School of Engineering
Civil Engineering
VOLUME 1
by
Peter Zammit B.E&A(Hons) A&CE CEng MIStructE
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
Page iii
Table of contents
...................................................................................................... 1
Chapter 1.
Introduction .................................................................................iv
1.1.
1.2.
Objective ..............................................................................................................6
Chapter 2.
2.1.
Introduction ..........................................................................................................8
2.2.
2.3.
2.4.
Chapter 3.
3.1.
3.2.
Selection of models............................................................................................26
3.3.
3.4.
3.5.
3.6.
3.7.
3.8.
3.9.
Applied Load......................................................................................................45
3.10.
University of Surrey
Page iv
Table of contents
Chapter 4.
Results....................................................................................... 49
4.1.
4.2.
4.3.
4.4.
Chapter 5.
5.1.
Conclusion ................................................................................ 97
Conclusion .........................................................................................................97
REFERENCES............................................................................................... 102
BIBLIOGRAPHY............................................................................................ 104
University of Surrey
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
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
Page vii
List of figures
University of Surrey
Page viii
List of figures
University of Surrey
Page ix
Glossary of terms
Glossary of terms
ASC
AST
Torsional constant
Flexural rigidity
Effective width
EC
ES
Shear modulus
Plate thickness
hmax
hmin
Moment of inertia
IT
Span of slab
University of Surrey
Page x
Glossary of terms
L1
Modified span
NL
Span of slab
Deflection of plate
Effective width
W1
W2
Modular ratio
Poissons ratio
University of Surrey
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.
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
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
Page 1
Introduction
Chapter 1.
Introduction
University of Surrey
Page 2
Introduction
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.
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)
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
Page 3
Introduction
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.
University of Surrey
Page 5
Introduction
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
Page 6
Introduction
University of Surrey
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
Page 8
Literature review
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
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.
University of Surrey
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
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.
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
Page 11
Literature review
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
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.
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
Page 13
Literature review
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
Page 14
Literature review
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
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
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).
University of Surrey
Page 17
Literature review
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
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
University of Surrey
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
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
Page 20
Literature review
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
Page 21
Models to be Analysed
Chapter 3.
Models to be analysed
University of Surrey
Page 22
Models to be Analysed
h Stiffness of slab;
i
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
Page 23
Models to be Analysed
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
Frame Construction
Frame Construction
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
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.
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.
4625
6
Transfer slab Level
Section XX
University of Surrey
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
University of Surrey
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
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
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
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.
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.
University of Surrey
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
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
With
Page 29
Models to be Analysed
18100
6100
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
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
Page 31
Models to be Analysed
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.
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
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
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.
Page 34
Models to be Analysed
cracked in tension.
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
Vertical
Page 35
Models to be Analysed
Material selection
University of Surrey
Page 36
Models to be Analysed
e Moment of inertia
Regarding
the
moment
of
inertia,
) + 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
Page 37
Models to be Analysed
e =
Torsional constant
Es
EC
Eqn 3.5
Eqn 3.6
2 IxI y
It was
University of Surrey
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.
University of Surrey
Page 39
Models to be Analysed
Model
1
2
3
4
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
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
150
300
1000
1000
1000
1000
1000
1000
1000
1000
1000
400
300
150
650
1000
1000
1000
1000
1000
1000
1000
1000
650
University of Surrey
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
300
2250
2250
2250
2250
300
400
300
150
1275
2250
2250
2250
1275
University of Surrey
Page 42
Models to be Analysed
Vertical Displacement
(mm)
Maximum moment
along X (kN/m/m)
Torque about X
(kNm/m)
Model
Maximum moment
along Y (kNm/m)
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.
Page 43
Models to be Analysed
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
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
University of Surrey
Page 45
Models to be Analysed
6100
18100
9050
13550
17550
150
2750
150
2750
Level 3
Level 2
150
2750
Level 4
150
2750
Level 1
400
2000
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
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
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.
University of Surrey
Page 47
Models to be Analysed
University of Surrey
Page 48
Results
Chapter 4.
Results
6100
18100
3890
9050
6100
3890
13550
University of Surrey
Page 49
Results
6100
18100
2495
17550
6100
18100
3890
3890
2495
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
Page 50
Results
Table 5 - Reinforcement as designed to BS8110-1:1997
Loading
Main reinforcement
Trans. Reinforcement
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
Load position
University of Surrey
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.
University of Surrey
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.
4.5
13.5
18
-20
-40
-60
-80
-100
-120
-140
-160
-180
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
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.
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.
S11
S9
S7
S5
S3
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
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
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.
S11
S9
S7
S5
S3
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
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
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
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
Page 56
Results
S11
S9
S7
S5
S3
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
University of Surrey
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.
S11
S9
S7
S5
S3
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
Page 58
Results
S11
S9
S7
S5
S3
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.
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
Page 59
Results
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
Page 60
Results
S11
S9
S7
S5
S3
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
4.5
13.5
18
-20
-40
-60
-80
-100
-120
-140
-160
-180
Figure 40 - Model 1 - Quarter load - Mid span bending moments of main memebrs
University of Surrey
Page 61
Results
4.5
13.5
18
200
180
160
Reaction (KN)
140
120
100
80
60
40
20
0
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
Page 62
Results
S11
S9
S7
S5
S3
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
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
4.5
13.5
18
-50
-100
-150
-200
-250
-300
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
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.
S11
S9
S7
S5
S3
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
Page 65
Results
4.5
13.5
18
-50
-100
-150
-200
-250
-300
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
Page 66
Results
4.5
13.5
18
250
Reaction (KN)
200
150
100
50
S11
S9
S7
S5
S3
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
University of Surrey
Page 67
Results
University of Surrey
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).
4.5
13.5
18
-20
-40
-60
-80
-100
-120
-140
-160
-180
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
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).
4.5
13.5
18
200
180
160
Reaction (kN)
140
120
100
80
60
40
20
0
University of Surrey
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
4.5
13.5
18
-20
-40
-60
-80
-100
-120
-140
-160
-180
Figure 52 - Models 1-4 - Quarter load - Mid span bending moments of main members
University of Surrey
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.
4.5
13.5
18
-50
-100
-150
-200
-250
-300
Figure 53 - Models 1-4 - Edge loading - Mid span bending moments of main members
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.
4.5
13.5
18
250
Reaction (kN)
200
150
100
50
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.
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.
4.5
13.5
18
-50
-100
-150
-200
-250
-300
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
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.
4.5
13.5
18
250
Reactions (kN)
200
150
100
50
Increasing this
further, say to 1.50% implies that the cost of steel is three fold but the benefits in
University of Surrey
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.
4.5
13.5
18
-20
-40
-60
-80
-100
-120
-140
-160
-180
Distribution of moment to BS8110:1:1997
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.
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
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.
4.5
13.5
18
150
Reactions (kN)
100
50
-50
-100
Distribution of reaction as designed
University of Surrey
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.
S11
S9
S7
S5
S3
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
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
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.
S11
S9
S7
S5
S3
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
Page 79
Results
S11
S9
S7
S5
S3
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
Page 80
Results
4.5
13.5
18
-20
-40
-60
-80
-100
-120
-140
-160
-180
Distribution of moment to BS8110:1:1997
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
Page 81
Results
4.5
13.5
18
150
Reactions (kN)
100
50
-50
-100
-150
Distribution of reaction as designed
University of Surrey
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.
4.5
13.5
18
-50
-100
-150
-200
-250
-300
-350
-400
Distribution of moment to BS8110:1:1997
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
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.
4.5
13.5
18
300
250
Reaction (kN)
200
150
100
50
0
-50
-100
-150
Distribution of reaction as designed
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
Page 84
Results
4.5
13.5
18
0
-50
-100
-150
-200
-250
-300
-350
-400
-450
-500
Distribution of moment to BS8110:1:1997
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
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%.
