×
INTELLIGENT WORK FORUMS
FOR ENGINEERING PROFESSIONALS

Contact US

Log In

Come Join Us!

Are you an
Engineering professional?
Join Eng-Tips Forums!
  • 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!

*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.

Students Click Here

Model load assumptions for supports of continuous slabs

Model load assumptions for supports of continuous slabs

Model load assumptions for supports of continuous slabs

(OP)
Hello, I'm a bit confused and I hope someone can clarify this:

When designing continuous one or two-way slabs supported on all edges, with ACI (any method), there is a distribution of moments. This causes the loads transferred to the supports of the slab to be different than the ones assumed by simple tributary areas, because of the continuity.

In a complete structure model such as one made in ETABS, there doesn't seem to be a way for continuous slabs to transfer this "realistic" load distribution to the beams supporting the slabs (well, not even a way to indicate that the slab is continuous). The program always transfers the load via tributary area.

Is it common practice to assign the realistic loads manually to the beams, while preventing the program from taking the tributary loads? To me, this would seem to be the right way to analyze and design the beams; however, it can become a complex and tedious task.

RE: Model load assumptions for supports of continuous slabs

I am not quite sure I understand what you mean. However, I assure you that ETABS and similar software (assuming that they are programmed correctly) do not deal with "tributary areas" when calculating internal forces in slabs. Slabs (structurally modelled as Kirchoff-Love or Reissner-Mindlin plates) have moments in two directions (Mx, My) and twisting moment (Mxy) in each part of the slab, and this must be accounted for when designing reinforcement.

The common practice (or at least the correct one, assuming linear elastic analysis) is to model slabs, beams and columns together, and to assign appropriate releases to the connections in order to portray boundary conditions (is the beam/slab corner a moment connection or a pin connection, for example) realistically and thus receive realistic results.

PS. In reality, all slabs are two-way, but if geometry and boundary conditions are restricted to a certain degree (e.g., continuous supports on two sides of the slab and/or very large aspect ratio), slabs are sometimes treated as "one-way", i.e., as beams with significant major axis bending moment (Mx or My) and negligible twisting moment.

RE: Model load assumptions for supports of continuous slabs

It gets done both ways, and I believe ETABS allows both depending on how you model the slab (membrane vs shell?)

Read this thread:

https://www.eng-tips.com/viewthread.cfm?qid=479388

RE: Model load assumptions for supports of continuous slabs

(OP)
Thank you so much for the insight, that thread was very helpful. I'm currently working with joist systems (waffle slabs) supported on all edges.

So I guess my next question would be if makes sense to design a continuous slab on its own, for example, using the Equivalent Frame Method; and after that, model the slab as a shell along with the beams and columns, and assume that the loads will be distributed correctly by ETABS to the corresponding edge supports?

It just seems to me that the distribution of loads on the supports from the continuous slab analysis methods doesn't really match the one in the software. A clear example is one backspan, or two supports very close to each other next to a long span, so I'm trying to work out which approach is the conservative or the realistic one.

As a side question, is moment distribution in two-way slabs the same as shear (loading direction)? For example, I remember in ACI 318-63 there used to be shear and load direction coefficients that actually transferred the loads to the supports depending on the edge continuity. So would the same proportion apply to how Mx and My distribute the load direction?

RE: Model load assumptions for supports of continuous slabs

"It just seems to me that the distribution of loads on the supports from the continuous slab analysis methods doesn't really match the one in the software. A clear example is one backspan, or two supports very close to each other next to a long span, so I'm trying to work out which approach is the conservative or the realistic one."
The equivalent frame method (I assume you refer to it when you write "continuous slab analysis method") is not realistic, nor is it always conservative. The linear elastic solution from a FEM-software (or from a hand-calculation) is the "realistic" solution in the sense that it satisfies equilibrium: the slab is modeled as a plate, and it includes both bending and twisting.

"So would the same proportion apply to how Mx and My distribute the load direction?"
A slab always has Mx, My and Mxy moment components. If you want to make an accurate structural model for a slab in bending, you should use plate model bending and twisting moments to design reinforcement in ULS, calculate crack width in SLS by e.g. analyzing the slab as a beam in two directions (conservative, since "D > I_x" and "D>I_y") and calculate deflection in SLS by applying a reduced stiffness (e.g., by tweaking the Young's modulus, or by analyzing the slab as a beam in two orthogonal directions).

RE: Model load assumptions for supports of continuous slabs

It depends on how you define your slab boundary. Say you have a 100'x100' floor. To model continuity, define your floor using 4 nodes in a 100'x100' square. Alternatively you could model several 10'x10' slab areas which would negate continuity.

Red Flag This Post

Please let us know here why this post is inappropriate. Reasons such as off-topic, duplicates, flames, illegal, vulgar, or students posting their homework.

Red Flag Submitted

Thank you for helping keep Eng-Tips Forums free from inappropriate posts.
The Eng-Tips staff will check this out and take appropriate action.

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! Already a Member? Login


Resources

Low-Volume Rapid Injection Molding With 3D Printed Molds
Learn methods and guidelines for using stereolithography (SLA) 3D printed molds in the injection molding process to lower costs and lead time. Discover how this hybrid manufacturing process enables on-demand mold fabrication to quickly produce small batches of thermoplastic parts. Download Now
Design for Additive Manufacturing (DfAM)
Examine how the principles of DfAM upend many of the long-standing rules around manufacturability - allowing engineers and designers to place a part’s function at the center of their design considerations. Download Now
Taking Control of Engineering Documents
This ebook covers tips for creating and managing workflows, security best practices and protection of intellectual property, Cloud vs. on-premise software solutions, CAD file management, compliance, and more. Download Now

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