Anda di halaman 1dari 620

University of Surrey

School of Engineering
Civil Engineering

LATERAL LOAD DISTRIBUTION OF LINE LOADS


ON SOLID REINFORCED CONCRETE SLABS

VOLUME 1
by
Peter Zammit B.E&A(Hons) A&CE CEng MIStructE

A dissertation submitted in partial fulfilment of the requirements for the


Degree of Master of Science in Structural Engineering

2006

To
Isaac G, Nathan and Luke

Acknowledgements

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
I would like to express my gratitude to my supervisor, Prof. G.A.R. Parke,
B.Sc., M.Sc., Ph.D., EurIng, CEng, MICE, FIStrucE, Professor of Structural
Engineering, Head of Civil Engineering, University of Surrey, who provided
constructive suggestions throughout the course of this research and showed
support in my work.
I would also like to thank Prof. Alex Torpiano, BE&A., M.Sc., Ph.D., DIC,
Eur.Ing., MIStruct.E., A.&C.E., Faculty of Architecture, University of Malta, for his
advice and for the interest he showed in our research.
Finally I would like to thank my family especially my wife Elaine, who has
constantly supported me in my studies and professional development.

University of Surrey

Msc Structural Engineering

Page iii

Table of contents

Table of contents Volume 1


Table of contents Volume 1 ..........................................................................iv
List of tables .....................................................................................................vi
List of figures...................................................................................................vii
Glossary of terms ..............................................................................................x
Abstract

...................................................................................................... 1

Chapter 1.

Introduction .................................................................................iv

1.1.

Local Setting ........................................................................................................2

1.2.

Objective ..............................................................................................................6

Chapter 2.

Literature Review ........................................................................ 8

2.1.

Introduction ..........................................................................................................8

2.2.

Current codes and research ................................................................................9

2.3.

Basis of elastic theory for slabs .........................................................................15

2.4.

Internal forces in slabs .......................................................................................18

Chapter 3.

Models to be analysed ............................................................. 22

3.1.

Parameters effecting model ...............................................................................22

3.2.

Selection of models............................................................................................26

3.3.

Analysis procedure generally adopted ..............................................................28

3.4.

Methods of analysis ...........................................................................................30

3.5.

Selecting method of analysis .............................................................................32

3.6.

Analysis package adopted ................................................................................35

3.7.

Section Properties ..............................................................................................36

3.8.

Subdivision of elements .....................................................................................39

3.9.

Applied Load......................................................................................................45

3.10.

Interpretation of analysis ....................................................................................47

University of Surrey

Msc Structural Engineering

Page iv

Table of contents

Chapter 4.

Results....................................................................................... 49

4.1.

Comparison of model 1 to BS8110:1:1997........................................................49

4.2.

Set 1 Varying percentage of transverse reinforcement ...................................68

4.3.

Set 2 - Varying edge stiffness in main and transverse direction ........................75

4.4.

Set 3 - Varying depth..........................................................................................87

Chapter 5.
5.1.

Conclusion ................................................................................ 97

Conclusion .........................................................................................................97

REFERENCES............................................................................................... 102
BIBLIOGRAPHY............................................................................................ 104

University of Surrey

Msc Structural Engineering

Page v

List of tables

List of tables
Table 1 Models to be analysed .......................................................................................27
Table 2 Models analysed to select member size ............................................................40
Table 3 - Main results of models analysed for member selection size ..............................43
Table 4 - Calculation of loads.............................................................................................47
Table 5 - Reinforcement as designed to BS8110-1:1997 ..................................................51
Table 6 - Load case combinations .....................................................................................51
Table 7 - Depth of models..................................................................................................88
Table 8 - Reinforcement for models ...................................................................................88

University of Surrey

Msc Structural Engineering

Page vi

List of figures

List of figures
Figure 1 - Main beams supporting transfer slab ..................................................................5
Figure 2 - Reinforcement of transfer slab .............................................................................6
Figure 3 - Extract from BS8110-1:1997 ..............................................................................10
Figure 4 - Extract form Journal of Bridge Engineering (Amer A. et al, 1999) .....................13
Figure 5 - Extract from Journal of Bridge Engineering (Amer A. et al, 1999) .....................14
Figure 6 - Extract from Journal of Bridge Engineering (Amer A. et al, 1999) .....................14
Figure 7 - Extract from Hambly E.C, 1976..........................................................................19
Figure 8 - Torques distribution in slab like beam ...............................................................21
Figure 9 - Typical section through building ........................................................................24
Figure 10 - Plan of typical building .....................................................................................25
Figure 11 - Geometry for model selected ..........................................................................26
Figure 12 - Parabolic distribution of load to BS8110:1-1997 .............................................29
Figure 13 - Equivalent distribution......................................................................................30
Figure 14 - Underside view of model showing supports....................................................35
Figure 15 Selection of element size model 1 ..................................................................41
Figure 16 Selection of element size model 2 ..................................................................41
Figure 17 Selection of element size model 3 ..................................................................42
Figure 18 Selection of element size model 4 ..................................................................42
Figure 19 - Location of load on model 1 ............................................................................43
Figure 20 - Location of load on model 2 ............................................................................44
Figure 21 - Grillage scheme adopted ................................................................................45
Figure 22 - Location of line loads on models .....................................................................46
Figure 23 - Cross section utilised for load calculations .....................................................46
Figure 24 Eff. width for central line load according to BS 8110-1:1997 ..........................49
Figure 25 - Eff. width for quarter line load according to BS8110-1:1997 ...........................49
Figure 26 - Eff. width for edge line load according to BS8110-1:1997 ..............................50
Figure 27 - Eff. width for conbination of line loads accoridng to BS8110-1:1997..............50
Figure 28 - Numbering of grillage members ......................................................................51
Figure 29 Model 1 Central load - Moments in main members .....................................52
Figure 30 - Model 1 - Central load - Mid span bending moments of main memebrs .......53
Figure 31 - Model 1 - Central load - % usage of reinforcement along Y............................54

University of Surrey

Msc Structural Engineering

Page vii

List of figures

Figure 32 - Model 1 - Central load - % usage of reinforcement along X............................55


Figure 33 - Model 1 - Central load - Hogging moment along X.........................................56
Figure 34 - Model 1 - Central load - Shear stress as % of shear resistance along Y.........57
Figure 35 - Model 1 - Central load Reactions..................................................................57
Figure 36 - Model 1 - Central load - Shear stress as % of shear resistance along X.........58
Figure 37 - Model 1 - Central load - Torsional stresses resulting form applied load .........59
Figure 38 - Mxy stresses in steel plate subjected to line load............................................60
Figure 39 - Model 1 - Quarter load Moments along Y.....................................................61
Figure 40 - Model 1 - Quarter load - Mid span bending moments of main memebrs .......61
Figure 41 - Model 1 - Quarter load Reactions .................................................................62
Figure 42 - Model 1 - Quarter load - Torsional stresses resulting form applied load ........63
Figure 43 - Model 1 - Edge load - Moments along Y .........................................................64
Figure 44 - Model 1 - Edge load - Mid span bending moments of main memebrs ..........64
Figure 45 - Model 1 - Edge loading - Torsional stresses resulting form applied load .......65
Figure 46 - Model 1 - 3 loads - Mid span bending moments of main memebrs ...............66
Figure 47 - Model 1 - 3 loads - Reactions ..........................................................................67
Figure 48 - Model 1 - 3 loads - Torsional stresses resulting form applied load.................67
Figure 49 - Model 1-4 - Central load - Mid span bending moments of main memebrs ....69
Figure 50 - Model 4 - Central load - Torsional stresses resulting form applied load .........69
Figure 51 - Models 1-4 - Central load - Reactions .............................................................70
Figure 52 - Models 1-4 - Quarter load - Mid span bending moments of main members..71
Figure 53 - Models 1-4 - Edge loading - Mid span bending moments of main members 72
Figure 54 - Models 1-4 - Central - Reactions .....................................................................73
Figure 55 - Models 1-4 - 3 loads - Mid span bending moments of main members ..........74
Figure 56 - Models 1-4 - 3 loads - reactions ......................................................................75
Figure 57 - Models 5-8 - Central load - Mid span bending moments of main members ..76
Figure 58 - Models 5-8 - Central load - Reactions .............................................................77
Figure 59 - Models 5 - Central - Torsional stresses resulting form applied load ...............78
Figure 60 - Model 6 - Central load - Torsional stresses resulting form applied load .........79
Figure 61 - Model 7 - Central load - Torsional stresses resulting form applied load .........80
Figure 62 - Model 8 - Central load - Torsional stresses resulting form applied load .........80
Figure 63 - Models 5-8 - Quarter load - Mid span bending moments of main members..81
Figure 64 - Models 5-8 - Quarter load - Reactions.............................................................82
Figure 65 - Models 5-8 - Edge load - Mid span bending moments of main members .....83

University of Surrey

Msc Structural Engineering

Page viii

List of figures

Figure 66 - Models 5-8 - Edge load - Reactions ................................................................84


Figure 67 - Models 5-8 - 3 loads - Mid span bending moments of main members ..........85
Figure 68 - Models 5-8 - 3 loads - Reactions .....................................................................86
Figure 69 - Models 5-8 - 3 loads - Torsional stresses resulting form applied load............87
Figure 70 - Models 2, 9-12 - Variation of moment of inertia ...............................................89
Figure 71 - Models 2, 9-12 - Central load - Mid span moments of main members...........90
Figure 72 - Models 2, 9-12 - Central load - Reactions .......................................................90
Figure 73 - Models 2, 9-12 - Quarter load - Mid span moments of main members ..........92
Figure 74 - Model 2, 9-12 - Reactions................................................................................92
Figure 75 - Models 2, 9-12 Edge load - Mid span moments of main members .............93
Figure 76 - Models 2, 9-12 - Reactions ..............................................................................94
Figure 77 - Models 2, 9-12 - 3 loads - Mid span bending moments of main members ....95
Figure 78 - Models 2, 9-12 Reactions .............................................................................95

University of Surrey

Msc Structural Engineering

Page ix

Glossary of terms

Glossary of terms
ASC

Area of reinforcement provided in compression

AST

Area of reinforcement provided in tension

Width of concrete section

Torsional constant

Effective depth of section

Flexural rigidity

Effective width

EC

Youngs modulus of concrete

ES

Youngs modulus of steel

Shear modulus

Plate thickness

hmax

Maximum external dimension of section

hmin

Minimum external dimension of section

Moment of inertia

IT

Transformed moment of inertia

Span of slab

University of Surrey

Msc Structural Engineering

Page x

Glossary of terms

L1

Modified span

NL

Number of design lanes

Loading normal to plate

Span of slab

Deflection of plate

Effective width

W1

Modified edge to edge width

W2

Physical edge to edge width

Depth from compression face to neutral axis

Distance form support to centroid of line load

Modular ratio

Torsional ratio from BS8110-2:1985

Relative twist between two ends

Poissons ratio

University of Surrey

Msc Structural Engineering

Page xi

Abstract

Abstract
Line loads or concentrated loads, such as those arising from masonry
walls, are generally supported on concrete slabs by increasing the stiffness of the
structure exactly beneath that particular load.

This is many times achieved

through the introduction of a beam beneath each particular line load. In buildings
where there are several of these loads and the beams are cast in situ, the
construction time required is increased extensively.
In Malta, where the majority of structures consist of concrete frame
construction for the first two floors, and four to six floors of cellular masonry
structures above that, it is becoming common to cast thicker slabs at the interface
between the two construction methods, which hence increases the stiffness of the
slab throughout.

The load is then resisted through this increased stiffness

together with an assumed distribution width for each particular load.

The

distribution width is generally calculated through BS8110-1:1997.


The aim of this study is to analyse one way spanning concrete slabs under
the effect of a line load placed at different positions by adopting the grillage
analogy in order to determine the true effective width.

This study will also

investigate how other parameters effect the lateral load distribution on solid
reinforced concrete slabs. These parameters include, ratio of main to transverse
reinforcement, introduction of stiffer bands along the slab by introducing more
reinforcement and finally the depth of the slab.

University of Surrey

Msc Structural Engineering

Page 1

Introduction

Chapter 1.

Introduction

1.1. Local Setting


Situated at the heart of Mediterranean Sea, the small island of Malta has
been involved in the making of history from the beginning of mankind. Elaborate
limestone structures dating back five thousand years can still be found all over the
island. In fact, limestone is the only natural resource available, and since it has
been used for so many years the locals have become aware of its strengths and
weaknesses long before any text book on the subject was ever written. The
earliest limestone structures were roofed with limestone domes or vaults and later
on with timber beams spaced at approximately one metre centres, with limestone
flagstones in between.
With the advent of concrete to the island, new roofs were constructed from
reinforced concrete, and as time passed confidence was gained in the use of this
material. For the last fifty years the typical construction method in Malta involved
cellular construction, composed from natural masonry limestone walls roofed over
with reinforced concrete slabs.
In view of the size of the island, and with ever increasing environmental
awareness involving the creation of scheduled and protected zones, the area
available for building is always decreasing. This has led local investors to opt for
vertical expansion rather than lateral. This vertical expansion, which is currently in
the region of six to ten floors, is still low when compared to other buildings in
mainland Europe, but considering that until twenty years ago the highest building
in Malta was only three floors, this can be considered as a major leap.

University of Surrey

Msc Structural Engineering

Page 2

Introduction

A typical building in Malta, having a site area of approximately four hundred


square metres would generally consist of, three basement floors, two commercial
floors above road level, and four to six residential floors above that.

The

construction for the basement and commercial floors would be a typical concrete
frame, with the upper residential floors adopting the conventional cellular
construction with reinforced concrete slabs as roofs.

This local cellular

construction exerts substantial dead loads to all our structures especially when
one considers that our typical walls are 230mm thick and with a dry limestone
density of 1800Kg/m3, a wall exerts an unfactored dead load of 12.15kN/m. As
one would imagine the transition between the cellular construction and the frame
structure is of utmost importance. We refer to the slab situated at this transition as
the transfer slab since it is the structural element transferring the loads resulting
from one type of construction to the frame structure. Different structural design
offices are adopting different methods of analysis, whilst design is in the majority
of cases carried out to BS8110-1:1997. The methods of analysis and design
adopted can be divided into two categories.
a)

conventional beam and slab system, where the slabs at the transfer

level are designed to support their weight plus the superimposed load of the floor
directly above, and the stiffness beneath the walls is increased by the introduction
of beams which resist the load imposed by all the floors, which is in turn
transferred to the main vertical members;
b)

one way spanning thick slab system supported on edge beams or

walls, where the stiffness of the slab is increased throughout and an amount of
load distribution is assumed throughout the slab. This system makes use of the
three dimensional aspect of the slab and its ability to distribute the load laterally.
In the previous years the second system has been the most sought after.
This is basically due to the following reasons:
a) Provides flat soffit and hence easier for service installation;
University of Surrey

Msc Structural Engineering

Page 3

Introduction

b) Faster method of construction since less work is required in setting


up a flat formwork, when compared to a conventional beam and
slab;
c) Engineers feel that it is easier to inspect since the same
reinforcement is typically used throughout the slab;
d) Clients prefer it, because if walls are generally moved by a small
distance there are rarely any effects, in view of the constant stiffness
throughout.
Going for the thicker slab approach, the dilemma which local engineers
have to face is the actual determination of the distribution width, since a larger
distribution will generally provide a more economic slab. Through my involvement
with various design offices I have seen that the approach adopted to solving this
problem varies considerably form one office to another. In rare cases the total
load taken down to the transfer slab is divided by the whole area of the slab
irrespective of the location of the walls imposing the loads, edge restraints at slab
supports, etc. In extreme conservative cases each load is assumed to have a
maximum distribution width of only one to two metres at mid span. However the
majority of offices tend to adopt the simple procedure set out in BS8110-1:1997,
clause 3.5.2.2, which provides an equation which relates the location of the load
to the distribution width.
Figure 1 and Figure 2 below show a photo of a typical transfer slab as it
was being constructed. The project had a site area of 2000 square metres and it
was designed by adopting the procedure of BS8110-1:1997. The slab has a clear
span of 6.10m and a transverse span of over 30 metres. Figure 1 shows the
supporting beams of the slab whilst Figure 2 shows the reinforcement of the slab
as it was being prepared. The slab in question was designed to resist nine
residential floors, and ended up being detailed as 750mm thick with 1T32 at
100mm centres in the main direction with 1T16 at 200mm centres in the
University of Surrey

Msc Structural Engineering

Page 4

Introduction

transverse direction. 1A503 mesh was placed at the top. In areas where excessive
loads occurred additional reinforcement was placed as can be seen in Figure 2.
The slab design was carried out by author whilst under employment with a private
architectural firm.

Figure 1 - Main beams supporting transfer slab

University of Surrey

Msc Structural Engineering

Page 5

Introduction

Figure 2 - Reinforcement of transfer slab

Notwithstanding the fact that such slabs are being constructed, a list of
questions still crop up which the majority of engineers feel that they do not have
definite answers for, such as, what is the true effective width for a given slab?
How do shear, moment and torsion interact, in a slab which is subjected to line
loads in the region of 200kN/m for four floors? Are there other main parameters
which effect the distribution apart from the location of the load as suggested in
BS8110 : Part 1 1997?

1.2. Objective
It is the aim of this study to analytically investigate the above questions by
looking at a typical line load placed centrally, at quarter transverse span and at the
edge of a relatively thick, one way spanning reinforced concrete slab. The three
scenarios are initially analysed and designed according to BS8110 requirements.

University of Surrey

Msc Structural Engineering

Page 6

Introduction

A grillage analysis is then undertaken using a computer package. Sections will


also be designed and the two methods will be compared.
The study will then go on to look at the effect of varying main parameters,
which will be discussed further down with the aim of trying to understand how
these different parameters effect load distribution.

University of Surrey

Msc Structural Engineering

Page 7

Literature review

Chapter 2.

Literature Review

2.1. Introduction
From the early days of using reinforced concrete slabs, it was clearly
evident that this three dimensional structural element could resist applied loads by
other means apart from direct bending, such as lateral load distribution and
membrane action.
At the beginning of the twentieth century the race was on in Europe as well
as the United States for the development of new structural systems which could
span further, be lighter, involve less reinforcement and carry more load. The first
known flat slab cast in the United States was in 1906 and according to literature
on this subject (R.J. Cope, 1984), it is evident that the designer, by the name of
Turner, based his design on intuition and it is clear that he was aware of the
capability of the slab to develop membrane action.
The first recorded practical tests on slabs were carried out in 1910, where
the first ever strain measurements were recorded. In 1914 Huber initiated the
analogy between orthotropic plate theory and concrete slabs.

In 1921

Westergaard published a paper on the elastic analysis of slabs which was based
on the work carried out by Lagrange in 1811, the pioneer on the application of
loads normal to the plane of the plate, who had come out with the basic
differential equation of plate bending.
During these times, as the first codes of practice were being formulated in
the United States and the UK, processing power of computers or even hand held
calculators was non existent. Designers had no option but to carry out tedious
and complicated hand calculations based on member end forces or end

University of Surrey

Msc Structural Engineering

Page 8

Literature review

deformations. Slabs at the time were modeled as .. two sets of parallel


beams intersecting at right angles and joined at the points of intersection , (R.
Bares et al, 1966) or what we refer to as the grillage. Several simplified methods
of analysis were developed to solve the grillage problem, each one having its own
set of assumptions, some of which were well off the mark. The majority of these
assumed that the torsional resistance of the elements could be neglected, which
clearly led to a simplification of the problem by reducing the redundancy by one
third.
In the bridge building boom, which initiated as the second world war came
to its end, reference was made to the work carried out years before namely to that
of Huber and Westergaard and the analogy between the orthotropic plate and the
grillage was taken on.

2.2. Current codes and research


For the distribution of concentrated loads, BS 8110-1:1997 clause 3.5.2.2,
provides a basic equation for the effective width, namely,

x
W = 1.2 x(1 )
l

Eqn 2.1

where x is the location of the load in relation to the support and l is the clear span
of the slab.

This equation is only used for simply supported slabs and the

equation implies that if the load is located at mid span the load is distributed over
a width of 0.6l, whilst if the load is near to the support the load is not distributed at
all as shown in Figure 3 below. In this equation there is no relation to the depth of
the slab, nor to the ratio between the main stiffness to the transverse stiffness.
The same code of practice specifies in clause 3.12.5.3 that the minimum
amount of reinforcement in each direction for slabs should not be less than

University of Surrey

Msc Structural Engineering

Page 9

Literature review

0.13%. In view of this clause, it is presumed that the clause relating to distribution
takes into consideration only this limited amount of reinforcement in the transverse
direction.

Figure 3 - Extract from BS8110-1:1997

Other codes of practice such as EC2, which will be the governing


European code for concrete structures as from 2010, make no reference to
concentrated load distribution on slabs at all.
In America, the code relating to concrete structures, namely ACI318,
makes no reference to the matter, but most probably this is because lateral
distribution of loads on slabs is considered to be directly related to bridge deck
design and it is for this reason that the subject is treated by the American
association of state highways and transportation organisation (AASHTO). Reports
and codes issued by this organisation have been recommending distribution
factors for the lateral distribution of live loads for over 50 years ((Zokaie Toorak,
2000). Until 1994 the basic equation for calculating the effective width was as

University of Surrey

Msc Structural Engineering

Page 10

Literature review

shown below in Eqn 2.2, where e is the effective width in metres and S is the span
in metres.
e = 1.22 + 0.6 S

Eqn 2.2

In 1994 these recommendations where revised and the new distribution


factors were amended to take on board other parameters such as bridge span
and bridge width, hence making them compatible for a wider range of bridges.
These amended distribution factors are referred to as the AASHTO load and
resistance factor design (LRFD). The effective width equation was amended to

e = 2100 + 0.12 LW
1 1

W2
NL

Eqn 2.3

where e is the effective width in mm for two lines of wheels and assumed to be
uniformly distributed, L1 is the modified span length taken to be equal to the lesser
of the actual span or 18000mm, W1 is the modified edge to edge width of the
bridge taken equal to the lesser of the actual width or 18000mm, W2 is the
physical edge to edge width of the bridge and NL is the number of design lanes.
Various studies have been undertaken in the United States to compare the
suitability of the above theoretical distribution factors to the actual distribution in
bridges.

This is being done either by physical testing or by finite element

modelling of bridges.
Of particular interest is a study entitled, wheel load distribution in simply
supported concrete slab bridges, which was undertaken to determine if a
number of bridges which had been labelled as structurally deficient by the United
States federal highway agency, actually failed to make the mark when compared
to the AASHTO requirements (Mabsout M et al, 2004). The authors created finite
element models for 112 simply supported reinforced concrete slab bridges. The
models were constructed by using quadrilateral shell elements, and all elements

University of Surrey

Msc Structural Engineering

Page 11

Literature review

were considered to be linearly elastic with the basic assumption of small


deformations and deflections. The results obtained clearly indicated that the code
requirements are conservative in the majority of cases by a region of 15% to 25%,
whilst in certain specific cases, such as one lane spans longer than 10.5m, the
code underestimates the maximum moment of the finite element model by 15%.
The paper does not dwell into the reason of why there is this noticeable difference
between what is recommended and what was recorded through the models.
Another study involved the physical testing of a decommissioned bridge to
determine various parameters such as lateral load distribution. The study was
undertaken by Miller, on a bridge which had been decommissioned in view of its
excessive deterioration (Miller R.A et al 1994). Apart from the physical testing the
bridge was also modelled linearly and non-linearly by the use of finite element
analysis. By looking into the non-linear response of the slab the authors hoped
that this would include other factors for resisting moments such as lateral load
distribution and membrane action. However, the non linear bridge model failed in
shear as the steel had just surpassed its first yield point. From the practical
testing it was established that the bridge failed in punching shear and not flexure,
most probably due to its extensive deterioration. The value of the moment at the
time of failure was already 25% over the corresponding moment based on the
one-dimensional strip idealisation which is recommended by AASHTO.

As a

conclusion the study clearly points out that from the analytical models the effective
strip model resulted in a section requiring 45% more moment capacity than the
linear finite element analysis of the whole bridge, which was capable of
considering the three dimensional characteristics of the structure in the elastic
range.
A study carried out by Amer looked into the recommendations of AASHTO
LRFD and compared a set of field tests with grillage analysis to determine if the
new parameters included in the 1994 AASHTO revisions actually had an effect
(Amer A. et al, 1999). The grillage analogy was used and in all, twenty seven

University of Surrey

Msc Structural Engineering

Page 12

Literature review

cases were investigated which looked at how, bridge span, bridge overall width,
slab thickness, and edge beam effect the equivalent width determined from the
codes.

Figure 4 - Extract form Journal of Bridge Engineering (Amer A. et al, 1999)

On investigating the span it was evident that as the span increased the
effective width for distribution increased. The grillage analogy proved that both
the AASHTO equation prior to 1994 and also as amended in 1994 were highly
conservative, as can be seen in Figure 4 above. For a span of 5m the codes are
approximately 10% more conservative than the grillage analysis but for a 9m span
the codes are approximately 30% more conservative.
In relation to the overall bridge width the study clearly indicated that as the
bridge gets wider the effective distribution width does not actually change as
shown in Figure 5 below. The amendments of 1994 actually took the width of the
bridge as a main parameter in relation to the determination of the effective width.
The study also proved that the overall thickness of the slab has no effect
on the distribution width of the moment and hence the study agrees with the
codes in eliminating this parameter from the effective width equation. In relation to
edge beam stiffening it was proven that the introduction of a stiffer edge beam
University of Surrey

Msc Structural Engineering

Page 13

Literature review

has a drastic effect in considerably increasing the distribution width of the


moment.

Figure 5 - Extract from Journal of Bridge Engineering (Amer A. et al, 1999)

Figure 6 - Extract from Journal of Bridge Engineering (Amer A. et al, 1999)

The study also looked into a series of field tests which were undertaken by
the Florida department of transportation and compared the results obtained for
transverse distribution to a grillage analysis. From the results, of which one is
reproduced in Figure 6, it was clear that even the grillage analogy is conservative
when compared to actual transverse distribution.

University of Surrey

Msc Structural Engineering

Page 14

Literature review

2.3. Basis of elastic theory for slabs


The basic equation for elasticity is a fourth order differential equation
derived by Lagrange in the 1800s, namely,
4w
4w
4w q
+
2
+
=
x 4
x 2 y 2 y 4 D

Eqn 2.4

which provides the elastic deformations of isotropic plates loaded normal to their
plane. In Eqn 2.4 w is the deflection of the plate in the direction of loading, q is
the loading on the plate per unit area and D is the flexural rigidity as shown in
Eqn 2.5,

Eh3
=D
12(1 2 )

Eqn 2.5

where E is Youngs modulus of the plate material, h is the plate thickness and is
Poissons ratio. It is important to note that this equation which was derived from
strain compatibility and considerations of equilibrium, applies specifically to
medium-thick plates, which are thin enough that shear deformations are not
important and thick enough that in plane or membrane forces are not important.
As clearly stated above Eqn 2.4 and Eqn 2.5 are meant to serve for
isotropic materials whilst in reality the majority of the slabs under consideration are
orthotropic.
Apart from this another issue relates to Poissons ratio, due to the fact that
as a concrete slab is approaching its ultimate load the tensile face of the slab has
cracked and hence Poissons ratio should be taken as zero. Since the concrete
above the neutral axis would not have cracked Poissons ratio would have an
effect but the compressive stresses are rarely the controlling stresses in any slab

University of Surrey

Msc Structural Engineering

Page 15

Literature review

system. Considering that Poissons ratio for concrete is generally in the region of
0.15 0.2 its effect in Eqn 2.5 is minimal.
One can also appreciate that in beam theory

d 4w q
=
dx 4 EI

Eqn 2.6

and the difference between Eqn 2.4 and Eqn 2.6 is clearly evident. Therefore
when we adopt an equivalent strip method for the design of slab, we are
automatically adopting Eqn 2.6 when in reality Eqn 2.4 should be utilised. One
must point out that the solution of the Lagrange fourth order differential equation is
unfortunately not as straight forward as the equation for beams.
A study carried out by Richard, looked into concentrated loads applied to
slabs and compared physical testing to plate theory (Richard C et al, 1989). In all,
three tests were carried out with each one having a variation in its boundary
conditions. The first simulated a simply supported slab, the second was fixed for
rotation but was allowed to move laterally and the third was fully fixed.

All

specimens were reinforced in both directions, top and bottom with a ratio of
0.50%, hence making the specimen isotropic. The applied load was a point load
and it was initially applied until the slab had cracked throughout. The slabs were
then unloaded and reloaded to failure.
The simply supported sample failed by punching shear after all the
reinforcement had yielded and the deflection was well over the allowed limit. The
results gathered from the practical testing were then compared to the plate theory
and it is clear that the maximum moment obtained from the practical testing is
33% less then that derived from thin plate theory. One should also mention that
the summation of the moments beneath the graphs are not equal clearly
indicating that the load was being resisted by other mechanisms apart from
flexure. The authors in fact state The discrepancies between the theoretical and

University of Surrey

Msc Structural Engineering

Page 16

Literature review

experimental results are explained by the presence of membrane action, the tensile
resistance of concrete at a cracked section and a greater spread of flexural actions
than is indicated by thin plate theory.
With regards to membrane action, and as already stated in the introduction
to the literature review, the existence of such a resistance in slabs which have
restraints to lateral expansion, has been recognised since the time of Turner.
Turner had suggested that such a slab will act, at first somewhat like a flat dome
and slab combined. Membrane action can actually be divided into,
Compressive membrane action and
Tensile membrane action
The former is also referred to as arching action and as long as lateral
restraints exist, it goes into play as soon as the slab is loaded and when the slab
is still in its elastic range. As the load is increased and the reinforcement starts
yielding the latter type of membrane action comes into play where the slab starts
acting as a catenery.
Despite the fact that considerable research has been undertaken to look
into membrane action, the analytical solutions developed were too complicated
for use in design and depend on parameters that are difficult to quantify in actual
slab systems. There is however a growing body of evidence that top slabs in
beam and slab construction designed for flexural moments are considerably overdesigned. Such a study was carried out by Eyre, who looked into slabs under
compressive membrane action and provided a simple and direct method for
estimating the ultimate load capacity (Eyre JR 1997).

The study was only

concerned with isotropic slabs.

University of Surrey

Msc Structural Engineering

Page 17

Literature review

2.4. Internal forces in slabs


In order to be able to discuss the internal forces that a slab is subjected to
as the external loading is applied, it is initially ideal to commence by visualizing
what happens in a two dimensional structure such as a beam.
As the load is applied to a simply supported beam, the structural element
deflects and it is well known that the relation between the internal forces and the
applied load is as shown below.

Let Load =q

Eqn 2.7

Shear = q

Eqn 2.8

Moment = Shear

Eqn 2.9

Slope = Moment

Eqn 2.10

deflection = Slope

Eqn 2.11

As long as the load is applied concentrically with the shear centre then
torsion is not present. This is generally the case for doubly symmetric sections,
but in cases such as channels where the applied load is rarely in line with the
shear centre, torques and twists arise.
When a torque T is applied to an element of a beam it causes the element
to twist about an axis which passes through the shear centre with a relative
rotation denoted by d between the ends of the element. For an elastic material,
the amount of relative rotation is proportional to the torque and related by the
equation,

University of Surrey

Msc Structural Engineering

Page 18

Literature review

T = CG

d
dx

Eqn 2.12

Where C is the torsion constant of the section also known as St. Venants torsional
constant, and G is the shear modulus which is related to the Youngs modulus by
taking into consideration Poissons ratio as shown in Eqn 2.13 below.

G=

E
2(1 + )

Eqn 2.13

Contrary to beams, slabs are structurally continuous in the two plane


dimensions of the slab so that an applied load is supported by two dimensional
distributions of shear forces, moments and torques. As can be easily understood
this two dimensional distribution is much more complex and no easy method
exists which allows simple determination of the values of moments, shears and
toques. The situation continues to complicate itself when the applied load is not a
uniformly distributed load but a concentrated load as is the case being studied.

Figure 7 - Extract from Hambly E.C, 1976

If a small element of a slab is considered as shown in Figure 7, under the


effect of a load W it can be easily seen that it is subjected to the following

University of Surrey

Msc Structural Engineering

Page 19

Literature review

moments and forces namely, Mx, My, Sx Sy Txy Tyx. On resolving vertically and
taking moments about ox and oy and after simplification we obtain:
S x S y
+
= W
x
y

Eqn 2.14

mx t yx
+
= Sx
x
y

Eqn 2.15

m y
y

t xy
x

= Sy

Eqn 2.16

These equations differ significantly from those relating to a simple beam.


Apart form the obvious difference that loads distribute in two dimensions Eqn 2.14
Eqn 2.15 and Eqn 2.16 indicate that shear force is not the simple differentiation of
the bending moment. It should also be noted that unlike beams, the compressive
stress in the concrete is not dependent only on the compressive strains in that
direction but also on the compressive strain in the orthogonal direction.
With regards to torque the torsional shear stresses in an element of slab
have a linear distribution with the torsional stresses being proportional to the
distance from the neutral axis. For solid slabs the torsional constant C is generally
taken equal to half that taken for beams.

This is due to a difference in the

definition of torque. If a twisted thin slab like beam is analysed as a beam then
the torque T is defined as the sum of the torque due to the opposed horizontal
shear flows near the top and bottom faces and of the torque due to the opposed
vertical shear flows near the two edges, as shown in below.

University of Surrey

Msc Structural Engineering

Page 20

Literature review

Figure 8 - Torques distribution in slab like beam

In contrast if the slab like beam is analysed as a slab than the torque is
defined as only due to the opposed horizontal shear flows near the top and
bottom faces. The vertical shear flows at the edges constitute local high values of
the vertical shear force. The opposed vertical shear flows provide half the total
torque and are associated by Eqn 2.15 and Eqn 2.16 with the transverse torque.
The above two definitions, though different, are equivalent, since while the slab
has half of the torsional constant attributed longitudinally, it has another half
attributed transversely.

University of Surrey

Msc Structural Engineering

Page 21

Models to be Analysed

Chapter 3.

Models to be analysed

3.1. Parameters effecting model


In order to be able to select the appropriate model to be investigated it is
important that initially a list of the parameters to be studied is compiled. After
considering the literature available on the subject it was concluded that this study
would look at one way spanning slabs, since it was felt that extensive research
had only been carried out in relation to load distribution with respect to patch
loading on bridge decks, but not on permanent line loads with a substantial
magnitude as is the case in Malta.
The list below indicates some of the main variables which are thought to
have an effect on the way loads are distributed throughout solid slabs:
a Span of slab;
b Depth of slab;
c Aspect ratio of slab;
d Orthogonal and/or skew slabs;
e Abrupt re-entrant or protruding corners in slabs;
f

Position of loading on slab;

g Orientation of loading on slab;

University of Surrey

Msc Structural Engineering

Page 22

Models to be Analysed

h Stiffness of slab;
i

Ratio of main to transverse stiffness;

Varying of stiffness in the spanning direction of the same slab to


create bands of higher stiffness;

Openings in slabs for service shafts etc;

Type of support, beam, wall, etc;

m Continuity;
n Type of edge restraint to lateral movement;
As stated in the objective of this study the aim of the first phase will be to
compare the recommendations of BS81101:1997 to an analytical model.
After weighing the importance of all the above parameters and considering
the amount of studies carried out on each parameter it was concluded that the
second stage of the dissertation will essentially involve looking at the effect of
varying the following parameters:
a Ratio of main to transverse stiffness: Through the variation of this
parameter it is intended to prove the importance that the variation of
this ratio has on the distribution of load;
b Creation of stiffer bands in the main direction: This parameter will
allow the engineer to partially effect the aspect ratio of the slab.
Creation of substantially stiffer bands in the slab will provoke the
slab to act as a partial two way spanning slab;

University of Surrey

Msc Structural Engineering

Page 23

Models to be Analysed

c Depth of Slab: It is a known fact that the moment capacity of a


section can be reached by two extremities, i.e. on one side it is
possible to have minimal reinforcement and a thick slab or
alternatively it is possible to have a shallow slab with maximum
reinforcement. Although both have the same moment capacity their
flexural and torsional stiffness is substantially different. How does
this effect load distribution?

Cellular Construction

Residential Level 4

Cellular Construction

Residential Level 3

Cellular Construction

Residential Level 2

Cellular Construction

Residential Level 1

Frame Construction

Commercial Level 0

Frame Construction

Parking / Storage Level -1

Frame Construction

Parking / Storage Level -2

Frame Construction

Parking / Storage Level -3

Figure 9 - Typical section through building

After having selected the parameters the next step was to determine the
typical geometry of a slab together with the realistic load that such a slab should

University of Surrey

Msc Structural Engineering

Page 24

Models to be Analysed

be designed for. For this reason information was gathered from various projects
on in which the author of this study had been involved in, and a typical geometry
was compiled. Figure 9 above shows a typical section through a building, where
as explained in the introduction the lower levels are utilised for parking or storage,
the ground floor is utilised as commercial and the upper floors are residential
units. The section clearly indicates how walls in the residential floors do not
generally fall on the beams but are located on the slabs.

Transfer slab Level

5200

5200

7760

5000

6100

18100

5000

5
4625

Basement store / parking below this level capable of sustaining a live load of 5KN/aq/m.

Open Plan commercial floor at road level

Typical cellular construction above this level

4625

6
Transfer slab Level

Section XX

Figure 10 - Plan of typical building

Complimentary to Figure 9, Figure 10 above shows a typical floor plan at


ground floor level, above which one finds the transfer slab. The structure up to

University of Surrey

Msc Structural Engineering

Page 25

Models to be Analysed

this level is completely open plan with a regular column grid generally built up of
multiples of 2.40m, since one car park space has to be 2.40m wide. The transfer
slab in such a building would be designed as simply supported and rests on
beams along gridlines 2, 3, 4, and 5. Gridlines 1 and 6 would support the slab by
making use of the boundary wall, which are very stiff when compared to the
beams and produce minimal deflection.
In view of the above Figure 11 below shows the model which will be
investigated in this study.

6100

18100

Section XX

Figure 11 - Geometry for model selected

3.2. Selection of models


After having taken various aspects into consideration a list of models to be
investigated was compiled and reproduced in Table 1. In all 12 models will be
investigated, where the models are divided into three groups. Model 1 will be
analysed and the results will be compared to the calculations carried out
according to BS8110-1:1997. This will form part 1 of the results.

University of Surrey

Msc Structural Engineering

Page 26

6100 * 18100

6100 * 18100

6100 * 18100

6100 * 18100

6100 * 18100

6100 * 18100
6100 * 18100

6100 * 18100 *

6100 * 18100

6100 * 18100
6100 * 18100

6100 * 18100

6
7

10
11

12

Slab
Length
(mm)

Model Slab
width
(mm)

S u p p o rte d

University of Surrey
S u p p o rte d

Msc Structural Engineering

Page 27
700

325
550

250

400

400
400

400

400

400

400

400

Slab
depth
(mm)

Top reinforcement
along width (Main
direction)

Top reinforcement
along length
(Transverse direction)

12

20
16

25

16

16
16

16

16

16

16

16

10

10
8

10

10

10
10

10

10

10

10

10

1131.0

3141.6
1608.5

4908.7

2010.6

2010.6
2010.6

2010.6

2010.6

2010.6

2010.6

2010.6

16

16
16

16

16

16
16

16

25

25

16

10

10
10

10

10

10
10

10

12

10

10

8
8

2010.6

2010.6
2010.6

8
8

2010.6 12

2010.6

2010.6
2010.6

2010.6

5890.5

3927.0

2010.6

502.7

10

10
10

10

10

10
10

10

10

10

10

502.7

502.7
502.7

1005.3

502.7

502.7
502.7

502.7

502.7

502.7

502.7

8
8

8
8

10

10
10

10

10

10
10

10

10

10

10

502.7

502.7
502.7

502.7

502.7

502.7
502.7

502.7

502.7

502.7

502.7

0.16

0.97
0.29

1.96

0.50

0.50
0.50

0.50

0.50

0.50

0.50

0.50

0.29

0.62
0.37

0.80

0.50

0.50
0.50

0.50

1.47

0.98

0.50

0.13

Variation of depth and


reinforcement hence varying
inertia of section whilst
maintaining same moment
capacity

Stiffened transverse edge


Stiffened main edge + stiffened
transverse edge

Stiffened main edge

Model to be compared to BS8110

Dia. Number Area per Dia. Number Area per Dia. Number Area per Dia. Number Area per Bottom % Bottom % Remark
Reinf.
Reinf.
(mm) per metre (mm) per metre (mm) per metre (mm) per metre
metre (m2)
metre (m2)
metre (m2)
metre (m2)
main transverse
direction direction

Bottom reinforcement Bottom reinforcement


along width (Main
along length
direction)
(Transverse direction)

Table 1 Models to be analysed

Models to be Analysed

Models to be Analysed

Model 1, 2, 3 and 4 will then form the first group which will look into the
effect of varying the amount of transverse reinforcement on lateral load
distribution. Model 1 commences with a percentage of 0.13% whilst model 4
ends with 1.50%. Although BS 8110-1:1997 allows for a maximum amount of
reinforcement of 4% of the gross area it was felt that anything over 1.5% would be
unrealistic especially when one considers that this is equivalent to 1T25 at 83mm
centres.
The next set of models, namely models 5 through to 8 have the aim of
studying the effect of creating edge bands which are stiffer than the remainder of
the slab.

This is achieved by maintaining the same depth but increasing

substantially the reinforcement of the edges. Model 5 has the edges in the main
direction which are stiffened, whilst model 6 has the transverse edges which are
stiffened. Model 7 investigates when all edges are stiffened, whilst model 8 looks
into the effects of having the slab supported on all four sides.
Model 9 through to 12, which form the last set investigate how varying the
depth of the slab and the reinforcement to maintain the same moment capacity
effect the distribution.

3.3. Analysis procedure generally adopted


Slabs of this type are generally analysed as simply supported and no note
would be taken of lateral restraints, continuity, additional stiffness of edge beams
etc.
In order to determine the effective width, BS8110-1:1997 is generally
adopted by making use of clause 3.5.2.2, namely Eqn 2.1 in this study. This
equation provides the effective width of a point load, but a line load can be taken
as a series of point loads adjacent to each other. In order to interpret this clause

University of Surrey

Msc Structural Engineering

Page 28

Models to be Analysed

local engineering offices will initially calculate the area bound by the parabola
given by Eqn 2.1, which can be seen in Figure 12 below.

6100

18100

Figure 12 - Parabolic distribution of load to BS8110:1-1997

Once this is known the area bound by the parabola is generally divided by
the length of the wall and this will provide an average width, which is always less
than the maximum allowed by the code at the mid length of the wall. But such an
approach can provide a width greater than that allowed by the code at points near
to the support as can be seen in Figure 13 below. Local engineering offices argue
that as the supports are approached, moments will be drastically reduced and
hence this approach will not create any problems. The width established by this
manner will then be used for analysis and design for both flexure and shear.
Sections will be analysed and designed as wide beams and any other three
dimensional factors inherent to the slab will not be considered.
Torsion within the slab is generally ignored. This is most probably due to
the fact that BS8110-1-1997, makes no mention of torsion anywhere within this
clause.

The same can be said for shear but it is felt that shear failure and

provision of reinforcement for such a failure can be easily envisaged.

With

regards to torsion it is felt that although reinforcement can actually be provided


similarly as for beams, its failure pattern in slabs is not fully understood. There is
also the belief that by adopting a slab analysis which does not take into
University of Surrey

Msc Structural Engineering

Page 29

Models to be Analysed

consideration torsion, will provide a conservative design, since the torsional


rigidity of the slab would actually distribute the load even further.

18100

6100

Hatched area shows


the equivalent area of
the parabolic distribution

Figure 13 - Equivalent distribution

3.4. Methods of analysis


Through the research carried out for this dissertation it is evident that a
number of different methods of analysis exist in order to determine the spread of
design loads on slabs. Some are presented as empirical methods in codes of
practice such as the one explained in the above section, whilst others vary in
complexity and validity of results.

Those methods which are based on plate

theory can be further divided into two main categories, the upper bound solutions
and the lower bound solutions.
The upper bound solutions better known as the yield line theory allow the
engineer to determine the moments by assuming a failure pattern for the slab
(yield line pattern), and then through the application of a displacement allow the
calculations of the rotations through normal geometry. Once these are known the
work done by the loading is equated to the energy dissipated by the slab. Hence
the applied moment is found. It is imperative that for this system the yield line

University of Surrey

Msc Structural Engineering

Page 30

Models to be Analysed

pattern requiring the least work is found since it will be the first yield line pattern to
form. The three basic requirements for using this theory are listed below:
a the system must obey all the criteria of plastic flow and the
boundary conditions of movement;
b in steel plates, or in the reinforcement of slabs the condition of
incompressibility must be satisfied;
c the work done by external loads must equal the internal work
dissipated.
Lower bound solutions are best represented by the Hillerborg strip method.
This method allows the engineer to select the moment distribution that he wishes,
provided that this pattern satisfies the slab equilibrium equation. It is therefore
permissible to put MXY = 0 throughout the slab. This lower bound approach is the
one adopted in the majority of design codes when calculating moments in slabs
and considers the slab to be a series of connected strips without the capability of
transferring load form one strip to another. The above theory holds as long as the
following conditions are satisfied:
a the equilibrium equations for each small element of the slab are
satisfied;
b the stress field must be compatible with the specified boundary
conditions;
c the yield criterion must no where be exceeded and not just on the
supposed yield lines.

University of Surrey

Msc Structural Engineering

Page 31

Models to be Analysed

3.5. Selecting method of analysis


In view of the fact that the aim of the dissertation is to investigate the
distribution of load transfer throughout slabs in the elastic range of the material, it
was decided that the method selected should be based on a lower bound
approach similarly to the codes of practice. Two methods were considered for
analysing the structure under consideration. The first was by modelling the slab
as a grillage which would then be input into an analysis computer package as a
series of beam elements and analysed accordingly. The second scenario would
involve modelling of the slab as a plate by using proprietary plate elements of a
finite elements package.
Previous research was consulted on the matter, namely the book

by

Hambly, and the paper written by Stuart (Hambly E.C, 1976, Stuart et al, 2004).
The former mentions both types of analysis but it is mostly referred to in view of
the guidelines it gives for grillage analysis. In this type of analysis the slab is
basically divided into a series of longitudinal and transverse beams connected at
the various intersections. Each beam will represent a portion of the slab and will
have properties relating to stiffness and torsion identical to that portion of the slab
that it represents.

In an idealized solution the moments, shears, torsion and

deflections of the grillage would be identical to that of the real slab. As true as the
grillage can be to the original slab, it is still different in a very basic way, since it is
transforming a plate into a series of beams with lumped properties with the
capability of transferring forces and moments at the intersections only.

The

discrepancy can be seen by looking at the torsion on a small element. Within the
solid slab the orthogonal torques are equal, whilst within the grillage these are not.
Also the moment of any beam, like that within the grillage, depends on its
curvature, whilst in a slab this depends on the curvature in the two orthogonal
directions. Notwithstanding these discrepancies the simulation of a slab as a
grillage has given sufficiently accurate results and specialised software has been

University of Surrey

Msc Structural Engineering

Page 32

Models to be Analysed

formulated to analyse bridge decks by making use of this analogy. This work,
concludes that the grillage analysis is much more convenient than the finite
element methods for various reasons such as:
a finite element method is cumbersome and expensive;
b the choice of element type can be extremely critical, and selection of
an incorrect element can result in far more inaccurate results than
those predicted by other methods such as the grillage;
c one must keep in mind at this stage that this book was written in
1976 when finite elements were still in their infancy and also
processing power was very limited. But this text clearly defines
certain parameters which are important when using finite elements,
which demand that the person building the model has a substantial
understanding and background in the subject of finite elements.
The work by Stuart which was published in 2004 makes a comparison
between the finite elements and the grillage analogy by using much more
advanced finite element programs and techniques than those that were available
when the book by Hambly was compiled (Stuart et al, 2004, Hambly E.C., 1976).
In the preparation for undertaking this study the authors were impressed by the
number of engineers still making use of the grillage analogy when one considers
the strides carried out in finite elements. The study then goes on to compare
three models, a square model supported on four sides, a rectangular model
supported on two sides, and a skew model, which were all loaded with a uniformly
distributed load. Of interest to this dissertation is definitely the rectangular model
which was analysed both as a grillage and as a plate. The results clearly indicate
that the finite element models tend to converge more to, what the authors call, the
series solution which is that defined by Timoshenko. ( Timoshenko S.P et al,1959)
Making the mesh finer for the grillage did not yield a more convergent solution. To
University of Surrey

Msc Structural Engineering

Page 33

Models to be Analysed

the contrary it was found that a very fine mesh could actually diverge the result.
Two main points from this study relate to the deflection and to the Mxy moments.
With regards to the deflection it was noted that for a uniformly distributed load
throughout the slab, the deflection was constant at mid-span throughout the
whole width of the slab. This is not compatible to the exact solution, and also to
the plate analysed by finite elements which displayed a better convergence. With
regards to the Mxy moments for the grillage analysis, their value is zero for a
uniformly distributed load where in reality these should have a value, as indicated
by the series solution.
When considering all the above and comparing them to the objective of
this dissertation it was concluded that the grillage method will be adopted. This
decision was not only based on the previous text but also on the following points:
a Internal forces created by undertaking a grillage analysis are in
complete equilibrium with the external forces and although there
may be errors in relation to the distribution of forces, the structure
will still be safe. This is not the case with finite element analysis
where the internal forces are not necessarily in equilibrium with the
external applied load;
b Considerable experience is required in order to use finite element
analysis, especially with regards to selecting the best model in order
to approach convergence.

Although this maybe the case with

grillage analogy as well, the geometry of the slab under


consideration coupled with the experience in using grillage analogy
is such that the selection of the module size of the grillage will be
quite straight forward;
c The aim of this study is to investigate the distribution of load when
the reinforcement is still in the elastic range but the concrete has
University of Surrey

Msc Structural Engineering

Page 34

Models to be Analysed

cracked in tension.

Finite element analysis would definitely be

required if the study was to look at what is happening in the slab


following initiation of yielding of the reinforcement.

3.6. Analysis package adopted


The author of this study has had experience with various packages such
as, Microstran, Lusas, Strauss, but in the recent years the one mostly used was
Strauss. It was therefore decided to make use of this package to analyse the
grillage which was constructed by making use of the inbuilt beam elements within
the same package. The version adopted was Strauss 7, release 2.2.5.

Figure 14 - Underside view of model showing supports

In order to construct the model the beam element of the software package
was utilised with nodes created at each intersection of the grillage.

University of Surrey

Msc Structural Engineering

Vertical

Page 35

Models to be Analysed

supports where located at the nodes to be supported whilst restraints against


global rotation were included at two corner nodes as indicated in Figure 14 above.

3.7. Section Properties


An important part of the input in the analysis programme is the section
properties of the members selected. Such properties include the area of the
section, the elastic modulus, the moment of inertia, the torosional constant, the
type of material and the strength of the material. The following is a description of
how each of these properties was selected or calculated.
a Area

Tthe area of each cross section is calculated by the

programme and based on the gross cross sectional area without


taking any notice of the reinforcement.
b

Material selection

The software adopted has an inbuilt

material library and concrete forms part of this library.


c Strength of material :

The material library also contains a list

of different strengths of concrete which commence from C25 up to


C40. Since locally the majority of structures adopt C30 concrete,
the one closest to this grade was selected. This was a C32.
d Modulus of elasticity :

It is a well known fact that the modulus

of elasticity of concrete varies according to its strength and also


varies from its long term to its short term value due to creep. For
grade 30 concrete the modulus utilised for C30 is in the region of
30,000 N/mm2. For this study it was decided to adopt the long term
value, and hence the short term value was divided by half to 15,000
N/mm2.

University of Surrey

Msc Structural Engineering

Page 36

Models to be Analysed

e Moment of inertia

Regarding

the

moment

of

inertia,

BS8110-1:19971, clause 2.5.2 specifies that three approaches are


acceptable. One can consider the concrete section alone, where
the moment of inertia is calculated solely on the concrete section
ignoring flexural cracking and reinforcement. Another approach is to
adopt the gross section, where the moment of inertia is calculated
by combining that of the complete concrete section together with all
the reinforcement, by making use of the modular ratio. The final
approach is to consider the transformed section, where the moment
of inertia is calculated considering the concrete only up to the depth
of the neutral axis and taking into consideration the reinforcement
present in the section by utilising the modular ratio. In view of the
fact that the study aims to look in to the possibility of varying the
ratio of main reinforcement to transverse reinforcement the moment
of inertia calculations had to be carried out in a way that takes note
of the cracked section together with the amount of reinforcement.
Therefore the calculations were done on the transformed cracked
section. The following set of equations where used to determine the
transformed section properties
IT
1 x 3
x d' 2
x
'
=
+

) + e (1 ) 2
(
)
(
e
3
bd
d d
d
3 d

Eqn 3.1

x
'd '
= ( + ' ) e + [( + ' ) 2 e 2 + 2(
+ ) e ]
d
d

Eqn 3.2

Where

University of Surrey

' =

Asc
bd

Eqn 3.3

Ast
bd

Eqn 3.4

Msc Structural Engineering

Page 37

Models to be Analysed

e =

Torsional constant

Es
EC

Eqn 3.5

: As stated in the previous sections the

torsional constant denoted by C, has various methods of


calculations.

One is recommended by BS8110-2:1985 which

provides an equation, which is reproduced in Eqn 3.6 below.


3
C = hmin
hmax

Eqn 3.6

In this equation is a coefficient depending on the ratio of the


overall depth divided by the members width. The quantity C is
equal to one half of the St. Venants torsional constant. But, this
method calculates the torsional constant based on the gross cross
sectional area and takes no consideration of cracking and
reinforcement quantities.

Another method which is found in the

book by Hambly E.C, 1976, provides another equation for true


orthotropic plates and which is reproduced in Eqn 3.7 below
Eqn 3.7

2 IxI y

This approach will calculate the torsional constant on the basis of


the moment of inertia and in view of the fact that the moment of
inertia has been calculated on the transformed section it was felt
that this approach is much more realistic.
g Poissons ratio

The effect of this ratio has already been

explained in Eqn 2.6. In all the papers researched there is an issue


as to what value this ratio should be during analysis.

It was

originally intended to set this value equal to zero in order to take a

University of Surrey

Msc Structural Engineering

Page 38

Models to be Analysed

conservative approach, since the lower the value the less the
flexural rigidity, but when one looks at Eqn 2.6, it is immediately
noted that its effect is minimal and hence it was decided that it
should be retained as recommended by the software namely 0.2.

3.8. Subdivision of elements


In order to select the basic size of the elements the book by Hambly E.C.,
1976, was consulted and certain basic criteria listed in the book were noted.
These included:
a consider action of how the engineer wants the structure to behave,
and place grillage beams coincident with lines of designed strength;
b consider action of how shear forces distribute within the prototype.
For example if the deck has a solid rectangular cross section,
torsion shear flows are along the external perimeter of the cross
section. The vertical shear flows at the edges are represented by
components of vertical shear forces in the edge grillage members.
For the prototype grillage to be as precise as possible, each grillage
member should be close to the resultant of the vertical shear flows
at the edge of the deck. For a solid slab this is about 0.3 times the
depth from the edge.
c The total number of longitudinal members can be anything from one
to twenty or so. There is little point in placing members closer than
2 to 3 times the slab depth since local dispersion of load within the
slab is not considered.

University of Surrey

Msc Structural Engineering

Page 39

Models to be Analysed

d The spacing of transverse members should be sufficiently small for


loads distributed along the longitudinal members to be represented
with reasonable accuracy by a number of point loads.
e The transverse to longitudinal spacing should be reasonably similar
to allow sensible statical distribution of loads.
In order to determine the most ideal element size a series of analysis was
undertaken on four different models, which had varying element sizes to
determine the variation in the member forces as the element size was increased.
Table 2 below indicates the element sizing of the models considered. Ideally to
check convergence one would first attain the exact solution but after going
through various text books the exact solution for a line load could not be attained.
It was therefore concluded that the models would be analysed and their results
compared to each other, with the assumption that as the value of the results for
different models come close, convergence would have been attained.
Table 2 Models analysed to select member size

Model
1
2
3
4

Longitudinal Spacing (m)

Transverse Spacing (m)

0.50

0.50

1.00

1.00

1.50

1.50

2.25

2.00

Figure 15 to Figure 18 show the geometric setup of each of these models, whilst
detailed results can be found in Appendix A. The models were analysed by using
the same analysis package used for the rest of the models, namely strauss 7
release 2.2.5.

University of Surrey

In relation to section properties the moments of inertia were

Msc Structural Engineering

Page 40

Models to be Analysed

calculated on the gross cross section and the torsional rigidity was calculated as
per Eqn 3.7. The load applied on the slabs was 300kN/m and it was applied at

500

500

500

500

6600

500

500

500

500

500

500

300

9600

500

500

500

500

500

500

500

500

500

500

500

500

500

500

500

500

500

300
400

500

150

150

300

400

400 500

500

500

500
300

400 500

500

500

500

500

500

500

500

500

500

500 400

150

the nodes.

150

400 500

500

500

500

500

500

500

500

500

500

500

500

500

500

500

500

500 400

300

9600

1500

6600

1500
1500

1000

650

650

1500

650

1000

1000

150

1000

1000

1000

1000

650

150

Figure 15 Selection of element size model 1

150

300

1000

1000

1000

1000

1000

1000

1000

1000

1000
400

300

150

650

1000

1000

1000

1000

1000

1000

1000

1000

650

Figure 16 Selection of element size model 2

University of Surrey

Msc Structural Engineering

Page 41

9600

1500

1500

6600

1500

1500

1500

900

300

150

Models to be Analysed

1500

900

150

150

900

900

1500

1500

1500

300

1500

1500

1500

1500

1500

1500

300
400

300

150

900

1500

1500

1500

1500

1500

900

300

9600

6600
1275

150

150

1150

1150

2000

2250

2000

2000

2000

2000

2000

1150

150

Figure 17 Selection of element size model 3

300

2250

2250

2250

2250

300
400

300

150

1275

2250

2250

2250

1275

Figure 18 Selection of element size model 4

University of Surrey

Msc Structural Engineering

Page 42

Models to be Analysed

Vertical Displacement
(mm)

Torque about Y (kNm/m)

Maximum shear along X


(kN)

Maximum moment
along X (kN/m/m)

Torque about X
(kNm/m)

Model

Maximum moment
along Y (kNm/m)

Maximum shear along Y


(kN)

Table 3 - Main results of models analysed for member selection size

202

252

55

140

125

60

1.1

202

262

57

158

125

70

1.0

199

180

40

92

83

57

1.0

224

168

34

93

72

59

1.1

Table 3 above shows the main results for the moments, shears and
torques acting on the members. As a general comment it is quite evident that the
results for model 1 and model 2 are much closer than for any other set of models.

Application of load on longitudinal members

Figure 19 - Location of load on model 1


University of Surrey

Msc Structural Engineering

Page 43

Models to be Analysed

Application of load on longitudinal members

Figure 20 - Location of load on model 2

The substantial difference between models 1 and 2 lies in the shear forces
along the y axis, the moments along the x axis and the torques about the y axis.
With regards to the shear forces the models where checked and it was found that
the reactions are in equilibrium with the applied loads. The difference in the shear
can be attributed to the fact that model 1 is being loaded on two longitudinal
members whilst model 2 is being loaded on one member only. This was due to
geometrical limitations of the model in order for the load to be applied centrally
and its effect can be seen in Figure 19 and Figure 20 above. The difference in the
moment along the x axis is also being attributed to the geometry of loading
especially when one considers that along the transverse direction model 2 has the
load distributed on two nodes whilst model 1 has the load only on one node. The
difference between torques is found in all models but one has to mention that the
using the criteria that orthogonal torques in slabs are to be equal model 1 and
model 2 are much nearer to this rule than models 3 and 4. Finally with regards to
vertical displacement all models exhibited approximately the same maximum
vertical displacement of 0.01m.
University of Surrey

Msc Structural Engineering

Page 44

500

500

500

500

500

6100

500

500

500

500

500

300

18100

500
300

400 500

500

500

500

500

500

500

500

500

500 400

150

Models to be Analysed

300

150

500

500

400 500

500

500

500

500

500

500

500

500

500

500

500

500

500

500

500

500

500

500

500

500

500

500

500

500

500

500

500

500

500

500

500

500

500

500

500

500

500

500

500

500

500

500

500

500

500

500

500

500

500

500

500

500

500

500

500

500

500

500

500

500

500

500

500

500

500

300

500 400

Figure 21 - Grillage scheme adopted

Although these results cannot be compared to the exact solution it is


evident that models 1 and 2 have results which are much more similar in
magnitude than models 3 and 4. Therefore considering the above together with
the fact that the transition in the member forces for model 1 is much more subtle
than that for models 2, 3, and 4, a grillage with a fine mesh of 0.50m by 0.50 m is
being adopted. Such a fine mesh will also aid interpretation of results in particular
areas of the slab, especially at mid span and adjacent to supports. Figure 21
above indicates how the slab will be split into members having dimensions of
0.50m long, 0.50m wide and 0.40m deep. The edge members will have the same
length and depth but will be 0.30m wide. Scaled drawings of the grillage can be
found in Appendix B for each model.

3.9. Applied Load


A one way spanning slab can be subjected to two basic types of
concentrated loads normally to its plane, a point load, such as that resulting from
a column and a line load which basically is a series of point loads next to each
other.

University of Surrey

Msc Structural Engineering

Page 45

Models to be Analysed

Edge Line load

6100

Central line load

Quarter line load

18100

9050
13550
17550

150
2750
150
2750

Level 3

Level 2

150
2750

Level 4

150
2750

Figure 22 - Location of line loads on models

Level 1

400

Transfer Slab Level


2000

2000

Figure 23 - Cross section utilised for load calculations

In view of the limited research available, it was concluded that three sets of
line loads will be investigated; one placed centrally, one placed at quarter and one
placed at the edge. These locations can be seen in Figure 22 . The line loads will

University of Surrey

Msc Structural Engineering

Page 46

Models to be Analysed

then be converted to point loads applied at the nodes of the grillage. Figure 23
shows a typical cross section through one of these walls which will be used for
calculating the applied loads.
Table 4 below shows the calculations of the loads for every floor by
considering the self weight of the wall, the weight of the finishes, the weight of the
contribution from the slabs and a residential live load.
Table 4 - Calculation of loads
Floors
Load Thickness Span
(kN/m2) (mm)
(m)

1
2
3
4
Height Density
(m) (kN/m3) (kN/m) (kN/m) (kN/m) (kN/m)

Slab

0.15

24

14.4

28.8

43.2

57.6

Finish

0.1

20

16

24

32

12

18

24

12.65

25.3

37.95

50.6

42.05

84.1 126.15 168.2

Live Load

1.5

Wall

4
0.23

2.75

20

Total Load
(KN/m)

The contributory area of the slabs is 4.00m according to the cross section
shown in Figure 23 above. It is to be noted that these loads are not factored
loads and the safety factors will be added by the software package when the
different load cases are created.

3.10. Interpretation of analysis


Once the analysis is complete it will provide the user with a set of results for
each load case combination. The output will include, moments and shears in the
x direction, moments and shears in the y direction, torques in both directions,

University of Surrey

Msc Structural Engineering

Page 47

Models to be Analysed

reactions and displacements. It is important that in order to achieve the best


result a plan is set out as to how these are to be interpreted.
With regards to moments and torques, a substantial amount of research
has been carried out in order to determine how this moment triad can be
converted into moments in two directions, which need not necessarily be
orthogonal. A renowned study on the matter is that carried out by Wood R.H,
1968. This study provides a series of equations by which one can input the three
moments of the moment triad and the result is two moments which have taken
into consideration the MXY moments. In view of the fact that it is the aim of this
study to investigate the interrelation between all internal loads, this method will not
be adopted and each moment will be looked at separately.
The results form the analysis package will be exported into a specifically
designed excel spreadsheet which will find the average at each node of all
moments, shears and torques since in grillage analysis the internal forces are
never continuous. Once this is complete the same spreadsheet will plot various
graphs for each load case combination which will then be utilised for the
explanation of the results.

University of Surrey

Msc Structural Engineering

Page 48

Results

Chapter 4.

Results

4.1. Comparison of model 1 to BS8110:1:1997


As previously explained the aim of the first phase of the study is to
compare the effective width of a slab as calculated according to BS8110-1:1997
to the lateral distribution pattern derived from a grillage analysis. Figure 24, Figure
25, and Figure 26 below show the calculation of the effective width according to
BS8110-1:1997, for a central line load, for a line load placed at the quarter of the
transverse span and for an edge line load respectively.

6100

18100

3890

9050

6100

Figure 24 Eff. width for central line load according to BS 8110-1:1997

3890

13550

Figure 25 - Eff. width for quarter line load according to BS8110-1:1997

University of Surrey

Msc Structural Engineering

Page 49

Results

6100

18100

2495

17550

Figure 26 - Eff. width for edge line load according to BS8110-1:1997

An analysis superimposing all three loads acting simultaneously was also


undertaken to establish how stresses interact under such a condition. Figure 27
below shows the combination of all loads acting simultaneously.

6100

18100

3890

3890

2495

Figure 27 - Eff. width for conbination of line loads accoridng to BS8110-1:1997

Once these effective widths where calculated the section was designed for
bending according to the design rules of BS8110-1:1997, through an excel
spreadsheet which was prepared by the author. The full design of the slabs can
be found in appendix B1. The slab was designed to resist a uniformly distributed
load equivalent to four floors, with an unfactored value of 168.2kN/m.

The

calculation of this value can be found in Table 4 in chapter 3. From the design
calculations to BS8110-1:1997 it is evident that in order to produce a resisting
moment capable of resisting the applied moment the reinforcement as indicated
in Table 5 below needs to be provided. The calculations do not indicate that
compression reinforcement is required.

University of Surrey

Msc Structural Engineering

Page 50

Results
Table 5 - Reinforcement as designed to BS8110-1:1997
Loading

Main reinforcement

Trans. Reinforcement

Central Line load

1T20 @ 100mm c.c

1T8 @ 100mm c.c

Quarter line load

1T20 @ 100mm c.c

1T8 @ 100mm c.c

Edge Line load

1T25 @ 125mm c.c

1T8 @ 100mm c.c

Following these calculations the grillage members where numbered as


indicated in Figure 28 below and the section properties for each member were
calculated on a spreadsheet which can be found in appendices B1-B12 for each
respective model.

11

13

15

17

19

21

23

25

27

29

31

33

35

37

18100

13
12
11
10
9
6100

8
7

6
5
4
3
2
Y

1
2

10

12

14

16

18

20

22

24

26

28

30

32

34

36

Figure 28 - Numbering of grillage members

For model 1 the transformed section properties were initially calculated on


the reinforcement values of Table 5 above, but after carrying out some preliminary
runs with the analysis package, it was evident that lateral distribution was
substantially greater than that allowed by the standard and hence the maximum
applied moment was substantially less.
Table 6 - Load case combinations
Load case combination

Load position

Central Line load

Quarter Line Load

Edge Line Load

Central + Quarter + Edge Line Load

University of Surrey

Msc Structural Engineering

Page 51

Results
Hence the amount of reinforcement indicated in Table 5 above was
excessive, and it was decided that this should be reduced to 1T16 at 100mm
centre to centre in the main direction. Similarly to the designs carried out by
BS8110-1:1997 top reinforcement was not provided in model 1. The new section
properties were calculated to take into consideration the new reinforcement
layout. Each model had four load case combinations which can be seen in Table
6 above.
Figure 29 below shows the moments along the main members for model 1
when the central line load only is applied. From this figure it is clear that the
moment has reduced from 160kNm, as calculated according to British standard
distribution, to approximately 120kNm. This implies a reduction of approximately
25% in the moment.

Figure 29 Model 1 Central load - Moments in main members

Careful investigation of Figure 29 shows that a part from the expected


sagging moments two hogging moments have resulted at the supports exactly

University of Surrey

Msc Structural Engineering

Page 52

Results
beneath the line load. These are in the region of 15kNm and further analysis was
carried out in order to determine the cause of their presence. It was noted that
these moments were no longer present when the analysis undertaken included
releasing the torsional rigidities of the transverse members. It was thus concluded
that these moments where the effect of having torsional rigidities in the transverse
members which are restraining the slab at the support from rotating the amount
required to eliminate these moments. This model clearly indicates that in such
slabs top reinforcement along the support is definitely required.

Mid Transverse span against moment

4.5

13.5

18

Mid Mx moment (KNm)

-20
-40
-60
-80
-100
-120
-140
-160
-180

Transverse span (m)

Mid central moments as analysed

Mid central moments as per BS8110:Pt1:1997

Figure 30 - Model 1 - Central load - Mid span bending moments of main memebrs

Figure 30 above shows the mid span moment of each main beam. The
blue curve is the moment derived form the analysis whilst the purple curve depicts
the moments according to BS8110-1:1997. It is evident that the actual distribution
as derived form the grillage analysis is much smoother than that assumed by the
code.

The maximum effective width allowed by the code of practice for full

distribution is 3890mm but it is clear that upto a width of 6000mm the moment
applied is still 50% of the maximum moment indicating a substantial amount of
distribution

University of Surrey

Msc Structural Engineering

Page 53

Results
To analyse further the results the sagging moment at each intersection of
the grillage was extracted and the reinforcement required to resist the moment
was compared to the reinforcement provided when the section properties were
calculated.

Figure 31 shows a contour map indicating how much of the

reinforcement provided has actually been used in order to resist the applied
moment. At the area exactly beneath the centre of the load approximately 85% of
the provided T16 reinforcement is being utilised hence indicating that the decision
to reduce the 1T20 at 100mm centre to centre in the main direction to 1T16 at
100mm centre to centre was justified.

% Usage of reinfocement for moment along Y - Sagging (%)

S11
S9
S7
S5
S3

Transverse beams

S13

37

35

33

31

29

27

25

23

21

19

17

15

13

11

S1

Main beams
+Y
+X
+Z
0-10

10-20

20-30

30-40

40-50

50-60

60-70

70-80

80-90

Figure 31 - Model 1 - Central load - % usage of reinforcement along Y

Along the transverse direction the applied sagging moments were also
extracted and the area of reinforcement required was compared to that provided.
Figure 32 shows the percentage of reinforcement being utilised to resist the
applied moment in this direction. It is clear that the amount of reinforcement
provided is not sufficient and in cases the area required is approximately 150% of
that being provided. This implies that in this case the minimum percentage of

University of Surrey

Msc Structural Engineering

Page 54

Results
0.13%, as stipulated in BS8110-1:1997 is not sufficient. In the transverse direction
it was also noted that hogging moments are created in the regions exactly
adjacent to the line loads.

