Two Way Slab Design With Column Capital

Two-way Slab Design with Column
Capitals
Wayne Hoklas
Brendan Nee
Justin Zimmerman
Dec 16, 2003

Two Way Slab Design with Column Capitals
Table of Contents
Page
Introduction 4
Design Summary 6
Calculations 11
Slab Thickness 11
Loads 12
Direct Design Method 15
Mo 15
Plan View of Panels 19
Lateral Distribution of Moments 20
Plan View of Moment Regions 26
Flexural Design 27
One Way Shear 42
Corner Panels 42
E-W Edge Panels 43
N-S Edge Panels 44
Interior Panels 45
Punching Shear 46
Corner Columns 46
E-W Edge Columns 47
N-S Edge Columns 48
Interior Columns 49
Unbalanced Moment Transfer 50
Corner Columns 50
E-W Edge Columns 53
N-S Edge Columns 56
Interior Columns 59
Negative Moment Reinforcement Checks 62
Equivalent Frame Calculations 63
Exterior Frame 63
Interior Frame 66
EFM Analysis 69
Node Diagram with Coordinates 69
Exterior Frame 70
Output 70
Loaded Structure 79
Moment Diagrams 79
Shear Diagrams 79
Member 10 80
Member 21 81
Member 32 82
Interior Frame 83
Output 83
Loaded Structure 91
Moment Diagrams 91
Shear Diagrams 91
-2-
Member 10 92
Member 21 93
Member 32 94
Moment Location Diagram 95
DDM to EFM Moment Comparison Chart 96
Drawings and Diagrams 97
Elevation Reinforcement Detailing 97
Column Strip Detailing 98
Middle Strip Detailing 99
Cost Breakdown 100
Rebar Quantities 100
Concrete Quantities 101
Total Costs 102
-3-
Introduction
The goal of this project was to design an intermediate floor of a six story concrete building in one
direction using the Direct Design Method (DDM) outlined in ACI-318-02. In addition, the Equivalent Frame
Method (EFM) for obtaining bending moments in the slab, also outlined in ACI-318-02, was performed. The
bending moments obtained from the EFM were then compared to those found using the equations of the DDM.
The following information was given to our design team:
c/c story height = 12 ft

