1.

THE SLABS
Nowadays, reinforced concrete slabs have become very common in the spanish construction market.
Although, the traditional beam systems are still very used, other technologies gained the upper hand.

If we get a closer look at what is the trend around the world, beam slabs are still used in the countries
where materials costs are higher than labour costs.

On the other hand, richer and industrialized countries, use deck plates.

Reinforced concrete slabs:

1. Are very solid. Thanks to side deformation prevention, they can’t deform and the thickness can be
reduced.
a. Thickness reduction allows the economisation of materials
b. Massing reduction, allows the maximisation of the ground surface exploitation, which is
very important cost item.
2. Does not need beams:
a. They allow the reduction of the volumetric footprint of the deck
b. They avoid the scaffolding of the beams
c. They facilitate the passage of installations, significantly reducing installation times
3. They are reinforced with meshes and straight bars :
a. Reduction of the iron reinforcements costs. Wought iron is more expensive
b. Meshes and straight bars are easier and faster to install
c. It is possible to use pre-fabricated reinforced systems, in order to make the work faster (like
BAMTEC layers of reinforcements)
4. They have an excellent fire and acoutic behaviour, thanks to their mass.

If we read the upper points, it looks like slab structures does not have any disadvantage, but, on the
contrary, they also have some weak points that limit their use in respect to other more efficient methods:

They are massive structures:

• They consume an high quantity of concrete

• They are very heavy: there are large spans between the pillars, but the self-weight prevails
and the result is very expensive
2. They are not flexible:
• They can’t be calculated as the classic structures
• They need low structures
2. LIGHTENED SLABS
2.1. ADVANTAGES
They are structures with all the characteristics and strength points of standard slabs, but without their self-
weight:

1. Limited volumes
2. No beams
3. Concrete is less expensive
4. Larger spans
5. Optimization of vertical structures
6. Reduced foundation load
7. Reduced excavation load
2.2. RETICULAR SLABS
The slabs mantain their bidirectional structure and create an orthogonal grid through the installation of
disposable blocks (in concrete or terracotta) or reusable (in plastic or fibreglass). Massive capitals are
embeded in the pillars for the punching.

2.2.1. ADVANTAGES
The advantages this type of solution offer, are multiple

1. They are slabs without beams

2. The quantity of concrete needed is reduced
3. They are very light
4. Less steel used

2.2.2. WEAK POINTS

These structures has also some disadvantages:

1. In comparison to reticular slabs, they consume more concrete and weight more.
2. They consume also more steel
2.2.3. CONCLUSIONS
This type of solution is ideal for narrow spans and low weight slabs. Apart from these applications they
become less competitive.

LIGHTENED SLABS
Hollow articles are embeded in the pour. Usually they are made of cubic shaped polystyrene or plastic.
Blocks remain embeded in the pour and create a grid of ribbings, which are enclosed between two massive
upper and lower slabs.

ADVANTAGES
This solution is more efficient than most reticular slabs

5. The lower slab makes it perfect for all intents and purposes
6. The same thickness of full slabs can be mantained
7. They guarantee lightness and concrete savings
8. They can be reinforced in the same way as massive slabs
9. Steel is reduced
10. Great seismic behaviour
11. Great fire behaviour (up to REI 240’)
12. Does not need a false ceiling

2.2.4. WEAK POINTS

Even these structures have some disadvantages

3. In comparison to reticular slabs they consume more concrete and weight more
4. They consume more steel

2.2.5. CONCLUSIONS
3. This type of solution is ideal for narrow spans and low weight slabs. Apart from these applications they
become less competitive.

On the contrary, it is extremely competitive if compared to a full slab, especially with a thickness from 28 to
60 cm and spans from 8 to 14 m.

3.1. LIGHTENED SLABS WITH HOLLOW ARTICLES IN PLASTIC

3.1.1. General Characteristics
Since 10-15 years ago, lightened slabs were created through the use of cubic blocks in polystyrene.

This contruction method had some disadvantages:

1. Blocks were fragile and suffer from weatherings

2. Blocks were bulky and did not facilitate worksite logistics
3. It was not easy to block them during the pour

During recent years a new construction methods has arrived in the market. This solution allows the
overrun of these limitations.
They are recycled polypropilene formworks, 52 x 52 cm with variable height. They can be “single”, or
“double”, by putting together two “single”.

