UNIFORM LOAD COEFFICIENTS FOR BEAMS IN REINFORCED CONCRETE TWO - WAY SLABS Bedlu Habte Department of Building Technology Addis Ababa University ABSTRACT While designing reinforced concrete two - way slab systems, triangular or trapezoidal loadings are encountered during transferring the slab loading to the supporting beams. When analysing continuous beams, uniform loading condition are, as much as possible, preferred Because oftheir simplicity. In this ‘paper, respective equivalent uniformly dsiributed load coefficients are derived based on the Ethiopion Standard Code of Practice (ESCP2) Ul} recommendation. Results are tabulated for all the possible cases of slab support conditions. A rumerical example hasbeen presented to ilustrate the application of the coefficients in actual design problems thas also been tried 10 verify some of the results by ‘comparing the recommended side ratio of the slab loadings with the yield line analysis of slabs, the derived coefficients with elastic analysis of single span beams, the total pane! loading with the total [oad the four supporting beams carry. Under these three ‘aspects investigation has been made on the ‘recommendation of the new Building Code Siandards [11] which isto be launched in the near future. INTRODUCTION In reinforced conerete buildings, the slab panels cast intgrally wit the beams behave in a two - way action 1s long as the side ratio of a panel ( longer side / shore side isnot greater than two. In such eases the panel is sad to be supported on all four sides. The proportion ofthe slab loading to be shared by each of the supporting beam depends on the edge fsity, the side ratio ofthe panel and the amount and nature of slab reinforcements: isotropic vs. orthotopic and top bottom reinforcement (S410) Furthermore for the same reasons, the distribution of the portion ofthe slab loading tobe caried by a particular boundary beara say be triangular o wapezoidal Figure 1 Load dispersion from slab to the four supporting beams Coefficients have been developed in this paper to conver the resulting triangular or trapezoidal loadings {nto equivalent uniform loadings. With the help of a short computer program, values forall the possible support conditions as wel as for different side ratios Ihave been derived. By using these coefficients, the design engineer can efficiently and more quickly transfer the slab loading to the supporting beams. Once the equivalent uniform loading from the slab is ‘obtained, the designer needs only to add to this value the beans own weight and then analyse the beam using his ovm convenient method. ‘The coefficients shll be used for moment computation of the beams as recommended in the ESCP2. [1] ‘These coefficients are applicable ifthe slab pane! is ‘bounded by beams on all four sides and the slab loading is uniformly distributed over the panel. DERIVATION OF EQUATIONS. ‘AND COEFFICIENTS In the Ethiopian Staidard cod of Practice (ESCP2) [1], itis stated that * Calculation of moments and shears due to trapezoidal and triangular loads may be simplified by using equivalent uniformly distributed Joadsofntensity equal tothe appropriate coefficient k given below times the maximum ordinate of the {tapezium or triangle. ‘The coefficient for moment calculation is given by, k= 