vies Please Return @ ma desk The reinforcement of slabs in accordance -Alo k im with a pre-determined field of momonts* By RH. Wood, ps, mp, cess, AMICE, AMIStact SeviorPracpal Ssientde Oficer, Building Research Station and Associate Profesor of Fogncerng Science, Univesity of Warwick reiareare feverol alternative methods for the design of questions which must then bo golved are how feliiforced concrete slabs, at least three of which ‘much more steel will be required, how is this quantity Dendingom she st#tement ofa predetermined complete to be determined easily, how will the ecaren bending-moment field, which is everywhere in recommendations agree with the latest developments ‘eq litrium with the loads. in ultimate-toad theorias, and how is the choice of « Ils usually not practicable to arrange the steo! bars design affected. These questions are discussed in this 0 follow the curved paths of the principal stress Paper, and the original method of design developed trajectories, but is much simpler vo place the bars by Hillerborg is extended. ‘two favourable directions, usually at right-angles. The i.2127 Hom the speciic recommendations contained in Les-symmetrical cases. can pose quite outstanding CP 114; 1957, the designer may use the following alterna- problems tive methods for the design of slabs: In general, if a bending-moment field is known at all re 0, 9, pioneere is points, ether in terms of local values of Mz, M, and My Sisth lie theory®. ®, pioneered by Johansen; (Figure 2), or alternatively as principal moments M, and (b) Strict ‘limit analysis'@. ©, pioneered by Prager; : ser a "i 4 (©) The‘strip. method’ %, pioneered by Hillerborg; or aay ain # then values of M,' gat oe {@) Analysis by the theory bt este Iust be defined in proportioning reinforcement place solely in the x and y ditections in order to take care of the. i ora ring teary litem (@)]isapplied where thearrange- additonal twist Fics The iatennce hls ‘strip. Breit Of the reinforcement, isotropic (square mesh), method" [item (0 tonawent Problem neatly by : orthotropic or skew, has been decided in advance. if Mechanisms of collapse are examined where the yield i ‘moments on yield lines depend on the orientation of the i ‘yield lines and have been clearly defined by Johansen in his well-known ‘stepped’ criterion), equation (4), With this method there is no problem in placing the reinforcement—and this is one of the attractive features of yield-tine theory, There is an ‘equilibrium’ approach to ‘ield-line theory, using nodal forces", but this is umerely a convenient rearrangement of the algebra of the K° method, so as to produce what appears to be a set @ > csuilibcinm equations for ine rigid regioas of the slab ‘between the yield lines; no complete bending. ‘moment field is then forthcoming. The yield-line theory provides only ‘upper-bound” solutions for the collapse Toad. z Limit analysis {item (b)] includes upper-bound solu- fons “employing mechanisms of collapse with yield Figured Radial wom fal moments possibly different from those obtained by. simply supported sneer ap Johansen. ‘However, limit analysis also insists on the | ‘study of complete bending-moment fields, which provides ae safe ‘lower-bound" solutions. These fields are derived on kg from the loads only and, since the aim is to reach certain Flaure 2 Notatioh for: ‘mompnts on.en of idealized yield-moments on imaginary yield-lines, the complete field of trajectories of stress is usually curvi- t linear in form. For exéimple in Figure J, the acceptable solution for @ square simply-supported slab is. given e which is also the radial stress field for a circumscribing aM clamped circular slab. Obviously, no designer would use sets of radial bars and circumferential bars as reinforce. ment and, inthis simple case, it so happens that a square ‘mesh will sufice instead, placed parallel to the slab edges, id used as an exact solution for @ | | ‘ * Crown Copyright Reserved, pe Concrete Fobrusy 1968‘The reinforcement of slabs in accordance wi arranging an imaginary stress field in which M,, = 0 throughout, This means that the equilibrium equation for a slab, which is generally 2M, | OM, 20°My = —p o att “aye Oxay is subdivided as follows into strip-action in the x and y directions + (la) -d-ap where « may have any reasonable value. An example of such a moment field is given in Figure 3, ‘where for those strips which carry all the load in the x-direction, and for those strips carrying all the Joad in the y-direction, « = 0. This method is very much design-orientated and, as it is not well known in Great Britain, itis being made the subject ofa separate examina- tion by the author(!