% Usage of reinforcement along X - Sagging (%)

S11
S9
S7
S5
S3

Transverse beams

S13

37

35

33

31

29

27

25

23

21

19

17

15

13

11

S1

Main beams
+Y
+X
+Z

0-25

25-50

50-75

75-100

100-125

125-150

Figure 32 - Model 1 - Central load - % usage of reinforcement along X

These can be seen in Figure 33 below and it is therefore clear that some
form of top reinforcement is required throughout the whole slab, even though
these moments are nominal. For this reason it was decided that all the remaining
models to be analysed would include 1A503 mesh reinforcement which is
equivalent to 1T8 at 100mm centre to centre in both directions.

University of Surrey

Msc Structural Engineering

Page 55

Results
Hogging bending moments along X (kNm)

S11
S9
S7
S5
S3

Transverse beams

S13

37

35

33

31

29

27

25

23

21

19

17

15

13

11

S1

Main beams
+Y
+X
+Z
-8--6

-6--4

-4--2

-2-0

Figure 33 - Model 1 - Central load - Hogging moment along X

The shear forces at each intersection of the grillage were also extracted
both in the main direction and in the transverse direction. The shear capacity of
the section was calculated according to BS8110-1:1997 and the applied stresses
were then compared to this resistive stress. Figure 34 below shows the applied
stress as a percentage of the resistive stress in relation to the main beams. It is
clear that in the region of the supports exactly beneath the load the shear capacity
of the section has been exceeded by approximately 275%. The applied stresses
exceed the allowable stress within a radius of 2.00m form the support. It must be
stressed that although the shear stress has been exceeded the punching shear
capacity of the slab has not yet been surpassed.

University of Surrey

Msc Structural Engineering

Page 56

Results

Applied shear stress along Y as a % of shear resistance vc (%)

S11
S9
S7
S5
S3

Transverse beams

S13

37

35

33

31

29

27

25

23

21

19

17

15

13

11

S1

Main beams
+Y
+X
+Z
0-25

25-50

50-75

75-100

100-125

125-150

150-175

175-200

200-225

225-250

250-275

Figure 34 - Model 1 - Central load - Applied shear stress as % of shear resistance along Y
Support transverse span against reaction

4.5

13.5

18

200
180
160

Reaction (KN)

140
120
100
80
60
40
20
0

Support span (m)

Reactions along support transverse span as analysed

Reactions along support transverse span as designed

Figure 35 - Model 1 - Central load Reactions

The distribution of shear stresses also indicates that distribution of the


reaction is not similar to the distribution of the moment. For this reason a section

University of Surrey

Msc Structural Engineering

Page 57

Results
along the support was taken and the reactions at each node were plotted,
together with the reaction distribution as assumed by the majority of design
offices in Malta. It must be stated that BS8110-1:1997 makes no mention about
the distribution of reactions. This chart is reproduced in Figure 35, where it can
clearly be seen that that the reaction is not well distributed and at 1.0m away from
the load the reaction has already reduced from 175kN beneath the wall to 75kN.

Applied shear stress along Y as a % of shear resistance vc (%)

S11
S9
S7
S5
S3

Transverse beams

S13

37

35

33

31

29

27

25

23

21

19

17

15

13

11

S1

Main beams
+Y
+X
+Z
0-25

25-50

50-75

75-100

100-125

125-150

150-175

Figure 36 - Model 1 - Central load - Applied shear stress as % of shear resistance along X

With regards to shear values along the transverse members the shear
stresses were compared to the shear capacity of the section. This can be seen in
Figure 36 below. Similarly to the shear stresses in the main members, the shear
stress is exceeded upto a maximum of 175%. This is along the length of the wall,
and it must also be noted that the punching shear resistance has not been
exceeded. This figure also indicates a high level of stresses along the edge
transverse member. On further investigation it was noted that these are the result
of the torques in the main members which are released as moments in the edge
transverse member, which in turn creates a shear force.

University of Surrey

Msc Structural Engineering

Page 58

Results

Maximum horizontal shear stresses due to torsion (N/mm 2)

S11
S9
S7
S5
S3

Transverse beams

S13

37

35

33

31

29

27

25

23

21

19

17

15

13

11

S1

Main beams
+Y
+X
+Z
0-0.5

0.5-1

1-1.5

1.5-2

Figure 37 - Model 1 - Central load - Torsional stresses resulting form applied load

The next item to be investigated was the torsion which resulted from the
load and which was believed to play an important role in the actual load
distribution.

Figure 37 shows the horizontal torsional stresses and their

distribution. It is clear that the maximum torsional stress is located about 0.50m
form the supporting edge and 1.00m form the line load. Since the distribution of
the torsional stresses could not be explained, their location and shape had to be
verified.
This was achieved by modelling a steel plate under the effect of a line load
similar to the one being applied on the grillage. Support conditions, aspect ratio
and load location were identical to those in the grillage. The model was analysed
by the same computer package and a similar pattern to that in Figure 37 resulted.
The result is reproduced in Figure 38 below.

University of Surrey

Msc Structural Engineering

Page 59

Results

Figure 38 - Mxy stresses in steel plate subjected to line load

With regards to the loading positioned at quarter transverse span the


results were very similar to the results obtained when the load was placed
centrally. The maximum moment in the main members is also identical to when
the load was placed centrally.

The only noticeable difference was that the

distribution was no longer symmetrical in view of the fact that on one side, the
load was relatively closer to the edge. Figure 39 above shows the distribution of
the moment along the main members, and what is of interest is that the portion of
distribution between 50% - 75% is larger on the side nearer to the edge than on
the other side. This was further corroborated by looking at Figure 40 below, which
plots the maximum mid span moments of the main beams against the transverse
span. In this chart it is evident that the chart derived form the analysis is slightly
unbalanced and tends to distribute load more on the side of the unsupported
edge.

University of Surrey

Msc Structural Engineering

Page 60

Results

Sagging bending moments along Y (kNm)

S11
S9
S7
S5
S3

Transverse beams

S13

37

35

33

31

29

27

25

23

21

19

17

15

13

11

S1
Main beams

+Y
+X
+Z

0-25

25-50

50-75

75-100

100-125

Figure 39 - Model 1 - Quarter load Moments along Y


Mid Transverse span against moment

4.5

13.5

18

Mid Mx moment (KNm)

-20
-40
-60
-80
-100
-120
-140
-160
-180

Transverse span (m)

Mid central moments as analysed

Mid central moments as per BS8110:Pt1:1997

Figure 40 - Model 1 - Quarter load - Mid span bending moments of main memebrs

University of Surrey

Msc Structural Engineering

Page 61

Results

Support transverse span against reaction

4.5

13.5

18

200
180
160

Reaction (KN)

140
120
100
80
60
40
20
0

Support span (m)

Reactions along support transverse span as analysed

Reactions along support transverse span as designed

Figure 41 - Model 1 - Quarter load Reactions

As expected this tendency is repeated throughout this load combination,


since even the shear force and reaction tend to distribute more on the side nearer
to the edge. The distribution of the reaction can be seen in Figure 41 above.
After having observed this tendency it was expected that the torsional
shear stresses on the side nearer to the edge would be higher since the
distribution was greater.

To the contrary it was observed that the torsional

stresses are actually less on the side of the edge than on the other side. Figure
42 below shows the distribution of these torsional stresses and how theses are
approximately 25% less on the side nearer to the edge. The only plausible reason
as to why this happens is due to the fact that as the load nears the edge the
deflection tends to increase and hence the more the slab deflects the more it is
capable of distributing load. On inspecting the defection values of the slab this
theory was confirmed since on the side nearer to the edge the slab has deflected
more. This may also be due to the fact that the edge member is less wide than
the other members and hence has a smaller stiffness with the tendency to deflect
more than the other members.
University of Surrey

Msc Structural Engineering

Page 62

Results

Maximum horizontal shear stresses due to torsion (N/mm 2)

S11
S9
S7
S5
S3

Transverse beams

S13

37

35

33

31

29

27

25

23

21

19

17

15

13

11

S1

Main beams
+Y
+X
+Z
0-0.5

0.5-1

1-1.5

1.5-2

Figure 42 - Model 1 - Quarter load - Torsional stresses resulting form applied load

With regards to moments in the transverse members these are very similar
to the moments experienced when the load was placed centrally with the only
difference being that the hogging moments are not perfectly symmetrical.
When the load is applied at the edge the results obtained portray a
completely different story to the cases mentioned above. The moment according
to the code of practice is in the region of 250kNm and that obtained from the
grillage analysis is in the region of 225kNm with a marginal reduction of 10%.
Figure 43 below shows the moment distribution contours for this load case
combination. The moment capacity of the slab has been surpassed and the
reinforcement provided is not sufficient to resist this moment.

This clearly

indicates the need to stiffen unsupported edges of such slabs especially when
loads are applied in close proximity to these free edges.

University of Surrey

Msc Structural Engineering

Page 63

Results
Sagging bending moments along Y (kNm)

S13
Transverse beams

S11
S9
S7
S5
S3
37

35

33

31

29

27

25

23

21

19

17

15

13

11

S1
Main beams

+Y
+X
+Z

0-25

25-50

50-75

75-100

100-125

125-150

150-175

175-200

200-225

Figure 43 - Model 1 - Edge load - Moments along Y


Mid Transverse span against moment

4.5

13.5

18

Mid Mx moment (KNm)

-50

-100

-150

-200

-250

-300

Transverse span (m)

Mid central moments as analysed

Mid central moments as per BS8110:Pt1:1997

Figure 44 - Model 1 - Edge load - Mid span bending moments of main memebrs

Figure 44 above, shows the mid span moments in the main members
plotted against the transverse span. The sharp reduction in moment at the edge

University of Surrey

Msc Structural Engineering

Page 64

Results
member is due to the reduced flexural stiffness of this member and hence its
lesser capability of attracting load.
With regards to transverse moments this load case combination produces
smaller moments to the effect that the transverse reinforcement provided is
sufficient to resist the applied transverse moment.
Shear distribution in both directions, main and transverse, is very similar to
the other two load case combinations, with stresses at the support and in the
vicinity of the load reaching 250% to 300% of the resistive shear stress.

Maximum horizontal shear stresses due to torsion (N/mm 2)

S11
S9
S7
S5
S3

Transverse beams

S13

37

35

33

31

29

27

25

23

21

19

17

15

13

11

S1

Main beams
+Y
+X
+Z
0-0.5

0.5-1

1-1.5

1.5-2

2-2.5

2.5-3

3-3.5

Figure 45 - Model 1 - Edge loading - Torsional stresses resulting form applied load

With regards to torsional shear stresses these are substantially higher than
those produced in the other two cases as can be seen in Figure 45 above. The
reason for this drastic increase is not clear especially when one considers that
lateral distribution has been drastically reduced. However the maximum torsional
stress still occurs in the region located approximately 0.50m from the support and
1.00m from the line load.
University of Surrey

Msc Structural Engineering

Page 65

Results

Mid Transverse span against moment

4.5

13.5

18

Mid Mx moment (KNm)

-50

-100

-150

-200

-250

-300

Transverse span (m)

Mid central moments as analysed

Mid central moments as per BS8110:Pt1:1997

Figure 46 - Model 1 - 3 loads - Mid span bending moments of main memebrs

The last load case combination for model 1 involved the three line loads
acting simultaneously. As expected, the moments applied in the main members
and the transverse members are the summation of all the individual load cases as
can be seen in Figure 46 above for the mid span moments of the main members
and in Figure 47 below for the reactions. The same can be said for the shear in
both directions, but when it comes to torsion, although the end result is a
summation of the individual load case combination, there are some cases where
such summations have led to a reduction in the torsional stresses. This can be
seen in Figure 48 below.
As indicated in Figure 48, the torsional stresses in main members 15 and
17 have increased. Between main beams 19 to 33 the torsional stresses have
reduced significantly. Along beam 35 the torsional stresses have once again
increased.

University of Surrey

Msc Structural Engineering

Page 66

Results

Support transverse span against reaction

4.5

13.5

18

250

Reaction (KN)

200

150

100

50

Support span (m)

Reactions along support transverse span as analysed

Reactions along support transverse span as designed

Figure 47 - Model 1 - 3 loads - Reactions


Maximum horizontal shear stresses due to torsion (N/mm2)

S11
S9
S7
S5
S3

Transverse beams

S13

37

35

33

31

29

27

25

23

21

19

17

15

13

11

S1

Main beams
+Y
+X
+Z
0-0.5

0.5-1

1-1.5

1.5-2

2-2.5

2.5-3

Figure 48 - Model 1 - 3 loads - Torsional stresses resulting form applied load

University of Surrey

Msc Structural Engineering

Page 67

Results

4.2. Set 1 Varying percentage of transverse reinforcement


As explained previously in chapter 3, models 1 to 4 had to be compared to
each other to determine the effect that varying the transverse reinforcement would
have on lateral load distribution. For this reason the percentage of the transverse
reinforcement was varied form 0.13% in model 1, to 0.50% in model 2, to 1.00% in
model 3, to 1.50% in model 4. Another difference between model 1 and models
2, 3 and 4 is that one A503 reinforcement mesh has been introduced at the top of
models 2, 3 and 4 to cater for the hogging moments which were experienced in
model 1 and which were discussed above.
Figure 49 below shows the lateral distribution of moments for the central
line load case. It is evident that as the percentage of transverse reinforcement is
increased the slab is capable of distributing the load much more effectively. One
can also notice that as the percentage goes up from 0.13% to 0.50% the moment
reduces from 120kNm to approximately 90kNm, a reduction of 25%. Comparing
the moment of model 2 to the moment acquired by using BS8110-1:1997 the
reduction is in the region of 45%. But, lateral distribution of moment is not linearly
proportional to the addition of reinforcement. To the contrary the rate of increase
in lateral distribution becomes less as the percentage of transverse reinforcement
is increased. This therefore implies that there is a limit where increasing the
percentage of transverse reinforcement will have a minimal effect on the lateral
distribution of moments.
The increase in reinforcement in the transverse direction effects the section
properties namely, the flexural stiffness and the torsional rigidity. In view of this
the slab is capable of distributing more load and it was thus expected that the
torsional stresses would increase. On inspection it was noted that the torsional
stress does not increase in magnitude but it is spread over a larger area. Figure
50 below shows the torsional stress distribution for model 4 (0.50%M : 1.50%T)
and it can be clearly seen that the torsional stresses are spread over the entire

University of Surrey

Msc Structural Engineering

Page 68

Results
width of the slab but the maximum magnitude is still identical to the torsional
stress in model 1 (0.50%M : 0.13%T).

Mid Transverse span against moment

4.5

13.5

18

Mid Mx moment (KNm)

-20
-40
-60
-80
-100
-120
-140
-160
-180

Transverse span (m)


Moment distribution to BS8110:1:1997

Moment distribution model 1 - 0.50%M : 0.13%T

Moment distribution model 2 - 0.50%M : 0.50%T

Moment distribution model 3 - 0.50%M : 1.00%T

Moment distribution model 4 - 0.50%M : 1.50%T

Figure 49 - Model 1-4 - Central load - Mid span bending moments of main memebrs
Maximum horizontal shear stresses due to torsion (N/mm 2)

S11
S9
S7
S5
S3

Transverse beams

S13

37

35

33

31

29

27

25

23

21

19

17

15

13

11

S1

Main beams
+Y
+X
+Z
0-0.5

0.5-1

1-1.5

1.5-2

Figure 50 - Model 4 - Central load - Torsional stresses resulting form applied load
University of Surrey

Msc Structural Engineering

Page 69

Results
The increase in lateral distribution of moment along the main members as
the percentage of transverse reinforcement is increased has an effect on the
moments in the transverse members which from a maximum of 50kNm in model 1
(0.50%M : 0.13%T) increase to 90kNM in model 4 (0.50%M : 1.50%T).

Transverse span against reaction

4.5

13.5

18

200
180
160

Reaction (kN)

140
120
100
80
60
40
20
0

Transverse span (m)


Distribution of reaction as designed

Distribution of reaction model 1 - 0.50%M : 0.13%T

Distribution of reaction model 2 - 0.50%M : 0.50%T

Distribution of reaction model 3 - 0.50%M : 1.00%T

Distribution of reaction model 4 - 0.50%M : 1.50%T

Figure 51 - Models 1-4 - Central load - Reactions

The distribution of the reactions was also studied to determine if increasing


the percentage of transverse reinforcement has an effect on the distribution
pattern. Figure 71 above shows the distribution of the reaction for models 1, 2, 3
and 4. From this figure it is evident that varying the percentage of transverse
reinforcement does have an effect on reaction distribution and it can be stated
that this effect is similar to that experienced in the distribution of moments along
the main members. Such a reduction will obviously effect the shear forces and in
turn the shear stresses. As previously explained the allowable shear stress along
the main members in model 1 (0.50%M : 0.13%T) was exceeded by 275% whilst
in model 4 (0.50%M : 1.50%T) this was only exceeded by 125%. Similarly along

University of Surrey

Msc Structural Engineering

Page 70

Results
the transverse members the allowable shear stress in model 1 (0.50%M :0.13%)
was exceeded by 175% but in model 2 (0.50%M : 0.50%T) this was equal to 100%
indicating that this slight increase in transverse reinforcement percentage was
sufficient to enhance the distribution of the shear stresses and at the same time
increase the shear resistance.
When the load is applied at the quarter of the transverse span the end
result on distribution is very similar to when the load is applied at the central
position.

The only difference between the two, and which has already been

explained in model 1 above, is that the distribution of the load is no longer


symmetrical but tends to increase on the side of the load nearer to the edge. This
can be seen in Figure 52 below. One can appreciate that as the transverse
reinforcement is increased the distribution on the side of the free edge increases
drastically and there is no substantial difference in the rate of increase between
0.50%, 1.00% or 1.50% transverse reinforcement. The same effect occurs in
relation to the distribution of the reactions.

Mid Transverse span against moment

4.5

13.5

18

Mid Mx moment (KNm)

-20
-40
-60
-80
-100
-120
-140
-160
-180

Transverse span (m)


Moment distribution to BS8110:1:1997

Moment distribution model 1 - 0.50%M : 0.13%T

Moment distribution model 2 - 0.50%M : 0.50%T

Moment distribution model 3 - 0.50%M : 1.00%T

Moment distribution model 4 - 0.50%M : 1.50%T

Figure 52 - Models 1-4 - Quarter load - Mid span bending moments of main members

University of Surrey

Msc Structural Engineering

Page 71

Results
With regards to shear stresses the same pattern explained above for the
moment has been repeated. With an increase in the transverse reinforcement the
applied shear stresses have reduced and also the shear capacity has increased
but the shear force still exceeds the shear resistance by 175% when the
transverse reinforcement percentage is 1.50%.
Torsional stresses are also very similar to when the load was applied
centrally, that is, there is a larger dispersion of stresses, but the magnitude of the
maximum stress does not vary between the 0.13% transverse reinforcement and
the 1.50% transverse reinforcement.
When the load is applied at the edge the lateral distribution of the moment
is very similar to the previous two cases as can be seen in Figure 53 below.

Mid Transverse span against moment

4.5

13.5

18

Mid Mx moment (KNm)

-50

-100

-150

-200

-250

-300

Transverse span (m)


Moment distribution to BS8110:1:1997

Moment distribution model 1 - 0.50%M : 0.13%T

Moment distribution model 2 - 0.50%M : 0.50%T

Moment distribution model 3 - 0.50%M : 1.00%T

Moment distribution model 4 - 0.50%M : 1.50%T

Figure 53 - Models 1-4 - Edge loading - Mid span bending moments of main members

Distribution of the reaction is as shown in Figure 54 below. It is clearly


evident that increasing the percentage of transverse reinforcement has little or no
effect on the distribution of the reaction. The maximum value of the reaction in all
University of Surrey

Msc Structural Engineering

Page 72

Results
models is equal to when the percentage of transverse reinforcement is 0.13%.
This indirectly implies that the shear forces along the main members do not vary.
The same can be said for the shear forces along the transverse members.
With regards to torsional stresses, and similarly to other cases the
distribution of the torsional stresses is over a larger area, but contrary to the other
cases investigated so far the magnitude of the maximum torsional stress
increases as the percentage of transverse reinforcement is increased. The reason
for this could not be traced but it is most likely due to the application of the load in
close proximity to the edge.

Transverse span against reaction

4.5

13.5

18

250

Reaction (kN)

200

150

100

50

Transverse span (m)


Distribution of reaction as designed

Distribution of reaction model 1 - 0.50%M : 0.13%T

Distribution of reaction model 2 - 0.50%M : 0.50%T

Distribution of reaction model 3 - 0.50%M : 1.00%T

Distribution of reaction model 4 - 0.50%M : 1.50%T

Figure 54 - models 1-4 - Central - Reactions

The final load case to be investigated is when all the loads are applied
simultaneously. Figure 55 below shows the distribution of the moments for such a
case.

It is interesting to note that as the percentage of the transverse

reinforcement is increased from 0.13% to 0.50% the moment distributes laterally


and the moment beneath the central line load reduces. Similarly for the edge
University of Surrey

Msc Structural Engineering

Page 73

Results
load, but for the quarter load there is no difference in the moment which is due to
the fact that the central line load and the edge line load have distributed to the
area beneath the quarter load. What was also noted is the fact that between the
0.50% transverse reinforcement and the 1.50% transverse reinforcement there is
basically no difference between the magnitude of the applied moment.

Mid Transverse span against moment

4.5

13.5

18

Mid Mx moment (KNm)

-50

-100

-150

-200

-250

-300

Transverse span (m)


Moment distribution to BS8110:1:1997

Moment distribution model 1 - 0.50%M : 0.13%T

Moment distribution model 2 - 0.50%M : 0.50%T

Moment distribution model 3 - 0.50%M : 1.00%T

Moment distribution model 4 - 0.50%M : 1.50%T

Figure 55 - Models 1-4 - 3 loads - Mid span bending moments of main members

With regards to the distribution of reactions the result is very similar to the
individual cases but one must note that there is an increase in the reaction of the
quarter line load due to the distribution from the central line load and the edge line
load. The distribution of the reactions can be seen in Figure 59 below.
Distribution of shear stresses is very similar to the individual load case
combinations, with the shear stress reaching a maximum beneath the edge line
load. Torsional stresses vary form the individual load case combinations due to
the fact that in certain cases the summation of the torsional stresses actually

University of Surrey

Msc Structural Engineering

Page 74

Results
reduces the stress due to the fact that the original individual load case stresses
have a different direction and hence cancel each other out.

Transverse span against reaction

4.5

13.5

18

250

Reactions (kN)

200

150

100

50

Transverse span (m)


Distribution of reaction as designed

Distribution of reaction model 1 - 0.50%M : 0.13%T

Distribution of reaction model 2 - 0.50%M : 0.50%T

Distribution of reaction model 3 - 0.50%M : 1.00%T

Distribution of reaction model 4 - 0.50%M : 1.50%T

Figure 56 - models 1-4 - 3 loads - reactions

4.3. Set 2 - Varying edge stiffness in main and transverse


direction
The next set of models, from model 5 to model 8, look into the effects of
varying the edge stiffness of the main members, transverse members and also the
effects of having the slab supported on all four sides.
After inspecting the previous results it was concluded that the ideal
percentage for transverse reinforcement, when weighed between lateral
distribution of moments and cost of reinforcement is 0.50%.

Increasing this

further, say to 1.50% implies that the cost of steel is three fold but the benefits in

University of Surrey

Msc Structural Engineering

Page 75

Results
distribution are far less. The percentage of the main reinforcement was also left at
0.50%.
Edge stiffening in any direction was achieved by introducing a reinforced
beam within the thickness of the slab having top and bottom reinforcement equal
to 1T32 at 100mm centre to centre.

Transverse span against reaction

4.5

13.5

18

Mid My moment (KNm)

-20
-40
-60
-80
-100
-120
-140
-160
-180
Distribution of moment to BS8110:1:1997

Transverse span (m)

Distribution of moment for model 5 -Stiff main edge


Distribution of moment for model 6 - Stiff transverse edge
Distribution of moment for model 7 - Stiff main / trans. edge
Distribution of moment for model 8 - Supported on four sides

Figure 57 - Models 5-8 - Central load - Mid span bending moments of main members

When the load was applied centrally there was no variation in the central
moment between the four models as can be seen in Figure 57 above. Model 5
which had its main edge stiffened and model 7 which had both its main edge and
transverse edge stiffened follow the same pattern throughout the transverse span
indicating that stiffening the transverse edge has no direct effect on the
distribution of the moment in the main members.

Stiffening the main edge

members has the effect of attracting more loads to the edge and this is clearly
visible from the graphs. Stiffening the transverse edge only, such as in model 6
has resulted in minimal additional moment distribution in the main members but

University of Surrey

Msc Structural Engineering

Page 76

Results
the magnitude of the maximum moment has not changed from model 5 where
only the main edge members were stiffened.
Model 8 reflects the effect of introducing supports along the main edges to
create a slab which is supported on four sides. It is interesting to note that for
models 5, 6 and 7 the areas beneath the graphs are equal indicating that the total
moment across the section is identical. In the case of model 8 the area is less
than the other three models which indicates that the slab is behaving in two way
action. But the maximum moment along the main member beneath the line load
for model 8 is equal in magnitude to the other models.

Hence introducing

supports on all four sides for this particular aspect ratio has minimal effect on
lateral distribution.

The introduction of these supports has however induced

corner uplifting moments which need to be catered for by appropriate


reinforcement. Counterchecks were made and it was noted that the reactions in
this region where negative indicating uplift as a result of the hogging moments.

Transverse span against reaction

4.5

13.5

18

150

Reactions (kN)

100

50

-50

-100
Distribution of reaction as designed

Transverse span (m)

Distribution of reaction model 5 -Stiff main edge


Distribution of reaction model 6 - Stiff transverse edge
Distribution of reaction model 7 - Stiff main / trans. edge
Distribution of reaction model 8 - Supported on four sides

Figure 58 - models 5-8 - Central load - Reactions

University of Surrey

Msc Structural Engineering

Page 77

Results
With regards to shear the effect of varying the edge stiffness is negligible.
This can be verified by studying Figure 58 above, which shows the distribution of
the reactions. One can immediately note that model 8 has exhibited uplift forces
at the corners. Models 5, 6 and 7 follow the same route apart from the edges
since model 6 does not have stiffened main edges. Of particular interest is that
the magnitude of the maximum reaction for models 5, 6 and 7 is approximately
equal, but for model 8 where all edges are supported the reaction is actually
greater than the other models. The reason for this could not be directly explained
but most probably it is linked to the fact that model 8 has less curvature since it is
supported on four sides and hence is less capable of distributing the reaction.

Maximum horizontal shear stresses due to torsion (N/mm 2)

S11
S9
S7
S5
S3

Transverse beams

S13

37

35

33

31

29

27

25

23

21

19

17

15

13

11

S1

Main beams
+Y
+X
+Z
0-0.5

0.5-1

1-1.5

1.5-2

Figure 59 - Models 5 - Central - Torsional stresses resulting form applied load

With regards to torsion, the torsional stresses for model 5 are reproduced
in Figure 59. It can be clearly seen that the effect of edge stiffening has increased
the area over which torsional stresses are spread. When comparing the torsional
stresses of model 5 to those of model 2 which had the same reinforcement except

University of Surrey

Msc Structural Engineering

Page 78

Results
for the edge stiffening it can be seen that a stress of 1N/mm2 was only spread out
till main beam 31 whilst in the case of model 5 this is spread out till main beam 34.
The effect of having transverse edge stiffening is similar to that explained
above for the main edge stiffening but to a lesser extent as can be seen in Figure
60 below. Applying the additional stiffness along both edges tends to distribute
the torsional stresses over the whole slab as can be seen in Figure 61 below. For
model 8 the torsional stresses are more evenly distributed that the other three
models, and such a result was expected in view of the fact that all free edges are
now supported. A larger magnitude of torsional stress was expected for this case
adjacent to the corners especially in view of the hogging moments mentioned
earlier on. But results indicate that the magnitude is very similar to the torsional
stresses experienced next to the load as can be seen in Figure 62 below.

Maximum horizontal shear stresses due to torsion (N/mm 2)

S11
S9
S7
S5
S3

Transverse beams

S13

37

35

33

31

29

27

25

23

21

19

17

15

13

11

S1

Main beams
+Y
+X
+Z
0-0.5

0.5-1

1-1.5

1.5-2

Figure 60 - Model 6 - Central load - Torsional stresses resulting form applied load

University of Surrey

Msc Structural Engineering

Page 79

Results

Maximum horizontal shear stresses due to torsion (N/mm 2)

S11
S9
S7
S5
S3

Transverse beams

S13

37

35

33

31

29

27

25

23

21

19

17

15

13

11

S1

Main beams
+Y
+X
+Z
0-0.5

0.5-1

1-1.5

1.5-2

2-2.5

Figure 61 - Model 7 - Central load - Torsional stresses resulting form applied load
Maximum horizontal shear stresses due to torsion (N/mm2)

S11
S9
S7
S5
S3

Transverse beams

S13

37

35

33

31

29

27

25

23

21

19

17

15

13

11

S1

Main beams
+Y
+X
+Z
0-0.5

0.5-1

1-1.5

1.5-2

Figure 62 - Model 8 - Central load - Torsional stresses resulting form applied load

University of Surrey

Msc Structural Engineering

Page 80

Results

Transverse span against reaction

4.5

13.5

18

Mid My moment (KNm)

-20
-40
-60
-80
-100
-120
-140
-160
-180
Distribution of moment to BS8110:1:1997

Transverse span (m)

Distribution of moment for model 5 -Stiff main edge


Distribution of moment for model 6 - Stiff transverse edge
Distribution of moment for model 7 - Stiff main / trans. edge
Distribution of moment for model 8 - Supported on four sides

Figure 63 - Models 5-8 - Quarter load - Mid span bending moments of main members

Applying the load at the quarter of the transverse span produces results
very similar to when the load is applied centrally apart form the fact that the
moment beneath the line load varies slightly between the models. Model 5 and
model 7 have the same maximum bending moment, whilst model 6 has a slightly
higher moment than the previous two models. This increase in moment can be
attributed to the main stiffened edge in models 5 and 7, which was not stiffened in
model 6. The main stiffened edge manages to attract a larger load than an
unstiffened edge and as the load approaches this edge a larger portion is taken
up by this stiffening as is clearly evident in Figure 63 above. In the case of model
8 the moment beneath the wall is less than the other three models by
approximately 10kNm. As in the previous case this model is acting as a two way
slab and as the load approaches the edge a reduction in the moment along the
main moments was expected. Hogging moments in the corners of the edge
adjacent to the load are also present in this load case combination but the top
reinforcement provided is sufficient.

University of Surrey

Msc Structural Engineering

Page 81

Results

Transverse span against reaction

4.5

13.5

18

150

Reactions (kN)

100

50

-50

-100

-150
Distribution of reaction as designed

Transverse span (m)

Distribution of reaction model 5 -Stiff main edge


Distribution of reaction model 6 - Stiff transverse edge
Distribution of reaction model 7 - Stiff main / trans. edge
Distribution of reaction model 8 - Supported on four sides

Figure 64 - Models 5-8 - Quarter load - Reactions

With regards to the distribution of the reaction, shown in Figure 64 above,


the results are very similar to when the load was positioned centrally, that is
models 5 and 7 are basically identical with model 6 having a tendency to
distribute slightly more in view of the lack of main edge stiffening. It was expected
that the main edge member which was substantially stiffened in models 5 and 7
would attract more load to the effect that the distribution of the reaction between
the load and the edge would be practically linear with zero slope, that is equal
throughout. But in reality this did not happen and to the contrary the magnitude of
the maximum reaction is approximately equal for models 5, 6, and 7. Another
interesting result is the fact that the reaction for model 8, which is supported on all
four sides, is greater than the reaction for models 5, 6 and 7, where again it was
expected to be less in view that the slab was supported on all four sides.

University of Surrey

Msc Structural Engineering

Page 82

Results
With regards to torsional stresses these are again very similar to the
previous set of results both in terms of distribution as well as in terms of
magnitude.

Transverse span against reaction

4.5

13.5

18

Mid My moment (KNm)

-50
-100
-150
-200
-250
-300
-350
-400
Distribution of moment to BS8110:1:1997

Transverse span (m)

Distribution of moment for model 5 -Stiff main edge


Distribution of moment for model 6 - Stiff transverse edge
Distribution of moment for model 7 - Stiff main / trans. edge
Distribution of moment for model 8 - Supported on four sides

Figure 65 - Models 5-8 - Edge load - Mid span bending moments of main members

Application of the line load at the edge for models 5, 6, 7 and 8 produced a
lateral distribution of moment which can be seen in Figure 65 above. As expected
the models which had their main edge stiffened, namely models 5 and 7, had the
majority of the moment taken up by the edge stiffening whilst model 7 which only
had its transverse edge stiffened had a lesser moment along the main edge but
its moments away from the load were greater than the other models. With regards
to model 8, which was supported on four sides the load falls exactly adjacent to
one of the main supports and hence the majority of the load is taken up by this
support
With regards to distribution of reactions along the main support, Figure 66
below, shows that the results are very similar to the other cases with models 5 and

University of Surrey

Msc Structural Engineering

Page 83

Results
7 following the same route and, model 6 having more distribution. Model 8 has a
smaller reaction in this case in view of the additional supports which attracts the
majority of the load.

Transverse span against reaction

4.5

13.5

18

300
250

Reaction (kN)

200
150
100
50
0
-50
-100
-150
Distribution of reaction as designed

Transverse span (m)

Distribution of reaction model 5 -Stiff main edge


Distribution of reaction model 6 - Stiff transverse edge
Distribution of reaction model 7 - Stiff main / trans. edge
Distribution of reaction model 8 - Supported on four sides

Figure 66 - Models 5-8 - Edge load - Reactions

With regards to torsional stresses it can be stated that they are similar to
the other cases with a larger distribution when the main edges are stiffened.
Contrary to the other cases the maximum distribution is not present when the slab
is supported on all four sides and this is due to the proximity of the load to the
support.

University of Surrey

Msc Structural Engineering

Page 84

Results

Transverse span against reaction

4.5

13.5

18

0
-50

Mid My moment (KNm)

-100
-150
-200
-250
-300
-350
-400
-450
-500
Distribution of moment to BS8110:1:1997

Transverse span (m)

Distribution of moment for model 5 -Stiff main edge


Distribution of moment for model 6 - Stiff transverse edge
Distribution of moment for model 7 - Stiff main / trans. edge
Distribution of moment for model 8 - Supported on four sides

Figure 67 - Models 5-8 - 3 loads - Mid span bending moments of main members

The last case to be considered related to the application of the three line
loads simultaneously. As previously stated the result is the summation of all the
previous load cases, and is reproduced in Figure 67. One can appreciate the
large moment taken up by the main edge which is stiffened in models 5 and 7. It
is important to not that stiffening the main edge does not actually help in the
distribution but it only attracts more moment to this location. This can be proved
by examining the curve for model 6 which does not have the main edge stiffened.
In this case the moment further out than the main edge is greater than the
moment in the same region for models 5 and 7. With regards to model 8 one can
appreciate the effect of two way action especially as the load nears the edge.
Hogging moments are present as in other cases and the reinforcement provided,
that is 1T8 at 100mm centre to centre is sufficient to cater for that effect.
With regards to reaction distribution Figure 68 below clearly shows that
edge stiffening does not effect this distribution apart from at the main edges when
the model is stiffened in the main direction. The variation in the models next to the

University of Surrey

Msc Structural Engineering

Page 85

Results
edge is due to the fact that models 5 and 7 have their main edges stiffened,
model 6 does not have its main edge stiffened whilst model 8 is supported on all
four sides. Shear distribution is similar to the reaction distribution and as in all
other cases the applied shear stress at the main support has exceeded the
resistance shear stress by approximately 275%.

Transverse span against reaction

4.5

13.5

18

400
300

Reaction (kN)

200
100
0
-100
-200
-300
Distribution of reaction as designed

Transverse span (m)

Distribution of reaction model 5 -Stiff main edge


Distribution of reaction model 6 - Stiff transverse edge
Distribution of reaction model 7 - Stiff main / trans. edge
Distribution of reaction model 8 - Supported on four sides

Figure 68 - Models 5-8 - 3 loads - Reactions

With regards to torsional stresses a substantial variation has been noted


depending on which edges are stiffened. For model 5 where the main edges only
were stiffened the torsinal stress reached a maximum value of 2.5N/mm2 similar to
other cases. For models 6 and 7 which included the transverse edge stiffening
the torsional stress went up to 3.5N/mm2. For model 8 which contained no edge
stiffening in any direction but was supported on all four sides the torsional stress
went up to 4.5N/mm2. Figure 69 below shows the torsional stresses for model 8.

University of Surrey

Msc Structural Engineering

Page 86

Results

Maximum horizontal shear stresses due to torsion (N/mm 2)

S11
S9
S7
S5
S3

Transverse beams

S13

37

35

33

31

29

27

25

23

21

19

17

15

13

11

S1

Main beams
+Y
+X
+Z
0-0.5

0.5-1

1-1.5

1.5-2

2-2.5

2.5-3

3-3.5

3.5-4

4-4.5

Figure 69 - Models 5-8 - 3 loads - Torsional stresses resulting form applied load

4.4. Set 3 - Varying depth


The last set to be examined had the intention of looking into the effects of
how varying the depth of the section actually effects the lateral distribution of the
moments and the reactions. For this reason the set included the following models
which are listed in Table 7 below. The main aim of this exercise is to vary the
depth of the section and the amount of reinforcement in order to maintain the
same moment capacity.

By doing this the section properties are obviously

varying although the section is capable of resisting the same moment. The only
reinforcement varied was that in the main direction, that is the transverse
reinforcement was held constant and identical to that of model 2 at 1T16 at
100mm centre to centre bottom and 1T8 at 100mm centre to centre top.

University of Surrey

Msc Structural Engineering

Page 87

Results
Table 7 - Depth of models

Model No.

Depth (mm)

250

10

325

400

11

550

12

700

The baseline moment capacity was calculated on the cross section of


model 2 and this resulted in a capacity of 267.23kNm per metre width of slab or
133.615kNm for every main grillage beam which is 500mm wide. This moment
was then applied on the other models to establish the reinforcement required to
resist this applied moment. The reinforcement required in the main direction for
each model is listed in Table 8 below.
Table 8 - Reinforcement for models
Model No.

Depth (mm)

Main bottom
reinforcement

Main top reinforcement

250

1T25 @ 100mm c.c

1T12 @ 100mm c.c

10

325

1T20 @ 100mm c.c

1T8 @ 100mm c.c

400

1T16 @ 100mm c.c

1T8 @ 100mm c.c

11

550

1T16 @ 125mm c.c

1T8 @ 100mm c.c

12

700

1T12 @ 100mm c.c

1T8 @ 100mm c.c

Once the reinforcement was known the transformed section properties of


each section could be calculated and as expected there was a substantial
difference between the moment of inertia and hence the flexural stiffness of each
model.

Figure 70 below plots the depth of the model against its respective

moment of inertia. This graph clearly indicates the effect that increasing the depth
of the section actually has on the section properties.

University of Surrey

Msc Structural Engineering

Page 88

Results

Depth of slab against transformed moment of interia

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

Transformed moment of inertia (m4)

0.0045
0.004
0.0035
0.003
0.0025
0.002
0.0015
0.001
0.0005
0

Depth of slab (mm)

Depth against inertia as calculated

Trendline

Figure 70 - Models 2, 9-12 - Variation of moment of inertia

Figure 71 below shows the moment distribution at mid span along the
transverse span for all the models included in this set. On inspection it is evident
that the additional depth did not increase the spread of the moment nor did it
reduce the magnitude of the maximum moment. To the contrary when the depth
exceeded 400mm the magnitude of the maximum moment started increasing.
This implies that for a specific span a particular depth exists above which the
magnitude of the maximum moment starts to increase. The determination of this
critical span to depth ratio would be ideal in order to determine when additional
concrete thickness starts increasing the moment drastically rather than providing
better distribution. For depths between 250mm and 400mm the magnitude of the
maximum moment remained approximately constant implying that the difference
in flexural stiffness due to the varying depth did not effect this value.

University of Surrey

Msc Structural Engineering

Page 89

Results

Transverse span against moment

4.5

13.5

18

Mid My moment (KNm)

-20

-40

-60

-80

-100

-120

Transverse span (m)


Distribution of moments for model 9 - depth 250mm

Distribution of moments for model 10 - depth 325mm

Distribution of moments for model 2 -depth 400mm

Distribution of moments for model 11 - depth 550mm

Distribution of moments for model 12 - depth 700mm

Figure 71 - Models 2, 9-12 - Central load - Mid span bending moments of main members
Transverse span against reaction

4.5

13.5

18

160
140

Reaction (kN)

120
100
80
60
40
20
0

Transverse span (m)


Distribution of reaction for model 9 -depth 250mm

Distribution of reaction for model 10 - depth 325mm

Distribution of reaction for model 2 - depth 400mm

Distribution of reaction for model 11 - depth 550mm

Distribution of reaction for model 12 - depth 700mm

Figure 72 - Models 2, 9-12 - Central load - Reactions

University of Surrey

Msc Structural Engineering

Page 90

Results
With regards to reactions the distribution is similar for all load cases with
the maximum reaction occurring for the 250mm deep slab at 148kN and the
minimum being at 134kN for the 700mm deep. The additional thickness did not
effect the distribution of the reaction in anyway, as can be seen in Figure 72. The
variation in the reaction from 0m to 4.5m and similarly from 13.5m to 18.0m is due
to the additional weight of concrete as the thickness of the slab increases.
With regards to shear stresses it is interesting to note that as the slab gets
thicker the shear capacity of the slab is exceeded by a larger percentage. In order
to explain this, one has to look at table 3.8 in BS8110-1:1997 from where the value
of vc is derived. In thin sections with a relatively high percentage of reinforcement
the value 100As/bd is substantial and for a relatively shallow depth the value of vc
is substantially high sometimes even reaching 1.00N/mm2. For relatively thick
sections with a low percentage of reinforcement the value of 100As/bd is moderate
and considering the large thickness the value of vc can be as low as 0.34N/mm2.
This explains why in model 9 when the thickness was 325mm the allowable shear
stress was exceeded by 175% whilst in model 12 where the thickness was 700mm
the allowable shear stress was exceeded by 225%.
Torsional stresses vary as the depth of the section varies. As expected
these are substantially high when the slab is 250mm thick and are low when the
slab is 700mm thick.
When the load is applied at quarter the results are very similar to what has
been explained in the previous text with the only difference being that the
distribution is not perfectly symmetrical in view of the fact that the load is nearing a
free edge. Figure 73 below and Figure 74 below show the distribution of the
moments and the distribution of the reaction respectively.

University of Surrey

Msc Structural Engineering

Page 91

Results

Transverse span against moment

4.5

13.5

18

Mid My moment (KNm)

-20

-40

-60

-80

-100

-120

Transverse span (m)


Distribution of moments for model 9 - depth 250mm

Distribution of moments for model 10 - depth 325mm

Distribution of moments for model 2 -depth 400mm

Distribution of moments for model 11 - depth 550mm

Distribution of moments for model 12 - depth 700mm

Figure 73 - Models 2, 9-12 - Quarter load - Mid span bending moments of main members
Transverse span against reaction

4.5

13.5

18

160
140

Reaction (kN)

120
100
80
60
40
20
0

Transverse span (m)


Distribution of reaction for model 9 -depth 250mm

Distribution of reaction for model 10 - depth 325mm

Distribution of reaction for model 2 - depth 400mm

Distribution of reaction for model 11 - depth 550mm

Distribution of reaction for model 12 - depth 700mm

Figure 74 - Model 2, 9-12 - Reactions

University of Surrey

Msc Structural Engineering

Page 92

Results
With regards to loading at the edge the moments beneath the line load
application are approximately equal with the difference between model 9 and
mode 12 being only in the region of 10kNm. Similarly to the other cases the
divergence in the curves away from the load application is a result of the variation
in the self weight of the slab. The reason for the moments being approximately
equal beneath the line load can be attributed to the thickness. As the slab is thin
say 250mm it tends to distribute less hence rendering a larger moment, but as the
slab is thicker say 700mm it tends to distribute more but it also has to make good
for the additional self weight, hence the moments end up being of the same
magnitude. Figure 75 below shows the distribution of the moments for this set of
models. It must be pointed out that the maximum moment for this set exceeds
the moment capacity of the section as already experienced in the other sets
analysed

Transverse span against moment

4.5

13.5

18

0
-20

Mid My moment (KNm)

-40
-60
-80
-100
-120
-140
-160
-180
-200

Transverse span (m)


Distribution of moments for model 9 - depth 250mm

Distribution of moments fro model 10 - depth 325mm

Distribution of moments for model 2 -depth 400mm

Distribution of moments fro model 11 - depth 550mm

Distribution of moments for model 12 - depth 700mm

Figure 75 - Models 2, 9-12 Edge load - Mid span bending moments of main members

University of Surrey

Msc Structural Engineering

Page 93

Results

Transverse span against reaction

4.5

13.5

18

250

Reaction (kN)

200

150

100

50

Transverse span (m)


Distribution of reaction for model 9 -depth 250mm

Distribution of reaction for model 10 - depth 325mm

Distribution of reaction for model 2 - depth 400mm

Distribution of reaction for model 11 - depth 550mm

Distribution of reaction for model 12 - depth 700mm

Figure 76 - Models 2, 9-12 - Reactions

With regards to the distribution of reactions Figure 76 above shows the


distribution for the selected models. From this figure it is evident that the reaction
beneath the line load application is practically equal for all cases and hence it can
be stated that the distribution of reactions for edge loads is not effected by the
variation of slab thickness. With regards to torsional stresses the same can be
said as for the previous models, that is, these are substantially high for the thin
slabs whilst they are very low for the thicker slabs.

University of Surrey

Msc Structural Engineering

Page 94

Results

Transverse span against moment

4.5

13.5

18

Mid My moment (KNm)

-50

-100

-150

-200

-250

Transverse span (m)


Distribution of moments for model 9 - depth 250mm

Distribution of moments for model 10 - depth 325mm

Distribution of moments for model 2 -depth 400mm

Distribution of moments for model 11 - depth 550mm

Distribution of moments for model 12 - depth 700mm

Figure 77 - models 2, 9-12 - 3 loads - Mid span bending moments of main members
Transverse span against reaction

4.5

13.5

18

200
180

Mid My moment (KNm)

160
140
120
100
80
60
40
20
0

Transverse span (m)


Distribution of reaction for model 9 -depth 250mm

Distribution of reaction for model 10 - depth 325mm

Distribution of reaction for model 2 - depth 400mm

Distribution of reaction for model 11 - depth 550mm

Distribution of reaction for model 12 - depth 700mm

Figure 78 - Models 2, 9-12 Reactions

Applying the loads simultaneously provides us with a distribution of


moments which can be seen in Figure 77 above. As seen in the previous cases

University of Surrey

Msc Structural Engineering

Page 95

Results
the thickening of the slab has not aided the cause of increasing the lateral
distribution of the applied moments. To the contrary thickening of the slab has
actually increased our moment. Figure 78 above shows the distribution of the
reactions has in no way been effected by the slab thickening.

University of Surrey

Msc Structural Engineering

Page 96

Conclusions

Chapter 5.

Conclusion

5.1. Conclusion
The original aim of this study was to compare a grillage analysis under
normal working loads and in the elastic range to the distribution width allowed by
BS8110-1:1997. This has been done through model 1, and the results clearly
show that the level of distribution varies depending on the location of the load.
Line loads located close to the centre of the transverse span have shown a good
degree of distribution and there are clear indications that the code of practice is
conservative. As the line load approaches a free edge the level of distribution is
much less but the moments derived form the analysis are still less than those
derived from the equations of the code of practice. It should however be noted
that the amount of reinforcement required when a load is adjacent to the edge is
greater than when this load is applied in a more central location. The idea of
having stiffer edge bands to carry larger moments is recommendable especially if
loads are to be located adjacent to a free edge.
There are other interesting discrepancies which have emerged between the
requirements of the code and the grillage analysis. For example according to the
code no top reinforcement is required for such slabs whilst the model has clearly
shown the existence of hogging moments in two orthogonal directions. Hogging
moments have been created in the main direction beneath the wall at the support,
whilst transversely there is a general hogging moment spread over the whole slab.
This implies that top reinforcement needs to be provided to cater for such
moments.
Also, the code does not stipulate any requirement of bottom transverse
reinforcement, and hence the majority of design offices end up adopting the
University of Surrey

Msc Structural Engineering

Page 97

Conclusions
minimum requirement of 0.13%. The grillage analysis has shown that in certain
cases this minimum is not sufficient to deal with the applied transverse sagging
moments which result beneath the line load. It is recommendable that beneath
such line loads bands with larger areas are placed transversely.
Another discrepancy relates to the shear forces applied on the slab. The
code of practice makes no mention of the effective width required in order to resist
the shear force, whilst the grillage analogy has shown that the reactions tend to
distribute much less than the central moments. Line loads applied on slabs have
to satisfy two shear criteria, punching shear which can occur around the perimeter
of the line load, and normal shear which is generally designed d away from the
supporting line, where d is the effective depth. The analytical model has without
a doubt proven that the allowable shear stress is exceeded and is well over the
limit. But, the natural question that arises is, why do such slabs which have been
cast in Malta not exhibit shear cracking of any form? The answer to this question
cannot be derived form this study and it is clear that further studies are required
on this subject to determine if shear stresses actually manage to distribute
themselves transversely as the section is nearing its shear capacity without
exhibiting any form of shear cracking. Another plausible solution, which was also
referred to in the literature review relates to the possibility of the slab actually
resisting forces through arching action, if, sufficient buttresses are found from
nearby structural elements.
With regards to torsional stresses or as also referred to Mxy moments, the
code of practice makes no mention of such moments although it is a known fact
that they do exist. The grillage analogy has proved this, but their effect cannot be
directly linked to distribution. It was originally thought that to achieve more lateral
distribution a higher torsional rigidity is required which would allow the
connections between the grillage members to be stiffer. In reality no direct link
could be found between these stresses and the amount of lateral distribution. It
should also be noted that not enough literature was found on this particular

University of Surrey

Msc Structural Engineering

Page 98

Conclusions
subject to be able to interpret the effects of these moments. One must however
mention a study which was undertaken simultaneously to this study by Mr.
Stephen Grech which analytically investigated isotropically reinforced concrete
slabs loaded to failure where these torsional stresses did emerge in the same
location and although the analysis indicated cracking in these regions, they were
not the cause of failure.
Following this comparison other factors where investigated which were
thought to effect the lateral distribution of the moments as well as that of the
reaction.

From these results it is evident that increasing the percentage of

transverse reinforcement will effect the distribution.

What should however be

noted is that this increase in distribution is not linearly proportional to the increase
in reinforcement and the designer has to determine, in a most probably iterative
process, which is the best percentage of reinforcement to provide in order to
attain the best lateral distribution to cost factor.

For example for the cases

investigated increasing the reinforcement from the minimum 0.13% to 0.50%


made a considerable difference which would be greatly desirable in such slabs.
The effect of this increase was felt both in the lateral distribution of the moment as
well as in the reaction. But when the percentage of transverse reinforcement was
increased from 0.50% to 1.00% the benefits where minimal and the additional cost
of reinforcement would not justify the cause of this increase.

Increasing the

percentage of the transverse reinforcement also meant increasing the sagging


transverse moments. However, the increase in the reinforcement was always
sufficient to cater for the increase in transverse moment.
The effect of stiffening the edges in the main direction as well as in the
transverse direction was also investigated. When the main edge was stiffened it
was a known fact that this additional stiffening would attract more load, but it was
also believed that such stiffening would aid in increasing the lateral distribution of
the moment. In the analytical model the assumption that more load would be
attracted by the edge stiffening was correct but with regards to increasing the

University of Surrey

Msc Structural Engineering

Page 99

Conclusions
lateral distribution the model proved otherwise. The idea that it would actually
distribute more load emerged from literature relating to bridges which had shown
that increasing the edge stiffness of solid slab bridges by downstands or upstads
could in fact increase distribution. But, one has to mention the difference in the
aspect ratio between those bridges and the slab under investigations. The model
proved that increasing the edge stiffness for large aspect ratios does not increase
lateral distribution. Further studies could possibly look into the effect of reducing
the aspect ratio of the slab by introducing stiffened strips to simulate an aspect
ratio of 1:1. Altering the edge stiffness in the transverse direction did increase the
lateral distribution of the reaction and such edge stiffening is in most cases
recommendable to cater for the torques in the main members which are
transferred as moments and shears when the main members intersect with the
supporting edge.
The effect of having the slab supported on all four sides was also looked at
and it is clear that in such cases the slab undergoes two way action. It is however
interesting to note that the maximum moment along the main members was
approximately equal to the other cases where edge stiffening was introduced and
hence it can be concluded that the two way benefits were not fully utilised. This
could be due to the aspect ratio of the slab which as already stated in the
previous chapters was 1:3.
Finally the effects of varying the depth of slab and amount of reinforcement
but maintaining the same moment capacity was investigated to determine if this
could have any effect on the distribution. The analytical results have shown that
an ideal span to depth ratio exists for which a specific depth, with a certain
amount of reinforcement, will result in an applied maximum moment equal to
slabs of lesser thickness which have substantially more reinforcement. Exceeding
this ratio, that is, to have a larger depth of concrete would mean having a larger
applied moment resulting form the excessive increase in weight of the slab. A

University of Surrey

Msc Structural Engineering

Page 100

Conclusions
definite benefit of increasing the depth is that the torsional stresses inherent to
these types of slabs would be greatly reduced.
This study has clearly shown that there are various parameters which can
effect the way loads are distributed laterally in solid reinforced concrete slabs. As
further studies one would definitely recommend physical testing on slabs which
will be closely monitored and then their results would be compared to analytical
models in order to determine the validity of the computer analysis. Studies could
also look at other parameters mentioned in chapter 3 which are thought to effect
lateral distribution. This particular study has also shown that further studies are
required in order to determine how shear failure does not occur if the shear
stresses in such slabs, analysed and designed by adopting beam theory, is well
over the allowed limit.

University of Surrey

Msc Structural Engineering

Page 101

References

REFERENCES
Amer A, Arockiasamy M, Shahawy M. - Load distribution of existing solid slabs
bridges based on field tests, Journal of Bridge Engineering, August 1999 (Pgs
189 193)
British Standard 8110-Part 1:1997 - Structural use of concrete
British Standard 8110-Part 2:1985 - Structural use of concrete
Cope R.J, Clark L.A. - Concrete Slabs Analysis and Design, Elsevier Applied
Science Publishers Ltd,
Eyre John Richard - Direct assessment of safe strengths of rc slabs under
membrane action, Journal of Structural Engineering October 1997 (Pgs 13311338)
Fenwick Richard C, Dickson Andrew R. - Slabs subjected to concentrated
loading, ACI Structural Journal November/December 1989 (pgs 672-678)
Gordon Stuart R, May Ian M. Observations on the grillage analysis of slab, The
Structural Engineer 3rd February 2004 (Pgs 35-38)
Hambly E.C. Bridge Deck Behaviour, E&F Spon 1976
Miller R.A, Aktan A.E and Shahrooz B.M Destructive testing f decommissioned
concrete slab bridge, Journal of Structural Engineering, Vol. 120, No. 7, July 1994
Mabsout M, Tarhini K, Jabakhanji R, and Awwad E, Wheel load distribution in
simply supported concrete slab bridges, Journal of Bridge Engineering March /
April 2004

University of Surrey

Msc Structural Engineering

Page 102

References
Park Robert, Gamble William L. Reinforced concrete slabs, John Wiley and
Sons Inc.
Timoshenko SP, Woinowsky-Kreiger S Theory of plates and Shells, McGrawHill, 1959
Wood R.H. The reinforcement of slabs in accordance with a pre determined
field of moments, Concrete, February 1968 (Pgs 69 76)
Wood R.H. Plastic and Elastic Design of slabs and plates, Thames and
Hudson
Zokaie Toorak AASHTO live load distribution specifications, Journal of Bridge
Engineering May 2000 (pgs 131 138)

University of Surrey

Msc Structural Engineering

Page 103

Bibliography

BIBLIOGRAPHY
ACI Committee 318 (2001), ACI 318-02: - Building code requirements for
structural concrete, American Concrete Institute.
Burgoyre C, - Are structures being repaired unnecessarily, The Structural
Engineer, 6 January 2004, (pgs 22-26)
Chung C. Fu, Elhelbawey Maged, Sahin M.A, Schelling D.R, - Lateral distribution
factor form bridge field testing, Journal of Structural Engineering, September
1996 (pgs 1106-1109)
Eurocode 2 (1992), - Design of concrete structures Part 1-1: General rules and
rules for buildings, Portland Cement Association.
Gasparini D.A, - Contributions of C.A.P turner to development of reinforced
concrete flat slabs 1905-1909, Journal of structural engineering, October 2002,
(Pgs 1243-1252)
Hillerborg A, - A strip method design handbook, E&FN Spon, London, 1996.
Martin L.H, Croxton P.C.L, Purkiss J.A Structural design in concrete to BS8110,
Edward Arnold, London, 1989
Motague P, May I.M, Samad A.A.A, tye C, - An experimental rig to test the
behaviour of reinforced concrete slabs subjected to bending and torsion,
Proceedings of the Institute of Civil Engineers, May 2001 Issue 2, (pgs 173-182)
Morley C.T. Skew reinforcement of concrete slabs against bending and
torsional moments, Proceedings of ICEFA, 1969 (pgs 57-74)

University of Surrey

Msc Structural Engineering

Page 104

Bibliography
Morley C.T. Local couple transfer to a torsionless grillage, International Journal
of Mechanical Science, volume 37, No. 10, 1995, (pgs 1067-1078)
Westergaard H.M, - Computation of stresses in bridge slabs due to wheel loads,
Public roads, Volume 11, no.1 March 1930, (pgs 1-23)

University of Surrey

Msc Structural Engineering

Page 105

University of Surrey

School of Engineering
Civil Engineering

LATERAL LOAD DISTRIBUTION OF LINE LOADS


ON SOLID REINFORCED CONCRETE SLABS

VOLUME 2 - APPENDICES
by
Peter Zammit B.E&A(Hons) A&CE CEng MIStructE

A dissertation submitted in partial fulfilment of the requirements for the


Degree of Master of Science in Structural Engineering

2006

Table of contents

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Appendix A

Selection of member sizes

Appendix B0

General details of models

24

Appendix B1

Model 1

28

Appendix B2

Model 2

76

Appendix B3

Model 3

115

Appendix B4

Model 4

154

Appendix B5

Model 5

193

Appendix B6

Model 6

232

Appendix B7

Model 7

271

Appendix B8

Model 8

310

Appendix B9

Model 9

349

Appendix B10

Model 10

388

Appendix B11

Model 11

427

Appendix B12

Model 12

466

University of Surrey

Msc Structural Engineering

Page 1

Appendix A Selection of member sizes


Analysis

Appendix - A

Member selection analysis model 1 - Member properties


Main edge
member

Main member Transverse


edge
member
500
300

Transverse
member

Width (mm)

300

Depth (mm)

400

400

400

400

I - (m )

1.60E-03

2.67E-03

1.60E-03

2.67E-03

4.13E-03

5.33E-03

4.13E-03

5.33E-03

C - (m )

500

500

500

500

500

6600

500

500

500

500

500

500

300

9600

150

500

500

500

500

500

500

500

500

500

500

500

500

500

500

500

500

500

500

300
400

300

150

400 500

500

500 400

500
300

400 500

500

500

500

500

500

500

500

500

500

500 400

150

Figure A 1 - Member properties

150

400 500

500

500

500

500

500

500

500

Line load location - 300kN/m

500

500

500

500

500

Load on node 75kN

500

500

500

500 400

Load on node 45kN

Figure A 2 - Geometry and load location of model analysed

University of Surrey

Msc Structural Engineering

Page 3

Appendix - A

Figure A 3 - Moments along Y

Figure A 4 - Moments along X


University of Surrey

Msc Structural Engineering

Page 4

Appendix - A

Figure A 5 - Shear along Y

Figure A 6 - Shear along X

University of Surrey

Msc Structural Engineering

Page 5

Appendix - A

Figure A 7 - Torque about X

Figure A 8 - Torque about Y

University of Surrey

Msc Structural Engineering

Page 6

Appendix - A

Figure A 9 - Main member displacement

University of Surrey

Msc Structural Engineering

Page 7

Appendix - A

Member selection analysis model 2 - Member properties


Main edge Main member Transverse
Transverse
member
edge
member
member
Width (mm)
300
1000
300
1000
Depth (mm)
400
400
400
400
1.60E-03
5.33E-03
1.60E-03
5.33E-03
I - (m4)
5.84E-03

C - (m4)

1.07E-02

5.84E-03

1.07E-02

300

9600

1500

6600

1500
1500

1000

650

650

1500

650

1000

1000

150

1000

1000

1000

1000

650

150

Figure A 10 - Member properties

150

300

1000

1000

1000

1000

1000

1000

1000

1000

1000
400

300

150

650

1000

1000

1000

1000

Line load location - 300kN/m

1000

1000

1000

Load on node 300kN

1000

650

Load on node 90kN

Figure A 11 - Geometry and load location of model analysed

University of Surrey

Msc Structural Engineering

Page 8

Appendix - A

Figure A 12 - Moments along Y

Figure A 13 - Moments along X

University of Surrey

Msc Structural Engineering

Page 9

Appendix - A

Figure A 14 - Shear along Y

Figure A 15 - Shear along X

University of Surrey

Msc Structural Engineering

Page 10

Appendix - A

Figure A 16 - Torque about X

Figure A 17 - Torque about Y

University of Surrey

Msc Structural Engineering

Page 11

Appendix - A

Figure A 18 Displacement

University of Surrey

Msc Structural Engineering

Page 12

Appendix - A

Member selection analysis model 3 - Member properties


Main edge Main member Transverse
Transverse
member
edge
member
member
Width (mm)
300
1500
300
150
Depth (mm)
400
400
400
400
1.60E-03
8.00E-03
1.60E-03
8.00E-04
I - (m4)
2.26E-03

C - (m4)

5.06E-03

7.16E-03

5.06E-03

300

9600

1500

1500

6600

1500

1500

1500

900

150

Figure A 19 - Member properties

900

150

150

900

900

1500

1500

1500

1500

300

1500

1500

1500

1500

1500

1500

300
400

300

150

900

1500

1500

Line load location - 300kN/m

1500

1500

Load on node 225kN

1500

900

Load on node 45kN

Figure A 20 - Geometry and load location of model analysed

University of Surrey

Msc Structural Engineering

Page 13

Appendix - A

Figure A 21 - Moments along Y

Figure A 22 - Members along X

University of Surrey

Msc Structural Engineering

Page 14

Appendix - A

Figure A 23 - Shear along Y

Figure A 24 - Shear along X

University of Surrey

Msc Structural Engineering

Page 15

Appendix - A

Figure A 25 - Torque about X

Figure A 26 - Torque about Y

University of Surrey

Msc Structural Engineering

Page 16

Appendix - A

Figure A 27 - Displacement

University of Surrey

Msc Structural Engineering

Page 17

Appendix - A

Member selection analysis model 4 - Member properties


Main edge Main member Transverse
Transverse
member
edge
member
member
Width (mm)
300
2250
300
2000
Depth (mm)
400
400
400
400
1.60E-03
1.20E-02
1.60E-03
1.07E-02
I - (m4)
8.26E-03

C - (m4)

2.26E-02

8.76E-03

2.26E-02

300

9600

6600
1275

300

2250

2250

2250

2250

300
400

300

150

150

1150

1150

2000

2250

2000

2000

2000

2000

2000

1150

150

Figure A 28 - Member properties

150

1275

2250

Line load location - 300kN/m

2250

2250

Load on node 337.5kN

1275

Load on node 45kN

Figure A 29 - Geometry and load location of model analysed

University of Surrey

Msc Structural Engineering

Page 18

Appendix - A

Figure A 30 - Moments along Y

Figure A 31 - Moments along X

University of Surrey

Msc Structural Engineering

Page 19

Appendix - A

Figure A 32 - Shear along Y

Figure A 33 - Shear along X

University of Surrey

Msc Structural Engineering

Page 20

Appendix - A

Figure A 34 - Torque about X

Figure A 35 - Torque about Y

University of Surrey

Msc Structural Engineering

Page 21

Appendix - A

Figure A 36 - Displacement

University of Surrey

Msc Structural Engineering

Page 22

Appendix B0- General details of models

University of Surrey

Msc Structural Engineering

6100 * 18100

6100 * 18100

6100 * 18100
6100 * 18100

6100 * 18100 *

6100 * 18100

6100 * 18100
6100 * 18100

6
7

10
11

6100 * 18100

6100 * 18100

12

6100 * 18100

S u p p o rte d

6100 * 18100

Slab
Length
(mm)

S u p p o rte d

Model Slab
width
(mm)

700

325
550

250

400

400
400

400

400

400

400

400

Slab
depth
(mm)

Top reinforcement
along width (Main
direction)
Top reinforcement
along length
(Transverse direction)

12

20
16

25

16

16
16

16

16

16

16

16

10

10
8

10

10

10
10

10

10

10

10

10

1131.0

3141.6
1608.5

4908.7

2010.6

2010.6
2010.6

2010.6

2010.6

2010.6

2010.6

2010.6

16

16
16

16

16

16
16

16

25

25

16

10

10
10

10

10

10
10

10

12

10

10

8
8

2010.6

2010.6
2010.6

8
8

2010.6 12

2010.6

2010.6
2010.6

2010.6

5890.5

3927.0

2010.6

502.7

10

10
10

10

10

10
10

10

10

10

10

502.7

502.7
502.7

1005.3

502.7

502.7
502.7

502.7

502.7

502.7

502.7

8
8

8
8

10

10
10

10

10

10
10

10

10

10

10

502.7

502.7
502.7

502.7

502.7

502.7
502.7

502.7

502.7

502.7

502.7

0.16

0.97
0.29

1.96

0.50

0.50
0.50

0.50

0.50

0.50

0.50

0.50

0.29

0.62
0.37

0.80

0.50

0.50
0.50

0.50

1.47

0.98

0.50

0.13

Variation of depth and


reinforcement hence varying
inertia of section whilst
maintaining same moment
capacity

Stiffened transverse edge


Stiffened main edge + stiffened
transverse edge

Stiffened main edge

Model to be compared to BS8110

Dia. Number Area per Dia. Number Area per Dia. Number Area per Dia. Number Area per Bottom % Bottom % Remark
Reinf.
Reinf.
(mm) per metre (mm) per metre (mm) per metre (mm) per metre
metre (m2)
metre (m2)
metre (m2)
metre (m2)
main transverse
direction direction

Bottom reinforcement Bottom reinforcement


along width (Main
along length
direction)
(Transverse direction)

Appendix B0
General details of model

Figure B0 - 1 Models to be analysed

Page 24

150
2750

Level 4

150
2750

Level 3

150
2750

Level 2

150
2750

Appendix B0
General details of model

Level 1

Transfer Slab Level


2000

400

2000

Figure B0 - 2 Section used for load calculation

Floors
Load Thickness Span
(kN/m2) (mm)
(m)

1
2
3
4
Height Density
3
(m) (kN/m ) (kN/m) (kN/m) (kN/m) (kN/m)

Slab

0.15

24

14.4

28.8

43.2

57.6

Finish

0.1

20

16

24

32

12

18

24

12.65

25.3

37.95

50.6

42.05

84.1 126.15 168.2

Live Load

1.5

Wall

4
0.23

2.75

20

Total Load
(KN/m)

Figure B0 - 3 Load calculation

University of Surrey

Msc Structural Engineering

Page 25

Appendix B0
General details of model

Edge Line load

6100

Central line load

Quarter line load

18100

9050
13550
17550

500

500

500 400

500

500

500

500

500

6100

500

500
500

500

500

500

500

500

500

500

500

300

500

400 500

18100

300

150

Figure B0 - 4 Position of load on slab

300

500

150

500

400 500

500

500

500

500

500

500

500

500

500

500

500

500

500

500

500

500

500

500

500

500

500

500

500

500

500

500

500

500

500

500

500

500

500

500

500

500

500

500

500

500

500

500

500

500

500

500

500

500

500

500

500

500

500

500

500

500

500

500

500

500

500

500

500

500

500

300

500 400

Figure B0 - 5 General assembly of model


5

13

11

15

19

17

23

21

25

29

27

31

33

35

37

18100

13
12
11
10
9
6100

8
7

6
5
4
3
2
Y

1
2

10

12

14

16

18

20

22

24

26

28

30

32

34

36

Figure B0 - 6 Numbering of grillage beams

University of Surrey

Msc Structural Engineering

Page 26

Appendix B1- Model 1


Reinforcement ratio - 0.50% Main : 0.13% Transverse

1
2
3
4
5

1
2
3
4
5

52.28

Msc Structural Engineering

a (m)

a (m)

a (m)

b (m)

863 KN

863 KN

Reaction R2

-863.2848 KN

-1294.9 KNm @

Ref

Point Load

W2(KN/m)

Reaction R1

Maximum Shear

Ref

4 Fl.Line load
x 1.4
Slab weight x
1.4

Trapezoidal Load

b (m)

R2 (KN)

R2 (KN)

157

706

R2 (KN)

3 m

R1 (KN)

R1 (KN)

157

706

R1 (KN)

Uniformly distributed Load

Maximum moment

Results

P (KN)

W1 (KN/m)

235.48

2
3
4
5

W (KN/m)

-1500

-1000

-500

500

1000

W1 KN

W KN/m

0.0

0.0

0.00

1
0.5
0

400
300
200
100
0

Span (m)

2.0

3.0

Span (m)

4.0

1.00

1.0

3.0

Span (m)

2.00

Span (m)

3.00

Point Loads

2.0

4.00

4.0

Triangular and Trapezoidal Loads

1.0

Uniformly Distributed Loads

Bending Moment and Shear Force diagram

W2 KN

Load (KN)
Load (KN)

University of Surrey
Bending Moment (KNm)
Shear force (KN)

Load (KN)

Analysis of a simply supported structure - Central loading

5.00

5.0

5.0

6.00

6.0

6.0

6100

Appendix B1
Model 1 Central Load 0.50%M : 0.13%T

18100

3890

Figure B1 - 1 Effective width to BS8110-1:1997

Page 28

Appendix B1
Model 1 Central Load 0.50%M : 0.13%T

Design of Reinforced Concrete Slab to BS8110


Section Properties
Clear Span

6100 mm

Width

3890 mm

Overall Depth

400 mm

Concrete Properties
Grade of Concrete

2
30 N/mm

Maximum Aggregate size

19 mm

Tension Reinforcement
Cover to reinforcement

30

Diameter of reinforcement

20

Number of layers of reinforcement

Ultimate Stress of reinforcement

460

Compression Reinforcement
Cover to reinforcement

30

Diameter of reinforcement

Number of layers of reinforcement

Ultimate Stress of reinforcement

460

Shear Reinforcement
Diameter of reinforcement
Ultimate Stress of reinforcement
Spacing between stirrups

Support Conditions
Simply Supported

Eff. Dpt.d
Eff. Dpt d'
Eff. Span

360 mm
34 mm
6460 mm

Loading
Maximum Moment

1429 KNm

Maximum Shear

952.00 KN

Redistribution

at

3250 mm

at

mm

10 %

K'

0.156

0.0945

Lever Arm

317.11

Neutral Axis =

0.881d

95.31 mm

Reinforcement
MESHES (Y/N)

MESH TYPE (A,B,C,D)

Compression
MAX. AREAS ALL.
MIN. AREAS ALL.
AREAS REQUIRED
Type Of Mesh

Tension

2
62240 mm
mm2

2
62240 mm
2
2022.8 mm

mm2

2
11256.2405 mm

Number

Number

LONG MESH

LONG MESH

785 mm

mm2

mm2

636 mm

mm

mm2

503 mm

mm

mm2

385 mm

mm2

mm2

283 mm

mm2

mm2

mm2

mm2

mm2

mm
AREAS PROVIDED

University of Surrey

mm

Msc Structural Engineering

Page 29

Appendix B1
Model 1 Central Load 0.50%M : 0.13%T
Compresion Reinforcement

Sufficient
mm2

No extra bars should be provided

mm
Enter number of bars
mm2

Area provided

Tension Reinforcement
Area required from erxtra bars is

< area required


mm2

11256.25

Enter diameter of additional bars

20 mm

Enter number of bars

39
2
12252.2 mm

Area provided

39 20mm bars should be provided at 99.75mm centres

Shear Reinforcement
v
=
v should not exceed
vc

0.67980577 N/mm
2
4.38178046 N/mm
2
0.659484094 N/mm

Input data for shear reinforcement

#DIV/0!
Deflection
20

FACTOR FROM B.S. =


Modifocation Factor For Steel In Tension

Modification Factor For Steel In Compression


Actual Deflection
Allowable Deflection

1.02513438
1

16.9444444
20.5026876

ACCORDING TO B.S 8110 YOUR SLAB IS SATISFACTORY!!


