Вы находитесь на странице: 1из 85

Design of Two-way slab by

coefficient method

Behaviour of two way slabs


One way slab deform under load into an approximately cylindrical
surface. The main structural action is one way in such cases, in the
direction normal to supports on two opposite edges of a rectangular
panel. In many cases, however, rectangular slabs are of such
proportions and are supported in such a way that two way action
results.
When loaded, such slabs bend into a dished surface rather than
cylindrical one. This means that at any point the slab is curved in both
principal directions, and since bending moments are proportional to
curvatures, moments also exists in both directions.

Behaviour of two way slabs


To resist these moments, the slab must be reinforced in both
directions, by at least two layers of bars perpendicular, respectively,
to two pairs of edges. The slab must be designed to take a
proportionate share of the load in each direction.
Types of reinforced concrete slabs that are characterized by twoway action include
Slabs supported by walls or beams on all sides
Slab without beams, with column capital or drop panel, flat slab.
Slab directly supported on columns, flat plate.

Behaviour of two way slabs


The simplest type of two way slab action is that represented by
Fig.-1. Where the slab or slab panel is supported along its four edges
relatively deep, stiff, monolithic concrete beams or by walls or steel
girders.

Fig.-1.

Behaviour of two way slabs

To visualize the flexural performance of the slab which is supported


on unyielding supports, consider two sets of parallel strips, in each of
the two directions, intersecting each other. Evidently, part of the load
is carried by one set and transmitted to one pair of edge supports,
and the remainder by the other.

Behaviour of two way slabs


Fig.-2 shows the two center strips of a rectangular plate with short
span a and long span b . If the uniform load is w per square foot of
slab, each of the two strips acts approximately like a simple beam,
uniformly loaded by its share of w. Because these imaginary strips
actually are part of same monolithic slab, their deflections at the
intersection point must be the same.
Equating the center deflections
of the short and long strips gives

5 w a 4a 5 w b 4b

384EI 384EI

(a )

Fig.-2.

Behaviour of two way slabs


Where wa is the share of load w carried in short direction and w b is
the share of the load carried in the long direction. Consequently

w a 4b
4
w b a

From the eq.(b) it is clear that larger share of the load is carried in
the short direction, the ratio of the two portions of the total load being
inversely proportional to the fourth power of the ratio of the spans.

Behaviour of two way slabs

w a 4b
4
w b a
b
4
a

b
w a 256 w b

b
3 .5
a

w a 150.06 w b

b
3
a

w a 81w b

b
2. 5
a

w a 39.06 w b

b
2
a

w a 16 w b

b
1
a

wa wb

Behaviour
of two way because
slabs the actual behaviour of a slab is
This
result is approximate
more complex than that of the two intersecting strips. The Fig.3(b)
shows a slab model consisting of two sets of three strips each. It can
be seen that the two central strips s1 and 1 bend in a manner similar
to that shown

in Fig.3 The outer strips s2 and 2 , however, are not

only bent but also twisted.

Fig.-3.

Behaviour of two way slabs


Consider, for instance, one of the intersections of s2 and 2. It is
seen that at the intersection the exterior edge of strip 2 is at higher
elevation than the interior edge, while at the nearby end of strip 2
both edges are at the same elevation; the strip is twisted.
This twisting results
in torsional stresses
and torsional moments
that are seen to be
more pronounced near
the corners.

Behaviour of two way slabs


Consequently, the total load on the slab is carried not only by the
bending moments in two directions but also by the twisting moments.
For this reason bending moment is elastic slabs are smaller than
would be computed for sets of unconnected strips loaded by wa and
wb.
For instance, for a simply supported square slab wa=wb=w/2. If only
bending were present, the maximum moment in each would be
2

w 2


2
0.0625 w2
8

Behaviour of two way slabs


The exact theory of bending of elastic plates shows that actually,
maximum moment in such a square slab is only 0.048w2, so that in
this case twisting moment relieve the bending moments by about 25
percent.

Behaviour of two way slabs


The largest moment occurs where the curvature is sharpest. Fig3(b) shows this to be case at mid span of the short strip s 1. Suppose
the load is increased until this location is overstressed, so that the
steel at the middle of strip s1 is yielding.

Behaviour of two way slabs


If the strip were an isolated beam, it would now fail. Considering the
slab as a whole, however, that failure would not occur immediately.
The neighboring strips (those parallel as well as perpendicular to s1)
being actually monolithic with it will take over any additional load that
strip s1 can longer carry until they, in turn, start yielding.

This inelastic redistribution will continue until in a rather larger area


in the central portion of the slab all the steel in both directions is
yielding. Only then will the entire slab fail.

Behaviour of two way slabs


From this reasoning, which is confirmed by tests, it follows that
slabs need not be designed for the absolute maximum moment in
each of the two directions (such as 0.048w2) but only for a smaller
average moment in each of the two directions in the central portion of
the slab.
For instance, one of the several analytical methods in general use
permits the above square slab to be designed for a moment of
0.036w2. By comparison with actual elastic maximum moment
0.048w2, it is seen that, owing to inelastic redistribution, a moment
reduction of 25 percent is provided.

