DISCUSSION

The theory of the strip method for design of slabs

R. H. WOOD & G. S. T. ARMER

Dr K. 0. Kernp, University College, London

The Authors are to be congratulated on presenting their valuable and timely Papers
ontheHillerborgstripmethod.Interestinthisattractivemethodforthedesign
of slabs is growing, but its use in the design office in Britain has undoubtedly been
restricted by thescarcityofthedescriptiveliteratureavailable.TheAuthors’
critical presentation of the method andtheir incisive examinationof its fundamentals
should do much to generate a wider appreciation of its usefulness.
57. I shouldliketoraiseoneortwopointsconnectedwithPaper 7099. The
Authorshavedemonstratedthatthestripmethodleadstoanexact or unique
solution if precisely the required reinforcement is provided. This important feature
of the method is not widely known, nor is the further conclusion that if less reinforce-
ment is provided than the theoretical requirement at any point (as indeed Hillerborg
recommends), the solution is n o longer a lower bound and may in certain circum-
stances even be shown to be an upper bound. The concept of a safe solution, which
is one of the supposed advantages of the method, is then lost. Admittedly, mem-
brane action will in many cases provide substantial reservesof strength, as the tests
described by one of the Authorsreveal, but these strengthening effects may not always
be present and should not be relied on indiscriminately.
58. It is often argued that the most attractive feature of any lower-bound approach
is that it necessarily provides a complete stressfield which can be used in distributing
the reinforcement throughout the slab and in the design of the supporting beams.
The fact that this lower-bound stressfield may be significantly different from the real
conditions at ultimate load is often overlooked. An important question, therefore,
is whether the moment field and corresponding loading on the supporting beams
derived by thestripmethodareunique.TheAuthorshavedemonstratedthat a
unique collapse load is obtained if reinforcement is provided exactly in accordance
with the theoreticalmoment field. Theuniquenesstheoremdue to Hill15for a
regular yield locus then confirms that the stress (or moment) field is unique, except
possibly in the rigid regions. But the Authors have shown that there is an infinity
of possible collapse mechanismsand, therefore, no rigid regions remain. Is the stress
field then unique? The answer would appear to be yes, if the yield locus were strictly
convex, but for reinforced concrete slabs the yield locus has been shown by Savela
to be two intersecting cones. In fact, the complete stress field obtained by the strip
method is either at anapex of one of the conesor at theline of intersection of the two
cones. With a yield locus of this shape, which is not strictly convex, it would not
seem possible to claim that a uniquestress field hasbeenobtained.Wouldthe
Authors agree?
59. A major contribution the Authors have made in Paper 7099is to examine
rigorously the continuity conditions which must be satisfied in a valid strip method
solution. In $5 20-25 they conclude that the requirementof continuity of shear force
Q is alone sufficient, as in Hillerborg’s intuitive treatment. The mathematical proof
on which this conclusion rests has not been included, but in viewof its extreme
importance perhaps the Authors could present at least the essential arguments of
their proof in their reply to the discussion.
60. The final point concerns the suggested useof non-orthogonal strips. In 5 19
the Authors refer to skew slabs and suggest the use of skew strips, each setof strips
dealing with the appropriate load dispersion and the reinforcement following the
Paper published: Pruc. Insrn cio. Engrs, 1968, 41 (Oct.) 285-311.
291

Proceedings of the Institution of Civil Engineers 1969.43:291-306.

 DISCUSSION
strips. The use of non-orthogonal strips also appearsto be implied in Figs12 and 14.
But is M,, to be set equalto zero, and how can thisbe done along two strips which are
not orthogonal? The equilibrium equation (1) is derived on the basis of an ortho-
gonal set of axes X, y, and it is not apparent to me how this can be used with skew
strips. The Authors’ clarification of this and the preceding points will be very much
appreciated.

A. Owsianka, Lowe and Rodin

I wonder whether it would be possible to develop the Authors’ basic suggestion in
0 51 on the following lines. Structural action could be considered in three stages or
systems superimposed on each other, called here primary, secondary and tertiary.
In the primary system the flexural action CP 114
of the ‘slab’ (or middle strips in the
nomenclature) would be considered. In the secondary system the flexural action of
the beamstrips under the reactions from the ‘slab’ would be considered, and in the
tertiary system the effect of reactions from beamstrips in one direction on those in
the other direction would be investigated. Fig. 26 illustrates the three stages and
corresponding loading for a rectangular slab.
62. It willbe noticed that variouswidths of beamstripscould be assumed. It
would appear that the total amountof reinforcement in a panelof the slab would be
of the same order whatever the width of beamstrips. (There would of course be the
practical limit in fitting the reinforcement into a too narrow beamstrip.) Would the
Authors please comment on the validity of this approach in the lightof their criteria
as stated in 0 2? It is assumed for the purpose of this discussionthat punching shear

Line loads in tertiary sys

Primary system - A

Secondary system-B

Fig. 26. Systems of structural action showing load distributions

292

Proceedings of the Institution of Civil Engineers 1969.43:291-306.

