Archive of SID: Optimum Dimensions of Waffle Slab For Medium Size Floors

ASIAN JOURNAL OF CIVIL ENGINEERING (BUILDING AND HOUSING) VOL. 6, NO.
3 (2005)
PAGES 183-197
OPTIMUM DIMENSIONS OF WAFFLE SLAB FOR MEDIUM

SIZE FLOORS
J. Prasad∗, S. Chander and A.K. Ahuja

Department of Civil Engineering, I.I.T.R., Roorkee, India
ABSTRACT
Waffle slab has had its genesis in a rather thick solid-slab floor from which the bottom layer
concrete in tension is partially replaced by their ribs along orthogonal directions. The ribs
D
are reinforced with steel to resist flexural tensile stresses. The dimensions and spacing of
ribs are decided in a manner so as to achieve better load distribution without requiring the
shear reinforcement. The present paper elaborates the results obtained from the analytical
SI
study carried out on waffle slab medium size floor system with a view to achieve the
optimum dimensions of rib spacing, its depth and width. The waffle slab has been
considered as monolithically connected to band beams. Feasibility of structural design of
members has been ensured under the provision of IS: 456-2000.
of
Keywords: waffle slab, medium size floor, R.C.C. slab, optimization
1. INTRODUCTION
ive
1.1 R.C. Floors

Structural floor systems made of Reinforced Cement Concrete are required to efficiently
transmit the floor loads to the vertical systems through Shear, Bending and Torsion resisting
ch
capacities. In addition to these strength requirements, they are required to satisfy the
deformation criteria also, in terms of low deflection and crack width. This entails into the
study of the role of various structural elements specially provided to meet one or more of the
requirements in the domain of strength or deformation. In case of medium span (6 to 12 m)
Ar
floor plans, the structural elements playing specific roles are (i) Column Capital and Drop
Panel in Flat Slab Floor System (Figure 1), (ii) Rib stiffness, Rib spacing and Band Beams
in Waffle Slab floor system (Figure 2), (iii) RC Column shape and size, (iv) relative stiffness
of the horizontal system to that of the vertical system and (v) connectivity of the horizontal
system with the vertical systems.
1.2 Waffle slab

As mentioned above, waffle slab floor system is quite suitable for medium size floors. These
∗
Email-address of the corresponding author: jpfce@rediffmail.com
www.SID.ir
184 J. Prasad, S. Chander and A.K. Ahuja
may be rested on a system of vertical supports e.g. walls, in which case the floor moment
and deflection get concentrated near the mid-span. The floor, on the other hand, can be
framed into the vertical structural system such that there is lateral shifting of moment and
deflection from the mid-span zone towards the supports. Thus, floor framing with the help
of wide band-beams rigidly connected to a system of columns becomes an obvious choice.
D
SI
of
ive
Figure 1. Flat slab floor
2. PARAMETRIC STUDY
ch
2.1 Structural dimensions

In order to carry out parametric investigation to arrive at optimum values of rib number and
dimensions for a given floor size, the waffle slabs with square floor plans of size 6×6 m, 7×7
Ar
m and 8×8 m have been considered keeping the residential and office floors in mind. Larger
spans would need much higher floor thickness, which would be suitable for Grid floor
structural system.
Top slab of the waffle slab floors may be kept at its minimum thickness from
construction point of view. It has been kept as 65 mm for all the floors studied herein. Width
of the ribs has been taken as 100 mm (Figure 3). The shape of ribs is considered as
rectangular during analysis, although in actual practice it may be slightly tapered. The rib
depth has been varied in the range from 130 mm to 260 mm with a regular increment of 10
or 20 mm. The overall floor depth, thus, varies from 195 mm to 325 mm.
www.SID.ir
OPTIMUM DIMENSIONS OF WAFFLE SLAB FOR MEDIUM SIZE FLOORS... 185
D
(a)
SI (b)
Figure 2. Waffle slab floors: (a) without band beams and (b) with band beams
of
ive
ch
Ar
Figure 3. Detailed view of a waffle slab floor with band beams
www.SID.ir
The number of ribs has been taken as five at the minimum with an increment of two until
all the structural requirements are adequately satisfied for the particular floor plan. It may be
considered prudent to increase the rib depth after a certain number of rather closely spaced
ribs are found to be inadequate in meeting a particular structural requirement. The maximum
number of ribs for the largest span is, therefore, taken to be nine. Waffle slabs are assumed
to have band beams along all four edges. Width of the band beams is taken as 1000 mm
extending 500 mm from the center of the columns on both sides and depth as equal to total
thickness of floor. Table 1 summarizes the structural dimensions of the floors studied herein.
Table 1. Dimensions of structural elements
Floor size Rib spacing Effective Rib depth

