CHAPTER – 1

INTRODUCTION TO THE STUDY

1.1 INTRODUCTION

In structural engineering, a slab is a flat, horizontal structural element which forms the

floors and ceilings of buildings. Slabs are primarily constructed from reinforced

concrete, providing a solid and durable surface capable of supporting loads from

occupants, furniture, and other structural elements. The design and construction of slabs

are critical aspects of building engineering, as they contribute significantly to the

stability, functionality, and overall integrity of a structure.

The rapid advancement in civil engineering has led to the evolution of numerous

construction techniques and structural systems. Among these, flat slabs and waffle slabs

have attracted a lot of attention because of their structural efficiency and architectural

flexibility. These systems are widely adopted in modern buildings, including residential

complexes, commercial structures, and institutional buildings. The choice between flat

slabs and waffle slabs can significantly impact the overall performance, cost, and

sustainability of a construction project.

1.2 BACKGROUND OF THE STUDY

With a matrix (binder paste) that can integrate a filler ingredient (granular skeleton),

concrete is a biphasic composite material. Although cement is typically present in the

binder matrix, it is not required to be present in the composition of the concrete. It is

possible to make concrete without cement by using alternative readily available binding

materials.

1
The extensive use of concrete as a building material, which led to a new construction

methodology in the 20th century, began later with the development of Portland cement

for reinforced concrete and the involvement of architects.

1.2.1 Pre – Roman Concrete

Man has utilized natural resources from the dawn of civilization. Man, quickly

discovered how to shape and modify them to suit his requirements. The three most

common building materials were clay, wood, and stone. Metals, leather, and vegetable

fibers were used on a smaller scale.

The man started using materials that were stronger, more durable, and more visually

appealing as his demands grew over time. In this setting, construction materials evolved

one after the other.

1.2.2 Roman Concrete

The Greeks' ancient construction methods typically involved the use of stone beams

and columns as structural elements to identify spaces, particularly in big buildings and

monuments. The Romans took a different tack and started using concrete as a structural

element to build expansive areas with vaults and domes that were unparalleled in height

and span. Concrete's invention and application made that possible. Western architecture

was completely transformed by the contribution of Roman civilization and the usage of

Roman concrete, sometimes known as opus cementicium or concretus. Significant

scientific advancements as well as significant advancements in engineering and

architecture have been made possible by Roman concrete. The most significant

architectural art and method that the Romans left for humanity was concrete.

2
1.2.3 Portland Cement

John Smeaton is linked to a concrete historic landmark that was recruited in 1756 to

construct a lighthouse that would survive the site's severe conditions. In order to

identify a binder that would maintain a high resistance when submerged in seawater,

he conducted research. He discovered a hydraulic binder that delivered slag iron after

conducting a number of investigations. It was made of a mixture of lime, clay, Italian

pozzolan, and a small amount of gypsum. So, Smeaton produced concrete. The

resulting binder was used as cement by Smeaton, who discovered that it solidified

similarly to Portland stone. Thus, the name Portland Cement, which is still in use today,

came from this. Louis Vicat oversaw the building of the Souillac Bridge in France in

1812. He started researching the reasons behind lime hydration during this time, and

five years later, he reported the findings of their experiments: Experiments on the

Chaux des Construction, the Bétons, and the Ordinary Mortiers demonstrated that

cement was produced by combining burned limestone and clay. Thus, the Souillac

Bridge was the first concrete without reinforcement bridge, and Louis Vicat was

credited with inventing artificial cement. Joseph Aspdin, an Englishman, patented the

production of Portland cement in 1824 using a method that was similar to Vicat's but

most likely only differed in that he was able to obtain tricalcium silicate by heating it

to a higher temperature, which gave him greater resistance than Vicat's products.

1.2.4 Reinforced Concrete

Despite its clear advantages, Portland cement concrete did not spark a revolution in the

building sector. Concrete was merely an artificial stone, and because stone materials

had a lower tensile strength than concrete, the structural design had to stick to the basic

building principles of masonry. However, a concrete boat (ferrocement) that was

3
invented by Joseph and Louis Lambot in 1847 was displayed at the Universal

Exhibition of Paris in 1855.

1.2.5 High-Performance Concrete (HPC)

The development of high-strength concrete led to the creation of HPC. From roughly

25 MPa to 30 MPa in the 1960s, compressive strength has increased to 150 MPa

nowadays. The success of HPC is predicated on the fact that its constituents are

identical to those of conventional concrete, necessitating only the mandatory use of

superplasticizers (SP) and occasionally mineral additions, while maintaining the

necessary implementation conditions and causing minimal disruption to the equipment

and procedures typically employed in conventional concrete.

Shah (2000) has illustrated HPC's behavior and performance. He claims that the HPC

preserves the adaptability of traditional concrete while achieving the strength and

durability of natural stone—a stone that is readily shaped, armed, and diligently pre-

and post-tensioned with cables and combined with various fibers.

1.2.6 Ultra High-Performance Concrete

Although UHPC is still a cementitious material, it differs greatly from ordinary or even

high-performance concrete, namely on a micro level. Because of the significant

decrease in porosity, UHPC maximizes the cement's resistance capability. Although

portland cement is used to make most UHPC, others are manufactured with alumina or

cement with a very low Cost. Packing density models for dry granular mixes, which

were previously known to be spherical particles, allowed for this reduction in porosity.

However, one crucial element was missing from these models' applicability to concrete:

the cement particles are not spherical. The investigation of granular mixes (cement +

SF) utilizing optimization models of compactness only proved fruitful when SF

4
addition—which has roughly spherical particles—began to be utilized. For structural

applications that call for the incorporation of fibers or confinement in steel tubes, for

instance, UHPC is an extremely ductile material.

1.3 Present Status

There will be a land space shortage due to the massive construction activities that are

occurring everywhere in this modern industrial era. To address this issue, tall buildings

are being built. A number of components have been changed to speed up and save costs,

such as the introduction of flat slab construction, which lowers dead weight, hides

beams, and increases floor surface. The optimal choice or suitability parameter for the

structures can only be determined after the structure has been subjected to all types of

loadings, all seismic zone variables, and different soil categories.

1.3.1 Conventional Slab

The phrase "conventional slab" describes a slab that has columns and beams that

support it. In this type, weight is distributed to beams first, followed by columns, and

the slab's thickness is minimal while the beam's depth is significant. The formwork

needed is greater than for the flat slab. It is not necessary to provide column tops for

typical slabs. A typical slab is 4 inches (10 cm) thick. It is advised to use 5 to 6 inches

if the concrete may occasionally be subjected to severe loads, such as garbage trucks or

motor homes. Frame buildings made of reinforced concrete are frequently utilized in

construction.

Mishra and Tiwari (2023) provide a thorough picture of the slab in their article, and

they claim that beams—also known as rib and block—are primarily utilized in

residential and commercial settings. Pre-stressed beams and hollow blocks make up

this slab type, which is temporarily propped until it sets, usually after 21 days.

5
A hollow core slab that is crane-installed on location after being built.

Thinner precast concrete slabs are stretched between steel frames to make the floors as

well as ceilings on each story of skyscrapers and high-rise buildings. In addition to

homes, high-rise structures, and expansive shopping malls use cast-in-situ slabs. On-

site shutters and reinforced steel are used to cast these in-situ slabs. Patil et al. (2013)

have critically examined several slabs and noted that Beams and columns support a

conventional slab, also known as a regular slab. These types have a thin slab thickness

and a large beam depth that is transferred to the load-bearing beams and subsequently

to the columns. Compared to the flat slab, more formwork is needed for this. For the

standard-type slab, column caps are not required.

Conventional concrete slabs are square and 4 meters long. Reinforcement is provided

by a typical slab. Distribution bars are positioned vertically, and main (primary)

reinforcing bars are positioned horizontally.

Slab spans up to 20 feet (6.1 meters), the typical span length in residential and

commercial construction, and has historically been linked to reinforced concrete.

Longer spans were only infrequently framed with reinforced concrete in the past.

However, in recent decades, column layouts have changed in line with architectural

designs that favor expansive, open office spaces. The move away from 20-foot (6.1-

meter) workspaces that relied on natural light and toward larger office spaces intended

for artificial light had an impact on this architectural direction. The result is that longer

spans are now standard in office building structural systems.

Historical Perspective: Slab spans up to 6.1 meters, the typical span length in

residential and commercial construction, and have historically been linked to reinforced

concrete. Longer spans were only infrequently framed with reinforced concrete in the

past. However, in recent decades, column layouts have changed in tandem with

6
architectural designs that favour expansive, open office spaces. The shift from 6.1meter

workplaces that relied on natural light to larger office spaces intended for artificial light

had an impact on this architectural trend. Because of this, office building structural

systems today often have longer spans. The development of cost-effective long-span

concrete slabs in tall structures was influenced by numerous variables, including:

• Replacement of the working-stress design method with the strength-design

method for proportioning sections. This allowed more slender sections and

resulted in a uniform factor of safety throughout the entire structure is attainable.

• A significant increase in the strength of both concrete and reinforcing steel,

permitting more slender sections.

• Development of formwork large slab areas (entire bays) are formed by a single

formwork and transferred as a unit from story to story. Multiple uses of forms

permit more complex slab sections, thus improving slab efficiency without

economic penalty.

• Use of post-tensioning for cast-in-place systems. This permits slender sections

whose deflections are well controlled-a particularly important aspect for long

spans.

• Implementation of more efficient construction techniques such as the use of

efficient cranes, construction elevators, and pumping of concrete.

A solid slab held up by beams on all four sides was the initial reinforced concrete slab

system. If the ratio of a slab panel's long to short sides is two or more, the panel acts as

a one-way slab, and load transfer in this system largely happens by short-directional

bending. Since significant load is transferred by bending in both orthogonal directions

when the ratio of a slab panel's sides approaches unity, it must be considered a two-way

slab rather than a one-way slab (square panel). The column-line beams progressively

7
started to go away as time and technology advanced. A flat plate is the resultant slab

system, which is made up of solid slabs that are directly supported by columns. For

multi-storey residential and institutional construction, including hospitals, hotels,

hostels, apartment complexes, and motels, the flat plate slab method is currently the

most popular because of its high efficiency and affordability. Compared to other

concrete floor/roof systems, flat plates can be built faster and with less labour since they

need the least complicated formwork and reinforcing steel layout. There are further

significant financial benefits of using flat plate construction. For example, story heights

are automatically lowered due to the floor system's shallow thickness, which results in

shorter floor-to-ceiling partitions, smaller exterior wall and utility shaft overall heights,

fewer sprinkler and duct risers, plumbing, and many other construction-related items.

The thin flat plate allows the construction of the maximum number of storeys on a given

plan area, which is advantageous in areas like Mumbai where building height

restrictions apply. Additionally, flat plates offer the greatest versatility in terms of how

columns, walls, small openings, etc. can be arranged. Compared to conventional

structural solutions, considerable cost and construction time savings are achievable

when job conditions permit the direct application of the ceiling finish to the flat plate

soffit, thereby removing the need for suspended ceilings. Punching shear around the

columns is the main restriction on the usage of flat plate construction. The flat plate is

frequently locally thickened around the columns to create drop panels or shear caps for

large weights or long spans. A flat plate is referred to as a flat slab when it has drop

panels or shear caps installed. Additionally, the column tops are occasionally flared to

create column capitals because of the shear capacity surrounding the columns. A drop

panel is considered to be a component of the slab for design purposes, while a column

capital is considered to be a part of the column.

8
1.3.2 FLAT SLAB

In a FLAT SLAB, a two-way reinforced concrete slab which usually does not have

beams or girders, the loads are passed directly to the supporting concrete columns. By

utilizing a drop panel and a column capital in FLAT SLAB are two methods to

counteract the column's tendency to pierce the SLAB in flat slabs. A FLAT SLAB is a

reinforced concrete slab which is directly supported by concrete columns and does not

require an immediate beam. This form of construction began in 1906 when C.A.P.

Turner built a flat slab in the United States mostly employing conceptual and intuitive

principles. In the United States, several slabs were load-tested between 1910 and 1920.

Nicholas didn't propose a flat slab analysis method based on basic statistics until 1914.

This approach called the direct design method, is still utilized today to build flat plates

and slabs. The equivalent frame approach using similar beams, like the one put forth by

Jacob S. Grossman in partial engineering, is frequently used by structural engineers to

analyze flat plate structures. In nations where cast-in-place construction is the most

common method of building, floor systems made of flat slabs are highly popular due to

their many benefits, which include architectural freedom, efficient use of space, simpler

framework, and quicker construction times. Office buildings are the primary use for flat

slabs because of their easy installation, quick excavation, and lower frame construction

costs.

These days, beam-less, highly functional structures are called flat slabs. All we have to

do is thicken the slab and add panels to the top of the columns. According to Mishra

and Tiwari (2023), flat slab structures are more useable due to their decreased floor-

to-floor height, lower construction costs, and additional benefits including meeting

architectural standards.

9
When it comes to seismic excitations, flat slab building structures are far more

adaptable than traditional concrete slabs. According to Pahwa et al. (2014), the

reinforced concrete flat slab is a highly admired concept in structural engineering

because it satisfies architectural requirements for improved illumination, which needs

only simple formwork which could be removed more quickly (than other slabs), and

guarantees open vision while maximizing the use of available space.

More et al. (2013) The performance and behavior of flat slabs under dynamic loading

circumstances have been thoroughly examined in their study. They claim that a flat slab

exhibits stability under prolonged loading.

It's possible that structures made to withstand vertical loads won't be able to handle

lateral loads. Since lateral loads are more variable and rise faster than vertical weights,

which are thought to rise linearly with height, they are the primary loads. Under seismic

loads and identical wind, the "overturning moment" at the base of the structure is rather

significant and varies with the square of the building's height. The building exhibits

cantilever behavior because the top level is subjected to much higher lateral loads than

the bottom level. The frame tilts as a result of these lateral stresses. In a number of

seismically active areas, buildings that were not designed to sustain earthquake loads

have crumbled multiple times. Given all of these reactions, it is essential to analyze the

effects of lateral loads. According to Patil et al. (2014), the lateral load caused by flat

slabs is substantial and cannot be disregarded, especially for high-rise buildings when

additional variables like strong winds, vibrations, etc., may be present.

Characteristics of Flat slabs

• Use of prefabricated welded mesh

• “ Shorter construction time

• Saving in building height

10
 • Flexibility in room layout

• Ease of installation of M&E services ”

• Buildable score

Application of Flat Slabs

In a traditional construction, the slab is supported by the beams and columns. By using

columns to directly support the slab, the flat slab approach does away with the

requirement for beams. Because of its practicality, ease of construction, and

adaptability to interior design, a flat slab is frequently used to create asymmetrical

column layouts.

Most buildings use flat slabs, particularly where less formwork is required or greater

aesthetics and light dispersion are sought. In public spaces like theatres, skyscrapers,

parking garages, etc., flat slabs are commonly utilized to construct unusual column

layouts like ramps, storeys with bending shapes, etc. In their work, Patil et al. (2014)

discussed the usefulness of a flat slab.

The use of flat slabs provides a depth solution, favourable conditions for the

construction of flat soffits, and increased design arrangement flexibility. Wherever

there is a chance that internal layouts will need to be changed in the future, flat slabs

can be employed because they offer a great lot of flexibility.

1.3.3 WAFFLE SLABS

Waffle Slabs can be defined as “A reinforced concrete slab with equally spaced ribs

parallel to the sides, having a waffle appearance from below. A Waffle Slab is a type

of building material that has two-directional reinforcement on the outside of the

material, giving it the shape of the pockets on a waffle. A Waffle Slab is a type of

building material that has two-directional reinforcement on the outside of the material,

giving it the shape of the pockets on a waffle” as quoted by Mishra & Bajpai, (2020).
11
The bottom of a reinforced concrete waffle slab is supported by concrete joists that

extend in mutually perpendicular directions. The term "waffle" refers to the grid layout

created by the R.C. ribs. Another name for it is two-way joist slab. It is mainly utilized

when the span exceeds 12 meters. Compared to other slab types, it is stronger. There

are two sections to the slab. The first component is a flat surface at the top, while the

second section is made up of joists at the bottom that form a structure resembling a grid.

When the molds are removed, the grid appears. It is also employed when the structure

is subjected to significant loads. Because of its rigidity, this kind of slab is utilized in

buildings that need to vibrate as little as possible, such manufacturing and laboratory

facilities.

