ANALYSIS AND DESIGN OF SLABS WITH DIFFERENT END CONDITIONS USING

PROTASTRUCTURE IN COMPARISON WITH MANUAL CALCULATIONS

BY

RICHARD ELLAMISEH WISDOM

ENG1604094

A PROJECT SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS

FOR AWARD OF BACHELOR OF ENGINEERING (B.ENG)

DEGREE IN

DEPARTMENT OF CIVIL/STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING

FACULTY OF ENGINEERING

UNIVERSITY OF BENIN

BENIN CITY

DECEMBER, 2022

1|Page
 CHAPTER ONE

INTRODUCTION

1.1 BACKGROUND TO THE STUDY

Diverse national design codes give engineers guidelines and processes for designing different

structural components like beams, columns, slabs, and footings, among others. To establish

standards for the design and construction of structures, some nations have created their own

codes. Highly skilled structural engineers, construction engineers, academicians, and other

distinguished fellows of various fields worked together to create these codes. On the basis of

recent research and trends, these codes are periodically updated (e.g., BS Code and Euro Code).

The following goals or functions are achieved through codes: By laying forth specific minimal

design requirements, they guarantee structural stability and therefore the safety. By providing

results in the form of tables and graphs, they significantly simplify the duty of the designer. They

make sure that the many designers around the nation follow uniform procedures. They safeguard

the design against structural failures brought on by inappropriate site construction techniques; as

a result, these design regulations have legal sanctity and can be utilized as a foundation for legal

action. (Tabish Izhar et al, 2018).

Many engineers now have access to advanced software, such as finite element (FE) analysis

packages, according to Brooker (2006), who noted that the relative costs of computer hardware

and software have decreased dramatically over the past few years. However, there isn't a single

resource that provides clear instructions on how to use this kind of software for analysis and

design. This manual aims to teach FE methodologies, clarify concrete modeling success factors,

2|Page
and explain how to understand the results. The advantages, some typical pitfalls, and advice on

best practices will also be highlighted.

While stylish, physically solid, and useful buildings are generally expected, many projects are

built that fail to fulfil even these minimal standards. This has led to the frequent occurrence of

building collapse, some of which have cost innocent lives. In order to look into the causes of the

incidence of building collapse in different states, numerous studies have been conducted and

numerous workshops have been held in major Local Governments of the State by various bodies,

government agencies, and institutions. However, none of these studies has been able to show

how each of the determined factors directly leads to building collapse. The structural design of a

building and quality control are two of the many elements that contribute to building collapse.

Engineering firms are realizing the importance of efficient and integrated design management. In

order to accomplish technical and business objectives, information is a crucial element. This

study provides a chance to reframe perceptions of building failure and collapse in Nigeria.

Research, engineering analysis, and industrial practice in the Nigerian construction sector can be

used to achieve this. The reinforced concrete slab is the most practical invention for bearing

lateral loads in structures, and slabs are the most often employed structural components of

modern structural complexes. Slabs can be thought of as relatively thick plates that transfer load

via flexure, shear, and torsion to the supporting walls, beams, and occasionally straight to the

columns. It is challenging to determine if the slab is a structural element or structural system in

and of itself because of its complex behavior. This work considers slabs to be a structural

component. The slabs, floors, and footings make up the majority of the concrete used in a

structure. Slabs are impacted by temperature because they have a relatively large surface area

3|Page
compared to their volume and shrinkage slabs can be thought of as intersecting, closely spaced

grid-beams, which is why they are considered to be quite ambiguous. Since there are numerous

load-flow channels accessible and approximations in analysis and design are compensated by

extensive cracking and substantial deflections, without appreciably compromising the load

carrying capacity, this high degree of indeterminacy is directly beneficial to the designer. Due to

their great degree of uncertainty, slabs are challenging for elastic theories to understand. Rigid

elastic solutions for many practically significant boundary conditions are not available because

slabs are sensitivity support restraints fasten. Finite difference and finite element methods have

been introduced more lately, and this is quite helpful. Through the use of the yield line theory

and strip approaches, techniques have also been developed to determine the collapse loads of

various types of slabs.

Slabs function as deep horizontal girders to withstand wind and earthquake forces that act on a

multi-story structure, in addition to bearing lateral loads that are perpendicular to the horizontal

plane. They play a crucial role in limiting the lateral deformations of a multi-story structure by

acting as very rigid girder diaphragms. It must be kept in mind, nevertheless, that the extremely

huge volume and resulting mass of these slabs are generators of tremendous lateral stresses due

to accelerations caused by earthquakes. (M. W. Bari et al, 2004).

The finite element method is one of the most potent numerical methods that has been created for

engineering analysis. Engineers can now use this method for approximative solutions to difficult

problems with complicated boundary conditions because to the development of high-speed

computers. The finite element approach was developed as a result of the work of Turner et al. in

1956. The phrase "finite element" appears to have been coined by Clough in 1960, who also

presented the method's physical explanation. The creation of the approach in its current form was

4|Page
made possible by the M. W. Bari 7th ICCT 2004. Rising demands for a safe and logical

structural design of a modern airplane. Melosh (1963) acknowledged the method as being

scientifically valid, and it rose to prominence as a legitimate field of study. According to Brooker

(2006), finite element analysis is a powerful computer-based analytical technique that may be

used to solve a variety of one-, two-, and three-dimensional structural problems involving the

usage of ordinary or partial differential equations. For the majority of structural applications, the

displacement FE technique is used, in which displacements are modeled as unknown variables

that must be resolved by a series of algebraic equations.

The primary unknowns in the problem will be the displacements of these nodal points. The most

common method [Zienkiewicz (1977)] assumes a simple displacement function in terms of

displacements at the designated nodal points of elements. The stiffness equations are a set of

linear simultaneous equations that are then derived using the notion of virtual displacements. The

approach has been used in this investigation. In the late 1960s, Ngo and Scordelies applied the

finite element approach for the first time to evaluate reinforced concrete structures (1967).

For the gravity load analysis of a flat slab, both BS 8110 and Eurocode 2 recommend the Direct

Design Method and Equivalent Frame Method. The codes' recommended approaches involve

limit state design, which should take into account established theory, experiment, and experience

as well as the requirement for durable design. The Direct Design Method for flat slab design is

constrained by the requirement for a minimum of three spans in each direction and the

prohibition of staggered column orientation. Consequently, based on the detailed analysis

techniques for constructing the structural slab element, the Equivalent Frame Method was

selected. (Fatimah De'nan et al, 2020).

5|Page
1.2 STATEMENT OF THE PROBLEM

The idea behind the study is to assess the feasibility of comparison between the finite element

method and the code method of design, in order to recommend the right method to adopt for

designers.

1.3 AIMS AND OBJECTIVES

The main aim of this research is to view the difference in design procedure for design of

Reinforced Concrete Slab between finite element design using Prota-Structure software and

manual code design.

The overall aim of this research is to develop improved methods for the assessment of the load-

carrying capacity and response of RC slabs. In order to achieve higher detectable load-carrying

capacity using enhanced assessment methods, the objective can be expanded:

1. To design solid slabs with different end conditions using finite software.

2. To compare finite element prediction and hand calculation prediction of bending moment of

solid slabs with different end conditions.

3. To estimate using FE the effect of undistributed and uneven loads on shear and moments in

different slabs with different end conditions.

4. To compare the results estimated by hand calculation & FE in uneven loadings.

6|Page
1.4 SCOPE OF WORK

1. Finite element design of a Slab.

2. Design of Reinforced Concrete Slab using Prota-Structure.

3. Comparison between BS Code and Euro Code.

4. Design of various kinds of Slabs.

1.5 JUSTIFICATION OF THE STUDY

1. The outcome of this study will assist in the design of slabs with complex geometry where

other methods require conservative assumptions to be made.

2. This research will educate the general public on the differences between finite element

design and code design, in terms of conservation and accuracy.

7|Page
 CHAPTER TWO

LITERATURE REVIEW

Reinforced concrete has long been one of the most commonly used materials in construction. It

has many material advantages, but one of the most important is that it can be cast into a wide

variety of shapes. In fact, reinforced concrete is geometrically limited only by the complexity

and cost of formwork construction. As a result, the behavior of easily designed concrete

structures on the field is often outside the scope of traditional frame analysis programs and

traditional design methods. This applies to the analysis of reinforced concrete systems where

slabs, shear walls, shells, tanks, deep beams and tied beams need to be modeled. The analysis

becomes more complicated when structural elements contain holes or are subject to concentrated

or irregular stresses. The building industry has responded to this challenge with numerous

approximations that attempt to simplify the design of these reinforced concrete components. For

slabs, these methods include direct design, equivalent frame, yield line, and stripe design

techniques, all of which approximate classical plate theory results. These methods are widely

accepted among engineers due to their simplicity. However, these approximation methods have

serious limitations. Both the direct design method and the equivalent frame method are limited to

structures with very regular geometries. Using yield line or striped designs can lead to overly

conservative designs that are less maintainable.

Finite element methods have therefore been the natural choice for modeling and analysis of

reinforced concrete systems for many years. Finite elements have the unique ability to adapt to

nearly any physically realizable geometry. Therefore, the finite element method has emerged as a

suitable tool for the analysis of flat plates. It is particularly suitable for analysis of highly

8|Page
irregular or unusually shaped slabs where direct construction or equivalent frame techniques are

not effective. For such irregular plates, the finite element method is shown to accurately solve

the stress distribution when many approximations and assumptions are made when using flow

line or strip design techniques. Another benefit of the finite element approach to plate design is

that engineers no longer need to develop multiple models to design structures for different types

of motion. By integrating the plate model with a 3D framework, the combined effects of gravity

and lateral loading conditions can be evaluated together. The plate-column interaction is

accurately simulated, giving good results for the connection stiffness approximation. This creates

an integrated analysis and design approach. Since the advent of the finite element method in the

1950s, considerable research effort has been devoted to the application of finite elements to the

analysis of reinforced concrete. Although many achievements have been made in the research

environment, some of these achievements have not been translated into practical applications for

civil engineers in design offices. Much of the analytical work has focused on the application of

nonlinear constitutive modeling of reinforced concrete, but most currently implemented software

packages only offer linear elastic finite element capabilities. The overview below describes the

advancement of finite element-based flat plate design concepts to the current state of the art.

Most of the cited work deals mainly with modeling and analysis of flat plate systems by the

finite element method and does not explicitly deal with reinforcement design. However, the

primary purpose of the finite element model is to determine the forces and moments of the

design, and once these quantities are determined precisely, the resulting design is a function of

the active design code.

9|Page
2.1 SLAB

A slab is a flat, two-dimensional planar structural member of a building that has a very small

thickness compared to other two dimensions. Provides building cover protection or a flat work

surface. Its main function is to transmit loads by bending in one or two directions. (Patel, 2020).

Slabs are concrete structural elements used to create flat horizontal surfaces such as floors, roof

decks, and ceilings. Slabs are generally several inches thick and are supported by beams,

columns, walls, or floors. (Hughes et al, 2001).

Concrete Slab in Construction

A structure consists of several connected structural elements such as walls, beams, columns,

foundations and slabs. Of these, slabs are the most important. It helps other components of the

building to withstand different loads. There are many different types of panels in construction.

(Patel, 2020).

Reinforced Concrete (R.C.) Slabs

Reinforced concrete slabs are slab elements used as roofs, floors, ceilings, and bridge decks.

Structural floor systems can take many forms, including: on-site solid slabs, prefabricated units,

ribbed slabs, etc. Slabs can be installed directly on steel or monolithic concrete beams, walls or

columns. Concrete slabs primarily act as bending elements and their design philosophy is similar

to that of beams. (Patel, 2020). In a typical reinforced concrete building, a concrete slab with a

minimum thickness of 125 mm is filled with mesh-like reinforcing bars to form a solid

reinforced concrete slab. Providing proper reinforcement, slab thickness, and proper detailing to

10 | P a g e
meet final serviceability limit state requirements form the basis of reinforced concrete (RC) slab

design. Other requirements, such as durability and fire resistance, must also be met.

Floor slabs are usually subjected to uniform, partial, line, or point loads in the lateral direction. A

beam resembles a slab in so many ways, but there are fundamental differences in the behavior

and stress distribution of the two members. Beams are generally one-dimensional elements,

while slabs are two-dimensional elements. Due to his two-dimensional nature of the panel, it is

loaded not only with bending and shear forces, but also with torsional moments on all four sides.

(Ubani, 2020).