 7099
around columns would not be in question, but the width of beamstrips would prob-
ably have some iduence on the shear capacity. Is there some ‘optimum’ width for
the beamstrips?
63. Assuming that this approach is basically valid, it appears possible to refine
still further and hence simplify this approach, by assuming initially the beamstrips
to be equal to half the panel width. In this case therewill be no flexural action in the
primary system, because each slab strip is supported on the beamstrips for its full
length. A uniformlydistributedsupportfromthebeamstrips is assumedfor a
uniformlydistributedload on theslab.Now,whenconsideringthesecondary
system,sincethebeamstrips are wide, it seemsreasonabletoconsidertheseas
composed of narrow strips in a similar way to that in the primary system, but with,
so to speak, inverse loading. Here the load is on the central portion of the strip,
as shown in Fig. 27, and not on the outer portions as for the simple strip method in
the primary system. In case of span La, onlypart of its width is loaded. In the
tertiary system the line loads on the column centre lines would be trapezoidal and
triangular, reflecting the load dispersion pattern. In fact the approach simplifies to
only two stages.
64. Itcanbenoticedthatusingthis‘inverse’stripmethodforthesecondary
system the reinforcement is automatically concentrated towards the column centre
lines. The half panel width for beamstrip L1 for the sagging moment at midspan
may not be so unreasonable. It is less so for La, and the question remains what
widths should be assumed for the hogging moments over the supports. Would the
Authorspleasecomment on thevalidity of thislatterapproachandcouldthey
suggest the beamstrip widths for the tertiary system?

I p I Secondary
system (Inverse strip method)
neI‘ SUDDOrf
Line loads from

-Point support

Fig. 27. Load distribution when using ’inverse’ strip method

293

Proceedings of the Institution of Civil Engineers 1969.43:291-306.

 DISCUSSION
C. M. McMillan, Ove Arup and Partners, South Africa
An interesting way of satisfying the equilibrium equation (1) with M,, = 0 everywhere
is by using the equivalent grillage approach with the beam torsional stiffnesses set to
zero. This has an advantage over the normal equivalent grillage method for approxi-
mate elastic analysis in that the resulting beam moments and shears can beused
directly for design.
66. Intuitivelythereseems to besomesimilaritybetweenthis andthestrip
method. The direction of load dispersion is controlled by arbitrary choice of beam
stiffnessesinstead ofby choice of a. Presumablytheno-torsiongrillageanalysis
will tend to the exact limit solutionfor an infinitely fine mesh, provided the reinforce-
ment is ideallycurtailed.Thisconclusion would followfromtheproof of the
equivalent grillage method as an exact elastic analysis in the limit. I should like to
know whether any more general statement canbe made about the no-torsion grillage
analysis with a finite mesh size. In particular, can it be shown to give a lower-bound
solution?
67. Theno-torsion grillagemethodoftenhassignificantpracticaladvantages.
General computer programs are now commonly available for such analysis, and can
relievethedesigner of thecomputation effort. Resultscan beused directlyfor
design and give detailed information about curtailmentof reinforcement and loading
on supporting members.
68. Slabopenings and irregulargeometry or loadingshouldproduce no com-
plications. It would be particularlyuseful to knowwhetherthemethod gives a
lower-bound solution in the caseof flat slabs, where the strip method appearsto have
certain drawbacks and yield-line theory involves checkingof local collapse mechan-
isms as well as overall collapse. The Authors’ comments on this approach would be
appreciated.

Dr M. Moncrieff, Kier Ltd

The Paper provides an alternative method of flat slab design to that covered by the
CP 114 empirical design clauses. I thought it would be interesting to compare the
areas of reinforcement obtained by the two methods for the straightforward case of
an interior panel without drops in the casewhen L1=Lz.
70. In order to do this I used the tables set out in the Appendix to the Paper,
assuming a = 1.0 and arbitrarily selectingK, = Kg= 0.6. I then converted the results
into the same format as Table 22 of the Code, assuming D=O. A comparison of
the results obtained is shown in Table 1. All moments are expressed as percentages
of MOas defined in the Code.
71. Asyou willsee, thereare very significantdiscrepancies, and I wouldbe
interested to hear the Authors’ comments onthis.

Table 1

I Column
strip 1 strip
Middle
CP 114 Strip
method method
Negative
moments . . ~ 46 ~ 88 I 16 1 48
Positive
moments . . 22 I 40 1 16 1 40

294

Proceedings of the Institution of Civil Engineers 1969.43:291-306.

