IJMTES | International Journal of Modern Trends in Engineering and Science ISSN: 2348-3121

COMPARATIVE STUDY OF SEISMIC

PERFORMANCE AND ECONOMICAL ASPECT
OF WAFFLE SLAB AND
1
FLAT SLAB
Ms.S. Kalaiyarasi
1
( Civil Engineering Department, Anna University , Coimbatore, India, kalaisaro@gmail,com)
______________________________________________________________________________________________________
Abstract In multi-storeyed buildings flat slab and waffle slab are generally engaged when column spacing is more. Flat slabs and waffle
slabs are used in buildings in requirement of more working space like commercial buildings, workshops, assembly buildings, etc. The main
disadvantage of structures with flat slab and waffle slab are there lack of withstanding seismic loads. Special features like shear walls are
used to help the building to resist the lateral loads caused due to high winds and seismic loads. In this paper, an attempt has been made to
investigate the seismic effect on multi storey building of G+9 & G+14 floors with waffle slab and flat slab using the software ETABS 2013.
The seismic evolution is performed by response spectrum analysis as per IS 1893 (2002). It is observed that waffle slabs are advisable for
structure with a height less than 40m, whereas for structures of height above 40m it is advisable to go with flat slab.

Keywords ETABS 2013, Earthquake, Waffle Slab, Flat Slab, Seismic Analysis, Storey Drift, Maximum Displacement
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
1.INTRODUCTION ribs are typically designed as T-beams, often spanning in the long
direction. A solid drop panel is required at the columns and load
In general normal frame construction utilizes columns, beams and bearing walls for shear and moment resistance.
slabs. However it may be possible to undertake construction
without providing beams, in such a case the frame system would
consist of slab and column without beams. These types of slabs are
called flat slabs. The slab directly rests on the column and load
from the slab is directly transferred to the columns and then to the
foundation. Flat slabs have been widely used in building
construction due to their advantages in reducing storey height and
construction period (compared with RC frames with beams and
columns), leading to a reduction of construction costs

Fig. 2 Waffle Slab

1.1 Objective

Where developing in construction industry when constructing

Fig. 1 Flat Slab
Ribbed floors consisting of equally spaced ribs are usually
supported directly by columns. They are either one-way spanning
systems known as ribbed slab or a two-way ribbed system known as
a waffle slab. A rib thickness of greater than 125 mm is usually
required to accommodate tensile and shear reinforcement. Ribbed
slabs are suitable for medium to heavy loads, can span reasonable
distances are very stiff and particularly suitable where the soffit is
exposed.
large slab areas necessity to reduce the cost as well with
fulfilment of economic section. For this reason in this project
we are comparing the waffle, flat and conventional system.
To Study the seismic performance of the waffle slab system,
Flat slab system
To compare the cost of the waffle, Flat slab system.
To the study the behaviour of both structure for the
parameters like shear, storey displacement Drift ratio, axial
forces by applying response spectrum analysis for buildings.
2. REVIEW OF LITERATURE

Slab depths typically vary from 75 to 125 mm and rib
widths from 125 to 200 mm. Rib spacing of 600 to 1500 mm can be
used. The overall depth of the floor typically varies from 300 to 600
mm with overall spans of up to 15 m if reinforced, longer if post-
tensioned. The use of ribs to the soffit of the slab reduces the
quantity of concrete and reinforcement and also the weight of the
floor. The saving of materials will be offset by the complication in
formwork and placing of reinforcement. For ribs at 1200-mm
centres (to suit standard forms) the economical reinforced concrete
floor span L is approximately D x 15 for a single span and D x 22
for a multi-span, where D is the overall floor depth. The one-way
Analysis And Design of Flat Slab and Grid Slab and their Cost
Comparison by Amit A. Sathawane, R.S. Deotale/ International
Journal of Engineering Research and Applications (IJERA) ISSN:
2248-9622 www.ijera.com Vol. 3, Issue 3, May-Jun 2013, pp.837-
848
The aim of the project is to determine the most economical slab
between flat slab with drop, Flat slab without drop and grid slab.
The proposed construction site is Nexus point apposite to Vidhan
Bhavan and beside NMC office, Nagpur. The total length of slab is
31.38 m and width is 27.22 m. total area of slab is 854.16 sqm. It is
designed by using M35 Grade concrete and Fe415 steel. Analysis of