ADDITIONAL TENSILE REINFORCEMENT HAS BEEN PROVIDED

University of Surrey

Msc Structural Engineering

Page 30

Appendix B1
Model 1 Central Load 0.50%M : 0.13%T
Model 1 - Propoerties of Main Members
Generic Properties

Generic Section

Long term Young's Modulus = 0.5E 1.5E+10 Pa

Shear Modulus = 0.42E as per BS81101.3E+10 Pa


2-1985 cl.2.4.3 (G)
Total Transverse Length (LT)
18100 mm

University of Surrey

A SB - T

CB

Msc Structural Engineering

XM (mm)

4
tr - Main (m )

Cx (mm)

'

ASB - M (mm2)
603.2
1005.3
1005.3
1005.3
1005.3
1005.3
1005.3
1005.3
1005.3
1005.3
1005.3
1005.3
1005.3
1005.3
1005.3
1005.3
1005.3
1005.3
1005.3
1005.3
1005.3
1005.3
1005.3
1005.3
1005.3
1005.3
1005.3
1005.3
1005.3
1005.3
1005.3
1005.3
1005.3
1005.3
1005.3
1005.3
603.2

362
362
362
362
362
362
362
362
362
362
362
362
362
362
362
362
362
362
362
362
362
362
362
362
362
362
362
362
362
362
362
362
362
362
362
362
362

A SB - M

AST - M (mm 2)

3
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
3

dT

dM

300 mm
500 mm
400 mm
mm
30 mm
15
Main effective Depth
(dM) (mm)

Number of bars
(No.)

16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37

CT

d'M

A ST - T

6100 mm

Depth to main top


reinf. (d'M) (mm)

BM Bottom main
reinf. (mm)

Number of bars
(No.)

TM Top main reinf.


(mm)

Main Beam Number

Total Length between supports (L)


Edge element width (BE)
Element width (B)
Element depth (D)
Top Cover (CT)
Bottom Cover (CB)
e

d'

A ST - M

0.0050
0.0050
0.0050
0.0050
0.0050
0.0050
0.0050
0.0050
0.0050
0.0050
0.0050
0.0050
0.0050
0.0050
0.0050
0.0050
0.0050
0.0050
0.0050
0.0050
0.0050
0.0050
0.0050
0.0050
0.0050
0.0050
0.0050
0.0050
0.0050
0.0050
0.0050
0.0050
0.0050
0.0050
0.0050
0.0050
0.0050

115.90
115.90
115.90
115.90
115.90
115.90
115.90
115.90
115.90
115.90
115.90
115.90
115.90
115.90
115.90
115.90
115.90
115.90
115.90
115.90
115.90
115.90
115.90
115.90
115.90
115.90
115.90
115.90
115.90
115.90
115.90
115.90
115.90
115.90
115.90
115.90
115.90

1.299E-03
2.165E-03
2.165E-03
2.165E-03
2.165E-03
2.165E-03
2.165E-03
2.165E-03
2.165E-03
2.165E-03
2.165E-03
2.165E-03
2.165E-03
2.165E-03
2.165E-03
2.165E-03
2.165E-03
2.165E-03
2.165E-03
2.165E-03
2.165E-03
2.165E-03
2.165E-03
2.165E-03
2.165E-03
2.165E-03
2.165E-03
2.165E-03
2.165E-03
2.165E-03
2.165E-03
2.165E-03
2.165E-03
2.165E-03
2.165E-03
2.165E-03
1.299E-03

1.743E-03
2.250E-03
2.250E-03
2.250E-03
2.250E-03
2.250E-03
2.250E-03
2.250E-03
2.250E-03
2.250E-03
2.250E-03
2.250E-03
2.250E-03
2.250E-03
2.250E-03
2.250E-03
2.250E-03
2.250E-03
2.250E-03
2.250E-03
2.250E-03
2.250E-03
2.250E-03
2.250E-03
2.250E-03
2.250E-03
2.250E-03
2.250E-03
2.250E-03
2.250E-03
2.250E-03
2.250E-03
2.250E-03
2.250E-03
2.250E-03
2.250E-03
1.743E-03

Page 31

Appendix B1
Model 1 Central Load 0.50%M : 0.13%T
Model 1 - Propoerties of Transverse Members
Generic Properties

Generic Section

Long term Young's Modulus = 0.5E 1.5E+10 Pa

Shear Modulus = 0.42E as per BS8110-21985 cl.2.4.3 (G) 1.3E+10 Pa


Total Transverse Length (LT)
18100 mm

University of Surrey

dM

dT

A SB - T

CB

Msc Structural Engineering

4
tr - Trans (mm )

'

ASB - T (mm 2)
150.8
251.3
251.3
251.3
251.3
251.3
251.3
251.3
251.3
251.3
251.3
251.3
150.8

4
tr - Trans (mm )

350
350
350
350
350
350
350
350
350
350
350
350
350

AST - T (mm 2)

A SB - M

depth (dT) (mm)

Transverse effective

reinf. (d'T) (mm)

300 mm
500 mm
400 mm
mm
30 mm
15

Depth to top trans.

Number of bars (No.)


3
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
3

A ST - T

6100 mm

XT (mm)

8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8

d'M

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13

(mm)

BT Bottom trans. reinf.

Number of bars (No.)

reinf. (mm)

TT Top transverse

Trans. Beam Number

Total Length between supports (L)


Edge element width (BE)
Element width (B)
Element depth (D)
Top Cover (CT)
Bottom Cover (CB)
e

d'T

A ST - M

CT

0.0013
0.0013
0.0013
0.0013
0.0013
0.0013
0.0013
0.0013
0.0013
0.0013
0.0013
0.0013
0.0013

61.68
61.68
61.68
61.68
61.68
61.68
61.68
61.68
61.68
61.68
61.68
61.68
61.68

3.507E-04
5.845E-04
5.845E-04
5.845E-04
5.845E-04
5.845E-04
5.845E-04
5.845E-04
5.845E-04
5.845E-04
5.845E-04
5.845E-04
3.507E-04

1.743E-03
2.250E-03
2.250E-03
2.250E-03
2.250E-03
2.250E-03
2.250E-03
2.250E-03
2.250E-03
2.250E-03
2.250E-03
2.250E-03
1.743E-03

Page 32

Appendix B1
Model 1 Central Load 0.50%M : 0.13%T

6100

1T8 @100mm c.c (B.B)

1T16 @100mm c.c (B)


Y

Section XX

18100

400

Section YY

General Configuration Drawing


Model 1 - 0.50%M : 0.13%T

Free edge

Free edge

Legend
Supported Edge
B - Bottom Layer 1
BB - Bottom Layer 2

Figure B1 - 2 General assembly of model

Figure B1 - 3 Displaced shape

University of Surrey

Msc Structural Engineering

Page 33

Appendix B1
Model 1 Central Load 0.50%M : 0.13%T

Sagging bending moments along Y (kNm)

S11
S9
S7
S5
S3

Transverse beams

S13

37

35

33

31

29

27

25

23

21

19

17

15

13

11

S1
Main beams

+Y
+X
+Z

0-25

25-50

50-75

75-100

100-125

Figure B1 - 4
% Usage of reinfocement for moment along Y - Sagging (%)

S11
S9
S7
S5
S3

Transverse beams

S13

37

35

33

31

29

27

25

23

21

19

17

15

13

11

S1

Main beams
+Y
+X
+Z
0-10

10-20

20-30

30-40

40-50

50-60

60-70

70-80

80-90

Figure B1 - 5
University of Surrey

Msc Structural Engineering

Page 34

Appendix B1
Model 1 Central Load 0.50%M : 0.13%T

Hogging bending moments along Y (kNm)

S11
S9
S7
S5
S3

Transverse beams

S13

37

35

33

31

29

27

25

23

21

19

17

15

13

11

S1

Main beams
+Y
+X
+Z

-20--15

-15--10

-10--5

-5-0

Figure B1 - 6
% Usage of reinforcement along Y - Hogging (%)

S11
S9
S7
S5
S3

Transverse beams

S13

37

35

33

31

29

27

25

23

21

19

17

15

13

11

S1

Main beams
+Y
+X
+Z

0-0.2

0.2-0.4

0.4-0.6

0.6-0.8

0.8-1

Figure B1 - 7
University of Surrey

Msc Structural Engineering

Page 35

Appendix B1
Model 1 Central Load 0.50%M : 0.13%T

Sagging bending moments along X (kNm)

S11
S9
S7
S5
S3

Transverse beams

S13

37

35

33

31

29

27

25

23

21

19

17

15

13

11

S1

Main beams
+Y
+X
+Z
0-10

10-20

20-30

30-40

40-50

Figure B1 - 8
% Usage of reinforcement along X - Sagging (%)

S11
S9
S7
S5
S3

Transverse beams

S13

37

35

33

31

29

27

25

23

21

19

17

15

13

11

S1

Main beams
+Y
+X
+Z

0-25

25-50

50-75

75-100

100-125

125-150

Figure B1 - 9
University of Surrey

Msc Structural Engineering

Page 36

Appendix B1
Model 1 Central Load 0.50%M : 0.13%T

Hogging bending moments along X (kNm)

S11
S9
S7
S5
S3

Transverse beams

S13

37

35

33

31

29

27

25

23

21

19

17

15

13

11

S1

Main beams
+Y
+X
+Z
-8--6

-6--4

-4--2

-2-0

Figure B1 - 10
% Usage of reinforcement along X - Hogging (%)

S11
S9
S7
S5
S3

Transverse beams

S13

37

35

33

31

29

27

25

23

21

19

17

15

13

11

S1

Main beams
+Y
+X
+Z

0-0.2

0.2-0.4

0.4-0.6

0.6-0.8

0.8-1

Figure B1 - 11
University of Surrey

Msc Structural Engineering

Page 37

Appendix B1
Model 1 Central Load 0.50%M : 0.13%T

Shear along Y (kN)

S11
S9
S7
S5
S3

Transverse beams

S13

37

35

33

31

29

27

25

23

21

19

17

15

13

11

S1

Main beams
+Y
+X
+Z
0-25

25-50

50-75

75-100

100-125

125-150

150-175

Figure B1 - 12
Applied shear stress along Y as a % of shear resistance vc (%)

S11
S9
S7
S5
S3

Transverse beams

S13

37

35

33

31

29

27

25

23

21

19

17

15

13

11

S1

Main beams
+Y
+X
+Z
0-25

25-50

50-75

75-100

100-125

125-150

150-175

175-200

200-225

225-250

250-275

Figure B1 - 13
University of Surrey

Msc Structural Engineering

Page 38

Appendix B1
Model 1 Central Load 0.50%M : 0.13%T

Shear along X (kN)

S11
S9
S7
S5
S3

Transverse beams

S13

37

35

33

31

29

27

25

23

21

19

17

15

13

11

S1

Main beams
+Y
+X
+Z
0-20

20-40

40-60

Figure B1 - 14
Applied shear stress along Y as a % of shear resistance vc (%)

S11
S9
S7
S5
S3

Transverse beams

S13

37

35

33

31

29

27

25

23

21

19

17

15

13

11

S1

Main beams
+Y
+X
+Z
0-25

25-50

50-75

75-100

100-125

125-150

150-175

Figure B1 - 15
University of Surrey

Msc Structural Engineering

Page 39

Appendix B1
Model 1 Central Load 0.50%M : 0.13%T

Torque in slab in both directions (kNm)

S11
S9
S7
S5
S3

Transverse beams

S13

37

35

33

31

29

27

25

23

21

19

17

15

13

11

S1

Main beams
+Y
+X
+Z
0-5

5-10

10-15

15-20

20-25

Figure B1 - 16
Maximum horizontal shear stresses due to torsion (N/mm 2)

S11
S9
S7
S5
S3

Transverse beams

S13

37

35

33

31

29

27

25

23

21

19

17

15

13

11

S1

Main beams
+Y
+X
+Z
0-0.5

0.5-1

1-1.5

1.5-2

Figure B1 - 17

University of Surrey

Msc Structural Engineering

Page 40

Appendix B1
Model 1 Central Load 0.50%M : 0.13%T

Mid Transverse span against moment

4.5

13.5

18

Mid Mx moment (KNm)

-20
-40
-60
-80
-100
-120
-140
-160
-180

Transverse span (m)

Mid central moments as analysed

Mid central moments as per BS8110:Pt1:1997

Figure B1 - 18
Support transverse span against reaction

4.5

13.5

18

200
180
160

Reaction (KN)

140
120
100
80
60
40
20
0

Support span (m)

Reactions along support transverse span as analysed

Reactions along support transverse span as designed

Figure B1 - 19
University of Surrey

Msc Structural Engineering

Page 41

1
2
3
4
5

1
2
3
4
5

52.28

2
3
4
5

Msc Structural Engineering

a (m)

a (m)

a (m)

4 Fl.Line load
x 1.4
Slab weight x
1.4

Ref

b (m)

863 KN

863 KN

Reaction R2

-863.2848 KN

-1294.9 KNm @

Ref

Point Load

W2(KN/m)

Trapezoidal Load

b (m)

Reaction R1

Maximum Shear

Maximum moment

Results

P (KN)

W1 (KN/m)

235.48

W (KN/m)

R2 (KN)

3 m

R1 (KN)

R2 (KN)

157

157

R1 (KN)

706

706

R1 (KN)

R2 (KN)

-1500

-1000

-500

500

1000

W1 KN

W KN/m

0.0

0.0

0.00

1
0.5
0

400
300
200
100
0

Span (m)

2.0

3.0

Span (m)

4.0

1.00

1.0

3.0

Span (m)

2.00

Span (m)

3.00

Point Loads

2.0

4.00

4.0

Triangular and Trapezoidal Loads

1.0

Uniformly Distributed Loads

Bending Moment and Shear Force diagram

W2 KN

Analysis of a simply supported structure - Quarter loading

Bending Moment (KNm)


Shear force (KN)

Load (KN)
Load (KN)

University of Surrey
Load (KN)

Uniformly distributed Load

5.00

5.0

5.0

6.00

6.0

6.0

6100

Appendix B1
Model 1 Quarter Load 0.50%M : 0.13%T

18100

3890

13550

Figure B1 - 20 Effective width to BS8110-1:1997

Page 42

Appendix B1
Model 1 Quarter Load 0.50%M : 0.13%T

Design of Reinforced Concrete Slab to BS8110


Section Properties
Clear Span

6100 mm

Width

3890 mm

Overall Depth

400 mm

Concrete Properties
Grade of Concrete

2
30 N/mm

Maximum Aggregate size

19 mm

Tension Reinforcement
Cover to reinforcement

30

Diameter of reinforcement

20

Number of layers of reinforcement

Ultimate Stress of reinforcement

460

Compression Reinforcement
Cover to reinforcement

30

Diameter of reinforcement

Number of layers of reinforcement

Ultimate Stress of reinforcement

460

Shear Reinforcement
Diameter of reinforcement
Ultimate Stress of reinforcement
Spacing between stirrups

Support Conditions
Simply Supported

Eff. Dpt.d
Eff. Dpt d'
Eff. Span

360 mm
34 mm
6460 mm

Loading
Maximum Moment

1429 KNm

Maximum Shear

952.00 KN

Redistribution

at

3250 mm

at

mm

10 %

K'

0.156

0.0945

Lever Arm

317.11

Neutral Axis =

0.881d

95.31 mm

Reinforcement
MESHES (Y/N)

MESH TYPE (A,B,C,D)

Compression
MAX. AREAS ALL.
MIN. AREAS ALL.
AREAS REQUIRED
Type Of Mesh

Tension

2
62240 mm
mm2

2
62240 mm
2
2022.8 mm

mm2

2
11256.2405 mm

Number

Number

LONG MESH

LONG MESH

785 mm

mm2

mm2

636 mm

mm

mm2

503 mm

mm

mm2

385 mm

mm2

mm2

283 mm

mm2

mm2

mm2

mm2

mm2

mm
AREAS PROVIDED

University of Surrey

mm

Msc Structural Engineering

Page 43

Appendix B1
Model 1 Quarter Load 0.50%M : 0.13%T
Compresion Reinforcement

Sufficient
mm2

No extra bars should be provided

mm
Enter number of bars
mm2

Area provided

Tension Reinforcement

< area required

Area required from erxtra bars is

mm2

11256.25

Enter diameter of additional bars

20 mm

Enter number of bars

39
2
12252.2 mm

Area provided

39 20mm bars should be provided at 99.75mm centres

Shear Reinforcement
v
=
v should not exceed
vc

2
0.67980577 N/mm
2
4.38178046 N/mm
2
0.659484094 N/mm

Input data for shear reinforcement

#DIV/0!
Deflection
20

FACTOR FROM B.S. =


Modifocation Factor For Steel In Tension

Modification Factor For Steel In Compression


Actual Deflection
Allowable Deflection

1.02513438
1

16.9444444
20.5026876

ACCORDING TO B.S 8110 YOUR SLAB IS SATISFACTORY!!


ADDITIONAL TENSILE REINFORCEMENT HAS BEEN PROVIDED

University of Surrey

Msc Structural Engineering

Page 44

Appendix B1
Model 1 Quarter Load 0.50%M : 0.13%T

6100

1T8 @100mm c.c (B.B)

1T16 @100mm c.c (B)


Y

Section XX

18100

400

Section YY

General Configuration Drawing


Model 1 - 0.50%M : 0.13%T

Free edge

Free edge

Legend
Supported Edge
B - Bottom Layer 1
BB - Bottom Layer 2

Figure B1 - 21 General assembly of model

Figure B1 - 22 Displaced shape

University of Surrey

Msc Structural Engineering

Page 45

Appendix B1
Model 1 Quarter Load 0.50%M : 0.13%T

Sagging bending moments along Y (kNm)

S11
S9
S7
S5
S3

Transverse beams

S13

37

35

33

31

29

27

25

23

21

19

17

15

13

11

S1
Main beams

+Y
+X
+Z

0-25

25-50

50-75

75-100

100-125

Figure B1 - 23
% Usage of reinfocement for moment along Y - Sagging (%)

S11
S9
S7
S5
S3

Transverse beams

S13

37

35

33

31

29

27

25

23

21

19

17

15

13

11

S1

Main beams
+Y
+X
+Z
0-10

10-20

20-30

30-40

40-50

50-60

60-70

70-80

80-90

Figure B1 - 24
University of Surrey

Msc Structural Engineering

Page 46

Appendix B1
Model 1 Quarter Load 0.50%M : 0.13%T

Hogging bending moments along Y (kNm)

S11
S9
S7
S5
S3

Transverse beams

S13

37

35

33

31

29

27

25

23

21

19

17

15

13

11

S1

Main beams
+Y
+X
+Z

-20--15

-15--10

-10--5

-5-0

Figure B1 - 25
% Usage of reinforcement along Y - Hogging (%)

S11
S9
S7
S5
S3

Transverse beams

S13

37

35

33

31

29

27

25

23

21

19

17

15

13

11

S1

Main beams
+Y
+X
+Z

0-0.2

0.2-0.4

0.4-0.6

0.6-0.8

0.8-1

Figure B1 - 26
University of Surrey

Msc Structural Engineering

Page 47

Appendix B1
Model 1 Quarter Load 0.50%M : 0.13%T

Sagging bending moments along X (kNm)

S11
S9
S7
S5
S3

Transverse beams

S13

37

35

33

31

29

27

25

23

21

19

17

15

13

11

S1

Main beams
+Y
+X
+Z
0-10

10-20

20-30

30-40

40-50

Figure B1 - 27
% Usage of reinforcement along X - Sagging (%)

S11
S9
S7
S5
S3

Transverse beams

S13

37

35

33

31

29

27

25

23

21

19

17

15

13

11

S1

Main beams
+Y
+X
+Z

0-25

25-50

50-75

75-100

100-125

125-150

Figure B1 - 28
University of Surrey

Msc Structural Engineering

Page 48

Appendix B1
Model 1 Quarter Load 0.50%M : 0.13%T

Hogging bending moments along X (kNm)

S11
S9
S7
S5
S3

Transverse beams

S13

37

35

33

31

29

27

25

23

21

19

17

15

13

11

S1

Main beams
+Y
+X
+Z
-8--6

-6--4

-4--2

-2-0

Figure B1 - 29
% Usage of reinforcement along X - Hogging (%)

S11
S9
S7
S5
S3

Transverse beams

S13

37

35

33

31

29

27

25

23

21

19

17

15

13

11

S1

Main beams
+Y
+X
+Z

0-0.2

0.2-0.4

0.4-0.6

0.6-0.8

0.8-1

Figure B1 - 30
University of Surrey

Msc Structural Engineering

Page 49

Appendix B1
Model 1 Quarter Load 0.50%M : 0.13%T

Shear along Y (kN)

S11
S9
S7
S5
S3

Transverse beams

S13

37

35

33

31

29

27

25

23

21

19

17

15

13

11

S1

Main beams
+Y
+X
+Z
0-25

25-50

50-75

75-100

100-125

125-150

150-175

Figure B1 - 31
Applied shear stress along Y as a % of shear resistance vc (%)

S11
S9
S7
S5
S3

Transverse beams

S13

37

35

33

31

29

27

25

23

21

19

17

15

13

11

S1

Main beams
+Y
+X
+Z
0-25

25-50

50-75

75-100

100-125

125-150

150-175

175-200

200-225

225-250

250-275

Figure B1 - 32
University of Surrey

Msc Structural Engineering

Page 50

Appendix B1
Model 1 Quarter Load 0.50%M : 0.13%T

Shear along X (kN)

S11
S9
S7
S5
S3

Transverse beams

S13

37

35

33

31

29

27

25

23

21

19

17

15

13

11

S1

Main beams
+Y
+X
+Z
0-20

20-40

40-60

Figure B1 - 33
Applied shear stress along Y as a % of shear resistance vc (%)

S11
S9
S7
S5
S3

Transverse beams

S13

37

35

33

31

29

27

25

23

21

19

17

15

13

11

S1

Main beams
+Y
+X
+Z
0-25

25-50

50-75

75-100

100-125

125-150

150-175

Figure B1 - 34
University of Surrey

Msc Structural Engineering

Page 51

Appendix B1
Model 1 Quarter Load 0.50%M : 0.13%T

Torque in slab in both directions (kNm)

S11
S9
S7
S5
S3

Transverse beams

S13

37

35

33

31

29

27

25

23

21

19

17

15

13

11

S1

Main beams
+Y
+X
+Z
0-5

5-10

10-15

15-20

20-25

Figure B1 - 35
Maximum horizontal shear stresses due to torsion (N/mm 2)

S11
S9
S7
S5
S3

Transverse beams

S13

37

35

33

31

29

27

25

23

21

19

17

15

13

11

S1

Main beams
+Y
+X
+Z
0-0.5

0.5-1

1-1.5

1.5-2

Figure B1 - 36

University of Surrey

Msc Structural Engineering

Page 52

Appendix B1
Model 1 Quarter Load 0.50%M : 0.13%T

Mid Transverse span against moment

4.5

13.5

18

Mid Mx moment (KNm)

-20
-40
-60
-80
-100
-120
-140
-160
-180

Transverse span (m)

Mid central moments as analysed

Mid central moments as per BS8110:Pt1:1997

Figure B1 - 37
Support transverse span against reaction

4.5

13.5

18

200
180
160

Reaction (KN)

140
120
100
80
60
40
20
0

Support span (m)

Reactions along support transverse span as analysed

Reactions along support transverse span as designed

Figure B1 - 38
University of Surrey

Msc Structural Engineering

Page 53

1
2
3
4
5

1
2
3
4
5

32.26

a (m)

a (m)

a (m)

Msc Structural Engineering

b (m)

803 KN

803 KN

Reaction R2

-803.208 KN

-1204.8 KNm @

Ref

Point Load

W2(KN/m)

Reaction R1

Maximum Shear

Ref

4 Fl.Line load
x 1.4
Slab weight x
1.4

Trapezoidal Load

b (m)

R2 (KN)

R2 (KN)

97

706

R2 (KN)

3 m

R1 (KN)

R1 (KN)

97

706

R1 (KN)

Uniformly distributed Load

Maximum moment

Results

P (KN)

W1 (KN/m)

235.48

2
3
4
5

W (KN/m)

-1500

-1000

-500

500

1000

W1 KN

W KN/m

0.0

0.0

0.00

1
0.5
0

100

200

300

Span (m)

2.0

3.0

Span (m)

4.0

1.00

1.0

3.0

Span (m)

2.00

Span (m)

3.00

Point Loads

2.0

4.00

4.0

Triangular and Trapezoidal Loads

1.0

Uniformly Distributed Loads

Bending Moment and Shear Force diagram

W2 KN

Load (KN)
Load (KN)

University of Surrey
Bending Moment (KNm)
Shear force (KN)

Load (KN)

Analysis of a simply supported structure - Edge loading

5.00

5.0

5.0

6.00

6.0

6.0

6100

Appendix B1
Model 1 Edge Load 0.50%M : 0.13%T

18100

2495

17550

Figure B1 - 39 effective width to BS8110-1:1997

Page 54

Appendix B1
Model 1 Edge Load 0.50%M : 0.13%T

Design of Reinforced Concrete Slab to BS8110


Section Properties
Clear Span

6100 mm

Width

2495 mm

Overall Depth

400 mm

Concrete Properties
Grade of Concrete

2
30 N/mm

Maximum Aggregate size

19 mm

Tension Reinforcement
Cover to reinforcement

30

Diameter of reinforcement

25

Number of layers of reinforcement

Ultimate Stress of reinforcement

460

Compression Reinforcement
Cover to reinforcement

30

Diameter of reinforcement

Number of layers of reinforcement

Ultimate Stress of reinforcement

460

Shear Reinforcement
Diameter of reinforcement
Ultimate Stress of reinforcement
Spacing between stirrups

Support Conditions
Simply Supported

Eff. Dpt.d
Eff. Dpt d'
Eff. Span

357.5 mm
34 mm
6457.5 mm

Loading
Maximum Moment

1429 KNm

Maximum Shear

952.00 KN

Redistribution

at

3250 mm

at

mm

10 %

K'

0.156

0.1493

Lever Arm

282.41

Neutral Axis =

0.79d

166.86 mm

Reinforcement
MESHES (Y/N)

MESH TYPE (A,B,C,D)

Compression
MAX. AREAS ALL.
MIN. AREAS ALL.
AREAS REQUIRED
Type Of Mesh

Tension

2
39920 mm
mm2

2
39920 mm
2
1297.4 mm

mm2

2
12639.1307 mm

Number

Number

LONG MESH

LONG MESH

785 mm

mm2

mm2

636 mm

mm

mm2

503 mm

mm

mm2

385 mm

mm2

mm2

283 mm

mm2

mm2

mm2

mm2

mm2

mm
AREAS PROVIDED

University of Surrey

mm

Msc Structural Engineering

Page 55

Appendix B1
Model 1 Edge Load 0.50%M : 0.13%T
Compresion Reinforcement

Sufficient
mm2

No extra bars should be provided

mm
Enter number of bars
mm2

Area provided

Tension Reinforcement
Area required from erxtra bars is

< area required


mm2

12639.14

Enter diameter of additional bars

25 mm

Enter number of bars

26
2
12762.7 mm

Area provided

26 25mm bars should be provided at 95.97mm centres

Shear Reinforcement
v
=
v should not exceed
vc

2
1.067309444 N/mm
2
4.38178046 N/mm
2
0.778345401 N/mm

Input data for shear reinforcement

#DIV/0!
Deflection
20

FACTOR FROM B.S. =


Modifocation Factor For Steel In Tension

Modification Factor For Steel In Compression


Actual Deflection
Allowable Deflection

0.84784939
1

17.0629371
16.9569879

YOUR SLAB FAILED IN DEFLECTION, INCREASE 'D'


ADDITIONAL TENSILE REINFORCEMENT HAS BEEN PROVIDED

University of Surrey

Msc Structural Engineering

Page 56

Appendix B1
Model 1 Edge Load 0.50%M : 0.13%T

6100

1T8 @100mm c.c (B.B)

1T16 @100mm c.c (B)


Y

Section XX

18100

400

Section YY

General Configuration Drawing


Model 1 - 0.50%M : 0.13%T

Free edge

Free edge

Legend
Supported Edge
B - Bottom Layer 1
BB - Bottom Layer 2

Figure B1 - 40 General assembly model

Figure B1 - 41 Displaced Shape

University of Surrey

Msc Structural Engineering

Page 57

Appendix B1
Model 1 Edge Load 0.50%M : 0.13%T

Sagging bending moments along Y (kNm)

S13
Transverse beams

S11
S9
S7
S5
S3

37

35

33

31

29

27

25

23

21

19

17

15

13

11

S1
Main beams

+Y
+X
+Z

0-25

25-50

50-75

75-100

100-125

125-150

150-175

175-200

200-225

Figure B1 - 42
% Usage of reinfocement for moment along Y - Sagging (%)

S11
S9
S7
S5
S3

Transverse beams

S13

37

35

33

31

29

27

25

23

21

19

17

15

13

11

S1

Main beams
+Y
+X
+Z
0-10

10-20

20-30

30-40

40-50

50-60

60-70

70-80

100-110

110-120

120-130

130-140

140-150

150-160

160-170

170-180

80-90

90-100

Figure B1 - 43
University of Surrey

Msc Structural Engineering

Page 58

Appendix B1
Model 1 Edge Load 0.50%M : 0.13%T

Hogging bending moments along Y (kNm)

S11
S9
S7
S5
S3

Transverse beams

S13

37

35

33

31

29

27

25

23

21

19

17

15

13

11

S1

Main beams
+Y
+X
+Z

-30--20

-20--10

-10-0

Figure B1 - 44
% Usage of reinforcement along Y - Hogging (%)

S11
S9
S7
S5
S3

Transverse beams

S13

37

35

33

31

29

27

25

23

21

19

17

15

13

11

S1

Main beams
+Y
+X
+Z

0-0.2

0.2-0.4

0.4-0.6

0.6-0.8

0.8-1

Figure B1 - 45
University of Surrey

Msc Structural Engineering

Page 59

Appendix B1
Model 1 Edge Load 0.50%M : 0.13%T

Sagging bending moments along X (kNm)

S11
S9
S7
S5
S3

Transverse beams

S13

37

35

33

31

29

27

25

23

21

19

17

15

13

11

S1

Main beams
+Y
+X
+Z
0-10

10-20

20-30

Figure B1 - 46
% Usage of reinforcement along X - Sagging (%)

S11
S9
S7
S5
S3

Transverse beams

S13

37

35

33

31

29

27

25

23

21

19

17

15

13

11

S1

Main beams
+Y
+X
+Z

0-25

25-50

50-75

Figure B1 - 47
University of Surrey

Msc Structural Engineering

Page 60

Appendix B1
Model 1 Edge Load 0.50%M : 0.13%T

Hogging bending moments along X (kNm)

S11
S9
S7
S5
S3

Transverse beams

S13

37

35

33

31

29

27

25

23

21

19

17

15

13

11

S1

Main beams
+Y
+X
+Z
-20--18

-18--16

-16--14

-14--12

-12--10

-10--8

-8--6

-6--4

-4--2

-2-0

Figure B1 - 48
% Usage of reinforcement along X - Hogging (%)

S11
S9
S7
S5
S3

Transverse beams

S13

37

35

33

31

29

27

25

23

21

19

17

15

13

11

S1

Main beams
+Y
+X
+Z

0-0.2

0.2-0.4

0.4-0.6

0.6-0.8

0.8-1

Figure B1 - 49
University of Surrey

Msc Structural Engineering

Page 61

Appendix B1
Model 1 Edge Load 0.50%M : 0.13%T

Shear along Y (kN)

S11
S9
S7
S5
S3

Transverse beams

S13

37

35

33

31

29

27

25

23

21

19

17

15

13

11

S1

Main beams
+Y
+X
+Z
0-25

25-50

50-75

75-100

100-125

125-150

150-175

175-200

Figure B1 - 50
Applied shear stress along Y as a % of shear resistance vc (%)

S11
S9
S7
S5
S3

Transverse beams

S13

37

35

33

31

29

27

25

23

21

19

17

15

13

11

S1

Main beams
+Y
+X
+Z
0-25

25-50

250-275

275-300

50-75

75-100

100-125

125-150

150-175

175-200

200-225

225-250

Figure B1 - 51
University of Surrey

Msc Structural Engineering

Page 62

Appendix B1
Model 1 Edge Load 0.50%M : 0.13%T

Shear along X (kN)

S11
S9
S7
S5
S3

Transverse beams

S13

37

35

33

31

29

27

25

23

21

19

17

15

13

11

S1

Main beams
+Y
+X
+Z
0-20

20-40

40-60

60-80

80-100

Figure B1 - 52
Applied shear stress along Y as a % of shear resistance vc (%)

S11
S9
S7
S5
S3

Transverse beams

S13

37

35

33

31

29

27

25

23

21

19

17

15

13

11

S1

Main beams
+Y
+X
+Z
0-25

25-50

250-275

275-300

50-75

75-100

100-125

125-150

150-175

175-200

200-225

225-250

Figure B1 - 53
University of Surrey

Msc Structural Engineering

Page 63

Appendix B1
Model 1 Edge Load 0.50%M : 0.13%T

Torque in slab in both directions (kNm)

S11
S9
S7
S5
S3

Transverse beams

S13

37

35

33

31

29

27

25

23

21

19

17

15

13

11

S1

Main beams
+Y
+X
+Z
0-10

10-20

20-30

30-40

40-50

Figure B1 - 54
Maximum horizontal shear stresses due to torsion (N/mm 2)

S11
S9
S7
S5
S3

Transverse beams

S13

37

35

33

31

29

27

25

23

21

19

17

15

13

11

S1

Main beams
+Y
+X
+Z
0-0.5

0.5-1

1-1.5

1.5-2

2-2.5

2.5-3

3-3.5

Figure B1 - 55

University of Surrey

Msc Structural Engineering

Page 64

Appendix B1
Model 1 Edge Load 0.50%M : 0.13%T

Mid Transverse span against moment

4.5

13.5

18

Mid Mx moment (KNm)

-50

-100

-150

-200

-250

-300

Transverse span (m)

Mid central moments as analysed

Mid central moments as per BS8110:Pt1:1997

Figure B1 - 56
Support transverse span against reaction

4.5

13.5

18

250

Reaction (KN)

200

150

100

50

Support span (m)

Reactions along support transverse span as analysed

Reactions along support transverse span as designed

Figure B1 - 57
University of Surrey

Msc Structural Engineering

Page 65

Appendix B1
Model 1 Central + Quarter + Edge Load 0.50%M : 0.13%T

6100

1T8 @100mm c.c (B.B)

1T16 @100mm c.c (B)


Y

Section XX

18100

400

Section YY

General Configuration Drawing


Model 1 - 0.50%M : 0.13%T

Free edge

Free edge

Legend
Supported Edge
B - Bottom Layer 1
BB - Bottom Layer 2

Figure B1 - 58 General assembly of model

Figure B1 - 59 Displaced shape

University of Surrey

Msc Structural Engineering

Page 66

Appendix B1
Model 1 Central + Quarter + Edge Load 0.50%M : 0.13%T

Sagging bending moments along Y (kNm)

S11
S9
S7
S5
S3

Transverse beams

S13

37

35

33

31

29

27

25

23

21

19

17

15

13

11

S1
Main beams

+Y
+X
+Z

0-25

25-50

50-75

75-100

100-125

125-150

150-175

175-200

200-225

225-250

Figure B1 - 60
% Usage of reinfocement for moment along Y - Sagging (%)

S11
S9
S7
S5
S3

Transverse beams

S13

37

35

33

31

29

27

25

23

21

19

17

15

13

11

S1

Main beams
+Y
+X
+Z
0-20

20-40

40-60

60-80

80-100

100-120

120-140

140-160

160-180

180-200

Figure B1 - 61
University of Surrey

Msc Structural Engineering

Page 67

Appendix B1
Model 1 Central + Quarter + Edge Load 0.50%M : 0.13%T

Hogging bending moments along Y (kNm)

S11
S9
S7
S5
S3

Transverse beams

S13

37

35

33

31

29

27

25

23

21

19

17

15

13

11

S1

Main beams
+Y
+X
+Z

-25--20

-20--15

-15--10

-10--5

-5-0

Figure B1 - 62
% Usage of reinforcement along Y - Hogging (%)

S11
S9
S7
S5
S3

Transverse beams

S13

37

35

33

31

29

27

25

23

21

19

17

15

13

11

S1

Main beams
+Y
+X
+Z

0-0.2

0.2-0.4

0.4-0.6

0.6-0.8

0.8-1

Figure B1 - 63
University of Surrey

Msc Structural Engineering

Page 68

Appendix B1
Model 1 Central + Quarter + Edge Load 0.50%M : 0.13%T

Sagging bending moments along X (kNm)

S11
S9
S7
S5
S3

Transverse beams

S13

37

35

33

31

29

27

25

23

21

19

17

15

13

11

S1

Main beams
+Y
+X
+Z
0-10

10-20

20-30

30-40

40-50

Figure B1 - 64
% Usage of reinforcement along X - Sagging (%)

S11
S9
S7
S5
S3

Transverse beams

S13

37

35

33

31

29

27

25

23

21

19

17

15

13

11

S1

Main beams
+Y
+X
+Z

0-25

25-50

50-75

75-100

100-125

Figure B1 - 65
University of Surrey

Msc Structural Engineering

Page 69

Appendix B1
Model 1 Central + Quarter + Edge Load 0.50%M : 0.13%T

Hogging bending moments along X (kNm)

S11
S9
S7
S5
S3

Transverse beams

S13

37

35

33

31

29

27

25

23

21

19

17

15

13

11

S1

Main beams
+Y
+X
+Z
-28--24

-24--20

-20--16

-16--12

-12--8

-8--4

-4-0

Figure B1 - 66
% Usage of reinforcement along X - Hogging (%)

S11
S9
S7
S5
S3

Transverse beams

S13

37

35

33

31

29

27

25

23

21

19

17

15

13

11

S1

Main beams
+Y
+X
+Z

0-0.2

0.2-0.4

0.4-0.6

0.6-0.8

0.8-1

Figure B1 - 67
University of Surrey

Msc Structural Engineering

Page 70

Appendix B1
Model 1 Central + Quarter + Edge Load 0.50%M : 0.13%T

Shear along Y (kN)

S11
S9
S7
S5
S3

Transverse beams

S13

37

35

33

31

29

27

25

23

21

19

17

15

13

11

S1

Main beams
+Y
+X
+Z
0-25

25-50

50-75

75-100

100-125

125-150

150-175

175-200

200-225

Figure B1 - 68
Applied shear stress along Y as a % of shear resistance vc (%)

S11
S9
S7
S5
S3

Transverse beams

S13

37

35

33

31

29

27

25

23

21

19

17

15

13

11

S1

Main beams
+Y
+X
+Z
0-25

25-50

250-275

275-300

50-75

75-100

100-125

125-150

150-175

175-200

200-225

225-250

Figure B1 - 69
University of Surrey

Msc Structural Engineering

Page 71

Appendix B1
Model 1 Central + Quarter + Edge Load 0.50%M : 0.13%T

Shear along X (kN)

S11
S9
S7
S5
S3

Transverse beams

S13

37

35

33

31

29

27

25

23

21

19

17

15

13

11

S1

Main beams
+Y
+X
+Z
0-20

20-40

40-60

60-80

Figure B1 - 70
Applied shear stress along Y as a % of shear resistance vc (%)

S11
S9
S7
S5
S3

Transverse beams

S13

37

35

33

31

29

27

25

23

21

19

17

15

13

11

S1

Main beams
+Y
+X
+Z
0-25

25-50

50-75

75-100

100-125

125-150

150-175

175-200

200-225

Figure B1 - 71
University of Surrey

Msc Structural Engineering

Page 72

Appendix B1
Model 1 Central + Quarter + Edge Load 0.50%M : 0.13%T

Torque in slab in both directions (kNm)

S11
S9
S7
S5
S3

Transverse beams

S13

37

35

33

31

29

27

25

23

21

19

17

15

13

11

S1

Main beams
+Y
+X
+Z
0-10

10-20

20-30

30-40

Figure B1 - 72
Maximum horizontal shear stresses due to torsion (N/mm 2)

S11
S9
S7
S5
S3

Transverse beams

S13

37

35

33

31

29

27

25

23

21

19

17

15

13

11

S1

Main beams
+Y
+X
+Z
0-0.5

0.5-1

1-1.5

1.5-2

2-2.5

2.5-3

Figure B1 - 73

University of Surrey

Msc Structural Engineering

Page 73

Appendix B1
Model 1 Central + Quarter + Edge Load 0.50%M : 0.13%T

Mid Transverse span against moment

4.5

13.5

18

Mid Mx moment (KNm)

-50

-100

-150

-200

-250

-300

Transverse span (m)

Mid central moments as analysed

Mid central moments as per BS8110:Pt1:1997

Figure B1 - 74
Support transverse span against reaction

4.5

13.5

18

250

Reaction (KN)

200

150

100

50

Support span (m)

Reactions along support transverse span as analysed

Reactions along support transverse span as designed

Figure B1 - 75
University of Surrey

Msc Structural Engineering

Page 74

Appendix B2 - Model 2
Reinforcement ratio - 0.50% Main : 0.50% Transverse

Appendix B2
Model 2 Central Load 0.50%M : 0.50%T
Model 2 - Propoerties of Main Members
Generic Properties

Generic Section

Long term Young's Modulus = 0.5E 1.5E+10 Pa

Shear Modulus = 0.42E as per BS81101.3E+10 Pa


2-1985 cl.2.4.3 (G)
Total Transverse Length (LT)
18100 mm
6100 mm

A SB - T

CB

ASB - M (mm2)

362
362
362
362
362
362
362
362
362
362
362
362
362
362
362
362
362
362
362
362
362
362
362
362
362
362
362
362
362
362
362
362
362
362
362
362
362

150.8
251.3
251.3
251.3
251.3
251.3
251.3
251.3
251.3
251.3
251.3
251.3
251.3
251.3
251.3
251.3
251.3
251.3
251.3
251.3
251.3
251.3
251.3
251.3
251.3
251.3
251.3
251.3
251.3
251.3
251.3
251.3
251.3
251.3
251.3
251.3
150.8

603.2
1005.3
1005.3
1005.3
1005.3
1005.3
1005.3
1005.3
1005.3
1005.3
1005.3
1005.3
1005.3
1005.3
1005.3
1005.3
1005.3
1005.3
1005.3
1005.3
1005.3
1005.3
1005.3
1005.3
1005.3
1005.3
1005.3
1005.3
1005.3
1005.3
1005.3
1005.3
1005.3
1005.3
1005.3
1005.3
603.2

Cx (mm)

AST - M (mm 2)

34
34
34
34
34
34
34
34
34
34
34
34
34
34
34
34
34
34
34
34
34
34
34
34
34
34
34
34
34
34
34
34
34
34
34
34
34

4
tr - Main (m )

Main effective Depth


(dM) (mm)

3
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
3

XM (mm)

Depth to main top


reinf. (d'M) (mm)

16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16

Number of bars
(No.)

3
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
3

0.0013
0.0013
0.0013
0.0013
0.0013
0.0013
0.0013
0.0013
0.0013
0.0013
0.0013
0.0013
0.0013
0.0013
0.0013
0.0013
0.0013
0.0013
0.0013
0.0013
0.0013
0.0013
0.0013
0.0013
0.0013
0.0013
0.0013
0.0013
0.0013
0.0013
0.0013
0.0013
0.0013
0.0013
0.0013
0.0013
0.0013

0.0050
0.0050
0.0050
0.0050
0.0050
0.0050
0.0050
0.0050
0.0050
0.0050
0.0050
0.0050
0.0050
0.0050
0.0050
0.0050
0.0050
0.0050
0.0050
0.0050
0.0050
0.0050
0.0050
0.0050
0.0050
0.0050
0.0050
0.0050
0.0050
0.0050
0.0050
0.0050
0.0050
0.0050
0.0050
0.0050
0.0050

112.13
112.13
112.13
112.13
112.13
112.13
112.13
112.13
112.13
112.13
112.13
112.13
112.13
112.13
112.13
112.13
112.13
112.13
112.13
112.13
112.13
112.13
112.13
112.13
112.13
112.13
112.13
112.13
112.13
112.13
112.13
112.13
112.13
112.13
112.13
112.13
112.13

1.277E-03
2.129E-03
2.129E-03
2.129E-03
2.129E-03
2.129E-03
2.129E-03
2.129E-03
2.129E-03
2.129E-03
2.129E-03
2.129E-03
2.129E-03
2.129E-03
2.129E-03
2.129E-03
2.129E-03
2.129E-03
2.129E-03
2.129E-03
2.129E-03
2.129E-03
2.129E-03
2.129E-03
2.129E-03
2.129E-03
2.129E-03
2.129E-03
2.129E-03
2.129E-03
2.129E-03
2.129E-03
2.129E-03
2.129E-03
2.129E-03
2.129E-03
1.277E-03

3.299E-03
4.259E-03
4.259E-03
4.259E-03
4.259E-03
4.259E-03
4.259E-03
4.259E-03
4.259E-03
4.259E-03
4.259E-03
4.259E-03
4.259E-03
4.259E-03
4.259E-03
4.259E-03
4.259E-03
4.259E-03
4.259E-03
4.259E-03
4.259E-03
4.259E-03
4.259E-03
4.259E-03
4.259E-03
4.259E-03
4.259E-03
4.259E-03
4.259E-03
4.259E-03
4.259E-03
4.259E-03
4.259E-03
4.259E-03
4.259E-03
4.259E-03
3.299E-03

'

BM Bottom main
reinf. (mm)

8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8

Number of bars
(No.)

A SB - M

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37

University of Surrey

dT

dM

mm
mm
mm
mm
mm

TM Top main reinf.


(mm)

300
500
400
30
30
15

CT

d'M

A ST - T

Main Beam Number

Total Length between supports (L)


Edge element width (BE)
Element width (B)
Element depth (D)
Top Cover (CT)
Bottom Cover (CB)
e

d'

A ST - M

Msc Structural Engineering

Page 76

Appendix B2
Model 2 Central Load 0.50%M : 0.50%T
Model 2 - Propoerties of Transverse Members
Generic Properties

Generic Section

Long term Young's Modulus = 0.5E 1.5E+10 Pa

Shear Modulus = 0.42E as per BS8110-21985 cl.2.4.3 (G) 1.3E+10 Pa


Total Transverse Length (LT)
18100 mm

University of Surrey

A SB - T

CB

4
tr - Trans (mm )

4
tr - Trans (mm )

603.2
1005.3
1005.3
1005.3
1005.3
1005.3
1005.3
1005.3
1005.3
1005.3
1005.3
1005.3
603.2

0.0013
0.0013
0.0013
0.0013
0.0013
0.0013
0.0013
0.0013
0.0013
0.0013
0.0013
0.0013
0.0013

0.0050
0.0050
0.0050
0.0050
0.0050
0.0050
0.0050
0.0050
0.0050
0.0050
0.0050
0.0050
0.0050

107.62
107.62
107.62
107.62
107.62
107.62
107.62
107.62
107.62
107.62
107.62
107.62
107.62

1.278E-03
2.130E-03
2.130E-03
2.130E-03
2.130E-03
2.130E-03
2.130E-03
2.130E-03
2.130E-03
2.130E-03
2.130E-03
2.130E-03
1.278E-03

3.299E-03
4.259E-03
4.259E-03
4.259E-03
4.259E-03
4.259E-03
4.259E-03
4.259E-03
4.259E-03
4.259E-03
4.259E-03
4.259E-03
3.299E-03

'

150.8
251.3
251.3
251.3
251.3
251.3
251.3
251.3
251.3
251.3
251.3
251.3
150.8

XT (mm)

346
346
346
346
346
346
346
346
346
346
346
346
346

A SB - M

depth (dT) (mm)

reinf. (d'T) (mm)


42
42
42
42
42
42
42
42
42
42
42
42
42

Transverse effective

Depth to top trans.

Number of bars (No.)


3
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
3

dT

16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16

dM

mm
mm
mm
mm
mm

ASB - T (mm 2)

3
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
3

(mm)

BT Bottom trans. reinf.

Number of bars (No.)

reinf. (mm)
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8

300
500
400
30
30
15

d'M

A ST - T

6100 mm

AST - T (mm 2)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13

TT Top transverse

Trans. Beam Number

Total Length between supports (L)


Edge element width (BE)
Element width (B)
Element depth (D)
Top Cover (CT)
Bottom Cover (CB)
e

d'T

A ST - M

CT

Msc Structural Engineering

Page 77

Appendix B2
Model 2 Central Load 0.50%M : 0.50%T

6100

1T16 @100mm c.c (B.B)


1T8 @100mm c.c (T.T)

1T16 @100mm c.c (B)


1T8 @100mm c.c (T)
Y

Section XX

18100

400

Free edge

Free edge

Section YY

General Configuration Drawing


Model 2 - 0.50%M : 0.50%T

Legend
Supported Edge
B - Bottom Layer 1
BB - Bottom Layer 2

T - Top Layer 1
TT - Top Layer 2

Figure B2 - 1 General assembly of model

Figure B2 - 2 Displaced shape

University of Surrey

Msc Structural Engineering

Page 78

Appendix B2
Model 2 Central Load 0.50%M : 0.50%T

Sagging bending moments along Y (kNm)

S11
S9
S7
S5
S3

Transverse beams

S13

37

35

33

31

29

27

25

23

21

19

17

15

13

11

S1
Main beams

+Y
+X
+Z

0-20

20-40

40-60

60-80

80-100

Figure B2 - 3
% Usage of reinfocement for moment along Y - Sagging (%)

S11
S9
S7
S5
S3

Transverse beams

S13

37

35

33

31

29

27

25

23

21

19

17

15

13

11

S1

Main beams
+Y
+X
+Z
0-10

10-20

20-30

30-40

40-50

50-60

60-70

Figure B2 - 4
University of Surrey

Msc Structural Engineering

Page 79

Appendix B2
Model 2 Central Load 0.50%M : 0.50%T

Hogging bending moments along Y (kNm)

S11
S9
S7
S5
S3

Transverse beams

S13

37

35

33

31

29

27

25

23

21

19

17

15

13

11

S1

Main beams
+Y
+X
+Z

-15--10

-10--5

-5-0

Figure B2 - 5
% Usage of reinforcement along Y - Hogging (%)

S11
S9
S7
S5
S3

Transverse beams

S13

37

35

33

31

29

27

25

23

21

19

17

15

13

11

S1

Main beams
+Y
+X
+Z

0-10

10-20

20-30

30-40

Figure B2 - 6
University of Surrey

Msc Structural Engineering

Page 80

Appendix B2
Model 2 Central Load 0.50%M : 0.50%T

Sagging bending moments along X (kNm)

S11
S9
S7
S5
S3

Transverse beams

S13

37

35

33

31

29

27

25

23

21

19

17

15

13

11

S1

Main beams
+Y
+X
+Z
0-10

10-20

20-30

30-40

40-50

50-60

60-70

Figure B2 - 7
% Usage of reinforcement along X - Sagging (%)

S11
S9
S7
S5
S3

Transverse beams

S13

37

35

33

31

29

27

25

23

21

19

17

15

13

11

S1

Main beams
+Y
+X
+Z

0-25

25-50

Figure B2 - 8
University of Surrey

Msc Structural Engineering

Page 81

Appendix B2
Model 2 Central Load 0.50%M : 0.50%T

Hogging bending moments along X (kNm)

S11
S9
S7
S5
S3

Transverse beams

S13

37

35

33

31

29

27

25

23

21

19

17

15

13

11

S1

Main beams
+Y
+X
+Z
-12--10

-10--8

-8--6

-6--4

-4--2

-2-0

Figure B2 - 9
% Usage of reinforcement along X - Hogging (%)

S11
S9
S7
S5
S3

Transverse beams

S13

37

35

33

31

29

27

25

23

21

19

17

15

13

11

S1

Main beams
+Y
+X
+Z

0-10

10-20

20-30

Figure B2 - 10
University of Surrey

Msc Structural Engineering

Page 82

Appendix B2
Model 2 Central Load 0.50%M : 0.50%T

Shear along Y (kN)

S11
S9
S7
S5
S3

Transverse beams

S13

37

35

33

31

29

27

25

23

21

19

17

15

13

11

S1

Main beams
+Y
+X
+Z
0-25

25-50

50-75

75-100

100-125

125-150

Figure B2 - 11
Applied shear stress along Y as a % of shear resistance vc (%)

S11
S9
S7
S5
S3

Transverse beams

S13

37

35

33

31

29

27

25

23

21

19

17

15

13

11

S1

Main beams
+Y
+X
+Z
0-25

25-50

50-75

75-100

100-125

125-150

150-175

175-200

Figure B2 - 12
University of Surrey

Msc Structural Engineering

Page 83

Appendix B2
Model 2 Central Load 0.50%M : 0.50%T

Shear along X (kN)

S11
S9
S7
S5
S3

Transverse beams

S13

37

35

33

31

29

27

25

23

21

19

17

15

13

11

S1

Main beams
+Y
+X
+Z
0-20

20-40

40-60

Figure B2 - 13
Applied shear stress along Y as a % of shear resistance vc (%)

S11
S9
S7
S5
S3

Transverse beams

S13

37

35

33

31

29

27

25

23

21

19

17

15

13

11

S1

Main beams
+Y
+X
+Z
0-25

25-50

50-75

75-100

Figure B2 - 14
University of Surrey

Msc Structural Engineering

Page 84

Appendix B2
Model 2 Central Load 0.50%M : 0.50%T

Torque in slab in both directions (kNm)

S11
S9
S7
S5
S3

Transverse beams

S13

37

35

33

31

29

27

25

23

21

19

17

15

13

11

S1

Main beams
+Y
+X
+Z
0-5

5-10

10-15

15-20

20-25

Figure B2 - 15
Maximum horizontal shear stresses due to torsion (N/mm 2)

S11
S9
S7
S5
S3

Transverse beams

S13

37

35

33

31

29

27

25

23

21

19

17

15

13

11

S1

Main beams
+Y
+X
+Z
0-0.5

0.5-1

1-1.5

1.5-2

Figure B2 - 16

University of Surrey

Msc Structural Engineering

Page 85

Appendix B2
Model 2 Central Load 0.50%M : 0.50%T

Mid Transverse span against moment

4.5

13.5

18

Mid Mx moment (KNm)

-20
-40
-60
-80
-100
-120
-140
-160
-180

Transverse span (m)

Mid central moments as analysed

Mid central moments as per BS8110:Pt1:1997

Figure B2 - 17
Support transverse span against reaction

4.5

13.5

18

160
140

Reaction (KN)

120
100
80
60
40
20
0

Support span (m)

Reactions along support transverse span as analysed

Reactions along support transverse span as designed

Figure B2 - 18
University of Surrey

Msc Structural Engineering

Page 86

Appendix B2
Model 2 Quarter Load 0.50%M : 0.50%T

6100

1T16 @100mm c.c (B.B)


1T8 @100mm c.c (T.T)

1T16 @100mm c.c (B)


1T8 @100mm c.c (T)
Y

Section XX

18100

400

Free edge

Free edge

Section YY

General Configuration Drawing


Model 2 - 0.50%M : 0.50%T

Legend
Supported Edge
B - Bottom Layer 1
BB - Bottom Layer 2

T - Top Layer 1
TT - Top Layer 2

Figure B2 - 19 General assembly of model

Figure B2 - 20 displaced shape

University of Surrey

Msc Structural Engineering

Page 87

Appendix B2
Model 2 Quarter Load 0.50%M : 0.50%T

Sagging bending moments along Y (kNm)

S11
S9
S7
S5
S3

Transverse beams

S13

37

35

33

31

29

27

25

23

21

19

17

15

13

11

S1
Main beams

+Y
+X
+Z

0-25

25-50

50-75

75-100

Figure B2 - 21
% Usage of reinfocement for moment along Y - Sagging (%)

S11
S9
S7
S5
S3

Transverse beams

S13

37

35

33

31

29

27

25

23

21

19

17

15

13

11

S1

Main beams
+Y
+X
+Z
0-10

10-20

20-30

30-40

40-50

50-60

60-70

Figure B2 - 22
University of Surrey

Msc Structural Engineering

Page 88

Appendix B2
Model 2 Quarter Load 0.50%M : 0.50%T

Hogging bending moments along Y (kNm)

S11
S9
S7
S5
S3

Transverse beams

S13

37

35

33

31

29

27

25

23

21

19

17

15

13

11

S1

Main beams
+Y
+X
+Z

-15--10

-10--5

-5-0

Figure B2 - 23
% Usage of reinforcement along Y - Hogging (%)

S11
S9
S7
S5
S3

Transverse beams

S13

37

35

33

31

29

27

25

23

21

19

17

15

13

11

S1

Main beams
+Y
+X
+Z

0-10

10-20

20-30

30-40

Figure B2 - 24
University of Surrey

Msc Structural Engineering

Page 89

Appendix B2
Model 2 Quarter Load 0.50%M : 0.50%T

Sagging bending moments along X (kNm)

S11
S9
S7
S5
S3

Transverse beams

S13

37

35

33

31

29

27

25

23

21

19

17

15

13

11

S1

Main beams
+Y
+X
+Z
0-10

10-20

20-30

30-40

40-50

50-60

60-70

Figure B2 - 25
% Usage of reinforcement along X - Sagging (%)

S11
S9
S7
S5
S3

Transverse beams

S13

37

35

33

31

29

27

25

23

21

19

17

15

13

11

S1

Main beams
+Y
+X
+Z

0-25

25-50

Figure B2 - 26
University of Surrey

Msc Structural Engineering

Page 90

Appendix B2
Model 2 Quarter Load 0.50%M : 0.50%T

Hogging bending moments along X (kNm)

S11
S9
S7
S5
S3

Transverse beams

S13

37

35

33

31

29

27

25

23

21

19

17

15

13

11

S1

Main beams
+Y
+X
+Z
-12--10

-10--8

-8--6

-6--4

-4--2

-2-0

Figure B2 - 27
% Usage of reinforcement along X - Hogging (%)

S11
S9
S7
S5
S3

Transverse beams

S13

37

35

33

31

29

27

25

23

21

19

17

15

13

11

S1

Main beams
+Y
+X
+Z

0-10

10-20

20-30

Figure B2 - 28
University of Surrey

Msc Structural Engineering

Page 91

Appendix B2
Model 2 Quarter Load 0.50%M : 0.50%T

Shear along Y (kN)

S11
S9
S7
S5
S3

Transverse beams

S13

37

35

33

31

29

27

25

23

21

19

17

15

13

11

S1

Main beams
+Y
+X
+Z
0-25

25-50

50-75

75-100

100-125

125-150

Figure B2 - 29
Applied shear stress along Y as a % of shear resistance vc (%)

S11
S9
S7
S5
S3

Transverse beams

S13

37

35

33

31

29

27

25

23

21

19

17

15

13

11

S1

Main beams
+Y
+X
+Z
0-25

25-50

50-75

75-100

100-125

125-150

150-175

175-200

Figure B2 - 30
University of Surrey

Msc Structural Engineering

Page 92

Appendix B2
Model 2 Quarter Load 0.50%M : 0.50%T

Shear along X (kN)

S11
S9
S7
S5
S3

Transverse beams

S13

37

35

33

31

29

27

25

23

21

19

17

15

13

11

S1

Main beams
+Y
+X
+Z
0-20

20-40

40-60

Figure B2 - 31
Applied shear stress along Y as a % of shear resistance vc (%)

S11
S9
S7
S5
S3

Transverse beams

S13

37

35

33

31

29

27

25

23

21

19

17

15

13

11

S1

Main beams
+Y
+X
+Z
0-25

25-50

50-75

75-100

Figure B2 - 32
University of Surrey

Msc Structural Engineering

Page 93

Appendix B2
Model 2 Quarter Load 0.50%M : 0.50%T

Torque in slab in both directions (kNm)

S11
S9
S7
S5
S3

Transverse beams

S13

37

35

33

31

29

27

25

23

21

19

17

15

13

11

S1

Main beams
+Y
+X
+Z
0-5

5-10

10-15

15-20

20-25

Figure B2 - 33
Maximum horizontal shear stresses due to torsion (N/mm 2)

S11
S9
S7
S5
S3

Transverse beams

S13

37

35

33

31

29

27

25

23

21

19

17

15

13

11

S1

Main beams
+Y
+X
+Z
0-0.5

0.5-1

1-1.5

1.5-2

Figure B2 - 34

University of Surrey

Msc Structural Engineering

Page 94

Appendix B2
Model 2 Quarter Load 0.50%M : 0.50%T

Mid Transverse span against moment

4.5

13.5

18

Mid Mx moment (KNm)

-20
-40
-60
-80
-100
-120
-140
-160
-180

Transverse span (m)

Mid central moments as analysed

Mid central moments as per BS8110:Pt1:1997

Figure B2 - 35
Support transverse span against reaction

4.5

13.5

18

160
140

Reaction (KN)

120
100
80
60
40
20
0

Support span (m)

Reactions along support transverse span as analysed

Reactions along support transverse span as designed

Figure B2 - 36
University of Surrey

Msc Structural Engineering

Page 95

Appendix B2
Model 2 Edge Load 0.50%M : 0.50%T

6100

1T16 @100mm c.c (B.B)


1T8 @100mm c.c (T.T)

1T16 @100mm c.c (B)


1T8 @100mm c.c (T)
Y

Section XX

18100

400

Free edge

Free edge

Section YY

General Configuration Drawing


Model 2 - 0.50%M : 0.50%T

Legend
Supported Edge
B - Bottom Layer 1
BB - Bottom Layer 2

T - Top Layer 1
TT - Top Layer 2

Figure B2 - 37 General assembly of model

Figure B2 - 38 isplacedShape

University of Surrey

Msc Structural Engineering

Page 96

Appendix B2
Model 2 Edge Load 0.50%M : 0.50%T

Sagging bending moments along Y (kNm)

S11
S9
S7
S5
S3

Transverse beams

S13

37

35

33

31

29

27

25

23

21

19

17

15

13

11

S1
Main beams

+Y
+X
+Z

0-25

25-50

50-75

75-100

100-125

125-150

150-175

Figure B2 - 39
% Usage of reinfocement for moment along Y - Sagging (%)

S11
S9
S7
S5
S3

Transverse beams

S13

37

35

33

31

29

27

25

23

21

19

17

15

13

11

S1

Main beams
+Y
+X
+Z
0-15

15-30

30-45

45-60

60-75

75-90

90-105

105-120

120-135

Figure B2 - 40
University of Surrey

Msc Structural Engineering

Page 97

Appendix B2
Model 2 Edge Load 0.50%M : 0.50%T

Hogging bending moments along Y (kNm)

S11
S9
S7
S5
S3

Transverse beams

S13

37

35

33

31

29

27

25

23

21

19

17

15

13

11

S1

Main beams
+Y
+X
+Z

-40--30

-30--20

-20--10

-10-0

Figure B2 - 41
% Usage of reinforcement along Y - Hogging (%)

S11
S9
S7
S5
S3

Transverse beams

S13

37

35

33

31

29

27

25

23

21

19

17

15

13

11

S1

Main beams
+Y
+X
+Z

0-50

50-100

100-150

Figure B2 - 42
University of Surrey

Msc Structural Engineering

Page 98

Appendix B2
Model 2 Edge Load 0.50%M : 0.50%T

Sagging bending moments along X (kNm)

S11
S9
S7
S5
S3

Transverse beams

S13

37

35

33

31

29

27

25

23

21

19

17

15

13

11

S1

Main beams
+Y
+X
+Z
0-10

10-20

20-30

Figure B2 - 43
% Usage of reinforcement along X - Sagging (%)

S11
S9
S7
S5
S3

Transverse beams

S13

37

35

33

31

29

27

25

23

21

19

17

15

13

11

S1

Main beams
+Y
+X
+Z

0-5

5-10

10-15

15-20

Figure B2 - 44
University of Surrey

Msc Structural Engineering

Page 99

Appendix B2
Model 2 Edge Load 0.50%M : 0.50%T

Hogging bending moments along X (kNm)

S11
S9
S7
S5
S3

Transverse beams

S13

37

35

33

31

29

27

25

23

21

19

17

15

13

11

S1

Main beams
+Y
+X
+Z
-30--28

-28--26

-26--24

-24--22

-22--20

-10--8

-8--6

-6--4

-4--2

-2-0

-20--18

-18--16

-16--14

-14--12

-12--10

Figure B2 - 45
% Usage of reinforcement along X - Hogging (%)

S11
S9
S7
S5
S3

Transverse beams

S13

37

35

33

31

29

27

25

23

21

19

17

15

13

11

S1

Main beams
+Y
+X
+Z

0-20

20-40

40-60

60-80

80-100

100-120

120-140

Figure B2 - 46
University of Surrey

Msc Structural Engineering

Page 100

Appendix B2
Model 2 Edge Load 0.50%M : 0.50%T

Shear along Y (kN)

S11
S9
S7
S5
S3

Transverse beams

S13

37

35

33

31

29

27

25

23

21

19

17

15

13

11

S1

Main beams
+Y
+X
+Z
0-25

25-50

50-75

75-100

100-125

125-150

150-175

175-200

200-225

Figure B2 - 47
Applied shear stress along Y as a % of shear resistance vc (%)

S11
S9
S7
S5
S3

Transverse beams

S13

37

35

33

31

29

27

25

23

21

19

17

15

13

11

S1

Main beams
+Y
+X
+Z
0-30

30-60

60-90

90-120

120-150

150-180

180-210

210-240

240-270

270-300

Figure B2 - 48
University of Surrey

Msc Structural Engineering

Page 101

Appendix B2
Model 2 Edge Load 0.50%M : 0.50%T

Shear along X (kN)

S11
S9
S7
S5
S3

Transverse beams

S13

37

35

33

31

29

27

25

23

21

19

17

15

13

11

S1

Main beams
+Y
+X
+Z
0-50

50-100

100-150

Figure B2 - 49
Applied shear stress along Y as a % of shear resistance vc (%)

S11
S9
S7
S5
S3

Transverse beams

S13

37

35

33

31

29

27

25

23

21

19

17

15

13

11

S1

Main beams
+Y
+X
+Z
0-25

25-50

50-75

75-100

100-125

125-150

150-175

175-200

Figure B2 - 50
University of Surrey

Msc Structural Engineering

Page 102

Appendix B2
Model 2 Edge Load 0.50%M : 0.50%T

Torque in slab in both directions (kNm)

S11
S9
S7
S5
S3

Transverse beams

S13

37

35

33

31

29

27

25

23

21

19

17

15

13

11

S1

Main beams
+Y
+X
+Z
0-20

20-40

40-60

Figure B2 - 51
Maximum horizontal shear stresses due to torsion (N/mm 2)

S11
S9
S7
S5
S3

Transverse beams

S13

37

35

33

31

29

27

25

23

21

19

17

15

13

11

S1

Main beams
+Y
+X
+Z
0-0.5

0.5-1

1-1.5

1.5-2

2-2.5

2.5-3

3-3.5

3.5-4

Figure B2 - 52

University of Surrey

Msc Structural Engineering

Page 103

Appendix B2
Model 2 Edge Load 0.50%M : 0.50%T

Mid Transverse span against moment

4.5

13.5

18

Mid Mx moment (KNm)

-50

-100

-150

-200

-250

-300

Transverse span (m)

Mid central moments as analysed

Mid central moments as per BS8110:Pt1:1997

Figure B2 - 53
Support transverse span against reaction

4.5

13.5

18

250

Reaction (KN)

200

150

100

50

Support span (m)

Reactions along support transverse span as analysed

Reactions along support transverse span as designed

Figure B2 - 54
University of Surrey

Msc Structural Engineering

Page 104

Appendix B2
Model 2 Central + Quarter + Edge Load 0.50%M : 0.50%T

6100

1T16 @100mm c.c (B.B)


1T8 @100mm c.c (T.T)

1T16 @100mm c.c (B)


1T8 @100mm c.c (T)
Y

Section XX

18100

400

Free edge

Free edge

Section YY

General Configuration Drawing


Model 2 - 0.50%M : 0.50%T

Legend
Supported Edge
B - Bottom Layer 1
BB - Bottom Layer 2

T - Top Layer 1
TT - Top Layer 2

Figure B2 - 55 General assembly of model

Figure B2 - 56 Displaced shape

University of Surrey

Msc Structural Engineering

Page 105

Appendix B2
Model 2 Central + Quarter + Edge Load 0.50%M : 0.50%T

Sagging bending moments along Y (kNm)

S11
S9
S7
S5
S3

Transverse beams

S13

37

35

33

31

29

27

25

23

21

19

17

15

13

11

S1
Main beams

+Y
+X
+Z

0-25

25-50

50-75

75-100

100-125

125-150

150-175

175-200

200-225

Figure B2 - 57
% Usage of reinfocement for moment along Y - Sagging (%)

S11
S9
S7
S5
S3

Transverse beams

S13

37

35

33

31

29

27

25

23

21

19

17

15

13

11

S1

Main beams
+Y
+X
+Z
0-20

20-40

40-60

60-80

80-100

100-120

120-140

140-160

160-180

Figure B2 - 58
University of Surrey

Msc Structural Engineering

Page 106

Appendix B2
Model 2 Central + Quarter + Edge Load 0.50%M : 0.50%T

Hogging bending moments along Y (kNm)

S11
S9
S7
S5
S3

Transverse beams

S13

37

35

33

31

29

27

25

23

21

19

17

15

13

11

S1

Main beams
+Y
+X
+Z

-25--20

-20--15

-15--10

-10--5

-5-0

Figure B2 - 59
% Usage of reinforcement along Y - Hogging (%)

S11
S9
S7
S5
S3

Transverse beams

S13

37

35

33

31

29

27

25

23

21

19

17

15

13

11

S1

Main beams
+Y
+X
+Z

0-20

20-40

40-60

60-80

80-100

Figure B2 - 60
University of Surrey

Msc Structural Engineering

Page 107

Appendix B2
Model 2 Central + Quarter + Edge Load 0.50%M : 0.50%T

Sagging bending moments along X (kNm)

S11
S9
S7
S5
S3

Transverse beams

S13

37

35

33

31

29

27

25

23

21

19

17

15

13

11

S1

Main beams
+Y
+X
+Z
0-10

10-20

20-30

30-40

40-50

50-60

Figure B2 - 61
% Usage of reinforcement along X - Sagging (%)

S11
S9
S7
S5
S3

Transverse beams

S13

37

35

33

31

29

27

25

23

21

19

17

15

13

11

S1

Main beams
+Y
+X
+Z

0-10

10-20

20-30

30-40

Figure B2 - 62
University of Surrey

Msc Structural Engineering

Page 108

Appendix B2
Model 2 Central + Quarter + Edge Load 0.50%M : 0.50%T

Hogging bending moments along X (kNm)

S11
S9
S7
S5
S3

Transverse beams

S13

37

35

33

31

29

27

25

23

21

19

17

15

13

11

S1

Main beams
+Y
+X
+Z
-32--28

-28--24

-24--20

-20--16

-16--12

-12--8

-8--4

-4-0

Figure B2 - 63
% Usage of reinforcement along X - Hogging (%)

S11
S9
S7
S5
S3

Transverse beams

S13

37

35

33

31

29

27

25

23

21

19

17

15

13

11

S1

Main beams
+Y
+X
+Z

0-20

20-40

40-60

60-80

80-100

Figure B2 - 64
University of Surrey

Msc Structural Engineering

Page 109

Appendix B2
Model 2 Central + Quarter + Edge Load 0.50%M : 0.50%T

Shear along Y (kN)

S11
S9
S7
S5
S3

Transverse beams

S13

37

35

33

31

29

27

25

23

21

19

17

15

13

11

S1

Main beams
+Y
+X
+Z
0-25

25-50

50-75

75-100

100-125

125-150

150-175

175-200

Figure B2 - 65
Applied shear stress along Y as a % of shear resistance vc (%)

S11
S9
S7
S5
S3

Transverse beams

S13

37

35

33

31

29

27

25

23

21

19

17

15

13

11

S1

Main beams
+Y
+X
+Z
0-25

25-50

50-75

75-100

100-125

125-150

150-175

175-200

200-225

225-250

250-275

Figure B2 - 66
University of Surrey

Msc Structural Engineering

Page 110

Appendix B2
Model 2 Central + Quarter + Edge Load 0.50%M : 0.50%T

Shear along X (kN)

S11
S9
S7
S5
S3

Transverse beams

S13

37

35

33

31

29

27

25

23

21

19

17

15

13

11

S1

Main beams
+Y
+X
+Z
0-20

20-40

40-60

60-80

80-100

Figure B2 - 67
Applied shear stress along Y as a % of shear resistance vc (%)

S11
S9
S7
S5
S3

Transverse beams

S13

37

35

33

31

29

27

25

23

21

19

17

15

13

11

S1

Main beams
+Y
+X
+Z
0-25

25-50

50-75

75-100

100-125

125-150

Figure B2 - 68
University of Surrey

Msc Structural Engineering

Page 111

Appendix B2
Model 2 Central + Quarter + Edge Load 0.50%M : 0.50%T

Torque in slab in both directions (kNm)

S11
S9
S7
S5
S3

Transverse beams

S13

37

35

33

31

29

27

25

23

21

19

17

15

13

11

S1

Main beams
+Y
+X
+Z
0-10

10-20

20-30

30-40

Figure B2 - 69
Maximum horizontal shear stresses due to torsion (N/mm 2)

S11
S9
S7
S5
S3

Transverse beams

S13

37

35

33

31

29

27

25

23

21

19

17

15

13

11

S1

Main beams
+Y
+X
+Z
0-0.5

0.5-1

1-1.5

1.5-2

2-2.5

2.5-3

Figure B2 - 70

University of Surrey

Msc Structural Engineering

Page 112

Appendix B2
Model 2 Central + Quarter + Edge Load 0.50%M : 0.50%T

Mid Transverse span against moment

4.5

13.5

18

Mid Mx moment (KNm)

-50

-100

-150

-200

-250

-300

Transverse span (m)

Mid central moments as analysed

Mid central moments as per BS8110:Pt1:1997

Figure B2 - 71
Support transverse span against reaction

4.5

13.5

18

200
180
160

Reaction (KN)

140
120
100
80
60
40
20
0

Support span (m)

Reactions along support transverse span as analysed

Reactions along support transverse span as designed

Figure B2 - 72
University of Surrey

Msc Structural Engineering

Page 113

Appendix B3 - Model 3
Reinforcement ratio - 0.50% Main : 1.00% Transverse

Appendix B3
Model 3 Central Load 0.50%M : 1.00%T

Model 3 - Propoerties of Main Members


Generic Properties

Generic Section

Long term Young's Modulus = 0.5E 1.5E+10 Pa

Shear Modulus = 0.42E as per BS81102-1985 cl.2.4.3 (G)


1.3E+10 Pa
Total Transverse Length (LT)
18100 mm
6100 mm

A SB - T

CB

ASB - M (mm2)

362
362
362
362
362
362
362
362
362
362
362
362
362
362
362
362
362
362
362
362
362
362
362
362
362
362
362
362
362
362
362
362
362
362
362
362
362

150.8
251.3
251.3
251.3
251.3
251.3
251.3
251.3
251.3
251.3
251.3
251.3
251.3
251.3
251.3
251.3
251.3
251.3
251.3
251.3
251.3
251.3
251.3
251.3
251.3
251.3
251.3
251.3
251.3
251.3
251.3
251.3
251.3
251.3
251.3
251.3
150.8

603.2
1005.3
1005.3
1005.3
1005.3
1005.3
1005.3
1005.3
1005.3
1005.3
1005.3
1005.3
1005.3
1005.3
1005.3
1005.3
1005.3
1005.3
1005.3
1005.3
1005.3
1005.3
1005.3
1005.3
1005.3
1005.3
1005.3
1005.3
1005.3
1005.3
1005.3
1005.3
1005.3
1005.3
1005.3
1005.3
603.2

Cx (mm)

AST - M (mm 2)

34
34
34
34
34
34
34
34
34
34
34
34
34
34
34
34
34
34
34
34
34
34
34
34
34
34
34
34
34
34
34
34
34
34
34
34
34

4
tr - Main (m )

Main effective Depth


(dM) (mm)

3
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
3

XM (mm)

Depth to main top


reinf. (d'M) (mm)

16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16

Number of bars
(No.)

