Professional Documents
Culture Documents
UK Dissertations About Us
Contact Us FAQs & Help Review & Testimonials Dissertation Writers Dissertation Cheating
Study Aids
Dissertation Help Dissertation Ideas Dissertation Titles Dissertation How to Guides How to Write a Dissertation
Free Dissertations
You are here: UK Dissertations Dissertations Engineering Flat Slab Design
Abstract
This dissertation aims at the flexure behaviour of reinforced concrete flat slabs in the elastic range and at the ultimate load. As such, it endeavours to give readers a thorough knowledge of the fundamentals of slab behaves in flexure. Such a background is essential for a complete and proper understanding of building code requirements and design procedures for flexure behaviour of slabs. The dissertation commences with a general history background and the advantages of using flat slab as the type of floor construction. After that, an introduction of various slabs analysis method as well as the determination of the distribution of moments using elastic theory will be discussed. The building code based methods like ACI direct design method, Simplified coefficient method for BS8110 and EC2 and Equivalent frame method will be explained in details. After that follows a detailed of limit procedures for the ultimate analysis and design of flat slab using general lower bound theory for strip method and upper bound theory for yield line analysis. Besides, the fundamental of the finite element method will be discussed as well. Then, analysis will be carried out on a typical flat slab panel base on each design approach available such as yield line method, simplified coefficient method, direct design method, finite element method as well as Hillerborg strip method. The flexure resistant obtained from the analysis result will then be compared among each others and highlighting the possible pros and cons of the different analysis. Eventually, the analysis results will then be discussed in order to conclude a rational approach to flat slab design and further recommendation will be given to the future improvement of this research.
1. Introduction
Concrete is the most widely used construction material in the world compare to steel as concrete is well known as the most versatile and durable construction materials. In fact, concrete is also one of the most consumed substances on Earth after water [1]. Concrete has played a major role in the shaping of our civilization since 7,000 BC, and it can be seen
everywhere in our built environment, being used in hospitals, residential buildings, schools, offices, industrial buildings and others [2]. Nowadays, construction should not just be about achieving the cheapest building possible, but providing best value for the client. The best value may be about costs, but also includes speed of construction, robustness, durability, sustainability, spacious environment, etc. In fact, many type of concrete floor construction can easily fulfilled the above requirements. In the past, forming the concrete floor construction into shape was potentially the most costly and labour intensive part of the process. Nowadays, with the help of modern high efficiency modular formwork has speed up the concrete floor construction process. Alternatively, floor slab elements may be factory precast, requiring only assembly, or stitching together with insitu elements. The result is an economic and swift process, capable of excellent quality and finishes to suit the building's needs.
Flat slab
Flat slab is also referred to as beamless slab or flat plate. The slab systems are a subset of two-way slab family, meaning that the system transfer the load path and deforms in two directions. It is an extremely simple structure in concept and construction, consisting of a slab of uniform thickness supported directly by the columns with no intermediate beams, as shown in Figure 1.1. The choice of flat slab as building floor system is usually a matter of the magnitude of the design loading and of the spans. The capacity of the slab is usually restricted by the strength in punching shear at the sections around the columns. Generally, column capitals and drop panels will be used within the flat slab system to avoid shear failure at the column section when larger loads and span are present, as shown in Figure 1.2. Figure 1.1: Solid flat slab Figure 1.2: Solid flat slab with drop panel Flat slab is a highly versatile element widely used in construction due to its capability of providing minimum depth, fast construction and allowing a flexible column grid system.
One-way spanning slabs are generally rectangular slabs supported by two beams at the opposite edges and the loads are transferring in one direction only. Figure 1.3 shows the type of one-way slabs. Deep beam and slab Band beam and slab Figure 1.3: Type of one-way slabs However, slab supported on beams on all sides of each panel are generally termed two-way slabs, and a typical floor is shown in Figure 1.4. Figure 1.4: Two-way slab The beams supporting the slabs can generally be wide and flat or narrow and deep beam, depending on the structure's requirements. Beams supporting the slabs in one or two way spanning slabs tend to span between columns or walls and can be simply supported or continuous. In this beam-slabs system, it is quite easy to visualize the path from the load point to column as being transferred from slab to beam to column, and from this visualization then to compute realistic moments and shears for design of all members. This form of construction is commonly used for irregular grids and long spans, where flat slabs are unsuitable. It is also good for transferring columns, walls or heavy point loads to columns or walls below. This method is time consuming during the construction stage as formwork tends to be labour intensive [3].
Faster construction
Construction of flat slabs is one of the quickest methods among the other type of floors in construction. The advantages of using flat slab construction are becoming increasingly recognised. Flat slabs without drops (thickened areas of slab around the columns to resist punching shear) can be built faster because formwork is simplified and minimised, and rapid turn-around can be achieved using a combination of early striking and flying systems. The overall speed of construction will then be limited by the rate at which vertical elements can be cast [4].
Reinforced concrete slabs are among the most common structural elements, but despite the large number of slabs designed and built, the details of elastic and plastic behaviour of slabs are not always appreciated or properly taken into account especially for flat slab system. This happens at least partially because of the complexities of mathematic when dealing with elastic plate equations, especially for support conditions which realistically approximate those in multi-panel building floor slabs. Because the theoretical analysis of slabs or plates is much less widely known and practiced than is the analysis of elements such as beams, the provisions in building codes generally provide both design criteria and methods of analysis for slabs, whereas only criteria are provided for most other elements. For example, Chapter 13 of the 1995 edition of the American Concrete Institute (ACI) Building Code Requirements for Structural Concrete, one of the most widely used Codes for concrete design, is devoted largely to the determination of moments in slab structure. Once moments, shear, and torques are found, sections are proportioned to resist them using the criteria specified in other sections of the same code [5]. The purpose of this research project is to examine the analysis methods such as Hillerborg's strip, yield line analysis, equivalent frame method, finite element method and etc. particularly for the design flexural reinforcement of reinforced flat slabs, and meanwhile to gain full understanding of the theories. The different analysis methods will then be analysed and compared with the flexural capacity method calculated using general codes of ACI 318 [5], Eurocode 2 [6] and BS8110 [7]. The outcomes of the comparison will lead to highlight the pros and cons of different approaches and codes paving the way to find out a rational approach for the flat slab design in flexure. The main objectives of the proposed research are:
To examine the different methods and codes use to handle the flexural capacity of the slab. To outlined the different positive and negative aspect in a specific code or method of design To gain full understanding of the flexural design theories and code requirements. To highlight the most economical design solution to overcome the flexure in a flat slab while maintaining the safety as code requirements.
