Two-Way Flat Slab (Concrete Floor System with Drop Panels) Analysis and Design (CAC Design Handbook)

Two-Way Flat Slab (Concrete Floor System with Drop Panels) Analysis and Design (CAC Design Handbook)

The concrete floor slab system shown below is for an intermediate floor to be designed considering partition weight
= 1 kN/m2 and mechanical services load = 1 kN/m2, and unfactored live load = 3.6 kN/m2. The lateral loads are
independently resisted by shear walls. The use of flat plate system will be checked. If the use of flat plate is not
adequate, the use of flat slab system with drop panels will be investigated. Flat slab concrete floor system is similar
to the flat plate system. The only exception is that the flat slab uses drop panels (thickened portions around the
columns) to increase the nominal shear strength of the concrete at the critical section around the columns. The analysis
procedure “Elastic Frame Method (EFM)” prescribed in CSA A23.3-14 is illustrated in detail in this example (Example
#2 from the CAC Design Handbook). The hand solution from EFM is also used for a detailed comparison with the
Reference results using Direct Design Method (DDM) and results of the engineering software program spSlab.
Explanation of the EFM is available in StructurePoint Video Tutorials page.

Figure 1 - Two-Way Flat Concrete Floor System

Version: May-14-2019
Contents
1. Preliminary member sizing ......................................................................................................................................1
2. Flexural Analysis and Design................................................................................................................................. 13
2.1. Direct Design Method (DDM) ........................................................................................................................ 14
2.1.1. Direct design method limitations .......................................................................................................... 14
2.2. Elastic Frame Method (EFM) ......................................................................................................................... 15
2.2.1. Limitations for use of elastic frame method ......................................................................................... 17
2.2.2. Frame members of elastic frame .......................................................................................................... 17
2.2.3. Elastic frame analysis ........................................................................................................................... 21
2.2.4. Factored moments used for Design ...................................................................................................... 23
2.2.5. Distribution of design moments ........................................................................................................... 24
2.2.6. Flexural reinforcement requirements.................................................................................................... 25
2.2.7. Factored moments in columns .............................................................................................................. 29
3. Shear Strength ........................................................................................................................................................ 30
3.1. One-Way (Beam action) Shear Strength ........................................................................................................ 30
3.1.1. At distance dv from the supporting column .......................................................................................... 30
3.1.2. At the face of the drop panel ................................................................................................................ 31
3.2. Two-Way (Punching) Shear Strength ............................................................................................................ 32
3.2.1. Around the columns faces .................................................................................................................... 32
3.2.2. Around drop panels .............................................................................................................................. 34
4. Serviceability Requirements (Deflection Check) ................................................................................................... 37
5. spSlab Software Program Model Solution ............................................................................................................. 38
6. Summary and Comparison of Design Results ........................................................................................................ 64
7. Conclusions & Observations .................................................................................................................................. 66
7.1. One-Way Shear Distribution to Slab Strips .................................................................................................... 66
7.2. Two-Way Concrete Slab Analysis Methods ................................................................................................... 69

Version: May-14-2019
Code
Design of Concrete Structures (CSA A23.3-14) and Explanatory Notes on CSA Group standard A23.3-14
“Design of Concrete Structures”

Reference
CAC Concrete Design Handbook, 4th Edition, Cement Association of Canada, Chapter 5, Example 2

Design Data
Floor-to-Floor Height = 3 m (provided by architectural drawings)

Superimposed Dead Load, SDL = 1 kN/m2 for framed partitions, wood studs plaster 2 sides

= 1 kN/m2 for mechanical services

Live Load, LL = 3.6 kN/m2 for Residential floors

f 'c  25 MPa (for slabs and columns)

f ' y  400 MPa

Column Dimensions = 400 mm x 600 mm

Solution

1. Preliminary member sizing

For slabs without Drop Panels

1.1 Slab minimum thickness - Deflection

CSA A23.3-14 (13.2)

Minimum member thickness and depths from CSA A23.3-14 will be used for preliminary sizing.

Using CSA A23.3-14 minimum slab thickness for two-way construction without interior beams in Section
13.2.3.

Exterior Panels (N-S Direction Governs):

ln  0.6  f y /1000  6200  0.6  400 /1000 

hs ,min  1.1  1.1  227 mm CSA A23.3-14 (13.2.3)
30 30

But not less than 120 mm. CSA A23.3-14 (13.2.1)

Where ln  length of clear span in the long direction = 6600 – 400 = 6200 mm

1
 Interior Panels (E-W Direction Governs):

ln  0.6  f y /1000  6900  0.6  400 /1000 

hs ,min    230 mm CSA A23.3-14 (13.2.3)
30 30

But not less than 120 mm. CSA A23.3-14 (13.2.1)

Where ln  length of clear span in the long direction = 7500 – 600 = 6900 mm

Try 250 mm slab for all panels (self-weight = 5.89 kN/m2)

1.2. Slab one way shear strength

Evaluate the average effective depth (Figure 2):

db 16
dt  tslab  cclear  db   250  25  16   201 mm
2 2
db 16
dl  tslab  cclear   250  25   217 mm
2 2
dl  dt 201  217
d avg    209 mm
2 2

Where:
cclear = 20 mm for 15M steel bar CSA A23.3-14 (Annex A. Table 17)
Note that the reference used 25 mm as clear cover, in this example the clear cover used is 25 mm to
be consistent with reference.
db = 16 mm for 15M steel bar

Figure 2 - Two-Way Flat Concrete Floor System

Load Combination 1:
Factored dead load, wdf  1.4  (5.89  1  1)  11.05 kN/m2 CSA A23.3-14 (Annex C. Table C.1 a)

Total factored load wf  11.05 kN/m2

Load Combination 2:
Factored dead load, wdf  1.25  (5.89  1  1)  9.86 kN/m2

2
 Factored live load, wlf  1.5  3.6  5.40 kN/m2 CSA A23.3-14 (Annex C. Table C.1 a)

Total factored load wf  wdf  wlf  15.26 kN/m2 (Controls)

Check the adequacy of slab thickness for beam action (one-way shear) CSA A23.3-14 (13.3.6)

At an interior column:

The critical section for one-way shear is extending in a plane across the entire width and located at a distance,
dv from the face of support or concentrated load (see Figure 3). CSA A23.3-14 (13.3.6.1)
Consider a 1 m. wide strip.

  7500   600   
     209   1000  
 2   2 
Tributary area for one-way shear is ATributary     3.26 m 2
 10002 
 
 

V f  wf  ATributary  15.26  3.26  49.75 kN

Vc  c  f 'c bw dv CSA A23.3-14 (Eq. 11.6)

Where:
  1 for normal weight concrete CSA A23.3-14 (8.6.5)
  0.21 for slabs with overall thickness not greater than 350 mm CSA A23.3-14 (11.3.6.2)

dv  Max (0.9davg ,0.72h)  Max (0.9  209,0.72  250)  Max (188,180)  188 mm CSA A23.3-14 (3.2)

fc'  5 MPa  8 MPa CSA A23.3-14 (11.3.4)

188
Vc  0.65 1 0.21 25 1000   128.3 kN  V f
1000
Slab thickness of 250 mm is adequate for one-way shear.

1.3. Slab two-way shear strength

Check the adequacy of slab thickness for punching shear (two-way shear) at an interior column (Figure 4):

Shear perimeter: b0  2  (600  400  2  209)  2836 mm CSA A23.3-14 (13.3.3)

Tributary area for two-way shear is

 7.5  6.7   600  209 400  209 

ATributary    6.6       46.86  0.49  46.37 m
2

 2   1, 000 1, 000 
The factored resisting shear stress, Vr shall be the smallest of: CSA A23.3-14 (13.3.4.1)

3
  2 
a) vr  vc  1   0.19c f 'c CSA A23.3-14 (Eq. 13.5)
  c 

 2 
vr  1    0.19  0.65  25  1.44 MPa
 1.5 
600
Where  c   1.5 (ratio of long side to short side of the column) CSA A23.3-14 (13.3.4.1)
400

 d 
b) vr  vc   s  0.19  c f 'c CSA A23.3-14 (Eq. 13.6)
 bo 

 4  209 
vr    0.19  1 0.65  25  1.58 MPa
 2836 

c) vr  vc  0.38c f 'c  0.38 1 0.65  25  1.24 MPa CSA A23.3-14 (Eq. 13.7)

 7.5  6.7 
15.26    6.6 
Vf  2  1, 000  1.206 MPa
v f , ave  
bod 2836  209
vr 1.240
  1.03  1.20 (No Good) CAC Concrete Design Handbook 4th Edition (5.2.3)
v f , ave 1.206

Slab thickness of 250 mm is NOT adequate for two-way shear.

