0 Bewertungen0% fanden dieses Dokument nützlich (0 Abstimmungen)

34 Ansichten97 SeitenMay 17, 2016

© © All Rights Reserved

PDF, TXT oder online auf Scribd lesen

© All Rights Reserved

Als PDF, TXT **herunterladen** oder online auf Scribd lesen

0 Bewertungen0% fanden dieses Dokument nützlich (0 Abstimmungen)

34 Ansichten97 Seiten© All Rights Reserved

Als PDF, TXT **herunterladen** oder online auf Scribd lesen

Sie sind auf Seite 1von 97

Swiss Federal Institute of Technology Zurich

Zurich

August 2004

Preface

Anwendungsgebieten der Theorie starr-ideal

plastischer Krper. Diese um 1950 von

Prager, Drucker, Hill und anderen formulierte

Theorie, die sich in ihrer Anwendung nach

dem unteren und oberen Grenzwertsatz in

eine statische und eine kinematische Methode

aufteilt, erfuhr in den 1960er Jahren in Bezug

auf Plattenprobleme ausgedehnte Darstellungen, namentlich durch Wood, Massonnet

und Save, Nielsen, Sawczuk und Jaeger,

Wolfensberger, Kemp, Morley und weitere

Autoren. Die 1921 von Ingerslev eingefhrte

und ab 1931 von Johansen vorangetriebene

Fliessgelenklinientheorie wurde als Anwendung der kinematischen Methode erkannt.

Schwierigkeiten ergaben sich allerdings bei

der Interpretation der von Johansen eingefhrten Knotenkrfte, und zudem wurden

Flle entdeckt, bei denen sich das Versagen

nicht mit Fliessgelenklinien beschreiben lsst.

Das erste Problem wurde durch die Einsicht

in die quivalenz von Drillmomenten und

Randquerkrften sowie die Mglichkeit von

Sprngen der Drillmomente an Diskontinuittslinien teilweise gelst. Die Lsung des

zweiten Problems bestand in der Einfhrung

von Fliesszonen, in denen sowohl die untere

als auch die obere Bewehrung fliesst.

Analog zur Betrachtung des Kraftflusses

in Stahlbeton-Stabtragwerken mit Fachwerkmodellen und Spannungsfeldern wurden am

Institut fr Baustatik und Konstruktion der

ETH Zrich in den 1990er Jahren auf dem

unteren Grenzwertsatz beruhende Methoden

zur Betrachtung des Kraftflusses in Stahlbetonplatten entwickelt. Liefern bei Stabtragwerken die Querkrfte den Schlssel zum

Verstndnis des Kraftflusses, so sind dies im

Innern und am Rand von Platten die Hauptquerkrfte sowie entlang von Diskontinuittslinien bertragene Querkrfte.

Herrn Monottis Arbeit ist vor diesem

Hintergrund zu sehen. Sie fhrt einerseits zu

einer Klrung der Rolle von Knotenkrften;

classical fields of application of the theory of

rigid-perfectly plastic bodies. Established

around 1950 by Prager, Drucker, Hill, and

others, this theory, which can be used in the

form of the static or the kinematic method,

was extensively applied to slab problems in

the 1960s, in particular by Wood, Massonnet

and Save, Nielsen, Sawczuk and Jaeger,

Wolfensberger, Kemp, Morley, and others.

The yield line theory, introduced by Ingerslev

in 1921 and developed by Johansen from

1931 onwards, was recognised to be an

application of the kinematic method.

However, the interpretation of the nodal

forces introduced by Johansen led to difficulties and cases were discovered where failure

cannot be described by yield line mechanisms. The first problem was partially solved

by the recognition of the equivalency of

twisting moments and edge shear forces as

well as the possibility of jumps in the twisting

moments along discontinuity lines. The

solution of the second problem consisted in

introducing yield regions within which both

the bottom and the top reinforcements are

yielding.

Similar to the consideration of the force

flow within reinforced concrete beams and

frames by means of truss models and stress

fields, methods based on the lower-bound

theorem of the theory of plasticity were

developed at the Institute of Structural

Engineering of the ETH during the 1990s to

follow the force flow within reinforced

concrete slabs. While for beams and frames,

the shear forces provide the key to understanding the force flow, principal shear forces

and shear forces transferred along discontinuity lines play the same role in the

interior and at the edges of slabs.

Mr. Monottis work should be regarded

within this context. On the one hand it

clarifies the meaning of nodal forces; they

correspond either to jumps in the twisting

diese entsprechen entweder Drillmomentensprngen oder Singularitten der Hauptquerkrfte. Andererseits stellen seine neu

entwickelten Spannungsfelder eine betrchtliche Bereicherung der Bibliothek vorhandener Anstze dar. Schliesslich belebt sein

Konzept der Vertrglichkeitsmethode die

weitgehend erstarrte Diskussion ber die

Bemessungsmethoden von Stahlbetonplatten;

wie die Kapazittsbemessung liegt dieses

Konzept den Bedrfnissen der praktischen

Anwendung nahe und umgeht die bisher in

ihrer Bedeutung etwas berbewerteten

theoretischen Schwierigkeiten.

shear forces. On the other hand his newly

developed stress fields represent a significant

extension of the library of known solutions.

Finally, the concept of the so-called compatibility limit design method provides a new

impulse to the rather rigidified discussion of

reinforced concrete slab design methods;

similar to the capacity design method this

concept is suitable for practical applications

and it bypasses the theoretical difficulties that

have perhaps so far been somewhat overrated

in their significance.

Summary

Based on the theory of plasticity this thesis develops a new design procedure for reinforced

concrete slabs the compatibility limit design method. The basic idea of this method is to

extend the typical design procedure for reinforced concrete beams and frames to slabs. For

beams and frames, the failure mechanisms indicate the global force flow because the plastic

hinges coincide with the points of zero shear force; the force flow within the beam or frame

segments defined by the points of zero shear force can be visualised using truss models or

corresponding stress fields and the segments detailing can be completed accordingly. For slabs,

static and kinematic considerations are normally applied in an unrelated way and hence, the

potential offered by the theory of plasticity is not fully utilised; by considering yield line

mechanisms and developing matching stress fields for slab segments defined by the yield lines

the compatibility limit design method attempts to overcome this situation.

After the introduction (Chapter 1) and a presentation of the fundamentals of the theory of

rigid-perfectly plastic bodies and its application to reinforced concrete (Chapter 2) Chapter 3 to

5 present the static, limit analysis and kinematic considerations underlying the compatibility

limit design method whose application is illustrated in Chapter 6 by means of a practical

example. Chapter 7 contains a summary, conclusions and recommendations for future studies.

The static considerations concentrate on the load transfer mechanisms in slabs and their

boundary conditions. Distributed and concentrated load transfer are differentiated. Distributed

load transfer is described by the generalised strip method, using general curved rather than

straight orthogonal beams. Concentrated load transfer occurs in strong bands or along shear

lines. Together with a set of stress fields describing a certain distributed load transfer within

individual slab segments strong bands and shear lines are the basic tools of a stress field

approach for slabs similar to that used for beams and frames.

The limit analysis considerations are based on a discussion of compatible states of stress

and deformation using the yield condition and the associated flow rule for orthogonally

reinforced concrete slabs. From a kinematic point of view, rigid parts, yield lines and yield

regions are differentiated. It is proposed to bypass the difficulties associated with yield regions

by introducing an approximate limit analysis, corresponding to enforcing yield line mechanisms

of unique sign; similar to the capacity design method used in earthquake engineering this can be

ensured by some local strengthening of the reinforcement.

The kinematic considerations illustrate the application of the work method and the

equilibrium method to yield line mechanisms. It is shown that the two methods are equivalent if

they are associated to a unique statical problem.

The practical application of the compatibility limit design method requires some

preliminary assumptions about the resistance distribution in the slab. Based on an intuitively

assumed yield line mechanism the required global resistances can be quantified and optimised.

In a second step, the stress field approach is employed to study the force flow within and

between the individual slab segments and to detect any local resistance deficits.

Zusammenfassung

Auf der Grundlage der Plastizittstheorie wird eine neue Bemessungsmethode fr Stahlbetonplatten entwickelt die Vertrglichkeitsmethode. Die Grundidee dieser Methode besteht darin,

die fr Stabtragwerke bliche Bemessungsmethode auf Platten zu bertragen. Die

Bruchmechanismen von Stabtragwerken zeigen den Kraftfluss im Grossen an, weil die

plastischen Gelenke den Querkraftnullpunkten entsprechen; der Kraftfluss im Kleinen, im

Inneren der durch die Querkraftnullpunkte begrenzten Elemente, kann mit Fachwerkmodellen

oder entsprechenden Spannungsfeldern untersucht werden, was eine passende konstruktive

Durchbildung ermglicht. Bei der Bemessung von Platten werden blicherweise statische und

kinematische Betrachtungen angestellt, die in keinem direkten Zusammenhang stehen, und das

Potential der Plastizittstheorie wird nicht ausgeschpft; mit der Vertrglichkeitsmethode wird

versucht, diese unbefriedigende Situation zu berwinden, indem ausgehend von angenommenen

Fliessgelenklinienmechanismen entsprechende vertrgliche Spannungsfelder in den einzelnen

durch die Fliessgelenklinien definierten Plattenteilen entwickelt werden.

Nach der Einleitung (Kapitel 1) und einer Zusammenstellung der Grundlagen der Theorie

starr- ideal plastischer Krper sowie deren Anwendung auf Stahlbeton (Kapitel 2) enthalten die

Kapitel 3 bis 5 die hinter der Vertrglichkeitsmethode stehenden statischen, grenztragfhigkeitstheoretischen und kinematischen Betrachtungen. Die Anwendung der Vertrglichkeitsmethode

wird im Kapitel 6 anhand eines praktischen Beispiels illustriert, und Kapitel 7 enthlt eine

Zusammenfassung, Schlussfolgerungen sowie Empfehlungen fr weiterfrende Studien.

Im Zentrum der statischen Betrachtungen stehen der Kraftfluss in Platten sowie die

entsprechenden Randbedingungen. Dabei wird zwischen einer Lastabtragung ber verteilte und

konzentrierte Querkrfte unterschieden. Die Lastabtragung ber verteilte Querkrfte wird mit

der verallgemeinerte Streifenmethode untersucht, die allgemein gekrmmte statt gerade

orthogonale Koordinaten verwendet. Konzentrierte Querkrfte treten in versteckten Balken und

Schublinien auf. Zusammen mit einer Familie von Spannungsfeldern zur Beschreibung der

Lastabtragung in Plattenteilen ber verteilte Querkrfte ermglichen versteckte Balken und

Schublinien eine Spannungsfeldanalyse von Platten hnlich jener von Stabtragwerken.

Die grenztragfhigkeitstheoretischen Betrachtungen beziehen sich auf vertrgliche

Spannungs- und Verformungszustnde unter Zugrundelegung der Fliessbedingung und des

zugeordneten Fliessgesetzes fr orthogonal bewehrte Stahlbetonplatten. Kinematisch werden

starre Plattenteile, Fliessgelenklinien und Fliesszonen unterschieden. Um die mit Fliesszonen

verbundenen Schwierigkeiten zu umgehen wird vorgeschlagen, eine approximative

Grenztragfhigkeitsanalyse einzufhren, derart, dass nur positive oder negative Fliessgelenklinien auftreten; hnlich wie bei der Kapazittsbemessung im Erdbebeningenieurwesen

wird das Auftreten solcher Mechanismen durch rtliche Bewehrungsverstrkungen erzwungen.

Die kinematischen Betrachtungen sind der Anwendung der sogenanten Energie- und

Grenzgleichgewichtsmethoden auf Fliessgelenklinien gewidmet. Es wird gezeigt, dass die

beiden Methoden quivalent sind, wenn sie derselben statischen Problemstellung entsprechen.

Die praktische Anwendung der Vertrglichkeitsmethode setzt einige Annahmen ber die

Widerstandsverteilung in der Platte voraus. Von einem intuitiv angenommenen Fliessgelenklinienmechanismus ausgehend knnen die notwendigen Widerstnde bestimmt und

optimiert werden. In einem zweiten Schritt knnen dann allfllige lokale Widerstandsdefizite

durch Anwendung der Spannungsfeldanalyse endeckt und behoben werden.

Table of contents

Introduction

1.2 Overview

1.3 Assumptions and limitations

1

2

4

Theory of plasticity

2.1

2.2

2.3

2.4

2.5

2.6

General

Rigid-perfectly plastic behaviour

Reinforced concrete

Yield condition and flow rule

Theorems of limit analysis

Limit analysis and design methods

5

5

6

8

10

11

Static method

13

3.1 General

3.2 Internal forces

3.2.1 Definition of internal forces

3.2.2 Stress field definition

3.3 Equilibrium

3.2.1 Orthogonal curvilinear coordinates

3.2.2 Sign convention

3.2.3 Equilibrium conditions

3.4 Load transfer

3.4.1 Distributed load transfer

3.4.2 Concentrated load transfer

3.4.3 Remarks

3.5 Boundary conditions

3.6 Lower-bound method

3.6.1 Generalised strip method

3.6.2 Elasticity

3.6.3 Strip method

3.6.4 Hencky-Prandtl solutions

3.6.5 General stress fields

3.6.6 Superposition principle

3.6.7 Stress field approach for slabs

3.7 Examples

3.7.1 Simply supported rectangular slab

3.7.2 Triangular slab with a free edge

3.8 Conclusions

13

13

14

14

16

16

17

17

18

18

20

20

20

22

23

23

24

25

25

31

33

34

34

38

40

Limit analysis

41

4.1 General

4.2 Yield condition and flow rule

41

41

4.2.2 Yield condition

4.2.3 Flow rule

4.2.4 Discussion

4.3 Approximate limit analysis

4.4 Example application

4.5 Conclusions

42

43

46

48

49

50

51

Kinematic method

53

5.1 General

5.2 Failure mechanisms and limit analysis

5.3 Upper-bound method

5.3.1 Work method

5.3.2 Equilibrium method

5.4 Discussion

5.5 Conclusions

53

54

55

55

59

67

69

71

6.1 General

6.2 Example application

6.2.1 Problem statement

6.2.2 Assumptions

6.2.3 Detailing

6.2.4 Kinematical analysis

6.2.5 Statical analysis

6.2.6 Reinforcement dimensioning

6.3 Discussion

6.4 Conclusions

71

71

72

72

73

74

74

77

78

80

81

7.1 Summary

7.2 Conclusions

7.3 Recommendations for future studies

81

82

83

References

85

Notation

89

1 Introduction

The theory of plasticity provides a solid foundation for the ultimate limit state design of

reinforced concrete structures [64, 35, 50]. For beams and frames it is relatively easy to develop

coinciding static and kinematic (or lower- and upper-bound) solutions, i.e. to determine failure

mechanisms and matching stress fields at ultimate. For slabs, however, static and kinematic

analyses are usually performed in an unrelated way. It is the aim of this thesis to improve this

situation and to contribute to a better utilisation of the potential for reinforced concrete slab

design offered by the theory of plasticity.

As an introductory example consider the uniformly loaded beam shown in Fig. 1.1a,

clamped at x = 0 and simply supported at x = l.

The static analysis focuses on the force flow, i.e. the way the load is distributed between the

supports. The point of zero shear at x = x0 in Fig. 1.1b subdivides the beam into two segments in

which the forces flow either to the left or to the right support. Shear force and moment

distribution follow from equilibrium, i.e. V = q (x0 x) and M = q [(l2 x2) / 2 x0 (l x)]. For

l / 2 < x0 < l the extreme positive and negative moments are located at x = x0 (M(x0) = q(l x0)2/ 2)

and x = 0 ( M(0) = ql(l / 2 x0)); the limiting cases x0 = l / 2 and x0 = l correspond to a simply

supported beam and a cantilever, respectively, i.e. to statically determinate structures. In

Fig. 1.1b the statical indeterminacy represented by x0 is reflected by a vertical shift and a

rotation about the end point M = 0 at x = l of the closing lines of the shear force and moment

diagrams, respectively. Assuming a uniform resistance Mu against both positive and negative

bending moments and setting M(0) = M(x0) = Mu one obtains x0 = (2 2 ) l and

Mu = ql2 ( 2 1)2/ 2; on the other hand, assuming an initially stress-free structure and a uniform

elastic bending stiffness, one gets x0 = 5l / 8 and M(0) = ql2 / 8. Complete elastic unloading of

the corresponding elastic-plastic beam from the ultimate load qu = 2Mu / [( 2 1) l ]2 would result

in a residual moment M(0) = Mu + 2Mu / [8 ( 2 1)2] = 0.457Mu at the clamped end of the beam.

Generally, residual stresses depend on the entire loading and restraining history but they do not

affect the ultimate loads that can be carried by perfectly plastic systems.

The kinematic analysis considers the flexural failure mechanism shown in Fig. 1.1c.

Assuming a uniform resistance Mu against both positive and negative bending moments the total

energy dissipation in the plastic hinges at x = 0 and at x = x0 equals Mu(2l x0) / [x0 (l x0)] and this

must be equal to the work ql / 2 of the externally applied forces, hence q = 2Mu(2l x0) / [lx0 (l x0)].

The function q assumes the minimum q = 2Mu / [( 2 1) l ]2 at x0 = (2 2 ) l. It can be seen that

in general, the kinematic analysis results in unsafe estimates of the ultimate load.

For the assumed uniform bending resistance compatibility between statics and kinematics

requires that the plastic hinges coincide with the points of zero shear. Hence, the two free-body

diagrams shown in Fig. 1.1d can be drawn, resulting in the moment equilibrium equations

2Mu q x02/2 = 0 and Mu + q (l x0)2 /2 = 0, respectively, i.e. x0 = (2 2 )l and qu = 2Mu /[( 2 1)l]2.

Note that contrary to the kinematic analysis x0 is determined by equilibrium equations; no

differentiation process is necessary. The uniqueness of the solution can easily be verified by

means of Fig. 1.1b; by superimposing a residual stress state as indicated by the closing line of

Introduction

the moment diagram the yield condition for the positive bending moments would be violated;

similar arguments apply for the negative moments with a closing line rotation in the opposite

direction.

It can be seen that based on compatibility considerations the static and the kinematic

analyses are combined and made more efficient. Thus, the ultimate limit state design may start

from failure mechanism considerations indicating the global force flow and the required main

resistances, followed by a detailed analysis and design of the beam segments between the points

of zero shear force, typically based on truss models and corresponding stress fields as shown in

Fig. 1.1e.

Reinforced concrete slabs are frequently designed using moments determined according to

the theory of elastic plates or Hillerborgs strip method. Alternatively, yield line mechanisms

and approximate design procedures such as the equivalent frame method are applied. Generally,

the different methods are used independently of each other and their results may show

considerable discrepancies. Insufficient flexibility of the static as well as the kinematic

approaches is the reason for this incompatibility. By removing these limitations this thesis

attempts to extend the compatibility limit design considerations from reinforced concrete beams

and frames to reinforced concrete slabs.

1.2 Overview

Chapter 2 introduces the fundamentals of the theory of rigid-perfectly plastic bodies. Yield

condition and associated flow rule are presented in a general form and the theorems of limit

analysis are formulated based on the principles of virtual work and maximum energy

dissipation. A discussion on the applicability of limit analysis and design procedures to

reinforced concrete structures completes this chapter.

Chapters 3 to 5 present the static method, limit analysis and the kinematic method,

introducing basic tools, developing methods of analysis and illustrating their application by

means of two examples.

Chapter 3 concentrates on the load transfer mechanisms in slabs and their boundary

conditions. Different lower-bound methods are identified as particular forms of load transfer. In

order to obtain the necessary flexibility for compatibility limit designs stress fields for slab

segments characterised by distributed load transfer are developed. Together with shear lines and

strong bands such stress fields are the basic tools of a stress field approach for slabs similar to

that used for beams and frames.

Chapter 4 discusses compatible states of stress and deformation based on the yield condition

and the associated flow rule for orthogonally reinforced concrete slabs. From a kinematic point

of view, rigid parts, yield lines and yield regions are differentiated. Since yield regions are

difficult to deal with it is proposed to introduce an approximate limit analysis, corresponding to

enforcing yield line mechanisms of unique sign; similar to the capacity design method used in

earthquake engineering this is ensured by some local strengthening of the reinforcement.

Chapter 5 presents the basic principles of yield line analysis and illustrates the application

of the work method and of the equilibrium method. The relationships between the two methods

are discussed and it is shown that the equilibrium method can be interpreted as an expression of

compatibility limit design considerations (for a suitably defined approximate limit analysis

problem) similar to those underlying Fig. 1.1d.

a)

q

x

l

b)

V= 0

ql

x0

-Mu

M

ql2/8

Mu

Mu

Closing line

c)

q

Mu

x0

1

Mu

d)

q

Mu

qx0

x0

Mu

q (l x0)

l x0

e)

Fig. 1.1: Statically indeterminate beam: a) system and loading; b) static analysis; c) kinematic

analysis; d) compatibility; e) truss model and stress fields.

Introduction

Chapter 6 demonstrates the application of the compatibility limit design method by means

of a practical example, highlighting the importance of detailing considerations and providing

comparisons with previously derived solutions.

Chapter 7 contains a summary, conclusions and recommendations for future studies.

It is assumed that the load-deformation response of reinforced concrete can be idealised as rigidperfectly plastic. This requires a sufficiently ductile and appropriately anchored, distributed and

detailed reinforcement as well as adequate concrete cross-sections [64, 35].

Membrane action is neglected.

While the flow of distributed and concentrated shear forces is analysed in detail the

associated dimensioning and detailing is based on established procedures [33].

2 Theory of plasticity

2.1 General

The central task of structural engineers is the design of safe and economical structures. Safety

not only implies resistance to external actions, but also ductility and robustness. Collapse should

be preceded by perceivable deformations and in the case of failure, damage should not extend to

the whole structure. Load resistance and ductility are simplified and summarised in the form of

rigid-plastic behaviour on the basis of the theory of plasticity. Corresponding limit analysis

methods have been applied for a long time, implicitly or explicitly, to solve engineering

problems.

Only in the 1950s the theory of plasticity was established on a sound basis, deviating

radically in its approach from that of the theory of elasticity. By considering the elastic-plastic

behaviour the transition between the two theories was smoothened [53, 37]; however, the

complexity of elastic-plastic analyses and the problems related to the identification of the real

state of stress in a structure meant the results were largely of academic interest. In practice the

theories of elasticity and plasticity are used independently and with different purposes:

serviceability limit states are checked based on the theory of elasticity whereas ultimate limit

state checks and design are based on the theory of plasticity.

The present chapter gives a brief summary of the theory of plasticity, focusing on a rigidperfectly plastic material behaviour. Starting from one-dimensional problems (Chapter 2.2) the

analysis is extended to general systems (Chapter 2.4). The theorems of limit analysis (Chapter

2.5) are the basis of corresponding limit analysis and design methods (Chapter 2.6). A

comparison of reinforced concrete behaviour limited to one-dimensional problems with the

rigid-perfectly plastic model (Chapter 2.3) completes the discussion.

In its basic and simplest form, the theory of plasticity assumes a rigid-perfectly plastic material

behaviour. The uniaxial test shown in Fig. 2.1a is examined by considering the stress-strain

curve depicted in Fig. 2.1b. The load is increased starting from point O, i.e. from a virgin state.

Up to the yield point = fy no deformations occur (OA). Once A is reached arbitrary

deformations in the load direction are possible without any change in stress; the stress-strain

curve extends toward D. At B the bar is unloaded. The stress-strain point moves parallel to OA

to point C; the strain , i.e. the plastic deformation of the bar, remains constant. Continuing the

experiment in the compression direction, a negative deformation occurs as soon as the yield

stress = fy is reached (point E ); for the sake of simplicity, the yield stresses in tension and

compression are assumed to be of equal magnitude. In the second plastic phase the stress-strain

point moves along EFI. Again, the opposite yield stress may be reached by reversing the load

direction. For example, starting from G, the curve GHJD is obtained.

Theory of plasticity

b)

a)

c)

fy

fy

I

G

fy

fy

Fig. 2.1: Rigid-plastic material: a) uniaxial test; b) stress-strain curve; c) yield criterion.

A rigid-plastic material stores no energy. The work done by the external forces is

completely dissipated in plastic deformation. Denoting by F the applied load and by u& the

incremental plastic deformation of the bar corresponding to a strain rate & (Fig. 2.1a), the

energy balance over the whole body (volume V ) is given by

W = Fu& = & dV = D

(2.1)

The energy dissipated per unit volume equals dD = & . Considering Fig. 2.1b, it is clear

that dD is a function of & , i.e. dD = dD( & ), and that the multiplication of & with a positive

factor k leads to a multiplication of dD with the same factor: dD(k&) = k dD(&) . Hence, dD is a

homogeneous function of first degree and from Eulers theorem on homogeneous functions one

gets

d (dD)

d&

(2.2)

made on deformations, which may grow in an uncontrolled manner as soon as the collapse load

is reached. According to this observation the stress-strain diagram of Fig. 2.1b is simplified to

Fig. 2.1c. Stresses with < f y are sustained without deformation. For = f y a plastic

strain increment & in the load direction is possible. States of stress with > f y are not

admissible. Introducing the yield function Y ( ) = f y the three cases are differentiated by

the sign of Y: Y < 0 represents the aplastic domain, Y = 0 defines the state of yielding and Y > 0

is not admissible. Possible strain increments & at collapse can be represented by outward

normal vectors to the yield boundaries.

It should be noted that the above analysis does not change if and & are replaced by F and

u& , i.e. instead of local stresses and strain increments generalised stresses (loads) and strain

(deformation) increments can be used [32].

Reinforced concrete is composed of concrete and reinforcement. The concrete may be assumed

to work purely in compression whereas the reinforcement is predominantly subjected to tension.

For a large range of applications it is sufficient to consider the uniaxial response of either

material.

a)

c)

O

C

A

D

F

F

u

l

fc

As

b)

..

...

...

...

...

3

D

...................................... b

...

Fcr

A. .

..

..

.

.....

...

...

Fy

A B

...

fu

fy

Fig. 2.2: Reinforced concrete: a) stress-strain curve for uniaxially loaded concrete; b) stressstrain curve for uniaxially loaded reinforcement; c) behaviour of reinforced concrete.

Concrete

Fig. 2.2a shows the stress-strain curve for the concrete in compression. After a more or less

elastic phase (OA), the concrete progressively loses its stiffness (AD) and reaches the maximum

compressive load (D). Unloading (BC ) is approximately elastic, parallel to OA. After the peak

load the system softens (DE ). The collapse of the specimen is characterised either by reaching

the deformation capacity of the concrete or by instability resulting from the equilibrium between

the elastic stored energy and the fracture energy [44]. It can be seen that concrete in

compression can be approximated as a rigid plastic material, assuming a conservative yield

strength fc.

