See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/234109187

Analysis and Design of Waffle Slab with different Boundary Conditions

Article  in  Indian Concrete Journal · June 2012

CITATIONS READS
2 16,192

2 authors:

Indrajit Chowdhury Jitendra Pratap Singh

Independent Researcher Independent Researcher
71 PUBLICATIONS   250 CITATIONS    20 PUBLICATIONS   49 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Blast Resistant Design of RC Buildings in Oil & Gas Industry View project

Seismic response of rectangular liquid retaining structures resting on ground considering coupled soil-structure interaction View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Indrajit Chowdhury on 09 December 2014.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 Analysis and design of waff le slab with
different boundary conditions
Indrajit Chowdhury and Jitendra P. Singh
When a large space within a building needs to be covered
without hindrance and supports, architects often deploy
waffle slabs to construct floors and ceilings. Structural
designers analyse such slabs, assuming the grid-
work as simply supported system (all four edges) and
deriving solutions based on displacement compatibility
of beams or plates to arrive at an approximate solution
or performing a detailed finite element analysis (FEM)
of the slab beam system using any of the generalized
finite element software available in the market. This is
so because no analytical solution or quick computational
tool exists, except for the case of slabs with all edges
simply supported. This paper proposes a semi analytical
method for the analysis of waffle slab with any arbitrary
boundary conditions; fixed, free and simply supported.
To validate the results, selected cases are compared with
finite element analysis.
Keywords: Anisotropic plates, Bending moment, Deflection,
Galerkin’s weighted residual method, Plate equations, Shape
functions, Shear force, Waffle slab.
Whenever architects want a large area to remain open or
unhindered of supports, they often deploy waffle slabs
as an effective solution to construct floors and ceilings. It
is a very popular structural configuration often deployed
in the construction of hotel porticos, airport terminal
buildings, large banquet halls, convention center and
car parks.
Waffle slabs not only look aesthetically pleasing, but are
also quite robust as a structural configuration to support
loads over a large span. However, their analysis is
either marred by over simplification or overwhelmingly
elaborate for the comfort of a typical designer. The
latter involves analysing the beam slab system using
finite element analysis where accuracy depends on the
correctness of the element type and the degree of mesh
refinement.
Analysis in vogue
Before delving into the proposed method, it would
be educative to briefly review the methods those are
practiced for analysis of such waffle slab in many design
offices. This is necessary to get a better understanding
of the problem.
Method as proposed in IS code
IS 456:2000 – “Plain and Reinforced concrete code of
practice”, recommends designing ribbed slabs as an
equivalent solid slabs where moments in the slab may be
obtained from coefficients given in Table 26 of the code.1
These coefficients are valid only for the rib spacing and
width as cited in Clause 30.1 to 30.7 of the code. For other
spacing and widths, slabs may be designed as simply
..... 2010 The Indian Concrete Journal 
supported beams, provided these are not exposed to It is apparent from above that this approach ignores
weather or corrosion. overall plate behaviour of the slab, and assumes ribs as
beams simply supported at ends. Since edge conditions
A major disadvantage with this method is that the can be other than simply supported, assuming the slab to
Table 26 gives moment coefficients only, while for behave as a beam is an oversimplification of the problem.
long span slabs (>10 m) shear can also be equally It can culminate in a significant error.
important. The code is silent on to how to address this
anomaly analytically, except for offering some detailing Plate theory based on Timoshenko
recommendations. Based on Timoshenko’s plate theory (Timoshenko
1987) the waffle slab (Figure 1a) can be assumed to be
Table 26 of IS 456 gives design bending moment an orthotropic plate, when simply supported. The plate
coefficients at support and mid-span only. It does deflection Δ can be expressed as.3
not give moments and shears at other locations, thus
curtailment of steel remains a guesswork if the span of
the slab is larger than 6 m. ......(3)
On the other hand, treating the ribs as simply supported
may not always correctly represent the case because in
many cases the edge conditions may vary from fixed,
free and simply supported.
......(4)
Rankine-Grashoff theory
Some designers apply Rankine Grashoff theory (Raju
2005) for design of such waffle slab.2