Figure 3 - Critical Section for One-Way Figure 4 - Critical Section for Two-Way
Shear Shear
In this case, four options could be used: 1) to increase the slab thickness, 2) to increase columns cross sectional
dimensions or cut the spacing between columns (reducing span lengths), however, this option is assumed to be not
permissible in this example due to architectural limitations, 3) to use headed shear reinforcement, or 4) to use drop
panels. In this example, the latter option will be used to achieve better understanding for the design of two-way
slab with drop panels often called flat slab.

4
Check the drop panel dimensional limitations as follows:

1) The additional thickness of the drop panel below the soffit of the slab (Δh) shall not be taken larger than hs.
CSA A23.3-14 (13.2.4)
Since the slab thickness (hs) is 220 mm (see page 7), the thickness of the drop panel should be less than 220
mm.
Drop panel dimensions are also controlled by formwork considerations. The following Figure shows the
standard lumber dimensions that are used when forming drop panels. Using other depths will unnecessarily
increase formwork costs. The Δh dimension will be taken as the lumber dimension plus the thickness of one
sheet of plywood (19 mm).
For nominal lumber size:
hdp = 38+19 = 57 mm or hdp = 89+19 = 108 mm

Try hdp = 57 mm < 220 mm

The total thickness including the slab and the drop panel (h) = hs + hdp = 220 + 57 = 277 mm

Nominal Lumber Size, mm Actual Lumber Size, mm Plyform Thickness, mm hdp, mm

2x 38 19 57
4x 89 19 108

Figure 5 – Drop Panel Formwork Details

2) Drop panel size:

ln  0.6  f y /1, 000  2 xd

hs   CSA A23.3-14 (13.2.4)
30 ln

Rearrange the previous equation

 ln  0.6  f y /1000     7500  600  0.6  400 /1000  

  hs    220 
xd   30 l   30    7500  600   605 mm
 2 h  n  2  57 
   
   

Minimum length of drop panel = 2(605) + 600 = 1810 mm  Try 2000 mm x 2000 mm

5
Figure 6 – Drop Panels Dimensions

6
For Flat Slab (with Drop Panels)

For slabs with changes in thickness and subjected to bending in two directions, it is necessary to check shear at
multiple sections as defined in the CSA A23.3-14. The critical sections for two-way action shall be located with
respect to:
1) Perimeter of the concentrated load or reaction area. CSA A.23.3-14 (13.3.3.1)
2) Changes in slab thickness, such as edges of drop panels. CSA A.23.3-14 (13.3.3.2)

a. Slab minimum thickness – Deflection

In lieu of detailed calculation for deflections, CSA A23.3 Code gives minimum slab thickness for two-way
construction with drop panel in Clause 13.2.4.
The value of 2xd/ln is not known at this point. The upper limit is 1/4. A reasonable preliminary estimate is
1/6.

 ln  0.6  f y /1, 000  2 x 

Exterior Panel: hs ,min  1.1   d  h  CSA A23.3-14 (13.2.4)
 30 ln 
 

  6700  600  0.6  0.4  2 

hs ,min  1.1    57   203 mm
 30 6 
But not less than 120 mm. CSA A23.3-14 (13.2.1)

ln  0.6  f y /1, 000  2 xd

Interior Panel: hs ,min    h CSA A23.3-14 (13.2.4)
30 ln

 7500  600 0.6  0.4 2

hs ,min    57  211 mm
30 6
But not less than 120 mm. CSA A23.3-14 (13.2.1)

Try 220 mm slab for all panels (277 mm with drop panels)

Self-weight for slab section without drop panel = 24 kN/m3 × 0.220 m = 5.28 kN/m2
Self-weight for slab section with drop panel = 24 kN/m3 × 0.277 m = 6.65 kN/m2

b. Slab shear strength – one way shear

For critical section at distance d from the edge of the column (slab section with drop panel):
Evaluate the average effective depth:
db 16
dt  hs  cclear  db   277  25  16   228 mm
2 2
db 16
dl  hs  cclear   277  25   244 mm
2 2

7
 dt  dl 228  244
d avg    236 mm
2 2
Where:
cclear = 20 mm CSA A23.3-14 (Annex A. Table 17)
Note that the reference used 25 mm as clear cover, in this example the clear cover used is 25 mm to
be consistent with reference.
db = 16 mm for 15M steel bar

Factored dead load  wdf  1.25  (6.65  1  1)  10.81 kN/m2 CSA A23.3-14 (Annex C. Table C.1 a)

Factored live load  wlf  1.5  3.6  5.40 kN/m2

Total factored load  wf  10.81  5.40  16.21 kN/m2

Check the adequacy of slab thickness for beam action (one-way shear) from the edge of the interior column
CSA A23.3-14 (13.3.6)
Consider a 1 m wide strip. The critical section for one-way shear is located at a distance dv, from the edge of
the column (see Figure 7)
  7500   600   
     212.4   1000  
 2   2 
Tributary area for one-way shear is ATributary     3.24 m 2
 10002 
 
 

V f  wf  ATributary  16.21 3.24  52.52 kN

Vc  c  f 'c bw dv CSA A23.3-14 (Eq. 11.6)

Where   1 for normal weight concrete

This slab contains no transverse reinforcement and it is assumed the specified nominal maximum size of
coarse aggregate is not less than 20 mm, β shall be taken as: CSA A23.3-14 (11.3.6.3)
230 230
   0.190
(1000  dv ) (1000  212.4)

dv  Max 0.9d , 0.75h CSA A23.3-14 (3.2)

dv  Max 0.9  236 , 0.75  277   Max  212.4, 207.8 = 212.4 mm

212.4
Vc  0.65 1 0.19  25 1000   131.2 kN  Vu
1000
Slab thickness of 220 mm is adequate for one-way shear for the first critical section (from the edge of the
column).

For critical section at the edge of the drop panel (slab section without drop panel):

8
Evaluate the average effective depth:
db 16
dt  hs  cclear  db   220  25  16   171 mm
2 2
db 16
dl  hs  cclear   220  25   187 mm
2 2
dt  dl 171  187
d avg    179 mm
2 2
Where:
cclear = 20 mm CSA A23.3-14 (Annex A. Table 17)
Note that the reference used 25 mm as clear cover, in this example the clear cover used is 25 mm to
be consistent with reference.
db = 16 mm for 15M steel bar

Factored dead load  wdf  1.25  (5.28  1  1)  9.10 kN/m2 CSA A23.3-14 (Annex C. Table C.1 a)

Factored live load  wlf  1.5  3.6  5.40 kN/m2

Total factored load  wf  9.10  5.40  14.50 kN/m2

Check the adequacy of slab thickness for beam action (one-way shear) from the edge of the interior drop
panel. CSA A23.3-14 (13.3.6)

Consider a 1 m wide strip. The critical section for one-way shear is located at a distance, dv from the face of
support (see Figure 7)
  7500   2000   
     165  1000  
 2   2 
Tributary area for one-way shear is ATributary     2.59 m 2
 10002 
 
 
V f  wf  ATributary  14.50  2.59  37.56 kN

Vc  c  f 'c bw dv CSA A23.3-14 (Eq. 11.6)

Where   1 for normal weight concrete

  0.21 for slabs with overall thickness not greater than 350 mm CSA A23.3-14 (11.3.6.2)

dv  Max 0.9d , 0.75h CSA A23.3-14 (3.2)

dv  Max 0.9 179 , 0.75  220   Max 161.1, 165.0 =165.0 mm

f 'c  5 MPa  8 MPa CSA A23.3-14 (11.3.4)

9
 165
Vc  0.65 1 0.21 25 1000   112.6 kN  Vf
1000
Slab thickness of 220 mm is adequate for one-way shear for the second critical section (from the edge of
the drop panel).

