24 views

Uploaded by Vimalan Kannan

Extract

- 19 Beam Review of stucture
- ASTM C 393 - 00
- Mechanics of Materials Beams powerpoint
- Earth Quake Drift
- Control of Stresses in s Multi-span bridge
- design concrete.pptx
- BEAMS1
- Lbycvt2 2019 Starex No. 3 Moving Load Beams
- r05312104 - Aerospace Vehicle Structures
- 010004&110004
- CLT_USA-Chapter-3_0
- r059210303 Mechanics of Solids
- Property Modifier
- Three Moment _ Modszer Leiras
- STRUCTURAL MECHANICS.pdf
- S1-SD
- 122393594-Flat-Slab.xls
- NS10-1concrete
- Foundations+Chapter+3-2015
- Deflection

You are on page 1of 15

J. Prasad, S. Chander and A.K. Ahuja Department of Civil Engineering, I.I.T.R., Roorkee, India

ABSTRACT

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

Keywords: waffle slab, medium size floor, R.C.C. slab, optimization 1. INTRODUCTION

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

184

may be rested on a system of vertical supports e.g. walls, in which case the floor moment and deflection get concentrated near the mid-span. The floor, on the other hand, can be framed into the vertical structural system such that there is lateral shifting of moment and deflection from the mid-span zone towards the supports. Thus, floor framing with the help of wide band-beams rigidly connected to a system of columns becomes an obvious choice.

2. PARAMETRIC STUDY

2.1 Structural dimensions In order to carry out parametric investigation to arrive at optimum values of rib number and dimensions for a given floor size, the waffle slabs with square floor plans of size 66 m, 77 m and 88 m have been considered keeping the residential and office floors in mind. Larger spans would need much higher floor thickness, which would be suitable for Grid floor structural system. Top slab of the waffle slab floors may be kept at its minimum thickness from construction point of view. It has been kept as 65 mm for all the floors studied herein. Width of the ribs has been taken as 100 mm (Figure 3). The shape of ribs is considered as rectangular during analysis, although in actual practice it may be slightly tapered. The rib depth has been varied in the range from 130 mm to 260 mm with a regular increment of 10 or 20 mm. The overall floor depth, thus, varies from 195 mm to 325 mm.

185

(a)

(b)

Figure 2. Waffle slab floors: (a) without band beams and (b) with band beams

186

The number of ribs has been taken as five at the minimum with an increment of two until all the structural requirements are adequately satisfied for the particular floor plan. It may be considered prudent to increase the rib depth after a certain number of rather closely spaced ribs are found to be inadequate in meeting a particular structural requirement. The maximum number of ribs for the largest span is, therefore, taken to be nine. Waffle slabs are assumed to have band beams along all four edges. Width of the band beams is taken as 1000 mm extending 500 mm from the center of the columns on both sides and depth as equal to total thickness of floor. Table 1 summarizes the structural dimensions of the floors studied herein.

Table 1. Dimensions of structural elements Sl. No. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Floor size (m) Lx 6 6 6 7 7 7 8 8 8 Ly 6 6 6 7 7 7 8 8 8 No. of ribs Nx 5 7 9 5 7 9 5 7 9 Ny 5 7 9 5 7 9 5 7 9 Rib spacing (bc) (mm) 850 638 510 1017 763 610 1183 888 710 Effective flange width (bf) (mm) 850 638 510 880 763 610 880 880 710 Rib depth (Dr) (mm) 130, 140, 150, 160 130, 140, 150, 160 130, 140, 150, 160 160, 180, 200, 220 160, 180, 200, 220 160, 180, 200, 220 200, 220, 240, 260 200, 220, 240, 260 200, 220, 240, 260

2.2 Floor loading Only gravity loading on the floor has been considered. The influence of lateral load (wind or earthquake) has not been considered with a view to ascertain the influence of the predominant (gravity) loading on the size and configuration of the floor structural members. The live load values adopted are 3 kN/m2 and 5 kN/m2. Floor finish load has been taken as 1.5 kN/m2 and unit-weight of R.C.C. as 25 kN/m3 in order to evaluate dead loads due to top slab, ribs and band beams. 2.3 Materials of construction The present study has been carried out using M-20 grade concrete and Fe-415 grade steel as the materials of construction. However, behavior of 88 m size waffle floor has been studied using M-40 grade concrete also.