Behaviour of two way slabs


The largest moment in the slab occurs at the mid span of the short
strip s1 of Fig(b). It is evident that the curvature, and hence the
moment, in the short strip s2 is less than at the corresponding location
of strip s1.

Behaviour of two way slabs


Consequently, a variation of short span moment occurs in the long
direction of the span. This variation is shown qualitatively in Fig.4 The
short span moment diagram in Fig.4(a) is valid only along the center
strip at 1-1. Elsewhere, the maximum moment is less. Other moment
ordinates are reduced proportionately.

Fig.-4.

Behaviour
of two
way
slabs diagram in Fig.4(b) applies only at
Similarly,
the long
span
moment
longitudinal center line of the slab; elsewhere, ordinates are reduced
according to variation shown.

Fig.-4.

Behaviour of two way slabs


These variations in maximum moment across the width and length
of a rectangular slab are accounted for in an approximate way in
most practical design methods by designing for a reduced moment in
the outer quarters of the slab span in each direction.

Fig.-4.

Behaviour of two way slabs


Only slabs with side ratios less than 2 need be treated as two-way
slabs. From eq.(b), it is seen that, for a slab of this proportion, the
share of the load carried in the long direction is only of the order of
one-sixteenth of that in the short direction. Such a slab acts almost as
if it were spanning in the short direction only. Consequently,
rectangular slab panel with an aspect ratio more than 2 may be
reinforced for one-way action, with the main steel perpendicular to
long edges.
Shrinkage and temperature steel should be provided in the long
direction, of course, and auxiliary reinforcement should be provided
over, and perpendicular to, the short support beams and at the slab
corners to control cracking.

Analysis by the coefficient method


The precise determination of moments in two-way slabs with
various

conditions of

continuity

at

the

supported edges

is

mathematically formidable and not suited to design practice. For this


reason,

various

simplified

methods

have

been

adopted

for

determining moments, shears and reactions of such slabs.


According to the 1995 ACI Code, all two reinforced concrete slab
systems including edge supported slabs, flat slabs and flat plats are
to be analyzed and designed according to one unified method, which
will presented later on.

Analysis by the coefficient method


However, the complexity of the generalized approach, particularly
for systems which do not meet the requirements permitting analysis
by the Direct Design Method of the present code, has led many
engineers to continue to use the design method of the 1963 Code for
the special case of two-way slabs supported on four sides of each
slab panel by relatively deep, stiff edge beams.
Method 3 of the 1963 ACI Code will be presented in this chapter. It
has been used extensively since 1963 for slabs supported at the
edges by walls, steel beams or monolithic concrete beams having a
total depth not less than about 3 times the slab thickness.

Analysis by the coefficient method


While it was not a part of the 1977 or later ACI Codes, its continued
use is permissible under the current code provision (ACI Code
13.5.1) that a slab system may be designed by any procedure
satisfying conditions equilibrium and geometric compatibility, if it
shown that the design strength at every section is at least equal to
the required strength, and that serviceability requirements are met.
The method makes use of tables of moment coefficients for a
variety of conditions. These coefficients are based on elastic analysis
but also account for inelastic redistribution. In consequence, the
design moment in either direction is smaller by an appropriate
amount than the maximum elastic moment in that direction.

Analysis by the coefficient method


The moments in the middle strips in the two directions are
computed from

Ma Ca w2a
and
Mb Cb w2b

Where
Ca, Cb = tabulated moment coefficients
w = uniform load, psf

a ,b = length of clear span in short and long directions respectively

Analysis by the coefficient method


The method provides that each panel be divided in both directions
into a middle strip whose width is one-half that of the panel and
edges or column strips of one-quarter of the panel width.

Fig.-5.

Analysis by the coefficient method


As shown in Fig.4, the moments in both directions are larger in the
center portion of the slab than in regions close to the edges.
Correspondingly, it is provided that the entire middle strip be designed
for the full, tabulated design moment. In the edge strips this moment
is assumed to decrease from its full value at the edge of the middle
strip to one third of this value at the edge of the panel. This variation
is shown for the moments Ma in the short span direction in Fig.-5. The
lateral variation of the long span moment Mb is similar.

Analysis by the coefficient method


The discussion so far has been restricted to a single panel simply
supported at all four edges. An actual situation is shown in Fig.-6, in
which a system of beams supports a two way slab.

Fig.-6.

Analysis by the coefficient method


It is seen that some panels, such as A, have two discontinuous
exterior edges, while the other edges are continuous with their
neighbors. Panel B has one edge discontinuous and three continuous
edges, the interior panel C has all edges continuous, and so on. At a
continuous edge in a slab, moments are negative, just as at interior
supports of continuous beams. Also, the magnitude of the positive
moments depends on the conditions of continuity at all four edges.

Analysis by the coefficient method


Correspondingly, table-1 gives moment coefficients C, for negative
moments at continuous edges. Maximum negative edge moments
are obtained when both panel adjacent to the particular edge carry
full dead and live load. Hence, the moment is computed for this total
load. Negative moments at discontinuous edges are assumed to one
third of the positive moments for the same direction. One must
provide for such moments at discontinuous edges by the torsional
rigidity of the edge beams or by the supporting wall.

