Beruflich Dokumente
Kultur Dokumente
H_ MUNSE
111 Talbot Lab.
/0
ZJ.t;,4
University of Illinois
~~~Ur,hana, Illinots
~--
.'
III
II.
by
W. G. CORLEY
M. A. SOZEN
C. P. SIESS
A Report to
II
and
HEADQUARTERS, U. S. AIR FORCE,
DIRECTORATE OF CIVIL ENGINEERING
UNIVERSITY OF ILLINOIS
URBANA, ILLINOIS2
THE EQUIVALENTFRAMEANALYS.lS
. FOR ,REINFORCED CONCRETE .SLABS
by
W. G. CORLEY
M. A.. SO.lEN
C. P. SIESS
i-R~ration
.wi th .the
U. S. AIR FORCE
UNJVERSITY OF ILLINOIS
URBANA, ILLINOIS
June 1961
;\'
~:<T I
TABLE OF CONTENTS
LIST OF
TABL~S
..
vi
LIST OF FIGURES
1.
INTRODUCTION .
l.l
l.2
1.3
1.4
1
2
Objecto . .
Scope 0 .
Acknowledgment 0
Notationo 0 . .
THE
201
202
203
2.4
2.5
2.6
8
8
11
13
16
..n
.LO
20
24
24
25
28
33
34
38
42
44
46
General Remarks
Flat Slab with Uniform Load. 0 .
Flat Slab with Strip Loading for Maximum Positive Moments
0
iii
50
50
50
54
58
58
66
70
iv
NUMERICAL EXAMPLE. .
SUMMARY
77
76
76
76
80
81
REFERENCES. .
84
TABLES
87
FIGURES .
105
LIST OF TABLES
10
20
. . ..
88
40
5.
91
92
93
6.
90
9~Panel
80
Comparison of Moments in
94
9.
95
10.
96
11.
97
12"
130
14.
15.
16.
17.
Co~~ri5or.
Co~~r16~n
100
101
102
103
104
180
99
Distribution
Const~ts
LIST OF FIGURES
1.
105
106
107
1/8
loB
= 1/4
109
1/3
110
= 1/2
111
112
113
114
115
116
13.
117
140
15.
119
160
120
100
12.
118
170
0.2
121
180
0.2
122
190
0.4
123
200
21.
124
125
vii
220
126
230
127
240
250
260
270
28.
128
0
0
129
130
. .
131
132
29
Moments in
30.
31.
32.
33
0.15
137
34.
= 0020
138
35
= 0025
139
36.
0030
140
37
Free-Body
380
Nine~Panel
39.
of
Diagr~
0
0
134
.
0
135
.
0
136
141
142
143
144
145
41.
of Slab Panel
One~~lf
Be~o
133
viii
LIST OF FIGURES (Cont~d)
146
43.
147
440
45.
46.
148
149
150
151
48.
152
49.
153
500
51.
52.
156
53.
157
54.
158
o.
154
155
159
160
161
58.
162
59.
163
60.
164
61.
165
62.
166
1.
1.1
INTRODUCTION
Object
The study presented here is concerned with the investigation of
At this time, the only method available for determining the moments
Since it
was very difficult to obtain solutions to the plate problem by this method,
it was not practical for use as a design procedure.
After a large number of reinforced concrete slab structures had
been built and load-tested, an "empirical" method of determining moments was
developed.
that some method was needed for extending the empirical method to structures
with more extreme ranges of dimensions.
e~uivalent
frame
analysis was developed which would give approximately the same results as the
empirical design method.
Recently, the development of high speed digital computers has made
it possible to obtain more solutions based on the theory of
platesc
flex~re
for
reinvestigate
the use of a two-dimensional frame analysis in order to determine its reliability as a method of analysis for reinforced concrete slabs.
The object of this investigation is to make a quantitative comparison
of moments determined by the analysis of equivalent two-dimensional elastic
frames
~ith
those determined from the theory of flexure for plates and from
1.2
Scope
The second chapter of
t~is
of the development of the analysis and design of reinforced concrete flat slabs
This summary gives an insight into the background of the present practice.
Next, a number of solutions based on the theory of flexure for plates are
presented
These comparisons
include~
1.
2.
3.
6.
In Chapter 6, a modified
is presentedo
e~uivalent
The tests
models~
10
20
30
40
presented for the center row of panels of the nine-panel reinforced concrete
flat slab model.
1.3
Acknowledgment
The studies presented in this report were made in connection with
-4of a parallel investigation of slabs under Research Grant NSF-G 6572 from
the National Science Foundation.
1.4
Notation
a
a
mn
..
constant to be determined
a constant to be determined
en
c2
E
F
G
H
f
Ic
I
stiffness of a column
an integer, IJ 2, 3, ....
00
m
l
M
n
M
o
-6M
Ms
Mx
M
xy
Met.
J..l
n
12(1-J..l2
00
thickness of a plate
tl
t2
= twisting moment
= total angle of rotation (caused by an arbitrary moment) of
the end of a column without translation of either end
V
x
vy
1. >~._\
-;0,(
.,.
-7w*
Wd
W
L
20
2.1
(3)0
Both of
~hese
(4).
Chapter 3.
In the next few years, a great deal of work was done with LagrangeVs
equation.
Navier solved this for the case of a rectangular plate with Simply
A few years
**
-8-
(5).
conditions and obtained solutions for circular plates for vibrations and
for static flexure under a load symmetrical with respect to the center
but it was later shown that two of Poisson's boundary conditions were interrelated and both solutions were correct
(7).
Boussinesqfs
(8).
either very large or very small, the structure ceases to act as a plate and
the plate theory no longer applies.
During this same period, the interest was changing from the problem
of sound-producing vibrations to the problem of strength and stresses.
This
led to the need for numerical results from application of the theory.
Several
people worked on the problem of a plane boiler bottom supported by stay bolts.
Since this is essentially the same problem as that of a homogeneous flat slab
under uniform load, these solutions are of interest.
Lavoinne appears to be the first to arrive at a satisfactory
solution to the problem of the plane boiler bottom supported by stay bolts
(9).
l.-:::'_~,:]
-- -. l"unc'tlons
- ..
series dependi.ng
on -hyperbO.LlC
I~~'
\,..l.U).
Bach
In 1909, Ritz
(13).
Although this
This general
approach was later accepted by most practicing engineers and was incorporated
(in greatly modified form) into a number of building codeso
Although Nichols
2.2
t~~t
t9
concre te . ,.
forced concrete.
The first story walls were 12 in. thick and the second
grid of beams 26 in. on center and 6~5 inc deep reinforced with 5/16 to 3/e-in o
twisted wire rope.
a 1-1/2-in. slab reinforced with 3/16 x 3/8-in. steel flats .was cast over
the entire area.
-12-
iron bars throughout the bottom with wire mesh embedded in the concrete.
Between 1867 and the turn of the century, several other patents
were issued for various types of floor slabs constructed of concrete and
metal.
design was on the basis of a flat tied arch with the reinforcing bars acting
as tie rods.
suspension bridge.
in the shape of a catenary and the concrete was used as a filling material.
In both cases, the concrete was given only a minor role in the strength of
the structure.
-13load of 700 lbs per square foot with a maximum deflection of 5/8 in. at the
center of any panel.
at this load was only 1/4 in., thus} the first flat slab was a success.
A few years later, 1908, Robert Maillart, apparently unaware of
Turner's success, built a model of a modern flat slab and tested it to
failure (23).
The
flat
slab also offered other advantages such as flat ceilings and reduced over-all
height in multi-story buildings.
been constructed.
2.3
and at this time little was known about reinforced concrete as a construction
material, a load test was required of all early flat slab structures.
However,
it was not until 1910 that the first detailed test of a flat slab was made
and reported in the literature.
pa~er
in which they
(1)0
Table 1
shows some of the important features of the tests and the test structureso
Steel strains, concrete strains, and deflections were reported for the loaded
panels in nearly all of these tests
the straight-line theory did not properly consider the tension carried by the
concrete and should not be used without modification. *
commonly have a very low percentage of steel, the amount of tension carried
by the concrete is quite large and cannot be disregarded
Slater approached
this problem by first determining relations between steel strain and moment
in simple beams and then using these relations to determine the moments in
test slabs
(1)0
Recent tests
(26)0
Since Slater did not use beams cast of the same materials as those of the
test slabs, his adjustment of moments as measured from steel strains cannot
be considered rigorouso
-15consideredo
carried by adjacent panels and the neglect of the twisting moment around the
columns.
The amount of twisting moment carried by the concrete in the
vicinity of the columns depends upon the geometry of the supports, the
loading pattern, the amount of cracking y and the material properties
The
most important of these (for loads less than those which will cause general
yielding of the reinforcement) are the geometry of the supports and the loading pattern.
For slabs with circular capitals, the twisting moments are quite
the~
become more and more important until they reach a maximum for square or
rectangular columnso
Reference 17 indicate that, for the case of one strip of panels load.ed,
twisting moments at the columns may be as much as 15 percent of the total
stat ic moment in one panel.
the concrete began to crack, there is no doubt that a portion of this moment
would exist unless the slab were cracked through completely.
This accounts
for another portion of the discrepancy between the measured and computed
results but does not explain it completely.
Another source of error in interpretation is the neglect of moments
carried by the panels adjacent to those which were loaded.
neglecting these moments can be quite large.
computed moments at various sections with the center strip of panels loaded
It can be seen that the sum of the positive and negative moment in the center
panel is only about 75 percent of the sum of the positive and negative moments
tC(;3 I2G:t'crc~:/?c J'(~()Il
oi 11 i::':.~":::i
~GrDlt;;r
r31(1{:
J\''''L:~\
severe case than those of the early slab tests, it indicates that neglecting
the effect of adjacent unloaded panels can
p~ve
2.4
many engineers believed that flat slabs carried load in some mysterious way
the apparent discrepancy was due to the errors in interpretation cited above,
few people were willing to accept this explanation.
He then
suggested a simple approximate equation for this relation which gives results
within less than 1 percent of the static moment.
2 C)2
Mo -- lWLj (1 - 3
L
where
Mo
(1)
-17The early tests of flat slabs did not appear to verify thiso
Moments computed from steel strains on the basis of the straight-line
formula indicated that much lower moments were presented than Eqo 1 would
indicate.
On this basis, the 1917 edition of the ACI Building Code permitted
Mo
(2)
In order to
account for the tension carried by the concrete, he took the results of
several tests on simple beams and developed relations between measured steel
stresses and steel stresses which would exist if no tension were present in
the concrete.
in Section 23.
In order to compute the safety factor of the test structures, Slater
first determined the average stress in the steel which would exist under the
test load if no tension were carried by the concrete.
using the curves determined from beam tests to convert the measured steel
stresses to equivalent stresses with zero tension in the concrete and then
adding to this the dead load steel stresses computed by the straight-line
theory on the basis of the moment given by Eq. 1.
-18beam test results to determine the apparent steel stress when the steel
reached its yield point.
stress of the steel to the stress which was measured under the test load and
corrected for tension in the concrete.
load to test load.
accuracy of the results was limited by the accuracy of the beam test results.
This resulted in rather high values of the ratio of ultimate load to test
load.
Once the ratio of ultimate load to test load had been determined,
factors of safety were determined on the basis of working loads computed by
the various design methods.
steel was assumed to have an allowable stress of 16,000 psi at working loads
and a yield stress of 40,000 psio
The results of this investigation appear to be the primary justification for the empirical design method adopted by the ACI Building Code
earlier on a less theoretical basiso
working
low
s~re6S
minim~
to 20,000
fa:tor of safety.
rs~,
~he
above do not reflect the true capacity of a structure when isolated panels
are loaded.
structures will have a yield stress of more than the minimum 40,000 psi.
2.5
-19restricted the use of the Empirical Method to cases similar to those slabs
from which it bad been developed, it soon became apparent that a method
was needed for extending this method.
One of the first attempts to treat a reinforced concrete flat slab
structure as a system of equivalent two-dimensional frames was that presented
by Taylor, Thompson, and Smulski in Reference 27.
because, to quote the text, "the static bending moments do not take into
account several factors [sic] which reduce tensile stresses in flat slab
construction."
In 1929, a committee working on the California Building Code
carried on an investigation to determine the applicability of the Empirical
Method as well as to find a suitable method of extending it (28).
stu~,
From this
-20-
method of frame analysis which would give the same results as the empirical
analysis.
the same method later incorporated in the 1941 ACI Code (30).