Discussion
The numerical analysis results obtain from different design methods and the codes will be discussed and compare among each others and also to the experimental results obtain in the previous research papers such as Engineering journals and other relevant engineering sources. This process will ultimately lead to a proper and systematic comparison of the codes and methods used, and highlighting their pros and cons.
Conclusion
This part will conclude the discussion on advantages and disadvantages of all the examined design methods trying to establish which design method may result in a more economic and rational solution. Furthermore recommendations if required and the possible future areas of research will be brought up.
Brief introduction to the current codes for flat slab design such as American Concrete Institute ACI-318, British Standard BS8110 and Eurocode 2. In addition, the fundamental of analysis and flexure strength requirement of each code will be briefly described. Brief introduction to design methods and history of yield line analysis, Hillerborg's strip method and finite element analysis in the slab flexure design.
Chapter 3, Analysis
Introduction of the analysis process and assumption made for each analysis methods. Focusing on different numerical aspects of the design under different codes and approaches. This section will provide deep understanding of various design methods and how the methods deal with the flat slab flexure problem.
Various numerical result from different approaches will be compared and discussed based on the experimental results from past research papers. Pros and cons of different methods for design codes (eg. ACI, EC2 and BS8110), Hillerborg strip method, yield line analysis Graphs and tables will be available to show the summary of the results from different methods.
Chapter 5, Conclusion
Summarise the economic and rational flexural design approach for flat slab Further recommendations
these methods can be used to determine the distribution of moments to allow the reinforcing steel and concrete sections to be designed.
The governing equation is a fourth-order partial differential equation in terms of the slab deflection of the slab at general point on the slab, the loading on the slab, and the flexural rigidity of the slab section. This equation is complicated to solve in many realistic cases, when considering the effects of deformations of the supporting system. However, numerous analytical techniques have been developed to obtain the solution. In particular, the use of finite difference or finite element (FE) methods enables elastic theory solutions to be obtained for slab systems with any loading or boundary conditions [8]. Nowadays, with the advancement of computer technology software, designer can easily obtained the bending and torsional moments and shear forces throughout the slab easily with any finite element software packages such as ANSYS, LUSAS, STAAD PRO, SAP2000 and others.
reinforcement after yielding, the actual collapse load tends to be much higher. The commonly used approach of this method is yield line theory [9].
During the past, due to the absence of a proper theory for flat slab design in Germany hence flat slab construction was almost impossible to be carried out. After sometime later, requirements for the flat slab design theory were established. This theory again mentioned that the design moment must follow Lewe's theory (1920, 1922) or theory developed by Marcus (1924). [12].
conceptual design of his flat slabs are available in his patent applications (C.A.P. Turner, 'Steel Skeleton and Concrete Construction and Elasticity, structure and strength of materials used in engineering.') [10]. In fact, Turner's principle design was more concerned about shear in flat slabs as stated by him, 'Beside the unreliability of concrete in tension, it is unreliable in shear in its partially cured condition. This renders desirable use of reinforcement near the columns or supports to take care of shear' [10]. In Turner's principle, a so called Mushroom heads or cantilever caps were designed to provide shear resistance in flat slabs. As quoted by Turner, '...heads may be constructed in accordance with the shearing strain....' The diameter of cantilever head was about one-half of the span length. Turner presumed the reinforcement cage acted as part of cantilever support to the slab [10]. Figure 2.3 is an example of the cantilever support mentioned by Turner. Figure 2.3: C.A.P. Turner, mushroom or cantilever shear head [10] Besides shear, Turner also focused on moments and used a four way reinforcement which also known as reinforcement belts, see Figure 2.4. These belts have the same width as that of the cantilever shear head. Turner believed that the positive moments were small due to the cantilever support which is stated as, 'Referring to flat central plate, or the suspended slab portion, there is practically no bending moment at the center' [10]. Figure 2.4: C.A.P. Turner's four belt floor reinforcement system [10] Also, Turner believed reinforced the slab in four directions (four belt floor reinforcement system) would provide the moment resistance to counter the negative moments at supports. With these conceptions, Turner considered a very small total design moment to proportion the flexural steel in the four belts. Turner simplified the equation as following: -- (1) where, W = total dead and live load in one bay L = nominal dimensions in one bay As = total flexural steel, distributed among the four belts fs = allowable steel stress d = distance to tension reinforcement Turner used the co-efficient of 1/50 for equation (1) above reference to Grashoff (1878) and to Prof. Henry T. Eddy (1899) from University of Minnesota. In fact, Turner decided to use such a small coefficient due to the consideration of shorter effective span between cantilever heads. Moreover Turner also considered the slab spanning continuously instead of simply supported design. Numerous experiments data performed by Turner proved that such a coefficient was sufficient for flexure resistant. Besides, the use of cantilever head lead to the unnecessary of drop panels in Turner's concept. Turner's design concept has successfully built many buildings and bridges from year 1905 to 1909 [10].
2.3 Current Methods of Flat Slab Design 2.3.1 American Concrete Institute (ACI)
American Concrete Institute (ACI) is one of the oldest codes and widely been used to design for reinforced concrete structures. The code covers a number of methods to design a flat slab system. The design of structural concrete is dictated by Building Code Requirements for Structural Concrete (ACI 318-05) and Commentary (ACI 318R-05). The ACI code contains procedure for the design of uniformly loaded reinforced concrete flat slab floors. These methods are direct design techniques and equivalent frame method. All these methods are based on analytical studies of the distribution of moments using elastic theory and strength using yield line theory, the results of tests on model and prototype structures, and experience of slabs built. According to ACI 318-05, load capacity for the structural members shall be designed larger than the required strength using a suitable analysis method. The required strength, U, is computed based on combinations of the loadings required in the general building code. However, for the design strength at a location in the system is usually multiplied by a strength reduction factor, f. Theses factors are always less than 1.0 and account for statistical variations in material properties and inaccuracies in design equations. This factor varies based on the specific response quantity being designed. For flexure in this case, f ranges from 0.65 to 0.9 depending on the strain condition [5]. The basic requirements for strength design are expressed as Design Strength Required Strength Or f (Nominal Strength) U 2.3.1.1 Fundamental of flexure design ACI 318 Section 13.5.1 states that, A slab system shall be designed by any procedure satisfying conditions of equilibrium and geometric compatibility, if shown that the design strength at every section is at least equal to the required strength set forth in 9.2 and 9.3, and that all serviceability conditions, including limits on deflections, are met [5]. In the code, two simplified linear elastic analysis methods are permitted for designing flat slab, providing the structure satisfies various requirements. These two methods are the ACI direct design method and the ACI equivalent frame technique. Both of these methods are based on analytical studies of moment distributions using elastic theory, strength requirements from yield line theory, experimental testing of physical models and previous experience of slabs constructed in the field. Based on the linear elastic analysis, it is acceptable to design the reinforcement to the ultimate limit state provided the equilibrium conditions are satisfied. The advantages of these methods usually satisfy the deflection and cracking check in most cases.
