Software Verification

PROGRAM NAME: SAFE

REVISION NO.: 0

EXAMPLE 4
Rectangular Plate on Elastic Beams

PROBLEM DESCRIPTION
The plate, shown in Figure 4-1, is analyzed for a uniformly distributed surface
load. The edges along x = 0 and x = a are simply supported, and the other two
edges are supported on elastic beams. It is assumed that the beams resist bending
in vertical planes only and do not resist torsion. A theoretical solution to this
problem is given in Timoshenko and Woinowsky (1959). The deflections of the
plate and the moments and shears of the edge beams are compared with both the
theoretical solution and the results obtained using the Direct Design Method as
outlined in ACI 318-95 for a relative stiffness factor, λ, equal to 4. The relative
stiffness, λ, is the ratio of the bending stiffness of the beam and the bending
stiffness of the slab with a width equal to the length of the beam and is given by
the following equation.

EI b
λ= , where,
aD

Eh 3
D=
(
12 1 − v 2 )
,

Ib is the moment of inertia of the beam about the horizontal axis,

a is the length of the beam, which also is equal to the one side of the
slab, and

h is the thickness of the slab.

To test convergence of results, the problem is analyzed employing three mesh

sizes, as shown in Figure 1-2: 4 × 4, 8 × 8, and 12 × 12. The slab is modeled
using plate elements. The simply supported edges are modeled as line supports
with a large vertical stiffness and zero rotational stiffness. Beam elements, with
no torsional rigidity, are defined on edges y = 0 and y = b. The flexural stiffness
of edge beams is expressed as a λ factor of the plate flexural stiffness.

EXAMPLE 4 - 1
Software Verification
PROGRAM NAME: SAFE
REVISION NO.: 0

The subdivision of the plate into column and middle strips and also the definition
of tributary loaded areas for shear calculations comply with ACI 318-95
provisions and shown in Figure 4-2. A load factor of unity is used and the self
weight of the plate is not included in the analysis.

Figure 4-1 Rectangular Plate on Elastic Beams

EXAMPLE 4 - 2
 Software Verification
PROGRAM NAME: SAFE
REVISION NO.: 0

Column Strip

120"

Edge Beam
120" MIddle Strip 1 = 240"
Plate

120"

Column Strip

Definition of Strips

a = 360"
Edge Beam

b = 240"

Tributary Loaded Area for Shear on Edge Beams

Figure 4-2 Definition of Slab Strips and Tributary Areas for Shear on Edge Beams

EXAMPLE 4 - 3
Software Verification
PROGRAM NAME: SAFE
REVISION NO.: 0

GEOMETRY, PROPERTIES AND LOADING

Plate size a×b = 360" × 240"
Plate thickness T = 8 inches
Modulus of elasticity E = 3000 ksi
Poisson's ration v = 0.3
Beam moment of inertia Ib = 4
Relative stiffness parameter λ = 4

Load Case: q = 100 psf (Uniform load)

TECHNICAL FEATURES OF SAFE TESTED

 Comparisons of deflection with benchmark solution.

RESULTS COMPARISON
Table 4-1 shows monotonic convergence of SAFE deflections for λ = 4 to the
theoretical values with successive mesh refinement. Table 4-2 shows the
variation of bending moment in the edge beam along its length for λ = 4. The
theoretical solution and the ACI approximation using the Direct Design Method
also are shown.

The value of λ is analogous to the ACI ratio α1l2 / l1 (refer to Sections 13.6.4.4
and 13.6.5.1 of ACI 318-95). The correlation between the numerical results from
SAFE and the theoretical results is excellent. For design purposes, the ACI
approximation (Direct Design Method) compares well with the theory. For the
Direct Design Method, the moments are obtained at the grid points. In obtaining
SAFE moments, averaging was performed at the grid points.

In obtaining the ACI moments, the following quantities were computed:

α1 = EcbIb/EcsIs = 6.59375,
l2/l1 = 240/360 = 0.667,
α1l2/l1 = 4.3958,
βt = 0,
M0 = 2700 k-in.

From ACI section 13.6.4.4 for l2 / l1 = 0.667 and α1l2 / l1 = 4.3958, it is determined
that the column strip supports 85% of the total positive moment. The beam and
slab do not carry any negative moment about the Y-axis because of the simply
supported boundary conditions at x = 0 and x = a.

