6050
Research report sponsored by
the Reinforced Concrete
Research Council
Investigation of MultiplePanel
Reinforced Concrete Floor Slabs
Design M1ethodsTheir
Evolution and Comparison
By METE A. SOZEN and CHESTER P. SIESS
999
1000 JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN CONCRETE INSTITUTE August 1963
sign for flat slabs and twoway slabs in the United States, and (3) to
provide an overall description of an extensive investigation of multiple
panel reinforced concrete floor slabs at the University of Illinois that
included both the flat and the twoway slabs.
The discussion of the design methods is limited to the rules for the
amount and distribution of the bending moments.
THE FLAT SLAB
C. A. P. Turner
Centuries of construction with stone and timber preceded reinforced
concrete. Consequently, just as the first motor cars were built to look
like horsedrawn carriages, the first reinforced concrete systems were
conceived in the image of traditional types. In a timber structure, the
planks carried the load to the joists, the joists to the girders, and the
girders to the columns; so must they in a reinforced concrete structure.
Hence, the flat slab had to be invented rather than developed as one of
the obvious applications of reinforced concrete.
Because it escaped the imagination of minds trained in the two dimen
sions of construction with timber and iron, the flat slab was given the
treatment of a miracle: while it was endorsed blindly by some engineers,
it was resisted savagely by others. Between 1906, when C. A. P. Turner*
built the first flat slab,t and 1921, when Westergaard and Slater1 pub
lished their comprehensive paper on slabs, the flat slab was a subject
of controversy and therefore of intense interest among practicing engi
neers, college professors, and lawyers. The bone of contention is illus
trated dramatically by a comparison made by A. B. McMillan 2 • 3 in 1910
which is shown in Fig. 4. The bars indicate the amount of reinforcement
required by various design procedures in a 20 x 20 ft interior panel of
an 8 in. thick flat slab intended to carry 200 lb per sq ft. Evidently, the
material bill for steel could vary by 400 percent depending on the design
method chosen. There was room for argument.
*18691955.
tThe C. A. Bovey Building In Minneapolis, Minn.•
1002 JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN CONCRETE INSTITUTE August 1963
The arguments about theory did not faze the construction industry.
C. A. P. Turner had found entrenched resistance against his invention
in 1906. Athough the C. A. Bovey Building, built at the risk of the
inventor, had performed satisfactorily in a load test, Turner was still
being asked to put up bond for new work 2 years and a dozen buildings
later. 4 But a few years later, the situation changed. By 1913, over 1000
flat slab buildings had been built around the world. During this period,
Turner's patents were revoked by the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals
in favor of J. L. Drum who had purchased the 0. W. Norcross patent
for a flat arch which resembled the Turner flat slab and preceded it.
This lawsuit evoked a Dickensian hatred of patent lawyers in Turner
who sustained a relentless campaign through books, articles, and dis
cussions to seek a recognition of his contribution which he was never
to get. In 1914, Edward Godfrey, a disapproving critic of the flat slab
wrote, "The flat slab has repeatedly been brought before the engineer
ing profession for consideration and adoption." 5 Turner responded bit
terly,6 "As sponsor for the original successful flat slab construction, the
writer may say, in answer to Mr. Godfrey, that he has never knowingly
CP
c
0
0..
.......
..c
I
1
J:
(!)
lLJ 10
'3:
....J
lLJ
lLJ
t
en
La.. z z ffi
a:: 0 <(
0 a:: ::z: >
lLJ ::z: ....J
d 1 LIJ 0 ~
z en a:: en i=
a:: <(
a::
::E ~ :J z z
:J (,) a:: <( LIJ <(
t c.!) ::E III :E ::E 0
Fig. 4Weight of steel required in the interior panel of a flat slab by vaTious
design methods in 1910
MULTIPLEPANEL FLOOR SLABS 1003
Eq. 1 does not indicate the relative magnitudes of the positive and
negative moments but it does stipulate that the total moment resistance
provided at the two sections should add to WL/8. For the interior panel
of a flat slab with a round capital and with the assumption that the
reaction is distributed uniformly around the capital (ignoring the twist
*His interests were broad by any definition and he never made a secret of his strong
opinions. He prefaced a book published in 19341.2 with comments on the quirks of the English
language ("Wormwood is unrelated alike to wood and worms."), devoted half a chapter to
disproving Einstein, and welcomed the F. D. Roosevelt Administration's New Deal. The book
was intended for reinforced concrete design.
