Slide 2 Introduction (A)

Concrete is one of the most widely used construction materials in the world. Without it, the whole
construction industry cannot function as it is used in almost every structure around the world.
However, the extensive use of concrete comes with considerable environmental consequences. The
global production of cement which is a key element in producing concrete exceeds 4.1 billion tons
annually, generating approximately 2.7 billion tons of CO₂ representing nearly 8% of global emissions.

Sweden alone contributed about 1.9 million tons of CO2 emissions in the year 2020 from just two
major cement plants, producing roughly 2.8 million tons of cement. Our focus for this thesis is
concrete slabs. Concrete slabs are very commonly used in the industry because they are crucial
structural elements that not only support loads from above but also distribute these loads effectively
to beams and columns and finally to foundations. These slabs are often designed with generous
safety margins to ensure durability and reliability under various condition which is good but it does
produce an excess amount of co2 emissions that could be avoided with the right optimization
method.

Therefore, the goal of our thesis is to try and minimize this emission by focusing on concrete slabs
and optimizing them. While maintaining their structural integrity and fulfilling all the necessary
requirement set by the Eurocode.

______

Slide 3 Problem Statement (A)

The problem we’re addressing stems from a tendency in the construction industry to stick with
conventional slab designs—often flat slabs—because they are easier to model, faster to build, and familiar to
contractors. But these designs are usually over-conservative, meaning they use more concrete and steel than
necessary. This results in excessive material use and higher emissions. Which could be avoided with the
right optimization method.

And Despite all the advancements in computational tools today. And all the structural optimization research
done by many others, we noticed that many of the proposed methods were too complex for everyday
practice and application. They're either too time-consuming or too specialized or complex to be used on-site
by practitioners. Moreover, due to time constraints and tight schedules in real life projects, there's little room
for experimentation with all these innovational techniques.

That’s why we tried to avoid all the complicated solutions that wouldn’t be that effective in real life
application and focused more on a more realistic approach. Our challenge was to design slab systems that
are both efficient, practical and easy to us. a design that could actually be used in real life projects—one that
balances structural safety, sustainability, and constructability.
Slide 4 Limitations(M)
Now // I would like to briefly reflect on the limitations of this study.

FIRST, the loading conditions were simplified. We only considered uniformly distributed loads, which
do not fully represent all real-world conditions such as point loads or seismic forces.

Also, not all SLS factors were considered such as the dynamic effects like vibrations or fire safety. Time-
dependent phenomena OR LONG-TIME DEFORMATION like creep and shrinkage, as well as cracking
under service loads, were not included in the analysis.

SECOND, the boundary conditions were idealized. We assumed either simply supported or mixed
support conditions, but in reality//, supports may have partial fixity, which could affect the structural
behavior.

THIRD, the material properties were considered homogeneous and linear elastic.

ANOTHER IMPORTANT LIMITATION is that the study did not investigate alternative concrete mix designs
or recipes. We used standard concrete grades without exploring the potential impact of supplementary
cementitious materials or innovative mix compositions that could further reduce CO₂ emissions or
improve structural performance.

FINALLY, the environmental analysis focused only on the volume of concrete used. Factors such as
transportation, construction processes, and the full life cycle of the materials were outside the scope
of this study.

Slide 5 Research Methodology (M)

IN THIS PROJECT //, we used a structured and multi-layered methodology designed to balance
engineering theory with practical constraints in real construction.

WE STARTED BY developing custom Python scripts to model one-way, two-way and even ribbed slabs.
These scripts incorporated methods like the yield line and strip method, allowing us to simulate
structural behavior and quickly test different design parameters that are aligned with Eurocode
formulas.

TO BUILD ON THAT //, we used FEM-Design by StruSoft which uses the yield line method for slab
analysis. This software gave us the ability to model more complex slab systems, including flat, waffle,
and ribbed slabs under realistic loading and support conditions. It also enabled us to analyze
deflections, crack width, and moment distribution with a high level of precision.