Figura 1 – Plastic lightening "single"type.

PLASTIC LIGHTENINGS HEIGHTS

« SINGLE »

H10 cm

H13 cm

H16 cm

H20 cm

H24 cm

H28 cm

Figura 2 – Plastic Lightening "double" type

PLASTIC LIGHTENINGS HEIGHTS « DOUBLE »

H23 cm H37 cm

H26 cm H38 cm

H29 cm H40 cm

H30 cm H41 cm

H32 cm H44 cm

H33 cm H48 cm

H34 cm H52 cm

H36 cm H56 cm

These formworks are stackable and can be transported and stored in small spaces. They are provided with
cone shaped feet with variable height, from 5 to 10 cm and a spacer from 10 a 24 cm.

This peculiarity permits the installation of the elements right on the lower formwork, raising them from the
reinforcements.

In this way, the slab che be reinforeced like a normal plate and the pour can be made during just one day.

The realisation times are the same of those of a massive slabs.

3.1.2. MODELLING AND STRESS CALCULATION

The overlapping of the plastic blocks created a grid of ribbing, with a variable thickness from 5 to 10 cm.
 Figura 3 – A section of a typical lightened slab

Figura 5 – A section of lightened slab with "single" elements

Figura 4 -A section of lightened slab with
"double"elements

There are different methods to create these types of structures and obtain the stresses they suffer:

3.1.2.1. TIMBER-FRAMED BEAMS MODEL

The structure is similiar to a grid of beams where the section is determine by the type of lightening.

The choice of the section is very important. According to the theory of De Saint Venant, if we decide to set
a I section, opened profiles have no torsional stiffness. The bending and shear moment will be sufficiently
accurate. The structure will have an higher deformability and the main reason we chose this type of
structure will be lost. We will not obtain a slab

In alternative, we can model the grid by setting a rectangular and hollow section. In this way, it is possible
to recover the torsional stiffness.

Another method is the modelling of the inverted T shaped beam grid, connected to a slab element equal to
the upper hood.

This last method is correct, but there is the risk to lose the advantages of the slab structure. Moreover, the
beams should be verified one at a time and this is very time-consuming.

3.1.2.2. PLATE MODEL

This is a slab for all intents and purposes. As a reference in the Eurocode 2 says, in chapter 5.3.1 (6):

“Ribbed or waffle slabs need not be treated as discrete elements for the purposes of analysis, provided that
the flange or structural topping and transverse ribs have sufficient torsional stiffness. This may be assumed
provided that:
- the rib spacing does not exceed 1500 mm
- the depth of the rib below the flange does not exceed 4 times its width.
- the depth of the flange is at least 1/10 of the clear distance between ribs or 50 mm,

whichever is the greater.

- transverse ribs are provided at a clear spacing not exceeding 10 times the overall depth of
the slab.”

These plastic formworks always respects the prescriptions described above, because of their geometry and
structure. Therefore, the final result will be a real slab.

Figura 6 – Typical section of a plastic formwork

In the case we use a finite elements calculation, we should anlyze a full slab with the same characteristics of
the lightened one.
If, on the other hand, we follow the theory of the orthotropic slab by Kirkhhoff, the following parameters
should be taken into consideration:
Flexional stiffness (symmetric in comparison to the two orthogonal directions)
1. Flexional Stiffness
2. Cutting Stiffness
In addition, the slab will be lighter

3.1.2.2.1. FLEXIONAL STIFFNESS

According to Kirchhoff the flexional stiffness of a slab is:

E = Elastic Module

J = Moment of Inertia
m = Poisson's ratio
In the case of a full slab the flexional stiffness will be:

H = thickness of the slab

When we obtain the section of the slab embeded in the formwork, we can use Huygens theorem. In this
way the Moment of Inertia will be of:

And the flexional stiffness of the lightness slab:

It will depend on the thickness chosen. The thickness of the upper and lower slabs and of the ribbings will
affect the Inertia of the slab. It should be:
Rf = R’f
In order to model a full slab with the same flexional stiffness of the lightened one, it is necessary to reduce
the Elastic Module or the Inertia Moment:
i = Wheelbase of the lightenings (B+b)
The model between the Inertia Moments

3.1.2.2.2. TORSIONAL STIFFNESS

Even in this case, it is possible to calculate the torsional stiffness of the full section and of the lightened
one.
The model is:

It represents the factor of reduction of the torsional stiffness.

