Reinforced Concrete-II

Course Cod: CE-402

Design of RC Slabs
Subject Instructor:
Professor Dr. Muhammad Yaqub
PhD Structural Engineering, The University of Manchester,UK

Civil Engineering Department

UNIVERSITY OF ENGINEERING AND
TECHNOLOGY TAXILA, PAKISTAN
 Lecture-
Design of Two-Way Slab
By Coefficient Method

2
 Behavior of two way slabs
 One way slab deform under load into an approximately cylindrical
surface. The main structural action is one way in such cases, in the
direction normal to supports on two opposite edges of a rectangular
panel. In many cases, however, rectangular slabs are of such
proportions and are supported in such a way that two way action
results.
 When loaded, such slabs bend into a dished surface rather than
cylindrical one. This means that at any point the slab is curved in both
principal directions, and since bending moments are proportional to
curvatures, moments also exists in both directions.
 Behavior of two way slabs
To resist these moments, the slab must be reinforced in both
directions, by at least two layers of bars perpendicular, respectively,
to two pairs of edges. The slab must be designed to take a
proportionate share of the load in each direction.

Types of reinforced concrete slabs that are characterized by two-

way action include
 Slabs supported by walls or beams on all sides
 Slab without beams, with column capital or drop panel, flat slab.
 Slab directly supported on columns, flat plate.
 Behavior of two way slabs
The simplest type of two way slab action is that represented by Fig.-
1. Where the slab or slab panel is supported along its four edges
relatively deep, stiff, monolithic concrete beams or by walls or steel
girders.

Fig.-1.
 Behavior of two way slabs
To visualize the flexural performance of the slab which is supported
on unyielding supports, consider two sets of parallel strips, in each of
the two directions, intersecting each other. Evidently, part of the load
is carried by one set and transmitted to one pair of edge supports,
and the remainder by the other.
 Behavior of two way slabs
Fig.-2 shows the two center strips of a rectangular plate with short
span ℓa and long span ℓb . If the uniform load is w per square foot of
slab, each of the two strips acts approximately like a simple beam,
uniformly loaded by its share of w. Because these imaginary strips
actually are part of same monolithic slab, their deflections at the
intersection point must be the same.

Equating the center deflections

of the short and long strips gives
5 w a 4a 5 w b 4b
 (a )
384EI 384EI Fig.-2.
 Behavior of two way slabs
Where wa is the share of load w carried in short direction and wb is
the share of the load carried in the long direction. Consequently

w a 4b
 4  b
w b a

From the eq.(b) it is clear that larger share of the load is carried in
the short direction, the ratio of the two portions of the total load being
inversely proportional to the fourth power of the ratio of the spans.
 Behavior of two way slabs
w a 4b
 4  b
w b a
b b
4 w a  256 w b  3 .5 w a  150 .06 w b
a a
b b
3 w a  81w b  2 .5 w a  39.06 w b
a a
b
2 w a  16 w b
a
b
1 wa  wb
a
 Behavior of two way slabs
This result is approximate because the actual behaviour of a slab is
more complex than that of the two intersecting strips. The Fig.3(b)
shows a slab model consisting of two sets of three strips each. It can
be seen that the two central strips s1 and ℓ1 bend in a manner similar

to that shown in Fig.3 The outer strips s2 and ℓ2 , however, are not
only bent but also twisted.

Fig.-3.
 Behavior of two way slabs
Consider, for instance, one of the intersections of s2 and ℓ2. It is

seen that at the intersection the exterior edge of strip ℓ2 is at higher

elevation than the interior edge, while at the nearby end of strip ℓ2

both edges are at the same elevation; the strip is twisted.

This twisting results

in torsional stresses
and torsional moments
that are seen to be
more pronounced near
the corners.
 Behavior of two way slabs
Consequently, the total load on the slab is carried not only by the
bending moments in two directions but also by the twisting moments.
For this reason bending moment is elastic slabs are smaller than
would be computed for sets of unconnected strips loaded by wa and

wb.
For instance, for a simply supported square slab wa=wb=w/2. If only
bending were present, the maximum moment in each would be
2
w 2
  
2  0.0625 w2 c
8
 Behavior of two way slabs
The exact theory of bending of elastic plates shows that actually,
maximum moment in such a square slab is only 0.048wℓ2, so that in
this case twisting moment relieve the bending moments by about 25
percent.
 Behavior of two way slabs
The largest moment occurs where the curvature is sharpest. Fig-
3(b) shows this to be case at mid span of the short strip s1. Suppose
the load is increased until this location is overstressed, so that the
steel at the middle of strip s1 is yielding.
 Behavior of two way slabs
If the strip were an isolated beam, it would now fail. Considering the
slab as a whole, however, that failure would not occur immediately.
The neighboring strips (those parallel as well as perpendicular to s1)
being actually monolithic with it will take over any additional load that
strip s1 can longer carry until they, in turn, start yielding.

