Chapter-3 Lecture Note

Department of Civil Engineering Structural Design
Chapter 3: Simple Strip methods for Reinforced concrete slab design

3.1.Introduction
Rectangular one way or two way slabs under normal uniform loading can be analyzed elastically
and then designed using design aid such as moment coefficient method for two way slab and
design table/chart for one way slab. In a situation where irregular shapes, varied support
conditions, presence of openings, varied loading (e.g. concentrated load, non-uniform load) and
more complex conditions are encountered, the established theory of elasticity or plasticity cannot
be employed directly. For these circumstances, the two principal plastic analysis approaches are:
a) Yield line method which is particularly suitable for slabs with complex shape or
concentrated loading and
b) Strip method which is valuable where the slab contains openings.
The plastic analysis is an ultimate load method of analysis of slab and a collapse load of a slab
lies between two limits; an upper bound and a lower bound of the true collapse load.
Lower bound theorem states that for a given external load, it is possible to find a distribution of
moments that satisfies equilibrium requirements with the moment not exceeding the yield
moment at any location and if the boundary conditions are satisfied, then the given load is a
lower bound of the true carrying capacity. For examples: Moment coefficient method and Strip
method, Simplified direct method.
Upper bound theorem states that for a small increment of displacement, the internal work done
by the slab, assuming that the moment at every plastic hinge is equal to the yield moment and
that boundary conditions are satisfied, is equal to the external work done by the given load for
that same small increment of displacement, then that load is an upper bound of the true carrying
capacity. For examples: Yield line method.
The yield line theory which based on the upper bound theorem is an ultimate load method of
analysis of slab i.e. the bending moment at the verge of collapse is used as the basis for design.
At collapse loads, an under reinforced slab begins to crack with the reinforcement yielding at
points of high moment. A yield line is a line in the plane of the slab across which reinforcing
bars have yielded and about which excessive deformation (plastic rotation) under constant limit
Chapter-3 Lecture Note Page 1

moment (ultimate moment) continues to occur leading to failure. The crack lines or the yield
lines propagate with the increase in deflection until the slab is broken into a number of segments.
In the yield line method, a yield line pattern is assumed so that a collapse mechanism is
produced. Then, for that failure mechanism, the geometric parameters that define the exact
location and orientation of the yield lines are determined and also the relation between applied
loads and resisting moments is solved. It is necessary to investigate all possible mechanisms for
any slab to confirm that the correct solution giving the lowest failure load has been found.
Disadvantages of upper bound theorem (yield line method)
 In upper bound analysis, if an error occurs (e.g. invalid yield line pattern); it will be on
the unsafe side. The actual carrying capacity will be less than or at best equal to the
capacity predicted, which is certainly a cause for concern in design.
 When applying this method, it is necessary to assume that the distribution of
reinforcement is known over the whole slab (e.g. isotropic slab). It follows that the yield
line method is tool for review of the capacity of a given slab and can be used for design
only in alternative sense for calculating the capacity of the trial designs with varying
reinforcement until a satisfactory arrangement is found.
These circumstances motivated Hillerborg (Swedish 1956) to develop what is known as the strip
method for slab design. Strip method of slab analysis and design is a lower bound technique in
which a slab is divided into strips based on a reasonably assumed load path and load distribution.
Equilibrium is then satisfied throughout the slab.
In contrast to yield line analysis, the strip method is a lower bound approach based on the
satisfaction of equilibrium requirements everywhere in the slab. By the strip method, a moment
field is first determined that fulfills equilibrium requirements after which the reinforcement of
the slab at each point is designed for this moment field.
If a distribution of moment can be found that satisfies both equilibrium and boundary conditions
for a given external loading, and if the yield moment capacity of the slab is nowhere exceeded
then the given external loading will represent a lower bound of the true carrying capacity.

Advantages of strip method
This method has the following advantages over the other methods:
 Strip method is applicable for various geometric shapes of slabs such as rectangular,
triangular, circular and L-shaped slabs.
 The method is applicable for slabs having unsupported edges, skewed supports and
column supports.
 Different types of loads such as uniformly distributed loads, patch loads, linearly varying
loads, line loads and concentrated loads may be considered.
 Due to lower bound approach, this method gives results on the safe side which is
certainly preferable in practice and compared with yield line method, strip method is
design tool.
 Use of different amounts of reinforcement in various strips usually makes the design
economical.
 The designer has full control over the distribution of loads and placement of
reinforcement.
 The calculations for slab deflections are easy and straightforward. Cracking may also be
minimized if care is taken to select the distribution of loads and moments.
 Slab with larger openings can also be designed by this method. Strong bands of steel (i.e.
hidden beam/submerged beam-beam having equal depth with the slab) may be used
around openings or over columns improving deflections, cracking and economy.
3.1.1. Basic assumptions of strip method
The following two assumptions are made in this method to simplify the solution:
a) The torsional moment capacity is neglected which gives extra safety in design.
b) The load distribution is reasonably assumed in the start to simplify the analysis. The
choice of load transfer is to be selected to get safe and economical design and to avoid
excessive cracking and deflections.

3.1.2. Basic principles of strip method
To illustrate the principle of the strip method, consider a square slab in reinforced concrete as
shown in Figure 4.1. The slab is simply supported along all four edges; loaded by a uniformly
distributed load 𝑞 = 12𝑘𝑁⁄𝑚2 ; reinforced in two directions by means of an orthogonal
reinforcement mesh.
(a) Plan
(b) Result of the linear elastic analysis

(c) Distribution of the bending moments for a beam like structure
Figure 3.1: Application of the strip method to a simply supported rectangular slab loaded by a
uniformly distributed load
With an equally large moment resistance capacity in both directions such that no plastic hinges
appear, the moment distribution is the one obtained by linear elastic analysis. A finite element
calculation leads to a sagging moment in the span equal to 18.4𝑘𝑁𝑚/𝑚 in both directions; if the
moment resistance capacity of the slab were larger than 18.4𝑘𝑁𝑚/𝑚 in both directions, the slab
would not show any yielding for the imposed load.
It is now assumed that the slab is reinforced only in one direction, for example in the
𝑥 −direction. The bending moment for a beam (with unit width) in the 𝑥 −direction, loaded
by 12𝑘𝑁𝑚/𝑚, equals 54𝑘𝑁𝑚. By putting a series of beams in the 𝑥 −direction, one next to the
other, each beam with a bearing capacity of 54𝑘𝑁𝑚, one obtains a safe structure to transfer the
imposed load, even without having reinforcement in the 𝑦 −direction. The slab could thus be
designed on the basis of a moment distribution which is typical for beam structures; by doing
this, one forces the slab to act as a series of beams.
Of course, a slab is a structural member which generally transfers the load in two directions; the
slab has thus to transform itself into a series of beams, which is accompanied by severe cracking
in the direction parallel to the reinforcement until the load is fully transferred by the beams. If
one is willing to reinforce the slab as if it were a series of beams, he/she has to be sure that
enough ductility is present in order to permit the transition from slab to beam system (ductility is
needed to allow the formation of the necessary hinges). This discussion also shows that a bad
choice of load transfer system leads to problems with SLS requirements: unacceptable cracks are
developed associated with the transfer from one bearing system to another (an imposed one).