In this
procedure, the structure was again broken down into a system of bents, each
one bay wide, and consideration was made of increased moments of inertia in
the region of the column capitals and drop panels.
determined and the negative moment was reduced to the value at a distance
xL was to be determined such that the total moment in a panel was the same
as that of the empirical methodo
be found by the
e~uation:
A*
x = 0.073 + 057 L
where
(3 )
A'*
This relation gave results which were very close to those fOlmd in the
empirical analysis.
re~uirements
Code (31) appears to be very much like that of the 1941 Code but the
apparently minor changes have a large effect in some cases.
is outlined in detail below.
The procedure
which do not fall within the limitations for the empirical design method,
Conse~uently,
each direction) (b) the ratio of panel length to width is greater than 1.33,
(c) successive span lengths differ by more than 20 percent) (d) columns are
offset more than 10 percent of the span, (e) the structure is more than
125 ft. high, or (f) story height exceeds 12 fto 6 in.
analysis is used to extend the empirical method to cases that do not fall
within the limits of the structures from which the empirical method was
developed
For the analysis, the Code specifies that the structure should be
divided into systems of bents in each direction conSisting of columns or
supports and strips of supported slabs each one bay wide
columns are assumed to be infinitely rigid within the confines of the column
capital where the dimensions of the capital are defined the same as A* in
Section 2.5.
If the
live load is variable, but does not exceed three-quarters of the dead load
or if the live load will always be applied to all panels, the structure may
be analyzed for uniform live load on all panels.
tions are met, the structure must be analyzed for alternate panel loading.
Once the moments are determined, the negative moments are allowed
to be reduced to those at a distance A from the centerline of the column.
The distance A is defined in ACI 318-56 as the distance from the center of
the support to the intersection of the mid-depth of the slab and a 45-degree
Mo
where
2c 2
(4)
Mo
= 1.15 - clL
and negative moments which are unrealistically high before the reduction is
applied.
torsional resistance of marginal beams and, in effect, assumes that they are
infinitely rigid in torsion.
Under some conditions, the combination of assuming excessive
stiffness within the COllliun and reducing the negatiVe moments to the value
at a distance A from the centerline of the support can result in extremely
low design moments.
Zweig has shown that, for the case of low live load to
those found for the Empirical Method and positive moments can be as much as
Since the Code does not state that moments should be increased
It is
3.
applicability~
Derivations of these
This equation is the same as the Lagrange equation with the term depending
on motion omitted.
The relations between bending moments, twisting moments, and
deflections can be represented by the following equations:
M =
x
2 *
2 *
N(O
w
-+o
} .w
l--)
ox2
oy2
2
= - N(~
}.l
oy2
= - N(l - }.l )
xy
(6)
02 *
_w_)
2
ox
02w*
CfX6y
(8)
V
y
oM
dx +
oM
xy
--;sy-
oM
oM
dy
dX
y +
xy
(10)
The Asterisk is used to prevent confusion with w, the unit load, used in
other chapters of this report.
-24-
be stated as follows:
(a)
(b)
(c)
(d)
50
(1)
(2)
~ea~~:ons,
3.2
In this study,
~,
7, and 8.
~uation
~.
3.1)
the plate in the vicinity of the supports, and type of load applied.
The
results of all solutions listed below are based on the following assumptions:
(a)
(b)
(c)
(d)
The boundary
The expression
q=I I
00
m=O
00
mn
cos
IIflTx
cos
E!!X
b
n=O
00
an integer, 1, 2, 3,
00
eo o . o . o .
(11)
-27a
mn
a constant to be determined
one-half the span length in the x-direction
w* =
I I
m=O
where
00
n=O
mn
cos
rrrrrx
rnry
cos
b
a
w*
a constant to be determined.
mn
(12)
mn
and
loading with the results for panels with alternate strips of positive
Lewe's solutions
are for a plate with constant stiffness throughoutj thus, the reactions
vanish for alternate positive and negative loading.
point in the panel for this loading condition
beam moment in a direction perpendicular to the loaded strips and are zero
in the direction parallel to the loaded strips.
The results. of the solutions obtained by Lewe are shown in Figs. 3
to 12.
~design sections~
equal to zero.
~~
Moments are
panel for positive moment and a line following the edge of the reactions
at the reaction and the centerline of the reactions between them for the
negative moment.
The results based on Lewevs work may be divided into three
separate categories.
These are:
1.
2.
3.
It can be seen that the scope of these solutions are quite limited.
In addition, the assumptions regarding the distribution of reactions and the
stiffness of the slab in the vicinity of the reactions are quite different
from those which exist in a real
st~cture.
3.3
Solutions obtained by
llotz
EQtCrc".:l~t t:r:~iL~~
~,
r::
'r,...
1-
For "this
e~uation
re~uired
to obtain the
the plate from which the difference equations can be derived directly.
N. M. Newmark developed such a model in Reference
34.
14).
characteristics:
1.
2.
4.
5.
The difference
e~uations
14 and 17.
14.
e~uations
e~uations
The
Dimensions and
In all cases
Poissonvs ratio,
~,
is taken as zero.
Reactions are
The area
within the drop panel is assumed to have a stiffness of four times that of
the slab.
the shear is assumed to be uniformly distributed over the area of the capital.
Two of the solutions, Ns4 and NS5, are for column capitals with varying
stiffnesses.
the same as that of the slab at the edge of the capital to the value given
in Table 3 at the center of the column.
In general, the results of Nielsenis solutions which are reported
Nie18en~s
-31In Reference
~,
equal to zero.
The results of Marcus' work which are presented below are for a
typical interior panel of an infinite array of uniformly loaded panels.
In
each case, the stiffness of the panel was assumed to be constant throughout.
The capitals were assumed to be
centers.
non~deflecting
all cases.
When directly comparable, the results obtained by Marcus are
generally in good agreement with those of Lewe and Nielsen.
Marcus used in his solutions contained enough points that errors due to the
approximation of the differential equations by difference equations should
be small.
extended to cover some additional cases and the results of this extension
are also presented.
In these investigations, the solutions of the simultaneous
equations were obtained by use of the ILLIAC (the University of Illinois
Digital Computer).
The
panels
s~uare
This
s~uare
re~uired
When this
condition is used, the solution of the problem shows that most of the shear
around the supports is concentrated on the corners of the capitals.
In
cases where non-uniform loads are considered, the columns are again assumed
to be infinitely stiff.
ShO'i-l
analyzed
B.Ild
panels.
Moments
given in Tatle 5 are the average moments across the section considered.
nega~ive
of the
mo~n:s
col~
The
due to the fa.:t that the assumption of infinitely stiff column capitals
increases tne:r
statics.
w~ue
Figures 24 through 28
In Table
to a structure with no marginal beams and the last case (UI94) refers to a
structure with a shallow beam on two sides and a deep beam on the remaining
two sides.
is designated as H and the ratio of the beam torsional stiffness to the plate
f
stiffness is designated as J.
a flezural stiffness equal to the stiffness of the slab while the torsional
stiffness of the shallow beam is one-fourth the stiffness of the slab.
In Figs. 29 through 32, the average moments at the design sections of each
panel are indicated.
~,
equal to zero.
Since it was possible to use a large number of unknowns in each of
the cases investigated at the University of Illinois, errors due to approximating partial differential equations by the corresponding difference
equations are quite small.
3.4
To
The
-34nagnitude of this couple was chosen such that a line drawn tangent to the
plate at the circle and passing through the center of the reaction would
have zero slope.
graphically in Reference 1.
The method of analysis used by Westergaard automatically specifies
the distribution of reactions and stiffness of column capitals.
By the use
of ring loads, the shear was required to be linearly distributed about the
perimeter of the column capital.
the slope of a line tangent to the slab at the ring and passing through the
center of reaction be equal to zero can be met, in the practical case, only
if the column capital is infinitely rigid.
The results of Westergaard's analysis by modified difference
solutions are shown in Table 7 and in Figs. 33 to 36.
table are the average across the design sections.
3.5
~,
As in all previous
equal to zero.
an expression for the total static moment in a panel with circular column
capitals.
expression.
1.
2.
-35)0
acting on this panel are represented by the total load acting on the slab,
wL 2 /2, and the total reaction, WL2/2J acting at the centerline of the column.
wc2rr"
The reaction around the capital has a total magnitude of wL 2 /2 - ---8acts at a distance of
c/~
and
The remaining
positive moment at the centerline of the panel, M , and the negative moment
p
4c
or
where
(14)
- rrL
- +
M
The
expressions for a number of cases were presented in that paper and are repeated
below along with those for other possible caseso
becomes~
-36-
For square panels and square capitals with the shear uniformly
distributed about the perimeter:
(16)
For rectangular panels and square capitals with the shear
uniformly distributed about the perimeter:
(18)
For square panels and square capitals with the shear concentrated
at the corners of the capital:
(20)
For rectangular panels and rectangular capitals with the shear
concentrated at the corners of the capitals:
(21)
l1~~z n'Jfcrcn~~ Deco.,
U~t~~TJity of Illinois
B -:. C;~ 11T-:-:EI,
2~Q ~. Rr min8 stree~
_""" !""":I""\"'!i'''
e~uations
e~uations 1
and
14.
elL, Equation
1 gives
14) but does not work as well for slabs with square capitals
16).
The above equations are correct for the conditions for which they
were developed.
The
Although it does
not give the distribution of moments, the method presents a simple means of
determining the total moment in a panel.
4.
4.1
shows the moments that Westergaard obtained by modifying Nielsen's finite difference solutions.
supports (Table 3), it was possible to show the variation of moments for
values of clL ranging from 0 to 0.3.
In computing
the distance A, the slab was assumed to have the minimum allowable thickness
-38-
-39of
L/36.
In accordance
be provided for is the smaller of the moments obtained by the two methods.
Consequently, 'if only uniform loading is considered, the empirical moment
would govern up to a
c/L.
7).
represent moments obtained by use of the ACI Code frame analysis and empirical
method.
shall be made, the entire reduction can be applied to either the negative or
the positive moment or a proportionate amount can be applied to each.
For
values of e/L larger than 003, the moments obtained by frame analysis can be
used
~ithout
fu~tber
Fig'~e
an infini te
a:-~ay
adjustment.
~epresents
the shear .as assumed to be uniformly distributed over the area of the capital.
In addition, N:elsen's solution for a capital with a variable stiffness (NS4)
and Marcus' solution for the assumption of shear uniformly distributed about
the perimeter of the column capital (MS2) are shown.
In order to compare
16 is also
This line falls below the one representing the case of shear uniformly
~lv~raity
tion of shear uniformly distributed over the area of the capital puts the
center of reaction closer to the center of the capital than in the case of
shear uniformly distributed about the perimeter of capital, Equation 16
should give moments less than those obtained on the basis of the first
assumption.
As expected,
It
can be seen that the moments found in the University of Illinois investigations are slightly higher than those given by Equation 19.
This is again in
circular capitals and square capitals, these moments are identical to those
shown in Fig. 39.
Figure 42 shows the moments at the positive and negative design
sections.
P~though
Fig. 41 indicated
that the rigidity of the column capital does not greatly change the sum of
the moments in a panel, Fig. 42 shows that there is an increase in negative
moment and a decrease in positive moment
increases.
show
the affects of
the size, shape, and stiffness of the column capital and the distribution of
shear around the capital.
There is still a
~uestion,
and
re~uire
no further discussion.
and the distribution of shear in the vicinity of the capital are not, however,
always known
there may
be very large differences in the relative stiffness of the capital and the
slab from those assumed in the analysiso
moment carried at the negative design section and the positive design section
but will not change the total moments in the panel so long as the distribution
of shear is not changed.
this distribution will be small and will not change significantly the total
moment in
~he
span.
centroid of the shear forces at the design section (perimeter of one-half the
capital) should be between those corresponding to shear distributed uniformly
along the perimeter and shear concentrated at the corners.
presented in Reference
Test. results
distributed about the perimeter may be close to reality in the case of flat
slabs.
comparisons can be made between design moments and theoretical moments in flat
-42slabs.
It is significant,
however, that the ACI frame analysis predicts the proper trend in the moments.
For slabs supported on square column capitals the positive and total design
moments computed by frame analysis are considerably lower than the theoretical
moments.
design moments which are too low for small values of clL but are larger than
the theoretical moments for extremely high values of c/L.
4.2
sectio~moments
flexure for plates are quite limited, the equations presented in Section 3.5
present a means of extrapolating the results to determine the effects of
changes in the ratio of the lengths of sides.
Figure 43 shows a comparison of total moment versus the ratio of
span lengths for the solutions presented in Tables 2,
lines represent the total static moment in terms of
Equation 17.
~and
WL~
4.
The solid
as computed by
1/8.
Figures 45 and 46 show comparisons of moments in the short span for ratios
of c/L
equal to
by Lewe and Marcus, these three figures include design moments based on the
provisions of the ACI Code.
in the average moment at the design sections as the ratio of length of panel
to width of panel increases.
is considerably less than that obtained by the theory of flexure for plates.
