See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/269166949

PASSIVE SEISMIC CONTROL OF MASONRY JACK ARCH SLABS

Conference Paper · July 2006

CITATIONS READS
0 403

2 authors:

Seyed Mehdi Zahrai Susan Zahraei

University of Tehran University of Westminster
210 PUBLICATIONS   473 CITATIONS    1 PUBLICATION   0 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Cyclic performance of chevron braced steel frames with metalic dampers View project

Non-linear analysis of the Bernoulli beam using single finite element View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Seyed Mehdi Zahrai on 06 December 2014.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

4th World Conference on Structural Control and Monitoring 4WCSCM-094

PASSIVE SEISMIC CONTROL OF MASONRY JACK ARCH SLABS

S.M. Zahrai
School of Civil Eng., The University of Tehran, Tehran, IRAN
mzahrai@ut.ac.ir

S.A. Zahraei
Iran University of Science and Technology, also researcher at Building and Housing Research Center,
Tehran, IRAN
zahraee@civileng.iust.ac.ir

Abstract

For more than eight decades, the jack arch masonry slabs have been used in some regions such as Middle East countries due to
their easy construction and low cost. According to statistics, failure of unstable floor slabs has reported as one of the important
reason for collapsing the structures in Iran deadly earthquakes, so designation and evaluation of passive control systems of
masonry slabs in standard codes have found special significance in recent years. For this purpose, after conducting many finite-
element computer-based models, 3 one - story one – span full-scale specimens consisting a non-retrofitted traditional slab, a
retrofitted model on the basis of FEMA 356 and Iran seismic code and finally a proposed method have been tested to evaluate
these retrofitting methods . Floor diaphragm performance and energy dissipation factors for these models were investigated to
disclose positive effects of retrofitting methods on seismic structural behavior. The retrofitted specimen according to FEMA 356
method was an engineered model with an in-plane rebar X-bracing on the floor. After adding another in-plane rebar X-bracing to
earlier model, according to authors’ plan, remarkable improvement in almost all of the important structural parameters was
perceived. Therefore, use of retrofitting methods for available traditional weak jack arch slabs can be an effective way for
reducing the earthquake hazards.

Introduction

The traditional steel I-beams, jack arch flooring system was developed in Britain towards the end of
nineteenth century and had domestic and industrial use in these regions. This technique was considered
later by the eastern countries such as Middle East region in which the high-rise buildings floors were
covered by this kind of slabs, as reviewed in Maheri and Rahimi (2003).

FEMA 356 (2000) states that archaic steel diaphragm elements are almost always found in older steel
buildings in conjunction with vertical load carrying systems of structural steel framing as illustrated in
Figure 1. The behavior of this traditional floor system against the gravity loads is appropriate, but the
potential vulnerability of old traditional masonry buildings, designed with little or no consideration for
seismic design requirements, is critical. In recent decades, the non-engineered jack arch slabs used
extensively in the urban and civic areas in Iran, described in details by Moinfar (1968), has made it
economically possible to significantly reduce the total cost and technical construction problems.
Moreover, this model of floor slabs can be changed for other applications easily, but as evidenced by the
reports of recent disastrous earthquakes in Iran, according to Maheri (1980) the seismic performance were
not suitable in contrast with their gravity reactions. So, some technical retrofitting methods were proposed
in FEMA 356 (2000) and Iran’s Code of Practice, standard 2800 (1999).

FEMA 356 (2000) has proposed adding diagonal members to form a horizontal truss for strengthening a
weak archaic diaphragm. However, even though this procedure can be found in extensive analytical
evaluations, full-scale testing of an entire building system having retrofitted jack arch slab has not been
conducted.

Zahrai, Zahraei 1
 Figure 1. A typical form of jack arch slab and its details

Moreover, most of the other methods have either analytical or practical bases without a thorough
interactive justification between the two important aspects of these kinds of evaluations. Such a test
would complement the computer simulations by other researchers such as Maheri and Rahmani (2003).

According to the most important weaknesses of brick arches to transfer in-plane loads perpendicular to
the steel beams and in-plane shear as well as inability of the slab to act as a diaphragm as is required for
good seismic performance and dynamic interaction between stiff and brittle brick arches and flexible steel
beams under vertical vibration, are main reasons of breaking down jack arch slabs in recent earthquakes, a
procedure consisting numerical-simulation and some practical test have been evaluated in current
research.

Due to the approved failure reasons described above, at first, some simulation models with non-linear
finite element model have been first designed and regarding the numerical simulation results three
experimental specimens were built to measure the effectiveness of different rehabilitations strategies.

Numerical modeling

The main focus of making simulation models was over a one-story low-rise steel frame masonry slab. All
test cases were 4.2 m * 4.2 m in plane and 2 meters columns height. Models had many common
specifications consist of 2 main girders, 6 beams, 4 columns and 2 pairs of X-braces. To cover whole
aspects of seismic behavior of materials and retrofitting methods, some resembling models with different
retrofitting methods were considered to evaluate the structural performance and select the experimental
specimens. The simulated models were distinguished in retrofitting method. Different test cases were:
traditional non-retrofitted floor slab, retrofitting according to FEMA-356 diagonal rebars and a proposed
method. These models have been studied entirely for all different conditions and in according with them
the test specimens have been built.

Earthquake loading

The earthquake factor must be computed according to seismic Iran’s code of practice, standard 2800
(1999) in which C=ABI/R, in which the coefficients of this equation are: A=0.35(zonal acceleration),
B=2.5(seismic response factor), R=6.0(force modification factor) and I=1.0 (Importance Factor), so
C=ABI/R=0.146, consequently the base shear of structure was computed. Since the seismic weight of
structure (W) was about 150 KN altogether, the base shear was almost V=W*C=22KN and the diaphragm
analysis was evaluated in this lateral load.

