Analysis of Slab by Different Methods

ANALYSIS OF SLAB BY DIFFERENT METHODS
Ing. Paul Guerrero *

Ing. Pablo Sanchez Caiza, Msc. **
* Consorcio Santos CMI
pguerrero@santoscmi.com
** Center for Scientific Research, CEINCI-ESPE
pcaiza@espe.edu.ec
Summary
Different methods for the design of two-way slabs are made;
Marcelo Romo method Eng.; Rigid beams method; Direct
method; Method Federal District and the results obtained with
ETABS moments are compared. It is intended that ETABS
users have more confidence in designing a slab in this program
and in case you have doubts on the results obtained resorting
to use a simple manual method and provides reliable results.
1. INTRODUCTION.
There are numerous methods for the analysis and design of reinforced concrete slabs,
interested however find the easy and safe. For this purpose the results obtained with these
methods are compared:
- Ing method, Marcelo Romo.
- rigid beams.
- direct method.
- method Federal District (Mexico).
- ETABS results.
Moments for cores in the slab and not to the fringes of columns are calculated as the time
for these bands are much lower in all the methods listed above.
2. OBJECTIVES.
The main aim of this article is to present the design of slabs used to compare the results
obtained with the modeling and design of a slab ETABS methods.
It is intended that ETABS users have more confidence in designing a slab in this program
and in case you have doubts on the results obtained resorting to use a simple manual method
and provides reliable results.
3. ANALYSIS MODEL.
(1,2,4,5)
For analysis the following structure is proposed:
2.8
3.0
3.0
4.0
Figure 1 Plan View and lift gantry A
Figure 2 Dimensional Vista

The characteristics of the materials, and structural elements used in sections of beams and
columns are shown in table 1 and 2
MATERIAL
CONCRETE
STEEL
ELEMENT
BEAM
COLUMN
LOSA
Table 1 Characteristics of materials

FEATURES
2
2
fc = 210 Kg / cm ; 12000v210 = E = 173,897 Kg / cm
2
fy = 4200 Kg / cm
Table 2 Characteristics of structural elements
FEATURES
BASE HEIGHT = = 30cms 35cms
BASE HEIGHT = = 35cms 35cms
Lightened, 20 cm thick, with tile compression of 5 cm
3.5
Alivianadas use the slabs 20 cm to their rightful a solid slab equivalent of 14.5 cm is
proposed.
4.
CRITICAL ANALYSIS PANEL.
(2)
To start the design will prevail h = thickness of the slab = 20 cm

The critical panel is larger corresponds to that between the axles 2-3 - C - D; To determine the
relationship between the inertia of the beams and the slab is used
following
Iv
expression:
to I slab
(1)
on each axis of the panel are shown in the following table:

Table 3 Calculation inertia ratio at the critical panel
ITEM
Iv (Inertia beams)
to
2
to
Th
to
re
C
to
e
D
tom
CALCULATI
(0,30x0,35
ON^ 3) / 12
(0.001072) / (3.75 * 0.145 ^ 3/12)
(0.001072) / (3.5 * 0.145 ^ 3/12)
(0.001072) / (4.35 * 0.145 ^ 3/12)
(0.001072) / ((2.25 + 0.175) * 0.145 ^ 3/12)
1+ 2+ C + D) / 4
RESULT
4
0.001072 m
1,125
1,205
0.969
1,739
1,259
The minimum height for a flat slab is calculated with:
fy
Ln0.8
14000
h min
13
cm.
36 5am 0.12
(2)
Where Ln is the free length of side 4.5 to 0.3 = 4.2 m; fy is the yield stress of the steel (4200
kg / cm2);
Factor is free lights relationship between major / minor vain
m is the factor slab / beam stiffness average (1,259).
4200
4.200.8
14000
h min
13 cm.
36 5 * 1,135 * 1,259 0.12
h min = 0.1088 m> = 13cm; h = 13 cm min
A slab of 20 cm, has a height of 14.5 cm and the code requires a height of 13 cm so it can
be used without any problem.
5. CALCULATION OF CHARGE.
5.1 Dead Load (D):
Provides for the calculation of weight of the slab, floor, macillado, ceiling and walls, to the
design need not calculate the contribution of beams and columns because these are the weight or
load of the slab and not vice versa.
The contribution of the slab is then analyzed
Figure 3 Plan view and cutting slab 1m2

As seen in Figure 3 the slab has different components:
ELEMENT
Compression slab
Jitters
Alivianamientos
Dead weight slab
Table 4 Dead weight of the slab / m2

CALCULATI
Three
2.4 T / m ON
* 1m * 1m * 0.05m
Three
2.4 T / m
(2 * (0.1 * 1 * 0.15) + 2 * (0.1 * 0.8 *
Three
0.15)) m
8 blocks * 0.010 T
0.12 + 0.1296 + 0.08
LOAD T / m2
0.12
0.1296
0.08
0.3296
It is time to analyze the finished slab

2
ELEMENT
Ceiling
I putty
Floor
Finishing slab
mezzanine
Table 5 finishes slab / m

CALCULATI
Three
2.2 T / m ON
* 1m * 1m * 0.01m
Three
2.2 T / m
* 1m * 1m * 0.04 m
Three
2.2 T / m
* 1m * 1m * 0.01m
LOAD T / m2
0,022
0,088
0,022
0.022 + 0.088 + 0.022
0,132
It is now necessary to calculate the contribution of the walls, suppose a case critical to be
built of brick:
anda specific 1.6 T /Th (+ Brick mortar)

m
r
e
e
anda specific *
VolPREDES
area (slab)
(3)
and wall area (slab) is the area of the slab.

In the case of this exercise is weighing walls on the slab assumes mezzanine = 0.15
T / m2
5.2 Vivas loads or overloads (L):
Standards or local building codes for the case of this structure are:
Losa mezzanine: L (residences) = 0.2 T / m2

To summarize we have the following load values:
Table 6 Summary of loads T / m2
ELEMENT
Dead weight slab
Finishing slab
mezzanine
Weight of walls
on the
mezzanine
Deadslab
load (qD)
Live load (qL)
Last load (qu)
6.
CALCULATI
See Table
ON4
LOAD T / m2
0.3296
See Table 5
0,132
0.15
0.3296 + 0.132 + 0.15
0.6116
0.2
1,054
1.2 qD + 1.6 qL
METHOD OF ING. MARCELO ROMO.
(7)
In this method the moments per meter width according to the following equation is
calculated:
M0.0001 * w * L2 * m
x
or
(4)
Where M is the time to design per meter width, wu is factored load per square meter, Lx is the
smallest axis at the sides of the panel, m is a coefficient for negative and positive moments
obtained from tables as those shown below, which depends on the boundary conditions of the
panel:
Table 7 Coefficients Ing method Romo
Ribbed rectangular slab TYPE 1
(Bordes wardrobes)
COEF.
Lesser light / greater Light

1.00 0.90 0.80 0.70 0.60 0.5
200 241 281 315 336 339
564 659 752 830 878 887
258 319 378 428 459 464
564 577 574 559 538 520
258 242 208 157 126 123
(High side unrestricted)
COEF.