Critical Section from the Edge of the Column Critical Section from the Edge of the Drop Panel
Figure 7 – Critical Sections for One-Way Shear

c. Slab shear strength – two-way shear

For critical section at distance d/2 from the edge of the column (slab section with drop panel):

Check the adequacy of slab thickness for punching shear (two-way shear) at an interior column (Figure 8):
Tributary area for two-way shear is ATributary   7.5 / 2  6.7 / 2   6.6    0.6  0.236    0.4  0.236 

 46.33 m2

Vf  wf  ATributary  16.21 46.33  751 kN

bo  2   600  236  2   400  236  2944 mm CSA A23.3-14 (13.3.3)

Vf 7511000
vf    1.08 MPa
bo d 2944  236

The factored resisting shear stress, vr shall be the smallest of : CSA A23.3-14 (13.3.4.1)

 2 
a) vr  vc  1   0.19c f 'c CSA A23.3-14 (Eq. 13.5)
  c 

 2 
vr  1    0.19  0.65  25  1.44 MPa
 1.5 

10
 600
Where  c   1.5 (ratio of long side to short side of the column) CSA A23.3-14 (13.3.4.1)
400

 d 
b) vr  vc   s  0.19  c f 'c CSA A23.3-14 (Eq. 13.6)
 bo 

 4  236 
vr    0.19  1 0.65  25  1.66 MPa
 2944 

c) vr  vc  0.38c f 'c  0.38 1 0.65  25  1.24 MPa CSA A23.3-14 (Eq. 13.7)

vr 1.24
  1.15  1.20 (slightly less than 1.20) CAC Concrete Design Handbook 4th Edition (5.2.3)
v f , ave 1.08

Note that the ratio is less than 1.20. However, this is a preliminary check, the section is safe when performing
the detailed calculations for punching shear check as shown later in this example.

Slab thickness of 220 mm is adequate for two-way shear for the first critical section (from the edge of the
column).

For critical section at the edge of the drop panel (slab section without drop panel):

Check the adequacy of slab thickness for punching shear (two-way shear) at an interior drop panel (Figure
8):

Tributary area for two-way shear is ATributary   7.5 / 2  6.7 / 2    6.6    2.0  0.179   42.11 m2
2

Vf  wf  ATributary  14.50  42.11  610.6 kN

bo  4   2000  179   8716 mm CSA A23.3-14 (13.3.3)

Vf 610.6 1000
vf    0.39 MPa
bo d 8716 179

The factored resisting shear stress, vr shall be the smallest of: CSA A23.3-14 (13.3.4.1)

 2 
d) vr  vc  1   0.19c f 'c CSA A23.3-14 (Eq. 13.5)
 c 

 2 
vr  1    0.19  0.65  25  1.44 MPa
 1.5 
600
Where  c   1.5 (ratio of long side to short side of the column) CSA A23.3-14 (13.3.4.1)
400

 d 
e) vr  vc   s  0.19  c f 'c CSA A23.3-14 (Eq. 13.6)
 bo 

 4 179 
vr    0.19  1 0.65  25  0.88 MPa
 8716 

11
f) vr  vc  0.38c f 'c  0.38 1 0.65  25  1.24 MPa CSA A23.3-14 (Eq. 13.7)

vr 0.88
  2.26  1.20 CAC Concrete Design Handbook 4th Edition (5.2.3)
v f , ave 0.39

Slab thickness of 220 mm is adequate for two-way shear for the second critical section (from the edge of
the drop panel).

Critical Section from the Edge of the Column Critical Section from the Edge of the Drop Panel
Figure 8 – Critical Sections for Two-Way Shear

12
 d. Column dimensions - axial load

Check the adequacy of column dimensions for axial load:

Tributary area for interior column for live load, superimposed dead load, and self-weight of the slab is
ATributary  7.5  6.7  50.25 m2

Tributary area for interior column for self-weight of additional slab thickness due to the presence of the
drop panel is
ATributary  2  2  4 m2

Assuming five story building

Pf  n  wf  ATributary  5  14.50  50.25  16.21  14.50  4  3677 kN

Assume 600 mm x 400 mm column with 12 – 30M vertical bars with design axial strength, Pr,max of
Pr ,max  (0.2  0.002h) Pro  0.80Pro (For tied column along full length) CSA A23.3-14 (Eq. 10.9)

Pro  1 c f 'c ( Ag  Ast  At  Ap )  s f y Ast   Fy At  f pr Ap CSA A23.3-14 (Eq. 10.11)

Pro  0.81 0.65  25  (600  400  12  700)  0.85 400  (12  700)  0  5904 kN

Pr ,max  (0.2  0.002  600)  5904  0.80  5904

 8266  4723
 4723 kN  Pf  3677 kN

Where:
1  0.85  0.0015 f 'c  0.85  0.0015  25  0.81  0.67 CSA A23.3-14 (Eq. 10.1)

Column dimensions of 600 mm × 400 mm are adequate for axial load.

2. Flexural Analysis and Design

CSA A23.3 states that a regular slab system may be designed using any procedure satisfying conditions of
equilibrium and compatibility with the supports, provided that it is shown that the factored resistance at every
section is at least equal to the effects of the factored loads and that all serviceability conditions, including specified
limits on deflections, are met. CSA A23.3-14 (13.5.1)

CSA A23.3 permits the use of Plastic Plate Theory Method (PPTM), Theorems of Plasticity Method (TPM),
Direct Design Method (DDM) and Elastic Frame Method (EFM); known as Equivalent Frame Method in the
ACI; for the gravity load analysis of orthogonal frames. The following sections outline a brief description of
DDM, a detailed hand solution using EFM and an automated solution using spSlab software respectively.

13
2.1. Direct Design Method (DDM)

Two-way slabs satisfying the limits in CSA A23.3-14 (13.9) are permitted to be designed in accordance with
the DDM.

2.1.1. Direct design method limitations

There shall be a minimum of three continuous spans in each direction (3 spans) CSA A23.3-14 (13.9.1.2)

Successive span lengths centre-to-centre of supports in each direction shall not differ by more than one- third
of the longer span ((7500-6700)/6700 = 0.12 < 0.33) CSA A23.3-14 (13.9.1.3)

All loads shall be due to gravity only and uniformly distributed over an entire panel (Loads are uniformly
distributed over the entire panel) CSA A23.3-14 (13.9.1.4)

The factored live load shall not exceed twice the factored dead load (Service live-to-dead load ratio of (0.47
and 0.57 < 2.0) CSA A23.3-14 (13.9.1.4)

Since all the criteria are met, Direct Design Method can be utilized.

This example focus on the analysis of slabs with drop panels using EFM. Detailed illustration of the analysis
using DDM can be found in “Two-Way Flat Plate Concrete Slab Floor Analysis and Design (CSA A23.3-14)”
example available in the design examples page in StructurePoint website.

14
2.2. Elastic Frame Method (EFM)

EFM (as known as Equivalent Frame Method in the ACI 318) is the most comprehensive and detailed procedure
provided by the CSA A23.3 for the analysis and design of two-way slab systems where these systems may, for
purposes of analysis, be considered a series of plane frames acting longitudinally and transversely through the
building. Each frame shall be composed of equivalent line members intersecting at member centerlines, shall
follow a column line, and shall include the portion of slab bounded laterally by the centerline of the panel on
each side. CSA A23.3-14 (13.8.1.1)

Probably the most frequently used method to determine design moments in regular two-way slab systems is to
consider the slab as a series of two-dimensional frames that are analyzed elastically. When using this analogy,
it is essential that stiffness properties of the elements of the frame be selected to properly represent the behavior
of the three-dimensional slab system.

In a typical frame analysis it is assumed that at a beam-column cconnection all members meeting at the joint
undergo the same rotaion. For uniform gravity loading this reduced restraint is accounted for by reducing the
effective stiffness of the column by either Clause 13.8.2 or Clause 13.8.3. CSA A23.3-14 (N.13.8)

Each floor and roof slab with attached columns may be analyzed separately, with the far ends of the columns
considered fixed. CSA A23.3-14 (13.8.1.2)

The moment of inertia of column and slab-beam elements at any cross-section outside of joints or column
capitals shall be based on the gross area of concrete at that section. CSA A23.3-14 (13.8.2.5)

An equivalent column shall be assumed to consist of the actual columns above and below the slab-beam plus
an attached torsional member transverse to the direction of the span for which moments are being determined.
CSA A23.3-14 (13.8.2.5)

15
Figure 9 – Equivalent Frame Methodology

16
2.2.1. Limitations for use of elastic frame method

In EFM, live load shall be arranged in accordance with 13.8.4 which requires:
 Slab systems to be analyzed and designed for the most demanding set of forces established by
investigating the effects of live load placed in various critical patterns. CSA A23.3-14 (13.8.4)

 Complete analysis must include representative interior and exterior equivalent elastic frames in both the
longitudinal and transverse directions of the floor. CSA A23.3-14 (13.8.1.1)

 Panels shall be rectangular, with a ratio of longer to shorter panel dimensions, measured center-to-center
of supports, not to exceed 2. CSA A23.3-14 (13.2.2)

 For slab systems with beams between supports, the relative effective stiffness of beams in the two
directions is not less than 0.2 or greater than 2. CSA A23.3-14 (13.2.2)

 Column offsets are not greater than 20% of the span (in the direction of offset) from either axis between
centerlines of successive columns. CSA A23.3-14 (13.2.2)

 The reinforcement is placed in an orthogonal grid. CSA A23.3-14 (13.2.2)

2.2.2. Frame members of elastic frame

Determine moment distribution factors and fixed-end moments for the equivalent frame members. The
moment distribution procedure will be used to analyze the elastic (equivalent) frame. Stiffness factors k, carry
over factors COF, and fixed-end moment factors FEM for the slab-beams and column members are
determined using the design aids tables at Appendix 20A of PCA Notes on ACI 318-11. These calculations
are shown below.

a. Flexural stiffness of slab-beams at both ends, Ksb.

