Verification Manual: Design of Slabs, Beams and Foundations Reinforced and Post-Tensioned Concrete

SAFE
DESIGN OF SLABS, BEAMS AND FOUNDATIONS REINFORCED AND POST-TENSIONED CONCRETE
Verification Manual
ISO SAF120108M6
Berkeley, California, USA
Version 12.0.0
December 2008
Copyright
Copyright Computers & Structures, Inc., 1978-2008 All rights reserved. The CSI Logo is a registered trademark of Computers & Structures, Inc. SAFETM and Watch & LearnTM are trademarks of Computers & Structures, Inc. Adobe and Acrobat are registered trademarks of Adobe Systems Incorported. AutoCAD is a registered trademark of Autodesk, Inc.
The computer program SAFETM and all associated documentation are proprietary and copyrighted products. Worldwide rights of ownership rest with Computers & Structures, Inc. Unlicensed use of this program or reproduction of documentation in any form, without prior written authorization from Computers & Structures, Inc., is explicitly prohibited. No part of this publication may be reproduced or distributed in any form or by any means, or stored in a database or retrieval system, without the prior explicit written permission of the publisher. Further information and copies of this documentation may be obtained from:
Computers & Structures, Inc. 1995 University Avenue Berkeley, California 94704 USA Phone: (510) 649-2200 FAX: (510) 649-2299 e-mail: info@csiberkeley.com (for general questions) e-mail: support@csiberkeley.com (for technical support questions) web: www.csiberkeley.com
DISCLAIMER
CONSIDERABLE TIME, EFFORT AND EXPENSE HAVE GONE INTO THE DEVELOPMENT AND TESTING OF THIS SOFTWARE. HOWEVER, THE USER ACCEPTS AND UNDERSTANDS THAT NO WARRANTY IS EXPRESSED OR IMPLIED BY THE DEVELOPERS OR THE DISTRIBUTORS ON THE ACCURACY OR THE RELIABILITY OF THIS PRODUCT. THIS PRODUCT IS A PRACTICAL AND POWERFUL TOOL FOR STRUCTURAL DESIGN. HOWEVER, THE USER MUST EXPLICITLY UNDERSTAND THE BASIC ASSUMPTIONS OF THE SOFTWARE MODELING, ANALYSIS, AND DESIGN ALGORITHMS AND COMPENSATE FOR THE ASPECTS THAT ARE NOT ADDRESSED. THE INFORMATION PRODUCED BY THE SOFTWARE MUST BE CHECKED BY A QUALIFIED AND EXPERIENCED ENGINEER. THE ENGINEER MUST INDEPENDENTLY VERIFY THE RESULTS AND TAKE PROFESSIONAL RESPONSIBILITY FOR THE INFORMATION THAT IS USED.
CONTENTS
Introduction Methodology Acceptance Criteria Summary of Examples Matrix of Program Features Covered in Example Problems Automating the SAP2000 Verification Checking Process Examples Slab Supports and Load Conditions
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Simply Supported Rectangular Plate Rectangular Plate with Built-In Edges Rectangular Plate with Mixed Boundary Rectangular Plate on Elastic Beams Infinite Flat Plate on Equidistant Columns Infinite Flat Plate on Elastic Subgrade Skew Plate with Mixed Boundary
Slab Geometries
8 9 10 11 12 13 14 ACI Handbook Flat Slab Example 1 ACI Handbook Two-Way Slab Example 2 PCA Flat Plate Test University of Illinois Flat Plate Test F1 University of Illinois Flat Slab Tests F2 and F3 University of Illinois Two-way Slab Test T1 University of Illinois Two-Way Slab Test T2
Design
ACI 318-08 ACI 318-08 PT-SL 001 ACI 318-08 RC-BM-001 Post-Tensioned Slab Design Flexural and Shear Beam Design
CONTENTS - 1
ACI 318-08 RC-PN-001 ACI 318-08 RC-SL-001
Slab Punching Shear Design Slab Flexural Design
AS 3600-01 AS 3600-01 PT-SL-001 AS 3600-01 RC-BM-001 AS 3600-01 RC-PN-001 AS 3600-01 RC-SL-001 Post-Tensioned Slab Design Flexural and Shear Beam Design Slab Punching Shear Design Slab Flexural Design
BS 8110-97 BS 8110-97 PT-SL-001 BS 8110-97 RC-BM-001 BS 8110-97 RC-PN-001 BS 8110-97 RC-SL-001 Post-Tensioned Slab Design Flexural and Shear Beam Design Slab Punching Shear Design Slab Flexural Design
CSA A23.3-04 CSA 23.3-04 PT-SL-001 CSA A23.3-04 RC-BM-001 CSA A23.3-04 RC-PN-001 CSA A23.3-04 RC-SL-001 Post-Tensioned Slab Design Flexural and Shear Beam Design Slab Punching Shear Design Slab Flexural Design
Eurocode 2-04 Eurocode 2-04 PT-SL-001 Eurocode 2-04 RC-BM-001 EUROCODE 2-04 RC-PN-001 Eurocode 2-04 RC-SL-001 Post-Tensioned Slab Design Flexural and Shear Beam Design Slab Punching Shear Design Slab Flexural Design
Hong Kong CP-04 Hong Kong CP-04 PT-SL-001 Hong Kong CP-04 RC-BM-001 Hong Kong CP-04 RC-PN-001 Hong Kong CP-04 RC-SL-001 Post-Tensioned Slab Design Flexural and Shear Beam Design Slab Punching Shear Design Slab Flexural Design
IS 456-00 IS 456-00 PT-SL-001 IS 456-00 RC-BM-001 IS 456-00 RC-PN-001 IS 456-00 RC-SL-001 Post-Tensioned Slab Design Flexural and Shear Beam Design Slab Punching Shear Design Slab Flexural Design
NZS 3101-06 NZS 3101-06 PT-SL-001 NZS 3101-06 RC-BM-001 NZS 3101-06 RC-PN-001 NZS 3101-06 RC-SL-001 Post-Tensioned Slab Design Flexural and Shear Beam Design Slab Punching Shear Design Slab Flexural Design
Singapore CP 65-99 Singapore CP 65-99 PT-SL-001 Singapore CP 65-99 RC-BM-001 Singapore CP 65-99 RC-PN-001 Singapore CP 65-99 RC- SL-001 Post-Tensioned Slab Design Flexural and Shear Beam Design Slab Punching Shear Design Slab Flexural Design
Conclusions References
-3
Software Verification
PROGRAM NAME: REVISION NO.:
SAFE 0
INTRODUCTION
SAFE v12.0.0 is a reinforced concrete and post-tensioned slabs, beams and foundations analysis, design and detailing program based on the finite element method. This document provides example problems used to test various features and capabilities of the SAFE program. The problems demonstrate the adequacy of the program for use in all applications, including safety-related nuclear, as governed by 10CFR50 requirements as well as other international QA standards, such as ISO 9000 requirements.
INTRODUCTION - 1
SAFE 0
METHODOLOGY
A comprehensive series of test problems, or examples, designed to test the various analysis and design features of the program were created. The results produced by SAFE were compared to independent sources, such as hand calculated results and theoretical or published results. The comparison of the SAFE results with results obtained from independent sources is provided in tabular form as part of each example. To validate and verify SAFE results, the test problems were run on a PC platform that was a HP Compaq dc7100 machine with a Pentium 4 processor and 2.0 GB of RAM operating on a Windows XP operating system. ACCEPTANCE CRITERIA The comparison of the SAFE validation and verification example results with independent results is typically characterized in one of the following three ways. Exact: There is no difference between the SAFE results and the independent results within the larger of the accuracy of the typical SAFE output and the accuracy of the independent result. Acceptable: For force, moment and displacement values, the difference between the SAFE results and the independent results does not exceed five percent (5%). For internal force and stress values, the difference between the SAFE results and the independent results does not exceed ten percent (10%). For experimental values, the difference between the SAFE results and the independent results does not exceed twenty five percent (25%). Unacceptable: For force, moment and displacement values, the difference between the SAFE results and the independent results exceeds five percent (5%). For internal force and stress values, the difference between the SAFE results and the independent results exceeds ten percent (10%). For experimental values, the difference between the SAFE results and the independent results exceeds twenty five percent (25%). The percentage difference between results is typically calculated using the following formula:
Percent Difference = 100 SAFE Result
-1
Independent Result
METHODOLOGY - 1
SUMMARY OF EXAMPLES Examples 1 through 7 verify the accuracy of the elements and the solution algorithms used in SAFE. These examples compare displacements and member internal forces computed by SAFE with known theoretical solutions for various slab support and load conditions. Examples 8 through 14 verify the applicability of SAFE in calculating design moments in slabs by comparing results for practical slab geometries with experimental results and/or results using ACI 318-95 recommendations. Design examples verify the design algorithms used in SAFE for flexural, shear design of beam; flexural and punching shear of reinforced concrete slab; and flexural design and serviceability stress checks of post-tensioned slab, using ACI 318-08, AS 3600-01, BS 8110-97, CSA A23.3-04, Eurocode 2-02, Hong Kong CP-04, IS 456-00, NZS 31-01-06 and Singapore CP65-99 codes, by comparing SAFE results with hand calculations.
METHODOLOGY - 2
SAFE 0
CONCLUSIONS
The conclusions are presented separately for analysis, reinforced concrete beam and slab design and post-tensioned slab design in the following subsections. ANALYSIS The SAFE verification and validation example problems for analysis show Acceptable comparison with the independent solutions. The accuracy of the SAFE results for certain examples depends on the discretization of the area objects. For those examples, as the discretization is refined, the solution becomes more accurate. DESIGN The design results for flexural and shear design for reinforced concrete beams; flexural design for reinforced concrete and post-tensioned slab and stress checks for posttensioned slabs show exact comparison with hand calculations. MESHING OF AREA ELEMENTS It is important to adequately mesh area elements to obtain satisfactory results. The art of creating area element models includes determining what constitutes an adequate mesh. In general, meshes should always be two or more elements wide. Rectangular elements give the best results and the aspect ratio should not be excessive. A tighter mesh may be needed in areas where the stress is high or the stress is changing quickly. When reviewing results, the following process can help determine if the mesh is adequate. Pick a joint in a high stress area that has several different area elements connected to it. Review the stress reported for that joint for each of the area elements. If the stresses are similar, the mesh likely is adequate. Otherwise, additional meshing is required. If you choose to view the stresses graphically when using this process, be sure to turn off the stress averaging feature when displaying the stresses.
CONCLUSIONS - 1
SAFE 0
References
ACI Committee 435, 1984 Deflection of Two-way Reinforced Concrete Floor Systems: State-of-theArt Report, (ACI 435-6R-74), (Reaffirmed 1984), American Concrete Institute, Detroit, Michigan. ACI Committee 336, 1988 Suggested Analysis and Design Procedures for Combined Footings and Mats (ACI 336-2R-88), American Concrete Institute, Detroit, Michigan. ACI Committee 340, 1991 Design Handbook In Accordance with the Strength Design Method of ACI 318-89, Volume 3, Two-way Slabs (ACI 340.4R-91), American Concrete Institute, Detroit, Michigan. ACI Committee 340, 1997 ACI Design Handbook, Design of Structural Reinforced Concrete Elements in Accordance with the Strength Design Method of ACI 318-95 (ACI 340R-97), American Concrete Institute, Detroit, Michigan. ACI Committee 318, 1995 Building Code Requirements for Reinforced Concrete (ACI 318-95) and Commentary (ACI 318R-95), American Concrete Institute, Detroit, Michigan. Corley, W. G. and J. O. Jirsa, 1970 Equivalent Frame Analysis for Slab Design, ACI Journal, Vol. 67, No. 11, Nov. 1970. Gamble, W. L., M. A. Sozen, and C. P. Siess, 1969 Tests of a Two-way Reinforced Concrete Floor Slab, Journal of the Structural Division, Proceedings of the ASCE, Vol. 95, ST6, June 1969. Guralnick, S. A. and R. W. LaFraugh, 1963 Laboratory Study of a 45-Foot Square Flat Plate Structure, ACI Journal, Vol. 60, No.9, Sept. 1963. Hatcher, D. S., M. A. Sozen, and C. P. Siess, 1965 Test of a Reinforced Concrete Flat Plate, Journal of the Structural Division, Proceedings of the ASCE, Vol. 91, ST5, Oct. 1965.
References - 1
SAFE 0
Hatcher, D. S., M. A. Sozen, and C. P. Siess, 1969 Test of a Reinforced Concrete Flat Slab, Journal of the Structural Division, Proceedings of the ASCE, Vol. 95, ST6, June 1969. Jirsa, J. O., M. A. Sozen, and C. P. Siess, 1966 Test of a Flat Slab Reinforced with Welded Wire Fabric, Journal of the Structural Division, Proceedings of the ASCE, Vol. 92, ST3, June 1966. PCA, 1990 Notes on ACI 318-89 Building Code Requirements for Reinforced Concrete with Design Applications, Portland Cement Association, Skokie, Illinois, 1990. PCA, 1996 Notes on ACI 318-95 Building Code Requirements for Reinforced Concrete with Design Applications, Portland Cement Association, Skokie, Illinois, 1996. Timoshenko, S. and S. Woinowsky-Krieger, 1959 Theory of Plates and Shells, McGraw-Hill, 1959. Ugural, A. C. 1981 Stresses in Plates and Shells, McGraw-Hill, 1981. Vanderbilt, M. D., M. A. Sozen, and C. P. Siess, 1969 Tests of a Modified Reinforced Concrete Two-Way Slab, Journal of the Structural Division, Proceedings of the ASCE, Vol. 95, ST6, June 1969.
References - 2
SAFE 0
EXAMPLE 1
Simply Supported Rectangular Plate PROBLEM DESCRIPTION A simply supported, rectangular plate is analyzed for three load conditions: uniformly distributed load over the slab (UL), a concentrated point load at the center of the slab (PL), and a line load along a centerline of the slab (LL). To test convergence, the problem is analyzed employing three mesh sizes, 4 4, 8 8, and 12 12, as shown in Figure 1-2. The slab is modeled using thick plate elements in SAFE. The simply supported edges are modeled as line supports with a large vertical stiffness. Three load cases are considered. Self weight is not included in these analyses. To obtain design moments, the plate is divided into three strips two edge strips and one middle strip each way, based on the ACI 318-95 definition of design strip widths for a two-way slab system as shown in Figure 1-3. For comparison with the theoretical results, load factors of unity are used and each load case is processed as a separate load combination. Closed form solutions to this problem are given in Timoshenko and Woinowsky (1959) employing a double Fourier Series (Naviers solution) or a single series (Lvys solution). The numerically computed deflections, local moments, average strip moments, local shears, and average strip shears obtained from SAFE are compared with the corresponding closed form solutions. GEOMETRY, PROPERTIES AND LOADING Plate size, ab Plate thickness T Modulus of elasticity E Poisson's ratio v Load Cases: (UL) Uniform load (PL) Point load (LL) Line load
= = = =
360 in 240 in 8 inches 3000 ksi 0.3
q P q1
= 100 psf = 20 kips = 1 kip/ft
EXAMPLE 1 - 1
SAFE 0
(3) (2) (1)
q1 P q a = 30 '
(3)
(2)
(1)
q1
b = 20 '
Figure 1-1 Simply Supported Rectangular Plate
EXAMPLE 1 - 2
SAFE 0
5'
2 @ 10'
5'
4 @ 5'
4x4 Mesh
2 @ 2.5'
4 @ 5' 2 @ 2.5'
8 @ 2.5'
8x8 Mesh
3 @ 20"
6 @ 40"
3 @ 20"
12 @ 20"
12x12 Mesh
Figure 1-2 SAFE Meshes for Rectangular Plate
EXAMPLE 1 - 3
SAFE 0
Y
b = 20'
X a = 30' Y Edge Strip b/4 = 5' 10' b/4 = 5' Middle Strip X
X Strips
Y 5' b/4 20' 5' b/4
Middle Strip
Edge Strip
Y Strips
Figure 1-3 SAFE Definition of Design Strips
TECHNICAL FEATURES OF SAFE TESTED Deflection of slab at various mesh refinements.
EXAMPLE 1 - 4
SAFE 0
RESULTS COMPARISON Table 1-1 shows the deflections of four different points for three different mesh refinements for the three load cases. The theoretical solutions based on Naviers formulations also are shown for comparison. It can be observed from Table 1-1 that the deflection obtained from SAFE converges monotonically to the theoretical solution with mesh refinement. Moreover, the agreement is good even for the coarse mesh (4 4). Table 1-2 and Table 1-3 show the comparison of the numerically obtained localmoments and local-shears at critical points with that of the theoretical values. SAFE results also include the shear deformation and therefore discrepancies are noted between in Shears for SAFE results and analytical results based on thin plate formulation. A noticeable discrepancy, however, occurs for the case of the point load (load case PL) in the region close to the application of the point load, where the theoretical model has a singularity. Table 1-4 shows the comparison of the average strip-moments for the load cases with the theoretical average strip-moments, where excellent agreement can be observed. It should be noted that in calculating the theoretical solution, a sufficient number of terms from the series is taken into account to achieve the accuracy of the theoretical solutions.
EXAMPLE 1 - 5
SAFE 0
Table 1-1 Comparison of Displacements

Location Load Case X (in) 60 60 UL 180 180 60 60 PL 180 180 60 60 LL 180 180 60 120 0.0719 0.1060 0.0710 0.1053 0.0703 0.1044 0.0691282 0.1024610 60 120 60 120 0.0864 0.1288 0.0387 0.0583 0.0829 0.1298 0.0380 0.0578 0.0821 0.1293 0.0378 0.0574 0.0800715 0.1255747 0.0370825 0.0562849 60 120 60 120 0.089 0.1250 0.0383 0.0555 0.0919 0.1284 0.0334 0.0474 0.0917 0.1281 0.0330 0.0469 0.0906034 0.1265195 0.0320818 0.0458716 Y (in) 60 120 44 Mesh 0.0486 0.0679 SAFE Displacement (in) 88 Mesh 0.0499 0.0694 1212 Mesh 0.0501 0.0694 Theoretical Displacement (in) 0.0492961 0.0684443
EXAMPLE 1 - 6
SAFE 0
Table 1-2 Comparison of Local Moments

Moment (kip-in/in) Location Load Case SAFE 88 0.38 1.20 1.75 2.03 0.43 1.13 1.84 2.42 0.23 0.80 1.32 1.78 Mx Analytical (Navier) 0.45 1.18 1.69 1.95 0.37 1.13 1.90 2.41 0.26 0.77 1.25 1.68 SAFE 88 0.75 2.01 2.79 3.16 0.41 1.15 2.25 3.80 0.35 1.11 1.99 2.94 My Analytical (Navier) 0.81 2.02 2.77 3.12 0.36 1.14 2.20 3.75 0.34 1.08 1.92 3.03 SAFE 88 0.29 0.25 0.17 0.06 0.50 0.49 0.67 0.44 0.23 0.20 0.14 0.05 Mxy Analytical (Navier) 0.30 0.26 0.17 0.06 0.47 0.51 0.59 0.47 0.24 0.20 0.14 0.05
X (in) 150 150
Y (in) 15 45 75 105 15 45 75 105 15 45 75 105
UL 150 150 150 150 PL 150 150 150 150 LL 150 150
EXAMPLE 1 - 7
SAFE 0
Table 1-3 Comparison of Local Shears

Shears (103 kip/in) Location Load Case SAFE (88) 21.3 7.1 2.7 1.6 0.45 0.50 5.7 12.4 7.7 1.7 1.7 0.9 Vx Analytical (Navier) 35.2 21.2 10.5 3.0 8.7 9.8 13.1 11.2 15.7 13.0 7.6 2.2 SAFE (88) 24.7 6.5 29.8 48.4 17.6 2.1 17.6 64.7 19.7 5.0 23.5 38.8 Vy Analytical (Navier) 7.6 21.0 33.4 40.7 2.6 8.3 19.2 43.0 5.7 16.2 26.5 32.4
X (in) 15 45
Y (in) 45 45 45 45 45 45 45 45 45 45 45 45
UL 90 150 15 45 PL 90 150 15 45 LL 90 150
EXAMPLE 1 - 8
SAFE 0
Table 1-4 Comparison of Average Strip Moments

SAFE Average Strip Moments (kip-in/in) Load Case Moment Direction Strip Column Middle Column Middle Column Middle Column Middle Column Middle Column Middle 44 Mesh 0.715 1.757 1.005 2.68 0.970 2.480 0.763 3.149 0.489 1.501 1.254 2.840 88 Mesh 0.781 1.861 0.965 2.809 0.922 3.960 0.537 3.378 0.555 1.524 1.355 3.212 1212 Mesh 0.799 1.832 0.983 2.806 1.043 3.781 0.533 3.375 0.517 1.493 1.407 3.233 Theoretical Average Strip Moments (kip-in/in) 0.810 1.820 0.994 2.792 0.901 3.950 0.548 3.307 0.519 1.475 1.432 3.200
Mx
x = 180" UL
My
y = 120"
Mx
x = 180" PL
My
y = 120"
Mx
x = 180" LL
My
y = 120"
COMPUTER FILE: S01a.FDB, S01b.FDB and S01c.FDB CONCLUSION The SAFE results show an acceptable comparison with the independent results.
EXAMPLE 1 - 9
SAFE 0
EXAMPLE 2
Rectangular Plate with Fixed Edges PROBLEM DESCRIPTION A fully fixed rectangular plate is analyzed for three load conditions. The geometric descriptions and material properties and the load cases are the same as those of Example 1. However, the boundary conditions are different. All edges are fixed, as shown in Figure 2-1. To test convergence, the problem is analyzed using three mesh sizes, as shown in Figure 1-2: 4 4, 8 8, and 12 12. The plate is modeled using thick plate elements available in SAFE. The fixed edges are modeled as line supports with large vertical and rotational stiffnesses. The self weight of the plate is not included in any of the load cases. The numerical data for this problem are given in the following section. A theoretical solution to this problem, employing a single series (Lvys solution), is given in Timoshenko and Woinowsky (1959). The numerically computed deflections obtained from SAFE are compared with the theoretical values. GEOMETRY, PROPERTIES AND LOADING Plate size Plate thickness Modulus of Elasticity Poisson's ratio Load Cases: (UL) Uniform load (PL) Point load (LL) Live load q P q1 = = = 100 psf 20 kips 1 kip/ft
ab T E v
= = = =
360" 240" 8 inches 3000 ksi 0.3
EXAMPLE 2 - 1
SAFE 0
(3) (2) (1)
q1 P q
a = 30 '
(3)
(2)
(1)
q1
b = 20 '
Figure 2-1 Rectangular Plate with All Edges Fixed
TECHNICAL FEATURES OF SAFE TESTED Comparison of slab deflection with bench mark solution. RESULTS COMPARISON The numerical displacements obtained from SAFE are compared with those obtained from the theoretical solution in Table 2-1. The theoretical results are based on tabular values given in Timoshenko and Woinowsky (1959). A comparison of deflections for the three load cases shows a fast convergence to the theoretical values with successive mesh refinement.
EXAMPLE 2 - 2
SAFE 0

Location Load Case X (in) 60 60 UL 180 180 60 60 PL 180 180 60 60 LL 180 180 60 120 0.0197 0.0399 0.0191 0.0382 0.0188 0.0375 60 120 60 120 0.0270 0.0546 0.0073 0.0149 0.0283 0.0600 0.0073 0.0165 0.0278 0.0605 0.0073 0.0163 0.057453 60 120 60 120 0.0214 0.0397 0.0082 0.0168 0.0219 0.0381 0.0056 0.0101 0.0215 0.0374 0.0053 0.0102 0.036036 Y (in) 60 120 44 Mesh 0.0085 0.0148 SAFE Displacement (in) 88 Mesh 0.0093 0.0157 1212 Mesh 0.0091 0.0154 Theoretical Displacement (in)
COMPUTER FILE: S02a.FDB. S02b.FDB, S02c.FDB CONCLUSION The SAFE results show an acceptable comparison with the independent results.
EXAMPLE 2 - 3
SAFE 0
EXAMPLE 3
Rectangular Plate with Mixed Boundary PROBLEM DESCRIPTION The plate, shown in Figure 3-1, is analyzed for uniform load only. The edges along x = 0 and x = a are simply supported, the edge along y = b is free, and the edge along y = 0 is fully fixed. The geometrical description and material properties of this problem are the same as those of Example 1. To test convergence, the problem is analyzed employing three mesh sizes, as shown in Figure 1-2: 4 4, 8 8, and 12 12. The plate is modeled using thick plate elements available in SAFE. The two simply supported edges are modeled as line supports with large vertical stiffnesses. The fixed edge is modeled as a line support with large vertical and rotational stiffnesses. The self weight of the plate is not included in the analysis. An explicit analytical expression for the deflected surface is given in Timoshenko and Woinowsky (1959). The deflections obtained from SAFE are compared with the theoretical values. GEOMETRY, PROPERTIES AND LOADING Plate size ab Plate thickness T Modulus of elasticity E Poisson's ratio v Load Cases: Uniform load q
= = = = =
360" 240" 8 inches 3000 ksi 0.3 100 psf
TECHNICAL FEATURES OF SAFE TESTED Comparison of deflection with bench-mark solution. RESULTS COMPARISON The numerical solution obtained from SAFE is compared with the theoretical solution that is given by Lvy (Timoshenko and Woinowsky 1959). Comparison of deflections shows monotonic convergence to the theoretical values with successive mesh refinement as depicted in Table 3-1. It is to be noted that even with a coarse mesh (4 4) the agreement is very good.
EXAMPLE 3 - 1
SAFE 0
Y X
Figure 3-1 Rectangular Plate with Two Edges Simply Supported, One Edge Fixed and One Edge Free
EXAMPLE 3 - 2
SAFE 0

Location X (in) 180 180 180 180 180 Y (in) 0 60 120 180 240 SAFE Displacement (in) 44 Mesh 0.0000 0.0806 0.2338 0.3837 0.5322 88 Mesh 0.0000 0.0841 0.2398 0.3973 0.5544 1212 Mesh 0.0000 0.0839 0.2392 0.3970 0.5542 Theoretical Displacement (in) 0.0000 0.08237 0.23641 0.39309 0.54908
COMPUTER FILE: S03a.FDB, S03b.FDB, S03c.FDB CONCLUSION The SAFE results show an acceptable comparison with the independent results.
EXAMPLE 3 - 3
SAFE 0
EXAMPLE 4
Rectangular Plate on Elastic Beams PROBLEM DESCRIPTION The plate, shown in Figure 4-1, is analyzed for a uniformly distributed surface load. The edges along x = 0 and x = a are simply supported, and the other two edges are supported on elastic beams. It is assumed that the beams resist bending in vertical planes only and do not resist torsion. A theoretical solution to this problem is given in Timoshenko and Woinowsky (1959). The deflections of the plate and the moments and shears of the edge beams are compared with both the theoretical solution and the results obtained using the Direct Design Method as outlined in ACI 318-95 for a relative stiffness factor, , equal to 4. The relative stiffness, , is the ratio of the bending stiffness of the beam and the bending stiffness of the slab with a width equal to the length of the beam and is given by the following equation. =
EI b , where, aD
Eh 3 D= , 12 1 v 2
Ib is the moment of inertia of the beam about the horizontal axis, a is the length of the beam, which also is equal to the one side of the slab, and h is the thickness of the slab. To test convergence of results, the problem is analyzed employing three mesh sizes, as shown in Figure 1-2: 4 4, 8 8, and 12 12. The slab is modeled using thin plate elements. The simply supported edges are modeled as line supports with a large vertical stiffness and zero rotational stiffness. Beam elements, with no torsional rigidity, are defined on edges y = 0 and y = b. The flexural stiffness of edge beams is expressed as a factor of the plate flexural stiffness.
EXAMPLE 4 - 1
SAFE 0 The subdivision of the plate into column and middle strips and also the definition of tributary loaded areas for shear calculations comply with ACI 318-95 provisions and shown in Figure 4-2. A load factor of unity is used and the self weight of the plate is not included in the analysis.
Y X
Figure 4-1 Rectangular Plate on Elastic Beams
EXAMPLE 4 - 2
SAFE 0
Column Strip 120" Edge Beam 120" MIddle Strip 1 = 240" Plate
120" Column Strip
Definition of Strips
a = 360" Edge Beam
b = 240"
Tributary Loaded Area for Shear on Edge Beams
Figure 4-2 Definition of Slab Strips and Tributary Areas for Shear on Edge Beams
EXAMPLE 4 - 3
SAFE 0
GEOMETRY, PROPERTIES AND LOADING Plate size ab Plate thickness T Modulus of elasticity E Poisson's ration v Beam moment of inertia Ib Relative stiffness parameter Load Case: q
= = = = = =
360" 240" 8 inches 3000 ksi 0.3 4 4
= 100 psf (Uniform load)
TECHNICAL FEATURES OF SAFE TESTED Comparisons of deflection with benchmark solution. RESULTS COMPARISON Table 4-1 shows monotonic convergence of SAFE deflections for = 4 to the theoretical values with successive mesh refinement. Table 4-2 shows the variation of bending moment in the edge beam along its length for = 4. The theoretical solution and the ACI approximation using the Direct Design Method also are shown. The value of is analogous to the ACI ratio 1l2 / l1 (refer to Sections 13.6.4.4 and 13.6.5.1 of ACI 318-95). The correlation between the numerical results from SAFE and the theoretical results is excellent. For design purposes, the ACI approximation (Direct Design Method) compares well with the theory. For the Direct Design Method, the moments are obtained at the grid points. In obtaining SAFE moments, averaging was performed at the grid points. In obtaining the ACI moments, the following quantities were computed: 1 = EcbIb/EcsIs = 6.59375, l2/l1 = 240/360 = 0.667, 1l2/l1 = 4.3958, t = 0, M0 = 2700 k-in. From ACI section 13.6.4.4 for l2 / l1 = 0.667 and 1l2 / l1 = 4.3958, it is determined that the column strip supports 85% of the total positive moment. The beam and slab do not carry any negative moment about the Y-axis because of the simply supported boundary conditions at x = 0 and x = a.
EXAMPLE 4 - 4
SAFE 0
From ACI section 13.6.5.1 for 1l2 / l1 = 4.3958, it is determined that the beam carries 85% of the total column strip moment. Since one beam supports only onehalf of the column strip, the maximum beam positive moment is as follows Mpositivebeam = 0.85 0.85 0.5 M0 = 0.36125 x 2700 = 975.375 k-in The beam moments at other locations are obtained assuming a parabolic variation along the beam length. Table 4-3 shows the variation of shear in edge beams for = 4. The agreement is excellent. The ACI values are calculated based on the definition of loaded tributary areas given in Section 13.6.8.1 of ACI 318-95. The shear forces were obtained at the middle of the grid points. In obtaining SAFE moments, no averaging was required for the shear forces.
Location X (in) 180 180 180 Y (in) 0 60 120 SAFE Displacement (in) 44 Mesh 0.1793 0.1467 0.0677 88 Mesh 0.1856 0.1529 0.0721 1212 Mesh 0.1862 0.1536 0.0730 Theoretical Displacement (in) 0.18572 0.15349 0.07365
Table 4-2 Variation of Bending Moment in an Edge Beam ( = 4)

Location Y (in) X (in) 0 30 120 60 120 180 44 Mesh 0 580.6 1120.3 Edge Beam Moment (k-in) 88 Mesh 0 280.8 564.8 971.0 1116.4 1212 Mesh 0 575.1 1118.4 ACI 0 298.031 541.875 867.000 975.375 Theoretical 0 313.4984 591.6774 984.7026 1120.1518
EXAMPLE 4 - 5
SAFE 0
Table 4-3 Variation of Shear in an Edge Beam ( = 4)

