Experimental Study of Flexural Behaviour of Channel Slabs

Experimental Study on the Flexural Behaviour of Channel Slabs
Contents
LIST OF FIGURES
LIST OF TABLES
1. Introduction ..................................................................................................... 7
1.1. General. 7
1.1.1 Conventional Slab: - ............................................................................................................. 7
1.1.2 Flat Slab: - ............................................................................................................................ 7
1.1.3 Hollow core ribbed Slab: - ................................................................................................... 8
1.1.4 Waffle Slab: - ....................................................................................................................... 8
1.1.5 Dome Slab: - ........................................................................................................................ 8
1.1.6 Light weight Precast Slabs. ................................................................................................ 10
1.1.7 Precast Channel Slabs. ....................................................................................................... 10
2 Need for the Present Study. ............................................................................ 11
3 Literature Review ........................................................................................... 12
4 Aim and Scope of Present Investigation. ......................................................... 18
4.1 Introduction: 18
4.2 Aim of the present investigation. 18
4.3 Scope of Present Investigation: 19

4.3.1 Constant Parameters: ........................................................................................................ 19
4.3.2 Variable Parameters: ......................................................................................................... 20
5 Experimental Investigations ........................................................................... 25
5.1 General 25
5.2 Materials Used 25

5.2.1 Cement .............................................................................................................................. 25
5.2.2 Aggregate. ......................................................................................................................... 26
5.2.3 Water ................................................................................................................................. 26
5.3 Mix Proportions 26
5.4 Mixing Procedure 27
Dept. of Civil Engineering, UVCE, Bengaluru 1|

Page
5.5 Compressive Strength 27

5.5.1 The casting of Cube specimen for Compressive test ......................................................... 27
5.5.2 Testing of Cube Specimens for the Compressive strength of Concrete ............................ 27
5.5.3 Flexural Strength ............................................................................................................... 28
5.5.4 The casting of prism specimens for Flexural Strength of Concrete ................................... 28
5.5.5 Testing of prism specimens for flexural strength of concrete ........................................... 28
5.5.6 Split Tensile Strength ......................................................................................................... 29
5.5.7 The casting of cylinder Specimens for the split tensile strength of concrete. ................... 29
5.5.8 Testing of Cylinder Specimen for the split tensile strength of Concrete ........................... 29
5.6 Preparation of Skeletal of Slab Section. 30
5.7 Casting Procedure 30

5.7.1 C-Channel Panels ............................................................................................................... 30
5.7.2 Assembling of Channel Panels to form a slab of size 1524mm X 1524mm. ...................... 32
5.7.3 Rectangular Flat Panels ..................................................................................................... 33
5.7.4 Assembling of Rectangular Panels to form a slab of size 1524mm X 1524mm. ................ 34
5.7.5 Formation of Closed Channel Slabs ................................................................................... 35
5.7.6 Casting of the conventional concrete slab: ....................................................................... 35
5.8 Testing procedure 37
6 Results and Discussions .................................................................................. 39

Ductility of Slab ................................................................................................................................ 41
6.1 Comparison of Weights of slabs. 42
6.2 COMPARISON OF CLOSED CHANEL SLABS WITH CONVENTIONAL SLAB. 43

6.2.1 Comparison of results of S1 with respect to S0. ................................................................. 44
6.2.2 Load v/s Deflection ............................................................................................................ 44
6.2.3 Stress v/s Strain ................................................................................................................. 46
6.2.4 Crack Pattern ..................................................................................................................... 47
6.2.5 Comparison of Results of S1P with S1.................................................................................. 50
6.2.6 Load v/s Deflection: ........................................................................................................... 50
6.2.7 Crack Pattern ..................................................................................................................... 51
6.2.8 Comparison of Results S2 with respect to S0...................................................................... 53
6.2.9 Load v/s Deflection: ........................................................................................................... 53
6.2.10 Stress v/s Strain ............................................................................................................ 55
6.2.11 Crack Pattern ................................................................................................................ 56
6.2.12 Comparison of Results of S2P with S2. ........................................................................... 57

Page
6.2.13 Load v/s Deflection: ...................................................................................................... 58

6.2.14 Crack Pattern ................................................................................................................ 58
6.2.15 Comparison of Results S3 with respect to S0. ................................................................ 60
6.2.17 Stress v/s Strain ............................................................................................................ 62
6.2.18 Crack Pattern ................................................................................................................ 64
6.2.19 Comparison of Results of S3P with S3 ............................................................................. 65
6.2.21 Crack Pattern ................................................................................................................ 66
6.2.22 Failure Behaviour of Channel Slabs compared to Conventional Slab. .......................... 68
7 Summary........................................................................................................ 69
8 Conclusion ...................................................................................................... 74
9 Scope of Future Studies. ................................................................................. 75
References ............................................................................................................. 76
Appendix A. ........................................................................................................... 78
Appendix B ............................................................................................................ 81

Page
LIST OF FIGURES
FIGURE 1-1 TYPES OF CONCRETE SLABS ...................................................................................................... 9
FIGURE 1-2 CROSS SECTION OF C- CHANNEL PANEL ................................................................................. 10
FIGURE 4-1 CROSS SECTION OF A CLOSED CHANNEL SLAB ....................................................................... 18
FIGURE 4-2 CROSS SECTION OF A CLOSED CHANNEL SLAB ....................................................................... 20
FIGURE 4-7 CONVENTIONAL SLAB ............................................................................................................. 21
FIGURE 4-8 CROSS SECTIONAL VIEW OF CLOSED CHANNEL SLAB S1P ....................................................... 21
FIGURE 4-9 WEB SECTION OF S1P .............................................................................................................. 21
FIGURE 4-10 CROSS SECTIONAL VIEW OF CLOSED CHANNEL SLAB S2P ..................................................... 22
FIGURE 4-11 CROSS SECTIONAL VIEW OF CLOSED CHANNEL SLAB S3P ..................................................... 22
FIGURE 4-12 TYPICAL CLOSED CHANNEL PANEL SLAB .............................................................................. 23
FIGURE 4-13 CLOSED CHANNEL SLAB ........................................................................................................ 24
FIGURE 5-1 TOP VIEW OF REINFORCEMENT OF C-CHANNEL PANEL ........................................................ 30
FIGURE 5-2 SIDE VIEW OF WEB REINFORCEMENT .................................................................................... 30
FIGURE 5-3 PLACING OF FRAME OF C-CHANNEL PANELS ......................................................................... 31
FIGURE 5-4 TYPICAL REPRESENTATION OF C-CHANNEL SLAB ................................................................... 32
FIGURE 5-5 REPRESENTATION OF C-CHANNEL SLAB ................................................................................. 32
FIGURE 5-6 TOP VIEW OF RECTANGULAR FLAT PANEL ............................................................................. 33
FIGURE 5-7 CASTING OF RECTANGULAR FLAT PANELS ............................................................................. 34
FIGURE 5-8 RECTANGULAR FLAT SLAB ...................................................................................................... 34
FIGURE 5-9 VIEW OF CLOSED CHANNEL SLAB ........................................................................................... 35
FIGURE 5-10 REINFORCEMENT OF CONVENTIONAL SLAB ........................................................................ 36
FIGURE 5-11 CASTING OF CONVENTIONAL SLAB ...................................................................................... 36
FIGURE 5-12 PLACING OF SLAB SPECIMEN ON METAL OPEN FRAME ....................................................... 38
FIGURE 5-13 EXPERIMENTAL SETUP.......................................................................................................... 38
FIGURE 6-1 TYPICAL CLOSED CHANNEL PANEL SLAB ................................................................................ 40
FIGURE 6-2 A TYPICAL CLOSED CHANNEL SLAB ......................................................................................... 40
FIGURE 6-3 LOAD VS DEFLECTION GRAPH OF S1 AND S0 ........................................................................... 45
FIGURE 6-4 STRESS VS STRAIN OF S1 AND S0 AT THE BOTTOM SLAB ...................................................... 47
FIGURE 6-5 CRACKS DEVELOPED ON THE WEB OF S1 ................................................................................ 48
FIGURE 6-6 CRACKS ON THE WEB WHEN ZOOMED .................................................................................. 48
FIGURE 6-7 CRACK PATTERN ON THE CONVENTIONAL SLAB .................................................................... 49
FIGURE 6-8 LOAD VS DEFLECTION GRAPH OF S1P ...................................................................................... 51
FIGURE 6-9 EXPERIMENTAL SETUP OF INDIVIDUAL PANELS ..................................................................... 51
FIGURE 6-10 CRACK PATTERN ON WEB OF S1P .......................................................................................... 52
FIGURE 6-11 LOAD VS DEFLECTION GRAPH OF S0 AND S2 ......................................................................... 54

Page
FIGURE 6-12 STRESS VS STRAIN GRAPH OF S0 AND S2 AT BOTTOM SLAB ................................................. 56

FIGURE 6-13 CRACK PATTERN IN WEB OF S2 ............................................................................................. 56
FIGURE 6-14 CRACKS ON WEB OF S2 ........................................................................................................ 57
FIGURE 6-15 CRACK PATTERN OF CONVENTIONAL SLAB .......................................................................... 57
FIGURE 6-16 LOAD VS DEFLECTION GRAPH OF S2P .................................................................................... 58
FIGURE 6-17 CRACKS IN WEB OF S2P ........................................................................................................ 59
FIGURE 6-18 LOAD VS DEFLECTION GRAPH OF S0 AND S3 ....................................................................... 61
FIGURE 6-19 STRESS VS STRAIN IN SO AND S3. ......................................................................................... 64
FIGURE 6-20 CRACK PATTERN ON WEB OF CHANNEL SECTION ................................................................ 64
FIGURE 6-21 CRACK PATTERN OF CONVENTIONAL SLAB .......................................................................... 65
FIGURE 6-22 LOAD VS DEFLECTION GRAPH OF S3P .................................................................................. 66
FIGURE 6-23 CRACK PATTERN IN S3P ......................................................................................................... 67
FIGURE 7-1 COMPARISON OF ULTIMATE LOAD CARRYING CAPACITY BETWEEN S0,S1,S2 AND S3 .......... 70
FIGURE 7-2 LOAD VS DEFLECTION OF S0, S1, S2 AND S3. ........................................................................... 70
FIGURE 7-3 STRESS VS STRAIN GRAPH AT BOTTOM OF SLAB S0, S1 , S2 AND S3 ......................................... 71
FIGURE 7-4 STRESS VS STRAIN AT BOTTOM OF SLAB S0 AND IN WEB OF S1,S2 AND S3, ......................... 72

Page
LIST OF TABLES
TABLE 5-1 PHYSICAL PROPERTIES OF CEMENT .......................................................................................... 25
TABLE 5-2 PHYSICAL PROPERTIES OF FINE AGGREGATE ........................................................................... 26
TABLE 5-3 PHYSICAL PROPERTIES OF COARSE AGGREGATE ...................................................................... 26
`TABLE 5-4 TEST RESULTS OF COMPRESSIVE STRENGTH OF CONCRETE ................................................... 28
TABLE 5-5 TEST RESULTS OF FLEXURAL STRENGTH OF CONCRETE ........................................................... 28
TABLE 5-6 TEST RESULTS OF SPLIT TENSILE STRENGTH OF CONCRETE ..................................................... 29
TABLE 6-1 COMPARISON OF WEIGHT OF SLABS ....................................................................................... 42
TABLE 6-2 LOAD VS DEFLECTION OF S1 AND S0 ......................................................................................... 45
TABLE 6-3 STRESS VS STRAIN OF S0 AND S1 ............................................................................................... 46
TABLE 6-4 LOAD VS DEFLECTION FOR S1P .................................................................................................. 50
TABLE 6-5 LOAD VS DEFLECTION COMPARISON BETWEEN S2 AND S0 ..................................................... 54
TABLE 6-6 STRESS VS STRAIN COMPARISON BETWEEN S2 AND S0 ............................................................ 55
TABLE 6-7 LOAD VS DEFLECTION FOR S2P .................................................................................................. 58
TABLE 6-8 LOAD VS DEFLECTION COMPARISON BETWEEN S3 AND S0 ..................................................... 61
TABLE 6-9 STRESS AND STRAIN OF S0 AND S3 ............................................................................................ 63
TABLE 6-10 LOAD VS DEFLECTION OF S3P .................................................................................................. 66
TABLE 7-1 ULTIMATE LOAD, DEFLECTION AND THE PEF OF SLAB SPECIMENS ......................................... 69
TABLE 7-2 ULTIMATE LOAD, DEFLECTION AND THEIR PEF OF SLAB SPECIMENS ...................................... 73