1-408 Journal of EAEA, Vol. 13, 1996Bedlu Habte Figure 2. Trapezsidal and triangular loadings Figure 3 Slab pane! simply supported on all four sides hipaa 1, =the Jonge side, L, = the shorter side, vr =L,/L,. @ = the uniform slab load, i= al, m= al, wom wir loads on the four boundary ‘beams supporting the slab. side eur @=(L2)IL,=0.5r -4@B = 1-73 therefore, HOS Lo) 05(1-PB)L,0 =05(-P1) Journal of EAEA, Vol. 13, 1996 Side 2: this is identical o side 1, and therefore Ra05tl-) Side 3: A hence, war K(0.5L,a)= (203 0.5L, (1/3 )byeo =I Side 4 : this is identical to side 3, and therefore ka18 1 Figure 4 Slab panel continuous along one of the longer sides only side 1 (QL pst, a3 = 1-165, /Sy w= 3L,015)= (75-167)L,e/125 &, = (75> 16ryn125 Side 2 1215 a= a= @= (2L/SYIL = (215) b= 1-48 = 116275 therefore, ve, = K2L 8) = 205 -167\L01875 ky = 205 - 16375.Uniform Load Coefficients for Beams in Two-Way Slabs 3 Side_2: a= 2S a= 3/S.a=05 ke1den=2 2/5 Lye = (2/3)(2/5)L,= (A/15)L co AS ‘Side _4.: this is identical to side 3, and therefore Figure 5 Slab panel continuous along one of the shorter sides only L/L, < 128 (b)LJL,>= 1.25. For L/b,<125, Side_1 I= 31/5, m= 2/5 1LJSYIL, = 3/5 4,5 2L/SVL, = 2S a=i2n k= 1 428-25 therefore, vw, =hQL/5)0= NISL 0 k=45) ‘Side 2: this s identical to side 1, and therefore b= 157) Side3: a= a= @= (L/S, = USr), b= 1 4@R= 1-405) Weise) hence, w= im 0) = (SP 16YISANUS DL 0 = (1307 -32)13757L,0 = (1507 - 32175?) QLYSVL, = 2150). = 42/3 = 1 - 4Q2/SNY3 > 1617Sr*) HL) = (15? - OVISPYGMSN)L@ = CSP - 16(1257\L,0 k= 15 - 16)(1257) If LYL,>= 1.25, then a, (SLL, =05r 2 = Sr ka) da =1-257188 therefore, ‘Side_2 this is identical to side 1, and therefore B= 8257156 Side 3: a= a,=a=12, k= 1-4@B=23 eas a= 12, k= 1-4@8=28 hones, %,71GIL,0) = QD)G/L,0= (Lo hain Foe the other eases, similar procedure is employed to trive al the following results, Journal of EAEA, Vol. 13, 19964 Bedlu Habte 7 Figure 6 Slab panel coninaous along the two adjacent sides only =2G-FyI5 B-AYS Figure 7 Slab pane! continuous along the two longer sides only. 27 AP yS4, = @7- 4754 9 Figure 8 Slab panel continuous along the two shorter sides only WLLK1S WL/L >= 1S HLL, 15, then b= 20r) Journal of EAEA, Vol. 13, 1996 y= U9") = OTP - 4X54?) k= QT? ASAP) WL flag >= 1.5 hen b= 4-398 bad 2 Figure 9 Slab panel simply supported along one of the shorter sides only = 08-257216 = (08 - 2579216 2 sasssh . 4 3 yo 1 Figure 10 Slab panel simply supported along one of the longer sides only (L/L <12 (WL /L,>=12, If L/L, <12, then 1087 - 25/216") 108” - 25216”) We L/L,>= 1.2, then &, =2(25 - 12P25Uniform Load Coefficients for Beams in Two-Way Slabs 5 4K =3(25 - 127125 b= has Figure 11. Slab panel continuous slong all four sides k,=05 (1-2) k=05(-r2) B18 KB Finally with the help of « short computer program, the various coeficients have been computed and tabulated in Table 1. ‘Table 1: Equivalent Uniform Load Coefficients for ‘Moment for Beams Supporting Uniformly Loaded Two = way Slabs. (For moment based on k= 1 - 42/3) wrkol, Inwhich, 1, equivalent uniform load on beam slong side (Nim) , ,= equivalent uniform load coeflicient (Table 1), @ = wiformly distributed sab loading (kpa), L,= short side of the panel (m), 1 = the side numberof the slab pane! (4). Journal of EAEA, Vol. 13, 