4.5
13.5
18
400
300
Reaction (kN)
200
100
0
-100
-200
-300
Distribution of reaction as designed
University of Surrey
Page 86
Results
S11
S9
S7
S5
S3
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
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
Page 87
Results
Table 7 - Depth of models
Model No.
Depth (mm)
250
10
325
400
11
550
12
700
Depth (mm)
Main bottom
reinforcement
250
10
325
400
11
550
12
700
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
Page 88
Results
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
800
0.0045
0.004
0.0035
0.003
0.0025
0.002
0.0015
0.001
0.0005
0
Trendline
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
Page 89
Results
4.5
13.5
18
-20
-40
-60
-80
-100
-120
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
University of Surrey
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
Page 91
Results
4.5
13.5
18
-20
-40
-60
-80
-100
-120
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
University of Surrey
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
4.5
13.5
18
0
-20
-40
-60
-80
-100
-120
-140
-160
-180
-200
Figure 75 - Models 2, 9-12 Edge load - Mid span bending moments of main members
University of Surrey
Page 93
Results
4.5
13.5
18
250
Reaction (kN)
200
150
100
50
University of Surrey
Page 94
Results
4.5
13.5
18
-50
-100
-150
-200
-250
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
160
140
120
100
80
60
40
20
0
University of Surrey
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
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
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
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.
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.
Increasing the
University of Surrey
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
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
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
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
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
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
Page 105
University of Surrey
School of Engineering
Civil Engineering
VOLUME 2 - APPENDICES
by
Peter Zammit B.E&A(Hons) A&CE CEng MIStructE
2006
Table of contents
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Appendix A
Appendix B0
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
Page 1
Appendix - A
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
150
400 500
500
500
500
500
500
500
500
500
500
500
500
500
500
500
500
500 400
University of Surrey
Page 3
Appendix - A
Page 4
Appendix - A
University of Surrey
Page 5
Appendix - A
University of Surrey
Page 6
Appendix - A
University of Surrey
Page 7
Appendix - A
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
150
300
1000
1000
1000
1000
1000
1000
1000
1000
1000
400
300
150
650
1000
1000
1000
1000
1000
1000
1000
1000
650
University of Surrey
Page 8
Appendix - A
University of Surrey
Page 9
Appendix - A
University of Surrey
Page 10
Appendix - A
University of Surrey
Page 11
Appendix - A
Figure A 18 Displacement
University of Surrey
Page 12
Appendix - A
C - (m4)
5.06E-03
7.16E-03
5.06E-03
300
9600
1500
1500
6600
1500
1500
1500
900
150
900
150
150
900
900
1500
1500
1500
1500
300
1500
1500
1500
1500
1500
1500
300
400
300
150
900
1500
1500
1500
1500
1500
900
University of Surrey
Page 13
Appendix - A
University of Surrey
Page 14
Appendix - A
University of Surrey
Page 15
Appendix - A
University of Surrey
Page 16
Appendix - A
Figure A 27 - Displacement
University of Surrey
Page 17
Appendix - A
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
150
1275
2250
2250
2250
1275
University of Surrey
Page 18
Appendix - A
University of Surrey
Page 19
Appendix - A
University of Surrey
Page 20
Appendix - A
University of Surrey
Page 21
Appendix - A
Figure A 36 - Displacement
University of Surrey
Page 22
University of Surrey
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
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
Appendix B0
General details of model
Page 24
150
2750
Level 4
150
2750
Level 3
150
2750
Level 2
150
2750
Appendix B0
General details of model
Level 1
400
2000
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
Live Load
1.5
Wall
4
0.23
2.75
20
Total Load
(KN/m)
University of Surrey
Page 25
Appendix B0
General details of model
6100
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
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
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
University of Surrey
Page 26
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
52.28
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)
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
1.0
W2 KN
Load (KN)
Load (KN)
University of Surrey
Bending Moment (KNm)
Shear force (KN)
Load (KN)
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
Page 28
Appendix B1
Model 1 Central Load 0.50%M : 0.13%T
6100 mm
Width
3890 mm
Overall Depth
400 mm
Concrete Properties
Grade of Concrete
2
30 N/mm
19 mm
Tension Reinforcement
Cover to reinforcement
30
Diameter of reinforcement
20
460
Compression Reinforcement
Cover to reinforcement
30
Diameter 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)
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
Page 29
Appendix B1
Model 1 Central Load 0.50%M : 0.13%T
Compresion Reinforcement
Sufficient
mm2
mm
Enter number of bars
mm2
Area provided
Tension Reinforcement
Area required from erxtra bars is
11256.25
20 mm
39
2
12252.2 mm
Area provided
Shear Reinforcement
v
=
v should not exceed
vc
0.67980577 N/mm
2
4.38178046 N/mm
2
0.659484094 N/mm
#DIV/0!
Deflection
20
1.02513438
1
16.9444444
20.5026876
University of Surrey
Page 30
Appendix B1
Model 1 Central Load 0.50%M : 0.13%T
Model 1 - Propoerties of Main Members
Generic Properties
Generic Section
University of Surrey
A SB - T
CB
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
BM Bottom main
reinf. (mm)
Number of bars
(No.)
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
University of Surrey
dM
dT
A SB - T
CB
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
Transverse effective
300 mm
500 mm
400 mm
mm
30 mm
15
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)
reinf. (mm)
TT Top transverse
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
Section XX
18100
400
Section YY
Free edge
Free edge
Legend
Supported Edge
B - Bottom Layer 1
BB - Bottom Layer 2
University of Surrey
Page 33
Appendix B1
Model 1 Central Load 0.50%M : 0.13%T
S11
S9
S7
S5
S3
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
Page 34
Appendix B1
Model 1 Central Load 0.50%M : 0.13%T
S11
S9
S7
S5
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
Page 35
Appendix B1
Model 1 Central Load 0.50%M : 0.13%T
S11
S9
S7
S5
S3
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
Page 36
Appendix B1
Model 1 Central Load 0.50%M : 0.13%T
S11
S9
S7
S5
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
Page 37
Appendix B1
Model 1 Central Load 0.50%M : 0.13%T
S11
S9
S7
S5
S3
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
Page 38
Appendix B1
Model 1 Central Load 0.50%M : 0.13%T
S11
S9
S7
S5
S3
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
Page 39
Appendix B1
Model 1 Central Load 0.50%M : 0.13%T
S11
S9
S7
S5
S3
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
Page 40
Appendix B1
Model 1 Central Load 0.50%M : 0.13%T
4.5
13.5
18
-20
-40
-60
-80
-100
-120
-140
-160
-180
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
Figure B1 - 19
University of Surrey
Page 41
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
52.28
2
3
4
5
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
1.0
W2 KN
Load (KN)
Load (KN)
University of Surrey
Load (KN)
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
Page 42
Appendix B1
Model 1 Quarter Load 0.50%M : 0.13%T
6100 mm
Width
3890 mm
Overall Depth
400 mm
Concrete Properties
Grade of Concrete
2
30 N/mm
19 mm
Tension Reinforcement
Cover to reinforcement
30
Diameter of reinforcement
20
460
Compression Reinforcement
Cover to reinforcement
30
Diameter 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)
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
Page 43
Appendix B1
Model 1 Quarter Load 0.50%M : 0.13%T
Compresion Reinforcement
Sufficient
mm2
mm
Enter number of bars
mm2
Area provided
Tension Reinforcement
mm2
11256.25
20 mm
39
2
12252.2 mm
Area provided
Shear Reinforcement
v
=
v should not exceed
vc
2
0.67980577 N/mm
2
4.38178046 N/mm
2
0.659484094 N/mm
#DIV/0!
