Design of Slab

Design of One Way slab

One-Way and Two-Way Actions of Slabs

‘one-way’ action may be assumed when the predominant mode of flexure is in

one direction alone. Rectangular slabs which are supported only on two opposite
sides by unyielding (wall) supports and are uniformly loaded (along the direction
parallel to the supports) provide examples of ideal one-way action
This primary one-way action [ceases to exist if either the support conditions or
the loading conditions are altered. For example, if the uniformly loaded
rectangular slab of Fig. 11.1(a) is supported on all four edges, then the deformed
surface of the slab will be doubly curved, with the load effects transferred to all
the four supporting edges [Fig. 11.1(b)]. Such action is called a two-way action,
involving significant curvatures along two orthogonal directions. The typical
variation of longitudinal and transverse bending moments is depicted in Fig.
11.1(c).

The bending moments are expectedly maximum at the middle of the slab, and of
the two principal moments (Mx, My) at the middle point, the one (Mx) along the
short span (lx) is invariably greater.

As the ‘aspect ratio’ ly /lx (i.e., long span/short span) increases, the curvatures
and
moments along the long span progressively reduce, and more and more of the
slab load is transferred to the two long supporting edges by bending in the short
span direction. In such cases, the bending moments (My) are generally low in
magnitude [Fig. 11.1(d)]. Hence, such long rectangular slabs (ly /lx> 2) may be
approximated as one-way slabs, for convenience in analysis and design
ANALYSIS OF SLABS AS RECTANGULAR BEAMS

Slabs under flexure behave in much the same way as beams. A slab of uniform
thickness subject to a bending moment uniformly distributed over its width may be
treated as a wide shallow beam for the purpose of analysis and design.
In such slabs, the reinforcing bars are usually spaced uniformly over the width of
the slab. For convenience, computations are generally based on a typical one-metre
wide strip of the slab considered as a beam , with b= 1000 mm.

The loads are generally uniformly distributed and expressed in units of kN/m2. If s is
the centre-to-centre spacing of bars in mm, then the number of bars in the 1-metre
wide strip is given by 1000/s. Accordingly, denoting Ab as the cross-sectional
area of one bar (equal to πφ2/4), the area of tensile steel (Ast), expressed in units of
mm2/m, is given by

In practice, reinforced concrete slabs are generally under-reinforced and

singly reinforced. In the example to follow, the analysis of a typical slab is
undertaken to determine the moment resisting capacity at working loads as
well as at the ultimate limit state.
In the design of one-way slabs, this minimum reinforcement is also to be provided
for the secondary(or distributor) reinforcement along the direction perpendicular
to the main reinforcement, with the spacing of such bars not exceeding 5d or 450
mm (whichever is less) .It may be noted that in the case of slabs, sudden failure
due to an overload is less likely owing to better lateral distribution of the load
effects. Hence, the minimum steel requirements of slabs are based on
considerations of shrinkage and temperature effects alone, and not on strength.
Accordingly, the specified value of (pt)min is somewhat smaller in the case of slabs,
compared to beams. However, for exposure conditions where crack control is of
special importance, reinforcement in excess of that given by Eq. 5.2 should be
provided.
General Guidelines for Slab Thicknesses

In the case of slabs, whose thicknesses are very small in comparison with the
depths of beams, the limiting span /depth ratios will generally govern the
proportioning. In practice, Fe 415 grade steel is most commonly used, and for
such steel, a pt value of about 0.4 – 0.5 percent may be assumed for preliminary
proportioning. This gives a kt value of about 1.25; accordingly, the required
effective depth(for preliminary design) works out to about span/25 for simply
supported slabs and about span/32 for continuous slabs.

In order to determine the thickness of the slab, the clear cover (based on
exposure, ) plus half the bar diameter of the main reinforcement (usually along
the shorter span) have to be added to the effective depth, The calculated value of
the thickness should be rounded off to the nearest multiple of 5 mm or 10 mm.