Therefore a flexure section will be designed as a tension controlled section. The stress in the steel fs is set equal to the yield stress fs. This will produce a tension force as: (2) The tension force, T acts at a distance d as shown in the Figure 2.5. In equilibrium, the compression force, C due to the concrete should be equal to the tension force T produced in the section. The compression force, C is then represented by a rectangular block which in reality behave non-linearly but the code permits it to be worked out as a rectangular zone with a stress value of 0.85fc'. This gives the compression force: (3) Now by summing the internal moments from the compression stress and tensile stress, the total moment expression equation as below: (4) Equation (4) is formulated for the ultimate strength of the member, and then formula can now be modified for design application. This formula can only compute the ultimate strength when a known steel reinforcement area is provided. However, in a design process the ultimate strengths are known and the steel reinforcement is to be calculated, simply equating and substituting the value of a, which can be worked out by equating, a quadratic expression of As,reqd as a function of Mu can be worked out using the following equation:
There must be three or more spans in each direction, directly supported on columns. Adjacent span lengths may differ by no more that one-third of the longer span. Panels should be rectangular and the long span should no more than twice the short span. Columns must be placed near the corners of each panel, with an offset from the general column line of no more that 10% of the span in each direction. The live load should not exceed 3 times the dead load. (This limit need not apply in cases where the same live load must always be present in all panels at the same time.) All loads shall be due to gravity only and uniformly distributed over an entire panel.
In this method, the first involves determination of the total static bending moment, , which is the absolute sum of the positive plus the average negative moments for which a panel must be designed in the usual case in which the effects of partial loadings are not too important. The static moment is defined for flat slab systems as below: (6) where, w = uniformly distributed load per unit area l2 = width of the slab transverse to the reinforcement ln = clear span, (clear distance between columns in the direction being considered) Figure 2.6: Column and middle strip [5] The next decision to be made concerns the distribution of the total static design moment to the negative and positive moment sections. In ACI code, moments are divided accordingly to the location of the panel. The basic negative-positive distribution of moment adopted for an interior panel in the ACI code direct design method is a negative moment of and a positive moment of, where is the static moment. Now as the total positive and negative moments are computed they must be distributed between the column strips and the middle strip. These strips are shown in the Figure 2.6. The column strip is defined by ACI as A design strip with a width on each side of a column centerline equal to or , whichever is less. It is then distributed throughout the panel according to ACI 318 section 13.6.3, 13.6.4 and 13.6.6 [5].
In BS 8110, part 1 section 3.7.1.2 states that the analysis of flat slabs supported by a generally arrangement of column can be carried out by using the following methods:
Simplified method Equivalent frame method Yieldline method Hillerborg's strip method Finite Element method
According to BS8110, concrete structure member can be designed in flexure according to the clause 3.5.1. However, an appropriate elastic analysis may be used apart from the general method that use for beam design. The ultimate moment of resistance for the normal slabs may be worked out using the same equations as used for the beams as below: However, for flat slab, BS8110 allow it to be design as a single way spanning slab using the same principles as discussed earlier for both directions. Moments distribute along the flat
slab structure may be analysed using the equivalent frame method or simplified method as well as finite element analysis method. Hillerborg strip method and yield line analysis is also permitted in the code but provided the design carry out according to the BS8110 clause 3.5.2.1. The ratio between the span and support moments for yield line or strip method must be the same as that of obtained by elastic analysis [7].
Table 2.2: Ultimate bending moment and shear forces in one-way spanning slabs [7] Interior panels of the flat slab should be divided as shown in Figure 2.8 below into column and middle strips. Drop panels should be ignored if their smaller dimension is less than the one-third of the smaller panel dimension lx. If a panel is not a square type, strip widths in both directions are based on lx. a) Slab without drops b) Slab with drops Figure 2.8: Division of panels in flat slabs [7] Then, the moments are determined from the simplified coefficient method using Table 2.2 above are distributed between the strips as shown in Table 2.3 below. Table 2.3: Distribution of design moments in panels of flat slabs [7] Reinforcement designed to resist these slab moments may be detailed according to the simplified rules for slabs, and satisfying normal spacing limits. This moment should be spread across the respective strip. Though steel to resist negative moments in column strips should have two-thirds of the area located in the central half strip width. If the column strip is narrower because of drops, then adjustment for the moments resistant of column and middle strips should proportionate.
2.3.3 Eurocode 2
Basically, Eurocode 2 for reinforced concrete structures is more or less a refine code from the British Standards (BS8110). The basic assumptions behind EC2 for the section behavior are the same as those adopted by the modern code of practice. Although, assumptions
made in EC2 may different from the BS 8110 but the design results are approximately the same. In fact, the calculations are seems to be a bit complicated comparing to the BS 8110. The assumptions made for the design of members in flexure for EC2 are the similar to those listed in clause 3.4.4.1 of BS8110 except that in EC2 there is no limit over the lever arm depth. Figure 2.9 below shows the rectangular stress block in the EC2 [6]. Figure 2.9: Rectangular stress distribution [6] The factor ?defining the effective height of the compression zone and the factor h, defining the effective strength, follows from Table 2.4 below: Table 2.4: Values for ?and has mentioned in the EC2 [6] The ultimate moment resistance of the section Mu can be calculated from the equation: -- (8) where, -- (9) -- (10) In EC2, at the ultimate limit state, the concrete section in flexure should be ductile and that failure should occur with the gradually yielding of the reinforcement and not by the catastrophically failure of the concrete. Therefore, to be certain for the tension steel to reach failure gradually, clause 5.6.3 of EC2 limits the neutral axis x to 0.45d for concrete grades =C50/60 and 0.35d for concrete grades =C55. By combining the above equations (8)-(10) gives [6]: -- (11)
under EC2 as well. The bending moment and shear forces may be computed using the Table 2.5 shown below [6]: At outer support Near middle of end span At first interior support -0.086Fl 0.6F At middle of interior spans At interior supports
Moment Shear
0 0.46F
0.086Fl -
0.063Fl -
-0.063Fl 0.5F
l = full panel length in the direction of the span F = total ultimate load = 1.35Gk + 1.50Qk Table 2.5: Ultimate bending moment and shear force coefficient in
where, = effective width of the strip transferring the moment d = being the effective depth of the slab fck = concrete characteristic strength Consider moment, Mtmax if higher than edge or corner support moment. And the middle strip moment should then be increased accordingly. On the other hand, if Mtmax is less than the 50% of the moment hence the structure members should be re-designed [6].
