2B: ( a )soffit steel; (b)top steel

where [ R ] is the vector of out-of-balance nodal forces. Equation (1) is solved

Table 4 . Computer mill time ( E C P : energy control parameter)

Fig. 12. Concrete stress-strain curvefor cyclic loading

52. For cracked concrete, Poisson's Ratiois assumed to be zero, so E , = 0 and

Fig. 14. Central deflexion withbogie at P I : ( a )slab I A ; ( b )slab 2B

Fig. I S . Midspan deJexion profiles at peak cyclic load-skew slab I A : ( a ) vehicle

Fig. 20. Midspan sofit strains-slab 1A

Table 5 . Slab IA-midspan, soffit, principal strains across the centre-line

Principal tensile strain X 10"/Inclination, degrees

1.2 X self-weight 1120,:27 1298,'16 963,'15 936

Potrebbero piacerti anche