Page
1. Introduction
1.1. General.
Reinforced Concrete slabs are components commonly used in floors,
ceilings, garages and many other places. Reinforced concrete has many advantages for
floor systems like it provides resistance to high compressive and bending stresses, it is
relatively cheap to produce and construct and it can be moulded into any shape and size.
But slabs have many disadvantages. The important factor is the high weight to strength
ratio which in turn increases the size of all other structural elements, i.e beam, column
and footing sizes increase which in turn causes the increase in dead weight of structural
elements.
There are several types of concrete slabs systems in use today and they are shown
in figure 1.1:
1.1.1 Conventional Slab: -

The slab which is supported with Beams and columns is called conventional slab.
In this kind of slab, the thickness of slab is small whereas depth of beam is large and load
is transferred to beams and from beams to columns. It requires more formwork when
compared with the flat slab and there is no need of providing column caps in conventional
slab. The thickness of conventional slab is usually recommended between 3″ to 6″. The
slab is square or rectangular in shape. Reinforcement is provided in conventional slab
and the bars which are set in shorter directions are called Main Reinforcement Bars and
bars which are set in longer directions are called Distribution bars. Distribution bars are
placed on top of main bars. These types of slabs are used in constructing floors of multi
storeyed building.
1.1.2 Flat Slab: -

Flat slab is a reinforced concrete slab supported directly by concrete columns or
caps. Flat slab do not have beams. They are supported directly on the column itself. Loads
are directly transferred to columns. In this type of construction, a plain ceiling is obtained
thus giving attractive appearance from architectural point of view. The plain ceiling
diffuses the light better and is considered less vulnerable in the case of fire than the usual

Page
beam slab construction. The flat slab is easier to construct and requires less formwork.
The minimum thickness is 8″ or 0.2m. This is one of the types of concrete slabs.
1.1.3 Hollow core ribbed Slab: -

Hollow core ribbed slabs derive their name from the voids or cores which run
through the units. The cores can function as service ducts and significantly reduce the
self-weight of the slabs, maximising structural efficiency. The cores also have a benefit
in sustainability terms in reducing the volume of material used. Units are generally
available in standard 1200 mm widths and in depths from 110mm to 400 mm. There is
total freedom in length of units. This kind of slab is used where the construction has to
be done fast. These kind of slabs are Pre cast slabs which are readymade. The hollow
core ribbed slabs have between four and six longitudinal cores running through them, the
primary purpose of the cores being to decrease the weight, and material within the floor,
yet maintain maximal strength. To further increase the strength, the slabs are reinforced
with 12mm diameter steel strand, running longitudinally. This is one of the types of
concrete slabs.
1.1.4 Waffle Slab: -

Waffle slab is a reinforced concrete roof or floor containing square grids with deep sides.
This kind of slab is majorly used at entrance of hotels, Malls, Restaurants for good
pictorial view and to install artificial lighting. This a type of slab where we find hollow
hole in the slab when the formwork is removed. Firstly, PVC trays (pods) are placed on
shuttering then reinforcement is provided between the pods and steel mesh is provided at
top of the pods and then concrete is filled. After concrete sets the formwork is removed
and PVC pods are not removed. This forms hollow hole in it in which hole is closed at
one end. The concrete waffle slab is often used for industrial and commercial buildings
while wood and metal waffle slabs are used in many other construction sites. This is one
of the types of concrete slabs
1.1.5 Dome Slab: -

These kind of slab is generally constructed in temples, Mosques, palaces etc. And
Dome slab is built on conventional slab. Thickness of Dome slab is 0.15m. Domes are in
semi-circle and shuttering is done on conventional slab in dome shape and concrete is
filled in shuttering forming dome shapes. This is a one of the types of concrete slabs.

Page
Fig. 1.1Figure
Types 1-1
of Concrete
Types ofSlabs
Concrete Slabs

Page
1.1.6 Light weight Precast Slabs.

In a building, slabs contribute more to the dead weight of the structure which in turn
increases the size of all other members. Thus by reducing the weight of the slab, the size
of other members are reduced which in turn contributes to minimum use of materials.
Light weight precast slabs are casted by using lightweight materials, by reducing the
quantity of concrete by providing voids.
In conventional slabs majority of the time in construction is consumed to cast the

slab as it needs form work over which the reinforcement is laid. In precast slab panels
the quantity of formwork used is considerably low as number of panels can be casted in
a reusable mould and can be casted in controlled environment. Also these precast panels
can be transported and placed with relatively lesser difficulty when compared to the
conventional method of slab casting. One of Lightweight Precast Slab is Precast Channel
slabs.
1.1.7 Precast Channel Slabs.

Precast Channel Unit is a full span precast RCC unit, C shaped in section (Fig.
1.2). It can be used for floors and roofs supported on suitable structures like brick/stone
walls and RCC beams. It does not require any intermediate temporary props or supports,
since the unit is strong enough to support the load, for which it is designed. The outer
sides of the unit are corrugated and are grooved at the ends to provide shear key action
between adjacent units. Nominal width of the unit varies from 300 mm to 600 mm, its
depth from 75 mm to 200 mm and a minimum flange thickness of 25 mm. The length of
the unit may be adjusted to suit the span to be covered, but the maximum length is
restricted to 4.2 m from stiffness considerations. Horizontal corrugations are provided on
the two longitudinal faces of the units so that the structural roof/ floor acts monolithic
after concrete grouted in the joints between the units attains strength.
Figure 1-2 Cross Section of C- Channel Panel
Dept. of Civil Engineering, UVCE, Bengaluru 10 |

Page
2 Need for the Present Study.

Channel Slabs have many advantages and currently there are very few research
works carried out on the Channel Panel Slab. Hence an attempt is made to study the
flexural behaviour of the Channel Panel Slab with the different types of reinforcements
for the web of the channel panel and comparing the various Results like Load vs
Deflection, Stress vs Strain and the Crack Pattern with Conventional slab.

Page
3 Literature Review
Literatures on light weight slabs have been reviewed and presented in this
chapter.
1. Mahmoud Lasheen , Amr Shaat , Ayman Khalil: An experimental study is
carried out in this paper to investigate the validity of using lightweight concrete
slabs in steel-concrete composite beams and compares their behaviour with the
normal weight concrete slabs. In this respect, eight composite beams with channel
shear connectors were tested in four-point bending to study the effects of concrete
type, slab width, steel section, the spacing of shear connectors and beam span on
the behaviour of the composite beams. It was observed that lightweight concrete
can effectively be used in lieu of normal weight concrete, which reduces the
concrete slab weight by 22% with a marginal reduction in both yielding and
ultimate load capacities of the composite beams. The findings of this study have
shown that effective slab width for ultimate limit state calculations should be
different from that used for serviceability limit states. It was also found that the
size of the steel beam expressed by its slenderness ratio (L/rs) affects the value of
the effective slab width. Steel beams with small slenderness ratios utilize wider
portions of concrete slabs. Moreover, using LWC allows a considerable reduction
in the number of required shear connectors without affecting the stiffness of the
composite beams. Finally, design equations are proposed to accurately calculate
the effective concrete width and the expected slip at the interface between
concrete and steel in composite beams.
2. RINKU TAUR and VIDYA DEVI T This paper aims to point out the various
aspects of prefabricated building methodologies for low cost housing by
highlighting the different prefabrication techniques, and the economical
advantages achieved by its adoption. In a building the foundation, walls, doors
and windows, floors and roofs are the most important components, which can be
analyzed individually based on the needs thus, improving the speed of
construction and reducing the construction cost. The major current methods of
construction systems considered here are namely, structural block walls, mortar
less block walls, prefabricated roofing components like precast RC planks,

Page
precast hollow concrete panels, precast concrete/Ferro cement panels are

considered.
3. Longmei Shentu; Dahua Jiang, and Cheng-Tzu Thomas Hsu/ Fellow The slab
is axisymmetrical, one with its circumference restrained horizontally, simulating
a portion of a slab with infinite extent. The load is applied to a small circular area
located at the center. Winkler's assumption is used to study the subgrade
behaviour. Using Ottosen's failure criterion for concrete under a multiaxial stress
state and considering the nonlinear behaviour of concrete, the subgrade reaction,
displacement of the slab, stresses, bending moments, horizontal thrusts in the
slab, and position of cracks, and so on are obtained. The analytical results were
found to compare well with test observations. Based on this finite-element
analysis, a new analytical method for computing the ultimate load-carrying
capacity of concrete slabs on grade is proposed. Based on the finite-element
analysis presented and the test observations, a concrete slab on grade with a
concentrated load at center first cracks at the bottom of the center in the radial
direction. With an increase in load, a circumferential crack at the top of the slab
develops. Finally, the circumferential crack developed reaches the bottom of the
slabs as the ultimate load is approached.
4. Zhaohui Huang, Ian W. Burgess and Roger J. Plank: The proposed procedure
is based on Mindlin/Reissner ~thick plate! theory and both geometric and
material nonlinearities are taken into account. The complications of structural
behaviour in fire conditions, such as thermal expansion, cracking or crushing, and
change of material properties with temperature are modelled. In this study, a total
Lagrangian approach is adopted throughout, in which displacements are referred
to the original configuration and small strains are assumed. A numerical example,
in which a rectangular reinforced concrete slab is modelled at elevated
temperatures, is presented. The complicating factors of structural behaviour in
fire conditions, such as thermal expansion, cracking or crushing, and change of
material properties with temperature are modelled. A total Lagrangian approach,
in which displacements are referred to the original configuration and small strains
are assumed, is adopted throughout. Artificial numerical examples based on a
single rectangular reinforced concrete slab have shown that the nonlinear layered

Page
procedure proposed in this paper models membrane action of concrete slabs in

fire conditions, and that membrane action greatly enhances the capacity of a slab
if edge support can be maintained
5. R. Ian Gilbert and Zafer I. Sakka: Reinforced concrete slabs typically have
relatively small tensile reinforcement ratios and are generally regarded as very
ductile structural elements. This is not the case for slabs reinforced with low-
ductility welded wire fabric. Such slabs fail with little warning by fracture of the
reinforcement in a brittle and catastrophic manner and, as a consequence, many
of the assumptions implicit in structural design are not applicable. Slabs
containing low-ductility reinforcement lack robustness and cannot absorb the
energy required to resist significant impact or blast loading. For slabs reinforced
with low-ductility welded wire fabric, failure is characterized by relatively little
plastic deformation prior to the collapse, with small rotational capacities of the
critical regions and, consequently, little moment redistribution. The test program
has confirmed that slabs reinforced with low ductility WWF fail in a brittle
manner by fracture of the tensile reinforcement.
6. R. Ian Gilbert: For lightly reinforced members, such as floor slabs, the flexural
stiffness of a fully cracked section is many times smaller than that of an uncracked
section, and tension stiffening contributes greatly to the post-cracking stiffness.
In this paper, the approaches to account for tension stiffening in the ACI,
European, and British codes are evaluated critically and predictions are compared
with experimental observations. Finally, recommendations are included for
modelling tension stiffening in the design of reinforced concrete floor slabs for
deflection control. Although tension stiffening has only a relatively minor effect
on the deflection of heavily reinforced beams, it is very significant in lightly
reinforced members where the ratio Iuncr / Ice is high, such as most practical
reinforced concrete floor slabs.
7. W. A. Elsaigh E. P. Kearsley and J. M. Roberts: A finite-element model,
capable of simulating the nonlinear behaviour of the SFRC slab, is proposed and
compared with the slab’s experimental response. An approximate model
describing the behaviour of the support layers is developed using results from a
plate-bearing test. a parameter study is conducted to investigate the influence of