3. METHOD OF ANALYSIS

187

3.1 Analytical procedure For the analysis of waffle slabs, orthotropic plate theory [1-5], finite element method [6] and grid or grillage analysis [7-8] are generally used. In the present study, waffle slab is considered as made of grid or grillage of beams. The loads are distributed between longitudinal beams by bending and twisting of transverse beams. The stiffness matrix is developed on the basis of writing joint equilibrium in terms of stiffness co-efficient and unknown joint displacements. Straight members of constant cross-section have been considered. The deformations considered are two orthogonal rotations in the horizontal plane and a vertical deflection at each of the node. Nodal displacements in the horizontal plane and rotations along the vertical axis are not considered keeping in view that they do not significantly contribute to the structural behavior and hence are ignored. 3.2 Computer program The computer program for grid analysis, written in FORTRAN 77, has been used for the present study. It results in moment, shear force and torsion for each of the elements and deflection and rotation about the two orthogonal axes at each of the nodes.

3.3 Acceptance criteria For the purpose of accepting a set of number and dimensions of ribs satisfying structural requirements, codal-provisions given by Bureau of Indian Standards [9-11] have been adopted in general. It recommends that final deflection due to all loads including the effects of temperature, creep and shrinkage, and measured from the as-cast level of the supports of floors, roofs and all other horizontal members should not normally exceed span/250. However, final deflections after creation of partitions and the applications of finishes should not normally exceed span/350 or 20 mm whichever is less. Codal-provisions of American Concrete Institute [12-14] have also been referred to with a view to highlighting certain advantages and some special features. In the present study, floor deflections have been computed separately as elastic deflection (short-term) (e) and creep deflection (long-term) (c). There would be additional long-term deflection due to shrinkage and temperature fluctuations. This component has not been computed separately, but assumed to be within 10% of the maximum permissible deflection, i.e. span/250. Therefore, floor deflection requirement (max) has been taken as 90% of span/250 value. Taking 30% live load as permanent and creep coefficient as 1.6, creep deflection is obtained from the values of elastic deflection for dead loads [(e)DL]and those for live loads [(e)LL] as

Total deflection (t) is, then, obtained as

(1)

t = e + c

(2)

188

4.1 Floor plan: 66 m Results of the analytical study on 66 m square waffle slab under a live load intensity of 3 kN/m2 are presented in Tables 2-4. Whereas, Table 2 shows the results of the slab provided with 5 ribs along each of the two spans, Table 3 gives results for slab with 7 ribs. Results for slab with 9 ribs in each direction are given in Table 4. Maximum allowable deflection (max) including elastic and creep deflections in case of 6 m span slab is (0.9 span / 250 =) 21.6 mm. A close study of the deflection values in Table 2 and Figure 4 reveals that a rib depth of 130 mm exceeds the maximum permissible deflection (max) by 13% and hence needs to be stiffened by increasing the rib depth. Rib depth of 140 mm marginally increases the dead load percentage from 60.3 to 60.8 but brings down the deflection by 15% from 113% to 98%. This configuration of ribs is found suitable for shear capacity and bending moment resistance point of view also. It is interesting to note that a rib depth of 130 mm does not satisfy the deflection requirement even when the number of ribs is increased from 5 to 7 and finally to 9 as shown in Tables 3-4. However, increasing number of ribs does result in increase in dead load percentage from 60.3 to 61.1 and to 61.8 respectively. It is, therefore, inferred that increasing the rib depth is more advantageous to reducing the rib spacing. Consumption and distribution of reinforcement may be effected by having a better dispersion of moment along the span, from negative to positive moment. For this, attention is drawn to the moment values in Tables 2-4 and Figure 5. It is seen that moment values per rib deceases with the increase in the number of ribs and steel requirement per rib decreases. This would be advantageous if accommodating the bars in the thin (100 mm) rib becomes difficult. The amount of steel consumption would, however, be more for the entire floor since the number of ribs would be more.

Table 2. Deflection, bending moment and shear force values for waffle slab floor of size 66 m with no. of ribs Nx = 5 and Ny = 5 and live load of 3 kN/m2

Rib Depth (Dr) (mm) 130 140 150 160 Dead Load as Percentage of Total Load 60.3 60.8 61.4 61.9 Maximum Deflection (mm) e 11.3 9.8 8.6 7.5 c 13.1 11.4 10.1 8.8 t 24.4 21.2 18.7 16.3 Deflection as % of Maximum Permissible Deflection (max) 113 98 87 76 Maximum Bending Moment (kN-m) -ve 86.6 9.4 87.9 9.6 89.1 9.8 90.4 10.0 +ve 49.3 10.9 50.0 10.9 50.7 11.0 51.4 11.0 Maximum Shear Force (kN) 68.6 10.3 69.7 10.4 70.7 10.5 71.8 10.5 Value as Percentage of Balanced Capacity Shea -ve BM r 115 68 118 99 104 65 108 95 95 63 99 90 86 60 91 86

Note : First row values are for band beams and second row values are for ribs.

