*project <**Β**_422-3>*

*The structure of this example derives from the 1st example by removing beams b1, b2 and appending a cantilever at the side of beams b5 and b6.
*

*V _{x}* varying from

*V _{x}* vary from

*Shear forces [V _{y}] extend only in the regions of the middle supports.*

*M _{x}*,

The above values refer to the ‘Slab Results’ section calculated from the integration of the stress resultants in distribution width of 1.0 m. The respective values of the ‘FEM Results’ for *M _{x}* are: at free edges,

The differences are insignificant

.

*The distribution of bending moments [M _{y}] extend only in the regions of the top supports.*

The maximum deflection developed at the free edges is equal to

Shears *V _{x}* in the middle cross-sections of the two two-way slabs, vary from

The same applies to the shears on the supports to the three-edge-supported slabs where their value *31.4 kN* differ insignificantly from the respective shears of the 1^{st} example.

At the cantilever regions close to the three transverse linear supports of the two adjacent two-way slabs, shear forces are high due to concentration of extra loads transferred from the immediately adjacent slabs. This specific influence is well shown in the following figures, containing the detailed shear forces and bending moments distributions.

*Μ _{y}*.

*130.8* and *138.6 kN*) and secondarily for moments. These regions are forced to carry large part of the load of the adjacent slabs mainly near the supports. This is the reason why the occurrence of high shears shortly before and shortly after the support. However, these shears are taken into account in detail by considering their average values in a width, e.g. 1.0 m, which equals to *47.0 kN* (‘Slab Results’)*.*

Span moments of two-way slabs, are relatively low (*M _{x}=8.9 kNm* and

At the common support, *M _{x,erm}=-20.0 kNm* (the respective value of the 1

It is concluded that the stress resultants on most of the area of the two-way slabs are similar to those of the 1^{st} example.

In the region of the continuity with the cantilever support moments are *-30.6 kNm *equal to almost isostatic moment of the cantilever. The higher moments of the cantilever - *41.0 kNm *are the local peak moments, as shown in the next figure in the detailed distribution of the *M _{y }*due to the fixed transverse supports.

The positive peak moments forming a sharp “hole”, at the region of the support exactly behind the cantilever, results from the negative load created at this region by the cantilever’s moment.

Notice that the influence of the strong cantilever, both in negative and positive moments, decreases in a small distance from the cantilever support.

The insignificant differences in values of moments M_{x} between ‘FEM results’ and ‘Slab results’ are due to the relatively small curvature of the 3D moment diagram

*M _{x}*

.

Negative moments are developed on most of the region of the two-way slabs due to the strong cantilever support.

Along most of the support of the cantilever and the two-way slabs, bending moments have a value of*-31.1 kNm *whereas near the supports peak values occur within a width less than 1.0 m.