Page
concrete strength, steel-fibre content, and the support stiffness on the load
displacement (P–Δ) response of SFRC ground slabs. The SFRC slab was
manufactured by using the similar material as that in the beams discussed in a
previous paper. The SFRC contained 15 kg=m3 of hooked end wires with an
aspect ratio (length/diameter) of 80, a length of 60 mm, and a tensile strength of
1,100 MPa. The average Young’s modulus and cube strength for the concrete
were 28 and 45 MPa, respectively. The foamed concrete support, weighing 780
kg/m3, was created by the uniform distribution of air bubbles throughout the mass
of a mixture containing fly ash, Portland cement, and sand. Increasing the strength
of concrete and the steel-fibre content result in an increase in the load-carrying
capacity of the SFRC ground slabs.
8. Dr. T.Ch.Madhavi, Shanmukha Kavya .V, Siddhartha Das, Sri Prashanth
.V and Vetrivel .V have conducted a study on the ferro-cement slabs with
varying the number layer of welded mesh. In this study, a number of layers vary
from 2 to 4 layers and 2 slabs for 2 layers, 3 layers, and 4 layers have been cast,
cured for 28 days and tested for static and cyclic loading. The slab size was
600mm X 300mm X 25mm. In this case, a welded mesh of 3mm dia wire with a
spacing of 25mm was used with chicken mesh. Here the mortar with a ratio of
1:3 was used.
9. S. Dharanidharan has conducted an experimental investigation on flexural
behaviour of Hollow composite slabs under mid third loading. The author has
used the concept of the steel-cement composite to a comparable system in which
the steel sheet is replaced by the Hollow slab elements. These elements will work
as a permanent formwork and also participate in the structural performance of the
slab.
10. A.Dhasarathan, Dr. R. Thenmozhi, Mrs. S. Deepa Shree, has worked on the
ductile behaviour of Hybrid Ferrocement Slabs by strengthening them in the
Compression zone. In the particular study, the Authors have cast the slab of
700mm X 300mm used 2 and 3 layered mesh along with GFRP sheets (0 and 1)
with polypropylene fibres (0.30%) and without the GFRP sheets and
polypropylene fibres. Two point loading test was conducted on slabs and
parameters such as ultimate moment capacity, ductility ratio, and the crack

Page
pattern was observed. From experimental results, it was found that wrapping of
GFRP in the tension zone of slab increases confinement of bottom zone and using
of fibre reinforced concrete has an influence on ductility and flexural capacities
of Ferro cement slabs.
11. M. Amala and Dr.M.Neelamegam had conducted the study on the IMPACT
and FLEXURAL strengths of the Ferro Cement Slabs with replacing the sand
with very fine powder of copper slag. In this particular paper, the Author has used
the wire mesh of 3mm dia with the opening of 25mm center to center, 1mm wire
and also closely spaced (10 mm) wires are used in order to increase the ductility
properties and also durability-related properties of Ferrocement. The slab
Dimensions were 600mm X 300mm for flexural test and 300mm X 300mm for
the impact test. The flexural properties of these Ferrocement slabs are evaluated
and compared under four-point static loading system using specific test setups
and comparative study of the test results confirm that Ferrocement slabs made of
copper slag are more effective in flexural strength and other mechanical
properties. The impact strength of slab is tested and it is found that as the copper
slag content is increased the kinetic energy is increased.
12. Randhir J. Phalke and Darshan G. Gaidhankar “FLEXURAL
BEHAVIOUR OF FERROCEMENT SLAB PANELS USING WELDED
SQUARE MESH BY INCORPORATING STEEL FIBERS”. In this
particular paper slabs of 550mm X 200mm X 25mm has been casted with 2, 3
and 4 layers of welded mesh with the steel fibre (0.5% of the total volume and
aspect ratio of 57). The slabs are cured for 28 days and the flexural test has been
carried out in UTM. By the results of the test, it has been found out that the slabs
with more number of layers of welded mesh offered more resistance to the
deformation as well as exhibited higher flexural strength with respect to slabs
with a lower number of layers of welded mesh.
13. Yu T. Chou,1 M. ASCE The slabs were square-shaped with dimensions varying
from 3 ft (0.92 m) and up and slab thicknesses varied from 3-12 in. (11.8-47.2
cm). In contrast to the known fact that the installation of dowel bars and keyed
joints in conventional highway and airfield concrete pavements can effectively
reduce stresses in concrete slabs, it was found that stresses When the size of a

Page
small concrete slab is increased, the stresses are increased for any loading
position. The change becomes insignificant when the slab size has increased
beyond a certain value. This value increases with increasing slab rigidity, tire
contact area, and gear spacing for multiple wheels. In conventional highway and
airfield concrete pavements, slab stresses are greatly reduced with increasing joint
efficiency when the load is placed near the joint and stresses are not dependant
on the joint efficiency when the load is placed at the slab center.
14. Gourishankar Badiger, Dr.B.P Annapurna and Naveen P “Experimental
Study on Behaviour of Channel Slabs”. In this paper in general, the slab is
designed to resist vertical loads. However, as people are getting more interested
in residential environment, noise and vibration is an important factor to consider.
In addition, as the span is increased, the deflection of the slab is also increased.
Therefore, the slab thickness should also increase which also makes the slabs
heavier, and will increase column and foundation sizes. Thus it makes buildings
consume more materials such as steel reinforcement and concrete. To reduce the
materials in turn the slabs with lighter weight had to be introduced. Hence in this
present study, we have made an attempt to analyse the precast channel slabs with
closed and open channel. The reinforcement for the web and flange of the channel
slabs was provided with the welded mesh of size 2.2mm diameter with
32mmX32mm spacing. It was found that the Closed channel slabs performed
better than the open channel slab and conventional slab.

Page
4 Aim and Scope of Present Investigation.

4.1 Introduction:
From the literature review it has been seen that a few studies have been carried
out on Precast Closed channel slabs.
Closed Channel slabs are biaxial system of box type hollow sections consisting
of C sections placed at the bottom and Rectangular sections placed at the top (fig 4.1).
These slabs are hollow at the centre and thus there is reduction in the dead weight of slab.
These slabs have many advantages like: low total cost, reduced material usage, decreased
constructional time and it is a green technology. The reduced dead load makes long term
response more economical for the building while offsetting the slightly increased
deflection of the slab.
In this study, an attempt has been made to study the flexural behaviour of Closed
Channel slab with varying reinforcement in the web portion of C-Channel. The flexural
behaviour of Closed Channel slab such as ultimate load capacity, service load deflections,
Stress vs strain and crack pattern of slab have been studied.
Rectangular Flat Slab Web of Channel
C Channel Flange of C Channel
Figure 4-1 Cross section of a Closed Channel Slab
4.2 Aim of the present investigation.

 Study of the flexural behaviour of Closed Channel Slab of 1524X1524X76mm
(5’X5’X3”) (slab consists of five panels of 308X1524X76mm (1’X5’X3”)
welded together) of M20 grade concrete and comparing it with conventional slab
of M20 concrete.
 Study of the flexural behaviour of Closed Channel Slab of single panel of
308X1525X76mm (1’X5’X3”) of M20 grade concrete and comparing it with a
Closed channel slab of 1524X1524X76mm (5’X5’X3”) of M20 concrete.

Page
4.3 Scope of Present Investigation:

Preliminary investigations are carried out on the materials to be used in
specimens. To study the properties of material used, tests on the materials are carried out
which i-s discussed in Chapter 5.
The experimental studies are being carried out on lightweight structures to

understand their flexural behaviour. Closed channel slab of size 1524mm X 1524mm X
76mm is casted for varying reinforcement in the web portion of the slab in the laboratory.
The Slabs are pond cured for 28 days after which Flexural tests are carried out on the
slabs and then these experimental results are compared with Conventional Slab.
Experimental Studies are also being carried on individual panels of closed

channel slabs of size 308X1524X76mm for varying reinforcement in the web portion of
the slab. The Slabs are pond cured for 28 days and Flexural tests are carried out on the
slabs and the experimental results obtained are compared with the Closed channel slab
of size 1524X1524X76mm for varying reinforcements in the web portion of the closed
channel slab.
The Flexural Behaviour of slabs is studied for the following parameters:
4.3.1 Constant Parameters:

 Grade of Concrete: M20
 Curing Period: 28 Days
 Support Conditions: Simply supported on all the sides
 Type of Loading: Uniformly Distributed load.
 Size of Conventional Specimen: 1524X1524X76mm (5’X5’X3”) consisting of
6mm diameter HYSD bars spaced at 200mm c/c.
 Size of the Specimen: 1524mm X 1524mm X 76mm (5’X5’X3”) consisting of
Five individual panels of C-section (bottom) and Five rectangle flat panels (top).
 Size of Individual C -section Panel is 308X1524X64mm
 Size of Individual Rectangle Flat panel is 308X1524X12mm
 Reinforcement for the flange portion of the C-section and Rectangle Flat panel is
Welded Mesh of 2.2mm diameter at 32mm c/c.

Page
4.3.2 Variable Parameters:

Closed Channel slab consisting of 2 parts, 1st part consists of C-Channel slabs
placed at the bottom and the other part is of rectangular flat slab placed on the top of C-
Channel slabs to form a Closed Channel slab as shown in fig 4.2.
Rectangular Flat Slab Web of Channel
C Channel Flange of C Channel

Figure 4-2 Cross Section of a Closed Channel Slab
1. The reinforcement in the web portion of C Channel sections are varied which are
namely
a.) Two layers of welded mesh of 2.2mm diameter spaced at 32mm c/c as shown
in fig 4.3.
Figure 4-3 Web Reinforcement
b.) Vertical bars of 6mm diameter HYSD bars spaced at 50mm c/c as shown in fig
4.4.
c.) Vertical and diagonal bars of 6mm diameter HYSD bars spaced at 100mm c/c
as shown in fig 4.5.

Page
2. Types of Slabs
a. S0- Conventional Slab of Size 1524X1524X76mm as shown in fig 4.4
Figure 4-6 Conventional Slab
b. S1P- Individual Closed channel panel of size 1524X1524X76mm consisting

of two layers of welded mesh in web of C-Channel.
Figure 4-7 Cross Sectional View of Closed Channel Slab S1p
Two layers of Square welded mesh of size 2.2mm

dia at 32mm c/c of height 52mm
MS Flat of 5mmX12mm
Figure 4-8 Web Section of S1P

Page
c. S2P- Individual Closed channel panel of size 1524X1524X76mm consisting

of Vertical Bars of 6mm diameter in web.
Figure 4-9 Cross Sectional View of closed Channel Slab S2p
d. S3P- Individual Closed channel panel of size 1524X1524X76mm consisting

of vertical and diagonal bars of 6mm diameter in web.
Figure 4-10 Cross Sectional View of Closed Channel Slab S3P
A Typical Closed Channel Panel Slab for the Varying Reinforcement (S1P, S2P, S3P)
is as shown in fig 4.8.

Page
Figure 4-11 Typical Closed Channel Panel Slab
a. S1- Closed Channel Slab which consists of Five individual closed channel
panels of S1P welded together.
b. S2- Closed Channel Slab which consists of Five individual closed channel
c. S3- Closed Channel Slab which consists of Five individual closed channel
A Typical Closed Channel Slab (S1, S2, S3) for the varying Reinforcement is as shown in
fig 4.9.

