See

discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: http://www.researchgate.net/publication/245408474

Elastic analysis of ground-floor slabs under

multiple loads

ARTICLE in STRUCTURES & BUILDINGS · JANUARY 2007

Impact Factor: 0.49 · DOI: 10.1680/stbu.2007.160.3.151

READS

32

3 AUTHORS, INCLUDING:

Michael D. Kotsovos Ali A Abbas

National Technical University of Athens University of East London
134 PUBLICATIONS 674 CITATIONS 23 PUBLICATIONS 21 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Available from: Michael D. Kotsovos

Retrieved on: 26 October 2015
Proceedings of the Institution of
Civil Engineers
Structures & Buildings 160
June 2007 Issue SB3
Pages 151–164
doi: 10.1680/stbu.2007.160.3.151

Paper 14673
Received 22/05/2006
Accepted 23/03/2007
Ali A. Abbas Milija N. Pavlović Michael D. Kotsovos
Keywords: concrete structures/ Lecturer, Dept of Civil and Professor of Structural Professor of Concrete
slabs & plates/stress analysis Environmental Engineering, Mechanics, Imperial College Structures, National Technical
Imperial College London, UK London, UK University of Athens, Greece

Elastic analysis of ground-floor slabs under multiple loads

A. A. Abbas BSc, DIC, PhD, M. N. Pavlović MEngSc, PhD, ScD, CEng, FICE, FIStructE, FConsE and M. D. Kotsovos
Dipl Ing, PhD, DIC, CEng, DSc

The design of ground-floor slabs focuses mainly on Subscripts

single-load cases applied at the centre, edge and corner i,e,c denote interior (central), edge and corner locations
of the slab. The need for extending existing guidelines respectively
that allow for the effect of multiple loads, and for the u denotes ultimate (collapse) value
effect of loads being at some distance from the three 50 refers to corner-load location of c ¼ 50 mm
aforementioned locations, is fundamental for both safety 100 refers to patch-load widths of d ¼ 100 mm
and economy, and is increasingly recognised in the
industry. Some elastic guidelines, which date back nearly 1. INTRODUCTION
a century ago, do exist but they are incomplete, In practice, ground-floor slabs (GFS) are usually acted upon by
cumbersome and generally little known. In the present an array of adjacent loads rather than a single load (e.g. loads
paper, a new set of influence lines (previous data really caused by racking legs and fork-lift truck wheels). In order to
refer to certain stress contours) is proposed for both generate a practical design method, it is therefore extremely
stresses and deflections owing to loads moving along the important to account for the interference (i.e. superposition)
centrelines, edges and corner bisectors. These diagrams between multiple loads and their effect on the ensuing stresses
are based on linear finite element analysis (LFEA), and and deflections. Studies of elastic stresses and deflections
thus allow the use of direct superposition to caused by single loads at the centre, edge and corner of the
accommodate any number of applied loads. Non- slab have already been carried out as described elsewhere, 1,2
linearities and/or plastic methods are outside the scope giving more efficient guidelines than earlier elastic formulae.
of this paper. Such work, based on a permissible-stress approach and a
serviceability limit-sate of design, is presently extended so as
NOTATION to cater for the effects of multiple loads. Plastic methods
C,R locations for calculating stresses owing to a load contained in current guidelines or any non-linear treatment is
moving in the vicinity of the corner of the slab outside the scope of the current paper.
c perpendicular distance between load centroid and
corner sides 2. A REVIEW OF AVAILABLE GUIDELINES FOR
D spacing between the centre of an adjacent load and the ADJACENT LOADS
centre, edge or corner of the slab Westergaard 3,4 prepared stress contours showing the
d width of square-patch load area distribution of radial and tangential stresses owing to a single
E location for calculating stresses and deflections owing load applied at the centre of the slab (but away from any edge).
to a load moving in the vicinity of the edge of the slab The notions of radial and tangential stresses are defined by
Ec Young’s modulus for concrete means of an imaginary circle around the load: in this setting,
F location for calculating deflections owing to a load the stresses calculated along the radius are termed radial while
moving in the vicinity of the corner of the slab those calculated along the tangent are called tangential. To
h slab thickness calculate the stress owing to two central loads, for instance, the
I location for calculating stresses and deflections owing same contours of radial and tangential stresses are repeated
to a load moving in the central region of the slab around each central load (the implicit assumption here is that
I.L. influence line value the stress contour is independent of the exact location of the
k modulus of subgrade reaction
load providing the latter is within the internal region, i.e. away
 1=4
E c h3 from any edge as stipulated earlier). By summing up the two
l radius of relative stiffness ¼ =fkg
12(1
ì2 ) overlapped stress contours, the total stress can be estimated—at
P applied (patch or point) load a specific location—owing to the two applied loads. Similarly,
r radius of circular loaded area Westergaard prepared contours for radial stresses (i.e. along the
ä deflection edge) owing to a single load applied at the edge of the slab but
ì Poisson’s ratio for concrete away from the corner.3,4 Clearly, such contours only serve for
ó stress loads applied along the edge but not along distances