®, For flat slabs in the neighbourhood. of columns, however, Hillerborg in a later publication'® was not able to employ pure strip action and found it, necessary to adopt special elements which included radial stress fields, so that the problem of arranging the re- inforcement to suit arose once more. Analysis by the theory of elasticity {item (d)] has nowadays become possible with the use of computer Programmes, which can print outt a complete field of moments My, M, and Myy. It may surprise some readers to note that, far from elastic analysis being ‘old-fashioned’, ‘One such general programme has been prepared at the Building Research Station by J. Colbourne, and has been used by several ‘engineers. This programme has recently been extended to, provide a direct printout of values of fa* and M,*, according to the rules Serived herein, s0 as to indicate the reinforcement required. Biconindty te for the resulting total volume of reinforcement required is often less than that required by yield-lin theory. In fact, iff a complete elastic analysis is available it is diffcult 10 improve on it from the point of view of obtaining the minimum weight of reinforcement (even plastic minimum weight) and control of deflections and control of cracking [see Reference (4), Chapters VI and VIII]. Obviously this implies the use of variable reinforcement, and a ready means of converting the stress fields to corresponding easily placed reinforcement is essent The development of rules for reinforcement arranged at right-angles Positive moment fields tis obvious from the foregoing that a reliable and easily understandable method of calculating M,* and M,* is required, given M,, M, and Myy at any point in a slab. In 1953, Hillerborg® proposed a method for .. . ‘The reinforcement of slabs and shells designed according to the theory of elasticity’. Although it was translated into English in 1962, the work is not as well known and used as it deserves to be, probably because some of the argu- ments are difficult to follow. Moreover itis necessary to re-examine the derivation with particular reference to i intended use with plastic lower-bound stress fields. It is found that a re-examination and re-statement of Hiller- borg’s method throws considerable light on the most recent criterion of yield proposed by Kemp. The final rales are presented in a slightly different form from those of Hillerborg. The basic idea is that, if at any point Pin a slab (Figure 4) a line with normal n and direction is examined, then the normal moment M,, due to the principal moments of the stress field Mf, and M, in directions 1 and 2, must not exceed the value of M,*, which is the moment of resistance that the reinforcement in the slab could develop in direction n, This therefore is a normal moment criterion which is tested in every direction. It should be noted that a lower-bound stress field, with variable reinforcement at Gifferent points, must make provision for yield lines in any conceivable direction, because there may be simul- taneous multiple modes of collapse'®, Referring to Figures 2 and 4, the moments transform as follows for change of direction in any given moment field: My = M, cos* 6 + M, sin® 8 — 2Mz, sin 9.cos 9 (2) ‘Mz = Mg sin* 0 + M, cos? 9 +- 2Mzy sin 0.c0s 6 (2a) Mus = (Mz—M,)sin6.c050 ++ Ma(cos*O — sin?) (2b) If M, and M; are principal moments, then from equation (2b) it is found that the axis of My is orientated at an_ angle 4, which is given by tan 2f = 2May/(My—M). . Q) On-the other hand Johansen's ‘stepped’ criterion of yield *. © follows the rules My = Met cos? 0}. M,* sin? 0 @ M,= M,* sin* 0 — M,* cost 9: (4a) (t.