Page
Figure 4-12 Closed Channel Slab

Page
5 Experimental Investigations
5.1 General
Preliminary investigations are carried out on the materials to be used in
specimens. To study the properties of material used, tests on the materials are carried out
which is discussed in this Chapter.
5.2 Materials Used

The materials used for preparation of Closed Channel slabs and Conventional
Slab, were tested in the laboratory as per relevant IS Codes.
The materials tested are:
5.2.1 Cement
In the present study, Ordinary Portland Cement 53 Grade (Brand Name: BIRLA SUPER
53 GRADE OPC) conforming to the requirements of Grade IS 12269-1987 was used in
this experimental work. The cement required for the experiments was collected from the
single supplier. The tests conducted on cement were specific gravity, normal consistency,
initial and final setting time and compressive strength.
The physical properties of cement obtained by conducting the appropriate test are given
in Table 5.1
Table 5-1 Physical Properties of Cement
SL no. Properties Test Results As per IS 12269-1987

1 Normal Consistency 29% -
2 Specific Gravity 3.04 3.00-3.15
Setting Time (Minutes)
3 Initial Setting Time 28 Minimum 30 Minutes
Not more than 600
Final Setting Time 260
minutes
Compressive Strength (MPa)
4 (150 X 150 X 150mm Cubes)
3 Days 30 Not less than 23 MPa

Page
5.2.2 Aggregate.
5.2.2.1 Fine Aggregate.
Locally available manufactured sand obtained from a quarry near Kanankpura is used.
The physical properties of M. Sand are carried out and the test results of tests are
tabulated in Table 5.2
Table 5-2 Physical Properties of Fine Aggregate
Sl no Properties Fine Aggregate

1 Size 6.00mm
2 Specific Gravity 2.74
3 Fineness Modulus 2.70
5.2.2.2 Coarse Aggregate

The Granite baby jelly 6mm and downsize were obtained from stone crusher near
Kanakpura. Coarse Aggregate crushed granite of 6mm maximum size and retained on
4.75 mm IS 480 sieve have been used. The sieve analysis of aggregate conforms to
Specifications of IS 383:1970 for uniformly graded aggregates and Specific Gravity.
Results of tests conducted on coarse aggregates are tabulated in Table 5.4
Table 5-3 Physical Properties of Coarse Aggregate
Sl No Particulars of the test Results

1 Specific Gravity 2.386
5.2.3 Water
Clean potable water is used for mixing and curing of concrete.
5.3 Mix Proportions

For the present study, M20 Grade Concrete is used. The mix designed is as per IS
10262:2009. Typical mix design calculation is shown in Appendix A.

Page
5.4 Mixing Procedure

Before mixing the materials required are sieved and air dried for 1-2 days. The
sieves used are 4.75mm for Fine aggregate and 6mm down and 4.75mm retaining for
Coarse aggregate. Later the batching of materials is done as per the design requirements.
All the specimens were casted by hand mixing the concrete using spade, shovel
and trowel. A clean big tray is placed near to the place of casting. Fine aggregate is added
to the tray. After fine aggregate, the cement is added into the tray and both are dry mixed
until uniform mix is obtained. Once a proper mix is achieved, the coarse aggregate is
added to the mix and all the three materials are mixed. i.e cement, fine aggregate and
coarse aggregate are mixed properly using the shovel. This type of mixing is known as
the dry mixing of concrete. Bund is created out of the dry mix with well like structure at
the center. Water is then poured to create a water pond at the centre of the dry mix and
then mixing of all the ingredients is done to obtain a uniform mix of concrete. The
concrete produced was of workable nature and it was made sure that there are no lumps
and aggregate were not segregated from concrete mix.
The Tests carried out on this concrete are discussed below:
5.5 Compressive Strength

5.5.1 The casting of Cube specimen for Compressive test
The steel cube moulds were coated with oil on their inner surfaces and were placed on
Plate. Concrete was poured into moulds in three layers, each layer being compacted using
the tamping rod. The top surface was finished using a trowel. After 24 hours concrete
cubes were demoulded and the specimens were kept for curing.
5.5.2 Testing of Cube Specimens for the Compressive strength of Concrete

At each desired curing periods specimens were taken out of the water and kept for surface
drying. The cubes were tested in 2000 kN capacity compressive testing machine loaded
at a constant rate of loading at 145kg/cm2/min as per IS 516:1959 to get the compressive
strength of Concrete. The Compressive Strength of concrete is as shown in Table 5.4.

Page
` Table 5-4 Test Results of Compressive Strength of Concrete
Average
Compressive
Mix Proportion
Concrete Strength
Grade N/mm2
Fine Coarse
Cement Water 7 Days 28 Days
aggregate aggregate
M20 1 1.22 2.39 45% 19.62 27.68
5.5.3 Flexural Strength

5.5.4 The casting of prism specimens for Flexural Strength of Concrete
The prism moulds were coated with oil on their inner surface and were placed on
the plate. Concrete was poured into the moulds in two layers, each layer tamped using
the tamping rod. The top surface was finished using a trowel. After 24 hours concrete
prisms were demoulded and the specimens were kept for curing.
5.5.5 Testing of prism specimens for flexural strength of concrete

At each desired curing period specimens were taken out of the water and kept for surface
drying. The prisms were tested in the 100kN capacity flexural testing machine under two-
point loading spaced at 133 mm for specimens of 100mm X 100mm X 500mm long
loaded at a constant rate of loading at 140kg/cm2/min as per IS 516:1999 to get the
flexural strength of Concrete. The Flexural Strength of concrete is as shown in Table 5.5
Table 5-5 Test Results of Flexural Strength of Concrete
Avg Flexure Strength

Mix Proportion
Concrete N/mm2
Grade Fine Coarse
Cement Water 7 Days 28 Days
aggregate aggregate
M20 1 1.22 2.39 45% 7.85 9.81

Page
5.5.6 Split Tensile Strength

5.5.7 The casting of cylinder Specimens for the split tensile strength of concrete.
The mould and base plate was cleaned and coated with thin film of oil before use, in
order to prevent adhesion of concrete. The concrete was filled into the mould in layers
approximately 5 cm deep. After the top layer has been compacted, the surface of the
concrete was finished level with the top of the mould using a trowel.
5.5.8 Testing of Cylinder Specimen for the split tensile strength of Concrete
The cylinders were tested in compression testing machine of 2000kN capacity. The test
specimens were loaded at a constant rate of loading at 1.20N/cm2/min to 2.40N/cm2/min
as per the standard procedure explained in IS 5816:1999. The Split Tensile Strength of
concrete is as shown in Table 5.6.
Table 5-6 Test Results of Split Tensile Strength of Concrete
Avg Tensile Strength

Mix Proportion
Concrete N/mm2
Grade
Fine Coarse
M20 Cement Water 7 Days 28 Days
aggregate aggregate
1 1.22 2.39 45% 9.81 11.772

Page
5.6 Preparation of Skeletal of Slab Section.

The MS flats of dimension 12mm X 5mm which were procured from
SHANKARA BUILDPRO near Laggeri Bridge, Bengaluru and the welded mesh and
Wire as per our requirement from a dealer in K. R. Market, Bengaluru
The MS flats are cut to the required size with the help of steel cutter. Once all the
pieces were ready then, the cut pieces were grinded and welded to get a rectangular shape
of 1524mm X 308mm.
5.7 Casting Procedure

5.7.1 C-Channel Panels
1. The MS flats of size 12mm X 5mm are welded together to form a rectangular
frame of size 1524mm X 308mm as shown in fig 5.1
Figure 5-1 Top View of Reinforcement of C-Channel Panel
2. First the square welded mesh of size 2.2mm dia at 32mm c/c is welded
horizontally at the centre of the rectangular frame of the channel panel to form
the reinforcement of the flange portion of the C-Section.
3. Secondly the square welded mesh of size 2.2mm dia at 32mm c/c of height 52mm
is cut in two layers and is tied vertically on the longitudinal side of the rectangular
frame of channel panels to form the reinforcement of the web portion of the C-
Section as shown in fig 5.3.
Two layers of Square welded mesh of size 2.2mm dia

at 32mm c/c of height 52mm
MS Flat of 5mmX12mm
Figure 5-2 Side View of Web Reinforcement

Page
4. Each panels were placed on the side by side with wooden strip of height in
between the panels to separate each panel with spacers tied to the vertical welded
mesh as shown in fig 5.4.
Figure 5-3 Placing of Frame of C-Channel panels
5. It was seen that; all the panels were placed in such a way that there will be no
movement in the panels by placing heavy weights on the periphery.
6. Now the concrete is poured, tamped and levelled in the horizontal part of each
channel panel one at a time up to a height of 12mm thick (height of Metal flat
strip).
7. Immediately wooden/plywood strips are placed beside the vertical reinforcement
on the inner side of channel with spacers to get a 20 mm thick vertical part of C-
Channel (Web).
8. Concrete is poured and tamped in the vertical portion.
9. Similarly, rest of the four panels were casted as mentioned above.
10. The formwork on the inner side of the channel were striped after 24 hours and
damp cured for another 24 hours without disturbing the channels.
11. The channels were separated after 48 hours of casting and kept for curing in water
tank for 28 days.
12. Similarly, the remaining two parameters were completed and kept for curing.

Page
5.7.2 Assembling of Channel Panels to form a slab of size 1524mm X 1524mm.

Each individual Channel panel of size 1524mm X 308mmX64mm were welded
together on the longitudinal side to form a slab of size 1524mm X 1524mm
(fig.5.4 and 5.5) and later an extra metal strip was also welded on the shorter side
to avoid twisting of slabs at the joints.
Figure 5-4 Typical representation of C-Channel Slab
Figure 5-5 Representation of C-Channel Slab

Page
5.7.3 Rectangular Flat Panels

1. The MS flats of size 12mm X 5mm are welded together to form a rectangular frame
of size 1524mm X 308mmX12mm.
2. First the square welded mesh of size 2.2mm dia at 32mm c/c is welded horizontally
at the center of the rectangular frame of the channel panel as shown in fig 5.6.
Figure 5-6 Top view of Rectangular flat panel
3. Each panels were placed on the plywood side by side with sufficient spacing in
between the panels to separate each panel.
4. Now the concrete is poured, tamped and levelled in the horizontal part of each
channel panel one at a time up to a height of 12mm thick (height of Metal flat strip).
5. Rest of the four panels were casted as mentioned as above.
6. The rectangular flat panels were separated after 24 hours of casting and kept for
curing in water tank for 28 days.

Page
Figure 5-7 Casting of Rectangular Flat Panels
5.7.4 Assembling of Rectangular Panels to form a slab of size 1524mm X 1524mm.

Each Individual Flat panel of size 1524mm X 308mm X 12mm were welded
together on the longer side and later an extra metal strip was welded on the shorter
side to form a slab of size 1524mm X 1524mm X 12mm as shown fig 5.8.
Figure 5-8 Rectangular Flat Slab

Page
5.7.5 Formation of Closed Channel Slabs

The Closed Channel slab size consists of two parts, first part comprises of 5
individual C-Channel panels placed longitudinally side by side and welded together in
longitudinal direction to form the bottom portion of Closed Channel Slab. The other part
comprises of five individual rectangle flat panels placed longitudinally side by side and
welded together in longitudinal direction to form the top portion of Closed Channel Slab.
Rectangle Flat slabs are placed transversely on the C-Section Slabs as shown in fig 5.9.
Figure 5-9 View of Closed Channel Slab
5.7.6 Casting of the conventional concrete slab:

Slab is Casted as per design mentioned in Appendix B.
Form work of inner dimension of 1524mm X 1524mm was prepared with the
wooden strips of 76mm height. A layer of plastic was placed inside the mould. Above
the plastic layer reinforcement mesh of 6mm dia bars at 200mm c/c both ways were
placed as shown in fig.5.10.
Once the reinforcement is placed concrete is poured, tamped and levelled upto a
height of 76mm. After 24 hours the mould is striped and the slab is damp cured for 28
days. It was made sure that the slab is kept damp throughout.

