Engineering Structures 36 (2012) 4960

Contents lists available at SciVerse ScienceDirect

Engineering Structures
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/engstruct

Seismic retrotting methods for the jack arch masonry slabs

Mahmoud R. Maheri , S. Pourfallah, R. Azarm
Department of Civil Engineering, Shiraz University, Iran

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: Jack arch masonry slab, developed in the post-industrial revolution Britain has been used extensively to
Received 6 April 2010 oor and roof industrial and residential buildings in many parts of the world. It is still in use in parts of
Revised 3 November 2011 Europe, the Middle East and Indian subcontinent. Collapse of a large number of these composite slabs
Accepted 9 November 2011
during past earthquakes, including those belonging to some buildings of historic importance, has
Available online 27 December 2011
pointed out the weakness of this type of ooring to seismic loading. It has also highlighted the need
for developing appropriate retrotting schemes. Two different retrotting methods are currently in
Keywords:
use. One method uses a thin reinforced concrete layer over the slab to provide integrity and the
Jack arch slab
Retrotting
necessary strength. Another method utilizes transverse beams to form a steel grid with the main beams
Concrete layer to achieve the same objectives. In this paper, out-of-plane pushover tests are rst conducted on a num-
Masonry ber of full-scale ordinary and retrotted jack arch slabs. Results of the tests are then used to compare
Pushover test the strength capacity and other seismic performance parameters of the slabs including; ductility and
Seismic performance the behaviour factor. Numerical analyses are also carried out in support of the experimental investiga-
tion. It is concluded that the steel grid method of retrotting, in addition to being easier and faster to
perform and much less costly, addresses all the strength and performance requirements of the slab,
whereas, the concrete layer method, though effective in increasing the strength, considerably increases
the weight of the slab, which, in turn, may increase strength demand on other structural elements. The
benets of using the concrete layer in improving the seismic performance are also less than those of
the steel grid method.
2011 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction Jack arch masonry ooring system consists of a number of clo-

The masonry jack arch ooring was developed by early
Victorian architects in Britain and used extensively to cover large
oor areas at factories and other industrial buildings [1]. Fine
examples of this type of ooring can still be seen in the Albert Dock
warehouses in Liverpool, designed by the early Victorian architect
Jesse Hartley and the late Victorian kiln buildings and warehouses
around London [2,3]. The ooring technique spread westwards to
North Americas and eastwards to mainland Europe and, by the
middle of the twentieth century, it became a popular ooring sys-
tem in parts of East Europe, the Middle East and the Indian subcon-
tinent. Presently, there are a large number of post-industrial
revolution buildings of historical importance which are oored
by jack-arch system. Due to its technical simplicity, speed in con-
struction, low cost and the ability to alter or provide openings in
the slab after construction, jack arch slabs are still very popular
in the Middle East, where, not only industrial buildings and ordin-
ary dwellings but also many multi-storey steel framed buildings
are oored by this method.
Corresponding author. Tel.: +98 917 7167274; fax: +98 711 6473161.
E-mail addresses: maheri@shirazu.ac.ir, mmaheri@hotmail.com (M.R. Maheri).
sely-spaced, parallel steel I-beams and a number of shallow brick
arches lling the spaces between the steel beams (Fig. 1). The
spaces over the arches are then lled to create a at oor. The roof
and oor slabs constructed using the jack arch system are stable un-
der normal static conditions, as the brick arches transfer the gravity
loads, mainly in compression, along the arch to the supporting
beams. The load is then transferred along the parallel steel beams
to the supporting walls or girders. The geometric form of the jack
arch and the load path through the steel beams, make the slab act
as a one-way system. The Victorian jack arch oors had larger brick
arches (around 1.5 m wide with a maximum rise of 20 cm) [2]. The
later, 20th century oors, however, were constructed using smaller
brick arches, 80 cm1.0 m wide with an average rise of 5 cm so that
a at surface could also be created for the ceiling by direct plaster-
ing. The Victorian builders also employed transverse tie-rods to join
the steel beams and provide lateral support for the beams; a prac-
tice ignored by the later builders.
Taking into consideration the widespread use of the jack arch
ooring and its advantages compared to the more modern, con-
crete-based slabs, it is rather surprising that there is no mention
of the system in codes of practice. Indeed, save for the works pub-
lished by the rst author and his colleagues [1,46], and another