This inelastic redistribution will continue until in a rather larger area

in the central portion of the slab all the steel in both directions is
yielding. Only then will the entire slab fail.
 Behavior of two way slabs
From this reasoning, which is confirmed by tests, it follows that
slabs need not be designed for the absolute maximum moment in
each of the two directions (such as 0.048wℓ2) but only for a smaller
average moment in each of the two directions in the central portion of
the slab.
For instance, one of the several analytical methods in general use
permits the above square slab to be designed for a moment of
0.036wℓ2. By comparison with actual elastic maximum moment
0.048wℓ2, it is seen that, owing to inelastic redistribution, a moment
reduction of 25 percent is provided.
 Behavior of two way slabs
The largest moment in the slab occurs at the mid span of the short
strip s1 of Fig(b). It is evident that the curvature, and hence the

moment, in the short strip s2 is less than at the corresponding location

of strip s1.
 Behavior of two way slabs
Consequently, a variation of short span moment occurs in the long
direction of the span. This variation is shown qualitatively in Fig.4 The
short span moment diagram in Fig.4(a) is valid only along the center
strip at 1-1. Elsewhere, the maximum moment is less. Other moment
ordinates are reduced proportionately.

Fig.-4.
 Behavior of two way slabs
Similarly, the long span moment diagram in Fig.4(b) applies only at
longitudinal center line of the slab; elsewhere, ordinates are reduced
according to variation shown.

Fig.-4.
 Behavior of two way slabs
These variations in maximum moment across the width and length
of a rectangular slab are accounted for in an approximate way in
most practical design methods by designing for a reduced moment in
the outer quarters of the slab span in each direction.

Fig.-4.
 Behavior of two way slabs
Only slabs with side ratios less than 2 need be treated as two-way
slabs. From eq.(b), it is seen that, for a slab of this proportion, the
share of the load carried in the long direction is only of the order of
one-sixteenth of that in the short direction. Such a slab acts almost as
if it were spanning in the short direction only. Consequently,
rectangular slab panel with an aspect ratio more than 2 may be
reinforced for one-way action, with the main steel perpendicular to
long edges.
Shrinkage and temperature steel should be provided in the long

direction, of course, and auxiliary reinforcement should be provided

over, and perpendicular to, the short support beams and at the slab
 Analysis by the coefficient method
The precise determination of moments in two-way slabs with
various conditions of continuity at the supported edges is
mathematically formidable and not suited to design practice. For this
reason, various simplified methods have been adopted for
determining moments, shears and reactions of such slabs.
According to the 1995 ACI Code, all two reinforced concrete slab
systems including edge supported slabs, flat slabs and flat plats are
to be analyzed and designed according to one unified method, which
will presented later on.
 Analysis by the coefficient method
However, the complexity of the generalized approach, particularly
for systems which do not meet the requirements permitting analysis
by the “Direct Design Method” of the present code, has led many
engineers to continue to use the design method of the 1963 Code for
the special case of two-way slabs supported on four sides of each
slab panel by relatively deep, stiff edge beams.

Method 3 of the 1963 ACI Code will be presented in this chapter. It

has been used extensively since 1963 for slabs supported at the
edges by walls, steel beams or monolithic concrete beams having a
total depth not less than about 3 times the slab thickness.
 Analysis by the coefficient method
While it was not a part of the 1977 or later ACI Codes, its continued
use is permissible under the current code provision (ACI Code
13.5.1) that a slab system may be designed by any procedure
satisfying conditions equilibrium and geometric compatibility, if it
shown that the design strength at every section is at least equal to
the required strength, and that serviceability requirements are met.
The method makes use of tables of moment coefficients for a
variety of conditions. These coefficients are based on elastic analysis
but also account for inelastic redistribution. In consequence, the
design moment in either direction is smaller by an appropriate
amount than the maximum elastic moment in that direction.
 Analysis by the coefficient method
The moments in the middle strips in the two directions are
computed from Ma  Ca w2a
and
Mb  Cb w2b
Where

Ca, Cb = tabulated moment coefficients

w = uniform load, psf

a ,b
= length of clear span in short and long directions respectively
 Analysis by the coefficient method
The method provides that each panel be divided in both directions
into a middle strip whose width is one-half that of the panel and
edges or column strips of one-quarter of the panel width.

Fig.-5.
 Analysis by the coefficient method
As shown in Fig.4, the moments in both directions are larger in
the center portion of the slab than in regions close to the edges.
Correspondingly, it is provided that the entire middle strip be
designed for the full, tabulated design moment. In the edge
strips this moment is assumed to decrease from its full value at
the edge of the middle strip to one third of this value at the edge
of the panel. This variation is shown for the moments Ma in the
short span direction in Fig.-5. The lateral variation of the long
span moment Mb is similar.
 Analysis by the coefficient method
The discussion so far has been restricted to a single panel simply
supported at all four edges. An actual situation is shown in Fig.-6, in
which a system of beams supports a two way slab.

