Slabs with Hidden Beams

Facts and Fallacies

Samir H. Helou , Ph.D., P.E. Munther M. Diab, Ph., D.

Civil Engineering Department Civil Engineering Department
An-Najah National University An-Najah National University
Nablus, Palestine Nablus, Palestine

Abstract-Local and perhaps regional vernacular

reinforced concrete building construction leans heavily Keywords-component; Drop Beams; Hidden Beams;
against designing slabs with imbedded hidden beams Flat Slabs; Seismic Behavior
for flooring systems in most structures including major
edifices. The practice is popular in both framed and in
shear wall structures. Hidden beams are favored
structural elements due to the many inherent features I. STATEMENT OF THE PROBLEM
that characterize them; they save on floor height
clearance, they also save on formwork, labor and
Hidden beams are quite popular and form an essential
material cost. Moreover, they form an acceptable
esthetic appearance that allows for efficient interior part of modern reinforced concrete framed structures.
space partitioning. Hidden beams have the added The idea emanates from strict architectural
advantage of clearing the way for horizontal considerations. They provide better height clearance
electromechanical ductwork. However, seismic and simplify internal partitioning. This is in addition
considerations, in all likelihood, are seldom addressed. to removing potential obstacles in the way of
electromechanical duct works. Furthermore, it is
The mentioned structural system of shallow beams is noticed that thorough discourse about their structural
adopted in ribbed slabs, waffle slabs and at times with efficiency is hitherto lacking. This applies to their
solid slabs. Ribbed slabs and waffle slabs are more
performance under static as well as dynamic loadings;
prone to hidden beam inclusion due to the added
effective height of the concrete section. albeit modern structures are necessarily code required
to be earthquake safe.
In the following study the structural influence of hidden
beams within slabs is thoroughly investigated. The The following is a numerical study targeting a
investigation tackles, inter alias, deflection, bending capability assessment of such structural elements. The
moment distribution between beam and slab as well as undertaking investigates the following different slab
its impact on relevant seismic parameters during scenarios and topologies:
earthquake ground excitation thus assessing the
vulnerability of such structural systems. Furthermore,
1. Solid slabs on drop beams
the following parametric study is extended to focus on
medium size three reinforced concrete structures that 2. Solid slabs with imbedded beams
differ in their respective flooring systems. The present 3. Solid slabs with no beams
study is a comparative one among various slab systems 4. Two way ribbed slabs with hidden beams.
that include slabs with drop beams, ribbed slabs and 5. Two way ribbed slabs with no beams
solid slabs with hidden beams. Natural frequencies and
Mass Participation Factors are compared; both values Such elements form a part of a framed structure with
are fundamental for the number of characteristic modes one-way slabs as the primary flooring system in
necessary for inclusion in the analysis. which wide and shallow beams constitute a
characteristic feature; their width is usually larger than
Numerical results point in the direction that the
function of hidden beams is not as adequate as desired. the size of the supporting column and their depth is
Therefore it is strongly believed that they are generally normally equal to the depth of the rest of the slab.
superfluous and maybe eliminated altogether. Moreover, it is safe to presume that such beams have
Conversely, shallow beams seem to render the overall a high reinforcement ratio particularly at the column
seismic capacity of the structure unreliable. Such connection to compensate for the insufficient effective
argument is rarely manifested within linear analysis depth; hence ductility is a diminished inherent feature.
domain; a pushover analysis exercise is thus Since such beams are not fully supported on columns
mandatory.

1
renders the spandrel connection capacity unreliable, II. THE SLAB NUMERICAL MODELS
short of an adequate torsion design. Furthermore, the
orthogonal direction is more vulnerable since the The selected topology for the present undertaking is
beams in this direction are either narrower, so called arbitrarily comprised of 6 equal spans in one direction
tie beams or not present at all which places a higher and 4 spans in the orthogonal direction. The span
strength demand on the joists alone. The strut force lengths are all equal; they are of 9 meters length in
developed within the beam-column element is one direction and 6 meters in the other. Live loads of
considerably high due to its shallow nature. Finally, it 5 KN per square meter are equally distributed. No
is justifiable to make the added presumption that the load combinations are necessary for the present
overall seismic strength and the stiffness of the purpose. Models are intentionally made similar for
building are compromised. better and easier comparison. The numerical models
are constructed using SAFE of Computers and
Structures Incorporation. Slab thickness in all models
is set to 23 cm which is in compliance with the
American Concrete Institute code requirements.