equation and reinforce the slab for these moments [14]. The method was developed by Hillerborg from Sweden in the 1956 but remain unfamiliar until Woods and Armer drew the attention to the potential and possibilities of the method can be used [15]. Hillerborg's strip method is commonly used to deal with the simple structure which covers uniformly loaded slabs supported continuously or simply supported. Slab with different shape may be applicable with this method as well. The load in this method is assumed to be carried by pure strip action, no twisting effect is considered. Therefore, at failure, the load is carried either by bending in the x-direction or by separate bending in the y-direction. Let's consider a simply supported rectangular slab, supported on all the four sides with a uniformly distributed, w loaded on it as shown in Figure 2.12.The dotted lines on the slab indicate the lines of discontinuity decided by the designer. Load in the areas 1 is carried by x-strips and load in areas 2 is carried by y-strips. Then a y-strip, such as B-B, will be loaded along its entire length as shown in Figure 2.12, so that the bending moment diagram is of parabolic shape with a maximum moment of. Then, the y-strip C-C will be loaded only for a length y at each end but the centre is unloaded as it is carried by the x-strips. Similarly for x-strips A-A is loaded as shown in figure below. Once the decision of lines of discontinuity is confirmed and the bending moment value is calculated, the designer may proceed to the design stage.
In fact, in this method, the designer needs to make a judgment on defining the angle aas a poor decision of the angle may result in uneconomic design of the slab. As an example, when assuming the angle a equal to 90will then result the slab reinforced for one-way bending. According to lower bound theorem, the design is safe but it may not be serviceable as excessive cracking may occur at the edges in the y-direction. Therefore, Hillerborg has recommended for such a simply supported slab, the angle equal ato 45 [15]. The typical bending moment diagrams are shown in Figure 2.12. From the diagrams show that to reinforce the slab to match this moments is uneconomic. Y A A B B C C X
a... Load, w Load and B.M.D Strip A-A Load and B.M.D Strip B-B Load and B.M.D Strip C-C 1 2 2 1 l y x w w w Figure 2.12: Hillerborg strip diagram For instance, maximum moment for a y-strip B-B is while that for C-C is. Hillerborg decided to have strips of uniform reinforcement giving a slab yield moment equal to the average of the maximum moments found in the strip [15]. Later on, Wood and Armer have suggested an alternative for the inclined stress discontinuity lines which makes the design much simpler as shown in Figure 2.13 below: X5 X4 X3 X2 X1 Y1 Y2 Y3 Y4 Y5 45... Figure 2.13: Load distribution according to Wood & Armer In this case, five strips in each direction may be conveniently used as shown. Each of the strips would be designed in bending for the particular load which it is carrying as done for a
one way spanning section. Reinforcement bar will be arranged uniformly across each strip in order to produce an overall pattern of reinforcement bands in both directions. Support reactions can be obtained easily by solving each strip. In addition, with this new simplified method suggested by Wood and Armer is suitable for slabs with openings, in which case strengthened bands can be provided round the openings with the remainder of the slab divided into strips as appropriate. Figure 2.14 shows a typical pattern of slab with opening [15]. Stiffened band opening Figure 2.14: Typical slab with opening
The selection of geometrically possible yield line pattern is important because this method gives an upper bound solution. The aim is to find the pattern gives the lowest load carrying capacity, but because of membrane action, an exhaustive search is rarely necessary, selecting a few simple and obvious patterns is generally sufficient. These axes of rotations and yield line patterns are developed following a set of rules mentioned below [16]:
Axes of rotation lie along supported edge pass over columns or cut unsupported edges. The yield lines divide the slab into rigid regions, which are assumed to remain plane, so that all rotations take place in the yield lines. Yield lines are straight and end at a slab boundary. A yield line between two rigid regions must pas through the intersection of the axes of rotation of the two regions.
The yield lines forms in the areas of the highest stress and goes on to form plastic hinges. These hinges go on to form a mechanism and hence a yield line pattern is developed. It divides the slab into a number of rigid regions which rotates about their axis of rotations. In other words, the yield line is derived mainly from the position of the axes of rotation. Some simple yield line patterns are shown in Figure 2.17 below: Figure 2.17: Simple yield line patterns [16] A yield line caused by sagging moment with tension at the bottom is referred to as positive yield line whereas due to the hogging moment and causing cracks on the top surface of the slab is negative yield line. The positive yield lines are represented by a solid line meanwhile a negative moment is represented using a broken line.
In this research, only the principle of virtual work will be focus on. Theoretically both solution techniques should compute the same yield line geometry. Once the actual yield pattern dimensions are obtained, the system can be evaluated to determine the ultimate load required to produce this yield pattern. After the actual collapse mechanism and ultimate load have been determined, the engineer can distribute reinforcement throughout the slab. Virtual work method is the most popular and regconised method used to apply yield line theory due to its simplicity in use. The basic principle of work method is that the internal and external work done in rigid body be equal the external work done to cause a collapse of the slab must be equal to the total energy dissipated along the yield lines. The equation is as below [16]: External energy = Internal energy -- (13) where, w = load acting within a region (kN)
d = vertical displacement (m) m = moment of resistance of the slab (kNm/m) l = Length of yield line q = Rotation of the region about its axis of rotation Let's consider a rectangular slab is simply supported along two opposite edges and subjected to a uniformly distributed load, w per unit area. Longitudinal reinforcement is provided as shown in the Figure 2.18 below giving an ultimate moment resistance m per unit width. Figure 2.19 shows the predicted collapse mechanism of one-way spanning due to the gradually increase loading. Longitudinal reinforcement L Yield Line m aL Plan Figure 2.18: Simply supported, One-way spanning rectangular slab Hinge d q Collapse Mechanism Figure 2.19: One-way spanning slab collapse mechanism As we know the maximum moment will occur at midspan would be, -- (14) By using the virtual work method, the maximum moment will occur at midspan and a positive yield line can thus be superimposed as shown. If this is associated to be subject to a small displacement d, then, External work done = area load average distance moved for each rigid half of the slab -- (15) therefore, -- (16) Now internal energy absorbed by rotation along the yield line is: moment rotation length = mqaL where, -- (17) hence, Internal energy = -- (18) Thus equating the internal energy absorbed with external work done, = -- (19) Or as anticipated -- (20)
non-linear. As a result, the support moments obtain from the finite element method will tend to be overestimated and the deflection of the slab may be underestimated. In the market, many commercial programs do not have a facility to release the support moments. Therefore, averaging the moment adjacent to the support is usually adopted in order to obtain satisfactory reinforcement. Averaging the moments will help to improve the ductility of the slab. On the other hand, there are also some FE programs available that adopt yield line principles and other that use elastic analysis and then iterate with the nonlinear material properties i.e ANSYS and LUSAS. These software packages are very powerful and yet difficult tool, especially when used by engineer who do not have a grasp of the rationale behind the program [11]. In this research, due to the limitation of finite element software options available, STAAD Pro software will be used to analyse the slab flexure resistant. The software is a linear elastic analysis based therefore ultimate load capacity of the slab will not be able to access.