MULTIPLEPANEL FLOOR SLABS 1005
ing moments between the slab and the capital) Eq. (1) becomes
Mo = ~L [ 1 : ~ + +( ~ ) 3} _(2)
In the closure to his paper, Nichols suggested that Eq. (2) could be
approximated by
Mo = WBL ( 1  2£_)
3L 2 .. ....... (3)
the sum of the moments across the negative and positive moment sec
tions (MA and M 11 in Fig. 5) was only a fraction of M 0 as defined by
Eq. (3) Y In his discussion of a paper by H. T. Eddy, G. S. Binckley 10
conceded "The crushing weight of practical experience and empirical
data under which C. A. P. Turner flattened out Mr. Nichols' purely
theoretical paper, tends to induce caution in others."
1006 jOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN CONCRETE INSTITUTE August 1963
C. A. P. Turner need never have fought his battle with the conditions
of equilibrium. Nichols' analysis was right but Turner's design was not
wrong. The problem arose out of comparing incomparables. Turner
realized fully that he could never know exactly what the load on the
structure would be. Hence, W in Eq. (3) was only a guess and there
fore the whole righthand side of Eq. (3) was approximate. To the de
signer and evidently to the structure, it did not matter whether W or
the 1/8 factor was modified. Turner insisted on highstrength steel. Al
though he might be espousing low steel areas, the force provided was
often adequate to satisfy Eq. (3). Furthermore, Turner was well aware
of the effects of forces in the plane of the slab.
The First Joint Committee adopted the form but not the intent of
Eq. (3). In the final report published in 1916, 17 the design static moment
was given as 85 percent of that based on Nichols' analysis, or
The 1917 proposed revision 18 and the 1920 approved version19 of the
ACI Building Code contained an even more flagrant violation of statics
M •• = 0.09 wL2 (L  qc) 2... ............................... (6)
where qc was twice the distance from center line of the capital to the
center of gravity of the periphery of the half capital. The ratio q was
taken as 2/3 for round capitals and 3/4 for square capitals. A distinction
was made between round and square capitals, although not in exactly
the manner implied by Nichols' analysis.
H. M. Westergaard and W. A. Slater
With the publication of the First Joint Committee Report in 1916 and
the ACI Building Code in 1920, design procedures had become more or
less stabilized. However, the flat slab was still a mystery to a good cross
section of the engineering professron. There were too many conflicting
reconciliations of the load test data and diverse "theories."
In 1921, Westergaard and Slater pubHsihed their monumental work on
the analysis and design of slabs.! This paper included a sound exposition
of the theory of plates, ingenious projections of the available theoretical
solutions to solve practical problems, and •a comprehensive study of the
implications of the then available test's on flat slabs ,and rtwoway slabs.
One of the accomplishments of the paper was to show conclusively
that the moments calculated from measured strains in flat slab tests
were not as small as they were interpreted to be. Previously, the moment
had been calculated from the measured steel strain using the straight
line formula
M :::: A,E,E,jd . . ......... ( 4)
MULTl PLEPANEL FLOOR SLABS 1007
1
Fig. 6  Relationship be z
w
tween bending moment and :::iE
0
steel strain :::iE
Mt
STEEL STRAIN
of the yield to the design stress. Slater estimated the average factor of
safety of the structures he studied to be 3.23 if the design was based on
Eq. (5) and 2.72 if based on Eq. (6). Even in the latter case, the factor
of safety was "at least as great as that which can be counted upon in
the most elementary flexural unit ... " and therefore satisfactory.