Page
Figure 5-10 Reinforcement of Conventional Slab
Figure 5-11 Casting of Conventional Slab

Page
5.8 Testing procedure

After the specimens(slabs) were ready for testing, the specimens were coated with
white wash so that the cracks will be clearly visible.
Once the white wash is dried, the centre of the slab on the bottom surface and on
the web portion of C-Channel (centre panel) in the longitudinal direction are marked to
fix the strain gauge. Before fixing the strain gauge, the surface is polished with the emery
paper to obtain a smooth finish. After polishing the surface, the Strain Gauges were fixed
with the help of adhesive. The electrodes are then soldered with the wire which are later
connected to Strain Indicators.
The Specimens are placed on the open square frame of dimension 1650mm X
1650mm which acts as Simply Supported. The specimen is placed on the open square
frame for testing and the dial gauge is placed at the centre of the bottom portion of slab
to measure the deflection.
The slab is tested for uniformly distributed load, so the loading is done by placing
2’ X 2’ slabs in layers. Each layer consists of 4 slabs placed one beside the other to form
a square platform of 4’X4’. Each layer consists of four slabs weighing 200kg±10kg. Six
layers of these slabs were placed one above the other. It was observed that there was no
yielding of slabs after placing six layers of slabs, further placing of slabs was found to be
difficult and hence over these slabs a box shaped channel section of dimension 1m X 1m
is placed at the top of the sixth layer of slab. Above this box type channel section, a steel
beam of 200mm depth is placed diagonally. The hollow section between steel beam and
the box shaped channel section, sand bags were placed to transfer the load uniformly
onto the slab.
On the Steel beam a hydraulic jack and load cell of weight 50kg is placed. The
loading is carried out and the readings of Dial gauge and strain gauge were noted down
at regular intervals of loading.
The experimental setup for loading is as shown in fig 5.12 and 5.13

Page
Figure 5-12 Placing of Slab Specimen on Metal Open Frame
Figure 5-13 Experimental Setup

Page
6 Results and Discussions

In the present experimental investigation Conventional Slab (S0), Closed Channel
slabs (S1, S2 and S3) and Single Panel Closed Channel slabs (S1P, S2P and S3P) are casted
and tested in laboratory respectively.
The Closed Channel slab size consists of two parts, first part comprises of 5
individual C-Channel panels placed longitudinally side by side and welded together in
longitudinal direction to form the bottom portion of Closed Channel Slab. The other part
comprises of five individual rectangle flat panels placed longitudinally side by side and
welded together in longitudinal direction to form the top portion of Closed Channel Slab.
Rectangle Flat slabs are placed transversely on the C-Section Slabs as shown in fig 6.2.
1.) The reinforcement in the web portion of C Channel sections are varied, namely:
a.) Two layers of welded mesh of 2.2mm diameter spaced at 32mm c/c.
b.) Vertical bars of 6mm diameter HYSD bars spaced at 50mm c/c.
c.) Vertical and diagonal bars of 6mm diameter HYSD bars spaced at 100mm c/c.
2.) Types of Slabs
a.) S0- Conventional Slab of Size 1524X1524X76mm.
b.) S1P- Individual Closed channel panel of size 1524X1524X76mm consisting

of two layers of welded mesh in web of C-Channel.
c.) S2P- Individual Closed channel panel of size 1524X1524X76mm consisting
of Vertical Bars of 6mm diameter in web.
d.) S3P- Individual Closed channel panel of size 1524X1524X76mm consisting
of vertical and diagonal bars of 6mm diameter in web.
A Typical Closed Channel Panel Slab for the Varying Reinforcement (S1P, S2P, S3P)
is as shown in fig 6.1.

Page
Figure 6-1 Typical Closed Channel Panel Slab
d. S1- Closed Channel Slab which consists of Five individual closed channel
e. S2- Closed Channel Slab which consists of Five individual closed channel
f. S3- Closed Channel Slab which consists of Five individual closed channel
panels of S3P welded together. (Fig 6.2)
Figure 6-2 A Typical Closed Channel Slab

Page
Results and discussions of each model are compared with the conventional slab
in terms of Load-Deflection Behaviour, Stress- Strain Behaviour and Performance
Evaluation Factor (PEF).
𝐿𝑜𝑎𝑑/𝐷𝑒𝑓𝑙𝑒𝑐𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛 𝑐𝑜𝑟𝑟𝑒𝑠𝑝𝑜𝑛𝑑𝑖𝑛𝑔 𝑡𝑜 𝐻𝑜𝑙𝑙𝑜𝑤 𝑆𝑙𝑎𝑏

PEF for any quantity = 𝐿𝑜𝑎𝑑/𝐷𝑒𝑓𝑙𝑒𝑐𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛𝑐𝑜𝑟𝑟𝑒𝑠𝑝𝑜𝑛𝑑𝑖𝑛𝑔 𝑡𝑜 𝑡ℎ𝑒 𝐶𝑜𝑛𝑣𝑒𝑛𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛𝑎𝑙 𝑆𝑙𝑎𝑏
Ductility of Slab
It is defined as the ratio of ultimate deflection to deflection at yield.
𝑈𝑙𝑡𝑖𝑚𝑎𝑡𝑒 𝐷𝑒𝑓𝑙𝑒𝑐𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛
Ductility of Slab = 𝐷𝑒𝑓𝑙𝑒𝑐𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛𝑎𝑡 𝑌𝑖𝑒𝑙𝑑
Figure 6-3 Rectangular Flat Panels Placed over Bottom C-Channel Panels

Page
6.1 Comparison of Weights of slabs.

In this section the dead weights of Closed Channel slab and Conventional slab are
compared. The weight of c channel panel and rectangle flat panel were weighed and the
weight of conventional slab was calculated based on the volume and density.
1) Weight of each C-Channel Panel - 26kg.

2) Weight of each Rectangular Flat Panel - 16kg.
 Total Weight of Closed Channel Slab S1, S2, S3= 5 X Weight of C-Channel Panel
+ 5 X Rectangular Flat Panel.
= 5 X 26kg + 5 X 16kg
= 210kg.
 Total Weight of Conventional Slab S0 = Volume of Slab X Density
= 1.524 X 1.524 X 0.076 X 2500
= 441kg.
Table 6-1 Comparison of Weight of Slabs
Weight of Weight Ratio with respect

Slab
Slab (kg) to Slab S0
S0 441 1.00
S1, S2, S3 210 0.48
 From the table 6.1 it is observed that Weight of C-Channel Slab (S1, S2 and S3) is
reduced by 52% compared to conventional slab (S0).

Page
6.2 COMPARISON OF CLOSED CHANEL SLABS WITH CONVENTIONAL

SLAB.
The flexural behaviour of Closed channel slab and Conventional slab is discussed with
respect to load v/s deflection and flexural stress v/s strain. The Load and the
corresponding stress are calculated as mentioned
𝐿𝑜𝑎𝑑 𝑜𝑛 𝑡ℎ𝑒 𝑆𝑙𝑎𝑏

1. Uniformly Distributed Load on slab(w) = , where
𝐶𝑜𝑛𝑡𝑎𝑐𝑡 𝐴𝑟𝑒𝑎
Contact area =1.35m X 1.35m
𝑀𝑜𝑚𝑒𝑛𝑡
2. Flexural stress on the slab = , where
𝑆𝑒𝑐𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛 𝑀𝑜𝑑𝑢𝑙𝑢𝑠
Moment = wL2/8, w is the Uniformly Distributed Load.
L=Effective length=1.35m and
Section Modulus, Z=bd2/6 where
b=width of slab=1.524m and
d =depth of slab=0.076m
Since the webs of the closed channel slab (vertical members) were not accessible it was
not possible to detect 1st crack. Hence the 1st crack is noted from the load vs deflection
graph. The deviation point of graph from the straight line is considered as first crack load.

Page
6.2.1 Comparison of results of S1 with respect to S0.

The flexural behaviour of closed channel slab and conventional slab is discussed with
respect to load v/s deflection and bending stress v/s strain. The load and corresponding
deflection, stress and corresponding strain are recorded and tabulated in Table 6.2 and
6.3 respectively.
The variations of load vs deflection and stress vs strain is shown in Fig. 6.3 to 6.4
The crack pattern of the slab S1 and S0 is presented in photographs 6.5 to 6.7.
6.2.2 Load v/s Deflection

From Fig 6.3, it is observed that
• The First Crack Load of S0 and S1 is 24kN/m2 and 27kN/m2 and the corresponding
deflection is 12.82mm and 16.70mm respectively.
• The Ultimate load of S0 is found to be 42.62kN/m2 and the corresponding

deflection is 18.55 mm.

• Ultimate load and corresponding deflection of S0 is 67.5% and 45% more when
compared to first crack load and corresponding deflection.
• Ultimate Load and corresponding deflection of S1 is 63% and 33% more when
• The ultimate load and deflection of Closed Channel Slab S1 compared to

Conventional RC Slab (S0) is higher by 3.40 % and 19.25% respectively.

Page
Table 6-2 Load vs Deflection of S1 and S0
Loading Deflection in mm
kN/m2 S0 S1
0.00 0.00 0.00
1.10 0.28 0.50
2.17 0.79 1.12
3.25 1.07 1.85
4.29 1.93 2.47
5.37 2.67 3.12
6.52 3.82 4.59
7.58 5.19 5.82
10.33 6.82 7.20
13.08 8.38 9.40
15.83 9.44 10.23
18.58 10.83 11.98
21.33 12.09 12.78
24.08 12.82 14.18
26.83 13.04 16.60
29.58 13.52 17.47
32.33 14.49 18.93
35.08 15.34 19.48
38.83 16.41 21.19
41.58 18.03 21.78
42.62 18.55 21.96
44.07 22.15
50 Load Vs Deflection
45 S0 S1
40
35
LOAD (kN/m2)
30
25
20
15
10
5
0
0 5 10 15 20 25
DEFLECTION (mm)
Figure 6-3 Load vs Deflection Graph of S1 and S0

Page
6.2.3 Stress v/s Strain

• Ultimate strain in S0 at bottom surface is 516x10-6 respectively.
• Ultimate strain in S1 at bottom surface and in the web portion are 592x10-6 and
445x10-6 respectively.
• It is observed that the strains at the bottom surface of S1 is higher by 15% compared
to the bottom surface of S0.
• It is observed that the strains in the web surface of S1 is less by 14% compared to
the bottom surface of S0.
• Area under Stress vs Strain graph gives the Toughness of slab. So from the Fig 6.4
it is seen that the Closed channel slab S1 is tougher than the Conventional Slab S0.
• From the Fig 6.4, it is seen that the web portion of Closed Channel Slab S1 is also
tougher than the Conventional Slab S0.
Table 6-3 Stress vs Strain of S0 and S1
Stress Micro Stress Micro Strains (X10-6)

Strains S1
(X10-6) Tension Zone Web Zone Web Zone
S0 Longitudinal Along Depth of
Tension MPa
Bottom Surface Direction Web
Zone 0.000 0 0 0
Bottom 0.285 -34 -21 -12
MPa
Surface 0.561 -84 -31 -6
0.000 0 0.841 -142 -49 -3
0.198 -11 1.110 -179 -67 -1
0.396 -25 1.390 -206 -84 0
0.585 -47 1.687 -238 -101 8
0.722 -73 1.962 -271 -116 16
0.966 -98 2.674 -307 -151 21
1.174 -117 3.386 -331 -192 23
1.364 -148 4.090 -349 -215 26
1.860 -179 4.810 -371 -242 31
2.354 -203 5.520 -401 -272 29
2.850 -237 6.230 -438 -292 29
3.344 -279 6.940 -467 -316 24
3.840 -309 7.660 -515 -329 16
4.334 -341 8.370 -536 -353 14
4.880 -378 9.080 -547 -371 12
5.324 -392 10.050 -555 -395 11
5.819 -411 10.760 -569 -401 08
6.314 -426 11.030 -578 -423 05
6.989 -467 11.400 -592 -445 04
7.484 -492
7.671 -516

