A Finite Element Approach

to Reinforced Concrete Slab

Design in GT STRUDL

James Deaton and Dr. Kenneth M. Will

2006 GT STRUDL Users Group Meeting

23 June 2006 1
 Introduction
ƒ Background and Motivation
ƒ The Wood and Armer Method
ƒ The Element Force Method
ƒ Implementation in GT STRUDL
ƒ Case Studies
ƒ Conclusions and Recommendations

23 June 2006 2
 Objective
ƒ Design reinforcing steel for reinforced
concrete elevated slabs based on the
results of finite element analysis

23 June 2006 3
 Background
ƒ Finite Element Analysis has been applied to
reinforced concrete systems since 1967
ƒ Finite elements, like concrete, can conform to
any shape
ƒ Slabs
ƒ Shear Walls
ƒ Shells
ƒ One of many techniques regularly applied to
design of reinforced concrete flat plate slabs
and mat foundations
ƒ Especially irregular or unusual slabs
23 June 2006 4
 Motivation
ƒ Limitations of common slab design techniques:
ƒ Direct Design / Equivalent Frame Technique:
ƒ Limited Applicability – very regular structures
ƒ Strip Design
ƒ Based on assumed location of yield lines
ƒ Can lead to over-conservative design and/or poor
serviceability
ƒ Classical plate theory
ƒ Solution of 4th order partial differential equation
ƒ Solution to these limitations: Finite Elements

23 June 2006 5
 Motivation
ƒ Finite elements easily handle complexities
that restrict simplified design methods
ƒ Holes, concentrated loads, irregularities
ƒ Primary limiting factors with finite elements:
ƒ Difficulty in interpretation of results
ƒ Volume of results
ƒ Demonstrates need for a conservative tool to
simplify design of reinforced concrete using
finite elements

23 June 2006 6
 Linear-Elastic Analysis
ƒ Design based on linear-elastic distribution of
moments
ƒ Standard practice in industry
ƒ Research/practice confirms its applicability
ƒ ACI Code allows it:
ƒ “All members of frames or continuous construction shall be
designed for the maximum effects of factored loads as
determined by the theory of elastic analysis…” (8.3.1)
ƒ “A slab system shall be designed by any procedure
satisfying conditions of equilibrium and geometric
compatibility, if shown that the design strength at every
section is at least equal to the required strength…” (13.5.1)

23 June 2006 7
 Slab Design Based on the FEM
ƒ 2 General Methods
1. Moment Resultants (Wood & Armer)
2. Element Forces (CALCULATE RESULTANT)
ƒ Both methods are fundamentally different with
respect to underlying theory and assumptions
ƒ Thus, each method has advantages over the other
under certain circumstances.
ƒ Most commercial software packages only offer ONE
of these methods.
ƒ Both methods depend on defining a “cut”,
comprised of a list of co-linear nodes and adjacent
elements

23 June 2006 8
 Method 1 – Moment Resultants
ƒ Moment “stresses” computed at each
node of each element from strains and
constitutive model
ƒ Units: Bending Moment per unit width
ƒ kip-in/in or kip-ft/ft
ƒ Can be very inaccurate if mesh is not
suitable for problem

23 June 2006 9
 Moment Resultant Conventions

23 June 2006 10
Computation of Moment Resultants
ƒ Computed per element:
ƒ Strains computed from displacements
ƒ Moment results computed from rigidity

23 June 2006 11
 Moment Resultants in GT STRUDL
ƒ Use CALCULATE AVERAGE command
ƒ Averages results at each node with
contributions only from elements in the
element list
ƒ Gives Mxx, Myy, and Mxy in PLANAR
system
CALCULATE AVERAGE RESULTANTS AT
MIDDLE ELEMENTS EXISTING list

23 June 2006 12
 Wood and Armer, 1
ƒ The graphic below shows an area dA
which effectively is the size of a node

ƒ Mxy contributes a moment effect to both

the principal bending directions x and y
23 June 2006 13
 Wood and Armer, 2
ƒ To Design Bottom Reinforcement:

23 June 2006 14
 Wood and Armer, 3
ƒ To Design Top Reinforcement:

23 June 2006 15
 W&A - Design for Average Effect

23 June 2006 16
 W&A - Design for Maximum Effect

23 June 2006 17
 Method 2 – Element Forces
ƒ Computed based on element equilibrium

ke ⋅ d e − Pe
ƒ Performs well because guaranteed to
satisfy equilibrium
ƒ Provide a force or moment corresponding
to each DOF per element
ƒ Can be thought of as “member end forces”

23 June 2006 18
 Element Forces at a Node
ƒ 2 Moments, 1 Shear (Plate Bending)
ƒ 3 Moments, 3 Forces (Shell Element)

23 June 2006 19
 Bending Moment - Element Forces
ƒ Computed from equilibrium of entire cut:

n = # of nodes on cut
m = # of elements at each node

23 June 2006 20
 Element Forces in GT STRUDL
ƒ CALCULATE RESULTANT Command
ƒ Determination of Design forces:
ƒ 3 Forces, 3 Bending moments in CUT C.S.
ƒ Input: List of Nodes & Elements along cut
ƒ Only list elements on ONE side
ƒ Syntax:
calculate resultant forces along cut i joints list elements list

23 June 2006 21
 Calculate Resultant Results

23 June 2006 22
 Calculate Resultant Sign Conv.

23 June 2006 23
 Cut Coordinate System
ƒ (A) - General Case / (B) – Special Case

23 June 2006 24
 Command Implementation
ƒ A slab design command was
implemented based on both element
forces and the Wood and Armer method
ƒ Engineered to provide the engineer
maximum possible control over the
design of the system, including
methodology, design parameters, and
tolerances.

23 June 2006 25
 DESIGN SLAB Command Syntax

23 June 2006 26
 Command Examples
ƒ “DESIGN SLAB REINFORCEMENT ALONG
CUT ‘A1’ BY CALCULATE RESULTANT
JOINTS 1 2 ELEMENT 1 BOTH FACES BAR
5 SPACING 12.5 COVER 1.0”

ƒ “DESIGN SLAB REINFORCEMENT BY

WOOD AND ARMER NODES 1 2 ELEMENT
1 TOP FACE BAR 5 BOTTOM FACE
SPACING 10 OUTER LAYER”

23 June 2006 27
 Building the Cut Definition
ƒ User provides:
ƒ Start node of cut
ƒ End node of cut
ƒ Element in the plane of the cut
ƒ Pre-processing algorithm then determines:
ƒ All interior nodes incident on the cut
ƒ Which elements contribute to the resultant force
acting on the cut.

23 June 2006 28
 Element Contributions
ƒ Appropriate element list critical for both
element forces and Wood & Armer
ƒ Primary concerns with element selection:
ƒ Preserving equilibrium
ƒ Adjacent cuts should not double-count end effects
ƒ Computing maximum effect
ƒ Free body of cut on both sides indicates that resultant
moments computed on each side are not always equal,
thus both sides must be checked for the maximum effect

23 June 2006 29
 Which Elements Contribute?

23 June 2006 30
 Design Algorithm
ƒ At a given cut location, a user can:
1. Design with no pre-constrained parameters
2. Constrain bar size and design spacing
3. Constrain spacing and design bar size
4. Check a given bar size and spacing
ƒ Design implemented in accordance with
ACI 318-02 Building Code

23 June 2006 31
 Interpretation of Results
ƒ What does “top” or “bottom” mean?
ƒ Depends on PLANAR AXES

23 June 2006 32
 Design Considerations
ƒ Orientation of Reinforcement

(Plan)

23 June 2006 33
 Design Considerations, Cont’d
ƒ Layer of reinforcement
ƒ By default, design interior layer to be
conservative

23 June 2006 34
 Case Studies
ƒ Effect of convergence on design
ƒ Validation with experimental data
ƒ Comparison with ACI slab design
methodologies
ƒ Special Case – Strong torsion field