In the case of slab, the area of steel is expressed in terms of centre-to-centre

spacing of bars, given by

The actual spacing provided should be rounded off to the nearest lower multiple
of 5 mm or 10 mm.
Design of Two way Slab
 Torsion in Two-Way Slabs

In general, twisting moments develop in addition to bending moments in a two-

way slab element — except when the element is oriented along the principal
curvatures. These twisting moments can become significant at points along the
slab diagonals [Fig. 11.2(a)].

It is seen that the principal moment M1(along the diagonal) is ‘negative’ (hogging)
at locations close to the corner, and the reactions developed at the supports in the
corner region will be downward in nature. If such downward reactions cannot be
developed at the supports, the corners will lift up [Fig. 11.2(d)].

In practice, however, corners are usually prevented from lifting up (by wall loads
from above, or by monolithic edge beams framing into columns); such slabs are
said to be torsionally restrained. In such cases, the corners have to be suitably
reinforced at top, (for the moment M1with reinforcement placed parallel to the
diagonal) and also at bottom (for the moment M2with reinforcement placed
perpendicular to the diagonal); otherwise cracks are liable to form at the corner, as
shown in Fig. 11.2(c).
Difference between Wall-Supported Slabs and Beam/Column Supported Slabs

The distributed load w on a typical two-way slab is transmitted partly (wx)

along the short span to the long edge supports, and partly (wy) along the long
span to the short edge supports. In wall-supported panels, these portions (wx
, wy) of the load are transmitted by the respective wall supports directly to
their foundations (or other supports) vertically below, as shown in Fig.11.3(a).
On the contrary, when the edge supports comprise beams spanning between
columns, the portion of the load transmitted by the slab in any one direction is
in turn transmitted by the beam in the perpendicular direction to the two
supporting columns, as shown in Fig. 11.3(b) (i).

In general, in column-supported slabs, with or without beams along the

column lines, 100 percent of the slab load has to be transmitted by the floor
system in both directions(transverse and longitudinal) towards the columns
(Fig. 11.3 (b) ii & iii). In such cases, the entire floor system and the columns act
integrally in a two-way frame action.
Slab Thickness Based on Deflection Control Criterion

The initial proportioning of the slab thickness may be done by adopting the same
guidelines regarding span/effective depth ratios, as applicable in the case of one-
way slabs .The effective span in the short span direction should be considered for
this purpose. However, the percentage tension reinforcement requirement in the
short span direction for a two-way slab is likely to be less than that required for a
one-way slab with the same effective span. Hence, the modification factor kt to
be considered for two-way slabs may be taken to be higher than that
recommended for one-way slabs .A value of kt ≈1.5 may be considered for
preliminary design. The adequacy of the effective depth provided should be
verified subsequently, based on the actual pt provided.
For the special case of two-way slabs with spans up to 3.5 m and live loads not
exceeding 3.0 kN/m2, the Code(Cl. 24.1, ) permits the slab thickness (overall depth
D) to be calculated directly as follows, without the need for subsequent checks on
deflection control:
Methods of Analysis
Two-way slabs are highly statically indeterminate. They may be visualised as being
comprised of intersecting, closely-spaced grid beam-strips which are subject to flexure,
torsion and shear. Owing to the high static indeterminacy, rigorous solutions are not
generally available. The available solutions, based on the classical theory of plates , for
such standard problems as simply supported and uniformly loaded two-way slabs (due
to Navier and Levy), need modification to accommodate the differences observed
experimentally on account of the non-homogeneous and nonlinear behaviour of
concrete. Such solutions have been proposed by Westergaard and others in the form of
convenient moment coefficients, which have been widely used by codes all over the
world. Another approximate method, very elementary in approach, is the so-called
Rankine-Grashoff method. The main feature of this method is that it simplifies a highly
indeterminate problem to an equivalent simple determinate one. This method, as well
as its modified version due to Marcus have also been widely in use during the past five
decades. Modern computer-based methods include the finite difference method and
the finite element method. Other methods, which are particularly suited for limit state
design, and are relatively simple, are inelastic methods based on yield line analysis.
According to the Code (Cl. 24.4), two-way slabs may be designed by any acceptable
theory. In the case of uniformly loaded two-way rectangular slabs, the Code suggests
design procedures for
• simply supported slabs whose corners are not restrained from lifting up
[Cl. D–2 of the Code].;
• ‘torsionally restrained’ slabs, whose corners are restrained from lifting up and whose
edges may be continuous or discontinuous [Cl. D–1 of the Code].
Detailing of Reinforcement

