Practical Yield Line Design 1st Edition, 24-06-03 Edition Gerard Kennedy Updated 2025
Practical Yield Line Design 1st Edition, 24-06-03 Edition Gerard Kennedy Updated 2025
Available at ebookfinal.com
https://ebookfinal.com/download/practical-yield-line-design-1st-
edition-24-06-03-edition-gerard-kennedy/
★★★★★
4.9 out of 5.0 (51 reviews )
EBOOK
Available Formats
https://ebookfinal.com/download/yield-design-1st-edition-jean-salenon/
https://ebookfinal.com/download/innovation-by-design-gerard-h-gaynor/
https://ebookfinal.com/download/the-new-europe-architectural-
design-05-06-2006-vol-76-n-3-1st-edition-valentina-croci/
https://ebookfinal.com/download/manmade-modular-megastructures-
architectural-design-03-04-2006-vol-76-n-1-1st-edition-ian-abley/
Net Work Ethics and Values in Web Design 1st Edition Helen
Kennedy (Auth.)
https://ebookfinal.com/download/net-work-ethics-and-values-in-web-
design-1st-edition-helen-kennedy-auth/
https://ebookfinal.com/download/graph-algorithms-practical-examples-
in-apache-spark-and-neo4j-2020-06-05-third-release-edition-mark-
needham/
https://ebookfinal.com/download/practical-design-of-power-
supplies-1st-edition-ron-lenk/
https://ebookfinal.com/download/madhouse-cal-leandros-03-rob-thurman/
Practical Yield Line Design 1st edition, 24-06-03 Edition
Gerard Kennedy Digital Instant Download
Author(s): Gerard Kennedy, Charles Goodchild
ISBN(s): 9780721015859, 0721015859
Edition: 1st edition, 24-06-03
File Details: PDF, 5.24 MB
Year: 2003
Language: english
PRACTICAL
YIELD LINE
DESIGN
Gerard Kennedy
MSc(Eng), CEng, MICE
Charles Goodchild
BSc, CEng, MCIOB, MIStructE
Foreword
This publication is one of the outcomes from the European Concrete Building Project at Cardington where Yield Line
Design of concrete flat slabs was found to be ‘easily the best opportunity identifiable to the concrete frame industry’.
This publication was commissioned, funded, managed and produced by the Reinforced Concrete Council, which was set
up to promote better knowledge and understanding of reinforced concrete design and building technology. It is intended
for use by those experienced engineers wishing to extend their portfolio of methods of analysis and design for more
efficient and effective designs.
Gerard Kennedy is the main author of this publication. He is a consultant to Powell Tolner & Associates, Consulting Civil and
Structural Engineers, where over a 27-year career of general engineering practice, he became the partner in charge of design.
Gerard has a particular interest in Yield Line Analysis and its practical application to reinforced concrete structures.
Charles Goodchild is Associate Director of the Reinforced Concrete Council where he specialises in promoting efficiency in
concrete design and construction in multi-storey structures. In addition to writing some of the text, he was responsible for the
management of this project and publication.
Acknowledgements
This publication would not have been possible without the enthusiasm and drive of Gerard Kennedy and other partners,
notably John Sestak and staff, at Powell Tolner and Associates. We thank them for instigating this project and their
tenacity in insisting that the commercial potential of Yield Line Design should be recognized and shared. Thanks too for
providing photographs.
Gerard Kennedy would like to acknowledge Trevor Powell, co-founder of Powell Tolner & Associates, for the
encouragement and support given to him over the years in the application of Y.L.D. Without him this publication could
not have been written.
We thank the many individuals who helped to check, review and contribute to this publication; amongst them: Stuart
Alexander, K Baskaran, Sharon Hart, Tony Jones, John Morrison, Bob Povey, Cam Middleton, Dr Chris Morley, Martin
Southcott. The authors would like especially to acknowledge and thank Dr David Johnson for his independent checking
of the examples. Thanks also to Alan Tovey (Tecnicom), Gillian Bond (Words & Pages) and Issy Harvey (Bracknell
Tracing) for editing, design and production.