Location Y (in) X (in) 10 15 30 45 50 120 80 90 120 150 160 44 Mesh 9.59 4.33 Edge Beam Shear (k) 88 Mesh 8.31 7.60 6.04 2.08 1212 Mesh 8.04 7.91 7.44 6.40 4.06 1.38 ACI 9.9653 9.9219 9.6875 9.2969 9.1319 7.7778 7.1875 5.0000 2.5000 1.6667 Theoretical 10.6122 10.4954 9.9837 9.2937 9.0336 7.2458 6.5854 4.4821 2.2656 1.5133
COMPUTER FILE: S04a.FDB, S04b.FDB, S04c.FDB CONCLUSION The SAFE results show an excellent comparison with the independent results.
EXAMPLE 4 - 6
SAFE 0
EXAMPLE 05
Infinite Flat Plate on Equidistant Columns PROBLEM DESCRIPTION The plate, shown in Figure 5-1, is analyzed for uniform load. The overall dimensions of the plate are significantly larger than the column spacing (a and b in Figure 5-1). Analysis is limited to a single interior panel because it can be assumed that deformation is identical for all panels in the plate. An analytical solution, based on the foregoing assumption, is given in Timoshenko and Woinowsky (1959). Three mesh sizes, as shown in Figure 1-2, are used to test the convergence property of the model: 4 4, 8 8, and 12 12. The model consists of a panel of uniform thickness supported at four corners point. The effect of column support within a finite area is not modeled. Due to symmetry, the slope of the deflection surface in the direction normal to the boundaries is zero along the edges and the shearing force is zero at all points along the edges of the panel, except at the corners. To model this boundary condition, line supports with a large rotational stiffness about the support line are defined on all four edges. Additional point supports are provided at the corners. The panel is modeled using thick plate elements in SAFE. In doing so, the effect of shear distortion is included. To approximately model the rigid corners, the slab thickness is increased for the 12 12 mesh to five times its original value in the region concerned, shown as the 40" 40" area in Figure 5-2. To obtain design moments, the panel is divided into three strips both ways, two column strips and one middle strip, based on the ACI 318-95 definition of design strip widths, as shown in Figure 5-2 and in Figure 5-3. A load factor of unity is used. The self weight of the panel is not included in the analysis. Tables 5-1 through 5-3 show the comparison of the numerically computed deflection, local moments, and local shears obtained from SAFE with their theoretical counterparts. Table 5-4 shows the comparison of the average design strip moments obtained from SAFE with those obtained from the theoretical method and two ACI alternative methods: the Direct Design Method (DDM) and the Equivalent Frame Method (EFM).
EXAMPLE 05 - 1
SAFE 0
Floor Plan
a = 30' y b = 20' Point Support at Corner x Point Support at Corner
A Typical Bay
Point Support at Corner
Point Support at Corner
Figure 5-1 Infinite Plate on Equidistant Columns and Detail of Panel used in Analysis Material Properties and Load Modulus of Elasticity = 3000 ksi Poisson's Ratio = 0.3 Uniform Load = 100 psf
EXAMPLE 05 - 2
SAFE 0
360"
40" x 40" Corner Stiffening Column Strip 120" 120" 120" Column Strip 240"
Middle Strip
Typical Interior Panel
= 1800 k-in
M0 = 2700 k-in
+M
Slab Corners Non-Rigid
= 900 k-in
= 1422 k-in
M0 = 2133 k-in
+M
m
Slab Corners Rigid
= 711 k-in
Figure 5-2 Definition of X-Strips (Moment values obtained by EFM)
EXAMPLE 05 - 3
SAFE 0
40" x 40" Corner Stiffening Column Strip 120"
Middle Strip 360"
240"
120" Column Strip 240"
= 1200 k-in
M0 = 1800 k-in
+M
m
Slab Corners Non-Rigid
= 600 k-in
= 833 k-in
M0 = 1250 k-in
+M
m
Slab Corners Rigid
= 417 k-in
Figure 5-3 Definition of Y-Strips (Moment values obtained by EFM)
EXAMPLE 05 - 4
SAFE 0
GEOMETRY, PROPERTIES AND LOADING Plate size a b = 360" 240" Plate thickness T = 8 inches Modulus of elasticity E = 3000 ksi Poisson's ration v = 0.3
Load Case: q = 100 psf (Uniform load)
TECHNICAL FEATURES OF SAFE TESTED Comparisons of deflection with benchmark solution. RESULTS COMPARISON Table 5-1 shows the comparison of the numerical and the theoretical deflections. The data indicates monotonic convergence of the numerical solution to the theoretical values with successive mesh refinement.
The SAFE results for local moment and shear also compare closely with the theoretical values, as shown in Table 5-2 and Table 5-3, respectively. EFM is used to calculate the interior span moments as depicted in Figure 5-2 and Figure 5-3. In Table 5-4 average strip moments obtained from SAFE are compared with both the ACI and the theoretical values. Table 5-5 shows the effect of corner rigidity. The agreement between the SAFE and the theoretical solution is excellent. ACI approximations, employing either DDM or EFM, however, deviate from the theory. It should be noted that, regardless of the method used, the absolute sum of positive and negative moments in each direction equals the total static moment in that direction.
EXAMPLE 05 - 5
SAFE 0

Location X (in) 0 0 0 120 120 180 180 180 Y (in) 0 60 120 0 120 0 60 120 SAFE Displacement (in) 44 Mesh 0.249 0.252 0.252 0.139 0.082 0.094 0.052 0.000 88 Mesh 0.279 0.276 0.273 0.155 0.101 0.109 0.069 0.000 1212 Mesh 0.284 0.280 0.275 0.157 0.103 0.110 0.070 0.000 Theoretical Displacement (in) 0.280 0.275 0.270 0.152 0.098 0.104 0.065 0.000

Moments (k-in/in) Location SAFE (88) 3.115 3.446 2.977 9.687 Mx Theoretical 3.266 3.610 3.142 9.804 SAFE (88) 1.394 0.583 1.846 7.894 My Theoretical 1.470 0.580 1.904 7.638
X (in) 30 30 165 165
Y (in) 15 105 15 105
EXAMPLE 05 - 6
SAFE 0
Table 5-3 Comparison of Local Shears

Shears (103 k) Location SAFE (88) 20.2 24.3 26.7 287.4 Vx Theoretical 17.3 23.5 14.7 329.0 SAFE (88) 8.7 8.1 24.8 277.8 Vy Theoretical 2.2 5.4 23.8 320.0
X (in) 30 30 165 165
Y (in) 45 105 15 105
Table 5-4 Comparison of Average Strip Moments

SAFE Moments (k-in/in) Average Moment Location Strip Column x = 0" Middle Column 3.932 8.754 4.963 2.361 1.628 6.321 0.590 3.726 10.692 3.953 2.076 1.537 8.670 0.567 3.682 10.993 3.823 1.999 1.533 9.025 0.431 3.641 11.091 3.891 1.925 1.538 9.139 0.430 3.150 10.968 3.656 3.150 1.050 7.313 1.219 3.000 11.250 3.750 3.000 1.000 7.500 1.250 44 Mesh 4.431 88 Mesh 4.079 12 12 Mesh 3.952 Theoretical (k-in/in) 3.859 ACI 318-95 (k-in/in) DDM 4.725 EFM 4.500
Mx
Mx
x = 180" Middle Column y= 0" Middle Column y = 120" Middle
My
My
EXAMPLE 05 - 7
SAFE 0
Table 5-5 Comparison of Average Strip Moments : Effect of Corner Rigidity

SAFE Moments (1212 Mesh) (k-in/in) Average Moment Location Strip Column x = 0" Middle Column 3.682 6.744 3.354 1.999 1.533 4.904 0.204 3.202 8.309 2.779 1.440 1.321 5.5768 0.264 3.000 3.000 1.000 2.370 8.887 2.962 2.085 0.695 5.206 0.867 Slab Corner Non-Rigid 3.952 Slab Corner Rigid 3.441 ACI 318-95 (EFM Method) (k-in/in) Slab Corner Non-Rigid 4.500 Slab Corner Rigid 3.555
Mx
Mx
x = 160" Middle Column y= 0" Middle Column y = 100" Middle
My
My
COMPUTER FILE: S05a.FDB, S05b.FDB, S05c.FDB, S05d.FDB CONCLUSION

The SAFE results show a close comparison with the independent results.
EXAMPLE 05 - 8
SAFE 0
EXAMPLE 06
Infinite Flat Plate on Elastic Subgrade PROBLEM DESCRIPTION An infinite plate resting on elastic subgrade and carrying equidistant and equal loads, P, is shown in Figure 6-1. Each load is assumed to be distributed uniformly over the area u v of a rectangle. A theoretical double series solution to this example is given in Timoshenko and Woinowsky (1959). The numerically computed deflections, local moments, and local shears obtained from SAFE are compared to the theoretical values, as shown in Table 6-1 and Table 6-2. Analysis is confined to a single interior panel. To model the panel, three mesh sizes, as shown in Figure 1-2, are used: 4 4, 8 8, and 12 12. The slab is modeled using thin plate elements and the elastic support is modeled as a surface support with a spring constant of k, the modulus of subgrade reaction. The edges are modeled as line supports with a large rotational stiffness about the support line. Point loads P/4 are defined at the panel corners. In the theoretical formulation (Timoshenko and Woinowsky 1959), each column load P is assumed to be distributed over an area u v of a rectangle, as shown in Figure 6-1. To apply the theoretical formulation to this problem, concentrated corner loads are modeled as a uniformly distributed load acting over a very small rectangular area where u and v are very small. GEOMETRY, PROPERTIES AND LOADING Plate size ab Plate thickness T Modulus of elasticity E Poisson's ratio v Modulus of subgrade reaction k
= = = = =
360" 240" 15 inches 3000 ksi 0.2 1 ksi/in
Loading: Point Load P = 400 kips (assumed to be uniformly distributed over an area u v)
EXAMPLE 06 - 1
SAFE 0
v 2 u 2 u (Typ.) 2
(Typ.)
v 2
P uv P uv P uv
FLOOR PLAN a = 30'

v 2 v 2
b = 20'
Y X
u 2 u 2
T = 15"
A Typical Panel
Figure 6-1 Rectangular Plate on Elastic Subgrade TECHNICAL FEATURES OF SAFE TESTED Comparison of deflection on elastic foundation. RESULTS COMPARISON Excellent agreement has been found between the numerical and theoretical deflection for k = 1 ksi/in, as shown in Table 6-1. As the modulus k is changed,
EXAMPLE 06 - 2
SAFE 0
the distribution of pressure between the plate and the subgrade changes accordingly. The particular case, as k approaches 0, corresponds to a uniformly distributed subgrade reaction, i.e., to the case of a reversed flat slab uniformly loaded with q = P/ab. In fact the problem changes to that of Example 5, with the direction of vertical axis reversed. In Example 5, for a uniform load of 100 psf (P = 60 kips), the maximum relative deflection is calculated as 0.280. Applying the formulation used here with k = 1 10-6 yields a deflection value of 0.279". Table 6-2 shows the comparison of the SAFE local moments using the 12 12 mesh with the theoretical results. The results agree well.
Location X (in) 0 180 180 Y (in) 0 60 120 SAFE Displacement (in) 44 Mesh 0.0436 0.00127 0.00018 88 Mesh 0.06011 0.00074 0.00050 1212 Mesh 0.06330 0.000756 0.00059 Theoretical Displacement (in) -0.05308 0.00096 0.00067

Moments (103 kip/in) Location SAFE (1212) 36.76 7.13 0.21 6.11 3.56 0.87 Mx Theoretical 35.97 7.70 0.27 6.89 3.78 0.98 SAFE (1212) 36.73 6.37 5.17 2.05 0.82 1.86 My Theoretical 35.56 6.87 5.69 1.72 1.02 1.69
X (in) 10 10 10 80 80 80
Y (in) 10 50 110 10 50 110
EXAMPLE 06 - 3
SAFE 0
COMPUTER FILE: S06a.FDB, S06b, FDB, S06c.FDB CONCLUSION The SAFE results show an acceptable comparison with the independent results.
EXAMPLE 06 - 4
SAFE 0
EXAMPLE 7
Skewed Plate with Mixed Boundary PROBLEM DESCRIPTION A skewed plate under uniform load, as shown in Figure 7-1, is analyzed for two different support configurations. In the first case, all the edges are assumed to be simply supported. In the second case, the edges y = 0 and y = b are released, i.e., the plate is assumed to be supported on its oblique edges only. A theoretical solution to this problem is given in Timoshenko and Woinowsky (1959). In both cases, the maximum deflection and the maximum moment are compared with the corresponding theoretical values. An 8 24 base mesh is used to model the plate, as shown in Figure 7-1. A large vertical stiffness is defined for supports, and support lines are added on all four edges for the first case and along the skewed edges only for the second case. A load factor of unity is used. The self weight of the plate is not included in the analysis. GEOMETRY, PROPERTIES, AND LOADING Plate size Plate thickness Modulus of elasticity Poissons ratio Load Cases:
ab T E v
= = = =
480" 240" 8 inches 3,000 ksi 0.2
Uniform load, q
= 100 psf
TECHNICAL FEATURES OF SAFE TESTED Comparison of deflection and moments on skewed plate.
EXAMPLE 7 - 1
SAFE 0
40'
20'
20' Geometry
16 @ 2.5'
8 @ 2.5'
8 @ 2.5' Y Mesh X
Support Conditions: (1) Simply supported on all edges (2) Simply supported on oblique edges
Figure 7-1 Skew Plate
EXAMPLE 7 - 2
SAFE 0
RESULTS COMPARISON Under the simply supported boundary condition, maximum deflection occurs at the plate center and the maximum principal moment acts nearly in the direction of the short span. Under the simply supported condition on the oblique edges and free boundary conditions on the other two edges, maximum deflection occurs at the free edge as expected.
Table 7-1 Comparison of Deflections and Bending Moments
Boundary Condition Simply supported on all edges Responses Maximum displacement (inches) Maximum bending moment (k-in) Maximum displacement at the free edges (in) Maximum bending moment of the free edges (k-in) Displacement at the center (in) Maximum bending moment at the center (k-in) SAFE 0.160 3.75 1.52 11.79 1.23 11.27 Theoretical 0.162 3.59 1.50 11.84 1.22 11.64
Simply supported on oblique edges
Simply supported on oblique edges
COMPUTER FILES S07a.FDB and S07b.FDB CONCLUSION The comparison of SAFE and the theoretical results is acceptable, as shown in Table 7-1.
EXAMPLE 7 - 3
SAFE 0
EXAMPLE 8
ACI Handbook Flat Slab Example 1 PROBLEM DESCRIPTION The flat slab system, arranged three-by-four, is shown in Figure 8-1. The slab consists of twelve 7.5-inch-thick 18' 22' panels. Edge beams on two sides extend 16 inches below the slab soffit. Details are shown in Figure 8-2. There are three sizes of columns and in some locations, column capitals. Floor to floor heights below and above the slab are 16 feet and 14 feet respectively. A full description of this problem is given in Example 1 of ACI 340.R-97 (ACI Committee 340, 1997). The total factored moments in an interior E-W design frame obtained from SAFE are compared with the corresponding results obtained by the Direct Design Method, the Modified Stiffness Method, and the Equivalent Frame Method. The computational model uses a 10 10 mesh of elements per panel, as shown in Figure 8-3. The mesh contains gridlines at column centerlines, column faces, and the edges of column capitals. The grid lines extend to the slab edges. The regular slab thickness is 7.5". A slab thickness of 21.5" is used to approximately model a typical capital. The slab is modeled using thin plate elements. The columns are modeled as point supports with vertical and rotational stiffnesses. Stiffness coefficients used in the calculation of support flexural stiffness are all reproduced from ACI Committee 340 (1997). Beams are defined on two slab edges, as shown in Figure 8-1. The value of the torsional constant (10767 in4) used for the beams is reproduced from ACI Committee 340 (1997). The model is analyzed for a uniform factored load of 0.365 ksf (wu = 1.4wd + 1.7 wt) in total, including self weight. To obtain factored moments in an E-W interior design frame, the slab is divided into strips in the X-direction (E-W direction), as shown in Figure 8-4. An interior design frame consists of one column strip and two halves of adjacent middle strips.
EXAMPLE 8 - 1
SAFE 0
A 22'-0" 1
B 22'-0" Edge beam
C 22'-0"
18'-0" 2
S1
S4
S7
S2 18'-0" 3 A 18'-0" S2 Edge beam 4 18'-0" 5
S5 4'-0"
S8 2'-6"
Design Frame
4'-0" S5 S8 3'-6"
S3
S6 3'-6"
S9
No edge beams on lines D and 5

Figure 8-1 Flat Slab from ACI Handbook
EXAMPLE 8 - 2
SAFE 0
A 22'-0" 19'-4"
B 22'-0" 18'-0"
C 22'-0" 18'-3"
Col. 16"x18" Col. 16"x18" Detail "a"
Col. 18"x18" Col. 20"x20" Detail "b" SECTION AA
Col. 18"x18" Col. 18"x18" Detail "c"
A 28" 16"
B 48" 18"
D 30" 18"
7.5" 23.5" 12" Detail "a" 14" 20" Detail "b" Detail "c"
Figure 8-2 Sections and Details of ACI Handbook Flat Slab Example
EXAMPLE 8 - 3
SAFE 0
A 1
D
40 39 38 37 36 35 34 30 29 28 27 26 25 24 20 19 18 17 16 15 14 10 9 8 7 6 5 4
34 5 6 7 8
9 10 13 15 16 17 18 19 20 23 25 26 27 28 29 30
Figure 8-3 SAFE Mesh (10 10 per panel)
EXAMPLE 8 - 4
SAFE 0
A 5'-2" 1
D 9'-8" Exterior Design Frame Interior Design Frame
2 7 @ 9'-0" 3
18'-0"
5 5'-3" Interior Column Strip Middle Strip Exterior Column Strip
Figure 8-4 Definition of E-W Design Frames and Strips
EXAMPLE 8 - 5
SAFE 0
92
215
173
173
191
71 142
154 Direct Design Method 132 138 209 173
93
173
186
117 120
93
Modified Stiffness Method 150 138 210 192 73 193 215
125 103
Equivalent Frame Method 107 152 SAFE 207 175 107 168 190 97 136 Units: k-ft
Figure 8-5 Comparison of Total Factored Moments (E-W Design Frame)
EXAMPLE 8 - 6
SAFE 0
GEOMETRY, PROPERTIES AND LOADING Materials: Concrete strength Yield strength of steel Concrete unit weight Modulus of elasticity Poisson's ratio
fc' fy c Ec v
= = = = =
3 40 150 3320 0.2
ksi ksi pcf ksi
TECHNICAL FEATURES OF SAFE TESTED Comparison of factored moments in slab. RESULTS COMPARISON The SAFE results for the total factored moments in an interior E-W design frame are compared in Figure 8-5 with the results obtained by the Direct Design Method (DDM), the Modified Stiffness Method (MSM), and the Equivalent Frame Method (EFM). Only uniform loading with load factors of 1.4 and 1.7 has been considered. The DDM, MSM, and EFM results are all reproduced from Example 1 of ACI Committee 340 (1997), the Alternative Example 1 of ACI Committee 340 (1991), and from Example 3 of ACI Committee 340 (1991), respectively. Moments reported are calculated at the face of column capitals. Overall, they compare well. A noticeable discrepancy is observed in the negative column moment in the west side of the exterior bay (the edge beam side). In contrast to the EFM, the DDM appears to underestimate this moment. The SAFE result are between the two extreme values. The basic cause of this discrepancy is the way in which each method accounts for the combined flexural stiffness of columns framing into the joint. The DDM uses a stiffness coefficient kc of 4 in the calculation of column and slab flexural stiffnesses. The EFM, on the other hand, uses higher value of kc to allow for the added stiffness of the capital and the slab-column joint. The use of MSM affects mainly the exterior bay moments, which is not the case when the DDM is employed. In SAFE, member contributions to joint stiffness are dealt with more systematically than any of the preceding approaches. Hence, the possibility of over designing or under designing a section is greatly reduced. The factored strip moments are compared in Table 8-1. There is a discrepancy in the end bays, particularly on the edge beam (west) side, where the SAFE and EFM results for exterior negative column strip moment show the greatest difference. This is expected because EFM simplifies a 3D structure to a 2D structure, thereby neglecting the transverse interaction between adjacent strips. Except for this localized difference, the comparison is good.
EXAMPLE 8 - 7
SAFE 0
Table 8-1 Comparison of Total Factored Strip Moments (k-ft) (Interior E-W Design Frame)
Factored Strip Moment (k-ft) Span AB Strip Method DDM Column Strip MSM EFM SAFE DDM Middle Strip MSM EFM SAFE
Span BC
Span CD
86 122 140 77 6 10 10 6
92 83 83 85 62 55 55 78
161 157 157 160 54 52 53 64
130 130 144 133 43 43 48 48
56 56 44 58 37 37 29 48
130 130 145 121 43 43 48 46
143 140 161 149 48 46 54 42
85 72 62 72 57 48 41 62
71 117 125 88 0 0 0 12
COMPUTER FILE: S08.FDB CONCLUSION The SAFE results show an exact comparison with the independent results.
EXAMPLE 8 - 8
SAFE 0
EXAMPLE 9
ACI Handbook Two-Way Slab Example 2 PROBLEM DESCRIPTION The two-way slab system arranged three-by-three is shown in Figure 9-1. The slab consists of nine 6.5-inch-thick 20-foot 24-foot panels. Beams extend 12 inches below the slab soffit. Details are shown in Figure 9-2. Sixteen inch 16 inch columns are used throughout the system. Floor to floor height is 15 feet. A full description of this problem is given in Example 2 of ACI 340.R-91 (ACI Committee 340, 1991). The total factored moments in an interior design frame obtained from SAFE are compared with the Direct Design Method, the Modified Stiffness Method, and the Equivalent Frame Method. The computational model uses a 10 10 mesh of elements per panel, as shown in Figure 9-3. The mesh contains grid lines at both column centerlines and column faces. The grid lines are extended to the slab edges. The slab is modeled using thin plate elements. The columns are modeled as point supports with vertical and rotational stiffnesses. A stiffness coefficient of 4 EI/L is used in the calculation of support flexural stiffness. Torsional constants of 4790 in4 and 5478 in4 are defined for the edge and interior beams respectively, in accordance with Section 13.7.5 of ACI 318-89 and Section 13.0 of ACI 318-95 code. The model is analyzed for uniform factored total load of 0.347 ksf (wu = 1.4wd + 1.7w1), including self weight. To obtain factored moments in an interior design frame, the slab is divided into strips in the X-direction (E-W direction), as shown in Figure 9-4. An interior design frame consists of one column strip and two halves of adjacent middle strips. GEOMETRY, PROPERTIES AND LOADING Concrete strength Yield strength of steel Concrete unit weight Modulus of elasticity Poisson's ratio Live load Mechanical load Exterior wall load
fc' fy wc Ec v
= 3 = 40 = 150 = 3120 = 0.2
ksi ksi psf ksi
w1 = wd = wwall =
125 psf 15 psf 400 plf
EXAMPLE 9 - 1
SAFE 0
A 20'-0"
B 20'-0"
C 20'-0"
24'-0"
2 A 24'-0" Column 16"x16" (Typ.) A
24'-0"
Figure 9-1 ACI Handbook Two-Way Slab Example
EXAMPLE 9 - 2
SAFE 0
20'-0"
20'-0"
20'-0" Col. 16"x16" (Typ.)
Detail 'a'
Detail 'b' SECTION A-A
A 22" 16"
16"
6.5" 18.5" 10" Detail 'a' Detail 'b' 12" 12"
Figure 9-2 Details of Two-Way Slab Example from ACI Handbook
EXAMPLE 9 - 3
SAFE 0
A 1
EXAMPLE 9 - 4
SAFE 0
5' - 8" 12' - 8" 14' - 0"
Exterior Design Frame
2 10' - 0"
24' - 0" Interior
Design Frame
14' - 0"
3 10' - 0"
14' - 0" 5' - 8"
Interior Column Strip Middle Strip Exterior Column Strip
Figure 9-4 Definition of E-W Design Frames and Strips
EXAMPLE 9 - 5
SAFE 0
62 221
272
244
244
272
62 221
132
Direct Design Method 272 244 244 272
90 205
93 205
132
Modified Stiffness Method 84 288 265 265 288 84 203
111 203 Equivalent Frame Method
84 191 SAFE
278
251
251
278
84 191 Units: k-ft
120
Figure 9-5 Comparison of Total Factored Moments (k-ft) in an Interior E-W Design Frame
EXAMPLE 9 - 6
SAFE 0
TECHNICAL FEATURES OF SAFE TESTED Calculation of factored moments in slab. RESULTS COMPARISON The SAFE results for the total factored moments in an interior E-W design frame are compared with the results obtained by the Direct Design Method (DDM), the Modified Stiffness Method (MSM), and the Equivalent Frame Method (EFM) as shown in Figure 9-5. The results are for uniform loading with load factors. The results are reproduced from ACI Committee 340 (1991). Moments reported are calculated at the column face. For all practical purposes they compare well. At the end bays, the MSM appears to overestimate the exterior column negative moments with the consequent reduction in the mid-span moments. The distribution of total factored moments to the beam, column strip, and middle strip is shown in Table 9-1. The middle strip moments compare well. The total column strip moments also compare well. The distribution of the column strip moments between the slab and the beam has a larger scatter.
EXAMPLE 9 - 7
SAFE 0
Table 9-1 Comparison of Total Factored Moments (kip-ft)

Total Factored Moments in an E-W Design Frame(kip-ft) Exterior Span Strip Method DDM Slab Column Strip MSM EFM SAFE DDM Slab Middle Strip MSM EFM SAFE DDM MSM Beam EFM SAFE 68 15 119 101 169 137 156 122 66 58 156 122
Interior Span
9 13 12 75 3 5 4 8 50 72
23 21 21 28 69 63 63 71 129 121
28 28 30 66 84 84 89 70 160 160
25 25 27 61 76 76 82 68 143 143
14 14 11 15 41 41 34 49 77 77
25 25 27 60 76 76 82 68 143 143
COMPUTER FILE: S09.FDB CONCLUSION The SAFE results show an exact comparison with the independent results.
EXAMPLE 9 - 8
SAFE 0
EXAMPLE 10
PCA Flat Plate Test PROBLEM DESCRIPTION This example models the flat plate structure tested by the Portland Cement Association (Guralnick and LaFraugh 1963). The structure consists of nine 5.25inch-thick 15-foot 15-foot panels arranged 3 3, as shown in Figure 10-1. Deep and shallow beams are used on the exterior edges. The structure is symmetric about the diagonal line through columns A1, B2, C3, and D4, except the columns themselves are not symmetric about this line. The corner columns are 12 inches 12 inches and the interior columns are 18 inches 18 inches. Columns along the edges are 12 inches 18 inches, with the longer dimension parallel to the plate edge. A typical section of the plate and details of edge beams are given in Figure 10-2. The total moments in an interior frame obtained numerically from SAFE are compared with the test results and the numerical values obtained by the Equivalent Frame Method (EFM). A finite element model, shown in Figure 10-3, with 6 6 mesh per panel is employed in the analysis. The slab is modeled using the thin plate elements in SAFE. The columns are modeled as point supports with vertical and rotational stiffnesses. The reduced-height columns in the test structure are fixed at the base. Hence, rotational stiffnesses of point supports are calculated using a stiffness coefficient of 4 and an effective height of 39.75 inches (Kc = 4EI / lc). The calculation of torsional stiffness of edge beams is based on the requirements of Section 13.7.5 of ACI 318-95. The model extends to the centerlines of the edge columns only. The portion of slab occupying the column area is modeled as rigid by increasing its thickness to five times the nominal slab thickness. A total uniformly distributed design load of 156 psf (not factored) is applied to all the panels. To obtain design moment coefficients, the plate is divided into column and middle strips. An interior design frame consists of one column strip and half of each adjacent middle strip. Normalized values of design moments are used in the comparison.
EXAMPLE 10 - 1
SAFE 0
A 15' 0" 1 Shallow Beam 12" x 8 "
B 15' 0"
C 15' 0"
D 12"
Shallow Beam 12" x 8 " 12" 15' 0" 18" 18" 12"
Design Frame Shallow Beam Side
2 A 15' 0"
Deep Beam 6" x 15 "
18" 18"
3 Design Frame Deep Beam Side 15' 0"
4 Deep Beam 6" x 15 " 12"
Figure 10-1 PCA Flat Plate Example
EXAMPLE 10 - 2
SAFE 0
A
15'0" Shallow Beam 8 "
B
15'0"
C
15'0"
D
Deep Beam 15 "
5 " 12" 18" 18"
3' 3 " 12" 2'9" Anchor Bolts
SECTION A-A
Figure 10-2 Section and Details of PCA Flat Plate Example
A 1
4
EXAMPLE 10 - 3
SAFE 0
GEOMETRY, PROPERTIES AND LOADING Concrete strength fc' Yield strength of steel fy Concrete unit weight wc Modulus of elasticity Ec Poisson's ratio v Live load Dead load
= = = = =
4.1 40 150 3670 0.2
ksi ksi pcf ksi
w1 = wd =
70 psf 86 psf
TECHNICAL FEATURES OF SAFE TESTED Calculation of factored forces in slab. RESULTS COMPARISON The SAFE results for the total non-factored moments in an interior frame are compared with test results and the Equivalent Frame Method (EFM). The test and EFM results are all obtained from Corley and Jirsa (1970). The moments are compared in Table 10-1. The negative design moments reported are at the faces of the columns. Overall, the agreement between the SAFE and EFM results is good. The experimental negative moments at exterior sections, however, are comparatively lower. This may be partially the result of a general reduction of stiffness due to cracking in the beam and column connection at the exterior column, which is not accounted for in an elastic analysis. It is interesting to note that even with an approximate representation of the column flexural stiffness, the comparison of negative exterior moments between EFM and SAFE is excellent.
EXAMPLE 10 - 4
SAFE 0
Table 10-1 Comparison of Measured and Computer Moments

Moments in an Interior Design Frame (M / Wl1 *) End Span (Shallow Beam Side) Method PCA Test EFM SAFE (Shallow Beam Slide) SAFE (Deep Beam Slide)
Middle Span
End Span (Deep Beam Side)
0.037 0.044 0.038
0.047 0.048 0.052
0.068 0.067 0.070
0.068 0.062 0.064
0.031 0.038 0.041
0.073 0.062 0.062
0.073 0.068 0.071
0.042 0.049 0.053
0.031 0.043 0.035
0.038
0.052
0.070
0.064
0.041
0.060
0.071
0.053
0.035
* Wl1 = 526.5 kip-ft COMPUTER FILE: S10.FDB CONCLUSION The SAFE results show good comparison with the independent results.
EXAMPLE 10 - 5
SAFE 0
EXAMPLE 11
University of Illinois Flat Plate Test F1 PROBLEM DESCRIPTION This example models the flat plate structure tested at the University of Illinois by Hatcher, Sozen, and Siess (1965). The structure consists of nine 1.75-inch-thick 5-foot 5-foot panels arranged 3 3 as shown in Figure 11-1. Two adjacent edges are supported by 2.00-inch- 5.25-inch-deep beams and the other two edges by shallow beams, 4-inches wide by 2.75 inches deep, producing a single diagonal line of symmetry through columns A1, B2, C3, and D4. A typical section and details of columns and edge beams are shown in Figure 11-2. The moments computed numerically using SAFE are compared with the test results and the EFM results. The computational model uses a 6 6 mesh of elements per panel, as shown in Figure 11-3. The mesh contains grid lines at column centerlines as well as column faces. The slab is modeled using thin plate elements and the columns are modeled as point supports with vertical and rotational stiffnesses. The reducedheight columns in the test structure are pinned at the base. Hence, an approximate value of 3(Kc = 3EI/lc) is used to calculate flexural stiffness of the supports, taking the column height as 9.5 inches. The slab is thickened over the column sections to account for rigidity of the slab-column joint. Shallow and deep beams are defined on the edges with torsional constants of 164 inches and 14.94 inches respectively, as described in Section 13.0 of ACI 318-95. The model is analyzed for uniform total load of 140 psf. To obtain maximum factored moments in an interior design frame, the plate is divided into columns and middle strips. An interior design frame consists of one column strip and half of each adjacent middle strip. GEOMETRY, PROPERTIES AND LOADING Material: Concrete strength Yield strength of steel Modulus of elasticity Poissons ratio Loading: Total uniform load f'c fy Ec v = 2.5 ksi = 36.7 ksi = 2400 ksi = 0.2 140 psf
w =
EXAMPLE 11 - 1
SAFE 0
A 5' x 0" 1 4" 4' x 0" 2 A 4' x 0" Shallow Beam 4" x 2"
B 5' x 0"
C 5' x 0"
D 4"
Shallow Beam 4" x 2" 6" 6" 4" Deep Beam 2" x 5"
Design Frame Shallow Beam Side
6" 6"
3 Design Frame Deep Beam Side 4' x 0"
4 Deep Beam 2" x 5" 4"

