Publication List

Book Contents

About tie author%

August W. Domel, Jr. is Senior StmctumJ Engineer, Engineered
Stmckues md Cmfes, Portland Cement Association.
S. K. Ghosh is Director, Engineered Stmctures and Codes, Pofikmd Cement Association.

This publication is based on the facts, tests, and authorities stated

herein, It is intended for the use of professional personnel
competent to ev.late the significmce and Iimitatiom of the
reported findings ad who will accept respmsibility for the
application of the material it contains, Obviously, the Pmtkmd
Cement Association disclaims any and all responsibility for
application of the stated principles or for the accuracy of any of
the sources o!her than work performed or information developed
by the Association
0 Portland Cement Association 1990

Publication List

Book Contents

Contents
lWodution

.......................................................................................2

Flat Plate Floor System .....................................................................6

Flat Slab Floor System ...................................................................lO
One-Way Joist Fioor System ..........................................................l4
Two-Way Joist Floor System ...........................................................2O
Wam.SuppoRed

Slab System ........................................................26

Overview of Floor Systems ............................................................3O

Publication List

Book Contents

cost ia because ofi-kc buildings are designed

with more open spaces which in structural terms
means costlier, longer clear spans.

The main objectives of this publication are trx

.

Asaiat in the selection of the most economical cast-in-place concrete floor system for
a given plan layout and a given set of Ioady

Provide a preliminary estimate of material

quantities for the floor system; and

Discuss the effect of different variables in

the selection process.

Table 1 gives cost indices for many major

cities in the United States and Cartada. The cost
index includes both labor and materials, with the
value of 100 representing the average cost for
30 major cities. The table shows the wide variation in costs depending on the locale. In Anchorage, Alaska (127.9) or New York City
(126.9) the cost of a building can be as much as
60% higher than that of a similar building in
Charleston, South Carolina (80.2), Jackson,
Mksissippi (81) or Sioux Falls, South Dakota
(82.2). Figure 2 shows the relative change in
costs in current dollars of material and labor
over the past 40 years.

Five different floor systems are considered in

this publication. These are the flat plate, the flat
slab, the one-way joist, the two-way joist or
waffle, and the slab supported on beams on all
four sides. Material quantity estimates are
given for each floor system for various bay
sizes.

Pricing Trends

too

The total cost to construct a building depends on

the use for which the structure is designed, the
availability of qualified contractors, and the part
of the country in wh]ch the structure is built.
Figure 1 gives cost comparisons for two different types of uses over the past several years.
(The data presented in Figures 1 through 5 and
Table 1 were obtained from Means Concrete
Cost Data, 1990.) Ilte average price per square
foot is considerably greater for office buildings
than for apartment buildings. Part of the higher

Sa
Sa
70
m
cost ~
Indsx
4a
30
20

TJ_L_
iwo

?960

tern

Figure 2- Annual Construction

ieao

two

coat

Comperiaona
The majority of the structural cost of a building typically is the cost of the floor system. This
is particularly true of low-rise buildings and
buildings in low seismic zones. Therefore, it is
imperative to select the most economical floor
system.

Figure 1- Price Comparieorra

Building Typea

for Different
.

In this publication, estimated quantities are.

provided for concrete, reinforcing steel and
formwork for the tive floor systems discussed
in the following sections. Prices for labor and
material for these items over the past several
years are shown in Figores 3 through 5.

Publication List

Book Contents

Table lRelative

Construction

ALABAMA (BIRMINGHAM)
ALASKA (ANCHORAGE)
ARIZONA (PHOENIX)
ARKANSAS (LlllLE ROCK)
CALIFORNIA (LOS ANGELES)
CALIFORNIA (SAN FRANCISCO)
COLORADO (DENVER)
CONNECTICUT (HARTFORD)
DELAWARE (WILMINGTON)
WASHINGTON, D.C.
FLORIDA (MIAMI)
GEORGIA (A~NTA)
HAWAll (HONOLULU)
IDAHO (BOISE)
ILLINOIS (CHICAGO)
INDIANA (INDIANAPOUS)
lOWA (DES MOINES)
KANSAS (WICHITA)
KENTUCKY (LOUISVILLE)
LOUISIANA (NEW ORLEANS)
MAINE (PORTU4ND)
MARYLAND (BALTIMORE)
MASSACHUSElT8
(BOSTON)
MICHIGAN (DETROIT)
MINNESOTA (MINNEAPOUS)
MISSISSIPPI (JACKSON)
MISSOURI (ST. LOUIS)
MONTANA (BILUNGS)
NEBRASKA (OMAHA)
NEVADA (MS VEGAS)

Costs for Reinforced Concrete

84.0
127.9
91.9
84.5
112.0
126.0
83.5
lW.1
1CCI.3
95.4
89.9
89.7
111.1
83.3
101,8
97.6
eu.7
88.8
88.3
88.6
89.8
98.1
115.6
108.9
S9.4
61,0
101.6
%?.1
88.6
104.6

NEW HAMPSHIRE (MANCHESTER)

NEW JERSEY (NEWARQ
NEW MEXICO (ALBUQUERQUE)
NEW YORK (NEW YOR~
NEW YORK (ALBANY)
NORTH CAROUNA (CHARLOTIE)
OHIO (CLEVELAND)
OHIO (CINCINNATl)
OKIA-IOMA (OKIAHOMA CITY)
OREGON (PORWND)
PENNSYLVANIA (PHILADELPHIA)
PENNSYLVANIA (PITTSBURGHI
RHODE ISIAND (PROVIDENCE)
SOUTH CAROUNA (CHARLES1ON)
SOUTH DAKOTA (SIOUX FALLS)
TENNESSEE (MEMPHIS)
TEXAS (DAUAS)
UTAH (SALT LAKE CITY)
VERMONT (BURLINGTON)
VIRGINIA (NORFOLKI
WASHINGTON (SEATTLE)
WEST VIRGINIA (CHARLESTON)
WISCONSIN (MILWAUKEE)
WYOMING (CHEYENNE)
CANADA (EDMONTON)
CANADA (MONTREAL)
CANADA (QUEBEC)
CANADA (TORONTO)
CANADA (VANCOUVER)
CANADA (WINNIPEG)

0.6

ao
aQ

!30.3
104.9
91.5
126.9
84.5
80.8
107.3
95.3
89.4
101,0
107.2
1D3.6
100.8
80.2
82.2
87.6
87.8
91.7
8a. 1
83.3
101,6
97.4
97.3
87.4
100.2
100,0
99.0
109.8
105.5
101.5

0.4

W/b

m
0.2
30

20

0_

fw

10

t
Ieaa

la

fM7

Im#

1969

fw

la84

Figure 3- Cost of Reinforcing

1985

1888

1988

Figura 4- Coat of Ready-Mxed

Bars in Place

Publication List

1987

Book Contents

1988

Concrete

1890

in order to qualify for the lowest fire insurance

rates,

Concrete floor systems offer inherent tire resistance. Therefore, when the floor system is
completed, no additional protective measures
are necessary in order to achieve code required
tire resistance ratings.

flat skb

On the other hand, for steel floor systems for

instance, additional protection must be provided
by special acoustical ceilings, or fireproofing
sprayed on the underside of the steel deck and/or
beams. In addition, when an acoustical ceiling
is an integral part of a rated floor/ceiling assembly, special ceiling suspension systems, and special protective devices at penetrations for light
fixtures and HVAC diffusers are required.

t
1984

1985

198.S 1987

1988

1989

1990

Figure 5- Cost of Formwork

These additional costs associated with protecting the structural framing members must be
added to the cost of the structural frame to
produce an accurate cost estimate. If this is not
done, the actual cost of the competing floor
system is understated, makkrg a valid comparison with a concrete floor system difficult, if not
impossible.