3
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
3

0.0013
0.0013
0.0013
0.0013
0.0013
0.0013
0.0013
0.0013
0.0013
0.0013
0.0013
0.0013
0.0013
0.0013
0.0013
0.0013
0.0013
0.0013
0.0013
0.0013
0.0013
0.0013
0.0013
0.0013
0.0013
0.0013
0.0013
0.0013
0.0013
0.0013
0.0013
0.0013
0.0013
0.0013
0.0013
0.0013
0.0013

0.0050
0.0050
0.0050
0.0050
0.0050
0.0050
0.0050
0.0050
0.0050
0.0050
0.0050
0.0050
0.0050
0.0050
0.0050
0.0050
0.0050
0.0050
0.0050
0.0050
0.0050
0.0050
0.0050
0.0050
0.0050
0.0050
0.0050
0.0050
0.0050
0.0050
0.0050
0.0050
0.0050
0.0050
0.0050
0.0050
0.0050

112.13
112.13
112.13
112.13
112.13
112.13
112.13
112.13
112.13
112.13
112.13
112.13
112.13
112.13
112.13
112.13
112.13
112.13
112.13
112.13
112.13
112.13
112.13
112.13
112.13
112.13
112.13
112.13
112.13
112.13
112.13
112.13
112.13
112.13
112.13
112.13
112.13

1.277E-03
2.129E-03
2.129E-03
2.129E-03
2.129E-03
2.129E-03
2.129E-03
2.129E-03
2.129E-03
2.129E-03
2.129E-03
2.129E-03
2.129E-03
2.129E-03
2.129E-03
2.129E-03
2.129E-03
2.129E-03
2.129E-03
2.129E-03
2.129E-03
2.129E-03
2.129E-03
2.129E-03
2.129E-03
2.129E-03
2.129E-03
2.129E-03
2.129E-03
2.129E-03
2.129E-03
2.129E-03
2.129E-03
2.129E-03
2.129E-03
2.129E-03
1.277E-03

4.433E-03
5.724E-03
5.724E-03
5.724E-03
5.724E-03
5.724E-03
5.724E-03
5.724E-03
5.724E-03
5.724E-03
5.724E-03
5.724E-03
5.724E-03
5.724E-03
5.724E-03
5.724E-03
5.724E-03
5.724E-03
5.724E-03
5.724E-03
5.724E-03
5.724E-03
5.724E-03
5.724E-03
5.724E-03
5.724E-03
5.724E-03
5.724E-03
5.724E-03
5.724E-03
5.724E-03
5.724E-03
5.724E-03
5.724E-03
5.724E-03
5.724E-03
4.433E-03

'

BM Bottom main
reinf. (mm)

8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8

Number of bars
(No.)

A SB - M

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37

University of Surrey

dT

dM

mm
mm
mm
mm
mm

TM Top main reinf.


(mm)

300
500
400
30
30
15

d'M

A ST - T

Main Beam Number

Total Length between supports (L)


Edge element width (BE)
Element width (B)
Element depth (D)
Top Cover (CT)
Bottom Cover (CB)
e

d'T

A ST - M

CT

Msc Structural Engineering

Page 115

Appendix B3
Model 3 Central Load 0.50%M : 1.00%T
Model 3 - Propoerties of Transverse Members
Generic Properties

Generic Section

Long term Young's Modulus = 0.5E 1.5E+10 Pa

Shear Modulus = 0.42E as per BS8110-21985 cl.2.4.3 (G) 1.3E+10 Pa


Total Transverse Length (LT)
18100 mm

University of Surrey

A SB - T

CB

4
tr - Trans (mm )

4
tr - Trans (mm )

981.7
1963.5
1963.5
1963.5
1963.5
1963.5
1963.5
1963.5
1963.5
1963.5
1963.5
1963.5
981.7

0.0013
0.0013
0.0013
0.0013
0.0013
0.0013
0.0013
0.0013
0.0013
0.0013
0.0013
0.0013
0.0013

0.0082
0.0098
0.0098
0.0098
0.0098
0.0098
0.0098
0.0098
0.0098
0.0098
0.0098
0.0098
0.0082

129.14
138.48
138.48
138.48
138.48
138.48
138.48
138.48
138.48
138.48
138.48
138.48
129.14

1.973E-03
3.847E-03
3.847E-03
3.847E-03
3.847E-03
3.847E-03
3.847E-03
3.847E-03
3.847E-03
3.847E-03
3.847E-03
3.847E-03
1.973E-03

4.099E-03
5.724E-03
5.724E-03
5.724E-03
5.724E-03
5.724E-03
5.724E-03
5.724E-03
5.724E-03
5.724E-03
5.724E-03
5.724E-03
4.099E-03

'

150.8
251.3
251.3
251.3
251.3
251.3
251.3
251.3
251.3
251.3
251.3
251.3
150.8

XT (mm)

341.5
341.5
341.5
341.5
341.5
341.5
341.5
341.5
341.5
341.5
341.5
341.5
341.5

A SB - M

depth (dT) (mm)

reinf. (d'T) (mm)


42
42
42
42
42
42
42
42
42
42
42
42
42

Transverse effective

Depth to top trans.

Number of bars (No.)


2
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
2

dT

25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25

dM

mm
mm
mm
mm
mm

ASB - T (mm 2)

3
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
3

(mm)

BT Bottom trans. reinf.

Number of bars (No.)

reinf. (mm)
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8

300
500
400
30
30
15

d'M

A ST - T

6100 mm

AST - T (mm 2)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13

TT Top transverse

Trans. Beam Number

Total Length between supports (L)


Edge element width (BE)
Element width (B)
Element depth (D)
Top Cover (CT)
Bottom Cover (CB)
e

d'T

A ST - M

CT

Msc Structural Engineering

Page 116

Appendix B3
Model 3 Central Load 0.50%M : 1.00%T

6100

1T25 @125mm c.c (B.B)


1T8 @100mm c.c (T.T)

1T16 @100mm c.c (B)


1T8 @100mm c.c (T)
Y

Section XX

18100

400

Free edge

Free edge

Section YY

General Configuration Drawing


Model 3 - 0.50%M : 1.00%T

Legend
Supported Edge
B - Bottom Layer 1
BB - Bottom Layer 2

T - Top Layer 1
TT - Top Layer 2

Figure B3 - 1 General assembly of model

Figure B3 - 2 Displaced shape

University of Surrey

Msc Structural Engineering

Page 117

Appendix B3
Model 3 Central Load 0.50%M : 1.00%T

Sagging bending moments along Y (kNm)

S11
S9
S7
S5
S3

Transverse beams

S13

37

35

33

31

29

27

25

23

21

19

17

15

13

11

S1
Main beams

+Y
+X
+Z

0-20

20-40

40-60

60-80

80-100

Figure B3 - 3
% Usage of reinfocement for moment along Y - Sagging (%)

S11
S9
S7
S5
S3

Transverse beams

S13

37

35

33

31

29

27

25

23

21

19

17

15

13

11

S1

Main beams
+Y
+X
+Z
0-10

10-20

20-30

30-40

40-50

50-60

Figure B3 - 4
University of Surrey

Msc Structural Engineering

Page 118

Appendix B3
Model 3 Central Load 0.50%M : 1.00%T

Hogging bending moments along Y (kNm)

S11
S9
S7
S5
S3

Transverse beams

S13

37

35

33

31

29

27

25

23

21

19

17

15

13

11

S1

Main beams
+Y
+X
+Z

-15--10

-10--5

-5-0

Figure B3 - 5
% Usage of reinforcement along Y - Hogging (%)

S11
S9
S7
S5
S3

Transverse beams

S13

37

35

33

31

29

27

25

23

21

19

17

15

13

11

S1

Main beams
+Y
+X
+Z

0-10

10-20

20-30

Figure B3 - 6
University of Surrey

Msc Structural Engineering

Page 119

Appendix B3
Model 3 Central Load 0.50%M : 1.00%T

Sagging bending moments along X (kNm)

S11
S9
S7
S5
S3

Transverse beams

S13

37

35

33

31

29

27

25

23

21

19

17

15

13

11

S1

Main beams
+Y
+X
+Z
0-10

10-20

20-30

30-40

40-50

50-60

60-70

70-80

Figure B3 - 7
% Usage of reinforcement along X - Sagging (%)

S11
S9
S7
S5
S3

Transverse beams

S13

37

35

33

31

29

27

25

23

21

19

17

15

13

11

S1

Main beams
+Y
+X
+Z

0-10

10-20

20-30

Figure B3 - 8
University of Surrey

Msc Structural Engineering

Page 120

Appendix B3
Model 3 Central Load 0.50%M : 1.00%T

Hogging bending moments along X (kNm)

S11
S9
S7
S5
S3

Transverse beams

S13

37

35

33

31

29

27

25

23

21

19

17

15

13

11

S1

Main beams
+Y
+X
+Z
-14--12

-12--10

-10--8

-8--6

-6--4

-4--2

-2-0

Figure B3 - 9
% Usage of reinforcement along X - Hogging (%)

S11
S9
S7
S5
S3

Transverse beams

S13

37

35

33

31

29

27

25

23

21

19

17

15

13

11

S1

Main beams
+Y
+X
+Z

0-10

10-20

20-30

30-40

Figure B3 - 10
University of Surrey

Msc Structural Engineering

Page 121

Appendix B3
Model 3 Central Load 0.50%M : 1.00%T

Shear along Y (kN)

S11
S9
S7
S5
S3

Transverse beams

S13

37

35

33

31

29

27

25

23

21

19

17

15

13

11

S1

Main beams
+Y
+X
+Z
0-25

25-50

50-75

75-100

100-125

Figure B3 - 11
Applied shear stress along Y as a % of shear resistance vc (%)

S11
S9
S7
S5
S3

Transverse beams

S13

37

35

33

31

29

27

25

23

21

19

17

15

13

11

S1

Main beams
+Y
+X
+Z
0-25

25-50

50-75

75-100

100-125

125-150

150-175

Figure B3 - 12
University of Surrey

Msc Structural Engineering

Page 122

Appendix B3
Model 3 Central Load 0.50%M : 1.00%T

Shear along X (kN)

S11
S9
S7
S5
S3

Transverse beams

S13

37

35

33

31

29

27

25

23

21

19

17

15

13

11

S1

Main beams
+Y
+X
+Z
0-20

20-40

40-60

Figure B3 - 13
Applied shear stress along Y as a % of shear resistance vc (%)

S11
S9
S7
S5
S3

Transverse beams

S13

37

35

33

31

29

27

25

23

21

19

17

15

13

11

S1

Main beams
+Y
+X
+Z
0-25

25-50

50-75

Figure B3 - 14
University of Surrey

Msc Structural Engineering

Page 123

Appendix B3
Model 3 Central Load 0.50%M : 1.00%T

Torque in slab in both directions (kNm)

S11
S9
S7
S5
S3

Transverse beams

S13

37

35

33

31

29

27

25

23

21

19

17

15

13

11

S1

Main beams
+Y
+X
+Z
0-5

5-10

10-15

15-20

20-25

Figure B3 - 15
Maximum horizontal shear stresses due to torsion (N/mm 2)

S11
S9
S7
S5
S3

Transverse beams

S13

37

35

33

31

29

27

25

23

21

19

17

15

13

11

S1

Main beams
+Y
+X
+Z
0-0.5

0.5-1

1-1.5

1.5-2

Figure B3 - 16

University of Surrey

Msc Structural Engineering

Page 124

Appendix B3
Model 3 Central Load 0.50%M : 1.00%T

Mid Transverse span against moment

4.5

13.5

18

Mid Mx moment (KNm)

-20
-40
-60
-80
-100
-120
-140
-160
-180

Transverse span (m)

Mid central moments as analysed

Mid central moments as per BS8110:Pt1:1997

Figure B3 - 17
Support transverse span against reaction

4.5

13.5

18

140
120

Reaction (KN)

100
80
60
40
20
0

Support span (m)

Reactions along support transverse span as analysed

Reactions along support transverse span as designed

Figure B3 - 18
University of Surrey

Msc Structural Engineering

Page 125

Appendix B3
Model 3 Quarter Load 0.50%M : 1.00%T

6100

1T25 @125mm c.c (B.B)


1T8 @100mm c.c (T.T)

1T16 @100mm c.c (B)


1T8 @100mm c.c (T)
Y

Section XX

18100

400

Free edge

Free edge

Section YY

General Configuration Drawing


Model 3 - 0.50%M : 1.00%T

Legend
Supported Edge
B - Bottom Layer 1
BB - Bottom Layer 2

T - Top Layer 1
TT - Top Layer 2

Figure B3 - 19 General assembly of model

Figure B3 - 20 Displaced shape

University of Surrey

Msc Structural Engineering

Page 126

Appendix B3
Model 3 Quarter Load 0.50%M : 1.00%T

Sagging bending moments along Y (kNm)

S11
S9
S7
S5
S3

Transverse beams

S13

37

35

33

31

29

27

25

23

21

19

17

15

13

11

S1
Main beams

+Y
+X
+Z

0-25

25-50

50-75

75-100

Figure B3 - 21
% Usage of reinfocement for moment along Y - Sagging (%)

S11
S9
S7
S5
S3

Transverse beams

S13

37

35

33

31

29

27

25

23

21

19

17

15

13

11

S1

Main beams
+Y
+X
+Z
0-10

10-20

20-30

30-40

40-50

50-60

Figure B3 - 22
University of Surrey

Msc Structural Engineering

Page 127

Appendix B3
Model 3 Quarter Load 0.50%M : 1.00%T

Hogging bending moments along Y (kNm)

S11
S9
S7
S5
S3

Transverse beams

S13

37

35

33

31

29

27

25

23

21

19

17

15

13

11

S1

Main beams
+Y
+X
+Z

-15--10

-10--5

-5-0

Figure B3 - 23
% Usage of reinforcement along Y - Hogging (%)

S11
S9
S7
S5
S3

Transverse beams

S13

37

35

33

31

29

27

25

23

21

19

17

15

13

11

S1

Main beams
+Y
+X
+Z

0-10

10-20

20-30

Figure B3 - 24
University of Surrey

Msc Structural Engineering

Page 128

Appendix B3
Model 3 Quarter Load 0.50%M : 1.00%T

Sagging bending moments along X (kNm)

S11
S9
S7
S5
S3

Transverse beams

S13

37

35

33

31

29

27

25

23

21

19

17

15

13

11

S1

Main beams
+Y
+X
+Z
0-10

10-20

20-30

30-40

40-50

50-60

60-70

70-80

Figure B3 - 25
% Usage of reinforcement along X - Sagging (%)

S11
S9
S7
S5
S3

Transverse beams

S13

37

35

33

31

29

27

25

23

21

19

17

15

13

11

S1

Main beams
+Y
+X
+Z

0-10

10-20

20-30

Figure B3 - 26
University of Surrey

Msc Structural Engineering

Page 129

Appendix B3
Model 3 Quarter Load 0.50%M : 1.00%T

Hogging bending moments along X (kNm)

S11
S9
S7
S5
S3

Transverse beams

S13

37

35

33

31

29

27

25

23

21

19

17

15

13

11

S1

Main beams
+Y
+X
+Z
-14--12

-12--10

-10--8

-8--6

-6--4

-4--2

-2-0

Figure B3 - 27
% Usage of reinforcement along X - Hogging (%)

S11
S9
S7
S5
S3

Transverse beams

S13

37

35

33

31

29

27

25

23

21

19

17

15

13

11

S1

Main beams
+Y
+X
+Z

0-10

10-20

20-30

30-40

Figure B3 - 28
University of Surrey

Msc Structural Engineering

Page 130

Appendix B3
Model 3 Quarter Load 0.50%M : 1.00%T

Shear along Y (kN)

S11
S9
S7
S5
S3

Transverse beams

S13

37

35

33

31

29

27

25

23

21

19

17

15

13

11

S1

Main beams
+Y
+X
+Z
0-25

25-50

50-75

75-100

100-125

Figure B3 - 29
Applied shear stress along Y as a % of shear resistance vc (%)

S11
S9
S7
S5
S3

Transverse beams

S13

37

35

33

31

29

27

25

23

21

19

17

15

13

11

S1

Main beams
+Y
+X
+Z
0-25

25-50

50-75

75-100

100-125

125-150

150-175

Figure B3 - 30
University of Surrey

Msc Structural Engineering

Page 131

Appendix B3
Model 3 Quarter Load 0.50%M : 1.00%T

Shear along X (kN)

S11
S9
S7
S5
S3

Transverse beams

S13

37

35

33

31

29

27

25

23

21

19

17

15

13

11

S1

Main beams
+Y
+X
+Z
0-20

20-40

40-60

Figure B3 - 31
Applied shear stress along Y as a % of shear resistance vc (%)

S11
S9
S7
S5
S3

Transverse beams

S13

37

35

33

31

29

27

25

23

21

19

17

15

13

11

S1

Main beams
+Y
+X
+Z
0-25

25-50

50-75

Figure B3 - 32
University of Surrey

Msc Structural Engineering

Page 132

Appendix B3
Model 3 Quarter Load 0.50%M : 1.00%T

Torque in slab in both directions (kNm)

S11
S9
S7
S5
S3

Transverse beams

S13

37

35

33

31

29

27

25

23

21

19

17

15

13

11

S1

Main beams
+Y
+X
+Z
0-5

5-10

10-15

15-20

20-25

Figure B3 - 33
Maximum horizontal shear stresses due to torsion (N/mm 2)

S11
S9
S7
S5
S3

Transverse beams

S13

37

35

33

31

29

27

25

23

21

19

17

15

13

11

S1

Main beams
+Y
+X
+Z
0-0.5

0.5-1

1-1.5

1.5-2

Figure B3 - 34

University of Surrey

Msc Structural Engineering

Page 133

Appendix B3
Model 3 Quarter Load 0.50%M : 1.00%T

Mid Transverse span against moment

4.5

13.5

18

Mid Mx moment (KNm)

-20
-40
-60
-80
-100
-120
-140
-160
-180

Transverse span (m)

Mid central moments as analysed

Mid central moments as per BS8110:Pt1:1997

Figure B3 - 35
Support transverse span against reaction

4.5

13.5

18

140
120

Reaction (KN)

100
80
60
40
20
0

Support span (m)

Reactions along support transverse span as analysed

Reactions along support transverse span as designed

Figure B3 - 36
University of Surrey

Msc Structural Engineering

Page 134

Appendix B3
Model 3 Edge Load 0.50%M : 1.00%T

6100

1T25 @125mm c.c (B.B)


1T8 @100mm c.c (T.T)

1T16 @100mm c.c (B)


1T8 @100mm c.c (T)
Y

Section XX

18100

400

Free edge

Free edge

Section YY

General Configuration Drawing


Model 3 - 0.50%M : 1.00%T

Legend
Supported Edge
B - Bottom Layer 1
BB - Bottom Layer 2

T - Top Layer 1
TT - Top Layer 2

Figure B3 - 37 general assembly of model

Figure B3 - 38 displaced shape

University of Surrey

Msc Structural Engineering

Page 135

Appendix B3
Model 3 Edge Load 0.50%M : 1.00%T

Sagging bending moments along Y (kNm)

S11
S9
S7
S5
S3

Transverse beams

S13

37

35

33

31

29

27

25

23

21

19

17

15

13

11

S1
Main beams

+Y
+X
+Z

0-25

25-50

50-75

75-100

100-125

125-150

150-175

Figure B3 - 39
% Usage of reinfocement for moment along Y - Sagging (%)

S11
S9
S7
S5
S3

Transverse beams

S13

37

35

33

31

29

27

25

23

21

19

17

15

13

11

S1

Main beams
+Y
+X
+Z
0-15

15-30

30-45

45-60

60-75

75-90

90-105

105-120

Figure B3 - 40
University of Surrey

Msc Structural Engineering

Page 136

Appendix B3
Model 3 Edge Load 0.50%M : 1.00%T

Hogging bending moments along Y (kNm)

S11
S9
S7
S5
S3

Transverse beams

S13

37

35

33

31

29

27

25

23

21

19

17

15

13

11

S1

Main beams
+Y
+X
+Z

-40--30

-30--20

-20--10

-10-0

Figure B3 - 41
% Usage of reinforcement along Y - Hogging (%)

S11
S9
S7
S5
S3

Transverse beams

S13

37

35

33

31

29

27

25

23

21

19

17

15

13

11

S1

Main beams
+Y
+X
+Z

0-50

50-100

100-150

Figure B3 - 42
University of Surrey

Msc Structural Engineering

Page 137

Appendix B3
Model 3 Edge Load 0.50%M : 1.00%T

Sagging bending moments along X (kNm)

S11
S9
S7
S5
S3

Transverse beams

S13

37

35

33

31

29

27

25

23

21

19

17

15

13

11

S1

Main beams
+Y
+X
+Z
0-10

10-20

20-30

Figure B3 - 43
% Usage of reinforcement along X - Sagging (%)

S11
S9
S7
S5
S3

Transverse beams

S13

37

35

33

31

29

27

25

23

21

19

17

15

13

11

S1

Main beams
+Y
+X
+Z

0-5

5-10

10-15

Figure B3 - 44
University of Surrey

Msc Structural Engineering

Page 138

Appendix B3
Model 3 Edge Load 0.50%M : 1.00%T

Hogging bending moments along X (kNm)

S11
S9
S7
S5
S3

Transverse beams

S13

37

35

33

31

29

27

25

23

21

19

17

15

13

11

S1

Main beams
+Y
+X
+Z
-36--32

-32--28

-28--24

-24--20

-20--16

-16--12

-12--8

-8--4

-4-0

Figure B3 - 45
% Usage of reinforcement along X - Hogging (%)

S11
S9
S7
S5
S3

Transverse beams

S13

37

35

33

31

29

27

25

23

21

19

17

15

13

11

S1

Main beams
+Y
+X
+Z

0-20

20-40

40-60

60-80

80-100

100-120

120-140

140-160

Figure B3 - 46
University of Surrey

Msc Structural Engineering

Page 139

Appendix B3
Model 3 Edge Load 0.50%M : 1.00%T

Shear along Y (kN)

S11
S9
S7
S5
S3

Transverse beams

S13

37

35

33

31

29

27

25

23

21

19

17

15

13

11

S1

Main beams
+Y
+X
+Z
0-25

25-50

50-75

75-100

100-125

125-150

150-175

175-200

200-225

Figure B3 - 47
Applied shear stress along Y as a % of shear resistance vc (%)

S11
S9
S7
S5
S3

Transverse beams

S13

37

35

33

31

29

27

25

23

21

19

17

15

13

11

S1

Main beams
+Y
+X
+Z
0-30

30-60

60-90

90-120

120-150

150-180

180-210

210-240

240-270

270-300

Figure B3 - 48
University of Surrey

Msc Structural Engineering

Page 140

Appendix B3
Model 3 Edge Load 0.50%M : 1.00%T

Shear along X (kN)

S11
S9
S7
S5
S3

Transverse beams

S13

37

35

33

31

29

27

25

23

21

19

17

15

13

11

S1

Main beams
+Y
+X
+Z
0-50

50-100

100-150

150-200

Figure B3 - 49
Applied shear stress along Y as a % of shear resistance vc (%)

S11
S9
S7
S5
S3

Transverse beams

S13

37

35

33

31

29

27

25

23

21

19

17

15

13

11

S1

Main beams
+Y
+X
+Z
0-25

25-50

50-75

75-100

100-125

125-150

150-175

Figure B3 - 50
University of Surrey

Msc Structural Engineering

Page 141

Appendix B3
Model 3 Edge Load 0.50%M : 1.00%T

Torque in slab in both directions (kNm)

S11
S9
S7
S5
S3

Transverse beams

S13

37

35

33

31

29

27

25

23

21

19

17

15

13

11

S1

Main beams
+Y
+X
+Z
0-20

20-40

40-60

Figure B3 - 51
Maximum horizontal shear stresses due to torsion (N/mm 2)

S11
S9
S7
S5
S3

Transverse beams

S13

37

35

33

31

29

27

25

23

21

19

17

15

13

11

S1

Main beams
+Y
+X
+Z
0-0.5

0.5-1

1-1.5

1.5-2

2-2.5

2.5-3

3-3.5

3.5-4

4-4.5

Figure B3 - 52

University of Surrey

Msc Structural Engineering

Page 142

Appendix B3
Model 3 Edge Load 0.50%M : 1.00%T

Mid Transverse span against moment

4.5

13.5

18

Mid Mx moment (KNm)

-50

-100

-150

-200

-250

-300

Transverse span (m)

Mid central moments as analysed

Mid central moments as per BS8110:Pt1:1997

Figure B3 - 53
Support transverse span against reaction

4.5

13.5

18

250

Reaction (KN)

200

150

100

50

Support span (m)

Reactions along support transverse span as analysed

Reactions along support transverse span as designed

Figure B3 - 54
University of Surrey

Msc Structural Engineering

Page 143

Appendix B3
Model 3 Central + Quarter + Edge Load 0.50%M : 1.00%T

6100

1T25 @125mm c.c (B.B)


1T8 @100mm c.c (T.T)

1T16 @100mm c.c (B)


1T8 @100mm c.c (T)
Y

Section XX

18100

400

Free edge

Free edge

Section YY

General Configuration Drawing


Model 3 - 0.50%M : 1.00%T

Legend
Supported Edge
B - Bottom Layer 1
BB - Bottom Layer 2

T - Top Layer 1
TT - Top Layer 2

Figure B3 - 55 General assembly of model

Figure B3 - 56 displaced shape

University of Surrey

Msc Structural Engineering

Page 144

Appendix B3
Model 3 Central + Quarter + Edge Load 0.50%M : 1.00%T

Sagging bending moments along Y (kNm)

S11
S9
S7
S5
S3

Transverse beams

S13

37

35

33

31

29

27

25

23

21

19

17

15

13

11

S1
Main beams

+Y
+X
+Z

0-25

25-50

50-75

75-100

100-125

125-150

150-175

175-200

200-225

Figure B3 - 57
% Usage of reinfocement for moment along Y - Sagging (%)

S11
S9
S7
S5
S3

Transverse beams

S13

37

35

33

31

29

27

25

23

21

19

17

15

13

11

S1

Main beams
+Y
+X
+Z
0-20

20-40

40-60

60-80

80-100

100-120

120-140

140-160

Figure B3 - 58
University of Surrey

Msc Structural Engineering

Page 145

Appendix B3
Model 3 Central + Quarter + Edge Load 0.50%M : 1.00%T

Hogging bending moments along Y (kNm)

S11
S9
S7
S5
S3

Transverse beams

S13

37

35

33

31

29

27

25

23

21

19

17

15

13

11

S1

Main beams
+Y
+X
+Z

-25--20

-20--15

-15--10

-10--5

-5-0

Figure B3 - 59
% Usage of reinforcement along Y - Hogging (%)

S11
S9
S7
S5
S3

Transverse beams

S13

37

35

33

31

29

27

25

23

21

19

17

15

13

11

S1

Main beams
+Y
+X
+Z

0-20

20-40

40-60

60-80

80-100

Figure B3 - 60
University of Surrey

Msc Structural Engineering

Page 146

Appendix B3
Model 3 Central + Quarter + Edge Load 0.50%M : 1.00%T

Sagging bending moments along X (kNm)

S11
S9
S7
S5
S3

Transverse beams

S13

37

35

33

31

29

27

25

23

21

19

17

15

13

11

S1

Main beams
+Y
+X
+Z
0-10

10-20

20-30

30-40

40-50

50-60

Figure B3 - 61
% Usage of reinforcement along X - Sagging (%)

S11
S9
S7
S5
S3

Transverse beams

S13

37

35

33

31

29

27

25

23

21

19

17

15

13

11

S1

Main beams
+Y
+X
+Z

0-5

5-10

10-15

15-20

Figure B3 - 62
University of Surrey

Msc Structural Engineering

Page 147

Appendix B3
Model 3 Central + Quarter + Edge Load 0.50%M : 1.00%T

Hogging bending moments along X (kNm)

S11
S9
S7
S5
S3

Transverse beams

S13

37

35

33

31

29

27

25

23

21

19

17

15

13

11

S1

Main beams
+Y
+X
+Z
-36--32

-32--28

-28--24

-24--20

-20--16

-16--12

-12--8

-8--4

-4-0

Figure B3 - 63
% Usage of reinforcement along X - Hogging (%)

S11
S9
S7
S5
S3

Transverse beams

S13

37

35

33

31

29

27

25

23

21

19

17

15

13

11

S1

Main beams
+Y
+X
+Z

-5-5

5-15

15-25

Figure B3 - 64
University of Surrey

Msc Structural Engineering

Page 148

Appendix B3
Model 3 Central + Quarter + Edge Load 0.50%M : 1.00%T

Shear along Y (kN)

S11
S9
S7
S5
S3

Transverse beams

S13

37

35

33

31

29

27

25

23

21

19

17

15

13

11

S1

Main beams
+Y
+X
+Z
0-25

25-50

50-75

75-100

100-125

125-150

150-175

175-200

Figure B3 - 65
Applied shear stress along Y as a % of shear resistance vc (%)

S11
S9
S7
S5
S3

Transverse beams

S13

37

35

33

31

29

27

25

23

21

19

17

15

13

11

S1

Main beams
+Y
+X
+Z
0-25

25-50

50-75

75-100

100-125

125-150

150-175

175-200

200-225

225-250

250-275

Figure B3 - 66
University of Surrey

Msc Structural Engineering

Page 149

Appendix B3
Model 3 Central + Quarter + Edge Load 0.50%M : 1.00%T

Shear along X (kN)

S11
S9
S7
S5
S3

Transverse beams

S13

37

35

33

31

29

27

25

23

21

19

17

15

13

11

S1

Main beams
+Y
+X
+Z
0-50

50-100

100-150

Figure B3 - 67
Applied shear stress along Y as a % of shear resistance vc (%)

S11
S9
S7
S5
S3

Transverse beams

S13

37

35

33

31

29

27

25

23

21

19

17

15

13

11

S1

Main beams
+Y
+X
+Z
0-25

25-50

50-75

75-100

100-125

Figure B3 - 68
University of Surrey

Msc Structural Engineering

Page 150

Appendix B3
Model 3 Central + Quarter + Edge Load 0.50%M : 1.00%T

Torque in slab in both directions (kNm)

S11
S9
S7
S5
S3

Transverse beams

S13

37

35

33

31

29

27

25

23

21

19

17

15

13

11

S1

Main beams
+Y
+X
+Z
0-10

10-20

20-30

30-40

Figure B3 - 69
Maximum horizontal shear stresses due to torsion (N/mm 2)

S11
S9
S7
S5
S3

Transverse beams

S13

37

35

33

31

29

27

25

23

21

19

17

15

13

11

S1

Main beams
+Y
+X
+Z
0-0.5

0.5-1

1-1.5

1.5-2

2-2.5

2.5-3

Figure B3 - 70

University of Surrey

Msc Structural Engineering

Page 151

Appendix B3
Model 3 Central + Quarter + Edge Load 0.50%M : 1.00%T

Mid Transverse span against moment

4.5

13.5

18

Mid Mx moment (KNm)

-50

-100

-150

-200

-250

-300

Transverse span (m)

Mid central moments as analysed

Mid central moments as per BS8110:Pt1:1997

Figure B3 - 71
Support transverse span against reaction

4.5

13.5

18

200
180
160

Reaction (KN)

140
120
100
80
60
40
20
0

Support span (m)

Reactions along support transverse span as analysed

Reactions along support transverse span as designed

Figure B3 - 72
University of Surrey

Msc Structural Engineering

Page 152

Appendix B4 - Model 4
Reinforcement ratio 0.50% Main : 1.50% Transverse

Appendix B4
Model 4 Central Load 0.50%M : 1.50%T
Model 4 - Propoerties of Main Members
Generic Properties

Generic Section

Long term Young's Modulus = 0.5E 1.5E+10 Pa

Shear Modulus = 0.42E as per BS81101.3E+10 Pa


2-1985 cl.2.4.3 (G)
Total Transverse Length (LT)
18100 mm
6100 mm

A SB - T

CB

ASB - M (mm2)

362
362
362
362
362
362
362
362
362
362
362
362
362
362
362
362
362
362
362
362
362
362
362
362
362
362
362
362
362
362
362
362
362
362
362
362
362

150.8
251.3
251.3
251.3
251.3
251.3
251.3
251.3
251.3
251.3
251.3
251.3
251.3
251.3
251.3
251.3
251.3
251.3
251.3
251.3
251.3
251.3
251.3
251.3
251.3
251.3
251.3
251.3
251.3
251.3
251.3
251.3
251.3
251.3
251.3
251.3
150.8

603.2
1005.3
1005.3
1005.3
1005.3
1005.3
1005.3
1005.3
1005.3
1005.3
1005.3
1005.3
1005.3
1005.3
1005.3
1005.3
1005.3
1005.3
1005.3
1005.3
1005.3
1005.3
1005.3
1005.3
1005.3
1005.3
1005.3
1005.3
1005.3
1005.3
1005.3
1005.3
1005.3
1005.3
1005.3
1005.3
603.2

Cx (mm)

AST - M (mm 2)

34
34
34
34
34
34
34
34
34
34
34
34
34
34
34
34
34
34
34
34
34
34
34
34
34
34
34
34
34
34
34
34
34
34
34
34
34

4
tr - Main (m )

Main effective Depth


(dM) (mm)

3
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
3

XM (mm)

Depth to main top


reinf. (d'M) (mm)

16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16

Number of bars
(No.)

3
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
3

0.0013
0.0013
0.0013
0.0013
0.0013
0.0013
0.0013
0.0013
0.0013
0.0013
0.0013
0.0013
0.0013
0.0013
0.0013
0.0013
0.0013
0.0013
0.0013
0.0013
0.0013
0.0013
0.0013
0.0013
0.0013
0.0013
0.0013
0.0013
0.0013
0.0013
0.0013
0.0013
0.0013
0.0013
0.0013
0.0013
0.0013

0.0050
0.0050
0.0050
0.0050
0.0050
0.0050
0.0050
0.0050
0.0050
0.0050
0.0050
0.0050
0.0050
0.0050
0.0050
0.0050
0.0050
0.0050
0.0050
0.0050
0.0050
0.0050
0.0050
0.0050
0.0050
0.0050
0.0050
0.0050
0.0050
0.0050
0.0050
0.0050
0.0050
0.0050
0.0050
0.0050
0.0050

112.13
112.13
112.13
112.13
112.13
112.13
112.13
112.13
112.13
112.13
112.13
112.13
112.13
112.13
112.13
112.13
112.13
112.13
112.13
112.13
112.13
112.13
112.13
112.13
112.13
112.13
112.13
112.13
112.13
112.13
112.13
112.13
112.13
112.13
112.13
112.13
112.13

1.277E-03
2.129E-03
2.129E-03
2.129E-03
2.129E-03
2.129E-03
2.129E-03
2.129E-03
2.129E-03
2.129E-03
2.129E-03
2.129E-03
2.129E-03
2.129E-03
2.129E-03
2.129E-03
2.129E-03
2.129E-03
2.129E-03
2.129E-03
2.129E-03
2.129E-03
2.129E-03
2.129E-03
2.129E-03
2.129E-03
2.129E-03
2.129E-03
2.129E-03
2.129E-03
2.129E-03
2.129E-03
2.129E-03
2.129E-03
2.129E-03
2.129E-03
1.277E-03

5.244E-03
6.770E-03
6.770E-03
6.770E-03
6.770E-03
6.770E-03
6.770E-03
6.770E-03
6.770E-03
6.770E-03
6.770E-03
6.770E-03
6.770E-03
6.770E-03
6.770E-03
6.770E-03
6.770E-03
6.770E-03
6.770E-03
6.770E-03
6.770E-03
6.770E-03
6.770E-03
6.770E-03
6.770E-03
6.770E-03
6.770E-03
6.770E-03
6.770E-03
6.770E-03
6.770E-03
6.770E-03
6.770E-03
6.770E-03
6.770E-03
6.770E-03
5.244E-03

'

BM Bottom main
reinf. (mm)

8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8

Number of bars
(No.)

A SB - M

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37

University of Surrey

dT

dM

mm
mm
mm
mm
mm

TM Top main reinf.


(mm)

300
500
400
30
30
15

CT

d'M

A ST - T

Main Beam Number

Total Length between supports (L)


Edge element width (BE)
Element width (B)
Element depth (D)
Top Cover (CT)
Bottom Cover (CB)
e

d'

A ST - M

Msc Structural Engineering

Page 154

Appendix B4
Model 4 Central Load 0.50%M : 1.50%T
Model 4 - Propoerties of Transverse Members
Generic Properties

Generic Section

Long term Young's Modulus = 0.5E 1.5E+10 Pa

Shear Modulus = 0.42E as per BS8110-21985 cl.2.4.3 (G) 1.3E+10 Pa


Total Transverse Length (LT)
18100 mm

University of Surrey

A SB - T

CB

4
tr - Trans (mm )

4
tr - Trans (mm )

1472.6
2945.2
2945.2
2945.2
2945.2
2945.2
2945.2
2945.2
2945.2
2945.2
2945.2
2945.2
1472.6

0.0013
0.0013
0.0013
0.0013
0.0013
0.0013
0.0013
0.0013
0.0013
0.0013
0.0013
0.0013
0.0013

0.0123
0.0147
0.0147
0.0147
0.0147
0.0147
0.0147
0.0147
0.0147
0.0147
0.0147
0.0147
0.0123

150.42
160.54
160.54
160.54
160.54
160.54
160.54
160.54
160.54
160.54
160.54
160.54
150.42

2.784E-03
5.382E-03
5.382E-03
5.382E-03
5.382E-03
5.382E-03
5.382E-03
5.382E-03
5.382E-03
5.382E-03
5.382E-03
5.382E-03
2.784E-03

4.869E-03
6.770E-03
6.770E-03
6.770E-03
6.770E-03
6.770E-03
6.770E-03
6.770E-03
6.770E-03
6.770E-03
6.770E-03
6.770E-03
4.869E-03

'

150.8
251.3
251.3
251.3
251.3
251.3
251.3
251.3
251.3
251.3
251.3
251.3
150.8

XT (mm)

341.5
341.5
341.5
341.5
341.5
341.5
341.5
341.5
341.5
341.5
341.5
341.5
341.5

A SB - M

depth (dT) (mm)

reinf. (d'T) (mm)


42
42
42
42
42
42
42
42
42
42
42
42
42

Transverse effective

Depth to top trans.

Number of bars (No.)


3
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
3

dT

25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25

dM

mm
mm
mm
mm
mm

ASB - T (mm 2)

3
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
3

(mm)

BT Bottom trans. reinf.

Number of bars (No.)

reinf. (mm)
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8

300
500
400
30
30
15

d'M

A ST - T

6100 mm

AST - T (mm 2)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13

TT Top transverse

Trans. Beam Number

Total Length between supports (L)


Edge element width (BE)
Element width (B)
Element depth (D)
Top Cover (CT)
Bottom Cover (CB)
e

d'T

A ST - M

CT

Msc Structural Engineering

Page 155

Appendix B4
Model 4 Central Load 0.50%M : 1.50%T

6100

1T25 @83mm c.c (B.B)


1T8 @100mm c.c (T.T)

1T16 @100mm c.c (B)


1T8 @100mm c.c (T)
Y

Section XX

18100

400

Free edge

Free edge

Section YY

General Configuration Drawing


Model 4 - 0.50%M : 1..50%T

Legend
Supported Edge
B - Bottom Layer 1
BB - Bottom Layer 2

T - Top Layer 1
TT - Top Layer 2

Figure B4 - 1 General assembly of model

Figure B4 - 2 Displaced shape

University of Surrey

Msc Structural Engineering

Page 156

Appendix B4
Model 4 Central Load 0.50%M : 1.50%T

Sagging bending moments along Y (kNm)

S11
S9
S7
S5
S3

Transverse beams

S13

37

35

33

31

29

27

25

23

21

19

17

15

13

11

S1
Main beams

+Y
+X
+Z

0-20

20-40

40-60

60-80

80-100

Figure B4 - 3
% Usage of reinfocement for moment along Y - Sagging (%)

S11
S9
S7
S5
S3

Transverse beams

S13

37

35

33

31

29

27

25

23

21

19

17

15

13

11

S1

Main beams
+Y
+X
+Z
0-10

10-20

20-30

30-40

40-50

50-60

Figure B4 - 4

University of Surrey

Msc Structural Engineering

Page 157

Appendix B4
Model 4 Central Load 0.50%M : 1.50%T

Hogging bending moments along Y (kNm)

S11
S9
S7
S5
S3

Transverse beams

S13

37

35

33

31

29

27

25

23

21

19

17

15

13

11

S1

Main beams
+Y
+X
+Z

-15--10

-10--5

-5-0

Figure B4 - 5
% Usage of reinforcement along Y - Hogging (%)

S11
S9
S7
S5
S3

Transverse beams

S13

37

35

33

31

29

27

25

23

21

19

17

15

13

11

S1

Main beams
+Y
+X
+Z

0-10

10-20

20-30

Figure B4 - 6

University of Surrey

Msc Structural Engineering

Page 158

Appendix B4
Model 4 Central Load 0.50%M : 1.50%T

Sagging bending moments along X (kNm)

S11
S9
S7
S5
S3

Transverse beams

S13

37

35

33

31

29

27

25

23

21

19

17

15

13

11

S1

Main beams
+Y
+X
+Z
0-10

10-20

20-30

30-40

40-50

50-60

60-70

70-80

80-90

Figure B4 - 7
% Usage of reinforcement along X - Sagging (%)

S11
S9
S7
S5
S3

Transverse beams

S13

37

35

33

31

29

27

25

23

21

19

17

15

13

11

S1

Main beams
+Y
+X
+Z

0-4

4-8

8-12

12-16

16-20

Figure B4 - 8

University of Surrey

Msc Structural Engineering

Page 159

Appendix B4
Model 4 Central Load 0.50%M : 1.50%T

Hogging bending moments along X (kNm)

S11
S9
S7
S5
S3

Transverse beams

S13

37

35

33

31

29

27

25

23

21

19

17

15

13

11

S1

Main beams
+Y
+X
+Z
-14--12

-12--10

-10--8

-8--6

-6--4

-4--2

-2-0

Figure B4 - 9
% Usage of reinforcement along X - Hogging (%)

S11
S9
S7
S5
S3

Transverse beams

S13

37

35

33

31

29

27

25

23

21

19

17

15

13

11

S1

Main beams
+Y
+X
+Z

0-10

10-20

20-30

30-40

Figure B4 - 10

University of Surrey

Msc Structural Engineering

Page 160

Appendix B4
Model 4 Central Load 0.50%M : 1.50%T

Shear along Y (kN)

S11
S9
S7
S5
S3

Transverse beams

S13

37

35

33

31

29

27

25

23

21

19

17

15

13

11

S1

Main beams
+Y
+X
+Z
0-25

25-50

50-75

75-100

100-125

Figure B4 - 11
Applied shear stress along Y as a % of shear resistance vc (%)

S11
S9
S7
S5
S3

Transverse beams

S13

37

35

33

31

29

27

25

23

21

19

17

15

13

11

S1

Main beams
+Y
+X
+Z
0-25

25-50

50-75

75-100

100-125

125-150

150-175

Figure B4 - 12

University of Surrey

Msc Structural Engineering

Page 161

Appendix B4
Model 4 Central Load 0.50%M : 1.50%T

Shear along X (kN)

S11
S9
S7
S5
S3

Transverse beams

S13

37

35

33

31

29

27

25

23

21

19

17

15

13

11

S1

Main beams
+Y
+X
+Z
0-20

20-40

40-60

Figure B4 - 13
Applied shear stress along Y as a % of shear resistance vc (%)

S11
S9
S7
S5
S3

Transverse beams

S13

37

35

33

31

29

27

25

23

21

19

17

15

13

11

S1

Main beams
+Y
+X
+Z
0-10

10-20

20-30

30-40

40-50

Figure B4 - 14

University of Surrey

Msc Structural Engineering

Page 162

Appendix B4
Model 4 Central Load 0.50%M : 1.50%T

Torque in slab in both directions (kNm)

S11
S9
S7
S5
S3

Transverse beams

S13

37

35

33

31

29

27

25

23

21

19

17

15

13

11

S1

Main beams
+Y
+X
+Z
0-5

5-10

10-15

15-20

20-25

Figure B4 - 15
Maximum horizontal shear stresses due to torsion (N/mm 2)

S11
S9
S7
S5
S3

Transverse beams

S13

37

35

33

31

29

27

25

23

21

19

17

15

13

11

S1

Main beams
+Y
+X
+Z
0-0.5

0.5-1

1-1.5

1.5-2

Figure B4 - 16

University of Surrey

Msc Structural Engineering

Page 163

Appendix B4
Model 4 Central Load 0.50%M : 1.50%T

Mid Transverse span against moment

4.5

13.5

18

Mid Mx moment (KNm)

-20
-40
-60
-80
-100
-120
-140
-160
-180

Transverse span (m)

Mid central moments as analysed

Mid central moments as per BS8110:Pt1:1997

Figure B4 - 17
Support transverse span against reaction

4.5

13.5

18

120

Reaction (KN)

100

80

60

40

20

Support span (m)

Reactions along support transverse span as analysed

Reactions along support transverse span as designed

Figure B4 - 18

University of Surrey

Msc Structural Engineering

Page 164

Appendix B4
Model 4 Quarter Load 0.50%M : 1.50%T

6100

1T25 @83mm c.c (B.B)


1T8 @100mm c.c (T.T)

1T16 @100mm c.c (B)


1T8 @100mm c.c (T)
Y

Section XX

18100

400

Free edge

Free edge

Section YY

General Configuration Drawing


Model 4 - 0.50%M : 1..50%T

Legend
Supported Edge
B - Bottom Layer 1
BB - Bottom Layer 2

T - Top Layer 1
TT - Top Layer 2

Figure B4 - 19 General assembly of model

Figure B4 - 20 Displaced shape

University of Surrey

Msc Structural Engineering

Page 165

Appendix B4
Model 4 Quarter Load 0.50%M : 1.50%T

Sagging bending moments along Y (kNm)

S11
S9
S7
S5
S3

Transverse beams

S13

37

35

33

31

29

27

25

23

21

19

17

15

13

11

S1
Main beams

+Y
+X
+Z

0-25

25-50

50-75

75-100

Figure B4 - 21
% Usage of reinfocement for moment along Y - Sagging (%)

S11
S9
S7
S5
S3

Transverse beams

S13

37

35

33

31

29

27

25

23

21

19

17

15

13

11

S1

Main beams
+Y
+X
+Z
0-10

10-20

20-30

30-40

40-50

50-60

Figure B4 - 22

University of Surrey

Msc Structural Engineering

Page 166

Appendix B4
Model 4 Quarter Load 0.50%M : 1.50%T

Hogging bending moments along Y (kNm)

S11
S9
S7
S5
S3

Transverse beams

S13

37

35

33

31

29

27

25

23

21

19

17

15

13

11

S1

Main beams
+Y
+X
+Z

-10--8

-8--6

-6--4

-4--2

-2-0

Figure B4 - 23
% Usage of reinforcement along Y - Hogging (%)

S11
S9
S7
S5
S3

Transverse beams

S13

37

35

33

31

29

27

25

23

21

19

17

15

13

11

S1

Main beams
+Y
+X
+Z

0-10

10-20

20-30

Figure B4 - 24

University of Surrey

Msc Structural Engineering

Page 167

Appendix B4
Model 4 Quarter Load 0.50%M : 1.50%T

Sagging bending moments along X (kNm)

S11
S9
S7
S5
S3

Transverse beams

S13

37

35

33

31

29

27

25

23

21

19

17

15

13

11

S1

Main beams
+Y
+X
+Z
0-10

10-20

20-30

30-40

40-50

50-60

60-70

70-80

Figure B4 - 25
% Usage of reinforcement along X - Sagging (%)

S11
S9
S7
S5
S3

Transverse beams

S13

37

35

33

31

29

27

25

23

21

19

17

15

13

11

S1

Main beams
+Y
+X
+Z

0-4

4-8

8-12

12-16

16-20

Figure B4 - 26

University of Surrey

Msc Structural Engineering

Page 168

Appendix B4
Model 4 Quarter Load 0.50%M : 1.50%T

Hogging bending moments along X (kNm)

S11
S9
S7
S5
S3

Transverse beams

S13

37

35

33

31

29

27

25

23

21

19

17

15

13

11

S1

Main beams
+Y
+X
+Z
-16--14

-14--12

-12--10

-10--8

-8--6

-6--4

-4--2

-2-0

Figure B4 - 27
% Usage of reinforcement along X - Hogging (%)

S11
S9
S7
S5
S3

Transverse beams

S13

37

35

33

31

29

27

25

23

21

19

17

15

13

11

S1

Main beams
+Y
+X
+Z

0-10

10-20

20-30

30-40

Figure B4 - 28

University of Surrey

Msc Structural Engineering

Page 169

Appendix B4
Model 4 Quarter Load 0.50%M : 1.50%T

Shear along Y (kN)

S11
S9
S7
S5
S3

Transverse beams

S13

37

35

33

31

29

27

25

23

21

19

17

15

13

11

S1

Main beams
+Y
+X
+Z
0-25

25-50

50-75

75-100

100-125

Figure B4 - 29
Applied shear stress along Y as a % of shear resistance vc (%)

S11
S9
S7
S5
S3

Transverse beams

S13

37

35

33

31

29

27

25

23

21

19

17

15

13

11

S1

Main beams
+Y
+X
+Z
0-25

25-50

50-75

75-100

100-125

125-150

150-175

Figure B4 - 30

University of Surrey

Msc Structural Engineering

Page 170

Appendix B4
Model 4 Quarter Load 0.50%M : 1.50%T

Shear along X (kN)

S11
S9
S7
S5
S3

Transverse beams

S13

37

35

33

31

29

27

25

23

21

19

17

15

13

11

S1

Main beams
+Y
+X
+Z
0-20

20-40

40-60

Figure B4 - 31
Applied shear stress along Y as a % of shear resistance vc (%)

S11
S9
S7
S5
S3

Transverse beams

S13

37

35

33

31

29

27

25

23

21

19

17

15

13

11

S1

Main beams
+Y
+X
+Z
0-10

10-20

20-30

30-40

40-50

Figure B4 - 32

University of Surrey

Msc Structural Engineering

Page 171

Appendix B4
Model 4 Quarter Load 0.50%M : 1.50%T

Torque in slab in both directions (kNm)

S11
S9
S7
S5
S3

Transverse beams

S13

37

35

33

31

29

27

25

23

21

19

17

15

13

11

S1

Main beams
+Y
+X
+Z
0-5

5-10

10-15

15-20

20-25

Figure B4 - 33
Maximum horizontal shear stresses due to torsion (N/mm 2)

S11
S9
S7
S5
S3

Transverse beams

S13

37

35

33

31

29

27

25

23

21

19

17

15

13

11

S1

Main beams
+Y
+X
+Z
0-0.5

0.5-1

1-1.5

1.5-2

Figure B4 - 34

University of Surrey

Msc Structural Engineering

Page 172

Appendix B4
Model 4 Quarter Load 0.50%M : 1.50%T

Mid Transverse span against moment

4.5

13.5

18

Mid Mx moment (KNm)

-20
-40
-60
-80
-100
-120
-140
-160
-180

Transverse span (m)

Mid central moments as analysed

Mid central moments as per BS8110:Pt1:1997

Figure B4 - 35
Support transverse span against reaction

4.5

13.5

18

120

Reaction (KN)

100

80

60

40

20

Support span (m)

Reactions along support transverse span as analysed

Reactions along support transverse span as designed

Figure B4 - 36

University of Surrey

Msc Structural Engineering

Page 173

Appendix B4
Model 4 Edge Load 0.50%M : 1.50%T

6100

1T25 @83mm c.c (B.B)


1T8 @100mm c.c (T.T)

1T16 @100mm c.c (B)


1T8 @100mm c.c (T)
Y

Section XX

18100

400

Free edge

Free edge

Section YY

General Configuration Drawing


Model 4 - 0.50%M : 1..50%T

Legend
Supported Edge
B - Bottom Layer 1
BB - Bottom Layer 2

T - Top Layer 1
TT - Top Layer 2

Figure B4 - 37 General assembly of model

Figure B4 - 38 displaced shape

University of Surrey

Msc Structural Engineering

Page 174

Appendix B4
Model 4 Edge Load 0.50%M : 1.50%T

Sagging bending moments along Y (kNm)

S11
S9
S7
S5
S3

Transverse beams

S13

37

35

33

31

29

27

25

23

21

19

17

15

13

11

S1
Main beams

+Y
+X
+Z

0-25

25-50

50-75

75-100

100-125

125-150

Figure B4 - 39
% Usage of reinfocement for moment along Y - Sagging (%)

S11
S9
S7
S5
S3

Transverse beams

S13

37

35

33

31

29

27

25

23

21

19

17

15

13

11

S1

Main beams
+Y
+X
+Z
0-15

15-30

30-45

45-60

60-75

75-90

90-105

105-120

Figure B4 - 40

University of Surrey

Msc Structural Engineering

Page 175

Appendix B4
Model 4 Edge Load 0.50%M : 1.50%T

Hogging bending moments along Y (kNm)

S11
S9
S7
S5
S3

Transverse beams

S13

37

35

33

31

29

27

25

23

21

19

17

15

13

11

S1

Main beams
+Y
+X
+Z

-40--30

-30--20

-20--10

-10-0

Figure B4 - 41
% Usage of reinforcement along Y - Hogging (%)

S11
S9
S7
S5
S3

Transverse beams

S13

37

35

33

31

29

27

25

23

21

19

17

15

13

11

S1

Main beams
+Y
+X
+Z

0-50

50-100

100-150

Figure B4 - 42

University of Surrey

Msc Structural Engineering

Page 176

Appendix B4
Model 4 Edge Load 0.50%M : 1.50%T

Sagging bending moments along X (kNm)

S11
S9
S7
S5
S3

Transverse beams

S13

37

35

33

31

29

27

25

23

21

19

17

15

13

11

S1

Main beams
+Y
+X
+Z
0-10

10-20

20-30

Figure B4 - 43
% Usage of reinforcement along X - Sagging (%)

S11
S9
S7
S5
S3

Transverse beams

S13

37

35

33

31

29

27

25

23

21

19

17

15

13

11

S1

Main beams
+Y
+X
+Z

0-4

4-8

Figure B4 - 44

University of Surrey

Msc Structural Engineering

Page 177

Appendix B4
Model 4 Edge Load 0.50%M : 1.50%T

Hogging bending moments along X (kNm)

S11
S9
S7
S5
S3

Transverse beams

S13

37

35

33

31

29

27

25

23

21

19

17

15

13

11

S1

Main beams
+Y
+X
+Z
-36--32

-32--28

-28--24

-24--20

-20--16

-16--12

-12--8

-8--4

-4-0

Figure B4 - 45
% Usage of reinforcement along X - Hogging (%)

S11
S9
S7
S5
S3

Transverse beams

S13

37

35

33

31

29

27

25

23

21

19

17

15

13

11

S1

Main beams
+Y
+X
+Z

0-20

20-40

40-60

60-80

80-100

100-120

120-140

140-160

Figure B4 - 46

University of Surrey

Msc Structural Engineering

Page 178

Appendix B4
Model 4 Edge Load 0.50%M : 1.50%T

Shear along Y (kN)

S11
S9
S7
S5
S3

Transverse beams

S13

37

35

33

31

29

27

25

23

21

19

17

15

13

11

S1

Main beams
+Y
+X
+Z
0-25

25-50

50-75

75-100

100-125

125-150

150-175

175-200

200-225

Figure B4 - 47
Applied shear stress along Y as a % of shear resistance vc (%)

S11
S9
S7
S5
S3

Transverse beams

S13

37

35

33

31

29

27

25

23

21

19

17

15

13

11

S1

Main beams
+Y
+X
+Z
0-30

30-60

60-90

90-120

120-150

150-180

180-210

210-240

240-270

270-300

Figure B4 - 48

University of Surrey

Msc Structural Engineering

Page 179

Appendix B4
Model 4 Edge Load 0.50%M : 1.50%T

Shear along X (kN)

S11
S9
S7
S5
S3

Transverse beams

S13

37

35

33

31

29

27

25

23

21

19

17

15

13

11

S1

Main beams
+Y
+X
+Z
0-50

50-100

100-150

150-200

Figure B4 - 49
Applied shear stress along Y as a % of shear resistance vc (%)

S11
S9
S7
S5
S3

Transverse beams

S13

37

35

33

31

29

27

25

23

21

19

17

15

13

11

S1

Main beams
+Y
+X
+Z
0-25

25-50

50-75

75-100

100-125

125-150

150-175

Figure B4 - 50

University of Surrey

Msc Structural Engineering

Page 180

Appendix B4
Model 4 Edge Load 0.50%M : 1.50%T

Torque in slab in both directions (kNm)

S11
S9
S7
S5
S3

Transverse beams

S13

37

35

33

31

29

27

25

23

21

19

17

15

13

11

S1

Main beams
+Y
+X
+Z
0-20

20-40

40-60

Figure B4 - 51
Maximum horizontal shear stresses due to torsion (N/mm 2)

S11
S9
S7
S5
S3

Transverse beams

S13

37

35

33

31

29

27

25

23

21

19

17

15

13

11

S1

Main beams
+Y
+X
+Z
0-0.5

0.5-1

1-1.5

1.5-2

2-2.5

2.5-3

3-3.5

3.5-4

4-4.5

Figure B4 - 52

University of Surrey

Msc Structural Engineering

Page 181

Appendix B4
Model 4 Edge Load 0.50%M : 1.50%T

Mid Transverse span against moment

4.5

13.5

18

Mid Mx moment (KNm)

-50

-100

-150

-200

-250

-300

Transverse span (m)

Mid central moments as analysed

Mid central moments as per BS8110:Pt1:1997

Figure B4 - 53
Support transverse span against reaction

4.5

13.5

18

250

Reaction (KN)

200

150

100

50

Support span (m)

Reactions along support transverse span as analysed

Reactions along support transverse span as designed

Figure B4 - 54

University of Surrey

Msc Structural Engineering

Page 182

Appendix B4
Model 4 Central + Quarter +Edge Load 0.50%M : 1.50%T

6100

1T25 @83mm c.c (B.B)


1T8 @100mm c.c (T.T)

1T16 @100mm c.c (B)


1T8 @100mm c.c (T)
Y

Section XX

18100

400

Free edge

Free edge

Section YY

General Configuration Drawing


Model 4 - 0.50%M : 1..50%T

Legend
Supported Edge
B - Bottom Layer 1
BB - Bottom Layer 2

T - Top Layer 1
TT - Top Layer 2

Figure B4 - 55 General assembly of model

Figure B4 - 56 Displaced shape

University of Surrey

Msc Structural Engineering

Page 183

Appendix B4
Model 4 Central + Quarter +Edge Load 0.50%M : 1.50%T

Sagging bending moments along Y (kNm)

S11
S9
S7
S5
S3

Transverse beams

S13

37

35

33

31

29

27

25

23

21

19

17

15

13

11

S1
Main beams

+Y
+X
+Z

0-25

25-50

50-75

75-100

100-125

125-150

150-175

175-200

Figure B4 - 57
% Usage of reinfocement for moment along Y - Sagging (%)

S11
S9
S7
S5
S3

Transverse beams

S13

37

35

33

31

29

27

25

23

21

19

17

15

13

11

S1

Main beams
+Y
+X
+Z
0-20

20-40

40-60

60-80

80-100

100-120

120-140

140-160

Figure B4 - 58

University of Surrey

Msc Structural Engineering

Page 184

Appendix B4
Model 4 Central + Quarter +Edge Load 0.50%M : 1.50%T

Hogging bending moments along Y (kNm)

S11
S9
S7
S5
S3

Transverse beams

S13

37

35

33

31

29

27

25

23

21

19

17

15

13

11

S1

Main beams
+Y
+X
+Z

-25--20

-20--15

-15--10

-10--5

-5-0

Figure B4 - 59
% Usage of reinforcement along Y - Hogging (%)

S11
S9
S7
S5
S3

Transverse beams

S13

37

35

33

31

29

27

25

23

21

19

17

15

13

11

S1

Main beams
+Y
+X
+Z

0-20

20-40

40-60

60-80

80-100

Figure B4 - 60

University of Surrey

Msc Structural Engineering

Page 185

Appendix B4
Model 4 Central + Quarter +Edge Load 0.50%M : 1.50%T

Sagging bending moments along X (kNm)

S11
S9
S7
S5
S3

Transverse beams

S13

37

35

33

31

29

27

25

23

21

19

17

15

13

11

S1

Main beams
+Y
+X
+Z
0-10

10-20

20-30

30-40

40-50

50-60

Figure B4 - 61
% Usage of reinforcement along X - Sagging (%)

S11
S9
S7
S5
S3

Transverse beams

S13

37

35

33

31

29

27

25

23

21

19

17

15

13

11

S1

Main beams
+Y
+X
+Z

0-5

5-10

10-15

Figure B4 - 62

University of Surrey

Msc Structural Engineering

Page 186

Appendix B4
Model 4 Central + Quarter +Edge Load 0.50%M : 1.50%T

Hogging bending moments along X (kNm)

S11
S9
S7
S5
S3

Transverse beams

S13

37

35

33

31

29

27

25

23

21

19

17

15

13

11

S1

Main beams
+Y
+X
+Z
-36--32

-32--28

-28--24

-24--20

-20--16

-16--12

-12--8

-8--4

-4-0

Figure B4 - 63
% Usage of reinforcement along X - Hogging (%)

S11
S9
S7
S5
S3

Transverse beams

S13

37

35

33

31

29

27

25

23

21

19

17

15

13

11

S1

Main beams
+Y
+X
+Z

-5-5

5-15

15-25

Figure B4 - 64

University of Surrey

Msc Structural Engineering

Page 187

Appendix B4
Model 4 Central + Quarter +Edge Load 0.50%M : 1.50%T

Shear along Y (kN)

S11
S9
S7
S5
S3

Transverse beams

S13

37

35

33

31

29

27

25

23

21

19

17

15

13

11

S1

Main beams
+Y
+X
+Z
0-25

25-50

50-75

75-100

100-125

125-150

150-175

175-200

Figure B4 - 65
Applied shear stress along Y as a % of shear resistance vc (%)

S11
S9
S7
S5
S3

Transverse beams

S13

37

35

33

31

29

27

25

23

21

19

17

15

13

11

S1

Main beams
+Y
+X
+Z
0-25

25-50

50-75

75-100

100-125

125-150

150-175

175-200

200-225

225-250

250-275

Figure B4 - 66

University of Surrey

Msc Structural Engineering

Page 188

Appendix B4
Model 4 Central + Quarter +Edge Load 0.50%M : 1.50%T

Shear along X (kN)

S11
S9
S7
S5
S3

Transverse beams

S13

37

35

33

31

29

27

25

23

21

19

17

15

13

11

S1

Main beams
+Y
+X
+Z
0-25

25-50

50-75

75-100

100-125

Figure B4 - 67
Applied shear stress along Y as a % of shear resistance vc (%)

S11
S9
S7
S5
S3

Transverse beams

S13

37

35

33

31

29

27

25

23

21

19

17

15

13

11

S1

Main beams
+Y
+X
+Z
0-20

20-40

40-60

60-80

80-100

100-120

Figure B4 - 68

University of Surrey

Msc Structural Engineering

Page 189

Appendix B4
Model 4 Central + Quarter +Edge Load 0.50%M : 1.50%T

Torque in slab in both directions (kNm)

S11
S9
S7
S5
S3

Transverse beams

S13

37

35

33

31

29

27

25

23

21

19

17

15

13

11

S1

Main beams
+Y
+X
+Z
0-10

10-20

20-30

30-40

Figure B4 - 69
Maximum horizontal shear stresses due to torsion (N/mm2)

S11
S9
S7
S5
S3

Transverse beams

S13

37

35

33

31

29

27

25

23

21

19

17

15

13

11

S1

Main beams
+Y
+X
+Z
0-0.5

0.5-1

1-1.5

1.5-2

2-2.5

2.5-3

Figure B4 - 70

University of Surrey

Msc Structural Engineering

Page 190

Appendix B4
Model 4 Central + Quarter +Edge Load 0.50%M : 1.50%T

Mid Transverse span against moment

4.5

13.5

18

Mid Mx moment (KNm)

-50

-100

-150

-200

-250

-300

Transverse span (m)

Mid central moments as analysed

Mid central moments as per BS8110:Pt1:1997

Figure B4 - 71
Support transverse span against reaction

4.5

13.5

18

200
180
160

Reaction (KN)

140
120
100
80
60
40
20
0

Support span (m)

Reactions along support transverse span as analysed

Reactions along support transverse span as designed

Figure B4 - 72

University of Surrey

Msc Structural Engineering

Page 191

Appendix B5 - Model 5
Reinforcement ratio - 0.50% Main : 0.50% Transverse
Stiffened main edge

Appendix B5
Model 5 Central load 0.50%M : 0.50%T
Stiffened main edge
Model 5 - Propoerties of Main Members
Generic Properties

Generic Section

Long term Young's Modulus = 0.5E 1.5E+10 Pa

Shear Modulus = 0.42E as per BS81101.3E+10 Pa


2-1985 cl.2.4.3 (G)
Total Transverse Length (LT)
18100 mm

A ST - T

6100 mm

dT

dM

mm
mm
mm
mm
mm

A SB - T

CB

BM Bottom main
reinf. (mm)

Number of bars
(No.)