Figure 11-1 University of Illinois Flat Plate Test F1
EXAMPLE 11 - 2
SAFE 0
A 5' 0" Shallow Beam 2" 11" 4" Side Col. 4"x 6"
B 5' 0"
D 5' 0" Deep Beam 5" 6" 4" Corner Col. 4" sq.
6"
1"
Interior Col. 6" sq. SECTION A-A
Figure 11-2 Sections and Details of University of Illinois Flat Plate Test F1
A 1
4
EXAMPLE 11 - 3
SAFE 0
TECHNICAL FEATURES OF SAFE TESTED Calculation frame moments for uniform loading. RESULTS COMPARISON Table 11-1 shows the comparison of the SAFE results for uniform load moments for an interior frame with the experimental and EFM results. The experimental and EFM results are all obtained from Corley and Jirsa (1970).
Table 11-1 Comparison of Measured and Computed Moments
Moments in an Interior Design Frame (M/Wl1 *) End Span (Shallow Beam Side) Method TEST F1 EFM SAFE (Shallow Beam Side) SAFE (Deep Beam Side)
Middle Span -M 0.064 0.066 0.065 +M 0.040 0.034 0.039
End Span (Deep Beam Side) M
+M 0.049 0.044 0.048
+M 0.047 0.044 0.048
0.027 0.047 0.046
0.065 0.072 0.067
0.058 0.067 0.060
0.058 0.073 0.071
0.034 0.046 0.040
0.040
0.046
0.065
0.064
0.038
0.059
0.071
0.047
0.039
* Wl1 = 17.5 kip-ft The negative design moments reported are at the faces of the columns. From a practical standpoint, even with a coarse mesh, the agreement between the SAFE and EFM results is good. In general the experimentally obtained moments at exterior sections are low, implying a loss of stiffness in the beam-column joint area. In comparing absolute moments at a section, the sum of positive and average negative moments in the bay should add up to the total static moment. The SAFE and EFM results comply with this requirement within an acceptable margin of accuracy. The experimental results are expected to show greater discrepancy because of the difficulty in taking accurate strain measurements. COMPUTER FILE: S11.FDB CONCLUSION The SAFE results show an acceptable comparison with the independent results.
EXAMPLE 11 - 4
SAFE 0
EXAMPLE 12
University of Illinois Flat Slab Tests F2 and F3 PROBLEM DESCRIPTION This example models F2 and F3, the flat slab structures tested at the University of Illinois by Hatcher, Sozen, and Siess (1969) and Jirsa, Sozen, and Siess (1966) respectively. A typical structure used in tests F2 and F3 is shown in Figure 12-1. The fundamental difference between these two test structures is in the type of reinforcement used. In test F2, the slab is reinforced with medium grade reinforcement, whereas in test F3, welded wire fabrics are used. The structure consists of nine 5-foot 5-foot panels arranged 3 3. Two adjacent edges are supported by deep beams, 2 inches wide by 6 inches deep, and the other two edges by shallow beams, 4.5 inches wide by 2.5 inches deep, producing a single diagonal line of symmetry through columns A1, B2, C3, and D4. A typical section and details of columns, drop panels, and column capitals are shown in Figure 12-2. For both structures, the numerical results obtained for an interior frame by SAFE are compared with the experimental results and the EFM results due to uniformly distributed load. The computational model uses an 8 8 mesh of elements per panel, as shown in Figure 12-3. The mesh contains grid lines at the column centerlines as well as the edges of drop panels and interior column capitals. The mesh extends to the centerlines of the edge columns only. In the absence of edge beams, it is recommended to include an extra line of elements beyond the edge column centerlines up to the slab edge. The slab thickness is increased to 2.5 inches over the drop panels. A thickness of 4.5 inches is used to approximately model the interior capitals. Short deep beams are used to model the edge column capitals. In this model, the slab is modeled using thin plate elements and the columns are modeled as point supports with vertical and rotational stiffnesses. A stiffness coefficient of 4.91 (Kc = 4.91EIc / lc) is used in the calculation of the support flexural stiffness based on a column height of 21.375 inches, measured from the mid-depth of the slab to the support center. Due to the presence of capitals, columns are treated as non-prismatic. Shallow and deep beams are defined on the edges with torsional constants of 15.44 inches and 17.84 inches, respectively, as described in Section 13.0 of ACI 318-95. Both test problems are modeled in SAFE with concrete modulus of elasticity of 2100 ksi. This affects the slab, beam, and column stiffnesses. Since the distribution of moment depends on the relative stiffnesses, the test problems are not modeled twice, one for Ec = 2100ksi and the other for Ec = 3700 ksi.
EXAMPLE 12 - 1
SAFE 0
A 5' 0" 1
B 5' 0" Shallow Beam
C 5' 0"
A 5' 0" 2 A
Shallow Beam
5' 0" 3
Design Frame Deep Beam Side
5' 0" 4
Design Frame Deep Beam Side
Deep Beam
Figure 12-1 University of Illinois Flat Slab Tests F2 and F3
The model is analyzed for uniform load. To obtain maximum factored moments in an interior design frame, the slab is divided into two interior and two exterior design frames spanning in the X direction (E-W direction). Because of symmetry, results are shown for X strips only. An interior design frame consists of one column strip and half of each adjacent middle strip.
EXAMPLE 12 - 2
Deep Beam
SAFE 0
5' 0" 2" Shallow Beam
5' 0"
5' 0" Deep Beam
1"
1' 10"
Side Column 3" x 5"
Interior Column 3" sq. SECTION AA

20" 12" 0.5"
Corner Column 3" sq.
1.75"
Drop panel Capital 22.25" 1C = 17.375"
INTERIOR COLUMNS
Figure 12-2 Sections and Details of Flat Slabs F2 and F3
EXAMPLE 12 - 3
SAFE 0
A 1
4
Figure 12-3 SAFE Mesh (8 8 per mesh)
GEOMETRY, PROPERTIES AND LOADING Concrete strength: fc = 2.76 ksi (Test F2) fc = 3.76 ksi (Test F3) Yield strength of slab reinforcement: fy = 49 ksi (Test F2) fy = 54 ksi (Test F3)
EXAMPLE 12 - 4
SAFE 0
Modulus of elasticity: Ec = 2100 ksi (Test F2) Ec = 3700 ksi (Test F3) Poissons ratio: = 0.2 Loading: Total uniform design load, w = 280 psf TECHNICAL FEATURES OF SAFE TESTED Calculation frame moments. RESULTS COMPARISON Table 12.-1 shows the comparison of the SAFE results for moments in an interior frame with the experimental and EFM results for both structures F2 and F3. The experimental and EFM results are all obtained from Corley and Jirsa (1970).
Moments in an Interior Design Frame (M / Wl1 *) End Span (Shallow Beam Side) Method TEST F2 TEST F3 EFM SAFE (Shallow Beam Side) SAFE (Deep Beam Side) * Wl1 = 35.0 k-ft
Middle Span
End Span (Deep Beam Side)
0.025 0.029 0.021 0.024
0.042 0.038 0.044 0.042
0.068 0.057 0.057 0.067
0.062 0.055 0.050 0.061
0.029 0.023 0.026 0.024
0.061 0.058 0.049 0.057
0.065 0.060 0.057 0.069
0.038 0.034 0.044 0.042
0.025 0.024 0.021 0.022
0.024
0.041
0.066
0.060
0.024
0.057
0.068
0.040
0.021
EXAMPLE 12 - 5
SAFE 0 Moments are compared at the edge of column capitals. Table 12-1 shows that the SAFE and the EFM results are in excellent agreement. In general, the measured positive moments appear to be lower than the SAFE and EFM values.
COMPUTER FILE: S12.FDB CONCLUSION The SAFE results show an excellent comparison with the independent results.
EXAMPLE 12 - 6
SAFE 0
EXAMPLE 13
University of Illinois Two-way Slab Test T1 PROBLEM DESCRIPTION This example models the slab structure tested at the University of Illinois by Gamble, Sozen, and Siess (1969). The structure is a two-way slab, 1.5 inches thick, in which each panel is supported along all four edges by beams, as shown in Figure 13-1. The structure consists of nine 5-foot 5-foot panels arranged 3 3. The edge beams extend 2.75 inches below the soffit of the slab and the interior beams have an overall depth of 5 inches. The corner columns are 4 inches 4 inches and the interior columns are 6 inches 6 inches. Edge columns are 4 inches 6 inches with the longer dimension parallel to the slab edge. A typical section of the slab and details are shown in Figure 13-2. The moments in an interior design frame due to uniform loads obtained from SAFE are compared with the corresponding experimental results and the numerical values obtained from the EFM. The computational model uses a 6 6 mesh of elements per panel, as shown in Figure 13-3. Grid lines are defined at column faces as well as the column centerlines. The mesh extends to the edge column centerlines only. The slab is modeled using the thin plate elements available in SAFE. The columns are modeled as supports with both vertical and rotational stiffnesses. A stiffness coefficient of 8.0 is used in the calculation of support flexural stiffnesses based on a column height of 15.875 inches, measured from the mid-depth of the slab to the support center. The column is assumed to be infinitely rigid over the full depth of the beams framing into it. The value of 8.0 is 75% of the figure obtained from Table 6.2 of ACI Committee 340 (1997) to approximately account for the pinned end condition at the column base. The slab is also thickened over the column sections to approximately model rigidity of the slab-column joint. Torsional constants of 33.74 inches and 24.24 inches are defined for the interior and edge beams respectively, in accordance with Section 13.0 of ACI 318-95. To obtain maximum factored moments in an interior design frame, the slab is divided into two interior and two exterior design frames spanning in the X direction (E-W direction). Because of double symmetry, comparison is confined to X strips only. An interior design frame consists of one column strip and half of each adjacent middle strip.
EXAMPLE 13 - 1
SAFE 0
A 5' 0" 1
B 5' 0"
C 5' 0"
5' 0" 2 Typical Design Frames A 5' 0" 3 A
5' 0" 4
Figure 13-1 University of Illinois Two-Way Slab Example T1
GEOMETRY, PROPERTIES AND LOADING Concrete strength Yield strength of reinforcements Modulus of elasticity Poissons ratio Loading: Total uniform load fc fy Ec w = = = = = 3 ksi 42 ksi 3000 ksi 0.2 150 psf
EXAMPLE 13 - 2
SAFE 0
A 5' 0"
B 5' 0"
C 5' 0"
5 16 " 8
Detail 'a'
Detail 'b' Edge Col. 4" x 6" Corner Col. 4" x 4"
Interior Col. 6" x 6" SECTION A-A
3" 1 4 " 4 5"
3"
1 1 " 2 1 3 " 2 Detail 'b'

Figure 13-2 Sections and Details of Slab T1
Detail 'a'
EXAMPLE 13 - 3
SAFE 0
A 1
4
Figure 13-3 SAFE Mesh of Slab T1 (6 6 per panel)
TECHNICAL FEATURES OF SAFE TESTED Calculation frame moments and comparison with experimental and FEM results. RESULTS COMPARISON Table 13.-1 shows the comparison of the moments in an interior design frame obtained numerically from SAFE with the experimental results and the EFM results. The experimental and EFM results are all obtained from Corley and Jirsa (1970).
EXAMPLE 13 - 4
SAFE 0

Moments in an Interior Design Frame ( M / Wl1 *) Exterior Span Method Test T1 EFM SAFE * Wl1 = 18.75 k-ft
Middle Span
0.043 0.035 0.044
0.046 0.047 0.049
0.079 0.079 0.074
0.071 0.066 0.063
0.036 0.034 0.040
0.071 0.066 0.062
The negative design moments reported are at the face of columns. The comparison is excellent. The minor discrepancy is attributed to the loss of stiffness due to the development of cracks and the difficulty in measuring strains accurately at desired locations. COMPUTER FILE: S13.FDB CONCLUSION The SAFE results show an excellent comparison with the independent results.
EXAMPLE 13 - 5
SAFE 0
EXAMPLE 14
University of Illinois Two-Way Slab Test T2 PROBLEM DESCRIPTION This example models the slab structure tested at the University of Illinois by Vanderbilt, Sozen, and Siess (1969). The structure is a two-way slab arranged in 3 3 panels in which each panel is supported along all four edges by beams, as shown in Figure 14-1. The structure consists of nine 1.5-inch thick 5-foot 5foot panels. The edge beams and the interior beams extend 1.5 inches below the soffit of the slab. The corner columns are 4 inches 4 inches and the interior columns are 6 inches 6 inches. Edge columns are 4 inches 6 inches with the longer dimension parallel to the slab edge. A typical section of the slab and details is shown in Figure 14-2. The computational model uses a 6 6 mesh of elements per panel, as shown in Figure 14-3. Grid lines are defined at column faces as well as the column centerlines. The mesh extends to the edge column centerlines only. The slab is modeled using thin plate elements and the columns are modeled as supports with both vertical and rotational stiffnesses. A stiffness coefficient of 6.33 is used in the calculation of support flexural stiffnesses based on a column height of 13.125 inches, measured from the mid-depth of the slab to the support center. The column stiffness is assumed to be infinitely rigid over the full depth of the beams framing into it. The value of 6.33 is 75% of the figure obtained from Table A7 of Portland Cement Association (1990) to approximately account for the pinned end condition at the column base. The slab also is thickened over the column section to allow for rigidity of the slab-column joint. Torsional constants of 11.24 inches and 10.64 inches are defined for the interior and edge beams respectively, in accordance with Section 13.0 of ACI 318-95. To obtain maximum factored moments in an interior design frame, the slab is divided into two interior and two exterior design frames spanning in the X direction (E-W direction). An interior design frame consists of one column strip and half of each adjacent middle strip. GEOMETRY, PROPERTIES AND LOADING
Concrete strength Yield strength of reinforcement Modulus of elasticity Poissons ratio Loading: Total uniform load f c fy Ec w = 3 ksi = 47.6 ksi = 3000 ksi = 0.2 = 139 psf
EXAMPLE 14 - 1
SAFE 0
A 5' 0" 1
B 5' 0"
C 5' 0"
5' 0" 2 Typical Design Frame A 5' 0" 3 A
5' 0" 4
Figure 14-1 University of Illinois Two-Way Floor Slab T2
EXAMPLE 14 - 2
SAFE 0
A 5' 0"
B 5' 0"
C 5' 0"
7 13 " 8
Detail 'a'
Detail 'b'
Interior Col. 6" x 6" SECTION AA
Corner Col. 4" x 4" Edge Col. 4" x 6"
3"
3"
1 1 " 2 3" Detail 'a' Detail 'b' 1 1 " 2
Figure 14-2 Sections and Details of Floor Slab T2
EXAMPLE 14 - 3
SAFE 0
A 1
Figure 14-3 SAFE Mesh of Slab T2 (6 6 per panel)
TECHNICAL FEATURES OF SAFE TESTED Calculation of frame forces and comparison with experimental and FEM results. RESULTS COMPARISON Table 14-1 shows the comparison of the moments in an interior design frame obtained numerically from SAFE with the experimental results and the EFM results. The experimental and EFM results are all obtained from Corley and Jirsa (1970).
EXAMPLE 14 - 4
SAFE 0

Moments in an Interior Design Frame (M / Wl1 *) Exterior Span Method TEST T1 EFM SAFE * Wl1 = 17.375 kip-ft
Middle Span
0.036 0.046 0.052
0.056 0.044 0.046
0.069 0.074 0.069
0.061 0.066 0.061
0.045 0.034 0.040
0.061 0.066 0.061
The negative design moments reported are at the face of columns. The comparison is excellent except for the negative exterior moments where the experimental results are lower than both the SAFE and the EFM results. The discrepancy is attributed not only to the loss of stiffness due to the development of cracks, but also to the difficulty in taking accurate strain measurements at desired locations.
COMPUTER FILE: S14.FDB CONCLUSION The SAFE results show an excellent comparison with the independent results.
EXAMPLE 14 - 5
SAFE 0
EXAMPLE ACI 318-08 PT-SL 001

Design Verification of Post-Tensioned Slab using the ACI 318-08 code PROBLEM DESCRIPTION The purpose of this example is to verify the slab stresses and the required area of mild steel strength reinforcing for a post-tensioned slab. A one-way simply supported slab is modeled in SAFE. The modeled slab is 10inches thick by 36inches wide and spans 32 feet as shown in shown in Figure 1. A 36 wide design strip was centered along the length of the slab and was defined as an A-Strip. B-strips were placed at each end of the span perpendicular to Strip-A (the B-Strips are necessary to define the tendon profile). A tendon with two strands having an area of 0.153 square inches each was added to the A-Strip. The self-weight and live loads were added to the slab. The loads and posttensioning forces are shown below. The total factored strip moments, required area of mild steel reinforcement and slab stresses are reported at the midspan of the slab. Independent hand calculations were compared with the SAFE results and summarized for verification and validation of the SAFE results. Loads: Dead = self weight , Live = 100psf
EXAMPLE ACI 318-08 PT-SL 001 - 1
SAFE 0
Figure 1 One-Way Slab GEOMETRY, PROPERTIES AND LOADING Thickness, Effective depth, Clear span, Concrete strength, Yield strength of steel, Prestressing, ultimate
T, h d L f 'C fy
= = = = = = = = = = = = =
10 9 384 4,000 60,000
in in in psi psi
f pu =
270,000 psi 175,500 psi 0.153 sq in 0.150 pcf 3,600 ksi 29,000 ksi 0 self psf 100 psf
fe Prestressing, effective Area of Prestress (single strand), AP Concrete unit weight, wc Modulus of elasticity, Ec Modulus of elasticity, Es Poissons ratio, Dead load, wd Live load, wl
SAFE 0
TECHNICAL FEATURES OF SAFE TESTED Calculation of the required flexural reinforcement Check of slab stresses due to the application of dead, live and post-tensioning loads. RESULTS COMPARISON The SAFE total factored moments, required mild steel reinforcing and slab stresses are compared to the independent hand calculations in Table 1.
Table 1 Comparison of Results FEATURE TESTED Factored moment, Mu (Ultimate) (k-ft) Area of Mild Steel reqd, As (sq-in) Transfer Conc. Stress, top (D+PTI), ksi Transfer Conc. Stress, bot (D+PTI), ksi Normal Conc. Stress, top (D+L+PTF), ksi Normal Conc. Stress, bot (D+L+PTF), ksi Long-Term Conc. Stress, top (D+0.5L+PTF(L)), ksi Long-Term Conc. Stress, bot (D+0.5L+PTF(L)), ksi INDEPENDENT RESULTS 1429.0 2.21 0.734 0.414 1.518 1.220 1.134 0.836 SAFE RESULTS 1428.3 2.21 0.735 0.414 1.519 1.221 1.135 0.837 DIFFERENCE 0.05% 0.00% 0.14% 0.00% 0.07% 0.08% 0.09% 0.12%
COMPUTER FILE: ACI 318-05 PT-SL-001.FDB CONCLUSION The SAFE results show a very close comparison with the independent results.
SAFE 0
CALCULATIONS:
Design Parameters: =0.9 Mild Steel Reinforcing. fc = 4000 psi fy = 60,000 psi
Post-Tensioning fj = 216.0 ksi Stressing Loss = 27.0 ksi Long-Term Loss = 13.5 ksi fi =189.0 ksi fe =175.5 ksi
Loads: Dead, self-wt = 10 / 12 ft x 0.150 kcf = 0.125 ksf (D) x 1.2 = 0.150 ksf (Du) 0.100 ksf (L) x 1.6 = 0.160 ksf (Lu) Live, Total =0.225 ksf (D+L) 0.310 ksf (D+L)ult
=0.225 ksf x 3 ft = 0.675 klf,
u = 0.310 ksf x 3ft = 0.930 klf
SAFE 0
Ultimate Moment, M U =
wl12 = 0.310 klf x 322/8 = 119.0 k-ft = 1429.0 k-in 8

f 'c , (span-to-depth ratio > 35) 300 P 4 , 000 = 175,500 + 10 , 000 + 300( 0.000944 ) = 199 , 624 psi 205,500 psi
Ultimate Stress in strand, f PS = f SE + 10000 +
Ultimate force in PT, Fult ,PT = AP ( f PS ) = 2( 0.153 )( 199.62 ) = 61.08kips Ultimate force in RC, Fult ,RC = As ( f y ) = 2.00( assume )( 60.0 ) = 120.0kips Total Ultimate force, Fult ,Total = 61.08 + 120.0 = 181.08kips Stress block depth, a =
Fult ,Total 181.08 = = 1.48in 0.85 f ' cb 0.85( 4 )( 36 )
a 1.48 ) = 61.08( 9 )( 0.9 ) = 454.1k in 2 2 = 1429.0 454.1 = 974.9k in
Ultimate moment due to PT, M ult ,PT = Fult ,PT ( d Net ultimate moment, M net = M U M ult ,PT
Required area of mild steel reinforcing, AS =
M net a fy( d ) 2
974.9 1.48 ) 0.9( 60 )( 9 2
= 2.18in 2
Note: The required area of mild steel reinforcing was calculated from an assumed amount of steel. Since the assumed value and the calculated value are not the same a second iteration can be performed. The second iteration changes the depth of the stress block and the calculated area of steel value. Upon completion of the second iteration the area of steel was found to be 2.21in2
SAFE 0
Check of Concrete Stresses at Midspan: Initial Condition (Transfer), load combination (D+L+PTi) = 1.0D+1.0PTI The stress in the tendon at transfer = jacking stress-stressing losses=216.0-27.0=189.0ksi The force in the tendon at transfer, = 189.0( 2 )( 0.153 ) = 57.83 kips Moment due to dead load, M D = 0.125( 3 )( 32 )2 / 8 = 48.0k ft = 576k in Moment due to PT, M PT = FPTI ( sag ) = 57.83( 4in ) = 231.3k in F M M PT 57.83 576.0 231.3 = , where S=600in3 Stress in concrete, f = PTI D 10( 36 ) 600 A S f = 0.161 0.5745 f = 0.735( Comp )max, 0.414( Tension )max Normal Condition, load combinations: (D+L+PTF) = 1.0D+1.0L+1.0PTF Tendon stress at normal = jacking-stressing-Long-Term = 216.0-27.0-13.5=175.5ksi The force in tendon at Normal, = 175.5( 2 )( 0.153 ) = 53.70 kips Moment due to dead load, M D = 0.125( 3 )( 32 )2 / 8 = 48.0k ft = 576k in Moment due to dead load, M L = 0.100( 3 )( 32 )2 / 8 = 38.4k ft = 461k in Moment due to PT, M PT = FPTI ( sag ) = 53.70( 4in ) = 214.8k in Stress in concrete for (D+L+PTF), f = FPTI M D + L M PT 53.70 1037.0 214.8 = 10( 36 ) 600 A S f = 0.149 1.727 0.358 f = 1.518( Comp )max,1.220( Tension )max
Long-Term condition, load combinations: (D+0.5L+PTF(L)) = 1.0D+0.5L+1.0PTF Tendon stress at normal = jacking-stressing-Long-Term=216.0-27.0-13.5=175.5ksi The force in tendon at Normal, = 175.5( 2 )( 0.153 ) = 53.70 kips Moment due to dead load, M D = 0.125( 3 )( 32 )2 / 8 = 48.0k ft = 576k in Moment due to dead load, M L = 0.100( 3 )( 32 )2 / 8 = 38.4k ft = 460k in Moment due to PT, M PT = FPTI ( sag ) = 53.70( 4in ) = 214.8k in
SAFE 0
Stress in concrete for (D+0.5L+PTF(L)), M M PT 53.70 806.0 214.8 F = f = PTI D + 0.5 L 10( 36 ) 600 A S f = 0.149 0.985 f = 1.134( Comp )max, 0.836( Tension )max
SAFE 0
EXAMPLE ACI 318-08 RC-BM-001

Flexural and Shear Beam Design PROBLEM DESCRIPTION The purpose of this example is to verify the beam flexural design in SAFE. The load level is adjusted for the case corresponding to the following conditions: The stress-block extends below the flange but remains within the balanced condition permitted by ACI 318-08. The average shear stress in the beam falls below the maximum shear stress allowed by ACI 318-08, requiring design shear reinforcement. A simple-span, 20-foot-long, 12-inch-wide, and 18-inch-deep T beam with a flange 4 inches thick and 24 inches wide is modeled using SAFE. The beam is shown in Figure 1. The computational model uses a finite element mesh of frame elements, automatically generated by SAFE. The maximum element size is specified as 6 inches. The beam is supported by columns without rotational stiffnesses and with very large vertical stiffness (1 1020 kip/in). The beam is loaded with symmetric third-point loading. One dead load (DL02) case and one live load (LL30) case, with only symmetric third-point loads of magnitudes 3, and 30 kips, respectively, are defined in the model. One load combination (COMB30) is defined using the ACI 318-08 load combination factors of 1.2 for dead load and 1.6 for live load. The model is analyzed for both of these load cases and the load combination. The beam moment and shear force are computed analytically. The total factored moment and shear force are compared with the SAFE results and found to be identical. After completing the analysis, the design is performed using the ACI 318-08 code in SAFE and also by hand computation. Table 1 shows the comparison of the design longitudinal reinforcement. Table 2 shows the comparison of the design shear reinforcement.
EXAMPLE ACI 318-08 RC-BM-001 - 1
SAFE 0
600 mm 75 mm 100 mm
500 mm
75 mm 300 mm
Beam Section
2000 mm
2000 mm
2000 mm
Shear Force
Bending Moment
Figure 1 The Model Beam for Flexural and Shear Design
SAFE 0
GEOMETRY, PROPERTIES AND LOADING Clear span Overall depth Flange thickness Width of web Width of flange, Depth of tensile reinf. Effective depth Depth of comp. reinf. Concrete strength Yield strength of steel Concrete unit weight Modulus of elasticity Modulus of elasticity Poissons ratio Dead load Live load
l h ds bw bf dc d d' f'c fy wc Ec Es v Pd Pl
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
240 18 4 12 24 3 15 3 4,000 60,000 0 3,600 29,000 0.2 2 30
in in in in in in in in psi psi pcf ksi ksi kips kips
TECHNICAL FEATURES OF SAFE TESTED Calculation of flexural and shear reinforcement Application of minimum flexural and shear reinforcement RESULTS COMPARISON Table 1 shows the comparison of the SAFE total factored moments in the beam with the moments obtained by the analytical method. They match exactly for this problem. Table 1 also shows the comparison of the design reinforcement.
Table 1 Comparison of Moments and Flexural Reinforcements
Moment (k-in) 4032 4032 Reinforcement Area (sq-in) As+ 5.808 5.808
Method SAFE Calculated
A +,min = 0.4752 sq-in s
SAFE 0
Table 2 Comparison of Shear Reinforcements

Reinforcement Area, (sq-in/ft) Shear Force (kip) 50.40 SAFE 0.592 Calculated 0.592
Av s
COMPUTER FILE: ACI 318-08 RC-BM-001.FDB CONCLUSION The SAFE results show an exact comparison with the independent results.
SAFE 0
HAND CALCULATION Flexural Design The following quantities are computed for all the load combinations: = 0.9 Ag = 264 sq-in As,min = 0.0018Ag = 0.4752 sq-in
1 = 0.85 0.05
f c 4000 = 0.85 1000
cmax =
0.003 d = 5.625 in 0.003 + 0.005
amax = 1cmax = 4.78125 in As = min[As,min, (4/3) As,required] = min[0.4752, (4/3)5.804] = 0.4752 sq-in COMB30 Pu = (1.2Pd + 1.6Pt) = 50.4 k
Mu = Pu l = 4032 k-in 3
The depth of the compression block is given by:
a = d d2
2 Mu 0.85 f c' b f
= 4.2671 in (a > ds)
Calculation for As is performed in two parts. The first part is for balancing the compressive force from the flange, Cf, and the second part is for balancing the compressive force from the web, Cw. Cf is given by: Cf = 0.85fc' (bf bw) ds = 163.2 k
The portion of Mu that is resisted by the flange is given by: Muf = d Cf d s 2 = 1909.44 k-in
SAFE 0 Therefore, the area of tensile steel reinforcement to balance flange compression is: As1 =
f y (d d s 2 ) M uf
= 2.7200 sq-in
The balance of the moment to be carried by the web is given by: Muw = Mu Muf = 2122.56 k-in The web is a rectangular section with dimensions bw and d, for which the design depth of the compression block is recalculated as a1 = d
d2 2M uw = 4.5409 in (a1 amax) 0.85 f c bw
The area of tensile steel reinforcement to balance the web compression is then given by: As2 =
M uw = 3.0878 sq-in a1 fy d 2
The area of total tensile steel reinforcement is then given by: As Shear Design The following quantities are computed for all of the load combinations: = 0.75
f c :
= As1 + As2 = 5.808 sq-in
Check the limit of
f c = 63.246 psi < 100 psi
The concrete shear capacity is given by: Vc = 2

f c bwd
= 17.076 k
The maximum shear that can be carried by reinforcement is given by:
SAFE 0
Vs = ( Vc/2)
f c bwd = 68.305 k
The following limits are required in the determination of the reinforcement: = 8.538 k = 23.826 k ( Vc + 50 bwd)
Vmax = Vc + Vs = 85.381 k Given Vu, Vc and Vmax, the required shear reinforcement in area/unit length for any load combination is calculated as follows: If Vu (Vc/2) ,
Av = 0, s
else if (Vc/2) < Vu (Vc + 50 bwd),
Av 50 bw , = s fy
else if (Vc + 50 bwd) < Vu Vmax
Av (V Vc ) = u s f ys d
else if Vu > Vmax, a failure condition is declared. For each load combination, the Pu and Vu are calculated as follows: Pu = 1.2Pd + 1.6P1 Vu = Pu (COMB30) Pd = 2 k Pl = 30 k Pu = 50.4 k Vu = 50.4 k, (Vc + 50 bwd) < Vu Vmax
Av = s
(Vu Vc ) = 0.04937 sq-in/in or 0.592 sq-in/ft f ys d
SAFE 0
EXAMPLE ACI 318-08 RC-PN-001

Slab Punching Shear Design PROBLEM DESCRIPTION The purpose of this example is to verify slab punching shear design in SAFE. The numerical example is a flat slab that has three 24-foot-long spans in each direction, as shown in Figure 1.
A
1' 2' 24'
B
24'
C
24'
D
1'
4
24'
17
18
19
20
10" thick flat slab
3
24'
13
14
15
Columns are 12" x 36" with long side parallel to the Y-axis, typical
9 10 11 12
2
24'
Concrete Properties Unit weight = 150 pcf f'c = 4000 psi Loading DL = Self weight + 20 psf LL = 80 psf
Y 1
2'
5
Figure 1: Flat Slab For Numerical Example
EXAMPLE ACI 318-08 RC-PN-001 - 1
SAFE 0 The slab overhangs the face of the column by 6 inches along each side of the structure. The columns are typically 12 inches wide by 36 inches long, with the long side parallel to the Y-axis. The slab is typically 10 inches thick. Thick plate properties are used for the slab. The concrete has a unit weight of 150 pcf and an f 'c of 4000 psi. The dead load consists of the self weight of the structure plus an additional 20 psf. The live load is 80 psf.
TECHNICAL FEATURES OF SAFE TESTED Calculation of punching shear capacity, shear stress, and D/C ratio. RESULTS COMPARISON Table 1 shows the comparison of the SAFE punching shear capacity, shear stress ratio, and D/C ratio with the punching shear capacity, shear stress ratio and D/C ratio obtained by the analytical method. They match exactly for this example.
Table 1 Comparison of Design Results for Punching Shear at Grid B-2 Shear Stress Shear Capacity (ksi) (ksi) D/C ratio
0.1930 0.1930 0.158 0.158 1.222 1.222
Method
SAFE Calculated
COMPUTER FILE: ACI 318-08 RC-PN-001.FDB CONCLUSION The SAFE results show an exact comparison with the independent results.
SAFE 0
HAND CALCULATION Hand Calculation for Interior Column Using SAFE Method d = [(10 - 1) + (10 - 2)] / 2 = 8.5" Refer to Figure 2. b0 = 44.5 + 20.5 + 44.5 + 20.5 = 130"
20.5"
Y
4.25" A 6" 6" 4.25" B Side 2
Critical section for punching shear shown dashed.

