See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/304452017

Historical Perspective on the Evolution of Two-Way Slab Design

Article · November 2012

CITATIONS READS
5 5,486

1 author:

Mustafa Mahamid
University of Illinois at Chicago
89 PUBLICATIONS 245 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Case Studies View project

Fire Safety Engineering View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Mustafa Mahamid on 08 March 2017.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 SP-287—3

Historical Perspective on the Evolution of Two-Way Slab Design

By Mahmoud Kamara, Mustafa Mahamid, and Lawrence C. Novak

SYNOPSIS: Reinforced concrete two-way slabs have evolved in the past century from simple solid slabs supported
on beams on all sides to a multitude of complex slab systems, including irregular geometries. The demand for longer
spans, advancements in forming and placing systems and the requirement for architectural esthetics, resulted in the
innovation of today’s diverse two-way slab systems. When deciding on a slab system for certain project, designers
now have the advantage of choosing from a wide variety of economical systems to suite the project requirements.
Extensive experimental and analytical studies performed in the past hundred years and field observations of existing
slabs helped researchers and engineers understand the complex behavior of two-way slab systems. With the
increased understanding of the behavior of slabs, methods of analysis; design provisions and Code requirements
have improved with each code cycle. This paper discusses the evolution of the different two-way spanning slab
structural systems and reviews the historical development of the code provisions.

KEYWORDS: Slab Systems, Slab Construction Economics, Historical Overview, Analysis Methods for Slabs

3.1
M. Kamara, M. Mahamid, and L.C. Novak

ACI Member Mahmoud Kamara: PhD is PCA’s senior structural engineer for engineered buildings. He is the
author and coauthor of numerous PCA publications and technical guides. He is an active member of the American
Concrete Institute and the American Society of Civil Engineers and he chairs ACI/ASCE Joint Committee 421
Design of Reinforced Concrete Slabs. He received the ACI Structural Research Award in 1992 and is the recipient
of the Structural Engineers Association of Illinois’ Meritorious Publication Award for 2008.

ACI Member Mustafa Mahamid: PhD, SE, PE, SECB, LEED® AP is structural engineer with Graef-USA and an
Adjunct Professor at University of Illinois at Chicago. He is an active member of the ACI and ASCE and serves on
several technical committees sponsored by ACI and ASCE including ACI 421, 441, 352, 435 ASCE 7 and ASCE –
Structural Connections; he also serves as the secretary of ACI 421Design of Reinforced Concrete Slabs. He authored
and co-authored numerous journal and conference papers.

ACI Fellow Lawrence C. Novak: SE, SECB, LEED® AP is the Director of Engineered Buildings, Portland Cement
Association. Prior to joining the PCA, he was an Associate Partner with Skidmore, Owings & Merrill where he
served as the lead structural engineer for the Burj Dubai Tower, the world’s tallest building. He is an active
member of the ACI and ASCE and serves on several technical committees including ACI 318 Structural
Concrete Building Code. He is the recipient of the SEAOI’ Meritorious Publication Award for 2001 and 2008, the
NCSEA Outstanding Structural Engineering Publication Award for 2001 and the United Kingdom’s Oscar Faber
Award for 2002.

INTRODUCTION

Numerous types of cast-in-place and precast concrete floor systems are available to satisfy virtually any span and
loading condition. Reinforced concrete allows a wide range of structural options and provides cost-effective
solutions for a multitude of situations ranging from residential buildings with moderate live loads and spans of about
25 ft (7.62 m), to commercial buildings with heavier live loads and spans ranging from 40 ft (12.192 m) to 50 ft
(15.24 m) and beyond. Shorter floor-to-floor heights and inherent fire and vibration resistance are only a few of the
many advantages that concrete floor systems offer, resulting in significant reductions in both structural and
nonstructural costs.

REASEARCH SIGNIFICANCE

This Paper represent an overview of the different slab systems used in buildings, the economic impact of
each type and a historical overview of the development of the different slab systems and the analysis and
design methods since the beginning of the 20th century.