Structures & Buildings 160 Issue SB3 Elastic analysis of ground-floor slabs under multiple loads Abbas et al. 151
 perpendicular to it. Moreover, no special consideration was
given to loads moving around the corner region (except, of
course, at the very corner itself). These Westergaard stress
contours—essentially graphical in nature—were reintroduced by
Chandler (in TR550 5 ) to facilitate calculating total stresses
owing to adjacent loads applied at the centre, edge and corner
of the slab (despite the fact that the data refer to central
regions only, being incomplete for the edge region, while those
for the corner region are non-existent). Incidentally, TR550
only attempts to deal with the effect of multiple loads on
stresses but not on deflections, despite the availability of
certain deflection contours in Westergaard’s work.
A robust way to address the shortcomings identified in the
foregoing discussion is to construct influence lines for both
stresses and deflections by moving the applied load along a
specific (critical) direction and calculating the corresponding
stresses and deflections at a fixed (critical) location. This is
more accurate and straightforward than Westergaard’s way of
constructing stress contours around a fixed load, as it
quantifies the effect of every movement of the load. In this
manner, the total stresses and deflections at a specific location,
where the stress or deflection is likely to be maximum (owing
to the interaction between any group of loads) can be
calculated by simple superposition. In the present linear finite
element analysis (LFEA), the critical locations were identified
as points I (centre), E (edge), C, F and R (corner), whereas the
load is moving along the critical directions xi (at the interior),
xe and ye (at the edge), and xc and rc (at the corner), as
illustrated in Fig. 1.
Perhaps one of the main criticisms of current elastic design
guidelines on adjacent loads (i.e. TR550, 5 although this is not a
recent document, it remains the most up-to-date and hence
‘current’ guideline in terms of elastic design) is its lack of
charts or rules on how to estimate the total deflection—at a
specific location—owing to multiple loads. Considering the
increasing importance of serviceability and performance of
GFS, this shortcoming is also addressed in the present LFEA-
based study.
described fully in Abbas et al.1 and Abbas,2 and is based on a
fully three-dimensional FE model employing the powerful 27-
noded Lagrangian brick element, which can model accurately
the through-thickness stresses with its three locations
perpendicular to the slab. For this purpose, slab thicknesses of
h ¼ 150 mm and h ¼ 300 mm were adopted, in turn, so as to
represent the typical range of h found in practice, which
encompasses thin and thick slabs. Both slabs were considered
to be resting on a subgrade of k ¼ 14 MN/m3 , which was
adopted as it is practically the weakest subgrade case
(corresponding to a very poor k value6 ) and hence provides the
critical case. Even for good soils, that is, higher values of k, the
solution is not expected to be noticeably less economical as the
effect of k on the values of stresses is much less significant
than the effect of the thickness of the slab. 3,4 The stress and
deflection results for the two slabs were plotted against the
distance between the centre of the adjacent load and the point
at which the stresses and the deflections were calculated. This
distance, denoted D, was expressed as a ratio of D to the radius
of relative stiffness l, that is, D/l (for the definition of l, refer to
Notation). As the results of the stresses and the deflections are
based on two slabs encompassing the practical range of h (i.e.
150 mm and 300 mm) and on a safe but not uneconomical
value of k (i.e. 14 MN/m3 ), the ensuing design charts are valid
for all practical values of l. In the event that there were two
different trends for h ¼ 150 mm and h ¼ 300 mm, the critical
trend was adopted.
Plots of influence lines show values less than or equal to 1,
since they simply refer to ratios of parameters (stress or
deflection) at a location caused by a load at some distance D
from it to their peak values when this distance is zero. Thus
ó (or ä) at a location owing to
a load applied at an arbitrary D=l
1 I:L: ¼
ó (or ä) at that location owing
to that load applied at D=l ¼ 0
where ó is the stress value, ä is the deflection value and I.L. is
the influence line value.

3. METHODOLOGY USED 4. ADJACENT LOADS IN THE VICINITY OF THE

In order to establish influence lines for stresses and deflections, CENTRE OF THE SLAB
values of radial and tangential stresses, and deflections, owing In this case the adjacent load is considered to be moving along
to adjacent loads were obtained by means of LFEA, which is the xi direction, while the values of the radial and tangential
stresses, and deflections, were
calculated at point I at the
(E) is the the position for calculating stress and deflection
F cx direction E x e direction bottom of the slab directly
influence lines owing to a load moving around the edge
45° C under its centre (see Fig. 2).
rc direction
R (I) is the position for calculating stress and deflection In this respect, the radial
yc direction ye direction influence lines owing to a load moving around the centre stresses are parallel to the xi
I xi direction
6300 mm direction, while the
(C) is the position for calculating stress influence lines
tangential stresses are normal
yi direction owing to a load moving along the xc direction
to the xi direction. By
(R) is the position for calculating stress influence lines owing to a symmetry, the values of
load moving along the rc direction and along the xc direction stresses and deflections
6300 mm owing to an adjacent load
(F) is the position for calculating deflection influence lines owing
moving along the yi direction
to a load moving along the rc direction and along the xc direction
can similarly be calculated.
The values of stresses and
Fig. 1. Locations and directions of adjacent-load movements identified as critical for calculating
influence lines of stresses and deflections deflections were plotted
against the ratio D/l for both

152 Structures & Buildings 160 Issue SB3 Elastic analysis of ground-floor slabs under multiple loads Abbas et al.

Tangential stress
D load movement
Radial stress
6300 mm I xi direction
yi direction
6300 mm
Fig. 2. Adjacent loads in the vicinity of the centre of the slab
values of slab thickness, and with k ¼ 14 MN/m3 , as depicted
in Fig. 3 (in the present adjacent-load case, D is the distance
between point I and the centre of the adjacent load, as
illustrated in Fig. 2). It is clear from Fig. 3 that the influence
lines for the tangential stresses and deflections are insensitive
to slab thickness. It can also be seen that both slabs have the
same influence lines for radial stresses but only up to D/l 
0.9. Beyond this value, the trends for the influence lines differ
for the two slabs. In order to determine the critical of these
trends, the nature of the radial stresses (i.e. whether tensile or
compressive) must be considered. If a load is applied at point I
(i.e. at D/l ¼ 0), this results in a peak radial tensile stress at I at
the bottom of the slab shown in Fig. 3. An additional adjacent
load applied at a distance beyond which h affects the I.L. value
1·2
1
0·8
0·6
I.L. value
0·4
0·2
0 Fig. 1).
⫺0·2 0 0·5 1 1·5 2 2·5
⫺0·4 D/ l
I.L. for tangential stress (h ⫽ 150 mm)
I.L. for tangential stress (h ⫽ 300 mm)
I.L. for radial stress (h ⫽ 150 mm)
I.L. for radial stress (h ⫽ 300 mm)
I.L. for deflection (h ⫽ 150 mm)
I.L. for deflection (h ⫽ 300 mm)
Fig. 3. Influence lines for the radial stresses, tangential stresses
and deflections at the centre of slabs of h ¼ 150 mm and
300 mm, with k ¼ 14 MN/m3
Structures & Buildings 160 Issue SB3
(i.e. at D/l . 0.9) will produce compressive stresses at the
bottom of the slab at I, and thus will actually reduce the peak
tension stress there. It becomes apparent therefore that the
critical trend is the one that yields the minimum compression
Direction of adjacent stress at I. On this basis, the trend experienced by the 150 mm
thick slab is clearly the critical one. Consequently, it was
adopted to represent the radial stresses for the whole range of l
(i.e. to replace the two branches for the radial stresses in Fig. 3
with a single critical curve). For convenience, the
aforementioned critical influence lines of Fig. 3—established for
deflections, radial and tangential stresses—are reproduced in
one design chart as depicted in Fig. 4.
From the design chart of Fig. 4, it can be concluded that an
adjacent load at D/l . 3.1 will not produce any additional
tangential stresses or deflections (in fact, deflections then
change sign, but these are very small values which are
counteracted by the self-weight of the slab so that the
assumption of full contact between slab and soil remains
valid), while at D/l . 4.9 it does not produce any additional
radial stresses (i.e. becomes independent). Furthermore, an
adjacent load at 0.9 , D/l , 4.9 will produce compressive
radial stresses at point I at the bottom of the slab. Thus it will
reduce the total tensile radial stresses—owing to this load
acting together with a central load applied directly at I—rather
than increase them (i.e. adjacent load effect is beneficial as it
relieves the radial stresses owing to the original load applied at
I). If, however, the adjacent load is acting on its own (at 0.9 ,
D/l , 4.9), then the critical effects are the ensuing tensile
stresses at the top of the slab directly above I. Since the slab
section is symmetrical, the value of this tensile stress is equal
to the compressive one at I.
5. ADJACENT LOADS IN THE VICINITY OF THE
EDGE OF THE SLAB
Two cases were considered for the adjacent loads in the
vicinity of the edge of the slab as described below. In both
cases, influence lines have been developed for stresses and
deflections at point E (at the bottom of the slab at the edge, see
3 3·5 4 4·5 5
5.1. Edge along the xe direction
The adjacent load is moving along the edge, that is, along the
xe direction in Fig. 5. The radial stresses are therefore parallel
to the xe direction, while the tangential stresses are normal to
1
0·9
0·8
0·7 Tension at the bottom of the slab I.L. for
0·6
tangential
I.L. value
0·5
stress
0·4
0·3 I.L. for radial
0·2 stress
0·1 I.L. for
0 deflection
⫺0·1 0 1 2 3 4 5
⫺0·2 Compression at the bottom of the slab
D/l
Fig. 4. Design chart for the influence lines of the radial
stresses, tangential stresses and deflections at the centre of
the slab owing to an adjacent load
Elastic analysis of ground-floor slabs under multiple loads Abbas et al. 153
 calculated at point E as illustrated in Fig. 7. Note that the

