Documenti di Didattica
Documenti di Professioni
Documenti di Cultura
http://theses.gla.ac.uk/1665/
Copyright and moral rights for this thesis are retained by 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
by
Doctor of Philosophy
University of Glasgow
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 4
2.1 Introduction 4
2.3-1.1 Deflections 26
2.3.1.2 Cracking 29
2.4.1 Macroscopic'Models 34
2.4.4.4 Idealization 48
of Reinforcement
2.4.5 Yield Criteria for Plain Concrete 49
CHAPTER THREE
3.1 Introduction 56
83
3.8 Closure
Page
CHAPTER FOUR
CHAPTERFIVE
THEORETICALINVESTIGATION 139
5 Introduction 139
.1
Analyses 14o
5.2 Comparison Between Torsional and Torsionless
Proportioning 172
5.3.3 and Loading
179
5.4.2 Conclusions
179
5.4.2.1 Subseries 1A
179
5.4.2.2 Subseries 1B
183
5.4.3 Test Series 2
189
5.4.4 Conclusions
189
5.4.5 Test Serie's 3
197
5.4.6 Conclusions
4 197
5.4.7 Test Series
200
5.4.8 Conclusions
201
5.4.9 Test Series 5
209
5.4.10 Conclusions
CHAPTER SIX
213
EXPERIMENTALINVESTIGATION
6.7 219
Casting and Curing
6.8 220
Supports
6.9 221
Loading Rig and Loading Systems
6.10 223
Further Instrumentation
CHAPTER SEVEN
CHAPTER EIGHT
APPENDICES:
REFERENCES 375
i-
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
study.
Dr. I. A. Smith, Senior Lecturer, for his help with the data logger.
Mr. J. Thomson, Mr. J. Coleman, Mr. A. Galt and Mr. P. Hawthorn for
Mr. J. Love, Mr. R. Thornton, Mr. W. Thomson and Mr. T. Montgomery for
Mr. I. Todd and Mr. A. Yuill for their help with the electrical
thesis.
My wife Eitidal and 3my daughter Amal. for their cooperation and moral
support.
The Sudan Government for the. financial support during the period of
the research.
iii
. 'SUMMARY
M) (M* -MM2.
xyy XY
the sandwich was ignored in the design, and the equations of Nielsen-
Clark were used to calculate the design forces. In all cases the
boundary conditions.
in distributed
and 0.3 mm for cracks)s and crack spread an evenly
iv
loads. The average enhancement in the design loads for the slabs
without edge beams was about 16%. and for slab-beans systems about 485.
N0TAT10NS
As Area ol Skeet
A Effective area per unit width in tension
ct
A Steel area in x direction per unit width
x
Aým Steel area in a direction per unit width
a Length of a plate
d Effective depth
E Young's modulus
fb Bond stress
f Modulus of rupture
r
f Yield strength of steel in tension
s
ft "'ield strength of steel in compression
s
f Yield strength of steel
st
ft Tensile strength of concrete
GP Gauss Point
I Grid index
stress
N. A. Neutral Axis
P Cracking load
cr
Pd Design load
P Ultimate load
U
q Design uniform load
R Transformation matrix
R Cover ratio
c
R Total force imbalance vector
p
RU Flexural rigidity of a section
T Transformation matrix
z Section modulus
xx
x9y, Z Distances along X, Y and Z respectively
a Angle of skew
a a Moment coefficients
SX9 sy
Shear retention factor
Y Mass density
Displacement at a point
e Strain at a point
e Steel strain
s
{C Middle Plane strain vector
6 Angle of crack
cr
Degree of orthotropy
a Stress at a point
ax sa ST
y XY
Stress components in Cartesian Coordinates
a Peak stress
p
T Octahedral shear stress
Oct
Bar diameter
x Curvature vector
1
.. CHAPTER ONE
INTRODUCTI'O N
designs, viz: the ultimate limit state and the serviceability limit
state. Mozt of the existing methods of slabs design, which are based
limit state. Thus the main concern of these methods is the ultimate'
the exact value for the limit load of a reinforced concrete slab.
this nature.
An exact value for the true collapse load will obviously exist
when the loads obtained by upper and lower bound methods coincide - Upper
bound solutions can thus be unsafe, in those lower
contrast with of
bound, which are always safe.
equilibrium and the yield conditions. For concrete slabs, the equilibrium
32M 32 Ma a2M
x
2-y=-
ax Dy 3 Y2
3443' a 4W. oj
D + 2H +D4 (1.2)
x ; X4 y
DX2a5r2 ; y4
And hence a solution to (1.1) can be found, by using any values for the
This elastic analysis under the ultimate load will be done using the
Both criteria of Limit analysis for a safe admissible stress field are
LITERATURE REVIEW
2.1 INTRODUCTION:
stress distribution in the slab for calculating the steel areas. The
conditions and the state of the material in the slab whether elastic or
.
The stress distribution can be found by analytical or numerical
procedures, and in the latter, both elaszic and plastic effects can be
also be reviewed.
a Qx
j- + -hr- +q0
x ay
am am
x+
rx --ZX
ay -Q0 x
am am
y+ x-y+ Qy =0
- gy ay
32W 32W
CZ =ax z -57-7
y
(2.3)
g 21,r
C=- 2Z
XY ax ary
where exSey9e are the normal and shearing strains at the point
XY
in the x, y cartesian system of coordinates. And from Hook's law, the
vith similar expressions for ay and TXY The moments are given by
.
6
ýr m
y
MYX
"I
x
L Mx
Mx +ý dx
ax
m
z
XY Mxy + 7-, "4 dx
x
aK
Ilyx + YÄ dy
dx
am
zy Qx+
ax
My + dy
-I-
DY
dy
ay
I
h/2
(E 32W 32W )z 2
000x Mr -j +E ý7 dz
x 57 xi
-h/2
a2w 32 W
(D +D (2-5)
7
35:
xa XZ
S imilarly
32w
(D +Dia
yy aF x2,
azw
M2D
XY yx xy ax ay
in which
ExPDEY, h3
Dx
12 y 12 (2.6)
Ex, h3
D1 D GP
12 XY 12
we obtain
1 XY
we obtain
34W ;4w 34 w
D+ 5-7 2H + Dy q (2.8)
x ax y
and GE
2(1+v)
; 4w ;4w+ a4W
+2 q/D (2.8a)
57 axzayz ay-Ir
h3
where DE
12(l-V2)
The solutions are usually of series solution form, but here more freedom.
terms in the series are selected to minimize the total potential in the
system. The Galerkin method of solution falls within this general class.
series solutions which satisfies both the boundary conditions and approxi-
the plate equation is the use of the numerical method of the finite
the larger the number, the better the accuracy obtained. kccordingly,
large space in the computer, even for small problems. The effort
difficult to automate.
and simplified methods have always been resorted too unless of course
design tables and charts are available. The simplified methods generally
(2.9)
(IX + q, =q
y
qx L4L
x5 (2.10)
384 ExIx 384 EyIy
and assuming equal fle=al rigidities in the two strips s and solving
L4 I
yq (2.11)
clx
f,
x zr
and
(2.12)
44q
Lx+L7
4
my CL L
xxL 8(L4 + L4 sx x
x 7
L2
(2.13)
Myx[ L2 -qa L2'
8(L4 + L4) SY X
xy
on the dimensions of the finite area and its sides ratios to be. the
I
respective plate dimensions. The method becomes complex if a group of
in'practice.
11
the slab is perfectly plastic, which means that the material of the
viz: upper bound and lower bound methods (Chapter 1). These methods
include: -
are thus possible even for one problem, and according to the theory
capacity of the slab corresponds to the one giving the smallest load.
The method thus provides an upper bound to the ultimate load, and the
uncomnon shapes.
Although the yield line theory applies to any shape of slab, any
information on the best steel distribution within the slab, but can
32M
x
= aq
XZ
and 3211V (2.14)
ayz =
slab vif a=1.0, all the load is carried by bending of X strips, and
moments in the strip. In cases when the moments are rapidly changing
shear. force. The design moments are the bending moments found throughout
the slab which are compatible zero shear lines, and which are in
with
equilibrium with the applied design loading. The slab can be divided
Element Types (1) and (2) can be designed by the simple strip method.
But Type (3) is more complex. Hillerborg uses a radial stress field
and secondary load actions to transfer the loads from the element to
qa2/8
WO
A
-«
Mx along AA
qy,2/2
y
a/4 cl I q 12
+ 1
.211.. 5qa2/64
a/2 q/2 q
q q/2
a/4
21 &2\
N\\ -\- '\ \\ 171777\ -1 Mx along x= a/2
a/4 a/2 a/4 1
i-
-,"uf
q/2 -F------3. q/2
q Along
x
Edge Strips
0<y< a/4
ýII 4mx
q/2
qx Along
Central Strips
a/4 <y< 3a/4
5 qa 2/64 mx
(13)
Strip Method Solutions Slab
-for a Simply supported
c
16
the simplicity of the strip method is lost and this approach is not
type of loading.
which depart far from those required for a good service behaviour,
in Figure (2.4), the slab is first divided into four strips in each
Type 1
column
Type 3+
0.-1 I
1 %-.,Type 2
10 ..,
. 11
x
oi C\j
CP
1.. '
CM CIJ
cu
m
or
6
ý-o
Strip Y2
Yl
(qx)
31
Strip X3
(Ax ) (Ax ) (Ax )/*
t\ JI 32 33ol"
34
as
k
AX E Fx (2-15)
qx
in in
n=l
where
qx in =x load on x strips
system can be chosen so that the load is contained within one grid area,
whole grid area, and the analysis for load distributions and bending
do not in the
The bending moments so derived satisfy equilibrium
shown within these two strips. The load from the two strips AA and
the bending moments shown in Figure (2-5c) within the grid area.
The method resembles the grid analogy method and the Rankine-
Grashof's method.
The strip methods (both Hillerborg and Ferndndo and Kemp) would
cases, both methods would give solutions which are far from the
I
(a)
oý
(b)
Strip BB
II
I W/2
t"
f-I
tt t- t---tw/2
(a-c)
Strip AA
it-
KO
(c)
C\j
II W/2
tttt Fr
W/2
W la-c)
JA
Vf kal +a2) dA (2.16)
s
where fy is the yield stress for the steel, and d is the lever arm.
fA
Vs=f1d (IM11 +Im dA (2-17)
21
y
fý
V= (IM11 + IM21 ) dA
22
M, and M2 and the principal curvatures k1 and k2 have the same sign
(10) -
and direction. Morley proved that the moment volume for a
regions where
(b) Jkll lk k
=k, 21 and M2=0 or
(c) Ik Ik, Ik
21 =k, and M, =0
then that field has a minimurn moment volume. The problem of finding
slab shown in Figure (2.6) the regions JEH and FKG are such neutral
areas.
If k, =-k2=±k, the deformation surface is anticlastic, and
arbitrary.
-AEFB
_____
i K
D ii: Gf
Figure (2.6) shows the solution for the slab ABCD and illustrates
is
5-
which reduces to 0.0521 q L4 or 96 q L4 for a simply supported slab.
x x
The method assumes no constraints on the reinforcement directions.
the problem. To determine the slab ultimate capacity, the moment fields
(4)
intuitively assumed. Wood gives a good account of the method
are
and shows how the procedure can be used to determine the ultimate
it has been shown that the collapse loads *for can be written
such slabs
in the form
qL2
(8 11 + 2Xp + 16pz) (2.20)
mx
11 = degree of orthotropy
X=a constant
25
'he value of the constant A depends on the sides ratio and the
q L2 24u
(2.22)
mx r2
(/3 P 2
+
after the latter has been reduced by 4%, to account for the corner
effects. The two solutions agree within 10% of the reduced upper
bound solution.
(11,12)
In obtaining the solution (2.20). Vijaya Rangan used a
truncated sixth order polynom., als to define the lower bound moment
is to obtain such solutions, and they can be produced only for limited
has the advantage over the yield line method in that conditions of
yield are considered at every point on the slab, and not just at the
in obtaining the stress fields, does not provide any information on the
diameter and spacing to satisfy the code limits. Deflections can then
0
26
In the cont'ext of limit state design, the two main criteria for
2.3.1 Deflections:
can be calculated using the elastic theory, with the gross moment of
ship in the working load range. The reduced rigidity after cracking
Er 1 cr (2-23)
c
where
R = The flexural rigidity of the section
U.
El = 0.57 Ec
c
Ec= Youngs modulus for concrete
(21)
While in the Branson's method an effective moment of
.
inertia is used. The effective =ment of inertia depends of the
cr 3+11 3
I«I( cr (2.24)
e ff 9m cr -(M
where
=fr19 /Y (2.25).
cr
q L4
6=Bx (2.26)
EI
cg
problem.
qL4
6 er (2.27)
=ßE 1x
cr
[1 cl - cl k
Ig (' -cr 2 (2.28)
eff - k,
qj -q
cr
(q -q )L4
cr x (2.29)
cr EI
c eff
where f LX L
x= (p + P7Xf--ZW)(h 11)
0x -
where
respectively
h= slab thickness
4o x0< 270.
-<
29
Upt *ill now, it is the only method known for estimating deflections
loading conditions.
2.3.1.2 Cracking:
Although a lot of work has been done and is still continuing, the
At present, two theories are known, which deal with the prediction
effectively zero at the face of the reinforcing bar. Here crack widths
that, the "no slip" theory gives better prediction of crack widths.
He also found that the crack width and spacing are both linearly
related to the distance from the point where the crack is measured
where
fs = steel stress
It has been found that -the 'grid index is a good ifidication in"checking
160 in2 the slab would develop a pronounced yield line cracks early
(28)
Prabhakara extended their work to cover skew slabs. The work
and 2, Figure (2-7), then the spacing of the cracks formed in direction
is
kt ft Actl
a, (2.33)
ýl kb fblsl)+(ý2 fbblr'2)
kt ft Act:
2 (2.34)
2
(7r ý2 kb fb'52)+(ýj fbb/11)
where
from
w=AeR (2.35)
max max sc
cract ft
Section AA
direction 2
A ____ A
12 direction'l
,
reinforcement.
for simply supported slabs and fixed slabs, and thus needs further
investigation to cover other types of supports.
conjunction with these methods. The finite difference had been used to
(30)
analyse plates by Bhaumik et 1(29) and May et al using the Tresca
and Von Mises Criteria. Concrete slabs had been analysed using the
(21)
Jofriet and McNiece used a bilinear relationship of the type
analysis, they did not consider yielding of steel, and thus . could not
m
u
m
y
AM
AM
m AC //e0, EI = AC
cr ////
(R - (R
U)i U) i+l
AK = k.
(RU)
iI
%.;L" V C6 V L" IU U
(a)
.0
these models involved the use of numerically integrated high order elements
a linear strain variation with the slab depth is assumed for the small
by this model. The basic requirements for this model in analysing plate
degrees of freedom and the reference in each that had been used. All
computes the shear stresses in planes normal to the plate middle plane
such failures, but is quite good for other problems in which such failures
are prevented, and accordingly, the element can only fail in flexure.
the stress in each layer is constant, and do not allow variations of stress
(39)
within the element, except the one developed by Rao The assumption
1 W, exq 6y 12 40
2 20 39,419 429
us V9 WS
ex 43$ 449 45
y
3 us vs w
12 46
ex S6y
Reduced bending
stiffness
4 WSexq 6y 16 479 48
k
XY
33 49-
5 corners:
Us V, WS 0 0y
12 X9
W kxq ky2k
XY
Midside nodes:
U$ V2 6t
6 15 50
us VS WS
OX9ey
7 us V, w 6o 36,37,38
three dimensional
L
4o
three-degrees of freedom per node were used. The element ignores inplane
effects, and thfis assumes a fixed position for the middle plane of the
inplane action
the position of the neutral axis, and superimposing an
This degrees
on the section. would of course require additional-inplane
and membrane boundary conditions must be specified even for pure bending
(42)
problems. Hand et al has shown that inplane boundary conditions
forces are zero, and the bending stiffness was derived accordingly.
called the sheax retention factor, and lies between unity for uncracked
(38) (48 )
shear. Values as high as 0.5 or 0.6 had been used for both
(51)
plane stress and plate bending problems. Labib and Edwards
concrete members.
in the paper the terms are not defined, but it is logical that
theories are based on the fact that the average stress over the element
unloading portion (Figure 2.10) can be used for concrete after cracking.
(50)
Such a concept is due to Scanlon - The only difference between
the various theories is the shape of this descending portion and its
(48) in connection
Gilbert and Warner investigated the three theories
with plate bending problems. They found that while the first theory
using the third theory produced good results, but at the expense of slow
taken as the yield strain of steel. For the shape of the unloading
ft
E/e
er
Kass
1 10
STRESS
ft
4 10
(c) Discontinuous Unloading Response After Cracking
Figure Tensile Stress-Strain Curves for Concrete
-(2.10)-
45
hand.
a= (2.41)
(1-va) (1 +Ce+ DeZ)
where
a9 F- = stress and strain in concrete
Ec,, j = Youngs modulus and Poisson's ratio for concrete,
respectively.
(a) ? or c=0, cr =
Ec
(b) dcr
For c=0
CIE 1 -va
(c) For c=c =a
Ia
d(T
For c=c
ds
where aP and eP are the peak stress and peak strain in biaxial
a=cE (2.42)
1+(1c- 2)
1ýva E cpcp
se
(59)
Later this equation was further investigated by Tasuji et al
The two equations differ by only 0.5% for 2400 kgjm3 concrete
and f1=0.78 f
c cu*
(61)
2. Poisson's between O'ell - 0.21 An
ratio v ranges
(59) (43 )
has extensively been used.
average of 0.19 or 0.15
4T
STRESS
0
cp
biaxial c=pression
stress. Beyond peak, the equation ceases to hold due to the strain
ignored.