Mishra and Tiwari (2023) added that a waffle slab greatly increases a substance's

structural stability without requiring a lot more material. Because of this, waffle slabs

are ideal for big, level spaces like floors or foundations. A square grid of deep ribs with

coffers in between is used in the building of reinforced concrete floors and roofs.

Waffle slab structure is said to be made up of solid heads at the columns and rows of

concrete joists at right angles to one another (to maximize punching shear resistance).

Typically, ordinary square dome forms are used to produce the joists. To create the

solid heads that serve as drop panels, the domes surrounding the columns are removed.

“ When compared to traditional flat slab construction, waffle slab design provides for a

significant reduction in dead load . Therefore, it is especially useful in situations where

”

significant loads and/or lengthy spans are required without the need for deepening drop

panels or support beams. The joist ribs' geometric shape is frequently favored in

architecture. Joshi et al. (2020) discussed the design of a waffle slab based on columns

and examined its strength and stability in their published study.

12
It is also employed when the structure is subjected to significant loads. Because of its

rigidity, this kind of slab is utilized in buildings that need to vibrate less as possible,

such as manufacturing and laboratory facilities.

Utane and Dahake (2016) in their study gave the detailed behavior of flat as well as

waffle slabs in terms of irregularity in their shape due to load applied laterally.

Anupoju (2017)has published work on waffle slabs, which provide a material with a

great deal of structural stability without requiring a lot of extra material. Because of
“

this, waffle slabs are ideal for big, level spaces like floors or foundations. A square grid

of deep ribs with coffers in between is used in the building of reinforced concrete floors
”

and roofs.

Characteristics of Waffle Slabs

• In general, waffle slabs work well in flat spaces.

• Compared to others, a very small volume of concrete is used.

• The waffle slab's reinforcing is offered as individual bars or as mesh.

• In the case of a waffle slab, separate excavation for beams is not necessary.

• The slab's bottom surface resembles a waffle and is made from cardboard

panels, pods, etc.

• Waffle slabs should have a thickness of 75 to 100 mm and a maximum total

depth of 300 to 600 mm.

• Waffle slabs often have beams or ribs that are 110 to 200mm wide.

• Rib spacing should be between 600 and 1500 mm.

• Up to 16 meters of span can be covered with reinforced waffle slabs; for longer

spans, prefabricated waffle slabs are preferred.

• Waffle slabs are less expensive than footing slabs and strengthened rafts and are

good at withstanding decreases.

13
 • Waffle slabs use only 70% of the concrete and 80% of the steel utilized for the

reinforced raft.

1.4 BACKGROUND

The structural design of buildings is a crucial aspect of civil engineering, impacting

both the safety and functionality of the constructed environment. Among the various

structural systems employed in modern construction, slab systems—particularly flat

and waffle slabs—are prevalent due to their versatility, efficiency, and aesthetic appeal.

Flat slabs, characterized by their uniform thickness and support directly on columns

without the need for beams, offer simplicity in construction and architectural freedom.

Waffle slabs, on the other hand, utilize a grid of ribs in two directions beneath the slab,

providing greater strength and spanning capabilities with reduced material usage.

Understanding the behavior and performance of these slabs under various loads is

essential for ensuring structural integrity and optimizing material efficiency. The

interior panels of flat and waffle slabs, which are often subjected to the highest loads

and stresses, are of particular interest in this context.

1.5 INTRODUCTION of STAAD.Pro and ETABS SOFTWARE

In the field of structural engineering, the use of sophisticated software tools has

revolutionized the design and analysis processes, enabling engineers to create safer,

more efficient, and more innovative structures. Among the leading software

applications in this domain are STAAD.Pro and ETABS, both of which are extensively

used worldwide for the structural analysis and design of buildings and other

infrastructure projects. These programs allow for comprehensive analysis of structural

components, including slabs, beams, columns, and walls, under various load conditions.

Sharma and Claudia (2015) have published a paper about the applicability of ETABS

14
software in designing slabs and mentioned the ease with which the design process can

be completed as compared to the manual process.

1.5.1 INTRODUCTION of STAAD.Pro

STAAD.Pro, developed by Bentley Systems, is one of the most broadly utilized

structural analysis and design software applications in the industry. It supports a variety

of structural elements and materials, making it versatile for different types of projects,

including buildings, bridges, towers, and industrial structures. STAAD.Pro's robustness

in handling diverse structural scenarios makes it a preferred choice for engineers who

require reliable and detailed analysis.

Key Features of STAAD. Pro:

• Versatility in Analysis: Capable of performing linear, nonlinear, and dynamic

analyses, STAAD.Pro can handle a wide range of structural engineering

problems.

• Comprehensive Design Codes: The software includes design codes from

various countries, allowing engineers to comply with local standards.

• Advanced Modeling Capabilities: With its powerful graphical interface,

STAAD. Pro enables detailed modeling of complex structures.

• Integration and Interoperability: The software integrates with other Bentley

products and various third-party applications, enhancing its utility in

multidisciplinary projects.

1.5.2 INTRODUCTION of ETABS

ETABS (Extended Three-Dimensional Analysis of Building Systems), developed by

Computers and Structures, Inc. (CSI), is another leading software application tailored

specifically for the analysis along with the design of building structures. It is renowned

15
for its efficiency in handling complex building geometries and various structural

components. ETABS is particularly well-suited for the design of high-rise buildings

and complex structures, where its specialized features and efficiency can be fully

leveraged

Key Features of ETABS:

• User-Friendly Interface: ETABS features an intuitive graphical interface that

simplifies the modeling and analysis process, making it accessible for both

novice and experienced engineers.

• Integrated Building Design: The software provides comprehensive tools for

the design and analysis of floor systems, walls, columns, and other building

components.

• Advanced Analysis Options: ETABS offers linear, nonlinear, static, and

dynamic analysis capabilities, catering to the intricate needs of modern building

design.

• Extensive Design Code Support: Similar to STAAD. Pro, ETABS includes a

wide array of international design codes, ensuring compliance with regional

building standards.

• Visualization and Reporting: The software includes robust visualization tools

and detailed reporting features that enhance the presentation and interpretation

of analysis results.

1.5.3 Significance of STAAD. Pro and ETABS in Structural Engineering

The use of STAAD. Pro and ETABS significantly enhance the structural design process

by providing engineers with powerful tools to model, analyze, and design structures

with precision. These software applications facilitate:

16
 • Accurate Analysis: Engineers can perform detailed and accurate analysis of

structural elements under various load conditions, ensuring the safety and

reliability of the design.

• Efficiency and Productivity: The advanced features and intuitive interfaces of

these programs streamline the design process, reducing the time and effort

required to complete projects.

• Optimization: By enabling complex simulations and optimization techniques,

STAAD. Pro and ETABS help in achieving material efficiency and cost-

effectiveness.

• Compliance and Documentation: The integration of multiple design codes

and robust reporting tools ensures that designs meet regulatory requirements

and are well-documented.

1.6 MOTIVATION

The decision-making process in selecting a slab system is often influenced by various

factors, including structural requirements, economic considerations, and architectural

aesthetics. Engineers rely on design codes such as IS 456:2000 and Eurocode to ensure

the safety, serviceability, and durability of structures. However, these codes have

different design philosophies, criteria, and limitations, leading to potential variations in

design outcomes. Additionally, with the advent of advanced software tools like STAAD

Pro and ETABS, the design and analysis of complex structural systems have become

more efficient and precise. These tools facilitate the modeling, analysis, and

optimization of structures, allowing engineers to evaluate various design alternatives

and make informed decisions. Despite their capabilities, a comprehensive

understanding of manual design methods remains crucial, as it provides insights into

17
the underlying principles and enhances the engineer's ability to validate software

results.

1.7 SIGNIFICANCE OF THE STUDY

This study aims to provide valuable insights into the comparative performance of flat

slabs and waffle slabs, contributing to the body of knowledge in structural engineering.

The findings will help engineers make informed decisions when selecting slab systems,

ensuring optimal design, safety, and cost-effectiveness. Moreover, the research will

relate to advanced software tools, promoting a comprehensive and robust approach to

structural analysis and design.

The present study is based on my experience in filed work, teaching work and various

research journals.

1.8 PROPOSED RESEARCH OBJECTIVES

The main objective of this research work is to come up with a design for flat slabs and
“

waffle slabs under various parameters taken into account. The whole research work has

been bifurcated into two segments viz. manual design and software design. The results

obtained from both the process have been thoroughly analysed and the results as well

as conclusive remarks have also been mentioned.

1. To study and design of flat slab using IS 456:2000.

2. To study and design of flat slab using Eurocode 2

3. To study and design of waffle slab using IS 456:2000.

4. To study and design of waffle slab using Eurocode 2.

5. To study and analyse flat slab and waffle slab using STAAD. Pro

6. To study and analyse flat slab and waffle slab using ETABS

7. Cost-benefit analysis of both the slab and their comparison.

18
1.9 ORGANIZATION OF THE THESIS

The thesis is structured as follows:

“

Chapter 1: Introduction to the Study: Provides an overview of the research background,

motivation, objectives, and significance.

Chapter 2: Literature Review: Reviews existing studies and publications related to flat
”

slabs, waffle slabs, design codes, and software tools. Identifies gaps in the current

knowledge and sets the foundation for the research.

Chapter 3: Methodology: Details the research methodology, including the design

methodologies used in designing both flat as well as waffle slabs. In this chapter, the

slabs are designed and analyzed both manually and by software as per IS code and

Eurocode in detail.

Chapter 4: Results and Discussion: This chapter presents the design process, manual

calculations, and software analysis results for flat and waffle slabs. Discusses the results

and compares them with the design code requirements. Also compares the results of

flat slabs and waffle slabs, highlighting key differences, advantages, and limitations.

Discusses the implications of design codes and software tools on the overall design

process.

Chapter 5: Conclusions: Summarizes the research findings, and conclusions, and

provides recommendations for future work.

19
 CHAPTER – 2

LITERATURE REVIEW

2.1 INTRODUCTION: Under the study of analysis of a structure incorporating

various slabs, including waffle slabs and flat slabs, the research papers have been

examined. Numerous researchers made contributions to the concrete field. On the basis

of the study, it has been mentioned that the utility as well as stabilization with socio-

economic aspects of these slabs have bright futures, particularly in states like

Chhattisgarh which is free from natural disasters like earthquakes, Tsunami, Landslide,

Flood etc. Some researchers have completed their work on the basis of manual

calculations using various codes available for the design while some have used software

like STAAD Pro., V 8i, SAP 2000, ETABS, etc. The various research summary report

is as follows:

Significant shear stress in the slab may result from the unbalanced moment during an

earthquake. Shear capital and drop panels increase the slab's punching strength, but they

don't increase its ductility, which is a crucial component of earthquake-resistant

construction. Meghally and Ghali (2005) have suggested the unbalanced moment

value that should be applied to punching shear design. The slab's flexural capacity

served as the upper bound for the unbalanced moment's design value. By using the

design moment's upper limit, shear failure at punching is avoided. Additionally, the

ductility of the slab-column connection was greatly increased by the application of

shear reinforcement, especially shear studs that were mechanically anchored. However,

brittle punching failure may occur as a result of the transmission of shearing force and

an unbalanced moment between the slab and column.

20
The outcome shows minimal waffle slab failure and good deformation ductility. The

way damage occurs is determined by how stable the plastic hinge is between the column

and the joist. It should be considered in the analysis and modeling process. An industrial

floor system with a high gravity load is used to examine the performance of a waffle

slab system in experimental research conducted by Shu-guang (2006). Two reduced-

scale identical specimen models, half the height of the inner column and a portion of

the grid slab, are used in the test procedure. The bidirectional approach applies lateral

load to the tested column for earthquake assessment.

For a two-way slab, the comparable frame approach was a straightforward

approximation. ACI 318-05[2.1], the current design code, allows the EFM to analyze

two-way slab systems under lateral loads like seismic loading as well as gravity

stresses. Park et al. (2008) discovered that the Equivalent Frame approach is

insufficient for precisely forecasting how two-way slab systems would react to lateral

loads.

The research work conducted by Shabbar, Noordin, Dawood, Eethar & Suleiman

(2010) is predicated on contrasting ribbed and solid slab structures. One of the structural

elements that supports the greatest loads is the slab. This is because it helps them cover

loads because it is flat, flexural, and covers a large surface area. The primary issue

identified in this study is that rising loads have compelled slab weights to be increased

in order to support the loads. In order to lessen the amount of dead load on the concrete,

the authors of this study have experimented with applying lightweight concrete..

In their research work, Vikunj and Vyas (2011) proposed a four-story lateral load-

resisting model with the goal of comparing flat slab panels with and without drops. The

punching effect of lateral loads on a four-story structure that experiences both gravity

21
and lateral stresses is examined using ETABS software. Economical thickness of flat

slabs with and without drops are favoured according to IS 456:2000's permitted

punching shear criterion. The results indicated that, from an economic perspective,

slabs with drop provisions are preferred. Also, using a drop at the slab-column

connection reduces punching shear stress.

Chowdhury and Singh (2012) have investigated waffle slab design and analysis

utilizing a variety of boundary conditions. Architects frequently recommend waffle

“

slabs as a practical way to construct floors and ceilings. They can support structures

over a great distance because of their ability to handle structural configurations. The

main objective of the work is to present a semi-analytical method for waffle slab
”

analysis. The slab is examined with variable boundaries.

There has been a significant growth in the work that compares the behavior of multi-

story buildings with flat slabs. In this study, Gupta et al. (2012) have fully explained

“ how to build a concrete solid slab with a pre-stressed system. The two-way solid slab

with pre-stressed is distinct for each floor and depends on the floor's factor .
”

Sokal (2012) examined and found that drops with two-way slabs with beams had an

impact on the performance of these two model types under seismic stresses. They also
“

analyzed the cause of part shear walls. The current document contains information on

the lateral displacement, seismic base shear, storey shear, and storey drift of the

parameter. No matter which instances are looked at, drift values exhibit a parabolic

pattern along storey height, with the largest value seen near the middle level. When

compared to traditional slabs with a shear wall, the use of flat slabs with a shear wall

increases the drift values in identical layouts. Even in the absence of shear walls, all
”

drift values remain within acceptable bounds. The maximum lateral displacement

22
values in zone V are different when flat slabs with shear walls are used instead of

traditional slab configurations, although even without shear walls, these values are all

well within acceptable bounds.

Denyse (2014) talked about a few exercises that can induce vibration in a waffle slab

with a wide range, including walking, jumping, and skipping. People may become

irritated by the vibration, and certain questions concerning the stability and safety of

the structure may arise because of the possibility that the slab will collapse. The primary

goal of this work is to assess how weighted human actions affect grid slab behavior.

The SAP2000 program uses the finite element method to model and analyze slabs. The

results are validated with Brazilian code, which shows that waffle slabs have a high

amount of acceleration. The exploration of two-way ribbed and waffle slabs with
“

concealed beams is the foundation of this study. Two-way ribbed slabs are primarily

utilized in residential and commercial structures nowadays. Waffle slabs can also be ”

utilized in commercial buildings such as parking lots and hallways. 2-way ribbed slab

spans can reach up to 12 meters and often range from 6 to 9 meters. In seismic zones,

this ductile joist-concrete slab system eventually carries balanced moments between

slabs and columns. For high-rise structures with a height/width ratio, waffle slabs are

advised as a solution that can withstand both lateral and gravitational loads.

Galeb and Ibrahim (2014) used to design in duplicate a frame structural approach,

evaluate and design the slab, and illustrate the cost of materials in waffle slabs with

post-tension systems. It is also used to estimate the appropriate dimensions of post-

tension concrete with waffle slabs using conventional roof dimensions. Waffle slabs

can have the advantage of lowering dead load in large construction by using the post-

23
tension system and providing a two-way rib beam; in this case study, they demonstrated

how to determine the ideal dimensions of waffle slabs with post-tension.

Mohamed (2014) proposed many reinforced concrete slab systems for high-rise

buildings in seismic zones, including solid slabs, flat slabs, and waffle slabs. Following

modeling and analysis with ETABS software, it can be deduced that the non-rigid frame

causes the flat slab.

Khan (2015) has examined and evaluated the seismic performance of flat slabs and

grid slabs in RC high-rise buildings. These two slab systems are the most aesthetic and

attractive commonly used as floor systems in tall buildings. When it comes to applying

seismic forces, these two slab systems share certain similarities. To sum up, a flat slab

is weaker in shear and seismic force than a grid slab in high-rise buildings since it is a

non-rigid frame.