Volume:03 Issue:06 2016 www.ijmtes.com 177

 IJMTES | International Journal of Modern Trends in Engineering and Science
the flat slab and grid slab has been done both manually by IS 456-
2000 and by using software also. Flat slab and Grid slab has been
analyzed by STAAD PRO. Rates have been taken according to
N.M.C. C.S.R. It is observed that the Drops are important criteria in
increasing the shear strength of the slab and the Flat slab with drop
is more economical than flat slab without drop and grid slab.
Comparative Study of Seismic Performance of Multistoried
RCC Buildings With Flat Slab and Grid Slab by Salman I
Khan1 and Ashok R Mundhada of International Journal of
Structural and Civil Engineering Research (ISSN 2319-6009) Vol.4
No.1, February 2015.
This paper presents a review of the seismic performance
of multi-storied buildings for different floor heights and having
different floor systems like Flat slabs, Grid slabs and conventional
solid slab-beam systems. It seems that the seismic performance of
buildings having grid slab and flat slab is comparable but the
differences exist. For e.g. the base shear of a multi-storey structure
with flat slab is less as compared to Grid slab, whereas the axial
force in the intermediate columns are more in case of flat slabs than
grid slabs. Buildings having the flat slab system are weaker in shear
as compared to those with conventional or even grid slab systems.
The storey drift in building with flat slab construction was
significantly more as compared to conventional RCC building. As a
result, additional moments were developed. Therefore, the columns
of such buildings should be designed by considering additional
moments caused by the drift. Base shear of flat slab building would
be less than the base shear in grid slab building. To draw definitive
conclusions, more research is required.
Dynamic Analysis of Multi-storey RCC Building Frame with
Flat Slab and Grid Slab by Ravi Kumar Makode, Saleem Akhtar,
Geeta Batham Int. Journal of Engineering Research and
Applications ISSN : 2248-9622, Vol. 4, Issue 2( Version 1),
February 2014, pp.416-420.
The flat slab buildings in which slab is directly rested on columns,
have been adopted in many buildings constructed recently due to
the advantage of reduced floor to floor heights to meet the
economical and architectural demands. Base shear of flat slab
building is less than the base shear in grid slab building in both X
and Y-directions. Axial force in end columns of flat slab building is
less as compared to grid slab building. Axial force in intermediate
columns of flat slab building is more as compared to grid slab
building. Maximum shear force is occurs in column of story-3. For
zone-II and soil type-II building drift in flat slab building and grid
slab building is within limit in both X and Y-directions. Building
drift in grid slab building is less as compared to flat slab building in
each story in both X and Y-directions.
Punching Shear in Waffle Slab Seismic Design by E. Arellano-
Mndez & O.M. Gonzlez-Cuevas Universidad Autnoma
Metropolitana, Mxico D.F
Five full-sized post tensioned flat slab-column connections
subjected to axial load and flexural moment were tested to study
their mode of failure, strength and ductility. The variables that were
tested are: 1) provision of stirrups or stud shear reinforcement; 2)
spacing between stirrups or shear studs; and 3) relationship between
the applied axial load, Vu, and the punching shear strength of the
slab with axial load and without shear reinforcement, VcR. In this
research, waffle slabs were used, being more used in Mexico than
solid slabs for economic reasons.
Both types of shear reinforcement used were suitable to resist the
applied load at low levels of inter story drift ratio. When levels of
inter story drift ratio larger to those allowed in ductile structures
regulations were applied, problems arose in the connections with