Sl. No. of ribs
(m) (bc) flange width (Dr)
No.
Lx Ly Nx Ny (mm) (bf) (mm) (mm)
D
1 6 6 5 5 850 850 130, 140, 150, 160
2 6 6 7 7 638 638 130, 140, 150, 160
3
4
5
6
7
7
6
7
7
9
5
7
9
5
7
510
1017
763
SI 510
880
763
130, 140, 150, 160
160, 180, 200, 220
160, 180, 200, 220
of
6 7 7 9 9 610 610 160, 180, 200, 220
7 8 8 5 5 1183 880 200, 220, 240, 260
8 8 8 7 7 888 880 200, 220, 240, 260
ive
9 8 8 9 9 710 710 200, 220, 240, 260
2.2 Floor loading

Only gravity loading on the floor has been considered. The influence of lateral load (wind or
ch
earthquake) has not been considered with a view to ascertain the influence of the
predominant (gravity) loading on the size and configuration of the floor structural members.
The live load values adopted are 3 kN/m2 and 5 kN/m2. Floor finish load has been taken as
1.5 kN/m2 and unit-weight of R.C.C. as 25 kN/m3 in order to evaluate dead loads due to top
Ar
slab, ribs and band beams.
2.3 Materials of construction

The present study has been carried out using M-20 grade concrete and Fe-415 grade steel as
the materials of construction. However, behavior of 8×8 m size waffle floor has been studied
using M-40 grade concrete also.
3. METHOD OF ANALYSIS
www.SID.ir
3.1 Analytical procedure

For the analysis of waffle slabs, orthotropic plate theory [1-5], finite element method [6] and
grid or grillage analysis [7-8] are generally used. In the present study, waffle slab is
considered as made of grid or grillage of beams. The loads are distributed between
longitudinal beams by bending and twisting of transverse beams. The stiffness matrix is
developed on the basis of writing joint equilibrium in terms of stiffness co-efficient and
unknown joint displacements. Straight members of constant cross-section have been
considered. The deformations considered are two orthogonal rotations in the horizontal
plane and a vertical deflection at each of the node. Nodal displacements in the horizontal
plane and rotations along the vertical axis are not considered keeping in view that they do
not significantly contribute to the structural behavior and hence are ignored.
3.2 Computer program

The computer program for grid analysis, written in FORTRAN 77, has been used for the present
D
study. It results in moment, shear force and torsion for each of the elements and deflection and
rotation about the two orthogonal axes at each of the nodes.
3.3 Acceptance criteria
SI
For the purpose of accepting a set of number and dimensions of ribs satisfying structural
requirements, codal-provisions given by Bureau of Indian Standards [9-11] have been adopted in
general. It recommends that final deflection due to all loads including the effects of temperature,
creep and shrinkage, and measured from the as-cast level of the supports of floors, roofs and all
of
other horizontal members should not normally exceed span/250. However, final deflections after
creation of partitions and the applications of finishes should not normally exceed span/350 or 20
mm whichever is less. Codal-provisions of American Concrete Institute [12-14] have also been
referred to with a view to highlighting certain advantages and some special features.
In the present study, floor deflections have been computed separately as elastic deflection
ive
(short-term) (∆e) and creep deflection (long-term) (∆c). There would be additional long-term
deflection due to shrinkage and temperature fluctuations. This component has not been
computed separately, but assumed to be within 10% of the maximum permissible deflection,
i.e. span/250. Therefore, floor deflection requirement (∆max) has been taken as 90% of
ch
span/250 value.
Taking 30% live load as permanent and creep coefficient as 1.6, creep deflection is
obtained from the values of elastic deflection for dead loads [(∆e)DL]and those for live loads
[(∆e)LL] as
Ar
∆c = 1.6 [(∆e)DL + 0.3 (∆e)LL] (1)
Total deflection (∆t) is, then, obtained as
∆t = ∆e + ∆c (2)
4. RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONS
www.SID.ir
4.1 Floor plan: 6×6 m