Analysis by the coefficient method


For positive moments there will be little, if any, rotation at the
continuous edges if dead load alone is acting, because the load on
both adjacent panels tend to produce opposite rotations which, or
nearly so. For this condition, the continuous edges can be regarded
as fixed, and the appropriate coefficients for the dead load positive
moments are given in table-2.

Analysis by the coefficient method


On the other hand, the maximum live load positive moments are
obtained when live load is placed only on the particular panel and not
on any of the adjacent panels. In this case, some rotation will occur at
all continuous edges. As an approximation it is assumed that there is
50% restraint for calculating these live load moments. The
corresponding coefficients are give in Table-3. For computing shear in
the slab and loads on the supporting beams table-4 gives the
fractions of the total W that are transmitted in the two directions.

Reinforcement for two-way edge supported slab


In two way edge supported slab, the main flexural reinforcement is
placed in an orthogonal pattern, with reinforcing bars parallel and
perpendicular to the supported edges. As the positive steel is placed
in two layers, the effective depth d for the upper layer is smaller than
that for the lower layer by one bar diameter.
Because

moments in the long direction are smaller ones, it is

economical to place the steel in that direction on top of the bars in the
short direction. The stacking problem does not exist for negative
reinforcement perpendicular to the supporting edge beams except at
the corners where moments are small.

Reinforcement for two-way edge supported slab


Either straight bars, cut off where they are no longer required, or
bent bars may be used for two way slabs, but economy of bar
fabrication and placement will generally favour all straight bars.

The precise of inflection points are not easily determined, because


they depend upon the side ratio, the ratio of live to dead load and
continuity conditions at the edges. The standard cut off and bend
points for beams, summarized in Fig, may be used for edge
supported slabs as well.

Reinforcement for two-way edge supported slab

Reinforcement for two-way edge supported slab


According to ACI code, the minimum reinforcement in each
direction for twoway slabs is that required for shrinkage and
temperature crack control, as given in Table.
Table-5:

Minimum

ratios

of

(temperature

and

shrinkage)

reinforcement area to gross concrete area in slabs


Slabs where Grade 40 or 50 deformed bars are used

00.0020

Slabs where Grade 60 deformed bars or welded wire


fabric (smooth or deformed) are used

0.0018

Slabs where reinforcement with yield strength


exceeding 60,000 psi measured at yield strain of
0.35 percent is

0.0018 60,000
fy

Reinforcement for two-way edge supported slab


For two-way systems, the spacing of flexural reinforcement at
critical sections must not exceed 2 times the slab thickness h.
The twisting moments discussed earlier are usually of consequence
only at exterior corners of a two-way slab system, where they tend to
crack the slab at the bottom along the panel diagonal, and at the top
perpendicular to the panel diagonal.
Special reinforcement should be provided at exterior corners in
both the bottom and top of the slab, for a distance in each direction
from the corner equal to one-fifth of the longer span of the corner
panel as shown in Fig.

Reinforcement for two-way edge supported slab

Reinforcement for two-way edge supported slab


The reinforcement at the top of the slab should be parallel to the
diagonal from the corner, while that at the bottom should be
perpendicular to the diagonal.

Alternatively, either layer of steel may be placed in two bands


parallel to the sides of the slab. The positive and negative
reinforcement, in any case, should be of a size and spacing
equivalent to that required for the maximum positive moment in the
panel.