Deflection
20
1.02513438
1
16.9444444
20.5026876
University of Surrey
Page 44
Appendix B1
Model 1 Quarter Load 0.50%M : 0.13%T
6100
Section XX
18100
400
Section YY
Free edge
Free edge
Legend
Supported Edge
B - Bottom Layer 1
BB - Bottom Layer 2
University of Surrey
Page 45
Appendix B1
Model 1 Quarter Load 0.50%M : 0.13%T
S11
S9
S7
S5
S3
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
Page 46
Appendix B1
Model 1 Quarter Load 0.50%M : 0.13%T
S11
S9
S7
S5
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
Page 47
Appendix B1
Model 1 Quarter Load 0.50%M : 0.13%T
S11
S9
S7
S5
S3
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
Page 48
Appendix B1
Model 1 Quarter Load 0.50%M : 0.13%T
S11
S9
S7
S5
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
Page 49
Appendix B1
Model 1 Quarter Load 0.50%M : 0.13%T
S11
S9
S7
S5
S3
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
Page 50
Appendix B1
Model 1 Quarter Load 0.50%M : 0.13%T
S11
S9
S7
S5
S3
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
Page 51
Appendix B1
Model 1 Quarter Load 0.50%M : 0.13%T
S11
S9
S7
S5
S3
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
Page 52
Appendix B1
Model 1 Quarter Load 0.50%M : 0.13%T
4.5
13.5
18
-20
-40
-60
-80
-100
-120
-140
-160
-180
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
Figure B1 - 38
University of Surrey
Page 53
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
32.26
a (m)
a (m)
a (m)
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)
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
1.0
W2 KN
Load (KN)
Load (KN)
University of Surrey
Bending Moment (KNm)
Shear force (KN)
Load (KN)
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
Page 54
Appendix B1
Model 1 Edge Load 0.50%M : 0.13%T
6100 mm
Width
2495 mm
Overall Depth
400 mm
Concrete Properties
Grade of Concrete
2
30 N/mm
19 mm
Tension Reinforcement
Cover to reinforcement
30
Diameter of reinforcement
25
460
Compression Reinforcement
Cover to reinforcement
30
Diameter 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)
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
Page 55
Appendix B1
Model 1 Edge Load 0.50%M : 0.13%T
Compresion Reinforcement
Sufficient
mm2
mm
Enter number of bars
mm2
Area provided
Tension Reinforcement
Area required from erxtra bars is
12639.14
25 mm
26
2
12762.7 mm
Area provided
Shear Reinforcement
v
=
v should not exceed
vc
2
1.067309444 N/mm
2
4.38178046 N/mm
2
0.778345401 N/mm
#DIV/0!
Deflection
20
0.84784939
1
17.0629371
16.9569879
University of Surrey
Page 56
Appendix B1
Model 1 Edge Load 0.50%M : 0.13%T
6100
Section XX
18100
400
Section YY
Free edge
Free edge
Legend
Supported Edge
B - Bottom Layer 1
BB - Bottom Layer 2
University of Surrey
Page 57
Appendix B1
Model 1 Edge Load 0.50%M : 0.13%T
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
Page 58
Appendix B1
Model 1 Edge Load 0.50%M : 0.13%T
S11
S9
S7
S5
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
Page 59
Appendix B1
Model 1 Edge Load 0.50%M : 0.13%T
S11
S9
S7
S5
S3
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
Page 60
Appendix B1
Model 1 Edge Load 0.50%M : 0.13%T
S11
S9
S7
S5
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
Page 61
Appendix B1
Model 1 Edge Load 0.50%M : 0.13%T
S11
S9
S7
S5
S3
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
Page 62
Appendix B1
Model 1 Edge Load 0.50%M : 0.13%T
S11
S9
S7
S5
S3
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
Page 63
Appendix B1
Model 1 Edge Load 0.50%M : 0.13%T
S11
S9
S7
S5
S3
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
Page 64
Appendix B1
Model 1 Edge Load 0.50%M : 0.13%T
4.5
13.5
18
-50
-100
-150
-200
-250
-300
Figure B1 - 56
Support transverse span against reaction
4.5
13.5
18
250
Reaction (KN)
200
150
100
50
Figure B1 - 57
University of Surrey
Page 65
Appendix B1
Model 1 Central + Quarter + Edge Load 0.50%M : 0.13%T
6100
Section XX
18100
400
Section YY
Free edge
Free edge
Legend
Supported Edge
B - Bottom Layer 1
BB - Bottom Layer 2
University of Surrey
Page 66
Appendix B1
Model 1 Central + Quarter + Edge Load 0.50%M : 0.13%T
S11
S9
S7
S5
S3
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
Page 67
Appendix B1
Model 1 Central + Quarter + Edge Load 0.50%M : 0.13%T
S11
S9
S7
S5
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
Page 68
Appendix B1
Model 1 Central + Quarter + Edge Load 0.50%M : 0.13%T
S11
S9
S7
S5
S3
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
Page 69
Appendix B1
Model 1 Central + Quarter + Edge Load 0.50%M : 0.13%T
S11
S9
S7
S5
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
Page 70
Appendix B1
Model 1 Central + Quarter + Edge Load 0.50%M : 0.13%T
S11
S9
S7
S5
S3
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
Page 71
Appendix B1
Model 1 Central + Quarter + Edge Load 0.50%M : 0.13%T
S11
S9
S7
S5
S3
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
Page 72
Appendix B1
Model 1 Central + Quarter + Edge Load 0.50%M : 0.13%T
S11
S9
S7
S5
S3
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
Page 73
Appendix B1
Model 1 Central + Quarter + Edge Load 0.50%M : 0.13%T
4.5
13.5
18
-50
-100
-150
-200
-250
-300
Figure B1 - 74
Support transverse span against reaction
4.5
13.5
18
250
Reaction (KN)
200
150
100
50
Figure B1 - 75
University of Surrey
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
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 )
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)
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
300
500
400
30
30
15
CT
d'M
A ST - T
d'
A ST - M
Page 76
Appendix B2
Model 2 Central Load 0.50%M : 0.50%T
Model 2 - Propoerties of Transverse Members
Generic Properties
Generic Section
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
Transverse effective
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)
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
d'T
A ST - M
CT
Page 77
Appendix B2
Model 2 Central Load 0.50%M : 0.50%T
6100
Section XX
18100
400
Free edge
Free edge
Section YY
Legend
Supported Edge
B - Bottom Layer 1
BB - Bottom Layer 2
T - Top Layer 1
TT - Top Layer 2
University of Surrey
Page 78
Appendix B2
Model 2 Central Load 0.50%M : 0.50%T
S11
S9
S7
S5
S3
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
Page 79
Appendix B2
Model 2 Central Load 0.50%M : 0.50%T
S11
S9
S7
S5
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
Page 80
Appendix B2
Model 2 Central Load 0.50%M : 0.50%T
S11
S9
S7
S5
S3
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
Page 81
Appendix B2
Model 2 Central Load 0.50%M : 0.50%T
S11
S9
S7
S5
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
Page 82
Appendix B2
Model 2 Central Load 0.50%M : 0.50%T
S11
S9
S7
S5
S3
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
Page 83
Appendix B2
Model 2 Central Load 0.50%M : 0.50%T
S11
S9
S7
S5
S3
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
Page 84
Appendix B2
Model 2 Central Load 0.50%M : 0.50%T
S11
S9
S7
S5
S3
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
Page 85
Appendix B2
Model 2 Central Load 0.50%M : 0.50%T
4.5
13.5
18
-20
-40
-60
-80
-100
-120
-140
-160
-180
Figure B2 - 17
Support transverse span against reaction
4.5
13.5
18
160
140
Reaction (KN)
120
100
80
60
40
20
0
Figure B2 - 18
University of Surrey
Page 86
Appendix B2
Model 2 Quarter Load 0.50%M : 0.50%T
6100
Section XX