Such steel representation is restricted by the fact that steel bars have
the same element stiffness derivation is used for both concrete and
steel layers.
modulus of steel(52)0
required for both concrete and the reinforcing steel. For the lattert
50
indicated that the latter has the same value in both uniaxial and biaxial
stress states.
(b) Maximurn strain theory, assumes that cracking occurs whenever
concrete.
theory, however, is more popular thanthe second.-
The first
(65)
However, Phillips found that the second theory predicts stiffer
criteria had been used by many researchers. The Von Mises yield
(63), (50)
Lin Gilbert
criterion was used by Valliappan et al et al ,
(48) PT), (38) (55)
Warner Wanchoo et al. Suidan et al and Hinton et al
and .
to concrete is debatable, because
The applicability of this criterion
is normally in concrete
plasticity adopted, and the limited plasticity
51
ii =a1a2+ cr3
a+a+aa (2.45)
2122331
31a2a3
of the principal stresses is zero, then 13= 0' Ill 12 and 13 are
given by
I
1.2
[(a, )2
+(72 - '13
)2+(
'73 - al)2 (2. 46)
Oct -a2
(2.49)
TOct - acro -b=
)
experimental data. Test results by Kupfer et al(56 had been used
(42944)
by many researchers in connection with this criterion The
[ k] Cd] P] =0 (2-50)
-C
where
C k] the
= stiffness matrix of the structure
C PI Cd] = Load and displacement respectively.
ý vectors,
examined: -
Xi+i -2 Xi + Ax (2-51)
where x1 and x i+l are two successive iterates, and Ax, the
correction to xi is given by
Ax =- f(xi)/fl(xi) (2.52)
dotted lines are parallel to the initial tangent, and represent the
(31).
modified Newton-Raphson procedure
computers.
54
each load level normally leads to expensive analy3is and poor results,
Load P
AP
displacement d
CHAPTER THREE
DESIGN*OF'PIINFORCED'CONCRETE'SLABS
3.1 INTRODUCTION
upper boirid on the true collapse load of the slab, which may be unsafe.
However such methods do not check condition (3) on the "rigid! ' portions
of the slab.
load which is lower or equal to the true collapse load of the slab,
a safe load i. e. the true ultimate loeýd is greater than the calculated
load.
is Owing'to its
as the method derived from equilibrium considerations.
58
the slab so that the strength at any section will follow the elastic
distribution of stresses.
The actual ultimate load for the slab so designed should at least
the strength at any point is made equal to or greater than the applied
stresses.
finite element method provides the stress resultants M, * Mys M,, for
y
laterally loaded plates. To provide the reinforcement to fit the
components.
adopted here is such that all moments acting in the element are positive.
59
XY
MY
CY
21
in the following:
zero.
2. Bar diameters are snall in comparison with the slab depth,
is not considered.
mechanism.
The element may be reinforced*on the top and bottom surfaces, although
(Figure t is examined,
3.2). a line with a normal n and direction
61
then the normal moment M must not exceed the value M*, vhere M* is
nnn
the moment of resistance that the reinforcement in the slab could
(3.3),
and considering the equilibrium of the element shown in Figure
we will have
(3-1)
mn ýX Co,.52a+ My sin2a- M s in 2a
XY
M ýX Sin2a+ M Cos2cl+ Ms in 2a
ty XY
Mnt (Mx - 2a (3-3)
My)s'n 2a/2 + Mxy cos
follows
0 (3-7)
ýL
CL
XY
C',
0
()
sin
m
Xy
M* x
y
stepped
"ield
y line x
I..
a
actual
.
yield
line
Y
FiEure (3.4) Idealized Yield Line (Johansen's stepped yield criterion)
63
df (k)
=2k M* - 2)c MV, +2M.
dk X7
-7
or
(M*- my)=-1m (3010)
xy
yk
If f(k) is to represent a minimum excess moment of resistance
then
d 2f (k)
-dkz- =2 M* - 2M 0
yy
in (3-10), M /k (3.12a)
and accordingly, XY ;s0
Iy
64
normal moments is equal to the moment capacity across the yield line,
twisting moment. The variation of the normal moments with the yield
22 M2
(M* -m+ (M* -M)- xy 0 (3.13)
xxyy (M* - my)
Rearranging, we have
(73), (94)
which is the same equation arrived at by Save Nielsen 1)
Co
not reduce the flexural yield capacity due to the interaction between
For yield in the negative steel at the top of the slabs similar
procedure to the one just described for positive yield, can be applied.
If the top steel layers are laid Jin the x and y directions to provide
the resisting moments M*' and M*I respectively. then the yield condition
xy
Figure (3.1)ý
where both Mxy and M are negative moments'(see
sections.
Because the necessary resistance is made equal to the calculated
mx
m
I
XY D
parts will attain their ultimate strength under the design load.
Accordingly, , with
minimum amount of redistribution, every point will
turn into a plastic hinge at the design load, thus converting the slab
we will have
k 14 (3.16)
XY
and from (3.12a), if M >0 then k<0 and vice versa. Equations
XY
(3-10) and (3.16) then become
M* =M +KIM I (3.17)
xx XY
m* =M+KI Mxyl (3.18)
yy
in which K= IkI is now taken to be a positive arbitrary constant.
is (3.17) (3-18)
sum + M*) minimum. Using equation and we will
y
have
M* + M* =M+M+IM. (K +1
xyxyv YJ
so that for a minimum
whence
m+ MXY1 (3-19)
x1
m* =M + Im 1 (3.20)
yy XY
than or equal to zero. This would yield M* <, M and M* < M And
xxy y
as before, df(k)/dk = 0, but in this ef(k)/d k-2 4< 0 for
case an
and hence the corresponding equations to (3.19) and (3.20) would become
normal moment can be set equal to zero and . steel will then be
In this case M*
y
70
resistance, then
(M* k2- M+ 2k M0
-M
xxy Xy
In this case M*
x
with
M* =0 (3.26)
x
negative ones. Again no top steel will then be needed for the positive
following rules:
71
M* M+M
xx -XY (3.27)
M* M+M
yy XY
if M* <0 then
x I ýýYl
M* =M+ with M* (3.28)
ymx
-Y x
M* <0 then
y Im
kz
XY
M* =m+ with M* (3-29)
xx y y
M* =M- Im I
xx XY (3.30)
M* = my - Im I
y XY
if M* >0 then
x im
M2
XY
M*
yy
=M
with M* (3-31)
x x
If M* >0 then
I&LI
M* =M- IM with 1ý* =0 (3.32)
xx
y
i. e. no reinforcement is required.
put such normal moment equal to zero,
M* M* M+ Im
x=0.1 xx XY
M*Zr =M+I M2 IM II
M* =m+
7 xy xI
Im I-\
yy XY
M,ý.
M* M+1 M2 /M
M* =0xx XY y
x
M* =0 M* = 0.
y
mm= M7
xvx
my
1
/IMXY
MxMv=
m*, = m M2 /Mý,
XY =0
x
M* 0
y =0
I
(1,1)
mx
/IM
XYI
\\ \\\'\
Im 1 IM2 /M I
M*f= M-
XY xy x
yy
m AM. 1
y XY
M* M*I M*? Ba
To- I
ý,/ImXY
an-
II
om M*II M* 9 M*
y xy
--
Top Steel only Bottom X only
M*ýI, M*, Top Y only
xy
M* M*
xy
zI
(3-8), while those for top steel in Figure (3.9). Figure (3-10) shows
the two branches of the yield hyperbola, and indicates the directions
top steel.
The above rules apply only when the slab is subjected to a moment
minimum value of the sum (M* + M* ) for all load cases. Such a
xy
is represented by point p of Figure (3-11),
stationary minimum value
in the
For multiple loading cases, the problem can be attacked
Positive Yield
\ 'S 'S
'S '
I
'5
\ I
S I Safe
)
XY
450 m
x
M*
Negative x
Yield
Safe
Sb
04,
M*
x
the case of the three loading cases shown in Figure (3.12). For
It is assumed that a moment field has been established for each load
(1) For each load case, find the design moments using equations
(2) Find the maxiyni3m values of the design moments for all load cases
the yield equation of each load case, and selecting the maximum.
M* = fm* 1 (3.33)
xx
MZ
XY
M* = max M7 + (3.34)
71 (MX*- ýx
m* = cm* ý (3-35)
y Max
M* = max ýx Xy (3.36)
x (m* -M
yy
77
in which case, the minimum replaces the maximum in the above steps.
curve for each load case, and then selecting the least value of (M* + M*)s
xy
as point A in Figure (3.12) by inspection, which is the intersection of
inplane forces are compressive, then all such forces can be supported
compressive forces. Clark equations are thus more general than those
section (3-7).
78
the square yield criterion shown in Figure (3-13), and that failure
/h =Ny =N /h (3-38)
ax 9 cry Txzr
17
.=Nx
and the reinforcement ratios as
ov
79
71
.. y,
pA (3.39)
ct a
we obtain
a=pf +p f 2 e
COS2 CL+a1 COS2e +a2 Si.
xxaa
cr =pf Sin2 a +0 in2 e +a COS2 6 (3.40)
yaa 1s 2
Vaa
pf sin a Cos 1-a 2) sin e cos e
obtained except for cases (1) and (4), where four unknowns are to be
thus
(px +p
(3.41)
tan e
In Table (3.1), a, is given as zero when tension reinforcement is
provided because of the assumption that concrete does not carry tensile
a f
Xf ax c
a f = a - f
y. 7 c
I
81
x
I av
XY
Applied
CYX
-4- Stresses ax
TXy
8
cr, s in 2 6+ a2 OS26 Paf (I sin 7-a c'J
1--. "rl ('J
(al )sin 26
22
CD
N
/a 0
C\j
-0111-
06
N Ct.
w
0
Q
r-i
0 IF
>4
cl
that
fc 1T I cosec a
-2 Nzr
the complex expression; in Table (3.2) and (3.3) reduce those given in
FORCES:
3.7 COMBINEDBENDINGAND 14EMBRANE
Figures (3.20) and (3.21) show the resolution of these forces and how
they are all lumped at the level of the reinforcements. The basic
x xx
X =X =X
xy xx
=y=y
xy xx
3.8 CLOSURE
These rules will ensure that the yield criteria are nowhere exceeded, and
from a finite element program, and this will be discussed in the following
chapter.
:yl
rxyl
66
inadmissible
- (ID
ýC7ý---e-
- .---e
Filling: Unreinforced
N
XY
YX
NxNx N
XY zx
N +YX
N T- z
XY x
x
Ny
xx
XY @Z
xy'Z" xx
yy
x*Z
Z
J
Zýi x.
zy
yy
Ny.
yz
Y,
xy
Ny.
z
y
ym x
M, y m /Z
xy
XY x
m /Z
mmx im
y
ly 7/M /Z
. m
/Z
xx
A /Z
XY
y
xyAy
xy yy mxy/zy
m /Z
zy
ý' YL
/my/
zz Yv
ir
Figure ý3.21) Bending Stress Resultants Sandwich Elem6nt.
on a Filled
88
Table 3.1 Simnary of Various Possible Combinations
of Reinforcement.
Reinforcement
Case Known, values Method of Solution
description
. .... . ......
03'a 0
2 No x f= fI P direct solution
a s x
a tension
3 No a fx = fs Pa 00 direct solution
x tension
tj 0 4) ;Ei
4) U 00
0 +3
CD 0 0 4-1 u
0
+1
4-) 4J
0
4-2
0 + +
0 02 tl
43
g(02
N
4-3
0
u
11
+ +
4-)
N s
u U ts
TO 4) 4-) 0
>-, m 4J 0 C) (U '-, c)
0 0 0 C) d -0
41 41
0 4
+ +1 0
+
CM Cq,
1ý 4-3 + +
0
C\j ej
0
x
1-ý? x >-4
c3
u
L%n *--,
L
0
0
V u
0 V)
0
+ U
+i
4-3
%-0 4-)
cli 0
+ 0
7 -Its"
cq
4-3
0
(U
lw
ca
N
0
+3 43 4-4
Q cli 0 04 0
r.
Cj 0 0
ul . r.4
0 0 43
C) u 0
+ +
04 >1 C\j
u to t)
4) f+4 + +
0
m 0 >41 bo
>4
ci 0 t) .H
En
W
p
0
r-",',l C\j
4-) rn -
x 0 d
CL ci
ts 0 C94 4-3
+ I- C\j d 0
0
0 . U
1ý d u N ; _4
C\j >1 4-3 >1 E-4,
+ 41 t) 0 tD
>4 0 + >4 +
co
0
Cýl
(D
to C\j CY)
Cc
C-)
4-4 90
ca
43
0
+
f-I
4-3
0,
00
ci Ca 14
+
CD +
00 r-i C\j
ý 04 +
9 VQ cj
; 4-3 4.3
-4 CQ 0 0
4-) ci ci
1
m C\j
43 1. +
ýw 0+ -0
I -4 Cj
+0 10
4) 4-3
0
CM ci IW
43
r-i _zr
r _5 I
C14
4-)
0
U
a)
04
0
C,l
4-3 +
r-i 00
0 0U
43
0 >ý
0 0
u
+
q.-I q-.4 C\j C\i
>4 >14 ID
0 + 1-01
L-1
Cý
+ +
>1
Q)
40,
0
C) I
CL
4-)
0
ý0 0
4-) 0
C4
S
eq
U rn C\j
+
M
ýj C\j q.4 4.4 C\j
rl
10
:u
4. )
0
tD 0
Q
+ ca
>4 >4 H
E-i
r-i qH rn C\j 4-4 ;
-iu
M, UN \. O t--
W co C\
91
Table 3.3 Boundary Curves for Skew Reinforcement
uati
Cr 1±
tan a sec a
21 T I
XY
-':
A
r--
'ý -4
c
27 Y-,
17,2r `cI[. Tr t.
ý: T)2
XY XY
31a=- -2x (cosec a cot a)-l
,r, y7
cosec a ±cota) =0
Cr a fc
12 cota (cota ± coseca)+coseca±2cota
-rx.1+r XY
XY
cosec a (cosec a± cota) =0
a-x cry
13 (-cota
1'r. II F cota coseca) - cosec a ±2 cot a0
y -Cv
2c
fc fc ý7 ot C,
ýva cot a
14 ax
7y +2'cot a-4 1- 11 Irxyl
Tx
k r7,
77-cTT
xy
T A
0 0
1
o A + + cli
H r-i
ý- )
0.4tj
7
1 N ; N tlýl
-4
1
>41
0
C%j
0 >1
- 0
1
>4
4-4 4-4 ; 4-4
--t -4
ý11 b i-11 b
04
U >10
4-4 0x 0
0
cu
lr4
W
0
1 1
14 >4 >4
0 1- 0 0
ý4
CL I 4-4
tD to
0
qH
H ý rn H -m
Co
ca
CL CH
N >1
>)
C)
+
>4
-T E-i
10 ID
"
14-4 1CH 14. I q" 17H,
;. 4M ,-ý ', -ý 'i
ay
T XYI
+
1
ax :,o
-I.
2- 1_Lc- +
JTXYJ TX71 TxYll
Cry
TXY
- -1
ay c+1
T Txy I-
xy
I /T
:fcf
CFX 1014
1T. YJ 2 IT --. I Ir xv
xyl
2.,Y-
iTxyl =-a0
f 12
c
IT-VI 2ý -
x
zrI-4
8 ax,
Xy
91 Txy I 1r.,
Yl
10
ax
-=1
Xy Xy I
ax fc
'r Xyl I Txyl
+1
1
12 Inapplicable
13 Inapplicable
ax 1 rc fc
14 T. 2-7-+4 xy
1 xy I
94
CHAPTM- FOUR
4.1 IINRODUCTION:
element method. In this chapter, the finite element method, which will
be used not only to obtain the elastic moment fields but also to carry
a, + a2x +a 3y +a ey
deflection w given by
aw aw IT
UýI Vo Wo - -Y (4-4)
rx
In matrix form, t%e nodal displacement vector for the element can be
written as
-1 e
a) cc] w (4.6)
au av 3vbbb
au } (4-7)
5-X 9 5-Y 9 5-Y ax xy XY
in which the first three axe inplane components. The bending strain
plane axe
au a 2w
Z =a
a0c x
x
av ; 2W
CY Z =,
;)3r ay
au arv a 2w
+- g+ 2Z
XY ay
aDc
which can be written in the form
au
El ax
00Z0 0 av
cx1 Dy
= 0 1 0 au av (4-8)
cy
TX
-T-
ay
a2w
J 0100
c
xy z ax,
D2w
7
; 2w
2axay
ERJ is 3x6
strain vector at the middle plane of the plate, and
to (4-3) we have:
9T
*2 ae
a7 abx
*3 a a6 aBy
cm '2
ý 2a
12 -6a 15x -2a, 6y -a, ýxy
we can w=ite
e
{Cm {aI
e
[B] 61 (4-10)
Cr = [DI {e (4-12)
matrix is given by
is given by
[K] = (R B7D (R B) dx dy dz
BT (RT D R) B dx dy dz (4-15)
I Y-1 ff
= BT DI B dx dy (4.16)
1
E
1
Vi
o 11i V.z
Z. 0
Vi 0 vZZ 0
-'YZ iii
j-v i j- v
0 0 00
2 2
, ,
Z V.: z 0 Z Z
i ý. 1i ii (U. ý
122 i
0
vZZ
ii 0 vZZ
iii
1-Vi
2
L ýv-i
02:: Z 10
2 i
2
Z D
i i (d Z)i
ji
Z. D. : Z? D
properties about the middle Plane of the plate, the summation terms
factors given in Table (4-1) which were derived assuming one material
true that a higher = ber of such points will enable a close monitor
/
100
4.2.2 Element Subdivision:
is very good, and the accuracy of both the deflections and moments
can be seen even for the case of a rough mesh of 2x2 elements.
the slab depth. The mesh subdivisions given in the table, are those
2. x 2 4*303 4918
4x4 4"127 4-22
6x6 A.094 4-2;")
.
