Journal of Critical Reviews

ISSN- 2394-5125 Vol 7 , Issue 9, 2020

COMPARISON OF DIFFERENT BEAMS IN A SLAB SYSTEM TO ECONOMIZE ROOF SLAB

SYSTEM
Tadi Venkata Satyanarayana1, Divya Anusha Naidu2, Dr.Dumpa Venkateswarlu3
1,2,3,4,5 Department of civil engineering Godavari Institute of Engineering and Technology (Autonomous), Rajahmundry, AP,
India

Received: 10.03.2020 Revised: 07.04.2020 Accepted: 09.05.2020

Abstract
Over the last few decades’ considerable attention has been raised on the engineering behavior of structure under the non-linear
dynamic loading and linear loading. The structural design and analysis is developing with the more advanced research software’s
like Staad Pro, Etabs, SAFE , SAAP2000, Abaqus, Robot Structural Analysis. Now days the structure designed for hundred to two
hundred years of serviceability by considering the analysis like serviceability along with the creep analysis. Due that the structures
are designed with higher strengths on the other side the structures somewhat becomes heavier with reinforcement and concrete
structures. Ultimately the cost of construction also increases.
From past 30 years so many researchers are developing different methodologies in design and analysis of structure with different
configuration of the structural elements like composite beams and slabs, shear wall systems, heavy reinforced structures, fiber
reinforced concrete elements and steel structures.
In this thesis the different structural slab systems with different beam systems are designed and the deflection, bending moment
results are analyzed and most economical system are observed by made a comparative analysis of different systems and by taking
the account of strength and serviceability parameters. For this analysis the Etabs software is adopted to analyze the different slab
systems with different type of beams.

Keywords: structural slab systems, bending moment , serviceability, shear wall systems, linear loading, non linear dynamic loading

© 2020 by Advance Scientific Research. This is an open-access article under the CC BY license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/)
DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.31838/jcr.07.09.146

INTRODUCTION These steel structures are adopted for residential,

In general the building system comprises of different elements as
in the sequence of load it starts from slab which is plate element
or area element which is the platform to take live load and dead
load from both livelihood and objects. This are element transfers
load to the column by direct way in building system or by
mediating of line elements like beams or by area elements like
slab drops or column heads in case of flat slabs. Those elements
transfer load to compression members like columns
k.SriAnandini(2017),
worked on the behavior of the high rise building when subjected
to the higher lateral forces by adopting the zone -5, for
calculating the earth quake dynamic forced. She worked on G+6
commercial building as a part of M-tech thesis.
commercial and industrial purpose.it takes less time when
compared to RCC for construction and have higher scrap
value.
• Composite structures: in this type two different
construction materials are adopted to minimize the size of
the structural elements and to resist the heavy loads. Best
example is the concrete slab resting on steel flexure
member.
• R.C.C Structure: The structure made of concrete and the
steel reinforcement, where the reinforcement is embedded
in concrete is termed as reinforced concrete structure. It is
the most used type of structure even for industries also.

Karthik.jainu(2019),
worked on the behavior on structures and structural elements
when subjected to rare dynamic forces like blast loading by
adopting triangular loading pulse as a function of dynamic
response.

Nagendra kadimella(2019),
worked on the analysis and design of the g+20 storey residential
building subjected the higher wind load , which cannot be
calculated as per codal wind coefficients. This analysis is
completely based on the gust wind load recommendation. Fig-1 : RCC structure

Type of structure:
• At first before starting the design one should first fix which
type of building is going to design based on material’s
weather it is a steel structure or composite structure, RCC
structure. It selection is mostly based on the forces acting
on the building and depends on the earth quake zone of the
construction site.
• Steel structure: all the structural elements in structure
made by structural steel is simply termed as steel structure.

Journal of critical reviews 754

 COMPARISON OF DIFFERENT BEAMS IN A SLAB SYSTEM TO ECONOMIZE ROOF SLAB SYSTEM

and those adjacent columns will connect to core system. Those

deep beams are also called as belt truss elements

Framed tube system

in this system the compression members ( columns) are closely
space by deep beams to get the tube like action in the inner area
and the outer area also. This tube action increase the stiffness of
the tall story building.

