Modified Minimum Depth-Span Ratio of Beams and Slabs: November 2020
Modified Minimum Depth-Span Ratio of Beams and Slabs: November 2020
Modified Minimum Depth-Span Ratio of Beams and Slabs: November 2020
net/publication/345947489
CITATION READS
1 2,700
3 authors, including:
Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:
Computational Analysis of punching shear models of steel fiber reinforced concrete slabs View project
All content following this page was uploaded by Mereen Akrawi on 16 November 2020.
5571
Mereen H. Fahmi et al., International Journal of Emerging Trends in Engineering Research, 8(9), September 2020, 5571 – 5580
Table 2: Maximum deflection of different types of beams and which provide minimum slab thickness of a short span
loadings [9]-[11] reinforced concrete building.
Support type Loading type
Simply supported Uniform distributed 2. THEORETICAL ANALYSIS
load
One end continuous Uniform distributed Uncracked section property is used in the calculation of
(propped) load deflection up to cracking moment when tensile stress at the
Two end continuous Uniform distributed stream fiber reached to the tensile strength of the concrete
(fixed ended) load , but beyond this limit, effective moment of inertia is
Cantilever Uniform distributed used which is lied between cracking and uncracked section,
load moment of inertia as given in the following equation:
Simply supported Concentrated load at 1/48
midspan M cr 3 M
Ie ( ) I g [1 ( cr )3 ]I cr
One end continuous Concentrated load at Ma Ma
(propped) midspan
(1)
Two end continuous Concentrated load at 1/192
(fixed ended) midspan where: Moment of inertia of cracked transformed
Cantilever Concentrated load at 1/3 section .
free end
Moment of inertia of uncracked transformed
section .
where:
Maximum bending moment due to the service
w L4 load .
max for distributed load.
EI Cracking bending moment due to service load
and equal to
P L3
max for concentrated load. f r .I g
EI M cr (5)
yt
Orvin and Anik [12] determined the minimum thickness of
reinforced concrete slabs to resist undesirable vibration, and
compare the results with other study. They conclude that f r Modulus of rupture of the concrete ( ).
American Concrete Institute (ACI) minimum thickness limit is
not satisfactory for vibration. Three dimensional finite element y t Distance from the neutral axis of the section to
modelling is carried out to study the natural floor vibration,
and the results are verified by ANSYS model and ETABS the extreme fiber at the
modeling. Several parameters as slab thickness, span length tension face ( ).
and floor panel aspect ratio are taken into consideration.
Akmaluddin [13] presented an improvement model of the bh 3
effective moment of inertia to predict to predict the short term For rectangular section without reinforcement: I g
deflection of reinforced light weight concrete beam. The 12
proposed model is verified and compared with experimental
where: b = width of the cross section ( ).
results of nine beams, good agreement is obtained with the
experimental results and in some cases have similar trend to h = total depth of the cross section ( ).
the ACI and SNI previsions. Ho et al [14], developed a
simplified method for providing minimum flexural ductility For beam with tension reinforcement:
and evaluation of maximum values of tension steel ratio and
neutral axis depth corresponding to the proposed minimum h
curvature ductility factor for various concrete grades and steel bh ( ) (n 1)As .d
y 2
yielding strengths. Islam Khan et al [15] investigated
reinforced concrete building analysis by using three bh (n 1)As
dimensional finite element modelling to determine the
minimum slab thickness to prevent undesirable vibration. The where: d = effective depth ( ).
developed finite element model is applied on post experiments
which are validated the applicability of the model for further
A s = Area of tension reinforcement ( )
parametric study. Different slab thickness, span length and
floor aspect ratio are studied. Empirical equation is suggested
5572
Mereen H. Fahmi et al., International Journal of Emerging Trends in Engineering Research, 8(9), September 2020, 5571 – 5580
4730 f c' bh 3
Ig (12)
12
f c' = cylinder compressive strength of the concrete ( ) Where
3
[1 12( 0.5) 2 10.2( n 1) (0.85 ) 2 (13)
bh h
Ig bh ( y ) 2 ( n 1) A s (d y ) 2 (6)
12 2 The new depth (h1) is calculated from ( I g ) which is obtained
from Eq.(12).
5573
Mereen H. Fahmi et al., International Journal of Emerging Trends in Engineering Research, 8(9), September 2020, 5571 – 5580
The results shown in Table (3) show that the depth ratio L
( h1 / h ) decreased with increasing the reinforcement index h1 (21)
f c'
ratio ( / b ), this mean that smaller depth is required as the (1.00384 0.0595 0.0048 ) N
b fy
tension reinforcement area is increased.
