Emirates Journal for Engineering Research, 16 (1), 53-62 (2011)

(RegularPaper)

SHALLOW-BEAM SUPPORTED REINFORCED CONCRETE

RECTANGULAR SLABS: AN ALTERNATE DESIGN PROCEDURE
Harvinder Singh1, Maneek Kumar2 and Naveen Kwatra2
1

Department of Civil Engineering, Guru Nanak Dev Engineering College, Ludhiana, India
2

Email: hs@gndec.ac.in
Department of Civil Engineering, Thapar University, Patiala, India
Email:maneek@thapar.edu; naveen@thapar.edu

(Received January 2010 and Accepted July 2010)

.
.

( .
..) .. (
.

%64 .% 01 5
. .
Reinforced concrete slabs are most widely used structural element that consumes maximum
resources in the building construction. Despite the large number of slabs being designed and built,
the composite behavior of the slab-beam systems are not always appreciated or taken into
account. Design equation useful for designing reinforced concrete slab supported over the shallow
in-built beams, and cast monolithic along with the slab is presented herein. The use of these
beams becomes mandatory in the buildings due to some architectural constraints (e.g. low ceiling
height or very long spans etc). To validate the analytical results from the proposed design
equations, these are compared with results from well-established literature on the slab analysis
and are found to be in good agreement. Working procedure is illustrated with the help of design
examples and it is shown that with the use of shallow beam, the unit cost of material-consumption
comes out to be nearly same (within 5 to 10%), but the beam-drop reduces by 46% in comparison
to the slabs supported over the non-shallow (rigid) beams.
Key words: Slab, yield line, beam, collapse load, design procedure and mechanism.

1. INTRODUCTION
Slab is the most widely used structural element. It
finds application both in the framed as well as in the
ordinary load-bearing masonry-structures. It can be
viewed as a structural component that transfers the
external load to its supports by means of bending,
shear and torsion. Because of coupling of these
internal force-resultants, its structural behavior is very
sensitive to the type, and position of support and/or
stiffness of the supporting structural member. Any
change in the physical parameters of these supporting
systems of the slab will cause a considerable change
in the slab moment-field.

The current state-of-art [1-6] available for the

design of reinforced concrete slab does not
satisfactorily address the problem of designing the
slabs cast monolithic with the shallow-beams. In most
of the literature [7-11], design methods have been
suggested based upon the results of an extensive
series of tests and well-established performance
record of various slab systems. In these experimental
investigations, most of the researchers have
concentrated their work on the performance of single
panel rectangular slabs resting over the beams at outer
four edges and the slab, and its supporting beams
have been proportioned by distributing the total static
moment, suggested by Nichols [12], to the slab-beam
system. Sozen[11] have studied the behavior of beam

53

Harvinder Singh et. al.

supported multi-panel floors. Based upon these test

results, empirical relations and some factors have
been suggested for apportioning the total static
moment to the slab and its supporting beams and/or
column strip for satisfactory performance.
The procedure recommended by most of the
design codes [13-15] has number of inherent limitations
in the form of assumptions, which are mandatory to
be satisfied by all panels of the slab for the
satisfactory performance, thus forcing the designers
to use supporting beams with lesser value of the
span/depth-ratio.
The moment coefficients recommended by the
design code [14] are applicable only for the rectangular
slabs resting over the non-yielding supports on its
outer boundary. These design moment coefficients
have been suggested for the rectangular slabs having
different end-restraints, and the panel aspect ratio.
But in routine design practice, number of cases are
encountered by designers whereby the beam-drop and
the beam-spans are restricted by architects to a level
that are not sufficient to provide the rigid edge to the
supported-slab and as such, these coefficients predict
the moment-field highly on the unsafe side and
produces a structurally deficient slab section. This
design procedure may be appropriate for many
situations but in many others it leads to wasteful
overdesign or, perhaps worse, underdesign.
In the present paper, design equation and
procedure has been suggested for designing the
laterally loaded reinforced concrete rectangular slab
supported over the equally spaced internal in-built
shallow beams, and resting over the simple, and nonyielding edges on its outer four sides.