It is generally accepted that when the chosen moment distribution is close to the linear elastic
distribution, the slab has sufficient ductility to be designed by the static method; moreover, this is
practically a condition since not to satisfy to the SLS requirements.
Before introducing the specific basic principles of the strip method, it is necessary to remind
some results from the elastic analysis of beams and slabs.
(a) Internal actions in beams
(b) Internal actions in slabs
Figure 3.2: The equilibrium conditions for beams and slabs
Equilibrium of a beam-element
The vertical translation equilibrium is assured by the shear forces at the ends:
𝑑𝑉
↑ + ∑ 𝐹𝑥 = 0 → 𝑞 ∗ 𝑑𝑥 + 𝑉 + ∗ 𝑑𝑥 − 𝑉 = 0
𝑑𝑥
𝑑𝑉
𝑞=− … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … 3.1
𝑑𝑥

Moments and shear forces are represented positively with respect to right hand system of axis
(𝑥, 𝑦, 𝑧) in accordance with the sign convention in theory of elasticity. The moment equilibrium
at the ends of the considered element:
𝑑𝑀 𝑑𝑥 𝑑𝑥 𝑑𝑄 𝑑𝑥
↺ +∑𝑀 = 0 → 𝑀 − 𝑀 − ∗ 𝑑𝑥 + 𝑄 ∗ +𝑄∗ + ∗ 𝑑𝑥 ∗ =0
𝑑𝑥 2 2 𝑑𝑥 2
After elimination of the higher order terms:
𝑑𝑀 𝑑2𝑀
𝑄= 𝑜𝑟 2 = −𝑞 … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … 3.2
𝑑𝑥 𝑑 𝑥
Equilibrium of a slab-element
The vertical translation equilibrium is now assured by the shear loads at the four edges (shear
forces per unit length!):
𝜕𝑣𝑥 𝜕𝑣𝑦
𝑞 ∗ 𝑑𝑥 ∗ 𝑑𝑦 + 𝑣𝑥 ∗ 𝑑𝑦 + ∗ 𝑑𝑥 ∗ 𝑑𝑦 − 𝑣𝑥 ∗ 𝑑𝑦 + 𝑣𝑦 ∗ 𝑑𝑥 + ∗ 𝑑𝑦 ∗ 𝑑𝑥 − 𝑣𝑦 ∗ 𝑑𝑥 = 0
𝜕𝑥 𝜕𝑦
𝜕𝑣𝑥 𝜕𝑣𝑦
𝑞 = −( + ) … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … 3.3
𝜕𝑥 𝜕𝑦
The moment equilibrium concerns all moments generated at the four edges of the slab-element.
The difference with the beam is that torsional moments 𝑚𝑥𝑦 are introduced, next to the bending
moments 𝑚𝑥 and 𝑚𝑦 ; the torsional moments are related to the 2 −dimensional character of the
slab. The moment equilibrium around the 𝑥 −axis leads to:
𝜕𝑚𝑦 𝜕𝑚𝑥𝑦 𝑑𝑦
(𝑚𝑦 + ∗ 𝑑𝑦) ∗ 𝑑𝑥 − 𝑚𝑦 ∗ 𝑑𝑥 + (𝑚𝑥𝑦 + ∗ 𝑑𝑥) ∗ 𝑑𝑦 − 𝑚𝑥𝑦 ∗ 𝑑𝑦 − 𝑣𝑦 ∗ 𝑑𝑥 ∗ −
𝜕𝑦 𝜕𝑥 2
𝜕𝑣𝑦 𝑑𝑦
(𝑣𝑦 + ∗ 𝑑𝑦) ∗ 𝑑𝑥 ∗ =0
𝜕𝑦 2
After elimination of the higher order terms:
𝜕𝑚𝑦 𝜕𝑚𝑥𝑦
𝑣𝑦 = + … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … .3.4
𝜕𝑦 𝜕𝑥

In an analogous way, the moment equilibrium around the 𝑦 −axis leads to:
𝜕𝑚𝑥 𝜕𝑚𝑦𝑥
𝑣𝑥 = + … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … . .3.5
𝜕𝑥 𝜕𝑦
Substituting equations 3.4 and 3.5 into equation 3.3 leads to the equilibrium equation of slabs:
𝜕 2 𝑚𝑥 𝜕 2 𝑚𝑦 𝜕 2 𝑚𝑦𝑥
+ +2 = −𝑞 … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … .3.6
𝜕𝑥 2 𝜕𝑦 2 𝜕𝑥𝜕𝑦
Where 𝑞 = the external load per unit area
𝑚𝑥 , 𝑚𝑦 = Bending moments per unit width in the 𝑥 and 𝑦 directions and
𝑚𝑦𝑥 = the twisting moment
Hence, according to the lower bound theorem, any combination of 𝑚𝑥 , 𝑚𝑦 and 𝑚𝑦𝑥 that satisfies
the equilibrium equation at all points in the slab and that meets boundary conditions is a valid
solution, provided that the reinforcement is placed to carry these moments.
Hillerborg assumes that torsional resistance may be neglected (i.e.𝑚𝑦𝑥 = 0 no load is assumed
to be resisted by the twisting strength of the slab and the reinforcements are parallel to the axes
in the rectilinear coordinate system); equations 3.6 is transformed into:
𝜕 2 𝑚𝑥 𝜕 2 𝑚𝑦
+ = −𝑞 … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … .3.7
𝜕𝑥 2 𝜕𝑦 2
Neglecting the torsional resistance inevitably leads to the under-estimation of the global bearing
capacity of the slab. The practical consequence of this assumption is that the calculation of the
slab is transformed into a simple calculation of beams; the load 𝑞 is transferred to the edges by
means of bending moments 𝑚𝑥 and 𝑚𝑦 , thus by means of beams or strips in the 𝑥 − and
𝑦 −direction. The remaining question however is with what distribution ratio?
Hillerborg accepts a second important principle in order to solve this problem: the load is
transferred to the closest supporting edge by a bending mechanism in the plane perpendicular to
the supporting edge. For a slab with the edges parallel to 𝑥 −and 𝑦 −direction, Hillerborg
proposes that a part 𝑘 ∗ 𝑞 of the load 𝑞 is transferred in the 𝑥 −direction (by bending) and that
the part (1 − 𝑘) ∗ 𝑞 is transferred into the 𝑦 −direction (also by bending); consequently:

𝜕2 𝑚𝑥
= −𝑘𝑞 … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … 3.8
𝜕𝑥 2
𝜕2 𝑚𝑦
= −(1 − 𝑘)𝑞 … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … 3.9
𝜕𝑦 2
Where: 𝒌 the distribution ratio coefficient for the load applied in every point of the slab; 0 ≤
𝑘 ≤ 1 and may in principle change from one location in the slab to another.
For practical reasons (economic aspect and simplicity of reinforcement meshes) the coefficient 𝑘
is taken constant in regions of the slab. In many regions in slabs, the value 𝒌 will be either 0 or 1
i.e. load is dispersed by strips in 𝑥 − or in 𝑦 − direction. In other regions, it may be reasonable to
assume that the load is divided equally in two directions (i.e. 𝑘 = 0.5).
3.2.Analyze reinforced concrete slab by using strip method
Strip method of slab analysis is dividing a slab into strips based on a reasonably assumed load
path and load distribution with both the equilibrium and boundary conditions should be
satisfied.
3.2.1. Choice of load distribution
In principle, the load 𝑞 can be divided arbitrarily between 𝑥 − and 𝑦 − directions (i.e. choices
open to the designer). Different divisions will of course lead to different patterns of
reinforcement and all will not be equally appropriate. The desired goal of the designer is to
arrive at a practical arrangement of reinforcing steel that is safe and economical and that will
avoid problems at the service load level associated with excessive cracking and deflection. It
should be noted that the strip method provides choice of moment patterns instead of unique
solution. Knowledge of the moment field according to the elastic theory is thereby very helpful.
In general, the designer may be guided by his knowledge of the general distribution of elastic
moments.
3.2.2. Square slab with simply supported on all sides
To illustrate the choices open to the designer for slab analysis by the strip method, let us consider
the square, simply supported slab shown in Figure 3.3 with side length 𝑎 and a uniformly
distributed factored load 𝑤 per unit area. The simplest load distribution is obtained by setting
𝑘 = 0.5 over the entire slab as shown.
𝒘
𝟐
𝒘
𝟐
Figure 3.3: Load distribution in square slabs– Solution 1(𝑘 = 0.5 in both direction)
The load on all strips in each direction is thus 𝒘⁄𝟐 (with 𝑘 = 0.5), as illustrated by the load
dispersion arrows in Figure 3.3. This gives maximum design moments:
𝑤𝑎2
𝑚𝑥 = 𝑚𝑦 =
16
Implying a constant curvature for strips in the 𝑥 − direction at 𝑥 = 𝑎/2 corresponding to a

2
constant moment 𝑤𝑎 ⁄16 (see Figure 3.3d). Similar constant curvatures are also expected at
various 𝑥’𝑠 corresponding to the constant BM’s at 𝑥 = constant. The same applies for
𝑦 −direction strips.

It is recognized however that the curvatures, hence the moments, must be greater in the strips
near the middle of the slab than near the edges. If the slab were reinforced according to this
solution extensive redistribution of moments would be required, certainly accompanied by much
cracking in the highly stressed regions near the middle of the slab.
So what we need is a type of load distribution which can give a moment distribution such that we
get great curvatures in say 𝑥 − direction strips near slab middle and less near the edges. Try the
alternative more reasonable distribution shown in Figure 3.4. Here the regions of different load
dispersion separated by the dashed dotted discontinuity lines follow the diagonals, all of the load
on any region is carried in the direction giving the shortest distance to the nearest support (𝑘 = 0
or 𝑘 = 1 in the different regions).
𝒘 𝒘
Figure 3.4: Load distribution in square slabs- Solution 2(𝑘 = 0 in one direction k =
1.0 in another direction)

The slab is considered to be divided into four triangular segments as shown in Figure 3.4. Each
slab segment is assumed to transfer load only in a single direction (the shortest distance to the
nearest support) and the 𝑘 −value is either 0 or 1 for various segments.
2
Theoretically, the lateral distribution of bending moments required at the center will be 𝑤𝑎 ⁄8
(see Figure 3.4d). This require the spacing of bars is to be continuously varied along the width
which is practically almost impossible. A practical solution would be to reinforce for the average
𝒘𝒂𝟐
moment ( ) over a certain width approximating the actual lateral variation in a stepwise
𝟐
manner. Hillerborg notes that, this is not strictly in accordance with equilibrium theory and that
the design is no longer certainly on safe side but other conservative assumptions; for example
neglect of membrane strength in the slab or strain hardening of the reinforcement, would surely
compensate for the slight reduction in safety margin.
Third load distribution pattern
Instead of the solution in the second load distribution pattern which requires continuously
varying reinforcement to be strictly correct, Hillerborg suggest that the load can be distribute as
shown in Figure 3.5 with discontinuity line parallel to the sides of the slabs. For such cases, it is
reasonable to take edge bands of the width equal to quarter of the short span dimension.
Here again the division load is made so that the load is carried to the nearest support as before
but load near the diagonals has been divided with one-half taken in each direction. Thus, 𝑘 is
given values 0 or 1 along the middle edges and 0.5 in the corners and center of the slab with load
dispersion in the directions indicated by the arrows.

𝑫 𝑪
𝒘
𝟐 𝒘𝒂𝟐
𝒂
𝒘 𝟔𝟒
𝟒 𝒘
𝟐 𝒘
𝟐
𝒂 𝒘 𝒘
𝒘 𝟓𝒘𝒂𝟐
𝟐 𝟔𝟒
𝟐
𝒘
𝒂 𝟐
𝟒 𝒘
𝒘
𝟐 𝑫 𝑪
𝒘 𝒘
𝟐 𝟐
𝒂 𝒂
𝟒 𝟒
𝒘𝒂𝟐
𝟔𝟒
𝒘 𝒘
𝒘
𝟐
𝟓𝒘𝒂𝟐
𝟔𝟒
Figure 3.5: Load distribution in square slabs- Solution 3(𝑘 =
0 𝑜𝑟 1.0 along the middle edges and k = 0.5 in the corners and center of the slab)
Maximum moment calculations in different strips
The maximum moments in the four different bands are in the 𝑥 −direction and 𝑦 −direction are
as follows:

In the 𝒙 − direction
Edge strips (strip A-A)
End reaction = 𝒘⁄𝟐 ∗ 𝒂⁄𝟒 = 𝒘𝒂⁄𝟖

𝟐
𝑴𝒙(𝒎𝒂𝒙) = 𝒘𝒂⁄𝟖 ∗ 𝒂⁄𝟒 − 𝒘𝒂⁄𝟖 ∗ 𝒂⁄𝟖 = 𝒘𝒂 ⁄𝟔𝟒
Middle strips (strip B-B)
End reaction = 𝒘 ∗ 𝒂⁄𝟒 + 𝒘⁄𝟐 ∗ 𝒂⁄𝟖 = 𝟑𝒘𝒂⁄𝟖

𝟐
𝑴𝒙(𝒎𝒂𝒙) = 𝟑𝒘𝒂⁄𝟖 ∗ 𝒂⁄𝟐 − 𝒘𝒂⁄𝟒 ∗ (𝒂⁄𝟒 + 𝒂⁄𝟖) = 𝟓𝒘𝒂 ⁄𝟔𝟒
In the 𝒚 − direction
Edge strips (strip C-C)
End reaction = 𝒘⁄𝟐 ∗ 𝒂⁄𝟒 = 𝒘𝒂⁄𝟖

𝟐
𝑴𝒙(𝒎𝒂𝒙) = 𝒘𝒂⁄𝟖 ∗ 𝒂⁄𝟒 − 𝒘𝒂⁄𝟖 ∗ 𝒂⁄𝟖 = 𝒘𝒂 ⁄𝟔𝟒

Middle strips (strip D-D)
End reaction = 𝒘 ∗ 𝒂⁄𝟒 + 𝒘⁄𝟐 ∗ 𝒂⁄𝟖 = 𝟑𝒘𝒂⁄𝟖

𝟐
𝑴𝒙(𝒎𝒂𝒙) = 𝟑𝒘𝒂⁄𝟖 ∗ 𝒂⁄𝟐 − 𝒘𝒂⁄𝟒 ∗ (𝒂⁄𝟒 + 𝒂⁄𝟖) = 𝟓𝒘𝒂 ⁄𝟔𝟒
This design leads to a practical arrangement of reinforcement, one with constant spacing through
the center strip of width 𝑎/2 and a wider spacing through the outer strips where the elastic
curvatures and moments are known to be less. The averaging of moments necessitated in the
second solution is avoided here and third solution is fully consistent with the equilibrium theory.
The reinforcement can be curtailed if the desired for economy reasons in accordance with the
moment profile.
The three examples also illustrate the simple way in which the moments in the slab can be found
by the strip method, based on familiar beam analysis. It is important note too that the load on the
supporting beams is easily found because it can be computed from the end reactions of the slab-
beam strips in all cases.
Comparison of load distribution patterns
Load distribution pattern1 Load distribution pattern 2 (𝑘 = Load distribution pattern 3

(𝑘 = 0.5) 0 𝑜𝑟 1.0) (𝑘 = 0 𝑜𝑟 1.0 𝑎𝑛𝑑 0.5)
The first would be unsatisfactory. Reinforcement more nearly matches Doesn't require moment
the elastic distribution of moments. averaging.
Requires more redistribution of An impracticable bar spacing. Leads to a preferred
moments. practical reinforcing
arrangements.
Excessive cracks and large Moment averaging may be needed.
deflections.

3.2.3. Rectangular slab with simply supported on all sides
Consider a rectangular slab, simply supported along all four edges, loaded by a uniformly
distributed load 𝑤(𝑘𝑁⁄𝑚2 ). In accordance with the basic assumptions in the method of
Hillerborg, the slab may be subdivided into several regions in function of the preferential
direction of load transfer see Figure 3.6.
(b) Plan
(a) Load distribution pattern
(c) Modelling of slab strips as beam elements

(d) Division of slabs into zone
Figure 3.6: Rectangular slab with discontinuity lines originating at corners
The load 𝑤 applied in zone 1 and 2 is transferred in the 𝑦 −direction to the nearest support which
are parallel to the 𝑥 −direction (see Figure 3.6b); the value of 𝑘 is equal to 0 in zone 1 and 2 (see
Figure 3.6c). The load 𝑤 applied in zone 3 is transferred in the 𝑥 −direction to the nearest
support which is parallel to the 𝑦 −direction; the value of 𝑘 is equal to 1.

The next step in the method is illustrated in Figure 3.6d; the analysis of the slab is transformed
into the analysis of beam elements with particular loading dispositions. It may be observed that
the selection of the direction of load transfer is highly related to the identification of the so called
tributary areas in the slab. A tributary area is related to a supporting edge: it determines for what
slab surface the load is transferred to that supporting edge. As the edges are simply supported in
the example, the separation lines between the tributary areas correspond to the bisector lines of
the rectangular corners between the adjacent edges.
End reaction = 𝒘𝒃⁄𝟐

𝟐
𝑴𝒚(𝒎𝒂𝒙) = 𝒘𝒃⁄𝟐 ∗ 𝒃/𝟐 − 𝒘𝒃/𝟐 ∗ 𝒃/𝟒 = 𝒘𝒃 ⁄𝟖
End reaction = 𝒘𝒅
𝟐
𝑴𝒚(𝒎𝒂𝒙) = 𝒘𝒅 ∗ 𝒅/𝟐 = 𝒘𝒅 ⁄𝟐

End reaction = 𝒘𝒄
𝟐
𝑴𝒙(𝒎𝒂𝒙) = 𝒘𝒄 ∗ 𝒄/𝟐 = 𝒘𝒄 ⁄𝟐
A continuous evolution of bending moments has to be considered for the strips 2 and 3; indeed,
the distances 𝑑 and 𝑐 vary continuously from one strip to another. This would lead to a
continuous varying area of reinforcement in the slab which is not practical. In complete
accordance with the principle of the static method, one may choose to work with a slightly
adapted load transfer model, in view of the simplification of the practical arrangement of
reinforcement in the slab.
An alternative load transfer model is shown in Figure 3.7. More simple models in which a bi-
directional solution is adopted for the corners; the value of 𝑘 is equal to 0.5 in the corner regions
and 0 or 1 along the middle edges.
2 1
3 3
4 4
2 1
Figure 3.7: Rectangular slab with discontinuity lines parallel to the sides