Results of the analytical study on 6×6 m square waffle slab under a live load intensity of 3
kN/m2 are presented in Tables 2-4. Whereas, Table 2 shows the results of the slab provided
with 5 ribs along each of the two spans, Table 3 gives results for slab with 7 ribs. Results for
slab with 9 ribs in each direction are given in Table 4.
Maximum allowable deflection (∆max) including elastic and creep deflections in case of 6
m span slab is (0.9× span / 250 =) 21.6 mm. A close study of the deflection values in Table 2
and Figure 4 reveals that a rib depth of 130 mm exceeds the maximum permissible
deflection (∆max) by 13% and hence needs to be stiffened by increasing the rib depth. Rib
depth of 140 mm marginally increases the dead load percentage from 60.3 to 60.8 but brings
down the deflection by 15% from 113% to 98%. This configuration of ribs is found suitable
for shear capacity and bending moment resistance point of view also. It is interesting to note
that a rib depth of 130 mm does not satisfy the deflection requirement even when the
number of ribs is increased from 5 to 7 and finally to 9 as shown in Tables 3-4. However,
D
increasing number of ribs does result in increase in dead load percentage from 60.3 to 61.1
and to 61.8 respectively. It is, therefore, inferred that increasing the rib depth is more
advantageous to reducing the rib spacing.
SI
Consumption and distribution of reinforcement may be effected by having a better
dispersion of moment along the span, from negative to positive moment. For this, attention
is drawn to the moment values in Tables 2-4 and Figure 5. It is seen that moment values per
rib deceases with the increase in the number of ribs and steel requirement per rib decreases.
This would be advantageous if accommodating the bars in the thin (100 mm) rib becomes
of
difficult. The amount of steel consumption would, however, be more for the entire floor
since the number of ribs would be more.
Table 2. Deflection, bending moment and shear force values for waffle slab floor of size 6×6 m
ive
with no. of ribs Nx = 5 and Ny = 5 and live load of 3 kN/m2

Deflection Maximum Value as
Dead Load
Rib Maximum as % of Bending Maximum Percentage of
as
Depth Deflection (mm) Maximum Moment Shear Balanced
Percentage
ch
(Dr) Permissible (kN-m) Force Capacity

of Total
(mm) Deflection (kN) Shea
Load ∆e ∆c ∆t -ve +ve -ve BM
(∆max) r
86.6 49.3 68.6 115 68
130 60.3 11.3 13.1 24.4 113
Ar
9.4 10.9 10.3 118 99

87.9 50.0 69.7 104 65
140 60.8 9.8 11.4 21.2 98
9.6 10.9 10.4 108 95
89.1 50.7 70.7 95 63
150 61.4 8.6 10.1 18.7 87
9.8 11.0 10.5 99 90
90.4 51.4 71.8 86 60
160 61.9 7.5 8.8 16.3 76
10.0 11.0 10.5 91 86
Note : First row values are for band beams and second row values are for ribs.
www.SID.ir