Table 1: Coefficients For Negative moments in slabsa

Ma,neg Ca,neg, w2a


where w total uniform dead plus live load
Mb,neg Cb,neg w2b

A crosshatched edge indicates that the slab continues across, or is

fixed at, the support; an unmarked edge indicates a support at which


torsional resistance is negligible

Ratio
a C/ b
1.00

Case 1

Case 2

Case 3

Case 4

Case 5

Case 6

0.076

0.050
0.050

0.075

0.071

0.079

0.075

Cb.neg

0.045
0.045

0.95 Ca.neg
Cb.neg

0.050
0.041

0.072

0.055
0.045

0.90 Ca.neg
Cb.neg

0.055
0.037

0.070

0.060
0.040

0.080

0.079

0.85 Ca.neg
Cb.neg

0.060
0.031

0.065

0.066
0.034

0.082

0.083

0.80 Ca.neg
Cb.neg

0.065
0.027

0.083

0.086

0.061

0.071
0.029

0.75 Ca.neg
Cb.neg

0.069
0.022

0.056

0.076
0.024

0.085

0.088

0.70 Ca.neg
Cb.neg

0.074
0.017

0.050

0.081
0.019

0.086

0.091

0.65 Ca.neg
Cb.neg

0.077
0.014

0.043

0.085
0.015

0.087

0.093

0.60 Ca.neg
Cb.neg

0.081
0.010

0.035

0.089
0.011

0.088

0.095

0.55 Ca.neg
Cb.neg

0.084
0.007

0.028

0.092
0.008

0.089

0.096

0.50 Ca.neg
Cb.neg

0.086
0.006

0.022

0.094
0.006

0.090

0.097

a.neg

Case 7

Case 8

Case 9

0.071

0.033
0.061

0.061
0.033

0.067

0.038
0.056

0.065
0.029

0.062

0.043
0.052

0.068
0.025

0.057

0.049
0.046

0.072
0.021

0.051

0.055
0.041

0.075
0.017

0.044

0.061
0.036

0.078
0.014

0.038

0.068
0.029

0.081
0.011

0.031

0.074
0.024

0.083
0.008

0.024

0.080
0.018

0.085
0.006

0.019

0.085
0.014

0.086
0.005

0.014

0.089
0.010

0.088
0.003

Table 2: Coefficients For dead load positive moments in slabsa

Ma,pos,d Ca,d, w2a


where w total uniform dead load
Mb,pos,d Cb,d, w2b

A crosshatched edge indicates that the slab continues across, or is

fixed at, the support; an unmarked edge indicates a support at which


torsional resistance is negligible

Ratio
M= la/ lb

Case 1

Case 2

Case 3

Case 4

Case 5

Case 6

Case 7

Case 8

Case 9

1.00 Ca.dl
Cb.dl

0.036
0.036

0.018
0.018

0.018
0.027

0.027
0.027

0.027
0.018

0.033
0.027

0.027
0.033

0.020
0.023

0.023
0.020

0.95 Ca.dl
Cb.dl

0.040
0.033

0.020
0.016

0.021
0.025

0.030
0.024

0.028
0.015

0.036
0.024

0.031
0.031

0.022
0.021

0.024
0.017

0.90 Ca.dl
Cb.dl

0.045
0.029

0.022
0.014

0.025
0.024

0.033
0.022

0.029
0.013

0.039
0.021

0.035
0.028

0.025
0.019

0.026
0.015

0.85 Ca.dl
Cb.dl

0.050
0.026

0.024
0.012

0.029
0.022

0.036
0.019

0.031
0.011

0.042
0.017

0.040
0.025

0.029
0.017

0.028
0.013

0.80 Ca.dl
Cb.dl

0.056
0.023

0.026
0.011

0.034
0.020

0039
0.016

0.032
0.009

0.045
0.015

0.045
0.022

0.032
0.015

0.029
0.010

0.75 Ca.dl
Cb.dl

0.061
0.019

0.028
0.009

0.040
0.018

0.043
0.013

0.033
0.007

0.048
0.012

0.051
0.020

0.036
0.013

0.031
0.007

0.70 Ca.dl
Cb.dl

0.068
0.016

0.030
0.007

0.046
0.016

0.046
0.011

0.035
0.005

0.051
0.009

0.058
0.017

0.040
0.011

0.033
0.006

0.65 Ca.dl
Cb.dl

0.74
0.13

0.032
0.006

0.054
0.014

0.050
0.009

0.036
0.004

0.054
0.007

0.065
0.014

0.044
0.009

0.034
0.005

0.60 Ca.dl
Cb.dl

0.081
0.010

0.034
0.004

0.062
0.011

0.053
0.007

0.037
0.003

0.056
0.006

0.073
0.012

0.048
0.007

0.036
0.004

0.55 Ca.dl
Cb.dl

0.088
0.008

0.035
0.003

0.071
0.009

0.056
0.005

0.038
0.002

0.058
0.004

0.081
0.009

0.052
0.005

0.037
0.003

0.50 Ca.dl

0.095

0.037

0.080

0.059

0.039

0.061

0.089

0.056

0.038

Table 3: Coefficients For live load positive moments in slabsa

Ma,pos, Ca,, w2a


where w total uniform live load
Mb,pos, Cb,, w2b

A crosshatched edge indicates that the slab continues across, or is

fixed at, the support; an unmarked edge indicates a support at which


torsional resistance is negligible

Case 1

Case 2

Case 3

Case 4

Case 5

Case 6

Case 7

Case 8

Case 9

Cb.ll

0.036
0.036

0.027
0.027

0.027
0.032

0.032
0.032

0.032
0.027

0.035
0.032

0.032
0.035

0.028
0.030

0.030
0.028

0.95 Ca.ll
Cb.ll

0.040
0.033

0.030
0.025

0.031
0.029

0.035
0.029

0.034
0.024

0.038
0.029

0.036
0.032

0.031
0.027