Presentation of Results
The following pages provide discussion and
quantity estimates for the five floor systems.
These results were obtained using a five bay by
five bay structure. Bay sizes are measured from
centerline of column to centerline of column.
Floors were designed using ACI 318-89 Building Code Requirements for Reinforced Concrete. Concrete, reinforcing steel and formwork
quantities are presented for each of the floor
systems. An overview of the floor systems is
provided, following the discussion of the floor
systems,

Fire resistance rating requirements vary from

zero to four hours, with two hours typically
being required for high rise buildings. Before
selecting the floor system, the designer should
determine the fire resistance rating required by
the applicable building code. Except for oneway and two-way joist systems, the minimum
slab thickness necessary to satisfy structural
requirements (usually 5 in.) will normally provide a floor system that has at least a two hour
fire resistance rating.

Included with each floor system is a discussion of the factors that may affect the estimated
quantities. The factors discussed are column
dimensions, live loads, and aspect ratios. A cost
breakdown is also given in each case. Following
the discussion for each individual floor system
are several tables and graphs. The graphs show
the variation in costs for increased bay size and
higher concrete strength. The tables give quantities for various bay sizes.

Table 2 shows minimum slab thicknesses

necessary to provide fire resistance ratings from
one to four hours, for different types of aggregate. If the thickness necessary to satisfy fire
resistance requirements exceeds that required
for structural purposes, consideration should be
given to using a different type of aggregate that
provides higher fire resistance for the same
thickness. For example, a one-way joist system
may require a 3 in. thick slab to satisfy structural
requirements. However, if a two hour fire resistance rating is desired, a 5 in. thick slab will be
required if siliceous aggregate normal weight
concrete is used. By using lightweight aggre-

Fire Resistance of Concrete

Floor Systems
Fire resistance rated construction will often be
required by the governing building code, or the
owner may desire a highly fire resistant structure
4

Publication List

Book Contents

The cover for an individual bar is the minimum cover between the surface of the bar and
the fire-exposed surface of the structural member. When more than one bar i:]used, the cover
is assumed to be the average of the minimum
cover to each bar, where the cover for comer
bars used in the calculation is one-half the actual
value. The actual cover for an individual bar
must be not less than one-half the value shown
in Table 3, nor less than 3/4 in. IForbeam widths
between tabulated values, use direct interpolation to determine minimum cover.

gate concrete, the slab thickness can be reduced

to 3.6 in. This 28% reduction in thickness
translates into approximately a 45% reduction
in dead load.
Table 2Minimum Slab Thickness
Fire Resistance Rating

for

Mhimum slab
thickness (in.)
or fire-resistance rating

Floor
Construction
Material

Aggregate
Concrete
Carbonate Aggregate
Siliceous

hr

1 hr

2 hr

3.5

5.0

6.2

7.0

3.2

4.6

5.7

6.6

2.7

3.8

4.6

5.4

2.5

3.6

4.4

5.1

The foregoing is intended to give a brief

overview of the subject of fire resistance of
concrete floor systems. While the information
cited is consistent with the three model building
codes in use in the United States, the legally
adopted building code governing the specific
project should be consulted.

Concrete

Sand-lightweight
Concrete

Lightweight Concrete

Adearrate cover must be provided to keep

reinfor~ing steel temperat~res
within cods
prescribed limits. The amount of cover depends
on the element considered (i.e., slab, joist or
beam), and whether the element is restrained
against thermal expansion. All elements of castin-place
concrete
framing
systems
are
considered to be restrained.
For positive moment reinforcement in beams
spaced at 4 ft or less on center, and in joists and
slabs, regardless of the type of concrete aggregate used, the minimum cover required by ACI
318 is adequate for ratings of up to four hours.
For beams spaced at more than 4 ft on center,
the cover must not be less than the values given
in Table 3.
Table 3Cover Thickness for Fire
Resistance Rating for Beams Spaced
More than 4 ft on Center

7
210
1

3/4

3/4

3/4

3/4

3/4

3/4

3/4

3/4

Publication List

Book Contents

DATA
SPAN LENGTH:

DIMENSIONS:

PracticalRange

= 15 ftt030ft
Wmomicul Range = 15 ft to 25 fl

Slab thickness 5 in. to 10 in.

ADVANTAGES:

DISAOVANZAGES:

Sirrrple corrstmction and fomrwork

Architectural finish can be applied directly to the

underside of slab

Absence of beams allows lower story heights

Flesibtity of paflition location

Required fire resistance rating Maimed without additio&l corrcrtte thickness or o~herpmtcctive mea-sums

l+onomicdh viable onlv for short and medium scram

and for mod&atelive Io;ds

DISCUSSION
forcing quantity.
Also, the minimum code-prescribed slab thickness is independent of the concrete
strength f& A higher strength concrete will increase
the cuat of the concrete without any allowable reduction in qusntity. Therefore, for normal loading conditions (live loads of 50 paf or less), the most
economical flat plate floor will he the one with the
minimum allowed tfrickneas and an f: of 4000 psi.

SkdJ Thickness
Floor slab thickness for flat plates under normal
loading conditions (live loada of 50 paf or less) is
usually corrtrokd by deflection considerations. The
Building Code Requirements for Reinforced Cmrcrete (ACI 318-89) Table 9.5 (c)requires that the slab
thickness for flat plate floors without edge beams he
greater than one-tldrtieth of the span length (for
Grade 60 reinforcing steel) and no less than 5 in.

When heavier loads are encountered (live loads of

100 psf or more), the deflection criteria may not
control. In that situation the slab th]ckrress is controlled by shear forces at the column face and by
bending moments in the slab. Au increase in the slab
thickness will result in a decrease in the steel reinforcing quantity. The reduction in steel cost, how-

Becauae deflection controls the slab thickness, the

reinforcing steel required for bending moments will
be about the minimum prescribed by Code. An
increase in slab thickness beyond the minimum required is not economical. Athickerslab will increaac
the concrete quantity and not reduce the steel rein6

Publication List

Book Contents

ever, will not offset the increase in concrete costs.

concrete quantities, with an incrcmsc or decrease in

the reinforcing steel quantity. The steel reinforcing
quantities should be increased by 1% for each 2 in.
decrease in square column dimensions, or decreased
by 1% for the same increase in square column dimensions.

Using a concrete strength of 5000 or6000 psi may

result in a decrease in the slab thickness without a
significant change in the steel reinforcing rm@remerrts. Cast analyses show that the decrease in
concrete quantities in conjunction with the increa~
in price for higher strength concrete results in
roughly the same cost as that of tire flate plate with
an & . WOO pai. Therefore, floor cost should be
estimated using a minimum slab thiclmcss with an
~ = 4000 pi, when live loads are 100 paf or lCSS.

Live Load Effects

Gravity loads consist of the floor slab weight, superimpmed dead loada, and live loads. Typical live
loads rmrge from 40 psf to 50 psf and constitute 20%
to 40% of the total gravity load. If heavy live loads
are used (1OOpsf), the resulting stresses and bending
momen~ are increased by 3070 to 4070. Since flat
plate flours have minimum thickness requirements
baaed on deflection considerations, the costs associated with this incresse is not proportional. Flat plate
floom with live loads of 100 psf are typically onfy
5% to 10% more expensive than those carrying 50
psf of live loads.

