Software Verification

PROGRAM NAME: SAFE

REVISION NO.: 0

EXAMPLE 5
Infinite Flat Plate on Equidistant Columns

PROBLEM DESCRIPTION
The plate, shown in Figure 5-1, is analyzed for uniform load. The overall
dimensions of the plate are significantly larger than the column spacing (a and b
in Figure 5-1). Analysis is limited to a single interior panel because it can be
assumed that deformation is identical for all panels in the plate. An analytical
solution, based on the foregoing assumption, is given in Timoshenko and
Woinowsky (1959).

Three mesh sizes, as shown in Figure 1-2, are used to test the convergence
property of the model: 4 × 4, 8 × 8, and 12 × 12. The model consists of a panel of
uniform thickness supported at four corners point. The effect of column support
within a finite area is not modeled. Due to symmetry, the slope of the deflection
surface in the direction normal to the boundaries is zero along the edges and the
shearing force is zero at all points along the edges of the panel, except at the
corners. To model this boundary condition, line supports with a large rotational
stiffness about the support line are defined on all four edges. Additional point
supports are provided at the corners. The panel is modeled using plate elements
in SAFE. In doing so, the effect of shear distortion is included.

To compare the effects of corner stiffness at the column/slab intersection, a

duplicate model of the 12 x 12 mesh was created where this region is
approximately modeled. This was done by using a special stiff area section in the
region concerned, shown as the 40" × 40" area in Figure 5-2, of which a 20” x
20” portion lies within the modeled region. To obtain design moments, the panel
is divided into three strips both ways, two column strips and one middle strip,
based on the ACI 318-95 definition of design strip widths, as shown in Figure 5-
2 and in Figure 5-3. A load factor of unity is used. The self weight of the panel is
not included in the analysis.

Tables 5-1 through 5-3 show the comparison of the numerically computed
deflection, local moments, and local shears obtained from SAFE with their
theoretical counterparts.

Table 5-4 shows the comparison of the average design strip moments obtained
from SAFE with those obtained from the theoretical method and two ACI
alternative methods: the Direct Design Method (DDM) and the Equivalent Frame
Method (EFM).

EXAMPLE 5 - 1
Software Verification
PROGRAM NAME: SAFE
REVISION NO.: 0

Floor Plan

a = 30'
y
Point Support at
Corner
b = 20'

Point Support at
Corner

A Typical Bay
Point Support at
Point Support at
Corner
Corner

Figure 5-1 Infinite Plate on Equidistant Columns

and Detail of Panel used in Analysis

Material Properties and Load

Modulus of Elasticity = 3000 ksi
Poisson's Ratio = 0.3
Uniform Load = 100 psf

EXAMPLE 5 - 2
 Software Verification
PROGRAM NAME: SAFE
REVISION NO.: 0

360"

40" x 40"
Corner Stiffening
Column Strip

120"

120" 240"
Middle Strip

120"

Column Strip

Typical Interior Panel

−M
M0 = 2700 k-in
i = 1800 k-in Slab Corners Non-Rigid

+M = 900 k-in
m

−M
M0 = 2133 k-in
i = 1422 k-in Slab Corners Rigid
+M = 711 k-in
m

Figure 5-2 Definition of X-Strips

(Moment values obtained by EFM)

EXAMPLE 5 - 3
Software Verification
PROGRAM NAME: SAFE
REVISION NO.: 0

40" x 40"
Corner Stiffening
Column Strip

120"

Middle Strip

240" 360"

120"

Column Strip
240"

−M M0 = 1800 k-in
i = 1200 k-in Slab Corners Non-Rigid

+M = 600 k-in
m

−M = 833 k-in M0 = 1250 k-in

i Slab Corners Rigid
+M = 417 k-in
m

Figure 5-3 Definition of Y-Strips

(Moment values obtained by EFM)

EXAMPLE 5 - 4
 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

Load Case: q = 100 psf (Uniform load)

TECHNICAL FEATURES OF SAFE TESTED

 Comparisons of deflection with benchmark solution.