Tangential stress
Radial stress
E xe direction
6300 mm
6300 mm
Fig. 5. Adjacent loads in the vicinity of the edge of the slab in
the xe direction
the xe direction as depicted in Fig. 5. The values of the radial
and tangential stresses, and deflections, were obtained at point
E for slabs of h ¼ 150 mm and 300 mm, in turn, both with
k ¼ 14 MN/m3 . The results were then plotted against the ratio
D/l (in the present adjacent-load case, D is the distance
between point E and the centre of the adjacent load as shown
in Fig. 5). It was found that the tangential stresses (at E and
along the ye direction) are practically insignificant (as would be
expected), and therefore will be neglected. 2 On the other hand,
influence lines were constructed for radial stresses (i.e. at E and
along the xe direction) and deflections as can be seen in the
design chart of Fig. 6.
Direction of adjacent
D load movement
directions of the radial and tangential stresses are now reversed
(i.e. radial stresses are parallel to the ye direction, whereas the
tangential stresses are normal to that direction). The values of
the stresses and deflections for slabs of thicknesses 150 mm
and 300 mm, and with k ¼ 14 MN/m3 , were plotted against the
ratio D/l, where D is shown in Fig. 7. It was found that the
effect of the radial stresses is negligible and thus was
discounted, 2 unlike the tangential stresses (along xe ) and
deflections (thus, irrespective of the direction of load
movement around the edge, the critical stresses are always
along the edge). Consequently, only influence lines for the
tangential stresses were constructed, which (together with the
deflections) make up the design chart of Fig. 8. It is clear that
any adjacent load which lies at a distance D/l . 2.8 does not
produce any (additional) deflections at E, while a load at a
distance D/l . 3.3 does not produce any (additional) tangential
stresses at E.
It is worth noting that the present ye direction edge case was
not tackled by Westergaard, 3,4 as his solution was primarily to
provide a stress contour for a load fixed at the edge rather than
moving around the edge. To address this shortcoming, TR5505
uses the same stress contours developed by Westergaard for the
central-load case, effectively extending the application of the
latter to include the present edge-load case. In order to check
the validity of this assumption by means of the present LFEA

The design chart shows that an adjacent load at D/l . 4.4 does
not produce any additional deflections at E (i.e. additional to Tangential stress
those owing to a load at E itself), while at D/l . 5.9 it does not

ye direction Radial stress

E

D
produce any (additional) radial stresses. Moreover, if the load is
at 0.9 , D/l , 5.9, then its effect is to produce compressive

Direction of adjacent load movement

radial stresses at point E at the bottom of the slab, which will
reduce the peak tensile radial stresses at E arising from an edge 6300 mm
load applied at E itself. As explained earlier for the centrally
loaded slab, however, if the adjacent load is solely applied (at
0.9 , D/l , 5.9), then the critical stresses will be the tensile
ones at the top of the slab directly above E (as shown in Fig.
6): nevertheless, since the slab thickness was designed initially 6300 mm

to take the peak tensile stress at the bottom owing to a load at

E, the smaller tensile stresses at the top owing to a load
adjacent to E will automatically be catered for.
Fig. 7. Adjacent loads in the vicinity of the edge of the slab in
5.2. Edge along the ye direction the ye direction
The adjacent load is now moving along the ye direction and,
again, the values of the stresses and the deflections are
1
0·9
1
0·9 0·8
0·8 Tension at the bottom of the slab Tension at the bottom of the slab
0·7
0·7
I.L. value

0·6 0·6
0·5 I.L. for
0·5
I.L. value

I.L. for radial tangential stress

0·4 0·4
0·3 stress I.L. for
0·2 0·3
0·1 I.L. for deflection
0·2
0 deflection 0·1
⫺0·1 0 1 2 3 4 5 6
⫺0·2 Compression at the bottom of the slab 0
⫺0·3 0 0·5 1 1·5 2 2·5 3 3·5
D/l D/l

Fig. 6. Design chart for the influence lines of the radial Fig. 8. Design chart for the influence lines of the tangential
stresses and deflections owing to an adjacent edge load stresses and deflections owing to an adjacent edge load
moving along the xe direction moving along the ye direction

154 Structures & Buildings 160 Issue SB3 Elastic analysis of ground-floor slabs under multiple loads Abbas et al.
results, the design charts obtained for the tangential stress for F
both the central load case and for the ye direction edge load 45°
case were compared with each other as depicted in Fig. 9. The Radial stress
latter shows that TR550 assumed approximation is practically R

acceptable, as there is a clear resemblance between the two rc direction

D
curves.
6300 mm Direction of adjacent load movement

6. ADJACENT LOADS IN THE VICINITY OF THE

CORNER OF THE SLAB
Unlike the previous central and edge load cases, in which the
location of the maximum stresses was easily determined, 6300 mm
finding the location of the maximum stress owing to adjacent
loads in the vicinity of the corner (denoted ó c ) is not so Fig. 10. Adjacent corner load moving along the rc direction,
straightforward. As has been shown in a preceding article, 1 the while the radial stresses are calculated at point R along the rc
location of ó c for a single corner load is at the top of the slab direction as well
at point R on the bisector as illustrated in Fig. 1 (as shown
elsewhere, 1,2 R is almost invariably located at around 0.6 m
from the corner—this is likely to be attributed to the quasi 1
statically determinate cantilever-like nature of the corner 0·9
0·8
problem, the distance of 0.6 being affected by h only in a very 0·7
minor way—see Ref. 1). The introduction of an adjacent load 0·6
0·5
along the xc direction (which is also equivalent to moving it