BUT WE DIDN’T STOP THERE— we wanted to ensure the reliability of our models. Since we were both
a bit skeptical, we carried out manual calculations to verify the outputs from FEM-Design. These
calculations acted as a cross-check and strengthened the credibility of our results and ensured that
our models were correctly made in the software.

You could say we trusted the software — but ALSO, we did the math on the back of a napkin.

Old habits die hard.

Slide 6 Expert Interviews (M)
AS PART OF OUR METHODOLOGY, we conducted expert interviews with professionals in the construction
industry to ground our work in real-world practice and gather qualitative insights. We spoke with:

• An architect from Fojab Arkitekter.

• A PhD candidate at Lund University with experience as a structural engineer.
• A contractor and a structural engineer from Tyréns.

THE PURPOSE of these interviews was to understand current design practices, challenges, and priorities in
slab construction from different professional perspectives. Here are some of the key takeaways:

• Most engineers prefer simple and conventional slab designs, especially flat slab, due to time efficiency
and ease of implementation.
• Engineers often rely on standardized methods and take account of other factors like comfort and
acoustics, vibration and fire safety. with tight project timelines.
• However, all interviewees expressed openness to more advanced or sustainable solutions—if they are
technically supported and practically applicable on-site.

THESE INSIGHTS helped us define a realistic starting point for optimization and shaped our decision to use
the flat slab as the baseline system, since it is the most widely used and accepted form in residential
construction.

Sometimes, the best way forward is to start with what everyone already trusts — and then gently push the
envelope.

Slide 7 Case Study Setup (A)

After verifying with experts through interviews our case Studie setup for the thesis was as follows.
First, we decided to go with a two-way slab with the dimensions of 6 m on the x-axis and 4 m on the y-
axis. Then we analyzed different slab thicknesses for this slab, ranging all the way from 160 mm to 250
mm to check the deflection, to check the moment and how much CO2 emission each slab produced.

Then we tested multiple concrete strength classes, from strength class C20/25 to strength class
C35/45. Lastly, we tested two different support layouts. The first is simply supported throughout the
whole slab so all edges are simply supported, then another support layout where we have fixed
supports on the short edges and simple supports on the long edges. As you can see in the figure here.

Finally, we tested multiple combinations of what I just mentioned. For example a slab that is simply
supported on all edges with all the different thicknesses and simply supported with the different
strength classes. We did the same for the mixed support slab. Where we also tested all the different
thicknesses and the different strength classes Aswell. We did this to analyze the differences and find
the best optimal slab thickness, support condition and concrete strength class so that we can
optimize it further.
Slide 8 Results flat slab: Support conditions and concrete strength (A)
For our first analyses. we analyzed how support conditions affect the slabs behavior. We looked at two
scenarios as mentioned before: one where the slab is simply supported on all edges, and another with mixed
supports, meaning fixed on the short edges and simply supported on the long edges as you can see in the
picture

What we found was that the slab with the Mixed supports led to noticeably lower deflections and bending
moments, especially in the central areas of the slab. This is important because lower deflection means that
we can potentially reduce the thickness of the slab, or the amount of reinforcement needed—without
compromising its performance while still adhering to the Eurocode regulations.

Then we tested different concrete strength classes. By testing multiple models with both support conditions
mentioned and different concrete strength classes. The strength classes tested were strength class C20/25 to
strength class C35/45.

More details on the results will be presented by my colleague

Slide 9 Results flat slab: Support conditions and concrete strength(M)

THIS SLIDE PRESENTS the deflection behavior of 250 mm thick flat slabs across various concrete
strength classes, under two support conditions. 250 mm was chosen as our starting thickness because
it’s commonly used and appears often in textbooks, which made it easier to validate our results.

AS THE CHART SHOWS, slabs with mixed support conditions consistently experience lower deflections
than those with simple supports. For example, a C25/30 slab deflects significantly less when supported
on fixed short edges and simply supported long edges, compared to being simply supported all around.