Table 4: Modification Factor
Two variables are suggested ( / b ) to represent the effect
of reinforcement amount as a ratio to balancing reinforcement
'
index and other variable ( f c / f y ) to represent the effect of 3/60 0 0.05 1 0.9974 0.9974
the material strengths. General equation is suggested to 0.5 0.05 0.968 0.9672 0.9991
determine the depth ratio ( h1 / h ) in the following form: 0.634 0.05 0.9606 0.9591 0.9984
0.724 0.05 0.956 0.9536 0.9975
h1 f ' 1 0.05 0.943 0.9370 0.9936
k 0 k 1( ) k 2 ( c ) (14)
h b fy 4/60 0 0.0667 1 0.9976 0.9976
0.5 0.0667 0.9642 0.9674 1.0033
Using the data of Table (3), applying the principle of least
square and regression analysis method; the following equation 0.634 0.0667 0.9563 0.9593 1.0031
is determined: 0.724 0.0667 0.9513 0.9539 1.0027
1 0.0667 0.9373 0.9372 0.9999
h1 f ' 5/60 0 0.0833 1 0.9978 0.9978
0.997 0.0604( ) 0.013( c ) (15)
h b fy 0.5 0.0833 0.9631 0.9676 1.0047
0.634 0.0833 0.955 0.9595 1.0047
The calculated results from this equation are shown in Table
(4) and Fig (1). 0.724 0.0833 0.95 0.9541 1.0043
1 0.0833 0.936 0.9374 1.0015
The above equation can be written in another way:
6/60 0 0.1 1 0.9980 0.9980
h1 h A CI (16) 0.5 0.1 0.9628 0.9678 1.0052
0.634 0.1 0.9547 0.9597 1.0053
Where (α) is the correction factor including the effect of
0.724 0.1 0.9495 0.9543 1.0050
reinforcement amount and material strengths.
1 0.1 0.9352 0.9376 1.0026
'
f 9/75 0 0.12 1 0.9983 0.9983
[0.997 0.0604( ) 0.013( c )] (17)
b fy 0.5 0.12 0.9714 0.9681 0.9966
0.7 0.12 0.9618 0.9560 0.9940
or can be written as, 0.8 0.12 0.9572 0.9500 0.9924
1 0.12 0.9493 0.9379 0.9880
f '
h1 [0.997 0.0604( ) 0.013( c )] hACI (18) 9/60 0 0.15 1 0.9987 0.9987
b fy
0.5 0.15 0.9622 0.9685 1.0065
The corrected total depth can be expressed in another form: 0.634 0.15 0.954 0.9604 1.0067
0.724 0.15 0.9487 0.9549 1.0066
L
h1 (19) 1 0.15 0.9343 0.9383 1.0042
N 12/75 0 0.16 1 0.9988 0.9988
Where (N) is constant depend on the support condition as 0.5 0.16 0.9685 0.9686 1.0001
shown in Table (1), and (L) is the span of the member. 0.7 0.16 0.9581 0.9565 0.9983
General equation in the form of Eq. (17) is suggested to 0.8 0.16 0.9533 0.9505 0.9970
determine the correction factor (β) in term of the same
1 0.16 0.944 0.9384 0.9941
variables ( / b and f c' / f y ) as shown below:
St.Dv. = 0.0209
' Correl.= 0.9781
f
1.00384 0.0595( ) 0.0048( c ) (20) Var.= 0.0004
b fy 1.00005
Ravg.=
5574
Mereen H. Fahmi et al., International Journal of Emerging Trends in Engineering Research, 8(9), September 2020, 5571 – 5580
The results obtained from Eq. (20) shown very good Table 5: Modification Factor
correlation as shown in Fig. (2) and Table (5). According to
the above results and equations, the modified depth-span ratio
is determined for beams and slabs for different types of
boundary conditions (simply supported, fixed ended, propped 3/60 0 0.05 1.0000 1.0041 1.0041
and cantilevers) as shown in Tables 6 and 7. 0.5 0.05 1.0331 1.0338 1.0008
0.634 0.05 1.0410 1.0418 1.0008
The following examples are solved to check and verify the
0.724 0.05 1.0460 1.0472 1.0011
modified equations, in all examples the results are very close,
where the moment of inertia for the section with reinforcement 1 0.05 1.0604 1.0636 1.0030
and new modified depth is exactly equal to the original section 4/60 0 0.0667 1.0000 1.0042 1.0042
without reinforcement with depth according to ACI-Code 0.5 0.0667 1.0371 1.0339 0.9969
limitations. 0.634 0.0667 1.0457 1.0419 0.9964
0.724 0.0667 1.0512 1.0472 0.9962
1 0.0667 1.0669 1.0637 0.9970
5/60 0 0.0833 1.0000 1.0042 1.0042
0.5 0.0833 1.0383 1.0340 0.9958
1.00 0.634 0.0833 1.0471 1.0420 0.9951
0.724 0.0833 1.0526 1.0473 0.9950
0.98 1 0.0833 1.0684 1.0637 0.9957
h/ho (Cal.)