8x8 4*092 4-24
10 X 10 4-077 4-24
has been shown in the previous section, the stiffness of this element
is independant of the number of layersq if the element is made uP of
101
one materialg and thus only one layer can be used. For more than one
constituting materials.
under an edge point load. Table (4-3) reflects the excellent rate of
layer was adopted and a reduced integration of 2x2 was used. The
P13
ý--" maxinnTn stress at GP
Mesh Maximm deflection/;
Ei PL/z -*-
xx
10 x 10 0-33507 0-88021
4-3.1 General
linear way. The material has got but a limited ductility, and under
high com; ressive stresses, the material fails by crushing when attaining
also loses all its strength in a direction normal to the crack. The
reinforcing layers axe thus left to carry all such stresses. The latter
bond effects and dowel-action axe still difficult to treat, and in most
V2-
fo bf /3 +a (4.21)
3 c
r2
(ii) for biaxial compression f and the
Oct 3d
mean stress is -2 fd/3t then
V-2
`7 f 2b fd/3 +a (4.22)
3d
R+ V2
TOct/f + V7 m) cr lfc m0 (4-25)
cn M) 03 _2 T-M-)
(c) Tension-tension:
Since no increase in ultimate tensile strength due t& bia. -cial
(a If + (7 )2 (4.26)
t)2 21f t -1=0
constitutive matrix
1
V-
(4.27)
Dcv10
200
1-, v
2
the crack (FigUre (4-5)), and the stress normal to the crack direction
-E00
D000 (4.28)
LO 0a GI
is given by
2 cr
Tan 26 XY (4-30)
a. a.
xy
However, the angle 6 given by (4-30) will lie between 0 and 4500'
2 S2 CS
TS2c2 (4-32)
-cs
where
might closep if the stress across the crack turns to a compressive one.
they would also occur in this region of the yield surface. Since very
4.3-3-1), tlaus
(i) dowel action is allowed for since the loss of stiffness
same reason.
The yield surface can thus be divided into four regions as shown
in Figure (4.7):
107
1. Failure under combined tension - ED
4-3.3-1 Concrete:
It has already been established that an initial linear elp-stic
developed in three parts: (1) before yield, (2) during plastic flow,
aF
(4-33)
ac
fracture can be def ined using a crushing surf ace, analogous to (4-33)
established by fitting
curves. to the laxge amounts of biaxial test
(60) '8P59)
data. Works by Liu et al, Irasuji -O' Buyokoz tLk(82)
, et al(r. and
a e: (4-34)
a 12
1+
1+ 21[c-
.p*7Pct
are
have 4.
-he shape of the limiting yield surface. Accordingly, the inter-
f (Ec/Ei) (4-35)
cc =f co -ft+ft
smeared layert whL; h can carry stresses only in the original direction
Steel bars are thus assumed to have a definite yi eld point fy, and
is used.
(4-36)
F ex dv (4-37)
=p_BG
where the stress vector is always kept within the material yield
the yield surfaces axe removedg and the stress state is brought back
In this
study, the integration in (4-37) is Performed using the
(68)
Gauss (padrature and for consistency, the same order of integration
,
bounds can be set on the load increments, which depend on the degree
analysis with such bounds on the load increment , requires the load
(43),
increment to be less than 0*15 Pcr although acceptable predictions
At any moment, these excess forces axe added to the load vector at
the start of the next load increment. Accordingly, the elastic
increments.
The convergence ex
of the residual load vector P towards zero is
could not obtain successful results with any one type. However,
during the -course of this study, it was found that a limit between
For each sampling point in a layerg the total strains axe found
from: -
+ZX (4-38)
axe then brought back to within the yield surface. The point
calculated from
Previous steps are repeated fox- all sampling points in all layers
FfN)_, (4-40)
M
The global force vector is assembled from elements contributions
norm
12'
NCEM=([ 6d aT { Adl /[d IT {d 1) (4-42)
of problems have been analysed, and the results were compared with
for bqth the deflections and the ultimate loads, the program can then
reseaxch.
A square simply supported slab 1828-8 mm side length =-d 139*7 mmdeep
the ultimate load, this model predicts an ultimate load 10% less
than the actual ultimate load when tension stiffening is not considered.
The computed deflections show that, iý the analysis was not terminated,
the ultimate load could have been -&eached, but at very high deflections.
Dotreppe(46) using a different model also found that the ultimate load
Figure (4-11) compares the predictions of the response for the same
slab with various mesh subdivisions using the same load increment
occur at exactly the same loads for the two mesh subdivisions.
The same slab was also reanalysed using different sizes of load
the same slabs when the total number of iterations is increased from
59 10,15 and then 30. In any case, this would mean the static
is satisfied any load level. The accuracy
equilibrium at of the
analysiss but should never lead t9 poor results. However, this model
results.
also been studied using this model. For a simply supported slab, the
affected both the computed deflections and the ultimate load. However,
variations.
From Figure (4.14a), it is clear that the boundary conditions type
gives accurate predictions for both the response and the ultimate
supported slabs.
This was a square slab simply supported at four corners and was
.
(21)
tested by Jofriet and McN41ce The slab was 914.4 mm.square and
The slab was tested under a central point load, and had the following
properties:
v=0.15 N/=2
44.7 =
with a load increment size of 0.1 P Details of the slab are shown
cr.
(4.16), in Figure (4-15).
in Figure and the results of the analysis
Two results of analyses had been given here, one for the slab with pin
9
118
supports at the corners, the other with roller supports. The agreement
in both cases is quite good. Analysis with pin supports predicts stiffer
behaviour at high loads, while the one with roller supports shows a
to the one obtained here using pin supports. Since it had not been
reported which inplane boundary condition was actually used in the test,
to analyse complex structures. This beam was first tested and analysed
by Rao(39) using a combination of beam elements for the web of the beam,
and plain stress elements for the flanges. The data needed for the
v=0.2
in Figure (4.18).
Other geometrical properties of the beam are given
The beam was analysed subject to a single point load at the centre.
the span and half the flange width was analysed here. The mesh used
the low experimental cracking load could be due to the beam being
already cracked prior to test, and suggested the use of 0.96 N/=2 for
the beam, but still his predictions were too flexible, and could not
As for the present model3, apart from the high cracking load, the
predictions made are acceptable. The cracking load could have been reduced
supporting beams. The slab was chosen from a series of tests on integral
v=0.15
The results are shown in Figure (4.19). The figure shows the
systems. The analysis predicts the first cracking of the slab and the
In the post cracking range, and up to 75% of the ultimate load, only
about 15.4 kN/m2 (about 56 kN), which again agrees very well with the
convergence to the specified limits was not obtaineds and the total
disparity was not great. The stiffening effects appearing after the
The solution would very much improve if the size of load increment
was further reduced after attaining first yield. In any case, the
pre-sent model could accurately predict the ultimate load of this slab-
beam system. Under the ultimate load a mechanism had already formed,
with the reinforcement in the supporting beams yieldings and also along
121
the two centre lines of the slab. Deflections were also very high,
thickness.
neglect of the vertical shear, normal to the middle plane. For thin
plates, this shear has no effect. But for beams, the effect may be
Actual Predicted y
Shear Flow The Layered Model
4.5 CONCLUSIONS.
tested by the author, and the following conclusions are arrived at:
subdivision.
was observed.
though are not affected, would not produce the large imbalance
size is taken between 0.08 and 0.1 of the cracking load. Prior
with this model indicates that this occurs near ultimate conditions,
their predictions were stiffer than what they should be, and
was achieved.
I 125
(-,
v
C,
11 12 13 14 15
5 6 7 8
8 10
6 7 9
1 2 3 4
STRESS
f
cu
cr If4
vi
xf
x
Figi=e Transformation of cracked stiffness to global
-(4.5) directions
128
STRESS
ft
I- cr STRAIN CC
129
111f
STRESS
,
II
STRAIN
DISPLA' EZ=S
ýdj Ckj -' [ID
=
NO I YES
---
IS NORM [ad] SMALL? -7-1ý-
Fi =e (4.9) Details of the procedure
numerical
131
90
80
a- -
70 - __ -------
60
Cd
0
50 Experiment
40 DOTREPPEANALYSIS
P4
Cd
30 THEORY(without tension
r-4 stiffening)
0
E-1
20
x THEORY(with tension
stiffening)
10
4 a 12 16 20
Central Deflection (mm)
f 2
CU = 47971 Nl=
f = 303,14 N/=2
y 2
Ec = 27580 Nl=
2
Es= 2o6850 11/=
1828-8 h= 139.7 mm
d1= 114-3 mm
= Py
= 0-0099
px
80
70
60
PL4
%. -I
50
r-i
Cd
40
30
20
10
48 12 16 20 24
CENTRALDEFLECTION(=)
75
65
55
0
r-4
Cd
P
45
35
25
15
12 16 20 24
Central Deflection (mm)
75
65
55
P4 45
H 35
25
15
so
00-%
A 60
P-1
Id
Cd
40
Cd
20
48 12 16 20
Central Deflection
Figure (4-14a) Effect of various boundary conditions on the response
L. v0
0x=C.. L.
60C.
x
u=O U--o
-,--0 V--o
w=O U=o
W--o ey. =O
e
0x =o
y--0
TYPE 1
X=o
TYPE 2
U---V--W= fj =U U--V=W--Ii =U
y y
v= ýx--0 C. L.
N. B. Type 4= Type 2+ shifting
0 the N. A. to the bottom of the
IY
w=O 0 u=O slab.
6 =o
=O
1
ZYPE
u--Iw=e =0 -I
y
Figure (4-14b) Types boundary for a simýply supported slab
of conditions
136
16
i-'
12
0
A
$.
H
P4
P-4
:4
H
Cd
421
0
E-4
246a
Central Deflection
2
f 48.6 Nl=
cu
f 331
7
Ec 2e614
Es 200000
ft 2*413
914.4 h 44*7
d1 33-3
Px p7 = 0-0085
ý14-4
35 D,
30
25
20
Experiment
P4 v
15
.C4 -I RAOTheory
r-i
Cd 10
+ý, Present Theory
01 .IY
5ff
8 12 16 20
Central Deflection (=)
Fi e (4-17) RAO TEE-B.EUl Bl
a-w- -
7"
1650 4 3300
1000
'
15
T
/gmm
@15()c
120
C. L.
C
v. L.
ý 4*8 mmý
1 A23
I co
4,0*5
152
ý9-5
and
T
76
24 4`8 miný St'i='UPS @ 76 mmc/c
0
COA
20
16
12 Ebcperiment
Theory -
x
10 20 30 40 50
Central Deflection (mm)
139
CHAPTER'FIVE
INVESTIGATION
5.1*INTRODUCTION
summarized as follows:
(1) The geometric details, materials properties and the design
loads are used as the input data for the program. The
(2) Using the design equations of chapter (3)9 the required resisting
(3) Using the Limit State Theory (Appendix A)9 the steel areas
forces in step (2) are calculated for each element. The program
model.
(4) To check the service and ultimate behaviour of the slabs designed
14o
5.2 CONPARISONBETWEEN'TORSIONAL'AND'TORSIONLESS'ANALYSES:
5.2.1 General:
In the slabs which are loaded uniformly the Code provisions for
torsional moments may circumvent this, but in cases where slabs are
the two design procedures has been undertaken here. The object of
the study is to compare the design moment fields in the two methods,
and the torsional modulus G 0.0. This would also produce a stress
distribution in equilibrium with the loads, but M 0 0. As
applied with
XY
opposed to the torsionless analysis, solutions obtained with G00.0 are
linked with the equations of Chapter (3), be termed "torsion-
and will as
al analysis".
sides ratios was investigated. The slabs were all analysed under a
considered, and gives the rosults obtained. The results for the moment
for the moment fields for the two design prodedures are presented in
slabs. Results for rectangular slabs with sides ratios of 1.5 and 2.0
of the proposed torsional analysis, while the broken lines ------- are
the nunber as shown in the small diagrams near the curves in each
strip
figure. It should be mentioned that all slabs had been analysed using
This is true for all cases considered. With slabs simply supported
along all sides, the moment volumes corresponding to the bottom steel
only are approximately the same in the two analyses, the Tnum
moment volumes were calculated (see Appendix Dl) and added to the
,
torsionless analysis results. The resulting total moment volumes have
been compared in Table (5.2), for the cases with discontinuous edges.
The results of the final moment volumes indicate that, in case of slabs
slabs in Table (5.2), the torsional analysis gives moment volumes either
Large differences can also be seen in cases with free edges. The
two methods produce moment volumes which differ considerably from each
other., as can be seen from Figure (5-1). For the case of slabs vith one
However nothing can be done about the reason in (a), but the
9.5% only (Table 5.2). This shows the importance of the torsional
cause (a) above, and reduces in effect as the sides ratio tends to
mity. But the effect of the torsional moments reduces with the
in determining the total moment volume (cause (a) above). Take for
example, the case of a slab simply supported along two orthogonal sides$
and supported by a column at the opposite corner (case G). From Table
(5.1), the difference in moment volumes in the two analyses ranges between
32.2% and 44-TOO. Addition of torsional steel over the confined corner
torsional analysis can thus be based on the maxiTninn or the average value
For clamped slabs (case B), results of the moment distributions are
given in Figure (5.4) and Figures (D9 to D16). Although the torsionless
analysis tends to give higher moment values, the two methods do not
differ very much from each other. In the two analysis, the ratio between
reinforcement in slabs with sides ratios greater than 1.0, agrees very
well in the two cases. For edge strips, this steel extends the full
For slabs with two adjacent edges simply supported and supported
edge to centre steel is about 214)- On the other hand, 'the torsional
will be assumed in the yield line design that the slab is reinforced
in a banded form with the slab being divided into a centraland two
the ultimate loads of the two modes are the same. This will give
0.0746 q L4
0.0241 q L2
m2 = 0.0475 q LZ
Now for the same slab, from Table (5-1) and Figure (5-3) we have:
V=0.0744 q L4
(5.2)
m, = 0.0225 q L2
m- = 0.0475 q L2
2
The moment values in (5.2) are the central value and the value
Equations (5.1) and (5.2) show that the two methods yield the
same results. The only difference is that vhile only three bands are
146
modes will form at the design load, due to the yielding of all portions
5.2.4 Conclusions:
Based on what has been presented the following conclusions can be
drawn: -
Solutions).
(6) The proposed method provides both the required quantity of torsional
steel at the corners, and the length over which such steel should
(7) The method also provides the amount and the distribution of transverse
this direction, and the designer will provide such steel based on
Code requirements.
(8) The method is found to compare accurately with designs based on the
design load.
simultaneous collapse modes under. the ultimate
148
cu 0 0 Lr\ t- CYN e Co
Co C) 0 CY% VN - 0 _:e
t. 2 Co
0-
Co cli \M O\ ri - (Yl U-% %ýo LI-
(D CM 0 _-r
C C) 0
r-i r-i r-i
cý c; c; c;
to
\.0 c\ CYN (L)
P-4 \M r-i %ýo r-1 Co
P-1 C\i CM n
ri
c; c; cý (5 c; c; 2
Co
E-4 0 Co H Co \M f-A r CM >- CD r-1
ci Co CM ýID (: --.
