PCDC

Prestressed Concrete
Design Consultants Pty Ltd
A.B.N 84 003 163 586

5 Cameron St Beenleigh
Qld 4127 Australia
Ph
+61 7 3807 8022
Fax +61 7 3807 8422

gil@raptsoftware.com

20 August, 2015
One question I am continually asked by designers is how to treat results of FEM analysis in design for
concrete flat slabs. They often point out that the FEM results from some programs give resulting
design moments and reinforcement areas that are significantly less than would be achieved analysing
by equivalent frame methods and designing by strip methods.
My first question to them is to ask what moments are being used for design by those programs. It is
always the same, Mx and My.
That is perfectly ok, as long as the moments have been determined by Finite Element Nodal
Reactive Moment methods, which give results as Mx, My and V at each node. In this
case, the twisting moment is zero and equilibrium is satisfied by designing for the Mx
and My components.
If however, the moments are determined as Mx, My and Mxy using Classical Theory,
then Mxy is being ignored in design, and equilibrium is not satisfied.
The next comment is along the lines of but Mxy is torsion and the code allows me to
ignore torsion!

Yes, AS3600 allows you to ignore compatibility torsion, but the code does not allow you to ignore
equilibrium torsion.

Then it is, but the code does not mention Mxy moments!
Beam Torsion
The diagram to the right shows the torsional moment in a beam. There are 2 important points to make
for this,
-

the placement of longitudinal reinforcement and torsional stirrups is not

coupled they are governed by separate equations.
Beam torsion results in circular shear stress.

RAPT - In the economical design of concrete

Plate Twisting Moments

Below is a respresentation of a twisted slab element and the stresses in the slab due to the twisting
moment. The term Mxy, the twisting moment, represents the twist in the element, that
is, the rate of change of slope in the x-direction as one moves in the y-direction or
vise versa. The twisting moment results in shear stress parallel to the plate surface,
except near the ends, as shown to the right. Because of this shear flow
difference, the reinforcement to prevent torsional beam failure should not
be confused with the reinforcement to prevent twisting plate failure.

The equilibrium equation for a plate is

This is the most important equation providing invaluable physical insight into the
problem of reinforced plate design. It reveals that the load q can be
arbitrarily apportioned between Mxx, Myy and Mxyxy for reinforcement
design as long as the LHS of the equation is larger than the RHS at all
points of the plate system. It also points out that design solutions are not
unique.
It is extremely important to note if the design moment fields are such that
part of the load is carried by the Mxy term, the design cannot just ignore
Mxy as that would make the addition of the Mx and My terms smaller than
the applied loads.
This interpretation of satisfying equilibrium with allowance to violate compatibility
leads to the Lower Bound Method.

Standards Australia Response to question on design from FEM analysis:

Eventually I decided to ask Standards Australias AS3600 committee for the official position of
AS3600 on Mxy moments. Below in italics is the official Standards Australia response to my queries
regarding
1 design of concrete plates using results from FEM analysis, and
2 regarding torsional stiffness to use in FEM plate analysis
Under no circumstances can torsion be "ignored", it is fundamental to equilibrium!
The generally accepted method of dealing with the twisting moments, Mxy, for the design
moments is to use the Wood-Armer equations. In essence, the method involves adding the
absolute value of Mxy to the moments Mx and My, using the correct signs of each to give design

moments in each direction:

Mx* = Mx + |Mxy|
M*y = My + |Mxy|
I assume that the context of your question is for the case of slabs. In this case the basic of
equation of equilibrium is:

emphasising that equilibrium must be satisfied and members must be ductile"

Provided this equation is satisfied, equilibrium is satisfied. How we treat this will depend on the
method of analysis. For example, in most lower bound methods the torsional component of the
stress resultants are taken as zero and the load carried, in full, as moments in the x and y
directions (or in the case of a one way slab, in one of the x or y directions). Provided that the
stress resultants sum to the total load on the slab, equilibrium is satisfied. Note here that
torsion has not been "ignored", rather a conscious decision has been taken by the
designer to take mxy as zero and, thus, increase one or both the other components.
Further, to ensure that the system has sufficient ductility additional compatibility reinforcement
(as per AS3600-2009 clause 9.1.3.3(e)) must be placed in the high torsion regions to alleviate any
adverse torsional effects and see that the loads can be redistributed to the designers selected
load path.
If we were to use a linear-elastic FE package to obtain the design moments, three bending
components (mx, my and mxy) and two shear components (vx and vy) will be output. In this case,
the torsional component is most likely not zero and most certainly cannot be ignored. This is
fundamental mechanics. In this case, the usual method of analysis is to determine the yield
condition using the "Wood-Armer" equation:
mux = mx +fn|mxy|
muy = my +fn|mxy|
Here mux and muy include both the normal and torsional components of the moments. To
"ignore" the torsional moments in such circumstances violates equilibrium and is dangerous!
On the second question, I think that the code is reasonably clear on the torsional stiffness to be
taken:
For equilibrium torsion, the torsional stiffness of the uncracked section should be used.
For compatibility torsion, the torsional stiffness may be taken as zero provided that "the torsion
reinforcement requirements of Clause 8.3.7 and the detailing requirements of Clause 8.3.8 are
satisfied." (Refer to Clause 8.3.2).

Conclusion
Many FEM concrete design systems include the Mxy moments automatically in design. Some do not.
Some even advise to ignore Mxy moments in design and the default operation of their software is to
ignore Mxy moments in design. Most do give a method of including Mxy moments in design at user
request (this was not always the case previously). I have even had a case of a salesman for an FEM
program offering cheaper structures from his program because of the lower design moments due to
the benefits of two way action compared to equivalent frame analysis. As one Professor of Structural
Engineering said on hearing this; go and find another program to use as the developers of that program
obviously do not understand structures and concrete design; equilibrium must be satisfied!

It has also been suggested by at least two FEM concrete software developers that AS3600 and most
other codes do not mention Mxy moments (NZS code used to have a large section on this), so they can
be ignored. All design codes insist that Equilibrium Must be Satisfied. That is all they have to say. It
is up to the designer to understand and to achieve this, based on the analysis that he has done.
If you want to do a quick check on the FEM software you are using, for a rectangular column grid with
udl loading, the total moment in a panel must be w.ly.lx2/8 in the x direction and w.lx.ly2/8 in the y
direction. This is a lower bound equilibrium requirement and must be satisfied if the analysis is
correct. If the results do not match this equilibrium result, find out why not, or use other more reliable
software.