min. c/c column spacing = 22 ft
cladding weight = 250 plf
partition weight = 20 psf
electrical/mechanical system weight = 6 psf
service live load = 80 psf
fc’ = 5 ksi
fy = 60 ksi
preliminary dimensions:
columns – 18x18 in
In addition to this information, our design team was instructed to follow a flat slab design that had no beams
between columns and included column capitals.
Our preliminary estimates of the shear capacity of the slab showed that column capitals were probably not
needed. However, since their use was required, we arbitrarily chose to use 9” column capitals. Upon making this
decision, the minimum slab thickness allowed by ACI-318-02 was used and the general procedures of the DDM
were followed for the North-South direction of the floor. Following this, checks for one and two way shear were
made, as well as a check for unbalanced moment transfer. For the EFM analysis, two equivalent frames were
analyzed. One frame consisted of a column line on an exterior edge of the building, and the other frame consisted
of an interior column line.
Five computer programs were used to assist in our design. Mathcad was used to assist performing the general
calculations. Excel was used for designing the flexural reinforcement and performing cost and quantity
-4-
calculations. Fast Frame 2D frame analysis software was used for the EFM analysis. Adobe Photoshop 7.0 and
Autocad 2002 were used to prepare figures and diagrams for this document.
-5-
Design Summary
Initial Design Work
The first step in the design process was to take the given information and determine the geometry of the
floor system. In order to make calculations simpler, all center to center column spaces in the same direction were
made equal for all panels. This was accomplished by subtracting two one half column widths from the out to out
dimensions in the North-South and East-West directions. The remaining dimension was then divided into thirds
in the North-South direction and into four panels in the East-West direction to obtain center to center column
spacing. Next, some preliminary estimates of the required column capital size were made to ensure adequate
capacity for punching shear, because this often controls the acceptable slab thickness and the need for drop
panels and column capitals. It was determined that column capitals would likely not be needed. Because of this,
relatively small, nine inch column capitals were chosen.
After defining the columns and capitals, the minimum allowable slab thickness was determined using the
clear span distance. From Table 9.5 (C) in ACI-318-02, the controlling minimum thickness was for exterior
panels without drop panels and without edge beams. This thickness was rounded up to 8.5 inches and used for
the rest of the design. Once all dimensions of the floor system were known, the widths of column and middle
strips and the factored dead and live loads were calculated. To handle the effects of the cladding load on the
exterior equivalent frame, all area loads were multiplied by the width of the frame to create line loads. The line
load of the cladding was then added to the dead weight line load and the resulting dead and live line loads were
subsequently factored. The effects from cladding located on East-West building edges were neglected in the
DDM calculations since they will not create significant bending moments in the North-South direction. The effect
of this cladding must be taken into account when the building is designed in the East-West direction.
-6-
Direct Design Method
The next step in the design process was to use the DDM to determine the bending moments for which
the slab system in the North-South direction must be reinforced for. Mo was calculated and distributed to positive
and negative moment regions and between column and middle strips. Using these distributed moments, a map of
where moments occurred was developed and the design moments were determined. According to ACI-13.6.3.4,
negative moment regions must be designed for the larger of the two moments that they are subjected to, thus
both moments were compared and the largest was selected for design. Fifteen different moment regions were
identified and labeled Type1-15. The moments in each region were divided by width of their region to obtain
moments per foot.
By inputting these moments per width into an Excel spreadsheet, a design for reinforcement for all fifteen
regions was developed. The spreadsheet required the input of Mu, hs, fy, fc’, β1, clear cover depth, and an initial
assumption of a bar size. Using a series of If() statements and equations, the spread sheet retrieved the correct bar
diameter and area from a table, calculated d, and then solved a quadratic equation for the required reinforcement
ratio to resist the specified moment. This reinforcement ratio was multiplied by b*d to obtain As_req. From this
As_req per foot, the spreadsheet displayed the required spacing for bar sizes from 3 to 18 to provide the necessary
area of steel per foot. Using this information, a spacing and bar size could be specified causing the spreadsheet to
calculate φMn, the depth of the Whitney stress block, As_min, As_max, the strain in the tension steel, and the
maximum allowable spacing for shrinkage and temperature as well as flexural requirements. Lastly, a series of If()
statements checked this output against code specifications and displayed a corresponding text box stating if the
results were acceptable. Thus, with half a dozen key strokes per region, our team rapidly designed the slab
reinforcement for the 15 different sections.
-7-
Shear Checks
The next step was to check the slab system to see if it possessed adequate shear capacity. First, the one-
way, or beam shear, method of failure was checked. After some consideration, it was decided to assume that the
cladding weight was distributed over the entire panel. While this is probably not an ideal assumption, it should be
satisfactory because the one-way shear capacity was three to four times greater than the applied shear loading.
ACI-318-02 provided no guidance on this issue, thus it is up to the designers discretion.
Two-way, or punching shear, was the next check performed. Four separate regions were identified: corner
panel columns, E-W edge panel columns, N-S edge panel columns, and interior panel columns. The edge columns
have the same shear capacity but not the same loading. All regions were found to have excess shear capacity.
Unbalanced Moment Transfer
In accordance with the DDM, the slab system’s capacity for transferring unbalanced moment was
checked. Four separate regions were identified for this check: corner columns, E-W edge columns, N-S edge
columns, and interior columns. All regions were found to have sufficient shear capacity to transfer the shear
portion of the unbalanced moment. However, several columns were found to have insufficient flexural capacity to
transfer the flexural portion of unbalanced moment. The total amount of steel required per foot in these regions
was calculated. The amount of steel in the column strips was increased where needed to provide adequate flexural
capacity. Specifically, all of the edge column strips’ areas of steel per foot were increased to handle the moment
due to unbalanced moment transfer.
Equivalent Frame Method
Having the slab system completely designed, the bending moments for slab system were determined using
the EFM from ACI-318-02 for comparison purposes. First, the slab/column system was idealized as a two
dimensional frame. This frame was constructed of a series of individual members with varying moments of
-8-
inertia connected rigidly together. Once the members’ lengths were calculated, a sketch of the frame was drawn
and the moment of inertia for each member was calculated. Some of these, such as the moment of inertia of the
slab away from the supports, could be calculated directly. However, most of the moments of inertia were more
complicated. Given that the idealized two dimensional frame was really a complex and non-homogenous three
dimensional frame, special considerations were necessary for many members. The equations for the EFM from
ACI-318-02 were followed where applicable for these calculations.
One area where the code provided no guidance was the column capital region. The code specifies in ACI-
13.7.4.2 that “Variation in the moment of inertia of along the axis of columns shall be taken into account”, but
provides the designer with no recommended means of doing so. The technique used was to average the moments
of inertia for the columns in the column capital region. First, the moment of inertia for an 18 inch square column
and slab system was calculated. Next, a column having dimensions of the actual column plus the column capital
width was considered. The moment of inertia of this fictitious composite column was calculated. These two
values were then averaged and used as the moment of inertia for the entire 9 inch region of the column where the
capital is located.
Once all needed properties and dimensions were determined, two frame models were constructed using
FastFrame, the powerful and user friendly two dimensional frame analysis software available at no cost from
Enercalc®. The analysis was run using the loads calculated for the DDM design. However, the area at the end of
each frame between the center of the column and the edge of the floor had been neglected in the DDM design.
The contribution from dead and live load was factored and added into the EFM model. The most significant load
in this area was the cladding weight. A point load of 6.31 kips and a moment of 3.70 ft-kips was applied to the
corner columns. To the south and north edge columns, a point load of 11.28 kips and moment of 6.72 ft-kips
was applied. These loads can be clearly seen in the loading diagram for each EFM analysis.
After running frame analysis, the moments at the i and j ends of members 10, 21, and 32 were compared
to those found using the DDM. The moments on the East-West oriented edge columns were approximately twice
-9-
the magnitude of the same moments calculated using the DDM. At first it seemed that the slab might have
insufficient flexural capacity in these regions. However, the amount of steel in these regions was significantly
increased when the effects of unbalanced moment transfer were taken into account. The net amount of
reinforcement in these regions would likely be equivalent whether the reinforcement was designed for EFM or
DDM moments.
Costs and Detailing
Detailing of the slab steel was done using figure 13.3.8 in ACI 318-02. Once the detailing was completed,
the quantities of steel and concrete used were calculated. From these quantities, material and design costs were
determined.
The total costs:
Item Unit Cost Amount Total Cost Cost Per Floor