This load transfer model leads to the analysis of only four strips with unit width; it is observed
that the strips are loaded in the corner zones with the load 𝑤 ⁄2. It is reasonable to take edge
bands of width equal to one fourth of the short span dimension. The result of the strip analysis
(beam analysis) is a set of four maximum sagging moments in the 𝑥 −direction and 𝑦 −direction
which are kept constant in the regions of the slab which are related to the strips considered.
Middle strips (strip 1-1)
End reaction = 𝒘𝒃⁄𝟐

𝟐
𝑴𝒚(𝒎𝒂𝒙) = 𝒘𝒃⁄𝟐 ∗ 𝒃/𝟐 − 𝒘𝒃/𝟐 ∗ 𝒃/𝟒 = 𝒘𝒃 ⁄𝟖
Edge strips (Strip 2-2)
End reaction = 𝒘⁄𝟐 ∗ 𝒃⁄𝟒 = 𝒘𝒃⁄𝟖

𝟐
𝑴𝒚(𝒎𝒂𝒙) = 𝒘𝒃⁄𝟖 ∗ 𝒃⁄𝟒 − 𝒘𝒃⁄𝟖 ∗ 𝒃⁄𝟖 = 𝒘𝒃 ⁄𝟔𝟒

Edge strips (Strip 4-4) End reaction = 𝒘⁄𝟐 ∗ 𝒃⁄𝟒 = 𝒘𝒃⁄𝟖

𝟐
𝑴𝒙(𝒎𝒂𝒙) = 𝒘𝒃⁄𝟖 ∗ 𝒃⁄𝟒 − 𝒘𝒃⁄𝟖 ∗ 𝒃⁄𝟖 = 𝒘𝒃 ⁄𝟔𝟒
Middle strips (Strip 3-3)
End reaction = 𝒘 ∗ 𝒃⁄𝟒 = 𝒘𝒃⁄𝟒

𝟐
𝑴𝒙(𝒎𝒂𝒙) = 𝒘𝒃⁄𝟒 ∗ 𝒃⁄𝟒 − 𝒘𝒃⁄𝟒 ∗ 𝒃⁄𝟖 = 𝒘𝒃 ⁄𝟑𝟐
This distribution, requiring no averaging of moment across band widths, is always on the safe
side and is both simple and economical.

Figure 3.8: Strip method; the resulting distribution of the design bending moments in rectangular
simply supported slabs on all sides
Note: The strip method does not consider the large torsional moments that are anyway present in
the corners of a simply supported slab. It may be necessary to add reinforcement in the corners in
order to avoid unacceptable cracking.
3.2.4. Rectangular slab with fixed edges and continuity
Up to now we have dealt with positive moments in strips where a large amount of flexibility in
assigning loads to the various regions of the slab was provided. This flexibility extends to the
assignment of moments between negative and positive bending sections of slabs (strips) that are
fixed or continuous over their supported edges. Some attention should be paid to elastic moment
ratios (i.e. negative moments to positive moments) to avoid problems with cracking and
deflection at service loads.
3.2.4.1.Rectangular slab with two adjacent edges continuous and other two simply
supported
Consider a uniformly loaded rectangular slab having two adjacent edges fixed and the other two
edges simply supported as shown in Figure 3.9. Fixed edges attract much more load than simply

supported edges. The tributary areas may be determined by means of the simple 60° − 30° and
45° − 45° model.
Figure 3.9: Rectangular slab with discontinuity lines originating at corners
An alternative load transfer model and more simple one in which a bi-directional solution shown
in Figure 3.10 is adopted for the corners; the value of 𝑘 is equal to 0.5 in the corner regions and
0 or 1 along the middle edges.
In determining by strip method, slab strips carrying loads only near the supports and unloaded in
the central region are encountered (see Figure 3.10). It is convenient if the unloaded region is
subject to a constant moment (and zero shear). This means that the entire load on a side go to
support on that side as a reaction. By using this treatment, the selection of the positive
reinforcement is simplified.

C C
Figure 3.10: Rectangular slab with discontinuity lines parallel to the sides
The middle strips have the same width as those of the rectangular slab with simple supports, the
discontinuity lines are shifted to account for the greater stiffness of the strips with fixed ends.
Their location is defined by coefficient 𝜶 with a value clearly less than 0.5, so that the edge
strips have widths greater 𝑏/4 and less than 𝑏/4 at the fixed end and simple end respectively.
Consider a slab strip carrying loads only near the supports and unloaded in the central region.
The sum of the absolute values of positive span moment and negative moment at one of the ends
is equal to the negative moment if the half span beam acts as cantilever (or only the loaded
length on each side) fixed at the corresponding end. This means that knowing the cantilever
moments and selecting the span moment, the corresponding support moment may be evaluated.

Steps in calculation of design moments
Step 1: Determine the cantilever moment
Step 2: Decide on the ratio of negative moment to positive moment
As a general rule, Hillerborg suggests for fixed edges, the support moment should be between
1.5 − 2.5 times the span moment in the same strip. For longer, largely unloaded and having
more than minimum reinforcement strips, a ratio of support to span moment of 3 𝑡𝑜 4 may be
used.
Step 3: Calculate the span moments and support moments
The first two steps determine the location of the discontinuity lines.
Value of 𝜶
Selection of value of 𝜶 relates directly to the ratio of the negative to positive moments in the
strips. If opposite edges of a slab are fixed and simply supported, the distance of discontinuity
lines of the segments from the fixed end is considered larger than the distance from the simply
supported end. The distance towards simply supported end may be taken equal to 𝜶𝒃⁄𝟐 (𝒃 is the
(𝟏 − 𝜶)𝒃⁄
shorter span) and the distance towards the fixed end will then become 𝟐.

Middle strips (Strip A-A)
Positive moment in the span 𝑚𝑥𝑓
𝛼𝑏 2 𝑤𝛼𝑏 1 𝛼𝑏 𝛼 2 𝑤𝑏 2
𝑚𝑥𝑓 = 𝑤 ( ) − ( ∗ )=
2 2 2 2 8
Negative moment at the left support 𝑚𝑥𝑠
𝑏 𝑏 𝛼 2 𝑤𝑏 2 (1 − 2𝛼)𝑤𝑏 2
𝑚𝑥𝑠 = 𝑤(1 − 𝛼) ∗ (1 − 𝛼) − =
2 4 8 8
Observing, the absolute of the negative moment at a support plus the span moment is equal to the
cantilever moment.
𝛼 2 𝑤𝑏 2 (1 − 2𝛼)𝑤𝑏 2 (1 − 𝛼)2 𝑤𝑏 2
= + =
8 8 8
Now, the ratio of negative to positive moments in the 𝑥 −direction middle strip is:
𝑚𝑥𝑠 (1 − 2𝛼)
=
𝑚𝑥𝑓 𝛼2