Moldovan & Mathe (2015) analyzed the behavior of waffle slabs critically. The

foundation of this research project is the two-way waffle slab with post-tensioned

system calculation based on Euro code 2. With a variable range of tendons under stress,

it offers a two-way post-tensioning cable in each rib and an ordered parabolic cable in

each rib. Before displaying the reinforcement arrangement, calculation, and pre-

stressing force result for each rib beam, it qualifies the waffle slab system, explains all

of its features and benefits, completes the preliminary design structure element,

describes the new technology used to make the precast panels, and gives information

on the materials used in the study.

Rajiv and Guru Prasad (2015) examined the research to compare the behavior of two-

way (traditional) slabs with flat slabs with drops in multistorey buildings. The impact

of part shear walls on the performance of different building types [(G+7) and (G+14)]
24
under seismic pressures is considered. The response spectrum approach, time history

analysis, and comparable static force method were considered for different types of

models, and related results were drawn. The natural mode (time) period rises with

building height, regardless of building style.

Both slabs have been manually analyzed using STAAD Pro software and IS 456:2000.

In 2015, Sathwane conducted a study on the design and analysis of waffle slab systems,

flat slab systems with and without drop penal, and their cost compression. With the help

of the title above, he was able to establish which of the waffle slab and flat slab with

drop and without drop was the most cost-effective. In conclusion, it can be seen that

manual design yields the maximum moments. According to the software's results, flat

slabs with drops are more cost-effective than flat slabs without drops, flat slab

buildings, and flat slab buildings with shear walls at various sites for various building

types [(G+7) and (G+14)] in the seismic region.

Khot et al. (2016) have conducted research comparing waffle slabs to flat slabs and

traditional RCC slabs. Concrete joints with their heads at the column and perpendicular

to one another are used in the construction of waffle slabs. This is necessary for the

beam sections of the center lines of columns with uniform depth or for the shear forces.

Compared to RCC and flat slabs, waffle slab construction helps to lower the structure's

dead load.

Rajini et al. (2016) in their research, they examined how 20-story conventional slab

structures and flat slab structures behaved in various scenarios. Flat slab structure with

column drop, and traditional RC slab and flat slab structure.

Raut and Sameer (2016) conducted a thorough analysis of the performance and

functionality of several slab varieties. The concrete slab and waffle slab with a pre-
25
stressed system are compared in this research study. Furthermore, for buildings with

large spans and severe loads, waffle slabs or ribbed slabs, as well as prestressed waffle

slabs, are required for small spans or long spans between 10 and 40 meters. The author

utilized SAFE software for design purposes and E-Tab software for analysis. Five

distinct spans—15 m × 21 m, 18 m × 24 m, 27 m × 33 m, 36 m × 45 m, and 51 m × 54

m—are used for the study, and the building's overall height is 8 m.

Ajema & Abeyo (2017) provided a thorough comparative study based on the expenses

related to building various slabs, especially when those structures were built in

seismically vulnerable areas. In this study, the costs of frames with ribbed slabs and

solid slabs that use HCB under seismic pressure are compared. Because ribbed slabs

have higher span limits than solid slabs, they are more efficient.

The investigation of waffle slab performance under various loading scenarios.

According to the IS 456:2000 code, a G+4 story structure with a waffle slab was

examined and constructed to withstand lateral loads (such as wind and earthquake

loads) as well as gravity loads. ETABS program analyses the structure, and the design

phase is completed by hand. The response spectrum method and the equivalent method

are used for seismic analysis. The work's conclusion shows that the box effect of the

waffle slab results in a higher base shear and lateral displacement in the static analysis

technique compared to the dynamic analysis method in a low-cost construction. It

lessens the building's wobble and makes it more rigid overall. Harish (2017) has

supplied the concluding observations.

Kumar and Narayan (2017) investigated the seismic response of unsightly

multistoryed slab structures without shear walls. The goal was to use ETABS software

and the rubber group time history method to investigate the policies of unappetizing
“

26
slab multistoryed G 19 buildings without shear walls at the core, corners, and side

centers of the perimeter purlieus of the column in zone V . It was determined that, when
”

earthquakes were triggered, the output of unappetizing slabs without shear walls was

inferior to that of unappetizing slabs with shear panels.

The dynamic study, which was carried out using ETABS software, takes into account

the sloping angles 00, 200, and 300. The duration of 300 sloped ground towers was

found to be longer than 200. Similarly, it was discovered that the storey skid and

ostracism were lower for the 200 and 300 sloped ground buildings. The top floor in

zones III, IV, and V was shown to have the highest levels of ostracism, while zone V

had the highest levels. The seismic behavior of raised buildings on sloping and flat slab

terrain for different soil and seismic zones was studied by Raghavendra et al. (2017).

They made a comparison between buildings with flat slab structures and ones with

sloped ground constructions.

When it comes to load-bearing ability, composite waffle slabs demonstrate good

performance. Because using steel's tensile strength and concrete's compressive strength

is complete. Additionally, using FEM using ANSYS 2015 software, nonlinear static

analysis is performed to examine the impact of joists and opening size in the waffle

slabs. According to Rasheed and Anima's (2017) analysis of the effects of grid beam

placement and waffle slab opening size, there are instances when it is necessary to take

openings into account in floors or slabs in different architectural layouts, such as

staircases, ducts, and elevators. This study suggests using a composite waffle slab with

orthogonal steel girders to help reduce concrete cracking.

It was discovered that, in terms of lateral displacement, five-story structures in the

presence of flat slabs without drop panels, as well as ten-story and fifteen-story

27
buildings in the presence of flat slabs with and without drop panels, are inappropriate

for zones IV and V. Similarly, in terms of lateral displacement, zone V is not

appropriate for traditional slab buildings with a flat slab and drop panels. In order to

further reduce these dangers, bracings and shear walls should be used. Sandeep (2017)

In earthquake zones with type II medium soil, the performance of different building

heights below seismic forces was examined. Additionally, the side movement and story

direction of flat and common pieces of material structures were worked on.

Zekirija Indrizi (2017) analyzed and calculated the costs associated with the

construction of various types of slabs. In order to determine the best approach for waffle

slabs and conventional slabs in a 14-story structure, the first part of this comparison

examined the costs of normal slabs and waffle slabs in a typical 14-story RC building.

The effects of both slabs on the entire building model were analyzed in the second

section. In summary, the advantages of a multi-story building with a waffle slab are

greater than those of a normal slab system in terms of behavior, safety, and economy.

There has been an analysis related to the behavior of punching shear in normal and

waffle slabs, this study made by Arunkumar et al. (2018) showed how a waffle slab

would behave under punching shear at the slab-column-joist area. It shows that

although waffle slabs respond to punching shear similarly to flat slabs, their longer

shape significantly reduces their shear capacity. A 100 x 100 mm column and a 1200 x

1200 mm waffle slab are used in this experimental case study of a waffle slab for

punching shear. The trial outcome was contrasted with the IS 456:2000 code's dramatic

sections. Which showed that waffle slabs are stronger than conventional slabs. Based

on tests conducted on waffle slabs of different sizes, it can be concluded that waffle

28
slabs of different sizes can be made by raising the joist width by 25% and the slab depth

by 20% for improved resistance to punching shear.

The thorough comparison of ribbed and solid slabs reveals that, in comparison to solid

slabs, ribbed slabs require less concrete, formwork, and reinforcement as the design
“

result indicates because there is space between the ribs and foams that create hollow

space. In addition, ribbed slabs provide a nice view and require less time and money to
”

construct than regular slabs. The experiment was carried out by Kiran and Merin

(2018).

Rinsha (2018) investigated the behavior of composite waffle slabs with different steel

cross-sectional widths and different grid beams or joist angular placements. ANSYS is

used to debate and analyze various reinforcement percentages and steel grade changes.

Waffle slab analysis is also done by switching from I beams to embattled beams, both

with and without hardener.

Tejas and Raghu (2018) have conducted a thorough investigation on the waffle slab's

stability in multistoryed buildings in order to obtain results regarding seismic

behaviours using ETABS software. This study found that a G+9 story structure with

gird or waffle slabs is sensitive to seismic loads. ETABS software analyses the model

in zone IV using the response spectrum approach. He compares two structural models

and does so for base shear, story stiffness, story drift, and story displacement. After

analysis, it was shown that the square box waffle slab increases the structure's overall

stiffness, reduces building deflection, and reduces the building's load-carrying capacity

by spacing grid beams or joists.

Anghan Jaimis et al (2019) Two types of slabs were used in the study: normal slabs

and unappetizing slabs. Because of their monolithic composition, conventional towers

29
take longer to construct than unappetizing slab towers when these slabs are compared

during building construction. Wiring shear only rises in unsightly slab towers.

However, shear in a typical slab wiring specimen without six storeys decreases.

Imran et al (2019) used ETABS software to examine the office towers of G 5 in

Bangalore, India, with standard slabs and unappetizing slabs. They came to the

conclusion that the unappetizing slab is completely uneconomical. The amount of

touchable will grow according to the thickness of the slab and the size of the waif panel,

which somewhat raises the construction forfeit.

Singh and Joshi's (2019) study aims to comprehend the potential of different slab

forms and how well they function in structural analysis and design. Finally, it can be

said that although earlier research focused on the wide-spreading behavior of waffle

slabs and flat slabs, current studies have addressed the analysis and design of three slab

systems: conventional, flat, and waffle slab.

It has been mentioned by Anjaneyulu et al (2020) that flat slab provides increasingly
“

structural stability to the towers and requite the stimulating view to the building . In
”

order to build an unappetizing slab, post-tensioning and conventional reinforced

concrete can be used for both conventional and waffle slabs. According to IS 1893

regulations, ETABS software models and analyses the models for lateral and gravity

stresses. Deflection, base shear, displacement, and story stiffness are used to compare

the outcomes for conventional and waffle slabs. Horizontal regular and irregular

structures undergo static analysis, whereas vertical irregular structures undergo

dynamic analysis.

Joshi et al (2020) examined if G 5 towers with a single column were feasible, or if the
“

standard slab could be replaced with an unappetizing waffle slab while trammelling the
30
variations in tower affection, such as limp moment, end moments, deflection, shear

force, etc. The two slabs withal with the G 5 single post towers with varying floor span,

slab thickness, slab span, and post thickness, as well as subtracting dome-like structure

on marrow, under the influence of loading, were interpreted using ETABS, a program

created especially for the wringer of the multi-story towers. Single Post Multi-Storied

buildings show how opposing structural elements can also be used in the diamond of
”

traditional multi-story buildings to create a diamond with an unconfined effect and

varied features.

Solid slabs and waffle slabs for symmetrical and asymmetrical constructions have been

analyzed and compared by Latha (2020). His research and efforts examine the stability

of a 12-story building with regular and irregular, symmetrical and unsymmetrical,

horizontal and vertical structures.

An experimental study has been made by Stella Mary (2020) on waffle slabs with

casting, tests are conducted to determine the load-carrying capacity of various grid

beam or joist spacing. This study supports the notion that waffle slabs outperform solid

slabs and that, at significant waffle slab distances between grid beams and joists, the

relationship between carrying capacity and grid beam spacing is inverse.

Study of the behavior of waffle slab, flat slab, ribbed slab was carried out by Tiwari

and Malviya (2020) and considered a secondary beam in a multi-story building.

According to his research, engineers have a difficult time deciding on a slab system

because of the desire for high-rise structures. High-rise buildings may be able to use a

variety of sophisticated slabs, including waffle slabs, flat slabs, ribbed slabs for huge

spans, and the fewest number of columns. Additionally, a secondary beam is taken into

consideration to support the loads to the column for increased structural behavior

31
stability and safety. According to the findings of the research or study, ribbed slabs may

be a fantastic option for high-rise buildings because of their high moment carrying

capacity, while flat slabs may be appropriate for multi-story buildings and the use of

waffle slabs. Additionally, for maximum span and the smallest number of columns

needed, the use of secondary beams is taken into consideration.

Based on experimental work with two slab models, an analysis was conducted using

Ls-Dyna software to compare the behavior of reinforced concrete slabs and waffle slabs

subjected to blast loads. The effects of concrete's compressive strength on the behavior

of waffle slabs subjected to blast loads, the effects of explosives on the floor that may

determine the blast's distance, and the effects of bar size on roof behavior are just a few

of the parameters that Rahmani and Chand (2023) examined. In conclusion, it is

evident from the graphs and tables with the same concrete volumes and reinforcement

that the central deflection is decreased to the appropriate level in the case of the waffle

slab. This indicates that the waffle slab behaves better under blast load effects than the

RC slab made of the same materials.

2.2 RESEARCH GAP

• While several studies have analyzed flat slabs and waffle slabs separately, there

is a lack of comprehensive comparative studies that critically evaluate both slab

types using both IS 456:2000 and Eurocode standards.

• This gap highlights the need for a detailed side-by-side comparison to

understand the differences in design philosophy, performance under loads, and

practical implementation challenges.

• There is a need for work that integrates both methods to validate results and

identify discrepancies or limitations inherent in each approach.

32
 • While software like STAAD Pro and ETABS are widely used, there is limited

research exploring their full capabilities in the context of flat and waffle slab

analysis.

• The differences between IS 456:2000 and Euro Code in terms of design

requirements and safety factors are significant, yet underexplored in a

comparative context for flat and waffle slabs.

2.3 RESEARCH OBJECTIVES

The main objective of this research work is to come up with a design for flat slabs and
“

waffle slabs under various parameters taken into account. The whole research work has

been bifurcated into two segments viz. manual design and software design. The results

obtained from both the process have been thoroughly analysed and the results as well

as conclusive remarks have also been mentioned.

1. To study and design of flat slab using IS 456:2000.

2. To study and design of flat slab using Eurocode 2

3. To study and design of waffle slab using IS 456:2000.

4. To study and design of waffle slab using Eurocode 2.

5. To study and analyse flat slab and waffle slab using STAAD. Pro

6. To study and analyse flat slab and waffle slab using ETABS

7. Cost-benefit analysis of both the slab and their comparison.

33
 CHAPTER - 3

METHODOLOGY

3.1 INTRODUCTION

The research methodology or design study of the present work are critical study and

comparative analysis of flat slab and waffle slab using IS 456:2000 and Euro Code with

manually and software (STAAD. Pro & ETAB) involves a multi-step approach

designed to comprehensively evaluate and compare the structural performance, cost-

effectiveness, and environmental impact of flat slabs and waffle slabs. In this section

establish a detailed framework for the comparative analysis, specifying the structural

parameters, load conditions, and criteria for both manual and software-based

calculations. The design processes have been completed in various steps. As there are

two codes have been referred for designing both types of slabs it has become imperative

to compare them not only manually but with the help of available modern softwares.

The steps involved in manual design consists of calculations of loads, deflections,

amount of concrete, steel etc. requirement and hence costs associated with the design.

The whole designing process has been summarized in flowchart also. The flowchart

has represented the sequence of steps involved in the whole design methodology for

the stability, performance and cost analysis of flat slabs as well as waffle slabs. It also

represents the suggestion and recommendations for future research work in the

advancement of the proposed research work.

34
Fig. 3.1 Flow Chart

35
3.2 GUIDELINES from IS CODE and EUROCODE 2.

3.2.1 IS 456: 2000

A flat slab may be solid slab or may have recesses formed on the soffit so that the soffit

comprises a series of ribs in two directions. The recesses may be formed by removable

or permanent filler blocks.

For the purpose of this clause, the following definitions shall apply:

(a) Column strip: Column strip means a design strip having a width of 0.25 l2, but not

greater than 0.25 l1, on each side of the column centre- line,

(b) Middle strip: Middle strip means a design strip bounded on each of its opposite

sides by the column strip.

(c) Panel: Panel means that part of a slab bounded on-each of its four sides by the

centre-line of a column or centre-lines of adjacent-spans.

3.2.1.1 Proportioning

Thickness of Flat Slab: For slabs with drops conforming to, span to effective depth

ratios shall be applied directly; otherwise, the span to effective depth ratios obtained in

accordance with provisions shall be multiplied by 0.9. For this purpose, the longer span

shall be considered. The minimum thickness of slab shall be 125 mm.

Drop: The drops when provided shall be rectangular in plan, and have a length in each

direction not less than one third of the panel length in that direction.

