8.11.

BEAMS OF RELATIVELY GREAT WIDTH

Because of prevention of the lateral deformation that would normally accompany the fiber stresses, wide beams, such as thin
metallic strips, are more rigid than the formulas of Sec. 8.1 indicate. This stiffening effect is taken into account by using E/(1 −
v2 ) instead of E in the formulas for deflection and curvature if the beams are very wide R ( ef. 21). The anticlastic curvature that
exists on narrow rectangular beams is still present at the extreme edges of very wide beams, but the central region remains flat
in a transverse direction and transverse bending stresses equal to Poisson’s ratio times the longitudinal bending stresses are
present. For rectangular beams of moderate width, Ashwell (Ref. 10) shows that the stiffness depends not only upon the ratio
of depth to width of the beam but also upon the radius of curvature to which the beam is bent. For a rectangular beam of width
b and depth h bent to a radius of curvature ρ by a bending momentM, these variables are related by the expression 1/ρ = M/KEI,
where I = bh3 /12, and the following table of values for K is given for several values of Poisson’s ratio and for the quantityb2 /ρh.

Value of v b 2 /ρh
0.25 1.00 4.00 16.0 50.0 200 800

0.1000 1.0000 1.0003 1.0033 1.0073 1.0085 1.0093 1.0097

0.2000 1.0001 1.0013 1.0135 1.0300 1.0349 1.0383 1.0400

0.3000 1.0002 1.0029 1.0311 1.0710 1.0826 1.0907 1.0948

0.3333 1.0002 1.0036 1.0387 1.0895 1.1042 1.1146 1.1198

0.4000 1.0003 1.0052 1.0569 1.1357 1.1584 1.1744 1.1825

0.5000 1.0005 1.0081 1.0923 1.2351 1.2755 1.3045 1.3189

In very short wide beams, such as the concrete slabs used as highway-bridge flooring, the deflection and fiber-stress
distribution cannot be regarded as uniform across the width. In calculating the strength of such a slab, it is convenient to make
use of the concept of effective width, that is, the width of a spanwise strip which, acting as a beam with uniform extreme fiber
stress equal to the maximum stress in the slab, develops the same resisting moment as does the slab. The effective width
depends on the manner of support, manner of loading, and ratio of breadth to span b/a. It has been determined by Holl (Ref. 22)
for a number of assumed conditions, and the results are given in the following table for a slab that is freely supported at each of
two opposite edges (Fig. 8.17). Two kinds of loading are considered, viz. uniform load over the entire slab and load uniformly
distributed over a central circular area of radius c. The ratio of the effective width e to the span a is given for each of a number
of ratios of c to slab thickness h and each of a number of b/a values.

Figure 8.17

© McGraw-Hill Education. All rights reserved. Any use is subject to the Terms of Use, Privacy Notice and copyright information.
 Loading Values of e/a for

b/a = 1 b/a = 1.2 b/a = 1.6 b/a = 2 b/a = ∞

Uniform 0.960 1.145 1.519 1.900

Central, c = 0 0.568 0.599 0.633 0.648 0.656

Central, c = 0.125h 0.581 0.614 0.649 0.665 0.673

Central, c = 0.250h 0.599 0.634 0.672 0.689 0.697

Central, c = 0.500h 0.652 0.694 0.740 0.761 0.770

For the same case (a slab that is supported at opposite edges and loaded on a central circular area) Westergaard (Ref. 23)
gives e = 0.58a + 4c as an approximate expression for effective width. Morris (Ref. 24) gives e = 1/2 ec + d as an
approximate expression for the effective width for midspan off-center loading, where ec is the effective width for central loading
and d is the distance from the load to the nearer unsupported edge.