EXAMPLE 4 - 4
 Software Verification
PROGRAM NAME: SAFE
REVISION NO.: 0

From ACI section 13.6.5.1 for α1l2 / l1 = 4.3958, it is determined that the beam
carries 85% of the total column strip moment. Since one beam supports only one-
half of the column strip, the maximum beam positive moment is as follows
Mpositivebeam = 0.85 × 0.85 × 0.5 × M0
= 0.36125 × 2700
= 975.375 k-in
The beam moments at other locations are obtained assuming a parabolic variation
along the beam length.

Table 4-3 shows the variation of shear in edge beams for λ = 4. The agreement is
good considering that the SAFE element considers shear strains and the
theoretical solution does not. The ACI values are calculated based on the
definition of loaded tributary areas given in Section 13.6.8.1 of ACI 318-95. The
shear forces were obtained at the middle of the grid points. In obtaining SAFE
shear, no averaging was required for the shear forces.

Table 4-1 Comparison of Displacements

Thin Plate Formulation

Location SAFE Displacement (in) Theoretical

Displacement
X (in) Y (in) 4×4 Mesh 8×8 Mesh 12×12 Mesh (in)

180 120 0.1812 0.1848 0.1854 0.18572

180 60 0.1481 0.1523 0.1530 0.15349

180 0 0.0675 0.0722 0.0730 0.07365

Thick Plate Formulation

Location SAFE Displacement (in) Theoretical

Displacement
X (in) Y (in) 4×4 Mesh 8×8 Mesh 12×12 Mesh (in)

180 120 0.1792 0.1856 0.1862 0.18572

180 60 0.1467 0.1529 0.1536 0.15349

180 0 0.0677 0.0721 0.0730 0.07365

EXAMPLE 4 - 5
Software Verification
PROGRAM NAME: SAFE
REVISION NO.: 0

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

Thin Plate Formulation
Location Edge Beam Moment (k-in)

Y (in) X (in) 4×4 Mesh 8×8 Mesh 12×12 Mesh ACI Theoretical

0 0.571 0.12 0.05 0 0

30 ― 313.0 ― 298.031 313.4984

0, 240 60 590.8 591.4 591.5 541.875 591.6774

120 ― 984.9 ― 867.000 984.7026

180 1120.9 1120.8 1120.4 975.375 1120.1518

Thick Plate Formulation

Location Edge Beam Moment (k-in)

Y (in) X (in) 4×4 Mesh 8×8 Mesh 12×12 Mesh ACI Theoretical

0 5.3 31.5 25.2 0 0

30 ― 309.2 ― 298.031 313.4984

0, 240 60 591.0 586.8 592.1 541.875 591.6774

120 ― 981.3 ― 867.000 984.7026

180 1120.2 1116.4 1118.4 975.375 1120.1518

EXAMPLE 4 - 6
 Software Verification
PROGRAM NAME: SAFE
REVISION NO.: 0

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

Thin Plate Formulation
Location Edge Beam Shear (k)

Y (in) X (in) 4×4 Mesh 8×8 Mesh 12×12 Mesh ACI Theoretical

10 ― ― 10.58 9.9653 10.6122

15 ― 10.4 ― 9.9219 10.4954

30 9.80 ― 9.96 9.6875 9.9837

―
45 9.26 ― 9.2969 9.2937
― ―
50 9.02 9.1319 9.0336
0, 240
― ―
80 7.23 7.7778 7.2458

90 4.40 6.55 ― 7.1875 6.5854

120 ― ― 4.48 5.0000 4.4821

150 ― 2.26 ― 2.5000 2.2656

160 ― ― 1.51 1.6667 1.5133

EXAMPLE 4 - 7
Software Verification
PROGRAM NAME: SAFE
REVISION NO.: 0

Thick Plate Formulation

Location Edge Beam Shear (k)

Y (in) X (in) 4×4 Mesh 8×8 Mesh 12×12 Mesh ACI Theoretical

10 ― ― 8.04 9.9653 10.6122

15 ― 8.31 ― 9.9219 10.4954

30 9.59 ― 7.91 9.6875 9.9837

―
45 7.57 ― 9.2969 9.2937
― ―
50 7.43 9.1319 9.0336
0, 240
― ―
80 6.39 7.7778 7.2458

90 4.32 6.03 ― 7.1875 6.5854

120 ― ― 4.06 5.0000 4.4821

150 ― 2.08 ― 2.5000 2.2656

160 ― ― 1.38 1.6667 1.5133

COMPUTER FILE:
S04a-Thin.FDB, S04b-Thin.FDB, S04c-Thin.FDB, S04a-Thick.FDB, S04b-
Thick.FDB, and S04c-Thick.FDB

CONCLUSION
The SAFE results show an acceptable comparison with the independent results.

EXAMPLE 4 - 8