1996Bedlu Habte ‘Table 2: Equivalent Uniform Loed Coefficients fo Shear for Besms Supporting Uniformly Loaded Two - way Slabs 0.3333 0.3333 03333 0.3333 0.3333 0.3333 0.3333 03333 03333 0.3333 0.3333 Lik, YO 11 12 43 4 1S 16 718 1920 013333 0.3623 0.3843 0.4014 0.4150 0.4259 0.4349 0.4423 0.4486 0.4538 0.4583 0.3333 0,3623 0.3843 0.4014 0.4150 0.4259 0.4349 0.4423 0.4486 0.4538 0.4583 0.3333 0.3333 03333 0.3333 0.3333 0.3333 0.3333 03333 03333 03333 0.3333 0.4720 0.4942 0.5111 0.5243 0.5347 0.5431 0.5500 0.5557 0.5605 0.5645 0.5680 0.3147 03295 0.3407 0.3495 0.3565 0.3621 0.3667 03705 0.3737 0.3764 0.3787 0.2667 0.2667 0.2667 0.2667 0.2667 0.2667 0.2667 0.2667 0.2667 0.2667 0.2667 0.2667 0.2667 0.2667 0.2667 0.2667 0.2667 0.2667 0.2667 0.2667 0.2667 0.2667 (0.2667 0.2933 0.3200 0,3459 0.3671 0.3843 0.3983 0.4099 0.4196 0.4279 0.4349 (0.2667 0.2933 0.3200 0.3459 0.3671 0.3843 0.3983 0.4099 0.4196 0.4279 0.4349 03147 03264 0.3325 0.3333 0.3333 0.3333 0.3333 0.3333 0.3333 0.3333 0.3333 0.4720 0.4896 0.4988 0.5000 0.5000 0.5000 0.5000 0.5000 0.5000 0.5000 0.5000 04000 0.4347 0.4611 0.4817 0.4980 0.5111 0.5219 0.5308 0.5383 0.5446 0.5500 0.2667 0.2898 0:3074 0.3211 0.3320 0 3407 0.3479 0.3539 0.3588 0.3631 0.3667 (0.4000 0.4000 0.4000 0.4000 0.4000 0.4000 0.4000 0.4000 0.4000 0.4000 0.4000 0.2667 0.2667 0.2667 .0.2667 0.2667 0.2667 0.2667 0.2667 0.2667 0.2667 0.2667 (0.4259 0.4388 0.4486 0.4562 0.4622 0.4671 0.4711 0.4744 0.4771 0.4795 0.4815, (0.4259 0.4388 0.4486 0.4562 0.4622 0.4671 0.4711 0.4744 0.4771 0.4795 0.4815, 0.2222 0.2222 0.2222 0.2222 0.2222 0.2222 0.2222 0.2222 0.2222 0.2222 0.2222 0.2222 0.2222 0.2222 0.2222 0.2222 0.2222 0.2222 0.2222 0.2222 0.2222 0.2222 EEE EE /e [a 0.2222 0.2444 0.2667 0.2889 0.3111 0.3333 0.3535 0.3702 0.3843 0.3961 0.4063 0.2222 0.2444 0.2667 0.2889 0.3111 0.3333 0.3535 0.3702 0.3843 0.3961 0.4063 (0.4259 0.4514 0.4720 04873 0.4967 0.5000 0.5000 0.5000 0.5000 0.5000 0.5000 (0.4259 0.4514 0.4720 0.4873 0.4967 0.5000 0.5000 0.5000 0.5000 0.5000 0.5000 (0.3843 0.4043 0.4196 0.4315 0.4409 0.4486 0.4548 0.4600 0.4643 0.4679 0.4711 (0.3843 0.4043 0.4196 0.4315 0.4409 0.4486 0.4548 0.4600 0.4643 0.4679 0.4711 0.3333 0.3333 0.3333 0.3333 0.3333 0.3333 0.3333 0.3333 0.3333 0.3333 03333, 0.2222 0.2222 0.2222 0.2222 0.2222 0.2222 0.2222 0.2222 02222 0.2222 0.2222 Ol 03333 0,3667 0.4000 0.4296 0.4531 0.4720 0.4875 0.5003 0.5111 0.5202 0.5280 0.2222 0.2444 0.2667 0.2864 0.3020 0.3147 0,3250 0.3336 0.3407 0.3468 0.3520 (0.3843 0.3959 0.4000 0.4000 0.4000 0.4000 0.4000 0.4000 0.4000 0.4000 0.4000 (0.3843 0.3959 0.4000 0.4000 0.4000 0.4000 0.4000 0.4000 0.4090 0.4000 0.4000 (For shear, based on withel, In which, 0.3333 0.3623 0.3843 04014 0.4150 0.4259 0.4349 0.4423 0.4486 0.4538 0.4583, 0.3333 0.3623 0.3843 04014 0.4150 0.4259 0.4349 0.4423 0.4486 0.4538 0.4583, 0.3333 0.3333 0.3333 0.3333 0.3333 0.3333 0.3333 0.3333 03333 0.3333 0.3333, 0.3333 0.3333 0.3333 0.3333 0.3333 0.3333 0.3333 0.3333 0.3333 03333 03333, k=1-a) 19, equivalent uniform Joad on begm slong side 7 (kN), {k= equivalent uniform load coefficient ( Table 2), ‘© = uniformly distributed sl loading (kp), Journal of EAEA, Vol. 13,1996Uniform Load Coefficients for Beams in Two-Way Slabs 1 L,= short side of the panel (m), ‘= the side number ofthe sab panel (1 104 ) M12 13 4 15 16 025 027 029 031 032 0.33 034 035 036 037 038 025 027 029 031 032 033 034 035 036 037 038 025 025025 025 0.25 0.25 0.25 025 025 025 025 025 025 025 025 0.25 0.25 025 025 025 025 025 O17 018/020 022 0.23 0.25 0.27 0.28 0.29 030 031 0.17 O18 020 022 023 025 027 028 029 030 031 033 035 036 037 037 038 038 038 038 038 038 033 035 036 037 037 038 038 038 038 038 038 033 035 036 037 038 039 040 0400.41 041 0.42 ao 033 035 036 037 038 039 040 0.40°0.41 0.41 0.42 017 017 017 0.17 0.17 0.17 0.17 0.17 0.17 0.17 0.17 0.25 025.025 025 025 0.25 025 025 025 0.25 0.25 017 0.18 020 022 0.23 0.24 025 026 0.27 0.27 0.28 025.027 030 032 034 0.36 038 039 0.40 0.41 0.42 0.29 030 030 030 030 0.30 030 030 030 030 030 0.29 030 030 030 030 0.30 0.30 0.30 030 030/030 0.25 027 029 031 032 033 034 035 036 037,038 0.25 027 029 031 032 033 034 035,036 037 038 025025 025 025 025 0.25 025 025.025 025 025 0.25 025 025 025 0.25 0.25 025 025 0.25 025,025 Poe [rors [peer | pene [rere [roe [pree [pree [pore Jotirnal of EAEA, Vol. 13, 19968 Bedlu Habie Figure 12 A slab system with three by three panels Given: For the slab system shown in Fig 21 above, Live load = 2.5 pa, Slab thickness = 15 em, ‘Assume beam own wt. = 2.5 KN/m, ‘Required ; Total equivalent uniform loading on beam slong axis B. Solution ; ‘Total uniform slab loading = 2.$ + 0.15(25) = 625 kpa Panel: ‘This panel is case 4, for which L/L, = 1, the corresponding uniform load coefficients (Table 2) are, kn02 =03 2 3 and the uniform beam loadings ae, 4, = 0.206.25)3)=3.7 KNim ,=0.3(6.25)3) =5.63 KNim = 0.2(6.25)3) =3.75 KNim w= 0.3(6.25)(3)™ 5.63 KNim Journal of EAEA, Vol, 13, 1996 Panel IL: This panel is case 8, for which L/ J, = 1.8, the corresponding uniform load coeficients (Table 2.) are; 027 h=04 B=03 K-03 ‘and the uniform beam loadings are, 1, =0.27(625)3)= 5.06 KNin 2 0.46.25)) =7.50 KNim = 0.362593) = 563 KNim = 03(625)G) = 5.63 KNim Panel II: ‘This panel is case 4, for which L/ [, = 1, the ‘corresponding uniform load coefficients (Table 2) are; =027 kos =02 k=03 ‘and the uniform beam loadings are, 7, = 0.27(6.25)G3) = 5.06 KNim 50 KNim 75 KNim 63 KNim ‘This panel is case 7, for which L/L, = 1, the ‘corresponding uniform load coefficients (Table 2) are; k,=033 4-033 k=O17 R025 ‘and the uniform beam loadings are, 1%, =0336.25)3) =6.19 KNim 1, = 0336 25)G) = 6.19 KNin 570.1706 25)) =3.19 KN 1», 025(6.25)3) = 4.69 KNinUniform Load Coefficients for Beams in Two-Way Slabs 8 Panel Vi: “This panel is case 9, for which L/L; = 1.8, the ‘aresponding uniform iad coefficients (Table 2) are, ,=0.36 Fy.~ 2.S(owm wt) +7.S0(from panel I) +6.75(6rom panel VI) = 16.75 NA = 0.36 t 4=025 Fi a k=025 andthe tniform beam loadings are, 1, =0:36(625)3)=675 KNim ¥, = 036(6 25)(3)= 675 KNim 570256290) ¥= 0.25625) Panel VL: This panel is case 7, for which L/ J, = 15, the ccoresponding, uniform load coefficients (Table 2) are, and the uniform beam loadings are, 7, = 0.396.25)(3)=7.31 KNim = 0:39(6.25)()=7.31 KNim 5 0.176.25)) = 3:19 KN/m 7, =0.25(6.25)(3)=4.69 KNim. ‘Accordingly, the lading on beam along axis B is given below and shown in Fig 13. Fia= 25(own wt) +5.63(rom pane! 1) “+6.19(Grom panel IV) = 1432 KNim F,,= 2.5(own wt) +7.50(from pane! I} +6.75(Grom panel V). = 16.75 KNin hm om te Figue 13 