The flexural reinforcements in the two directions are provided to resist the maximum
bending moments Mux= αx wu lx2 (in the short span) and Muy= αy wu lx2 (in the long
span). The steel requirements at the midspan locations in strips distant from the middle
strip progressively reduce with the distance from the middle strip. However, the usual
design practice is to provide bars that are uniformly spaced through out the span (in both
directions), with a flexural resistance that is not less than the calculated maximum
ultimate bending moment (Mux or Muy).
Furthermore, considering any particular strip (transverse or longitudinal), the bending
moment varies from a maximum value at the midspan to zero at either support [Fig.
11.4]. Hence, it is possible to curtail the bars in accordance with the Code provisions. For
the special case of simply supported two-way slabs (torsionally unrestrained), the Code
(Cl. D–2.1.1) suggests a simplified procedure for reinforcement curtailment. According to
this procedure, up to 50 percent of the bars may be terminated within a distance of
0.1lfrom the support, while the remaining bars must extend fully into the supports.
If the slab is truly simply supported at the edges, there is no possibility of ‘negative’
moments developing near the supports, due to partial fixity. However, it is good design
practice to always safeguard against the possibility of partial fixity. As explained with
reference to the design of one-way slabs, this can be achieved either by bending up
alternate bars], or by providing separate top steel, with area equal to 0.5 times that
provided at bottom at mid span, with an extension of 0.1l from the face of the support
[The recent trend is to do away with bent up bars and instead to opt for separate layers at
top and bottom.
Uniformly Loaded ‘Restrained’ Rectangular Slabs

The Code (Cl. D–1) uses the term restrained slabs to refer to slabs whose corners are
prevented from lifting and contain suitable reinforcement to resist torsion. All the four
edges of the rectangular ‘restrained’ slab are assumed to be supported (tied down)
rigidly against vertical translation, and the edges may be either continuous/fixed or
discontinuous. Accordingly, nine different configurations of restrained rectangular slab
panels are possible (as shown in Fig. 11.6), depending on the number of discontinuous
edges (zero, one, two, three or four) and also depending on whether the discontinuous
edge is ‘short’ or ‘long’.
The moment coefficients recommended in the Code (Cl. D–1) are based on inelastic
analysis(yield line analysis, rather than elastic theory. This analysis is based on the
following assumptions:

• the bottom steel in either direction is uniformly distributed over the ‘middle strip’
which spreads over 75 percent of the span;

• the ‘edge strip’ lies on either side of the middle strip, and has a width equal to
lx /8 or ly /8 [Fig. 11.7];

• top steel is provided in the edge strip adjoining a continuous edge (and at right
angles to the edge) such that the corresponding flexural strength (ultimate
‘negative’ moment capacity) is 4/3 times the corresponding ultimate ‘positive’
moment capacity due to the bottom steel provided in the middle strip in the
direction under consideration;

• the corner reinforcement provided is sufficient to prevent the formation of

‘corner levers’, i.e., forking of diagonal yield lines near the corners.
Shear is generally not a governing design consideration in wall supported reinforced
concrete slab subject to uniformly distributed loads. With one way action , the
magnitude of shear stress are likely to be even lesser than one way action. The
distribution of shear forces at the various edges of a two-way slab is complicated in
general. However, the Code (Cl. 24.5) recommends a simple distribution of loads on
the supporting edges, according to which, the distribution of load on the short edge
is triangular, and the distribution of load on the long edge is trapezoidal, with the
lines demarcating the contributing areas at 45 degrees to the boundaries [Fig.
11.13]. The critical section for shear is to be considered d away from the face of the
support.