Hillerborg notes that as general rule for fixed edges, the support moment should be about
1.5 𝑡𝑜 2.5 times the span moment in the same strip. Let say 2.
𝑚𝑥𝑠 (1 − 2𝛼)
= = 2 → 2𝛼 2 + 2𝛼 − 1 = 0
𝑚𝑥𝑓 𝛼2
−𝑏 ± √𝑏 2 − 4𝑎𝑐
𝛼= → 𝛼 = 0.366 < 0.5
2𝑎
Higher values the ratio of the negative to positive moments should be chosen for longitudinal
strips that are largely unloaded and in such cases a ratio of support to span moment of 3 𝑡𝑜 4
may be used. However 𝑨𝒔,𝒎𝒊𝒏 may govern for such high ratios with too small positive moment.
Edge strips (Strip C-C)
The moment in the 𝑥 −direction edge strips are one-half of these in middle strips because the
load is half as great.
𝛼2 𝑤𝑏 2
Positive moment in the span 𝑚𝑥𝑓 = 16
(1−2𝛼)𝑤𝑏 2
Negative moment at the left support 𝑚𝑥𝑠 = 16
𝑚𝑥𝑠 (1−2𝛼)
= = 2 → 𝛼 = 0.366
𝑚𝑥𝑓 𝛼2
It is reasonable to choose the same ratio between supports and span moments in the 𝑦 − direction
as in the 𝑥 − direction.

Middle strips (Strip B-B)
Positive moment in the span 𝑚𝑦𝑓
𝛼𝑏 𝑤(𝛼𝑏)2 𝑤𝑏 2
𝑚𝑦𝑓 = 𝑤𝛼𝑏(𝛼𝑏) − 𝑤𝛼𝑏 ( ) = = 𝛼2
2 2 2
Negative moment at the left support 𝑚𝑦𝑠
𝑏 2
𝑤𝑏 2 2
𝑤𝑏 2 2
𝑤𝑏 2 𝑤𝑏 2
𝑚𝑦𝑠 (1
= 𝑤(1 − 𝛼)𝑏 ∗ − 𝛼) − 𝛼 (1
= − 𝛼) −𝛼 (1
= − 2𝛼)
2 2 2 2 2
Now, the ratio of negative to positive moments in the 𝑦 −direction middle strip is:
𝑚𝑦𝑠 (1 − 2𝛼)
=
𝑚𝑦𝑓 𝛼2

Edge strips (Strip D-D)
Positive moment in the span 𝑚𝑦𝑓
𝑤𝛼𝑏 𝛼𝑏 𝑤 𝛼𝑏 𝛼𝑏 𝑤(𝛼𝑏)2 2
𝑤𝑏 2
𝑚𝑦𝑓 = ( )− ( )( ) = =𝛼
2 2 2 2 2 16 16
Negative moment at the left support 𝑚𝑦𝑠
𝑤 𝑏 𝑏 𝑤𝑏 2 𝑤𝑏 2 𝑤𝑏 2 𝑤𝑏 2
𝑚𝑦𝑠 = (1 − 𝛼) ∗ (1 − 𝛼) − 𝛼 2 = (1 − 𝛼)2 − 𝛼2 = (1 − 2𝛼)
2 2 4 16 16 16 16
This indicates that moment in the 𝑦 −direction edge strips are one-eighth of those in y- direction
middle strip.
Observing, the absolute of the negative moment at a support plus the span moment is equal to the
cantilever moment.
𝑤𝑏 2 𝑤𝑏 2 (1 − 𝛼)2 𝑤𝑏 2
= 𝛼2 + (1 − 2𝛼) =
16 16 16
With the above expressions, all the design moments for the slab can be found once a suitable
value for 𝜶 is chosen. Value of 𝜶 is selected less than or equal to 0.5 and its values between 0.35
and 0.39 give corresponding ratios of negative to positive moments of 2.45 to 1.45 (desired
range).
For example, if it is decided that support moment is to be twice the span moments, the value of
𝜶 = 𝟎. 𝟑𝟔𝟔 and the negative and positive moments in the central strip in the 𝑦 − direction are

respectively 0.134𝑤𝑏 2 and 0.067𝑤𝑏 2 . In the middle strip in the 𝑥 − directions, moments are
one-fourth those values and in the edge strips in both directions, they are one-eighth of those
values.
3.3.Application to slabs with unsupported edges, openings, irregular shapes, L-shaped slabs
and Reinforcement detailing
Problems with unsupported edges could not be handled by conventional procedures so easily.
The real power of the strip method becomes evident when dealing with nonstandard problems,
such as slabs with unsupported edge, slabs with holes, or slabs with re-entrant edges (L – shaped
slabs).
3.3.1. Slabs with unsupported edges
For a slab with one edge unsupported, a reasonable basis for analysis by the simple strip method
is that a strip along the unsupported edge takes a greater load per unit area than the actual load
acting, i.e. the strip along the unsupported edge acts as a support for the strips at right angles.
Such strips have been referred to by Wood and Armer as “strong bands”. A strong band is, in
effect, an integral beam, usually having the same total depth as the remainder of the slab but
containing a concentration of reinforcement. The strip may be made deeper than the rest of the
slab to increase its carrying capacity, but this will not usually be necessary. Strong bands are
used around slabs with unsupported edges (free edges), slabs with holes and slabs with re-entrant
corners (L-shaped slabs).

Figure 3.11: Slabs with unsupported edges, re-entrant corners and openings
Case 1: Slab with free edge in short span direction
Consider the rectangular slab carrying a uniformly distributed ultimate load per unit area with
fixed edges along three sides and no support along one short side. Strong band is provided along
short side and this band resists some additional load from the perpendicular strips.
The additional load in the direction parallel to the unsupported edge is taken as 𝒌 ∗ 𝒘. In the
perpendicular direction, an opposite load −𝒌 ∗ 𝒘 (upward reaction) is considered for the same
portion to keep the resultant load equal to the original value. The load on a unit middle strip in
𝑥 −direction (Figure 3.12b) includes the downward load 𝒒 around the fixed support and the
upward reaction 𝒌 ∗ 𝒘 around the free edge.