Equivalent uniform loading on beam slong axisB ‘THE NEW BUILDING CODE STANDARD ‘A new Building Code Standard for the structural use of concrete has been prepared and is to be launched ‘within & short time. On the topic of load dispersion ‘om slab to beams, the new code provides a table with coefficients similar to the ones derived in this paper. ‘These coefficients are shown in Table 2. for comparison. According to this new code ‘ecormmendation, (1) The design load on beams supporting solid slabs spanning in two directions at right angles supporting uniformly distributed loads may be assessed from the following equation: V,= Bal Bat Ga) by ¥,> Bol Bat Gad bic Journal of EAEA, Vol. 13, 199610 Bedlu Habte ‘Teble2: Spear Fore Coefficients for Uniformly Loaded Rectangular Panels Supported on Four Sides With Provision for Torsion at Comers ‘Type of panel Edge Ba for Values of L/L, mie 1 Continuous ]033 036 039 041 043 045 0.48 050 033 Continuows | 0.36 039 042 044 045 047, 0,50. 052 036 | en Continuous | 0.40 043 045 047 048 049 0.52 054 - . Discontinuous | 0.26 030 033 036 038 040 044 0.47 2 - Discontinuous | 0.30 032 034 035 036 037 039 O41 0.30 . L wal, a1, nauiaieietenin Sev eikieediabe seer = (2) Table 2 gives values of load transfer coefficients. ‘The assumed distribution ofthe load on a supporting beam is shown in Fig. 14 Bas@i on this new building code standard recommendation, the losding on Axis B for the ‘example given earlier has been recalculated and the eault is shown in Fig. 15. Journal of EAEA, Vol. 13, 1996 RESULT VERIFICATION ‘The following three points need to be considered in ‘order the results obtained in this paper to be valid. Namely 1. To what extent isthe suggested proportion (ie. 1:1 and 2:3 of slab loading shared by the supporting beams correct ?Uniform Load Coefficients for Beams in Two-Way Slabs " 2. Are the derived equivalent uniform loadings representing the actual situation ? ( Or Are the maximum, mid span momests end/ or ‘support moments produced by the uniform Joadings on the beam similar to the ones produced by the actual ‘triangular or ‘trapezoidal loadings 7) 3. Is the total slab loading carried by the four ‘supporting beams ofa panel correct ? For the first point, the ESCP2 recommendation is based on the yield line pattern as indicated. in Reinforced Concrete slab design procedures [3,6,7,9] Figure 16 Load dispersion (a) as obtained by the yield line analysis for isotropic slab, (b) as recommended by the ESCP2 Using the yield line analysis fora rectangular, isotropic slab panel, simply supported along the two adjacent ‘edges and fixed along the other two, Dyarstnam [3] ‘has come up with the result shown in Fig 16(a), The ‘suggested slope given in the code, as shown in Fig.16(b), is very close to the yield line result. The reason for te small discrepancy may arise from the fact that the negative moments in slabs being actually hhigher than the field moments and therefore support reinforcements are normally higher (non-isotropic) Hence, as recommended, i two adjacent sides have the same fixity, a ratio of 1:1 is to be used, while for different fixity ( one side fixed and the adjacent side simply supported ), a 2:3 ratio shall be used, ‘To chock whether the equivalent uniform loading gives the same moments