* — M,9) sin 8 cos. (4b) An interesting point is that Hillerborg® also adopts equation (4), without referring to Johansen, indeed for slabs . . . ‘designed according to the theory of Marcus’. Also, instead of equation (4b) he comments that... “itis assumed that the twisting moment ean be transmitted by the concrete’. (It is possible here that in Hillerborg's Concrete February 1968 OE 8 pre-determined field of moments‘Tho reinforcement of slabs in accordance with a pro-determined field of moments system the moment-arm of the steel, involved in Mat, may be slightly different.) Hence the value of My obtained from equation (4) rust always be greater than that for Mf, calculated from equation (2); that is, (Myx — (Mus > 0. Dividing by cos? @ and putting k ~ tan G, then, since cos? 0 is always positive, Mgt + Myth? — My — Myk2 + Mzy2k > 0 (5) Hf the leftchand side of equation (5) is denoted by /(k), ‘hen /(k) is related to the excess of normal moment pro- vided by the reinforcement over the required normal ‘moment in the stress field. When this is a minimum GO) _ afar) __ftand) a a0 ~~ ao ~ a(tand) do GO oct 9 = GP sect 0 =0. Since sect 0 cannot be zero, hence dfik)/dk = 0. This gives M,*2k — M,2k + 2Mzy = 0, M-pMy . © or M,* k foreoverif/(k) is to representa minimum excess moment, jn af (k)/dk* = 2M,* — 2M, > 0, from which My > My + =) Figure § Mohs circles for positive stess field, Hence from equation (6), May/k <0 » (6) in which, from equation (6), k= —Ma/(M,* — My) co) Substituting equation (6) into equation (5), it is found that M,* > Mz ~ kKMey. The minimum requirement, /(k) =0, at the critical section therefore provides Mt =Me—kMy —» —« (68) ‘Also from equation (6b), if Mey is positive then (= tan 9) must be negative, and vice versa. Hence equations (6) and (6d) can be more easily understood in the form we el ee ue . Mt = My + | Mev] aM and in which K = | k| is now taken to be a positive arbitrary constant. ‘Apparently any value of K may be adopted in order to make the reinforcement fit easily, but, assuming that the lever-arm is approximately the same in both directions, ‘then the total amount of steel at any point is proportional to Mt + M,*. 5a Given stres fold Me = 3, My = 1s May = 1. e Bb Circle forreinforcement with K= 1, Mat = 4, My* = 2. Be Circ for reinforcement with K = 3, Moe t Concrete February 1968 n‘The reinforcement of slabs in accordance wi Now: Mg + My* = My + M, + ao K + x): so that for a minimum, dys . tO ag Ole +My) = Malt 3) = Hence the most effective arrangement of reinforcement is obtained when Mt = Me +| Moy! and Mt = M,+| May| Since the mathematics can be confusing, a graphical representation of the directions and values of the principal moments, and the transformation of moments and twists for other axes, can be obtained by the use of Mohr’s circle, from which it can be seen at a glance what is happening. Let the given stress field be Mz = 3, My = 1 and Mzy = +1, from which the Mohr's circle shown in Figure 5a can be constructed, based on the given points a, b and c, to represent the transformations of equations (2), (2a) and (2b) graphically. (The author prefers to use a construction with the pole at one end of the diameter, clockwise angles, and My positive downwards and nega- tive upwards, as shown. This is then strictly in accordance with Figures 2 and 4.) Evidently M,* = 3 +1=4 and M,* = 1-41 =2, from which the independent circle shown in Figure 5b is constructed, remembering that Johansen’ criterion [equation (4)] assumes Mf,* and M,* are principal moments. From equation (3), tan 20—=2x 1/1—3=—1, whence 9 = —22} deg., and this gives the orientation, in the citcle in Figure 5a, of the principal axes, measured algebraically clockwise with respect to the axis x. It be seen that this agrees with the principal moment axis, giving M, = 3-414 and M, = 0'586. It is very important to note that the x-direction in the circle in Figure 5a is not drawn in the same direction as the x-direction in the circle in Figure 5b; consequently identical orientations (as regards the actual slab, such as —20 deg., —30 deg., etc., as shown in the diagrams) must start from a different base line, The small figures round the perimeters of the circles are values of Mp, that is (Mn)—20 dogs (Mn)-20 ders etc., which are obtained by projecting on to the horizontal , whence K= - (7a) My Meine, Round the lower quadrants of the circles it is seen that there is a considerable reserve of strength; in the upper quadrants, however, it is fascinating to note how the normal-moment values converge in the range = 0 to —45 deg., where (My)—s ae. in both systems is +300, and then both