18100
400
Free edge
Free edge
Section YY
Legend
Supported Edge
B - Bottom Layer 1
BB - Bottom Layer 2
T - Top Layer 1
TT - Top Layer 2
University of Surrey
Page 87
Appendix B2
Model 2 Quarter Load 0.50%M : 0.50%T
S11
S9
S7
S5
S3
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
Page 88
Appendix B2
Model 2 Quarter Load 0.50%M : 0.50%T
S11
S9
S7
S5
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
Page 89
Appendix B2
Model 2 Quarter Load 0.50%M : 0.50%T
S11
S9
S7
S5
S3
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
Page 90
Appendix B2
Model 2 Quarter Load 0.50%M : 0.50%T
S11
S9
S7
S5
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
Page 91
Appendix B2
Model 2 Quarter Load 0.50%M : 0.50%T
S11
S9
S7
S5
S3
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
Page 92
Appendix B2
Model 2 Quarter Load 0.50%M : 0.50%T
S11
S9
S7
S5
S3
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
Page 93
Appendix B2
Model 2 Quarter Load 0.50%M : 0.50%T
S11
S9
S7
S5
S3
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
Page 94
Appendix B2
Model 2 Quarter Load 0.50%M : 0.50%T
4.5
13.5
18
-20
-40
-60
-80
-100
-120
-140
-160
-180
Figure B2 - 35
Support transverse span against reaction
4.5
13.5
18
160
140
Reaction (KN)
120
100
80
60
40
20
0
Figure B2 - 36
University of Surrey
Page 95
Appendix B2
Model 2 Edge Load 0.50%M : 0.50%T
6100
Section XX
18100
400
Free edge
Free edge
Section YY
Legend
Supported Edge
B - Bottom Layer 1
BB - Bottom Layer 2
T - Top Layer 1
TT - Top Layer 2
Figure B2 - 38 isplacedShape
University of Surrey
Page 96
Appendix B2
Model 2 Edge Load 0.50%M : 0.50%T
S11
S9
S7
S5
S3
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
Page 97
Appendix B2
Model 2 Edge Load 0.50%M : 0.50%T
S11
S9
S7
S5
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
Page 98
Appendix B2
Model 2 Edge Load 0.50%M : 0.50%T
S11
S9
S7
S5
S3
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
Page 99
Appendix B2
Model 2 Edge Load 0.50%M : 0.50%T
S11
S9
S7
S5
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
Page 100
Appendix B2
Model 2 Edge Load 0.50%M : 0.50%T
S11
S9
S7
S5
S3
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
Page 101
Appendix B2
Model 2 Edge Load 0.50%M : 0.50%T
S11
S9
S7
S5
S3
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
Page 102
Appendix B2
Model 2 Edge Load 0.50%M : 0.50%T
S11
S9
S7
S5
S3
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
Page 103
Appendix B2
Model 2 Edge Load 0.50%M : 0.50%T
4.5
13.5
18
-50
-100
-150
-200
-250
-300
Figure B2 - 53
Support transverse span against reaction
4.5
13.5
18
250
Reaction (KN)
200
150
100
50
Figure B2 - 54
University of Surrey
Page 104
Appendix B2
Model 2 Central + Quarter + Edge Load 0.50%M : 0.50%T
6100
Section XX
18100
400
Free edge
Free edge
Section YY
Legend
Supported Edge
B - Bottom Layer 1
BB - Bottom Layer 2
T - Top Layer 1
TT - Top Layer 2
University of Surrey
Page 105
Appendix B2
Model 2 Central + Quarter + Edge Load 0.50%M : 0.50%T
S11
S9
S7
S5
S3
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
Page 106
Appendix B2
Model 2 Central + Quarter + Edge Load 0.50%M : 0.50%T
S11
S9
S7
S5
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
Page 107
Appendix B2
Model 2 Central + Quarter + Edge Load 0.50%M : 0.50%T
S11
S9
S7
S5
S3
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
Page 108
Appendix B2
Model 2 Central + Quarter + Edge Load 0.50%M : 0.50%T
S11
S9
S7
S5
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
Page 109
Appendix B2
Model 2 Central + Quarter + Edge Load 0.50%M : 0.50%T
S11
S9
S7
S5
S3
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
Page 110
Appendix B2
Model 2 Central + Quarter + Edge Load 0.50%M : 0.50%T
S11
S9
S7
S5
S3
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
Page 111
Appendix B2
Model 2 Central + Quarter + Edge Load 0.50%M : 0.50%T
S11
S9
S7
S5
S3
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
Page 112
Appendix B2
Model 2 Central + Quarter + Edge Load 0.50%M : 0.50%T
4.5
13.5
18
-50
-100
-150
-200
-250
-300
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
Figure B2 - 72
University of Surrey
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
Generic Section
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 )
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)
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
300
500
400
30
30
15
d'M
A ST - T
d'T
A ST - M
CT
Page 115
Appendix B3
Model 3 Central Load 0.50%M : 1.00%T
Model 3 - Propoerties of Transverse Members
Generic Properties
Generic Section
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
Transverse effective
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)
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
d'T
A ST - M
CT
Page 116
Appendix B3
Model 3 Central Load 0.50%M : 1.00%T
6100
Section XX
18100
400
Free edge
Free edge
Section YY
Legend
Supported Edge
B - Bottom Layer 1
BB - Bottom Layer 2
T - Top Layer 1
TT - Top Layer 2
University of Surrey
Page 117
Appendix B3
Model 3 Central Load 0.50%M : 1.00%T
S11
S9
S7
S5
S3
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
Page 118
Appendix B3
Model 3 Central Load 0.50%M : 1.00%T
S11
S9
S7
S5
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
Page 119
Appendix B3
Model 3 Central Load 0.50%M : 1.00%T
S11
S9
S7
S5
S3
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
Page 120
Appendix B3
Model 3 Central Load 0.50%M : 1.00%T
S11
S9
S7
S5
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
Page 121
Appendix B3
Model 3 Central Load 0.50%M : 1.00%T
S11
S9
S7
S5
S3
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
Page 122
Appendix B3
Model 3 Central Load 0.50%M : 1.00%T
S11
S9
S7
S5
S3
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
Page 123
Appendix B3
Model 3 Central Load 0.50%M : 1.00%T
S11
S9
S7
S5
S3
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
Page 124
Appendix B3
Model 3 Central Load 0.50%M : 1.00%T
4.5
13.5
18
-20
-40
-60
-80
-100
-120
-140
-160
-180
Figure B3 - 17
Support transverse span against reaction
4.5
13.5
18
140
120
Reaction (KN)
100
80
60
40
20
0
Figure B3 - 18
University of Surrey
Page 125
Appendix B3
Model 3 Quarter Load 0.50%M : 1.00%T
6100
Section XX
18100
400
Free edge
Free edge
Section YY
Legend
Supported Edge
B - Bottom Layer 1
BB - Bottom Layer 2
T - Top Layer 1
TT - Top Layer 2
University of Surrey
Page 126
Appendix B3
Model 3 Quarter Load 0.50%M : 1.00%T
S11
S9
S7
S5
S3
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
Page 127
Appendix B3
Model 3 Quarter Load 0.50%M : 1.00%T
S11
S9
S7
S5
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
Page 128
Appendix B3
Model 3 Quarter Load 0.50%M : 1.00%T
S11
S9
S7
S5
S3
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
Page 129
Appendix B3
Model 3 Quarter Load 0.50%M : 1.00%T
S11
S9
S7
S5
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
Page 130
Appendix B3
Model 3 Quarter Load 0.50%M : 1.00%T
S11
S9
S7
S5
S3
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
Page 131
Appendix B3
Model 3 Quarter Load 0.50%M : 1.00%T
S11
S9
S7
S5
S3
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
Page 132
Appendix B3
Model 3 Quarter Load 0.50%M : 1.00%T
S11
S9
S7
S5
S3
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
Page 133
Appendix B3
Model 3 Quarter Load 0.50%M : 1.00%T
4.5
13.5
18
-20
-40
