A COMPARITIVE STUDY OF SOLID SLAB WITH RIBBED SLAB IN BALE

ROBE TOWN, ETHIOPIA

KIRAN R1 AND JIMY MERIN ISSAC2
1
Asst. Prof, Dept. of Construction Technology & Management, Maddawalabu University, Ethiopia
2
Asst. Prof, Dept. of Civil Engineering, Maddawalabu University, Ethiopia
Abstract- Hollow floor slabs or ribbed slabs, a product of modern designs, require less
reinforcement, formwork and concrete as a result of the holes, space, foams and balls that are
incorporated in the slab. The study proves the application of ribbed floor slabs can enhance the
visual appeal, reduce the construction period & cost of construction while comparing conventional
methods of slab construction. The research methodology relies largely on the survey questionnaire
which was collected from the local building contractors, engineers, architects, quantity surveyors,
builders & consultants who are major participants in the construction activities. Also, quantity
surveying for the slab has been done interims of the cost. To compare the two slab systems the
primary data were collected through the administration of a structured questionnaire and site
visitation while the secondary data were gathered from the review of past projects, journals,
conference proceedings, articles etc.
Keywords- Ribbed Slabs, Visual Appeal, Survey, Solid Slab, Reinforcement.

I. INTRODUCTION

A slab is a flat two dimensional planar structural element having thickness small compared to
its other two dimensions. It provides a working flat surface or a covering shelter in buildings and
primarily transfers the load by bending in one or two directions. Reinforced concrete slabs behave
basically as flexural members and the design is similar to that of beams.

The floor system of a structure can take many forms of slabs such as in situ solid slab, ribbed
slab or pre-cast units. Slabs may be supported on monolithic concrete beam, steel beams, walls or
directly over the columns. The design and construction of floor slabs are usually solid, adequately
reinforced in 2-direction and concreted. The construction of these slabs requires much formwork,
high number of reinforcement in both ways (top and bottom) and high volume of concrete which
resulted in an ample time or duration of construction. Research over the years has brought forward
designs that have led to novel construction techniques of floor slabs.

One of it is ribbed slab system, which require less reinforcement, less formwork and less
concrete as a result of the holes, space, foams and balls that are incorporated in the slab. “Lai (2010)
attested to the fact that holes or voids, which are created in the floors replaces the ineffective
concrete in the neutral zone of the slab, thereby decreasing the dead weight and increasing the
efficiency of the slab construction industry.” These now require a different method of on-site
construction of such slabs to achieve its design which could enhance time savings during
construction. “Lutz (2002) investigated hollow floors from the aspect of prefabrication. In this
method, the floor is manufactured or prefabricated from the factory and just brought to site for
assemblage through anchorage.
One of the advantages of this method is the delivery in time which cannot be compared to the
in-situ construction”.

DOI:10.21884/IJMTER.2018.5107.3GK3K 87
 International Journal of Modern Trends in Engineering and Research (IJMTER)
Volume: 5, Issue: 04, [April– 2018] ISSN (Online):2349–9745 ; ISSN (Print):2393-8161

II. TYPES OF SLAB SYSTEM

A. Solid Slabs or Concrete Slabs

This system consists of beams framing into columns and supporting slabs spanning between
the beams. The relatively deep beams provide a stiff floor capable of long spans, and able to resist
lateral loads. However, the complications of beam formwork, coordination of services, and overall
depth of floor have led to a decrease in the popularity of this type of floor. The traditional reinforced
concrete beam and- slab floor has an economical span „L‟ of D x 15 for a single span and D x 20 for
a multi-span, where D is the depth of the slab plus beam. The depth of slab between the beams can
be initially sized using the spanto depth ratios for a flat plate. Pre stressing is not normally used with
this system.

A. (i). Advantages
 Traditional effective solution.
 Economic for small to medium spans.
 Familiarity with local market

A. (ii). Disadvantages
 Penetrations through beams for large ducts are difficult to handle
 Depth of floor
 Greater floor‐to‐floor height.
 Affect fixation of electrical & mechanical services.
 Economic lose in cost and time for large spans.