Depth to main top


reinf. (d'M) (mm)

Main effective Depth


(dM) (mm)

AST - M (mm 2)

ASB - M (mm2)

XM (mm)

4
tr - Main (m )

Cx (mm)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37

32
32
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
32
32

3
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
3

32
32
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
32
32

3
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
3

46
46
34
34
34
34
34
34
34
34
34
34
34
34
34
34
34
34
34
34
34
34
34
34
34
34
34
34
34
34
34
34
34
34
34
46
46

354
354
362
362
362
362
362
362
362
362
362
362
362
362
362
362
362
362
362
362
362
362
362
362
362
362
362
362
362
362
362
362
362
362
362
354
354

2412.7
4021.2
251.3
251.3
251.3
251.3
251.3
251.3
251.3
251.3
251.3
251.3
251.3
251.3
251.3
251.3
251.3
251.3
251.3
251.3
251.3
251.3
251.3
251.3
251.3
251.3
251.3
251.3
251.3
251.3
251.3
251.3
251.3
251.3
251.3
4021.2
2412.7

2412.7
4021.2
1005.3
1005.3
1005.3
1005.3
1005.3
1005.3
1005.3
1005.3
1005.3
1005.3
1005.3
1005.3
1005.3
1005.3
1005.3
1005.3
1005.3
1005.3
1005.3
1005.3
1005.3
1005.3
1005.3
1005.3
1005.3
1005.3
1005.3
1005.3
1005.3
1005.3
1005.3
1005.3
1005.3
4021.2
2412.7

0.0201
0.0201
0.0013
0.0013
0.0013
0.0013
0.0013
0.0013
0.0013
0.0013
0.0013
0.0013
0.0013
0.0013
0.0013
0.0013
0.0013
0.0013
0.0013
0.0013
0.0013
0.0013
0.0013
0.0013
0.0013
0.0013
0.0013
0.0013
0.0013
0.0013
0.0013
0.0013
0.0013
0.0013
0.0013
0.0201
0.0201

0.0201
0.0201
0.0050
0.0050
0.0050
0.0050
0.0050
0.0050
0.0050
0.0050
0.0050
0.0050
0.0050
0.0050
0.0050
0.0050
0.0050
0.0050
0.0050
0.0050
0.0050
0.0050
0.0050
0.0050
0.0050
0.0050
0.0050
0.0050
0.0050
0.0050
0.0050
0.0050
0.0050
0.0050
0.0050
0.0201
0.0201

148.42
148.42
112.13
112.13
112.13
112.13
112.13
112.13
112.13
112.13
112.13
112.13
112.13
112.13
112.13
112.13
112.13
112.13
112.13
112.13
112.13
112.13
112.13
112.13
112.13
112.13
112.13
112.13
112.13
112.13
112.13
112.13
112.13
112.13
112.13
148.42
148.42

3.853E-03
6.421E-03
2.129E-03
2.129E-03
2.129E-03
2.129E-03
2.129E-03
2.129E-03
2.129E-03
2.129E-03
2.129E-03
2.129E-03
2.129E-03
2.129E-03
2.129E-03
2.129E-03
2.129E-03
2.129E-03
2.129E-03
2.129E-03
2.129E-03
2.129E-03
2.129E-03
2.129E-03
2.129E-03
2.129E-03
2.129E-03
2.129E-03
2.129E-03
2.129E-03
2.129E-03
2.129E-03
2.129E-03
2.129E-03
2.129E-03
6.421E-03
3.853E-03

5.729E-03
7.396E-03
4.259E-03
4.259E-03
4.259E-03
4.259E-03
4.259E-03
4.259E-03
4.259E-03
4.259E-03
4.259E-03
4.259E-03
4.259E-03
4.259E-03
4.259E-03
4.259E-03
4.259E-03
4.259E-03
4.259E-03
4.259E-03
4.259E-03
4.259E-03
4.259E-03
4.259E-03
4.259E-03
4.259E-03
4.259E-03
4.259E-03
4.259E-03
4.259E-03
4.259E-03
4.259E-03
4.259E-03
4.259E-03
4.259E-03
7.396E-03
5.729E-03

University of Surrey

'

Number of bars
(No.)

A SB - M

TM Top main reinf.


(mm)

300
500
400
30
30
15

CT

d'M

Main Beam Number

Total Length between supports (L)


Edge element width (BE)
Element width (B)
Element depth (D)
Top Cover (CT)
Bottom Cover (CB)
e

d'

A ST - M

Msc Structural Engineering

Page 193

Appendix B5
Model 5 Central load 0.50%M : 0.50%T
Stiffened main edge
Model 5 - Propoerties of Transverse Members
Generic Properties

Generic Section

Long term Young's Modulus = 0.5E 1.5E+10 Pa

Shear Modulus = 0.42E as per BS8110-21985 cl.2.4.3 (G) 1.3E+10 Pa


Total Transverse Length (LT)
18100 mm

University of Surrey

A SB - T

CB

XT (mm)

4
tr - Trans (mm )

4
tr - Trans (mm )

330
330
346
346
346
346
346
346
346
346
346
346
346

150.8
251.3
251.3
251.3
251.3
251.3
251.3
251.3
251.3
251.3
251.3
251.3
150.8

603.2
1005.3
1005.3
1005.3
1005.3
1005.3
1005.3
1005.3
1005.3
1005.3
1005.3
1005.3
603.2

0.0013
0.0013
0.0013
0.0013
0.0013
0.0013
0.0013
0.0013
0.0013
0.0013
0.0013
0.0013
0.0013

0.0050
0.0050
0.0050
0.0050
0.0050
0.0050
0.0050
0.0050
0.0050
0.0050
0.0050
0.0050
0.0050

103.84
103.84
107.62
107.62
107.62
107.62
107.62
107.62
107.62
107.62
107.62
107.62
107.62

1.283E-03
2.138E-03
2.130E-03
2.130E-03
2.130E-03
2.130E-03
2.130E-03
2.130E-03
2.130E-03
2.130E-03
2.130E-03
2.130E-03
1.278E-03

3.305E-03
4.267E-03
4.259E-03
4.259E-03
4.259E-03
4.259E-03
4.259E-03
4.259E-03
4.259E-03
4.259E-03
4.259E-03
4.259E-03
3.305E-03

'

depth (dT) (mm)

A SB - M

66
66
42
42
42
42
42
42
42
42
42
42
42

Transverse effective

reinf. (d'T) (mm)

Depth to top trans.

Number of bars (No.)


3
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
3

dT

16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16

dM

mm
mm
mm
mm
mm

ASB - T (mm 2)

3
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
3

(mm)

BT Bottom trans. reinf.

Number of bars (No.)

reinf. (mm)
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8

A ST - T

6100 mm
300
500
400
30
30
15

d'M

AST - T (mm 2)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13

TT Top transverse

Trans. Beam Number

Total Length between supports (L)


Edge element width (BE)
Element width (B)
Element depth (D)
Top Cover (CT)
Bottom Cover (CB)
e

d'T

A ST - M

CT

Msc Structural Engineering

Page 194

Appendix B5
Model 5 Central load 0.50%M : 0.50%T
Stiffened main edge

1T32 @100mm c.c (B)


1T32 @100mm c.c (T)

1T25 @ 100mm c.c (B.B)


1T8 @100mm c.c (T.T)

6100

1T32 @100mm c.c (B)


1T32 @100mm c.c (T)

1T16 @100mm c.c (B)


1T8 @100mm c.c (T)
Y

Section XX

18100
Free edge
Stiffened edge

400

Free edge
Stiffened edge

Section YY

General Configuration Drawing


Model 5 - 0.50%M : 0.50%T - Stiffened Main Edge

Legend
Supported Edge
B - Bottom Layer 1
BB - Bottom Layer 2

T - Top Layer 1
TT - Top Layer 2

Figure B5 - 1 General assembly of model

Figure B5 - 2 Displaced shape

University of Surrey

Msc Structural Engineering

Page 195

Appendix B5
Model 5 Central load 0.50%M : 0.50%T
Stiffened main edge
Sagging bending moments along Y (kNm)

S11
S9
S7
S5
S3

Transverse beams

S13

37

35

33

31

29

27

25

23

21

19

17

15

13

11

S1
Main beams

+Y
+X
+Z

0-20

20-40

40-60

60-80

80-100

Figure B5 - 3
% Usage of reinfocement for moment along Y - Sagging (%)

S11
S9
S7
S5
S3

Transverse beams

S13

37

35

33

31

29

27

25

23

21

19

17

15

13

11

S1

Main beams
+Y
+X
+Z
0-10

10-20

20-30

30-40

40-50

50-60

60-70

Figure B5 - 4

University of Surrey

Msc Structural Engineering

Page 196

Appendix B5
Model 5 Central load 0.50%M : 0.50%T
Stiffened main edge
Hogging bending moments along Y (kNm)

S11
S9
S7
S5
S3

Transverse beams

S13

37

35

33

31

29

27

25

23

21

19

17

15

13

11

S1

Main beams
+Y
+X
+Z

-15--10

-10--5

-5-0

Figure B5 - 5
% Usage of reinforcement along Y - Hogging (%)

S11
S9
S7
S5
S3

Transverse beams

S13

37

35

33

31

29

27

25

23

21

19

17

15

13

11

S1

Main beams
+Y
+X
+Z

0-10

10-20

20-30

30-40

Figure B5 - 6

University of Surrey

Msc Structural Engineering

Page 197

Appendix B5
Model 5 Central load 0.50%M : 0.50%T
Stiffened main edge
Sagging bending moments along X (kNm)

S11
S9
S7
S5
S3

Transverse beams

S13

37

35

33

31

29

27

25

23

21

19

17

15

13

11

S1

Main beams
+Y
+X
+Z
0-10

10-20

20-30

30-40

40-50

50-60

60-70

Figure B5 - 7
% Usage of reinforcement along X - Sagging (%)

S11
S9
S7
S5
S3

Transverse beams

S13

37

35

33

31

29

27

25

23

21

19

17

15

13

11

S1

Main beams
+Y
+X
+Z

0-10

10-20

20-30

30-40

40-50

Figure B5 - 8

University of Surrey

Msc Structural Engineering

Page 198

Appendix B5
Model 5 Central load 0.50%M : 0.50%T
Stiffened main edge
Hogging bending moments along X (kNm)

S11
S9
S7
S5
S3

Transverse beams

S13

37

35

33

31

29

27

25

23

21

19

17

15

13

11

S1

Main beams
+Y
+X
+Z
-10--8

-8--6

-6--4

-4--2

-2-0

Figure B5 - 9
% Usage of reinforcement along X - Hogging (%)

S11
S9
S7
S5
S3

Transverse beams

S13

37

35

33

31

29

27

25

23

21

19

17

15

13

11

S1

Main beams
+Y
+X
+Z

0-5

5-10

10-15

15-20

20-25

Figure B5 - 10

University of Surrey

Msc Structural Engineering

Page 199

Appendix B5
Model 5 Central load 0.50%M : 0.50%T
Stiffened main edge
Shear along Y (kN)

S11
S9
S7
S5
S3

Transverse beams

S13

37

35

33

31

29

27

25

23

21

19

17

15

13

11

S1

Main beams
+Y
+X
+Z
0-25

25-50

50-75

75-100

100-125

125-150

Figure B5 - 11
Applied shear stress along Y as a % of shear resistance vc (%)

S11
S9
S7
S5
S3

Transverse beams

S13

37

35

33

31

29

27

25

23

21

19

17

15

13

11

S1

Main beams
+Y
+X
+Z
0-25

25-50

50-75

75-100

100-125

125-150

150-175

175-200

Figure B5 - 12

University of Surrey

Msc Structural Engineering

Page 200

Appendix B5
Model 5 Central load 0.50%M : 0.50%T
Stiffened main edge
Shear along X (kN)

S11
S9
S7
S5
S3

Transverse beams

S13

37

35

33

31

29

27

25

23

21

19

17

15

13

11

S1

Main beams
+Y
+X
+Z
0-20

20-40

40-60

Figure B5 - 13
Applied shear stress along Y as a % of shear resistance vc (%)

S11
S9
S7
S5
S3

Transverse beams

S13

37

35

33

31

29

27

25

23

21

19

17

15

13

11

S1

Main beams
+Y
+X
+Z
0-10

10-20

20-30

30-40

40-50

50-60

60-70

70-80

80-90

Figure B5 - 14

University of Surrey

Msc Structural Engineering

Page 201

Appendix B5
Model 5 Central load 0.50%M : 0.50%T
Stiffened main edge
Torque in slab in both directions (kNm)

S11
S9
S7
S5
S3

Transverse beams

S13

37

35

33

31

29

27

25

23

21

19

17

15

13

11

S1

Main beams
+Y
+X
+Z
0-5

5-10

10-15

15-20

20-25

Figure B5 - 15
Maximum horizontal shear stresses due to torsion (N/mm 2)

S11
S9
S7
S5
S3

Transverse beams

S13

37

35

33

31

29

27

25

23

21

19

17

15

13

11

S1

Main beams
+Y
+X
+Z
0-0.5

0.5-1

1-1.5

1.5-2

Figure B5 - 16

University of Surrey

Msc Structural Engineering

Page 202

Appendix B5
Model 5 Central load 0.50%M : 0.50%T
Stiffened main edge
Mid Transverse span against moment

4.5

13.5

18

Mid Mx moment (KNm)

-20
-40
-60
-80
-100
-120
-140
-160
-180

Transverse span (m)

Mid central moments as analysed

Mid central moments as per BS8110:Pt1:1997

Figure B5 - 17
Support transverse span against reaction

4.5

13.5

18

160
140

Reaction (KN)

120
100
80
60
40
20
0

Support span (m)

Reactions along support transverse span as analysed

Reactions along support transverse span as designed

Figure B5 - 18

University of Surrey

Msc Structural Engineering

Page 203

Appendix B5
Model 5 Quarter load 0.50%M : 0.50%T
Stiffened main edge

1T32 @100mm c.c (B)


1T32 @100mm c.c (T)

1T25 @ 100mm c.c (B.B)


1T8 @100mm c.c (T.T)

6100

1T32 @100mm c.c (B)


1T32 @100mm c.c (T)

1T16 @100mm c.c (B)


1T8 @100mm c.c (T)
Y

Section XX

18100
Free edge
Stiffened edge

400

Free edge
Stiffened edge

Section YY

General Configuration Drawing


Model 5 - 0.50%M : 0.50%T - Stiffened Main Edge

Legend
Supported Edge
B - Bottom Layer 1
BB - Bottom Layer 2

T - Top Layer 1
TT - Top Layer 2

Figure B5 - 19 General assembly of model

Figure B5 - 20 Displaced shape

University of Surrey

Msc Structural Engineering

Page 204

Appendix B5
Model 5 Quarter load 0.50%M : 0.50%T
Stiffened main edge
Sagging bending moments along Y (kNm)

S11
S9
S7
S5
S3

Transverse beams

S13

37

35

33

31

29

27

25

23

21

19

17

15

13

11

S1
Main beams

+Y
+X
+Z

0-25

25-50

50-75

75-100

100-125

125-150

Figure B5 - 21
% Usage of reinfocement for moment along Y - Sagging (%)

S11
S9
S7
S5
S3

Transverse beams

S13

37

35

33

31

29

27

25

23

21

19

17

15

13

11

S1

Main beams
+Y
+X
+Z
0-10

10-20

20-30

30-40

40-50

50-60

60-70

Figure B5 - 22

University of Surrey

Msc Structural Engineering

Page 205

Appendix B5
Model 5 Quarter load 0.50%M : 0.50%T
Stiffened main edge
Hogging bending moments along Y (kNm)

S11
S9
S7
S5
S3

Transverse beams

S13

37

35

33

31

29

27

25

23

21

19

17

15

13

11

S1

Main beams
+Y
+X
+Z

-15--10

-10--5

-5-0

Figure B5 - 23
% Usage of reinforcement along Y - Hogging (%)

S11
S9
S7
S5
S3

Transverse beams

S13

37

35

33

31

29

27

25

23

21

19

17

15

13

11

S1

Main beams
+Y
+X
+Z

0-10

10-20

20-30

30-40

Figure B5 - 24

University of Surrey

Msc Structural Engineering

Page 206

Appendix B5
Model 5 Quarter load 0.50%M : 0.50%T
Stiffened main edge
Sagging bending moments along X (kNm)

S11
S9
S7
S5
S3

Transverse beams

S13

37

35

33

31

29

27

25

23

21

19

17

15

13

11

S1

Main beams
+Y
+X
+Z
0-10

10-20

20-30

30-40

40-50

50-60

60-70

Figure B5 - 25
% Usage of reinforcement along X - Sagging (%)

S11
S9
S7
S5
S3

Transverse beams

S13

37

35

33

31

29

27

25

23

21

19

17

15

13

11

S1

Main beams
+Y
+X
+Z

0-10

10-20

20-30

30-40

40-50

Figure B5 - 26

University of Surrey

Msc Structural Engineering

Page 207

Appendix B5
Model 5 Quarter load 0.50%M : 0.50%T
Stiffened main edge
Hogging bending moments along X (kNm)

S11
S9
S7
S5
S3

Transverse beams

S13

37

35

33

31

29

27

25

23

21

19

17

15

13

11

S1

Main beams
+Y
+X
+Z
-12--10

-10--8

-8--6

-6--4

-4--2

-2-0

Figure B5 - 27
% Usage of reinforcement along X - Hogging (%)

S11
S9
S7
S5
S3

Transverse beams

S13

37

35

33

31

29

27

25

23

21

19

17

15

13

11

S1

Main beams
+Y
+X
+Z

0-10

10-20

20-30

Figure B5 - 28

University of Surrey

Msc Structural Engineering

Page 208

Appendix B5
Model 5 Quarter load 0.50%M : 0.50%T
Stiffened main edge
Shear along Y (kN)

S11
S9
S7
S5
S3

Transverse beams

S13

37

35

33

31

29

27

25

23

21

19

17

15

13

11

S1

Main beams
+Y
+X
+Z
0-25

25-50

50-75

75-100

100-125

125-150

Figure B5 - 29
Applied shear stress along Y as a % of shear resistance vc (%)

S11
S9
S7
S5
S3

Transverse beams

S13

37

35

33

31

29

27

25

23

21

19

17

15

13

11

S1

Main beams
+Y
+X
+Z
0-25

25-50

50-75

75-100

100-125

125-150

150-175

175-200

Figure B5 - 30

University of Surrey

Msc Structural Engineering

Page 209

Appendix B5
Model 5 Quarter load 0.50%M : 0.50%T
Stiffened main edge
Shear along X (kN)

S11
S9
S7
S5
S3

Transverse beams

S13

37

35

33

31

29

27

25

23

21

19

17

15

13

11

S1

Main beams
+Y
+X
+Z
0-20

20-40

40-60

60-80

80-100

Figure B5 - 31
Applied shear stress along Y as a % of shear resistance vc (%)

S11
S9
S7
S5
S3

Transverse beams

S13

37

35

33

31

29

27

25

23

21

19

17

15

13

11

S1

Main beams
+Y
+X
+Z
0-10

10-20

20-30

30-40

40-50

50-60

60-70

70-80

80-90

90-100

100-110

110-120

120-130

Figure B5 - 32

University of Surrey

Msc Structural Engineering

Page 210

Appendix B5
Model 5 Quarter load 0.50%M : 0.50%T
Stiffened main edge
Torque in slab in both directions (kNm)

S11
S9
S7
S5
S3

Transverse beams

S13

37

35

33

31

29

27

25

23

21

19

17

15

13

11

S1

Main beams
+Y
+X
+Z
0-5

5-10

10-15

15-20

20-25

Figure B5 - 33
Maximum horizontal shear stresses due to torsion (N/mm 2)

S11
S9
S7
S5
S3

Transverse beams

S13

37

35

33

31

29

27

25

23

21

19

17

15

13

11

S1

Main beams
+Y
+X
+Z
0-0.5

0.5-1

1-1.5

1.5-2

Figure B5 - 34

University of Surrey

Msc Structural Engineering

Page 211

Appendix B5
Model 5 Quarter load 0.50%M : 0.50%T
Stiffened main edge
Mid Transverse span against moment

4.5

13.5

18

Mid Mx moment (KNm)

-20
-40
-60
-80
-100
-120
-140
-160
-180

Transverse span (m)

Mid central moments as analysed

Mid central moments as per BS8110:Pt1:1997

Figure B5 - 35
Support transverse span against reaction

4.5

13.5

18

160
140

Reaction (KN)

120
100
80
60
40
20
0

Support span (m)

Reactions along support transverse span as analysed

Reactions along support transverse span as designed

Figure B5 - 36

University of Surrey

Msc Structural Engineering

Page 212

Appendix B5
Model 5 Edge load 0.50%M : 0.50%T
Stiffened main edge

1T32 @100mm c.c (B)


1T32 @100mm c.c (T)

1T25 @ 100mm c.c (B.B)


1T8 @100mm c.c (T.T)

6100

1T32 @100mm c.c (B)


1T32 @100mm c.c (T)

1T16 @100mm c.c (B)


1T8 @100mm c.c (T)
Y

Section XX

18100
Free edge
Stiffened edge

400

Free edge
Stiffened edge

Section YY

General Configuration Drawing


Model 5 - 0.50%M : 0.50%T - Stiffened Main Edge

Legend
Supported Edge
B - Bottom Layer 1
BB - Bottom Layer 2

T - Top Layer 1
TT - Top Layer 2

Figure B5 - 37 General assembly of model

Figure B5 - 38 Displaced shape

University of Surrey

Msc Structural Engineering

Page 213

Appendix B5
Model 5 Edge load 0.50%M : 0.50%T
Stiffened main edge
Sagging bending moments along Y (kNm)

S11
S9
S7
S5
S3

Transverse beams

S13

37

35

33

31

29

27

25

23

21

19

17

15

13

11

S1
Main beams

+Y
+X
+Z

0-50

50-100

100-150

150-200

200-250

250-300

300-350

Figure B5 - 39
% Usage of reinfocement for moment along Y - Sagging (%)

S11
S9
S7
S5
S3

Transverse beams

S13

37

35

33

31

29

27

25

23

21

19

17

15

13

11

S1

Main beams
+Y
+X
+Z
0-15

15-30

30-45

45-60

60-75

Figure B5 - 40

University of Surrey

Msc Structural Engineering

Page 214

Appendix B5
Model 5 Edge load 0.50%M : 0.50%T
Stiffened main edge
Hogging bending moments along Y (kNm)

S11
S9
S7
S5
S3

Transverse beams

S13

37

35

33

31

29

27

25

23

21

19

17

15

13

11

S1

Main beams
+Y
+X
+Z

-20--15

-15--10

-10--5

-5-0

Figure B5 - 41
% Usage of reinforcement along Y - Hogging (%)

S11
S9
S7
S5
S3

Transverse beams

S13

37

35

33

31

29

27

25

23

21

19

17

15

13

11

S1

Main beams
+Y
+X
+Z

0-2

2-4

4-6

Figure B5 - 42

University of Surrey

Msc Structural Engineering

Page 215

Appendix B5
Model 5 Edge load 0.50%M : 0.50%T
Stiffened main edge
Sagging bending moments along X (kNm)

S11
S9
S7
S5
S3

Transverse beams

S13

37

35

33

31

29

27

25

23

21

19

17

15

13

11

S1

Main beams
+Y
+X
+Z
0-10

10-20

20-30

Figure B5 - 43
% Usage of reinforcement along X - Sagging (%)

S11
S9
S7
S5
S3

Transverse beams

S13

37

35

33

31

29

27

25

23

21

19

17

15

13

11

S1

Main beams
+Y
+X
+Z

0-4

4-8

8-12

12-16

16-20

Figure B5 - 44

University of Surrey

Msc Structural Engineering

Page 216

Appendix B5
Model 5 Edge load 0.50%M : 0.50%T
Stiffened main edge
Hogging bending moments along X (kNm)

S11
S9
S7
S5
S3

Transverse beams

S13

37

35

33

31

29

27

25

23

21

19

17

15

13

11

S1

Main beams
+Y
+X
+Z
-24--20

-20--16

-16--12

-12--8

-8--4

-4-0

Figure B5 - 45
% Usage of reinforcement along X - Hogging (%)

S11
S9
S7
S5
S3

Transverse beams

S13

37

35

33

31

29

27

25

23

21

19

17

15

13

11

S1

Main beams
+Y
+X
+Z

0-20

20-40

40-60

60-80

80-100

100-120

Figure B5 - 46

University of Surrey

Msc Structural Engineering

Page 217

Appendix B5
Model 5 Edge load 0.50%M : 0.50%T
Stiffened main edge
Shear along Y (kN)

S11
S9
S7
S5
S3

Transverse beams

S13

37

35

33

31

29

27

25

23

21

19

17

15

13

11

S1

Main beams
+Y
+X
+Z
0-25

25-50

50-75

75-100

100-125

125-150

150-175

175-200

200-225

225-250

250-275

Figure B5 - 47
Applied shear stress along Y as a % of shear resistance vc (%)

S11
S9
S7
S5
S3

Transverse beams

S13

37

35

33

31

29

27

25

23

21

19

17

15

13

11

S1

Main beams
+Y
+X
+Z
0-30

30-60

60-90

90-120

120-150

150-180

180-210

Figure B5 - 48

University of Surrey

Msc Structural Engineering

Page 218

Appendix B5
Model 5 Edge load 0.50%M : 0.50%T
Stiffened main edge
Shear along X (kN)

S11
S9
S7
S5
S3

Transverse beams

S13

37

35

33

31

29

27

25

23

21

19

17

15

13

11

S1

Main beams
+Y
+X
+Z
0-50

50-100

100-150

Figure B5 - 49
Applied shear stress along Y as a % of shear resistance vc (%)

S11
S9
S7
S5
S3

Transverse beams

S13

37

35

33

31

29

27

25

23

21

19

17

15

13

11

S1

Main beams
+Y
+X
+Z
0-25

25-50

50-75

75-100

100-125

125-150

150-175

Figure B5 - 50

University of Surrey

Msc Structural Engineering

Page 219

Appendix B5
Model 5 Edge load 0.50%M : 0.50%T
Stiffened main edge
Torque in slab in both directions (kNm)

S11
S9
S7
S5
S3

Transverse beams

S13

37

35

33

31

29

27

25

23

21

19

17

15

13

11

S1

Main beams
+Y
+X
+Z
0-10

10-20

20-30

30-40

Figure B5 - 51
Maximum horizontal shear stresses due to torsion (N/mm 2)

S11
S9
S7
S5
S3

Transverse beams

S13

37

35

33

31

29

27

25

23

21

19

17

15

13

11

S1

Main beams
+Y
+X
+Z
0-0.5

0.5-1

1-1.5

1.5-2

2-2.5

Figure B5 - 52

University of Surrey

Msc Structural Engineering

Page 220

Appendix B5
Model 5 Edge load 0.50%M : 0.50%T
Stiffened main edge
Mid Transverse span against moment

4.5

13.5

18

Mid Mx moment (KNm)

-50
-100
-150
-200
-250
-300
-350
-400

Transverse span (m)

Mid central moments as analysed

Mid central moments as per BS8110:Pt1:1997

Figure B5 - 53
Support transverse span against reaction

4.5

13.5

18

300

Reaction (KN)

250

200

150

100

50

Support span (m)

Reactions along support transverse span as analysed

Reactions along support transverse span as designed

Figure B5 - 54

University of Surrey

Msc Structural Engineering

Page 221

Appendix B5
Model 5 Central + Quarter + Edge load 0.50%M : 0.50%T
Stiffened main edge

1T32 @100mm c.c (B)


1T32 @100mm c.c (T)

1T25 @ 100mm c.c (B.B)


1T8 @100mm c.c (T.T)

6100

1T32 @100mm c.c (B)


1T32 @100mm c.c (T)

1T16 @100mm c.c (B)


1T8 @100mm c.c (T)
Y

Section XX

18100
Free edge
Stiffened edge

400

Free edge
Stiffened edge

Section YY

General Configuration Drawing


Model 5 - 0.50%M : 0.50%T - Stiffened Main Edge

Legend
Supported Edge
B - Bottom Layer 1
BB - Bottom Layer 2

T - Top Layer 1
TT - Top Layer 2

Figure B5 - 55 General assembly of model

Figure B5 - 56 Displaced Shape

University of Surrey

Msc Structural Engineering

Page 222

Appendix B5
Model 5 Central + Quarter + Edge load 0.50%M : 0.50%T
Stiffened main edge
Sagging bending moments along Y (kNm)

S11
S9
S7
S5
S3

Transverse beams

S13

37

35

33

31

29

27

25

23

21

19

17

15

13

11

S1
Main beams

+Y
+X
+Z

0-50

50-100

100-150

150-200

200-250

250-300

300-350

350-400

400-450

Figure B5 - 57
% Usage of reinfocement for moment along Y - Sagging (%)

S11
S9
S7
S5
S3

Transverse beams

S13

37

35

33

31

29

27

25

23

21

19

17

15

13

11

S1

Main beams
+Y
+X
+Z
0-20

20-40

40-60

60-80

80-100

Figure B5 - 58

University of Surrey

Msc Structural Engineering

Page 223

Appendix B5
Model 5 Central + Quarter + Edge load 0.50%M : 0.50%T
Stiffened main edge
Hogging bending moments along Y (kNm)

S11
S9
S7
S5
S3

Transverse beams

S13

37

35

33

31

29

27

25

23

21

19

17

15

13

11

S1

Main beams
+Y
+X
+Z

-15--10

-10--5

-5-0

Figure B5 - 59
% Usage of reinforcement along Y - Hogging (%)

S11
S9
S7
S5
S3

Transverse beams

S13

37

35

33

31

29

27

25

23

21

19

17

15

13

11

S1

Main beams
+Y
+X
+Z

0-10

10-20

20-30

Figure B5 - 60

University of Surrey

Msc Structural Engineering

Page 224

Appendix B5
Model 5 Central + Quarter + Edge load 0.50%M : 0.50%T
Stiffened main edge
Sagging bending moments along X (kNm)

S11
S9
S7
S5
S3

Transverse beams

S13

37

35

33

31

29

27

25

23

21

19

17

15

13

11

S1

Main beams
+Y
+X
+Z
0-10

10-20

20-30

30-40

40-50

50-60

Figure B5 - 61
% Usage of reinforcement along X - Sagging (%)

S11
S9
S7
S5
S3

Transverse beams

S13

37

35

33

31

29

27

25

23

21

19

17

15

13

11

S1

Main beams
+Y
+X
+Z

0-10

10-20

20-30

30-40

Figure B5 - 62

University of Surrey

Msc Structural Engineering

Page 225

Appendix B5
Model 5 Central + Quarter + Edge load 0.50%M : 0.50%T
Stiffened main edge
Hogging bending moments along X (kNm)

S11
S9
S7
S5
S3

Transverse beams

S13

37

35

33

31

29

27

25

23

21

19

17

15

13

11

S1

Main beams
+Y
+X
+Z
-20--16

-16--12

-12--8

-8--4

-4-0

Figure B5 - 63
% Usage of reinforcement along X - Hogging (%)

S11
S9
S7
S5
S3

Transverse beams

S13

37

35

33

31

29

27

25

23

21

19

17

15

13

11

S1

Main beams
+Y
+X
+Z

-5-5

5-15

15-25

Figure B5 - 64

University of Surrey

Msc Structural Engineering

Page 226

Appendix B5
Model 5 Central + Quarter + Edge load 0.50%M : 0.50%T
Stiffened main edge
Shear along Y (kN)

S11
S9
S7
S5
S3

Transverse beams

S13

37

35

33

31

29

27

25

23

21

19

17

15

13

11

S1

Main beams
+Y
+X
+Z
0-25

25-50

50-75

250-275

275-300

300-325

75-100

100-125

125-150

150-175

175-200

200-225

225-250

Figure B5 - 65
Applied shear stress along Y as a % of shear resistance vc (%)

S11
S9
S7
S5
S3

Transverse beams

S13

37

35

33

31

29

27

25

23

21

19

17

15

13

11

S1

Main beams
+Y
+X
+Z
0-25

25-50

50-75

75-100

100-125

125-150

150-175

175-200

200-225

225-250

Figure B5 - 66

University of Surrey

Msc Structural Engineering

Page 227

Appendix B5
Model 5 Central + Quarter + Edge load 0.50%M : 0.50%T
Stiffened main edge
Shear along X (kN)

S11
S9
S7
S5
S3

Transverse beams

S13

37

35

33

31

29

27

25

23

21

19

17

15

13

11

S1

Main beams
+Y
+X
+Z
0-20

20-40

40-60

Figure B5 - 67
Applied shear stress along Y as a % of shear resistance vc (%)

S11
S9
S7
S5
S3

Transverse beams

S13

37

35

33

31

29

27

25

23

21

19

17

15

13

11

S1

Main beams
+Y
+X
+Z
0-20

20-40

40-60

60-80

80-100

Figure B5 - 68

University of Surrey

Msc Structural Engineering

Page 228

Appendix B5
Model 5 Central + Quarter + Edge load 0.50%M : 0.50%T
Stiffened main edge
Torque in slab in both directions (kNm)

S11
S9
S7
S5
S3

Transverse beams

S13

37

35

33

31

29

27

25

23

21

19

17

15

13

11

S1

Main beams
+Y
+X
+Z
0-10

10-20

20-30

Figure B5 - 69
Maximum horizontal shear stresses due to torsion (N/mm 2)

S11
S9
S7
S5
S3

Transverse beams

S13

37

35

33

31

29

27

25

23

21

19

17

15

13

11

S1

Main beams
+Y
+X
+Z
0-0.5

0.5-1

1-1.5

1.5-2

2-2.5

Figure B5 - 70

University of Surrey

Msc Structural Engineering

Page 229

Appendix B5
Model 5 Central + Quarter + Edge load 0.50%M : 0.50%T
Stiffened main edge
Mid Transverse span against moment

4.5

13.5

18

Mid Mx moment (KNm)

-50
-100
-150
-200
-250
-300
-350
-400
-450
-500

Transverse span (m)

Mid central moments as analysed

Mid central moments as per BS8110:Pt1:1997

Figure B5 - 71
Support transverse span against reaction

4.5

13.5

18

350
300

Reaction (KN)

250
200
150
100
50
0

Support span (m)

Reactions along support transverse span as analysed

Reactions along support transverse span as designed

Figure B5 - 72

University of Surrey

Msc Structural Engineering

Page 230

Appendix B6 - Model 6
Reinforcement ratio - 0.50% Main : 0.50% Transverse
Stiffened transverse edge

Appendix B6
Model 6 Central Load 0.50%M : 0.50%T
Stiffened transverse edge
Model 6 - Propoerties of Main Members
Generic Properties

Generic Section

Long term Young's Modulus = 0.5E 1.5E+10 Pa

Shear Modulus = 0.42E as per BS81101.3E+10 Pa


2-1985 cl.2.4.3 (G)
Total Transverse Length (LT)
18100 mm

A ST - T

6100 mm

dT

dM

mm
mm
mm
mm
mm

A SB - T

CB

BM Bottom main
reinf. (mm)

Number of bars
(No.)

Depth to main top


reinf. (d'M) (mm)

Main effective Depth


(dM) (mm)

AST - M (mm 2)

ASB - M (mm2)

XM (mm)

4
tr - Main (m )

Cx (mm)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37

8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8

3
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
3

16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16

3
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
3

34
34
34
34
34
34
34
34
34
34
34
34
34
34
34
34
34
34
34
34
34
34
34
34
34
34
34
34
34
34
34
34
34
34
34
34
34

362
362
362
362
362
362
362
362
362
362
362
362
362
362
362
362
362
362
362
362
362
362
362
362
362
362
362
362
362
362
362
362
362
362
362
362
362

150.8
251.3
251.3
251.3
251.3
251.3
251.3
251.3
251.3
251.3
251.3
251.3
251.3
251.3
251.3
251.3
251.3
251.3
251.3
251.3
251.3
251.3
251.3
251.3
251.3
251.3
251.3
251.3
251.3
251.3
251.3
251.3
251.3
251.3
251.3
251.3
150.8

603.2
1005.3
1005.3
1005.3
1005.3
1005.3
1005.3
1005.3
1005.3
1005.3
1005.3
1005.3
1005.3
1005.3
1005.3
1005.3
1005.3
1005.3
1005.3
1005.3
1005.3
1005.3
1005.3
1005.3
1005.3
1005.3
1005.3
1005.3
1005.3
1005.3
1005.3
1005.3
1005.3
1005.3
1005.3
1005.3
603.2

0.0013
0.0013
0.0013
0.0013
0.0013
0.0013
0.0013
0.0013
0.0013
0.0013
0.0013
0.0013
0.0013
0.0013
0.0013
0.0013
0.0013
0.0013
0.0013
0.0013
0.0013
0.0013
0.0013
0.0013
0.0013
0.0013
0.0013
0.0013
0.0013
0.0013
0.0013
0.0013
0.0013
0.0013
0.0013
0.0013
0.0013

0.0050
0.0050
0.0050
0.0050
0.0050
0.0050
0.0050
0.0050
0.0050
0.0050
0.0050
0.0050
0.0050
0.0050
0.0050
0.0050
0.0050
0.0050
0.0050
0.0050
0.0050
0.0050
0.0050
0.0050
0.0050
0.0050
0.0050
0.0050
0.0050
0.0050
0.0050
0.0050
0.0050
0.0050
0.0050
0.0050
0.0050

112.13
112.13
112.13
112.13
112.13
112.13
112.13
112.13
112.13
112.13
112.13
112.13
112.13
112.13
112.13
112.13
112.13
112.13
112.13
112.13
112.13
112.13
112.13
112.13
112.13
112.13
112.13
112.13
112.13
112.13
112.13
112.13
112.13
112.13
112.13
112.13
112.13

1.277E-03
2.129E-03
2.129E-03
2.129E-03
2.129E-03
2.129E-03
2.129E-03
2.129E-03
2.129E-03
2.129E-03
2.129E-03
2.129E-03
2.129E-03
2.129E-03
2.129E-03
2.129E-03
2.129E-03
2.129E-03
2.129E-03
2.129E-03
2.129E-03
2.129E-03
2.129E-03
2.129E-03
2.129E-03
2.129E-03
2.129E-03
2.129E-03
2.129E-03
2.129E-03
2.129E-03
2.129E-03
2.129E-03
2.129E-03
2.129E-03
2.129E-03
1.277E-03

3.299E-03
4.259E-03
4.259E-03
4.259E-03
4.259E-03
4.259E-03
4.259E-03
4.259E-03
4.259E-03
4.259E-03
4.259E-03
4.259E-03
4.259E-03
4.259E-03
4.259E-03
4.259E-03
4.259E-03
4.259E-03
4.259E-03
4.259E-03
4.259E-03
4.259E-03
4.259E-03
4.259E-03
4.259E-03
4.259E-03
4.259E-03
4.259E-03
4.259E-03
4.259E-03
4.259E-03
4.259E-03
4.259E-03
4.259E-03
4.259E-03
4.259E-03
3.299E-03

University of Surrey

'

Number of bars
(No.)

A SB - M

TM Top main reinf.


(mm)

300
500
400
30
30
15

CT

d'M

Main Beam Number

Total Length between supports (L)


Edge element width (BE)
Element width (B)
Element depth (D)
Top Cover (CT)
Bottom Cover (CB)
e

d'

A ST - M

Msc Structural Engineering

Page 232

Appendix B6
Model 6 Central Load 0.50%M : 0.50%T
Stiffened transverse edge
Model 6 - Propoerties of Transverse Members
Generic Properties

Generic Section

Long term Young's Modulus = 0.5E 1.5E+10 Pa

Shear Modulus = 0.42E as per BS8110-21985 cl.2.4.3 (G) 1.3E+10 Pa


Total Transverse Length (LT)
18100 mm

University of Surrey

A SB - T

CB

XT (mm)

4
tr - Trans (mm )

4
tr - Trans (mm )

338
338
346
346
346
346
346
346
346
346
346
338
338

2412.7
4021.2
251.3
251.3
251.3
251.3
251.3
251.3
251.3
251.3
251.3
4021.2
2412.7

2412.7
4021.2
1005.3
1005.3
1005.3
1005.3
1005.3
1005.3
1005.3
1005.3
1005.3
4021.2
2412.7

0.0201
0.0201
0.0013
0.0013
0.0013
0.0013
0.0013
0.0013
0.0013
0.0013
0.0013
0.0201
0.0201

0.0201
0.0201
0.0050
0.0050
0.0050
0.0050
0.0050
0.0050
0.0050
0.0050
0.0050
0.0201
0.0201

144.67
144.67
107.62
107.62
107.62
107.62
107.62
107.62
107.62
107.62
107.62
144.67
144.67

3.817E-03
6.361E-03
2.130E-03
2.130E-03
2.130E-03
2.130E-03
2.130E-03
2.130E-03
2.130E-03
2.130E-03
2.130E-03
6.361E-03
3.817E-03

5.701E-03
7.360E-03
4.259E-03
4.259E-03
4.259E-03
4.259E-03
4.259E-03
4.259E-03
4.259E-03
4.259E-03
4.259E-03
7.360E-03
5.701E-03

'

depth (dT) (mm)

A SB - M

54
54
42
42
42
42
42
42
42
42
42
54
54

Transverse effective

reinf. (d'T) (mm)

Depth to top trans.

Number of bars (No.)


3
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
3

dT

32
32
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
32
32

(mm)

BT Bottom trans. reinf.

reinf. (mm)

Number of bars (No.)


3
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
3

dM

mm
mm
mm
mm
mm

ASB - T (mm 2)

32
32
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
32
32

A ST - T

6100 mm
300
500
400
30
30
15

d'M

AST - T (mm 2)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13

TT Top transverse

Trans. Beam Number

Total Length between supports (L)


Edge element width (BE)
Element width (B)
Element depth (D)
Top Cover (CT)
Bottom Cover (CB)
e

d'T

A ST - M

CT

Msc Structural Engineering

Page 233

Appendix B6
Model 6 Central Load 0.50%M : 0.50%T
Stiffened transverse edge

1T32 @100mm c.c (B.B)


1T32 @100mm c.c (T.T)

6100

1T16 @ 100mm c.c (B.B)


1T8 @100mm c.c (T.T)

Stiffened Edge

1T16 @100mm c.c (B)


1T8 @100mm c.c (T)
Y

Stiffened Edge

Section XX
1T32 @100mm c.c (B.B)
1T32 @100mm c.c (T.T)

18100

Free edge

400

Free edge

Section YY

General Configuration Drawing


Model 6 - 0.50%M : 0.50%T - Stiffened Transverse Edge

Legend
Supported Edge
B - Bottom Layer 1
BB - Bottom Layer 2

T - Top Layer 1
TT - Top Layer 2

Figure B6 - 1 General assembly of model

Figure B6 - 2 Displaced shape

University of Surrey

Msc Structural Engineering

Page 234

Appendix B6
Model 6 Central Load 0.50%M : 0.50%T
Stiffened transverse edge
Sagging bending moments along Y (kNm)

S11
S9
S7
S5
S3

Transverse beams

S13

37

35

33

31

29

27

25

23

21

19

17

15

13

11

S1
Main beams

+Y
+X
+Z

0-20

20-40

40-60

60-80

80-100

Figure B6 - 3
% Usage of reinfocement for moment along Y - Sagging (%)

S11
S9
S7
S5
S3

Transverse beams

S13

37

35

33

31

29

27

25

23

21

19

17

15

13

11

S1

Main beams
+Y
+X
+Z
0-10

10-20

20-30

30-40

40-50

50-60

60-70

Figure B6 - 4
University of Surrey

Msc Structural Engineering

Page 235

Appendix B6
Model 6 Central Load 0.50%M : 0.50%T
Stiffened transverse edge
Hogging bending moments along Y (kNm)

S11
S9
S7
S5
S3

Transverse beams

S13

37

35

33

31

29

27

25

23

21

19

17

15

13

11

S1

Main beams
+Y
+X
+Z

-20--15

-15--10

-10--5

-5-0

Figure B6 - 5
% Usage of reinforcement along Y - Hogging (%)

S11
S9
S7
S5
S3

Transverse beams

S13

37

35

33

31

29

27

25

23

21

19

17

15

13

11

S1

Main beams
+Y
+X
+Z

0-10

10-20

20-30

30-40

40-50

Figure B6 - 6
University of Surrey

Msc Structural Engineering

Page 236

Appendix B6
Model 6 Central Load 0.50%M : 0.50%T
Stiffened transverse edge
Sagging bending moments along X (kNm)

S11
S9
S7
S5
S3

Transverse beams

S13

37

35

33

31

29

27

25

23

21

19

17

15

13

11

S1

Main beams
+Y
+X
+Z
0-10

10-20

20-30

30-40

40-50

50-60

60-70

Figure B6 - 7
% Usage of reinforcement along X - Sagging (%)

S11
S9
S7
S5
S3

Transverse beams

S13

37

35

33

31

29

27

25

23

21

19

17

15

13

11

S1

Main beams
+Y
+X
+Z

0-10

10-20

20-30

30-40

40-50

Figure B6 - 8
University of Surrey

Msc Structural Engineering

Page 237

Appendix B6
Model 6 Central Load 0.50%M : 0.50%T
Stiffened transverse edge
Hogging bending moments along X (kNm)

S11
S9
S7
S5
S3

Transverse beams

S13

37

35

33

31

29

27

25

23

21

19

17

15

13

11

S1

Main beams
+Y
+X
+Z
-10--8

-8--6

-6--4

-4--2

-2-0

Figure B6 - 9
% Usage of reinforcement along X - Hogging (%)

S11
S9
S7
S5
S3

Transverse beams

S13

37

35

33

31

29

27

25

23

21

19

17

15

13

11

S1

Main beams
+Y
+X
+Z

0-10

10-20

20-30

Figure B6 - 10
University of Surrey

Msc Structural Engineering

Page 238

Appendix B6
Model 6 Central Load 0.50%M : 0.50%T
Stiffened transverse edge
Shear along Y (kN)

S11
S9
S7
S5
S3

Transverse beams

S13

37

35

33

31

29

27

25

23

21

19

17

15

13

11

S1

Main beams
+Y
+X
+Z
0-25

25-50

50-75

75-100

100-125

Figure B6 - 11
Applied shear stress along Y as a % of shear resistance vc (%)

S11
S9
S7
S5
S3

Transverse beams

S13

37

35

33

31

29

27

25

23

21

19

17

15

13

11

S1

Main beams
+Y
+X
+Z
0-25

25-50

50-75

75-100

100-125

125-150

150-175

175-200

Figure B6 - 12
University of Surrey

Msc Structural Engineering

Page 239

Appendix B6
Model 6 Central Load 0.50%M : 0.50%T
Stiffened transverse edge
Shear along X (kN)

S11
S9
S7
S5
S3

Transverse beams

S13

37

35

33

31

29

27

25

23

21

19

17

15

13

11

S1

Main beams
+Y
+X
+Z
0-20

20-40

40-60

Figure B6 - 13
Applied shear stress along Y as a % of shear resistance vc (%)

S11
S9
S7
S5
S3

Transverse beams

S13

37

35

33

31

29

27

25

23

21

19

17

15

13

11

S1

Main beams
+Y
+X
+Z
0-10

10-20

20-30

30-40

40-50

50-60

60-70

70-80

80-90

Figure B6 - 14
University of Surrey

Msc Structural Engineering

Page 240

Appendix B6
Model 6 Central Load 0.50%M : 0.50%T
Stiffened transverse edge
Torque in slab in both directions (kNm)

S11
S9
S7
S5
S3

Transverse beams

S13

37

35

33

31

29

27

25

23

21

19

17

15

13

11

S1

Main beams
+Y
+X
+Z
0-10

10-20

20-30

Figure B6 - 15
Maximum horizontal shear stresses due to torsion (N/mm 2)

S11
S9
S7
S5
S3

Transverse beams

S13

37

35

33

31

29

27

25

23

21

19

17

15

13

11

S1

Main beams
+Y
+X
+Z
0-0.5

0.5-1

1-1.5

1.5-2

Figure B6 - 16
University of Surrey

Msc Structural Engineering

Page 241

Appendix B6
Model 6 Central Load 0.50%M : 0.50%T
Stiffened transverse edge
Mid Transverse span against moment

4.5

13.5

18

Mid Mx moment (KNm)

-20
-40
-60
-80
-100
-120
-140
-160
-180

Transverse span (m)

Mid central moments as analysed

Mid central moments as per BS8110:Pt1:1997

Figure B6 - 17
Support transverse span against reaction

4.5

13.5

18

140
120

Reaction (KN)

100
80
60
40
20
0

Support span (m)

Reactions along support transverse span as analysed

Reactions along support transverse span as designed

Figure B6 - 18
University of Surrey

Msc Structural Engineering

Page 242

Appendix B6
Model 6 Quarter Load 0.50%M : 0.50%T
Stiffened transverse edge

1T32 @100mm c.c (B.B)


1T32 @100mm c.c (T.T)

6100

1T16 @ 100mm c.c (B.B)


1T8 @100mm c.c (T.T)

Stiffened Edge

1T16 @100mm c.c (B)


1T8 @100mm c.c (T)
Y

Stiffened Edge

Section XX
1T32 @100mm c.c (B.B)
1T32 @100mm c.c (T.T)

18100

Free edge

400

Free edge

Section YY

General Configuration Drawing


Model 6 - 0.50%M : 0.50%T - Stiffened Transverse Edge

Legend
Supported Edge
B - Bottom Layer 1
BB - Bottom Layer 2

T - Top Layer 1
TT - Top Layer 2

Figure B6 - 19 General assembly of model

Figure B6 - 20 displaced shape

University of Surrey

Msc Structural Engineering

Page 243

Appendix B6
Model 6 Quarter Load 0.50%M : 0.50%T
Stiffened transverse edge
Sagging bending moments along Y (kNm)

S11
S9
S7
S5
S3

Transverse beams

S13

37

35

33

31

29

27

25

23

21

19

17

15

13

11

S1
Main beams

+Y
+X
+Z

0-25

25-50

50-75

75-100

Figure B6 - 21
% Usage of reinfocement for moment along Y - Sagging (%)

S11
S9
S7
S5
S3

Transverse beams

S13

37

35

33

31

29

27

25

23

21

19

17

15

13

11

S1

Main beams
+Y
+X
+Z
0-10

10-20

20-30

30-40

40-50

50-60

60-70

Figure B6 - 22
University of Surrey

Msc Structural Engineering

Page 244

Appendix B6
Model 6 Quarter Load 0.50%M : 0.50%T
Stiffened transverse edge
Hogging bending moments along Y (kNm)

S11
S9
S7
S5
S3

Transverse beams

S13

37

35

33

31

29

27

25

23

21

19

17

15

13

11

S1

Main beams
+Y
+X
+Z

-20--15

-15--10

-10--5

-5-0

Figure B6 - 23
% Usage of reinforcement along Y - Hogging (%)

S11
S9
S7
S5
S3

Transverse beams

S13

37

35

33

31

29

27

25

23

21

19

17

15

13

11

S1

Main beams
+Y
+X
+Z

0-10

10-20

20-30

30-40

40-50

Figure B6 - 24
University of Surrey

Msc Structural Engineering

Page 245

Appendix B6
Model 6 Quarter Load 0.50%M : 0.50%T
Stiffened transverse edge
Sagging bending moments along X (kNm)

S11
S9
S7
S5
S3

Transverse beams

S13

37

35

33

31

29

27

25

23

21

19

17

15

13

11

S1

Main beams
+Y
+X
+Z
0-10

10-20

20-30

30-40

40-50

50-60

60-70

Figure B6 - 25
% Usage of reinforcement along X - Sagging (%)

S11
S9
S7
S5
S3

Transverse beams

S13

37

35

33

31

29

27

25

23

21

19

17

15

13

11

S1

Main beams
+Y
+X
+Z

0-10

10-20

20-30

30-40

40-50

Figure B6 - 26
University of Surrey

Msc Structural Engineering

Page 246

Appendix B6
Model 6 Quarter Load 0.50%M : 0.50%T
Stiffened transverse edge
Hogging bending moments along X (kNm)

S11
S9
S7
S5
S3

Transverse beams

S13

37

35

33

31

29

27

25

23

21

19

17

15

13

11

S1

Main beams
+Y
+X
+Z
-10--8

-8--6

-6--4

-4--2

-2-0

Figure B6 - 27
% Usage of reinforcement along X - Hogging (%)

S11
S9
S7
S5
S3

Transverse beams

S13

37

35

33

31

29

27

25

23

21

19

17

15

13

11

S1

Main beams
+Y
+X
+Z

0-10

10-20

20-30

Figure B6 - 28
University of Surrey

Msc Structural Engineering

Page 247

Appendix B6
Model 6 Quarter Load 0.50%M : 0.50%T
Stiffened transverse edge
Shear along Y (kN)

S11
S9
S7
S5
S3

Transverse beams

S13

37

35

33

31

29

27

25

23

21

19

17

15

13

11

S1

Main beams
+Y
+X
+Z
0-25

25-50

50-75

75-100

100-125

Figure B6 - 29
Applied shear stress along Y as a % of shear resistance vc (%)

S11
S9
S7
S5
S3

Transverse beams

S13

37

35

33

31

29

27

25

23

21

19

17

15

13

11

S1

Main beams
+Y
+X
+Z
0-25

25-50

50-75

75-100

100-125

125-150

150-175

175-200

Figure B6 - 30
University of Surrey

Msc Structural Engineering

Page 248

Appendix B6
Model 6 Quarter Load 0.50%M : 0.50%T
Stiffened transverse edge
Shear along X (kN)

S11
S9
S7
S5
S3

Transverse beams

S13

37

35

33

31

29

27

25

23

21

19

17

15

13

11

S1

Main beams
+Y
+X
+Z
0-20

20-40

40-60

Figure B6 - 31
Applied shear stress along Y as a % of shear resistance vc (%)

S11
S9
S7
S5
S3

Transverse beams

S13

37

35

33

31

29

27

25

23

21

19

17

15

13

11

S1

Main beams
+Y
+X
+Z
0-10

10-20

20-30

30-40

40-50

50-60

60-70

70-80

80-90

Figure B6 - 32
University of Surrey

Msc Structural Engineering

Page 249

Appendix B6
Model 6 Quarter Load 0.50%M : 0.50%T
Stiffened transverse edge
Torque in slab in both directions (kNm)

S11
S9
S7
S5
S3

Transverse beams

S13

37

35

33

31

29

27

25

23

21

19

17

15

13

11

S1

Main beams
+Y
+X
+Z
0-10

10-20

20-30

Figure B6 - 33
Maximum horizontal shear stresses due to torsion (N/mm 2)

S11
S9
S7
S5
S3

Transverse beams

S13

37

35

33

31

29

27

25

23

21

19

17

15

13

11

S1

Main beams
+Y
+X
+Z
0-0.5

0.5-1

1-1.5

1.5-2

2-2.5

Figure B6 - 34
University of Surrey

Msc Structural Engineering

Page 250

Appendix B6
Model 6 Quarter Load 0.50%M : 0.50%T
Stiffened transverse edge
Mid Transverse span against moment

4.5

13.5

18

Mid Mx moment (KNm)

-20
-40
-60
-80
-100
-120
-140
-160
-180

Transverse span (m)

Mid central moments as analysed

Mid central moments as per BS8110:Pt1:1997

Figure B6 - 35
Support transverse span against reaction

4.5

13.5

18

140
120

Reaction (KN)

100
80
60
40
20
0

Support span (m)

Reactions along support transverse span as analysed

Reactions along support transverse span as designed

Figure B6 - 36
University of Surrey

Msc Structural Engineering

Page 251

Appendix B5
Model 6 Edge Load 0.50%M : 0.50%T
Stiffened transverse edge

1T32 @100mm c.c (B.B)


1T32 @100mm c.c (T.T)

6100

1T16 @ 100mm c.c (B.B)


1T8 @100mm c.c (T.T)

Stiffened Edge

1T16 @100mm c.c (B)


1T8 @100mm c.c (T)
Y

Stiffened Edge

Section XX
1T32 @100mm c.c (B.B)
1T32 @100mm c.c (T.T)

18100

Free edge

400

Free edge

Section YY

General Configuration Drawing


Model 6 - 0.50%M : 0.50%T - Stiffened Transverse Edge

Legend
Supported Edge
B - Bottom Layer 1
BB - Bottom Layer 2

T - Top Layer 1
TT - Top Layer 2

Figure B6 - 37 general assembly of model

Figure B6 - 38 Displaced shape

University of Surrey

Msc Structural Engineering

Page 252

Appendix B5
Model 6 Edge Load 0.50%M : 0.50%T
Stiffened transverse edge
Sagging bending moments along Y (kNm)

S11
S9
S7
S5
S3

Transverse beams

S13

37

35

33

31

29

27

25

23

21

19

17

15

13

11

S1
Main beams

+Y
+X
+Z

0-50

50-100

100-150

150-200

Figure B6 - 39
% Usage of reinfocement for moment along Y - Sagging (%)

S11
S9
S7
S5
S3

Transverse beams

S13

37

35

33

31

29

27

25

23

21

19

17

15

13

11

S1

Main beams
+Y
+X
+Z
0-15

15-30

30-45

45-60

60-75

75-90

90-105

105-120

120-135

Figure B6 - 40
University of Surrey

Msc Structural Engineering

Page 253

Appendix B5
Model 6 Edge Load 0.50%M : 0.50%T
Stiffened transverse edge
Hogging bending moments along Y (kNm)

S11
S9
S7
S5
S3

Transverse beams

S13

37

35

33

31

29

27

25

23

21

19

17

15

13

11

S1

Main beams
+Y
+X
+Z

-40--30

-30--20

-20--10

-10-0

Figure B6 - 41
% Usage of reinforcement along Y - Hogging (%)

S11
S9
S7
S5
S3

Transverse beams

S13

37

35

33

31

29

27

25

23

21

19

17

15

13

11

S1

Main beams
+Y
+X
+Z

0-50

50-100

100-150

150-200

Figure B6 - 42
University of Surrey

Msc Structural Engineering

Page 254

Appendix B5
Model 6 Edge Load 0.50%M : 0.50%T
Stiffened transverse edge
Sagging bending moments along X (kNm)

S11
S9
S7
S5
S3

Transverse beams

S13

37

35

33

31

29

27

25

23

21

19

17

15

13

11

S1

Main beams
+Y
+X
+Z
0-10

10-20

20-30

Figure B6 - 43
% Usage of reinforcement along X - Sagging (%)

S11
S9
S7
S5
S3

Transverse beams

S13

37

35

33

31

29

27

25

23

21

19

17

15

13

11

S1

Main beams
+Y
+X
+Z

0-4

4-8

8-12

12-16

16-20

Figure B6 - 44
University of Surrey

Msc Structural Engineering

Page 255

Appendix B5
Model 6 Edge Load 0.50%M : 0.50%T
Stiffened transverse edge
Hogging bending moments along X (kNm)

S11
S9
S7
S5
S3

Transverse beams

S13

37

35

33

31

29

27

25

23

21

19

17

15

13

11

S1

Main beams
+Y
+X
+Z
-28--24

-24--20

-20--16

-16--12

-12--8

-8--4

-4-0

Figure B6 - 45
% Usage of reinforcement along X - Hogging (%)

S11
S9
S7
S5
S3

Transverse beams

S13

37

35

33

31

29

27

25

23

21

19

17

15

13

11

S1

Main beams
+Y
+X
+Z

0-10

10-20

20-30

30-40

40-50

50-60

Figure B6 - 46
University of Surrey

Msc Structural Engineering

Page 256

Appendix B5
Model 6 Edge Load 0.50%M : 0.50%T
Stiffened transverse edge
Shear along Y (kN)

S11
S9
S7
S5
S3

Transverse beams

S13

37

35

33

31

29

27

25

23

21

19

17

15

13

11

S1

Main beams
+Y
+X
+Z
0-25

25-50

50-75

75-100

100-125

125-150

150-175

175-200

200-225

225-250

Figure B6 - 47
Applied shear stress along Y as a % of shear resistance vc (%)

S11
S9
S7
S5
S3

Transverse beams

S13

37

35

33

31

29

27

25

23

21

19

17

15

13

11

S1

Main beams
+Y
+X
+Z
0-40

40-80

80-120

120-160

160-200

200-240

240-280

280-320

320-360

Figure B6 - 48
University of Surrey

Msc Structural Engineering

Page 257

Appendix B5
Model 6 Edge Load 0.50%M : 0.50%T
Stiffened transverse edge
Shear along X (kN)

S11
S9
S7
S5
S3

Transverse beams

S13

37

35

33

31

29

27

25

23

21

19

17

15

13

11

S1

Main beams
+Y
+X
+Z
0-25

25-50

50-75

75-100

100-125

Figure B6 - 49
Applied shear stress along Y as a % of shear resistance vc (%)

S11
S9
S7
S5
S3

Transverse beams

S13

37

35

33

31

29

27

25

23

21

19

17

15

13

11

S1

Main beams
+Y
+X
+Z
0-25

25-50

50-75

75-100

100-125

Figure B6 - 50
University of Surrey

Msc Structural Engineering

Page 258

Appendix B5
Model 6 Edge Load 0.50%M : 0.50%T
Stiffened transverse edge
Torque in slab in both directions (kNm)

S11
S9
S7
S5
S3

Transverse beams

S13

37

35

33

31

29

27

25

23

21

19

17

15

13

11

S1

Main beams
+Y
+X
+Z
0-10

10-20

20-30

30-40

40-50

50-60

60-70

Figure B6 - 51
Maximum horizontal shear stresses due to torsion (N/mm 2)

S11
S9
S7
S5
S3

Transverse beams

S13

37

35

33

31

29

27

25

23

21

19

17

15

13

11

S1

Main beams
+Y
+X
+Z
0-0.5

0.5-1

1-1.5

1.5-2

2-2.5

2.5-3

3-3.5

3.5-4

4-4.5

4.5-5

Figure B6 - 52
University of Surrey

Msc Structural Engineering

Page 259

Appendix B5
Model 6 Edge Load 0.50%M : 0.50%T
Stiffened transverse edge
Mid Transverse span against moment

4.5

13.5

18

Mid Mx moment (KNm)

-50

-100

-150

-200

-250

-300

Transverse span (m)

Mid central moments as analysed

Mid central moments as per BS8110:Pt1:1997

Figure B6 - 53
Support transverse span against reaction

4.5

13.5

18

250

Reaction (KN)

200

150

100

50

Support span (m)

Reactions along support transverse span as analysed

Reactions along support transverse span as designed

Figure B6 - 54
University of Surrey

Msc Structural Engineering

Page 260

Appendix B6
Model 6 Central + Quarter + Edge Load 0.50%M : 0.50%T
Stiffened transverse edge

1T32 @100mm c.c (B.B)


1T32 @100mm c.c (T.T)

6100

1T16 @ 100mm c.c (B.B)


1T8 @100mm c.c (T.T)

Stiffened Edge

1T16 @100mm c.c (B)


1T8 @100mm c.c (T)
Y

Stiffened Edge

Section XX
1T32 @100mm c.c (B.B)
1T32 @100mm c.c (T.T)

18100

Free edge

400

Free edge

Section YY

General Configuration Drawing


Model 6 - 0.50%M : 0.50%T - Stiffened Transverse Edge

Legend
Supported Edge
B - Bottom Layer 1
BB - Bottom Layer 2

T - Top Layer 1
TT - Top Layer 2

Figure B6 - 55 General assembly ofmodel

Figure B6 - 56 Displaced shape

University of Surrey

Msc Structural Engineering

Page 261

Appendix B6
Model 6 Central + Quarter + Edge Load 0.50%M : 0.50%T
Stiffened transverse edge
Sagging bending moments along Y (kNm)

S11
S9
S7
S5
S3

Transverse beams

S13

37

35

33

31

29

27

25

23

21

19

17

15

13

11

S1
Main beams

+Y
+X
+Z

0-50

50-100

100-150

150-200

200-250

Figure B6 - 57
% Usage of reinfocement for moment along Y - Sagging (%)

S11
S9
S7
S5
S3

Transverse beams

S13

37

35

33

31

29

27

25

23

21

19

17

15

13

11

S1

Main beams
+Y
+X
+Z
0-20

20-40

40-60

60-80

80-100

100-120

120-140

140-160

160-180

Figure B6 - 58
University of Surrey

Msc Structural Engineering

Page 262

Appendix B6
Model 6 Central + Quarter + Edge Load 0.50%M : 0.50%T
Stiffened transverse edge
Hogging bending moments along Y (kNm)

S11
S9
S7
S5
S3

Transverse beams

S13

37

35

33

31

29

27

25

23

21

19

17

15

13

11

S1

Main beams
+Y
+X
+Z

-30--20

-20--10

-10-0

Figure B6 - 59
% Usage of reinforcement along Y - Hogging (%)

S11
S9
S7
S5
S3

Transverse beams

S13

37

35

33

31

29

27

25

23

21

19

17

15

13

11

S1

Main beams
+Y
+X
+Z

0-50

50-100

100-150

Figure B6 - 60
University of Surrey

Msc Structural Engineering

Page 263

Appendix B6
Model 6 Central + Quarter + Edge Load 0.50%M : 0.50%T
Stiffened transverse edge
Sagging bending moments along X (kNm)

S11
S9
S7
S5
S3

Transverse beams

S13

37

35

33

31

29

27

25

23

21

19

17

15

13

11

S1

Main beams
+Y
+X
+Z
0-10

10-20

20-30

30-40

40-50

Figure B6 - 61
% Usage of reinforcement along X - Sagging (%)

S11
S9
S7
S5
S3

Transverse beams

S13

37

35

33

31

29

27

25

23

21

19

17

15

13

11

S1

Main beams
+Y
+X
+Z

0-10

10-20

20-30

30-40

Figure B6 - 62
University of Surrey

Msc Structural Engineering

Page 264

Appendix B6
Model 6 Central + Quarter + Edge Load 0.50%M : 0.50%T
Stiffened transverse edge
Hogging bending moments along X (kNm)

S11
S9
S7
S5
S3

Transverse beams

S13

37

35

33

31

29

27

25

23

21

19

17

15

13

11

S1

Main beams
+Y
+X
+Z
-32--28

-28--24

-24--20

-20--16

-16--12

-12--8

-8--4

-4-0

Figure B6 - 63
% Usage of reinforcement along X - Hogging (%)

S11
S9
S7
S5
S3

Transverse beams

S13

37

35

33

31

29

27

25

23

21

19

17

15

13

11

S1

Main beams
+Y
+X
+Z

-5-5

5-15

15-25

Figure B6 - 64
University of Surrey

Msc Structural Engineering

Page 265

Appendix B6
Model 6 Central + Quarter + Edge Load 0.50%M : 0.50%T
Stiffened transverse edge
Shear along Y (kN)

S11
S9
S7
S5
S3

Transverse beams

S13

37

35

33

31

29

27

25

23

21

19

17

15

13

11

S1

Main beams
+Y
+X
+Z
0-25

25-50

50-75

75-100

100-125

125-150

150-175

175-200

Figure B6 - 65
Applied shear stress along Y as a % of shear resistance vc (%)

S11
S9
S7
S5
S3

Transverse beams

S13

37

35

33

31

29

27

25

23

21

19

17

15

13

11

S1

Main beams
+Y
+X
+Z
0-25

25-50

250-275

275-300

50-75

75-100

100-125

125-150

150-175

175-200

200-225

225-250

Figure B6 - 66
University of Surrey

Msc Structural Engineering

Page 266

Appendix B6
Model 6 Central + Quarter + Edge Load 0.50%M : 0.50%T
Stiffened transverse edge
Shear along X (kN)

S11
S9
S7
S5
S3

Transverse beams

S13

37

35

33

31

29

27

25

23

21

19

17

15

13

11

S1

Main beams
+Y
+X
+Z
0-20

20-40

40-60

60-80

80-100

Figure B6 - 67
Applied shear stress along Y as a % of shear resistance vc (%)

S11
S9
S7
S5
S3

Transverse beams

S13

37

35

33

31

29

27

25

23

21

19

17

15

13

11

S1

Main beams
+Y
+X
+Z
0-20

20-40

40-60

60-80

80-100

100-120

Figure B6 - 68
University of Surrey

Msc Structural Engineering

Page 267

Appendix B6
Model 6 Central + Quarter + Edge Load 0.50%M : 0.50%T
Stiffened transverse edge
Torque in slab in both directions (kNm)

S11
S9
S7
S5
S3

Transverse beams

S13

37

35

33

31

29

27

25

23

21

19

17

15

13

11

S1

Main beams
+Y
+X
+Z
0-10

10-20

20-30

30-40

40-50

Figure B6 - 69
Maximum horizontal shear stresses due to torsion (N/mm 2)

S11
S9
S7
S5
S3

Transverse beams

S13

37

35

33

31

29

27

25

23

21

19

17

15

13

11

S1

Main beams
+Y
+X
+Z
0-0.5

0.5-1

1-1.5

1.5-2

2-2.5

2.5-3

3-3.5

Figure B6 - 70
University of Surrey

Msc Structural Engineering

Page 268

Appendix B6
Model 6 Central + Quarter + Edge Load 0.50%M : 0.50%T
Stiffened transverse edge
Mid Transverse span against moment

4.5

13.5

18

Mid Mx moment (KNm)

-50

-100

-150

-200

-250

-300

Transverse span (m)

Mid central moments as analysed

Mid central moments as per BS8110:Pt1:1997

Figure B6 - 71
Support transverse span against reaction

4.5

13.5

18

250

Reaction (KN)

200

150

100

50

Support span (m)

Reactions along support transverse span as analysed

Reactions along support transverse span as designed

Figure B6 - 72
University of Surrey

Msc Structural Engineering

Page 269

Appendix B7 - Model 7
Reinforcement ratio - 0.50% Main : 0.50% Transverse
Stiffened main edge and stiffened transverse edge

Appendix B7
Model 7 Central Load 0.50%M : 0.50%T
Stiffened main edge + Stiffened transverse edge
Model 7 - Propoerties of Main Members
Generic Properties

Generic Section

Long term Young's Modulus = 0.5E 1.5E+10 Pa

Shear Modulus = 0.42E as per BS81101.3E+10 Pa


2-1985 cl.2.4.3 (G)
Total Transverse Length (LT)
18100 mm

A ST - T

6100 mm

dT

dM

mm
mm
mm
mm
mm

A SB - T

CB

BM Bottom main
reinf. (mm)

Number of bars
(No.)