1.00 0.90 0.80 0.70 0.60 0.5
265 347 443 545 635 691
597 736 899 1071 1222 1317
269 362 473 590 694 759
718 779 819 829 808 773
354 368 359 318 239 179
(Lower side unrestricted)
COEF.

1.00 0.90 0.80 0.70 0.60 0.5
265 297 322 339 345 339
718 790 850 888 902 888
354 401 439 464 473 464
597 586 568 548 532 520
269 240 205 185 167 177
(Higher side and lower side without restriction)
COEF.

1.00 0.90 0.80 0.70 0.60 0.5
406 489 572 644 693 712
839 980 1120 1240 1323 1353
428 525 621 704 761 782
839 857 852 827 793 764
428 409 369 310 271 238
The explanation for the different coefficients of Table 7 is graphically in Figure 4, where the x
moments about the horizontal axis X and m moments around the vertical axis Y; secondly Ly is the
smaller dimension of the panel sides.
TYPE 1
TYPE 2
TYPE 3
TYPE 6
Figure 4 Models used by M. Romo
6.1 CALCULATION OF MOMENTS IN 9 PANELS.

Using tables, created at the Polytechnic School of the Army by Ing. Marcelo Romo. Designing
the slab includes the following panels, corresponding to the same one of the different types of
panels offering these tables:
Table 8 Panels designed and match with models of Ing. Romo
Number
O
n
2
e
T
h
4
5r
e
6
e
7
8
9
Panel (Axis) Type (Tables)

1-2 - A - B
6
1-2-B-C
2
1-2 - C - D
6
2-3-A-B
2
2-3-B-C
O
n
2-3 - C - D
T
e
h
3-4-A-B
6
3-4-B-C
2r
e
3-4 - C - D
6
e
The result of the calculated moments in each panel can be appreciated in Table 9.
Table 9 Moments calculated on the slab

PANEL
TIME
ING. ROMO
-1.227
0.651
-1.102
0.533
-1.091
0.563
-1.04
0.467
-1.48
0.826
-1.093
0,459
-1.139
0.549
-1.014
0.48
-1.027
0.484
-0.961
0.422
Mx
1-2-A-B
My
Mx
1-2-B-C
My
Mx
1-2-C-D
My
Mx
2-3-A-B
My
Mx
2-3-B-C
My
7. METHOD OF RIGID BEAMS
PANEL
TIME
Mx
2-3-C-D
My
Mx
3-4-A-B
My
Mx
3-4-B-C
My
Mx
3-4-C-D
My
ING. ROMO
-1.343
0.683
-0.985
0,398
-1.074
0.597
-0.806
0,344
-0.993
0.544
-0.785
0.307
-1.202
0.686
-0.774
0.282
(1)
As the name suggests this method applies only if props are sufficiently rigid slab, is considered
to be so if the value of a is greater than 0.5 as indeed happens.
Moments design center strip (middle portion of the slab wheelbase) are calculated using the
following expressions:
X M C
x M and
C and
*w *
L2
x
*w *
L2
and
(5)
(6)
Where Mx is when the short direction of the panel, Cx is a coefficient obtained from tables, w is
the load per square meter, Lx is the length in the short direction of the panel, My is the moment in
the long direction panel, Cy is another factor obtained from tables and Ly is the length in the long
direction of the panel, the following values are obtained:
7.1 CALCULATION 9 MOMENTS IN PANELS
Using the tables, the method, the slab has the following design panels, corresponding to the
same one of the different types of panels offering these tables:
Table 10 Panels designed and matching models with rigid beams method
Number
O
n
2
e
T
h
4
5r
e
6
e
7
8
9
PANEL
1-2-A-B
1-2-B-C
1-2-C-D
2-3-A-B
2-3-B-C
2-3-C-D
3-4-A-B
3-4-B-C
3-4-C-D
Case 4
Case 8
Case 4
Case 8
Case 2
Case 9
Case 4
Case 8
Case 4
Panel (Axis) Type (Tables)

1-2 - A - B
Case 4
1-2-B-C
Case 8
1-2 - C - D
Case 4
2-3-A-B
Case 8
2-3-B-C
Case 2
2-3 - C - D
Case 9
3-4-A-B
Case 4
3-4-B-C
Case 8
3-4 - C - D
Case 4
Table 11 Design coefficients

LIGHTS (m)
DESIGN FACTORS
lx
ly
m = lx / Cx neg. Cy neg. Cx + Cy + Cx + Cy +
3.50 3.80 ly 0.92
0,058
0,042 D
0,032 D0,023 L0,037 L0,027
3.50
3.50
3.80
4.00
4.00
3.00
3.00
3.00
4.20
4.50
4.00
4.20
4.50
3.80
4.20
4.50
0.83
0.78
0.95
0.95
0.89
0.79
0.71
0.67
0,051
0.073
0,038
0,050
0,069
0,072
0,067
0,087
0,044
0,027
0.056
0.041
0,024
0,028
0,030
0,017
0,030
0,040
0,022
0,020
0,026
0,040
0,039
0,048
0,016
0,012
0,021
0,016
0,015
0,016
0,011
0,010
0,042
0,050
0,031
0,030
0,037
0,049
0,053
0,060
0,021
0,018
0,027
0,025
0,022
0,019
0,014
0,012
Table design 12Momentos

LIGHTS (m)
MOMENTS OF DESIGN (T m)
lx
ly Mx neg. My neg. Mx + (1.2d + 1.6L) My + (1.2d + 1.6L)
PANEL
1-2-A-B
1-2-B-C
1-2-C-D
2-3-A-B
2-3-B-C
2-3-C-D
3-4-A-B
3-4-B-C
3-4-C-D
Case 4
Case 8
Case 4
Case 8
Case 2
Case 9
Case 4
Case 8
Case 4
3.50
3.50
3.50
3.80
4.00
4.00
3.00
3.00
3.00
3.80
4.20
4.50
4.00
4.20
4.50
3.80
4.20
4.50
0.749
0.658
0.943
0.578
0.843
1,164
0.683
0,636
0,825
0.639
0.818
0.576
0.944
0,762
0.512
0,426
0.558
0,363
0,433
0.434
0.556
0.376
0.388
0,495
0,405
0.410
0.490
0.369
0.326
0,295
0.385
0.348
0.365
0.257
0.221
0.226
To compare the results of different methods in the following table design moments previously
calculated according to its coincidence with the X axis is displayed and the Y axis
The central strip is an intermediate strip between two strips of columns with a width equal to half of the
analyzed vain.
Table 13 Summary of the final moments in the slab strip

