Professional Documents
Culture Documents
behaviour of R.C. slabs and slap-beam systems designed using elastic stress fields. PhD thesis.
http://theses.gla.ac.uk/1665/
Copyright and moral rights for this thesis are retained by the author A copy can be downloaded for personal non-commercial research or study, without prior permission or charge This thesis cannot be reproduced or quoted extensively from without first obtaining permission in writing from the Author The content must not be changed in any way or sold commercially in any format or medium without the formal permission of the Author When referring to this work, full bibliographic details including the author, title, awarding institution and date of the thesis must be given
DIRECT
DESIGN
OF
A study
of
the
Ultimate
Behaviour Designed
of
R. C. Slabs Using
by
A Thesis
Submitted Doctor of
for
the
Degree
of
Philosophy
Department
of
ivil of
Engineering Glasgow
University
May 19 82 JD
To my Parents
and my f=iZy.
C0NTENTS Page ACKNOWLEDGMENTS SUMARY NOTATIONS CHAPTER ONE lNTRODUCTION CHAPTER TWO
4 4 4
2.2.1 2.2.2
Methods Methods The Yield Line Theory Hillerborg Strip Method Method
4 11 11 12 16 21 24
26 26 26 29 33
The Strip-Deflexion
2.3
Assessing 2.3.1
Serviceability
2.3*. 2
Numerical
2.4
Finite
Element Models
33 34 36 Element Models 38
and Steel
42 45 48
49
in Compression of Reinforcement
Plain for Concrete Nonlinear Analysis
Methods
of Solution
52
Introduction Theory of Plasticity The Proposed Direct 3.3.1 3.3.2, 3.3.3 in Slab Design Design Approach Condition
56 56 5T 5T 58 66 68 68 69 69 70
74 for Membrane Forces 77 82 83
The Equilibrium
3.4
Design of Orthogonal Reinforcement 3.4.1 3.4.2 3.4.3 3.4.4 Positive Moment Fields
Negative Moment Fields Mixed Moment Fields Rules for Placing Orthogonal Reinforcement
Loading Cases
Multiple
Design of Reinforcement
Page CHAPTER FOUR THE FINITE 4.1 4.2 Introduction The Finite 4.2.1 4.2.2 4.3 Element Used of a Layered Element ELEMENT METHOD
94
94 94 94 100 Structures 101 101
Subdivision of Concrete
Non-Linear 4.3.1
Analysis
Criterion
4.3.3
Steel
Pseudo-Load Details
of the
N=erical
The Slab
*Tee-Beam. Bl Haye's
Tested
Slab-Beam
Conclusions
FIVE CHAPTER THEORETICALINVESTIGATION 5 .1 Introduction Comparison Between Torsional 5.2.1 General and Torsionless Analyses 139 139 14o 14o
5.2
Page 5.2.2 5.2.3 5.2.4 5.3 Analyses Discussion Conclusions Experiments and Results of Results 141 142 146 170 170 of Slabs Tested 171 172 173 and Conclusions 1 175 175 179 1A 1B 179 179 183 189 3 189 197 4 197 200 5 201 209
and Loading
5.4
5.4.3 5.4.4 5.4.5 5.4.6 5.4.7 5.4.8 5.4.9 5.4.10 CHAPTER SIX
Test
Conclusions
Page 6.5 6.6 6.7 6.8 6.9 6.10 Materials Strain Casting Supports Loading Further Rig and Loading Instrumentation Systems Gauges and Curing 217 218 219 220 221 223
224
247 247 of the Behaviour of The Models 247 247 253 259 264 269 274 285 States 285 291 Between
7-1 7.2
Introduction General Description 7.2.1 7.2.2 7.2.3 7.2.4 7.2.5 7.2.6 Model 1 Model 2 Model 3 Model 4 Model 5 Model 6
T-3
Discussion of Test Results 7.3.1 7.3.2 7.3.3 Serviceability Ultimate Limit Limit State
Possible Reasons for the Differences the Assumed (Elastic Ultimate Fields)
7.4 7.5
8.1
8.2
Conclusions
Suggestions for Future Work
320 324
APPENDICES: APPENDIX (A) Calculation Certain APPENDIX (B) Program APPENDIX (C) Derivation APPENDIX (D) Comparison by the APPENDIX (E) Calculations for Serviceability Limit States between Moment Fields and Torsionless Produced Analyses 373 of the Bounded Plastic Loads 343 Description and Implementation 341 of the Steel Required for a 325
Design
Moment M* 327
Torsional
REFERENCES
375
iACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
herein
University Coull. Coull,
was carried
of The
Glasgow, would
Professor to
author
Professor of the
and to
Professor
Sutherland
facilities
department,
The author supervision, study. Grateful Dr. P. D. A., thur, with Dr. the
is
indebted
to
Dr.
P. Bhatt throughout
for
his the
encouragement
and advice
are
also
Engineering
University -
of
Strathclyde
Computer in Civil
Dr.
Lecturer program.
Dr. Mr.
I. J.
Lecturer, Coleman,
for Mr.
his
help
with
the
data
logger. for
A. Galt work of
involved
specimens.
fabrication for
A. Yuill
connections
The Staff of the
procuring
some references
inter on
ii
Mrs. Carol John for her help with the computer.
Williamson
thesis.
My wife Eitidal support. The Sudan Government the research. for the. financial support during the period of and 3my daughter Amal. for their cooperation and moral
iii
. 'SUMMARY This behaviour in research work is conc6rned with the service and ultimate systems designed stress ultimate initial
of reinforced
concrete
slabs
stress XY ) in
by the stiffnesses
method,
using
moments were
flexure the
on Wood-Armer for
equations
which
general
criterion
orthotmopically
reinforced
slabs
given
M) (M* -MM2. xyy The reinforcement Design forces was provided parallel 9
N* ) for
combined
were
The core
calculate
reinforcement appropriate
design stress.
layered slabs
study were
the
against
laboratory
various
conditions. indicated that under all the slabs loads. limits spread in designed Both by this deflections for method and
service
widths
(spanJ250 an evenly
deflections
and 0.3
mm for
distributed
iv
pattern. loads. All slabs recorded failure in loads the in excess loads of their for the design slabs
The average
enhancement
design
without It
with
edge beams was about 16%. and for is then concluded that
slab-beans
good ser-iice
at least
N0TAT10NS As A ct ol Effective Steel Steel Length Steel Area Skeet area per unit width per per in tension unit unit width width
A x Am a al, a2 a MaX b b w
area area of
areas
directions
per
unit
width
The Strain
da E Ec Es E. 1 E se EF c E, xy F fb fbb fc
ft f c
Depth to the neutral Young's modulus Young's modulus for Young's modulus for Instantane;
axis
concrete steel
us Secant modulus
Secant modulus at peak stress Reduced modulus for E Young's moduli Yield function cracked concrete in an enisotropic ons plate
in x and y directi
Conpressive
Cylinder
co F:0 FP j'
loct& Vectors
L_
Stress cxte. vn
vi
f
cu Cube compressive Equivalent biaxial strength of concrete strength of concrete
fd f f ft f ft f p r s s st
compressive
strength
strength strength strength load in
of steel
of of steel steel of
in tension
in compression
increment
f f f y cl
x direction of steel
strength in steel
laid
at
angle
a to
the
x axis
G GP G red h H I
Shear Modulus
Gauss Point
Reduced shear Plate thickness modulus.
rigidity
of an anisotropic
plate
I I I
cr 9 eff 1 2'
Moment of inertia
of a cracked
section section
of uncracked
L"j K b
the distribution
for the bond stress
and surface
characteristics
of bar
K1K2
Principal Curvature
curvatures
at a point = =
on a plate
3X2 ''IL Y2
K y
Curvature
vii
K XY Torsional curvature DXDY 32W
KtA
constant stress
the distribution
of tensile
K0 L Lx, Ly M
M M cr M P M9M9M xy M et M*9 M* xy Mn9MtSM
Initial Short
matrix
between tensile
moment at moment of moment of
strengths
of concrete
at
a point
in
Cartesian
Coordinates.
Design Design
normal
on elastic
system
moments in
X and Y directions at
nt
Applied
a point
n-t
Coordinate
M*2 M* t, n N et M, N N. A. Nx9NysN
M* nt
moments at a point
in the n-t
Coordinate
based on elastic
analysis
components at a point
in the Cartesian
Coordinate N* N* xy , CPI
in X and Y directions
p p
viii
P cr Cracking Design Service First load load deflection yield load load
Pd P6L Py P U q q cr
load uniform uniform load components of of uniform load in Cartesian element Coordinates ii load load
force
lo ad in
on x strips on y strips
of load
matrix
imbalance of
rigidity in
transverse matrix
along along
the the
X-axis Y-axis
Coordinates
xx Distances Depth of
x9y, Z xl
ix
a a a SX9 sy Angle of skew
at the
A e ex se ge y XY e cr
in
Cartesian to a stress
Coordinates of ft in concrete
ep e s
Peak strain Steel Middle z Strain of strain Plane vector strain a. vector a point distant Z from the middle plane
{C {e
a plate strains strain components vector local coordinate plane X-axis Y-axis t-axis -aw ay aw ax aw Dn system
eb ep co e 6 6 et
Bending Plastic
6 cr
Sides ratio
of a slab
( <1.0)
eq
Dlel StrIOCI n
P. y x9P
Pa a
ax sa ST y XY
Steel Steel
Stress
ratios ratio
at
a point
Stress Principal
Coordinates
al9a 2 aeq a a p
T Oct
shear stress
Curvature
vector
.. CHAPTER ONE
INTRODUCTI'O
Present States structure Accordingly, designs, state. on Limit limit load to viz:
designs
of reinforced of
slabs is to at
concepts. satisfies
that
requirements
any stage
ultimate existing
state
Mozt of analysis
the
concepts main
on the is
methods
the ratio
rules
span/depth
ensure
at the it of is
Serviceability difficult
Limit to
generally
for
load
a reinforced
concrete
slab.
load
Thetrue
collapse giving
collapse thus
least the of
The yield
is
nature. a stress applied slab at field load, which is in equilibrium exceed I the with the
strength fields
any point
called
admissible-stress
fields.
corresponding
2
to an admissible to the stress true field will load always of the be less slab. than Such load.
or equal methods
collapse
provide
b, lower
bound to is
the of
ultimate nature.
The Hillerbgr-SIsStrip An exact when the bound bound, loads value for the true
Method
this will
load
obviously
exist - Upper
by upper
coincide of lower
contrast
requirement yield
approach For 2) is
a2M
is
to
satisfy slabs,
equilibrium equation
and the
concrete
to be satisfied
32M x
32 Ma
2-y=ax Dy
where and q
(M x0My, is the
method
employed
(Section solution
variables curvature
2.2.2.2), to equation
(M x2Mytm relationships 3443' ; X4
it
possible contains
by adopting in
to obtain three
linear
a non-trivial
since
However,
it
independant
elastic (1.1) moment. have:
XY
(section a 4W.
2.2.1)
equation
we will
D x
+ 2H
+D4 y DX2a5r2
oj ; y4
(1.2)
Where D, D and H are the anistropic xy A solution to (1.2) can be obtained since And hence a solution flexural different patterns. stiffnesses values to (1.1) can be found,
From the-ultimate
3
distributions equilibrium question criterion is are acceptable, since they are all in derived design. from The major and the and economy. stiffnesses the ultimate are used load. the provide
acceptable
to be satisfied present elastic analysis method. strength of in this bound the Limit way, study,
will the
the
stress under
will then
A yield to resist
stress
analysis
admissible method is
are
satisfied a lower
to yield strength. it
on the design to
Since
on the
state, slabs
serviceability layered
method. the
element till
model will
on large
be used to
theoretical
predictions.
2.1
INTRODUCTION: In this chapter, the various practice, known, slab slab the design methods loads and it for is is of reinforced to which first the concrete structure to find slab will the The boundary or design
calculating dependant
areas.
geometry$ whether
conditions plastic.
of the
material methods
in the
elastic
distribution
by analytical
or numerical
both
elaszic
and plastic
effects
can be
procedure
distributions
element method.
in this
also be reviewed.
2.2 2.2.1 METHODSOF SLAB DESIGN Elastic Methods:
In these methods,
stress which distribution. shear deformations
classical
plate
are
theory
adequate
is used to obtain
for elastic slabs at
the
in
effects cases,
due restraints the that first the slab satisfies order lateral thickness. both
the of
theory
prerequisite compared to
be sufficiently obtained
the
distribution
using'elastic
methods
5
of stresses and compatibility of deformations.
By considering in Figure
respectively-i
a Qx
of forces
acting
(2.1),
the
with
following
equilibrium
j-
-hray am
+q0
am
rx
x+
--ZX ay am
-Q0 x
y+ gy
am
x-y+ ay
Qy =0
the three equationsl they can be
Eliminating combined in
form
32M X--
-.; -q
(2.2)
Equation
equation
(2.2)
equilibrium
of
equation.
by
The
can be transformed
terms
displacements,
relating
curvatures, distance
deflection
and strains. plate 32W z -57-7 middle
w through
Thus,
the slab
if Z is the
plane . then
CZ
32W =ax
g 21, r 2Z ax ary
(2.3)
C=XY
where
exSey9e
XY
and shearing
strains
xxx
vith similar
=Ec+EE
(2.4) xi
for
y
ay and TXY The moments are given by
expressions .
m y
MYX
"I
x
L Mx Mx +
m XY
z
aK Y dy Ilyx +
am
ax
dx
zy
dy ay dy
Qx+
ax
dx
My + -I-
DY
Figure
(2.1)
Equilibrium
of a slab
el'ement
T
h/2 -h/2 where h is the thickness h/2
000x
Cr xz
dz
of the plate.
(E x
Mr
-j -h/2 (D
32W
57
+E
xi
32W )z 2 dz 7
a2w xa XZ
+D
32 W 7 35:
(2-5)
S imilarly
(D 32w
yy M2D yx
aF
+Dia
x2,
XY in which Dx
azw xy ax ay
ExPDEY,
h3
12 Ex, h3
y
D XY (2-5)
12 GP
12 in the equilibrium
(2.6)
D1 Substituting we obtain
12 expressions
equation
(2.2),
D-+
34W
77 x2
the
2(D
+D
Xy
;4W4, -a-X7-; y2
+ Dy
377
(2-7)
introducing
notation 1 XY
we obtain
D+ 5-7 x
34W
2H
;4w
ax
+ Dy
34 w
(2.8)
case of isotropy E
VZ
ve have vE
v2
2(1+v)
reduces
8
; 4w
;4w+ a4W
57
where DE
+2
axzayz
h3
ay-Ir
q/D
(2.8a)
12(l-V2) Thus if distribution equations approximate finite a solution is (2-5). readily to (2.8) can be found, from is then the stress relationships, the of
obtained
analytical
and to
methods
elements. the infinite (Levy's in text applied deflected Fourier solutions) books to on Plate surface series of the (Netier plate Solutions)s
is
represented
by either infinite
or by a single account of
such methods of
energy
principle of type of
of the form,
given, problem. to
as long
as the
the
terms system.
selected of
minimize falls
method
solution
within
The terms
may be polynomial
or trigonometric,
and sometimes,
Bessel series
mates
(3).
which satisfies
An alternative
the plate equation
to these
is the
analytical
procedures
numerical fourth
for
the solution
the finite
of
differences. equation
by a series
of linear
simultaneous
9
in the deflections a finite on the Once the
at
number of points
slab.
deflections
from finite
at these
(2-5),
grid
points
are found,
the
equations difference
by replacing
curvatures of
operators.
number of
grid
points
the better
the
kccordingly, requires a
number of space in to in
problems.
setting
equations
also
increases,
automate. design engineer, have are a set all always the methods described too are inappropriate, of course generally is
been resorted
unless
available. of parallel
methods the
approximate carried
and thus
load
by bending is
action, only
in which
torsional satisfied.
moments are
of
the
by orthogonal
directions
(IX + q, =q y The actual distributions qx and cjy are determined strips. Thus using
of deflections
at the centre
qx L4L
x5 384 EyIy
fle=al rigidities in the
384 ExIx
and assuming equal
(2.10)
two strips
solving and s
(2.9)
(2.10), and
we have
10
clx x
L4 yq f, zr
I (2.11)
and
(2.12) 44q Lx+L7
moments in
the
x and y directions
can thus
be obtained
beams :
4 my xxL 8(L4 + L4 x 7 L2 L2 -qa 8(L4 + L4) xy CL sx L x
(2.13)
SY L2' X
M yx[
Coefficients in (2-13)
asx and
asy for
terms in
Table
12 of
The method
known as Rankine-Grashof
method,
and applies
to
rectangular loads,
Simmilar on the
sim'Ply supported
slabs
under uniform
loads.
loads
over a-finite
respective separate
dimensions. loads
area and its sides ratios I The method becomes complex acting. In such cases,
concentrated
are
superposition
principle
This elastic methods at high in'practice.
can be applied.
section solutions. are further shows clearly In most restricted wide cases, the difficulty methods inability of of lack to obtaining generality. account conditions of analytical The plasticity encountered
the
by the variability
loads,
and the
support
11
2.2.2
Plastic
(or
Limit
States)
Methods:
of the classical
plate
theory
that
to low levels
in tension, Cracking
and accordingly,
by plastification
reinforcing
theory the slab slab is is
To account
The plasticity plastic, indefinite
these material
assumes that means that straining,
changes, plasticity
the material of of the
perfectly of
the
material
capable
once the
conditions
of yield
have been reached. methods groups of concrete slabs to the design theory (Chapter broadly be can of Plasticity 1). -
- according
and lower
bound methods
These methods
include: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5The Yield Hillerborg The Strip Line Theory. Strip Method. Method.
Deflection
introduced by Johansen The yield line theory of slabs was first (798,9). load based on a preThe method derives the slab ultimate
postulated crossing failure the yield mechanism. lines defining It is the assumed that postulated All the reinforcement is yielding.
mechanism
12
depends
on the
slab
of loading.
Several
the slab
correct
which the
one giving
smallest load,
provides to
bound to the
ultimate
forced create
seek
possible
modess for in
correct
analysis. of
some difficulty
especially
case of
slabs
uncomnon shapes. In strain spite the method being an upper in bound approach 0 the tend effects of
hardening load
general,
ultimate
the yield
theory it is
any shape of in practice each of the does not the give slab,
constant
reinforced
or skew directions. on the analyse the at best a slab method steel with provides
within
deflections with
any stage of
mechanism
difficult,
especially
loads
2.2.2.2
Hillerborg-
Strij2
Method: (Chapter
equilibrium
According
any combination
1) 9
equation
of the
(2.2)
problem,
at all
is
points
on the slab,
solution.
a valid
Hillerborg
conditions
13
in
strip
action
the
slabs
solution carried
so that
M 0 09 Xy action
everywhere
in the
slab,
by bending
created
and Y. direction
by parallel
Thus, if
strips
a is the
spanning
proportion (2.2)
in two orthogonal
of the load
directions
in the
X
X
carried
strips, 32M x XZ
equation
gives
= aq
and
3211V ayz = M=0. XY arbitrarily the all load the is chosen, carried is and can vary by bending carried the load all
(2.14)
with
the
proviso
that a is all
throughout X strips,
the and
of
then
load
by bending will,
different reinforcement
ways of
dividing
however,
different valid,
patterns, is
although concerned.
as far
as equilibrium
The designer
experience
practice,
to arrive
several
distributions
and in
cases
slabs
loads,
the is to
method
is
easy each
Once the
load
distribution according
with
discontinuity based
of banded
reinforcement
moments across
band.
band is
Design on basis
of average
moments of resistance
of each band..
14
once yielding redistribute of resistance Figure under uniform occurs, themselves. it is reasonable the equal of to expect available the required supported the moments to ultimate (3). value square slab moment
Alsot is
total to
an example is and
a simply to
intended two
load
this
case,
distributions but
Layout
steel. it as
of view,
gives
distribution a theoretical
areas,
method cases
problems. the
involving method
loads fails.
(flat suggested
simple
strip
utterly
the use of what is known as the "Advanced Strip method, the slab shear. force. is divided into
Method"(13).
In this of zero
The design
found throughout bending the moments moments are with zero shear lines, in and which are
the slab which are compatible equilibrium into three with the applied types
different
in Figure shown as
can be designed by the simple Hillerborg uses a radial the loads solution
But Type (3) is more complex. and secondary the column. rules for load actions Finally
to transfer his
by proposing
reinforcing
Hillerborg
problem of point
effort
to overcome the
elements. Nevertheless,
15
qa2/8
WO 9\\\", -
A
-%x -%Z
Z \NS
Mx Along
x=
a/2
Mx along qy,2/2 y
AA
kl% ...
--.
-.
-.
-...
P'll
a/4
cl I
+ .211..
q
1 q/2
12
5qa2/64
q
a/2 q a/4 21
N\\ -\-
q/2
&2\
'\ \\ 17 1777\ -1
a/4
q/2
a/2
1 a/4 i-,"uf
Mx along x=
a/2
-F-----3.
II 4mx
q/2
q/2 q x
Along Edge Strips 0<y< a/4
qx mx
Strips 3a/4
5 qa 2/64
Strip
Method Solutions
16
the
simplicity
of
the
strip
method
is
lost
and this
approach
is is be
not for
load to
increasingly type
a suitable
any other
the
may choose
stress
distributions
required of the
behaviour, of loading.
function
Method: suitable choosing (15) Fernando and Kemp method. The method strip methodq on the of in load dispersion the
factors
a in the
developed
generalized
stril)--deflection of the
Hillerborg
ignored
every-where
and the
action
created
divided
16 grid
rectangles.
be uniforms the
another. direction
equilibriums
distribution
in the y direction
selected
will
values in
be (qy)ij
of the such
=q-
(qx)ij.
will satisfy one of
distributions
However, q.
strip-deflection
methods
and qy by considering
compatibility
deflections
at points
of intersection
X the and of
17
Type 1 column
Type 3+
-1 I 0. . 11 10 .., 1 %-., Type 2
Figure
(2.31
Elements
Types
in
the
Advanced
Strip
Method
x
oi
CP 1.. '
C\j
CM
CIJ
cu m
or
6
-o
Strip
Yl
Y2
(qx) 31 Strip JI X3
t\
Figure (2.4)
(A x )
(A ) x
32
(A )/* x
33ol" 34
The Strip-deflection
Method
18
uses but
flexibility
coefficients, geometry
of the
problem.
deflection obtained
due to
X 'loading
on X strips
AX
k E n=l
Fx
in
qx
(2-15) in
where Ax. -= ij Fx. in qx in the = the =x deflection flexibility on x strips due to x loading on x strips at node
coefficient
of x strip
load
k=
Similar at the
intersection number of
to (2.15)
points
on x strip.
for 'whe deflection such in terms
expressions due to in
same'points results
Y loading of linear
Equating
a set
equations
distributions loads
t. qx and qy on each grid elemen . the slab, of areas covering extensive so that the to is load that small, is contained for within
the
strip area,
one grid
uniformly is
distributed chosen so
loaded
system within
concentrated It area,
centrally
positioned
the
distributed
distributions loading
moments would
proceed
exactly
as for
assumption
spreading
grid
19
obtain
an exact
solution
for
the
plastic
collapse
load,
additional
the grid
element containing
spreader (2-5c). and equally the bending the grid
the
(16) system The to the moments AA and produces 0
a simple
shown in first
Figures
two strips area which the grid satisfied Additional with the
(2-5c)
within = load.
area. within
equilibri,
is
containing
concentrated in
has then
to be provided systems.
accordance
moments
Similar
procedures
can be used
simple
grid
numbers . but
it
requires
flexibility loads.
coefficients In addition,
dealing
with
patch
increasing
but
equations
Hillerborg
cases involving
high torsional
from the
torsion for hand in the
elastic
strip
solutions(18).
methods is because
reason to
a simple
20
(a)
(b)
Strip
II
BB
f-I t" tt
I W/2
t- t---tw/2
(a-c)
Strip
it-
AA
KO
(c)
C\j
II tttt
FiElire
(2-5)
Spreader
System for
Concentrated
Loads
21
calculations.
The main
disadvantage
is
that
it
is
difficult
to
factors
without
jeopardizing
at working
the slab,
the best
procedure
moments as well,
whether
the analysis
element method.
Designs: slab thickness, forces, and neglecting derived slabs. steel then in the the the If the ability sufficient a, and
Minimum Weight
Morley(lo) in concrete
distributed
reinforcing
direction of
principal Vs required Vf s
volume
(2.16)
where
fy
is
the for
yield the
stress steel
for
the a,
steel,
and
is
the
lever
arm.
Substituting
areas
and a2 in
(2.16)
we have
Vs=f1d y
Accordingly
$
fA
(IM11 +Im 21
is
dA
(2-17)
the
steel
volume
proportional
to
the
moment
the reinforcement
is given by
which
+ IM21 ) dA
22
A moment field
is
said
to
"correspond"
if
the
principal
=ments
M, and M2 and the principal curvatures (10) Morley and direction. proved that
corresponding field is less than
or equal
a non corresponding
one.
If the
The sufficient
for a slab
conditions
a particular field which k1l has
displacement (a)
lk
21
K throughout
except
in
Jkll Ik 21 field
21 Ik, Ik
or
The problem
of
finding
a distribution
a neutral
M, A0 and t 0 0.
lk
=+ 21
ks it
is possible
and the
that
loads
M, and M2 can be in
any direction
in any direction.
(2.6) the regions
supported
areas.
If k, =-k2=k, the deformation surface is anticlastic, and
there
is less
freedom since
for
correspondence
distributed regions
in the directions
of the principal
parallel
or perpendicular can be
of such distributions
where
Jkli
=k
and
such
Ik
<k 21
the moment M2
and the loads must signs
EFGH is
an example
direction
23
-AEFB _____
ii:
Gf
Fipre__(2.6)
Solution Slab
for
a Rectangular
24
of 1 and k,
must be the
same.
Figure
the three
(2.6)
of
for
types
which
minizourn weight
solution.
due to
load
is V= (0.0834 L7 - 0.0313 L.
or which reduces to 0.0521 q L4 x
The method Such methods curvilinear
q L3 x
(2.19)
for a simply supported slab.
5L4 q 96 x
on the
as they is
The method
in providing
2.2.2.5
any information
on the serviceability
of the slab.
equilibrium
conditions
To determine assumed.
procedure
fields the the slab ultimate moment capacity, (4) the Wood method of gives a good account
can be used to determine the ultimate
concrete slabs. capacity of reinforced (11,12) to cover continuous by Vijaya Rangan it has been shown that the collapse
extended termss
can be written
in the form
qL2 mx (8 11 + 2Xp + 16pz) (2.20)
in which:
Lx=
short
span length
of ratio orthotropy of the
of the slab
(along
the Y-axis)
slab
L /L xy
X=a
constant
25
'he
value
of the
constant
A depends
on the
sides
ratio
and the
degree of orthotropy
is approximated by
V.
the yield
criterion
upper
bound
solution
24u P r2 2
(2.22)
after effects.
by 4%, to within
account
for
the
corner upper
10% of the
reduced
bound solution.
In truncated fields. is to It obtain of obtaining sixth is the order evident solution (2.20). to Vijaya define in Rangan the the lower paper (11,12) used a bound moment how difficult only loads for limited it
approach
such
solutions,
and they
cases present
advantage
are lines.
every
point in
slab, to the
obtaining
stress the
provide
information any
serviceability
To overcome this
derived diameter be limited expressions and spacing to
difficulty,
limit satisfy crack
recently
widths
Vijaya
by choosing
to
the of
Deflections
by a suitable-choice
26
2.3
state
design,
for
be related of the
empirical methods
values of the
difference
are
employed.
2.3.1 2.3.1
Analytical Deflections:
In
Procedures:
slab
model
in which at
only of of
failures is
are
stiffness
represented Before
of the slab
(2.8).
using
the
elastic After
of the
section.
the behaviour up to
flexural a bi-linear
rigidity
the
transformed
rigidity
Beeby's
method
Er 1 cr c
where R = The flexural U. El = 0.57 c Ec= cr Ec for concrete of a fully cracked rigidity of the section
(2-23)
inertia
transformed
27
in
the
Branson's
(21) method =ment by: cr cr -(M 3 an effective . of inertia moment of depends of the
used.
loading,
(2.24)
o Effective
moment of
inertia
Gross moment of
calculated
from
the
flexural
formula
as
cr where fr=
=fr19
/Y
(2.25).
modulus of rupture.
method is for more realistic use in the then ACI Code the (3). Beebylssand
recommended
The applicability
established
for
two-way beams For slabs. concrete one-way and slabs. reinforced (22) short-time Desayi and Muthu proposed a method for estimating deflections. The load-deflection curve is predicted in two stages:
prior
are
to and after
calculated 6=Bx using
cracking.
elastic
the deflections
q L4 EI cg
(2.26)
where
problem.
is a constant
conditions
of the
At the cracking
initiation q is
of
crackings from
the
deflection
6cr under
the
load
cr
estimated
28
cr
=E
qL4 er 1x
(2.27)
After rigidity
due to
the
continuous noment
flexural
an effective is [1
can be used.
The proposed
equation
eff is
Ig
- k,
cl - cl -cr ('
qj -q cr
(2.28)
where
qj
the Using
Johanson the
load,
constants after
to be cracking as
determined. (equation
effective
inertia
2.28),
the
deflection (q -q
range
cr
EI c
for
eff
in
results
depends on the constants k1 (22) that have Muthu Desayi shown and of
(2.28)
(2.30) (2.31)
(p
f LX W)(h + P7Xf--Z -
11)
of steel
in X and Y directions
short slab
spans
compressive
=. Yield and strength (2.31)
strength
of said
of
steel to
concrete
(2-30)
are
be valid
in
the
range
4o
x0< -<
270.