Lr\ CM Co m C>
H C%i cm CM H CM CM ri (1
0 0 CD 0. 0 0 0 0 0 0
sq .1
(ý c; c; (5 c; c; c; 0
4j
e m Ul% Z Co m H r-i (: t-
o CD 0 0 CD ci m M CY C\i
A A
A A 14
4
UN Co O\ 1,0 \D 0 c ch
\O ri
H 0 (D "0 "0 0
Co ri r-i ri
t- 2 m ý,
0 c% ri ri cm CM 0
0 W
45 11 0 ri ri ri 0 0 0
4
0 0 0 0 CD 0 (D (D 0 0
gq
to ull 0 U'\
C\j Ul\ t. -
-r4 44'4 4 Cý
14
rn ri
0
0
. r4
4-)
0 ri Cd
(D E-41
W
Fo
0
H
r rd to
>4 bD
0 -r i rd
pq m0 a)
149
c> \Z t- *ýD 0 UN CD CM
0
c Co
D
>lo UN r-i CM CO CM
t Lr\ Ul\ t
_: CM
.: _e
11A A
_0f5k A A
r Lrl% IZ C> Lr\ ON CM ni H
P.A --: t- LN Lr\ Co Ul\ cli t--
4-1
0 0 11
g -t
_e
r-1
m
cu
\Z
M
m
LA
N
C)
Je
0
\M
0
LI-
0
E-1
0 lý cý cý
c; c; 00
\z 2 t- H cý m %Z
0 Lr\ N m CD r-i Co
H H \M \Z UN Co 0 r-i
_e (D C CD H H
c; c; c; (5
\Z UN Lr% cq
t- C%i t- 0
0 mi
H C\i CM
r-i C)
0 0 0
C.
c;
m Co LN 9 \. 0 Co 0
UN Co cn
Lr\ Ul\ 9 Co UN r-1 t-
I
-tm \M \D H C\i (n Pl _e
H
0 0 0 c)
c5 c; c; c;
010 \Z
cli
Co
CM
Ul\
cu
Co
r-i
H
ri
tr\
CM --t
cu
Lr\
C\i
n
cli
UN
C*i
00AAA4A414
.4ý
CN c> Lr\ t- Lr\ Wlý
ri :t Lr\ 140 0 0
c\ t- U-N Lr\ \,0 CD cý
-e m CM ri UN \lo
t- _Z r M %ýo rA CD CD
CD r-i CU 0
4J
0
pq 0 0 -_J, ON Co C\i H Pl t- m 0
ý,
\Z CU CM Lr\ O\ cn Lr\
0 M O\
rA
cýi ri \lo t-
Illý 0 Co a', _e
c) 0
c; c;
m0 :b
0 UN 0 Ul\ 0 Lr% 0 u.\
0 CM 0 CU t- 0
ro
M f
AA 4 A cý A A cu 4-3
0
0
c:
0 A
Q
PC
Q
41
m 0
p4 P,
10
Cd
E-4
0
0
pq
a,
U p
0
150
1 1 1
c\ CM %Z M t
Co
c\
oý
c\ -e
CD Co p;
-t
\Z Co
_:
O\
CU cli C\i
0 0 lý 1:
H
ý cý cý
H
cu
A A 4 A A
r-i mi r-i
1
4J 0 t-- H H %ýo Co t- O\ t- "0
o t-- 9 Co Lr\ t-- Lr\ o Co
UN t-- -t
Co c>
Erf Z r-i _e ri
UN 0 0 %10 CU
r-i --rt CM r-i -zr
0 \M
m \M CM r-i (>
_:
H cm 2
U-% t-
0
O\
0
CM
0 0 0
1 CY\ O\ Pl
r-i u'\ CN m t-
\. 0 0 (n Zt 0
C\i CM C\i H H H CU C\i
H rH CD
0 0 0 0 (D o 0
.t>
Eri
c; (5 c;
C% CD 1%0 m "0 H Co UN
0 Je Lr\ m .e
c\ 9
Lr\ e ri C Ul\ _e
lifý _CU m =r r-i cm CM (Y)
r-i _zr c) c)
CD CD 0 c;
Z 00 0 CM CM
Ul\ H Co t-- t- (n Co cu cu
cli CM mi r-i r-i
2
00 ri
0
r-i
0
A A A A A A A A
0 IND m CM m (n (n
0 ei Co ri H H
CM C\i Co Lr\ H tý- 0 r-i
0.
0 11 CM 10 c\ cu cu "0 LI-
-t 9 0 (D 0 C
4-1 r,
c;
ri %I0 Co t-
0 t- *%0 \M lIZ Co _e 110
9 H Cti \M t. - H
ri
UN c Co
lß cli CD 0 CD
c> . (D H c) (D
4 0 0
C) 0 0 CD 0
Z
0
W
>1 Lr\ 0
C) U-% 0 Lrl% 0 Lr\
r4 ýA LCI% tl- 0 0N 0
rZI I ý, 0 cli
4 r4 4 44 oj
1; Cý
LA
m
8 Id 4)
r-i
A
Cd
rd 0 E-4
rý 00, P4
00 .,. 1
C\j N to P4
. ri rtl 04
.1 4-) U3
rn a 0
o
rn
>4 to P
5 44
-ri 4-) ., 1 rcl r4
; T-4 0 0
P4 ;Tw
151
VN Lr\ C\i
(n Co C\i
_e cl m
ýo C%J
Co
CU
4J mi r-1 _-:r UN
0
Co Lr\ Z t. -
_-r
0 m C "0 c\ cu
Lr% Lr\ Co Ll\ t-
ri Lr\ t--
(D 0
01 0
I
cý C), (5 (ý (ý
1 0 0
Lr\ H Co CD Co
lit, W\ t-- cý\ \m O\
r-f CM Co cn
0 _zr
C) 0
4
ri 6
> 0
4
C) (D 0 0
E-t
CD (D
0 CY\ Lr\
-%. 11 m cm N
A A A A A
ri UN A r
--.
\M (NI p _e
C) L-- \m 0 Co
mi H cm
4j
0
pq M t-- t- %Z
CD _e
(n \M cm cu
m cu m t-- m
rd
4-)
0
Q) ri sz 0
rcj ý 1-, 0 cm tr\
C.)
. f-4 X
Co Pz A 1;
1; 0.
rl
Z:
0
. ri rd lý
4-1 0
0 Z
$4
o
,ýi
4.
Cd
E-1
P, 0 01
t) 0
e A
4-2 1
ci >b 0 AH
0
to A
0 r. ro A
00
152
0-9
Gr
\ \\"
0-8
G ..
007
-qzrý>)
1-4 o-6
GI
//
/
r-i
0 'it;
0-5 1
'.
1
0 ii
:4
I,
/i
r-I
ci 0*4
4-) I,
0
E-4
/
0-3
',
JA
0-2*
0-1
B be
'Ili
,SN
-
1-0
1-25 1,50 1 *75 2-00
Sides Ratio Lk/L
(5-1) y-
Figure Comparison of moment volumes produced by
torsional and torsionless analyses
154
Torsional Analyses
0-13P
Torsionless Analysis
0-20
J-E j
Oo15
4-ý'
r:3 F
olodl -.*,
d 0-10
.00, F
0 LD
E-4 :, 0.
0-05
0-06
.01
0004 (4)
c\j
M
2)
loe (i )
V// <2 "'
0-02 1--,
0-1
.,
.0.,
000
0-1
T
0.081 ,,y (5)
"\\---
x --
-
6
0-06 -
--
-
. -----.
'---
/
- -------
-. -. --
0004 (4)
(3)
2)
0-02
(1)
0-0 - Uel -- u, z- 0- 3 04 0
Fig=e (5-3b) Positive Moment M* (L /L = 0)
yxy
156
0-06
0004
0-02
0-0
A/. Ux
Figure (5.3c), Negative Moment M* (L /L 1-0)
=
xxy
O-C
C'4
4
0-0
0-0
Y/LY
Figi=e (5.3d) Negative Moment Mý 1 -0)
.
y 157
*04 X
0 LY 1 Ix
0-03
- ply
el
',
.e*.
..'
clj,4ýý 0-02
0-01
L(2
-. -
.1.., ,.
-\ ".-I
(1) 0,
0-0
-- -- --
-- ----
0*3 U-ý
0-1 0-2 0-ý
X/Lýc
Positive Moment M* (Lx/L7 = 1-0)
x
IL
0-04
LY
0-03
(5)
A
t>ll ' (ýz4i
al
0-02 we
0-01
(22)
ol -------
0-01 A//Z-1
0-1 0-2 0-3 0-4 0-5
y/L y
Figare (5-4b) Positive Moment M-ýe-(Lx/LY = l10)
0-05 58
0,,04
0-03
b-ip.
cm ý
Öl 0-02
0-01
O-C
XAX
Fiýnire (5.4c)1 Negative Moment M (Lx/lýr- 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"ý, ax MX
Dý "
..
0-12 ."0.1
X .*
LX
1,
lý
cr 0-08
// 10.001
0*04
/ ýc
Z
zoý 1.01 ---- (1)
,. 00
0-0 U0L ue 2
XAX
Fig=e ý5,.5a), positive MomentM* (LýJL 1-0)
x y=
I?
0008
LY
0-06
3)
0*04
ý4)
5). %
0002 01 (2)
000
A
.01
0-0
U*4 06 0*8 0
Y/Ly
ELZEe-15 ):]a Positive Moment1'ý (L, /Lyý= 'ý-O)
,',
160
0.
*1
0.
0.
0.
2
0.
0.
o. o4
( 3), -, -'-
0.03
L
x
WO,
04
0.02
V,
0.01
j5 ýX-
0.0
0.1 0.2 0.3 o. 4 0.5
X/L
x
Figure (5.6a) Positive Moment M* (L /L = 1.0)
xxy
0.
L
y
0.02- (3
3)
/
0.01-
\\ lk
\01
000 L
0.2 o. 4 o. 6 o. 8 1.0
y/L
0.08
o. o6
o. o4
"-
0.02
0.0
U, 4 u69
0.1 0.2 o. 3
X/Lx
0.05
o. o4
0-03
c4 ý>,
0.02
0.01
0.0
0.2 o. 4 0. b U. 0
y/L
y
Figure (5.6d) Negative Moment M* (L /L = 1-0)
yxy
0.05
163
,
o. o4 (4)
(5)
0.03 x (4)
cq Lx
(3)
(2)
0.02
100,
(2)
0.01
.00
0.0
0.1 0.2 0.3 o. 4 0.5
x Ax
Figure (5-7a) Positive Moment M* (L /L 1.0)
x x y
o. o4
0.03 \"-, ý
9.02
0.01
(2)
yI-- -
0.0 -I--
0.5
0.1 0.2 0.3 0.
Y/Ly
Figure (5-Th) positive Moment M* (Lx/Ly :-- 1-0)
y
64
Os O
0.06
r4 >%,
4
c31 0.04
1-ý
5:x
0.02
; N.
0.0 "1 -1.1 -- -. -.
0.018
o. o,14
0.01
N
1.4
0.006
0.002
0.0
0.1 0.2 0.3 o. 4 0.5
Y/L
y
Figure (5-7d) Negative Moment M* (lk/L 1.0)
yy
0.05
165
-ýý
11 'o.
Adr mx
0.01
-4
(4)
J2
0.03
f; 7 5-t: 5,ý.
(2)
0.02-
0.01-
/
/\
/
0. /
/ ("4) \
/
/
/
/ \
II//
0.0 _L21
C14
2)/7\
0.0
0.01-
0.08
o. o6
o. o4
0.02
0.0 1
XIT,X
0.08
CO
o. o6
o. o4
0.02
0.0
0.2 o. 4 o. 6 0.8 1.0
y/L
y
Figure (5.8d) Negative Moment M* (L /L = 1-0)
yxy
167
o. o4
0.03
Lx
00,
'4ý" 0.02
c',
-
4)
. 111111ý`
I-ftIIIIIIZZ7....
(4)
0.1 -/ I
" (3) 2)
ýO 1
JI/
0.0 111 ---
0.2 o. 4. o. 6 0.8 1.0
x/Lx
Figure (5.9a) Positive Moment M* (L /L = 1.0)
xxy
o. 4
0.3
C4 >, 00 . 1%
100
4 lop
0.2-
5)
/ (3) 1
1000
(2)\
(3)
0.0 1
0.2 o. 4 o. 6 o. 8 1.0
y/L
y
Figure (5.9b) Positive Moment M* (L /L 1-0)
yxY
0.10
0.08
o. o6
o. o4
0.02
0.0
X/L
x
Fi; rL=e (5.2c) Negative Moment M* (L /L = 1.0)
xxy
0.10
0.08
o. o6
o. o4
0.02
0.0
0.2 o. 4 o. 6 0.8 1.0
y/L
y
Figure (5.9d), Negative Moment 14* (Lx/L = 1.0)
yy
169
Mi
z 2x
LL
1- 1
2x
Mode 1 Mode 2
Mode 1: 4(=, (t
qX2/3 = - 2x) + m2 2x) x-2
24 x)
qx + 2m2x/. Z )
[(Z ]
Mode 2: q 2x )2,
/3 ,+ 4(L - 2x) x/2 + 4x2
-
4m, 2£
=. (Z
- 2x)
24mi
Z2(1
.
For a given x. the minimum moment volume is when the ultimate
loads from the two modes are the same.
5.3.1. 'Geteral.
except two, which were intended for comparison with the direct
design method. The object of these numerical experiments is to
study the service and ultimate behaviour of the slabs designed by this
method.
The proposed method uses. the initial uncracked stiffnesses in the
in the slab under ultimate conditions,, for the following two reasons:
(b) The yield criterion adopted in the design is, after all
justified.
(c) Materials'properties.
follows:
resting on a column.
around.
In each runs the slab was first designed for a specified ultimate
load using the direct design approach. All safety factors on the
design load and the materials were taken as'unity, the slab was then
(5-3)to (5-7)
serial names N1JMEX1, NUMEX 2... etc., and Tables
172
5.3.3'Proportioning'and'L6Acling.
2000 mt. while the other dimension, (always along the X-axis) was
varied for each run. The slab depth in each case was taken as span/20.
The definition of the term "span" used in calculating the depth depends
four edges, the span length was taken as the length of the short side
of the slab. For other cases involving free edgess the span length
the slab under the design load was obtained from the finite element
elastic deflections and the moment distribution under the choqen. load.
in this research, were also obtained from the program, Since the
deflections under the service load, using. the Branson IS(93) method.
in Appendix (E). Using the elastic deflections under the ultimate load,
6es the predicted Tnaximim deflection under the service load is given by
6. I
1 (5-3)
-.
LF x -a
I
eff
173
where
5.3.4 Analysis:
having supports symmetry about their two orthogonal centre lines, only
6x6
one axis of symmetry, half the slab was analysed using a. mesh of
8x8 elements over the whole 'slab. For the slab-beam systems in
force norms (see Section 4.3-5) used to limit the iterations were
will be considered.
in this study.
are also possible. The analysis will then try to study these
effects.
load of 33.3 2.
KN/m. The
sides ratio = 1.5, under a uniform
)CA
a
-DA
90- '0
.
a
NUMEX 1
60 -
. NUMEX 2
p dk See Table
NUMEX 3 5.3
0 NumEx4
OýIk
30 Fa NUIEX 5
.
1.20
0.9
býKO
00
p
o. 6 NUMEX1
Pd
X NUMEX2
A NUMEX3
o NUMEX4
0.3
C NUMEX5
177
C. L. C. L.
. 92 76 68 68 73 70 65
. . . 091 . . .
04 .81 76 6d C.L. 1.12 83 74 70 CoLe
. . . . 1 . - .
. 92 .8 H-2.
. 766 91 82 78
. . .
i. o4 9 l. o4 99
.
NUMEX I NIJNEX 2
C. L. C L.
91 78 69 65 96 78 74 74
. . . . . . . .
1.03 82 78 69 1.0 78 74 a
. . . o83 . .
C.LO C, Lý
0.91 82 78 91 87 83
. . . . .
-1
1.04 1.04 1.129 1.1291
NUMEX NUMEX
C. L.
. 93 . 78 . 74 74
.
i. o4 *83 . 78
. 78 C.L.
0.91 0.87 87
.
NUMEX
0
E-4 Cd
Id
cli
01 Id 0. T- 0 1- 0
P P-4
-4
IL
Itt H
co
P-4
6 6
t-- CD CD
4 1 \Z
P-4 P,
4a)
C)
;4
'd
1
C,
0 j
"Zi-
\-O
K'\
";I-
P(I\
LCI\ 1.0
P-4 P4
a, \ CC) co co 4-2
U11% 04 cli C\j C\l
10114
04 Id (D
Id
Lr\ 0i C\j
Cd
P4
4 r=
M 0
44 0
U"\
N
P4
ri
.0
N
1-1
P (D
P4
P4
E-1
E-4
77
r-4
179
5.4.2 CONCLUSIONS:
5.4.2.1'Subseries 1A.
0.90
NUMEX3
o. 6o- NUWEX6 See Table
p
Pd NUMEX7 5.4
NUMEX8
x- - --x--x NUMEX 9
0.30 4- - 0, - -10 NUMEX 10
1.20
0.90
opie
p 100 NUMEX 3
Pd o. 6o NUMEX6 See Table
NUMEX7 5.4
A .1 NUMEX 8
4- .41. NUMEX9
0.30 04 NUMEX10
E/c y
1A 1A 1.15 1.15
NUMEX NumEx
C. L. C. L.
1.197 1.197.
NUMEX7 NUMEX
C. L. C. L.
1 i
1.12 1.12
NLMX NUMEX10
ý
4
E-4
(D
(D
0
C/I
0 CD N
A4 pq
CO
rl- W\ cr\ co I: t 'Cl-
\0 E- E- co C*\ \10
"I I
40 6 6 6 6
P4 914 .1d P
U'% WN
P4 P4
o
K'\ W\ ý10 Lr\
Itzr
co
N
co
Ul%
W\
co
144-
co
\ýo
E-
ON
WN
C\j
. ri
P4
04
1
4-3 0
m 3ý
liZ
4p.
M
+)
H
Cl
(D
C\j C\j trN PC\
ý.Il
C\j
11 to
4 Lrý
04
op
0
P4
P4 E-4
8 le 11
II
NN 110 t- co * ON 0
T-
-
183
analysis.
grades of concrete.
slabs in this series were all simply supported on three sides, and
free on the fourth. The slabs were designed for a uniform load of
20 KN/m2-q and the analysis was intended to study the behaviour for
184
various sides ratios. In these slabs, the free edge has always been
this series can be found in Figures (5-5) and Figures (D17 to D24) in
Figure (5-19). From these figures, it can be seen that most of the
load is carried by bending of the strips parallel to the free edge.
Figure (5.19) shows that for a square slab, 82% of the total load is
carried by strips parallel to the free edge. This agrees quite well
45 0 load load to
case, the distribution will give 75% of the total
edge reduces with the increase in sides ratios. For a slab with a
450 distribution
side ratio of free to short edge of 2.0, the gives
50% of the total load, while the finite element gives 38% of it to be
carried by the strips parallel to the free edge, which indicates that
In fact such an analysis was first undertaken, but it was found that
this was too conservative, for slabs with sides ratio greater than 1.25.