One significant factor was ignored in estimating the factor of safety:
the effect of adjacent unloaded panels. This is brought out clearly in
the ultimate load for one of the slabs that was tested to failure: the
safety factor for Slab J tested at Purdue University was based on a
capacity of 872 lb per sq ft which was obtained when only one of the
four panels was fully loaded.
with a footnote in fine print, "The sum of the negative and positive
moments provided for by this equation is about 72 percent of the
moment found by rigid analysis based upon the principles of mechanics.
Extensive tests and experience with existing structures have shown that
the requirements here stated will give adequate strength."
The 1928 ACI Building Code~ 1 provided the comfort of Eq. (7) without
the discomfort of the footnote. The end had justified the means and the
hybrid Eq. (7) graced many a building code in stark defiance of statics.
The 1956 ACI Building Code~ 2 introduced a new factor F based on the
fear that the old tests on flat slabs which had c/L ratios on the order
of 0.2 might not apply to the modern flat plate which had rather low
c/L ratios. Thus, Eq. (7) was changed to
with
F = 1.15  c/L but not less than 1 (9)
where A' was half the capital width but not greater than L/8.
For a uniformly loaded panel with equal end restraints, the sum of the
positive and negative moments can be made equal to the moment given by
Eq. (7) by taking the negative moment at a distance xL from the column
center line such that
0.09 WL ( 1 
0.125 WL
+· ~) 2 ( 2L xL )
V/4
2
where Wav was the average of the total load on two adjacent spans and
Aav' was the average of the values of A' at the ends of the span con
sidered. The procedure is illustrated in a paper by Peabody. 28
The ACI frame analysis was modified further in ACI 31856. Eq. (10)
was dropped in favor of a "physical" definition of the critical section
for negative moment.* This definition showed substantial agreement
with Eq. (10) for c/L = 0.225 but resulted in more conservative negative
moments for small values of c/L.t Eq. (11) was also eliminated. Fur
thermore, it was permitted to reduce the design moments "in such pro
portion that the numerical sum of the positive and average negative
bending moments used in design procedure need not exceed M0 " as given
by Eq. (8) ,22 if the structure analyzed was within the range of applica
tion of the empirical method.
ing Code33 and its derivation was explained in a paper by DiStasio and
van Buren.34
Method 1 is kindred to the "elastic analysis" for flat slabs in that it
is a twodimensional approximation to the threedimensional problem of
plates on rigid supports. However, while the "elastic analysis" was
modified for purposes of design, Method 1 was not.
Method 1 was based on two simplifications: an assumption about the
division of load to the two slab spans and an assumption about the dis
tribution of load along a given span. The division of the load was made
in the same vein as Eq. (13) except that the cube rather than the fourth
power was used. To account for the end restraints, the span between the
points of contraflexure, determined from a frame analysis, was used as
the effective span. Naturally, the division of load to the two spans
would not be sufficient to match a plate analysis. Hence, another modi
fication factor, ascribed to the nonuniform distribution of the load along
the span, was used to make the result conform to available plate analyses.
The 1936 version of Method 1 provided formulas for the determination
of points of contraflexure under various conditions of end restraint.
Later studies35 showed that this was unnecessary and the formulas were
replaced by a set of constants in the 1947 ACI Building Code which also
contained revised symbols for Method 1.3 6
It should be pointed out that although the divishm of the load to the
two spans in Method 1 may give the impression o1 not providing rein
forcement for all the load in a given direction, thi~ is not so. What the
slab does not carry, the beams do. Furthermore, the moment coefficients
recognize pattern loadings.
H. M. Westergaard
The 1921 paper by Westergaard and Slater1 had served to show the
shortcomings of Eq. (13), but had not been found practical enough for
general use. In 1926, Westergaard published a paper proposing a method
of design for twoway slabs. 37 This paper contained moment coefficients
for slabs and supporting beams. The coefficients were based on analyses
of continuous plates on rigid supports providing no torsional restraint.
However, they were modified in view of the fact that exceeding the
permissible stress locally was not critical and that flat slabs were de
signed satisfactorily for only 72 percent of the static moment. Only the
slab moment coefficients were reduced by 28 percent, and then, with
respect to the maximum not the static moment.