All advice or information from the British Cement Association and/or Reinforced Concrete Council is intended for those who will
evaluate the significance and limitations of its contents and take responsibility for its use and application. No liability (including
that for negligence) for any loss resulting from such advice o
r information is accepted by the BCA, RCC or their subcontractors, suppliers or advisors. Readers should note that all BCA
publications are subject to revision from time to time and should therefore ensure that they are in possession of the latest
version.
Practical Yield Line Design
Contents
Notation…………………………………………………………………………..………………………………………….……… 2
1.0 Introduction
1.1 The essentials …….…..……………………………………………………………………..…………………………….. 3
1.2 Frequently asked questions ………...……………..……………………………………………………………….… 8
2.0 The Work Method of analysis
2.1 General …………………..……………………………..……………………………………………………………….… 22
2.2 The Work Method ……………………………………………………………………………………………………….. 23
2.3 Orthotropic slabs …………….…………………………………………………………………………………………… 38
3.0 Standard formulae for slabs
3.1 One-way spanning slabs……………….………………………………………………………………………………. 45
3.2 Two-way spanning slabs ………………………………………………………………………………………………. 64
3.3 Two-way slabs - supports on 4 sides…..……………….………..………………………………………………. 66
3.4 Two-way slabs - supports on 3 sides ………..………………….…………….…………………………………. 74
3.5 Two-way slabs - supports on 2 adjacent sides ………………………..……..………………………………. 84
3.6 Flat slabs (on a rectangular grid of columns) ……………….………..…………………………………. 88
4.0 How to tackle . . . . .
4.1 Flat slabs: general .……….……………..…………………………………………………………………………….. 93
4.2 Flat slabs supported by rectangular grids of columns ……….…….……………………………... 98
4.3 Flat slabs on irregular grids of columns …………….….………………………………………..…………… 120
4.4 Slabs with beams……………………………………………………….………………………………………………… 127
4.5 Transfer slabs ……………………….………………………………………………………………………………….… 135
4.6 Raft foundations ………….….…………..…………………………………………………………………..………… 136
4.7 Refurbishments……….…………………………………………………………………………………………………… 143
5.0 Case studies ……….…………………………………………………………………………………………………………… 148
6.0 Summary……….…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….. 155
7.0 References and further reading
7.1 References .……….……………..…………………………………………………………………………….. 156
7.2 Further reading .……….……………..…………………………………………………………………………….. 158
Appendix….………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..….. 160
1
Practical Yield Line Design
Notation
Symbols The symbols used in this publication have the following meaning:
Drawing notation The convention used in drawings and sketches is given below
Supports
Free edge Continuous support
Simple support Column support
Yield lines
m Positive (sagging) yield line, Axis of rotation
kNm/m
m’ Negative (hogging) yield line, Plastic hinge (in sectional
kNm/m elevation or in plan)
Loads
Line load, kN/m + Centre of gravity of load kN
P● Point load, kN
2
1.0 Introduction
1.0 Introduction
This publication
The aim of this publication is to (re-) introduce practical designers to the use of Yield Line
Design. The intention is to give an overall appreciation of the method and comprehensive
design guidance on its application to the design of some common structural elements. It
assumes that the user has sufficient experience to recognise possible failure patterns and
situations where further investigation is required.
The basic principles of Yield Line theory are explained and its application as a versatile
method for the design and assessment of reinforced concrete slabs is demonstrated. Theory
is followed by practical examples and the accompanying commentary gives insights into the
years of experience brought to bear by the main author, Gerard Kennedy.