I.L. value
0·4 Tension at the top of the slab
I.L. for radial
along yc —see Fig. 1) shifts the critical location towards the 0·3
0·2 stress
edge, however, and results in a complex problem of I.L. for
0·1
determining the position of the maximum principal tensile 0 deflection
stress. Two extreme locations, namely points R and C in Fig. 1 ⫺0·1 0 1 2 3 4 5
⫺0·2
(C is also located at about 0.6 m from the corner), were ⫺0·3 Compression at the top of the slab

therefore adopted and three cases were considered (corner ⫺0·4

D/l
along rc direction (critical location is R), corner along xc
direction case (a) (critical location is C) and corner along xc Fig. 11. Design chart for the influence lines of the radial
direction case (b) (critical location is R)). Since the location of stresses and deflections owing to an adjacent corner load
the maximum deflection for the single corner load case is moving along the rc direction
always at point F (see Fig. 1), the same point was adopted for
calculating the total deflections owing to adjacent corner loads.
point R at the top of the slab, and thus will reduce the peak
tensile radial stresses there caused by a corner load. Thus,
6.1. Corner along the rc direction
combined loading (i.e. corner and adjacent loads) reduces the
In this case the adjacent load is moving along the bisector of
traditional peak tensile stress of a single corner load. If,
the corner right angle (i.e. rc direction in Fig. 10) at a distance
however, the load within 0.6 , D/l , 4.4 is acting alone, then
D between its centre and the tip of the corner. The values of
the critical effect will be the tensile stress at the bottom directly
the radial stresses (i.e. in the direction along the corner
below R (i.e. equal in magnitude to the corresponding top
bisector) are calculated at point R, while the values of the
compression at R shown in Fig. 11); this effect is, however,
deflections are calculated at point F. As always, the values of
unlikely to control the design.
the radial stresses and deflections for slabs of thicknesses
150 mm and 300 mm, and with k ¼ 14 MN/m3 , were plotted
against the ratio D/l as depicted in the design chart of Fig 11. 6.2. Corner along the xc direction case (a)
From the latter, it can be concluded that an adjacent load at In this case the adjacent corner load is moving along the xc
D/l . 2.6 does not produce any (additional) deflections at F. direction and the radial stresses (which now occur along the
Similarly, at D/l . 4.4 adjacent loads do not produce any edge) are calculated at point C on the edge (at the top of the
additional radial stresses. Furthermore, an adjacent load within slab), while the deflections are calculated at point F at the
0.6 , D/l , 4.4 will produce compressive radial stresses, at corner, as illustrated in Fig. 12. The values of the radial stresses
and deflections for slabs of thicknesses 150 mm and 300 mm,
with k ¼ 14 MN/m3 , were drawn against the ratio D/l as
1·2
1 depicted in the design chart of Fig. 13 (D now is the distance
I.L. value

0·8
0·6 I.L. for tangential between the centre of the adjacent load and the tip of the
0·4 stress (central) corner—see Fig. 12).
0·2
0 I.L. for tangential
⫺0·2
0 0·4 0·8 1·2 1·6 2 2·4 2·8 3·2 3·6 stress (edge
From the design chart of Fig. 13, it is clear that an adjacent
D/l y direction)
load at D/l . 3.8 does not produce any (additional) deflections
at F. Also, at D/l . 6 such load does not produce any
Fig. 9. Comparison between the influence line for the
additional radial stresses. An adjacent load within 0.35 , D/l
tangential stresses at the centre and at the edge along the ye
direction , 1.5 will produce compressive radial stresses at C at the top
of the slab (i.e. a reduction in the total tensile radial stresses

Structures & Buildings 160 Issue SB3 Elastic analysis of ground-floor slabs under multiple loads Abbas et al. 155
 Direction of adjacent load D Direction of adjacent load movement
D movement F 45°
F xc direction
C xc direction
Radial stress R Tangential stress

6300 mm
6300 mm

6300 mm
6300 mm

Fig. 14. Adjacent corner load moving along the xc direction,

Fig. 12. Adjacent corner load moving along the xc direction, while the tangential stresses are calculated at point R on the
while the radial stresses are calculated at point (C) on the bisector of the corner right angle
edge

1 1
0·9 0·9
0·8 Tension at the top of the slab
0·7 Tension at the top of the slab 0·8
0·6 0·7
0·5

I.L. value
0·4 0·6
I.L. value

0·3 I.L. for radial

0·2 0·5 I.L. for
0·1 stress
0·4 tangential
0 I.L. for
⫺0·1 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 0·3 stress
⫺0·2 deflection
0·2
⫺0·3 Compression at the top of the slab
⫺0·4 0·1
⫺0·5
⫺0·6 0
D/l 0 0·2 0·4 0·6 0·8 1
D/l

Fig. 13. Design chart for the influence lines of the radial
Fig. 15. Design chart for the influence lines of the tangential
stresses and deflections owing to an adjacent corner load
stresses owing to an adjacent corner load moving along the xc
moving along the xc direction
direction

owing to this load coupled with a load at the corner). If,
however, the load is applied on its own within 0.35 , D/l ,
1.5, then the ensuing tensile stresses at the bottom of the slab
(equal in magnitude to the compression at the top) directly
under C ought, in principle, to be taken into account for design
purposes, although they are unlikely to be critical. When 1.5 ,
D/l , 6, tensile stresses at C occur but they are small.
6.3. Corner along xc direction case (b)
In this case the adjacent corner load is moving along the xc
direction (and hence the deflection at F has already been
covered in section 6.2), while the radial and tangential stresses
are calculated at point R at the top of the slab (see Fig. 14).
This position is adopted as it is the location of the maximum
tensile stress for the single corner-load case and thus it is
essential to account for additional stresses at this location
owing to adjacent loads. Together with case (a), they cover the
two extreme locations for the stresses owing to the interaction
between adjacent loads moving along the edge in the vicinity
of the corner. In the present case, the tangential stresses (which
are now adopted in the bisectorial rc direction) were calculated
at point R as illustrated in Fig. 14. These stresses were
computed by taking the resultant, of both the direct and shear
stress components, in the rc direction at point R since—unlike
the load-at-corner-only case—the rc direction is no longer a
principal direction. Similarly to case (a), slabs of thicknesses
150 mm and 300 mm, with k ¼ 14 MN/m3 , were adopted and
influence lines were constructed as shown in Fig. 15 (where D
in the present case is the distance between the centre of the
adjacent load and the tip of the corner). From the design chart
of Fig. 15, it can be concluded that an adjacent load at D/l . 1
does not produce any additional tangential stresses and,
therefore, can be safely ignored in design.
7. HOW TO USE THE PROPOSED INFLUENCE LINES
The proposed LFEA-based influence line is (as defined at the
end of section 3) a ratio between the stress or deflection owing
to a load applied at a given distance D (expressed as D/l ) to the
stress or deflection when the same load is at D/l ¼ 0. The
ordinates in the various I.L. plots must therefore be multiplied
by the datum stress or deflection value at D/l ¼ 0. Equations
for estimating these datum values of stresses and deflections
(denoted ó i , ó e , ó c and äi , äe , äc , respectively) have already
been developed in earlier parts of this research, 1,2 and—for ease
of reference—they are reported in Appendix 1 of the present
paper.
The equation developed for ó i can therefore be used to obtain
the values of radial and tangential stresses at D/l ¼ 0 for the
central-load case. Similarly, the equation developed for ó e can
be used to obtain the values of datum stresses for the edge-
load case. The same is true for the corner-load case along the rc
direction and xc direction case (b), where the stresses at point R
for D/l ¼ 0 can be calculated from the equation for ó c .
Finally, for the corner load along the xc direction case (a), no