Page
Stress vs strain at bottom of slab S0, S1 and also in web

of S1
S0 S1(Bottom) S1(web)
12
10
8
StRESS(MPA)
0
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700
microstrain
Figure 6-4 Stress vs Strain of S1 and S0 at the bottom slab
6.2.4 Crack Pattern

 In the Closed Channel Slab S1, vertical cracks were seen on the web portion of
the C-Channel. (Fig 6.5)
 The cracks observed on the web portion were few in number.
 In the middle panels of the C-channel Slabs the cracks were prominent in the web.
 Crushing of web portion is not observed in the slab.
 There were no cracks developed on the Bottom of the channel slab nor on the top
rectangle flat slab.
 Whereas on the conventional slab S0, cracks were developed diagonally and
extended from the centre to edges. (Fig 6.7)

Page
Figure 6-5 Cracks Developed on the Web of S1
Figure 6-6 Cracks on the Web when zoomed

Page
Figure 6-7 Crack Pattern on the Conventional Slab

Page
6.2.5 Comparison of Results of S1P with S1

The flexural behaviour of the Single panel slab (S1P) of S1 of which the web
consists of double layer welded mesh is compared with slab S1. the results are compared
and discussed with respect to load v/s deflection and crack pattern. The load and
corresponding deflection are recorded and tabulated in Table 6.4.
The variation of Load vs Deflection is shown in Fig. 6.8.
The crack pattern of the slab is presented in Photograph 6.10.
6.2.6 Load v/s Deflection:

deflection was 22.12 mm whereas the Ultimate load of S1P is found to be 7.12kN/m2 and
the corresponding deflection was 12.09mm. (Table 6.2 and Table 6.4)
• The Ultimate Load and Deflection of slab S1P compared to slab S1 is less by 83%
and 45% respectively.
Table 6-4 Load vs Deflection for S1P

Deflection
Loading
in mm
kN/m2
0.00 0.00
0.95 1.63
2.02 2.86
3.05 4.17
4.10 6.82
5.10 8.89
6.11 10.11
7.12 12.09

Page
8 Load Vs Deflection
7
6
LOAD (kN/m2)
0
0 2 4 6
DEFLECTION 8
(mm) 10 12 14
Figure 6-8 Load vs Deflection graph of S1P
6.2.7 Crack Pattern

 In the Closed Channel Slab S1P, vertical cracks were seen on the web portion of
the C-Channel similar to S1.
 There was a little crushing of web portion in S1P panel.
 No cracks were observed on the bottom of C-Channel panel nor on the top
rectangle flat panel in both S1P and S1. (Fig 6.5 and Fig 6.10)
Figure 6-9 Experimental Setup of Individual Panels

Page
Figure 6-10 Crack pattern on web of S1P

Page
6.2.8 Comparison of Results S2 with respect to S0.

The flexural behaviour of closed channel slab and conventional slab is discussed
with respect to load v/s deflection and stress v/s strain. The load and corresponding
deflection, stress and corresponding strain are recorded and tabulated in Table 6.5 and
6.6 respectively.
The variations of Load vs Deflection and Stress vs Strain is shown in Fig. 6.11 to 6.12.

 The First Crack Load of S0 and S2 is 24kN/m2 and 20.5kN/m2 and corresponding
deflection is 12.82mm and 14.90mmrespectively.
 The Ultimate load of S0 is found to be 42.62kN/m2 and the corresponding


 Ultimate load and corresponding deflection of S0 is 67.5% and 45% more when
 Ultimate Load and corresponding deflection of S2 is 44% and 56% more when
 The ultimate load of the slab S2 compared to conventional RC Slab (S0) is lower
by 36.50% and the deflection is higher by 25.06 %.

Page
Table 6-5 Load vs Deflection comparison between S2 and S0
kN/m2 S0 S2
0.00 0.00 0.00
1.10 0.28 0.60
2.17 0.79 2.10
3.25 1.07 3.55
4.29 1.93 4.63
5.37 2.67 5.30
6.52 3.82 6.22
7.58 5.19 7.58
10.33 6.82 8.47
13.08 8.38 9.30
15.83 9.44 10.80
18.58 10.83 13.41
21.33 12.09 15.28
24.08 12.82 20.10
26.83 13.04 21.83
29.58 13.52 23.16
32.33 14.49
35.08 15.34
38.83 16.41
41.58 18.03
42.62 18.55
45 load vs deflection
S0 S2
40
35
30
LOAD (kN/m2)
25
20
15
10
0
0 5 10 15 20 25
DEFLECTION (MM)
Figure 6-11 Load vs Deflection graph of S0 and S2

Page

From Table 6.6 and Fig 6.12, it is observed that
• Ultimate strain in S2 at bottom and in the web portion are 568x10-6 and 448x10-6
respectively.
• Ultimate strain in S0 at bottom is 516x10-6 respectively.
• The strains at bottom surface of S2 is higher by 10% compared to bottom surface
of S0.
• It is observed that the strains in the web surface of S2 is less by 12% compared to
• Area under the Stress vs Strain graph gives the Toughness of slab.
• From Fig 6.12 it can be concluded that the bottom portion of slab S0 is as Tough as
bottom portion of slab S2.
• From the Fig 6.12, it can be seen that the web portion of Closed Channel Slab S2 is
not as tough as Conventional Slab S0.
Table 6-6 Stress vs Strain comparison between S2 and S0
Micro Stress Micro Strains (X10-6)

Stress S2
Strains
MPa
Bottom Bottom Surface Direction Web
MPa 0.000 0 0 0
Surface
0.0000 0 0.285 -35 21 -16
0.198 -11 0.561 -63 3 -11
0.396 -25 0.841 -78 -12 -4
0.585 -47 1.110 -94 -35 0
0.722 -73 1.390 -136 -56 10
0.966 -98 1.687 -164 -90 16
1.174 -117 1.962 -181 -136 23
1.364 -148 2.674 -230 -178 25
1.860 -179 3.386 -262 -299 26
2.354 -203 4.090 -319 -373 35
2.850 -237 4.810 -352 -387 42
3.344 -279 5.520 -387 -408 28
3.840 -309 6.230 -462 -423 21
4.334 -341 6.940 -493 -429 16
4.880 -378 7.660 -568 -448 16
5.324 -392
5.819 -411
6.314 -426
6.989 -467
7.484 -492
7.671 -516

Page
Stress vs strain at bottom of slab S0, S2 and also in web

9 of S2
8
S0 S2(Bottom) S2(web)
7
6
StRESS(MPA)
0
0 100 200 300 400 500 600
microstrain
Figure 6-12 Stress vs Strain Graph of S0 and S2 at Bottom Slab
6.2.11 Crack Pattern

 In the Closed Channel Slab S2, vertical cracks were seen on the web portion of
the C-Channel and cracks were also observed at the junction of the web and the
bottom slab. (Fig 6.13 and 6.14).
 The number cracks on the web portion were more on slab S2 compared to S1.
 There were no cracks formed at the bottom of the C-Channel closed slab nor on
the top rectangle flat slab.
extended from the centre to edges. (Fig 6.15).
Figure 6-13 Crack Pattern in Web of S2

Page
Figure 6-14 Cracks on Web of S2
Figure 6-15 Crack Pattern of Conventional Slab
6.2.12 Comparison of Results of S2P with S2.

The flexural behaviour of the Single panel (S2P) of S2 of which the web consists
of 6mm dia HYSD bars spaced at 50mm c/c in longitudinal direction is compared with
respect to load v/s deflection and crack pattern. The load and corresponding deflection
are recorded and tabulated in Table 6.7.
The variation of Load vs Deflection is shown in Fig. 6.16 and the crack pattern
of the slab are presented in photograph 6.17.

Page

deflection was 23.20 mm whereas the Ultimate load of S2P is found to be 5.16kN/m2 and
the corresponding deflection was 15.29mm. (Table 6.5 and 6.7).
• The Ultimate Load and Deflection of slab S2P compared to slab S2 is less by 81%
and 34% respectively.
Table 6-7 Load vs Deflection for S2P
Deflection
Loading
in mm
kN/m2
0.00 0.00
0.95 2.12
2.02 4.68
3.05 7.39
4.10 11.58
5.16 15.29
6
Load vs Deflection
5
4
LOAD (kN/m2)
0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18
DEFLECTION (MM)
Figure 6-16 Load vs Deflection graph of S2P

 In the Closed Channel Slab S2P, vertical cracks were seen on the web portion of
the C-Channel slab only.
 In addition to vertical cracks observed in S2P, diagonal cracks were also observed,
whereas in S2 the pattern of crack was only in vertical direction. (Fig 6.13 and Fig
6.17).

Page
 No cracks were observed on the bottom portion of the C-Channel Slab nor on the
top slab.
Figure 6-17 Cracks in Web of S2P

Page
6.2.15 Comparison of Results S3 with respect to S0.

The flexural behaviour of Closed Channel Slab and Conventional Slab is
discussed with respect to load v/s deflection and stress v/s strain. The load and
corresponding deflection, stress and corresponding strain are recorded and tabulated in
Table 6.8 and 6.9 respectively.
The variations of Load vs Deflection and Stress vs Strain is shown in Fig. 6.18 to 6.19.

 The First Crack Load of S0 and S3 is 24kN/m2 and 41kN/m2 and the corresponding
deflection is 12.82mm and 17.72mmrespectively
deflection was 22.78 mm.

deflection was 18.55 mm.
 Ultimate load and corresponding deflection of S0 is 67.5% and 45% more when
 Ultimate Load and corresponding deflection of S3 is 20% and 29% more when
 The ultimate load of the slab S3 compared to conventional RC Slab (S0) is higher
by 15.30% and the deflection is higher by 22.80 %.
Dept. of Civil Engineering, UVCE, Bengaluru 60 | P a g e

Table 6-8 Load vs Deflection comparison between S3 and S0
kN/m2 S0 S3
0.00 0.00 0.00
1.10 0.28 0.37
2.17 0.79 0.94
3.25 1.07 1.44
4.29 1.93 2.19
5.37 2.67 2.86
6.52 3.82 4.05
7.58 5.19 5.90
10.33 6.82 7.64
13.08 8.38 8.86
15.83 9.44 10.59
18.58 10.83 11.62
21.33 12.09 12.48
24.08 12.82 13.11
27.06 13.04 13.96
29.58 13.52 14.62
32.33 14.49 15.35
35.08 15.34 16.06
38.83 16.41 16.98
41.58 18.03 17.72
42.62 18.55 18.91
44.36 20.18
47.11 21.45
49.14 22.78
60
Load Vs Deflection
S0 S3
50
40
LOAD (kN/m2)
30
20
10
0
0 5 10 15 20 25
DEFLECTION (mm)
Figure 6-18 Load vs Deflection Graph of S0 and S3


From Table 6.9 and Fig 6.19, it is observed that
• Ultimate strain in S3 at bottom and in the web portion are 738x10-6 and 562x10-6
respectively.
• Ultimate strain in S0 at bottom is 516x10-6 respectively.
• From the graph it is observed that strains at bottom surface of S3 is higher by 43%
compared to bottom surface of S0.
• It is observed that the strains in the web surface of S2 is higher by 9% compared to

• The area under the Stress vs Strain graph gives the toughness of the slab.
• From the Fig 6.19, it can be seen that S3 is tougher than the conventional slab S0.
• From the Fig 6.19, it can be seen that the web portion of Closed Channel Slab S3 is
tougher than Conventional Slab S0.