0141-0296/$ - see front matter 2011 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.engstruct.2011.11.018
50 M.R. Maheri et al. / Engineering Structures 36 (2012) 4960
Fig. 1. The ordinary, jack arch roong system.
recent study carried out by others [7] a search of the related liter-
ature reveals almost no other references to any particular scientic
research directed at studying this roong system or any attempts
to provide an engineering basis for its design and construction.
For gravity design, the engineers consider the brick arches as
merely dead loads, carried by the steel beams, and sufce with
designing the steel beams. This assumption ignores the role of
brick arches in transferring slab loads and the resulting large stres-
ses developed in them. There are also no provisions for their seis-
mic design. On the other hand, the performance of the jack arch
oors in a number of recent earthquakes in East Europe and the
Middle East, particularly in Iran, has generally been poor. Collapse
of a large number of jack arch slabs and damage to many more was
reported from the Qir, Iran earthquake of 1972 [8], the Romanian
earthquake of 1990 [9], the Manjil, Iran earthquake of 1990 [10],
the Golbaf, Iran earthquake of 1998 [11] and the Bam, Iran earth-
quake of 2003 [6,12]. The three latter earthquakes are of particular
interest in this regard as they provided real testing grounds for
many jack arch oors and roofs.
Typical weaknesses and modes of failure of the traditional one-
way slab include [1]; (i) movement of simply supported steel
beams from their position under earthquake shaking, causing the
collapse of brick arches, (ii) inability of the brick arches to transfer
in-plane loads in the direction perpendicular to the steel beams,
(iii) concentration of stresses in the stiff brick arches due to out-
of-plane vibration of the slab, (iv) weakness of the slab system in
transferring in-plane shear, (v) dynamic interaction between the
stiff brick arches and the more exible steel beams under vertical
vibration and (vi) inability of the slab to act as a diaphragm as is
required for good seismic performance. Restraining the ends of
the I-beams with transverse steel beams, or xing the ends of
the beams to the concrete ring beam and using diagonal steel tie
bars over the span are two earlier recommendations, presented
by Moinfar [13] and incorporated in the Iranian seismic code
[14] for improving the seismic performance of the ordinary one-
way system. This form of anchored jack-arch slab has a better seis-
mic response because the relative movements of the oor beams
are somewhat prevented. It should be noted that the contemporary
jack-arch slab construction is still considered a non-engineered
slab in the Iranian seismic code, and there are no particular proce-
dures for their engineered design.
To eliminate the seismic weaknesses of the one-way jack arch
oors and roofs, the rst author has proposed to use a number of
transverse steel beams spanned between the main I-beams to form
a steel grid [1,5]. In this way the unconnected parallel steel beams
become part of an inter-connected steel grid, allowing the vertical
loads to be transferred in two directions, also enabling the transfer
of the in-plane forces (Fig. 2). In fact, by using a steel grid, the grid
will act as the main load-carrying element in the slab while the
brick arches act mainly as in-ll panels. The proposed two-way,
steel grid, engineered jack arch system, therefore, addresses all
the weaknesses of the ordinary one-way slab as discussed in refer-
ence [1]. The effectiveness of the method in removing the seismic
weaknesses of the jack arch slab was investigated both experimen-
tally and numerically [5] and procedures for engineered design and
construction of the slab were also introduced [1].
2. Retrotting of jack arch oors
Following the Romanian earthquake of 1990 and the Iranian
earthquake of 1990, the need to retrot the earthquake-damaged
and the existing jack arch slabs became apparent. In Romania, after
the earthquake, a method was developed and used to retrot some
old jack arch oor slabs. In this method, a reinforced concrete layer
is placed over the jack arch slab. The retrotting procedure
includes; removing the slab ooring nish, then placing over the
slab a mesh of reinforcement consisting of minimum 8 mm bars
with maximum bar spacing of 50 cm, connected to the top anges
of the slab beams by either direct welding or through shear keys
(Fig. 3). Finally, the slab is covered with a layer of concrete having
a minimum thickness of 5 cm. This method, although effective, is
costly and time consuming. The addition of the concrete layer also
adds to the weight of the slab, resulting in increased gravity and
seismic loading.
In Iran, after the Manjil earthquake of 1990, the use of diagonal
tie bracing of the jack arch slabs by steel bars, as a minimum
requirement, became mandatory. However, the subsequent exper-
imental and numerical investigations carried out by Maheri and
colleagues [1,5] showed the inadequacy of the code-recommended
technique in improving the seismic response of the slab. The per-
formance of the jack arch slabs during Bam earthquake of 2003
[6], on one hand, reinforced the above notion and on the other
hand, showed the high potentials of the jack arch slab as an earth-
quake resistant ooring system if certain simple criteria are met.
Fig. 4 shows an example of the resilience of the anchored slab
under earthquake loading. The slab shown in this gure had sur-
vived the dynamic loading in the Bam earthquake 0f 2003 and re-
tained its integrity after collapse.
Following the Bam, Iran earthquake of 2003 a vast program of
retrotting the old government buildings including schools has
 M.R. Maheri et al. / Engineering Structures 36 (2012) 4960 51

Fig. 2. The two-way, steel grid, engineered jack arch ooring.

Fig. 3. Retrotting of jack arch slab by laying a concrete layer on top.