Depth to main top


reinf. (d'M) (mm)

Main effective Depth


(dM) (mm)

AST - M (mm 2)

ASB - M (mm2)

XM (mm)

4
tr - Main (m )

Cx (mm)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37

32
32
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
32
32

3
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
3

32
32
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
32
32

3
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
3

46
46
34
34
34
34
34
34
34
34
34
34
34
34
34
34
34
34
34
34
34
34
34
34
34
34
34
34
34
34
34
34
34
34
34
46
46

354
354
362
362
362
362
362
362
362
362
362
362
362
362
362
362
362
362
362
362
362
362
362
362
362
362
362
362
362
362
362
362
362
362
362
354
354

2412.7
4021.2
251.3
251.3
251.3
251.3
251.3
251.3
251.3
251.3
251.3
251.3
251.3
251.3
251.3
251.3
251.3
251.3
251.3
251.3
251.3
251.3
251.3
251.3
251.3
251.3
251.3
251.3
251.3
251.3
251.3
251.3
251.3
251.3
251.3
4021.2
2412.7

2412.7
4021.2
1005.3
1005.3
1005.3
1005.3
1005.3
1005.3
1005.3
1005.3
1005.3
1005.3
1005.3
1005.3
1005.3
1005.3
1005.3
1005.3
1005.3
1005.3
1005.3
1005.3
1005.3
1005.3
1005.3
1005.3
1005.3
1005.3
1005.3
1005.3
1005.3
1005.3
1005.3
1005.3
1005.3
4021.2
2412.7

0.0201
0.0201
0.0013
0.0013
0.0013
0.0013
0.0013
0.0013
0.0013
0.0013
0.0013
0.0013
0.0013
0.0013
0.0013
0.0013
0.0013
0.0013
0.0013
0.0013
0.0013
0.0013
0.0013
0.0013
0.0013
0.0013
0.0013
0.0013
0.0013
0.0013
0.0013
0.0013
0.0013
0.0013
0.0013
0.0201
0.0201

0.0201
0.0201
0.0050
0.0050
0.0050
0.0050
0.0050
0.0050
0.0050
0.0050
0.0050
0.0050
0.0050
0.0050
0.0050
0.0050
0.0050
0.0050
0.0050
0.0050
0.0050
0.0050
0.0050
0.0050
0.0050
0.0050
0.0050
0.0050
0.0050
0.0050
0.0050
0.0050
0.0050
0.0050
0.0050
0.0201
0.0201

148.42
148.42
112.13
112.13
112.13
112.13
112.13
112.13
112.13
112.13
112.13
112.13
112.13
112.13
112.13
112.13
112.13
112.13
112.13
112.13
112.13
112.13
112.13
112.13
112.13
112.13
112.13
112.13
112.13
112.13
112.13
112.13
112.13
112.13
112.13
148.42
148.42

3.853E-03
6.421E-03
2.129E-03
2.129E-03
2.129E-03
2.129E-03
2.129E-03
2.129E-03
2.129E-03
2.129E-03
2.129E-03
2.129E-03
2.129E-03
2.129E-03
2.129E-03
2.129E-03
2.129E-03
2.129E-03
2.129E-03
2.129E-03
2.129E-03
2.129E-03
2.129E-03
2.129E-03
2.129E-03
2.129E-03
2.129E-03
2.129E-03
2.129E-03
2.129E-03
2.129E-03
2.129E-03
2.129E-03
2.129E-03
2.129E-03
6.421E-03
3.853E-03

5.729E-03
7.396E-03
4.259E-03
4.259E-03
4.259E-03
4.259E-03
4.259E-03
4.259E-03
4.259E-03
4.259E-03
4.259E-03
4.259E-03
4.259E-03
4.259E-03
4.259E-03
4.259E-03
4.259E-03
4.259E-03
4.259E-03
4.259E-03
4.259E-03
4.259E-03
4.259E-03
4.259E-03
4.259E-03
4.259E-03
4.259E-03
4.259E-03
4.259E-03
4.259E-03
4.259E-03
4.259E-03
4.259E-03
4.259E-03
4.259E-03
1.270E-02
5.729E-03

University of Surrey

'

Number of bars
(No.)

A SB - M

TM Top main reinf.


(mm)

300
500
400
30
30
15

CT

d'M

Main Beam Number

Total Length between supports (L)


Edge element width (BE)
Element width (B)
Element depth (D)
Top Cover (CT)
Bottom Cover (CB)
e

d'

A ST - M

Msc Structural Engineering

Page 271

Appendix B7
Model 7 Central Load 0.50%M : 0.50%T
Stiffened main edge + Stiffened transverse edge
Model 7 - Propoerties of Transverse Members
Generic Properties

Generic Section

Long term Young's Modulus = 0.5E 1.5E+10 Pa

Shear Modulus = 0.42E as per BS8110-21985 cl.2.4.3 (G) 1.3E+10 Pa


Total Transverse Length (LT)
18100 mm

University of Surrey

A SB - T

CB

XT (mm)

4
tr - Trans (mm )

4
tr - Trans (mm )

322
322
346
346
346
346
346
346
346
346
346
338
338

2412.7
4021.2
251.3
251.3
251.3
251.3
251.3
251.3
251.3
251.3
251.3
4021.2
2412.7

2412.7
4021.2
1005.3
1005.3
1005.3
1005.3
1005.3
1005.3
1005.3
1005.3
1005.3
4021.2
2412.7

0.0201
0.0201
0.0013
0.0013
0.0013
0.0013
0.0013
0.0013
0.0013
0.0013
0.0013
0.0201
0.0201

0.0201
0.0201
0.0050
0.0050
0.0050
0.0050
0.0050
0.0050
0.0050
0.0050
0.0050
0.0201
0.0201

145.50
145.50
107.62
107.62
107.62
107.62
107.62
107.62
107.62
107.62
107.62
144.67
144.67

3.766E-03
6.276E-03
2.130E-03
2.130E-03
2.130E-03
2.130E-03
2.130E-03
2.130E-03
2.130E-03
2.130E-03
2.130E-03
6.361E-03
3.817E-03

5.663E-03
7.310E-03
4.259E-03
4.259E-03
4.259E-03
4.259E-03
4.259E-03
4.259E-03
4.259E-03
4.259E-03
4.259E-03
7.360E-03
5.663E-03

'

depth (dT) (mm)

A SB - M

78
78
42
42
42
42
42
42
42
42
42
54
54

Transverse effective

reinf. (d'T) (mm)

Depth to top trans.

Number of bars (No.)


3
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
3

dT

ASB - T (mm2)

32
32
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
32
32

(mm)

BT Bottom trans. reinf.

Number of bars (No.)


3
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
3

dM

mm
mm
mm
mm
mm

AST - T (mm 2)

32
32
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
32
32

reinf. (mm)

TT Top transverse

Trans. Beam Number


1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13

300
500
400
30
30
15

d'M

A ST - T

6100 mm

Total Length between supports (L)


Edge element width (BE)
Element width (B)
Element depth (D)
Top Cover (CT)
Bottom Cover (CB)
e

d'T

A ST - M

CT

Msc Structural Engineering

Page 272

Appendix B7
Model 7 Central Load 0.50%M : 0.50%T
Stiffened main edge + Stiffened transverse edge

1T32 @100mm c.c (B)


1T32 @100mm c.c (T)

1T32 @100mm c.c (B.B)


1T32 @100mm c.c (T.T)

1T32 @100mm c.c (B)


1T32 @100mm c.c (T)

6100

1T16 @ 100mm c.c (B.B)


1T8 @100mm c.c (T.T)

Stiffened Edge

1T16 @100mm c.c (B)


1T8 @100mm c.c (T)
Y

Stiffened Edge

Section XX
1T32 @100mm c.c (B.B)
1T32 @100mm c.c (T.T)

18100

Free edge
Stiffened edge

400

Free edge
Stiffened Edge

Section YY

General Configuration Drawing


Model 7 - 0.50%M : 0.50%T - Stiffened Main / Transverse Edges

Legend
Supported Edge
B - Bottom Layer 1
BB - Bottom Layer 2

T - Top Layer 1
TT - Top Layer 2

Figure B7 - 1General assembly of model

Figure B7 - 2 Displaced shape

University of Surrey

Msc Structural Engineering

Page 273

Appendix B7
Model 7 Central Load 0.50%M : 0.50%T
Stiffened main edge + Stiffened transverse edge
Sagging bending moments along Y (kNm)

S11
S9
S7
S5
S3

Transverse beams

S13

37

35

33

31

29

27

25

23

21

19

17

15

13

11

S1
Main beams

+Y
+X
+Z

0-20

20-40

40-60

60-80

80-100

Figure B7 - 3
% Usage of reinfocement for moment along Y - Sagging (%)

S11
S9
S7
S5
S3

Transverse beams

S13

37

35

33

31

29

27

25

23

21

19

17

15

13

11

S1

Main beams
+Y
+X
+Z
0-10

10-20

20-30

30-40

40-50

50-60

60-70

Figure B7 - 4

University of Surrey

Msc Structural Engineering

Page 274

Appendix B7
Model 7 Central Load 0.50%M : 0.50%T
Stiffened main edge + Stiffened transverse edge
Hogging bending moments along Y (kNm)

S11
S9
S7
S5
S3

Transverse beams

S13

37

35

33

31

29

27

25

23

21

19

17

15

13

11

S1

Main beams
+Y
+X
+Z

-20--15

-15--10

-10--5

-5-0

Figure B7 - 5
% Usage of reinforcement along Y - Hogging (%)

S11
S9
S7
S5
S3

Transverse beams

S13

37

35

33

31

29

27

25

23

21

19

17

15

13

11

S1

Main beams
+Y
+X
+Z

0-10

10-20

20-30

30-40

40-50

Figure B7 - 6

University of Surrey

Msc Structural Engineering

Page 275

Appendix B7
Model 7 Central Load 0.50%M : 0.50%T
Stiffened main edge + Stiffened transverse edge
Sagging bending moments along X (kNm)

S11
S9
S7
S5
S3

Transverse beams

S13

37

35

33

31

29

27

25

23

21

19

17

15

13

11

S1

Main beams
+Y
+X
+Z
0-10

10-20

20-30

30-40

40-50

50-60

60-70

Figure B7 - 7
% Usage of reinforcement along X - Sagging (%)

S11
S9
S7
S5
S3

Transverse beams

S13

37

35

33

31

29

27

25

23

21

19

17

15

13

11

S1

Main beams
+Y
+X
+Z

0-10

10-20

20-30

30-40

40-50

Figure B7 - 8

University of Surrey

Msc Structural Engineering

Page 276

Appendix B7
Model 7 Central Load 0.50%M : 0.50%T
Stiffened main edge + Stiffened transverse edge
Hogging bending moments along X (kNm)

S11
S9
S7
S5
S3

Transverse beams

S13

37

35

33

31

29

27

25

23

21

19

17

15

13

11

S1

Main beams
+Y
+X
+Z
-10--8

-8--6

-6--4

-4--2

-2-0

Figure B7 - 9
% Usage of reinforcement along X - Hogging (%)

S11
S9
S7
S5
S3

Transverse beams

S13

37

35

33

31

29

27

25

23

21

19

17

15

13

11

S1

Main beams
+Y
+X
+Z

0-5

5-10

10-15

15-20

20-25

Figure B7 - 10

University of Surrey

Msc Structural Engineering

Page 277

Appendix B7
Model 7 Central Load 0.50%M : 0.50%T
Stiffened main edge + Stiffened transverse edge
Shear along Y (kN)

S11
S9
S7
S5
S3

Transverse beams

S13

37

35

33

31

29

27

25

23

21

19

17

15

13

11

S1

Main beams
+Y
+X
+Z
0-25

25-50

50-75

75-100

100-125

Figure B7 - 11
Applied shear stress along Y as a % of shear resistance vc (%)

S11
S9
S7
S5
S3

Transverse beams

S13

37

35

33

31

29

27

25

23

21

19

17

15

13

11

S1

Main beams
+Y
+X
+Z
0-25

25-50

50-75

75-100

100-125

125-150

150-175

175-200

Figure B7 - 12

University of Surrey

Msc Structural Engineering

Page 278

Appendix B7
Model 7 Central Load 0.50%M : 0.50%T
Stiffened main edge + Stiffened transverse edge
Shear along X (kN)

S11
S9
S7
S5
S3

Transverse beams

S13

37

35

33

31

29

27

25

23

21

19

17

15

13

11

S1

Main beams
+Y
+X
+Z
0-20

20-40

40-60

Figure B7 - 13
Applied shear stress along Y as a % of shear resistance vc (%)

S11
S9
S7
S5
S3

Transverse beams

S13

37

35

33

31

29

27

25

23

21

19

17

15

13

11

S1

Main beams
+Y
+X
+Z
0-10

10-20

20-30

30-40

40-50

50-60

60-70

70-80

80-90

Figure B7 - 14

University of Surrey

Msc Structural Engineering

Page 279

Appendix B7
Model 7 Central Load 0.50%M : 0.50%T
Stiffened main edge + Stiffened transverse edge
Torque in slab in both directions (kNm)

S11
S9
S7
S5
S3

Transverse beams

S13

37

35

33

31

29

27

25

23

21

19

17

15

13

11

S1

Main beams
+Y
+X
+Z
0-10

10-20

20-30

Figure B7 - 15
Maximum horizontal shear stresses due to torsion (N/mm2)

S11
S9
S7
S5
S3

Transverse beams

S13

37

35

33

31

29

27

25

23

21

19

17

15

13

11

S1

Main beams
+Y
+X
+Z
0-0.5

0.5-1

1-1.5

1.5-2

2-2.5

Figure B7 - 16

University of Surrey

Msc Structural Engineering

Page 280

Appendix B7
Model 7 Central Load 0.50%M : 0.50%T
Stiffened main edge + Stiffened transverse edge
Mid Transverse span against moment

4.5

13.5

18

Mid Mx moment (KNm)

-20
-40
-60
-80
-100
-120
-140
-160
-180

Transverse span (m)

Mid central moments as analysed

Mid central moments as per BS8110:Pt1:1997

Figure B7 - 17
Support transverse span against reaction

4.5

13.5

18

140
120

Reaction (KN)

100
80
60
40
20
0

Support span (m)

Reactions along support transverse span as analysed

Reactions along support transverse span as designed

Figure B7 - 18

University of Surrey

Msc Structural Engineering

Page 281

Appendix B7
Model 7 Quarter Load 0.50%M : 0.50%T
Stiffened main edge + Stiffened transverse edge

1T32 @100mm c.c (B)


1T32 @100mm c.c (T)

1T32 @100mm c.c (B.B)


1T32 @100mm c.c (T.T)

1T32 @100mm c.c (B)


1T32 @100mm c.c (T)

6100

1T16 @ 100mm c.c (B.B)


1T8 @100mm c.c (T.T)

Stiffened Edge

1T16 @100mm c.c (B)


1T8 @100mm c.c (T)
Y

Stiffened Edge

Section XX
1T32 @100mm c.c (B.B)
1T32 @100mm c.c (T.T)

18100

Free edge
Stiffened edge

400

Free edge
Stiffened Edge

Section YY

General Configuration Drawing


Model 7 - 0.50%M : 0.50%T - Stiffened Main / Transverse Edges

Legend
Supported Edge
B - Bottom Layer 1
BB - Bottom Layer 2

T - Top Layer 1
TT - Top Layer 2

Figure B7 - 19 General assembly of model

Figure B7 - 20 Displaced Shape

University of Surrey

Msc Structural Engineering

Page 282

Appendix B7
Model 7 Quarter Load 0.50%M : 0.50%T
Stiffened main edge + Stiffened transverse edge
Sagging bending moments along Y (kNm)

S11
S9
S7
S5
S3

Transverse beams

S13

37

35

33

31

29

27

25

23

21

19

17

15

13

11

S1
Main beams

+Y
+X
+Z

0-25

25-50

50-75

75-100

100-125

125-150

Figure B7 - 21
% Usage of reinfocement for moment along Y - Sagging (%)

S11
S9
S7
S5
S3

Transverse beams

S13

37

35

33

31

29

27

25

23

21

19

17

15

13

11

S1

Main beams
+Y
+X
+Z
0-10

10-20

20-30

30-40

40-50

50-60

60-70

Figure B7 - 22

University of Surrey

Msc Structural Engineering

Page 283

Appendix B7
Model 7 Quarter Load 0.50%M : 0.50%T
Stiffened main edge + Stiffened transverse edge
Hogging bending moments along Y (kNm)

S11
S9
S7
S5
S3

Transverse beams

S13

37

35

33

31

29

27

25

23

21

19

17

15

13

11

S1

Main beams
+Y
+X
+Z

-20--15

-15--10

-10--5

-5-0

Figure B7 - 23
% Usage of reinforcement along Y - Hogging (%)

S11
S9
S7
S5
S3

Transverse beams

S13

37

35

33

31

29

27

25

23

21

19

17

15

13

11

S1

Main beams
+Y
+X
+Z

0-10

10-20

20-30

30-40

40-50

Figure B7 - 24

University of Surrey

Msc Structural Engineering

Page 284

Appendix B7
Model 7 Quarter Load 0.50%M : 0.50%T
Stiffened main edge + Stiffened transverse edge
Sagging bending moments along X (kNm)

S11
S9
S7
S5
S3

Transverse beams

S13

37

35

33

31

29

27

25

23

21

19

17

15

13

11

S1

Main beams
+Y
+X
+Z
0-10

10-20

20-30

30-40

40-50

50-60

60-70

Figure B7 - 25
% Usage of reinforcement along X - Sagging (%)

S11
S9
S7
S5
S3

Transverse beams

S13

37

35

33

31

29

27

25

23

21

19

17

15

13

11

S1

Main beams
+Y
+X
+Z

0-10

10-20

20-30

30-40

40-50

Figure B7 - 26

University of Surrey

Msc Structural Engineering

Page 285

Appendix B7
Model 7 Quarter Load 0.50%M : 0.50%T
Stiffened main edge + Stiffened transverse edge
Hogging bending moments along X (kNm)

S11
S9
S7
S5
S3

Transverse beams

S13

37

35

33

31

29

27

25

23

21

19

17

15

13

11

S1

Main beams
+Y
+X
+Z
-10--8

-8--6

-6--4

-4--2

-2-0

Figure B7 - 27
% Usage of reinforcement along X - Hogging (%)

S11
S9
S7
S5
S3

Transverse beams

S13

37

35

33

31

29

27

25

23

21

19

17

15

13

11

S1

Main beams
+Y
+X
+Z

0-10

10-20

20-30

Figure B7 - 28

University of Surrey

Msc Structural Engineering

Page 286

Appendix B7
Model 7 Quarter Load 0.50%M : 0.50%T
Stiffened main edge + Stiffened transverse edge
Shear along Y (kN)

S11
S9
S7
S5
S3

Transverse beams

S13

37

35

33

31

29

27

25

23

21

19

17

15

13

11

S1

Main beams
+Y
+X
+Z
0-25

25-50

50-75

75-100

100-125

Figure B7 - 29
Applied shear stress along Y as a % of shear resistance vc (%)

S11
S9
S7
S5
S3

Transverse beams

S13

37

35

33

31

29

27

25

23

21

19

17

15

13

11

S1

Main beams
+Y
+X
+Z
0-25

25-50

50-75

75-100

100-125

125-150

150-175

175-200

Figure B7 - 30

University of Surrey

Msc Structural Engineering

Page 287

Appendix B7
Model 7 Quarter Load 0.50%M : 0.50%T
Stiffened main edge + Stiffened transverse edge
Shear along X (kN)

S11
S9
S7
S5
S3

Transverse beams

S13

37

35

33

31

29

27

25

23

21

19

17

15

13

11

S1

Main beams
+Y
+X
+Z
0-20

20-40

40-60

60-80

80-100

Figure B7 - 31
Applied shear stress along Y as a % of shear resistance vc (%)

S11
S9
S7
S5
S3

Transverse beams

S13

37

35

33

31

29

27

25

23

21

19

17

15

13

11

S1

Main beams
+Y
+X
+Z
0-10

10-20

20-30

30-40

40-50

50-60

60-70

70-80

80-90

Figure B7 - 32

University of Surrey

Msc Structural Engineering

Page 288

Appendix B7
Model 7 Quarter Load 0.50%M : 0.50%T
Stiffened main edge + Stiffened transverse edge
Torque in slab in both directions (kNm)

S11
S9
S7
S5
S3

Transverse beams

S13

37

35

33

31

29

27

25

23

21

19

17

15

13

11

S1

Main beams
+Y
+X
+Z
0-10

10-20

20-30

Figure B7 - 33
Maximum horizontal shear stresses due to torsion (N/mm 2)

S11
S9
S7
S5
S3

Transverse beams

S13

37

35

33

31

29

27

25

23

21

19

17

15

13

11

S1

Main beams
+Y
+X
+Z
0-0.5

0.5-1

1-1.5

1.5-2

2-2.5

Figure B7 - 34

University of Surrey

Msc Structural Engineering

Page 289

Appendix B7
Model 7 Quarter Load 0.50%M : 0.50%T
Stiffened main edge + Stiffened transverse edge
Mid Transverse span against moment

4.5

13.5

18

Mid Mx moment (KNm)

-20
-40
-60
-80
-100
-120
-140
-160
-180

Transverse span (m)

Mid central moments as analysed

Mid central moments as per BS8110:Pt1:1997

Figure B7 - 35
Support transverse span against reaction

4.5

13.5

18

140
120

Reaction (KN)

100
80
60
40
20
0

Support span (m)

Reactions along support transverse span as analysed

Reactions along support transverse span as designed

Figure B7 - 36

University of Surrey

Msc Structural Engineering

Page 290

Appendix B7
Model 7 Edge Load 0.50%M : 0.50%T
Stiffened main edge + Stiffened transverse edge

1T32 @100mm c.c (B)


1T32 @100mm c.c (T)

1T32 @100mm c.c (B.B)


1T32 @100mm c.c (T.T)

1T32 @100mm c.c (B)


1T32 @100mm c.c (T)

6100

1T16 @ 100mm c.c (B.B)


1T8 @100mm c.c (T.T)

Stiffened Edge

1T16 @100mm c.c (B)


1T8 @100mm c.c (T)
Y

Stiffened Edge

Section XX
1T32 @100mm c.c (B.B)
1T32 @100mm c.c (T.T)

18100

Free edge
Stiffened edge

400

Free edge
Stiffened Edge

Section YY

General Configuration Drawing


Model 7 - 0.50%M : 0.50%T - Stiffened Main / Transverse Edges

Legend
Supported Edge
B - Bottom Layer 1
BB - Bottom Layer 2

T - Top Layer 1
TT - Top Layer 2

Figure B7 - 37 General assembly of model

Figure B7 - 38 Displaced shape

University of Surrey

Msc Structural Engineering

Page 291

Appendix B7
Model 7 Edge Load 0.50%M : 0.50%T
Stiffened main edge + Stiffened transverse edge
Sagging bending moments along Y (kNm)

S11
S9
S7
S5
S3

Transverse beams

S13

37

35

33

31

29

27

25

23

21

19

17

15

13

11

S1
Main beams

+Y
+X
+Z

0-50

50-100

100-150

150-200

200-250

250-300

300-350

Figure B7 - 39
% Usage of reinfocement for moment along Y - Sagging (%)

S11
S9
S7
S5
S3

Transverse beams

S13

37

35

33

31

29

27

25

23

21

19

17

15

13

11

S1

Main beams
+Y
+X
+Z
0-15

15-30

30-45

45-60

60-75

Figure B7 - 40

University of Surrey

Msc Structural Engineering

Page 292

Appendix B7
Model 7 Edge Load 0.50%M : 0.50%T
Stiffened main edge + Stiffened transverse edge
Hogging bending moments along Y (kNm)

S11
S9
S7
S5
S3

Transverse beams

S13

37

35

33

31

29

27

25

23

21

19

17

15

13

11

S1

Main beams
+Y
+X
+Z

-25--20

-20--15

-15--10

-10--5

-5-0

Figure B7 - 41
% Usage of reinforcement along Y - Hogging (%)

S11
S9
S7
S5
S3

Transverse beams

S13

37

35

33

31

29

27

25

23

21

19

17

15

13

11

S1

Main beams
+Y
+X
+Z

0-5

5-10

10-15

Figure B7 - 42

University of Surrey

Msc Structural Engineering

Page 293

Appendix B7
Model 7 Edge Load 0.50%M : 0.50%T
Stiffened main edge + Stiffened transverse edge
Sagging bending moments along X (kNm)

S11
S9
S7
S5
S3

Transverse beams

S13

37

35

33

31

29

27

25

23

21

19

17

15

13

11

S1

Main beams
+Y
+X
+Z
0-10

10-20

20-30

Figure B7 - 43
% Usage of reinforcement along X - Sagging (%)

S11
S9
S7
S5
S3

Transverse beams

S13

37

35

33

31

29

27

25

23

21

19

17

15

13

11

S1

Main beams
+Y
+X
+Z

0-4

4-8

8-12

12-16

16-20

Figure B7 - 44

University of Surrey

Msc Structural Engineering

Page 294

Appendix B7
Model 7 Edge Load 0.50%M : 0.50%T
Stiffened main edge + Stiffened transverse edge
Hogging bending moments along X (kNm)

S11
S9
S7
S5
S3

Transverse beams

S13

37

35

33

31

29

27

25

23

21

19

17

15

13

11

S1

Main beams
+Y
+X
+Z
-24--20

-20--16

-16--12

-12--8

-8--4

-4-0

Figure B7 - 45
% Usage of reinforcement along X - Hogging (%)

S11
S9
S7
S5
S3

Transverse beams

S13

37

35

33

31

29

27

25

23

21

19

17

15

13

11

S1

Main beams
+Y
+X
+Z

0-10

10-20

20-30

30-40

Figure B7 - 46

University of Surrey

Msc Structural Engineering

Page 295

Appendix B7
Model 7 Edge Load 0.50%M : 0.50%T
Stiffened main edge + Stiffened transverse edge
Shear along Y (kN)

S11
S9
S7
S5
S3

Transverse beams

S13

37

35

33

31

29

27

25

23

21

19

17

15

13

11

S1

Main beams
+Y
+X
+Z
0-25

25-50

50-75

75-100

100-125

125-150

150-175

175-200

200-225

225-250

Figure B7 - 47
Applied shear stress along Y as a % of shear resistance vc (%)

S11
S9
S7
S5
S3

Transverse beams

S13

37

35

33

31

29

27

25

23

21

19

17

15

13

11

S1

Main beams
+Y
+X
+Z
0-40

40-80

80-120

120-160

160-200

Figure B7 - 48

University of Surrey

Msc Structural Engineering

Page 296

Appendix B7
Model 7 Edge Load 0.50%M : 0.50%T
Stiffened main edge + Stiffened transverse edge
Shear along X (kN)

S11
S9
S7
S5
S3

Transverse beams

S13

37

35

33

31

29

27

25

23

21

19

17

15

13

11

S1

Main beams
+Y
+X
+Z
0-25

25-50

50-75

75-100

100-125

Figure B7 - 49
Applied shear stress along Y as a % of shear resistance vc (%)

S11
S9
S7
S5
S3

Transverse beams

S13

37

35

33

31

29

27

25

23

21

19

17

15

13

11

S1

Main beams
+Y
+X
+Z
0-25

25-50

50-75

75-100

Figure B7 - 50

University of Surrey

Msc Structural Engineering

Page 297

Appendix B7
Model 7 Edge Load 0.50%M : 0.50%T
Stiffened main edge + Stiffened transverse edge
Torque in slab in both directions (kNm)

S11
S9
S7
S5
S3

Transverse beams

S13

37

35

33

31

29

27

25

23

21

19

17

15

13

11

S1

Main beams
+Y
+X
+Z
0-10

10-20

20-30

30-40

Figure B7 - 51
Maximum horizontal shear stresses due to torsion (N/mm 2)

S11
S9
S7
S5
S3

Transverse beams

S13

37

35

33

31

29

27

25

23

21

19

17

15

13

11

S1

Main beams
+Y
+X
+Z
0-0.5

0.5-1

1-1.5

1.5-2

2-2.5

2.5-3

Figure B7 - 52

University of Surrey

Msc Structural Engineering

Page 298

Appendix B7
Model 7 Edge Load 0.50%M : 0.50%T
Stiffened main edge + Stiffened transverse edge
Mid Transverse span against moment

4.5

13.5

18

Mid Mx moment (KNm)

-50
-100
-150
-200
-250
-300
-350
-400

Transverse span (m)

Mid central moments as analysed

Mid central moments as per BS8110:Pt1:1997

Figure B7 - 53
Support transverse span against reaction

4.5

13.5

18

250

Reaction (KN)

200

150

100

50

Support span (m)

Reactions along support transverse span as analysed

Reactions along support transverse span as designed

Figure B7 - 54

University of Surrey

Msc Structural Engineering

Page 299

Appendix B7
Model 7 Central + Quarter +Edge Load 0.50%M : 0.50%T
Stiffened main edge + Stiffened transverse edge

1T32 @100mm c.c (B)


1T32 @100mm c.c (T)

1T32 @100mm c.c (B.B)


1T32 @100mm c.c (T.T)

1T32 @100mm c.c (B)


1T32 @100mm c.c (T)

6100

1T16 @ 100mm c.c (B.B)


1T8 @100mm c.c (T.T)

Stiffened Edge

1T16 @100mm c.c (B)


1T8 @100mm c.c (T)
Y

Stiffened Edge

Section XX
1T32 @100mm c.c (B.B)
1T32 @100mm c.c (T.T)

18100

Free edge
Stiffened edge

400

Free edge
Stiffened Edge

Section YY

General Configuration Drawing


Model 7 - 0.50%M : 0.50%T - Stiffened Main / Transverse Edges

Legend
Supported Edge
B - Bottom Layer 1
BB - Bottom Layer 2

T - Top Layer 1
TT - Top Layer 2

Figure B7 - 55 General assembly of model

Figure B7 - 56 Displaced shape

University of Surrey

Msc Structural Engineering

Page 300

Appendix B7
Model 7 Central + Quarter +Edge Load 0.50%M : 0.50%T
Stiffened main edge + Stiffened transverse edge
Sagging bending moments along Y (kNm)

S11
S9
S7
S5
S3

Transverse beams

S13

37

35

33

31

29

27

25

23

21

19

17

15

13

11

S1

Main beams

+Y
+X
+Z

0-50

50-100

100-150

150-200

200-250

250-300

300-350

350-400

400-450

Figure B7 - 57
% Usage of reinfocement for moment along Y - Sagging (%)

S11
S9
S7
S5
S3

Transverse beams

S13

37

35

33

31

29

27

25

23

21

19

17

15

13

11

S1

Main beams
+Y
+X
+Z
0-20

20-40

40-60

60-80

80-100

Figure B7 - 58

University of Surrey

Msc Structural Engineering

Page 301

Appendix B7
Model 7 Central + Quarter +Edge Load 0.50%M : 0.50%T
Stiffened main edge + Stiffened transverse edge
Hogging bending moments along Y (kNm)

S11
S9
S7
S5
S3

Transverse beams

S13

37

35

33

31

29

27

25

23

21

19

17

15

13

11

S1

Main beams
+Y
+X
+Z

-15--10

-10--5

-5-0

Figure B7 - 59
% Usage of reinforcement along Y - Hogging (%)

S11
S9
S7
S5
S3

Transverse beams

S13

37

35

33

31

29

27

25

23

21

19

17

15

13

11

S1

Main beams
+Y
+X
+Z

0-10

10-20

20-30

30-40

Figure B7 - 60

University of Surrey

Msc Structural Engineering

Page 302

Appendix B7
Model 7 Central + Quarter +Edge Load 0.50%M : 0.50%T
Stiffened main edge + Stiffened transverse edge
Sagging bending moments along X (kNm)

S11
S9
S7
S5
S3

Transverse beams

S13

37

35

33

31

29

27

25

23

21

19

17

15

13

11

S1

Main beams
+Y
+X
+Z
0-10

10-20

20-30

30-40

40-50

50-60

Figure B7 - 61
% Usage of reinforcement along X - Sagging (%)

S11
S9
S7
S5
S3

Transverse beams

S13

37

35

33

31

29

27

25

23

21

19

17

15

13

11

S1

Main beams
+Y
+X
+Z

0-10

10-20

20-30

30-40

Figure B7 - 62

University of Surrey

Msc Structural Engineering

Page 303

Appendix B7
Model 7 Central + Quarter +Edge Load 0.50%M : 0.50%T
Stiffened main edge + Stiffened transverse edge
Hogging bending moments along X (kNm)

S11
S9
S7
S5
S3

Transverse beams

S13

37

35

33

31

29

27

25

23

21

19

17

15

13

11

S1

Main beams
+Y
+X
+Z
-20--16

-16--12

-12--8

-8--4

-4-0

Figure B7 - 63
% Usage of reinforcement along X - Hogging (%)

S11
S9
S7
S5
S3

Transverse beams

S13

37

35

33

31

29

27

25

23

21

19

17

15

13

11

S1

Main beams
+Y
+X
+Z

-5-5

5-15

15-25

Figure B7 - 64

University of Surrey

Msc Structural Engineering

Page 304

Appendix B7
Model 7 Central + Quarter +Edge Load 0.50%M : 0.50%T
Stiffened main edge + Stiffened transverse edge
Shear along Y (kN)

S11
S9
S7
S5
S3

Transverse beams

S13

37

35

33

31

29

27

25

23

21

19

17

15

13

11

S1

Main beams
+Y
+X
+Z
0-25

25-50

250-275

275-300

50-75

75-100

100-125

125-150

150-175

175-200

200-225

225-250

Figure B7 - 65
Applied shear stress along Y as a % of shear resistance vc (%)

S11
S9
S7
S5
S3

Transverse beams

S13

37

35

33

31

29

27

25

23

21

19

17

15

13

11

S1

Main beams
+Y
+X
+Z
0-25

25-50

50-75

75-100

100-125

125-150

150-175

175-200

200-225

Figure B7 - 66

University of Surrey

Msc Structural Engineering

Page 305

Appendix B7
Model 7 Central + Quarter +Edge Load 0.50%M : 0.50%T
Stiffened main edge + Stiffened transverse edge
Shear along X (kN)

S11
S9
S7
S5
S3

Transverse beams

S13

37

35

33

31

29

27

25

23

21

19

17

15

13

11

S1

Main beams
+Y
+X
+Z
0-20

20-40

40-60

Figure B7 - 67
Applied shear stress along Y as a % of shear resistance vc (%)

S11
S9
S7
S5
S3

Transverse beams

S13

37

35

33

31

29

27

25

23

21

19

17

15

13

11

S1

Main beams
+Y
+X
+Z
0-20

20-40

40-60

60-80

80-100

Figure B7 - 68

University of Surrey

Msc Structural Engineering

Page 306

Appendix B7
Model 7 Central + Quarter +Edge Load 0.50%M : 0.50%T
Stiffened main edge + Stiffened transverse edge
Torque in slab in both directions (kNm)

S11
S9
S7
S5
S3

Transverse beams

S13

37

35

33

31

29

27

25

23

21

19

17

15

13

11

S1

Main beams
+Y
+X
+Z
0-10

10-20

20-30

30-40

Figure B7 - 69
Maximum horizontal shear stresses due to torsion (N/mm 2)

S11
S9
S7
S5
S3

Transverse beams

S13

37

35

33

31

29

27

25

23

21

19

17

15

13

11

S1

Main beams
+Y
+X
+Z
0-0.5

0.5-1

1-1.5

1.5-2

2-2.5

2.5-3

Figure B7 - 70

University of Surrey

Msc Structural Engineering

Page 307

Appendix B7
Model 7 Central + Quarter +Edge Load 0.50%M : 0.50%T
Stiffened main edge + Stiffened transverse edge
Mid Transverse span against moment

4.5

13.5

18

0
-50

Mid Mx moment (KNm)

-100
-150
-200
-250
-300
-350
-400
-450
-500

Transverse span (m)

Mid central moments as analysed

Mid central moments as per BS8110:Pt1:1997

Figure B7 - 71
Support transverse span against reaction

4.5

13.5

18

350
300

Reaction (KN)

250
200
150
100
50
0

Support span (m)

Reactions along support transverse span as analysed

Reactions along support transverse span as designed

Figure B7 - 72

University of Surrey

Msc Structural Engineering

Page 308

Appendix B8 - Model 8
Reinforcement ratio - 0.50% Main : 0.50% Transverse
Supported on all edges

Appendix B8
Model 8 Central Load 0.50%M : 0.50%T
Slab supported on all sides
Model 8 - Propoerties of Main Members
Generic Properties

Generic Section

Long term Young's Modulus = 0.5E 1.5E+10 Pa

Shear Modulus = 0.42E as per BS81101.3E+10 Pa


2-1985 cl.2.4.3 (G)
Total Transverse Length (LT)
18100 mm

A ST - T

6100 mm

dT

dM

mm
mm
mm
mm
mm

A SB - T

CB

BM Bottom main
reinf. (mm)

Number of bars
(No.)

Depth to main top


reinf. (d'M) (mm)

Main effective Depth


(dM) (mm)

AST - M (mm 2)

ASB - M (mm2)

XM (mm)

4
tr - Main (m )

Cx (mm)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37

8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8

3
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
3

16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16

3
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
3

34
34
34
34
34
34
34
34
34
34
34
34
34
34
34
34
34
34
34
34
34
34
34
34
34
34
34
34
34
34
34
34
34
34
34
34
34

362
362
362
362
362
362
362
362
362
362
362
362
362
362
362
362
362
362
362
362
362
362
362
362
362
362
362
362
362
362
362
362
362
362
362
362
362

150.8
251.3
251.3
251.3
251.3
251.3
251.3
251.3
251.3
251.3
251.3
251.3
251.3
251.3
251.3
251.3
251.3
251.3
251.3
251.3
251.3
251.3
251.3
251.3
251.3
251.3
251.3
251.3
251.3
251.3
251.3
251.3
251.3
251.3
251.3
251.3
150.8

603.2
1005.3
1005.3
1005.3
1005.3
1005.3
1005.3
1005.3
1005.3
1005.3
1005.3
1005.3
1005.3
1005.3
1005.3
1005.3
1005.3
1005.3
1005.3
1005.3
1005.3
1005.3
1005.3
1005.3
1005.3
1005.3
1005.3
1005.3
1005.3
1005.3
1005.3
1005.3
1005.3
1005.3
1005.3
1005.3
603.2

0.0013
0.0013
0.0013
0.0013
0.0013
0.0013
0.0013
0.0013
0.0013
0.0013
0.0013
0.0013
0.0013
0.0013
0.0013
0.0013
0.0013
0.0013
0.0013
0.0013
0.0013
0.0013
0.0013
0.0013
0.0013
0.0013
0.0013
0.0013
0.0013
0.0013
0.0013
0.0013
0.0013
0.0013
0.0013
0.0013
0.0013

0.0050
0.0050
0.0050
0.0050
0.0050
0.0050
0.0050
0.0050
0.0050
0.0050
0.0050
0.0050
0.0050
0.0050
0.0050
0.0050
0.0050
0.0050
0.0050
0.0050
0.0050
0.0050
0.0050
0.0050
0.0050
0.0050
0.0050
0.0050
0.0050
0.0050
0.0050
0.0050
0.0050
0.0050
0.0050
0.0050
0.0050

112.13
112.13
112.13
112.13
112.13
112.13
112.13
112.13
112.13
112.13
112.13
112.13
112.13
112.13
112.13
112.13
112.13
112.13
112.13
112.13
112.13
112.13
112.13
112.13
112.13
112.13
112.13
112.13
112.13
112.13
112.13
112.13
112.13
112.13
112.13
112.13
112.13

1.277E-03
2.129E-03
2.129E-03
2.129E-03
2.129E-03
2.129E-03
2.129E-03
2.129E-03
2.129E-03
2.129E-03
2.129E-03
2.129E-03
2.129E-03
2.129E-03
2.129E-03
2.129E-03
2.129E-03
2.129E-03
2.129E-03
2.129E-03
2.129E-03
2.129E-03
2.129E-03
2.129E-03
2.129E-03
2.129E-03
2.129E-03
2.129E-03
2.129E-03
2.129E-03
2.129E-03
2.129E-03
2.129E-03
2.129E-03
2.129E-03
2.129E-03
1.277E-03

3.299E-03
4.259E-03
4.259E-03
4.259E-03
4.259E-03
4.259E-03
4.259E-03
4.259E-03
4.259E-03
4.259E-03
4.259E-03
4.259E-03
4.259E-03
4.259E-03
4.259E-03
4.259E-03
4.259E-03
4.259E-03
4.259E-03
4.259E-03
4.259E-03
4.259E-03
4.259E-03
4.259E-03
4.259E-03
4.259E-03
4.259E-03
4.259E-03
4.259E-03
4.259E-03
4.259E-03
4.259E-03
4.259E-03
4.259E-03
4.259E-03
4.259E-03
3.299E-03

University of Surrey

'

Number of bars
(No.)

A SB - M

TM Top main reinf.


(mm)

300
500
400
30
30
15

CT

d'M

Main Beam Number

Total Length between supports (L)


Edge element width (BE)
Element width (B)
Element depth (D)
Top Cover (CT)
Bottom Cover (CB)
e

d'

A ST - M

Msc Structural Engineering

Page 310

Appendix B8
Model 8 Central Load 0.50%M : 0.50%T
Slab supported on all sides
Long term Young's Modulus = 0.5E 1.5E+10 Pa

Shear Modulus = 0.42E as per BS8110-21985 cl.2.4.3 (G) 1.3E+10 Pa


Total Transverse Length (LT)
18100 mm

University of Surrey

A SB - T

CB

XT (mm)

4
tr - Trans (mm )

4
tr - Trans (mm )

346
346
346
346
346
346
346
346
346
346
346
346
346

150.8
251.3
251.3
251.3
251.3
251.3
251.3
251.3
251.3
251.3
251.3
251.3
150.8

603.2
1005.3
1005.3
1005.3
1005.3
1005.3
1005.3
1005.3
1005.3
1005.3
1005.3
1005.3
603.2

0.0013
0.0013
0.0013
0.0013
0.0013
0.0013
0.0013
0.0013
0.0013
0.0013
0.0013
0.0013
0.0013

0.0050
0.0050
0.0050
0.0050
0.0050
0.0050
0.0050
0.0050
0.0050
0.0050
0.0050
0.0050
0.0050

107.62
107.62
107.62
107.62
107.62
107.62
107.62
107.62
107.62
107.62
107.62
107.62
107.62

1.278E-03
2.130E-03
2.130E-03
2.130E-03
2.130E-03
2.130E-03
2.130E-03
2.130E-03
2.130E-03
2.130E-03
2.130E-03
2.130E-03
1.278E-03

3.299E-03
4.259E-03
4.259E-03
4.259E-03
4.259E-03
4.259E-03
4.259E-03
4.259E-03
4.259E-03
4.259E-03
4.259E-03
4.259E-03
3.299E-03

'

depth (dT) (mm)

A SB - M

42
42
42
42
42
42
42
42
42
42
42
42
42

Transverse effective

reinf. (d'T) (mm)

Depth to top trans.

Number of bars (No.)


3
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
3

dT

ASB - T (mm 2)

16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16

(mm)

BT Bottom trans. reinf.

3
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
3

dM

mm
mm
mm
mm
mm

AST - T (mm 2)

8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8

Number of bars (No.)

reinf. (mm)

TT Top transverse

Trans. Beam Number


1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13

300
500
400
30
30
15

d'

CT

A ST - T

6100 mm

Total Length between supports (L)


Edge element width (BE)
Element width (B)
Element depth (D)
Top Cover (CT)
Bottom Cover (CB)
e

d'

A ST - M

Msc Structural Engineering

Page 311

Appendix B8
Model 8 Central Load 0.50%M : 0.50%T
Slab supported on all sides

6100

1T16 @100mm c.c (B.B)


1T8 @100mm c.c (T.T)

1T16 @100mm c.c (B)


1T8 @100mm c.c (T)
Y

Section XX

18100

400

Section YY

General Configuration Drawing


Model 8 - 0.50%M : 0.50%T - Supported on Four Sides

Legend
Supported Edge
B - Bottom Layer 1
BB - Bottom Layer 2

T - Top Layer 1
TT - Top Layer 2

Figure B8 - 1 General assembly of model

Figure B8 - 2 Displaced shape

University of Surrey

Msc Structural Engineering

Page 312

Appendix B8
Model 8 Central Load 0.50%M : 0.50%T
Slab supported on all sides
Sagging bending moments along Y (kNm)

S11
S9
S7
S5
S3

Transverse beams

S13

37

35

33

31

29

27

25

23

21

19

17

15

13

11

S1
Main beams

+Y
+X
+Z

0-20

20-40

40-60

60-80

80-100

Figure B8 - 3
% Usage of reinfocement for moment along Y - Sagging (%)

S11
S9
S7
S5
S3

Transverse beams

S13

37

35

33

31

29

27

25

23

21

19

17

15

13

11

S1

Main beams
+Y
+X
+Z
0-10

10-20

20-30

30-40

40-50

50-60

60-70

Figure B8 - 4

University of Surrey

Msc Structural Engineering

Page 313

Appendix B8
Model 8 Central Load 0.50%M : 0.50%T
Slab supported on all sides
Hogging bending moments along Y (kNm)

S11
S9
S7
S5
S3

Transverse beams

S13

37

35

33

31

29

27

25

23

21

19

17

15

13

11

S1

Main beams
+Y
+X
+Z

-15--10

-10--5

-5-0

Figure B8 - 5
% Usage of reinforcement along Y - Hogging (%)

S11
S9
S7
S5
S3

Transverse beams

S13

37

35

33

31

29

27

25

23

21

19

17

15

13

11

S1

Main beams
+Y
+X
+Z

0-10

10-20

20-30

30-40

Figure B8 - 6

University of Surrey

Msc Structural Engineering

Page 314

Appendix B8
Model 8 Central Load 0.50%M : 0.50%T
Slab supported on all sides
Sagging bending moments along X (kNm)

S11
S9
S7
S5
S3

Transverse beams

S13

37

35

33

31

29

27

25

23

21

19

17

15

13

11

S1

Main beams
+Y
+X
+Z
0-10

10-20

20-30

30-40

40-50

50-60

60-70

Figure B8 - 7
% Usage of reinforcement along X - Sagging (%)

S11
S9
S7
S5
S3

Transverse beams

S13

37

35

33

31

29

27

25

23

21

19

17

15

13

11

S1

Main beams
+Y
+X
+Z

0-10

10-20

20-30

30-40

40-50

Figure B8 - 8

University of Surrey

Msc Structural Engineering

Page 315

Appendix B8
Model 8 Central Load 0.50%M : 0.50%T
Slab supported on all sides
Hogging bending moments along X (kNm)

S11
S9
S7
S5
S3

Transverse beams

S13

37

35

33

31

29

27

25

23

21

19

17

15

13

11

S1

Main beams
+Y
+X
+Z
-8--6

-6--4

-4--2

-2-0

Figure B8 - 9
% Usage of reinforcement along X - Hogging (%)

S11
S9
S7
S5
S3

Transverse beams

S13

37

35

33

31

29

27

25

23

21

19

17

15

13

11

S1

Main beams
+Y
+X
+Z

0-5

5-10

10-15

15-20

20-25

Figure B8 - 10

University of Surrey

Msc Structural Engineering

Page 316

Appendix B8
Model 8 Central Load 0.50%M : 0.50%T
Slab supported on all sides
Shear along Y (kN)

S11
S9
S7
S5
S3

Transverse beams

S13

37

35

33

31

29

27

25

23

21

19

17

15

13

11

S1

Main beams
+Y
+X
+Z
0-25

25-50

50-75

75-100

100-125

125-150

Figure B8 - 11
Applied shear stress along Y as a % of shear resistance vc (%)

S11
S9
S7
S5
S3

Transverse beams

S13

37

35

33

31

29

27

25

23

21

19

17

15

13

11

S1

Main beams
+Y
+X
+Z
0-25

25-50

50-75

75-100

100-125

125-150

150-175

175-200

Figure B8 - 12

University of Surrey

Msc Structural Engineering

Page 317

Appendix B8
Model 8 Central Load 0.50%M : 0.50%T
Slab supported on all sides
Shear along X (kN)

S11
S9
S7
S5
S3

Transverse beams

S13

37

35

33

31

29

27

25

23

21

19

17

15

13

11

S1

Main beams
+Y
+X
+Z
0-20

20-40

40-60

Figure B8 - 13
Applied shear stress along Y as a % of shear resistance vc (%)

S11
S9
S7
S5
S3

Transverse beams

S13

37

35

33

31

29

27

25

23

21

19

17

15

13

11

S1

Main beams
+Y
+X
+Z
0-10

10-20

20-30

30-40

40-50

50-60

60-70

70-80

Figure B8 - 14

University of Surrey

Msc Structural Engineering

Page 318

Appendix B8
Model 8 Central Load 0.50%M : 0.50%T
Slab supported on all sides
Torque in slab in both directions (kNm)

S11
S9
S7
S5
S3

Transverse beams

S13

37

35

33

31

29

27

25

23

21

19

17

15

13

11

S1

Main beams
+Y
+X
+Z
0-5

5-10

10-15

15-20

20-25

Figure B8 - 15
Maximum horizontal shear stresses due to torsion (N/mm 2)

S11
S9
S7
S5
S3

Transverse beams

S13

37

35

33

31

29

27

25

23

21

19

17

15

13

11

S1

Main beams
+Y
+X
+Z
0-0.5

0.5-1

1-1.5

1.5-2

Figure B8 - 16

University of Surrey

Msc Structural Engineering

Page 319

Appendix B8
Model 8 Central Load 0.50%M : 0.50%T
Slab supported on all sides
Mid Transverse span against moment

4.5

13.5

18

Mid Mx moment (KNm)

-20
-40
-60
-80
-100
-120
-140
-160
-180

Transverse span (m)

Mid central moments as analysed

Mid central moments as per BS8110:Pt1:1997

Figure B8 - 17
Support transverse span against reaction

4.5

13.5

18

150

Reaction (KN)

100

50

-50

-100

Support span (m)

Reactions along support transverse span as analysed

Reactions along support transverse span as designed

Figure B8 - 18

University of Surrey

Msc Structural Engineering

Page 320

Appendix B8
Model 8 Quarter Load 0.50%M : 0.50%T
Slab supported on all sides

6100

1T16 @100mm c.c (B.B)


1T8 @100mm c.c (T.T)

1T16 @100mm c.c (B)


1T8 @100mm c.c (T)
Y

Section XX

18100

400

Section YY

General Configuration Drawing


Model 8 - 0.50%M : 0.50%T - Supported on Four Sides

Legend
Supported Edge
B - Bottom Layer 1
BB - Bottom Layer 2

T - Top Layer 1
TT - Top Layer 2

Figure B8 - 19 General assembly of model

Figure B8 - 20 displaced shape

University of Surrey

Msc Structural Engineering

Page 321

Appendix B8
Model 8 Quarter Load 0.50%M : 0.50%T
Slab supported on all sides
Sagging bending moments along Y (kNm)

S11
S9
S7
S5
S3

Transverse beams

S13

37

35

33

31

29

27

25

23

21

19

17

15

13

11

S1
Main beams

+Y
+X
+Z

0-25

25-50

50-75

75-100

Figure B8 - 21
% Usage of reinfocement for moment along Y - Sagging (%)

S11
S9
S7
S5
S3

Transverse beams

S13

37

35

33

31

29

27

25

23

21

19

17

15

13

11

S1

Main beams
+Y
+X
+Z
0-10

10-20

20-30

30-40

40-50

50-60

Figure B8 - 22

University of Surrey

Msc Structural Engineering

Page 322

Appendix B8
Model 8 Quarter Load 0.50%M : 0.50%T
Slab supported on all sides
Hogging bending moments along Y (kNm)

S11
S9
S7
S5
S3

Transverse beams

S13

37

35

33

31

29

27

25

23

21

19

17

15

13

11

S1

Main beams
+Y
+X
+Z

-15--10

-10--5

-5-0

Figure B8 - 23
% Usage of reinforcement along Y - Hogging (%)

S11
S9
S7
S5
S3

Transverse beams

S13

37

35

33

31

29

27

25

23

21

19

17

15

13

11

S1

Main beams
+Y
+X
+Z

0-10

10-20

20-30

30-40

Figure B8 - 24

University of Surrey

Msc Structural Engineering

Page 323

Appendix B8
Model 8 Quarter Load 0.50%M : 0.50%T
Slab supported on all sides
Sagging bending moments along X (kNm)

S11
S9
S7
S5
S3

Transverse beams

S13

37

35

33

31

29

27

25

23

21

19

17

15

13

11

S1

Main beams
+Y
+X
+Z
0-10

10-20

20-30

30-40

40-50

50-60

60-70

70-80

Figure B8 - 25
% Usage of reinforcement along X - Sagging (%)

S11
S9
S7
S5
S3

Transverse beams

S13

37

35

33

31

29

27

25

23

21

19

17

15

13

11

S1

Main beams
+Y
+X
+Z

0-10

10-20

20-30

30-40

40-50

Figure B8 - 26

University of Surrey

Msc Structural Engineering

Page 324

Appendix B8
Model 8 Quarter Load 0.50%M : 0.50%T
Slab supported on all sides
Hogging bending moments along X (kNm)

S11
S9
S7
S5
S3

Transverse beams

S13

37

35

33

31

29

27

25

23

21

19

17

15

13

11

S1

Main beams
+Y
+X
+Z
-10--8

-8--6

-6--4

-4--2

-2-0

Figure B8 - 27
% Usage of reinforcement along X - Hogging (%)

S11
S9
S7
S5
S3

Transverse beams

S13

37

35

33

31

29

27

25

23

21

19

17

15

13

11

S1

Main beams
+Y
+X
+Z

0-5

5-10

10-15

15-20

20-25

Figure B8 - 28

University of Surrey

Msc Structural Engineering

Page 325

Appendix B8
Model 8 Quarter Load 0.50%M : 0.50%T
Slab supported on all sides
Shear along Y (kN)

S11
S9
S7
S5
S3

Transverse beams

S13

37

35

33

31

29

27

25

23

21

19

17

15

13

11

S1

Main beams
+Y
+X
+Z
0-25

25-50

50-75

75-100

100-125

125-150

Figure B8 - 29
Applied shear stress along Y as a % of shear resistance vc (%)

S11
S9
S7
S5
S3

Transverse beams

S13

37

35

33

31

29

27

25

23

21

19

17

15

13

11

S1

Main beams
+Y
+X
+Z
0-25

25-50

50-75

75-100

100-125

125-150

150-175

175-200

Figure B8 - 30

University of Surrey

Msc Structural Engineering

Page 326

Appendix B8
Model 8 Quarter Load 0.50%M : 0.50%T
Slab supported on all sides
Shear along X (kN)

S11
S9
S7
S5
S3

Transverse beams

S13

37

35

33

31

29

27

25

23

21

19

17

15

13

11

S1

Main beams
+Y
+X
+Z
0-25

25-50

50-75

75-100

100-125

Figure B8 - 31
Applied shear stress along Y as a % of shear resistance vc (%)

S11
S9
S7
S5
S3

Transverse beams

S13

37

35

33

31

29

27

25

23

21

19

17

15

13

11

S1

Main beams
+Y
+X
+Z
0-10

10-20

20-30

30-40

40-50

50-60

60-70

100-110

110-120

120-130

130-140

140-150

150-160

160-170

70-80

80-90

90-100

Figure B8 - 32

University of Surrey

Msc Structural Engineering

Page 327

Appendix B8
Model 8 Quarter Load 0.50%M : 0.50%T
Slab supported on all sides
Torque in slab in both directions (kNm)

S11
S9
S7
S5
S3

Transverse beams

S13

37

35

33

31

29

27

25

23

21

19

17

15

13

11

S1

Main beams
+Y
+X
+Z
0-10

10-20

20-30

30-40

Figure B8 - 33
Torque in slab in both directions (kNm)

S11
S9
S7
S5
S3

Transverse beams

S13

37

35

33

31

29

27

25

23

21

19

17

15

13

11

S1

Main beams
+Y
+X
+Z
0-10

10-20

20-30

30-40

Figure B8 - 34

University of Surrey

Msc Structural Engineering

Page 328

Appendix B8
Model 8 Quarter Load 0.50%M : 0.50%T
Slab supported on all sides
Mid Transverse span against moment

4.5

13.5

18

Mid Mx moment (KNm)

-20
-40
-60
-80
-100
-120
-140
-160
-180

Transverse span (m)

Mid central moments as analysed

Mid central moments as per BS8110:Pt1:1997

Figure B8 - 35
Support transverse span against reaction

4.5

13.5

18

150

Reaction (KN)

100

50

-50

-100

-150

Support span (m)

Reactions along support transverse span as analysed

Reactions along support transverse span as designed

Figure B8 - 36

University of Surrey

Msc Structural Engineering

Page 329

Appendix B8
Model 8 Edge Load 0.50%M : 0.50%T
Slab supported on all sides

6100

1T16 @100mm c.c (B.B)


1T8 @100mm c.c (T.T)

1T16 @100mm c.c (B)


1T8 @100mm c.c (T)
Y

Section XX

18100

400

Section YY

General Configuration Drawing


Model 8 - 0.50%M : 0.50%T - Supported on Four Sides

Legend
Supported Edge
B - Bottom Layer 1
BB - Bottom Layer 2

T - Top Layer 1
TT - Top Layer 2

Figure B8 - 37 General assembly of model

Figure B8 - 38 displaced shape

University of Surrey

Msc Structural Engineering

Page 330

Appendix B8
Model 8 Edge Load 0.50%M : 0.50%T
Slab supported on all sides
Sagging bending moments along Y (kNm)

S11
S9
S7
S5
S3

Transverse beams

S13

37

35

33

31

29

27

25

23

21

19

17

15

13

11

S1

Main beams

+Y
+X
+Z

0-10

10-20

20-30

Figure B8 - 39
% Usage of reinfocement for moment along Y - Sagging (%)

S11
S9
S7
S5
S3

Transverse beams

S13

37

35

33

31

29

27

25

23

21

19

17

15

13

11

S1

Main beams
+Y
+X
+Z
0-5

5-10

10-15

15-20

20-25

25-30

Figure B8 - 40

University of Surrey

Msc Structural Engineering

Page 331

Appendix B8
Model 8 Edge Load 0.50%M : 0.50%T
Slab supported on all sides
Hogging bending moments along Y (kNm)

S11
S9
S7
S5
S3

Transverse beams

S13

37

35

33

31

29

27

25

23

21

19

17

15

13

11

S1

Main beams
+Y
+X
+Z

-8--6

-6--4

-4--2

-2-0

Figure B8 - 41
% Usage of reinforcement along Y - Hogging (%)

S11
S9
S7
S5
S3

Transverse beams

S13

37

35

33

31

29

27

25

23

21

19

17

15

13

11

S1

Main beams
+Y
+X
+Z

0-5

5-10

10-15

15-20

Figure B8 - 42

University of Surrey

Msc Structural Engineering

Page 332

Appendix B8
Model 8 Edge Load 0.50%M : 0.50%T
Slab supported on all sides
Sagging bending moments along X (kNm)

S11
S9
S7
S5
S3

Transverse beams

S13

37

35

33

31

29

27

25

23

21

19

17

15

13

11

S1

Main beams
+Y
+X
+Z
0-10

10-20

20-30

30-40

Figure B8 - 43
% Usage of reinforcement along X - Sagging (%)

S11
S9
S7
S5
S3

Transverse beams

S13

37

35

33

31

29

27

25

23

21

19

17

15

13

11

S1

Main beams
+Y
+X
+Z

0-4

4-8

8-12

12-16

16-20

20-24

24-28

28-32

Figure B8 - 44

University of Surrey

Msc Structural Engineering

Page 333

Appendix B8
Model 8 Edge Load 0.50%M : 0.50%T
Slab supported on all sides
Hogging bending moments along X (kNm)

S11
S9
S7
S5
S3

Transverse beams

S13

37

35

33

31

29

27

25

23

21

19

17

15

13

11

S1

Main beams
+Y
+X
+Z
-8--4

-4-0

Figure B8 - 45
% Usage of reinforcement along X - Hogging (%)

S11
S9
S7
S5
S3

Transverse beams

S13

37

35

33

31

29

27

25

23

21

19

17

15

13

11

S1

Main beams
+Y
+X
+Z

0-10

10-20

20-30

Figure B8 - 46

University of Surrey

Msc Structural Engineering

Page 334

Appendix B8
Model 8 Edge Load 0.50%M : 0.50%T
Slab supported on all sides
Shear along Y (kN)

S11
S9
S7
S5
S3

Transverse beams

S13

37

35

33

31

29

27

25

23

21

19

17

15

13

11

S1

Main beams
+Y
+X
+Z
0-25

25-50

50-75

75-100

100-125

Figure B8 - 47
Applied shear stress along Y as a % of shear resistance vc (%)

S11
S9
S7
S5
S3

Transverse beams

S13

37

35

33

31

29

27

25

23

21

19

17

15

13

11

S1

Main beams
+Y
+X
+Z
0-40

40-80

80-120

120-160

Figure B8 - 48

University of Surrey

Msc Structural Engineering

Page 335

Appendix B8
Model 8 Edge Load 0.50%M : 0.50%T
Slab supported on all sides
Shear along X (kN)

S11
S9
S7
S5
S3

Transverse beams

S13

37

35

33

31

29

27

25

23

21

19

17

15

13

11

S1

Main beams
+Y
+X
+Z
0-25

25-50

50-75

75-100

100-125

Figure B8 - 49
Applied shear stress along Y as a % of shear resistance vc (%)

S11
S9
S7
S5
S3

Transverse beams

S13

37

35

33

31

29

27

25

23

21

19

17

15

13

11

S1

Main beams
+Y
+X
+Z
0-25

25-50

50-75

75-100

100-125

125-150

150-175

Figure B8 - 50

University of Surrey

Msc Structural Engineering

Page 336

Appendix B8
Model 8 Edge Load 0.50%M : 0.50%T
Slab supported on all sides
Torque in slab in both directions (kNm)

S11
S9
S7
S5
S3

Transverse beams

S13

37

35

33

31

29

27

25

23

21

19

17

15

13

11

S1

Main beams
+Y
+X
+Z
0-10

10-20

20-30

Figure B8 - 51
Maximum horizontal shear stresses due to torsion (N/mm 2)

S11
S9
S7
S5
S3

Transverse beams

S13

37

35

33

31

29

27

25

23

21

19

17

15

13

11

S1

Main beams
+Y
+X
+Z
0-0.5

0.5-1

1-1.5

1.5-2

2-2.5

Figure B8 - 52

University of Surrey

Msc Structural Engineering

Page 337

Appendix B8
Model 8 Edge Load 0.50%M : 0.50%T
Slab supported on all sides
Mid Transverse span against moment

4.5

13.5

18

Mid Mx moment (KNm)

-50

-100

-150

-200

-250

-300

Transverse span (m)

Mid central moments as analysed

Mid central moments as per BS8110:Pt1:1997

Figure B8 - 53
Support transverse span against reaction

4.5

13.5

18

200
150

Reaction (KN)

100
50
0
-50
-100
-150

Support span (m)

Reactions along support transverse span as analysed

Reactions along support transverse span as designed

Figure B8 - 54

University of Surrey

Msc Structural Engineering

Page 338

Appendix B8
Model 8 Central + Quarter + Edge Load 0.50%M : 0.50%T
Slab supported on all sides

6100

1T16 @100mm c.c (B.B)


1T8 @100mm c.c (T.T)

1T16 @100mm c.c (B)


1T8 @100mm c.c (T)
Y

Section XX

18100

400

Section YY

General Configuration Drawing


Model 8 - 0.50%M : 0.50%T - Supported on Four Sides

Legend
Supported Edge
B - Bottom Layer 1
BB - Bottom Layer 2

T - Top Layer 1
TT - Top Layer 2

Figure B8 - 55 General assembly of model

Figure B8 - 56 displaced
shape

University of Surrey

Msc Structural Engineering

Page 339

Appendix B8
Model 8 Central + Quarter + Edge Load 0.50%M : 0.50%T
Slab supported on all sides
Sagging bending moments along Y (kNm)

S11
S9
S7
S5
S3

Transverse beams

S13

37

35

33

31

29

27

25

23

21

19

17

15

13

11

S1

Main beams

+Y
+X
+Z

0-25

25-50

50-75

75-100

100-125

Figure B8 - 57
% Usage of reinfocement for moment along Y - Sagging (%)

S11
S9
S7
S5
S3

Transverse beams

S13

37

35

33

31

29

27

25

23

21

19

17

15

13

11

S1

Main beams
+Y
+X
+Z
0-20

20-40

40-60

60-80

80-100

Figure B8 - 58

University of Surrey

Msc Structural Engineering

Page 340

Appendix B8
Model 8 Central + Quarter + Edge Load 0.50%M : 0.50%T
Slab supported on all sides
Hogging bending moments along Y (kNm)

S11
S9
S7
S5
S3

Transverse beams

S13

37

35

33

31

29

27

25

23

21

19

17

15

13

11

S1

Main beams
+Y
+X
+Z

-15--10

-10--5

-5-0

Figure B8 - 59
% Usage of reinforcement along Y - Hogging (%)

S11
S9
S7
S5
S3

Transverse beams

S13

37

35

33

31

29

27

25

23

21

19

17

15

13

11

S1

Main beams
+Y
+X
+Z

0-10

10-20

20-30

30-40

Figure B8 - 60

University of Surrey

Msc Structural Engineering

Page 341

Appendix B8
Model 8 Central + Quarter + Edge Load 0.50%M : 0.50%T
Slab supported on all sides
Sagging bending moments along X (kNm)

S11
S9
S7
S5
S3

Transverse beams

S13

37

35

33

31

29

27

25

23

21

19

17

15

13

11

S1

Main beams
+Y
+X
+Z
0-10

10-20

20-30

30-40

40-50

50-60

60-70

Figure B8 - 61
% Usage of reinforcement along X - Sagging (%)

S11
S9
S7
S5
S3

Transverse beams

S13

37

35

33

31

29

27

25

23

21

19

17

15

13

11

S1

Main beams
+Y
+X
+Z

0-10

10-20

20-30

30-40

40-50

50-60

Figure B8 - 62

University of Surrey

Msc Structural Engineering

Page 342

Appendix B8
Model 8 Central + Quarter + Edge Load 0.50%M : 0.50%T
Slab supported on all sides
Hogging bending moments along X (kNm)

S11
S9
S7
S5
S3

Transverse beams

S13

37

35

33

31

29

27

25

23

21

19

17

15

13

11

S1

Main beams
+Y
+X
+Z
-12--8

-8--4

-4-0

Figure B8 - 63
% Usage of reinforcement along X - Hogging (%)

S11
S9
S7
S5
S3

Transverse beams

S13

37

35

33

31

29

27

25

23

21

19

17

15

13

11

S1

Main beams
+Y
+X
+Z

-5-5

5-15

15-25

Figure B8 - 64

University of Surrey

Msc Structural Engineering

Page 343

Appendix B8
Model 8 Central + Quarter + Edge Load 0.50%M : 0.50%T
Slab supported on all sides
Shear along Y (kN)

S11
S9
S7
S5
S3

Transverse beams

S13

37

35

33

31

29

27

25

23

21

19

17

15

13

11

S1

Main beams
+Y
+X
+Z
0-25

25-50

50-75

75-100

100-125

125-150

150-175

175-200

Figure B8 - 65
Applied shear stress along Y as a % of shear resistance vc (%)

S11
S9
S7
S5
S3

Transverse beams

S13

37

35

33

31

29

27

25

23

21

19

17

15

13

11

S1

Main beams
+Y
+X
+Z
0-40

40-80

80-120

120-160

160-200

200-240

240-280

Figure B8 - 66

University of Surrey

Msc Structural Engineering

Page 344

Appendix B8
Model 8 Central + Quarter + Edge Load 0.50%M : 0.50%T
Slab supported on all sides
Shear along X (kN)

S11
S9
S7
S5
S3

Transverse beams

S13

37

35

33

31

29

27

25

23

21

19

17

15

13

11

S1

Main beams
+Y
+X
+Z
0-20

20-40

40-60

60-80

80-100

100-120

120-140

140-160

160-180

180-200

Figure B8 - 67
Applied shear stress along Y as a % of shear resistance vc (%)

S11
S9
S7
S5
S3

Transverse beams

S13

37

35

33

31

29

27

25

23

21

19

17

15

13

11

S1

Main beams
+Y
+X
+Z
0-30

30-60

60-90

90-120

120-150

150-180

180-210

210-240

240-270

270-300

Figure B8 - 68

University of Surrey

Msc Structural Engineering

Page 345

Appendix B8
Model 8 Central + Quarter + Edge Load 0.50%M : 0.50%T
Slab supported on all sides
Torque in slab in both directions (kNm)

S11
S9
S7
S5
S3

Transverse beams

S13

37

35

33

31

29

27

25

23

21

19

17

15

13

11

S1

Main beams
+Y
+X
+Z
0-20

20-40

40-60

Figure B8 - 69
Maximum horizontal shear stresses due to torsion (N/mm 2)

S11
S9
S7
S5
S3

Transverse beams

S13

37

35

33

31

29

27

25

23

21

19

17

15

13

11

S1

Main beams
+Y
+X
+Z
0-0.5

0.5-1

1-1.5

1.5-2

2-2.5

2.5-3

3-3.5

3.5-4

4-4.5

Figure B8 - 70

University of Surrey

Msc Structural Engineering

Page 346

Appendix B8
Model 8 Central + Quarter + Edge Load 0.50%M : 0.50%T
Slab supported on all sides
Mid Transverse span against moment

4.5

13.5

18

Mid Mx moment (KNm)

-50

-100

-150

-200

-250

-300

Transverse span (m)

Mid central moments as analysed

Mid central moments as per BS8110:Pt1:1997

Figure B8 - 71
Support transverse span against reaction

4.5

13.5

18

200
150

Reaction (KN)

100
50
0
-50
-100
-150
-200
-250

Support span (m)

Reactions along support transverse span as analysed

Reactions along support transverse span as designed

Figure B8 - 72

University of Surrey

Msc Structural Engineering

Page 347

Appendix B9 - Model 9
Reinforcement ratio 2.00% Main : 0.80% Transverse
250mm depth of slab

Appendix B9
Model 9 Central Load 2.00%M : 0.80%T
250mm depth of section
Model 9 - Propoerties of Main Members
Generic Properties

Generic Section

Long term Young's Modulus = 0.5E 1.5E+10 Pa

Shear Modulus = 0.42E as per BS81101.3E+10 Pa


2-1985 cl.2.4.3 (G)
Total Transverse Length (LT)
18100 mm

A ST - T

6100 mm

dT

dM

mm
mm
mm
mm
mm

A SB - T

CB

BM Bottom main
reinf. (mm)

Number of bars
(No.)