156 Structures & Buildings 160 Issue SB3 Elastic analysis of ground-floor slabs under multiple loads Abbas et al.
equation was developed in the course of the present study for 1·1
the datum value of stress at C when the load is at the corner. 1
The only equation available is that for the datum stress at R 0·9
when the load is at the corner (i.e. ó c ). Fortunately, the value 0·8
of the maximum stress at point C on the edge was found to be 0·7 I.L. for deflection

I.L. value
slightly less than the value of ó c at point R on the bisector.2 0·6 (LFEA)
I.L. for deflection
Therefore, the equation developed for ó c can be used to obtain 0·5
(Westergaard3,4)
the value of the datum stress at C along the edge for D/l ¼ 0 0·4
(clearly this is a safe approximation, but is not too 0·3

conservative). 0·2
0·1
0
The method explained above is demonstrated in the example of 0 0·5 1 1·5 2 2·5 3 3·5 4 4·5
Appendix 2 to the present paper. This shows, step by step, how D/l
to use the proposed influence lines to tackle the problem of (a)

multiple loads on ground-floor slabs. 1·1

1
0·9
8. COMPARISON WITH CURRENT ELASTIC
0·8
GUIDELINES (TR550) 0·7

I.L. value
I.L. for deflection
It is instructive to conduct a brief comparative study between 0·6 (LFEA)
the I.L. charts stemming from the present LFEA and Fig. 5 of 0·5 I.L. for deflection
the Cement and Concrete Association Technical Report 550 0·4 (Westergaard3,4)

(TR550), 5 the latter being based on the Westergaard contour 0·3

solutions for adjacent loads.3,4 It is important to note that the
two methods are based on two different approaches. As
mentioned earlier, the Westergaard solution is a stress contour
to show the distribution of the stresses over the slab owing to a
single load. On the other hand, the present LFEA-based
solutions adopt standard influence lines, where the load is
moving and the stresses are calculated at a fixed location. In
order to calculate the stresses from more than one load,
Westergaard’s approach requires that the contours be
overlapped, which can be confusing when many adjacent loads
are being dealt with. The present LFEA-based solutions, on the
other hand, enable a straightforward summation of all the
stresses or deflections, at a specific location, owing to any
number of adjacent loads. Moreover, the LFEA-based solutions
are presented not only in the form of design charts, 2 but also
as design equations that can easily be programmed for
computer applications.
Perhaps the most significant contribution of the presently-
proposed solutions is the introduction, for the first time, of
influence lines for deflections. These were lacking in current
guidelines, 5 despite the fact that Westergaard’s early work
included deflection contours for central- and edge- (but not
corner-) load cases.3,4 These deflection contours were presently
transformed into I.L. values as shown in Fig. 16. The good
agreement between Westergaard’s work and the present LFEA
data are remarkable when the approximations inherent in his
analytical work are considered.
8.1. Central load
There is a noticeable resemblance between the general trend of
the LFEA-based influence lines and the TR550 guidelines for
both radial and tangential stresses. In this respect, the tensile
radial stresses at the bottom of the slab become compressive
when 0.9 , D/l , 4.9 for the LFEA-based influence lines,
while they become compressive when 1 , D/l , 4.4 for the
TR550 guidelines. As for the tangential stresses at the bottom
of the slab, they become compressive when D/l . 3.1 for the
LFEA-based solutions, whereas they become compressive when
D/l . 2.5 for the TR550 guidelines.
0·2
0·1
0
0 0·5 1 1·5 2 2·5 3 3·5 4 4·5 5
D/l
(b)
Fig. 16. Comparison between the LFEA-based and
Westergaard’s influence lines for deflections (a) at the centre
of the slab and (b) at the edge of the slab
8.2. Edge load
8.2.1. Edge load xe direction. Again, the general trend of both
solutions for the radial stresses is similar. The range within
which the radial stresses at the bottom become compressive is,
however, different, that is, 0.7 , D/l , 4.4 for the TR550
guidelines and 0.9 , D/l ,5.9 for the presently proposed
solutions.
8.2.2. Edge load ye direction. As explained earlier, this case
was not formally addressed by Westergaard. Instead, Chandler 5
adopted the stress contours for the tangential stresses for a
section at the centre—although this does not conform to
Westergaard’s definition of a central load as one which is ‘at a
considerable distance from the edges’.3,4 As demonstrated
earlier, a comparison between the LFEA-based influence lines
for the tangential stresses for a section at the centre and the
tangential stresses for a section at the edge shows that, while
the logic of the assumption is questionable, its results are
acceptable from a design viewpoint.
8.3. Corner load
8.3.1. Corner along rc -direction. Despite its relevance as a
possible adjacent load, this case was not tackled by TR550 or
Westergaard and thus it constitutes an original addition to the
adjacent loads’ design guidelines.
8.3.2. Corner along xc direction case (a). This case was not
formally addressed by TR550, as it was assumed that

