PCDC

Design Consultants Pty Ltd


Prestressed Concrete

A.B.N 84 003 163 586 5 Cameron St Beenleigh Qld 4127 Australia

Ph +61 7 3807 8022

Fax +61 7 3807 8422
gil@raptsoftware.com

3 July, 2010
One question I am continually asked by designers is how to treat results of FEM analysis in design for
concrete flat slabs. They often point out that the FEM results from some programs give resulting
design moments and reinforcement areas that are significantly less than would be achieved analysing
by equivalent frame methods and designing by strip methods.

My first question to them is to ask what moments are being used for design by those programs. It is
always the same, Mx and My.

That is perfectly ok, as long as the moments have been determined by Finite Element Nodal Reactive
Moment methods, which give results as Mx, My and V at each node. In this case, the twisting moment is
zero and equilibrium is satisfied by designing for the Mx and My components.

If however, the moments are determined as Mx, My and Mxy using Classical Theory, then Mxy is being
ignored in design, and equilibrium is not satisfied.

The next comment is along the lines of “but Mxy is torsion and the code allows me to ignore torsion”!

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

Then it is, but the code does not mention Mxy moments!

Beam Torsion
The diagram to the right shows the torsional moment in a beam. There are 2 important points to make
for this,

- the placement of longitudinal reinforcement and torsional stirrups is not coupled – they are
governed by separate equations.
- Beam torsion results in circular shear stress.

Plate Twisting Moments

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

The equilibrium equation for a plate is

RAPT - In the economical design of concrete

This is the most important equation providing invaluable physical insight into the problem of reinforced
plate design. It reveals that the load “q” can be arbitrarily apportioned between Mx , My and Mxy
x y xy
for reinforcement design as long as the LHS of the equation is larger than the RHS at all points of the
plate system. It also points out that design solutions are not unique.

It is extremely important to note if the design moment fields are such that part of the load is carried
by the Mxy term, the design cannot just ignore Mxy as that would make the addition of the Mx and My
terms smaller than the applied loads.

This interpretation of satisfying equilibrium with allowance to violate compatibility leads to the Lower
Bound Method.

Standards Australia Response to question on design from FEM analysis:

Eventually I decided to ask Standards Australia’s AS3600 committee for the official position of
AS3600 on Mxy moments. Below in italics is the official Standards Australia response to my queries
regarding
1. design of concrete plates using results from FEM analysis, and
2. regarding torsional stiffness to use in FEM plate analysis

Under no circumstances can torsion be "ignored", it is fundamental to equilibrium!


The generally accepted method of dealing with the twisting moments, Mxy, for the design moments is to use
the Wood-Armer equations. In essence, the method involves adding the absolute value of Mxy to the moments
Mx and My, using the correct signs of each to give design moments in each direction:



Mx* = Mx + |Mxy|

M*y = My + |Mxy|


I assume that the context of your question is for the case of slabs. In this case the basic of equation of
equilibrium is:


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






Provided this equation is satisfied, equilibrium is satisfied. How we treat this will depend on the method of
analysis. For example, in most lower bound methods the torsional component of the stress resultants are taken
as zero and the load carried, in full, as moments in the x and y directions (or in the case of a one way slab, in
one of the x or y directions). Provided that the stress resultants sum to the total load on the slab, equilibrium is
satisfied. Note here that torsion has not been "ignored", rather a conscious decision has been taken
by the designer to take mxy as zero and, thus, increase one or both the other components. Further,
to ensure that the system has sufficient ductility additional compatibility reinforcement (as per AS3600-2009
clause 9.1.3.3(e)) must be placed in the high torsion regions to alleviate any adverse torsional effects and see
that the loads can be redistributed to the designers selected load path. 



If we were to use a linear-elastic FE package to obtain the design moments, three bending components (mx,
my and mxy) and two shear components (vx and vy) will be output. In this case, the torsional component is

2
most likely not zero and most certainly cannot be ignored. This is fundamental mechanics. In this case, the
usual method of analysis is to determine the yield condition using the "Wood-Armer" equation: 



mux = mx +fn|mxy|



muy = my +fn|mxy|



Here mux and muy include both the normal and torsional components of the moments. To "ignore" the
torsional moments in such circumstances violates equilibrium and is dangerous!



On the second question, I think that the code is reasonably clear on the torsional stiffness to be taken:

For equilibrium torsion, the torsional stiffness of the uncracked section should be used.

For compatibility torsion, the torsional stiffness may be taken as zero provided that "the torsion reinforcement
requirements of Clause 8.3.7 and the detailing requirements of Clause 8.3.8 are satisfied." (Refer to Clause
8.3.2). 


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

It has also been suggested by at least two FEM concrete software developers that AS3600 and most
other codes do not mention Mxy moments (NZS code used to have a large section on this), so they can
be ignored. All design codes insist that Equilibrium Must be Satisfied. That is all they have to say. It
is up to the designer to understand and to achieve this, based on the analysis that he has done.

If you want to do a quick check on the FEM software you are using, for a rectangular column grid with
udl loading, the total moment in a panel must be w.ly.lx2/8 in the x direction and w.lx.ly2/8 in the y
direction. This is a lower bound equilibrium requirement and must be satisfied if the analysis is
correct. If the results do not match this equilibrium result, find out why not, or use other more reliable
software.