B. Ribbed Slab
They provide a very good form of construction where slab vibration is an issue, such as
laboratories and hospitals. Ribbed slabs are made up of wide band beams running between columns
with narrow ribs spanning the orthogonal direction. Normally the ribs and the beams are of same
depth. Ribbed floors consisting of equally spaced ribs usually supported directly by columns. They
are either one-way spanning systems known as ribbed slab or a two-way ribbed system known as a
waffle slab. This form of construction is not very common because of the formwork costs and the
low fire rating. A 120-mm-thick slab with a minimum rib thickness of 125 mm for continuous ribs is
required to achieve a 2- hour fire rating. A rib thickness greater than 125 mm is usually required to
accommodate tensile and shear reinforcement. Ribbed slabs are suitable for medium to heavyloads,
can span reasonable distances, and are very stiff and particularly suitable where the soffit is exposed.
Slab depths typically vary from 75 to 125 mm and rib widths from 125 to 200 mm. Rib spacing of
600 to 1500 mm can be used. The overall depth of the floor typically varies from 300 to 600 mm
with overall spans of up to 15 m if reinforced, longer if post tensioned. The use of ribs to the soffit of
the slab reduces the quantity of concrete and reinforcement and also the weight of the floor. The
saving of materials will be offset by the complication in formwork and placing of reinforcement.
However, formwork complication is minimized by use of standard, modular, reusable formwork,
usually made from polypropylene or fiberglass and with tapered sides to allow stripping. For ribs at
1200-mm centre (to suit standard forms) the economical reinforced concrete floor span „L‟ is
approximately D x 15 for a single span and D x 22 for a multi span, where D is the overall floor
depth. The one-way ribs are typically designed as T beams, often spanning in the long direction. A
solid drop panel is required at the columns and load bearing walls for shear and moment resistance

B. (i). Advantages
 Savings on weight and materials
 Long spans
 Attractive soffit appearance if exposed

@IJMTER-2018, All rights Reserved 88

 International Journal of Modern Trends in Engineering and Research (IJMTER)
Volume: 5, Issue: 04, [April– 2018] ISSN (Online):2349–9745 ; ISSN (Print):2393-8161

 Economical when reusable formwork pans used

 Vertical penetrations between ribs are easy.

B. (ii). Disadvantages
 Depth of slab between the ribs may control the fire rating
 Requires special or proprietary formwork
 Greater floor-to-floor height
 Large vertical penetrations are more difficult to handle.

III. OBJECTIVE OF THE STUDY

The General objective of this study is to compare solid slab & ribbed slab for its reliability in
construction. More specifically the project aims to compare the duration, cost, constructability and
visual appeal in constructing ribbed slab and solid slabs and thereby finding the most effective one.
Also, the research helps to make profit to the client and contractor thereby the construction industry.

IV. METHODOLOGY

To obtain strong and reliable findings after the literature study the research methodology was
structured into two stages. The first part was questionnaire survey and the second was quantitative
analysis. Whereas, questionnaire survey could cover a broad range of the study in fulfilling the
objectives. After each stage of study proper analysis and recommendations has been done.

A. Questionnaire Survey
A semi - structured questionnaire was prepared for the data collection. It contained questions
related to the comparison of ribbed slab and solid slab interims of cost quality and time. The
comparative study has been classified into General Comparison, Time Comparison, Constructability
Comparison, & Visual Appeal. The questionnaire sample was distributed to contractors, consultants,
clients and key professionals. The questionnaire sample is shown below in Table 1.Under general
comparison where SS denotes solid slab, RS denotes ribbed slab & NR stand for not responded.
Likewise in the following comparisons using the median method V.L denotes very long, L
represents long, V.E for very easy, V.H for very high, E stands for easy, H represents high & M is
for medium.

Table 1. Sample questionnaire

A. GENERAL COMPARISON

Sl. Questions SS RS NR Remark

No
1 Slab which is most used and preferable for
the construction in general. (Respective
Area/Region)
2 Slab used for commercial buildings.
3 Slab used for educational buildings.
4 Slab used for residential buildings.
5 Slab used for hospital buildings.
B. TIME COMPARISON
Median
Sl. Questions Solid Slabs Ribbed Slabs
No V.L L M V.L L M
6 Time required for formwork construction

@IJMTER-2018, All rights Reserved 89

 International Journal of Modern Trends in Engineering and Research (IJMTER)
Volume: 5, Issue: 04, [April– 2018] ISSN (Online):2349–9745 ; ISSN (Print):2393-8161

7 Time required for placing of reinforcement

8 Time required for placing concrete?
9 Time required for curing?
10 Time required for striking off formwork?
C. CONSTRUCTABILITY COMPARISON
Median
Sl. Questions Solid Slabs Ribbed Slabs
No H M E V.E H M E V.
E
17 Requirement of Labour
18 Ease of Pouring Concrete
19 Ease of Tying & Placing Reinforcement?
20 Ease of Making Formwork?
21 Ease of Working for Labourers with tools?
22 Ease of Installing Mechanical Lines
23 Ease of Installing Electrical Conduits
24 Ease of installing Plumbing Pipes & Lines
D. VISUAL APPEAL
Sl. Questions Median
No Solid Slabs Ribbed Slabs
M H V M H VH
H
29 Floor to floor height?
30 Number of columns required?
31 Number of beams required?
32 Default Ceiling finish?
33 Floor to floor height?
34 Number of columns required?
35 Number of beams required?