29
predicts with
the
in two-way restricted in
excellent
uniformly is the
concrete
method slabs.
deflections
by Desayi cover
further
investigation
other
and
conditions. Cracking: of predicting natures the maximinn crack of crack width widths is very complex. be
assessment using
can only
statistipal still
of work design
am unt
terms
which of the
considers reinforcing
width Here
to be crack widths
zero in
at the terms
strains.
Beeby that,
(24)
investigated theory
cracking
and concluded
gives better
of crack widths.
and spacing
to the distance
to the surface
of the nearest
30
slabs,
is
VIT: fs
max where
=kRc
(2.32)
W max kA
conditions,
of loading
Rc= fs I=
Cover = steel
(h = -d
-d n)
diameter
longitudinal
St= Pt d, dn It
whether 160 in2 in the
in transverse
= effective
depths,
a pronounced tend
yield
to be finer
values
Orenstien
equations simply
point
which is
loads.
not the
In their
experiments,
Desayi reinforced
in situations. case most practical (27) two-waY did Kulkarni on work also extensive and concrete slabs. On the same principles, Desayi and
31
(28) extended the the
Prabhakara rests
their
work
to
cracking
the
directions in
and 2,
Figure
then
formed
direction
is kt ft a, l
similarly the spacing
kb fblsl)+(2
of the cracks
2
where
2 (7r 2 kb fb'52)+(j
kt ft
Act 1,
Act 2
ft=
`2 Effective directions
tensile
width s
in tension
in
2(h-d)-A
concrete
l s11
1 S2 .kta
f= b
bar diameters
in directions
1 and 2
to account
stress
stress
fbb
= beiring
stress
is then estimated loading of stage at any
from
w=AeR max
max
sc
(2.35)
where amax is the maximum crack spacing, stage of loading equation (2.32) considered, before. and Rc=
es = steel
strain
at the in
as defined
32
cract direction 2
Section
AA
ft
____
12
direction'l
Figure
(2.1)
Distribution
of
Bond Stress
and Tensile
Stress
over a Section
33
results =f b
have
indicated for
that
the
constants slabs,
M/M P Ub
rectangular from
bond stress
can be taken
p 1.10(5) C: moments in
applied
and ultimate
the
direction
reinforcement. The proposed method estimates crack widths it with reasonable accuracy.
One good aspect of the method is that loading for and the aspect supported ratio
is independent
of the type of
simply
slabs
of supports.
of reinforced
concrete
slabs
using
difference
behaviour
of reinforcement,
a nonlinear difference
these methods.
et
The finite
plates
1(29)
(30) al
Concrete accordingly
here.
2.4 NONLINM
FINITE ELEMENTMODELS: for nonlinearity adopted, viz. due to cracking a macroscopic stiffness etc., two types of a moment-
To account
model employing
to reflect or,
degradation
at various in
of loading,
a microscopic individually
nonlinearities
material or biaxial
stres*s-strain
properties
34
and the uniaxial properties of steel to treat individual nonlinearities
arising
microcracking
in concrete, of stress
yielding
of steel,
and plastic
under compressive
Models:
states
in concrete.
2.4.1
Macroscopic
case,
the
concrete
element
is
assumed to be which
(21) moment of logical. with the resistance In this initial of uncracked case, elastic the sections 9
contributes thus
quite
material derived in
elastic,
matrix
way(31)
the stiffness
at any stage in shown
of the
of loading Figure (2.8a).
can be derived
from
the moment-curvature
diagram
Jofriet
(21)
relationship
cr
Ec0 calculating
after
where
the
rigidity
is
due to
Beeby.
In their
analysis, give
they
yielding
of steel,
information any
Macroscopic
about ultimate
were also
behaviour.
used by Bell Elms and In
models
their
is idealised
Using were the
by a four
square
relationship, intermediate
yield
surfaces
defined
in as shown
The point
on the moment-curvature
curve corresponding
to each surface
is
Moment i'M
35
m u m y
AM
m
cr
AC //e0, ////
EI
AM = AC (R (RU) (R iI i+l U)
AK =
U)i
k.
%.;L"
V C6 V L"
IU
(a)
.0
Figure
(2.8)(a) (b)
for
an Under-
36
established, of an element
the
relative
change of criterion is
the
stiffness modified.
a yield is
approach
used in making
the
reduction. in which
analysis, while
structure changed,
stiffnesses
equilibrium
The use of elementary investigated compressive reinforcement needed effects for of theory in
an extension is not
concrete in the
grossly directions.
tensile
zones
Furthermore, curves
Tnoment-curvature
models
involved
can be traced of
(35).
variation
stress
slab
response
in a satisfactory
manner.
models:
the layers slab thickness to is its divided middle hypothetically planes stress is Figure condition, the into (2-9). and small Thus is assigned
paxallel
of plane depth
can be of
a different
a reinforced
element,
each constituent
37
Figure
(2.9)
Layered Plate
Model
38
a different although in layer. Perfect bond between relations stiffness all layers is normally assumed,
some cases,
can easily is
The deterioration priately Crack by this bending steel changing penetration model. problems layers the
represented nonlinearities
properties, slab
whenever
requirements
concrete 2.4-5)
concrete 2.4.3
layers, of
Review Various
Element
types
(2.1)
gives
and the
reference
elements
which
isoparametric normal to
stresses normal
bending
stresses.
three-dimensional
failure
around
heads. a plane
an ordinary fails to
element but
stress
quite
flexure.
assume that
constant, the
and do not
element, stress
constant
a crude
especially
39
Table (2.1) Layered Plate Bending Elements
No.
Element
References
W, exq 6y
us V9 WS ex y
20
39,419
429
43$ 449 45
us vs w
12
46
ex S6y
Reduced bending stiffness
WSexq 6y
k XY
16
479 48
5 12 W
33
49-
XY nodes:
us VS WS OX9ey
15
50
us V, w
three dimensional
6o
36,37,38
4o
In the
finite
element forces to to
models simulate
which
rely
mainly
on the
stiffness of these
Because variability can arise This problem in and will such be treated
of stress cases, in
is
convergence
equilibrium in this
be satisfied.
depth
(40)
is
the
simplest,
of
freedom
ignores plane
and thfis
Such an assumption
problems
membrane forces For initial deeper layered the concrete position into finite the
are negligible. slabs towards slab element in bending the the neutral face axis due to shifts cracks in from its
progressing nonlinear
depth.
procedure this
adopted shift
models,,
simulate
position section.
of the
neutral would
axis, of
inplane an
on the of
This
course in the
freedom In
to be incorporated once
such models
cracking
occurs,
relations
exhibit that
coupling
between inplane
components, plates.
similar
to
of this
inplane
longer no are
boundary
conditions
has greater
than relaxing
41
restraints
to
flexural
boundary
conditions.
The effects
of
inplane
boundary
In
conditions
an attempt
will
to
be further
investigated
in this
effort, in their
study.
Dotreppe layered (46) et al finite
computational approximation it
bending In this
membrane
and the
accordingly.
a simply load
supported
by 10%. there
However, are
assumption restraints.
to problems
in which
inplane
2.4.4, Materials
Idealization
2.4.4.1
Concrete in Tension:
in tensions its ultimate concrete strength can resist in only low stresses, Up to isotropic direction due to shear are factor for calculated $ is uncracked this material. normal
10% of the
compression. elastic
stage,
material
behaves properties
anisotropic concrete is
In the Howeverg
given is In
a null still
stiffness. capable of
resisting stresses
such BG.
cases,
shear
reducing unity
retention for
factor,
between sections.
and zero
extensively
The value
it is arbitrari3,
of a to be used is still
v assumed. It
uncertain$
differences (42,48)
response of reinforced
the case for problems
slabs
the response is
laxgely
influenced
42
shear. plane
Values stress
as 0.5 bending
(38)
or 0.6
problems.
had been used for (51) Labib and Edwards 0.2 to 0.5
(48 )
both
investigated
values
of 6 in 'the range
and used a
value
of 0.4 in their
members. shear
study of cracking
in concentric
and eccentric
concrete
modulus
in
cracked (52).
concrete
is
sometimes
computed
equations,
such as
+ (i -c /c tmax cr <c<c
c>
x 0.61
(2-38)
tmax
etmax it (2.39)
for
the
terms
are not
defined, in in
is concrete
logical
that
shear shear
mcdulus modulus
in concrete strain
of concrete
strain
a definite
determine,
differences at hand.
in idealizations,
of the structural
problem
investigation.
2.4.4.2
between concrete
to normal
concrete
cracked
between
elements.
resistance
To account
for
this
"stiffening"
effect,,
the stress-strain
curve for
43
concrete
in
tension
is
modified
so that,
some stresses
will
be
transferred
effect slab
by concrete
after
cracking.
Ignoring
tension
in the
stiffening
computed
has been known to produce deflections stiffening are based zero, (48) Various in fact
up to 10001oerrors theories
effects on the
layered that
the
average
an average
stress-strain
unloading
portion
cracking. after can be used for concrete (50) between The only difference Scanlon the shape of this shown in descending (2.10) portion and its
theories
length.
Various
theories
are
Figure
include: and
after
cracking.
Discontinuous
unloading
Gilbert with
(48)
investigated
the three
theories while
in connection theory
plate
problems.
the first
experimental
results,
an overstiff
behaviour.
Results
the third
produced cost.
good results,
convergence
and high
up to which selected.
tension Gilbert to
is (48)
considered
effective
of
where used 10 r, crs (53) Shirai ft. et al used is lost, and this unloading was
the taken
strain
at which yield
concrete
and steel
as the they
steel. function
curve,
used a polynomial
STRESS
ft
E/e
er
(a) Stepped Ilesponse After Cracking
Kass
10
(b)
Gradually
Unloading
Response
After
Cracking
STRESS ft
4 (c) Discontinuous
Figure -(2.10)Tensile
10 Cracking
Concrete
Unloading
Stress-Strain
Response After
Curves for
45
(a eq 0
+ alx
+ a2. %2 + a3x3)
ft
(2.40)
curve, in
with
an
strain T-beams.
as high
had also
of objective stresses.
criteria
to
treat
cracking of the
of
under section
factor
be separated
numerical
involved criteria
in
the
discretization which in
e. g. method general,
solution, problem at
convergence
etc.,
depend on the
hand.
2.4.4.3
Concrete in-Coaression:
Under compression, concrete diviates from linearity very early in (56,5T9 589 59) have indicated Tests results the loading history.
that the ultimate
than
strength
of concrete
compression,
under biaxial
is and dependant
compression
on the
is
greaier
in uniaxial
ratio
of the principal
The earlier concrete
stresses.
works in obtaining Liu et al biaxial (60). stress-strain His proposed curves equation for is
were those
due to
a=
where
DeZ)
in concrete ratio for concrete,
a9
F- =
Ec,, j =
a=
ratio
of the
principal
stresses
in
concrete.
46
found
from
the
following (2.11)):
conditions
stress-strain
compression
(Figure
(a) ? or c=0,
(b) (c) For c=0 For c=c For c=c
cr =
dcr
Ec
CIE Ia
1 -va =a
d(T ds peak stress Substituting E se and peak strain these /C =ap p in in biaxial (2.41) introducing and
modulus
at peak stress
ve have
(2.42)
Later
this
equation
by Tasuji
(59) et al
the behaviour
of concrete
For uniaxial
cases a= 0. (2.42)
The material
to be used in equation
Ec from CP110 or the ACI code equations T', ff cL in KN/mm2 E=5.5 c5 E=o. ccc
yc=
(2.43)
or
o43 Y3
in N/mm2 Yrf-I
concrete by only in kg/m3. 0.5% for
(2.44)
where
unit
mass of differ
2400 kgjm3
concrete
and f1=0.78
cu*
ratio
of 0.19
2. Poisson's
average
(61)
An
been used.
4T
STRESS
cp
Figur
(2.11)
Stress-Strain
Curve
for
Concrete
in
Compres-sion
48
can be obtained
the biaxial
strength
concrete equation
ceases little
At present, stress-strain
branch
For plate
be neglected, to possess effect
benging
and in
problems,
cases.
strain
the ('16) .
softening
effects
can safely
assumed the major due to
most
a horizontal response
plateau of
on the
under-reinforced
flexural
members is
post-peak
behaviour
of concrete
in compression
can safely
be
Idealization
of Reinforcement
finite element models, each layer of reinforcement
In most layered
is represented
only in the steel
by an equivalent
of the is in
smeared layer,
bars.
stresses
direction layer
original
thickness area of
of the the
the
reinforcement 11
unchanged.
layer
49
is then assumed to be elastic-plastic a definite yield point steel with with in both tension and compression hardening. by an In such
and to have
or without
strain
layers
orthotropic layer is
two-dimensional
Von Mises
which is
in
between
assumed. in one
in treating of stress
bar
steel
direction
Steel
influence
also
be modelled
as discrete
elements
is restricted directions,
In addition,
that
steel
bars have
derivation
is needed, in contrast
derivation
perfect
bond between
steel
and concrete
is assumed.
Bond slip
by reducing
the
modulus of steel(52)0 2.4.5 Yield Criteria finite for Plain Concrete: each layer And since in plane
reinforcing
as being is are
lattert
of plane treated,
for both
stress
steel.
concrete
For the
50
owing usually
to
its
unlimited For
plasticity, concrete,
the
Von Mises
yield
criterion since
is
adopted. is brittle
compression.
at least under
required states
an eq7aivalent) stress.
yielding
tensile for
mximum Test
principal
tensile indicated
strength that
results
by Kupfer in both
has the
same value
uniaxial
stress
states.
(b) Maximurn strain theory, strain assumes that exceeds the cracking tensile occurs whenever of
the
maximum principal
limited
strain
concrete. theory, however, is more popular thanthe second. (65) found that the second theory predicts stiffer However, Phillips The first
behaviour
For
thau
yielding
the
first.
under biaxial, compression states of. stress3 various
criteria
yield
Gilbert Lin et al et al was used by Valliappan , criterion (55) (38) PT), (48) Hinton al et Suidan and Wanchoo Warner et al et al. and . The applicability nonlinear in metals, propagation. plasticity action but of this criterion to concrete is debatable, plastic because flov as
(63),
(50)
in concrete is dictated
plasticity
51
is
represented surface,
by the but
use of
a crushing in terms of
surface strains
analogous (50).
to
the
yield
expressed
well
Columb-Mohr law is more popular, because it (66) Following Nadai failure the behaviour of concrete. , The modified
in terms of the octahedral shear and normal stresses
represents can be
in
expressed the
following
manner
ii
cr3 (2.45)
with
the generalized
failure is
criterion zero,
F(Ill
If
one
stresses
then 13=
12 and 13 are is
the stress
by
invariants.
shear stress
[(a, Oct
-a2
)2
+(72 - '13
stress
)2+(
'73 -
al)2
1.2
(2. 46)
a0 is
q=1
i. F(I
(a
+a)=1 231
12)
/3
(2.47. )
1'
(2.48)
the they because occur on are so named
Octahedral sides
equal .
tresses
of an octahedral
angles with shear the stress
element
principal failure
octahedral
can be written
(2.49)
determined from
52
experimental
data.
Test in
results
connection
be treated for
Chapter
Solution problem
Nonlinear to be solved
The structural
[ k]
where C k]
Cd]
-C
P] =0
(2-50)
the
stiffness
matrix
of the
structure
C PI
Cd] =
vectors,
respectively. is a
In equation
stress-dependant.
(2-50).
matrix
of the structure
and for
The equation
nonlinear2
solutions
it
is preferable
steps.
as the
Newton-Raphson a'one
technique degree of
For simplicity,
examined: Let the root of the nonlinear states equation that f(x) =0 be required.
The New-ton-Raphson
Xi+i -2 Xi
procedure
+ Ax
where
x1 and
x i+l
correction
to xi Ax =-
In Newton-Raphso'n procedure,
in each iteration.
expense of slow-down
at the
gradient
53
f I(x
0)
is
used throughout,
thus
Ax =-f(.
The approach, tangents dotted modified is
Xl)jf
I (.xO)
shown in lines to the Figure (2.12),
(2.53)
where the The the
schematically
Newton-Raphson to the
procedure structural
Referring
problem.,
nonlinear
equation
can be written
(2-54)
(2.52) used, then it
corresponds if
equation
Accordingly, to
a variable
stiffness procedure,
approach*is while
analogouz
a Newton-Raphson
a solution
employing
the initial
modified
stiffness
Newton-Raphson
matrix
(constant
stiffness)
corresponds
stiffness"
to the (68)
technique.
The"initial
method
is also identical
Both The variable Dotreppe et methods
to the modified
have been
Newton-Raphson procedure.
used by research workers. al(42) and
extensively
stiffhess approach had been employed by Hand et (46) (37). (32) Jofriet Schnobrich Bell and Elms al, , ,
McNiece
(21)
(67)
Johnarry and ,
Although is fast,
of convergence
of the variable
a long time
process.
in the housekeepings
use of backing stores
such procedures
extensi-7e
computers.
54
On the
other
hand,
the
initial
stiffness
method
converges
very
slowly
to the correct
solution, it
of
nonlinearity iterations
in the structure,
to achieve an equilibrium position. (44) Duncan et al have claimed that demanding static each load level although their normally statement stiffness leads to expensive was not supported
analy3is
by any numerical
methods have been used by Valliappan and (63) (53) (38) Doolan Shirai et al Suidan Dietrich Schnobrich and et , . , (45) (45), (44) (43), Cope Rao Rao(39), Duncan Johnarry al and and and , Hinton et al(55). (43) Johnarry compared the constant bending applications.
Constant
stiffness
methods
in plate
the constant
stiffness
and concluded
Similar
conclusions
55
Load P
AP
displacement
Figure
(2.12)-
The Newton-Raphson
Procedures
56
CHAPTER THREE DESIGN*OF'PIINFORCED'CONCRETE'SLABS
3.1
INTRODUCTION In the previous chapter, concrete exclusively in terms the slabs various methods available for the
design methods
have been
discussed. loads,
on ultimate of the
provide
(e. g. the
Yield
information no a satisfactory
regions), under
distribution
behaviour
procedure at service
on realistic loads
understanding is
of material The
and ultimate
now suggested.
proposed direct
and will
design
of plasticity,
be discussed
to the ultimate
This
the conditions
following manner: -
plasticity.
1. The Equilibrium
in ecjdlibrium
Condition:
with the
stresses
loads.
must be
load, the
hinges
to. transform
Criterion:
5T
to
find are
procedure
satisfying
the
three
conditions.
methods satisfying
(1)
Accordingly, load
upper
boirid
which is of
method
concrete condition
do not
on the
"rigid!
(b)
by assuming
field which
collapse
of the
load
calculated calculated
than
the
3.3 THE PROPOSED DIRECT DESIGN APPROACH: For a safe design, The proposed design it is we. 11 advised to use a lower bound approach. simple and straightforward. the three conditions be discussed The of in
approach is very
method suggested here will the theory relation 3.3.1 of plasticity. to these conditions
in the following
The Equilibrium
The stress
Condition:
under by the the finite design loads will be obtained Accordingly, conditions Owing'to its
using
the
elastic
element satisfy
method. the
equilibrium
considerations.
58
simplicity of slab and versatilitYs problem - with will the the method can be applied to any type
any edge conditions. be made assuming distribution the distribution amount of it is elastic is greatly of steel properties affected for the
stress loads,,
by cracking
at high is
dependint,
on the Accordingly,
proposed will
strength
at
any section
distribution
stresses. ultimate load load for the slab so designed elastic should at least
predicted
by the
analysis.
3.3.2
Criterion: condition flow defines tle combination The condition of stresses will necessary if
at a point.
be satisfied
at any point
analysis
loads by the
resultants
reinforcement state 9 the
criterion. in terms
criterion
moments
. ng the M with q xy is
slab
element
in
Figure
(3-1),
under
the
moment
anisotropic all
properties.
adopted
such that
moments acting
element
59
XY
Figure
(3.1)
MY
CY
21
FikLxe
3.2)
Element with
Orthogonal
Reinforcement
60
Simplifying
assumptions
are
further
can be summarized
in the following:
1. The concrete is assumed to hwre a tensile strength equal to
zero.
2. Bar diameters and that direction. is not they are snall in comparison only with the slab depth,
can carry
stresses kinking
in their across
of bars
so that ductile
permissible necessary
elements
sufficient mechanism.
number of
convert
do not exist.
It with
the
on the slab
moment of the
or tensile, be treated
respectively. later in Sections reinforcement 3.6 and 3-7). in the element (Figure 3.2). although
be assumed to lie
idea is that,
a line with
in the slab
t
element
is examined,
a normal
and direction
61
then
the
normal
exceed
the
value
M*, vhere
M* is
that
This
the reinforcement
is therefore
a normal
tested
as has been shown by Kemp(72). stress field with variable for yield lines multiple
should
be noted at
bound
reinforcement in
direction, (19)
because
may be simultaneous
modes of
Taking
no=al the
to
the
yield of
line the
at
an angle a to shown in
the
x-axis, (3.3),
equilibrium
element
Figure
M s in XY Ms XY in cos
2a 2a 2a
(3-1)
My)s'n
+ Mxy
(3-3)
line
can be expressed
as
M* = M* cos2a+
axy*
M* sin2a M* cos2a
(3.4)
(3-5)
M* = M* sin2a+ txy
M* nt
2a/2
(3.6)
Therefore,
when designing
the steel,
to normal
(3-7)
in (3-7) we have
in: 2 a-M a sin .2a XY
(3.4) and
COS2 a+
62
L
CL
XY
C', 0 ()
sin
m Xy
Figure (3-3) Equilibrium of Moment Field a Slab Element under Applied
M* y
63
k2-(M* -M+
2k M0 XY (3-8)
resistance
(3-8)
the left
related
is denoted by f(k),
provided by the field. to
then
reinforcement
over
As has been shown by Lenschow along lines with df(k)/da least =d reistance. f(tan da d f(tan d tan d f(k) dk
=
moment in the stress (77), is liable and Sozen yield Accordingly, along
occur
such lines
(3-9)
Since
sec
be zero,
hence
from
(3.8)
(3-9) and
X7
or
(M*- my)=-1m yk
If f(k) is to represent
xy a minimum excess
(3010)
moment of
resistance
then
d 2f (k) -dkz=2 M* - 2M yy 0
in
(3-12b)
Iy
64
This
gives
the
orientation
of
the
plane
As has been shown by Lenschow resulting normal while twisting line in the moments is the internal moment.
components across
moment capacity in
twisting
equilibrium
normal
moments with
the yield
orientation Substituting
(3.12b)
minimum resistance3,
then 22
(M* -M)-
xy 0 (M* - my)
M2
(3.13)
M2 XY
(3.14)
(73), (94) 1)
arrived
at by Save
Nielsen
and Kemp(72).
is the yield criterion for orthotropically
reinforced
then the
concrete
equation
slabs.
reduces to
If
M* = M* =M y
of isotropic
(isotropic
slabs
that
reinforcement), (72).
The
(Figure
3.6)
is readily
isotropic condition
by the been This has lines. confirmed the yield moments do exist on (92) (77) Lenkei(95). Sozen Cardenas Lenschow and et al works of . , (90) the on work The Jain extensive experimental et al and Satish
above yield criterion provided by the above mentioned research workers
65
Co
Figure
(3-5)
Moments with
Figure _(3.6)
The Square
Yield
Criterion
66
confirmed
the
validity
of this
criterion.
It
has further
been
established
coincide the with
that
the
the yield
principal
line
orientation
of
will
neither
not in general
the applied nor Consequently, existence do
directions for
resisting
moments,
except
twisting not
at the yield
reduce
capacity
due to
Equation XY in
(3.14)
space,
Figure of principal
moments on
by Kemp steel
For yield
top
of
the
slabs
similar
procedure
If the with the top
described
are laid
for
positive
yield,
can be applied.
to provide yield condition
Jin the
resisting negative
respectively. as
+m
M2 XY moments'(see Figure
(3-15)
(3.1)
the
ultimate
load
by the
finite
element will
provide the
be linked
necessary
with
strength
the yield
conditions
the
just
derived
to
according
elastic
moment field.
The derivation
of such design
equations
will
be outlined
in subsequent
sections.
Because the necessary resistance is made equal to the calculated
stress
at every point
in the slab,
it
is anticipatea
that
all
slab
mx
m XY
Figure
an ort-hotropically
Reinforced
68
parts
will
their
ultimate
strength
under
the
design every
converting to
the of
demand for
as normally drop.
plasticity
will
3.4.1
Positive Referring
we will
have
k 14 XY
(3.16)
then k<0 and vice versa. Equations
if
M >0 XY
(3.17)
(3.18)
arbitrary
the total (2.2.2.4),
constant.
amount Of the volume
minimim. to be used at
steel
proportional on the
Accordinglyl
any point
sum
have
M* + M* =M+M+IM. xyxyv
so that for a minimum
(M* + M*) mI (i
YJ
(K +1
xy
XY
-1)=0
F07
69.
whence
arrangement
of reinforcement
would be
m+ x1
m* =M yy 3.4.2
MXY1
Im + 1 XY
(3-19)
(3.20)
than
or equal
This
as before, algabraic
df(k)/dk maximilym.
still
equations
to (3.19)
would become
XY Xy
negative. steel, The value although
unity
economical
could have been used. 3.4.3 Mixed Moment Fields: Awkvard cases occur when one of the applied the other calculate is negative. Thus if equations (3.19) is positive, moments (3.20) or is used to
the design moments M* or M* result, may value negative ,a xy (bottom) steel is useless. Accordingly, for which a positive resisting
normal moment can be set equal to zero and . steel will then be
provided
in one direction.
in x direction
case M* y
70
in (3.8)
and adopting
the equality
for
mini
k2- M+
2k M0 Xy
d f(k)/dk
=0
and insisting
on M* =0 y
then
k=M
/M XY y
M+
M2 XY
(3.23)
(3.24)
in
Y direction
only:
case M* x
Again using
df (k) / dk =0
(3.8),
and following
with
we will
have
k =-M
then
/ (M; - MY) XY m2 m
M* =m+I yy with M* =0 x
-M
(3.25)
(3.26)
Similar
procedures
moments occur
with
negative
ones.
will those
the positive
can be established,
Rules for
Placing
Orthogonal'Reinforcement: (M ) at any point X SM y 'MXY will be placed on the slab, according the
field
in the X, Y directions
to the
71
3.4.4.1
Bottom Steel
with x
M*
(3.28)
M* xx
(2) If still in
=m+
kz XY
with
y
M* y
(3-29)
(3.28)
(3.29) or
sign,
3.4.4.2 (1)
Top Reinforcement
Im I M* =Mxx XY M* = my - Im I y XY
if M* >0 x then
im
(3.30)
M2
x
M* yy
If M* >0 then
XY
=M
with
M* x
(3-31)
I&LI IM y
with
1* =0
(3.32)
(3-32) or
sign,
then is required.
put such normal moment equal to zero, (3) If both M* and M* are positive, xy
is required.
I /Im y XY
72
M*
M* xx
M+
Im XY
M* =m+
yy
Im I-\ XY
M, .
M* =0xx x
M*
M+1
M2 /M XY y
M* =0
M* = 0. y
mm=
xvx
M7
Figure
(3.8)
Design Equations
for
Bottom Steel
my
1 /IM XY
MxMv=
m*, = m
M* y 0
M2 /M, XY
=0
x
=0
I (1,1)
mx
\\
/IM XYI
1
1
M* ?=0 x
M*f= yy
M-
IM2 /M I x xy
Figure
(3-9)
Design
Equations
for
top
Steel
73
AM. 1 y XY
Bottom
Steel
only
M*
M*
xy
M*
M*I M*?
-0
M* M* xy
Ba To-
anom
I ,/Im XY
I I
II M* 9 M* M* y xy -Bottom X only
Top M*
xy
only
Y M*
only
zI
Figure
(3.10)
Reinforcement
required
for
a given
Moment Triad
74
Figures
(3-8)
to
(3-10)
give
a detailed
picture
of
these
rules.
For general
The designer, diagram, design (3-8), the of top
in a nondimensional
.MX,
form(71).
AY
equation steel in
M XY use to are
(I
(3-10)
yield at
directions to
to be provided
moments refer
steel. The equations in this section to had been derived by Wood(19), and (20) by Armer 0
on a similar
basis
were
extended
skew reinforcement
a single bridge
In practice, subject to
however,
and particularly
must then
be proportioned
produced cases.
multiple
If
the slab
is reinforced
to resist
the severest
load
case, then
Only if
close
load
cases.
stationary
minimum value
is represented
by point
of Figure case.
in
(3-11),
which represents
For multiple following steps.
the reinforcement
loading cases,
needed for
the problem
one loading
the to
The solution
presented
can be viewed
respect
M*
m y
75
Yield
Positive
'S 'S
'S
I
'5 \
'
I I
450
Safe ) XY
m x
M*
Negative Yield
Safe
Sb
04,
Figure
(3-11-)
Yield
Curve
for
Orthogonal
Reinforce=-nt
M* x
Figure
(.3.12)
Optimim
Yield
Moments
for
Multiple
Moment Triads
76
(3.12).
the
case of the
three
loading
cases
shown in Figure
For
simplicity, It
only
steel
will
is assumed that
). m NY3.
solution case,
each load
find
moments using
equations
(3.27)
of
to (3.29)-
This will
define
a stationary
load
minimirr value
pl, P2
case as points
maxiyni3m values
design
moments for
all
load bound B in
cases on the
is and always
Figure
will
region.