-60
-80
-100
-120
-140
-160
-180
Figure B3 - 35
Support transverse span against reaction
4.5
13.5
18
140
120
Reaction (KN)
100
80
60
40
20
0
Figure B3 - 36
University of Surrey
Page 134
Appendix B3
Model 3 Edge Load 0.50%M : 1.00%T
6100
Section XX
18100
400
Free edge
Free edge
Section YY
Legend
Supported Edge
B - Bottom Layer 1
BB - Bottom Layer 2
T - Top Layer 1
TT - Top Layer 2
University of Surrey
Page 135
Appendix B3
Model 3 Edge Load 0.50%M : 1.00%T
S11
S9
S7
S5
S3
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
Page 136
Appendix B3
Model 3 Edge Load 0.50%M : 1.00%T
S11
S9
S7
S5
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
Page 137
Appendix B3
Model 3 Edge Load 0.50%M : 1.00%T
S11
S9
S7
S5
S3
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
Page 138
Appendix B3
Model 3 Edge Load 0.50%M : 1.00%T
S11
S9
S7
S5
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
Page 139
Appendix B3
Model 3 Edge Load 0.50%M : 1.00%T
S11
S9
S7
S5
S3
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
Page 140
Appendix B3
Model 3 Edge Load 0.50%M : 1.00%T
S11
S9
S7
S5
S3
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
Page 141
Appendix B3
Model 3 Edge Load 0.50%M : 1.00%T
S11
S9
S7
S5
S3
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
Page 142
Appendix B3
Model 3 Edge Load 0.50%M : 1.00%T
4.5
13.5
18
-50
-100
-150
-200
-250
-300
Figure B3 - 53
Support transverse span against reaction
4.5
13.5
18
250
Reaction (KN)
200
150
100
50
Figure B3 - 54
University of Surrey
Page 143
Appendix B3
Model 3 Central + Quarter + Edge Load 0.50%M : 1.00%T
6100
Section XX
18100
400
Free edge
Free edge
Section YY
Legend
Supported Edge
B - Bottom Layer 1
BB - Bottom Layer 2
T - Top Layer 1
TT - Top Layer 2
University of Surrey
Page 144
Appendix B3
Model 3 Central + Quarter + Edge Load 0.50%M : 1.00%T
S11
S9
S7
S5
S3
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
Page 145
Appendix B3
Model 3 Central + Quarter + Edge Load 0.50%M : 1.00%T
S11
S9
S7
S5
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
Page 146
Appendix B3
Model 3 Central + Quarter + Edge Load 0.50%M : 1.00%T
S11
S9
S7
S5
S3
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
Page 147
Appendix B3
Model 3 Central + Quarter + Edge Load 0.50%M : 1.00%T
S11
S9
S7
S5
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
Page 148
Appendix B3
Model 3 Central + Quarter + Edge Load 0.50%M : 1.00%T
S11
S9
S7
S5
S3
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
Page 149
Appendix B3
Model 3 Central + Quarter + Edge Load 0.50%M : 1.00%T
S11
S9
S7
S5
S3
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
Page 150
Appendix B3
Model 3 Central + Quarter + Edge Load 0.50%M : 1.00%T
S11
S9
S7
S5
S3
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
Page 151
Appendix B3
Model 3 Central + Quarter + Edge Load 0.50%M : 1.00%T
4.5
13.5
18
-50
-100
-150
-200
-250
-300
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
Figure B3 - 72
University of Surrey
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
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 )
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)
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
300
500
400
30
30
15
CT
d'M
A ST - T
d'
A ST - M
Page 154
Appendix B4
Model 4 Central Load 0.50%M : 1.50%T
Model 4 - Propoerties of Transverse Members
Generic Properties
Generic Section
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
Transverse effective
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)
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
d'T
A ST - M
CT
Page 155
Appendix B4
Model 4 Central Load 0.50%M : 1.50%T
6100
Section XX
18100
400
Free edge
Free edge
Section YY
Legend
Supported Edge
B - Bottom Layer 1
BB - Bottom Layer 2
T - Top Layer 1
TT - Top Layer 2
University of Surrey
Page 156
Appendix B4
Model 4 Central Load 0.50%M : 1.50%T
S11
S9
S7
S5
S3
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
Page 157
Appendix B4
Model 4 Central Load 0.50%M : 1.50%T
S11
S9
S7
S5
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
Page 158
Appendix B4
Model 4 Central Load 0.50%M : 1.50%T
S11
S9
S7
S5
S3
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
Page 159
Appendix B4
Model 4 Central Load 0.50%M : 1.50%T
S11
S9
S7
S5
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
Page 160
Appendix B4
Model 4 Central Load 0.50%M : 1.50%T
S11
S9
S7
S5
S3
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
Page 161
Appendix B4
Model 4 Central Load 0.50%M : 1.50%T
S11
S9
S7
S5
S3
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
Page 162
Appendix B4
Model 4 Central Load 0.50%M : 1.50%T
S11
S9
S7
S5
S3
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
Page 163
Appendix B4
Model 4 Central Load 0.50%M : 1.50%T
4.5
13.5
18
-20
-40
-60
-80
-100
-120
-140
-160
-180
Figure B4 - 17
Support transverse span against reaction
4.5
13.5
18
120
Reaction (KN)
100
80
60
40
20
Figure B4 - 18
University of Surrey
Page 164
Appendix B4
Model 4 Quarter Load 0.50%M : 1.50%T
6100
Section XX
18100
400
Free edge
Free edge
Section YY
Legend
Supported Edge
B - Bottom Layer 1
BB - Bottom Layer 2
T - Top Layer 1
TT - Top Layer 2
University of Surrey
Page 165
Appendix B4
Model 4 Quarter Load 0.50%M : 1.50%T
S11
S9
S7
S5
S3
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
Page 166
Appendix B4
Model 4 Quarter Load 0.50%M : 1.50%T
S11
S9
S7
S5
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
Page 167
Appendix B4
Model 4 Quarter Load 0.50%M : 1.50%T
S11
S9
S7
S5
S3
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
Page 168
Appendix B4
Model 4 Quarter Load 0.50%M : 1.50%T
S11
S9
S7
S5
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
Page 169
Appendix B4
Model 4 Quarter Load 0.50%M : 1.50%T
S11
S9
S7
S5
S3
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
Page 170
Appendix B4
Model 4 Quarter Load 0.50%M : 1.50%T
S11
S9
S7
S5
S3
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
Page 171
Appendix B4
Model 4 Quarter Load 0.50%M : 1.50%T
S11
S9
S7
S5
S3
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
Page 172
Appendix B4
Model 4 Quarter Load 0.50%M : 1.50%T
4.5
13.5
18
-20
-40
-60
-80
-100
-120
-140
-160
-180
Figure B4 - 35
Support transverse span against reaction
4.5
13.5
18
120
Reaction (KN)
100
80
60
40
20
Figure B4 - 36
University of Surrey
Page 173
Appendix B4
Model 4 Edge Load 0.50%M : 1.50%T
6100
Section XX
18100
400
Free edge
Free edge
Section YY
Legend
Supported Edge
B - Bottom Layer 1
BB - Bottom Layer 2
T - Top Layer 1
TT - Top Layer 2
University of Surrey
Page 174
Appendix B4
Model 4 Edge Load 0.50%M : 1.50%T
S11
S9
S7
S5
S3
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
Page 175
Appendix B4
Model 4 Edge Load 0.50%M : 1.50%T
S11
S9
S7
S5
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
Page 176
Appendix B4
Model 4 Edge Load 0.50%M : 1.50%T
S11
S9
S7
S5
S3
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
Page 177
Appendix B4
Model 4 Edge Load 0.50%M : 1.50%T
S11
S9
S7
S5
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
Page 178
Appendix B4
Model 4 Edge Load 0.50%M : 1.50%T
S11
S9
S7
S5
S3
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
Page 179
Appendix B4
Model 4 Edge Load 0.50%M : 1.50%T
S11
S9
S7
S5
S3
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
Page 180
Appendix B4