Table 3. Deflection, bending moment and shear force values for waffle slab floor of size 66 m

189

Rib Depth (Dr) (mm) Dead Load as Percentag e of Total Load 61.1 61.7 62.3 62.9 Maximum Deflection (mm) e 10.6 9.2 8.0 6.9 c 12.4 t 23.0 20.0 17.4 15.0 Deflection as % of Maximum Permissible Deflection (max) 107 93 81 70 Maximum Bending Moment (kN-m) -ve 84.7 8.6 86.1 8.8 87.4 9.0 88.8 9.2 +ve 45.8 8.9 46.5 10.0 47.2 10.0 47.9 10.1 Maximum Shear Force (kN) 69.8 9.5 71.0 9.6 72.2 9.7 73.4 9.8 Value as Percentage of Balanced Capacity -ve BM 113 108 102 99 93 90 85 83 Shea r 69 92 66 87 64 83 62 80

Note : First row values are for band beams and second row values are for ribs.

Rib depth of 140 mm satisfies the deflection and shear requirements but bending moment value marginally exceeds the capacity (8%) for the floor having 5 ribs. At this stage, a choice becomes available from among the following. (i) making the ribs doubly reinforced, (ii) going in for higher rib depth (say 150 mm), (iii) increase the rib number (say 7).

Table 4. Deflection, bending moment and shear force values for waffle slab floor of size 66 m with no. of ribs Nx = 9 and Ny = 9 and live load of 3 kN/m2

Rib Depth (Dr) (mm) Dead Load as Percentage of Total Load 61.8 62.5 63.1 63.8 Maximum Deflection (mm) e 10.5 9.1 7.9 6.8 c 12.3 10.8 9.4 8.1 t 22.8 19.9 17.3 14.9 Deflection as % of Maximum Permissible Deflection (max) 106 92 80 69 Maximum Bending Moment (kN-m) -ve 84.5 8.2 86.0 8.4 87.4 8.6 88.0 8.8 +ve 44.5 8.1 45.2 8.2 45.9 8.3 46.6 8.4 Maximum Shear Force (kN) 70.5 9.0 71.8 9.1 73.1 9.2 74.4 9.3 Value as Percentage of Balanced Capacity -ve BM 113 103 102 94 93 86 84 80 Shea r 70 87 67 83 65 80 63 76

Note : First row values are for band beams and second row values are for ribs.

190

28 Max. deflection (mm) 24 20 16 12 8 4 0 120 130 140 150 160 170 Rib depth (mm)

Band beams

Amongst these choices, the first one is advantageous in the sense that it needs marginal increase in steel requirement from the balanced design to doubly reinforced design. It would meet all the requirements at the lowest percentage of dead load. Thus, it may be concluded that 5 ribs of 140 mm depth would be structurally most advantageous for the 3 kN/m2 live load category. Behavior of 66 m waffle floor under 5 kN/m2 live load can be understood by studying the results presented in Tables 5-7 . For this loading, the ribs are required, to be made deeper as well as increased in number. It is seen that 5 ribs are unsuitable. A choice of 150 mm depth with 9 ribs or 160 mm depth with 7 ribs appears to be working. 4.2 Floor plan: 77 m Analytical results of 77 m size waffle floor are given in Tables 8-10 for live load intensity of 3 kN/m2. It is observed that rib depths have to be substantially increased from those suitable for 66 m floor. This implies that floor spans are very significant factors in comparison with others. For 77 m floor, the range of ridge depth considered lie between 160 mm and 220 mm. The percentage of dead load increases from around 61% for 6 m span to around 63% for 7 m span. It is also important to note that this 2% increase in material has to be located approximately by increasing the rib depth and / or number of ribs so as to achieve the maximum advantage. It is this aspect, which is brought out clearly through the study of values presented in Tables 8-10.

191

Table 5. Deflection, bending moment and shear force values for waffle slab floor of size 66 m with no. of ribs Nx = 5 and Ny = 5 and live load of 5 kN/m2

Rib Depth (Dr) (mm) 130 140 150 160 Dead Load as Percentag e of Total Load 47.6 48.2 48.8 49.3 Maximum Deflection (mm) e 14.5 12.6 10.9 9.6 c 14.7 12.9 11.2 9.9 t 29.2 25.5 22.1 19.5 Deflection as % of Maximum Permissible Deflection (max) 135 118 102 90 Maximum Bending Moment (kN-m) -ve 109.3 12.1 110.6 12.2 111.8 12.4 113.0 12.6 +ve 62.3 14.1 63.0 14.1 63.7 14.1 64.3 14.2 86.6 13.2 87.6 13.3 88.7 13.4 89.7 13.4 Maximum Shear Force (kN) Value as Percentage of Balanced Capacity Shea -ve BM r 146 86 152 127 131 82 137 121 119 79 125 116 108 75 114 110

Note : First row values are for band beams and second row values are for ribs.