The tensile strength of concrete is usually neglected. It should be noted that the behaviour of

concrete in tension is not plastic; after opening a crack (OF ) this crack has to be closed (FO)

before compressive stresses can be carried. A perfectly plastic behaviour would mean that the

stress-strain point would move parallel to the -axis, vertically down from F until reaching

= fc.

Reinforcement

The stress-strain curve for the reinforcement is depicted in Fig. 2.2b. Steel bars in tension

exhibit an initial elastic behaviour (OA), followed by a yield plateau, i.e. a yield point at = fy

beyond which the strain increases without any change in stress (AB), and a strain-hardening

range (BE ) until rupture occurs at the tensile strength = fu, corresponding to a strain u (E ).

Unloading at any point of the stress-strain diagram occurs with approximately the same stiffness

as for the initial loading (CD). Neglecting elastic deformations and strain-hardening one arrives

at a rigid-perfectly plastic behaviour. Excluding instability problems, e.g. buckling, steel

exhibits a similar behaviour in compression.

Theory of plasticity

Reinforced concrete

The behaviour of reinforced concrete is considered for the example of a simply supported beam

subjected to a concentrated load F in the middle of the span l (Fig. 2.2c). The beam has a

rectangular cross-section with effective depth d and width b. The reinforcements crosssectional area As is constant over the whole length, and corresponds to a reinforcement ratio

= As / (bd ). The load F as well as the associated deflection u are considered as generalised

load and deformation, respectively. Alternatively, the bending moment and the rotation at

midspan may be chosen as generalised stress and strain, respectively. Under monotonous

loading from zero the beam first behaves as a homogeneous, linearly elastic member (OA). At

point A the specimen cracks (cracking load F = Fcr). This produces a permanent change in the

structure. Moving towards B the beam still behaves approximately elastically, but with a

reduced stiffness (cracked behaviour). Upon yielding of the reinforcement (B) the specimen

exhibits a behaviour which may be considered as a plastic plateau, F = Fy (BCD). Up to the

peak load (C) the hardening of the reinforcing steel compensates the softening of the concrete.

At D the concrete reaches its ultimate strain and the beam collapses.

The behaviour described above corresponds to the case of a moderately reinforced concrete

beam ( 0.5%). Increasing the reinforcement ratio the ultimate load increases, but the

ductility of the beam decreases. Curve a depicts the load-deformation curve corresponding to

balanced failure; yielding of the reinforcement occurs together with rupture of the concrete. In

this curve the phase BCD disappears. Conversely, reducing the reinforcement ratio, the ductility

increases and the ultimate load decreases. Curve b depicts the situation for a beam containing

minimum reinforcement ( 0.15%); the loads at cracking and yielding (points A and B)

coincide and BCD reflects the reinforcement behaviour. Any further reduction of the

reinforcement ratio would lead to a brittle failure as soon as the cracking load would be reached

(curve c).

The behaviour of reinforced concrete can be characterised by an elastic uncracked (line 1), an

elastic cracked (line 2) and a plastic range (line 3).

The plastic behaviour of reinforced concrete is strongly influenced by the reinforcement

ratio. A ductile failure results for low and moderate reinforcement ratios for which the

concrete crushes while the steel is yielding.

The deformation capacity of reinforced concrete elements depends on the ductility of the

reinforcement (for low and moderate reinforcement ratios) as well as on the ultimate concrete

strain (for high reinforcement ratios); whereas the latter can be improved by detailing

measures (e.g. by confinement) sufficient ductility properties of the reinforcement are of

utmost importance for the soundness of concrete structures.

The plasticity considerations described above are generalised in the following to an ndimensional problem.

Generalised stresses 1, 2,, n and associated generalised strain increments &1 , &2 ,, &n

of a structure are considered [32]. The values of &i are zero while the system remains rigid.

Finite values of &i correspond to an arbitrary collapse state.

b)

a)

AB

A-B

O

Y< 0

Y= 0

Fig. 2.3: Limit analysis: a) yield surface and plastic strain increment; b) singularities.

The rigid-perfectly plastic system does not store energy. Thus, the work of the external

forces equals the dissipated energy, i.e.

D = W = &

(2.3)

= grad (D)

(2.4)

The generalised stresses at the ultimate limit state are assumed to be governed by the yield

condition

Y ( i ) = 0

(2.5)

Depicting (2.5) in a (1, 2,, n)-coordinate system a yield surface as shown in Fig. 2.3a is

obtained. Similar to the one-dimensional case the yield condition (2.5) isolates the aplastic

domain (enclosed area, Y(i) < 0) from the inadmissible region (Y(i) > 0).

Generalised strain increments compatible with a limit state are assumed to be outwarddirected, orthogonal to the yield surface, i.e.

& = k grad Y

(2.6)

where & represents the strain increment vector and k denotes an arbitrary, non-negative factor.

Eq. (2.6) represents the normality condition or associated flow rule.

Since the generalised stress state i = 0 (i = 1, 2,,n) is admissible, the yield surface must

enclose the origin O of the coordinate system.

The yield surfaces must be at least weakly convex. Special cases are given by a plane

surface or a point of singularity [29] (Fig. 2.3b). If the yield surface contains plane parts (AB) an

infinite number of stress states correspond to the same strain increment. However, the value of

D is equal for all points of the plane part if the same strain increment is considered. At an apex

or edge [29] the generalised strain increment can lie arbitrarily between the normal directions

determined on the areas adjacent to the discontinuity (C ). In such a situation, a single stress

state corresponds to an infinite number of strain increments. However, D is still uniquely

determined by & .

Theory of plasticity

The theorems of limits analysis result from the application of the principle of virtual work to a

rigid-perfectly plastic system, whose behaviour is summarised by the principle of maximum

energy dissipation.

The theorems of limit analysis are credited to Gvozdev [13], Hill [17], Drucker, Greenberg

and Prager [6, 7] and Sayir and Ziegler [60].

Principle of virtual work

In an arbitrary mechanical system, the total work of the internal and external forces (including

any internal and external reactions as well as inertial forces) disappears for any admissible

virtual motion.

For static systems one gets

F u& = &

(2.7)

where F and denote an equilibrium set of external and internal forces (generalised loads and

stresses), respectively, and u& and & denote an arbitrary associated compatibility set of external

and internal displacement increments (generalised deformation and strain increments),

respectively.

Principle of maximum energy dissipation

The stresses corresponding to given strain increments assume such values that the dissipation

becomes a maximum [65], i.e.

( * ) & 0

(2.8)

where is the actual generalised stress state at the yield surface corresponding to & and * is

any generalised stress at or within the yield surface (Fig. 2.3a).

Eq. (2.8) is trivially verified with the help of Fig. 2.3a, where the associated flow rule is

assumed to be valid. Alternatively, the principle of maximum energy dissipation may be

postulated and the associated flow rule follows from it [32].

Theorems of limit analysis

Excluding instability problems and combining the principle of virtual work with the principle of

maximum energy dissipation the following theorems are obtained:

Lower-bound theorem: any load Fs corresponding to a statically admissible state of stress

everywhere at or below yield is not higher than the ultimate load Fu.

Upper-bound theorem: any load Fk resulting from considering a kinematically admissible state

of deformation, setting the work done by the external forces equal to the internal energy

dissipation, is not lower than the ultimate load Fu.

Compatibility theorem: any load for which a complete solution, i.e. a statically admissible

state of stress everywhere at or below yield and a compatible, kinematically admissible state of

deformation can be found, is equal to the ultimate load.

A state of stress is statically admissible if it fulfils the equilibrium and static boundary

conditions. A state of deformation is kinematically admissible if it fulfils the kinematic relations

and boundary conditions. A state of stress and a state of deformation are compatible if they are

related via the associated flow rule (2.6). In a complete solution, the states of stress and

deformation only have to be compatible in the sense stated above.

10

By applying the lower- and upper-bound theorems according to the static and kinematic

methods of limit analysis lower- and upper-bound values Fs and Fk, respectively, are determined

for the ultimate load Fu, see Fig. 2.4:

Fs Fu Fk

(2.9)

The static method is based on the consideration of statically admissible stress fields which

nowhere violate the yield conditions of the system. The system stays aplastic; no statement can

be made about deformation and failure. The static method is suitable for design. The strength of

the system is determined following the flow of the forces in accordance with the selected

equilibrium solution.

The kinematic method is based on the consideration of kinematically admissible failure

mechanisms. In contrast to the static method, only the stresses at locations of plastic

deformation are of interest. No statement can be made about the flow of the forces and local

equilibrium. Rather than for the detailed design the kinematic method is suitable for the overall

analysis of structures.

By combining the static and the kinematic method based on the compatibility theorem, a

design approach is obtained which shall be called compatibility method. According to this

method complete solutions are considered, i.e. equilibrium solutions compatible with

kinematically admissible failure mechanisms. Complete solutions are strictly related to the yield

criteria assumed. By adjusting the ultimate resistance distribution in the system, equilibrium

solutions may transform into a mechanism and, on the other hand, failure mechanisms may be

made safe by associating an equilibrium solution and strengthening the weak zones. The

compatibility method corresponds to the method of capacity design used in earthquake

engineering. The design is based on a chosen failure mechanism, followed by supplying

sufficient strength to the rigid parts of the system.

STATIC

Lower-bound

theorem

Fs

KINEMATIC

COMPATIBILITY

Compatibility

theorem

Fu

Upper-bound

theorem

Fk

"Design"

"Analysis"

11

12

3 Static method

3.1 General

The lower-bound method for reinforced concrete beams [34] is based on truss models (strut and

tie models) or in a continuum form on stress fields. Dimensioning and detailing are

performed following the flow of the shear forces, considering truss models or associated stress

fields which describe the beams structural behaviour.

Reinforced concrete slabs are designed on the basis of an elastic analysis, the strip method

or, where available, a limit analysis solution. Each of these methods corresponds to a particular

application of the equilibrium conditions. The elastic analysis relates the stresses to the strains

and deflections by means of Hookes law and Kirchhoffs hypothesis; the equilibrium and the

boundary conditions evolve into a differential problem focused on the deflection function. In its

common form, the strip method reduces the slab to an orthogonal set of beams; this corresponds

to neglecting twisting moments in the equilibrium conditions. In limit analysis solutions the

equilibrium conditions are combined with the failure conditions according to a fixed

reinforcement distribution, i.e. the corresponding yield criteria and the associated flow rule

(Chapter 4); the known solutions are restricted to a few simple cases.

Basically, beams are special cases of slabs. However, when comparing the design methods

for beams and slabs, no direct link is recognised. The analyses concentrate on two different

tasks: the load transfer for beams, and the consequences of the load transfer, i.e. the moments,

for slabs. The lower-bound procedure for beams is more flexible and precise. Slab design

methods are an application of equilibrium considerations, but they do not match beam design

methods in their depth of modelling the structural behaviour.

The goal of the static or lower-bound method presented in the following is to provide the

foundation for a consistent design of reinforced concrete slabs analogous to that of beams. The

analysis focuses on the load transfer, whereby two types of loads are distinguished distributed

and concentrated. Distributed load transfer is governed by the generalised strip method, i.e. a

continuous truss model within and at the top and bottom surfaces of the slab, defined by the

principal shear and by the principal moment trajectories, respectively. Concentrated load

transfer corresponds to statical discontinuity lines. Finally, the stress field approach for beams is

extended to slabs, i.e. stress fields according to the generalised strip method and discontinuity

lines are put together like pieces of a puzzle to allow for the load transfer from the interior of a

slab to its supports.

The static analysis of slabs is performed with generalised stresses, i.e. stress resultants on

vertical strips of unit width. The definition of internal forces in arbitrary sections (Chapter 3.2.1)

is followed by the associated stress field definition (Chapter 3.2.2).

13

Static method

A slab is a thin structural member bounded by two parallel planes, loaded perpendicularly to the

planes. The right-handed Cartesian coordinate system O(x,y,z), O being an arbitrary point on the

middle surface and z being vertical downwards, is introduced as the global system of reference.

The plane vector n in P, Fig. 3.1a, defines a vertical strip section, where the direction n is

normal and outwards to the strip considered. This direction and the directions t and z constitute

the local coordinate system P(n,t,z). At any point of the strip, e.g. at z = z0 according to

Fig. 3.1a, a normal stress n and shear stresses tn and zn are acting. These stresses are positive

in the (positive) n-, t- and z-directions, respectively.

The internal forces and moments are obtained by integrating the stresses over the vertical

strip for a unit length in the t-direction and for h / 2 < z < h / 2, h being the slab thickness. They

are composed of the membrane forces, i.e. the axial force nn and the in-plane shear force ntn

(neglected in the following, see Chapter 1.3)

h/2

n dz

nn =

h/2

ntn =

h / 2

tn

dz

[kN / m]

(3.1)

[kN / m]

(3.2)

[kN]

(3.3)

h / 2

h/2

vn =

zn

dz

h / 2

h/2

h/2

mn =

n z dz

mtn =

h / 2

tn

z dz

h / 2

The internal forces and moments are indexed as the stress components: the first index

represents the direction of the stress and the second represents the section (normal vector)

considered. For coincidental stress and section directions only one index is used. Fig. 3.1b

represents the positive generalised stresses in P.

Introducing generalised stresses, the stress state of the slab is defined by a plane shear vector

and a 2x2 moment tensor.

Two different sections n1 and n2 in P with internal forces vn1, mn1, mtn1 and vn2, mn2, mtn2 are

considered. An arbitrary section n3 may be resolved into the sections n1 and n2. Starting from a

unit strip length n3, the internal forces in this direction result from the sum of the forces on the

projected strips in the directions n1 and n2 (Fig. 3.1c). The shear force vn3 is determined by

vn 3 =

=

cos 0

cos( 0 12 )

(3.4)

where

tan 0 = (

vn 2

1

cos 12 )

vn1

sin 12

(3.5)

mtn3 = (mn1 mc ) sin 213 + mtn1 cos 213

14

(3.6)

Internal forces

b)

a)

1

x

y z

...

...

...

P. . . .

...

..

...

tn

zn

...

z0

vn

mn

mtn

z

c)

sin( 13)

n1

sin( + 13 23 )

mtn1

1

vn3

mtn3

n3

vn1

mn 1

m n3

23

13

n3

vn2

t1

sin( 23)

mn 2

n2

t2

sin( + 13 23 )

t3

n3

mtn2

e)

d)

.

vn1

vn3

v0

vn2

mtn

n1

13

23

0

n2

n3

r

n3

12

mn

m1

mc

m2

Pole

n1

n2

g)

f)

mn , mtn

vn

/4

m1

v0

0

m2

/2

n1

n3 n2

n1

n3 n2

mn

/2

mtn

Fig. 3.1: Slab section: a) stresses; b) stress resultants; c) stress transformation; d) Thales

circle for shear force transformation; e) Mohrs circle for moment transformation;

f) variation of vn ; g) variation of mn and mtn.

15

Static method

where

1

m 2 mtn2 2

mc = mn1 + mn 2 + tn1

2

mn 2 mn1

(3.7)

and ij indicates the clockwise angle between the directions i and j. For the case 12 = / 2, i.e.

orthogonal n1 and n2, Eqs. (3.4) to (3.7) reduce to

mn 3 = mn1 cos 2 13 + mn 2 sin 2 13 + mtn1 sin 213

mtn 3 = (mn 2 mn1 ) sin 13 cos 13 + mtn1 cos 213

(3.8)

(3.9)

Figs. 3.1d and 3.1e represent (3.4) and (3.6) graphically. When denoting by vn one side

length of a right angled triangle, Eq. (3.4) indicates that different shear forces correspond to the

same base, i.e. the Thales circle diameter. This extreme shear is called the principal shear v0,

while its direction 0 is the principal shear direction [33]. Orthogonal to 0, the circle tangent

determines v0 = 0. Eq. (3.6) is the parametric equation of a circle in the (mn,mtn)-space with the

angle 13 (or 213) as parameter. The circle is centred at C(mc,0) and has the radius

r = ((mn1 mc ) 2 + mtn2 1 )1/ 2 . The moments in the direction n3 are obtained by clockwise rotation

of the radius in (mn1,mtn1) by the angle 213. This graphical method is attributed to Mohr [39].

The extreme values of the bending moment, i.e. the principal moments, result for mnt = 0 and are

given by m1 = mc + r and m2 = mc r. The corresponding directions, i.e. the principal directions,

are indicated by 1 and 2 ( = 1 + / 2), respectively. The twisting moment has a maximum in

the directions 1 + / 4 and 1 + 3 / 4; mtn reaches the values r and is accompanied by the

bending moment mn = mc.

Figures 1f and 1g show the variation of the internal forces for 0 13 2 . The variation of

vn is harmonic with amplitude v0 in the direction 0 and with period 2, see Fig. 3.1f. The

variation of mn is harmonic between m1 in the direction 1 and m2 in the direction 1 + / 2 with

a period of . Finally, the variation of mtn has an amplitude (m1 + m2) / 2 and follows the mncurve with a phase difference of / 4, see Fig.3.1g. Any stress field is defined by five quantities.

By selecting the principal sections, these are distinguished by the statical values v0, m1, m2, and

the geometrical values 0, 1.

3.3 Equilibrium

The equilibrium conditions result from the comparison of the internal forces at two

neighbouring points, considering the effect of external loads, Chapter 3.3.3. Therefore, the

internal forces have to be defined with respect to a fixed system of reference, Chapter 3.3.2.

This is chosen in a general form using orthogonal curvilinear trajectories, Chapter 3.3.1.

A point P of a slab is defined in Cartesian coordinates by the intersection of the lines x = xP and

y = yP. These lines also define the y- and x-axes in P, which are positive in the increasing yPand xP-direction.

Similarly, a slab point in curvilinear coordinates is defined by the intersection of the curves

u = uP and v = vP, where u and v are functions of x and y:

16

u = u ( x, y ) ; v = v ( x , y )

(3.10)

The curvilinear axes u and v in P are the curves v(x,y) = vP = const, and u(x,y) = uP = const,

positive in the increasing vP- and uP-direction, respectively. The orthogonality requirement for

the curvilinear coordinates is given by

u v = 0

(3.11)

where ( / x, / y ) .

The u- and v-axis directions in P are specified introducing the unit vectors n and t tangential

to the u- and v-coordinates; P(n,t,z) constitutes a right-handed rectangular coordinate system.

With respect to O(x,y,z), the orientation of P(n,t,z) is indicated by the clockwise angle

between x and n.

In contrast to the Cartesian axes, curvilinear axes do not express a fixed length and a fixed

direction. A change du (dv) corresponds to an arc element length measured along the coordinate

line u (v) of dSu = Au du ( dSv = Av dv ) with

2

Au2

x y

= +

u u

Av2

x y

= + )

v v

(3.12)

y

x

=

Au u

Av v

(3.13)

cos =

x

y

=

Au u Av v

sin =

d =

Au

du

Av v

( d =

Av

dv )

Au u

(3.14)

Combining (3.12) with (3.14) one obtains the radii of curvature of the curvilinear axes u and v

1

Au

=

Au u Au Avv

Av

=

Av v Au Av u

(3.15)

Previously, the internal forces and moments have been related to a local coordinate system of

the cross-section considered and the stress field at a point has been established from the stress

resultants on two different cross-sections. Equilibrium considerations require the definition of

internal forces corresponding to a fixed system of reference. Referring to the system (n,t,z) in P,

the sign convention assumed is defined in Fig. 3.2b. Shear forces are positive if related to

positive shear stresses in the z-direction and the moments are positive if related to positive

(negative) stresses in the slab portion z > 0 (z < 0). On the sections with negative n- and tdirections, internal forces are in equilibrium with those in the positive one. Note that the

symmetry of the stress tensor (i.e. rotational equilibrium) leads to mtn = mnt.

In a curvilinear coordinate system (3.10) the stress field at the point P1(uP1,vP1) is compared with

that at the neighbouring point P2(uP1 + du, vP1 + dv). The shear forces vn and vt, the bending

moments mn and mt, and the twisting moments mtn and mnt act on the n- and t-sections in P1.

17

Static method

Moving an increment dSu along the u-axis, the n-direction rotates by (3.141) and the internal

forces and moments are

vn + vn ,u du

mn + mn , u du

mtn + mtn , u du

(3.16)

Similarly, moving an increment dSv along the v-axis, the t-direction rotates by (3.142) and the

internal forces and moments are

vt + vt ,v dv

mt + mt , v dv

mnt + mnt , v dv

(3.17)

A comma preceding an index indicates partial derivation with respect to the coordinate given as

index. The relations (3.16) and (3.17) define the stress field in P2.

With reference to Fig. 3.2c the slab element P1AP2B is considered. Assuming that the stress

in P1 and P2 does not change on the sides P1A, P1B and P2A, P2B, the following equilibrium

conditions can be formulated:

vn , Su + vt , Sv +

vt

mn, Su + mnt , Sv +

mtn, Su + mt , Sv +

u

1

vn

+q=0

(mnt + mtn ) +

(mt mn ) +

(mn mt ) = vn

(3.18)

(mtn + mnt ) = vt

Eqs. (3.18) are the equilibrium conditions in curvilinear coordinates. The three equations

may be combined by inserting (3.182) and (3.183) into (3.181). In Cartesian and in polar

coordinates, the equilibrium conditions result as special cases of (3.18) when considering u = x,

v = y , 1 / u = 1 / v = 0, and u2 = r2 = x2 + y2, v = = tan1( y / x ), 1 / u = 0, v = r , respectively.

Shear in slabs may arise in distributed [33] or concentrated form [4]. These two load transfer

modes are at the centre of the following analysis. In both cases, the requirements for the load

transfer are derived by considering the internal flow of forces in an infinitesimal region.

As stated in Chapter 3.2.2, the shear forces vn and vt correspond to the principal shear force

v0 = (vn2 + vt2 ) 0.5 being transferred in the direction 0 = tan 1 (vt / vn ) to the n-axis, see Fig. 3.1d.

Denoting the principal shear trajectory by us, it can be seen that along the length dSu S a moment

increment

m = v0 dSu s

(3.19)

is required for equilibrium (Fig. 3.3a). As in a beam, moments are subordinated to the shear.

Eq. (3.182) in the us-vs-system of reference states that the moment change results from the

incremental values mn,u s and mnt , vs or from the trajectory geometry (mnt + mtn ) / u S and

(mn mt ) / v S , see Chapter 3.6.

18

a)

x=xP

z

y

P

dSv dSu

y=yP

v (u=uP)

.

,udu

,v dv

u (v=vP)

b)

mnt

vt mt

mn

mtn vn

P

z

vn mtn

mn

mt vt

mnt

c)

z

x

mtn

mn

vn

P1

mnt

vt

dSv

dSu

mt

A

v

dSu(1+dS

u )

u

v

n

u)

dSv (1+dS

v

vn+vn,u du

mt + mt,v dv

q

mtn+ mtn,u du

mnt+ mnt,v dv

mn + mn,u du

vt +vt,v dv

P2

convention for stress resultants; c) slab element in orthogonal, curvilinear

coordinates.

19

Static method

Assuming a concentrated shear force V being transferred within a narrow zone S of width ts

between the slab regions A and B, Fig. 3.3b depicts a part of the shear trajectory as a free body

diagram. The internal forces (3.2) and (3.3) act between the shear strip and the adjacent slab

segments, A and B. Within the strip, the shear force V is accompanied by a concentrated bending

moment M and a strip-specific line load q . Equilibrium requires that

(3.20)

M ,t mtnA + mtnB = V

(3.21)

(mnA mnB ) S = M

(3.22)

Equation (3.21) allows for both shear line action and strong band action. A shear line results

in the case ts = 0, thus M = 0; concentrated shear forces are transferred thanks to a jump in the

twisting moments; some vertical reinforcement is required to provide the shear resistance. A

strong band results if mtnA = mtnB . The strip ts has to be extra reinforced to resist the moment M.

Both load transfer modes may be exploited to transfer the shear forces from a slab segment A to

an adjacent segment B.

Setting V, q , M and ts equal to zero, the equations (3.20) to (3.22) reduce to the continuity

requirements for the stress fields in the slab segments A and B. The concentrated shear transfer

equations define in a general form the statical discontinuity in slabs: adjacent stress fields have

to provide continuity in the load transfer and in the moments.

3.4.3 Remarks

Distributed load transfer is inherently included in the equilibrium considerations of slabs. In

comparison to (3.18), Eq. (3.19) shows the essential structural behaviour; it plays a central role

in the development of continuous stress fields (Chapter 3.6.1).

Concentrated load transfer along lines of statical discontinuity represents a fundamental tool

of plastic analysis (Chapter 3.6.7). In the past, stress fields for slabs were first developed based

on the theory of elasticity [28]. Since elastic solutions correspond to a distributed load transfer

(Chapter 3.6.2) discontinuities occur only at slab boundaries (Chapter 3.5). Plastic solutions are

based on both load transfer modes, i.e. lines of discontinuity may also arise within the slab.

Johansen [21] first postulated the existence of internal shear zones. Hillerborg [18] mentioned

that discontinuity in the twisting moments generates a shear flow, but he considered only load

transfer in strong bands. The research on nodal forces in the 1960s (Chapter 5.3.2) recognised

the importance of shear zones without further developing them. Clyde [4] suggested that nodal

forces are real forces, identifying them as concentrated shear forces. Stress fields which

included statical discontinuities were developed by Rozvany [56], Morley [42, 43], Clyde [5],

Fox [9, 10] and Marti [36]. Recently, Meyboom and Marti [38] completed an analytical study

with an experimental verification of the static discontinuity behaviour.

Slab boundaries are statical discontinuities of the stress field. The statical requirements at slab

edges are an expression of a concentrated load transfer. S is a narrow boundary strip and the

forces with upper index B correspond to the reactions.

20

b)

a)

tS

V

vs

us

v0

dSu s

m nA

v nB

t

A

m tn

t

1

M+dM

S

m tnB

v nA

m nB

V+dV

S

Fig. 3.3: Shear transfer: a) principal shear v0 and corresponding moment change m; b) strong

band or shear line.

Clamped edge

Along a clamped edge (Fig. 3.4a), the reaction forces equilibrate the internal boundary forces vn,

mn, mtn. When introducing a discontinuity, the reaction force values become redundant.

Simply supported edge

Replacing vnB by the reaction force rn of a simply supported edge (Fig. 3.4b, vnB = rn ) and

neglecting the superfluous parameters mnB , mtnB , M and q , Eqs. (3.20) to (3.22) are reduced to

rn = (vn + mtn ,t )

V = mtn

mn = 0

(3.23)

Introducing principal moments into Eqs. (3.232) and (3.233) one obtains

V = m2 tan(1n ) =

m1

tan(1n )

(3.24)

V corresponds to Johansens nodal force [21] when assigning the value of mu to the principal

moment m2.