C and D in Figure
such points, then
(3.12).
proceed
x coordinate
found
by substitution case,
each load
and selecting
maximum.
fm* 1 M* = xx M* = max 71
Similarly
m* =
M7 +
for
point
(3-35) (3.36)
M* = max x
77
A further (M* + R* xy
is EY the
done by yield
looking criterion
for at
the all
minimim grid
of points
in
the
CBD. same procedure can be adopted the for negative the steel,
maximum in
graphically, selecting
and then
A in
Figure
by inspection,
intersection
curves.
as explained
3.6 DESIGN OF REINFORCEMT FOR MEMBPJUTE FORCES: Equations also resist inplane derived tensile forces analogous to those by Nielsen(74) given for flexural reinforcement to were
to design
orthogonal
reinforcement if
by concrete
only,
and no reinforcement
He also considered
to that used and the procedure adopted is similar (75) Nielsen the Clark approach reinforcement. extended state of stress. to Provide equations Clark pointed out that even. for it may
interest
reinforcement
forces.
Clark
or Eorley(88),
who considered
be discussed
78
3.6.1
Rules for
Designing triad
for
In2lane
Forces:
(N ) at any point in the slab, X9Ny9N -37 to design reinforcement according to the lover bound
In finite this research, program of the stress vector in will be 4. will obeys
element (1)
described Section
Chapter it
assi3mptions
(3.3.2),
further the
under
stress Figure
conditions,, (3-13),
concrete
square
and that of
occurs
for
membrane forces
positive, in the
case of providing
reinforcement in
x and a will
be considered.
The reinforcement
these
directions
their
associated
stresses
will
be Ax9Aa
are taken the x-axisq
and fX arid f.
respectively.
the (3.15).
concrete stress
stresses at e to
a, is
greater
(3-15)and
equations
A jsin2 a at N =-Aafa XY
On dividing through
a+ ah 12
sinz 6+ ah hsin
cos2 6 cOS6+cT,
(h)
(3.37)
h sin 6 COS6
the
slab
thickness
and defining
as
Txzr
ax
and the
/h .=Nx
=Ny cry 9
ratios as
=N
17
/h
(3-38)
reinforcement
ov
79
71
Figure
(3-13)
Yield
Criterion
'for Concrete
in Plane Stress
.. y,
Figure
(3.14)
Sign per
for
Direct
and Shear
Inplane
Forces
80
pA ct
(3.39)
we obtain
a=pf xxaa
cr =pf yaa Vaa pf
+p
Sin2 sin
+a1 COS2 CL 1s
COS2e +a2
2 e Si.
a +0 a
in2 e +a
1-a
COS2 6
(3.40)
Cos
2)
sin e cos e
unknowns for
in
equations state of
(3-40). stresses,
a certain for
nine
possible
cases solution
obtained determined
four
equations the
of total
by minimizing
reinforcement
(px +p
tan e
In Table provided (3.1), a, is given as zero that when tension concrete
(3.41)
reinforcement carry is tensile
because
of the
assumption
does not
forces,
and a20fC
when compression
reinforcement
is Drovided
to make I
(3.2)
sirmarizes
the expressions
and e for
for
each case.
Xf
a f y. =
ax
a - f 7 c
81
Y
Figure (3.15) Directions ,P Reinforcement oL. and Principal
Stresses
in
Concrete
av
XY
Applied
CYX
-4-
Stresses
ax
TXy
2 in 6+ a2 cr, s 1--.
CD N
c'J
"rl ('J
/a
C\j -0111N w 0 Q r-i 0
Ct.
06
IF
>4 cl
82
+ a7 c
cot
a)(T.
X7
+ a.,
cot
relevant
of equations
a particular in stress
to regions flexural
on the are
reinforcement
non-dimensional in Figure
3.4.4
/IT ax a=
shown
of all
curves real
are
given
in
cases with
boundary
and
in
Table graphs
illustrated
one graph
FORCES: BENDINGAND 14EMBRANE 3.7 COMBINED The stress and to design used(74,75,70. resolved into triad for all in this six (N becomes case 9N2N0M9M9M xyVxy a filled all six is sandwich element stress acting resultants are XY
components,
resultants
in the outer
83
shells
of the
sandwich.
Figure
(3-19)
whereas
Figures they
(3.20)
(3.21) and
of these forces
and how
are all
in the outer
designers,,
of the element.
best to assume that
to simplify
X =X xy xy
where of the
=X
xx xx
average of the values plate. forces at the for section of the distances
=y=y
X Z some and are reasonable xx ,Y xx xx steel layers stress level, only. from the resultants the problem middle are plane
reduces equations
designing previous
And the
described
be used.
3.8 CLOSURE
The rules or a close These rules that a state it set in this chapter the provide either an optimum in reinforcement slabs. and
upper will
bound to ensure
concrete
that
exceeded, to equili-
of yield into
will
exist at
a mechanism conditions
The other
conditions
will
be satisfied will
by a stress be discussed
obtained following
element
program,
and this
chapter.
:yl
(a)
Negative
Shear
Stress
xy,
rxyl
(b)
Positive (3
Shear
Stress
Fi gure
Cas e Boundary
/ I-C 1 y XY
inadmissible
1 CO
85
66
inadmissible
- (ID
Figure
(3.18)
Case boundary graphs for orthogonal reinforcement. Plain numerals represent boundary curves Nos. bracketed numerals represent case nos.
86
Top Layer:
Centrally
Reinforced
C7---eFilling:
of the Slab
.---e
Unreinforced
Middle
Plane
xx
Bottom
Layer:
Centrally
Reinforced
Figure
(3-19)-
Filled
Sandwich
Model
N y N XY NxNx
87
YX
N XY zx
N XY Ny
N +YX Tx
XY @Z
xx
yy Z
'Z" xx xy Z x*
Zi
Ny. yz yy Y, Ny. xy z Figure (3.20) Membrane Stress y
x.
zy
Resultants
on a Filled
Sandwich
Element
M, XY
mmx im y ly
ym y
x
m /Z xy x
m /Z
A
xyAy xy
/Z XY y
/Z y y
7/M m xx
/Z
m /Z zy
mxy/zy
' zz
Yv Figure 3.21)
YL
/my/ ir
Stress Resultants on a Filled Sandwich Elem6nt.
Bending
88
Table 3.1 Simnary of Various of Reinforcement.
Reinforcement description Both tension f= x f
Possible
Combinations
Case
Method . ......
of
Solution
minimization (P +P y x
0
of
No x a tension
f= a
fI
03'a
direct
solution
No a x tension
fx
= fs
Pa
00
direct
solution
Both
compression
f= x
f'9 s
af2c
of
No x a 6ompression
f= a
f,
= O, a 2=f x
No a x compression
f=
f,
Is
= 03'a 2 =f
direct
solution
x tension a compression
f= x a1=
fa =2 f f. S 09 a2= fc
direct
solution
8.
x compPession a tension
f= x Cr 1=
f? f =f s 9 a 0, a2= f
direct
solution
No reinforcement
IS x=
P =0 Ct
direct
solution
4-4 0
89
CD
0 0
tj 4)
0
+3 0
U
4-1 0
4) 0 0
u
;Ei
+1 4J 0
4-)
4-2 0 + 0 +
02 tl 43 g(02 N 4-3
0 u
4-) N TO u >-, 0 + U 4) m 0 0 +1
+
ts 4J 0 4-) 0 C)
11 + s 0 C)
d
(U '-, 41
c) 41
CM +
Cq,
+
-0 4 0
4-3 0
C\j
ej
0 L
--, L%n *
? 1x
>-4
c3 u
0 V
0
u
0 +
V) 0 U +i
4-3
%-0 cli
+
4-) 0
0 0
7 cq
-Its"
+3
cli ul 0 C)
0 Cj 0
04
43 0
+
04 u 4) m >1 to f+4 t) +
0 u C\j
+
0 +
0 0 ci
>41
t)
>4
bo .H En W p
0
x CL 4-) 0 ci + 1 C\j
+ >4
rn ts 0 u >1
t) +
4-3 0 U
r-",',l
C\j
d
41 0
; _4
>1
tD +
E-4,
co Cl
(D to Cc C-)
C\j
CY)
43 0
ci
CD 9 4-) 00 VQ
;
ca + f-I
4-4
4-3 0,
90
00
Ca
+ 4.3
0
14 +
+ r-i
CQ
cj
-4
04 4-3
0 ci
C\j
ci 1 +
m C\j
-0
43 0+
Cj
1.
-4
+0
10
CM
ci
IW
4) 4-3 0
43
r-i
r _5 I C14 4-)
0 U
_zr
a) 0
C +
Q)
40, 0
C)
CL
I 4-) 0
0 C4
4-)
0 0
eq
S
rn
+
C\j
j C\j rl q.4 4.4 C\j :u
4. ) 0 tD
10
0 Q
+ >4
r-i qH
>4
C\j 4-4 ; -iu
ca H
E-i
rn
M,
UN
\. O
t--
co
C\
91
Table 3.3 Boundary Curves for Skew Reinforcement
uati
Cr 1 tan a 21 T XY
r--
sec a
27
Tr XY
t.
: T)2 XY
' c
-4
-':
31a=-
r, y7 , =I r
a
(cosec a
cot a)-l
4afc
cosec a cota)-l
x7y
fc
--Y-F =1E7-2 xy XY af Lt an cL f
XTf
fc
4]
XY c 1r 2 I+ xy Isec al
r-xyy-F
CY
TI
fc
xyl 11
7y r-,
a T4
a cot
xY -;7-
+iT XY
'T (YT
axf -r,,
10 a XY 11 ax
cot a(cot
cosec
+ cosec a 2 cot a0
ay -rxy
Cy
(-cota cota
I coseca)-coseca 2cota+fc =0
cosec a
cosec a cota)
12
Cr -rx .1+r XY
a-x 1'r. II y
fc XY
13
(-cota
14
Note: Alternative
ax
sign is the
7
T
ot
+2'cot a-4 7y
of
TT -c r7, 77 xy
v C, a cot a 1- 11 Irxyl
A
same as that
r XY
14
92
o 7
A )
1 N
+ H
; -4 N
+ r-i 0.4tj
cli
tll 1
>41
>1
1 >4
11
i-11
U 4-4
0x
>10
04
0
cu
lr4
W 0
1
1 >4
14
1-
>4
0
4 0 qH
CL
H
4-4 tD H to
rn
-m
Co
ca +
CL
>1
CH >)
+ >4 10 ;. 4M
,- 14-4 1CH ', 14. " -
-T
ID
I q" 'i 17H,
C) E-i
ta
--I
r _:
L-N
10
L--
0%
93
Table 3.5 Boundax7 Curves for Orthogonal Reinforcement
Curve
I.........
.....
Equation
.....
...
..........
...
ay
T XYI
ax
JTXYJ Cry TXY
ay T xy
+ -I. _Lc2- 1
TX71 -1
c+1 Txy II :fcf IT /T I
:,o
TxYll
CFX
1014
Ir xv
1T. YJ
--.
xyl
2., YiTxyl
=-a0
f
IT-VI
12
I-4 zr
ax, Xy
91
10
Txy
1r.,
Yl
I Xy fc
Txyl
+1
12 13
14
Inapplicable Inapplicable ax
T.
rc 1 xy I
fc
2-7-+4 xy
94
CHAPT M- FOUR THE PINITE'EL='T M=OD
4.1 IINRODUCTION: In the previous in concrete moment triad slabs for chapter, the rules for . designing the reinforcement The
is obtained In this
analysis-using
element method.
the finite
moment fields
the validity
4.2 THE FINITE ELEMENT USED: 4.2.1 The Stiffness In this is used. the plate plate
stress plates
study,
Middle
Each layer
The usual in this
assumed to be in a state
of the first order the
assumptions resea--ch(l).
Accordingly,
elements. eight
elementv rith
defor-mations
bil-4neax functions
a, + a2x +a 3y +a ey
v=a5+
with a linear
a6x +a 77 + axy
strain variation within
(4.2)
the element*
95 2. A rectangular
developed
by j1dini-Clough
aw ;wT j, 5v ay
fourth
order polynomial
in the lateral
W=a9+
alox + ally
+ alx2
the above
deformations
aw U Vo Wo - -Y I
The constants writing
aw rx
IT
(4-4)
by
displacements In matrix
written as
appropriate
values.
form,
[C)
{a}
depending
(4-5)
on nodal coordinatesq and
where
(al
[C]
a vector
is a 20 x 20 matrix
of
20 unkno, m constants.
Inverting
a)
The strain plates will
cc]
vector by
-1
w
first order
(4.6)
theory of
be given
au
av
au
3vbbb
xy
XY
} (4-7)
components.
eb axe obtained
96
of the plate. of the plateg Accor-dinglyp plane axe
au
plane
the total
strains
in each layer
a0c
CY av ;)3r au
a 2w Z =a x
; 2W Z =, ay
+- g+
arv
2Z
a 2w
ay aDc
au ax av Dy au ay
c x1 c y
c xy J
El
=
0 0
-T-
TX
av
(4-8)
0100
In matrix
form,
equation
(4-8)
can be written
as
{C I=
where strain e
[R]
(cm }
of total plane strains at level and
(4-9)
z, and ERJ is c is the 3x6
is the vector
vector
in (4-8)
vector
through
on the displacement
9T
*2 ae abx
a7
*3
cm '2
a
12 14 13 -6a 15x -2a, 7x 4a, 6x
a6
-2a, 6y -6a, 4a y 17Y
aBy
-a, xy -a 2CPcy 6algX2 6a 20Y
2a 2a
2a
e 61
(4-10)
20 matrix at each Gauss point, called the is a vector of middle plane strains. {E: strain matrix, and mIe Using (4-10) in (4-8) we will have ER
The stress vector
[13
le.
is given by
(4-11)
IM any layer {e
(4-12)
(4-13)
called
the standaxd
matrix
is given by
[K]
and using is
jil
BT D3 dx dy dz
in (4-14)9
(4-14)
matrix
equation
(4-11)
thealement stiffness
BT (RT D R) B dx dy dz
only the bracketed term in (4-15) is dependint
(4-15)
on the Z coordinatep
98
and the integration can be performed Accord-4nglyv equation by sli=Lng (4-15) the layers
cont: ributions.
becomes
I Y-1 =
in which the
ff
BT DI B dx dy
matrix DI represents the
(4.16)
eqnivalent
constitutive
constitutive
Vi
o
0
z Z. 11i V.
vZZ iii 00 j2 , Z
0 1-Vi
0
0 v
Vi 0 Z j-v i 0 2 i V.: z . 1i
0 0
, Z ii
122 vZZ iii
(U.
vZZ ii
i 2 v-i 02:: Z 10
ji Z. D.
Z i : Z?
D i D
(d Z)i
(4-17)
the important
model in
composite
.6
If
properties of ZdZ in
Plane
summation matrix
vanish,
and the
exhibits.
between membrane and fle = such a coupling even if the slab effect
al effects.
For reinforced
of layers
thickness
across
is
the thickness
considered
layer. one as
the flexural
terms plate,
E. dZi) representing the flexural Z1Z? rigidity l--!Y II depend" on the rramber of layers used. Table (4-1) obtained in computing N. the flexural stiffness
99
of the gives the
accuracy
flexural
Eh3/12(1--V2) increased.
of layers
as the =
Although
ber of layers
the
increasing
would
enable
a close
monitering
it
in the compater.
factors plate given with
can be co=ected
derived assuming
in Table of
which
were
one material
layers
thicknesses.
Table
(4-1)
Flexural of a layered plate rigidities of =ber as a function of layers . co=ection fac tor
x 2
% e=or
4 6 8 10 12
in (4-16) is
station that
points =
is quite
adequate
to yield will
a higher
enable a close
monitor and
integration increased.
is not affected,
4.2.2
and
subdivision. uniformly
is In
found
to
very
well
with
increasing supported
bending,
case of will
a squaxe
simply
distributed is very
The rate
good,
and the
can be seen even for Table the used (4.2) slab gives
mesh of using in
the results
study, given
depth.
the
table,
on a symmetric
Convergence study for the case of a Simply Supported Plate under uniform
loading.
Mesh 2. x 2
Deflection
x 103/224 D
Moment x 100
qa 2.
and a reduced
the computations. The inplane element has also been tested by the author. of this As element
section,
is made uP of
101
one layer
can be used.
of layers
The problem considered under an edge point convergence refined. layer load.
for Table
convergence (4-3)
problem rate of is
reflects solution
of the results
to the exact
The beam is assumed to be of one material, was adopted and a reduced referred 4-1) integration of 2x2
to in the table
is that
(4-3)
Mesh
Maximm
4-3
4-3.1 General
The behaviour stress-strain less elastic curve of concrete of FigL=e ultimate can be explained (4.2). strength, with the aid of the
Under increasing
loads,
concrete
102 linear way. The material stresses, valuep has got but a limited the material normally fails ductility, by crushing and under when attaining purposes, of loading it The The latter
design stages
On the other ow. ng to its also loses reinforcing willt all small its
strength.
cracks,
in a direction to carry
layers
of stress,
element model has thus to consider Other sources axe still difficult of nonlinearities to treat,
thsse
sources
and in most
unimportant
in this
in slab problems.
study.
Accordingly,
will
4.3.2.1
for Plain
Concrete:
strength increases in ultimate of the two strength of in
of stress,
concrete
to uniaxial(56957958977P78), stressing
The increase
due to biaxial
of lateral/axial
the minimum increase whereas compressive compressive applied stresses. strength stress
of 16Y6corresponds
Under biaxial
tensile
is almost
finite
et al(56)
toog Figure
103
(82) by the Buyokozturk been of works confirmed also (58) The Mohr-Coulomb failure Tasuji et al surface (see the following same tension-compression
predicts (16) a higher
section),
except
in the region
of combined si=face
Johansen of
stresses,
strength. ignores
a region
The square
and Pxager(l)
any possible
interaction
a set
orthogonal compressive
that under
stressest states,
uninxial
that strength
for
failures of concrete
The use
of uniaxial
is
thus
more conservative,
and
point
of View.
more by crack
under compresaive
states
of stressest
axe insignificant,
4.3.2.2
A multi-linear obtained
sheax stress
'a
Oct
as
Toct
3xyxy
+ Cy2 -a
+3
T2
XY (4-19)
-a-ba0=
the is a0 mean normal where determined strength from experiments. of concrete and fd
stress,
to be compressive strength
Taking
as the equivalent
under biaxial
compressionp
m =. f t/fc
in the following
manner:
(a)
lo4
compression yielding:
(i)
For uniaxial
mean stress
compression -r Oct
is fc/3,
r2-3 f.
and the
then by (4-19)
V2fo 3
(ii) for biaxial
bf
/3 +a
Oct
then
(4.21)
r2 f 3d and the
compression
is -2 fd/3t
mean stress
V-2 f `7 3d
Solving (4.21)
2b fd/3
+a
(4.22)
(4_. (4.2) 22) then and and using (n 1) nf=0 V-2 VT + (2n (-n-o3 1) Oct 0 ---'17
(4.23)
Taking n=
then
(0*1714 0*4143 Toct/fc + =0 aolfc) (b) Terlsion-Compression Using the same procedure, it can be shown that
(4.24)
TOct/f
cn
+ V7
R+
m) cr lfc M) 03
V2 _2
m0 T-M-)
(4-25)
(c)
tensile
strength
stressing,
the (a If
simple t)2
condition: (4.26)
(7 )2 + -1=0 21f t
is sufficient,
although
equation
(4.25)
case.
of plane
assumed to be of
using
different
can be assigned
105
prior assi=ed to crackingg a Gauss point and isotropic, in a concrete having layer is to be elastic the following
constitutive
matrix
1
V(4.27)
Dcv10
200
1-, v
2 Upon cracking, the crack (FigUre the x-coordinate (4-5)), axis is placed parallel to direction
is removed.
with
The constitutive
of
is
to
accordingly,
concrete,
respectively. investigated
Literatu=-e
justification It gives
see section
(2-4.4-1). steel To
in concrete effect,
tension
stress-strain
concrete
in tension
is used, stress
of the principal 2 cr XY a. a. xy
for
the crack
(4-30)
by (4-30)
will
lie
Oc. is dete=ined
lo6
The constitutive matrix D* is defined to the global in the crack directions. directions The be to transformed has thus and transformed matrix D' =TTDT
where the transfcrmation 2 TS2c2 2 'S 2CS S2 matrix CS -cs C2-S2 (4-32) T is given by
becomes
(4-31)
where
Cos ec: r,
However, during might closep on the yield of Figure if
S=
sin e,,
of Ne struct=eq turns an open crack one. CB
the crack
surfacep
behaviour
(4-7),
is understood be possible
s=face in
of concrete
will
yield
f or such f eatures
by a modif ication
zone(43). stresses
tension-compression
done by corrverting This is usually e.lFechve 1to an7, -. and using the compression,
corresponding
intermediate
compression
yield
surface
(see section
4.3-3-1), tlaus
(i) dowel action is allowed for since the loss of stiffness failure. for the
same reason.
The yield in Figure (4.7): surface can thus be divided into four regions as shown
107
1. 2. Failure Failure under under combined tension tension - ED - DC
compression-stresses
Cleavage failure-
CB.
Biaxial
c=piession
f ailure
failure
between splitting
is detected,
yielding
yielding
as far
as the constitutive
matrix
is concerned.
4-3.3-1 Concrete:
It behaviour has already for been established that an initial is limited linear elp-stic load
concrete
under compression
only to small
range up to about 30 to 50% of the ultimate this rangeg some plastic action is involved.
Beyond
of concrete
plasticity stress-strain
reaches ability
To account
plasiic
befcre
plastic is flow,
(2) during
a yield
has been used by many investigators(47948950)0 To const--uct the normality surface the stress-strain relationship rate in the plastic vector Thus to the yield range,
of the plastic
deformation rule)
is used.
(4-33)
proportionality
a crushing
in which
fracture
X>0
is a scalar
using of
factor.
surf ace,
The onset of
to (4-33) is
analogous
and expressed
strains(50).
After
fracture,
concrete
lose to assumed
all
its
of
strength.
this approach is that nonlineax action is
ignored
until
the yield
surface
is reached.
structures
such an assumption
4.3-3.1(b)
Representation
of a given stress-strain
methods: equations and strain
Curve using
Various their
curve fitting
empirical principal
stress-strain stress
expressed values
in
terms
of
respective
have been
test curves. to the laxge amounts of biaxial (60) '8P59) -O' Works by Liu et al, Irasuji Buyokoz tLk(82) et and al(r. , of this type. The following equation
12
by fitting
a e: a 1+
21[c-
(4-34)
1+
.p*7Pct
represents
a uni; xial
stress-strain
curve
for
concrete,
and was
109
originally are a=E CP = 10 C initial 0*0025 for f cu for elastic corpression modulus proposed by Liu, Mcperiments indicate that, the constants
uniax-, al compression. e
and
studyg loading.
after
equation This
Bell
(4-34) is
and
linearized
intermediate al(78).
surfaces are
Such surfaces
shown in Figure
The first
loading
surface diagram.
the
oo=esponds
to the initial
discontinuity
in
the stress-strain
have 4. -he shape of
Subsequent loading
yield surface.
surfaces
Accordingly,
are-ass, =*ed to
the inter-
limiting
mediate
surfaces
will
be represented f
by equation
an An
in-ermediate empirical
strength f cc
form for f
f the strength ult -imate replacing c cc (43) -as has been suggested by Johnaxry (Ec/Ei) is the initial (4-35) modulus. (4-34). In this
=f -ft+ft co cc cc fE C* C
subject
to
research,
the instantaneous
The discontinuity
stress
fco
4-3-3.2 Reinforcing Steel: In the present layered approach, steel b, =s axe represented by a
layert smeared bars. the of bilineax whL; h can carry The stress-st=ain, stresses only in the original direction
curve for
steel
relationship
in both tension
and compression,
110
Steel in
bars
are
thus yield
yi eld
point
fy,
and
case of high
corresponding
to 0.2yo strain
is used. Prior After to yieldingg stresses are omputed uzing the initial modulus.
yielding,
load increment,
(4-36)
Linear 4-3-4 strain hardening can also be incorporated, if so desired.
Pseudo-load
vector:
forces resulting from lack of equilibrium during
"'he out-of-balance
axe used to supplement f==: (4-37) the material yield beyond back
axe removedg and the stress Within any material,. matrix step. (4-37)
su::face.
the cur=ent
constitutive loading in
study, (68) for Gauss (padrature and , as that used for the stiffness
In this
the integration
is Performed using
the
consistency, computation,
of integration
is also adopted.
The =erical procedure used in this study employs a total strain (43) technique at each load level. Using such procedures would eventually lead to large going extensive ps-eudo-forcesl plastification. Paxticulaxly And if when the st=icture is under-
ill
smallt
these induced if
forces is
will
lead
especially
equilibrium
satIsfied .
by allowing
the required
namber of ite=ations.
of plasti. fication
derivation analysis increment of with
in the structure.
is given in load
Following
Appendix
the
on the
to be less
0*15 Pcr
(43),
with in
as will
be shown
4-3.5 Details
increments,
within
eachg an elastic
by a succession
of linearized
iterations
equilibrium equation to
to zero.
is achieved. at
At any moment, these excess forces the start solution fictitious of the next
axe added to the load vector Accordingly, increment all the elastic using
is obtained loads
applied
in addition load
nonlinear
resulting
from previous
of the residual
load vector
ex P towards
zero is
slowq particularly
stiffnesses
axe used.
112 Accelerators hese have been used, Phillips but since (65) examined various with any one type. no universal procedure exists, but
techniques, However,
successful
results study, it
a limit
between
goods results
research.
proceeds along the following steps:
The solution
1.
matrices
are formed from the layers A reduced integration in this order study.
stiffnesses, of 2x2
considered
stiffness
is formed from the elements matrices, The matrix is then decomposed (68) procedure and the structure displacementsq is solved middle plane
standard
procedures(31).
A small for
applied,
nodal
From nodal
strains
are found at the Gauss points. in a layerg the total strains axe found
from: -
+ZX
Using the current and principal The stress stresses state constitutive axe found. at the point matrix D for
(4-38)
the point, stresses
is checked against
the -. elevant
transition
repeated If for
criteria.
all
If
sampling
layers
the constitutive
113
axe then brought contribution calculated N=a back to within the yield surface. NIM The point is
resultant
vectors
az dz fox- all
(4-39)
sampling points in all layers
Previous
and in all
e.
r=erical
integratian
the
resulting
N and MO thus
(4-41)
ex is added to the load vector, F using [, ex 1, wid stePs 4 to 8 the displacement
is analysed
and convergence
is checked,
using
norm
NCEM=([
Iterations'are
6d aT
ass=ed
{ Adl /[d
IT
12'
{d
1)
(4-42)
iterate Norm 10-4.
to converge
when the
10.
If is
convergence exhaustedt
or a predefined
limit
on the iterations
increment
see section
illustration Details
the numerical
procedure
is
given
in
in Appendix
with
the instructions
is -imminentv
When failure
a ! a-rge disparity
internal
and
114
external forces at faster is can be seen. quite a large At such number a stage, of points, the reinforcement could
rates. approached.
In most casesp
convergence
when failure
4.4
model could
predictions
the behaviour
design procedures.
the validity of the
reseaxch. 4.4.1 A Square Sinply A square simply with isotropic Supported supported Slab under a Central Point Load. =-d 139*7 mmdeep
slab
reinforcement
under a central
point
Dotreppe
Cement Association
The materials
y
Es=
2 30394 I,/=
206850 IT/= 2
139-7cm
FigLLre (4-10) gives
d, = 114-3 mm.
curve for this slab. was
the load-deflection
Due to symmet--y, one quadxant with analysedq using this using an integration
elements
order
model with
and without
considering stiffening
The analysis
considering
tension
115 accuracy ultimate of the model in predicting load. The analysis behaviour. ignoring both the displacements tension s1wiffening and the produced a Gilbert stiffening
This
who concluded
in concrete
between adjacent
in the calculated
deflections
can be as high as 100yo. neglecting load, this tension stiffening effect must not affect load 10% less is not considered. was not terminated,
model predicts
an ultimate stiffening
ultimate
i the analysis
load could have been -&eached, but at very high deflections. using a different model also found that the ultimate this load to any
by 100/-C. Although
the author
is of the opinion
of this
model had also been investigated.. of the response using for the same
Figure
(4-11)
various
As far
as mesh refinement
is concernedg
is obtained elements.
axe predicted
occur at exactly
The same slab was also reanalysed increments. predicted FigL=e by different (4-10) gives
a comparison
sizes
of load
increments. size
improve with
a reduced its
model indicates
ability
116
accurate
of the
predictions
cracking load
is taken
around 0.08
The effect
considered. the same slabs
of increasing
(4-13). total In at
Figure
gives
iterations would
is
and then is is
mean the
satisfied shown to
level. the
improve to what to
iterations. found.
satisfy
analysis
and poor at t9
analysiss in its
poor
However,
formulation
shows a vex7
good desirable
response cost
number of a limit
iterations.
As a compromise normally
between produces
of 15 to
20 iterations
acceptable
of
conditions slab,
have the
supported restraints in
flexural movements
conditions
obvious,
to membrane quite
ambiguous.