Table 6. Deflection, bending moment and shear force values for waffle slab floor of size 66 m with no. of ribs Nx = 7 and Ny = 7 and live load of 5 kN/m2

Rib Depth (Dr) (mm) 130 140 150 160 Dead Load as Percentage of Total Load 48.5 49.1 49.8 50.4 Maximum Deflection (mm) e 13.5 11.7 10.2 9.0 c 13.8 12.0 10.6 9.4 t 27.3 23.7 20.8 18.4 Deflection as % of Maximum Permissible Deflection (max) 126 110 96 85 Maximum Bending Moment (kN-m) -ve 106.4 10.9 107.7 11.1 109.1 11.3 110.6 11.5 +ve 57.6 11.4 58.3 11.4 59.0 11.5 59.7 11.5 Maximum Shear Force (kN) 87.6 12.0 88.8 12.1 90.0 12.2 91.2 12.3 Value as Percentage of Balanced Capacity -ve BM 142 137 128 124 116 114 106 96 Shear 87 116 83 110 80 105 77 101

Note : First row values are for band beams and second row values are for ribs.

It is clear from the values shown in Table 8 that slab with 5 ribs of 200 mm depth is slightly deficient in both shear as well as bending moment capacity. Rib depth of 220 mm makes it safe but becomes a little too stiff and thereby floor deflection is reduced to as low as about 71% of the maximum permissible. It is seen from Table 9 that 7 ribs of 200 mm depth appear to be quite suitable with about 64% dead load. However, 9 ribs of 180 mm (Table 10) depth can easily be managed by marginally making the ribs doubly reinforced. Doubly reinforced section is generally preferred because of its improved ductility. Based on these observations, it is concluded that for 3 kN/m2 live load, 9 ribs of 180 mm depth is structurally most efficient for 77 m floor plan.

192

Table 7. Deflection, bending moment and shear force values for waffle slab floor of size 66 m with no. of ribs Nx = 9 and Ny = 9 and live load of 5 kN/m2

Rib Depth (Dr) (mm) 130 140 150 160 Dead Load as Percentag e of Total Load 49.3 50.0 50.6 51.3 Maximum Deflection (mm) e 13.3 11.5 10.0 8.8 c 13.7 12.0 10.5 9.3 t 27.0 23.5 20.5 18.1 Deflection as % of Maximum Permissible Deflection (max) 125 109 95 84 Maximum Bending Moment (kN-m) -ve 105.7 10.3 107.2 10.5 108.6 10.7 110.1 10.9 +ve 55.7 10.2 56.4 10.3 57.1 10.4 57.8 10.5 Maximum Shear Force (kN) 88.2 11.3 89.5 11.4 90.7 11.5 91.9 11.6 Value as Percentage of Balanced Capacity -ve BM 141 129 127 118 115 108 105 99 Shear 88 109 84 104 80 99 77 95

Note : First row values are for band beams and second row values are for ribs.

Table 8. Deflection, bending moment and shear force values for waffle slab floor of size 77 m with no. of ribs Nx = 5 and Ny = 5 and live load of 3 kN/m2

Rib Depth (Dr) (mm) 160 180 200 220 Dead Load as Percentag e of Total Load 60.8 61.7 62.7 63.7 Maximum Deflection (mm) e 16.0 12.5 10.0 8.1 c 18.6 14.7 11.8 9.7 t 34.6 27.2 21.8 17.8 Deflection as % of Maximum Permissible Deflection (max) 137 108 87 71 Maximum Bending Moment (kN-m) -ve 138.1 15.8 141.6 16.4 145.1 16.9 148.6 17.3 +ve 78.0 17.7 79.8 17.7 81.7 17.8 83.6 17.9 Maximum Shear Force (kN) 94.7 14.5 97.3 14.8 99.8 15.0 102.3 15.3 Value as Percentage of Balanced Capacity -ve BM 132 144 111 123 95 106 83 93 Shear 80 119 74 110 70 103 66 97

Note : First row values are for band beams and second row values are for ribs.

