Professional Documents
Culture Documents
www.elsevier.com/locate/engstruct
Abstract
Steel I-beam, brick jack arch slabs have long been used to floor and roof industrial and residential buildings in many parts of
the world. Collapse of a large number of these non-homogeneous one-way slabs during past earthquakes has highlighted their poor
seismic performance. However, due to their easy construction together with low cost, the jack-arch slab is still widely used in many
countries. In this article, the weaknesses inherent in the traditional one-way jack-arch slabs are explored. To overcome these shortcomings, a new two-way system is proposed. Results of static and dynamic tests on full scale two-way and one-way jack-arch
slabs and finite element numerical analyses, aimed at investigating the effectiveness of the proposed two-way system, are presented
with favourable conclusions. Following these investigations the static and seismic design of jack arch slabs are discussed. The
proposed, allowable stress design method is based on designing for the steel grid and controlling the stresses in brick arches.
Parameters necessary for an equivalent static seismic load calculation are first determined. Finite element numerical analyses are
then conducted to investigate the effects of a number of parameters on the design of the slab and the necessary design factors are
evaluated. In addition, appropriate tables and figures are presented to facilitate the design of the one-way and two-way jack arch
slabs. It is concluded that the jack arch slab system, designed and constructed as presented in this article, provides a viable, low
cost alternative to other forms of flooring in seismic zones and elsewhere.
2003 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Keywords: Jack arch slab; Masonry slab; Design of jack arch slab; Seismic response; Dynamic testing
1. Introduction
The traditional steel I-beam, jack arch flooring system
was developed in Britain towards the end of nineteenth
century and was used extensively to cover large floor
areas in factories and other industrial buildings. The
technique spread eastwards and, by the middle of the
twentieth century, it became a popular flooring system
in parts of East Europe, the Middle East and the Indian
subcontinent. Due to its technical simplicity, speed in
construction and low cost, traditional jack arch slabs are
still very popular in the Middle East, where, not only
industrial buildings and ordinary dwellings but also
many high-rise steel and concrete framed buildings are
floored by this method.
0141-0296/$ - see front matter 2003 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/S0141-0296(03)00143-3
1640
Nomenclature
A
a
B
b
C
Cs
E
Eeff
Em
fball
fmall
fsall
fy
fm
h
I
Ireq
In
Ixx, Iyy
Rw
Rm
S
Sn
T
To
V
W
We
Ws
Wst
Y
max
.a
b
g
gmin
l1
nm
r
w
1641
(Fig. 2d). Restraining the ends of the I-beams with transverse steel beams, or fixing the ends of the beams to the
concrete ring beam and using transverse or diagonal steel
tie bars over the span are two earlier recommendations,
presented by Moinfar [8], for improving the seismic performance of the traditional one-way system.
Fig. 1.
Fig. 2. Different modes of failure of traditional one-way jack arch slab. (a) inability to transfer in-plane axial loads; (b) concentration of stresses
in brick arch under out-of-plane bending; (c) inability to transfer in-plane shear force; (d) inability to act as a diaphragm.
1642
3. Experimental investigations
1643
Fig. 6. Typical (a) response time-history and (b) auto-power frequency spectrum of the two-way jack arch slab of the flour factory.
4. Loading
Loading to be considered in the design of jack arch
slabs, are gravity and earthquake loads. The gravity, service dead and live loads may be determined using appro-
1644
Table 1
Experimental natural frequencies and damping ratios of the one-way and two-way slabs
Mode number (1)
Mode
Mode
Mode
Mode
1
2
3
4
(1st bending)
(2nd bending)
(3rd bending)
(4th bending)
Two-way system
One-way system
Damping % (3)
Damping % (5)
11.6
19.1
30.5
37.9
4.2
5.0
4.8
4.3
10.9
14.4
24.2
39.4
2.8
2.9
2.8
3.0
(1)
ABI
Rw
(2)
2pa2
Eeffh3
l21
12r(1J2m)
(sec.)
1/2
(3)
1645
tive elastic modulus of slab to elastic modulus of brickwork (Eeff/Em) is plotted against Ws.