about y-axis, and x-axis (= muy/mux). And it was

supported over the (n-1) number of equally spaced inbuilt shallow beams with the moment-capacity, mb (=
bmuxlx) each. The slab, and the internal supporting
beams of the beam-slab system have been cast
monolithic and in case of a composite construction,
the slab and the supporting beams have been properly
anchored to prevent the separation of these two
sections at the ultimate load. Shallow beam is a
flexural member that deflects along with the
supported slab under the applied loading and
maintains compatibility of the displacement field
along its interface with the supported slab. In this
process, the supporting beams will allow the yield
line developed in the supported slab to pass through it
at the point of plastic hinge at the ultimate state. The
schematic diagram of the proposed model has been
shown in figure 1.

Figure 1. Schematic Diagram of Model

2. DESIGN EQUATIONS
The purpose of design equation lies in providing
some quick information on the relationship of
interest, which enables the engineers to grasp the
essentials of phenomenon without carrying out the
detailed analysis and with few procedural steps. It is
assumed that the load-deformation response of the
reinforced concrete specimen can be idealized as
rigid-perfectly plastic at and/or near the ultimate state,
which requires a sufficiently ductile section with
properly anchored and uniformly distributed
reinforcing steel at the tensile face of the specimen.
Consider a rectangular slab of length, Lx and
width, ly divided into n-number of panels with length,
lx each and supported over the simple, and nonyielding edges on its outer four sides. The orthotropic
reinforcement has been provided in the slab with
ultimate resisting moment along x-axis, mux and along
y-axis, muy, and with the orthotropy ( ) defined as the
ratio of ultimate resisting moment-capacity of the slab

54

Figure 2. Yield line pattern of slab failing in GlobalCollapse Mechanism.

The Complete Positive Yield Line Pattern Under

The Uniform Area Load (W) Acting Over The Whole
Of Top Surface Of The Slab At Ultimate State Is
Shown In Figure 2. The Shape Of This Yield Line
Pattern Can Be Derived By Considering The Laws Of
Mechanics Of Rigid Bodies And The Theorems
Postulated By Johansen [2]and Quintas[16]. The
equilibrium of various segments of the collapsed slab
at ultimate state can be ensured by equating. The
work done by the applied surface loading in moving
through a kinematically admissible displacement in
the direction of applied load with that performed by

Emirates Journal for Engineering Research, Vol. 16, No.1, 2011

Shallow-Beam Supported Reinforced Concrete Rectangular Slabs: An Alternate Design Procedure

the ultimate resisting moments acting along the yield

lines of the assumed collapse mechanism.

mechanism (Figure 3) otherwise; it is called as a

global-collapse mechanism (Figure 2).

The collapse load predicted by satisfying these

two conditions will be either on the higher side or at
the most equal to the true value. the true value of the
collapse load can be achieved either by satisfying the
yield criterion at all points in the slab or by selecting
a yield line pattern corresponding to the lines of
maximum curvature under applied loading and in the
later case, it will represent the true collapse
mechanism of the slab. However, it will be simpler
and mathematically easier to examine all possible
collapse mechanisms of the slab than to check the
yield criterion at all points in the slab and the collapse
mechanism giving the lowest value of load will
postulate the true value of the collapse load [Johansen
[2]
]. In The Present Model, The True Collapse
Mechanism Has Been Selected Along The Contours
Of Maximum Slab Deflection Under The Uniform
Area Load.

Consider a reinforced concrete slab failing in the

global-collapse mechanism at ultimate state. The
work done by the uniform area load (w) applied at the
top face of all segments of the collapse mechanism
can be determined by multiplying the total load acting
at the center of gravity of a corresponding segmental
area by a distance moved in the direction of the load
due to a kinematically admissible arbitrary
displacement ( ) given to the yield line pattern. The
total external work done, EWD by the applied load
can be found by summing the individual contribution
of all segments of the collapse mechanism (see Figure
2). The final expression of this work, EWD is given
in equation (1).