For Interior Span:

cN 1 600 c 600
  0.080 , N 2   0.061
1 7500 2 6600

For cF1  cN 2 , stiffness factors, kNF  kFN  4.89 PCA Notes on ACI 318-11 (Table A2)

Ecs I s Ecs I s
Thus, K sb  k NF  4.89 PCA Notes on ACI 318-11 (Table A2)
1 1

5.86 109 3
K sb  4.89  24,986   10  95.5 10 N.m
6

7500
h3 6600(220)3
where, Is  s
  5.86 109 mm4
12 12
1.5
  
Ecs  (3300 f c'  6900)  c  CSA A23.3-14(8.6.2.2)
 2300 

17
 1.5
 2402.8 
Ecs  (3300 25  6900)    24,986 MPa
 2300 
Carry-over factor COF = 0.54 PCA Notes on ACI 318-11 (Table A2)

Fixed-end moment, FEM = in1mNFi  wi  l12 PCA Notes on ACI 318-11 (Table A2)
Uniform load fixed end moment coefficient, mNF1 = 0.0884
Fixed end moment coefficient for (b-a) = 0.2 when a = 0, mNF2 = 0.0158
Fixed end moment coefficient for (b-a) = 0.2 when a = 0.8, mNF3 = 0.0021

For Exterior Span:

cN 1 600 c 600
  0.090 , N 2   0.061
1 6700 2 6600

For cF1  cN 2 , stiffness factors, kNF  kFN  4.90 PCA Notes on ACI 318-11 (Table A2)

Ecs I s Ecs I s
Thus, K sb  k NF  4.89 PCA Notes on ACI 318-11 (Table A2)
1 1

5.86 109 3
K sb  4.90  24,986   10  107.110 N.m
6

6700
h3 6600(220)3
where, Is  s
  5.86 109 mm4
12 12
1.5
  
Ecs  (3300 f  6900)  c 
c
'
CSA A23.3-14(8.6.2.2)
 2300 
1.5
 2402.8 
Ecs  (3300 25  6900)    24,986 MPa
 2300 
Carry-over factor COF = 0.55 PCA Notes on ACI 318-11 (Table A2)

Fixed-end moment, FEM = in1mNFi  wi  l12 PCA Notes on ACI 318-11 (Table A2)
Uniform load fixed end moment coefficient, mNF1 = 0.0885
Fixed end moment coefficient for (b-a) = 0.2 when a = 0, mNF2 = 0.0159
Fixed end moment coefficient for (b-a) = 0.2 when a = 0.8, mNF3 = 0.0021

18
b. Flexural stiffness of column members at both ends, Kc.

Referring to Table A7, Appendix 20A,

For the Bottom Column (Below):

ta  220 / 2  57  167 mm , tb  220 / 2  110 mm

ta 167
  1.52
tb 110

H  3 m  3000mm , Hc  3000mm  167 mm  57 mm  2723 mm

H 3000
  1.102
H c 2723

Thus, k AB  5.26 and CAB  0.55 by interpolation.

5.26 Ecc I c
K c ,bottom  PCA Notes on ACI 318-11 (Table A7)
c

7.20 109
Kc  5.26  24,986   315.4 106 N.m
3000 1000

b  h3 400(600)3
Where I c    7.20 109 mm4
12 12
1.5
  
Ecc  (3300 f c'  6900)  c  CSA A23.3-14(8.6.2.2)
 2300 
1.5
 2402.8 
Ecc  (3300 25  6900)    24,986 MPa
 2300 

c  3.00 m = 3000 mm

For the Top Column (Above):

tb 110
  0.66
ta 167

H 3000
  1.102
H c 2723

Thus, kBA  4.96 and CBA  0.59 by interpolation.

4.96 Ecc I c
Kc  PCA Notes on ACI 318-11 (Table A7)
c

7.20 109
Kc ,top  4.96  24,986   297.4 106 N.m
3000 1000

19
c. Torsional stiffness of torsional members, K t .

9 Ecs C
Kt  3
CSA A23.3-14(13.8.2.8)
 c2 
t 1  
 t 

9  24,986  3.01109
Kt  3
 103  136.5 106 N.m
 600 
6600  1  
 6600 

 x   x3 y 
Where C   1  0.63    CSA A23.3-14(13.8.2.9)
 y  3 

 277   2773  600 

C  1  0.63     3.0110 mm
9 4

 600   3 

c2  400 mm , 2  6.6 m = 6600 mm

Equivalent column stiffness Kec.

 K c   Kt
Kec 
 K c   Kt

Kec 
 315.4  297.4   2 136.5 106
 315.4  297.4   2 136.5
Figure 10 - Torsional Member
Kec  188.9 106 N.m

Where∑ Kt is for two torsional members one on each side of the

column, and ∑ Kc is for the upper and lower columns at the slab-beam
joint of an intermediate floor.

d. Slab-beam joint distribution factors, DF.

At exterior joint,
107.1
DF   0.362
(107.1  188.9) Figure 11 - Column and Edge of Slab
At interior joint,
107.1
DFExt   0.274
(95.5  107.1  188.9)

95.5
DFInt   0.244
(95.5  107.1  188.9)

20
 COF for slab-beam = 0.54 for Interior Span
= 0.55 for Exterior Span

Figure 12 – Slab and Column Stiffness

2.2.3. Elastic frame analysis

Determine negative and positive moments for the slab-beams using the moment distribution method. Since
the unfactored live load does not exceed three-quarters of the unfactored dead load, design moments are
assumed to occur at all critical sections with full factored live on all spans. CSA A23.3-14 (13.8.4.2)
L 3.6 3
  0.49 
D 5.28  1  1 4

a. Factored load and Fixed-End Moments (FEM’s).

For slab:

Factored dead load  wdf  1.25  (5.28  1  1)  9.10 kN/m2 CSA A23.3-14 (Annex C. Table C.1 a)

Factored live load  wlf  1.5  3.6  5.40 kN/m2

Total factored load  wf  9.10  5.40  14.50 kN/m2

For drop panels:

Factored dead load wdf  1.25  (24  0.057)  1.71 kN/m2
Factored live load wlf  1.5  0  0 kN/m2
Factored load wf  wdf  wlf  1.71 kN/m2
Fixed-end moment, FEM = in1mNFi  wi  l12 PCA Notes on ACI 318-11 (Table A1)

21
 For interior span
FEM  0.0884 14.50  6.6  7.52  0.01581.71 2  7.52  0.0021 1.71 2  7.52
FEM  479.3 kN.m
For exterior span
FEM  0.0885 14.50  6.6  6.72  0.0159 1.71 2  6.72  0.0021 1.71 2  6.72
FEM  383.0 kN.m
b. Moment distribution. Computations are shown in Table 1. Counterclockwise rotational moments acting on
the member ends are taken as positive. Positive span moments are determined from the following equation:
( M uL  M uR )
M f , midspan  M o 
2

Where Mo is the moment at the midspan for a simple beam.

