Design of Two-way Slab

Systems
Dr Bijily Balakrishnan
 Introduction

• Wall supported slabs slab

deflected profile
of a slab strip B
deflected profile L>2B
slab of a slab strip B
one–way L>2B
slabs
one–way
slabs

load–bearing wall

load–bearing wall
(a) (b)
(a) (b)

two–way
slab
two–way
slab (d) hogging moments near end
support (partially fixed)
(d) hogging moments near end
support (partially fixed)

(c)
(e) continuous slab
2 (c)
 Introduction
• Beam-supported slabs
Column

Primary
beams

Two-way beam-slab system

One-way lx Secondary beam

continuous slab Column

Column

Primary
Ly=nyly
beams
ly

Primary beam

Secondary beams Lx=nxlx

Grid slab system

Beam-slab system
 column line
Introduction
column
A

ribs

B B

PLAN PLAN
(view from below) (view from below)
A

primary beam
ribs

SECTION ‘AA’
(enlarged)

SECTION ‘BB’
(enlarged)

One-way ribbed slab system

Two-way ribbed (waffle) slab system

Slab
Slab
Drop panel

Column
Column
Column
capital
Flat plate
Flat slab
Wall-supported Slab

Two-way slab action

Wall-supported Slab
Wall-supported Slab
Wall-supported Slab
 Design of Wall-supported Two-way Slabs

• Slab Thickness Based on Deflection Control Criterion

• Cl. 24.1, Note 2
1. using mild steel (Fe 250 grade),

l 35 for simply supported slabs

D x
 lx 40 for continuous slabs

2. using Fe 415 grade steel,

l 28 for simply supported slabs

D x
 lx 32 for continuous slabs
 Methods of Analysis
• Uniformly Loaded and Simply Supported Rectangular Slabs
• based on Rankine-Grashoff theory 4
5 wxlx4 5 w y ly
 
384 EI 384 EI

w x  w y (l y l x ) 4

 r4 
wx  w  4
1 r 
r  ly/lx
 1 
wy  w 
 1  r 
4

Mx  wxlx2 8
1  r4 
My  w y ly2 8 x  
8  1  r 4 

Mx   x wlx2 1  r2 
y  
My   y wlx2 8  1  r 4 
 Uniformly Loaded and Simply Supported
Rectangular Slabs
• The usual design practice is to provide bars that are uniformly spaced†
throughout the span (in both directions), with a flexural resistance that is not
less than the calculated maximum ultimate bending moment (Mux or Muy)
• The spacing of reinforcement should not exceed 3d or 300 mm (whichever is
smaller)
• The rebars required for the larger moment, Mux, should generally be placed in
the outer (lower) layer in order to get the benefit of the larger effective depth
• The Code (Cl. D–2.1.1) suggests a simplified procedure for reinforcement
curtailment
• Up to 50 percent of the bars may be terminated within a distance of 0.1l from
the support, while the remaining bars must extend fully into the supports
• If the slab is truly simply supported at the edges, there is no possibility of
‘negative’ moments developing near the supports, due to partial fixity.
• Provide top steel with area equal to 0.5 times that provided at bottom at
midspan, with an extension of 0.1l from the face of the support
 Methods of Analysis
• Uniformly Loaded ‘Restrained’ Rectangular Slabs
• based on inelastic analysis (yield line analysis)

continuous (or
fixed) edge
1 2 ly 3 4

simply supported
edge
lx

5 6 7 8 9
 Uniformly Loaded ‘Restrained’
Rectangular Slabs

Mu   wulx2

• the bottom steel in either direction is uniformly distributed over the

‘middle strip’;
• top steel is provided in the edge strip adjoining a continuous edge such
that the corresponding flexural strength is 4/3 times the corresponding
ultimate ‘positive’ moment capacity due to the bottom steel provided in
the middle strip in the direction under consideration;
• the corner reinforcement provided is sufficient to prevent the formation
torsional cracks.
 Uniformly Loaded ‘Restrained’
Rectangular Slabs
where nd denotes the number of discontinuous
 y  (24  2nd  1.5nd2 ) 1000
edges

