International Journal of Civil Engineering

, Volume 16, Issue 5, pp 513–526 | Cite as

Evaluation of Ductility of RC Structures Constructed with Bubble Deck System

  • Seyed Shaker Hashemi
  • Kabir Sadeghi
  • Mohammad Vaghefi
  • Seyed Alireza Siadat
Research Paper

Abstract

Since in bubble deck (BD) system, the concrete in the middle of deck’s cross sections, mainly in the middle of the spans, is removed, the slabs become lighter compared to the traditional slabs. The application of this type of structural system has been recently increased. In the researches, the ductility factor is expressed generally for the reinforced concrete (RC) structures, with moment-resisting system (MRS), and dual systems. These include particularly, the MRSs, shear walls, and the flat slabs having mainly the BD system. In this research, the variations of the ductility of RC structures constructed with BD are assessed by applying the numerical modeling and nonlinear static analysis. Based on the evaluation of the obtained results, it can be concluded that the ductility of structures with dual systems, including MRS and shear wall (MRSSW), is more than the ductility of the structures with single MRSs. In the structures with MRSSW by increasing the ratio of the span length to story height (L/H) and also the number of stories, ductility factor will decrease and the rates of these decreases are considerable, while in MRS the number of stories and also the L/H ratio have less effect on the ductility factor. Among the structures with dual systems, including MRSSW, the low-rise structures with high ratios of span length to story height have the least value of ductility. As a conservative approach, a ductility factor of 3 for MRS structures is proposed. In addition, in MRSSW structures, for 4, 8 and 12 story structures, as a representative of low-rise, mid-rise and high-rise structures, the ductility factors of 6, 4 and 3 are suggested.