Column Dimension E#ects

The height and cross-sectional dimensions of the
columns above and below the slab will affect the
resulting floor slab shears and bending moments.
Column heights can range from 10 ft to 30 ft, but
typi~lly are between 10 ft and 13 ft. A column
height of 12 ft was used in the calculations for this
publication.
Column stiffness is a function of the column
height. Stiffness is determined as EI/L, where E is
the modulus of elasticit y of the column material, I is
the moment of inertia of the column cross-section
and L is the column height. Since the stiffness is
inversely proportional to the column height, it follows that a longer column is more flexible. A flexible column will allow greater rotation at the
slab-column joint and larger bending momenta in the
slab. Analyses were performed for a variety of bay
widths and column dimensions, with column heights
ranging between 10 ft and 15 ft. Increasing the floor
height from 10 ft to 15 ft resulted in an increase in
the slab momentx of less than 4~o. This small increase will have minimal effect, if any at all, on the
material quantities. Thus, the floor quantities are
independent of the flnor height under normal loading
conditions.

Aspect R@o
The aspect ratio is defined as the larger dimension of
the slab panel divided by the smaller dimension of
the slab panel. As previously discussed, the flat plate
slab thickness is controlled by the span length. For
a building with square bays (aspect ratio = 1.0), the
slab thickness requirement is the ;same for both directions. A slab with an aspect ratio other than 1.0
will have a different thickness requirement in each
direction. Obviously, the larger of the two is used,
resulting in a loss of economy. Fnr example, a bay
with 625 aq ft of floor area and an a.s~ct ratio of 2.0
will cost 20% more than a square bay with the same
floor area. Unless column layout is dictated by
functional requirements, square ba:ys should be use~
since they will provide the most economical layouts.

Column cross-sectional dimensiom will determine the clear span between the column faces. The
bending momenta are determined using this clear
span length. The shear resisting properties are also
related to the column cross-sectional dimensiofrs. A
larger column width or depth will result in a larger
shear carrying capacity of the slab. In the analyses
of this publication, the column cross-sectional dimensions for the different bay widths were chosen
to represent the column sizes used in 10- to 20-story
buildings. If a structure has a column width and
depth considerably different from those used in the
tables, adjustments should be made. The required
adjustment is made by using the same forrnwork and

Cost Breakdown
The formwork costs for flat plates represent approximately 50% of the floor system cost. Concrete
material, placing and finishing account for 30% of
the cost. The remaining 20% is the material and
placing cost of the reinforcing steel.

Publication List

Book Contents

.ive

Load = 50 psf

superimposed Dead Load = 20 psf

0.5

0.45

cost

0.4

Index

r-c = 4000 psi

0.35

,n

0.3 1
20

15

30

25

Squere Bay Size

n

Bay
Size
ft

Slab
Thickneea
in.

Square
Column
Size (in.)

15X15

6.0

14

0.50

2.20

1.0

15x20

7.5

18

0.63

1.95

1,0

15x25

9.5

0.79

2.51

1,0

15x30

12.0

22

1.Cxl

3,CQ

1.0

20X20

7.5

20

0.63

2.12

1.0

20x25

9.5

22

0.79

2.55

1.0

20.30

12.0

24

1SW

3,18

1.0

9.5

26

0.79

2.76

1.0

25x30

12.0

30

1CO

3.22

1,0

30XXJ

12.0

32

1.CiJ

3.50

1,0

25

25

Concrete
(ft3/f?)

QUANTITIES
Reinforcement
(psq

Publication List

Book Contents

Forme
(f?/f+)

Live Load
Superimposed

0.5

Dead

Load

.100

psf

=20

0.45
fc .5000
cost
Index

psl

0.4

0.35

0.3
30

25

20

15

Square Bay Size

n

Bay
Size
it

Slab
Thickness
in.

Size (in,)
:

km

%%

15X15

7.0

14

0.58

2.24

1,0

15X20

8.5

18

0.71

2.44

1.0

15x25

10,0

22

0.85

2.89

1.0

15X30

12,5

24

1.04

3.52

1,0

2Qxm

9.5

22

0.79

2.48

1.0

20.25

11.0

24

0.92

3.01

1,0

2Qx3a

13.5

26

1.13

3.63

1.0

25

11,0

28

0.92

3.22

1.0

25x3CI

13.5

32

1.13

3.70

1,0

3QX2KJ

14,0

34

1.17

4.cKl

1,0

25

Publication List

Book Contents

psi

rn

nl

DATA
DIMENSIONS:

SPAN LENGTH:

Pmcticd Raoge
Economical Range

= 15tlt030ft
= 18 R to 30 ft

ADVANTAGES:

Slab thickness 5 in. to 10 in.

Depth of Drop Panels 2~4 in. to 8 in.

DLSADVANZAGES:

Simple construction and fomrwork

Architectural firriah can be applied direzily to the

underside of slab

Abscncc of beams rdlows lower

Reauircd fire reaistancc rating obtained without rrdditioiiaf concrete thickness or O-&r protective measures

story

E.amomicslly viable orrly forshott and medium, heav.

ily loaded spares

heighta

DISCUSSION
mal loading conditions, ths nccura in spans over 25
ft. For span Iengtha larger than 25 ft, the flat slab can
be more economical than the flat plate. When spana
exceed 35 f~ other systems become more economical than the flat slab or the flat plate floor system.
Flat slabs are typically economical for heavily
loaded short and rrrcdirrm spans, or possibly when a
relatively flat ceifirrg is required for medium to long

GenerrrlDiscusaon

A flat slab floor system is similar tn a flat plate floor

system, except that the former has drop panels. Drop
panefa are formed by thickening the bottom of the
slab around the columns. This thickerring provides
the slab with increased shear carrying capacity at
locations where the shear is the largest. The discussion on the flat plate floor system in the preceding

spmrs.

section stated that under normal loading conditions

the slab thickness ia controlled by deflection constraint. Thickening of the slab at the cohrrnn does
little to decreaae the deflections in the span. The
main nae for a drop panel is where the slab has the
proper thickrreas for deflection control, but lacks
sufficient shear capacity at the column. Under nor-

Slab and Drop Panel Dimensions

The minimum tbickrreas permitted for a slab with
drop

panels

and without beams ia equal to the clear

10

Publication List

Book Contents

span length divided by 33 (ACI 318-89 Table 9.5(c)),

but not less that 4 in. This gives a minimum thickness 10% less than that required for flat plates on
similar spans. This reduction in the required thickness accounts for the decrease in deflection from the
addition of dmp panels around the eolmrrns.
Minimum dimensions for drop panels are given
in Section 13.4.7 of the ACI Building Code. The first

Aspect Rotio
Square bays (aspect ratio = 1.0) represent the most
economical floor layout, since minimum thickness
based on deflection requirements can be exactly met
in both directions. A rectangular bay with an aspect
ratio of 1.5 is 870 more expensive than a square bay
with the same fleer area.

restriction requires that the drop panels extend in

each direction from the centerline of the supprt a

Cost Breokdinvn

not less than one-sixth of the span length.

The second restriction is that the projection of the
drop panel below the slab shall beat least one-quarter
the slab thickness.
distance

The formwork costs for the flat slab are approximately 51% of the floor system costs. Concrete
material, placing and finishing account for 3070 of
the cost. The remaining 19% is the material and
placing cost of the steel reinforcing.