been undertaken. Many of these buildings are roofed and oored

Fig. 4. Resilience of the anchored ordinary jack arch slab under earthquake loading
(Bam, Iran earthquake of 2003).
by ordinary jack arch system. Both the Romanian method of adding
a concrete layer (here abbreviated as CL method) and the two-way
steel grid (SG) method proposed by Maheri [1] are being exten-
sively applied to retrot the oors of these buildings.
One of the main shortcomings of the ordinary jack arch slab is
that the non-homogeneous, composite system cannot act as a dia-
phragm as it is expected from a seismic resisting slab. Both the
concrete layer and the steel grid retrotting methods can provide
enough in-plane stiffness and strength to make the slab act as a
diaphragm. In the case of the CL retrotting method, the RC layer,
when fully xed to the steel beams of the jack arch oor, can pro-
vide the necessary in-plane stiffness and in the SG retrotting tech-
nique, the steel grid should be able to act as a moment resisting
frame to sustain the in-plane loads and provide in-plane stiffness.
For this, the connections between the main and the transverse
beams should be appropriately designed and constructed. This
point is discussed later. As the requirement for the in-plane dia-
phragm action is met by both retrotting methods, it is the out-
of-plane seismic performance and the cost-effectiveness of the
methods which need to be investigated.
In this paper, the gravity and out-of-plane seismic strength and
performance of jack arch masonry slabs retrotted by the above
52 M.R. Maheri et al. / Engineering Structures 36 (2012) 4960
two methods are explored and compared. The strength and seismic
performance parameters are evaluated both experimentally and
numerically using forcedisplacement performance curves
obtained from force-controlled nonlinear static pushover analyses.
The seismic performance parameters of the slabs retrotted by the
two methods are also compared with those of the existing code-
recommended diagonal tie-braced slab and the ordinary slab.
3. Seismic performance parameters
The nonlinear static pushover analysis is known to represent well
the seismic performance of structures and structural elements. The
forcedisplacement performance curves obtained from the push-
over analyses are the basis for vulnerability studies and perfor-
mance-based seismic design of structures and structural elements.
In the nonlinear static pushover procedure, monotonically increas-
ing loads or displacements are applied to a real structural system
or a nonlinear mathematical model of that system until the displace-
ment of a control point (usually the point of maximum displace-
ment) reaches a specied target displacement. The target
displacement can be either code-specied or the displacement at
the maximum sustainable load in the force-controlled analysis;
known as the maximum displacement (Dmax). The loaddisplace-
ment curve thus obtained can be used to determine the performance
level (point) of the system to a specied earthquake design spectrum
or it can be used to evaluate seismic performance parameters of the
system including; strength, ductility factor, toughness and the seis-
mic behaviour factor.
In forced-based seismic design procedures, seismic behaviour
factor, R, is a force reduction factor used to reduce the linear elastic
response spectra to the inelastic response spectra. In other words,
seismic behaviour factor is the ratio of the strength required to
maintain the structure or the structural element elastic to the
inelastic strength of the structure or the structural element. The
seismic behaviour factor, R, therefore, accounts for the inherent
ductility and overstrength of a structural system. Taking into
account these two components, it is generally expressed in the fol-
lowing form,
R Rl  Rs
where, Rl is the ductility-dependent component, also known as the
ductility reduction factor and Rs is the overstrength factor.
With reference to Fig. 5, in which the actual forcedisplacement
response curve is idealized by a bilinear response curve [15,16], the
seismic behaviour factor parameters may be dened as:
Fig. 5. Determination of seismic response parameters using idealized bilinear
response curve.
Rl V e =V y ; Rs V y =V s 2
where, Ve, Vy and Vs denote the elastic response strength of the sys-
tem, the idealized yield strength and the rst signicant yield
strength, respectively.
Ductility reduction factor, Rl , is a function of the characteristics
of the structure, including ductility, damping and fundamental
period of vibration, T, as well as, the characteristics of earthquake
ground motion [17,18]. Therefore, it cannot directly be evaluated
from the relation given in Eq. (2), as the elastic response strength,
Ve, itself is a dependent variable. A representing relation for Rl is
proposed by Nassar and Krawinkler [19] in the following form:
Rl cl  1 11=k 3
where,
Ta b
cT; a 4
1 Ta T
and l is the structure ductility ratio, dened in terms of the ratio of
the maximum structural displacement at failure, Dmax, to the dis-
placement corresponding to the idealized yield strength, Dy. In Eq.
(4), a, is the post-yield stiffness given as a percentage of the initial
stiffness of the system and a and b are parameters given as func-
tions of a [19]. Although the relations given by Nassar and Krawin-
kler are developed for a structure, they are used here to determine
the behaviour factor for jack arch slabs. In fact, in line with the
design procedure for the two-way jack arch slab, outlined in refer-
ence [1], in the present paper the jack arch slab is considered as a
separate entity to its supporting structure (i.e. simply supported
on rigid supports). This is a viable assumption as only the out-of-
plane response of the slab to vertical ground motion is considered.
With reference to Fig. 5, the position of the horizontal line of the
idealized bilinear forcedisplacement curve is obtained by approx-
imately balancing the areas above and below the curve. The equiv-
alent yield displacement, Dy and yield strength, Vy are obtained
using this idealized bilinear curve. After evaluating the ductility ra-
tio, l, and the idealised yield strength, Vy, the ductility reduction
factor, Rl can be obtained from Eqs. (3) and (4) and the over-
strength factor, Rs is determined from Eq. (2).
1
4. Experimental program
The main experimental program consists of testing four, full-
scale jack arch slabs. All four slabs were initially made as ordinary
jack arch slabs with the same size and of the same materials. Three
frames were subsequently retrotted by, respectively, tie-braces,
steel grid and concrete layer. A supporting frame for the slabs
was rst manufactured. The frame was designed to rigidly support
the slabs in the vertical direction. The test slabs were then, in turn,
constructed over the supporting frame.
4.1. Test specimens and setup
The jack arch slabs were 3.2 m  4 m in dimensions, each hav-
ing 5 main steel beams, spanning the longer direction and spaced
80 cm apart. The slabs were considered to be the most vulnerable
forms used in practice with IPE-12 steel I-beams as the main
beams and brick arches made of traditionally manufactured, clay
bricks. The rise of all brick arches was kept constant as 5 cm.
The mortar used in constructing brick arches should be a fast
setting mortar so that individual bricks could be placed in position
without the need for a supporting formwork. Traditionally, equal
amounts by weight of a high clay content soil and gypsum are used
for this purpose. The claygypsum mortar sets almost as it is ap-
plied and can support the weight of the bricks before the arch is
completed (Fig. 6). Prior to testing the slabs, materials used in con-
 M.R. Maheri et al. / Engineering Structures 36 (2012) 4960 53