In this method, waffle slab is assumed to be simply

supported on all four edges (Figure 1a) and displacements
at the centre of the slab in x and y directions are assumed
to be compatible, giving distribution of load in these ......(5)
directions as given below:

......(1)
and,

Bending moments and shears are given as ......(6)

......(2)

Where w = Load per unit area,

where
a and b = Length of the span in x and y directions
respectively
w = Load per unit area including dead load and live
load
wx and wy = Load per unit area in x and y directions
respectively
a1 = Spacing of ribs spanning parallel to y direction
b1 = Spacing of ribs spanning parallel to x direction
Mx and My = Moments on strips of unit width
spanning in x and y directions respectively
Vy and Vy= Shear on strips of unit width spanning in
x and y directions respectively.
Dx , Dy = Flexural rigidity per unit length of plate in x
and y direction.
C1 , C2 = Torsional rigidity per unit length of plate in x
and y direction.
While being realistic and rigorous, this theory is
restricted by the fact that except for the case of slab
being simply being supported on all four edges, the
shape functions are far too complicated for the direct
analysis of the slab.

 The Indian Concrete Journal .....2010

Finite Element Analysis (FEM) Proposed method
For many real life waffle slab structures, having To start with, this method considers the simplest case
complicated boundary conditions, finite element analysis of a waffle slab having four edges simply supported
is often resorted to, to arrive at the solution. However, as shown in Figure 1a. The slab can be considered as
accuracy of the solution is restricted by availability grid work of parallel beams spaced equal distance in
of the right kind of plate element in its finite element x and y directions and rigidly connected at the points
library and the degree of mesh refinement. It has been of interaction. Beams are supported at the end and the
often found that despite the best meshing, the results load is applied normal to the x-y plane as uniformly
obtained have either an upper or lower bound solution distributed load (w kN/m2).
compared to exact analysis. Additionally, intense labour
involvement in development of the mathematical model, For a simply supported beam parallel to x-axis, the
preparation of input data and extraction of design differential equation for static equilibrium for uniformly
parameters for final design often makes the analysis distributed load can be expressed as
expensive and time consuming. Clearly, these factors
do not make FEM an automatic choice.
......(7)
Mallick and Bhushan (1983) and Bhushan (1983) have
furnished solutions to the problem of analysis by
considering the waffle slab as a grillage beam, providing
an approximate solution to the system, wherein they
......(8)
have clearly stated that their approach may only be used
for preliminary design and that it must be substantiated
by a detailed computer analysis.4,5

......(9)

For a simply supported beam, we consider the boundary

conditions as under
1. At x = 0 u = 0 => α2= 0
2. At x = L u=0 => α1=-L3/12 ......(10)

Therefore, deflection (u) at any distance x from the

support is

......(11)

Equation (11) can be further expressed as under:

......(12)

where, x = x/L a non dimensional term that varies

between 0-1.

From equation (12), one can conclude that for a simply

supported beam subjected to uniformly distributed

..... 2010 The Indian Concrete Journal 

load, the generic shape function of displacement can Where, u is displacement of the plate under a pressure
be expressed as load q. a1 and b1 are distances between beams parallel
to y and x axis respectively; C1 and C2 are torsional
rigidities of beams parallel to x and y respectively and
......(13) I1 and I2 are moment of inertia of a T beam in x and y
axes respectively.

Proceeding in an identical fashion it can be shown that
in y- direction, generic shape function for displacement
in natural co-ordinate can be expressed as
......(14)
In natural coordinate, using equations (13) and (14),
Equation (17) can be expressed as
......(18)

Where = y/B a non dimensional term that varies

between 0-1. where displacement u is expressed as

The derived shape functions in equations (13) and (14)

will generically satisfy the plate equilibrium equation ......(19)
having boundary conditions of all sides simply
supported, but may still have residual error (Re) as
they are not derived from the exact analysis of the Natural coordinates x and h can be expressed as x = x/a
fourth order partial differential of an anisotropic plate and h = y/b respectively and both varies between 0-1.
expressed in equation (15) (Timoshenko 1987).3
Substituting equation (19) in (18) we have