PANEL
TIME
Mx
1-2-A-B
My
Mx
1-2-B-C
My
Mx
1-2-C-D
My
Mx
2-3-A-B
My
Mx
2-3-B-C
My
V. RIGHIDAS
-0.749
0,433
-0.639
0.369
-0.658
0.434
-0.818
0.326
-0.943
0.556
-0.576
0,295
-0.944
0.385
-0.578
0.376
-0.843
0.388
-0.762
0.348
8. DIRECT METHOD OF DESIGN.
PANEL
TIME
Mx
2-3-C-D
My
Mx
3-4-A-B
My
Mx
3-4-B-C
My
Mx
3-4-C-D
My
V. RIGHIDAS
-1.164
0,495
-0.512
0.365
-0.683
0,405
-0.426
0.257
-0.636
0.41
-0.558
0.221
-0.825
0.49
-0.363
0.226
(1,2,3,5,6,9)
Before starting the design constraints are important models designed slabs, which are:
1. In each direction should be three or more continuous lengths.
2. The panels are rectangular slab with a ratio greater light and not more than 2 lesser light
(measured between the centers of the supports).
3. The lengths of the successive lights in each direction (measured between the centers of
support) should not differ by more than 1/3 of the greater light.
4. Columns should not be misaligned with respect to any axis joining centers of successive
columns more than 10% of the light (in the direction of misalignment).
5. The loads should be evenly distributed and not factored overload or
service must not be greater than twice the dead load or service not factored (L / D = 2).
6. For slabs in two directions with all sides supported by beams, the relative stiffness of the
beams in two perpendicular directions must meet minimum and maximum requirements.
7. Not Redistribution of negative moments.
A total time which is distributed in positive and negative first time and each core and then in
stripes column is calculated, equations are:
w * l * L2
M or 2 n
0
8
(7)
Where Mo is a global moment, Wu is factored load per square meter, L2 is the transverse distance
analysis, equal to the average lights adjacent spans, Ln is the clear span of the span considered.
The method of direct design over time by various authors simplifications suffered so it is important
to know something of its history. With the publication of ACI 318-83, the Direct Design Method
greatly simplified the analysis of the moments of slab systems in two directions, because all
calculations rigidities were removed to determine the design moments in an end section .
Expressions for calculating the distribution function of the stiffness ratio were replaced by a
coefficient table to distribute the total time moments in the final stages. Another change was that the
approximate equation for unbalanced momentum transfer between the slab and an inner column
also simplified. From these changes the Direct Design Method became a truly direct design method,
one can determine all stages of design by applying moment coefficients.
For this article the more simplified form of the direct method is shown by the distribution coefficients
for global moment, see Figure 5 and Table 14.
Figure 5 Distribution of moment coefficients design Indoor and

outdoor sections
Table 14 Coefficients design time two-way slab with beams
List of lights
L2 / L1
Time
Total time
Strip columns
0.5
Middle ground
Strip columns
O
n
e
Middle ground
Strip columns
2
Middle ground
Beam
Column
Beam
Column
Beam
Column
(1)
Negative
exteror
0.16 MB
0.12 MB
0.02 MB
0.02 MB
0.1 MB
0.02 MB
0.04 MB
0.06 MB
0.01 MB
0.09 MB
Outer section
(2)
(3)
positive First inner negative
0.57 MB
0.70 MB
0.43 MB
0.54 MB
0.08 MB
0.09 MB
0.06 MB
0.07 MB
0.37 MB
0.45 MB
0.06 MB
0.08 MB
0.14 MB
0.17 MB
0.22 MB
0.27 MB
0.04 MB
0.05 MB
0.31 MB
0.38 MB
Inner section
(4)
(5)
Positive
Negative
0.35 MB Interior
0.65 MB
0.27 MB
0.50 MB
0.05 MB
0.09 MB
0.03 MB
0.06 MB
0.22 MB
0.42 MB
0.04 MB
0.07 MB
0.09 MB
0.16 MB
0.14 MB
0.25 MB
0.02 MB
0.04 MB
0.19 MB
0.36 MB
NOTES: (1) All negative moments correspond to the face of the supports.
(2) Torsional rigidity of the edge beam is such that it verifies One2.5
(3) LL
In the above methods slab only analyzed in the intermediate strips so in Table 15
summarizes the coefficients used in this article shows.
Table 15 Summary coefficients used

LIST OF
LIGHTS
L2 / L1
0.5
1.0
2.0
INTERMEDIATE BAND MOMENTS

(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
Neg. Foreign Positive Neg. interior Positive Neg. interior
0.02 MB
0.06 MB 0.07 MB
0.03 MB
0.06 MB
0.04 MB
0.14 MB 0.17 MB
0.09 MB
0.16 MB
0.09 MB
0.31 MB 0.38 MB
0.19 MB
0.36 MB
Parallel to the axis X 6 strips are designed for this in Tables 16 calculations per strip as
regards relations between light and calculating the overall time shown.
Figure 6 Cut parallel to the X axis beams

Table 16 Relationships between light and calculation of global moments
EJ EOne
ITEM CALCULA RESULT
L2 TION
3.5 / 2
1.75 m
A-B
3.8 m
B-C
4.2 m
L1
C-D
4.5 m
0.46
0.42
L2 /
0.39
L1
A-B
2.74 T * m
B-C
3.42 T * m
Mo
C-D
3.97 T * m
Axis2
ITEM CALCULA RESULT
L2 TION
(3.50 + 4) 3.75 m
/ 2A-B
3.8 m
B-C
4.2 m
L1
C-D
4.5 m
0.99
0.89
L2 /
0.83
L1
A-B
5.88 T * m
B-C
7.32
T*m
Mo
C-D
8.51 T * m
AXI Three
S
ITEM CALCULA
RESULT
TION
L2 (3 + 4) / 2 3.5 m
A-B
3.8 m
B-C
4.2 m
L1
C-D
4.5 m
0.92
0.83
L2 /
0.77
L1
A-B
5.49 T * m
B-C
6.84 T * m
Mo
C-D
7.94 T * m
EJE4
Or stumps
1.5 m
3.8 m
4.2 m
4.5 m
0.39
0.36
0.33
A-B
2.35 T * m
B-C
2.93 T * m
C-D
3.40 T * m
ITEM Calcul
L2
3/2
A-B
L1
B-C
C-D
L2 /
L1
Mo
For best results it is desirable to interpolate the values of the table 15 with the relations
between light calculated in Table 16.
Table 17 Coefficients obtained by interpolation and linear extrapolation
LIST OF
LIGHTS
L2 /
L1
0.39
0.42
0.46
0.5
LIST OF
LIGHTS
L2 / L1
0.5
0.83
0.89
0.99
1.0
LIST OF
LIGHTS
L2 /
L1
0.5
0.77
0.82
0.92
1.0
GAZA MOMENTS MIDDLE PILLAR 1

(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
Neg. Foreign Positive
Neg. interior Positive
Neg. interior
0,016Mo
0.047 MB 0.055 MB 0.023 MB 0.047 MB
0.017 MB
0.050 MB 0.059 MB 0.025 MB 0.050 MB
0.018 MB
0.055 MB 0.064 MB 0.028 MB 0.055 MB
0.02 MB
0.06 MB
0.07 MB
0.03 MB
0.06 MB
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
Neg. interior
0.02 MB
0.06 MB
0.07 MB
0.03 MB
0.06 MB
0.033 MB
0.113 MB
0.136 MB
0.07 MB
0.126 MB
0.036 MB
0.122 MB
0.148 MB
0.077 MB
0.138 MB
0.04 MB
0.14 MB
0.17 MB
0.09 MB
0.16 MB
0.04 MB
0.14 MB
0.17 MB
0.09 MB
0.16 MB
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
Neg. interior
0.02 MB
0.06 MB
0.07 MB
0.03 MB
0.06 MB
0.031 MB
0.103 MB 0.124 MB 0.062 MB 0.114 MB
0.033 MB
0.111 MB 0.134 MB
0.07 MB
0.126 MB
0.037 MB
0.127 MB 0.154 MB
0.08 MB
0.144 MB
0.04 MB
0.14 MB
0.17 MB
0.09 MB
0.16 MB
LIST OF
LIGHTS
L2 /
L1
0.33
0.36
0.39
0.5
MOMENTS INTERMEDIATE BAND HUB 4