Dead Maximum Bending Percentage of
Rib as % of Maximum
Load as Deflection (mm) Moment Balanced
Depth Maximum Shear
Percentag Capacity
(Dr) Permissible (kN-m) Force
e of Total
(∆max) r
12.4 84.7 45.8 69.8 113 69
130 61.1 10.6 23.0 107
8.6 8.9 9.5 108 92
86.1 46.5 71.0 102 66
140 61.7 9.2 10.8 20.0 93
8.8 10.0 9.6 99 87
87.4 47.2 72.2 93 64
150 62.3 8.0 9.4 17.4 81
9.0 10.0 9.7 90 83
D
88.8 47.9 73.4 85 62
160 62.9 6.9 8.1 15.0 70
9.2 10.1 9.8 83 80
SI
Rib depth of 140 mm satisfies the deflection and shear requirements but bending moment
value marginally exceeds the capacity (8%) for the floor having 5 ribs. At this stage, a
choice becomes available from among the following.
of
(i) making the ribs doubly reinforced,
(ii) going in for higher rib depth (say 150 mm),
(iii) increase the rib number (say 7).
ive

Dead Maximum Bending Percentage of
Rib as % of Maximum
Load as
ch

Percentage Capacity
(Dr) Permissible (kN-m) Force
of Total
(∆max) r
Ar
84.5 44.5 70.5 113 70

130 61.8 10.5 12.3 22.8 106
8.2 8.1 9.0 103 87
86.0 45.2 71.8 102 67
140 62.5 9.1 10.8 19.9 92
8.4 8.2 9.1 94 83
87.4 45.9 73.1 93 65
150 63.1 7.9 9.4 17.3 80
8.6 8.3 9.2 86 80
88.0 46.6 74.4 84 63
160 63.8 6.8 8.1 14.9 69
8.8 8.4 9.3 80 76
www.SID.ir
28 92
Total
Max. - ve B.M. in band

Band
Max. deflection (mm)
24 deflection 91
beams
beams (kN-m)
20 Creep 90
16 deflection 89
Elastic
12 88
deflection
8 87
4 86
0 85
120 130 140 150 160 170 120 130 140 150 160 170
Rib depth (mm) Rib depth (mm)
Figure 4. Variation of maximum deflection Figure 5. Variation of maximum –ve B.M.

with depth of rib with depth of rib
D
Amongst these choices, the first one is advantageous in the sense that it needs marginal
increase in steel requirement from the balanced design to doubly reinforced design. It would
load category. SI
meet all the requirements at the lowest percentage of dead load. Thus, it may be concluded
that 5 ribs of 140 mm depth would be structurally most advantageous for the 3 kN/m2 live
Behavior of 6×6 m waffle floor under 5 kN/m2 live load can be understood by studying
the results presented in Tables 5-7 . For this loading, the ribs are required, to be made deeper
of
as well as increased in number. It is seen that 5 ribs are unsuitable. A choice of 150 mm
depth with 9 ribs or 160 mm depth with 7 ribs appears to be working.

ive
Analytical results of 7×7 m size waffle floor are given in Tables 8-10 for live load intensity
of 3 kN/m2. It is observed that rib depths have to be substantially increased from those
suitable for 6×6 m floor. This implies that floor spans are very significant factors in
comparison with others. For 7×7 m floor, the range of ridge depth considered lie between
160 mm and 220 mm. The percentage of dead load increases from around 61% for 6 m span
ch
to around 63% for 7 m span. It is also important to note that this 2% increase in material has
to be located approximately by increasing the rib depth and / or number of ribs so as to
achieve the maximum advantage. It is this aspect, which is brought out clearly through the
study of values presented in Tables 8-10.
Ar
www.SID.ir
Dead
Rib Maximum as % of Bending Percentage of
Load as Maximum
Depth Deflection (mm) Maximum Moment Balanced
Percentag Shear
(Dr) Permissible (kN-m) Capacity
e of Total Force (kN)
(mm) Deflection Shea
(∆max) r
109.3 62.3 86.6 146 86
130 47.6 14.5 14.7 29.2 135
12.1 14.1 13.2 152 127
110.6 63.0 87.6 131 82
140 48.2 12.6 12.9 25.5 118
12.2 14.1 13.3 137 121
111.8 63.7 88.7 119 79
150 48.8 10.9 11.2 22.1 102
12.4 14.1 13.4 125 116
D
113.0 64.3 89.7 108 75
160 49.3 9.6 9.9 19.5 90
12.6 14.2 13.4 114 110
Rib
Dead Load
Maximum
Deflection
as % of
SI
Maximum
Bending Maximum
Value as
Percentage of
of
as
Percentage
of Total
(mm) Deflection (kN)
Load ∆e ∆c ∆t -ve +ve -ve BM Shear
(∆max)
ive
106.4 57.6 87.6 142 87