diverge again where 0 = —45 deg. onwards. At the point of coincidence equation (6¢) indicates that tan Ouse, 0 = —45 deg. Alternatively if K—=4 then M,* = 3 4 0-5(1) = 34 M,* = | + 2(1) = 3, which leads to the Moh’ circle shown in Figure 5c. Coincidence of Mz in circles in Figures Sa and Se now occurs at 0 = ~-26 deg. and ‘M, = 3-41, which again is checked by equation (6c) where k = tan Qgiiea = —4. The fact that the circle in Figure Se is generally drawn more to the right than that in Figure $b indicates a less economical arrangement of reinforcement when K = 4. Negative moment fields Thus far, the analysis has been simplified by considering n ‘@ pro-determined field of moments only Mobr’s circles to the right of the vertical Myaxis, ‘The next simplest cases are when all the Mohr’s circles are to the left, in the negative region throughout. This time /(k) in equation (5) must be algebraically less than or equal to zero: M,* < My and M,* < M,. As before, Gtk 0. in ese dN a So ean algebraic ‘maximum. Readers may care to satisfy themselves that k is still given by equation (6c), whilst equation (7) takes the obvious form Mo = My — K| Mey) . 1 + (7b) and My = My — $1 Mer] in which M, and M, are negative, and K may have a different value from that used in equation (7). This leads to the most economical form, when K = 1, Ms = M,— | Moy } and Mt =My—|Mal 7 1M, = —3,M, = —1and My, = —1,thentheexample already given using the positive circles in Figure 5, would be repeated in toto on the negative side. This of course now refers to the top reinforcement. Mixed (positive and negative) moment fields Awkward cases occur where one of the principal moments is positive in the given moment field, and the other is negative. Suppose the given stress field is Mz = 2, M, = —1 and Mzy = 1, represented by the Mohr’s circle in Figure 6a, in which the x- and y-axes are 17 deg. out of line with the principal moment axes, and the principal moments are +230 and —1-30. Applying the rules expressed by equation (7a), the positive mesh of reinforce- ‘ment has principal resistance moments Mj" = 2-+ 1 = 3 and M, = —1 + 1 = 0, from which the circle in Figure 6b is drawn, The direction on which the normal moments coincide for both circles is by equation (6c), -1 fan Gasset = 5) =I, 0F Oastoa = —45 deg., as is clearly shown in the diagram. But, according to the circle in Figure 6a, outside the limits —10 deg. <0 < +36 deg., the normal moments would then become negative, for which the bottom (positive) steel reinforcement is useless. Hence the circle in Figure 6b provides safe moments of resistance everywhere, except outside these limits. Thus when 0 = ++36 deg, there is considerable positive moment still remaining. ‘The circle (Figure 6c) shown by broken-line is an attempt to continue applying the rules expressed by ‘equation (7c) for negative mesh, but here itis found that. M,* = —2 and M,* = +1. The circle itself continues to indicate satisfactory moments of resistance within the range of application (—T0 deg. > 9 > 36 deg.) but the positive steel for M* = +1 is on the wrong side of the slab to generate such moments. Johansen’s criterion {equations (4)] was never intended for such use. It can be seen by inspection, however, that if M,* were made equal to zero, then the resulting Mohr’s circle would be valid for safe negative moments throughout, but it might possibly result ina waste of steel since a principal moment of ~2 is provided, against a required minimum of only 1:30. Obviously a new theory is required, for cases in. which one of the values of M,* or M,* is held to be zero. Repeating the previous proof, commencing with equation Concrete February 1968: The reinforcement of slabs in accordance with a pre-determined field of moments (9, for positive reinforcement, lt it be supposed that it is neo2Ssary fo insist on M,* — 0, Then from equation (6) it found that F »/ My 80 that k is now definite, Evidently equation (TY becomes @) with By inspection thé Complete rules for placing the reinforce- ‘ment may be written out as given in equations (9) to (9b) and (10) to (10b). Figure 6 Mobi’s circles for mixed (positive and negative) mesh, 6a Given stress fold Me = 2, My m= 1, May = 1. Gb Circle for positive ‘mesh (ful lino) ala Ge Circle for negative mesh (broken fines) (not valid) @ os sess