3. Analysis
The aim of this chapter is to carry out the flexure analysis for flat slab using the design methods that discussed in the previous chapter. This process will provide a thorough insight into the design of a flat slab and will highlight the possible positive and negative aspects of a particular analysis approach.
Case 1: Flat slab using virtual work method A typical internal and end square slab panel (7.5m 7.5m) as shown in Figure 3.3 will be analysed and designed for flexure resistance. The design parameters are assumed as in Table 3.1 below: Concrete grade Top and Bottom cover Slab thickness Ultimate load Column size Steel strength Table 3.1: Design parameters While analyzing and designing, several limitations / assumptions been made as below:
The slab is assumed to form part of a braced frame with lateral stability provided by some form of vertical bracing between columns or by shear walls within the confines of the building. The slab is assumed to be a one way continuous slab analysed and designed separately in both x and y directions. The mode of failure is assumed to be the folded plate mechanism. Check and design for punching shear reinforcement will not be carried out at this stage. No partial safety factor will be considered
Lever arm: Location of column Reinforcement concentrated in area of dimensions x (or y) y (or x) Internal Edge Corner 0.5 L 0.5 L 0.5 L (0.2 L + E.D.) (0.2 L + E.D.) (0.2 L + E.D.)
Table 3.2: Distribution of top reinforcement using yield line design [16] Thorn 1763mm2/m ii.) Perpendicular and along grids 3, Total negative moment along this line: 572kNm Concentrating negative moment at column heads: 105kNm/m Lever arm: Thorn 1279mm2/m Table 3.3 below shows the summary of the area of steel require and bending moment result for the relevant column and middle strips. Strip Location Moment (kNm/m) Area of steel (mm2/m)
Column
-ve +ve
140.0 66.56
1763 777
Middle
-ve +ve
66.56 66.56
777 777
Column
-ve +ve
105 49.94
1279 583
Middle
-ve +ve
49.94 49.94
583 583
Table 3.3: Moments and area of steel require base on yield line method Note: Please refer Appendix A for typical serviceability deflection check.
Case 2: Flat slab with void using virtual work method Typical 7.5m x 7.5m bays flat slab as shown in Figure 3.3 in case 1 previously is now fill with a void near the end bay, see Figure 3.4 below. The opening renders the slab irregular. Hence the slab now needs to be re-accessed for flexure resistance. The design parameters are assumed to be the same as in case 1 - Table 3.2. Now consider the folding mechanism occurs horizontally, see Figure 3.4. For simplicity, considering half of the slab (to the left hand side of the centreline) and assume m =m'. In this case, the yield line is assumed occur at the distance of approximate 3.3m from grid line 1. 7.5 7.5 7.5 7.5 A B C D 1 2 3 Slab Layout: Line of symmetry Deep beam Void m 3.3 4.0 5 2.5 m' 3.75 Figure 3.4: Slab layout with opening - folding mechanism occurs horizontally Analysis: External work done, E = = = 457 Internal energy absorbed, D = = = 7.07m where: m = m'
Equating E = D, we get: 64.6 kNm/m Applying 10% tolerance for onerous yield line estimation [16]: m = 1.1 64.6 = 71.06 kNm/m Thorn m' = 71.06kNm/m Design of bottom reinforcement: Lever arm: Thorn 838mm2/m Design of top reinforcement: Grid 2, Concentrate all the top steel in the area of the column supports, we get. Total negative moment along these lines: 813.6kNm Concentrating negative moment at column heads: 149.3kNm/m Lever arm: Thorn 1902mm2/m Now consider the folding mechanism occurs vertically, see Figure 3.5. 3.3 7.5 7.5 7.5 A B C D 1 2 Slab Layout: Line of symmetry Deep beam Void 5 2.5 3.75 7.5 3.75
4.0 m m' Figure 3.5: Slab layout with opening - folding mechanism occurs vertically Analysis: External work done, E = = = 626.9 Internal energy absorbed, D = = = 7.89m where: m = m' Equating E = D, we get: 79.46 kNm/m Applying 10% tolerance for onerous yield line estimation [16]: m = 1.1 79.46 = 87.46 kNm/m Thorn m' = 87.46kNm/m Design of bottom reinforcement: Lever arm: Thorn 1042mm2/m Design of top reinforcement: Grid B, Concentrate all the top steel in the area of the column supports, we get. Total negative moment along these lines: 546.6kNm Concentrating negative moment at column heads: 146kNm/m Lever arm: Thorn 1839mm2/m Conjunction with case 1, the reinforcement perpendicular and along grids 2 and B need to be changed due to the addition of the void in the location as shown in Figure 3.4 & 3.5. Table 3.4 below shows the differences of bending moment and area of steel require before and after the addition of the void. Strip Before void
Top
140 1763
149.3 1902
146 1834
Bottom
66.56 777
71.06 838
87.46 1042
Table 3.4: Difference of moment and area of steel due to the addition of void Note: Please refer Appendix A for typical serviceability deflection check. Case 3: Irregular supported flat slab case study As we know, yield line method is able to solve irregular flat slab structure but it will require a good engineer judgment when deciding the yield line pattern. As a case study example, Figure 3.6 shows part of the irregular plan layout of a one story building. The floor consists of a 250mm thickness of flat slab with irregular column location. Some of the predicted yield line failure patterns are shown in Figure 3.7 and Figure 3.8.