2  3  18 y (C s 1  C s 2 ) r 

 1 for a discontinuous edge
  

 C
x
9 (Cl 1  Cl 2 )2   7 3 for continuous edge
 
and the subscripts s and l denote ‘short edge’ and ‘long
edge’ respectively, while the additional subscripts ‘1’ and
‘2’ represent the two edges in either direction

0 at a discontinuous support

   4 
3  at a continuous support

 Uniformly Loaded ‘Restrained’
Rectangular Slabs
0.1lx 0.15lx
+
0.1ly 0.5A st,x
+
0.5Ast,y A
+
st,x
+
0.15ly A st,y

0.25ly
0.25lx

0.15ly2 0.15ly2
−
Ast,y

0.15ly 0.15ly

Edge Middle Edge

strip strip strip
Uniformly Loaded ‘Restrained’
Rectangular Slabs
 Shear Forces in Uniformly Loaded
Two-Way Slabs
• Shear is generally not a governing design consideration in wall-supported
reinforced concrete slabs subject to uniformly distributed loads
• The critical section for shear is to be considered d away from the face of the
support (‘one-way shear’ or ‘beam shear’)
• The maximum factored shear force per unit length, Vu,
Vu = wu(0.5lxn−d) where lxn is the clear span in the short span direction
 Beam-supported Two-way Slabs

• Slabs supported on beams behave differently, when compared to

slabs supported on walls, because of the influence of the following
three factors:
• deflections in the supporting beams;
• torsion in the supporting beams;
• displacements (primarily rotations) in the supporting columns.
• Use of Code Moment Coefficients for Slabs Supported on Stiff
Beams
• When the supporting beams (and columns) are relatively rigid, the
slabs may be assumed to be supported on rigid (non-deflecting)
supports
• Generally, in Indian practice, the design is done by treating continuous
beam-supported slabs as identical to continuous wall-supported slabs,
for which moment coefficients are readily available in the Code
 Beam-supported Two-way Slabs

• Canadian code

Db  Ds (2 l b) 1 3  1.26Ds (l b) 1 3
Ds is the thickness of the slab, b the width of the
beam web and l its clear span, then the ratio

• By treating the beam supports as wall supports, the slab system can
be effectively isolated from the integral slab-beam-column system,
for design purposes
• The reactions due to the gravity loads on the slab are transferred to
the supporting stiff beams
• If the supporting beams are ‘secondary’, then these ‘secondary’
beams may, in turn, be isolated and assumed to be supported on
the ‘primary’ beams, for design purposes
 Beam-supported Two-way Slabs
• Slabs Supported on Flexible Beams
• Slabs monolithically connected with beams may be analysed as
members of a continuous framework with the supports, taking into
account the stiffness of such supports
• ACI Code: unification of the design methods for all slabs supported
on columns — with and without beams--based on the concept of
‘equivalent frame’
• Canadian code have also incorporated equivalent frame method,
but retain the moment coefficient method as an alternative for
slabs supported on walls or stiff beams.
Equivalent Frame Concept
Equivalent Frame Concept
 Equivalent Frame Concept
Column strip Middle Column
strip strip