Such a slab
can be supported
different study,
their
as a simple
support.
In this to see
of
to inplane
effect
on the
made by this
inplane
boundary
is
conditions
the
(4.14b).
under
The prob.',.em
point each type of
investigated load.
a central to
The predicted
corresponding
117
boundary condition (4.14a) is shown in Figure (4.14a). predictions obtained in each
Figure
compares
the
various
The effect
increasing of
the restraint
to inplane
elastic
the effect
inplane
is insignificant. variations.
From Figure gives load. accurate
by such
(4.14a),
it
is
clear for
that the
the
boundary
conditions ultimate
type
both
response in
and the
Accordingly,
will
be adopted
analysing
simply
supported
slabs.
4.4.2
tested
by Jofriet
and McN41ce
was 914.4
mm.square
reinforced
with point
steel.
under a central
fy=
ES = 200000 d, = 33-3 =
v=0.15
44.7 =
A mesh of 4x4 elements over asymmetric quadrant was used, together
with
size
of 0.1 P cr.
Details
in Figure
Two results
of the analysis
given here,
analyses
one for
slab
118
supports in both behaviour at the cases is corners, quite loads, the good. while other with roller with pin roller supports. supports The agreement predicts stiffer
Analysis the
at high
one with
supports
shows a
flexible
In both
experimental
model in
analysing due to
boundary
a reduced pin
bending
supports.
reported the
inplane obtained
boundary here
condition are
predictions
considered
satisfactory.
4.4.3
Tee-Beam BI Tested by Rao: This problem was chosen to demonstrate the ability of this model
to analyse
tested
and analysed
fy=
E! s
340
N/=2
200000 N/mm2
Other geometrical
The beam was analysed
properties
subject to
in Figure
centre.
(4.18).
at the
by half
the flange
six elements
was analysed
the spans
along
119
The computed load-deflection beam is given
load could (of
curve for
point
of the cracking
in Figure
(4-17).
with
This analysis
the actual
a higher
load
predict also
load
of the
Rao(39)
such
cracking could
load.
be due to the
use of 0.96
for
tensile
strength still
he later flexible,
analyse not
were too
predict
ultimate the
load
present
model3, apart
from
cracking could
load,
the reduced
predictions
made are
acceptable.
The cracking
have been
if
a value
of 5% f
the tensile
strength
of concrete.
designated
the
Al by Hayes et, al
same flexural
by edge beams of
simply
The relevant fy =
24710 N/=2
Other dimensions
and reinforcement
in Figure
(4.19).
120
The slab reinforcement was uniformly using spaced in 5x5 each direction. elements over a
was analysed.
a mesh of
quadrant.
was applied P cr
as a uniformly the
of 0.1
effects loads
bounds
incremental 30 iterations
4-3.4).
A maximum number of
the
analysis. (4.19). The figure the cracking of behaviour of the shows the of slab slab-beam and the This
Figure in
predicting first
predicts at
the
simultaneously
a load
5 kN/m2 (about
18 M).
load reported
by Hayes
(84)
in his
range,
convergence.
of the supporting
56 kN),
convergence
number of iterations
Although disparity first yield convergence was not load
appearing
yield. ultimate
model
a mechanism
had already
formed, along
reinforcement
supporting
beams yieldings
and also
121
the two centre slab lines of the slab. Deflections were also very the high, slab
and at the
centre,
the'deflection
was greater'than
just of mechanism
the that of
described
represents
actually is able
the composite
failed. to predict This
system model
slab-beam in
slab-beam layer.
lies of to
assumption
vertical
middle
shear
But
for
beams,
to high
torsional
example. shear
definitely below).
underestimate
stresses
Figure-(4.20)
Shear
Flow
a layered
Plate
Model
122
4.5 CONCLUSIONS.
This tested element in its-present and the formulation following had been extensively arrived at:
by the
author,
conclusions
are
1.
A mesh division
for
an elastic
analysis planar
is also
of concrete
structures.
a rough mesh
can be obtained
even with
conditions
are very
important is
for found
a successful to be greatly
response to 2x2
inplane is
adequate
consiaered enable
-that
ii higher
monitoring faster
of the nonlinearities,
convergence.
integration,,
improvement
stiffening
significant factor cost of
provided
by concrete
on the
between adjacent
accuracy of the
cracks
predictions.
this the
aids
the
affected,
occur
increments,
can be ignored.
123 In all
size is
casesq convergence
taken of between 0.08
is very
and 0.1
fast
of the
to yielding
reinforcement,
convergence
of the order
10 to load
specified
for
in section
most the
(4-3-5)
of the
problems load.
0.15
cracking load,
increment
convergence in
with of
10 iterations, large
most forces
excessive loads,,
bounds
are not
plastic
program,
increment
prior
to yield
The lack
structure
of convergence
is undergoing
extensive
plastification.
with
this
model indicates
that
this
conditions,
is indicative and
Analysis equilibrium is found to with at this
of the imminent
model indicates increment.
of the structure.
effect of attaining of the to predictions small
The accuracy
improve
much by demanding
convergence
to what Duncan and Johnarry (43944) The Duncan and Johnarry's model was a crude one$
the restricting numerical assumption procedure relied of in of constant stress over the
This is in contradiction
(44)
As their
involving its
total
(successive imbalance
success stress
assumption
constant
always
124
estimated their
their
these forces.
Accordingly,
it
that
predictions
model
were stiffer
able to
was not
formulation, for
was achieved.
125
(-,
v C,
in element local
coordinate
11
12
13
14
8
15
5
6
1
6 7
2 8
7 9 3
10
Pigure
26
STRESS
cu
Figure
(4.2)
Stress-Strain
relationship
for
concrete
in compression
FigL=e
(4.3)
Biaxial
strength
of concrete
a 2/1 cul
127
cr
If4
Fi; rure--(4-4)
Y
criterion
for
plain
concrete
vi
xf
x
Figi=e -(4.5)
Transformation directions of cracked stiffness to global
128
STRESS
ft
I- cr
STRAIN
CC
Figure
(4.6)
Tensile
Stress-Strain
curve for
concrete
"fCu 21
129 111f
pigure-(4-7)
surface surfaces
initial -
and
STRESS
II
130
[Pll
rpll
dj
DETERMINE PRINCIPAL STRAINS9 STRESSES. THEN DETEMMINE THE NODAL FMCE VECTOR [F [F] =Z] [a] dv
NO
---
SMALL?
-7-1-
YES
numerical
procedure
131
90 80
70
60
Cd 0
a__ -------
50 40
Experiment
P4
Cd
r-4 0 E-1
30
20
10
4
Figure (4.10. a)
a Central
12 Deflection
supported
16 (mm)
slab under
20
a central
CU
47971 Nl=
h=
d1=
=
139.7 mm
114 -3 mm
Py
px
0-0099 =
e_(4.10. b),
Details
of DOTREPPE slab
132
80
70
60
PL4 %. -I
50
r-i
Cd
40
30
20
10
48
12
16
20
24
CENTRALDEFLECTION(=) Figure (4-11) Comparison between the predictions made by different for the square mesh subdivisions load simply supported slab under a central
85
75
65
55
r-4
0
P
Cd
45
35
25
15
5
12
Central Pigixre (4-12) Deflection
16
(mm)
20
24
sizes
on the
85
75
65
55
P4
45
35
25
15
dent.ral Teflection
FigL=e (4-13)
(=)
load. at
A 8imPlY SuPported slab under a central Effect of satisfying static equilibrium each load level on the deflections.
100
135
so
00-%
A
P-1 Id Cd
60
40 Cd
20
12 of various
16
20 on the response
0x=C..
L.
v0 60C. x L.
TYPE 1
y--0
e X=o
TYPE 2
U=o ey.
=O
U---V--W= fj
=U
U--V=W--Ii
=U
v= x--0 0
C. L.
N. B. IY
0
w=O 6
=o
u=O
=O
1 ZYPE u--Iw=e =0 -I y
Figure
(4-14b)
Types
of
boundary
conditions
for
a simply
supported
slab
136
16
i-'
12
0 A $.
P4
P-4 :4 H Cd 421
0
E-4
cu
48.6 Nl=
Ec Es ft
331 2e614
200000
914.4 h
d1
Px
14-4
Figure (4-16), Details of McNeice Slab.
137 45 40 35 30 25 20
P4
Experiment
v
15
16 12 (=) Deflection
20
a-w7"
1650
3300
1000
'
/gmm @ 15()c
120 (4.18) Details of RAO TEE-BEAYIB1 (For materials see section properties
15
Figi=e
3.4-3)
co
T
St'i='UPS @ 76 mmc/c
24
4`8 min
COA
20
16
12 x
Ebcperiment Theory -
10
20 Central
30 Deflection
40 (mm) c=e
50
Fig=e
(4-19)
for
Hayes'
I SY -
139
CHAPTER'FIVE INVESTIGATION
5.1*INTRODUCTION In the previous established. (Chapter In this chapter chapter, a reliable finite element program was design procedure is
3) will
be critically
and can be
details,
materials
input data
properties
for the
analysis section
on the
specified (3)9
ultimate the
Using
design
equations at
chapter point
required
calculated State
on the
Limit to
A)9 the
provide (2)
step the in
are
computed proper
their
in the
layered
the way,
service
and ultimate
behaviour nonlinear
of
the
slabs is
designed
analysis
performed. results
A wide will
range
has been
investigated
and their
be presented
chapter.
AI
14o
5.2 CONPARISONBETWEEN'TORSIONAL'AND'TORSIONLESS'ANALYSES:
5.2.1
General: The provision of reinforcement to resist the three moment components as an extension In fact,
known Hillerborg's
design.
method provides
Mx and My. while to
reinforcement
the torsional that the
assuming
as a series Such
parallel
each direction) in
without
stiffness. the
unacceptable
dominant.
Secondly,
in pursuit
which jeopardize
service the in
which
are loaded
moments may circumvent eccentric may not concentrated be applicable. design method and is
cases
or torsional
loads9
provides thus
reinforcement
to A study
resist to
all compare of
has been undertaken the design merits cases, moment fields in terms the of
two methods,
and to
show their
econony element
In both (4)
finite
in the
analysis.
Such a numerical
simulation
141
a stress zero distribution in equilibrium with the applied loads, but with will present torsional moments everywhere. analysis. properties G 0.0. with the This Accordingly, On the for other concrete also
procedure., torsional in
would
loads,
analysis, of Chapter
obtained
and will
be termed
"torsionas
analysis".
5.2.2
Analyses A series
and Results: of slabs with various boundary conditions all and differing under the the a
sides
ratios
were (5-1)
cases moment
have been plotted moment fields (5-3) Results seven (D). proposed of the to (5-9) for cases In all for for
Comparisons in
cases with in
sides
ratios (Dl)
Figures
torsional
torsionless
on the near
curves curves
indicate in each
strip
in shown as
the
be mentioned
analysed
using from
Accordinglys tenths of
strip
distance
variation results
of the
design
the
strip.
use,, the
142
nondimensional those causing form. tension The sign on the convention for of the the slab =ments is that
underside
are positive.
5.2.3
of'RLisults: (5-1)'and
gives all the higher cases
(5.2),
it
is evident
than slabs
that
that
the torsional
of no torsion. supported steel
simply to
sides,
difference 5-1).
8% of the differences
Accordingly,
apparent torsional
two analyses
moments, corners.
concentrated torsional
discontinuous
supported
practice,
reinforcement
of the midspan
is normally
reinforcement. were
as a certain
percentage
steel
Appendix
analysis in
Table final
the
supported
the of the
that
or higher free
differences produce
can also
be seen in which
cases with
moment volumes
differ
considerably
other.,
free
(5-1).
is
one
(case'C), edge
due. to
143
(a) The torsionless analysis 'underestimates the reinforcement
Figures
(5.5b),
and D22).
reinforcement.
can be done about the to of reason Cpllo(5). reducing in (a), over the but the the two in
steel corners.
difference
(Table
this above,
5.2).
case,
ratio
torsional
confined
corners
orthogonal
discontinuous in determining
edges),
increases which
the effect
the total
corner
the difference
32.2% and 44-TOO. Addition between the two simply 'v, 18.6, maximum of
The difference in such
supported
cases
is
due to
the
large
differences
in
produced
given in
Figures
(5.3)
to (5-9)
and in Appendix
(D). supported
c,
Considering
fields . are given
slabs,
the moment
(Dl to D8).
d) and Figures
144 While design with Me the torsional the analysis torsionless of reinforcement of design gives a fairly gradual produces the central the variation a parabolic zone of the analysis in design the in strip. the value is also (10) on the miniTninn weight pattern. moment distributions Although the torsionless do not are principles of variation, slab.
moments, concentration
analysis in
moments in the
torsional
reinforcement
reinforcement on the
be based
average This
without
producing
a significant
over
the- designs
results (D9 to
moment values,
two methods
differ
the ratio
between
in slabs with
than 1.0,
steel
edges simply
supported
(case G) the
Figures from, be seen as can requires little about steel 214)very strong bands
at the On the
centre other
edge to analysis
Finally torsional
represented designs.
compared
145
considered will is the square simply line supported (5.1). Table slab of It
The ultimate
strip
lever
2x is m2, that
be neglected$
of edge strips
so that the steel
the is
ultimate
This
x=0.375
0.0746 q L4 0.0241 q L2 m2 = 0.0475 q LZ Now for the same slab, V=0.0744 from Table (5-1) q L4 (5.2) and Figure (5-3) we have:
m, = 0.0225 q L2 0.0475 q L2 = m2
The moment values at the mid of This L in the strip in (5.2) Figure is are the (5-3), central which to is
value
and the
value
2 in
at 0.15
L from the to
support. 0.375
equivalent analysis.
x=0.35
Z, as compared
(5.2) and
the
yield
the are
The only
vhile analysis,
three
bands
each direction
line
present in the
Since
the
derivation of the
on an assumption that
equal
ultimate
modes,
can be concluded
use of banded
t"
146
reinforcement collapse according modes will of the slab will involve failure limit by simultaneous when every infinite an due to yield point formation is of many
In. the
number of of
form
the yielding
and not
just
lines.
5.2.4 Conclusions:
Based on what has been presented the following conclusions can be
drawn: (1) The distribution conveniently Putting solutions the the of design moments in the in the concrete finite analysis is slabs element can method.
by using G=0
without
moments,
which
Fernando to
strip
deflection
method
method properties
isotropic
G00.0
element
analysis.
solutions
of Chapter
slabs.
torsional
method represented
moment volumes obtained
analysis
variance
which
acceptable design
those
fromi the
method,
provided
the additional
torsional
steel
is included.
147
For slabs around),, solutions discontinuous the direct on all (i. edges e. simply supported 11 a.
design method produces more economical method. in steel Using the torsional can be obtained by the strip a fairly
moments. design of the the in
analysis case
in this
required
method. smooth
Accordingly, the strip on
analysis
of
provides
design
distribution
designer the
can base the maxiTnurn or the without the departing strip. provides
either the
design
moment in
strip,
original
distribution
method corners,
both
the
quantity
of torsional should
and the
length such
In normal
a steel
only
as a certain
of midspan
by the distribution
The method also provides steel. this In some cases, and the
method provide
direction,
designer
Code requirements. (8) The method yield modes. line is found to compare accurately under approach with designs based on the
theory
involving direct
failure design
collapse
The present
proposed portions
allows with
simultaneous
collapse
design
ultimate
148
C>l c) 11. m :t (Yl Ul\ ri CM cm UN Pl LIm Co m _e H r-i m CM CD (> Lr\
CM
CM
C\i
CM
CM
ri
C\i
CM
2 0
A
n
A
Co
4
O\
A 1;
\M \Z
A
r-i ni CU 0
c5
A
Co m m 0
c;
A A 1;
Co m t _: 0
(5
'
1
4j
"
r-i t'-
Co O\
0 c;
cu Co
0
0 C)
0 M r-i
Ic;
r-i %z r-i
c
0 C r-i
<5
ni (n Lr\ 0
%0
Cti \M 0
0 0
Co (D
cli r-i
\M r-i
Lr\ CY%
O\ r-i c
tVN -
CYN 0
ri CM
(Yl 0
e _:e
_-r C
Co
c; c; c (5 c;
E-4 0 Co ci H Co H 0 Co CM C%i 0 \M ID cm CD f-A (: CM 0. r --. Lr\ H 0
c;
CM CM CM 0 >Co CM 0 CD m ri 0 r-1 C> (1 0
ri 2 Co 0
4j
sq
.1
( c; c; (5
e o A
UN
c; c; c;
Co CD m ci 14
\D 0
m CD
A
Co
A
O\
Ul% Z 0 0 A
1,0
H m
r-i M
(: CY
tC\i
4
c ch
45 11
gq 0.
t0
0
Co
m ri
0 cu t-H
, 0 ri
0 C\ r-i t-ri
ri
(D
c% ri
CD 1%0 \M
C)
r-i ri 0 0 r _: u-\ c) c)
H
"0
ri 0
(D C\j
ri cm 0
\O "0
ri
0 W 4 0
0 C> H
CM 0 0 0 (D
O\
zr tC)
CM
Co
cl
CM
(\i
_-r
cl
CM
CD
(Yl
C)
C)
to
-r4
ull C\j
0 Ul\
U'\ t. -
44'4
4 C 14
ri
rn 0 0
. r4 4-) 0 ri
(D W Fo H r 0 pq m0
Cd E-4 1
0 rd to
>4 bD -r i rd a)
149
D >lo A 11 _0f5k AA
4-1 0
c> UN t .:
\Z r-i Lr\
tCM Ul\
*D CO _e
0 CM t _:
UN Co CM
CD
CM
A
Lr\ m LA
0
0
0
A P.
11
g
\z
E-1
-t _e r-1
r --:
tm cu
Lrl%
LN \Z M
IZ
C>
Lr\ Co N
C)
ON Ul\ Je
CM cli \M
ni t-LI-
l
2
c
tN \M
c
H m _e c CD \Z
c; c;
m (D UN C
0 0
%Z 0 H r-i H
Lr\ H
r-i Co CD
Co
c; c; c; (5
0
0
C.
Lr\ H UN -t m Co Ul\ \M
0
m 9
0
Co Co
\Z mi r-i
UN tH
cq tCM C)
c;
LN 9
I
4J 0 pq
\D
UN H
C\i
\. 0 r-1 (n
Co tPl
c)
0 cn _e
c5 c;
c;
Ul\ cu Co r-i H ri
c;
tr\ CM --t cu Lr\ C\i n cli UN C*i
010
\Z cli
Co CM
00AAA4A414
.4
r _Z r-i
:t -e
ri c\
tCD
Lr\ tM CU
140 U-N %o
CN Lr\
c> \,0 rA 0
Lr\ CD CM
tc ri
Lr\ 0
UN CD
Wl 0 \lo CD
Ill
0
0
-_J,
Co
\Z a',
ON
Co
C\i
Pl
CU M
CM O\
rA ci c)
Lr\ ri 0
O\ _e
t-
cn \lo
0 , Lr\
t-
c; c;
m0 0 ro :b
UN 0 Ul\ 0
CM
Lr% CU
u.\
t-
AA
A
A
cu
4-3 0 0
c: 0
Q PC
m p4
Q 41
0 P,
10 Cd E-4
0 pq
a,
0 U
150
1 0 0
1
Co c\
o c\
-e CD
c\ Co
CM
%Z
p;
-t
\Z
Co
c c l 1: H H r-i mi
t-Z
t-H 9 H
r-i
cu A A 4
t-
CU
t _: O\ cli
C\i
A
t-
A
"0 Co
1
4J
o Erf
Co r-i
Lr\ _e
%o
Co
O\
t-ri
Lr\ UN
o t--
-t Co
c>
r-i m
0
UN \M
0
--r t _: H
0
CM
U-%
cm 2
r-i (n
r-i
0 CM
-zr 0 t0
0 r-i O\ 0
%10 (>
CU \M
CM
1 .t>
CY\ \. 0
O\ 0
H 0 Eri 0
lif
rH 0
C\i 0
CM 0
Zt
u'\
C\i (D
H o
H 0
CN H
m CU
Pl tC\i CD
c;
Je Lr\ r-i C% e _ CU
(5 c;
CD ri m CD 1%0 C _zr CD m Ul\ =r 0 "0 Lr\ r-i c) H m cm c) .e c\ CM Co _e (Y) UN 9 c;
Z
2
00
00
Ul\
cli
ri
H CM
0 r-i
Co mi
t-r-i
t-
(n
Co
r-i
CM
cu
CM cu
A
ri Co 10 9
A
0 Lr\ c\ 0
A
IND H cu r,
A
m tcu (D
A
CM 0
A
m H
A
(n H "0 0
A
(n r-i LIC
0. 0
4-1
0
11
ei CM CM
Co C\i -t
c;
0 l
tcli c> 4 C)
*%0 ri UN . (D 0 0
\M 9
c
lIZ H H 0 CD
Co Cti 0
_e
ri
%I0
Co
t-
\M c)
t. (D
H CD 0
110 Co CD
Z 0
>1 r4 A rZI I ,
C)
U-%
cli
0 LCI%
Lrl% tl-
0 0
Lr\ 0N
Lr\
4 r4 m 8
r
C\j 00
1; C
44
Id
rd 0
oj
LA 4) r-i
00,
N
A Cd E-4
.,. 1 to
P4 P4
. ri rtl
rn a
.1
4-) U3
04
rn
P 5 44 4-) 0 ., 1 rcl r4 0
P4
;Tw
151
VN Lr\ C\i
(n
Co
_e
cl
C\i
o
4J 0 mi
C%J
r-1 CU _-:r
Co
UN
Co m
Lr%
Lr\ C Lr\
Z "0 Co
_-r
c\
ri
Ll\ Lr\
cu
tt--
t. -
(D 01 0
I ), (5 ( ( c C
Lr\
W\ r-f
0
lit,
>
t-CM 0
4
c\ _zr C)
Co
\m Co 0
4
CD
Co
O\ cn ri 6
E-t CD (D -%. 11 0 m A
C)
(D
CY\ cm A
Lr\ N A
ri \M C) mi
(NI L-H
UN p \m cm
A 0
r --. _e Co
4j 0
pq
M CD m
_e (n cu
t-\M m
t--
tcm
%Z cu
rd Z 4-) 0 0 C. )
Q) ri sz rcj 1-,
. f-4
cm
tr\
Co Pz
A 1;
rd 0
0 Z
1;
0. rl
. ri 4-1
Z: 0
l
P,
t) 0
$4
4. Cd E-1
01
o ,i
e ci
A >b 0 AH
4-2
r.
to ro 00
0 A A
152
Table'(5.2):
Comparison betweenzoment, volumes produced by Torsional analyses -'Additional andTorsionless reinforcement moment volume due to torsional is CP110 to added to the case of according torsionless analysef. moment volumes are in terms of qL4 Y. .... ...... I..
N. B.
All
.... -
...
G -'O
..
a...
+V l.. a
1.0 1.25 1.50 1.75 2.0 1.0 1.25 1.50 1.75 2.0 1.0
AAAoleW
0882 . 1200 . 16oo . 1995 . 2357 . 1150 . 2189 . 3627 . 5431 . 7609 . 0520 . 07o4 . 0910 . 1096 . 1262 . 1538 . 2505. 3866 . 5594 . 7727 .
0715 . 0988 . 1309 . 1616 . 1go6 . 0791 . 1444 . 2385 . 3656 . 5359 . 0378 . 0557 . . 0709 0847 . 0986 . 1063 . 1727 . 2695 . 4039 . . -5844
037. . 0487 . 05952 . 0655 . o6gi 0396 . 0648' . 096 . 1304 . 1728 . 0054 . 0071 . 0085 . 009 . 00912 . 0324 . o438 0564 . 0704 . 0090 --
1085 . 1475 . 1go4 . 2271 . 260 . 1187 . 2092 . 334 . 496 . 7089 . 0432 . 0628 . 0794 . 0937 . 1077 . 1387 . 2164 . 3259 . 474 . 6744 . ... ....
. .
813 814
84o . 878 . 907 . 970 . i. o46 l. o86 1.095 1.073 1.2o4 1.12 1.146 1.17 1.172 1.109 1.157 1.186 1.180 1.146
V, = moment volume without torsional steel V = additional torsional steel moment volume a V= total moment volume =V 1 +V a
Torsional
Torsic. -iless
Analysis
Analysio
153
0-9
\\"
0-8 G
..
Gr
007
-qzr>) 1-4
o-6
GI // /
r-i 0
0-5
/i I,
0*4
/ I,
1 ii
1 '.
'it;
0-3
',
JA
0-2*
0-1
'Ili , SN
1-0
be
1-25
Figure (5-1)
1,50
1 *75 y-
2-00
by
154
Analyses Analysis
0-20
J-E j
Oo15
4-'
r: 3
d 0-10
odl ol
.00,
F -.*, F
LD
0 E-4
:, 0.
0-05
1-0
1-25
2-0
Figure
(5-2)
produced
by torsional
0*08
T LY I
.01
155
(5) C4
0-06
c\j
V//
0004
2) loe 0-02 1--, 0-1 <2 "' (i )
(4) M
Figure
(S. 3a)
Positive
Moment M* (L /L xxy
160) =
0.081
T ,, y
"\\---
(5) x
6 ---
0-06
'---
. -----.
0004
-.
-.
--
-------
(4) (3)
0-02
2)
(1)
0-0 Fig=e Uel Positive -- u, z0- 3 0) = 04
0
(5-3b)
Moment M* (L /L yxy
156
0-06
0004
0-02
0-0
Figure
(5.3c),
Negative
1-0) =
O-C C'4 4
0-0
0-0
157
*04
1 LY
Ix
0-03
ply
el
..'
', .e*.
clj, 4
0-02
0-01
-. -
L(2
(1)
0-0 --
0,
------ --
.1..,
,.
-\ ".-I
0-1
0-2
0*3
Positive
0-
U-
IL
0-04
LY
0-03
A t>ll
al 0-02
0-01
(22) ol
0-01
-------
A//Z-1 0-1
Positive
0-2
y/L y
0-3
0-4
0-5
Figare
(5-4b)
0-05
58
0,,04
0-03
cm b-ip.
l
0-02
0-01
O-C
Finire
(5.4c)1
Negative
1 -0)
0-0
0-0
0-0
0-0
0.0:
159
0-16
t", ax
LX
MX
D
.*
" ..
0-12
0.1 ."
1, l
cr 0-08
//
10.001
0*04
Z 1.01 c zo / ,. 00
----
(1)
ue 2
0-0
U0L
XAX
I?
0008
LY
0-06
3) 0*04
4) 5).
0002
A .01 0-0 U*4 Y/Ly 06 0*8
0
0 1
000
(2)
ELZEe-15 ): ]a , ,'
160
0.
*1
0.
0.0
Figure_(5.5c) Negative
0.1
0.2
0.3
o. 4
0.5
0.
0.
0.
0.
Ulu .
Figure (5.5d)
0.2
Negative
o. 4
Moment M* (L /L xxy
o. 6
1-0)
0.8
1.0
161
o. o4
( 3), -, -'-
0.03
L x
04
WO,
V,
0.02
0.01 j5 X-
0.0
0.1
0.2 X/L x
0.3
o. 4
0.5
Figure
(5.6a)
Positive
Moment M* (L /L xxy
= 1.0)
11
.01 10
.1..
--
14 )'
0.023)
/
(3
0.01-
\\ lk
\01
000 0.2 o. 4 y/L Figure (5.6b_)_ Pos't've Moment M* (L /L yxy = 1.0) L o. 6 o. 8 1.0
162
0.08
o. o6
"-
o. o4
0.02
0.0
0.1
0.2
o. 3 X/Lx
= 1.0)
U, 4
u69
Figure
(5.6cl
Negiltive
0.05
o. o4
0-03 c4 >,
0.02
0.01
0.0
0.2
o. 4
y/L y
0. b
U. 0
Figure
(5.6d)
Negative
0.05
163 ,
o. o4
(4)
cq
0.03 Lx
0.02
(5) (4)
(3) (2) 100,
(2)
0.01
.00
0.1
0.2
0.3 x Ax 1.0)
o. 4
0.5
Moment M* (L /L y x x
o. o4
0.03
\"-,
9.02
0.01
I-y
(2)
0.1 Moment M* y
0.2 (Lx/Ly
0.
-I-0.5
positive
64
Os O
0.06
r4 4 >%,
0.0
"1
0.1 Negative
-.
; N.
-.
o. 4
= 1.0)
0.5
Figure
(5-7c)
0.018
o. o, 14
0.01 N 1.4
0.006
0.002 0.0
0.1
(5-7d) Negative
0.2 Y/L
0.3
o. 4
1.0)
0.5
Figure
y Moment M* (lk/L yy
0.05 165
11
Adr 0.01 mx
'o.
-4
(4)
0.03 J2
. f; 7 5-t: 5,
(2)
0.02-
0.01-
0.0
00o' . 0.2
0.4 .X/LX
ulfo
1.0
Figure (5.8al
Positive
0.