3.1.2.2.3. CUTTING STIFFNESS

In this case the factor of reduction of stiffness, will be the relationship between the full area and the
lightened area:

A’ = A1 – A2
It can vary by changing the wheelbase of the lightenings. More specifically, the decrease or increase of the
ribbing width.
3.1.2.2.4. SELF-WEIGHT CALCULATION
The self-weight of the lightened slab depends on the volume V of the lightening and of the chosen
wheelbase. The wheelbase determine the unit impact of the lightenings:

[pc/m2]

Concrete consumption of a lightened slab with thickness H (expressed in meters) will be:
[m3/m2]

Once again the relationship between this value and value Cm of the full slab will reduce the mass of the slab:

Figura 7 – Calculation of the formworks incidence per square meter

3.1.2.2.5. CONSTRUCTION OF THE CALCULATION MODEL

Now, we can model the structure. We need to assign the reduction coefficents to the lightened parts
calculated above, while leaving unchanged the parts which will be made in full concrete.
The extension of the capitals over the pillars, can be calculated taking into consideration, as minimal
extension the one in the punching perimeter. This can resist without any reinforcement and it is not lower
than 2,75d from the edge of the pillar.

Figura 8 – Typical layout of lightenings with massive zones over the pillars
Figura 9 - FEM model for lightened slabs- in purple the massive zone, in grey the lightened zones

DIMENSIONING AND VERIFICATION OF THE REINFORCEMENTS

Once the calculation model is completed, it will be possible to obtain the stress value (N,M,V) that acts on
the lightened slab.
Then, it is possible to dimension and verify the reinforcement, applying the usual methods of contruction
and following the national regulations.

CHECK TO BENDING
For the check to bending it is possible to use two methods:

Method Wood-Armer: we take into consideration two artificial moments that follow two ortogonal
directions, M*xx e M*yy they are calculated combining the moments adequately Mxx e Myy. Usually, finite
elements software calculate automatically the moments M*xx e M*yy to use for the calculation of the
reinforcements.
1. Method Hillerborg: known also as stripes method. The slab is divided in strings/beams considered
indipendent from one another. Then the reinforcement is dimensioned on the basis of the moments
Mxx e Myy.

Once the moments of stress have been calculated, the dimensioning and check of the reinforcement can be
made. The calculation is called break at last limit and it is made taking into consideration the section a l or
the section hollow rectangular.

The regulation of Eurocode 2 that need to be followed are the same of full slabs:

6.1 – Simple and compote flexion

• 6.6 –Anchoring and overlapping

• 7.3 –Cracking management

• 8.1 - Generality
• 8.2 –Space between the reinforcements
• 8.3 – Eligible diameters Mandrels for bent bars

• 8.4 – Anchoring length for the longitudinal reinforcements

• 9.2.1.1 – Minimal section of the reinforcements
• 9.3.1 – Flexion reinforcements (slabs)
• 9.4 –Honeycomb plates

3.1.2.3. SHEAR AND PUNCHING CHECK

The lightening reduces the shear section of the slab.

The shear reinforcement needs to be checked in proximity of the massive capitals.

Figure 10 – Punching or reinforcements typical disposition

The shear check will be done while taking into consideration the hollow section of the lightened slab:

According to the hollow section which is wide:

i = (B+b)

The reinforcements resistance will be equal to:

With
 = ratio between lightened section's area and full section

, = , ∙ ∙ (100 ∙ ∙ ) ≥ according with EC2 6.6.2

At all points where this value is exceeded, normally close to the capitals and the supports on the sets, you
should expect cutting armature, usually vertical pins. The cutting resistance of the section will therefore be
the lowest value between
∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙( + )
, = ∙
1+
And

, = ∙ ∙ ∙( + )∙

According with EC2 6.2.3 (4) expressions 6.13 and 6.14

Figure 11 - Example of vertical brackets for cutting effort

Figure 12- Cutting force brackets - Longitudinal section in the rib

As for punching, since massive areas are close to the supports, the normal sizing and checking methods
used for massive plates are followed. Additional information is available at the following points in Eurocode
2:

• 6.2.1 – Cutting effort: general verification procedure

• 6.4.1 – Punching: general

• 8.5 – Anchoring of cutting armatures and other transverse reinforcements

• 9.3.2 – Cutting armatures

 • 9.4.3 – Punching armatures

1.1.1.1. RETREAT AND FLUAGE

In this case you can easily follow the Eurocode 2 requirements:

• 2.3.2.2 – Retreat and fluage

• 5.8.4 - Fluage

• Annex B –Deformations due to retreat and fluage

1.1.1.2. CALCULATION OF INFLESSION AND CHECK OF ARROWS

The calculation of the inflection may be carried out in accordance with the requirements of Chapter 7.4.3 of
the Eurocode 2.