Column Heads: Where column heads are provided, that portion of a column head

which lies within the largest right circular cone or pyramid that has a vertex angle of

90o.
36
3.2.1.2 Determination of Bending Moment

Methods of Analysis and Design:

1. The direct design method and

2. The equivalent frame method

The absolute sum of the positive and average negative bending moments in each

direction shall be taken as:

W0 l n
M0 = cl. 31.4.2.2 IS 456:2000 p – 55
8

Negative and Positive Design Moments:

Negative design moment 0.65

Positive design moment 0.35

In an end span, the total design moment M0 shall be distributed in the following

proportions:

0.1
Interior negative design moment = 0.75 − cl. 31.4.3.3 IS 456:2000 p – 55
1
1+
c

0.28
Positive design moment = 0.63 −
1
1+
c

0.65
Exterior negative design moment =
1
1+
c

 Kc
c =
Ks

37
3.2.1.3 Shear in Flat Slab

V
The nominal shear stress in flat slabs shall be taken as .
b0  d

cl 31.6.2.1, IS 456:2000, p – 57

Permissible Shear Stress: When shear reinforcement is not provided, the calculated

shear stress at the critical section shall not exceed K s c .

cl 31.6.3.1, IS 456:2000, p – 58

K s = (0.5 +  c ) but not greater than 1,  c being the ratio of short side to long side of

the column / capital; and

 c = 0.25 f ck (in limit state method of design)

= 0.16 f ck (in working stress method ofdesign.)

cl 31.6.3.1, IS 456:2000, p – 59

3.2.1.4 Slab Reinforcement

Spacing: The spacing of bars in a flat slab shall not exceed 2times the slab thickness,

Area of Reinforcement: When drop panels are used, the thickness of drop panel for

determination of area of reinforcement shall be the lesser of the following:

1. Thickness of drop, and

2. Thickness of slab plus one quarter the distance between edge of drop and edge

of capital.

38
3.2.2. Eurocode 2

Introduction: All structural designs are provided by Eurocode 2, regardless of the

building material. The Eurocode 2 calculates realistic values for actions that occur in

combination with one another using a statistical method. The resulting formulae and

detailed instructions for calculating moments and shear forces are not included in

Eurocode 2.

1. Generally speaking, Eurocode 2 is designed to provide guidance based on

phenomena (such as bending, shearing, etc.) as opposed to member types (such

as beams, slabs, columns, etc.) as in BS 8110. Characteristic cylinder strengths,

not cube strengths, are the foundation of design.

2. Only the specifics of the stress block are specified for bending, for example, and

derived equations are not provided by Eurocode 2. This is the conventional

European method, in which a textbook or other such document is supposed to

provide instructions for applying Eurocode 2. Megapascals, or MPa, are used to

measure stress (1 MPa = 1 N/mm2).

3. Eurocode 2 covers concrete with higher strengths up to class C90/105.

However, some Eurocode 2 expressions are modified for classes above C50/60

due to the differences in the properties of higher-strength concrete. Steel

reinforcement has a partial factor of 1.15. Overall, though, the impact is minimal

because steel that satisfies BS 4449 criteria will have a characteristic yield

strength of 500 MPa.

4. For ribbed reinforcement with typical yield strengths between 400 and 600

MPa, Eurocode 2 is appropriate. The Eurocode 2 contains no recommendations

about mild steel reinforcement or plain bars.

39
 5. Fire resistance, durability, and bond strength are all correlated with minimum

concrete cover. A provision for deviations resulting from changes in execution

(construction) should be included in addition to the minimum cover. Unless the

structure is subject to a quality assurance system, in which case it may be

decreased to 5 mm or even 0 mm if conforming members are rejected, Eurocode

2 advises that for concrete poured against formwork, this is assumed as 10 mm.

6. For a rectangular column, the perimeter is rounded at the corners, and the

punching shear tests are carried out two degrees from the column face.

3.3 DESIGN STEPS:

3.3.1 FLAT SLABS

3.3.1.1 IS 456:2000

1. Calculation of thickness/depth of the slab

2. Size of drop

3. Loading Calculation

4. Total design moment calculation

5. Calculation of stiffness and αc

6. Two–way shear check

7. Reinforcement along shorter and longer direction

8. Detailing

The design of a flat slab based on the given dimension is carried out according to IS

456:2000.

Some design constants have been recommended by IS 456:2000

fck = 20 MPa, fy = 415 MPa, Pt max = 0.95%

1. Calculation of thickness/depth of slab:

Span
Thickness = + cover cl. 31.2.1 IS 456:2000 p – 53
26 x Modification factor
40
2. Size of drop: It should not be less than one-third of the Span (whether longer or

shorter) cl. 31.2.2 IS 456:2000 p – 53

3. Load:

Total Load = Self weight (dead load) + Finishing load + Live load + Partition Load (if

present)

Self-weight = Length x Width X total Thickness x unit weight of concrete

Live load: as per IS 456:2000

Partition Load: Assumed as per IS 456:2000.

The design load is 1.5 times the total load.

4. Calculation of Moment: The absolute moment (Sum of negative and positive bending

moment) (M0) in every direction can be computed as:

Wln
M0 = cl. 31.4.2.2 IS 456:2000 p – 55
8

W indicates design load for a certain area l2 ln

ln – a clear span between faces of columns, capitals, and no less than 0.65 l1.

l1 – span length in direction of M0

l2 – span transverse length to l1

The design moment M0 must be spread in an interior span in the following ways:

Positive and Negative design moments: 0.35 and 0.65

0.65
The negative design moment of the exterior can be calculated as:
1
1+
c

Where αc indicates the ratio of the flexural stiffness of the slab's “exterior columns” to

the slab at a joint taken inside direction moments are being calculated and is denoted

by

41
Check for shear:

V
Nominal shear stress τv =
b0 d

Here V indicates a shear force resulting from design load,

b0 denotes the critical section’s periphery and

d signifies effective depth.

Reinforcement:

 A f 
M u = 0.87 f y Ast d 1 − st x y  G – 1.1, IS 456:2000, p – 96
 bd f ck 

Ast – an area of steel,

d – effective depth

fck– Characteristic compressive strength of concrete

fy – Characteristic strength of steel

b – Width of column strip

In the summary, the grade of concrete, steel, the thickness of the slab, moment, the

quantity of concrete, steel (%), area of reinforcement, etc. is mentioned.

3.3.1.2 EUROCODE 2:

STEPS as per code

• “ Determine design life.

• Assess actions on the slab.

• Determine which combinations of actions apply.

• Determine loading arrangements.

• Assess durability requirements and determine concrete strength.

• Check covers requirements for appropriate fire resistance period.

• Calculate min. Cover for durability, fire, and bond requirements.

42
 • Analyse structure to obtain critical moments and shear forces.

• Design flexural reinforcement.

• Check for deflection.

• Check the spacing of the bars.

A procedure for carrying out the detailed design of flat slabs is given below .
”

Table 3.1: Determine design life as per EUROCODE 2

[Table 2.1 EUROCODE 2 p 18]

Design life
Examples
(years)

10 Temporary structures

10 – 30 Replaceable structural parts

15 – 25 Agricultural and similar structures

50 Buildings and other common structures

100 Monumental buildings, bridges and other civil engineering structures

Assess actions on the slab

The load arrangements for flat slabs met the following requirements:

1. The ratio of the variable actions (Qk) to the permanent actions (Gk) does not

exceed 1.25.

2. The magnitude of the variable actions excluding partitions does not exceed

5 kN/m2.

cl. 3.2.1.2.2 BS 8110 – 1:1997 p – 16

43
Procedure for determining flexural reinforcement

Carry out analysis of slab to determine design moments (M).

Where F is the total design ultimate load, l is the effective span. This analysis is only

for concrete class  C50 / C60 only.

M
Determine K from the equation K = cl. 3.4.4.4. BS 8110 – 1:1997 p – 25
bd 2 f ck

Determine K’ from the given Table or

K  = 0.60 − 0.182 2 − 0.21, where   1.0

If K<K’, Provide compression reinforcement Otherwise No compression reinforcement

Obtain lever arm z from the equation z = d

 0.95d .
2(1 − 3.53K )

M
Calculate tension reinforcement required from As =
f yd  z

d
Check minimum reinforcement requirement As , min = 0.26  f ctm  bt 
f yk

cl. 9.2.1.1(1) exp (9.1 N) Eurocode 2 p – 152

Where f yk  25 , Check maximum reinforcement requirements.

As , max = 0.04 Ac for tension or compression reinforcement outside lap locations.

cl. 9.2.1.1(1) exp (9.1 N) Eurocode 2 p – 152

44
3.3.1.2.1 Check for deflection

Eurocode 2 has two alternative methods of designing for deflection; either by limiting

span-to-depth ratio or by assessing the theoretical deflection using the Expressions

given in the Eurocode 2. In this we have to find using span to depth ratio. Procedure for

finding deflection

l
1. Determine basic from the figure.
d

Fig. 3.2: Percentage of tension reinforcement  As  (EUROCODE 2)

 bd 

2. Determine Factor 1 (F1): For ribbed or waffle slabs

 b f  
F1 = 1 − 0.1  − 1  0.8
 bw  

45
Where bf = flange breadth and bw = rib breadth, otherwise F1 = 1.0

3. Determine Factor 2 (F2): When the slab span exceeds 7 m and it supports brittle

partitions, F2 = 7 , otherwise F2 = 1.0.

leff

4. Determine Factor 3 (F3):

310
F3 =
ss

cl. 7.4.2 (2) Eurocode 2 p – 127.

Where ss = Stress in reinforcement at serviceability limit state or ss may be assumed to

be 310 MPa (i.e. F3 = 1.0)

Check As , prov  1.5 As , required is basic  F1  F2  F3  Actual if this condition

l l
d d

is satisfied it is safe from deflection otherwise, we have to increase As, prov.

Maximum spacing of main reinforcement: For slabs less than 200 mm thick the

following maximum spacing rules apply:

• For the principal reinforcement 3h but not more than 400 mm.

• For the secondary reinforcement 3.5h but not more than 450 mm.

The exception is in areas with concentrated loads or areas of maximum moment where

the following applies:

1. For the principal reinforcement 2h but not more than 250 mm.

2. For the secondary reinforcement 3h but not more than 400 mm.

Where h is the depth of the slab.

cl. 9.3.1.1 (3) Eurocode 2 p – 158

46
STEPS:

1. Calculation of thickness of slab:

Longer Span
Thickness =
21

2. Calculation of loads:

Loads include Self – weight, Finishing load and Live load.

Self – weight = Thickness of slab x 1 x unit weight of concrete

3. Determination of panel dimension:

Based on the dimension of slab.

4. Calculation of moment:

wo x L2 x L12
Along longer size, M 0 =
8

wo x L1 x L22
Along shorter size, M 0 =
8

5. Check for shear:

 .VEd
VEd max =
ul  d eff
cl. 6.4.3 (3) exp 6.38 Eurocode 2 p – 101

Where,

VEdmax = Maximum design shear stress

ul = perimeter of column

dy + dz
d eff = , dy and dz are the effective depth in orthogonal directions
2

cl. 6.4.2 (1) exp 6.32 Eurocode 2 p – 98

 = 1.15 for interior column Fig. 6.21 N Eurocode 2 p – 104.

6. Reinforcement:

Mu
K=
bd 2 f ck
47
K is a constant.

Area of steel, As,

Mu
As =
f yd  z

3.3.2 WAFFLE SLAB:

3.3.2.1 IS 456:2000

Parameters determining the design of waffle slab

• The total area required for the waffle slab

• The waffle slab’s thickness

• Waffle slab overall depth

• The distance between two ribs in a row

• Dimensions of Slab & Beam

• Load Calculations

• Design Parameters: (i) Moment of Inertia

(ii) Flexural Rigidity of Ribs

(iii) Modulus of Shear

(iv) Torsional Constants

(v) Torsional Rigidity

(vi) Deflection Check

(vii) Reinforcement Details

In most cases, the waffle slab’s thickness will vary from 75 mm to 100mm.

The waffle slab’ overall depth is limited to 300 mm to 600 mm.

The waffle slab’s beam width varies from 100 mm to 200 mm.

Distancing between adjacent ribs might be anything from 600mm to 1500mm.

48
For further durability, rebar may be embedded into waffle slabs.

The waffle slab has reinforcement in the form of individual bars or a mesh.

Additionally, reinforcement may also be present.

Waffle slab reinforcement runs in both directions.

The primary horizontal beams are linked together by the smaller horizontal beams that,

together, provide a grid-like pattern. (As per IS 456:2000)

STEPS:

1. Calculation of number of panel/Grids

Total number of panels/grids = no of panels along longer x no of panels along shorter

2. Determination of dimension of slab and beam

If the ratio of length and breadth is less than 2 it is considered as two way slab.

Thickness of slab depends on span/depth ratio.

Table 26, IS 456:2000 p – 91

For simply supported slab, ratio = 35

For continuous slab, ratio = 40.

Span
Depth of rib = cl. 2.4.1 IS 456:2000 p 39
26

For deflection purpose adopt D under range = 300 mm – 600 mm

l l
Width of rib (Range = to )
3 4

Number of beams: Nx and Ny

Longer Dimension
Nx = +1
Spacing of beam

49
 Shorter Dimension
Ny = +1
Spacing of beam

Modulus of rigidity:

E = 5000 x f ck x 1000 (N/mm2) (IS 456:2000 p 39)

3. Calculation of load:

Total weight of slab = Lx x Ly x thickness of slab x unit weight of concrete (1)

Total weight of beam in X – direction = unit weight of concrete x width of beam x

Total thickness of beam & slab x Nx x Lx (2)

Total weight of beam in Y – direction = 25 x bw x D x Ny x {Ly – (bw x Nx)} (3)

Total live load, LL = LL x LX x LY (4)

Total floor finish = FF x Lx x Ly (5)

Total Load = (1) + (2) + (3) + (4) + (5)

Design Parameters:

Thickness of flange D f
= SP 16 Chart 88.
Overall depth D

Width of flange b f
=
Width of rib bw

Moment of Inertia:

k xbw D3
I= [kx = 2.55, Sp – 16, Table – 88]
12

50
Flexural Rigidity of Beam:

EI
Dx =
a1

EI
Dy =
b1

Modulus of Shear:

E
G=
2 (1 + )

Torsional Constants:

  b   D
C1 = 1 − 0.63 x  w   bw3 x 
  D   3

  b   b 
C2 = 1 − 0.63 x  w    D3 x w 
  D   3

Torsional Rigidity:

GC1
Cx =
b1

GC2
Cy =
a1

Therefore, 2H = Cx + Cy

Dx Dy
Calculate 4 and
Lx L4y

2H
Again Calculate
L x L2y
2
x

51
Deflection Check:

Dx Dy 2H
ω= + 4 + 2
4
Lx Ly Lx x L2y

Long – term Deflection:

Lt deflection = 3 x ω

Span
250

Span
Therefore, Lt deflection <
250

Maximum moment and Shear values

2
 
M x = Dx x   x ω
 Lx 

2
 
M y = Dy x   x ω
L
 y 

Maximum Torsional Moment:

Cx x π 2ω
M xy =
Lx x Ly

Reinforcement Details:

For X – direction:

0.5 f ck   4.6M u  
Astx =  1− 1−  2 
x b x d
fy   ck
f bd  


52
For Y – direction:

0.5 f ck   4.6M u  
Asty = 1 − 1 −  2 
x b x d
fy   ck
f bd  


Shear Force:

  
3
3 

Qx = Dx x   + C y x x ω
 1 
2
 x
L a1 x b


  
3
 3 

Qy = Dy x   + C x x 2 xω
 L  a1 x b1 
  y 


3.3.3 EUROCODE 2

Steps for the design of waffle slab

1. Calculation of thickness and depth of slab

2. Calculation of rib width

3. Selection of mould details using table.

4. Loads calculation

5. Analysis of slab

6. Bending moment calculation

7. Calculation of lever arm Z

8. Determination of depth to neutral axis

9. Calculation of area of tension reinforcement

10. Design of supports

11. Check for deflection

12. Check for shear

53
3.4 DESIGN OF FLAT AND WAFFLE SLAB

3.4.1 Design of Flat Slab as per IS Code 456: 2000

Consider a dimension and specification to design the interior panel of flat slab 7.0 m x

6.0 m in size, column size 500 x 500 mm for a Live load of 4 kN/m 2, floor finish of 1

kN/m2 by using M20 concrete and Fe 415 steel.