THE REASON FOR THIS is that mixed supports provide rotational restraint at the fixed edges, which
limits how much the slab can bend. This added fixity // introduces negative moments near the supports
and effectively redistributes internal forces, resulting in smaller mid-span deflections.

IN CONTRAST //, simply supported slabs behave more freely and bend more in the middle, which
increases deflection.

Simply put: more freedom = more movement. More restraint = more control.

ALTHOUGH increasing concrete strength slightly reduces deflection due to increased stiffness, the
support condition plays a much larger role in controlling slab behavior. This demonstrates the structural
benefit of partial fixity when optimizing slab systems.
Slide 10 Results flat slab: Support conditions and concrete strength(A)
This slide illustrates the CO₂ emissions associated with 250 mm flat slabs using different concrete
strength classes.

As expected, emissions increase with increase of the concrete strength class. This is due to higher
cement content in stronger mixes, which directly raises the embodied carbon. For example, the slab
with the strength class C35/45 has noticeably higher emissions than slab with the strength class
C20/25. So, while choosing higher concrete grades improves structural performance, it also leads to a
significant environmental trade-off.

However, it’s important to note that in this case, support conditions had no impact on the CO₂
emissions. The values were identical across all concrete grades, whether the slabs were simply
supported or mixed supported.

This is because for the chosen slabs tested here, the minimum reinforcement’s required by Eurocode
was higher than the actual needed reinforcements for these slabs, therefore they all had more
reinforcements than what they actually needed in order to reach the minimum requirement set by the
Eurocode and therefore their support condition, did not matter.

--

Slide 11 Results flat slab: Support conditions and concrete strength(A)

This chart shows the maximum bending moment values in the slabs across the global axis. Where the
concrete strength classes range.

Here, we observe that support conditions play a key role. Mixed supports produce slightly lower
bending moments than simple supports, particularly in mid-span. This can reduce reinforcement
requirements and improve serviceability.

However, as concrete strength increases, the moment capacity remains relatively consistent,
indicating that for a constant thickness of 250 mm, the structural system is more stiffness-limited by
geometry and boundary conditions than by concrete strength class alone.

This confirms that to achieve optimal efficiency, it’s not just about upgrading material strength, but
about choosing smarter boundary conditions, better geometry and reinforcement strategies.

We choose the strength C25/30

Slide 12 Results flat slab: Slab thickness (M)
AND FOR THE NEXT OPTIMIZATION PART. We shifted our focus from concrete strength classes to slab
thickness.
In a way, we stopped asking “how strong” and started asking “how thick is too thick?”

We tested thicknesses ranging from 160 mm to 250 mm while keeping the concrete strength constant at C25/30
and used both support conditions mentioned earlier.

WHY?!! To examine and see how varying thickness will affect the deformation of the plate, the bending
moment and the CO2 emissions caused by the different thicknesses.

Or put simply —WE WANTED TO KNOW how much concrete do we really need before the structure says
“I’m good” and the environment says, “thank you”?

________________________________________________________________________________

Slide 13 Results flat slab: Slab thickness (A)

As you can see In this slide, we analyze how different slab thicknesses affect deflection behavior in flat
slabs. We tested thicknesses of 160 mm, 180 mm, 200 mm, 220 mm, and 250 mm, using C25/30 concrete,
under both simply supported and mixed support conditions.

The results are clear and as expected: as thickness increases, deflection decreases. A thicker slab provides
more stiffness, which improves its resistance to bending and deformation under load.

However, the important finding is that even the 160 mm slab that has the highest deflection, when supported
with mixed edge conditions, stayed well within the Eurocode deflection limits. As you see here the 160 mm
slab under mixed support showed a deflection of just 0.9 mm, which is far below the allowable value of
L/250, or 24 mm for a 6-meter span.