The negative design moments are also low but not as far below the theoretical
moment as in the case of positive moments.
in the discussion of square panels.
the proper trend in the positive moments but indicates that negative moments
in the short span decrease as the ratio of length to width increases.
This
In
The
moments and the c/11 ratios in this figure are given in terms of the length
of span considered.
~ne
line marked
~/La =
the long span and lines below show moments in the short span of rectangular
panels with various
~/La
ratios.
-44considered, geometry places limitations on the size capital that can exist
for a given ratio of Lb/La'
shown in Figs. 8, 9, 20,and 23 with those for square panels indicates how
the distribution of moment is changed.
tends to become uniformly distributed along the design section as the ratio
of the two span lengths increases, while the
mom~nt
to increase in the column strip and decrease in the middle strip of the
panel.
403
Typical Panel of Infinite Array of Square Panels with Strip Loading for
Maximum Positive Moment
In Sections 3.2 and 303, moments were presented for slabs with
The investigations
carried out at the University of Illinois consider the case of a slab supported
on columns with infinite flexural stiffness.
Figure 48a shows a comparison between moments based on the theory
of flexure for plates and design moments computed by the ACI Code frame
analysis.
flexural stiffness.
that the reaction is uniformly distributed over the area of the capital.
In
-45addition, the plate is assumed to have the same stiffness over the reaction
as it has at points outside the reactiono
hi~~er
the sum of the maximum positive and negative moments to be reduced to M , the
o
moments based on the frame analysis are higher than what would be generally
used in design.
No solutions based on the theory of flexure for plates are available
for a slab supported on columns with a finite flexural stiffness and having
alternate strips loaded for maximum positive moment.
idea of the effects of column stiffness J one solution was obtained for a slab
supported on columns with infinite flexural stiffness (Table
was for a flat plate without drop panels and with
ratio of 0.2.
s~uare
5).
This solution
columns and capitals results in most of the shear being concentrated at the
corners of the capitals.
positive moments which are slightly lower than those obtained on the basis of
other assumptions.
Figure 48b shows a comparison of this solution with moments obtained
by the ACI frame analysis.
frame analysis predicts a maximum positive moment which is smaller than that
computed by. plate theory.
the ACI frame analysis assigns too much stiffness to the slab in the vicinity
of the column capital.
the ACI frame analysis predicts positive moments which are considerably below
those obtained by plate theory.
The values plotted in Fig. 48 should not be interpreted as giving
the moments in an actual reinforced concrete flat slab loaded
to pr9duceJ~
_
: ....,-.- ('.::C
__
wOvz L - '
. t..,,. 0:'. '''-'--7).0)';.';.~ 1.,
,:~l.
J . -
Univers~.,
~E n"'.l~l.l
.)..1.1-\..; , " ,
l'
n
"'..
.
nine
c:.-':..r'
~r.
_...
'"
<:LoID
~
_~ I'\f'\i
u
possible extremes in the values of these moments and show how the moments
change as column stiffness changes.
In general} it appears
~hat
the frame
analysis predicts the correct trend in the moments in flat slabs loaded for
maximum positive moment as it does in slabs under uniform load.
In order
to approach this case in a real structure} the panel in question would need
to be at least the third panel from the edge in any direction.
require a structure of a minimum of twenty-five panels.
majority of panels in most structures
fa~l
This would
structure are ecige and corner panels and the center panel is similar to a
"first interlc:-- panel in a larger structure.
conditio~s,
the
~oent6
ra~io
As previously
mentioned, this results in the shear being concentrated at the corners of the
capital.
would be expected in an
actll~l
structnreo
moments in the edge panels are higher than those in an actual structure.
In
-47the structure with edge beams) the deep beams were assumed to be on two
adjacent edges and the shallow beams on the other two edges.
This resulted
the theory of flexure for plates are compared with design moments computed on
the basis of the provisions of the ACI Code.
ACI Code frame analysis) it was necessary to assume that the columns were so
short that they were infinitely stiff as compared with the slab.
The distance
A was computed on the assumption that the thickness of the slab was equal
to L/36.
the same as that in a uniformly loaded beam fixed at both ends and baving
an infinite moment of inertia for a distance L/20 from each end.
Table 8 indicates that the design momentsbased on the empirical
method are the same in the exterior rows of panels as in the interior row of
panels.
At the exterior column) the empirical design moments are larger than
included in the moments obtained by plate theory) this difference would not
be as large but the empirical design moments would still be greater.
At all
other design sections) the moments based on plate theory are larger than the
empirical design moments.
on the ACI Code frame analysis are-larger than either empirical moments or
the moments based on plate theory.
the plate theory moments and empirical design moments at the interior column
and at the positive moment section of.the center panel.
gives moments at the center of the edge panels which are considerably lower
-48than either the empirical design moments or the moments obtained by the
theory of flexure for plates.
Table 9 shows moments for the same structure with strip loading.
In the first case, the structure is loaded for maximum positive moment in
the edge panel and maximum negative negative moment at the exterior column.
It can be seen that the frame analysis gives positive moments which are too
small and negative moments which are too large.
Again,
the frame analysis gives positive moments which are lower than those computed
by plate theory.
gives moments which are lower than those obtained by plate theory.
The ACI frame analysis gives moments which do not agree with plate
theo~y
due to the fact that the frame analysis does not consider properly
the manner in which moments are carried in the vicinity of the column capital.
The slab on each side of the column will exhibit curvature even if the column
capital is infinitely stiff.
moments to the value at a distance A from the column centerline makes moments
at interior columns smaller than indicated by plate theory.
At the exterior
columns, the moments are so large initially that a reduction to the value at
the distance A gives negative moments which are still considerably in excess
of those obtained from the theory of flexure for plates.
In Table 10, theoretical moments and desi'gn moments are compared
for a uniformly loaded nine-panel structure with edge beams.
Moments based
-49on the theory of flexure for plates are not changed greatly except at the
exterior columns.
method requires that the edge beams be designed to carry a specified percentage of the load on the adjacent panel, the required design moment in the
exterior panels is increased.
requirement increases the combined design moments of the slab and beam to an
amount equal to or greater than the static moment.
sidered in Table 10, the static moment given by Equation 16 is 0.106 WL.
It
can be seen that, in each of the edge strips, the design moment required by
the empirical method is equal to or greater than the static moment.
The above comparisons indicate that, in a nine-panel structure
without edge beams, design moments obtained by either the ACI Code'empirical
method or frame analYSis will be lower than the static momen', in the panel.
Design moments at the edge columns are generally higher than those obtained
from plate theory.
beams plus those in the panel are greater than the theoretical moments.
not even fulfill its original purpose of giving approximately the same design
moments as the empirical method.
unusually stiff columns, this was not the major cause of the differences in
the moments.
will be discussed.
lle~z
~~Icr~n~c
Un.i\?"2rL;i_~-~"
')f
u00W
LLlin.oi~,
5.
It is apparent that
This suggests that the frame analysis can be modified to give results
which agree with those obtained from both plate theory and test results.
In this chapter, the effects of different assumptions for the
stiffness of the slab and columns are investigated to determine which assumptions give the most reasonable results.
-50-
one~balf
of a uniformly loaded
re~uired
by the
Chapter 2 that Code frame analysis assumes the slab to be infinitely rigid
within the limits of the column capital.
the slab must have zero deflection and zero curvature between the supports.
a consequence of this
re~uirement,
As
be
E~uations
It can
Specifically~
0,
the average moments on the slab are very close to those in an equivalent beam.
Conse~uently,
can be compared with positive moments in beams which are fixed at each end
equal to 0.1 and 0.2, Table 5 gives positive moments of 0.0386 WL and 0.0316 WL
respectively.
positive moments based on plate theory are larger and the differences are even
greater.
This comparison shows that for slabs supported on real columns the
the equivalent beam gives much lower positive moments than those obtained from
plate theory.
The assumption of infinitely rigid column capitals is unrealistic
even if double curvature and deflection between supports are accounted for.
In the case of a flat slab with column capitals, there will always be
significant deflections at the edge of the capital.
capital is used, the deflections at the support are quite small but nevertheless,
are present.
The solutions designated NS3 and
~.=
O.
the slab at the edge of the support to infinity at the center of the support;
and NS3 is for a capital with a stiffness equal to that of the slab throughout.
Positive moments determined by these solutions vary as follows:
NS3
0.0401 WL
Ns4
0.0358 WL
ill3
0.0316 WL
-53Since the solutions include three different assumptions for the distribution
of shear at the support, negative moment and total moment cannot be compared
directly.
the shear farther from the center of the reaction thereby reducing the total
moment in the span.
If a
assuming the equivalent beam to be infinitely rigid within the limits of the
column capital.
infinitely rigid
colUlT'ill
to it.
ir~~~:te
..
. ... .
applied to
~t~ ~"x~nt
combination
The
:~:~s~rated
Figure 50t..
The moments for the two nine-panel structures tabulated in Figs. 31
and 32 give an
~ndication
with no edge beams, the moments at the edge of the uniformly loaded nine-panel
slab average 0.030 WL (neglecting twisting moment at the columns) over the
width of the structure.
-54stiffnesses shown in Table 6 are added, the moment at the exterior columns
is increased to an average of o.o48WL on the shallow beam side and o.o49WL
on the deep beam side.
50)
panels and columns are important only in the exterior spans of a structure as
long as the span lengths are approximately equal.
ass~tions
As long
within each panel) the computed relative stiffnesses of adjacent panels are
not affected.
The problem
t~at
finitely rigid within the column capital and that the gross concrete section
be used at other points.
-55at the top of the column, this assumption does not appear to be reasonable. *
For this case it would be realistic to base the computed stiffness on the
actual moment of inertia of the column.
section of the column is reasonable since the columns are usually uncracked
at working loads.
The ACI Code also requires that the stiffnesses of the slab panels
be based on the gross section of the concrete and that the slab be assumed
to have an infinite moment of inertia within the confines of the column
capital.
unrealistic at working loads, any other assumption would require a great deal
of guesswork as to what sections should be assumed cracked or uncracked.
addition, it would greatly complicate the computations.
In
stiffnesses of the columns with respect to the slabs are not greatly changed
by the formation of a few cracks, moments of inertia based on the gross
concrete section appear to be the most desirable.
The assumption of an infinite moment of inertia within the limits
of the column capital does not appear reasonable.
direc~ly
slab on
over the column may be infinite, but the moment of inertia of the
ei~her
moment o[ inertia of the slab may be quite large within the confines of the
capital, the effective stiffness of this portion of the equivalent beam should
be based on a finite moment of inertia in order to take the curvature of the
slab into account:
The capital is defined to include the largest right circular cone with 90degree vertex angle that can be included within the outlines of the column.
-56Figure
The moment for a relative column stiffness of zero was taken from
Fig. 48a and the moment for a relative column stiffness of 1.0 was taken from
Fig. 48b.
It was then assumed that the moment was a linear function of the
relative column stiffness and the two points were connected by a straight line.
The broken line in Fig.
analysis and plate theory both predict the same trend in the maximum positive
moment with the frame analysis predicting consistently lower values.
As
This is done
where
W
D
W =
L
(22)
In addition, it
can be seen that an error in the assumed stiffnesses of either the slabs or
columns will not appreciably change the computed moments.
6.
In tills chapter, a
the results of tests on both elastic models and reinforced concrete models.
the fictitious section remains finite yet the increased stiffness in the
vicinity of the columns is accounted for.
square capitals, an assumed thickness over the column capital of twice the
thickness of the slab will give positive moments which agree with those found
by plate theory.
Figure 52 illustrates the assumptions necessary for determining
stiffnesses) carry-over factors) and
column capitals.
fixed~end
slab are determined on the basis of the dimensions shown for sections AA,
BE, and
ceo
-58-
e~uivalent
e~uivalent
moment of inertia which is constant over the column capital can be used.
The
~uite
e~uivalent
t~
Section CC in Fig. 52
would then have a moment of inertia, ICC' based on the dimensions shown except
that the effective depth over the column would be 175 t1e
The moments of
inertia at all other sections and the llEI diagram would remain as shown.
Figure 53 shows comparisons of positive moments in an interior
panel of a flat plate as determined by the theory of flexure for plates and
by both the proposed frame analysis and the ACI Code frame analysis.
In
Fig. 53a, the solid line represents moments found by means of difference
equations (Table 5).
obtained by the proposed frame analysis are in good agreement with those
obtained by plate theory.
are considerably lower for clL ratios in the common range used in flat slab
construction.