4.25"
Column
Side 1
Side 3
18"
X
18"
44.5"
Center of column is point (x1, y1). Set this equal to (0,0).

Side 4 D C
4.25"
Figure 2: Interior Column, Grid B-2 in SAFE Model
VX
=1
1 2 44.5 1+ 3 20.5
= 0.4955
VY
=1
1 2 20.5 1+ 3 44.5
= 0.3115
The coordinates of the center of the column (x1, y1) are taken as (0, 0).
SAFE 0
The following table is used for calculating the centroid of the critical section for punching shear. Side 1, Side 2, Side 3, and Side 4 refer to the sides of the critical section for punching shear, as identified in Figure 2. Item x2 y2 L d Ld Ldx2 Ldy2 Side 1 10.25 0 44.5 8.5 378.25 3877.06 0 Side 2 0 22.25 20.5 8.5 174.25 0 3877.06 Side 3 10.25 0 44.5 8.5 378.25 3877.06 0 Side 4 0 22.25 20.5 8.5 174.25 0 3877.06 Sum N.A. N.A. b0 = 130 N.A. 1105 0 0
x3 =
Ldx
Ld
0 = 0" 1105
y3 =
Ldy
Ld
0 = 0" 1105
The following table is used to calculate IXX, IYY and IXY. The values for IXX, IYY and IXY are given in the Sum column. Item L d x2 - x3 y2 - y3 Parallel to Equations IXX IYY IXY Side 1 44.5 8.5 10.25 0 Y-Axis 5b, 6b, 7 64696.5 39739.9 0 Side 2 20.5 8.5 0 22.25 X-axis 5a, 6a, 7 86264.6 7151.5 0 Side 3 44.5 8.5 10.25 0 Y-Axis 5b, 6b, 7 64696.5 39739.9 0 Side 4 20.5 8.5 0 22.25 X-axis 5a, 6a, 7 86264.6 7151.5 0 Sum N.A. N.A. N.A. N.A. N.A. N.A. 301922.3 93782.8 0
From the SAFE output at Grid B-2: VU = 189.91 k
VX M UX VU ( y3 y1 ) = 152.399 k-in VY M UY VU ( x3 x1 ) = 91.049 k-in
SAFE 0
At the point labeled A in Figure 2, x4 = 10.25 and y4 = 22.25, thus: vU = 189.91 152.399[93782.8(22.25 0) (0)(10.25 0)] 130 8.5 (301922.3)(93782.8) (0) 2 91.049[301922.3(10.25 0) (0)(22.25 0)] (301922.3)(93782.8) (0) 2
vU = 0.1719 0.0112 0.0100 = 0.1507 ksi at point A At the point labeled B in Figure 2, x4 = 10.25 and y4 = 22.25, thus: vU = 189.91 152.399[93782.8(22.25 0) (0)(10.25 0)] 130 8.5 (301922.3)(93782.8) (0) 2 91.049[301922.3(10.25 0) (0)(22.25 0)] (301922.3)(93782.8) (0) 2
vU = 0.1719 0.0112 + 0.0100 = 0.1706 ksi at point B At the point labeled C in Figure 2, x4 = 10.25 and y4 = 22.25, thus:
vU = 189.91 152.399[93782.8( 22.25 0) (0)(10.25 0)] 130 8.5 (301922.3)(93782.8) (0) 2 91.049[301922.3(10.25 0) (0)(22.25 0)] (301922.3)(93782.8) (0) 2
vU = 0.1719 + 0.0112 + 0.0100 = 0.1930 ksi at point C At the point labeled D in Figure 2, x4 = 10.25 and y4 = 22.25, thus: vU = 189.91 152.399[93782.8(22.25 0) (0)(10.25 0)] 130 8.5 (301922.3)(93782.8) (0) 2 91.049[301922.3( 10.25 0) (0)(22.25 0)] (301922.3)(93782.8) (0) 2
vU = 0.1719 0.0112 + 0.0100 = 0.1706 ksi at point D Point C has the largest absolute value of vu, thus vmax = 0.1930 ksi
SAFE 0
The shear capacity is calculated based on the smallest of ACI 318-08 equations 11-34, 11-35 and 11-36 with the b0 and d terms removed to convert force to stress.
4 0.75 2 + 4000 36 /12 = 0.158 ksi in accordance with equation 11-34 vC = 1000 40 8.5 + 2 4000 0.75 130 vC = = 0.219 ksi in accordance with equation 11-35 1000
0.75 4 4000 = 0.190 ksi in accordance with equation 11-36 1000
vC =
Equation 11-34 yields the smallest value of vC = 0.158 ksi and thus this is the shear capacity.
vU 0.193 = = 1.222 vC 0.158
Shear Ratio =
SAFE 0
EXAMPLE ACI 318-08 RC-SL-001

Slab Flexural Design PROBLEM DESCRIPTION The purpose of this example is to verify slab flexural design in SAFE A one-way, simple-span slab supported by walls on two opposite edges is modeled using SAFE. The slab is 6 inches thick and spans 12 feet between walls. To ensure one-way action, Poissons ratio is taken to be zero. The slab is modeled using thin plate elements. The walls are modeled as line supports without rotational stiffnesses and with very large vertical stiffness (1 1020 k-in). The computational model uses a finite element mesh, automatically generated by SAFE. The maximum element size is specified to be 24 inches. To obtain factored moments and flexural reinforcement in a design strip, one onefoot-wide strip is defined in the X-direction on the slab, as shown in Figure 1.
Simply supported edge at wall 12 ft span Free edge Y X Free edge
Figure 1 Plan View of One-Way Slab
Simply supported edge at wall
1ft design strip
One dead load case (DL80) and one live load case (LL100) with uniformly distributed surface loads of magnitudes 80 and 100 psf, respectively, are defined in the model. A load combination (COMB100) is defined using the ACI 318-08 load combination factors, 1.2 for dead loads and 1.6 for live loads. The model is analyzed for both load cases and the load combination. The slab moment on a strip of unit width is computed analytically. The total factored strip moments are compared with the SAFE results. After completing the analysis, design is performed in accordance with ACI 318-08 using SAFE and also by hand computation. Table 1 shows the comparison of the moments and design reinforcements computed using the two methods.
EXAMPLE ACI 318-08 RC-SL-001 - 1
SAFE 0
GEOMETRY, PROPERTIES AND LOADING Thickness Depth of tensile reinf. Effective depth Clear span Concrete strength Yield strength of steel Concrete unit weight Modulus of elasticity Modulus of elasticity Poissons ratio Dead load Live load
T, h dc d ln, l1 fc fy wc Ec Es wd wl
= = = = = = = = = = = =
6 1 5 144 4,000 60,000 0 3,600 29,000 0
in in in in psi psi pcf ksi ksi
80 psf 100 psf
TECHNICAL FEATURES OF SAFE TESTED Calculation of flexural reinforcement Application of minimum flexural reinforcement RESULTS COMPARISON Table 1 shows the comparison of the SAFE total factored moments in the design strip with the moments obtained by the hand computation method. Table 1 also shows the comparison of the design reinforcements.
Table 1 Comparison of Design Moments and Reinforcements Load Level
Medium Calculated 55.296 0.211
Method
SAFE
Moment (k-in)
55.220
Reinforcement Area (sq-in) As+

0.212
A +,min = 0.1296 sq-in s
COMPUTER FILE: ACI 318-08 RC-SL-001.FDB CONCLUSION The SAFE results show a very close comparison with the independent results.
SAFE 0
HAND CALCULATION The following quantities are computed for the load combination: = 0.9 b = 12 in As,min = 0.0018bh = 0.1296 sq-in
f c 4000 = 0.85 1000
1 = 0.85 0.05
cmax =
0.003 d = 1.875 in 0.003 + 0.005
amax = 1cmax = 1.59375 in For the load combination, w and Mu are calculated as follows: w = (1.2wd + 1.6wt) b / 144 wl12 Mu = 8 As = min[As,min, (4/3) As,required] = min[0.1296, (4/3)2.11] = 0.1296 sq-in COMB100 wd = 80 psf wt = 100 psf w = 21.33 lb/in Mu = 55.296 k-in The depth of the compression block is given by:
a = d d2
2 Mu 0.85 f c' b
= 0.3108 in < amax
The area of tensile steel reinforcement is then given by: As = Mu = 0.2114 sq-in > As,min a fy d 2
As = 0.2114 sq-in
SAFE 0
EXAMPLE AS 3600-01 PT-SL-001

Post-Tensioned Slab Design PROBLEM DESCRIPTION The purpose of this example is to verify the slab stresses and the required area of mild steel reinforcing strength for a post-tensioned slab. A one-way, simply supported slab is modeled in SAFE. The modeled slab is 254 mm thick by 914 mm wide and spans 9754 mm as shown in shown in Figure 1.
Prestressing tendon, Ap Mild Steel, As 229 mm 254 mm 25 mm
Length, L = 9754 mm Elevation
914 mm
Section
Figure 1 One-Way Slab
EXAMPLE AS 3600-01 PT-SL-001 - 1
SAFE 0 A 914-mm-wide design strip is centered along the length of the slab and is defined as an A-Strip. B-Strips have been placed at each end of the span, perpendicular to Strip-A (the B-Strips are necessary to define the tendon profile). A tendon with two strands, each having an area of 99 mm2, has been added to the A-Strip. The self-weight and live loads were added to the slab. The loads and post-tensioning forces are as follows: Loads: Dead = self weight, Live = 4.788 kN/m2
The total factored strip moments, required area of mild steel reinforcement, and slab stresses are reported at the midspan of the slab. Independent hand calculations were compared with the SAFE results and summarized for verification and validation of the SAFE results. GEOMETRY, PROPERTIES AND LOADING Thickness, Effective depth, Clear span, Concrete strength, Yield strength of steel, Prestressing, ultimate Prestressing, effective Area of prestress (single tendon), Concrete unit weight, Concrete modulus of elasticity, Rebar modulus of elasticity, Poissons ratio, Dead load, Live load,
T, h = d = L f 'c fy fpu fe Ap wc Ec Es wd wl = = = = = = = = = = = =
254 mm 229 mm 9754 30 400 1862 1210 198 23.56 25000 200,000 0 mm MPa MPa MPa MPa mm2 KN/m3 N/mm3 N/mm3
self KN/m2 4.788 KN/m2
TECHNICAL FEATURES OF SAFE TESTED Calculation of the required flexural reinforcement Check of slab stresses due to the application of dead, live and post-tensioning loads. RESULTS COMPARISON Table 1 shows the comparison of the SAFE total factored moments, required mild steel reinforcing and slab stresses with the independent hand calculations.
SAFE 0
Table 1 Comparison of Results FEATURE TESTED Factored moment, Mu (Ultimate) (kN-m) Area of Mild Steel reqd, As (sq-cm) Transfer Conc. Stress, top (0.8D+1.15PTI), MPa Transfer Conc. Stress, bot (0.8D+1.15PTI), MPa Normal Conc. Stress, top (D+L+PTF), MPa Normal Conc. Stress, bot (D+L+PTF), MPa Long-Term Conc. Stress, top (D+0.5L+PTF(L)), MPa Long-Term Conc. Stress, bot (D+0.5L+PTF(L)), MPa INDEPENDENT RESULTS 156.12 16.55 3.500 0.950 10.460 8.402 7.817 5.759 SAFE RESULTS 156.14 16.59 3.498 0.948 10.465 8.407 7.817 5.759 DIFFERENCE 0.01% 0.24% 0.06% 0.21% 0.10% 0.05% 0.00% 0.00%
COMPUTER FILE: AS 3600-01 PT-SL-001.FDB CONCLUSION The SAFE results show a very close comparison with the independent results.
SAFE 0
HAND CALCULATIONS: Design Parameters: Mild Steel Reinforcing fc = 30MPai fy = 400MPa Post-Tensioning fpu = fpy = Stressing Loss = Long-Term Loss = fi = fe = 1862 MPa 1675 MPa 186 MPa 94 MPa 1490 MPa 1210 MPa
= 0.80
= [0.85 0.007( f 'c 28)]= 0.836

amax = k u d = 0.836*0.4*229 = 76.5 mm
914 mm
Section
Loads: Dead, self-wt = 0.254 m x 23.56 kN/m3 = 5.984 kN/m2 (D) x 1.2 = 7.181 kN/m2 (Du) Live, = 4.788 kN/m2 (L) x 1.5 = 7.182 kN/m2 (Lu) Total = 10.772 kN/m2 (D+L) = 14.363 kN/m2 (D+L)ult
=10.772 kN/m2 x 0.914m = 9.846 kN/m, u = 14.363 kN/m2 x 0.914m = 13.128 kN/m
Ultimate Moment, M U = wl12 = 13.128 x (9.754)2/8 = 156.12 kN-m 8
SAFE 0
f 'C bef d P
300 AP 30(914)(229) = 1210 + 70 + 300(198) = 1386 MPa f SE + 200 = 1410 MPa
Ultimate force in PT, Fult , PT = AP ( f PS ) = 197.4(1386) /1000 = 273.60 kN Total Ultimate force, Fult ,Total = 273.60 + 560.0 = 833.60 kN Stress block depth, a = d d 2 2M* 0.85 f 'c b
2(159.12) = 40.90 0.85(30000)(0.80)(0.914)
= 0.229 0.2292
Ultimate moment due to PT, a 40.90 M ult , PT = Fult , PT (d ) = 273.60(229 )(0.80) /1000 = 45.65 kN-m 2 2 Net ultimate moment, M net = M U M ult , PT = 156.1 45.65 = 110.45 kN-m Required area of mild steel reinforcing, M net 110.45 = (1e6) = 1655 mm 2 AS = 0.04090 a ) f y (d ) 0.80(400000)(0.229 2 2 Check of Concrete Stresses at Midspan: Initial Condition (Transfer), load combination (0.8D+1.15PTi) = 0.80D+0.0L+1.15PTI Tendon stress at transfer = jacking stress stressing losses =1490 186 = 1304 MPa The force in the tendon at transfer, = 1304(197.4) /1000 = 257.4 kN Moment due to dead load, M D = 5.984(0.914)(9.754) 2 / 8 = 65.04 kN-m Moment due to PT, M PT = FPTI (sag) = 257.4(102 mm) /1000 = 26.25 kN-m F M M PT (1.15)(257.4) (0.80)65.04 (1.15)26.23 = Stress in concrete, f = PTI D A S 0.254(0.914) 0.00983 where S=0.00983m3 f = 1.275 2.225 MPa f = 3.500(Comp) max, 0.950(Tension) max
SAFE 0
Normal Condition, load combinations: (D+L+PTF) = 1.0D+1.0L+1.0PTF Tendon stress at Normal = jacking stressing long-term = 1490 186 94= 1210 MPa The force in tendon at Normal, = 1210(197.4) /1000 = 238.9 kN Moment due to dead load, M D = 5.984(0.914)(9.754) 2 / 8 = 65.04 kN-m Moment due to live load, M L = 4.788(0.914)(9.754) 2 / 8 = 52.04 kN-m Moment due to PT, M PT = FPTI (sag) = 238.9(102 mm) /1000 = 24.37 kN-m Stress in concrete for (D+L+PTF), F M M PT 238.8 117.08 24.37 f = PTI D + L = A S 0.254(0.914) 0.00983 f = 1.029 9.431 f = 10.460(Comp) max, 8.402(Tension) max Long-Term Condition, load combinations: (D+0.5L+PTF(L)) = 1.0D+0.5L+1.0PTF Tendon stress at Normal = jacking stressing long-term =1490 186 94 = 1210 MPa The force in tendon at Normal, = 1210(197.4) /1000 = 238.9 kN Moment due to dead load, M D = 5.984(0.914)(9.754) 2 / 8 = 65.04 kN-m Moment due to dead load, M L = 4.788(0.914)(9.754) 2 / 8 = 52.04 kN-m Moment due to PT, M PT = FPTI (sag) = 238.9(102 mm) /1000 = 24.37 kN-m Stress in concrete for (D+0.5L+PTF(L)), M M PT F 238.9 91.06 24.33 f = PTI D + 0.5 L = A S 0.254(0.914) 0.00983 f = 1.029 6.788 f = 7.817(Comp) max, 5.759(Tension) max
SAFE 0
EXAMPLE AS 3600-01 RC-BM-001

Flexural and Shear Beam Design PROBLEM DESCRIPTION The purpose of this example is to verify slab flexural design in SAFE. The load level is adjusted for the case corresponding to the following conditions: The stress-block extends below the flange but remains within the balanced condition permitted by AS 3600-01. The average shear stress in the beam is below the maximum shear stress allowed by AS 3600-01, requiring design shear reinforcement. A simple-span, 6-m-long, 300-mm-wide, and 500-mm-deep T beam with a flange 100 mm thick and 600 mm wide is modeled using SAFE. The beam is shown in Figure 1. The computational model uses a finite element mesh of frame elements, automatically generated by SAFE. The maximum element size has been specified to be 200 mm. The beam is supported by columns without rotational stiffnesses and with very large vertical stiffness (1 1020 kN/m). The beam is loaded with symmetric third-point loading. One dead load case (DL30) and one live load case (LL130), with only symmetric third-point loads of magnitudes 30, and 130 kN, respectively, are defined in the model. One load combinations (COMB130) is defined using the AS 3600-01 load combination factors of 1.2 for dead load and 1.5 for live load. The model is analyzed for both of these load cases and the load combination. The beam moment and shear force are computed analytically. The total factored moment and shear force are compared with the SAFE results and found to be identical. After completing the analysis, the design is performed using the AS 3600-01 code in SAFE and also by hand computation. Table 1 shows the comparison of the design longitudinal reinforcements. Table 2 shows the comparison of the design shear reinforcements.
EXAMPLE AS 3600-01 RC-BM-001 - 1
SAFE 0
600 mm 75 mm 100 mm
500 mm
75 mm 300 mm
Beam Section
2000 mm
2000 mm
2000 mm
Shear Force
Bending Moment
SAFE 0
GEOMETRY, PROPERTIES AND LOADING Clear span, Overall depth, Flange thickness, Width of web, Width of flange, Depth of tensile reinf., Effective depth, Depth of comp. reinf., Concrete strength, Yield strength of steel, Concrete unit weight, Modulus of elasticity, Modulus of elasticity, Poissons ratio, Dead load, Live load,
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
6000 500 100 300 600 75 425 75 30 460 0 25x105 2x108 0.2 30 130
mm mm mm mm mm mm mm mm MPa MPa kN/m3 MPa MPa kN kN
TECHNICAL FEATURES OF SAFE TESTED Calculation of flexural and shear reinforcement Application of minimum flexural and shear reinforcement RESULTS COMPARISON Table 1 shows the comparison of the SAFE total factored moments in the design strip with the moments obtained by the analytical method. They match exactly for this problem. Table 1 also shows the design reinforcement comparison.
Reinforcement Area (sq-cm) Method SAFE Calculated Moment (kN-m) 462 462 As+ 33.512 33.512
A +,min = 3.92 sq-cm s
SAFE 0
Reinforcement Area, (sq-cm/m) Shear Force (kN) 231 SAFE 12.05 Calculated 12.05
Av s
COMPUTER FILE: AS 3100-01 RC-BM-001.FDB CONCLUSION The SAFE results show an exact comparison with the independent results.
SAFE 0
HAND CALCULATION Flexural Design The following quantities are computed for all the load combinations: = 0.8
= [0.85 0.007( f 'c 28)]= 0.836

amax = k u d = 0.836 0.4 425 = 142.12 mm
D f cf Ast .min = 0.22 Ac d f sy
2
= 0.22 (500/425)2 0.6 SQRT(30)/460 180,000 = 391.572 sq-mm COMB130 N* = (1.2Nd + 1.5Nt) = 231kN M* = N *l = 462 kN-m 3

a = d d2 2M * = 100.755 mm (a > Ds) 0.85 f 'c bef
The compressive force developed in the concrete alone is given by: The first part is for balancing the compressive force from the flange, Cf, and the second part is for balancing the compressive force from the web, Cw, 2. Cf is given by: C f = 0.85 f 'c (bef bw ) min (Ds , a max ) = 765 kN
Therefore, As1 =
Cf f sy
and the portion of M* that is resisted by the flange is given by:
min (Ds , amax ) M uf = C f d = 229.5 kN-m 2
SAFE 0
As1 = Cf f sy
= 1663.043 sq-mm
Again, the value for is 0.80 by default. Therefore, the balance of the moment, M* to be carried by the web is:
M uw = M * M uf = 462 229.5 = 232.5
The web is a rectangular section of dimensions bw and d, for which the design depth of the compression block is recalculated as:
a1 = d d 2
2M uw = 101.5118 mm 0.85 f bw c
If a1 amax, the area of tension reinforcement is then given by:

As 2 = M uw = 1688.186 sq-mm a1 f sy d 2
Ast = As1 + As 2 = 3351.23 sq-mm = 33.512 sq-cm Shear Design The shear force carried by the concrete, Vuc, is calculated as:
A f' Vuc = 1 2 3bw d o st c = 0 kN bw d o
13
d where, 1 = 1.11.6 o 1.1 =1.2925, 2 = 1 and 3 = 1 1000
The shear force is limited to a maximum of: Vu . max = 0.2 f 'c bd o = 765 kN Given V*, Vuc, and Vu.max, the required shear reinforcement is calculated as follows, where, , the strength reduction factor, is 0.7.
If V * Vuc / 2,
Asv = 0 , if D 750 mm, otherwise Asv.min shall be provided. s
SAFE 0
If Vu.min < V * Vu.max , V * Vuc Asv = , s fsy. f do cot v
and greater than Asv.min, defined as:

Asv. min b = 0.35 w s f sy . f = 0.22826 sq-mm/mm = 228.26 sq-mm/m
v = the angle between the axis of the concrete compression strut and the
longitudinal axis of the member, which varies linearly from 30 degrees when V*=Vu.min to 45 degrees when V*= Vu,max = 35.52 degrees
If V * > Vmax , a failure condition is declared. For load combination, the N* and V* are calculated as follows: N* = 1.2Nd + 1.5N1 V* = N* (COMB130) Nd = 30 kips Nl = 130 kips N* = 231 kN N* = 231 kN, ( Vu.min < V * Vu.max , )
V * Vuc Asv = , = 1.205 sq-mm/mm or 12.05 sq-cm/m f sy. f do cot v s
SAFE 0
EXAMPLE AS 3600-01 RC-PN-001

Slab Punching Shear Design PROBLEM DESCRIPTION The purpose of this example is to verify slab punching shear design in SAFE The numerical example is a flat slab that has three 8-m spans in each direction, as shown in Figure 1.
0.3 m 0.6 m
A
8m
B
8m
C
8m
D 0.3 m
4
0.25 m thick flat slab 8m
3
8m Columns are 0.3 m x 0.9 m with long side parallel to the Y-axis, typical Concrete Properties Unit weight = 24 kN/m3 f'c = 30 N/mm2
2
8m
Y X
0.6 m
Loading DL = Self weight + 1.0 kN/m2 LL = 4.0 kN/m2
Figure 1: Flat Slab for Numerical Example
The slab overhangs beyond the face of the column by 0.15 m along each side of the structure. The columns are typically 0.3 m x 0.9 m, with the long side parallel to the Y-axis. The slab is typically 0.25-m thick. Thick plate properties are used for the slab.
EXAMPLE AS 3600-01 RC-PN-001 - 1
SAFE 0 The concrete has a unit weight of 24 kN/m3 and a f'c of 30 N/mm2. The dead load consists of the self weight of the structure plus an additional 1 kN/m2. The live load is 4 kN/m2.
TECHNICAL FEATURES OF SAFE TESTED Calculation of punching shear capacity, shear stress, and D/C ratio. RESULTS COMPARISON Table 1 shows the comparison of the punching shear capacity, shear stress ratio, and D/C ratio obtained from SAFE with the punching shear capacity, shear stress ratio and D/C ratio obtained by the analytical method. They match exactly for this problem.
Table 1 Comparison of Design Results for Punching Shear at Grid Point B-2 Shear Stress Shear Capacity D/C ratio Method
SAFE Calculated
(N/mm2)
1.803 1.803
(N/mm2)
1.086 1.086 1.660 1.660
COMPUTER FILE: AS 3600-01 RC-PN-001.FDB CONCLUSION The SAFE results show an exact comparison with the independent results.
SAFE 0
HAND CALCULATION Hand Calculation For Interior Column Using SAFE Method d = [(250 26) + (250 38)] / 2 = 218 mm Refer to Figure 2. b0 = 518+ 1118 + 1118 + 518 = 3272 mm
518
Note: All dimensions in millimeters Critical section for punching shear shown dashed.
109
Y
109 150 150 109
Column
A Side 2
Side 1
Side 3
450
X
450
1118

Side 4 D C
109
VX
=1
1 2 900 1+ 3 300
= 0.536
VY
=1
1 2 300 1+ 3 900
= 0.278
SAFE 0
The following table is used for calculating the centroid of the critical section for punching shear. Side 1, Side 2, Side 3, and Side 4 refer to the sides of the critical section for punching shear as identified in Figure 2. Item x2 y2 L d Ld Ldx2 Ldy2
x3 =
Side 1 259 0 1118 218 243724 63124516 0
Side 2 0 559 518 218 112924 0 63124516
Side 3 259 0 1118 218 243724 63124516 0
Side 4 0 559 518 218 112924 0 63124516
Sum N.A. N.A. b0 = 3272 N.A. 713296 0 0
Ldx
Ld
0 = 0 mm 713296
y3 =
Ldy
Ld
0 = 0 mm 713296
The following table is used to calculate IXX, IYY and IXY. The values for IXX, IYY and IXY are given in the "Sum" column. Item L d x2 - x3 y2 - y3 Parallel to Equations IXX IYY IXY Side 1 1118 218 259 0 Y-Axis 5b, 6b, 7 2.64E+10 1.63E+10 0 Side 2 518 218 0 559 X-axis 5a, 6a, 7 3.53E+10 2.97E+09 0 Side 3 1118 218 259 0 Y-Axis 5b, 6b, 7 2.64E+10 1.63E+10 0 Side 4 518 218 0 559 X-axis 5a, 6a, 7 3.53E+10 2.97E+09 0 Sum N.A. N.A. N.A. N.A. N.A. N.A. 1.23E+11 3.86E+10 0
From the SAFE output at grid line B-2: VU = 1125.59 kN MUX = 28514.675 kN-mm MUY = 14231.447 kN-mm
SAFE 0
At the point labeled A in Figure 2, x4 = 259 and y4 = 559, thus: vU = 1125.591 103 28514.675 103 [3.86 1010 (559 0) (0)(259 0)] + 3272 218 (1.23 1011 )(3.86 1010 ) (0) 2 14231.447 103 [1.23 1011 (259 0) (0)(559 0)] (1.23 1011 )(3.86 1010 ) (0) 2 vU = 1.5780 0.1293 0.0954 = 1.353 N/mm2 at point A At the point labeled B in Figure 2, x4 = 259 and y4 = 559, thus: 1125.59 103 28514.675 103 [3.86 1010 (559 0) (0)(259 0)] vU = + 3272 218 (1.23 1011 )(3.86 1010 ) (0) 2 14231.447 103 [1.23 1011 (259 0) (0)(559 0)] (1.23 1011 )(3.86 1010 ) (0) 2 vU = 1.5780 0.1293 + 0.0954 = 1.544 N/mm2 at point B At the point labeled C in Figure 2, x4 = 259 and y4 = 559, thus: vU = 1125.59 103 28514.675 103 [3.86 1010 (559 0) (0)(259 0)] + 3272 218 (1.23 1011 )(3.86 1010 ) (0) 2 14231.447 103 [1.23 1011 (259 0) (0)(559 0)] (1.23 1011 )(3.86 1010 ) (0) 2 vU = 1.5780 + 0.1293 + 0.0954 = 1.803 N/mm2 at point C At the point labeled D in Figure 2, x4 = 259 and y4 = 559, thus: vU = 1125.591 103 28514.675 103 [3.86 1010 (559 0) (0)(259 0)] + 3272 218 (1.23 1011 )(3.86 1010 ) (0) 2 14231.447 103 [1.23 1011 ( 259 0) (0)(559 0)] (1.23 1011 )(3.86 1010 ) (0) 2 vU = 1.5780 + 0.1293 0.0954 = 1.544 N/mm2 at point D Point C has the largest absolute value of vu; thus vmax = 1.8143 N/mm2
SAFE 0
The shear capacity is calculated based on the smallest of AS 3600-01 equation 11-35, with the dom and u terms removed to convert force to stress.
2 0.17 1 + h fcv = min c 0.34 f f c
= 1.803N/mm2 in accordance with AS 9.2.3(a)
AS 9.2.3(a) yields the smallest value of fcv = 1.086 N/mm2, and thus this is the shear capacity.
Shear Ratio = vU 1.803 = = 1.660 1.086 f cv
SAFE 0
EXAMPLE AS 3600-2001 RC-SL-001

Slab Flexural Design PROBLEM DESCRIPTION The purpose of this example is to verify slab flexural design in SAFE A one-way, simple-span slab supported by walls on two opposite edges is modeled using SAFE. The slab is 150 millimeters thick and spans 4 meters between walls. To ensure one-way action, Poissons ratio is taken to be zero. The computational model uses a finite element mesh, automatically generated by SAFE. The maximum element size is specified as 1.0 meter. The slab is modeled using thin plate elements. The walls are modeled as line supports without rotational stiffnesses and with very large vertical stiffness (1 1015 kN/m). To obtain factored moments and flexural reinforcement in a design strip, one onemeter wide strip is defined in the X-direction on the slab, as shown in Figure 1.
4 m span Free edge
Y X Free edge
1 m design strip
Figure 1 Plan View of One-Way Slab One dead load case (DL4KPa) and one live load case (LL5KPa), with uniformly distributed surface loads of magnitudes 4 and 5 kN/m2, respectively, are defined in the model. A load combination (COMB5kPa) is defined using the AS 36002001 load combination factors, 1.2 for dead loads and 1.5 for live loads. The model is analyzed for both load cases and the load combinations. The slab moment on a strip of unit width is computed analytically. The total factored strip moments are compared with the SAFE results. After completing analysis, design is performed using the AS 3600-2001 code using SAFE and also by hand computation. Table 1 shows the comparison of the design reinforcements computed using the two methods.
EXAMPLE AS 3600-2001 RC-SL-001 - 1
SAFE 0
T, h dc d ln, l1 fc fsy wc Ec Es wd wl
= = = = = = = = = = = =
150 25 125 4000 30 460 0 25000 2x106 0 4.0 5.0
mm mm mm mm MPa MPa N/m3 MPa MPa
kPa kPa
Table 1 Comparison of Design Moments and Reinforcements Reinforcement Area (sq-cm) As+
5.579 5.572
Load Level
Medium
Method
SAFE Calculated
Moment (kN-m)
24.597 24.600
A +,min = 282.9 sq-mm s
COMPUTER FILE: AS 3600-2001 RC-SL-001.FDB CONCLUSION The SAFE results show an exact comparison with the independent results.
EXAMPLE AS 3600-2001 RC-SL-001 - 2
SAFE 0
HAND CALCULATION The following quantities are computed for the load combination: = 0.9 b = 1000 mm
= [0.85 0.007( f 'c 28)]= 0.836

amax = k u d = 0.8360.4125 = 41.8 mm For the load combination, w and M* are calculated as follows: w = (1.2wd + 1.5wt) b wl12 Mu = 8
D f cf Ast .min = 0.22 bd d fsy
2
= 0.22(150/125)20.6SQRT(30)/460100125 = 282.9 sq-mm COMB100 wd = 4.0 kPa wt = 5.0 kPa w = 12.3 kN/m M* = 24.6 kN-m The depth of the compression block is given by:
a = d d2 2M * = 10.051 mm < amax 0.85 f ' c b
The area of tensile steel reinforcement is then given by:

M* = 557.184 sq-mm > As,min Ast = a f sy d 2
As = 5.57184 sq-cm
EXAMPLE AS 3600-2001 RC-SL-001 - 3
SAFE 0
EXAMPLE BS 8110-97 PT-SL-001

Post-Tensioned Slab Design PROBLEM DESCRIPTION The purpose of this example is to verify the slab stresses and the required area of mild steel strength reinforcing for a post-tensioned slab. A one-way, simply supported slab is modeled in SAFE. The modeled slab is 254 mm thick by 914 mm wide and spans 9754 mm, as shown in shown in Figure 1.
914 mm
Section
EXAMPLE BS 8110-97 PT-SL-001 - 1
SAFE 0 A 254-mm-wide design strip is centered along the length of the slab and has been defined as an A-Strip. B-strips have been placed at each end of the span, perpendicular to Strip-A (the B-Strips are necessary to define the tendon profile). A tendon with two strands, each having an area of 99 mm2, was added to the AStrip. The self-weight and live loads were added to the slab. The loads and posttensioning forces are as follows. Loads: Dead = self weight, Live = 4.788 kN/m2
The total factored strip moments, required area of mild steel reinforcement, and slab stresses are reported at the midspan of the slab. Independent hand calculations have been compared with the SAFE results and summarized for verification and validation of the SAFE results. GEOMETRY, PROPERTIES AND LOADING Thickness Effective depth Clear span Concrete strength Yield strength of steel Prestressing, ultimate Prestressing, effective Area of Prestress (single strand) Concrete unit weight Modulus of elasticity Modulus of elasticity Poissons ratio Dead load Live load
T, h = d = L = f 'c fy fpu fe Ap wc Ec Es wd wl = = = = = = = = = = =
254 mm 229 mm 9754 mm 30 400 1862 1210 198 23.56 25000 200,000 0 MPa MPa MPa MPa mm2 kN/m3 N/mm3 N/mm3
self kN/m2 4.788 kN/m2
TECHNICAL FEATURES OF SAFE TESTED Calculation of the required flexural reinforcement Check of slab stresses due to the application of dead, live, and post-tensioning loads. RESULTS COMPARISON Table 1 shows the comparison of the SAFE total factored moments, required mild steel reinforcing, and slab stresses with the independent hand calculations.
SAFE 0
Table 1 Comparison of Results FEATURE TESTED Factored moment, Mu (Ultimate) (kN-m) Area of Mild Steel reqd, As (sq-cm) Transfer Conc. Stress, top (D+PTI), MPa Transfer Conc. Stress, bot (D+PTI), MPa Normal Conc. Stress, top (D+L+PTF), MPa Normal Conc. Stress, bot (D+L+PTF), MPa INDEPENDENT RESULTS 174.4 19.65 5.058 2.839 10.460 8.402 SAFE RESULTS 174.4 19.79 5.057 2.847 10.465 8.407 DIFFERENCE 0.00% 0.71% 0.02% 0.28% 0. 50% 0.06%
COMPUTER FILE: BS 8110-97 PT-SL-001.FDB CONCLUSION The SAFE results show a very close comparison with the independent results.
SAFE 0
HAND CALCULATIONS: Design Parameters: Mild Steel Reinforcing fcu = 30 MPa fy = 400 MPa Post-Tensioning fpu = 1862 MPa fpy = 1675 MPa Stressing Loss = 186 MPa Long-Term Loss = 94 MPa fi = 1490 MPa fe = 1210 MPa
m, steel = 1.15 m, concrete = 1.50

914 mm
Section
wl12 = 14.659 x (9.754)2/8 = 174.4 kN-m 8 f pu Ap 7000 Ultimate Stress in strand, f pb = f pe + 1 1.7 l/d f cu bd Ultimate Moment, M U =
= 1210 +
7000 1862(198) 1 1.7 9.754 / 0.229 30(914)(229)
= 1358 MPa 0.7 f pu = 1303 MPa
SAFE 0
K factor used to determine the effective depth is given as: 174.4 M = = 0.1213 < 0.156 K= 2 f cu bd 30000(0.914)(0.229)2
K 0.95d = 192.2 mm z = d 0.5 + 0.25 0 .9 Ultimate force in PT, Fult , PT = AP ( f PS ) = 197.4(1303) /1000 = 257.2 KN
Ultimate moment due to PT, M ult , PT = Fult , PT ( z ) / = 257.2(0.192) /1.15 = 43.00 kN-m Net Moment to be resisted by As, M NET = MU M PT = 174.4 43.00 = 131.40 kN-m The area of tensile steel reinforcement is then given by:
As =
M NET 131.4 = (1e6) = 1965 mm 2 0.87 f y z 0.87(400)(192)
Check of Concrete Stresses at Midspan: Initial Condition (Transfer), load combination (D+PTi) = 1.0D+0.0L+1.0PTI Tendon stress at transfer = jacking stress stressing losses = 1490 186 = 1304 MPa The force in the tendon at transfer, = 1304(197.4) /1000 = 257.4 kN Moment due to dead load, M D = 5.984(0.914)(9.754) 2 / 8 = 65.04 kN-m Moment due to PT, M PT = FPTI (sag) = 257.4(102mm) /1000 = 26.25 kN-m F M M PT 257.4 65.04 26.23 Stress in concrete, f = PTI D = 0.254(0.914) 0.00983 A S where S=0.00983m3 f = 1.109 3.948 MPa f = 5.058(Comp) max, 2.839(Tension) max Normal Condition, load combinations: (D+L+PTF) = 1.0D+1.0L+1.0PTF Tendon stress at Normal = jacking stressing long-term = 1490 186 94= 1210 MPa The force in tendon at Normal, = 1210(197.4) /1000 = 238.9 kN Moment due to dead load, M D = 5.984(0.914)(9.754) 2 / 8 = 65.04 kN-m
Moment due to live load, M L = 4.788(0.914)(9.754) 2 / 8 = 52.04 kN-m Moment due to PT, M PT = FPTI (sag) = 238.9(102 mm) /1000 = 24.37 kN-m
SAFE 0
Stress in concrete for (D+L+PTF), F M M PT 238.8 117.08 24.37 = f = PTI D + L 0.254(0.914) 0.00983 A S f = 1.029 9.431 f = 10.460(Comp) max, 8.402(Tension) max
SAFE 0
EXAMPLE BS 8110-97 RC-BM-001

Flexural and Shear Beam Design PROBLEM DESCRIPTION The purpose of this example is to verify slab flexural design in SAFE. The load level is adjusted for the case corresponding to the following conditions: The stress-block extends below the flange but remains within the balanced condition permitted by BS 8110-97. The average shear stress in the beam is below the maximum shear stress allowed by BS 8110-97, requiring design shear reinforcement. A simple-span, 6-m-long, 300-mm-wide, and 500-mm-deep T beam with a flange 100 mm thick and 600 mm wide is modeled using SAFE. The beam is shown in Figure 1. The computational model uses a finite element mesh of frame elements, automatically generated by SAFE. The maximum element size has been specified to be 200 mm. The beam is supported by columns without rotational stiffnesses and with very large vertical stiffness (1 1020 kN/m). The beam is loaded with symmetric third-point loading. One dead load case (DL20) and one live load case (LL80) with only symmetric third-point loads of magnitudes 20 and 80 kN, respectively, are defined in the model. One load combinations (COMB80) is defined using the BS 8110-97 load combination factors of 1.4 for dead loads and 1.6 for live loads. The model is analyzed for both of these load cases and the load combinations. The beam moment and shear force are computed analytically. The total factored moment and shear force are compared with the SAFE results. These moment and shear force are identical. After completing the analysis, design is performed using the BS 8110-97 code in SAFE and also by hand computation. Table 1 shows the comparison of the design longitudinal reinforcements. Table 2 shows the comparison of the design shear reinforcements.
EXAMPLE BS 8110-97 RC-BM-001 - 1
SAFE 0
600 mm 75 mm 100 mm
500 mm
75 mm 300 mm
Beam Section
2000 mm
2000 mm
2000 mm
Shear Force
Bending Moment
SAFE 0
GEOMETRY, PROPERTIES AND LOADING Clear span Overall depth Flange thickness Width of web Width of flange, Depth of tensile reinf. Effective depth Depth of comp. reinf. Concrete strength Yield strength of steel Concrete unit weight Modulus of elasticity Modulus of elasticity Poissons ratio Dead load Live load
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
6000 500 100 300 600 75 425 75 30 460 0 25x105 2x108 0.2 20 80
TECHNICAL FEATURES OF SAFE TESTED Calculation of flexural and shear reinforcement Application of minimum flexural and shear reinforcement RESULTS COMPARISON Table 1 shows the comparison of the SAFE total factored moments in the design strip with the moments obtained by the analytical method. They match exactly for this problem. Table 1 Also shows the design reinforcement comparison.
A +,min = 195.00 sq-mm s
SAFE 0

Av s
COMPUTER FILE: BS 8110-97 RCBM-001.FDB CONCLUSION The SAFE results show an exact comparison with the independent results.
SAFE 0
HAND CALCULATION Flexural Design The following quantities are computed for all the load combinations:
m, steel
= 1.15
m, concrete = 1.50
As ,min = 0.0013bw h
= 195.00 sq-mm COMB80 P = (1.4Pd + 1.6Pt) =156 kN M* = N *l = 312 kN-m 3
The depth of the compression block is given by: K= M = 0.095963 < 0.156 f cu b f d 2
Then the moment arm is computed as:

K z = d 0.5 + 0.25 0.95d = 373.4254 mm 0 .9
The depth of the neutral axis is computed as: x=

1 (d z) = 114.6102 mm 0.45
And the depth of the compression block is given by: a = 0.9x = 103.1492 mm > hf The ultimate resistance moment of the flange is given by:
Mf = 0.67 fcu ( b f bw ) h f ( d 0.5h f ) = 150.75 kN-m
The moment taken by the web is computed as:
SAFE 0
M w = M M f = 161.25 kN-m
and the normalized moment resisted by the web is given by: Kw =

Mw = 0.0991926 < 0.156 f cu bw d 2
If Kw 0.156 (BS 3.4.4.4), the beam is designed as a singly reinforced concrete beam. The reinforcement is calculated as the sum of two parts: one to balance compression in the flange and one to balance compression in the web.
K z = d 0.5 + 0.25 w 0.95d = 371.3988 mm 0 .9
As =
Mf fy
( d 0.5h )
f
Mw = 2090.4 sq-mm fy z
The area of tension reinforcement is obtained from BS 3.4.4.5 is:

As = M + 0.1 f cu bw d (0.45d hf ) = 2311.5 sq-mm 0.87 f y ( d 0.5h f )
Shear Design
v= V vmax = 1.2235 MPa bw d
vmax = min(0.8 fcu , 5 MPa) = 4.38178 MPa The shear stress carried by the concrete, vc, is calculated as:
0.79k1k 2 100 As 3 400 4 vc = = 0.3568 MPa m bd d
1 1
k1 is the enhancement factor for support compression, and is conservatively taken as 1 .
40 f 3 k2 = cu = 1.06266, 1 k2 25 25
m = 1.25
SAFE 0
100 As = 0.15 bd
400 d
=1
However, the following limitations also apply: 0.15

100 As 3 bd
1 4
400 d
fcu 40 MPa (for calculation purposes only) and As is the area of tension reinforcement. Given v, vc, and vmax, the required shear reinforcement is calculated as follows:
If v (vc + 0.4)
Asv 0.4bw = sv 0.87 f yv

If (vc + 0.4) < v vmax
Asv (v vc )bw = sv 0.87 f yv

If v > vmax, a failure condition is declared.
(COMB80) Pd = 20 kN Pl V = 80 kN = 156 kN
Asv (v vc )bw = = 0.64967 sq-mm/mm = 649.67 sq-mm/m sv 0.87 f yv
SAFE 0
EXAMPLE BS 8110-97 RC-PN-001

0.3 m 0.6 m
A
8m
B
8m
C
8m
D 0.3 m
4
3
2
8m
Y X
0.6 m
Loading DL = Self weight + 1.0 kN/m2 LL = 4.0 kN/m2
The slab overhangs beyond the face of the column by 0.15 m along each side of the structure. The columns are typically 0.3 m x 0.9 m with the long side parallel to the Y-axis. The slab is typically 0.25-m thick. Thick plate properties are used for the slab. The concrete has a unit weight of 24 kN/m3 and a fcu of 30 N/mm2. The dead load consists of the self weight of the structure plus an additional 1 kN/m2. The live load is 4 kN/m2.
EXAMPLE BS 8110-97 RC-PN-001 - 1
SAFE 0
TECHNICAL FEATURES OF SAFE TESTED Calculation of punching shear capacity, shear stress and D/C ratio. RESULTS COMPARISON Table 1 shows the comparison of the punching shear capacity, shear stress ratio and D/C ratio obtained from SAFE with the punching shear capacity, shear stress ratio and D/C ratio obtained by the analytical method. They match exactly for this problem.
Table 1 Comparison of Design Results for Punching Shear at Grid B-2 Shear Stress Shear Capacity D/C ratio Method
SAFE Calculated
(N/mm2)
1.122 1.122
(N/mm2)
0.415 0.415 2.704 2.704
COMPUTER FILE: BS 8110-97 RC-PN-001.FDB CONCLUSION The SAFE results show an exact comparison with the independent results.
SAFE 0
954
Y
327 150 150 327
Column
A Side 2
B 327 Side 1 Side 3 450
X
450 327
1554

Side 4 D C
VX
=1
1 2 900 1+ 3 300
= 0.536
VY
=1
1 2 300 1+ 3 900
= 0.278
SAFE 0
x3 =
Side 1 477 0 1554 218 338772 161594244 0
Side 2 0 777 954 218 207972 0 161594244
Side 3 477 0 1554 218 338772 161594244 0
Side 4 0 777 954 218 207972 0 161594244
Sum N.A. N.A. b0 = 5016 N.A. 1093488 0 0
Ldx
Ld
0 = 0 mm 1093488
y3 =
Ldy
Ld
0 = 0 mm 1093488
The following table is used to calculate IXX, IYY and IXY. The values for IXX, IYY and IXY are given in the "Sum" column. Item L d x2 - x3 y2 - y3 Parallel to Equations IXX IYY IXY Side 1 1554 218 -477 0 Y-Axis 5b, 6b, 7 6.95E+10 7.71E+10 0 Side 2 954 218 0 777 X-axis 5a, 6a, 7 1.26E+11 1.66E+10 0 Side 3 1554 218 477 0 Y-Axis 5b, 6b, 7 6.95E+10 7.71E+10 0 Side 4 954 218 0 -777 X-axis 5a, 6a, 7 1.26E+11 1.66E+10 0 Sum N.A. N.A. N.A. N.A. N.A. N.A. 3.90E+11 1.87E+11 0
From the SAFE output at Grid B-2: VU = 1125.59 kN MUX = 26492.633 kN-mm MUY = 15643.779 kN-mm
SAFE 0
At the point labeled A in Figure 2, x4 = 477 and y4 = 777, thus: vU = 1125.591 103 26492.633 103 [1.87 1011 (777 0) (0)(477 0)] + 5016 218 (1.23 1011 )(3.86 1010 ) (0) 2 1564.779 103 [3.90 1011 (477 0) (0)(777 0)] (3.90 1011 )(1.87 1011 ) (0) 2 vU = 1.0294 0.0528 0.0398 = 0.9368 N/mm2 at point A At the point labeled B in Figure 2, x4 = 477 and y4 = 777, thus: 1125.591 103 26492.633 103 [1.87 1011 (777 0) (0)(477 0)] vU = + 5016 218 (1.23 1011 )(3.86 1010 ) (0) 2 1564.779 103 [3.90 1011 (477 0) (0)(777 0)] (3.90 1011 )(1.87 1011 ) (0) 2 vU = 1.0294 0.0528 0.0398 =1.0164 N/mm2 at point B At the point labeled C in Figure 2, x4 = 477 and y4 = 777, thus: vU = 1125.591 103 26492.633 103 [1.87 1011 (777 0) (0)(477 0)] + 5016 218 (1.23 1011 )(3.86 1010 ) (0) 2 1564.779 103 [3.90 1011 (477 0) (0)(777 0)] (3.90 1011 )(1.87 1011 ) (0) 2 vU = 1.0294 0.0528 0.0398 = 1.1219 N/mm2 at point C At the point labeled D in Figure 2, x4 = 477 and y4 = 777, thus: vU = 1125.591 103 26492.633 103 [1.87 1011 (777 0) (0)(477 0)] + 5016 218 (1.23 1011 )(3.86 1010 ) (0) 2 1564.779 103 [3.90 1011 (477 0) (0)(777 0)] (3.90 1011 )(1.87 1011 ) (0) 2 vU = 1.0294 0.0528 0.0398 = 1.0164 N/mm2 at point D Point C has the largest absolute value of vu, thus vmax = 1.122 N/mm2
SAFE 0
The shear capacity is calculated based on the minimum of the following three limits:
1.5 M y 1.5 M x + V =V f + eff Vx Vy =
(BS 3.7.6.2, 3.7.6.3)
v=
Veff ud
= 0.415 N/mm2
(BS 3.7.7.3)
BS 3.7.7.3 yields the value of v = 0.415 N/mm2, and thus this is the shear capacity.
vU 1.122 = = 2.704 v 0.415
Shear Ratio =
SAFE 0
EXAMPLE BS 8110-97 RC-SL-001

Slab Flexural Design PROBLEM DESCRIPTION The purpose of this example is to verify slab flexural design in SAFE. A one-way, simple-span slab supported by walls on two opposite edges is modeled using SAFE. The slab consists is 150 mm thick and spans 4 meters between walls. To ensure one-way action, Poissons ratio is taken to be zero. The computational model uses a finite element mesh, automatically generated by SAFE. The maximum element size was specified to be 1.0 meter. The slab is modeled using thin plate elements. The walls are modeled as line supports without rotational stiffnesses and with very large vertical stiffness (1 1015 kN/m). To obtain factored moments and flexural reinforcement in a design strip, one one-meter wide strip is defined in the X-direction on the slab as shown in Figure 1.
4 m span Free edge
Y X Free edge
1 m design strip
One dead load case (DL4KPa) and one live load case (LL5KPa) with uniformly distributed surface loads of magnitudes 4 and 5 kN/m2, respectively, are defined in the model. A load combination (COMB5kPa) is defined using the BS 8110-97 load combination factors, 1.4 for dead loads and 1.6 for live loads. The model is analyzed for both load cases and the load combination. The slab moment on a strip of unit width is computed analytically. The total factored strip moments are compared with the SAFE results. After completing the analysis, design was performed using the BS 8110-97 code by SAFE and also by hand computation. Table 1 shows the comparison of the design reinforcements computed by the two methods.
EXAMPLE BS 8110-97 RC-SL-001 - 1
SAFE 0
= = = = = = = = = = = =
150 25 125 4000 30 460 0 25000 2x106 0
4.0 kPa 5.0 kPa
TECHNICAL FEATURES OF SAFE TESTED Calculation of flexural reinforcement Application of minimum flexural reinforcement RESULTS COMPARISON Table 1 shows the comparison of the SAFE total factored moments in the design strip the moments obtained by the hand computation method. Table 1 also shows the comparison of the design reinforcements.
5.850 5.853
Load Level
Medium
Method
SAFE Calculated
Moment (kN-m)
27.197 27.200
A +,min = 162.5 sq-mm s
SAFE 0
COMPUTER FILE: BS 8110-97 RC-SL-001.FDB CONCLUSION The SAFE results show an exact comparison with the independent results.
SAFE 0
HAND CALCULATION The following quantities are computed for the load combination:
m, steel
b
= 1.15 = 1000 mm
m, concrete = 1.50
For the load combination, w and M are calculated as follows: w = (1.4wd + 1.6wt) b M= wl12 8 = 162.5 sq-mm COMB100 wd = wt M = 4.0 kPa 5.0 kPa
As,min = 0.0013bwd
w = 13.6 kN/m = 27.2 kN-m

M = 0.05803 < 0.156 f cu bd 2

K=

K 0.95d =116.3409 z = d 0.5 + 0.25 0 .9
As =
M = 584.197 sq-mm > As,min 0.87 f y z
As = 5.842 sq-cm
SAFE 0
EXAMPLE CSA 23.3-04 PT-SL-001

Post-Tensioned Slab Design PROBLEM DESCRIPTION The purpose of this example is to verify the slab stresses and the required area of mild steel strength reinforcing for a post-tensioned slab. A one-way simply supported slab is modeled in SAFE. The modeled slab is 254 mm thick by 914 mm wide and spans 9754 mm as shown in shown in Figure 1.
914 mm
Section
EXAMPLE CSA 23.3-04 PT-SL-001 - 1
SAFE 0 A 254-mm-wide design strip is centered along the length of the slab and has been defined as an A-Strip. B-strips have been placed at each end of the span perpendicular to Strip-A (the B-Strips are necessary to define the tendon profile). A tendon with two strands, each having an area of 99 mm2, has been added to the A-Strip. The self-weight and live loads were added to the slab. The loads and posttensioning forces are as follows: Loads: Dead = self weight, Live = 4.788 KN/m2
The total factored strip moments, required area of mild steel reinforcement, and slab stresses are reported at the midspan of the slab. Independent hand calculations have been compared with the SAFE results and summarized for verification and validation of the SAFE results. GEOMETRY, PROPERTIES AND LOADING Thickness Effective depth Clear span Concrete strength Yield strength of steel Prestressing, ultimate Prestressing, effective Area of Prestress (single strand) Concrete unit weight Modulus of elasticity Modulus of elasticity Poissons ratio Dead load Live load
254 229 9754 30 400 1862 1210 198 23.56 25000 200,000 0 self 4.788
mm mm mm MPa MPa MPa MPa mm2 KN/m3 N/mm3 N/mm3 KN/m2 KN/m2
TECHNICAL FEATURES OF SAFE TESTED Calculation of the required flexural reinforcement Check of slab stresses due to the application of dead, live, and post-tensioning loads.
SAFE 0
RESULTS COMPARISON Table 1 shows the comparison of the SAFE total factored moments, required mild steel reinforcing, and slab stresses with the independent hand calculations.
Table 1 Comparison of Results FEATURE TESTED Factored moment, Mu (Ultimate) (kN-m) Area of Mild Steel reqd, As (sq-cm) Transfer Conc. Stress, top (D+PTI), MPa Transfer Conc. Stress, bot (D+PTI), MPa Normal Conc. Stress, top (D+L+PTF), MPa Normal Conc. Stress, bot (D+L+PTF), MPa Long-Term Conc. Stress, top (D+0.5L+PTF(L)), MPa Long-Term Conc. Stress, bot (D+0.5L+PTF(L)), MPa INDEPENDENT RESULTS 159.4 16.25 5.058 2.839 10.460 8.402 7.817 5.759 SAFE RESULTS 159.4 16.32 5.057 2.839 10.465 8.407 7.817 5.759 DIFFERENCE 0.00% 0.43% 0.02% 0.00% 0.05% 0.06% 0.00% 0.00%
COMPUTER FILE: CSA A23.3-04 PT-SL-001.FDB CONCLUSION The SAFE results show an exact comparison with the independent results.
SAFE 0
HAND CALCULATIONS: Design Parameters: Mild Steel Reinforcing fcu = 30MPa fy = 400MPa Post-Tensioning fpu = 1862 MPa fpy = 1675 MPa Stressing Loss = 186 MPa Long-Term Loss = 94 MPa fi = 1490 MPa fe = 1210 MPa
c = 0.65 , S = 0.85
1 = 0.85 0.0015f'c 0.67 = 0.805 1 = 0.97 0.0025f'c 0.67 = 0.895
914 mm
Section
Loads: Dead, self-wt = 0.254 m x 23.56 kN/m3 = 5.984 kN/m2 (D) x 1.25 = 7.480 kN/m2 (Du) Live, = 4.788 kN/m2 (L) x 1.50 = 7.182 kN/m2 (Lu) = 14.662 kN/m2 (D+L)ult Total = 10.772 kN/m2 (D+L)
SAFE 0
Ultimate Stress in strand, f pb = f pe +
8000 ( d p cy ) lo
cy =
p Ap f pr + s As f y 0.9(197)(1347) + 0.85(1625)(400) = = 61.66 mm 1c f 'c 1b 0.805(0.65)(30.0)(0.895)(914)

8000 ( 229 61.66 ) = 1347 MPa 9754
f pb = 1210 +
Depth of the compression block, a, is given as: Stress block depth, a = d d 2 2M * 1 f 'c c b
2(159.42) = 55.18 0.805(30000)(0.65)(0.914)
= 0.229 0.2292
Ultimate force in PT, Fult , PT = AP ( f PS ) = 197(1347) /1000 = 265.9 kN Ultimate moment due to PT,
a 55.18 M ult , PT = Fult , PT (d ) = 265.9(0.229 )(0.85) = 45.52 kN-m 2 2
Net Moment to be resisted by As, M NET = MU M PT = 159.42 45.52 = 113.90 kN-m The area of tensile steel reinforcement is then given by:
As =
M NET 113.90 = (1e6) = 1625 mm 2 55.18 0.87 f y z 0.87(400)(229 ) 2
Check of Concrete Stresses at Midspan: Initial Condition (Transfer), load combination (D+PTi) = 1.0D+0.0L+1.0PTI Tendon stress at transfer = jacking stress stressing losses = 1490 186 = 1304 MPa The force in the tendon at transfer, = 1304(197.4) /1000 = 257.4 kN Moment due to dead load, M D = 5.984(0.914)(9.754) 2 / 8 = 65.04 kN-m
SAFE 0
Moment due to PT, M PT = FPTI (sag) = 257.4(102 mm) /1000 = 26.25 kN-m F M M PT 257.4 65.04 26.23 Stress in concrete, f = PTI D = A S 0.254(0.914) 0.00983 where S=0.00983m3
f = 1.109 3.948 MPa f = 5.058(Comp) max, 2.839(Tension) max
Normal Condition, load combinations: (D+L+PTF) = 1.0D+1.0L+1.0PTF Tendon stress at normal = jacking stressing long-term= 1490 186 94 = 1210 MPa The force in tendon at normal, = 1210(197.4) /1000 = 238.9 kN Moment due to dead load, M D = 5.984(0.914)(9.754) 2 / 8 = 65.04 kN-m Moment due to live load, M L = 4.788(0.914)(9.754) 2 / 8 = 52.04 kN-m Moment due to PT, M PT = FPTI (sag) = 238.9(102 mm) /1000 = 24.37 kN-m Stress in concrete for (D+L+PTF), F M M PT 238.8 117.08 24.37 f = PTI D + L = A S 0.254(0.914) 0.00983 f = 1.029 9.431 f = 10.460(Comp) max, 8.402(Tension) max Long-Term Condition, load combinations: (D+0.5L+PTF(L)) = 1.0D+0.5L+1.0PTF Tendon stress at normal = jacking stressing long-term = 1490 186 94 = 1210 MPa The force in tendon at normal, = 1210(197.4) /1000 = 238.9 kN Moment due to dead load, M D = 5.984(0.914)(9.754) 2 / 8 = 65.04 kN-m Moment due to live load, M L = 4.788(0.914)(9.754) 2 / 8 = 52.04 kN-m Moment due to PT, M PT = FPTI (sag) = 238.9(102 mm) /1000 = 24.37 kN-m Stress in concrete for (D+0.5L+PTF(L)), M M PT F 238.9 91.06 24.33 f = PTI D + 0.5 L = A S 0.254(0.914) 0.00983 f = 1.029 6.788 f = 7.817(Comp) max, 5.759(Tension) max
SAFE 0
EXAMPLE CSA A23.3-04 RC-BM-001

Flexural and Shear Beam Design PROBLEM DESCRIPTION The purpose of this example is to verify slab flexural design in SAFE. The load level is adjusted for the case corresponding to the following conditions: The stress-block extends below the flange but remains within the balanced condition permitted by CSA A23.3-04. The average shear stress in the beam is below the maximum shear stress allowed by CSA A23.3-04, requiring design shear reinforcement. A simple-span, 6-m-long, 300-mm-wide, and 500-mm-deep T beam with a flange 100 mm thick and 600 mm wide is modeled using SAFE. The beam is shown in Figure 1. The computational model uses a finite element mesh of frame elements, automatically generated by SAFE. The maximum element size has been specified to be 200 mm. The beam is supported by columns without rotational stiffnesses and with very large vertical stiffness (1 1020 kN/m). The beam is loaded with symmetric third-point loading. One dead load case (DL30) and one live load case (LL100) with only symmetric third-point loads of magnitudes 30, and 100 kN, respectively, are defined in the model. One load combinations (COMB100) is defined using the CSA A23.3-04 load combination factors of 1.25 for dead loads and 1.5 for live loads. The model is analyzed for both of these load cases and the load combinations. The beam moment and shear force are computed analytically. The total factored moment and shear force are compared with the SAFE results. These moment and shear force are identical. After completing the analysis, design is performed using the CSA A23.3-04 code in SAFE and also by hand computation. Table 1 shows the comparison of the design longitudinal reinforcements. Table 2 shows the comparison of the design shear reinforcements.
EXAMPLE CSA A23.3-04 RC-BM-001 - 1
SAFE 0
600 mm 75 mm 100 mm
500 mm
75 mm 300 mm
Beam Section
2000 mm
2000 mm
2000 mm
Shear Force
Bending Moment
SAFE 0
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
6000 500 100 300 600 75 425 75 30 460 0 25x105 2x108 0.2 30 100
mm mm mm mm mm mm mm mm MPa MPa kN/m3 MPa MPa
kN kN
TECHNICAL FEATURES OF SAFE TESTED Calculation of flexural and shear reinforcement Application of minimum flexural and shear reinforcement RESULTS COMPARISON Table 1 shows the comparison of the SAFE total factored moments in the design strip with the moments obtained by the analytical method. They match exactly for this problem. Table 1 also shows the design reinforcement comparison.
A +,min = 535.82 sq-m s
SAFE 0

Reinforcement Area, (sq-cm/m) Shear Force (kN) 187.5 SAFE 12.573 Calculated 12.573
Av s
COMPUTER FILE: CSA A23.3-04 RC-BM-001.FDB CONCLUSION The SAFE results show an exact comparison with the independent results.
SAFE 0
c = 0.65 for concrete s = 0.85 for reinforcement

As,min =
0.2 f c bw h = 357.2 sq-mm fy
1 = 0.85 0.0015f'c 0.67 = 0.805 1 = 0.97 0.0025f'c 0.67 = 0.895 cb =
700 d = 256.46 mm 700 + f y
ab = 1cb = 229.5366 mm As = min[As,min, (4/3) As,required] = min[357.2, (4/3)2445] = 357.2 sq-mm COMB100 P = (1.25Pd + 1.5Pt) =187.5kN
M* = Pl = 375 kN-m 3
Mf = 375 kN-m The depth of the compression block is given by:

C f = 1 f ( b f bw ) min ( hs , ab ) = 724.5 kN c
Therefore, As1 = by:
C f c f y s
and the portion of Mf that is resisted by the flange is given
SAFE 0
As1 = C f c f y s
= 1204.411 sq-mm
min (hs , ab ) M ff = C f d c = 176.596 kN-m 2
Therefore, the balance of the moment, Mf to be carried by the web is: Mfw = Mf Mff = 198.403 kN-m The web is a rectangular section with dimensions bw and d, for which the design depth of the compression block is recalculated as: a1 = d d 2 2 M fw
1 f 'c c bw
= 114.5745 mm
If a1 ab, the area of tension reinforcement is then given by:
As 2 =
M fw a s f y d 1 2
= 1379.94 sq-mm
As = As1 + As2 = 2584.351 sq-mm Shear Design The basic shear strength for rectangular section is computed as,
c = 0.65 for shear
= {1.00, for normal density concrete
d v is the effective shear depth. It is taken as the greater of 0.9d or 0.72h = 382.5 mm (governing) or 360mm.
Sze = 300 if minimum transverse reinforcement
x =
M f d v + V f + 0.5 N f 2(E s As )
and x 0.003
SAFE 0
0.40 1300 = 0.07272 (1 + 1500 x ) (1000 + S ze )

f bw dv = 29.708 kN c
Vc = c
Vr ,max = 0.25c f 'c bw d = 621.56 kN

= 50
Av (V f Vc ) tan = 1.2573 mm2/mm = 12.573 cm2/m. = s s f yt d v
SAFE 0
EXAMPLE CSA A23.3-04 RC-PN-001