Table 6-9 Stress and Strain of S0 and S3
Micro Stress Micro Strains (X10-6)

Strains S3
Stress
Tension MPa
Bottom Surface Direction Web
Zone 0.000 0 0 0
Bottom 0.285 -9 -11 -12
MPa
Surface 0.561 -19 -19 -6
0.0000 0 0.841 -36 -29 -3
0.0198 -11 1.110 -52 -47 -1
0.0396 -25 1.390 -86 -56 0
0.0585 -47 1.687 -110 -72 8
0.0722 -73 1.962 -137 -106 16
0.0966 -98 2.674 -174 -152 21
0.1174 -117 3.386 -216 -226 23
0.1364 -148 4.090 -275 -295 26
0.1860 -179 4.810 -322 -339 31
0.2354 -203 5.520 -382 -379 29
0.2850 -237 6.230 -447 -407 29
0.3344 -279 6.940 -468 -418 24
0.3840 -309 7.660 -491 -440 29
0.4334 -341 8.370 -538 -460 32
0.4880 -378 9.080 -572 -471 34
0.5324 -392 10.050 -612 -489 41
0.5819 -411 10.760 -638 -495 49
0.6314 -426 11.030 -662 -505 52
0.6989 -467 11.400 -693 -519 58
0.7484 -492 12.195 -712 -534 58
0.7671 -516 12.720 -738 -562 62

Stress vs Strain at bottom of Slabs S0 and in web of S1,

14 S2 and S3
12 S0(B) S3(B) S3(W)
10
StRESS(MPA)
0
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800
microstrain
Figure 6-19 Stress vs Strain in So and S3.

 In the Closed Channel Slab S3, vertical cracks and also diagonal cracks were seen
on the web portion of the C-Channel. (Fig 6.20)
 In the middle panels of the C-channel Slabs the cracks were prominent.
 Crushing of web portion in central panel was observed.
 No cracks were observed on the bottom of the channel slab nor on the top
rectangle flat slab.
extended from the centre to edges. (fig 6.21)
Figure 6-20 Crack pattern on web of Channel section

Figure 6-21 Crack Pattern of Conventional Slab
6.2.19 Comparison of Results of S3P with S3

The flexural behaviour of the Single panel (S3P) of Slab S3 of which the web
consists of vertical and diagonal bars of 6mm dia HYSD bars spaced vertically at 100mm
c/c is compared with respect to load v/s deflection. The load and corresponding deflection
are recorded and tabulated in Table 6.10.
The variation of Load vs Deflection is shown in Fig. 6.22.

deflection was 22.78 mm whereas the Ultimate load of S3P is found to be
8.70kN/m2 and the corresponding deflection was 13.15mm. (Table 6.8 and 6.10).
 The Ultimate Load and Deflection of slab S3P compared to slab S3 is less
by 83% and 43% respectively.

Table 6-10 Load vs Deflection of S3P

Deflection
Loading
in mm
kN/m2
0.00 0.00
0.95 0.56
2.02 1.99
3.05 3.42
4.10 5.82
5.16 7.23
6.20 8.79
7.30 10.68
8.70 13.15
10
9
Load vs Deflection
8
7
LOAD (kN/m2)
0
0 2 4 DEFLECTION
6 (MM)
8 10 12 14
Figure 6-22 Load vs Deflection Graph of S3P

 In the Closed Channel Slab S3P, mostly diagonal cracks were seen on the web
portion of the C-Channel slab only. (Fig 6.23)
 Cracks were few but they were predominantly in the centre of the web.
 The pattern of crack on the web were mostly diagonal. Very few straight cracks
along the depth of web were also formed.
 Diagonal cracks observed were more in S3P as compared to S3. In S3 slab, vertical
cracks were predominant than diagonal cracks. (Fig 6.20 and Fig 6.23)
 No cracks were observed on the bottom portion of the C-Channel Panel nor on
the top rectangle flat slab.

Figure 6-23 Crack Pattern in S3P

6.2.22 Failure Behaviour of Channel Slabs compared to Conventional Slab.

At the ultimate load in the conventional slab S0, the cracks were developed at the bottom
surface diagonally and extending from the centre to edges.
In the closed channel slab as the load is gradually applied on channel slabs,
the deflection also increased proportionately. But after certain amount of load it is seen
that there is no change in deflection of channel slab. The dial gauge was removed from
the bottom of the slab and the application of load is continued on the slab. As the load is
applied it is observed that the top rectangle flat slab transfers the load to the web portion
of the channel slabs. However, there was no transfer of this load to the bottom slab of the
channel and hence there was no deflection observed. This may be because the load is
resisted by web. It was also observed that the web portion started getting crushed with
increase in the load. At the ultimate failure the bottom slab remained intact whereas the
top slab starts deflecting with the web getting crushed which indicates the ultimate load
carrying capacity of slab. So, at this point of time the load application is stopped. This
type of behaviour of increase in stiffness of slab is due to the web of the channel slab
acting as T-Beams.
From the above discussion, failure pattern of Closed Channel Slabs (S1, S2 and S3) are
completely different to Conventional Slab (S0).

7 Summary
From the Table 7.1, it is evident that
 The Closed Channel Slab S3 has the highest load Carrying Capacity than the
Conventional Slab S0 and Closed Channel Slab S1 & S2.
 The performance of the Closed Channel Slab S3 with respect to load is 16% higher
compared to the Conventional Slab S0.
 The performance of the Closed Channel Slab S1 with respect to load is 4% higher
 The performance of the Closed Channel Slab S2 with respect to load is 36% less
 With respect to the ultimate deflection all the three slabs i.e. S1, S2 and S3, the
PEF is 19%, 25% and 23% more compared to Conventional Slab S0.
Table 7-1 Ultimate Load, Deflection and the PEF of Slab specimens
Deflection
Ultimate @
Slab
Sl No. Specimen load Ultimate Performance Evaluation
Designation
Load Factor (PEF)
2
kN/m mm Load Deflection
1 Conventional Slab S0 42.62 18.55 1.00 1.00
44.07 22.12
2 Closed Channel Slab S1 1.04 1.19
(3.40%) (19.25%)
29.58 23.20
(-36.5%) (25.06%)
49.14 22.78
(15.30%) (22.80%)

60
49.14
50
ULTIMATE LOAD(KN/M2)
42.62 44.07
40
29.58
30
20
10
S0 S1 S2 S3
Figure 7-1 Comparison of Ultimate load carrying capacity between S0,S1,S2 and S3
Fig 7.1 and Fig 7.2 Shows the Comparison of Ultimate load carrying capacity between
S0, S1, S2 and S3. It is seen from the figure that slab S3 has highest value of ultimate load
when compared to Slabs S0, S1 and S2 by 15.30%, 11.50% and 66% respectively.
Closed Channel Slab S2 has the least Ultimate load compared to the other closed channel
slabs and conventional slab.
LOAD VS DEFLECTION
60
S0 S1 S2 S3
50
40
LOAD(KN/M2)
30
20
10
0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
DEFLECTION(MM)
Figure 7-2 Load vs Deflection of S0, S1, S2 and S3.

Fig 7.3 Represents Combined Stress vs stain at bottom of closed channel slabs and
conventional slab.
From Fig 7.3 it is seen that,
 Strain in bottom portion of S3 is higher by 43%, 25% and 30% when compared to
the strain in bottom portion of S0, S1 and S2 respectively.
 Area under the Stress vs Strain Graph denotes the Toughness of the slab. So it is
seen that the Closed Channel Slab is tougher compared to all other closed channel
slabs and also conventional slab.
STRESS VS STRAIN AT BOTTOM OF SLAB

14
S0 S1 S2 S3
12
10
STRESS(MPA)
0
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800
MICROSTRAIN
Figure 7-3 Stress vs Strain Graph at Bottom of Slab S0, S1 , S2 and S3
Fig 7.4 Represents Stress vs strain at bottom portion of Conventional Slab S0 and in web
portion of Closed channel slabs S1, S2 and S3.
From Fig 7.4 it is seen that,
 Strain in web portion of S3 is higher by 9%, 26% and 25% when compared to the
strain in bottom portion of S0 and closed channel slabs S1 and S2 respectively.
 Area under the Stress vs Strain Graph denotes the Toughness of the slab. So it is
seen that the Web portion of Closed Channel Slab S3 is tougher compared to all
other closed channel slabs.

 The web portion of closed channel slab S1 is also found to be tough than the
conventional slab S0.
ST RESS VS ST RA I N AT BOT TO M O F SLA BS S0 A ND I N

14 W E B O F S1 , S2 A ND S3
S0(B) S1(W) S2(W) S3(W)
12
10
STRESS(MPA)
0
0 100 200 300 400 500 600
MICROSTRAIN
Figure 7-4 Stress vs strain at bottom of slab S0 and in web of S1,S2 and S3,

7.1 Ductility of Slab Elements.

The performance of the Closed Channel Slabs S1, S2 and S3 with respect to
ductility is higher by 6%, 25% and 5% compared to the Conventional Slab S0.
The PEF for ductility was found to be 1.06, 1.25 and 1.05 for S1, S2 and S3
respectively.
Hence, it can be said that the Closed channel slabs are more ductile than the
Conventional Slabs.
Table 7-2 Ultimate Load, Deflection and their PEF of slab Specimens
Yield Ultimate Performance

Slab Deflection Deflection
Sl No. Specimen Ductility Evaluation
Designation
mm mm Factor
1 Conventional Slab S0 12.82 18.55 1.25 1.00
2 Closed Channel Slab S1 16.70 22.12 1.32 1.06

8 Conclusion
This Chapter summarizes the assessments and findings of this Dissertation work.
The conclusions pertaining of comparison of Flexural behaviour on Channel Slabs are
listed below.
In the Present Study it is found that
 Closed Channel Slabs have shown considerable reduction in dead load.

The Dead load of Closed Channel slab is about 52% less when compared
with the conventional slab.
 The Closed Channel slab S3 has the highest load carrying capacity of all
other slabs which are casted with the Load of 49.14kN/m2.
 The performance of Closed Channel slab S1 with respect to Load carrying
capacity is higher by 3.40% when compared to Conventional Slab S0.
capacity is less by 36.50% when compared to Conventional Slab S0.
capacity is higher by 15.30% when compared to Conventional Slab S0.
 Pattern of Load carried by individual panel of Closed Channel
Slabs(1’X5’X3”) is found to be similar to the Pattern of Load carried by
Closed Channel Slabs(5’X5’X3”).
 Closed Channel Slabs are found to be more ductile compared to
Conventional Slab.
 The Closed Channel Slabs is more Safe as compared to the Conventional
slab.

9 Scope of Future Studies.

The present study can be extended by varying
1.The spacing and configuration of the web reinforcement in the Closed-channel

slab.
2.The number of layers of the welded mesh used in web and Flange of Closed
Channel Slab.
3.Diameter of the welded mesh.
4.Thickness of the web and Flange members and
5.Also by varying the grade of concrete.