Model 4 Edge Load 0.50%M : 1.50%T
S11
S9
S7
S5
S3
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
Page 181
Appendix B4
Model 4 Edge Load 0.50%M : 1.50%T
4.5
13.5
18
-50
-100
-150
-200
-250
-300
Figure B4 - 53
Support transverse span against reaction
4.5
13.5
18
250
Reaction (KN)
200
150
100
50
Figure B4 - 54
University of Surrey
Page 182
Appendix B4
Model 4 Central + Quarter +Edge Load 0.50%M : 1.50%T
6100
Section XX
18100
400
Free edge
Free edge
Section YY
Legend
Supported Edge
B - Bottom Layer 1
BB - Bottom Layer 2
T - Top Layer 1
TT - Top Layer 2
University of Surrey
Page 183
Appendix B4
Model 4 Central + Quarter +Edge Load 0.50%M : 1.50%T
S11
S9
S7
S5
S3
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
Page 184
Appendix B4
Model 4 Central + Quarter +Edge Load 0.50%M : 1.50%T
S11
S9
S7
S5
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
Page 185
Appendix B4
Model 4 Central + Quarter +Edge Load 0.50%M : 1.50%T
S11
S9
S7
S5
S3
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
Page 186
Appendix B4
Model 4 Central + Quarter +Edge Load 0.50%M : 1.50%T
S11
S9
S7
S5
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
Page 187
Appendix B4
Model 4 Central + Quarter +Edge Load 0.50%M : 1.50%T
S11
S9
S7
S5
S3
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
Page 188
Appendix B4
Model 4 Central + Quarter +Edge Load 0.50%M : 1.50%T
S11
S9
S7
S5
S3
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
Page 189
Appendix B4
Model 4 Central + Quarter +Edge Load 0.50%M : 1.50%T
S11
S9
S7
S5
S3
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
Page 190
Appendix B4
Model 4 Central + Quarter +Edge Load 0.50%M : 1.50%T
4.5
13.5
18
-50
-100
-150
-200
-250
-300
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
Figure B4 - 72
University of Surrey
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
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.)
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
300
500
400
30
30
15
CT
d'M
d'
A ST - M
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
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
'
A SB - M
66
66
42
42
42
42
42
42
42
42
42
42
42
Transverse effective
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)
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
d'T
A ST - M
CT
Page 194
Appendix B5
Model 5 Central load 0.50%M : 0.50%T
Stiffened main edge
6100
Section XX
18100
Free edge
Stiffened edge
400
Free edge
Stiffened edge
Section YY
Legend
Supported Edge
B - Bottom Layer 1
BB - Bottom Layer 2
T - Top Layer 1
TT - Top Layer 2
University of Surrey
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
-20
-40
-60
-80
-100
-120
-140
-160
-180
Figure B5 - 17
Support transverse span against reaction
4.5
13.5
18
160
140
Reaction (KN)
120
100
80
60
40
20
0
Figure B5 - 18
University of Surrey
Page 203
Appendix B5
Model 5 Quarter load 0.50%M : 0.50%T
Stiffened main edge
6100
Section XX
18100
Free edge
Stiffened edge
400
Free edge
Stiffened edge
Section YY
Legend
Supported Edge
B - Bottom Layer 1
BB - Bottom Layer 2
T - Top Layer 1
TT - Top Layer 2
University of Surrey
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
-20
-40
-60
-80
-100
-120
-140
-160
-180
Figure B5 - 35
Support transverse span against reaction
4.5
13.5
18
160
140
Reaction (KN)
120
100
80
60
40
20
0
Figure B5 - 36
University of Surrey
Page 212
Appendix B5
Model 5 Edge load 0.50%M : 0.50%T
Stiffened main edge
6100
Section XX
18100
Free edge
Stiffened edge
400
Free edge
Stiffened edge
Section YY
Legend
Supported Edge
B - Bottom Layer 1
BB - Bottom Layer 2
T - Top Layer 1
TT - Top Layer 2
University of Surrey
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
-50
-100
-150
-200
-250
-300
-350
-400
Figure B5 - 53
Support transverse span against reaction
4.5
13.5
18
300
Reaction (KN)
250
200
150
100
50
Figure B5 - 54
University of Surrey
Page 221
Appendix B5
Model 5 Central + Quarter + Edge load 0.50%M : 0.50%T
Stiffened main edge
6100
Section XX
18100
Free edge
Stiffened edge
400
Free edge
Stiffened edge
Section YY
Legend
Supported Edge
B - Bottom Layer 1
BB - Bottom Layer 2
T - Top Layer 1
TT - Top Layer 2
University of Surrey
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
-50
-100
-150
-200
-250
-300
-350
-400
-450
-500
Figure B5 - 71
Support transverse span against reaction
4.5
13.5
18
350
300
Reaction (KN)
250
200
150
100
50
0
Figure B5 - 72
University of Surrey
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
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.)
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
300
500
400
30
30
15
CT
d'M
d'
A ST - M
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
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
'
A SB - M
54
54
42
42
42
42
42
42
42
42
42
54
54
Transverse effective
dT
32
32
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
32
32
(mm)
reinf. (mm)
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
d'T
A ST - M
CT
Page 233
Appendix B6
Model 6 Central Load 0.50%M : 0.50%T
Stiffened transverse edge
6100
Stiffened Edge
Stiffened Edge
Section XX
1T32 @100mm c.c (B.B)
1T32 @100mm c.c (T.T)
18100
Free edge
400
Free edge
Section YY
Legend
Supported Edge
B - Bottom Layer 1
BB - Bottom Layer 2
T - Top Layer 1
TT - Top Layer 2
University of Surrey
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
-20
-40
-60
-80
-100
-120
-140
-160
-180
Figure B6 - 17
Support transverse span against reaction
4.5
13.5
18
140
120
Reaction (KN)
100
80
60
40
20
0
Figure B6 - 18
University of Surrey
Page 242
Appendix B6
Model 6 Quarter Load 0.50%M : 0.50%T
Stiffened transverse edge
6100
Stiffened Edge
Stiffened Edge
Section XX
1T32 @100mm c.c (B.B)
1T32 @100mm c.c (T.T)
18100
Free edge
400
Free edge
Section YY
Legend
Supported Edge
B - Bottom Layer 1
BB - Bottom Layer 2
T - Top Layer 1
TT - Top Layer 2
University of Surrey
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
-20
-40
-60
-80
-100
-120
-140
-160
-180
Figure B6 - 35
Support transverse span against reaction
4.5
13.5
18
140
120
Reaction (KN)
100
80
60
40
20
0
Figure B6 - 36
University of Surrey
Page 251
Appendix B5
Model 6 Edge Load 0.50%M : 0.50%T
Stiffened transverse edge
6100
Stiffened Edge
Stiffened Edge
Section XX
1T32 @100mm c.c (B.B)
1T32 @100mm c.c (T.T)
18100
Free edge
400
Free edge
Section YY
Legend
Supported Edge
B - Bottom Layer 1
BB - Bottom Layer 2
T - Top Layer 1
TT - Top Layer 2
University of Surrey
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
-50
-100
-150
-200
-250
-300
Figure B6 - 53
Support transverse span against reaction
4.5
13.5
18
250
Reaction (KN)
200
150
100
50
Figure B6 - 54
University of Surrey
Page 260
Appendix B6
Model 6 Central + Quarter + Edge Load 0.50%M : 0.50%T
Stiffened transverse edge
6100
Stiffened Edge
Stiffened Edge
Section XX
1T32 @100mm c.c (B.B)
1T32 @100mm c.c (T.T)
18100
Free edge
400
Free edge
Section YY
Legend
Supported Edge
B - Bottom Layer 1
BB - Bottom Layer 2
T - Top Layer 1
TT - Top Layer 2
University of Surrey
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
-50
-100
-150
-200
-250
-300
Figure B6 - 71
Support transverse span against reaction
4.5
13.5
18
250
Reaction (KN)
200
150
100
50
Figure B6 - 72
University of Surrey
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
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.)