23 June 2006 35
 Example of Convergence

23 June 2006 36
 Contour Plot Comparison
ƒ Convergence of Displacements

ƒ Convergence of Bending Stresses

23 June 2006 37
 Convergence of Displacements
ƒ Percent Change ~ 10 %

23 June 2006 38
 Convergence of Area of Steel
ƒ Percent Change ~ 19 %

23 June 2006 39
 Convergence Conclusions
ƒ Convergence must ALWAYS be
evaluated
ƒ Convergence of displacements DOES
NOT guarantee convergence of design
quantities such as stress, moment, area
of steel
ƒ Check convergence of the actual design
quantity (in this case, area of steel)

23 June 2006 40
 Validation with Test Data
ƒ Experiments carried out at University of
Illinois by Dr. William Gamble (1962)
ƒ If the finite element method doesn’t
produce designs in agreement with real
test specimens, it is not applicable for
structural design.

23 June 2006 41
 Picture of Test Structure
(Gamble, 1962)

23 June 2006 42
 Model of Test Structure
ƒ 2 Models
ƒ Edge beams neglected
ƒ Edge beams modeled and interior columns
modeled as 3D solids

23 June 2006 43
 Model Results vs. Test Data

FE Test
Test FE

23 June 2006 44
 Example 2 - Geometry
ƒ Compare Finite Element Solutions with
Typical Design methods
ƒ Elevated flat plate
ƒ Regular spacing
ƒ Uniformly loaded

23 June 2006 45
 Example 2 – FEM Models
ƒ Model 1 – Columns modeled as frame
members with master-slave connections
ƒ Model 2 – Columns modeled using 3D
solid elements, ¼ modeled (symmetry)

23 June 2006 46
 Example 2 – Interior Results

23 June 2006 47
 Example 2 – Exterior Results

23 June 2006 48
 Example 3 – Cantilever Slab
ƒ Cantilever portion of continuous slab at
corner region of building

23 June 2006 49
 Example 3 – Cantilever Slab
ƒ Results of Element Force Method

ƒ Cuts 1&2 from Wood and Armer:

ƒ Top: 3.85 in2 / Bottom: 3.42 in2

23 June 2006 50
 Example 3 – Principal Vectors
ƒ Vectors showing directions of principal
bending M1 and M2

23 June 2006 51
 Example 3 – Conclusions
ƒ Element Forces should ONLY be used
for cuts orthogonal with the principal
bending directions
ƒ Wood and Armer appropriately handles
cuts oriented arbitrarily w.r.t. principal
bending axes
ƒ Failure to check could lead to seriously
unconservative design!

23 June 2006 52
 Conclusions – Method Comparison
Method Wood & Armer Element Force
Advantage Can be applied Always
in strong torsion satisfies
field equilibrium
Disadvantage Equilibrium not Does not
guaranteed. represent
Must use fine strong torsion
mesh. field

23 June 2006 53
 Final Conclusions
ƒ Accurate modeling is fundamental.
ƒ Finite elements tend to over-approximate the
stiffness near columns and edges.
ƒ Element forces can ONLY be used when cuts
are orthogonal to directions of principal
bending.
ƒ Must understand behavior to determine
whether to use element forces or moment
resultants

23 June 2006 54
 Research Recommendations
ƒ Incorporation of torsional moment in the
element force methodology
ƒ Validation with highly irregular structures,
including geometric irregularities, openings,
and concentrated effects
ƒ Modeling of concrete nonlinearity (cracking,
reinforcement bond-slip/plasticity)
ƒ Design methodology for punching shear and
moment transfer shear
ƒ Validation of applicability under lateral loading

23 June 2006 55
 Recommended Program Enhancements
ƒ Graphical selection of strips in GT
MENU
ƒ Automation of strip selection
ƒ Incorporation of axial effects for shell
elements to allow for extension to
prestressed/post-tensioned systems

23 June 2006 56
 Questions?

23 June 2006 57