For a slab that is fixed at two opposite edges and uniformly loaded, the stresses and deflections may be calculated with
sufficient accuracy by the ordinary beam formulas, replacing E by E/(1 − v2). For a slab thus supported and loaded at the
center, the maximum stresses occur under the load, except for relatively large values of c, where they occur at the midpoints of
the fixed edges. The effective widths are approximately as given in the following table (values from the curves of Ref. 22). Here
b/a and c have the same meaning as in the preceding table, but it should be noted that values ofe/b are given instead of e/a.

Values of c Values of e/b for Max Stress at

b/a = 1 b/a = 1.2 b/a = 1.6 b/a = 2.0

0 0.51 0.52 0.53 0.53 Load

0.01a 0.52 0.54 0.55 0.55 Load

0.03a 0.58 0.59 0.60 0.60 Load

0.10a 0.69 0.73 0.81 0.86 Fixed edges

Holl (Ref. 22) discusses the deflections of a wide beam with two edges supported and the distribution of pressure under the
supported edges. The problem of determining the effective width in concrete slabs and tests made for that purpose are
discussed by Kelley (Ref. 25), who also gives a brief bibliography on the subject.

The case of a very wide cantilever slab under a concentrated load is discussed by MacGregor (Ref. 26), Holl (Ref. 27), Jaramillo
(Ref. 47), Wellauer and Seireg (Ref. 48), Little (Ref. 49), Small (Ref. 50), and others. For the conditions represented in Fig. 8.18, a
cantilever plate of infinite length with a concentrated load, the bending stress σ at any point can be expressed by
σ = K m(6P/t2), and the deflection y at any point by y = K y(Pa2/πD), where Km and Ky are dimensionless coefficients
that depend upon the location of the load and the point, and D is as defined in Table 11.2. For the load at x = c, z = 0, the stress
at any point on the fixed edge x = 0, z = z, and the deflection at any point on the free edge x = a, z = z, can be found by using the
following values of Km and Ky :

© McGraw-Hill Education. All rights reserved. Any use is subject to the Terms of Use, Privacy Notice and copyright information.
 Figure 8.18

z/ a 0 0.25 0.50 1.0 1.5 2 ∞

c/ a

1.0 Km 0.509 0.474 0.390 0.205 0.091 0.037 0

Ky 0.524 0.470 0.380 0.215 0.108 0.049 0

0.75 Km 0.428 0.387 0.284 0.140 0.059 0.023 0

Ky 0.318 0.294 0.243 0.138 0.069 0.031 0

0.50 Km 0.370 0.302 0.196 0.076 0.029 0.011 0

0.25 Km 0.332 0.172 0.073 0.022 0.007 0.003 0

These values are based on the analysis of Jaramillo (Ref. 47), who assumes an infinite length for the plate, and are in good
agreement, so far as comparable, with coefficients given by MacGregor (Ref. 26). They differ only slightly from results obtained
by Holl (Ref. 27) for a length/span ratio of 4 and by Little (Ref. 49) for a length/span ratio of 5 and are in good agreement with
available test data.

Wellauer and Seireg (Ref. 48) discuss the results of tests on beams of various proportions and explain and illustrate an
empirical method by which the Km values obtained by Jaramillo (Ref. 47) for the infinite plate under concentrated loading can
be used to determine approximately the stress in a finite plate under an arbitrary transverse loading.

The stresses corresponding to the tabulated values of Km are span-wise (x direction) stresses; the maximum crosswise (z
direction) stress occurs under the load when the load is applied at the midpoint of the free edge and is approximately equal to
the maximum spanwise stress for that loading.

Although the previous formulas are based on the assumption of infinite width of a slab, tests (Ref. 26) on a plate with a width of
8 1/2 in and span a of 1 1/4 in showed close agreement between calculated and measured deflections, and Holl’s analysis (Ref.
27), based on the assumption of a plate width four times the span, gives results that differ only slightly from MacGregor’s (Ref.
26). The formulas given should therefore be applicable to slabs of breadth as small as four times the span.

© McGraw-Hill Education. All rights reserved. Any use is subject to the Terms of Use, Privacy Notice and copyright information.