(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
Neg. interior
0.013 MB
0.040 MB 0.046 MB 0.020 MB 0.040 MB
0.014 MB
0.043 MB 0.050 MB 0.022 MB 0.043 MB
0.016 MB
0.047 MB 0.055 MB 0.023 MB 0.047 MB
0.02 MB
0.06 MB
0.07 MB
0.03 MB
0.06 MB
To summarize the coefficients and moments calculated for the different bands can be seen
in Tables 18 and 19 respectively of this article:
Table 18 Summary of coefficients for calculating moments
AXIS
One
2
T
h
4
r
e
e
AXIS
One
2
T
h
4
r
e
Fore the
COEFFICIENTS FOR INTERMEDIATE BAND

A-B
B-C
C-D
Neg. interior Positive Neg. Foreign
0,018
0,055
0.059
0,025
0,050
0,047
0,016
0,040
0,140
0.148
0.077
0,138
0,113
0,033
0,037
0,127
0.134
0,070
0.126
0,103
0,031
0,016
0,047
0,050
0,022
0,043
0,040
0,013
Table 19 Summary of intermediate strip moments

A-B
0,049
0,151
0,235
0.823
0,203
0.697
0,038
0,110
MOMENTS INTERMEDIATE BAND T * m

B-C
C-D
0,202
0,086
0,171
0.187
0.064
1,083
0.564
1,010
0.962
0,281
0.917
0,479
0,862
0.818
0.246
0,147
0.064
0.126
0.136
0,044
Y axis parallel strips 7, in Tables 20 to calculations made by each strip as regards

relations between light and calculating the overall time shown.
Figure 7 Cut parallel to the Y axis beams

Table 20 Relationships between light and calculation of global moments
EJEA
ITEM CALCULA RESULT
L2 TION
3.8 / 2
1.9 m
1-2
3.5 m
2-3
4 m
L1
3-4
T m
h
0.54
r
0.48
L2 /
e
0.63
L1
e
1-2
2.48 T * m
2-3
3.33 T * m
Mo
3-4
13.76 T * m
EJEB
ITEM CALCULA RESULT
L2 TION
(3.8 + 4.2)
4 m
/ 2 1-2
3.5 m
L1
2-3
4 m
3-4
Three m
1.14
1.00
L2 /
L1
1.33
1-2
5.22 T * m
Mo
2-3
7.02 T * m
3-4
3.70 T * m
EXEC
ITEM CALCULA RESULT
L2 TION
(4.2 + 4.5)
4.35 m
/ 2 1-2
3.5 m
L1
2-3
4
m
3-4
T
m
h
1.24
r
L2 /
1.09
e
L1
1.45
e
1-2
5.69 T * m
Mo
2-3
7.64 T * m
3-4
4.02 T * m
EJED
ITEM Calcul ORESULTADO
4.5 / 2 2.25 m
L2
1-2
3.5 m
2-3
4m
L1
3-4
3m
0.64
0.56
L2 / One
0.75
L
1-2
2.94 T * m
2-3
3.95 T * m
Mo
3-4
2.08 T * m
Coefficient calculations are performed by linear interpolation formula and global time
moments are determined in each of the intermediate strips such
as was done in parallel to the axis X, in Tables 21 and 22 slots are displayed in summary and
moments calculated coefficients for each band respectively.
Table 21 Summary of coefficients for calculating moments
AXIS
A
B
C
D
COEFFICIENTS FOR INTERMEDIATE BAND

1-2
2-3
3-4
0,020
0,060
0,062
0,026
0,053
0.073
0,023
0,047
0,095
0,170
0,090
0,160
0.143
0,057
0,050
0,110
0,181
0,095
0,170
0,160
0,060
0,026
0,078
0.082
0,037
0,072
0,100
0,030
Table 22 Summary of intermediate strip moments

AXIS
A
B
C
D
1-2
0,050
0.149
0,245
0.496
0,285
0.626
0,076
0,229
MOMENTS INTERMEDIATE BAND T * m

2-3
3-4
0.206
0,087
0,176
0,128
0,040
1,193
0.632
1,123
0.529
0.211
1,383
0.726
1,299
0.643
0.241
0.687
0.687
0.687
0,208
0,062
9. METHOD OF FEDERAL DISTRICT
(3)
This method is originally based on one by Siess and Newmark, is a method of coefficients
like the method Ing. Romo above, to calculate times medians and edge and to its use must be
entered data of spacings between axes and distributed load per square meter and factored.
Figure 8 Core and Edge Strips
Error!
It is based on the following equation:
Mri ai * wr * Lx
2
(8)
Where Lx is the shortest length of the panel analyzed, Ly is the long length, ai is the
coefficient found in the tables of the method and wr is the last distributed load per square meter.
n used in the method and
obtain the results of moments, you enter this table with realacin of minor / major lights in each
panel?
.
Table 23 Coefficients for two-way slab dropped beams
BOARD
INTERIOR ALL CONTINUOUS
EDGES
TIME
OF
COURSE
NEG. INSIDE EDGE
SHORT
LARGO
POSITIVE
SHORT
NEG. INSIDE EDGE
SHORT
LARGO
SHORT SIDE EDGE BATCH
LARGO
NEG. EDGES DISCONTINUED
POSITIVE
SHORT
LARGO
NEG. INSIDE EDGE
SHORT

POSITIVE
SHORT
NEG. INSIDE EDGE
SHORT
SHORT
POSITIVE
SHORT
LARGO
LONG SIDE EDGE BATCH
LARGO
SHORT
LARGO
CORNER TWO ADJACENT SIDES

DISCONTINUED
LARGO
LARGO
LARGO
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9 One
998
516
630
175
998
516
326
630
179
1060
587
651
751
185
1060
6
o'cl
651
ock
326
751
191
553
409
312
139
568
409
258
329
142
583
465
362
334
147
598
475
362
258
358
152
489
391
268
134
506
391
248
292
137
514
442
321
285
142
530
455
321
248
306
146
432
371
228
130
451
372
236
240
133
453
411
283
241
138
471
429
277
236
259
142
381
347
192
128
403
350
222
202
131
397
379
250
202
135
419
394
250
222
216
140
333
320
158
127
357
326
206
167
129
346
317
219
164
134
371
360
219
206
176
138
288
288
126
126
315
297
190
133
129
297
315
190
129
133
324
324
190
190
137
137
These moments are coefficients for rectangular panels in the central strips of the panels, to the
extreme fringes multiply by a factor of 0.6.
For this article the method can be summarized in Table 24 and Figure 9 Slab downstand
beams.
Table 24 Coefficients method Federal District
Panel type 1
TIME
NEGATIVE
POSITIVE
OF
Lesser light / greater Light (Lx / Ly)
COURS 1.00 0.90 0.80 0.70 0.60 0.5
0
ESHORT
288 333 381 432 489 553 998
LARGO
288 320 347 371 391 409 516
SHORT
126 158 192 228 268 312 630
126 127 128 130 134 139 175
LARGO
Type 2 Panel
TIME
NEGATIVE EDGE INTERIOR
NEGATIVE EDGE BATCH