at critical locations, the following three panel cases are investigated, ‘Case 1 Simply supported all round. Sides 1&2 piace malt Figure 17 Simply supported beam. loaded with ‘trapezoidal loading, ‘Using the actual trapezoidal loading (24): Me =05 - PBK aL 8) KOLB) Using equivalent uniform loading (Teble 1), Mua = k(OL 1,78) Using the new code ( EBCS2 ) recommendation Pan, Mua= (ISAK OL L,78) = k,(obL;78) ‘k, and k,, are equal for all values of r indicating that the cuivaent uiforn loading does give the same moment at mid span as the actual trapezoidal loading. For this cas, the EBCS2 cnelicieat,, varies from ky by about om. Sides 3 44, Using the actual triangular onding [24], M x= (UBL 8), = Kewl, 18) ee & Simply supported beam loaded with triangular loading Using equivalent uniform loading (Table |), Figure 18, Mia = kf 18) Using the new code ( EBCS2 ) recommendation Bat, Journal of EAEA, Vol. 13, 1996n Bedlu Habte Mn = OSPNOKOLL®) (al 1,78) ere again the comparison shows thatthe equivalent uniform load and the actual triangular loading have equal mid span moments. The moment coefficient for ‘the EBCS? loading also has the same variation ‘Case 9 Fixed support all round Sides 1&2 FFigwe 19. Fixed beam loaded with trapezoidal loading Using the actual trapezoidal loading [2,4] , Meu, = (05 -0.257 + P/A6Y( cL L j/12) = k(alL3N2) Mie = (0.5 -0.1257 Kea 24) = k(ol,LN4) Using equivalent uniform loading (Table 1), Myc k(@LL3N12) Me = KWL 2AY Using the new code ( FBCS2 ) recommendation Paty, Me =(UIBL28X@L L302) Kal 1,2) Moe = (63Pef64) (ol L,124) halal L, 724) ‘ky ishigher than &, but itis lower than k, forall values cfr. This indicates thatthe equivalent uniform loading overestimates the support moments while it ‘underestimates the span moments. The maximum variation is about 6,7 % for support moments and 11.1 ‘%foe span mements, which oceurs when r equals I, In the EBCS2 loading condition, k,. varies from F by about 2:59; while, varies from K, by 12.5% to 1 6% for requals | to 2, respectively. Sides 3&4, | a Fer ” Figure 20 Fixed beam loaded with triangular loading Journal of EAEA, Vol. 13, 1996 Using the sctual triangular loading [2,4], M= SN6XL,112) =k fal,N2) Mua = GX L,724) +h(ai,24) Using equivalent uniform loading (Table 1), Mua, = byob 112) Myx = bs(cal,'724) ‘Using the new code ( EBCS2 ) recommendation pany, Mau. (IB /128)(0,L 212) = hy wed iN) Mu. = C3, Jo OL, L,728) = kl te L724) ere again the comparison shovs thatthe equivalent “uniform load is higher than the actual triangular loading for support moments by 6.7 % while it is lower for the span moments by 11.1%. In the EBCS2 loading cenaition, , isles than &, by about 2.59%; while kis Jess thank, by 12.5% Case 4 Fixed along the two adjacent sides Side 1, pease] een Figure 21 Propped canilever beam loaded. with trapezoidal loading Using the actual trapezoidal loading (2 Max=(04 -16°Q20 -81r+7 8) SOO\ LL 8) =k(@LL;8) Using equivalent uniform loading (Table 1), Me™ bb 8) Using the new code ( EBCS2 ) recommendation Raw, Maa ™ (TPL LL, 78) =K(@L 18)Uniform Load Coefficients for Beams in Two-Way Slabs 13 ‘Negative moments are slightly overestimated by the ‘equivalent uniform loading since k is greater than i ‘forall values of r, and the maximum variation is 9.6% (ie. when r = 1). The