The SG specimen was retrotted according to the guidelines gi-

Fig. 6. Construction of brick arches using fast-setting claygypsum mortar.
structing and retrotting the slabs were tested. The tests conducted
include; compressive strength of brick units, compressive strength
of claygypsum mortar, tensile strength of claygypsum mortar,
tensile (exural) strength of brickwork, compressive strength of
brickwork, Youngs modulus of brickwork, yield strength of steel
beams, yield strength of steel reinforcement and compressive
strength of concrete. The results of material tests are listed in Table
1. The specimen preparation, test procedure and the number of
specimens used in testing brickwork, steel and concrete conform
to the relevant ASTM standards listed in Table 1. However, no spe-
cic standard exists for testing claygypsum mortar. For this mor-
tar, the compressive strength was determined using 12, 50 mm
cube specimens, tested after 7 days of dry curing. The results of
compressive strength test averaged at 6.0 MPa with a standard
deviation of 0.66. For determination of the direct tensile strength
of claygypsum mortar, 12 standard briquette specimens were pre-
pared and tested after 7 days of dry curing. The direct tensile
strength of the mortar averaged at 0.8 MPa with a standard devia-
tion of 0.93.
Of the four slabs; one was kept unchanged as an ordinary jack
arch slab (specimen OD); another was tie-braced as recommended
by the Iranian Seismic Code (specimen TB); the third slab, was sub-
sequently retrotted using the steel grid method (specimen SG)
and the fourth one was retrotted using the concrete layer method
(specimen CL).
To prepare the specimen TB, after constructing the brick arches,
U14 reinforcing bars were used to tie-brace this slab as it is recom-
mended by the Iranian Seismic code [14]. The cross diagonal bars
were welded to the top anges of the main beams. In a similar
manner to the ordinary jack arch slab (OD); this slab was then n-
ished by covering top of the brick arches by claygypsum plaster.
Table 1
Material test results.
ven in Ref. [1]. IPE-12 steel I-sections were used for transverse
beams. The brick arches were rst removed to a length of 30 cm
at two equidistant locations along the span to allow for placing
the transverse beams. The transverse beam sections were then
cut, in appropriate lengths, placed in position and connected to
the main beams, using right-angle sections to join the webs, and
short strips to join the anges. The remaining small empty gaps
in the brick arches at the sides of the transverse beams were nally
relled with bricks and mortar.
In retrotting jack arch slabs with reinforced concrete layer, if
the main steel beams are deep enough (IPE-16 and larger), the
reinforcing mesh can be directly placed on and welded to the top
ange of the beams. For shallower main beams, such as those con-
sidered in this study, the apex of the brick arches stands higher
than the level of top ange of the beams, therefore, reinforcing
mesh cannot be directly welded to the top anges. In this case,
similar to the technique used in composite RC-steel slabs, the rein-
forcing mesh should be xed to the steel beams through shear
keys. To retrot the CL slab, 5 cm long, 5  5  0.5 cm right-angle
sections were rst welded to the top anges of the beams at
30 cm spacing to act as shear keys. The reinforcing mesh, consist-
ing of 8 mm bars at 30 cm spacing and corresponding to a mini-
mum steel ratio of qmin = 0.002, was then welded to the shear
keys (Fig. 7(a)). The concrete was then laid over the slab to a depth
of 5 cm, measured from the apex of the brick arches (Fig. 7(b)).
The loading frame used to apply the incremental out-of-plane
load to the slabs is shown in Fig. 8. The out-of-plane seismic load
exerted on the slab during an earthquake is a varying distributed
inertia load, relative intensity of which follows the bowl-shaped
mode of vibration. Such varying distributed load cannot practically
be applied to the slab in an incremental pushover test. The out of
plane load was therefore applied on a line in the middle of the span
to distribute the load in one direction. This was done by using two
hydraulic jacks transferring the load through a deep steel beam
and a 5 cm thick concrete layer to the slab (Fig. 8). The correlation
between the results obtained using this method of line loading and
the actual surface-distributed loading is discussed in Section 5.
The masonry jack arch ooring is inherently a non-symmetric
system having different out-of-plane behaviour in downward and
upward directions. This is essentially due to the geometry and
behaviour of the brick arches; being stronger and stiffer in the
downward direction and weaker in the upward direction. During
the tests, pushover loading of the slabs was carried out in down-
ward direction. It might be thought prudent to have carried out
the one-directional pushover test on the slabs in the more critical,
weaker, direction. However, as the permanent gravity loads act
downwards and it is unlikely that the upward vertical seismic
loading on the slab exceeds the gravity loads, the most vulnerable
direction would indeed be downwards.
The incremental pushover test of each slab was carried out at
load steps of 5.7 kN. In each load step, the out of plane displace-
ments of the slabs were recorded at six different location using
mechanical gauges (Fig. 9).