After determining Eeff, it is used in Eqn. (3) to determine the fundamental period of vibration of the slab. To
check the validity of Eqn. (3) for jack arch slabs, this
simple method was used to calculate the fundamental
periods of the one-way and two-way jack arch slabs of
the flour factory discussed earlier. The calculated values
were compared with the periods determined from the
experiments. The fundamental periods of vibration, T,
calculated using Eqn. (3), are 0.0989 s for the one-way
slab and 0.0912 s for the two-way slab. These values
compare well with the experimental results of 0.0913 s
and 0.0858 s, respectively. The higher calculated values
are due to the simple-support assumption made for the
slab, as the worst case scenario.
To determine the dynamic response coefficient, B, different seismic codes provide different relations and diagrams, the majority of which are based on To and T.
These relations are derived for the building as a whole
and, in most codes, the region in the diagram covering
small periods of vibration is considered a constant
maximum. This can be seen in Fig. 8 in which, as an
example, the diagram given by the Iranian Seismic Code
[2] is shown. The dotted line for periods between 0 and
0.4 s is recommended by the Iranian code for buildings.
The fundamental periods of vibration of jack-arch slabs
are, however, well below those of ordinary buildings and
sometimes fall within this range. It is, therefore, prudent
to determine the actual values of B in this period range.
The actual values of B for the four different soil types
are calculated and plotted, in the same figure (Fig. 8),
as full lines.
4.2.2. Performance factor of jack arch slab, Rw
The jack arch slab system discussed here may be considered as a confined masonry construction. For confined
masonry walls, a value of 4 is often used for the per-
Fig. 7. The effective modulus of elasticity (Eeff) of the jack arch slabs.
Fig. 8. The proposed dynamic response coefficient (B) for the jack
arch slabs.
1646
formance factor Rw [9]. However, the jack arch slab system is expected to behave differently to a conventional
masonry building system. A preliminary discussion on
Rw factor for jack arch system will follow.
The system performance factor, Rw, corresponding to
the UBC allowable stress design format, is given by:
Rw RmY
(4)
ing the critical element of the slab, i.e. the steel grid.
For steel construction, Y, varies between 1.4 to 1.5. The
performance factor, Rw, may therefore be considered as
2.0 (Rm = 1.0, = 1.5, Y = 1.4) for the one-way system
and 2.1Rm for the two-way system. Design tables and
figures presented in the following sections have been
prepared in such a way that allowable stresses and loading parameters, other than those suggested in this article,
can be easily accommodated.
5. Design method
The jack arch slab is primarily a masonry construction. In the one-way system, brick arches undergo large
stresses as they transfer the static and seismic loads to
the steel beams. In the two-way system, although the
role of brick arches in the transfer of loads is reduced,
they are still required to transfer their own loads. The
masonry buildings and steel buildings may be designed
using the allowable (working) stress design method
(ASD). It is, therefore, plausible to base the design of
steel-beam jack arch slabs on the same method.
The design procedure to be adopted will be based on
designing the steel grid, as the main load-bearing
element, and controlling the brick arches for allowable
stresses. The failure criterion for the slab is assumed to
be bending failure of the steel beams or compressive
failure of the brick arches. In steel beams, shear failure
is unlikely to occur prior to bending failure. The tensile
failure in brick arches is governed by the bond tensile
strength. The bond tensile strength in masonry construction is low. For the lime-clay mortar brick prism, this
was determined as 0.2 MPa. Tensile bond failure
between brick units and mortar will be allowed under
high frequency cyclic loads since this failure does not
affect the load-carrying capability of brick arches in
compression.
Fig. 9.
1647
1648
Ireq CsIn
(5)
where
Cs abwel
Fig. 10. Typical stress results for (a) a one-way and (b) a two-way
jack arch slab showing the transverse bending stresses around axis
parallel to main beams in the brick arches.
of the main steel beams and in line with design procedures for RC slabs, the jack arch slab is divided into
three strips: a central strip and two side strips. As in any,
simply supported, plate-bending system, the maximum
stresses will normally be in the central part of the slab.