References
1. Mahmoud Lasheen , Amr Shaat , Ayman Khalil, “ Behaviour of lightweight

concrete slabs acting compositely with steel I sections”, Construction and
Building Materials 124 (2016) 967–981.
2. Da-Hua Jiang and Jing-Hua Shen, “Strength of Concrete Slabs in Punching
Shear”, Journal of Structural Engineering, Vol. 112, No. 12, December, 1986.
3. Longmei Shentu, Dahua Jiang and Cheng-Tzu Thomas Hsu, “Load-Carrying
Capacity for Concrete Slabs”, Journal of Structural Engineering, ASCE/ January
1997.
4. Zhaohui Huang, Ian W. Burgess and Roger J. Plank, “Modelling Flexural action
of Concrete composite Slabs”, Journal Of Structural Engineering © ASCE /
AUGUST 2003
5. R. Ian Gilbert and Zafer I. Sakka, “Effect of Reinforcement type on Ductility of
Suspended Reinforced Hollow Concrete Slabs”, Journal Of Structural
Engineering, ASCE / June 2007
6. R Ian Gilbert, “Tension stiffening in lightly Reinforced Concrete Slabs”, Journal
of Structural Engineering, ASCE / June 2007.
7. W. A. Elsaigh1, E. P. Kearsley and J. M. Robberts3,“Modeling the Behavior of
Steel-Fiber Reinforced Concrete Ground Slabs. II: Development of Slab Model”,
Journal of Transportation Engineering, ASCE / DECEMBER 2011
8. S. Dhanidharan, “Flexural Behaviour of Hollow Composite Slab”, International
Journal of Engineering Sciences and Research Technology, 5(10): October, 2016.
9. A. Dhasarathan, Dr. R. Thenmozhi, Mrs. S. Deepa Shree, “Experimental Study
On The Ductile Characteristics Of Hybrid Ferrocement Slabs”, International
Journal of Engineering Sciences and Research Technology.
10. M.Amala, Dr.M.Neelamegam, “Experimental Study of Flexure and Impact on
Ferrocement Slabs”, IOSR Journal of Mechanical and Civil Engineering (IOSR-
JMCE), e-ISSN: 2278-1684, p-ISSN: 2320-334X. PP 62-66
11. Randhir J. Phalke, Darshan G. Gaidhankar, “Flexural Behaviour of Ferrocement
Slab Panels Using Welded Square Mesh by Incorporating Steel Fibers”, IJRET:

International Journal of Research in Engineering and Technology, eISSN: 2319-

1163 | pISSN: 2321-7308
12. Yu T. Chou, “Stress Analysis Of Small Concrete Slabs On Grade”, Journal of
Transportation Engineering, ASCE
13. Dr. T.Ch.Madhavi, Shanmukha Kavya .V, Siddhartha Das, Sri Prashanth .V,
Vetrivel .V, “Composite Action Of Ferro-Cement Slabs Under Static And Cyclic
Loading”, International Journal of Civil Engineering and Technology (IJCET),
Volume 4, Issue 3, May - June (2013), pp. 57-62
14. IS 456-2000, “Code of Practice for plain and reinforced concrete”
15. IS 10262-2009, “Recommended guidelines for concrete mix design”
16. SP: 23-1982, “handbook on concrete mixes (Based on Indian Standards)”
17. IS 516-1959, “Method of tests for strength for concrete”
18. IS 8112-1989, “Specifications for 43 Grade ordinary Portland Cement”
19. IS 383-1970, “Specifications for coarse and fine aggregate from Natural sources
for concrete”

Appendix A.
Mix Design
a) Grade designation M20
b) Type of cement OPC 53 Grade Cement
c) Maximum nominal size of aggregate 8mm
d) Minimum cement content 320kg/m3
e) Maximum water-cement ratio 490kg/m3
f) Workability 75mm Slump
g) Exposure condition Mild
h) Degree of supervision Good
i) Maximum cement content 490kg/m3
A-2 TEST DATA FOR MATERIALS

a) Specific gravity of cement 3.04
b) Specific gravity of:
1) Coarse aggregate 2.740
2) Fine aggregate 2.386
c)Sieve Analysis Zone II
Target Strength
Tolerance Factor = 1.65
Standard Deviation = 4 (Table 1, IS 10262:2009)
Target Strength = 20 + 4 * 1.65
= 26.6 N/mm2
9.1.1 Water Cement Ratio

From Table. 5 of IS 456-2000
Max w/c ratio = 0.55 (55%)
Adopted w/c ratio = 0.45 > 0.55. Hence OK
9.1.2 Water Content
From Table 2 of IS 10262-2009,

Volume of water = 208 lit. (For 25-50mm Slump Range)
Further for every 25mm Slump increase the Volume of Water by 3%

∴ Water Content = 208 X 1.03 = 214.24 lit.
Calculation of Cement Content:

Water/Cement Ratio = 0.45
Cement Content = 214.24/0.45 = 345kg/m3.
From table 5 of IS 456-2000, minimum cement content for mild exposure condition =
300kg/m3,
345 kg/m3> 300 kg/m3, Hence OK.
Portion of Volume of Coarse and Fine Aggregate Content:

As per table 3, IS 10262-2009 volume of coarse aggregate for aggregate <10 mm = 0.47.
a. Volume of Concrete = 1m3

𝑀𝑎𝑠𝑠 𝑜𝑓 𝐶𝑒𝑚𝑒𝑛𝑡 1
b. Volume of cement = ∗ 1000
𝑆𝑝𝑒𝑐𝑖𝑓𝑖𝑐 𝐺𝑟𝑎𝑣𝑖𝑡𝑦 𝑜𝑓 𝐶𝑒𝑚𝑒𝑛𝑡
345 1
= ∗ 1000
3.04
= 0.113m3
𝑀𝑎𝑠𝑠 𝑜𝑓 𝑊𝑎𝑡𝑒𝑟 1
c. Volume of Water = ∗ 1000
𝑆𝑝𝑒𝑐𝑖𝑓𝑖𝑐 𝐺𝑟𝑎𝑣𝑖𝑡𝑦 𝑜𝑓 𝑊𝑎𝑡𝑒𝑟
214.14 1
= ∗ 1000
1
= 0.214 m3
d. Volume of all in aggregate = a-(b+c)
= 1 – (0.113+0.214)
= 0.673 m3
e. Mass of Coarse Aggregate = 0.673 x 0.47 x 2.74 x 1000
= 491.50 kg/m3
f. Mass of Fine Aggregate = 0.643 x 0.53 x 2.36 x 1000
= 805.70 kg/m3

Summary.
 Mass of Cement = 345 kg/m3
 Mass of Water = 214.14 kg/m2
 Water Cement Ratio = 0.45
 Mass of Coarse Aggregate = 491.50 kg/m3
 Mass of Fine Aggregate = 805.70kg/m3

Appendix B
Design of Conventional Slab.
Slab Size = 1524mm X 1524mm.
Load on Slab = 3 kN/m2 Peak Load.
L/d ratio = 35
L = 1524mm
1524
d= = 54mm.
35
Provide d = 56 mm.
Clear Cover = 20 mm.
Overall Depth = 76mm
Support Width = 76mm.
Effective Span = 1524-76 = 1448mm = Lx and Ly
Hence Slab 3is designed as Two Way Slab.
Self-Weight = 0.076 X 25 = 1.9 kN/m2
Live Load = 3.0 kN/m2
Total = 4.9 kN/m2
Factored Load Wu = 7.35 kN/m2
From table 27, IS 456-2009,
αx = 0.062
αy = 0.062

Mux = Muy = αx X wu X L2
= 0.062 X 7.35 X 1.4482
= 1.30 kN-m
Calculation of Reinforcements.
In X and Y- Direction
d = 56 mm.]
0.87Ast X 𝑓𝑦 )
Ast Required =0.87 X Ast𝑋 𝑓𝑦 (1- 𝑏𝑑𝑓𝑐𝑘
Ast = 66 mm2
But Minimum Reinforcement = 0.12%bd = 0.12% X 1.524 X 76 =137.3mm2

Spacing.
Using 6mm dia HYSD bar,
1000𝑋3.142𝑋36
Spacing = ∗ 1000 = 200 mm c/c.
4𝑋137.3
Maximum Spacing =3XD
= 3 X 76
= 228mm.
Thus Provide 6mm dia HYSD rod at 200mm c/c bothways.
137
Ast Provided = 200 ∗ 1000 = 685mm2
Check for Shear Stress
𝑊𝐿
Shear Force = 4
7.35 𝑋 1.446
= 4
= 2.65 kN.
2.65 𝑋 1000
Shear Stress = 1446 𝑋 56

τv = 0.032 N/mm2.
Nominal Shear Stress.

𝐴
Pt = 100 𝑏𝑑𝑠𝑡
685
= 100 𝑋 1000 𝑋 56
= 1.22%
τc = 0.67 N/mm2
Since τv < τc, Hence Safe.

Experimental Study of Flexural Behaviour of Channel Slabs

Загружено:

Сведения о документе

Авторское право

Доступные форматы

Поделиться этим документом

Поделиться или встроить документ

Параметры публикации

Этот документ был вам полезен?

Это неприемлемый материал?

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

Experimental Study of Flexural Behaviour of Channel Slabs

Загружено:

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

Experimental Study on the Flexural Behaviour of Channel Slabs

2 Need for the Present Study. ............................................................................ 11

3 Literature Review ........................................................................................... 12

4 Aim and Scope of Present Investigation. ......................................................... 18

4.2 Aim of the present investigation. 18

4.3 Scope of Present Investigation: 19

5 Experimental Investigations ........................................................................... 25

5.2 Materials Used 25

5.3 Mix Proportions 26

5.4 Mixing Procedure 27

Dept. of Civil Engineering, UVCE, Bengaluru 1|

5.5 Compressive Strength 27

5.6 Preparation of Skeletal of Slab Section. 30

5.7 Casting Procedure 30

5.8 Testing procedure 37

6 Results and Discussions .................................................................................. 39

6.1 Comparison of Weights of slabs. 42

6.2 COMPARISON OF CLOSED CHANEL SLABS WITH CONVENTIONAL SLAB. 43

Dept. of Civil Engineering, UVCE, Bengaluru 2|

6.2.13 Load v/s Deflection: ...................................................................................................... 58

9 Scope of Future Studies. ................................................................................. 75

Dept. of Civil Engineering, UVCE, Bengaluru 3|

Dept. of Civil Engineering, UVCE, Bengaluru 4|

FIGURE 6-12 STRESS VS STRAIN GRAPH OF S0 AND S2 AT BOTTOM SLAB ................................................. 56

Dept. of Civil Engineering, UVCE, Bengaluru 5|

Dept. of Civil Engineering, UVCE, Bengaluru 6|

1.1.1 Conventional Slab: -

1.1.2 Flat Slab: -

Dept. of Civil Engineering, UVCE, Bengaluru 7|

1.1.3 Hollow core ribbed Slab: -

1.1.4 Waffle Slab: -

1.1.5 Dome Slab: -

Dept. of Civil Engineering, UVCE, Bengaluru 8|

Dept. of Civil Engineering, UVCE, Bengaluru 9|

1.1.6 Light weight Precast Slabs.

In conventional slabs majority of the time in construction is consumed to cast the

1.1.7 Precast Channel Slabs.

Figure 1-2 Cross Section of C- Channel Panel

Dept. of Civil Engineering, UVCE, Bengaluru 10 |

2 Need for the Present Study.

Dept. of Civil Engineering, UVCE, Bengaluru 11 |

Dept. of Civil Engineering, UVCE, Bengaluru 12 |

precast hollow concrete panels, precast concrete/Ferro cement panels are

Dept. of Civil Engineering, UVCE, Bengaluru 13 |

procedure proposed in this paper models membrane action of concrete slabs in

Dept. of Civil Engineering, UVCE, Bengaluru 14 |

Dept. of Civil Engineering, UVCE, Bengaluru 15 |

Dept. of Civil Engineering, UVCE, Bengaluru 16 |

Dept. of Civil Engineering, UVCE, Bengaluru 17 |

4 Aim and Scope of Present Investigation.

Rectangular Flat Slab Web of Channel

C Channel Flange of C Channel

Figure 4-1 Cross section of a Closed Channel Slab

4.2 Aim of the present investigation.

Dept. of Civil Engineering, UVCE, Bengaluru 18 |

4.3 Scope of Present Investigation:

The experimental studies are being carried out on lightweight structures to

Experimental Studies are also being carried on individual panels of closed

The Flexural Behaviour of slabs is studied for the following parameters:

4.3.1 Constant Parameters:

Dept. of Civil Engineering, UVCE, Bengaluru 19 |

4.3.2 Variable Parameters:

Rectangular Flat Slab Web of Channel

C Channel Flange of C Channel