This means we can safely reduce the thickness of a slab to 160 mm without compromising performance—if
support conditions are favorable. This opens up opportunities for saving material while still meeting all
Eurocode criteria.
Slide 14 Results flat slab: Slab thickness (A)
Now let’s examine the CO₂ emissions associated with the same set of slab thicknesses: 160 mm to 250 mm.

As expected, CO₂ emissions increase significantly with thickness, since more concrete volume directly
translates to more embodied carbon. For example, a 250 mm thick slab emits over 1700 kg of CO₂, while a
160 mm slab emits approximately 1392 kg, under the same concrete quality and support conditions.

This difference is substantial—and it's especially important when we're designing for sustainability. The 160
mm slab achieves acceptable deflection and has the lowest environmental impact, making it the best choice
among the options tested.

Choosing thinner slabs, when structurally viable, is one of the most effective ways to reduce
emissions in concrete construction industry. This result supports the broader goal of minimizing
resource use without compromising safety

Slide 15 Summary of results for flat slab (M)

THIS SLIDE SUMMARIZE how changing the slab thickness affects both structural performance and
environmental impact, using concrete grade C25/30.

ON THE LEFT AXIS, we see deflection values for both mixed and simply supported slabs. As expected,
deflection decreases as thickness increases. Mixed support consistently shows significantly lower
deformation due to the added rotational restraint at the fixed edges, which limits mid-span bending and
enhances stiffness.

ON THE RIGHT AXIS, we track CO₂ emissions, which increase steadily with slab thickness as mentioned
before. This is because thicker slabs require more concrete, leading to more embodied carbon.

THERE IS A SMALL difference in emissions between the support types, with mixed support showing
slightly higher values, but the difference is so minimal.

THE KEY TAKEAWAY IS THE TRADE-OFF // : thicker slabs improve deflection but come at the cost of
higher emissions. The optimal design must satisfy both structural and environmental constraints. In
our study, 160 mm thickness with mixed support provided the best balance between performance and
sustainability.

A win-win — less bending in the slab, and less frowning from the climate modeler.
Slide 16 Summary of results for flat slab(M)
THIS CHART SHOWS how varying the concrete strength influences deflection and CO₂ emissions, while
keeping the slab thickness fixed at 160 mm under mixed support.

AS WE MOVED FROM C20/25 to C35/45, deflection decreases slightly due to the increased stiffness of
higher concrete grades. However, this reduction only around 0.1 mm is marginal and not practically
significant, meaning the performance gain doesn’t justify the environmental cost.

It’s like paying premium for a feature you’ll probably never use.

ON THE OTHER HAND, CO₂ emissions rise significantly with each upgrade in concrete strength. This is
because higher grades require more cement, which contributes heavily to embodied carbon.

SO, while stronger concrete does slightly reduce deflection, the improvement is minimal, especially for
slabs with already acceptable deformation. There’s no meaningful performance benefit to offset the
higher emissions.

SO, C25/30 was selected as the optimal grade in our study and commonly used. It offers a realistic and
sustainable balance providing adequate stiffness while keeping emissions at reasonable levels.

_________________________________________________________________________
Slide 17 Results: Waffle Slab(M)
AFTER THE FLAT SLAB ANALYSIS, we had dived deeper into improving the geometry of the slab and studying the
effect it has on bending moment and CO2 emissions. This slide presents the results of the waffle slab analysis
and compares its structural and environmental performance with the flat slab.

FROM A SUSTAINABILITY PRESEPECTIVE, the waffle slab achieves a 6% reduction in CO₂ emissions and a 12.5%
reduction in concrete volume. These savings come from the voided geometry, which removes non-structural
concrete in low-stress zones, making the system lighter and more material-efficient.

HOWEVER, these environmental benefits come at a cost // . The maximum deflection exceeds the acceptable
serviceability limit defined by Eurocode. This means the slab would likely require either additional depth or post-
processing adjustments to meet code requirements.

In engineering terms: greener, but not stiffer.

IN ADDITION, waffle slabs require complex and time-consuming formwork, which significantly impacts
constructability.