The results an analysis are not. shown here, but it was found
of such
that, yield of steel started at an average load of-0.92 Pd. while the
The same slabs were redes, igned with reduced depths. The assumed
depths were chosen such that the predicted deflection did-not exceed
CQ
x
Lr%
m
185
co
cyl
_:r
N Lr\
H rq H rl
LrI
0
4j
0
0S
0
Lr%
oj
IIS
ý/
/ 01ý 001
1 co C)
rl
cyl
co
0 9
ILL
CY)
c'J
0
(r4
\M t-
%lo
\0
0 0
. r-j 0 4-ý
4-)
0
(D 0 P4
ýq -H
1
0/, "0
,/ 4-)
), \JD $4 IL4
0 0.1 0
P4 m
Q
o
Co
0m 4-3
0 ci
0 Cd
0 CYI (1)
., j lz
U, N m
4
$-4
0m > C2
i s6
1.20
0.9
p
7d 0.6 -f NUMEXM
i
0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 o. 4 0.5 0.6
61h
1.2
0.9
Pd
o. 6 NUNEX11
NUNEX12 See Table
NUMEX13 5*5
NumEx14
0.3- 0 NLWX 15
I
Free Free
Free Free
86 1.711 82 71 67 1 67
75 75 1.08 93 . . . .
*97 . . .
_. 1.75
97. 89 82 78 93 86 78 75 71
.
-97 . . . . . . . -
1.001
1.0 *93 86 82 78 97 89 82 78 75
-93 . . . . . . .
w2
.
;1 C. L.
i. o4l .-93
93 89 86 82 (n
08 93 86 82 82
. . . .J.. . . . .
k.
04 1.01 -.97 l. o4 . 97 . 93
*93
l. o8
I
simply supported simply supported
1
NUNEX 13 Num 14
Free
rd 1.12 93 81 70 70 65
. . . . .
93 81 76 73 70*
0
P4
. . . . .
P4 96 88 81 76 73
:j . . . . . C. L.
M
1.12 93 88 81 81
. . . .
P4
93
.
U)
1.12
simPlY supported
NUMEX*15
0
. ri
4j
42
cli cu CU
Ul\ m H t- t-
Co Co t- 1%D %Z
ro 0 0 0 0
01 c;
%I0 t r-i
NZ
ro B
c GD _:
e
c; c; cc; c; c; CZ
1
111 m
114 914 0 C) (D
rn
41
ri CU r4
CM c\ t- t-- 0)
cm 0i, C\i
2
,ri cu
0
4-1
ri
.»
CD
CY (n LA,
LA
CM UN
cz
00
00
001
7777/
ir Ul%
189
5.4.4 Conclusions:
(1) The service behaviour of all slabs in this series was satisfactory.
in this series were all simply supported on two adjacent edges and
edges were free. The slabs were designed for a uniform load of
20 KN/M2. and the analysis was intended to study the behaviour for
various sides ratios. In all slabs, the long free edgewas always
supported edges. The column at the opposite corner always takes 25%
of the total load, -irrespective of the the sides ratio of the slab.
As the sides ratio increasess more load is carried to the long side
support. For a side ratio of 2. the load carried by the long support
is 1.4 times that carried by the short side support. But in general,
the bending moments in the long span strips are almost equal to those
in the short span direction,, and represent the maximuca moments in the
variation of the design moments along each strip is very gradual, and
is almost constant. The reaction at the end of the long free edge,
In general, apart from the square slab, the maximum deflection in the
slab occurs at a distance of Lx 13 from the column, along the long free
distance of 0-53L from the column along the diagonal. The deflections
1.2 J-
0.9 00.
. 1.0
p- .,0
Pd
o. 6
NUI4EX 16
NUMEY.17 See Tp.ble
NUMEX 1 5-6
0.3 NUMEX 19
0 NUMEX 20
1.20
ý_o
0.9
p
Pd o. 6
NUM 16
NUNEX17 See Table
0.3 18
NTJMEX 5*6
NUMEX19
NUMEX20
I
0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0 .0
c Ay
c1 1.16 l. o6 95 85 80 80 801
. . . . .
,
1.16 1.06 . 95 95 . 90 . 90
AS'ý I 16 Supported
Free
k,
77 73 73 82 96
091 *82 . . . . .
96 87 77 82 82 91 87
. . . . . . .
1.0 87 82 96 91 82
. . . -87- . . .
0 1.0 91 87. 96 1.0 87 77
. - . . .
0
Q)
1.05 96 96 1.05 96 87 77 N
P:
. . . . 4
>1
Simply supported
NUMEX 17
1.05 84 68 68
:ýIk
. . 72 . 64 72 84
. . . .
1.05 88 76 68 72 72 80 8o
. . . . . . .
1.12 88 80 72 84 92 76
. . . o76 . . .
. 92 84 76 84 92 88 76
. . . . . .
97 88 84 88 84 free
. . . . 1.00 . . 72
simply supported
NUNEX 18
free
i. o4 80 68 68 68 64 72 80
. . . . . . .
i. o4 84 72 68 72 72 80 80'
. . . . . . .
::.
88 8o 7:2 72 80 92- 8o
rd . . . . . .
free
92 80 76 80 88 92 76
. . . . . . .
96 84 80 84 96 88 76
. . . . . . .
1.08 92 88 1.12 80 76
. . *92 . .
l. o4 i. oo. l. o8 1.00 84
.
simply supported
NUMEX19
Figure (5.26) P/P Causing Yield in Series 3.
d
194-
frpp
1.00 67 67 67 63 71 92
*83 . . . . . .
l. o4 88 71 67 67 71 80 88
. . . . . . .
1
88 80 71 92 8o
. . . *71 080 . .
4-3
p
0 92 83 75 75 83 l. o8 75
P4 . . . . .
P4 free
88 80 92 96 75
. . *83 . . .
P4
96 88 92* l. o4 1.00 80
. . . .
l. o8 96 1.00 1.12 83
. .
--- 1 1 1 1 J
-1
Simply supported
NUMEX20
ý,
M;
UN 0 CN
LrN
\.D t- co CY\ 0
m
r-4 r-i ri r-i C\j
rl
>4 8 >4 H
- co
Fd
I
rt:%
0 (D
0
P 4
U-\ Cýj
N
C;
I!
H
%lo
0
. \0 48
co r-i
0.
(YI
CO CY)
CVI
4-3
.1
CO. 0
CY) 0
P4
y
oly ;q0 ;4
0 ., 1 4)
ý'D g 1:11 X-4 M
v 4-3
A Cc w
0>
-Yi rq 0
0
m (Y) 4-4 a
CY) - IýR CO to ., i
C\j 00 4-)
*
Uý S: M 4ý
0 r. (L)
-rq 0
t -rq
4J to
$4 Cd rd
cd (1)-H
>
>-h
>-41 ý4
196
.H
0
4J 4j
C) ci
:11 ro \D Co CY
_e
P-4 gl, r-i ri
A 1:
(> K-N
rd %Z %Z
914- \Z t- \M
.
ni O\ e- Co b- t"
Co
c;
Lr\ O\ ON Co
94 Co M
rcj m _e
c;
M \M t-- 4-)
U-% \M clý 0
40 si CU CM CM
(D
0
CM
r-4
CD
4-2
CH
0
CD
Z C\i 0
4-)
CM
C\j
II "'
0 0
CD cm LA
.X A A
00
pl A
X
Co
Oj
197
5.4.6-coriclusions:
(1) The service behaviour of all slabs in this series was satisfactory.
of 0.70 Pd.
(2) Yield of steel started at an average load of 0.67 Pd. The spread
edge.
This series includes the test runs NWEX 21, NUMEX 22 and
their supporting beams. All three slabs had the same dimensions,
and had identical supporting beams. but differed in the amount and
distributed load of 20.8 KNjm2 which was the design load for
.
rectangular mode and the diagonal mode of the slab, Figure (5-29).
However, NUMEX 23, which was also designed by the direct design
A sandwich model (Section 3.7) was used in this case, and the model
the two.. methods is given in Figures (5-31), and Table (5.8). At the
middle of the slab, both the yield line theory and the present design
2
procedure (for flexure only) give an ultimate moment Of -SL
24
In this particular case, both the upper and lower bourid'solutions
coincide, when considering the diagonal collapse mode for the slab.
that by the design for pure flexure (see Table 5-8). But
required
the edge beams moments increase by about 18%, and is about 55/'-',
above that required by the yield line analysio. Thus$ the reduction
r
L
(Integral and Unintregal Systems)
Hogging
Yield Line
(Integral systems)
steel than that required for flexure only, the increase in this
of only 7/%between the two designs for the particular case at hand.
But still both designs are more economical than the corresponding
be drawn:
5.4.8 Conclusions.
1. All the slabs in this series had identical service behaviour.
service load range, but did not affect the deflections after
along the full length of the beam had the effect of enforcing a
forces were taken into account in the design or not, both systems
Two slabs in this series were considered. Th6 slabs were simply
supported on three sides, free on the fourth long edge, with a side
ratio of 2.0. Both slabs had the same dimensions and were designed
C.
23 4.8
950 1
10 Co 8
1 _zr
CM
150.5
-T
152
2 9.5 rm
1.20 76
950
mid
1.00 * x
K .
K
K
x
0.80
p
Pd
7.
o. 6o
NUMEX21
See Table
5-7
o. 4o x NUMEX22
9 NUMEX23
.
0.20
a-e NUM 21
NUMEX 22
A
ANUMEX23
1.2 1 L,
MO
24
1.0
0.8
! LX
o. 6
m
0
o. 4
0.2 L.
0-0 0.04 .1 .2 .3 .4 .5
Y/Ly
.
Design Moments in the Slab
1.6
1.4
1.2
1.0
Mxbw
o. 8
MOL
o. 6
o. 4
0.2
0.0
0.1 0.2 0.3 o. 4 0.5
x/L
x
Design Moments in the Beams
TENSION
y
1000
800
Nx 6oo
c1h 141---
4oo - ----ý
200 -
0010.2 0.3 o. 4 0.5
0.0
y/L
-200 COMPRESSION y
Design Membrane Forces along the Centre Line of the
Slab
NX
qh
x/L x
L.
96 98 81 78 76*
. . . . .
C. L. '
75 91 91 91 89 C.L.
. . . . .
96 94 89
-77 . . NUMEX22
84 99 89
. . .
89
091 .
91 84 751 75
. . .
C.L.
99 99 83 78 75 C. L.
. . . .
91 t. 86 81 78 78
. . . .
;. 23
NUMEX
81 78 81 81 83
. . . .
73 1; 78 78 86 99
. . . .
68 73 . 81 . 91 . 99
.
0.8
p o. 6
Pd
o. 4
0.2
e/e y
Figure--(5-3ý) Load-steel strains in the supporting beam
(mid span section)
1.10
1.0
0.9
0.8
-C, 0.7
o. 6
0.5
o. 4
e:/ cy
Z: - bD
4-1
0 0
C) $-4 a) e 's, zi
er-j
4) ýA Dc
QO)G
- ri ni
H 0
i7 cd 0
ýý
C) 0
'to ri
HH 2
0 8 4J M0 0
1
0 Q) 9) -H il 00 (L) -H (1)
CJ 'd >b 4-1 U0 fcj = :Z
ro
CM CM
H H H ri
LN Co
t- \lo
U;
rd
to
Ul\ Lr\
Ea
Q)
., -I
\o 1IM CM LI-
C\i _e
CY CY Je
Co CD CO m
4-)
CM
0 0
4-4 1-ý m m m m (n
;J c4 (n ri (n ci
c) 1
4-1 uý M C\i C\i 0)
0 0 U'\ Lr\
%. ý UN LA H rA 4-3
4-4
0
0
CD
c\
H mi Cii cli
M
*0
cl ci
D
0
' /
CM 2,loqaalT. TH
CU CY C\i ri
_e Lr\
208
NUMEX21 NTJMEX
22 NUMEX23
Steel volume in
beams (MM3) 2.606 x los 2.7 )( 10S 3.119 x 105
I-- 1- 1- II
11
209
been shown in Section(5-2-3)s the design moments in the two cases are
quite different.
(5.7).
5.4.10 Conclusions
1. The increased amount of steel in the outer strips of (HILLERBORG)
0.69 Pd.
design method (NTJMEX 15) behaved in a more fle. xible way than
the one designed by the strip method. Both deflections and steel
and was concentrated on the strips near the free edge. Yield
.1,1
210
than in NUMEX15.
design procedure requires about 35% more steel than the simple
0.90
p
o. 6o
Pd
0.30
o. 16 0.32 o. 48 o. 64 0.8 o. 96
/h
1.20
0.9
p
Pd
o. 6
0.3
212
I
Free
1.12 93 81 70 70 65
. . . .
93 81 76 73 70
4-1
P . . . .
0 a)
P4
pq
96 88 81 73
0 - . . *76 .
a)
1.12 93 88 81 81 +
. . . . a)
C)
1.0 93 88
- . .
1.12
Simply Supported
Free
1
1 .01 0.96 1.16
i
EXPERIMENTAL MESTIGATION
6.1 INTRODTTCTION
The theory given in Chapter Three has been used in the design 6f
design method, and give a clear insight into the behaviour of the
all designed slabs was chosen to comply with the limiting span/depth
of about 2000 mm is used in all the slabs tested, and accordingly, the
depth, was fixed at 100 mm. The other length of the models was va--ied
point support, and integral slab-beam systems. For each tests the
1. Lateral deflections
Fail=e loads.
214
In all, six Silabs were tested. Table (6.1) gives the details
. . .t..
Supp or c.o.n.d.i. ti OnS Dimens io ns
Test Designation
an elastic analysis on the slab using the finite element prograrip and
on both loads and materials taken as unity, and the design is made
Fig=e (6.1). The amounts of steel given at any point axe per unit
215
length. Two methods can be used to repls; Lce the distributed steel
(a) Since the variation of the distributed steel areas is not severe
co=esponding width.
For the range of. problems tested herel the reinforcement in each
parallel stripsg each having a width equal to the width of one element.
(6-3)*
Along the strips, the averaging process was done only when the
distributed ste'el areas do not differ by more than 25Y6of the larger.
length, and the extra steel needed over the average provided is added
locally across the elements containing the load. The average reinforce-
ment in this area is usually carried right 4-o the supports to ensure
216
normally found near the supportsq where shear stresses might be high,
increased shear resistance. Since the p=ogram does not take shear
stresses into account, a check has to be made to ensure that the slab
the finite element program, but the additional torsional steel had to
bond stress. The designer may have to changd the layout of the
bars more than one timet until he is sure that the permissible bond
both ends, and was adequately secured so that the bars formed a
requirea by the elastic analysis, and at the same time to comply with
between the theoreticýi steel needed 'Wýd that provided for the six
6.5 MATERMS
Aggregates: Hynford sand and gravel were used for all mixes.
The maximurn size of the uncrushed gravel used was 10 =, and the sand
workability mix was used for the models for which the mix was produced
in the laboratory, and a high workability was used for ready made
mixes,, supplied by a ready mix Company, and was used to cast models
Nos-1,5 and 6. These models had very large sizes, and therefore it
was convenient to use ready made mixes rather than make the concrete
18 batches of 70 kg each.
For each model, the control specimens were eight 100 mm cubes
was cured in water, the other half was kept near the model under
a polythene cover.
respective =dels.
(61).
conducted according to the British Standards No. BS. 1881: 1970-
test as
2P
ft
7r DL
properties for each model were calculated and are given in Table (6.3).
samples were cut off from the batches of the steel bars for different
rnnufacturer's instruction manilal. The yield point for the high yield
Figure (6.11) gives the stress-strain curve for the type of steel used.
Tests on several bars gave an average yield point of 4T3 N/mm2q and an
very small,, due to the effect of surrounding beams. Since the smallest
available bar diameter was 8 mm,for high yield steel, it was discarded$
and mild steel was used instead. The stress-strain curves for the type
300 Ný=Z for the yield point, and 214 KNJmm2for Young's modulus.
6.6'STPAIN GAUGES:
bar after filing off the ribs of the bar, and were bonded using an
connection wires are then soldered to the strain gauges and were
protect the gauges against mechanical damage during the casting process.,
the gauges were coated with Araldite rapid hardening epoxy adhesive.
After fixing the strain gauges on the steel$ the reinforcing mesh was
assembled on the form after the proper positions of the bars have been
marked by a marking pen. Each model was then cast in several batches
When casting and compacting yas complete, the model was left for about
5 hours to dry in the open air. The position of the holes on the model
were checked by measuring the positions of the bolts provided for that
purpose. These bolts would later be used to lif t the model from the
framework to the loading rig, and the holes which they leave on the
After the concrete has-set, the whole of the model together with
control the humidity. The cover is then removed after three days
from the day of casting, and left to dry in the natural conditions
of the laboratory. The model was lifted off the forms after a further
five days using the electric crane in the laboratory, and was placed
6.8 suppons
The simple support system used for the first five models consisted
extends over the whole length of the model, except at the corners.
a thin layer of gypsum plaster between the flats and the slab.
corners are liable to lift up, and might thus reduce the ultimate
capacity of the slab. To prevent this, all corners were held down
had an ultimate strength of 1750 N/mm2, and was made to pass through
a hole in the slab corner provided at the time of casting, then through
rig. Figure (6.14) shows the corner arrangement in one of the models.
Spreader plates were used on the top surface of the slab corner to
keep the corner arrangement intact, the steel bar in the arrangement
221
of the support. The slabs dimensions given in Table (6.1) are gross
each beam will act as if it were pinned at one end and freely supported
The rig was designed for testing slabs subjected to lateral loads only.