Slab Punching Shear Design PROBLEM DESCRIPTION The purpose of this example is to verify slab punching shear design in SAFE The numerical example is a flat slab that has three 8 m spans in each direction, as shown in Figure 1.
0.3 m 0.6 m
A
8m
B
8m
C
8m
D 0.3 m
4
3
2
8m
Y X
0.6 m
Loading DL = Self weight + 1.0 kN/m 2 LL = 4.0 kN/m2
The slab overhangs beyond the face of the column by 0.15 m along each side of the structure. The columns are typically 0.3 m x 0.9 m with the long side parallel to the Y-axis. The slab is typically 0.25 m thick. Thick plate properties are used for the slab. The concrete has a unit weight of 24 kN/m3 and a f'c of 30 N/mm2. The dead load consists of the self weight of the structure plus an additional 1 kN/m2. The live load is 4 kN/m2.
EXAMPLE CSA A23.3-04 RC-PN-001 - 1
SAFE 0
Table 1 Comparison of Design Results for Punching Shear at Grid B-2 Method
SAFE Calculated
Shear Stress Shear Capacity (N/mm2) (N/mm2) D/C ratio

1.803 1.803 1.127 1.127 1.599 1.599
COMPUTER FILE: CSA A23.3-04 RC-PN-001.FDB CONCLUSION The SAFE results show an exact comparison with the independent results.
SAFE 0
518
109
Y
109 150 150 109
Column
A Side 2
Side 3
Side 1
450
X
450
1118

Side 4 D C
109
VX
=1
1 2 900 1+ 3 300 1 2 300 1+ 3 900
= 0.536
VY
=1
= 0.278
SAFE 0
The following table is used for calculating the centroid of the critical section for punching shear. Side 1, Side 2, Side 3, and Side 4 refer to the sides of the critical section for punching shear as identified in Figure 2. Item x2 y2 L d Ld Ldx2 Ldy2 Side 1 259 0 1118 218 243724 63124516 0 Side 2 0 559 518 218 112924 0 63124516 Side 3 259 0 1118 218 243724 63124516 0 Side 4 0 559 518 218 112924 0 63124516 Sum N.A. N.A. b0 = 3272 N.A. 713296 0 0
x3 =
Ldx
Ld
0 = 0 mm 713296
y3 =
Ldy
Ld
0 = 0 mm 713296
SAFE 0
At the point labeled A in Figure 2, x4 = 259 and y4 = 559, thus: vU = 1125.591 103 28514.675 103 [3.86 1010 (559 0) (0)(259 0)] + 3272 218 (1.23 1011 )(3.86 1010 ) (0) 2 14231.447 103 [1.23 1011 (259 0) (0)(559 0)] (1.23 o 1011 )(3.86 1010 ) (0) 2 vU = 1.5780 0.1293 0.0954 = 1.3533 N/mm2 at point A At the point labeled B in Figure 2, x4 = 259 and y4 = 559, thus: 1125.591 103 28514.675 103 [3.86 1010 (559 0) (0)(259 0)] vU = + 3272 218 (1.23 1011 )(3.86 1010 ) (0) 2 14231.447 103 [1.23 1011 (259 0) (0)(559 0)] (1.23 o 1011 )(3.86 1010 ) (0) 2 vU = 1.5780 0.1293 0.0954 =1.5441 N/mm2 at point B At the point labeled C in Figure 2, x4 = 259 and y4 = 559, thus: vU = 1125.591 103 28514.675 103 [3.86 1010 (559 0) (0)(259 0)] + 3272 218 (1.23 1011 )(3.86 1010 ) (0) 2 14231.447 103 [1.23 1011 (259 0) (0)(559 0)] (1.23 o 1011 )(3.86 1010 ) (0) 2 vU = 1.5780 0.1293 0.0954 = 1.8027 N/mm2 at point C At the point labeled D in Figure 2, x4 = 259 and y4 = 559, thus: vU = 1125.591 103 28514.675 103 [3.86 1010 (559 0) (0)(259 0)] + 3272 218 (1.23 1011 )(3.86 1010 ) (0) 2 14231.447 103 [1.23 1011 ( 259 0) (0)(559 0)] (1.23 o 1011 )(3.86 1010 ) (0) 2 vU = 1.5780 0.1293 0.0954 = 1.5441 N/mm2 at point D Point C has the largest absolute value of vu, thus vmax = 1.803 N/mm2
SAFE 0
2 c c 1 + 0.19 f c d vv = min c 0.19 + s f c b0 c c 0.38 f
1.127 N/mm2 in accordance with CSA 13.3.4.1
CSA 13.3.4.1 yields the smallest value of vv = 1.127 N/mm2, and thus this is the shear capacity.
Shear Ratio =
vU 1.803 = = 1.599 vv 1.127
SAFE 0
EXAMPLE CSA A23.3-04 RC-SL-001

Slab Flexural Design PROBLEM DESCRIPTION The purpose of this example is to verify slab flexural design in SAFE. A one-way, simple-span slab supported by walls on two opposite edges is modeled using SAFE. The slab is 150 mm thick and spans 4 meters between the walls. To ensure one-way action, Poissons ratio is taken to be zero. The computational model uses a finite element mesh, automatically generated by SAFE. The maximum element size was specified to be 1.0 meter. The slab is modeled using thin plate elements. The walls are modeled as line supports without rotational stiffnesses and with very large vertical stiffness (1 1015 kN/m). To obtain factored moments and flexural reinforcement in a design strip, one one-meter wide strip is defined in the X-direction on the slab as shown in Figure 1.
4 m span Free edge
Y X Free edge
1 m design strip
One dead load case (DL4KPa) and one live load case (LL5KPa) with uniformly distributed surface loads of magnitudes 4 and 5 kN/m2, respectively, are defined in the model. A load combination (COMB5kPa) is defined using the CSA A23.304 load combination factors, 1.25 for dead loads and 1.5 for live loads. The model is analyzed for these load cases and load combinations. The slab moment on a strip of unit width is computed analytically. The total factored strip moments are compared with the SAFE results. After completing the analysis, design is performed using the CSA A23.3-04 code by SAFE and also by hand computation. Table 1 show the comparison of the design reinforcements computed using the two methods.
EXAMPLE CSA A23.3-04 RC-SL-001 - 1
SAFE 0
= = = = = = = = = = = =
150 25 125 4000 30 460 0 25000 2x106 0 4.0 5.0
kPa kPa
5.528 5.406
Load Level
Medium
Method
SAFE Calculated
Moment (kN-m)
24.991 25.000
A +,min = 357.2 sq-mm s
SAFE 0
COMPUTER FILE: CSA A23.3-04 RC-SL-001.FDB CONCLUSION The SAFE results show a very close comparison with the independent results.
SAFE 0
c = 0.65 for concrete s = 0.85 for reinforcement

As,min =
0.2 f c bw h = 357.2 sq-mm fy
b = 1000 mm 1 = 0.85 0.0015f'c 0.67 = 0.805 1 = 0.97 0.0025f'c 0.67 = 0.895 cb =
700 d = 75.43 mm 700 + f y
ab = 1cb = 67.5 mm For the load combination, w and M* are calculated as follows: w = (1.25wd + 1.5wt) b wl12 Mu = 8 As = min[As,min, (4/3) As,required] = min[357.2, (4/3)540.63] = 357.2 sq-mm = 0.22(150/125)20.6SQRT(30)/460100125 = 282.9 sq-mm COMB100 wd = 4.0 kPa wt = 5.0 kPa w = 12.5 kN/m Mf = 25.0 kN-m The depth of the compression block is given by:
a = d d2 2M f
1 f 'c c b
= 13.466 mm < amax
SAFE 0

As = Mf a s f y d 2
= 540.630 sq-mm > As,min
As = 5.406 sq-cm
SAFE 0
EXAMPLE Eurocode 2-04 PT-SL-001

914 mm
Section
EXAMPLE Eurocode 2-04 PT-SL-001 - 1
SAFE 0 A 254 mm wide design strip is centered along the length of the slab and has been defined as an A-Strip. B-strips have been placed at each end of the span, perpendicular to Strip-A (the B-Strips are necessary to define the tendon profile). A tendon with two strands, each having an area of 99 mm2, was added to the AStrip. The self weight and live loads have been added to the slab. The loads and post-tensioning forces are as follows: Loads: Dead = self weight, Live = 4.788 kN/m2
The total factored strip moments, required area of mild steel reinforcement and slab stresses are reported at the midspan of the slab. Independent hand calculations were compared with the SAFE results and summarized for verification and validation of the SAFE results. GEOMETRY, PROPERTIES AND LOADING Thickness Effective depth Clear span Concrete strength Yield strength of steel Prestressing, ultimate Prestressing, effective Area of Prestress (single strand) Concrete unit weight Modulus of elasticity Modulus of elasticity Poissons ratio Dead load Live load
254 229 9754 30 400 1862 1210 198 23.56 25000 200,000 0 self 4.788
TECHNICAL FEATURES OF SAFE TESTED Calculation of the required flexural reinforcement Check of slab stresses due to the application of dead, live, and post-tensioning loads. RESULTS COMPARISON Table 1 shows the comparison of the SAFE total factored moments, required mild steel reinforcing, and slab stresses with independent hand calculations.
SAFE 0
Table 1 Comparison of Results FEATURE TESTED Factored moment, Mu (Ultimate) (kN-m) Area of Mild Steel reqd, As (sq-cm) Transfer Conc. Stress, top (D+PTI), MPa Transfer Conc. Stress, bot (D+PTI), MPa Normal Conc. Stress, top (D+L+PTF), MPa Normal Conc. Stress, bot (D+L+PTF), MPa Long-Term Conc. Stress, top (D+0.5L+PTF(L)), MPa Long-Term Conc. Stress, bot (D+0.5L+PTF(L)), MPa INDEPENDENT RESULTS 165.9 16.29 5.057 2.839 10.460 8.402 7.817 5.759 SAFE RESULTS 165.9 16.39 5.057 2.839 10.465 8.407 7.817 5.759 DIFFERENCE 0.00% 0.61 % 0.00% 0.00% 0.05% 0.06% 0.00% 0.00%
COMPUTER FILE: EUROCODE 2-04 PT-SL-001.FDB CONCLUSION The SAFE results show a close comparison with the independent results.
SAFE 0
HAND CALCULATIONS: Design Parameters: Mild Steel Reinforcing fc = 30MPa fy = 400MPa Post-Tensioning fpu = 1862 MPa fpy = 1675 MPa Stressing Loss = 186 MPa Long-Term Loss = 94 MPa fi = 1490 MPa fe = 1210 MPa

= 1.0 for fck 50 MPa

914 mm
Section
=10.772 kN/m2 x 0.914 m = 9.846 kN/m, u = 15.260 kN/m2 x 0.914 m = 13.948 kN/m
SAFE 0
f A Ultimate Stress in strand, f PS = f SE + 7000d 1 1.36 PU P / l fCK bd 1862(198) = 1210 + 7000(229) 1 1.36 /(9754) 30(914) ( 229 ) = 1361 MPa
Ultimate force in PT, Fult , PT = AP ( f PS ) = 2(99)(1362) /1000 = 269.6 kN Compression block depth ratio: m =
= M bd 2f cd
165.9 = 0.1731 (0.914)(0.229) 2 (1)(30000 /1.50) Required area of mild steel reinforcing, = 1 1 2m = 1 1 2(0.1731) = 0.1914
f bd 1(30 /1.5)(914)(229) 2 AEquivTotal = cd = 0.1914 = 2303 mm f yd 400 /1.15 1365 2 AEquivTotal = AP + AS = 2303 mm 400 /1.15
1361 2 AS = 2303 198 = 1629 mm 400
Check of Concrete Stresses at Midspan: Initial Condition (Transfer), load combination (D+PTi) = 1.0D+0.0L+1.0PTI Tendon stress at transfer = jacking stress stressing losses =1490 186 = 1304 MPa The force in the tendon at transfer = 1304(197.4) /1000 = 257.4 kN Moment due to dead load, M D = 5.984(0.914)(9.754) 2 / 8 = 65.04 kN-m Moment due to PT, M PT = FPTI (sag) = 257.4(102 mm) /1000 = 26.25 kN-m F M M PT 257.4 65.04 26.23 = Stress in concrete, f = PTI D A S 0.254(0.914) 0.00983 where S=0.00983m3
f = 1.109 3.948 MPa f = 5.058(Comp) max, 2.839(Tension) max
SAFE 0
Normal Condition, load combinations: (D+L+PTF) = 1.0D+1.0L+1.0PTF Tendon stress at normal = jacking stressing long-term=1490 186 94 = 1210 MPa The force in tendon at normal = 1210(197.4) /1000 = 238.9 kN Moment due to dead load M D = 5.984(0.914)(9.754) 2 / 8 = 65.04 kN-m Moment due to live load M L = 4.788(0.914)(9.754) 2 / 8 = 52.04 kN-m Moment due to PT, M PT = FPTI (sag) = 238.9(102 mm) /1000 = 24.37 kN-m Stress in concrete for (D+L+PTF), F M M PT 238.8 117.08 24.37 f = PTI D + L = A S 0.254(0.914) 0.00983 f = 1.029 9.431 f = 10.460(Comp) max, 8.402(Tension) max Long-Term Condition, load combinations: (D+0.5L+PTF(L)) = 1.0D+0.5L+1.0PTF Tendon stress at normal = jacking stressing long-term = 1490 186 94 = 1210 MPa The force in tendon at normal, = 1210(197.4) /1000 = 238.9 kN Moment due to dead load, M D = 5.984(0.914)(9.754) 2 / 8 = 65.04 kN-m Moment due to live load, M L = 4.788(0.914)(9.754) 2 / 8 = 52.04 kN-m Moment due to PT, M PT = FPTI (sag) = 238.9(102 mm) /1000 = 24.37 kN-m Stress in concrete for (D+0.5L+PTF(L)), M M PT F 238.9 91.06 24.33 f = PTI D + 0.5 L = A S 0.254(0.914) 0.00983 f = 1.029 6.788 f = 7.817(Comp) max, 5.759(Tension) max
SAFE 0
EXAMPLE Eurocode 2-04 RC-BM-001

Flexural and Shear Beam Design PROBLEM DESCRIPTION The purpose of this example is to verify slab flexural design in SAFE. The load level is adjusted for the case corresponding to the following conditions: The stress-block extends below the flange but remains within the balanced condition permitted by Eurocode 2-04. The average shear stress in the beam is below the maximum shear stress allowed by Eurocode 2-04, requiring design shear reinforcement. A simple-span, 6-m-long, 300-mm-wide, and 500-mm-deep T beam with a flange 100 mm thick and 600 mm wide is modeled using SAFE. The beam is shown in Figure 1. The computational model uses a finite element mesh of frame elements, automatically generated by SAFE. The maximum element size has been specified to be 200 mm. The beam is supported by columns without rotational stiffnesses and with very large vertical stiffness (1 1020 kN/m). The beam is loaded with symmetric third-point loading One dead load case (DL30) and one live load case (LL130) with only symmetric third-point loads of magnitudes 30, and 130 kN, respectively, are defined in the model. One load combinations (COMB130) is defined using the Eurocode 2-04 load combination factors of 1.35 for dead loads and 1.5 for live loads. The model is analyzed for both of these load cases and the load combinations. The beam moment and shear force are computed analytically. The total factored moment and shear force are compared with the SAFE results. These moment and shear force are identical. After completing the analysis, design is performed using the Eurocode 2-04 code in SAFE and also by hand computation. Table 1 shows the comparison of the design longitudinal reinforcements. Table 2 shows the comparison of the design shear reinforcements.
EXAMPLE Eurocode 2-04 RC-BM-001 - 1
SAFE 0
600 mm 75 mm 100 mm
500 mm
75 mm 300 mm
Beam Section
2000 mm
2000 mm
2000 mm
Shear Force
Bending Moment
SAFE 0
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
6000 500 100 300 600 75 425 75 30 460 0 25x105 2x108 0.2 30 130
TECHNICAL FEATURES OF SAFE TESTED Calculation of flexural and shear reinforcement Application of minimum flexural and shear reinforcement RESULTS COMPARISON Table 1 shows the comparison of the SAFE total factored moments in the design strip with the moments obtained by the analytical method. They match exactly for this problem. Table 1 also shows the comparison of design reinforcements.
Moment Method SAFE Calculated (kN-m) 471 471 Reinforcement Area (sq-cm) As+ 31.643 31.643
A +,min = 2.09 sq-cm s
SAFE 0

Av s
COMPUTER FILE: Eurocode 2-04 RC-BM-001.FDB CONCLUSION The SAFE results show an exact comparison with the independent results.
SAFE 0
HAND CALCULATION Flexural Design The following quantities are computed for both of the load combinations:
m, steel
= 1.15
m, concrete = 1.50
f cd = cc f ck / c
f yd = f yk / s

As ,min = 0.26 f ctm bd = 208.73 sq-mm f yk
As ,min = 0.0013bw h = 195.00 sq-mm

COMB130
k1 x for fck 50 MPa = k2 d lim = (1 0.44)/1.25 = 0.448 x x mlim = 1 = 0.29417 d lim 2 d lim
x = 1 1 2mlim = 0.3584 d lim amax = limd = 152.32 mm
lim =
m=
M bd 2f cd
= 0.217301
= 1 1 2m = 0.2480
a = d = 105.4299 mm amax
As 2 =
(b
bw )h f f cd f yd
= 1500 sq-mm
SAFE 0
hf M 2 = As 2 f yd d 2
= 225 kN-m
M1 = M M2 = 246 kN-m
m1 = M1 = 0.2269896 mlim bw d 2f cd
1 = 1 1 2m1 = 0.2610678
f b d As1 = 1 cd w = 1664.304 sq-mm f yd
As = As1 + As2 = 3164.307 sq-mm Shear Design

C Rd ,c = 0.18 c = 0.12
k = 1+
200 = 1.686 2.0 with d in mm d
1 = 0.0
cp = N Ed / Ac < 0.2 f cd = 0.0 MPa
min = 0.035k 3 2 f ck 1 2 = 0.419677

13 VRd ,c = CRd ,c k (100 1 fck ) + k1 cp bw d = 0.419677 MPa
cw = 1
1 = 0.61
f ck = 0.528 250
z = 0.9d = 382.5 mm is taken as 1.

VRd ,max =
cwbw z 1 f cd = 1211.76 kN cot + tan
Asw VEd = = 1.5359 sq-mm/m = 15.359 sq-cm/m s zf ywd cot
SAFE 0
EXAMPLE EUROCODE 2-04 RC-PN-001

0.3 m 0.6 m
A
8m
B
8m
C
8m
D 0.3 m
4
3
2
8m
Y X
0.6 m
The slab overhangs beyond the face of the column by 0.15 m along each side of the structure. The columns are typically 0.3 m x 0.9 m with the long side parallel to the Y-axis. Thick plate properties are used for the slab. The concrete has a unit weight of 24 kN/m3 and a f'c of 30 N/mm2. The dead load consists of the self weight of the structure plus an additional 1 kN/m2. The live load is 4 kN/m2.
EXAMPLE EUROCODE 2-04 RC-PN-001 - 1
SAFE 0
SAFE Calculated

0.932 0.932 0.542 0.560 1.720 1.664
COMPUTER FILE: EUROCODE 2-04 RC-PN-001.FDB CONCLUSION The SAFE results show a very close comparison with the independent results.
SAFE 0
1172
Y
436 A Side 2 Side 1 Side 3 150 150 436 B
Column
436
450
X
450 436 C
1772

D
Side 4
VX
=1
1 2 900 1+ 3 300 1 2 300 1+ 3 900
= 0.536
VY
=1
= 0.278
SAFE 0
x3 =
Side 1 586 0 1772 218 386296 226369456 0
Side 2 0 886 1172 218 255496 0 226369456
Side 3 586 0 1772 218 386296 226369456 0
Side 4 0 886 1172 218 255496 0 226369456
Sum N.A. N.A. b0 = 5888 N.A. 1283584 0 0
Ldx
Ld
0 = 0 mm 1283584
y3 =
Ldy
Ld
0 = 0 mm 1283584
From the SAFE output at Grid B-2: VU = 1110.040 kN MUX = 25993.080 kN-mm MUY =1.6028.908 kN-mm At the point labeled A in Figure 2, x4 = 586 and y4 = 886, thus:
SAFE 0
vU =
1110.040 103 25993.080 103 [3.26 1011 (886 0) (0)(586 0)] + 5888 218 (6.06 1011 )(3.26 o 1011 ) (0)2 16028.908 103 [6.06 1011 (586 0) (0)(886 0)] (6.06 o 1011 )(3.26 1011 ) (0) 2
vU = 0.8648 0.0380 0.0277 = 0.7980 N/mm2 at point A At the point labeled B in Figure 2, x4 = 586 and y4 = 886, thus: vU = 1110.040 103 25993.080 103 [3.26 1011 (886 0) (0)(586 0)] + 5888 218 (6.06 1011 )(3.26 o 1011 ) (0)2 16028.908 103 [6.06 1011 (586 0) (0)(886 0)] (6.06 o 1011 )(3.26 1011 ) (0) 2 vU = 0.8648 0.0380 + 0.0277 = 0.8556 N/mm2 at point B At the point labeled C in Figure 2, x4 = 586 and y4 = 886, thus: vU = 1110.040 103 25993.080 103 [3.26 1011 (886 0) (0)(586 0)] + 5888 218 (6.06 1011 )(3.26 o 1011 ) (0)2 16028.908 103 [6.06 1011 (586 0) (0)(886 0)] (6.06 o 1011 )(3.26 1011 ) (0) 2 vU = 0.8648 + 0.0380 + 0.0277 = 0.9316 N/mm2 at point C At the point labeled D in Figure 2, x4 = 586 and y4 = 886, thus: vU = 1110.040 103 25993.080 103 [3.26 1011 (886 0) (0)(586 0)] + 5888 218 (6.06 1011 )(3.26 o 1011 ) (0)2 16028.908 103 [6.06 1011 (586 0) (0)(886 0)] (6.06 o 1011 )(3.26 1011 ) (0) 2 vU = 0.8648 0.0380 + 0.0277 = 0.8556 N/mm2 at point D Point C has the largest absolute value of vu, thus vmax = 0.932 N/mm2
SAFE 0
k = 1+
200 2.0 = 1.9578 d
(EC2 6.4.4(1))
v Ed =
VEd ud
M Ed u1 2 1 + k = 0.560 N/mm VEdW1
(EC2 6.4.4(2))
CP 3.7.7.3 yields the value of v = 0.560 N/mm2, and thus this is the shear capacity.
vU 0.932 = = 1.720 v 0.560
Shear Ratio =
SAFE 0
EXAMPLE Eurocode 2-04 RC-SL-001

Slab Flexural Design PROBLEM DESCRIPTION The purpose of this example is to verify slab flexural design in SAFE. A one-way, simple-span slab supported by walls on two opposite edges is modeled using SAFE. The slab is 150 mm thick and spans 4 meters between walls. To ensure one-way action, Poissons ratio is taken to be zero. The computational model uses a finite element mesh, automatically generated by SAFE. The maximum element size is specified as 1.0 meter. The slab is modeled using thin plate elements. The walls are modeled as line supports without rotational stiffnesses and with very large vertical stiffness (1 1015 kN/m). To obtain factored moments and flexural reinforcement in a design strip, one onemeter wide strip is defined in the X-direction on the slab, as shown in Figure 1.
4 m span Free edge
Y X Free edge
1 m design strip
Figure 1 Plan View of One-Way Slab One dead load case (DL4KPa) and one live load case (LL5KPa) with uniformly distributed surface loads of magnitudes 4 and 5 kN/m2, respectively, are defined in the model. A load combination (COMB5kPa) is defined using the Eurocode 204 load combination factors, 1.35 for dead loads and 1.5 for live loads. The model is analyzed for both load cases and the load combination. The slab moment on a strip of unit width is computed analytically. The total factored strip moments are compared with the SAFE results. These moments are identical. After completing the analysis, design is performed using the Eurocode 2-04 code by SAFE and also by hand computation. Table 1 shows the comparison of the design reinforcements computed by the two methods.
EXAMPLE Eurocode 2-04 RC-SL-001 - 1
SAFE 0
= = = = = = = = = = = =
150 25 125 4000 30 460 0 25000 2x106 0 4.0 5.0
mm mm mm mm MPa MPa N/m3 MPa MPa kPa kPa
5.401 5.393
Load Level
Medium
Method
SAFE Calculated
Moment (kN-m)
25.797 25.800
A +,min = 204.642 sq-mm s
SAFE 0
COMPUTER FILE: Eurocode 2-04 RC-SL-001.FDB CONCLUSION The SAFE results show a very close comparison with the independent results.
SAFE 0


b = 1000 mm For the load combination, w and M are calculated as follows: w = (1.35wd + 1.5wt) b M= wl12 8
As ,min
0.0013bw d = max f 0.26 ctm bd f yk

= 204.642 sq-mm
COMB100 wd = 4.0 kPa wt M = 5.0 kPa = 25.8 kN-m

M bd 2f cd
w = 12.9 kN/m The depth of the compression block is given by:

m=
= 0.08256
x x mlim = 1 = 0.294 d lim 2 d lim
k1 x for fck 50 MPa = 1.8182 = k2 d lim
SAFE 0
For reinforcement with fyk 500 MPa, the following values are used: k1 = 0.44 k2 = k4 = 1.25(0.6 + 0.0014/cu2) = 1.25
is assumed to be 1 = 1 1 2m = 0.08682
f bd As = cd = 539.264 sq-mm > As,min f yd
As = 5.393 sq-cm
SAFE 0
EXAMPLE Hong Kong CP-04 PT-SL-001

914 mm
Section
EXAMPLE Hong Kong CP-04 PT-SL-001 - 1
SAFE 0 To ensure one-way action Poissons ratio is taken to be zero. A 254mm wide design strip is centered along the length of the slab and has been defined as an A-Strip. B-strips have been placed at each end of the span, perpendicular to StripA (the B-Strips are necessary to define the tendon profile). A tendon with two strands, each having an area of 99 mm2, was added to the A-Strip. The self weight and live loads were added to the slab. The loads and post-tensioning forces are as follows: Loads: Dead = self weight, Live = 4.788 kN/m2
The total factored strip moments, required area of mild steel reinforcement and slab stresses are reported at the midspan of the slab. Independent hand calculations were compared with the SAFE results and summarized for verification and validation of the SAFE results. GEOMETRY, PROPERTIES AND LOADING Thickness Effective depth Clear span Concrete strength Yield strength of steel Prestressing, ultimate Prestressing, effective Area of Prestress (single strand) Concrete unit weight Modulus of elasticity Modulus of elasticity Poissons ratio Dead load Live load
254 229 9754 30 400 1862 1210 198 23.56 25000 200,000 0 self 4.788
TECHNICAL FEATURES OF SAFE TESTED Calculation of the required flexural reinforcement Check of slab stresses due to the application of dead, live, and post-tensioning loads. RESULTS COMPARISON Table 1 shows the comparison of the SAFE total factored moments, required mild steel reinforcing, and slab stresses with independent hand calculations.
SAFE 0
Table 1 Comparison of Results FEATURE TESTED Factored moment, Mu (KN-m) Area of Mild Steel reqd, As (cm2) Transfer Conc. Stress, top (D+PTI), MPa Transfer Conc. Stress, bot (D+PTI), MPa Normal Conc. Stress, top (D+L+PTF), MPa Normal Conc. Stress, top (D+L+PTF), MPa INDEPENDENT RESULTS 174.4 19.65 5.056 2.836 10.547 8.323 SAFE RESULTS 174.4 19.72 5.056 2.839 10.465 8.407 DIFFERENCE 0.00% 0.36% 0.00% 0.11% 0.77% 1.01%
COMPUTER FILE: HONG KONG CP-04 PT-SL-001.FDB CONCLUSION The SAFE results show a very close comparison with the independent results.
SAFE 0
HAND CALCULATIONS: Design Parameters: Mild Steel Reinforcing fc = 30 MPa fy = 400 MPa Post-Tensioning fpu = 1862 MPa fpy = 1675 MPa Stressing Loss = 186 MPa Long-Term Loss = 94 MPa fi = 1490 MPa fe = 1210 MPa

914 mm
Section
SAFE 0
f pu Ap 7000 1 1.7 l/d f cu bd 7000 1862(198) = 1210 + 1 1.7 9.754 / 0.229 30(914)(229)
= 1358 MPa 0.7 f pu = 1303 MPa
K factor used to determine the effective depth is given as: 174.4 M = = 0.1213 < 0.156 K= 2 f cu bd 30000(0.914)(0.229)2
K 0.95d = 192.2 mm z = d 0.5 + 0.25 0 .9 Ultimate force in PT, Fult , PT = AP ( f PS ) = 197.4(1303) /1000 = 257.2 KN
Ultimate moment due to PT, M ult , PT = Fult , PT ( z ) / = 257.2(0.192) /1.15 = 43.00 KN-m Net Moment to be resisted by As, M NET = MU M PT = 174.4 43.00 = 131.40 kN-m The area of tensile steel reinforcement is then given by:
As =
M 131.40 = (1e6) = 1965mm 2 0.87 f y z 0.87(400)(192)
Check of Concrete Stresses at Midspan: Initial Condition (Transfer), load combination (D+PTi) = 1.0D+0.0L+1.0PTI
Tendon stress at transfer = jacking stress stressing losses = 1490 186 = 1304 MPa The force in the tendon at transfer, = 1304(2)(99) /1000 = 258.2 kN Moment due to dead load, M D = 5.984(0.914)(9.754) 2 / 8 = 65.04 kN-m Moment due to PT, M PT = FPTI (sag) = 258.2(101.6 mm) /1000 = 26.23 kN-m F M M 258.2 65.04 26.23 Stress in concrete, f = PTI D PT = 0.254(0.914) 0.00983 0.00983 A S S where S=0.00983m3 f = 1.112 6.6166 2.668 MPa f = 5.060(Comp) max, 2.836(Tension) max
SAFE 0
Normal Condition, load combinations: (D+L+PTF) = 1.0D+1.0L+1.0PTF
Tendon stress at normal = jacking stressing long-term = 1490 186 94 = 1210 MPa The force in tendon at normal, = 1210(2)(99) /1000 = 239.5 kN Moment due to dead load, M D = 5.984(0.914)(9.754) 2 / 8 = 65.04 kN-m Moment due to live load, M L = 4.788(0.914)(9.754) 2 / 8 = 52.04 kN-m Moment due to PT, M PT = FPTI (sag) = 239.5(101.6 mm) /1000 = 24.33 kN-m Stress in concrete for (D+L+PTF), F M M 258.2 117.08 24.33 f = PTI D PT = 0.254(0.914) 0.00983 0.00983 A S S f = 1.112 11.910 2.475 f = 10.547(Comp) max, 8.323(Tension) max
SAFE 0
EXAMPLE HONG KONG CP-04 RC-BM-001