But since only one configuration of the waffle slab was studied, these results cannot be generalized to all waffle
slab systems. Instead, the outcome highlights that the specific waffle slab considered here may not be a suitable
strategy for typical residential or office projects. It may, however, still offer value in applications involving long
spans or architectural expression, provided further investigation and refinement are carried out.

IN SUMMARY // , although waffle slabs offer moderate environmental gains, the high deflection and
construction complexity limit their practicality in standard applications.

Slide 18 Results: Ribbed Slab (A)

After the Waffle slab not being a great success, we tried a different type of slab called the ribbed slab.
As you can see in the picture. We started by generating optimal ribbed slab geometries using a
custom Python-based parametric tool. This tool allowed us to test hundreds of combinations for rib
spacing, slab thickness, and beam dimensions, all within structural and dimensional constraints. The
goal was to reduce concrete volume and emissions without compromising strength or serviceability.

Once we selected the best geometry, we tested two different reinforcement strategies in FEM Design:

Automatic distribution of the reinforcement, where the software generates the reinforcement layout based on
internal calculations.

Manual redistribution of the reinforcement, where we tailored the layout to match the actual moment
demands in each region of the slab.

With the automatic approach, the ribbed slab showed a CO₂ reduction of around 11% compared to our
optimized flat slab. However, with manual reinforcement, we were able to maximize steel utilization and
reduce unnecessary material. This resulted in a 29% reduction in CO₂ emissions while still satisfying all
Eurocode criteria for deflection, cracking, and ultimate strength.
Slide 19 Results: Ribbed Slab (A)
This graph shows the CO₂ emissions for different slab types, all modeled with a concrete strength of C25/30
and 160 mm slab thickness.

On the left, we have the baseline flat slab, which emits about 1392 kg of CO₂ or 58 Kg CO₂ / m² slab. Next
to that is the waffle slab, which shows a slight reduction in emissions due to reduced concrete volume—but,
as we discussed earlier, it had serviceability and constructability drawbacks.

The real standout is the ribbed slab. With automatic reinforcement, emissions dropped to approximately
1159 kg or 47.5 Kg CO₂ / m² slab giving a reduction of 11%, and with manual reinforcement, emissions
went as low as 991.6 kg or 40.64 Kg Co2 /m2 slab. That’s a 29% reduction compared to the flat slab.

This comparison makes it clear that the ribbed slab—especially when paired with smart, manual
reinforcement—delivers the most sustainable performance. It balances structural efficiency, material
savings, and carbon reduction in a way that’s both practical and impactful for real construction
projects

Slide 21 Conclusion (M)

IN CONCLUSION, this study has shown that careful design choices can lead to significant structural
and environmental benefits.

FIRST, we found that manual reinforcement design clearly outperforms auto-reinforcement generated
by software. The manual approach allowed for more efficient placement of bars, reducing unnecessary
material use, while still meeting all structural requirements.

SECOND, the ribbed slab with manual reinforcement emerged as the most sustainable solution overall.
It delivered the highest concrete volume savings—up to 29%—while maintaining acceptable
performance in terms of deflection and moment capacity. This highlights the ribbed system’s strength
not just structurally, but also environmentally.

You could say it’s lean, strong, and environmentally toned — an engineer’s version of fitness goals.

FINALLY // , this project reinforces a key message: // optimization is absolutely achievable when there
are the right tools and methods.

__________________________
Slide 22 Acknowledgments (both)
Before we finish, we would like to take a moment to express our sincere gratitude to everyone who
supported and contributed to this thesis project.

First and foremost, we thank our academic supervisor, Dr. Mohammad Kahangi, and our examiner, Dr.
Miklos Molnár, for their insightful guidance, valuable feedback, and constant support throughout the
process. Their expertise helped shape the direction and depth of this work.

MOHAMAD

WE ALSO EXTEND our deep appreciation to our industrial advisor and supervisor, Dr. Robert Larsson, for
sharing his practical experience and for providing input from the perspective of real-world implementation.