Depth to main top


reinf. (d'M) (mm)

Main effective Depth


(dM) (mm)

AST - M (mm 2)

ASB - M (mm2)

XM (mm)

4
tr - Main (m )

Cx (mm)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37

8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8

3
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
3

25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25

3
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
3

34
34
34
34
34
34
34
34
34
34
34
34
34
34
34
34
34
34
34
34
34
34
34
34
34
34
34
34
34
34
34
34
34
34
34
34
34

207.5
207.5
207.5
207.5
207.5
207.5
207.5
207.5
207.5
207.5
207.5
207.5
207.5
207.5
207.5
207.5
207.5
207.5
207.5
207.5
207.5
207.5
207.5
207.5
207.5
207.5
207.5
207.5
207.5
207.5
207.5
207.5
207.5
207.5
207.5
207.5
207.5

150.8
251.3
251.3
251.3
251.3
251.3
251.3
251.3
251.3
251.3
251.3
251.3
251.3
251.3
251.3
251.3
251.3
251.3
251.3
251.3
251.3
251.3
251.3
251.3
251.3
251.3
251.3
251.3
251.3
251.3
251.3
251.3
251.3
251.3
251.3
251.3
150.8

1472.6
2454.4
2454.4
2454.4
2454.4
2454.4
2454.4
2454.4
2454.4
2454.4
2454.4
2454.4
2454.4
2454.4
2454.4
2454.4
2454.4
2454.4
2454.4
2454.4
2454.4
2454.4
2454.4
2454.4
2454.4
2454.4
2454.4
2454.4
2454.4
2454.4
2454.4
2454.4
2454.4
2454.4
2454.4
2454.4
1472.6

0.0020
0.0020
0.0020
0.0020
0.0020
0.0020
0.0020
0.0020
0.0020
0.0020
0.0020
0.0020
0.0020
0.0020
0.0020
0.0020
0.0020
0.0020
0.0020
0.0020
0.0020
0.0020
0.0020
0.0020
0.0020
0.0020
0.0020
0.0020
0.0020
0.0020
0.0020
0.0020
0.0020
0.0020
0.0020
0.0020
0.0020

0.0196
0.0196
0.0196
0.0196
0.0196
0.0196
0.0196
0.0196
0.0196
0.0196
0.0196
0.0196
0.0196
0.0196
0.0196
0.0196
0.0196
0.0196
0.0196
0.0196
0.0196
0.0196
0.0196
0.0196
0.0196
0.0196
0.0196
0.0196
0.0196
0.0196
0.0196
0.0196
0.0196
0.0196
0.0196
0.0196
0.0196

106.77
106.77
106.77
106.77
106.77
106.77
106.77
106.77
106.77
106.77
106.77
106.77
106.77
106.77
106.77
106.77
106.77
106.77
106.77
106.77
106.77
106.77
106.77
106.77
106.77
106.77
106.77
106.77
106.77
106.77
106.77
106.77
106.77
106.77
106.77
106.77
106.77

9.814E-04
1.636E-03
1.636E-03
1.636E-03
1.636E-03
1.636E-03
1.636E-03
1.636E-03
1.636E-03
1.636E-03
1.636E-03
1.636E-03
1.636E-03
1.636E-03
1.636E-03
1.636E-03
1.636E-03
1.636E-03
1.636E-03
1.636E-03
1.636E-03
1.636E-03
1.636E-03
1.636E-03
1.636E-03
1.636E-03
1.636E-03
1.636E-03
1.636E-03
1.636E-03
1.636E-03
1.636E-03
1.636E-03
1.636E-03
1.636E-03
1.636E-03
9.814E-04

1.759E-03
2.270E-03
2.270E-03
2.270E-03
2.270E-03
2.270E-03
2.270E-03
2.270E-03
2.270E-03
2.270E-03
2.270E-03
2.270E-03
2.270E-03
2.270E-03
2.270E-03
2.270E-03
2.270E-03
2.270E-03
2.270E-03
2.270E-03
2.270E-03
2.270E-03
2.270E-03
2.270E-03
2.270E-03
2.270E-03
2.270E-03
2.270E-03
2.270E-03
2.270E-03
2.270E-03
2.270E-03
2.270E-03
2.270E-03
2.270E-03
2.270E-03
1.759E-03

University of Surrey

'

Number of bars
(No.)

A SB - M

TM Top main reinf.


(mm)

300
500
250
30
30
15

CT

d'M

Main Beam Number

Total Length between supports (L)


Edge element width (BE)
Element width (B)
Element depth (D)
Top Cover (CT)
Bottom Cover (CB)
e

d'

A ST - M

Msc Structural Engineering

Page 349

Appendix B9
Model 9 Central Load 2.00%M : 0.80%T
250mm depth of section
Model 9 - Propoerties of Transverse Members
Generic Properties

Generic Section

Long term Young's Modulus = 0.5E 1.5E+10 Pa

Shear Modulus = 0.42E as per BS8110-21985 cl.2.4.3 (G) 1.3E+10 Pa


Total Transverse Length (LT)
18100 mm

University of Surrey

A SB - T

CB

XT (mm)

4
tr - Trans (mm )

4
tr - Trans (mm )

187
187
187
187
187
187
187
187
187
187
187
187
187

150.8
251.3
251.3
251.3
251.3
251.3
251.3
251.3
251.3
251.3
251.3
251.3
150.8

603.2
1005.3
1005.3
1005.3
1005.3
1005.3
1005.3
1005.3
1005.3
1005.3
1005.3
1005.3
603.2

0.0020
0.0020
0.0020
0.0020
0.0020
0.0020
0.0020
0.0020
0.0020
0.0020
0.0020
0.0020
0.0020

0.0080
0.0080
0.0080
0.0080
0.0080
0.0080
0.0080
0.0080
0.0080
0.0080
0.0080
0.0080
0.0080

70.32
70.32
70.32
70.32
70.32
70.32
70.32
70.32
70.32
70.32
70.32
70.32
70.32

4.727E-04
7.878E-04
7.878E-04
7.878E-04
7.878E-04
7.878E-04
7.878E-04
7.878E-04
7.878E-04
7.878E-04
7.878E-04
7.878E-04
4.727E-04

1.759E-03
2.270E-03
2.270E-03
2.270E-03
2.270E-03
2.270E-03
2.270E-03
2.270E-03
2.270E-03
2.270E-03
2.270E-03
2.270E-03
1.759E-03

'

depth (dT) (mm)

A SB - M

42
42
42
42
42
42
42
42
42
42
42
42
42

Transverse effective

reinf. (d'T) (mm)

Depth to top trans.

Number of bars (No.)


3
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
3

dT

16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16

dM

mm
mm
mm
mm
mm

ASB - T (mm 2)

3
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
3

(mm)

BT Bottom trans. reinf.

Number of bars (No.)

reinf. (mm)
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8

A ST - T

6100 mm
300
500
250
30
30
15

d'M

AST - T (mm 2)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13

TT Top transverse

Trans. Beam Number

Total Length between supports (L)


Edge element width (BE)
Element width (B)
Element depth (D)
Top Cover (CT)
Bottom Cover (CB)
e

d'T

A ST - M

CT

Msc Structural Engineering

Page 350

Appendix B9
Model 9 Central Load 2.00%M : 0.80%T
250mm depth of section

6100

1T16 @100mm c.c (B.B)


1T8 @100mm c.c (T.T)

1T25 @100mm c.c (B)


1T8 @100mm c.c (T)
Y

Section XX

18100

Free edge

Free edge

250

Section YY

General Configuration Drawing


Model 9 - 2.00%M : 0.80%T - 250mm thick

Legend
Supported Edge
B - Bottom Layer 1
BB - Bottom Layer 2

T - Top Layer 1
TT - Top Layer 2

Figure B9 - 1 general assembly of model

Figure B9 - 2 Displaced Shape

University of Surrey

Msc Structural Engineering

Page 351

Appendix B9
Model 9 Central Load 2.00%M : 0.80%T
250mm depth of section
Sagging bending moments along Y (kNm)

S11
S9
S7
S5
S3

Transverse beams

S13

37

35

33

31

29

27

25

23

21

19

17

15

13

11

S1
Main beams

+Y
+X
+Z

0-20

20-40

40-60

60-80

80-100

Figure B9 - 3
% Usage of reinfocement for moment along Y - Sagging (%)

S11
S9
S7
S5
S3

Transverse beams

S13

37

35

33

31

29

27

25

23

21

19

17

15

13

11

S1

Main beams
+Y
+X
+Z
0-10

10-20

20-30

Figure B9 - 4

University of Surrey

Msc Structural Engineering

Page 352

Appendix B9
Model 9 Central Load 2.00%M : 0.80%T
250mm depth of section
Hogging bending moments along Y (kNm)

S11
S9
S7
S5
S3

Transverse beams

S13

37

35

33

31

29

27

25

23

21

19

17

15

13

11

S1

Main beams
+Y
+X
+Z

-20--15

-15--10

-10--5

-5-0

Figure B9 - 5
% Usage of reinforcement along Y - Hogging (%)

S11
S9
S7
S5
S3

Transverse beams

S13

37

35

33

31

29

27

25

23

21

19

17

15

13

11

S1

Main beams
+Y
+X
+Z

0-10

10-20

20-30

30-40

40-50

Figure B9 - 6

University of Surrey

Msc Structural Engineering

Page 353

Appendix B9
Model 9 Central Load 2.00%M : 0.80%T
250mm depth of section
Sagging bending moments along X (kNm)

S11
S9
S7
S5
S3

Transverse beams

S13

37

35

33

31

29

27

25

23

21

19

17

15

13

11

S1

Main beams
+Y
+X
+Z
0-10

10-20

20-30

30-40

40-50

50-60

Figure B9 - 7
% Usage of reinforcement along X - Sagging (%)

S11
S9
S7
S5
S3

Transverse beams

S13

37

35

33

31

29

27

25

23

21

19

17

15

13

11

S1

Main beams
+Y
+X
+Z

0-10

10-20

20-30

30-40

Figure B9 - 8

University of Surrey

Msc Structural Engineering

Page 354

Appendix B9
Model 9 Central Load 2.00%M : 0.80%T
250mm depth of section
Hogging bending moments along X (kNm)

S11
S9
S7
S5
S3

Transverse beams

S13

37

35

33

31

29

27

25

23

21

19

17

15

13

11

S1

Main beams
+Y
+X
+Z
-10--8

-8--6

-6--4

-4--2

-2-0

Figure B9 - 9
% Usage of reinforcement along X - Hogging (%)

S11
S9
S7
S5
S3

Transverse beams

S13

37

35

33

31

29

27

25

23

21

19

17

15

13

11

S1

Main beams
+Y
+X
+Z

0-5

5-10

10-15

15-20

20-25

Figure B9 - 10

University of Surrey

Msc Structural Engineering

Page 355

Appendix B9
Model 9 Central Load 2.00%M : 0.80%T
250mm depth of section
Shear along Y (kN)

S11
S9
S7
S5
S3

Transverse beams

S13

37

35

33

31

29

27

25

23

21

19

17

15

13

11

S1

Main beams
+Y
+X
+Z
0-25

25-50

50-75

75-100

100-125

125-150

Figure B9 - 11
Applied shear stress along Y as a % of shear resistance vc (%)

S11
S9
S7
S5
S3

Transverse beams

S13

37

35

33

31

29

27

25

23

21

19

17

15

13

11

S1

Main beams
+Y
+X
+Z
0-25

25-50

50-75

75-100

100-125

125-150

Figure B9 - 12

University of Surrey

Msc Structural Engineering

Page 356

Appendix B9
Model 9 Central Load 2.00%M : 0.80%T
250mm depth of section
Shear along X (kN)

S11
S9
S7
S5
S3

Transverse beams

S13

37

35

33

31

29

27

25

23

21

19

17

15

13

11

S1

Main beams
+Y
+X
+Z
0-20

20-40

40-60

Figure B9 - 13
Applied shear stress along Y as a % of shear resistance vc (%)

S11
S9
S7
S5
S3

Transverse beams

S13

37

35

33

31

29

27

25

23

21

19

17

15

13

11

S1

Main beams
+Y
+X
+Z
0-10

10-20

20-30

30-40

40-50

50-60

60-70

70-80

Figure B9 - 14

University of Surrey

Msc Structural Engineering

Page 357

Appendix B9
Model 9 Central Load 2.00%M : 0.80%T
250mm depth of section
Torque in slab in both directions (kNm)

S11
S9
S7
S5
S3

Transverse beams

S13

37

35

33

31

29

27

25

23

21

19

17

15

13

11

S1

Main beams
+Y
+X
+Z
0-5

5-10

10-15

15-20

20-25

Figure B9 - 15
Maximum horizontal shear stresses due to torsion (N/mm 2)

S11
S9
S7
S5
S3

Transverse beams

S13

37

35

33

31

29

27

25

23

21

19

17

15

13

11

S1

Main beams
+Y
+X
+Z
0-0.5

0.5-1

1-1.5

1.5-2

Figure B9 - 16

University of Surrey

Msc Structural Engineering

Page 358

Appendix B9
Model 9 Central Load 2.00%M : 0.80%T
250mm depth of section
Mid Transverse span against moment

4.5

13.5

18

Mid Mx moment (KNm)

-20
-40
-60
-80
-100
-120
-140
-160

Transverse span (m)

Mid central moments as analysed

Mid central moments as per BS8110:Pt1:1997

Figure B9 - 17
Support transverse span against reaction

4.5

13.5

18

160
140

Reaction (KN)

120
100
80
60
40
20
0

Support span (m)

Reactions along support transverse span as analysed

Reactions along support transverse span as designed

Figure B9 - 18

University of Surrey

Msc Structural Engineering

Page 359

Appendix B9
Model 9 Quarter Load 2.00%M : 0.80%T
250mm depth of section

6100

1T16 @100mm c.c (B.B)


1T8 @100mm c.c (T.T)

1T25 @100mm c.c (B)


1T8 @100mm c.c (T)
Y

Section XX

18100

Free edge

Free edge

250

Section YY

General Configuration Drawing


Model 9 - 2.00%M : 0.80%T - 250mm thick

Legend
Supported Edge
B - Bottom Layer 1
BB - Bottom Layer 2

T - Top Layer 1
TT - Top Layer 2

Figure B9 - 19 general assembly of model

Figure B9 - 20 Displaced shape

University of Surrey

Msc Structural Engineering

Page 360

Appendix B9
Model 9 Quarter Load 2.00%M : 0.80%T
250mm depth of section
Sagging bending moments along Y (kNm)

S11
S9
S7
S5
S3

Transverse beams

S13

37

35

33

31

29

27

25

23

21

19

17

15

13

11

S1
Main beams

+Y
+X
+Z

0-25

25-50

50-75

75-100

Figure B9 - 21
% Usage of reinfocement for moment along Y - Sagging (%)

S11
S9
S7
S5
S3

Transverse beams

S13

37

35

33

31

29

27

25

23

21

19

17

15

13

11

S1

Main beams
+Y
+X
+Z
0-10

10-20

20-30

Figure B9 - 22

University of Surrey

Msc Structural Engineering

Page 361

Appendix B9
Model 9 Quarter Load 2.00%M : 0.80%T
250mm depth of section
Hogging bending moments along X (kNm)

S11
S9
S7
S5
S3

Transverse beams

S13

37

35

33

31

29

27

25

23

21

19

17

15

13

11

S1

Main beams
+Y
+X
+Z
-10--8

-8--6

-6--4

-4--2

-2-0

Figure B9 - 23
% Usage of reinforcement along X - Hogging (%)

S11
S9
S7
S5
S3

Transverse beams

S13

37

35

33

31

29

27

25

23

21

19

17

15

13

11

S1

Main beams
+Y
+X
+Z

0-5

5-10

10-15

15-20

20-25

Figure B9 - 24

University of Surrey

Msc Structural Engineering

Page 362

Appendix B9
Model 9 Quarter Load 2.00%M : 0.80%T
250mm depth of section
Hogging bending moments along Y (kNm)

S11
S9
S7
S5
S3

Transverse beams

S13

37

35

33

31

29

27

25

23

21

19

17

15

13

11

S1

Main beams
+Y
+X
+Z

-20--15

-15--10

-10--5

-5-0

Figure B9 - 25
% Usage of reinforcement along Y - Hogging (%)

S11
S9
S7
S5
S3

Transverse beams

S13

37

35

33

31

29

27

25

23

21

19

17

15

13

11

S1

Main beams
+Y
+X
+Z

0-10

10-20

20-30

30-40

Figure B9 - 26

University of Surrey

Msc Structural Engineering

Page 363

Appendix B9
Model 9 Quarter Load 2.00%M : 0.80%T
250mm depth of section
Sagging bending moments along X (kNm)

S11
S9
S7
S5
S3

Transverse beams

S13

37

35

33

31

29

27

25

23

21

19

17

15

13

11

S1

Main beams
+Y
+X
+Z
0-10

10-20

20-30

30-40

40-50

50-60

Figure B9 - 27
% Usage of reinforcement along X - Sagging (%)

S11
S9
S7
S5
S3

Transverse beams

S13

37

35

33

31

29

27

25

23

21

19

17

15

13

11

S1

Main beams
+Y
+X
+Z

0-10

10-20

20-30

30-40

Figure B9 - 28

University of Surrey

Msc Structural Engineering

Page 364

Appendix B9
Model 9 Quarter Load 2.00%M : 0.80%T
250mm depth of section
Shear along Y (kN)

S11
S9
S7
S5
S3

Transverse beams

S13

37

35

33

31

29

27

25

23

21

19

17

15

13

11

S1

Main beams
+Y
+X
+Z
0-25

25-50

50-75

75-100

100-125

125-150

Figure B9 - 29
Applied shear stress along Y as a % of shear resistance vc (%)

S11
S9
S7
S5
S3

Transverse beams

S13

37

35

33

31

29

27

25

23

21

19

17

15

13

11

S1

Main beams
+Y
+X
+Z
0-25

25-50

50-75

75-100

100-125

125-150

Figure B9 - 30

University of Surrey

Msc Structural Engineering

Page 365

Appendix B9
Model 9 Quarter Load 2.00%M : 0.80%T
250mm depth of section
Shear along X (kN)

S11
S9
S7
S5
S3

Transverse beams

S13

37

35

33

31

29

27

25

23

21

19

17

15

13

11

S1

Main beams
+Y
+X
+Z
0-25

25-50

50-75

Figure B9 - 31
Applied shear stress along Y as a % of shear resistance vc (%)

S11
S9
S7
S5
S3

Transverse beams

S13

37

35

33

31

29

27

25

23

21

19

17

15

13

11

S1

Main beams
+Y
+X
+Z
0-10

10-20

20-30

30-40

40-50

50-60

60-70

70-80

Figure B9 - 32

University of Surrey

Msc Structural Engineering

Page 366

Appendix B9
Model 9 Quarter Load 2.00%M : 0.80%T
250mm depth of section
Torque in slab in both directions (kNm)

S11
S9
S7
S5
S3

Transverse beams

S13

37

35

33

31

29

27

25

23

21

19

17

15

13

11

S1

Main beams
+Y
+X
+Z
0-5

5-10

10-15

15-20

20-25

Figure B9 - 33
Maximum horizontal shear stresses due to torsion (N/mm 2)

S11
S9
S7
S5
S3

Transverse beams

S13

37

35

33

31

29

27

25

23

21

19

17

15

13

11

S1

Main beams
+Y
+X
+Z
0-0.5

0.5-1

1-1.5

1.5-2

Figure B9 - 34

University of Surrey

Msc Structural Engineering

Page 367

Appendix B9
Model 9 Quarter Load 2.00%M : 0.80%T
250mm depth of section
Mid Transverse span against moment

4.5

13.5

18

Mid Mx moment (KNm)

-20
-40
-60
-80
-100
-120
-140
-160

Transverse span (m)

Mid central moments as analysed

Mid central moments as per BS8110:Pt1:1997

Figure B9 - 35
Support transverse span against reaction

4.5

13.5

18

160
140

Reaction (KN)

120
100
80
60
40
20
0

Support span (m)

Reactions along support transverse span as analysed

Reactions along support transverse span as designed

Figure B9 - 36

University of Surrey

Msc Structural Engineering

Page 368

Appendix B9
Model 9 Edge Load 2.00%M : 0.80%T
250mm depth of section

6100

1T16 @100mm c.c (B.B)


1T8 @100mm c.c (T.T)

1T25 @100mm c.c (B)


1T8 @100mm c.c (T)
Y

Section XX

18100

Free edge

Free edge

250

Section YY

General Configuration Drawing


Model 9 - 2.00%M : 0.80%T - 250mm thick

Legend
Supported Edge
B - Bottom Layer 1
BB - Bottom Layer 2

T - Top Layer 1
TT - Top Layer 2

Figure B9 - 37General assembly of model

Figure B9 - 38 Displaced shape

University of Surrey

Msc Structural Engineering

Page 369

Appendix B9
Model 9 Edge Load 2.00%M : 0.80%T
250mm depth of section
Sagging bending moments along Y (kNm)

S11
S9
S7
S5
S3

Transverse beams

S13

37

35

33

31

29

27

25

23

21

19

17

15

13

11

S1
Main beams

+Y
+X
+Z

0-20

20-40

40-60

60-80

80-100

100-120

120-140

140-160

160-180

180-200

Figure B9 - 39
% Usage of reinfocement for moment along Y - Sagging (%)

S11
S9
S7
S5
S3

Transverse beams

S13

37

35

33

31

29

27

25

23

21

19

17

15

13

11

S1

Main beams
+Y
+X
+Z
0-5

5-10

10-15

15-20

20-25

25-30

30-35

35-40

40-45

45-50

50-55

55-60

Figure B9 - 40

University of Surrey

Msc Structural Engineering

Page 370

Appendix B9
Model 9 Edge Load 2.00%M : 0.80%T
250mm depth of section
Hogging bending moments along Y (kNm)

S11
S9
S7
S5
S3

Transverse beams

S13

37

35

33

31

29

27

25

23

21

19

17

15

13

11

S1

Main beams
+Y
+X
+Z

-30--20

-20--10

-10-0

Figure B9 - 41
% Usage of reinforcement along Y - Hogging (%)

S11
S9
S7
S5
S3

Transverse beams

S13

37

35

33

31

29

27

25

23

21

19

17

15

13

11

S1

Main beams
+Y
+X
+Z

0-50

50-100

100-150

Figure B9 - 42

University of Surrey

Msc Structural Engineering

Page 371

Appendix B9
Model 9 Edge Load 2.00%M : 0.80%T
250mm depth of section
Sagging bending moments along X (kNm)

S11
S9
S7
S5
S3

Transverse beams

S13

37

35

33

31

29

27

25

23

21

19

17

15

13

11

S1

Main beams
+Y
+X
+Z
0-10

10-20

20-30

Figure B9 - 43
% Usage of reinforcement along X - Sagging (%)

S11
S9
S7
S5
S3

Transverse beams

S13

37

35

33

31

29

27

25

23

21

19

17

15

13

11

S1

Main beams
+Y
+X
+Z

0-4

4-8

8-12

12-16

16-20

Figure B9 - 44

University of Surrey

Msc Structural Engineering

Page 372

Appendix B9
Model 9 Edge Load 2.00%M : 0.80%T
250mm depth of section
Hogging bending moments along X (kNm)

S11
S9
S7
S5
S3

Transverse beams

S13

37

35

33

31

29

27

25

23

21

19

17

15

13

11

S1

Main beams
+Y
+X
+Z
-24--20

-20--16

-16--12

-12--8

-8--4

-4-0

Figure B9 - 45
% Usage of reinforcement along X - Hogging (%)

S11
S9
S7
S5
S3

Transverse beams

S13

37

35

33

31

29

27

25

23

21

19

17

15

13

11

S1

Main beams
+Y
+X
+Z

0-10

10-20

20-30

30-40

40-50

50-60

60-70

70-80

80-90

90-100

100-110

Figure B9 - 46

University of Surrey

Msc Structural Engineering

Page 373

Appendix B9
Model 9 Edge Load 2.00%M : 0.80%T
250mm depth of section
Shear along Y (kN)

S11
S9
S7
S5
S3

Transverse beams

S13

37

35

33

31

29

27

25

23

21

19

17

15

13

11

S1

Main beams
+Y
+X
+Z
0-25

25-50

50-75

75-100

100-125

125-150

150-175

175-200

Figure B9 - 47
Applied shear stress along Y as a % of shear resistance vc (%)

S11
S9
S7
S5
S3

Transverse beams

S13

37

35

33

31

29

27

25

23

21

19

17

15

13

11

S1

Main beams
+Y
+X
+Z
0-40

40-80

80-120

120-160

160-200

Figure B9 - 48

University of Surrey

Msc Structural Engineering

Page 374

Appendix B9
Model 9 Edge Load 2.00%M : 0.80%T
250mm depth of section
Shear along X (kN)

S11
S9
S7
S5
S3

Transverse beams

S13

37

35

33

31

29

27

25

23

21

19

17

15

13

11

S1

Main beams
+Y
+X
+Z
0-25

25-50

50-75

75-100

100-125

Figure B9 - 49
Applied shear stress along Y as a % of shear resistance vc (%)

S11
S9
S7
S5
S3

Transverse beams

S13

37

35

33

31

29

27

25

23

21

19

17

15

13

11

S1

Main beams
+Y
+X
+Z
0-25

25-50

50-75

75-100

100-125

125-150

150-175

Figure B9 - 50

University of Surrey

Msc Structural Engineering

Page 375

Appendix B9
Model 9 Edge Load 2.00%M : 0.80%T
250mm depth of section
Torque in slab in both directions (kNm)

S11
S9
S7
S5
S3

Transverse beams

S13

37

35

33

31

29

27

25

23

21

19

17

15

13

11

S1

Main beams
+Y
+X
+Z
0-10

10-20

20-30

30-40

40-50

Figure B9 - 51
Maximum horizontal shear stresses due to torsion (N/mm 2)

S11
S9
S7
S5
S3

Transverse beams

S13

37

35

33

31

29

27

25

23

21

19

17

15

13

11

S1

Main beams
+Y
+X
+Z
0-0.5

0.5-1

1-1.5

1.5-2

2-2.5

2.5-3

3-3.5

3.5-4

Figure B9 - 52

University of Surrey

Msc Structural Engineering

Page 376

Appendix B9
Model 9 Edge Load 2.00%M : 0.80%T
250mm depth of section
Mid Transverse span against moment

4.5

13.5

18

Mid Mx moment (KNm)

-50

-100

-150

-200

-250

-300

Transverse span (m)

Mid central moments as analysed

Mid central moments as per BS8110:Pt1:1997

Figure B9 - 53
Support transverse span against reaction

4.5

13.5

18

250

Reaction (KN)

200

150

100

50

Support span (m)

Reactions along support transverse span as analysed

Reactions along support transverse span as designed

Figure B9 - 54

University of Surrey

Msc Structural Engineering

Page 377

Appendix B9
Model 9 Central + Quarter +Edge Load 2.00%M : 0.80%T
250mm depth of section

6100

1T16 @100mm c.c (B.B)


1T8 @100mm c.c (T.T)

1T25 @100mm c.c (B)


1T8 @100mm c.c (T)
Y

Section XX

18100

Free edge

Free edge

250

Section YY

General Configuration Drawing


Model 9 - 2.00%M : 0.80%T - 250mm thick

Legend
Supported Edge
B - Bottom Layer 1
BB - Bottom Layer 2

T - Top Layer 1
TT - Top Layer 2

Figure B9 - 55 General assembly of model

Figure B9 - 56 displaced shape

University of Surrey

Msc Structural Engineering

Page 378

Appendix B9
Model 9 Central + Quarter +Edge Load 2.00%M : 0.80%T
250mm depth of section
Sagging bending moments along Y (kNm)

S11
S9
S7
S5
S3

Transverse beams

S13

37

35

33

31

29

27

25

23

21

19

17

15

13

11

S1
Main beams

+Y
+X
+Z

0-25

25-50

50-75

75-100

100-125

125-150

150-175

175-200

200-225

Figure B9 - 57
% Usage of reinfocement for moment along Y - Sagging (%)

S11
S9
S7
S5
S3

Transverse beams

S13

37

35

33

31

29

27

25

23

21

19

17

15

13

11

S1

Main beams
+Y
+X
+Z
0-20

20-40

40-60

60-80

Figure B9 - 58

University of Surrey

Msc Structural Engineering

Page 379

Appendix B9
Model 9 Central + Quarter +Edge Load 2.00%M : 0.80%T
250mm depth of section
Hogging bending moments along Y (kNm)

S11
S9
S7
S5
S3

Transverse beams

S13

37

35

33

31

29

27

25

23

21

19

17

15

13

11

S1

Main beams
+Y
+X
+Z

-25--20

-20--15

-15--10

-10--5

-5-0

Figure B9 - 59
% Usage of reinforcement along Y - Hogging (%)

S11
S9
S7
S5
S3

Transverse beams

S13

37

35

33

31

29

27

25

23

21

19

17

15

13

11

S1

Main beams
+Y
+X
+Z

0-20

20-40

40-60

60-80

80-100

Figure B9 - 60

University of Surrey

Msc Structural Engineering

Page 380

Appendix B9
Model 9 Central + Quarter +Edge Load 2.00%M : 0.80%T
250mm depth of section
Sagging bending moments along X (kNm)

S11
S9
S7
S5
S3

Transverse beams

S13

37

35

33

31

29

27

25

23

21

19

17

15

13

11

S1

Main beams
+Y
+X
+Z
0-10

10-20

20-30

30-40

40-50

Figure B9 - 61
% Usage of reinforcement along X - Sagging (%)

S11
S9
S7
S5
S3

Transverse beams

S13

37

35

33

31

29

27

25

23

21

19

17

15

13

11

S1

Main beams
+Y
+X
+Z

0-10

10-20

20-30

30-40

Figure B9 - 62

University of Surrey

Msc Structural Engineering

Page 381

Appendix B9
Model 9 Central + Quarter +Edge Load 2.00%M : 0.80%T
250mm depth of section
Hogging bending moments along X (kNm)

S11
S9
S7
S5
S3

Transverse beams

S13

37

35

33

31

29

27

25

23

21

19

17

15

13

11

S1

Main beams
+Y
+X
+Z
-28--24

-24--20

-20--16

-16--12

-12--8

-8--4

-4-0

Figure B9 - 63
% Usage of reinforcement along X - Hogging (%)

S11
S9
S7
S5
S3

Transverse beams

S13

37

35

33

31

29

27

25

23

21

19

17

15

13

11

S1

Main beams
+Y
+X
+Z

-5-5

5-15

15-25

Figure B9 - 64

University of Surrey

Msc Structural Engineering

Page 382

Appendix B9
Model 9 Central + Quarter +Edge Load 2.00%M : 0.80%T
250mm depth of section
Shear along Y (kN)

S11
S9
S7
S5
S3

Transverse beams

S13

37

35

33

31

29

27

25

23

21

19

17

15

13

11

S1

Main beams
+Y
+X
+Z
0-25

25-50

50-75

75-100

100-125

125-150

150-175

175-200

Figure B9 - 65
Applied shear stress along Y as a % of shear resistance vc (%)

S11
S9
S7
S5
S3

Transverse beams

S13

37

35

33

31

29

27

25

23

21

19

17

15

13

11

S1

Main beams
+Y
+X
+Z
0-40

40-80

80-120

120-160

160-200

Figure B9 - 66

University of Surrey

Msc Structural Engineering

Page 383

Appendix B9
Model 9 Central + Quarter +Edge Load 2.00%M : 0.80%T
250mm depth of section
Shear along X (kN)

S11
S9
S7
S5
S3

Transverse beams

S13

37

35

33

31

29

27

25

23

21

19

17

15

13

11

S1

Main beams
+Y
+X
+Z
0-20

20-40

40-60

60-80

80-100

Figure B9 - 67
Applied shear stress along Y as a % of shear resistance vc (%)

S11
S9
S7
S5
S3

Transverse beams

S13

37

35

33

31

29

27

25

23

21

19

17

15

13

11

S1

Main beams
+Y
+X
+Z
0-30

30-60

60-90

90-120

120-150

Figure B9 - 68

University of Surrey

Msc Structural Engineering

Page 384

Appendix B9
Model 9 Central + Quarter +Edge Load 2.00%M : 0.80%T
250mm depth of section
Torque in slab in both directions (kNm)

S11
S9
S7
S5
S3

Transverse beams

S13

37

35

33

31

29

27

25

23

21

19

17

15

13

11

S1

Main beams
+Y
+X
+Z
0-10

10-20

20-30

30-40

Figure B9 - 69
Maximum horizontal shear stresses due to torsion (N/mm 2)

S11
S9
S7
S5
S3

Transverse beams

S13

37

35

33

31

29

27

25

23

21

19

17

15

13

11

S1

Main beams
+Y
+X
+Z
0-0.5

0.5-1

1-1.5

1.5-2

2-2.5

2.5-3

Figure B9 - 70

University of Surrey

Msc Structural Engineering

Page 385

Appendix B9
Model 9 Central + Quarter +Edge Load 2.00%M : 0.80%T
250mm depth of section
Mid Transverse span against moment

4.5

13.5

18

Mid Mx moment (KNm)

-50

-100

-150

-200

-250

-300

Transverse span (m)

Mid central moments as analysed

Mid central moments as per BS8110:Pt1:1997

Figure B9 - 71
Support transverse span against reaction

4.5

13.5

18

200
180
160

Reaction (KN)

140
120
100
80
60
40
20
0

Support span (m)

Reactions along support transverse span as analysed

Reactions along support transverse span as designed

Figure B9 - 72

University of Surrey

Msc Structural Engineering

Page 386

Appendix B10 - Model 10


Reinforcement ratio 1.00% Main : 0.60% Transverse
325mm depth of slab

Appendix B10
Model 10 Central Load 1.00%M : 0.60%T
325mm depth of section
Model 10 - Propoerties of Main Members
Generic Properties

Generic Section

Long term Young's Modulus = 0.5E 1.5E+10 Pa

Shear Modulus = 0.42E as per BS81101.3E+10 Pa


2-1985 cl.2.4.3 (G)
Total Transverse Length (LT)
18100 mm

A ST - T

6100 mm

dT

dM

mm
mm
mm
mm
mm

A SB - T

CB

BM Bottom main
reinf. (mm)

Number of bars
(No.)

Depth to main top


reinf. (d'M) (mm)

Main effective Depth


(dM) (mm)

AST - M (mm 2)

ASB - M (mm2)

XM (mm)

4
tr - Main (m )

Cx (mm)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37

8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8

3
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
3

20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20

3
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
3

34
34
34
34
34
34
34
34
34
34
34
34
34
34
34
34
34
34
34
34
34
34
34
34
34
34
34
34
34
34
34
34
34
34
34
34
34

285
285
285
285
285
285
285
285
285
285
285
285
285
285
285
285
285
285
285
285
285
285
285
285
285
285
285
285
285
285
285
285
285
285
285
285
285

150.8
251.3
251.3
251.3
251.3
251.3
251.3
251.3
251.3
251.3
251.3
251.3
251.3
251.3
251.3
251.3
251.3
251.3
251.3
251.3
251.3
251.3
251.3
251.3
251.3
251.3
251.3
251.3
251.3
251.3
251.3
251.3
251.3
251.3
251.3
251.3
150.8

942.5
1570.8
1570.8
1570.8
1570.8
1570.8
1570.8
1570.8
1570.8
1570.8
1570.8
1570.8
1570.8
1570.8
1570.8
1570.8
1570.8
1570.8
1570.8
1570.8
1570.8
1570.8
1570.8
1570.8
1570.8
1570.8
1570.8
1570.8
1570.8
1570.8
1570.8
1570.8
1570.8
1570.8
1570.8
1570.8
942.5

0.0015
0.0015
0.0015
0.0015
0.0015
0.0015
0.0015
0.0015
0.0015
0.0015
0.0015
0.0015
0.0015
0.0015
0.0015
0.0015
0.0015
0.0015
0.0015
0.0015
0.0015
0.0015
0.0015
0.0015
0.0015
0.0015
0.0015
0.0015
0.0015
0.0015
0.0015
0.0015
0.0015
0.0015
0.0015
0.0015
0.0015

0.0097
0.0097
0.0097
0.0097
0.0097
0.0097
0.0097
0.0097
0.0097
0.0097
0.0097
0.0097
0.0097
0.0097
0.0097
0.0097
0.0097
0.0097
0.0097
0.0097
0.0097
0.0097
0.0097
0.0097
0.0097
0.0097
0.0097
0.0097
0.0097
0.0097
0.0097
0.0097
0.0097
0.0097
0.0097
0.0097
0.0097

114.24
114.24
114.24
114.24
114.24
114.24
114.24
114.24
114.24
114.24
114.24
114.24
114.24
114.24
114.24
114.24
114.24
114.24
114.24
114.24
114.24
114.24
114.24
114.24
114.24
114.24
114.24
114.24
114.24
114.24
114.24
114.24
114.24
114.24
114.24
114.24
114.24

1.218E-03
2.031E-03
2.031E-03
2.031E-03
2.031E-03
2.031E-03
2.031E-03
2.031E-03
2.031E-03
2.031E-03
2.031E-03
2.031E-03
2.031E-03
2.031E-03
2.031E-03
2.031E-03
2.031E-03
2.031E-03
2.031E-03
2.031E-03
2.031E-03
2.031E-03
2.031E-03
2.031E-03
2.031E-03
2.031E-03
2.031E-03
2.031E-03
2.031E-03
2.031E-03
2.031E-03
2.031E-03
2.031E-03
2.031E-03
2.031E-03
2.031E-03
1.218E-03

2.588E-03
3.342E-03
3.342E-03
3.342E-03
3.342E-03
3.342E-03
3.342E-03
3.342E-03
3.342E-03
3.342E-03
3.342E-03
3.342E-03
3.342E-03
3.342E-03
3.342E-03
3.342E-03
3.342E-03
3.342E-03
3.342E-03
3.342E-03
3.342E-03
3.342E-03
3.342E-03
3.342E-03
3.342E-03
3.342E-03
3.342E-03
3.342E-03
3.342E-03
3.342E-03
3.342E-03
3.342E-03
3.342E-03
3.342E-03
3.342E-03
3.342E-03
2.588E-03

University of Surrey

'

Number of bars
(No.)

A SB - M

TM Top main reinf.


(mm)

300
500
325
30
30
15

CT

d'M

Main Beam Number

Total Length between supports (L)


Edge element width (BE)
Element width (B)
Element depth (D)
Top Cover (CT)
Bottom Cover (CB)
e

d'

A ST - M

Msc Structural Engineering

Page 388

Appendix B10
Model 10 Central Load 1.00%M : 0.60%T
325mm depth of section
Model 10 - Propoerties of Transverse Members
Generic Properties

Generic Section

Long term Young's Modulus = 0.5E 1.5E+10 Pa

Shear Modulus = 0.42E as per BS8110-21985 cl.2.4.3 (G) 1.3E+10 Pa


Total Transverse Length (LT)
18100 mm

University of Surrey

A SB - T

CB

XT (mm)

4
tr - Trans (mm )

4
tr - Trans (mm )

267
267
267
267
267
267
267
267
267
267
267
267
267

150.8
251.3
251.3
251.3
251.3
251.3
251.3
251.3
251.3
251.3
251.3
251.3
150.8

603.2
1005.3
1005.3
1005.3
1005.3
1005.3
1005.3
1005.3
1005.3
1005.3
1005.3
1005.3
603.2

0.0015
0.0015
0.0015
0.0015
0.0015
0.0015
0.0015
0.0015
0.0015
0.0015
0.0015
0.0015
0.0015

0.0062
0.0062
0.0062
0.0062
0.0062
0.0062
0.0062
0.0062
0.0062
0.0062
0.0062
0.0062
0.0062

90.32
90.32
90.32
90.32
90.32
90.32
90.32
90.32
90.32
90.32
90.32
90.32
90.32

8.249E-04
1.375E-03
1.375E-03
1.375E-03
1.375E-03
1.375E-03
1.375E-03
1.375E-03
1.375E-03
1.375E-03
1.375E-03
1.375E-03
8.249E-04

2.588E-03
3.342E-03
3.342E-03
3.342E-03
3.342E-03
3.342E-03
3.342E-03
3.342E-03
3.342E-03
3.342E-03
3.342E-03
3.342E-03
2.588E-03

'

depth (dT) (mm)

A SB - M

42
42
42
42
42
42
42
42
42
42
42
42
42

Transverse effective

reinf. (d'T) (mm)

Depth to top trans.

(mm)

Number of bars (No.)


3
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
3

dT

16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16

dM

mm
mm
mm
mm
mm

ASB - T (mm 2)

3
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
3

BT Bottom trans. reinf.

Number of bars (No.)

reinf. (mm)
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8

A ST - T

6100 mm
300
500
325
30
30
15

d'M

AST - T (mm 2)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13

TT Top transverse

Trans. Beam Number

Total Length between supports (L)


Edge element width (BE)
Element width (B)
Element depth (D)
Top Cover (CT)
Bottom Cover (CB)
e

d'T

A ST - M

CT

Msc Structural Engineering

Page 389

Appendix B10
Model 10 Central Load 1.00%M : 0.60%T
325mm depth of section

6100

1T16 @100mm c.c (B.B)


1T8 @100mm c.c (T.T)

1T20 @100mm c.c (B)


1T8 @100mm c.c (T)
Y

Section XX

18100

Free edge

Free edge

325

Section YY

General Configuration Drawing


Model 10 - 1.00%M : 0.60%T - 325mm thick

Legend
Supported Edge
B - Bottom Layer 1
BB - Bottom Layer 2

T - Top Layer 1
TT - Top Layer 2

Figure B10 - 1 General assembly of model

Figure B10 - 2 displaced shape

University of Surrey

Msc Structural Engineering

Page 390

Appendix B10
Model 10 Central Load 1.00%M : 0.60%T
325mm depth of section
Sagging bending moments along Y (kNm)

S11
S9
S7
S5
S3

Transverse beams

S13

37

35

33

31

29

27

25

23

21

19

17

15

13

11

S1
Main beams

+Y
+X
+Z

0-20

20-40

40-60

60-80

80-100

Figure B10 - 3
% Usage of reinfocement for moment along Y - Sagging (%)

S11
S9
S7
S5
S3

Transverse beams

S13

37

35

33

31

29

27

25

23

21

19

17

15

13

11

S1

Main beams
+Y
+X
+Z
0-10

10-20

20-30

30-40

40-50

50-60

Figure B10 - 4

University of Surrey

Msc Structural Engineering

Page 391

Appendix B10
Model 10 Central Load 1.00%M : 0.60%T
325mm depth of section
Hogging bending moments along Y (kNm)

S11
S9
S7
S5
S3

Transverse beams

S13

37

35

33

31

29

27

25

23

21

19

17

15

13

11

S1

Main beams
+Y
+X
+Z

-15--10

-10--5

-5-0

Figure B10 - 5
% Usage of reinforcement along Y - Hogging (%)

S11
S9
S7
S5
S3

Transverse beams

S13

37

35

33

31

29

27

25

23

21

19

17

15

13

11

S1

Main beams
+Y
+X
+Z

0-10

10-20

20-30

30-40

40-50

Figure B10 - 6

University of Surrey

Msc Structural Engineering

Page 392

Appendix B10
Model 10 Central Load 1.00%M : 0.60%T
325mm depth of section
Sagging bending moments along X (kNm)

S11
S9
S7
S5
S3

Transverse beams

S13

37

35

33

31

29

27

25

23

21

19

17

15

13

11

S1

Main beams
+Y
+X
+Z
0-10

10-20

20-30

30-40

40-50

50-60

Figure B10 - 7
% Usage of reinforcement along X - Sagging (%)

S11
S9
S7
S5
S3

Transverse beams

S13

37

35

33

31

29

27

25

23

21

19

17

15

13

11

S1

Main beams
+Y
+X
+Z

0-10

10-20

20-30

30-40

40-50

50-60

Figure B10 - 8

University of Surrey

Msc Structural Engineering

Page 393

Appendix B10
Model 10 Central Load 1.00%M : 0.60%T
325mm depth of section
Hogging bending moments along X (kNm)

S11
S9
S7
S5
S3

Transverse beams

S13

37

35

33

31

29

27

25

23

21

19

17

15

13

11

S1

Main beams
+Y
+X
+Z
-10--8

-8--6

-6--4

-4--2

-2-0

Figure B10 - 9
% Usage of reinforcement along X - Hogging (%)

S11
S9
S7
S5
S3

Transverse beams

S13

37

35

33

31

29

27

25

23

21

19

17

15

13

11

S1

Main beams
+Y
+X
+Z

0-10

10-20

20-30

30-40

Figure B10 - 10

University of Surrey

Msc Structural Engineering

Page 394

Appendix B10
Model 10 Central Load 1.00%M : 0.60%T
325mm depth of section
Shear along Y (kN)

S11
S9
S7
S5
S3

Transverse beams

S13

37

35

33

31

29

27

25

23

21

19

17

15

13

11

S1

Main beams
+Y
+X
+Z
0-25

25-50

50-75

75-100

100-125

125-150

Figure B10 - 11
Applied shear stress along Y as a % of shear resistance vc (%)

S11
S9
S7
S5
S3

Transverse beams

S13

37

35

33

31

29

27

25

23

21

19

17

15

13

11

S1

Main beams
+Y
+X
+Z
0-25

25-50

50-75

75-100

100-125

125-150

150-175

Figure B10 - 12

University of Surrey

Msc Structural Engineering

Page 395

Appendix B10
Model 10 Central Load 1.00%M : 0.60%T
325mm depth of section
Shear along X (kN)

S11
S9
S7
S5
S3

Transverse beams

S13

37

35

33

31

29

27

25

23

21

19

17

15

13

11

S1

Main beams
+Y
+X
+Z
0-20

20-40

40-60

Figure B10 - 13
Applied shear stress along Y as a % of shear resistance vc (%)

S11
S9
S7
S5
S3

Transverse beams

S13

37

35

33

31

29

27

25

23

21

19

17

15

13

11

S1

Main beams
+Y
+X
+Z
0-10

10-20

20-30

30-40

40-50

50-60

60-70

70-80

80-90

Figure B10 - 14

University of Surrey

Msc Structural Engineering

Page 396

Appendix B10
Model 10 Central Load 1.00%M : 0.60%T
325mm depth of section
Torque in slab in both directions (kNm)

S11
S9
S7
S5
S3

Transverse beams

S13

37

35

33

31

29

27

25

23

21

19

17

15

13

11

S1

Main beams
+Y
+X
+Z
0-5

5-10

10-15

15-20

20-25

Figure B10 - 15
Maximum horizontal shear stresses due to torsion (N/mm 2)

S11
S9
S7
S5
S3

Transverse beams

S13

37

35

33

31

29

27

25

23

21

19

17

15

13

11

S1

Main beams
+Y
+X
+Z
0-0.5

0.5-1

1-1.5

1.5-2

2-2.5

Figure B10 - 16

University of Surrey

Msc Structural Engineering

Page 397

Appendix B10
Model 10 Central Load 1.00%M : 0.60%T
325mm depth of section
Mid Transverse span against moment

4.5

13.5

18

Mid Mx moment (KNm)

-20
-40
-60
-80
-100
-120
-140
-160
-180

Transverse span (m)

Mid central moments as analysed

Mid central moments as per BS8110:Pt1:1997

Figure B10 - 17
Support transverse span against reaction

4.5

13.5

18

160
140

Reaction (KN)

120
100
80
60
40
20
0

Support span (m)

Reactions along support transverse span as analysed

Reactions along support transverse span as designed

Figure B10 - 18

University of Surrey

Msc Structural Engineering

Page 398

Appendix B10
Model 10 Quarter Load 1.00%M : 0.60%T
325mm depth of section

6100

1T16 @100mm c.c (B.B)


1T8 @100mm c.c (T.T)

1T20 @100mm c.c (B)


1T8 @100mm c.c (T)
Y

Section XX

18100

Free edge

Free edge

325

Section YY

General Configuration Drawing


Model 10 - 1.00%M : 0.60%T - 325mm thick

Legend
Supported Edge
B - Bottom Layer 1
BB - Bottom Layer 2

T - Top Layer 1
TT - Top Layer 2

Figure B10 - 19 General assembly of mode

Figure B10 - 20 Displaced shape

University of Surrey

Msc Structural Engineering

Page 399

Appendix B10
Model 10 Quarter Load 1.00%M : 0.60%T
325mm depth of section
Sagging bending moments along Y (kNm)

S11
S9
S7
S5
S3

Transverse beams

S13

37

35

33

31

29

27

25

23

21

19

17

15

13

11

S1
Main beams

+Y
+X
+Z

0-25

25-50

50-75

75-100

Figure B10 - 21
% Usage of reinfocement for moment along Y - Sagging (%)

S11
S9
S7
S5
S3

Transverse beams

S13

37

35

33

31

29

27

25

23

21

19

17

15

13

11

S1

Main beams
+Y
+X
+Z
0-10

10-20

20-30

30-40

40-50

50-60

Figure B10 - 22

University of Surrey

Msc Structural Engineering

Page 400

Appendix B10
Model 10 Quarter Load 1.00%M : 0.60%T
325mm depth of section
Hogging bending moments along X (kNm)

S11
S9
S7
S5
S3

Transverse beams

S13

37

35

33

31

29

27

25

23

21

19

17

15

13

11

S1

Main beams
+Y
+X
+Z
-10--8

-8--6

-6--4

-4--2

-2-0

Figure B10 - 23
% Usage of reinforcement along X - Hogging (%)

S11
S9
S7
S5
S3

Transverse beams

S13

37

35

33

31

29

27

25

23

21

19

17

15

13

11

S1

Main beams
+Y
+X
+Z

0-10

10-20

20-30

30-40

Figure B10 - 24

University of Surrey

Msc Structural Engineering

Page 401

Appendix B10
Model 10 Quarter Load 1.00%M : 0.60%T
325mm depth of section
Hogging bending moments along Y (kNm)

S11
S9
S7
S5
S3

Transverse beams

S13

37

35

33

31

29

27

25

23

21

19

17

15

13

11

S1

Main beams
+Y
+X
+Z

-15--10

-10--5

-5-0

Figure B10 - 25
% Usage of reinforcement along Y - Hogging (%)

S11
S9
S7
S5
S3

Transverse beams

S13

37

35

33

31

29

27

25

23

21

19

17

15

13

11

S1

Main beams
+Y
+X
+Z

0-10

10-20

20-30

30-40

40-50

Figure B10 - 26

University of Surrey

Msc Structural Engineering

Page 402

Appendix B10
Model 10 Quarter Load 1.00%M : 0.60%T
325mm depth of section
Sagging bending moments along X (kNm)

S11
S9
S7
S5
S3

Transverse beams

S13

37

35

33

31

29

27

25

23

21

19

17

15

13

11

S1

Main beams
+Y
+X
+Z
0-10

10-20

20-30

30-40

40-50

50-60

Figure B10 - 27
% Usage of reinforcement along X - Sagging (%)

S11
S9
S7
S5
S3

Transverse beams

S13

37

35

33

31

29

27

25

23

21

19

17

15

13

11

S1

Main beams
+Y
+X
+Z

0-10

10-20

20-30

30-40

40-50

50-60

Figure B10 - 28

University of Surrey

Msc Structural Engineering

Page 403

Appendix B10
Model 10 Quarter Load 1.00%M : 0.60%T
325mm depth of section
Shear along Y (kN)

S11
S9
S7
S5
S3

Transverse beams

S13

37

35

33

31

29

27

25

23

21

19

17

15

13

11

S1

Main beams
+Y
+X
+Z
0-25

25-50

50-75

75-100

100-125

125-150

Figure B10 - 29
Applied shear stress along Y as a % of shear resistance vc (%)

S11
S9
S7
S5
S3

Transverse beams

S13

37

35

33

31

29

27

25

23

21

19

17

15

13

11

S1

Main beams
+Y
+X
+Z
0-25

25-50

50-75

75-100

100-125

125-150

150-175

Figure B10 - 30

University of Surrey

Msc Structural Engineering

Page 404

Appendix B10
Model 10 Quarter Load 1.00%M : 0.60%T
325mm depth of section
Shear along X (kN)

S11
S9
S7
S5
S3

Transverse beams

S13

37

35

33

31

29

27

25

23

21

19

17

15

13

11

S1

Main beams
+Y
+X
+Z
0-25

25-50

50-75

Figure B10 - 31
Applied shear stress along Y as a % of shear resistance vc (%)

S11
S9
S7
S5
S3

Transverse beams

S13

37

35

33

31

29

27

25

23

21

19

17

15

13

11

S1

Main beams
+Y
+X
+Z
0-10

10-20

20-30

30-40

40-50

50-60

60-70

70-80

80-90

Figure B10 - 32

University of Surrey

Msc Structural Engineering

Page 405

Appendix B10
Model 10 Quarter Load 1.00%M : 0.60%T
325mm depth of section
Torque in slab in both directions (kNm)

S11
S9
S7
S5
S3

Transverse beams

S13

37

35

33

31

29

27

25

23

21

19

17

15

13

11

S1

Main beams
+Y
+X
+Z
0-5

5-10

10-15

15-20

20-25

Figure B10 - 33
Maximum horizontal shear stresses due to torsion (N/mm 2)

S11
S9
S7
S5
S3

Transverse beams

S13

37

35

33

31

29

27

25

23

21

19

17

15

13

11

S1

Main beams
+Y
+X
+Z
0-0.5

0.5-1

1-1.5

1.5-2

2-2.5

2.5-3

Figure B10 - 34

University of Surrey

Msc Structural Engineering

Page 406

Appendix B10
Model 10 Quarter Load 1.00%M : 0.60%T
325mm depth of section
Mid Transverse span against moment

4.5

13.5

18

Mid Mx moment (KNm)

-20
-40
-60
-80
-100
-120
-140
-160
-180

Transverse span (m)

Mid central moments as analysed

Mid central moments as per BS8110:Pt1:1997

Figure B10 - 35
Support transverse span against reaction

4.5

13.5

18

160
140

Reaction (KN)

120
100
80
60
40
20
0

Support span (m)

Reactions along support transverse span as analysed

Reactions along support transverse span as designed

Figure B10 - 36

University of Surrey

Msc Structural Engineering

Page 407

Appendix B10
Model 10 Edge Load 1.00%M : 0.60%T
325mm depth of section

6100

1T16 @100mm c.c (B.B)


1T8 @100mm c.c (T.T)

1T20 @100mm c.c (B)


1T8 @100mm c.c (T)
Y

Section XX

18100

Free edge

Free edge

325

Section YY

General Configuration Drawing


Model 10 - 1.00%M : 0.60%T - 325mm thick

Legend
Supported Edge
B - Bottom Layer 1
BB - Bottom Layer 2

T - Top Layer 1
TT - Top Layer 2

Figure B10 - 37 General assembly of model

Figure B10 - 38 Displaced shape

University of Surrey

Msc Structural Engineering

Page 408

Appendix B10
Model 10 Edge Load 1.00%M : 0.60%T
325mm depth of section
Sagging bending moments along Y (kNm)

S11
S9
S7
S5
S3

Transverse beams

S13

37

35

33

31

29

27

25

23

21

19

17

15

13

11

S1
Main beams

+Y
+X
+Z

0-20

20-40

40-60

60-80

80-100

100-120

120-140

140-160

160-180

Figure B10 - 39
% Usage of reinfocement for moment along Y - Sagging (%)

S11
S9
S7
S5
S3

Transverse beams

S13

37

35

33

31

29

27

25

23

21

19

17

15

13

11

S1

Main beams
+Y
+X
+Z
0-20

20-40

40-60

60-80

80-100

100-120

120-140

Figure B10 - 40

University of Surrey

Msc Structural Engineering

Page 409

Appendix B10
Model 10 Edge Load 1.00%M : 0.60%T
325mm depth of section
Hogging bending moments along Y (kNm)

S11
S9
S7
S5
S3

Transverse beams

S13

37

35

33

31

29

27

25

23

21

19

17

15

13

11

S1

Main beams
+Y
+X
+Z

-30--20

-20--10

-10-0

Figure B10 - 41
% Usage of reinforcement along Y - Hogging (%)

S11
S9
S7
S5
S3

Transverse beams

S13

37

35

33

31

29

27

25

23

21

19

17

15

13

11

S1

Main beams
+Y
+X
+Z

0-50

50-100

100-150

150-200

Figure B10 - 42

University of Surrey

Msc Structural Engineering

Page 410

Appendix B10
Model 10 Edge Load 1.00%M : 0.60%T
325mm depth of section
Sagging bending moments along X (kNm)

S11
S9
S7
S5
S3

Transverse beams

S13

37

35

33

31

29

27

25

23

21

19

17

15

13

11

S1

Main beams
+Y
+X
+Z
0-10

10-20

20-30

Figure B10 - 43
% Usage of reinforcement along X - Sagging (%)

S11
S9
S7
S5
S3

Transverse beams

S13

37

35

33

31

29

27

25

23

21

19

17

15

13

11

S1

Main beams
+Y
+X
+Z

0-4

4-8

8-12

12-16

16-20

20-24

24-28

Figure B10 - 44

University of Surrey

Msc Structural Engineering

Page 411

Appendix B10
Model 10 Edge Load 1.00%M : 0.60%T
325mm depth of section
Hogging bending moments along X (kNm)

S11
S9
S7
S5
S3

Transverse beams

S13

37

35

33

31

29

27

25

23

21

19

17

15

13

11

S1

Main beams
+Y
+X
+Z
-28--24

-24--20

-20--16

-16--12

-12--8

-8--4

-4-0

Figure B10 - 45
% Usage of reinforcement along X - Hogging (%)

S11
S9
S7
S5
S3

Transverse beams

S13

37

35

33

31

29

27

25

23

21

19

17

15

13

11

S1

Main beams
+Y
+X
+Z

0-20

20-40

40-60

60-80

80-100

100-120

120-140

140-160

Figure B10 - 46

University of Surrey

Msc Structural Engineering

Page 412

Appendix B10
Model 10 Edge Load 1.00%M : 0.60%T
325mm depth of section
Shear along Y (kN)

S11
S9
S7
S5
S3

Transverse beams

S13

37

35

33

31

29

27

25

23

21

19

17

15

13

11

S1

Main beams
+Y
+X
+Z
0-25

25-50

50-75

75-100

100-125

125-150

150-175

175-200

200-225

Figure B10 - 47
Applied shear stress along Y as a % of shear resistance vc (%)

S11
S9
S7
S5
S3

Transverse beams

S13

37

35

33

31

29

27

25

23

21

19

17

15

13

11

S1

Main beams
+Y
+X
+Z
0-40

40-80

80-120

120-160

160-200

200-240

240-280

Figure B10 - 48

University of Surrey

Msc Structural Engineering

Page 413

Appendix B10
Model 10 Edge Load 1.00%M : 0.60%T
325mm depth of section
Shear along X (kN)

S11
S9
S7
S5
S3

Transverse beams

S13

37

35

33

31

29

27

25

23

21

19

17

15

13

11

S1

Main beams
+Y
+X
+Z
0-25

25-50

50-75

75-100

100-125

Figure B10 - 49
Applied shear stress along Y as a % of shear resistance vc (%)

S11
S9
S7
S5
S3

Transverse beams

S13

37

35

33

31

29

27

25

23

21

19

17

15

13

11

S1

Main beams
+Y
+X
+Z
0-25

25-50

50-75

75-100

100-125

125-150

150-175

175-200

Figure B10 - 50

University of Surrey

Msc Structural Engineering

Page 414

Appendix B10
Model 10 Edge Load 1.00%M : 0.60%T
325mm depth of section
Torque in slab in both directions (kNm)

S11
S9
S7
S5
S3

Transverse beams

S13

37

35

33

31

29

27

25

23

21

19

17

15

13

11

S1

Main beams
+Y
+X
+Z
0-10

10-20

20-30

30-40

40-50

50-60

Figure B10 - 51
Maximum horizontal shear stresses due to torsion (N/mm 2)

S11
S9
S7
S5
S3

Transverse beams

S13

37

35

33

31

29

27

25

23

21

19

17

15

13

11

S1

Main beams
+Y
+X
+Z
0-0.5

0.5-1

1-1.5

1.5-2

2-2.5

2.5-3

3-3.5

3.5-4

4-4.5

4.5-5

5-5.5

5.5-6

Figure B10 - 52

University of Surrey

Msc Structural Engineering

Page 415

Appendix B10
Model 10 Edge Load 1.00%M : 0.60%T
325mm depth of section
Mid Transverse span against moment

4.5

13.5

18

Mid Mx moment (KNm)

-50

-100

-150

-200

-250

-300

Transverse span (m)

Mid central moments as analysed

Mid central moments as per BS8110:Pt1:1997

Figure B10 - 53
Support transverse span against reaction

4.5

13.5

18

250

Reaction (KN)

200

150

100

50

Support span (m)

Reactions along support transverse span as analysed

Reactions along support transverse span as designed

Figure B10 - 54

University of Surrey

Msc Structural Engineering

Page 416

Appendix B10
Model 10 Central + Quarter + Edge Load 1.00%M : 0.60%T
325mm depth of section

6100

1T16 @100mm c.c (B.B)


1T8 @100mm c.c (T.T)

1T20 @100mm c.c (B)


1T8 @100mm c.c (T)
Y

Section XX

18100

Free edge

Free edge

325

Section YY

General Configuration Drawing


Model 10 - 1.00%M : 0.60%T - 325mm thick

Legend
Supported Edge
B - Bottom Layer 1
BB - Bottom Layer 2

T - Top Layer 1
TT - Top Layer 2

Figure B10 - 55 General assembly of model

Figure B10 - 56 Displaced Shape

University of Surrey

Msc Structural Engineering

Page 417

Appendix B10
Model 10 Central + Quarter + Edge Load 1.00%M : 0.60%T
325mm depth of section
Sagging bending moments along Y (kNm)

S11
S9
S7
S5
S3

Transverse beams

S13

37

35

33

31

29

27

25

23

21

19

17

15

13

11

S1
Main beams

+Y
+X
+Z

0-25

25-50

50-75

75-100

100-125

125-150

150-175

175-200

200-225

Figure B10 - 57
% Usage of reinfocement for moment along Y - Sagging (%)

S11
S9
S7
S5
S3

Transverse beams

S13

37

35

33

31

29

27

25

23

21

19

17

15

13

11

S1

Main beams
+Y
+X
+Z
0-20

20-40

40-60

60-80

80-100

100-120

120-140

Figure B10 - 58

University of Surrey

Msc Structural Engineering

Page 418

Appendix B10
Model 10 Central + Quarter + Edge Load 1.00%M : 0.60%T
325mm depth of section
Hogging bending moments along Y (kNm)

S11
S9
S7
S5
S3

Transverse beams

S13

37

35

33

31

29

27

25

23

21

19

17

15

13

11

S1

Main beams
+Y
+X
+Z

-25--20

-20--15

-15--10

-10--5

-5-0

Figure B10 - 59
% Usage of reinforcement along Y - Hogging (%)

S11
S9
S7
S5
S3

Transverse beams

S13

37

35

33

31

29

27

25

23

21

19

17

15

13

11

S1

Main beams
+Y
+X
+Z

0-50

50-100

100-150

Figure B10 - 60

University of Surrey

Msc Structural Engineering

Page 419

Appendix B10
Model 10 Central + Quarter + Edge Load 1.00%M : 0.60%T
325mm depth of section
Sagging bending moments along X (kNm)

S11
S9
S7
S5
S3

Transverse beams

S13

37

35

33

31

29

27

25

23

21

19

17

15

13

11

S1

Main beams
+Y
+X
+Z
0-10

10-20

20-30

30-40

40-50

Figure B10 - 61
% Usage of reinforcement along X - Sagging (%)

S11
S9
S7
S5
S3

Transverse beams

S13

37

35

33

31

29

27

25

23

21

19

17

15

13

11

S1

Main beams
+Y
+X
+Z

0-10

10-20

20-30

30-40

40-50

Figure B10 - 62

University of Surrey

Msc Structural Engineering

Page 420

Appendix B10
Model 10 Central + Quarter + Edge Load 1.00%M : 0.60%T
325mm depth of section
Hogging bending moments along X (kNm)

S11
S9
S7
S5
S3

Transverse beams

S13

37

35

33

31

29

27

25

23

21

19

17

15

13

11

S1

Main beams
+Y
+X
+Z
-32--28

-28--24

-24--20

-20--16

-16--12

-12--8

-8--4

-4-0

Figure B10 - 63
% Usage of reinforcement along X - Hogging (%)

S11
S9
S7
S5
S3

Transverse beams

S13

37

35

33

31

29

27

25

23

21

19

17

15

13

11

S1

Main beams
+Y
+X
+Z

-5-5

5-15

15-25

Figure B10 - 64

University of Surrey

Msc Structural Engineering

Page 421

Appendix B10
Model 10 Central + Quarter + Edge Load 1.00%M : 0.60%T
325mm depth of section
Shear along Y (kN)

S11
S9
S7
S5
S3

Transverse beams

S13

37

35

33

31

29

27

25

23

21

19

17

15

13

11

S1

Main beams
+Y
+X
+Z
0-25

25-50

50-75

75-100

100-125

125-150

150-175

175-200

Figure B10 - 65
Applied shear stress along Y as a % of shear resistance vc (%)

S11
S9
S7
S5
S3

Transverse beams

S13

37

35

33

31

29

27

25

23

21

19

17

15

13

11

S1

Main beams
+Y
+X
+Z
0-40

40-80

80-120

120-160

160-200

200-240

Figure B10 - 66

University of Surrey

Msc Structural Engineering

Page 422

Appendix B10
Model 10 Central + Quarter + Edge Load 1.00%M : 0.60%T
325mm depth of section
Shear along X (kN)

S11
S9
S7
S5
S3

Transverse beams

S13

37

35

33

31

29

27

25

23

21

19

17

15

13

11

S1

Main beams
+Y
+X
+Z
0-20

20-40

40-60

60-80

80-100

Figure B10 - 67
Applied shear stress along Y as a % of shear resistance vc (%)

S11
S9
S7
S5
S3

Transverse beams

S13

37

35

33

31

29

27

25

23

21

19

17

15

13

11

S1

Main beams
+Y
+X
+Z
0-30

30-60

60-90

90-120

120-150

Figure B10 - 68

University of Surrey

Msc Structural Engineering

Page 423

Appendix B10
Model 10 Central + Quarter + Edge Load 1.00%M : 0.60%T
325mm depth of section
Torque in slab in both directions (kNm)

S11
S9
S7
S5
S3

Transverse beams

S13

37

35

33

31

29

27

25

23

21

19

17

15

13

11

S1

Main beams
+Y
+X
+Z
0-10

10-20

20-30

30-40

Figure B10 - 69
Maximum horizontal shear stresses due to torsion (N/mm 2)

S11
S9
S7
S5
S3

Transverse beams

S13

37

35

33

31

29

27

25

23

21

19

17

15

13

11

S1

Main beams
+Y
+X
+Z
0-0.5

0.5-1

1-1.5

1.5-2

2-2.5

2.5-3

3-3.5

3.5-4

4-4.5

Figure B10 - 70

University of Surrey

Msc Structural Engineering

Page 424

Appendix B10
Model 10 Central + Quarter + Edge Load 1.00%M : 0.60%T
325mm depth of section
Mid Transverse span against moment

4.5

13.5

18

Mid Mx moment (KNm)

-50

-100

-150

-200

-250

-300

Transverse span (m)

Mid central moments as analysed

Mid central moments as per BS8110:Pt1:1997

Figure B10 - 71
Support transverse span against reaction

4.5

13.5

18

200
180
160

Reaction (KN)

140
120
100
80
60
40
20
0

Support span (m)

Reactions along support transverse span as analysed

Reactions along support transverse span as designed

Figure B10 - 72

University of Surrey

Msc Structural Engineering

Page 425

Appendix B11 - Model 11


Reinforcement ratio 0.29% Main : 0.37% Transverse
550mm depth of slab

Appendix B11
Model 11 Central Load 0.29%M : 0.37%T
550mm depth of section
Model 11 - Propoerties of Main Members
Generic Properties

Generic Section

Long term Young's Modulus = 0.5E 1.5E+10 Pa

Shear Modulus = 0.42E as per BS81101.3E+10 Pa


2-1985 cl.2.4.3 (G)
Total Transverse Length (LT)
18100 mm

A ST - T

6100 mm

dT

dM

mm
mm
mm
mm
mm

A SB - T

CB

BM Bottom main
reinf. (mm)

Number of bars
(No.)