Guidelines for checking the arrows are found in Chapter 7.4.

If you want to calculate the finite element arrows with nonlinear analysis, it should be noted that in the
cracked phase the lightened slab has the same inertia as the full one only until the neutral axis does not
intersect the rib.

It is therefore necessary to check the position of the neutral axis and to apply appropriate inertia modifiers,
calculated in the same way as for the elastic section, but on the severed sections.

1.1.2. FIRE RESISTANCE

Fire resistance criteria are given in chapter 5.7.5 of EC2 part 1-2, tables 5.10 and 5.11:
Alternatively, it is possible to conduct an analytical calculation to the finite elements using a standard
temperature curve according to the requirements of chapter 4.3 of EC2 part 1-2.

1.1.3. ACOUSTIC PERFORMANCE

Normally lightening suppliers provide on-demand laboratory or on-site testing of the acoustic performance
of the construction system, based on which you can estimate the slab performance you are designing.

1.1.4. CONCRETE CASTING METHODOLOGY

The lightening caissons are watertight, as the air clamped inside them prevents the entrance of the
concrete.

For this reason they tend to float during the casting, developing a vertical force such that it is possible to lift
the upper armature.

The cast has to be run in two phases, both in the same day: a first strut of the lift leg, then the completion
layer, to be performed after 2-4 hours (depending on the outside temperature).
In case the cast is run several hours later, it is necessary to calculate and provide a suitable shot armor.

Figure 13 - Cast of the first layer

Figure 14 - Cast of the completion layer

1.2. COMPARISON WITH THE FULL PLATES

Lightened plates retain all the features and benefits of their massive structures:

1. Thicknesses reduced
2. No beams
3. High rigidity and reduced arrows
4. Good fire behavior
 5. Ease of operation thanks to the use of basically straight bars and electrowelded nets for the armor.

Obviously, the reduction of material obtained through the interposition of lightening in the casting results
in a reduction of the rigidity of the structure, but is compensated by the greater lightness.

1.2.1. PREDIMENSIONING
As for the first predimensioning of the thickness, lightened plates follow the same criteria and practical
rules normally used for full plates:

1. Lightened plate on pillars: L/25 < S < L/30 depending on the ELU load
2. Lightened plate on lowered beams or capitals: L/30 < S < L/35

Below is a table that provides an idea of the predimensioning of a lightened plate according to the span
between the pillars and in the case of a load G’k+Qk = 5,0 kN/m2