Figure 3.6: General arrangement of irregular flat slab layout [16] Figure 3.7: Folding plate failure mode [16] From the given layout, there are many potential folding plate mechanisms that can occur to the floor structure. Presuming a constant uniform distributed load loaded across the whole slab, the pattern indicated in Figure 3.7 is likely to be critical as it has the largest average span. Besides, other folding plate failure mode should be considered and some of these shown in Figure 3.8 are how a designer would approach the analysis of a slab of this kind. Figure 3.8: Possible polygon yield line failure patterns [16]
Pattern loadings may cause a huge influence in flexure design of the floor structure. Hence, code of practice likes BS8110 always suggest the designer to access different type of pattern loadings onto the floor slab in order to get the envelop bending moment results for design. By using manual yield line method, for this example may cause problem to the designer as different pattern loadings may give various failure modes. Therefore, it will be very time consuming if the designer not familiar with this method. As an alternative to solve the irregular slab layout, automated yield-line analysis program may be useful and efficient [18]. 3.2 Simplified Co-efficient Method Refer to the slab layout as shown in Figure 3.3, the flexure resistance of the slab panel of the internal and end bay is re-accessed using the simplified co-efficient method. The columns are at 7.5m centre in each direction and the slab is loaded with an ultimate intensity load of 15kN/m2. The characteristic strengths of concrete are 35 N/mm2 and steel is 460 N/mm2. The others design parameters are as in Table 3.1. Shorter direction, lx: Column strip = m Middle strip = m Longer direction, ly: Column strip = m Middle strip = m Analysis and design: 1.) Internal bay B-C Middle interior spans - From Table 2.2, Positive moment = 0.063Fl = 0.063 (15 7.5 7.5) 7.5 = 399 kNm According to Table 2.3, 55% of positive moment is divided to the column strip and 45% to the middle strip, we get: Column strip positive moment = 0.55 399 = 219.1 kNm Middle strip positive moment = 0.45 399 = 179.6 kNm Interior supports - From Table 2.2, Negative moment = -0.063Fl = -0.063 (15 7.5 7.5) 7.5 = -399kNm According to Cl. 3.7.2.7(d) of BS8110, this moment may be reduced by 0.15Fhc = 0.15 843.75 0.4 = 50.63 kNm Therefore, the net negative moment = 399 - 50.63 = 348.4 kNm According to Table 2.3, 75% of the negative moment is divided to the column strip and 25% to the middle strip, we get:
Column strip negative moment = 0.75 348.4 = 261.3kNm Middle strip negative moment = 0.25 348.4 = 87.1 kNm 2.) End bay A-B Middle end spans - From Table 2.2, Positive moment = 0.086Fl = 0.086 (15 7.5 7.5) 7.5 = 544 kNm According to Table 2.3, 55% of positive moment is divided to the column strip and 45% to the middle strip, we get: Column strip positive moment = 0.55 544 = 299.2 kNm Middle strip positive moment = 0.45 544 = 244.8 kNm Interior supports - From Table 2.2, Negative moment = -0.086Fl = -0.086 (15 7.5 7.5) 7.5 = -544 kNm According to Cl. 3.7.2.7(d) of BS8110, this moment may be reduced by 0.15Fhc = 0.15 843.75 0.4 = 50.63 kNm Therefore, the net negative moment = 544 - 50.63 = 493.4 kNm According to Table 2.3, 75% of the negative moment is divided to the column strip and 25% to the middle strip, we get: Column strip negative moment = 0.75 493.4 = 370kNm Middle strip negative moment = 0.25 493.4 = 123.4 kNm Since this is a square slab, therefore the bending moment and steel reinforcement results are the same for the other direction. Table 3.5 below shows the summary of the area of steel require and bending moment result for the relevant column and middle strips. Please refer Appendix B for reinforcement calculations. Strip Location Moment (kNm) Area of steel (mm2)
Column
-ve +ve
370.0 299.2
1440 3491
Middle
-ve
123.4
4457
+ve
244.8
2856
Column
-ve +ve
261.3 219.1
3048 2555
Middle
-ve +ve
87.1 179.6
1016 2095
Table 3.5: Moments and area of steel require base on simplified co-efficient method
Similarly in the other direction moments are worked out with the different values of the variables l1, l2 and ln. In this case, the bending moment results are the same as it is a square slab panel. Based on the span and support moments obtained from ACI direct design method above, then the slab flexure resistant design will be carried out according to BS8110. Please refer Appendix C for detail calculations. Since this is a square slab panel, therefore the bending moment and steel reinforcement results are the same for the other direction. Table 3.6 below shows the summary of the area of steel require and bending moment result for the relevant column and middle strips. Strip Location Moment (kNm) Area of steel (mm2)
Column
-ve +ve
346 149
4123 1739
Middle
-ve +ve
115 99.3
1342 2095
Table 3.6: Moments and area of steel require base on ACI direct design method
connection between the column and slabs in the model is assumed to be fully rigid. The columns are assumed to be fix-supported at the bottom. Besides, only single loading case is considered in this model. a) Plan view of mesh b) Isometric view of mesh model Figure 3.10: Mesh layout of the model structure Middle Strips Column Strips Figure 3.11: Moment contours for global x-direction After the analysis, Figure 3.11 above shows the moment contours obtained in the slab for the single ultimate load case. Then, floor slab structure is designed based on assume single ultimate load case according to the BS8110, see Figure 3.12 for the slab reinforcement data input in STAAD Pro software. Figure 3.12: Slab reinforcement data Figure 3.13 shows the required bottom reinforcement in global x-direction. Figure 3.13: Required bottom reinforcement in the global x-direction A similar process is carried out for the z-direction and the results are summarized as in below Table 3.7: Strip Location Moment (kNm/m) Area of steel (mm2/m)
Column
-ve +ve
137.0 66.7
1748 785
Middle
-ve +ve
66.7 66.7
785 785
Column
-ve +ve
137.0 39.6
1748 509
Middle
-ve +ve
39.6 39.6
509 509
Table 3.7: Moments and area of steel require base on finite element method Case 2: Flat slab with void
Void
Typical 7.5m x 7.5m bays flat slab as shown in Figure 3.9 in case 1 previously is now fill with an opening/void near the end bay, see Figure 3.14 below. The size of the rectangular void is approximately 5.0m 7.1m. Due to this void, a tie beam is inserted as in figure below to hold back the frame action. The slab now needs to be re-accessed for flexure resistance. The design parameters are assumed to be the same as in case 1 above. 250 x 600 mm Tie beam Figure 3.14: Isometric view of model structure with an opening In addition, Figure 3.15 shows the new mesh layout of the model structure. The mesh layout is automatically generated by the STAAD Pro software using the 6-noded triangular shell mesh element. The connection between the column and slabs in the model is assumed to be fully rigid. The columns are assumed to be fix-supported at the bottom and the model is only analysed under one single ultimate load case. a) Plan view of mesh b) Isometric view of mesh model Figure 3.15: New mesh layout for model with void Middle Strips Column Strips Figure 3.16: Moment contours for global x-direction (with void) After the analysis, Figure 3.16 above shows the moment contours obtained in the slab for the single ultimate load case. Then, floor slab reinforcement is then designed according to the BS8110. Figure 3.17 below shows the contour plot of the required bottom reinforcement in the global x-direction. VOID Figure 3.17: Required bottom reinforcement in the global x-direction (with void) A similar process is carried out for the z-direction and the results are compared conjunction with case 1 above. As a result, the slab reinforcement needs to increase due to the addition of the void, see Table 3.8 below: Strip Before void After void
