Waffle Slab2

INTERNATIONALJOURNALOFCIVILANDSTRUCTURALENGINEERING
Volume1,No 4,2011
Copyright2010AllrightsreservedIntegratedPublishingservices
Researcharticle
ISSN0976 4399
Optimumdesignofreinforcedconcretewaffleslabs
AlaaC.Galeb,ZainabF.Atiyah
CivilEngineeringDepartment,UniversityofBasrah,Iraq
alaagaleb@yahoo.com
ABSTRACT
This paper deals with the problem of optimum design of reinforced concrete (twoway
ribbed) waffle slabs using genetic algorithms. Two case studies are discussed the first is a
waffleslabwithsolidheads,andthesecondisawaffleslabwithbandbeamsalongcolumn
centerlines.Directdesignmethodisusedforthestructuralanalysisanddesignofslabs.The
cost function represents the cost of concrete, steel, and formwork for the slab. The design
variablesaretakenastheeffectivedepthoftheslab,ribswidth,thespacingbetweenribs,the
topslabthickness,theareaofflexuralreinforcementatthemomentcriticalsections,theband
beams width, and the area of steel reinforcement of the beams. The constraints include the
constraints on dimensions of the rib, and the constraints on the top slab thickness, the
constraints onthe areasof steel reinforcementtosatisfy the flexural and the minimum area
requirements,theconstraintsontheslabthicknesstosatisfyflexuralbehavior,accommodate
reinforcement and provide adequate concrete cover, and the constraints on the longitudinal
reinforcementofbandbeams.AcomputerprogramiswrittenusingMATLABtoperformthe
structuralanalysisanddesignofwaffleslabsbythedirectdesign method.Theoptimization
processiscarriedoutusingthebuiltingeneticalgorithmtoolbox of MATLAB.
Keywords:Design,Optimisation,MATLAB,Geneticalgorithm
1.Introduction
Waffleslabconstructionconsistsofrowsofconcretejoistsatrightanglestoeachotherwith
solid headsatthecolumn(needed forshearrequirements)orwithsolidwidebeamsections
onthecolumncenterlines foruniformdepthconstruction.Fig.(1).Waffleslabconstruction
allows a considerable reduction in dead load as compared to conventional flat slab
construction since the slab thickness can be minimized due to the short span between the
joists(PCANoteson31805).
Figure1:WaffleSlabTypes
862
Volume1,No 4,2011
Researcharticle
ISSN0976 4399
Costoptimumdesignofreinforcedconcretestructuresisreceiving moreand moreattention

from the researchers. Ibrahim (1999) used mathematical programming techniques to
minimize the cost of reinforced concrete Tbeam floor. The floor system consisted of one
way continuous slab and simply supported Tbeam. A formulation based on an elastic
analysis and the ultimate strength method of design with the consideration of serviceability
constraints as per ACI 31889 code is presented. Hadi (2001) presented the application of
(GA) for the design of continuous reinforced concrete T and L beams based on the
requirementsoftheAustraliandesignstandardsforconcretestructures,AS3600.Yokotaetal.
(2004)formulatedanoptimalTcrosssectiondesign(OTCD)problemwithsinglyreinforced
concretebeamsforaconstrainedultimatestrengthintheconcrete/steelandsolveditdirectly
bykeepingtheconstraintsbasedonanimprovedgeneticalgorithm(GA).Theydiscussedthe
efficiencyoftheproposedmethodandthetraditional method.Sahabetal.(2005)presented
costoptimizationofreinforcedconcrete flatslab buildingsaccordingtotheBritishCodeof
Practice (BS8110). The objective function was the total cost of the building including the
costof floors,columnsand foundations.Prasadetal.(2005)elaboratedtheresultsobtained
fromtheanalyticalstudycarriedoutonwaffleslabmediumsizefloorsystemwithaviewto
achievetheoptimumdimensionsofribspacing,itsdepthandwidth.Thewaffleslabhasbeen
considered as monolithically connected to band beams. Feasibility of structural design of
members hasbeenensuredundertheprovisionofIS:4562000.Inthispaper,theoptimum
design of reinforced concrete waffle slabs is sought using the simple genetic algorithm. A
computer program is written using Matlab to formulate the problem and perform the
structuralanalysisanddesignofthoseslabs bythedirectdesign method.Thecostfunction
represents the costof concrete, steelreinforcement and formwork. Specifying the optimum
values of the various design variables is the main objective of this study. The problem is
formulated based onthe requirements of ACI 31805 code andthe ultimate strength design
method. A number of examples were run to test the viability of the developed design
formulation and all these examples proved that the method is versatile and leads to
considerablesavingsindesign.
1.1DirectDesignMethod
TheDirectDesignMethod(D.D.M)isanapproximateprocedureforanalyzingtwowayslab
systemssubjectedtogravityloadsonly(PCANoteson31805).Sinceitisapproximate,the
methodislimitedtoslabsystemsmeetingsomelimitations,theseare:
1. Theremustbethreeormorecontinuousspansineachdirection
2. Slabpanels mustberectangularwitharatioof longertoshorterspan(centerlineto
centerlineofsupports)notgreaterthan2
3. Successive span lengths (centerlinetocenterline of supports) in each direction must
notdifferbymorethan(1/3)ofthelongerspan
4. Columns mustnotbeoffsetmorethan10%ofthespan(indirectionofoffset)from
eitheraxisbetweencenterlinesofsuccessivecolumns
5. Loadsmustbeuniformlydistributed,withtheunfactoredorserviceliveloadnotmore
than2timestheunfactoredorservicedeadload
6. Fortwoway beamsupported slabs, relative stiffness of beams in two perpendicular
directionsmustbe
863
Volume1,No 4,2011
Researcharticle
0.2
af =
af 1l22
a f2l 12
ISSN0976 4399
5.0
EcbIb
EcsIS
Where:
af 1 =Theratioofflexuralstiffnessofbeamtoflexuralstiffnessofslabindirection l 1
af 2 = Theratioofflexuralstiffnessofbeamtoflexuralstiffnessofslabindirection l 2
l1 = Lengthofspanindirectionmomentsarebeingdetermined.
l2 = Lengthofspantransverseto(l1 )
Ecb =Modulusofelasticityofbeamconcrete
Ecs =Modulusofelasticityofslabconcrete
Ib =Momentofinertiaofuncrackedbeam
Is = Momentofinertiaofuncrackedslab
7.Redistributionofnegativemomentsisnotpermitted.
The Direct Design Method is essentially a threestep analysis procedure, involves (PCA
Noteson31805):
(1)Determiningthetotalfactoredstaticmomentforeachspan,
qul 2l 2n
MO =
8
(1)
Where(qu )isthefactoredcombinationofdeadandliveloads,(qu =1.2wd + 1.6wl).