 7099
Dr Arne Hillerborg, Lund Institute of Technology, Sweden
As the Paper is mainly an examination of my papers on the strip method, first of all
I want to thank the Authors for the positive way they have treated my work. I am
also very glad that the Authors haveunderstoodandpointedoutthatthestrip
method is a design methodand not method a for analysing a slab with given reinforce-
ment, as this is a fundamental difference between the strip method and most other
ultimate load theories. There are, however, some points in the Paper which may be
worth comment.
73. The Authors discusswhatthey call ‘stressdiscontinuities’. In my opinion
there are no stress discontinuities in the directions of the strips, as the strips are
assumed to act just like beams, which means that they are to be reinforced in their
full length like beams carrying the same load.
74. In an exact analysis accordingto the strip method the reinforcement would be
unevenlydistributed, which is unsuitableforpracticalreasons. It is therefore
proposed to place the reinforcement in uniform bands with a certain width. This
recommendation has been made for practical reasons andI am quite aware that it is
incontradiction to rigorouslower-boundtheories.Theinfluence on safety is,
however, very small, and it is much smaller than the influence of neglecting yield-line
bifurcation in yield-line analysis, which as a rule is accepted. The Authors are thus
right from a theoretical point of view when they declare that the ‘averaging’ process
does not provide a lower-bound solution, but the difference is in practice so small
that it isof no importance. When the Authors declare that ‘control of analysis is
lost’, this mustbe understood as a statement made from avery rigorously theoretical
point of view. In my opinion the ‘control of analysis’ is still much better with the
strip method than it will ever be with yield-line theory.
75. The Authors point out that values of positive and negative moments should
be chosen not too far from the expected elastic distribution. I quite agree with that,
and would add that the same should also be valid for the sideways distribution. In
my opinion it is, however, not necessary to compare with ‘elastic’ values. It would
seem that thesame goal maybe reached by using rules for most economical reinforce-
ment, which usually leadto the same result. It may also be pointed out that the strip
method leads more or less automatically to a suitable sideways distribution of rein-
forcement from the pointof view of prevention of cracks and deformations. Whereas
with normal use of yield-line theory the reinforcementis evenly distributed, the strip
method will give no reinforcement along and close to supports, where the curvature
and thus the reinforcement stress is zero. On the other hand it will give concentra-
tions of reinforcement along free edges and along the edges of openings, which seems
to be a suitable arrangement. When the Authors state, in 5 36, that ‘. . . the strip
method having produced a design with more efficient and economical use of reinforce-
ment, . . . there is a corresponding price to pay in terms of increased deflexions’, it
must be remembered that this statement is valid only for conditions of collapse, and
that evenfortheseconditions it is based on thetheoreticalassumption that the
reinforcement coincides identically with the moment field, which in practice will never
be the case. At working load a slab designed accordingto the stripmethod ought to
be stiffer and less cracked than a slab designed accordingto normal use of yield-line
analysis.
76. In discussing the ‘advanced’ strip method the Authors have been well aware
thatthe mostfundamentalthing is thetreatment of the‘type-3’elements,but
unfortunately I had expressed myself so briefly (or badly), that the Authors‘have not
succeeded in verifying the derivation of the reinforcement patterns’. It would take
too long toclarify this derivation here, but I have tried to doso in a private letter to
the Authors.
77. The Authors are evidently of the opinion that my treatment of the ‘type-3’
elements is approximate, as they write Clearly, Hillerborg intended to allow approxi-
mations in the belief that this was a safe lower-bound approach’. I am, however,
295

Proceedings of the Institution of Civil Engineers 1969.43:291-306.

 DISCUSSION
of the opinion that the treatmentis rigorous from the pointof view of lower-bound
theories. In ‘Strimlemetoden’ the rigorous solutionis given only for square ‘type-3’
elements, but it is possible to show that a solution for rectangularelements leads to
the same practical design rules.
78. Thealternativetreatment of ‘type-3’elements givenby theAuthors isof
course also possible to use. In my opinion the original treatment has the following
advantages over the alternative treatment:
( U ) the sum of design moments coincides with the static strip moments,which is
essential for the simple formal treatment without use of any tables;
(b) the sumof design moments is smaller, which means a more economical design;
(c) the reinforcement pattern is very simple;
( d ) the reinforcement is placed exactly according to moment distribution with
no ‘averaging’ process.
79. The advantagescould thus be summarized in that the original treatment gives
a simpler practical design, leading to less reinforcement, although it is theoretically
more rigorous. The ‘simplification’ in the alternative method lies in the derivation
but not in the application.
SO. The other alternative method, to ‘spread the column load .
by strong strips . .’
is so very briefly outlined that itis impossible to judgewhether it really may be looked
upon as a rigorous solution, as the Authors claim.
81. Whenthebook‘Strimlemetoden’ was written, it wasmeant as asimple
practical design method, which should be approved by the authorities for use by all
kinds of design engineers. It therefore had to be given a very strict formulation which
did not permit a free choiceof moment ratios. That is the reason why the theory of
elasticity was prescribed for the calculation of strips. I am, of course, quite aware
that the moments,fromthestandpoint of lower-boundtheories,may be chosen
freely, but in practice there has to be some kind of limitation to prevent excessive
deformations and cracks, and a utilization of elastic theory for the strips seemsto be
a reasonable way to reach this goal. There may be other ways which are better or
simpler.
82. As the interest in the strip method in English-speaking countries seems to be
increasing, mainly thanks to the Authors and to Dr Blakey, I should like finally to
mention that I am planning to write a more complete and detailed book in English
on the strip method.