SELF
SPAN INERTIA INER
SELF WEIG
S LOAD NAUTIL TIA INER LOADS/REINFOR
Hnaut WEIGHT HT
SPACI S G'k PROPOSED THICKNESS S1 S2 US FLAT TIA WEIGHT/CONCRETE REDUCTION CEMENT
ilus NAUTILUS FLAT
NG Lx + Qk SLAB SLAB LOSS REDUCTION
SLAB Pnau SLAB
x Ly Jnau Jfull
Pfull
[kN/ [c [c 4 4 2 [kN/
[m] 2 [cm] [cm] [cm ] [cm ] [kN/m ] 2 % % %
m] m] m] m]
-
60821.2 6666
5 5.00 20 5 10 5 3.63 5.00 8.77 -27.4 -13.0
6 6.67
%
-
88537.9 1013
6 5.00 23 5 13 5 4.15 5.75 12.68 -27.8 -14.2
5 91.67
%
-
117362. 1302
7 5.00 25 6 13 6 4.65 6.25 9.87 -25.6 -13.6
62 08.33
%
-
158952. 1829
8 5.00 28 6 16 6 5.18 7.00 13.11 -26.0 -14.5
73 33.33
%
-
226197. 2730
9 5.00 32 7 20 5 5.78 8.00 17.16 -27.8 -16.4
71 66.67
%
-
280664. 3275
10 5.00 34 7 20 7 6.28 8.50 14.31 -26.1 -15.8
38 33.33
%
-
307772. 3888
11 5.00 36 7 24 5 6.38 9.00 20.84 -29.1 -18.0
12 00.00
%
-
452305. 5333
12 5.00 40 8 24 8 7.38 10.00 15.19 -26.2 -16.8
45 33.33
%
-
581150. 7098
13 5.00 44 8 28 8 7.98 11.00 18.13 -27.5 -18.2
55 66.67
%
1041 -
779649.
14 5.00 50 7 36 7 666.6 8.48 12.50 25.15 -32.2 -22.3
39
7 %
1625 -
123641
15* 5.00 58 10 41 7 933.3 9.98 14.50 23.96 -31.2 -22.5
3.18
3 %
2184 -
156185
16* 5.00 64 8 48 8 533.3 10.73 16.00 28.50 -32.9 -24.4
1.26
3 %
2620 -
199758
17** 5.00 68 10 48 10 266.6 11.73 17.00 23.76 -31.0 -23.4
4.59
7 %
3110 -
231796
18** 5.00 72 10 52 10 400.0 12.43 18.00 25.48 -30.9 -23.6
2.12
0 %
 3376 -
238673
19** 5.00 74 10 56 8 866.6 12.65 18.50 29.32 -31.6 -24.3
9.39
7 %
3658 -
266800
20** 5.00 76 10 56 10 133.3 13.15 19.00 27.07 -30.8 -23.8
6.06
3 %

* **
High performances concrete reccomended - Post tensioning reccomended

1.2.2. EFFECTS OF THE REDUCTION OF STIFFNESS

Reduction of rigidity is a function of the lightening geometry and is not linear with its height, it is also
influenced by the thickness of the lower plate and, to a lesser extent, by the distance between the
lightenings.

It is important to calibrate the lightened section so that the stiffness reduction is compensated by the
lightness of the plate, calibrating the thicknesses of the slabs.

The following charts show how, when the height of the lightening and therefore the thickness of the plate
is altered, and a distance is fixed, by increasing the thickness of the hoods, it is always possible to make the
weight reduction superior to the loss of stiffness, thus keeping the performance of the lightened plate
unaltered with respect to the full equivalent.

Reduccion Peso Propro Vs. Inercia

45,00%

40,00%

35,00%

30,00%
Reduccion %

25,00%

20,00% Reduccion peso proprio S=5 cm

Reduccion inercia S=5 cm
15,00%

10,00%

5,00%

0,00%
100 200 300 400 500 600 700

Canto Losa aligerada

Graph 1 - Loss of flexural strength Vs. Weight reduction for lightweight plates with top and bottom 5 cm thickness
 Reduccion Peso Propro Vs. Inercia
40,00%

35,00%

30,00%

25,00%
Reduccion %

20,00%
Reduccion peso proprio S=7 cm
15,00% Reduccion inercia S=7 cm

10,00%

5,00%

0,00%
100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800

Canto Losa aligerada

Graph 2 - Loss of flexural strength Vs. Weight reduction for lightweight plates with top and bottom 7 cm thickness

Reduccion Peso Propro Vs. Inercia

35,00%

30,00%

25,00%
Reduccion %

20,00%

Reduccion peso proprio S=10 cm

15,00%
Reduccion inercia S=10 cm
10,00%

5,00%

0,00%
100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800

Canto Losa aligerada

Graph 3 - Loss of flexural strength Vs. Weight reduction for lightweight plates with top and bottom 10 cm thickness

1.2.2.1. CONCLUSIONS
If you dimension the section appropriately, choosing the lightening height depending on the desired
thickness and the appropriate thickness of the upper and lower plates, it is always possible to ensure that
the loss of inertia is clearly compensated by the weight reduction.
By doing this, plates are obtained which have an average weight of 25% less than the full equivalent, losing
only an 8-15% stiffness.

1.2.3. STRESSING LOAD REDUCTION

The first consequence of weight reduction of the same thickness as the homogeneous mass plate is that
the slab and vertical structures all benefit from a reduction in load to the ultimate state which is the
function of decreasing the proper weight of the plate and the size of the loads of the project.