POSITIVE
3 Panel type
TIME
NEGATIVE EDGE BATCH

POSITIVE
OF
COURS 1.00 0.90 0.80 0.70 0.60 0.5
0
ESHORT
297 346 397 453 514 583 1060
315 317 379 411 442 465 587
LARGO
LARGO
190 219 250 283 321 362 651
129 164 202 241 285 334 751
SHORT
133 134 135 138 142 147 185
LARGO
OF
COURS 1.00 0.90 0.80 0.70 0.60 0.5
0
ESHORT
315 357 403 451 506 568 998
297 326 350 372 391 409 516
LARGO
190 206 222 236 248 258 326
LARGO
133 167 202 240 292 329 630
SHORT
129 129 131 133 137 142 179
LARGO
Type 4 Panel
TIME
NEGATIVE EDGE BATCH
POSITIVE
OF
Lesser light
COURS 1.00 0.90 0.80
ESHORT
324 371 419
324 360 394
LARGO
190 219 250
SHORT
190 206 222
LARGO
137 176 216
SHORT
137 138 140
LARGO
/ greater Light (Lx / Ly)

0.70 0.60 0.5
0
471 530 598 1060
429 455 475 6
277 321 362 o'clo
651
ck
236 248 258 326
259 306 358 751
142 146 152 191
Panel type 1
Type 2 Panel
3 Panel type
Type 4 Panel
Figure 9 Models used by the method of the Federal District
METHOD FOR APPLYING THIS MUST BE MET THESE LIMITATIONS:
The boards are approximately rectangular.

Load distribution acting on the slab is approximately uniform in each board.
The negative experiences in the common support of two adjacent boards do not differ from
each other in more than 50% of the least of them.
The ratio of live load to dead load is not greater than 2.5 for monolithic slabs with their
support, nor greater than 1.5 in other cases.
Results obtained in times per meter panels 9 are proposed exercise in Table 25:
Table 25 Summary of moments / m calculated with the method of the Federal District
PANEL
TIME
FEDERAL DISTRICT
Mx
1-2-A-B
My
Mx
1-2-B-C
My
Mx
1-2-C-D
My
Mx
2-3-A-B
My
Mx
2-3-B-C
My
-0.466
0,217
-0.455
0,178
-0.491
0.244
-0.463
0.174
-0.556
0.291
-0.519
0,181
-0.433
0,202
-0.409
0,173
-0.522
0.238
-0.511
0.213
PANEL
TIME
Mx
2-3-C-D
My
Mx
3-4-A-B
My
Mx
3-4-B-C
My
Mx
3-4-C-D
My
FEDERAL DISTRICT
-0.611
0,288
-0.554
0.218
-0.403
0.209
-0.377
0,133
-0.422
0,223
-0.386
0.13
-0,465
0,228
-0.415
0.136
10. MODELING WITH ETABS. (8)

The model used has the following main features:
Columns and beams: cracked stiffness values recommended by the CEC2000, beamcolumn Knots are used: they are rigid with a length of area equal to half the real,
Slab: tile compression of 5 cm thick is formed by membrane-like shell elements but with reduced
rigidity f11y f22 5%; nerves are rectangular beams 10x15 cm every 50 cm, and bending stiffness
along the local axis 3 reduced to 50%; geometrically tile is above the nerves.
For this article the following results were obtained by nerve center, to not test all the nerves
of each panel has taken the central nerves (Figure 10) and in some cases an average between two
nerves located in the center of the panel should remembered that if a nerve parallel to the Y axis
moments you will see in the nerve around the axis X and vice versa discussed.
In Figure 11 it can be seen a sketch of the shape of the times nerves.
Central Nerves
Figure 10 Central Nerves
Figure 11 Sketch moments acting on a slab

In Figure 10 and 11 it should be noted that the horizontal elements which absorb greater
moments are beams structure and therefore in a slab strips not receive both columns time as
medians and the high location of the beams nerves the central part of a slab need larger armed.
Table 26 Summary of moments / nerve calculated ETABS

PANEL
TIME
ETABS
PANEL
-0.37
0.143
-0.35
0.134
-0.389
0.156
-0.366
0,129
-0.417
0.18
-0.396
0,129
-0.404
0.158
-0.414
0,177
-0.425
0,157
-0.438
0,171
Mx
1-2-A-B
My
Mx
1-2-B-C
My
Mx
1-2-C-D
My
Mx
2-3-A-B
My
Mx
2-3-B-C
My
TIME
Mx
2-3-C-D
My
Mx
3-4-A-B
My
Mx
3-4-B-C
My
Mx
3-4-C-D
My
ETABS
-0.472
0,207
-0.479
0,176
-0.316
0.142
-0.292
0.097
-0.33
0.15
0.303
0,093
-0.342
0.163
-0.326
0,092
11. COMPARISON OF RESULTS

Shown in Table 27 calculated by different methods but in different formats, these formats are
specific methods are now.
Table 27 Moments Design
COMPARISON OF FINDINGS MOMENTS
PANEL
TIME
TYPE
Mx
1-2-A-B
My
Mx
1-2-B-C
My
Mx
1-2-C-D
My
Mx
2-3-A-B
My
Mx
2-3-B-C
My
Mx
2-3-C-D
My
Mx
3-4-A-B
My
Mx
3-4-B-C
My
Mx
3-4-C-D
My
ING. ROMO
T*m/m
V. RIGIDAS
T * m / strip
M. DIRECT
T * m / strip
-1.227
0.651
-1.102
0.533
-1.091
0.563
-1.04
0.467
-1.48
0.826
-1.093
0,459
-1.139
0.549
-1.014
0.48
-1.027
0.484
-0.961
0.422
-1.343
0.683
-0.985
0,398
-1.074
0.597
-0.806
0,344
-0.993
0.544
-0.785
0.307
-1.202
0.686
-0.774
0.282
-0.749
0,433
-0.639
0.369
-0.658
0.434
-0.818
0.326
-0.943
0.556
-0.576
0,295
-0.944
0.385
-0.578
0.376
-0.843
0.388
-0.762
0.348
-1.164
0,495
-0.512
0.365
-0.683
0,405
-0.426
0.257
-0.636
0.41
-0.558
0.221
-0.825
0.49
-0.363
0.226
-1.433
0.613
-1.29
0,998
-1.433
0.62
-1.29
0.671
-1.336
0.62
-1.2
1.13
-1.433
0.759
-1.29
0,998
-1.433
0.759
-1.29
0.671
-1.336
0.701
-1.2
1.13
-1.349
0.64
-1.106
0.773
-1.349
0.664
-1.106
0.569
-1.255
0.664
-1.033
0.29
FEDERAL DISTRICT
T*m/
m
-0.466
0,217
-0.455
0,178
-0.491
0.244
-0.463
0.174
-0.556
0.291
-0.519
0,181
-0.433
0,202
-0.409
0,173
-0.522
0.238
-0.511
0.213
-0.611
0,288
-0.554
0.218
-0.403
0.209
-0.377
0,133
-0.422
0,223
-0.386
0.13
-0,465
0,228
-0.415
0.136
ETABS
T * m / nerve
-0.37
0.143
-0.35
0.134
-0.389
0.156
-0.366
0,129
-0.417
0.18
-0.396
0,129
-0.404
0.158
-0.414
0,177
-0.425
0,157
-0.438
0,171
-0.472
0,207
-0.479
0,176
-0.316
0.142
-0.292
0.097
-0.33
0.15
0.303
0,093
-0.342
0.163
-0.326
0,092
In order to compare the responses is necessary to transform the values to a standard, in