Dr H. G . Russell, Formerly Building Research Station (now Portland Cement

Association, USA)
As mentioned in Paper 7100, the method may not lead to the same distribution of
reinforcementas thatobtained by usingothermethods. A simplecomparison
between various methodsof design canbe made by consideration of a square internal
panel of a multi-bay flat slab. A slab without drop panels and supported on square
columns without capitals is taken. The division of the panel into strips follows the
conventionalarrangement of column and middle strips. However,inorder to
transfer the load to the columns it is necessary to include additional strips over the
columns.Thesestripscantilever fromthecolumnsintothe slab fora distance
equal to half the width of the column strip. These are similar to the strong bands
of Fig. 24 of Paper 7099. The percentages of the total static moment taken by each
strip are shown in Table 2. The figures represent the sum of positive and negative
moments within each strip. They are given in this form to avoid further assumptions
in the strip method. The corresponding figures obtained using an elastic analysis
based on finite differences and using the empirical design of CP 114 are also given.17
In making the comparison it has been assumed that the column width tends to zero.
84. It can be seen that the simple strip method of design leads to a high concen-
296

Proceedings of the Institution of Civil Engineers 1969.43:291-306.

 7099
Table 2. Distribution of moments between column strip and middle
strip
I
Design method Percentage of total moment
taken by each strip
Columnstrip 1 Middlestrip
Simple
strip . . . . 88 12
Alternativeadvanced sthp . . 25 75
Elastic
plate
solution . . . 70 30
CP 114empirical . . . . 32 68

tration of moment within the column strip and less in the middle strip. In addition,
the majority of the column strip moment is concentrated over the column,i.e. within
the strong band. This may be beneficial from the aspect of shear strength, but can
lead to a high percentage of reinforcement over the columns. The percentage may
be reduced by making the strong bands aswide as possible, butat present there is no
indication of the maximum width that may be used. One possibility is to assume a
width equal to the width of the column plus an amount equal to the slab thickness.
It appears reasonable to use wider strong bands when column capitals are present,
but it would be interesting to know if the same applies when drop panels are used.
85. In particular,thisaspect of designseemsimportantforedge and corner
columns where a shear force as well as an unbalanced moment is transferred between
the column and theslab. The shear forces across each column edge canbe evaluated
using the simple strip method, but the value of the moment is again limited by the
width of the strong bands. Using the advanced method may lead to a design that
would permit higher moment transfer, but care must be taken concerning the reduc-
tion in ultimate shear stress caused by the moment transfer. This phenomenon has
been observed by several investigators1a-20 and will often be the critical condition
for the design of the slab in the region of the columns.

Dr R. Sharpe, University of Southampton

The Hillerborg 'simple' strip method is a powerful design tool for reinforced concrete
slabs.
87. In rectangular slabs the load subdivision patterns may be optimized to produce
more economical reinforcement patterns, by using a simple technique developed by
Rozvany and Hampson.21Suchsolutionshavebeen ~ b t a i n e d for
~ ~uncurtailed
.~~
orthogonal reinforcement in rectangular slabs for all combinations of free, simply
supported and built-inboundaryconditions.(Thereinforcement is uncurtailed if
thereinforcement area is constantalongeachbar.)Themethodminimizesthe
uncurtailed reinforcement volume.
88. TheseoptimizedHillerborgsolutionsenable theloadto be carriedinthe
stiffest possible manner, subjectto practical constraints, and hence produce reinforce-
ment patterns which require less steel than the normal Hillerborg solutions.
89. Two examples of optimized Hillerborg solutions are shown in ,Fig. 28. The
value of B in Fig. 28(a) for a span ratio of k = 3 is 72", comparedwith 77" obtained by
Armer in another paper,24 by minimization of the moment(or curtailed reinforcement)
volume. The solution shown in Fig. 28(a) produces a 7% saving on the steel volume
of an uncurtailed Hillerborg solution fork =2, and a10% saving fork = 4, in the case
of uniform loading.
90. However, as mentioned by the Authors, these solutions should be approxi-
mated by steppedlines(Fig. 29) parallel tothe sides of theslabtoenablethe
10 297

Proceedings of the Institution of Civil Engineers 1969.43:291-306.

 DISCUSSION
kL

S /
/
). ct /
,g /
_ _ - - - -Free
m - -edxe- ---
L12 k kL

(4 ( b)
Fig. 28. Examples of optimum uncurtailed Hillerborg solutions : (a) simply supported
slab ; (b) slab with two edges built in, one free and one simply supported

(4 ( b)
Fig. 29. Approximate solutions of slabs shown in Fig. 1, for banded reinforcement

reinforcement to be designed in bands. The x-reinforcement in region 1 of Fig. 29(b)

is terminated along the load subdivisionline.
91. Aseries of testsaZwas made on slabsdesignedusingoptimumuncurtailed
Hillerborg solutions for four different sets of boundary conditions. Another set of
slabs, designed using optimum orthotropic yield-line solutions, was also tested for
the same uniform load. The former had lower steel volumes than the yield-line slabs
butbehavedina stiffer mannerinthe post-crackingphase.Eachpair of slabs
achieved the same ultimate load, which in general was well above the design yield
load.