Fig.-6.
 Analysis by the coefficient method

It is seen that some panels, such as A, have two discontinuous

exterior edges, while the other edges are continuous with their
neighbors. Panel B has one edge discontinuous and three continuous
edges, the interior panel C has all edges continuous, and so on. At a
continuous edge in a slab, moments are negative, just as at interior
supports of continuous beams. Also, the magnitude of the positive
moments depends on the conditions of continuity at all four edges.
 Analysis by the coefficient method

Correspondingly, table-1 gives moment coefficients C, for negative

moments at continuous edges. Maximum negative edge moments
are obtained when both panel adjacent to the particular edge carry
full dead and live load. Hence, the moment is computed for this total
load. Negative moments at discontinuous edges are assumed to one
third of the positive moments for the same direction. One must
provide for such moments at discontinuous edges by the torsional
rigidity of the edge beams or by the supporting wall.
 Analysis by the coefficient method

For positive moments there will be little, if any, rotation at the

continuous edges if dead load alone is acting, because the load on
both adjacent panels tend to produce opposite rotations which, or
nearly so. For this condition, the continuous edges can be regarded
as fixed, and the appropriate coefficients for the dead load positive
moments are given in table-2.
 Analysis by the coefficient method
On the other hand, the maximum live load positive moments are
obtained when live load is placed only on the particular panel and not
on any of the adjacent panels. In this case, some rotation will occur at
all continuous edges. As an approximation it is assumed that there is
50% restraint for calculating these live load moments. The
corresponding coefficients are give in Table-3. For computing shear
in the slab and loads on the supporting beams table-4 gives the
fractions of the total W that are transmitted in the two directions.
 Reinforcement for two-way edge supported slab
In two way edge supported slab, the main flexural reinforcement is
placed in an orthogonal pattern, with reinforcing bars parallel and
perpendicular to the supported edges. As the positive steel is placed
in two layers, the effective depth ‘d’ for the upper layer is smaller than
that for the lower layer by one bar diameter.

Because moments in the long direction are smaller ones, it is

economical to place the steel in that direction on top of the bars in the
short direction. The stacking problem does not exist for negative
reinforcement perpendicular to the supporting edge beams except at
the corners where moments are small.
 Reinforcement for two-way edge supported slab
Either straight bars, cut off where they are no longer required, or
bent bars may be used for two way slabs, but economy of bar
fabrication and placement will generally favour all straight bars.

The precise of inflection points are not easily determined, because

they depend upon the side ratio, the ratio of live to dead load and
continuity conditions at the edges. The standard cut off and bend
points for beams, summarized in Fig, may be used for edge
supported slabs as well.
Reinforcement for two-way edge supported slab
 Reinforcement for two-way edge supported slab
According to ACI code, the minimum reinforcement in each
direction for two–way slabs is that required for shrinkage and
temperature crack control, as given in Table.
Table-5: Minimum ratios of (temperature and shrinkage)
reinforcement area to gross concrete area in slabs
Slabs where Grade 40 or 50 deformed bars are used 00.0020

Slabs where Grade 60 deformed bars or welded wire 0.0018

fabric (smooth or deformed) are used

Slabs where reinforcement with yield strength 0.0018  60,000

exceeding 60,000 psi measured at yield strain of fy
0.35 percent is
 Reinforcement for two-way edge supported slab
For two-way systems, the spacing of flexural reinforcement at
critical sections must not exceed 2 times the slab thickness h.

The twisting moments discussed earlier are usually of consequence

only at exterior corners of a two-way slab system, where they tend to
crack the slab at the bottom along the panel diagonal, and at the top
perpendicular to the panel diagonal.
Special reinforcement should be provided at exterior corners in
both the bottom and top of the slab, for a distance in each direction
from the corner equal to one-fifth of the longer span of the corner
panel as shown in Fig.
Reinforcement for two-way edge supported slab
 Reinforcement for two-way edge supported slab

The reinforcement at the top of the slab should be parallel to the

diagonal from the corner, while that at the bottom should be
perpendicular to the diagonal.

Alternatively, either layer of steel may be placed in two bands

parallel to the sides of the slab. The positive and negative
reinforcement, in any case, should be of a size and spacing
equivalent to that required for the maximum positive moment in the
panel.
Table 1: Coefficients For Negative moments in slabsa

Ma,neg  Ca,neg, w2a

where w  total uniform dead plus live load

Mb,neg  Cb,neg w2b

a
A crosshatched edge indicates that the slab continues across, or is
fixed at, the support; an unmarked edge indicates a support at which
torsional resistance is negligible
Ratio Case 1 Case 2 Case 3 Case 4 Case 5 Case 6 Case 7 Case 8 Case 9

a C/ b
1.00 0.045 0.050 0.075 0.071 0.033 0.061
a.neg
Cb.neg 0.045 0.076 0.050 0.071 0.061 0.033