Top
137 1748
168 1965
Bottom
66.7 785
76.3 830
Table 3.8: Increase of slab reinforcement due to the addition of void In addition, the deformation of the flat slab structure will be check to ensure the whole system deform within the engineering expectation. Figure 3.18 shows the deformation shape of the structure. Figure 3.18: Slab deformation shape Once obtained the node displacement results, then the serviceability check can be done according to the code of practice to ensure the structure is serviceability working. 3.6 Hillerborg Strip Method Consider a simply supported rectangular slab 10m long by 5m wide, carrying a uniformly distributed load, w = 20kNm2 as shown below in Figure 3.19. Figure 3.21: Bending moment diagrams for strips in y-direction According to Hillerborg method, the slab is divided into x-strips and y-strips as shown in the Figure 3.19. The bending moment diagrams of the strips are worked out separately in both the x- and y-directions as illustrated in Figure 3.20 and 3.21 above. From the bending moment diagrams above we can see that one of the advantages of Hillerborg strip method over the yield line analysis is that end reactions can be calculated. The end reactions for each strip can be worked out individually and to find the support reactions. One of the disadvantages of designing the slab this way would be the un-uniformity of the steel arrangement in each direction, i.e. each strip of the slab is carrying different loads and would be designed for their respective loads giving different amount of reinforcement. To overcome this aspect, Hillerborg decided to design slab for yield moment equal to the average of the maximum moment found in strips. This will lead the designer to end with uniform reinforcement in one direction. In the case of continuous slab, Wood and Armer suggest that assume that the point of contra-flexure lie at a distance 0.2 times the span of the strip. If this would not be taken into account, the slab still will fulfill the design criteria but will not be serviceable. After considering the factor, the moment distribution diagram obtained as below: -7.5kNm -7.5kNm 2.5kNm Strip X2 and X4
-30kNm -30kNm 10kNm Strip X3 -3.2kNm -3.2kNm 3.6 kNm Strip Y1 and Y5 -25.6 kNm -25.6 kNm 14.4 kNm Strip Y1 and Y5 -40 kNm -40 kNm 22.5 kNm Strip Y6 Figure 3.22: Bending moment diagrams for continuous slabs The above shown bending moment results are interpreted in Appendix D. Wood suggests a point of inflection (PI) for the strip to take into account the negative moment. Nearly same results would be obtained using the negative elastic moment as. The assumption for the point of inflection for the negative moment is not clear though. The values computed using the PI lines are less as compared to elastic analysis but are in permissible limits.
4. Discussion
In the previous chapter we have been through various methods to design a flat slab. Methods like yield line analysis; simplified co-efficient method for BS8110/EC2 and the ACI direct design method have been discussed as per the requirement laid in the respective codes. Moreover an analysis using the code gave us a quick review on the practical approach and fast solution. This chapter will focus on the possible outcome for our experience until now with the codes following their ease in use approach to design and the ultimate result. Previously, a square bay flat slab has been analysed and design using the different approach methods in order to compare the results among each others. The structure modeled previously consisted of 9 square panels (3 bays 3 bay). The floor slab is 250mm thick and constructed with concrete grade C35. The slab is supported directly onto the columns where columns are space at 7.5m on center in each direction. The structure is loaded with an ultimate intensity load of 15kN/m2. Only reinforcement in the x-direction is design because of the symmetry of the structure. The slab is then analysed using yield analysis method and the finite element softwareSTAAD Pro. Once the analysis process has completed, the obtained bending moment
results will then use to design the flexure reinforcement of the slab according to BS8110 code. For each method, interior and exterior regions were designed. The results of these analyses are given on the following tables. The tabulated bending moments and required area of steel for the interior panel are given in Table 4.1, and the tabulated bending moments and required area of steel for the exterior region are given in Table 4.2. The results in Table 4.1 and 4.2 corresponded to the case where single load case applied uniformly over the entire structure. Interior- Moment (kNm/m) Location Column strip negative moment Column strip positive moment Middle strip negative moment Middle strip positive moment Interior- Area of steel (mm2/m) Location Column strip negative moment Column strip positive moment Middle strip negative moment Middle strip positive moment Table 4.1: Interior bay (B-C) design results Exterior- Moment (kNm/m) Location Column strip negative moment Column strip positive moment Yield line 140.0 66.6 Finite element 137.0 66.7 Yield line 1279 583 583 583 Finite element 1748 509 509 509 Yield line 105.0 49.9 49.9 49.9 Finite element 137.0 39.6 39.6 39.6
Middle strip negative moment Middle strip positive moment Exterior- Area of steel (mm2/m) Location Column strip negative moment Column strip positive moment Middle strip negative moment Middle strip positive moment Table 4.2: Exterior bay (A-B) design result
66.6 66.6
66.7 66.7
According to the results obtained in Table 4.1 and 4.2, yield line method and finite element method produce design results in close agreement with each other and small variations are expected due to the difference in formulation used in the finding of moment and area of steel required for flexure resistance. However, in overall yield line method still gives the less reinforcement than finite element method. In the comparisons of the different approach methods, the support moments and span moments from the various methods of analysis discussed in chapter 3 are summarized in Table 4.3 below. In certain cases significant discrepancies are found due to either different interpretations of the code, different interpretation of the finite element models or different conceptual ideas for the yield lines. As we know, yield line method is an upper bound solution and therefore potentially unsafe. Table 4.3 below shows that the total ultimate moments are very similar for each approach including yield line method. Design method Negative moment (kNm) 351 348 Positive moment (kNm) 355 399 Total moment (kNm) 706 747 Comments
Based on clear span Support moment reduce by 0.15Fhc (hc =0.4m) Cl. 3.7.2.7(d) Based on clear span;
461
248
709
method
0.65Mofor -ve moment; 0.35Mofor +ve moment 514 262 776 Support moments on column
Finite element
Table 4.3: Total support and span moments This should not be surprising as simple flexure equilibrium requires the sum of the moments to equal and variation simply results from the definition of the span. However, many tests on existing building consistently show strengths significantly higher than those predicted by the method. Therefore it is hard to say that the yield line analysis is unsafe to use as a design tool and this can be proved later in the experimental results discussion.