Property The standard Test value 4.2. Test observations and results
used (MPa)
Compressive strength of brick units ASTM C67 13.8 4.2.1. Ordinary jack arch slab (OD)
Compressive strength of claygypsum 6.0 The force-controlled pushover test of this slab was carried out
mortar as described above. The forcedisplacement curves obtained for
Tensile strength of claygypsum mortar 0.8
Tensile (exural) strength of brickwork ASTM E518 0.25
the specied six locations of the slab are plotted in Fig. 10a. During
Compressive strength of brickwork ASTM C1314 8.4 the test, the rst cracks in the brick arches appeared in the form of
Youngs modulus of brickwork ASTM C1314 2500 diagonal cracks at corners of the slab at the load of 39 kN (marked
Yield strength of steel beams ASTM E8 250 as crack type (1) in Fig. 10b). A look at the forcedisplacement
Yield strength of steel reinforcement ASTM E8 400
curves (Fig. 10a) however, shows that these cracks had actually
Compressive strength of concrete ASTM C39 21
occurred at 35 kN but did not become visible until the load had
54 M.R. Maheri et al. / Engineering Structures 36 (2012) 4960
Fig. 7. Retrotting the jack arch slab using the concrete layer method (a)
connecting the reinforcement mesh to the slab beams and (b) concreting.
Fig. 8. Test set-up for out-of-plane pushover loading of the slabs.
reached 39 kN. These failures appear to be due to torsion at the
corners of the slab. At higher loads similar parallel diagonal cracks
appeared in the outer brick arches (crack type 2). The maximum
load which could be applied to the slab was 63 kN resulting in a
maximum displacement at the middle of the slab (gauge 2) of
23 mm. At this load cracks also appeared in the central brick arches
parallel to the main beams. Attempts at increasing the load only
resulted in increased deections. At the ultimate load, the steel
beams had yielded. Yielding and permanent deformation of the
steel beams was visually veried after unloading the slab. An inter-
esting point to note was that the slab retained its integrity
throughout the test and no brittle failure or spalling of brick arches
occurred during the test, even at deections twice the deection
recorded at the maximum load. This indicates the ductile behav-
iour of the jack arch slab, as also was observed in similarly
anchored jack arch slabs during Bam earthquake of 2003 [6].
4.2.2. Tie-braced slab (TB)
The response of this slab to the pushover loading was some-
what similar to the ordinary slab. The rst crack occurred at
34 kN at one corner of the slab. Similar diagonal cracks developed
in the outer brick arches and at higher loads parallel cracks also
developed at the interface between the brick arches and the main
beams (Fig. 11a). The test continued until the maximum load of
74.4 kN, corresponding to a maximum deection of 25.7 mm at
the centre of the slab. Similar to the ordinary slab, no brittle failure
was noted in the brick arches. Also, the steel beams had yielded
during the loading and developed permanent deformation. The
loaddeection curves recorded at the specied locations on the
slab are presented in Fig. 11b.
4.2.3. Slab retrotted by the steel grid method (SG)
In this retrotted slab, the rst diagonal crack developed at one
of the outer brick arches at 51.5 kN. After this initial crack, further
parallel diagonal cracks occurred in the brick arches at the corners
of the slab at 85.8 kN (Fig. 12a). Prior to the ultimate load some
cracks also developed in the middle of outer brick arches, parallel
to the main beams. The loading was continued until the ultimate
load of 103 kN at which the maximum deection was measured
as 30 mm. Similar ductile response was noted for this slab; with
yielding of the main steel beams and no spalling or brittle failure
of brick arches. The loaddeection curves for this retrotted slab
are presented in Fig. 12b.
4.2.4. Slab retrotted by concrete layer (CL)
The rst cracks occurred in brick arches at the corners of the slab
in a diagonal pattern similar to the other slabs. The load correspond-
ing to these cracks was measured as 143 kN. However, unlike the
other slabs, the cracks could only be seen in the brick arches under
the slab and they did not appear on top of the slab (i.e. in the concrete
layer). Therefore, these cracks were only associated with the brick
arch failure and not the concrete layer. A small number of further
diagonal cracks developed in the brick arches at higher loads
(Fig. 13b). The loading was continued up to 194.5 kN at which load
Fig. 9. Location of gauges recording the deections of the slabs.
 M.R. Maheri et al. / Engineering Structures 36 (2012) 4960 55

4.3.1. Ultimate strength

The strength capacities of the four slabs were compared in Table
2. The ultimate strengths of the slabs are also compared graphi-
cally in Fig. 15(a). In this gure, the strengths of the retrotted
slabs are normalized to the strength of the ordinary slab. Strength
increases of 18%, 63% and over 200% are obtained for, respectively,
the tie-braced, steel grid and the concrete layer slabs. In order that
a better judgment of these strength increases could be made, it
would be appropriate to rst discuss the capacity demand for such
slabs. The slab beams are normally designed for gravity loads. The
increased capacity demand due to vertical seismic loading is a
function of the vertical design base acceleration and the slabs re-
sponse amplication factor. Based on the Iranian seismic code for
a high intensity seismic zone and the response amplication factor
for the slab evaluated as outlined in reference [1], the spectral
acceleration for the out-of-plane vibration of the slab is calculated
as around 0.5 g. As the slab is already designed for 1.0 g gravity
load, therefore the increased capacity demand will be 50%; a de-
mand that cannot be met by the tie-braced slab and is far less than
the capacity that can be provided by the concrete layer slab. Only
the steel grid slab can cost-effectively meet this capacity demand.

4.3.2. Ductility ratio (l) and ductility reduction factor (Rl)

The ductility ratio for the ordinary jack arch slab is evaluated as
l = 1.7. This is a relatively high value for a masonry structural
member. In Fig. 15(b), ductility ratios of the four slabs are com-

Fig. 10. Test results for the ordinary slab; (a) forcedeection curves and (b) failure
pattern of brick arches.

the slab could sustain no further loads. The maximum deection at

this load was measured as 45 mm. At the maximum load, some local
brittle failure and spalling occurred in the brick arches. Yielding of
the steel beams is assumed to have caused the inability of the retro-
tted slab to sustain further loads; however, this could not be visu-
ally veried on unloading of the slab. The loaddisplacement curves
for this slab are plotted in Fig. 13a. The response of this slab was evi-
dently different to the other three slabs. It behaved in a manner sim-
ilar to a concrete-steel composite slab rather than a masonry jack
arch slab. A comparison of the results for the four slabs follows.