0.95 Ca.neg 0.050 0.055 0.079 0.075 0.038 0.065

Cb.neg 0.041 0.072 0.045 0.067 0.056 0.029

0.90 Ca.neg 0.055 0.060 0.080 0.079 0.043 0.068

Cb.neg 0.037 0.070 0.040 0.062 0.052 0.025

0.85 Ca.neg 0.060 0.066 0.082 0.083 0.049 0.072

Cb.neg 0.031 0.065 0.034 0.057 0.046 0.021

0.80 Ca.neg 0.065 0.071 0.083 0.086 0.055 0.075

Cb.neg 0.027 0.061 0.029 0.051 0.041 0.017

0.75 Ca.neg 0.069 0.076 0.085 0.088 0.061 0.078

Cb.neg 0.022 0.056 0.024 0.044 0.036 0.014

0.70 Ca.neg 0.074 0.081 0.086 0.091 0.068 0.081

Cb.neg 0.017 0.050 0.019 0.038 0.029 0.011

0.65 Ca.neg 0.077 0.085 0.087 0.093 0.074 0.083

Cb.neg 0.014 0.043 0.015 0.031 0.024 0.008

0.60 Ca.neg 0.081 0.089 0.088 0.095 0.080 0.085

Cb.neg 0.010 0.035 0.011 0.024 0.018 0.006

0.55 Ca.neg 0.084 0.092 0.089 0.096 0.085 0.086

Cb.neg 0.007 0.028 0.008 0.019 0.014 0.005

0.50 Ca.neg 0.086 0.094 0.090 0.097 0.089 0.088

Cb.neg 0.006 0.022 0.006 0.014 0.010 0.003
Table 2: Coefficients For dead load positive moments in slabsa

Ma,pos,d  Ca,d, w2a

where w  total uniform dead load

Mb,pos,d  Cb,d, w2b

a
A crosshatched edge indicates that the slab continues across, or is
fixed at, the support; an unmarked edge indicates a support at which
torsional resistance is negligible
Ratio Case 1 Case 2 Case 3 Case 4 Case 5 Case 6 Case 7 Case 8 Case 9
M= la/ lb
1.00 Ca.dl 0.036 0.018 0.018 0.027 0.027 0.033 0.027 0.020 0.023
0.036 0.018 0.027 0.027 0.018 0.027 0.033 0.023 0.020
Cb.dl

0.95 Ca.dl 0.040 0.020 0.021 0.030 0.028 0.036 0.031 0.022 0.024
Cb.dl 0.033 0.016 0.025 0.024 0.015 0.024 0.031 0.021 0.017

0.90 Ca.dl 0.045 0.022 0.025 0.033 0.029 0.039 0.035 0.025 0.026
Cb.dl 0.029 0.014 0.024 0.022 0.013 0.021 0.028 0.019 0.015

0.85 Ca.dl 0.050 0.024 0.029 0.036 0.031 0.042 0.040 0.029 0.028
Cb.dl 0.026 0.012 0.022 0.019 0.011 0.017 0.025 0.017 0.013

0.80 Ca.dl 0.056 0.026 0.034 0039 0.032 0.045 0.045 0.032 0.029
Cb.dl 0.023 0.011 0.020 0.016 0.009 0.015 0.022 0.015 0.010

0.75 Ca.dl 0.061 0.028 0.040 0.043 0.033 0.048 0.051 0.036 0.031
Cb.dl 0.019 0.009 0.018 0.013 0.007 0.012 0.020 0.013 0.007

0.70 Ca.dl 0.068 0.030 0.046 0.046 0.035 0.051 0.058 0.040 0.033
Cb.dl 0.016 0.007 0.016 0.011 0.005 0.009 0.017 0.011 0.006

0.65 Ca.dl 0.74 0.032 0.054 0.050 0.036 0.054 0.065 0.044 0.034
Cb.dl 0.13 0.006 0.014 0.009 0.004 0.007 0.014 0.009 0.005

0.60 Ca.dl 0.081 0.034 0.062 0.053 0.037 0.056 0.073 0.048 0.036
Cb.dl 0.010 0.004 0.011 0.007 0.003 0.006 0.012 0.007 0.004

0.55 Ca.dl 0.088 0.035 0.071 0.056 0.038 0.058 0.081 0.052 0.037
Cb.dl 0.008 0.003 0.009 0.005 0.002 0.004 0.009 0.005 0.003

0.50 Ca.dl 0.095 0.037 0.080 0.059 0.039 0.061 0.089 0.056 0.038
Table 3: Coefficients For live load positive moments in slabsa

Ma,pos,  Ca,, w2a

where w  total uniform live load

Mb,pos,  Cb,, w2b

a
A crosshatched edge indicates that the slab continues across, or is
fixed at, the support; an unmarked edge indicates a support at which
torsional resistance is negligible
Ratio Case 1 Case 2 Case 3 Case 4 Case 5 Case 6 Case 7 Case 8 Case 9

a /
1.00 Cba.ll 0.036 0.027 0.027 0.032 0.032 0.035 0.032 0.028 0.030
Cb.ll 0.036 0.027 0.032 0.032 0.027 0.032 0.035 0.030 0.028

0.95 Ca.ll 0.040 0.030 0.031 0.035 0.034 0.038 0.036 0.031 0.032
Cb.ll 0.033 0.025 0.029 0.029 0.024 0.029 0.032 0.027 0.025

0.90 Ca.ll 0.045 0.034 0.035 0.039 0.037 0.042 0.040 0.035 0.036
Cb.ll 0.029 0.022 0.027 0.026 0.021 0.025 0.029 0.024 0.022