(2)Dividingthetotalfactoredstaticmomentbetweennegativeandpositivemomentswithin
eachspan,asinTable(1).
(3)Distributingthenegativeandthepositivemomenttothecolumnandthemiddlestripsin
thetransversedirection(Tables2to4).
Table1:DistributionofTotalStaticMomentforanEndSpan
Factored
Moment
(1)
Slab Simply
Supportedon
Concreteor
MasonryWall
(2)
TwoWay
Beam
Supported
Slabs
(3)
(4)
FlatPlatesandFlatSlabs
Without
WithEdge
EdgeBeam
Beam
(5)
SlabMonolithic
withConcrete
Wall
Interior
Negative
Positive
Exterior
Negative
0.75
0.63
0.70
0.57
0.70
0.52
0.70
0.50
0.65
0.35
0.16
0.26
0.30
0.65
864
Volume1,No 4,2011
Researcharticle
ISSN0976 4399
Table2:InteriorNegativeFactoredMomentsforColumnstrip
l2 l 1
af 1l2 l 1 = 0
(af 1l2 l 1) 1.0
0.5
75
90
1.0
75
75
2.0
75
45
Table3:ExteriorNegativeFactoredMomentsforColumnStrip
l2 l 1
bt
bt
bt
bt
(af 1l2 l 1)= 0
(af 1l2 l 1) 1.0
0.5
100
75
100
90
=0
2.5
=0
2.5
1.0
100
75
100
75
2.0
100
75
100
45
Table4:PositiveFactoredMomentsofColumnStrip
l2 l 1
af 1l2 l 1 = 0
(
)
(af 1l2 l 1) 1.0
0.5
1.0
2.0
60
60
60
90
75
45
For the purpose of analysis, the slab system is divided into design strips consisting of a
columnstripandtwohalfmiddlestrip(s).(Fig.2).
(a) ColumnStripfor l 2 l 1
(b)ColumnStripforl 2 >l 1
Figure2:DefinitionofDesignStrips(PCANoteson31805)
2.GeneticAlgorithm
GeneticAlgorithms(GAs)areglobaloptimizationtechniquesdevelopedbyJohnHollandin
1975 (Sivanandam, S.N., 2008) . They belong tothe family of evolutionary algorithms that
search for solutions to optimization problems by "evolving" better and better solutions. A
genetic algorithm begins with a "population" of solutions and then chooses "parents" to
reproduce.Duringreproduction,eachparentiscopied,andthenparents may combine inan
865
Volume1,No 4,2011
Researcharticle
ISSN0976 4399
analog to natural crossbreeding, or the copies may be modified, in an analog to genetic