130 48.5 13.5 13.8 27.3 126
10.9 11.4 12.0 137 116
107.7 58.3 88.8 128 83
140 49.1 11.7 12.0 23.7 110
11.1 11.4 12.1 124 110
109.1 59.0 90.0 116 80
150 49.8 10.2 10.6 20.8 96
ch
11.3 11.5 12.2 114 105

110.6 59.7 91.2 106 77
160 50.4 9.0 9.4 18.4 85
11.5 11.5 12.3 96 101
Ar
It is clear from the values shown in Table 8 that slab with 5 ribs of 200 mm depth is
slightly deficient in both shear as well as bending moment capacity. Rib depth of 220 mm
makes it safe but becomes a little too stiff and thereby floor deflection is reduced to as low
as about 71% of the maximum permissible. It is seen from Table 9 that 7 ribs of 200 mm
depth appear to be quite suitable with about 64% dead load. However, 9 ribs of 180 mm
(Table 10) depth can easily be managed by marginally making the ribs doubly reinforced.
Doubly reinforced section is generally preferred because of its improved ductility. Based on
these observations, it is concluded that for 3 kN/m2 live load, 9 ribs of 180 mm depth is
structurally most efficient for 7×7 m floor plan.
www.SID.ir
Dead
Load as
Percentag
e of Total
(∆max)
105.7 55.7 88.2 141 88
130 49.3 13.3 13.7 27.0 125
10.3 10.2 11.3 129 109
107.2 56.4 89.5 127 84
140 50.0 11.5 12.0 23.5 109
10.5 10.3 11.4 118 104
108.6 57.1 90.7 115 80
150 50.6 10.0 10.5 20.5 95
10.7 10.4 11.5 108 99
110.1 57.8 91.9 105 77
160 51.3 8.8 9.3 18.1 84
D
10.9 10.5 11.6 99 95
Rib
Dead
Load as
Maximum
Deflection
as % of
SI
Maximum
Bending Maximum
Value as
Percentage of
of
Percentag
e of Total
(∆max)
138.1 78.0 94.7 132 80
ive
160 60.8 16.0 18.6 34.6 137

15.8 17.7 14.5 144 119
141.6 79.8 97.3 111 74
180 61.7 12.5 14.7 27.2 108
16.4 17.7 14.8 123 110
145.1 81.7 99.8 95 70
200 62.7 10.0 11.8 21.8 87
16.9 17.8 15.0 106 103
ch
148.6 83.6 102.3 83 66

220 63.7 8.1 9.7 17.8 71
17.3 17.9 15.3 93 97
Results presented in Tables 11-13 explain the behavior of 7×7 m waffle floor under 5
Ar
kN/m2 live load. It is seen that 5 ribs of any depth adopted therein does not satisfy all the
requirements. Increasing the number of ribs to 7 with a rib depth of 220 mm does not
provide a solution. However, 9 ribs of depth 200 mm can be managed since the shear
capacity along with bending capacity can be increased, by making the section doubly
reinforced. It is, therefore, concluded that for 5 kN/m2 live load, 9 ribs of 200 mm depth may
be considered as structurally most efficient.