Drop dlmensiom are also controlled by formwork

considerations. Standard lumber dimensions should
be used when choosing drop depths and should be
limited to either 2.25 in., 4.25 in., 6.25 in., or 8 in.
Any other depth will unnecessarily increase formwork costs.
A design is begun by choosing a slab thickness
based on the minimum slab thickness requirements
of the ACI Building Code. Drop panel plan dimensions are then chosen on the basis of the spmr lengths.
These drop psnel dimensions are usually adeqnate,
since the shear stress will be critical at the column

face. Analysis should be performed with the minimum drop depth of 2.25 in. If this proves to be
inadequate, the next larger suggested
should be considered.

drop depth

Column Dimension Effects

The floor quantities are independent

of the floor
height mrder normal loading conditions. If the structure has columns widths and depths different fmm
those shown in the tables, adjustments should be
made by increasing the steel reinforcing quantities
by three-quarters of 1% for each 2 in. demeuse in
square column dimensions. The qrrarrtities should be
decreased by the same amount for each 2 in. increase
in square column dimensions.

Live LoodEffects
The material quantities required for a flat slab are
typically controlled by deflections. Therefore, an
increase in live loads will not cmrxe a proportional
increase in costs. Alive load of ltXl psf increases the
total cost of a flat slab fleer system by an average of
10% over that of the same system carrying a live load
of 50 pf.
11

Publication List

Book Contents

Live Load =50 psf

Superimposed Dead Load =20 psf

0.5

0.45

rc = 6000psi
fc = 5000psi

cost

Index
fc = 4000 psi
0.4

0.35

3s

30

25

20

Square Bay Size

n

Bay
Size
l?

Slab
Thi::ess

20.233

7.0

2Qx25

8,5

20X34)

10.5

20.35

12.0

25X 25

8,5

Drop Size
Dimpions
Thii;kneea

7x7

Square
Column c~ncrat~
Size (in.)
(ft3/f#)

QUANTITIES
ReinfOr~ement
(I@

Forms
(f?/f?)

2.25

0,61

2.04

1.01

2.25

22

0.73

2.35

1,01

10X7

4.25

24

0.92

2.78

1.02

12x7

4.25

30

1.04

3.29

1.02

814 ~ 81/2

2.25

26

0.73

2.54

1.01

81/9

25x30

10.0

8172X1(J

4.25

30

0.87

2.78

1.02

25x35

12.0

81,$X12

4.25

32

1.04

3.36

1.02

30X30

10.0

10X1O

4.25

32

0,87

3.02

1.02

30X85

12.0

lox

12

4,25

36

1.04

3.51

1.02

35x35

12.0

12X 12

4,25

38

1.04

3.82

1.02

12

Publication List

Book Contents

Live Load = 100 P(

Superimposed Dead Load =20 p:

0.55

0.5
fc . Sooo psi
cost
Index

tc = 5000psi

o.&

psi

t-c .4000
0.4

0.35
20

25

30

35

Square Bay Size

n

Thi$taas

Dimpions

Thi:kneaa

Column

c~ncr~e

ReinfOr~emeX

Forms
(f?/f?)
1.01
1.02

~~

20X30

20X35
25

25x35

12,0

25

25.30

10.5

10.0

12.0

12x7
f31z x

8.5

10x7

J31~

30X35

12.0

10X12

12.0

0.75

3.02

12x12

32

34

0.87

1,04

1.02

3.37

28

4.25

10

4.25

lox

0.92

3.86

I 8V2X12

10.0

1.04

4.25

26
32

4.25

I 8VZX 10

34)X30

35x35

4.25

1.02

3.41

1.02

4,WI

1,02

1.02

4.25

34

0.87

386

6.25

38

1.06

4.02

6.25

40

1.0+5

13

Publication List

1,02

Book Contents

4.50

DATA
DIMENSIONS:

SPAN LENGTH:

Practical Range
Emnomical Range

= 15 ft to 40 i?
.25 ft to @ ft

ADVANTAGES:

Slab thicknessvaries befwccn 3 in. and 5 in. based on

either fire rcsiatancc requirements or structural considerations

Joista extend from 8 in. to 20 in. below the slab, with

web width ranging tlom 5 in. to 7 in.

DISADVANTAGES:

Economical for long spans

9 Pan voids rcducc dead loads

Not economical for short spans

Attmctive ceiling

Higher formwork cnsta than for other slab systems.

Electrical fixtures can be placed between joiata

Deeper members result in greater fkmr heighta

DISCUSSION
and 5 ft joist spacings.
The ACI Building Code
Requirements for Reinforced Concrete (ACI 31889) section 8.11.3 restricts the clear diafance between
joista to a maximum of 30 in. (which correspmds to
a 3 ft joist spacing). If the clear spacing exceeds this
value, the floor system mrrat be designed aa a beamstrpported slab system, rather than as a joist system.
Both systems have the same design requirements,
except for a smaller reinforcing cover and a 10%
increase in the allowable shear stress permitted for
the joist system.

General
A one-way joist floor system consists of evenly
spaced concrete joista spaming in one direction. A
reinforced concrete slab is cast integral with the joists
to form a monolithic floor system. Reinforcing
bars
are located at the top or bottom of the joista, depending on the sense of the bending moment. The slab
has reinforcement at mid-depth in a direction perpendicular to the direction of the joista. This steel allows
the slab to span bctwcerr the joists, though the amount
of steel required for temperature and shrinkage typically controls. The one-way joists frame into beams
that span between the cohrmaa, perpendicular to the
joists.

Floor System
The members that form a complete one-way joist
system are the slab, joista, interior beams and spandrel beams.

The results presented in this section are for 3 ft

14

Publication List

Book Contents

The slab tldckrreas is controlled by either stnrctural or fire resistance considerations. A 5 in. thick
slab was used in the design of the one-way joists of
th~ section. Thii thickness gives a two hour fire
rating and is sufficient to span between the joists.
This publication considers only normal weight
concrete for the flcmr systems. But it shordd be noted
that since the slab thickness may be controlled by
tire-resistance, a lightweight concrete may have
aume advantages, bccarrae a two hour fire resistance
rating is met by a considerably thkrrrer slab. This will
also result in a sizable dead load reduction.

In the tables of qrrarrtitiea for this section, the

percentage of pan formwork is shown in the last
column. This represents the percentage of the floor
area that wilf require pans for forrnwork.

Joist OrieWon
Joists should preferably span in the shorter direction,
and the supporting beams in the longer direction in
rectangular bays, to achieve maximum economy.
This is not crucial for bays with aspct ratios less
than 1.5, since the cost differential is typically leas
than 1%. For baya with aspi?ct ratios between 1.5
and 2.0, orientation of the joists in the short direction
can result in cost suvings of as much as 5%

The dirnensionx of the joists depend on both deflection and strcsa considerations.
The minimum
depth of the slab plus joist to aatiafy deflection
constraints is gNen in Table 9.5(a) of ACf 318-89.
This table prescribes a minimum slab thickrrcax plus
joist depth of at least the span length divided by 18.5.
The span length for members not built irrtegrully with
supports is defined in section 8.7 of ACI 318-89.
The span length is defined as the lexser of the clear
span plus the depth of the joist or the distance between suppurt centerlines.
The maximum span
lengths for a 5 in. thick slab in combination with
various joist depths arc listed below. Thcxe span
lengths are as defined in .S@ion 8.7 of ACI 318-89
and are not the clear spans. After satisfying deflection criteria, a joist width is chosen (5 in., 6 in., or 7
in.). The joists are then designed for bending moments and shear forces.
Joist
Depth
(in.)