2.2 TYPES OF SLABS

Concrete slabs can be precast on site and unloaded on site or cast on site using formwork. If

reinforcement is required, the slab can be prestressed or concrete can be poured over the rebar

placed in the formwork.

Monolithic reinforced concrete slabs are inherently statically indeterminate structures. For a slab

with given geometry and support conditions, the distribution of shear, bending and torsional

moments in the slab due to externally applied loads cannot be easily determined. (Hughes et al,

2001).

Slabs come in a variety of forms, including:

01. Conventional Slab

a) One Way Slab

b) Two-Way Slab

11 | P a g e
02. Flat Slab

03. Hollow Core Ribbed Slab

04. Waffle Slab

05. Sunken Slab

06. Inclined Slab

07. Slab with Arches

08. Prestressed Concrete Slab

a) Pre-Tensioned Slab

b) Post-Tensioned Slab

09. Cable Suspended Slab

10. Composite Slab

11. Precast Slab

12. Slab on Grade or Slab on Ground

a) Stiffened Raft Slab

b) Waffle Raft Slab

13. Bubble Deck Slab

14. Hardy Slab

12 | P a g e
15. Waist Slab (Patel, 2020)

Flat Slab

Typically, there are no beams involved; instead, the reinforced slab is supported directly by

columns or caps. This slab can often be produced quickly and with little formwork (Hughes et al,

2001).

Because it is supported by columns, a flat slab is also known as a beamless slab. Here, the

columns get the loads immediately.

The main function of a flat slabs is to provide a smooth ceiling surface that allows for better light

diffusion. They are typically used in car parks, hotels, commercial buildings or anywhere beam

overhangs are undesirable for height or aesthetic reasons. (Patel, 2020).

FIGURE 2.1 – Difference Between Flat Slab & Conventional Slab-Beam System

Conventional Slab

The load is passed to the beams and columns that support this kind of slab (Hughes et al, 2001).

13 | P a g e
It typically leans against walls, beams, or columns. Here, the beam depth is substantial despite

the thin slab thickness. In a typical slab, the weight is transferred from the wall or beam to the

column and then back to the beam. More formwork is needed than with flat slabs. But unlike a

flat slab, there is no requirement to create column caps (Patel, 2020).

A typical slab can be categorized as:

One-way: This is loaded in one direction and supported by beams on two opposing sides.

(Hughes and others, 2001)

A one-way slab is one that relies on beams on opposing sides to support loads in a single

direction. It is referred to as a one-way slab when the ratio of the longest span (l) to the shortest

span (b) is equal to or more than 2 (l/b > 2). This is because the slab only bends in one direction,

namely the direction along its shortest span (Patel, 2020).

FIGURE 2.2 – One-Way Spanning Slab

14 | P a g e
Two-way: All four sides supported by beams that carry the load in both directions (Hughes et al,

2001).

A two-way slab is a plate that is supported by beams on all four sides and bears the load of the

supports in both directions. The ratio of the greatest span (l) to the shortest span (b) in this plate

is less than two (l/b2). These panels have two spans of bendability. In a two-way slab, the stress

is transmitted to the four supporting edges in both directions, and as a result, reinforcement is

provided in both directions. (Patel, 2020).

FIGURE 2.3 – Two-Way Spanning Slab

15 | P a g e
Hollow-core ribbed slab

The voids or cores that run through hollow core ribbed panels give them their name. By serving

as service ducts and undoubtedly lowering the self-weight of the plates, the cores can maximize

structural effectiveness. Due to its capacity to use less material, cores also have advantages in

terms of endurance. (Patel, 2020).

Tubular voids, typically occupying 1/3 to 1/4 of the slab's thickness, run the length of hollow

core concrete slabs, which minimizes the slab's weight and concrete requirements. They can

serve as channels for service as well. This type of floor is useful for office buildings, multi-story

parking garages, etc. since it can cover great distances and is typically longitudinally reinforced

(Hughes et al., 2001).

Waffle Slab

A reinforced concrete waffle is a squared surface made of concrete with deep edges. The grid is

another name for it. Waffle bricks are mostly employed as stunning views and artificial lighting

fixtures in hotels, malls, and restaurants. Since these systems are lightweight and may be utilized

as both ceiling and floor panels, their primary purpose is to sustain bigger loads and span greater

distances than flat panels. To achieve headroom where there is a limit to the depth of beams, they

are also utilized (Patel, 2020).

When wide spans are required without the interference of columns, this style of slab, which has

squares with sharp edges that resemble waffles, is frequently employed. Waffle panels are more

resilient to loads than traditional panels (Hughes et al, 2001).

Based on the design of Pods (PVC Trays), waffle slabs are divided into the following categories:

16 | P a g e
 i. Triangular pod arrangement

ii. Square pod arrangement

Solid Slab Raft

This kind of shallow foundation is often created by a reinforced concrete slab that completely

encloses the footprint of a building. It can be imagined as "floating" on the ground, much like a

raft floating on water, dispersing the weight caused by several columns, walls, etc. over a huge

area. It is frequently employed for light-loaded structures on swelling or soft soils like peat or

clay (Hughes et al, 2001).

Composite Slab

Usually, reinforced concrete is used to create composite slabs, which are then cast onto a floor

made of profiled steel (re-entry or trapezoidal). Concrete is frequently used to make the slabs

because of its bulk and rigidity, which can be exploited to lessen vibration and ground

displacement while still attaining the necessary fire resistance. Steel is frequently utilized as a

subfloor support system due to its exceptional strength-to-weight, stiffness-to-weight, and

handling simplicity.

A piece of flat concrete affixed to a building's columns or walls. It provides a walking surface

but can also operate as a structural component, as in stilted homes. (Hughes et al, 2001).

2.3 FUNCTIONS OF SLABS

1. Provide a Level Surface

2. To support loads

17 | P a g e
3. Provides Sound, Heat and Fire Insulation.

4. Serves as a Privacy Divider for the Inhabitants.

5. The upper slab serves as the floor above.

6. Building Facilities can be placed in the space between the slab and the ceiling. (Haseeb,

2017).

2.4 EFFECTIVE SPAN OF THE RCC SLAB

The shorter of the two should be the slab's effective span.

01. L = Clear span + d (effective depth of slab)

02. L = Center to center distance between the support (Patel, 2020)

2.5 MINIMUM THICKNESS OF CONCRETE SLAB

Thickness of the slab is decided based on span to depth ratio as given in IS 456: 2000.

18 | P a g e
 FIGURE 2.4 – Minimum Thickness of the Slab as Per IS 456: 2000

2.6 DESIGN CONSIDERATIONS IN SLAB:

1. Place the wall where it will be most rigid against lateral loads.

2. Positioning the center of the structure where stiffness is most conducive.

3. Both short- and long-term stresses should be examined for the slab's deflection. Deflection

(d) is typically smaller than L/250 or 40 mm when fully loaded.

4. The distance between the reinforcing bars is the best basis for the crack width estimation.

5. Effective reinforcements will keep fracture widths within the permissible tolerances outlined

in the codes and lower upcoming building repair expenditures.

6. Pay attention to punching shear; use heavier steel or concrete where there is a chance that the

shear force will crack the slab of concrete. Insert reinforcement or shear pins into the slab to

strengthen shear resistance at the margins of walls and columns.

7. Verify the lateral stability (Haseeb, 2017).

2.7 REINFORCEMENT IN REINFORCED CONCRETE SLAB

Common slab reinforcement bar diameters include 8 mm, 10 mm, 12 mm, and 16 mm.

The greatest diameter of the bar that can be used in the slab shall not be greater than 1/8th of the

slab's total depth, or D/8, according to "IS 456:2000" (Plain and Reinforced Concrete - Code of

Practice).

19 | P a g e
The primary bar in a slab should not be spaced apart more than three times the effective depth, or

300 mm, whichever is less. The maximum spacing for distribution bars should be five times the

effective depth, or 450 mm, whichever is less.

2.8 METHODS OF DESIGN OF SLAB

1. The Finite Element Method

2. The Simplified Approach.

3. The Equivalent Frame Method.

2.9 MINIMUM THICKNESS OF REINFORCED CONCRETE SLAB AS PER ACI

(AMERICAN CONCRETE INSTITUTE)

ACI-318 Code 9.5.2.1 establishes minimum thickness values for one-way solid slabs in order to

control deflection, as shown in the table. These values are relevant to slabs not supporting or

attached to partitions or other construction likely to be harmed by excessive deflections as well

20 | P a g e
as slabs under normal loading circumstances.

FIGURE 2.5 – Minimum Thickness of Slab as per ACI – 318 Code 9.5.2.1

2.10 FOR SLABS WITH BEAMS SPANNING BETWEEN SUPPORTS ON ALL SIDES

FIGURE 2.6 – Minimum Thickness of Slab as per ACI – 318 Code 9.5.2.1

21 | P a g e
2.11 THICKNESS OF SLAB AS PER AUSTRALIAN STANDARD

FIGURE 2.7 – Thickness of Slab as per Australian Standard: AS 3600-2001

2.12 THICKNESS OF SLAB AS PER BRITISH STANDARD

FIGURE 2.8 – Thickness of Slab as per British Standard BS 8110 -1

22 | P a g e
2.13 THICKNESS OF SLAB AS PER EUROCODE

FIGURE 2.9 – Thickness of Slab as per Eurocode

2.14 FINITE ELEMENT ANALYSIS (FEA)

Calculations, models, and simulations are used in finite element analysis (FEA) to forecast and

comprehend how an object might react under various physical circumstances. FEA is used by

engineers to identify problems in their design prototypes.

The finite element method (FEM), a digital approach used in FEA, divides an object's structure

into components or elements, then joins the components at nodes. Engineers, developers, and

other designers can use the algebraic equations generated by FEM to do finite element analysis

(Brush, 2006).

The finite element method, also known as FEM, is a numerical mathematical methodology that is

used to simulate physical phenomena in finite element analysis, or FEA. Mechanical engineering

23 | P a g e
and many other disciplines depend on this process. One of the key guiding concepts in the

creation of simulation software is this one. These FEMs can help engineers create fewer physical

prototypes and undertake virtual tests to improve their designs (English, 2019).

Partial differential equations are frequently used to describe the physical experiences of a

product, such as its structure, fluid condition, and heat transmission (PDEs). Computers began

using finite element analysis to solve both linear and nonlinear PDEs. It is crucial to remember

that the FEA only offers a rough solution; it is a numerical method for determining the true

outcome of partial differential equations. By using finite element analysis, all components can be

optimized throughout the design phase while fewer physical prototypes are built and tests are

conducted. Programs like Abaqus, Adina, and Ansys were among the first finite element analysis

applications to be developed in the 1970s. Virtual testing and design optimization are

increasingly frequently used in the product development cycle to enhance product quality and

shorten time to market (Brush, 2006).

Finite Element Modelling

A complex issue space or domain is divided into numerous smaller, simpler pieces (known as

"finite elements") whose behavior can be represented by analogous equations using the

approximation method known as FEM. To model and analyze complex systems in mechanical,

civil, and aeronautical engineering, FEM was first created for analysis engineering. It is founded

on fundamental ideas in mechanics including equilibrium, the principles of thermodynamics, and

Newton's laws of motion, which govern motion and the conservation of mass and energy.

FEM can be used, for instance, to calculate the structural integrity of various bridge components

under various loads, the heat flow through an engine component, or the distribution of

24 | P a g e
electromagnetic radiation from an antenna. How the domain is partitioned is a key component of

FEM. The three-dimensional shape of an object can be determined using computer-aided design

(CAD) software, which can then be readily divided into elements of the necessary size based on

the chosen grid or a three-dimensional grid that specifies the elements. The grid may identify

elements of uniform size and shape (such as a cube or a pyramid) or it may have elements of

various sizes and forms in various regions of the domain, depending on the situation at hand

(Spatial Team, 2020).

What is involved in running FEA?

In essence, FEA techniques are incorporated into simulation tools like the ANSYS software suite

or Autodesk Inventor Nastran. These tools frequently connect with CAD software, making it

simpler for engineers to switch from designing to carrying out intricate structural analyses. A

mesh is initially generated, consisting of millions of tiny elements that make up the overall

shape, in order to run the FEA simulation. It's a technique for breaking down a 3D object into a

collection of mathematical points that may be examined afterwards. Depending on how difficult

or straightforward the simulation is, the density of this mesh can be changed.