1.09 1.25o 1.509 1.75 and 2.0. Thi longer span can vary from 1m up
to 3.0 metres. The rig was'made of universal steel beams and stanchions,
and was designed to support loads up to 600 KN, with a safety factor
models.
loading cables passing through holes provided in the slab at the time
The loading cables were high yield prestressing 7-wires tendons, having
I $I
222
(1) Tvo_'poirits_system:
This was used for model 4 and consisted of one loading cable
transmits its load to the slab at two Points 500 mm apart, using a
This was used for model 3 only. In this case, four loading
passed through four holes in the slab. The cables were then
(3) Eight-points-system:
Each of-the four loading cables transmits its load at two points by
eight points, using only four cables. This system of loading was
used for the rest of the models. The loading systems are shown in
Figure (6-17). ,
tach jack was connected via hoses to a regulating electric pump, capable
the four jacks, and would thus eliminate unequal frictional effects
on the-separate jacks.
cable was passed through 4 load cell and, was anchored on its top
loading arrangement.
cells of 5 tons capacity each. All the load cells are then connected
Each transducer was then given an identification number and was then
connected to the data logger for data processing. A. cross check for
bottom at the centre. The dial gauge used was capable. of measuring
The data logger was used to measure the loads., the strains and
deflections. This was an IBM 5000 type which has 'an MB-Metals 200
The output at each loading step consists of the load values read on
The DVM units are later converted to loads using the calibration
truly vertical$ and they would operate properly under test. The
strain gauges were also checked and defective ones were immediately
load to the slab, and then unloading. Leaks on the hoses and the
jacks also appear during the initial test loading and unloading$
and if detected, they were soon remedied. When all primary checks
have been made, the test was started by applying the load in increments
of 5 KN per load cell. An amplifier read the loads on the load cells,
and when the desired load level was reached, the computer was started
for a complete scan. Results for this load increment were then printed.
The loading was maintained for about 10 minutes, while the underside
of the slab was studied for cracks. The dial reading was also taken
at this stage. The pump was started, a new load increment was applied,
and the whole procedure was repeated until the ultimate load was reached.
225
\M t- t-
cm
(n
CD
ch
_e
\Z
ri
ri
0 0 0
0 0 0 0
x 0 0
Co zr
4-1 0 Co (A t- UN
Co 41 \. 0 m oi Je
tk-i 10 0 C)
1
c;
4-3
10 U
tß Cd
rl
4-3
cd
CM 2 .0
Co Co 4-)
g
0
Lr\
H _e
r-1
(D
H
C)
cm 0
p4
e
&1 0 (D CD LQ
rl
4J
to
I
ri
u
Co Co CM N«\
\M m Igt
\M CM m CID
rA CD
M 4j (D (D (D 0 0
x 0 CD CD (D (D
riZ0 4)
10
4-)
0
4J
Co (n t--
--t
LI- LI- t- Co ri
cm
UN CU gz
0 C) 0
+i CD . f.4
4J 0
Co PQ
(ý (5
Lr\ O\ LA cli
4-) UN
0 0 m P4
_e
A4 14
0 0
u
rn
CM
ro I
93 cd
ri E-4
to Q 4)
r4 rzi rd 19 rä
Co ca 0 0 0
Q
226
0 0
H ri M
gz %-- cq cu C\i c4 CM CM 2
:
X x PZ
0 0 0 0 9
0 -:0t 0 cm
\M mi r-i H 0)
CM cu 01 pq
cu
rn
12
rlM
43
M
cli CM C\i C\i cu CU
>i
pol
ý4
P4
Lr% Ul\ Je
Lr\
CU cm C\i CM
r-i 4-)
9
rd
Co m Ul\ 9
\Z Co
0
1-
Z . m
4 . 0. 0 0. 4
cn, ri CM N m
'l-
g ri t- cl
ý,0 r-i
uý, A* \jý
UN
ti de
1) 0 tz
H mi
A Co la
Co E-1
cm Lr\ \M
ri ý(Yl _e
Z
42 bo ri(L) r-i r-i
c2 . r f
(D 227
H
r-4
m
X
02
c3 (L)
9-4 H
A
je3 43
PA 01 0
Q) u2
9.6 (U x >b
4-4 Co O\
C
41
A 43
00 4-3
E-4 Q (D 0
C.) . W
Cýj 47, ý
t- m tl- C\j
UN
Co
r-i t-
r-,t- 1-1
m
-1
iT Ll-
(v H0 co
co Cý
C%
-. r co cli -T r-f r-4
0
CD
4-)
0
. f. j
0
c"
t- ri Co Co CM c\ CD e- Co 0
Lr\ t' r 09 m Lr\ cm (n
N _e - _: _e cý --r Co 00
HW
bo
H Cd
Wk
Lr\
LrN
C\j
,\,''1 CD
1t0 1
"\ ýo
LA 1
c" c,>1 - c,,1
CO
M Lr\
606400040006
\z
-r
.
\.0 0
U'\ Co
C\i UN
-«.r \M
0 ca
(U
4-)
1 ! \4) rl 1 t- 01 cm cm 1 t- t- 1 c\ \m 2 CY\ 4)
UN Co At M. r-1 0 t- Cl% H
-t
Lt\ r-i M C\i _e ci tr\
_e \lo e Lr\ .e
U-\
cm 0000000004100
ý4
43
(a 0
Op
LN O\ CM cm C\i (1 w\ u-%H H lýID
Co Lr\ Co Ul\ t- --t \M M _-r Co
_r CD Co C3N
ri CM m
I-_:
Lr\ UIN
r tl-
_r
cli
228
C. L. C. L.
L. ý. 1 :
145 18ý 34ý. ý2-9 47'7] l'2'.
. -5
C. L.
113.9 126.97149-59162.20
145 69-17174.2
75
50
25
C. L.
1 1 d d
33.7 89.1J49.7 180. 154. 142.8i
200
150
100
50
0
H
Co
I
C-)
m
--L
0
-- ___ -.
L.
01_. " -ea--
I a-------
--
i_.. C\j
a
-- -_- --- ----------
_j" 0__J 0
---.. __
II a-a. __ -
_j 0--
Lr\
t
______
--k-- --
H
I-- III ___ "_ --a... -
_j
II C\j
H
II H
0 ri
-___
II
--L--L-----. --
0
0
P4
r-I
0 r-i
Ll- cu
Q)
0 4-)
C\j w
10,
I-
- -- ý- -- -ý -- 4- - ---q--- 4-ý
0 0
Lr%
rý
Cd
- -ý. -- -4 -- -ý- ---
4 U-'
A- -- A- ---
- 0
UN
Lr%
i Lr\
t--.
zr
r-i .H8 00
LA Ul%
r-i
mm
H ri
Co
r-i
230
10
0
10
1%c
1:71
Lr\ LA
(n
mi
(n Co
ri
8
231
0
\ýo
r-4
C\j
co rl
0
Ll-
--F-- I
0
Co
CM
VN
0'
t'-
ri
C\j
0
H z
c>
UN
0
., -j
0
4-)
0
A
8 0-ý
Cd
cli
UN
Co
H
000000000
Lr\ VN Ul\ Co \lo Co Lr\ U'\ Lr\
cu ,1 cm 1 CU iH. ri . r-1 1 cm i cm CU 19
,
232
LN
Co
CM
rJ2
A
0
ID
Co
UN
Co
00
Lrl% UN Lr\ Lr\ Lr\ U-\
C\j C\j C\j NI- C\j C\j
1.
-11
%Z
C\i 233-.
cl-
cl
S
S 0
z
co
H- 0
. rj
H
(D
LrI%
0 U-N P4
0
0 E-4
0
11 I
ID
C\l
C\j
-H
LrN
;r
Lf"\
llq*
Irl
C/2
Ul\
Fl
0
-61
Ul\ 4-)
p
Lr\
n
Cd
WN
KN ý,o Z C-4
234
co 0 J
IýAxlp-,
0
P:
0
c
li
m
,
OOT
OOF,
OOF,
00i
ooý
ocf
oot
0
z
o0a
oof
OOT 4-4
Q6T or-
+1
06T
-
-1
061
,* "o
06T
A
0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Lil% Lr\
0 0 0 0 0 0 o 0 0 0 o \ýo cl- CC)
C\l
C'l-
11
235
04 H
a)
Id
0
0
CD
M-% H
P4
0
r-4 E-4
0
C-
8
LN Ul% c,cl
\Z cl- 0
Kl% KIN Kl% r-i CO
.
236*
CC)
IQ. 0
0
(D
r -4
%Z
T-
04
00 L
ooz
00
00
00
9LI
ON
09
06
0ý
UN
00
9)
Z le
0ý
o6
ON
F.
00
00 L Cd
CD
00 L lýý
ON
00 L
08 80000008 000
00 Gý 01% 0 (7\ Cl% 000
C14 I I C\j I- I- I-
T- I'V-' I T- . , -r- T- , "zl- . r- T- I
237
0
0
cli
Lf'
C-
0
0
'7
0
P4
0
E-4
0
0
cli co
0
0
PC4
000000o0 (7% 0
00 Cl\ 00
CN C%J
KIN
238
ISL
N
cli --
I'D
Co
1. N
I-
S
C,
%Z
0
z
CH
0
CD
(D
42
;2
Cl\
cli
C'N
239
ei '
co
'IQ.
Cd
0 0
R:t 0
1-t
0
0
C\j
%4;
r-4
ID
Id
4-1 0
P
0
E2 Co
0
0
cli
ri
. r-j
Cd
4-3
00
oo M
'-Ic"
b,O
4.3
P
0
m
r-I
. rj
Cd
4-3
co
'IQ. Q)
P
C 0
1 0 I
04
C\j
240
L= Length of
the cylinder 150 mm
= 300 mm
2P
7=T
Stress
Nl= 2
500
400
300
200
100
000
001 093 0-5 0-7 0.9
Strains
FiMe (6.11) Stress-Strain Curve for the High Yield
Steel Used.
241
Stress
N/MM2
300
Q 144;U. 1.11
FLAT
ROLLER
FLAT
II
PLAN
FLAT
ROLLER
ELEVATION
FLAT
ROLLER
FLAT
Edge Beam
orthogonal
orthogonal
V-roller
Flat-Roller
System
System
- 7!Z7
2000
UB 305 x 127 x 37
loft
3400
CD
Il
Isr In ln. -L, 9w9sJ-m-V- WAm ICLIW :6..
11
1
UC 4o6 x 173 x 60
02
rZ
. f. 4
m
H
.H
cl
0-1-1
co
247
'CHAPTER'SEVEN
T-1* INTRODUCTON
behaviour.
A32 the slabs were tested under the action of concentrated loads.
ratio (L_,/L
of 1.5. The slab was designed for a total load of
y)
416 KN. This design load was chosen in order to obtain reasonable
of steel was done using the design bending moments in each strip of
248
was used to connect bars of different diameterss and was carried out
(5).
according to CP110 rules The total volume of steel provided in
Figure (7.2). First visible dracking started at about 0.29 Pd, but a
The first cracks were observed under the load points and were a
maximum width of 0.13 mm at 0.29 Pd* With increasing loads, the cracks
tended to spread from the load points and to cover the central zone
central zone. 'The maximum crack width reached 0.3 mm at a load of 0.45
the short span direction at the centre of the slab. At this load-,
-
tiny visible cracks in a narrow band along the diagonals reached the
corners of the slab. UP to this stage, no major crack had formed, and
4ý9
the vere evenly distributed over the bottom surface of the slab.
1-06
0-875
19
0
Oo75
"A
1-4
0-625
"A
r-4
P4
Os5O
H
Cd
+2
0
E-4
0-375
0-25
0-125
1.0
0*875
0 e75
0
o-625
(D
Cd
ý9
0-50
H
P4
P4
4:4
H
Cd
+3 0-375
0
E-4
0-25
0-125
r-I
A co
co
o
P4
P4
0
0-4..
Pri
253
a well defined yield line pattern was developing. The strains in the
at the centre was yielding. At 0.8 Pd, when the'deflection was about
0.38 h. a sudden shear failure. occurred. This was a deep long crack
running near and parallel to the long supported edges. The concrete
cover on the bottom surface of the slab spalled off along the shear
crack. Due to the sudden shear failure., the whole the
of central zone
shear.
Figure (T. 6), and a summary of the behaviour is given in Table (7-1).
a load of 0.56 Pd* Also these first cracks appeared under the load
The maximum width of these cracks under the cracking load was
increased to twice their values before the cracking load. The spread
between the loads, and verir near the corners of the slab. But only
at Pd did they reach the slab boundaries. Thus a well defined yield
that steel did not yield at all at this high service load. First yield
of reinforcement was detected in the short span steel around the slab
centre. This first yield occurred at 0.94 Pd. -However, a rapid increase
in steel strains was observed after the first yield load, as can be
seen from Figure (7.7). After a load of 0.98 P., cracks tended to
At 1.13 PdI 'nost of the strain gauges on the steel bars indicated
strains higher than yield strain for steel. At this load level top
surface cracks started to appear. At 1.31 Pds the dial gauge at the
centre of the slab was rotating freely and the load on the load cells
started to drop. It was very difficult, --* to maintain the load at that
level.
The load of 1.31 P was then taken as the failure load for this
d
Fhen the slab failed. Each corner reaction measured onlY 7% of the
1-3
Id
Cd
0
0.9
0
1-4
P4
0-7
Cd
-fj
0
E-4
0-5
Oe3
0-1
04
6
6
1-4
1-3
1-2
1-0
0
0-8
0-6
E-4
0-4
0-2
P-4
P4
914 C'4
Pý
a 0
P4
0
Cd
co
P-4 P-4
m
C14
I CO ,0
P-4
KIN
c; . P4
Id
P-1 P-4
4-
C\l
T- 0 Id
0 cd
co
Y-
0 P-1 19
co l- S
Ný T-
0-1ý
co
7 r-
Er 0
P.,
zr
KIN co
CM
T-
- 1
.
259
10 3 (LX/L
T. 2.3*Model simply supported):
y=1.0,
system, as can be seen from Figure (T-13). The model was loaded in
First visible cracking was observed directly under the four load points
load, no cracks appeared in the central zone of the slab. The first
of these cracks in this zone was observed at about 0.48 Pd' and were
along the slab diagonals. The spread of surface cracks in this model
was faster than in the previous two models. Under the load of 0.48 Pd'
Figure 7-9).
while the crack 1=**t width of 0.3mm was reached at 0.67 Pd* At 0.76
although some new cracks continued to form outside the central square
surface cracks also appeared near the corners of the slab at this load
Ici 1-2
W
0
1.0
19.
H
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 1-2
0
p1 00
Ici
r-I
Cd
4.3
0
E-t
o-6
0-4
0-2
04
cu
4-)
'
cc) d
ON Q)
co- -P
C,% p
0
P4
P
,
KN
K-N
7
PL4
T- Co
CD
P4
Xt*
264
IC'1 -4 (P JL y
T. 2.4 m6c 1.02
adjacent sides only, pinned at o*pp osite corner. The slab was
designed for a total load of 90 KN, and was applied as two point
at t hree points: under the two load points, and around the middle
of the free edges. These occurred at a load of 0.39 Pd and were 0.04,
0.05 and 0.06 mmin width respectively. With increasing loads, the
cracks tended to spread from the centre of tbe slab towards the free
a wide band covering the zone between the load points and the
-over
propped corner. Cracks reached the confined corner at a load of 0.60 Pd*
width measuredwas 0.3 mm.,under one of the point loads. At the centre
of the free edgeg the maximumcrack width measured at this load level
was only 0.18 mm, and the deflection near the samepoint was only 6 mm.
By a load of 0.67 Pa definite Te-e-shapedcrack pattern had developed,
d
but still new cracks were developing near the corner prop (see Figure
started at the centre between the two load points, at a load equal to
265
VL
0-88
o-66 w. Experiment
Cd L Theory
X
19
0044 '211
LY
LX/Ly 1-02
P
4 21L
-,E-4
0 0-22
1 010
74
0-68
o-66
Id
HA
0-44
H
Cd
-4j
0
E-4
0-22
Ici
ci
0 00
0 00
Ici 00
0
. ri
r-i
00
ce
-p
E-4
ooý
Oe(
cAy
Fig=e (7-18) Load-Steel Strains in Model
268
(D
'd
0
ON
m
0
02
P4
All
0 Cd
cli
Cd
Pý4
CM
c'j
S
0
269
the design load, and then at-the centres of the free. edges at 1.1 Pd'
Of 1.1p Pd* The load cell at the corner diagonally opposite to the
at collapse.
The top surface cracks near the held down corner between the two
This model had the same dimensions as model 1. but was designed
for a lower load of 2.16 KN. The model was reinforced according to the
average moment in the strips, and steel was curtailed at points where
it was not needed. Details of the loading arrangement together with the
and was observed at about 0.46 Pd' This early cracking had the effect
could be due to the use of a lower grade of concrete, than in the case of
The first visible cracks were observed under the load points.
pattern, particularly in. the central square defined by the loading holes.
At the cracking load, maximum crack widths measured, 0.15 mm and 0.18 nm
nearone load point near the centre, and at the mid point of the slab.