Column Dimeruson Effects

Aa mentioned, the supporting beama should be at
least as wide as the columns they frame into for
reasona of economy of forrrrwork. Other than this
requirement, the width and height of the column
membcm have almost no effect cm the cost of the
one-way joist floor system.

Live LoodEffects
Material quantities are to a large extent controlled by
deflection constraints. An increase in live loads does
not have a proportionate impact on cost. Alive load
of 100 psf increases the total cost by less than 570
over the cost of a one-way joist system designed for
a live load of 50 psf.

Maximum Span
Length
(ft)

20

10

23

Aspect ROtJ-O

12

26

14

29

16

32

The aspect rutio has a minimal effect on the qrmrtities for the one-way joist system for aspect ratios less
than 1.5.

20

39

Cod Breukdown
Spandrel and interior beam depths are dictated by
the thickness of the slab plrrsthejoist depth, to reduce
formwork costs. The requirement of a level soffit
results in wide, shallow beams referred to as joist

The formwork costs for one-way joist systems are

approximately

58% of the fkmr system costa. Cmr-

crete material, placing and finishing account for 25%

of the cost. The remaining 1770 is for material and
placing costs of the reinforcing steel.

band beams. Formwork costs are also reduced by

using joist band beams with widths no less than the
column width. Using beams narrower than the colmnrr width results in costly formwork details.

15

Publication List

Book Contents

3 ft Module
Live Load =50 psf
Superimposed Dead Load =20 psf
Slab Thickness = 5 in.
05 ~
fC = 6000

pSi

0.45
rc = 5000 psi

cost
Index
0.4

20

25

30

35

40

0.3s

Square

Bay
Size
ft

Rib
Depth
in,

Rib Width
in,

Beam
Width
in.

Square
Column
Size (in.)

Bay Size
n

Concrete
(ft/fP)

QUANTrrlES
Reinforcement
psf

Pan Forms
%

20X2U

25

20

0.59

1,45

89

2Qx25

39

22

0.62

1.67

84

2UX30

59

24

0.85

1.77

79

20X35

10

58

30

0.71

1.91

79

2QX40

12

60

32

0,78

1.93

79

25X 25

10

34

26

0.64

1,89

87

25x30

10

49

30

0.67

1.98

83

25x35

12

53

32

0.73

2.02

83

25X 40

14

42

34

0,76

1.42

86

30X30

14

35

32

0.73

2.03

68

343 X3.5

14

49

36

0.76

2.23

85

30X40

14

66

38

0.80

2.46

82

35x35

16

46

38

0.82

2.48

87

35.40

20

45

40

0.92

2.52

88

40x 40

2U

50

42

0.92

2.83

88

16

Publication List

Book Contents

3 ft Module
Live Load = 100 psf
Superimposed Dead Load =20 psf
Slab Thickness = 5 in.
0.5
fC= 6000 pSf

fc

0.4s
cost
Index

5000 psi

rc .4000 psi

0.4

0.35
20

Bay
Size
R

Rib
Depth
in.

25

30
Square Bay Size
n

35

Beam
Rib Width
in.

kWdth
in.

Square
Column
Size (in.)

Concrete
(ftif?)

40

QUANTITIES
Reinforcamenl
paf

Pan Form
%

2QX20

34

22

0.62

1,86

65

20x25

53

24

0.66

2.03

79

20.30

10

56

26

0.71

2.09

79

233X35

12

57

32

0.77

2,13

79

20X40

14

61

34

0.65

2.16

79

25X 25

12

33

26

0.69

2.08

87

25x30

12

49

32

0.73

2.29

83

25x35

14

54

34

0.79

2.36

82

25x40

16

58

36

0.87

2.53

81

30 X2J3

14

44

34

0.77

2.48

85

30X35

2U

38

36

0.89

2.36

88

30.40

.20

40

40

0.90

2.52

86

35x35

20

40

40

0.68

2.79

88

35X40

42

42

0.92

3.CO

86

40x 40

.233

44

44

0.95

3.38

65

17

Publication List

Book Contents

II Module
~e Load = 50 psf
Jperimposed Dead Load = 20 psf
ab Thickness = 5 in.
0.4s
fC= 6000 pSi
psi

rc .5000

rc .4000 psi

cost
Index

04

0.35
20

Bay
Size
fr

30
Square Bay Size
n

25

Rib
Depth
in.

Rib Width
in.

Beam
Width
in.

Square
Column
Size (in.)

20 X.2CI

16

20

.23x25

16

22

2QX30

16

X3X35

16

20.40

Concrete
(ft/f?)

40

35

QUANTITIES
Reinforcement
Ff

Pan Forms
k

0.70

1.25

92

22

0.71

1.38

91

24

24

0.72

1.43

30

WI

0.75

1.58

88

16

37

32

0.77

1.77

85

25X 25

16

26

26

0.70

1.55

91

25x3JJ

16

30

30

0.72

1,71

80

25x35

16

33

32

0.73

1.87

88

25X 40

16

44

34

0.77

2.00

86

30X30

16

32

32

0.71

2.00

90

30X35

16

38

36

0.73

2.20

88

30X40

16

51

36

0.77

2.33

85

35x35

20

38

38

0.80

2.30

93

35X40

41

40

0.81

2.50

69

40X40

44

42

0,82

2.80

89

18

Publication List

Book Contents

5 fi Module
Live Load = 100 psf
Superimposed Dead Load =20 psf
Slab Thickness = 5 in.
0.45

fC = 6000 pSi
fc = 5000 psi
cost
Index

~#
m ,

. m

0.35
20

30

25
Square Bay Size
ft

Bay
Size
ft

Rib
Depth
in.

Rib Width
in.

Beam
Wkfth
in.

2QX2U

16

22

22

20x25

16

24

2QX30

16

20X25

16

2QX40

Square
Column
Size (in.)

Concrete
(ft3/ft)

QUANTITIES
Reinforcement
m

Pan Forms
%

0.71

1.41

91

24

0.72

1.55

93

26

26

0.73

1.73

89

3-5

32

0.77

1.86

66

16

47

34

0.62

2.06

83

25X 25

16

28

28

0,72

1.91

%3

25x30

23

32

32

0.81

1,84

89

25x3.5

34

34

0.82

2.03

88

25x40

Xl

39

36

0.s5

2.30

87

30X20

20

34

34

0.s0

2,23

89

30X35

20

3a

88

0.82

2.45

88

20X40

20

45

40

0.84

2,56

86

19

Publication List

Book Contents

DATA
DIMENSIONS:

SPANLENGTH:

Practical Range
Fxonomical Range

= 15 ftt040fr
.35 ft to 40 ft

Slab thickness varies from 3 in. to 5 in. baaed on either

fire resistance requirements or structural conaiderationa

. Joists extend frnm 8 in. to 24 in. below the sJab, with

web widths of 6 in. or 8 in.

ADVANTAGES:

Economical for long, heavily loaded spans

DISADVANTAGES:

Dome voida reduce dead loads

Attractive ceiling

Not ccmromical for short spans or for light to medium

supcrimpascd loads

Electrical fixtures can hc ptacedin the voida

Higher fonnwork casts than for other slab systems.