Each component or point in the mesh is given a calculation, which is then added together to

create the structure's overall final result. This necessitates some interpolation between the points

because the calculations are made on the mesh rather than the full real object. Often, these

estimates fall within the parameters of what is required. The nodes—or sites in the grid where

the data is mathematically known—tend to cluster together along boundaries or other places

where the design of the item changes.

Thermal analysis of materials or forms can also be done using FEA.

25 | P a g e
For instance, how can the precise temperature at other sites on an object, as a function of time, be

ascertained if you know the temperature at one spot on the object? It is possible to approximate

these spots using FEA in a variety of precision modes. Discrete approximations, square

approximations, and polynomial approximations are all possible. With each of these methods,

accuracy and complexity are achieved (English, 2019).

Three different sorts of issues can be solved using finite element analysis (FEA):

1. Static: For instance, structural analysis of various building or bridge components under a

specific load when there is no motion involved. The designers can determine which parts need to

be stronger by knowing which ones undergo the most stress.

2. Dynamic: Effective when the forces acting on the system change over time, such as when heat

is being transferred via a system component.

3. Modal: Helpful in examining how vibrations affect a system. Various "flavors" of FEA have

been created over time to handle various issue types:

1. Extended FEM: This technique is helpful when examining systems with fractures or other

discontinuities, such as how a system responds to a crack or other flaw in one of its components.

2. Generalized FEM: This method combines more sophisticated "meshless" techniques with

conventional mesh-based FEM.

3. Mixed FEM: Helpful in situations where there is interaction between moving parts.

4. hp-FEM: Used when specific system elements are further separated (in a procedure known as

mesh refinement), and each element's polynomial equations have a distinct order.

26 | P a g e
5. Discontinuous Galerkin FEM: Used to examine systems with flexible or bowed components

(Spatial Team, 2020).

Types of FEA tests

Finite element analysis employs numerous different kinds of testing, including:

1. Structural static analysis: Based on proportions, this FEA type analyzes a scaled model.

According to the test, any structure that holds up well at a smaller size will be able to manage

the same interactions with the larger structure and yield the same outcomes.

2. Thermal engineering analysis: This test investigates temperature variations and how they

impact the design.

3. Modal Analysis: Use of modal analysis to examine how disruptive external vibrations affect

the product's structure because every object vibrates at a specific frequency. By allowing

users to account for vibrations throughout the design process, this type of finite element

analysis helps users produce sturdy end products.

4. Engineering seismic calculations: By understanding how the product responds to different

ground frequencies and vibrations, developers can choose a stable location for the finished

construction.

Principles of FEA

Three governing equations and boundary conditions, such as force and pressure, are the

foundation of finite element analysis.

1. Equations of equilibrium, which determine the equilibrium between conflicting forces or

effects

27 | P a g e
2. Strain-displacement relations, which quantify how the design deforms in response to various

external forces.

3. Constitutive equations, which are connections between two physical variables specific to the

metal or substance in question and forecast how the substance will react to stimuli from the

outside world (English, 2019).

How FEA works

A mesh, made up of millions of tiny elements that together shape a structure, is required for

finite element analysis to carry out the necessary simulations. Every component needs to be

calculated for; the sum of each of these individual results gives the result for the entire structure.

Pre-process, process, and post-process are the three steps that make up this process.

The user is invited to choose the element type and the type of analysis during the pre-processing

stage, such as modal analysis or structural static analysis. The nodes must then be constructed

and the material attributes must be defined. Then, nodes are given connections to create

elements. Applying boundary and load conditions comes last.

The second stage, or process, is carried out by the computer. This stage involves the computer

solving the limit value problem and showing the user the solution.

The user evaluates the output during the post-processing phase and keeps track of elements like:

1. Displacement

2. Temperature

3. Time history

28 | P a g e
4. Stress

5. Strain

6. Natural frequency

Designers who use finite element analysis should be aware of the common user mistakes, such as

selecting the incorrect item type or providing inconsistent units of measurement, as well as the

inherent errors that can be found in this process, such as the finite element method's

simplification of geometry and use of basic integration techniques (English, 2019).

Different Ways Finite Slab has been Modelled

1. Design Based on Linear Analysis

In 1964, Zienkiewicz published one of the earliest publications on the topic of using the finite

element method to analyze reinforced concrete slabs. Zienkiewicz expanded the organic element

method in this work. a generic word for flat plates is offered, along with a typical boundary

condition formulation for these systems. A plate can now be analytically connected to structural

components or an elastic foundation with greater ease thanks to the expansion of linear elastic

isotropic analysis to orthogonal plate systems of various thicknesses presented. There are

numerous instances that show how well the exact solutions and the finite element solutions for

offsets and moments match up. Despite the fact that the finite element method is not specifically

mentioned in the original paper, the initial idea of flat plate design based on finite element

findings was conceived (Wood, 1972). Instead, Wood explains how to design rebars so that they

adhere to a preset bending moment field using "elastic analysis," which can be completed using

software that allows a computer to print out the entire Mx, My, and Mxy torque fields" (Wood,

1972). Wood presents the underlying mathematical formula and makes the case that this

29 | P a g e
method's design economics are better than design methodologies (Amer, 1968). Wood contends

that Armer's formula should be used to express the broader case because it accounts for

orthogonal reinforcement as well as oblique reinforcement. This design method is now referred

to as the Wood and Armer technique as a result of this partnership. One of the first three-

dimensional applications of the reinforced concrete method used the finite element approach to

analyze flat-plate multi-story buildings in order to assess the flexural properties of the flat plate

system (Smith et al., 1976). The nonconforming four-node rectangular displacement-based

element created by Zienkiewicz was employed in the analysis. Different ratios between column

size and span were taken into consideration while analyzing a 6 x 6 span deck with square

column spacing. The findings of the analyses that were conducted demonstrate that flat plates

flex very differently from beams, which limits the use of the equivalent frame technique for

lateral stresses. great. Alternative reinforcement design methods based on a preset field of

bending moments Mx, My, and Mxy have been proposed in the works of (Gupta et al., 1977).

The last method, however derived from different assumptions, produces a formula that is similar

to Wood and Armer's answer while the first way uses the principle of least drag. The three

equivalent moment approach is the second to be used, and it involves reinforcing the plate with

equivalent normal moments calculated in three different directions based on the member's

bending moment field. Although it has little to do with real construction costs, the second way is

claimed to be more cost-effective when compared to the overall design capacity needed. Thus, it

has been confirmed that Wood and Armer's formulations are generally applicable. According to

Gentry's (1986) research, standard flat reinforced concrete slab structures can be designed using

linear elastic finite element analysis in general. Different plate connection and column modeling

techniques have been examined. Designs based on direct design and equivalent framework

30 | P a g e
methods are extensively contrasted with designs based on finite element analysis. Based on node

member forces and member stress data, two finite element designs—a working stress design and

an extreme strength design—were assessed. Gentry has demonstrated that the ultimate strength

strategy is superior to the working stress approach in terms of performance and economics, and

that a design utilizing elemental forces gives outcomes that are more closely connected with the

comparable frame technique than element stress resultants. In that analysis, just a rectangular

column layout and bay spacing were taken into account. The application of linear elastic finite

elements for shear analysis and design of ordinary flat reinforced concrete slab systems was

examined in the work of Saleh (1987). Saleh focused on the finite element analysis of moment

transmission at column-plate connections, shear stress at the column's crucial perimeter, and the

impact of modeling on the application's outcomes. Shear force performance and the outcomes of

the ACI Method exhibit a positive association. The difficulties of using linear elastic finite

element analysis to analyze flat reinforced concrete slabs were thoroughly reviewed by (Hrabok

et al., 1982). They contend that significant obstacles to the widespread use of finite element

design techniques include a lack of understanding of element behavior, a lack of experience, and

a lack of relevant programs. The ACM element [1, 52], the selectively reduced bilinear Mindlin

element [39], the Kirchoff element, a Mindlin heterozygous element [38], and a Kirchoff

Lagrange element [34] are a few well-known linear elastic sheet bending elements that have been

thoroughly reviewed. Because it is simple to calculate the stiffness matrix for non-rectangular

components and because it can account for the impacts of stress singularities within the element,

the mixed stress element has been suggested for use in flat plate design challenges in the future.

(Davies, 1970) evaluated deflections and moments in rectangular slabs subjected to angles using

the finite element method. Both fixed and simple supports have been considered. Multiple

31 | P a g e
loading scenarios were considered, and the analysis's findings were contrasted with tests using

proportional models. Davies showed that there is a good association between analytical and

experimental research and that the evaluated single, fixed support designs frequently limit the

real plate-to-column connections. (French, 1975) performed a modeling technique based on the

use of single panels in the analysis of flat panel structures at many floors subjected to lateral

loads and determined the stiffness of a single panel. The horizontal load distribution between the

columns and the floor drift were both precisely predicted by the technique used. Although it

handles non-rectangular planes and uneven spans with ease, this approach does not reveal how

the slab's moments are distributed. In order to determine approximative plastic design findings,

(Mohr, 1979) successfully applied elastic finite element analysis. In this study, the flat plate is

modeled as a sandwich with a weak core based on the presumption that the concrete core is

broken and the reinforcing is damaged. Instead of developing the elastic section modulus, the

plastic section modulus was determined based on these hypotheses. The investigation revealed a

significant correlation between the finite element results and other well-known plastic design

methods for eight plates with various boundary conditions. A method of computing

reinforcement based on the nodal force of the elements was provided by (Anderheggen, 1994). In

the suggested procedure, concrete and reinforcement were developed based on forces transmitted

by nearby elements acting on the lower element rather than the stresses within the element itself.

acting load kind. Calculating elemental tensions is not necessary. For the purpose of creating a

force-and-moment balance system as the design foundation, the ideas offered are generalizations

of the truss model. When solving problems with closed as well as central plate solutions,

Raisanen and the CASE Working Group on Finite Element Analysis successfully applied linear

finite element analysis (Raisanen, 1987). electrified and pierced This work highlights the

32 | P a g e
significance of boundary conditions and model verification and further provides the right context

for the use of the plate bending element based on Mindlin's formula. Finite element analysis has

been used for many years by researchers to enhance the break-line method. In order to do this,

(Borkowski, 1977) and (Figueiredo et al., 1999) applied rigid-plastic modelling techniques along

with linear and nonlinear optimization approaches to calculate the related collapse load of the flat

plate. In order to arrange the break lines as efficiently as possible, a finite element grid was used

in these procedures. Another crucial area of study in relation to the finite element approach is the

solution to the flat slab on an elastic basis. Studies in this area have been done by both (Huang,

1973) and (Hudson et al, 1968). The outcomes of these approaches correspond favorably with

the conventional thin-plate hypothesis based on Winkler foundations.

Design Based on Non-Linear Analysis

Researchers were eager to start revaluating the wide variety of assumptions made when applying

a linear elastic homogeneous isotropic analysis to reinforced concrete as the finite element

approach gained popularity (Brotchie, 1964). In the late 1960s, the first published papers on

nonlinear finite element analysis of concrete systems appeared. These investigations

concentrated on a number of elements formulation issues, such as the bonding of reinforcement

and crack propagation. Some of the initial studies in this field were done by (Jofriet et al, 1971).

Based on the results of their research, a slab analysis model was developed that can depict the

orientation of cracking with respect to the slab's coordinate system, the rigidity of the cracked

zone when the section has exceeded the cracking moment, and other factors, and steel's stiffness

in respect to the direction of the crack. The deployed program included a step-based analysis

33 | P a g e
with a bilinear moment curvature connection for each constituent to mimic progressive cracking.

In their research, post-yield behavior of the reinforcement was ignored. A modified stiffness

model is the name for this strategy. The implementation of a nonlinear slab model combining the

modified stiffness approach and the layered model approach was proven in the work of Lewinski

et al. in 1991. We took into account non-linear concrete behavior such cracking, rebar elasto-

plastic deformation, and strain-bending coupling. Ten fracture patterns were the basis for the

analysis. The accuracy of the suggested method for determining the in-plane and out-of-plane

impacts of slabs has been demonstrated through a number of test analyses that have been carried

out and compared with experimental test results.

(Bashur et al. (1978) created a non-stratified finite element reinforced concrete model in which

the slab depth can be used to reflect the non-linear fluctuation of the material properties. In this

work, steel is treated uniaxially using a bilinear stress-strain curve, whereas concrete is described

as nonlinear in compression and linear brittle in tension. Anisotropic progressive elastic plates

are used to model flat plates. According to numerical studies, modeling the crack as a continuous

process produces beneficial outcomes, and smaller load increments produce more precise

outcomes following cracking and/or yielding. This model's nonlinear components enable precise

prediction of the flat plate's load-strain behavior.