stud shear reinforcement (SSR), because SSR does not properly
Volume:03 Issue:06 2016 www.ijmtes.com
ISSN: 2348-3121
confine the longitudinal reinforcement bars in the ribs. Buckling of
the bars occurred when the cover concrete was lost. Since current
design regulations require designing for low inter story drift ratio
(=0.006), it may be said that with both types of reinforcement it is
possible to reach similar deformations with the same safety. Shear
stud reinforcement has an advantage in the co-location rate, but
with the inconvenience that they may not confine properly the
compression steel. The use of post tensioned waffle slabs without a
solid zone around the column is not recommended. Although this
testing evidence seems to show that the system can reach
deformation levels larger than those specified in the Normas
tecnicas complementarias para el diseo y construccin de
estructuras de concreto (NTC-Conceto, 2004), more studies are
required before such recommendation can be made.
Finite Element Analysis and Parametric Study of Grid Floor
Slab by Muhammed Yoosaf.K.T, Ramadass S, Jayasree
Ramanujan American Journal of Engineering Research (AJER) e-
ISSN : 2320-0847;p-ISSN : 2320-0936 Volume-3 pp-20-27
www.ajer.org.
This paper deals with the influence of various parameters on the
economical spacing of the transverse beams in grid floor. The
parameters considered in this study are span to depth ratio, spacing
of transverse beams, thickness of web and thickness of flange. The
magnitude of span to depth ratio considered is 16 to 60. The
spacing of transverse beams is varied from 0.5m to 2.0 m.
Thickness of slab and the ribs are made constant and are equal to
0.1m and 0.15m respectively. The bending moment, the shear force
and the mid span deflection developed in grid floor beams have
been predicted by conventional and numerical methods and the
results are compared. The parametric study is carried out using the
model proposed by ANSYS 12.0 software. The results of the study
give an insight to the range for the magnitude of the various
parameters to be considered for the optimum performance of grid
floors.
Based on the present study, the following conclusions are
arrived at.
The spacing of grid beams influences the mid span
deflection and the bending moments developed in the grid
beams
The span to depth ratio of grid floor slab system
influences the mid span deflection and the bending
moments developed in the grid floor beams
It is expected that the monogram developed in this study
is useful for arriving at economical spacing of grid beams
for the design of grid floor slabs.
Study on Economical Aspect of R.C.C Beam Slab Construction
and Grid Slab by Uzma A. Shaikh, Prof. Mohd. Shahezad,
International Journal of Engineering Sciences & Research
Technology (ISSN: 2277-9655) Scientific Journal Impact Factor:
3.449 (ISRA), Impact Factor: 1.852 [Shaikh, 3(8): August, 2014]
The aim of this work is to design R.C.C Beam Slab, One-Way
Continuous Slab as well as Grid Slab for spans 15m X 27m and
then compare the results. This work includes the design and
estimate for Conventional Beam Slab and Grid Slab of same span
of 15m X 27 m by M20, M25 and M30 grade of concrete. For
smaller spans, associated with normal building works, conventional
beam slabs are found more cost effective, in this project comparison
of conventional beam slab and grid slab is made on the basis of
major material requirements of the slab. Based on the study and
design conducted for a plan of 15 m x 27 m it could be concluded
that RCC One way ribbed slab is more preferable than other two
types of slab that is RCC one way continuous slab and grid slab.
From cost point two way grid slab is more costlier than other two
types, there is a slight difference in between cost of One way
continuous slab and one way ribbed slab of 700 mm depth but in
178
 IJMTES | International Journal of Modern Trends in Engineering and Science ISSN: 2348-3121