this case this is just the moment nerve, therefore the method of Ing, Romo and the method of
Federal District values obtained are divided by two in rigid for the width of the central strip and
again for 2 (two ribs per meter) beams, in the direct method also to the width of the central strip, but
in this case is formed by two central semifranjas ( estimates are about an axis) and then for two
here also, in the case of model values ETABS midribs are used, The results are shown in Table 28.
Table 28 Moments design / web
COMPARISON OF FINDINGS MOMENTS
PANEL
TIME
TYPE
Mx
1-2-A-B
My
Mx
1-2-B-C
My
Mx
1-2-C-D
My
Mx
2-3-A-B
My
Mx
2-3-B-C
My
Mx
2-3-C-D
My
Mx
3-4-A-B
My
Mx
3-4-B-C
My
Mx
3-4-C-D
My
ING. ROMO
T * m / nerve
V. RIGIDAS
T * m / nerve
M. DIRECT
T * m / nerve
FEDERAL DISTRICT
T * m / nerve
ETABS
T * m / nerve
-0.614
0.326
-0.551
0.267
-0.546
0.282
-0.520
0.234
-0.740
0.413
-0.547
0,230
-0.570
0,275
-0.507
0,240
-0.514
0,242
-0.481
0.211
-0.672
0.342
-0.493
0,199
-0.537
0.299
-0.403
0,172
-0.497
0.272
-0.393
0.154
-0.601
0,343
-0.387
0,141
-0.197
0.114
-0.183
0,105
-0.157
0,103
-0.234
0,093
-0.210
0,124
-0.165
0.084
-0.248
0.101
-0.145
0.094
-0.201
0,092
-0.191
0,087
-0.259
0,110
-0.128
0.091
-0.180
0,107
-0.142
0,086
-0.151
0.098
-0.186
0,074
-0.183
0.109
-0.121
0,075
-0.377
0.161
-0.369
0,285
-0.341
0.148
-0.369
0,192
-0.297
0,138
-0.343
0.323
-0.377
0,200
-0.323
0,250
-0.341
0,181
-0.323
0,168
-0.297
0.156
-0.300
0.283
-0.355
0,168
-0.369
0.258
-0.321
0.158
-0.369
0,190
-0.279
0.148
-0.344
0.097
-0.233
0.109
-0.228
0.089
-0.246
0,122
-0.232
0,087
-0.278
0,146
-0.260
0.091
-0.217
0.101
-0.205
0,087
-0.261
0.119
-0.256
0,107
-0.306
0,144
-0.277
0.109
-0.202
0,105
-0.189
0,067
-0.211
0.112
-0.193
0,065
-0.233
0.114
-0.208
0,068
-0.370
0.143
-0.350
0.134
-0.389
0.156
-0.366
0,129
-0.417
0,180
-0.396
0,129
-0.404
0.158
-0.414
0,177
-0.425
0,157
-0.438
0,171
-0.472
0,207
-0.479
0,176
-0.316
0.142
-0.292
0.097
-0.330
0,150
0.303
0,093
-0.342
0.163
-0.326
0,092
12. ANALYSIS OF RESULTS
Analyzing a lightened slab type 20 cm thick M. Romo, beams Rigid, Direct Method, Method
of Mexico City and ETABS model to compare the results was performed Ing methods were used..
TOTAL RESULTS OF ARTICLE
-
The method of Ing. M. Romo gives the

highest values are 58% higher than the
results obtained with ETABS.
The method of rigid beams gives lower values
in 42% of those obtained with ETABS.
The Direct Method gives similar values 7%
more than those obtained with ETABS.
The method gives lower values Distrito
Federal 34% of those obtained with ETABS.
% TOTAL WITH RESPECT TO ETABS
160
140
120
100
80
60
40
20
0
ING. ROMO M. V. HARD LIVE DISTRICT
FEDERAL
ETABS
NEGATIVE RESULTS OF ARTICLE TOTAL

TIME AROUND THE SHAFT AND
-

highest values, 29% more than the results
obtained with ETABS.
The method of rigid beams gives lower values
by 54% of those obtained with ETABS.
The Direct Method gives values 20% lower
than those obtained with ETABS.
The method gives values of the Federal
District
39% smaller than those produced by ETABS.
% TIME AND NEGATIVE WITH RESPECT TO ETABS
140
120
100
80
60
40
20
0
ING. ROMO V. RIGIDAS
M.
DIRECT
FEDERAL
DISTRICT
ETABS
TOTAL TIME POSITIVE RESULTS OF ARTICLE

AROUND THE SHAFT AND
-
The method Ing.M. Romo gives values 58%

higher than the moments obtained with
ETABS.
The method of rigid beams gives lower
values in 31% of those obtained with
ETABS.
The Direct Method gives the values 73%
higher than those obtained with ETABS.
The method gives the Federal District
values lower by 35% than those obtained
with ETABS.
% TIME AND POSITIVE RELATIONSHIP WITH A ETABS
180
160
140
120
100
80
60
40
20
0
FEDERAL
ETABS
NEGATIVE RESULTS OF ARTICLE TOTAL

TIME AROUND THE SHAFT X
-

highest values are higher by 54% to the
results obtained with ETABS.
ETABS.
The Direct Method gives values 18% less
% X NEGATIVE MOMENT WITH RESPECT TO ETABS
160
140
120
100
80
60
40
20
0
FEDERAL
ETABS
TOTAL TIME POSITIVE RESULTS OF ARTICLE

AROUND THE SHAFT X
-
The method of Ing. M. Romo gives higher

values by 92% to the results obtained with
ETABS.
values by 34% to those obtained with
ETABS.
The Direct Method gives the values 6%
lower than those obtained with ETABS.
The method of the Federal District gives
lower values by 26% to those obtained with
ETABS.
% TIME RELATIONSHIP WITH A POSITIVE X ETABS
200
180
160
140
120
100
80
60
40
20
0
FEDERAL
ETABS
CORNER PANELS NEGATIVE RESULTS

-
The method of Ing. M. Romo gives higher

values 34% higher than the results obtained
with ETABS.
ETABS.
% TIME AND NEGATIVE IN CORNER PANEL
140
120
100
80
60
40
20
0
FEDERAL
ETABS
CORNER PANELS POSITIVE RESULTS