Many well-liked nonlinear finite element reinforced concrete approaches have been expanded by

(Barzegar et al., 1994) to simulate reinforcement in three-dimensional solid elements. A spatially

integrated reinforcement model independent of node finite element coordinates was proposed in

place of either a smeared or layered approach. In this model, the complete rebar cage is

automatically mapped into a mesh of solid isoparametric concrete elements. This method has

34 | P a g e
shown to be easily adaptable to prestressed systems, where the analysis may be used to infer the

geometry of the cables, in addition to straight rebar. arrangement with partial linear ribs.

The non-linear finite element model of concrete slabs was expanded by (Lourenco et al., 1995)

into a general factor for the design of slabs, slabs, and shells where reinforcement is locally

estimated at each place incorporated. An essential but often-overlooked consideration is the

method's consideration of the concrete's biaxial behavior as well as the various moment branches

connected to all internal forces (Gupta et al, 1977). Experimental test data have been used to

validate the procedure. A novel finite element has recently been introduced (Phuvoravan et al.,

2005) for nonlinear finite element analysis of reinforced concrete floor systems.

In order to model reinforcement, the novel element combines the traditional four-node Kirchoff

shell element with a two-node Euler beam element. To link reinforcement to concrete, rigid

bonding is used. A mesh of three-dimensional solid pieces has previously been reinforced using

discrete reinforcement models. A straightforward, effective, and yet potent method of

representing the system element-by-element is made possible by swapping out the three-

dimensional grid for a two-dimensional grid of modified Kirchoff components. The behavior of

flat reinforced concrete slabs can be predicted more accurately by the presented element than by

the layered shell element generally, and this prediction has been supported by experimental data.

In the area of nonlinear finite elements, there is also study on the expansion of plates with

arbitrary shapes. In order to correct the nonlinear analysis of entirely confined slabs, (Famiyesin

et al., 1998) use a three-dimensional deteriorated reinforced concrete shell model, with the aim

of extending to arbitrary configurations using parametric sensitivity. learn. The 36 previously

35 | P a g e
tested plates were subjected to the acquired parameters, with an accuracy of strength

determination averaging 2% of the experimental data.

Advantages of FEA

1. Finite element analysis enables engineers to investigate the physical response of the system

at any place by safely simulating potentially dangerous or destructive load levels and failure

scenarios. any. Other advantages are:

2. Greater accuracy through examination of any potential physical limitations to the design.

3. Better design because engineers can predict how stress in one component may impact the

material in a related component.

4. Pre-testing while developing Instead of taking days or weeks to build specific prototypes,

virtual prototyping enables designers to test out a variety of designs and materials quickly.

5. FEA software enables developers to produce higher quality products in a quicker design

cycle while utilizing less materials, which boosts productivity and income.

6. By having the capacity to model both the inside and outside of the design, you can gain

understanding of important design aspects. This enables designers to understand how crucial

aspects affect the entire structure as well as the causes of and potential locations for faults.

7. Using optimized models as a general-purpose model to test various failure modes or physical

occurrences

8. The investment cost is reasonably modest and the computation time is quick.

9. Having access to past test results that can be applied to new models through parametric

analysis of validated models.

36 | P a g e
FEA vs. FEM

The numerical method used to conduct finite element analysis is known as the finite element

method.

The finite element approach, when it was first developed, has intriguing modeling possibilities

for a variety of mechanical applications in civil and aerospace engineering. However, the use of

FEM may go beyond combinatorial issues to encompass electromagnetism, fluid structural

interactions, biomechanics, and biomedical engineering.

Common applications of FEA

FEA is frequently used in biomechanical, mechanical, aerospace, automotive, and civil

engineering projects. Designing machinery, analyzing machine and component fatigue,

certifying crane load bearing capacity, building airport bridges, and evaluating brake or rotor

lifetime certifications are particularly crucial.

Finite element analysis is also used to:

1. Increase product safety.

2. Examine the design's potential actual situations.

3. Lower design and production costs

4. Consider and improve alternate models and materials

5. Rapid examination of several core solutions

37 | P a g e
6. Gain credibility and product recognition from nationally and internationally renowned

certifying authorities.

7. Enhanced performance on workstations and desktop computers (English, 2019).

38 | P a g e
 CHAPTER THREE

METHODOLOGY

3.1. DESIGN PROCESS

A thorough knowledge of member interactions, conceptual thinking, familiarity with pertinent

design norms and laws, and expertise are necessary for the entire design process. The building is

first planned to satisfy its functional requirements before being developed with safety and

maintainability in mind. As a result, there are two categories of design for each type of structure:

I. Functional Design: To effectively meet the needs of the users, structures must primarily

serve the primary function for which they are designed. These include correct room and hallway

layouts, good ventilation and acoustics, unhindered views of movie theaters and community

centers, sufficient water supply and sanitary conditions, etc.

II. Structural Design: The science and art of designing with economy and elegance to safely

sustain the design force and adequately fulfil its desired purpose in its intended working

environment is known as structural design, as was previously stated. Its structure is strong

and may be utilized for a long time. includes the following actions:

a. Planning structurally.

b. Calculating the loads.

c. Analysis.

d. Member Design.

e. Drawing, detailing, and schedule creation.

39 | P a g e
 3.2. DESIGN PHILOSOPHIES

The following design philosophies have developed since the early days of reinforced concrete

concepts in the late 1920s for the construction of RCC structures:

a. Working Stress Method (WSM).

b. Ultimate Load Method (ULM).

c. Limit State Method (LSM).

The Limit State Method makes a structure fit for its intended use by guaranteeing safety at

maximum load and serviceability at working load. As a result, the ability of the structure to

fulfill its purpose adequately over the course of its lifetime is taken into account. The following

succinct summary of this method's key characteristics and benefits:

i. Considers the structure's real behavior throughout its load history until collapse.

ii. Adopting the idea of structural fitness for a workpiece to carry out its intended function

during the course of its useful life and defining the "limit state" as the maximum level of

structural fitness.

iii. Rather of using arbitrary standards based on experience and judgment, attempts are made to

statistically establish margins of safety or fitness. The mathematical foundation is taken from

statistical probabilities and classical reliability theory (e.g., reliability of structural

compatibility and probability of reaching critical limit states).

iv. This approach tries to attain the lowest tolerable failure probability while assuming the

likelihood of structural failure.

v. The statistical probability theory serves as the foundation for this strategy.

40 | P a g e
vi. This approach evaluates variables that may be measured using statistical techniques,

characterizing loads and characteristic strengths based on statistical principles of probability,

as well as other abstract variables (variation etc.). The partial safety factor considers

(dimensions, accuracy, load variation, material qualities, etc.) these factors. The limit state

technique checks for serviceability at working loads and incorporates an inherent design for

collapse safety (i.e., for ultimate strength to resist ultimate load).

Therefore, the fundamentals of the ultimate load approach are contained in the first section of the

design. By adding the second component of the check for serviceability, it also fixes the issues

with the ultimate load technique. The working stress approach is used by the material to meet

usability requirements in this second section, which relates to working loads where the structural

behavior is elastic.

Ultimate Limit State

When this limit state is reached, the structure is most likely to fall. It speaks of ultimate strength

and structural stability. With this limit state design, structural stability is guaranteed. One of the

following categories of structural breakdowns exists:

i. When a force is applied to a component that is greater than its strength, causing one or

more components to collapse (see categories "a" and "b" below).

ii. Actual movement of a building as a result of an unbalance between external forces and

resistance actions (see below, categories "c," "d," and "e").

the following circumstances can cause structural failure:

41 | P a g e
 i. One or more components of the structure fail, break, and split as a result of material failure or

the construction of a mechanism due to the development of plastic hinges in one or more

crucial sections.

ii. Buckling.

iii. Sliding

iv. Overturning.

v. Sinking.

By offering a resistance greater than the force operating on it and keeping a safety buffer by a

safety factor, this limit condition is taken into account. Without granting sinking or buckling a

specific status, BS and Euro standards provide a number of safety precautions against

overturning and sliding.

Serviceability Limit State

Limit of Serviceability State describes how a structure performs or behaves under maintenance

stresses and is based on elements that influence the structure's suitability for service. Generally

speaking, they fit into the following groups:

i. Limit State of Deflection.

ii. Limit State of Cracking.

iii. Other limit states such as fire resistance, durability, vibration resistance. e.t.c.

General Arrangement (G.A.)

Engineers can prepare the "general layout" (also known as the "GA") of the building with the use

of architectural drawings. The G.A. specifies exactly where load-bearing components like the

42 | P a g e
paneling of floor slabs, columns, and beams should be placed. Additionally, it has member and

axis labeling based on gridlines. Engineers size the structural members in the preliminary stages

when the G.A. is finished. Deflection requirements based on prior experience or practice

standards may be used to establish this. The issue for the engineer is loading the structure after

determining the dimensions. To choose the proper overall arrangement of G.A. structures, there

are no established guidelines.

3.3. Procedure

1. Determine the depth of Slab (Thickness)

2. Check for the type of Slab. i.e., One Way Spanning Slab or a Two-Way Spanning Slab.

3. Calculate the Loading. i.e., Total Load.

4. Calculate the Imposed Bending Moment.

√
M k
5. Calculate the K Value from: K= 2 and la=0.5+ 0.25−
f cu bd 0.9

6. Calculate the Effective Depth from: Effective Depth = Overall Depth – Cover – ½ Bar Size.

7. Find the Value of Lever Arm (Z) which should be ≤ 0.953. Find area of Steel required.

M 2
8. Calculate area of steel from: As= mm
0.95 f y lad

9. If Needed, Provide Minimum Reinforcement.

10. Check for Deflection.

11. Obtain your Modification Factor.

2 As Required 1
Fs= × fy× × where Bb =1
3 As Approved Bb

12. Re-design if deflection is inadequate by increasing the depth of Slab.

43 | P a g e
3.4. Yield Line Analysis

Yield Line Theory

The ultimate load or factored technique of analysis is the yield line theory. The bending moment

of the structural element at its collapse stage is used to conduct the yield line theory. Ingerslev

made the yield analysis suggestion in 1923. The examination of slabs more clearly illustrates the

importance of the theory.

Yield Lines in Concrete Slabs

As was previously noted, the study is carried out based on the collapse load of the slab in

question. Cracks develop when this load is applied. The yield line theory only takes into account

under reinforced concrete slabs, when this crack formation is observed. The reinforcing begins to

give way as the slabs begin to split. At the location of the greatest bending moments, this

yielding takes place. The development of the yield lines started as the cracks spread. The slab

will finally collapse under an unmanageable load, leaving a maximum yield line that signifies the

achievement of maximum bending moments. The location of proper yield lines is the

fundamental tenet of yield line theory. Two-way slab structures, which are statically

indeterminate, are the subject of a thorough inelastic analysis (yield line analysis). Based on

yield line analysis, the moment coefficients provided in Table 26 of Code IS 456:200 for two-

way rectangular slabs with various conceivable edge circumstances. Yield line analysis is the

equivalent of limit analysis for a one-dimensional member (continuous beam) for a two-

dimensional flexural member (plate or slab).

44 | P a g e
Characteristics of Yield Lines in Reinforced Concrete Slabs

The features of yield lines that occur in reinforced concrete slabs under ultimate stresses are as

follows:

1. Axis of rotation lies along lines of supports and crosses across columns.

2. Yield lines are straight and they terminate at the supporting edges of the slab.

3. They intersect adjacent slab elements' axes of rotation.

Methods of Analysis in Yield Line Theory

A general load pattern and the axis of rotation are located using the rules and presumptions. The

final pattern, the axes of rotation, and the collapse load can be calculated using the methods

listed below. The techniques are:

1. Segmental Equilibrium Method

2. Virtual Work Method

Segmental Equilibrium Method

As implied by the name, numerous segments will result from the slab collapsing under a certain

mechanism. In order to arrive at a set of simultaneous equations, the equilibrium of the segments

is taken into account. We can finalize the yield pattern by using the parameter values provided

by the simultaneous equations' solution. This will also show us how the load capacity and

moment value relate to one another. A free body study is conducted on each part. Under the

45 | P a g e
influence of loads acting along the yield lines and moments, each segment is in an equilibrium

state. Along the supports, there will be responses and shear.