The following graphs show that, as the thickness of the upper and lower plates varies, the vertical load
reduction to the Ultimate Limit State is variable from 8 to 10% minimum, up to 25%.

The graphs show the magnitude of the benefit in the case of a fixed Gk permanent load of 2,0 kN/m2 at the
variation of the plate thickness and variable load Qk. Also the width of the rib is assumed invariable.

The vertical load reduction allows for direct savings of reinforcing steel in the slab, but also indirect savings
on sizing of pillars. This savings helps to further lighten the entire structure, resulting in benefits to the
foundation structures.

REDUCCION CARGA TOTALE s = 5 cm

28,00%

26,00%

24,00%

22,00%
Reduccion %

20,00% Qk = 2 kN/m2
18,00% Qk = 3 kN/m2

16,00% Qk = 4 kN/m2
Qk = 5 kN/m2
14,00%
Qk = 6 kN/m2
12,00%

10,00%

8,00%
100 200 300 400 500 600 700

Canto Losa aligerada

Graph 4 - ELU Load reduction depending on the thickness of the slab in the case of bottom and top plates of 5 cm thickness
 REDUCCION CARGA TOTALE s = 5 cm
28,00%

26,00%

24,00%

22,00%
Reduccion %

20,00% Qk = 2 kN/m2
18,00% Qk = 3 kN/m2

16,00% Qk = 4 kN/m2
Qk = 5 kN/m2
14,00%
Qk = 6 kN/m2
12,00%

10,00%

8,00%
100 200 300 400 500 600 700

Canto Losa aligerada

Graph 5 - ELU Load reduction depending on the thickness of the slab in the case of bottom and top plates of 7 cm thickness

REDUCCION CARGA TOTALE s = 10 cm

26,00%

24,00%

22,00%

20,00%
Reduccion %

18,00% Qk = 2 kN/m2
16,00% Qk = 3 kN/m2

14,00% Qk = 4 kN/m2
Qk = 5 kN/m2
12,00%
Qk = 6 kN/m2
10,00%

8,00%

6,00%
100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800

Canto Losa aligerada

Graph 6 - ELU Load reduction depending on the thickness of the slab in the case of bottom and top plates of 10 cm thickness
1.2.4. SEISMIC MASS REDUCTION
Lightening the slabs and consequently the entire structure has important consequences on the seismic
behavior of the structure.

Although it is not possible to give generic indications of the extent of the benefits on the seismic level as
seismic acceleration is given by the response spectrum curve which is the function of the particular
vibration period of the structure, which must be assessed case by case, it remains undeniable that the
active seismic force is a direct function of the mass of the building.

The lightening of the slabs and consequently of the vertical structures therefore results in a significant
reduction of the seismic force acting on the building.

1.2.5. COMPARISON ON TYPE BUILDINGS

By way of example we have made a comparison between two identical buildings, one with massive slabs
and one with lightweight slabs.

The starting hypotheses are the following:

1. Slabs 28 cm thick and with a surface of about 500 m2

2. Span between pillars 8 x 8 m
3. 10 storey building
4. Pillars automatically dimensioned by FEM software to appreciate load savings on the verticals
5. Project loads: Gk = 2,0 kN/m2 - Qk = 3,0 kN/m2
6. Seismic acceleration peak at reference ground: 0,257g

Figure 15 - Plant of lightweight slab type

 Figure 16 - Building calculation model

FULL PLATE LIGHTENED PLATE

TOTAL THICKNESS H [mm] 280 280
THICKNESS LOWER
S1 [mm] 60
PLATE
THICKNESS UPPER
S2[mm] 60
PLATE
LIGHTENING HEIGHT H [mm] 160
RIB WIDTH B [mm] 140
DISTANCE I [mm] 660
SLAB INERTIA J [cm4/m] 182.933 158.844
CONCRETE
C [m3/m2] 0.280 0.207
CONSUMPTION
OWN WEIGHT P [kN/m2] 7,0 5,18
 Figure 1 - FEM model of the type plate

1. In dark grey: shaped plate as lightened

a. Bending flexibility reduction factor: 0,87
b. Cutting stiffness reduction factor: 0,60
c. Mass reduction factor: 0,74
2. In light grey: shaped plate as full
a. Bending flexibility reduction factor: 1,00
b. Cutting stiffness reduction factor: 1,00
c. Mass reduction factor: 1,00
 1.2.6. COMPARISON OF THE DEFORMED