0.032
0.025

0.90 Ca.ll
Cb.ll

0.045
0.029

0.034
0.022

0.035
0.027

0.039
0.026

0.037
0.021

0.042
0.025

0.040
0.029

0.035
0.024

0.036
0.022

0.85 Ca.ll
Cb.ll

0.050
0.026

0.037
0.019

0.040
0.024

0.043
0.023

0.041
0.019

0.046
0.022

0.045
0.026

0.042
0.022

0.039
0.020

0.80 Ca.ll
Cb.ll

0.056
0.023

0.041
0.017

0.045
0.022

0.048
0.020

0.044
0.016

0.051
0.019

0.051
0.023

0.044
0.019

0.042
0.017

0.75 Ca.ll
Cb.ll

0.061
0.019

0.045
0.014

0.051
0.019

0.052
0.016

0.047
0.013

0.055
0.016

0.056
0.020

0.049
0.016

0.046
0.013

0.70 Ca.ll
Cb.ll

0.068
0.016

0.049
0.012

0.057
0.016

0.057
0.014

0.051
0.011

0.060
0.013

0.063
0.017

0.054
0.014

0.050
0.011

0.65 Ca.ll
Cb.ll

0.74
0.13

0.053
0.010

0.064
0.014

0.062
0.011

0.055
0.009

0.064
0.010

0.070
0.014

0.059
0.011

0.054
0.009

0.60 Ca.ll
Cb.ll

0.081
0.010

0.058
0.007

0.071
0.011

0.067
0.009

0.059
0.007

0.068
0.008

0.077
0.011

0.065
0.009

0.059
0.007

0.55 Ca.ll
Cb.ll

0.088
0.008

0.062
0.006

0.080
0.009

0.072
0.007

0.063
0.005

0.073
0.006

0.085
0.009

0.070
0.007

0.063
0.006

0.50 Ca.ll
Cb.ll

0.095
0.006

0.066
0.004

0.088
0.007

0.077
0.005

0.067
0.004

0.078
0.005

0.092
0.007

0.076
0.005

0.067
0.004

Ratio
1.00
a /
Cb
a.ll

Table 4: Ratio of load W in la and lb directions for shear in slab and


load on supportsa

Ca w a b
Wa
2 b
where w total uniform dead load
C w a b
Wb b
2 a

A crosshatched edge indicates that the slab continues across, or is

fixed at, the support; an unmarked edge indicates a support at which


torsional resistance is negligible
Wa is the load per foot on the long beam and Wb is the load per foot
on the short beam.

Ratio
M= La/ Lb

Case 1

Case 2

Case 3

Case 4

Case 5

Case 6

Case 7

Case 8

Case 9

1.00 Wa
Wb

0.50
0.50

0.50
0.50

0.17
0.83

0.50
0.50

0.83
0.17

0.71
0.29

0.29
0.71

0.33
0.67

0.67
0.33

0.95 Wa
Wb

0.55
0.45

0.55
0.45

0.20
0.80

0.55
0.45

0.86
0.14

0.75
0.25

0.33
0.67

0.38
0.62

0.71
0.29

0.90 Wa
Wb

0.60
0.40

0.60
0.40

0.23
0.77

0.60
0.40

0.88
0.12

0.79
0.21

0.38
0.62

0.43
0.57

0.75
0.25

0.85 Wa
Wb

0.66
0.34

0.66
0.34

0.28
0.72

0.66
0.34

0.90
0.10

0.83
0.17

0.43
0.57

0.49
0.51

0.79
0.21

0.80 Wa
Wb

0.71
0.29

0.71
0.29

0.33
0.67

0.71
0.29

0.92
0.08

0.86
0.14

0.49
0.51

0.55
0.45

0.83
0.17

0.75 Wa
Wb

0.76
0.24

0.76
0.24

0.39
0.61

0.76
0.24

0.94
0.06

0.88
0.12

0.56
0.44

0.61
0.39

0.86
0.14

0.70 Wa
Wb

0.81
0.19

0.81
0.19

0.45
0.55

0.81
0.19

0.95
0.05

0.91
0.09

0.62
0.38

0.68
0.32

0.89
0.11

0.65 Wa
Wb

0.85
0.15

0.85
0.15

0.53
0.47

0.85
0.15

0.96
0.04

0.93
0.07

0.69
0.31

0.74
0.26

0.92
0.08

0.60 Wa
Wb

0.89
0.11

0.89
0.11

0.61
0.39

0.89
0.11

0.97
0.03

0.95
0.05

0.76
0.24

0.80
0.20

0.94
0.06

0.55 Wa
Wb

0.92
0.08

0.92
0.08

0.69
0.31

0.92
0.08

0.98
0.02

0.96
0.04

0.81
0.19

0.85
0.15

0.95
0.05

0.50 Wa
Wb

0.94
0.06

0.94
0.06

0.76
0.24

0.94
0.06

0.99
0.01

0.97
0.03

0.86
0.14

0.89
0.31

0.97
0.03

Problem:

A Monolithic reinforced concrete floor is to be composed of

rectangular bays measuring 2126 ft as shown in fig. Beams of width


12 in. and depth 24 in. are provided on all column lines. Thus the
clear span dimension for the two-way slab panel is 2025 ft. The
floor is to be designed to carry a service live load of 137 psf uniformly
distributed over its surface, in addition to its own weight, using
concrete of strength fc= 3000 psi & reinforcement having fy=60,000
psi. Find the required slab thickness and reinforcement for the corner
panel as shown in fig.

Problem:

Solution
Slab thickness = Perimeter /180
12
h 2 20 25
6 in.
180
The corresponding dead load is 150 0.5= 75 psf

The factored loads on which the design is to be based are


Live load = 1.7 137 = 232.9 psf
Dead load = 1.4 75 = 105 psf
Total load = 338 psf
Aspect ratio m = la / lb = 20/25 = 0.8
YOU WILL USE NOW NEW LOADS FACTORS, i.e. 1.6 and 1.2
FOR LIVE AND DEAD LOADS RESPECTIVELY.