Tube in tube system

tube in tube structure is asme as the framed tube section but in
inner area of building instead of closely space columns with deep
beams there is a core wall system and the our areas is same as
Fig-2 : steel structure the framed tube system. This system is highly efficient to resist
the lateral forces by providing the sifness in all the global
direcions.
Out of these systems the structural wall system was adopted for
this residential project because there is no much complexity in
plan it is just like butterfly shaped architectural plan.

Fig-3 : composite structure

Structural frame types:

In this particular thesis the analysis and design of RCC building is
incorporated completely. While designing the R.C.C structure one Fig-4 : Structural wall system
can adopt different type of structure based on vertical loads and
forces acting horizontal those are

Structural wall system

the structural wall system consist of rcc walls which are
connected with floor diaphragms and resists the axial forces and
shear, flexure forces as a result of axial and horizontal loadings.

Moment frame system

the moment frame system is the simple beam and column frame
structure.

Moment frame along with structural wall system Fig-5: Moment frame system
in this particular system both the column beam frame type and
structural walls are present. These two types of structural
elements share the loads based on their relative stiffness of the
element. The stiffness depends upon size and shape of the
structure.

Structural wall systems with flat sla

this type of system mostly used for commercial building with
large area. In this system the flats are adopted as area element
and this flat slab directly rests on structural walls without beams.
As we already know that structural wall is capable of flexure
resistance, hence there is no need of beams.
Fig-6 : Moment frame along with Structural wall system
Core and out rigger structural wall system
in this particular system the central part consist of core
structural wall and outer perimeter does not have walls and
instead of walls the columns are adopted to carry gravity loads.
These columns and core wall system are connected by beams
called out triggers and the perimeter columns are called as
outrigger columns. This type of system is mostly adopted for
high rise buildings to get more stiffness against the lateral loads.

Core out trigger belt wall system

This system is almost same as core out trigger structural wall Fig-7 : Structural wall systems with flat slab
system expect about the perimeter column connections. In this
system the perimeter columns should not connect directly to
core system it connects to adjacent column through deep beams

Journal of critical reviews 755

 COMPARISON OF DIFFERENT BEAMS IN A SLAB SYSTEM TO ECONOMIZE ROOF SLAB SYSTEM

• Dead load confining to IS875-1987 (PART-1)

• Live load confining to IS875-1987 (PART-2)
• Wind load confining to IS875-1987 (PART-3)
• Snow load confining to IS875-1987 (PART-4)
• Accidential and other impact load confining to IS875-1987
(PART-5)
• Earth quake load confining to IS1893-2016

Fig-8 : Core and out rigger structural wall system
Load Path Mechanism
in general we assume that the loads will transfer from top to
bottom of the structure due to the pull of gravitational forces. But
in all the cases it may not happen like that, as we all know the
dead and live load will acts in global direction and transfers from
top floor to bottom floor and to foundation system. But in lateral
load cases and in some dynamic load cases which based on
spectral analysis will vary the direction. All those paths was
explained below.

Fig-9 : Core out trigger belt wall systems

Fig-12 : Axial load path

Fig-10 : Framed tube system

Fig-13 : Moment distribution path

Fig-11 : Tube in tube system

Loads:
It is import to have a clear idea about loads before starting the
designof the project, the loads intensity is based on the purpose
of the structure. For every purpose it may be commercial,
industrial, residential, there is a provisions in Indian codes. Fig-14 : Wind Load Path
before going to in depth we should know about different types of
loads.
• DEAD LOAD
• LIVE LOAD
• WIND LOAD
• SNOW LOAD
• EARTH QUAKE LOAD
• ACIDENTIAL AND OTHER IMPACT LOADS

Based on the type of load there are separate codes in indian Fig-15 : Earth Quake Load Path
standard codes. All the loads comes under IS875-1987.

Journal of critical reviews 756

 COMPARISON OF DIFFERENT BEAMS IN A SLAB SYSTEM TO ECONOMIZE ROOF SLAB SYSTEM

ANALYSIS OF BUILDING TO OBSERVE THE RESULTS OF Design wind pressure (Pz) = 0.6 x Vz2
INDIVIDUAL ELEMENTS Pz= 0.6 x 502
For analysis of the residential building out of all above =1500 N/m2
mentioned design methodologies, limit state design methodology = 1.50 kN/m2
is adopted for the design of this residential building because of
serviceability criteria and strength criteria satisfactory results. Table-2 : Story vise wind forces values
Limit state method is used for the design of the structure. In this
method, each member ofthe structure is designed to satisfy
Serviceability and collapse criteria.Section-5 of IS. 456-2000
has given clear guidelines for Limit state method of design.
Thesame design is adopted with the suggested Characteristic
loads of IS 875-1987. In this analysis and design the architectural
plan is imported to the ETABS software as input file. Then the
architectural file is the base for the model.