HISTORICAL OVER VIEW

Traditionally, reinforced concrete has been associated with slab spans ranging up to 20 ft (6.1 m), the customary
span length in residential and industrial construction. Only occasionally in the past were longer spans framed in
reinforced concrete. In recent decades, however, changes in architectural designs to large, open office spaces have
been followed by changes in column layouts. This architectural trend was influenced by the transition from 20 ft
(6.1 m) offices, limited by reliance on natural light, to larger office spaces designed for artificial light. As a
consequence, longer spans have now become common place in structural systems for office buildings.

Many factors contributed to the evolution of economical long-span concrete slabs in multistory structures among
these factors are:

• Replacement of the working-stress design method with the strength-design method for proportioning
sections. This allowed more slender sections and resulted in a uniform factor of safety throughout the entire
structure is attainable.

3.2
 Recent Development in Reinforced Concrete Slab Analysis, Design, and Serviceability

• A significant increase in the strength of both concrete and reinforcing steel, permitting more slender
sections.

• Development of in formwork large slab areas (entire bays) are formed by a single formwork and transferred
as a unit from story to story. Multiple use of forms permits more complex slab sections, thus improving
slab efficiency without economic penalty.

• Use of post-tensioning for cast-in-place systems. This permits slender sections whose deflections are well
controlled-a particularly important aspect for long spans.

• Implementation of more efficient construction techniques such as use of efficient cranes, construction
elevators, and pumping of concrete.

A solid slab supported on beams on all four sides was the original slab system in reinforced concrete. With this
system, if the ratio of the long to the short side of a slab panel is two or more, load transfer is predominantly by
bending in the short direction and the panel essentially acts as a one-way slab. As the ratio of the sides of a slab
panel approaches unity (square panel) significant load is transferred by bending in both orthogonal directions and
the panel should be treated as a two-way rather than a one-way slab.

As time progressed and technology evolved, the column-line beams gradually began to disappear. The resulting slab
system, consisting of solid slabs supported directly on columns, is called a flat plate. The flat plate is very efficient
and economical and is currently the most widely used slab system for multistory residential and institutional
construction, such as motels, hotels, dormitories, apartment buildings, and hospitals. In comparison to other concrete
floor/roof systems, flat plates can be constructed in less time and with minimum labor costs because the system
utilizes the simplest possible formwork and reinforcing steel layout. The use of flat plate construction also has other
significant economic advantages. For instance, because of the shallow thickness of the floor system, story heights
are automatically reduced resulting in smaller overall heights of exterior walls and utility shafts, shorter floor to
ceiling partitions, reductions in plumbing, sprinkler and duct risers, and a multitude of other items of construction. In
cities like Washington, D.C., where the maximum height of buildings is restricted, the thin flat plate permits the
construction of the maximum number of stories on a given plan area. Flat plates also provide for the most flexibility
in the layout of columns, partitions, small openings, etc. Where job conditions allow direct application of the ceiling
finish to the flat plate soffit, (thus eliminating the need for suspended ceilings), additional cost and construction time
savings are possible as compared to other structural systems.

The principal limitation on the use of flat plate construction is imposed by punching shear around the columns. For
heavy loads or long spans, the flat plate is often thickened locally around the columns creating either drop panels or
shear caps. When a flat plate is equipped with drop panels or shear caps, it is called a flat slab. Also, for reasons of
shear capacity around the columns, the column tops are sometimes flared, creating column capitals. For purposes of
design, a column capital is part of the column, whereas a drop panel is part of the slab.

Waffle slab construction consists of rows of concrete joists at right angles to each other with solid heads at the
columns (to increase punching shear resistance). The joists are commonly formed by using standard square dome
forms. The domes are omitted around the columns to form the solid heads acting as drop panels. Waffle slab
construction allows a considerable reduction in dead load as compared to conventional flat slab construction. Thus,
it is particularly advantageous where the use of long span and/or heavy loads is desired without the use of deepened
drop panels or support beams. The geometric shape formed by the joist ribs is often architecturally desirable.