Dccpcr members result in greater story heights

Discussion
General
A two-way joist system consists of evenly spaced
reinforced concrete joists spanning in both directions. A reinforced concrete slab is cast integral with
the joists to form a monolithic floor system. Reinforcing bars are located at the top or lmttom of the
joista, depcndirrg on the sense of the bmrding moment. The slab has reinforcing bars at mid-depth to
allow the slab to span between the joists, though the
amount of steel required for temperature and shrinkagestrcsaes typically controls.
The perpendicular orientation of the joists results
in evenly spaced square voida on the underside of the
slab (which is the reason why the system is often
referred to ss a waffle slab). These voida, which

allow a considerable reduction iu weigh~ are forrued

by placing steel or tiberglsas domes on top of flat
fonrrwork. The rcxrdting voids from the domes have
aqusre dimensions between 2 ft and 5 ft in even foot
increments.
The domes are omitted in the areas
around the cohrmrra to provide a deep sIab with a
capacity. The solid portion typhigh shear csrrying
ically extendx one-sixth of the span length in all four
directions from the column.
The results presented in this wction are for the 3
ACI code section 8.11.3
restricts the clear distance between joists to a maximum of 30 in. (which corresponds to a 3 ft dome).
If the clear spacing exceeds this value, the floor
system must be. designed as a beam-supported slab
system. rather than as a joist system. Buth systems

ft and 5 ft wide domes.

20-

Publication List

Book Contents

have the same design requirements, with the exception of a artraller reinforcing cover and a 10% increase in the allowable shear stress permitted for
joists. The results for the 5 ft domes are shown in
tfria section, although this system is not considered
by ACf to be a joist system.

JOixt
Depth
(in.)

5 fl Mndufe
Joist
Thickncm
(in.)

14
16
20
24

Floor System

8
8
8
8

Maximum Clear
Span Length
(ft)
34
37
43
52

,% described previously, the slab thickness ia cmrIn the tables of quantities for this section, the
pmcentsge of dome formwork is shown in the last
column. Ms reprexenta the percentage of the floor
area which will require domes for forrrrwork.

trolled by either structural or fire resistance conaiderationx. A 5 in. thick slab was used in the dexign of
the two-way joista. This thickrress was chosen tu
provide a two hour fire rating, and more than met the
structural requirements.
The thickness should be
adj uated as required, to obtain the applicable fire
resistance rating.

Column Dimension Effects

The material quantities are independent of the floor

The standard joist widths for two-way joist systems rraing 3 ft and 5 ft domes are 5 in. and 8 in.,
respectively. With the slab thickness controlled by
fire resistance requirements and the joist width controlled by indnatry starrdarda, the only geometric
variable to be determined ia the joist depth.

height under normal loading conditions.

Column
dimensiorra rracd in the analyacs of this publication
were chmen to repreaerrt the column sizes used in
10- to 20-story buildings. If a structure has a column
width and depth different from those used in the
tables, adjustments should be made by increasing
steel reinforcing quantities by l% for each 2 in.
decrease in square column dimensions. The quantities should be decreased by II% for each 2 in. increase
in square column dimensions.

This publication considered only normal weight

concrete for the floor systems. It should be noted that
since the slab thickness may be controlled by fire
resistance requiremerrta, a lightweight concrete may
have some advantages, because a two hour fire rating
is met by a considerably thinner slab. This will alau
result in a sizable dead load reduction.

Live Lood Effects

Since the material qrrantities required for a two-way
slab system are typically controlled by deflection
constraints, an increase in live loada dces not have a
proportionate impact on costs. Alive load of 100 psf
increasea the total cost b y leas than 5% over the cost
of a two-way joist system designed for a live load of
50 pf.

The depth of the floor system ia controlled by

deflection constraints for the loads used in this publication. Minimum thickrresa requirements sycified
in Table 9.5(c) of the ACI Code are for solid two-way
slabs. To determine the deflection control rcqrrirementa for the two-way joista, the cmaa-section of the
flcor system must be transformed into an equivalent
section of uniform thickness. This is accomplished
by determining a slab thickrre.sa that provides the
same moment of inertia aa the two-way joist section.
Listed below are the maximum clear span lengths for
the two-way joist system baaed on this approximation.

Joist
Depth
(in.)
8
10
12
14
16

3 it Modufe
Joist
ThiCkncss
(in.)
6
6
6
6
6

Aspect Ratio
Square bays (aspect ratio = 1.0) represent the most
economical floor layorr~ since deflection control requirements are exactly met in both directions. A
rectangrdarbay with an aspect ratio of 1.5 is 5% more
expensive than a square bay with the same floor area.

Maximum Clear
Span Length
(ft)

Cost Breukabwn
The formwork costx for two-way joist systems are
approximately 54% of the floor system coats. Con.
crete material, placing and finishing account for 28%
of the cost. The remaining 18% is for material and
placing costs of the reinforcing steel.

27
30
34
38
41
21

Publication List

Book Contents

) fl Module
.ive Load = 50 psf
hperimposed

Dead Load = 20 psf

lab Thickness = 5 in.

0.55 r

rC = 6000 /)S/
0.5
fk.

5000 psi

cost
r%=

Index

4000 psi

0.4s

Bay
Size
n

30
Square Bay size
n

25

20

Rib
Depth
in.

20X20

20.25

2UX30

Solid Head
Size
rt

Square
Column
Size (in,)

Concrete
(ft/#)

40

35

QUANTITIES
Reinforcement
@

Dome Forma
/.

xl

0.73

2.28

82

81/9~ 101A

22

0.73

2.58

82

10

81,4 ~ 121A

24

0.81

2.85

82

23X35

14

81A x 141,4

0.97

3.19

82

20X40

16

81,4 ~ 161,+

32

1,06

3.58

82

101/2x 1ol~

26

0.73

2.82

83

25x30

10

lol~ x 1214

30

0.81

3,03

63

25x35

14

10W x 14V2

32

0.97

3.22

83

25X 40

16

lol~ x 161A

34

1.06

3.52

83

30X30

10

121,+ x 121A

32

0.61

2.96

83

30X35

14

121,4 x 141,+

36

0.97

3.25

83

30X40

16

121,+ ~ 161A

39

1,06

3.58

83

35x35

14

1414 x 1414

38

0.97

3.56

83

35X40

16

141~ . 161A

40

1.26

3.97

83

40x 40

16

161A x 161+

42

1,06

4.18

S3

25 X 25

81A

x 81/9

22

Publication List

Book Contents

3 ft Module
Live Load = 100 psf
Superimposed Dead Load =20 psf
Slab Thickness = 5

0.55

tb = 6000psi
fc = 50U0psi

cost
Index

0.5

my
Size
rt

Rib
Depth
in,

Solid Heed
Size
n

Square
Column
Siza on.)

Concrete

81A ~ 81/4

22

81A x lol~

40

35

30
Square Bay Size
n

25

20

QUANTITIES
Reinforcement
@

Dome Forme
/.

0.73

2.48

82

24

0.73

3.15

82

(ft3@

2U X20

20x25

20X30

10

81/9 ~ 121/9

26

0.81

3,50

82

2Q X35

14

81A ~ 141/42

32

0.97

3.72

82

20X40

18

81/9 ~ 161,4

34

1.06

4.10

82

lly~

28

0.73

3.42

83

25 X 25

~ lol~

25x30

10

1ol~ ~ 121,+

32

0.81

3.81

83

25x35

14

lol~

~ 141/9

0.97

3.78

83

25X 40

16

lol~

~ 1614

36

1.C6

4.24

83

30X30

10

121A ~ 121A

34

0.81

4.00

83

30.35

14

1,314 ~ 141/9

38

0.97

3.93

83

30X40

16

121/9 ~ 161/$

40

1.CKr

4.29

83

35x35

14

141A -q 141A

40

0.97

4.26

83

35X40

16

ll~x161~

42

1.06

4.53

83

40X40

16

44

1.06

4.98

83

161,4 ~ 161/9

23

Publication List

Book Contents

in.

j ft Module
.ive Load = 50 psf
Superimposed Dead Load = 20 psf
Slab Thickness = 5 in.
0.55

I
cost
Index

0.45

20
-.