Given data:

1. Size of Interior panel: 7.0m x 6.0m

2. Size of Column: 500mm x 500mm

3. Live Load: 4 kN/ m2

4. Floor Finish: 1 kN/ m2

5. Grade of Concrete: M20

6. Grade of Steel: Fe 415

54
 Figure 3.3 Components of Flat Slab Construction (IS 456:2000)

Step-I:

Thickness

Since Fe 415 steel is used and drop is provided maximum span to thickness ratio

permitted is 32.

7000
Thickness of flat slab = = 218.75 mm cl. 31.2.1 IS 456:2000 p – 53
32

Provide 220.00 mm thickness let the cover be 30 mm.

Overall thickness D = 250 mm.

Let the drop be 50 mm. Hence at column head d=270 mm and D=300 mm.

Step-II:

Size of drop (Along length l1)

55
 1
It should not be less than  7000 = 2.33 m cl. 31.2.2 IS 456:2000 p – 53
3

Let us provide 3m x 3 m drop so that the width of drop is equal to that of column head.

Width of column strip = width of middle strip = 3.0 m

Along shorter length l2

1
Minimum length of drop =  6 = 2.0 m
3

However, keep it equal to the total width of column strip along l1 = 3.0 m

Step-III:

Loads

Self-weight = 0.30 x 1 x 1 x 25 = 7.50 kN/m2

Finishing load = 1.00 kN/m2

Live load = 4.00 kN/m2

Total load = 12.50 kN/m2

Design (Factored) load = 12.50 x 1.5 = 18.75 kN/m2

Step-IV:

Panel dimension: Along length l1 = 7.0 m and l2 = 6.0 m.

Width of column strip = 0.25 l1 or l2 whichever is less

cl. 31.1.1 (a) IS 456:2000 p – 53

= 0.25 x 6 = 1.50 on either side of column centre line.

Total width of column strip = 1.50 x 2 = 3.0 m

Width of middle strip = 6 – 3 = 3.0 m

Along Width l1 = 6 m, l2 = 7.0 m

Width of column strip = 0.25 x 6

= 1.5 m on either side of column centre line

Total width of column strip = 1.50 x 2 = 3.0 m

56
Hence width of middle strip = 7.0 – 3.0 = 4.0 m

Interior Panels:

Moments Along longer Size l1 = 7 m, l2 = 6 m

ln = 7 – 0.5 = 6.5 m Subject to minimum of 0.65 x l1 = 4.55 m

ln = 6.5 m

Load on panel wo = 18.75 x l2ln

= 18.75 x 6 x 6.5 = 731.25 kN

w0 l n
M0 =
8

731.25  6.5
= = 594.14 kN - m cl. 31.4.2.2 IS 456:2000 p – 55
8

Step-V:

Appropriation of moment:

Total (– ve) moment = 0.65 x 594.14 = 386.19 kN-m

Total (+ ve) moment = 0.35 x 594.14 = 207.95 kN-m

cl. 31.4.3.2 IS 456:2000 p – 55

Hence moment in column strip and middle strip along longer direction in interior

panels is as given below:

Table 3.2 Moment Distribution for Longer Span

Moment Column Strip Middle Strip

(– ve) Moment 0.75 x 386.19 0.25 x 386.19

= 289.64 kN-m = 96.55 kN-m

(+ ve) Moment 0.60 x 207.95 0.40 x 207.95

= 124.77 kN-m = 83.18 kN-m

57
Along shorter span l1 = 6 m, l2 = 7.0 m

ln = 6-0.5 = 5.5

Panel load W0 = 18.75 x 7.0 x 5.5 = 721.875 kN

w0 l n
Panel moment M 0 =
8

721.875  5.5
= = 496.289 kN - m
8

Appropriation of moment:

Total (– ve) Moment = 0.65 x 496.289 = 322.587 kN-m

Total (+ ve) moment = 0.35 x 496.289 = 173.701 kN-m

Moment in column strip and middle strip are as shown below:

Table 3.3 Moment Distribution for Shorter Span

Moment Column Strip Middle Strip

(– ve) Moment 0.75 x 322.587 0.25 x 322.587

= 241.94 kN-m = 80.646 kN-m

(+ ve) Moment 0.60 x 173.701 0.40 x 173.701

= 104.22 kN-m = 69.48 kN-m

Exterior Panels:

Length of column = 4.5 – 0.30 = 4.20 m

The building is not restrained from lateral sway. Hence as per table 28 in is 456-2000.

Effective length of column = 1.20 x length

= 1.20 x 4.20 = 5.04 m

Size of column = 500 x 500 mm

1
Moment of inertia of column =  500 4 mm 4
12

58
 1 1 500 4
Kc = =  = 1033399.471 mm 4
L 12 5040

Longer span direction: Moment of inertia of beam

1s = moment of inertia of slab

1
=  7000  3003
12

Its length = l2 = 6000 mm

1 1 7000  3003
Ks = =  = 2625000 mm 2
6000 12 6000

Live Load 4
=  0.75
Dead Load 85

K c1 + K c2 2  1033399.471
Relative Stiffness ratio is  c = = = 0.7873
Ks 2625000

cl. 31.4.6 IS 456:2000 p – 56

1
 = 1+
c

1
= 1+ = 2.270
0.7873

Hence various moment coefficients are:

0.1 0.1
Interior (– ve) moment coefficient = 0.75 − = 0.75 − = 0.706
 2.27

cl. 31.4.3.3 IS 456:2000 p – 55

0.65 0.65
Exterior (– ve) moment coefficient = = = 0.286
 2.27

0.28 0.28
Positive moment coefficient = 0.63 − = 0.63 − = 0.507
 2.27

Total moment = M0 = 594.14 kN-m

Appropriation of moments in kN-m is as given below:

59
 Table 3.4 Moment Distribution for Exterior Span (Longer)

Moment Total Column Strip Middle Strip

Interior (– ve) 0.706 x 594.14 0.75 x 419.64 0.25 x 419.64

= 419.64 = 314.73 = 104.91

Exterior (– ve) 0.286 x 594.14 1.0 x 169.92 0 x 169.92

= 169.92 = 169.92 =0

(+ ve) Moment 0.507 x 594.14 0.6 x 301.23 0.4 x 301.23

= 301.23 = 180.74 = 120.49

Shorter Span direction:

1 6000  3003
Ks =  = 1928571.429
12 7000

K c1 + K c2
c =
Ks

2  1033399.471
= = 1.0716
1928571.429

1
1 = 1 +
c

1
= 1+ = 1.933
1.0716

0.1
Interior (– ve) moment coefficient = 0.75 −


0.1
= 0.75 − = 0.698
1.933

0.65
Exterior (– ve) moment coefficient =


0.65
= = 0.336
1.933

60
 0.28
Positive moment coefficient = 0.63 −


0.28
= 0.63 − = 0.485
1.933

Total moment = M0 = 496.289 kN-m

Appropriation of moments in shorter span exterior panel in kN-m is as given below:

Table 3.5 Moment Distribution for Exterior Span (Shorter)

Total Column Strip Middle Strip

Interior (– ve) 0.698 x 496.289 0.75 x 346.409 0.25 x 346.409

= 346.409 = 259.807 = 86.602

Exterior (– ve) 0.336 x 496.289 1x 166.753 0 x 166.753

= 166.753 = 166.753 =0

(+ ve) Moment 0.485 x 496.289 0.6 x 240.700 0.4 x 240.700

= 240.700 = 144.42 = 96.28

Step-VI:

Deflection check:

Modulus of elasticity, E = 2.1 x 105 N/mm2

bd 3 1000 x 2703
Moment of Inertia, I = = = 1640.25 x 106 mm 4
12 12

Formula for deflection for UDL

 5  u w l4  5 x 18.75 x 60004
 =  = = 9.19 mm
   EI  384 x 2.1 x 10 x 1640.25 x 10
5 6
384

Span 6000
= = 24 mm cl. 23.2(a) IS 456:2000 p – 37
250 250

9.19 mm < 24 mm Hence safe

61
Step-VII:

Check for Shear

Figure 3.4 Periphery of Critical Section (IS 456:2000)

The Critical section for shear is at a distance d/2 from the column face hence periphery

of critical section around a column is square of a size = 500 + d = 500 + 270 = 770 mm.

d 270
= = 135 mm from the face of column
2 2

cl. 31.6.1 IS 456:2000 p – 57

V = total load – load on 0.770 x 0.770 area

= 18.75 x 7 x 6 – 18.75 x 0.770 x 0.770 = 776.383 kN

776.383 1000
Nominal shear  v = = 0.933 N/mm 2 [cl.31.6.2.1 IS 456:2000 p – 5
4  770  270

Shear Strength = K s c cl. 31.6.3.1 IS 456:2000 p – 58

Where K s = 1 +  c , subject to maximum of 1

c = Ratio of short side to long side of the column / capital

L2
c = =1
L1

 c = 0.25 f ck = 0.25 20 = 1.118 N/mm 2

Design shear stress permitted = 1.118 N/mm 2   v

Hence the slab is safe in shear without shear reinforcement also.

62
Reinforcement: Along longer span l1 = 7.0 m

(a) For (– ve) moment is column strip Mv = 289.64 kN-m

Thickness, d = 270 mm

 A fy 
M v = 0.87 f y Ast d 1 − st   cl. G – 1.1 IS 456:2000 p – 96
 bd f ck 

 Ast 415 
289.64 106 = 0.87  415  Ast  270  1 −  
 3000  270 20 

 Ast 
2971.17 = Ast 1 − 
 39036.14 

Ast2 − 39036.14 Ast + 39036.14  2971.17 = 0

Ast = 3240.11 mm2


122
Using 12 mm bars spacing required is S = 4  3000 = 104.66 mm
3240.11

Provide 12 mm bars at 104 mm etc.

(b) For (+ ve) moment in column strip:

Mu = 124.77 kN-m, d = 220 mm

 Ast 415 
124.77 106 = 0.87  415  Ast  220  1 −  
 3000  220 20 

 Ast 
1570.79 = Ast 1 − 
 31807.23 

Ast2 − 31807.23 Ast + 1570.79  31807.23 = 0

Ast = 1657.124 mm2


10 2
Using 10 mm bars spacing required is S =
4  3000 = 142.11 mm
1657.124

Provide 10 mm bars at 140 mm c/c.

63
(c) For (– ve) moment in middle strip:

Mu = 96.55 kN-m, d = 220 mm

 Ast 415 
96.55 106 = 0.87  415  Ast  220  1 −  
 3000  220 20 

 Ast 
1215.52 = Ast 1 − 
 31807.23 

Ast2 − 31807.23 Ast + 1215.52  31807.23 = 0

Ast = 1265.90 mm2


10 2
Using 10 mm bars spacing required is S =
4  3000 = 186.03
1265.90

Provide 10 mm bars @ 186.00 mm c/c.

(d) For (+ ve) moment in middle strip:

Mu = 83.18 kN-m, d = 220 mm

 Ast 415 
83.18 106 = 0.87  415  Ast  220  1 −  
 3000  220 20 

 Ast 
1047.19 = Ast 1 − 
 31807.23 

Ast2 − 31807.23 Ast + 31807.23 1047.19 = 0

Ast = 1084.14 mm2


10 2
Provide 10 mm bars spacing required is S =
4  3000 = 217.22 mm
1084.14

Provide 10 mm bars @ 215 mm c/c.

Reinforcement along shorter span l2 = 6 m:

(a) For (– ve) moment is column strip:

64
Mv = 241.94 kN-m, d = 260 mm

 Ast 415 
241.94 106 = 0.87  415  260 Ast 1 −  
 4000  260 20 

 Ast 
2577.311 = Ast 1 − 
 50120.48 

Ast2 − 50120.48 Ast + 2577.311 50120.48 = 0

Ast = 2725.52 mm2


10 2
Provide 10 mm bars spacing required is S =
4  4000 = 115.2 mm
2725.52

Provide 10 mm bars @ 115.0 mm c/c.

(b) For (+ ve) moment in column strip:

Mu = 104.22 kN-m, d = 210 mm

 Ast 415 
104.22 106 = 0.87  415  210  Ast 1 −  
 4000  210 20 

 Ast 
1374.56 = Ast 1 − 
 40481.92 

Ast2 − 40481.92 Ast + 1374.56  40481.92 = 0

Ast = 1424.70 mm2


10 2
Using 10 mm bars spacing required is S =
4  4000 = 220.39 mm
1424.70

Provide 10 mm bars @ 220 mm c/c.

(c) For (– ve) moment in middle strip:

Mu = 80.646 kN-m, d = 210 mm

 Ast 415 
80.646 106 = 0.87  415  Ast  210  1 −  
 4000  210 20 

65
  Ast 
1063.64 = Ast 1 − 
 40481.92 

Ast2 − 40481.92 Ast + 1063.64  40481.92 = 0

Ast = 1093.15 mm2


10 2
Provide 10 mm bars spacing required is S =
4  4000 = 287.24 mm
1093.15

Provide 10 mm bars @ 285 mm c/c.

(d) For (+ ve) moment in middle strip:

Mu = 69.496 kN-m, d = 210 mm

 Ast 415 
69.496 106 = 0.87  415  210  Ast  1 −  
 4000  210 20 

 Ast 
916.585 = Ast 1 − 
 40481.92 

Ast2 − 40481.92 Ast + 916.585  40481.92 = 0

Ast = 938.33 mm2


10 2
Provide 10 mm bars spacing required is S =
4  4000 = 334.637 mm
938.33

Provide 10 mm bars @ 330 mm c/c.

Area of Reinforcement, Ast = 3240.11 + 1657.124 + 1265.90 + 1084.14 + 2725.52 +

1424.70 + 1093.15 + 938.33 mm2 = 13428.97 mm2

13428.97
Percentage of steel = x 100% = 0.83%
6000 x 270

Required steel = 0.785 x 12.6 = 9.891 quintal (as per QSC)

Quantity of concrete:

Qc = 6 x 7 x 0.3 = 12.6 m3

66
Quantity of Cement,

1.52 x Qconcrete
Qcement =
Sum of proportion for concrete

1.52 x 12.60 3
= m = 3.50 m3
1 + 1.5 + 3

Quantity of sand (fine aggregate),

Qsand = 1.5 x Qcement

= 1.5 x 3.5 m3

= 5.25 m3

Quantity of coarse aggregate,

Qaggregate = 3 x Qcement

= 3 x 3.5 m3

= 10.5 m3

Total Cost of Construction

Tc = Cost of concrete (@Rs.4700/m3) + Cost of Steel (@Rs.4560/quintal)

= Rs. 4700 x 12.60 + Rs. 4560 x 9.89

= Rs. 1.043 Lakhs

67
 Figure 3.5 Reinforcement detail (IS 456:2000)

Fig. 3.6: Section through Column Strip (IS 456:2000)

Figure 3.7 Section through Middle Strip (IS 456:2000)

68
Summary:

Table 3.6 Summary result of flat slab as per IS 456:2000

Code IS 456:2000

Grade of concrete (N/mm2) M20

Grade of steel (N/mm2) Fe 415

Thickness of slab (mm) 300

Factor Load (kN/m2) 18.75

594.14
Longer span (Max. Moment) (kNm)

496.289
Shorter span (Max. Moment) (kNm)

9.19
Deflection (mm)

Quantity of concrete (m3) 12.60

Quantity of cement (m3) 3.50

Quantity of sand (m3) 5.25

Quantity of aggregate (m3) 10.50

Area of reinforcement(mm2) 13428.97

% of steel 0.83%

Quantity of steel (q) 9.89

Cost (Rs. Lakh) 1.043

Max. Shear (kN) 776.38

Check for shear Safe

No
Shear reinforcement: Required for shear

69
3.4.2 Design of Flat Slab as per Eurocode 2

Given data:

1. Size of interior panel = 7 m x 6 m

2. size of column = 500 mm x 500 mm

3. Live Load = 4 kN/m2

4. Floor finish = 1 kN/m2

5. Grade of concrete = M20

6. Grade of steel = Fe 415

Figure 3.8 Components of Flat Slab Construction (Eurocode 2)

Step-I:

Longer Span
Thickness: From deflection criteria thickness of Slab =
21

7000
d= = 333.33 mm
21

Provide 335.00 mm thickness let the cover be 30 mm.