The publication is intended as a designer’s aid and not an academic paper. It commits to
paper a practical approach to the use of Yield Line for the design of concrete slabs. It
gives guidance on how to tackle less simple problems, such as the design of flat slabs,
rafts, refurbishment and slab-beam systems. Whilst the publication covers the design of
common elements, it is an introduction, not a comprehensive handbook: in more
exacting circumstances, designers are advised to consult more specialist
literature. The examples are practical ones that may be followed, but should not be
extended too far without reference to more specialist literature.
Yield Line Theory challenges designers to use judgement and not to rely solely on computer
analysis and design. Once grasped, Yield Line Theory is exceedingly easy to put into
practice and everyone in the procurement chain benefits. Simple design leads to simple
details that are fast to detail and fast to fix. Current initiatives such as Egan [4] and
partnering, etc, should challenge designers to revisit and re-evaluate the technique.
Two of the most popular methods of application are the ‘Work Method’ and the use of
standard formulae. This publication explains these two methods and illustrates how they
may be used in the practical and economic design of reinforced concrete slabs such as flat
slabs, raft foundations and refurbishments
Yield Line Design leads to slabs that are quick and easy to design, and are quick and easy
to construct. There is no need to resort to computer for analysis or design. The resulting
slabs are thin and have very low amounts of reinforcement in very regular arrangements.
The reinforcement is therefore easy to detail and easy to fix and the slabs are very quick
to construct. Above all, Yield Line Design generates very economic concrete slabs,
because it considers features at the ultimate limit state.
3
Practical Yield Line Design
Yield Line Design is a robust and proven design technique. It is a versatile tool that
challenges designers to use judgement. Once grasped Yield Line Design is an exceedingly
powerful design tool.
Yield Line Design tends to be a hand method. This may be seen as both an advantage and
disadvantage. Each slab has to be judged on its merits and individually assessed. The method
allows complex slabs to be looked at in a simple way, and, in an age of computers, it gives an
independent method of analysis and verification. This is especially important for those who are
becoming disillusioned with the reliance placed on Finite Element Analysis. They see a need to
impart greater understanding and remind designers that reinforced concrete does not
necessarily behave in an elastic manner. Nonetheless it is hoped that the option of suitable and
accessible software for Yield Line Design will become available in the near future.
Yield Line Design concerns itself with the ultimate limit state. It does not purport to deal with
serviceability issues such as deflection per se. Nonetheless, deflection can be dealt with by
simple formulae based on the yield moment. This publication shows how compliance with
span-to-depth criteria may be achieved.
Column moments cannot be derived directly. They must be derived using separate elastic sub-
frame analyses as is the case when using continuous beam analysis (assuming knife edge
support), or by analysing separate yield line failure patterns discussed in section 4.17.
In the past Yield Line Design has been disadvantaged by half-truths and misrepresentations.
Taking reasoned and pragmatic measures to overcome them easily dispels theoretical
problems such as ‘upper bound theory therefore unsafe’. These measures are discussed in this
publication. This is perhaps the first time this practical approach has been set down in writing -
advocates of Yield Line Design have been designing in this way for years.
Table 1.1 Configurations of flexural reinforcement in the in-situ building at Cardington [1]
4
1.1 The essentials
detailing were carried out, constructed and compared. Yield Line Design was used on the 4th
floor and required the least amount of reinforcement as shown in Table 1.1. This shows that
for a complete floor, 14.5 tonnes of reinforcement would have been used using Yield Line
Theory compared to 16.9 tonnes using more conventional elastic design methods.
The Yield Line Design at Cardington also led to very few bar marks being required: only
the heavy blanket cover solution required fewer.
The economy of Yield Line Design is further illustrated in Figure 1.1, which shows the 4th
floor at Cardington [1] during construction. The steel fixers are laying out the T12@200 B
(565 mm2/m) reinforcement for the yield line half of the slab adjacent to the T16 @ 175 B
(1148 mm2/m) in the elastically designed half towards the top of the picture. Each half of
the slab performed well.