Acting as a shear line, the simply supported edge has the ability to introduce into slabs a

twisting moment in addition to a shear force. Kirchhoff [28] first determined (3.231) applying

the principle of virtual work for elastic slabs. Thomson and Tait [63] gave a statical explanation

of the behaviour of the simply supported edge. Exploiting St-Venants principle they replaced

the twisting moment at the edge by a force couple of continuous distribution. The corresponding

change mtn,t adds to the reaction force vn resulting from the shear.

Free edge

Free edges (Fig. 3.4c) have no reactions at the boundary, i.e. vnB = mnB = mtnB = 0 . In the case of a

straight boundary ( S ) Eqs. (3.20) to (3.22) are reduced to

vn M ,tt + mtn ,t q = 0 ;

V = M , t mtn

mn = 0

(3.25)

21

Static method

b)

a)

V+dV

rn

m tn

mn

rn

n

n

d)

c)

Vi

V+dV

n

Vk

R

V2

V1

Fig. 3.4: Boundary conditions and boundary shear transfer: a) clamped edge; b) simply

supported edge; c) free edge; d) point support.

The free edge exhibits a shear line-strong band character. For M = 0 the free edge is similar

to a simply supported edge with rn = 0. With additional reinforcement the load carrying capacity

may be increased. The shear force transferred by the strong band adds to that of the shear line.

Point support

Loads may be transferred to a point support (Fig. 3.4d) in distributed or concentrated form.

Summing both contributions one obtains

k

R=

Vi + lim vr rd

r 0

(3.26)

where k indicates the number of concentrated load paths leading to the support and r is the slab

perimeter at a distance r from the point support, e.g. = 2 for a slabs internal support or

= / 2 for a corner support of a square slab.

Lower-bound approaches suggest criteria to eliminate the statical redundancy of structures.

Considering beams and frames, statically determinate truss models describe the equilibrium

state [55]. In a continuous form, using the stress field approach [45] internal forces are followed

by matching basic stress fields along statical discontinuities.

Slabs are characterised by an infinite internal statical indeterminacy. According to Chapter

3.4 loads in slabs may be transferred in distributed or in concentrated form. The statical

discontinuities define the boundaries of the segments within which loads are transferred in

distributed form.

22

truss model adequate for slab analysis is defined with the principal shear force and the principal

moment trajectories. The shear field is determined with vertical equilibrium in the principal

shear force direction. Similarly, the moment field is obtained by formulating equilibrium in the

principal moment directions. Including curvilinear principal moment trajectories, the procedure

becomes an extension of Hillerborgs strip method [18], in which the principal moment sections

are limited to Cartesian coordinates, hence the designation generalised strip method.

On the basis of the new method, the lower-bound analysis of slabs is reviewed in Chapters

3.6.2 to 3.6.6, distinguishing an elastic approach, Hillerborgs method and the Hencky-Prandtl

solutions. Finally, the analysis of curvilinear trajectories on conical sections, together with the

superposition principle, leads to known limit analysis solutions. Similar to the stress field

approach for beams, a stress field approach for slabs is developed fitting the continuous stress

fields into the slab with connections along lines of discontinuity.

The generalised strip method results from a direct application of the distributed load transfer

requirements, cf. Chapter 3.4.1. Establishing equilibrium with respect to chosen principal shear

and moment trajectories, loads are firstly integrated to shear forces and secondly to moments.

Shear field

In the orthogonal curvilinear coordinate system us, vs, with us corresponding to the principal

shear trajectory, Eq. (3.181) is reduced to

v0, Su s +

v0

vs

+q=0

(3.27)

Assuming a certain shear flow, i.e. the geometry of the shear field, Eq. (3.27) can be

integrated. The boundary conditions of the shear problem require one value of v0 along each

trajectory us. Note that arbitrary load distributions are included in the analysis by considering q

as a function q(us,vs). Concentrated loads correspond to the homogeneous problem q = 0.

Moment field

Introducing the principal moments m1 and m2 with their trajectories um and vm, Eqs. (3.182) and

(3.183) are reduced to

m1, Su m +

vm

(m1 m2 ) = vnm

; m2, Svm +

u m

(m2 m1 ) = vt m

(3.28)

The shear force components vnm and vt m of the shear field in the directions um and vm,

respectively, are determined according to Eq. (3.8). Eqs. (3.28) generally involve a complex

analysis and do not always lead to an explicit solution; additionally, agreement with the slabs

boundary conditions is not always possible.

3.6.2 Elasticity

Most engineers design slabs according to elastic solutions. Basically, elastic solutions are not

simple to apply. However, a quick procedure results from the use of FE-software. In the

following, the generalised strip method is exploited to extend the elastic analysis of beams to

slabs.

Elasticity theory is based on Hookes law: ut tension sic vis (the extension is proportional

to the force): = E , where E is the modulus of elasticity of the material. During bending,

23

Static method

vertical cross-sections remain plane, so that they undergo only a rotation with respect to the

neutral axis (Bernoullis hypothesis); = z . The elongation of each fibre is proportional to

the distance z from the neutral axis. The proportionality constant is the curvature of the

deflection curve w. For small deflections in comparison to the span of the beam one gets

= w,uu , u being the bending direction. The bending moment results by integrating the

normal stresses acting on a cross-section, i.e. M = EIw,uu where EI is the flexural rigidity of

the beam. By introducing considerations of equilibrium V = M ,u and q = V,u elastic beams

are described by the equation w,uuuu = q /( EI ) .

In a two-dimensional continuum the elastic stress-strain relation is given by 1 = (1 2) / E

and 2 = (2 1) / E, where denotes Poissons ratio. For a slab, assuming Bernoullis

hypothesis along the principal curvature trajectories u and v of the deflection function w, the

principal curvatures are given by 1 = w,uu and 2 = w,vv . Principal moments result by

integrating the stresses in unit vertical strips in u- and v-direction: m1 = Dw,uu and

m2 = Dw,vv , respectively, D = Eh3 / [12 (1 2)] being the flexural rigidity of the slab.

Introducing m1 and m2 into (3.28) and substituting the resulting shear components in Eq. (3.181),

the elastic slab analysis simplifies to w = q / D .

Summarising, the generalised strip method extends the elastic analysis of beams to slabs by

considering the principal curvature trajectories of the deflection function w as elastic beams.

Within the whole slab loads are transferred in distributed form since the basic principal

trajectories extend over the whole slab to the supports.

Hillerborgs method is based on the Cartesian system defined by the coordinates x and y. The

analysis starts by dividing the load into single portions referred to the coordinate directions

q ( x, y ) = q x ( x, y ) + q y ( x , y )

(3.29)

The shear field is defined by the components vx and vy. These result by integrating the respective

load portion as in a beam, i.e.

vx = qx ( x, y ) dx + Csx ( y )

v y = q y ( x, y ) dy + Csy ( x)

(3.30)

mx =

my =

q x ( x, y ) dx + x Csx ( y ) + Cmx ( y )

q ( x, y) dy

y

(3.31)

+ y Csy ( x) + Cmy ( x)

Hillerborgs method reduces the slab to two sets of beams at right angles to each other. Each

coordinate line (x = xP or y = yP) defines a beam. According to (3.30) and (3.31), on each beam a

shear integration constant, Cxs(yP) or Cys(xP), and a moment integration constant, Cxm(yP) or

Cym(xP), are available to fulfil the boundary conditions.

Concerning the shear field analysis, the load split (3.29) proposed by Hillerborg is

equivalent to the selection of the principal shear trajectories adopted in the generalised strip

method. Despite some analytical difficulties in the solution of (3.27) compared to (3.30), the

shear field analysis of the generalised strip method has the advantage of a deliberate choice of

the load path throughout the slab. In addition, the principal shear force allows a better control

against shear failure than the shear components. The main difference between Hillerborgs

method and the generalised strip method concerns the moment field analysis. In Hillerborgs

method principal moment trajectories are fixed in the Cartesian directions. By contrast, the

generalised strip method allows a free choice. With straight principal moment directions, the

geometrical load-carrying capacity resulting from curved principal sections (i.e. (m1 m2) / v,

24

Lower-bound method

(m2 m1) / u, cf. Eqs. (3.28)) disappears. Such geometrical contributions fill the gap between the

lower-bound solutions of the strip method and the complete solutions of slab limit analysis.

In contrast to the strip method, where the geometrical load transfer contribution is neglected

(1 / x = 1 / y = 0), the following analysis involves a load transfer with constant principal

moments

mu = m1 = const.

mv = m2 = const.

(3.32)

vn m = m / v m

vt m = m / u m

(3.33)

where m = m1 m2 . In the same system of reference, Eq. (3.181) together with (3.14) and

(3.15) result in the equilibrium condition

2m , Su m Svm + q = 0

(3.34)

where the function (um,vm) defines the moment net (Chapter 3.3.1), completing the stress field

of the slab. The boundary conditions of (3.34) have to determine the orientation of the principal

moments at the boundary.

In the special case q = 0 Eq. (3.34) is similar to the equations of the plane strain problem

[9, 14, 15, 16, 3]. The inhomogeneous problem requires a much more complex analysis [10].

Note that for m1 = m2, hence m = 0 , the slab cannot carry any loads, and that q is proportional

to m .

The possibility of freely choosing principal trajectories, established in mathematical form by the

generalised strip method, relates the slab analysis to a flow field theory and its applications,

similar to electric flow fields, magnetic fields, water flow, membrane deflection [31, 57], natural

shapes of shells [54], Chladni-plates, etc.

The mathematical complexity of the solution of the generalised strip method equations as

well as the restrictions imposed by the boundary conditions hinder the development of stress

fields with curvilinear principal shear and moment trajectories. In this context a stress field

library is introduced as an intermediate step between the basic equations and the practical

statical analysis of slabs. Families of curvilinear coordinates, load distributions and boundary

conditions lead to a systematic approach in the equilibrium analysis of slabs. In the following,

the basic steps of the generalised strip method are applied for the analysis of curvilinear

coordinates given by conical sections for the case of a uniform load distribution.

Curvilinear coordinates and geometrical parameters

u ( x, y ) = x 2 + ky 2

v ( x, y ) = y ( x / l ) k

(3.35)

The curves (3.35) fulfil the orthogonality condition (3.11). According to (3.12) and (3.15)

the infinitesimal arc length and the radii of curvature of the curvilinear axes are given by

25

Static method

dsu =

x dx + ky dy

2

x +k y

dsv =

ky dx + x dy

(3.36)

x2 + k 2 y 2

and

1

k (1 k ) xy

( x 2 + k 2 y 2 )3 / 2

k ( x 2 + ky 2 )

( x 2 + k 2 y 2 )3 / 2

(3.37)

respectively.

Shear field

For a load path along the u-coordinate with parameters ks (denoted by us) and for a uniform load

distribution q, Eq. (3.27) reduces to

(x v

0, x

+ k s y v0, y + v0

ks x 2 + ks y 2

+ q x 2 + k s2 y 2 = 0

2

2 2

x + ks y

(3.38)

Starting from the point P(xP,yP) and moving along the characteristics of the shear problem,

i.e. the curve y ( x) = vP ( x / l ) k s with vP = v (xP,yP), (3.38) simplifies to

x v0, x + v0

k s x 2 + k s vP2 ( x / l ) 2 k s

+ q x 2 + k s2vP2 ( x / l ) 2 k s = 0

2ks

2

2 2

x + k s vP ( x / l )

(3.39)

Note that dv0 = v0, x + (k s y / x)v0, y dx . Solving Eq. (3.39), the shear field is given by

l k s +1

q

2

2 2

v0 = x + k s y Cs

k s + 1

2

2

v0 = x + y (Cs q ln x )

(k s 1)

(3.40)

(k s = 1)

function of vP, i.e. Cs = Cs(vP). The shear force value on a point of each characteristic may be

arbitrary. For instance, requiring v0 = v0 at x = x for ks 1 , one obtains

x

Cs =

l

k s +1

x2

v0 x 2 + k s2 y 2 2

x

1 / 2

ks + 1

(3.41)

At (x,y) = (0,0), Eq. (3.41) remains valid only if the shear force disappears (i.e. C s = 0 ). At this

characteristic intersection point different shear forces correspond to a load concentration, hence

a shear field singularity (see Eq. 3.26).

A similar analysis may also be formulated for a load path along the v-coordinate. Note that a

load transfer along closed trajectories (such as for positive ks, see Fig. 3.5a) is possible only if

they meet a support.

Moment field

The following analysis aims at developing a moment field in agreement with the shear field

determined above, having principal moment sections in the direction of the curvilinear

coordinates (3.35) with k = km. Applying Eq. (3.8), Eq. (3.40) is split into the principal moment

sections:

k +1

x 2 + ks km y 2 l s

q

vnm =

C

k s + 1

x 2 + k m2 y 2 x

k +1

xy (k s k m ) l s

q

v

C

=

s

t

m

k s + 1

x 2 + k m2 y 2 x

26

(k s 1)

(3.421)

Lower-bound method

x2 km y2

vnm = 2 2 2 (Cs q ln x )

x + km y

vt = xy(km + 1) (Cs q ln x )

m

x2 + km2 y2

(ks = 1)

(3.422)

l k s +1

k x 2 + km y 2

q

2

2

x m1, x + km y m1, y + m 2

(

)

m

m

x

k

k

y

=

+

Cs

s m

1

2

2 2

k s + 1

x + km y

x

(3.43)

l k s +1

q

km (1 km ) xy

(m2 m1 ) = xy(ks km ) Cs

km y m2, x + x m2, y + 2

k s + 1

x + km2 y 2

x

km x 2 + km y 2

(m1 m2 ) = x 2 km y 2 (Cs q ln x )

x m1, x + km y m1, y +

2

2 2

x + km y

k y m + x m km (km 1)xy (m m ) = xy (k + 1) (C q ln x )

2, y

2

1

m

s

m 2, x

x 2 + km2 y 2

(3.44)

Eqs. (3.43) and (3.44) are the moment equilibrium requirements in curvilinear coordinates

resulting from a shear flow in the direction us (ks) and a principal moment section in the

directions um (km) and vm (km). Since both moments m1 and m2 are involved in the equilibrium

conditions with characteristics um and vm, the analysis cannot be reduced to a one-dimensional

problem and a general solution cannot be formulated. Next, some particular solutions of (3.43)

are presented.

Rectangular slab segment

Assuming m2 = 0 the equation system (3.43) becomes similar to the differential shear problem

(3.38). In a more general form, m2 is set equal to a constant value m. Excluding the cases km = 0

and km = 1, which are analysed separately in the following sections, (3.432) is solved with

respect to m1:

m1 = m

( x 2 + km2 y 2 )(k s km ) l

Cs

km (1 km )

x

k s +1

k s + 1

km {0,1}

(3.45)

l k s +1

q

x 2 + km2 y 2 2

( 2km + km k s km 2k s ) Cs

x

k s + 1

km (1 km )

l

( k s km )

x

k s +1

x Cs , x + km y Cs , y (k s + 1)Cs = 0

(3.46)

shear distribution with parameter ks combined with principal moment sections with parameters

km =

1

k s 1 k s2 + 14k s + 1

(3.47)

see Fig. 3.5b. The principal moments on the trajectories um(km) and vm(km) are given by

m1 = m

q x 2 + km2 y 2

2 km2 + km + 1

m2 = m

(3.48)

27

Static method

Exploiting Eqs. (3.9) the moment distribution is referred to Cartesian coordinates, i.e.

mx = m

q

x2

2 k m2 + k m + 1

; my = m

k m xy

q k m2 y 2

q

; mxy =

2

2

2 km + km + 1

2 km + km + 1

(3.49)

Assuming a boundary along the lines x = a or y = b, (3.23) leads to the boundary forces

qa (= ra ) =

qa (km + 1)

(km2 + km + 1)

qb (= rb ) =

qbkm (km + 1)

(km2 + km + 1)

(3.50)

ma = m

q

a2

2 km2 + km + 1

mb = m

q km2 b 2

2 km2 + km + 1

(3.51)

Va =

q km a y

2 km2 + km + 1

Vb =

q k mb x

2 km2 + km + 1

(3.52)

According to Fig. 3.5c the conditions (3.50) to (3.52) for a = km l / 2 and b = l / 2 describe

the boundary conditions of a uniformly loaded rectangular slab segment. Setting mn = 0 at the

boundaries, (3.51) corresponds to m = qkm2 l 2 /[8(km2 + km +1)] , while the line loads

qa = 4m(km + 1) /( km l ) and qb = 4m(km + 1) /(kml ) act at x = km l / 2 and y = l / 2 , respectively.

According to (3.52) the boundaries act as shear lines transferring to each slab corner

F = 2 km m / km . The boundary loads q are equivalent to the reactions rn = q , see Eq. (3.50).

Different boundary moments can be obtained by moving the system of reference in the plane of

the slab.

The strip method (km = 0)

For km = 0, um and vm coincide with the Cartesian coordinates x and y and Eq. (3.43) reduces to

the familiar expressions vx = mx,x and vy = my,y of the strip method, with

vx =

qx

ks + 1

vy =

q ks y

ks + 1

(3.53)

In (3.43) Cs has been tacitly set equal to zero, i.e. the shear forces disappear at the origin of

the Cartesian coordinates. By comparing (3.40) and (3.53) it follows that a constant value of qx

and qy in (3.29) corresponds to a principal shear distribution in the direction us with

ks = (q qx) / qx = qy / (q qy). In conclusion, the line km = 0 in the ks-km-diagram (Fig. 3.5b)

represents the strip method solution corresponding to a split of the external load into constant

portions.

Polar trajectories (km = 1)

direction is trivially satisfied only if combined with a load distribution with ks = 1. This

statement agrees with (3.19), where principal trajectories aligned with the polar coordinates and

a constant moment distribution on the tangential section produce a moment change in the

tangential direction only, i.e. a radial shear transfer.

The analysis is performed by introducing polar coordinates, r2 = x2 + y2; tan = y / x.

Thereby, the characteristic y(x) = vP x / l through P(xP,yP) with vP = v(xP,yP) corresponds to the

radial line = P = tan1(vP / l ). Integrating (3.431) for km = ks = 1 on = P one obtains

mr =

28

Cm

qr 2 C s l 2

+

+

+m

2

6

cos r cos

m = m

(3.54)

Lower-bound method

a)

x

u

v

b)

ks

Strip method

d,e

c

_

_

2k 2m +km kmks 2ks = 0

km

e)

d)

c)

q

AB

ma

qa

qb

ra

rb m b

x

FB

B

c

b

x

mb

a

c

rb

FC

FD

ra

ma

F

a

FA

qb

qa

v0=0

v0=0

Fig. 3.5: General stress fields: a) family of orthogonal curvilinear coordinates; b) solutions

map; c) rectangular segment; d) annulus segment; e) trapezoidal segment.

29

Static method

The integration constants Cs and Cm are functions of P: Cs = Cs(P), Cm = Cm(P). Since the

shear and moment characteristics coincide, Cs is a constant in the shear-moment integration.

Polar trajectories emulate the previous case of the strip method, where each coordinate line

P = const is an independent strip and two integration constants are available to fulfil the

boundary conditions. The coordinate centre is a singularity point of the shear as well as the

moment field; the values of the shear force and of the radial principal moments at this point

determine a symmetrical stress field distribution. In order to provide an efficient load transfer,

the geometrical load transfer rate ( m/ r ) has to improve the radial shear flow, i.e. shear flow in

positive (negative) r-direction requires m > 0 (m < 0). In the following, the stress field of an

annulus and a trapezoidal segment are explained as examples of the polar stress field family.

a) Annulus segment

Consider the annulus segment ABCD depicted in Fig. 3.5d. The geometry of the segment is

defined by the internal and the external supported boundary r = a and r = b, respectively, and

the arbitrary apex angle AB. The segment is subjected to a uniformly distributed load q. For the

boundary moments mr( r = a ) = ma, mr( r = b ) = mb and m = m, the shear field (Eq. (3.40) with

ks = 1) and the moment field (Eqs. (3.54)) simplify to

v0 =

q c2

r

2 r

mr =

(3.55)

qr2 q c2 ab q

m mb

+

(a + b) + a

+m

6

2

r 6

a b

m = m

(3.56)

where

c2 =

q 3 3

a b a(m ma ) + b(m mb )

q(a b) 6

(3.57)

Starting from r = c, the load on the segment area a r c is restricted by the reaction

ra = q (c2 a2) / (2a) at the support CD and the load on the segment area c r b is restricted by

the reaction rb = q (b2 c2 ) / (2b) at the support AB. Note that Eqs. (3.23) reduce to ra = v0( r = a),

and rb = v0 ( r = b ), respectively, AB and CD being principal moment trajectories.

For a = 0 the annulus segment is transformed into a circular sector. At r = 0, Eq. (3.55) is

indeterminate and the reaction ra degenerates to a concentrated support force of intensity

Ra = q c2 / 2. This singularity disappears if c = 0, or, equivalently, if m = qb2 / 6 + mb.

b) Trapezoidal segment

Consider the trapezoidal segment ABCD depicted in Fig. 3.5e, having bases CD and AB at x = a

and x = b (0 < a < b), respectively, and oblique sides AD and BC at angles A and B from the xaxis. The segment is subjected to a uniformly distributed load q. It is supported along the bases

AB and CD and free along AD and BC. In addition, the bending moments m, ma and mb act on

the sides AD and BC, CD and AB, respectively.

The stress field of the segment is obtained by adjusting Eq. (3.40) to ks = 1, and Eqs. (3.54)

to the boundary conditions mx( x = a ) = ma and mx( x = b ) = mb:

v0 =

q c2

r

2

2 r cos

mr =

(3.58)

qr 2 q c 2

ab q

(a + b ) + ma mb + m

+

2

3

6

2 cos r cos 6

a b

; m = m

(3.59)

with

c2 =

30

q 3 3

a b a(m ma ) + b(m mb )

q ( a b) 6

(3.60)

Lower-bound method

Verifying Eq. (3.41) for ks = 1 and Cs = c2q / ( 2l2 ), the shear force vanishes at x = c. The load

on the segment areas a x c and c x b is transferred to the support CD

(vx( x = a ) = q ( c2 a2) / ( 2a )) and AB (vx ( x = b ) = q ( b2 c2) / ( 2b )), respectively. According to

Eq. (3.231) the reaction forces ra and rb are given by

ra =

q c 2 a 2 m ma

2 a

a

rb =

q b 2 c 2 m mb

+

2 b

b

(3.61)

The terms (m ma) / a and (m mb) / b are related to the twisting moments along the boundaries.

The supports act like shear lines transferring the forces V = ( m ma) tanA for x = a and

( m mb) tanB for x = b. To maintain equilibrium, hold-down forces FA = ( m mb) tanA and

FB = ( m mb ) tanB, as well as support forces FC = ( m ma ) tanB and FD = ( m ma ) tanA are

required at the corners A, B, C, D. Note that the values of these forces result directly from the

intensity of the boundary moments and their orientation. If the boundary becomes a principal

moment direction (e.g. ma = m along CD), then the shear line character of the boundary

disappears.

For a = 0, the trapezoidal segment becomes triangular. The reaction ra degenerates to a

concentrated support load of intensity R = q c2 / 2 ( tanA + tanB ). R = 0 if c = 0, or, equivalently,

if m = q b2 / 6 + mb. For ra , rb , a rectangular segment is obtained, the polar coordinates

become Cartesian and the analysis is reduced to the strip method of analysis.

Due to the linearity of the equilibrium conditions (3.18), the analysis of cases with complex

principal trajectories can be reduced to the sum of solutions with respect to a set of particular

curvilinear coordinates. In order to add different basic solutions, they have to be referred to a

common system of reference, generally the global system xyz. In the following, two examples

illustrate the superposition principle. The rectangular segment of Fig. 3.5c and two Hillerborg

solutions are combined to obtain Woods solution [67] and Nielsens solution [46]. Two

trapezoidal segments (Fig. 3.5e, a = 0) are combined to obtain a triangular segment with

arbitrary boundary conditions.

Rectangular segment

The rectangular slab segment depicted in Fig. 3.5c shows distributed as well as line loads.

Combining the stress field (3.49) with an equilibrium strip method solution one or the other load

form is privileged.

a) Woods solution [67]

Distributing the line loads on the boundaries of the rectangular slab segment (Fig. 3.5c) with

Hillerborgs method ( qx = q(km +1) /(km2 + km +1) ; qy = qkm(km +1) /(km2 + km +1) ), the stress field

superposition reduces to the solution of a corner-supported rectangular slab with spans

lx = km l , ly = l and load q = qkm /(km2 + km + 1) , see Fig. 3.6a:

mx =

ql 2 4 y 2

qlx2 4 x 2

q xy

1 2 ; m y = y 1 2 ; mxy =

8

8

2

lx

l y

(3.62)

The support force at each corner equals R = q*lxly / 4. Note that km is a simple parameter and

no longer corresponds to the principal moment directions; correspondingly, the principal shear

trajectories are not given by (3.47).

b) Nielsens solution [46]

The rectangular slab segment of Fig. 3.5c is considered. Superimposing a Hillerborg stress field

to eliminate the boundary load qb and the distributed load q ( qx = q /(km2 + km +1) ;

31

Static method

qy = qkm(km +1) /(km2 + km +1) ), the stress field of the corner supported rectangular slab segment with

spans lx = km l , ly = l and a boundary load q = qkmlx /(2(km2 + km + 1)) at x = lx / 2 is obtained,

see Fig. 3.6b:

q l y2 4 y 2

1

; mxy = q xy

mx = 0 ; m y =

2

lx

4 lx

ly

(3.63)

Triangular segment

For a = 0, the trapezoidal segment assumes a triangular shape, transferring the loads in radial

beams between a corner and the opposite edge. The requirement of constant moments along the

free boundaries reduces the applicability of the segment, see Chapter 3.6.7. In the following,

more general boundary conditions are obtained by superimposing two trapezoidal segments

(a = 0) with different orientation in the plane of the slab.

Similar to Eq. (3.29), two sets of radial beams centred in A and B, respectively, transferring

the loads q(A) and q(B), carry the total load q:

q = q( A) + q( B )

(3.64)

Furthermore, the tangential moments m(A) and m(B) of the stress fields (A) and (B) result in the

total bending moment m along AB:

m = m( A) + m( B )

(3.65)

Consider the triangular segment ABC shown in Fig. 3.6c. The geometry of the segment is

defined by the side lengths la and lb of BC and AC, respectively, and the triangular height, ha.

ABC is uniformly loaded by the load q and it is supported along the boundaries AC and BC. In

addition, the bending moments ma, mb and mc act along BC, AC and AB, respectively.