In Fig. 53b positive moments obtained by the proposed frame
analysis for a slab supported on circular capitals
obtained from the ACI Code frame analYSis and those obtained by Westergaard
-60(Table
7).
capitals, they may also be taken as a lower bound to the moments in a real
structure.
moments which are in good agreement with those obtained by plate theory while
the ACI Code frame analysis gives moments which are considerably lower.
In general, the proposed frame analysis appears to give good results
for the positive moment in a panel of an infinite array of uniformly loaded
panels supported on either square or circular column capitals.
It should be
noted that the above comparisons were based on Poissonvs ratio equal to zero.
As previously noted, finite values of
of positive moments.
would only
co~licate
of the method.
For interior columns, stiffnesses can be based on the moment of
inertia of
column
~he
cari~ls,
colUDh~
Once this
methods.
If a column capital is present at the top of an interior column,
the computation of stiffness becomes somewhat more complicated.
It is
apparent that the moment of inertia, within the enlargement of the capital,
slab or the drop panel, if one is present, the ,moment of inertia becomes
infinite.
assume that the l/EI diagram varies linearly from that of the column at the
base of the enlargement to zero at the intersection of the capital with the
bottom of the drop panel or slab.
In this figure, the distance H refers to the story height and the distance
t~/2
+ t2 refers to either the half depth of the slab or the half depth of
has been obtained, the stiffness of the column can be computed by ordinary
methods.
Computation of stiffnesses for exterior columns is a somewhat more
involved problem than is the one for interior columns.
In order to approach
At
the face of the column, the moment is transferred directly from the slab to
the column.
from the slab to the edge beams and then from the edge beams to the columns.
It should be noted that the portion of the slab which connects the exterior
columns serves the same function as an edge beam if no deepening of the slab
is provided.
If the edge beams exhibited an infinite torsional resistance so
that there was no rotation of the beam between the columns, the stiffnesses
of the exterior columns could be computed in the same manner as those of the
interior columns.
stiffness of the column due to tWisting of the beam must be taken into account.
This may be done by considering the exterior beam-column combination as a
single element and computing the average stiffness of this member.
For a beamequation~
(23)
stiffness of the beam-column combination
where
ID1
of the distribution of the torque along the beam and the torsional stiffness
of the beam.
(1) The
t~i6ting
assumptions~
is considerably in error in a corner panel where beams frame into the column
from
t~o
(2)
reasonable to consider the portion of the slab equal to the width of the column
capital as offering torsional resistance.
L-shaped section including this same portion of the slab in combination with
(3)
col~
For
extend from the centerline of the capital to the intersection of the centerline of the edge beam with a 45-degree line extended outward from the corner
of the capital.
(4)
The restraint
against warping at the midspan of the beam does not affect significantly the
torsional rotation of the beam.
shown that this is true so long as the beam is shallow with respect to its
length.
Figure 55a shows the combined beam-column member for which the stiffness is
to be obtained.
centerlines.
moment at each section is known, the unit rotation diagram (Figo 55d) can be
obtained by the ordinary procedures for non-circular cross sections (37).
The expression for the curvature at any point is given by the following
expression:
(24)
where
twisting moment
M~~~
Referen03 n~
'tintv~Bi:f;y
of IllinoiS
-64b2
h~ =
2:
expression~
L(l - C/L)2
16 G
where
G =
13
b:lhi
= 2(1
expression~
E
+ Il)
(26)
L t3
b~ hl. ,
may be obtained by dividing the cross section into two rectangular parts,
3
JLlthough there
is a small amount of error in this procedure, the results will be sufficiently accurate for use in an equivalent two-dimensional frame analysis.
The values of 13 as a function of
b~/hl.
tor~ue
It would be possible to
but this would complicate
the value of at by the ratio of stiffness of the slab without the beam to that
of the slab including the beam.
equation:
I
s
atv = at y--
(26)
sb
where
I
Isb
ef
and
et
Moments at
the panel centerlines and shears at the columns can be then determined by
ordinary methods.
At this stage.of the analysis it becomes necessary to reduce the negative moments to the value at the design sectionso
tion may be extended to a uniform distribution across the entire design section.
-66Once this assumption has been made, the negative moments can be reduced by
the moment of the shear taken about the column centerline.
The method of obtaining the negative moment reduction for a
column is illustrated in Fig.
57
s~uare
The
symbol, V, represents the total shear at the column centerline (as determined
from the equivalent frame analysis), v
the perimenter of the half column, and all other terms are as defined
previously.
shown~
design section can be ID9.de according t"o the coefficients in the ACI Code.
6.2
s~uare
an over-all height of 10 in. as measured from the base of the column to the
surface of the slab.
their bases.
'I.Tt1tl'1't.
A maximum of
seven gages was used on each line with several lines having only five gages.
As a result of using the limited number of gages, it was necessary in some
cases to extrapolate the test results in order to obtain moments at the design
sections.
Table 11 gives a comparison of measured moments with those obtained
by the proposed frame analysis and by the ACI frame analysis.
The values
given in the table are the average moments across the entire structure.
It
can be seen that the total moment measured in each span is in good agreement
with the total moment obtained by the proposed frame analysis and is considerably higher than that obtained by the ACI analysis.
obtained by the proposed analysis, although low, are in better agreement with
the measured moments than are those obtained by the ACI frame analysis.
At
the interior column design sections, the proposed method gives coefficients
which are higher than the measured values while the ACI analysis gives moments
which are t:.g:Je r than measured in the exterior span and about the same as
measured
l~
analysis
fred~c:s
:~e
lr.terior span.
the proposei me:hod gives a coefficient which is much closer to the measured
value.
In
Re~erence
= 0.33
slab should exhibit higher positive moments and lower negative moments.
-68This correction would make the measured moments agree even more closely with
those obtained by the proposed method.
would be unchanged, the moments obtained by the ACI Code frame analysis would
still not agree with the measured moments.
Bowen and Shaffer have reported the results of a test on a flat plate
model made of Lucite (40)0
In order to
a load was applied to this overhang in order to reproduce the shear at this
section of an interior panel.
The
tures by means of relations developed from the theory of flexure for plates.
Table 12 gives a comparison of measured moments with those computed
by both the proposed frame analysis and the ACI frame analysis.
This table
shows that the total moment measured in the panel is in good agreement with
that computed by the proposed frame analysis but, as expected, is considerably higher than that computed by the Code frame analysis.
tive and negative design sections, the proposed method again gives good
agreement with the measured moment while the ACI analysis is low.
The measured moments are based on a value of Poisson'S ratio of
0.18.
for concrete, it would be expected that the measured moments would be very
nearly the same as might be expected at the design sections of a reinforced
~o
= 0.37)
ture consisting of nine panels supported on columns with the remaining panels
acting as a continuous cantilever around the edge.
square, 0.8 cm thick, and were supported on circular column capitals 10.4 cm
in diameter giving a clL ratio of 004.
and had a length, from base of the column to the mid-depth of the slab, of
15.6 em.
During the tests, the columns were supported on a rigid base.
Loads
~hich
ments
~ere
meas-w~ed
moments were
reported for the center panel, an edge panel, and a corner panel.
were
repor~ed
No moments
1/6)
with
those computed by both the proposed frame analysis and the ACI frame analysis.
Both uniform loading over the entire structure and strip loading for maximum
positive ooment in the center panel are considered.
For uniform loading over the entire structure, measured morrents
are in good agreement with those computed by the proposed frame analysis.
The agreement is good at both the positive and negative design sections.
As
in the model tests cited previously, the total measured moment is in good
agreement with the static moment in the span.
-70the ACI frame analysis are considerably lower than the measured moments. *
For the case of strip loading, the total moment measured in the
center panel is again in good agreement with that computed by the proposed
frame analysis
At the posi-
tive design section, the maximum moment computed by the ACI frame analysis is
even less than that measured under uniform load.
In general, the proposed method gives good results for this model.
Where differences exist, they can be attributed to the unusual layout of the
model and to the effects of Poissonvs ratio as discussed previously.
~uarter-scale
dimensions of two of these models (a flat plate and a flat slab) and the
test setup are described in References 42 and 43.
~uarter-scale
nine-pan~l
structure
The structure had
sides and shallow edge beams were provided along the other two.
The structure
was designed in such a way that the torBional and flexural resistances provided by the edge beams were nearly the same as in the slab analyzed by finite
The measured and computed moments are given for capitals with a cjL of 0.4.
Since the capitals use4 in the model have curved rather than straight sides,
thec/L ratio would be about 0.3 according to the ACI Code definition. Since
moments at this section of the capital were not reported, all comparisons were
based on the larger capitalso
-71
difference met.hods and reported i.n Table 6 (UI94 j
layout and dimensions of the t.est. slab are shown in Fig. 580
The structure was loaded by means of nine hydraulic jacks.
jack was provid.ed. for each panel of the structure
One
Moments at
the design sections of each panel were determined by measuring strains in the
(44)0
In addition
column
reactions were measured and moments across the entire structure were computed
from theseo
In Table 14 measured moments across the entire structure and in
the center row of panels are compared with computed moments.
The measured
moments are those obtained with the fu.ll design load on the structure.
Comparing the moments across t.he entire struct.ure shows that the
moments obtained by finite difference solv.ttons (UI94) compare fayorably with
measured ID:>ID6nts in the center bay of panels.
moment section can be ascribed t.o the slight differenc.e in the stiffness of
the columns assUlJled in the analysis and. that. in the test structure.
In the
exterior bays", the finite difference solution gives moments at the exterior
columns which are larger tban measuredo
These dif-
ferences are due to the fact tl".at.9 in the analysis the edge columns were
assumed to have infinite flexural rigi.di ty "flo/hile in the test model", the edge
columns were fIe xi ble
a.t individual sections. the over-all agreement is the best of any of the
9
computed moments
Moments
obtain~d
by
-72Code are lower than the measured moments at all sections except the exterior
columns.
The differences at these sections are due to the fact that these
analysis gives negative moments which are slightly higher than those measuredQ
This is due to a difference between the assumed distribution of shear around
the columns and that which actually existed in the structure.
these differences are on the safe side.
In all cases,
moments for the interior row of panels are considerably lower than the
measured moments at all sections except the exterior columnsQ
panel, the difference is more than 20
percent~
In the center
differences and by the proposed frame analysis are in about the same relation"
to the measured moments as they were in the comparisons of Table 14Q
Moments
determined by the ACI empirical method are generally higher than the moments
empirical method, the edge beams are considered separately and are designed
to carry a certain fraction of the panel load.
As would be
expected, the moments measured in the edge beams were much lower than would
be determined by the empirical methodo
The quarter-scale flat slab model contained nine 5-ft square panelso
Both drop panels and column capitals were provided.
was 0.20
bases.
All columns were 1 ft 10-1/4 in. long and were hinged at their
Deep edge beams were provided along two adjacent sides and shallow
59.
Loads were applied by means of the same system used to load the
nine-panel flat plate.
All measured
moment coefficients are those obtained with the full design load on the
structure.
Over the entire structure, moments obtained by the proposed frame
analysis compare well with the measured moments.
positive computed moment is lower
t~~n tp~t
measuredo
moment in the center bay which is somewhat smaller than Ireas ured
ference is not large" however.
The dif-
Ip
this model,
large~
flexible~
the
redu~tion
in stiffness
caused by the rotation of the edge beams has little influence 'on the over-all
stiffness.
agreement with the measured values, the co~rison is not valid because a
large portion of this moment is assigned to the beamso
As expected,
moments computed by the ACI frame analysis fall below those measured.
The
empirical moments for the center strip are considerably less than measured
moments at all sections except the exterior columns.
method does not consider the stiffness of the exterior columns, it provides
for moments which are higher than those developed at the section.
Table 1 7 shows a com:par1son of measured and computed moments in the
exterior rows of panels.
li~es
evidence
row
0:
s~:'1'fer
c~
~hus
~hi5
moments for
moments.
elements.
~be
Aga:~,
Further
~as
for the
~alysis
and
empirical method predict moments in the slab which are lower than those
-75measured.
moments by considering the beams separately and designing them for a certain
percentage of the panel load
are much lower than the empirical moments would indicate while the moments
in the slab are correspondingly higher
analysis predicts moments which are in good agreement with those measured
The comparisons show that, in all cases, the proposed method is in better
agreement with the test results than are the other methods of computation.
At the exterior row of panels, the proposed method consistently predicts
moments which agree with the tests while the ACI methods predict values which
agree with the tests in obly's few cases.
JJr.bana ..111iDQiEl
618Q1:
7.
701
NL~ICAL
EXAMPLE
Description of Structure
This chapter presents a numerical example of the proposed frame
Fig. 59.