RESULTS COMPARISON
Table 5-1 shows the comparison of the numerical and the theoretical deflections.
The data indicates monotonic convergence of the numerical solution to the
theoretical values with successive mesh refinement.

The SAFE results for local moment and shear also compare closely with the
theoretical values, as shown in Table 5-2 and Table 5-3, respectively.

In Table 5-4 average strip moments obtained from SAFE are compared with both
the ACI and the theoretical values. EFM is used to calculate the interior span
moments as depicted in Figure 5-2 and Figure 5-3. The agreement between the
SAFE and the theoretical solution is excellent. ACI approximations, employing
either DDM or EFM, however, deviate from the theory. It should be noted that,
regardless of the method used, the absolute sum of positive and negative
moments in each direction equals the total static moment in that direction.

Table 5-5 shows the effect of corner rigidity. Comparisons with the EFM method
are shown.

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

Table 5-1 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)

0 0 0.263 0.278 0.280 0.280

0 60 0.264 0.274 0.275 0.275

0 120 0.266 0.271 0.271 0.270

120 0 0.150 0.153 0.153 0.152

120 120 0.101 0.101 0.100 0.098

180 0 0.114 0.108 0.106 0.104

180 60 0.072 0.069 0.067 0.065

180 120 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000

Thick Plate Formulation

Location SAFE Displacement (in) Theoretical

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

0 0 0.249 0.279 0.284 0.280

0 60 0.252 0.276 0.280 0.275

0 120 0.252 0.273 0.275 0.270

120 0 0.139 0.155 0.157 0.152

120 120 0.082 0.101 0.103 0.098

180 0 0.094 0.109 0.110 0.104

180 60 0.052 0.069 0.070 0.065

180 120 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000

EXAMPLE 5 - 6
 Software Verification
PROGRAM NAME: SAFE
REVISION NO.: 0

Table 5-2 Comparison of Local Moments

Thin Plate Formulation

Moments (k-in/in)

Location M 11 M 22

SAFE SAFE
X (in) Y (in) (8×8) Theoretical (8×8) Theoretical

30 15 3.093 3.266 1.398 1.470

30 105 3.473 3.610 0.582 0.580

165 15 −2.948 −3.142 1.887 1.904

165 105 −9.758 −9.804 −7.961 −7.638

Thick Plate Formulation

Moments (k-in/in)

Location M 11 M 22

SAFE SAFE
X (in) Y (in) (8×8) Theoretical (8×8) Theoretical

30 15 3.115 3.266 1.394 1.470

30 105 3.446 3.610 0.583 0.580

165 15 −2.977 −3.142 1.846 1.904

165 105 −9.686 −9.804 −7.894 −7.638

EXAMPLE 5 - 7
Software Verification
PROGRAM NAME: SAFE
REVISION NO.: 0

Table 5-3 Comparison of Local Shears

Thin Plate Formulation

Shears (×10−3 k)

Location V 13 V 23

SAFE SAFE
X (in) Y (in) (8×8) Theoretical (8×8) Theoretical

30 45 20.9 17.3 8.2 2.2

30 105 21.2 23.5 3.1 5.4

165 15 17.3 14.7 19.1 23.8

165 105 357.1 329.0 350.4 320.0

Thick Plate Formulation

Shears (×10−3 k)

Location V 13 V 23

SAFE SAFE
X (in) Y (in) (8×8) Theoretical (8×8) Theoretical

30 45 20.2 17.3 8.7 2.2

30 105 24.3 23.5 8.1 5.4

165 15 26.7 14.7 24.7 23.8

165 105 287.5 329.0 277.6 320.0

EXAMPLE 5 - 8
 Software Verification
PROGRAM NAME: SAFE
REVISION NO.: 0

Table 5-4 Comparison of Average Strip Moments

Thin Plate Formulation

SAFE Moments ACI 318-95

(k-in/in) (k-in/in)