Assuming A and B as shear flow centres, the load q and the boundary moment mc are split

arbitrarily into the portions q(A), q(B) and m(A), m(B), respectively. Eqs. (3.64) and (3.65) reduce

the stress field analysis to that of the trapezoidal segment, see Figs. 3.6d and 3.6e. The stress

field sum involves a stress transformation. In contrast, the force flow is easily followed. The

reaction forces ra and rb along BC and AC, respectively, are given by

ra = rb ( A) =

q( A) ha

3

+2

mc ma

ha

rb = rb ( B ) =

q( B ) ha la

3lb

+ 2lb

mc mb

ha la

(3.66)

FA = FA( B ) RA( A) =

FB = FB ( A) RB ( B ) =

q( A) hala

6

q( B ) hala

6

la

(mc ma ) + (mc mb )tan A( B )

ha

lb2

(mc mb ) + (mc ma ) tan B ( A)

hala

(3.67)

Eq. (3.64) influences the shear flow of the basic segments, distinguishing zero shear lines at

x(2A) = c(2A) = ha2 / 3 2(mc ma ) / q( A) and x(2B ) = c(2B ) = (hala ) 2 /(3lb2 ) 2( mc ma ) / q( B ) , hence

v0 = 0 at the intersection point of these two lines in the resultant stress field. Eq. (3.65) does not

have any influence on the force flow.

In A and B the shear line force (3.232) is added to the reactions RA(A), and RB(B). For the case

of vanishing reactions RA(A) or RB(B), i.e. for q( A) = 6(mc mb ) / ha2 or q( B ) = 6lb2 (mc mb ) /(ha2la2 ) ,

respectively, the segment gives an example of Nielsens nodal forces of type 2 [48, 50].

32

Lower-bound method

a)

b)

q*

ly

ly

lx

lx

e)

d)

c)

C

FC

FC(A)

m(A)

mb , lb

mb m(A)

rb(B)

FA

q

ha

la , ma

FC(B)

y(A)

rb

ra

ma m(B)

rb(A)

A

R A(A)

c(A)

x (A)

FA(B)

m(B)

q (A)

x (B)

q(B)

c(B)

FB

m(B)

m(A)

mc

FB(A)

v0=0

R B(B)

v0=0

y(B)

distribution, b) point supported rectangular slab, boundary line loads; c) triangular

segment; d) and e) basic trapezoidal segments (a = 0).

The stress field approach for slabs aims at developing stress fields based on curvilinear

coordinates for the design of slabs with arbitrary shape and support layout. In addition to stress

fields corresponding to a continuous load transfer, statical discontinuities are introduced as new

elements. Similar to the stress field approach for beams [45], a limited number of stress fields

are considered. The different stress fields are combined in the plane of the slab. The analysis

focuses on the segment boundaries, where statical continuity has to be obtained.

33

Static method

The following analysis considers the basic segments resulting from the application of the

generalised strip method and the superposition principle. Of course, additional segments

developed in the same way could be added to the stress field library. Fitting the basic elements

in the plane of the slab, a load transfer scheme is selected. The segment geometry determines a

specific stress field. The conditions

rnA = rnB

and

i

P

mnA = mnB

=0

(3.68)

(3.69)

establish load transfer continuity and bending moment continuity along the sides between two

adjacent elements A and B, and vertical equilibrium at internal segment corners ( RPi denoting

the force (3.26) of segment i at node P), respectively. Considering (3.682) as a boundary

condition of the basic segments (cf. Figs. 3.5 and 3.6), the analysis focuses on the force flow

between the segments. Loads concentrating at the segment boundaries are balanced with strong

bands or shear lines.

3.7 Examples

The theoretical lower-bound analysis is completed with two example applications a

rectangular and a triangular slab.

Consider a uniformly loaded, simply supported rectangular slab with side lengths l and 2l.

Strip method

The strip method of analysis is defined by the discontinuity lines and the load dispersion

indicated in the plane of the rectangular slab in Fig. 3.7. In the short span (y-direction) two

zones are distinguished the middle strips carry the whole load (zone 1); the edge strips (width

l / 2 ) carry only half of the total load (zone 2). The strips in the x-direction complete the load

transfer carrying the portion q / 2 in the boundary areas. The slab design involves bottom

reinforcement only. The total average moment equals 0.057ql2.

Generalised strip method

For km = 2, Fig. 3.5c fits directly into the slab considered. According to Eq. (3.47), the shear

flow and moment trajectories are given by (3.35) with ks =2.5 and km = 2, respectively, see

Fig. 3.8a. The principal shear force equals v0 = q ( x2 + 6.25 y2 )1/2 / 3.5, and the principal

moments are given by mum = q ( l2 x2 4y2 ) / 14 (Fig. 3.8b) and mvm = ql2 / 14, respectively, where

the coordinates x, y define a Cartesian system with origin at the slab centre. Considering the

variation of m1 between ql2 / 14 at the slab centre and ql2 / 14 at the slab corners, see Fig. 3.8b,

the total average moment equals 0.052ql2. Finally, the reaction forces are equal to 3ql / 7 and the

corner hold-down forces are equal to ql2 / 7.

Stress field approach

The transition from the generalised strip method to the stress field approach results as soon as

one single segment does not fit directly into the slabs shape. As an example application,

34

z

y

l /2

0.063

0.125

l /2

l /2

my

ql 2

q

2

my

ql 2

l /2

q

2

mx

ql 2

0.063

trapezoidal segments are fitted into the rectangular slab, taking into account the symmetry of the

statical problem, see Fig. 3.9a. The analysis attempts a direct load transfer to the supports,

making use of the curvature of the tangential moment trajectories.

Satisfying (3.682) with constant bending moment m along AF, BE, CE, DF, EF, Fig. 3.9

aims at defining the range of possible equilibrium solutions. For lEF = l / 2 (i.e. a fixed segment

geometry), Fig. 3.9a investigates the influence of m (m > 0) on the force flow. Let Ftriang denote

the force resulting from BCE or AFD in E or in F, respectively, Ftrap = rEF lEF = forces of ABEF

or DFEC along EF, and Ftot = 2Ftriang + 2Ftrap. Ftriang, Ftrap and Ftot decrease linearly with

increasing m. The range of the analysis is restricted by the geometrical condition c > 0 in each

stress field, c indicating the zero shear lines. For m = 9 ql2 / 128, the trapezoidal segments support

the triangular ones, giving Ftot = 0. Investigating the combination of m and lEF resulting in

Ftot = 0, Fig. 3.9b completes Fig. 3.9a by considering the influence of the basic segment

geometry. Ftot = 0 is obtained only for lEF > 0.47l. The state m = 0.071ql2, lEF = 0.697l gives the

segment combination with the maximum m-value, i.e. the largest amount of force transferred

geometrically, making use of the curvature of the tangential trajectories of the polar principal

moment net.

b)

a)

v0=0

71

x

l /2

40

0

40

71

[1000 m 1 /ql 2 ]

Fig. 3.8: Simply supported rectangular slab: a) shear flow and moment field, b) corresponding

m1.

35

Static method

The values of m and lEF determine the stress field in the slab. Referring to Fig. 3.9, the states

(a) with largest geometrical load transfer (m = 0.071ql2, lEF = 0.697l), (c) with Ftot = 0 in

Fig. 3.9a (m = 9ql2 / 128, lEF = 0.5l), and (e) with Ftrap = 0 in Fig. 3.9a ( m = ql2 / 16, lEF = 0.5l ) are

analysed in Fig. 3.10 for comparison purposes. In each case the shear flow and the principal

moment trajectories as well as the radial moment are depicted in the plane of the slab.

Considering (3.60) for lEF = 0.697l and m = 0.071ql2 one obtains cABEF = cDFEC = a = 0.268l

and cBCE = cAFD = 0, i.e. the load is transferred radially from the lines HF (zero shear lines) to the

supports, (Fig. 3.10a). The radial moment varies between 0.071ql2 in the middle of the slab and

0.120 ql2 at the corner of the trapezoidal segment (Fig. 3.10b). Accounting for the constant

moment m = 0.071ql2, the total average moment equals 0.053ql2. The reaction force along AG

equals 0.429ql and along AI it is equal to 0.434ql. A hold-down force of 0.146ql2 is required at

the corners.

For lEF = 0.5l and m = 9ql2 / 128, the shear flow varies as depicted in Fig. 3.10c. In the

triangular segment, equilibrium results in a zero shear line at the distance c = 0.217l from F.

The load portion ql2 / 32 is concentrated at the apex of the triangular segments. Introducing this

load with a strong band of strength Mx = ql ( l2 / 16 x2 ) / 16 along EF, the trapezoidal segment

supports AFI through the reaction rHF = ql / 16. In Fig. 3.10d, the radial moment increases

beyond m to 0.104ql2 in the vicinity of the apex of the triangular segments. The maximum

negative value of mr is reached at the corner of the trapezoidal segment, 0.158ql2. Accounting

for the constant moment m = 9ql2 / 128, the total average moment equals 0.055ql2. Note that the

strong band moment is not considered in the average. The reaction force along AG equals

0.434ql and along AI it is equal to 0.438ql. Finally, a hold-down force of 0.152ql2 is required at

the corners.

Neglecting the condition Ftot = 0, the segment combination corresponds to a simply

supported rectangular slab with point supports at E and F. For m = ql2 / 16 and lEF = 0.5l, the

trapezoidal segment is similar to that of Fig. 3.10a, where the shear flows from EF to the

support. The triangular segment is similar to that of Fig. 3.10c, where the shear vanishing at a

b)

a)

0.5 l

E

x

0.5 l

y

0.75 l

0.75 l

0.5 l

Fi

ql 2

m

ql 2

Ftrap

0.1

Ftot = 0

0.071

Ftot

Ftriang

0.01

c= 0

e c

c= 0

m

ql 2

0.01

0.697

2

0.47

l EF

l

Fig. 3.9: Simply supported rectangular slab, stress field approach a) internal force analysis;

b) geometrical analysis.

36

Examples

b)

a)

v0= 0

71

71

40

0.5 l

40

0

0

c) r = ql /8

HF

F

42

80

120

[1000 m r /ql 2 ]

0.651 l

0.349 l

40

d)

RF =ql 2/32

v0=0

104

70

40

80

40

0

0

40

G

0.25 l

[1000 m r /ql 2 ]

0.533 l

0.217 l

80

31

158

f)

e)

H

v0= 0

R F =ql 2/24

v0=0

108

63

40

80

40

0

40

A

[1000 m r /ql 2 ]

0.5 l

0.25 l

0.25 l

80

28

141

h)

g)

F

RF =ql 2/24

x

RF

2

G

0.25 l

m x= R F d

l

L

075 l

m y= R F l

4d

A

d

Fig. 3.10: Particular solutions: a) shear flow and moment field for lEF = 0.697l and

m = 0.071ql2, b) corresponding mr; c) shear flow and moment field for lEF = 0.5l and

m = 9ql2 / 128, d) corresponding mr; e) shear flow and moment field for lEF = 0.5l and

m = ql2 / 16, f) corresponding mr; g) transfer of RF: shear lines FL; h) additional

moment distribution.

37

Static method

distance 0.25l from F determines RF = ql2 / 24, see Fig. 3.10e. Fig. 3.10f shows the radial

moment variation in the two segments. The radial moment increases beyond m to 0.108ql2 near

F in the triangular segment, and the extreme negative value is reached at the corner of the

trapezoidal segment, 0.141ql2. Accounting for the constant moment m = ql2 / 16 the total

average moment equals 0.051ql2. The reaction forces are equal to 0.406ql and 0.417ql along AG

and AI, respectively, and hold-down forces of 0.135ql2 are required at the corners. Considering

the fictitious reaction at F, Fig. 3.10g introduces a shear line transferring V = RF / 2 between F

and L. Eqs. (3.20) to (3.22) correspond to a moment mx = d RF / l and my = RF l / ( 4d ) in the

regions LGHF and LFM, respectively (Fig. 3.10h). For d = 0 the shear line becomes a strong

band with a moment My = RF l (1 2y / l) / 4, cf. Eq. (3.21). Finally, the total stress field of the

original problem is obtained by superimposing the stress field of Fig. 3.10e on that of

Fig. 3.10g. The total average moment is a function of d.

Discussion

The rectangular slab analysis has a long tradition, going back to the origins of the equilibrium

method (Chapter 5.3.2). Anticipating Johansens work [21], Ingerslev [19] investigated the

load-carrying capacity of a rectangular slab based on the equilibrium considerations suggested

in Fig. 3.9. First established by Nielsen [47], the stress field of Fig. 3.10a shows that Ingerslevs

result is correct only if m'u 1.7 mu , where m'u is the negative bending resistance. For m'u = mu

the limit analysis problem of the rectangular slab has not been solved; Fig. 3.8 (Wood [67]) and

[49] give lower-bound approximations of the ultimate load. Neglecting limit analysis

requirements Fig. 3.10 extends Nielsens analysis considering more general triangular and

trapezoidal segments. The condition Ftot = 0 corresponds to the application of Eq. (2.7) to all

mechanisms of the type shown in Fig. 3.9a; Nielsens solution (Fig. 3.10a) represents the

special case Ftrap = Ftriang = 0.

Comparing the total average moments of the different cases considered, Fig. 3.8 gives the

best solution (0.052ql2), followed by Fig. 3.10a (0.053ql2) and Fig. 3.10c (0.055ql2). The strip

method is less efficient (0.057ql2). For practical design, smooth moment distributions are

preferred. This criterion is better fulfilled by solutions based on curvilinear principal moment

sections.

Consider the uniformly loaded right-angled triangular slab ABC shown in Fig. 3.11a. The slab is

simply supported along the edges AB and BC with lengths 2l and 3l, respectively, and it is free

along AC.

Attempting to apply the strip method of analysis using strips parallel and perpendicular to

the free edge it is noted that a very large span results when approaching AC and that the

introduction of a strong band at this location is reasonable. Fig. 3.11a illustrates a possible load

split of q / 3 parallel to and 2q / 3 perpendicular to AC, and the resulting strong band load.

Next, the slab ABC is analysed with the stress field approach by dividing it into the

triangular segments BCD (segment 1) and ABD (segment 2), where D is the point of AC at

x = xD = l, see Fig. 3.11b. In both segments the points B and D replace the points A and B of

Fig. 3.6c. Introducing a constant bending moment m along BC and requiring rb(B) = 0, AC being

a free edge, the load q is split into the portions q(B) = 13m / ( 6 l2 ) and q(D) = q + 13m / (6 l2) in the

two segments, cf. Eqs. (3.64) and (3.662). Except for the forces FD1 = ql2 / 3 + 4m / 3 and

FD2 = 2ql2 / 3 + 3m / 4, the reactions (3.67) and (3.661) coincide with the slab supports. Similar to

Fig. 3.9a, Fig. 3.11c analyses the influence of m on Ftot = FD1+FD2. For m = 12ql2 / 25, Ftot = 0

and ABD supports BCD with FD = 23ql2 / 75. Investigating the combination of m and xD resulting

in Ftot = 0, Fig. 3.11d completes Fig. 3.11c for the whole range 0 < xD <3l. The maximum

moment (m = ql2 / 2) occurs for xD = 6l / 5, when FD between ABD and BCD equals the shear line

forces (3.24).

38

Examples

a)

b)

4 ql

13

y

C

13 l

2l

2l

2q

3

q

3

A

3l

2l

d)

c)

FD

ql 2

m

ql 2

xD = 1

Ftot = 0

0.5

Ftot

cD = 0

0.1

0.1

cD= 0

m

ql 2

0.1

3

1.2

xD

l

f)

e)

ql

ql 2

ql 2

Fig. 3.11: Triangular slab with a free edge: a) strip method; b) stress field approach; c) internal

force analysis; d) geometrical analysis; e) shear flow for m = ql2 / 2, xD = 1.2l;

f) principal moment distribution.

Fig. 3.11e and Fig. 3.11f represent the shear field and the moment field in ABC for xD = 6l / 5

and m = ql2 / 2. The stress fields in ABD and BCD are determined according to the procedure of

Chapter 3.6.6, by superimposing a trapezoidal stress field centred at D with load 25q / 12, a = 0,

b = 6l / 5, m = ql2 / 2 and mb = 0 and another trapezoidal stress field centred at B with load

13q / 12, a = 0, b = 6l / 5, m = 0 and mb = ql2 / 2. The results are represented similarly to those of

standard finite element slab programs, using a quadratic grid with mesh length l / 5. In

Fig. 3.11e, the shear flow is indicated by arrows whose widths are proportional to the shear

forces. The forces flow from the free side AC and the corner B to the supports AB and BC. In

Fig. 3.11f, the principal moments and their directions are indicated by crosses. The cross arm

39

Static method

widths are proportional to the moment intensities and positive and negative values are

differentiated by grey and black colour, respectively. The positive principal moments are almost

constant with a maximum value ql2 / 2. Negative moments become larger near the supports. Note

that BD is a principal trajectory of the moment field.

Discussion

Contrary to the rectangular slab, in the triangular slab a shear force is transferred between the

basic segments in any case. When m is a maximum, this force becomes the shear line force

along AC.

Compared to the strip method of analysis, in the stress field of Figs. 3.11e and 3.11f the

edge AC does not involve particular reinforcement. If AC becomes a support, then three

trapezoidal segments (a = 0) will fit in the slab, each one corresponding to an edge. Intermediate

states are obtained when concentrating part of the load to the free edge, hence to A and C via a

strong band. Extra reinforcement along AC reduces the negative moments in the slab.

3.8 Conclusions

In analogy with the static analysis of beams, the static methods for slabs have been reorganised

and unified into the stress field approach by discussing the mechanisms of transverse shear

transfer.

Shear in slabs appears in distributed [kN / m] or in concentrated [kN] form involving a

distributed [kN] or a concentrated [kNm] moment change.

The flow of distributed shear forces is given by the generalised strip method. Following a

selected load path, i.e. fixed principal shear trajectories, distributed shear forces are determined

through vertical equilibrium. Arbitrary principal moment trajectories are selected; beam action

of the principal moment strips and geometrical contributions according to the curvatures of the

principal moment trajectories match the moment change required for the transfer of the shear

forces. Assuming a fixed load distribution and particular principal shear and principal moment

trajectories, the distributed force flow is developed for general slab segments of variable shape

and boundary conditions.

Concentrated shear forces flow along shear lines. The transfer of a concentrated shear force,

i.e. the required concentrated moment change, is produced through a beam action (strong band)

as well as through a discontinuity in the twisting moments.

Continuous stress fields, shear lines and strong bands are the basic tools of the stress field

approach for slabs. The idea underlying this approach is to develop a desired force flow.

Continuous stress fields are responsible for the load transfer within the individual slab segments

and shear lines and strong bands are introduced at their boundaries.

Limited to distributed shear forces, the usual static methods for slabs are special cases of the

generalised strip method; elasticity identifies the behaviour of the slab through elastic beams

spanning in the principal curvature directions of the deflection function; Hillerborgs strip

method constrains the principal moment directions to be straight; the Hencky-Prandtl solutions

correspond to a load transfer on the basis of geometrical contributions assuming fixed principal

moments; and known limit analysis solutions are related to curvilinear systems with particular

geometrical properties (e.g. conical sections).

40

Limit analysis

4.1

General

The first attempts at a slab limit analysis date back to the 1920s and 1930s [19, 21]. Supported

by experimental observations, it was assumed that slabs fail along yield lines. The limit analysis

consisted in determining the most critical yield line layout (see Chapter 5.3).

Attempts to solve the slab limit analysis problem on the basis of the theory of plasticity (see

Chapter 2.6) followed in the 1960s. The plasticity approaches started from the analysis of the

limit states following the yielding of the reinforcement. In the lower-bound analysis, the yield

condition found direct application for the design of the reinforcement [66]. The upper-bound

analysis based on the flow rule was found to be more general than the yield line theory

[37, 47, 26]. However, the kinematical research was essentially focused on a review of

Johansens theory [21]. The newly found failure modes did not correspond to the yield line

theory and the limit analysis problem could be completely solved only for some particular cases.

This raised doubts about the existence of complete solutions [8, 69] until the 1970s, when Fox

[9, 10] showed that rather simple loading problems may involve complex solutions. Parallel to

this development, the limit analysis of slabs split into clear upper- and lower-bound approaches.

This chapter summarises the fundamentals of slab limit analysis. Based on work by Save

[58] and Kemp [26], the following analysis starts from a statical yield condition and it uses the

flow rule to deduce how yield will occur. The yield surface is used to define the basic elements

of slab limit analysis and to illustrate the difficulty to determine matching upper- and lowerbound analyses. These difficulties are mitigated by simplifying the limit analysis to a consistent

theory in agreement with a slab collapse involving yield line mechanisms. Simplified complete

solutions provide the basis for a new slab design method the compatibility limit design

method (see Chapter 6).

The following discussion is limited to homogeneous orthotropic slabs reinforced in the xand y-directions in both the top and bottom layers. However, the outlined procedure is valid for

an arbitrary reinforcement layout.

4.2

For low reinforcement ratios, the slabs ultimate resistance depends primarily on the strength of

the reinforcement (Chapter 4.2.1). The yield condition describes all stress states for which the

reinforcement is yielding (Chapter 4.2.2). The transition from statics to kinematics is provided

by the flow rule (Chapter 4.2.3). Corresponding parameters of the generalised stresses mx, my,

mxy are the generalised strains & x , & y , 2 & xy . Slabs may collapse along yield lines or at yield

points; the two cases are characterised by statical and kinematical redundancies, respectively

(Chapter 4.2.4).

41

Limit analysis

Consider the simple case of pure bending of a slab strip containing bottom reinforcement with a

cross-sectional area per unit length as at right angles to the x-axis (x-section), see Fig. 4.1a.

Assuming a perfectly plastic behaviour of the concrete and of the reinforcement (yield strengths

fc and fy), the stress distribution shown in Fig. 4.1b results in the ultimate resistance

mu = f c d 2 1

2

(4.1)

where d is the effective depth and = a s f y /(df c ) denotes the mechanical reinforcement ratio.

The bending moment in the section parallel to the reinforcement (y-direction) as well as the

twisting moments in the x- and y-directions must be equal to zero, because no steel is available

to develop a resistance.

The ultimate resistances in the x- and y-directions determine the limit states of the slab in an

arbitrary direction, see Chapter 3.2.2. Denoting by the clockwise angle between the

reinforcement direction and the vector orthogonal to the cross-section considered, Eqs. (3.9)

reduce to

mnu = mu cos 2

(4.2)

material behaviour (i.e. a good distribution of the reinforcement), a constant in-plane resistance

of the concrete, and a negligible influence of the difference in the internal moment arm arising

from the variation of the compression zone width. If present, compressive reinforcement will

take part in resisting the compressive force and hence reduce the compressive force in the

concrete [50], see Fig. 4.1c; however, for low reinforcement ratios the bending resistance (4.1)

is only slightly increased.

Slabs generally include different reinforcement layers. Superimposing the above analysis

for each reinforcement direction i at the slab bottom, 1 i k , Eqs. (4.2) are generalised to

k

mnu =

mui cos 2 i

mtnu =

i =1

i

u

cos i sin i

(4.3)

i =1

Eqs. (4.3) describe the positive slab resistance at ultimate. The negative resistance is determined

similarly, by considering the top reinforcement. Quantities referring to the top of the slab are

denoted by a prime. For example, as is the cross-sectional area per unit length of the top

reinforcement (Fig. 4.1a) and mu is the negative bending resistance in the direction of the main

reinforcement.

c)

b)

a)

1

as

fc

fc

mu

y

......

mu

x

as fy

as

z

as fy

as fy

Fig. 4.1: Slab element subjected to pure bending in the x-direction (reinforcement direction):

a) notation; b) plastic stress distribution, as = 0 ; c) plastic stress distribution, as 0 .

42

The yield condition distinguishes safe stress states from those for which a given reinforcement

is not sufficient. The collapses of the bottom and top reinforcements define two regimes which

are first analysed separately. Then, positive and negative failures are considered together,

focusing on the regime change.

Positive regime

The positive regime is related to yielding bottom reinforcement. Negative failures are excluded

by constraining the top reinforcement to stay rigid.

A homogeneous orthotropic reinforced slab is considered with the ratio between the

ultimate bending resistances in the y- and the x-directions. In an arbitrary direction, the ultimate

resistances (Eqs. (4.3))

mnu = mu cos 2 + mu sin 2

(4.4)

mn = mx cos 2 + m y sin 2 + m yx sin 2 ; mtn = (my mx ) sin cos + myx cos 2

(4.5)

where denotes the clockwise angle between the x- and the n-directions.

A stress state (mn,mtn) is safe if mn mnu and mtn mtnu on any section n. Introducing the

parametric yield function Y + (mn , ) = mn mnu [37], these requirements are expressed by

Y+ 0

Y,+ 0

and

(4.6)

The yield condition (4.6) is based on a local stress definition. Since mtn = mn, / 2, the

analysis focuses on the bending moment. mnu and mn, depicted as functions of the parameter ,

must touch only tangentially to avoid violating the yield condition, see Fig. 4.2a. Considering

the variation of mnu (curve a) and different stress states mn for 0 , the following holds:

curves mn and mn that do not coincide may touch in one point only (e.g. curve b at = );

u

different mn-curves may touch the mn -curve at the same point corresponding to the same

u

collapse (e.g. curves b and c at = );

for isotropic reinforcement ( = 1), the mn -curve becomes a straight line (curve d) and

u

collapse occurs in the first principal moment direction;

for orthotropic reinforcement ( 1 ), the orientation of the collapse section with respect to

the principal moment directions depends on the principal moment values.

The first statement follows directly from the similarity of the mn- and mnu-curves. Collapse

is constrained to the yield-line direction, i.e the cross-section defined by the abscissa angle of

the contact point. If mn is identical with mnu, then the collapse may occur in an arbitrary

direction.

Fig. 4.2b aims to define the set c of stress states compatible with collapse in the direction

= . Starting from the resistances mx = mu and my = mu Mohrs circle for the resisting

moments is determined; Point N corresponds to collapse in the -direction. Any Mohrs circle

through N with a principal moment m1 mu ( m1 m2 and 1 ) corresponds to an mn-curve

like c in Fig. 4.2a. The bending and twisting moments in the Cartesian directions are determined

by rotating the radius of N about the angle 2 in the anti-clockwise direction. Introducing the

bending moment m in the x-direction as parameter, the components of the moment tensor are

given by

(m , m

x

y , m xy

) = m, m

mu m mu m

,

tan 2 tan

(4.7)

where m mu . In the (mn,mtn)-plane the points (mx,myx) of (4.7) reduce to a straight line, the Xline, see Fig. 4.2b.

43

Limit analysis

The analysis is extended further by determining the states which generate positive collapse

in an arbitrary direction, 0 . Eliminating m and from (4.7) one obtains the conditions

2

Y + : mxy

( mu mx )( mu m y ) = 0

tan 2 =

mu mx

mu m y

(4.8)

as axis the line mx my = mu(1) in the plane mxy = 0 and apex (mx,my,mxy) = (mu, mu,0), see

Fig. 4.2c.