In order to analyze the center row of
structure is divided into three rows of panels
panels~
This
For
simplicity~
,the illustrations
show the entire column at the center of the panel rather than half of it at
each side.
Figure 60 shows the layout of the row of panels considered
The
cross sections give the dimensions of the structu.re at the places necessary for
the determination of the stiffnesses of the equivalent two-dimensional frame.
For purposes of illustration.? the Gross moment d.istribution procedure (35) is
cons ide red in this example
the final mo:nents in the equivalent two-dimensional frame using the stiffnesses
of the individual members determined as shown hereQ
7 .2
AA~ BBs
Section M gives the dimensions of the slab between drop the panels, Section BB
gives the dimensions within the drop panelsJand Section CC gives the dimensions
over the column capital.
-76-
-77~
Since the exterior column capitals are not identical to those of the
interior columns, the exterior panels are not symmetrical.
-the exterior column capitals are shown in Section DDo
1M
26080 ino
~B
48000 ino
ICC
91.29 ino
IDD
66078 ino 4
The numerical
are~
The l/EI
0
~espectively.
co~uted
on the basis
From the
l/EI diagram in Fig. 6ld, the numerical value of the rotation of theend of
the column, 8 , due to a unit moment applied at the top of the column
f
e
f
is~
0.220
E
et ,
of the
follows~
G = E/2
= 60
elL = 0.283
-793
Part
I3b~hl
b/h
t3
3000
00264
12067
II
3028
0.270
8032
2099
becomes~
e = 0.184
E
ef
and
!<bc
et
becomes~
2048E
The shallow beam can also be divided into two parts (Fig. 62b}o
The
Part
= 60
elL
= 0.283
b/h
1.80
00218
II
1.86
00221
15 33
0
3085
19018
Substituting into Equation
becomes:
e = 0.200
t
The stiffness of the combined shallow beam and edge column is then
found to
be~
-80Table 18, the moments at the column centerlines and panel centerlines are
found to
be~
-0.046
-00121 -00101
-00101 -00122
+0.043
-0.042
SHALLOW BEAM
be~
w
I~
O.420~]
0.425
SHALLOW BEAM
DEEP BEAM
may
be found by assuming the reaction linearly distributed along the face of the
beam and the column and then summing up the moments about the design section.
This is done in the same way as illustrated in Figo 57 for an interior
column.
After these reductions have been made, the moments at the design
are~
W/WL
+00042
-00078 -00064
+0.024
I..
SHALLOW BEAM
-00064 -00078
+0.043
-0.036
I
DEEP BEAM
80
SUMMARY
In the
Moments
determined from plate theory included solutions by the use of finite difference
methods and by the use of a double-infinite Fouxier Series.
included the following
These solutions
conditions~
1.
2.
3.
4.
5-
6.
mome~~s
However, the
co~~isons
On the basis
~Design
20
30
si~llate
an
jl
a~e
suffiCiently
moments obtained by the proposed frame analysis differ from measured moments at
some sectiOns, the agreement is generally geode
obtained by the proposed frame aD..alysis are in bet teT agreement with the
measured moments than are those computed by the methods of the 1956 ACI Codeo
On the basis of this investigation.? the following general conclusions
are
reached~
1.
The present ACI Code frame analysis gives moments which are
lower than either those obtained on the basis of plate theory
or those measured in tests on models.
2.
30
40
This example
illustrates how the proposed frame analysis can be applied to a typical strip
of panels.
B106 HeEL
208 N. Romine Strge~
J1rb2Il.a t_IllillQia RJ.ijJ)lJ
REFERENCES
1.
2.
K~
Slab8,~
8.
10.
II.
Ba.ch~
12.
13
Ri tz, W., i?Ueber eine neue Methodi zur Lossung gewisser Variationsprob1eme der mathernatischen PhyS'ik, q? Crelles Journal) V 135, 1909,
pp. 1-61.
C.
150
Marcus y H., wDie Theorie elastischer G6webe und ihre Anwendung auf die
Berechnung biegsamer Platten 7 w Julius Springerp Berlin~ 19240
160
17.
May 19590
18.
PIlo
19.
Re~uirement
v.
in
77J 1914:;
1670-16810
20.
The
21.
220
Discussion
of~
~Concrete
~Reinforced
24.
VO 7, 1911,
ppo
156-1190
250
26e
SlabsJ~
270
Reinforced,~
28.
290
Di Stasio J J.
300
31.
320
330
Lewe~
34.
350
360
37.
VO J
npilzdecken,~
(ACT 31B-56).
Elasticity~9V
McGraw-Hill,
2nd
Edition~
380
~oments
in Flat
SlabsJ~
Trans
ASCE~
39.
of~
Trans
ASCE,
v.
123,
41.
420
Stockholm 1959.
Ql.ia:.rter-Sca~e
Hatcher, D. S., Mo A., So zen, and Ce p" Siess, WAn Experimental Study of
a Quarter-Scale Reinforced Concrete Flat Slab Floor,91i Civil Engineering
Studies, Structural Research Series No. 200, University of Illinois,
Urbana, Illinois, June 19600
440 Mlla, Fo
TAB.I..E
Pane1 Dimensions
(La and ~)**
Co1tmm. Head
Diameter1 c, in.
Shredded
Wheat
Je:rsey
City
Factory
D&1ry
Co ..
Bldg.
20'-0"
by
22'-0"
"8"
"r
by
by
by
e/La **
0.175
0.288
e/~**
0 .. 159
San:1:tar;y
Bbonk
Larld..D
Can
Factory
Bl.d8.
Bl.d8 ..
F.ranks . 8bDl..ze
Bldg.
BakiDg
Co.
Bldg.
42
Slab Th1ckness 1
Purdue
Teat Slabs
45
22'-0'
by
22'-0-
22'-0- 20'-0by
by
22'-0" 24'-2"
20'-}"
20'-0"'
by
by
11'-4" 11'-6-
Vea-terD
1Ievs:peper
llnk1Il
BLiJg ..
IIortlnrestern
Gl.aas
Co.
Bell
Street
Bldg.
International
Hall
Warehouse
BlM
2O'~11
18'-0"
2{)'-9"
2O'~1I
18'-0
56
57
54
40
11"-4f
1.6'-0"
20'-0"
19"~
2
by
by
11'-0"
~~
by
Channon
by
by
60
60
60
44
54
O.2}4 0.234
0227
0.227
0.250
0.1&
0225
O~59
0292
0.238
0.225
0.185
0.262
0.2}4 0.2}4
0227
0.22.7
0.208
O.;t90
0251
O.2}2
0.275
0.229
0.225
0.185
1.29
5.TI 5.41
J.D. 51
10.8
9.25
8.87
8.5
8.08
10.86
9.13
10
7.74 1.61
14.01
1}.08
13.25
14.28
JIoDI~
None
None
45
71
1~
2
None
in.
Drop Panel
15.75
Thickness 1 in.
No. of Panels
282
508
522
8?2
532
535
130
428
722
1019
349
8}4
750
483
Waded
"*** For
10
of short open
11
OJ
-:j
TABLE 20
Designation
Ratio of
Spnn Lengths
11/ Ln
Distribution
of Reaction
Distribution
of Load
C/Ll
Positive
Negative
Sum
LSl
Point
Uniform
0.0412
000838
001250
132
0.125
Uniform
Uniform
0.0407
0.0612
0.1019
1S3
0.250
Uniform
Uniform
0.0391
0.0437
0.0828
1s4
0333
Uniform
Uniform
(}.-O376
00337
0.0713
IB5
00500
Uniform
Uniform
0.0308
0.0123
000431
i
LRl
Long Span
Short Span
2
2
0
0
Point
Point
Uniform
Uniform
0.0400
0.0410
00<1336
000840
0.1236
001250
LR2
10ng Span
.Short Span
2
2
00125
00250
Uniform
Uniform
Uniform
Uniform
0.0364
0.0406
0.0428
0.0606
0.0792
001012
1S2S
0.125
Uniform
Alternate
Strips
0.0831+
L83S
0.250
Uniform
Alternate
Strips
0.0812+
184s
0333
Uniform
Alternate
Strips
0.0811+
*
**
-+
1t
.&5
~
TABLE 30
Designation
Io/La*
**
elL).
Distribution
of Reaction
Stiffness in Capital/Stiffness
at Centerline of Slab
Edge
NSI
Point
NS2
Point
NS3
0.20
Uniform
Ns4
0.20
NS5
0.40
NR6
Long Span
Short Span
Line
Uniform
Center
0.0425
0.0825
0.1250
4+
4+
0.0294
00956
0.1250
0.0401
0.0517
00918
00
0.0358
0.0539
000897
0.0326
000283
0.0609
8
co
'-0
I
150
1050
0
0
Point
Point
0.0464
0.0437
000787
0.0813
0.1250
001250
TABLE
Designation
4.
*
Io/La
c/L **
1
Distribution of
Reaction
Stiffness in Capital/Stiffness
at Centerline of Slab
Edge
Center
Positive
Negative
0.0436
0 .. 0814
0.1250
Sum
MSl
Point
MS2
0.25
Line
000356
0.0439
000795
133
133
0.125
0.166
Line
Line
1
1
0.0404
0.0412
0.0636
0.0564
0.1040
00976
MR3
Long Span
Short Span
*
**
\0
0
I
TABLE
Designation
~So
elL
Distribution of
Reaction
Distribution of
Load
MLWL
Positive
Negative
Sum
UrI
0.,1010
Concentrated at Corners:
of Capital
Uniform
0.0386
000632
0.1018
UI2
0,,125
Concentrated at Corners
of Capital
Uniform
0.0361
000611
000962
UI3
0,,200
Concentrated at Corners
of Capital
Uniform
0.0316
000464
0.0780
i
UI4
0,,250
Concentrated at Corners
of Capital
Uniform
0.0284
0.0401
0.0685
UI5
0 . 200
Concentrated at Corners
of Capital
Alternate Strips
0.0350*
0.0411*
0.0761*
Moments are those in a direction perpendicular to the loaded stripsj thus, the positive
moment is the maximum possible under any loading conditions. Negative moment is given
for information only.
\0
t--'
i
TABLE 6
De signa tion
Mar~inal
elL
Deep Beams
Beams
Panels Loaded
Shallow Beams
Hf
UI91
0.1
1,
4, 7
UI92
0.1
2,
5, 8
UI93
0.1
All
UI94
0.1
0.25
0.25
1.00
0.25
All
\0
(\)
I
TABLE
Designation
~/La*
MLWL~
Distribution of
Reaction
Positive
Negative
Sum
WSl
0.15
Line
0.0361
0.0653
0.1014
WS2
0.20
Line
0.0334
0.0594
00928
WS3
0.25
Line
0.0319
0.0522
0.0841
ws4
030
Line
0.0283
0.0456
0.0739
I
\0
~
*
**
fg
~~
~!2:
~ta ~
Hh-4~I-'-~
~ooC+(J)
:t:am~
~~zoii
~G)oH,
~
r"
'Cn~
~ ([)
00 CD
9. tt
~
<D
::1
...... ~
0
Io-ht="
CD
TABLE 8.
'II
HR S
I
Uniform Load
T U
'II
'I
! I
SV
Sum
Stun
0093
0095
0.089
00062
0.061
0.056
0.037
00034
0.031
0099
0095
0.087
U'Ti
Ri
Moment Coefficients of WL
Sectlon
~r
0.029
0.061
0.041
0.044
0.034
0.040
0.069
00061
0.056
'D
0.032
0.061
00041
0.044
0.034
0.040
0.065
0.061
0.056
0093
0C95
0.089
0.062
0.061
0.056
0.038
0.034
0.031
0.100
0095
0.087
0093
00095
0.089
00a52
0.061
0.056
0.037
0.034
0.031
0099
0095
0.087
Entire Structure
Computed Moments (U of I)*
ACI Code Frame Analysis**
ACI Code EmJ~irical
0.030
0.061
0.041
0.044
00034
0.040
0.068
0.1061
0.1056
TABLE 9.
r:=r=rIR
Strip Loads
'I'
Moment
Section
I1
T U
TV
[-T:::' I I
l:::::r:.l
Sf
Ri
Coefficients of WL
...c>
I'
Sum
0.0<)8
0.015
0000C)
Sum
Entire Structure
Computed Moments (U of I)*
ACI Code Frame Analysis**.