25
-

30

35
..

40

Square-Eay S/ze
ft
Bay
Size
n

Rib
Depth
in.

Solid Head
Size
ft

Square
Column
Size (in.)

2QX2U

14

101,+ ~ ~ol~

2fJ

0.!32

2.74

72

20x25

14

lol~ ~ 101,+

22

0.s0

2.70

77

Z) X30

14

lol~ , lol~

24

0,90

2.77

81

2QX35

16

lol~

~ 151/9

30

0.98

3.01

76

.23 X40

20

lol~

)( 151,+

32

1.12

3.40

79

25X 25

14

lol~

~ lol~

26

0.30

2.40

82

25x30

14

lol~

~ 101A

0.90

2.74

65

25x35

16

fol~

~ 151A

32

0.9s

3.13

S1

25X 40

101~ ~ 151,4

34

1.12

3.29

83

30X30

14

lolfi

32

0.93

2.94

87

30X35

16

11)1~ y. 1514

36

0.9s

3.26

84

30.40

2U

101+ ~ 1514

3s

1.12

3.54

84

35x35

16

1514 ~ 151,4

38

0.98

323

35X40

151/9 ~ 151,9

4(3

1.12

3.43

82

40x

151/$ )( <51,+

42

1.12

3.66

85

40

~ lol~

Concrete
(ft/f?)

QUANTITIES
Reinforcement
psf

24

Publication List

Book Contents

Dome Forms
Y.

5 ft Module
Live Load = 100 psf
Superimposed Dead Load =20 psf
Slab Thickness = 5 in.
0.6

0.55

cost
Index

0.5

20

25

30
Square Bay Size
n

35

40

Bay
Size
ft

Rib
Depth
in.

Solid Head

20X35

16

lol~ )( 151A

32

0.98

3.51

76

20.40

20

11)1~

151A

34

1.12

3.70

79

25 X 25

14

lIJIA ~ lol~

28

0.90

2.76

82

25x3CI

14

101A ~ lol~

32

0.90

3,04

65

25x35

16

101,+ ~ 1514

34

0.96

3.53

61

25X 40

lol~

~ 151/9

36

1,12

3.91

83

30X30

14

101,+ ~ 101+

34

0.943

3.34

87

30X35

16

lol+

~ 151A

38

0,98

3.51

84

30X40

lol~

)( 151,4

40

1.12

3.S73

84

35 X3.5

16

151zX

151,4

40

0.98

3.84

80

35X40

20

151fix

151A

42

1.12

3.96

82

40X40

151/9 ~ 151+

44

1.12

4.26

65

::)WF

2S

Publication List

Book Contents

DATA
SPANLENGTH:
Practical Rarrge
Ecmromical Range

DIMENSIONS:
= 15 ftt040ft
.25 ft to 40 tl

ADVANTAGES:

Slab thickness between 5 in. and 10 in.

DISADVANTAGES:

Economical for longer spans

Preserrcc of beams may require greater story height

Flnnr layout maybe dictated by beam lncations

DISCUSSION
Floor System

and need not be more than

The slab thickness for a beam-arrppmttxf slab system

is controlled by deflection constraints. These constraint are given by eqnxtimrs 9-11, 9-12, and 9-13
of the Building Code Requirements for Reinforced
Concrete (ACI 318-89). These equations are

(0.8 + A)

h-t.

/, (0.8+ A)
h=

(9-11)

ratio of clear spans in long to short dkction

of two-way slab.

36+5fl [am- 0.12(1 +$]

but not lexs than

ratio of flexrrral stiffrresa of beam section to

tlexural stiffness of a width of slab bounded
laterally by centerlines of adjacent panels (if
any) on either side of beam. Values of a can
be obtained from the following two grapha.

( 0.8+ A)
h-t.

36+9p

(9-13)

36
length of clear span in long direction of twoway construction, meaaured face-to-face of
columns in slaba without beams and face-toface of beams or other supports in other cases.

(9-12)

25

Publication List

Book Contents

Equations
9-11,
illktmted below

urn = average value of c?for all four edges of a slab

panel.

In no case shall the slab thickness be less than 5

in. for am> 2.0 and 3% in. for a ~s 2.0.
..

70

&w

are graphically

2.4

S13
M

1.0

2.5

_
30

2.6

EqQ-11,..=
//
<

2.7
+=;

9-13,

9.5.3.3- .Wh (fY= 60 ksi)

@
~

9-12,

20

The beam depth is also typicully governed by

defktion
constraints. Table 9.5(a) of ACI 318-89
requires that the beam shall have a minimum depth
equal to the length of the span as defined in Section
8-7, divided by 18.5. Whh this given beam depth,
the width of the beam is sized to meet loading requirements. Beam widths that are smaller than the
column width should be avoided to reduce formwork
costs.

2.3
2.2
2.1
2.0
1.9
I ,8
1.7
1.2

Column Dimension Effects

I .5

The supprting beams should be at least as wide as

the columns they frame into, for reasons of formwork
simplicity. Other than this rexpriremen~ the width
and height of the column members have minimal
effects on the cost of this flcux system.

1.4
I ,3
I .2
!.1
!.
,

I,5

Live Load Effects

2345678910
. Ill

Material quantities are, for the most par~ controlled

by deflection constraints, and sn increase in live
loads does not have a proportionate impact on costs.
Alive load of 100 psf increases the total cost by less
than 5% over tbe cost of a beam-suppted
slab
system d=igrted for a five load of 50 psf.

Aspect Ratio
Square bays (aspect ratio = 1.0) represent the most
economical flour layout, since deflection rwprirements can be exactly met in both directions.
A
rectangular bay with an aspsct ratio of 1.5 is on an
average 470 more expensive than a square bay with
the same tlcmr area.

2.0
[.9
1,e
17
!,6
[5

Breokdown

t.4

Cost

1,3

The formwork costs for beam-supported

slabs are
of the ffnm system cmts. Ccmcrete material, placing and finishing account for 21 %
of the cost. The remaining 2570 is for material and
placing costs of the reinforcing steel.
af2p?OXi2S?t2tdy
$lvo

1,2
1.1
1.0

13

234567890
oh

Publication List

27

Book Contents

Live Load =50 psf

Superimposed Dead Load =20 psf

0.5s

fC = 6WOjJSl
0.5
#

cost

fc = 5000 psi

Index
0.45

0.4
15

20

30

25

Square Bsy Size

n

Bay
Siza
ft

Beam

Squara

Depth
in.

Column
Size (in.)

Concrata
(ft3/f?)

QUANTITIES
Reinforcement

Forms

(f?m?