Depth to main top


reinf. (d'M) (mm)

Main effective Depth


(dM) (mm)

AST - M (mm 2)

ASB - M (mm2)

XM (mm)

4
tr - Main (m )

Cx (mm)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37

8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8

3
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
3

16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16

2
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
2

34
34
34
34
34
34
34
34
34
34
34
34
34
34
34
34
34
34
34
34
34
34
34
34
34
34
34
34
34
34
34
34
34
34
34
34
34

512
512
512
512
512
512
512
512
512
512
512
512
512
512
512
512
512
512
512
512
512
512
512
512
512
512
512
512
512
512
512
512
512
512
512
512
512

150.8
251.3
251.3
251.3
251.3
251.3
251.3
251.3
251.3
251.3
251.3
251.3
251.3
251.3
251.3
251.3
251.3
251.3
251.3
251.3
251.3
251.3
251.3
251.3
251.3
251.3
251.3
251.3
251.3
251.3
251.3
251.3
251.3
251.3
251.3
251.3
150.8

402.1
804.2
804.2
804.2
804.2
804.2
804.2
804.2
804.2
804.2
804.2
804.2
804.2
804.2
804.2
804.2
804.2
804.2
804.2
804.2
804.2
804.2
804.2
804.2
804.2
804.2
804.2
804.2
804.2
804.2
804.2
804.2
804.2
804.2
804.2
804.2
402.1

0.0009
0.0009
0.0009
0.0009
0.0009
0.0009
0.0009
0.0009
0.0009
0.0009
0.0009
0.0009
0.0009
0.0009
0.0009
0.0009
0.0009
0.0009
0.0009
0.0009
0.0009
0.0009
0.0009
0.0009
0.0009
0.0009
0.0009
0.0009
0.0009
0.0009
0.0009
0.0009
0.0009
0.0009
0.0009
0.0009
0.0009

0.0024
0.0029
0.0029
0.0029
0.0029
0.0029
0.0029
0.0029
0.0029
0.0029
0.0029
0.0029
0.0029
0.0029
0.0029
0.0029
0.0029
0.0029
0.0029
0.0029
0.0029
0.0029
0.0029
0.0029
0.0029
0.0029
0.0029
0.0029
0.0029
0.0029
0.0029
0.0029
0.0029
0.0029
0.0029
0.0029
0.0024

116.76
126.55
126.55
126.55
126.55
126.55
126.55
126.55
126.55
126.55
126.55
126.55
126.55
126.55
126.55
126.55
126.55
126.55
126.55
126.55
126.55
126.55
126.55
126.55
126.55
126.55
126.55
126.55
126.55
126.55
126.55
126.55
126.55
126.55
126.55
126.55
116.76

1.697E-03
3.362E-03
3.362E-03
3.362E-03
3.362E-03
3.362E-03
3.362E-03
3.362E-03
3.362E-03
3.362E-03
3.362E-03
3.362E-03
3.362E-03
3.362E-03
3.362E-03
3.362E-03
3.362E-03
3.362E-03
3.362E-03
3.362E-03
3.362E-03
3.362E-03
3.362E-03
3.362E-03
3.362E-03
3.362E-03
3.362E-03
3.362E-03
3.362E-03
3.362E-03
3.362E-03
3.362E-03
3.362E-03
3.362E-03
3.362E-03
3.362E-03
1.697E-03

5.304E-03
7.465E-03
7.465E-03
7.465E-03
7.465E-03
7.465E-03
7.465E-03
7.465E-03
7.465E-03
7.465E-03
7.465E-03
7.465E-03
7.465E-03
7.465E-03
7.465E-03
7.465E-03
7.465E-03
7.465E-03
7.465E-03
7.465E-03
7.465E-03
7.465E-03
7.465E-03
7.465E-03
7.465E-03
7.465E-03
7.465E-03
7.465E-03
7.465E-03
7.465E-03
7.465E-03
7.465E-03
7.465E-03
7.465E-03
7.465E-03
7.465E-03
5.304E-03

University of Surrey

'

Number of bars
(No.)

A SB - M

TM Top main reinf.


(mm)

300
500
550
30
30
15

CT

d'M

Main Beam Number

Total Length between supports (L)


Edge element width (BE)
Element width (B)
Element depth (D)
Top Cover (CT)
Bottom Cover (CB)
e

d'

A ST - M

Msc Structural Engineering

Page 427

Appendix B11
Model 11 Central Load 0.29%M : 0.37%T
550mm depth of section
Model 11 - Propoerties of Transverse Members
Generic Properties

Generic Section

Long term Young's Modulus = 0.5E 1.5E+10 Pa

Shear Modulus = 0.42E as per BS8110-21985 cl.2.4.3 (G) 1.3E+10 Pa


Total Transverse Length (LT)
18100 mm

University of Surrey

A SB - T

CB

XT (mm)

4
tr - Trans (mm )

4
tr - Trans (mm )

496
496
496
496
496
496
496
496
496
496
496
496
496

150.8
251.3
251.3
251.3
251.3
251.3
251.3
251.3
251.3
251.3
251.3
251.3
150.8

603.2
1005.3
1005.3
1005.3
1005.3
1005.3
1005.3
1005.3
1005.3
1005.3
1005.3
1005.3
603.2

0.0009
0.0009
0.0009
0.0009
0.0009
0.0009
0.0009
0.0009
0.0009
0.0009
0.0009
0.0009
0.0009

0.0037
0.0037
0.0037
0.0037
0.0037
0.0037
0.0037
0.0037
0.0037
0.0037
0.0037
0.0037
0.0037

135.44
135.44
135.44
135.44
135.44
135.44
135.44
135.44
135.44
135.44
135.44
135.44
135.44

2.487E-03
4.145E-03
4.145E-03
4.145E-03
4.145E-03
4.145E-03
4.145E-03
4.145E-03
4.145E-03
4.145E-03
4.145E-03
4.145E-03
2.487E-03

5.783E-03
7.465E-03
7.465E-03
7.465E-03
7.465E-03
7.465E-03
7.465E-03
7.465E-03
7.465E-03
7.465E-03
7.465E-03
7.465E-03
5.783E-03

'

depth (dT) (mm)

A SB - M

42
42
42
42
42
42
42
42
42
42
42
42
42

Transverse effective

reinf. (d'T) (mm)

Depth to top trans.

Number of bars (No.)


3
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
3

dT

16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16

dM

mm
mm
mm
mm
mm

ASB - T (mm 2)

3
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
3

(mm)

BT Bottom trans. reinf.

Number of bars (No.)

reinf. (mm)
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8

A ST - T

6100 mm
300
500
550
30
30
15

d'M

AST - T (mm 2)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13

TT Top transverse

Trans. Beam Number

Total Length between supports (L)


Edge element width (BE)
Element width (B)
Element depth (D)
Top Cover (CT)
Bottom Cover (CB)
e

d'T

A ST - M

CT

Msc Structural Engineering

Page 428

Appendix B11
Model 11 Central Load 0.29%M : 0.37%T
550mm depth of section

6100

1T16 @100mm c.c (B.B)


1T8 @100mm c.c (T.T)

1T16 @125mm c.c (B)


1T8 @100mm c.c (T)
Y

Section XX

18100

Free edge

550

Free edge

Section YY

General Configuration Drawing


Model 11 - 0.29%M : 0.37%T - 550mm thick

Legend
Supported Edge
B - Bottom Layer 1
BB - Bottom Layer 2

T - Top Layer 1
TT - Top Layer 2

Figure B11 - 1 General Assembly of model

Figure B11 - 2 displaced shape

University of Surrey

Msc Structural Engineering

Page 429

Appendix B11
Model 11 Central Load 0.29%M : 0.37%T
550mm depth of section
Sagging bending moments along Y (kNm)

S11
S9
S7
S5
S3

Transverse beams

S13

37

35

33

31

29

27

25

23

21

19

17

15

13

11

S1
Main beams

+Y
+X
+Z

0-20

20-40

40-60

60-80

80-100

100-120

Figure B11 - 3
% Usage of reinfocement for moment along Y - Sagging (%)

S11
S9
S7
S5
S3

Transverse beams

S13

37

35

33

31

29

27

25

23

21

19

17

15

13

11

S1

Main beams
+Y
+X
+Z
0-10

10-20

20-30

30-40

40-50

50-60

Figure B11 - 4
University of Surrey

Msc Structural Engineering

Page 430

Appendix B11
Model 11 Central Load 0.29%M : 0.37%T
550mm depth of section
Hogging bending moments along Y (kNm)

S11
S9
S7
S5
S3

Transverse beams

S13

37

35

33

31

29

27

25

23

21

19

17

15

13

11

S1

Main beams
+Y
+X
+Z

-15--10

-10--5

-5-0

Figure B11 - 5
% Usage of reinforcement along Y - Hogging (%)

S11
S9
S7
S5
S3

Transverse beams

S13

37

35

33

31

29

27

25

23

21

19

17

15

13

11

S1

Main beams
+Y
+X
+Z

0-5

5-10

10-15

15-20

20-25

Figure B11 - 6

University of Surrey

Msc Structural Engineering

Page 431

Appendix B11
Model 11 Central Load 0.29%M : 0.37%T
550mm depth of section
Sagging bending moments along X (kNm)

S11
S9
S7
S5
S3

Transverse beams

S13

37

35

33

31

29

27

25

23

21

19

17

15

13

11

S1

Main beams
+Y
+X
+Z
0-10

10-20

20-30

30-40

40-50

50-60

60-70

Figure B11 - 7
% Usage of reinforcement along X - Sagging (%)

S11
S9
S7
S5
S3

Transverse beams

S13

37

35

33

31

29

27

25

23

21

19

17

15

13

11

S1

Main beams
+Y
+X
+Z

0-10

10-20

20-30

30-40

Figure B11 - 8

University of Surrey

Msc Structural Engineering

Page 432

Appendix B11
Model 11 Central Load 0.29%M : 0.37%T
550mm depth of section
Hogging bending moments along X (kNm)

S11
S9
S7
S5
S3

Transverse beams

S13

37

35

33

31

29

27

25

23

21

19

17

15

13

11

S1

Main beams
+Y
+X
+Z
-12--10

-10--8

-8--6

-6--4

-4--2

-2-0

Figure B11 - 9
% Usage of reinforcement along X - Hogging (%)

S11
S9
S7
S5
S3

Transverse beams

S13

37

35

33

31

29

27

25

23

21

19

17

15

13

11

S1

Main beams
+Y
+X
+Z

0-5

5-10

10-15

15-20

20-25

Figure B11 - 10

University of Surrey

Msc Structural Engineering

Page 433

Appendix B11
Model 11 Central Load 0.29%M : 0.37%T
550mm depth of section
Shear along Y (kN)

S11
S9
S7
S5
S3

Transverse beams

S13

37

35

33

31

29

27

25

23

21

19

17

15

13

11

S1

Main beams
+Y
+X
+Z
0-25

25-50

50-75

75-100

100-125

125-150

Figure B11 - 11
Applied shear stress along Y as a % of shear resistance vc (%)

S11
S9
S7
S5
S3

Transverse beams

S13

37

35

33

31

29

27

25

23

21

19

17

15

13

11

S1

Main beams
+Y
+X
+Z
0-25

25-50

50-75

75-100

100-125

125-150

150-175

175-200

200-225

Figure B11 - 12

University of Surrey

Msc Structural Engineering

Page 434

Appendix B11
Model 11 Central Load 0.29%M : 0.37%T
550mm depth of section
Shear along X (kN)

S11
S9
S7
S5
S3

Transverse beams

S13

37

35

33

31

29

27

25

23

21

19

17

15

13

11

S1

Main beams
+Y
+X
+Z
0-20

20-40

40-60

Figure B11 - 13
Applied shear stress along Y as a % of shear resistance vc (%)

S11
S9
S7
S5
S3

Transverse beams

S13

37

35

33

31

29

27

25

23

21

19

17

15

13

11

S1

Main beams
+Y
+X
+Z
0-10

10-20

20-30

30-40

40-50

50-60

60-70

70-80

Figure B11 - 14

University of Surrey

Msc Structural Engineering

Page 435

Appendix B11
Model 11 Central Load 0.29%M : 0.37%T
550mm depth of section
Torque in slab in both directions (kNm)

S11
S9
S7
S5
S3

Transverse beams

S13

37

35

33

31

29

27

25

23

21

19

17

15

13

11

S1

Main beams
+Y
+X
+Z
0-5

5-10

10-15

15-20

20-25

Figure B11 - 15
Maximum horizontal shear stresses due to torsion (N/mm 2)

S11
S9
S7
S5
S3

Transverse beams

S13

37

35

33

31

29

27

25

23

21

19

17

15

13

11

S1

Main beams
+Y
+X
+Z
0-0.5

0.5-1

Figure B11 - 16

University of Surrey

Msc Structural Engineering

Page 436

Appendix B11
Model 11 Central Load 0.29%M : 0.37%T
550mm depth of section
Mid Transverse span against moment

4.5

13.5

18

Mid Mx moment (KNm)

-20
-40
-60
-80
-100
-120
-140
-160
-180

Transverse span (m)

Mid central moments as analysed

Mid central moments as per BS8110:Pt1:1997

Figure B11 - 17
Support transverse span against reaction

4.5

13.5

18

160
140

Reaction (KN)

120
100
80
60
40
20
0

Support span (m)

Reactions along support transverse span as analysed

Reactions along support transverse span as designed

Figure B11 - 18

University of Surrey

Msc Structural Engineering

Page 437

Appendix B11
Model 11 Quarter Load 0.29%M : 0.37%T
550mm depth of section

6100

1T16 @100mm c.c (B.B)


1T8 @100mm c.c (T.T)

1T16 @125mm c.c (B)


1T8 @100mm c.c (T)
Y

Section XX

18100

Free edge

550

Free edge

Section YY

General Configuration Drawing


Model 11 - 0.29%M : 0.37%T - 550mm thick

Legend
Supported Edge
B - Bottom Layer 1
BB - Bottom Layer 2

T - Top Layer 1
TT - Top Layer 2

Figure B11 - 19 General assembly of model

Figure B11 - 20 Displaced shape

University of Surrey

Msc Structural Engineering

Page 438

Appendix B11
Model 11 Quarter Load 0.29%M : 0.37%T
550mm depth of section
Sagging bending moments along Y (kNm)

S11
S9
S7
S5
S3

Transverse beams

S13

37

35

33

31

29

27

25

23

21

19

17

15

13

11

S1
Main beams

+Y
+X
+Z

0-25

25-50

50-75

75-100

100-125

Figure B11 - 21
% Usage of reinfocement for moment along Y - Sagging (%)

S11
S9
S7
S5
S3

Transverse beams

S13

37

35

33

31

29

27

25

23

21

19

17

15

13

11

S1

Main beams
+Y
+X
+Z
0-10

10-20

20-30

30-40

40-50

50-60

60-70

Figure B11 - 22
University of Surrey

Msc Structural Engineering

Page 439

Appendix B11
Model 11 Quarter Load 0.29%M : 0.37%T
550mm depth of section
Hogging bending moments along X (kNm)

S11
S9
S7
S5
S3

Transverse beams

S13

37

35

33

31

29

27

25

23

21

19

17

15

13

11

S1

Main beams
+Y
+X
+Z
-12--10

-10--8

-8--6

-6--4

-4--2

-2-0

Figure B11 - 23
% Usage of reinforcement along X - Hogging (%)

S11
S9
S7
S5
S3

Transverse beams

S13

37

35

33

31

29

27

25

23

21

19

17

15

13

11

S1

Main beams
+Y
+X
+Z

0-5

5-10

10-15

15-20

20-25

Figure B11 - 24

University of Surrey

Msc Structural Engineering

Page 440

Appendix B11
Model 11 Quarter Load 0.29%M : 0.37%T
550mm depth of section
Hogging bending moments along Y (kNm)

S11
S9
S7
S5
S3

Transverse beams

S13

37

35

33

31

29

27

25

23

21

19

17

15

13

11

S1

Main beams
+Y
+X
+Z

-15--10

-10--5

-5-0

Figure B11 - 25
% Usage of reinforcement along Y - Hogging (%)

S11
S9
S7
S5
S3

Transverse beams

S13

37

35

33

31

29

27

25

23

21

19

17

15

13

11

S1

Main beams
+Y
+X
+Z

0-5

5-10

10-15

15-20

20-25

Figure B11 - 26

University of Surrey

Msc Structural Engineering

Page 441

Appendix B11
Model 11 Quarter Load 0.29%M : 0.37%T
550mm depth of section
Sagging bending moments along X (kNm)

S11
S9
S7
S5
S3

Transverse beams

S13

37

35

33

31

29

27

25

23

21

19

17

15

13

11

S1

Main beams
+Y
+X
+Z
0-10

10-20

20-30

30-40

40-50

50-60

60-70

Figure B11 - 27
% Usage of reinforcement along X - Sagging (%)

S11
S9
S7
S5
S3

Transverse beams

S13

37

35

33

31

29

27

25

23

21

19

17

15

13

11

S1

Main beams
+Y
+X
+Z

0-10

10-20

20-30

30-40

Figure B11 - 28

University of Surrey

Msc Structural Engineering

Page 442

Appendix B11
Model 11 Quarter Load 0.29%M : 0.37%T
550mm depth of section
Shear along Y (kN)

S11
S9
S7
S5
S3

Transverse beams

S13

37

35

33

31

29

27

25

23

21

19

17

15

13

11

S1

Main beams
+Y
+X
+Z
0-25

25-50

50-75

75-100

100-125

125-150

Figure B11 - 29
Applied shear stress along Y as a % of shear resistance vc (%)

S11
S9
S7
S5
S3

Transverse beams

S13

37

35

33

31

29

27

25

23

21

19

17

15

13

11

S1

Main beams
+Y
+X
+Z
0-25

25-50

50-75

75-100

100-125

125-150

150-175

175-200

200-225

Figure B11 - 30

University of Surrey

Msc Structural Engineering

Page 443

Appendix B11
Model 11 Quarter Load 0.29%M : 0.37%T
550mm depth of section
Shear along X (kN)

S11
S9
S7
S5
S3

Transverse beams

S13

37

35

33

31

29

27

25

23

21

19

17

15

13

11

S1

Main beams
+Y
+X
+Z
0-25

25-50

50-75

Figure B11 - 31
Applied shear stress along Y as a % of shear resistance vc (%)

S11
S9
S7
S5
S3

Transverse beams

S13

37

35

33

31

29

27

25

23

21

19

17

15

13

11

S1

Main beams
+Y
+X
+Z
0-10

10-20

20-30

30-40

40-50

50-60

60-70

70-80

Figure B11 - 32

University of Surrey

Msc Structural Engineering

Page 444

Appendix B11
Model 11 Quarter Load 0.29%M : 0.37%T
550mm depth of section
Torque in slab in both directions (kNm)

S11
S9
S7
S5
S3

Transverse beams

S13

37

35

33

31

29

27

25

23

21

19

17

15

13

11

S1

Main beams
+Y
+X
+Z
0-5

5-10

10-15

15-20

20-25

Figure B11 - 33
Maximum horizontal shear stresses due to torsion (N/mm 2)

S11
S9
S7
S5
S3

Transverse beams

S13

37

35

33

31

29

27

25

23

21

19

17

15

13

11

S1

Main beams
+Y
+X
+Z
0-0.5

0.5-1

Figure B11 - 34

University of Surrey

Msc Structural Engineering

Page 445

Appendix B11
Model 11 Quarter Load 0.29%M : 0.37%T
550mm depth of section
Mid Transverse span against moment

4.5

13.5

18

Mid Mx moment (KNm)

-20
-40
-60
-80
-100
-120
-140
-160
-180

Transverse span (m)

Mid central moments as analysed

Mid central moments as per BS8110:Pt1:1997

Figure B11 - 35
Support transverse span against reaction

4.5

13.5

18

160
140

Reaction (KN)

120
100
80
60
40
20
0

Support span (m)

Reactions along support transverse span as analysed

Reactions along support transverse span as designed

Figure B11 - 36

University of Surrey

Msc Structural Engineering

Page 446

Appendix B11
Model 11 Edge Load 0.29%M : 0.37%T
550mm depth of section

6100

1T16 @100mm c.c (B.B)


1T8 @100mm c.c (T.T)

1T16 @125mm c.c (B)


1T8 @100mm c.c (T)
Y

Section XX

18100

Free edge

550

Free edge

Section YY

General Configuration Drawing


Model 11 - 0.29%M : 0.37%T - 550mm thick

Legend
Supported Edge
B - Bottom Layer 1
BB - Bottom Layer 2

T - Top Layer 1
TT - Top Layer 2

Figure B11 - 37 general assembly of model

Figure B11 - 38 Displaced shape

University of Surrey

Msc Structural Engineering

Page 447

Appendix B11
Model 11 Edge Load 0.29%M : 0.37%T
550mm depth of section
Sagging bending moments along Y (kNm)

S13
Transverse beams

S11
S9
S7
S5
S3

37

35

33

31

29

27

25

23

21

19

17

15

13

11

S1
Main beams

+Y
+X
+Z

0-20

20-40

40-60

60-80

80-100

100-120

120-140

140-160

160-180

Figure B11 - 39
% Usage of reinfocement for moment along Y - Sagging (%)

S11
S9
S7
S5
S3

Transverse beams

S13

37

35

33

31

29

27

25

23

21

19

17

15

13

11

S1

Main beams
+Y
+X
+Z
0-10

10-20

20-30

30-40

40-50

50-60

60-70

70-80

80-90

90-100

100-110

110-120

Figure B11 - 40
University of Surrey

Msc Structural Engineering

Page 448

Appendix B11
Model 11 Edge Load 0.29%M : 0.37%T
550mm depth of section
Hogging bending moments along Y (kNm)

S11
S9
S7
S5
S3

Transverse beams

S13

37

35

33

31

29

27

25

23

21

19

17

15

13

11

S1

Main beams
+Y
+X
+Z

-40--30

-30--20

-20--10

-10-0

Figure B11 - 41
% Usage of reinforcement along Y - Hogging (%)

S11
S9
S7
S5
S3

Transverse beams

S13

37

35

33

31

29

27

25

23

21

19

17

15

13

11

S1

Main beams
+Y
+X
+Z

0-20

20-40

40-60

60-80

80-100

Figure B11 - 42

University of Surrey

Msc Structural Engineering

Page 449

Appendix B11
Model 11 Edge Load 0.29%M : 0.37%T
550mm depth of section
Sagging bending moments along X (kNm)

S11
S9
S7
S5
S3

Transverse beams

S13

37

35

33

31

29

27

25

23

21

19

17

15

13

11

S1

Main beams
+Y
+X
+Z
0-10

10-20

20-30

Figure B11 - 43
% Usage of reinforcement along X - Sagging (%)

S11
S9
S7
S5
S3

Transverse beams

S13

37

35

33

31

29

27

25

23

21

19

17

15

13

11

S1

Main beams
+Y
+X
+Z

0-4

4-8

8-12

12-16

Figure B11 - 44

University of Surrey

Msc Structural Engineering

Page 450

Appendix B11
Model 11 Edge Load 0.29%M : 0.37%T
550mm depth of section
Hogging bending moments along X (kNm)

S11
S9
S7
S5
S3

Transverse beams

S13

37

35

33

31

29

27

25

23

21

19

17

15

13

11

S1

Main beams
+Y
+X
+Z
-32--28

-28--24

-24--20

-20--16

-16--12

-12--8

-8--4

-4-0

Figure B11 - 45
% Usage of reinforcement along X - Hogging (%)

S11
S9
S7
S5
S3

Transverse beams

S13

37

35

33

31

29

27

25

23

21

19

17

15

13

11

S1

Main beams
+Y
+X
+Z

0-10

10-20

20-30

30-40

40-50

50-60

60-70

70-80

80-90

90-100

Figure B11 - 46

University of Surrey

Msc Structural Engineering

Page 451

Appendix B11
Model 11 Edge Load 0.29%M : 0.37%T
550mm depth of section
Shear along Y (kN)

S11
S9
S7
S5
S3

Transverse beams

S13

37

35

33

31

29

27

25

23

21

19

17

15

13

11

S1

Main beams
+Y
+X
+Z
0-25

25-50

50-75

75-100

100-125

125-150

150-175

175-200

Figure B11 - 47
Applied shear stress along Y as a % of shear resistance vc (%)

S11
S9
S7
S5
S3

Transverse beams

S13

37

35

33

31

29

27

25

23

21

19

17

15

13

11

S1

Main beams
+Y
+X
+Z
0-40

40-80

80-120

120-160

160-200

200-240

240-280

280-320

320-360

Figure B11 - 48

University of Surrey

Msc Structural Engineering

Page 452

Appendix B11
Model 11 Edge Load 0.29%M : 0.37%T
550mm depth of section
Shear along X (kN)

S11
S9
S7
S5
S3

Transverse beams

S13

37

35

33

31

29

27

25

23

21

19

17

15

13

11

S1

Main beams
+Y
+X
+Z
0-25

25-50

50-75

75-100

100-125

125-150

Figure B11 - 49
Applied shear stress along Y as a % of shear resistance vc (%)

S11
S9
S7
S5
S3

Transverse beams

S13

37

35

33

31

29

27

25

23

21

19

17

15

13

11

S1

Main beams
+Y
+X
+Z
0-25

25-50

50-75

75-100

100-125

125-150

150-175

175-200

Figure B11 - 50

University of Surrey

Msc Structural Engineering

Page 453

Appendix B11
Model 11 Edge Load 0.29%M : 0.37%T
550mm depth of section
Torque in slab in both directions (kNm)

S11
S9
S7
S5
S3

Transverse beams

S13

37

35

33

31

29

27

25

23

21

19

17

15

13

11

S1

Main beams
+Y
+X
+Z
0-10

10-20

20-30

30-40

40-50

50-60

Figure B11 - 51
Maximum horizontal shear stresses due to torsion (N/mm 2)

S11
S9
S7
S5
S3

Transverse beams

S13

37

35

33

31

29

27

25

23

21

19

17

15

13

11

S1

Main beams
+Y
+X
+Z
0-0.5

0.5-1

1-1.5

1.5-2

2-2.5

Figure B11 - 52

University of Surrey

Msc Structural Engineering

Page 454

Appendix B11
Model 11 Edge Load 0.29%M : 0.37%T
550mm depth of section
Mid Transverse span against moment

4.5

13.5

18

Mid Mx moment (KNm)

-50

-100

-150

-200

-250

-300

Transverse span (m)

Mid central moments as analysed

Mid central moments as per BS8110:Pt1:1997

Figure B11 - 53
Support transverse span against reaction

4.5

13.5

18

250

Reaction (KN)

200

150

100

50

Support span (m)

Reactions along support transverse span as analysed

Reactions along support transverse span as designed

Figure B11 - 54

University of Surrey

Msc Structural Engineering

Page 455

Appendix B11
Model 11 Central + Quarter + Edge Load 0.29%M : 0.37%T
550mm depth of section

6100

1T16 @100mm c.c (B.B)


1T8 @100mm c.c (T.T)

1T16 @125mm c.c (B)


1T8 @100mm c.c (T)
Y

Section XX

18100

Free edge

550

Free edge

Section YY

General Configuration Drawing


Model 11 - 0.29%M : 0.37%T - 550mm thick

Legend
Supported Edge
B - Bottom Layer 1
BB - Bottom Layer 2

T - Top Layer 1
TT - Top Layer 2

Figure B11 - 55 General assembly of model

Figure B11 - 56 Displaced shape

University of Surrey

Msc Structural Engineering

Page 456

Appendix B11
Model 11 Central + Quarter + Edge Load 0.29%M : 0.37%T
550mm depth of section
Sagging bending moments along Y (kNm)

S11
S9
S7
S5
S3

Transverse beams

S13

37

35

33

31

29

27

25

23

21

19

17

15

13

11

S1
Main beams

+Y
+X
+Z

0-25

25-50

50-75

75-100

100-125

125-150

150-175

175-200

200-225

Figure B11 - 57
% Usage of reinfocement for moment along Y - Sagging (%)

S11
S9
S7
S5
S3

Transverse beams

S13

37

35

33

31

29

27

25

23

21

19

17

15

13

11

S1

Main beams
+Y
+X
+Z
0-20

20-40

40-60

60-80

80-100

100-120

120-140

Figure B11 - 58
University of Surrey

Msc Structural Engineering

Page 457

Appendix B11
Model 11 Central + Quarter + Edge Load 0.29%M : 0.37%T
550mm depth of section
Hogging bending moments along Y (kNm)

S11
S9
S7
S5
S3

Transverse beams

S13

37

35

33

31

29

27

25

23

21

19

17

15

13

11

S1

Main beams
+Y
+X
+Z

-25--20

-20--15

-15--10

-10--5

-5-0

Figure B11 - 59
% Usage of reinforcement along Y - Hogging (%)

S11
S9
S7
S5
S3

Transverse beams

S13

37

35

33

31

29

27

25

23

21

19

17

15

13

11

S1

Main beams
+Y
+X
+Z

0-20

20-40

40-60

60-80

Figure B11 - 60

University of Surrey

Msc Structural Engineering

Page 458

Appendix B11
Model 11 Central + Quarter + Edge Load 0.29%M : 0.37%T
550mm depth of section
Sagging bending moments along X (kNm)

S11
S9
S7
S5
S3

Transverse beams

S13

37

35

33

31

29

27

25

23

21

19

17

15

13

11

S1

Main beams
+Y
+X
+Z
0-10

10-20

20-30

30-40

40-50

50-60

Figure B11 - 61
% Usage of reinforcement along X - Sagging (%)

S11
S9
S7
S5
S3

Transverse beams

S13

37

35

33

31

29

27

25

23

21

19

17

15

13

11

S1

Main beams
+Y
+X
+Z

0-10

10-20

20-30

Figure B11 - 62

University of Surrey

Msc Structural Engineering

Page 459

Appendix B11
Model 11 Central + Quarter + Edge Load 0.29%M : 0.37%T
550mm depth of section
Hogging bending moments along X (kNm)

S11
S9
S7
S5
S3

Transverse beams

S13

37

35

33

31

29

27

25

23

21

19

17

15

13

11

S1

Main beams
+Y
+X
+Z
-36--32

-32--28

-28--24

-24--20

-20--16

-16--12

-12--8

-8--4

-4-0

Figure B11 - 63
% Usage of reinforcement along X - Hogging (%)

S11
S9
S7
S5
S3

Transverse beams

S13

37

35

33

31

29

27

25

23

21

19

17

15

13

11

S1

Main beams
+Y
+X
+Z

-5-5

5-15

15-25

Figure B11 - 64

University of Surrey

Msc Structural Engineering

Page 460

Appendix B11
Model 11 Central + Quarter + Edge Load 0.29%M : 0.37%T
550mm depth of section
Shear along Y (kN)

S11
S9
S7
S5
S3

Transverse beams

S13

37

35

33

31

29

27

25

23

21

19

17

15

13

11

S1

Main beams
+Y
+X
+Z
0-25

25-50

50-75

75-100

100-125

125-150

150-175

175-200

Figure B11 - 65
Applied shear stress along Y as a % of shear resistance vc (%)

S11
S9
S7
S5
S3

Transverse beams

S13

37

35

33

31

29

27

25

23

21

19

17

15

13

11

S1

Main beams
+Y
+X
+Z
0-40

40-80

80-120

120-160

160-200

200-240

240-280

280-320

Figure B11 - 66

University of Surrey

Msc Structural Engineering

Page 461

Appendix B11
Model 11 Central + Quarter + Edge Load 0.29%M : 0.37%T
550mm depth of section
Shear along X (kN)

S11
S9
S7
S5
S3

Transverse beams

S13

37

35

33

31

29

27

25

23

21

19

17

15

13

11

S1

Main beams
+Y
+X
+Z
0-20

20-40

40-60

60-80

80-100

Figure B11 - 67
Applied shear stress along Y as a % of shear resistance vc (%)

S11
S9
S7
S5
S3

Transverse beams

S13

37

35

33

31

29

27

25

23

21

19

17

15

13

11

S1

Main beams
+Y
+X
+Z
0-30

30-60

60-90

90-120

120-150

Figure B11 - 68

University of Surrey

Msc Structural Engineering

Page 462

Appendix B11
Model 11 Central + Quarter + Edge Load 0.29%M : 0.37%T
550mm depth of section
Torque in slab in both directions (kNm)

S11
S9
S7
S5
S3

Transverse beams

S13

37

35

33

31

29

27

25

23

21

19

17

15

13

11

S1

Main beams
+Y
+X
+Z
0-10

10-20

20-30

30-40

Figure B11 - 69
Maximum horizontal shear stresses due to torsion (N/mm 2)

S11
S9
S7
S5
S3

Transverse beams

S13

37

35

33

31

29

27

25

23

21

19

17

15

13

11

S1

Main beams
+Y
+X
+Z
0-0.5

0.5-1

1-1.5

1.5-2

Figure B11 - 70

University of Surrey

Msc Structural Engineering

Page 463

Appendix B11
Model 11 Central + Quarter + Edge Load 0.29%M : 0.37%T
550mm depth of section
Mid Transverse span against moment

4.5

13.5

18

Mid Mx moment (KNm)

-50

-100

-150

-200

-250

-300

Transverse span (m)

Mid central moments as analysed

Mid central moments as per BS8110:Pt1:1997

Figure B11 - 71
Support transverse span against reaction

4.5

13.5

18

200
180
160

Reaction (KN)

140
120
100
80
60
40
20
0

Support span (m)

Reactions along support transverse span as analysed

Reactions along support transverse span as designed

Figure B11 - 72

University of Surrey

Msc Structural Engineering

Page 464

Appendix B12 - Model 12


Reinforcement ratio 0.16% Main : 0.29% Transverse
700mm depth of slab

Appendix B12
Model 12 Central Load 0.16%M : 0.29%T
700mm depth of section
Model 12 - Propoerties of Main Members
Generic Properties

Generic Section

Long term Young's Modulus = 0.5E 1.5E+10 Pa

Shear Modulus = 0.42E as per BS81101.3E+10 Pa


2-1985 cl.2.4.3 (G)
Total Transverse Length (LT)
18100 mm

A ST - T

6100 mm

dT

dM

mm
mm
mm
mm
mm

A SB - T

CB

BM Bottom main
reinf. (mm)

Number of bars
(No.)

Depth to main top


reinf. (d'M) (mm)

Main effective Depth


(dM) (mm)

AST - M (mm 2)

ASB - M (mm2)

XM (mm)

4
tr - Main (m )

Cx (mm)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37

8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8

3
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
3

12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12

3
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
3

34
34
34
34
34
34
34
34
34
34
34
34
34
34
34
34
34
34
34
34
34
34
34
34
34
34
34
34
34
34
34
34
34
34
34
34
34

664
664
664
664
664
664
664
664
664
664
664
664
664
664
664
664
664
664
664
664
664
664
664
664
664
664
664
664
664
664
664
664
664
664
664
664
664

150.8
251.3
251.3
251.3
251.3
251.3
251.3
251.3
251.3
251.3
251.3
251.3
251.3
251.3
251.3
251.3
251.3
251.3
251.3
251.3
251.3
251.3
251.3
251.3
251.3
251.3
251.3
251.3
251.3
251.3
251.3
251.3
251.3
251.3
251.3
251.3
150.8

339.3
565.5
565.5
565.5
565.5
565.5
565.5
565.5
565.5
565.5
565.5
565.5
565.5
565.5
565.5
565.5
565.5
565.5
565.5
565.5
565.5
565.5
565.5
565.5
565.5
565.5
565.5
565.5
565.5
565.5
565.5
565.5
565.5
565.5
565.5
565.5
339.3

0.0007
0.0007
0.0007
0.0007
0.0007
0.0007
0.0007
0.0007
0.0007
0.0007
0.0007
0.0007
0.0007
0.0007
0.0007
0.0007
0.0007
0.0007
0.0007
0.0007
0.0007
0.0007
0.0007
0.0007
0.0007
0.0007
0.0007
0.0007
0.0007
0.0007
0.0007
0.0007
0.0007
0.0007
0.0007
0.0007
0.0007

0.0016
0.0016
0.0016
0.0016
0.0016
0.0016
0.0016
0.0016
0.0016
0.0016
0.0016
0.0016
0.0016
0.0016
0.0016
0.0016
0.0016
0.0016
0.0016
0.0016
0.0016
0.0016
0.0016
0.0016
0.0016
0.0016
0.0016
0.0016
0.0016
0.0016
0.0016
0.0016
0.0016
0.0016
0.0016
0.0016
0.0016

126.41
126.41
126.41
126.41
126.41
126.41
126.41
126.41
126.41
126.41
126.41
126.41
126.41
126.41
126.41
126.41
126.41
126.41
126.41
126.41
126.41
126.41
126.41
126.41
126.41
126.41
126.41
126.41
126.41
126.41
126.41
126.41
126.41
126.41
126.41
126.41
126.41

2.366E-03
3.944E-03
3.944E-03
3.944E-03
3.944E-03
3.944E-03
3.944E-03
3.944E-03
3.944E-03
3.944E-03
3.944E-03
3.944E-03
3.944E-03
3.944E-03
3.944E-03
3.944E-03
3.944E-03
3.944E-03
3.944E-03
3.944E-03
3.944E-03
3.944E-03
3.944E-03
3.944E-03
3.944E-03
3.944E-03
3.944E-03
3.944E-03
3.944E-03
3.944E-03
3.944E-03
3.944E-03
3.944E-03
3.944E-03
3.944E-03
3.944E-03
2.366E-03

8.042E-03
1.038E-02
1.038E-02
1.038E-02
1.038E-02
1.038E-02
1.038E-02
1.038E-02
1.038E-02
1.038E-02
1.038E-02
1.038E-02
1.038E-02
1.038E-02
1.038E-02
1.038E-02
1.038E-02
1.038E-02
1.038E-02
1.038E-02
1.038E-02
1.038E-02
1.038E-02
1.038E-02
1.038E-02
1.038E-02
1.038E-02
1.038E-02
1.038E-02
1.038E-02
1.038E-02
1.038E-02
1.038E-02
1.038E-02
1.038E-02
1.038E-02
8.042E-03

University of Surrey

'

Number of bars
(No.)

A SB - M

TM Top main reinf.


(mm)

300
500
700
30
30
15

CT

d'M

Main Beam Number

Total Length between supports (L)


Edge element width (BE)
Element width (B)
Element depth (D)
Top Cover (CT)
Bottom Cover (CB)
e

d'

A ST - M

Msc Structural Engineering

Page 466

Appendix B12
Model 12 Central Load 0.16%M : 0.29%T
700mm depth of section
Model 12 - Propoerties of Transverse Members
Generic Properties

Generic Section

Long term Young's Modulus = 0.5E 1.5E+10 Pa

Shear Modulus = 0.42E as per BS8110-21985 cl.2.4.3 (G) 1.3E+10 Pa


Total Transverse Length (LT)
18100 mm

University of Surrey

A SB - T

CB

XT (mm)

4
tr - Trans (mm )

4
tr - Trans (mm )

650
650
650
650
650
650
650
650
650
650
650
650
650

150.8
251.3
251.3
251.3
251.3
251.3
251.3
251.3
251.3
251.3
251.3
251.3
150.8

603.2
1005.3
1005.3
1005.3
1005.3
1005.3
1005.3
1005.3
1005.3
1005.3
1005.3
1005.3
603.2

0.0007
0.0007
0.0007
0.0007
0.0007
0.0007
0.0007
0.0007
0.0007
0.0007
0.0007
0.0007
0.0007

0.0029
0.0029
0.0029
0.0029
0.0029
0.0029
0.0029
0.0029
0.0029
0.0029
0.0029
0.0029
0.0029

160.49
160.49
160.49
160.49
160.49
160.49
160.49
160.49
160.49
160.49
160.49
160.49
160.49

4.100E-03
6.834E-03
6.834E-03
6.834E-03
6.834E-03
6.834E-03
6.834E-03
6.834E-03
6.834E-03
6.834E-03
6.834E-03
6.834E-03
4.100E-03

8.042E-03
1.038E-02
1.038E-02
1.038E-02
1.038E-02
1.038E-02
1.038E-02
1.038E-02
1.038E-02
1.038E-02
1.038E-02
1.038E-02
8.042E-03

'

depth (dT) (mm)

A SB - M

42
42
42
42
42
42
42
42
42
42
42
42
42

Transverse effective

reinf. (d'T) (mm)

Depth to top trans.

Number of bars (No.)


3
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
3

dT

16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16

dM

mm
mm
mm
mm
mm

ASB - T (mm 2)

3
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
3

(mm)

BT Bottom trans. reinf.

Number of bars (No.)

reinf. (mm)
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8

A ST - T

6100 mm
300
500
700
30
30
15

d'M

AST - T (mm 2)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13

TT Top transverse

Trans. Beam Number

Total Length between supports (L)


Edge element width (BE)
Element width (B)
Element depth (D)
Top Cover (CT)
Bottom Cover (CB)
e

d'T

A ST - M

CT

Msc Structural Engineering

Page 467

Appendix B12
Model 12 Central Load 0.16%M : 0.29%T
700mm depth of section

6100

1T16 @100mm c.c (B.B)


1T8 @100mm c.c (T.T)

1T12 @100mm c.c (B)


1T8 @100mm c.c (T)
Y

Section XX

18100

Free edge

700

Free edge

Section YY

General Configuration Drawing


Model 12 - 0.16%M : 0.29%T - 700mm thick

Legend
Supported Edge
B - Bottom Layer 1
BB - Bottom Layer 2

T - Top Layer 1
TT - Top Layer 2

Figure B12 - 1 General assembly of model

Figure B12 - 2 Displaced shape

University of Surrey

Msc Structural Engineering

Page 468

Appendix B12
Model 12 Central Load 0.16%M : 0.29%T
700mm depth of section
Sagging bending moments along Y (kNm)

S11
S9
S7
S5
S3

Transverse beams

S13

37

35

33

31

29

27

25

23

21

19

17

15

13

11

S1
Main beams

+Y
+X
+Z

0-20

20-40

40-60

60-80

80-100

100-120

Figure B12 - 3
% Usage of reinfocement for moment along Y - Sagging (%)

S11
S9
S7
S5
S3

Transverse beams

S13

37

35

33

31

29

27

25

23

21

19

17

15

13

11

S1

Main beams
+Y
+X
+Z
0-10

10-20

20-30

30-40

40-50

50-60

60-70

Figure B12 - 4
University of Surrey

Msc Structural Engineering

Page 469

Appendix B12
Model 12 Central Load 0.16%M : 0.29%T
700mm depth of section
Hogging bending moments along Y (kNm)

S11
S9
S7
S5
S3

Transverse beams

S13

37

35

33

31

29

27

25

23

21

19

17

15

13

11

S1

Main beams
+Y
+X
+Z

-15--10

-10--5

-5-0

Figure B12 - 5
% Usage of reinforcement along Y - Hogging (%)

S11
S9
S7
S5
S3

Transverse beams

S13

37

35

33

31

29

27

25

23

21

19

17

15

13

11

S1

Main beams
+Y
+X
+Z

0-5

5-10

10-15

15-20

Figure B12 - 6

University of Surrey

Msc Structural Engineering

Page 470

Appendix B12
Model 12 Central Load 0.16%M : 0.29%T
700mm depth of section
Sagging bending moments along X (kNm)

S11
S9
S7
S5
S3

Transverse beams

S13

37

35

33

31

29

27

25

23

21

19

17

15

13

11

S1

Main beams
+Y
+X
+Z
0-10

10-20

20-30

30-40

40-50

50-60

60-70

70-80

Figure B12 - 7
% Usage of reinforcement along X - Sagging (%)

S11
S9
S7
S5
S3

Transverse beams

S13

37

35

33

31

29

27

25

23

21

19

17

15

13

11

S1

Main beams
+Y
+X
+Z

0-10

10-20

20-30

Figure B12 - 8

University of Surrey

Msc Structural Engineering

Page 471

Appendix B12
Model 12 Central Load 0.16%M : 0.29%T
700mm depth of section
Hogging bending moments along X (kNm)

S11
S9
S7
S5
S3

Transverse beams

S13

37

35

33

31

29

27

25

23

21

19

17

15

13

11

S1

Main beams
+Y
+X
+Z
-12--10

-10--8

-8--6

-6--4

-4--2

-2-0

Figure B12 - 9
% Usage of reinforcement along X - Hogging (%)

S11
S9
S7
S5
S3

Transverse beams

S13

37

35

33

31

29

27

25

23

21

19

17

15

13

11

S1

Main beams
+Y
+X
+Z

0-5

5-10

10-15

15-20

Figure B12 - 10

University of Surrey

Msc Structural Engineering

Page 472

Appendix B12
Model 12 Central Load 0.16%M : 0.29%T
700mm depth of section
Shear along Y (kN)

S11
S9
S7
S5
S3

Transverse beams

S13

37

35

33

31

29

27

25

23

21

19

17

15

13

11

S1

Main beams
+Y
+X
+Z
0-25

25-50

50-75

75-100

100-125

125-150

Figure B12 - 11
Applied shear stress along Y as a % of shear resistance vc (%)

S11
S9
S7
S5
S3

Transverse beams

S13

37

35

33

31

29

27

25

23

21

19

17

15

13

11

S1

Main beams
+Y
+X
+Z
0-25

25-50

50-75

75-100

100-125

125-150

150-175

175-200

200-225

Figure B12 - 12

University of Surrey

Msc Structural Engineering

Page 473

Appendix B12
Model 12 Central Load 0.16%M : 0.29%T
700mm depth of section
Shear along X (kN)

S11
S9
S7
S5
S3

Transverse beams

S13

37

35

33

31

29

27

25

23

21

19

17

15

13

11

S1

Main beams
+Y
+X
+Z
0-20

20-40

40-60

Figure B12 - 13
Applied shear stress along Y as a % of shear resistance vc (%)

S11
S9
S7
S5
S3

Transverse beams

S13

37

35

33

31

29

27

25

23

21

19

17

15

13

11

S1

Main beams
+Y
+X
+Z
0-10

10-20

20-30

30-40

40-50

50-60

60-70

Figure B12 - 14

University of Surrey

Msc Structural Engineering

Page 474

Appendix B12
Model 12 Central Load 0.16%M : 0.29%T
700mm depth of section
Torque in slab in both directions (kNm)

S11
S9
S7
S5
S3

Transverse beams

S13

37

35

33

31

29

27

25

23

21

19

17

15

13

11

S1

Main beams
+Y
+X
+Z
0-5

5-10

10-15

15-20

20-25

Figure B12 - 15
Maximum horizontal shear stresses due to torsion (N/mm 2)

S11
S9
S7
S5
S3

Transverse beams

S13

37

35

33

31

29

27

25

23

21

19

17

15

13

11

S1

Main beams
+Y
+X
+Z
0-0.5

0.5-1

Figure B12 - 16

University of Surrey

Msc Structural Engineering

Page 475

Appendix B12
Model 12 Central Load 0.16%M : 0.29%T
700mm depth of section
Mid Transverse span against moment

4.5

13.5

18

0
-20

Mid Mx moment (KNm)

-40
-60
-80
-100
-120
-140
-160
-180
-200

Transverse span (m)

Mid central moments as analysed

Mid central moments as per BS8110:Pt1:1997

Figure B12 - 17
Support transverse span against reaction

4.5

13.5

18

160
140

Reaction (KN)

120
100
80
60
40
20
0

Support span (m)

Reactions along support transverse span as analysed

Reactions along support transverse span as designed

Figure B12 - 18

University of Surrey

Msc Structural Engineering

Page 476

Appendix B12
Model 12 Quarter Load 0.16%M : 0.29%T
700mm depth of section

6100

1T16 @100mm c.c (B.B)


1T8 @100mm c.c (T.T)

1T12 @100mm c.c (B)


1T8 @100mm c.c (T)
Y

Section XX

18100

Free edge

700

Free edge

Section YY

General Configuration Drawing


Model 12 - 0.16%M : 0.29%T - 700mm thick

Legend
Supported Edge
B - Bottom Layer 1
BB - Bottom Layer 2

T - Top Layer 1
TT - Top Layer 2

Figure B12 - 19 general assembly of model

Figure B12 - 20 Displaced shape

University of Surrey

Msc Structural Engineering

Page 477

Appendix B12
Model 12 Quarter Load 0.16%M : 0.29%T
700mm depth of section
Sagging bending moments along Y (kNm)

S11
S9
S7
S5
S3

Transverse beams

S13

37

35

33

31

29

27

25

23

21

19

17

15

13

11

S1
Main beams

+Y
+X
+Z

0-25

25-50

50-75

75-100

100-125

Figure B12 - 21
% Usage of reinfocement for moment along Y - Sagging (%)

S11
S9
S7
S5
S3

Transverse beams

S13

37

35

33

31

29

27

25

23

21

19

17

15

13

11

S1

Main beams
+Y
+X
+Z
0-10

10-20

20-30

30-40

40-50

50-60

60-70

70-80

Figure B12 - 22
University of Surrey

Msc Structural Engineering

Page 478

Appendix B12
Model 12 Quarter Load 0.16%M : 0.29%T
700mm depth of section
Hogging bending moments along X (kNm)

S11
S9
S7
S5
S3

Transverse beams

S13

37

35

33

31

29

27

25

23

21

19

17

15

13

11

S1

Main beams
+Y
+X
+Z
-14--12

-12--10

-10--8

-8--6

-6--4

-4--2

-2-0

Figure B12 - 23
% Usage of reinforcement along X - Hogging (%)

S11
S9
S7
S5
S3

Transverse beams

S13

37

35

33

31

29

27

25

23

21

19

17

15

13

11

S1

Main beams
+Y
+X
+Z

0-5

5-10

10-15

15-20

Figure B12 - 24

University of Surrey

Msc Structural Engineering

Page 479

Appendix B12
Model 12 Quarter Load 0.16%M : 0.29%T
700mm depth of section
Hogging bending moments along Y (kNm)

S11
S9
S7
S5
S3

Transverse beams

S13

37

35

33

31

29

27

25

23

21

19

17

15

13

11

S1

Main beams
+Y
+X
+Z

-15--10

-10--5

-5-0

Figure B12 - 25
% Usage of reinforcement along Y - Hogging (%)

S11
S9
S7
S5
S3

Transverse beams

S13

37

35

33

31

29

27

25

23

21

19

17

15

13

11

S1

Main beams
+Y
+X
+Z

0-5

5-10

10-15

15-20

Figure B12 - 26

University of Surrey

Msc Structural Engineering

Page 480

Appendix B12
Model 12 Quarter Load 0.16%M : 0.29%T
700mm depth of section
Sagging bending moments along X (kNm)

S11
S9
S7
S5
S3

Transverse beams

S13

37

35

33

31

29

27

25

23

21

19

17

15

13

11

S1

Main beams
+Y
+X
+Z
0-10

10-20

20-30

30-40

40-50

50-60

60-70

70-80

Figure B12 - 27
% Usage of reinforcement along X - Sagging (%)

S11
S9
S7
S5
S3

Transverse beams

S13

37

35

33

31

29

27

25

23

21

19

17

15

13

11

S1

Main beams
+Y
+X
+Z

0-10

10-20

20-30

Figure B12 - 28

University of Surrey

Msc Structural Engineering

Page 481

Appendix B12
Model 12 Quarter Load 0.16%M : 0.29%T
700mm depth of section
Shear along Y (kN)

S11
S9
S7
S5
S3

Transverse beams

S13

37

35

33

31

29

27

25

23

21

19

17

15

13

11

S1

Main beams
+Y
+X
+Z
0-25

25-50

50-75

75-100

100-125

125-150

Figure B12 - 29
Applied shear stress along Y as a % of shear resistance vc (%)

S11
S9
S7
S5
S3

Transverse beams

S13

37

35

33

31

29

27

25

23

21

19

17

15

13

11

S1

Main beams
+Y
+X
+Z
0-25

25-50

50-75

75-100

100-125

125-150

150-175

175-200

200-225

Figure B12 - 30

University of Surrey

Msc Structural Engineering

Page 482

Appendix B12
Model 12 Quarter Load 0.16%M : 0.29%T
700mm depth of section
Shear along X (kN)

S11
S9
S7
S5
S3

Transverse beams

S13

37

35

33

31

29

27

25

23

21

19

17

15

13

11

S1

Main beams
+Y
+X
+Z
0-25

25-50

50-75

Figure B12 - 31
Applied shear stress along Y as a % of shear resistance vc (%)

S11
S9
S7
S5
S3

Transverse beams

S13

37

35

33

31

29

27

25

23

21

19

17

15

13

11

S1

Main beams
+Y
+X
+Z
0-10

10-20

20-30

30-40

40-50

50-60

60-70

Figure B12 - 32

University of Surrey

Msc Structural Engineering

Page 483

Appendix B12
Model 12 Quarter Load 0.16%M : 0.29%T
700mm depth of section
Torque in slab in both directions (kNm)

S11
S9
S7
S5
S3

Transverse beams

S13

37

35

33

31

29

27

25

23

21

19

17

15

13

11

S1

Main beams
+Y
+X
+Z
0-5

5-10

10-15

15-20

20-25

Figure B12 - 33
Maximum horizontal shear stresses due to torsion (N/mm 2)

S11
S9
S7
S5
S3

Transverse beams

S13

37

35

33

31

29

27

25

23

21

19

17

15

13

11

S1

Main beams
+Y
+X
+Z
0-0.5

0.5-1

Figure B12 - 34

University of Surrey

Msc Structural Engineering

Page 484

Appendix B12
Model 12 Quarter Load 0.16%M : 0.29%T
700mm depth of section
Mid Transverse span against moment

4.5

13.5

18

0
-20

Mid Mx moment (KNm)

-40
-60
-80
-100
-120
-140
-160
-180
-200

Transverse span (m)

Mid central moments as analysed

Mid central moments as per BS8110:Pt1:1997

Figure B12 - 35
Support transverse span against reaction

4.5

13.5

18

160
140

Reaction (KN)

120
100
80
60
40
20
0

Support span (m)

Reactions along support transverse span as analysed

Reactions along support transverse span as designed

Figure B12 - 36

University of Surrey

Msc Structural Engineering

Page 485

Appendix B12
Model 12 Edge Load 0.16%M : 0.29%T
700mm depth of section

6100

1T16 @100mm c.c (B.B)


1T8 @100mm c.c (T.T)

1T12 @100mm c.c (B)


1T8 @100mm c.c (T)
Y

Section XX

18100

Free edge

700

Free edge

Section YY

General Configuration Drawing


Model 12 - 0.16%M : 0.29%T - 700mm thick

Legend
Supported Edge
B - Bottom Layer 1
BB - Bottom Layer 2

T - Top Layer 1
TT - Top Layer 2

Figure B12 - 37 General assembly of model

Figure B12 - 38 Displaced shape

University of Surrey

Msc Structural Engineering

Page 486

Appendix B12
Model 12 Edge Load 0.16%M : 0.29%T
700mm depth of section
Sagging bending moments along Y (kNm)

S11
S9
S7
S5
S3

Transverse beams

S13

37

35

33

31

29

27

25

23

21

19

17

15

13

11

S1
Main beams

+Y
+X
+Z

0-25

25-50

50-75

75-100

100-125

Figure B12 - 39
% Usage of reinfocement for moment along Y - Sagging (%)

S11
S9
S7
S5
S3

Transverse beams

S13

37

35

33

31

29

27

25

23

21

19

17

15

13

11

S1

Main beams
+Y
+X
+Z
0-10

10-20

20-30

30-40

40-50

50-60

60-70

70-80

Figure B12 - 40
University of Surrey

Msc Structural Engineering

Page 487

Appendix B12
Model 12 Edge Load 0.16%M : 0.29%T
700mm depth of section
Hogging bending moments along X (kNm)

S11
S9
S7
S5
S3

Transverse beams

S13

37

35

33

31

29

27

25

23

21

19

17

15

13

11

S1

Main beams
+Y
+X
+Z
-14--12

-12--10

-10--8

-8--6

-6--4

-4--2

-2-0

Figure B12 - 41
% Usage of reinforcement along X - Hogging (%)

S11
S9
S7
S5
S3

Transverse beams

S13

37

35

33

31

29

27

25

23

21

19

17

15

13

11

S1

Main beams
+Y
+X
+Z

0-5

5-10

10-15

15-20

Figure B12 - 42

University of Surrey

Msc Structural Engineering

Page 488

Appendix B12
Model 12 Edge Load 0.16%M : 0.29%T
700mm depth of section
Hogging bending moments along Y (kNm)

S11
S9
S7
S5
S3

Transverse beams

S13

37

35

33

31

29

27

25

23

21

19

17

15

13

11

S1

Main beams
+Y
+X
+Z

-15--10

-10--5

-5-0

Figure B12 - 43
% Usage of reinforcement along Y - Hogging (%)

S11
S9
S7
S5
S3

Transverse beams

S13

37

35

33

31

29

27

25

23

21

19

17

15

13

11

S1

Main beams
+Y
+X
+Z

0-5

5-10

10-15

15-20

Figure B12 - 44

University of Surrey

Msc Structural Engineering

Page 489

Appendix B12
Model 12 Edge Load 0.16%M : 0.29%T
700mm depth of section
Sagging bending moments along X (kNm)

S11
S9
S7
S5
S3

Transverse beams

S13

37

35

33

31

29

27

25

23

21

19

17

15

13

11

S1

Main beams
+Y
+X
+Z
0-10

10-20

20-30

30-40

40-50

50-60

60-70

70-80

Figure B12 - 45
% Usage of reinforcement along X - Sagging (%)

S11
S9
S7
S5
S3

Transverse beams

S13

37

35

33

31

29

27

25

23

21

19

17

15

13

11

S1

Main beams
+Y
+X
+Z

0-10

10-20

20-30

Figure B12 - 46

University of Surrey

Msc Structural Engineering

Page 490

Appendix B12
Model 12 Edge Load 0.16%M : 0.29%T
700mm depth of section
Shear along Y (kN)

S11
S9
S7
S5
S3

Transverse beams

S13

37

35

33

31

29

27

25

23

21

19

17

15

13

11

S1

Main beams
+Y
+X
+Z
0-25

25-50

50-75

75-100

100-125

125-150

Figure B12 - 47
Applied shear stress along Y as a % of shear resistance vc (%)

S11
S9
S7
S5
S3

Transverse beams

S13

37

35

33

31

29

27

25

23

21

19

17

15

13

11

S1

Main beams
+Y
+X
+Z
0-25

25-50

50-75

75-100

100-125

125-150

150-175

175-200

200-225

Figure B12 - 48

University of Surrey

Msc Structural Engineering

Page 491

Appendix B12
Model 12 Edge Load 0.16%M : 0.29%T
700mm depth of section
Shear along X (kN)

S11
S9
S7
S5
S3

Transverse beams

S13

37

35

33

31

29

27

25

23

21

19

17

15

13

11

S1

Main beams
+Y
+X
+Z
0-25

25-50

50-75

Figure B12 - 49
Applied shear stress along Y as a % of shear resistance vc (%)

S11
S9
S7
S5
S3

Transverse beams

S13

37

35

33

31

29

27

25

23

21

19

17

15

13

11

S1

Main beams
+Y
+X
+Z
0-10

10-20

20-30

30-40

40-50

50-60

60-70

Figure B12 - 50

University of Surrey

Msc Structural Engineering

Page 492

Appendix B12
Model 12 Edge Load 0.16%M : 0.29%T
700mm depth of section
Torque in slab in both directions (kNm)

S11
S9
S7
S5
S3

Transverse beams

S13

37

35

33

31

29

27

25

23

21

19

17

15

13

11

S1

Main beams
+Y
+X
+Z
0-5

5-10

10-15

15-20

20-25

Figure B12 - 51
Maximum horizontal shear stresses due to torsion (N/mm 2)

S11
S9
S7
S5
S3

Transverse beams

S13

37

35

33

31

29

27

25

23

21

19

17

15

13

11

S1

Main beams
+Y
+X
+Z
0-0.5

0.5-1

Figure B12 - 52

University of Surrey

Msc Structural Engineering

Page 493

Appendix B12
Model 12 Edge Load 0.16%M : 0.29%T
700mm depth of section
Mid Transverse span against moment

4.5

13.5

18

0
-20

Mid Mx moment (KNm)

-40
-60
-80
-100
-120
-140
-160
-180
-200

Transverse span (m)

Mid central moments as analysed

Mid central moments as per BS8110:Pt1:1997

Figure B12 - 53
Support transverse span against reaction

4.5

13.5

18

160
140

Reaction (KN)

120
100
80
60
40
20
0

Support span (m)

Reactions along support transverse span as analysed

Reactions along support transverse span as designed

Figure B12 - 54

University of Surrey

Msc Structural Engineering

Page 494

Appendix B12
Model 12 Central + Quarter + Edge Load 0.16%M : 0.29%T
700mm depth of section

6100

1T16 @100mm c.c (B.B)


1T8 @100mm c.c (T.T)

1T12 @100mm c.c (B)


1T8 @100mm c.c (T)
Y

Section XX

18100

Free edge

700

Free edge

Section YY

General Configuration Drawing


Model 12 - 0.16%M : 0.29%T - 700mm thick

Legend
Supported Edge
B - Bottom Layer 1
BB - Bottom Layer 2

T - Top Layer 1
TT - Top Layer 2

Figure B12 - 55 general assembly of model

Figure B12 - 56 Displaced shape

University of Surrey

Msc Structural Engineering

Page 495

Appendix B12
Model 12 Central + Quarter + Edge Load 0.16%M : 0.29%T
700mm depth of section
Sagging bending moments along Y (kNm)

S11
S9
S7
S5
S3

Transverse beams

S13

37

35

33

31

29

27

25

23

21

19

17

15

13

11

S1
Main beams

+Y
+X
+Z

0-25

25-50

50-75

75-100

100-125

125-150

150-175

175-200

200-225

Figure B12 - 57
% Usage of reinfocement for moment along Y - Sagging (%)

S11
S9
S7
S5
S3

Transverse beams

S13

37

35

33

31

29

27

25

23

21

19

17

15

13

11

S1

Main beams
+Y
+X
+Z
0-20

20-40

40-60

60-80

80-100

100-120

120-140

140-160

Figure B12 - 58
University of Surrey

Msc Structural Engineering

Page 496

Appendix B12
Model 12 Central + Quarter + Edge Load 0.16%M : 0.29%T
700mm depth of section
Hogging bending moments along Y (kNm)

S11
S9
S7
S5
S3

Transverse beams

S13

37

35

33

31

29

27

25

23

21

19

17

15

13

11

S1

Main beams
+Y
+X
+Z

-25--20

-20--15

-15--10

-10--5

-5-0

Figure B12 - 59
% Usage of reinforcement along Y - Hogging (%)

S11
S9
S7
S5
S3

Transverse beams

S13

37

35

33

31

29

27

25

23

21

19

17

15

13

11

S1

Main beams
+Y
+X
+Z

0-20

20-40

40-60

Figure B12 - 60

University of Surrey

Msc Structural Engineering

Page 497

Appendix B12
Model 12 Central + Quarter + Edge Load 0.16%M : 0.29%T
700mm depth of section
Sagging bending moments along X (kNm)

S11
S9
S7
S5
S3

Transverse beams

S13

37

35

33

31

29

27

25

23

21

19

17

15

13

11

S1

Main beams
+Y
+X
+Z
0-10

10-20

20-30

30-40

40-50

50-60

Figure B12 - 61
% Usage of reinforcement along X - Sagging (%)

S11
S9
S7
S5
S3

Transverse beams

S13

37

35

33

31

29

27

25

23

21

19

17

15

13

11

S1

Main beams
+Y
+X
+Z

0-10

10-20

20-30

Figure B12 - 62

University of Surrey

Msc Structural Engineering

Page 498

Appendix B12
Model 12 Central + Quarter + Edge Load 0.16%M : 0.29%T
700mm depth of section
Hogging bending moments along X (kNm)

S11
S9
S7
S5
S3

Transverse beams

S13

37

35

33

31

29

27

25

23

21

19

17

15

13

11

S1

Main beams
+Y
+X
+Z
-36--32

-32--28

-28--24

-24--20

-20--16

-16--12

-12--8

-8--4

-4-0

Figure B12 - 63
% Usage of reinforcement along X - Hogging (%)

S11
S9
S7
S5
S3

Transverse beams

S13

37

35

33

31

29

27

25

23

21

19

17

15

13

11

S1

Main beams
+Y
+X
+Z

-5-5

5-15

15-25

Figure B12 - 64

University of Surrey

Msc Structural Engineering

Page 499

Appendix B12
Model 12 Central + Quarter + Edge Load 0.16%M : 0.29%T
700mm depth of section
Shear along Y (kN)

S11
S9
S7
S5
S3

Transverse beams

S13

37

35

33

31

29

27

25

23

21

19

17

15

13

11

S1

Main beams
+Y
+X
+Z
0-25

25-50

50-75

75-100

100-125

125-150

150-175

175-200

Figure B12 - 65
Applied shear stress along Y as a % of shear resistance vc (%)

S11
S9
S7
S5
S3

Transverse beams

S13

37

35

33

31

29

27

25

23

21

19

17

15

13

11

S1

Main beams
+Y
+X
+Z
0-40

40-80

80-120

120-160

160-200

200-240

240-280

280-320

Figure B12 - 66

University of Surrey

Msc Structural Engineering

Page 500

Appendix B12
Model 12 Central + Quarter + Edge Load 0.16%M : 0.29%T
700mm depth of section
Shear along X (kN)

S11
S9
S7
S5
S3

Transverse beams

S13

37

35

33

31

29

27

25

23

21

19

17

15

13

11

S1

Main beams
+Y
+X
+Z
0-20

20-40

40-60

60-80

80-100

100-120

Figure B12 - 67
Applied shear stress along Y as a % of shear resistance vc (%)

S11
S9
S7
S5
S3

Transverse beams

S13

37

35

33

31

29

27

25

23

21

19

17

15

13

11

S1

Main beams
+Y
+X
+Z
0-30

30-60

60-90

90-120

120-150

Figure B12 - 68

University of Surrey

Msc Structural Engineering

Page 501

Appendix B12
Model 12 Central + Quarter + Edge Load 0.16%M : 0.29%T
700mm depth of section
Torque in slab in both directions (kNm)

S11
S9
S7
S5
S3

Transverse beams

S13

37

35

33

31

29

27

25

23

21

19

17

15

13

11

S1

Main beams
+Y
+X
+Z
0-10

10-20

20-30

30-40

Figure B12 - 69
Maximum horizontal shear stresses due to torsion (N/mm 2)

S11
S9
S7
S5
S3

Transverse beams

S13

37

35

33

31

29

27

25

23

21

19

17

15

13

11

S1

Main beams
+Y
+X
+Z
0-0.5

0.5-1

Figure B12 - 70

University of Surrey

Msc Structural Engineering

Page 502

Appendix B12
Model 12 Central + Quarter + Edge Load 0.16%M : 0.29%T
700mm depth of section
Mid Transverse span against moment

4.5

13.5

18

Mid Mx moment (KNm)

-50

-100

-150

-200

-250

-300

Transverse span (m)

Mid central moments as analysed

Mid central moments as per BS8110:Pt1:1997

Figure B12 - 71
Support transverse span against reaction

4.5

13.5

18

200
180
160

Reaction (KN)

140
120
100
80
60
40
20
0

Support span (m)

Reactions along support transverse span as analysed

Reactions along support transverse span as designed

Figure B12 - 72

University of Surrey

Msc Structural Engineering

Page 503

Anda mungkin juga menyukai