~F.~I
i
f
0.048
0.034
0.032
0.061
0095
-r~--r~
V
~v
STU
00053
0 .. 061
~
Ra ,
S9
Section
...c')
Sum
Sum
0.047
0.061
0.046
0.034
00093
0095
\0
V1
I
Entire Structure
Computed Moments (U of 1)*
ACI Code Frame Ana1ysis**
II
Section
0.002
0
in
1=:1 ~
R
00004
0.012
()
1LIt=C
Sum
~I
Hi
U9
Sum
0.051
00034
0.044
Q.CX)l
0.105
0095
~9
rp9
"RV
T.9
S'i
Ro
0.004
0
0 . 002
0
Ent.ire Structure
Computed Moments (U of I)*
ACI Code Frame Analysis**
*
**
0.030
0.061
0.044
0.034
0 . 065
0 .. 061
0.092
00095
0.064
0.061
00011
0
Sum
TABLE 100
f~
~h
~I
U9 TV
I
Si
Shallow Beam
II
Ri
Deep Beam
Moment Coefficients of WL
Section
0.051
0.c61
0.067
Sum
UQ
Sum
T9
So
Ru
Sum
0.100
00095
0.124
o.c63
0.061
00080
00042
00034
0.051
00052
00061
00070
0.100
00095
00126
00062
00061
00068
00100
0095
0.107
00063
00061
0.068
0.042
00034
0.045
0.049
00061
0.057
0098
00095
00108
00100
0095
0.085
0.062
00061
0.056
0.043
0~o46
00034
0.031
0.a)1
0.061
00054
00034
00040
0.061
00043
0097
0095
00090
0.038
00034
00038
00061
0.<X>1
00067
00100
00095
00105
00063
00<::61
0.a58
00043
0.034
0.045
0.049
0.061
0.057
0099
00095
0.049
00061
0.054
0.042
0.084
0.045
0.063
0.061
00068
00098
00095
0.106
0.062
00061
0.068
0.038
00034
0.039
0.045
00061
0.041
00043
00034
00040
00062
0.061
00056
00097
0095
00089
0.061
0.061
0.054
0003~
Entire Structure
Computed Moments (U of 1)*
ACI Code Frame Analysis**
ACI Code Empirical
0.048
0.061
00054
0.042
0.034
0.045
0.063
0.061
00068
00098
0095
0.106
00062
0.061
0.061
OoloB
\.0
0\
I
TABLE 11.
'I'
-Lt-L
s
Uniform Load
'II'
Uq
LUI
'I
Ti
11
SQ
Sum
Sum
Ri
Moment Coefficients of WL
Section
Entire Struc:ttire
Mea.sured Moments
0.027
0.047
0.051
00086
0.049
00039
00088
0.021
0.043
0 . 069
00088
0.057
00031
0.088
0.015
0.033
0.057
0.069
00048
00021
00069
at
~~.
~~
!'
~
,
~t
~ ~I
~~P;
~~o-1~l
J-I~<1>
..
1-"_0
0 1-,
gtj!Z;~CI)
~ ~
.,.~~t:!g
i1
ii
\!)
~~
-98-
Uniform Load
IhI
I U~
Moment Coefficients of WL
Section
Sum
Measured Moments
0.0724
0.0426
0.1150
0.0741
000410
0.1151
0.c667
0.0366
0.1033
-99-
TABLE 13 c
Uniform Load
.1
Moment Coefficients of WL
Section
Sum
Measured Moments
0.033
0.030
Oc~3
0.031
0.0;3
0.064
0.023
0.018
0.041
Sum
Measured Moments
0.0l2
0 .. 051
0.063
0.021
0.043
0.064
00018
0.023
0.041
Strip Loading
It t i t.1
i
Section
TABLE 14.
~I
Uniform Load
I I I I I
~IL
III
U r TV
~91
I
S'
Deep Beam
Sballow' Beam
Moment Coefficients of WL
Section
Sum
Ui
Sum
Tg
Si
R9
Sum
0.062
0.101
00064
0.048
0.035
00098
Moments Measured
from Strains+
0.029
00052
Entire Structure
00069 0.101 0.063 0.038
Moments Measured
from Reactions+
0.030
0.053
0.078
00107
00071
00037
00070
O.loB
0.078
0.052
00041
00112
00043
0.051
0.062
0.061
00068
0.039
00038
0.061
00068
0.100 00062
000106 00092
00052
0.046
00031
0097
00114
0.058
0.036
00090
00066
00096
00108
00043
0.045
0.024
00098
0.061
0.034
0.061
00095
0.066
0.036
00058
0098
00049
00031
00011
00091
00063
00041
0.063
00104
0.071
00031
00052
00093
Differenee
Solutions (UI94)*
Interior
Moments Measured
from Strains+
Ro~
of Panels
00025
0.049
00066
0095
00063
00039
0.063
00103
0.058
0.041
00032
0092
0.053
0.048
00062
00088
00096
o.loB
0.039
0.037
00061
0.069
0.100
O.lOS
0.043
0.048
0.046
00041
00091
0.113
0.058
0.036
00066
0098
0.061
0.069
0.061
00062
00045
0.034
0.034
00061
0.036
0.058
0098
00042
00040 0.058
0090
0.051
00031
0.051
0095
00082
00040
0.044
00051
Difference
Solutions (UI94)*
0090
0.066
0.058
.....I
0
0
I
TABLE 15.
I~
T9F
Shallow Beam
I I I
V
I'
I
S'
UfI T'
I I
R'
Deep Beam
Moment Coefficients of WL
Section
Sum
uw
Sum
T'
Sf
Ri
Sum
0.030
00051
0.06B
0.100
00058
0.030
00058
0.088
0.069
0.044
0.037
00097
Difference
Solutions (UI94)*
0.051
0.041
o.06~~
0.098
00062
0.038
00062
00100
00063
00042
0.052
00099
0.026
0.053
0008;;
0.108
0.055
00059
o.08~~
0.128
0.072
0.048
0.072
0.120
00082
0.059
0.059
0.130
00032
0.055
Difference
*
Solutions (U194)
0.049
0.042
o007~~
0.107
0.068
0.046
0.068
0.113
0.065
0.052
0.036
0.103
00098
0.062
0.038
0.062
0.099
0.063
0.042
0.049
0.033
0.063
0.048 0.086
0.108
0.069
0.038
0.069
0.106
0.088
0.049
0.041
0099
00114
0.051
0.053
o. 071~
0.115
00066
0.043
0.066
0.108
0.074
0.053
00054
0.111
,
........
......
8
TABLE 160
f~
Shallo'J
Uniform Load
I I
~-I+=L
r:=r,
LII'
I 1
I .
S9
U' TV
11
R9
~~~m
Deep Beam
Moment Coefficients of WL
Section
Sum
Ui
Sum
T9
Sv
Ro
Sum
Entire Structure
Moments Measured
from Strains+
0.025
00050
00083
00104
00077
00035
0.073
00110
00081
00048
00040
OoloB
Moments Measured
from Reactions+
0.023
00049
00cx59
00095
00059
0.035
OoOS8
00093
00070
0.049
00040
00104-
00019
00046
00088
00100
00061
00027
0.061
00088
00098
00022
00031
00058
0.071
00050
00021
00050
00071
00058
0.031
00022
00071
0.044
00041
00 (X)3
00095
00058
00032
o o5fL-o~090 0.063
00041
00047
00096
~f-
00041
00067
00084
0.059
0.008
()0059
00087
0.022
0.031
00058
00071
00050
00021
00050
00071
00058
0.031
00022
00071
0.0360.029
0.048
0.071
00043
0.023
00043
0.066
00048
00029
0.037
00071
Proposed Frame
-+:-
Ana~1ys is
t-'
2i
TABLE 17.
rr=r
~fu
I
s
II
Sw
U 9Tg
Shallow Beam
II
Ri
Deep Beam
Moment Coefficients of WL
Section
Sum
uo
Sum
Tv
00094
00132
00101
00059
R~
Sum
0.026
00052
0.014
0.050
~)ments
0.051
00099
00084
00050
00074
0.114
00038
0.100
0094
00071
00112
00070
00037
00010
00107
00042
0.130
0.109
00074
00114
00050
00052
t-'
8
Q
~R
~!"
Moments Measured
from Strains+
0,,021
00023
00093
00100
00076
0.024
0.046 00043
0.067
O~lOO
00062
00035
!r._.,)
?~ ~.c
~
~)
l'
~1
(,
I
It ~ ~~:~,
~ ~ I .
6l~i;;-ijd'.
:';>J)'
,~
~:-
I,m~
a~
~~,
00057
00042
p~,
III
00076
00062
0.080
00049
00044
00111
0.,099
00092
00042-- 00041
00110
00096
0.c67
00043
00102
0 .. 051
TABLE 18.
II
IV
III
-l
Shallow Be8JII
Deep Beam
Equivalent Beams
~000914
-00992
~00967
-00967
-00992
-00914
Left to Right
-0.643
-00620
-00581
to Lett
-00581
-00620
-0.643
Carry~Over Fa~~or
/'
'-
- .-
.. --"
Stir:rness, K/E
Right
2.89
2079
294
2094-
2089
2079
Equivalent ColUJIDIlB
Column No.
Stiffness,
K/f!
2.38
II and III.
4019
IV
2.48
I-'
o
.f:""
e
-105-
4, 5,
PANELS
AND
clL
UNIFORMLY LOADED
= 1/10
MOMENI' COEFFICIENTS OF WL
L
I
I
co
-g.
0
1-1
~,
...::t ...::t
t-
'8
0
. 8.
0
+,
...::t
.
0
:;
co
t-
...::t
0"
I
8.
...::t
t-
0
0
...::t ...::t
t-
_" r
17
~I
L~,
I
\.0
If"\
r-I
t<\
...::t
...::t
8 8.
"
01
I
~_.
u
010
I
t<\C\J
If"\
'8. '8.
oI
. .
I
co
...::t
t-
...::t
"
0
0
Oi
71
,J-"
rAJ
~.
If"\
...::t
t-
t<\
rJ
C\J
If"\
t<\
If"\
'8'8.
oI"
-I
If"\
\.0
r-t
...::t
...::t
.~
t<\
"
FIG. 1
1]
ill 111111111' ~
+
1I1+/~: IIII
rr [[T~~T-2Trrr-----~--~1IIT1-~
i2111
U
' 1(' ,
11 . _ J L1:+<* 1111
I I I I
,
~
!!
I!
,I
FIG. 2
ALTJ~ATE
STRIP LOADING
~
I
(Xl
(Xl
-0.15
L
1-
-I
-0.125
-0.100
POINT SUPPORTS
~
, H
-0.075.
-0.05
-- .
--
PLAN
i--
vn:w
OF PANEL
-0.02.
t-A
-1
+0.07
I.
+w
I
I , ,
I , I
fIlS 2S
, "
ZS;
""
jZS
LOADING
:zf(
+0.05
~
+0.025
0
MOMENTS ACROSS SECTION BB
FIG. 3
S~PARE
-0.115
,
L
,
-0.150
L=g
-0.100
-0.050
-0.075
-0.025
f--I
oI
g
MOMENT ACROSS SECTION AA
G'
+0.075 +w
'~
+0.050-,
~
LOADING
........
~
+0.025
FIG. 4
= 1/8
-0.175
p--e
-0.100
i: 4"
c. I B
-0.150
-----,
---...:1
I A
A I
In
- -----
-0.050
_1
-0.025
oL
+w
I I
-0.075
.-.
I
+0.075
I
Wi
cuT
+0.050
LOADING
+0.025
FIG.
~
I
-0.175
L
_I
l
c
-0.150
-0.100
L-3"
B
- - - - - - - - - ---+--' H
-0.075
-0.050
-0.025
PLAN VIEW OF' PANEL
t-'
t-'
oI
+0.075
~
LcIl"';'LJj
, m w
+w
LOADING
I-1 ~ro
~
'i~
_c
l'-Jo
t:1
~. ~
(f;
.ro
+0.025
~C
f)
-1
"I
- iI
e:,\
+0.050
~
a;
(;:~
}!
~.
,.
FIG. 6
MOMENTS COMPUTED BY' LEWE FOR SQUARE PANELS WITH c/L = 1/3
~ !.
(()
l-:;
'------
___
-0.175
I
c
-:=
-1
1
--
-0.150
-0.100
e
2
- +
H
--- U
;3:
-0.075
-0.050
-0.025
--..........
----
---
-'
f!! !; ; !
I I
+0.015
I I
LOADING
+0.050
;3:
~
+0.025
0
FIG. 7
--------
......
+'W
I
~
= 1/2
,- B~ A~! .
POINT
mwro~1
~
II
-0300
-0300
-0.250
-0.250
-0.200
-0.200
-0.150
~
~
-0.150
]
I
00
-0.100
-0.100
~
~
La
=2 11
-0.050
-0.050
c
B
"
{~ ~ ~wl ~ II~+
+0.100
!~
~
~
+0.050 I
.~
________________..____
LOADING
FIG. 8
+0.150 I
.....,J
+0.150 ..