mutation. The new solutions are evaluated and added to the population, and lowquality
solutionsaredeletedfromthepopulationtomakeroomfornewsolutions.Asthisprocessof
parent selection, copying, crossbreeding, and mutation is repeated, the members of the
population tend to get better. When the algorithm is halted, the best member of the current
population is taken as the solution tothe problem posed. Then, the genetic algorithm loops
over an iteration process to make the population evolve. Each iteration consists of the
followingsteps:
1)Selection:thefirststepconsistsofselectingindividualsforreproduction.Thisselectionis
donerandomlywithaprobabilitydependingontherelativefitnessoftheindividualssothat
bestonesareoftenchosenforreproductionthanpoorones.
2) Reproduction: in the second step, offspring are bred by the selected individuals. For
generatingnewchromosomes,thealgorithmcanusebothrecombinationandmutation.
3)Evaluation:thenthefitnessofthenewchromosomesisevaluated.
4) Replacement: during the last step, individuals from the old population are killed and
replacedbythenewones.
The algorithm is stopped when the population converges toward the optimal solution. The
GeneticAlgorithmprocessisdescriedthroughtheflowchartinFigure(3).
Figure3:GeneticAlgorithmFlowchart(Sivanandam,S.N.,2008)
866
Volume1,No 4,2011
Researcharticle
ISSN0976 4399
2.1FormulationoftheProblem:Case(1)WaffleSlabwithSolidHeads
The costof materials (concrete and steel reinforcement) and formwork is considered as the
objectivefunctionwhichshouldbeminimized.Thetotalcostoftheslabcanbestatedas:
C =CC (QC ) + CS (WS ) + Cf (Af )
(2)
Where:
C =Totalcostfunction
CC =Cost ofconcreteperunitvolume(I.D/m3)
CS =Costofsteelperunitvolume(I.D/ton)
Cf =Costofformworkperunitarea(I.D/m2)
QC =Concretevolume(m3)
WS =Weightofsteel(ton)
Af = Surfaceareaoftheform(m2)
2.2FormulationoftheConstraints
Thefollowingconstraintsareconsideredinthispaper:
1Ribsshallnotbelessthan100mminwidth,(AmericanConcreteInstitute,2005) i.e.,
br 100mm
g1 = 0.1- br 0
2 Ribs shall have a depth not more than 3.5 times the minimum width of rib, (American
ConcreteInstitute,2005)i.e.,
((1+tt ) d - hs ) 3.5 br
g2 = ((1+ tt ) d- hs )- 3.5 br 0
3Clearspacingbetweenribsshallnotexceed750mm (AmericanConcreteInstitute,2005),
thisgives:
(S -br ) 750mm
g3 = (S- br )- 0.75 0
where
tt = ratioofconcretecoverto theeffectivedepthoftheslab.
4 When permanent burned clay or concrete tile fillers of material having a compressive
strengthatleastequalto fc' in thejoistsareused,thetopslabthicknessshallbenotlessthan
onetwelfth the clear distance between ribs, nor less than 40 mm (American Concrete
Institute,2005), i.e.,
(S - br )
hs
12
(S - br )- h 0
g4 =
s
12
and,
867
Volume1,No 4,2011
Researcharticle
ISSN0976 4399
hs 40mm
g5 = 1-
hs
0
0.04
6 For slabs without interior beam spanning between the supports, the minimum thickness
shall be inaccordancewiththeprovisionsofTable(5)andshall notbelessthan(100mm)
(AmericanConcreteInstitute, 2005),i.e.,
h100mm
0.100 (1+ tt ) d
(1+ tt ) d
g6 = 1 0
0.100
The minimum slab thickness for an exterior panel with drop panel, can be found from
Table(5)usinglinearinterpolationas(ln /32), so,
l
g7 = n - (1+ tt ) d 0
32
Table5:MinimumThicknessofSlabswithoutInteriorBeams (AmericanConcreteInstitute,
2005)
Withoutdroppanels
Withdroppanels
Interior
Interior
Exteriorpanels
Exteriorpanels
panels
panels
With
Without
With
fy (MPa) Without
edge
edge
edge
edge
beams
beam
beams
beams
ln
ln
ln
ln
ln
ln
280
33
36
36
36
40
40
l
l
l
l
l
l
n
n
n
n
n
n
420
30
33
33
33
36
36
l
l
l
l
l
ln
n
n
n
n
n
520
28
31
31
31
34
34
7Ateverysectionofaflexuralmemberwheretensilereinforcementisrequired,theareaof
steelreinforcementshallnotbelessthan ( ASmin )givenby:
AS min =
0.25
fy
fc'
br d
or
ASmin =
1.4 br d
fy
AS ASmin
ASmin - AS 0
868
Volume1,No 4,2011
Researcharticle
g8 =1-
ISSN0976 4399
As fy
0.25
fc' br d
8Sectionsaretensioncontrolled ifthe nettensilestrain intheextremetensilesteel(et )is

equal toor greaterthan 0.005 when the concretein compressionreaches its assumed strain
limitof0.003 (AmericanConcreteInstitute,2005).
e t >0.005
0.003
d - 0.003
c
t
e t =
ASi fy
'
0.85 fc b
ct =
b1
0.003
ASi fy
(0.85 b f ' b) d - 0.003- 0.005> 0

1
c
0.003
ASi fy
g9 = (
) d - 0.008> 0
'
0.85 b1 fc b
0.003
ASi fy
g9 = 0.008- (
) d 0
'
0.85 b 1 fc b
9Themomentcapacity ofthesectionmustbegreaterthantheappliedmomenti.e.,
m
M i
S
mi
h
a
0.85 fc' a br d - + 0.85 fc' hs (b- br ) d - s

S
2
2
a =
ASi fy
0.85 fc' br
ASi fy
mi
h
+ 0.85 fc' hs (b- br ) d - s ]

[ASi fy d '
S
2
0.85 fc br 2
869
Volume1,No 4,2011
Researcharticle
ISSN0976 4399
ASi fy
h
S
+ 0.85 fc' hs (b- br ) d - s ]

g10 =1- [ASi fy d 0
'
2
m
1
.
7
i
c
r
where,
mi = mc1,mc2,mm1,mm2
mc1 =Negativemomentin columnstrip
mc2 =Positivemomentincolumnstrip
mm1 =Negativemomentinmiddlestrip
mm2 =Positivemomentinmiddlestrip
+
Asi = Asrc , Asrc ,Asrm ,Asrm

-
Asrc =negativereinforcementinthecolumnstrip.
+
Asrc =positivereinforcementinthecolumnstrip.
-
Asrm =negativereinforcementinthemiddlestrip.
+
Asrm =positivereinforcementinthemiddlestrip.
b=Flangewidth
10Itisassumedinthisstudythatthetopslabthicknesshasamaximumvalueofnotmore
100mm(whichisfoundinmanyliterature),i.e.,
hs 100mm
0.1
0
hs
11PunchingShearConstraint:
Thetwowayshearstrengthofslabsectionmustbegreaterthantheappliedshearstress
atthecriticalsection(atdistanced/2fromthefaceofthesupport),thisgives:
f
f c' bo d Vu
3
g11 = 1-
0.7
2
fc' [(c+ d) 4 d] (l1 l 2 - (c+ d) ) {1.2 wd + 1.6 wl }
3
wd =dl + [(S hs + br ((1+ tt ) d - hs)) l 1 24 2 1 + 1]/(l 1 l 2)