B. Data Analysis Method

The respondents were requested to judge the significance or their view on each question.
There were many criteria that respondents may need to consider. The survey was based on the
median. In a distribution, median is the value of the variable which divides it in to two equal halves.
In an ordered series of data median is an observation lying exactly in the middle of the series. It is
the middle most value in the sense that the number of values less than the median is equal to the
number of values greater than it. If X , X ….…X be the observations, then the numbers arranged in
1 2 n
th
ascending order will be X , X , …X , where X is i smallest value. ⇒ X < X < …<X
[1] [2] [n] [i] [1] [2] [n

V. RESULTS

A. Questionnaire Survey Result

A total number of 20 questionnaires were distributed which represent 100% for the study.
Out of that a total of 15 questionnaires were returned which represent 75% and 5 questionnaires
were not returned which represent 25% of the total 100%. Since the 15 returned questionnaires
represent over 75% of the total distributed, the sample size for the research was set at 15 based on
the returned questionnaire. Also, out of 15 a few returned unanswered.

@IJMTER-2018, All rights Reserved 90

 International Journal of Modern Trends in Engineering and Research (IJMTER)
Volume: 5, Issue: 04, [April– 2018] ISSN (Online):2349–9745 ; ISSN (Print):2393-8161

1. General Comparison

11 11
9 9

6
5
4 4

1
0
MOST USED & COMMERCIAL EDUCATIONAL RESIDENTIAL HOSPITAL BUILDINGS
PREFERABLE BUILDINGS BUILDINGS BUILDINGS

Solid Slab(SS) Ribbed Slab(RS)

Figure 1. General Comparison

The data labelled in the above graph represents number of questionnaire samples suggested
the suitable slab construction method under each headings studied. Most of the respondents chose
solid slab as most preferable. The reason behind it may be the unawareness about the benefits of
ribbed slab construction. Also, everybody feel comfortable in following the traditional way of
construction.

2. Time Comparison 1 --- Very Long

2 --- Long
3
3 --- Medium

2 2 2 2

1 1 1 1

FORM WORK PLACING PLACING CONCRETE CURING STRIKKING OFF

CONSTRUCTION REINFORCEMENT FORMWORK

Solid Slab Ribbed Slab

Figure 2. Time Comparison

The time comparisons of solid slab and ribbed slab shows that 60% the respondents selected
solid slab as time consuming and the rest 40% of the respondent selected ribbed slab. That is the
construction time required for solid slab is more for greater spans. From the form work construction
to the striking off of formwork the time required for solid slab construction is more than that of
ribbed slab construction. So, the current generation contractors & engineers prefer ribbed slab more.
Median values taken as 1, 2 & 3 which is very long, long & medium respectively.

@IJMTER-2018, All rights Reserved 91

 International Journal of Modern Trends in Engineering and Research (IJMTER)
Volume: 5, Issue: 04, [April– 2018] ISSN (Online):2349–9745 ; ISSN (Print):2393-8161

3. Constructability
3 3 3 3 3

2 2 2 2 2 2

1 1

1-----Very Easy
2-----Easy / High
3----- Medium
Solid Slab Ribbed Slab

Figure 3. Constructability
Therefore in the constructability comparison of solid slab and ribbed slab, 66.67% (10 Nos.)
of the respondent selected solid slab and 33.33% (5 Nos.) of the respondent selected ribbed slab.
From this we can conclude that construction of solid slab is easier than ribbed slab. But when we
analyse the questionnaire survey both the slabs tally each other in difficulties when we consider each
category.

4. Visual Appeal

1 1 1 1

1--- Very High

FLOOR TO FLOOR HEIGHT COLUMNS REQUIRED BEAMS REQUIRED DEFAULT CEILING FINISH
2--- High

Solid Slab Ribbed Slab

Figure 4. Visual Appeal

Generally under visual appeal comparison of solid slab and ribbed slab 50% of respondent
selected solid slab and 50% of the respondent selected ribbed slab therefore both slabs has equal
ratings for visual appeal.