Figure 1.1 European Concrete Building Project at Cardington - 4th floor during
construction
The half in the foreground was designed using Yield Line Design. The other
elastically designed half was intended to be ‘highly rationalised’. However,
the number of bar marks used in the Yield Line Design was less than even
the most rationalised of the Elastic Designs. It is worth noting that the
deflections measured on the two halves under the same load were virtually
identical.
With Yield Line Theory the designer is in full control of how the moments are distributed
throughout the slab. This leads to the opportunity to use simple reinforcement layouts –
regular spacing of bars and fewer bar marks – that are easier for the designer, detailer,
contractor and fixer. These arrangements are far more regular than with other methods of
analysis such as Elastic or Finite Element Analysis.
These bar arrangements are premeditated and lead to the following advantages:
• For the detailer, regular layouts mean minimum numbers of bar marks. Often stock
lengths can be specified.
• Drawings are quicker to produce, easier to detail and easier to read on site.
• Regular arrangements of reinforcement mean quicker fixing.
• The principles of simple reinforcement layouts are well suited to prefabrication of
steel into welded mats and also to contractor detailing
• There is less chance of errors occurring
• Checking is easier.
5
Practical Yield Line Design
1.1.6 Versatility
Once understood, Yield Line Design is quick and easy to apply. It may be used on all
types of slab and loading configurations that would otherwise be very difficult to analyse
without sophisticated computer programmes. It can deal with openings, holes, irregular
shapes and with any support configuration. The slabs may be solid, voided, ribbed or
coffered, and supported on beams, columns or walls.
Figure 1.3 …..may be analysed using Yield Line Design – by considering quadrilaterals
• Yield Line Theory can be used very effectively in refurbishment work. It is used in
the assessment of existing slabs and can be especially useful where the support
system is amended and/or new holes have to be incorporated. (New holes are dealt
with by adjusting the length of postulated Yield Lines.) Yield Line Theory can be
6
1.1 The essentials
used to estimate the ultimate load capacity of such slabs and so optimise and/or
minimise structural works on site.
• The theory can be used to analyse slabs with beams: composite T and L beams may
be incorporated into a combined collapse mechanism. Yield Line Theory is used
effectively in the design and assessment of slabs in bridges.
• Yield Line Theory can also be applied to slabs resting on soil, i.e. industrial
ground floor slabs, foundation rafts etc. The piled raft foundation illustrated in
Figure 1.4 was analysed and designed using Yield Line Theory - simply and by hand
(see Example 4F).
REGION Pattern 2b
C Pattern 2a
REGION REGION
D B
Pattern 2c
REGION
A
Figure 1.4 A piled raft – easily dealt with using Yield Line Theory and Design
7
Practical Yield Line Design
Consider the case of a square slab simply supported on four sides as illustrated by Figure
1.5. This slab is subjected to a uniformly distributed load, which gradually increases until
collapse occurs.
Initially, at service load, the response of the slab is elastic with the maximum steel stress
and deflection occurring at the centre of the slab. At this stage, it is possible that some
hairline cracking will occur on the soffit where the flexural tensile capacity of the concrete
has been exceeded at midspan.
Increasing the load hastens the formation of these hairline cracks, Increasing the load
further will increase the size of the cracks further and induce yielding of the
reinforcement, initiating the formation of large cracks emanating from the point of
maximum deflection.
On increasing the load yet further, these cracks migrate to the free edges of the slab at
which time all the tensile reinforcement passing through a yield line yields.
Hair cracks
8
1.2 Frequently asked questions
At this ultimate limit state, the slab fails. As illustrated by Figure 1.6, the slab is divided
into rigid plane regions A, B, C and D. Yield lines form the boundaries between the rigid
regions, and these regions, in effect, rotate about the yield lines. The regions also pivot
about their axes of rotation, which usually lie along lines of support, causing supported
loads to move. It is at this juncture that the work dissipated by the hinges in the yield
lines rotating is equated to work expended by loads on the regions moving. This is Yield
Line Theory.