+0.100
+0. 050
I
1
I
t-'
t-'
r'V
I
~
e'
2
I"
i[; IC!a
:r;,
I
II
= B"
I
I
I
-0300
-0300
-0.250
-0.25
-0.200
-0.200
~
-0.150
-0.15
-0.100
-0.10
:ro
.--d
:La.
-0.050
..:f I
-0.05
--;j
B.........
{;;if f
+0.050
01
LOADING
FIG. 9'
""
+0.150~.~------------------~
~ +0.100-'"""1....-.IIiiiiiiiII:~----
+w
'~[ I 11~1~1
~ ~
\.).I
I
+0.150,
t-'
.......
+O.lOO~t--------------------,
I
,~
+0. 05011======:::==~
MOMEHT AC:-()SS
S~TION
DD
-0.100
1,
-0.075
r=E
-0.050
~
~
-0.025
+0.025
MOMENT ACROSS SECTION AA
I
~~~
tt :.
t~
;YJ
':0 ~I ~~ I&;] ~
LOADING
t~ t'
~.; ~<
I~l'
~_;
~"
.--:
1:
+0.07
~
+0.0
+0.025
-','
'B.l " ~
H
1.,
-;1)
r'
+0.100
0
MOMENT ACROSS SECTION BE
'r"
t~
FIG., 10
MOMENTS COMPUTED BY LEWE FOR S~ARE PANELS WITH STRIP LOADING AND c/L -= 1/8
~
~
I
-0.100
-0.075
B I
-0.050
L = 4"
BI
~
-0.025
0
+0.025
MOMENT ACROSS SECTION AA
I
I-A
+0.1
I-'
\Jl
I
~~II~ ~I~~ I ; ~
LOADING
+0.07
~
+0.0
+0.025
0
MOMENT ACROSS SECTION BB
FIG. 11
MOMENTS COMPUTED BY LEWE FOR SQUARE PANELS WITH STRIP LOADING AND clL
1/4
~----------------------------------.------------~------------------0 . 100
-Lc
_I
-1
.-
f~
-0 . 075
-0.050
B
~
...............
-0.025
....:l
A
0
+0.025
I
~
+0.1 lX.,
0\
I
+0.0 7r::
. .~
......
--------
+0.0 c;o
+0.0 25
0
MOMENTS COMPUTED BY LEWE FOR SQUARE PANELS WITH STRIP LOADING AND c/L = 1/3
-117-
I~
FIG. 13
..
h4
~
N
I
~
~
Q)
I
1
.J
.n
':'1
.:>
FIG. 14
"I
144
-O.25u~I~---------------------------------------1
1--
-0.200~1------------------------------------------~
POINT SUPPORTS
n--
-~
-O.luv
t
A
..
t
PLAN VIEW OF PANEL
o .'________________________________________________~
.....
.....
\()
I
+0.15u~.--------------------------------------_,
~
~
+O.lOU~I~--------------------------------------_1
LOADING
+0.050
==-- lttiiiiCII::
:::::w:s ...c::
o .'______________________________________________...
MOMENTS ACROSS SECTION BB
FIG. 15
MOMENTS COMPUTED ilY NIELSEN FOR SQUARE PANELS WI'll! POINT SUPPORTS
-0300
-I
I
POINT SUPPORTS
n--
DROP PANELS
00
00
~ -O.200~
---'
--l
.0.250 _
,---r-
-11...:l
O.,4L x O.4L
-0.150
-0.100
.L _
-0.050
----
r"'
ru
o,
~
LOADlOO
________________________________________
~ +Ool00 1----------------------------------------------J
1
+0.050~1~----------------------------------------_1
o .'__________________________________________________-'
MOMENTS ACROSS SECTION BB
FIG. 16
MOMENTS COMPUTED BY NIELSEN FOR SQUARE PANELS WITH DROP PANELS AND POINT SUPPORTS
-0.175
r-
-,
-1
-0.150
-0.100
.9.. = 0.2
IJ
-0.075
-0.050
-0.025
I-'
I\)
o L-
I-'
I
l:cl
fi:r:r
I +wI L
+0.015
~
-c::
+0.050
;J:
LOADING
~
+0.025
"--
-..
/L = 0.2
-0.175
Lc :::
-0.150
-0.100
0.2
;X
-0.015
-0.050
-0.025
h;
I\)
+w
1tr
.I
I I I I
W
UJ
LOADING
+0.015
wI
+0.050
~
...........
~
+0.025
0
-0.115
E..:
-0.150
-0.100
0 .4
t-1
-0.075
B
-0.050
A
,------
-0.025
~I
I~
oI
r\)
c:
.~
i.
tY !\)
:L
~ ~-
~..
,)
~;
f!
,.
J
I
A. :~<
Im
+w
LOADING
+0.025
.)
,:j' ))
~-)
'-J
t'I
El;:')
~
,} )
":~
+0.050
~
.............
~
,a ,:;: i1
(1J
+0.075
~ I ~I I ~~
~ I:~
~-
!..
rn
FIG.
19
t-'
= 0.4
~
I
I l 1
a
POINT
D
,SUPPORT
_+-__
~ ~
III
...:f
3'
-:I:
-0.300
-0.250
-0.250
-0.200
-0.200
'j ~
-0.150
-0.100
-0.050
,~
PANE~L
<. +0 .100
~
--.--TI'
-t:"II:IIII:II~
WADING
-IS
+0.050 -
.....
o .
MOMENTS
FIG. 20
-0.050
MOMENTS COMPUTED BY
'~rJMEN1B
ACROSS
S~TION
~j
SECTION
BB
CC
+0.150
+0.100
l~ROSS
~IELSEN
I
~
I\)
~
+0.150 -.
+W
I
II C
PLAN VIEW OF
-0.150
.----
-0.100
'~
a.
B~
-0.300
+0.050
o
MOMENTS ACROSS
S~TION
OD
-0.300
L
I_
---1
-0.250
-0.200
POINT SlJPFDRTS
-0.150
-0.1.00
-0.050
-~
...
I
~
I\)
\J1
~"':'''~I'~
LOADING
+0.150
+0.100
+0.050
0
MOMENTS ACROSS SECTION BE
FIG. 21
~fJgENTS
3i~UARE
1_
_1
-0.175
-0.150
-0.100
L =."4
;~I
;3:
-0.075
-0.050
-0.025
I-'
I\)
0\
GI
Im l I
a;
+w
+0.075
I Iml
LOADING
+0.050
~
'-...
~
+0.025
1/4
-0. ~o
DI c
9.
-0.200
a_
L:::b 1-=81
Ie
-i
-0.100
~~
-0.050
-0.100
-O.O~
;7~' I I~I I I I~
+0.150
+0.100
WADING
5
'} +0.0 :
~'}
-----~------
I
.....,
f\)
-:J
+0.150
+0.100
I
=1
+O.05:i
.. ---1-
23
~
MOMENTS ACROSS SECTION CC
FIG.
1 1 ';' 1
-1
-0.200
'} -0.150
B....J A..J
~'
-0.250
L:5
-0.300
-0.250
J:.!!
~2
MiJMENTS ACROSS
1/6
AND c/~
S~TION
= 1/8
DD
-0.300
-0.2
c
0.1
-0.2 u
B
I'
--~t---I'
....::l
~.....
-0.1 00
-0.1 5
.....---......
-0.0 50
. .i= I
I I
I I
11
+w I I
LO.ADING
'\
=~
ro
CP
+0.100~----------------------------------------------~.
.
:~
.............
::r::
+0.05 0
FIG. 24
r'
*J
I I
= O. 1
-0.)00
r
B
-e2
1:=8
~f
-0.250
'I
-0.2
B
~
HI
"
-0.1
I A
A I
t\;
\0
MO~~
~
LOADING
ACROSS SECTION AA
+0.1
+0.1
~
~
+0.0 5
0
MOMENT ACROSS SECTION BB
FIG. 25
MOMENTS COMPUTED AT THE UNIVERSITY OF ILLINOIS FUlR SQUARE PANELS WITH e/L ~ 1/8
-0.150
14
. = O.~~
B
-0.125
-0.100
B
H
~
~
)
-0.075
-0.050
-0.025
/'
l'
~
0'
,~
:!
~-i' .)
..
J>.4
~
WADING
I-j
~
~
.:;J
r-l
~]
+0.025
~j.
~_~_
~---<
.~) -:
.,:
::""'Pbqc;;;
MOMENT ACROSS
---I
~f'
t.
};,.
#p"
---I
,0
FIG. 26
oI
(:)
.....'. j
~
+0.050 I
0-1
, --I
r-)
+O.075~r------------------------------------'
I I I I+wIII I I I.,.
I
'"
......
S~TION
BB
MOMENTS COMPUTED AT THE UNIVERSITY OF ILLINOIS FOR SQUARE PANELS WITH elL
0.2
;-0.150
I~
~I
-0.125
---r
,..0.100
I::l"4
-0.075
\.
.-0.050
.-0.025
PLANE VIEW OF PANEL
.-
~"W
i II! 11 "I
II
'LOADING
.+-0.075
~
I
.z
'-i-o.050
-+0.025
0
MOMENT
ACRO~3S
SECTION BB
\",
FIG.
27 MOMENTS COMPUTED AT THE UNIVERSI'IY OF ILLINOIS FOR SQUARE PANELS WITH elL = 1/4
I
~
\.)4
rI
-0.150
I~
r~
I
e
-0.125
-0.100
= 0.2
r\
B
H
"-
LJ
-0.015
-0.050
-0.025
PLAN VIEW OF PANEL
0
MOM~
~.
.....
\.).I
r\)
I
ACROSS SFl;TION AA
~.075-~--------------------------------I
+w
II
If"'"
+0.050
<-
+0.025 ...
WADING
o
MOI'.{ENT ACHOSS SECTION BB
FIG. 28
MOMENTS COMPUTED AT THE UNIVERSITY OF ILLINOIS FOR SQUARE PANELS WITH S'mIP LOADING AND elL:: 0.2
-133PANELS 1,
4,
AND
UNIFORMLY WADED
elL:: 1/10
MOMENT COEFFICIENTS OF WL
'"8
..:t
r<"\ '
.J
\0
C\I
co
8
0
t-
8 8.
\0
C\J
c:?
:;
ri'
0
0
0
ri
0
0
0
r=f
C\1
0
0
0
0
ri
r-t
,,
..:t
\0
C\I
t-
0
0
8
0
'"81
,.
~
\0
r-l
1<'\
0
0
~I.
co
r-
'"
.~
If'\
ll"\
It\
tr-t
..:t
0
C,\J
. .
~I
(\J
-~
+
\0
0
0
0
80
t0
8 8.
Cf ~
r-t
0
..I
r-t
.
0
FIG. 29
-134-
5,
PANELS 2,
AND
UNIFORMLY LOADED
e/L:IIIt 1/10
MOMENT COEFFICIENTS OF WL
.J
,
t-
r-I
trl
<.f
~!
:;
C\J
~I
<rl
r-t
8
I
C\J'
j'
...:t
8
<rl
r-4
.J
t~
rl
j
9
I..
trl
t("\
...:t
~~
~j'
..
00
00
I
~0
~~
00
00
..
FIG. 30
-I
t-
r-4
elL
l/lO
:z
MOMENT COEFFICIENTS OF WL
I0
0
\0
tr\
0
0
tr\
..:t
0
1?
0\0)
$\CI
..
00
00
I
-=t
t-
f'l'\
~~
. .
\0
1<"\
\0 \D
0
0
..:t
r<"\
o,
FIG. 31
./
1-0.0483
<;)
Shallow
VI
ro
I
~
~
~
I
t;-i
C/l
!
~
~
1-H).0419
~
;f4
tXJ
~
~
0
f)
::0
t-rj
t-rj
+0.0381
rn
(J)
H
0
t;1
l:xj
~
CIl
-0.0613
-0.0625
rn
8
140.0425
-6.0488
.~
-0:0629
-0.0616
~5'
<t
Dee!P Beam
~ ~.
:a
~
~~
b
t-'
VI
0\
I
-0.300
L
t~
~1
-0.250
-0.2
B I
:=
0.15
1
H
-.........
~
A I
-----
-0.1
'
LOADING
+0.1 5v
+0.1 00
;3:
~.
+0.0 5
..
0
MOMENT ACROSS SECTION BB
FIG. 33
c/L
= 0.15
-l
I
I
.....,
~
-0.300
L
I~
~I
-J~I
-Lc = 0.20
-0.2
-0.2
~
""':E"
IA
AI
-0.1 50
-0.1 00
----
-0.0 50
"'
If
'\
Co
I
-ttl I
I
+w
I III I I
LOADING
II
+0.1 v
~"
=-1'
::s
+0.1 0
~
+0.0 0
..