Westergaard's moment coefficients were not adopted directly in a
design method since they were given for a series of equal adjacent
panels, a condition rarely met in practice. Hence, the Joint Committee 38
modified and extended Westergaard's procedure to give moment coeffi
cients for isolated panels with various edge conditions. In preparing this
MUL Tl PLEPANEL FLOOR SLABS 1013
method, it was assumed that the slab was built monolithically with the
supporting beams. Thus, moments were prescribed at the "discontinuous"
edges and if an unbalanced moment occurred at adjacent negative
moment sections, onethird of the difference was assumed to be resisted
by the beam in torsion. Furthermore, rather than listing a set of moment
coefficients for the beams, it was deemed simpler to specify the load
on each beam. The load carried by each beam was assumed to be the
load in that portion of the panel bounded by 45deg lines emanating
from each end of the beam and the panel centerline, almost a return to
the 1908 Progress Report of the Joint Committee.
The 1940 Joint Committee method for twoway slabs was adopted as
Method 2 in the 1947 ACI Building Code. 36 Unfortunately, the stipula
tion for slabs monolithic with their supports was left out in Method 2
leaving it vulnerable to misinterpretation.
For the flat slab, the factor Fin Eq. (8) was assumed to be 1. The fact
that the quantities given are for c/L = 0 is irrelevant since only relative
values are desired. There are slight differences between the total design
moment coefficients for slabs with and without drop panels, and for spans
perpendicular to edge beams of various stiffnesses. However, these dif
ferences are too small to show in Fig. 7 through 10.
A comparison of the curves for twoway slabs shows that, especially
for side ratios greater than 0.6, the two methods compare quite well.
The largest deviation for side ratios greater than 0.6 is about 5 percent
from the mean. Although it would be desirable to have the agreement
in all panels as good as that for the interior panel, Methods 1 and 2 are
as consistent as they could be expected to be in view of their different
backgrounds.
For the interior panel (see Fig. 7), the total design moments for the
twoway slab and the flat slab are beyond comparison. The twoway
slab is designed for a moment 67 percent greater than that for the flat
slab. IfF = 1.15, the difference would be reduced to 45 percent, still a
respectable figure. The quantitative relationship between the design
0.20
Two Wav s ab
0.16
f'< Me hod 2 Met ~Od 1\
~
t \
~
c
Cl)
E
0 0.12
~
Flo Sl ~b1\
ca
.~~
Ill
\
Q
Cl)
0.08
a
~
0
1
0.04
Short Span
Long Span
0
0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0
Ratio of Sides
Fig. 7Comparison of total design moments interior panel

MULTIPLEPANEL FLOOR SLABS 1015
0.20
Two ~wa " Sl ob
.
c
G)
E
0.16

'
1=:
\_ Me •hoc
==
2
~
Mei hod
 ,_,.  L
0 0.12
==c ...
.Ill2'~ _/
G) Flo Sl ab
Q 0.08
.
a
0
t
0.04
Short Span
Long Span
0
0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0
Ratio of Sides
Fig. 8Comparison of total design moments edge panel; span perpendicular to
edge
moments for the twoway slab and the flat slab is about the same for
the span in the edge panel perpendicular to the edge as shown in Fig. 8.
The design moment for the flat slab approaches that for the twoway
slab if a spandrel beam extends along the span considered, as shown in
·Fig. 9 and 10; the deeper the beam the larger is the total design moment.
This results from the fact that while the slab is designed for almost the
same moment, the beam is assumed to carry a certain portion of the load
and the beam moment coefficients reflect pattern loadings.
The comparisons made in Fig. 7 through 10 are idealized. They do not
refer to slabs with practical proportions. Nevertheless, they do point out
the basic differences between the design methods.
The twoway slab is just as much a slab as the flat slab. This can be
considered to be self evident. Furthermore, the twoway slab possesses
some structural advantages over the flat slab. It can be reinforced more
effectively to resist torsion and shear. Yet, the twoway slab is designed
for higher moments than the flat slab. The designer is not even per
mitted to vary the proportion of load assigned to the beams and the slab
1016 JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN CONCRETE INSTITUTE August 1963
0.20
Two rWa s ob
'.. c ethc d ~ IV ethc d I 1\
0.16 \
~= =~
...c
Q)
E ceep Bee m'
0 0.12
~
c .... Flo1 Sla p< s hall pw 3ea nJ
~~
Ill
Q
Q)
0.08 lN lo 8 eorr 1_/
...0D
...