When the end moments are not equal, the maximum moment in the span does not occur at the midspan, but
its value is close to that midspan for this example.
Positive moment in span 1-2:

14.50  6.6   6.72   (1.71 2  6.7 / 6)  6.7 / 6  6.7 / 6  (242  465)

Mu   6.7  6.7 / 2 
8 2  6.7  2

M f  184.6 kN.m

22
 Table 1 - Moment Distribution for Elastic (Equivalent) Frame

Joint 1 2 3 4
Member 1-2 2-1 2-3 3-2 3-4 4-3
DF 0.362 0.274 0.244 0.244 0.274 0.362
COF 0.550 0.550 0.540 0.540 0.550 0.550
FEM 383 -383 479.3 -479.3 383 -383
Dist -138.7 -26.4 -23.5 23.5 26.4 138.7
CO -14.5 -76.3 12.7 -12.7 76.3 14.5
Dist 5.3 17.4 15.5 -15.5 -17.4 -5.3
CO 9.6 2.9 -8.4 8.4 -2.9 -9.6
Dist -3.5 1.5 1.3 -1.3 -1.5 3.5
CO 0.8 -1.9 -0.7 0.7 1.9 -0.8
Dist -0.3 0.7 0.6 -0.6 -0.7 0.3
CO 0.4 -0.2 -0.3 0.3 0.2 -0.4
Dist -0.1 0.1 0.1 -0.1 -0.1 0.1
CO 0.1 -0.1 -0.1 0.1 0.1 -0.1
Dist 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
M, kN.m 242.0 -465.1 476.6 -476.6 465.1 -242.0
Midspan M, kN.m 184.6 198.0 184.6

2.2.4. Factored moments used for Design

Positive and negative factored moments for the slab system in the direction of analysis are plotted in Figure
12. The negative moments used for design are taken at the faces of supports (rectangle section or equivalent
rectangle for circular or polygon sections) but not at distances greater than 0.175 l1 from the centers of
supports. CSA A23.3-14 (13.8.5.1)

600
= 300 mm < 0.175  6700 = 1172.5 mm (use face of supporting location)
2

23
Figure 12 - Positive and Negative Design Moments for Slab-Beam (All Spans Loaded with Full Factored Live Load)

2.2.5. Distribution of design moments

Check Applicability of Direct Design Method:

1. There is a minimum of three continuous spans in each direction. CSA A23.3-14 (13.9.1.2)
2. Successive span lengths are equal. CSA A23.3-14 (13.9.1.3)
3. Loads are uniformly distributed over the entire panel CSA A23.3-14 (13.9.1.4)
4. Factored live-to-dead load ratio of 0.5 < 2.0 CSA A23.3-14 (13.9.1.4)
(Note: The self-weight of the drop panels is not uniformly distributed entirely along the span. However,
the variation in load magnitude is small).

After the negative and positive moments have been determined for the slab-beam strip, the CSA code permits
the distribution of the moments at critical sections to the column strips, beams (if any), and middle strips in
accordance with the DDM. CSA A23.3-14 (13.11.2.3)
Distribution of factored moments at critical sections is summarized in Table 2.

24
 Table 2 - Distribution of factored moments
Slab-beam Strip Column Strip Middle Strip
Moment Moment Moment
Percent Percent
(kN.m) (kN.m) (kN.m)
Exterior Negative 160.2 100 160.2 0 0.00
End Span Positive 184.6 60 110.8 40 73.8
Interior Negative 363.2 82.5 299.6 17.5 63.6
Negative 373.8 82.5 308.4 17.5 65.4
Interior Span
Positive 198.0 60 118.8 40 79.2

2.2.6. Flexural reinforcement requirements

a. Determine flexural reinforcement required for strip moments

The flexural reinforcement calculation for the column strip of end span – exterior negative location is
provided below.
Reinforcement for the total factored negative moment transferred to the exterior columns shall be placed
within a band width bb. Temperature and shrinkage reinforcement determined as specified in clause 7.8.1
shall be provided in that section of the slab outside of the band region defined by bb or as required by clause
13.10.9. CSA A23.3-14 (13.10.3)

M r  160.2 kN.m
Use dl = 244 mm
In this example, jd will be assumed to be taken equal to
0.969d. The assumptions will be verified once the area
of steel in finalized.
Assume jd  0.968  d  236.2 mm

Column strip width, b  6,600 / 2  3,300 mm

Middle strip width, b  6,600  3,300  3,300 mm

Mf 160.2
As    1995 mm2
s f y jd 0.85  400  0.968  244

1  0.85  0.0015 fc'  0.81  0.67 CSA A23.3-14 (10.1.7)

s As f y 0.85 1995  400

Recalculate ' a ' for the actual As  1995 mm 2  a    15.57 mm
c1 f 'c b 0.65  0.81 25  3300

a
jd  d   0.968d
2
Therefore, the assumption that jd equals to 0.968d is valid.
 As , req  1995 mm2

25
Reinforcement for the total factored negative moment transferred to the exterior columns shall be placed
within a band width bb. CSA A23.3-14 (13.10.3)

For the part of the slab inside of the band region:

bb  c2  2  1.5  hd   400  2  1.5  277   1231 mm

Provide 10 - 15M bars (2000 mm2 > 1995 mm2)

Temperature and shrinkage reinforcement determined as specified in clause 7.8.1 shall be provided in that
section of the slab outside of the band region defined by bb or as required by clause 13.10.9 (including middle
strip and the remaining part of the column strip outside the band region). CSA A23.3-14 (13.10.3)

For the remaining part of the column strip outside of the band region:
As ,min  0.002 Ag  0.002  254.54   3300  1231 = 1053 mm2 CSA A23.3-14 (7.8.1)

Provide 6 - 15M bars (1200 mm2 > 1053 mm2)

The slab have two thicknesses in the column strip

(277 mm for the slab with the drop panel and 220
mm for the slab without the drop panel).
The weighted slab thickness:
277  2  220  3.3  2
hw   254.54 mm
3.3
Total Reinforcement in the column Strip:
(10 – 15M) + (6 – 15M) = (16 – 15M)
For middle strip:

As ,min  0.002 Ag  0.002  220   3300 = 1452 mm2 CSA A23.3-14 (7.8.1)

Provide 8 - 15M bars (1600 mm2 > 1452 mm2)

Maximum spacing: CSA A23.3-14 (13.10.4)
- Negative reinforcement in the band defined by bb: 1.5hw  382 mm  250 mm

smax = 250 mm > sprovided = 1231/10 = 123 mm

- Remaining negative moment reinforcement in column strip: 3hw  764 mm  500 mm

smax = 500 mm > sprovided = (3300-1231)/6 = 345 mm

- Negative moment reinforcement in middle strip: 3hs  660 mm  500 mm

smax = 500 mm > sprovided = 3300/8 = 413 mm

Based on the procedure outlined above, values for all span locations are given in Table 3.

26
 Table 3 - Required Slab Reinforcement for Flexure [Elastic Frame Method (EFM)]
As Req’d for
Mr b d Min As Reinforcement As Prov. for
Span Location flexure
(kN.m) (m) (mm) 2 (mm2) Provided flexure (mm2)
(mm )
End Span
Exterior
Negative
160.2 3300 244 1995 1680 16 - 15M* 3200
Column
Strip Positive 110.8 3300 187 1812 1452 10 - 15M 2000
Interior Negative 299.6 3300 244 3850 1680 20 - 15M** 4000
Exterior
0.0 3300 187 0 1452 8- 15M* 1600
Negative
Middle
Strip Positive 73.8 3300 187 1191 1452 8 - 15M 1600
Interior Negative 63.6 3300 187 1022 1452 8 - 15M** 1600
Interior Span
Column Negative 308.4 3300 244 3972 1680 20 - 15M** 4000
Strip Positive 118.8 3300 187 1948 1452 10 - 15M 2000
Middle Negative 65.4 3300 187 1052 1452 8- 15M** 1600
Strip Positive 79.2 3300 187 1280 1452 8 - 15M 1600
* The reinforcement is selected to meet CSA A23.3-14 provision 13.10.3 as described previously.
** The reinforcement is selected to meet CSA A23.3-14 provision 13.11.2.7 as described previously.

b. Calculate additional slab reinforcement at columns for moment transfer between slab and column by
flexure
When gravity load, wind, earthquake, or other lateral forces cause transfer of moment between slab and
column, a fraction of unbalanced moment given by  f shall be transferred by flexural reinforcement placed

within a width bb. CSA A23.3-14 (13.10.2)

Portion of the unbalanced moment transferred by flexure is  f  M r

1
f  CSA A23.3-14 (13.10.2)
1  (2 / 3)  b1 / b2

Where

b1 = Width of the critical section for shear measured in the direction of the span for which moments are
determined according to CSA A23.3-14, clause 13 (see the following figure).

b2 = Width of the critical section for shear measured in the direction perpendicular to b1 according to CSA
A23.3-14, clause 13 (see the following figure).
bb = Effective slab width = c2  3  hd CSA A23.3-14 (3.2)

bb  400  3  277  1231 mm

27
 For Exterior Column For Interior Column
244
b1  100  600   822 mm b1  600  244  844 mm
2
b2  400  244  644 mm b2  400  244  644 mm

1 1
f   0.570 f   0.567
1  (2 / 3)  822 / 644 1  (2 / 3)  844 / 644

Repeat the same procedure in section 2.2.6.a to calculate the additional reinforcement required for the
unbalanced moment as shown in the following table:

Table 4 - Additional Slab Reinforcement required for moment transfer between slab and column (EFM)
Effective slab As req’d As prov. For
Mu* γf Mu d Add’l
Span Location γf width, bb within bb flexure within bb
(kN.m) (kN.m) (mm) Reinf.
(mm) (mm2) (mm2)
End Span

Column Exterior Negative 242.0 0.570 137.9 1231 244 1766 2000 -
Strip Interior Negative 11.5 0.567 6.5 1231 244 44.5 1800 -
*
Mu is taken at the centerline of the support in Elastic Frame Method solution.