Response of waffle floor of size 8×8 m has also been obtained under live load intensities of
www.SID.ir
3 kN/m2 and 5 kN/m2. It is seen from the values listed in Table 14 that 5 ribs are unsuitable
for 8×8 m floor plan with live load intensity of 3 kN/m2. Further 7 ribs of 240 mm depth are
deficient in both shear as well as bending moment carrying capacity. Increasing rib depth to
260 mm also does not provide a solution. However, 9 ribs of 240 mm depth can be managed
by making the section doubly reinforced since shear capacity is also increased along with
bending moment capacity. (Results of 7 ribs and 9 ribs are not included in this paper due to
paucity of space). It is, therefore, concluded that for 3 kN/m2 live load, 9 ribs of 240 mm
depth may be considered as the structurally most efficient for 8×8 m floor plan.
Dead
Load as
D
Percentage
of Total
(mm) Deflection (kN) -ve Shea
Load ∆e ∆c ∆t -ve +ve
(∆max) BM r
160
180
61.7
62.7
14.9
11.7
17.5
13.8
32.4
25.5
129
100 SI
136.1
14.5
139.9
15.1
143.7
73.1
14.8
75.0
15.0
77.0
96.4
13.4
99.2
13.7
102.1
130
132
110
113
94
81
110
76
102
71
of
200 63.7 9.3 11.1 20.4 81
15.6 15.2 14.0 98 96
147.5 78.9 104.9 82 68
220 64.7 7.6 9.2 16.8 67
16.1 15.5 14.3 86 90
ive
Dead
ch
Load as
Percentag
e of Total
(∆max)
Ar
134.2 69.9 97.4 128 82

160 62.5 14.3 16.9 31.2 124
13.8 13.1 12.7 125 104
138.2 71.8 100.4 108 77
180 63.6 11.2 13.4 24.6 98
14.4 13.4 13.0 108 97
142.2 73.8 103.5 93 72
200 64.6 9.0 10.8 19.8 79
14.9 13.7 13.3 94 91
146.2 75.9 106.6 81 69
220 65.6 7.3 8.9 16.2 65
15.5 14.0 13.7 83 86
Results of the analysis of 8×8 m size waffle floor under live load intensity of 5 kN/m2
www.SID.ir
show that even 9 ribs of any depth adopted therein do not satisfy all the requirements.
Increasing the number of ribs to 11 also will not provide a solution since reduction in
maximum shear force and bending moments and ribs will be marginal. To make the floor
satisfy all the requirements especially to avoid the shear requirements in ribs, the rib depth is
required to be increased by a large amount resulting in very stiff floor with reduced
deflection and very high dead load percentage. Higher rib depth also reduces the available
headroom, which also may not be desirable. Results for live load intensity of 5 kN/m2 are
not shown here due to paucity of space.
Dead
Load as
D
Percentag
e of Total
(∆max) r
160
180
48.2
49.2
20.5
15.9
20.9
16.4
41.4
32.3
164
128 SI
173.7
20.2
177.1
20.8
180.6
98.2
22.8
100.0
22.9
101.8
119.1
18.6
121.6
18.8
124.1
166
184
139
156
119
100
153
93
141
87
of
200 50.2 12.7 13.2 25.9 103
21.3 22.9 19.1 134 131
184.1 103.7 126.6 103 82
220 51.2 10.2 10.8 21.0 83
21.9 23.0 19.3 117 122
ive
Dead
ch
Load as
Percentag
e of Total
(∆max)
Ar
170.2 91.5 120.4 162 101