4.3. Comparison of test results

In this section, the strength and seismic performance parame-

ters of the four tested slabs are extracted from their respective
pushover forcedeection curves and compared. For this purpose,
the forcedeection curves for the reference point, close to the
middle of the slabs (gauge 2), are used. The seismic performance
parameters are evaluated as outlined in Section 3. The parameters
evaluated and compared include; ultimate strength, ductility ratio,
ductility reduction factor, overstrength factor and behaviour factor.
The evaluated parameters for the four slabs are listed in Table 2.
The forcedeection curves for the reference point of the four slabs
are also compared in Fig. 14. In the following, these parameters are
further discussed. Other important factors; including the added
weight due to retrotting and the cost of retrotting are also eval- Fig. 11. Test results for the tie-braced slab; (a) forcedeection curves and (b)
uated and compared. failure pattern of brick arches.
56 M.R. Maheri et al. / Engineering Structures 36 (2012) 4960
Fig. 12. Test results for the steel grid slab; (a) forcedeection curves and (b) failure
pattern of brick arches.
pared, relative to the ductility of the ordinary slab. It is evident that
diagonal tie-bracing of the slab does not have much effect on this
parameter, whereas, 30% and 67% increases in ductility could be
seen for the retrotted steel grid and the concrete layer slabs,
respectively. Similarly, no change in the ductility reduction factor
Rl is noted for the tie-braced slab (Fig. 15(c)). However, it is inter-
esting to note that although the increased ductility provided by the
concrete layer retrotting method is much higher than that pro-
vided by the steel grid method, the ductility reduction factor Rl
for both systems are the same. The reason for this being the depen-
dence of Rl, not only on the ductility ratio, but also on the funda-
mental period of vibration (T) of the system as discussed in Section
3. The stiffer concrete layer slab is of lower period of vibration
compared to the steel grid slab.
4.3.3. Overstrength (Rs)
With reference to Table 2 and Fig. 15(d) in which the over-
strength factor of the four slabs are compared relative to that of
the ordinary slab, little difference is noted in this parameter for
Fig. 13. Test results for the concrete layer slab; (a) forcedeection curves and (b)
failure pattern of brick arches.
the tested slabs, except for the tie-braced case which shows a high-
er value of overstrength. It seems that in the tie-braced slab, failure
has been associated with yielding of the tie-braces as well as the
steel beams, whereas, in the other slabs, failure has been associ-
ated with the yielding of steel beams only. It was expected that
the concrete layer slab exhibit a higher overstrength factor. How-
ever, as the concrete layer did not yield under loading, the failure
mechanism of this slab appears to be somewhat similar to that
of the ordinary slab with yielding of the main steel beams domi-
nating the response.
4.3.4. Behaviour factor (R)
Seismic behaviour (or force reduction) factor, as the product of
the ductility reduction factor and the overstrength factor, is per-
haps the best indicator of the seismic performance of a structural
system. This parameter is presented comparatively for the four
slabs in Fig. 15(e). As expected, little difference is seen in the R-fac-
tors for the tie-braced slab and the ordinary slab. However, the two
retrotted slabs show higher values compared to the ordinary slab,
 M.R. Maheri et al. / Engineering Structures 36 (2012) 4960
Table 2
Strength and seismic performance parameters of the tested slabs.
Slab Yield strength Yield displ. Dy (mm) Ultimate strength Maximum displ. Ductility ratio (l) Ductility reduction Overstrength
Fy (kN) Fu (kN)
Ordinary (OD) 53 13.4 63
Tie-braced (TB) 62 17.6 74
Steel grid (SG) 84 13.5 103
Concrete layer (CL) 166 15.9 194
Fig. 14. Comparison of the forcedeection curves at the middle of the four tested
slabs.
indicating their better performance. Comparing the two retrot-
ting methods, the steel grid system exhibits a higher R-factor,
due mainly to its higher overstrength.
4.3.5. Added weight
Negligible changes in the weight of the slab occur when diago-
nal tie-braces or transverse beams are added to the slab. However,
adding a concrete layer increased the weight of the slab by 25%.
This is a considerable amount of weight increase for the slab. A
large increase in the weight of the slab due to retrotting is not
suitable, because the added weight increases the gravity and seis-
mic loads on the slab, as well as, on the other supporting structural
members such as walls, beams, columns and foundation. This, in
turn, increases the strength demand on these elements and may
necessitate retrotting the supporting elements.
4.3.6. Retrotting costs
The cost is a key factor when choosing a retrotting scheme. A
cost analysis was carried out on the two retrotted slabs based on
the tariffs of the Iranian Management and Programming Organiza-
tion. The cost of retrotting an existing masonry jack arch slab
using the steel grid method is 54% of constructing a new slab
(Fig. 15(f)). In using the concrete layer method, the retrotting
costs should be considered in two parts; rst, the cost of retrot-
ting the slab, which is calculated as 163% of the cost of constructing
a new slab. The second part is the cost of retrotting other ele-
ments, due to weight increase. This part is a function of the type
of building and the available strength of its structural members.
It seems that the concrete layer method, though effective in con-
siderably increasing the strength of the slab (far in excess of the
strength demand), it suffers from being more time consuming,
technically more difcult to perform and particularly far more
costly. The benets of using the concrete layer method in improv-
ing the seismic performance of the slab are also less than those of
the steel grid method.
57
Behaviour factor