Figure 2 - Long-term arrow: 49,76 mm Figure 3 - Long-term arrow: 42,77

1.2.7. COMPARISON OF BENDING MOMENTS

Figure 4 - Full plate – Mxx Figure 5 - Lightened plate - Myy

Figure 4 - Full plate: Myy
Figure 5 - Lightened plate: Myy

1.2.8. CONCLUSIONS

FULL LIGHTENED DIFF. %

ARROW [mm] 49.76 42.77 -14%

FULL LIGHTENED DIFF. %

Mxx+ [kNm] 115.02 73.56 -36.05%

Mxx- [kNm] -425.06 -229.75 -45.95%

Myy+ [kNm] 91.84 98.87 7.65%

Myy- [kNm] -346.82 -287.99 -16.96%

Bending moments obviously result from redistribution due to the fact that the full plate has constant
stiffness while the lightened is more rigid to the supports, thus resulting in a negative moment migration.

The average reduction of bending moment is around 17%.

1.2.9. OVERALL LOAD REDUCTION
If we go to evaluate the weight and load reduction of each slab, added to the weight reduction due to the
optimization of vertical structures subject to lower load, the overall benefit is even greater than not simply
on the slab:

1. -26% on the weight of the slabs

2. -32% of the total building weight
3. -21% of global load in foundation

1.2.10. REDUCTION OF SEISMIC LOAD

We made a comparison between the two buildings also from the seismic point of view, taking as reference
the curve of the response spectrum of the Italian standard, in a highly seismic zone and in the pessimistic
hypothesis of a type D soil.
The tables below show the different modal participation masses in the case of a building with a full or all-
round plate:

The building with full plates has a slightly longer vibration period, while the lightweight slab building is
located on the plateau of the curve:
 0,45

[X VALUE]
[X VALUE]
0,4 [X VALUE]
[X VALUE]
0,35

0,3

0,25

0,2

0,15

0,1

FULL I
0,05
MODE
FULL II
0 MODE
0 0,1 0,2 0,3 0,4 0,5 0,6 0,7 0,8 0,9 1

However, the reduction of global mass plays a much more relevant effect on the resulting seismic force:

350 mm

Figure 6 - Displacement due to seismic forces - full plate building

 224 mm

Figure 7 - Displacement due to seismic forces - lightweight building

The displacement is 36% lower in case of lightweight slabs.

1.2.10.1. REDUCTION OF SEISMIC STRESSES

 35
H [m] Fx
30

25

20

15

10
VOIDED
FULL
5

[kN]
0
0 5000 10000 15000 20000 25000 30000 35000

Figure 26 - Horizontal seismic force per plane - direct. X

35
Fy
H [m]

30

25

20

15

10
VOIDED
FULL
5

[kN]
0
0 10000 20000 30000 40000 50000

Figure 27- Horizontal seismic force per plane - direct. Y

Even in this case, the reduction of the soliciting force is important and in the order of 36% less.
1.2.11. CONCLUSIONS
To lighten the plates of a building has as immediate impact on the steel reduction of armor on the plates
themselves, that we have seen to be average in the 12-15 order%.

Greater lightness also reduces the overall weight of the building as horizontal structures can be reduced
due to the increased lightness of the slabs.

The benefit obviously grows as the number of floors in the building increases, and can lead to a reduction in
the overall building weight of 30% and a reduction in the foundation load by 20%.

Similarly, the seismic forces decrease significantly, in the case example, a 36% less.

It remains to assess the burden of buying lightening and putting them into operation.

Depending on the cost of concrete, which varies not only from nation to nation, but also from region to
region or city to city (especially in large urban centers it is usually much more expensive due to logistical
burdens), the impact of the lightening on the cost of the lightened plate is greater or lesser.

On average, the cost of the lightening is largely offset by the savings of concrete generated by it, the
remainder being largely compensated by the steel savings that are obtained on the totality of the building.

The time and consequent cost of laying workmanship is rather reduced (30-40 m² / h per worker) and is
largely offset by the fact that saving steel on the slabs reduces the laying time of the same, and that time
can be used for laying the lightening.

This implies that the productivity of a lightened plate is also the same as a full plate.