Solution
The moment calculations for the slab middle strips at continuous
edges
For case 4(one long side and one short side continuous)
Ca.neg = 0.071

C b.neg = 0.029

(table-1)

Taking unit strip total Load = 338 lb/ft

Ma,neg Ca,neg, w2a 0.071 338 20 2 9600 ft lb 115,000 lb.in


Mb,neg Cb,neg w2b 0.029 338 25 2 6130 ft lb 73,400 lb.in

Solution
The positive moment calculations for the slab middle strips
For case 4(one long side and one short side continuous)
Ca.dl = 0.039

Cb.dl = 0.016

(table-2)

Ca.ll = 0.048

C b.ll = 0.020

(table-3)

Ma,pos,d Ca,d, w2a 0.039 105 20 2 1638 lb.ft 19,700 lb.in


Ma,pos, Ca,, w2a 0.048 233 20 2 4470 lb.ft 53,700 lb.in
Ma,pos,tot

73,400 lb.in

Mb,pos,d Cb,d, w2b 0.016 105 25 2 1050 lb.ft 12,600 lb.in


Mb,pos, Cb,, w2b 0.020 233 25 2 2910 lb.ft 35,000 lb.in
Mb,pos,tot

47,600 lb.in

Solution
Negative Moment at Discontinuous Edge
Negative B.M at discontinuous support is one-third of B.M at midspan.

Ma,neg
Mb,neg

1
73,400 24,500 lb.in
3
1
47,600 15,900 lb.in
3

Reinforcement calculations
For fc 4000 psi

1 0.85

0.85fc 87,000
0.85 3000
87,000

b
1

0.85

fy
60,000
87,000 60,000
87,000 fy
0.02138

Solution

max 0.75b 0.016035


min 0.0018

Short Direction (positive mid span reinforcement)


Mu 73,400
Mn

81555.6 lb.in

0 .9
Mn 81555.6
Rn 2
271.852
2
bd
12 5
fy
60,000
m

23.53
0.85fc 0.85 3000
1
2mR n

1 1
m
fy

1
2 23.53 271.852
1 1
0.0048

23.53
60,000

A s bd 0.0048 12 5 0.288 in2 / ft

Choose # 4 @ 8 in c / c

( A s 0.29)

Max. spacing 2h 2 6 12 in.

Continuous End (Negative reinforcement)


max 0.75b 0.016035
min 0.0018
Mu 115,000
Mn

127777 .78 lb.in

0 .9
M
127777 .78
Rn n2
425.93
2
bd
12 5
fy
60,000
m

23.53
0.85fc 0.85 3000
1
2mR n

1 1
m
fy

1
2 23.53 425.93
1 1
0.0078

23.53
60,000

A s bd 0.0078 12 5 0.0.468 in2 / ft

Choose # 4 @ 5 in c / c

( A s 0.47)

Max. spacing 2h 2 6 12 in.

Discontinuous end (Negative reinforcement)


max 0.75b 0.016035
min 0.0018
Mu 24,500

27222 .22 lb.in

0.9
M
27222.22
Rn n2
90.74
2
bd
12 5
fy
60,000
m

23.53
0.85fc 0.85 3000
Mn

1
2mR n

1 1

m
fy

1
2 23.53 90.74
1 1
0.00154

23.53
60,000

Thus min imum value of will be used


A s bh 0.0018 12 6 0.13 in2 / ft

Choose #3 @10 in c / c

( A s 0.13)

Max. spacing 2h 2 6 12 in.

Solution

max 0.75b 0.016035


min 0.0018

Long Direction (positive mid span reinforcement)


Mu 47,600
Mn

52888.89 lb.in

0 .9
Mn 52,888.89
Rn 2
217.65
2
bd
12 4.5
fy
60,000
m

23.53
0.85fc 0.85 3000
1
2mR n

1 1
m
fy

The positive moment steel in


the long direction is placed
on top of that for the short
direction. Thus d=4.5 in.

1
2 23.53 217.65
1 1
0.0038

23.53
60,000

A s bd 0.0038 12 4.5 0.205 in2 / ft

Choose #3 @ 6 in c / c

( A s 0.22)

Max. spacing 2h 2 6 12 in.

Continuous End (Negative reinforcement)


max 0.75b 0.016035
min 0.0018
Mu 73,400
Mn

81555.6 lb.in

0.9
Mn 81555.6
Rn 2
271.852
2
bd
12 5
fy
60,000
m

23.53
0.85fc 0.85 3000
1
2mR n

1 1
m
fy

1
2 23.53 271.852
1 1
0.0048

23.53
60,000

A s bd 0.0048 12 5 0.288 in2 / ft

Choose # 4 @ 8 in c / c

( A s 0.29)

Max. spacing 2h 2 6 12 in.