-
The method of Engineer, M, Romo

gives values
34% more than
the moments obtained with ETABS.
The method of rigid beams gives
lower values in 59% of those obtained
with ETABS.
The Direct Method gives values 21%
lower than those obtained with
ETABS.
The method gives lower values
Distrito Federal 39% of those
% TIME AND POSITIVE IN CORNER PANEL
250
200
150
100
50
0
FEDERAL
ETABS
NEGATIVE RESULTS PANELS TIME

AROUND CORNER AXIS X
-

highest values, 65% more than the
moments obtained with ETABS.
values by 45% of those obtained with
ETABS.
Federal 37% of those obtained with
ETABS.
% X NEGATIVE MOMENT CORNER PANEL
180
160
140
120
100
80
60
40
20
0
FEDERAL
ETABS
POSITIVE RESULTS PANELS TIME AROUND

CORNER AXIS X
-

The method gives lower values rigid
beams 30% of those obtained with
ETABS.
ETABS.
% TIME X POSITIVE IN CORNER PANEL
250
200
150
100
50
0
FEDERAL
ETABS
INTERIM RESULTS WHICH SIDE PANELS OUTSIDE GREATER IS PARALLEL TO THE

AXIS X
NEGATIVE TIME AROUND THE SHAFT AND
-

ETABS.
ETABS.
% TIME AND NEGATIVE IN OUTER PANEL
140
120
100
80
60
40
20
0
FEDERAL
ETABS

AXIS X
POSITIVE TIME AROUND THE SHAFT AND
-

ETABS.
The Direct Method gives higher values
44% higher than those obtained
with ETABS.
ETABS.
% TIME AND POSITIVE IN OUTER PANEL
160
140
120
100
80
60
40
20
0
FEDERAL
ETABS

AXIS X
NEGATIVE TIME AROUND THE SHAFT X
-

ETABS.
The method gives the Federal
District
values below 36% of those obtained with
ETABS.
% X NEGATIVE TIME IN OUTER PANEL
160
140
120
100
80
60
40
20
0
FEDERAL
ETABS

AXIS X
POSITIVE TIME AROUND THE SHAFT X
-

ETABS.
ETABS.
% X POSITIVE MOMENT IN OUTER PANEL
180
160
140
120
100
80
60
40
20
0
FEDERAL
ETABS
INTERIM RESULTS EXTERIOR PANELS UNDER WHOSE SIDE IS PARALLEL TO THE AXIS
X
-

ETABS.
ETABS.
% TIME AND NEGATIVE IN OUTER PANEL
140
120
100
80
60
40
20
0
FEDERAL
ETABS
X
POSITIVE TIME AROUND THE SHAFT AND
-

ETABS.
The Direct Method gives higher values
16% more than those obtained with
ETABS.
ETABS.
% TIME AND POSITIVE IN OUTER PANEL
140
120
100
80
60
40
20
0
FEDERAL
ETABS
X
NEGATIVE TIME AROUND THE SHAFT X
-

ETABS.
ETABS.
% X NEGATIVE TIME IN OUTER PANEL
160
140
120
100
80
60
40
20
0
FEDERAL
ETABS
X
POSITIVE TIME AROUND THE SHAFT X
-

ETABS.
The Direct Method gives higher values by
5% more than those obtained with ETABS.
% X POSITIVE MOMENT IN OUTER PANEL
180
160
140
120
100
80
60
40
20
0
FEDERAL
ETABS
RESULTS CENTRAL PANELS

% TIME AND NEGATIVE IN CENTRAL PANEL

higher values, 10% more than the
ETABS times obtained.
The method of rigid beams gives values
under 57% of those obtained with
ETABS.
The Direct Method gives values 38% less than
those obtained with ETABS.
ETABS.
120
100
80
60
40
20
0
FEDERAL
ETABS
POSITIVE RESULTS PANELS CENTRAL

-

ETABS.
ETABS.
% TIME AND POSITIVE IN CENTRAL PANEL
140
120
100
80
60
40
20
0
FEDERAL
ETABS
POWER PANELS NEGATIVE RESULTS

-

ETABS.
% X NEGATIVE IN CENTRAL TIME PANEL
140
120
100
80
60
40
20
0
FEDERAL
ETABS
POSITIVE RESULTS PANELS CENTRAL

-

ETABS.
% X POSITIVE IN CENTRAL TIME PANEL
160
140
120
100
80
60
40
20
0
FEDERAL
ETABS
13. CALCULATION OF ARMOR. (2)

Already obtained the design time by different methods and with them the next step is to
calculate the armor of the slab, some authors differ in the methods of conception of nerves, some
see them as beams, fifura 12 and consider the contribution the tile compression, others simply work
with nerves as rectangular beams, the aim of this article is not compare these forms of calculation
but interesting show armor for the proposed exercise, it then uses the values obtained with the
method of lng. Marcelo Romo. Which are the highest values obtained and designed considering the
slab below the nerves as beams and calculation is based on the ACI 318 indicating beams analysis
and the results are shown in Table 29.
As CALCULATION OF UPPER AND LOWER minimum
Effective height of the slab (d)
=
Figure 12 Equivalent Beam T
d = 20 - 2 to 1.2 / 2 = 17.4 cm
As MINIMUM TOP
210
2
100 * 17.4 * 4,803
AceOne0.
4200
cm
8*
14
210
AceTh
17.4 * 20 * 1.16 cm2
4200
Ace21.6 4200 17.4 * 20 * 1,921 ree
cm2
*
2
SUPERIOR Asmin = 1,921 cm