/ / // II
/\
/
("4) / \
/
\
0.0
C14
_L21
0.0
2)/7\
0.01-
0.0
0.2
o. 4
o. 6 YA3,
o. 8
1.0
Figure
(5-8b)
'Positive
Moment M* (LX/Ly y
1-0)
144
0.08
o. o6
o. o4
0.02
0.0
1
XIT,X (5.8c) Moment Mx* (LX/L5r
Figure
Negative
0.08
CO
o. o6
o. o4
0.02
0.0
0.2
Figure (5.8d) Negative
o. 4
y/L
o. 6
0.8
= 1-0)
1.0
y Moment M* (L /L yxy
167
o. o4
0.03
Lx
00, '4" 0.02 c', -
0.1 -/
" (3) O 111
. 111111`
4) I-ftIIIIIIZZ7.... (4)
2)
JI/ 0.0
0.2
(5.9a) Positive
o. 4. x/Lx
--o. 6
0.8
= 1.0)
1.0
Figure
Moment M* (L /L xxy
o. 4
0.3
C4 >, 00 100 . 1%
lop
0.2-
5)
1000
(3)
(3)
(2)\
0.0
o. 4 y/L
o. 6
o. 8 1-0)
1.0
Figure
y Moment M* (L /L yxY
0.10
0.08
o. o6
o. o4
0.02
Moment M* (L /L
xxy
= 1.0)
0.10
0.08
o. o6
o. o4
0.02
0.0
0.2
(5.9d), Negative
o. 4
y/L y
o. 6
0.8
= 1.0)
1.0
Figure
169
Mi
z LL
2x
1-
2x
Mode 1
Mode 2
deflection
at the
intersections
of the
yield
4(=, (t = 24
- 2x)
+ m2 2x) x)
x-2
+ 2m2x/. Z )
Mo de 2:
[(Z q
)2, 2x /3 ,+ -
4X2) +m2 -
This
will.
give,
Figure
(5.12)
Solution
for
a Square
170
5.3'NUMERICAL EXPERIMENTS: 5.3.1. 'Geteral.
A series
element program were conducted on a number of rectangular The slabs were all designed by the proposed direct
design method,
except two, which were intended for comparison with the direct design method. The object of these numerical experiments is to behaviour of the slabs designed by this
and ultimate
method under
initial load.
uncracked However,
stiffnesses it is not
the
actually
slab
conditions,,
(a)
progressive
cracking gradually
as the deteriorate.
stiffnesses criterion to
(b)
The yield
adopted the
in
the yield
design
is,
after
all
an approximation Accordingly,
though, it is it is
exact of
criterion. is bound to
be minimum. sections
redistribution
anticipated that the here strength
stresses
this would
occur,
Although is
that of
believed
under-reinforced
dependAnt behaviour
on the under
steel
there
is
no guarantee
that
the is
service on the
be satisfactory. cracked
stiffness Accordingly,
of the
cracking.
such numerical
experiments
in the study
Conditions.
are as follows:
171
(b) Sides ratios.
(c) Materials'properties.
in this
study
can be divided
into
five
series
as
slabs slabs
simply simply
supported supported
on all
sides.
on three
one edge free. slabs while simply the supported opposite along corner two is
Test
Series
3: -
edges,
on a column.
Test Series
4: -
includes around.
three
slabs
supported
Test Series
5: -
includes
free
two slabs
fourth.
simply
This
supported
test series
on three
is
sides,
on the
intended
to provide
design
approach
three
seriess
slabs with
sides
ratios
examined.
5.3.2
loads
only.
ultimate on the was then constitute given (5-7) the
In
load design
the
direct
and the
as'unity, failure.
under computer
incremental an experiment.
experiments
names N1JMEX1,
NUMEX 2...
and Tables
(5-3)to
172
describe the type of each problem in each numerical experiment.
5.3.3'Proportioning'and'L6Acling. In the 2000 mt. varied slabs the in Series 1 to 3, one dimension (always in along was chosen the X-axis) to be was as span/20. depth depends along side
while
other
dimension, depth
for
each case was taken calculating For slabs length edgess edge. and an elastic from the would finite of the the
"span" of the
used in problem.
span length
was taken
as the
for
program. elastic
from
the
and the
obtained
the elastic
stiffnesses be used
in the
of
service the
loads.
Due to rigidity
flexural
present
research,
an effective
moment 6f
was used to
the
deflections
load,
equations*are
load is given by
173
where 6= P 4= e predicted maximinn deflection deflection under under sex-vice load design
maximum elastic
ultimate
load
LF = Load factor 19= Ieff gross (-* inertia of the section section.
moment of
= Effective
moment of
inextia
of the
In this
study,
service
deflection deflection
of the
6L
as the span/250.
to that value, ultimate in
the predicted
suitable depth
choosing
the
slab,
or the
design
load.
5.3.4
Analysis:
For each experiment, the deformational behaviour resulting from
due to progressive has been traced in the previous two orthogonal subdivisions.
cracking
and
using
chapter. centre
was analysed
using
3 were analysed
elements
4. a mesh of 5x5
For all tested models, tvo
quadrantwas
into
used.
six
concrete
layers,
plus
steel
be required
by the reinforcement
elastic analysiswas
design
according
six
to the elastic
concrete layers
analysis.
with
The
no steel.
aone by using
174
k1l except experiments series were 4: strength, f cu = 20 N/'MM2 assigned the following materials properties,
test Concrete
compressi-7e
Concrete tensile
strength,
ft=1.5 E c v=0.15
fst Es= 10 were =
for
of for
steel, steel, to
NUNEX 3.6
designed
to
study of the
the slab.
effect The
materials in this to
properties series
with
LxAy=1.50s strengths
and subject
a uniform
The concrete
were 20,25,309 f cu
with f st
ft=0.075
fcu.
cracking
was the maxiMUTO value in most cases (except with 2x2 sampling
15 iterations
in the slab-beam
systems,
points
in each element.
The displacement
used to limit
the iterations
were
evez7 test,
short
For simplicity,
of maximum deflection
be considered.
of internal the stresses: reinforcement The redistribution directions of
Redistribution bending
in moments
due to material
nonlinearity
will
be considered.
175
Cracking cracks employs and yielding is not feasible crack of steel: by the A quantitative present model, since since crack measure of
a smeared
approach.
But,
can be related
measure in (4) this of the study. loads: is
to steel
crack
strains,
the latter
can be used as a
will be investigated
widths,
and accordingly
Failure
Although expected
the
use of lower
the
proposed
design loads,
to yield strain
bounds
on collapse
due to
The analysis
effects.
5.4
of SiMPlY supported
2. Subseries
1B:
and includes
the test
which were made on a rectangular sides tests ratio = 1.5, under a uniform
simply
the effect
properties Results
of both
(5-13) in Table
to (5-18)(5-3) and
For convenience,
Table (5.4),
a sim=ary
of the results
respectively.
176
a
)CA
'0
p dk
OIk 30 Fa
0 NumEx4 NUIEX 5
0.0
08 .
0.16
0.24 6/h
0.32
o. 4o
0.48'
1.20
0.9 00
p
bKO
Pd
o. 6
0.3
1.0
2.0
3. o .cy ej
Strains
4. o
5.0
6. o
Figure
(5.14)
in the Slabs in
,Z1-
ze
177
C. L. 92 .
C. L.
68 68 76 . . . 6d C.L. 76 . .
091 1.12
73 . . 83
70 .
65 CoLe
04 .81 .
74 70 . . 1 . 82 78 . 99 .
H-2. 92 766 . .8 .
91 .
i. o4
NUMEX I
l. o4
NIJNEX 2
C. L. 91 . 78 . 69 65
C L.
96 . 1.0 C.LO
78 . o83 91 .
74 . 78 . . 87
74 . 74 . . 83 a C, L
1.03
82
78 . . 82
69
0.91
78 . 1.04
1.04
NUMEX
1.129
NUMEX
-1 1.1291
C. L.
93 . i. o4
78 . *83 0.91
74 . 78 . 0.87
74 . 78 . . 87
NUMEX
C.L.
P/P (5.15)
Figure
Spread of Yield
178
0
E-4 Cd
Id
01 Id P-4 P
cli
0.
T-
1-
-4
IL
Itt co
P-4 H
6
t-\Z CD
6
CD
4 1
P-4 P,
4a)
;4
C) 'd P-4 P4
C, j "Zi-
\-O
K'\
P(I\
";I-
LCI\
1.0
10114
U11%
a, \ 04
CC) cli
co C\j
co C\l
4-2
04 Id
Lr\ 0i C\j
Id
(D
P4
Cd
4 M 44
r= 0 0
U"\ N P4 ri
.0 1-1
P
P4 P4
(D
E-1
77
E-4
r-4
179
5.4.2 CONCLUSIONS: 1A. behaviour of all the slabs limit in this series was
The deflection
67% reached at an average of of the design loads. a high service strains, first load in terms of deflections. yield All
In tezms of steel
69-0% was observed at an average of of the showed an identical in the short service behaviour.
slabs
On the other
reduces with
ratio.
moments
in'sides significant
ultimate
load,
extensive
yielding
5.4.2.2-Si! b8eries'B:
1. An improved compressive 'cracking
(Variables.
"Coricrete'and'Ste6I
is obtained This is
StrenEhs)
by increase represented steel in the by high
behaviour of
concrete.
loadsq
deflections
and reduced
strains.
180 1.20-
0.90
p Pd
o. 6o-
0.30
x- - --x--x 4- - 0, - -10
NUMEX 9 NUMEX 10
0.08
0.16
0.32
0.4 .
0.48
the Slabs in
1.20
0.90 opie
p 100 NUMEX 3
Pd
o. 6o
A .1
0.30
4- .41. 04
0.0i
1.0
2.0 E/c y
3.0
4. o
5.0
6. o
Figure
(5-17)
Strains
in the Slabs in
C. L. o. 81
C.L.
1.04
0.85 10.92
0.91
0.82 1A
0.78 1A
NumEx
NUMEX
C. L.
C. L.
i. o4 l. o6
o. 8o o. 84 0.93 1.197
0.92
0.95 11.03-7
NUMEX 7
NUMEX
C. L.
C. L.
1.18 1.18
1.01 l. o4 1.11
o. 84 0.98 1.08
o. 94 o. 96 1 1.06 C.L.
0.99 1.08
0.78 0.82
o. 91
0.73 0.76
T0.73
0.73 C.L.
i 1
1 0.86 1 0.82
1.12 1.12
NLMX
P/P Figure (5-18): Yield Causing in the Yield Slabs in
NUMEX10
Spread
Subseries
1B
182
E-4
(D (D 0 C/I
CD
A4
pq
%o
cl-
E--
co
CrN
Ll-
CO
P4
40
"I I
914
\0
rl-
E-
W\
E-
cr\
co
co
I: t
C*\
\10
'Cl-
.1d
6
U'% WN
P4
P4
o
co Ul% co Itzr N W\ K'\ W\ 10
co 144-
co \o
EON
WN C\j
Lr\
. ri
P4
04 1 4-3 0
m 3
liZ
4p. +) H
(D
. Il 4
Lr
C\j 11
04
to
op
0 P4 P4 E-4
8
II
le
11
NN -
110
t-
co *
ON
0
T-
183
2. The service deflection of 0.78 Pd. deflection in this 3. No yield In fact, test behaviour limit of all slabs was satisfactory. The
occur at loads
series. occurs within the service first load range. yield loads were
of 0.78 Pd was
lead
behaviour.
response was satisfactory. 5. Similar to the slabs in the previous series, the distribution was very on most of the
of the normal moments in the short close to that slab area. predicted
by the elastic
in long the the of normal moment from that predicted by the elastic
strength, loads
the induced
compressive
membrane higher
increased
in magnitude with
grades of concrete.
5.4.3
slabs free
in this
series
were all
simply
on the fourth.
a uniform
load of for
184
various sides ratios. In these slabs, the free edge has always been
taken as one of the long edges, along the X-axis. The distribution this series of the design moments for (5-5) some of the slabs in
and Figures
Appendix Figure
(D).
of the support it
reactions
(5-19).
of the strips
to the free
for
by strips
to the free
0 45 load the
load to the
to the free a
gives to be that
load,
by the strips
is carried if
edge,
would but
was too
ratio
than
an analysis started
of-0.92
Pd. while
deflection
limit
at 0.9
reduced
depths.
such that
predicted
deflection
did-not
CQ
x
Lr% m
185
co
N cyl
rq H
_:r
Lr\
rl
LrI
4j
Lr% oj
/ 01 /
0 0S 0 IIS
00 1 1 co
rl cyl
C)
co
ILL
CY)
c'J
0
(r4 \M
t%lo
\0
m
0 . r-j 4-)
(D q
0/, "0
4-
0 P4
0 -H 1 IL4
), 0 0.1
,/
\JD
4-) $4 0
P4
m Q o
Co
0m 0 0 0 ., j U, N 4 CYI m
4-3 ci Cd (1) lz
$-4
0m >
C2
i s6
1.20
0.9
7d
0.6 -f to io 0.3 x
15 NUMEX
0.0
0.1
0.2 61h
0.3
o. 4
0.5
0.6
Figure
(. 20):
Loacl-deflection . in Series 2.
Curves for
the Slabs
1.2
0.9
Pd
o. 6
11 NUNEX
NUNEX12 See Table
0.3-
5*5
0.0
1.0
2.0 C/C y
3.0
4. 'o
5--0
Figure
(5.21):
Load-Maximim in Series 2.
Steel
Strains
in
the
Slabs
1" I
Free
4-3
1 91 85 1.85 83 1-04 . . .
L.
4-3 ; -4 0 P4 P4
P 0 P4
M-IIC.
P4
H 4 .,.
P4 E: . r4 w
simply
supported NUMEX 11
6 63; 85 9 o4. i, . . . .
Free
Free
86
75 75 . . 1.75 82 78 . .
1.711
1.08
93 . . 93 97
. . .
82 86 89
71 . . 78 82 . 86
1 67
67
75 . 78 . . 82 93 . l. o8
71 . . 75 82 C. L.
w2 .
;1 (n
93 08 . .J.. l. o4
97 .
simply
supported
NUNEX 13
Num
14
Free
rd
1.12
93 . 93 . 96 . 1.12
. . .
81 81 88
70 . 76 . 81 . 88 .
70 . 73 . 76 . . 81 93 . 1.12
65
0 P4 P4 :j
70* . 73 . . 81
C. L.
M
P4 U)
93 .
simPlY
supported
NUMEX*15
Figure
(5.22)
P/P d Causing
Yield
in
Series
2.
188
0 . ri
4j 42
cli
cu
CU
Ul\ Co
m Co
H t-
t1%D
t%Z
01
ro
c;
NZ
ro
B
c;
%I0 GD c;
t _: cc;
r-i c;
e
c;
CZ
m
CM
c\ cm
ri t0i,
CU t-C\i
rn 41 r4 0)
,ri
cu
0 4-1 ri
CY LA CM
(n UN
LA,
CD
cz
00
00 001
7777/
ir
Ul%
189
the
limiting slabs
of
span/250. (5.20)
of the
analysis
of
these given
Figures
and a summary is
in Table
5.4.4 Conclusions:
(1) The service An average load (2) behaviour of 0.76 of all slabs in this for the series service was satisfactory. deflection
and 0.75
Pd for of the of
series free it
the
elements
on the of steel,
to be expected on that
be governed it
performance,
according
maximun
Adequate
anchorage to
be provided
An average obtained
ultimate series.
about
12% is is
caused by the
developed
menbranC- action
5.4.5 Test Series 3 This includes in this th e test X 20. 16 to NTJMF. runs NUMEX The slabs
simply supported on two adjacent edges and the the other two while on opposite corner,
The slabs were designed for a uniform load of for behaviour the intended to was study slabs, the long free edgewas always
In all
190
The distribution series are given the in of the Figures design (5-9) of moments for and Figures the support it the slabs in this Figure for that the the
distribution
considered. is slab,
From these
dispersion
the
slab.
at the of
ratio to
by the But
carried
by the long
side
bending short
span strips
almost
equal
in the slab
variation is almost
design
moments along
gradual, free
and
at the
Figure in this
(5.28)
indicates is the
load free
direction of
to
the in
slabs is
this in
Figures apart at
(5.23) from
given
Table in long at
Lx 13 from point
For the
the
column to
along these
refer the
points.
from
column , on the
191
1.2 J-
0.9
p.,0 . 1.0
00.
Pd
o. 6
NUI4EX 16 NUMEY. 17 NUMEX 1
0.3
NUMEX 19 0 NUMEX 20
0.0
(5-23):
0.1
0.2 6/h
0.3
o. 4
0.5
in
o. 6
Figure
Load-deflection
Curves
for
the
Slabs
Series
1.20
_o
0.9
Pd
o. 6
NUM
16
See Table 5*6
NUNEX17 0.3 18 NTJMEX 19 NUMEX NUMEX20 0.0 1.0 2.0 Ay c Figure (5.24): Load-maxinum Steel Series 3. Strains 3.0 I 4.0
5.0
.0
in the Slabs in
Free
k
. 69 74 . 95 . . . . . 85 80 80 80 .9 7L . . . . . 69, 69 69 801
G) Q)
192
90 .
80
69 69 . . *8C *80
090 *80 95 .
0
*85
. .
80 85
1 85 90 1.0 . . 90 . .01 95 90 . . 85 95 . . , 90 . . . 85 80 95
95 .
m
1.06
c1
95 .
1.16 l. o6
1.16 1.06 . 95
90 .
90 .
AS'
I 16 Supported
Free
k,
73 . . 82 73 . . 82 . 82 96 . . . 87 82 91 . 91 . . . 87 87
091 96 . 1.0
0
*82 . . 87 87
77 . 77 . . 82 87.
1.0 1.05
91 . 96 . 1.05
77 . 77 . . 82
0 Q) N P:
4
>1
96 . 1.05
l. 14
91 . 1.10
1.05
Simply
supported
Yield in in Series 3
Figure
Yield
the
Slabs
193
free
. . .
84 88 88
72 . 76 . . . . 80 84 88
. .
68 68
68
64
72 . . 80
. .
Ik : 84
8o
72 . o76 . . 84 88
72 . . 84
72 . 76 . . 84
92 . . . . 88 84 88
76 . 76 . 72 . 76 . . 80
free
92 . 97 . 1.05
92 .
92 . 1.05
1.00 1.05
97 .
free
i. o4 i. o4
rd
. . .
80 84 88
68
. . ::.
68 68 7: 2
68
64
72 . . 80
. . .
80 80' 8o
free
72 . . . . 8o 80 84
72 . 72 . . . 80 84
72 . . . 80 88
92. 92 . . . 88 80
92 . 96 . 1.08
76 . . 80
76 . 76 . 76 . 84 .
96 . 1.12
92 . l. o4
88 . i. oo.
*92 l. o8
1.00
simply
supported
NUMEX19
Figure (5.26) P/P Causing d Yield in Series 3.
194-
frpp
1.00 l. o4
*83 . . 88 88 92
67
. .
67 67 1
. .
67 67
63
71 . . 80
92 . . . 88 8o
71 . . . . 80 83 88
71 . 080 . 83
71 . 75 . . . 80 88
92 . l. o8 96 . 1.00 1.12
4-3 p 0 P4 P4
75 . 75 . . . 1 80 83
free
92 . l. o4
P4
96 . l. o8
96 .
1 --Simply
-1
supported
NUMEX20
Figure-(-5.27)
P/pd
Causing
Yield
in
Series
3.
195
, M;
UN 0 CN LrN
m rl H co
Fd
rt:%
0
U-\ N C;
P 4 (D
Cj
I! H
%lo 0
co
0.
\0 r-i
48
CO
4-3 CO. 0 .1
CY)
y oly v 'D
P4
A 0>
;4 ;q0 0 ., 1 4) 11 X-4 M 1:
Cc rq
4-3 w
to
0 0 ., i 4-) (L)
* M 4 r. 0
-rq 4J to
>-h >-41 4
$4 Cd rd cd (1)-H >
196
0 .H
4J C) 4j ci
\D r-i
_e
Co
CY ri
A
rd 914 (> \Z t\M
%Z .
1:
%Z
K-N
Co
ni
O\
e-
Co
b-
t"
c;
94 rcj Co m
Lr\ _e O\ M ON Co
c;
40 si
U-% \M
cl CU
\M CM
t-CM
4-) 0 (D 0
CM
r-4
CD
4-2 CH 0
Z CD C\i
0 4-)
CM
C\j
II 0
"'
CD .X
cm A
LA A
00 pl A m
Co
Oj
197 5.4.6-coriclusions:
(1) The service The deflection behaviour li=*t of of all slabs in this was reached series was satisfactory. load
spanJ250
at an average
of 0.70 Pd.
(2) Yield of steel starts towards started on the the at an average free load of 0.67 Pd. The spread
of yield inward
long
edge strips
and progresses
centre.
The distribution
very close in load to that
sides is
predicted to the
analysis,
except
close
free
Similar
governed ment
the behaviour is
edges. Reinforce-
in these
on the
maximum on the
strip
without
curtailment.
provided
to transmit
5.4.7
Test Series
This series
4: (Slab-Bean
includes the
Systems)*
runs NWEX 21, NUMEX 22 and
test
N= their
23.
to be monolithically
cast with
supporting
supporting reinforcement.
beams.
The dimensions
slabs
and the
in Table
in this series by the were aimed at studying design the behaviour and
designed
proposed
direct
procedure,
198
to
compare the
methoawith
designs
based
on the designed
line
theory.
Accordingly, distributed
NUM load of
23 were which . N=
was the
yield
theory. (84)
22 was in the
diagonal
slab,
systems
designed
to
carry
20.8 only
In NUMEX 21, and the However, approach, A sandwich was designed model
forces the
(M x, design
NUMEX 23,
designed flexural
direct
for
combined 3.7)
design the
of. Section
A comparison
between
in Figures
(5-31), line
and Table
(5.8).
At the design
theory
flexure
an ultimate
particular
case, both the upper and lower bourid'solutions the diagonal collapse mode for the slab.
membrane force
the corresponding
at the middle
design for
by about line
18%, and is
about
analysio. offset
reinforcement of the
reinforcement
supporting
199
r
L
(Integral and Unintregal Systems)
Composite
Rectangular
Modes
(Unintegral
Syste=
(Integral Diagonal
systems) Modes
Collapse
Figure
(2.29):
Possible
Collapse
200
Although steel than that the unfilled for slight, sandwich flexure model only, used here the (5-8) requires in more this
increase gives
particular of only
two designs
designs
design. of in
A saving the
Figures
which .
simmarized can
(5-7).
From these
following
conclusions
be drawn:
5.4.8 Conclusions.
1. All In the 2. First In the all slabs cases, in this series had identical and steel woetting at load service strains range* loads first in yield the of slabs. steel in behaviour. were vithin
acceptable yield
different
line centre
(NUMEX 22),
started the
systems
by the of
steel
at the 0.67
corner Pd.
corners along in
23 21 NUMEX NUMEX and of the these diagonalvof slabs before the the slab.
4.
increase
of membrane forces
design
201
produced service first slightly load yield range, in the less but slab. reinforcement of failure. in the beams of ITUM effect the of 22 a deflections did not in the affect the slab within the after
deflections
enforcing mode
mode of at all.
diagonal
present collapse
direct formed
design
several load
simultaneous
No significant
difference
behaviour Accordinglyq
NUMEX 21 and NUMEX 23 was obtained. forces designed were taken into account in the
whether both
design
or not,
by this
method would
behave
satisfactorily-.
5.4.9 Test Series 5: Two slabs in this series were considered. free on the fourth Th6 slabs were simply long edge, with a side
Both slabs had the same dimensions and were designed load of 20 KN/m2-. The test slabs were designated
for an ultimate
behaviour intended the 15 and HILLERBORG, to NUMEX study were and of slabs designed the direct adcording to the two design procedures, viz., (HILLERBORG). method analysis
in the elastic
202 C. 23 4.8
950
1 10 1
Co
_zr
CM
-T 152
1.20
1.00
K K K .
p
Pd
0.80
o. 6o
o. 4o
0.20
7. .
0.2 o. 4 Deflection (5-30):
0.6 S/h
1.0
1.2
at the Centre
Figure
Load-Deflection
Curves for
4.
203
a-e NUM 21
NUMEX 22
A
23 ANUMEX MO 1 L, 24
! LX o. 6 m 0 o. 4
0.2 L.
0-0
0.04
.1
.2 Y/Ly
.3 .
.4
.5
1.6 1.4
1.2
o. 6 o. 4
0.2 0.0
0.1
0.2 x/L
0.3
o. 4
0.5
204
TENSION
1000 y
800
Nx c1h
141------
COMPRESSION
Design
y
along the Centre Line of the
NX qh
Figure ,
(5-32),
Membrane Forces
in
the-Slabs
in
Series
205
L.
78 .
78 . 811
NUMEX 21
091
751 75 . .
C.L. 99 . 99 . . 83 81 78 75 . . 78 78 . . C. L.
86 91 t. .
;. 81 78 81 81 83 . . . . 86 99 78 73 78 1; . . . . . 68 73 . 81 . 91 . 99
23 NUMEX
Figure
(5.33)
in Series
206 1.0
0.8
o. 6
Pd
o. 4
0.2
e/e y
Figure--(5-3) Load-steel strains (mid span section) in the supporting beam
1.10
/ cy e:
Figure
(5-35)
207
Z: 4-1 C) er-j
0 1 0
bD
0
4)
QO)G i7 A Dc- ri ni H 0
8
$-4 a) e 's, zi C) 0 d 0 c
00 U0 (L) -H fcj =
' to ri
HH
(1) :Z
CM H H H
CM ri
LN t-
Co \lo
U; rd
to
Ul\
Lr\
Ea Q) ., -I
\o C\i
_e CY
1IM CY
CM
LIJe
Co
CD
CO
m 4-)
CM
0 4-4 1- m m m m 0 (n
c) 1 4-1
;J c4
(n
ri
(n
ci C\i C\i 0)
%.
UN
0 LA
0
U'\ H
Lr\ rA
4-3 4-4 0
c\ mi
CD Cii cli M
cl
ci
*0
D
0 m
'
CU CM CY C\i ri _e
/
2,loqaalT. TH Lr\
NUMEX21
Load (KN/m)
NTJMEX 22
NUMEX23
Design
20.8
20.8
20.8
Method
of
Design
Direct design for combined flexure and forces membrane (unfilled sandwich model)
Maximum moment
87000
6gooo
103000
Steel
volume
in
beams (MM3)
2.606 x los
2.7 )( 10S
3.119 x 105
2.034 x 105
3.392 x 105
1.851 x 105
4.644 x 105
6.092 X
105
4.97 x 105
I--
1-
II
(5.30)
11
209
been shown in Section(5-2-3)s the design moments in the two cases are
quite
different.
Resulti of the nonlinear analysis of the two slabs are given
in Figure (5-36),
tO Figure (5-38),
(5.7).
5.4.10 Conclusions
1. The increased amount of steel in the outer strips (HILLERBORG) of
of raising
the
cracking
slabs
load
of the slab.
A NTJMEX15 at
behaviour limit of
of both span/250
was f irst
0.69 Pd.
In thq post yield
design the one method designed were of very yield
behaviour,
the slab
in
behaved strip
a more Both
method. in
strains The
much in
HILLERBORG.
spread
cases
different.
Yield
in HILLERBORGstarted
at loads
closer
load,
near the
Yield
at or after started
pattern. the under moments by the elastic quite design analysis. different
is moment
cases at the
.1,1
210 Both slabs supported loads in excess of their design load, load.
HILLERBORG
membrane force,
in NUMEX15.
exanples given here, although the proposed direct
the
design strip
procedure method,
requires
the slab
designed designed
the reinforcement
edge strips
1.20
0.90
Pd
o. 6o
0.30
o. 16
0.32
/h
o. 48
o. 64
0.8
o. 96
1.20
0.9
p
Pd
o. 6
0.3
1.0
2.0
3.0 E/C y
Steel Strain
4.0
5.0
6. o
Figure
(5-37):
Load-Maximum
for
NUMEX 15
and HILLERBORGS
93 . 93 . 96 1.12
. . .
81 81 88
70 . 76 . . . 81 88
70 . 73 . *76 . 81
65 70
a)
73 . . . 81 88
a) + a) C)
93 . -
1.0
93 . 1.12
Simply
Supported
in NUMEX15
Free
o. 96 o. go
4-3 p 0 P4
0.90 0.93 o. 96
o. 86 o. 96 1.0 0.93
0.93
0.96
0.93
1.0
a)
"r4
CO
1.08 a) -1
1.22
0
1.22
1.18
1 .01 0.96
P/P
1.16
1 i
in HILLERBORGS
Yield Causing d
-Figure-(538)
Yield
6.1
INTRODTTCTION The theory given slabs. problems and give in Chapter Three has been used in the design to provide information 6f
in implementing into
a clear
insight In this
accordingly.
chapterl
account
work is given.
PARAMETERS OP STUDY:
slabs
Laxge scale
models
dimension
procedure
would yield
a continuously dimensions is
reinforcement order
obligatorypin represented.
can be properly
designed
ratios'specified of about
by Section
the slabs
and accordingly,
length
covering
of 1.0,1.30
and
considered slab-beam
included systems.
the simple
support, the
following
1. Lateral 2. Steel
In all,
Table (6.1)
of boundary conditions
of each slab.
Tab
Tested
Slabs-designation
and dimensions
Test 1
Designation Model 1
Dimens io ns 3100 x 2140 x 100 2600 x 2140 x 100 2100 x 2140 x 100 2040 x 2000 x 100
2 3 4
Model 5 Model 6
simply 1
supported sides
on all
3100 x 2140 x 100 . 3120 x 2180 x 100 All beans axe 200 x 300 mm cast.. monolithic
slab-beam
system
6.4
DESIGN OF THE MODELS For a given load, the design moments axe obtained the finite by performing prograrip and
analysis equations
element
calculated
design is factors
and materials
taken
as unity,
is made This in
block
reinforcement
given
(6.1).
at any point
215 length. Two methods can be used to repls; Lce the distributed bars: of the distributed steel areas is not severe over a certain steel
The total
steel
by the corresponding
can be based
on the
value
of the distributed
steel
areas.