B. Quantity Survey Result

An approximate cost estimation of both slab systems was done. The market rates have been
used to find out the total cost of steel reinforcement and concrete used in various elements of
structures. In this study about the cost of structure, rate of reinforcement and concrete was
considered. Birr, the currency used in Ethiopia was used for cost estimation since the work is done
there

@IJMTER-2018, All rights Reserved 92

 International Journal of Modern Trends in Engineering and Research (IJMTER)
Volume: 5, Issue: 04, [April– 2018] ISSN (Online):2349–9745 ; ISSN (Print):2393-8161

Table 2. Cost Estimation of Concrete Work

CONCRETE WORK FOR COLUMN, BEAM, SLAB AND SLAB BLOCK WORK FOR
RIBBED SLAB RESULT
Activity Cost of Ribbed Cost of Solid Cost % Cost
Slab Slab Difference Difference
Concrete Work for Columns. 6669.32 7780.88 1111.56 birr 14.29%
Concrete Work for Beams. 21788.15 22049.27 261.12birr 1.18%
Concrete Work for Solid Slab 85315.19 124844.53 39529.35 birr 31.66%
Slabs.
Slab Block Work for First 55430.93 0.00 55430.93birr 100%
Floor Ribbed Slab
TOTAL 169203.58 154674.67 14528.91 8.56%

Table 3. Cost Estimation of Reinforcement

REINFORCEMENT WORK FOR COLUMN, BEAM, AND SLAB
Activity Cost of Ribbed Cost of Solid Cost % Cost
Slab Slab Difference Difference
Column, Beam, and Slab
Reinforcement
a) Diameter 6mm 66558.38 5000.15 61558.23birr 92.48%
b) Diameter 8mm 19654.78 19654.78 0.00 0%
c) Diameter 10mm 57932.57 57932.57 0.00 0%
d) Diameter 12mm - 301008.96 301008.96birr 100%
e) Diameter 14mm 68955.73 453443.13 384487.4birr 84.79%
f) Diameter 16mm 42791.68 42791.68 0.00 0%
g) Diameter 20mm 26137.65 26137.65 0.00 0%
Precast Beam Reinforcement
a) Diameter 6mm 27321.71 0.00 27321.71birr 100%
b) Diameter 12mm 47192.50 0.00 47192.50birr 100%
c) Diameter 14mm 63902.20 0.00 63902.20birr 100%

TOTAL 420,447.2 910,968.87 490521.67 53.85%

Concrete work for ribbed slab is greater than concrete work for solid slab by 8.56% of the
total cost of concrete. Under reinforcement work, both slab systems has huge difference by 53.85%
of the total cost of reinforcement for corresponding design. Therefore cost of solid slab in more than
the cost of ribbed slab by 45.29% of the total cost of the slab.

VI. CONCLUSION

 Under visual appeal comparison of solid slab and ribbed slab 50% of respondent select solid slab
and 50% of the respondent select ribbed slab.
 In Constructability comparison of solid slab and ribbed slab, 66.67% of the respondent selected
solid slab and 33.33% of the respondent selected ribbed slab.

@IJMTER-2018, All rights Reserved 93

 International Journal of Modern Trends in Engineering and Research (IJMTER)
Volume: 5, Issue: 04, [April– 2018] ISSN (Online):2349–9745 ; ISSN (Print):2393-8161

 Under Time comparisons of solid slab and ribbed slab , 60% the respondent selected solid slab
and 40% the respondent selected ribbed slab.
 Generally the cost required for solid slab is more than the cost of ribbed slab.
 Also, ribbed slab is more economical since the reinforcement required is less.
 As we conclude the comparison between solid slab and ribbed slab all the four categories studied
shows that solid slab and ribbed slab does not make a superior difference with each other. Since
solid slab is the conventional method the respondents preferred it.

REFERENCES

[1] Olumide Afolarin Adenuga & Gboyega Sotunbo, “An Assessment of Time Variation in Solid and Hollow Floor
Construction in Lagos State, Nigeria” An International Journal on Organization, Technology and Management in
Construction, 6(1) 2014, PP 985-993.
[2] Kadir, M. R. Abdul, Lee, W.P., Jaafar, M.S., Sapuan, S. M. and Ali, “Construction Performance Comparison
between Conventional and Industrialised Building Systems in Malaysia”, Structural Survey. 24 (5), 2006, PP 412-42
[3] Lai Tina, “Structural Behaviours of Bubble Deck Slabs and their Applications to Light Weight Bridge Deck”, A
Master‟s Thesis Submitted to the Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Massachusetts Institutes of
Technology. Massachusetts, USA, 2010.
[4] Lutz Clemens. (2002), “Prestressed Hollow Core Concrete Slabs – Problems and Possibilities in Fastening
Techniques”, Otto-Graf-Journal. (2002), 13

@IJMTER-2018, All rights Reserved 94