Volume 13, Issue 5 (2014)                   MCEJ 2014, 13(5): 41-51 | Back to browse issues page

XML Persian Abstract Print

Download citation:
BibTeX | RIS | EndNote | Medlars | ProCite | Reference Manager | RefWorks
Send citation to:

fathi M, asadizade D. Dynamic Nonlinear Analysis of Bubble Decks Reinforced Concrete and other Slabs. MCEJ. 2014; 13 (5) :41-51
URL: http://mcej.modares.ac.ir/article-16-861-en.html
Abstract:   (5620 Views)
In this paper the behavior of framee, the process of plastic hinge formation and energy absorption of frames with two spans and one floor with three types of slab including bubble deck slab, hollow core slab and reinforced slab under three earthquake accelerations have been analyzed and compared. The results show that bubble deck slab and hollow core slab as rigid as normal reinforced slab, although bubble deck slab has higher strength and stiffness compared to other slabs. Partnering slab in analysis make period of slab reduce more over bubble deck slab and hollow core to the comparison of reinforced slab, have more effect on period reduction. Ultimate displacement of frame with reinforced slab reach to failure mechanism is more than two mentioned case, however frame with bubble deck slab reach to failure mechanism under stronger earthquake acceleration and smaller displacement than reinforced slab. Comparison base shear of three discussed case shows that maximum base shear is in bubble deck slab and minimum base shear is in normal reinforced slab. Formation of plastic hinge in frame with bubble deck slab is similar with that in frame with hollow core slab with the difference that plastic hinge in former occurs later at the top end of the middle column and two ends of middle beams. In fact, formation of plastic hinges in this frame requires higher acceleration because of the higher amount of concrete and stiffness. In all samples, plastic hinge first occur in the frame and then yielding lines occur in the tensile region of the slabs. The failure mechanism of slab and steel frame occur at the same time in frame with hollow core slab and reinforced slab; however, this is not the case in the frame with bubble deck slab and even though with occurring of yielding lines, the slab does not fail. The stress distribution due to gravity loads is symmetric across all the slabs; however, the increase rate of stress is different. This difference is particularly notable in seismic behavior of slabs in a way that the formation of plastic hinge and yielding lines in hollow core slab, because of the holes, is totally different with that of in reinforced slab. In comparison with other slabs and due to the formation of plastic hinge, reinforced slab absorb lower energy. Columns, beams and connections play different role in energy dissipation. In all frame, the contribution of connections to dissipate energy is minor and this is because yielding does not occur in connections. Contrary to the frame with reinforced slabs, because of yielding in several places of columns, columns dissipate energy more than beams in the frames with hollow core slabs. It was concluded that hollow core slab and bubble deck slab have maximum and minimum contributions to the energy dissipation, respectively.
Full-Text [PDF 840 kb]   (4536 Downloads)    

Received: 2014/01/15 | Accepted: 2013/12/22 | Published: 2014/01/15

Add your comments about this article : Your username or Email:

Rights and permissions
Creative Commons License This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.