Cover Slab Design
Cover Slab Design
(OP)
Looking for examples/help for designing a concrete cover slab. Attached is an example picture of a cover slab. My thoughts would be to design for punching shear around the missing area where the manhole cover is to be place however I am unsure how to make up for the missing concrete.
Any tips/advice is welcome
Thanks
Any tips/advice is welcome
Thanks






RE: Cover Slab Design
One of our members, TheMightyEngineer, is a precast specialist and has designed similar items in the past. Hopefully he shows up here to offer his 2c.
I like to debate structural engineering theory -- a lot. If I challenge you on something, know that I'm doing so because I respect your opinion enough to either change it or adopt it.
RE: Cover Slab Design
KootK's got the best approach, dividing this up into beams will give you a lower-bound approach that will give you acceptable results. See the attached PDF sketch for what we mean.
I'm assuming this cover will be designed for H20 wheel loads which will be a 16 kip wheel load (21.28 kip if you need to include highway impact loading) distributed to a 10 in x 20 in area. Your major load cases are going to be a wheel on the edge of the opening and a wheel at the corner of the opening. If you have a metal cover over the opening then also check a wheel load in the middle of the cover (equally distributed to all sides of the opening) but this doesn't usually control for symmetric covers. Similar approaches can be done if this is just distributed live loads.
For flexure a wheel load on the middle of the "beams" shown in the sketch will be the controlling flexural design for these "beams". Don't consider the entire width to the perpendicular edge, the high stress locations will be near the opening. Here's the flexural results from a FEA I did for a similar thin cover with a large opening:
Circumferential flexure
Transverse flexure
Mxy flexure
You can see that only about 2/3 of the perpendicular dimension from opening to free edge is being utilized. From the transverse flexure you can see that there is transverse flexure spanning from the edge support of the cover to the "beam". On this thin cover I had to have hoops to get properly developed reinforcement for this transverse flexure, as shown here.
So, that's flexure. For shear you have a number of checks. First, if you have a metal frame and cover you need to make sure that the two-way shear of breaking the opening out doesn't control. It rarely does but often covers are set into the slab and thus reduce your thickness available for two-way shear. You can also have two-way punching shear at the wheel load itself (the 10"x20" tire contact area). This almost never controls but must be checked. Lastly, you have the one-way shear of the "beams" where they're supported at the edge of walls or whatnot that's supporting the cover. This is often what controls the thickness require for the cover. It's almost entirely impractical to design shear reinforcement for these covers; increase the thickness until the concrete shear strength is sufficient (this counts as a slab for the ACI 318 provisions in my opinion). If these covers have a "lip" where there's a bond out in the edge of the cover for whatever this sits on, you'll have to design the shear for the thinner dimension for the one-way shear.
With weird or offset cover geometry you can also get some interesting shear stresses or stress risers. Also, square or odd-shaped covers can get negative flexure in certain situations even though they're simple span. For a round cover with the opening shown though these shouldn't be an issue.
Finally, unless these are mass-produced items, you'll help out everyone to overdesign it a bit. Avoiding bending rebar in weird shapes (the shop guys hated my hoops in that sketch above) and try to stick to just a bunch of straight bars. Don't forget those diagonal "beams", you will likely need bars in the diagonal areas as well.
Professional and Structural Engineer (ME, NH, MA)
American Concrete Industries
www.americanconcrete.com
RE: Cover Slab Design
Professional and Structural Engineer (ME, NH, MA)
American Concrete Industries
www.americanconcrete.com
RE: Cover Slab Design
This I'm curious about. I wouldn't consider a two way shear check here to be appropriate because I don't feel that the frame/lid assembly would possess the kind of internal stiffness required to produce a proper punching shear failure frustum like you'd get with a column. This would be exacerbated, in my mind, by the lack of concrete flexural capacity across the opening and the absence of the struts that usually emanate up/down from the support/load.
On the other hand, if one treats this as one way shear as I've suggested above, it tends not to work out so well. I've struggled with this when designing slab lift out panels. As the wheel load approaches the edge of the lid, your effective shear area for the adjacent concrete gets smaller and smaller and rather difficult to define. For plaza slabs, I've concluded that this phenomenon requires a minimum slab thickness of about 9" which is quite a bit when considered in a historical context.
I like to debate structural engineering theory -- a lot. If I challenge you on something, know that I'm doing so because I respect your opinion enough to either change it or adopt it.
RE: Cover Slab Design
I've typically assumed two-way shear failure as I've personally seen failures that I ran the numbers on and they roughly matched the punching shear calculated strength when a overload point load was applied to a thin slab. Granted, this was just one data point and was a heavy load on a pad rather than a heavy load on a frame and cover at an opening. Similar enough that I've gotten in my head that two-way shear was the way to go. Wish I could show pictures; not sure if my NDA still applies as that client went out of business but their parent company still exists. Plus, examples for pile caps and column to footer shear design seemed to match this approach (though, again, not an opening).