B D
Yield lines forming
yield line pattern
Figure 1.6 The formation of a mechanism in a simply supported two-way slab with the
bottom steel having yielded along the yield lines
Under this theory, elastic deformations are ignored; all the deformations are assumed to
be concentrated in the yield lines and, for convenience, the maximum deformation is
given the value of unity.
Yield lines divide the slab up into individual regions, which pivot about their axes of
rotation. Yield lines and axes of rotation conform to rules given in Table 1.2, which help
with the identification of valid patterns and the Yield Line solution.
• Axes of rotation generally lie along lines of support and pass alongside any
columns.
• Yield lines are straight.
• Yield lines between adjacent rigid regions must pass through the point of
intersection of the axes of rotation of those regions.
• Yield lines must end at a slab boundary.
• Continuous supports repel and simple supports attract positive or sagging yield
lines.
9
Practical Yield Line Design
The designer has several ways of determining the critical pattern and ensuring safe
design:
• From first principles, e.g. by using The Work Method
• Using formulae for standard situations.
It will be noted that valid yield line patterns give results that are either correct or
theoretically unsafe. These ‘upper bound solutions’ can deter some designers but, as
discussed later, this theoretical awkwardness is easily overcome by testing different
patterns and by making suitable allowances (see 10% rule later).
The aim of investigating yield line patterns is to find the one pattern that gives the critical
moment (the highest moment or the least load capacity). However, an exhaustive search
is rarely necessary and selecting a few simple and obvious patterns is generally sufficient
as their solutions are within a few percent of the perfectly correct solution. Section 2.1.12
illustrates that absolute dimensional accuracy is unnecessary for engineering purposes.
Column
Axes of
rotation
10
1.2 Frequently asked questions
m'
m = positive (sagging) moment, kNm/m
m’= negative (hogging) moment, kNm/m
Point load
Figure 1.8 Fan collapse pattern for a heavy concentrated load onto a reinforced slab
The mechanism for a slab supported by a column is the same shape but
with the positive and negative yield lines reversed.
where
N = load(s) acting within a particular region [kN]
m = the moment in or moment of resistance of the slab per metre run [kNm/m]
l = the length of yield line or its projected length onto the axis of rotation for that
region [m]
By way of illustration, consider the slab shown in Figure 1.6. Figure 1.9 shows an
axonometric view of this two-way simply supported slab that has failed due to a uniformly
distributed load. Note that:
• The triangular regions A, B, C and D have all rotated about their lines of support.
• The loads on the regions have moved vertically and rotation has taken place about
the yield lines and supports.
• The uniformly distributed load on each of these regions will have moved on average
1/3 of the maximum deflection.
The rotation of the regions about the yield lines can be resolved into rotation about the
principal axes of rotation, and thereby measured with respect to the location and size of
the maximum deflection.
11
Practical Yield Line Design
Rotation θΑ
A
Rotation θΒ D
B
C Point of maximum
deflection at
centre of slab
This, fundamentally, is the ‘Work Method’. Any slab can be analysed by using the principle
of E = D. Some judgement is required to visualise and check likely failure patterns but
absolute accuracy is rarely necessary and allowances are made to cover inaccuracies.
Once a yield line pattern has been selected for investigation, it is only necessary to specify
the deflection as being unity at one point (the point of maximum deflection) from which
all other deflections and rotations can be found.
1.2.8 Formulae
Rather than go through the Work Method, some practitioners prefer the even quicker
method of using standard formulae for standard types of slab. The formulae are
predominantly based on the work method and they are presented in more detail in
Chapter 3.