Eqs. (4.6) and (4.81) define the positive regime of slabs in the local system of reference and

in the reinforcement directions (i.e. in the Cartesian directions), respectively. Using Eqs. (3.9),

the positive regime may also be expressed in the principal directions of the applied moments:

Y + : mu m1 (sin 21 + cos 21 ) + mu m2 (cos 21 + sin 21 ) m1m2 mu2 = 0

(4.9)

where m1 mu , m2 mu and 1 indicates the clockwise angle from the x-axis to the 1-axis.

Eq. (4.9) quantifies the dependence shown in Fig. 4.2a of the yield condition on the direction of

the principal moments relative to the reinforcement directions. This dependence vanishes in the

case of isotropic reinforcement, i.e.

Y + : (mu m1 )(mu m2 ) = 0

(4.10)

values of 1 [26]. Fig. 4.2d represents the positive regime for isotropic reinforcement (lines AB

and AC).

Comparing (4.6), (4.81) and (4.9), each point on the mnu-curves corresponds to a straight

cone surface line in Fig. 4.2c and to one of the boundary lines AB or AC in Fig. 4.2d, if the

reinforcement is isotropic. The cone apex in Fig. 4.2c and the point A in Fig. 4.2d indicate a

failure redundancy, involving potential collapse sections in arbitrary directions.

Negative regime

The negative regime is obtained analogously to the positive one. In a homogeneous orthotropic

reinforced slab with ratio between the ultimate bending resistances in the y- and the xdirections, the ultimate resistances in the -section with respect to the x-axis are given by

mn u = mu cos 2 + mu sin 2

(4.11)

The yield function Y (mn , ) = (mn + mn u ) assesses in terms of (4.6) the safety of (4.5) in

the local system of reference.

The negative yield condition in the reinforcement directions is given by

2

Y : mxy

(mu + mx )( mu + m y ) = 0

(4.12)

Y : mu m1 (sin 21 + cos 21 ) + mu m2 (cos 21 + sin 21 ) + m1m2 + mu2 = 0

(4.13)

where m1 mu and m2 mu . Again, the yield condition depends upon the direction of the

principal moments relative to the reinforcement (angle 1). With isotropic reinforcement (4.13)

simplifies to

Y : (mu + m1 )(mu + m2 ) = 0

(4.14)

The definition of a yield section results in a statical redundancy, defined by the set

(m , m

x

44

y , m xy

+ m

) = m, m + m + m , mtan

tan 2

(4.15)

.

m 2 (2)

d)

a)

mn

mu

E

C

Yield-direction

d)

G

A

a)

..

.

mu

...

..

..

..

.

m 1(1)

...

...

...

...

mu

..

...

...

...

...

b)

b)

..

...

...

...

..

c)

Y

F

+

Y

e)

mtn

X-line

X

1

applied

mn

mu

resistance

mtnu

mn

Y

m u

m nu

mn

mu

mu

.

mxy (2xy )

c)

2 2

1 1

f)

.

mxy (2xy )

.

mx (x)

= 2

.

mx (x)

= 1

+

Y

+

Y

mu

.

my (y)

.

my (y)

Fig. 4.2: Yield condition for orthotropic reinforced slabs: a) positive regime analysis in the

local system (n,t,z); b) Mohrs circles for applied and resisting moments; c) positive

regime analysis in the global system (x,y,z); d) positive and negative regime

isotropic reinforcement; e) positive and negative regime analysis in the local system;

f) positive and negative regime analysis in the global system.

45

Limit analysis

with parameter m', m mu . The apex stress state (m'u,'m'u,0) indicates a failure

redundancy, being a point of Eq. (4.15) for any value of .

Regime change

The yield surface results from the intersection of the positive and negative regimes. The

following analysis highlights the stress field constraints resulting at a regime change.

Fig. 4.2e depicts the positive and negative resistance curves in an mn--diagram. The study

of stress states generating simultaneous positive and negative failures results in the following

statements:

the state of stress at a point of positive and negative collapse is defined by one of the angles

1, 2, 1 and 2, where 1, 2 are the positive and negative failure section directions and 1,

2 are the principal moment directions;

for any positive collapse direction = 1 there is a negative collapse direction

= 2 = tan1{(mu + mu) / [tan1 (mu + mu)]}. The angle = 2 1 is uniquely

determined;

among all admissible stress curves related to a positive or a negative collapse, the one tangent

to both mnu and mn u maximizes m = m1 m2; m is a function of the collapse direction;

for isotropic slabs ( = = 1) the collapse directions are principal moment directions;

= / 2 and m = mu + mu.

In analogy to Fig. 4.2c, Fig. 4.2f shows the two yield cones corresponding to the positive

and the negative yield condition in the (mx,my,mxy)-space. The space enclosed by the two cones

defines the admissible states. The vertical plane through the points (mu,mu,0) and

(mu,mu,0) limits the positive and the negative regimes. The limit states for which the statical

requirements outlined in connection with Fig. 4.2e are valid correspond to points on the cones

intersection line.

Using principal moment directions is advantageous only in the case of isotropic

reinforcement. In the (m1,m2)-plane the positive and negative yield conditions define the square

AHDG (Fig. 4.2d). The transition between Y+ and Y is represented by the points G and H. At

these points, the principal moment values are fixed and the stress state depends only upon the

principal moment directions. It is implicit that positive and negative failure sections are

orthogonal.

The slab collapse behaviour is derived by applying the flow rule. A distinction is made between

yield line and yield point, depending on whether the collapse occurs in one or more directions.

The rate of dissipated energy results by multiplying the internal forces with the associated strain

rates.

Generalised strain rates

For the generalised stresses mx, my, mxy, the associated generalised strain rates must be chosen so

as to obtain the specific rate of energy dissipated in plastic deformation when summing the

products of the corresponding generalised variables, Eq. (2.3):

dD = m x & x + m y & y + m xy 2 & xy

(4.16)

i.e. mx, my, mxy are associated to & x , & y , 2 & xy , respectively.

The strain rate field has the nature of a plane tensor. The curvature rate & n and the rate of

twist & tn in an arbitrary direction n, forming an angle with the x-direction, are given by

46

(4.17)

These equations may be graphically described by means of a Mohrs circle. There are two

sections in which the twist is equal to zero and the curvature rates are extremes. These values

are the principal curvature rates &1 and & 2 and the corresponding directions are the principal

directions.

Yield lines

Applying the flow rule, Eq. (2.6), to the (weakly convex) lateral surfaces of the positive and

negative slab yield cones, one obtains

k+ 0

k 0

(4.18)

The curvature rates on a positive or negative collapse section in the n-direction defined by

the angle = with ultimate stress (4.7) or (4.15), respectively, are given by

& n = k

mu m

= k1 0 ; & tn = 0

sin 2

m + m

& n = k u 2 = k1 0 ; & tn = 0

sin

(4.19)

The section n is a principal curvature section ( & tn = 0 ) and orthogonal to it, the principal

curvature vanishes ( & t = 0 ). From inspection of Fig. 4.2a it follows that the principal directions

of the moment tensor and those of the curvature rate tensor coincide only if m1 = mu or

m2 = mu. With isotropic reinforcement this is always the case, as evidenced by applying the

flow rule to the boundaries AB, AC, DE and DF in Fig. 4.2d.

Sections subjected to the yield moment and a rotation rate in the n-direction, dissipating the

rate of energy

dD = mnu & n = mu & x + mu & y

(4.20)

Yield points

In the following the flow rule is applied to the (strongly convex) singularity points of the yield

surface.

On the cone apex mx = mu, my = mu and mxy = 0, Koiters flow rule [29] shows that the

strain-rate vector may lie anywhere on or inside the cone of the outward-pointing normal at the

singularity point (Fig. 4.2c). Hence, any combination of & 1 0 , & 2 0 with any principal

direction is possible. Note that every lateral line of the cone corresponds to a strain rate &1 0 ,

& 2 = 0 in the yield direction. Thus, the positive singularity point corresponds to any number of

positive yield lines. The rate of energy dissipated equals

dD = mu & x + mu & y = & 1mn + & 2 mt

(4.21)

A similar analysis may be carried out for the negative singularity point (mx = mu,

my = mu, mxy = 0). In this case, the principal curvature rates are both negative ( &1 0 ,

& 2 0 ).

47

Limit analysis

At a regime change, i.e. along the singularity line of the yield surface, a positive and a

negative failure section with curvature rate (4.181) and (4.182) are possible. The flow rule

permits any linear combination, with non-negative coefficients, of the two curvature rates, i.e.

( & x , & y , & yx ) = k + ( & x , & y , & yx ) + + k ( & x , & y , & yx ) ,

k + ,k 0

(4.22)

The values and directions of the principal curvature rates following from (4.22) depend on the

magnitude of the coefficients k+ and k. The general statement is &1& 2 0 . Finally, the rate of

energy dissipated at a point of the singularity line is given by

dD = k + ( mu & x+ + mu & y+ ) + k (mu & x + mu & y )

(4.23)

Points subjected to more than one rotation rate dissipating the energy rate (4.21) or (4.23),

are called yield points.

4.2.4 Discussion

The yield surface and the associated flow rule describe the ultimate stress states and the

corresponding failure modes, establishing the relationships between statics and kinematics. For

regular parts of the yield surface, the statical and the kinematical approaches are equivalent.

However, the former or the latter approach is advantageous for strongly or weakly convex

singularities, respectively, such as an apex or a flat portion of the yield surface. Finally, a

collapse results when the points where the stress field is at the limit correspond to a valid

mechanism, i.e. when the statical and kinematical analyses converge to the same result.

The yield surface depicted in Fig. 4.2f is composed of flat portions connected by

singularity points.

The flat portions are confined to the lateral surfaces of the two yield cones. Each straight

line on the cones associates a particular yield line to a set of stress states, hence favouring a

kinematical approach. Since the strain rates show one vanishing principal curvature rate, the

slabs collapse surface will be developable. Yield line collapse mechanisms are governed by

the laws of motion of rigid bodies, see Chapter 5.2.

In the points of singularity of the yield surface apexes of the positive and the negative

yield cone and states describing the regime change the flow rule associates one stress state

with a set of strain tensors, hence favouring the statical approach. Being confined to one single

stress state, the apexes of the positive and the negative yield cone are statically irrelevant

because there cannot be any load transfer. By contrast, the states of stress on the singularity

line limit the load transfer capacity of the slab; once the positive and the negative yield strength

are reached the slab loses its redundancy and equilibrium conditions determine the stress field

(shear field and principal moment directions) within the yield regions developing in the load

transfer direction [16] (e.g. for isotropic reinforcement see Chapter 3.6.4).

Yield lines and yield regions are the basic tools of limit analysis. Failure mechanisms are

essentially fixed by yield lines; owing to kinematical or statical requirements, yield

regions develop locally between yield lines.

Kinematical yield regions result if the collapse considered includes positive and negative

failure intersections. Such a situation occurs for example at a re-entrant corner supported slab

section, seeFig.4.3a. Assuming an isotropic reinforcement the intersection between positive

and negative yield lines has to be orthogonal (static condition); on the other hand, a negative

yield line radiating from the re-entrant corner is required for kinematic admissibility. Statics

and kinematics match when developing a yield region, see Fig. 4.3b. By progressive rotation of

the failure sections the yield region transforms into an anticlastic surface between the rigid

collapsing segments of the slab.

48

b)

a)

d)

c)

x

Q

x

/4

"Statical" yield region

y

y

Fig. 4.3: Yield region. Re-entrant corner supported slab: a) yield line failure mechanism,

b) kinematical yield region; statical yield region: c) central loaded simply

supported rectangular slab [9], d) uniformly loaded clamped square slab [10].

In statical yield regions the slab mobilises all geometrical reserves (Chapter 3.6.4) to

resist the applied loads. Referring to the studies of Fox, Fig. 4.3c and d depict the extension of

statical yield regions for the case of positive and negative isotropic reinforcement in a

centrally loaded, simply supported rectangular slab [9] and in a uniformly loaded clamped

square slab [10], respectively. Generally, statical yield regions occur in the vicinity of

supports.

4.3

The limit analysis of slabs is linked to two different failure regimes corresponding to the

yielding of the top and bottom reinforcements. Each regime lends itself to a kinematical

analysis, while the regime change favours a statical analysis. The interplay between kinematics

and statics obstructs the limit analysis, making it difficult to overcome the divergence between

upper- and lower-bound results.

49

Limit analysis

In order to simplify the analysis one may introduce an approximate limit analysis by

assuming a single regime as yield condition, constraining the top or the bottom reinforcement

to stay rigid. By limiting the failure modes to yield lines of one sign (see Chapter 5.2) the

approximate limit analysis favours the kinematical approach without excluding statical

considerations, hence a new limit analysis problem is defined. In order to emphasize the

difference to standard limit analysis problems, equilibrium solutions related to approximate

limit analysis problems are called upper-bound moment fields [41].

In Chapters 5.3.2 and 6, the approximate limit analysis provides the theoretical background

of the equilibrium method and the compatibility limit design method, respectively. Starting

with the kinematical analysis, the failure shape and the ultimate load are determined in a first

step, followed by a corresponding statical investigation.

4.4

Example application

The following application continues the analysis of the rectangular slab introduced in

Chapter 3.7.1 in order to illustrate the approximate limit analysis.

Fig. 4.4a reproduces the moment field distribution depicted in Fig. 3.10b. This is the radial

moment (m1) in the area of the triangular and the trapezoidal segments AFI and AGHF for

lHF = 0.697l / 2. In both segments the tangential moment (m2) equals 0.071ql2. As basis for the

dimensioning of the reinforcement [66], the moments at the grid points (x, y) = (0.5l,0.25l )

are determined and represented in the normal moment variation diagram of Fig. 4.4b. On the

positive side, the mn-curves are tangent to the line mn = 0.071ql2, depending on the direction of

the second principal moment; an isotropic bottom reinforcement for the ultimate resistance

mu = 0.071ql2 provides a safe and economical design (curve a). On the negative side, extreme

moments arise in the trapezoidal segment, in the direction of the internal boundary AF, when

approaching the corner A. The most efficient top reinforcement is obtained by reinforcing bars

orthogonal to AF (curve b). Using Cartesian directions and assuming a ratio = 0.25, the

required ultimate resistance in the x-direction equals 0.211ql 2 (curve c). Finally, using

isotropic reinforcement mu = 0.120ql2 (curve d). The dimensioning may be refined by defining

regions in which the reinforcement content is adjusted.

Assuming an isotropic reinforcement with mu = 0.071ql2, one observes that the moment

field is composed of states at Boundary AC of Fig. 4.2.d, whereas along EF, the stress states

correspond to the singularity point A. Thus, each radial trajectory of the triangular and

trapezoidal segments is a potential yield line and points along EF are potential yield points of a

positive collapse mechanism. With reference to Fig. 4.4c, the yield lines AF, BE, CE, DF, and

EF and the yield points E and F produce a mechanism.

Since the moment field of Fig. 4.4a is composed of admissible stress states according to the

positive yield condition for isotropic reinforcement with resistance mu = 0.071ql2 and since it is

compatible with the mechanism of Fig. 4.4c, the load q = mu / (0.071l2) is the ultimate load.

Other layouts of the same yield line pattern define a new geometry of the trapezoidal and

triangular segments. For example, Fig. 3.10c shows the case with lEF = 0.5l. When comparing

the radial moment distribution (m1) with the yield line moment (m2 = 0.070ql2) in Fig. 3.10d,

one observes that the radial moment values grow beyond the yield line moment, i.e. the stress

field no longer corresponds to a complete solution. As a rule, the complete solution will

correspond to the stress field with the most efficient load transfer and a more critical yield line

layout exists if a stress field associated to a certain yield line layout violates the yield condition

considered.

50

b)

a)

H

71

(0,71)

(67,71)

(71,71)

(30,71)

(11,71)

K

M

40

(30,71)

(0,71)

40

(50,71)

0.5 l

mn ql 2/ 1000

0.25l

40

a)

O

P

A

(120,71)

m 2 ql 2/ 1000

m1

71

53

A

b)

c)

120

d)

211

c)

4/l

0.5 l

1

0.5 l

B

0.70 l

0.65 l

0.65 l

0.5

1.54/l

Fig. 4.4: Rectangular slab segment: a) statical analysis; b) yield condition; c) kinematical

analysis.

Assuming an isotropic reinforcement distribution corresponding to a resistance

mu = mu = 0.071ql 2 (classical limit analysis), the stress states in region AJK of Fig. 4.4a are not

admissible. Using classical limit analysis one is not able to recognise the failure pattern of

Fig. 4.4c as the best yield line collapse. To make the solution admissible, the load transfer

within AJK would have to be realised by a Hencky-Prandtl solution (see Chapter 3.6.4).

Comparing the complex and unsolved classical limit analysis problem with the simple

approximate limit analysis problem, it can be stated that yield regions are local problems

resolvable with little additional reinforcement.

4.5

Conclusions

Caused by the yielding of the top or the bottom reinforcement, the slabs limit states are

distinguished as yield lines and yield points, depending on whether at failure one or more

rotation axes are possible. Allowing the combination of a particular failure mode with different

stress states, yield lines lend themselves to a kinematical approach. Conversely, allowing the

combination of a single stress state with different failure modes, the yield regions are best

investigated based on a statical approach. Generally, statical and kinematical analyses are

difficult to combine. Yield lines define the global failure pattern, while yield regions are

generally confined to small areas characterised by the union of yield lines of different sign

51

Limit analysis

Due to its complexity, standard limit analysis of slabs is of little practical interest.

To overcome the difficulties of standard limit analysis, it is suggested to select a single

failure regime as the governing yield condition, i.e. to prevent yielding in one reinforcement

layer by means of some extra reinforcement; yield line failures are limited to one sign.

Supplementing the kinematical study by statical considerations and thus establishing

compatibility, the approximate limit analysis problem is completely solved and the extra

reinforcement is quantified.

Consistent with the theory of plasticity and simpler than standard limit analysis, the

approximate limit analysis forms the basis of a review of Johansens equilibrium method

(Chapter 5.3.2) and of a new design method the compatibility limit design method

(Chapter 6).

52

5.1

Kinematic method

General

Kinematic methods mark the beginnings of the limit analysis of slabs. Starting from

experimental observations, Johansen [21] postulated that slabs collapse along straight lines. The

task of the analysis consists in determining the ultimate load and the failure mechanism.

Preceding the fundamentals of plasticity theory, Johansen suggested two alternative methods of

analysis: the work method and the equilibrium method.

The origin of the work method can be traced back at least to Galileo [12]. The application of

the work equation (which equates the dissipation rate to the work rate related to a collapse

increment) to slabs is suggested by the simplicity of the failure layout assumed. The yield line

pattern is defined with certain parameters and the ultimate state is determined by differentiating

the work equation with respect to these parameters.

The equilibrium method was pioneered by Ingerslev [19] and further developed by

Johansen [21]. The method derives from the study of internal forces on yield lines; shear

forces and twisting moments are accounted for by concentrated nodal forces at the yield

line end. Considering overall equilibrium of each rigid portion, the extent of the slab

failure regions is adjusted in order to obtain the same yield moment on the boundaries of each

region.

Almost twenty years after Johansens work, the yield line theory was discussed within the

context of the theory of plasticity, at the time limited to the upper- and lower-bound theorem,

see Chapter 2.5. Prager identified the yield line theory as the application of the upper-bound

theorem to reinforced concrete slabs [52]. During the 1960s, cases of breakdown between the

equilibrium method and the work method [67] renewed the interest in yield line analysis.

Reviewing Johansens work, attempts were made to find a remedy for the anomalies of the

equilibrium method; in particular new rules and limitations of its applicability were established.

These attempts can be classified into two types. The first establishes a direct transition between

the work method and the equilibrium method [40, 68]. The second follows Johansens

procedure, investigating the physical meaning of the nodal forces on the basis of statical

principles [25, 41, 48, 22]. In the 1970s, Clyde identified nodal forces as vertical shear at and

parallel to strength discontinuities [4].

Although the equilibrium method involves an upper-bound analysis, its procedure and

the nature of the nodal forces evidence a lower-bound character. However, the equilibrium

method is unable to provide complete solutions in the sense of the theory of plasticity in

general since it does not account for yield regions [58]. Yet, a solid foundation of Johansens

work within the theory of plasticity is established by considering the approximate limit

analysis introduced in Chapter 4.3; with failure mechanisms formed by yield lines of unique

sign the statics and kinematics become compatible and complete solutions are created, see

Fig. 2.4.

53

Kinematic method

5.2

Failure mechanisms

Whereas equilibrium considerations are related to an infinitesimal neighbourhood, failure

mechanisms link the failure analysis to the whole slab taking into account geometry and

boundary conditions. The failure investigation has experimental origins. Observing the ultimate

behaviour of slab specimens, the collapse mechanism is assumed to be formed by rigid parts

rotating along yield lines [21]. The failure shape is derived intuitively by considering the laws

of the mechanics of rigid bodies:

the yield line between two parts of a slab and their axes of rotation intersect in a point

(Johansens 1st theorem, [21]);

the yield line layout or the rotation axes and the rotation ratios of the various parts define the

collapse mechanism (Johansens 2nd theorem, [21]).

For a slab supported at its edges, the axes of rotation are fixed along the edges. For a slab

segment supported by a column or at single points, the axis must pass over the column or over

the support points. Any change of the yield line layout results in a variation of the axes and the

ratios of the rotations of the different parts.

As exemplary applications, Figs. 5.1a and 5.1b depict two possible collapse shapes for a

quadrilateral slab simply supported along two adjacent sides and on a column. The number and

the sign of the yield lines, i.e. the yield line pattern, define the failure mode of the slab. A yield

line layout corresponds to fixed rotation axes and rotation ratios of the various collapsing parts.

Limit analysis

Yield lines constitute lines of discontinuity of the deformation field. With reference to Fig. 5.1c,

the relative rotation rate &n of two adjacent collapsing pieces A and B corresponds to a jump

w& ,Bn w& ,An in the slopes of B and A. The localized deformation leads to the generalised strain rate,

when distributing the rotation rate in a thin yield line zone of thickness b [2]: &1 = & n = &n / b

and & 2 = & t = 0 , n and t denoting the yield line and its perpendicular section, respectively. Via

the flow rule, the strain rate vector of a yield line is associated with an infinity of stress states

resulting in the same dissipation rate, cf. Chapter 4.2; redundancy subordinates the statical

analysis to kinematical requirements.

According to yield line theory both positive and negative yield lines in arbitrary directions

may intersect at a point. However, for any yield line there is only one yield line of opposite sign

such that a compatible stress state can be associated at the intersection point, cf. Chapter 4.2.

Hence, except for special cases, intersections of positive and negative yield lines are not

possible from a limit analysis point of view; yield regions have to be considered in such cases.

Regarding yield line mechanisms it can be stated that although no compatible stress state can be

a)

b)

c)

B

n

t

A

z

Fig. 5.1: Failure analysis: a) and b) yield line patterns for a quadrilateral slab simply supported

on two sides and one column; c) (positive) yield line deformation.

54

associated to positive and negative yield line intersections in general the work equation remains

unaffected since the integration width and hence the dissipation at the intersection point

vanishes.

Starting from yield line considerations and establishing compatibility with the statical

analysis, the approximate limit analysis (see Chapter 4.3) restricts yield line mechanisms to be

formed by yield lines of unique sign. There are exceptions to this rule, i.e. yield lines which may

be replaced by a boundary condition (e.g. along clamped edges) or which act like a support (e.g.

rotation axis over the column in Fig. 5.1b).

5.3

Upper-bound method

In plasticity theory, the kinematical analysis is governed by the upper-bound theorem and

complete solutions may be singled out with a statical analysis by applying the compatibility

theorem (see Fig. 2.4). In reinforced concrete slabs, the application of the upper-bound theorem

to yield line failures leads to the work method. Considering approximate limit analysis

problems, the application of the compatibility theorem corresponds to applying the equilibrium

method.

In a failure mechanism, the work produced by the external load q on a deflection w is given by

W=

q w dA

(5.1)

surface

D=

dM

(5.2)

yield lines

where and dM indicate the rotation vector and the moment vector on an infinitesimal yield

line portion, respectively.

In the case of yield line failures (see Chapter 5.2), Eq. (5.2) may be evaluated by means of

the normal method or the component vector method [23]. The normal method focuses on the

analysis of single yield lines determining the energy dissipation n mnu l n , where n , mnu and ln

are the yield line rotation, the ultimate bending moment and the yield line length, respectively.

The component vector method focuses on the analysis of the collapsing pieces, making use of

the invariance of the rotation rate. Referring to the global system of reference xy defined by the

reinforcement and to the ratio between the ultimate bending moments in x- and y-direction,

the energy dissipated along the boundary of a collapsing piece equals x mu l x + y mu l y . The

parameters x , y , mu , mu and lx, ly designate the yield line rotation components, the yield

moments and the projection lengths of the boundary yield lines of the piece considered, all in

the x- and y-directions, respectively. The total dissipation is obtained by summing the

dissipation of each yield line or of each collapsing piece, respectively.

The approximation of the ultimate load (limit analysis) or the estimation of the required

amount of reinforcement (limit design) follows by equating Eq. (5.1) to Eq. (5.2).

For a fixed yield line pattern, the most critical failure mechanism is determined by defining

the yield line pattern with certain parameters and looking for the maximum ratio W / D.

55

Kinematic method

Examples

In the following the work method is applied to four examples. Starting with the analysis of an

isotropically reinforced slab, the application is extended to the case of orthotropic

reinforcement. The last two examples investigate the reliability of the work method by

comparing different upper-bound studies.

a) Rectangular slab

Consider the uniformly loaded simply supported rectangular slab with side lengths l and 2l

introduced in Chapter 3.7.1. For a given load intensity q, the work method is applied to estimate

the required plastic moment mu (isotropic reinforcement).

Fig. 5.2a depicts the failure mechanism on the basis of the upper-bound analysis. The

collapse shape divides the slab into two trapezoidal ( ABEF, CDEF ) and two triangular ( AFD,

BCE ) segments. Since the axes of rotation of the trapezoidal segments do not meet, the central

fracture line EF is parallel to the edges AB and CD. Considering the symmetry in the geometry,

the load and the resistance distribution, the yield line layout is defined by a single parameter, for

instance the length x of the line EF.

Assuming a unit deflection of line EF (see Fig. 4.4c), the work produced by the external

loads at failure equals q[(2l x)l / 3 + lx / 2] .

During the collapse, the fracture lines EF and AF (or, equivalently, BE, CE and DF) rotate

2

= (5l2 4lx + x2 ) / 4.

by EF = 4 / l and AF = [l 2 + ( 2l x) 2 ] /[l AF l (2l x)] , respectively, where l AF

Summing the contributions of each yield line, i.e. EF mu l EF + 4 AF mu l AF , the normal method

leads to a total dissipation of mu [8 + 4l /(2l x)] . Alternatively, the energy dissipation may be

determined with the component vector method. Due to symmetry, only the pieces ABEF and

AFD are considered. The trapezoidal and the triangular segments rotate by 2 / l and 2 / (2l x)

respectively. The ultimate bending moments at the sections BE-EF-FA and AF-FD have the

resultants 2mul and mul in the directions BA and AD, respectively. Hence, the dissipated energy

equals 2(ABEF MABEF + AFD MAFD ) = mu [8 + 4l / (2l x)].