I've also struggled with effective shear width as wheel loads approaching the edge of the lid. I've taken a number of pages out of AASHTO for this. Their equation for effective width of slab bridges doesn't decrease for shear. In addition, they note that shear will likely not control for slab bridges. Obviously, a single-span slab bridge is quite a different animal than a thin cover or slab which likely can't even fit both wheel loads on it. In the past I've usually made an FEA when I thought shear from a wheel load near an opening could control. Plus, as I said above, I almost always try to design the cover so that I was comfortable that shear wouldn't control.
Professional and Structural Engineer (ME, NH, MA)
American Concrete Industries
www.americanconcrete.com
RE: Cover Slab Design
Professional and Structural Engineer (ME, NH, MA)
American Concrete Industries
www.americanconcrete.com
RE: Cover Slab Design
Yes.
No. I'll estimate the plf based on where I've put the load and design for that value locally.
If this was a solid slab without the frame and opening, I'd consider it apples and oranges.
I'll look into that.
Interesting. Like I said, once your 9" or so you can pretty much handle a fire truck outrigger. How thin might a bridge slab be in the wild?
Thanks for turning me on to the TU Delft stuff. Just what the doctor ordered.
I like to debate structural engineering theory -- a lot. If I challenge you on something, know that I'm doing so because I respect your opinion enough to either change it or adopt it.
RE: Cover Slab Design
Yes, somewhat apples to oranges. Without going prestressed I'd suspect most slab bridges of normal to short span are going to be at least 9 inches thick so perhaps that's why AASHTO can get away with that. I also agree that it's a little apples to oranges but if I recall the TU Delft slides there imply that you do get quite a wide effective shear width when near to supports.
Professional and Structural Engineer (ME, NH, MA)
American Concrete Industries
www.americanconcrete.com
RE: Cover Slab Design
This one exactly. Mine was a 12' X 12' lift out panel for heavy data center equipment. Over those kinds of spans, it was hard to justify using more than a few edge angle studs at a time to resist a load applied at the edge of the lift out panel. I ended up building a 7" channel into the perimeter of the lift out panel itself to help with the load distribution. Load at the corner was the trickiest for me to get cozy with. All of your distribution things are essentially cantilevering from the interior then.
I like to debate structural engineering theory -- a lot. If I challenge you on something, know that I'm doing so because I respect your opinion enough to either change it or adopt it.
RE: Cover Slab Design
Professional and Structural Engineer (ME, NH, MA)
American Concrete Industries
www.americanconcrete.com
RE: Cover Slab Design
I like to debate structural engineering theory -- a lot. If I challenge you on something, know that I'm doing so because I respect your opinion enough to either change it or adopt it.
RE: Cover Slab Design
Professional and Structural Engineer (ME, NH, MA)
American Concrete Industries
www.americanconcrete.com
RE: Cover Slab Design
1) I agree that the lid likely will distribute the load rigidly. Obviously, for non-centered loads, there's an M/S component in addition to P/A.
2) If the lid will not be fastened down positively, then M/S + P/A needs to be adjusted to reflect the potential for uplift and separation where you're outside the kern.
3) As you know, you get much better values for two way shear stress than you do for one way shear stress. But why is that? I'm sure there are several reasons of which I am unaware but I'm fairly certain that a big one is that you get struts emanating from the point of load application. And those struts are tied locally by the continuous slab top steel. Here, you won't have the top steel, you won't have the struts and, in my opinion, you won't have the spiffy two way shear stress values to play with. Remember a while back when everybody lost their *()^! because those U of M studies showing that punching shear stud rail values were un-conservative when the top steel was deficient? Just imagine what would happen if there were no top steel at all.
Obviously, #3 is the one that concerns me the most. I will concede, of course, that there are tons of these things out in the wild being successfully load tested to a far greater degree than your average building.
I like to debate structural engineering theory -- a lot. If I challenge you on something, know that I'm doing so because I respect your opinion enough to either change it or adopt it.
RE: Cover Slab Design
1 & 2) Interesting thoughts; I'll have to consider this more. Maybe I need to have one of our delivery trucks drop an outrigger on frame and cover and observe the results as they load box culverts. I would think that the weight would keep it from actually lifting but I must concede that you're right that it could have a "kern" area where outside that results in a non-uniform support reaction around the cover. The only counter I have to this short of running a 3D non-linear FEA analysis on this is that when they load test manhole cover castings they use a central load. Obviously this is the max-flexure point but I would assume if what you say is true then the frame would need to be load tested for a non-centered load. More thought on this is definitely needed.