S
0.7
fc' [(c+ d) 4 d]
3
g12 = 1 0
1.2 (dl + [(S hs + br ((1+ tt ) d - hs ))
2
(l1 l 2 - (c+ d) )
l 1
l 1 24 2 S + 1]/(l 1 l 2))+ 1.6 wl
where,
c=Dimensionofcolumn(m)
870
Volume1,No 4,2011
Researcharticle
ISSN0976 4399
Now, the optimization problem can be stated as follows: Find the values of the design
-
+
+
variables (d, br,S,Asrc ,Asrc ,Asrm ,Asrm ,hs ) which minimize the cost function ( C ) under
the constraints (g1tog12 ) stated above. To solve this constrained optimization problem, the
MatlabToolboxofgeneticalgorithmisused.Theconstraintsaretakenintoconsiderationby
converting the above constrained nonlinear problem to an unconstrained one using penalty
function.Thisisdoneautomaticallybythetoolboxwhichprovidesapenaltyparameterwith
defaultvalueof(100).In thisstudy,thisdefaultpenaltyparametervalueisused.
Case(2)WaffleSlabwithBandBeamsalongColumnCenterlines
Asinthepreviouscase,thetotalcostfunctionisstatedas:
C =CC (QC ) + CS (WS ) + Cf (Af )
(3)
The constraints are the same as those for the previous case (g1 tog11) (no punching shear
constraint is considered here) besides that related to the band beam and can be derived as
follows:
2l b c
c 2 l b
g12 = 1-
2 l b
0
c
(ASb fy (d- ( ASb fy /1.7 fc' br ))) + S
g13 =1-
0
0.85 f ' h (b- b ) (d - h /2)
mi
c
s
r
s
Where,
lb =Halfwidthofthebandbeam.
WSb = Weightofsteel reinforcementofthebeam(ton)