coefficient K,, for the EBCS2 loading has 2 2.4% to 4% variation from Side 2, Using the actual trapezoidal loading [24], Mu(06- 247,220 -81r-+7.8PY1SOOOX 1,78) = k(LL, 78) a - » cee Figure 22 Propped cantilever beam loaded with ‘trapezoidal loading Using equivalent uniform loading abe 1), Man =K(0L,,18) Using the new code ( EBCS2 ) recommendation Raat, Mun = (IITBSI28\OL,R) =k, (OL 1,78) Negative moments are slightly overestimated by the equivalent uniform loading sine k, is greater than & forall values ofr, and the maximum variation is again 9.6 % (ie. when r= 1). The coefficient K, for the EBCS2 loading has e 0.1% to 4.6% variation from k, Side 3, poco Figure 23° Propped cantilever beam loaded with ‘triangular loading Using the actual triangular loading [2,4] My. = (2282/9375)(@il,"8) =k (a8) ‘Using equivalent uniform loading (Table 1), Maa = (a8) Using the new cade ( EBCS2 ) recommendation Baan, Mg = (U7AJ128X 0b 1,8) (LL, 78) Here again the comparison shows that the equivalent ‘uniform load coefficient , is higher than k for the actual triangular loading, overestimating the support ‘moment The coefficient K, forthe EBCS2 loading has 142.4% variation from k, Side 4, Figure 24 Propped cantilever beam loaded with ‘wiangulr loading Using the actual triangular loading [24], Mya = (1141312506, 78) ka, 78) Using equivalent uniform loading (Table 1), Mou = ROL?) Using the new code ( EBCS2 ) recommendation Paty, Mu. = (ITB 128X 01,178) =h (LL) ‘Comparison, in this case, shows that the equivalent ‘uniform load coefficient k, is higher than the k, value for the actual triangular loading, again overestimating the support moment. The coefficient K, for the EBCS2 loading has a 0.1% variation from k, Other panel support cases can be similarly investigated One may conclude that the equivalent uniform loading coefficients defived in this paper overestimate support moments while they underestimates the span moments. Except for very few cases, the new code recommended coefficients produce _moments Which are closer to the ones produced by the ‘tiangular or trapezoidal loadings. Journal of EAEA, Vol. 13, 1996i“ Bedlu Habte ‘To check whether the total loading, carried by the four ‘supporting beams is equal to the total load within a ppavel, the two values are compared as follows. Total losd within a panel = 0, ,, ‘According to ESCP2, the four supporting beams carry the following total load (Table 2), Wok wljlth ol, ly+kol? + hob? a (htt sth Nally ahlwbd, ‘According to EBCS2, the four supporting beams carry the following total load, W=f0L,L,+f,ol,L,+ Bol? + Bol? =(Bt Br (Bt BOLL, = Adal, For very few possible support conditions of slabs and for some values of +, ky Varies between 0.94 and 1.13, However, ky for most ofthe eases equal unity. Ba, on the other hand is varying between 0.99 and 1p125, CONCLUSION The time and effort required in wansferring the slab loading to the four supporting beams can be >onsiderably reduced by using the equivalent uniform load coefficients derived in this paper. These Doefficients are based on the Ethiopian standard code >f practice ESCP?2 recommendation which gives, in the ‘armof a simple equation, the equivalent uniform load. >oeflicients for triangular and trapezoidal loadings on veams, Values are given for all the