160 49.2 18.9 19.5 38.4 153
18.3 18.9 17.0 166 139
173.9 93.4 123.3 136 94
180 50.2 14.8 15.4 30.2 120
18.9 19.0 17.2 142 129
177.6 95.3 126.1 117 88
200 51.2 11.7 12.3 24.0 95
19.5 19.2 17.5 123 120
181.4 97.2 128.9 101 83
220 52.2 9.5 10.1 19.6 78
20.1 19.4 17.8 108 112
Another alternative can be the use of higher strength concrete, such as M-40, in lieu of
www.SID.ir
M-20 grade. Since the modulus of elasticity of concrete is directly proportional to square
root of characteristic compressive strength of concrete (fck), the deflections will be reduced
to about 71% by the use of M-40 grade concrete. Further rib depth of 220 mm will satisfy
the deflection criteria. However, there will be no significant change in bending moment and
shear force values. Since design shear strength of concrete will also be higher for M-40
grade concrete, it is noticed that 9 ribs of 220 mm depth can be managed by slightly
increasing the flexure reinforcement in ribs such that their shear capacity is increased up to
desired level. Based on these observations, it is concluded that by using M-40 grade
concrete, 9 ribs of 220 mm depth may be considered as the structurally most efficient for
8×8 m floor plan with live load intensity of 5 kN/m2.
D
Dead
Load as
Percentag
(mm)
160
e of Total
Load
50.1
∆e
18.0
∆c
18.7
∆t
36.7
Deflection
(∆max)
146
SI-ve
167.0
17.3
171.0
+ve
87.1
16.5
89.0
(kN)
121.1
16.0
124.2
-ve BM
159
157
134
Shear
102
131
95
of
180 51.2 14.1 14.9 29.0 115
17.9 16.7 16.3 134 122
175.0 91.0 127.3 115 89
200 52.2 11.2 11.9 23.1 92
18.5 17.0 16.6 116 114
179.0 93.0 130.3 100 84
220 53.2 9.1 9.8 18.9 75
19.1 17.3 16.9 103 107
ive
ch

Dead
Load as
Percentag
Ar
e of Total
(∆max) r
208.5 116.9 126.3 137 88
200 61.7 19.1 22.4 41.5 144
25.0 26.7 19.7 157 135
213.2 119.4 129.3 119 83
220 62.5 15.5 18.3 33.8 117
25.7 26.8 19.9 138 126
217.8 121.9 132.2 104 79
240 63.3 12.8 15.2 28.0 97
26.3 26.9 20.2 122 118
222.5 124.4 135.2 93 75
260 64.1 10.7 12.8 23.5 82
27.0 27.0 20.6 109 113
www.SID.ir
5. CONCLUSIONS
Following conclusions are drawn from the study presented in this paper.
1. For 6×6 m square floor plan, 5 ribs of 140 mm depth (overall depth 205 mm) is
found to be structurally most efficient for 3 kN/m2 live load intensity.
2. For 5 kN/m2 live load intensity on a 6×6 m square floor plan, a choice between 9
ribs of 150 mm depth and 7 ribs of 160 mm depth becomes available. Percentage of
dead load is about 50 in both the cases.
3. For square floor plan of 7 × 7 m, the most efficient structural system is 9 ribs of
180 mm depth for a live load intensity of 3 kN/m2.
4. For a live load intensity of 5 kN/m2, the most efficient structural system is 9 ribs of
200 mm depth for 7 × 7 m square floor plan.
D
5. For square floor plan of 8 × 8 m, the most efficient structural system is 9 ribs of
240 mm depth for a live load intensity of 3 kN/m2.
6. For square floor plan of 8 × 8 m, the most efficient structural system is 9 ribs of 220
SI
mm depth using M-40 grade concrete for a live load intensity of 5 kN/m2.
REFERENCES
of
1. Timoshenko, S. and Kreiger, S.W., Theory of Plates and Shells, McGraw Hill
Book Co., New York, 1959.
2. Wang, C.K. and Salman, C.G., Reinforced Concrete Design, Harper and Row
Publishers, New York, 1985.
ive
3. McCormac, J.C., Design of Reinforced Concrete, Harper and Row Publishers, New
York, 1986.
4. Nawy, E.G., Reinforced Concrete : A Fundamental Approach, Prentice Hall, Engle
Wood Cliffs, N.J, 1990.
5. Abdul-Wahab, H.M.S. and Khalil, M.H., Rigidity and strength of orthotropic
ch
reinforced concrete waffle slabs, J. Str. Engng., Feb., 219-227, 2000.

6. Krishnamurthy, C.S., Finite Element Analysis, Tata McGraw Hill Publishing Co. Ltd.,
New Delhi, 1987.
7. Cope, R.J. and Clark, L.A., “Analysis and Design of Concrete Slabs”, Elsevier
Ar
Applied Science Publishers Ltd., Essex, London, 1984.