Discontinuous end (Negative reinforcement)


max 0.75b 0.016035
min 0.0018

In long direction, at discontinuous edge, the applied moment Mu is


(15,900 lb.in.) even much lesser than the negative moment at
discontinuous edge in short direction (24,500 lb.in). While for
24,500lb.in

moment,

minimum

reinforcement

came

out

after

calculations. Thus for moment 15,900 lb.in, minimum reinforcement


will be used.
A s bd 0.0018 12 6 0.13 in2 / ft
Choose #3 @ 10 in c / c

( A s 0.13)

Max. spacing 2h 2 6 12 in.

Corner reinforcement for twisting moments

The twisting moments are of consequence only at exterior corners


of a two-way slab system.

Therefore in this problem, #4@8 c/c will be used, parallel to the


slab diagonal at the top, and perpendicular to the diagonal at the
bottom, this reinforcement will be carried out to a point 25/5=5 ft from
the corner.

Shear Check
Total applied load = 20 25 338 =169,000 lb
From table-4 Wa = 0.71

and

Wb = 0.29

169,000
0.71 25 2400 lb / ft
2
169,000
Load per foot on the short beam
0.29 20 1220 lb / ft
2
The shear strength of the slab is
Load per foot on the long beam

Vc 2 f c bd 0.85 2 3000 12 5 5586.77 lb

Thus the resisting shear is well above the applied shear. Thus there
is no need of shear reinforcement.

Deflection Control
Edge-supported slabs are typically thin relative to their span, and
may show large deflections even though strength requirements are
met, unless certain limitations are imposed in the design to prevent
this. The simplest approach to deflection control is to impose a
minimum thickness-span ratio.
In the 1963 code, in which the coefficient method of analysis was
introduced, provided that the slab thickness should not be less than
3.5 in and not less than the total perimeter divided by 180.

Deflection Control

Alternative to the use of minimum depth equations, the deflection


at the center of a slab panel can be calculated and results compared
against limitations such as those of ACI Code 9.5. These limitation
summarized in Table given, apply to two-way floor systems as well as
to beams
Type of member

Deflection to be
considered

Flat roofs not supporting or attached to


nonstructural elements likely to be damaged
by large deflection

Immediate deflection
due to live load L

Floors not supporting or attached to


nonstructural elements likely to be damaged
by large deflection

Immediate deflection
due to live load L

Roof or floor construction supporting or


attached to nonstructural elements likely to
be damaged by large deflection

That part of the total


deflection which occurs
after attachment of the
nonstructural
elements, the sum of
the long-time

Roof or floor construction supporting or


attached to nonstructural elements not likely
to be damaged by large deflection

Deflection
limitation

180

360

480

240

Deflection Control
The calculation of deflections for slabs is complicated by many
factors such as
Varying rotational restraint at the edges
The influences of alternative loading arrangements.
Varying ratio of side lengths
Effects of cracking.
Time dependent influences of shrinkage and creep.

Deflection
Control

The deflection components of concern are usually the long-term

deflections due to sustained loads and the immediate deflection due


to live load.
Previous Table gives upper limits for these deflection components
in terms of the span .
For slabs it is not clear from the ACI code or Commentary whether
the longer or shorter span is to be used as the basis, but it is
conservative (and reasonable when considering possible damage to
supported elements ) to base calculated limits on the shorter span.

Deflection Control

Maximum live load deflection, for example, will normally be

obtained when the live load acts on the given panel, but not on the
adjacent panels. Therefore, live load deflection should be based on
the maximum positive moments found using table of positive
moments.
This will be illustrated for the slab shown in Fig(a), considering the
middle strip of unit width in the long direction of the panel. The
variation of moment for a uniformly distributed load is parabolic, and
the sum of the positive and negative moments must, according to
statics, be

1
M w b 2b
8

(a )

Deflection Control
where wb is the fractional
part of the load transmitted in
the long direction of the panel
(Fig (c)). If fully fixity were
obtained at the supports, the
negative moment would be
1
2
2
Mneg
w b b M
(b) 2 M
12
3
3
And the positive moment

would be
Mpos

1
1
2

w b b M
24
3

(c )

Deflection Control
It has been noted earlier that the coefficients for maximum live
load positive moments were derived assuming 50 percent, 100
percent, fixity.
Accordingly, the zero moment baseline associated with the
maximum positive moment Mb obtained using table of positive
moment as shown in Fig(c), and the statically consistent negative
moments are one-half the positive moment Mb.

Deflection Control

Deflection calculations are thus based on the parabolic moment


diagram, with maximum ordinate Mb at midspan and negative end
moments one-half that value.
The midspan live load deflection, l, of the slab strip shown in Fig(b)
can easily be found based on the moment diagram of Fig.(c).
For the slab shown, with both edges continuous

3 Mb 2b

32 Ec eff

(d)

where Mb is the live load positive moment obtained using the

appropriate coefficient of Table of positive moment, Ec is the elastic


modulus of the concrete, and eff is the effective moment of inertia of
the concrete cross section of unit width

Deflection Control

Eq.(d) was derived for a typical interior panel, with equal

restraining moments at each end of the slab strip. Similar equations


can easily be derived for the cases where one or both ends are
discontinuous.
According to coefficient method of moment analysis, negative
moments at discontinuous slab edges are assumed equal to one-third
the positive moment in the same direction, so it is clear that resulting
deflection would differ very little from eq.(d).
That equation can be used for panel strips with one or both ends
discontinuous, but monolithic with supporting beams, with very little
error.