3) This.... I actually will freely admit I wasn't aware of this. KootK, you ruin all simple things. First you take away my retaining wall joints and now you ruin my two-way shear equations. :P
Wow, that's quite a thing. I agree 100% that I thought two-way shear got extra strength because of compression struts in the top of the slab that is being sheared. But I assumed these compression struts could form around the opening without much consideration for opening or rebar. So you're saying that lack of reinforcement prevents these struts from developing as was to be expected for two-way shear in a typical slab? But, if that's the case, why isn't this lack of rebar considered in anything I've seen regarding footings or pile caps with reinforcement in one face only? What about for plain concrete? What about very thin slabs? Too many questions...
Well, I now see what you're getting at; one-way shear with an effective width that takes into accounts the "lifting" of the unloaded side of the frame/cover. Hmmmm... beard stroking must commence. I need to sleep on this one.
Professional and Structural Engineer (ME, NH, MA)
American Concrete Industries
www.americanconcrete.com
RE: Cover Slab Design
Yeah, that's my thing. KootK. Complicating the simple since the early 90's. Probably explains my astounding wealth and jamb packed social calendar.
Yes, that's the crux of my concern.
Excellent questions. Easy first.
1) Thin slabs. Not sure that I understand the concern. Short struts?
2) Footings. With isolated, single column footings you've got steel on the bottom, opposite the load application point, right where it should be for strut formation. Check. I have always been surprised that we don't concentrate our rebar a bit under the load however.
Now for some brown belt level, unsubstantiated theory before dealing with caps and plain concrete:
START THEORY
Originally, I thought that you always needed rebar opposite the loaded face in order to provide lateral restraint to those wonderful struts. I've come to harbor a more nuanced understanding. I now believe that all that is needed is for there to be a competent flexural mechanism in place. Any competent flexural mechanism. On the face opposite the load, that can entail:
A) Rebar resisting flexural tension (the normal case)
B) Concrete resisting flexural tension without rebar (modulus of rupture).
C) Concrete in compression if that reflects the moment at the location being considered.
Three's the surprising one in my opinion. It jives though. You can have the struts so long as you can restrain them laterally at the unloaded face. And there's no reason that restraint can't be obtained by the diagonal struts butting up against the Whitney stress block flexural compression struts rather than being tied by rebar. In these cases, the rebar would be in compression anyhow. It's actually quite a common condition. Most transferred column are near one another and, as such, deliver their load where underside of the slab is actually in compression.
END THEORY
Back to business:
3) Plain concrete. See point B above.
4) Pile caps. See point C above. All of the piles push upwards on the cap similar to a simple footing. As such, the unloaded face of the cap opposite the piles is in compression -- at least theoretically -- and it is that compression that restrains the shear struts.
Let me know if a sketch is required to clarify any of this.
I like to debate structural engineering theory -- a lot. If I challenge you on something, know that I'm doing so because I respect your opinion enough to either change it or adopt it.
RE: Cover Slab Design
I was more wondering if you would consider the positive rebar in a thin slab as being "close enough" to the upper surface to provide restraint to the struts. In short, do we need two discrete layers of reinforcement?
I was wondering if this was the case. Glad you came to the same conclusion. But if this is the case don't we have reinforcement on the side opposite the load when we look at our frame and cover? Obviously this reinforcement is distributed around the opening and could be "insufficient" for two-way shear, but it at least it's on the "correct" side, right?
See attached sketch (a little rough, was in a hurry).
I've done this on occasion; plus the provisions in ACI 318 for rectangular footings prescribe this to some degree (though not for two-way shear reasons).
Would you say that it would be appropriate to use the plain concrete two-way shear equations for our cover shear design but with the phi factor for reinforced concrete in shear? I would say that this makes the most sense to me.
Professional and Structural Engineer (ME, NH, MA)
American Concrete Industries
www.americanconcrete.com
RE: Cover Slab Design
Ahh. I'd say that one layer is fine so long as your punching shear "d" is measured to that layer.
I agree, it's on the right side. It is the fact that it goes around the load rather than under it that bothers me. ajk1 had a problem a while back where he was replacing a slab around an existing column. He wanted to dowel in new bars through the column to make it coshure for punching. It seemed onerous and possibly destructive. I held back on mentioning it but, at the time, I wondered if bars very close to the sides of the column would suffice in place of bars through the column. It is technically a code violation in that instance but, at some point, close has to be close enough.
I wouldn't say that. While I can see some log in it, ans surely there is some truth to it, I think that the litmus test is to ask yourself this: "if I'm going to use enhanced, two way shear stress values, what makes this situation substantially different from a one way situation?". The answer, in my opinion, would be "not much".