Column
strip Ly/4
Middle Lx/2
Ly/2 Ly
strip
Ly/2
Column Ly/4
strip

Column strip

Lx/4 Lx/2 Lx/4

Lx Equivalent frame Half middle
strip
0.65M0
0.65M0

wL2 L21 n
M0  0.35M0
8
 Equivalent Frame Concept
• Two-way slabs supported on columns include flat plates, flat slabs, waffle
(ribbed) slabs, and solid slabs with beams along the column lines .
• Analysis methods
• Equivalent Frame Method, also called Elastic Frame Method: Linear elastic
analysis (substitute frame method, finite element software)
• Direct design method
• Relative stiffness parameters are required for arrive at the longitudinal
and transverse distribution of factored moments in the design strips
• The procedure for apportioning the factored moments between the
middle strip and the column strip (or between the slab and the beam
when beams are present along the column line) is identical for both design
methods
 Equivalent Frame Concept
• Initially, the gross section dimensions of the floor system (and the
columns) are assumed
 Equivalent Frame Concept
• Slab thickness: generally governed by deflection control criteria.
• the longer span should be considered (unlike the case of slabs
supported on walls or stiff beams, where the shorter span is
considered)
• for the purpose of calculating the modification factor kt for tension
reinforcement, an average percentage of steel across the whole width
of panel should be considered
• When drop panels are not provided around the column supports, in
flat slabs the calculated l/d ratios should be further reduced by a
factor of 0.9;
• the minimum thickness of the flat slab should be 125 mm
 Equivalent Frame Concept
• Drop Panels
• formed by local thickening of the slab in the neighbourhood of the
supporting column
• are provided mainly for the purpose of reducing shear stresses around
the column supports
• also help in reducing the steel requirement for ‘negative’ moments at
the column supports
• Drops should be rectangular in plan, and have a length in each
direction not less than one-third of the panel length in that direction
• For exterior panels, one-half of the corresponding width of drop for
the interior panel
Drop Panel
 Column Capital
• Primarily intended to increase the capacity of the slab to resist
punching shear
• The Code (Cl. 31.2.3) restricts the structurally useful portion of the
column capital to that portion which lies within the largest
(inverted) pyramid or right circular cone which has a vertex angle of
90 degrees
• Based on the assumption of a 45 degree failure plane
 Direct Design Method
Total design moment
Mo  wu l2 ln2 8

wu  factored load per unit area of the slab;

ln  clear span in the direction of Mo, measured face-to-face of columns§ , capitals,
brackets or walls, but not less than 0.65l1‡ ;
l1  length of span in the direction of Mo; and
l2  length of span transverse to l1.
§ Circular / nonrectangular column supports are to be treated as equivalent

square/rectangular supports having the same area (Cl. 31.4.2.3 of the Code).
‡ This condition is imposed in order to prevent undue reduction in the design moment

when the columns are long and narrow in cross-section or have large brackets or
capitals--maximum factored ‘negative’ moment should be taken at a distance not
greater than 0.175l1 from the centre of the column.
 Longitudinal Distribution of
Total Design Moment
Flat slab

wL2 L21 n
M0  Ks  Kb
8 α K  4EcI l
 Kc

Exterior span Interior span

Equivalent
L1n, ext L1n, int frame

 0.10 
 0.75   M0
 1   
0.65 0.65M0
M0 0.65M0
1 
BMD
 0.28  0.35M0
 0.63   M0
 1   

• Distribution of moment in transverse direction depends on stiffness ratio,

aspect ratio and torsion stiffness parameter.
 Longitudinal Distribution of
Total Design Moment
Beam-slab systems
Exterior span Interior span
Equivalent
L1n, ext L1n, int frame

0.65M0
0.65M0
BMD
0.35M0
Moment factors for end span (ACI or Canadian Code)
Case (1) (2) (3) (4)
Exterior edge Slab with beams Slab without beams Exterior edge
not restrained between all between interior fully
supports supports restrained
Interior negative 0.75 0.70 0.70 0.65
factored moment
Positive factored 0.66 0.59 0.52 0.35
moment
Exterior negative 0 0.16 0.26 0.65
factored moment
 Apportioning of Moments to
Middle Strips, Column Strips and Beams
Flat slabs
1.00Mo,ext if column (or wall) width  0.75l2
 
 (bcs l2 ) Mo ,ext otherwise

‘Positive’ moment for all spans

Mcs  0.60M0

Mhms  0.20M0
 Apportioning of Moments to
Middle Strips, Column Strips and Beams
• In this case, the slab-beam member is Beam-slab systems
divided into the beam and the slab part
which is the portion of the member
outside the beam part
• According to ACI code if intermediate
beams are arranged through the
column line then the beams between
the supports can be proportioned to
withstand 85 percent of positive and
negative moments of the column strip if
αb1l2 /l1 is more than or equal to 1.0

• If the value of αb1l2 /l1 lies between 0 and 1 then the positive and negative moments
resisted by the beam can be acquired by linear interpolation between 0 and 85
percent.
• The portions of the positive and negative moments which are not opposed by the
beam are resisted by the slab parts.
 Direct design method
Limitations

• There must be at least three continuous spans in each direction.