0.04
Short Span
Long Span
0
0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0
Ratio of Sides
Fig. 9Comparison of total design moments edge panel; span parallel to edge
0.20
Two Wa, Sic b
.. 0.16
==  ..__  

  .L
c
G»
E r(J eep Be ~m
_/
0 0.12
:t Flo Sic b s hall pw I ~ear n_/
~
c...a
~~
Ill
... (\ o Beon I ___)"
Q)
Q 0.08
••c.t'·
....
0.04
Short Span
Long Span
0
0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0
Ratio of Sides
Fig. I0Comparison of ·total design moments corner panel
1018 JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN CONCRETE INSTITUTE August 1963
2"
~
~
I .
I. I _,,
. I
~ ' I
·~·+
. I ~
I ~ . 0
•,
. . I
I
+
'
~+++
~ '
i~
I
I
I '""
~1
~ I
Fig. I !Structure Fl
Slab thickness: 1.75 in. Interior column section: 6 x 6 in.
Deep beam: 2 x 5.25 in. Edge column section: 4 x 6 in.
Shallow beam: 4.5 x 2.5 in. Corner column section: 4 x 4 in.
MUL Tl PLEPANEL FLOOR SLABS 1019
t
,~ 1l
Fig. 12Structures F2 and F3
Slab thickness: 1.75 in. Interior column section: 3.75 x 3.75 in.
Drop panel thickness: 2.5 in. Edge column section: 5 x 3.5 in.
Deep beam: 2 x 6 in. Corner column section: 3.5 x 3.5 in.
Shallow beam: 4.5 x 2.5 in.
MULTIPLEPANEL FLOOR SLABS 1021
f, = 20,000 psi
ment was assumed to be 40,000 psi. The design loads are shown in
Table 1. For the actual test structures, the design wall load was one
fourth of that shown in the table.
The Fstructures were provided with two different depths of spandrel
beams as shown in Fig. 11 and 12. The beams of Structure T2 were pur
posely designed shallow so that this structure represented a condition
between Structures F1 and Tl.
A smallaggregate concrete was used in the test structures. The aver
age compressive strength at the beginning of tests on the structure, in
dicated by 2 x 4in. cylinders, was 2510 psi for Structure F1, 2760 psi for
Structure F2, 3760 psi for Structure F3, 2830 psi for Structure T1, and
3550 psi for Structure T2. Tests on 4 x 8in. cylinders indicated 3900 psi
for Structure F3, and 3420 for Structure T1 and 4090 psi for Structure T2.
Tests on 4 x 8in. cylinders were not made for F1 and F2. *
The slab reinforcement was cut from ¥s in. square bars of C1018 steel
for Structure F1 and B1113 steel for Structures F1, T1, and T2. The
steel was annealed to have a stressstrain curve similar to that of inter
mediate grade reinforcing bars. The yield stresses are listed in Table 2.
The slab in Structure F3 was reinforced with welded wire fabric. The
value shown as the yield stress in Table 2 represents the 0.2 percent
offset stress. The ultimate stress was approximately 5 percent higher.
The longitudinal beam reinforcement was cut from plain #2 bars (f11 =
50,000psi) for Structures F1, F2, Tl, and T2, and from deformed #2 bars
(fu = 54,000 psi) for Structure F3.
Tc· simulate a uniform load, the load was applied on each panel at
16 points arranged symmetrically about midpanel. The load on each
pa11el was applied by an individual jack. No "wall load" was applied on
the beams. A top view of Structure Tl is shown in Fig. 14.
Each test structure was instrumented with approximately 300 electric
strain gages to measure strains in the reinforcement. The load applied
on each panel was measured as were the three components of each
•The chronological order of testing was as follows: Structures F1 (1958), F2 (1959), TI
(1960), T2 (1961), and F3 (1962).