+
ASb = ASb
, ASb
-
ASb
= Negativeareaoflongitudinalsteelinbandbeam (m )
+
ASb
= Positiveareaoflongitudinalsteelinbandbeam (m2)
g14 = 1-
g 15
-
ASb
fy
0.25
fc' 2 lb d
0.31875 b1 fc' b d
= 1 0
-
ASb
fy
Examples:(1)WaffleSlabwithSolidHeads
Inthisapplication,awaffleslabwithsolidheads,consistsofthreebythreesquarepanels,is
considered. The span length (l) is 7m, the solid heads are square of 1.2m1.2m and the
871
Volume1,No 4,2011
Researcharticle
ISSN0976 4399
columns are of square crosssections of 0.6m. The slab is subjected to a total load
2
representing its selfweight and a dead load of 3kN/m , and a live load of 4kN/m . Other
data are: the cylinder concrete compressive strength ( fc') =30 MPa, the yield stress of steel
( f ) =460 MPa, the cost of concrete per unit volume (C ) =175000 (I.D/m3), the cost of
steel per unit volume (C ) =1250000 (I.D/ton) and the cost of formwork (C ) =10000
C
(I.D/m ).Table(6)showstheinitialpopulationandfinalresultsofthisapplication.
Table6:InitialPopulationandFinal ResultsforaWaffleSlabwithSolidHeads
Values
(m)
0.850
0.557
0.591
0.525
0.503
0.474
0.591
0.791
0.750
Initial
0.450
Population 0.400
0.450
0.500
0.380
0.597
0.650
0.650
0.700
0.700
0.600
0.310
Final
br
(m)
0.716
0.196
0.540
0.349
0.793
0.587
0.733
0.782
0.724
0.350
0.300
0.250
0.350
0.350
0.541
0.596
0.548
0.550
0.551
0.641
0.392
(m)
1.460
0.938
1.256
1.086
1.483
1.297
1.482
1.528
1.472
1.100
0.900
0.850
1.000
1.100
1.290
1.343
1.289
1.200
1.200
1.299
1.140
Asrc
Asrm
Asrc
Asrm
(m )
0.007
0.002
0.002
0.003
0.002
0.006
0.006
0.009
0.007
0.005
0.004
0.005
0.004
0.002
0.002
0.007
0.002
0.003
0.006
0.004
0.002
(m )
0.004000
0.002000
0.004000
0.001000
0.002000
0.004000
0.002000
0.003000
0.002000
0.003000
0.002000
0.003000
0.005000
0.003000
0.004000
0.004000
0.004000
0.003000
0.002000
0.003000
0.000457
(m )
0.004000
0.004000
0.002000
0.001000
0.002000
0.004000
0.004000
0.005000
0.004000
0.004000
0.006000
0.002000
0.006000
0.002000
0.005000
0.006000
0.002000
0.006000
0.002000
0.002000
0.000499
(m )
0.004
0.002
0.002
0.001
0.002
0.001
0.002
0.004
0.002
0.001
0.003
0.005
0.003
0.001
0.002
0.002
0.002
0.002
0.002
0.002
0.001
hs
(m)
0.070
0.097
0.081
0.080
0.059
0.067
0.093
0.091
0.070
0.065
0.099
0.095
0.097
0.100
0.075
0.070
0.070
0.055
0.055
0.055
0.091
(I.D)
167080967
124619230
123382514
104342236
108089190
130551443
131527013
166576758
147007115
125993144
145886909
152735016
158704115
102240662
132255110
154646904
126399628
149332855
142163766
128497804
81365709
Populationsize=20
No.ofgenerations=93
3.Discussions
3.1PopulationSize
ThedefaultinitialpopulationsizeintheGeneticAlgorithmMatlabToolboxis20individuals.
In order to explain the effect of population size on the optimum solution, various values of
populationsizeareused.Figure(4)showstheeffectofpopulationsizeontheminimumcost
ofawaffleslab.Itcanbenotedthattheincreasinginpopulationsizegivessmallervaluesof
minimum cost. Table (7) presents the optimum values of the design variables for various
values of population size. This tableshowsthattheincreasinginpopulationsize(upto80
individuals) leads the solution towards the optimumsolutioninalessnumberofgenerations
872
Volume1,No 4,2011
Researcharticle
ISSN0976 4399
(iterations).Anyfurtherincreasinginthepopulationsizewillincreasetherequirednumberof
generations.
8.20E+07
Min.Cost(I.D)
8.00E+07
7.80E+07
7.60E+07
7.40E+07
7.20E+07
7.00E+07
6.80E+07
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
PopulationSize
Figure4: EffectofPopulationSizeontheMinimumCostinWaffleSlabwithSolidHeads
Table7:OptimumValuesoftheDesignVariablesforVariousValuesofPopulationSizefor
aWaffleSlabwithSolidHeads
Pop.
(I.D)
Size
E+07
No.
of
br
(m)
(m)
(m)
0.392
Gen.
93 0.310
1.140
Asrc
(m2)
E04
20.0
Asrm
(m2)
E04
4.57
Asrc
(m2)
E04
4.99
Asrm
(m2)
E04
10.0
hs
(m)
20
8.14
0.091
40
7.17
54
0.317
0.286
1.033
4.75
9.70
0.147
0.721 0.075
60
7.01
22
0.226
0.361
1.107
10.0
4.28
2.72
8.48
0.083
80
6.99
13
0.243
0.415
1.164
10.0
1.18
1.45
10.0
0.072
100
6.96
14
0.234
0.469
1.219
10.0
5.03
7.43
1.46
0.067
SpanLength =7m
2)SpanLength
Table(8)showstheoptimumvaluesofthedesignvariablesandthetotalcostoftheslabfor
variousvaluesofspanlength.
Table8:OptimumDesignVariablesValuesforVariousSpanLengthsof aWaffleSlabwith
SolidHeads
-
-
+
+
Span
br
hs
C
d
S
Asrc
Asrm
Asrc
Asrm
Length (I.D)
(m)
(m)
(m)
(m)
(m2)
(m2)
(m2)
(m2)
(m)
E+07
E04
E04
E04
E04
7
7.17 0.317 0.286 1.033 4.75
9.70 0.147 0.721 0.075
8
10
12
15
9.47
18.5
29.3
48.5
0.286
0.450
0.515
0.810
0.350
0.337
0.191
0.236
1.100
1.086
0.939
0.986
1.34
20.00
20.00
6.40
3.42
1.00
2.00
1.00
6.33
5.78
4.31
7.35
10.0
4.70
5.14
2.80
0.065
0.065
0.068
0.066
PopulationSize=40
873
Volume1,No 4,2011
Researcharticle
ISSN0976 4399
3)EffectiveDepth
Table(9)showstheoptimumvaluesofdesignvariablesandthe(effectivedepth/spanlength)
ratio.Itcanbenotedthatfortheoptimumdesign,theratioofeffectivedepthtospanlength
(d/l) should be between (1/281/19). Also itcanbenotedfromthistablethattheeffective