ie tr ree non 6 One principal moment approximately equal to zer0. Concrete February 1968 ‘Special observations required when one principal moment is approximately zero It transpires that the general recommendations set out bbelow need special interpretation when one of the principal stresses is nearly equal to zero, ‘Thus consider the stress field M, = 3, M,—2 and Mz, = 2:2, which gives Circle 1, in Figure 6e. As regards the calculation of the positive reinforcement there is no difficulty. However when the problem of the negative reinforcement is examined the following arithnietical steps are encountered: 2B‘The reinforcement of stabs in accordance with a pre-determined From equations (10), Mgt = 3 —22 = +08, (not permissible) and M,* =2—22 = —02, (permissible). Next replace this by Mt =0 and M,* = 2 —|4(22)*| = 2 — 162 = +048 ‘obtained from equations (10b). However, this result, M,* = -+0-48, is really a break- down of the rules, because for negative (top) reinforce- ‘ment there should have been a negative result. Now consider Circle 2; Mz = 3, My = 2, Mu ‘The comparable steps are M,* =3 — 2-7 = +05 (not valid) 27, and M,*=2-27=-07, which are replaced by fst = 0 and -M," =2—[42-7)*| = —0-43 (valid). It is clear that this second case is valid because Circle 2 shows that a negative principal moment exists whereas, with Circle 1, no negative moments occur. Now it inot convenient wo have principal mo down 0 rlleS o€% “the first case, then it isa simple pro- cedure just to ignore the result, and to SO eae zsh at all (ice versa for He postive MESH). However “it would be advantageous to have a formal proof of the validity of this procedure. Consider the critical Circle 3, for which the lower principal moment is equal to zero. is expected that the rules would then indicate that Me? Me so that Muy = Vie Now the lower principal moment is given by (Ma + M,) — VA(Me — My)? + May? On substituting for Mzy itis found that My = (Me +My) — VIX + MP From this it follows that, atthe critical change-over point to negative principal moments, the proposed rules give the exact answer. When there are no negative principal ‘moments, any attempt to provide negative reinforcement according to the rules may then give an absurd answer, but this absurd answer may then safely be ignored and no such negative reinforcement is required. M,* = M,— 0, Recommendations for placing reinforcement (at right-angles) ‘At a point in a given stress field where the stress com- ponents are M,, M, and Mz, the reinforcement in the slab, placed only in the x- and y-directions at right-angles, is governed thus: Bottom reinforcement Generally Ma" = Me+| Mey! © and Myt=My+|Mey|f 7 If either Mf,* or M,* in equation (9) is found to be negative, then such a required value of reinforcement is, changed to zero, as follows: Me = Me+ Marl wien M, M, | either 0 . (a) " h o Mt = M+ |i Met =0 . (9b) iif, in these changed formule, the wrong algebraic sign results for Me" or M,*, then no such reinforcement is required. If both M.* and M,* are negative then no bottom reinforcement is required. Top reinforcement. Generally Me cb — |My } ar venom [mf OD Uf either M,* or M,* in equation (10) is positive, then change to either M, | with Ma = (10b) 1f, in these changed formule, the wrong algebraic sign results for M* or M,*, then no such reinforcement is required, Ifboth M,* and M,* are positive then no top reinforce- ‘ment is required. As alternatives to equations (9) and (10), equations (and (7b) may be used. ‘The engineer is strongly advised to consult all six of the above equations, as it is easy to omit reinforcement by mistake. or Examples i Itis surprising to note that negative reinforcement can Bereta ah coma ne eso ire ltely positive values o and Mgq. This is on account of possible strong twisty nb giivey Wee “Thus consider values of M, Ma =3. ‘The bottom reinforcement requires M,* = M,? = 1+ 3 = 4 (square mesh). ‘The top reinforcement requires M,* = M,* = 1 — 3 = —2 (square mesh). ‘This can frequently happen near corners or column supports. ii Consider the continuation of the example in Figure 6 2, My = —1, and Mey = +1). 