1022 jOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN CONCRETE INSTITUTE August 1963
2"
L 2"
5'~ 0" 5' o" f:f0"
II I' 'I' i I'
·r=~...+,="1t,=y
I II II I
I 11 111 I
I
I
II
II
II
I
I
lj Ill Ill II b
I II II I ;A
I II IJ 1
I II l1 I
l~ L)~ ________ _;
+r L+r
L"tr ;+ 
I i l I
1
1 I
11 I I
I 11 11 I
I il Ill I 0
I
I
11
II
II
I
I
I
~
I 1
I
L _________J4J ~
1 I
_J
+r
I
t.+..r
iI
;_+...r
1
 T+
I
I II II 1
I
I 11
11l
11
Jli
I
I
·l II II I ~
I 11 II I in
I 11 II I
I 11 II I
1
.L__________ _)p
1
II+,__ ____= , I
I I I
fabric, Stru~ture F3, had a h~gher ratio of ultimate to design load because
it utilized higher strength reinforcement at the same allowable stress.
Although an oversimplification the ratio w,,f,/wafv, with f.= 20,000 psi,
represents a better means of comparison. In terms of this ratio, Struc
tures F2 and F3 are comparable. Structure Fl, designed on essentially
the same basis, had a higher value because of the factor F [see Eq. (9)]
and because in some sections the minimum prescribed reinforcement
ratios governed. The ratio for Structure Tl was almost twice that for
Structure F2. The ratio for Structure T2 was what it was intended to be.
Structure T2 was designed for a 20,000 psi working stress for a steel with
an assumed yield stress of 40,000 psi. The actual yield stress was 47,600
psi.
The information in Table 2 is given simply to provide perspective, not
as a final judgment on the current state of the art. Detailed descriptions
and analyses of the test structures will be provided in subsequent papers
which should answer the many questions raised by Table 2.
One overall generalization from the test results should be mentioned
here. The slab will carry almost any uniform load that is put on it. The
problem is to transmit the load out of the slab to the supporting members
and to make the supporting members stiff and strong enough to provide
the necessary reactions in the vertical and horizontal p1anes. The key to
Turner's success was in his handl'ing of these vitally important problems,
unwisely considered by some as men: details.
MULTIPLEPANEL FLOOR SLABS 1025
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The paper is based on an investigation conducted in the Structural Research
Laboratory of the University of Illinois Civil Engineering Department. Con
tributions in support of the project were received from the following organiza
tions:
Reinforced Concrete Research Council of the American Society of Civil
Engineers
Engineering Foundation
Concrete Reinforcing Steel Institute
Portland Cement Association
Wire Reinforcement Institute
Directorate of Civil Engineering, Headquarters, U. S. Air Force
General Services Administration, Public Buildings Service
Office of the Chief of Engineers, Corps of Engineers, U. S. Army
Bureau of Yards and Docks, Engineering Division, U.S. Navy
The project was initiated by ACIASCE Committee 421 (321), Design of
Reinforced Concrete Slabs, and was guided by an advisory committee on which
the following persons have served: L. H. Corning (chairman 195662), Douglas
McHenry (present chairman), G. B. Begg, Jr., W. J. Bobisch, F. B. Brown,
M. P. van Buren, Joseph Di Stasio, A. S. Neiman, N. M. Newmark, D. H. Pletta,
J. R. Powers, Paul Rogers, E. J. Ruble, W. E. Schaem, and C. A. Willson.
Acknowledgment is due W. L. Gamble, D. S. Hatcher, J. 0. Jirsa, and M. D.
Vanderbilt for their invaluable work in the execution and reporting of the
investigation.
REFERENCES
1. Westergaard, H. M., and Slater, W. A., "Moments and Stresses in Slabs,"
Proceedings, ACI, V. 17, 1921, pp. 415538.
2. McMillan, Angus B., "A Comparison of Methods of Computing the Strength
of Flat Reinforced Plates," Engineering News, V. 63, No. 13, Mar. 31, 1910, pp.
364367.
3. Brayton, L. F., "Methods for the Computation of Reinforced Concrete Flat
Slabs," Engineering News, V. 64, No. 8, Aug. 25, 1910, pp. 210211.