• Each panel must be rectangular, with the long to short span ratio not
exceeding 2.0; i.e., there should be significant two-way slab action.
• The columns must not be offset by more than 10 percent of the span (in
the direction of offset) from either axis between centrelines of successive
columns†.
• The successive span lengths (centre-to-centre of supports), in each
direction, must not differ by more than one-third of the longer span.
• The factored live load must not exceed three times the factored dead load
(otherwise, moments produced by pattern loading would be more severe
than those calculated by DDM).
• †If the column offsets result in variation in spans in the transverse
direction, the adjacent transverse spans should be averaged while carrying
out the analysis
 Transfer of Shear And Moments to
Columns in Beamless Two-way Slabs
1

2 c1  d
1
3 c2  d
Here, c1 and c2 are the dimensions of the
equivalent rectangular column, capital or
bracket, measured in the direction moments
are being determined and in the transverse
direction, respectively, and d is the effective
depth of the slab at the critical section for
shear
Transfer of Load in Beam-Slab Systems
 Shear in Column-supported Two-way Slabs
Without Beams
One-way shear or beam shear
Two-way shear or punching shear
• One-Way Shear or Beam Shear: The slab acts as a wide beam supported on, and
spanning between, the columns and hence, the name beam shear
• The critical section for one-way shear is located at a distance d from the face
of the concentrated load or reaction area (column, capital or bracket), and
extending in a plane across the entire width of the design strip
 One-Way Shear or Beam Shear
• The total one-way shear at this critical section shall be distributed between the
column strip and the middle strip in proportion to the design negative moments in
each strip.
• The shear stress may be computed taking the full width of the strip (column or
middle) considered as a wide beam, or taking a typical segment of slab one metre
wide.
• Assuming the shear to be zero at midspan, the total factored one-way shear force,
Vu,total, at the critical section over its entire length l2 is given by

Vu,total  wul2 (0.5ln  d)

• The slab thickness must be adequate to ensure that the shear

resistance in one-way action (equal to τc d per unit length)
is not less than the factored one-way shear per unit length
 Two-Way Shear or Punching Shear
• When a large concentrated load is applied on a
small slab area, there is a possibility of a ‘punch
through’ type of shear failure. Such a situation is
encountered in a footing supporting a column and
flat slabs/plates.
• The shear associated with this type of failure is
termed two-way shear or punching shear or
perimeter shear where k  0.5 +   1.0
s c

 
c is the ratio of the short side
c 2  k s 0.25 fck to the long side of the column
or capital

bo is the perimeter of the critical

Vc 2  c 2bod section, equal to 2(c1 + c2 + 2d) for
the column

• Tests have shown that the shear strength reduces

with increasing rectangularity of the loaded area.
 Two-Way Shear or Punching Shear

bo  perimeter of the critical section;

v 2 
Vu2 Muv c
 Jc  property of the critical section analogous to
bod Jc the polar moment of inertia;
c  distance of the point under consideration on
Vu2  Muv  M  the face of critical section to the centroidal axis of
v 2   e    uv e 
bod  Jc  xx  Jc  yy the critical section

If the calculated factored shear stress τv2 exceeds the design shear strength
τc2, but not 1.5τc2, appropriate shear reinforcement must be provided along
the perimeter of the column.
( v 2  0.5c 2 )bod
Asv 
0.87fy
Two-Way Shear or Punching Shear
 Yield Line Analysis of RC Slabs

• ‘Yield line Analysis’ is the equivalent for a two-dimensional flexural member

(plate or slab) of the limit analysis of a one-dimensional member (eg.,
continuous beam)
• In slabs, peak moments occur along lines (such as ‘negative’ moments along
support lines and ‘positive’ moments along lines near the mid-span), and
hence the yielding (plastic hinge formation) occurs along lines (“yield lines”),
and not at sections, as in beams.
 Yield Line Analysis of RC Slabs

• RC slab thickness is generally governed by deflection control criteria, resulting

in under-reinforced sections, with low xu/d values. Hence, it is possible to
generate adequate plastic rotation capacity at yield line