D. E. Charrett and R. E. Melchers, Monash University, Victoria, Australia

The Authors are to be commended for their efforts to promote and extend the use
of Hillerborg’s strip method. The simplicity of the method has for many years been
overshadowed by the almost exclusive interest of researchers in yield-line methods.
PerhapsthePaper will awakennewinterestinthe significance of lower-bound
methods in engineering design.
93. We feel that the use of the K factor ($5 7-11) leads to unnecessary complica-
tion.Asimplerprocedure is to reinforceeachstripforthemaximummoment
occurringwithin it. For thestripshowninFig. 4, evaluation is required of the
momentsinabeam of unitwidthsymmetricallyloadedoverthelength 1%. The
reinforcement calculated on the basis of these moments is then provided uniformly
over the strip width W. This would then satisfy the normal moment yield criterion
everywhere, even if the steel were curtailed to fit the bending moment diagram. A
safe lower bound is thus always obtained.
94. Although the Authors point out that there is almostunlimitedfreedom of
298

Proceedings of the Institution of Civil Engineers 1969.43:291-306.

 7099
choice in placing thereinforcement,many possible solutions are obviously un-
economical. The most economical Hillerborg solution can be derived by determin-
ing the load dispersion lines (which need not be straight) so as to minimize the
quantity of reinforcement.
95. Two categories of solution exist. In the uncurtailed case only the bar spacing
is variable; the bars arecontinuous over their span.SharpeandClydez2and
Rozvanya3 have outlined methods for the economical design of uncurtailed reinforce-
ment based on Hillerborg’s approach. These uncurtailed solutions consist of regions
in which the load is dispersed in either theX or they direction (i.e. a= 1 or 0 as in Q 4).
The region boundaries are determined from the condition that the steel volume is a
minimum.
96. Greater economies in reinforcement can be obtained by curtailing the steel to
fit exactly a statically admissiblebendingmomentdiagram. The design problem
then reduces toone of finding the minimum ‘moment volume’. Althoughthe
minimum weight solution is often impractical itself, nevertheless it is valuable as a
yardstick for assessing the economies of other design methods.
97. Clyde and Sharpez5 suggested a method of extending Hillerborg’s approach
to minimize the moment volume within the constraint O < a < 1. The extension to
other boundary conditionswas outlined by Charrett.aa These ‘constrained’curtailed
solutionsalso consist of regions in which either a = l or a=O. The regions are
separated by ‘neutral lines’27 along which the direction of load dispersal does not
affect the moment volume. The position of the neutral lines is found by equating the
strip moment volumes of two strips at right angles, loaded at a general point with a
concentratedload.Solutions can be obtainedinthis way foranyshape of slab
with any combination of clamped, simply supported or free edges. The quantity of
steel for such a design can show greater economy than the elastic solution, which is
regarded as being close to the minimum.za For example, the elastic moment volume
for a square clamped slab isz80.021 p14, whereas the moment volume for the optimum
Hillerborg solution is only 0.0183 p14.
98. It is interesting to note that insome cases the minimum momentvolume
Hillerborg solution gives the exact minimum steel volume. One optimum solution
for axisymmetric slabs has been shown by RozvanyZ9to consist always of regions in
which either the radial moment or the circumferential moment is zero. These regions
thus exhibit either radial or circumferential strip action.
99. Rozvanya7 has shown that for some boundary conditions the steel volume can
befurtherreduced by relaxing theconstraint O< a< 1. The minimum volume
solution then consists of regions in which either M,= 0 or M,=O. For example,
the optimum Hillerborg (or ‘constrained’ optimum) solution for a square simply
supportedslabhas a momentvolume of0.0625 p14, while the ‘unconstrained’
optimum has amomentvolumea7of 0.0573 p14. The determination of unconstrained
optimum solutions for other boundary conditions is very difficult, but some progress
can be made with numerical methods. It appears that generally these solutions do
not give substantial savings over the constrainedsolutions. It isnoteworthy that
one of the first unconstrained optimum solutions derived, namely the square simply
supported slab with reinforcement placed parallel to the diagonal, has been found to
be the absolute optimum solution for reinforcement placed in any d i r e c t i ~ n . One
~~
noticeable feature of the optimum reinforcement patterns is that strong bands are
required for shear transfer. The treatment of free edges suggested in Q 18 by the
Authors can thus bejustified by considerations of economy.
100. All the minimum reinforcement solutions discussed have been subject to the
constraint that the twisting moment is zero. If this constraint is relaxed, a third type
of region may occur in the solution, in which31
IMxl = lMyl = IMxyl.
However, reintroduction of M x y causes the simplicity of the Hillerborg method of
design to be lost.
299

Proceedings of the Institution of Civil Engineers 1969.43:291-306.

 DISCUSSION
101. We welcome the contribution of Wood and Armer in outlining the basis and
simplicity of the method, and agree with the Authors that the method should be of
considerable appeal to designers. It is perhaps interesting to note that theprinciples
and application of Hillerborg’s method of strips and its extension to concentrated
reactions and loads 11) have been taught
(similar to thatoutlined by the Authors in Part
at undergraduate level in the Department of Civil Engineering at Monash University
for the past four years. There has also been considerable activity in this Department
at the postgraduate level in this field.