SPECIAL THANKS TO StruSoft for granting us access to FEM-Design software and for their technical
assistance, which was crucial for the modeling and analysis parts of this project.

WE’RE ALSO GREATFUL to the engineers and professionals who participated in our interviews—their
input gave us a realistic understanding of industry practices and challenges.

LASTLY, we want to thank our families and friends for their continuous encouragement, patience, and
support during the long hours and late nights of this project.

To all of you—thank you

1.
It is not clear which life cycle phase the CO₂ emissions refer to – does it apply to the production
phase, the use phase or the entire life cycle of the concrete slab?
‫ أم بدورة‬،‫ أو مرحلة االستخدام‬،‫غير واضح إلى أي مرحلة من دورة الحياة تشير انبعاثات ثاني أكسيد الكربون – هل تتعلق بمرحلة اإلنتاج‬
‫الحياة الكاملة للعنصر الخرساني؟‬
We mentioned that in limitation that we only focused on volume of concrete used.

2.
In your figures, you compare deformation and CO₂ emissions in the same figures. Could you elaborate
on the relationship between these two parameters? What insights or conclusions should the reader
draw from this comparison?
‫ هل يمكنكم توضيح العالقة بين هذين‬.‫ قارنتم بين التشوه وانبعاثات ثاني أكسيد الكربون في نفس الشكل‬،‫في الرسوم البيانية التي قدمتموها‬
‫العاملين؟ وما االستنتاج أو الفهم الذي يجب أن يستخلصه القارئ من هذه المقارنة؟‬
To make it easier to read and compare at the same time, we can read all info in the same chart

3.
Can you explain why the waffle slab, despite its expected environmental efficiency, performed worse
than the other alternatives?
‫ على الرغم من أنه كان من المتوقع أن يكون أكثر كفاءة بيئيًا؟‬،‫هل يمكنكم شرح لماذا أظهر بالطة الوافل أدا ًء أسوأ من البدائل األخرى‬
That's a great question. The main issue wasn't the waffle slab itself, but how it was modeled in FEM-
Design. As seen in the figure, the slab was split into multiple separate plate elements, each one
interpreted independently by the software. Consequently, each element required individual
reinforcement rules, significantly increasing reinforcement quantities and CO₂ emissions. This may
happened because we didn’t have enough experience with the software to model the slab as a unified
system. Had we been able to do so, the results—particularly regarding emissions—would have been
much better.

4.
Have you considered including more case studies with different types of buildings, to increase the
generalizability of the results? How do you think the results might differ in, for example, industrial or
mixed-use buildings?
ً ‫ لزيادة قابلية تعميم النتائج؟ وكيف تعتقدون أن النتائج قد تختلف‬،‫هل فكرتم في تضمين دراسات حالة إضافية ألنواع مختلفة من المباني‬
‫مثال‬
‫في المباني الصناعية أو متعددة االستخدامات؟‬
Yes we sis at the beginning of the study but after a while and due shortage of time we ignored that

5.
Were there any alternative methods or approaches you considered during the course of the project
but decided not to use? If so, which ones, and what were the reasons for excluding them?
‫ فما هي هذه‬،‫ لكن قررتم عدم استخدامها؟ وإذا كان األمر كذلك‬،‫هل كانت هناك طرق أو منهجيات بديلة فكرتم في استخدامها خالل المشروع‬
‫ ولماذا تم استبعادها؟‬،‫الطرق‬
Also, due to shortage of time we would also study bubble slabs and also, we have designed a salb full
of holes, but our computers were not able to handle these heavy calculations type. It took a very long
time without any results. We may do that again in the future, but we need a very advanced computer

6.
Are there any aspects of the project that you think could have been improved or approached
differently?
‫هل هناك جوانب من المشروع تعتقدون أنه كان من الممكن تحسينها أو معالجتها بطريقة مختلفة؟‬