Figure 1: Slab System Plan

Model 1: The slab has a depth of 23 centimeters; the the supporting hidden beams is 100 cm. The
beams, spanning in both directions, have a total depth dimensions are selected based on mundane local
of 60 centimeters and a width of 30 centimeters. The practice.
columns are square of 30 cm width. This is the model
used as a basis for subsequent comparison. Model 5: This is the same as Model 4 yet the hidden
beams are totally eliminated with two-way waffle
Model 2: In model 2 the same topology is selected slabs.
with the exception that all interior beams are made Furthermore, in order to investigate the structural
shallow with a width of 100 centimeters. behavior of hidden beams within the context of
framed environment, three medium size structures are
Model 3: Model 3 is the same as models 1 and 2 but modeled using Etabs; they are symmetric and regular,
with no interior beams. Strict flat plate flooring. thus avoiding possible twisting action; one structure
involves hidden beams and one-way slab flooring
Model 4: In this model ribbed slabs are introduced. system while the second has regular drop beams; in
Each rib has a web width of 15 centimeters and a total the third selected structure flat slabs form the flooring
depth of 23 cm. The flange thickness is 6 cm while system. Side walls are excluded since zero or low
the center to center rib spacing is 55 cm. The width of

2
density exterior walls are becoming the common quite small in comparison with the deep beam of
feature of modern structures. model 1. Models 3 and 5 are quite similar. The results
of Table 2 show that models 2 and 3 are quite similar
Dynamic behavior is also investigated by examining which implies that beams imbedded in slabs make
the basic dynamic parameters that prescribe the little if any contribution towards added stiffness.
behavior of any structural and ultimately its structural
response. Such parameters include the eigen-values, Within a structure environment it is noticed that a
its distribution and the associated eigenvectors. system with hidden beams does not offer added
advantage over a system in which hidden beams are
III. SUMMARY OF RESULTS eliminated and replaced a flat slab. The same
argument is manifested in deflection readings. Flat
slab deflection is about the same as hidden beam
The tables below are self explanatory; e.g. Table 1
deflection.
below that the share of the shallow beam of model 2 is

Table 1: Bending Moment at a Typical Interior Span due to Live Loads [KN-m]

Table 2: Fundamental Frequency Distribution

Mid-point
Fundamental Circular Frequency, Deflection at
rad/sec end span
mm
Model 1 38.5 41.63 42.5 45.3 3.94
Model 2 32.3 34.6 38.3 40.2 6.05
Model 3 32.8 35.1 39.2 40.3 7.10
Model 4 30.0 32.3 33.8 35.9 2.84
Model 5 29.7 31.7 34.7 36.0 14.3

Table 3: Fundamental Period of the 3 Structures

With Hidden Flat Slabs With Drop
Beams Beams
Mode 1 1.8009 1.2311 1.0350
Mode 2 1.1474 1.1790 0.8738
Mode 3 1.1347 0.9180 0.7726
Mode 4 0.5385 0.3996 0.3516
Mode 5 0.3937 0.3853 0.2943

IV. PUSHOVER ANALYSIS to monotonically increasing lateral forces until a

target displacement is reached. In the present case a
In order to further explore the behavior of shallow 50 cm control target displacement at the top floor is
beams a three dimensional Pushover Analysis is set in order to get better knowledge on potentially
invoked because many response characteristics brittle elements. For the present discourse the focus is
cannot be obtained from standard linear elastic or on the beam-column connections and the axial force
dynamic analysis. Linear analysis is a code demand on supporting columns. This is when
descriptive method suitable for low intensity loads; performance based seismic engineering is combined
this route becomes irrelevant in a strong seismic with seismic hazard assessment to compute the
event. In pushover analysis the structure is subjected seismic performance. The following result is obtained

3
and shown in Figure 2. The result is obtained after V. CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS
plastic moment hinges are defined at the beam edges
where the expected large reinforcement ratio at such Based on the numerical exercise performed on the
localities would render the shallow beams as brittle. different slab systems alone and on the various
It is clearly noticed that the ledger periphery deep flooring systems within similar structures it is noticed
beams are in IO [immediate occupancy] range while that in comparison with the system of drop beams,
the hidden beams are already beyond CP [collapse selected as a comparison basis, hidden or imbedded
mechanism] range. Such observations remain beams provide little, if any, added value. It can be
obscured within the realm of a linear analysis concluded that shallow beams are vulnerable to
discourse. Such an analysis usually leads to design seismic action and their behavior is questionable.
modifications that better ensure life safety structural This is addition to the fact that even under static
performance under seismic design. loadings a hidden beam behaves more of a slab than
of a beam. The foregoing results indicate that the
selection of shallow beam elements within a structural
system is a judicious choice that requires a thorough
in-depth analysis within the context of the overall
structural behavior. Linear discourse is illusive and
could be misleading as it may lead to erroneous
results. The present study indicates that the use of
shallow beams demands focused attention, proper in
depth analysis and meticulous detailing.

BIBLIOGRAPHY
[1] ACI 318-08 (2008) Building Code Requirements for Structural
Concrete and Commentary, American Concrete Institute.
[2] Popov, E.P, Cohen, E, Koso-Thomas, K., Kasai, K. (1992)
Behavior of narrow and Wide Beams, ACI Structural Journal, 89
(6). 607-16
[3] Dominguez, D., Lopez-Almansa,F., Benavent-Climent, A.,
Seismic Vulnerability Analysis of RC Buildings with Wide
Figure 2: Pushover Analysis Results Beams, Engineering Structures (2013), Vol. 46 pp. 687-702.