E E
Figure 3.12: Slab with free edge along short side

Middle strips (Strip A-A)
Summing moments about the left end with unknown support moment 𝑚𝑥𝑠
32𝑚𝑥𝑠⁄
𝑤𝑏 2 𝑘𝑤𝑏 𝑏 1+ 𝑤𝑏 2
𝑚𝑥𝑠 + − (𝑎 − ) = 0 → 𝑘 =
32 4 8 8(𝑎⁄𝑏) − 1
Thus, k can be calculated after the support moment 𝒎𝒙𝒔 is selected. The appropriate value of
𝒎𝒙𝒔 to be used in the above equation will depend on the shape of the slab. If a is large relative to
b, the strong band in the 𝑦 −direction at the edge will be relatively stiff and the moment in the
left support in the 𝑥 −direction strips will approach the elastic value for a propped cantilever. If
the slab is nearly square, the deflection of the strong band will tend to increase the support
moment; a value about half the free cantilever moment shall be selected.
Once 𝒎𝒙𝒔 is selected and k value is known, the distance of maximum positive moment from the
left end 𝑥 may be found by considering the shear force (taken due to forces on the right hand
side) at maximum positive moment point to be zero as follows:
𝑏 𝑏 𝑏 𝑏 𝒃
−𝑘𝑤 ∗ + 𝑤 ∗ ( − 𝑥) = 0 → 𝑥 = − 𝑘 ∗ = (𝟏 − 𝒌)
4 4 4 4 𝟒

Taking moment of loads on the right of the maximum moment section,
2
𝑏 𝑏 𝑏 (𝑏⁄4 − 𝑥) 𝑏 𝑘 2𝑏2
𝑚𝑥𝑓 = 𝑘𝑤 ∗ (𝑎 − − ) − 𝑤 = 𝑘𝑤 ∗ (8𝑎 − 3𝑏) − 𝑤 ( )
4 4 8 2 32 32
𝒃𝟐 𝒂
𝒎𝒙𝒇 = 𝒌𝒘 (𝟖 − 𝟑 + 𝒌)
𝟑𝟐 𝒃
Edge strips (Strip E-E)
The moments in the 𝑥 −direction edge strips are one-half of those in the middle strip.
Middle strips (Strip C-C)
𝟐
𝒘(𝒃⁄𝟐) 𝒘𝒃𝟐
Cantilever moment = = → simply supported span moment
𝟐 𝟖
Adopting a ratio of support to span moment of 2,
The maximum positive moments
1 𝒘𝒃𝟐 𝒘𝒃𝟐
𝑚𝑦𝑓 = ∗ =
3 𝟖 𝟐𝟒

The maximum negative support moment
2 𝒘𝒃𝟐 𝒘𝒃𝟐
𝑚𝑦𝑠 = ∗ =
3 𝟖 𝟏𝟐
Edge strips (Strip B-B)
𝒘 𝒃 𝟐
( ⁄𝟒) 𝒘𝒃𝟐
𝟐
Cantilever moment = =
𝟐 𝟔𝟒
The maximum positive moments:
𝟐 𝒘𝒃𝟐 𝒘𝒃𝟐
𝑚𝑦𝑓 = ∗ =
𝟑 𝟔𝟒 𝟏𝟗𝟐
The maximum negative support moment:
𝑚𝑦𝑠 = ∗ =
𝟑 𝟔𝟒 𝟗𝟔
Edge strips (Strip D-D)
The moments may conservatively be found by considering the load (𝟏 + 𝒌)𝒘 on the full span.
Hence, the moments will be (1 + 𝑘) times the middle strip moments.
𝟐
(𝟏 + 𝒌)𝒘(𝒃⁄𝟐) 𝒘𝒃𝟐
Cantilever moment = = (𝟏 + 𝒌)
𝟐 𝟖

The maximum positive moment
𝟏 𝒘𝒃𝟐 𝒘𝒃𝟐
𝒎𝒚𝒇 = ∗ (𝟏 + 𝒌) = (𝟏 + 𝒌)
𝟑 𝟖 𝟐𝟒
The maximum negative support moment
𝒎𝒚𝒔 = ∗ (𝟏 + 𝒌) = (𝟏 + 𝒌)
𝟑 𝟖 𝟏𝟐
Case 2: Slab with free edge in long span direction
Figure 3.13: Slab with free edge in long span direction

A larger part of the load still has a natural tendency to go along the shorter path. However, due to
unavailability of a solid support at one edge and the deflections of the strong band, the transfer of
load in this direction is reduced to some extent. The strips along the longer span have to take
more share of load as compared to a slab where all the edges are supported. Even in such
circumstances, a significant portion of the load is carried in the shorter direction and the strong
band has to withstand more load than the other long strips. Suitable discontinuity lines for the
load distribution are shown in the Figure 3.13.
A strong band along the free edge serve as an integral edge beam, with width 𝛽𝑏 normally
chosen as low as possible considering limitations on tensile steel ratio in the strong band.
Middle strips (Strip C-C)
Summing moments about the left end with unknown support moment 𝑚𝑦𝑠
2𝑚𝑦𝑠
𝑘1 𝑤(1 − 𝛽)2 𝑏 2 𝛽 𝑘1 (1 − 𝛽)2 + ⁄ 2
𝑤𝑏
𝑚𝑦𝑠 + − 𝑘2 𝑤𝛽𝑏 2 (1 − ) = 0 → 𝑘2 =
2 2 𝛽(2 − 𝛽)
Having the value of 𝑘1 selected, 𝑘2 can be found.
Value of 𝜷
The constant 𝜷 is reasonably selected to get the strong band designed as singly reinforced
section (preferably with lesser steel ratio). Close to minimum bottom steel is usually provided
for positive moment in 𝑥 −direction strip supported along longer edge and the value of 𝑘1 is
accordingly selected.

Strips in the 𝑥 −direction can easily be analyzed due to uniformly distributed load over the full
length.
Along the 𝑥 −direction, the value of 𝑀𝑥𝑠 may be selected equal to about half of the free
𝛽 2
cantilever moment up to the center of the strong band, 1⁄4 𝑘1 𝑤𝑏 2 (1 − ⁄2) . The 𝑘2 value may
then be determined, which is then followed by the calculation of positive moment.
The assumed value of 𝑀𝑥𝑠 automatically adjusts the load path in the two directions. Greater
value of 𝑀𝑥𝑠 means less vertical uplift provided by the strong band (lesser 𝑘2 ). A high ratio of
𝒂/𝒃 will permit greater direction of the free edge through the central region, tending to increase
the support moment and a low ratio will restrict deflection, reducing the support moment.
3.3.2. Slabs with an opening
Smaller dimensions of openings are those needed to accommodate heating, plumbing and
ventilating risers, etc. The important question is how much the static behavior of the slab is
influenced by the presence of the opening; determining factors are the shape of the opening, its
size and its position. Larger size holes are required by stairways and elevator shafts. Where the
static behavior of the slab is only slightly changed by the opening, the design may be based on
the analysis of the slab without an opening. The reinforcement which would be cut by the
opening must be arranged along its edges and properly anchored. It is generally accepted that this
approximate approach may be used if the opening can be inscribed in a square with side equal to
0.2 times the smallest span of the slab.