possible slab ‘upport conditions as well a for different sid ratios of ‘lab panels tying to verify the results of this study, the following vutcomes have been realised: = The ESCP2 recommended proportion of slab loading (ie. 1:1 and 2:3 ratios) follows the patter forthe yield line analysis of isotropic slabs, = For continuous beams, the negative (support) ‘moments by the equivalent uniform, Joad are ‘overestimated by up to 11.1% depending oo ‘the slab support condition and panel side ratios, while the positive ( span ) moments, ‘re underestimated by up to 9%, The EBCS2 Journal of EAEA, Vol. 13, 1996 ‘recommended coefficients result in moments ‘which vary from the actual triangular or trapezoidal loading by less than 5% for several ofthe eases and up to 12.5% in some cases. = "The total load carried by the four supporting beams of a panel as obisined using, the ‘equivalent uniform load coefficients (Table 2) ‘varies ftom the actual total panel load between 6% to 13% for very few cases only. ‘both the ESCP2 & EBCS2 coefficients provide a reasonablly corect loading + The EBCS? loading, though being uniform, ‘has to be applied on the middle three quarters fof the span Therefore, the use of other appropriate equations to determine the fised- ‘env-tctions forthe beams so loaded would be essential for the further analysis. Some of these. outcomes suggest that further investigation is sil required in order to determine the uniform load coefficients wih a better accuracy. For the ESCP2 recommended and currently employed design procedure, however, the coefficients derived in this study are satisfactory and sulicent ACKNOWLEDGEMENT am grateful to Prof. Negussie Tebege and Ato Bekele ‘Mekonen for the encouragement, advise and support they provided me and especially for introducing me to the revised Ethiopian Building Code. Standard (EBCS2) Thanks isalso due to Dr. Asnake Adamu for his encouragement and advice which helped in making this work become success REFERENCES [1]. Ethiopian Standards Code of Practice, ESCP2: Partl, Ministry of Construction, Addis Ababa, 1983,pp. 97 [2] Gunter Baum, Basic Values on Single Span Beams, Springer-Verlag, Berlin’ Heidelberg, 1965. []—-P. Dayaratnam, Design of Reinforced ‘Conerete Structures, Oxford and IBH Publ. Co. Lid., New Delhi 3" Bd, 1988.4. 6 6 m Uniform Load Coefficients for Beams in Two-Way Slabs 15 William Griffel, Handbook of Formulas for ‘Stress and Strain, Federick Ungar Publ. Co, New York, 1966. William Grid, Plate Formulas, ederick Ungar Publ. Co., New York, 1968, F. K. Kong, R. H. Evans, Reinforced, and Prestressed Concrete, ELBS, Van Nostrad, Reinhold, Berkshire, UK, 3" Ed, 1987. E.G. Nawy, Reinforced Concrete: A Fundamental Approach, Prentice Hall, New Jersey, 2“ Ed, 1990. 8 eo 0) ny SS. Timoshenko, S. Woinowsky - Krieger, Theory of Plates and Shells, Me Graw Fill Book Co, New York, 1959. G. Winter, L.C. Urquahart, C. E. O'Rourke, ‘AH Nilsoo, Design of Concrete Structures, ‘Me Graw Hill Book Co,, New York, 9* Ed, 1979, Jones, LL. and Wood, RH, Yield Line ‘Analysis of Slabs, Thames. and. Hudson, (Chatto and Windus, London, 1967. Ethiopian Building Code Standards for ‘Structural Use of Concrete, EBCS2, Ministry cof Works and Urban Development, Addis ‘Ababa, 1995, Journal of EAEA, Vol. 13, 1996