Skip to main content

Evaluation of Ductility of RC Structures Constructed with Bubble Deck System

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.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6
Fig. 7
Fig. 8
Fig. 9
Fig. 10
Fig. 11
Fig. 12
Fig. 13
Fig. 14
Fig. 15
Fig. 16
Fig. 17
Fig. 18
Fig. 19
Fig. 20
Fig. 21

References

  1. 1.

    Lai T (2010) Structural behavior of Bubble Deck slabs and their application to lightweight bridge decks. Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Massachusetts

    Google 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, Darmstadt

    Google Scholar 

  3. 3.

    Schnellenbach-Held M, Pfeffer K (2002) Punching behavior of biaxial hollow slabs. Cem Concr Compos 24(6):551–556

    Article  Google 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):2219–2222

    Article  Google 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):67–73

    Google 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):74–81

    Google 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, Denmark

    Google 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 13:93–100

  9. 9.

    Schnellenbach-Held M, Ehmann S, Pfeffer K (1999) Bubble Deck design of biaxial hollow slabs. Darmstadt Concrete: Ann J Concr Concr Struct 14:145–152

  10. 10.

    Gudmand-Hoyer T (2003) Note on the moment capacity in a bubble deck joint. Technical University of Denmark, Denmark

    Google Scholar 

  11. 11.

    Calin S, Asavoaie C (2010) Experimental program regarding bubble deck concrete slab with spherical gaps. Intersections/Intersect II 7(1–4):34–40

    Google 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), Nagapattinam

  13. 13.

    Terec L, Terec M (2013) Bubble deck floor system: a brief presentation. Constr J Civ Eng Res 14(2):33–40

    Google Scholar 

  14. 14.

    Churakov A (2014) Biaxial hollow slab with innovative types of voids. Constr Unique Build Struct 6(21):70–88

    Google 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):9–20

    Google Scholar 

  16. 16.

    Dowell RK, Smith JW (2006) Structural tests of precast, prestressed concrete deck panels for California Freeway bridges. PCI J 51(2):76–87

    Article  Google 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)

  18. 18.

    Calin S, Asavoaie C (2009) Method for bubble deck concrete slab with gaps. Bull Polytech Inst Iasi 2(1):63–70

    Google 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)

  20. 20.

    ACI-318-14 (2014) Building code requirements for structural concrete and commentary. American Concrete Institute, Farmington Hills, MI

  21. 21.

    ASCE/SEI-41-06 (2007) Seismic rehabilitation of existing buildings. American Society of Civil Engineers, Structural Engineering Institute, Reston

  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):719–733

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. 23.

    ASCE/SEI-7-10 (2010) Minimum design loads for buildings and other structures. American Society of Civil Engineers, Structural Engineering Institute, Reston

  24. 24.

    IBC 2015 (2015) International building code. International Code Council Inc., Washington, DC

    Google Scholar 

  25. 25.

    Mwafi A, Elanshai A (2001) Static pushover versus dynamic collapse analysis of RC buildings. Eng Struct 23(1):407–424

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. 26.

    FEMA-365 (2000) Pre-standard and commentary for the seismic rehabilitation of building. Federal Emergency Management Agency, Washington DC

    Google Scholar 

  27. 27.

    Tasnimi A, Masoumi A (2006) Calculation of reinforced concrete moment-resisting frames response modification factor. Research Center of Building and Houses, Tehran

  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 DC

    Google 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):155–166

    Google 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, Iran

  31. 31.

    Computers and Structures Inc. (2010) CSI analysis reference manual, SAP2000 advanced 14.2.0, Berkeley, California, USA

  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 York

    Book  Google 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):735–751

    Article  Google 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)

  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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  39. 39.

    Mander JB, Priestley MJN, Park R (1988) Theoretical stress-strain model for confined concrete. J Struct Eng 114(8):1804–1825

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Seyed Shaker Hashemi.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Hashemi, S.S., Sadeghi, K., Vaghefi, M. et al. Evaluation of Ductility of RC Structures Constructed with Bubble Deck System. Int J Civ Eng 16, 513–526 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1007/s40999-017-0158-y

Download citation

Keywords

  • Bubble deck
  • Ductility
  • Nonlinear static analysis
  • Reinforced concrete