Coefficients of winds are calculated on the basis of IS 875

recommendations, the values of Height and width and length.
The H/L, L/W are calculated and the pressure coefficients are
observed from the tables which is given below
Windward coefficient
In x direction = 0.7
In y direction = 0.7
Fig-16 : 3D MODEL OF BUILDING
Leeward coefficient
A.MATERIALS USED:
In x direction= 0.25
For slabs - M25 Grade of concrete
For Beams-M25 Grade of concrete In y direction = 0.25

B.LOAD CALCULATIONS :- DEAD LOAD AND LIVE LOAD D. EARTHQUAKE ANALYSIS

As per the IS:875-1987 the loads that are considered for the Location : Rajahmundry
residential project from the part -1 of code and 2,3,4. Those loads Earthquake load zone
for residential project are tabulated below.
Table-1 : floor loads Zone Factor
6.4.2 Table 3)
Time Period
clause 7.6.2)
Considering building with infilled wall,
At X direction
At Y Direction
= III (IS 1893-2002 Part 1 Fig. 1
seismic zone of India)& (IS
1893-2002 part 1 annex E)
= 0.16 (1893-2002 Part 1 Clause
= Ta (As per 1893-2002 part 1
= 0.09h/√d
= 0.09 x 21/ √17.1663
= 0.456 Sec
= 0.09h/√d
= 0.09 x 21 / √14.0208
= 0.504 Sec

Importance Factor = 1(As per 1893-2002 part 1 clause 7.2.3

CWIND LOAD CALCULATIONS:
Table 8)
Wind loads will be calculated in accordance with IS 875 2015 :
Design Acceleration Spectrum
Part 3.
Ah = Z/2 x I/R x Sa/g, (As per 1893-2002 part 1
Design wind speed Vz = Vb x K1 x K2x K3 clause 6.4.2)

Vb= Basic wind velocity for Rajahmundry

= 50 m/s (As per IS 875 2015 part 3 clause 6.2 anex A)
k1-Risk coefficient for a design life of 50 years= 1.00
(As per IS 875 2015 part 3 clause 6.3.1 table 1 (General building)
K2= 1.00 (As per 875 2015 part 3 clause 6.3.2 table 2)
k3= 1.0 (As per Is 875 2015part 1 per 3 clause 6.3.3)
Vz= 50 x 1.00 x 1.0 x 1
= 50 m/sec

Journal of critical reviews 757

 COMPARISON OF DIFFERENT BEAMS IN A SLAB SYSTEM TO ECONOMIZE ROOF SLAB SYSTEM

Fig-17 : Lateral load on the structure due to EQ-X
After analysis of the structure we must check the structure
stability and serviceability as per IS code recommendation’s. The
checks involve in uncracked modes analysis check against earth
quake forces and wind forces and self-weight. After checking the
deflection value one should go with creep analysis for determine
the long term deflection as a criteria of service. The limit state of
serviceability and limit state of collapse checks also performed
for lateral forces. These checks are performed when static base
shear is equal to dynamic base shear the structure is in
equilibrium position in the event of earth quake.

Static base shear in x, y direction should equal to respective

direction Dynamic base shear
Static base shear in x direction EX= 883.841
Fig-18 : Lateral load on the structure due to EQ-X

In direction Y the lateral loads are calculated and made a

pictorial representation and also tabulated the same

Static base shear in y direction EY= 883.841

Fig-19 : Lateral load on the structure due to EQ-Y

Dynamic base shear in x direction SPECX= 883.84

Fig-20 : Lateral load on the structure due to EQ-Y

E. LOAD COMBINATIONS:
The load combinations are adopted for two design criteria’s like
strength design and serviceability design

SERVICE LOAD COMBINATIONS:

• 1DEAD LOAD+1 LIVE LOAD

• 1 DEAD LOAD+1 EARTH QUAKE LOAD (SPECTRAL)
• 0.8 DEAD+0.8 LIVE+0.8 EARH QUAKE (SPECTRAL) Dynamic base shear in Y direction SPECY= 883.84
STRENGHT LOAD COMBINATIONS:
• 1.5 DEAD LOAD+1.5LIVE LOAD
• 1.2 DEAD LOAD+1.2LIVE LOAD+/-1.2EQL/WL
• 1.5 DEAD LOAD+/-1.5EQL/WL
• 0.9 DEAD LOAD+/-1.5EQL/WL
• 1.5 DEAD LOAD

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

STABILITY CHECKS

Journal of critical reviews 758

 COMPARISON OF DIFFERENT BEAMS IN A SLAB SYSTEM TO ECONOMIZE ROOF SLAB SYSTEM

65 %

AS SHOWN ABOVE THE Sum Ux = 69.93 % , Sum Uy = 72.62 %, Sum Rz = 77.86 %

EX=SPECX=883.84,
EY=SPECY=883.84. The structure is stable according to base 9. No. of modes given should be in such a way that around 85%
shear. to 98% modal participating mass ratio shall be achieved.
2. Inter story drift ratio should be less than 0.004 x height of floor
0.004 x 3=0.012 (Allowable)
SPEC X = 0.00003801<0.012
SPEC Y= 0.000025<0.012

3. Maximum deflection allowed against wind is H/500

H /500=(18X 1000) / 500 = 36 mm
Wx = 0.22mm
Wy= 0.22 mm

4. Maximum allowed deflection against earthquake is H/250

H/250= (21x1000) / 250 =84mm

SPEC X = 0.65 mm,
SPEC Y = 0.44mm, 10. As the deflection of slab is 0.34 mm it should check against
the long term deflection , creep deflection by changing the
5. Maximum deflection against cantilever or any individual parameters to material nonlinearity for the span of the structure
element allowed 100 years.
span/350 or 20mm (After occupancy)
Span /350 =3000/ 350 = 8.57mm (allowable) As per is code the max creep coefficient for 1 year is 2.2 for
higher serviceability it is adopted as 3.

The creep deflection =3x deflection of slab

=3x0.34
=1.02mm
Therefore the long term deflection value is 1.02mm < allowable
value 8.57mm. so the long term deflection also lesser than
allowable value so there is no need for creep analysis separately.

11. For the serviceability check the moment of inertia values get
changed by modification values as discussed earlier in
Fig-21 : Deflection in slab modification factors topic.

Deflection in slab – axial in column = 0.796-0.482= 0.314 The service modification factors are:-

0.34<8.57mm …………………………..Safe Beams:

• M.O.I about axis -2=0.5
6. Guide line for fundamental time period = 0.1Xnumber of floors • M.O.I about axis -3=0.5
= 0.1X6
=0.6 (+0.2 vitiation Slabs:
acceptable) • Bending m11direction =0.35
• Bending m22direction =0.35
• Bending m12direction =0.35

WALLS:
No property modifers are needed

Time period observed is 0.159 secs <0.6

……..SAFE

7. First mode of vibration is performed to be translation mode

UX = 69.93(TRASLATION)
RZ=0.0001, ( 0% ROTATION)

Fig-22 :Property modifiers for Beams

8. Sum of modal mass participation in 3RD mode should be more

than

Journal of critical reviews 759

 COMPARISON OF DIFFERENT BEAMS IN A SLAB SYSTEM TO ECONOMIZE ROOF SLAB SYSTEM

True Deflection in slab – axial in column = 1.286-0.485=

0.801mm

0.801mm<8.57mm …………………………..Safe

13.for the check of strength criteria the base shears in both the
directions are observed and made equal with dynamic base shear
by adopting the scaling of base shears after adopting the
modification factors as discussed below.

Fig-23 :Property modifiers for Slabs
The story shears in both x, y directions are observed and made
equal by using the new scale factor, the formula fornew scale
factor is
Then design the entire model and find the all the structural
elements are passed te design or not. In case any member, it may
be axial member or flexure member are failing. Observe the
report of the member and take the precautions to pass that
member by increasing the size or modifying the torsion factor
value if it fails in torsion and shear.