Average 4×4 8×8 12 × 12 Theoretical

Moment Location Strip Mesh Mesh Mesh (k-in/in) DDM EFM

Column 4.431 3.999 3.922 3.859 4.725 4.500

MA x = 180"
Middle 4.302 3.805 3.711 3.641 3.150 3.000

Column −10.184 −10.865 −10.971 −11.091 −10.968 −11.250

MA x = 360"
Middle −3.524 −3.777 −3.843 −3.891 −3.656 −3.750

Column 2.265 2.028 1.971 1.925 3.150 3.000

MB y= 120"
Middle 1.674 1.561 1.547 1.538 1.050 1.000

Column −8.236 −8.902 −9.000 −9.139 −7.313 −7.500

MB y = 240"
Middle −0.551 −0.449 −0.442 −0.430 −1.219 −1.250

Thick Plate Formulation

SAFE Moments ACI 318-95

(k-in/in) (k-in/in)

Average 4×4 8×8 12 × 12 Theoretical

Moment Location Strip Mesh Mesh Mesh (k-in/in) DDM EFM

Column 4.802 4.079 3.952 3.859 4.725 4.500

MA x = 180"
Middle 3.932 3.726 3.682 3.641 3.150 3.000

Column −8.748 −10.691 −10.993 −11.091 −10.968 −11.250

MA x = 360"
Middle −4.965 −3.954 −3.823 −3.891 −3.656 −3.750

EXAMPLE 5 - 9
Software Verification
PROGRAM NAME: SAFE
REVISION NO.: 0

Thick Plate Formulation

SAFE Moments ACI 318-95

(k-in/in) (k-in/in)

Average 4×4 8×8 12 × 12 Theoretical

Moment Location Strip Mesh Mesh Mesh (k-in/in) DDM EFM

Column 2.361 2.078 2.000 1.925 3.150 3.000

MB y= 120"
Middle 1.628 1.537 1.533 1.538 1.050 1.000

Column −6.321 −8.670 −9.025 −9.139 −7.313 −7.500

MB y = 240"
Middle −1.514 −0.567 −0.431 −0.430 −1.219 −1.250

Table 5-5 Comparison of Average Strip Moments : Effect of Corner Rigidity

Thin Plate Formulation

SAFE Moments ACI 318-95

(12×12 Mesh) (EFM Method)
(k-in/in) (k-in/in)

Average Slab Corner Slab Corner Slab Corner Slab Corner

Moment Location Strip Non-Rigid Rigid Non-Rigid Rigid

Column 3.922 3.472 4.500 3.555

MA x = 180"
Middle 3.711 3.285 3.000 2.370

Column −10.971 −8.110 — −8.887

MA x = 360"
Middle −3.843 −2.863 — −2.962

Column 1.971 1.470 3.000 2.085

MB y= 120"
Middle 1.547 1.361 1.000 0.695

Column −4.807 −5.489 — −5.206

MB y = 240"
Middle −0.272 −0.347 — −0.867

EXAMPLE 5 - 10
 Software Verification
PROGRAM NAME: SAFE
REVISION NO.: 0

Thick Plate Formulation

SAFE Moments ACI 318-95

(12×12 Mesh) (EFM Method)
(k-in/in) (k-in/in)

Average Slab Corner Slab Corner Slab Corner Slab Corner

Moment Location Strip Non-Rigid Rigid Non-Rigid Rigid

Column 3.952 3.459 4.500 3.555

MA x = 180"
Middle 3.682 3.219 3.000 2.370

Column −10.993 −8.249 — −8.887

MA x = 360"
Middle −3.823 −2.806 — −2.962

Column 2.000 1.456 3.000 2.085

MB y= 120"
Middle 1.533 1.327 1.000 0.695

Column −9.025 −5.742 — −5.206

MB y = 240"
Middle −0.431 −0.263 — −0.867

COMPUTER FILE:
S05a-Thin.FDB, S05b-Thin.FDB, S05c-Thin.FDB, S05d.FDB, S05a-Thick.FDB,
S05b-Thick.FDB, S05c-Thick.FDB, and S05d-Thick.FDB

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

EXAMPLE 5 - 11