Results presented in Tables 11-13 explain the behavior of 77 m waffle floor under 5 kN/m2 live load. It is seen that 5 ribs of any depth adopted therein does not satisfy all the requirements. Increasing the number of ribs to 7 with a rib depth of 220 mm does not provide a solution. However, 9 ribs of depth 200 mm can be managed since the shear capacity along with bending capacity can be increased, by making the section doubly reinforced. It is, therefore, concluded that for 5 kN/m2 live load, 9 ribs of 200 mm depth may be considered as structurally most efficient. 4.3 Floor plan: 88 m Response of waffle floor of size 88 m has also been obtained under live load intensities of

193

3 kN/m2 and 5 kN/m2. It is seen from the values listed in Table 14 that 5 ribs are unsuitable for 88 m floor plan with live load intensity of 3 kN/m2. Further 7 ribs of 240 mm depth are deficient in both shear as well as bending moment carrying capacity. Increasing rib depth to 260 mm also does not provide a solution. However, 9 ribs of 240 mm depth can be managed by making the section doubly reinforced since shear capacity is also increased along with bending moment capacity. (Results of 7 ribs and 9 ribs are not included in this paper due to paucity of space). It is, therefore, concluded that for 3 kN/m2 live load, 9 ribs of 240 mm depth may be considered as the structurally most efficient for 88 m floor plan.

Table 9. Deflection, bending moment and shear force values for waffle slab floor of size 77 m with no. of ribs Nx = 7 and Ny = 7 and live load of 3 kN/m2

Rib Depth (Dr) (mm) 160 180 200 220 Dead Load as Percentage of Total Load 61.7 62.7 63.7 64.7 Maximum Deflection (mm) e 14.9 11.7 9.3 7.6 c 17.5 13.8 11.1 9.2 t 32.4 25.5 20.4 16.8 Deflection as % of Maximum Permissible Deflection (max) 129 100 81 67 Maximum Bending Moment (kN-m) -ve 136.1 14.5 139.9 15.1 143.7 15.6 147.5 16.1 +ve 73.1 14.8 75.0 15.0 77.0 15.2 78.9 15.5 Maximum Shear Force (kN) 96.4 13.4 99.2 13.7 102.1 14.0 104.9 14.3 Value as Percentage of Balanced Capacity -ve Shea BM r 130 81 132 110 110 76 113 102 94 71 98 96 82 68 86 90

Note : First row values are for band beams and second row values are for ribs.

Table 10. Deflection, bending moment and shear force values for waffle slab floor of size 77 m with no. of ribs Nx = 9 and Ny = 9 and live load of 3 kN/m2

Rib Depth (Dr) (mm) 160 180 200 220 Dead Load as Percentag e of Total Load 62.5 63.6 64.6 65.6 Maximum Deflection (mm) e 14.3 11.2 9.0 7.3 c 16.9 13.4 10.8 8.9 t 31.2 24.6 19.8 16.2 Deflection as % of Maximum Permissible Deflection (max) 124 98 79 65 Maximum Bending Moment (kN-m) -ve 134.2 13.8 138.2 14.4 142.2 14.9 146.2 15.5 +ve 69.9 13.1 71.8 13.4 73.8 13.7 75.9 14.0 Maximum Shear Force (kN) 97.4 12.7 100.4 13.0 103.5 13.3 106.6 13.7 Value as Percentage of Balanced Capacity -ve BM 128 125 108 108 93 94 81 83 Shear 82 104 77 97 72 91 69 86

Note : First row values are for band beams and second row values are for ribs.

Results of the analysis of 88 m size waffle floor under live load intensity of 5 kN/m2

194

show that even 9 ribs of any depth adopted therein do not satisfy all the requirements. Increasing the number of ribs to 11 also will not provide a solution since reduction in maximum shear force and bending moments and ribs will be marginal. To make the floor satisfy all the requirements especially to avoid the shear requirements in ribs, the rib depth is required to be increased by a large amount resulting in very stiff floor with reduced deflection and very high dead load percentage. Higher rib depth also reduces the available headroom, which also may not be desirable. Results for live load intensity of 5 kN/m2 are not shown here due to paucity of space.

Table 11. Deflection, bending moment and shear force values for waffle slab floor of size 77 m with no. of ribs Nx = 5 and Ny = 5 and live load of 5 kN/m2

Rib Depth (Dr) (mm) 160 180 200 220 Dead Load as Percentag e of Total Load 48.2 49.2 50.2 51.2 Maximum Deflection (mm) e 20.5 15.9 12.7 10.2 c 20.9 16.4 13.2 10.8 t 41.4 32.3 25.9 21.0 Deflection as % of Maximum Permissible Deflection (max) 164 128 103 83 Maximum Bending Moment (kN-m) -ve 173.7 20.2 177.1 20.8 180.6 21.3 184.1 21.9 +ve 98.2 22.8 100.0 22.9 101.8 22.9 103.7 23.0 Maximum Shear Force (kN) 119.1 18.6 121.6 18.8 124.1 19.1 126.6 19.3 Value as Percentage of Balanced Capacity Shea -ve BM r 166 100 184 153 139 93 156 141 119 87 134 131 103 82 117 122

Note : First row values are for band beams and second row values are for ribs.