5575
Mereen H. Fahmi et al., International Journal of Emerging Trends in Engineering Research, 8(9), September 2020, 5571 – 5580
Table 6: Modified minimum Span-Depth ratio for Beams Table 7: Modified minimum Span-Depth ratio for Slabs
21 28 35 42 63 63 84 21 28 35 42 63 63 84
420 420 420 420 525 420 525 420 420 420 420 525 420 525
0 16 16 16 16 16 16 16 0 20 20 20 20 20 20 20
0.5 16.52 16.59 16.61 16.61 16.47 16.62 16.52 0.5 20.66 20.74 20.76 20.77 20.58 20.78 20.65
0.634 16.65 16.73 16.75 16.75 16.63 16.77 16.7 0.634 20.82 20.91 20.94 20.94 20.79 20.96 20.87
0.724 16.73 16.81 16.84 16.85 16.71 16.86 16.78 0.724 20.92 21.02 21.05 21.06 20.89 21.08 20.98
1 16.96 17.07 17.09 17.10 16.85 17.12 16.94 1 21.20 21.33 21.36 21.38 21.06 21.40 21.18
0 21 21 21 21 21 21 21 0 28 28 28 28 28 28 28
0.5 21.69 21.78 21.80 21.81 21.61 21.82 21.68 0.5 28.92 29.04 29.07 29.08 28.82 29.1 28.91
0.634 21.86 21.96 21.99 21.99 21.83 22.01 21.92 0.634 29.14 29.28 29.31 29.32 29.11 29.35 29.22
0.724 21.96 22.07 22.10 22.11 21.93 22.13 21.02 0.724 29.28 29.43 29.47 29.48 29.25 29.51 29.37
1 22.26 22.40 22.43 22.45 22.12 22.47 22.24 1 29.69 29.87 29.91 29.94 29.49 29.96 29.66
0.5 19.11 19.18 19.20 19.21 19.04 19.22 19.10 0.5 24.79 24.89 24.92 24.92 24.70 24.94 24.78
0.634 19.25 19.34 19.37 19.37 19.23 19.39 19.30 0.634 24.98 25.09 25.13 25.13 24.95 25.15 25.05
0.724 19.35 19.44 19.47 19.48 19.32 19.5 19.40 0.724 25.10 25.28 25.26 25.27 25.07 25.29 25.17
1 19.61 19.73 19.76 19.78 19.48 19.80 19.59 1 25.45 25.60 25.64 25.66 25.28 25.68 25.42
0 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 0 10 10 10 10 10 10 10
0.5 8.26 8.29 8.30 8.30 8.23 8.31 8.26 0.5 10.33 10.37 10.38 10.38 10.29 10.39 10.32
0.634 8.32 8.36 8.37 8.38 8.31 8.38 8.35 0.634 10.41 10.45 10.47 10.47 10.39 10.48 10.43
0.724 8.36 8.41 8.42 8.42 8.35 8.43 8.39 0.724 10.46 10.51 10.52 10.53 10.44 10.54 10.49
1 8.48 8.53 8.54 8.55 8.42 8.56 8.47 1 10.60 10.66 10.68 10.69 10.53 10.70 10.59
5576
Mereen H. Fahmi et al., International Journal of Emerging Trends in Engineering Research, 8(9), September 2020, 5571 – 5580
f c' 0.003
b 0.251 0.0285 h
f y 0.003 y The ratio 0.9373 , by using Eq.(17);
h1
From Table (6); 1.0 and f c' = 28 ; h f c'
b [0.997 0.0604( ) 0.013( )]
h1 b fy
L
hmin 351.5 mm
17.07
f c' 28
For 1.0 and ; 0.9372 which is
E 200000 b f y 420
n s 8; n 1 7
c 4730 28 exactly equal to that obtained before.