Dmax (mm) factor (Rl) factor (Rs) (R)
22.8 1.7 1.5 1.55 2.33
25.7 1.46 1.4 1.8 2.52
29.6 2.2 1.96 1.63 3.20
45.2 2.8 1.96 1.53 3.00
5. Numerical investigations
Numerical analyses were carried out with the aim of investigat-
ing some of the variable parameters affecting the performance of
the retrotted slabs and the test results, which could not be stud-
ied through testing. These include; (i) the effects of using an area-
distributed incremental loading compared to the strip-distributed
loading used in the tests, (ii) the effects on the response of the
tie-braced slab of xing diagonal tie braces to the bottom anges
of the main beams, compared to the top anges as was performed
in the tests and (iii) the inuence on the response of the concrete
layer retrotted slab of the thickness of the concrete layer. For
these investigations, ANSYS software program [20] was utilized
to create numerical models of the slabs and conduct numerical
analyses. Prior to investigating the above three parameters, accu-
racy of the numerical models was veried by comparing the results
of numerical analyses with those obtained from the tests.
The 3D, 8-noded, SOLID65 element in ANSYS was used to model
the brick arches. The most suitable material model in this software
to model the behaviour of the jack arch brickwork is the Concrete
material. This nonlinear material uses a smeared crack model to
take into consideration material cracking as well as the orthotropic
nature of brickwork. It is also capable of modeling material crush-
ing. Hognestad model is also used to represent the material stress
strain relationship in compression and tension [20]. To model the
steel beams, the 3D, SOLID45 element was utilized. Also, in the
tie-braced slab, Link8 elements were used to model the tie-bars
and to model the concrete layer, the same SOLID65 element and
Concrete material were used. The material properties used in the
numerical investigations are the same as those obtained experi-
mentally (Table 1). To best model the actual loading exerted on
the slabs during the tests, in the pushover analysis the incremental
load was assumed to apply uniformly on a 30 cm wide central
strip, perpendicular to the main beams. The numerical model for
the ordinary slab is shown in Fig. 16.
5.1. Verication of the numerical models
Nonlinear pushover analysis was carried out on the numerical
model of each of the four slabs and results, in the form of force
deection curves, were compared with those recorded in the tests.
The comparisons are shown graphically in Fig. 17(ad) for the OD,
TB, SG and CL slabs, respectively. The numerical pushover curve for
the ordinary slab matches relatively well with the experimental
curve; the numerical model showing a somewhat stiffer post-yield
behavior (Fig. 17(a)). The numerical and experimental results also
compare well in the tie-braced slab, with the numerical model
exhibiting a relatively stiffer response throughout (Fig. 17(b)). A
fair match between the numerical and experimental pushover
curves can also be noted in Fig. 17(c) for the steel grid retrotted
slab. However, for the concrete layer retrotted slab (Fig. 17(d)),
although the numerical analysis has predicted the post-yield state
of the slab well, it shows a markedly stiffer initial response. Com-
parisons made in Fig. 17 for the four slabs show the reliability of
the numerical models for further investigations.
58 M.R. Maheri et al. / Engineering Structures 36 (2012) 4960
Fig. 15. Comparison of (a) strength, (b) ductility ratio, (c) Rl, (d) Rs, (e) R and (f) cost parameters of the four slabs, normalized to those of the ordinary slab.
5.2. Area-loading versus strip-loading
As it was mentioned earlier, the out-of-plane seismic load
exerted on the slab during an earthquake is a varying distributed
inertia load, relative intensity of which follows the bowl-shaped
mode of vibration. Such varying distributed load could not be
applied to the slab in an incremental pushover test. The out of
plane load was therefore applied on a narrow strip in the middle
of the span to distribute the load in one direction. A pushover
numerical analysis on the ordinary slab was carried out using a lin-
ear varying load in both directions with the load at the apex of the
pyramid type loading used as the incremental loading intensity.
The forcedeection curve obtained using this area-distributed
load cannot directly be compared to that from the strip-loading.
However, the effects of using the two types of loading on the seis-
mic performance parameters such as ductility ratio and behavior
factor can be compared as carried out in Table 3. This table shows
that the differences in the seismic performance parameters evalu-
ated using strip loading and area loading are small, being within
5%. Therefore, using strip loading in the nonlinear pushover tests
and analyses is justied.
5.3. Lower ange, versus upper ange tie-bracing
The Iranian Seismic Code [14] is not specic about the location
to x the diagonal bracing. For the new jack arch constructions, it is
common practice to place the bracing on top of the steel beams. To
upgrade the existing ordinary jack arch slabs to code recommenda-
tions, bracing is, however, xed to the lower anges of the beams
as ooring does not allow for the former. The effects of tie-bracing
the lower anges were investigated by changing the numerical
model of TB slab accordingly and repeating the pushover analysis
on the slab. The pushover forcedeection curve obtained from
this analysis is compared to that of the TB slab braced at top
anges in Fig. 18. It can be seen that bracing the lower anges mar-
ginally increases the strength of the jack arch slab compared to
bracing the upper anges. A higher increase of 15% was, however,
calculated for ductility of the slab due to bracing the lower anges.
5.4. The Effects of concrete layer thickness
For retrotting the slab by a concrete layer, there are no scien-
tic studies available on the optimum thickness of the concrete
 M.R. Maheri et al. / Engineering Structures 36 (2012) 4960 59