Structures & Buildings 160 Issue SB3 Elastic analysis of ground-floor slabs under multiple loads Abbas et al. 157
 Westergaard’s radial stress contours for a section at the edge
can be used for the present corner-load case as well. When,
however, the load moves close to the corner, Westergaard’s
edge solutions—by definition—are no longer applicable (as he
made clear by stressing that such edge loads are to be ‘at a
considerable distance from any corner’).3,4 The present LFEA-
based charts, on the other hand, allow for the movement of the
load along the edge in the vicinity of the corner and thus
effectively cover the important edge–corner interaction
scenario.
8.3.3. Corner along xc direction case (b). Despite its relevance,
this case was neither covered by TR550 nor by Westergaard,
and therefore it constitutes another original addition to the
adjacent loads’ guidelines.
8.4. Deflections owing to multiple loads
The present work provides, for the first time, deflection-
calculation guidelines in the form of influence-line coefficients
for the case of a group of adjacent loads. This is clearly needed
by the designer in order to assess the implication of such loads
on the serviceability of the slab, notably on surface regularity.
At interior regions, such deflections are best viewed by
dividing them by the parameter l, which can be thought of as
the ‘effective span’ for structural elements resting on a
subgrade: at the ends of such ‘span’, top surface cracking will
eventually occur, but this is beyond the scope of the present
permissible-stress approach.
It will be noticed that deflections are inversely proportional to
the value of the modulus of subgrade reaction k. Although
values of k stem from field tests such as those conducted by
Teller and Sutherland, 7 which provide data on the elastic
performance of the subgrade at a standard value of the
downwards deflection of approximately 1.25 mm, such values
of k are assumed to be unaffected by the amount of deflection
when elastic analysis is used. This is clear, for example, from
current GFS guidelines, 8 where k remains unchanged even at
deflections well above 1.25 mm (see Ref. 8, p. 96).
maximum stresses and deflections for single loads (see
Appendix 1),1,2 they constitute a modern approach to the
elastic design of GFS. The influence lines cover the practical
range of slab thicknesses (the critical h value having been
adopted in each case), whereas all earlier work was based on
a single h value.
A comparative design example is presented in Appendix 2 in
order to illustrate the proposed design process as well as to
compare the results with those obtained using current elastic
design guidelines (TR550). While the latter contains much
useful (though not comprehensive) data, the newly proposed
methodology appears to lead to more economic designs.
Although the analytical results presented are fully consistent
with elastic permissible-stress philosophy, it would seem
prudent to calibrate such results with experimental tests and
field monitoring.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
The authors wish to express their gratitude to the assessor
whose careful reading of the original manuscript resulted in
several timely suggestions for its improvement.
APPENDIX 1. LFEA-BASED SOLUTIONS FOR SINGLE
LOADS
Design equations were obtained for estimating stresses and
deflections owing to a single load applied, in turn, at the
centre, edge and corner of the slab. These equations should be
used to determine the datum stress or deflection value (i.e. at
D/l ¼ 0) in the adjacent-load design charts. The equations are
summarised below (the symbols used are defined in the
Notation). An example demonstrating how to use the stress
equations can be found in an earlier article. 1
Central-load case
The centre of the square-patch load coincides with the centre
of the slab.
Maximum principal stress (ó i ).

9. CONCLUSIONS     
d Pi l
The present study of the effects of multiple loads on GFS 2 ó i ¼ 1:0186 1:1301
0:1362 log 10
d100 h2 d100
was carried out in order to re-examine current guidelines
and to address any potential shortcomings. In this respect, it
was found that standard influence lines are needed to cover where d100 is a constant ¼ 100 mm.
various critical load locations, as such influence lines are
straightforward and simple to use. Consequently, LFEA-based Maximum deflection (äi ).
influence lines were developed and are presented herein in
the form of design charts, covering such critical load
Pi
locations within a GFS. Clearly, these charts can serve to 3a äi ¼ 0:1236 2 for 0 < d < 250 mm
evaluate the stresses and deflections stemming from any kl
number of adjacent-load cases (e.g. the wheels of a fork-lift
truck or a group of racking legs) by simple superposition,   
provided the following restrictions are borne in mind: the d Pi
äi ¼ 0:1236 1:2439
0:1038
positions of the loads can be arbitrary (because of multiple 3b d100 kl2
symmetry) for the case when total stresses are sought at an for d . 250mm
interior point; the loads can be along the edge and
perpendicular to the edge location when total stresses are
sought at an edge location; and, finally, the loads can be
along either edge and/or along the corner bisector when the Edge-load case
total stresses are sought at the critical locations near the The edge of the square-patch load coincides with the edge of
corner. Together with the formulae obtained previously for the slab.

158 Structures & Buildings 160 Issue SB3 Elastic analysis of ground-floor slabs under multiple loads Abbas et al.
Maximum principal stress (ó e ). APPENDIX 2. COMPARATIVE DESIGN EXAMPLE
A complete comparative design example is produced in the
     present appendix. Comparisons are first made between stresses
d Pe l owing to single loads (at the centre, edge and corner of a slab)
4 ó e ¼ 2 1982 1 2135
0 2163
: : : log10
d100 h2 d100 calculated using current elastic design guidelines and the
LFEA-based equations. Then, the effect of adjacent loads on the
values of the stresses and deflections at these locations is
considered. The example also demonstrates the procedures
Maximum deflection (äe ). involved in the proposed LFEA-based design method and how
to use the design charts.
  
d Pe
5 äe ¼ 0:4016 1:0376
0:0434 Current design guidelines adopted for purposes of comparison
d100 kl2
are those recommended in TR550,5 and the first design
example provided in this document (see Chandler, 5 pp. 14–16)
is adopted in the present comparative study as summarised
below.
Corner-load case
The corner load is distributed symmetrically about the bisector
Problem
of the corner right angle, with its centroid located at distance c
Design a ground-floor slab to withstand a fork-lift truck of a
from the corner side. The equations are expressed in terms of c
maximum wheel load of 13.65 t. Wheels are at 1500 mm
rather than the load width d.
centres and the radius of the equivalent circular loaded area is
150 mm.
Maximum principal stress (ó c ).
The modulus of sub-grade reaction is 27 MN/m3 , the modulus
    3:20 of elasticity for concrete is 34 GN/m3 and Poisson’s ratio for
c Pc 2c50
6 ó c ¼ 3:2053 1:1652
0:1651 1
concrete is 0.15. Take the allowable 90-day modulus of rupture
c50 h2 l
of concrete R90 ¼ 4160 kN/m2 . There is no load transfer
between slabs (note that the original TR550 example assumes
where c50 is a constant ¼ 50 mm. load transfer across edges and corners).

Maximum deflection (äc ). Solution

The datum values of LFEA-based stresses and deflections (i.e. at
D/l ¼ 0) are calculated using equations (2) to (7) presented in
   
c 2c50 Pc Appendix 1 and also in Abbas et. al. 1
7 äc ¼ 2:2708 1:048
0:0643 0:5775

c50 l kl2
The design steps are presented in the following tables 1–7.