As an example, the formula for one-way spanning slabs supporting uniformly distributed
loads is as follows [2,6]:
nL2
m= per unit width
( )
2
2 1 + i1 + 1 + i2
where
m = ultimate sagging moment along the yield line [kNm/m]
m’ = ultimate support moment along the yield line [kNm/m]
n = ultimate load [kN/m2]
L = span [m]
i 1 , i2 = ratios of support moments to mid-span moments. (The values of i are chosen
by the designer: i1= m’1/m, i2= m’2/m)
Where slabs are continuous, the designer has the freedom to choose the ratio of hogging
to sagging moments to suit any particular situation. For instance, the designer may
choose to make the bottom span steel equal to the top support steel (i.e. make sagging
moment capacity equal support moment capacity.)
Failure patterns for one-way spanning slabs are easily visualised and the standard
formulae enable the designer to quickly determine the span moment based on any ratio of
hogging moments he or she chooses to stipulate (within a sensible range dictated by
codes of practice). Formulae are also available for the curtailment of top reinforcement.
12
1.2 Frequently asked questions
Formulae for two-way spanning slabs supported on two, three or four sides are also
available for use. These are a little more complicated due to the two-way nature of the
problem and the fact that slabs do not always have the same reinforcement in both
directions. The nature of the failure patterns is relatively easy to visualise and again the
designer has the freedom to choose fixity ratios.
According to Eurocode 2 [3], Yield Line Design is a perfectly valid method of design.
Section 5.6 of Eurocode 2 states that plastic methods of analysis shall only be used to
check the ultimate limit state. Ductility is critical and sufficient rotation capacity may be
assumed provided x/d ≤0.25 for C50/60.A Eurocode 2 goes on to say that the method
may be extended to flat slabs, ribbed, hollow or waffle slabs and that corner tie down
forces and torsion at free edges need to be accounted for.
Section 5.11.1.1 of EC2 includes Yield Line as a valid method of analysis for flat slabs. It is
recommended that a variety of possible mechanisms are examined and the ratios of the
moments at support to the moment in the spans should lie between 0.5 and 2.
A
This relates to an ultimate moment, M, ≈ 110 kNm in a 200 mm slab or an M/(bd2fk) ≈ 0.100. For higher concrete
strengths, x/d ≤ 0.15). Class B or C reinforcing steel must be used, i.e. characteristic strain at maximum force, Єuk, ≥
5.0%.
13
Practical Yield Line Design
The mention of ‘unsafe’ can put designers off, and upper bound theories are often
denigrated. However, any result that is out by a small amount can be regarded as
theoretically unsafe. Yet few practising engineers regard any analysis as being absolutely
accurate and make due allowance in their design. The same is true and acknowledged in
practical Yield Line Design.
In the majority of cases encountered, the result of a Yield Line analysis from first
principles will be well within 10%, typically within 5%, of the mathematically correct
solution. The pragmatic approach, therefore, is to increase moments (or reinforcement)
derived from calculations by 10%. This ‘10% rule’ is expanded upon later.
There are other factors that make Yield Line Design safer than it may at first appear, e.g.
compressive membrane action in failing slabs (this alone can quadruple ultimate
capacities), strain hardening of reinforcement, and the practice of rounding up steel areas
when allotting bars to designed areas of steel required.
The practical designer can use Yield Line Theory with confidence, in the knowledge that
he or she is in control of a very useful, powerful and reliable design tool.
X
h
m' = 0
m' = 0.25 m'
X m
A
OF
N m
m
IS
m a TIO
AX
T A
RO
Figure 1.10 The effect of corner levers on a simply supported square slab where
corners are held down and prevented from lifting.
14
Other documents randomly have
different content
Mathematics - Complete Guide
Third 2021 - University
Our website is not just a platform for buying books, but a bridge
connecting readers to the timeless values of culture and wisdom. With
an elegant, user-friendly interface and an intelligent search system,
we are committed to providing a quick and convenient shopping
experience. Additionally, our special promotions and home delivery
services ensure that you save time and fully enjoy the joy of reading.
ebookfinal.com