depth values for solution are ranged from 286 mm up to 810 mm in comparison with the
practical range found in the literatures for overall depth which is (300600) mm for span
lengthupto15m (CementandConcreteAssociationofAustralia,2003).
.
Table9:TheOptimumRatioof(EffectiveDepth/Span Length)foraWaffleSlabwithSolid
Heads
SpanLength (m) C (I.D)E+07 d(m) br (m) S(m) hs (m) d l
7
8
10
12
15
7.17
9.47
18.4
29.3
48.5
0.317
0.286
0.450
0.515
0.810
0.286
0.350
0.337
0.191
0.236
1.033
1.100
1.086
0.939
0.986
0.075
0.065
0.065
0.068
0.066
1/22
1/28
1/22
1/23
1/19
4)ClearSpacing
Table(10)presentstheoptimumvaluesofthecentertocenterspacingbetweenribs (S) for
variousvaluesofspanlength.Constraintg3 statesthattheclearspacingbetweenribs (S -br )
shouldbelessthan750mm.Itmaybenotedthatthisconstraintisalwaysactive(i.e.theclear
spacing 750mm controls the solution). It may also be noted that the rib spacing
correspondingtotheoptimumvaluesofthedesignvariablesaretobewithintherange(600
1500)mmwhichdefinedaspracticallimitinliteratures.
Table10:OptimumValuesofDesignVariablesandClearSpacingbetweenRibsforVarious
ValuesofSpanLengthforaWaffleSlabwithSolidHeads
C
Span
(I.D)
(m)
E+07
d
(m)
br
(m)
(m)
Asrc
Asrm
Asrc
Asrm
(m )
E04
hs
(m)
S - br
(m)
(m )
E04
(m )
E04
(m )
E04
7.17 0.317 0.286 1.033 4.75
9.70
0.147 0.721 0.075
0.75
9.47 0.286 0.350 1.100 1.34
3.42
6.33
10.0
0.065
0.75
10
18.4 0.450 0.337 1.086 20.0
10.0
5.78
4.70
0.065
0.75
12
29.3 0.515 0.191 0.939 20.0
20.0
4.31
5.14
0.068
0.75
15
48.5 0.810 0.236 0.986 6.40
10.0
7.35
2.80
0.066
0.75
S l
0.147
0.137
0.108
0.0783
0.0657
874
Volume1,No 4,2011
Researcharticle
ISSN0976 4399
5)RibWidth
Itmaybenoted,fromTable(7),thattheribwidthvaluescorrespondingtotheoptimumcost
are ranged from 191 mm to 350 mm, while the practical values found in the literatures are
withintherange(125200)mm (CementandConcreteAssociationof Australia,2003).
6)TopSlabDepth
Asstatedtheliterature,thetopslabdepthtypicallyvariesfrom75to125mm.Fromtable(8)
itmaybenotedthattheoptimumvaluesoftopslabdepthliewithintherange(6575)mm.
7)TheEffectofUnitCosts
Inordertoillustratetheeffectoftheunitcostsoftheconcreteandsteel,thecostfunctioncan
bewritteninthefollowingform:
Cf
C
C
(4)
= C (QC )+ (WS )+
(Af )
CS CS
CS
Table(11)showsthattheincreaseoftheratio (CC CS ) leadstodecreasetheoptimumvalues
oftheribcrosssectionalarea ( AC ) anddecreasetheribspacing (S) andincreasetheareaof
steel reinforcement. This will cause the volume of concrete (the material of higher cost) to
decrease.
Table11:EffectofIncreasingtheRatio (CC CS ) ontheOptimumDesignforaWaffleSlab
withSolidHeads
br
(m)
(m)
(m)
0.317
0.286
7.43
0.261
0.18
7.44
0.20
0.22
0.14
(I.D)
E+07
7.17
0.16
CC CS
Asrc
Asrm
Asrc
Asrm
hs
(m )
E04
9.70
(m )
E04
0.147
(m )
E04
0.721
(m)
1.033
(m )
E04
4.75
No.
of
Ribs
0.075
0.168
0.899
3.74
6.30
10.0
3.78
0.097
0.342
0.104
0.854
3.57
2.23
2.72
4.54
0.097
10
8.32
0.296
0.107
0.854
9.07
0.516
20.0
10.0
0.067
10
8.93
0.269
0.108
0.857
20.0
10.0
526
10.0
0.085
10
PopulationSize=40
SpanLength=7m
8)CostofFormwork
Inorder to study the effect of cost of formwork on the optimumsolution,thecostfunction
canbewritteninthefollowingform:
C = CC (QC)+ CS (WS)
875
Volume1,No 4,2011
Researcharticle
ISSN0976 4399
Table12showstheoptimumvaluesofdesignvariablesandthetotalcostoftheslabwithout
costofformwork.
Table 13 summarizes the results obtained when the cost of formwork is included or not. It
canbenotedthatthevaluecostofformworkis(0.851.37)ofthetotalslabcost.
Table12:OptimumSolutionwithouttheCostofFormworkforaWaffleSlabwithSolid
Heads
Cost
without
Formwork
(I.D)
E+07
3.69
4.96E
9.18
15.8
20.5
Span
Length
(m)
7
8
10
12
15
br
(m)
0.229
0.313
0.525
0.631
0.809
hs
(m)
(m)
Asrc
(m2)
E04
Asrm
(m2)
E04
Asrc
(m2)
E04
Asrm
(m2)
E04
(m)
0.269
0.487
0.285
0.300
0.235
1.014
1.235
1.034
1.047
0.985
20.0
10.0
5.29
20.0
2.94
10.0
10.0
10.0
5.51
1.28
10.0
10.0
10.0
3.01
2.02
10.0
7.98
10.0
10.0
5.82
0.064
0.069
0.080
0.083
0.066
SpanLength
(m)
Table13:EffectofFormworkCostforaWaffleSlabwithSolidHeads
(m)
(m)
(m)
7
8
10
12
15
0.317
0.286
0.450
0.515
0.810
0.286
0.350
0.337
0.191
0.236
1.033
1.100
1.086
0.939
0.986
IncludingFormworkCost
br
hs
NotIncludingFormworkCost
br
(m)
Cost
(I.D)
E+07
(m)
(m)
(m)
0.075
0.065
0.065
0.068
0.066
7.17
9.47
18.5
29.3
48.5
0.229
0.313
0.525
0.631
0.809
0.269
0.487
0.285
0.300
0.235
1.014
1.235
1.034
1.047
0.985
(m)
Cost
(I.D)
E+07
Costwith
Formwork
Cost/Cost
without
Formwork
Cost
0.064
0.069
0.080
0.083
0.066
3.69
4.96
9.18
15.8
20.5
1.94
1.91
2.02
1.85
2.37
hs
Example(2):WaffleSlabwithBandBeamsalongColumnCenterlines
Waffleslabwithbandbeamsalongcolumncenterlinesconsistofthreebythreesquarepanels
of span (l) length 7m and the columns are of square crosssection of 0.6m. The slab is
2
subjected to a total load representing its selfweight and a dead load of 3kN/m , and a live
( )
'
loadof4kN/m .Otherdataare:thecylinderconcretecompressivestrength fc =30MPa,the