Total
steel
by multiplying
width.
of. problems
tested
herel
the reinforcement
in each was
constantp
the design
the distributed
the problem
parallel
stripsg
each having
by the aid
of Figures
the averaging
process
variation smooth,
from element
an average value
as is usually is-used
loadsq
needed over the average containing carried the load. right 4-o the
provided
the elements
ment in this
area is usually
on to the supports.
code requirements.
normally
in this
as providing
the sheax
requirements
of Section
(3-3.6)
in Cpllo(5)
were followed.
In one
had to be provided
the supporting
beams
in model 6.
the finite be provided reinforcement supporting
The flexural
element program, in accordance
reinforcement
but with
The designer
the layout to have changd may until he is In this secured sure that work,
of the bond
the permissible
so that
mesh, and the. bond requirements followed. to achieve a reinforcement analysis, the total
of Section
of C2110(5)
distribution
close
to that
by the elastic
21 t. .
much more than what is required. 'Table (6.2) 'gives, a comparison
steel
provided (6.4)
for
in this
investigation.
in
to (6.9)
provided
each model.
6.5 MATERMS
Cement: Aggregates: Ordinary Portland sand Cement was used and gravel were in used all for tests. all mixes.
Hynford
of the uncrushed
gravel
used was 10 =,
was Zone 2. mixes: The concrete of mixes were designed to give with an the
Concrete average
cube strength
40 N/mmZ at
28 days.
Two mixes
same strength
workability
but
different
for
workabilities
the models
were used.
for which the
A medium
mix was produced
ready made
by a ready mix Company, and was used to cast models These models had very large sizes, and therefore it
was convenient
concrete in 14 to
of 70 kg each.
each model, the control specimens were eight 100 mm cubes
and eight
150 mm diameter
cylinders. half
the control
specimens
the other
control =dels.
Standard cylinder
tests
to determine tests,
the
cube compressive
strengths were
splitting
modulus of concrete
218
conducted according tensile to the British Standards from (61). the No. BS. 1881: 1970cylinder splitting
strength
obtained
ft
2P 7r DL
(6.10)o
Average values
for
deformed bars were used in all amount of reinforcement only certain bars fitted for random different with an the
6. model
different
bar sizes
samples were cut off sizes, S-type and were tested electronic
followed
. the proof as
the stress-strain
curve
bars
modulus of 214 KN/mm2 . For model No. 6, the amouniS of reinforcement in the slab was Since the it smallest
very
small,,
beams. steel,
bar steel
was 8 mm,for
The stress-strain
curves
used is for
obtained modulus.
the yield
GAUGES: to casting bars. each model, strain. gauges were attached to the
The strain
resistance
219
gauges of the type F-A-06-250BG-120 with at 750F. 0.15% resistance . The gauges are made of a
with a tough, flexible,
1PO-0 n
combination
polyl'=*de
backing.
alloy
is made in self
temperature-
and were bonded using instructions. gauges and were drying checked. the casting
M-bond 200 adhesive connection protected M-coat-D protect wires against after the
soldered
and temperature
by an air
acrylic To process.,
connections
the gauges were coated with The strain gauges were then
epoxy adhesive.
to a data logger.
6.7
CASTING AND CURING: After fixing the strain gauges on the steel$ the proper positions the reinforcing mesh was
assembled on the form after marked by a marking of concrete, When casting 5 hours pen.
of the bars have been in several type for batches vibrator. about
immersion an
The position
the positions
bolts the of
provided
be used to lif
which they
loading
the concrete
has-set, then
with to
specimenswere
220
control from the the humidity. casting, The cover and left is to then dry removed in off the the the after three days
day of
natural forms
laboratory. the
laboratory,
supports.
6.8 suppons The simple of two steel black invar support 12 = system used for thick separated Figure the first five models consisted diameter system
flats bar
as a roller,
(6-13a).
on the
was effected
are liable
To prevent supports".
corners supports
This
shown
in all bar
tension
5 mm in diameter
system at their
midpoint.
to through 1750 N/mm2, pass was made and of provided system, at the time of casting, then through
in the slab
flats-rollers (6.14)
and was anchored to the loading arrangement in one of the models. corner To to
Spreader prevent
of the slab
pulls.
221
was slightly Each slab of the support. pretensioned allowed'100 The slabs before the start of the'test. the'centreline Table from (6.1) these are by gross
beyond given in
values. subtracting
dimensions over
obtained
supported at
alternate act if as it
corners. were
so arranged
Figure
(6.15).
6.9
LOADING RIG AND LOADING SYSTEMS: All models were tested for support on the loading rig shown in Figure to sides span lateral ratio (6.16). only.
The rig It
was designed to
testing slabs
subjected various
1.09 to
longer universal
can vary
up
3.0
metres.
steel
support 1.5
up to the slab
m under studying
surface of
by the models.
facilitate
the
bottom
surface
Loads
were
applied
as concentrated
loads.
This
loading
cables
passing
through
provided
in the slab
at the time
of 150 KN.
According
to the total
applied in the
application
can be divided
$I
222
(1) Tvo_'poirits_system:
of one loading
cable
through its
a hole
of the model.
500 mm apart,
simply
Four This
spreader
Points
In the
this model
case, centre
four
loading were
through on the
four top
The cables
were
the to
model,
200 nm x 200 mm x 10 mm was used (3) Eight-points-system: This Each of-the a spreader eight used Figure points, for the (6-17). Each loading resting tach of jack against system four beam. using rest , cable the is of is a combination cables
distribute
each point.
of
the
loading
cables.
This
system
models.
The loading
systems
shown in
bottom via
sustaining to
10000 psi
were
pump at
pressure unequal
eliminate
frictional
on the-separate Loads
on the
of
the
slabs
were measured
using
50 tons
223 electrical Prior load cells. the load cells cell (6.18) were calibrated. Each loading top
to-tests
4 load Figure
arrangement. were also measured using each. All the load small electrical load
capacity
cells
to a load amplifier,
and further
to a data logger.
6.10
FURTHER INSTRUMENTATION: Deflections were measured by electrical manufactured transducers,, by Nouatech supported 50 mm were number which of were Surrey.
linear
displacement were
independently on an of measuring up to
measuring used,
Transducers
given for
logger
A. cross under
transducers at the
provided
by a dial
gauge located
bottom up to
centre.
of measuring
was used to
strains
and
deflections. channels
This was an IBM 5000 type which has 'an MB-Metals data logger controlled by a PDP8 computer using to process step consists Voltmeter) the results
200
the language
FOCAL. Programs were written The output the load at each loading cells
in DVM (Digital
transducers, by the measured The DVM units curves for are later
mm/mM.
converted
calibration
each load
cell.
224 The underside powerful light of each. test model was illuminated surface glass. using four
were monitored
a crack measuring
up to 0.01 mm.
TEST PROCEDURE:
electrical transducers
were first
vertical$
under test.
disconnected.
checked by applying
Leaks on the hoses and the test loading Wh en all and unloading$ primary checks in increments cells,
appear during
detected,
they were soon remedied. was started An amplifier load level Results for
have been made, the test of 5 KN per load and when the for a complete cell.
by applying
the load
on the load
desired scan.
the computer was started increment while were then printed. the underside was also taken
cracks.
reading
increment
was applied,
the ultimate
225
CD
cm
(n
\M ch
_e
t\Z
ri
tri
0 0
4-1 Co
tk-i
0 41
10
Co \. 0
0
(A m
Co toi
zr UN Je
C)
c;
10 t rl
g 0
4-3 U Cd 4-3 cd
CM Lr\
H
2 _e r-1
(D
H C)
Co
Co
cm
p4 e
0
LQ
.0 4-)
&1 0
(D
CD
rl 4J to
ri
Co \M \M
4j
Co CM
(D CD
(D
rA
CM m m
N\ Igt CID
I u
(D CD
0 (D
CD (D
ri Z 0
0 4J ri gz 0 . f.4
0 4) 10 4-)
4J Co
+i 0 PQ
UN 0
Co cm CU C)
--t LI-
(n LI-
t-t-
Co
CD
(
0
(5
Lr\ _e m O\ LA UN cli
P4 14 0 u
4-) 0 A4
rn
CM 93 to r4 Co ca Q Q rzi 0 ri 4) rd 0 19 r 0
I ro cd E-4
226
ri
+
gz %--
cq
cu
C\i
0 0 mi CM
c4
0 t -: 0 cu
CM
CM
2 : PZ
9 0) pq
X
\M 0 0 r-i
x
0 cm H 01
cu
rn 12 rl M
cli CM C\i C\i cu CU
43 M
>i
pol
4 P4
Lr%
Ul\
Je
C\i
Lr\
CU
cm
r-i
CM
4-) 9 rd 9
\Z 1Z .
4 m .
Co
0. 0 0.
Co
4
m N
Ul\
0
cn,
ri
CM
'l-
0 ,
r-i
ri
t-
cl
, u
A*
\j
UN ti de 1) 0 H tz mi
Co
(Yl r-i
_e Lr\ \M
Co
la E-1
Z 42 bo c2 . r f
ri ri (L)
cm r-i
(D H r-4
227
m
X 02 c3 (L) 9-4 A PA Q) u2 9.6 (U
H je3 43 01 0
>b
4-4
Co O\
C
A 00 41 43
C. )
E-4 Q .
(D
4-3 0 W
UN Co r-i
Cj
47,
t-
tl- C\j
CD 0
0 Lr\ N
t' _e -
t-
ri
09 r _:
Co
_e c
Co CM
c"
--r Co
c\ CD
e- Co m Lr\
4-) 0 . f. j 0
cm (n 00
0 U'\ Oj
C\j Lr\ \D 0
ON N
CN \10 t-T 41 0
N CY)
---
a\ _zr rN
U-\ C7\ *0
0m U-\ co
40
C\j \o
N0 Lr\ C\j
_: r00 10
\10 H
00
r _-:: 0
HW H Wk
Lr\ LrN C\j
bo Cd
CO
\z
-r .
\.0 0 U'\
Co
r \M -.
C\i UN
ca
4-)
(U
1 UN Lt\ cm
cm cm M. -t ci tr\
1 t- tr-1 0 _e \lo
c\ \m t- Cl% e Lr\
2 .e
CY\ H U-\
4
4)
43 (a
Op
LN
O\ CM Co Lr\ ri
cm C\i Co Ul\
(1 w\ t- --t CM m
u-%H \M M
_-r Co _r CD
H lID Co C3N
I-_:
Lr\ r UIN _r tl-
cli
145
TI
x steel
in a central
C. L. 113.9 126.97149-59162.20
145
69-17174.2
b) Lumped steel
areas
75
50
25
(c)
Figae
Choice of bars
(6.2) Design of x steel in a central strip
C. L.
185
192 .
482
80
837
772 .
C. L.
(a) Distributed
y steel
in a central
strip
1 33.7 89.1J49.7
50
Figure
(6.3)
Design
of
3r steel'in
a central
strip
229
Is
Co
I
0 H
C-)
m --L
0
-01_. "
L.
-ea--
--
___
-.
a-------
i_..
-_-
C\j
a
--
_j"
---
0__J
_j
a-a.
__
----------
II
---..
__
0
0-______
Lr\ t
--k--
--
I--
III
II II
H
___ "_ --a...
_j
C\j
0
-___
ri
II
--L--L-----.
--
I-
--
- --
- --. --
4- - ---q--0 Lr%
4- 0
r
Cd -4 -----
U-'
A-
--
A- ---
0 UN
Lr\ t--.
zr r-i
.H8
00
LA
Ul% r-i
Lr% mm H
ri
Co r-i
230
10 0 10
1%c 1: 71
Lr\ (n
LA (n
Co
mi
ri
231
0 \o r-4 C\j
co
rl
0 Ll-
--F--
I
0 Co CM VN
C\j 0 z
0
., -j
0 4-) 0 A
8 cli
UN Co H
0-
Cd
000000000 Lr\ VN
cu ,1
cm
Ul\
CU
Co
\lo
Co
Lr\
iH.
ri .
r-1 1
cm
U'\
Lr\
cm
CU 19
232
LN Co
CM
rJ2 A 0 ID Co
UN
Co
Lrl%
UN
00 Lr\
C\j
C\j
C\j
Lr\
Lr\
U-\
NI-
C\j
C\j
1. %Z C\i
-11
233-.
clcl
S S
z
co
H0 0
0 . rj
H (D
LrI% U-N
P4 0 E-4
11
I
ID
C\l
C\j
-H
LrN ;r
Ul\ p Lr\ n
Cd
WN
0
KN
ul\
U-N U-%
0 o ,
C)
C\l
C-4
234
co
0 IAxlp-, 0 c l i P:
,
00i oo
oot
o0a
oof
ocf
0 z
OOT
4-4
or+1
-
"o
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 o
0 0
0 0
0
0
C'l11
0 o C\l
Lil% \o
Lr\
cl- CC)
235
04
H a) Id 0
0 CD M-%
r-4
0
P4 0 E-4
C-
8
Kl% KIN . LN \Z Kl% Ul% cl- 0 CO r-i
cl c,
236*
CC)
IQ.
(D
0 0
r -4
%Z T04
00 L ooz
00 00 00 9LI ON 09
06 0 00 Z 0 o6
UN
9) le
ON
F.
00 00 L 00 L ON 00 L
80000008 08 00 C14 T- I'V-' I T- . 000 000 II-
Cd CD l
G -r-
01% 0 T, "zl-
(7\ . r-
Cl% T-
C\j
I-
237
0 0 cli
Lf' C-
0 0
'7
P4 0 E-4 0 0 cli
co
0
PC4
000000o0 00
KIN
Cl\
00
CN
(7%
C%J
238
ISL N
cli
Co 1.
N
I-
--
I'D
S S
C,
%Z
0 z
CH 0
CD (D 42
;2
Cl\
cli
C'N
239
ei
'
co 'IQ.
0 t R:
0 0 1-t
0
0 C\j
Cd
%4;
4-1 r-4 ID Id 0
P 0
0 0
cli
E2
Co ri . r-j Cd 4-3
00 oo '-Ic"
b,O 4.3 P 0
r-I
. rj
co 'IQ.
C 1
0 0
Cd 4-3 Q) P
04
C\j
240
300 mm =
2P 7=T
150 mm
Figure
(6.10)
Cylinder
Splitting
Test for
Concrete
Stress
Nl= 2
500
400
300
200
100
000
001
093
0-5 Strains
0-7
0.9
FiMe
(6.11)
Curve for
241
Stress
N/MM2
300
Q 144;U. 1.11
Figuxe
(6.12)
Stress-Strain
Cuxve for
the mild
steel
used.
242
FLAT ROLLER
FLAT
(a) Flats-Roller
System
II
"--
--
__"
--+-
PLAN
FLAT ROLLER FLAT ROLLER FLAT (b) Corner support system ELEVATION
FigL=e_-(6-13)
243
High Yield Prestressing Bar
FigL=e
(6.14)
Holding
the
Corners
using
"Corner
Holders"*
7!Z7
Figure
(6.15)
Support
244 2000
3400
CD
Isr
In
WAm ICLIW 1
:6..
Il 11
UC 4o6 x 173 x 60
FigL=e
(6.161
The Loading
Frame
245
Loading
System.
D) Four points
Loading
System
(c)
Eight
points I
Loading
System
246
02
. f. 4
rZ
0 m H .H cl
0-1-1 co
247
'CHAPTER'SEVEN
chapter
chapter is
the results
6,
of tests
on the large
The behaviour were designed
"models"
of to: the slabs under
load
examined.
(a)
of the proposed
service and ultimate deailing resulting
design procedure,
behaviour. problems effects associated on the slab
(b)
Provide with
a proper at high
understanding levels
of the redistribution
of
material
in the previous
chapter.
T. 2 GENERAL DESCRIPTION'Of
7.2.1
simply simply
ratio
The slab was designed for a total load of 1.5. of y) 416 KN. This design load was chosen in order to obtain reasonable
of steel in the structure. The steel bars were curtailed needed. The curtailment of
(L_, /L
at the'points
248
Figure
(7-1)
A Slab
Model
Under
Test
249
elements, according to the method described in section (6.4). Welding
of different
(5). The total
diameterss
volume
out
in
this
model,
including
in Table this
(6.2). given in a
model is
(7.2).
First
dracking
curve is
started
visible at which
nonlinearity caused
by the
microcracks,
the loading
The first
and unloading
cracks were
prior
to test.
under the load points and were a
observed
loads, central
bounded by the load points. diagonals new cracks continued deflection according central
P d'
Subsequently*
towards rather
cracks.
Deflections central
to increase
8 the permissible service deflection was mm. This represents (5). At this load, the cracks covered the entire to CP110 zone. 'The maximum crack width
under the points of
of 0.45
directly
application
of steel
was first
observed
This
occurred load-,
in
at the centre
At this
reached
the and
corners 49 the
At about 0.63 Pcjq a few cracks the slab at the four corners
near the-corner
250
1-06
0-875
19 0
Oo75
"A
1-4
0-625
"A r-4 P4
H Cd +2 E-4 0
Os5O
0-375
0-25
0-125
0-0
0-1
FigL=e_(7. -2)
0-2
Load Central
0-3
6/h Deflection
0-4
0-5
Model 1
o-6
Curve for
251
1.0
0*875
0 e75
0
(D Cd 9
o-625
0-50 H P4 P4 4 4:
0-375 +3 E-4 0
H Cd
0-25
0-125
0-0 Figure
Oo5 (7-3)
1-0 LoadrSteel
1-5
1-0 E/ey .
2o5
3-0
Strains
in Model 1
252
r-I
0 0 0
A co
co
o
P4
P4 0
0-4..
Pri
253
a well defined yield line also pattern small was developing. (see Figure 7-3) The strains and only in the the steel
steel
were
At 0.8
0.38
a sudden near
running
and parallel
The concrete
surface
sudden
of the slab
shear failure.,
spalled
the
off
whole
relative*to
the supports
with
a clinking
This was a bit unfortunate. However a check on the shear (5) using CP110 strength revealed that the slab was in fact weak in shear.
7.2.2
simply
simply
supported):
supported for slab a load with of is an aspect 213 KN. given in in A Figure ratio
1.3. of
pattern model,
underside load
As in
previous cell.
was applied
increments
5 KN per
load
deflection
curve
for
this
and a summary of the behaviour model, first first visible cracks of the cracks
is given cracking
was observed
Between a load
spread
their
central
values
before
the
zone tended
to be along
diagonals.
54
Figure
(7-5)
Crack
Pattern
on the
'Underside
of Model
255
the next load increment, cracks
loads,
which
corresponds covering
the corners
to a total
new surface
between the
spreaa further
and verir near
most of the'central
of the slab.
boundaries. Pd did they the reach slab at line pattern formed under this
limit of
Thus a well
defined
yield
load.
spanJ250 was reached at 0.75 Pd2 and a
The deflection
crack width
very that of high steel
limit
service did not
This
strain
definitely
represents
showed First the
high
occurred after
a rapid
the of
as can be tended to
seen
a load
0.98
intensify clearly
in width. stage.
cracking
could
bars
indicated top
higher cracks
strain
for
load level
to appear.
difficult,
at that
level.
The load slab. P 1.31 then taken was of d deflection before as the failure centre load for this
the value
defined
yield
failed.
Each corner
reaction
at collapse.
256
1-3
Id Cd 0
0 1-4
P4
0.9
Oe3
0-1
04 6
6
FigL=e (7-6) Load-Deflection Curve-for Model 2
257
1-4 1-3
1-2
1-0 0
0-8
0-6
E-4
0-4
0-2
0-0
0-,5
Figure (7*7)
1-0
'Load-Steel
105
2*0
Model 2
2-5
3-0
C/C y
Strainsin
258
P-4
P4
914
C'4 P
0 P4 0
Cd co
P-4 P-4 m
C14 I
P-4 KIN
c;
CO
,0
P4
0 co Y-
Id cd
P-1 co l7 E r
P., zr co
S N
0
19
Tr-
0-1 co
KIN
T-
CM - 1 .
259
10 T. 2.3*Model 3 (LX/L y=1.0, simply supported):
a square simply
supported
for
The'load
increments
The load7deflection
First visible cracking
curve for
was observed
this
slab
is
given
the
in Figure
four load
(T-11).
points
directly
under
Pd 0.04=. 0.38 of and measured a maximum about at load, no cracks cracks in the appeared in this diagonals. central
Under the
cracking
The first
of these
Figure
7-9). The limiting deflection width of span/250 was attained of 0.3mm was reached right through Pd, 0.72 at about At 0.76
while
at 0.67 Pd*
to form outside
points.
represented by fast development of new cracks
widening
cracks fo=ed
slab,
cracks (Figure
were forming. W-
Beyond this
A fle-n=al
obtained
I/
260
Figure
(709)
Crack
pattern
on the
underside
of Model
'igure
(7-10)
Crack pattern
of ',Odel
261
Ici W 0
1-2
1.0 19.
Cd -P 0 E-4
o-6
0-4
0-2
0'
6/h
Figure (7-11) Load-Deflection Curve for Model
262
1-4
,zi
Cd 0
1-2
p1
Ici
00
r-I Cd 4.3 0
E-t
o-6
0-4
0-2
04
Figt=e
(7-12_
Load-Steel
S+rains in Model
263
cu
cc) ON
4-) ' d Q)
coC,%
-P p 0 P
4 P ,
KN
K-N 7
TCo
PL4
CD
P4
Xt*
1.02
(L JL y 1.02) simply corner. supported along two
at o* pp osite
a total
Details
in Figure given
points
on the slab
are point
at the middle
edge, these
Accordingly, in Figure
First
visible
at t hree points:
These free the edges. occurred at a load of 0.39 Pd and were 0.04, of 0.05 and 0.06 mmin width respectively. With increasing loads, the slab towards the free
to from tended the centre of tbe spread cracks edgess running almost parallel
band covering the zone between the load points and the wide a -over Cracks reached the confined corner at a load of 0.60 Pd* corner. propped deflection A ,, of span/250 was reached at 0.64 Pd and the maximum crack 0.3 was mm.,under one of the point loads. At the centre width measured the free this load level the crack maximum width edgeg measured at of the deflection 0.18 mm, and was only By a load of 0.67 Pa d but still (7.14)).. definite 6 the near samepoint was only mm.
(see developing the Figure near corner prop new cracks were Strain measurementsindicated that yielc ling of steel first at a load equal to
265
Figure
(7-14)
Crack
Pattern
on the
Underside
of Model
FiLn=e
(7-15)
Crack
Pattern
on the
Top Face
of Model
o-66
Cd 19 L X
Experiment w. Theory
0044
'211
LY LX/Ly
1-02
P -,E-4 0
4
0-22
21L
0-0
? 24 0-32 0040 S/h near cent re Load-Deflection Curve for Model 4 0916
0048
1 010
74
0-68
o-66
Id H A
H Cd -4j 0 E-4
0-44
0-22
0-0 FigL=e
0-08
0-16
0040
0! 48
Curve f or Model 4
267
Ici ci 0
00
00
00 Ici 0
. ri r-i 00
ce -p E-4
oo
Oe(
cAy
Fig=e
(7-18)
Load-Steel
Strains
in Model
268
(D 'd 0 ON m 0
02
P4
All 0 cli Cd
Cd
P4
CM
c'j S
269 the design load, and then at-the by excessive cell centres of the free. edges at 1.1 Pd' near the'dentre, diagonally at a load to the load
deflection
The load
opposite
corner
measured a holding
at collapse. The top surface supported cracks near the held down corner between the two
formed at a load
of 0.94 Pd*
Supported,
L. /L
1-5): as model 1. but was designed according at points together to the where with the
This model had the same dimensions for a lower load of 2.16 KN.
in the strips, average moment it was not needed. supports Details reactions
r esulting
in Figure
(7.24-).
and a summary of the slab behaviour The load-central Figure (7.22). Unlike deflection
in Table
curve
in this early
started
flexible
the due to lower be use of a could 25% higher 1, which was model The first Similar pattern, visible cracks models,
grade of concrete,
than in the
than model 5. were observed cracks under the load points. evenly distributed holes.
by the loading
At the cracking
0.69 P of d.
Figure
(7-20)
Crack
Pattern
on the
Underside
of Model
Figure
(7-21
Crack
Pattern
on the
271
1-4
1-20
19 0
1-0
0-8
H P4
P,
o-6
H co -P 0 E-1 0*4
0-2
O-C
272
1-2
r-A
.1 .0
I0
P I
0-8
P4
H
Cd o- 6 0 E0*4
0-2
0-0
0*5
(7-23)
100
Load-Steel Strains
2 0'0 in Model 5
2r-/E: y
Figare
273
7I
1
274
deflection reached limit of span/250 and the crack width limit of 0.3 nm were
cracks
developed fo=ed
yield
was reached.
mode similar
load a at models
T. 2.6 Model 6 (A slab-beam This was a rectangular on the four all this around. sides.
system, slab
L /L
su; ported
The beams had the same cross-sectional materials (T-1). model by the layered (N., NNMMM y XY Xy finite properties
and design
of this resultants
of the middle
plane
layered
the torsional
additional
according
torsional
to CP 1-10
reinforcement (5)
bars
in the supporting
reinforcement
75
Fi, z=e
(7-25)
Model
6 TJnder Test
Figure
(7-26)
Cracks
on the
long
beam of Model
276
between the slab and beams was vex7 according load for in to this the'slab small. CP110 model is (5). was 240 KN. in shown Accordingly, this
reinforce-
Figure
Figure in
(6.9b). of
by applying gives
Figure
a photograph As far
under
as deflections
concerned,,
critical
points
are
those
at the middle
of the slab,
Accordingly, given is
in Figures
generally
linear
cracks
around points
the loading
in the deflections
to invisible
cracks but
were spreading
at the middle
of the slab
These tiny
cracks
parallel
of 0.03 =
of the beams.
277
r--
FiFare
(7-27)
'rack
Pattern
on the : nderside
of ', Icdell -,
FioEare (7-28)
Crack Pattern
278
the
inner of
of the at
ribs
of load.
the
long
not to
reach
the
-mid
depth cracks
this to
A general existing
form
rather
than
open up the
was observed.
in the middle
third
of the ribs
long line
However, loading of
on the
(Figure Pd*
(7-33)),
of the as the
this width
model, at this
were
was only in
the
long first
beams, cracks
at points were
load,
observed
on the in
cracks the
load,
cracks
centre
the
were
outwards
towards
the long
supporting
beams, with
a general cracks
inclination
Some of these
reached the
holes
a load
at a load
of 0.72 P
of 0.625 Pd'
d' most of the first cracks in the middle
third
height
junction the and reached width holes largest the of inner the on
to about half
of the short
appeared
beams als. 0
on the inner face
depth,
279
1.6
1-4
Id Cd . 0
r-4
1-2
(D -Q. 1-0
1000,
.j. /II i+
1(
11
P4 0.8
0 E-4
o-6
xx
0*4
Fle=e
0-2
0-0
092 /h
0*3
0-4 Deflection
095 In Model 6
0-6
Load-Central
280
of their ribs. On the bottom of the slab . the first cracks to form
long beans,
indicating
the first
of one collapse
mechanism.
Crack widths
on the underside this load. At a load centre for this was only
of 0.8 P., 8 =.
deflection
This
model according
to CP110(5).
cracks
the rib,
inner
side
of the rib
the depth
outer
These
cracks
generally
inclined
cracks load
observed zone.
rapidly cracks
the rib
breadth cracks
with
cracks cracking
on the long beams appeared near also occurred. on.the outer normal to those face formed of
in a direction
appearance At this
torsional level,
were noticed
to widen.
The maxi=m
o5(
1*33
1*17
19 0
1-0
0-83
0-67
-P 0
ti
E--4
0,50
0-33
0-17
000
282
1-5
1-33
1-17
1:1 Cd 0 H
Q)
1'O
0 1-4
0-83
o-67
0 E-4
0-50
0-33
0-17
0- -0
0-02
0-04 6/h
0-06
0-08
0-10
0-12
0.14,
Figure
(7-31)
283
lZ
C/I
r. 4-4 Cd P
4-2
9
A N WN
t-\M
K\ Kl%
t-0 %,
Kl\ Kl\
9 0
284
N. B.
Loading
4oles
Maxked
a.,
II II I II II II II II II II
II
I.
1125
II II
II
L-
655
870 2180
1". .
870 3120
1125
655
Fig=e_
(7-33)-
Dimensions
and Loading
Positions
6 Model on
285 width was 0.3 = near the loading holes on the ribs of the long beams. cracking at
of the short
On subsequent
load
formed,
and
to the extensions
crack through
of old
the
cracks
near the
corners
the
A major
corner
junction
between
the
were observed the beams
load
On the
bottom
of the
at the of the
at
the
by a load'of
gauge under
was rotating
difficult
to maintain
the load
at a certain deflection,
value.
The of
due to excessive
load.
Table is taken
(7-I)
sin= rizes
all
the test
results.
The service
load limit
that
of all
except in its
in shear,
due to an error
design
procedure,
286
-ri Im
1PL4
%Z
t-
CD
Co
ro
C%
cr%
GD
M lid
Lr%
Lr\ OD
\.0
N-\ 1%0
Kl%
E-1
02
J 0 43
.H ?4 0) lid
a)
CO-4 0
-l
(D e
Ul\ t--
t-
%Z
%0
CD
CH 0
19 0
Cd 0
CM CM
Cd
cc
0 C-4 P., m
CQ 0 cm cy C\i CM Cd 0 H 0 r-i b. 0 Id H a)
to
'-I .