Equating the external work to the total dissipation, one obtains mu / ql2 = (4 + x / l) (2 x / l) /

/ [24 (5 2x / l )]. Fig. 5.2a depicts the variation of mu / ql2 as a function of x / l. The most critical

mechanism results for x = 0.697l, where mu = 0.071ql2.

b) Triangular slab with one free edge

Consider the triangular slab ABC simply supported along the edges AB and BC and free along

AC subjected to a uniformly distributed load q, see Fig. 5.2b. The edges AB and BC have

lengths of 3l and 2l, respectively. The following analysis aims at determining the ratio

between the ultimate bending moments in the y- and the x-direction, so as to obtain the highest

load carrying capacity for a fixed reinforcement amount.

The kinematical study is performed with a single positive yield line radiating from B. The

yield line pattern is defined by the distance x of point D from the boundary BC, see Fig. 5.2b.

When D undergoes a unit deflection, the work of the external load equals ql2. During collapse

2

the yield line BD rotates by BD = [4 (3l x )2 + 9x2] / [6x (3l x) lBD], where l BD

= x 2 + 4(3l x) 2 / 9 .

According to Eq. (4.41) the bending resistance in the failure section equals

2

2

mnu = mu (6l 2 x) 2 /(9l BD

) + mu x 2 / l BD

, where mu denotes the bending resistance in the xdirection. The dissipation of energy obtained with the normal method is given by

BD mnu l BD = mu [2(3l x) /(3 x) + 3x /(6l 2 x)] .

Note

that

the

twisting

moment

2

mtnu = mu ( 1)2 x(3l x) /(3l BD ) acting together with mnu on the failure section does not

dissipate energy. The same results may be obtained with the component vector method. The

yield line rotation vectors of ABD and BCD are given by ABD = (3 /(6l 2 x) , 0) and

BCD = (0 ,1 / x) , respectively. The moment resultant on section BD of segment ABD is

M ABD = ( mu x,mu 2(3l x) / 3) and that of segment BCD is the reaction vector M ABD .

Finally, ABDMABD + BCDMBCD leads to the same energy dissipation.

56

Upper-bound method

a)

mu

ql 2

0.071

l/2

F

l /2

q

l x /2

b)

0.010

l x /2

1.25

0.697

2 x/l

C

mu ( 1+ )

2 ql 2

D

0.50

2l

mu

0.53

..

.

..

.....

.

..

..

=1

= 0.5

=2

mu

q

1.20

3l x

0.10

0.96

1.46

3 x/l

c)

mu

qab

b

x

q

m= 0

0.1

m = 0.5 mu

m = mu

0.60

a/ b

0.50 0.68

d)

l

l

b

q

mu

ql 2

a

=

1

24

a = 0.14 l

a

mu

ql 2

1

22.20

a = 0.14 l

q

b = 0.30 l

mu

ql 2

1

22.19

Fig. 5.2: Work method applied to uniformly loaded slabs: a) simply supported rectangular slab;

b) triangular slab with one free edge (orthotropic reinforcement); c) rectangular slab

with one free edge; d) square slab.

57

Kinematic method

External work and energy dissipation are equated and solved for the ratio between the

average resistance mu (1+) / 2 and the load portion ql2: mu (1 + ) / (2ql2) = 3x (3l x) (1 + ) /

/ [9x2 + 4 (3l x)2]. For a fixed value of , the most critical mechanism results when

mu (1 + ) / (2ql2) has a maximum. On the other hand, the highest load carrying capacity with the

smallest amount of reinforcement is given by the value of for which mu (1 + ) / (2ql2) at the

point of the most critical layout has a minimum. The diagram of Fig. 5.2b depicts this study

graphically. For = 1 the most critical layout corresponds to x = 1.2l. By increasing , x is

reduced, e.g. for = 2 one obtains x = 0.96l. Conversely, by reducing , x increases, e.g. for

= 0.5 one obtains x = 1.46l. The dotted curve connects the points corresponding to the most

critical layouts for different values of . This curve has a minimum for = 1, i.e. isotropic

reinforcement results in the most economical reinforcement layout.

c) Rectangular slab with one free edge, comparison of failure mechanisms

The next example considers a rectangular slab, simply supported along three edges and free

along the fourth. The side lengths are equal to a and b, respectively, where b refers to the free

edge. The slab is loaded by a uniformly distributed load q and a boundary moment m > 0 along

the free edge. The following study evaluates the required positive resistance mu (isotropic

reinforcement) as a function of the ratio a / b and m.

Symmetrical failure mechanisms formed by positive yield lines radiating from the doubly

supported corners are considered. The parameter x indicates the distance between the yield line

intersection and the support with length b. To account for the boundary change at x = a, the

cases x < a and x > a are differentiated, see Fig. 5.2c. The upper-bound study is summarised by

the diagram of Fig. 5.2c. Mechanisms x < a govern failure for slabs with a >> b. Vice versa,

mechanisms x > a occur for a << b. Paradoxically, two yield line layouts of the failure mode

considered correspond to the same ultimate load at the transition between the two modes when

keeping the value of m constant. For instance, the yield line layouts x = 0.84a and x = 1.14a

correspond to the same ultimate load q = 12.43mu / ab, when a / b = 0.68 and m = 0. For

m = 0.5mu and a / b = 0.60, the yield line layout x = 0.55a and x = 0.66a result in

q = 12.16mu / ab. Only for m = mu and a / b = 0.50 the mode change corresponds to a single yield

line layout, i.e. x = a (q = 12mu / ab).

The found paradox highlights a controversial aspect regarding statical and kinematical

boundary conditions. Depending on the failure mechanism considered, boundary loads produce

different work rates; hence they have a different influence on the ultimate load. In Fig. 5.2c the

boundary moment m corresponds to W = 0 for x < a and W = m (a /x 1) for x > a.

d) Square slab, comparison of failure mechanisms

A uniformly loaded, simply supported square slab with isotropic reinforcement corresponding

to an ultimate resistance mu is considered. The investigation of the slabs ultimate load is

improved by starting with a simple failure mechanism and increasing the complexity of the

yield line pattern progressively, see Fig. 5.2d. In the first mechanism, the yield line pattern is

fixed by symmetry. The ultimate load follows directly from the work equation, q = 24mu / l2. The

second mechanism allows the corners to rise and rotate. The yield line layout is defined by the

distance a between a corner and the intersection of the yield line with the support. This

mechanism includes the first mechanism as special case when a = 0. The most critical layout is

given by a = 0.14l and corresponds to the ultimate load q = 22.20mu / l2 (7.5% less than the first

approximation). In contrast to the second mechanism, the third yield line pattern is not anchored

at the slabs centre. In addition to the parameter a, the geometry of the corner segments is fixed

by the parameter b. The previous two mechanisms are included as special cases in the third one.

The ultimate load q = 22.19mu / l2 corresponds to a = 0.14l and b = 0.30l.

Increasing the number of yield line parameters seems to constitute a straightforward

procedure to improve the upper-bound analysis [30]. However, referring to Fig. 5.2d, the first

mechanism agrees with Pragers solution [52], i.e. q = 24 mu / l2 is the correct ultimate load. How

58

Upper-bound method

is it possible to obtain a better upper-bound approximation of the ultimate load with the Maltese

cross mechanisms? The paradox disappears when noting that the Maltese cross mechanisms are

related to the collapse of a square slab with unrestrained corners whereas in Pragers solution

the corners are restrained, i.e. two different problems have been considered.

Starting from the compatibility theorem (see Chapter 2.5), the equilibrium method is related to

the complete solution of the approximate limit analysis problem (see Chapter 4.3). The

procedure and the limits of the equilibrium method are illustrated by means of practical

examples.

1) Approximate limit analysis

The approximate limit analysis investigates the ultimate behaviour of slabs with a fixed amount

of reinforcement in the bottom (or in the top) layer, and a negative (or positive) resistance

sufficient to prevent failure. Similar to the kinematical requirements necessary for the

admissibility of a yield line pattern (see Chapter 5.2), the following section formulates the

statical requirements for a permissible failure. If a yield line pattern satisfies the kinematical and

the statical requirements, then the validity of the ultimate solution depends only on the state of

stress within the failure segments. In the sense of a plasticity check, the ultimate stress field is

developed by considering the basic segments of the stress field approach (see Chapter 3.6.7) as

the failure pieces of the collapse mechanism. Solutions for isotropic reinforcement will be

discussed first, followed by an extension to orthotropic reinforcement by means of the affinity

theorem.

Isotropic slabs: basic considerations

Statical constraints for the collapse layout derive from equilibrium considerations in the narrow

yield line zone, assuming the ultimate state conditions outlined in Chapter 4.3. The analysis

concentrates on the shear flow across a yield line, distinguishing the cases of a distributed and a

concentrated load transfer (see Chapter 3.4).

Consider a yield line failure. Assuming a continuous stress field in the narrow yield line

zone, the collapse constrains one principal moment value to the ultimate resistance (m1 = mu)

and its trajectory to the yield line direction (1 / v = 0). Introducing these limitations into

Eqs. (3.28), the shear field on a yield line point is determined by

vn = m1, Su

vt = m2, Sv +

(m2 mu )

(5.3)

Eqs. (5.3) refer to the notation introduced by Fig. 5.3a. Since m1 may not increase beyond mu, vn

vanishes, i.e. failure sections in slabs identify principal shear trajectories or lines of zero shear

when vt = 0.

Provided that the slab is devoid of strong band reinforcement, concentrated load transfer

depends only on the moment distribution. Fig. 5.3b illustrates a shear line intersecting a yield

line at the angle in P. The axes n and t define a local system of reference in the shear line

direction, and mn and mtn are the internal moments acting outside the shear line. According to

(3.22), the bending moment is constant on both shear line sides. Assuming a continuous stress

field, the yield line moment (principal section) and the moment mn in the n-direction correspond

to a twisting moment (mu mn) / tan, see Fig. 5.3c. Finally, the shear force in P is determined by

the twisting moment change between the regions adjacent to the shear line (Eq. (3.21)):

VP =

mn mu

+ mtn

tan

(5.4)

59

Kinematic method

a)

1/v = 0

vn

mu

u

vt

m2

c)

b)

mtn

VP

mu mn

tan

mn

mtn

mu

mn

mu mn

tan

2

mtn

mn

mu

mn

mn

Pole

Fig. 5.3: Shear transfer across yield lines: a) distributed shear transfer; b) concentrated shear

transfer; c) Mohrs circle for internal shear line moments.

Concentrated shear forces may also be due to a shear field singularity. Typical examples

include point loads or point reactions (see Eq. (3.26)). Combining a fictitious point load with a

fictitious reaction, singularities transfer a concentrated force across adjacent failure segments

(e.g. see Fig. 3.10c). However, for consistency of the approximate limit analysis problem shear

singularities have to be excluded; note that the internal forces at a point of singularity violate the

laws of transformation (Eqs. (3.4) to (3.7)) and hence the equilibrium requirements.

Since yield lines correspond to principal shear directions or lines of zero shear and adjacent

failure segments may exchange loads in a concentrated way only at shear lines, a collapse shape

is statically admissible if its failure segments together with the yield moment mu, zero shear

forces and available shear line forces on the boundaries provide equilibrium. To prove the

validity of the assumed ultimate load, it is necessary to check that the stress values do not

violate the slab resistance. The corresponding equilibrium analysis for the single failure

segments may be performed with the generalised strip method (Chapter 3.6.1).

Orthotropic slabs: the affinity theorem

In orthotropic slabs, principal moments and principal sections on yield lines are dependent on

each other (see Eq. (4.9)), not complying with the generalisation of Eqs. (5.3). In the following,

orthotropic slabs are reduced to isotropic slabs on the basis of the affinity theorem [21, 47].

Orthotropic slabs are obtained by stretching isotropic slabs in one reinforcement direction.

The affinity theorem defines the transformation of the geometry and of the stress distribution

maintaining equilibrium. With reference to Fig. 5.4a, Table 5.1 summarises the relationship

between the isotropic and the affine slab with a ratio between the bending resistances in the yand x-directions.

60

Upper-bound method

Consider an isotropic slab. Fig. 5.4b (left) depicts a yield line enclosing the angle with the

x-axis. On the yield line section, the stress resultants v1 = 0, v2, m1 = mu and m2 (see Fig. 5.3a)

correspond to the shear vector (vx,vy) = (v2sin , v2cos) and the moment vector

(mx,my,myx) = (musin2 + m2cos2 , mucos2 + m2sin2 , (mum2) sin cos) in Cartesian directions.

Stretching the slab according to the coefficient , the yield line slope in the x-y-plane becomes

tan , and the affine stress resultants are (v x , v y ) and (m x , m y , m yx ) , see Table 5.1.

On the yield line section of the orthotropic slab the stress resultants are obtained from

considering the equilibrium of an infinitesimal triangular element generated by the Cartesian

axes and a yield line portion of unit length, see Fig. 5.4b (right):

vn = 0 ; mnu = mu (cos 2 + sin 2 ) ; mtnu = mu ( 1) cos sin

(5.5)

where cos = tan / 1 + tan 2 , sin = 1 / 1 + tan 2 and (n,t) denotes the system of

reference of the yield line section in the orthotropic slab. Similar to isotropic slabs, the shear

force on yield line sections of orthotropic slabs vanishes (see Eq. (5.51)), whereas the internal

moments are the yield moments (see Eqs. (4.4)).

In analogy to Fig. 5.3b, Fig. 5.4c aims at determining the shear line forces in the case of

orthotropic reinforcement. Consider a yield line - shear line intersection with the angle .

Introducing the systems of reference n, t and n, t in the yield line and the shear line directions,

respectively, the yield moments and the shear line moments are fixed by ( mnu , mtnu ) and

(mn, mtn). By means of a Mohrs circle analysis, the twisting moment within the shear line is

found to be (mnu mn ' ) / tan mtnu . Thus, the twisting moment change between the regions

adjacent to the shear line determines the shear line force

VP =

mn mnu

tan

+ mtnu + mt n

(5.6)

As in isotropic slabs, the statical admissibility of the yield line pattern in the case of orthotropic

reinforcement is established by Eqs. (5.5) and (5.6) by verifying the equilibrium of the failure

segments. The stress field associated to the failure mechanism is best obtained by the affinity

theorem, since in contrast to orthotropic reinforcement the yield line pattern for an isotropic slab

suggests the principal moment trajectories. Note that the affine transformation also applies to

the principal shear trajectories, but not to the principal moment trajectories.

2) The equilibrium method

The equilibrium method suggests a statical approach for the estimation of the slabs ultimate

load according to failure modes which differ from the optimum mode. Stress fields satisfying

equilibrium and compatibility with the failure mechanism considered replace the differentiation

process of the work method. The following discussion concentrates on isotropic slabs;

orthotropic problems can be treated by applying the affinity theorem.

Geometry:

Loads:

Isotropic slab

Orthotropic slab

- length

( x, y )

( x, y )

- slope

tan

tan

- distributed load

- line load

q /(cos 2 + sin 2 )

- point load

- moment

(v x , v y )

(v x , v y )

( m x , m y , m yx )

( m x , m y , m yx )

61

Kinematic method

a)

Orthotropic Slab

Isotropic Slab

b

1

tan

tan

cos2 + sin 2

b)

mxy

vy

1

m2

v

v2 2

m2

mxy

mu

mxy vx

cos

sin

vy

tan

mx

1+ tan2

sin

tan

x

1

mxy vx

mu

my

cos

mx

1+ tan2

my

vn

mtnu

m nu

n

y

c)

mtn

mtnu

mnu

m nu m n

tan

mn

VP

n

m tn u

m nu m n

tan

m nu m n

tan

mn

m tn u

m tn u

2

mtnu

mt n

mn

mn

mnu

mn

Pole

Fig. 5.4: Affinity theorem: a) transformation laws [47]; b) distributed shear transfer;

c) concentrated shear transfer.

62

Upper-bound method

Assume a slab stress field satisfying equilibrium, being compatible with a kinematically

admissible state of deformation. Since equilibrium is satisfied, the work equation for the

collapse considered is inherently fulfilled. Eq. (2.7) gives the value of mu as a function of the

geometrical parameters defining the yield line pattern. The statical-kinematical compatibility

requirement (i.e. mn = m1 = mu, 1 / v = 0, see Fig. 5.3a) ensures the validity of (5.31) along yield

lines. Now, relating the yield line definition to the system of reference of the principal moment

trajectories, the condition vn = m1, Su = 0 introduced to avoid a violation of the yield condition

by the approximate limit analysis becomes the maximum condition of the work method. Note

that, in addition to vn = 0 and mn = mu on the failure sections, the equilibrium of the collapse

segments includes shear line forces (5.4). In conclusion, if a yield line layout satisfying the

statical and the kinematical requirements may be completed to give an equilibrium solution,

then the equilibrium method indicates the ultimate load for the failure considered.

Considering mechanisms in agreement with the approximate limit analysis (Chapter 5.2),

the equilibrium method splits kinematically permissible failures into two groups, i.e. compatible

and incompatible mechanisms. The most critical compatible mechanism corresponds to the

solution of the approximate limit analysis problem.

3) Examples

In the following the application of the equilibrium method is illustrated for the examples

introduced in Chapter 5.3.1.

a) Rectangular slab

Consider the rectangular slab and the failure shape illustrated in Fig. 5.2a. Fig. 5.5a depicts the

failure segments ABEF and BCE as free body diagrams. On the segments, the distributed load q

has the resultants Q ABEF = ql (2l + x) / 4 and QBCE = ql (2l x) / 4 at a distance l (l + x) /(6l + 3x)

from AB and (2l x) / 6 from BC, respectively. For isotropic reinforcement and seeking

statically admissible yield line patterns, the stress resultants on the yield sections include only

the yield moments mu, see Chapter 5.3.2-1. Concentrated shear forces within the slab are not

required, since mn = mu and mtn = 0 (see Eq. (5.4)). Finally, the reactions rAB and rBC (including

available shear line forces) are unknown.

Combinations of x and q fulfilling the statical requirements are found providing equilibrium

of the failure segments. Avoiding the reaction forces, equilibrium is established by a moment

equation with respect to the supports: 2lmu ql 2 ( x + l ) / 12 = 0 and lmu ql (2l x) 2 / 24 = 0 for

ABEF and BCE, respectively. Only the mechanism x = (5 13 )l / 2 for q = 96mu /( 13l l ) 2

is statically admissible.

Figs. 3.10a and 3.10b prove the validity of the equilibrium method. In addition to

equilibrium and compatibility, the stress field fulfils the positive yield condition ( m1 , m2 mu )

giving the ultimate load of the approximate limit analysis problem (see Chapter 4.3).

With reference to Fig. 3.9 and to the stress field example of Figs. 3.10c and d, it is observed

that yield line layouts with x (5 13 )l / 2 maintain equilibrium through a shear singularity in

E. However, according to the assumption of Chapter 5.3.2-1, such solutions are not admissible.

b) Triangular slab with one free edge

The application of the equilibrium method to orthotropic reinforced slabs is illustrated by the

example of the triangular slab shown in Fig. 5.2b.

Based on the failure mechanism formed by one yield line that radiates from the corner B to

the point D on AC, Fig. 5.5b illustrates the collapse segments as free body diagrams. The

distributed load on ABD and BCD is concentrated into the resultants QABD = q(3l2 lx) and

QBCD = qlx at a distance (6l 2x) / 9 from AB and x / 3 from BC, respectively. Considering an

orthotropic reinforcement with ratio between the y- and the x-direction bending resistances,

the stress resultants on BD are fixed by Eqs. (5.5): vn = 0, mn = mu[4(3l x)2+ 9x2] / [9x2+ 4(3l x)2]

63

Kinematic method

a)

C

mu

Q BCE

l rBC

x

mu

E

mu

Q ABEF

F

mu

l ( l + x)

6l +3x

mu

rAB

2l

b)

x /3

2 x /3

t

Q BCD

D

VD

VD

rBC

mtnu

mnu

Q ABD

mnu mtnu

2x

6l

9

B

rAB

y

Fig. 5.5: Equilibrium method: a) simply supported rectangular slab; b) triangular slab with one

free edge (orthotropic reinforcement).

and mtn = mu( 1) 6x (3l x) / [9x2 + 4(3l x)2]. In D, Eq. (5.6) predicts the shear force

VD = mu (4 x 12l + 9x) / 18l . Finally, rAB and rBC on AB and BC are unknown.

The equilibrium of ABD and BCD is formulated with moment equations about AB and BC,

i.e. 2ql(3l x)2 / 9 + mu[4(3l x)2 9x(6l x)] / 27l = 0 and qlx2 / 3 + mu[4(x2 9l2) + 9x2] / 18l = 0. For

fixed , the yield line layout x = 6l (2 3 ) /(4 9 ) satisfies the statical requirements for

q = 2 mu / l 2 .

In the case of orthotropic reinforcement, the application of the generalised strip method

within the failure segments is hindered by the dependence between the principal sections and

the principal moment values. The difficulty is avoided by using the affinity theorem. For = 1,

the critical failure is given by x = 1.2l and q = 2mu / l2. Figs. 3.11e and 3.11f depict the stress

field of the isotropic case. Since the positive yield condition is never violated, the stress field is

the ultimate solution of the approximate limit analysis problem. The same may be stated for

orthotropic reinforcement, see Chapter 5.3.2-1; the affinity between the equilibrium method and

the work method may be checked in the particular cases selected in Fig. 5.2b: = 0.5,

x = 1.456l, mu / ql2 = 0.707 and = 2, x = 0.961l, mu / ql2 = 0.354.

c) Rectangular slab with one free edge

Consider the rectangular slab of Fig. 5.2c with m = 0 collapsing to a mechanism x > a. Fig. 5.6a

depicts the failure segments as free body diagrams. In addition to the load q and the yield

moments mu (isotropic reinforcement), the free edge AD involves the shear line forces mub / (2x)

64

Upper-bound method

b)

a)

rCD

~

b

~

a

mu b

2x

mu b

2x

rBC

x

b

60

~

x

mu b

2x

20

rAB

~

y

v0=0

20

37.3

83.5

60

mu

20

mu b

2x

mu

q

0.40

~

c

20

37.3

0.40

0.62

[1000 m r /qab]

c)

0.63

0.54

0.47

0.40

0.27

0.37

0.44

0.45

0.48

0.50

1

0.42

mu =

83.50 qab

1000

mu =

80.32 qab

1000

0.87

0.78

0.70

0.62

mu =

77.71 qab

1000

mu =

74.81 qab

1000

Fig. 5.6: Rectangular slab with one free edge: a) equilibrium method; b) compatible stress field;

c) selected mechanisms for 0.62 a/b 0.87.

in E and F. Finally, equilibrium of the failure segments ABF (or CDE) and BCEF is given by

moment equations with respect to AB (or CD) and BC: x = a / 3 + (4a2 + 9b2)1/2 / 6 and

qab = 24mu / [[4(a / b)2 + 9]1/2 2a / b]. The analysis is valid if 0 < a / b < 0.87 (note that a / b = 0.87

indicates the mechanism with x = a).

A stress field for the rectangular slab compatible with the failure mechanism considered is

obtained by fitting the segments of Figs. 3.5e and 3.6c into BCEF, and ABF, CDE, respectively.

The following study focuses on the segment BCEF. In relation to Fig. 5.6a, the stress field

~

~ = qa[(4a2 + 9b2)1/2 2a] / 24, m

~ = 0 and m

~ = 0,

(3.59) has parameters a~ = x a , b = x , m

a

b

2

2

2 1/2

2

~

(hence c = a[(4a + 9b ) 2a] / 12 + (x a) ), where ~ indicates values related to Fig. 3.5e.

Compatibility of the failure mechanism is ensured by the tangential moment, which equals mu

over the whole area. In contrast, the radial moment does not influence the failure. Investigating

the mr-distribution, it is observed that the radial moment attains a maximum on ~

x = c~ (zero

shear line). Including the condition mr mu in the analysis, the positive yield condition is

fulfilled only if a / b 0.62 . Fig. 5.6b depicts the stress field of BCEF for a / b = 0.62 . Since

mr = m = mu on ~

x = c~ , the zero shear line may act as a yield line generalising the failure shape

considered, see Fig. 5.2c. In conclusion, the solution of the approximate limit analysis problem

is given by a mechanism x > a, one of Fig. 5.6c and one with x < a in the ranges a / b 0.62 ,

0.62 a / b 0.87 and a / b 0.87 , respectively. Similar analysis holds also for m 0 on AD.

65

Kinematic method

d) Square slab

In the statical analysis, the axes of rotation of the failure segments act as supports. The work

method procedure allows a parametric definition of the rotation axes. In contrast, variable

supports impair the statical approach, since a variation of the boundary conditions changes the

nature of the equilibrium problem.

In Fig. 5.2d, a defines the rise point of the slab corners, whence the reactions of the edge

segments. For an arbitrary value of a (a / l), Fig. 5.7a summarises the values of the parameters b

(b / l ) and of the yield moment mu (mu / (ql2)) which provide equilibrium of the basic segments;

e.g. for a = 0.1l one obtains b = 0.32l and mu / ql2 = 1 / 22.35.

A stress field compatible with the failure shape considered is generated by fitting the

trapezoidal segments EID and DIBC, EFI and FGHI, and IHB and HAB into the regions EIBC,

EGHI and IHAB, respectively. In EIBC and EGHI a strong band redistributes the load

transferred between the segments EID-DIBC and EFI-FGHI along ID and FI; in IHAB, the

segment boundary BH acts as support, being the rotation axis of IHAB. Fig. 5.7b and Table 5.2

summarise the stress field resulting when considering a = 0.1l. The force concentrated in I

(5ql2 / 104) is distributed on ID and IF (3ql / 103) involving a strong band moment

M = 1.08ql3 / 105. Since mr,m ql2 / 22.35, the stress field corresponds to the complete

solution of the approximate limit analysis problem.

A similar analysis holds for 0 a 0.25l . The best yield line/support layout (a = 0.14l in

Fig. 5.7a) is obtained with vertical equilibrium of the segment ABIH, assuming that ABIH is

supported by the shear line forces along GH and BC at B and H, respectively. In the Maltese

cross mechanism (b = l / 2 a) the stress field of Fig. 5.7b fits into the failure segments

determining a shear singularity at the slabs centre (see Fig. 5.7c; a = 0.14l, mu / ql2 = 1 / 22.20);

for a = 0 this singularity disappears and the stress field simplifies to Pragers solution [52].