ECONOMICS

Since the cost of the floor system can be a major part of the structural cost of a building, selecting the most effective
system for a given set of constraints is vital in achieving overall economy. This is especially important for buildings
of low-and medium heights and for buildings subjected to relatively low wind or seismic forces, since the cost of
lateral load resistance in these cases is minimal.

The main components of cast-in-place concrete floor systems are concrete, reinforcement (mild and/or post-
tensioned), and formwork. The cost of the concrete, including placing and finishing, usually accounts for about 30%

3.3
M. Kamara, M. Mahamid, and L.C. Novak

to 35% of the overall cost of the floor system. Where mild reinforcement is utilized, a concrete mix with a
compressive strength of 4,000 psi (2.75 N/m2) yields the least expensive system. Where post-tensioned
reinforcement is used, a concrete compressive strength of at least 5,000 psi (3.45 N/m2) is usually specified to attain,
among other things, more cost-effective anchorages and higher resistance in tension and shear. The two-way slab
systems currently used are presented in Figure 1. The following is a discussion for each system.

Flat Plate System

A flat plate floor system is a two-way concrete slab supported directly on columns with reinforcement in two
orthogonal directions (Figure 1-a). Primarily used in hotels, multi-family residential buildings, and hospitals, this
system has the advantages of simple construction and formwork and a flat ceiling, the latter of which reduces ceiling
finishing costs, since the architectural finish can be applied directly to the underside of the slab. Even more
significant are the cost savings associated with the low-story heights made possible by the shallow floor system.
Smaller vertical runs of cladding, partition walls, mechanical systems, plumbing, and a large number of other items
of construction translate to large cost savings, especially for medium and high-rise buildings. Moreover, where the
total height of a building is restricted, using a flat plate will result in more stories accommodated within the set
height.

Flat plate systems are economically viable for short to medium spans and for moderate live loads. Up to live loads of
about 50 psf (2394 N/m2), the deflection criteria usually govern, and the economical span length range is 15 ft (4.57
m) to 25 ft (7.62 m). For live loads of 100 psf (4788 N/m2) or more, punching shear stresses at the columns and
bending moments in the slab control the design. For these cases, the flat plate is economical for spans between 15 ft
(4.57 m) and 20 ft (6.1 m). A flat plate floor with a live load of 100 psf (4788 N/m2) is only about 8% more
expensive than one with a live load of 50 psf (2394 N/m2), primarily due to the minimum thickness requirements for
deflection. Floor panels with an aspect ratio of 2 would be about 30% more expensive than panels with an aspect
ratio of 1; the thickness of the rectangular panel is governed by the greater span length, resulting in a loss of
economy.

On average, the formwork costs for flat plates represent approximately 46% of the total floor cost. Concrete
materials placing and finishing account for about 36% of the cost. The remaining 18% is the material and placing
cost of the mild reinforcement.

Flat Slab System

The flat slab is similar to the flat plate, but has thickened portions around the columns called drop panels, which are
used primarily to resist punching shear stresses associated with longer spans and/or heavier loads (Figure1-b).
Although drop panels result in somewhat higher formwork costs, a relatively shallow slab system is achieved in
situations where punching shear would otherwise preclude the use of a flat plate. The minimum slab thickness
prescribed in ACI 318-11 for flat slabs is 10% less than that required for flat plates with similar span lengths. In
order to take advantage of this allowable reduction in slab thickness, the drop panels must have the minimum
dimensions given in ACI 13.2.5, which are illustrated in Figure 2. Drop dimensions are also controlled by formwork
considerations.