70
Overall thickness, D = 335 + 30 = 365 mm

Step-II:

Loads

Self – Weight = 0.365 x 1 x 25 = 9.125 kN/m2

Finishing load = 1.0 kN/m2

Live load = 4.0 kN/m2

Total Load = 14.125 kN/m2

Check:

Live Load wl 4
1. = = kN/m 2 = 0.395  1.25 O.K.
Dead Load wd 10.125

2. Live Load = Wl = 4 kN/ m2< 5 kN/m2 O.K.

 Design Load = 14.125 kN/m2

Step-III:

Panel Dimension

Along Longer Length l1 = 7.0 m and l2 = 6.0 m

Width of column strip = 0.25 l1 or l2 whichever is less = 0.25 x 6 = 1.5 m

Total width of column strip = 1.5 x 2 = 3.0 m

Width of middle strip = 6.0 – 3.0 = 3.0 m

Along Shorter width l1 = 6.0 m and l2 = 7.0 m

Width of column strip = 0.25 x 6

Total width of column strip = 1.50 x 2 = 3.0 m

Hence width of middle strip = 7.0 – 3.0 = 4.0 m

Interior Panel:

w0  L2  L12
Moments along longer size M 0 =
8

71
Where,

W0 = Total Design load = 14.125 kN/m2

l1 = Length of Longer span = 7.0 m

l2 = Length of shorter span = 6.0 m

Putting all the values and we get

14.125  7 2  6
M0 = = 519.093 kN-m
8

Table 3.7 Apportionment of moments between column strips

Moment Column strip (3 m wide) Middle strip (3 m wide)

(– ve) Hogging 0.70 x 519.093 = 363.36 kNm 0.30 x 519.093 = 155.73 kNm

(+ ve) Sagging 0.50 x 519.093 = 259.546 kNm 0.50 x 519.093 = 259.546 kNm

w0  L1  L22
Moment along Shorter Span M 0 =
8

Where,

W = Total load = 14.125 kN/m2

l1 = Length of longer span = 7.0 m

l2 = Length of shorter span = 6.0 m

Putting all the values and we get

14.125  7  6 2
M0 = = 444.937 kN - m
8

72
 Table 3.8 Apportionment of moments between column strips and middle strips

(Shorter Span)

Moment Column strip (3.0 m wide) Middle strip (4.0 m wide)

(– ve) Hogging 0.75 x 444.937 = 333.70 kN-m 0.25 x 444.937 = 111.234 kN-m

(+ ve) Sagging 0.50 x 444.937 = 222.47 kN-m 0.50 x 444.937 = 222.47 kN-m

Step-IV:

Deflection Check:

Span to effective depth ratio (actual)

l 6000
= = 17.91 mm
d 335

From figure for 0.73% of tension reinforcement

l
Basic, = 18.30
d

Factor F1 = 1.0

Factor F2 = 1.0

310 310
Factor F3 = = = 1.0
SS 310

Check:

x F1 x F2 x F3  Actual
l l
Basic
d d

cl. 7.4.2(2) exp (7.16 a) Eurocode 2 p – 127

Therefore, 18.30 x 1 x 1 x 1  17.91 Hence safe.

Step-V:

Check for Shear

73
 Figure 3.9 Periphery of Critical Section (Eurocode 2)

d
The critical section for shear is at a distance from the column face hence periphery
2

of critical section around a column is square of size 500 + d = 500 + 335 = 835 mm

d 335
= = 167.5 mm, from the face of column
2 2

 .VEd
VEd max = cl. 6.4.3(3) exp 6.38 Eurocode 2 p – 101.
ul  d eff

Where,

VEdmax = Maximum design shear stress

ul = perimeter of column

d y + dz
d eff = , dy and dz are the effective depth in orthogonal directions
2

cl. 6.4.2(1) exp 6.32 Eurocode 2 p – 98

 = 1.15 for interior column Fig. 6.21 N Eurocode 2

VEd = Total Load – load on 0.835 x 0.835 area

= 14.125 x 1.5 x [7 x 6 – 0.835 x 0.835]

= 14.125 x 1.5 x 41.303 = 875.103 kN

1.15  875.103 103

VEd max = = 1.502 N/mm 2
2000  335

74
From code,

VRdmax = 3.31 N/mm2 Table C 7 Eurocode 2

Hence,

VRd max > VEd max O.K.

Hence the slab is safe in shear, without shear reinforcement also.

cl. 6.4.3 (2b) Eurocode 2 p – 101

Step-VI:

Reinforcement: Along Longer Span l1 = 7.0 m

(a) For (– ve) Hogging moment in column strip

Mu = 363.36 kN-m

Mu 363.36 106
K= = = 0.0539 cl. 3.4.4.4. BS 8110 – 1:1997 p – 25
bd 2 f ck 3000  3352  20

z
For, K = 0.0539, from code = 0.95
d

z = 0.95 x 335

z = 318.25 mm

Area of steel, As,

Mu 363.36 106
As = = = 2751.190 mm 2
f yd  z 415  318.25


12 2
Provide 12 mm of bars spacing require S =
4  3000 = 123.26 mm
2751.190

Provide 12 mm of bars at 123 mm c/c.

(b) For (+ ve) Sagging moment in column strip

Mu = 259.546 kN-m

Mu 259.546 106
K= =
bd 2 f ck 3000  3352  20
75
 z
For K = 0.040; from code = 0.95
d

z = 0.95 x d = 0.95 x 335 = 318.25 mm

Mu
Area of steel, As =
f yd  z

259.546  10 6
= = 1965.16 mm 2
415  318.25


10 2
Provide 10 mm of bars spacing required S =
4  3000 = 119.84 mm
1965.16

Provide 10 mm of bars 119 mm c/c.

(c) For (– ve) Hogging moment in middle strip

Mu = 155.73 kN-m

Mu 155.73 106
K= =
bd 2 f ck 3000  3352  20

z
For K = 0.023; from code = 0.95
d

z = 0.95 x 335 = 318.25 mm

Mu 155.73 106
Area of steel, As = = = 1179.114 mm 2
f yd  z 415  318.25


10 2
Provide 10 mm of bars spacing require S =
4  3000 = 199.72 mm
1179.114

Provide 10 mm bars at 199 mm c/c.

(d) For (+ ve) Sagging moment in middle strip

Mu = 259.546 kN-m

Mu 259.546 106
K= = = 0.040
bd 2 f ck 3000  3352  20

76
 z
For k = 0.040; form code = 0.95
d

z = 0.95 x d = 0.95 x 335 = 318.25 mm

Mu 259.546 106
Area of steel, As = = = 1965.16 mm 2
f yd  z 415  318.25


10 2
Provide 10 mm of bars spacing required S =
4  3000 = 119.84 mm
1965.16

Provide 10 mm of bars 119 mm c/c (Along span l2 = 6.0 m).

Along Short Span l2 = 6.0 m

(a) (– ve) Hogging moment in column strip

Mu = 333.70 kN-m

Mu 333.70 106
K= = = 0.0372
bd 2 f ck 4000  3352  20

z
For k = 0.372; from code = 0.95
d

z = 0.95 x d = 0.95 x 335 = 318.25 mm

Mu 333.70 106
Area of steal, As = = = 2526.62 mm 2
f yd  z 415  318.25


10 2
Provide 10 mm of bars spacing required S =
4  4000 = 124.276 mm
2526.62

Provide 10 mm of bars 124 mm c/c.

(b) (+ ve) Sagging moment in column strip

Mu = 222.47 kN-m

Mu 222.47 106
K= = = 0.025
bd 2 f ck 4000  3352  20

77
 z
For k = 0.025; from code = 0.95
d

z = d x 0.95 = 335 x 0.95 = 318.25 mm

Mu 222.47 106
Area of steel, As = = = 1684.44 mm 2
f yd  z 415  318.25


10 2
Provide 10 mm of bars spacing required S =
4  4000 = 186.41 mm
1684.44

Provide 10 mm of bars 185 mm c/c.

(c) (– ve) Hogging moment in middle strip

Mu = 111.234 kN-m

Mu 111.234  106
K= = = 0.0124
bd 2 f ck 4000  3352  20

z
For k = 0.0124; from code = 0.95
d

z = 0.95 x d = 0.95 x 335 = 318.25 mm

Mu 111.234 106
Area of steel, As = = = 842.24 mm 2
f yd  z 415  318.25


10 2
Provide 10 mm of bars spacing required S =
4  4000 = 372.83 mm
842.211

Provide 10 mm of bars 370 mm c/c.

(d) (+ ve) Sagging moment in middle strip

Mu = 222.47 kN-m

Mu 222.47 106
K= = = 0.025
bd 2 f ck 4000  3352  20

z
For k = 0.025; from code = 0.95
d

78
z = 0.95 x d = 0.95 x 335 = 318.25 mm

Mu
Area of steel, As =
f yd  z

222.47 106
= = 1684.44 mm 2
415  318.25


10 2
Provide 10 mm of bars spacing required S =
4  4000 = 186.41 mm
1684.44

Provide 10 mm of bars 185 mm c/c.

Area of Reinforcement, Ast = 2751.19 + 1965.16 + 1179.114 + 1965.16 + 2526.62 +

1684.44 + 842.24 + 1684.44 mm2 = 14598.36 mm2

14598.36
Percentage of steel = x 100% = 0.73%
6000 x 335

Required steel = 0.785 x 15.33 = 12.03 quintal (as per QSC)

Quantity of concrete:

Qc = 6 x 7 x 0.365 = 15.33 m3

Quantity of Cement,

1.52 x Qconcrete 1.52 x 15.33 3

Qcement = = m = 4.24 m3
Sum of proportion for concrete 1 + 1.5 + 3

Quantity of sand (fine aggregate),

Qsand = 1.5 x Qcement = 1.5 x 4.24 m3 = 6.36 m3

Quantity of coarse aggregate,

Qaggregate = 3 x Qcement = 3 x 4.24 m3 = 12.72 m3

Total Cost of Construction

Tc = Cost of concrete (@Rs.4700/m3) + Cost of Steel (@Rs.4560/quintal)

= Rs. 4700 x 15.33 + Rs. 4560 x 12.03

= Rs. 1.268 Lakhs

79
 Figure 3.10 Reinforcement detail (Eurocode 2)

Figure 3.11 Section through Column Strip (Eurocode 2)

Figure 3.12 Section through Middle Strip (Eurocode 2)

80
Summary:

Table 3.9 Summary result of flat slab as per Eurocode 2

Code Eurocode 2

Grade of concrete (N/mm2) C 20/25

Grade of steel (N/mm2) Fe 415

Thickness of slab (mm) 365

Factor Load (kN/m2) 14.125

519.09
Longer span (Max. Moment) (kNm)

444.93
Shorter span (Max. Moment) (kNm)

17.91
Deflection (mm)

Quantity of concrete (m3) 15.33

Quantity of cement (m3) 4.24

Quantity of sand (m3) 6.36

Quantity of aggregate (m3) 12.72

Area of reinforcement(mm2) 14598.36

% of steel 0.73%

Quantity of steel (q) 12.03

Cost (Rs. Lakh) 1.268

Max. Shear (kN) 875.10

Check for shear Safe

No
Shear reinforcement: Required for shear

81
3.4.3 Design of Waffle Slab as per IS Code 456: 2000

Step – I:

Size of grid = 7 m (H) x 6 m (V)

Spacing of ribs, a1 = 1400 mm (H), b1 = 1500 mm (V)

Grade of concrete: M – 20; fck = 20 N/mm2

Grade of steel: Fe 415; fy = 415 N/mm2

Live load = 4 kN/m2

Floor finish = 1 kN/m2

Step – II:

No. of panels/Grids

1. In shorter direction;

6000
[y] = =4
1500

2. In longer direction;

7000
[x] = =5
1400

Total number of panels = 4 x 5 = 20

Step – III:

Dimensions of Slab and Beam

ly 7
= = 1.16  2 cl. D – 1.11 IS 456:2000 p – 90
lx 6

Therefore, two-way slab.

Thickness of slab depends on span/depth ratio.

As per cl. 24.1IS 456:2000 p 39:

For simply supported slab, ratio = 35

For continuous slab, ratio = 40.

82
Adopt thickness of slab = 100 mm

Span 7000
Depth of rib = = = 269.33
26 26

Span 6000
And, = = 230.76
26 26

For deflection purpose adopt D = 375 mm (Range = 300 mm – 600 mm)

l l 375 375
Width of rib = 100 mm (Range = to = to i.e. 125 – 93.75 mm)
3 4 3 4

Number of beams in X – direction:

7000
Nx = +1 = 6
1400

Number of beams in Y – direction:

6000
Ny = +1 = 5
1500

E = 5000 x 20 x 1000 = 22.36 x 106 N/mm2 cl. 6.2.3.1 IS 456:2000 p – 16

Grid floor consists of (a) Grid slab and (b) Tee beam.

Step – IV:

Load calculation:

Total weight of slab = Lx x Ly x thickness of slab x unit weight of concrete

= 7 x 6 x 0.1 x 25

= 105 kN

Total weight of beam in X – direction = 25 x bw x D x Nx x Lx

= 25 x 0.10 x 0.375 x 5 x 7

= 32.8125 kN

Total weight of beam in Y – direction = 25 x bw x D x Ny x {Ly – (bw x Nx)}

= 25 x 0.1 x 0.375 x 6 x {6 – (0.1 x 5)}

= 30.9375 kN

83
Total live load, LL = LL x LX x LY

=4x7x6

= 168 kN

Total floor finish = FF x Lx x Ly

= 1 x 7 x 6 = 42 kN

Total load = 105 + 32.8125 + 30.9375 + 168 + 42 kN

= 378.75 kN

378.75
Total load per square meter, q = = 9.018 kN/m 2
7x6

Total factored load = 1.5 x 9.018 kN/m2 = 13.52 kN/m2

Design Parameters:

Df 100
= = 0.266 (SP 16, Chart 88)
D 375

bf 1500 1400
= = 15 and = 14
bw 100 100

Moment of Inertia:

k xbw D3
I= [kx = 2.55, Sp – 16, Table – 88]
12

2.55 x 100 x 3753

= mm4
12

= 11.20 x 108 mm4

= 11.20 x 10–4 m4

Flexural Rigidity of Beam:

EI
Dx = cl.6.2.3.1 IS 456:2000 p – 16
a1

84
 22.36 x 106 x 11.20 x 108
=
1400

= 1.78 x 1013 N – mm

EI
Dy =
b1

22.36 x 106 x 11.20 x 108

=
1500

= 1.67 x 1013 N – mm

Modulus of Shear:

E
G=
2 (1 + )

22.36 x 106
= [Assume ν = 0.15]
2 (1 + 0.15 )

= 9.72 x 106 Pa

Torsional Constants:

  b   D
C1 = 1 − 0.63 x  w   bw3 x  cl. 6.3 exp 6.2 Varghese p – 86
  D   3

  0.100    0.375 
= 1 − 0.63 x    ( 0.1 ) x
3

  0.375    3 

= (1 – 0.168)(0.000125)

= 1.04 x 10–4 m3

  b   b 
C2 = 1 − 0.63 x  w    D3 x w 
  D   3

  0.100    0.100 
= 1 − 0.63 x    ( 0.375 ) x
3

  0.375    3 

= (1 – 0.168) (0.00175)

= 1.46 x 10–3 m3
85
Torsional Rigidity:

GC1
Cx = cl. 6.3 exp 6.2 Varghese p – 86
b1

9.72 x 106 x 1.04 x 10−4

=
1.5

= 673.92

GC2
Cy =
a1

9.72 x 106 x 1.46 x 10−3

=
1.4

= 10136.57

Therefore, 2H = Cx + Cy

= 673.92 + 10136.57

= 10810.49 = 10.81 x 103

Dx 1.78
4
= 4 x 104 = 7.41
Lx 7

Dy 1.67
4
= 4
x 104 = 12.88
L y 6

2H 10.81 x 103
Therefore, = = 6.13
L2x x L2y 7 2 x 62

Deflection Check:

Dx Dy 2H
ω= + 4 + 2 = 7.41 +12.88 + 6.13 mm
Lx Ly Lx x L2y
4

= 26.42 mm

16 x 13.52
ω=
960 x 26.42

= 0.00853 m = 8.53 mm cl. 6.4 exp 6.2 Varghese p – 85

86
Long – term Deflection:

Lt deflection = 3 x ω

= 3 x 8.53 mm = 25.59 mm

Span 7000
= = 28
250 250

Span
Therefore, Lt deflection <
250

Hence, safe.