Concrete $100/yd3 161.774 yd3 $ 16,177.40 $ 16,177.40
Steel $1200/ton 11.378 tons $ 13,653.60 $ 13,653.60
Design $200/hr 140 hours $ 28,000.00 $ 4,666.67
Formwork $9/ft2 6612 ft2 $ 59,535.00 $ 9,922.50
Total per floor $ 44,420.17
Total for building $ 266,521.00
It can be seen that the formwork and design add significant costs to the floor system. However, the
formwork is reusable for each of the six floors and the design need only be performed once, so long as the
column size does not vary. This allows these costs to be divided among all six floors. The material cost applies to
each floor. Thus, the material cost of steel and concrete makes up only 68% of the total flooring cost. This cost
estimate does not consider columns, cladding, roof material, foundations, or partitions.
Finally, drawings and diagrams to make our design clear and understandable were constructed using
Autocad, and our results were reviewed for errors. These drawings can be seen throughout the calculations
section of this report.
- 10 -
Selection of Slab thickness

ln := 24.167ft
⋅ − 18⋅ in − 2⋅ 9⋅ in
ln = 21.167ft
From table 9.5 (C) for exterior panels with no drop panels and without edge beams
ln
h s_min := h s_min = 8.4668in
30
From table 9.5 (C) for interior panels with no drop panels and without edge beams
ln
h s_min := h s_min = 7.6971in
33
So exterior panel controls. Round h s_min up to 8.5 inches
h s := 8.5⋅ in
- 11 -
- 12 -
Exterior Frame Load Calculations
- 13 -
- 14 -
- 15 -
- 16 -
Summary of Direct Design Method Moments (kip-in)
Mo End span interior span

M- M-
exterior interior M+ M- M+
Exterior
Frame 2478 644 1734 1288 1610 867
Interior
Frame 4262.4 1108 2984 2217 2771 1492
- 17 -
Middle Strip and Column Strip Calculations
Column strip width for interior equivalent frames
l1 := 24.167ft
⋅ l2 := 22.125ft
⋅
( )
CSwidth_int := 2⋅ .25⋅ min l1 , l2 CSwidth_int = 11.063ft
Column Strip width for exterior equivalent frames

l2
CSwidth_ext := + 9⋅ in CSwidth_ext = 11.813ft
2
Middle strip width for interior equivalent frames and exterior equivalent frames
MSwidth := l2 − CSwidth_int MSwidth = 11.063ft
- 18 -
Plan View of Panels
- 19 -
- 20 -
- 21 -
- 22 -
- 23 -
- 24 -
Summary of Lateral Moment Distributions in kip-in