case of one way continuous slab the clear head is less as depth of (IJEIT) Volume 2, Issue 12, June 2013 (ISSN: 2277-3754) ISO
beam is 900 mm where as in one way ribbed slab we are getting 9001:2008 Certified
more clear head. Besides, two way grid slab of 700 mm depth The main aim of this research is to analyze the structural behaviour
provide greater headroom and give column free space and good of the new suggested composite slab type under different conditions
architectural view. From economical point view RCC one way using the well known structural analysis program SAP2000. Indeed,
continuous slab is 5.21% costlier than one way ribbed slab of 700 this analysis requires a very careful choice of the used modelling
mm depth. Similarly two way grid slab of 900 mm depth is 43.21 % technique to accurately simulate the waffle composite slabs.
costlier and two way grid slabs of 700 mm depth is 32 % costlier Therefore firstly, a modelling techniques evaluation of waffle
than one way ribbed slab. composite slabs was achieved numerically using the finite element
technique and compared to the previously available experimental
Seismic Evaluation of Old RC Waffle Flat-Plate Systems by X. results of one-way composite slab types to achieve the best
Cahs, A. Benavent-Climent and A. Catalan, The 14th World modelling among three models named real shape, equivalent and
Conference on Earthquake Engineering October 12-17, 2008, grillage models assuming full interaction between steel sheeting and
Beijing, China. overlaying concrete. Many influencing parameters such as
In moderate-seismicity southern European countries it is very the waffle rectangularity, boundary conditions, depth and
common to use reinforced concrete waffle flat-plate structures for corrugation cell aspect ratio and corrugation type (trapezoidal and
sustaining both vertical and lateral earthquake loads. In the case of re entrant) which were expected to affect the structural behaviour of
Spain, many of these structures were designed during the seventies, the two-ways waffle composite slabs were investigated under
eighties and nineties according to earlier seismic codes which uniformly distributed loads.
required relatively small lateral strength and did not contain any The motivating force to achieve this research is trying to avoid
provision for attaining ductility. Past earthquakes have raised some undesired structural features and executive conditions of the
serious concerns about the safety of these structures in the case of a well-known traditional composite slabs reinforced with one-way
severe earthquake. In this paper, a numerical investigation is carried corrugated steel sheets.
out to evaluate the seismic demands on old RC waffle plate systems
located in southern Spain, in a moderate-to-high seismicity region. 3. METHODOLOGY
A prototype building, designed according to Spanish codes from the
1970s to 1990s and current construction practices, was analysed
with SAP2000 by using a non-linear static method. The frame
model was equipped with user defined hinges based on testing. The
low gravity shear ratio and the consideration of punching
reinforcement (a usual Spanish practice even when it was not
deemed necessary from calculation) lead to a strong column/weak
slab behaviour.
Experimentally based moment-rotation hinge models, for interior
and exterior waffle slab-column connections, are herein defined for
use in effective beam frame analysis. The test specimens were
provided with punching reinforcement, a usual practice in southern
Spain during the decades of the 1970s, 80s and 90s for waffle
flat-plate frames. Torsion cracking in the exterior column spandrel
beams and adherence failure of bottom reinforcement in the interior
connections can be considered as the main degrading factors. The
effective slab-width and strength models proposed by ACI 318-05
present good correlation with experimental results in the interior
connections. In the case of the exterior connection, meanwhile, a
trapezoidal effective cross section was considered, c1+3h and
c1+c2 being the upper and bottom dimensions, respectively. A
strength model for exterior connections accounting for the flexure
of the effective slab-width as well as the torsion capacity of the
edge spandrel beams is calibrated based on experimental data. The
hinge models obtained and presented here appear to accurately
reproduce the experimental load-deformation curves derived from
tests, thus proving useful for RC waffle flat-plate building
assessment. A pushover curve taking into account hinge non-
linearities and P-Delta effects has been obtained for a waffle flat- Fig. 3 Flow Chart
plate equivalent frame; the performance point in the Service,
Design and Maximum Earthquakes using the Capacity Spectrum 4. MODELLING
Method have been calculated. Strong column-weak slab behaviour
was appreciated until reaching collapse, slightly beyond the In this paper, the structures with waffle slab and flat slab for various
Maximum Earthquake performance point. Before collapse, which heights are modelled using the software ETABS 2013. To obtain
occurred at 2.3% of maximum displacement, the inter story drift the results for the effect of seismic force on flat slab and waffle slab
was almost uniformly distributed throughout the height of the framed structures different load combinations, as per IS: 1893
frame. (2002) are considered for the analysis. The parameters studied here
are storey drift and maximum displacement.
Structural behavior analysis of Two-Ways (Waffle) Composite
Slabs by M. Khalaf, A. El-Shihy, H. Shehab, S. Mustafa,
International Journal of Engineering and Innovative Technology