Fig. 16. Numerical model of the ordinary jack arch slab.

Fig. 17. Comparison of the experimental and numerical response curves of the four slabs.

layer or the required steel reinforcement. A minimum thickness of

5 cm is mandatory to allow for sufcient cover for the reinforce- Table 3
ment mesh. This is the thickness used for the retrotted slab in this Seismic performance parameters evaluated using strip loading and area
loading.
study. To investigate the level of possible gains by increasing the
thickness of concrete, two further thicknesses of 7 cm and 9 cm Type of Maximum Ductility Behaviour
were also studied. The numerical models used for the new analyses loading displacement Dmax ratio (l) factor (R)
(mm)
were exactly the same as that used for the 5 cm thick concrete
layer model except for the different thicknesses of the concrete. Strip 21.1 1.57 2.4
Area 22.3 1.65 2.5
Around 15% and 20% increases in strength are calculated for 7 cm
60 M.R. Maheri et al. / Engineering Structures 36 (2012) 4960
Fig. 18. Response curve of the TB slab, with tie-braces attached to the top anges of
the steel beams compared to bottom anges.
thick and 9 cm thick concrete layer models, respectively. It should
be noted that these gains in strength, are at the expense of, respec-
tively, 40% and 80% increases in weight of the layer. Increasing the
thickness of the layer for improved strength in a retrotting meth-
od which is already well overdesigned is evidently not justied.
6. Conclusions
Based on the results of the experimental and numerical investi-
gations presented in this paper, the following conclusions can be
drawn regarding the performance of ordinary jack arch slabs and
the effectiveness of different retrotting method;
(1) The engineered masonry jack arch slab is robust under
earthquake loading with a fair amount of ductility and an
ability to sustain high out-of-plane deformations. It is easy
and fast to construct and less costly than the concrete-based
slabs.
(2) Tie-bracing of the ordinary jack arch slab, as recommended
by the Iranian Seismic Code, does not provide the required
integrity and the necessary strength for the slab to sustain
earthquake loading. The improvements in seismic perfor-
mance parameters gained by tie-bracing the slab beams
are minimal.
(3) As discussed in previous publications, the engineered jack
arch slab, in which transverse beams are used to form a steel
grid, overcomes all the seismic weaknesses of the ordinary
jack arch slab. It is also shown here that the transverse beams
can be used as an effective retrotting measure, enhancing
the out-of-plane strength capacity of the slab to the required
level and highly improving its seismic performance. It is the
most cost-effective method of retrotting jack arch slabs. It is
easy and fast to perform with little change to the original
form of the slab and almost no extra weight.
(4) The concrete layer method of retrotting considerably
increases the out-of-plane strength of the slab; far in excess
of the strength demand on the slab. It suffers from being
more time consuming, technically more difcult to perform
and particularly far more costly. It also changes the form and
considerably increases the weight of the slab, increasing
strength demand on other structural elements. The benets
of using the concrete layer method in improving the seismic
performance of the slab are also less than those of the steel
grid method.
Acknowledgement
The authors wish to acknowledge the nancial support
provided by, the Iranian Building and Housing Research Centre, un-
der the Grant No. BHRC-1-8010.
References
[1] Maheri MR, Rahmani H. Static and seismic design of one way and two way jack
arch masonry slabs. Eng Struct 2003;25(13):163954.
[2] Parkinson G, Curtin WG. Albert Dock, LiverpoolStructural survey, appraisal
and rehabilitation. Struct Eng 1986;64A(10):28391.
[3] Coatsworth AM. Letter to the Editor on Static and seismic design of one way
and two way jack arch masonry slabs, [Eng Struct, 2003; 25(13); 16391654].
Eng Struct 2004;26(8):1163.
[4] Maheri MR, Bahar O. Analytical studies of the seismic behavior of the I-beam
jack arch system, Proc. 2nd Int. Conf. on Seism. and Earthq Eng (SEE2), Tehran,
Iran 1995; 1; 819828.
[5] Maheri MR, Imanipour A, Seismic evaluation of proposed two way jack arch
slab, Proc. 3rd Int. Conf. on Seism. and Earthq Eng (SEE3), Tehran, Iran 1999; 2;
605612.
[6] Maheri MR. Performance of building roofs in the 2003, Bam, Iran earthquake.
Earthquake Spectra 2005;21(S1):S41124.
[7] Mirjalili A, Shakib H, Mazrooee A, Maheri MR. Experimental evaluation of
different methods of retrotting jack arch roofs. Shiraz, Iran: 8th Int. Congress
on Civil Engineering; 2009.
[8] Razani R, Lee KL. The engineering aspect of the Qir earthquake of April 10.1972
in Southern Iran. Washington, DC: National Academy of Engineering; 2009.
[9] Pomonis A, Coburn W, Ledbetter S. The Vrancea, Romania earthquake of 3031
May 1990, a eld report by Earthquake Engineering Field Investigation Team
(EEFIT). London, UK: Institute of Civil Engineers; 1990.
[10] Maheri MR. The engineering aspects of Manjil, Iran earthquake of June 1990,
Earthquake Engineering Field Investigation Team (EEFIT) report. London,
UK: Institute of Civil Engineers; 1990. Oct.
[11] Maheri MR. Lessons from Golbaf, Kerman earthquake of 14 March 1998, Proc.
1st IranJapan workshop on recent earthquakes in Iran and Japan, Tehran:
1998 p. 319330.
[12] Ahmadizadeh M, Shakib H. On the December 26, 2003, southeastern Iran
earthquake in Bam region. Eng Struct 2004;26(8):105570.
[13] Moinfar AA, Earthquake engineering trend in Iran, Proc. 3rd World Conf. on
earthquake Engineering. New Zealand: vol. 3, 1965.
[14] Building and Housing Research Center, Iranian code of practice for seismic
resistant design of buildings; Standard No 2800, Tehran: 2005.
[15] Maheri MR, Akbari R. Seismic behavior factor, R, for steel X-braced and knee-
braced RC buildings. Eng Struct 2003;25(12):150513.
[16] Niroomandi A, Maheri A, Maheri MR, Mahini SS. Seismic performance of
ordinary RC frames retrotted at joints by FRP sheets. Eng Struct
2010;32(8):232636.
[17] Miranda E, Bertero VV. Evaluation of strength reduction factors for
earthquake-resistant design. Earthquake Spectra 1994;10(2):35779.
[18] Levy R, Rutenberg A. Qadi Kh. Equivalent linearization applied to earthquake
excitation and the RlTo relationship. Eng Struct 2006;28(2):21628.
[19] Nassar AA, Krawinkler H. Seismic demands for SDOF and MDOF systems.
Report No. 95, The John A. Blume earthquake engineering center. Stanford,
California: Stanford University; 1991.
[20] ANSYS Manual. Canonsburg, PA 15317, USA: ANSYS INC.; 2005.
 ID Title Pages

267845 Seismic retrofitting methods for the jack arch masonry slabs 12

http://fulltext.study/journal/192

http://FullText.Study