Dr Wood and M r Armer

The Authors consider that it would be best to reply collectively to the interesting
points raised by contributors to the discussion, particularly as the differences and
agreements can bebroughtout. We areespeciallygratefulforthecomments of
Dr Hillerborg, theoriginator of themethod. No doubthe will havenoticedthe
remaining difficulties confronting engineers interested in applying the method; he
will also be pleasedthat the strip methodis clearly welcomed by all as a directdesign
procedure.
103. However,theAuthors feel thatDr Hillerborg was hardlyaware of the
concern among interested engineers over two features likely to retard the use of the
method.Theseareasfollows:
(U) Therearearbitraryandratherstarkdiscontinuitiesindirection of load
dispersion,which to someengineers are unbelievable. No elusto-plastic
slab could apparently ever behave in such way.a It is curious to note that
Dr Hillerborg admits no stress discontinuities, whereas Dr Kemp calls for
a rigorous proof of the continuity conditions. Since the days of Marcus,
engineers have expected compatibility of deflexions between strips. Here
they find none.
(b) Assuming engineers overlook item (a) as part of the benefits of idealized
plasticity, then the simple strip method is delightful to use. Conversely,
the literature concerning type-3 elementsis exceedingly complicated. The
Authors have found no authority who claims to understand their deriva-
tion, and who is also clear about their application.
These two features are foremost in the following abbreviated comments.

Discontinuities
104. Mr McMillan makes a plea for actually consulting computer programs for
no-torsion beam grillages. There is no inherentobjection to this, exceptthatthe
design would be conservative through neglect of torsional stiffness (if computers are
to beused then programs exist8 for direct print-out of reinforcement to suit the
standard elastic solution, which is often an excellent design), This brings out the
point that a real slab is not a slab sliced up into strips with no torsional connexion.
Even if M x yis made zero, then generallyM,, is not zero, and the equilibrium equation
(1) has toapply anywhere about any axis, especiallyon inclined linesof discontinuity.
Limitanalysispermitstwokinds of stressdiscontinuity(Fig.13):either ‘strong’
discontinuities, where a sudden ‘jump’ only in Mt is permitted, but not in M,, or V,,
or ‘weak’ discontinuities where M,, M,, M,,, Qnare continuous but their derivatives
maybediscontinuous.Hillerborgnormallyemploysonly‘weak’discontinuities
in that a a M x l a x 2changes suddenly but not M, or aMJax. Where there are distinct
bands of reinforcement then strong discontinuities hold where bands join (Figs 8, 9,
17). Therearealsostrongdiscontinuitiesintype-3elements(Figs 20, 30). The
Authors agree with Dr Kemp that it is not obvious that all the rules are satisfied
automatically on inclined discontinuities. However, referring to Fig. 14,and band X
only at first, let MAt) and Q&> be the (variable) strip moments and shears along the
300

Proceedings of the Institution of Civil Engineers 1969.43:291-306.

 7099

l
+ 02pl 2
/
1 /

' 02,T2

Values of prrnclpal moments

(in units ofpl' )
ON TRAJECTORY
1 -0148
- 0065
II
111
IV
- 0373
- 0089
V -0102
VI -0102
VI1 - 0352
Vlll -0101

Fig. 3 0 (above). Values and directions of principal

moments for a strong discontinuity in Hillerborg
type-3 element

Fig. 3 1 (right). Enlarged part of Fig. 14

line t-t. The strip theory itself imposes continuity only in M,(t) and Qx(t), where
Qx(t)= aM,(t)/ax. It is required to show that

is continuous, as well as Mnt. Observing that

M, = M,(t) CO? a
and
M,, = M,(t) sin a cos a
it can beseen that both Mntand M , are automatically continuous on both sidesof t-t,
so that aMnt/at is continuous.
Now in Fig. 31,

301

Proceedings of the Institution of Civil Engineers 1969.43:291-306.

 DISCUSSION
But
+
(M& = (M& cosa a and (M& = ( M X ( t ) L (Qx(/)), dnlcos a

and

Substituting and retaining first-order terms leads to

-aMn
=
an
Q x ( t ) COS a + -Sat M J t ) cos a sin a
which is also continuous. Hence both Qnand V,, are continuous for either or both
bands of reinforcement. Incidentally D r Kemp’s query about the validity of skew
reinforcement is answered by remembering that eachband is designed totake
separately its own due portion of load p .

Simultaneous modes of collapse

105. As Dr Kemp has noticed, the total disappearance of rigid regions makes the
method ideally a reductio ad absurdum. (This applies also to all plastic minimum-
weight solutions with variable reinforcement.) It is an urgent task in the future to
employ computers to study the appearance and expansion of plastic zones, in elasto-
plastic plates, for slabs designed by both the strip method and by yield lines. The
Authors entirely agree withDr Kemp that,whereas suchan incremental strain history
wouldbe unique, there is no existence theorem which suggests that the arbitrary
ultimate stress fields of the strip method would be reached. A background assump-
tion of limit analysis is that deflexions are small. Before the last tiny elastic region
vanishedtheywould bevery large.TheAuthorsagreewith Dr Hillerborg that
usually the designer’s choice of reinforcement would, if based on elastic theory as a
guide, strengthen the slab under working conditions, but it is not correct to say that
themosteconomicalreinforcementleads to similarends.One of thefrightening
prospects of minimum-weightplasticdesign is thenumber of alternativeabsurd
solutionswhichareapparentlyallowed.2It is agreed thatthe averagingprocess
makesapparently little theoreticaldifference,althoughaveragingrightacrossthe
slab produces results hardly different from yield-line theory. However if membrane
action did not ‘rescue’ the slab from the absurdity of total disappearance of rigid
regions,the effectsof averaging and also ‘strong’ discontinuitieswould be more
detrimental.Clearlyfutureresearchmuststudymembraneaction,without which
the stiffness of a Hillerborg slab would deteriorate rapidly before the ‘exact’ collapse
load was reached.