• Limit analyses of RC slab does not account for possible unserviceability, in

terms of excessive cracking or deformations. However, this can be checked to
some extent, corresponds to the elastic moment distribution
 Lower Bound and Upper Bound Methods

• The main objective in inelastic analysis (or limit analysis) of a slab is to

determine the collapse load of the slab (with prescribed loading and
boundary conditions, material properties and reinforcement detailing).
• Uniqueness theorem: three conditions to be satisfied at the limit state of
impending collapse to get the correct (‘exact’) solution
1. Mechanism condition: sufficient number of plastic hinges should have
formed to transform the structure, or part of it, into a hinged (unstable)
mechanism which can undergo deformation at constant load;
2. Equilibrium condition: equations of static equilibrium should be satisfied at
all points on the slab;
3. Yield (or Safety) condition: the ultimate moment capacity of the slab
should not be exceeded at any point on the slab.
• In general, it is possible to get solutions satisfying two of the three
conditions (and refine it to meet the third as closely as possible).
 Lower Bound Theorem
• The collapse load, computed on the basis of an assumed distribution of
bending moments, satisfying the equilibrium and yield conditions, will be
less than or, at best, equal to the true collapse load. The method of
calculation is called the equilibrium method.
• Hillerborg’s strip method, proposed in 1956, belongs to this category.

Wu

Lower
bound

xi
Exact solution
 Upper Bound Theorem
• The collapse load, computed on the basis of an assumed distribution of
plastic hinges (yield lines), satisfying the mechanism and equilibrium
conditions, will be greater than or, at best, equal to the true collapse load.
The method of calculation is called the mechanism method.
• The yield line theory, first proposed in 1923 by Ingerslev, and later
developed by Johansen in 1962, belongs to this category.

Wu
Upper bound

Lower
bound

xi
Exact solution
 Equilibrium & Yield conditions satisfied;
Mechanism condition not satisfied

Elastic solution corresponding to Elastic solution corresponding to

plastic hinge forming at A plastic hinges forming at A and C
Mechanism & Yield conditions satisfied;
Equilibrium condition also satisfied!
 Yield Line Analysis of RC Slabs
• The mechanism method is simpler and more versatile to apply and is therefore
more popular as the method used for inelastic analysis of slabs.

• However, being an upper bound method, it is likely to over-estimate the true

collapse load, and so can be unconservative.

• The regions of the slab between yield lines are not examined in all but simple
cases to ensure that the yield condition is satisfied.

• In order to address this issue (which is a problem with all mechanism

methods), it is necessary to investigate as many likely mechanisms (yield line
patterns) as possible, and find the minimum collapse load.

• The associated yield line pattern will be the most probable mode of collapse of
the slab.

• Indeed, the correct solutions for nearly all the common cases are now well
established and experimentally validated.
 Yield Line Analysis of RC Slabs
• Yield line theory estimates the collapse load corresponding to the flexural
collapse mode only
• Other effects, such as due to shear and bond, must be considered
separately. In practice, for slabs proportioned and detailed in accordance
with Code requirements, these effects are not critical.

• Shear stresses are generally low and the slab (whose thickness is generally
governed by serviceability considerations, rather than strength
considerations) is significantly under-reinforced, thereby having adequate
‘plastic rotation capacity’ required to form all the plastic hinges (yield
lines) for a proper collapse mechanism.
Yield Line Patterns
• Yield Line Formation in
One-way Slabs
Yield Line Patterns
 Yield Line Formation in Two-way Slabs
xi
• The yield line is an idealisation of a
band of extensive cracks across
which the tension steel has yielded.
Considerable redistribution of load
effects takes place after yielding,
tending generally to enhance the
relatively higher moments elsewhere.
 Yield Line Formation in Two-way Slabs