0.85 Ca.ll 0.050 0.037 0.040 0.043 0.041 0.046 0.045 0.042 0.039
Cb.ll 0.026 0.019 0.024 0.023 0.019 0.022 0.026 0.022 0.020

0.80 Ca.ll 0.056 0.041 0.045 0.048 0.044 0.051 0.051 0.044 0.042
Cb.ll 0.023 0.017 0.022 0.020 0.016 0.019 0.023 0.019 0.017

0.75 Ca.ll 0.061 0.045 0.051 0.052 0.047 0.055 0.056 0.049 0.046
Cb.ll 0.019 0.014 0.019 0.016 0.013 0.016 0.020 0.016 0.013

0.70 Ca.ll 0.068 0.049 0.057 0.057 0.051 0.060 0.063 0.054 0.050
Cb.ll 0.016 0.012 0.016 0.014 0.011 0.013 0.017 0.014 0.011

0.65 Ca.ll 0.74 0.053 0.064 0.062 0.055 0.064 0.070 0.059 0.054
Cb.ll 0.13 0.010 0.014 0.011 0.009 0.010 0.014 0.011 0.009

0.60 Ca.ll 0.081 0.058 0.071 0.067 0.059 0.068 0.077 0.065 0.059
Cb.ll 0.010 0.007 0.011 0.009 0.007 0.008 0.011 0.009 0.007

0.55 Ca.ll 0.088 0.062 0.080 0.072 0.063 0.073 0.085 0.070 0.063
Cb.ll 0.008 0.006 0.009 0.007 0.005 0.006 0.009 0.007 0.006

0.50 Ca.ll 0.095 0.066 0.088 0.077 0.067 0.078 0.092 0.076 0.067
Cb.ll 0.006 0.004 0.007 0.005 0.004 0.005 0.007 0.005 0.004
Table 4: Ratio of load W in la and lb directions for shear in slab and
Ca  w  a  b 
Wa 
load on supportsa  2  b 
where w  total uniform dead load
Cb  w  a  b 
Wb 
 2  a 
a
A crosshatched edge indicates that the slab continues across, or is
fixed at, the support; an unmarked edge indicates a support at which
torsional resistance is negligible

Wa is the load per foot on the long beam and Wb is the load per foot
on the short beam.
 Ratio Case 1 Case 2 Case 3 Case 4 Case 5 Case 6 Case 7 Case 8 Case 9
M= La/ Lb
1.00 Wa 0.50 0.50 0.17 0.50 0.83 0.71 0.29 0.33 0.67
Wb 0.50 0.50 0.83 0.50 0.17 0.29 0.71 0.67 0.33

0.95 Wa 0.55 0.55 0.20 0.55 0.86 0.75 0.33 0.38 0.71
Wb 0.45 0.45 0.80 0.45 0.14 0.25 0.67 0.62 0.29

0.90 Wa 0.60 0.60 0.23 0.60 0.88 0.79 0.38 0.43 0.75
Wb 0.40 0.40 0.77 0.40 0.12 0.21 0.62 0.57 0.25

0.85 Wa 0.66 0.66 0.28 0.66 0.90 0.83 0.43 0.49 0.79
Wb 0.34 0.34 0.72 0.34 0.10 0.17 0.57 0.51 0.21

0.80 Wa 0.71 0.71 0.33 0.71 0.92 0.86 0.49 0.55 0.83
Wb 0.29 0.29 0.67 0.29 0.08 0.14 0.51 0.45 0.17

0.75 Wa 0.76 0.76 0.39 0.76 0.94 0.88 0.56 0.61 0.86
Wb 0.24 0.24 0.61 0.24 0.06 0.12 0.44 0.39 0.14

0.70 Wa 0.81 0.81 0.45 0.81 0.95 0.91 0.62 0.68 0.89
Wb 0.19 0.19 0.55 0.19 0.05 0.09 0.38 0.32 0.11

0.65 Wa 0.85 0.85 0.53 0.85 0.96 0.93 0.69 0.74 0.92
Wb 0.15 0.15 0.47 0.15 0.04 0.07 0.31 0.26 0.08

0.60 Wa 0.89 0.89 0.61 0.89 0.97 0.95 0.76 0.80 0.94
Wb 0.11 0.11 0.39 0.11 0.03 0.05 0.24 0.20 0.06

0.55 Wa 0.92 0.92 0.69 0.92 0.98 0.96 0.81 0.85 0.95
Wb 0.08 0.08 0.31 0.08 0.02 0.04 0.19 0.15 0.05

0.50 Wa 0.94 0.94 0.76 0.94 0.99 0.97 0.86 0.89 0.97
Wb 0.06 0.06 0.24 0.06 0.01 0.03 0.14 0.31 0.03
 Problem:
 A Monolithic reinforced concrete floor is to be composed of
rectangular bays measuring 2126 ft as shown in fig. Beams of width
12 in. and depth 24 in. are provided on all column lines. Thus the
clear span dimension for the two-way slab panel is 2025 ft. The
floor is to be designed to carry a service live load of 137 psf uniformly
distributed over its surface, in addition to its own weight, using
concrete of strength fc’= 3000 psi & reinforcement having fy=60,000
psi. Find the required slab thickness and reinforcement for the corner
panel as shown in fig.
Problem:
 Solution
 Slab thickness = Perimeter /180
12
h  2 20  25    6 in.
180
 The corresponding dead load is 150  0.5= 75 psf
The factored loads on which the design is to be based are
 Live load = 1.7  137 = 232.9 psf
 Dead load = 1.4  75 = 105 psf
 Total load = 338 psf
 Aspect ratio m = la / lb = 20/25 = 0.8