......(15)

Equation (15) can also be applied to the gridwork system

for the present case. For this gridwork, Dx, and Dy are
defined as ......(20)

Shape functions and will generically satisfy

......(16) equation (20) as they conform to the boundary condition
of the given plate. However, these may have residual
error Re which may be expressed as:

Where, I1 and I2 are moment of inertia of equivalent

T beams (Figure 1b) parallel to x-axis and y-axis
respectively. In equation (15), coupling rigidity of the
waffle slab (D1) due to Poisson’s ratio is zero and the
quantity Dxy can be expressed in terms of torsional
rigidities C1 and C2 of the beams parallel to the x and y
axes, respectively. For the gridwork shown in Figure 1a,
differential equation of the deflection surface is ......(21)

......(17)

 The Indian Concrete Journal .....2010

Residual error R e is now minimised over the slab Equation (26) gives a complete displacement profile of
domain by Galerkin’s (Chowdhury and Dasgupta 2008)6 the waffle slab for any x and h between limits 0-1 in both
weighted residual method based on which x and y directions.

Bending moments, twisting moments and shear force

......(22) induced in the T-beams can be expressed as furnished
in Equation (4) to (6). Figure 2 shows positive direction
of moments and shear forces.
Equation (22) can thus be expressed as
In natural co-ordinate substituting equation (25),
bending moments and shears can be calculated using
......(23) the following equations.

......(27)

......(28)
Equation (23) can be expressed in a simplified form as

......(24) ......(29)

Equation (24) can be expressed as

.....(25)

Where X1, X2, X3 and X4 are integral functions which can

be solved numerically or explicitly and are as expressed
in Table 3.

The displacement u can thus be expressed as

......(26)

..... 2010 The Indian Concrete Journal 

 Table 2. Generic shape functions for different
boundary conditions
......(30) Generic shape function of displacement is
(Where ξ and η are non dimensional
term that varies between 0-1)
Case

Solution for other boundary conditions

One of the major advantages of the proposed method
is that all types of possible boundary conditions can 1
be analysed, for which there is no method available
in literature. Procedure given for simply supported
waffle slab can be applied to other cases also using
2
appropriate shape functions. This change in the shape
function of slab will also change the integral values X1,
X2 etc (Table 3). 3

Overall five different boundary conditions were covered

in this study (Table 1). Case 1 is given in detail to
4
show the calculations of design moments and shears
at the edges and inside the waffle slabs. To calculate
displacements, moments and shear forces for other
boundary conditions, shape functions are as given in 5
Table 2.

Calculation of final moments and forces in the

waffle slab
Ribs are placed at discrete points in the waffle slab as
shown in Figure 1a. Let us say, the beams parallel to

Table 3. Values of integral functions X1 to X4 for

Table 1. Fixity at four edges in different cases
different boundary conditions
Integral Integral Values for different Cases
Case 1 Case 2 Case 3 Case 4 Case 5
X1 24.77 83.22 19.97 52.59 12.62
X2 24.74 23.78 24.25 -0.93 -0.95
X3 24.77 83.22 103.19 1.30 1.61
X4 0.41 0.28 0.34 0.21 0.26

End conditions at four edges of slab

Case
edge 1 edge 2 edge 3 edge 4
1 SS SS SS SS
2 Fixed Fixed Fixed Fixed
3 Fixed Fixed SS SS
4 Fixed Free Fixed Fixed
5 Fixed Free SS SS

 The Indian Concrete Journal .....2010

X-axis are placed at a spacing
b1 (spacing on Y-axis) centre to
centre. Therefore, in natural co-
ordinates the beams are placed
at η-axis (Y-axis) at η = (b1/b),
(2b1/b)…(n-1) (b1/b), where n =
b/b1. Similarly, beams parallel
to Y-axis are placed at ξ-axis
(X-axis) at ξ = (a1/a), (2a1/a)…
(m-1)( a1/a), where m = a/a1. To
find out moments and shear in
the ribs, these discrete points
can be used in equations (27)
to (30).