Rectangular slab supported over the nonyielding edges on its outer four sides, and cast
monolithic with equally spaced internal shallow
beams will fail either with the formation of plastic
hinge in the supporting beams, simultaneously, along
with the development of yield line pattern in the
supported-slab. Or the internal supporting beams will
not allow the yield line developed in the slab panels
to pass through it and yield line pattern will develop
locally in all panels of the slab as shown in figure 3.
Whereas in the former case, the supporting beams
will allow the yield line to pass through it at the point
of maximum beam moment. This has been shown in
figure 2

w r lx
2

EWD

3n - 2p
(1)

The internal work, IWD performed by the

ultimate positive resisting moments, mux and muy at
the common edges of adjoining collapsed segments of
the slab at the ultimate state (see Figure 2) can be
obtained from the work equation: munn lo =
muxxly + muyy lx.Therefore, the total internal work
done, IWD by the ultimate positive resisting moments
acting along the yield lines at edges of all segments of
the collapse mechanism can be determined by
summing their individual contribution and is given in
equation (2).

1 2 n 2 n - 1 b
IWD 2 m ux r 2

2
r
r
p

In equation (2),

mb
m ux l x

(2)

is a dimensionless

parameter representing the ratio of the strength of the

supporting beams to the moment capacity of the slab
panel along x-axis of the slab and r (= ly/lx) is the
aspect ratio of the slab panel.

Figure 3. Yield line pattern of slab failing in

Local-Collapse Mechanism.

This will happen only if the supporting beams

are strong enough that does not allow the yield lines
in the slab to cross through into the adjacent panels of
the slab, thus leading to the formation of yield line
pattern, locally and simultaneously, in all panels of
the slab at the ultimate state of collapse. This type of
failure mechanism is called as a local-collapse

Emirates Journal for Engineering Research, Vol. 16, No.1,2011

Equating the work done by the external loading

(w) with that produced by the system of internal
force-resultants (mux,muy and mb)in moving through a
small virtual compatible displacement field ( )
would ensure the equilibrium of the slab-beam
system, i.e. by equating equation (1) with equation
(2).

w r lx
2

3n - 2p =

1 2 n 2 n - 1 b
2 m ux r 2

2
r
r
p

(3)

Equation (3) can be simplified to a readily usable

form and is given in equation (4).

55

Harvinder Singh et. al.

3n - 2p

w lx
(4)
1
12
2
p

n n 1 b
In equation (4),
is a slab2
r
m ux

constant that depends upon the aspect ratio (r) of the

slab-panel, orthotropy () and number of panels (n)
into which the slab is divided.
Equation (4) will give the maximum value of the
positive resisting moment (mux) for

dm ux
0.
dp

3n - 2p
p
3n - 2p

1
1

2 2
p p
p

or

4 p 4p - 3n 0
2

2 1 0
2R

(5)

(7)

And, the corresponding p-value of slab-beam system

is given in equation (8).

1 3 1
2

(8)

Equation (4) can be modified to gives moment

2

(6)

Equation (6) defines the exact shape of the yield

line pattern of the reinforced concrete slab failing in
the global-collapse mechanism, whereby the
supporting beams will allow the yield line to pass
through it at the ultimate state. In this case, the plastic
hinge at point of the maximum moment in the internal
supporting beams will develop, simultaneously, along
with the yield line pattern in the slab. The maximum
moment in the slab along the x-axis can be obtained
by substituting the p-value in equation (4) for a given
value of slab-constant ().
The reinforced concrete slab supported over the
rigid boundaries on its outer four sides, and cast
monolithic with the internal equally spaced in-built
shallow beams and subjected to the out-of-plan
uniform area load (w) can be designed using equation
(4) along with equation (6) for any values of internal
panels (n), orthotropy () and beam-parameter (b).
The value of beam-parameter (b) should be selected
in such a manner that the slab must collapse in the
global- collapse mechanism.
This condition can be checked by calculating the
ultimate positive resisting moment for the slab failing
in the local-collapse mechanism whereby the