Volume:03 Issue:06 2016 www.ijmtes.com 179

 IJMTES | International Journal of Modern Trends in Engineering and Science ISSN: 2348-3121

4.1 Plan View for the Given Structure Number of Column in Y 5

Direction
Height of Basement 4.5m

Height of Each Floor 3.5m

Total Height of the building 57m

Table 3 Description of Model

4.4 Description of Waffle Slab Adopted in Building:

Slab Thickness 200mm

Size of Rib beam 200mm X 375mm

Table 4 Description of Waffle Slab

4.5 Description of Flat Slab Adopted in Building:

Slab Thickness 200mm

Table 5 Description of Flat Slab

Fig. 4 Waffle Slab 5. RESULT AND DISCUSSION (SEISMIC ANALYSIS)

4.2 Description of Load: Seismic analysis is done on waffle slab and flat slab. After seismic
analysis changes in parameters such as maximum displacement and
Different loads are considered for the calculations: storey drift of the structure are noticed.

LOADS REFERENCES 5.1 (G+15) Maximum Displacement in X Direction

Finishing Load As per IS: 875 (Part 1) 1987
Live Load As per IS: 875 (Part 2) 1987 No of Floors Waffle Slab Flat Slab
Earthquake load As per IS: 1893(2002)
Base 0 0
Table 1 Description of Loads
1 4.5 2.3
Different Parameters are considered for the calculations:
2 8.4 4.4
Response Reduction Factor 5 3 12.7 6.6
Importance Factor 1.5 4 17.3 9
Damping Ration 0.05
5 22.6 11.3
Table 2 Parameters
6 26.3 13.8
4.3 Description of Geometry Adopted in Building: 7 30.7 16.2
Description of framed structure Adopted for modelling: 8 35.3 18.5
9 39.7 20.8
Type of Structure Ordinary moment
10 43.7 20.3
resisting frame
Type of building Office Building/ 11 47.6 25
Business Building 12 51 26.9
Total number of building 1 13 54.4 28.6

Total Area of the Building 21328Sqm 14 57.4 30.1

(31.70m X 42.05m X 16) 15 60.1 31.5
No of Floors G+15 16 61.9 32.8

Number of Column in X 4 Table 6: Max Displacement in X-Direction (Mm) For (G+15)

Direction Storey Building

Volume:03 Issue:06 2016 www.ijmtes.com 180

 IJMTES | International Journal of Modern Trends in Engineering and Science ISSN: 2348-3121

Fig 6: Max Displacement in Y-Direction (Mm) For (G+15)

Storey Building
Fig 5: Max Displacement in X-Direction (Mm) For (G+15) 5.3 (G+15) Storey Drift in X Direction:
Storey Building
No of Floors Waffle Slab Flat Slab
5.2 (G+15) Maximum Displacement in Y Direction
Base 0 0
No of Floors Waffle Slab Flat Slab 1 0.001192 0.000664
Base 0 0 2 0.001226 0.000598
3 0.001518 0.000846
1 4.7 2.5
4 0.001546 0.000889
2 8.4 4.45 5 0.001629 0.0009
3 12.7 6.89 6 0.001622 0.00091
7 0.001593 0.000916
4 17.3 9.35
8 0.001547 0.000863
5 21.9 11.63
9 0.001483 0.000846
6 27.3 14.56 10 0.001401 0.000853

7 32.3 16.4 11 0.001306 0.000795

12 0.001106 0.000746
8 36.1 19.8
13 0.000998 0.000693
9 40.6 21.95 14 0.000856 0.000645

10 44.9 24.1 15 0.00083 0.000578

16 0.00076 0.000443
11 48.8 26.8
Table 8: Storey Drift in X-Direction (Mm) for (G+15) Storey
12 52.6 28.4 Building
13 56.1 30.2

14 59.2 32.6

15 61.9 34.6

16 63.4 37.8

Table 7: Max Displacement in Y-Direction (Mm) For (G+15)

Storey Building

Fig 7: Storey Drift in X-Direction (Mm) for (G+15) Storey

Building

Volume:03 Issue:06 2016 www.ijmtes.com 181

 IJMTES | International Journal of Modern Trends in Engineering and Science ISSN: 2348-3121

5.4 (G+15) Storey Drift in Y Direction:

6. RESULT AND DISCUSSION (ECONOMIC ANALYSIS)
No of Floors Waffle Slab Flat Slab 6.1 Quantity of Slab Work:
Base 0 0
1 0.001178 0.000678
UNIT WAFFLE FLAT
2 0.001421 0.000813 DESCRIPTION
SLAB SLAB
3 0.001551 0.000843
4 0.001631 0.000923 Concrete Quantity Cum 4611.16 4548.75
5 0.001683 0.000951
6 0.001701 0.000961 Steel Quantity MT 276.67 363.90
7 0.001695 0.00098
8 0.001663 0.000943
Weld mesh
9 0.001612 0.000913 Sqm 1332.985 Nil
Quantity
10 0.001513 0.000865
11 0.001456 0.000837 Shuttering
Sqm 33662.30 21327.76
Quantity
12 0.001372 0.000712
13 0.001226 0.000704
Table 10: Quantity for (G+15) Storey Building
14 0.001111 0.000661
15 0.001123 0.000601 6.2 Amount of Slab Work:

16 0.001086 0.000443
UNIT FLAT
WAFFLE
Table 9: Storey Drift in Y-Direction (Mm) for (G+15) Storey DESCRIPTION /RATE SLAB
SLAB (Rs)
Building (Rs)

