Smart questions
Smart answers
Smart people
INTELLIGENT WORK FORUMS
FOR ENGINEERING PROFESSIONALS

Member Login




Remember Me
Forgot Password?
Join Us!

Come Join Us!

Are you an
Engineering professional?
Join Eng-Tips now!
  • Talk With Other Members
  • Be Notified Of Responses
    To Your Posts
  • Keyword Search
  • One-Click Access To Your
    Favorite Forums
  • Automated Signatures
    On Your Posts
  • Best Of All, It's Free!

Join Eng-Tips
*Eng-Tips's functionality depends on members receiving e-mail. By joining you are opting in to receive e-mail.

Posting Guidelines

Promoting, selling, recruiting, coursework and thesis posting is forbidden.
Jobs from Indeed

Link To This Forum!

Partner Button
Add Stickiness To Your Site By Linking To This Professionally Managed Technical Forum.
Just copy and paste the
code below into your site.

mikhelson (Structural) (OP)
16 Jun 09 12:16
The strip method (by Hillerborg and Wood & Armer) seems like the most convenient way to analyze a two way slab with irregular dimensions or boundary  conditions (aside from FEM modeling).

I have a few questions about the method for those who use it in their practice:

Does ACI 318 allow strip method for analysis? The two other methods -- DDM and equivalent frame seem too restrictive for irregular slabs.

I find the strip method convenient, but it requires that one makes seemingly arbitrary decisions about apportioning loading and moment between supports (e.g. fixed on one side, strong band on the other). How do you justify dividing the total moment between negative and positive (usually a ratio of 1.5 to 2.5 seems to be used) moments?

Thanks

 
msquared48 (Structural)
16 Jun 09 16:29
I assume that you are referring to PT concrete?

Mike McCann
MMC Engineering

Helpful Member!  mikhelson (Structural) (OP)
16 Jun 09 16:32
@msquared48:

No, I mean reinforced concrete.
mikhelson (Structural) (OP)
19 Jun 09 17:41
So noone is using the strip method these days? A coworker referred me to exactly what I was looking for in Moments and Reactions for Rectangular Plates by W.T.Moody. The tables give coefficients for finding moments and reactions for plates of simple shapes and load distributions. The booklet is found here:

http://www.usbr.gov/pmts/hydraulics_lab/pubs/EM/EM27.pdf
 
Helpful Member!  asixth (Structural)
20 Jun 09 21:15
The tables you are using are very similar to what can be found in Roark's formula for stress and strain.
frv (Structural)
20 Jun 09 21:16
ACI allows you to do whatever you want, provided you have a rational analysis and you can convince a code official. Same applies to all design codes.
asixth (Structural)
20 Jun 09 21:33
If you have sized the depth of slab and steel reinforcing required based on elastic moments of plate then you shouldn't have any problems trying to convince a code official.

Every time I am designing a slab which isn't regular, I always  perform some form of finite element analysis just to make sure I have made a valid assumption of how the structure is going to behave. Sometimes it can be very difficult to make correct assumptions on the stiffness of load paths, particularly when dealing with a bi-dimensional element such as a slab.  
mikhelson (Structural) (OP)
21 Jun 09 0:28
@asixth:
Do you only use the moments from your FEM slab models or do you also accept shear and torsion values? From my experience, people tend to derive the shears for a plate from tabulated coefficients or from some other hand method, rather than using, say, SAP2000 values. And yes, Roark's is another source for plate stresses.
Thanks
asixth (Structural)
21 Jun 09 0:39
Yes, I redistribute Mxy to Mxx and Myy as required. For the plate that you have described I would look at the support reactions and use that value in the shear design. But I would only perform this for a non-regular structure that is difficult to idealize into design strips.
KootK (Structural)
21 Jun 09 17:46
I've been interested in Hillerborg's method for some time.  I have both of his books on the strip method which is quite elegant.

I have similar concerns however:

1) How to safely apportion the span / support moments.  This is straight forward for slabs with fixed / simple boundary conditions (Moody's charts help here).  However, for the much more common case of partial fixity or back-span slabs, I'm not at all clear on how to assign the moments.

2) To my knowledge, Hillerborg doesn't do anything to address rebar cut-off locations.  I've been developing moment diagrams based on the "assumed" support moments and calculating my bar lengths that way.

It's a shame that the method hasn't been developed further as it seems as though it could be quite powerful.  I suspect that the strip method has been largely ignored by codes and designers for two reasons:

1) It doesn't address deflections in any direct way and;
2) The method isn't easily adapted to computer applications.

Reply To This Thread

Posting in the Eng-Tips forums is a member-only feature.

Click Here to join Eng-Tips and talk with other members!

Close Box

Join Eng-Tips® Today!

Join your peers on the Internet's largest technical engineering professional community.
It's easy to join and it's free.

Here's Why Members Love Eng-Tips Forums:

Register now while it's still free!

Already a member? Close this window and log in.

Join Us             Close