Virtual Work Method

This approach adheres to the virtual work idea. According to the virtual work concept, the yield

moments' tiny internal effort to make a rotation to accommodate the virtual deflection is

equivalent to the small exterior work done by the loads to cause a small virtual deflection. Here,

it is assumed that the slab has rotational axes and a yield pattern. With the moments and loads

acting on the system, it is in balance. An incredibly little increase in load is applied to this

system, causing the structure to deflect even further. The applied loads and the final resistive

moments are related by equating the internal and external works according to the principle.

3.5. The ProtaStructure Software

ProtaStructure is a cutting-edge structural BIM technology that allows structural engineers to

model, analyze, and precisely design buildings. Different plans may be easily evaluated from a

single central model, and automated steel and concrete designs can cut down on design time and

boost project profitability. It uses actual structural members for a quick multi-material building

modeling process, a cutting-edge structural analysis method, dependable design, completely

automated engineering drawings, and fabrication detailing.

The software allows for comprehensive quantity take-off for costing and comparison, and it

automatically generates high-quality drawings and the relevant paperwork using ProtaDetails and

ProtaSteel, which are both included.

46 | P a g e
 FIGURE 3.1 – Launch Environment of ProtaStructure

3.5.1 Some features of ProtaStructure

Modelling

ProtaStructure, which focuses on structural BIM modeling, enables physical RCC, Steel, and

Composite structural members to be defined in one model easily, quickly, and intuitively. It also

instantly creates models using DXF import to extrude gridlines, beams, columns, slabs, and shear

walls directly from structural or architectural drawings or makes use of physical BIM links with

IFCs, Revit, or 3D DXFs to establish complete models with a single click.

Rapid construction of concrete shear walls, beams, columns, slabs, and foundations is made

possible by dynamic inputs.

47 | P a g e
It uses real structural steel components with flexible parametric macros, such as truss, purlin,

brace, girt, and sag rods. The steel columns, beams, and trusses allow for the specification of the

splice site.

FIGURE 3.2 – Steel Trusses and Connections

Establishing foundations at any level requires the creation of rafts, piled rafts, pad bases,

integrated foundations, strip footings, and foundation beams.

3D Finite Element analysis with state-of-the-art analytical model with extensive analysis

options and shell element support for floors and shear walls.

Advanced Seismic Analysis and Design: Advanced seismic analysis and design technology from

ProtaStructure enables engineers to reliably complete projects in compliance with strict

earthquake code restrictions. Hours of design time are saved by these automatic tests for

anomalies, capacity design, and facility rehabilitation.

48 | P a g e
Advanced analysis methods include consideration of seismic basement and isolators, equivalent

static earthquake load, response spectrum analysis, time history, pushover, concurrent cracked

and uncracked analysis, staged construction, P-Delta, temperature difference, and linear elastic

analysis.

Excellent Detailing Capacity: With the use of Smart Rebars, change management, dynamic

quantity tables, and quick engineering macros, ProtaStructure can fully automate RC detailing

into drawing sheets while also allowing manual drafting to continue using retaining walls, stairs,

pools, piling analysis, design, and detailing.

It also performs shop details for fabrication, full steel engineering drawings with thorough part

numbering, automated steel connection design using interlacement, and full steel drawings with

comprehensive part numbering.

Intelligent rigid diaphragms may be automatically found and defined with ProtaStructure's

smart features. Considerations include multiple towers with distinct independent levels, gaps,

stepping, sloping slabs, and apertures. Any floor can be allocated as a flexible diaphragm and

selected mesh.

Ductile member design and detailing: The design of columns, walls, and beams must adhere to

specific ductility specifications. Beam and column critical sections, wall zones, the design

envelope for walls, capacity shear design, and many other things are automatically taken into

account.

Load Transfer Checks: The automatic verification of the transfer of inertia loads between slabs

and lateral load resisting elements, such as shear walls and collector beams. In order to avoid

49 | P a g e
diaphragm failure for flexible diaphragms, in-plane shear, tension, and compression loads are

examined.

Design Codes contained in ProtaStructure: Around the world, structural engineers frequently

use their unique regional methods for both design and detailing. ProtaStructure is aware of this

and offers a broad selection of the most widely used international codes in addition to offering

tailored modification to meet regional needs.

Reinforced concrete design codes offered includes: ACI318-08, ACI318- 11, ACI318- 14,

BS8110-97, CP65, HK2004, TS500-2000, Eurocode 2 Base Code and National Annexes,

United Kingdom, Ireland, Singapore, Malaysia, Poland codes.

Steel Design Codes: AISC360- 10(LRFD, ASD), TSC (LRFD, ASD), BS5950, Eurocode 3 Base

Code and National Annexes, United Kingdom, Ireland, Singapore, Malaysia, Poland codes.

Seismic Analysis and Design Codes: IBC 2018, UBC97, ASNI1726- 19, NSCP 2015, DPT

1301/1302-61, TDY 2007, TBDY 2018, Eurocode 8 Base Code and National Annexes

Singapore, Malaysia, Poland codes.

Loading and Wind Loading Codes: BS6399, TS 498, AASCE 07- 10, MS 1533, DPT 1311-

50, NSCP 2015, Eurocode 1 Base Code and National Annexes United Kingdom,

Ireland, Singapore, Malaysia, Poland, Philippines, Indonesia, Thailand codes.

3.6. Loads and Loading Conditions

50 | P a g e
 Building loads can be categorized as either vertical or horizontal (i.e., lateral) loads depending on

the direction of the structural action or forces that they produce. These descriptions of load

classification are provided:

i. Vertical Loads

ii. Dead Load (gravity)

iii. Live (gravity)

iv. Snow (gravity)

v. Wind (uplift on roof)

vi. Earthquake and wind (overturning)

3.6.1. Vertical Loads

Dead, live, and snow loads are all examples of gravity loads, which move in the same direction

as gravity (that is, downhill or vertically). They are often static in nature and are frequently

regarded as a load that is evenly dispersed or concentrated. In order to allocate loads to structural

elements, such as the dead load (i.e., the weight of the construction) and any applied loads, the

idea of tributary areas is used. This makes calculating the gravity load on a beam or column a

very straightforward exercise (i.e., live load). For instance, the uniform floor load (dead and live)

applied to the area of floor supported by the individual joist would be included in the tributary

gravity load on a floor joist. In order to examine bearing connection forces (also known as

responses), internal stresses (also known as bending stresses, shear stresses, and axial stresses),

and stability of the structural member or system for beam equations, the structural designer then

chooses a standard beam or column model. However, choosing an acceptable analytical model is

51 | P a g e
not an easy task, especially if the structural system deviates greatly from conventional

engineering assumptions. This is especially true for structural systems that make up many

different elements of a building, but to variable degrees.

In reaction to the aerodynamics of wind flowing over and around the building, negative (suction)

pressures acting in an outward direction from the surface of the roof produce wind uplift forces.

The notion of tributary regions and uniformly distributed loads is used to examine how wind

uplift pressures affect a structure or assembly (such as a roof). The primary distinction is that

wind pressures operate perpendicular to the building surface (as opposed to in the direction of

gravity) and that pressures differ depending on the size of the tributary area and where it is

located on the structure, particularly in relation to changes in geometry (e.g., eaves, corners, and

ridges). Despite the dynamic and extreme variability of the wind loads, the design strategy is

based on an equivalent maximum static load (i.e., pressure). As a result of wind and seismic

lateral loads operating on the entire building and its lateral force restraining systems, vertical

forces are also produced through overturning responses.

Additionally, during an earthquake, the ground may accelerate or move vertically, which

heightens the impact of gravity loads. However, it is typically believed that the gravity load

analysis of a light-frame building inherently addresses vertical earthquake stresses.

3.6.2. Lateral Loads

Buildings are subject to main loads that result in lateral forces from wind, seismic ground

motion, floods, and soil. For the entire structure, wind and seismic lateral loads are applicable.

Positive wind pressures on the building's windward face and negative wind pressures on its

leeward face combine to produce lateral winds that push and pull the building in both directions.

52 | P a g e
The dynamic inertial reaction of a structure to cyclic ground movement produces seismic lateral

forces. The amplitude of the ground motion, the mass of the building, and the features of the

dynamic structural reaction all affect the seismic shear (i.e., lateral) load (i.e., dampening,

ductility, natural period of vibration, etc.). In order to account for the inelastic, ductile response

properties of various building systems, a simplified seismic load analysis for homes and other

similar low-rise structures uses equivalent static forces based on fundamental Newtonian

mechanics (F=ma) with somewhat subjective (i.e., experience-based) adjustments.

Flood loads are typically avoided by not building in a flood plain or reduced by raising the

structure on an appropriately built foundation. There are significant lateral strains caused by

flowing floodwaters and static hydraulic pressure. Specific to foundation wall construction, soil

lateral loads act primarily as a "out-of-plane" bending load on the wall. Additionally, lateral

loads generate an overturning moment that needs to be countered by the building's connections

and dead load. In order to prevent components from rotating or the building from toppling,

overturning pressures on connections must be taken into account. Due to the simultaneous

generation of roof uplift and lateral loads by wind, the lateral wind load's overturning tension

forces are made worse by the uplift component of the wind load. Conversely, in lower design

wind conditions and in many earthquake design conditions, the dead load may be sufficient to

counteract the overturning and uplift pressures.

3.6.3. Design Loads for the Residential Building

General

53 | P a g e
Because they specify the type and scope of risks from outside forces that a building must

withstand to offer a tolerable performance (i.e., safety and serviceability during the structure's

useful life), loads are a key factor in the design of any building.

The intended usage (occupancy and function), layout (size and shape), and location of a structure

all have an impact on the projected loads (climate and site conditions). In the end, important

choices like material selection, construction details, and architectural configuration are

influenced by the kind and size of design loads. Since different building codes often treat design

loads differently, it is the designer's responsibility to identify deviations from both local accepted

practice and the applicable code in relation to the design loads described in this guide, even if the

deviations are thought to be technically sound.

Dead Loads:

Dead loads are the permanent building material loads that make up the foundation, roof, floor,

and wall systems, including the claddings, finishes, and fixed appliances. The total weight of all

the building's fixed parts, such as the columns, concrete floors, bricks, roofing materials, etc., is

known as the "dead load." By entering the member's properties, ProtaStructure automatically

assigns the dead load. We have a self-weight option in the load case that uses the material's

attributes, such as density, to generate weights automatically after assigning a dead load.

Imposed Loads

Live loads are generated by a building's use and occupancy. These include the weights brought

on by people living there, furniture, moving objects, storage, building, and maintenance tasks.

Loads are provided in terms of uniform area loads, concentrated loads, and uniform line loads as

54 | P a g e
necessary to fully explain the loading state. In a structural evaluation, the uniform and focused

live loads shouldn't be used simultaneously.

Concentrated loads should only be used on a small area or surface that is appropriate for the

application, and they should be placed or directed to have the greatest load effect under the given

circumstances.

Wind Loads

We can observe that the wind load is present in both the vertical and horizontal loads in the list

of loads. This is due to the fact that wind load causes the roof to be uplifted by exerting a

negative (suction) pressure on its top. Wind causes extremely changeable non-static loads to be

applied to a structure. The fluctuation in pressures at various points on a building is so intricate

that exact design consideration of pressures may become too analytically demanding. Therefore,

by taking into account fundamental static pressure zones on a building that are typical of peak

loads that are expected to be experienced, wind load standards aim to exacerbate the design

problem. However, it's possible that the peak pressures in one zone for a specific wind direction

don't happen concurrently in other zones. The peak pressure for some pressure zones is

influenced by an arrow range of wind direction. Therefore, while calculating risk-consistent wind

loads on buildings, the effect of wind directionality must also be taken into account.

3.6.4. Load Combinations

BS8110 Part 1 load combinations are taken into account. To ensure the necessary safety and

economy in the design of a structure, a careful combination of the loads must be made while

taking into account the likelihood of: a) Their acting together; b) Their disposition in relation to

55 | P a g e
other loads and the severity of stresses; and c) Deformations caused by combinations of the

various loads.

Therefore, the various loads should be mixed in accordance with the requirements of the

applicable design code. The following loading combinations are possible in the lack of such

recommendations; whichever combination has the most adverse effects on the concerned

building, foundation, or structural member may be used (as a general guidance). Additionally, it

should be noted that it is unlikely for maximum wind, earthquake, imposed, and snow loads to

occur at the same time in load combinations.