Rs/
Concrete Cum 19,920,211 19,650,600

Steel Rs/ MT
16,686,244 21,947,172

Rs/
Weld mesh Nil
Sqm 194,615

Rs/
Shuttering
Sqm 13,767,880 67,18,244

Total 50,568,952 48,316,017

Rate per Sqm 2768 2522

Table 11: Total Amount for (G+15) Storey Building

RATE PER SQM

Fig 8: Storey Drift in Y-Direction (Mm) for (G+15) Storey 2800
Building 2700
2600
2500
2400
2300
WAFFLE SLAB FLAT SLAB

RATE PER SQM

Fig 9: Total Amount for (G+15) Storey Building

Volume:03 Issue:06 2016 www.ijmtes.com 182

 IJMTES | International Journal of Modern Trends in Engineering and Science ISSN: 2348-3121

7. CONCLUSIONS Volume 2, Issue 12, June 2013 (ISSN: 2277-3754) ISO

9001:2008 Certified
Based on the results obtained it can be said that the [14] X. Cahs, A. Benavent-Climent and A. Catalan, The 14th
maximum displacement value of flat slab is about 16% World Conference on Earthquake Engineering October 12-17,
higher compared to waffle slab in both X and Y direction 2008, Beijing, China.
for up to G+9 Storey & Maximum displacement value of
Waffle slab is 89% higher compared to flat slab in X and
Y direction increases upto 86%.
Whereas as for up to G+9 storey, storey drift value of flat
slab varies from 11% to 14% both in X and Y direction
from waffle slab. From G+14 storey, storey drift value of
waffle slab is 45% to 47% higher compared to flat slab
both in X and Y direction.
From the above obtained result it can be observed that for
structure with a height less than 40m it is advisable to use
waffle slab other than flat slab, whereas for structures of
height above 40m it is advisable to use flat slab.
Concrete required for the flat slab is slightly less than the
concrete required for Waffle slab.
Steel required for the flat slab is more than the Waffle
slab.
Shuttering cost for the waffle slab is more than the flat
slab and this is one of the dis advantage for the waffle
slab.
Flat slab is more economical than the waffle slab.

8. REFERENCES

[1] STAAD Pro 2003 Users Manual. Research India Ltd., Bently
Systems, E2-4, Block GP, Sector-V, Salt Lake, Kolkata-700
091.
[2] N.Krishnaraju, Design of reinforced concrete structures,
CBS Publications & Distributors.
[3] P.C.Vargese, Limit State Design of Reinforced Concrete
second edition.
[4] P.C.Vargese Advanced Reinforced Concrete Design.
[5] IS 456:2000 Plain and Reinforced Concrete code of
practice.
[6] IS 1893:2000 Criteria for Earthquake Resistant design of
structures.
[7] IS13920:1993 Ductile Detailing of Reinforced concrete
structures to seismic forces-code practice.
[8] S.R.Damodarasamy, S.Kavitha, Basics of structural dynamics
and Aseismic design
[9] Amit A. Sathawane, R.S. Deotale (2013) Analysis and Design
of Flat Slab and Grid Slab and their Cost Comparison
[10] Salman I Khan1 and Ashok R Mundhada (2015) Comparative
study of seismic performance of multi storied RCC buildings
with Flat Slab and Grid Slab Ravi Kumar Makode, Saleem
Akhtar, Geeta Batham Int. Journal of Engineering Research
and Applications Muhammed Yoosaf.K.T, Ramadass S,
Jayasree Ramanujan American Journal of Engineering
Research (AJER) e-ISSN : 2320-0847 p-ISSN : 2320-0936
Volume-3 pp-20-27 www.ajer.org
[11] Uzma A. Shaikh, Prof. Mohd. Shahezad, International Journal
of Engineering Sciences & Research Technology (ISSN: 2277-
9655) Scientific Journal Impact Factor: 3.449 (ISRA), Impact
Factor: 1.852 [Shaikh, 3(8): August, 2014]
[12] Alaa C. Galeb, Zainab F. Atiyah, International Journal Of Civil
And Structural Engineering Volume 1, No 4, 2011 (ISSN 0976
4399)
[13] M. Khalaf, A. El-Shihy, H. Shehab, S. Mustafa, International
Journal of Engineering and Innovative Technology (IJEIT)

Volume:03 Issue:06 2016 www.ijmtes.com 183