Maximum moment and Shear values

2
 
M x = Dx x   x ω cl. 6.3 exp 6.5 Varghese p – 87
 Lx 
2
4 3.14 
= 1.78 x 10 x   x 8.53 kNm = 30.55 kNm
 7 

2
 
M y = Dy x   x ω
L
 y 

2
4 3.14 
= 1.67 x 10 x   x 8.53 kNm = 39.01 kNm
 6 

Maximum Torsional Moment:

Cx x π 2ω
M xy = cl. 6.3 exp 6.7 Varghese p – 87
Lx x Ly

673.92 x ( 3.14 ) x 8.53

2

= = 1.35 kNm
7x6

Step-V:

Reinforcement Details:

For X – Direction:

Mu = 30.55 kNm, b = 100 mm, d = 350 mm

87
 0.5 f ck   4.6M u  
Astx =  1− 1−  2 
x b x d
fy   ck
f bd  


0.5 x 20   4.6 x 30.55 x 106  

=  1− 1−  2 
 x 100 x 350 mm2
415   20 x 100 x 350  


= 295.18 mm2

Using 10 mm ϕ bars:


Area of one bar = x 102 mm 2 = 78.50 mm 2
4

295.18
Number of bar = = 3.76  4
78.50

Therefore, four number of bars (10 mm ϕ) can be provided.

For Y – Direction:

Mu = 39.01 kNm, b = 100 mm, d = 350 mm

0.5 f ck   4.6M u  
Asty = 1 − 1 −  2 
x b x d
fy   ck
f bd  


0.5 x 20   4.6 x 39.01 x 106  

= 1 − 1 −  2 
 x 100 x 350 mm2 = 404.80 mm2
415   20 x 100 x 350  


Using 16 mm ϕ bars,


x (16 ) mm 2 = 200.96 mm 2
2
Area of one bar =
4

404.80
Number of bars = = 2.01  2
205.6

Therefore, two number of bars (16 mm ϕ) can be provided.

Provide minimum steel in slab portion i.e. flange of waffle slab.

0.12 0.12
( Ast )min = xbxD = x 1000 x 100 mm2 = 120 mm2
100 100

Area of steel = (295.18 + 404.80 + 120) mm2 = 819.98 mm2

88
Shear Force:

  
3
3 

Qx = Dx x   + C y x  x ω cl. 6.3 exp 6.9 Varghese p – 87
 1 
2
 x
L a1 x b


  3.14 
3
3.143 
= 1.78 x 104 x  + 10136.57 x  x 8.53 kN
  7000  1400x 15002 

= 86.32 kN

  
3
 3 

Qy = Dy x   + C x x 2 xω
 L  a x b 
  
y 1 1


  3.14 
3
3.143 
= 1.67 x 104 x  + 673.92 x  x 8.53 kN = 80.92 kN
  6000  1500 x 14002 

Quantity of concrete:

Slab portion = 6 x 7 x 0.1 = 4.2 m3

Rib portion (Y – direction) = 6 x 6 x 0.1 x 0.275 m3 = 0.99 m3

Rib portion (X – direction) = 5 x (7 – 0.1 x 6) x 0.1 x 0.275 = 0.88 m3

Total = 6.07 m3

Quantity of cement = 1.70 m3,

Quantity of sand = 2.55 m3

Quantity of aggregate = 5.10 m3

Area of Reinforcement, Ast = 1475.9 + 2428.8 + 5040 mm2 = 8944.7 mm2

8944.7
Percentage of steel = x 100% = 0.59%
6000 x 250

Required steel = 0.785 x 6.07 = 4.76 quintal (as per QSC)

Cost of Slab = Cost of Concrete (@Rs. 4700/m3) + Cost of Steel (@Rs. 4560/quintal)

= Rs. 4700 x 6.07 + Rs. 4560 x 4.76

= Rs. 50234 = Rs. 0.502 lakh

89
 (IS 456:2000)

Fig. 3.13 Detailings of Steel in Waffle slab (IS 456:2000)

90
Summary:

Table 3.10 Summary result of waffle slab as per IS 456:2000

Code IS 456:2000

Grade of concrete (N/mm2) M20

Grade of steel (N/mm2) Fe 415

Thickness of slab (mm) 100

Factor Load (kN/m2) 13.52

30.55
Longer span (Max. Moment) (kNm)

39.01
Shorter span (Max. Moment) (kNm)

8.53
Deflection (mm)

Quantity of concrete (m3) 6.07

Quantity of cement (m3) 1.70

Quantity of sand (m3) 2.55

Quantity of aggregate (m3) 5.10

Area of reinforcement(mm2) 8944.7

% of steel 0.60%

Quantity of steel (q) 4.76

Cost (Rs. Lakh) 0.502

Max. Shear (kN) 86.32

Check for shear Safe

No
Shear reinforcement: Required for shear

91
3.4.4 Design of Waffle Slab as per Eurocode 2

A building has a rectangular grid of 7 m x 6 m of waffle slab and is to support an

imposed load (Live load) of 4 kN/m2 and floor finish load of 1 kN/m2. Design an interior

panel of the waffle slab and a supporting beam. Fck = 20 MPa, fy = 415 MPa. The design

will be done according to Eurocode 2.

Step – I:

Span
= 21
Effective depth

7000
Depth of slab = = 333.33 mm  355.00 mm
21

Total thickness of slab = 355.00 mm

Average rib width = 176.0 mm

Step – II:

From the table 3.17 BS 8110 let us select the following mould details:

Mould height = 280 mm

Top layer thickness = 75 mm

Total depth of slab = 355 mm

Average rib width = 176 mm

Step – III:

Load

Dead load (Self – weight) of concrete = 0.355 x 1 x 25 = 8.875 kN/m2

Finished load = 1.0 kN/m2

Total permanent action (load) = 8.875 + 1 kN/m2 = 9.875 kN/m2

Variable action (live load) = 4 kN/m2

Live load 4
Check: = = 0.405  1.25 Hence OK
Dead load 9.875
92
Live load = 4 kN/m2< 5 kN/m2 Hence OK

At ultimate limit state:

Ultimate load, w = 1.35 gk + 1.5 qk (gk – permanent action, qk – variable action)

= 1.35 x 9.875 + 1.5 x 4 cl. 3.2.1.2.2 BS 8110 – 1:1997 p – 16

= 19.33 kN/m2

Load per rib = 0.9 x 19.33 kN/m2

= 17.397 kN/m2 17.40 kN/m2

Step – IV:

Analysis of slab

Treating as all sides fixed

Length of longer span Ly 7.0

K= = = = 1.1666 1.17
Length of shorter span Lx 6.0

Nominal cover given for floors = 20 mm (minimum)

Nominal cover given for ribs = 20 mm (minimum)

Minimum rib width = 125 mm

Clear distance between ribs  500 mm

Length, Ly = 7000 mm

Width, Lx = 6000 mm

Type of panel – Interior Panel

Ly 7.0
= = 1.1666 1.17
Lx 6.0

Bending Moment Coefficient (Interior panel)

Positive moment at mid span = +0.031 Table 3.14 BS 8110 – 1:1997 p – 38

Negative moment at continuous edge = – 0.041

Design of the span

93
Designing the span as a T – beam

Med = αxwu(lx)2 cl. 3.5.3.3 BS 8110 – 1:1997 p – 35

= 0.031 x 17.40 x 62

= 19.42 kNm

Effective depth


d = h − Cnom − −  links
2

Assuming 12 mm ϕ bars will be employed for the main bars and 8 mm ϕ bars for

stirrups (links)

12
d = 355 − 20 − −8
2

= 321 mm

M Ed
K= cl. 3.4.4.4 BS 8110 – 1:1997 p – 25
f ck bd 2

19.42 x 106
=
20 x 500 x 3212

= 0.0190

0.0190 < 0.167

Since K < 0.167, No compression reinforcement required.

Lever arm Z

Z = d  0.5 +
 ( 0.25 − 0.882 K ) 

= d  0.5 +
 ( 0.25 − 0.882 x 0.019 ) 

= 0.095 d

= 0.95 x 321 mm

= 304.95 mm

94
Depth to neural axis:

X = 2.5 [d – Z]

= 2.5 [321 – 304.95]

= 40.125 mm < 1.25 h

= 40.125 mm < 1.25 x 75 mm i.e. 93.75 mm

Therefore, we design rib as a rectangular section.

Area of tension reinforcement

M Ed
As1 =
0.87 f y Z

19.42 x 106
= mm2
0.87 x 415 x 0.95 x 321

= 176.38 mm2

Provide 2H12 Bot (Asprov = 226 mm2)

Design of Supports:

Design as a solid section

Negative moment at support

MEd =  y wu lx
2
cl. 3.5.3.3 BS 8110 – 1:1997 p – 35

= 0.041 x 17.40 x 62

= 25.68 kNm

M Ed
K= cl. 3.4.4.4 BS 8110 – 1:1997 p – 25
f ck bd 2

25.68 x 106
=
20 x 176 x 3212

= 0.0708 0.071

Since K < 0.167, no compression reinforcement required.

Lever arm Z
95
Z = d  0.5 +
 ( 0.25 − 0.882 K ) 

Z = d 0.5 +
 ( 0.25 − 0.882 x 0.071) 

= 0.93 d

Area of tension reinforcement

M Ed
As1 =
0.87 f y Z

25.68 x 106
= mm2
0.87 x 415 x 0.93 x 321

= 238.25 mm2

Provide 2H10 top and 1 H12 top (Asprov = 270.00 mm2)

Check for Deflection:

Asreq.
p=
bd

238.25
=
500 x 321

= 0.00148

p0 – reference reinforcement ratio

p0 = 10−3 f ck

= 10−3 20

= 0.447

Since p < p0

L  p0  p0  
1.5

= K 11 + 1.5 f ck + 3.2 f ck  − 1 

d  p  p  

cl. 7.4.2(2) exp. 7.16 (a) Eurocode 2, p – 127

K = 1.5 for continuous system Table 7.4 N Eurocode 2, p – 127

96
L  0.447  0.447  
1.5

= 1.5 11 + 1.5 20 + 3.2 20  − 1 

d  0.148  0.148  

= 1.5[11 + 20.25 + 41.05]

= 1.5 x 72.344

= 108.516

500 Aspro
s = cl. 7.4.2 (2) exp. 7.17 Eurocode 2, p – 128
f yk Asreq

500 x 270
= = 1.363
415 x 238.6

bef 500
= = 2.84
bw 176

Therefore, multiply basic length: effective depth ration by 0.8

L
Therefore, limiting = 1.363 x 0.8 x 108.516 = 118.326
d

L 6000
Actual = = 18.69
d 321

L L
Since actual (18.69) < Limiting (118.326)
d d

L L
Since the limiting value of is greater than actual
d d

Therefore, deflection is satisfactory in this slab.

Step-VI:

Shear Design

Maximum shear force at the rib

VEd = 0.33 x 17.40 x 6.0 = 34.45 kN/m cl. 6.2.1(8) Eurocode 2 p – 87

 
VRd ,C = CRd ,C .K (100 p1 f ck ) 3 + K1 cp  bw .d  (Vmin + K1 cp ) bw .d
1

 

cl. 6.4.4(1) exp. 6.47 Eurocode 2 p – 104

97
 0.18 0.18
CRd ,C = = = 0.12
C 0.15

200
K = 1+
d

200
= 1+
321

= 1 + 0.789 = 1.789

As 1.789 < 2.0

3
0.5 2
Vmin. = 0.035 K f ck

= 0.035 x (1.789 ) x ( 20 ) = 0.374 N/m2

1.5 0.5

As 270
Pt = = = 0.00477  0.02
bd 176 x 321

Therefore Pt = 0.00477

 1

VRd ,C = 0.12 x K x (100 Pt fck ) 3  bw d cl. 6.2.2 exp. 6.2a Eurocode 2 p – 85
 

 1

= 0.12 x 1.789 x (100 x 0.00477 x 20 ) 3  x 176 x 321
 

= 25.51 kN

Since VRd,C (25.51 kN) < VEd (34.45 kN)

Therefore, shear reinforcement is required.

The compression capacity of the compression strut (VRdmax.) assuming θ = 21.80 (cot θ

= 2.5)

bw ZV1 f cd
VRd max. = cl. 6.2.3 exp 6.9 Eurocode 2 p – 89
cot  + tan 

 f ck   20 
V1 = 0.6 1 −  = 0.6 1 −  = 0.552
 250   250 

98
  cc f ck 0.85 x 20
fcd = = = 11.33 N/mm2
c 1.5

Let Z = 0.9d

176 x 0.9 x 321 x 0.552 x 11.33

VRd max. =
( 2.5 + 0.4 ) x 10−3
= 109655.69 N = 109.65 kN

Since VRdc< VEd< VRdmax

25.51 < 34.45 < 109.65

VEd
Hence, Asw /S =
0.87 f yk Z cot 

40660
= = 0.156
0.87 x 415 x 0.9 x 321 x 2.5

Minimum shear reinforcement

Asw/S = pwmin.x bw x sin α (α = 900 for vertical links)

cl. 9.2.2.(5) exp. 9.4 Eurocode 2 p – 156.

0.08 f ck
pw min. = cl. 9.2.2.(5) exp. 9.5 N Eurocode 2 p – 156.
f yk

0.08 20
= = 0.000861
415

Asw/Smin = 0.000861 x 176 x 1 = 0.151

Maximum spacing of shear links = 0.75d = 0.75 x 321 = 240.75 mm

cl. 9.2.2(8) exp. 9.8N Eurocode 2 p – 157.

Provide H8 mm @ 240 mm (centre to centre) as shear links.

Slab topping (Reinforcement in topping)

0.12
Area required per metre width = 0.12% of bh = x 75 x 1000 mm2
100

= 90 mm2
99
Spacing of wires 
1
centre to centre distance of rib i.e. < 250 mm
2

Area (provided) = 90 mm2 @ 200 mm in centre of topping.

Quantity of concrete:

Slab portion = 6 x 7 x 0.075 = 3.15 m3

Rib portion (Y – direction) = 6 x 6 x 0.280 x 0.176 m3 = 1.77 m3

Rib portion (X – direction) = 5 x (7 – 0.176 x 6) x 0.280 x 0.176 = 1.464

Total = 6.38 m3

Quantity of cement = 1.78 m3

Quantity of sand = 2.68 m3

Quantity of aggregate = 5.36 m3

Area of Reinforcement, Ast = 2486 + 2970 + 3780 mm2 = 9236 mm2

9236
Percentage of steel = x 100% = 0.62%
6000 x 246

Required steel = 0.785 x 6.38 = 5.00 quintal (as per QSC)

Cost of Slab = Cost of Concrete (@Rs. 4700/m3) + Cost of Steel (@Rs. 4560/quintal)

= Rs. 4700 x 6.38 + Rs. 4560 x 5.09

= Rs. 53319 = Rs. 0.533 lakh

100
 (EUROCODE 2)

Fig. 3.14 Detailing of steel in Waffle slab (EUROCODE 2)

101
Summary:

Table 3.11 Summary result of waffle slab as per Eurocode 2

Code Eurocode 2

Grade of concrete (N/mm2) M20

Grade of steel (N/mm2) Fe 415

Thickness of slab (mm) 75

Factor Load (kN/m2) 17.40

19.42
Longer span (Max. Moment) (kNm)

25.68
Shorter span (Max. Moment) (kNm)

18.69
Deflection (mm)

Quantity of concrete (m3) 6.38

Quantity of cement (m3) 1.78

Quantity of sand (m3) 2.68

Quantity of aggregate (m3) 5.36

Area of reinforcement(mm2) 9236

% of steel 0.62%

Quantity of steel (q) 5.09

Cost (Rs. Lakh) 0.533

Max. Shear (kN) 24.45

Check for shear Safe

No
Shear reinforcement: Required for shear

102
3.5 Analysis of Flat and Waffle Slab

Flat and waffle slabs are widely used in modern construction due to their structural

efficiency and aesthetic flexibility. The Indian Standard IS 456:2000 provides

guidelines for the design and construction of reinforced concrete structures, including

flat and waffle slabs. STAAD. Pro, a versatile structural analysis and design software,

is commonly employed to analyse and design these slabs in compliance with IS

456:2000. This chapter outlines the process of analyzing flat and waffle slabs using

STAAD. Pro, ensuring adherence to the relevant code provisions.

