Two Way Slab (by Coefficients)

© All Rights Reserved

312 vues

Two Way Slab (by Coefficients)

© All Rights Reserved

- Two-way Slab Design using the Coefficient Method
- Timber Design Review
- Moment Coefficients for Continuous Beams and Slabs
- Deflection of Beams
- Reinforced Concrete Beam Design - Deflections
- Castellated beam
- Strength of Materials July 2013
- PS3-MOM-II
- (13) Maheri
- Elastic Foundations - Beams - Materials - Engineering Reference With Worked Examples
- Airy+Points
- Kanya PVS Catalogue 2008
- SAFE Verification
- No. 2 HDS2 Beam Deflection 02 UK.pdf
- Design Charts for Non-composite Beams 2up
- Design Chart
- 04 - Design of Steel Flexural Members
- SAFE v8 ENG Brochure
- 2 1 2 a beamdeflection
- Span Deflection

Vous êtes sur la page 1sur 85

coefficient method

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

Fig.-3.

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

in the central portion of the slab all the steel in both directions is

yielding. Only then will the entire slab fail.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

The precise determination of moments in two-way slabs with

various

conditions of

continuity

at

the

supported edges

is

reason,

various

simplified

methods

have

been

adopted

for

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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)

Slabs where Grade 40 or 50 deformed bars are used

00.0020

fabric (smooth or deformed) are used

0.0018

exceeding 60,000 psi measured at yield strain of

0.35 percent is

0.0018 60,000

fy

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.

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.

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.

where w total uniform dead plus live load

Mb,neg Cb,neg w2b

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

where w total uniform dead load

Mb,pos,d Cb,d, w2b

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

where w total uniform live load

Mb,pos, Cb,, w2b

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

load on supportsa

Ca w a b

Wa

2 b

where w total uniform dead load

C w a b

Wb b

2 a

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:

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

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)

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

Ma,pos,tot

73,400 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

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

Choose # 4 @ 8 in c / c

( A s 0.29)

max 0.75b 0.016035

min 0.0018

Mu 115,000

Mn

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

Choose # 4 @ 5 in c / c

( A s 0.47)

max 0.75b 0.016035

min 0.0018

Mu 24,500

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

A s bh 0.0018 12 6 0.13 in2 / ft

Choose #3 @10 in c / c

( A s 0.13)

Solution

min 0.0018

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 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

Choose #3 @ 6 in c / c

( A s 0.22)

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

Choose # 4 @ 8 in c / c

( A s 0.29)

max 0.75b 0.016035

min 0.0018

(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

will be used.

A s bd 0.0018 12 6 0.13 in2 / ft

Choose #3 @ 10 in c / c

( A s 0.13)

of a two-way slab system.

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

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

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

nonstructural elements likely to be damaged

by large deflection

Immediate deflection

due to live load L

nonstructural elements likely to be damaged

by large deflection

Immediate deflection

due to live load L

attached to nonstructural elements likely to

be damaged by large deflection

deflection which occurs

after attachment of the

nonstructural

elements, the sum of

the long-time

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

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

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

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)

modulus of the concrete, and eff is the effective moment of inertia of

the concrete cross section of unit width

Deflection Control

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)

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

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.

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)

and with an ultimate value of 2.0.

Deflection Control

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

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

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

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

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

3 Mb 2b

32 Ec eff

(d)

3 20,600 25 12

0.26 in.

6

32 3.12 10 216

2

moment is

53,700

31,600 in lb

1.7

3 31,600 20 12

0.25 in.

6

32 3.12 10 216

2

Solution

incremental time-dependent dead load deflection occurring after 3

months and the immediate deflection due to live load, i.e.,

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

Live load 180 psf

fy 40,000 psi

Im posed Dead Load 30 psf

- Two-way Slab Design using the Coefficient MethodTransféré parJason Edwards
- Timber Design ReviewTransféré parRoben Casano
- Moment Coefficients for Continuous Beams and SlabsTransféré pardash1991
- Deflection of BeamsTransféré parMubaaracq Meerasahib
- Reinforced Concrete Beam Design - DeflectionsTransféré parAfzal Kareem
- Castellated beamTransféré parFiroz Mandaviya
- Strength of Materials July 2013Transféré parPrasad C M
- PS3-MOM-IITransféré parMuhammad Qasim
- (13) MaheriTransféré parTaniyaArora
- Elastic Foundations - Beams - Materials - Engineering Reference With Worked ExamplesTransféré parsebastian9033
- Airy+PointsTransféré parDirajen PM
- Kanya PVS Catalogue 2008Transféré parjames2271
- SAFE VerificationTransféré parZaid Farouk Al-abdali
- No. 2 HDS2 Beam Deflection 02 UK.pdfTransféré parhepcomotion
- Design Charts for Non-composite Beams 2upTransféré parberto2008
- Design ChartTransféré pargendadeyu552625
- 04 - Design of Steel Flexural MembersTransféré parSomi Khan
- SAFE v8 ENG BrochureTransféré parZacretchi Alex
- 2 1 2 a beamdeflectionTransféré parapi-260799820
- Span DeflectionTransféré parLutfi Amin
- group 2Transféré parKaustav Sengupta
- Struktur Beton 1-Bab8 Serviceability [Compatibility Mode].pdfTransféré parDistria Putri Wulandari
- NS15-2beamdesign.pdfTransféré parKevin Ongjunco
- How to Estimate DeflectionTransféré parMAXIMODRAGON
- Beam Apparatus(a)Transféré parJose Edgar Santisteban Ventura
- Design of Beam-columnTransféré parBaskara Hutahaean
- Double Integration Method _ Beam Deflections _ Strength of Materials ReviewTransféré parJenesis de Guzman
- CH 4Transféré parRyan Goh Chuang Hong
- BeamName TB1Transféré parptslab
- 1. LAb Manual for deflection of Beam Experiment Three Handout.pdfTransféré parmehwish arshad