Flexural and Shear Beam Design PROBLEM DESCRIPTION The purpose of this example is to verify slab flexural design in SAFE. The load level is adjusted for the case corresponding to the following conditions: The stress-block extends below the flange but remains within the balanced condition permitted by Hong Kong CP 2004. The average shear stress in the beam is below the maximum shear stress allowed by Hong Kong CP 2004, requiring design shear reinforcement. A simple-span, 6-m-long, 300-mm-wide, and 500-mm-deep T beam with a flange 100 mm thick and 600 mm wide is modeled using SAFE. The beam is shown in Figure 1. The computational model uses a finite element mesh of frame elements, automatically generated by SAFE. The maximum element size has been specified to be 200 mm. The beam is supported by columns without rotational stiffnesses and with very large vertical stiffness (1 1020 kN/m). The beam is loaded with symmetric third-point loading. One dead load case (DL20) and one live load case (LL80) with only symmetric third-point loads of magnitudes 20, and 80 kN, respectively, are defined in the model. One load combinations (COMB80) is defined using the Hong Kong CP 2004 load combination factors of 1.4 for dead loads and 1.6 for live loads. The model is analyzed for both of these load cases and the load combinations. The beam moment and shear force are computed analytically. The total factored moment and shear force are compared with the SAFE results. These moment and shear force are identical. After completing the analysis, design is performed using the Hong Kong CP 2004 code in SAFE and also by hand computation. The design longitudinal reinforcements are compared in Table 1. The design shear reinforcements are compared in Table 2.
EXAMPLE HONG KONG CP-04 RC-BM-001 - 1
SAFE 0
600 mm 75 mm 100 mm
500 mm
75 mm 300 mm
Beam Section
2000 mm
2000 mm
2000 mm
Shear Force
Bending Moment
SAFE 0
GEOMETRY, PROPERTIES AND LOADING Clear span, Overall depth, Flange Thickness, Width of web, Width of flange, Depth of tensile reinf., Effective depth, Depth of comp. reinf., Concrete strength, Yield strength of steel, Concrete unit weight, Modulus of elasticity, Modulus of elasticity, Poissons ratio, Dead load, Live load,
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
6000 500 100 300 600 75 425 75 30 460 0 25x105 2x108 0.2 20 80
Moment (kN-m) 312 312 Reinforcement Area (sq-cm) As+ 19.565 20.904
A +,min = 195.00 sq-mm s
SAFE 0

Av s
COMPUTER FILE: HONG KONG CP-04 RC-BM-001.FDB CONCLUSION The SAFE results show a very close comparison with the independent results.
SAFE 0
m, steel
= 1.15
m, concrete = 1.50
= 195.00 sq-mm COMB80 P = (1.4Pd + 1.6Pt) =156 kN M* = N *l = 312 kN-m 3

K z = d 0.5 + 0.25 0.95d = 373.4254 mm 0 .9

1 (d z) = 114.6102 mm 0.45
Mf = 0.67 fcu ( b f bw ) h f ( d 0.5h f ) = 150.75 kN-m
SAFE 0 The moment taken by the web is computed as:

M w = M M f = 161.25 kN-m
and the normalized moment resisted by the web is given by: Kw =

Mw = 0.0991926 < 0.156 f cu bw d 2
K z = d 0.5 + 0.25 w 0.95d = 371.3988 mm 0 .9
As =
Mf fy
( d 0.5h )
f
The area of tension reinforcement is obtained from CP 3.4.4.5 is:

As = M + 0.1 f cu bw d (0.45d hf ) = 2311.5 sq-mm 0.87 f y ( d 0.5h f )
Shear Design
v= V vmax = 1.2235 MPa bw d
0.79k1k 2 100 As 3 400 4 vc = = 0.3568 MPa m bd d
1 1
k1 is the enhancement factor for support compression, and is conservatively taken as 1 .
40 f 3 k2 = cu = 1.06266, 1 k2 25 25
SAFE 0
m = 1.25
100 As bd
= 0.15
1 4
400 d
=1

100 As 3 bd
1 4
400 d
fcu 40 MPa (for calculation purposes only) and As is the area of tension reinforcement. Given v, vc, and vmax, the required shear reinforcement is calculated as follows: If v (vc + 0.4)


If v > vmax, a failure condition is declared. (COMB80) Pd = 20 kN Pl V
*
= 80 kN = 156 kN
*
V = = 2.0 MPa (sc < * smax) bw d
Asv (v vc )bw = = 0.64967sq-mm/mm = 6.50 sq-cm/m sv 0.87 f yv
SAFE 0
EXAMPLE Hong Kong CP-04 RC-PN-001

0.3 m 0.6 m
A
8m
B
8m
C
8m
D 0.3 m
4
3
2
8m
Y X
0.6 m
Figure 1: Flat Slab for Numerical Example The slab overhangs beyond the face of the column by 0.15 m along each side of the structure. The columns are typically 0.3 m x 0.9 m with the long side parallel to the Y-axis. The slab is typically 0.25 m thick. Thick plate properties are used for the slab. The concrete has a unit weight of 24 kN/m3 and a fcu of 30 N/mm2. The dead load consists of the self weight of the structure plus an additional 1 kN/m2. The live load is 4 kN/m2.
EXAMPLE Hong Kong CP-04 RC-PN-001 - 1
SAFE 0
SAFE Calculated

1.122 1.122 0.415 0.415 2.704 2.704
COMPUTER FILE: HONG KONG CP-04 RC-PN-001.FDB CONCLUSION The SAFE results show an exact comparison with the independent results.
SAFE 0
954
B
Y
327 150 150 327
Column
A Side 2
327 Side 1 Side 3 450
X
450 327
1554

Side 4 D C
VX
=1
1 2 900 1+ 3 300 1 2 300 1+ 3 900
= 0.536
VY
=1
= 0.278
SAFE 0
The following table is used for calculating the centroid of the critical section for punching shear. Side 1, Side 2, Side 3, and Side 4 refer to the sides of the critical section for punching shear as identified in Figure 2. Item x2 y2 L d Ld Ldx2 Ldy2 Side 1 -477 0 1554 218 338772 -161594244 0 Side 2 0 777 954 218 207972 0 161594244 Side 3 477 0 1554 218 338772 161594244 0 Side 4 0 -777 954 218 207972 0 -161594244 Sum N.A. N.A. b0 = 5016 N.A. 1093488 0 0
x3 =
Ldx
Ld
0 = 0 mm 1093488
y3 =
Ldy
Ld
0 = 0 mm 1093488
The following table is used to calculate IXX, IYY and IXY. The values for IXX, IYY and IXY are given in the "Sum" column. Item L d x2 - x3 y2 - y3 Parallel to Equations IXX IYY IXY Side 1 1554 218 -477 0 Y-Axis 5b, 6b, 7 6.95E+10 7.71E+10 0 Side 2 954 218 0 777 X-axis 5a, 6a, 7 1.26E+11 1.66E+10 0 Side 3 1554 218 477 0 Y-Axis 5b, 6b, 7 6.95E+10 7.71E+10 0 Side 4 954 218 0 -777 X-axis 5a, 6a, 7 1.26E+11 1.66E+10 0 Sum N.A. N.A. N.A. N.A. N.A. N.A. 3.90E+11 1.87E+11 0
SAFE 0
SAFE 0
1.5 M y 1.5 M x + V =V f + eff Vx Vy =
(CP 3.7.6.2, 3.7.6.3)
v=
Veff ud
= 0.415 N/mm2
(CP 3.7.7.3)
vU 1.122 = = 2.704 v 0.415
Shear Ratio =
SAFE 0
EXAMPLE Hong Kong CP-04 RC-SL-001

Slab Flexural Design PROBLEM DESCRIPTION The purpose of this example is to verify slab flexural design in SAFE. A one-way, simple-span slab supported by walls on two opposite edges is modeled using SAFE. The slab is 150 mm thick and spans 4 meters between walls. To ensure one-way action, Poissons ratio is taken to be zero. The slab is modeled using thin plate elements. The walls are modeled as line supports without rotational stiffnesses and with very large vertical stiffness (1 1015 kN/m). The computational model uses a finite element mesh, automatically generated by SAFE. The maximum element size is specified as 1.0 meter. To obtain factored moments and flexural reinforcement in a design strip, one onemeter wide strip is defined in the X-direction on the slab, as shown in Figure 1.
4 m span Free edge
Y X Free edge
1 m design strip
Figure 1 Plan View of One-Way Slab One dead load case (DL4KPa) and one live load case (LL5KPa) with uniformly distributed surface loads of magnitudes 4 and 5 kN/m2, respectively, are defined in the model. A load combination (COMB5kPa) is defined using the Hong Kong CP-04 load combination factors, 1.4 for dead loads and 1.6 for live loads. The model is analyzed for both load cases and the load combination. The slab moment on a strip of unit width is computed analytically. The total factored strip moments are compared with the SAFE results. After completing analysis, design is performed using the Hong Kong CP-04 code by SAFE and also by hand computation. Table 1 shows the comparison of the design reinforcements computed using the two methods.
EXAMPLE Hong Kong CP-04 RC-SL-001 - 1
SAFE 0
= = = = = = = = = = = =
150 25 125 4000 30 460 0 25000 2x106 0 4.0 5.0
kPa kPa
5.854 5.842
Load Level
Medium
Method
SAFE Calculated
Moment (kN-m)
27.197 27.200
A +,min = 162.5 sq-mm s
SAFE 0
COMPUTER FILE: Hong Kong CP-04 RC-SL-001.FDB CONCLUSION The SAFE results show a very close comparison with the independent results.
SAFE 0
m, steel
b
= 1.15 = 1000 mm
m, concrete = 1.50
For the load combination, the w and M are calculated as follows: w = (1.4wd + 1.6wt) b M= wl12 8 = 162.5 sq-mm COMB100 wd = 4.0 kPa wt M = 5.0 kPa = 27.2 kN-m
M = 0.05803 < 0.156 f cu bd 2
As,min = 0.0013bwd
w = 13.6 kN/m The depth of the compression block is given by:

K=

K 0.95d =116.3409 z = d 0.5 + 0.25 0 .9
As =
M = 584.197 sq-mm > As,min 0.87 f y z
As = 5.842 sq-cm
SAFE 0
EXAMPLE IS 456-00 PT-SL-001

Post-Tensioned Slab Design PROBLEM DESCRIPTION The purpose of this example is to verify the slab stresses and the required area of mild steel strength reinforcing for a post-tensioned slab. A one-way simply supported slab is modeled in SAFE. The modeled slab is 254 mm thick by 914 mm wide and spans 9754 mm, as shown in shown in Figure 1.
914 mm
Section
EXAMPLE IS 456-00 PT-SL-001 - 1
SAFE 0 A 254 mm wide design strip is centered along the length of the slab and has been defined as an A-Strip. B-strips have been placed at each end of the span, perpendicular to Strip-A (the B-Strips are necessary to define the tendon profile). A tendon with two strands, each having an area of 99 mm2, has been added to the A-Strip. The self weight and live loads have been added to the slab. The loads and post-tensioning forces are as follows: Loads: Dead = self weight, Live = 4.788 kN/m2
The total factored strip moments, required area of mild steel reinforcement, and slab stresses are reported at the midspan of the slab. Independent hand calculations were compared with the SAFE results and summarized for verification and validation of the SAFE results. GEOMETRY, PROPERTIES AND LOADING Thickness Effective depth Clear span Concrete strength Yield strength of steel Prestressing, ultimate Prestressing, effective Area of Prestress (single strand) Concrete unit weight Modulus of elasticity Modulus of elasticity Poissons ratio Dead load Live load
T, h = d = L = f 'c fy fpu fe Ap wc Ec Es wd wl
254 mm 229 mm 9754 mm MPa MPa MPa MPa mm2 kN/m3 N/mm3 N/mm3
= 30 = 400 = 1862 = 1210 = 198 = 23.56 = 25000 = 200,000 = 0 = =
TECHNICAL FEATURES OF SAFE TESTED Calculation of the required flexural reinforcement Check of slab stresses due to the application of dead, live, and post-tensioning loads RESULTS COMPARISON Table 1 shows the comparison of the SAFE total factored moments, required mild steel reinforcing, and slab stresses with the independent hand calculations.
SAFE 0
Table 1 Comparison of Results FEATURE TESTED Factored moment, Mu (Ultimate) (kN-m) Area of Mild Steel reqd, As (sq-cm) Transfer Conc. Stress, top (D+PTI), MPa Transfer Conc. Stress, bot (D+PTI), MPa Normal Conc. Stress, top (D+L+PTF), MPa Normal Conc. Stress, bot (D+L+PTF), MPa INDEPENDENT RESULTS 175.6 19.53 5.058 2.839 10.460 8.402 SAFE RESULTS 175.65 19.645 5.057 2.839 10.465 8.407 DIFFERENCE 0.03% 0.59% 0.02% 0.00% 0.05% 0.06%
COMPUTER FILE: IS 456-00 PT-SL-001.FDB CONCLUSION The SAFE results show a close comparison with the independent results.
SAFE 0
HAND CALCULATIONS: Design Parameters: Mild Steel Reinforcing fck = 30MPa fy = 400MPa Post-Tensioning fpu = 1862 MPa fpy = 1675 MPa Stressing Loss = 186 MPa Long-Term Loss = 94 MPa fi = 1490 MPa fe =1210 MPa
s = 1.15 c = 1.50 = 0.36 = 0.42
f y 250 xmax = 0.53 0.05 d 165
if
250 < f y 415 MPa
xu ,max = 0.484 d
914 mm
Section
Loads: Dead, self-wt = 0.254 m x 23.56kN/m3 = 5.984 kN/m2 (D) x 1.50 = 8.976 kN/m2 (Du) Live, = 4.788 kN/m2 (L) x 1.50 = 7.182 kN/m2 (Lu) Total = 10.772 kN/m2 (D+L) = 16.158 kN/m2 (D+L)ult
SAFE 0
Ultimate Stress in strand, f PS = from Table 11: fp = 1435 MPa Ultimate force in PT, Fult , PT = AP ( f PS ) = 197.4(1435) /1000 = 283.3 kN Compression block depth ratio: m =
=
M bd f ck
2
175.6 = 0.3392 (0.914)(0.229) 2 (0.36)(30000) Required area of mild steel reinforcing, x xu 1 1 4 m 1 1 4(0.42)(0.3392) = = = 0.4094 > u ,max = 0.484 d d 2 2(0.42)

x z = d 1 u = 229 (1 0.42(0.4094) ) = 189.6 mm d
ANET =
Mu 175.6 = (1e6) = 2663 mm 2 ( f y / s ) z ( 400 /1.15)189.6
f 1435 2 As = ANET AP P = 2663 198 = 1953 mm fy 400
Check of Concrete Stresses at Midspan: Initial Condition (Transfer), load combination (D+PTi) = 1.0D+0.0L+1.0PTI Tendon stress at transfer = jacking stress stressing losses =1490 186 = 1304 MPa The force in the tendon at transfer, = 1304(197.4) /1000 = 257.4 kN Moment due to dead load, M D = 5.984(0.914)(9.754) 2 / 8 = 65.04 kN-m Moment due to PT, M PT = FPTI (sag) = 257.4(102 mm) /1000 = 26.25 kN-m F M M PT 257.4 65.04 26.23 f = PTI D = Stress in concrete, A S 0.254(0.914) 0.00983 where S=0.00983m3 f = 1.109 3.948 MPa f = 5.058(Comp) max, 2.839(Tension) max
SAFE 0
Normal Condition, load combinations: (D+L+PTF) = 1.0D+1.0L+1.0PTF Tendon stress at normal = jacking stressing long-term=1490 186 94 = 1210 MPa The force in tendon at normal, = 1210(197.4) /1000 = 238.9 kN Moment due to dead load, M D = 5.984(0.914)(9.754) 2 / 8 = 65.04 kN-m Moment due to live load, M L = 4.788(0.914)(9.754) 2 / 8 = 52.04 kN-m Moment due to PT, M PT = FPTI (sag) = 238.9(102 mm) /1000 = 24.37 kN-m Stress in concrete for (D+L+PTF), F M M PT 238.8 117.08 24.37 f = PTI D + L = A S 0.254(0.914) 0.00983 f = 1.029 9.431 f = 10.460(Comp) max, 8.402(Tension) max
SAFE 0
EXAMPLE IS 456-00 RC-BM-001

Flexural and Shear Beam Design PROBLEM DESCRIPTION The purpose of this example is to verify slab flexural design in SAFE. The load level is adjusted for the case corresponding to the following conditions: The stress-block extends below the flange but remains within the balanced condition permitted by IS 456-2000. The average shear stress in the beam is below the maximum shear stress allowed by IS 456-2000, requiring design shear reinforcement. A simple-span, 6-m-long, 300-mm-wide, and 500-mm-deep T beam with a flange 100 mm thickness and 600 mm wide is modeled using SAFE. The beam is shown in Figure 1. The computational model uses a finite element mesh of frame elements, automatically generated by SAFE. The maximum element size has been specified to be 200 mm. The beam is supported by columns without rotational stiffnesses and with very large vertical stiffness (1 1020 kN/m). The beam is loaded with symmetric third-point loading. One dead load case (DL20) and one live load case (LL80) with only symmetric third-point loads of magnitudes 20, and 80 kN, respectively, are defined in the model. One load combinations (COMB80) is defined using the IS 456-2000 load combination factors of 1.5 for dead loads and 1.5 for live loads. The model is analyzed for both of these load cases and the load combinations. The beam moment and shear force are computed analytically. The total factored moment and shear force are compared with the SAFE results. The moment and shear force are identical. After completing the analysis, design is performed using the IS 456-2000 code in SAFE and also by hand computation. Table 1 shows the comparison of the design longitudinal reinforcements. Table 2 shows the comparison of the design shear reinforcements.
EXAMPLE IS 456-00 RC-BM-001 - 1
SAFE 0
600 mm 75 mm 100 mm
500 mm
75 mm 300 mm
Beam Section
2000 mm
2000 mm
2000 mm
Shear Force
Bending Moment
SAFE 0
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
6000 500 100 300 600 75 425 75 30 460 0 25x105 2x108 0.2 20 80
TECHNICAL FEATURES OF SAFE TESTED Calculation of flexural and shear reinforcement Application of minimum flexural and shear reinforcement RESULTS COMPARISON Table 1 shows the comparison of SAFE total factored moments in the design strip with the moments obtained by the analytical method. They match exactly for this problem. Table 1 also shows the comparison of design reinforcements.
A +,min = 235.6 sq-mm s
SAFE 0

Reinforcement Area, (sq-cm/m) Shear Force (kN) 156 SAFE 7.76 Calculated
Av s
7.73
COMPUTER FILE: IS 456-00 RC-BM-001.FDB CONCLUSION The SAFE results show an exact comparison with the independent results.
SAFE 0
m, steel
= 1.15
m, concrete = 1.50 = 0.36

= 0.42
As ,min
0.85 bd = 235.6 sq-mm fy
COMB80 P = (1.4Pd + 1.6Pt) =156 kN M* = N *l = 312 kN-m 3

0.53 0.53 0.05 f y 250 165 = 0.48 0.02 f y 415 85 0.46 if f y 250 MPa
xu ,max d
if 250 < f y 415 MPa if 415 < f y 500 MPa if f y 500 MPa
xu ,max = 0.4666 d
The normalized design moment, m, is given by
m=
Mu b f d 2 f ck
M = 312x106/(600 4252 0.36 30) = 0.26656
Df d
= 100/425 = 0.23529
SAFE 0 xu 1 1 4 m = 0.305848 > D f = d 2 d
f = 0.15 xu + 0.65 D f if
D f > 0.2 d = 84.49781
f M f = 0.45 f ck (b f bw ) f d = 130.98359 kN-m 2 Mw = Mu Mf. = 181.0164 kN-m

Mw,single = fckbwd2
x u,max x u,max = 233.233 < Mw 1 d d
m=
Mw = 0.309310 b f d 2 f ck
xu 1 1 4 m = 0.36538 = d 2 Mf Mw = 2113 sq-mm + As = ( f y s )(d 0.5 y f ) ( f y s ) z Shear Design
v =
Vu = 1.2235 bd
max = 3.5 for M30 concrete

k = 1.0
= 1 if Pu 0 , Under Tension
100 As 100 As = 0.15 as 0.15 3 bd bd
fck 25
1 4
= 1.0466
c = 0.29 From Table 19 of IS 456:2000 code

cd = kc = 0.29 cd +0.4 = 0.69
SAFE 0
The required shear reinforcement is calculated as follows: If cd + 0.4 < v c,max
Asv ( v cd ) b = 7.73 sq-cm/m sv 0.87 f y
SAFE 0
EXAMPLE IS 456-00 RC-PN-001

0.3 m 0.6 m
A
8m
B
8m
C
8m
D 0.3 m
4
3
2
8m
Y X
0.6 m
Figure 1: Flat Slab for Numerical Example The slab overhangs beyond the face of the column by 0.15 m along each side of the structure. The columns are typically 0.3 m x 0.9 m with the long side parallel to the Y-axis. The slab is typically 0.25 m thick. Thick plate properties are used for the slab. The concrete has a unit weight of 24 kN/m3 and a f'c of 30 N/mm2. The dead load consists of the self weight of the structure plus an additional 1 kN/m2. The live load is 4 kN/m2.
EXAMPLE IS 456-00 RC-PN-001 - 1
SAFE 0
TECHNICAL FEATURES OF SAFE TESTED Calculation of punching shear capacity, shear stress and D/C ratio. RESULTS COMPARISON Table 1 shows the comparison of the punching shear capacity, shear stress ratio and D/C ratio obtained in SAFE with the punching shear capacity, shear stress ratio and D/C ratio obtained by the analytical method. They match exactly for this problem.
Table 1 Comparison of Design Results for Punching Shear at Grid B-2 Shear Stress Shear Capacity (N/mm2) (N/mm2) D/C ratio
1.803 1.803 1.141 1.141 1.580 1.580
Method
SAFE Calculated
COMPUTER FILE: IS 456-00 RC-PN-001.FDB CONCLUSION The SAFE results show an exact comparison with the independent results.
SAFE 0
518
109
Y
109 150 150 109
Column
A Side 2
Side 1
Side 3
450
X
450
1118

Side 4 D C
109
VX
=1
1 2 900 1+ 3 300 1 2 300 1+ 3 900
= 0.536
VY
=1
= 0.278
SAFE 0
x3 =
Side 1 259 0 1118 218 243724 63124516 0
Side 2 0 559 518 218 112924 0 63124516
Side 3 259 0 1118 218 243724 63124516 0
Side 4 0 559 518 218 112924 0 63124516
Sum N.A. N.A. b0 = 3272 N.A. 713296 0 0
Ldx
Ld
0 = 0 mm 713296
y3 =
Ldy
Ld
0 = 0 mm 713296
From the SAFE output at Grid B-2: VU = 1125.591 kN MUX = 28514.675 kN-mm MUY = 14231.417 kN-mm At the point labeled A in Figure 2, x4 = 259 and y4 = 559, thus:
SAFE 0
vU =
1125.591 103 28514.675 103 [3.86 1010 (559 0) (0)(259 0)] + 3272 218 (1.23 1011 )(3.86 1010 ) (0) 2 14231.447 103 [1.23 1011 (259 0) (0)(559 0)] (1.23 o 1011 )(3.86 1010 ) (0) 2
vU = 1.5780 0.1293 0.0954 = 1.3533 N/mm2 at point A At the point labeled B in Figure 2, x4 = 259 and y4 = 559, thus: vU = 1125.591 103 28514.675 103 [3.86 1010 (559 0) (0)(259 0)] + 3272 218 (1.23 1011 )(3.86 1010 ) (0) 2 14231.447 103 [1.23 1011 (259 0) (0)(559 0)] (1.23 o 1011 )(3.86 1010 ) (0) 2 vU = 1.5780 0.1293 0.0954 =1.5441 N/mm2 at point B At the point labeled C in Figure 2, x4 = 259 and y4 = 559, thus: vU = 1125.591 103 28514.675 103 [3.86 1010 (559 0) (0)(259 0)] + 3272 218 (1.23 1011 )(3.86 1010 ) (0) 2 14231.447 103 [1.23 1011 (259 0) (0)(559 0)] (1.23 o 1011 )(3.86 1010 ) (0) 2 vU = 1.5780 0.1293 0.0954 = 1.8027 N/mm2 at point C At the point labeled D in Figure 2, x4 = 259 and y4 = 559, thus: vU = 1125.591 103 28514.675 103 [3.86 1010 (559 0) (0)(259 0)] + 3272 218 (1.23 1011 )(3.86 1010 ) (0) 2 14231.447 103 [1.23 1011 ( 259 0) (0)(559 0)] (1.23 o 1011 )(3.86 1010 ) (0) 2 vU = 1.5780 0.1293 0.0954 = 1.5441 N/mm2 at point D Point C has the largest absolute value of vu, thus vmax = 1.803 N/mm2
SAFE 0
The shear capacity is calculated based on the minimum of the following three limits: ks = 0.5 + c 1.0 = 0.833 (IS 31.6.3.1) (IS 31.6.3.1) (IS 31.6.3.1)
c = 0.25 = 1.127 N/mm
vc = ks c= 1.141 N/mm2
CSA 13.3.4.1 yields the smallest value of vc = 1.141 N/mm2, and thus this is the shear capacity.
vU 1.803 = = 1.580 vc 1.141
Shear Ratio =
SAFE 0
EXAMPLE IS 456-00 RC-SL-001

Slab Flexural Design PROBLEM DESCRIPTION The purpose of this example is to verify slab flexural design in SAFE. A one-way, simple-span slab supported by walls on two opposite edges is modeled using SAFE. The slab is 150 mm thick spans 4 meters between walls. To ensure one-way action, Poissons ratio is taken to be zero. The slab is modeled using thin plate elements. The walls are modeled as line supports without rotational stiffnesses and with very large vertical stiffness (1 1015 kN/m). The computational model uses a finite element mesh, automatically generated by SAFE. The maximum element size is specified as 1.0 meter. To obtain factored moments and flexural reinforcement in a design strip, one onemeter-wide strip is defined in the X-direction on the slab, as shown in Figure 1.
Simply supported edge at wall Simply supported edge at wall
4 m span Free edge
Y X Free edge
1 m design strip
Figure 1 Plan View of One-Way Slab One dead load case (DL4KPa) and one live load case (LL5KPa) with uniformly distributed surface loads of magnitudes 4 and 5 kN/m2, respectively, are defined in the model. A load combination (COMB5kPa) is defined using the IS 456-00 load combination factors, 1.5 for dead loads and 1.5 for live loads. The model is analyzed for both load cases and the load combination. The slab moment on a strip of unit width is computed analytically. The total factored strip moments are compared with the SAFE results. After completing analysis, design was performed using the IS 456-00 code by SAFE and also by hand computation. Table 1 shows the comparison of the design reinforcements computed using the two methods.
EXAMPLE IS 456-00 RC-SL-001 - 1
SAFE 0
= = = = = = = = = = = =
150 25 125 4000 30 460 0 25000 2x106 0
4.0 kPa 5.0 kPa
TECHNICAL FEATURES OF SAFE TESTED Calculation of flexural reinforcement Application of minimum flexural reinforcement RESULTS COMPARISON Table 1 shows the comparison of the SAFE total factored moments in the design strip with the moments obtained by the hand computation method. Table 1 also shows the comparison of design reinforcements.
Table 1 Comparison of Design Moments and Reinforcements Load Level
Medium Calculated 27.000
Method
SAFE
Moment (kN-m)
26.997
Reinforcement Area (sq-cm) As+

5.831
As---
5.818
A +,min = 230.978 sq-mm s
COMPUTER FILE: IS 456-00 RC-SL-001.FDB CONCLUSION The SAFE results show a very close comparison with the independent results.
SAFE 0
s = 1.15 c = 1.50 = 0.36 = 0.42

b = 1000 mm For the load combination, w and M are calculated as follows: w = (1.5wd + 1.5wt) b wl12 M= 8
As ,min =
0.85 bd fy
= 230.978 sq-mm COMB100 wd = 4.0 kPa wt M = 5.0 kPa = 27.0 kN-m

0.53 0.53 0.05 f y 250 165 = 0.48 0.02 f y 415 85 0.46 if f y 250 MPa
w = 13.5 kN/m
xu ,max d
if 250 < f y 415 MPa if 415 < f y 500 MPa if f y 500 MPa
xu ,max = 0.466 d
SAFE 0 The depth of the compression block is given by:
m=
Mu bd 2f ck
= 0.16
x xu 1 1 4 m = 0.172497 < u ,max = d 2 d

x z = d 1 u . = 115.9439 mm d
As =
Mu , = 582.178 sq-mm > As,min ( fy / s ) z
As = 5.818 sq-cm
SAFE 0
EXAMPLE NZS 3101-06 PT-SL-001

Post-Tensioned Slab Design PROBLEM DESCRIPTION The purpose of this example is to verify the slab stresses and the required area of mild steel strength reinforcing for a post-tensioned slab. A one-way simply supported slab is modeled in SAFE. The modeled slab is 254 mm thick by 915 mm wide and spans 9754 mm as, shown in shown in Figure 1.
914 mm
Section
EXAMPLE NZS 3101-06 PT-SL-001 - 1
SAFE 0 A 254 mm wide design strip is centered along the length of the slab and has been defined as an A-Strip. B-strips have been placed at each end of the span, perpendicular to Strip-A (the B-Strips are necessary to define the tendon profile). A tendon with two strands, each having an area of 99 mm2, has been added to the A-Strip. The self weight and live loads have been added to the slab. The loads and post-tensioning forces are as follows: Loads: Dead = self weight, Live = 4.788 kN/m2
The total factored strip moments, required area of mild steel reinforcement, and slab stresses are reported at the midspan of the slab. Independent hand calculations were compared with the SAFE results and summarized for verification and validation of the SAFE results. GEOMETRY, PROPERTIES AND LOADING Thickness Effective depth Clear span Concrete strength Yield strength of steel Prestressing, ultimate Prestressing, effective Area of Prestress (single strand) Concrete unit weight Modulus of elasticity Modulus of elasticity Poissons ratio Dead load Live load
254 mm 229 mm 9754 mm 30 400 1862 1210 198 23.56 25000 200,000 0 MPa MPa MPa MPa mm2 kN/m3 N/mm3 N/mm3
TECHNICAL FEATURES OF SAFE TESTED Calculation of the required flexural reinforcement Check of slab stresses due to the application of dead, live, and post-tensioning loads. RESULTS COMPARISON Table 1 shows the comparison of the SAFE total factored moments, required mild steel reinforcing, and slab stresses with the independent hand calculations.
SAFE 0
Table 1 Comparison of Results FEATURE TESTED Factored moment, Mu (Ultimate) (kN-m) Area of Mild Steel reqd, As (sq-cm) Transfer Conc. Stress, top (D+PTI), MPa Transfer Conc. Stress, bot (D+PTI), MPa Normal Conc. Stress, top (D+L+PTF), MPa Normal Conc. Stress, bot (D+L+PTF), MPa Long-Term Conc. Stress, top (D+0.5L+PTF(L)), MPa Long-Term Conc. Stress, bot (D+0.5L+PTF(L)), MPa INDEPENDENT RESULTS 156.12 14.96 5.058 2.839 10.460 8.402 7.817 5.759 SAFE RESULTS 156.14 15.07 5.057 2.839 10.465 8.407 7.817 5.759 DIFFERENCE 0.01% 0.74% 0.02% 0.00% 0.05% 0.06% 0.00% 0.00%
COMPUTER FILE: NZS 3101-06 PT-SL-001.FDB CONCLUSION The SAFE results show a very close comparison with the independent results.
SAFE 0
b = 0.85
1 = 0.85 1 = 0.85
cb =
for f 55 MPa c for f 30, c
c + f y Es
d = 214.7
amax = 0.751cb= 136.8 mm