• If the corner A is not held down, it may lift up, the small corner segment
(called corner lever) rotating about line BC. The yield line BC is a negative yield
line, which is not likely to form when the corner A is not held down (restrained
against uplift) and adequate corner reinforcement is provided (as required,
when the corner is held down).
 Guidelines for Yield Line Patterns
• Each fractured slab segment rotates about a certain axis, which often
corresponds to a line of support, such as a wall or stiff beam or a line
passing through a column, or a ‘negative’ yield line.
• An yield line separating two slab segments will be straight and generally
pass through the point of intersection of the two respective axes of
rotation of the two segments. When the line of support is curved (for
example, at the boundary of a circular slab), it is approximated as a
straight line, which implies that the curved arc at the boundary of the
fractured slab segment must be small.
• All fractured segments are assumed to be planar.
• ‘Positive’ yield lines form in the interior regions of the slab and terminate
at the slab boundaries.
• ‘Negative’ yield lines form along the lines of continuous or fixed supports,
and sometimes run through or form closed loops within the slab
Guidelines for Yield Line Patterns
 Guidelines for Yield Line Patterns

• Except in cases (such as a square slab) where the locations and directions
of the yield lines are known without any uncertainty, one or more
dimensional variables (distances or angles of inclination) are identified as
unknowns for an assumed yield line pattern. The correct values of these
variables are those which yield the minimum collapse load and hence a
minimisation (differentiation) procedure will be required.
 Guidelines for Yield Line Patterns

• In the case of slabs subject to concentrated (point) loads, there is a tendency

for the positive yield lines to converge at the point load location. It is not
necessary for the positive yield lines to reach the boundaries of the slabs and
collapse of a local interior portion of the slab is possible under the action of a
point load.
 Moment Capacity of an Yield Line
• A slab with orthogonal sets of uniformly spaced bars (in two perpendicular
directions) is said to be orthotropically reinforced (or simply, orthotropic) if
the moment capacity per unit width of the slab in one principal direction is not
equal to the capacity per unit width in the perpendicular direction (i.e., mx ≠
my).
 Moment Capacity of an Yield Line
mds  mxdy sin x  myds cos x
tds  mxdy cos x  myds sin x

dy dx
 sin x  cos x  m  mx sin2 x  my cos2 x
ds ds
 
 t  mx  my sin x cos x

• In an orthotropically reinforced slab, the yield line has a little torsional strength.
However, in solving problems using yield theory, this usually does not have a role to
play, as no relative twisting takes place along the yield lines
• A slab is said to be isotropically reinforced (or simply, isotropic) if its moment capacity
per unit length, m, is the same, regardless of its direction. In an orthogonally reinforced
slab, this situation occurs when the moment capacities per unit width associated with
the two orthogonal sets of reinforcement are equal (i.e., mx = my = m). The yield line in
such a slab has no torsional strength. Every yield line in an isotropic slab is therefore a
line of principal moment.
 Yield Line Analysis
Steps
• An appropriate yield line pattern is selected.
• The moment capacities per unit length of the various yield lines (positive
as well as negative) are calculated.
• An expression for the collapse load, corresponding to the assumed yield
line pattern, is derived, by considering the equilibrium of the slab and its
various segments. This may be done by either invoking the concept of
virtual work (“Principle of Virtual Displacements”) or by the direct use of
statics (“Equilibrium of Slab Parts” method).
• If the yield line pattern involves dimensions that need to be optimised in
order to generate the minimum collapse load, this minimisation shall be
carried out.
• Other possible yield line patterns may be investigated, if necessary and
steps 1 to 4 repeated, in order to arrive at the smallest value of the
collapse load.
 Yield Line Analysis
• Principle of Virtual Displacements

• WE = WI

WE   qu ( x, y) ( x, y) dxdy

n
WI    miLi  i 
i 1

• ‘Equilibrium of Slab Parts’ Method

• the direct application of equations of static equilibrium can be attempted, and in many
instances, this method may turn out to be simpler.