56

Yield line pattern will develop simultaneously in

all panels of the slab in the local-collapse mechanism
and each panel of the slab can be assumed to be a
rectangular slab separated by the internal in-built
shallow beams. Thus, the slab will consist of number
(n) of smaller isolated rectangular slabs with aspect
ratio (R) at ultimate state of collapse. The ultimate
positive resisting moment of these smaller rectangular
slabs can be obtained by modifying equation (4). For
a single panel rectangular slabs, n = 1

The p-value defining the position of branching

point of the yield line pattern of the slab can be
calculated by the solving quadratic equation given in
equation (5) [see Figure (2)]. The p-value of the
collapse mechanism of the slab under a uniform load
is given in equation (6).

1 3n 1
p
2

supporting beam will not allow the yield line to pass

through it. The slab will collapse with the formation
of a yield line pattern, locally, in all panels of the slab
and comparing this value of the moment with that
obtained from the equation (4). The slab would fail in
the global-collapse mechanism only if the value of the
slab resisting moment (mux) in this failure mode is
more than that obtained from the local-collapse
mechanism.

m ux

3 - 2p w l' x

1
12
2
p

(9)

However, in equation (9), the long span (l x )

1

and the short span ( l y ) of the smaller rectangular

slabs should be replaced by the short span (ly) and the
panel length (lx) of the slabrespectivelyin calculating
the aspect ratio (R). The aspect ratio (R) of these
smaller rectangular slabs is given in equation (10).
1

ly
l

1
x

lx 1

ly r

(10)

By combining equation (7) and equation (10), the

value of a slab-constant () can further be simplified
to equation (11).

(11)

Equation (9) can be made more users friendly by

1

replacing the long span (l x ) of the smaller slab

formed in the panel with ly of the slab. The final
expression for a single panel rectangular slab resting

Emirates Journal for Engineering Research, Vol. 16, No.1, 2011

Shallow-Beam Supported Reinforced Concrete Rectangular Slabs: An Alternate Design Procedure

over the simple supports at outer boundary with

aspect ratio (R) is given in equation (12).

constants viz. aspect ratio, number of panels and the

orthotropy. The value of beam-parameter (b) at
which the failure mode of this reinforced concrete
slab changes from the global-collapse mechanism to
the local-collapse mechanism at the ultimate state is
called as critical beam-parameter (bc).

m ux

3 - 2p w l y

1
12
2
p

(12)

A computer code, developed using the equation

(4) and the equation (12), will generate a set of data
consisting of moment coefficient (mux) against the
different values of the beam-parameter (b) and
aspect ratio, rs (= ly/Lx) of the slab and commonly
used number of panels.

The relative magnitude of the moment field

given by the equation (4), and the equation (12)
would determine the failure mode of the slab. The
slab will fail in the global-collapse mechanism only if
the moment capacity of the slab given by the equation
(4) is more than that predicted by the equation (12)
otherwise the same slab would fail following a localcollapse mechanism at the ultimate state.

Value of the beam-parameter is sorted out from

this data against the last possible value of the moment
coefficient at which failure mode of the slab changes
from the global-collapse mechanism to the localcollapse mechanism and this process is repeated for
predefined values of the aspect ratio of the slab, and
for different number of the slab panels. The variation
of the critical beam-parameter with aspect ratio of the
slab is given in Figures 4 to 8, for various values of
the orthotropy and different number of slab panels.

3. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

Equation (4) and equation (12) indicates that the
moment capacity of the slab required to sustain the
ultimate load depends only on the slab-constant ()
irrespective of the failure mode. The value of this
constant () mainly depends upon the beamparameter (b)for a given set of slab geometrical
6

0.9

Critical Beam-Parameter

5
0.7
4
0.5

0.3

0
0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1.2

Aspect Ratio of Slab

Figure 4.