5577
Mereen H. Fahmi et al., International Journal of Emerging Trends in Engineering Research, 8(9), September 2020, 5571 – 5580
bh 3 Ig
Ig 925923148.2 m m 4 1.10223
12 I0
Es Check
E c 4730 21 21675.583 MPa ; n 9.227
Ec 1 12( 0.5) 2 10.2( n 1) (0.25 ) 2 1.104
wL 4
max 9.346 mm ; 3.3 A propped beam; with length (L = 8m). Concrete
384 EI '
compressive strength ( f c = 42 ), steel yielding strength
max 1
0.001335 ( f y = 420 ), applied load w = 50 KN/m, t , cross
L 360
section width (b = 300 ).
Section with Reinforcements:
Section without Reinforcements:
1
b , b= 300 minimum depth according to ACI-Code
2 L
hmin 432.432 mm
' 18.5
From Table (6); and f c = 21 ;
L bh 3
hmin 322.67 mm Ig 2021591866 m m 4
21.694 12
Take d 0.85h 274.27 mm E c 4730 21 30653.9035 MPa; n 6.5245
21 0.003
b 0.85(0.85)( ) 0.021376 wL 4
420
420 0.003 200000 max 17.864 mm ;
185EI
b max 1
0.010688 0.002233
2 L 360
y 169.19mm 0.52434h
Section with Reinforcements:
0.5 0.7225( n 1)
Check 0.52434 t , 1 0.75
1 0.25( n 1)
f c 0.003
bh 3 t 0.851 0.0239; 0.0239
I0 839877169.5 mm 4 f y 0.003 0.004
12
f c 0.003
4 b 0.851 0.0377; (n 1) 0.132
I g 925737360 mm which is very close to the section f y 0.003 y
without reinforcement.
I g 0.9998 I g ( 0) L
From table (6); h min 412.84 mm
19.378
Check
h1 21 412.84
0.9967 0.0604(0.5) 0.013( ) 0.9672 0.9547
h 420 432.432
h1 322.67 0.5 0.7225( n 1)
0.968 Check; 0.5353
h 333.333 1 0.25( n 1)
5578
Mereen H. Fahmi et al., International Journal of Emerging Trends in Engineering Research, 8(9), September 2020, 5571 – 5580
bh 3 468
I0 1760702800 mm 4 0.936
12 500
bh 3
I0 2135484000 mm 4
3.4 Cantilever beam; with length (L= 4m). Concrete 12
'
compressive strength ( f c = 35 ), steel yielding strength
I g 2603469471 mm 4 which is very close to the
( f y = 420 ), applied load w = 20 KN/m, b , cross
original section
section width (b = 250 ).
I g 0.9997 I g ( 0)
Section without Reinforcements:
5579
Mereen H. Fahmi et al., International Journal of Emerging Trends in Engineering Research, 8(9), September 2020, 5571 – 5580
5. Suitable equations are proposed to predict ( ) in Requirement of RCC slab in order to prevent
' undesirable Floor Vibration, International Journal
term of the variables ( / b ) and (f / f y ) , and the
c of Advances in Michanical and Civil Engineering,
calculated results showed excellent correlation. vol. 13, issue 3, June, PP. 2394-2827, 2016.
6. Numerical examples are solved for simply supported,
fixed ended, propped and cantilever beams to verify the 13. A. Akmalludin, Effect of Tensile Reinforcement
proposed equation, the results shown very close results Ratio on the Effective Moment of Inertia of
between the original section without the reinforcement Reinforced Lightweight Concrete Beams for Short
Term Deflection Calculation, ITB Journal of
and modified section with specified reinforcement.
Engineering Science, vol. 43, No. 3, pp.209-226,
2011.
ACKNOWLEDGMENT
The authors wish to thank Erbil Polytechnic University for the 14. J.C.M. Ho, A. K. H. Kwan and H.J. Pam, Minimum
support during conducting this study. flexural ductility design of high-strength concrete
columns, Magazine of Concrete Research, vol. 56,
No. 1, Febriuary, pp. 13-22, 2014.
REFERENCES
15. M.R, Islam Khan, Z. Hakimkhan, M.F. Hakimkhan
and K. Amanat, Minimum slab thickness of RC
slab to prevent undesirable floor vibration, The
1. ACI 318-14, Building code requirements for
2013 World Conference in Advances Structural
structural concrete (ACI 318-08) and
commentary, American Concrete Institute, ACI, Engineering and Mechanics (ASEM13), Jeju, Korea,
USA, pp. 520, 2014. september 8-12, pp. 1886-1899, 2013.