1-4
1-20
19
0
1-0
0-8
HP4
P,
o-6
H
co
-P
0
E-1
0*4
0-2
O-C
O/n
1-2
I0
r-A
.0
.§1
P
I
0-8
P4
H
Cd o- 6
0
E-
0*4
0-2
0-0
0*5 100 2 0'0 2-
r-/E:
(7-23) y
Figare Load-Steel Strains in Model 5
v
273
7I
o
C
274
deflection limit of span/250 and the crack width limit of 0.3 nm were
increasing loads new top surface cracks tended to form rather than
on the four sides. The beams had the same cross-sectional dimensions
all around. The dimensions, materials properties and design loads for
the system was designed for flexural components only. In addition. '
due to the fact that the present layered finite element model under-
i'torsional
forces on the beams, tensile reinforcement on the top surface
75
between the slab and beams was vex7 small. Accordingly, this reinforce-
(5).
ment was also provided according to CP110
The total design load for this model was 240 KN. Resulting
by applying the load in increments of 5 KN per load cell. Figure (T. 25)
those at the middle of the slab, and at the mid point of each beam.
given in Figures (7.29), (7-30) and (7-31). The behaviour of the model
cracks were observed on the inner side of the ribs of the long beams,
around points in line with the loading holes marked in Figure (7-33).
it can be seen that the slab is not very much affected by cracking at
this load level and was probably behaving in an elastic manner. However,
beams. At a total load of 0.46 Pd' cracks were spreading in the middle
third of the inner side of the rib, but did not reach the outer face
of the long beams. This cracking at the middle third of the beam
caused tiny cracks to form at the middle of the slab at a load of 0.533
P These tiny cracks were running parallel to the short edge beams, and
d*
had a maximum width of 0.03 = at 0.533 Pd*- At this load, the cracks
on the long beams were extending to the bottom face of the rib, and
reached the outer faces of the beams. The depth of these cracks on
277
r--
the inner side of the ribs of the long beams did not the
reach
-mid
depth of the rib at this load. A general trend to form new surface
cracks rather than to open up the existing cracks was observed. The
maximum crack width in the middle third of the ribs of the long beams
third of the long beams. However, the first cracks on the long beems
midheight of the ribs at a load of 0.625 Pd* Although this load may
be taken as the service load for this model, cracks were generally still
very narrow. The maximurn crack width at this load was only 0.13 mm near
the inner edge of the ribs of the long beams, at points in line with
the loading holes. At this load, first cracks were observed on the
outer face of the short edge beams. These cracks were much smaller in
width than the cracks in the slab, and thus were not measured. Also
at this load, the cracks at the centre of the slab were spreading
of about 350 to the edge beams. Some of these cracks reached the
third of the long beams covered the full height of the rib from inside,
width of the largest crack measured 0.2 nm, just under the loading
holes on the inner side of the ribs of the long beams. On the outer
face of the ribs. most of the cracks extended to about half the total
depth of the beams. Cracks on the outside of the short beams als. 0
reached their mid depth, but still no cracks appeared on the inner face
279
1.6
1-4
Id
Cd .
0
r-4
1000,
1-2
(D
-Q.
.j. /II
1-0
i+
1( 11
P4
0.8
0
Expetiment
E-4
Theory (Pin)
o-6 Sandwich
I
xx Theory (Roller)l
0-2
were observed to reach the supporting long beans, indicating the first
this load.
cracks on the long beams were formed on the inner side of the rib near
the supported corner, and were extending to one third the depth of the
rib, but 4id not form on the outer face of the rib. These cracks were
inclined 0
at about 150 with the centreline
generally of the long
beams, measured from the corner side. The first cracks on the inner
side of the short beams were also observed at this load and were
rapidly covering its middle third zone. The maximi= extension of these
cracks did not exceed one third the rib depth, and did not extend
beyond the middle of the rib breadth from the bottom face. On the under
side of the slab, the major cracks at the centre of the slab had reached
the long beams., and joined with the main crack at the middle of the
beams.
the corners. This time this cracking also occurred. on.the outer face of
the beam ribs and were running in a direction normal to those formed
on the inside of the ribs. These cracks may be due to the interaction
torsional cracks onýkthe outer face of the long beams. At this load
level, the earliest cracks were noticed to widen. The maxi=m crack
1
o5(
1*33
1*17
1-0
19
0
0-83
0-67
ti
-P
0
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
1'O
Q)
0
1-4
0-83
o-67
0
E-4
0-50
0-33
0-17
lZ
C/I
r.
4-4
Cd
P
4-2
ý9
Aý
N
WN
t--
\M
K\
Kl% 0
t--
0
%,
Kl\
Kl\
9
0
psol USTSO
Cl/peoI T-.
eloz
284
- a.,
II
II
II
I I. I
II
II 1125
II
II
II
II
II
»
870 3120
1".
.
1125
II
II
II
L-
width was 0.3 = near the loading holes on the ribs of the long beams.
these were confined to the extensions of old cracks near the corners
of the slab. A major crack through the corner junction between the
two beams was formed at about a load of 1.19 Pd' indicating the
around this load near the corners, along the junction between the beams
and the slab. On the bottom face of the slab, the major crack at the
centre was wideningt and was continuous with that at the middle of the
test was then stopped, due to excessive deflection, and the load of
Table (7-ýI) sin= rizes all the test results. The service load
design.
made of the elastic stress distribution under the design load by the
286
-ri
Im
%Z N t- Co
1- CD
PL4 ro
C% cr% GD
M
lid
E-1
Lr% Lr\ N-\ Kl%
OD \.0 1%0 a)
Jý
0
.H
02 43
CO-4
0
?4
0)
lid 0
CH
(D Ul\
-lý e t-- t- %Z %0 CD 0
19
0
Cd
0
CM CM
Cd
cc
0
C-4 P.,
m
cm cy C\i CM
CQ
0 to
Cd
0 '-I
H .
0 Id
r-i H
oý a) w
CD \M b.0
Y.
,
ab-
P:4
0
-d -,- (D 0 CD 0 C) CD
> rd 5 CD (D CD CD -
-0 T-
;1 'Ire, cli cm
P-ý
P-4 P4
qb- -
112
r-i cli Kl% 142- Ul\ %Z
287'
normal practice is to design for the ultimate limit state, and then
section properties had been used. In this study, the elastic deflections
have been used with the Branson's method (Section 2.3-1.1), to predict
deflection under the design ultimate load, the service deflection will
be
r
6xI (
c/ LF x. I
pe9 eff
in most tested slabs the li-ve load is about 10 times the dead load,
U-% 0 0 \0 0
4OP4
Id 0
v -H
LCI% C\j co Ul\
Id * C-- C\j
Q) 4-4 P4 tc\ 0 .0
(D (10 r- ::r ý10 C- ulý
0
,a
Cd
C\j \. O LI-
0 C\j U,,% cr \
a) to Kl\ 04
E-4
0
--4 C\j cr\ co ON co 4-3
Cd a) a, \ C\j Kl\ 0 co C\j +3
Cu (1) Kr\ K'\ Kl\
02 04 0 0 H CH
04 0
-: 0
0
-H
E- Cl\ 44
o (D . \-O a\
W\ o-,
a ,\ T- C14 LC\
LCI% UN U-11 U-\ r
cd 4-4
0 Cd
0 0
C\j cr\ 0 T-
ý' r=z9 0. 8
C\j co 0 T-
8 0
Ir"
Ll- it
Zo
(1)
C/2
co
4-)
40 19
a)
4
P4 co
0p (D
P4
(1)%..oo
i 0
Ir. 0
44
4-2 P4 r-
0
E-4 %D
ON ON a\
r-I C\j
E-4
cq r-4
ON
41
4.4 4.3 E-4
14-4
4)
cli K% UN \D
Id r-i
o
289
of the slab. The large deviation in-the case of model 1 is due to the
as a function of the total load on the slab. The crack having the
maximum width had always been one of the first cracks to appear on the
underside of the model. This crack had always been 'under the load
pointso except in model 6. where the crack having the maximum width
surface of the slabs. ' In cases where the distribution of the reinforcement
departs from the elastic analysis of the stresses, sharp and rapid increase
tested heres new cracks were always forming, and the behaviour was not
ca
op
ý4
pa
0
r.
CQ
4 4)
+2 E-4
cli
4
+21
cc
1ý
I
N-
I
Iz:t- C\i 0 Co \Z lle cli
P114d
291
table (7-1) actually refer to the total values at the centre of the
1.2 Pd*
two criteria, viz. the first yield,, and the failure loads.
took place within the service load range in all models. Even the slab
in model ls although its steel was highly stressed due to early cracking,
the reinforcement did not yield within the service load. An average
for all models, except model 1. The shear failure of this model
mechanism.
In fact, both the service and ultimate behaviour of this model are
292
in the slab is different from the tensile membrane action which develops
at high loads. The latter would Occur only when the slab undergoes
very large deflections, and in most cases, the crack at the centre of
the slab runs right through the slab depth. This of course will depend
strains the reinforcing bars may rupture altogether. This will then
between the slab and the supporting beans (Figure (7.28)), prevented
7.3.3'Pogsible'Reason8'f6t'the'DiffLir6rices*B6tv66h'thO-'A: Atumed
.. ýElastic-'F'lelds)*and'Tru6'Ultimat6'Behavi6ur'6f*the'Md6ls.
ultimate loads.
with infinite strength. For concrete with finite strength,, the yield
strength both of which control the slab deflections. and the cracking
load of the slab. As the slab stiffness within the working load is
by the concrete strength, the higher the strength the higher will be
Affects both the service and the ultimate behaviour of the slab.
with extra steel, as can be seen from Table (6.2). In case of model 2,
the extra steel was not an additional steel, but rather resulted from
not curtailing the reinforcing bars near the supports to avoid shear
failures. In case of model 6, the model had been designed for flexure
only, and additional steel was added to resist the excess torsional
stresses over those predicted by the layered model (see Section 4.4.4).
Table (7-3) lists the properties of the steel used in the experiments.
As can be seen from Table (7-3), the type of steel used had a good
reserve of strength after the yield, both in the case of high yield
and ordinary mild steel. This factor defini. t6ly does not affect the
Figure 6.13) is bound to occur. In any case, the effect of this factor
295
C14 M-ý 0
s 0
0'
CH CO
n Cý
rl-
ý
t;
Cl% C\j
ý)
U'N 06
co
U-N Lr% ý11- "::I, ctl
+3
K\ U'l% 0 cr\
c li
T-
C\j Ul\ .0
C14 lid
0)
ý,o co co
ON L--
Ll- Ll-
Ll- \10
Lr%
z .
C14 C\l
4-2
^4
4Z,
%lo CD co Kl\ 4-4
CD co GN CM 0
C\j N C\l
P4
0
H (D
+)
02
00
0-%
(D
4-3 e4l
12)0 co C) \.O CC) N
296
is probably not significant in the first five models. as can be seen
represented by the observed inward bowing of the long beams and the
element model can deal with this problem, as wi3.1 be shown in the next
section.
happens ý.t high loads. At this stageg bottom surface cracks would run
through the whole of the slab thickness. and the load will be carried
(99)
by the tension bars with slab acting as a cat46nary. Literature
present finite element model cannot treat this probIem, since it ignores
and the number of iterations used in the analysis of each. model are
n LN Ul\ Lr%
CY
-p
C)
bi
u2
G2
C\i c"i CNJ r4 C\i CM
M
r-q 4-4
Cd 0
C/I
C) H
0
%, CD CD N'\ K"%
iý cl- r,- 0 Cd
c4 t- %Z %I0
xt Kil -e -e Igt
0
F1
4-4
0 H
Ul% C)
0
4)
cý 0 CD
lý
5 cq CM CM CM c"i cli
P4
C" t-
T
CM
Cý
rc\
%-o
N_ý CM K'\ CD KN
E-4
Id 0 cli
0
299
measured in the. laboratory on the same day the model was tested.
Figure (7.35) has been used. This idealization takes into the
account
strain hardening in the reinforcement after the bars attain their yield
The reason for this can be seen from Figure (6.12) for the actual
stress-strain curve for the type of mild steel used. Strain hardening
All models analysed were designed for flexure only. Due to the
Typical variations of the normal moments and membrane forces along the
long and the short centre line of model 6 are shown in Figure (T. 49)
of analysis had been undertaken here for this model. In the first, the
model was designed for flexure only, and the membrane forces were
completely ignored. The design for this case was done using the equations
for flexure in section (3.4). In the second analysis'. the model was
designed for conbined flexure and membrane forces, using the open
is completely. ignored.
between theory and experiment can be seen from, these results. In the
STRESS
0-8
-
High Yield Steel
STRESS
f
I
F-y
(b) Mild Steel
This stiffening effect can be seen from Figures (7.16,7.17 and 7.42)
beyon'd the service load range. The effect is a numerical one, and
analysis after that. And thus the results are considered satisfactory.
The analysis of the first five models indicated that the enhancement
the slab under working loads, but does not contribute much to the
hardening does not affect the service response, but contributes very
and the membrane forces. The effect of increasing the amount of steel
1-4
. -0
-- a
1-20
. 0**
.00
100
0-8
0-2
70
303.
Analysis A in Fig. (7.29)) were slightly more flexible than the experi-
using the open sandwich model (Section 3-7)- It was found that the
reinforcement in the slab was generally less than that needec, for
the edge beams, the reinforcement in them was higher than that-required
for flexure only (Analysis A). However, an increase of 25% in the total
both cases the designed system will behave satisfactorily under service
loadd, althought designs for combined flexural an'ý membrane forces would
behave better.
304
T-5 CONCLUSIONS
siumnarized as follows: -
and does not necessarily cover very wide strips. The maximum
range. First yield loads were very close to the design loads,
reinforcement.
In slab-beam systems, whether membrane forces are considered in
neglected.
the two beams expedites the collapse of the system, due to the
reduced.
C L.
..
2,10
1 *5
m
V7 1.0
0-5
000
2-0
s-
1-5
1-0
0-5
090 10
AT 1- 31 Pd
AT Pd
first yield load
..,-AT
2-0
1-5
m
MP
1-0
0-5
000
2-0
1-5
1-0
0*5
. 0-0
0
Distance along short C. L.
pigt=e (7.40) Ultimate Behaviour of Model 2
309
C. L.
0..8 80 -80
98 . 98
T first yield
TPd
260
1-5
m
mp
00
0*5
0-0 50
Distance along C. L.
0
pl 1-04 @87 -87 *93 097 1.0 1-11 free
p4
;2
1-08 -93 -93 993 . 9c .9 1-11
1 -11 993
simply supported
MY
2-0
AT Pu
1-5 0
MY
Ilp
AT fimst yield load
1-0
0-5
1913 94
1
s94 -86 -81 U. L.
99 . 89 . 89
2-0
105
m AT Pu
ir
p 1-0 first yield
load
095
0-0
2.0
m
1*5 p
u
mp first
1.0 yield
load
005
0-0
Distance along long C. L.
Figi=e (7-43) Ultimat'e behavio= of Model
1
312
C. L.
Fl.
-92 1-,39 1-39 1-33 1,18 107 07
Ple=al Design
C. L.
1*25
1-0
m
0-75
meje
0-5
0-25
5*0
4,10 x
M
Met 3*0
2-0
AT 14 31 Pd
1-0 AT Pd
AT Pcr
0-0
0-1 0-2 0*4
0-3 0-5
YA7
Distance along BB
1-25
AT 1- 31 Pd
1-0
AT Pd
MX
0975
Me
0950
AT Por
0-25
0-0
Distance along. the long Beam
LA
x
4oý
3eO
Ily- d.
m
et 2-0
1-0
I/
315
TENSION
NA membrane force predicted by elastic
analysis (see Fig-7'. 50)-
1-0
AT Pd & le3l Pd
N
Ne-
0*5 AT Pcr
A_
__
4*0
3*0
1-31 Pd
N 2-0
F
e.j- AT Pd
1-0
AT P
cr
0-0
05
-1'O
1-0
AT 1 1,31 Pd
AT Pd
Ne.t
0-5
AT P
or
0-0
-1'O
300
AT 1 *31 Pd
2-0
NX
Ne'l AT P
d
1-0
AT P
cr
0-0
5
8! 0
7-0
69Q
5-0.
Th;
490- 014 Lx
39Q
21G f
1 OG
8
0
rts
N
SE
0-0
Compression
-2
4.)
tm
4-D
E
0
0
r-4 z
Cd
r-4
Cd
0 0
4-4
0
0
0
. r4
N
C
) 10
. 1.4
1% P-l
000
C\j
H
0
P4
P
ft
0
0
02
.0
ci
cu
14-
5i
%I0
,%-.0
P
A
0 0
0
0
cl,
H
0
Cd
a)
C)
0
f44 0
PN
le
CD
0
Cd
P
10 P
Ei
W
:4
%Z 4-4
0
9
0
. rj
4-2
Co
C
1
CD
c'J
1
0
0
E-4
320
.' MAPTER'EIGHT
'CONCLUSIONS'AND*SUGGESTIONS*FOR'FUTURE*WORK
at its end,, for. -clarity the most important of these will be summarized
below: -
8.1 Conclusions:
(1) In the finite element analysis, a mesh division which is
is strongly recommended.
=re.
Whether membrane forces axe considered in the design of
bars.
occur. In the finite element method, use can be made of the progressive
(43).
relaxation of edge rotation technique developed by Johnarry A
to the element developed here, before it can be used for checking the
present research, the membrane forces were not considered in the design
I
APPENDICES
325
Using the ultimate limit state theorys it can be assumed that the
stress distribution in the section will have the form shown in the
Figure below: 2f
cu
3
C
T,
d X1
Ast
T
if
326
T. (d
Af (d - 1.5 O'd f /2 f
st yy. cu
ef p2ef 21f
p - 75
yy . cu
(. 75 M* 0 (5)
fcu p+
e fy
f
A cu d3
ýM*
st 1.5 fy d2- f
cu
PROGRAM
DESCRIPTION AND IMPLEMENTATION
reduced.
the followling
1. Program FEM
2. Subroutine INTEGRATION
Sul=outine LSTIF
Subroutine BUTX
Sul=outine MA=A
Subroutine RMULT
7- Subroutine LNSRKM
8. Subroutine BOUNDARY
9. Subroutine NORSOL
main program.