I like to debate structural engineering theory -- a lot. If I challenge you on something, know that I'm doing so because I respect your opinion enough to either change it or adopt it.
RE: Cover Slab Design
Here's the 40x exaggerated deflection which shows the supports being loaded on one quadrant only:
Short answer, you appear to be correct; this does appear to cause a non-uniform shear in the frame of the metal cover.
Here's the various plate stresses from the model:
Circumferential plate shear (most telling IMO)
Von Mises stress
Tau shear stress
Now the question remains what to do with the shear calculation in the slab.
Professional and Structural Engineer (ME, NH, MA)
American Concrete Industries
www.americanconcrete.com
RE: Cover Slab Design
I like to debate structural engineering theory -- a lot. If I challenge you on something, know that I'm doing so because I respect your opinion enough to either change it or adopt it.
RE: Cover Slab Design
I guess the only question I have remaining now is what would you say the shear "depth" would be for the shear calculations. Using a depth of "d" for the positive reinforcement doesn't seem quite right but it seems like using the full thickness might also not be correct. What say you KootK?
By the way, I've come to a similar conclusion that 9" seems to be the limit for this 36" dia. frame and cover. It's a cast-in frame with an 8" depth so 1" clear cover to the bottom at 9" and those both seem to match up nicely with what you came up with.
Professional and Structural Engineer (ME, NH, MA)
American Concrete Industries
www.americanconcrete.com
RE: Cover Slab Design
Well it's nice to get some agreement on something. As you know, that's not always the case for me. That said, I'm curious, how can you tell from FEM results whether or not your shear stress is more appropriate as one way or two? I believe you. I just haven't done this myself and am curious to know how the determination is made.
I would say that the shear depth would be the distance from the top steel to the underside of concrete. I feel like that would always be the case at a gravity loaded free edge. I'm assuming that the frame delivers its load to the top of the concrete in some fashion.
I like to debate structural engineering theory -- a lot. If I challenge you on something, know that I'm doing so because I respect your opinion enough to either change it or adopt it.
RE: Cover Slab Design
Well, my big sticking point was that the metal cover wouldn't just distribute the load more or less evenly around the rim. This convinced me that there is a "kern" as you put it. I've also modeled the concrete cover in RISA and put an approximate eccentric cover load into it as well. Then, I've taken all this and concluded that, all things equal, I concede that you're definitely better at I am with the minutia of reinforced concrete design and detailing. It's also more conservative so if you're not correct then at least I've erred in the conservative direction.
I'll probably ponder this some more and report back if I have additional thoughts.
Do you mean bottom steel because this particular cover wont need much (if any) top reinforcement? My lifting inserts are going to put it primarily into positive bending and it's a simple-span two-way slab in all other respects.
Yeah, it's got a 42"OD lip on the frame and I'll probably get some additional bond strength out of the vertical walls cast into the concrete.
Professional and Structural Engineer (ME, NH, MA)
American Concrete Industries
www.americanconcrete.com
RE: Cover Slab Design
Definitely top steel I'm afraid. Think of it like this:
1) A free edge must, in all cases, sort of cantilever out from some perpendicular support akin to a beam.
2) Cantilever = top steel in tension.
The Canadian code requires hooked top bars at all slab edges, presumably for this same reason. Granted, I'm sure that they didn't have manhole lids in mind. I can't remember if there's an analogous US provision. Some alternatives:
1) Weld some little dowels to the underside of the lip if that doesn't cause cover issues.
2) Use shear values for plain concrete.
3) Consider the shear depth to be from the bottom steel to the bottom of the slab. I don't love this. Seems like you'd be asking for some serious top side shear cracking.
I like to debate structural engineering theory -- a lot. If I challenge you on something, know that I'm doing so because I respect your opinion enough to either change it or adopt it.
RE: Cover Slab Design
Makes sense. I was thinking top steel as well was required for the shear but wanted to make sure.
The only one I can think of is the requirement that bars be developed properly for the shear/moment at simple supports. For a slab cover over large wall supports this typically isn't an issue and I can use straight bars without hooks AFAIK.
Guys in the shop would hate me for this as they've never had to do it before for manhole frames, something tells me they don't want to hear about one-way shear and cantilevers. :P
This is what I've done in the past but that was assuming two-way shear values. For one-way shear I have insufficient capacity, without going thicker on the slab it doesn't seem like the way to go.
Definitely don't like this either.
I could hook the bars up into the top of the slab but I think the guys in the shop would like it better if I just provided a 2nd top mat of bars around the opening.
Professional and Structural Engineer (ME, NH, MA)
American Concrete Industries
www.americanconcrete.com