By dividing the main beams into central beams and
side beams, it will be possible to use smaller steel sections for the side beams. Unlike the RC slab, this
division cannot be made on a fixed length and, therefore,
the division is made on the number of main beams. It
should be noted that, if slab beams span over two or
more slab panels, the negative moments in side beams
become critical. In this case, all main beams should be
of the same size as the central beams.
The results of the design of each reference slab in the
form of the evaluated section modulus, Sn and moment
of inertia, In of the steel beams are compiled in a table
referred to as a design table. A typical section of the
design table is shown in Table 2. The complete design
table is presented elsewhere [6]. For every slab size, different steel grid configurations are presented in the table
which include both the one-way and two-way systems.
All the given configurations will be suitable for a design
coefficient of Cs = 1.0, based on vertical gravity and
seismic loads only. The required moments of inertia of
the main and transverse beams, Ireq, will be determined
from the following equation:
(6)
1649
Table 2
Typical format of the design table
Slab dimensions Minimum normalized moments of Inertia (In) and the section modulus (Sn)
(m)
Main beams
Transverse beams
Central beams
3.0 3.2
3.0 4.0
In-plane shear
capacity of slab
(kN)
End beams
No. of
beams
Sn (cm3)
In (cm4)
No. of
beams
Sn (cm3)
In (cm4)
No. of
beams
Sn (cm3)
In (cm4)
1
1
1
3
1
3
1
2
2
4
2
2
4
2
146
109
78
78
109
78
78
146
109
78
78
84
78
78
1320
869
541
541
869
541
541
1320
869
541
541
600
541
541
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
78
53
53
53
53
78
53
53
53
53
541
318
318
318
318
541
318
318
318
318
1
1
1
2
2
2
1
1
1
2
2
2
53
109
53
53
53
109
53
53
146
53
53
78
318
869
318
318
318
869
318
318
1320
318
318
541
30
40
40
55
1650
Fig. 11. Factor for slab support condition (a). 1, rigid support for main beams and flexible support for transverse beams; 2, rigid support for
main beams and transverse beams; 3, flexible support for main beams and transverse beams; 4, flexible support for main beams and rigid support
for transverse beams.
Fig. 12.
1651
1652
Fig. 15.
7. Control of deflection
Control of deflection is an important aspect of a structural design procedure. This is particularly true for the
jack arch slabs as they are generally more flexible than
the conventional concrete slabs. Some codes of practice
suggest a maximum allowable out-of-plane deflection of
max = l / 360. This limit has been used for control of
deflections in jack arch slab design. For every slab size
and steel configuration presented in the design table, the
maximum out-of-plane deflection of the slab was
determined from the numerical analyses. This deflection
was in turn compared with the maximum allowable
deflection and the necessary changes in the design parameters; a, b, and l, required to reduce the deflection
to the allowable limit and keep the stresses in brick
arches and steel beams within their specified allowable
stresses, were calculated. A deflection parameter, g, was
then calculated as:
g abelgmin
(7)
8. Conclusions
A type of engineered jack arch slab, in the form of a
two-way action, steel-grid system was introduced in this
paper. Experimental and numerical studies of full size,
one way and two-way jack arch systems show the effectiveness of the proposed system. Conclusions drawn
from the material presented in this paper may be summarised as follows:
Table 3
Minimum values of g (= abl) for control of deflection in jack arch
slabs
Allowable stress of steel, fsall,
(MPa) (1)
100
144
200240
80 (2)
90 (3)
100 (4)
1.2
0.95
0.90
1.46
1.16
0.9
1.73
1.37
0.9
1653
Acknowledgements
The author wishes to acknowledge the financial support provided by the International Institute of Earthquake
Engineering and Seismology (IIEES), under the grant
No. ZL-4744 and the Iranian National Research Council
for the grant No. NRCI-ZL-479 of National Research
Council Projects. Thanks are also due to Mr. Jafar Fallahi, Managing Director of the Naghshe-Rostam flour
factory. Mr. A. Khoddam-Mohammadi and Mr. A.
Imanipour for their useful contributions to this
research program.
References
[1] Blevins RD. Formulas for natural frequency and mode shapes.
NY: Van Nostrand Reinhold Company, 1979.
1654