4. Eddy, H. T., and Turner, C. A. P., ConcreteSteel Construction; Part 1,
Building, 2nd Edition, Minneapolis, 1919.
5. Godfrey, Edward, Discussion of "Steel Stresses in Flat Slabs," Transactions,
ASCE, V. 77, 1914, pp. 13891392.
6. Turner, C. A. P., Discussion of "Steel Stresses in Flat Slabs," Transactions,
ASCE, V. 77, 1914, pp. 14161422.
7. Joint Committee, "Progress Report of Special Committee on Concrete and
Reinforced Concrete," Proceedings, ASCE, V. 39, Part 1, Feb. 1913, pp. 117168.
8. Lord, A. R., "A Test of a Flat Slab Floor in a Reinforced Concrete Build
ing," National Association of Cement Users (ACI), V. 7, 1910, pp. 156179.
9. Grashof, Franz, Theorie der Elasticitat und Festigkeit, R. Gaertner, Berlin,
1878.
10. Green, C. E., Structural Mechanics, John Wiley and Sons, New York, N. Y.,
1905.
11. Eddy, H. T., The Theory of the Flexure and Strength of Rectangular Flat
Plates Applied to Reinforced Conc1·ete Floor Slabs, Rogers and Co., Minneapolis,
1913.
1026 jOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN CONCRETE INSTITUTE August 1963
31. Taylor, F. W., and Thompson, S. E., A Treatise on Concrete Plain and
Reinforced, 3rd Edition, John Wiley and Sons, New York, N. Y., 1916, 885 pp.
32. Taylor, F. W.; Thompson, S. E.; and Smulski, Edward, "Concrete, Plain
and Reinforced: V. 1, Theory and Design of Concrete and Reinforced Structures,
John Wiley and Sons, New York, N.Y., 1925.
33. ACI Committee 501, "Building Regulations for Reinforced Concrete (ACI
50136T) ," ACI JoURNAL, Proceedings V. 32, No. 4, Mar.Apr. 1936, pp. 407444.
34. Di Stasio, Joseph, and van Buren, M. P., "Slabs Supported on Four Sides,"
ACI JoURNAL, Proceedings V. 32, No. 3, Jan.Feb 1936, pp. 350364.
35. Bertin, R. L.; Di Stasio, Joseph; and van Buren, M. P., "Slabs Supported
on Four Sides," ACI JouRNAL, Proceedings V. 41, No. 6, June 1945, pp. 537556.
36. ACI Committee 318, "Building Code Requirements for Reinforced Con
crete (ACI 31847)," ACI JouRNAL, Proceedings V. 44, No. 1, Sept. 1947, pp. 164.
37. Westergaard, H. M., "Formulas for the Design of Rectangular Floor Slabs
and the Supporting Girders," Proceedings, ACI, V. 22, 1926, pp. 2646.
38. Joint Committee, Recommended Pmctice and Standard Specifications for
Concrete and Reinforced Concrete, American Concrete Institute, Detroit, June
1940, 271 pp.
APPENDIX
NOTATION
M =bending moment c width of capital in direction
M.. total negative moment acting considered
on one edge of a panel A' c/2
Ms total positive moment acting at A'ar average of the values of A' on
panel center line
the two ends of a span
M. total static moment
r proportion of load assumed to
M.. total design static moment
W total load on one panel be carried in direction L
Wov average of the total load on A, crosssectional area of rein
two adjacent spans forcement
w unit load on one panel f, steel stress
L span in direction considered jd internal lever arm for a rein
(centertocenter of columns forced concrete section based
for flat slabs) on the straightline formula
Lz span perpendicular to L steel strain
b short span of a rectangular E, modulus of deformation for
panel steel
Received by the Institute May 27, 1963. Title No. 6050 is a part of copyrighted Journal of the
American Concrete Institute, Proceedings V. 60, No. 8, Aug. 1963. Separate prints are available
at 75 cents each, cash with order.
American Concrete Institute, P. 0. Box 4754, Redford Station 1 Detroit 19, Mich.