• In this method, the free-bodies of the various fractured slab segments are considered,
with appropriate bending moments, twisting moments and shear forces applied at the
boundaries (wherever applicable), in addition to the applied external loads.
 ‘Equilibrium of Slab Parts’ Method

• In two-way slab systems, however, the shear forces along the slab
segment boundaries are generally statically indeterminate (in terms of
magnitude and distribution). For convenience, they can be resolved into
statically equivalent concentrated forces, called nodal forces, at the two
ends of each yield line on the two slab segment free-bodies separated by
the yield line. In the special case where the yield line meets the free edge
at right angles, the nodal force is zero.
 Example 1
Principle of Virtual Displacements

P 
WE   u   b     Pu
b
M 
WI   uR   b 2  3    6MuR
 b 
 1.5  MuR
WE  WI  Pu  6MuR    Pu  9
 L  L

‘Equilibrium of Slab Parts’ Method

C
MA = 0
 Pu = 9MuR/L
 Example 2
Isotropic square slab L
subjected to udl Axis of rotation

wu L2
L Yield line m
24

‘Equilibrium of Slab Parts’ Method

L

Equilibrium of moment about w L  L  L 2  wu

mL  u    m m
the support 2  2  3 

Principle of Virtual Displacements

wu L2 δ
WE  4
4 3 θ
δ δ
WI  4 mLθ  4 mL
L2
 Isotropic square slab L Example 3
subjected to point load at mid Axis of rotation
point
L Yield line Pu  8m

Principle of Virtual Displacements


WI  4mL  4mL
L2
θ
WE  Pu δ

‘Equilibrium of Slab Parts’ Method

L

Equilibrium of moment about Pu  L 

mL    m Pu/4 m
the support 4 2
At the junction of three yield lines governed by the same reinforcement mesh, the nodal forces
are all zero at the junction, if the yield lines are either all positive moment lines or all negative
moment lines.
 Example 4
A B
Rectangular slab subjected to udl
x E
G
mx b
H F my

D C Principle of Virtual Displacements

a

     
WE   wu   area of  ABE      area of  AEG     2  area of GEFH      2
 3 3  2 

      w a
 WE   wu   2 ax     a  b  2 x     = u  3 b  2 x 
 3  2  6

WI = WEF + 4WAE
        a    
WI   m  b  2 x    2   4  m   x      2  x  
 a / 2    a / 2     

    2 m
  m  b    2    m  a  2    
x
 2 bx  a 2 
 a/2  ax
 Example 4
wu a 2 m
WE  WI 
6
 3b  2 x  =
ax
 2 bx  a 2 

m a2 3 bx  2 x2 u x 
    constant 
wu 12 2 bx  a2 vx

d  m / wu 
 0   2 b   3 bx  2 x2    3 b  4 x   2 bx  a 2   0
dx

a   a 2 a
4 bx  4 a x  3 a b  0  x      3  
2 2 2

2 b b
 

Substituting this value in the expression for m/wu

OR “Equilibrium of Slab Parts” method  MAB  0   wu   ax   x   ma  wu  6m

 
2
2
2  3  x
24 m   a  a 
2

 wu  2     3    
a  b  b  

 Example 5
Rectangular slab with fixed boundary
condition subjected to udl
X

iydmy
ixdmx iymx Lay1
mx Positive yield line
Ly Ly
ixdmx i x mx
my
Y Negative yield line
iydmx
ixmx Lay2
iymy
Lx
Lx Lax

‘Equilibrium of Slab Parts’ Method

 Example 5
wL2ay 1
Equilibrium of slab part on
element 1, 6

 1  iyd my
L L L 
w  y  ay 1  ay 2   Lx  Lax    1  ix  mxLy
Equilibrium of slab part on 2

element 2,  2 3 3 
wL2ay 2
  1  i y  my
Equilibrium of slab part
on element 3, 6
L L L 
Equilibrium of slab part on wL2ax  y  ay 1  ay 2    1  ixd  mxLy
element 4,  2 3 3 

1  iyd
Divide the Equation 1 by Lay 1  Lay 2
Equation 3; 1  iy

1  ixd X  1  i yd  1  i y
Divide the Equation 2 by Lax  Lx Assume
Equation 4; 1  ixd  1  ix Y  1  ixd  1  ix

Substitute Lax and Lay1 in Equation 4;  2 

Lx 1  i y    L   X 2  L   X 
Lay 2   x
   3  x

Y   Ly    Y   Ly    Y  
     
 Example 5

Substitute Lay2 in Equation 3;

2
 2 
6mx 2   L   
X
2  L   
X
w 2 Y   x
    3  
x
  
 Ly   
Lx
   Y  Ly    Y  

Thank you