Slab 1
Interior panel of a parallelogra m column layout Interior panel of a parallelogra m column layout Interior panel of a parallelogra m column layout Interior panel of a parallelogra m column layout
50
2.84
34
Slab 2
50
Parallel to diagonals
3.22
51.3
18.92
Slab 3
60
3.18
51.5
25.31
Slab 4
60
3.47
45.2
25.86
Table 4.4: Details of experimental slab and failure load Table 4.4 above shows the experiment result of flat slab structure obtained from the publication of magazine of concrete research 2007. This experiment was carried out by K Baskaran and C.T. Morely. Based on the given experimental results, yield line method has been carried out to predict the collapse load of the slab, see Table 4.5 below: Specimen Yield line predicted load, Pylt (kPa) 20.96 19.41 24.84 25.34 Pylt/ Pexp
Table 4.5: Yield line predicted load and ratio Note: Please refer Appendix E for the yield line prediction load example calculations. Safe zone Unsafe zone Figure 4.1: Failure load ratio The failure loads obtained from the experimental results are very close to the collapse load predicted using the yield line analysis. Figure 4.1 shows the safety zone of using yield line analysis for different specimen. The differences between the experimental result and the yield line prediction loads are less than 10% therefore we can conclude that the predicted failure loads using yield line theory agree well with the experimental failure loads. In addition, during the test, layout of the reinforcement for the slabs reflected one of the positive aspects of the yield line analysis. The predicted crack pattern using the yield line method matched well with the experimental crack patterns, see Figure 4.2. Observed crack pattern Slab 1 Bottom surface Top surface Yield line prediction patterns Specimen Slab 4 Slab 3 Slab 2 Figure 4.2: Predicted and observed crack pattern [19] The reinforcement detail of irregular slab 4 is shown in Figure 4.3 below to give an idea how yield line analysis rationalizes reinforcement in the design of a slab. The observed yield line pattern of the slab and the respective reinforcement clearly shows how well yield analysis can be utilized once the correct pattern is observed. It is clear that at the regions of no crack or yield lines, there was no reinforcement provided, though generally a nominal reinforcement is provided. Furthermore, a real building project been designed base on various design methods of flat slab came into display in London under the project of the European Concrete Building Project at Cardington. This building consisted of 7 storey and each story was designed by different available methods and reinforced accordingly and the results were surprising the engineer who did not accept the yield line method as a design tool. The results of the design are presented in Table 4.6 below. Figure 4.3: Reinforcement detail of slab 4: a) top surface cracks; b) bottom surface cracks; c) top reinforcement layout; d) bottom reinforcement layout [19] Floor No. Flexural reinforcement Tonnes/floor*
1 2 3 4
Traditional loose bar - Elastic Design Traditional loose bar - Elastic Design Rationalised loose bar - Elastic Design Blanket cover loose bar - Yield Line Design - Elastic Design One-way mats - Elastic Design Blanket cover two0way mats - FE Design Not part of the particular research project
5 6 7
* Values given are for a whole floor. ** 1.6T additional reinforcement would have been required to meet normal deflection criteria Table 4.6: Flexural reinforcement in the Cardington project [16] Forth storey which designed using yield line theory proved that the least amount of the reinforcement was required compared to the other floors. For a slab 14.5 tonnes of reinforcement was provided as compared to an elastic method which never came near to 14 tonnes. The slab designed using yield line analysis was provided by T12@200B (565mm2) where as the adjacent slab was provided by T16@175B (1148mm2) reinforcement. This Cardington project clearly show that the economical of using yield line method.
The disadvantage of yield line analysis is that it does not hold any checks for serviceability of the slab. Moreover the end reactions cannot be analysed unlike Hillerborg's strip method and FE method. Mostly the flat slab design is governed by shear and deflection checks which have to be worked out separately while using the yield line analysis. Yield line method is a best option for dealing with regular and large arrangement layout structure for the beginner designer as it is not complicated and quick to use. However, when dealing with complex floor layout, to predict the possible yield patterns are much more difficult due to inexperience and this may result in erroneous results which result in the failure of slab. Therefore, it is not recommended to inexperienced designers when using this method dealing with irregular slab layouts but to use the code methods as safety of the analysis and design is more assured.
5. Conclusion
In conclusion, for large and regular flat slab structure, yield line method will be the best approach as it provides an economical design of flat slab as well as quick and easy to use. As the resulting slabs are thin and require very low amounts of reinforcement in very regular arrangement. The reinforcement is therefore easy to detail and easy to fix as a result the slabs are very quick to construct. In other words, yield line design gives a very economic concrete reinforce slabs because it considers features at the ultimate limit state and this has been agreed through various experimental tests. Yield line method is only recommended when punching shear is not an issue for the flat slab structure otherwise other approached such as finite element may be good in the case. Besides, for the case of large irregular column positioning floor slab with significant openings
on the floor slab, yield line method is usually not suitable for the beginner designer as the prediction of the failure yield line patterns can be a very tedious process and time consuming otherwise only experience designer mastered in yield line method can only be benefited. When this is the case, user may try to approach any software packages tool that able to predict or automatically generate all the possible yield line failure patterns and design for the least flexure result obtain.
Please note: The above dissertation snippet was written by a student and then submitted to us to display and help others. Thanks to all the students who have submitted their work to us. To see more dissertations, click here. Request the removal of this dissertation.
GET A PRICE
Essay & Dissertation Writing Services United Kingdom Essay Undergraduate 2:1 1000 Words (~4 pages)
19
Order Now
Share this:
See what our customers say about us WARNING! Avoid dissertation writing scams!
Find us on Facebook
Follow us on Twitter
Copyright 2003 - 2013 - UK Dissertations is a trading name of All Answers Ltd. All Answers Ltd is a company registered in England and Wales Company Registration No: 4964706. VAT Registration No: 842417633. Licensed under the Consumer Credit Act under Licence No: 0612201. Registered Data Controller No: Z1821391. Registered office: Venture House, Cross Street, Arnold, Nottingham, Nottinghamshire, NG5 7PJ. Fair use policy | Terms & conditions | Privacy policy | Complaints policy | Cookies | Sitemap