8. Rao, G., Studies in R.C. grid floor systems, M.E. Dissertation, University of
Roorkee, Roorkee, India, 1995.
9. IS: 456–2000, “Indian Standard Code of Practice for Plain and Reinforced
Concrete”, Bureau of Indian standard, New Delhi.
10. SP : 16-1980. Design Aids for Reinforced Concrete to IS : 456-1978, BIS, New
Delhi, India.
11. SP : 24-1983. Explanatory Handbook on Indian Standard Code of Practice for
Plain and Reinforced Concrete IS : 456-1978, BIS, New Delhi, India.
www.SID.ir
12. ACI : 318-1995. Building Code Requirements for Reinforced Concrete, American
Concrete Institute, Detroit, USA.
13. ACI : 318R-1995. Commentary on Building Code Requirements for Reinforced
Concrete, ACI, Detroit, USA.
14. Rice, P.F. and Hoffman, E.S., Structural Design Guide to ACI Building Code, Van
Nostrand Reinhold Company, New York, 1985.
D
SI
of
ive
ch
Ar
www.SID.ir
Surf and download all data from SID.ir: www.SID.ir
Translate via STRS.ir: www.STRS.ir
Follow our scientific posts via our Blog: www.sid.ir/blog
Use our educational service (Courses, Workshops, Videos and etc.) via Workshop: www.sid.ir/workshop

Archive of SID: Optimum Dimensions of Waffle Slab For Medium Size Floors

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

You might also like

Archive of SID: Optimum Dimensions of Waffle Slab For Medium Size Floors

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Archive of SID: Optimum Dimensions of Waffle Slab For Medium Size Floors

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

ASIAN JOURNAL OF CIVIL ENGINEERING (BUILDING AND HOUSING) VOL. 6, NO.

OPTIMUM DIMENSIONS OF WAFFLE SLAB FOR MEDIUM

J. Prasad∗, S. Chander and A.K. Ahuja

1.1 R.C. Floors

1.2 Waffle slab

Figure 1. Flat slab floor

2.1 Structural dimensions

Figure 3. Detailed view of a waffle slab floor with band beams

Table 1. Dimensions of structural elements

Floor size Rib spacing Effective Rib depth

9 8 8 9 9 710 710 200, 220, 240, 260

2.2 Floor loading

slab, ribs and band beams.

2.3 Materials of construction

3.1 Analytical procedure

3.2 Computer program

3.3 Acceptance criteria

∆c = 1.6 [(∆e)DL + 0.3 (∆e)LL] (1)

Total deflection (∆t) is, then, obtained as

4. RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONS

4.1 Floor plan: 6×6 m

with no. of ribs Nx = 5 and Ny = 5 and live load of 3 kN/m2

(Dr) Permissible (kN-m) Force Capacity

9.4 10.9 10.3 118 99

with no. of ribs Nx = 7 and Ny = 7 and live load of 3 kN/m2

Deflection Maximum Value as

Deflection Maximum Value as

Depth Deflection (mm) Maximum Moment Shear Balanced

84.5 44.5 70.5 113 70

Max. - ve B.M. in band

Figure 4. Variation of maximum deflection Figure 5. Variation of maximum –ve B.M.

4.2 Floor plan: 7×7 m

106.4 57.6 87.6 142 87

11.3 11.5 12.2 114 105

160 60.8 16.0 18.6 34.6 137

148.6 83.6 102.3 83 66

4.3 Floor plan: 8×8 m

134.2 69.9 97.4 128 82

170.2 91.5 120.4 162 101

Deflection Maximum Value as

reinforced concrete waffle slabs, J. Str. Engng., Feb., 219-227, 2000.

Applied Science Publishers Ltd., Essex, London, 1984.

Translate via STRS.ir: www.STRS.ir

Follow our scientific posts via our Blog: www.sid.ir/blog

You might also like