 YOU WILL USE NOW NEW LOADS FACTORS, i.e. 1.6 and 1.2
FOR LIVE AND DEAD LOADS RESPECTIVELY.
 Solution
The moment calculations for the slab middle strips at continuous
edges
For case 4(one long side and one short side continuous)
Ca.neg = 0.071 Cb.neg = 0.029 (table-1)
 Taking unit strip total Load = 338 lb/ft

Ma,neg  Ca,neg, w2a  0.071 338  20 2  9600 ft  lb  115 ,000 lb.in

Mb,neg  Cb,neg w2b  0.029  338  25 2  6130 ft  lb  73,400 lb.in
 Solution
The positive moment calculations for the slab middle strips
For case 4(one long side and one short side continuous)
Ca.dl = 0.039 Cb.dl = 0.016 (table-2)

Ca.ll = 0.048 Cb.ll = 0.020 (table-3)

Ma,pos,d  Ca,d, w2a  0.039  105  20 2  1638 lb.ft  19,700 lb.in
Ma,pos,  Ca,, w2a  0.048  233  202  4470 lb.ft  53,700 lb.in
Ma,pos,tot  73,400 lb.in
Mb,pos,d  Cb,d, w2b  0.016  105  25 2  1050 lb.ft  12,600 lb.in
Mb,pos,  Cb,, w2b  0.020  233  252  2910 lb.ft  35,000 lb.in
Mb,pos,tot  47,600 lb.in
 Solution
Negative Moment at Discontinuous Edge

 Negative B.M at discontinuous support is one-third of B.M at mid-

span.
1
Ma,neg   73,400   24,500 lb.in
3
1
Mb,neg   47,600   15,900 lb.in
3
Reinforcement calculations
For fc  4000 psi 1  0.85

0.85 fc  87,000  0.85  3000  87,000 

b  1   0.85 
 
fy  87,000  fy  60,000  87,000  60,000 
 0.02138
 f 'c
Solution  max  0.375  0.85 
2
 0.01354
fy
 min  0.0018

Short Direction (positive mid span reinforcement)

0.85fc' 2Mu
 [1 - 1 - (  0.9)
fy 0.85fc' b d 2

  0.0048
A s  bd  0.0048 12  5  0.288 in 2 / ft
Choose #4 @ 8 in c / c (A s  0.29)
Max. spacing  2h  2  6  12 in.
Continuous End (Negative reinforcement)
f 'c
 max  0.375  0.852   0.01354
fy
 min  0.0018
0.85fc' 2Mu
 [1 - 1 - (  0.9)
fy 0.85fc' b d 2
  0.0078

A s  bd  0.0078  12  5  0.0.468 in 2 / ft

Choose #4 @ 5 in c / c (A s  0.47)
Max. spacing  2h  2  6  12 in.
Discontinuous end (Negative reinforcement)
f 'c
 max  0.375  0.85  2
 0.01354
fy
 min  0.0018

0.85fc' 2Mu
 [1 - 1 - (  0.9)
fy 0.85fc' b d 2

  0.00154
Thus min imum value of  will be used
A s  bh  0.0018  12  6  0.13 in 2 / ft
Choose #3 @ 10 in c / c (A s  0.13)
Max. spacing  2h  2  6  12 in.
 f 'c
Solution  max  0.375  0.85 
2
 0.01354
fy
 min  0.0018
Long Direction (positive mid span reinforcement)
The positive moment
steel in the long
0.85fc' 2Mu
 [1 - 1 - (  0.9) direction is placed on
fy 0.85fc' b d 2
top of that for the short
direction. Thus d=4.5
  0.0038 in.
A s  bd  0.0038  12  4.5  0.205 in 2 / ft
Choose #3 @ 6 in c / c (A s  0.22)
Max. spacing  2h  2  6  12 in.
Continuous End (Negative reinforcement)
f 'c
 max  0.375  0.85 
2
 0.01354
fy
 min  0.0018
0.85fc' 2Mu
OR   [1 - 1- (  0.9)
fy 0.85fc' b d 2

  0.0048
A s  bd  0.0048 12  5  0.288 in 2 / ft
Choose #4 @ 8 in c / c (A s  0.29)
Max. spacing  2h  2  6  12 in.
 Discontinuous end (Negative reinforcement)
f 'c
 max  0.375  0.85 
2
 0.01354
fy
 min  0.0018

 In long direction, at discontinuous edge, the applied moment Mu is

(15,900 lb.in.) even much lesser than the negative moment at
discontinuous edge in short direction (24,500 lb.in). While for
24,500lb.in moment, minimum reinforcement came out after
calculations. Thus for moment 15,900 lb.in, minimum reinforcement
will be used.
A s  bd  0.0018  12  6  0.13 in2 / ft
Choose #3 @10 in c / c ( A s  0.13)
Max. spacing  2h  2  6  12 in.
 Corner reinforcement for twisting moments

 The twisting moments are of consequence only at exterior corners

of a two-way slab system.