For a live load of 50 psf (2394 N/m2) or less, flat slabs are economically viable for span lengths between 25 ft (7.62
m) and 30 ft (9.144 m). The economical range is 20 ft (6.1 m) to 25 ft (7.62 m) for a 100 psf (4788 N/m2) live load.
An increase in live load from 50 psf (2394 N/m2) to 100 psf (4788 N/m2) results in only a 4% increase in overall
cost, since the material quantities are usually controlled by deflections. The formwork costs account for
approximately 47% of the total floor system cost. The concrete material, placing, and finishing costs are about 36%,
while the material an placing costs of the mild reinforcement are 17%. In lieu of drop panels, shear studs also
provide a simple and economical way of providing shear resistance around the columns, while preserving the
benefits of a flat ceiling. In addition, they generally do not interfere with the other reinforcement at the column-slab
joint.

3.4
 Recent Development in Reinforced Concrete Slab Analysis, Design, and Serviceability

Two-way Joist System

A two-way joist system, or waffle slab, is comprised of evenly spaced concrete joists spanning in both directions
and a reinforced concrete slab cast integrally with the joists (Figure 1-c). The floor system is formed with domes that
are 30 in. (762 mm), 41 in. (1041.4 mm), and 52 in. (1320.8 mm) wide, result in min 3-ft (0.9144 m), 4-ft (1.22 m),
and 5-ft (1.524 m) modules, respectively.

A solid slab section around the columns is usually provided for shear resistance. Waffle slabs are economically
viable for long spans with heavy loads, and are commonly used in office buildings, warehouses, and industrial
plants.

For design purposes, waffle slabs are considered as flat slabs with the solid heads acting as drop panels. Thus, the
minimum thickness requirements of ACI 9.5.3 must be satisfied. To determine the deflection requirements, the
cross-section of the floor system is transformed into an equivalent section of uniform thickness. This is
accomplished by determining a slab thickness that provides the same moment of inertia as the two-way joist section.

Two-way joists are economical for spans between 40 ft (12.192 m) and 50 ft (15.24 m). Similar to the other floor
systems, increasing the live load from 50 psf (2394 N/m2) to 100 psf (4788 N/m2) results in an overall cost increase
of about 4%.

Approximately 52% of the total floor system cost can be attributed to the formwork. The concrete material, placing,
and finishing costs are about 33%, and the material and placing costs of the mild reinforcement are 15%.

Banded-Beam System

A banded-beam system typically consists of a uniform slab with thickened portions below the slab along the column
lines parallel to the longer spans (Figure 1-d). As a rule, the thickened portions of the slab, commonly referred to as
band-beams, are post-tensioned. The primary purpose of thickening the slab is to provide an increased drape for the
tendons that are banded in this region. Increasing the drape allows larger upward prestressing forces to counteract
the load effects in the long direction. Depending on the span lengths and/or the magnitude of the loads, either non-
prestressed or post-tensioned reinforcement is used in the slab in the direction perpendicular to the bands.

The overall thickness of the band-beam is typically 12 in. (304.8 mm) to 18 in. (457.2 mm), and the width can vary
from 4 ft (1.22 m) to 10 ft (3.048 m). Depending on the spans and loads, the slab is usually 7 in. (177.8 mm) to 9 in.
(228.6 mm) thick. One of the main advantages of this system is that long, unobstructed spans can be achieved with
a minimum structural floor depth. This results in lower floor-to-floor heights and significant cost savings. Also,
vibration is not an issue due to the inherent damping properties of the concrete. Tenant modifications can be easily
accommodated when non-prestressed reinforcement is used in the slab perpendicular to the band-beams.

Banded-beam systems are economically viable for span lengths from 35 ft (10.668 m) to 50 ft (15.24 m) and
beyond. An increase in the live load from 50 psf (2394 N/m2) to 100 psf (4788 N/m2) results in about a 6% increase
in overall cost. Also, post-tensioning the slab perpendicular to the band-beams typically becomes cost-effective for
spans greater than about 30 ft (9.144 m). The formwork accounts for approximately 45% of the total cost, with the
concrete and reinforcement accounting for 30% and 25%, respectively.