Deflection Control

For the special case where edges are completely free of restraint,
as if, for example, the slab where supported by masonry walls, the
midspan live load deflection is

5 Mb 2b

48 Ec eff

(e)

The dead load deflection should be based on the moment diagram


found using maximum dead load positive moment based on table of
dead load positive moment, which assumes all panels loaded.
In deriving these coefficients, continuous edges were regarded as
fully fixed.

Deflection Control

Accordingly, it can easily be shown that the midspan dead load


deflection d, for the case with both ends continuous, is

1 Mb 2b
d
16 Ec eff

(f )

Where Mb is, in this case, the dead load positive moment obtained
using the coefficients of table of dead load positive moment.
For the special case where both ends are free of restraint, the
midspan dead load deflection can be found from

5 Mb 2b
d
48 Ec eff

(g)

Deflection Control
While the deflections discussed above have been with reference to
a unit strip spanning in the longer direction of the panel of Figure(a),
calculations may also be based on the strip in the shorter direction.
The resulting deflection at the center of the panel should be same
in either case, although small differences can be expected because of
the approximate nature of the calculations.

A reasonable procedure is to calculate the deflection each way


and then to average the results.

Deflection Control
Slab deflections calculated according to the equations just given
are the initial elastic deflections produced immediately upon
application of the loads.
For sustained loads such as from dead loads. ACI Code 9.5.3
recommends that the increase in deflection with time can be found
based on the following equation.

1 50

(g)

With a time-dependent multiplier that varies according to next Fig.


and with an ultimate value of 2.0.

Long-term deflection multipliers

Deflection Control

Experience has indicated that a value of 2.0 often underestimates


time-dependent deflections of slabs, probably because slabs have
much lower ratios of thickness to span than beams, which provided
the basis for long-term multipliers. Branson suggests that =3.0 be
used for slabs.

Problem
The floor slab of previous problem will support rigid partition and other
non-structural elements that would be damaged by large deflection.
These elements will be installed 3 months after constructions shoring
is removed and dead load imposed, calculate the increment of dead
load and service live load deflection that would affect the
superimposed elements, and compare with ACI code limit values.

Solution

Deflection calculations will be based on the moment analysis of


previous example. However, those moments were based on load
factors of 1.4 applied to dead loads and 1.7 to live loads, and
moments must be reduced accordingly to obtain service load
moments.
The modulus of elasticity is

Ec 57,000 3000 3.12 10 6 psi


The moment of inertia will be taken as that of gross concrete section,
and for a 12 in. strip is

12 63
g
216 in 4
12

Solution

The immediate deflection at midpanel due to dead load will be


found by eq. (f), first based on the long-direction strip, and then the
short-direction strip, and the results averaged if they differ. In the long
direction, from previous example, the dead load positive moment is
12,600 in-lb at factored loads, or

at service loads. Thus

12,600
9000 in lb
1.4

1 Mb 2b
d
16 Ec eff

(f )

9000 25 12
d
0.08 in.
6
16 3.12 10 216
2

Solution

For comparison, in the short direction the service load moment due to
dead load is

19,700
14,100 in lb
1.4
And the corresponding deflection at midpanel is

14,100 20 12
d
0.08 in.
6
16 3.12 10 216
2

Just as before.
The time-dependent increment of deflection will be calculated
based on a 5-year multiplier =3.0, but the ACI Code time variation
shown in Fig is used. That figure indicates that one-half the timedependent deflection would have occurred at 3 months.

Solution

Only the remaining half would occur after installation of the partitions
and other elements. Thus the fractional part of the time-dependent
dead load deflections that may cause damage is

1
0.08 3 0.12 in.
2
Live load deflection will be calculated from eq.(d).
In the long-span direction, from previous example, the live load
positive moment is 35,000 in-lb at factored loads, or

35,000
20,600 in lb
1 .7
is service load moment.

Solution

And the deflection at midpanel is

3 Mb 2b

32 Ec eff

(d)

3 20,600 25 12

0.26 in.
6
32 3.12 10 216
2

As a check, in the short-span direction the live load positive


moment is

and the deflection is

53,700
31,600 in lb
1.7

3 31,600 20 12

0.25 in.
6
32 3.12 10 216
2

the same as before for all practical purposes.

Solution

The deflection causing potential damage is the sum of the


incremental time-dependent dead load deflection occurring after 3
months and the immediate deflection due to live load, i.e.,

0.12 0.26 0.38 in.


According to the ACI Code limits of previous Table, the maximum
allowable deflections for the stated conditions is

20 12
0.50 in.
480
so on the basis of deflections the design can be considered
satisfactory.

Assignment

fc/ 4000 psi


Live load 180 psf

fy 40,000 psi
Im posed Dead Load 30 psf