yield stress of steel
( f )=460 MPa, the cost of concrete per unit volume (Cc)=175000

y
(I.D/m ), and the cost of steel per unit volume (Cs)=1250000 (I.D/ton) and the cost of
2
formwork (Cf )=10000(I.D/m ).
876
Volume1,No 4,2011
Researcharticle
ISSN0976 4399
Table (14) shows the initial population and final results for waffle slab with band beams
alongcolumncenterlines.
Table14:InitialPopulationandFinalResultsforaWaffleSlabwithBandBeams
InitialPopulation
Values
Final
(m)
br
(m)
(m)
0.850 0.716 1.460

0.557 0.196 0.938
0.591 0.540 1.256
0.525 0.349 1.086
0.503 0.793 1.483
0.474 0.587 1.297
0.591 0.733 1.482
0.791 0.782 1.528
0.750 0.724 1.472
0.500 0.350 1.000
0.380 0.350 1.100
0.597 0.541 1.290
0.650 0.596 1.343
0.650 0.548 1.289
0.700 0.551 1.200
0.600 0.641 1.299
0.557 0.495 1.245
No.ofgenerations=61
Asrc
Asrm
Asrc
Asrm
(m )
E03
7
2
2
3
2
6
6
9
7
4
2
2
7
2
6
4
2
(m )
E03
4
2
4
1
2
4
2
3
2
5
3
4
4
4
2
3
3
(m )
E03
4
4
2
1
2
4
4
5
4
6
2
5
6
2
2
2
2
(m )
E03
4
2
2
1
2
1
2
4
2
3
1
2
2
2
2
2
2
hs
2lb
0.070
0.097
0.081
0.080
0.059
0.067
0.093
0.091
0.070
0.097
0.100
0.075
0.070
0.070
0.055
0.055
0.072
0.40
0.60
0.50
0.30
0.20
0.16
0.80
0.16
0.90
0.23
0.50
0.70
0.30
0.90
0.26
0.90
0.60
(m)
(m)
-
+
ASb
A
Sb
2
2
(m )
E03
6
4
6
5
3
2
1
8
5
8
1
0.9
2
6
9.7
1
0.4
(m )
E03
2
1
8
1
0.9
2
6
0.4
0.6
1
0.8
1
8
1
2
6
1
(I.D)
E+13
3.242
2.866
2.890
2.120
2.051
2.455
3.211
3.220
3.521
3.290
2.255
2.962
3.289
3.280
3.098
3.268
1.814
4.Discussions
1)EffectiveDepth
Table (15) shows the optimum values of design variables and the (effective depth/span
length)ratio.Itcanbenotedthatfortheoptimumdesign,theratioofeffectivedepthtospan
length (d/l) should be between (1/331/18). Also it can be noted from this table that the
effective depth values for solution are ranged from 280 mm up to 450 mm in comparison
with the practical rangefoundintheliteraturesforoveralldepthwhichis(300600)mmfor
spanlengthupto15m (CementandConcreteAssociationofAustralia,2003)
.
Table15:TheOptimumRatioof(EffectiveDepth/SpanLength)foraWaffleSlabwith
BandBeams
SpanLength (m)
C (I.D) d (m) br (m) S (m) d l
7
8
10
12
15
1.52E+08
1.65E+08
2.48E+08
3.24E+08
5.34E+08
0.380
0.280
0.380
0.380
0.450
0.388
0.450
0.478
0.486
0.484
1.136
1.200
1.226
1.235
1.233
1/18
1/29
1/26
1/32
1/33
877
Volume1,No 4,2011
Researcharticle
ISSN0976 4399
2)ClearSpacing
Table (16) presents the optimum values of centertocenter spacing between ribs (S) for
variousvaluesofspanlength.Constraintg3 statesthattheclearspacingbetweenribs (S -br )
shouldbelessthan750mm.Itmaybenotedthatthisconstraintisalwaysactive(i.e.theclear
spacing 750mm controls the solution). It may also be noted that the rib spacing
correspondingtotheoptimumvaluesofthedesignvariablesaretobewithintherange(600
1500)mmwhichdefinedaspracticallimitinliteratures.
Table16:TheOptimumValuesofDesignVariablesandClearSpacingbetweenRibsfor
VariousValuesofSpanLengthforaWaffleSlabwithBandBeams
SpanLength (m)
(I.D)E+08
7
8
10
12
15
1.52
1.65
2.48
3.24
5.34
d (m) br (m)
S (m)
S -br(m)
S l
0.380
0.280
0.380
0.380
0.450
1.136
1.200
1.226
1.235
1.233
0.75
0.75
0.75
0.75
0.75
0.1623
0.1500
0.1226
0.1029
0.0822
0.388
0.450
0.478
0.486
0.484
3)RibWidth
Itmaybenoted,fromTable(16),thattheribwidthvaluescorrespondingtotheoptimumcost
are ranged from 338 mm to 486 mm, while the practical values found in the literatures are
within therange (125200)mm(CementandConcreteAssociationofAustralia,2003).
4)TopSlabDepth
The top slab depth typically(found in the literature) varies from 75 to 125 mm. From table
(14) it may be noted that the optimum values of top slab depth lie within the range (6272)
mm.
Table17:OptimumValuesoftheDesignVariablesforVariousValuesofSpanLengthfora
WaffleSlabwithBandBeams
Span
Length
(m)
7
8
10
12
15
br
(I.D)
(m)
(m)
1.52E+08
1.65E+08
2.48E+08
3.24E+08
5.34E+08
0.380
0.280
0.380
0.380
0.450
0.388
0.450
0.478
0.486
0.484
-
ASb
+
ASb
(m)
hs
(m)
2lb
(m)
(m2)
(m2)
1.136
1.200
1.226
1.235
1.233
0.065
0.064
0.072
0.065
0.062
0.60
0.60
0.60
0.60
0.60
5.00E04
6.00E04
9.31E05
9.00E04
9.39E04
1.00E03
4.00E03
1.00E03
1.00E03
3.00E03
4.1ComparisonStudy
Table (18) summarizes the results obtained from the two case studies that discussed for
various values of span length. It may be noted that the total cost of waffle slab with band
beamsishigherthanthatwithsolidheadforslabswiththesamespanlength.Theratioofthe
878
Volume1,No 4,2011
Researcharticle
ISSN0976 4399
totalcostsisfoundtobewithintherange(1.102.12).Itmayalsobenotedthatthecostratio
decreasesasthespanlengthincreases.
Table18:OptimumComparisonbetweenResultsoftheTwoCasesStudy
Span
Leng
th
(m)
7
8
10
12
15
WaffleSlabwithSolidHeads
(m)
0.317
0.286
0.450
0.515
0.810
br
(m)
0.286
0.350
0.337
0.191
0.236
(m)
1.033
1.100
1.086
0.939
0.986
C1
(I.D)
7.17E+07
9.47E+07
1.85E+08
2.93E+08
4.85E+08
WaffleSlabwithBandBeams
(m)
0.380
0.280
0.380
0.380
0.450
br
(m)
0.388
0.450
0.478
0.486
0.484
(m)
1.136
1.200
1.226
1.235
1.233
C2
(I.D)
1.52E+08
1.65E+08
2.48E+08
3.24E+08
5.34E+08
C
2C
1
2.12
1.74
1.34
1.11
1.10
5.Conclusions
Thefollowingconclusionsmaybedrawnfromthepresentstudy:
1. The population size affects the obtained optimum solution. The increasing in
population size enhances the optimum value of the total cost. This is because the
diversityoflargesizepopulation.
2. The increasing in population size (sometimes up to a certain limit) gives the final
optimumsolutioninalessnumberofgenerations.
3. For waffle slab with solid heads, the ratio of effective depth to span length (d/l)
should be (1/281/19) to get the optimum design, while for waffle slab with band
beamsalongcolumnscenterlines,itshouldbe(1/331/18).
4. The clear spacing corresponding to the optimum values of the design variables is
found to be within the range (6001500) mm which defined as practical limit in
literatures.
5. Thecentertocenterspacingbetweenribsisfoundtobe(6.57%14.76%)ofthespan
length to get the optimum total cost of waffle slabwithsolidheads,whileitshould
be (8.22%16.23%) of the span length for optimum designofwaffleslabwithband
beams.
6. The rib width values, corresponding to the optimum cost of waffle slab with span
lengthlessthan15m,arerangedfrom191mmto350mmforslabswithsolidheads
andform388mmto486mmforslabswithbandbeams.Thepracticalvaluesfound
in the literaturesarewithintherange(125200)mmforspanlengthlessthan15m.
Thismeansthattheoptimumsolutiongiveshigherribwidthvaluesthanthepractical
limit,so,itcanbeconcludedthattheoptimumsolutiontendstogetaflatplate.
7. The optimum values of the top slab depth are found to be withintherange(6575)
mm for slab with solid heads and between (6272) mm for slab with band beams,
whilethepracticallimitfoundintheliteraturesarerangedfrom75mmto125mm.
8. The increasing in the ratio of concrete cost relative to the steel cost causes a
decreasing in the rib spacing and the crosssectional area of the ribs. While the
increasinginthesteelunitcostrelativetotheconcreteunitcostcausesanincreasing
inthecrosssectionalareaoftheribs.
9. Thecostofformworkoftheslabisfoundtobe(85%137%)ofthetotalslabcostfor
slabswithsolidheadsandforslabswithbandbeamsis(30%64%).
879
Volume1,No 4,2011
Researcharticle
ISSN0976 4399
10. For same span length, it is found that the total cost of waffle slab withbandbeams
along columns centerlines is (10%112%) higher than the total cost of waffle slab
withsolidheads.
6.References
1. AmericanConcreteInstitute, BuildingCodeRequirementsforStructuralConcrete&
PCA Notes on 31805,, American Concrete Institute, Farmington Hills, Michigan,
2005.
2. Ibrahim, N.A., Optimal Design of Reinforced Concrete TBeam Floors,,. M.Sc.
Thesis,UniversityofBasrah,Iraq,1999.
3. Hadi, M.N.S., Optimum Design of Reinforced Concrete Continuous Beams by
GeneticAlgorithms,,.ProceedingsoftheEighthInternationalConferenceonCiviland
StructuralEngineeringComputing,2001.
4. Yokota, T., Wada, S., Taguchi, T., and Gen, M., GABased Method for a Single
Reinforce Concrete Beam Optimal T CrossSection Design Problem using the
Ultimate Strength,,. Proceedings of the Fifth Asia Pacific Industrial Engineering and
ManagementSystemsConference,2004.
5. Sahab, M.G., Ashour, A.F., and Toropov., V.V., Cost optimization of reinforced
concreteflatslabbuildings,,.EngineeringStructures,Vol.27,pp.313322,2005.
6. Prasad, J., Chander, S., Ahuja, A.K., Optimum Dimensions of Waffle Slab for
Medium Size Floors,,. Asian Journal of Civil Engineering (Building and Housing),
Vol.6,NO.3,pp183197,(2005).
7. Sivanandam, S.N., and Deepa, S.N., Introduction to Genetic Algorithms,,. Verlag
BerlinHeidelberg,2008.
8. Guide to LongSpan Concrete Floors,,, Cement and Concrete Association of
Australia,2003.
880