 Therefore in this problem, #4@8” c/c will be used, parallel to the

slab diagonal at the top, and perpendicular to the diagonal at the
bottom, this reinforcement will be carried out to a point 25/5=5 ft from
the corner.
 Shear Check
 Total applied load = 20  25  338 =169,000 lb
From table-4 Wa = 0.71 and Wb = 0.29
169,000
Load per foot on the long beam   0.71 25  2400 lb / ft
2
169,000
Load per foot on the short beam   0.29  20  1220 lb / ft
2
The shear strength of the slab is
 
Vc   2 fc bd  0.85  2  3000  12  5  5586 .77 lb

Thus the resisting shear is well above the applied shear. Thus there
is no need of shear reinforcement.
Deflection Control
 Edge-supported slabs are typically thin relative to their span, and
may show large deflections even though strength requirements are
met, unless certain limitations are imposed in the design to prevent
this. The simplest approach to deflection control is to impose a
minimum thickness-span ratio.
 In the 1963 code, in which the coefficient method of analysis was
introduced, provided that the slab thickness should not be less than
3.5 in and not less than the total perimeter divided by 180.
 Deflection Control
 Alternative to the use of minimum depth equations, the deflection at
the center of a slab panel can be calculated and results compared
against limitations such as those of ACI Code 9.5. These limitation
summarized in Table given, apply to two-way floor systems as well as
to beams
Type of member Deflection to be considered Deflection limitation
Flat roofs not supporting or attached to nonstructural Immediate deflection due to 
elements likely to be damaged by large deflection live load L 180
Floors not supporting or attached to nonstructural Immediate deflection due to 
elements likely to be damaged by large deflection live load L 360
Roof or floor construction supporting or attached to That part of the total 
nonstructural elements likely to be damaged by large deflection which occurs after
deflection attachment of the 480
Roof or floor construction supporting or attached to nonstructural elements, the
nonstructural elements not likely to be damaged by sum of the long-time 
large deflection deflection due to all 240
sustained loads, and the
immediate deflection due to
any additional live load
 Deflection Control
 The calculation of deflections for slabs is complicated by many
factors such as
 Varying rotational restraint at the edges

 The influences of alternative loading arrangements.

 Varying ratio of side lengths

 Effects of cracking.

 Time dependent influences of shrinkage and creep.

 Deflection Control
 The deflection components of concern are usually the long-term
deflections due to sustained loads and the immediate deflection due
to live load.

 Previous Table gives upper limits for these deflection components


in terms of the span .

 For slabs it is not clear from the ACI code or Commentary whether
the longer or shorter span is to be used as the basis, but it is
conservative (and reasonable when considering possible damage to
supported elements ) to base calculated limits on the shorter span.
Deflection Control
 Maximum live load deflection, for example, will normally be
obtained when the live load acts on the given panel, but not on the
adjacent panels. Therefore, live load deflection should be based on
the maximum positive moments found using table of positive
moments.
 This will be illustrated for the slab shown in Fig(a), considering the
middle strip of unit width in the long direction of the panel. The
variation of moment for a uniformly distributed load is parabolic, and
the sum of the positive and negative moments must, according to
statics, be 1
M  w b 2b (a )
8
 Deflection Control
 where wb is the fractional
part of the load transmitted in
the long direction of the panel
(Fig (c)). If fully fixity were
obtained at the supports, the
negative moment would be
1 2 2
Mneg  w b b  M
2
(b) M
12 3 3
And the positive moment
would be
1 1
Mpos  w b b  M
2
(c )
24 3
Deflection Control
 It has been noted earlier that the coefficients for maximum live load
positive moments were derived assuming 50 percent, 100 percent,
fixity.
Accordingly, the zero moment baseline associated with the
maximum positive moment Mb obtained using table of positive
moment as shown in Fig(c), and the statically consistent negative
moments are one-half the positive moment Mb.
 Deflection Control
 Deflection calculations are thus based on the parabolic moment
diagram, with maximum ordinate Mb at midspan and negative end
moments one-half that value.
The midspan live load deflection, l, of the slab strip shown in Fig(b)
can easily be found based on the moment diagram of Fig.(c).
 For the slab shown, with both edges continuous
3 Mb 2b
  (d)
32 Ec  eff
 where Mb is the live load positive moment obtained using the

appropriate coefficient of Table of positive moment, Ec is the elastic

 eff
modulus of the concrete, and is the effective moment of inertia of
 Deflection Control
 Eq.(d) was derived for a typical interior panel, with equal
restraining moments at each end of the slab strip. Similar equations
can easily be derived for the cases where one or both ends are
discontinuous.
According to coefficient method of moment analysis, negative
moments at discontinuous slab edges are assumed equal to one-third
the positive moment in the same direction, so it is clear that resulting
deflection would differ very little from eq.(d).
That equation can be used for panel strips with one or both ends
discontinuous, but monolithic with supporting beams, with very little
error.
 Deflection Control
 For the special case where edges are completely free of restraint,
as if, for example, the slab where supported by masonry walls, the
midspan live load deflection is
5 Mb 2b
  ( e)
48 Ec  eff

 The dead load deflection should be based on the moment diagram

found using maximum dead load positive moment based on table of
“dead load positive moment”, which assumes all panels loaded.