14 Mgt =2-4+1=3 and M,* This is the circle in Figure 66. ‘Negative steel: My" 1=1and M,t = * This is not permissibfe, so change to Mat Mt = 1 $= 15. ‘This is the circle in Figure 6c. It will be noticed that this arrangement of reinforcement is still safe (for the circles in Figures 6a and d the yield point is reached only when M, = —1-2), and moreover the circle in Figure 6d represents greater economy than did the circle in Figure 6c. fii In limit analysis the radial stress field at collapse for a concentrated load P is [Reference (4), page 87]: im, everywhere, M, everywhere, radially M, circumferentially Me Concrete February 1968and Mra = 0, everywhere, jin which P = 2x(M ++ m). faxes xand y coincide with rand 0 then, by inspection Mo = —m with M,* =0 for the top reinforcement and M*=0 with My" = +M for the bottom reinforcement. Tr axes x and y are at 45 deg, to r and 6, then from equations (2), Mz = —m4+ M4, M, = —mt+ M4 ‘and May = —(m + Mi Whence for top reinforcement: Me 300m) AACE =" ores M,¢ = 3(M — m) — 40 +m) “a Similarly the bottom reinforcement requires a square mesh of +-M, +M. It is interesting to note that the minimum requirements are for a square mesh when r and 0 are at 45 deg, to x and y, but for only single bands of ‘when rand 0 are in line with x and y, ‘of course, a gradual change in between these con~ Mions, Obviously any designer would use a square mesh throughout as in the yield-line theory. If P is imagined to be an upward load, the resulting stress field is typical of what can happen near the corner supports of a slab. Itis seen that the recommendations given by equations (9) and (10) will deal adequately with the results obtained from elastic analysis of slabs by computers. ‘Skew reinforcement Occasionally, to avoid undue cutting of reinforcement, it is necessary to resort to providing skew reinforcement, for example parallel to the free edges of a bridge deck. The given stress field can still be stated in terms of M,, M, and Mey. In Figure 7 the total moment M, due to M,* and Ma* is Met cost 0+ Mgt cost (T— a), whete the skew" reinforcement at an angle «TOME x-reinforcement, fasured clockwise from axis x. Following through all previous logical steps it is found that Mt = Mz — kMyy — cot a(Myk ~My) (11) - 2 in which May + My cot o ; (434 cot) <0 for bottom riforcment (13) and (hee) =O for top reinforcement (14) It can be scen that if « is equal to 90 deg., equations (11) and (12) reduce to equations (6d) and (6), respectively, and the condition expressed by equation (13) becomes that in equation (6b). It has not been found possible to avoid a strict algebraic interpretation of the foregoing equations, so that there is no obvious equivalent to ‘equations (7), (7a), (7b), (7c), (@). Instead, a value of close to unity may be taken so long as the conditions ‘expressed by equations (13) and (14) hold, With mixed, positive and negative moment fields, as before M.* and M,* must not have alternate positive and negative signs. So if M. is positive, and M,* appears to require negative p—Conereta February 168, “The reinforcement of slabs in accordance with a pre-determined field of momonts values (depending on reasonable K-values), then. put M,* 0 from which a definite value of k is obtained, Which must still satisfy equation (13), Hence find Ma’ the reverse procedure applies if M,* = 0. Discussion of Hillerborg’s treatment in the light of modern uitimate-load theories: Hillerborg® summarizes his recommendations in the form of equations (7) and (7b), adding (English transla- tion, loc. cit). . . ‘for economical reasons these numbers should be close to unity, and should be chosen so that the condition M,".M,* > 0°. The author however finds the ‘original derivation of these rules difficult to understand, without a fresh detailed examination. "The Swedish regulation, ‘Massiva Betongplattor’ 1957, contains an appendix on the design of slabs (kindly ‘communicated to the author by Dr Hillerborg) which also contains equations (7) and (7b) under the general heading . . . ‘Calculation based on theory of elasticity’. Tn neither ease is the breakdown of the rules stated as is discussed above when one principal moment is approxi- mately zer0. Tt would appear that these design rules need a new justification for use with ultimate-toad analysis. Stress fields have been used in limit analysis for deriving lower ‘bound solutions’ © and explaining the nodal forces of yield-line theory. Historically, exact solutions have only Been obtained in a few cases