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
300
500
400
30
30
15
CT
d'M
d'
A ST - M
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
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
'
A SB - M
78
78
42
42
42
42
42
42
42
42
42
54
54
Transverse effective
dT
ASB - T (mm2)
32
32
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
32
32
(mm)
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
300
500
400
30
30
15
d'M
A ST - T
6100 mm
d'T
A ST - M
CT
Page 272
Appendix B7
Model 7 Central Load 0.50%M : 0.50%T
Stiffened main edge + Stiffened transverse edge
6100
Stiffened Edge
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
Legend
Supported Edge
B - Bottom Layer 1
BB - Bottom Layer 2
T - Top Layer 1
TT - Top Layer 2
University of Surrey
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
-20
-40
-60
-80
-100
-120
-140
-160
-180
Figure B7 - 17
Support transverse span against reaction
4.5
13.5
18
140
120
Reaction (KN)
100
80
60
40
20
0
Figure B7 - 18
University of Surrey
Page 281
Appendix B7
Model 7 Quarter Load 0.50%M : 0.50%T
Stiffened main edge + Stiffened transverse edge
6100
Stiffened Edge
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
Legend
Supported Edge
B - Bottom Layer 1
BB - Bottom Layer 2
T - Top Layer 1
TT - Top Layer 2
University of Surrey
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
-20
-40
-60
-80
-100
-120
-140
-160
-180
Figure B7 - 35
Support transverse span against reaction
4.5
13.5
18
140
120
Reaction (KN)
100
80
60
40
20
0
Figure B7 - 36
University of Surrey
Page 290
Appendix B7
Model 7 Edge Load 0.50%M : 0.50%T
Stiffened main edge + Stiffened transverse edge
6100
Stiffened Edge
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
Legend
Supported Edge
B - Bottom Layer 1
BB - Bottom Layer 2
T - Top Layer 1
TT - Top Layer 2
University of Surrey
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
-50
-100
-150
-200
-250
-300
-350
-400
Figure B7 - 53
Support transverse span against reaction
4.5
13.5
18
250
Reaction (KN)
200
150
100
50
Figure B7 - 54
University of Surrey
Page 299
Appendix B7
Model 7 Central + Quarter +Edge Load 0.50%M : 0.50%T
Stiffened main edge + Stiffened transverse edge
6100
Stiffened Edge
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
Legend
Supported Edge
B - Bottom Layer 1
BB - Bottom Layer 2
T - Top Layer 1
TT - Top Layer 2
University of Surrey
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
-100
-150
-200
-250
-300
-350
-400
-450
-500
Figure B7 - 71
Support transverse span against reaction
4.5
13.5
18
350
300
Reaction (KN)
250
200
150
100
50
0
Figure B7 - 72
University of Surrey
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
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.)
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
300
500
400
30
30
15
CT
d'M
d'
A ST - M
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
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
'
A SB - M
42
42
42
42
42
42
42
42
42
42
42
42
42
Transverse effective
dT
ASB - T (mm 2)
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
(mm)
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
reinf. (mm)
TT Top transverse
300
500
400
30
30
15
d'
CT
A ST - T
6100 mm
d'
A ST - M
Page 311
Appendix B8
Model 8 Central Load 0.50%M : 0.50%T
Slab supported on all sides
6100
Section XX
18100
400
Section YY
Legend
Supported Edge
B - Bottom Layer 1
BB - Bottom Layer 2
T - Top Layer 1
TT - Top Layer 2
University of Surrey
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
-20
-40
-60
-80
-100
-120
-140
-160
-180
Figure B8 - 17
Support transverse span against reaction
4.5
13.5
18
150
Reaction (KN)
100
50
-50
-100
Figure B8 - 18
University of Surrey
Page 320
Appendix B8
Model 8 Quarter Load 0.50%M : 0.50%T
Slab supported on all sides
6100
Section XX
18100
400
Section YY
Legend
Supported Edge
B - Bottom Layer 1
BB - Bottom Layer 2
T - Top Layer 1
TT - Top Layer 2
University of Surrey
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
-20
-40
-60
-80
-100
-120
-140
-160
-180
Figure B8 - 35
Support transverse span against reaction
4.5
13.5
18
150
Reaction (KN)
100
50
-50
-100
-150
Figure B8 - 36
University of Surrey
Page 329
Appendix B8
Model 8 Edge Load 0.50%M : 0.50%T
Slab supported on all sides
6100
Section XX
18100
400
Section YY
Legend
Supported Edge
B - Bottom Layer 1
BB - Bottom Layer 2
T - Top Layer 1
TT - Top Layer 2
University of Surrey
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
-50
-100
-150
-200
-250
-300
Figure B8 - 53
Support transverse span against reaction
4.5
13.5
18
200
150
Reaction (KN)
100
50
0
-50
-100
-150
Figure B8 - 54
University of Surrey
Page 338
Appendix B8
Model 8 Central + Quarter + Edge Load 0.50%M : 0.50%T
Slab supported on all sides
6100
Section XX
18100
400
Section YY
Legend
Supported Edge
B - Bottom Layer 1
BB - Bottom Layer 2
T - Top Layer 1
TT - Top Layer 2
Figure B8 - 56 displaced
shape
University of Surrey
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
-50
-100
-150
-200
-250
-300
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
Figure B8 - 72
University of Surrey
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
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.)
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
300
500
250
30
30
15
CT
d'M
d'
A ST - M
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
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
'
A SB - M
42
42
42
42
42
42
42
42
42
42
42
42
42
Transverse effective
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)
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
d'T
A ST - M
CT
Page 350
Appendix B9
Model 9 Central Load 2.00%M : 0.80%T
250mm depth of section
6100
Section XX
18100
Free edge
Free edge
250
Section YY
Legend
Supported Edge
B - Bottom Layer 1
BB - Bottom Layer 2
T - Top Layer 1
TT - Top Layer 2
University of Surrey
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
-20
-40
-60
-80
-100
-120
-140
-160
Figure B9 - 17
Support transverse span against reaction
4.5
13.5
18
160
140
Reaction (KN)
120
100
80
60
40
20
0
Figure B9 - 18
University of Surrey
Page 359
Appendix B9
Model 9 Quarter Load 2.00%M : 0.80%T
250mm depth of section
6100
Section XX
18100
Free edge
Free edge
250
Section YY
Legend
Supported Edge
B - Bottom Layer 1
BB - Bottom Layer 2
T - Top Layer 1
TT - Top Layer 2
University of Surrey
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
-20
-40
-60
-80
-100
-120
-140
-160
Figure B9 - 35
Support transverse span against reaction
4.5
13.5
18
160
140
Reaction (KN)
120
100
80
60
40
20
0
Figure B9 - 36
University of Surrey
Page 368
Appendix B9
Model 9 Edge Load 2.00%M : 0.80%T
250mm depth of section
6100
Section XX
18100
Free edge
Free edge
250
Section YY
Legend
Supported Edge
B - Bottom Layer 1
BB - Bottom Layer 2
T - Top Layer 1
TT - Top Layer 2
University of Surrey
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
-50
-100
-150
-200
-250
-300
Figure B9 - 53
Support transverse span against reaction
4.5
13.5
18
250
Reaction (KN)
200
150
100
50
Figure B9 - 54
University of Surrey
Page 377
Appendix B9
Model 9 Central + Quarter +Edge Load 2.00%M : 0.80%T
250mm depth of section
6100
Section XX
18100
Free edge
Free edge
250
Section YY
Legend
Supported Edge
B - Bottom Layer 1
BB - Bottom Layer 2
T - Top Layer 1
TT - Top Layer 2
University of Surrey
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
-50
-100
-150
-200
-250
-300
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
Figure B9 - 72
University of Surrey
Page 386
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
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.)