2
Acemin SUP / NERVE = 1,921 / 2 = 0.9605 cm
As MINIMUM BOTTOM
210
2
17.4 * 20 * 0.961 cm
AceOne0.8 *
4200
14
2
17.4 * 20 * 1.16 cm
AceTh
4200
ree
Ace
mi BOTTOM = 1.16 cm2
2
n
Asmin
INF / NERVE = 1.16 / 2 = 0.58 cm
Table 29 Calculation Of Armor
Moo
Panel
1-2-A-B
Mx
1227
0.651
Ace As min
20 0.00575 2,001
100 0.00057 0.996
1,921
1.16
Def As (cm )
As / nerve
2,001
1.16
1,001
0.58
nerve
12
10
My
Mx
1-2-B-C
My
Mx
1-2-C-D
My
Mx
2-3-A-B
My
Mx
2-3-B-C
My
Mx
2-3-C-D
My
Mx
3-4-A-B
My
Mx
3-4-B-C
My
Mx
3-4-C-D
My
1102
0.533
1091
0.563
1040
0.467
-1.48
0.826
1093
0.459
1139
0.549
1014
0.48
1027
0.484
-0961
0.422
1343
0.683
-0985
0.398
1074
0.597
-0806
0.344
-0993
0.544
-0785
0.307
1202
0.686
-0774
0.282
20
100
20
100
20
100
20
100
20
100
20
100
20
100
20
100
20
100
20
100
20
100
20
100
20
100
20
100
20
100
20
100
20
100
0.00512
0.00046
0.00507
0.00049
0.00482
0.00041
0.00705
0.00073
0.00508
0.00040
0.00531
0.00048
0.00469
0.00042
0.00475
0.00043
0.00443
0.00037
0.00634
0.00060
0.00455
0.000
0.00498
0.00052
0.00368
0.00030
0.00459
0.00048
0.00358
0.00027
0.00562
0.00060
0.00353
0.00025
1,783
0.815
1,764
0,861
1,676
0.713
2,454
1,267
1,767
0.701
1,847
0.839
1,632
0.733
1,654
0.74
1,541
0.644
2,206
1,046
1,582
0.947
1,735
0.913
1,281
0,525
1,596
0.832
1,246
0.468
1,957
1.05
1,228
0,430
1,921
1.16
1,921
1.16
1,921
1.16
1,921
1.16
1,921
1.16
1,921
1.16
1,921
1.16
1,921
1.16
1,921
1.16
1,921
1.16
1,921
1.16
1,921
1.16
1,921
1.16
1,921
1.16
1,921
1.16
1,921
1.16
1,921
1.16
1,921
1.16
1,921
1.16
1,921
1.16
2,454
1,267
1,921
1.16
1,921
1.16
1,921
1.16
1,921
1.16
1,921
1.16
2,206
1.16
1,921
1.16
1,921
1.16
1,921
1.16
1,921
1.16
1,921
1.16
1,957
1.16
1,921
1.16
0.9605
0.58
0.9605
0.58
0.9605
0.58
1,227
0.6335
0.9605
0.58
0.9605
0.58
0.9605
0.58
0.9605
0.58
0.9605
0.58
1,103
0.58
0.9605
0.58
0.9605
0.58
0.9605
0.58
0.9605
0.58
0.9605
0.58
0.9785
0.58
0.9605
0.58
12
10
12
10
12
10
14
10
12
10
12
10
12
10
12
10
12
10
12
10
12
10
12
10
12
10
12
10
12
10
12
10
12
10
13.CONCLUSIONES,
Analysis of a slab lightened bidirectional type 20 cms thick M. Romo, beams Rigid, Direct Method,
the Method Federal district and ETABS model was performed Ing methods were used. To compare
results.
-
The method of Ing. M. Romo gives the highest values in relation to negative moments.
The Direct Method gives lower values than in the negative moments in 18-20% of those
The rigid beams method gives results in minor negative moments in 54-48% of those
The method gives results in Distrito Federal minor negative moments in 26-35% of those
Variations in the positive moments are considerable between the methods discussed but
remember that are much smaller than the negative moments.
The results obtained with ETABS results show conservative but not so far from the other
methods such as the Ing. Romo.
Other methods for the analysis and design of two-way slabs but the results ETABS user
can be sure that if you use the model proposed in this paper the results will be reliable.
The direct method is a good alternative for manual calculation and whether to use a
method of coefficients Method Engineer Romo is a good choice.
Importantly, the armed resulting from using any of these methods in this article almost
entirely minimal assembly, expressed in rods 12 to 10 negative arming and for the
positive.
REFERENCES
1. Colombian Association of Earthquake Engineering, Colombian standards for Earthquake

Resistant Design and Construction NSR-98, Volume 2, 1998.
2. ACI Committee 318, Building Code Requirements for Structural Concrete (ACI 318M-02) and
Commentary (ACI 318RM-02), ACI International, 2002.
3. Cuevas Gonzlez - Robles, Fundamentals of Reinforced Concrete, Limusa Noriega Editores,
1996.
4. INEN, Ecuadorian Code of Practice, CPE INEN5: 2001 Part 1, Chapter 12, INEN, 2001.
5. Arthur Nilson, Design of Concrete Structures, McGraw Hill, 1999.
6. Parker - Ambrose, Simplified Reinforced Concrete Design, Limusa Wiley, 2003.
7. Marcelo Romo, Stitching Concrete, ESPE, 1995.
8. Manuals ETABS Nonlinear Version 8.26, CSI Computers and Structures.
9. Http // www.Inti.gov.ar / CIRSOC / complementary / chapter 19.pdf

Analysis of Slab by Different Methods

Hochgeladen von

Dokumentinformationen

Copyright

Verfügbare Formate

Dieses Dokument teilen

Dokument teilen oder einbetten

Freigabeoptionen

Stufen Sie dieses Dokument als nützlich ein?

Sind diese Inhalte unangemessen?

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

Analysis of Slab by Different Methods

Hochgeladen von

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

ANALYSIS OF SLAB BY DIFFERENT METHODS

Ing. Paul Guerrero *

* Consorcio Santos CMI

For analysis the following structure is proposed:

Figure 1 Plan View and lift gantry A

Figure 2 Dimensional Vista

Table 1 Characteristics of materials

CRITICAL ANALYSIS PANEL.

To start the design will prevail h = thickness of the slab = 20 cm

on each axis of the panel are shown in the following table:

The minimum height for a flat slab is calculated with:

Figure 3 Plan view and cutting slab 1m2

Table 4 Dead weight of the slab / m2

It is time to analyze the finished slab

Table 5 finishes slab / m

0.022 + 0.088 + 0.022

anda specific 1.6 T /Th (+ Brick mortar)

and wall area (slab) is the area of the slab.

Losa mezzanine: L (residences) = 0.2 T / m2

0.3296 + 0.132 + 0.15

METHOD OF ING. MARCELO ROMO.

Ribbed rectangular slab TYPE 1

Ribbed rectangular slab TYPE 2

Lesser light / greater Light

(High side unrestricted)

Lesser light / greater Light

Ribbed rectangular slab TYPE 3

Ribbed rectangular slab TYPE 6

(Lower side unrestricted)

Lesser light / greater Light

(Higher side and lower side without restriction)

Lesser light / greater Light

Figure 4 Models used by M. Romo

6.1 CALCULATION OF MOMENTS IN 9 PANELS.

Panel (Axis) Type (Tables)

Table 9 Moments calculated on the slab

7. METHOD OF RIGID BEAMS

Panel (Axis) Type (Tables)

Table 11 Design coefficients

Table design 12Momentos

Table 13 Summary of the final moments in the slab strip

8. DIRECT METHOD OF DESIGN.

Figure 5 Distribution of moment coefficients design Indoor and

Table 15 Summary coefficients used

INTERMEDIATE BAND MOMENTS

Figure 6 Cut parallel to the X axis beams

GAZA MOMENTS MIDDLE PILLAR 1

MOMENTS INTERMEDIATE BAND HUB 4

COEFFICIENTS FOR INTERMEDIATE BAND

Table 19 Summary of intermediate strip moments

MOMENTS INTERMEDIATE BAND T * m

Y axis parallel strips 7, in Tables 20 to calculations made by each strip as regards

Figure 7 Cut parallel to the Y axis beams

COEFFICIENTS FOR INTERMEDIATE BAND

Table 22 Summary of intermediate strip moments

MOMENTS INTERMEDIATE BAND T * m

9. METHOD OF FEDERAL DISTRICT

Figure 8 Core and Edge Strips

NEG. INSIDE EDGE

NEG. INSIDE EDGE

SHORT SIDE EDGE BATCH

NEG. INSIDE EDGE

NEG. EDGES DISCONTINUED

NEG. INSIDE EDGE