1. Program FEM:
the load causing the first cracks in the most highly stressed
P
or
g. The state of stress at a Gauss point is checked and a set Of
pseudoforces is found.
329
h. The structure is reanalysed under the effect of these
i. Results output.
2. Subroutine INTEGRATION:
module. The routine sets the Gauss points coordinates and weigh-ting
Subroutine LSTIF:
Subroutine MTX:
the element dimensions only and axe independent of the layering system.
Different elements strain matrices axe stored and used in the stiffness
Subroutine WMA:
-1 I/ I-P IT
cc] 1T qdx dy
F
Subroutine RMULT:
Subroutine INSM:
constant stiffness methodg this routine is called once only for each
8. Subroutine BOUNDARY:
phase, such degrees of freedom axe removed from the stiffness matrix.,
decomposed matrix.
nodes. The routine is called only once, and reactions axe obtained
only for the first load incrementq and during the design phase.
11 . Subroutine DESIGN:
only once.
DPB---;
-*1.0 Deep beams with elastic design for the
reinforcemdnt. DPB = 2.0 for Deep beams with a
given reinforcement. For slabs put DPB = 0.0
TBEAM= depth dnd supporting'bbans.
of slab
3 2015 IQUTPUT = nodes numbers for which displacements
6utput is required.
4 2015 ICUTPUT = Elements numbers for which stresses and
strains axe requested in output.
5 1415 NREF11 NREF29 NREF3P NREF4s NREF59 NG9 NPNODES9
NDIFEL, NPOINT LOADS9 NBCS9.NLC9 INPLAY9 MOMEL9
NSTIF.
Control data t NREP1 = 1- for unbounded plasticity -
NREF2 =1f or --ýbounded. Only one of these should
be ý 0. NREF3
node number for relaxation analysis
(ý 0 only when NREF4 ý 0)- =4 1 For fixed
Card
. oA
No. '
, -06.-6C1 .,, A . . ".. .,. 'i ,, "* , *.' ,,, '. , '. , '. ,, '. ,,.,
Fo=at Desicrip ion
No. -.
..........
T= slab or beam thickness (mm)
ASTX =1 for main steel in X
ASTY =u<1 proportion of steel in Y direction
LS19 LS3 =Y steel layers numbers
LS29 LS4 =X steel layers numbers
10 3 P12 UD9 PRXO PRY
UD = intensity distributed load 2
of uniformly in N/mm
PRX =X prestress in N/MM2
PRY- =Y prestress 2
in N/mm
11 8 P10 XSIDE(I) = lengths of X divisions. Total No. of
such divisions should be equal to DM. and more
oaxds can be used if >8 divisions. IF REGULAR
= 1.0 in caxd IT6.6, this card is not needed.
12 8 F10 YSIDE(I) = length of Y divisions. Total No. of
such divisions should be equal to DIVY, and more
cards can be used if >8 divisions. IF REGULAR
1.0 in card No. 6, this card is not needed.
13 12 F6 TT12(I) = layers 9/cagethicknesses. Up to 12 layers
can be used.
14 12 F6 BEAML(I) = layers Ycage thicknesses for T beam elements.
Up to 12 layers can be used.
15 2 F6 DN9 DNBEAM
DN = depth of middle plane of the slab. If
unspecified, the default value of T/2 will be used.
DNBEAM= depth of reference plane in Tbeam problems9
which may be different from its middle plane.
16 2 179 (NBOUND(I)v (NFIX(ItJ)p J=1,5)9 PRESC (ItJ)9
5 P10 J=1,5)9 I= l9NB9S-
NBOUND(I) = boundaxy nodes where restraints axe to
to be applIed.
NFIX (Ili) = Fixity code for the five degrees of
-freedom in the order up v, w, Lw f, aw
ay x
If a certain degree of freedom in a node is restrained,
335
..........................................
? OTmat,- De-acrivtIori
No.
........... .... I. 'it 'id 'o6d6 I 'othd: ývii: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)
IL =-secjUential*orde= of'the different elements
with different layers arrangements.
LMOD(IqJ) = Type of layers for each type of
- element.. 'The following codes are used
IMOD =1 for*concrete layers
IMOD =2 for steel layers
IMOD =0 for zero layers
le 20 14 HEWEL(I), imip(I), I= 11 NDIFEL
NEWEL= elements = bers with different layering
systems.
LDIF = layering system number corresponding to
IL in previous cards.
If all elements have the same layering system
then this caxd may be left blank.
19 40 12 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
0-
system,. elements can have different element
type numbers IELC.
20 15,2F10 NPRES(Iý. FNPX(I)q FNPY(I)
NPRM(I) = boundary node numbers where inplane
force in X direction FNPX(I) or in the Y direction
FNPY(I) are appliedg and the magnitude and
direction of these forces. These forces axe
positive if they act in the positive directions
of the global axes. The number of such cards
will be equal to NPNODESin card No-5
21 155 F10 NREST(I)q FIXITY(IjJ)qJ
NaEST(I) ='node no. at which support stiffnesses
336
'Cd:ed
Format Descripti=
No.
................................
FIXITY(I, J) in any direction of the five degrees
6f freedom can be assigned. The mmber of such
cards will be equal to NSTIF in card 5-
22 139 F10 LOADPOINTS(I)v POINTLOADS(l), PMOM(ivj)9J=192
LOADPOINTS(I) = Node nos. at which lateral
concentrated loads. POINTLOADS(I) and concentrated
moment in X and Y directions PMOM(IIJ) axe applied.
Total no. of cards will be equal to NPOINTLOADS
in Card 5- If an elastic design is required (with
MASTIC = 1.0 in card 2) this set of cards should
represent the design point loads and accordinglyv
another set with small loads (of 1/15th the first
design loads) axe also to be added. This last
set of point loads is needed to start the incre-
mentalanalysis.
23 213p F10 NDNODEj LDT_R9DLOAD
NDNODE= node no. at which incremental membrane
force in direction IMIR is to be applied. If
force DLOAD is in the X direction use IMIR = 19
and if in Y direction, LDIR = 2. The number of
such card will be equal to MODES in caxd No-5-
I 337
Progrm Flow Ch=t
RMU & F,MM MAJORDATA
is
NO
DESIGN
REQUIRED
YES
ITERATION
ITERATION LOOP
1
1
338
ELEMENTS
ELEMENTSLOOP
GAUSSPOINTS
GAUSSPOINTS LOOP
II
(D
2
339
, STEEL\ 'N
NO
YIELDING CLONCRETE
AYER ?
YES
NO
3
340
YES
ITERATIONS
>
LIMIT
EXAMINE EQUILIERIUM
COMPUTEEXCESSFORCEVECTOR
F ex Rext R
CALCULATEDISPLACEMENTNORM& CHECK
FOR CONVERGENCE
NO
ISPIACEME
CIONVERGED?
STOP
341
C
'DERIVATION'OF'THE'BOUNDED'PLASTIC*L2ADS
Af (1)
p=XRp
where
Ia
RpZ (R -ZBT dV) (2)
a
in which, Rp total force imbAance vector
degree curve
y=a0+ alx +a 2x
Rp alx -y
-a0-a2 X2
and dR 2a2x dx
p-
for a00
dR /R 2dx/x
p P=
or AR Af 2R d/d.
p= p= pA
Ad/d AR/R
Af 2R AR/R
p= p
342
and ff+. Af
so that k d. R
0
APPENDIX (D)-
N. B.
4
344
m
x
0.10
04 >& 0.08
o. o4 3
(2) 3
0.0
0.1 0.2 3 o. 4 0.5
x/LXO.
Figure (Dl), Positive Moment M* (L /L 1-5)
xxy
0.10 ( 5)
0
1101
0.08
o. o4 (2)
zz;
0.0Z 4---'7-
-ýI 0.2
y/L
0.3 o. 4 0.5
(D2)
y
Figure Positive Moment M* (LX/Ly = 1-5)
y
345
o. o6
o. o4
N >-,
0.02
Z
0.0 -I
0.1 0.2 o. 4 0.5
-0.3
x/L '
x
Fig=e (D31 Negative Moment M* (L /L 1-5)
xxY .
o. o6
>,o. o4
.,
0.02
0.0
0.1 0.2 0.3 o. 4 0.5
y/L
y
Figure (D4)- Negative Moment M* (L A.
y. xy
%J%\'ýNJ4
346
mXu
o. o6 - 1)
(2
(3
10 (5)
(4) (4)
o. o4
(5)
(2)
ýA
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
(3)
0.12
" -ý
ýý .0 -0
cq "I .1 ý'2ý
v // " .0, (3)
.101,
0.08
.00
.00
o. o4
0.0 o. 4
0*1 0.2 0.3 0.5
Y/Ly
Fi gure (D. 6) POsitive M=ent M* (L /L = 2.0)
y xy
2
347
0.
0.
0.1
04
0.08
o. o6
o. o4
0.02
o. ol6 15)
(3)
0.012.
0.008
0 . 004
0.0
0.0
O.C
O.C
49
0.0
0.0
C,J ý>,
1--ý
0.08
Q.o6
Ni.t,
0.04
0.02
0.0
Ly
Fip=e_(Vl2), Negative
Y/
Moment M* (LX/Ly
y
350
0.018-
-----
'-, (5)
/
0.014- /
--',.
/ -.
(4) \
'-
/
(5) 1,
N 'N
0.01 /'N
(1)
I
(4)' (3)
iiIi /_"
S.
5%
N..
0.006- II,
.5
/ .5
I/I
'S
S
I,
-
(2)
0.002
0.
5)
0.
cll).:
t»
cm
0.
0.
0.
Y/Ly
a.
00
cy
4>,
CY,
1-ý
21
0.
0.
X/ Lx
0.
0.
C'i
0.0
0.0
-Ly
Figuxe (D16) Negative Moment llý (L: 2.0)
c/L7--
352
0.04
0.3
WO
C'i 0.2
wo
(2)
(3)
0.1
-----. (i)
(1)
0.0 wI 0.1
--
0.2
L--I
0.3
--L-
0.4 ' 0.6
X/lOc
Fiogi=e (D17) Positive Moment Mx*(Lx/Ly 1-5)
0.14-
(1) (2)
C'i
0.10
(3)
(4)
0.06
A5)
(4)9(5
0.0
E
CL
353
0.12
0.06
cq
0.04
0.0
x/Lx
N,: ý 0.12
0.08
0-04
o-o
Y/Ly
(D201 Negative *x
Moment M. /Lý
Figure ,llx
354
0.8
o. 6
(4)
.00,
C\j
0.4 loo
. 01
10, (2)
0.2
3
(2)
0.1
0.1
0.0
0.0
o. 16
0.12
c,i 0.08
0.04
0.0
X/LX
FigL=e (D23) Negative Moment M* (L /L 2.0)
=
xxy
o. 16
0.12
0.08
0.04
0.0
Y/Ly
(D24) Negative Moment M* (L /L
Figure = 2.0)
yxy
356
0.04
----(3)
0.03 ' (4) --- (4)
0.02
0.01
0.0
x/L
x
Figt=e (D25) Positive Moment 14; (LX/I, 1-5)
7
0.08
C\J, 0.06
4ý,
0.04
0.02
0.
Y/17
Figurd (D26) Positive Moment M* (L /L
yXy
0.08
0.06
0.04
0.02
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
(30)
0.02 ZI-4 ý--
(40)
0.01
(20)
(50)
0.08
0.06
C\j >)
a,
0.04
0.02
Y/Ly
Figure (D30) positive Moment Pl* (L /L 2.0)
yxY
0.10
0.08
f
0.06
0.04
0.02
X/Lx --I
figi=e (D31) Negative Moment X* (L /L
xxy =, 2.0)
0.1
0.08
0.06
0.04
0.02
0.0
Y/Lý
Figure (D32) Negative Moment M* (L /L 2.0)
=
yxy
Y 360
0.08
llx
x
0.
ý.,
WO,
N
ý4
.100
C7,
--
00, ,,
---
0.0.2
04C
0.1 U. 2 U. ) U-4 U. )
X/Lx
Figure (D33) Positive Moment M* (L /L 1-5)
xxy
0.08
(4)
0.06
(5)
0.04-
(2) (3)
0.02- ___(2)
0. '.
csJ
0.
0.
0.
X/L.X
Figure (D35) Negative Moment M* (L /L 1-5)
=
xxy
0.04
0- 03
ý,
0.02
0.01
0.0
Ly
0.08
0.06
0.04
0.02
0.16
0.12
04
.0-.
. 0-1
. 01
. -0
0.08 0
., -0 -11
0.04
0.16
IN 0.12
ca
0.08
0.04
0.5
0.040
0.030
a)
"1-1
C,
'4
4
0 0.020
0
+'
a)
0.010
0.0 0. -1 0.2 c
711,0.3
Figure (D40) Negative Moment M* (L /L 2.0)
=
yxy
0.05 364
c).o4
0.03
04 >1
0.02
0.01
o. o8 -
(3)
ý4
o. o6 -
C14
o. o4 (4)
0.02 - (5)
&
0.08
o. o6
o. o4
z
0.02
0.0
x/L x
Figure-(D43) Negative Moment M* (L /L = 1-5)
xxy
0.
C-4
4
V
0.
0.0 o. 4 o. 6 o. 8 1.0
0.2
Y/Ly
Figure (D44) Negative M* (L /L
Moment = 1-5)
yxy
0.0
366
0.
0.0
(3)
>4
400
0.
_Q1
0.08
o. o6
o. o4
0.02
o. o4
0.03
c4
>-, 0.02
0.01
o. 16
0.12
0.08
o. o4
0.40-
(4)
0.30-
(5)
0.20- ýIf", - -., \I
\ý3) (3)
0.10
(2)
ol 2
0.
cy >,
0.
o..16
0.12
0.08
Z
o. o4
0.0 0.2 u0 L+
x/L
x
0.
0.
0.8
o. 6 -/ JJI.\\
/ \\
,44 ý.. 0.4 -// / dr L3) \
. .
do , --
//// dw \
Iv 0-1 !
*:z >4 I//// (2) 1% \-(5)
- (4)
0.2 - (3)
.10
ý.
:sýý , (2)
o. 4
0.3
0.2
0.1
; r/L
y
o. 16
0.12
0.08
S: K
o. o4
0.20
o. 16
0.1p
o. o8
o. o4
0.2L
0.75Mrci Ole
.1//I
-411
c
Mr= design at centre.
Where L= short span, moment
V=4x0.75 Mc x (0.2L )2
ar
2
= 0.1p Mc ýL
r
V=4x0.12 McL2=0.48 Mc L2
rr
vMc
'o. 48 = 0.48 aI
0"0a=
qLqLI
'APPENDIX E
CALCULATIONS'FOR'SERVICEABILITY
LIMIT'STATES
made.
CC
C
L7 dn
)
hd
EdAEe (1)
ccnsss
dEcsI: 2 -. 1 A2 S (2)
nEc .-. ec mA
sS ec
- 'es d. -7, d
-.. n (3)
ec dn
d2mA (d dn/dn)
ns
arranging
solvi. ng gives
d MA + . 1/(3nA.)2 + 2(mA )d
nssb
'h3 (d h)2
+ (m-1) A
12 s2
9
b. d3
I As (d dn )2
cr
calculated from
13 17
M 3
Mc! M 1
CM] (8)
ýI=I-+
eff g Cr[
in which
elastic deflection as
REFERENCES
2. SZILARD R.
WOODR. H.
7. HU#S B, P.
10. MORLEY C. T.
11. RANGANB. V.
Society of Civil Engineers, Vol. 99, No. ST3, March 1973, PP443-452.
12. RANGANB. V.
13. HILLERBORGA.
15. FERNANDO
J. S. and KEMPK. O.
PP499-509.
19. WOODR. H.
20. ARMERG. S. T.
PP529-536.
378
24. BEEBY A. W.
31. COOKR. D.
PP365-376.
380
39. RAO P. V.
4o. A. W.
WEGMULLER
American Society Civil Engineerss Vol. 999 No. ST-7, July 1973,
of
PP1491-1505.
43. JOIRIARRYT.
1973, PP53-68.
PP523-538.
382
1978, PP53-70-
Report.
1978, P-l'.3o6-312.
591 TASUJI M. E. 9 NILSON A. H. and SLAýE F. O.
66. NADAI A.
Chapter 15 PP175-228.
PP355-369.
68..., ziENKiEwicz o. c.
71... MORLEYC. T.
72. KEMPK. O.
1965, PP737-746.
73. SAVE M.
PP3-12.
74, T.
BRONDUM-ýNIELSEN
75, CLARKL. A.
PP441-454.
77. LENSCHOW
R. and SOZENM. A.
80. CLARKL. A.
82. BUYUKOZTURK
0.
83. LIN C. K.
1979.
84. HAYES B. and TAYLORR.
86. J.
FERNANDO S.' and KENP K. O.
93. BRANSOND. E.
94. NIELSENM.P.
Copenhagen 1964.
388
95. LENKEI P.
PP445-456.
9 8. PARK R.
PP29-38.
99. PARK R.
100 NIELSEN, M. P.
LASGoýV
NE
RAR