Type-3 elements
106. Dr Hillerborg will be delighted to learn that, although the Authors do not
claim to be able to understand fully the many ‘solid’ figures depicting reinforcement
layouts (e.g. Fig. 20), nevertheless they have tested Hillerborg’s ideal reinforcement
patterns by means of critical upper-bound fan-type mechanisms (Fig. 32(a)), and found
the expected collapse loads to be virtually exact in special cases,
for several mechanisms.
107. However, the matter does not end there. Searching for collapse mechanisms
shows that there are limits of validity. For example, from Fig. 33(b), using equation
(20a) for average span and support moments, an alternative mode would form by
inspection, unless

302

Proceedings of the Institution of Civil Engineers 1969.43:291-306.

 7099
p- Strong band -4
I I
--- l TB '_ -
L Pf1 ' I
* A
A
G; 1+ 1
I I
I
I
L A I pI2t p
I
+p12 ]
___- ; ; Strips A
I
p~ +

:
-----
p&-- p+j
L----l
p'

a e
+ -
--- l
I
P12C
PI2
I
;
GB
I
I

v- II
-- -
46cl
StripsB

Alternatively treat Q as
distributed load
Q column
(Shear
PefiPW)
on

(4

Fig. 32. Column head reaction spreader elements :

(a)treated by simplestrip method; (b) alternative
treatment by yield-line theory (square mesh)

(b)

Reinforced zone of top

steel in type-3 element

Fig. 33. Type-3 elements applied to flatslabs : (a) critical mode involving circular-fan
mechanisms ; (b) alternative collapse mode
333
Proceedings of the Institution of Civil Engineers 1969.43:291-306.
 DISCUSSION
requiring

i.e. the averagesupportmomentmustnot exceed threetimestheaverage field

moment. Conversely, for edge columns and corner columns, where there can be no
negative edge moments, K,=O, Hillerborg’s rules, without modification, would lead
to no provision of top reinforcement at all. However, it is known (ref. 4, pp. 274-7)
that this would produce failure round the columns with fan mechanisms, correspond-
ing to a 21.5% reduction in collapse load. Hillerborg is aware of this defect (ref. 7 ,
p. 29 of translation) and,by referring the designer back to the ‘solid’ diagrams, argues
in favour of increasing the positive reinforcement. The device may be reasonable,
but the designer‘s problem is to avoid getting lost in the argument.
108. It is tempting to use the affinity to discover
rules
for
similar
rectangularelements,butunfortunatelytheaffinityrulesstrengthenrectangular
elements in the wrong directions. At present there are no proved rules available for
Hillerborg-type rectangular elements: further investigation is required. By contrast
the Authors set out to obtain one set of general and conservative rectangular elements
(Fig. 23).
109. Mr Moncrieff has drawn attention to the conservative reinforcement versus
the code requirements for ‘column’ and ‘middle’bands. This leads to the intriguing
idea that the tabulated valuesof resistance moments for flat slabs in CP 114 could be
used as datafor yet another kindof type-3 elements (increasing M Oby 25% for a static
balance), provided that continuous strips (Figs 17, 23) could be found which allow
zero shear on the edges of the rectangular elements for column andmiddle strips
simultaneously. ThistheAuthorsimaginewould bedifficult to achieve.Although
the Code might be used with deliberate averagingof moments, this is the reason why
uniform edge moments, - Kxpfxa/2, were chosen (Fig.22), for simplicity, not economy.
For the same reason we consider that Hillerborg’s type-3 elements would be im-
possible to use in Fig. 17(b), because continuous strips mustbe found to link up with
a concentrated support moment in the column band together with a zero support
moment in the middle band, on the same zero-shear line.
110. The Authors wish to thank Dr Hillerborg for pointing out that the rule for
obtaining minimum reinforcement,8Mx*, My*, namely putting K = 1 with

does not give the most economical results if M,* must be held constant over a wide
area. In equations (19), if K = x / y , then
M,* = p c2 ( 1 -K,), My* =p
I,” aa (1 -K,)

and are constant at all points,thuseffectingconsiderablesavingforthepositive

reinforcement (and can be used instead of the tabulated values). Top steel could be
reduced by resorting to ‘banded’values of K , and K,, but at thecost of complicating
the whole continuous strip arrangement as noted above.
1 1 1 . MrOwsianka and Dr Russell haveshown that type-3elementscan be
avoided altogether, and the Authors agree in most cases.All that is required are
very short capping strips at the column heads to take the heavy reactions from strong
bands acting as beams, shear being more of a problem than bending moments. More
rigorouslyFig. 32(a) showsasquarecapping piece, to ‘spread’ thecolumnload
p=4Q1, to provide a uniformreaction of pL’, so that p = P / L a . Themaximum
moment for design of strips A is MA= - p / 1 6 ( L 2 - L f ) , and for strips B
MB = -E16 (L-f)2(1 +L/l).
304

Proceedings of the Institution of Civil Engineers 1969.43:291-306.