Waffle Slab2

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Waffle Slab2

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

INTERNATIONALJOURNALOFCIVILANDSTRUCTURALENGINEERING

Costoptimumdesignofreinforcedconcretestructuresisreceiving moreand moreattention

Where(qu )isthefactoredcombinationofdeadandliveloads,(qu =1.2wd + 1.6wl).

(af 1l2 l 1)= 0

(af 1l2 l 1) 1.0

analog to natural crossbreeding, or the copies may be modified, in an analog to genetic

8Sectionsaretensioncontrolled ifthe nettensilestrain intheextremetensilesteel(et )is

(0.85 b f ' b) d - 0.003- 0.005> 0

0.85 fc' a br d - + 0.85 fc' hs (b- br ) d - s

+ 0.85 fc' hs (b- br ) d - s ]

+ 0.85 fc' hs (b- br ) d - s ]

Asi = Asrc , Asrc ,Asrm ,Asrm

wd =dl + [(S hs + br ((1+ tt ) d - hs)) l 1 24 2 1 + 1]/(l 1 l 2)

l 1 24 2 S + 1]/(l 1 l 2))+ 1.6 wl

(ASb fy (d- ( ASb fy /1.7 fc' br ))) + S

WSb = Weightofsteel reinforcementofthebeam(ton)

7.17 0.317 0.286 1.033 4.75

0.147 0.721 0.075

9.47 0.286 0.350 1.100 1.34

18.4 0.450 0.337 1.086 20.0

29.3 0.515 0.191 0.939 20.0

48.5 0.810 0.236 0.986 6.40

loadof4kN/m .Otherdataare:thecylinderconcretecompressivestrength fc =30MPa,the

( f )=460 MPa, the cost of concrete per unit volume (Cc)=175000

formwork (Cf )=10000(I.D/m ).

0.850 0.716 1.460

You might also like