Note that the moments and

forces calculated in Equation
(27) to (30) are valid for the unit
width of the grid and in order
to obtain the final expression
for the moments and forces of a
rib we still have to multiply the
moments and shear, as given
by Equation (27) to (30) , by
the spacing of the ribs. Here,
it is assumed that there is no variation in the response
quantity within the spacing of ribs. In the first step,
moments and shear forces are calculated at the discrete
points where ribs are placed in the waffle slab. After
that moment Mx, Shear Qx and torsional moment Mxy
are multiplied by inter-rib spacing b1 and My, Qy and
Qyx by inter-rib spacing a1 to obtain final moments and
shear forces.
Finite element analysis of the waffle
slab
Finite Element (FEM) analysis was carried out to
examine the effect of coupling stiffness of slab on design
parameters and to compare results with the proposed
method. For this purpose, Ansys (Ansys 2006) was
used.7 Two sets of boundary conditions namely simply
supported (Case 1) and fixed (Case 2) were considered
to find out analysis results. The following geometry and
material properties were assumed,
Data:
Size of grid = 12 m × 16 m; Spacing of ribs = 2m; Grade
of concrete = M-20
Live load = 1.5 kN/m2
Dimensions of Slab and Beams
Thickness of slab = 100mm; depth of ribs based on
(Span/depth = 20) is = 600mm; width of rib = 200mm
Moments and shear by FEM analysis
A 100 mm thick concrete slab, 12m×16m was meshed
into 0.5m×0.5m shell elements by ANSYS software
as shown in Figure 3a. For these shell elements only
bending effect was considered for the above waffle slab
analysis. Ribs were modeled as Beam4 3D elements
(Figure 3b). Self weight of Shell and Beam4 elements
were not considered because they were included in the
effective uniform loading.
Comparison of results for the given example
The results obtained from the proposed method were
compared with the FEM analysis. For this purpose, two
boundary conditions were considered. 1) Slab simply
supported on all four edges 2) Fixed at all four edges.
Displacement and Bending Moments plots are as shown
in Figures 4 and 5 and summarised in Table 4. For both
the boundary conditions, two waffle slabs of 12m×16m
and 12m×12m were considered to compare moments
and shear forces. Displacement and moment profile
by the proposed method were plotted in MATHCAD
software and then compared with the same profile
obtained from FEM analysis.
FEM results were lower bound by about 12% with
respect to Timoshenko’s value for simply supported

..... 2010 The Indian Concrete Journal 

slab and the variation with proposed method was 11%.
Calculated displacements from the proposed method
were generally higher for all boundary conditions. (See
Table 4 for FEM analysis results ,) but it was comparable
with Timoshenko’s analysis. For all the other cases, finite
element and the proposed method gave comparable
results giving an upper bound solution to FEM.
Conclusion
A computationally efficient method is proposed that
is comparable to FEM analysis. It can be adapted
for analysis of waffle slab for generalized boundary
conditions. The weighted residual method proposed
 The Indian Concrete Journal .....2010
herein gives reasonable results without resorting to an
elaborate FEM analysis
Sample calculation for waffle slab simply
supported by proposed method
a = 12 m, b =16 m; a1 = b1=2 m; h = 100 mm, Ht= 600 mm,
bw= 200 mm
Moments and Shears by Proposed Method
Flexural rigidities of beams Dx = Dy =
Table 4. Comparison of results
Calculated Parameter Value of given parameter by
Case
Parameter Location in slab Timoshenko’s analysis Proposed Method FE analysis (by ANSYS)
u center 15.0 mm 15.15 mm 13.29 mm
Mx center 216.0 kN-m 212.4 kN-m 181.2 kN-m
Case 1 (all edges simply
My center 122.0 kN-m 119.5 kN-m 91.8 kN-m
supported) 12m × 16m
Qx edge 60.0 kN 72.9 kN 71.6 kN
Qy edge 26.8 kN 32.7 kN 54.6 kN
u center - 9.81 mm 8.72 mm
Mx center - 137.6 kN-m 114.1 kN-m
Case 1 (all edges simply
My center - 137.6 kN-m 114.1 kN-m
supported) 12m × 12m
Qx edge - 48.3 kN 56.6 kN
Qy edge - 48.3 kN 56.6 kN
u center - 3.26 mm 2.80 mm
center - 76.1 kN-m 64.8 kN-m
Mx
edge - 152.2 kN-m 137.2 kN-m
Case 2 (all edges fixed)
center - 42.8 kN-m 39.5 kN-m
12m × 16m My
edge - 85.6 kN-m 104.7 kN-m
Qx edge - 76.1 kN 67.9 kN
Qy edge - 32.1 kN 53.3 kN
u center - 2.12 mm 1.83 mm
center - 49.6 kN-m 38.9 kN-m
Mx
edge - 99.2 kN-m 98.3 kN-m
Case 2 (all edges fixed)
center - 49.6 kN-m 38.9 kN-m
12m × 12m My
edge - 99.2 kN-m 98.3 kN-m
Qx edge - 49.6 kN 53.7 kN
Qy edge - 49.6 kN 53.7 kN

