Generator

A two-way slab is a one-way slab as soon as it is not square

Rendered here at the parameters it defaults to, with every essay that calls it — which is the same list as the blast radius of changing it.
A two-way slab is a one-way slab as soon as it is not square. The share of the load carried by the strips spanning the short way, against the ratio of the sides. The two families of strips cross at the centre and must deflect equally there, and a strip's deflection goes as the fourth power of its span — so at a ratio of 1.33 the short strips already take 76% and at 2 they take 94%. The panel drawn here is 6 × 8 m, a ratio of 1.33, and its short strips take 76.0%. Two-way action is worth having at a ratio of one and worth almost nothing by two.

A two-way slab is a one-way slab as soon as it is not square. The share of the load carried by the strips spanning the short way, against the ratio of the sides. The two families of strips cross at the centre and must deflect equally there, and a strip's deflection goes as the fourth power of its span — so at a ratio of 1.33 the short strips already take 76% and at 2 they take 94%. The panel drawn here is 6 × 8 m, a ratio of 1.33, and its short strips take 76.0%. Two-way action is worth having at a ratio of one and worth almost nothing by two.

7 essays call slab-action. The drawing above is what it returns with no arguments at all; every call below passes it something, because a placement that passes nothing draws whichever member of the family the generator happens to default to rather than the one its essay argues about.

Where it is called

Changing this generator changes every one of these figures.

Where a beam's load comes from. A 8 × 6 m panel carrying 5 kN/m², divided at 45° from the corners. The long beams take a trapezoid of 15.0 m² each and the short beams a triangle of 9.0 m²; the four areas sum to 48.0 m², which is the panel, so no load has been invented or lost. The line loads quoted are the uniform equivalents; the real distributions peak at 15.00 kN/m at midspan. Equilibrium

The load a beam is given is a decision

Every beam calculation so far has started with a load per metre, handed over as though it were a property of the beam. It is not. It is the answer to a prior question nobody draws, and two defensible answers to it differ by sixty per cent on the same floor.

A two-way slab is a one-way slab as soon as it is not square. The share of the load carried by the strips spanning the short way, against the ratio of the sides. The two families of strips cross at the centre and must deflect equally there, and a strip's deflection goes as the fourth power of its span — so at a ratio of 1.33 the short strips already take 76% and at 2 they take 94%. The panel drawn here is 6 × 8 m, a ratio of 1.33, and its short strips take 76.0%. Two-way action is worth having at a ratio of one and worth almost nothing by two. Structural form

The slab that spans both ways

A panel supported on four sides sends its load in two directions at once, and the share is decided by a fourth power — so a panel a third longer than it is wide has already stopped being a two-way slab in any useful sense. What it does at collapse is a different calculation with a different answer.

Two beams tied together, and the deeper one takes 89% of the load. Two simply supported beams of 6 m, one twice as deep as the other, tied together at midspan so that they have to move as one. A load of 100 kN stands on the tie. Point stiffness is 48EI/L³, so the deeper beam is 8 times as stiff — depth cubed, nothing else — and the load divides in that ratio: 11.1 kN into the shallow beam and 88.9 kN into the deep one, 11% against 89%. Both midspan points move 5.00 mm, which is the whole of the argument: the geometry of the load never entered it. The deflection is drawn 78 times full size — the real sag is 5.00 mm on a 6 m span, about 1 in 1200. Internal forces

The stiffest path takes the load

When two members share a force the split can be argued about. When they share a displacement it cannot — stiffness settles it, and nothing about the load or the plan drawing gets a vote. The consequence is that stiffening a lightly loaded member raises its stress, and the way to unload something is to soften it.

The corner is where the plate twists, and it has to be held down. The twisting moment M_xy over a 6 × 6 m simply-supported panel under 10 kN/m², from Navier's double series. It is zero along both centrelines and largest at the corners, which is the opposite of the bending moments and is why no strip reading contains it: 31% of the load crosses this panel in twist, and a strip can only bend. At a free corner the twisting moment is statically equivalent to a downward point force of 2M_xy — 26.7 kN here, 7.4% of the whole load on the panel, applied at a point — so the corner has to be held down. A panel whose corners are free lifts there, deflects more, and cracks diagonally across them. The deflection at the centre is 2.53 mm, against 4.05 mm for the strip that ignores all this — 60% more, which is the size of what the twist is carrying. Deflection

A third of the load crosses sideways

A slab spanning both ways is usually explained as two beams sharing a load by a fourth power, and the explanation is not merely approximate — it is missing a mechanism. A real plate carries load three ways, and the third one has no beam strip in it: it is twisting, it accounts for a third of the load on a square panel, and it is why the corners lift.

One member's stiffness, scattered into the freedoms it touches. A member's own six-by-six stiffness matrix relates the forces at its two ends to the displacements there, and it is written in the member's own axes. Assembly is two operations and no physics: rotate it into the structure's axes, then add each of its thirty-six entries into the row and column of the global freedom that entry belongs to. Every member does the same, and the sum is the structure. The shaded rows and columns are the six freedoms this one member reaches; every other entry it contributes is exactly zero, and that is the whole reason a global stiffness matrix is sparse. Nothing here is an approximation — the result is the same equilibrium and the same compatibility a hand method writes, in an order a machine can follow. Deflection

The answer that depends on how it was divided

Every computed answer in this collection came out of a structure chopped into pieces — elements, strips, stations, trial positions. The chopping is invisible in the result and it is not neutral: some divisions give the exact answer, some give one that is always too stiff, and one of them changes nothing but the cost of getting there.

Two of these move and the third cannot. The first span of a 3-span beam under 5 kN/m, with the stiffness of the middle span swept over a factor of 25. The support moment and the mid-span moment both move — that is what redundancy does, and it is the whole reason a continuous beam has to be analysed rather than read off. Their combination does not: the mid-span ordinate plus the average of the two end moments is 30.6 kNm at every point on this axis, which is wL²/8 for this span and this load and contains nothing else. The largest departure anywhere on the sweep is 2.3e-16 of the value, which is the arithmetic of the stiffness solution rather than a property of the beam. Continuity buys a distribution and not a capacity, and this is the line that says so. Internal forces

Two of these move and the third cannot

Cut one span of a continuous beam free and add up the forces on it. What comes out is that the mid-span moment plus the average of the two end moments equals the free bending moment of that span, with nothing else in it — no stiffness, no support settlement, no analysis at all. Continuity moves moment about. It does not reduce the total, and it never has.

A skew deck spans square, and the corner knows it. Plan of a 30-degree skew slab, 12 m along the road by 10 m wide, with the reaction per unit length of abutment drawn as a bar at each support point. The load takes the shortest route between the abutments, which is the square span of 10.4 m rather than the 12 m of carriageway — so the reaction runs to the two OBTUSE corners, where the abutments are closest, and drains away from the acute ones. Peak 2.15 times the average, least 0.16. Nothing about the loading is uneven; the geometry is. Internal forces

The deck that spans square

A slab bridge crossing a road at an angle is loaded uniformly and does not carry uniformly. Load takes the shortest route between the abutments, which is not the direction the carriageway runs, and the reaction piles up in two corners.

The library, page 5 of 7 — where slab-action sits