0
MOMENT ACROSS
FIG. 34
~'"
\J"
SECTION BB
-0.300
I
1,
,-----
-J
~l
-0.2
--.,..
c
L
=
c
2
0.25
-0.2
B
~
-----
-0.1
-0.1
-0.0 5
PLAN
VIE\~
OF PANEL
I
t-'
ill
c::
~ro
iDO
~
~~
f z:
~ ~
<1 (O~
CD
b:l~~
~ 0
....,. 8
(J)
....,. CO
tr:1
I :1
1
1 1 +W 1 1
*!
11
\j.I
\()
+0.150
=-1""
+0.1~
LOADING
+Oo05~-===--------------------------------J
,..
I
~ !Xi ~ c+ (0
u"<l 1-0
0
~I-':z:0!-f
o :J (") H, (')
tJJ
0......
.:::;J
~\j(1
1-_-1
1-" ;::J
::1 ::)
o d
....,. :1
en
FIG.
35
c/L = 0.25
-0.300
L
I~
--I
-0.250
l1B
~
= 030
L
-0.2
::i:
I
PLAN
VIE~
~ -0.15
-0.1
OF PANEL
t-'
o+I
-ttl I! "i'II"jj}
+0.100
~
LOADING
~
+0.05
o'
,
MOMENT ACROSS SECTION BB
FIG.
36
1w~2
t-"
+:-'
t-"
I
wL
(2
we
1t)
---g-
~~
FIG. 37
-142-
0.14
WL (1 _ ~~)2
,L
1f.
0.12 ~
.~
"
..............
~
"
,
tr.l
0.08
,,"
::::
u
nL
3 L
'"
"-
0.06
E-i
"-
4c
lc3
[1 - - + ~-) ]
~~
"
I
H
~,~
WL [1- 2 + 1(c)3]
---F
2L 2 1:
"~~
0.10
-WI.,
-- -
""
0.04
""
0.02
o
o
FIG.
38
0.10
0.20
clL
0.30
0.40
-143-
- - - EQUATION
ACI CODE
15
---
0.12 ""
. . '~---+----J-~
FRAtvrE ABALY313
,
",,_ _ _ _ ACI CODE
-.-;1
''"
Et.fPIRICAL ANALYSIS
""
0.08
0.02 1---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---4----1------1
I
o
I I I I I I I
0.30
0.10
I
0.40
050
elL
FIG. 39
-144-
0.06
...........
~
~
...........
0.04
~ .....
~~
...........
- ................. '
--- ""'
.........
r--
---
o
o
--....
......... ..........
....
0.02
r------.. r------..~
...............
g:
..........
0.20
0.10
.........
r----=--= ~
0 ..
30
~.....:::
----
----...,
0.40
clL
0.10
WESTERGAARD
0.05 ~
"'"
1'., ~ ~
- -
~........
:i
'",-
............
:z
"-
0.06
"
"
~
~
....
o. CJ"
'"
'"
'":::-....
,
t::
""
o. c:='
.................
~ .....
" "
- -----....
"
0.30
0.20
0.40
clL
FIG. 40
.....
-145-
0.14
0.12
_ _ _ EQUATION
"'~~
'"
~,
'\
0.10 \.
0.08
U')
,~
l2:
~
~
~"
I~~, ~
~
""
+-
0.06
+-
EQUATION 19
_
CODE EMPIRICAL
---- ACI
ANALYSIS
)('
"t()f.
" -""
\ ....
"
1..6
NIEISEN (NS 4 )
MARCUS (MS2)
~: ~, "-
"~'
"
'
"
"
"~
'"
""
.... ~
''''"
~
"
0.04
)(
~~
~
"
~" ,'" ~
~
"
'..:::
'"
~,
"'"
ft
l(
"
",,-
" "'
'K
0.02
o
o
"
1Il.",
0.10
0.30
0.20
0.40
0.50
elL
FIG. 41
-146-
-;:
I .
""" ..............
...
-
0.04
~
:E:
g;
H
.......... 1-
........................ ~
r-- """
"""'--... ..
.......
0.02
--
~+--
-.. ...........
- r----r----r-----
. ....... ..........--
---- -------..
r---. .........
- .........
r--_
~ r-----
i----
.....;;;;;;:: ~-
-- ........
o
o
0.30
0.20
0.10
0.40
c/L
0.10
0.08 ~
~~
,\ ~
"
0.06
C1
HARCUS (MS 2)
~ ~)
~
~
~
NIELSEN (NS 4 )
,,~,
::E
H
"
"
"-~~~
~
...........
+-
0.04
~~
'~
~
~"
0.02
~.-.
........
.......
'~
...
FIG. 42
~
,
...............
. 0.10
0.20
0.30
0.40
c/L
MOMENTS AT DESIGN SECTIONS OF SLABS WITH SQUlffiE
COllJMN CAPITALS
-1470.14
elL
elL
= 1/8
elL
= 1/6
elL
= 1/4
0.12
0.10
I-l
(
~
I
~to
0.08
0.06
~
0.04
0
EQUATION 17
o LEWE
MARCUS
lJ
NIELSEN
0.02
o
1.0
FIG. 43
1.25
150
rolLa
1.75
2.00
2.25
-148-
o.06~---'----~----~--~----'---~----~----'---~----~
en
--------------------
S
Z
- ---+---
--+-- - -
---+0-
0.02~---+----;---~~--~----+---~r---~----+---~----~
O~
________
1.00
________
____________
________
1.25
__
2.25
2.00
co
'rl-
001
1 I I I I - - -0--
'0-
t:f
0.08
~
d
,Z
\.IV'ul!,
n..t\lyID
0.06
--
S
Z
~u.l.u
l"Ul
tr.l
Rl."J.
...
- - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - - ------
0.04
:!:
0.02
o
1.00
1.25
1.50
1.75
2.00
2.25
rolLa
FIG.
",...-<7
1\1f)..Q
TIoorii
University of Illinois
B106 NCEL
-149-
:i
cd
0.06
ill
0.04
~
~
C~
-- _...-- - - -- - - - - - - - ------ - --
!g;
0.02
tf)
1.00
1.50
1.25
2.00
2.25
To/La
\.0
0.10
"'r-i
- - 0 - MARCUS
II
~
1.75
---
"'()
--~-
0.08
f2
o
0.06
()
- - - - -- --
UJ
---:
':r-
.....-- --
0.04
0.02
o
1.00
1.25
1.50
1.75
2.00
Ie/La
FIG. 45
2.25
-150-
~~
0.06
CJ')
0.04
;;a
@
(f.)
o
2.00
1.25
1.00
2.25
0.10
...........
M
--0--
---
CIS
H
...........
----
()
oj
0.08
LEWE
~m
0.06
~
@
(f)
0.04
~-=.
,-
- - - ---
--
--
-- - - - - - - - -
~
~
0.02
I
1.00
I
1.25
I
1.50
.I
1.75.
2.00
lo/La
FIG.
46
COLUMN CAPITALS
-151-
0.14
--0.12
'"'"
r-i
0.10
'"
---
"-
= 2
La/~ =
'"~
"
0.08
~~
P-t
Cf)
~/La
0.06
"-
~~" ....
~~
"
~~
.......
' ..........
::z::
~
~
(Xl
'rolLa
~
~
To/La
0.04
10
L
'" l
a
o.oc
o
o
FIG.
0.10
0.20
0.30
0.40
= 1
-152-
0.08
....... ......
..... ......
0.06
~~
~
~
----- --
ACI CODE
-
0.04
FRAME ANALYSIS
LEWE
Cf)
p..
~
~
0.02
0.40
0.20
0.10
050
elL
( a) COLUMN \alITH ZERO FLEXURAL STIFFNESS
0.04 ........
'"
"'
........
11
-...... .........
~
........
'--....
0.02
'
........
-.,
........
Ul5
ACI CODE
FRAME ANALYSIS
..............
.............. ...........
o
o
0.10
0.20
0.,0
0.40
050
elL
( b) COLUMN WITH INFINITE FLEXURAL STIFFNESS
FIG. 48
-153y
z
( a) DEFLECTED SHAPE OF SLAB
z
(b) DEFLECTED SHAPE
FIG. 49
-154-
FIG. 50
M~
0.14
0.12
PLATE THIDRY
---
0.10
~
~
0.08 ~
""" -..
~,
I
~
",
~,
0.06
"" ~
~R
....
.....
-....
C:c
~
~
~O ~
.~
"""IIIiiiIt,
~
i
"
0.04
~
I .......
~,
""
~
.....
~,
0.02
0.20
0.40
FIG. 51
0.80
0.60
1
1.00
r
I
r
S~TION
I
AA
r4
~c.J
tIt
,.. t !
.. i
I- i
r4
t 1
Tiw
I
BrerION BB
SECTION CC
1
ElAA
llEI DIAGRAM
'I
I
.....
V1
0\
I
PLATE THEORY
~
~
0.04 ~
,~~
...
&
;;:!:I
~
~
---
--+-
~, 1- '"' I~-=...
-
.....
"
.........~ .........
........
..... ...,~
.. ~
0.02
............... .....
'1--.
Cf)
.............. ..............
......... ,.
................
.......
~;. ~
0.40
0.20
0.10
elL
. (a) PANELS WITH SQUARE COLUMN CAPITALS
0.06
PIATE im!ORY
---
--+-
--, ~
0.0 "T).~
-... ~
~-...
r----...
!!!!o.,
"
- --
--
~-
.........
.......
~,. .........
,."
......
--;.
c;..
r--,.. .....
........ ~
o
o
0.10
0.40
0.20
0.50
elL
( b) PANELS WITH CIRCULAR COLUMN CAPITALS
FIG.
---l
~/~--
--41
it
H
,..
---
,,..
n<
if
.I
\
I
COWMN CAPITAlS
FIG. 54 l/EI DIAGRAMS OF INTERIOR COLUMNS WITH AND WITHOUT COLUMN CAPITALS
f-I
V1
co
I
-159-
1
L
1
2
T = -
!2 (1 - ~)
L
( c) TWISTING MOMENT DIAGRAM
(1 - )
= - -....~~
2t3 b 1 hl G
(d) UNIT RarATION DIAGRAM
FIG.
0.50
0.40
co..
o. :;0
J%t
()
0.20
~
o
0.10
o
1.0
10.0
100.0
1000.0
b1/h1
FIG.
56
10000.0
-161-
2
c w
v
( a.) TOP PORTION OF COlliMN
1
3c
A
,/ 2
/V - ..1!
2
FIG. 51
-162-
~~------'--~O_"----~~--~~t--_O~"----~------~~----~ht'!
--- _____-=--L. - - -
G"
--=- --=r-..l.
co
d!
,
I
I -o
~.
..::t
L...J
3"
~f
C\J
~I
:rt<"\
~
I:
l l"\
I
I
I A
..::t
r-,
1...,
...J
,I
I
I
I
,
l l"\
'I
"i
I
_____ _
- I l - _ _ _ _ _ _ r -, _ _ _ _ _ _ _
541"
t
- -... ~-
--~-
SECTION AA
~"
12"
~
5'- 0"
5'- 0"
5'- 0"
~
~~~--~~--~~~a~
--------,
r-~
I
L_
--J
I
I
I
I
L..,
lIt"
I
I
I
I
I"
32
i~
72"
"4
-r----
3"
"4
t"DRO
6"
. II
-
~~~
"-;"'~
r-;
-.
SECTION AA
FIG. 59
Bl AI
:t ;: ....
"'"l
: . . . '..
; :
..
,.
... '..
: ,
'"
'.'
Y.
. . . ',
',;,."
'
~~
'"0'
......
i _.....
.o.,
I,
\.o
e'
AJ
DEEP BEAM
SHALLOW BEAM
-'J =r 1 3"
rt~
I -
SECTION
AA
SECTION BB
I. 5".1
FIG.
'
~
I
SECTION EE
=r:::r It"
I 12" I
~
_
D~"
SECTION DD
"
SECTION CC
D=r~"
l,.J
~
SECTION .FF
2"
t 1 ,,"4"'---
I
f-J
0'\
I
.;:-
-165-
-1-
EI AA
40"
60"
(a) EXTERIOR PANEL
1
EI AA
-- it
60"
(b) INTERIOR PANEL
1.63"
rrs;.
~
-z.R "
_l.,r
:~3"
__
FIG. 61
-166-
I)" 'I'
112"
2.72
11
~
.r:--:
II
~~
\.0
( 8) DEEP BEAM
II
I
4.
5"
I
1
-I!j
3.251'
7.75"
(b) SHALLOW BEAM
B~MS