Figure 13 - Critical Shear Perimeters for Columns

28
2.2.7. Factored moments in columns

The unbalanced moment from the slab-beams at the supports of the equivalent frame are distributed to the
support columns above and below the slab-beam in proportion to the relative stiffness of the support columns.
Detailed calculations regarding this topic (including column design for axial load and biaxial moments) can
be found in “Two-Way Flat Slab (Drop Panels) Concrete Floor Analysis and Design (CSA A23.3-14)”
example available in the design examples page in StructurePoint website.

Figure 14 - Sample Calculations of Column Design from “Two-Way Flat Slab (Drop Panels) Concrete Floor
Analysis and Design” Design Example

29
3. Shear Strength

Shear strength of the slab in the vicinity of columns/supports includes an evaluation of one-way shear (beam
action) and two-way shear (punching) in accordance with CSA A23.3-14 Chapter 13.

3.1. One-Way (Beam action) Shear Strength CSA A23.3-14 (13.3.6)

One-way shear is critical at a distance dv from the face of the column as shown in Figure 3. Figures 15 and 16
show the factored shear forces (Vf) at the critical sections around each column and each drop panel, respectively.
In members without shear reinforcement, the design shear capacity of the section equals to the design shear
capacity of the concrete:

Vr  Vc  Vs  Vp  Vc , (Vs  Vp  0) CSA A23.3-14 (Eq. 11.4)

Where:

Vc  c  fc' bw dv CSA A23.3-14 (Eq. 11.5)

Note: The calculations below follow one of two possible approaches for checking one-way shear. Refer to
the conclusions section for a comparison with the other approach.

3.1.1. At distance dv from the supporting column

277  2  220  6.6  2

hweighted   237 mm
6.6
dw  237  25  16 / 2  204 mm

dv  Max (0.9d ,0.72h)  Max (0.9  204,0.72  237)  184 mm CSA A23.3-14 (3.2)

  1 for normal weight concrete

  0.21 for slabs with overall thickness not greater than 350 mm CSA A23.3-14 (11.3.6.2)

184
Vc  0.65 1 0.21 25  6600   828.8 kN > V f
1000
Because Vc  V f at all the critical sections, the slab has adequate one-way shear strength.

30
 Figure 15 – One-way shear at critical sections (at distance dv from the face of the supporting column)

3.1.2. At the face of the drop panel

h  220 mm
d  220  25  16 / 2  187 mm

dv  Max (0.9d ,0.72h)  Max (0.9 187,0.72  220)  168 mm CSA A23.3-14 (3.2)

  1 for normal weight concrete

  0.21 for slabs with overall thickness not greater than 350 mm CSA A23.3-14 (11.3.6.2)

168
Vc  0.65 1 0.21 25  6600   756.8 kN > V f
1000
Because Vc  V f at all the critical sections, the slab has adequate one-way shear strength.

Figure 16 – One-way shear at critical sections (at the face of the drop panel)

31
3.2. Two-Way (Punching) Shear Strength CSA A23.3-14 (13.3.2)

3.2.1. Around the columns faces

Two-way shear is critical on a rectangular section located at d/2 away from the face of the column as shown
in Figure 13.

a. Exterior column:

The factored shear force (Vf) in the critical section is computed as the reaction at the centroid of the critical
section minus the self-weight and any superimposed surface dead and live load acting within the critical section
(d/2 away from column face).

 822  644 
V f  V  w f b1  b2   287.3  16.21  6   278.7 kN
 10 
The factored unbalanced moment used for shear transfer, Munb, is computed as the sum of the joint moments
to the left and right. Moment of the vertical reaction with respect to the centroid of the critical section is also
taken into account.

 822  295.3  600 / 2 

M unb  M  V f b1  cAB  c1 / 2  242  278.7    206.7 kN.m
 103 
For the exterior column in Figure 13, the location of the centroidal axis z-z is:

moment of area of the sides about AB 2(822  244  822 / 2)

cAB    295.3 mm
area of the sides 2  822  244  644  244

The polar moment Jc of the shear perimeter is:

 b d 3 db 3 b  
2
J  2  1  1  b1d   1  cAB    b2 dc AB
2

 12 12  2  
 

 822  2443 244  8223  822  

2
J  2   822  244   295.3   644  244  295.32
 12 12  2  


J  4.36 1010 mm4

γv  1  γ f  1  0.570  0.430 CSA A23.3-14 (Eq. 13.8)

The length of the critical perimeter for the exterior column:

bo  2  822  644  2288 mm

The two-way shear stress (vf) can then be calculated as:

32
 Vf  v M unb cAB
vf   CSA A23.3-14 (Eq.13.9)
bo  d J

278.7 1000 0.430  (206.7 106 )  295.3

vf  
2288  244 4.36 1010

v f  0.499  0.602  1.101 MPa

It is worth noting that the 30% allowance from preliminary sizing appears not adequately anticipate the fraction

of shear stress caused by unbalanced moment (120.6%) for two way shear check around the exterior column.

The factored resisting shear stress, Vr shall be the smallest of: CSA A23.3-14 (13.3.4.1)
 2   2 
a) vr  vc  1   0.19c f 'c   1   0.19  0.65  25  1.441 MPa
 c   600 / 400 
 d   3  244 
b) vr  vc   s  0.19  c f 'c    0.19  1 0.65  25  1.657 MPa
 bo   2288 

c) vr  vc  0.38c f 'c  0.38 1 0.65  25  1.235 MPa

vr  vc  1.235 MPa

Since vc  v f at the critical section, the slab has adequate two-way shear strength around this column.

b. Interior column:

 844  644 
V f  V  w f b1  b2   358.9  353.9  16.21  6   704.0 kN
 10 

M unb  M  V f b1  cAB  c1 / 2  476.6  465.1  704(0)  11.5 kN

For the interior column in Figure 13, the location of the centroidal axis z-z is:

b1 844
cAB    422 mm
2 2

The polar moment Jc of the shear perimeter is:

 b d 3 db 3 b  
2

J  2  1  1  b1d   1  cAB    2b2 dcAB

2
 12 12  2  


 844  2443 244  8443  844  

2
J  2   844  244   422    2  644  244  4222
 12 12  2  


J  8.25 1010 mm4

33
 γ  1  γ  1  0.567  0.433 CSA A23.3-14 (Eq. 13.8)
v f

The length of the critical perimeter for the interior column:

bo  2  844  644   2976 mm

The two-way shear stress (vf) can then be calculated as:

Vf  v M unb cAB
vf   CSA A23.3-14 (Eq.13.9)
bo  d J

704.0 1000 0.433  (11.5 106 )  422

vf  
2976  244 8.25 1010

v f  0.970  0.025  0.995 MPa

It is worth noting that the 20% allowance from preliminary sizing appears not adequately anticipate the fraction

of shear stress caused by unbalanced moment (2.6%) for two way shear check around the interior column.

The factored resisting shear stress, Vr shall be the smallest of: CSA A23.3-14 (13.3.4.1)
 2   2 
a) vr  vc  1   0.19c f 'c   1   0.19  0.65  25  1.441 MPa
  c   600 / 400 
 d   4  244 
b) vr  vc   s  0.19  c f 'c    0.19  1 0.65  25  1.683 MPa
b
 o   2288 

c) vr  vc  0.38c f 'c  0.38 1 0.65  25  1.235 MPa

vr  vc  1.235 MPa

Since vc  v f at the critical section, the slab has adequate two-way shear strength around this column.

c. Corner column:

In this example, interior equivalent elastic frame strip was selected where it only have exterior and interior
supports (no corner supports are included in this strip). Detailed calculations for two-way (punching) shear
check around corner supports can be found in “Two-Way Flat Slab (Drop Panels) Concrete Floor Analysis and
Design (CSA A23.3-14)” example available in the design examples page in StructurePoint website.