DEVELOPMENT IN METHODES OF ANALYAIS AND CODE PROVISIONS

In 1910, the National Association of Cement Users published Standard Building Regulation for use of Reinforced
Concrete. The Standard introduced analysis equation for slabs that are reinforced in both directions and supported on
four sides and fully reinforced over the supports (the reinforcement passing into the adjoining dabs). The analysis
was based on the distribution of the load in two directions based on the equality of deflection for two perpendicular
slab strips. The load distribution was assumed to depend on the slab rectangularity ratio r = L4/(L4+b4), where L and
b are the dimensions of the sides of the slab. A load on beams supporting the slab was assumed to be determined
from a tributary areas defined by 45 degrees lines from the corners of the slab. Following this report extensive work
was performed to evaluate the NACU equation and to investigate the exact distribution of loads in of slab panel

3.5
M. Kamara, M. Mahamid, and L.C. Novak

supported in two directions. Works by J. D. Stassio, M. P. Van Buren, H. M. Westergaard, F. Kramerish and others
paved the way to establish the analysis methods adopted in the current code.

The term flat slab was first used in the Standard Specification No. 23 “Standard Building Regulation for use of
Reinforced Concrete” published by the American Concrete institute in 1920. The flat slab was defined as slabs
where a drop panel is used adjoining the column. Requirements for punching shear were introduced for the first time
based on critical section located at the periphery of the column and limiting allowable stress of 0.1f’c. For moment
distribution along the slab, the slab was divided into column head section and mid section similar to current column
strip and middle strip approach. Equations were introduced to distribute the total static moment among different slab
strips.

The terms column strip and middle strip were first used in 1936 in ACI document “Building Regulations for
Reinforced Concrete” proposed by Committee 501 Standard Building Code. The proposed regulations included
coefficients for moments in each strip as a ratio of the total static moment. Parameters considered in moment
calculations were the drop panel, beams and the slab panel location (interior or edge). Limitations were introduced
for minimum slab thickness and reinforcement detailing.

The first Building Regulations for Reinforced Concrete to be published as ACI 318 document was in 1941 (ACI
318-41). Flat slab analysis and design provisions were covered in Chapter 10 which includes two methods: Design
of Flat Slabs as Continuous Frames and Design Flat Slabs by Moment Coefficients. ACI 318-47 had similar
provisions to the ACI 318-41; these methods are introduced as follows.

1. Design of flat slab as continuous frames

Design of flat slabs as continuous frames where the structure may be considered divided into a number of bents,
each consisting of a row of columns and strips of supported slabs, each strip bounded laterally by the center line of
the panel on either side of the row of columns. The bents are to be considered longitudinally and transversely. A
procedure similar to the current code equivalent frame method was introduced; each bent may be analyzed in its
entirety, or each floor and the roof may be analyzed separately with its adjacent columns above and below. The sum
of the maximum positive and the average maximum negative bending moments on either side of a rectangular panel
shall not be assumed less than

2
1  4A 
Wav L1  av  (1)
10  3L 
Where,
Wav: the average of the total load on two adjacent panels.
L: Span length of slab center to center of columns in the direction where bending is considered.
Aav: Average of the two values of A for the two columns at the ends of a column strip, in the direction of the
spans considered.
A: The distance from the center line of the column, in the direction of any span, to the intersection of a 45-
degree diagonal line from the center of the column to the bottom of the flat slab or drop panel.