..... 2010 The Indian Concrete Journal 

 = 1.052×105 kN-m2/m
Torsional rigidities of beams C1 = C2
= 1.399×104 kN-m2
Effective uniform loading over the waffle slab (including
live load, finishing load, self weight of 100mm thick slab
and self weight of ribs) = 6.463 kN/m2
Maximum amplitude of displacement
Number of discrete points for ribs positions in the slab
along X-axis are m = (12/2) = 6 and along Y-axis n =
(16/2) = 8 . In natural coordinates beams are placed at x
= 0.167, 0.333, 0.5, 0.667, 0.833 and h = 0.125, 0.25, 0.375,
0.5, 0.625, 0.75, 0.875.
Therefore displacement at the centre (ξ=0.5, η=0.5) of
waffle slab-
Moments at the center and forces at the edges of slab
for per unit width
Similarly My at (0.5, 0.5) = -59.742 kN-m/m
Qx(0,0.5) = 36.462 kN/m and Qy(0.5,0) = 16.348 kN/m
10 The Indian Concrete Journal .....2010
View publication stats
For final moments and forces, above quantities have to
be multiplied by rib spacings as –
Similarly My at (0.5, 0.5) = -59.742×a1 = -119.484 kN-m
Qx=72.924 kN and Qy = 32.696 kN
Reference
1. Indian Standard code for plain and Reinforced concrete IS456-2000 Bureau
of Indian Standard New Delhi
2. Raju K (2005) Advanced Reinforced Concrete design – CBS Publishers New
Delhi India.
3. Timoshenko S & Krieger W (1987) “Theory of Plates and Shells” McGraw-
Hill Publication N.Y.USA.
4. Mallick S.K & Bhushan N (1983) “Methods of Analysis of reinforced
concrete grids for roofs and floors” Indian Concrete Journal Vol. 57, No.
9, pp. 241-246.
5. Bhushan N (1983) “No torsion analysis of reinforced concrete grids” Indian
Concrete Journal, Vol. 57 No. 3, pp 76-81.
6. Chowdhury I & Dasgupta S.P. (2008) ”Dynamics of Structures and
Foundations –a unified approach Volume-1” Taylor and Francis Publication
Leiden Holland.
7. ANSYS Inc. (2006), “General Finite Element Analysis Program”, Version
11.0 ANSYS, Inc. Canonsburg, Pa.
Mr. Indrajit Chowdhury holds a B.E. (Civil)
from Jadavpur University Kolkata and M.Tech.
from IIT Kharagpur. He is Head of the Department
of Civil and Structural Engineering, Petrofac
International Limited, Sharjah, United Arab
Emirates (UAE). His interests include structural
and soil dynamics, design of RCC structures,
finite element analysis, machine foundation, earthquake
engineering etc.
Dr. Jitendra P. Singh received his B.E.
(Civil) from BIET Jhansi, M.Tech. and Ph.D.
from Department of Earthquake Engineering,
IIT Roorkee. He is working in the Department
of Civil and Structural Engineering, Petrofac
International Limited, Sharjah, UAE. His
interests include strong motion instrumentation
and data processing, full scale testing of structures, finite
element analysis, geophysical testing of soil and earthquake
engineering.