Since earthquakes and high winds are not likely to occur in this nation or in the area, seismic and

wind load are not taken into account while designing structures. For the sake of this study, only

the dead and the imposed will be taken into account.

3.7. Design Information

Project: 4000mm x 4000mm Slab Design.

Design Engineer: Richard Ellamiseh Wisdom

Supervising Engineer: Engr. (Dr.) Ebuka

Intended Use of Structure: Comparative Analysis.

Design Codes: BS8110 Part 1- 1997 and Part 3

Relevant Textbooks: Reinforced Concrete Design by Victor Oyenuga, Reinforced Concrete

56 | P a g e
Design Manual by Mosley and Bungey.

Design Stresses: Concrete, fcu = 24N/mm2, Steel, fy =410N/mm2, Link, fyv =250N/mm2

Unit Weight of Concrete: 25kN/m2

Fire Resistance: One hour for all elements.

Exposure Conditions: For all elements except Foundation = 25mm, Foundation = 50mm

Loading Conditions: Imposed Loads = 1.5kN/m2

Floor finishes = 1.0kN/m2

Design Data: Ku=0.156, K = m/bdfcu

La = 0.5 + √(0.25 - k/0.9) ≤ 0.95

As = m/0.95fyz

57 | P a g e
 CHAPTER FOUR
ANALYSIS AND RESULTS

4.0. Introduction

The structure is a 4000mm x 40000m Slab of thickness of 150mm, Dimensions of Columns =

250 x 250mm. The methods and computer program described in the chapter before were used to

analyse and design the slab structure. A manual calculation was done to validate the results

obtained from the computerized design. The General Structural Arrangement of the Floor is

shown Below:

FIGURE 4.1 – General Arrangement (Plan) of the Four Different Slabs with Four

Different Boundary Conditions.

58 | P a g e
 FIGURE 4.2 – Full (3D) View of the Four Different Slabs with Four Different Boundary

Conditions.

FIGURE 4.3 – Analytical Model of the Four Different Slabs with Four Different Boundary

Conditions

59 | P a g e
FIGURE 4.4 – Analytical Model of the Four Different Slabs with Four Different Boundary

Conditions with Deflection Behaviour (in Red).

60 | P a g e
4.1. Slab Design

A slab is a planar, flat, two-dimensional structural member with a thin thickness relative to its

other two dimensions. It offers a functional flat surface or a covering shelter in structures. It

primarily bends in one or two directions to transfer transverse loads, which it largely sustains, to

supports. In comparison to a beam or column, a reinforced concrete slab covers comparatively

large surfaces. Therefore, the slab's dead load and concrete volume are both substantial.

Therefore, a slight decrease in slab depth results in a large savings. However, care must be taken

to ensure that severe deflection and cracking do not impair its function (serviceability).

FIGURE 4.5 – Showing Slab Plan View.

61 | P a g e
4.1.1. (Case 1 Boundary Condition) Reinforcement Design Output from Prota Structure

62 | P a g e
63 | P a g e
4.1.2. Manual Calculation of the Slab

A manual calculation for the slab panel will be carried out to validate the results obtained from

ProtaStructure. The manual design is in respect with the provisions of BS8110 Part 1 and

guideline from tested Reinforced Concrete Design textbooks such as one from Oyenuga Victor.

Preliminary Sizing:

Concrete cover, C = 25mm

Overal depth, h = 180mm

Main bar, Ø = 12mm

Effective depth, d = h - C - Ø/2

==> d = 180 - 25 - 12/2

D = 149

Loading:

Concrete own weight: 0. 18 x 25 = = 4.2kN/m2

Finishes = 1.2kN/m2

Partitions = 1.0kN/m2

Total Dead Load, (Gk) = 6.4kN/m2

Live Load – Residential (Qk) = 1.5kN/m2

Ultimate Design Load, w = 1.4Gk + 1.6Qk

⸫ w = 1.4(6.4) + 1.6(1.5)

64 | P a g e
= 8.96 + 2.4

= 11.36kN/m2

Slab 1 (Using Case 1 Boundary Condition):

4000mm

4000mm

Ly/Lx = 4000/4000 = 1

Since Ly/Lx = (1) < 2.0

⸫ Design as a Two – Way Spanning Slab.

B.S. 8110_1; Cl 3.5.3.4

Msx = βsxnlx2

Msy = βsynlx2

B.S. 8110_1; Table 3.14

Interior Panel; Take Ly/Lx = 1

Using Case 1 Boundary Conditions,

Βsx+ = 0.024

Bsx- = 0.031

Bsy+ = 0.024

Bsy- = 0.032

65 | P a g e
Short Span:

Continuous Edge:

B.S. 8110_1; Cl 3.5.3.4

Msx- = βsx-.n.lx2

= 0.031 (4)2 x 11.36

= 5.6 KN.m

B.S. 8110_1: Cl 3.4.4.4

K = Msx+/(fcubd2) < 0.156

= (5.6x106)/(25x1000x1492)

= 0.01 < 0.156

⸫ Design for tension reinforcement only.

B.S. 8110_1; Cl 3.4.4.4

Z = d [0.5 + √ 0.25-K/0.9)] ≤ 0.95d

= d [0.5 + √ (0.25 – 0.01/0.9)]

=0.988d

Since Z (=0.988d) > 0.95d, take 0.95d

Z = 0.95d = 0.95 x 149mm

= 141.55mm

B.S. 8110_1; Cl 3.4.4.4

Ast = M/(0.95FyZ)

66 | P a g e
 = (5.6x106)/ (0.95x410x0.95x149)

= 101.57mm2

i.e Ast Calc = 101.57mm2

B.S. 8110; Table 3.25

Minimum As = 0.13bh/100

Ast Min = (0.13x1000x175)/100

Ast Min = 227.5mm2

⸫ Ast Req = 227.5mm2

Provide Y12 @ 300mm C/C Top

Ast Prov= 377mm2

Short Span:

Mid span:

B.S. 8110_1; Cl 3.5.3.4

Msx+ = βsx+.n.lx2

= 0.024 (4)2 x 11.36

= 4.36 KN.m

B.S. 8110_1: Cl 3.4.4.4

K = Msx+/(fcubd2) < 0.156

= (4.36x106)/(25x1000x1492)

67 | P a g e
 = 0.01 < 0.156

⸫ Design for tension reinforcement only.

B.S. 8110_1; Cl 3.4.4.4

Z = d [0.5 + √ 0.25-K/0.9)] ≤ 0.95d

= d [0.5 + √ (0.25 – 0.01/0.9)]

=0.988d

Since Z (=0.988d) > 0.95d, take 0.95d

Z = 0.95d = 0.95 x 149mm

= 141.55mm

B.S. 8110_1; Cl 3.4.4.4

Ast = M/(0.95FyZ)

= (4.36x106)/ (0.95x410x0.95x149)

= 79mm2

i.e Ast Calc = 101.57mm2

B.S. 8110; Table 3.25

Minimum As = 0.13bh/100

Ast Min = (0.13x1000x175)/100

Ast Min = 227.5mm2

⸫ Ast Req = 227.5mm2

Provide Y12 @ 300mm C/C Bottom.

Ast Prov= 377mm2

68 | P a g e
Long Span:

Continuous Edge:

B.S. 8110_1; Cl 3.5.3.4

Msx- = βsx-.n.lx2

= 0.032 (4)2 x 11.36

= 5.82 KN.m

B.S. 8110_1: Cl 3.4.4.4

K = Msx+/(fcubd2) < 0.156

= (5.82x106)/(25x1000x1492)

= 0.01 < 0.156

⸫ Design for tension reinforcement only.

B.S. 8110_1; Cl 3.4.4.4

Z = d [0.5 + √ 0.25-K/0.9)] ≤ 0.95d

= d [0.5 + √ (0.25 – 0.01/0.9)]

=0.988d

Since Z (=0.988d) > 0.95d, take 0.95d

Z = 0.95d = 0.95 x 149mm

= 141.55mm

B.S. 8110_1; Cl 3.4.4.4

Ast = M/(0.95FyZ)

= (5.82x106)/ (0.95x410x0.95x149)

69 | P a g e
 = 105.5mm2

i.e Ast Calc = 105.5mm2

B.S. 8110; Table 3.25

Minimum As = 0.13bh/100

Ast Min = (0.13x1000x175)/100

Ast Min = 227.5mm2

⸫ Ast Req = 227.5mm2

Provide Y12 @ 300mm C/C Top

Ast Prov= 377mm2

Long Span:

Mid span:

B.S. 8110_1; Cl 3.5.3.4

Msx+ = βsx+.n.lx2

= 0.024 (4)2 x 11.36

= 4.36 KN.m

B.S. 8110_1: Cl 3.4.4.4

K = Msx+/(fcubd2) < 0.156

= (4.36x106)/(25x1000x1492)

= 0.01 < 0.156

⸫ Design for tension reinforcement only.

70 | P a g e
B.S. 8110_1; Cl 3.4.4.4

Z = d [0.5 + √ 0.25-K/0.9)] ≤ 0.95d

= d [0.5 + √ (0.25 – 0.01/0.9)]

=0.988d

Since Z (=0.988d) > 0.95d, take 0.95d

Z = 0.95d = 0.95 x 149mm

= 141.55mm

B.S. 8110_1; Cl 3.4.4.4

Ast = M/(0.95FyZ)

= (4.36x106)/ (0.95x410x0.95x149)

= 79mm2

i.e Ast Calc = 101.57mm2

B.S. 8110; Table 3.25

Minimum As = 0.13bh/100

Ast Min = (0.13x1000x175)/100

Ast Min = 227.5mm2

⸫ Ast Req = 227.5mm2

Provide Y12 @ 300mm C/C Bottom.

Ast Prov= 377mm2

71 | P a g e
4.1.3. (Case 2 Boundary Condition) Reinforcement Design Output from Prota Structure

72 | P a g e
73 | P a g e
Slab 2 (Using Case 2 Boundary Condition):

4000mm

4000mm

Ly/Lx = 4000/4000 = 1

Since Ly/Lx = (1) < 2.0

⸫ Design as a Two – Way Spanning Slab.

B.S. 8110_1; Cl 3.5.3.4

Msx = βsxnlx2

Msy = βsynlx2

B.S. 8110_1; Table 3.14

Interior Panel; Take Ly/Lx = 1

Using Case 2 Boundary Conditions,

Βsx+ = 0.029

Bsx- = 0.039

Bsy+ = 0.028

Bsy- = 0.037

Short Span:

Continuous Edge:

74 | P a g e
B.S. 8110_1; Cl 3.5.3.4

Msx- = βsx-.n.lx2

= 0.039 (4)2 x 11.36

= 7.09 KN.m

B.S. 8110_1: Cl 3.4.4.4

K = Msx+/(fcubd2) < 0.156

= (7.09x106)/(25x1000x1492)

= 0.013 < 0.156

⸫ Design for tension reinforcement only.

B.S. 8110_1; Cl 3.4.4.4

Z = d [0.5 + √ 0.25-K/0.9)] ≤ 0.95d

= d [0.5 + √ (0.25 – 0.01/0.9)]

=0.988d

Since Z (=0.988d) > 0.95d, take 0.95d

Z = 0.95d = 0.95 x 149mm

= 141.55mm

B.S. 8110_1; Cl 3.4.4.4

Ast = M/(0.95FyZ)

= (7.09x106)/ (0.95x410x0.95x149)

= 128.60mm2

i.e Ast Calc = 128.60mm2

75 | P a g e
B.S. 8110; Table 3.25

Minimum As = 0.13bh/100

Ast Min = (0.13x1000x175)/100

Ast Min = 227.5mm2

⸫ Ast Req = 227.5mm2

Provide Y12 @ 300mm C/C Top

Ast Prov= 377mm2

Short Span:

Mid span:

B.S. 8110_1; Cl 3.5.3.4

Msx+ = βsx+.n.lx2

= 0.029 (4)2 x 11.36

= 5.27 KN.m

B.S. 8110_1: Cl 3.4.4.4

K = Msx+/(fcubd2) < 0.156

= (5.27x106)/(25x1000x1492)

= 0.01 < 0.156

⸫ Design for tension reinforcement only.