Table 12. Deflection, bending moment and shear force values for waffle slab floor of size 77 m with no. of ribs Nx = 7 and Ny = 7 and live load of 5 kN/m2

Rib Depth (Dr) (mm) 160 180 200 220 Dead Load as Percentag e of Total Load 49.2 50.2 51.2 52.2 Maximum Deflection (mm) e 18.9 14.8 11.7 9.5 c 19.5 15.4 12.3 10.1 t 38.4 30.2 24.0 19.6 Deflection as % of Maximum Permissible Deflection (max) 153 120 95 78 Maximum Bending Moment (kN-m) -ve 170.2 18.3 173.9 18.9 177.6 19.5 181.4 20.1 +ve 91.5 18.9 93.4 19.0 95.3 19.2 97.2 19.4 Maximum Shear Force (kN) 120.4 17.0 123.3 17.2 126.1 17.5 128.9 17.8 Value as Percentage of Balanced Capacity -ve BM 162 166 136 142 117 123 101 108 Shear 101 139 94 129 88 120 83 112

Note : First row values are for band beams and second row values are for ribs.

Another alternative can be the use of higher strength concrete, such as M-40, in lieu of

195

M-20 grade. Since the modulus of elasticity of concrete is directly proportional to square root of characteristic compressive strength of concrete (fck), the deflections will be reduced to about 71% by the use of M-40 grade concrete. Further rib depth of 220 mm will satisfy the deflection criteria. However, there will be no significant change in bending moment and shear force values. Since design shear strength of concrete will also be higher for M-40 grade concrete, it is noticed that 9 ribs of 220 mm depth can be managed by slightly increasing the flexure reinforcement in ribs such that their shear capacity is increased up to desired level. Based on these observations, it is concluded that by using M-40 grade concrete, 9 ribs of 220 mm depth may be considered as the structurally most efficient for 88 m floor plan with live load intensity of 5 kN/m2.

Table 13. Deflection, bending moment and shear force values for waffle slab floor of size 77 m with no. of ribs Nx = 9 and Ny = 9 and live load of 5 kN/m2

Rib Depth (Dr) (mm) 160 180 200 220 Dead Load as Percentag e of Total Load 50.1 51.2 52.2 53.2 Maximum Deflection (mm) e 18.0 14.1 11.2 9.1 c 18.7 14.9 11.9 9.8 t 36.7 29.0 23.1 18.9 Deflection as % of Maximum Permissible Deflection (max) 146 115 92 75 Maximum Bending Moment (kN-m) -ve 167.0 17.3 171.0 17.9 175.0 18.5 179.0 19.1 +ve 87.1 16.5 89.0 16.7 91.0 17.0 93.0 17.3 Maximum Shear Force (kN) 121.1 16.0 124.2 16.3 127.3 16.6 130.3 16.9 Value as Percentage of Balanced Capacity -ve BM 159 157 134 134 115 116 100 103 Shear 102 131 95 122 89 114 84 107

Note : First row values are for band beams and second row values are for ribs.

Table 14. Deflection, bending moment and shear force values for waffle slab floor of size 88 m with no. of ribs Nx = 5 and Ny = 5 and live load of 3 kN/m2

Rib Depth (Dr) (mm) 200 220 240 260 Dead Load as Percentag e of Total Load 61.7 62.5 63.3 64.1 Maximum Deflection (mm) e 19.1 15.5 12.8 10.7 c 22.4 18.3 15.2 12.8 t 41.5 33.8 28.0 23.5 Deflection as % of Maximum Permissible Deflection (max) 144 117 97 82 Maximum Bending Moment (kN-m) -ve 208.5 25.0 213.2 25.7 217.8 26.3 222.5 27.0 +ve 116.9 26.7 119.4 26.8 121.9 26.9 124.4 27.0 Maximum Shear Force (kN) 126.3 19.7 129.3 19.9 132.2 20.2 135.2 20.6 Value as Percentage of Balanced Capacity Shea -ve BM r 137 88 157 135 119 83 138 126 104 79 122 118 93 75 109 113

196

Note : First row values are for band beams and second row values are for ribs.

5. CONCLUSIONS

Following conclusions are drawn from the study presented in this paper. 1. 2.

3.

4.

5. 6.