Variation of Critical Beam-Parameter with Aspect Ratio and Orthotropy for Two-Panel Rectangular Slab.

Emirates Journal for Engineering Research, Vol. 16, No.1,2011

57

Harvinder Singh et. al.

Critical Beam-Parameter

12
0.9

10

0.7

0.5

6
4
0.3

2
0
0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1.2

Aspect Ratio of Slab

Figure 5. Variation of Critical Beam-Parameter with Aspect Ratio and Orthotropy for Three-Panel Rectangular Slab.

Critical Beam-Parameter

20

0.9

18
16

0.7

14
12
10

0.5

8
6
4
0.3

2
0
0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1.2

Aspect Ratio of Slab

Figure 6. Variation of Critical Beam-Parameter with Aspect Ratio and Orthotropy for Four-Panel Rectangular Slab.

30

Critical Beam-Parameter

0.9
25
0.7

20
15
10

0.5

5
0.3
0
0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1.2

Aspect Ratio of Slab

Figure 7. Variation of Critical Beam-Parameter with Aspect Ration and Orthotropy for Five-Panel Rectangular Slab

58

Emirates Journal for Engineering Research, Vol. 16, No.1, 2011

Shallow-Beam Supported Reinforced Concrete Rectangular Slabs: An Alternate Design Procedure

Figures 4 to 8 indicate that the orthotropy ( ) of

0.7 is the minimum value that will ensure the failure
of the slab in the global-collapse mechanism at
ultimate state for all possible values of aspect ratios
of the slab and with any number of slab panels. These
figures shows only the valid value of the critical
beam-parameter (bc) that satisfies both the yield
criterion in the slab as well as the sorting criterion
required for ensuring the failure of the slab in the
global-collapse mechanism.
It is indicated in the Figures 4 to 8 that at the
low value of the slab aspect ratio (< 0.5), supporting
beams of comparatively low moment capacity are
required to support the load due to a more
predominant one-way action of the slab. The strength
requirement for the supporting beams goes on
increasing with increase in the aspect ratio (> 0.5) of
the slab irrespective of the orthotropy of the slab.
Because in this range of the aspect ratio, the slab
essentially acts as a two-way slab and the
contribution from the supporting-beams must increase
to provide a matching strength to the slab-beam
system.
For simplicity and its subsequent use in the
analysis, these two values of beam-parameters can be
expressed as a single non-dimensional parameter
called as -value (= b/bc). This value indicates the
ratio of the strength of the supporting beams to the
strength of the beam required for the formation of
global mechanism in the slab-system and a local
collapse mechanism in the panel of the slab-system
simultaneously. If the slab has been designed with value less than unity, it must fail following the
global-collapse mechanism, otherwise the same slab
would collapse with the formation of yield line
pattern, locally, in all panels of the slab at ultimate
load and the supporting beams will behave as a rigidbeam although these would show a little bit more
deflection. This type of supporting beams is termed as
a shallow-rigid beam whereas the former type of
beams is called as a shallow-flexible beam. The
procedural steps and their comparison with the results
from well-established literature on the slab analysis
are illustrated in following examples.
Example-1:Consider a rectangular slab of size
5.0m x 3.5m supported over non-yielding supports on
all the four sides and subjected to uniform area load
of wkN/m2. Determine the design moment coefficients
assuming orthotropy of slab as 0.7.
In this problem, number of panels, n = 1
Uniform area load, w kN/m2
Slab length, Lx = lx = 5.0m and width, ly = 3.5m