B.S. 8110_1; Cl 3.4.4.4

76 | P a g e
Z = d [0.5 + √ 0.25-K/0.9)] ≤ 0.95d

= d [0.5 + √ (0.25 – 0.01/0.9)]

=0.988d

Since Z (=0.988d) > 0.95d, take 0.95d

Z = 0.95d = 0.95 x 149mm

= 141.55mm

B.S. 8110_1; Cl 3.4.4.4

Ast = M/(0.95FyZ)

= (5.27x106)/ (0.95x410x0.95x149)

= 95.6mm2

i.e Ast Calc = 95.6mm2

B.S. 8110; Table 3.25

Minimum As = 0.13bh/100

Ast Min = (0.13x1000x175)/100

Ast Min = 227.5mm2

⸫ Ast Req = 227.5mm2

Provide Y12 @ 300mm C/C Bottom.

Ast Prov= 377mm2

Long Span:

Continuous Edge:

77 | P a g e
B.S. 8110_1; Cl 3.5.3.4

Msx- = βsx-.n.lx2

= 0.037(4)2 x 11.36

= 6.73 KN.m

B.S. 8110_1: Cl 3.4.4.4

K = Msx+/(fcubd2) < 0.156

= (5.82x106)/(25x1000x1492)

= 0.01 < 0.156

⸫ Design for tension reinforcement only.

B.S. 8110_1; Cl 3.4.4.4

Z = d [0.5 + √ 0.25-K/0.9)] ≤ 0.95d

= d [0.5 + √ (0.25 – 0.01/0.9)]

=0.988d

Since Z (=0.988d) > 0.95d, take 0.95d

Z = 0.95d = 0.95 x 149mm

= 141.55mm

B.S. 8110_1; Cl 3.4.4.4

Ast = M/(0.95FyZ)

= (6.73x106)/ (0.95x410x0.95x149)

= 122.07mm2

i.e Ast Calc = 122.07mm2

78 | P a g e
B.S. 8110; Table 3.25

Minimum As = 0.13bh/100

Ast Min = (0.13x1000x175)/100

Ast Min = 227.5mm2

⸫ Ast Req = 227.5mm2

Provide Y12 @ 300mm C/C Top

Ast Prov= 377mm2

Long Span:

Mid span:

B.S. 8110_1; Cl 3.5.3.4

Msx+ = βsx+.n.lx2

= 0.028 (4)2 x 11.36

= 5.09 KN.m

B.S. 8110_1: Cl 3.4.4.4

K = Msx+/(fcubd2) < 0.156

= (5.09x106)/(25x1000x1492)

= 0.01 < 0.156

⸫ Design for tension reinforcement only.

B.S. 8110_1; Cl 3.4.4.4

Z = d [0.5 + √ 0.25-K/0.9)] ≤ 0.95d

79 | P a g e
 = d [0.5 + √ (0.25 – 0.01/0.9)]

=0.988d

Since Z (=0.988d) > 0.95d, take 0.95d

Z = 0.95d = 0.95 x 149mm

= 141.55mm

B.S. 8110_1; Cl 3.4.4.4

Ast = M/(0.95FyZ)

= (5.09x106)/ (0.95x410x0.95x149)

= 92.32mm2

i.e Ast Calc = 92.32mm2

B.S. 8110; Table 3.25

Minimum As = 0.13bh/100

Ast Min = (0.13x1000x175)/100

Ast Min = 227.5mm2

⸫ Ast Req = 227.5mm2

Provide Y12 @ 300mm C/C Bottom.

Ast Prov= 377mm2

80 | P a g e
4.1.4. (Case 3 Boundary Condition) Reinforcement Design Output from Prota Structure

81 | P a g e
82 | P a g e
Slab 3 (Using Case 3 Boundary Condition):

4000mm

4000mm

Ly/Lx = 4000/4000 = 1

Since Ly/Lx = (1) < 2.0

⸫ Design as a Two – Way Spanning Slab.

B.S. 8110_1; Cl 3.5.3.4

Msx = βsxnlx2

Msy = βsynlx2

B.S. 8110_1; Table 3.14

Interior Panel; Take Ly/Lx = 1

Using Case 3 Boundary Conditions,

Βsx+ = 0.030

Bsx- = 0.039

Bsy+ = 0.028

Bsy- = 0.037

Short Span:

Continuous Edge:

83 | P a g e
B.S. 8110_1; Cl 3.5.3.4

Msx- = βsx-.n.lx2

= 0.039 (4)2 x 11.36

= 7.09 KN.m

B.S. 8110_1: Cl 3.4.4.4

K = Msx+/(fcubd2) < 0.156

= (7.09x106)/(25x1000x1492)

= 0.013 < 0.156

⸫ Design for tension reinforcement only.

B.S. 8110_1; Cl 3.4.4.4

Z = d [0.5 + √ 0.25-K/0.9)] ≤ 0.95d

= d [0.5 + √ (0.25 – 0.01/0.9)]

=0.988d

Since Z (=0.988d) > 0.95d, take 0.95d

Z = 0.95d = 0.95 x 149mm

= 141.55mm

B.S. 8110_1; Cl 3.4.4.4

Ast = M/(0.95FyZ)

= (7.09x106)/ (0.95x410x0.95x149)

= 128.60mm2

i.e Ast Calc = 128.60mm2

84 | P a g e
B.S. 8110; Table 3.25

Minimum As = 0.13bh/100

Ast Min = (0.13x1000x175)/100

Ast Min = 227.5mm2

⸫ Ast Req = 227.5mm2

Provide Y12 @ 300mm C/C Top

Ast Prov= 377mm2

Short Span:

Mid span:

B.S. 8110_1; Cl 3.5.3.4

Msx+ = βsx+.n.lx2

= 0.030 (4)2 x 11.36

= 5.45 KN.m

B.S. 8110_1: Cl 3.4.4.4

K = Msx+/(fcubd2) < 0.156

= (5.45x106)/(25x1000x1492)

= 0.01 < 0.156

⸫ Design for tension reinforcement only.

B.S. 8110_1; Cl 3.4.4.4

85 | P a g e
Z = d [0.5 + √ 0.25-K/0.9)] ≤ 0.95d

= d [0.5 + √ (0.25 – 0.01/0.9)]

=0.988d

Since Z (=0.988d) > 0.95d, take 0.95d

Z = 0.95d = 0.95 x 149mm

= 141.55mm

B.S. 8110_1; Cl 3.4.4.4

Ast = M/(0.95FyZ)

= (5.45x106)/ (0.95x410x0.95x149)

= 98.85mm2

i.e Ast Calc = 98.85mm2

B.S. 8110; Table 3.25

Minimum As = 0.13bh/100

Ast Min = (0.13x1000x175)/100

Ast Min = 227.5mm2

⸫ Ast Req = 227.5mm2

Provide Y12 @ 300mm C/C Bottom.

Ast Prov= 377mm2

Long Span:

Continuous Edge:

86 | P a g e
B.S. 8110_1; Cl 3.5.3.4

Msx- = βsx-.n.lx2

= 0.037(4)2 x 11.36

= 6.73 KN.m

B.S. 8110_1: Cl 3.4.4.4

K = Msx+/(fcubd2) < 0.156

= (5.82x106)/(25x1000x1492)

= 0.01 < 0.156

⸫ Design for tension reinforcement only.

B.S. 8110_1; Cl 3.4.4.4

Z = d [0.5 + √ 0.25-K/0.9)] ≤ 0.95d

= d [0.5 + √ (0.25 – 0.01/0.9)]

=0.988d

Since Z (=0.988d) > 0.95d, take 0.95d

Z = 0.95d = 0.95 x 149mm

= 141.55mm

B.S. 8110_1; Cl 3.4.4.4

Ast = M/(0.95FyZ)

= (6.73x106)/ (0.95x410x0.95x149)

= 122.07mm2

i.e Ast Calc = 122.07mm2

87 | P a g e
B.S. 8110; Table 3.25

Minimum As = 0.13bh/100

Ast Min = (0.13x1000x175)/100

Ast Min = 227.5mm2

⸫ Ast Req = 227.5mm2

Provide Y12 @ 300mm C/C Top

Ast Prov= 377mm2

Long Span:

Mid span:

B.S. 8110_1; Cl 3.5.3.4

Msx+ = βsx+.n.lx2

= 0.028 (4)2 x 11.36

= 5.09 KN.m

B.S. 8110_1: Cl 3.4.4.4

K = Msx+/(fcubd2) < 0.156

= (5.09x106)/(25x1000x1492)

= 0.01 < 0.156

⸫ Design for tension reinforcement only.

B.S. 8110_1; Cl 3.4.4.4

Z = d [0.5 + √ 0.25-K/0.9)] ≤ 0.95d

88 | P a g e
 = d [0.5 + √ (0.25 – 0.01/0.9)]

=0.988d

Since Z (=0.988d) > 0.95d, take 0.95d

Z = 0.95d = 0.95 x 149mm

= 141.55mm

B.S. 8110_1; Cl 3.4.4.4

Ast = M/(0.95FyZ)

= (5.09x106)/ (0.95x410x0.95x149)

= 92.32mm2

i.e Ast Calc = 92.32mm2

B.S. 8110; Table 3.25

Minimum As = 0.13bh/100

Ast Min = (0.13x1000x175)/100

Ast Min = 227.5mm2

⸫ Ast Req = 227.5mm2

Provide Y12 @ 300mm C/C Bottom.

Ast Prov= 377mm2

89 | P a g e
4.1.5. (Case 4 Boundary Condition) Reinforcement Design Output from Prota Structure

90 | P a g e
91 | P a g e
Slab 4 (Using Case 4 Boundary Condition):

4000mm

4000mm

Ly/Lx = 4000/4000 = 1

Since Ly/Lx = (1) < 2.0

⸫ Design as a Two – Way Spanning Slab.

B.S. 8110_1; Cl 3.5.3.4

Msx = βsxnlx2

Msy = βsynlx2

B.S. 8110_1; Table 3.14

Interior Panel; Take Ly/Lx = 1

Using Case 4 Boundary Conditions,

Βsx+ = 0.036

Bsx- = 0.047

Bsy+ = 0.034

Bsy- = 0.045

Short Span:

Continuous Edge:

92 | P a g e
B.S. 8110_1; Cl 3.5.3.4

Msx- = βsx-.n.lx2

= 0.047 (4)2 x 11.36

= 8.54 KN.m

B.S. 8110_1: Cl 3.4.4.4

K = Msx+/(fcubd2) < 0.156

= (8.54x106)/(25x1000x1492)

= 0.0154 < 0.156

⸫ Design for tension reinforcement only.

B.S. 8110_1; Cl 3.4.4.4

Z = d [0.5 + √ 0.25-K/0.9)] ≤ 0.95d

= d [0.5 + √ (0.25 – 0.0154/0.9)]

=0.983d

Since Z (=0.983d) > 0.95d, take 0.95d

Z = 0.95d = 0.95 x 149mm

= 141.55mm

B.S. 8110_1; Cl 3.4.4.4

Ast = M/(0.95FyZ)

= (8.542x106)/ (0.95x410x0.95x149)

= 154.93mm2

i.e Ast Calc = 154.93mm2

93 | P a g e
B.S. 8110; Table 3.25

Minimum As = 0.13bh/100

Ast Min = (0.13x1000x175)/100

Ast Min = 227.5mm2

⸫ Ast Req = 227.5mm2

Provide Y12 @ 300mm C/C Top

Ast Prov= 377mm2

Short Span:

Mid span:

B.S. 8110_1; Cl 3.5.3.4

Msx+ = βsx+.n.lx2

= 0.036 (4)2 x 11.36

= 6.543 KN.m

B.S. 8110_1: Cl 3.4.4.4

K = Msx+/(fcubd2) < 0.156

= (6.543x106)/(25x1000x1492)

= 0.0118 < 0.156

⸫ Design for tension reinforcement only.

B.S. 8110_1; Cl 3.4.4.4

94 | P a g e
Z = d [0.5 + √ 0.25-K/0.9)] ≤ 0.95d

= d [0.5 + √ (0.25 – 0.0118/0.9)]

=0.986d

Since Z (=0.986d) > 0.95d, take 0.95d

Z = 0.95d = 0.95 x 149mm

= 141.55mm

B.S. 8110_1; Cl 3.4.4.4

Ast = M/(0.95FyZ)

= (6.543x106)/ (0.95x410x0.95x149)

= 118.675mm2

i.e Ast Calc = 118.675mm2

B.S. 8110; Table 3.25

Minimum As = 0.13bh/100

Ast Min = (0.13x1000x175)/100

Ast Min = 227.5mm2

⸫ Ast Req = 227.5mm2

Provide Y12 @ 300mm C/C Bottom.