- 20W Stereo Amplifier Circuit DiagramTransféré parWaseem Ahmad
- Mid Term Eams 2018 ET-115Transféré parWaseem Ahmad
- Mid Term Eams 2018 ET-115.docxTransféré parWaseem Ahmad
- Doc1Transféré parWaseem Ahmad
- 100 Watt Inverter CircuitTransféré parWaseem Ahmad
- 2N3055 Power AmplifierTransféré parWaseem Ahmad
- 187840194-test-for-EETransféré parWaseem Ahmad
- KRL test for EETransféré parasimnaqvi2003
- Only ApplicationTransféré parWaseem Ahmad
- Job Application TevtaTransféré parWaseem Ahmad
- NTS - National Testing ServiceTransféré parWaseem Ahmad
- Test Date and Time of HSK-ITransféré parWaseem Ahmad
- 2Transféré parWaseem Ahmad
- 24 Hour TimerTransféré parWaseem Ahmad
- Written Test for Assitant Manager (Electrical)Transféré parWaseem Ahmad
- CV of Amjad JanTransféré parWaseem Ahmad
- SlipTransféré parMumtazAhmad
- 16 Stage BiTransféré parWaseem Ahmad
- Answer Sheet of Objective Type Questions_1.pdfTransféré parWaseem Ahmad
- 2016 CV of Waseem AhmadTransféré parWaseem Ahmad
- 22W Into 4 Ohm Power AmplifierTransféré parWaseem Ahmad
- Answer Sheet of Objective Type Questions_1Transféré parWaseem Ahmad
- Brother AkramTransféré parWaseem Ahmad
- Undergraduate Admission 2017Transféré parWaseem Ahmad
- weritTransféré parWaseem Ahmad
- 3901042Transféré parWaseem Ahmad
- Electronics Engineering Lecture 04Transféré parWaseem Ahmad
- Ppt Elec.machinesTransféré parspan98

- Abb KinematicsTransféré parAndres Auza
- JKR Specification LS05 GensetTransféré parHong Leong Ku
- Mollier DiagramsTransféré parRyan Holmes
- BEM (Safety & Health) Sept-Nov _09Transféré parFaizal Iskandar
- Mixing-Settlers and Extraction Columns(English)Transféré parLeandro Machado
- Piezoelectric dancefloorTransféré parfatin
- !ReadMe!Transféré parjt4fds
- Sub GradeTransféré parSameer Shashwat
- Rak-11 3001 Vertical Traffic LoadsTransféré parpravin
- 2013_Huff, Song & Gresch_Cultural Intelligence, Personality, And Cross-cultural Adjustment- A Study of Expatriates in JapanTransféré parRoxy Shira Adi
- Lec - 5 Computer Hardware (System Unit).pptxTransféré parMehboob Mehar
- SikaTop-121 2011-08_1 (1).pdfTransféré parNorlizawati Yusof
- S63TU engine.pdfTransféré parRoger Bassa Daunis
- Bulwark Case Group3Transféré parSharada Venkataraman
- SHB001Transféré parnandhu28
- Discovering GK Chesterton Feb 13 09 WebTransféré parPaul Bernacchio
- Introduction to Micro Meteorology for Wind EnergyTransféré parPedroHenrique
- Projectile Motion Simulator WorksheetTransféré parVijay Gopal Marupudi
- h2 Dew PointTransféré pargeddam06108825
- Analysis of Incidents Reported to PNGRB From July 2013 to Dec 2014Transféré parsathish_iyengar
- Microsoft Word - Module 4 -Editing 3 ArticleTransféré parNurulhasri Abdullah Hashim
- Pre-internship （Electives）and InternshipTransféré parapi-3743565
- Evolution of IMCTransféré parMaria Anna Manalo
- 29LV400Transféré parGiapy Phuc Tran
- Pega7 - Customizing Login-Screen_0Transféré parAppala Naidu
- Bretschneider 1964Transféré parChristopher Saez Ahumada
- Elecs coaching 3 (07).xlsxTransféré parChester Kyles Colita
- Fuel System NotesTransféré parKumaraShan
- Wes Furlotte - The Problem of Nature in Hegel’s Final System (2018, Edinburgh University Press).pdfTransféré parCodey Williams
- AR_10-09-014Transféré parNarvaxis

## Bien plus que des documents.

Découvrez tout ce que Scribd a à offrir, dont les livres et les livres audio des principaux éditeurs.

Annulez à tout moment.