 7099
In Fig. 32(b) a similar design by yield-line theory, with square mesh, gives

A(
M = -- 1 - -

Fig.17(a)couldhavebeendesignedinthismanner,
2 (La+LI-2P).

while Fig.17(b)manifestly
requires no type-3elements at all. This,however, merely serves to enhancethe
original strip method.
112. Dr Sharpe’s comments on the improved stiffness of optimized solutions are
of some interest since thereis no obvious direct connexion between elastic behaviour
and optimum plastic behaviour. It has been pointed outa that elastic designs with
the reinforcement chosen to fit the fieldof moments, are nearly as economical as
minimum-weight solutions. This is perhaps surprising since the elastic solutions are
based on the moment fields produced by analyses of isotropic slabs and that a true
elastic design has yet to be achieved.
113. The Authors agree with Messrs Charrett and Melchers that Hillerborg’s K
factor does complicate the simple method. However, the suggested alternative, while
providing a safe lower bound, will be less economical, unless, of course, the resulting
reinforcement is below the minimum Code requirement.
114. Regarding the
various
techniques
for
optimization which have been
developed by the Australian School, the Authors agree that the main value of these is
inprovidingameans of assessingthemerit of practicaldesigns.Thisshouldbe
particularly so inthe caseswhere M,, is notconstrainedtozero.Incidentally,
Hillerborg’sownwork onthe reinforcement of slabs3awouldpossiblyhelpin
translatingthesecasesintopracticaldesigns.However, it should be remembered
that if test results do in fact show that optimized designs are safe, then this demon-
strates the importance of membrane action and not the merit of the optimization.
For without membrane action the test results oughf to have shown that the stiffness
decreased rapidly before the collapse load was reached.

References
15. HILL R. On the state of stress in a plastic-rigid body at the yield point. Phil.
Mug., 1951, 7 (42) 868-875.
16. SAVE M. A consistent limit-analysis theory for reinforced concrete slabs. Mug.
Concr. Res., 1967, 19 (58) 3-13.
17. Thestructural use of reinforcedconcreteinbuildings.BritishStandards
Institution, CP 114, 1965.
18. ROSENTHAI. I. Experimentalinvestigation of flat piatefloors.JournalACI
(Aug. 1959); Proceedings 56, 1959-60, pp. 153-166.
19. MOEJ. Shearing strength of reinforced concrete slabs and footings under con-
centratedloads.DevelopmentDepartmentBulletinD47,PortlandCement
Association, April 1961.
20. HANSON N. W. and HANSON J. M. Shear and moment transfer between concrete
slabs and columns. Development Department Bulletin
D129,Portland
Cement Association, Jan. 1968.
21. ROZVANY G. I. N. and HAMPSON A. J. K. Optimum designof prestressed plates.
J. Am. Concr. Inst., 1963 (Aug.) 1065-82.
22. SHARPE R. and CLYDE D. H. The rational design of reinforced concrete slabs.
Civ. Engng Truns. Znstn Engrs Aust., 1967, V.CE.9 (2) 209-216.
23. ROZVANY G. I. N. The minimum volume of uncurtailed orthogonal reinforce-
ment in fully supported slabs. Concr. constr. Engng, 1966, 61 (8) 281-286.
24. ARMERG. S . T.Ultimateload tests of slabsdesigned by thestrip method.
Proc. Instn civ. Engrs, 1968, 41 (Oct.) 315-334.
305

Proceedings of the Institution of Civil Engineers 1969.43:291-306.

 DISCUSSION
25. CLYDED. H. and SHARPER. Discussion on ROZVANY G. I. N. 'Optimum
synthesis of prestressed structures'. J . struct. Diu. Am. Soc. cio. Engrs, 1965,
91, ST4 (Aug.) 236-241.
26. CHARRETT D. E. Discussion on SHARPE R. and CLYDED. H. Therational
design of reinforced concrete slabs. Civ. Engng Trans. Instn Engrs Aust., 1961,
V.CE.9 (2) 209-216.
27. ROZVANY G . I. N. Rationalapproachtoplate design. J. Am. Concr. Inst.
1966, Oct., 1077-1094.
28. WOODR. H. Plastic and elastic design of slabs andplates. Thames & Hudson,
London, 1961.
29. ROZVANY G. 1. N. Optimaldesign of axisymmetricslabs. Civ. Engng Trans.
Instn Engrs Aust., 1968, V.CE.10 (l), 1 1 1-1 18.
30. MORLEYC.T.Theminimumreinforcement of concreteslabs. Int. J. mech.
Sci., 1966, 8, 305-319.
31. CHARRETT D. E. and ROZVANY G. I. N . J . Inst. EngrsAust., 1968, 40 (7-8),
N67-N68.
32. HILLERBORC A. Reinforcement of slabs and shells designedaccording tothe
theory of elasticity, Betong, 1953, 38, 101-09, Translation LC1081, Building
Research Station.

306

Proceedings of the Institution of Civil Engineers 1969.43:291-306.