CD
\M
Y. ,
ab-
P:4
-d -,> rd 5 ;1
qb-
CD
(D
(D
CD
CD cm
CD
'Ire,
cli
-0
C) -
CD
TP-4 P- P4
112
r-i
cli
Kl%
142-
Ul\
%Z
287' finite "elastic" stiffnesses element method. deflections However, such an analysis under the design load. normally elastic predicts uncracked deflections under a valid and the and then procedure,
Since
the
analysis,
underestimation
of the true
as has been shown in Chapter Theox7 should is to design satisfy for serviceability limit
the ultimate
the present
design
the elastic
directly
be used to check for Partially the elastic 2.3-1.1), cracked deflections to predict
an effective study,
In this
So if the
deflection be
ultimate
pe9 where 6p 6e
19=
6xI
( c/ LF x. I
eff
Predicted elastic
gross
moment of
inertia
eff LF
:'-- effective
moment of inertia
of the section
behaviour.
using
assumptions
sections(Appendix load
the li-ve
dead load,
load
is taken
as Pd/1.6
288
0 0
U-%
\0
4OP4 0 Id v -H
Id
Q) 4-4 P4
LCI% *
tc\
C\j C-0 .0
co C\j
Ul\
(D (10
r-
r ::
10
C-
ul
0
C\j
0
a) to Kl\
C\j
04
\. O U,, %
LIcr \
,a Cd
E-4
0 --4 Cd a) Cu (1) C\j a, \
-:
C\j Kr\
cr\ Kl\
04 02 04
co 0 K'\ 0 0
ON co Kl\ 0
co C\j
4-3 +3 H CH 0
Eo (D . \-O W\
a\
a ,\
o-,
LCI%
Cl\
TC14 LC\
0 -H 44
cd
UN
U-11
U-\
r 4-4
0 0
Cd
8 C\j
C\j
cr\ T-
co 0
0
Ir"
T-
Ll-
it 40 co 4-) 19
4
P4 co
0p
0
(D P4
(1)%..oo
i
0
4-2 P4
Ir.
0
r-
0 44
E-4
%D
ON
ON
a\
r-I C\j
cq
41 4.4
4) Id
o
r-i
cli
K%
UN
\D
289
As can be seen from Table (7.2) except for model 1. that the
yields
excellent
predictions.
Accordingly,
the
of the slab.
fact that this
The large
model
deviation
a low in
case of model 1 is
of P cr/pd* is shown in
each test
slab
Figwe
(7-34),
of the total
load
on the slab.
the
to appear on the
crack had always been 'under the load crack having the maximum width in line . with the
supporting
beams
increase of
is
occurs,
of cracks of the
surface departs
of the slabs.
of the stresses,
to occur..
Opposed to this,
exceeded.
or at loads
to each other
(Table
deflection
as a criterion,
loads
by deflections of deflection
the last
290
ca
op
4 pa
0 r.
4 +2
CQ 4) E-4
cli 4 +21
I
cc
1
I
N-
I
tIz: C\i 0 Co \Z lle cli
P114d
291
The slab in model 6. showed an excellent service behaviour. Both
serviceability It
limits
at loads
close
to the
design
load. to in
values at the
referred centre
table slab.
of the
to the
Furthermore,
crack width
was reached
7.3.2 Ultimate
Table behaviourtwo criteria, As far took place (7-1)
Limit
State:
the results obtained concerning will the ultimate from
suanarizes
models.
The behaviour
yield,, loads
no yield models.
load
in model ls
although
stressed service
An average
design
model
loads
the
"flexural"
ultimate
behaviour
of the slab.
For'the
in the
design
edge beams, an average enhancement of 16% possooLy indicates is observp-d. This that very little -/, taken place before the slab became a
redistribution mechanism.
had actually
a higher of this
load
enhancement.
behaviour
model are
292
affected by the presence of the strong supporting beams. The effect
of having
strong
supporting This
the'lateral
inplane
in the slab. movements membrane forces its enhance in the slab at high very load is
capacity.
membrane action
loads.
would Occur only when the and in most cases, the crack
large
through
the slab
depth.
This
of course will
large then
In the
was not
reach
this
stage.
Although
at failure,
the slabs
very
large
to maintain
the
failure
beans (Figure
of the tensile
membrane action.
design
loads
in the following
section.
7.3.3'Pogsible'Reason8'f6t'the'DiffLir6rices*B6tv66h'thO-'A: .. Elastic-'F'lelds)*and'Tru6'Ultimat6'Behavi6ur'6f*the'Md6ls. To explain on the models, some of the phenomena enco-untered the following factors contributed during to the
Atumed
293
between the assumed (elastic) ultimate (i) loads. Strerigth does not affect the design procedure. The -effect of and real distribution of forces at
Cnrete
needed is
almost
(80)
is
and Morley(71)
exact finite only for
(equation For
strength.
concrete
strength,,
criterion
is not as exact,
nificent
(80) 0
in concrete strength has significant in the post effects range.
But the variation on the stiffness The concrete strength load both
cracking
strength of which
modulus and the tensile deflections. within and the cracking load is governed be
affected
by the concrete the stiffness. of the slab-beam (2) Increased Affects In the former not affecting deflection
the strength
the higher
behaviour
6. in system model
amounts of steel both the service case, by providing the cracking load the and extra ultimate stiffness behaviour of the slab. (although
significantly)
characteristics. but
Crack spread over the slab has the desirable less effect-is
the factor
influence
crack
depths.
Consequently$ The'total
degradation*
behaviour.
294
Increasing of yield. with extra the amount of steel provided delays the initiation
both model 2 and model 6 were provided (6.2). but In case of model 2, rather resulted to avoid for from shear flexure
the extra
the reinforcing
In case of model 6, the model had been designed steel was added to resist by the layered additional This steel effect
and additional
the excess torsional (see Section model has contributed will 4.4.4).
stresses
And definitely
to the in
be discussed
Strain Table
of the
steel
experiments.
Typical
stress-strain
(6.12). and
As can be seen from Table reserve of strength mild after steel. but
(7-3),
defini. t6ly
generally
contributes 7.4).
to the ultimate
strength
of the. slab
be shown in Section
(4) Membrane forces Inplane slabs forces resulting from edge restraints in laterally loaded
which effort
contributes
in ultimate
is bound to occur.
of this
factor
295
0'
C14 s
0
CO n U-N
M-
CH
rlLr%
Cl% t;
C\j
11-
) U'N
co I, "::
06
ctl +3
K\ T-
U'l% c li
cr\
C\j
C14 z
. ,o co
l\ U
.0
lid 0)
ON C14
co
Ll-
L--
LlC\l
Ll-
\10 Lr%
4-2
^4 %lo CD
C\j N
4Z, CD co co GN Kl\ CM
C\l
4-4 0
P4 0 H (D +) 02
00 0-%
(D 4-3
12)0
co
C)
\.O
CC)
e4l
296
is probably the low not significant in the first in the five models. load. restraint as can be seen But to in the is
from model
enhancement strong
obtained
ultimate a strong
6, the
provided
outward
movement
of the'
bottom inward
surface. bowing of
represented
by the
observed
beams.
the slab, model. this
Accordingly,
which
an induced
to the the
compressive
enhancement finite the next
contributed
this with
Fortunatelys
layered
can deal
problem,
as wi3.1 be shown in
Tensile
membrane action
developing
at
large
deflection,
and
t high happens .
through the
loads.
of the
At this
slab
stageg bottom
surface
load
cracks
will
would run
whole
thickness.
and the
be carried
slab
acting
as a cat46nary.
Literature is
(99)
occurs
approximately
equal to the slab thickness. This situation could not be achieved of the. loading in all the models tested, Unfortunately, probIem, since it the ignores
apparatus. this
finite
displacement
7.4'NONLINEAR ANALYSIS OF THE'TESTMODELS. Using the nonlinear study, Details incremental an of the materials finite element program developed in this
analysis
of the test
properties,
used in the
The materials
properties
297
Table (794): . Results of the nonlinear experimental models
analysis
of the
Model No.
F
p cr2
-. 2
P /% 2 ul d2
0-75
0.90
1-09
0-68
1015
0-82 100
0 73
3 4 5
6
0,,72 0-830078
1*12
The Cracking
Maximum deflection es 6d' P= Suffix Suffix Maximum steel*st=ain = Maximum deflection = Ultimate 1 2 for for
under
load (Pd)
load
experimental
results
298
n -p
LN
Ul\
Lr%
CY
C)
bi u2
S., .02
Q) x
le
\.0
\o %M
CD Co
Ict le
clt(D
kt
%Z
Cd -P Cd Id
MIN l;t =A
r-4 Cd
\I
l \o
c)
C)
(D
Id 0
C/I
c 4
0 %, txt
CD %Z
Kil
CD %I0
-e
N'\ cl-e
K"% r,Igt
C) 0
H Cd
0 F1 4-4 0
Ul% C)
cq
l CM
CM
CM
c c"i
0 0 cli P4
H 4) CD
C"
t-
T CM
C rc\
%-o
N_
CM
K'\
CD
KN
E-4
Id 0 0
cli
299
measured For models Figure strain strength. The reason in the. laboratory 1 to 5. the on the idealiz used. same day the model curves. takes the bars was tested. given into attain in account their the yield
(7.35)
reinforcement
case of model
this
of mild
steel
used.
Strain
hardening
after
models analysed
produced
were designed
by the are normal line eccentric predicted
only.
beams in
elastic
moments of model
and the
short
centre
(T. 49)
respectively. compressive
is
that, by
the
membrane forces
of analysis
model.
the equations
in section conbined
designed
using (3-7).
been described has as modelq sandwich sandwich model, is completely. the (filling) core
contribution
in resisting
in Table
In general,
and experiment
4, it
results.
the
up to
300
STRESS
f
0-8
High
Yield
Steel
STRESS
f I
F-y
(b) Mild
Steel
Fig=e
Steel
301
is the This very Fell predicted model effect load rate by the finite element response Figures is model. than But at high loads, theoretical stiffening the shows a stiffer the'experiment. and 7.42) one, in and the
beyon'd is
service by poor
caused
convergence
after
the
slab.
To eliminate with
this, a smaller
a larger size
to an expensive
analysis,
result.
conducted
And thus
the first
are considered
indicated that
satisfactory.
the enhancement
The analysis
loads
can be attributed
increase and
in the amounts of steel. parameters considered strength loads, but on the response, was model 2. influences
(T-36)
the. service
of the section.
affect the
hand,
but
service of due to
contributes
to
the
ultimate are
behaviour those
behaviour
increased
of ultimate
increasing
amount
increase of
existence
conpressive
will'
Wood by shown
considerably (4)
enhance its
Figures
ultimate
moment capacity,
also
as has been
fact.
(7.40)
to, (7.48)
show this
302
1-4
. -0
--
1-20
0** . .00 100
0-8 p Pd 0*6 Actual Actual Steel with strain hardening steel without hardening strain
0-2
0-0
0-1
0-2
0*3
S/h
0-4
095
0-6
70
303.
IIhe moments capacity to the at the critical sections in the test models at high load
induced results
compressive of the
were levels.
high
mainly
by in
supporting
beams,
underestinated
Since iLmored, it
in
the
design
6, the to
were
investigate to do thisl
effect
In order
an analysis model
with of model
was thatt
membrane forces
were considered
design,
using
the open sandwich model (Section in the slab was generally (Analysis A).
3-7)less
It
the
than that
But as a result
tensile the of
(Analysis
that
A).
strength response
improved
service
whether
both loadd,
for
flexure
the
or combined flexure
system for will
show that
under service
in
cases
designed designs
behave
althought
combined
flexural
would
behave better.
304
T-5 CONCLUSIONS The general conclusions provides
elastic
to be'drawn
can be
siumnarized as follows:
a practical
layout
are
of
of
Tnoment fields
continuously (Equation
varying 3.14)
nature.
when linked
with
results is strictly
variation
T"his statement
a reasonable
cover very
wide strips.
considered
where L is the
in any direction. results indicated that the behaviour of the slabs Both deflections designed and
by the proposed method was satisfactory. crack widths limits, span/250 No yield range. in the working load
acceptable than
as defined
by Cpllo(5) <0.3
not greater
in all
within
the service
load
were very
close
to the design
loads,
the resulting
at loads
blose
design
loads.
305
Failure loads load in all models were in in excess ultimate of the loads action design of loads.
enhancement
the
caused of
compressive
and the
systems,
no saving
in steel
can be
In fact
the proposed
by a larger
systems, of the
whether
membrane the
forces
are
in
system
or not,
system
proposed
method
will
behave
sati$factorily in the
Consideration, produces
design of the
Models) when
improvements
behaviour
neglected. Both the experiments on slab-beams connection. systems, Initiation and theoretical indicated of failure the collapse
fixity of the
elements
corner between
at the corner
of the system,
beams is
due to the
considerably
reduced. Prediction of the sersrice behaviour 2. If can be made using the assumptions any of the in Appendix using
in Chapter
by the present
method.
306
accuracy on the excess service design 10. and reliability cracking of load of of the the slab. load, method With this of calculation loads depends in the direct
design the
predicts proposed
behaviour. procedure,
slabs
designed
acceptable finite
reinforced
systems.
Excellent
theoretical actual
and the
obtained.
I.
307
L.
C L. ..
Figure
(7*37)
P/Pd causing
yield
in Model 1
2,10 1 *5
m V7
2-0
s-
308
L.
Figur
'D/pd causing J.
yieldin
Model
AT 1- 31 Pd AT Pd
first ..,-AT
2-0
yield
load
2-0
1-5 1-0
0*5
. 0-0
0
Distance pigt=e (7.40) along short C. L. of Model 2 Ultimate Behaviour
309
C. L.
100 o. 96
0"80 0.8
-,77 -77
0..8
80
98
p/pd
causing
yield
in Model
T first TPd
yield
260
1-5
m mp 00
I
0*5
0-0
50
Distance FigL=e along C. L. behavio= of Model (7-41)-Ultimate
310
free
1.08
1.08 1-081
1 1
- 72
*9711-01
-93
-93 1 -11
9c . 993 072
.9 1-11
87 1904 ,
993
simply
supported
MY
2-0 AT Pu
load
0-5
. -Distance'along
Ultimate
-25
-50 A-A
-75
1-0
Fig=e
(7-42)
behaviour
of Model 4
311 C. L.
1913
94
s94 -86 -81 1 U. L.
99
. 89
. 89
P/P
iing caus d
yield
in Model
2-0
105 m ir p
AT Pu
2.0
mp
312
C. L.
-97 .
1-02
C. L.
*93
1* 41
1 *35
1-20
1.09
1.09
1041
1 o25 1*04
1- 56 1,,51 1*30 1- 30
1-30 1-04
C.L.
1004
313
1*25 1-0 m
m eje
0-75
0-5 0-25 0-0
0-1
4 . 0-2
093 Y/Ly
the short beams
0-4
Oe5
Distance
along
5*0
4,10 M
Met
3*0
2-0 AT 14 31 Pd AT Pd AT Pcr
0-0 0-1
1-0
0-2 along BB
Distance Fig=
YA7
0-3
0*4
0-5
Moments Redistribution
in Model 6
314
1-25
1-0 MX
AT 1- 31 Pd AT Pd
Me
0975
0950
AT Por
0-25 0-0
Distance along. the long Beam
LA
4o
3eO
Ilym et 2-0
d.
1-0
0-0
0-1
002
Distance along
0; 3
AA
0*4
in Model 6
0*5 x/Itc
Figure
(7-46)
Moments Redistribution
I/
315 TENSION
NA membrane force predicted (see Fig-7'. 50)analysis by elastic
1-0
Pd
O-u
001 Distance
0-3 beam
0*4
i 0-5
A_
__
4*0
3*0
1-31 Pd N F e.j2-0 AT Pd
1-0
AT P cr
0-0
05
-1'O
Figure
(7-47)
Redistribution
of Membrane forces
in Model 6
316
rl'rMqTr)T, T
1-0
AT 1 1,31 Pd AT Pd
Ne.t
0-5
AT P or
0-0
-1'O
x
, o4 t", m in e4m ^v
LX
300
AT 1 *31 Pd 2-0 NX Ne'l 1-0 AT P cr
0-0
AT P
Figure
(7-48) Redistribution
317
014
Lx
0*2
003 X/IC
along
0-4
section
0-5
(Elastic xx
Vaxiation Analysis)
8
0
6
rts
N
SE
2
0-0
318
4.)
tm
4-D 0 z r-4 Cd
E 0
r-4 Cd
4-4 0
0 0 . r4
N
C )
10
. 1.4
1%
P-l
000 C\j
m -P P 0 P4 pq
m 4-3 P 0 P4 P4 0
319
P4
H 0 P
ft 0
02
.0
ci
cu
14-
5i
%I0
,%-.0
0 0
P A 0 0
cl,
H Cd
a) C)
f44
0 PN CD 0 Cd P P Ei W :4
4-4 0 9 0 . rj
le
10
%Z
4-2
Co
C
1
CD
c'J 1
0 0
E-4
320
.' MAPTER'EIGHT 'CONCLUSIONS'AND*SUGGESTIONS*FOR'FUTURE*WORK
Although its at
below: -
each chapter
with
of these
8.1 Conclusions:
(1) In the finite element analysis, a mesh division which is
for
the elastic
analysis
is
also
adequate planar is
analysis A numerical
concrete order
of 2x2 for
to produce slabs
results systems.
loaded
and slab-beam
finite predictions
of concrete
slabs
by demanding predictions to
level.
reasonable
norms prior
of the load
increment
adequate to of about
for
the response is
the increment
321
(3) In the analysis of slab-beam systems by the'method of the flexural the
proposed heres. accurate response limitations iterations this can be obtained on the load described it
case using
and nmaber of of
above. .
One disadvantage
is that method
and stiffness neglect'of 4). is
underestimates
of the supporting shear the on the In this direct
the torsional
beams, due (see
stresses to the
the
vertical if
component design
torsional research,
strength it was
of
used here,
actual vertical
torsional shear
An element its
includes
formulation
is
strongly
distributions, additional
considering as suggested
"torsional
in Cp 110(5)
the direct
procedure design
the maximum or the average moment in the strip, departing far from the original distribution.
322
In the case of slab-beam in Chapter 30% more steel system undex uniform (5), the yield * line load
considered requires
solution
over that
In the system designed by the direct yield starts near the cornerss and
type
of yield
connection,
reduces
the fact
complex stress
system,
be advisable corners.
Following
midspan section
end of the
systems,
consideration
in the design
the reinforcement
requires including
in the total
volume could
be as high
=re.
Whether membrane forces slab-beam proposed Inclusion systems$ direct axe considered the in the design of
or not,
design
procedure
produces
improvements
of the system.
323
All the slabs considered in this study which were satisfactorily both the lizaits
designed
acceptable
of steel
occurred 7).
(Chapter
were very
distributed
pattern.
to
cracks
rather
open the at
was not
cracks.
slabs
by the very
enhancement which is
attributed of the
hardening
layered
finite
developed of
here
to be a powerful slabs
tool*for
reinforced agreement
and slab-beams
systems.
Excellent
predictions
and actual
slab behaviour
has
in most cases.
324
8.2'SUGGESTIONS FOR FUTURE. WORK
suggested
and support
orientation involved.
an
of the various
parameters
isoparametric problem.
formulation
provides
means of treating
to include
built-in
panels
of will
sides
In the of
to check if
element
any significant
redistribution
the
method, technique
edge rotation
by Johnarry
progressive (43). A
detailed
to the
finite
element
element
developed
study
here,
will
be involved
it
in applying
for
the technique
checking the
before
can be used
direct
design
considered
in the design to be
suggested
such forces
consideration.
A comparison
between designs
based on open
and filled
The design
by experiments.
to overestimate
tended
the ultimate
loads
by nearly before
50%.
study
is-needed phenomena
a more economical
APPENDICES
325
Calculation
of the
teel
required unit
for width.
a certain
design
moment
M* per
limit
state
theorys will
it
the
in the section
cu
C
T,
X1
Ast
Taking
the partial
steel on both concrete-and safety factors I ibrium the the horizontal of by equil. considering and force: (1) at ultimate (2) st Y = 1.5 A st, fy cu . Jf f 1.5dp =. cu (3)
no net c=T
distribution xl =Af
where
0=
Astjd
= reinforcement
ratio.
if
326
Taking internal and moments about then' the compression force and equating external
moments,,
T. (d
Af st
(d - 1.5 O'd f /2 f . cu yy
/2 f
21f
cu
ef p
arranging we get the
p2ef 75 yy .
cu
quadratic
in. :
(. 75
fcu
p+
M* e fy
jd st
(5)
Solving
and substituting
p=A
f A st
cu d3
1.5 fy
M* d2- f
cu steel.
Equation
both top
and bottom
327
APPENDIX B PROGRAM DESCRIPTION AND IMPLEMENTATION This features part is intended to give a brief description study. of the main The program
in Strathclyde
element reformulation,
of steelt details also
and plastification
in Chapter
4 of this
study. and
Mod6fications omission
of design program.
routines
of this
new program is
of back greatly
Accordingly,
reduced. The program is built the followling 1. 2. Program Subroutine FEM INTEGRATION up of twelve subroutines which are listed in
Subroutine Subroutine
Subroutine Subroutine
11. 12.
Subroutine Subroutine
in addition,
the standard
the coefficients
which is
matrix
of the displacestiffness
4.2.1)9
load vector
sections
subroutines,
and organization
the monitoring
mod-ale in which
all
other
routines
are
called
in appropriate
places.
Allfinput
data
is first
to mesh generation,
as follows:
a. Major
b. Stiffness
is formed
concentrated
or membrane force d. The stiffness elimination(31) for e. Middle the nodal plane matrix
is decomposed using
strains
and curvatures
the first
stressed
and step
axe later
cracking
load
of stress
at a Gauss point
is
Of
pseudoforces
is found.
329
h. The structure pseudoforces, i. Results output. INTEGRATION: is called sets only once at the beginning coordinates specified of the FEM and weigh-ting in the data. is reanalysed until under the effect of these
equilibrium
is maintained.
2. Subroutine
to the order
of integration
Subroutine LSTIF:
This routine element routine calculates the equivalent using D matrix equation for a layered The
(4-17). is needed.
everytime
of a layer
Subroutine MTX:
This routine a. Calculates using performs two functions: matrix polynomial (matrix C'in equation defining 4-5) the
the coefficient
the displacement
functions
elements, equations
coordinates b. Calculates
(4-1)
to (4-3)t
relationshipsg
Both the interpolation the element The routine its sides dimensions is called lengths formation is
given by equation
and the strain
only
element is
The routine
stiffness
matrix
from uniform
330
stress resultants to get the internal nodal force vector.
Subroutine WMA:
(nodal forces) computed for a given I intensity load is calculated in this routine. of uniform lateral (68): These nodal forces axe obtained from The element load vector F where matrix routine. is C is cc] -1 I/ 1T I-P IT matrix function load. qdx dy from the previous (4-3)9 is and
the coefficient
obtained given
P is
the polynomial
in equation
the intensity
of the unifo=
ca=ied
of element
encountered.
Subroutine
in the program.
Subroutine
This places constant element
INSM:
inserts elements stiffness matrices in their proper
routine
matrix. routine
formation
phase.
routine
boundary Later
degrees in the
displacement
a code of 1.
such degrees
of freedom
Prescribed the'nodes.
331
Subroutine In this into NMSOL: routineq the banded stiffness the Gaussian matrix is first decomposed (31). method to the routine.
a triangular
form using
elimination entry
matrix entriesp
on first
displacements
are obtained
by back substitution
It
at the
Subrautine
REACTIONS:
subroutine
incrementq
and during
11 . Subroutine This
DESIGN: is called only when a design is for the flexural to the equations
routine
reinforcement
is needed.
The design
done according
of section
only 12. once.
(3.4: ).
This is an optional
routine,
Subroutine
IlqPLANED: is called only when a design for membrane reinforcement equations of section
The design
is done according
to the
This is an optional
routinev
332
User Inst=uctions Manual to the Program FEM
Nonelastic, If nonlinear
1.0. steel use Elastic = 2 UDULTIMATE is the design uniform load in N1mm DPB---; design for the -*1.0 Deep beams with elastic reinforcemdnt. given 3 2015 TBEAM= depth DPB = 2.0 for of slab Deep beams with put DPB = 0.0 a reinforcement. For slabs
dnd supporting'bbans. IQUTPUT = nodes numbers for which displacements 6utput is required. ICUTPUT = Elements strains numbers for in output. which stresses and
2015
axe requested
1415
NREF11 NREF29 NREF3P NREF4s NREF59 NG9 NPNODES9 NDIFEL, NPOINT LOADS9 NBCS9.NLC9 INPLAY9 MOMEL9 NSTIF. Control be 0. data or NREF3 t NREP1 = 1--bounded. for unbounded plasticity Only one of these relaxation should analysis -
NREF2 =1f
1 For fixed
1 For 0. NREF5 nontorsional only, otherwise = in 0. NG No. Gauss points analysis, of otherwise = = the element (4 or 9) NPODES= No. of Inplane point slabs NDIFEL = No. of different NPOINTLOADS= No. of point loads. loads. boundaxy conditions. increments. element. be given additional 6 INPLAY elements types. NBCS = No. of
MOMEL= Element No. for which a summary will NSTIP = No. of at the end of the analysis. stiffnesses.
333
Card . No. ' SLX &'SLY are lengths DIVX*, DIVY divisions REGULAR= 1.0 for
directions,
otherwise
= 0.
spans in the two directions
1595P10
GMOD nt-ed be specified only when Nr6O in card 5 is 0. GMODis the shear modulus of concrete. ITERTOTI SCALE LOADODISNORM9FNORM, ACCELERATCR9 TTNITERTOT = Max. No, of iterations in a load increment SCALELOAD the load increment as a ratio size of = load. Use around 0.1 of-thi-cracking DISNORM= convergence Use 0.00001 FNaRM= convergence to 0.1 limit for displacement norm. Use 0.01
limit
for
force
norm.
ACCELERATCR 1.0 = TTN = Tension stiffening use between 1.0 and 10. 88 F10
factor
c in Figure
(4.6)
PCUt FST, FTC, EC, ES9 Pq HARD1; HARD2 FCU = concrete compressive strength 2 in Nl= 2 in NIMM
2 in I, /Mm
EC = concrete modulus in- N/MM2 ES = steel modulus in NIMM2 for concrete P= Poisson's ratio H. ARD1.= hardening HARD2 = hardening 1 modulus modulus 2.
q6
Flo 4 F5
334
, -06. -6 C1 Fo=at No. -. .,, A . . ".. .,. 'i ,, "* , *.' ,,, '. , '. , '. ,, '. ,,., Desicrip ion (mm)
..........
T=
slab
or beam thickness for main steel proportion steel steel layers layers in X
in Y direction
UD9 PRXO PRY UD = intensity distributed of uniformly PRX =X prestress in N/MM2 2 PRY- =Y prestress in N/mm load 2 in N/mm
11
8 P10
XSIDE(I)
Total No. of = lengths of X divisions. such divisions should be equal to DM. and more divisions. card is IF REGULAR not needed.
oaxds can be used if >8 1.0 in caxd IT6.6, this = 12 8 F10 YSIDE(I)
length Total No. of of Y divisions. = such divisions should be equal to DIVY, and more IF REGULAR cards can be used if >8 divisions. 1.0 in card No. 6, this card is not needed. TT12(I) = layers 9/cagethicknesses. Up to 12 layers can be used. BEAML(I) = layers Up to 12 layers DN9 DNBEAM DN = depth unspecified, of middle plane of the slab. of T/2 will If be used. Ycage thicknesses can be used. for T beam elements.
13
12 F6
14 15
12 F6
2 F6
the default
value
16
2 179 5 P10
DNBEAM plane in Tbeam problems9 = depth of reference from its middle plane. which may be different (NBOUND(I)v (NFIX(ItJ)p J=1,5)9 PRESC (ItJ)9 J=1,5)9 I= l9NB9Saxe to
for Fixity the five degrees of code = Lw aw f, -freedom in the order up v, w, ay x If a certain degree of freedom in a node is restrained,
335
..........................................
No. ...........
? OTmat,.... I. 'it
PRESC(I, J) = the prescribed displacement in the direction of any of the degrees of freedom of the boundary nodes. 17 13 12 ((ILjIMOID(IjJ)O J=1912)0 I=1, NDIFEL) elements of IL =-secjUential*orde= different of'the layers arrangements. with different LMOD(IqJ) = Type of layers - element.. 'The following IMOD =1 IMOD =2 IMOD =0 le 20 14 HEWEL(I), for*concrete for for steel for
each type
layers
imip(I),
NEWEL= elements systems. LDIF = layering IL in previous If all elements then this
to
system
19
40 12
0-
blank. caxd may be left IELC(LE)q'LE = 19 NEL9 NEL = Total no. of elements. IELC = element type no. as it appeaxs on the mesh. According to their sides lengths and layering system,. elements can have different type numbers IELC. element
20
15,2F10
FNPX(I)q
FNPY(I) node numbers where inplane FNPX(I) or in the Y direction and axe directions These forces and the magnitude in the positive
axes.