15X 15

5.0

10

14

0.46

3.50

1.15

15X2U

5.5

14

1s

0.55

3.29

1.23

15x25

6.0

16

0.88

3.41

1,17

15x31J

7.0

20

22

0.68

3.71

1.16

20 X.ZO

6.0

14

23

0,57

3.54

1.17

20x25

7.0

is

22

0.72

3.59

1.17

.20.30

9.0

20

24

0.83

4.23

1.16

70

18

26

0.67

3.86

1.18

25x30

9.5

2U

30

0.89

4.70

1.17

30X30

9.0

20

32

0.s5

5.07

1.17

25X 25

Slab
Thickness
in.

2s

Publication List

Book Contents

Live Load = 100 ps

Superimposed Dead Load =20 psi

0.6

0.s5

cost
Index

0.45

0.4

15

20

25

30

Square Bay Size

ft

Bay
Size
ft

Slab
Thickness
in.

Beam
Depth
in.

Sqluare
Column
size (in,)

Concrete
(ftif?)

QUANTITIES
Reinforcement
Paf

Forms
(#/ft)

15X15

5.0

10

14

0.46

4,15

1.15

15X20

5.5

14

118

0.55

3.63

1.23

15x25

6.0

18

22

0,60

3.91

1.22

15X30

7.0

20

:14

0.66

4.33

1.16

20x20

6.0

14

22

0.57

4.35

1,16

20x25

7.0

18

:14

0.69

4.08

1.17

20X30

9.0

26

0.83

5.23

1.18

25

7.0

18

:!8

0.68

4,78

1.19

25x30

9.5

32

0.89

5.51

1,17

30 X2JI

9.0

20

34

0.67

6.12

1.19

25

29

Publication List

Book Contents

the case for one-way joist systerna. Tfds type of floor

system shordd have the joista span in the short direction, and is almost unaffected by aspect ratios of UP
to 1.5.

General Discussion
This section provides overall comparisons of the
economics of the various fkmr systems discussed in
this publication. It provides a summary of the factozs
that may influence the costs of cast-in-place concrete
floor systems. These factors include column dimensions, live loads, aspect ratios and proper detailing.
A few other aspects that have an influence on economy are also discussed.

Concrete Strengths
Concrete strengths of 4000 psi, 50@ psi, and @OO
psi were used in this publication.
Cost analysis
shows that for gravity loads, 4000 pi concrete is
more economical than higher concrete strengths.

Overall Comparisons
Cost Breakdown

Four figures that compare the economics of the different structural floor systems considered are prn-

The formwork for the floor systems will absorb from

50% to 58% of the costs. Concrete material, placing
and finishing account for 21% to 3090. The material
and placing costs of the reinforcing steel amount to
between 17% and 25% of the cost.

vided at the end of this publication.

The figures
clearly show that the optirrrality of the slab system
depends on two major factors: the span in the long
direction, and the intensity afsrrperimposed dead and
live loads. For a given set of loads, the slab system
that is optimal for short spans, is not necessarily
optimal for longer spans. For a given span, the slab
system that is optimal for light superimposed loads,
is not necessarily optimal for heavier loads. The foor
figures should facilitate the section of a strnctrrral
floor system most appropriate for a certain application.

Repetition
A cost efficient design utifizes repstitiorr. Changes
should be minimized from floor to floor. Changing
column locations, joist spacing, or the type of floor
system increases the cost of forrnwork, time of corrstrrrction and the chance of field mistakes, and therefore should be avoided.

Column Dimenmons
Column-Beam

Analysis shows that the height between floors has

very little influence on the material qrrantitiea for the
floor system. Column cross-sectional properties determine the clear span length and the shear capacity
of the slab. The column cross-sectional d~mensions
used in this publication were representative of 10- to
20-story buildings Increasing or decreasing the column dimensions by 2 in. did not affect the concrete
quantities and charrgcd the steel reinforcing quantities by lCSSthan 1%.

Intersections

The bearrraOratframe into columrrashould be at least

aa wide aa the columns. If the beams are narrower
than the columns, the beam forms will require eostl y
field labor to Pas the formwork around the columns.
Stindd

Dimennons

Standard available sizea should be used for structural

fornring. For instance, joist fomrwork pans are
available in various web depths of 20 in. and from 8
in. to 16 in. in 2 in. increments. Specifying a depth
different from these sizes will require the fabrication
of costly special forrnwork. When detailing drop
panefs or other changes in the floor system depti
actrral lumber dimensions should be taken into acCorrrrt.

Live Loads
The material quantities for the floor system are typicall y controlled by deflections rather then stresses.
Irrcreusing the live load from 50 psf te ltM paf onfy
resulted in a 4~o to 10% increase in the floor system
cost.

Aspect Ratro

Depth of the Ceibrg Sandwich

Sqrrare bays usually represent the most economical

floor layou~ since deflection control requirements
can be exactly met in both directions. A rectangular
bay with an aspect ratio of 1.5 ranges between 4% to
10% more in cost than a bay with an aspect ratio of
1.0 and the same floor area. This, however, is not

This publication haa addrxd

the economy of the

structural slab system only. However, the structural
engineer usually has to look beyond. The structural
slab system ia part of the so-called ceiling sandwich
which also includes the mechanical system f,HVAC
ducts), the lighting fixtures, and the ceiling itself.

3tl

Publication List

Book Contents

The flnor-to-floor height of a building ia the total

depth of the ceiling sandwich plus the clear tlnor-tocciling height. Any variation in the depth of the
ceiling sandwich will have an impact on the total
height of the shearwalls and cohsmna, the mccbanical, electrical and plumbing riaezs, the staim and
interior architectural finiahcs, and the exterior cladding. It will also have an impact on the total heating
cooling and ventilation volume. To minimize the
depth of the ceiling sandwich is very often the goal
of the structural engineer. This becnmes particularly
impmiant in cities like Washington, D.C. that impose
a height limit on buildings
Optimization of the
ceiling sandwich depth may tranalate intu an extra
story or two accommodated within the prescribed
height limit.

-l

TT

A number of details have been attempted in the

paat to accomplish a reduced depth of the ceiling
sandwich. The HVAC ducts can paas through the
webs of joiata or beams. llrii will reduce the floerto-floor height, but will increase formwork and field
labor costs Another alternative is to cut notches at
the bottom of the joist or beam to allow paxsage of
the up~r portions of the HVAC ductx. This alternativealan requires additional forming cmta. Further,
special detailing would be needed to meet the .WUC.
tural integrity requirements of the ACI 318-89 Cnde.
More importantly, however, such practices take flexibility away from accommodating futrrre changes in
the use of the floor space. Such flexibility is becoming more important in view of the shifting emphasis
towardx corracionaly designing buildings for a long
service life.
31

Publication List

Book Contents

Ne Load = 50 psf
superimposed Dead Load = 20 psf
~ = 4000 psi

0.9

0.8

0.7

cost

Index

Owway joist

0.6

(wi&

0.5

0.3 I
15

20

25

30

35

40

45

, , -

25

40

35

dab

Two-nay

50

Square Bay Size

rt
32

Publication List

Flat

50

45

Flat P1.te

Twc-wy

20

S!abandkm

---,

Square Bay Size

15

m-dk)

Book Contents

(wi&

joist
joist

modk?)

Live Load.

100 ps

Superimposed Dead Load =20 ps

fc=

0.8
t

me

. . . .

S!ab and ban

FM

pl.te

FM

,kb

-.

20

25

30
Square

35

40

45

[wide

50

Say Size
n

15

30

25

30

35

40

45

Square Bay Size

ft

33

Publication List

Book Contents

Tw..wq
Tw.w.y

15

way pi.,

50

joist

joist
m.adub]

4000ps

Publication List

Book Contents