3.2.2. Around drop panels

Two-way shear is critical on a rectangular section located at d/2 away from the face of the drop panel.

34
 a. Exterior drop panel:

 1493.5  2187 
V f  V  w f b1  b2   287.3  16.21    234.4 kN
 106 

 1493.5  431.1  600 / 2 

M unb  M  V f b1  cAB  c1 / 2  242  234.4    86.8 kN.m
 103 
moment of area of the sides about AB 2(1493.5 187 1493.5 / 2)
cAB    431.1 mm
area of the sides 2 1493.5 187  2187 187

The polar moment Jc of the shear perimeter is:

 b d 3 db 3 b  
2
J  2  1  1  b1d   1  cAB    b2 dc AB
2

 12 12  2  


 1493.5 1873 187 1493.53  1493.5 

2
J  2   1493.5 187    431.1   2187 187  431.12
 12 12  2  
 

J  23.711010 mm4

1
f   0.645
1  (2 / 3)  1493.5 / 2187

γv  1  γ f  1  0.645  0.355 CSA A23.3-14 (Eq. 13.8)

The length of the critical perimeter for the exterior column:

bo  2 1493.5  2187  5174 mm

The two-way shear stress (vf) can then be calculated as:

Vf  v M unb cAB
vf   CSA A23.3-14 (Eq.13.9)
bo  d J

234.4 1000 0.355  (86.8 106 )  431.1

vf  
5174 187 23.711010

v f  0.242  0.056  0.298 MPa

It is worth noting that the 30% allowance from preliminary sizing appears adequately anticipate the fraction of

shear stress caused by unbalanced moment (23.1%) for two way shear check around the exterior drop panel.

The factored resisting shear stress, Vr shall be the smallest of: CSA A23.3-14 (13.3.4.1)

35
  2   2 
a) vr  vc  1   0.19c f 'c   1   0.19  0.65  25  1.441 MPa
  c   600 / 400 
 d   3 187 
b) vr  vc   s  0.19  c f 'c    0.19  1 0.65  25  0.970 MPa
 bo   5174 

c) vr  vc  0.38c f 'c  0.38 1 0.65  25  1.235 MPa

vr  vc  0.970 MPa

Since vc  v f at the critical section, the slab has adequate two-way shear strength around this drop panel.

b. Interior drop panel:

 2187  2187 
V f  V  w f b1  b2   358.9  353.9  16.21    635.3 kN
 106 

M unb  M  V f b1  cAB  c1 / 2  476.6  465.1  704(0)  11.5 kN

For the interior column in Figure 13, the location of the centroidal axis z-z is:

b1 2187
cAB    1093.5mm
2 2

The polar moment Jc of the shear perimeter is:

 b d 3 db 3 b  
2

J  2  1  1  b1d   1  cAB    2b2 dcAB

2
 12 12  2  
 

 2187 1873 187  21873  2187  

2
J  2    2187 187    1093.5    2  2187 187 1093.52
 12 12  2  


J  1311010 mm4

1
f   0.600
1  (2 / 3)  2187 / 2187

γv  1  γ f  1  0.600  0.400 CSA A23.3-14 (Eq. 13.8)

The length of the critical perimeter for the interior column:

bo  2   2187  2187   8748 mm

The two-way shear stress (vf) can then be calculated as:

36
 Vf  v M unb cAB
vf   CSA A23.3-14 (Eq.13.9)
bo  d J

635.3 1000 0.400  (11.5 106 ) 1093.5

vf  
8748 187 1311010

v f  0.388  0.004  0.392 MPa

It is worth noting that the 20% allowance from preliminary sizing appears not adequately anticipate the fraction

of shear stress caused by unbalanced moment (1.0%) for two way shear check around the interior drop panel.

The factored resisting shear stress, Vr shall be the smallest of: CSA A23.3-14 (13.3.4.1)
 2   2 
a) vr  vc  1   0.19c f 'c   1   0.19  0.65  25  1.441 MPa
 c   600 / 400 
 d   4 187 
b) vr  vc   s  0.19  c f 'c    0.19  1 0.65  25  0.895 MPa
 bo   8748 

c) vr  vc  0.38c f 'c  0.38 1 0.65  25  1.235 MPa

vr  vc  0.895 MPa

Since vc  v f at the critical section, the slab has adequate two-way shear strength around this drop panel.

c. Corner drop panel:

In this example, interior equivalent elastic frame strip was selected where it only have exterior and interior drop
panels (no corner drop panel is included in this strip). Detailed calculations for two-way (punching) shear check
around corner drop panels can be found in “Two-Way Flat Slab (Drop Panels) Concrete Floor Analysis and
Design (CSA A23.3-14)” example available in the design examples page in StructurePoint website.

4. Serviceability Requirements (Deflection Check)

Since the slab thickness was selected based on the minimum slab thickness equations in CSA A23.3-14, the
deflection calculations are not required. Detailed calculations of immediate and time-dependent deflections can
be found in “Two-Way Flat Slab (Drop Panels) Concrete Floor Analysis and Design (CSA A23.3-14)” example
available in the design examples page in StructurePoint website.

37
5. spSlab Software Program Model Solution

spSlab program utilizes the Elastic Frame Method described and illustrated in details here for modeling, analysis
and design of two-way concrete floor slab systems. spSlab uses the exact geometry and boundary conditions
provided as input to perform an elastic stiffness (matrix) analysis of the equivalent frame taking into account the
torsional stiffness of the slabs framing into the column. It also takes into account the complications introduced by
a large number of parameters such as vertical and torsional stiffness of transverse beams, the stiffening effect of
drop panels, column capitals, and effective contribution of columns above and below the floor slab using the of
equivalent column concept (CSA A23.3-14 (13.8.2.6)).

spSlab Program models the elastic frame as a design strip. The design strip is, then, separated by spSlab into
column and middle strips. The program calculates the internal forces (Shear Force & Bending Moment), moment
and shear capacity vs. demand diagrams for column and middle strips, instantaneous and long-term deflection
results, and required flexural reinforcement for column and middle strips. The graphical and text results will be
provided from the spSlab model in a future revision to this document.

38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
6. Summary and Comparison of Design Results

Table 5 - Comparison of Moments obtained from Hand (EFM) and spSlab Solution (kN.m)
Reference (DDM) Hand (EFM) spSlab
Exterior Span
Exterior Negative* 116.0 160.2 153.9
Frame Strip Positive 231.0 184.6 192.9
*
Interior Negative 312.0 363.2 356.4
Interior Span
*
Interior Negative 370.0 373.8 364.9
Frame Strip
Positive 201.0 198.0 200.7
*
Negative moments are taken at the faces of supports

Table 6 - Comparison of Reinforcement Results

Additional Reinforcement
Reinforcement Provided for
Provided for Unbalanced Total Reinforcement Provided
Span Location Flexure
Moment Transfer
Reference Hand spSlab Reference Hand spSlab Reference Hand spSlab
Exterior Span
Exterior Not Not
Not Provided 16-15M 16-15M --- --- 16-15M 16-15M
Negative Provided Provided
Column
Positive 11-15M 10-15M 10-15M n/a n/a n/a 11-15M 10-15M 10-15M
Strip
Interior Not Not
Not Provided 20-15M 21-15M --- --- 20-15M 21-15M
Negative Provided Provided
Interior Not
Not Provided 8-15M 8-15M n/a n/a n/a 8-15M 8-15M
Negative Provided
Middle
Positive 8-15M 8-15M 8-15M n/a n/a n/a 8-15M 8-15M 8-15M
Strip
Interior Not
Not Provided 8-15M 8-15M n/a n/a n/a 8-15M 8-15M
Negative Provided
Interior Span
Not
Column Negative 24-15M 20-15M 21-15M --- --- 24-15M 20-15M 21-15M
Provided
Strip
Positive 9-15M 10-15M 10-15M n/a n/a n/a 9-15M 10-15M 10-15M

Middle Negative 4-15M 8-15M 8-15M n/a n/a n/a 4-15M 8-15M 8-15M
Strip Positive 8-15M 8-15M 8-15M n/a n/a n/a 8-15M 8-15M 8-15M

Table 5 and table 6 compare the results from reference using DDM with the hand solution and spSlab results
using EFM. Differences between the reference results and the hand/spSlab results are mainly attributed to the use
of different analysis techniques (DDM by reference and EFM by hand and spSlab).

The limitations of the DDM required the reference to make several assumptions to make the use of DDM valid
and to simplify the calculations:
 Reference excluded the weight of the exterior cladding panels which impacts the shear values at the
exterior supports.