914 mm
Section
Loads: Dead, self-wt = 0.254 m x 23.56 kN/m3 = 5.984 kN/m2 (D) x 1.2 = 7.181kN/m2 (Du) Live, = 4.788 kN/m2 (L) x 1.5 = 7.182 kN/m2 (Lu) Total = 10.772 kN/m2 (D+L) = 14.363 kN/m2 (D+L)ult
SAFE 0
f'c 300 P
30 300(0.00095) = 1385 MPa f SE + 200 = 1410 MPa = 1210 + 70 +
Ultimate force in PT, Fult , PT = AP ( f PS ) = 2(99)(1385) /1000 = 274.23 kN Stress block depth, a = d d 2
2M * f 'c b
= 0.229 0.2292
2(156.12) (1e3) = 37.48 mm 0.85(30000)(0.85)(0.914)
Ultimate moment due to PT, a 37.48 M ult , PT = Fult , PT ( d ) = 274.23(229 )(0.85) /1000 = 49.01 kN-m 2 2 Net ultimate moment, M net = M U M ult , PT = 156.1 49.10 = 107.0 kN-m Required area of mild steel reinforcing, M net 107.0 = (1e6) = 1496 mm 2 AS = a 0.03748 f y (d ) 0.85(400000) 0.229 2 2 Check of Concrete Stresses at Midspan: Initial Condition (Transfer), load combination (D+PTi) = 1.0D+0.0L+1.0PTI Tendon stress at transfer = jacking stress stressing losses =1490 186 = 1304 MPa The force in the tendon at transfer, = 1304(197.4) /1000 = 257.4 kN Moment due to dead load, M D = 5.984(0.914)(9.754) 2 / 8 = 65.04 kN-m Moment due to PT, M PT = FPTI (sag) = 257.4(102 mm) /1000 = 26.25 kN-m F M M PT 257.4 65.04 26.23 f = PTI D Stress in concrete, = A S 0.254(0.914) 0.00983 where S=0.00983m3 f = 1.109 3.948MPa f = 5.058(Comp) max, 2.839(Tension) max
SAFE 0
Normal Condition, load combinations: (D+L+PTF) = 1.0D+1.0L+1.0PTF Tendon stress at normal = jacking stressing long-term = 1490 186 94 = 1210 MPa The force in tendon at normal, = 1210(197.4) /1000 = 238.9 kN Moment due to dead load, M D = 5.984(0.914)(9.754) 2 / 8 = 65.04 kN-m Moment due to live load, M L = 4.788(0.914)(9.754) 2 / 8 = 52.04 kN-m Moment due to PT, M PT = FPTI (sag) = 238.9(102 mm) /1000 = 24.37 kN-m Stress in concrete for (D+L+PTF), F M M PT 238.8 117.08 24.37 f = PTI D + L = A S 0.254(0.914) 0.00983 f = 1.029 9.431 f = 10.460(Comp) max, 8.402(Tension) max Long-Term Condition, load combinations: (D+0.5L+PTF(L)) = 1.0D+0.5L+1.0PTF Tendon stress at normal = jacking stressing long-term = 1490 186 94 = 1210 MPa The force in tendon at normal, = 1210(197.4) /1000 = 238.9 kN Moment due to dead load, M D = 5.984(0.914)(9.754) 2 / 8 = 65.04 kN-m Moment due to live load, M L = 4.788(0.914)(9.754) 2 / 8 = 52.04 kN-m Moment due to PT, M PT = FPTI (sag) = 238.9(102 mm) /1000 = 24.37 kN-m Stress in concrete for (D+0.5L+PTF(L)), M M PT F 238.9 91.06 24.33 f = PTI D + 0.5 L = A S 0.254(0.914) 0.00983 f = 1.029 6.788 f = 7.817(Comp) max, 5.759(Tension) max
SAFE 0
EXAMPLE NZS 3101-06 RC-BM-001

Flexural and Shear Beam Design PROBLEM DESCRIPTION The purpose of this example is to verify slab flexural design in SAFE. The load level is adjusted for the case corresponding to the following conditions: The stress-block extends below the flange but remains within the balanced condition permitted by NZS 3101-06. The average shear stress in the beam is below the maximum shear stress allowed by NZS 3101-06, requiring design shear reinforcement. A simple-span, 6-m-long, 300-mm-wide, and 500-mm-deep T beam with a flange 100 mm thick and 600 mm wide is modeled using SAFE. The beam is shown in Figure 1. The computational model uses a finite element mesh of frame elements, automatically generated by SAFE. The maximum element size has been specified to be 200 mm. The beam is supported by columns without rotational stiffnesses and with very large vertical stiffness (1 1020 kN/m). The beam is loaded with symmetric third-point loading One dead load case (DL50) and one live load case (LL130) with only symmetric third-point loads of magnitudes 50, and 130 kN, respectively, are defined in the model. One load combinations (COMB130) is defined with the NZS 3101-06 load combination factors of 1.2 for dead loads and 1.5 for live loads. The model is analyzed for both of these load cases and the load combinations. The beam moment and shear force are computed analytically. The total factored moment and shear force are compared with the SAFE results. These moment and shear force are identical. After completing the analysis, design is performed using the NZS 3101-06 code in SAFE and also by hand computation. Table 1 shows the comparison of the design longitudinal reinforcements. Table 2 shows the comparison of the design shear reinforcements.
EXAMPLE NZS 3101-06 RC-BM-001 - 1
SAFE 0
600 mm 75 mm 100 mm
500 mm
75 mm 300 mm
Beam Section
2000 mm
2000 mm
2000 mm
Shear Force
Bending Moment
SAFE 0
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
6000 500 100 300 600 75 425 75 30 460 0 25x105 2x108 0.2 50 130
A +,min = 535.82 sq-m s
SAFE 0

Av s
COMPUTER FILE: NZS 3101-06 RC-BM-001.FDB CONCLUSION The SAFE results show a very close comparison with the independent results.
SAFE 0
HAND CALCULATION Flexural Design The following quantities are computed for the load combination:
b = 0.85
1 = 0.85 for f 55MPa c 1 = 0.85 for f 30, c

cb =
c c + f y Es
d = 240.56 mm
amax = 0.751cb= 153.36 mm f c Ac = 535.82 4 fy sq-mm = max 1.4 Ac = 136.96 fy = 535.82 sq-mm COMB130 N* = (1.2Nd + 1.5Nt) = 255 kN M* = N *l = 510 kN-m 3
As ,min
a=d d
2
2 M*
1 fc'b b f
= 105.322 mm (a > Ds)
The compressive force developed in the concrete alone is given by: Cf is given by: C f = 1 f ( b f bw ) h f = 765 kN c
SAFE 0 Therefore, As1 = by:

d M * = C f d s b = 243.84375 kN-m f 2
Cf fy
and the portion of M* that is resisted by the flange is given
As1 =
Cf fy
= 1663.043 sq-mm
Therefore, the balance of the moment, M*, to be carried by the web is: M*w = M* M*f = 510 243.84375 = 266.15625 kN-m The web is a rectangular section with dimensions bw and d, for which the depth of the compression block is recalculated as:
a1 = d d 2 2M* w = 110.7354 mm amax b bw 1 f c
If a1 amax (NZS 9.3.8.1), the area of tension reinforcement is then given by:
As2 =
* Mw = 1841.577 sq-mm a1 b f y d 2
As = As1 + As2 = 3504.62 sq-mm Shear Design The basic shear strength for rectangular section is computed as,
A b = 0.07 + 10 s bw d
f 50 MPa, and c
f = 0.3834 c
0.08 f = 0.438 MPa b 0.2 f = 1.095 MPa c c
c = kd ka b = 0.438 where (kd =1.0, ka=1.0)

The average shear stress is limited to a maximum limit of, vmax = min {0.2 f , 8 MPa} = min{6, 8} = 6 MPa c
SAFE 0
The shear reinforcement is computed as follows: If * s (v c 2 ) or h max(300 mm, 0.5bw)
Av =0 s
If s (v c 2 ) < * sc,
(NZS 9.3.9.4.13)
Av 1 = s 16
f c
bw f yt
(NZS 9.3.9.4.15) (NZS 9.3.9.4.2)
If sc < * smax,
Av v * s vc = s s f yt d
If * > max, a failure condition is declared. For the load combination, the N* and V* are calculated as follows: N* = 1.2Nd + 1.5N1 V* = N*
V = bw d
*
(COMB130) Nd = 50 kips Nl V
* =
*
= 130 kips = 255 kN

V * = 2.0 MPa (sc < smax) bw d
*
v* s vc bw Av = = 1.489 sq-mm/mm = 1489 sq-mm/m s s f yt
SAFE 0
EXAMPLE NZS 3101-06 RC-PN-001

Slab Punching Shear Design PROBLEM DESCRIPTION The purpose of this example is to verify slab punching shear design in SAFE The numerical example is a flat slab that has three 8 m spans in each direction, as shown in Figure 1.
0.3 m 0.6 m
A
8m
B
8m
C
8m
D 0.3 m
4
3
2
8m
Y X
0.6 m
The slab overhangs beyond the face of the column by 0.15 m along each side of the structure. The columns are typically 0.3 m x 0.9 m with the long side parallel to the Y-axis. The slab is typically 0.25 m thick. Thick plate properties are used for the slab. The concrete has a unit weight of 24 kN/m3 and a f'c of 30 N/mm2. The dead load consists of the self weight of the structure plus an additional 1 kN/m2. The live load is 4 kN/m2.
EXAMPLE NZS 3101-06 RC-PN-001 - 1
SAFE 0
SAFE Calculated

1.803 1.803 1.141 1.141 1.580 1.580
COMPUTER FILE: NZS 3101-06 RC-PN-001.FDB CONCLUSION The SAFE results show an exact comparison with the independent results.
SAFE 0
518
109
Y
109 150 150 109
Column
A Side 2
Side 1
Side 3
450
X
450
1118

Side 4 D C
109
VX
=1
1 2 900 1+ 3 300 1 2 300 1+ 3 900
= 0.536
VY
=1
= 0.278
SAFE 0
x3 =
Side 1 259 0 1118 218 243724 63124516 0
Side 2 0 559 518 218 112924 0 63124516
Side 3 259 0 1118 218 243724 63124516 0
Side 4 0 559 518 218 112924 0 63124516
Sum N.A. N.A. b0 = 3272 N.A. 713296 0 0
Ldx
Ld
0 = 0 mm 713296
y3 =
Ldy
Ld
0 = 0 mm 713296
SAFE 0
At the point labeled A in Figure 2, x4 = 259 and y4 = 559, thus: vU = 1125.591 103 28514.675 103 [3.86 1010 (559 0) (0)(259 0)] + 3272 218 (1.23 1011 )(3.86 1010 ) (0) 2 14231.447 103 [1.23 1011 (259 0) (0)(559 0)] (1.23 o 1011 )(3.86 1010 ) (0) 2 vU = 1.5780 0.1293 0.0954 = 1.3533 N/mm2 at point A At the point labeled B in Figure 2, x4 = 259 and y4 = 559, thus: 1125.591 103 28514.675 103 [3.86 1010 (559 0) (0)(259 0)] vU = + 3272 218 (1.23 1011 )(3.86 1010 ) (0) 2 14231.447 103 [1.23 1011 (259 0) (0)(559 0)] (1.23 o 1011 )(3.86 1010 ) (0) 2 vU = 1.5780 0.1293 0.0954 =1.5441 N/mm2 at point B At the point labeled C in Figure 2, x4 = 259 and y4 = 559, thus: vU = 1125.591 103 28514.675 103 [3.86 1010 (559 0) (0)(259 0)] + 3272 218 (1.23 1011 )(3.86 1010 ) (0) 2 14231.447 103 [1.23 1011 (259 0) (0)(559 0)] (1.23 o 1011 )(3.86 1010 ) (0) 2 vU = 1.5780 0.1293 0.0954 = 1.8027 N/mm2 at point C At the point labeled D in Figure 2, x4 = 259 and y4 = 559, thus: vU = 1125.591 103 28514.675 103 [3.86 1010 (559 0) (0)(259 0)] + 3272 218 (1.23 1011 )(3.86 1010 ) (0) 2 14231.447 103 [1.23 1011 ( 259 0) (0)(559 0)] (1.23 o 1011 )(3.86 1010 ) (0) 2 vU = 1.5780 0.1293 0.0954 = 1.5441 N/mm2 at point D Point C has the largest absolute value of vu, thus vmax = 1.803 N/mm2
SAFE 0
The shear capacity is calculated based on the smallest of NZS 3101-06, with the bo and u terms removed to convert force to stress.
1 2 c 1 + f c 6 1 d vv = min 1 + s f = 1.141N/mm2 per c b0 6 1 f c 3
(NZS 12.7.3.2)
NZS 12.7.3.2 yields the smallest value of vv = 1.141 N/mm2, and thus this is the shear capacity.
vU 1.803 = = 1.580 1.141 vv
Shear Ratio =
SAFE 0
EXAMPLE NZS 3101-06 RC-SL-001

Slab Flexural Design PROBLEM DESCRIPTION The purpose of this example is to verify slab flexural design in SAFE. A one-way, simple-span slab supported by walls on two opposite edges is modeled using SAFE. The slab is 150 mm thick and spans 4 meters between walls. To ensure one-way action, Poissons ratio is taken to be zero. The slab is modeled using thin plate elements. The walls are modeled as line supports without rotational stiffnesses and with very large vertical stiffness (1 1015 kN/m). The computational model uses a finite element mesh, automatically generated by SAFE. The maximum element size is specified as 1.0 meter. To obtain factored moments and flexural reinforcement in a design strip, one onemeter wide strip is defined in the X-direction on the slab, as shown in Figure 1.
4 m span Free edge
Y X Free edge
1 m design strip
Figure 1 Plan View of One-Way Slab One dead load case (DL4KPa) and one live load case (LL5KPa) with uniformly distributed surface loads of magnitudes 4 and 5 kN/m2, respectively, are defined in the model. A load combination (COMB5kPa) is defined using the NZS 310106 load combination factors, 1.2 for dead loads and 1.5 for live loads. The model is analyzed for both load cases and the load combination. The slab moment on a strip of unit width is computed analytically. The total factored strip moments are compared with the SAFE results. After completing analysis, design is performed using the NZS 3101-06 code by SAFE and also by hand computation. Table 1 shows the comparison of the design reinforcements computed using the two methods.
EXAMPLE NZS 3101-06 RC-SL-001 - 1
SAFE 0
= = = = = = = = = = = =
150 25 125 4000 30 460 0 25000 2x106 0
4.0 kPa 5.0 kPa
TECHNICAL FEATURES OF SAFE TESTED Calculation of flexural reinforcement Application of minimum flexural reinforcement RESULTS COMPARISON Table 1 shows the comparison of the SAFE total factored moments in the design strip with the moments obtained by the hand computation method. Table 1 also shows the comparison of design reinforcements.
5.238 5.231
Load Level
Medium
Method
SAFE Calculated
Moment (kN-m)
24.597 24.6
A +,min = 380.43 sq-mm s
SAFE 0
COMPUTER FILE: NZS 3101-06 RC-SL-001.FDB CONCLUSION The SAFE results show an exact comparison with the independent results.
SAFE 0
b = 0.85
b = 1000 mm
1 = 0.85 for f 55MPa c 1 = 0.85 for f 30, c

cb =
c c + f y Es
d = 70.7547
amax = 0.751cb= 45.106 mm For the load combination, w and M* are calculated as follows: w = (1.2wd + 1.5wt) b Mu = wl12 8 f c bw d = 372.09 4 fy sq-mm = max bw d 1.4 = 380.43 fy = 380.43 sq-mm COMB100 wd = 4.0 kPa wt = 5.0 kPa w = 12.3 kN/m M* = 24.6 kN-m The depth of the compression block is given by:
a = d d2 2 M* = 9.436 mm < amax 1 f c b b
As ,min
SAFE 0

As = M* = 523.067 sq-mm > As,min a b f y d 2
As = 5.23067 sq-cm
SAFE 0
EXAMPLE Singapore CP 65-99 PT-SL-001

914 mm
Section
EXAMPLE Singapore CP 65-99 PT-SL-001 - 1
SAFE 0 A 254 mm wide design strip is centered along the length of the slab and has been defined as an A-Strip. B-strips have been placed at each end of the span, perpendicular to Strip-A (the B-Strips are necessary to define the tendon profile). A tendon with two strands, each having an area of 99 mm2, has been added to the A-Strip. The self weight and live loads have been added to the slab. The loads and post-tensioning forces are as follows. Loads: Dead = self weight, Live = 4.788 kN/m2
The total factored strip moments, required area of mild steel reinforcement, and slab stresses are reported at the midspan of the slab. Independent hand calculations are compared with the SAFE results and summarized for verification and validation of the SAFE results. GEOMETRY, PROPERTIES AND LOADING Thickness Effective depth Clear span Concrete strength Yield strength of steel Prestressing, ultimate Prestressing, effective Area of Prestress (single strand) Concrete unit weight Modulus of elasticity Modulus of elasticity Poissons ratio Dead load Live load
T, h = d = L = f 'c fy fpu fe Ap wc Ec Es
254 229 9754
mm mm mm MPa MPa MPa MPa mm2 kN/m3 N/mm3 N/mm3 kN/m2 kN/m2
= 30 = 400 = 1862 = 1210 = 198 = 23.56 = 25000 = 200,000 = 0 self 4.788
wd = wl =
TECHNICAL FEATURES OF SAFE TESTED Calculation of the required flexural reinforcement Check of slab stresses due to the application of dead, live, and post-tensioning loads RESULTS COMPARISON Table 1 shows the comparison of the SAFE total factored moments, required mild steel reinforcing, and slab stresses with the independent hand calculations.
SAFE 0
Table 1 Comparison of Results FEATURE TESTED Factored moment, Mu (Ultimate) (kN-m) Area of Mild Steel reqd, As (sq-cm) Transfer Conc. Stress, top (D+PTI), MPa Transfer Conc. Stress, bot (D+PTI), MPa Normal Conc. Stress, top (D+L+PTF), MPa Normal Conc. Stress, bot (D+L+PTF), MPa INDEPENDENT RESULTS 174.4 19.65 5.058 2.839 10.460 8.402 SAFE RESULTS 174.4 19.79 5.057 2.847 10.465 8.407 DIFFERENCE 0.00% 0.71% 0.02% 0.28% 0. 50% 0.06%
COMPUTER FILE: SINGAPORE CP 65-99 PT-SL-001.FDB CONCLUSION The SAFE results show a very close comparison with the independent results.
SAFE 0
914 mm
Section
SAFE 0
f pu Ap 7000 1 1.7 l/d f cu bd 7000 1862(198) = 1210 + 1 1.7 9754 / 229 30(914)(229)
= 1358 MPa 0.7 f pu = 1303 MPa K factor used to determine the effective depth is given as: 174.4 M = = 0.1213 < 0.156 K= 2 f cu bd 30000(0.914)(0.229)2
K 0.95d = 192.2 mm z = d 0.5 + 0.25 0 .9 Ultimate force in PT, Fult , PT = AP ( f PS ) = 2(99)(1303) /1000 = 258.0 kN
Ultimate moment due to PT, M ult , PT = Fult , PT ( z ) / = 258.0(0.192) /1.15 = 43.12 kN-m Net Moment to be resisted by As, M NET = MU M PT = 174.4 43.12 = 131.28 kN-m The area of tensile steel reinforcement is then given by: M NET 131.28 = As = (1e6) = 1965 mm 2 0.87 f y z X 0.87(400)(192)
Check of Concrete Stresses at Midspan: Initial Condition (Transfer), load combination (D+PTi) = 1.0D+0.0L+1.0PTI
Tendon stress at transfer = jacking stress stressing losses = 1490 186 = 1304 MPa The force in the tendon at transfer, = 1304(197.4) /1000 = 257.4 kN Moment due to dead load, M D = 5.984(0.914)(9.754) 2 / 8 = 65.04 kN-m Moment due to PT, M PT = FPTI (sag) = 257.4(102 mm) /1000 = 26.25 kN-m F M M PT 257.4 65.04 26.23 Stress in concrete, = f = PTI D 0.254(0.914) 0.00983 A S where S=0.00983m3 f = 1.109 3.948MPa f = 5.058(Comp) max, 2.839(Tension) max
SAFE 0
Normal Condition, load combinations: (D+L+PTF) = 1.0D+1.0L+1.0PTF
Tendon stress at normal = jacking stressing long-term = 1490 186 94 = 1210 MPa The force in tendon at normal, = 1210(197.4) /1000 = 238.9 kN Moment due to dead load, M D = 5.984(0.914)(9.754) 2 / 8 = 65.04 kN-m Moment due to live load, M L = 4.788(0.914)(9.754) 2 / 8 = 52.04 kN-m Moment due to PT, M PT = FPTI (sag) = 238.9(102 mm) /1000 = 24.37 kN-m Stress in concrete for (D+L+PTF), F M M PT 238.8 117.08 24.37 = f = PTI D + L A S 0.254(0.914) 0.00983 f = 1.029 9.431 f = 10.460(Comp) max, 8.402(Tension) max
SAFE 0
EXAMPLE SINGAPORE CP 65-99

Flexural and Shear Beam Design PROBLEM DESCRIPTION The purpose of this example is to verify slab flexural design in SAFE. The load level is adjusted for the case corresponding to the following conditions: The stress-block extends below the flange but remains within the balanced condition permitted by Singapore CP 65-99. The average shear stress in the beam is below the maximum shear stress allowed by Singapore CP 65-99, requiring design shear reinforcement. A simple-span, 6-m-long, 300-mm-wide, and 500-mm-deep T beam with a flange 100 mm thick and 600 mm wide is modeled using SAFE. The beam is shown in Figure 1. The computational model uses a finite element mesh of frame elements, automatically generated by SAFE. The maximum element size has been specified to be 200 mm. The beam is supported by columns without rotational stiffnesses and with very large vertical stiffness (1 1020 kN/m). The beam is loaded with symmetric third-point loading. One dead load case (DL20) and one live load case (LL80) with only symmetric third-point loads of magnitudes 20, and 80 kN, respectively, are defined in the model. One load combinations (COMB80) is defined with the Singapore CP 65-99 load combination factors of 1.4 for dead loads and 1.6 for live loads. The model is analyzed for both of these load cases and the load combinations. The beam moment and shear force are computed analytically. The total factored moment and shear force are compared with the SAFE results. These moment and shear force are identical. After completing the analysis, design is performed using the Singapore CP 65-99 code in SAFE and also by hand computation. Table 1 shows the comparison of the design longitudinal reinforcements. Table 2 shows the comparison of the design shear reinforcements.
EXAMPLE SINGAPORE CP 65-99 - 1
SAFE 0
600 mm 75 mm 100 mm
500 mm
75 mm 300 mm
Beam Section
2000 mm
2000 mm
2000 mm
Shear Force
Bending Moment
SAFE 0
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
6000 500 100 300 600 75 425 75 30 460 0 25x105 2x108 0.2 20 80
A +,min = 195.00 sq-mm s
SAFE 0
Av s
COMPUTER FILE: SINGAPORE CP 65-99 RC-002.FDB CONCLUSION The SAFE results show an exact comparison with the independent results.
SAFE 0
m, steel
= 1.15
m, concrete = 1.50
= 195.00 sq-mm COMB80 P = (1.4Pd + 1.6Pt) = 156 kN M* = N *l = 312 kN-m 3

K z = d 0.5 + 0.25 0.95d = 373.4254 mm 0 .9

1 (d z) = 114.6102 mm 0.45
Mf = 0.67
fcu ( b f bw ) h f ( d 0.5h f ) = 150.75 kN-m
SAFE 0 The moment taken by the web is computed as:

M w = M M f = 161.25 kN-m
And the normalized moment resisted by the web is given by: Kw =

Mw = 0.0991926 < 0.156 f cu bw d 2
K z = d 0.5 + 0.25 w 0.95d = 371.3988 mm 0 .9
As =
Mf fy
s
Shear Design
v=
( d 0.5h )
f
V vmax = 1.2235 MPa bw d
0.79k1k 2 100 As 3 400 vc = m bd d
1 1 4
= 0.3568 MPa
k1 is the enhancement factor for support compression, and is conservatively taken as 1 . f k2 = cu 25

1 3
40 = 1.06266, 1 k2 25
m = 1.25
100 As = 0.15 bd
SAFE 0
400 d
=1

100 As 3 bd
1 4
400 d
fcu 40 MPa (for calculation purposes only) and As is the area of tension reinforcement. Given v, vc, and vmax, the required shear reinforcement is calculated as follows:
If v (vc + 0.4)


If v > vmax, a failure condition is declared.
(COMB80) Pd = 20 kN Pl V
*
= 80 kN = 156 kN
*
V * = = 2.0 MPa (sc < smax) bw d
Asv (v vc )bw = = 0.64967sq-mm/mm = 6.50 sq-cm/m sv 0.87 f yv
SAFE 0
EXAMPLE Singapore CP 65-99 RC-PN-001

0.3 m 0.6 m
A
8m
B
8m
C
8m
D 0.3 m
4
3
2
8m
Y X
0.6 m
The slab overhangs beyond the face of the column by 0.15 m along each side of the structure. The columns are typically 0.3 m x 0.9 m with the long side parallel to the Y-axis. The slab is typically 0.25 m thick. Thick plate properties are used for the slab. The concrete has a unit weight of 24 kN/m3 and a fcu of 30 N/mm2. The dead load consists of the self weight of the structure plus an additional 1 kN/m2. The live load is 4 kN/m2.
EXAMPLE Singapore CP 65-99 RC-PN-001 - 1
SAFE 0
SAFE Calculated

1.122 1.122 0.416 0.41 2.700 2.700
COMPUTER FILE: SINGAPORE CP 65-99 RC-PN-001.FDB CONCLUSION The SAFE results show an exact comparison with the independent results.
SAFE 0
HAND CALCULATION Hand Calculation For Interior Column Using SAFE Method d = [(250 - 26) + (250 - 38)] / 2 = 218 mm Refer to Figure 1. b0 = 954+ 1554 + 954 + 1554 = 5016 mm
954
Y
327 150 150 327
Column
A Side 2
B 327 Side 1 Side 3
450
X
450
1554

Side 4 D C
327
VX
=1
1 2 900 1+ 3 300 1 2 300 1+ 3 900
= 0.536
VY
=1
= 0.278
SAFE 0
x3 =
Side 1 -477 0 1554 218 338772 -161594244 0
Side 2 0 777 954 218 207972 0 161594244
Side 3 477 0 1554 218 338772 161594244 0
Side 4 0 -777 954 218 207972 0 -161594244
Sum N.A. N.A. b0 = 5016 N.A. 1093488 0 0
Ldx
Ld
0 = 0 mm 1093488
y3 =
Ldy
Ld
0 = 0 mm 1093488
SAFE 0
SAFE 0
1.5 M y 1.5 M x + V =V f + eff Vx Vy = 453797.5
(CP 3.7.6.2, 3.7.6.3)
v=
Veff ud
= 0.416 N/mm2
(CP 3.7.7.3)
vU 1.122 = = 2.700 v 0.416
Shear Ratio =
SAFE 0
EXAMPLE Singapore CP 65-99

Slab Flexural Design PROBLEM DESCRIPTION The purpose of this example is to verify slab flexural design in SAFE. A one-way, simple-span slab supported by walls on two opposite edges is modeled using SAFE. The slab is 150 mm thick and spans 4 meters between walls. To ensure one-way action, Poissons ratio is taken to be zero. The slab is modeled using thin plate elements. The walls are modeled as line supports without rotational stiffnesses and with very large vertical stiffness (1 1015 KN/m). The computational model uses a finite element mesh, automatically generated by SAFE. The maximum element size is specified as 1.0 meter. To obtain factored moments and flexural reinforcement in a design strip, one onemeter wide strip is defined in the X-direction on the slab, as shown in Figure 1.
4 m span Free edge
Y X Free edge
1 m design strip
Figure 1 Plan View of One-Way Slab One dead load case (DL4KPa) and one live load case (LL5KPa) with uniformly distributed surface loads of magnitudes 4 and 5 KN/m2, respectively, are defined in the model. A load combination (COMB5kPa) is defined using the Singapore CP 65-99 load combination factors, 1.4 for dead loads and 1.6 for live loads. The model is analyzed for both load cases and the load combination. The slab moment on a strip of unit width is computed analytically. The total factored strip moments are compared with the SAFE results. After completing the analysis, design is performed using the Singapore CP 65-99 code by SAFE and also by hand computation. Table 1 shows the comparison of the design reinforcements computed by the two methods.
EXAMPLE Singapore CP 65-99 - 1
SAFE 0
= = = = = = = = = = = =
150 25 125 4000 30 460 0 25000 2x106 0
4.0 kPa 5.0 kPa
5.853 5.842
Load Level
Medium
Method
SAFE Calculated
Moment (kN-m)
27.197 27.200
A +,min = 162.5 sq-mm s
SAFE 0
COMPUTER FILE: Singapore CP 65-99 RC-001.FDB CONCLUSION The SAFE results show a very close comparison with the independent results.
SAFE 0
HAND CALCULATION The following quantities are computed for all the load combinations:
m, steel
b
= 1.15 = 1000 mm
m, concrete = 1.50
For each load combination, the w and M are calculated as follows: w = (1.4wd + 1.6wt) b M= wl12 8
A s ,m in = 0 . 0013 b w d = 162.5 sq-mm COMB100 wd = wt M = 4.0 kPa 5.0 kPa
w = 13.6 kN/m = 27.2 kN-m

M = 0.05803 < 0.156 f cu bd 2

K=

K 0.95d =116.3409 z = d 0.5 + 0.25 0 .9
As =
M = 584.197 sq-mm > As,min 0.87 f y z
As = 5.842 sq-cm

Verification Manual: Design of Slabs, Beams and Foundations Reinforced and Post-Tensioned Concrete

Încărcat de

Informații document

Descriere originală:

Titlu original

Drepturi de autor

Formate disponibile

Partajați acest document

Partajați sau inserați document

Opțiuni de partajare

Vi se pare util acest document?

Este necorespunzător acest conținut?

Drepturi de autor:

Formate disponibile

Verification Manual: Design of Slabs, Beams and Foundations Reinforced and Post-Tensioned Concrete

Încărcat de

Drepturi de autor:

Formate disponibile

SAFE

DESIGN OF SLABS, BEAMS AND FOUNDATIONS REINFORCED AND POST-TENSIONED CONCRETE

ACI 318-08 RC-PN-001 ACI 318-08 RC-SL-001

Slab Punching Shear Design Slab Flexural Design

360 in 240 in 8 inches 3000 ksi 0.3

= 100 psf = 20 kips = 1 kip/ft

(3) (2) (1)

Figure 1-1 Simply Supported Rectangular Plate

Figure 1-2 SAFE Meshes for Rectangular Plate

TECHNICAL FEATURES OF SAFE TESTED Deflection of slab at various mesh refinements.

Table 1-1 Comparison of Displacements

Table 1-2 Comparison of Local Moments

X (in) 150 150

Y (in) 15 45 75 105 15 45 75 105 15 45 75 105

Table 1-3 Comparison of Local Shears

UL 90 150 15 45 PL 90 150 15 45 LL 90 150

Table 1-4 Comparison of Average Strip Moments

360" 240" 8 inches 3000 ksi 0.3

(3) (2) (1)

Figure 2-1 Rectangular Plate with All Edges Fixed

Table 2-1 Comparison of Displacements

360" 240" 8 inches 3000 ksi 0.3 100 psf

Table 3-1 Comparison of Displacements

Figure 4-1 Rectangular Plate on Elastic Beams

120" Column Strip

a = 360" Edge Beam

Tributary Loaded Area for Shear on Edge Beams

360" 240" 8 inches 3000 ksi 0.3 4 4

= 100 psf (Uniform load)

Table 4-2 Variation of Bending Moment in an Edge Beam ( = 4)

Table 4-3 Variation of Shear in an Edge Beam ( = 4)

a = 30' y b = 20' Point Support at Corner x Point Support at Corner

Point Support at Corner

Typical Interior Panel

Slab Corners Non-Rigid

Slab Corners Rigid

Figure 5-2 Definition of X-Strips (Moment values obtained by EFM)

40" x 40" Corner Stiffening Column Strip 120"

Middle Strip 360"

120" Column Strip 240"

Slab Corners Non-Rigid

Slab Corners Rigid

Figure 5-3 Definition of Y-Strips (Moment values obtained by EFM)

Table 5-1 Comparison of Displacements

Table 5-2 Comparison of Local Moments

X (in) 30 30 165 165

Y (in) 15 105 15 105

Table 5-3 Comparison of Local Shears

X (in) 30 30 165 165

Y (in) 45 105 15 105

Table 5-4 Comparison of Average Strip Moments

x = 180" Middle Column y= 0" Middle Column y = 120" Middle

Table 5-5 Comparison of Average Strip Moments : Effect of Corner Rigidity

x = 160" Middle Column y= 0" Middle Column y = 100" Middle

COMPUTER FILE: S05a.FDB, S05b.FDB, S05c.FDB, S05d.FDB CONCLUSION

360" 240" 15 inches 3000 ksi 0.2 1 ksi/in

FLOOR PLAN a = 30'

Table 6-2 Comparison of Local Moments

Y (in) 10 50 110 10 50 110

480" 240" 8 inches 3,000 ksi 0.2

Simply supported on oblique edges

Simply supported on oblique edges