The failure analysis of the square slab with the Maltese cross mechanism or the equivalent

mechanism replacing a rising corner with a negative yield line along BH marked the beginning

of the nodal force research [67]. Without going into details, the stress fields of Figs. 5.7b and c

are considered in relation to Clydes analysis [4] aiming at indicating the meaning of the

invalid nodal forces. In Fig. 5.7b, HB acts as a support also when assuming the function of a

negative yield line. The nodal forces in B and H of the segment BIH correspond to the support

load along BH, i.e. the load balancing the shear line force along CB (segment EIBC ) and along

BH (segment ABH ) in B and the load balancing the shear line force along GH (segment EGHI )

and along BH (segment ABH ) in H. In Fig. 5.7c the segments EGH, EBC and EHAB are in

equilibrium when considering the load exchange at the singularity point E (see Chapter 5.3.2-1).

In both cases, the values of the invalid nodal forces result by considering vertical equilibrium

of the failure segments.

Parameters

ma

mb

EID; EFI

0.08l

ql2 / 22.35

ql2 / 22.90

DIBC;FGHI

0.11l

0.53l

ql2 / 22.35

ql2 / 22.90

IHB

ql2 / 22.35

ql2 / 1200

HAB

0.07l

ql2 / 1200

Segments

Table 5.2: Stress field parameters for the trapezoidal segments involved in Fig. 5.7b.

66

a)

mu

b/ l

ql 2

0.32

0.040

0.25

0.25

0.10

b)

0.045

0.0447

x

D

a/ l

44.74 mn = 43.67

0.25

0.10 0.14

a/ l

40

I

40

40

H

0

A

25.96

mn = 0.83

[1000 m r /ql 2 ]

0.10 l

0.32 l

0.08 l

y

c)

60.06

D,E,F,I

40

v0=0

40

40

23.40

H

0

A

C

0.36 l

0.14 l

mn = 1.62

0

[1000 m r /ql 2 ]

y

Fig. 5.7: Square slab: a) equilibrium analysis; b) example of compatible stress field (a = 0.10l,

b = 0.32l, mu = ql2 / 22.35); c) stress field for the Maltese cross mechanism (a = 0.14l,

mu = ql2 / 22.20).

5.4

Discussion

As an application of the compatibility theorem, the equilibrium method lies between the

kinematical and statical methods (see Fig. 2.4). Since compatibility refers to an extension of the

yield surface, the equilibrium method clearly constitutes an upper-bound method. Through

equilibrium, the failure analysis matches a complete structural analysis. Defining the limits of

applicability of the equilibrium method, the following considerations aim at illustrating the

advantages of compatibility.

67

Kinematic method

For a given yield line pattern, the applicability of the equilibrium method depends on the

approximate limit analysis and on the compatibility between the kinematical and the statical

problems (boundary conditions).

The approximate limit analysis relates the failure to the collapse of a single reinforcement

layer. As stated in Chapter 5.2, yield lines on rotation axes (e.g. along clamped edges) identify

boundary conditions in the associated statical problem, hence are free in the sign. Further,

different slab problems may be connected along rotation axes (e.g. see Fig. 5.1b). This makes

the majority of yield line shapes compatible with the approximate limit analysis; only failures

involving yield lines of different sign within the slab are excluded (e.g. Fig. 4.3a).

The relationship between statical and kinematical boundary conditions is controversial. In a

kinematical analysis, statical boundary conditions may lose their meaning. Conversely, a failure

mechanism may produce statical ambiguities. Examples are given by the applications c and d in

Chapter 5.3. When considering the mechanism x < a in Fig. 5.2c, one observes that the

boundary moment m does not influence the kinematical analysis (see diagram in Fig. 5.2c); in

contrast, compatible stress fields are influenced by the values of m (e.g. Figs. 3.10a and b result

in a lower-bound solution if m = mu). In Fig. 5.2d, the parameter a determines the rotation axis

of the edge segments. Apparently, the corner segment is supported at the intersection points of

the supports with the rotation axes. However, an arbitrary point of a rotation axis may be

considered as a support without changing the upper-bound result, since forces along lines of

zero displacement do not produce work (e.g. Fig. 5.7b assumes the whole rotation axis BH as a

support). Compared to the kinematical study, the statical analysis is linked to a fixed limit

analysis problem and is sensitive to boundary condition changes. The equilibrium method

breaks down when the mechanism on the basis of the kinematical analysis results in a change to

the statical problem.

c)

b)

a)

mu

mu

mu

m

q= 6 u

h2

m u tan l

b a

q=

l

mu

mu

mu

6 mu

2 a3/b 3 a2+ b2

m u tan r

b a

q=

mu

12 m u

b2+ ab 2 a 2

e)

d)

mu

mu

Fig. 3.5 e

mu

r=h

Fig. 3.6 c

m

q= 6 u

h2

Fig. 5.8: Basic segment with polar trajectories: a) triangular segment; b) trapezoidal segment;

c) trapezoidal segment with one free edge; d) stress field combination along internal

boundaries; e) stress field combination along yield lines.

68

Discussion Conclusions

The equilibrium method involves a kinematical and a statical study complementary to each

other. The more the two analyses are performed simultaneously, the better the equilibrium

method.

As with the work method, the kinematical analysis determines the collapse mechanism

and the ultimate load of the slab. The equilibrium of the failure segments replaces the

differential procedure of the work method with a simpler calculation and gives additional

information about the force flow in the slab.

Along yield lines, the ultimate moments and the shear forces on failure sections isolate the

individual collapse segments as single problems. Considering the failure segments as basic

elements of the stress field approach, the statical analysis leads to a compatible equilibrium

solution. The slab stress field goes beyond the requirements of the work method. Its

determination outlines the slabs structural behaviour, proving the consistency of the failure

analysis (statical boundary conditions of the problem), improving the investigation of the most

critical failures (complete solution of the approximate limit analysis problem) and giving

information about the actual failure of the slab (development of plastic regions). Examples of

these considerations are given in the above applications: comparing Fig. 5.2d with Fig. 5.7b, the

slabs boundary conditions are not clear; in Fig. 5.6c the equilibrium method suggests the

ultimate failure; referring to the standard limit analysis problem (mu = mu), the stress fields of

Figs. 3.10a, 3.10b and 3.11e, 3.11f define the extension of yield regions in the slabs corners.

Combining the kinematical and the statical approaches the procedure of the equilibrium

method is facilitated. Figs. 5.8a to c give information on the ultimate load of failure elements

resulting from the trapezoidal segment introduced in Fig. 3.5e. Referring to the stress field

approach, different segments may be connected along internal boundaries or along yield lines.

The former case leads to failure segments with complex boundaries (e.g. see Fig. 5.8d) or to the

detection of new yield lines within a single failure segment (e.g. see Fig. 5.6c, the trapezoidal

segment of Fig. 5.8c constitutes a new yield line if 3 6 ab (a + b) (4a2 + ab + b2)3/2 < 0). In the

latter case different segments with known statical conditions are combined along yield lines

(e.g. several segments of Fig. 5.8a correspond to a uniformly loaded slab simply supported

along boundaries tangent to the circle r = h [21, 59], see Fig. 5.8e).

5.5

Conclusions

Fig. 5.9 reviews the kinematical analysis of slabs outlined in this chapter. The upper-bound

analysis is restricted to yield line failures. Such failure modes are in good agreement with

experiments, involve only few geometrical parameters, and correspond to an approximate limit

analysis problem if only positive or negative failures are enforced (see Chapter 4.3). Compared

to Fig. 2.4, the upper-bound theorem is replaced by the work method and the compatibility

theorem by the equilibrium method. The best yield line pattern of the approximate limit analysis

problem is found in the complete solution group. The equilibrium method singles out the most

critical yield line pattern of collapse mechanisms which agree with an approximate limit

analysis and correspond to a fixed statical problem. The work method applies to arbitrary failure

modes.

The compatibility theorem provides a solid foundation for Johansens equilibrium method,

removing the paradoxes related to the nodal forces. By means of the approximate limit analysis

the relation between the lower- and the upper-bound analyses is simplified. The equilibrium

method improves the global analysis of the work method; by substituting kinematical by statical

boundaries it provides a better understanding of the slabs behaviour. The kinematical analysis

favours a global consideration of the force flow before concentrating on local equilibrium. As

69

Kinematic method

an intermediate between statics and kinematics, methods of compatibility offer advantages for

the design of new as well as for the examination of existing structures.

On principle, the approximate limit analysis procedure outlined here for slabs can be

extended to arbitrary structures. The global failure analysis is followed by a local equilibrium

analysis (stress field analysis) of the individual failure segments, always observing and if

necessary extending the yield limits.

COMPATIBILITY

KINEMATIC

STATIC

Equilibrium method

Complete solutions

Approximate limit analysis

70

Work

method

Yield line

failures

6.1 General

The common design procedures for reinforced concrete structures focus on the dimensioning of

the main reinforcement. Detailing considerations typically follow in a second step. If only one

equilibrium state is available, i.e. for statically determinate structures, the detailing directly

depends on the stress field. In contrast, the stress field of redundant systems may be adjusted to

obtain a practical and economical reinforcement layout.

In the following, the slabs redundancy is exploited to improve its detailing. By means of a

practical example, the flexibility of the plastic solutions outlined in the previous chapters is

illustrated. An appropriate detailing shall ensure a plastic behaviour of the reinforced concrete

as well as a practical distribution of the reinforcement suitable for placing, for casting of the

concrete and for safe working conditions. Starting with a kinematical study, the analysis

proposes a design concept and basic dimensions of the slab. The detailing is completed in a

second step, by developing an equilibrium solution matching the design concept.

The following example is taken from a continuing education course on the application of the

theory of plasticity to reinforced concrete [64] which was recently used [62] for a numerical

comparison between elastic, elasto-plastic and plastic equilibrium solutions. While [64] includes

a lower-bound study (strip method) and an upper-bound check (work method) [62] reviews

numerical approaches. Together, the two studies summarise the generally accepted methods for

reinforced concrete slab design. This chapter illustrates the advances made with the present

thesis.

h = 240 mm

fc = 21 N / mm2

5m

q = 30.6 kN / m 2

fy = 460 N / mm2

7m

Fig. 6.1: Example application: rectangular slab supported on three edges.

71

Fig. 6.1 shows the geometrical and statical parameters of the slab problem considered. It

involves a 7m by 5m rectangular reinforced concrete slab with a thickness of 240mm, free along

one of its long edges, simply supported along one of its short edges and clamped at the

remaining two edges. The total load q = 30.6kN / m2 includes a dead load of 6 kN / m2 and

superimposed dead and live loads of 11 kN / m2 using a global safety factor = 1.8. The material

properties of the concrete and of the reinforcement are given by a compressive strength

f c = 21 MPa and a yield strength fy = 460MPa, respectively.

6.2.2 Assumptions

While Chapters 3 to 5 focused on the structural analysis, the following assumptions aim to

simplify the design procedure. They consist in considering internal moments as force couples

with a fixed lever arm and in assigning the shear transfer to the slab core between the flexural

forces. Thus, proposals for stress field design for a distributed [33] and a concentrated [33, 45]

load transfer are synthesised.

Consider a stress state defined by the shear vector (vx,vy) and the moment tensor

components (mx,my,mxy), using Cartesian coordinates. Introducing a sandwich model of the slab

with a constant internal lever arm dv [33] leads to in-plane forces (nx,ny,nxy) = (mx / dv,my / dv,mxy / dv)

and ( mx / dv, my / dv, mxy / dv) in the bottom and top sandwich layers, respectively. Provided that

the nominal shear stress due to the principal shear force, v0 / dv ( v02 = v x2 + v 2y ), does not exceed

the cracking shear stress cr = 0.1 f c2 / 3 = 0.76 N / mm 2 , shear in the sandwich core may be

resisted by mobilising the concrete tensile strength. For v0 / dv > cr, the core should be assumed

to be cracked. The tension force which equilibrates the diagonal compression in the core

horizontally is distributed equally to the bottom and top sandwich layers, resulting in forces of

( v x2 , v y2 , v x v x ) / (2v0tan), where denotes the diagonal compressive stress field inclination in the

cracked core (typically, / 6 < < / 3). Starting from the total in-plane forces (nx,ny,nxy), the inplane reinforcement in the bottom and in the top layer is given by

asx

nx

tan

+ n yx

fy

fy

asx

nx

tan

+ n yx

fy

fy

ny

asy

asy

fy

ny

fy

n xy

f y tan

+

n xy

f y tan

(6.1)

(6.2)

where 0 < < . If v0 / dv exceeds cr, additional reinforcement is necessary in the transverse

direction:

v0 tan

dv f y

(6.3)

Eqs. (6.1) and (6.2) correspond to the positive and the negative yield condition, see Eq. (4.6).

Applying Eqs. (6.1) to (6.3) it has to be checked that the compressive strength of the bottom

(6.41) and the top layer (6.42) as well as of the core of the sandwich (6.5) is not exceeded:

cf c asx f y + asy f y (nx + n y )

fc

v0

(tan + cot )

dv

cf c asx f y + asy f y (n x + n y )

(6.4)

(6.5)

In a strong band the stress states are defined by a shear force V and a bending moment M.

Assuming a constant internal lever arm dv and a shear transfer via a diagonal compressive stress

72

Example application

field in the concrete, the bottom (top) stringer force N = M / dv (N = M / dv) and the horizontal

force (Vcot) in the slab core require a reinforcement cross-section of

As

N V cot

+

fy

2 fy

( 0)

(6.6)

V tan

dv b f y

(6.7)

where b and denote the strong band width (i.e. the width given by the strong band

reinforcement) and the diagonal compressive stress field inclination, respectively. Eqs. (6.6) and

(6.7) require a sufficient compressive strength in the horizontal and transverse directions, i.e.

fc

N

V cot

+

(h d v )b 2(h d v )b

(6.8)

fc

V

d v b sin cos

(6.9)

For shear lines, the concentrated load transfer results from moment discontinuity and the

horizontal slab core force (Vcot ) is introduced at the shear line ends. The shear line design

concentrates on reinforcement and the compressive strength check in the transverse direction.

Assuming b = h / 2, Eqs. (6.7) and (6.9) govern the shear line design.

Setting dv = 200mm and = / 4 and assuming that the concrete compressive strength is not

exceeded in the top and bottom layers as well as in the core of the sandwich, the following

analysis concentrates on the dimensioning of the reinforcement using Eqs. (6.1), (6.2), (6.3) and

(6.7).

6.2.3 Detailing

It is important to include detailing considerations from the beginning of a design.

The plastic behaviour of reinforced concrete requires a minimum reinforcement capable of

resisting the cracking stresses (see Fig. 2.2c) and suitable for a good concrete/reinforcement

interaction. In slabs, the ultimate moment mu must not be smaller than the cracking moment mcr,

i.e. mu mcr . The necessary reinforcement is usually indicated as a percentage of the concrete

cross-section, typically 0.15%; in our case, this requires a reinforcement cross-sectional area per

unit length of the slab of about 360mm2 / m. The minimum reinforcement concerns the

reinforcement layer in tension, i.e. the bottom reinforcement in the interior of the slab and the

top reinforcement near the clamped edges.

Apart from flexural failures, potential shear failures have to be considered, primarily close

to concentrated loads and reactions. Experimental investigations [38, 20] have shown that

transverse reinforcement significantly increases the ductility of slabs failing in shear. Typical

transverse reinforcements include closed stirrups, open stirrups with end hooks at the top,

lapped hairpins, nail-head-anchored stirrups or multiple headed studs. Some of these

reinforcements are particularly suited for relatively thin slabs; slabs with a thickness of about

400mm and more should preferably be equipped with a minimum transverse reinforcement in

any case.

The plastic behaviour of reinforced concrete is improved by a good distribution and a

correct anchorage of the reinforcement and by a confinement of highly compressed concrete

areas [44]. Minimum and maximum bar diameters and spacings as well as minimum slab

73

thicknesses have to be respected and a thorough consideration of the working conditions during

execution is necessary.

Practical aspects are of paramount importance for the quality of the final construction. For

example, a slab thickness h > 120mm allows for two layers of reinforcement and a reinforcing

bar spacing of at least three times the maximum aggregate size permits an easy placing of the

concrete. In addition, a homogeneous reinforcement layout restricted to a few reinforcement

positions with standard bar spacings (100, 150, 200 or 250mm) and taking account of erection

requirements (e.g. adaptable in the length and avoiding superfluous joints) results in a uniform

structure, improves the practical work and facilitates quality control. Finally, since the

reinforcement has to act as a support for personnel and equipment during casting of the concrete

the reinforcing bar diameters should generally not be smaller than 10mm and their spacing

should not exceed 250mm.

Starting from a fixed geometry and a given resistance distribution, the kinematical analysis is

commonly performed to investigate the load carrying capacity, i.e. as a check of design

computations or of existing structures. Considering the problem in an inverted order, i.e.

assessing the resistance distribution required in a structure to withstand a given load

configuration, the analysis permits to derive a suitable design concept. This chapter provides an

example of this procedure.

Fig. 6.2a suggests a failure mechanism for the slab problem considered. The yield line

pattern develops from the free edge, by introducing a 1m wide strong band with positive and

negative resistance Mu. The rest of the slab is considered to be isotropically reinforced at the

bottom (resistance mu) and to have a negative resistance of 1.44mu along the clamped edges AB

and AG. Note that the ratio of 1.44 corresponds to reinforcing bars 12 and 10 at the same

spacing.

Looking for the values of mu and Mu, the failure mechanism formed by the positive yield

lines AH, BH, EH, and the negative yield lines AB, AF is adjusted to resist the load

q = 30.6kN / m2, considering H to be free along CG (parameter x). On the basis of the

equilibrium method (see Chapter 5.3.2), considering the segments ABH, AHEF and BDEH as

free bodies one gets

2.44mu = 2.67 q ; 9.76mu + 2M u = 1.17 x 2 q ; 4mu + M u = 1.17(7 x) 2 q

(6.10)

mu / (dv fy) = 364mm2 / m at the bottom of the slab, a clamping reinforcement of

1.44mu / (dv fy) = 524mm2 / m and a strong band reinforcement of Mu / (dv fy) = 1623mm2. Bottom

bars 10@200mm provide 393mm2 / m, clamping bars 12@200mm provide 565mm2 / m and

eight bars 16 in the strong band provide 1608mm2. These values are approximately equal to

the required cross-sectional areas. The bottom reinforcement corresponds to the minimum

reinforcement; hence a very ductile behaviour and an economical design can be expected.

The statical analysis completes the failure mechanism selected in Chapter 6.2.4 by providing a

compatible equilibrium solution. As suggested in Chapter 5.3.2, the failure segments are

analysed individually by means of the generalised strip method (see Chapters 3.6.1, 3.6.5 and

3.6.6).

ABH is a trapezoidal segment with parameters a = 0, b = 4m, m = 33.4kN and mb = 48.2kN.

Eq. (3.60) gives c = 0 and, according to (3.58) and (3.59), the stress field is defined by

74

Example application

a)

Mu

Mu

1m

C

H

1.44 mu

mu

1.44 mu

A

b)

VCG

33.2 kN

21.1 kN

133.9

92.3

123.6

95.1

VAG

VBC

47.5 kN

41.0

69.3

69.2

87.2

v0= 0

100 [kN/m ]

VAB

c)

57.4 kN

78.0 kN

85.4 kN

40.2/2.2

146.2/1.0

47.2/10.1

0.1/133.3

31.1/79.8

23.4/132.3

33.4/70.8

33.4/115.5

33.4

48.2

149.3 [kN ]

Fig. 6.2: Structural analysis: a) kinematical analysis; b) shear field and shear line forces;

c) moment field.

75

; m = 33.44

(6.11)

where r and are polar coordinates centred at H. In addition to the reactions rAB = 81.6kN / m

and mAB = 48.2kN, the edge AB acts as a shear line, transferring the forces 85.4kN and 57.4kN

in A and B, respectively.

BDEH and AHEF are divided along CG into the segments BCH, AHG and CDEH, GHEF,

respectively. BCH and AHG follow the analysis suggested by Figs. 3.6c to 3.6e, while CDFG is

considered with the strip method of analysis (see Chapter 3.6.3). Assuming constant bending

moments and shear forces between the segments BCH and CDEH, and AHG and GHEF,

respectively, the internal forces along CG are determined proving equilibrium of the different

segments. From the moment equation of BCH (AHG) with respect to BC (AG) it follows that

vCH = 7.06kN / m (vGH = 3.51kN / m). Distributing vCH (vGH) on CDEH (GHEF) as cantilever load

of the slab strip in the y-direction (i.e. qy CDEH = 7.1kN / m2, qy GHEF = 3.5kN / m2), moment

equilibrium of CDEH (GHEF ) with respect to CG requires mCH = 3.5kN (mGH = 1.8kN).

In BCH, the stress field is defined by the superposition of

v0 = 18.26(

0.81

r) ;

r cos 2

mr = 6.09r 2 +

14.82

+ 33.44

cos 2

m = 33.44

(6.12)

m = 0

(6.13)

and

v0 = 2.96(

15.43

45.71

r ) ; mr = 0.99r 2

2

r cos

cos 2

Eqs. (6.12) and (6.13) refer to a polar system of coordinates centred at H ( = 0 for HC) and at

B ( = 0 for BC ), respectively. The stress field (6.12) gives the reaction forces rBC = 58.0kN / m

and RH = 21.1kN as well as the shear line force FB = 47.5kN. Similarly, Eq. (6.13) corresponds

to rCH = 7.1kN / m, RB = 32.2kN and FH = 21.1kN. Note that RH and FH add to zero, while rCH

corresponds to the load exchange between BCH and CDEH. The negative sign of RB indicates a

downward force in B.

In AHG, the stress field is defined by the superposition of

v0 = 19.92(

1.74

r) ;

r cos 2

mr = 6.64r 2 +

34.67

+ 33.44

cos 2

m = 33.44

(6.14)

m = 0

(6.15)

and

v0 = 4.62(

12.19

56.35

r ) ; mr = 1.54r 2

2

r cos

cos 2

Eqs. (6.14) and (6.15) refer to a polar system of coordinates centred at H ( = 0 for HG) and at

A ( = 0 for AG ), respectively. The stress field (6.14) gives the reaction forces rAG = 94.6kN / m

and RH = 33.2kN as well as the shear line force FA = 78.0kN. Similarly, (6.15) corresponds to

rGH = 3.5kN / m, RA = 58.9kN and FH = 33.2kN. Again, RH and FH add to zero, while rGH

corresponds to the load exchange between AHG and GHEF. The negative sign of RA indicates a

downward force in A.

The stress field of CDFG is developed with the strip method of analysis, by considering the

load partition qx = 37.7kN / m2 and qy = 7.1kN / m2 in CDEH, and qx = 34.1kN / m2 and

qy = 3.5kN / m2 in GHEF. Strips are clamped at FG and simply supported at CD in the xdirection, while they act as cantilevers in the y-direction. Centring the global system of

reference at D, the stress field in CDFG is given by

CDEH: (v x , v y ) = (106.05 37.66 x,7.06 y ) ; ( m x , m y ) = (106.05 x 18.83 x 2 ,3.53 y 2 )

(6.16)

76

Example application

Finally, the reaction forces along CD and FG are equal to rCD = 106.1kN / m and

rFG = 142.7kN / m.

Summing up the edge reactions and the corner forces one obtains 106.1kN + 142.7kN +

+ 4m(58.0 + 94.6)kN/m + 7m81.6kN/m (47.5 + 32.2 + 85.4)kN (78.0 + 58.9 + 57.4)kN = 1071kN =

= 5m7m30.6kN / m2, i.e. vertical equilibrium is provided.

Figs. 6.2b and 6.2c summarise the results of the statical analysis, showing the extreme stress

values. The solution is compatible with the mechanism of Fig. 6.2a. Since the positive moments

increase beyond 33.4kN around H, the slab considered (with unchanged resistance distribution)

would probably collapse with a different mechanism.

Starting from the basic reinforcement layout selected with the aid of the kinematical analysis,

the slab resistances are locally increased to cover the stress states derived by the statical

analysis. Detailing considerations lead to a certain smoothing of the theoretical reinforcement

distribution. The reinforcement arrangement, including the reinforcement placing, is given in

Fig. 6.3; note that the bar numbers follow the placing sequence. The following section describes

its development.

Bending reinforcement

The basic reinforcement includes an isotropic mesh 10@200 at the bottom of the slab, a 1m

wide strong band with 816 along the free edge, and a clamping reinforcement 12@200 and

816 along AB, AG and GF, respectively (see Chapter 6.2.4). These reinforcements are

provided by positions 1 and 4 at the slab bottom, 2 at the strong band, and 8, 13 and 6 at the

clamped edges.

At the bottom of the slab the basic reinforcement extends over the whole length; it starts at

the clamped edges and is bent up and back into the slab at the simply supported and the free

edge. The straight end over the clamped edge ensures a good anchorage and the bending up at

the other end enables the reinforcement to function as shear line reinforcement (along the

simply supported edge), concrete confinement (along the free edge) and as splice and support

for the top reinforcement. Close to H position 4 is replaced by 3 (12@200) to resist stresses

beyond 33.4kN (see Fig. 6.2c).

The strong band reinforcement (position 2) follows the detailing of positions 3 and 4 at the

bottom of the slab. The required negative bending resistance is ensured by position 6; spliced

with the wall reinforcement along FG, position 6 extends into the slab to cover the negative

strong band moment, accounting for a development length of 40. Required for shear line

reinforcement along CG, position 7 together with the bends of position 1 improves the plastic

behaviour of the strong band by concrete confinement.

Similar to position 6, positions 8 and 13 provide the necessary negative resistance

determined by the kinematical study along GA and AB, respectively.

Considering the reinforcement positions 1, 2, 3, 4, 6, 7, 8 and 13, the slab resistances are

compared to the stress field developed in Chapter 6.2.5; weak regions are strengthened by

adequate extra reinforcement, paying attention to detailing aspects. Corresponding to the

clamping of the edges AB and AF and the twisting moment introduced by the simply supported

edge BD, Fig. 6.2c reveals negative moments extending far into the slab. Hence, the basic

reinforcement is completed with positions 5 (10@200) and 11 (10@200) and 12

(12@200) in the x- and y-directions, respectively. Spliced with the top part of position 1 along

DF, with the top parts of positions 2, 3 and 4 along BD and with the wall reinforcement along

the clamped edges, the top reinforcement generates a robust 200 / 200mm mesh, suitable for the

casting of the concrete.

77

The basic reinforcement is sufficient for almost all stress states in the slab. Around A and B,

positions 9, 14 and 10 are added to resist the locally high negative moments. This extra

reinforcement fits between the basic one, reducing the mesh spacing to 100 / 100mm.

Shear reinforcement

While the kinematical analysis indicates the global shear flow, shear forces are determined in

detail by the statical analysis. This is summarised in Fig. 6.2b.

Up to v0 200 0.76 = 152kN / m the core of the slab can be assumed to be uncracked and

no transverse reinforcement is required. Fig. 6.2b shows that indeed no transverse reinforcement

is required.