Yet, Hillerborg (1996) notes that one has to be careful with this simplification in case of plate
regions with large torsional moments and free edges. Slabs with larger openings must be treated
more rigorously.
The strip method offers a rational and safe basis for design in such cases. Integral load-carrying
beams (strong bands) are provided along the edges of the opening, usually having the same depth
as the remainder of the slab but with extra reinforcement pick up the load from the affected
regions and transmit it to the supports.
In general, these integral beams should be chosen so as to carry the loads most directly to the
supported edges of the slab. The width of the strong bands should be selected so that the steel
ratios are at or below the maximum for beams.
Simply supported slab with a large opening
Figure 3.14 represents a slab with a large opening. A possible solution of load transfer in
proposed in the figure. The tributary areas are indicated; it may be observed that the dimensions
of the tributary areas have been adjusted in order to reduce the number of strips.
Figure 3.14: A slab with a large opening

The proposed solution is based on the use of supporting strips along the edges of the opening.
One may choose between two possibilities:
(a) A supporting strip may be supported at the edges of the slab; this is the case of supporting
strips 1-1 and 2-2 in Figure 3.14, or
(b) A supporting strip may be supported at the crossings with the supporting strips that are
perpendicular to the first ones; this is the case for the supporting strips AB and CD which
are supported by the supporting strips 3-3 and 4-4 in Figure 3.14.
The analysis then continues with the determination of the bending moments in the supporting
strips, for which unit width is chosen. In practice, the width of the supporting strips is chosen in
such a way that the moments in the supporting strip are distributed away from the edge of the
opening; the width may be chosen up to 1/3 of the distance towards the nearest parallel edge of
the slab.
Fixed supported slab with a large opening
Figure 3.15 represents a slab with fixed edges. When openings are present, the load transfer may
also take place by means of cantilever beams; this way of working allows avoiding supporting
strips along the opening. Another consequence is that, in principle, reinforcement is needed on
the upper side where sagging moment reinforcement is not necessary in the 𝑥 −direction; it is
observed that such sagging reinforcement is present in the slab without opening. It is also
observed that sagging reinforcement in the x-direction is necessary in the lower part where the
supporting strip supports the reaction forces of the strips in the 𝑦 −direction.
Figure 3.15: Slab with fixed edge: (a) force transfer in the slab without opening; (b) and (c)
alternative solutions for the load transfer in the slab with an opening; there is only one supporting
strip!

For simplification, integral load carrying beams are provided along the edges of the openings,
usually having the same depth as the rest of the slab, but with extra reinforcement as shown in
Figure 3.16.
Figure 3.16: Load transfer model for fixed slabs with openings



Chapter-3 Lecture Note

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Chapter-3 Lecture Note

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Department of Civil Engineering Structural Design

Chapter 3: Simple Strip methods for Reinforced concrete slab design

Chapter-3 Lecture Note Page 1

Disadvantages of upper bound theorem (yield line method)

Chapter-3 Lecture Note Page 2

Advantages of strip method

Chapter-3 Lecture Note Page 3

3.1.2. Basic principles of strip method

(b) Result of the linear elastic analysis

Chapter-3 Lecture Note Page 4

(c) Distribution of the bending moments for a beam like structure

Chapter-3 Lecture Note Page 5

(a) Internal actions in beams

(b) Internal actions in slabs

Figure 3.2: The equilibrium conditions for beams and slabs

Chapter-3 Lecture Note Page 6

After elimination of the higher order terms:

After elimination of the higher order terms:

Chapter-3 Lecture Note Page 7

Where 𝑞 = the external load per unit area

𝑚𝑥 , 𝑚𝑦 = Bending moments per unit width in the 𝑥 and 𝑦 directions and

𝑚𝑦𝑥 = the twisting moment

Chapter-3 Lecture Note Page 8

3.2.Analyze reinforced concrete slab by using strip method

3.2.1. Choice of load distribution

3.2.2. Square slab with simply supported on all sides

Implying a constant curvature for strips in the 𝑥 − direction at 𝑥 = 𝑎/2 corresponding to a

Chapter-3 Lecture Note Page 10

Chapter-3 Lecture Note Page 11

Third load distribution pattern

Chapter-3 Lecture Note Page 12

Maximum moment calculations in different strips

Chapter-3 Lecture Note Page 13

Edge strips (strip A-A)

End reaction = 𝒘⁄𝟐 ∗ 𝒂⁄𝟒 = 𝒘𝒂⁄𝟖

Middle strips (strip B-B)

End reaction = 𝒘 ∗ 𝒂⁄𝟒 + 𝒘⁄𝟐 ∗ 𝒂⁄𝟖 = 𝟑𝒘𝒂⁄𝟖

Edge strips (strip C-C)

End reaction = 𝒘⁄𝟐 ∗ 𝒂⁄𝟒 = 𝒘𝒂⁄𝟖

Chapter-3 Lecture Note Page 14

Middle strips (strip D-D)

End reaction = 𝒘 ∗ 𝒂⁄𝟒 + 𝒘⁄𝟐 ∗ 𝒂⁄𝟖 = 𝟑𝒘𝒂⁄𝟖

Comparison of load distribution patterns

Load distribution pattern1 Load distribution pattern 2 (𝑘 = Load distribution pattern 3

Chapter-3 Lecture Note Page 15

3.2.3. Rectangular slab with simply supported on all sides

(c) Modelling of slab strips as beam elements

Chapter-3 Lecture Note Page 16

Maximum moment calculations in different strips

End reaction = 𝒘𝒃⁄𝟐

Chapter-3 Lecture Note Page 17

Chapter-3 Lecture Note Page 18

Maximum moment calculations in different strips

Middle strips (strip 1-1)

End reaction = 𝒘𝒃⁄𝟐

Edge strips (Strip 2-2)

End reaction = 𝒘⁄𝟐 ∗ 𝒃⁄𝟒 = 𝒘𝒃⁄𝟖

Chapter-3 Lecture Note Page 19

Edge strips (Strip 4-4) End reaction = 𝒘⁄𝟐 ∗ 𝒃⁄𝟒 = 𝒘𝒃⁄𝟖

Middle strips (Strip 3-3)

End reaction = 𝒘 ∗ 𝒃⁄𝟒 = 𝒘𝒃⁄𝟒

Chapter-3 Lecture Note Page 20

3.2.4. Rectangular slab with fixed edges and continuity