Keywords

Bubble deck Ductility Nonlinear static analysis Reinforced concrete 

References

  1. 1.
    Lai T (2010) Structural behavior of Bubble Deck slabs and their application to lightweight bridge decks. Massachusetts Institute of Technology, MassachusettsGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Aldejohann M, Schnellenbach-Held M (2002) Investigations on the shear capacity of biaxial hollow slabs—test setup and test program. Technical University of Darmstadt, DarmstadtGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Schnellenbach-Held M, Pfeffer K (2002) Punching behavior of biaxial hollow slabs. Cem Concr Compos 24(6):551–556CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Chung JH, Choi HK, Lee SC, Choi CS (2011) Shear capacity of biaxial hollow slab with donut type hollow sphere. Proc Eng 14(12):2219–2222CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Bindea M, Moldovan D, Kiss Z (2013) Flat slabs with spherical voids. Part I: Prescriptions for flexural and shear design. Acta Tech Napoc Civ Eng Archit 56(1):67–73Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Bindea M, Moldovan D, Kiss Z (2013) Flat slabs with spherical voids. Part II: Experimental tests concerning shear strength. Acta Tech Napoc Civ Eng Archit 56(1):74–81Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Schmidt C, Neumeier B, Christoffersen J (1993) Bubble slab. Abstract of test results. Comparative analysis Bubble slab–solid slab. AEC Technical University of Denmark, Department of Structural Engineering, DenmarkGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Schnellenbach-Held M, Ehmann S, Pfeffer K (1998) Bubble Deck—new ways in concrete building. Darmstadt Concrete: Ann J Concr Concr Struct 13:93–100Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Schnellenbach-Held M, Ehmann S, Pfeffer K (1999) Bubble Deck design of biaxial hollow slabs. Darmstadt Concrete: Ann J Concr Concr Struct 14:145–152Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Gudmand-Hoyer T (2003) Note on the moment capacity in a bubble deck joint. Technical University of Denmark, DenmarkGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Calin S, Asavoaie C (2010) Experimental program regarding bubble deck concrete slab with spherical gaps. Intersections/Intersect II 7(1–4):34–40Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Teja PP, Kumar PV, Anusha S, Mounika CH (2012) Structural behavior of bubble deck slab. In: IEEE-International Conference on Advances in Engineering, Science and Management (ICAESM—2012), NagapattinamGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Terec L, Terec M (2013) Bubble deck floor system: a brief presentation. Constr J Civ Eng Res 14(2):33–40Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Churakov A (2014) Biaxial hollow slab with innovative types of voids. Constr Unique Build Struct 6(21):70–88Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Ibrahim A, Ali N, Salman W (2013) Flexural capacities of reinforced concrete two-way bubble deck slabs of plastic spherical voids. Diyala J Eng Sci 6(2):9–20Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Dowell RK, Smith JW (2006) Structural tests of precast, prestressed concrete deck panels for California Freeway bridges. PCI J 51(2):76–87CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Olsen O (2009) Beregning: dimensioning and execution of biaxial hollow core elements, 6th edn. Jjj Consult (Dr. Techn. Jens Jacob Jensen AS) (in Norwegian)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Calin S, Asavoaie C (2009) Method for bubble deck concrete slab with gaps. Bull Polytech Inst Iasi 2(1):63–70Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Gajen N (2012) Investigation of moment behavior and shear strength in two way slabs, M. Sc. Dissertation, Engineering Faculty, Yasouj University, Iran (in Persian)Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    ACI-318-14 (2014) Building code requirements for structural concrete and commentary. American Concrete Institute, Farmington Hills, MIGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    ASCE/SEI-41-06 (2007) Seismic rehabilitation of existing buildings. American Society of Civil Engineers, Structural Engineering Institute, RestonGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Kim K, Choi S, Ju H, Lee D, Lee J, Shin M (2014) Unified equivalent frame method for flat plate slab structures under combined gravity and lateral loads—Part 1: Derivation. Earthq Struct 7(5):719–733CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    ASCE/SEI-7-10 (2010) Minimum design loads for buildings and other structures. American Society of Civil Engineers, Structural Engineering Institute, RestonGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    IBC 2015 (2015) International building code. International Code Council Inc., Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Mwafi A, Elanshai A (2001) Static pushover versus dynamic collapse analysis of RC buildings. Eng Struct 23(1):407–424CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    FEMA-365 (2000) Pre-standard and commentary for the seismic rehabilitation of building. Federal Emergency Management Agency, Washington DCGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Tasnimi A, Masoumi A (2006) Calculation of reinforced concrete moment-resisting frames response modification factor. Research Center of Building and Houses, TehranGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    FEMA-450 (2004) NEHRP Recommended provisions for seismic regulations for new buildings and other structures. Building Seismic Safety Council, Federal Emergency Management Agency, Washington DCGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Park R (1989) Evaluation of ductility of structures and structural assemblages from laboratory testing. Bull N Z Natl Soc Earthq Eng 22(3):155–166Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Hashemi SSH (2010) Defining model of nonlinear analysis of 3D reinforcement concrete frame under cyclic loads by considering the bar-concrete interaction. Ph. D. Dissertation, Tarbiat Modares University, Tehran, IranGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Computers and Structures Inc. (2010) CSI analysis reference manual, SAP2000 advanced 14.2.0, Berkeley, California, USAGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Chen XL, Fu JP, Xue F, Wang XF (2016) Comparative numerical research on the seismic behavior of RC frames using normal and high-strength reinforcement. Int J Civ Eng. doi: 10.1007/s40999-016-0082-6 Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    Paulay T, Priestley MJN (1992) Seismic design of reinforced concrete and masonry buildings. Wiley, New YorkCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Choi S, Lee D, Oh J, Kim K, Lee J, Shin M (2014) Unified equivalent frame method for flat plate slab structures under combined gravity and lateral loads—Part 2: Verification. Earthq Struct 7(5):735–751CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Shaheen YBI, Etman ZA, Ramadan AG (2016) Characteristics of ferrocement lightweight wall. Int J Civ Eng. doi: 10.1007/s40999-016-0061-y Google Scholar
  36. 36.
    Choi HK (2016) Experimental study on shear wall with slab and openings. Int J Civ Eng. doi: 10.1007/s40999-016-0078-2 Google Scholar
  37. 37.
    Hashemi SSH, Fiouz A, Kkosravi R, Siadat SA (2015) Nonlinear analysis of reinforcement concrete bubble deck system by equivalent layered method. In: 2th National Congress on Construction Engineering and Projects Assessment, Semnan, Iran (in Persian)Google Scholar
  38. 38.
    Sadeghi K (2016) Nonlinear static-oriented pushover analysis of reinforced concrete columns using variable oblique finite-element discretization. Int J Civ Eng 14(5):295–306. doi: 10.1007/s40999-016-0045-y CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Mander JB, Priestley MJN, Park R (1988) Theoretical stress-strain model for confined concrete. J Struct Eng 114(8):1804–1825CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Iran University of Science and Technology 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  • Seyed Shaker Hashemi
    • 1
  • Kabir Sadeghi
    • 2
  • Mohammad Vaghefi
    • 1
  • Seyed Alireza Siadat
    • 3
  1. 1.Department of Civil EngineeringPersian Gulf UniversityBushehrIran
  2. 2.Department of Civil EngineeringNear East UniversityNicosiaTurkey
  3. 3.Department of Civil EngineeringIslamic Azad University of BushehrBushehrIran

Personalised recommendations