= 0.7 x 0.72 = 0.343

p

1 3 1
= 0.6187
2
2

And

m ux

3 - 2p w l y
2
= 0.06379 w l y

1
12
2
p

muy = mux = 0.04466 w l y

CASE-2: Analysis using equations available in the
literature [4, 5]
2

m ux

2
w ly
2

3 r r

24

(13)

mux = 0.06435 w l y
2

And muy = mux = 0.045 w l y

These two cases show that the analysis result
predicted by the proposed equation for a single panel
rectangular slab compares favorably well with the
results obtained from the equation (13). Moreover,
the equations suggested by the proposed method are
simple to apply and these will define the exact shape
of the yield line pattern of the slab in routine flow of
calculations without any additional efforts that can be
used for determining the support reactions of the slab.
Example-2:Consider a typical slab of size 9.0m x
3.0m supported over the non-yielding supports on all
the four sides and subjected to a uniform area load of
10 kN/m2. The slab is divided into three panels of 3.0
m each. Study the effect of varying -value on the
slab moment field assuming orthotropy of the slab as
0.7.
In above problem, number of panels, n = 3
Uniform area load, w = 10 kN/m2
Slab length, Lx = 9m and width, ly = 3m
Therefore, the aspect ratio, rs of the slab = 3/9 = 0.333
Panel length, lx = 9/3 = 3m and from Figure (5), bc =
1.84.
The bending-moments for the slab (mux, muy)and
the supporting beams (mb) can be calculated from the
equation (4) for various -values. The moment field
induced in the slab is given in Table (1) for the quick
observation along with the total static moment in the
slab which is then, compared with the total static
moment suggested by Nichols [12].

Therefore, the aspect ratio, rs of the slab = 3.5/5 = 0.7

CASE-1: Analysis using the proposed analytical
equation (12).

Emirates Journal for Engineering Research, Vol. 16, No.1,2011

59

Harvinder Singh et. al.

Table 1. Typical Analysis Results for Three-Panel Rectangular Slab

-value

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1.0

mux, kNm/m

8.03

6.650

5.689

4.978

4.428

muy, kNm/m

5.62

4.656

3.983

3.485

3.100

mb, kNm

8.86

14.68

18.84

21.98

24.45

Total static moment, kNm

106.85

103.20

100.84

99.22

98.05

Nicholass static moment, kNm

101.25

101.25

101.25

101.25

101.25

Therefore, the structural designer can choose

any set of the moment-field for the design purpose
from Table 1 keeping in mind any architectural
and/or any other design constraint. If there is any
architectural constraint of low ceiling height, equally
spaced internal shallow beams with minimum value
of the bending-moment can be selected (e.g. low value) which would require a corresponding heavy
slab section to sustain the ultimate load. However, at
low -values, it must be ensured that the p-value for
the slab should be kept either less than or at the most
equals to unity for satisfying the yield criterion in the
slab. The total static moment induced in the slab is in
good agreement with the expression suggested by
Nichols [12]. This trend is also in conformity with the
bending moment coefficients suggested by various
design guidelines [13-15] for the design of slabs.
Example-3:Consider a typical slab of size
13.4m x 12.2m supported over the non-yielding
supports on all the four sides, and subjected to a
uniform area load of 11 kN/m2. Assuming the slab is
divided into four panels of 3.35 m each with
orthotropy of 0.7. Design a suitable slab-beam system
with minimum possible beam-depth and compare the
results when the same slab was supported over the
rigid beams.
CASE-1: Design of slab-beam system using the
proposed procedure.
In above problem, number of panels, n = 4
Uniform area load, w = 11 kN/m2
Slab length, Lx = 13.4m and width, ly = 12.2m
Therefore, the aspect ratio, rs of the slab = 12.2/13.4 =
0.9097
And, from the Figure (6), bc = 11.93
The bending-moments for the slab (mux, muy)and
the supporting-beam (mb) can be calculated from
equation (4) for the various -values to ensure the
failure of the slab in the global-collapse mechanism.
These values are given in Table (2) for quick
observation.