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
300
500
325
30
30
15
CT
d'M
d'
A ST - M
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
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
'
A SB - M
42
42
42
42
42
42
42
42
42
42
42
42
42
Transverse effective
(mm)
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
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
d'T
A ST - M
CT
Page 389
Appendix B10
Model 10 Central Load 1.00%M : 0.60%T
325mm depth of section
6100
Section XX
18100
Free edge
Free edge
325
Section YY
Legend
Supported Edge
B - Bottom Layer 1
BB - Bottom Layer 2
T - Top Layer 1
TT - Top Layer 2
University of Surrey
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
-20
-40
-60
-80
-100
-120
-140
-160
-180
Figure B10 - 17
Support transverse span against reaction
4.5
13.5
18
160
140
Reaction (KN)
120
100
80
60
40
20
0
Figure B10 - 18
University of Surrey
Page 398
Appendix B10
Model 10 Quarter Load 1.00%M : 0.60%T
325mm depth of section
6100
Section XX
18100
Free edge
Free edge
325
Section YY
Legend
Supported Edge
B - Bottom Layer 1
BB - Bottom Layer 2
T - Top Layer 1
TT - Top Layer 2
University of Surrey
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
-20
-40
-60
-80
-100
-120
-140
-160
-180
Figure B10 - 35
Support transverse span against reaction
4.5
13.5
18
160
140
Reaction (KN)
120
100
80
60
40
20
0
Figure B10 - 36
University of Surrey
Page 407
Appendix B10
Model 10 Edge Load 1.00%M : 0.60%T
325mm depth of section
6100
Section XX
18100
Free edge
Free edge
325
Section YY
Legend
Supported Edge
B - Bottom Layer 1
BB - Bottom Layer 2
T - Top Layer 1
TT - Top Layer 2
University of Surrey
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
-50
-100
-150
-200
-250
-300
Figure B10 - 53
Support transverse span against reaction
4.5
13.5
18
250
Reaction (KN)
200
150
100
50
Figure B10 - 54
University of Surrey
Page 416
Appendix B10
Model 10 Central + Quarter + Edge Load 1.00%M : 0.60%T
325mm depth of section
6100
Section XX
18100
Free edge
Free edge
325
Section YY
Legend
Supported Edge
B - Bottom Layer 1
BB - Bottom Layer 2
T - Top Layer 1
TT - Top Layer 2
University of Surrey
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
-50
-100
-150
-200
-250
-300
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
Figure B10 - 72
University of Surrey
Page 425
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
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.)
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
300
500
550
30
30
15
CT
d'M
d'
A ST - M
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
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
'
A SB - M
42
42
42
42
42
42
42
42
42
42
42
42
42
Transverse effective
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)
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
d'T
A ST - M
CT
Page 428
Appendix B11
Model 11 Central Load 0.29%M : 0.37%T
550mm depth of section
6100
Section XX
18100
Free edge
550
Free edge
Section YY
Legend
Supported Edge
B - Bottom Layer 1
BB - Bottom Layer 2
T - Top Layer 1
TT - Top Layer 2
University of Surrey
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
-20
-40
-60
-80
-100
-120
-140
-160
-180
Figure B11 - 17
Support transverse span against reaction
4.5
13.5
18
160
140
Reaction (KN)
120
100
80
60
40
20
0
Figure B11 - 18
University of Surrey
Page 437
Appendix B11
Model 11 Quarter Load 0.29%M : 0.37%T
550mm depth of section
6100
Section XX
18100
Free edge
550
Free edge
Section YY
Legend
Supported Edge
B - Bottom Layer 1
BB - Bottom Layer 2
T - Top Layer 1
TT - Top Layer 2
University of Surrey
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
-20
-40
-60
-80
-100
-120
-140
-160
-180
Figure B11 - 35
Support transverse span against reaction
4.5
13.5
18
160
140
Reaction (KN)
120
100
80
60
40
20
0
Figure B11 - 36
University of Surrey
Page 446
Appendix B11
Model 11 Edge Load 0.29%M : 0.37%T
550mm depth of section
6100
Section XX
18100
Free edge
550
Free edge
Section YY
Legend
Supported Edge
B - Bottom Layer 1
BB - Bottom Layer 2
T - Top Layer 1
TT - Top Layer 2
University of Surrey
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
-50
-100
-150
-200
-250
-300
Figure B11 - 53
Support transverse span against reaction
4.5
13.5
18
250
Reaction (KN)
200
150
100
50
Figure B11 - 54
University of Surrey
Page 455
Appendix B11
Model 11 Central + Quarter + Edge Load 0.29%M : 0.37%T
550mm depth of section
6100
Section XX
18100
Free edge
550
Free edge
Section YY
Legend
Supported Edge
B - Bottom Layer 1
BB - Bottom Layer 2
T - Top Layer 1
TT - Top Layer 2
University of Surrey
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
-50
-100
-150
-200
-250
-300
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
Figure B11 - 72
University of Surrey
Page 464
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
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.)
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
300
500
700
30
30
15
CT
d'M
d'
A ST - M
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
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
'
A SB - M
42
42
42
42
42
42
42
42
42
42
42
42
42
Transverse effective
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)
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
d'T
A ST - M
CT
Page 467
Appendix B12
Model 12 Central Load 0.16%M : 0.29%T
700mm depth of section
6100
Section XX
18100
Free edge
700
Free edge
Section YY
Legend
Supported Edge
B - Bottom Layer 1
BB - Bottom Layer 2
T - Top Layer 1
TT - Top Layer 2
University of Surrey
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
-40
-60
-80
-100
-120
-140
-160
-180
-200
Figure B12 - 17
Support transverse span against reaction
4.5
13.5
18
160
140
Reaction (KN)
120
100
80
60
40
20
0
Figure B12 - 18
University of Surrey
Page 476
Appendix B12
Model 12 Quarter Load 0.16%M : 0.29%T
700mm depth of section
6100
Section XX
18100
Free edge
700
Free edge
Section YY
Legend
Supported Edge
B - Bottom Layer 1
BB - Bottom Layer 2
T - Top Layer 1
TT - Top Layer 2
University of Surrey
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
-40
-60
-80
-100
-120
-140
-160
-180
-200
Figure B12 - 35
Support transverse span against reaction
4.5
13.5
18
160
140
Reaction (KN)
120
100
80
60
40
20
0
Figure B12 - 36
University of Surrey
Page 485
Appendix B12
Model 12 Edge Load 0.16%M : 0.29%T
700mm depth of section
6100
Section XX
18100
Free edge
700
Free edge
Section YY
Legend
Supported Edge
B - Bottom Layer 1
BB - Bottom Layer 2
T - Top Layer 1
TT - Top Layer 2
University of Surrey
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
-40
-60
-80
-100
-120
-140
-160
-180
-200
Figure B12 - 53
Support transverse span against reaction
4.5
13.5
18
160
140
Reaction (KN)
120
100
80
60
40
20
0
Figure B12 - 54
University of Surrey
Page 494
Appendix B12
Model 12 Central + Quarter + Edge Load 0.16%M : 0.29%T
700mm depth of section
6100
Section XX
18100
Free edge
700
Free edge
Section YY
Legend
Supported Edge
B - Bottom Layer 1
BB - Bottom Layer 2
T - Top Layer 1
TT - Top Layer 2
University of Surrey
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
-50
-100
-150
-200
-250
-300
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
Figure B12 - 72
University of Surrey
Page 503