64
  Reference excluded the slab projection that supports the cladding panels which impacts the shear and
moments at the exterior supports.
 Reference uses an averaged reinforcement effective depth for shear calculations. This lowers the slab one-
way and two-way shear capacity.
 Using the tributary method in the reference and assuming that half of the total load is transferred to the
interior column is not exact and may underestimate the loads at the span ends.
 Reference uses an assumed internal lever arm of 0.9d which leads to approximate moment resistance values
and may require higher steel reinforcement.
 Reference uses the lower value for the percentage of moment distributed over column and middle strips
while hand/spSlab uses the average value.

Table 7 - Comparison of One-Way (Beam Action) Shear Check Results

Vf @ dv, kN Vf @ drop panel, kN Vc @ dv , kN Vc @ drop panel, kN

Span
Hand spSlab Hand spSlab Hand spSlab Hand spSlab
Exterior 307.6 308.5 258.2 256.2 828.8 828.1 756.8 758.1
Interior 307.0 313.2 251.7 261.0 828.8 828.1 756.8 758.1

Table 8 - Comparison of Two-Way (Punching) Shear Check Results (around Columns Faces)
b1, mm b2, mm bo, mm Vf, kN cAB, mm
Support
Hand spSlab Hand spSlab Hand spSlab Hand spSlab Hand spSlab
Exterior 822 822 644 644 2288 2288 278.7 301.0 295.3 295.3
Interior 844 844 644 644 2976 2976 704.0 705.9 422.0 422.0

Jc, mm4 γv Munb, kN.m vf, MPa vc, MPa

Support
Hand spSlab Hand spSlab Hand spSlab Hand spSlab Hand spSlab
Exterior 4.36×10 10
4.36×10 10
0.430 0.430 206.7 194.1 1.100 1.103 1.235 1.235
Interior 8.25×1010 8.25×1010 0.433 0.433 11.5 9.9 0.990 0.994 1.235 1.235

Table 9 - Comparison of Two-Way (Punching) Shear Check Results (around Drop Panels)

b1, mm b2, mm bo, mm Vf, kN cAB, mm

Support
Hand spSlab Hand spSlab Hand spSlab Hand spSlab Hand spSlab
Exterior 1493.5 1493.5 2187 2187 5174 5174 234.4 266.5 431.1 413.1

Interior 2187 2187 2187 2187 8748 8748 635.3 645.0 1093.5 1093.5

Jc, mm4 γv Munb, kN.m vf, MPa vc, MPa

Support
Hand spSlab Hand spSlab Hand spSlab Hand spSlab Hand spSlab

Exterior 23.7×10 10
23.7×10 10
0.355 --- 86.8 --- 0.298 0.275 0.970 0.970

Interior 131×10 10
131×10 10
0.400 --- 11.5 --- 0.392 0.394 0.895 0.895

65
 In the tables above, the results are in close or exact agreement with the automated analysis and design results
obtained from the spSlab model. Note that the two-way shear stress calculations around drop panels (in spSlab)
do not include the term for unbalanced moment since the program treats the drop panels as thickened portion of
the slab and are not considered as a support. On the other hand, the CSA code treats the drop panel as a support
and therefore, the shear stress from the unbalanced moment is included in the punching shear calculations as
shown in the hand solution.

7. Conclusions & Observations

7.1. One-Way Shear Distribution to Slab Strips

In one-way shear checks above, shear is distributed uniformly along the width of the design strip (6.6 m).
StructurePoint finds it necessary sometimes to allocate the one-way shears with the same proportion moments
are distributed to column and middle strips.

spSlab allows the one-way shear check using two approaches: 1) calculating the one-way shear capacity using
the average slab thickness and comparing it with the total factored one-shear load as shown in the hand
calculations above; 2) distributing the factored one-way shear forces to the column and middle strips and
comparing it with the shear capacity of each strip as illustrated in the following figures. An engineering
judgment is needed to decide which approach to be used.

Figure 17 – Distributing Shear to Column and Middle Strips (spSlab Input)

66
Figure 18 – Distributed Column and Middle Strip Shear Force Diagram (spSlab Output)

67
Figure 19 – Tabulated Shear Force & Capacity at Critical Sections (spSlab Output)

68
7.2. Two-Way Concrete Slab Analysis Methods

A slab system can be analyzed and designed by any procedure satisfying equilibrium and geometric
compatibility. Three established methods are widely used. The requirements for two of them are described in
detail in CSA A.23.3-14 Clause 13.

Direct Design Method (DDM) is an approximate method and is applicable to two-way slab concrete floor
systems that meet the stringent requirements of CSA A.23.3-14 (13.9.1). In many projects, however, these
requirements limit the usability of the Direct Design Method significantly.

The Elastic Frame Method (EFM) does not have the limitations of DDM. It requires more accurate analysis
methods that, depending on the size and geometry can prove to be long, tedious, and time-consuming.

StucturePoint’s spSlab software program solution utilizes the EFM to automate the process providing
considerable time-savings in the analysis and design of two-way slab systems as compared to hand solutions
using DDM or EFM.

Finite Element Method (FEM) is another method for analyzing reinforced concrete slabs, particularly useful
for irregular slab systems with variable thicknesses, openings, and other features not permissible in DDM or
EFM. Many reputable commercial FEM analysis software packages are available on the market today such as
spMats. Using FEM requires critical understanding of the relationship between the actual behavior of the
structure and the numerical simulation since this method is an approximate numerical method. The method is
based on several assumptions and the operator has a great deal of decisions to make while setting up the model
and applying loads and boundary conditions. The results obtained from FEM models should be verified to
confirm their suitability for design and detailing of concrete structures.

The following table shows a general comparison between the DDM, EFM and FEM. This table covers general
limitations, drawbacks, advantages, and cost-time efficiency of each method where it helps the engineer in
deciding which method to use based on the project complexity, schedule, and budget.

69
Applicable
Concrete Slab Analysis Method
CSA
Limitations/Applicability
A23.3-14 DDM EFM FEM
Provision (Hand) (Hand//spSlab) (spMats)
Panels shall be rectangular, with ratio of
13.8.1.1
13.9.1.1
longer to shorter panel dimensions, measured  
center-to-center supports, not exceed 2.
For a panel with beams between supports on
13.8.1.1 all sides, slab-to-beam stiffness ratio shall be
13.9.1.1 satisfied for beams in the two perpendicular  
directions.
Column offset shall not exceed 20% of the
13.8.1.1
13.9.1.1
span in direction of offset from either axis  
between centerlines of successive columns
13.8.1.1 The reinforcement is placed in an orthogonal
13.9.1.1 grid.  
Minimum of three continuous spans in each
13.9.1.2
direction 
Successive span lengths measured center-to-
13.9.1.3 center of supports in each direction shall not 
differ by more than one-third the longer span
13.9.1.4 All loads shall be due to gravity only 
All loads shall be uniformly distributed over
13.9.1.4
an entire panel (qf) 
Factored live load shall not exceed two times
13.9.1.4
the factored dead load 

13.10.6 Structural integrity steel detailing   

13.10.10 Openings in slab systems   

8.2 Concentrated loads Not permitted  
Engineering judgment required
13.8.4.1 Live load arrangement (Load Patterning) Not required Required
based on modeling technique
Reinforcement for unbalanced slab moment Moments @ Moments @ Engineering judgment required
13.10.2*
transfer to column (Msc) support face support centerline based on modeling technique
Irregularities (i.e. variable thickness, non- Not permitted Engineering Engineering judgment required
13.8.2 prismatic, partial bands, mixed systems, judgment required
support arrangement, etc.)
Complexity Low Average Complex to very complex

Design time/costs Fast Limited Unpredictable/Costly

Conservative Somewhat Unknown - highly dependent on
(see detailed conservative modeling assumptions:
comparison with 1. Linear vs. non-linear
Design Economy spSlab output) 2. Isotropic vs non-isotropic
3. Plate element choice
4. Mesh size and aspect ratio
5. Design & detailing features
Very limited Limited geometry Limited guidance non-standard
applications application (user dependent).
General (Drawbacks)
Required significant engineering
judgment
Very limited Detailed analysis is Unlimited applicability to handle
analysis is required required or via complex situations permissible by
General (Advantages)
software the features of the software used
(e.g. spSlab) (e.g. spMats)
*
The unbalanced slab moment transferred to the column Msc (Munb) is the difference in slab moment on either side of a column at a specific joint.
In DDM only moments at the face of the support are calculated and are also used to obtain Msc (Munb). In EFM where a frame analysis is used,
moments at the column center line are used to obtain Msc (Munb).

70