Table 2. Analysis Results for Four-Panel Rectangular Slab

-value

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1.0

mux,
kNm/m
muy,
kNm/m
mb,
kNm

42.73

28.92

22.07

17.93

15.45

29.91

20.25

15.45

12.55

10.59

342.08

463.11

530.19

574.29

606.11

Table 2 postulates various combinations of the slab

and the supporting beam resisting moments required
for supporting a surface load of 11 kN/m2. Designer
can select a suitable moment field for the slab-beam
system depending upon the minimum possible beamdepth (given architectural constraint), available from
the applicable serviceability criterion of the design
codes.
In the present case, the minimum beam depth
required for a span of 12.2 m is 721.5 mm from the
deflection consideration of the design code [14] and the
reinforcement requirement for the slab-beam system
with = 0.8 is calculated from the proposed model.
The summary of the design results is given below:
For the slab 150 mm thick, cast in M20 concrete
with fe415 grade steel, the tensile steel required along
x-axis and y-axis of the slab 12 150 mm c/c and 10
150 mm c/c respectively.
In addition, for the supporting beam, eight
number rebars-25 are required at the bottom face
and two number-16 at the top of the supporting
beam along with stirrups of two legged-8 250 mm
c/c. Therefore, the total material consumption for the
slab-beam system designed using the proposed
method: 1) Concrete = 30.8 m32) steel = 2930 kg, and
3) Beam-drop = 571.5 mm
CASE-2: Slab supported over the rigid beam (300 x
1225 mm) with span/depth = 10
In this case, the supporting beams will provide a
complete non-yielding support to the slab and the
slab-beam system will essentially act as one-way slab
with span of 3.35 m.
Load transferred to the supporting beams by the
slab = 11 x 3.35 = 36.85 kN/m
Therefore, the total load acting over the
supporting beams including self weight = 47 kN/m

60

Emirates Journal for Engineering Research, Vol. 16, No.1, 2011

Shallow-Beam Supported Reinforced Concrete Rectangular Slabs: An Alternate Design Procedure

Design bending moment and shear force for the beam

= 874.45 kNm and = 286.70 kN respectively.
For the slab 150mm thick, cast in M20 concrete
with fe415 grade steel, the tensile steel required,
along x-axis, at the bottom face of the slab is 10 175
mm c/c. The tensile steel required along x-axis, at
top face, of the slab is 10 350 mm c/c + 12 350
mm c/c (alternate bars) with steel required along the
y-axis (distribution steel) of the slab is 10 260 mm
c/c.
In addition, for the supporting beams, six
number-25 are required at the bottom face, and two

number-16 at the top face of the beam along with

stirrups of two legged-8 250 mm c/c to resist the
bending moment of 874.45 kNm. Therefore, the total
material consumption for the slab-beam system
designed using the rigid beams as supporting beam
for the slab:
1) Concrete = 36.24 m32) steel = 2220 kg, and 3)
Beam-drop = 1067 mm.
The comparison of the material consumption
and the beam-depth requirement in each case along
with the material unit cost is tabulated in Table 3.

Table 3. Comparison of case 1 with case 2

Material Consumption / m2
Case
Concrete

Steel

1.

0.1884

17.92

2.

0.2217

13.58

Table 3 shows that the unit cost of the material

consumption for both the cases comes out to be
nearly same (within 5 to 10%), but the beam-drop
reduces by 46% with the use of shallow beams for
supporting the slab panels in comparison to the slab
supported over the rigid beams. Therefore, for a given
ceiling height, the overall height of the building
reduces considerably with the use of shallow-flexible
beams or alternately, the supporting beams with
longer spans can be used for a given set of design
constraint and/or beam-depth.

4. CONCLUSIONS
Design equation and procedure has been suggested
for proportioning reinforced concrete rectangular
slabs cast monolithic along with the equally spaced
internal in-built shallow beams and resting over the
simple, and non-yielding edges on its outer four sides.
The results for a single panel slab obtained from the
suggested procedure compares favorably well with
the analysis results obtained from well-established
literature on the yield line theory.
The proposed procedure can be used for
proportioning the total static moment to the slab
resting over the non-yielding outer edges and its
internal monolithic cast supporting shallow beams,
and their subsequent design. The total static moment
field proportioned using the proposed procedure
compares favorably well with the values suggested in
published literature.
A non-dimensional parameter () has been
proposed to distinguish the failure mode of the slab
supported over the internal shallow beams. If the slab
has been designed with < 1, it will fail following a
global-collapse mechanism at ultimate state.
Otherwise, the same slab will fail in the local-collapse
mechanism, whereby the supporting beams (with high