𝐸𝑋
X Existing SCALE FACTOR = NEW SCALE FACTOR in X- The strength modification factors are:-
𝑆𝑃𝐸𝐶𝑋
Direction Beams:
𝐸𝑌
M.O.I about axis -2=0.35
X Existing SCALE FACTOR = NEW SCALE FACTOR in Y- M.O.I about axis -3=0.35
𝑆𝑃𝐸𝐶𝑌
Direction Slabs:
Bending m11direction =0.25
Then the new base shears are Bending m22direction =0.25
Bending m12direction =0.25
EX=883.84 KN
EY=883.84 KN
SPECX=883.84 KN Table-3 : COMPARITITVE STUDY OF ECONOMIC POINT OF
SPECY=883.84 KN ROOF SLAB SYSTEM

Therefore EX=SPECX, EY=SPECY.

12. for the serviceability check of Maximum deflection against

cantilever or any individual element allowed (As per IS 456-2000
clause 23.2)

span/350 or 20mm (After occupancy)

Span /350 =3000/ 350 = 8.57mm (allowable)

Table-4 : COMPARITITVE STUDY OF STRENGTH POINT OF

ROOF SLAB SYSTEM

Fig-24 :Deflection in slab

Fig-25 :Axial shortening of column

Journal of critical reviews 760

 COMPARISON OF DIFFERENT BEAMS IN A SLAB SYSTEM TO ECONOMIZE ROOF SLAB SYSTEM

CONCLUSION Publications and Thesis:

After analyzing the different slab systems with different types of 1. k.SriAnandini(2017), worked on the “Behavior of the high
beam elements the following conclusions are made. This study rise building when subjected to the higher lateral forces by
made a clear idea about the design of conventional structure and adopting the zone -5”.
other structures and made a clear idea about economic 2. Karthik.jainu(2019), worked on the “Analysis and impact of
performance and strength performances of all the structural blast on structures and structural elements”
systems as concluded below. 3. Nagendra kadimella(2019), worked on the “analysis and
design of the g+20 storey residential building” .
• Steel deck slab systems is more economical is more 4. Z.H. yang (2014), he worked on the behavior of a structure
economical due to light material when compared to r.c.c when made with strut and ties than regular columns at the
system. The scrap value is also high. event of earth quake. The calculation of response spectrum
• The composite system comes in second economical analysis and reference time history developed based on
structural system when compared to steel deck system. model pushover analysis.
This system also has high scrap value and saves lot of time 5. A.M. JAFFAR(2015),worked on “high rise building design
in construction process. and analysis by using flat slab and circular columns”.
• The precast slab system comes in 3rd most economical
system of structure due to its low scrap values. But in mass
production of this system may change the cost of
manufacturing the structural systems and elements. This
the most time efficient system among all the systems.
• The combined R.C.C system and composite system have
almost same deflection values even in short term deflection
and long term deflection due to same R.C.C Column axial
shortening.
• The steel deck slab system have very high deflection value
when compared to other system , due to its light weight
structure.
• Inter story drift ratio is much lesser than allowable value
due to usage of structural wall system.
• Due to structural wall system the lateral stiffness of the
structure got increased and the deflections due to wind
forces are observed below 1mm.
• Due to structural wall system the lateral stiffness of the
structure got increased and the deflections due to earth
quake forces are observed below 1mm.
• The deflection of the slab and beam elements is observed
below 1mm.
• Natural frequency and time period of the structure is within
the range.
• The translation and rotation requirements for different
odes as per IS:1893-2016 code recommendations are
achieved
• The deflection of the slab and beam elements for long term
creep is observed as1mm.
• The deflection of the slab and beam elements for
serviceability criteria is observed below 1mm.
• In serviceability design the Inter story drift ratio is much
lesser than allowable value due to usage of structural wall
system.
• Due to structural wall system the lateral stiffness of the
structure got increased and the deflections due to earth
quake forces are observed below 1mm even in serviceabilty
checks.
• The settlement of raft foundation adopted is 20mm which is
below than the allowable limit 25mm.
• The soil pressure is below 80 KN/M2, Where allowable is
100 KN/M2.
• No uplift is observed.

REFRENCES
Codes and Hand books:
• IS 875(Part 1): 1987
• IS 875(Part 2): 1987
• IS 875(Part 3): 1987
• IS 1893:2002
• IS 13920: 2016
• IS 456: 2000
• IS 16700-1983

Journal of critical reviews 761