Design step TR550 LFEA-based

Load intensity Wheel load ¼ 13.65 t ¼ 136.5 kN Wheel load ¼ 136.5 kN

Shape of loaded area Circular (at centre and corner) and semi-circular (at the edge Square (at centre, edge and corner)
only)
Size of loaded area Radius of circle r ¼ 150 mmpffiffiffi Width
p of ffisquare d ¼
ffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
Radius of semi-circle ¼ 150 2 ¼ 212 mm ð(1502 ) ¼ 266 mm
k 27 MN/m3 27 MN/m3
Slab thickness Try h¼ 250 mm Try h¼ 250 mm
l sffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi 1.138 m
4 Ec h3
¼
12(1
ì2 )k
sffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi sffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
4 Ec h3 4 34 000 3 0:253
¼ ¼ 1:38 m
12(1
ì2 )k 12(1
0:152 ) 3 27

Table 1. Design inputs

Structures & Buildings 160 Issue SB3 Elastic analysis of ground-floor slabs under multiple loads Abbas et al. 159
 Design step TR550 LFEA-based

Internal load case

266
150 W1
W1

(All dim. are in mm)

(All dim. are in mm)
1500 W1 ⫽ W2 ⫽ 136·5 kN
1500 W1 ⫽ W2 ⫽ 136·5 kN

A
150 A
W2 266
W2

Calculations of stresses at Stress at A owing to W2 ¼ 3140 kN/m2 Stress at A owing to W2 (equation (2))
A at the centre of the slab ¼ 1804 kN/m2 (57% of TR550)
Distance between A and edge of adjacent load (D ) ¼ Distance between A and centre of adjacent
1500
150 ¼1350 mm ¼ 1.25l load (D )
From Fig. 5 of TR 550, I.L. for tangential stress ¼ 0.085 ¼ 1500 mm
Stress at centre of W1 owing to W1 ¼ 3140 kN/m2 ¼ 1.32l
The tangential stress therefore at A owing to From Fig. 4, I.L. for tangential stress ¼ 0.17
W1 ¼ 0.08533140 Stress at A if W1 is at A (see Appendix 1) ¼
¼ 267 kN/m2 1804 kN/m2
Total stress at The tangential stress at A therefore owing to
A ¼ 3140 + 267 W1
¼ 3407 kN/m2 ¼ 0.1731804
¼ 307 kN/m2
Total stress at A
¼ 1804+307
¼ 2111 kN/m2 (62% of TR550)
Calculations of deflections No deflection guidelines were provided in TR 550 Deflection at A owing to W2 (equation (3b) ¼
at A at the centre of the 0.47 mm
slab

From Fig. 4, I.L. for deflection (at D ¼ 1.32l) ¼

0.48
Deflection at A if W1 is at A ¼ 0.47 mm
Therefore, the deflection at A owing to
W1 ¼ 0.48 3 0.47 ¼ 0.23 mm
Total deflection at A
¼ 0.47 þ 0.23 ¼ 0.7 mm*

* This is a small deflection, as can be seen by non-dimensionalising it with respect to the radius of relative stiffness l, the result
being 0.7/1138, that is around 0.06%.

Table 2. Internal load case

160 Structures & Buildings 160 Issue SB3 Elastic analysis of ground-floor slabs under multiple loads Abbas et al.
Design step TR550 LFEA-based

Loads along the edge (i.e. 212 212

1500 1500
edge along the xe direction
case) A
A
W1 W2

W1 W2 266
266
(All dim. are in mm)
(All dim. are in mm)
W1 ⫽ W2 ⫽ 136·5 kN
W1 ⫽ W2 ⫽ 136·5kN

Calculations of stresses at Stress at A owing to W1 ¼ 4710 N/m2 Stress at A owing to W1 (equation (4))
A at the edge of the slab ¼ 3236 kN/m2 (69% of TR550)

D ¼ 1500
212 ¼1288 mm¼ 1.19l D ¼ 1500 mm ¼ 1.32 l

From Fig. 5 of TR 550, I.L. for radial stress ¼
0.1 From Fig. 6, I.L. for radial stress ¼
0.1
Stress at centre of W2 owing to W2 ¼ 4710 kN/m2 Stress at A if W2 is at A (eq. A-3)
Therefore, the radial stress at A owing to W2 ¼ 3236 kN/m2
¼
0.134710 Therefore, the radial stress at A owing to W2
¼
471 kN/m2 ¼
0.133236
Total stress at A ¼
324 kN/m2
¼ 4710
471 Total stress at A ¼ 3236
324
¼ 4239 kN/m2 ¼ 2912 kN/m2 (69% of TR550)
Calculations of deflections No deflection guidelines were provided in TR 550 Deflection at A owing to W1 (equation (5)) ¼
at A at the edge of the slab 1.41 mm

From Fig. 6, I.L. for deflection (at D ¼ 1.32l) ¼

0.57
Deflection at A if W2 is at A ¼ 1.41 mm
Therefore, the deflection at A owing to
W2 ¼ 0.5731.41 ¼ 0.81 mm
Total deflection at A
¼ 1.41 + 0.81 ¼ 2.22 mm

Table 3. Loads along the edge (xe -direction case)

Structures & Buildings 160 Issue SB3 Elastic analysis of ground-floor slabs under multiple loads Abbas et al. 161
 Design step TR550 LFEA-based

Loads normal to the edge B B

(i.e. edge along the ye 212 266
direction case) W1
W1

1633

1500 1500

266
150 W2 W2

(All dim. are in mm)

(All dim. are in mm)
W1 ⫽ W2 ⫽ 136·5 kN
W1 ⫽ W2 ⫽ 136·5 kN

Calculations of stresses at Stress at B owing to W1 ¼ 4710 kN/m2 Stress at B owing to W1 (equation (4))
B at the edge of the slab ¼ 3236 kN/m2 (69% of TR550)

D ¼ 1500
150 ¼ 1350 mm¼ 1.25l D ¼ 1500+133¼ 1633 mm ¼1.44l

From Fig. 5 of TR 550, I.L. for radial stress ¼ 0.085 From Fig. 8, I.L. for radial stress ¼ 0.12
Stress at centre of W2 owing to W2 (internal) ¼ Stress at A if W2 is at A ¼ 3236 kN/m2
3140 kN/m2 Therefore, the radial stress at A owing to W2
Therefore, the tangential stress at A owing to W2 ¼ 0.1233236
¼ 0.08533140 ¼ 389 kN/m2
¼ 270 kN/m2 Total stress at A ¼ 3236+389
Total stress at A ¼ 3625 kN/m2 (73% of TR550)
¼ 4710 +270
¼ 4980 kN/m2
Calculations of deflections No deflection guidelines were provided in TR 550 Deflection at B owing to W1 (equation (5)) ¼
at B at the edge of the slab 1.41 mm