2. Design of flat slab by moment coefficients

Slabs meeting certain limitations can be designed using moment coefficients that are determined at the critical
sections, these limitations are related to continuity and dimension. Slab panels designed using this method should
have their length-to-width ration less or equal to 1.33, the slab should be continuous for at least three panels in each
direction, and the successive span lengths is each should not differ by more than twenty percent of the shorter span.
The bend numerical sum of the positive and negative bending moments in the direction of either side of an interior
rectangular panel must not be less than

3.6
 Recent Development in Reinforced Concrete Slab Analysis, Design, and Serviceability

2
 2c 
M o  0.09WL1   (2)
 3L 
Where,
c: Diameter or width of column capital at the underside of the slab or drop panel.
L: Span length of slab center to center of columns in the direction where bending is considered.
W: Total dead and live load uniformly distributed over a single panel area.
Mo: Sum of the positive and the average negative bending moments at the critical design sections of a flat
slab panel.

More details of these design procedures are shown in Chapter of ACI 318-41 and ACI 318-47.

The 1951 ACI Code (ACI 318-51) had similar provisions to the ACI 318-47 Code. The 1956 ACI Code (ACI 318-
56) had similar provisions to the ACI 318-47 Code and ACI 318-51 Codes except that the Design of flat slab as
continuous beam is named Design by Elastic Analysis and the Design of flat slab by moment coefficients is named
Design by Empirical Method.

The 1963 ACI Code (ACI 318-63) had similar provisions to the ACI 318-56 Code Provisions except that the
provisions in the edition of the Code were in Chapter 21 instead of Chapter 10.

The 1971 ACI Code (ACI 318-71) included significant changes from earlier editions of the ACI codes, among these
changes; the most significant change was the unification of the design methods for all slabs with and without beams.
Due to this change all slabs had the same factor of safety, as a result of this, slabs supported on beams became much
stronger than slabs without beams even if they had the same dead and live load and quantities of materials.
The 1971 ACI 318 provisions were a result of a large study that started in 1956 at the University of Illinois at
Urbana- Champaign which was sponsored by the Reinforced Concrete Council with funding from different
governmental agencies. This project included five ¼ scale nine-panel slabs and several smaller slabs. The project
was complemented by additional tests conducted by the Portland Cement Association that included a ¾ scale nine-
panel flat plate. At the same period extensive analytical studies started in which hundreds of slabs were analyzed
using numerical methods. The experimental and analytical methods were completed in 1963. The formulation of
the code developments was done using the preliminary experimental results; Joint Committee ACI-ASCE 421 was
in charge of developing chapter 13 of the 1971 ACI Code (ACI318-71). Chapter 13 of ACI318-71 Code included
two design procedures for slabs: the direct design method and the equivalent frame method.

Direct Design Method

The direct design method is used for slab systems with and without beams loaded only by gravity loads. The slab
systems should be fairly regular and should meet the following restrictions:

1. The slab should have three or more spans in each direction.

2. The adjacent spans should not differ by more than one-third of the longer span.
3. The slab panels should be rectangular and the long span should not be more than twice the longer span.
4. The columns must be near the corner of each panel; the offset of the column line should not be more than 10% of
the span in each direction.
5. The live load should not exceed the twice the dead load. This requirement need not be applied if the live load is
the same in all panels.
6. If the slab is supported by beams, the beams should be in both directions, and the relative stiffnesses of the beams
in both direction should be related in accordance with Equation (13-1) of the ACI 318-71 Code.

The total static design moment for a span shall be determined in a strip bounded laterally by the center line of the
panel on each side of the center line of the supports. The sum of the positive and the average negative bending
moments in each direction shall not be less than:

wl2ln2
Mo  (3)
8

3.7
M. Kamara, M. Mahamid, and L.C. Novak

Where,
Mo: Total static design moment
w: Design load per unit area
l2: length of span transverse to l1, measured center-to-center of supports
l1: length of span in the direction moments are being determined, measured center-to-center of supports

Equivalent Frame Method

The equivalent frame method is a representation of a three-dimensional slab system by series of two-dimensional
frames that are analyzed for either vertical loads or horizontal loads acting in the plan of the frame. In this method,
the moments are determined at the critical design sections of the frame are distributed to the slab sections in
accordance with section 13.3.3 of the 1971 ACI 318 Code. The equivalent frame is comparable to the elastic
method for flat slabs of previous ACI Codes.