21
155 F10
NREST(I)q FIXITY(IjJ)qJ
NaEST(I) ='node no. at which support stiffnesses
336
ed 'Cd: No.
Format FIXITY(I,
................................
LOADPOINTS(I)v POINTLOADS(l),
LOADPOINTS(I) = Node nos. at which lateral loads. POINTLOADS(I) and concentrated concentrated PMOM(IIJ) axe applied. moment in X and Y directions Total be equal no. of cards will in Card 5- If an elastic design to NPOINTLOADS (with is required
MASTIC = 1.0 in card 2) this set of cards should the design point loads and accordinglyv represent (of loads 1/15th the first another set with small design loads) axe also loads to be added. This last is needed to start the incre-
incremental NDNODE node no. at which membrane = force in direction If IMIR is to be applied. force and if DLOAD is in the X direction in Y direction, LDIR = 2. be equal to MODES use IMIR = 19 The number of in caxd No-5-
Progrm
Flow Ch=t
337
NO
is DESIGN REQUIRED
SOLVF., PGR THE DISPLACHMENTS F d] , OBTAIN STRAINS9 STRESSESAND DESIGN STEEL lAYEaS
INITIALISE
&
J-P ]
INCREMENT
ITERATION
ITERATION LOOP
INITILIZE: STRESS, STRAINS BENDING MOM! ENTS, X&ABRANEFORC ETC VECTORS IN THE FIRST ITERATION
338
ELEMENTS
ELEMENTSLOOP
LAYERS
LAYERS LOOP
INITIALIZE
GAUSSPOINTS
GAUSSPOINTS LOOP
CALCULATETHE ST'RESSESp ADD THE STRESSES& STRAINS TO THEIR RESPECTIVE VECTCRSTO GET TOTAL VALUES
II
(D
339
FIND Ut
NO
, STEEL\ YIELDING
SRMAX 6*0035?
ZERO D MATRIX
MODIFY THE CONSTITUTIVE MATX D, COMPUTE EXCESS STRESSES& BRING THE STRESSVECTORON THE YIELD SURFACE
USING THE ELEMENT STRtSS RESULTANTVECTCRSN, M JUM fBTa TEE STRAIN MATRIX B OBTAIN THE INTEGRAND dv & AID TO THE GLOBAL LOAD VECTCR R
340
YES
NO
ISPIACEME CIONVERGED?
STOP
341
C 'DERIVATION'OF'THE'BOUNDED'PLASTIC*L2ADS
Using increment
the f
principle
of
uniform from
the plastic
plastic load
load R as
pp
may be obtained
Af
where
p=XRp Ia
(1)
(R -ZBT dV) a
vector load vector
RpZ
in which, and Rp &f P load total
(2)
force of
imbAance plastic
increment vector
curve
can be fitted
by a second
y=a0+
the nonlinearity
alx +a 2x
is
X2
dR p-
2a2x dx
dR /R p P= or If the AR p= Af
where d and
342
and so that k ff+. k d. 0 R Af
where vector.
stiffness continues
matrix,
load
The analysis
as before,
but with
the incremental
plastic
loads
343
APPENDIX (D)-
Produced
by Torsional of
Slabs with
Sides Ratios
N. B. The Strip the same as that numbering system in the following (5-3) to (5*9) figures 5is
in FigL=es
in Chapter
344
m x
0.10
04
>&
0.08
5 o. o4 (2) 3 3
0.0
0.2
x/LXO.
3 1-5)
o. 4
0.5
Figure
Moment M* (L /L xxy
0.10
0
( 5) 1101
0.08
o. o4
(2)
zz;
0.0Z
4---'7-I
(D2) Positive
0.2 y/L y
0.3
o. 4
= 1-5)
0.5
Figure
Moment M* (LX/Ly y
345
o. o6
o. o4
N >-,
0.02
0.0
0.1
0.2
-I -0.3
o. 4
0.5
Fig=e
xxY
1-5) .
o. o6
.,
>, o. o4
0.02
0.0
0.1
0.2
y/L y
0.3
o. 4
0.5
Figure
(D4)-
Negative
A. Moment M* (L y. xy
%J%\'NJ4 mXu
346
o. o6 -
1)
(3 (4) 10 (5) (4)
(2
o. o4
(5)
(2) A
vO. 02
0.0 0.1
0.2
0.3
o. 4
0.5
x/L x
Figure--(D5)- Positive (LX/Ly = 2.0) Moment M*xc.
o. 16
0.12
cq
v
(3)
"I
// "
"
- -0 .0 .1
'2
0.08
.00
.0, .101,
(3)
o. o4
.00
0.0
0*1
0.2
0.3
o. 4
0.5
Y/Ly
Fi gure (D. 6) POsitive M=ent
M* (L /L xy y
= 2.0)
347
0.
0.
0.1 04
0.0
0.1
0.2 X/L
x
0.3
o. 4
0.5
Figure
(PI)
Negative
Moment M* (L /L xxy
= 2.0)
0.08
o. o6
o. o4
0.02
0.0
0.1
0.2 / Y,,Ly
0.3
o. 4
0.5
Fi-gwe
(D8
Negative
Moment M* (LX/L yy
= 2.0)
348
0.020
(5)
o. ol6
15)
(3) 0.012.
0.008
0 . 004
0. D Figure-(D9)-
Vel Positive
0.5 (LX/Ly =
U. 4
0.0
0.0
O.C
O.C
0.0 (DlO)
0.1
--0.2-
Y/I7
0.5
U-4
FigL=e
Positive
(IX/Ly Moment D
1-5)
0.0
49
0.0
0.0
C, J
1--
>,
0
Figt=e (Dll) Negative Moment M*x (LX/L7
0.08
Ni.t,
Q.o6
0.04
0.02
0.0
Fip=e_(Vl2), Negative Moment M*
Y/
Ly
(LX/Ly
350
0.018-
-----
0.014-
/ /
'-,
--',.
(5)
/ (5)
0.01
(1)
/ 1,
-.
'-
(4)
(4)'
/'N
N
(3)
S. 5%
'N
ii Ii
0.006II,
I,
/_"
N..
.5
I/I
(2)
-
.5
'S S
0.002
0.1 Positive
0.2
------U-. 3 X/Ijx
004-7 2.0)
0.
5)
0.
cll).: t cm
0.
0.
0.
Y/Ly Figure (DT4) Positive Moment M* (Ic/Ly y 2.0)
0.
351
a.
00
cy
4>, CY, 1-
21
0.
0.
X/ Lx
Fig=e
(D15)
Negative
Moment 14; .
(Lx/Ly
= 2.0)
0.
0.
C'i
0.0
0.0
-Ly
Figuxe
(D16)
Negative
Moment ll (L:
c/L7--
2.0)
352
0.04
0.3
WO
C'i 0.2
wo
(2)
0.1
-----.
(3)
(i) (1)
0.0
wI
L--I --
0.1
0.2 X/lOc
0.3
0.4 1-5)
--L-
' 0.6
Moment Mx*(Lx/Ly
0.14(1)
0.10 (2)
C'i
A5) (4)9(5
0.0
0*0 Fig=e (D18), Positive
0: 6 (Lx/Ly
1.0
C) LU
0 E
V) S%Uwoooo LLJ
0001""N
CL
353
0.12
cq
0.06
0.04
0.0
x/Lx
Figure (D19)
Negative-Moment M* (L /L xxy
N,:
0.12
0.08
0
0-04
o-o
354
0.8
o. 6 00, . 0.4
10, 0.2
(4)
C\j
loo
. 01
(2)
3
(2)
0.0
0.1 Positive
0.2
X/LX
Fip, ure . --(D21)
0.3
0.4
2.0) = 3r
0.5
Moment M, * (c/L
0.1
0.1
0.0
0.0
0.0
Figt=e
0.2
(D221 Positive
0.4 Y/Ly
o. 6
0.8
2.0) =
Moment 1,1(LX/Ly
355
o. 16
0.12
c, i
0.08
0.04
0.0
X/LX
FigL=e (D23) Negative Moment M* (L /L xxy 2.0) =
o. 16
0.12
0.08
0.04
0.0
Y/Ly Figure (D24) Negative Moment M* (L /L yxy = 2.0)
356 0.04
----(3) 0.03
'
(4)
---
(4)
0.02
0.01
0.0
x/L
Figt=e (D25) Positive Moment 14; (LX/I,
1-5)
0.08
C\J, 4,
0.06
0.04
0.02
0.
Y/17 Figurd (D26) Positive Moment M* (L /L yXy
0.08
0.06
0.04
0.02
0.0 Fizure
0.1
0.2
X/Lx
0.3 = 1-5)
0.10
0.08
C\j
o. o6
0.04
0.02
0.0
Y/LY Figure (D28) Negative Moment M* (L /L =
yXy
0.05
358
0-04
0. ^3
0.02
ZI-4 --
(30)
(40)
0.01
0.2
-3 . X/LX
0.5
0.08
0.06
C\j >) a,
0.04
0.02
Y/Ly
Figure (D30) positive Moment Pl* (L /L yxY 2.0)
0.10
0.08
0.06
0.04
0.02
figi=e
(D31)
--I =, 2.0)
0.1
0.08
0.06
0.04
0.02
0.0
Y/L
Figure (D32) Negative Moment M* (L /L yxy 2.0) =
360
0.08
llx
x
., WO, .100
0.
N 4 C7,
00,
---,,
0.0.2
04C
0.1
U. 2 X/Lx
U. )
U-4
U. )
Figure
(D33) Positive
Moment M* (L /L xxy
1-5)
0.08
0.04(2) (3)
0.02-
___(2)
0.0
Figure (D34)
0.1
Positive
0.2 Y/Ly
0.3
1-5)
0.4
0.5
361
0. '.
csJ
0.
0.
0.
X/L. X
Figure (D35) Negative Moment M* (L /L xxy 1-5) =
0.04
0- 03
0.02
0.01
0.0
Ly
362
0.08
0.06
0.04
0.02
0.1 Poditive
0.2
0.3 2.0)
Moment M, * (I/LYF
0.16
04
0.12
0-1 . . 01 .0-.
. -0
0.08
-0 -11 0 .,
0.04
0. U Figi=e
0.!
9.4
--__ 1
0.5
(D38) Positive
0.2
0.16
IN ca
0.12
0.08
0.04
0.0 Figure
0.1
- 0.2 Moment
(D39) Negative
0.4
0.5
2.0) =
0.5 0.040
0.030
a) "1-1 C, '4 4 0 0 +'
0.020
a)
0.010
0. -1 Negative
0.05
364
c).o4
0.03
04 >1 0.02
0.01
0.0
0.2
(D41) Positive
o. 4 x/Lx
o. 6.0.8
1.0
Figure
Moment M* (L /L xxy
1-5)
o. o8 -
(3) 4
C14
o. o6 -
o. o4
(4)
0.02 -
(5)
&
0.0
(D42)
0.2
o. 4 y/L y
0.6
0.8
1.0
Figure
Positive
1-5)
0.10
0.08
o. o6
o. o4
z
0.02
0.0
x/L x
Figure-(D43) Negative Moment M* (L /L xxy = 1-5)
0.
C-4 4 V
0.
0.0
0.2
(D44) Negative
o. 4 Y/Ly
o. 6
o. 8
= 1-5)
1.0
Figure
(L /L M* Moment yxy
0.0
366
0.
0.0
(3)
>4
400
0.
_Q1
0.0
0.2
Posiiive
o. 4
x/L x
o. 6
0.8
2.0)
1.0
Figure
_(D45)
Moment M* (L /L xxy
0.08
o. o6
o. o4
0.02
0.0
0.2
o. 4 y/L y
o. 6
0.8
m 2.0)
0.0
o. o4
0.03
c4
>-, 0.02
0.01
0.0
0.2
o. 4 x/Lx
0.6
0.8
1.0
Figure-(D47)-Negative
MOment M* (L /L xxy
= 2.0)
o. 16
0.12
0.08
o. o4
0.0
0.2
o. 4
y/L y
o. 6
0.8
1.0
*Figure
= 2.0)
368
0.50 L5)_
0.40-
0.30-
(4)
(5)
0.20If", -., \I
\3)
0.10
(3)
(2) 2
ol
0.0
0.2
o. 4 x/Lx
o. 6
0.8
1.0
Fi
(D49)_Positive e
Moment M* (L /L
xxy
='1.5)
0.
cy >,
0.
0.0
0.2
o. 4 y/L y
O. b
U. 00
J.OV
Figure
(D50)
Positive
(L /L M* Moment
= 1-5)
yxy
369
0
o..16
0.12
0.08 Z
o. o4
0.0
(D51)
0.2
u0 L+ x/L x = 1-5)
Figure
Negative
Moment M* (L /L xxy
0.
0.
0.0
0.2
0.4 y/L y
U00
L*U
Figure
(D52) Negative
/L (L M* Moment yy x
1.5)
1.0
370
0.8
o. 6 -/
JJI .\\
,44 .. . Iv
>4 * :z
0.4 -//
/ dr
dw do
////
, --
L3)
(2)
.
\\
\
\
-1 0
I////
0.2 .10
! 1%
-(5) \
(4)
(3)
(2)
:s
%
0.0
0.2
(D53)
o. 4
o. 6 x/L x
(IX/Ir
0.8
1.0
Figure
Positiye
Moment Iq
.=2.0)
o. 4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0.0
0,2
U*4 ; r/L y
U*u
UOU
J. . 0v
Figure
(D54)
Pos't've
Moment M* (L /L yXy
= 2.0)
371
0'620
o. 16
0.12
0.08
S: K
o. o4
0.0
Figure
0.2
(D55) Negative
o. 4 X/LX
o. 6
0.8
= 2.0)
1.0
Moment M* (L /L xxy
0.20
o. 16
0.1p
o. o8
o. o4
0.0
0.2
0.4 y/L y
0.6
O. d
Illu
Figure
(D56)
Negat've
(L /L M* Moment yxy
= 2.0)
372
'APPENDIX(Dl) Additional to CP110 (5). to Section'(3.4-3.2) layers as shown 0 2L in CP110, torsional steel has to be torsional reinforcement at discontinuous edges
according
0.2L
0.75Mrci
Ole
.1//I
-41 1
Where
L=
short
span,
c Mr=
design
moment
at
centre.
Additional
steel-.
2 Mc L r
which simply
is
the'moment slab
volume with
steel
at one corner.
In
supported
V=4x0.12 vMc
0"0a= qLqLI 'o. 48
McL2=0.48 rr
= 0.48
Mc L2
aI
a=-
from
Appendix
D56.
373
'APPENDIX E CALCULATIONS'FOR'SERVICEABILITY LIMIT'STATES
assumptions
are
in cracked
concrete
is ignored.
behaviour
is assumed for
CC
L7
hd
C dn )
C=T
(1)
1 .-. ec =E A2 sS /E c S mA ec (2)
ratio diagram
ec
d. -7, d n -..
dn
(d dn/dn)
(3)
2m Ad0
(1.)
374
solvi. ng gives
d nssb
The. gross moment of
)d )2 1/(3nA. 2(mA + MA + .
inertia is A (d s2 gives h)2
9
and the fully cracked
section
I
then the from
cr
As (d
dn )2
inertia is
using
Branson's
methods 13 Mc!
an effective
moment of
calculated
17 3 M 1 M CM] Cr[
(8)
M = cracking cr where h= f The deflection elastic deflection t total tensile under as the
/h and
depth
strength service
/(L. F.
eff
ultimate conditions.
factor
for
375
REFERENCES TIMOSHMO Theory S. and S. WOINOSICY-KRIEGER of Plates and Shells. 1959. McGraw-Hill, New York,
Second Edition
2.
SZILARD R.
Theory Methods. of Analysis Prentice of Plates Hall, 1974. , Classical and Numerical
Concrete
Slabs.
Wiley,
1980.
and Hudson,
5.
6.
BELL J. C. and ELMS D. G. A Finite El(; ment Approach to Post-Elastic Publications Slab Behaviour.
Concrete
Design.
Pitman,
Second Edition, 8.
Design of Slabs.
Proceedings Vol. 102, of the No. STI,
Journal
American Jan.
of the Structural
Society of Civil
1976,
PP109-123.
9.
376
10. MORLEY C. T.
of Concrete
Slabs.
International PP305-319.
of Mechanical
Sciences.
Vol. 8,1966,
for
Continuous
Division,
Orthotropic
Proceedings
Slabs.
of the American
Society
12. RANGANB. V. Limit Journal Society
of Civil
Engineers,
States
Design
of
Slabs
using
of the of Civil
Structural Engineers,
13.
HILLERBORGA.
Strip Method of Design. A View Point Publication, 1975-
14.
WOOD R. H. and ARMERG. S. T. The Strip Method for Designing Slabs Proceedings of The
institution
PP285-311. 15.
of Civil
Proceedings
Concrete
Concentrated
Slab Design -A
Loads
Generalized
Strip
Method
in Concrete
and Supports.
Advances
Proceedings
on
377
17. WILBY C.B. Computation Institution of the Strip-Deflexion of Civil Engineers, Method. Part Proceedings of the
PP499-509.
18. BHATT P., Discussion
Civil
of Reference
Part 2,
15.
Proceedings
of the Institution
1978s PP719-724.
of
Engineers,
19.
WOOD R. H. The Reinforcement Field of Moments. of Slabs in Accordance Concrete, with a Pre-determined
20.
Division.,
of the American
DESAYI P. and MUTHUK. U. Short-Time Concrete Deflexions Slabs. of Rectangular Simply Supported Reinforced Slabsj by
Advances in Concrete
Slab Technology
Proceedings
of the International
Conference
on Concrete
DESAYI P. and MUTHUK. U. Short-Time Concrete Deflexions Slabs. of Rectangular Restrained Reinforced of the
Technical
Institution
of Civil
Engineers,
PP529-536.
378
24. BEEBY A. W. An Investigation Technical Report, of Cracking in Slabs Spanning One Way. Association, RTA4339
in Reinforced
Load.
Concrete
American
Two-way Slabs
Institution
Distributed
Concrete
Structural
Division,
Proceedings
American
of Civil 27.
Engineers,
DESAYI P. and KULKARNI A. B. Determination Concrete Slabs. of Maxim= Crack Width in Two-way Reinforced of Civil
Proceedings
of the Institution
Engineers,
28.
DESAYI P. and PRABHAKARA A. Determination Width Crack Maximum of Slabs. in Reinforced of the Concrete of
Proceedings
Institution
Civil
29.
Engineers,
BRAUMIK A. K. and HANLEY J. T. Elastoplastic the Structural Analysis Division, by Finite Difference Method, Journal. Society Of
Proceedings
American the of
of Civil
30.
Engineers,
Vol-93,
MAY G.W. and GERSTLEK. H. Elastoplastic Structural Bending Division, of Rectangular Proceedings Plates. Journal of the of
Civil
Engineers,
Vol-97,
379
31. COOKR. D. Concepts and Application 32. BELL J. C. and ELMS D. G.
Nonlinear Analysis of Reinforced Concrete Slabs. Magazine of
of Finite
Element Analysis,
Wiley
1974.
Concrete 33.
Research,
Journal
American
july 34.
1964, PP763-778-
for 35.
Engineering
Analysis,
van Nostrand,
1972.
JAIN O. P.
A Finite Reinforced
Concrete
Proceedings
of the International
1979*
on Concrete
Presss
Dundee University,
PP129-139.
Edited
Dhir 36.
and Munday.
SCHNOBRICH W. C.
Transport
and Road
Supplementary
Crowth orne
1974. December .
predicted
by the
Element Method,
Vol-7,19779
PP365-376.
380
38. W.C. SUIDAN M. and SCHNOBRICH,
Finite Structural Element Analysis of Reinforced Proceedings Concrete. American Journal Society of the of
Division,
of the
Engineers,
PP2109-2122.
Nonlinear
Finite
Element Analysis
University,
of Concrete
1976.
Slab Structures,
Ph. D. Thesis,
Liverpool
4o.
A. W. WEGMULLER
Elasto-plastic TN99,, Proceedings Finite Element Analysis of of Plates, Civil Technical Part Note 2,
of the
Institution
Engineers,
Vol-5Ts Sept. 1974, PP535-54341. A. W. WEGMTJLLER Full-Range of Analysis of Eccentrically Proceedings Stiffened of the Plates, American Journal Society
The Structural
Divisions
of Civil
Engineers,
Jan-1974,
PP143-159.
Plates
Structural
Proceedings
Civil
Engineerss
PP1491-1505.
43.
JOIRIARRYT. Elasto-Plastic Elements, Analysis of Concrete University Structures Using Finite May 1979.
Ph. D. Thesis,
of Strathclyde,
44.
W. and JOHNARRY T. DUNCAN Further Analysis Civil of Studies on the Constant Structures$ Part Stiffness Method of Nonlinear of the Institution
of Concrete Engineers,
Proceedings
381
45. COPER. J. and RAO P. V.
Nonlinear Proceedings Finite Element Analysis of of Concrete Slab Structures, Part 2,
of the
Institution
Civil
Engineers,
Vol. 63, March 1977, PP159-17946. A. J. C. SCHNOBRICH W.C. and PECKNOLD DOTREPPE 9
Layered Reinforced Association 1973, Finite Element Procedure for Inelastic of the Engineers, Analysis of
Concrete for
Slabs.
Publications
Bridge
and Structural
PP53-68.
47.
MAY G.W.
of Reinforced Concrete of Plates. the Journal of
Analysis
Structural Civil
Division,
American
Society
Engineers,
Vol. 101,
Jan. 1975,
PP201-215.
48.
GILBERT R. I.
R. F. and WARNER
Concrete
of
Tension Stiffening
the Structural
in Reinforced
Slabs.
Journal
of
Division,
Proceedings
the
American
Society
of Civil
49. KLIEN D.
H. M., and SCH*A*FER KRISTJANSSON G. LINK R., * Element Analysis of Material Aspects of Reinforced Concrete Slabs - Special on
Finite
Problems
London, Sept.
1975., PP337-358-
Analysis
the
of Reinforced
Division,
Concrete
Shells
Form, General of
of the American
Structural
Proceedings
Society
of Civil
Engineers,
PP523-538.
382
51. A. D. LABIB F. and EDWARDS An Analytical Eccentric of the Investigation Reinforced Institution PP53-70TUOMALA M. T. E. and MIKKOLA M. J. Finite to Element Analysis Impulsive of of Reinforced Concrete in Slabs of Concrete Civil of Cracking Tension Engineers, in Concentric and
Members, Part
Proceedings March
2, Vol. 65,
1978, 52.
Transient
Advances
Concrete on
Proceedings
Conference PP14o-148,
1979,
Inelastic Material
of Reinforced of Reinforced
Concrete Concretes
Bridge
Engineers
RAZQPUR A. G. and GHALI A. Shear Lag Analysis of Reinforced Structural Report. in Reinforced Concrete; Advanced Mechanics for Bridge and
Concrete,
International Delft -
Association
Engineers
Colloquium
1981 - PP671-686,
Final
55.
HINTON E.
Computational
Concrete,
International Colloquium -
Engineers
19819 PP303-313,
HILSDORF H. K. and RUSCHH. of Concrete Under Biaxial Stresses. Proceedings of the No. 66-52, August 1969, PP656-666
American Concrete
Institute,
383
5-7 KUPFER11.9 GTRS=
Behaviour Engineering of
K. II.
Concrete under Biaxial Stresses. of Journal the of the
Mechanics
Division,
Proceedings
American
Society 58.
of Civil
Engineers,
of Concrete
Concrete
in Biaxial
July
Proceedings
Institute,
1978, P-l'.3o6-312.
591 TASUJI M. E. 9 NILSON A. H. and SLAE F. O.
Biaxial Stress-Strain Relationships for Concrete, Magazine of
Concrete
6o LIU T. C-Y,
Research,
of Concrete
in Uniaxial
Institute,
61. NEVILLE A. M. Properties 62.
of Concrete,
1978.
of Concrete
Concrete
Under Multiaxial
Institute,
Stress.
Proceedings
of
American
Sept-19779
PP443-446.
63.
Nonlinear
Stress
Analysis Divisions
of Reinforced Proceedings
Concrete,
Journal
of' of
the Structural
Civil
64.
Engineers,
19729 PP885-89T.
PHILLIPS D. V. and ZIENKIEWICZ O. C. Finite Element Nonlinear Analysis of Concrete Structures. Part 2,
Proceedings
of the Institution
of Civil
Engineers,
3e4
65. PHILLIPS D. V.
Nonlinear Method. Analysis of Structural University Concrete of Walest by Finite Element
Ph. D. Thesis,
Swansea 1973.
66.
NADAI A.
Theory of Flow and Fracture
Chapter 15 PP175-228.
of Solids,
McGraw-Hill
1950,
6T,
DARWIN D. and PECKNOLD D. Analysis Loadings American PP355-369. of Reinforced of the of Civil Concrete Structural Engineers, Shear Panels under Cyclic of the
Journal Society
Feb-1976,
68..., ziENKiEwicz
The Finite
in a concrete
of the
Slab Subjected
to Multiple
for
International
Association
Reinfor-ement Division,
in
Concrete
Slabs.
Journal Society
Structural
Proceeding*s
of the
American
of Civil
71... MORLEYC. T.
Engineers,
Vol-103,
No.ST4, April
19779 PP793-804.
of Concrete
Slabs against
of the Institution
385
72. KEMPK. O.
The Yield Criterion for Orthotropically Reinforced Concrete
Slabs,
International
Journal
of Mechanical
Sciences,
Vol-7.
1965, PP737-746.
73. SAVE M.
A Consistent LinIt-Analysis Theory for Reinforced Concrete Slabs,
Research,
Concrete
Shells
Research NR R44-1974,
Technical -
75,
CLARKL. A. The Provision Resist Inplane of Tension Reinforcement Compression and Research, to Vol-28%
No. 94, March 19T6, PP3-12. 76. MORLEYC. T. and GULVANESSIAN H. OPtimum Reinforcement the Institution of Concrete Engineers, Slab Elementss Part Proceedings of
of Civil
PP441-454.
77. LENSCHOW R. and SOZENM. A. A Yield Criterion for Reinforced Concrete Slabs. Proceedings
Journal
Proceedings
386
79. TAYLOR R.,, MAHER D. R. H. and HAYES B.
Effect
of the Arrangement
Concrete
of Reinforcement
Magazine of
on the Behaviour
Concrete Research.
of Reinforced
Slabs
Vol-18,
80. CLARKL. A.
Designed in
Cement and
Moment Field,
Concrete Association
81. GUPTAA. K.
Skew Reinforcement Structural Engineers, Divisions Vol. 104, in
Slabs.
Note.
Journal
of
the of Civil
Am6rican
Society
PP1317-1321.
82.
BUYUKOZTURK 0.
Nonlinear Analysis of Reinforced Concrete Structures-$ Computers
Pergamon Pressl
Vol-7s
1977s PP149-156.
of
Thesis,
Glasgow University
1979.
84. HAYES B. and TAYLORR.
Some Tests Concrete on Reinforced Research, Concrete Beam7-Slab Panels. 1969, Magazine of
PP13-120.
85.
NEVILLE A. M., HOUGHTON-EVANS W. and CLAM Deflection Research, Control by Span/Depth Ratio*
C. V. Magazine of Concrete
86.
O. K. KENP S. J. ' FERNANDO and The Strip Lower Unique Bound? Design or Slab Method of Research, Vol. 27, No. 90, March 1975, PP23-43.
Magazine of Concrete
387
87. HARRopi, Ultimate
Building
Slab-Bean Systems.
88.
Research:
1970P PP155-162.
89.
Criterion
Magazine of
of, Isotropically
Concrete Research:
Yield
the
Criterion
Structural
for
Reinforced
Concrete Slabs.
of the
Journal
Of
Society
Division,
Proceedings
American
of Civil
91. MORLEYC. T.
Yield
Engineers,
Criteria
for
Elements
of Reinforced
Concrete
Slabs.
International
for 92. Bridge
Conference
and Structural
on Plasticityl
Engineers,
International
Copenhagen
Association
1978s PP35-47-
CARDENASA. E. and SOZEN M. A. Flexural Yield Capacity of Slabs, Proceedings of the American
Concrete Institute.
93. D. E. BRANSON Deformation
Vol-70,
of Concrete
Structuxesq
McGraw-Hill,
1977.
94.
NIELSENM.P.
Limit-Analysis Scandinicat Copenhagen of Reinforced Civil Engineering Concrete Slabs. Acta Polytechnica Series, No. 26,
Construction
1964.
388
95. LENKEI P. Contribution to the Discussion of Ref-77Proceedings of the
American Concrete Institutes 96; COPER. J. and RAO P. V. Discussion Engineers, 97-- COPER. J.
of Civil
of the
International Swansea,
Nonlinear
Problems,
PP445-456. 9 8. PARK R. The Lateral Action 'Floor, PP29-38. 99. PARK R. Further Tests on a Reinforced Cracking, Deflections American Concrete Floor Designed Load of Institute by Limit Concrete Special Stiffness Ultimate of and Strength Load of required to Ensure Membrane Slab-Beam march 1965,
at the Magazine
a Reinforced Vol-179
Concrete No-50s
Concrete
Research,
Publications, M. P. of
March
19719 PP251-269.
100
NIELSEN, On the
strength
reinforced
ecricrete
discs.
Aalborg,
Danmarks
IngenirakademiReprinted from:
Bygningsafdelingeri,
1971.
Bulletin
Na. B2.
Scandinavica,
Civil
Engineering
Ccnstructio and
LASGoV NE
RAR