Ast Prov= 377mm2

Long Span:

Continuous Edge:

95 | P a g e
B.S. 8110_1; Cl 3.5.3.4

Msx- = βsx-.n.lx2

= 0.045(4)2 x 11.36

= 8.18 KN.m

B.S. 8110_1: Cl 3.4.4.4

K = Msx-/(fcubd2) < 0.156

= (8.18x106)/(25x1000x1492)

= 0.0147 < 0.156

⸫ Design for tension reinforcement only.

B.S. 8110_1; Cl 3.4.4.4

Z = d [0.5 + √ 0.25-K/0.9)] ≤ 0.95d

= d [0.5 + √ (0.25 – 0.0147/0.9)]

=0.983d

Since Z (=0.983d) > 0.95d, take 0.95d

Z = 0.95d = 0.95 x 149mm

= 141.55mm

B.S. 8110_1; Cl 3.4.4.4

Ast = M/(0.95FyZ)

= (8.18x106)/ (0.95x410x0.95x149)

= 148.36mm2

i.e Ast Calc = 148.36mm2

96 | P a g e
B.S. 8110; Table 3.25

Minimum As = 0.13bh/100

Ast Min = (0.13x1000x175)/100

Ast Min = 227.5mm2

⸫ Ast Req = 227.5mm2

Provide Y12 @ 300mm C/C Top

Ast Prov= 377mm2

Long Span:

Mid span:

B.S. 8110_1; Cl 3.5.3.4

Msx+ = βsx+.n.lx2

= 0.034 (4)2 x 11.36

= 6.18 KN.m

B.S. 8110_1: Cl 3.4.4.4

K = Msx+/(fcubd2) < 0.156

= (6.18x106)/(25x1000x1492)

= 0.0111 < 0.156

⸫ Design for tension reinforcement only.

B.S. 8110_1; Cl 3.4.4.4

Z = d [0.5 + √ 0.25-K/0.9)] ≤ 0.95d

97 | P a g e
 = d [0.5 + √ (0.25 – 0.011/0.9)]

=0.9875d

Since Z (=0.9875d) > 0.95d, take 0.95d

Z = 0.95d = 0.95 x 149mm

= 141.55mm

B.S. 8110_1; Cl 3.4.4.4

Ast = M/(0.95FyZ)

= (6.18x106)/ (0.95x410x0.95x149)

= 112.09mm2

i.e Ast Calc = 112.09mm2

B.S. 8110; Table 3.25

Minimum As = 0.13bh/100

Ast Min = (0.13x1000x175)/100

Ast Min = 227.5mm2

⸫ Ast Req = 227.5mm2

Provide Y12 @ 300mm C/C Bottom.

Ast Prov= 377mm2

98 | P a g e
4.2. Discussion

In addition to providing the calculation sheet for each of the designed elements, ProtaStructure

also does the details and creates bar bending schedules for additional thought and construction

planning.

When comparing the outputs of the results from my calculations and the ProtaStructure software,

it can be seen that there are variations between the analysis results because the software always

provides higher values for the load calculation, shear, and moment. However, the good news is

that because the ProtaStructure analysis result provides higher value, the design provisions will

be adequate also for the manual calculation. The analysis approach employed by the program,

which must be distinct from the one used in the manual computations, may be the main cause of

these differences.

The coefficient technique from BS8110 – 1, Table 3.5 was utilized to calculate the shear force

and bending moment for the manual computation. because the beam complied with Clause

3.4.3's requirements, but it is unclear which of the more analytical techniques the software used

to analyze statically indeterminate structures—such as the slope deflection method, matrix

method, Hardy-Cross moment distribution, three moment equation method, etc.—was employed.

The tributary area method was used to determine the axial load on each column for the manual

calculation method, but it is unclear how the software determines the axial load on the column.

However, it is certain that the software used the Finite Element Method (FEM) to distribute load

to the adjacent beams and then, ultimately, to the supporting column of interest to determine the

axial load.

99 | P a g e
The discrepancies in the analytical results must be attributed to a few small, difficult-to-identify

human errors.

100 | P a g e
 CHAPTER FIVE

CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATION

5.1. CONCLUSION

This project work has been done to ensure the reliability of ProtaStructure as a structural

designing tool and software. The following conclusion was reached in cases where a number of

members were manually built to compare with the outcomes produced by the software:

i. The program is suitable for structural design because there are no major discrepancies with

manual design.

ii. ProtaStructure is capable of figuring out how much reinforcement is required for every

concrete part.

iii. The software's relationship with AutoCAD is fantastic since it allows for the import of

general arrangement drawings created in AutoCAD and the export of structural detailing

back to AutoCAD.

iv. Working with the program makes analysis and design of the entire structure go more quickly

than when doing so manually, which takes more time.

v. Even a novice user will find the program to be incredibly user-friendly and simple to grasp

and operate. Dynamic parameter inputs and member structural modeling are also supported.

vi. Because the accuracy of the parameters entered determines the accuracy of the findings, care

must be given when using the software to avoid entering incorrect data, which will provide

inaccurate results.

vii. Designing using the design makes work simple and less taxing, particularly when designing

multi-story buildings where several lengthy and repetitive computations are necessary.

101 | P a g e
 As a result, it can be concluded that the software is accurate in the design of RCC structures,

bridging the gap between theoretical and practical understanding of RCC and other structures.

5.2. RECOMMENDATION

Professional designers use software frequently these days to produce design outputs, and because

they have extensive knowledge in the industry, they are able to make wise decisions as a result.

Therefore, it is essential for students and young structural engineers to be proficient in the use of

software to speed up the analysis and design of structures.

However, in order to do this, they also need a solid foundation in the philosophy, principles, and

art of structural design. Consequently, I advise the following:

i. To keep them current with what is available in the outside world and the construction

business, the department's students should be required to use the software as part of their

course work.

ii. Following the manual technique of design, the following semester should contain a course on

ProtaStructure competency. The students will benefit from having the expertise needed for

the field.

iii. The ProtaStructure should be fully implemented in order to reduce the strain of manual

design because it is capable of generating correct results.

iv. Even though the use of software is being promoted, the knowledge of manual design should

never be discounted because it is crucial to understanding the principles and philosophy of

102 | P a g e
 structural design and to exercising better judgment when necessary. After all, structural

engineers are what they are because of their knowledge of manual design.

103 | P a g e
 REFERENCES

1. NB Roles in Construction Projects: Analysis and Terminology, by Hughes, W. and Murdoch,

J. R, published in 2001 by the University of Reading.

2. Functions of Slab and Design of Slab, by Haseeb Jamal, Published in 2017.

3. Design of Reinforced Concrete (R. C.) Slabs, by Ubani Obinna, Published in 2020.

4. Concrete Slab in Construction: Its Functions & Types, by Monalisa Patel, Published in 2020.

5. Finite Element Analysis (FEA), by Kate Brush, Published in 2006.

6. What is Finite Element Analysis and How Does it Work? By Trevor English, Published in

2019.

7. An Introduction to Finite Element Modelling, By Spatial Team, Published in 2020.

8. Zienkiewicz, O. C. and Cheung, Y. K., “The Finite Element Method for Analysis of Elastic

Isotropic and Orthotropic Slabs,” Institution of Civil Engineers - Proceedings, vol. 28, pp.

471–488, August 1964.

9. Wood, R. H., “The Reinforcement of Slabs in Accordance with a Pre-Determined Field of

Moments,” Concrete, vol. 2, pp. 69–76, February 1968.

10. Armer, G. S. T., “Discussion of Reference [72],” Concrete, vol. 2, pp. 319–320, August

1968.

11. Smith, E. T. and Faulkes, K. A., “Flexural Properties of Flat Plate Floors,” Institute of

Engineers, Australia, Civil Engineering Transactions, vol. CE 18, no. 2, pp. 140– 145, 1976.

12. Gupta, A. K. and Sen, S., “Design of Flexural Reinforcement in Concrete Slabs,” ASCE

Journal of the Structural Division, vol. 103, pp. 793–804, April 1977.

13. Gentry, T. R., “The Use of Elastic Finite Elements in the Design of Reinforced Concrete Flat

Plates,” Master’s thesis, Georgia Institute of Technology, 1986.

104 | P a g e
14. Saleh, L. R. R., “Finite Element Analysis of Shear in Reinforced Concrete Flat Plates,”

Master’s thesis, Georgia Institute of Technology, 1987.

15. Hrabok, M. M. and Hrudey, T. M., “Finite Element Analysis in Design of Floor Systems,”

ASCE Journal of the Structural Division, vol. 109, pp. 909–929, April 1982.

16. Davies, J. D., “Analysis of Corner Supported Rectangular Slabs,” The Structural Engineer,

vol. 48, pp. 75–82, February 1970.

17. French, S., Kabaila, A. P., and Pulmano, V. A., “Single Element Panel for Flat Plate

Structures,” ASCE Journal of the Structural Division, vol. 101, pp. 1801–1812, September

1975.

18. Mohr, G. A., “Elastic and Plastic Predictions of Slab Reinforcement Requirements,” Institute

of Engineers, Australia, Civil Engineering Transactions, vol. CE 21, no. 1, pp. 16–20, 1979.

19. Anderheggen, E., e. a., “Reinforced-Concrete Dimensioning Based on Element Nodal

Forces,” ASCE Journal of the Structural Division, vol. 102, pp. 1718–1731, June 1994.

20. Raisanen, David, e. a., “A CASE Project Study of Finite Element Analysis of Concrete Flat

Slabs,” 1987. U.S. Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station - Technical Report ITL-

87-2.

21. Borkowski, A., “Optimization of Slab Reinforcement by Linear Programming,” Computer

Methods in Applied Mechanics and Engineering, vol. 12, pp. 1–17, September 1977.

22. De Figueiredo, A. J. M., da Fonseca, A. M. A., and Azevedo, A. F. M., “Analysis and

Optimization of Reinforced Concrete Slabs,” in COMPUTER AIDED OPTIMUM DESIGN

OF STRUCTURES VI (Hernandez, S., Kassab, A. J., and Brebbia, C. A., eds.),

(Southhampton, Boston, Massachusetts), WIT Press, 1999.

105 | P a g e
23. Hudson, W. R. and Stelzer, C. F., “A Direct Computer Solution for Slabs on Foundation,”

Journal of the American Concrete Institute, vol. 65, pp. 188–201, March 1968.

24. Huang, Y. H. and Wang, S. T., “Finite-Element Analysis of Concrete Slabs and its

Implications for Rigid Pavement Design,” Highway Research Record, no. 466, pp. 55–69,

1973.

25. Brotchie, J. F. and Russell, J. J., “Flat Plate Structures: Elastic-Plastic Analysis,” Journal of

the American Concrete Institute, vol. 61, pp. 959–996, August 1964.

26. Jofriet, J. C. and McNeice, G. M., “Finite Element Analysis of Reinforced Concrete Slabs,”

ASCE Journal of the Structural Division, vol. 97, pp. 785–806, March 1971.

27. Lewinski, P. M. ´ and Wojewodzki, W. ´, “Integrated Finite Element Model for Reinforced

Concrete Slabs,” ASCE Journal of the Structural Division, vol. 117, pp. 1017– 1038, April

1991.

28. Bashur, F. K. and Darwin, D., “Nonlinear Model for Reinforced Concrete Slabs,” ASCE

Journal of the Structural Division, vol. 104, pp. 157–170, January 1978.

29. Barzegar, F. and Maddipudi, S., “Generating Reinforcement in FE Modeling of Concrete

Structures,” ASCE Journal of the Structural Division, vol. 120, pp. 1656– 1662, May 1994.

30. Lourenco, P. B. and Figueiras, J. A., “Solution for the Design of Reinforced Concrete Plates

and Shells,” ASCE Journal of the Structural Division, vol. 121, pp. 815– 823, May 1995.

31. Gupta, A. K. and Sen, S., “Design of Flexural Reinforcement in Concrete Slabs,” ASCE

Journal of the Structural Division, vol. 103, pp. 793–804, April 1977.

32. Phuvoravan, K. and Sotelino, E. D., “Nonlinear Finite Element for Reinforced Concrete

Slabs,” ASCE Journal of the Structural Division, vol. 131, pp. 643–649, April 2005.

106 | P a g e
33. Famiyesin, O. O. R. and Hossain, K. M. A., “Optimized Design Charts for Fully Restrained

Slabs by FE Predictions,” ASCE Journal of the Structural Division, vol. 124, pp. 560–569,

May 1998.

34.

107 | P a g e