For 66 m square floor plan, 5 ribs of 140 mm depth (overall depth 205 mm) is found to be structurally most efficient for 3 kN/m2 live load intensity. For 5 kN/m2 live load intensity on a 66 m square floor plan, a choice between 9 ribs of 150 mm depth and 7 ribs of 160 mm depth becomes available. Percentage of dead load is about 50 in both the cases. For square floor plan of 7 7 m, the most efficient structural system is 9 ribs of 180 mm depth for a live load intensity of 3 kN/m2. For a live load intensity of 5 kN/m2, the most efficient structural system is 9 ribs of 200 mm depth for 7 7 m square floor plan. For square floor plan of 8 8 m, the most efficient structural system is 9 ribs of 240 mm depth for a live load intensity of 3 kN/m2. For square floor plan of 8 8 m, the most efficient structural system is 9 ribs of 220 mm depth using M-40 grade concrete for a live load intensity of 5 kN/m2.

REFERENCES

1. 2. 3. 4.

5. 6.

7. 8.

9.

10.

11.

Timoshenko, S. and Kreiger, S.W., Theory of Plates and Shells, McGraw Hill Book Co., New York, 1959. Wang, C.K. and Salman, C.G., Reinforced Concrete Design, Harper and Row Publishers, New York, 1985. McCormac, J.C., Design of Reinforced Concrete, Harper and Row Publishers, New York, 1986. Nawy, E.G., Reinforced Concrete : A Fundamental Approach, Prentice Hall, Engle Wood Cliffs, N.J, 1990. Abdul-Wahab, H.M.S. and Khalil, M.H., Rigidity and strength of orthotropic reinforced concrete waffle slabs, J. Str. Engng., Feb., 219-227, 2000. Krishnamurthy, C.S., Finite Element Analysis, Tata McGraw Hill Publishing Co. Ltd., New Delhi, 1987. Cope, R.J. and Clark, L.A., Analysis and Design of Concrete Slabs, Elsevier Applied Science Publishers Ltd., Essex, London, 1984. Rao, G., Studies in R.C. grid floor systems, M.E. Dissertation, University of Roorkee, Roorkee, India, 1995. IS: 4562000, Indian Standard Code of Practice for Plain and Reinforced Concrete, Bureau of Indian standard, New Delhi. SP : 16-1980. Design Aids for Reinforced Concrete to IS : 456-1978, BIS, New Delhi, India. SP : 24-1983. Explanatory Handbook on Indian Standard Code of Practice for Plain and Reinforced Concrete IS : 456-1978, BIS, New Delhi, India.

197

ACI : 318-1995. Building Code Requirements for Reinforced Concrete, American Concrete Institute, Detroit, USA. ACI : 318R-1995. Commentary on Building Code Requirements for Reinforced Concrete, ACI, Detroit, USA. Rice, P.F. and Hoffman, E.S., Structural Design Guide to ACI Building Code, Van Nostrand Reinhold Company, New York, 1985.

- 19 Beam Review of stuctureUploaded byPandal Raj
- ASTM C 393 - 00Uploaded byAlexandre
- Mechanics of Materials Beams powerpointUploaded byJoanna Nicholson
- Earth Quake DriftUploaded bysandeepuae
- Control of Stresses in s Multi-span bridgeUploaded byJia Ruo
- design concrete.pptxUploaded bychannajayamangala
- BEAMS1Uploaded byMichelle Hidalgo
- Lbycvt2 2019 Starex No. 3 Moving Load BeamsUploaded byShean Berwin Gonzales
- r05312104 - Aerospace Vehicle StructuresUploaded bywebs6000
- 010004&110004Uploaded bymbeaelnaa
- CLT_USA-Chapter-3_0Uploaded byAdam Barton
- r059210303 Mechanics of SolidsUploaded bySRINIVASA RAO GANTA
- Property ModifierUploaded byManoj Gehlod
- Three Moment _ Modszer LeirasUploaded bysanyi007
- STRUCTURAL MECHANICS.pdfUploaded bychandrasekar
- S1-SDUploaded byHanTeong
- 122393594-Flat-Slab.xlsUploaded bymukhlesh
- NS10-1concreteUploaded byali_rammal
- Foundations+Chapter+3-2015Uploaded byAngel Lisette Lao
- DeflectionUploaded byAbdullah Zakirin Abdul 'Azam
- IJERT 3-10 Structural Analysis of Composite Laminated Box-BeamsUploaded bycubanninja
- Shear force and bending moment diagrams ZP 14.pdfUploaded byZdenko
- AECT480 Lecture 9Uploaded bykrishpi27
- Beam and Beam Deflection Singularity MethodUploaded byjundi qowi
- Introduction to Machine Design_EDITEDUploaded byVenkatesh Gangadhar
- 100-s67Uploaded byNacho
- d912f50cee7e7a0051Uploaded byAma Davidescu
- Structural Steel Design 1Uploaded byChamil Mahagamage
- Plastic Analysis HWUploaded byShriniwas Rayadu
- Deflection of BeamsUploaded byMohammedAlasaad