From Fig. 8, I.L. for deflection (at D ¼ 1.44l) ¼

0.21
Deflection at A if W2 is at B ¼ 1.41 mm
Therefore, the deflection at B owing to
W2 ¼ 0.2131.41 ¼ 0.3 mm
Total deflection at B ¼ 1.41+0.3 ¼ 1.71 mm

Table 4. Loads normal to the edge ( ye -direction case)

162 Structures & Buildings 160 Issue SB3 Elastic analysis of ground-floor slabs under multiple loads Abbas et al.
Design step TR550 LFEA-based

Load in the vicinity of the

150 1500 212 1633
corner (i.e. corner along the
xc direction case (a))
957 481 600

C C
A A W2
W2 W1
W1
266
266

(All dim. are in mm) (All dim. are in mm)

W1 ⫽ W2 ⫽ 136·5 kN W1 ⫽ W2 ⫽ 136·5 kN

Calculations of stresses at A Stress at A owing to W1 ¼ 5460 kN/m2 Stress at A owing to W1 (equation (6))
on the edge ¼ 3787 kN/m2 (69% of TR550)
For studying the effect of W2 on the stresses at D ¼ 1500+133 ¼1633 mm ¼1.44l
A, W2 will be treated as an edge load adjacent to From Fig. 13, I.L. for radial stress ¼ 0.0
A (there is an effect from W2 only if D , 0.35l or
D ¼ 1500+150
212
957 1.5 l, D , 6l)
¼ 481 mm ¼ 0.44 l Therefore, the total stress at A
From Fig. 5 of TR 550, I.L. for radial stress ¼ 0.0 ¼ 3787 kN/m2 (69% of TR550)
(there is an effect from W2 only if 0.71l, D ,
4.44l)
Therefore, the total stress at A
¼ 5460 kN/m2
Calculations of deflections at No deflection guidelines were provided in TR 550 Deflection at C owing to W1 (equation (7)) ¼
C at the corner of the slab 3.71 mm

From Fig. 13, I.L. for deflection (at D ¼ 1.44l) ¼

0.28
Deflection at C if W2 is at C ¼ 3.71 mm
Therefore, the deflection at C owing to
W2 ¼ 0.2833.71 ¼ 1.04 mm
Total deflection at C ¼ 3.71 + 1.04 ¼ 4.75 mm

Table 5. Load in the vicinity of the corner (xc -direction case (a))

Design step TR550 LFEA-based

Load in the vicinity of the 150 212

1633
1500
corner (i.e. corner along the
xc direction case (b)) 957 600

W2
W1
W1 W2 266
266
B
B

Bisector of corner Bisector of corner

right angle right angle

(All dim. are in mm)

(All dim. are in mm)
W1 ⫽ W2 ⫽ 136·5 kN
W1 ⫽ W2 ⫽ 136·5 kN

Calculations of stresses at B Stress at B owing to W1 ¼ 5460 kN/m2 Stress at B owing to W1 (equation (6))
on the bisector of the corner ¼ 3787 kN/m2 (69% of TR550)
right angle
Stress at B owing to W2 is not included in TR 550 D ¼ 1500+133 ¼1633 mm ¼1.44l
design guidelines. From Fig. 15, I.L. for tangential stress ¼ 0.0 (there
Therefore, the total stress at B ¼ 5460 kN/m2 is an effect from W2 only if D , 1.0 l)
Therefore, the total stress at B ¼ 3787 kN/m2
(69% of TR550)

Table 6. Load in the vicinity of the corner (xc -direction case (b))

Structures & Buildings 160 Issue SB3 Elastic analysis of ground-floor slabs under multiple loads Abbas et al. 163
 Design step TR550 LFEA-based

Critical case for stresses Corner load case with maximum tensile stress at Corner load case with maximum tensile stress at
the top of the slab the top of the slab
¼ 5460 kN/m2 ¼ 3787 kN/m2 (69% of TR550)
more than R90 less than R90
¼ 4160 kN/m2 ¼ 4160 kN/m2
Critical case for deflections No deflection guidelines were provided in TR 550 Corner load case with maximum deflection ¼
4.75 mm
Concluding remarks Failed (30% higher than R90 ) Safe (by a safety factor of 1.1 for the maximum
Try thicker slab tensile stress)

Table 7. Design conclusions

roads. Proceedings of the 5th Annual Meeting of the

This design example shows that the proposed LFEA-based
elastic design method provides a thinner slab than that
provided by current elastic design guidelines for adjacent
loads (TR550)—approximately, the modulus of rupture is
reached for slab thicknesses of about 290 mm (TR550) and
240 mm (LFEA), so that the latter approach offers a thickness
reduction of approximately 20%. The example also illustrates
the value of maximum deflection, which can be used to
check whether or not the prescribed serviceability
requirements are met.
REFERENCES
1. ABBAS A. A., PAVLOVIC M. N. and KOTSOVOS M. D.
Permissible-stress design of ground-floor slabs. Proceedings
of the Institution of Civil Engineers, Structures and
Buildings, 2004, 157, No. 6, 369–384.
2. ABBAS A. A. Analysis and Design of Industrial Ground-Floor
Slabs Using the Finite Element Method. PhD thesis,
University of London, 2002.
3. WESTERGAARD H. M. Computation of stresses in concrete
Highway Research Board, Washington D. C., National
Research Council, 1925, pp. 90–112.
4. WESTERGAARD H. M. Stresses in concrete pavements
computed by theoretical analysis. Public Roads, 1926, 7, No.
2, 25–35.
5. CHANDLER J. W. E. Design of Floors on Ground. Cement and
Concrete Association, Slough, 1982, Technical Report 550
(Publication 42.550).
6. CHANDLER J. W. E. and NEAL F. R. The Design of Ground-
Supported Concrete Industrial Floor Slabs. British Cement
Association, Slough, 1988, Interim Technical Note 11 (ITN
11), p. 6.
7. TELLER L. and SUTHERLAND E. The structural design of
concrete pavements, Part 5, An experimental study of the
Westergaard analysis of stress condition in concrete
pavement slabs of uniform thickness. Public Roads, 1943,
23, No. 8, 167–211.
8. CONCRETE SOCIETY. Concrete Industrial Ground Floors – A
Guide to Their Design and Construction. The Concrete
Society, Crowthorne, 2003, Technical Report 34 (3rd
edition).

What do you think?

To comment on this paper, please email up to 500 words to the editor at journals@ice.org.uk
Proceedings journals rely entirely on contributions sent in by civil engineers and related professionals, academics and students. Papers
should be 2000–5000 words long, with adequate illustrations and references. Please visit www.thomastelford.com/journals for author
guidelines and further details.

164 Structures & Buildings 160 Issue SB3 Elastic analysis of ground-floor slabs under multiple loads Abbas et al.