The 1977 ACI 318 Code had the same direct design method and equivalent frame method. The 1977 ACI Code
included rearrangements of the sections listed assumptions for the equivalent frame method:
In the equivalent frame method, the structure must be made up of equivalent frames on column lines both the
longitudinal and transverse directions. Each frame must consist of a row of equivalent columns or supports and
slab-beam strips bounded laterally by the center line of the panel on each side of the center line of the columns or
supports. The frames adjacent and parallel to the edge must be bounded by the edge and the center line of the
adjacent panel. Each frame may be analyzed in its entirety for horizontal and vertical loads; and for vertical loads,
each floor and the roof may be analyzed separately.

The 1983 ACI 318 had similar provisions to the 1977 ACI 318 Code. The 1989 ACI 318 Code included similar
provisions for the Direct Design Method and the Equivalent Frame method of the ACI 1983 318 Code. The 1995
and 1999 ACI 318 Codes had the same methods as the 1989 ACI 318 Code.

Starting with the 2002 the ACI 318 Codes maintained the Direct Design Method and the Equivalent Frame Method
as the design procedures for slabs.

Over the years (from 1971 – 2008), the different editions of the ACI 318 Code had certain revisions/additions of and
re-arrangements of the Direct Design Method and the Equivalent Frame Method sections as a result of the continued
studies and research, these revisions, additions and re-arrangements are shown in the different editions of the ACI
318 Code.

Serviceability

Deflection of two-way slab systems is important factor in the design. Deflection calculation for two slab systems is a
complicated process. In addition to the elastic deflection effect of creep need to be considered to estimate the long
term actual deflection. The code requirements to achieve servable deflection went through development through the
years. The ACI 318 ACI Code provides minimum thickness requirements in Section 9.5.3. If these requirements are
met the deflection need not be computed. The Code minimum thickness requirements include the effects of panel
location (interior or exterior), panel shape, span ratios, beams on panel edges, supporting columns and capitals, drop
panels, and the yield strength of the reinforcing steel. Also, the current ACI Code provides limitations for the
reinforcement spacing in Section 13.3. These limitations are the result of extensive laboratory work involving
deformed bars. The studies performed proved that crack width at service loads is proportional to steel stress. The
Code limitations for the reinforcement spacing guard against excessive crack width.

References

1. Investigating of Multiple-Panel Reinforced Concrete Floor Slabs, Design Methods-Their Evolution and
Comparison, M. A. Sozen and C. P. Siess, Research report sponsored by RCRC, ACI Journal, August 1963
2. Building Code Requirements for Structural Concrete (318-11) and Commentary (318R-11), American
Concrete Institute, Farmington Hills, MI, 2011.

3.8
 Recent Development in Reinforced Concrete Slab Analysis, Design, and Serviceability

3. Concrete Floor Systems—Guide to Estimating and Economizing, (SP041) 2nd edition, Portland Cement
Association, Skokie, IL, 2000.
4. Long-Span Concrete Floor Systems (SP339), Portland Cement Association, Skokie, IL, 2000
5. Simplified Design Reinforced Concrete Buildings of Moderate Size and Height (EB104), Portland Cement
Association, Skokie, IL 2004.
6. PCA Notes on ACI 318-08 (EB708), Portland Cement Association, Skokie, IL 2008.
7. Economics of Long-Span Concrete Slab Systems for Office Buildings- A Survey, (SP024), Portland
Cement Association, Skokie, IL 1982

Figure 1-a Flat Plate

Figure 1-b Flat Slab

Figure 1 Two-way Slab Systems

3.9
 M. Kamara, M. Mahamid, and L.C. Novak

Figure 1-c Two-way joist system

Figure 1-d Banded beam system

Figure 1 Continued

Drop panel dimensions per ACI 13.2.5

3.10

View publication stats