- standard concreteUploaded byVimalan Kannan
- Civil- Infra SpecificationUploaded byVimalan Kannan
- Mastering Options StrategiesUploaded byluong84718
- Options Strategies Quick GuideUploaded byHanuma436
- FOUNDATIONS FOR INDUSTRIAL MACHINES AND EARTHQUAKE EFFECTS - K.G. Bhatia - ISET Journal of Earthquake Technology, Paper No. 495, Vol. 45, No. 1-2, March-June 2008, pp. 13–29Uploaded byR Mani Murugan
- Case Studies StaadUploaded bygeneric829820
- Gtstrudl Version 32Uploaded byVimalan Kannan
- SDRMUploaded byVimalan Kannan
- Vertical Equipment FoundationUploaded byGKDATTA
- H - Quay Walls Restoriation Method StatementUploaded byVimalan Kannan
- Parking Structure Design Final ReportUploaded byVimalan Kannan
- jobUploaded byVimalan Kannan
- Gtstrudl Se13 Quick StartUploaded byVimalan Kannan
- Weld Design 1Uploaded byDevan Danell
- RoseUploaded byVimalan Kannan
- DrawingUploaded byVimalan Kannan
- LS DynaUploaded byVimalan Kannan
- CS2 - Carbon Steel Bars for the Reinforcement of Concrete (1995)Uploaded bydon2hmr
- CS2 - Carbon Steel Bars for the Reinforcement of Concrete (1995)Uploaded bydon2hmr
- Section DesignerUploaded bygreatwellwisher
- Weld Procedure IS1024Uploaded byelango
- Etabs ManualUploaded byMichael Y Lee
- DesignUploaded byVimalan Kannan
- ETABS Composite Floor Frame Design ManualUploaded byleovorig
- ETABS Composite Floor Frame Design ManualUploaded byleovorig
- WilsonbookUploaded bychuncho88

- 04_FlightDynamicsModalAnalysisUploaded byGiovanni Gozzini
- Www.unitoperation Heat1Uploaded bymahendra shakya
- BeltUploaded byivanfr259
- 26Uploaded byphysicsdocs
- BCSA HDbolts Effective Conical AreaUploaded bysusan87
- reading 2 studentUploaded byapi-254428474
- Physics HSC - Inertia Experimental ReportUploaded byJathu Shanmugam
- Integrated Learning Experiences in the Machine Design CourseUploaded byhagh_mostafa2787
- Modelling of Hydrate Formation in Oil-dominated FlowsUploaded byFélix Gallo Cruz
- Teori Dan Contoh Flowmeter1Uploaded byBimo Prakoso
- February2009-Errata_ Hiner Seismic BookUploaded byfdafa
- Ahmed Et Al (1994) - Effect of Multiple Light Scattering and Self-Absorption on the Fluorescence and Excitation Spectra of Dyes in Random MediaUploaded byJavier Ramirez
- Principles of Polymer EngineeringUploaded byFelix Ws
- 1994-Stinner--The Story of Force From Aristotle to EinsteinUploaded byJemima
- Chapter 1Uploaded byscribdthrowaway3
- ase_1Uploaded byMarko Šimić
- L5Stu.pdfUploaded byMartinI.Iseck
- Laser DiagnosticsUploaded byaldinjustin
- Measurement of the Convective Heat-transfer CoefficientUploaded byahsbon
- Control Valve Analysis1Uploaded byEkundayo John
- 2003 [Kathleen a. Hinko] Transitions in the Small Gap Limit of Taylor-Couette FlowUploaded byTont Ekawuth
- modellingUploaded bysatyanarayana chvv
- The kronig-penney modelUploaded byChang Jae Lee
- 1.pdfUploaded byMEJBAHUL SARKER
- thesis_rampurawala.pdfUploaded byRusu Bogdan
- F5C1(tutorial1.7)Uploaded byChewLee Tan
- Equivalent Sets Of Histories And Multiple Quasiclassical RealmsUploaded byIrisBorealis
- Physical Properties of Dental MaterialsUploaded byManiBernardH
- Fluid FlowUploaded byKN
- Mil Doc - High Pressure Vessel DesignUploaded byGrafton Montgomery