Pannel 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
SE Col Strip M- 554 1,039 1,019 554 1,039 1,119 554 1,039 1,119 554 1,039 1,019
E Col Strip M+ 1,330 448 1,330 1,330 448 1,330 1,330 448 1,330 1,330 448 1,330
NE Col Strip M- 1,019 1,039 554 1,119 1,039 554 1,119 1,039 554 1,019 1,039 554
SE Mid Strip M- 0 346 373 0 346 373 0 346 373 0 346 373
E Mid Strip M+ 887 298 887 887 298 887 887 298 887 887 298 887
NE Mid Strip M- 373 346 0 373 346 0 373 346 0 373 346 0
SW Mid Strip M- 0 403 434 0 346 373 0 346 373 0 403 434
W Mid Strip M+ 515 347 515 887 298 887 887 298 887 515 347 515
NW Mid Strip M- 434 403 0 373 346 0 373 346 0 434 403 0
SW Col Strip M- 644 1,208 1,301 554 1,039 1,119 554 1,039 1,119 644 1,208 1,301
W Col Strip M+ 773 520 773 1,330 448 1,330 1,330 448 1,330 773 520 773
NW Col Strip M- 1,301 1,208 644 1,119 1,039 554 1,119 1,039 554 1,301 1,208 644
- 25 -
Plan View of Moment Regions
- 26 -
- 28 -
- 29 -
- 30 -
- 31 -
- 32 -
- 33 -
- 34 -
- 35 -
- 36 -
- 37 -
- 38 -
- 39 -
- 40 -
- 41 -
- 43 -
- 44 -
- 45 -
- 46 -
- 47 -
- 48 -
- 49 -
- 50 -
- 51 -
- 52 -
- 53 -
- 54 -
- 55 -
- 56 -
- 57 -
- 58 -
- 59 -
- 60 -
- 61 -
- 62 -
- 63 -
- 64 -
- 65 -
- 66 -
- 67 -
- 68 -
EFM Node Diagram
- 69 -
Exterior Frame EFM Output
- 70 -
- 71 -
- 72 -
- 73 -
- 74 -
- 75 -
- 76 -
- 77 -
- 78 -
Loaded Structure (Exterior Frame)
Moment Diagram (Exterior Frame)
Shear Diagram (Exterior Frame)
- 79 -
Member 10 Analysis (Exterior Frame)
- 81 -
- 82 -
Exterior Frame EFM Output
- 84 -
- 85 -
- 86 -
- 87 -
- 88 -
- 89 -
- 90 -
Loaded Structure (Interior Frame)
Moment Diagram (Interior Frame)
Shear Diagram (Interior Frame)
- 91 -
Member 10 Analysis (Interior Frame)
- 93 -
- 94 -
Moment Location Diagram for EFM Analysis
- 95 -
Comparison of DDM to EFM moments
Moments
(see preceding DDM moments DDM moments
diagram for (k*ft) for exterior EFM moments (k*ft) (k*ft) for interior EFM moments (k*ft)
locations) frame for exterior frame frame for interior frame
M1 53.7 113.6 92.3 231.9
M2 107.3 109.1 184.8 190
M3 144.5 81.7 248.7 88.2
M4 134.2 111.6 230.9 173.8
M5 72.3 94.9 124.3 172.6
M6 134.2 111.6 230.9 173.8
M7 144.5 81.7 248.7 88.2
M8 107.3 109.1 184.8 190
M9 53.7 113.6 92.3 231.9

Reinforcement Detailing Diagram
- 97 -
Column Strip Detailing
- 98 -
Middle Strip Detailing
- 99 -
Rebar Quantities
Distance
between Steel
column faces Density
ln in L1 Direction
(ft) (ft) (pcf)
20.5 21.92 490
Specified Rebar Spacing Requirements

50% 50% 100% 50% 50%
Top Top Bottom Bottom Bottom Quantity Rebar
Rebar Rebar Rebar Rebar Rebar Strip of Length
Rebar Spacing Length Length Length Length Length Width Rebar
No. in. ft. ft ft. ft. ft. ft ft
T1 4 4 6.15 4.1 6.3 18.9 96.7
T2 4 12 22.92 6.3 6.3 144.2
T3 4 8 6.15 4.1 6.3 9.4 48.4
T4 4 12 22.92 6.3 6.3 144.2
T5 4 12 5.01 11.1 11.1 55.4
T6 5 10 22.92 17.925 11.1 13.3 271.1
T7 4 12 4.51 11.1 11.1 49.9
T8 4 12 22.92 17.925 11.1 11.1 225.9
T9 5 8 6.15 4.1 11.1 16.6 85.0
T10 6 8 22.92 11.1 16.6 380.3
T11 6 9 6.15 4.1 11.1 14.8 75.6
T12 5 16 22.92 11.1 8.3 190.2
T13 6 12 5.01 11.1 11.1 55.4
T14 4 12 4.51 11.1 11.1 49.9
T15 4 12 22.92 17.925 11.1 11.1 225.9
Quantities By Bar Size