With 1m width, the strong band along the free edge is designed like a slab. Since the core is

uncracked (see Fig. 6.2b), transverse reinforcement is not necessary. As previously suggested, a

confinement of the strong band by means of positions 1 and 7 is recommended for an improved

plastic behaviour.

Making a conservative assumption about the shear line width (b = h / 2 = 120mm), transverse

reinforcement is required for a shear line force in excess of 18.2kN. It can be seen from

Fig. 6.2b that all the shear lines have to be reinforced. The required reinforcement along the

edges AG (Vmax = 78.2kN ) and AB (Vmax = 85.4kN ) could for example be realised with vertical

hairpins 12@200mm spliced with the wall reinforcement. Along BC (Vmax = 47.5kN ), the

resistance provided by the bent up bottom reinforcement (36.2kN ) has to be complemented with

some additional horizontal hairpins, at least in the region around B. Along CG (Vmax = 33.2kN ),

position 6 (10@200mm) is sufficient for resisting the shear forces. Note that according to

Eq. (6.7) transverse reinforcements 10 and 12 spaced at 200mm provide shear resistances of

36.2kN and 52.1kN, respectively.

Remarks

By applying an approximate limit analysis as outlined in Chapter 4.3, any reinforcement deficit

is generally constrained to one sandwich cover. Completing the reinforcement layout intuitively,

the local considerations suggested in Chapter 6.2.2 reduce to a simple check represented

graphically in Fig. 4.4b.

The reinforcement arrangement shown in Fig. 6.3 involves a reinforcement content of about

90kg / m3 of concrete.

6.3 Discussion

As the positive yield condition is violated in the area around H adjacent to the strong band (see

Fig. 6.2c), the failure mechanism selected is not the most critical one. Presumably, the slab

considered (i.e. with the same reinforcement layout) would collapse as shown in Fig. 5.6c. The

complete solution of the approximate limit analysis problem would consider the basic

reinforcement required by the kinematical analysis, and provide some local strengthening to

eliminate the reinforcement insufficiency. Of course, the limit analysis problem changes by

varying the assumed reinforcement distribution. For instance, an edge beam along DF would

improve the failure pattern of Fig. 5.2a. Generally, the development of a complete solution of

the approximate limit analysis problem is only of academic interest; the possible reduction in

reinforcement is negligible compared to the additional work involved.

It can be stated that any failure shape which identifies a kinematical optimum corresponds

to a good design concept. On the other hand, failure shapes that do not correspond to a

78

Bottom reinforcement

1m

2 8 16 @ 125

1m

3 5 12 @ 200

4 15 10 @ 200

3m

1 35 10 @ 200

Top reinforcement

1m

6 8 16 @ 125

7 35 10 @ 200

5 25 10 @ 200

8 20 12 @ 200

1.6m

11 12 12 @ 200

12 23 10 @ 200

0.4m

10 10 12 @ 200

9 12 10 @ 200

2m

14 9 10 @ 200

13 35 12 @ 200

4.6 m

0.6 m

1.8 m

kinematical optimum generally involve shear singularities and so lead to reinforcement

concentrations (e.g. see Figs. 3.10e and f ).

Comparing the stress field of Fig. 6.2 to that according to standard design methods, the

suggested solution fits between the elastic analysis [62] and static solutions independent of

kinematical considerations (e.g. strip method [64] or optimum solutions [62]). Considered as an

alternative to numerical computations, the efficiency of the method depends on the stress field

79

library given in Chapter 3. Some difficulties occur in the reinforcement design, since a stress

field with variable principal moment trajectories (i.e. including the effect of the twisting

moments) does not match with a fixed reinforcement layout.

The amount of reinforcement involved in the reinforcement arrangement of Fig. 6.3 is

comparable with that according to elastic computations (81kg / m3) but it is considerably higher

than that according to minimum reinforcement solutions (41kg / m3), see [62]. However,

computer analyses generally concentrate on the dimensioning of the main reinforcement and

neglect the reinforcement detailing which is left to the engineers experience. In contrast, the

procedure outlined here integrates detailing and dimensioning aspects, resulting in a practical

and detailed design.

6.4 Conclusions

In the example application considered, the individual plastic analysis components discussed in

the previous chapters are combined, leading from a design concept to a detailed structural

design consistent with detailing requirements.

The development of the design concept requires a simple analysis of global character

capable of establishing the force flow. The procedure involves some preliminary assumptions

(such as the resistance distribution in the slab, the strong band positions and the clamping ratios)

on the basis of an assumed failure mechanism. By means of the kinematical analysis, the

intuitively assumed mechanism is optimised and the required resistances are quantified. The

failure mechanism also indicates the force flow from the slab to the adjacent structural members

which may be designed simultaneously (see Chapter 5.3.2), and the required resistances permit

to select suitable combinations of slab thicknesses and basic reinforcement contents.

The detailed structural design involves the analysis of the force flow within the slab and the

determination of the required local resistances. The statical redundancy of a slab permits the

development of stress fields compatible with the assumed failure mechanism. The validity of

the preliminary kinematical analysis is maintained and the approximate limit analysis

considerations integrate optimum design criteria.

By adjusting the slab design to a selected failure mechanism, the present procedure may be

called a compatibility limit design method. Compared to pure lower-bound approaches such as

the strip method or statically admissible moment fields, the compatibility limit design method

integrates considerations of ultimate state deformations. Similar to an elastic analysis which is

suitable for serviceability verification, the compatibility limit design method could be developed

further to enable a check of the deformations involved in the plastic analysis, extending current

research on tension elements and beams to slabs [61, 24]. As a word of caution, however, the

advantage of the simple computations, essentially established by the stress field library, is

diminished by the difficulty involved in dimensioning and detailing the reinforcement; some

new research is certainly needed in this respect. Still, although being far from a complete

development the compatibility limit design method illustrates nicely the great flexibility and

power of plastic analysis when applied to reinforced concrete.

80

7.1 Summary

This thesis deals with the application of the theory of plasticity to reinforced concrete slabs.

After the introduction (Chapter 1) and a presentation of the fundamentals of the theory of

plasticity (Chapter 2) it concentrates on the static method (Chapter 3), limit analysis (Chapter 4)

and the kinematic method (Chapter 5), step by step developing a new design procedure the

compatibility limit design method whose application is illustrated by means of a practical

example (Chapter 6).

The basic idea of the compatibility limit design method is to extend the typical design

procedure for reinforced concrete beams and frames to reinforced concrete slabs. For beams and

frames, the failure mechanisms indicate the global force flow because the plastic hinges identify

the zero shear points. The force flow within the individual beam or frame segments defined by

the zero shear points can then be visualised using truss models or corresponding stress fields

and the segments detailing can be completed accordingly. For slabs, the static and the

kinematic method are normally applied in an unrelated way and thus, the potential offered by

the theory of plasticity is not fully exploited. By considering yield line mechanisms and

developing matching stress fields for the individual slab segments defined by the yield lines the

compatibility limit design method attempts to overcome this unsatisfactory situation.

The presentation of the static method in Chapter 3 concentrates on the load transfer

mechanisms in slabs, differentiating between distributed and concentrated load transfer.

Distributed load transfer within slab segments is described by the generalised strip method,

using general curved rather than straight orthogonal beams. In addition to the normal beam

action with moment increments corresponding to the shear forces, this allows to recognise a

geometrical load transfer mechanism due to the curvature of the beams. Depending on the

selected beam geometry the statical redundancy of the slabs is replaced by geometrical

parameters. While solutions according to the theory of elastic plates refer to beams in the

principal curvature directions of the deflection function Hillerborgs strip method involves

straight beams, preventing geometrical load transfer. On the other hand, assuming constant

principal moments and a pure geometrical load transfer, Hencky-Prandtl solutions are obtained.

Stress fields of complete limit analysis solutions are related to particular curvilinear trajectories;

the case of polar trajectories is of considerable practical interest and is presented in detail.

Finally, it is demonstrated how stress fields can be adapted to different boundary conditions and

how they can be superimposed. Concentrated load transfer occurs via bending moment

concentrations in strong bands or due to twisting moment discontinuities along shear lines;

generally, strong band and shear line action may be combined along certain trajectories.

The discussion of limit analysis in Chapter 4 is based on a thorough evaluation of stress

states and the associated strain rates satisfying the yield condition of orthogonally reinforced

concrete slabs and associated flow rule. In the space of the bending and twisting moments with

respect to the reinforcement directions this yield condition corresponds to a yield surface

consisting of two intersecting elliptical cones, corresponding to positive and negative yield line

failures with yielding bottom and top reinforcement, respectively. Stress points within the yield

surface correspond to rigid states. Stress points on the cone surfaces correspond to uniaxial

81

curvature rates and hence yield lines; since all points of a straight cone surface line are

associated with the same strain rates a kinematic approach is advantageous. Stress points on the

elliptical intersection line of the two cones correspond to combinations of positive and negative

curvature rates in two distinct directions; yield regions rather than yield lines develop under

such circumstances in general and a static approach is advantageous. The stress states

corresponding to the two cone apexes are compatible with arbitrary positive or negative

curvature rates, respectively. Stress points outside the yield surface are not admissible. The

existence of yield regions makes limit analysis solutions quite cumbersome in general. A very

effective simplification is obtained by keeping either the top or the bottom reinforcement rigid.

With such an approximate limit analysis which corresponds to the capacity design method used

in earthquake engineering, yield regions disappear and complete solutions with compatible

stress and strain rate fields can be developed.

The presentation of the kinematic method in Chapter 5 starts from a brief review of past

research. In particular, the development of the work method and the equilibrium method as well

as the nodal force debate of the 1960s are discussed. Then, the basic principles of yield line

analysis are introduced and the application of the work method and of the equilibrium method is

illustrated by means of four examples. It is shown that the equilibrium method can be

interpreted as an application of the compatibility theorem to a suitably defined approximate

limit analysis problem and that the work method and the equilibrium method are equivalent if

they are associated to a unique statical problem.

In Chapter 6, the application of the compatibility limit design method is illustrated by a

practical example. Starting from some preliminary assumptions about the resistance distribution

in the slab an intuitively assumed yield line mechanism is optimised and the required global

resistances are quantified. In a second step, the force flow within and between the individual

slab segments is studied based on the stress field approach developed in Chapter 3 in order to

detect any local resistance deficits. The importance of detailing considerations is emphasised

and comparisons with previously derived solutions are made.

7.2 Conclusions

Similar to beams and frames the shear forces provide the key to understanding the force flow in

slabs. Distributed and concentrated shear force transfer have to be differentiated. Distributed

load transfer can be described by the generalised strip method, using curved orthogonal

coordinates, allowing for the development of general stress fields. Concentrated load transfer

can be realised by strong bands and shear lines.

The investigation of the yield surface using the associated flow rule allows to determine

compatible states of stress and deformation. It can be recognised that a kinematic (static)

analysis is best suited for the weakly (strongly) convex parts of the yield surface corresponding

to yield lines (yield regions). By strengthening the top (bottom) reinforcement failure

mechanisms are restricted to positive (negative) yield lines and the associated approximate limit

analysis problem is simplified such that a complete solution can be developed.

Being based on an approximate limit analysis the compatibility limit design method for

reinforced concrete slabs is similar to the typical design procedure for reinforced concrete

beams and frames. It integrates kinematical, statical and detailing considerations and permits a

practical and economical design with modest computational effort.

82

The stress field library should be extended regarding load distribution, principal trajectories,

segment shapes and boundary conditions. Considering the basic segments as macro finite

elements a numerical implementation would greatly facilitate the application of the

compatibility limit design method.

The analysis presented here should be extended to skew reinforcement.

By making use of geometrical load transfer mechanisms stress fields corresponding to high

reinforcement contents in the rigid layer could be improved and the discrepancy between

approximate and classical complete limit analysis solutions could be reduced.

In line with previous work on one- and two-dimensional reinforced concrete elements

[35, 61, 1, 11, 27, 51, 24] recent research investigated the shear transfer mechanisms and the

deformation capacity of reinforced concrete slabs [38, 20]. This research should be combined

with the static and kinematic considerations outlined here.

83

84

References

[1]

Stahlbeton, Institut fr Baustatik und Konstruktion, ETH Zrich, IBK Bericht Nr. 236,

Birkhuser Verlag, Basel, 1998, 182 pp.

[2]

Braestrup, M.W., Yield lines in discs, plates and shells, Structural Research Laboratory,

Technical University of Denmark, Copenhagen, Report No. R 14, 1970, 54 pp.

[3]

Angewandte Mathematik und Mechanik, Vol. 3, 1923, pp. 468-475.

[4]

Reinforced Concrete, IABSE Final report, Copenhagen, Vol. 29, 1979, pp. 159-166.

[5]

between P. Marti and D.H. Clyde, Apr. 24, 1997, 9 pp.

[6]

Drucker, D.C., Greenberg, H.J., Prager, W., The safety factor of an elastic-plastic body

in plane strain, Journal of Applied Mechanics, ASME, Vol. 18, 1951, pp. 371-378.

[7]

Drucker, D.C., Greenberg, H.J., Prager, W., Extended limit design theorems for

continuous media, Quarterly Journal of Applied Mathematics, Vol. 9, 1952, pp. 381389.

[8]

Fox, E.N., The existence of exact solutions in limit analysis for homogeneous isotropic

plates of rigid perfectly-plastic material, Engineering plasticity, (Editors: J. Heyman and

F.A. Leckie) Cambridge University Press, 1968, pp.147-181.

[9]

Fox, E.N., Limit analysis for plates: a simple loading problem involving a complex

exact solution, Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society, London, Vol. 272,

Series A, 1972, pp. 463-492.

[10]

Fox, E.N., Limit analysis for plates: the exact solution for a clamped square plate of

isotropic homogeneous material obeying the square yield criterion and loaded by uniform

pressure, Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society, London, Vol. 277, Series A,

1974, pp. 121-155.

[11]

Konstruktion, ETH Zrich, IBK Bericht Nr. 267, Birkhuser Verlag, Basel, 2001, 124

pp.

[12]

Galileo, G., Discorsi e dimostrazioni matematiche interno a due nuove scienze attente

alla meccanica e ai movimenti locali, Leyden, Elsevirs, 1638.

[13]

Gvozdev, A.A., The determination of the value of the collapse load for statically

indeterminate systems undergoing plastic deformations, International Journal of

Mechanical Sciences, Vol. 1, 1960, pp. 322-335.

[14]

Hencky, H., ber einige statisch bestimmte Flle des Gleichgewichts in plastischen

Krpern, Zeitschrift fr Angewandte Mathematik und Mechanik, Vol. 3, 1923, pp. 241251.

[15]

Hencky, H., Zur Theorie plastischer Deformationen und der hierdurch im Material

hervorgerufenen Nebenspannungen, Zeitschrift fr Angewandte Mathematik und

Mechanik, Vol. 4, 1924, pp. 323-334.

[16]

Hill, R., The mathematical theory of plasticity, Oxford, Clarendon Press, 1950, 356 pp.

85

[17]

Hill, R., On the state of stress in a plastic-rigid body at the yield point, The

Philosophical Magazine, Vol. 42, 1951, pp. 868-875.

[18]

Hillerborg, A., Strip method of design, Viewpoint, London, 1975, 256 pp.

[19]

Engineers, Vol. 1, No. 1, Jan. 1923, pp. 3-14.

[20]

Jaeger, T., Shear strength and deformation capacity of reinforced concrete slabs,

Sonderpublikation, 4th International Ph.D. Symposium in Civil Engineering, Technische

Universitt Mnchen, Universitt der Bundeswehr Mnchen, Springer VDI-Verlag,

Dsseldorf, Vol. 1, Sept. 19-21, 2002, pp. 280-296.

[21]

Johansen, K.W., Yield-line theory, Cement and Concrete Association, London, 1962, 181

pp.

[22]

Jones, L.L., The use of nodal force in the yield-line analysis, Magazine of Concrete

Research, Special Publication, May 1965, pp. 63-74.

[23]

Jones, L.L., Wood, R.H., Yield-line analysis of slabs, Thames and Hudson, London,

1967, 405 pp.

[24]

shear and normal forces, Institut fr Baustatik und Konstruktion, ETH Zrich, IBK

Bericht Nr. 234, Birkhuser Verlag, Basel, 1998, 147 pp.

[25]

Kemp, K.O., The evaluation of nodal and edge forces in the yield line theory,

Magazine of Concrete Research, Special Publication, May 1965, pp. 3-12.

[26]

Kemp, K.O., The yield criterion for orthotropically reinforced concrete slabs,

International Journal of Mechanical Sciences, Vol.7, No. 11, Nov. 1965, pp. 737-746.

[27]

fr Baustatik und Konstruktion, ETH Zrich, IBK Bericht Nr. 277, Birkhuser Verlag,

Basel, 2002, 114 pp.

[28]

Kirchhoff, G.R., ber das Gleichgewicht und die Bewegung einer elastischen Scheibe,

A. L. Crelles Journal fr die reine und angewandte Mathematik, Berlin, Vol. 40, No.1,

1850, pp. 51-88.

[29]

Koiter, W.T., Stress-strain relations, uniqueness and variational theorems for elasticplastic materials with a singular yield surface, Quarterly Journal of Applied

Mathematics, Vol. 11, 1953, pp. 350-354.

[30]

Mansfield, E.H., An analysis of slabs supported along all edges, Concrete and

Constructional Engineering, Vol. 55, No. 9, 1960, pp. 333-340.

[31]

Marcus, H., Die Theorie elastischer Gewebe und ihre Anwendung auf die Berechnung

biegsamer Platten, Julius Springer, Berlin, 2. Auflage, 1932, 368 pp.

[32]

Marti, P., Zur plastischen Berechnung von Stahlbeton, Institut fr Baustatik und

Konstruktion, ETH Zrich, IBK Bericht Nr. 104, Birkhuser Verlag, Basel, 1980, 176

pp.

[33]

Marti, P., Design of concrete slabs for transverse shear, ACI Structural Journal, Vol.

87, No.2, 1990, pp.180-190.

[34]

Marti, P., How to treat shear in structural concrete, ACI Structural Journal, Vol. 96,

No.3, 1999, pp.408-414.

[35]

Marti, P., Alvarez, M., Kaufmann, W., Sigrist, V., Tragverhalten von Stahlbeton, Institut

fr Baustatik und Konstruktion, ETH Zrich, IBK Publikation SP-008, Birkhuser

Verlag, Basel, 1999, 301 pp.

86

[36]

Marti, P., Kraftfluss in Stahlbetonplatten, Beton- und Stahlbetonbau, Vol. 98, Heft 2,

Feb. 2003, pp. 85-93.

[37]

Massonnet, C., Save, M. A., Calcul plastique des constructions, Centre BelgoLuxembourgeois dInformation de lAcier, Brussels, Belgium, 1961, 473 pp.

[38]

concrete slabs, Institut fr Baustatik und Konstruktion, ETH Zrich, IBK Bericht Nr.

243, Birkhuser Verlag, Basel, 2001, 165 pp.

[39]

Mohr, O., ber die Darstellung des Spannungszustandesund des Deformationszustandes eines Krperelementes und ber die Anwendung derselben in der

Festigkeitslehre, Der Civilingenieur, Band XXVIII, 1882, pp. 113-156.

[40]

Mllmann, H., On the nodal forces of the yield line theory, Bygningsstatiske

Meddelelser, Vol. 36, 1965, 24 pp.

[41]

Morley, C.T., Equilibrium methods for least upper bound of rigid-plastic plates,

Magazine of Concrete Research, Special Publication, May 1965, pp.13-24.

[42]

Morley, C.T., Equilibrium design solutions for torsionless grillages or Hillerborg slabs

under concentrated loads, Proceeding of the Institution of Civil Engineers, Vol. 81, Part.

2, Sept. 1986, pp. 447-460.

[43]

Mechanical Science, Vol. 37, No. 10, 1995, pp. 1067-1078.

[44]

Muttoni, A., Die Anwendbarkeit der Plastizittstheorie in der Bemessung von Stahlbeton,

Institut fr Baustatik und Konstruktion, ETH Zrich, IBK Bericht Nr. 176, Birkhuser

Verlag, Basel, 1990, 158 pp.

[45]

Muttoni, A., Schwartz, J., Thrlimann, B., Bemessung von Betontragwerken mit

Spannungsfeldern, Birkhuser Verlag, Basel, 1996, 145 pp.

[46]

Nielsen, M.P., Exact solutions in the plastic plate theory, Bygningsstat. Medd.,Vol. 34,

No. 1, 1963, pp. 1-28.

[47]

Polytechnica Scandinavica, Civil Engineering and Building Construction Series, No. 26,

1964, 167 pp.

[48]

Publication, May 1965, pp. 25-30.

[49]

Nielsen, M.P., Bach, J., A class of lower-bound solutions for rectangular slabs,

Bygnigngsstat. Medd., Vol. 50, No. 3, 1979, pp. 43-58.

[50]

Nielsen, P.M., Limit analysis and concrete plasticity, Prentice-Hall Series in Civil

Engineering, Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey, 1984, 420 pp.

[51]

ETH Zrich, IBK Bericht Nr. 277, Birkhuser Verlag, Basel, 2003, 139 pp.

[52]

Prager, W., General theory of limit design, Proceedings of the Eighth International

Congress on Applied Mechanics, Istanbul 1952, Istanbul, 1956, Vol. 2, pp. 65-72.

[53]

Reading, Massachusetts U.S.A., 1959, 148 pp.

[54]

Ramm, E., Schunck, E., Heinz Isler, Schalen, 3. Auflage, Hrsg. Gesellschaft fr

Ingenieurbaukunst, 2002, 111 pp.

[55]

Ritter, W., Die Bauweise Hennebique, Schweizerische Bauzeitung, Vol. 17, Feb. 1899,

pp. 41-43, 49-52 and 59-61.

[56]

Rozvany, G.I.N., Optimal design of flexural systems, Pergamon, Oxford, 1976, 246 pp.

87

[57]

Saether, K., Flat plates with irregular column layouts Analysis, Journal of Structural

Engineering, ASCE, Vol. 120, No. ST5, May 1994, pp. 1563-1579.

[58]

Save, M., A consistent limit-analysis theory for reinforced concrete slabs, Magazine of

Concrete Research, Vol.19, No. 58, Mar. 1967, pp.3-12.

[59]

Berlin/Gttingen/Heidelberg, 1963, 522 pp.

[60]

Sayir, M., Ziegler, H., Der Vertrglichkeitssatz der Plastizittstheorie und seine

Anwendung auf rumlich unstetige Felder, Zeitschrift fr Angewandte Mathematik und

Mechanik, Vol. 20, 1969, pp. 79-93.

[61]

Konstruktion, ETH Zrich, IBK Bericht Nr. 210, Birkhuser Verlag, Basel, 1995, 159

pp.

[62]

Bemessungselemente und Linearer Optimierung, ETH Zrich, IBK Bericht Nr. 220,

1996, 153pp.

[63]

Thomson, W., Tait, P.G., Treatise on natural philosophy, Vol. I, Part II, No. 645-648,

New Edition, Cambridge University Press, 1883, pp. 188-193.

[64]

Thrlimann, B., Marti, P., Pralong, J., Ritz, P., Zimmerli, B., Anwendung der

Plastizittstheorie auf Stahlbeton, bungsbeispiele zum Fortbildungskurs fr

Bauingenieure, Institut fr Baustatik und Konstruktion, ETH Zrich, 1984, 112pp.

[65]

Von Mises, R., Mechanik der plastischen Formnderung von Kristallen, Zeitschrift fr

angewandte Mathematik und Mechanik, Vol. 8, 1928, pp. 161-185.

[66]

Wolfensberger, R., Traglast und optimale Bemessung von Platten, Wildegg, Technische

Forschungs- und Beratungstelle der Zementindustrie, 1964, 119 pp.

[67]

Wood, R.H., Plastic and elastic design of slabs and plates, Thames and Hudson, London,

1961, 344 pp.

[68]

Wood, R.H., New techniques in nodal forces theory of slabs, Magazine of Concrete

Research, Special Publication, May 1965, pp.31-62.

[69]

Wood, R.H., A partial failure of limit analysis for slabs, and the consequence for future

research, Magazine of Concrete Research, Vol.21, No. 67, Jun. 1969, pp.79-90.

88

Notation

Beam

General

x, y, z

n, t, z

r,

u, v

Au , Av

dS

C

k

i, j

A, B,

P

, ,...

l

b

d

V

W

D

Y

F

F

Fs

Fk

Fu

fy

fu

fc

cr

u

u

global coordinates

local coordinates

polar coordinates

curvilinear coordinates

metric of u and v

arc element length

radius of curvature,

reinforcement ratio

integration constant

positive factor, parameter

number in a series

point, state

point

angle

plane

safety factor

span, length

width

effective depth

volume

work

dissipation

yield function

load

load vector

lower-bound load

upper-bound load

ultimate load

(generalised) stress

(generalised) stress vector

(generalised) admissible stress vector

yield strength

tensile strength

compressive strength

cracking shear stress

deformation, elongation

deformation vector

(generalised) strain

q

V

M

I

E

Mu

As

distributed load

shear force

bending moment

moment of inertia

modulus of elasticity

ultimate moment

cross-sectional area of reinforcement

Slab

x

a, b,...

la, lb, ha

h

dv

tS

, ij

Q

q

q

n, tn, zn

nn, ntn

vn

v0

0

mn, mtn

m1, m2

1, 2

m

V

M

S

rn

R

w

geometrical variable

length, coordinate

geometrical parameter

thickness

internal moment arm

shear line width

clockwise angle (from i to j)

clockwise angle (from x- to n-axis)

point load

line load

distributed load

stress components

membrane forces

shear force

principal shear force

principal shear direction

bending and twisting moment

principal moments

principal moment directions

constant moment value

concentrated shear force

strong band moment

shear line trajectory

reaction force

point reaction

deflection function

Poissons ratio

flexural rigidity

resistance ratio

89

mnu , mtnu

mu

M

n, nt

1, 2

as

As

ultimate moment (isotropic reinforcement)

moment vector

yield line direction, compressive stress field inclination

curvature components

principal curvatures

rotation angle

rotation vector

cross-sectional area of reinforcement per unit slab width

strong band reinforcement

Subscripts

x, y, z

n, t

r,

u, v

s

m

S

A, B,...

cr

l, r

trap

triang

tot

global axes

local axes

polar axes

curvilinear axes

shear

moment

shear line

point

cracking

left, right

trapezoidal element

triangular element

total

Superscripts

A, B,...

1, 2

region identification

segment identification

Symbols

~

+,

,

variation

rate (superscript)

top layer, negative, direction differentiation (superscript)

fixed parameter (superscript)

parameter differentiation (superscript)

positive, negative (superscript)

derivation (subscript)

bar diameter

90

## Viel mehr als nur Dokumente.

Entdecken, was Scribd alles zu bieten hat, inklusive Bücher und Hörbücher von großen Verlagen.

Jederzeit kündbar.