 In deriving these coefficients, continuous edges were regarded as

fully fixed.
Deflection Control
 Accordingly, it can easily be shown that the midspan dead load
deflection d, for the case with both ends continuous, is
1 Mb 2b
d  (f )
16 Ec  eff

Where Mb is, in this case, the dead load positive moment obtained
using the coefficients of table of “dead load positive moment”.
 For the special case where both ends are free of restraint, the
midspan dead load deflection can be found from
5 Mb 2b
d  (g)
48 Ec  eff
 Deflection Control
 While the deflections discussed above have been with reference to
a unit strip spanning in the longer direction of the panel of Figure(a),
calculations may also be based on the strip in the shorter direction.
 The resulting deflection at the center of the panel should be same
in either case, although small differences can be expected because of
the approximate nature of the calculations.

 A reasonable procedure is to calculate the deflection each way and

then to average the results.
 Deflection Control
 Slab deflections calculated according to the equations just given
are the initial elastic deflections produced immediately upon
application of the loads.
 For sustained loads such as from dead loads. ACI Code 9.5.3
recommends that the increase in deflection with time can be found
based on the following equation.

 (g)
1  50

With a time-dependent multiplier  that varies according to next Fig.

and with an ultimate value of 2.0.
Long-term deflection multipliers
Deflection Control

 Experience has indicated that a value of 2.0 often underestimates

time-dependent deflections of slabs, probably because slabs have
much lower ratios of thickness to span than beams, which provided
the basis for long-term multipliers. Branson suggests that =3.0 be
used for slabs.
 Problem
The floor slab of previous problem will support rigid partition and other
non-structural elements that would be damaged by large deflection.
These elements will be installed 3 months after constructions shoring
is removed and dead load imposed, calculate the increment of dead
load and service live load deflection that would affect the
superimposed elements, and compare with ACI code limit values.
 Solution
Deflection calculations will be based on the moment analysis of
previous example. However, those moments were based on load
factors of 1.4 applied to dead loads and 1.7 to live loads, and
moments must be reduced accordingly to obtain service load
moments.
The modulus of elasticity is
Ec  57,000 3000  3.12  10 6 psi
The moment of inertia will be taken as that of gross concrete section,
and for a 12 in. strip is
12  63
g   216 in 4
12
 Solution
 The immediate deflection at midpanel due to dead load will be
found by eq. (f), first based on the long-direction strip, and then the
short-direction strip, and the results averaged if they differ. In the long
direction, from previous example, the dead load positive moment is
12,600 in-lb at factored loads, or
12,600
 9000 in  lb
1.4
at service loads. Thus
1 Mb 2b
d  (f )
16 Ec  eff

9000 25  12
2

d   0.08 in.
16  3.12  10  216
6
 Solution
For comparison, in the short direction the service load moment due to
dead load is 19,700
 14,100 in  lb
1.4
And the corresponding deflection at midpanel is
14,100 20  12
2

d   0.08 in.
16  3.12  10  216
6

Just as before.
 The time-dependent increment of deflection will be calculated
based on a 5-year multiplier =3.0, but the ACI Code time variation
shown in Fig is used. That figure indicates that one-half the time-
dependent deflection would have occurred at 3 months.
 Solution
Only the remaining half would occur after installation of the partitions
and other elements. Thus the fractional part of the time-dependent
dead load deflections that may cause damage is
1
0.08  3   0.12 in.
2
 Live load deflection will be calculated from eq.(d).

 In the long-span direction, from previous example, the live load

positive moment is 35,000 in-lb at factored loads, or
35,000
 20,600 in  lb
1 .7
is service load moment.
 Solution 3 Mb 2b
And the deflection at midpanel is   (d)
32 Ec  eff
3  20,600 25  12
2

   0.26 in.
32  3.12  10  216
6

 As a check, in the short-span direction the live load positive

moment is
53,700
 31,600 in  lb
1.7
and the deflection is
3  31,600 20  12
2

   0.25 in.
32  3.12  10  216
6

the same as before for all practical purposes.

 Solution
The deflection causing potential damage is the sum of the
incremental time-dependent dead load deflection occurring after 3
months and the immediate deflection due to live load, i.e.,
  0.12  0.26  0.38 in.

According to the ACI Code limits of previous Table, the maximum

allowable deflections for the stated conditions is
20  12
 0.50 in.
480

so on the basis of deflections the design can be considered

satisfactory.
 fc/  4000 psi fy  40,000 psi
Assignment
Live load  180 psf Im posed Dead Load  30 psf