for isotropic reinforcement, ‘on account of the necessity for the stress-strain relations at yield to obey the theory of the plastic potential’, In attempting to explain nodal forces, Kemp and Morley ‘employed imaginary upper-bound stress fields which, of necessity, abandoned the theory of the plastic potential ‘and permitted yield lines to develop which were governed only. by the required normal moment Ma [given by equation (4)}, but with no restriction on the twisting ‘moment My, {equation (4b)] or on the tangential moment ‘M, {equation (4a)]. Thus it is not possible to use this criterion (the so-called ‘normal moment’ criterion) to ‘obtain acceptable lower-bound or even elastic stress-fields completely, without reference to the principal moments. However, in 1962 Kemp® produced a nearly-exact ower-bound stress field for an orthotropic rectangular slab, which to this day is probably the only worthwhile solution for orthotropic slabs of any shape. The essential feature, easily overlooked, is that Kemp, for the first time, insisted on testing the normal moment in every direction at ‘any point, to avoid yield. Thus in Figure 8 his diagram indicating the sinusoidal variation of Mf, in the corner of the slab against the available Mf," for both top and bottom reinforcement is shown. This treatment is iden- tical with the Mohr's-circle explanation of Hillerborg's recommendations given in the foregoing. Kemp later‘ Figure 7 Skow reinforcement MiREINFORCEMENT 15“ineemTorcement of slabs In accordance with a pre-determined field of moments ge tbat this new tterio for orthotropic slabs some: Conclusions ‘ “pommel obeys the past potential theo tr Tesi oN considerable justtcation for the use of metmality’ of plastic strains, inpeeeers's ules for the simple calculation or i jo! SgRe important conclusions follow from this recent inforcement required fora sty fo restate a6 Gcrelopmient. The fist is that Kemp's new ene for Meorament requires meinen ‘tee, sui Pied orthotropic reinforcements ued tr he stip method ot suitable tension of the oc ie Hillerborg's above rt etd. oF reat numendations for variable reinforcement oe heron of reinforoumneoe seneegniens within strict limit analysis Sesonale oo & the requirements ot levelopment defined the twists, as well as the normal the provision theory. {he curve for available M, [equation (4)} then (4ho/ Besson) = (1M y/dD patent, Acknowledgements Row PY inspection d/d0 m= 24%, in boon SASES SO The original idea, here re-examined and enlarged, is dueto that Dr A. Hillerborg. This paper is published by permission (Madneon tit = (My)isa cian (1S) Ot the veareetor of the Building Research Station son together with Constitutes a part of the Station's research progromnsn (My)eron ta = (Mya ‘citerion =. (16) References ae ane et Sel inthe comer of an onhowosieectnguler 1 ene RSE: E> W. YeldsLine Theory. Cement and Cone Sabha eg eee mr eat Lehtinen 2 eit: gd FONE, LL. YelsLine Anaya or ingn, Mm & Hudson and Chatto & Winduc tod 1967. PHGER: > Am Introduction to Plastcty. Addison. Wesley. Us 4 gQd. RM. Plastic and Flat Design of Slabs and Plats. Thames & Hudson. Londoa, 16ek" SRURERBORG, A. Plastic Theory for the Design o Febfrced Concreie Slabs Pubieation. of he See ot, Eegadnstttion Association of ridge and esse Engineering. Stockholm. 1960, SH RTRESRG: 4 Stintemeioden See Translation, 196, Slaton Cay it Translation No.2, Sip Method Receit Colunns, L~Shaped Pats, ete. este Mab 7 emer elopiients in Yield Tine Theory pence $A Conerete Research, Special Edition. May 106 A - i | HeIRRORG: 4. ‘Reinforcement of Slabs Sed Shell imiclly the new condition expressed by equation (19) " Doigned according ‘Theory of Elsi pel any eae Ve conditions on the layout of yeld tne) Baice APR, 101. Transition by GN Gee search fog soliton for given uniform rebyovcemenn pe mune ath Staton, Watford, 1962 Library Cao trating Solutions using computers may be fee ‘munication No. 1081, i 9 KEMP, K. 0. ‘A Lover-bound Solution to the Collapse TS Ma My i, NoRMaL Mowe bourgois d'information de l'Acier TL KIND, K. 0. ‘The Yield Criterion for Orthotropically pranforeed Concrete ‘Slabs. Internationa Tes f {Mechanical Science. 1965. Voi. 7, pp. 93 to, 12 Woop, n. Hand arMeR, @. 5.1 Fhe Theory of the Strip Method for Designing Stabs. (In press, 9613 16 Concrete February 1968