Bar
# Length Volume Weight
ft in^2 lbs
4 814.7 1955.2 6653.1
5 546.3 2032.4 6915.8
6 511.4 2700.0 9187.6
Total Steel (lbs) 22756.4
- 100 -
Concrete Quantities
Slab Column Column
Slab Thickness Width Slab Depth Quantity Area
in ft ft in2
8.5 74 90 20 324
V=1/3(a2+a*b+b2)*h-182*h
Vol. Capital Edge Corner
Vol. Capital Capital Dimensions Capitals Capitals
in3 ft3 a b h ft3 ft3
3888 2.25 18 36 9 1.546875 0.984375
Slab
Slab Area Volume
ft2 ft3
6660 4335.0
Item Item Vol. Quanitity Volume

ft3 ft3
Corner Capitals 0.984375 4 3.9
Edge Capitals 1.546875 10 15.5
Interior Capitals 2.25 6 13.5
Slab 4335.0 1 4335.0
Total 4367.9
Formwork
Area (ft2) 6615
- 101 -
Total Costs
Item Unit Cost Amount Total Cost Cost Per Floor
Concrete $100/yd3 161.774 yd3 $ 16,177.40 $ 16,177.40
Steel $1200/ton 11.378 tons $ 13,653.60 $ 13,653.60
Design $200/hr 140 hours $ 28,000.00 $ 4,666.67
Formwork $9/ft2 6612 ft2 $ 59,535.00 $ 9,922.50
Total per floor $ 44,420.17
Total for building $ 266,521.00
- 102 -

Two Way Slab Design With Column Capital

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Two Way Slab Design With Column Capital

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Two-way Slab Design with Column

Dec 16, 2003

The following information was given to our design team:

c/c story height = 12 ft

between columns and included column capitals.

of an interior column line.

Initial Design Work

relatively small, nine inch column capitals were chosen.

Direct Design Method

moments per foot.

reinforcement for the 15 different sections.

ACI-318-02 provided no guidance on this issue, thus it is up to the designers discretion.

Unbalanced Moment Transfer

due to unbalanced moment transfer.

Equivalent Frame Method

ACI-318-02 were followed where applicable for these calculations.

Costs and Detailing

The total costs:

Item Unit Cost Amount Total Cost Cost Per Floor

section of this report.

Selection of Slab thickness

So exterior panel controls. Round h s_min up to 8.5 inches

Exterior Frame Load Calculations

Summary of Direct Design Method Moments (kip-in)

Mo End span interior span

Middle Strip and Column Strip Calculations

Column strip width for interior equivalent frames

Column Strip width for exterior equivalent frames

Plan View of Panels

Summary of Lateral Moment Distributions in kip-in

Plan View of Moment Regions

EFM Node Diagram

Exterior Frame EFM Output

Loaded Structure (Exterior Frame)

Moment Diagram (Exterior Frame)

Shear Diagram (Exterior Frame)

Member 21 Analysis (Exterior Frame)

Member 32 Analysis (Exterior Frame)

Loaded Structure (Interior Frame)

Moment Diagram (Interior Frame)

Shear Diagram (Interior Frame)

Member 21 Analysis (Interior Frame)

Member 32 Analysis (Interior Frame)

Moment Location Diagram for EFM Analysis

M1 53.7 113.6 92.3 231.9

M2 107.3 109.1 184.8 190

M3 144.5 81.7 248.7 88.2

M4 134.2 111.6 230.9 173.8

M5 72.3 94.9 124.3 172.6

M6 134.2 111.6 230.9 173.8

M7 144.5 81.7 248.7 88.2

M8 107.3 109.1 184.8 190

M9 53.7 113.6 92.3 231.9

Reinforcement Detailing Diagram

Column Strip Detailing

Middle Strip Detailing

Specified Rebar Spacing Requirements

Quantities By Bar Size

Item Item Vol. Quanitity Volume

You might also like