3.5.1 Analysis of Flat and Waffle Slab Using STAAD.Pro

Flat slabs are characterized by their simplicity and direct support on columns without

beams. The design of flat slabs includes considerations for load distribution, punching

shear, and deflection control. The use of the software gives the analytical idea about the

behaviour of flat slab under various parameters like deflection, bending moment.

Similarly waffle slabs requires less material during its construction. In comparision to

flat slab it has beam which provides it stability. The steps involve to analyze the flat

slab and waffle slab:

(i) Modeling of Flat and Waffle Slab

Modeling a flat slab in STAAD. Pro involves several systematic steps that ensure

accurate representation of the structural elements, load application, and analysis setup.

Flat slabs, due to their simplicity and direct column support, are popular in modern

construction. This section provides a detailed guide on modeling a flat slab using

STAAD. Pro, covering geometry definition, material properties assignment, load

103
 7m

6m

Figure 3.15 Defining the nodes of flat slab

7m

6m

Figure 3.16 Defining the nodes of waffle slab

104
 Figure 3.17 Render model of flat slab

Figure 3.18 Render model of waffle slab

(ii) Assign Material and Section Properties

Assigning material and section properties in STAAD.Pro is a critical step in ensuring

the structural model accurately represents the physical characteristics of the materials
105
used in the design. This section outlines the process for defining and assigning material

properties, slab thickness and other properties. Define the material properties for

concrete and steel (e.g., grade of concrete as per IS 456:2000).

Figure 3.19 Define material properties and slab thickness of flat slab

Figure 3.20 Define material properties and slab thickness of waffle slab

(iii) Define Supports and Boundary Conditions

Defining supports and boundary conditions is a crucial step in ensuring that the

structural model accurately represents how the slab and its supporting columns interact

with the rest of the structure. This section outlines the process for defining and assigning

106
support conditions to nodes in STAAD.Pro, which represent the points of contact

between the slab and the supporting columns or ground.

Figure 3.21 Define support on flat slab

Figure 3.22 Define support on waffle slab

107
Figure 3.23 Define load (dead and live load) on slab

Figure 3.24 Define load (dead and live load) on slab

108
 Figure 3.25 Define concrete design of flat slab as per IS 456:2000

Figure 3.26 Define concrete design of waffle slab as per IS 456:2000

(iv) Results Interpretation and Design Checks

After the analysis is complete, review the results for displacements, moments, shear

forces, and other response parameters.

109
Figure 3.27 Nodal displacement result of flat slab

110
Figure 3.28 Nodal displacement result of waffle slab

111
 (a)

(b)
Figure 3.29 Bending moment (a) longer span, and (b) shorter span) on flat slab

112
 (a)

(b)
Figure 3.30 Bending moment (a) longer span, and (b) shorter span) on waffle
slab

113
3.5.2 Analysis of Flat and Waffle Slab Using ETAB

Flat slabs are characterized by their simplicity and direct support on columns without

beams. The design of flat slabs includes considerations for load distribution, punching

shear, and deflection control. The steps involve to analyze the flat slab:

(i) Modeling of Flat and Waffle Slab

Modeling a flat slab in ETAB involves several systematic steps that ensure accurate

representation of the structural elements, load application, and analysis setup. Flat

slabs, due to their simplicity and direct column support, are popular in modern

construction. This section provides a detailed guide on modeling a flat slab using

ETAB, covering geometry definition, material properties assignment, load.

7m
6m

Figure 3.31 Defining the nodes of flat slab

114
 6m

7m

Figure 3.32 Defining the nodes of waffle slab

Figure 3.33 Render model of flat slab

115
 Figure 3.34 Render model of waffle slab

(ii) Assign Material and Section Properties

Assigning material and section properties in ETAB is a critical step in ensuring the

structural model accurately represents the physical characteristics of the materials used

in the design. This section outlines the process for defining and assigning material

properties, slab thickness and other properties. Define the material properties for

concrete and steel (e.g., grade of concrete as per IS 456:2000).

116
 Figure 3.35 Define material properties and slab thickness of flat slab

Figure 3.36 Define material properties and slab thickness of waffle slab

(iii) Define Supports and Boundary Conditions

Defining supports and boundary conditions is a crucial step in ensuring that the

structural model accurately represents how the slab and its supporting columns interact

117
with the rest of the structure. This section outlines the process for defining and assigning

support conditions to nodes in ETABS, which represent the points of contact between

the slab and the supporting columns or ground.

Figure 3.37 Define support on flat slab

Figure 3.38 Define support on waffle slab

118
 Figure 3.39 Define load (dead and live load) on flat slab

Figure 3.40 Define load (dead and live load) on waffle slab

119
 Figure 3.41 Define concrete design of flat and waffle slab as per IS Code

Figure 3.42 Define concrete design of flat and waffle slab as per Eurocode 2

(iv) Results Interpretation and Design Checks

After the analysis is complete, review the results for displacements, moments, shear

forces, and other response parameters.

120
 Figure 3.43 Nodal displacement result of flat slab

Figure 3.44 Nodal displacement result of waffle slab

121
 (a)

(b)

Figure 3.45 Bending moment (a) longer span and (b) shorter span on flat slab

122
 (a)

(b)

Figure 3.46 Bending moment (a) longer span and (b) shorter span on waffle slab

123
 CHAPTER – 4

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

The study aimed to analyze and compare the structural performance and cost-

effectiveness of flat slabs and waffle slabs using manual calculations, STAAD.PRO,

and ETABS software. The primary objectives were to determine the differences in

structural behavior, material quantities and cost under similar loading conditions.

Two types of slabs, flat slab and waffle slab, were designed for a building with a

rectangular grid of 7 m x 6 m, supporting an imposed load of 4 kN/m² and a floor finish

load of 1 kN/m². The design parameters included concrete grade (fck = 20 MPa) and

steel grade (fy = 415 MPa). Manual calculations were performed according to IS

456:2000 and Eurocode 2 for the both flat and waffle slab. The designs were then

modelled and analyzed using STAAD.PRO and ETABS software to verify the manual

calculations (direct method) and assess the structural behavior under various loading

conditions.

4.1 STRUCTURE PERFORMANCE

Both slabs met the structural requirements, with the waffle slab showing better

performance in terms of deflection control due to its higher stiffness. The flat slab

exhibited a more straightforward construction process and was easier to analyze

manually.STAAD.PRO and ETABS provided validation for the manual calculations,

ensuring that both slab designs were safe and efficient. Software analysis allowed for

more detailed insights into stress distribution and deflection patterns, which are crucial

for complex structural designs. The variation of bending moments in flat and waffle

slabs highlights the structural advantages of waffle slabs in terms of moment

124
distribution and reduced peak moments. Flat slabs, while simpler in design and

construction, exhibit higher peak moments and a less uniform distribution, requiring

more reinforcement at critical sections. Waffle slabs, with their grid of ribs, provide a

more efficient load distribution, resulting in lower bending moments and potential

material savings.

The bar chart in Figure 4.1 and Figure 4.2 illustrates the deflection (deformation in mm)

of flat slabs and waffle slabs using three different analytical approaches based on

IS456:2000 and Eurocode 2 standards: Direct Method, STAAD.Pro, and ETAB. The

Direct Method shows that waffle slabs have a slightly higher deflection compared to

flat slabs. This could be due to the difference in structural configuration where waffle

slabs, although providing a higher stiffness and load-carrying capacity due to their

ribbed structure, may exhibit greater localized deflections under certain conditions.

Using all three approaches i.e., manual, STAAD.Pro, and ETAB method the deflection

values are marginally nearer for both slab types compared to the Direct Method. Waffle

slabs again show higher deflection than flat slabs, consistent with the Direct Method

results. The increase in deflection using software could be attributed to the detailed

finite element analysis capabilities of the software, capturing more intricate behavior of

the slabs under load.

125
Figure 4.1 Variation of deflection of flat and waffle slab with different
approaches (IS456:2000)

Figure 4.2 Variation of deflection of flat and waffle slab with different
approaches (Eurocode 2)

126
Figure 4.3 Variation of bending moment (longer span) of flat and waffle slab
with different approaches (IS456:2000)

Figure 4.4 Variation of bending moment (longer span) of flat and waffle slab
with different approaches (Eurocode 2)

127
Figure 4.5 Variation of bending moment (shorter span) of flat and waffle slab
with different approaches (IS456:2000)

Figure 4.6 Variation of bending moment (shorter span) of flat and waffle slab
with different approaches (Eurocode 2)

128
The bar chart Figure 4.3 – Figure 4.6 illustrates the variation of bending moments

(longer and shorter span) for flat slabs and waffle slabs using three different analytical

approaches based on IS456:2000 and Eurocode 2 standards: Direct Method,

STAAD.Pro, and ETAB. The bending moments are represented in kNm. The bending

moments for flat slabs remain consistently high across all three methods, ranging from

30.55 to 596.67 kNm for longer span and 39.01 to 498.54 kNm for shorter span as per

IS 456:2000. Also, the bending moments for flat slabs remain consistently high across

all three methods, ranging from 19.42 to 520.36 kNm for longer span and 25.68 to

449.93 kNm for shorter span as per Eurocode. This indicates that the flat slab design

leads to higher bending moments in the longer span regardless of the analysis method

used. The slight increase in bending moment values from the Direct Method to

STAAD.Pro and ETAB can be attributed to the more detailed and comprehensive

analysis capabilities of STAAD.Pro and ETAB. These tools consider various factors

such as material nonlinearity, load distribution, and support conditions more rigorously.

Flat slabs exhibit significantly higher bending moments compared to waffle slabs

across all methods. This highlights the flat slab’s tendency to experience greater

bending stresses, making it crucial to consider these factors in design to prevent

excessive deflection and potential structural failure. Waffle slabs, with their ribbed

structure, demonstrate a more efficient load distribution, resulting in substantially lower

bending moments. This makes waffle slabs advantageous in applications where

minimizing bending stress is essential.

4.2 COST ANALYSIS

The cost analysis for flat and waffle slabs using different approaches (Direct Method,

STAAD.Pro, and ETAB) based on IS456:2000 and Eurocode 2 standards is provided

in this section. The cost of the slabs has been calculated on the basis of material
129
consumed during construction of the slabs with the standard rate as prescribed by the

schedule of rates in Public Work Department (PWD). The followings inferences have

been obtained from the study.

➢ Flat slabs are consistently more expensive than waffle slabs across all methods.

➢ The cost difference highlights the material efficiency of waffle slabs, where the

ribbed structure reduces the amount of concrete needed, leading to lower overall

costs.

➢ STAAD.Pro and ETAB are more sophisticated analysis tools that provide more

precise and detailed design outputs. They may account for factors like material

optimization, load distribution, and safety factors more accurately, resulting in

slight increases in cost estimates.

Figure 4.7 Cost variation of flat and waffle slab with different approaches
(IS456:2000)

130
 Figure 4.8 Cost variation of flat and waffle slab with different approaches
(Eurocode 2)

Waffle slabs, due to their design, use materials more efficiently, resulting in lower costs.

This is particularly beneficial in large-scale projects where material costs are a

significant portion of the budget. The choice of analysis method impacts the cost

estimates. While the Direct Method provides a basic cost estimate, STAAD.Pro and

ETAB offer more refined estimates that might be closer to the actual costs due to their

detailed analysis capabilities.

131
 CHAPTER – 5

CONCLUSIONS

5.1 INTRODUCTION

This work provides a comprehensive comparison of flat slabs and waffle slabs using

three design approaches: Direct Method, STAAD.Pro, and ETAB, in accordance with

IS 456:2000 and Eurocode standards. The focus was on determining the differences in

material quantities, costs, and structural performance. The analysis summarized that

waffle slabs are more efficient and cost-effective compared to flat slabs. The ribbed

design of waffle slabs provides superior structural performance, reduced material

usage, and substantial cost savings. Advanced design tools like STAAD.Pro and ETAB

enhance the accuracy of structural analysis and cost estimation. For construction

projects prioritizing structural integrity, cost efficiency, and adherence to IS 456:2000

and Eurocode standards, waffle slabs are the preferred choice. This study emphasizes

the importance of selecting the appropriate slab type and design approach to optimize

economic and structural outcomes. Both IS 456:2000 and Eurocode standards are

effectively met by both slab types, with waffle slabs demonstrating better material

efficiency and structural performance.

5.2 SIGNIFICANCE OF RESEARCH CONTRIBUTIONS

➢ The primary purpose of the study is to inform action, to prove a theory and

contributing to develop knowledge in the field of study.

➢ This is the first time study of waffle slab in Chhattisgarh in structural design

work as most of the buildings here are limited to 5 storeys. No any structure has

waffle slab.

132
 ➢ The present study aims to provide insights into the comparative performance of

flat slabs and waffle slabs contributing to the body of knowledge in structural

engineering.

➢ The findings will help engineers to make informal decisions when selecting job

systems, ensuring optimal design, safety and cost – effectiveness.

➢ The research will highlight the importance of integrating manual design

methods with advanced software tools, promoting a comprehensive and robust

approach to structural analysis and design.

5.3 CONCLUSIONS

The study and comparative analysis of flat slabs and waffle slabs using different design

approaches (Direct Design Method, STAAD.Pro, and ETABS) as per IS 456:2000 and

Eurocode 2 standards has provided significant insights into their structural behavior,

cost efficiency, and design practicality.

1. The comparative analysis clearly demonstrates that waffle slabs are a more

efficient and having high compressive strength as compared to flat slabs.

2. The ribbed design of waffle slabs not only reduces material usage but also

enhances structural performance by effectively distributing loads and

minimizing deflection.

3. Both types of slabs are safe and economical when compared with the

conventional concrete slab.

4. Advanced design tools like STAAD.Pro and ETABS, while slightly increasing

cost estimates, provide more accurate and reliable data for structural analysis

and design.

133
 5. For projects seeking to balance structural integrity, cost efficiency, and

compliance with IS 456:2000 and Eurocode 2 standards, waffle slabs present a

highly advantageous option.

6. The optimization in the design process suggests that while waffle slabs are

structurally efficient and capable of handling larger spans with less material,

their deflection characteristics need careful consideration in design to ensure

serviceability limits are not exceeded.

7. The analysis reveals that flat slabs experience significantly higher bending

moments in the longer span compared to waffle slabs across all analytical

methods. Waffle slabs show substantially lower bending moments, making

them suitable for applications requiring minimal bending stresses. The above

conclusions have also been confirmed by advanced tools like STAAD.Pro and

ETABS.

• The cost analysis based on IS456:2000 and Eurocode 2 standards indicates that

waffle slabs are generally more economical compared to flat slabs. The cost

analysis based on IS456:2000 and Eurocode 2 standards indicates that waffle

slabs are more economical than flat slabs across all analytical methods.

• Flat Slabs: Higher costs, with incremental increases across advanced methods.

• Waffle Slabs: Lower costs, with similar incremental increases across advanced

methods.

8. The study also reveals that the IS 456:2000 code is more economical as

compared to Eurocode 2 in design for both type of slabs.

134
5.4 LIMITATIONS OF THE STUDY

The followings are some limitations in the present study:

➢ The present study has main focus on the design of slab at foundation or ground

level only.

➢ The study is limited to stabilisation as well as cost benefit. The study may be

extended to include seismic behaviour, high rise building, time management,

environmental considerations particularly the areas other than Chhattisgarh etc.

➢ The study is not related to design of structure for sloping ground.

5.5 FUTURE RECOMMENDATIONS

Based on the comparative analysis of flat slabs and waffle slabs using different design

approaches and standards (IS 456:2000 and Eurocode), here are some future

recommendations:

• While the study provided insights into deflection characteristics, further research

could explore long-term deflection behavior under sustained loads and its impact

on serviceability over the lifespan of structures.

• Consider exploring more advanced analytical techniques beyond STAAD.Pro

and ETAB to capture even finer details of structural behavior.

• Methods incorporating advanced finite element analysis (FEA) or computational

fluid dynamics (CFD) could provide deeper insights into dynamic loads and their

effects.

• Investigate the use of new materials or composite materials that could potentially

reduce the weight and increase the efficiency of both flat and waffle slabs without

compromising on structural integrity.

• Conduct extensive case studies and field validation of the design methodologies

and cost estimates derived from analytical approaches.

135