Emirates Journal for Engineering Research, Vol. 16, No.1,2011

Unit Rate, INR

Total Cost, INR / m2

Beam Drop,
mm

Concrete: 2500/m3
Steel: 40/kg

1188

571.5

1098

1067.0

steel ratio) will not allow the yield lines to cross over
into the adjacent panels of the slab and the slab-beam
system will fail with the formation of yield line
pattern locally in all panels of the slab at the ultimate
state of collapse.
Use of shallow beams in the slab-beam system
can results in saving of about 40-50% in the beamdrop with the consequential reduction in the overall
building height for the same load carrying capacity of
the slab in comparison to the slab supported over the
non-yielding beams. Although, the overall unit cost of
the material consumption remains same for the both
cases.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
The authors would like to express their heartiest
appreciation to All India Council for Technical
Education, New Delhi and Guru Nanak Dev
Engineering College, Ludhiana for the funding,
support and help rendered in this research project.

REFERENCE
1.

Wood, R.H., 1961. Plastic and Elastic Design of

Slabs and Plates, London: Thames and Hudson.

2.

Johansen, K.W., (1967). Yield Line Theory,

London: Cement and Concrete Association.

3.

Jones, L.L., (1967). Ultimate Load Analysis of

Reinforced and Prestressed Concrete Structures,
London: Chatto and Windus, pp. 248.

4.

Jones L.L, Wood R.H., (1967). Yield-Line

Analysis of Slabs, London: Thames and
Hudson.

5.

Shukla, S.N., (1973). Handbook For Design of

Slabs by Yield-line and Strip Methods, India:
Structural
Engineering Research
Centre
Roorkee, pp. 17-19.

61

Harvinder Singh et. al.

6.

Park, R., Gamble, W.L., 2000. Reinforced

Concrete Slabs, New York: John Wiley and
Sons.

7.

Park, R., 1968. Limit Design of Beams for TwoWay Reinforced Concrete Slabs, Journal of
Institution of Structure Engineers, Vol.46, No.9,
pp. 269-274.

8.

9.

Gamble, W.L., Sozen, M.A., and Siess, C.P.,

(1969). Tests of a Two-Way Reinforced
Concrete Slabs, Journal of Structure Division,
ASCE, Vol.95, No. ST6, pp. 1073-1096.
Park, R., (1971). Further Test on a Reinforced
Concrete Floor Designed by Limit Procedures in
Cracking, Deflection and Ultimate Load of
Concrete Slab Systems, ACI SP-30, Detroit:
American Concrete Institute, pp. 251-269.

10. Gamble, W.L., (1972). Moments in Beam

Supported Slabs, Proceedings Journal ACI,
Vol.69, No.3, pp. 149-157.

62

11. Sozen, M.A. and Siess, C.P., (1963).

Investigation of Multi-panel Reinforced
Concrete Floor Slabs: Design Methods- Their
Evolutions and Comparison, Proc. ACI, Vol.60,
pp. 999-1028.
12. Nichols, J.R., (1914). Statical limitations upon
the Steel Requirement in Reinforced Concrete
Flat Slab Floors, Transactions, ASCE, Vol. 77,
pp. 1670-1736.
13. ACI, (2008). Standard 318-08: Building Code
Requirements for Reinforced Concrete, Detroit:
American Concrete Institute.
14. BIS, (2000). IS 456: Code of Practice for the
Design of Reinforced Concrete Structures,
India: Bureau of Indian Standards.
15. CSA, (1994). Standard A23.3-94: Design of
Concrete
Structures,
Ontario:
Canadian
Standards Association.
16. Quintas, V., (2003). Two Main Methods for
Yield Line Analysis of Slabs, Journal of
Engineering Mechanics, Vol.129, No.2, pp. 223231.

Emirates Journal for Engineering Research, Vol. 16, No.1, 2011