Zahrai, Zahraei 2
Model set 1

This computer-based, finite elements model, was a traditional and non-retrofitted one and was evaluated
in gravity and lateral loading. In overburden gravity loading, an intensive torsion and lateral movement
due to unsymmetrical loading was seen in side beams as shown in Figure 2. In loading direction
perpendicular to cross beams, the floor slab acted like a deep beam and there was no concentrated stress,
so in this case ceiling had enough lateral stiffness and suitable movement.

Figure 2. Side cross beam intensive deformation due to unsymmetrical loading

In linear and non-linear material analysis, all stresses and deflections had equal quantity and this was due
to masonry material performance. In other words, in non-rehabilitated model, after cracking the stiffer
substances of roof, there was no reaction against loading, so considering the effects of cracks in non-
linear lateral behavior had no significant impact. However, a little rise in lateral deflections in non-linear
analysis could be considered.

Model set 2

This simulation model was retrofitted by diagonal rebars proposed by FEMA-356. Adding rebars on the
roof had induced more stiffness and less lateral movement. Upon studying differences between this test
and before, there was no obvious distinction in some important issues such as the torsion in lateral cross
beams and the ability in energy dissipating, but many other traits of floor slab had been improved.
Diaphragm performance and relative displacement between cross beams are of these ones.

To further overcome the shortcomings of the lateral movement and to improve the poor diaphragm
performance another in-plane x-bracing was applied on the roof. In this new model, with more capacity of
lateral loading, the lateral displacement had been reduced and a huge distinction in diaphragm
performance and in maintaining the rigid shape of floor was observed.

EXPERIMENTAL SPECIMENS

Three single-story full-scale steel buildings having jack arch slabs were constructed to verify the
numerical results and cover different experimental goals. The specimens had identical geometry and

Zahrai, Zahraei 3
materials as well as equal gravity overburden on the floor. The general specifications of one-story, one-
panel 3D steel frame (4.2 * 4.2 m in-plane view) same for all 3 tests, are shown in Figure 3 and described
below:

1- To have a rigid foundation for the specimens, 2 IPE 180 having 6 bearing stiffeners as well as 4 bolts
have been used for each of 4 connections between columns and strong floor.

2- Steel frames include, columns of 2 IPE-140 (2 meter height), 2 girders (IPE-270), 6 cross beams (IPE-
180), 2 X- bracing (each 2L100x100x10) (See Figure 3). All joints are simple connections.

3- Jack Arch brick slab is made from gypsum mortar and pressed bricks with an average of 3 cm rise.

Choosing Different Experimental Specimens

Due to the approved failure modes described by Maheri and Rahimi (2003), three experimental specimens
were built to measure the effectiveness of different rehabilitation strategies. Diagonal rebars were used to
increase the diaphragm in-plane rigidity and for enhancing the behavior of slab system in transferring in-
plane shear forces.

Gravity and Lateral Loading

Gravity loading in real structures is sum of dead and live loads. Dead load consists of floor weight as
well as overload. In this research, according to standard codes, it was assumed that only 20 percent of live
load was applied to structure in experiments. In all specimens, a uniform gravity overburden load (7.4
KN/m2) was applied; moreover, as shown in Figure 4, lateral cyclic loading was applied by hydraulics
jacks from both sides of specimens until failure occurred. The force control approach has been used in all
tests for loading. For each specimen, first the gravity load was applied and structural responses were
captured by data-logger then the lateral cyclic load was applied by hydraulic jacks and recorded during
the test.

Figure 3. General view of a model Figure 4. Lateral loading by jack

Sample 1 (Traditional jack arch slab)

This specimen was used to study the performance of the non-engineered jack arch slabs due to gravity
loads and cyclic lateral behavior. There was no retrofitting in this structure. Lateral loading direction was
parallel to the girders and perpendicular to the cross beams.

Zahrai, Zahraei 4
Sample 2 (Retrofitted by FEMA 356)

The retrofit strategy of FEMA 356 (2000) proposed in the specimen follows the philosophy of rigid jack
arch slab diaphragm performance. In other words, increasing stiffness of the floor was considered in this
test. So, in-plane horizontal bracing consisting of 2 No.14 rebars was welded on the floor. Moreover, 2
parallel rods (No.14) were installed for reducing the relative displacement of cross beams and torsion of
two sides cross beams due to gravity loads. Other geometry specifications were similar to specimen 1.
Lateral loading direction was parallel to the girders and perpendicular to the cross beams like the previous
specimen.

Specimen 3 (Retrofitted by the proposed method)

The scenario suggested in this paper is to apply two in-planes bracing each of them covering half of the
span floor. In fact, to improve the floor diaphragm performance as well as reduction of the relative
displacement of the cross beams and torsion of two side cross beams due to gravity load, two in-plane
bracing were applied. Also, between these braces, a (No.14) rod perpendicular to cross beams and parallel
to lateral load direction is applied (see Figure 5). Lateral loading was directed parallel to girders and
perpendicular to the cross beams like the specimens 1 and 2. Figure 6 shows the lateral loading procedure
during steps of loading. In simulating by non-linear program and comparing the results, this specimen had
the maximum value of stiffness and lateral loading resistance.

Figure 5. Sample 3 with two x-bracings on the floor slab during construction

800

600

400
Lateral Loading (KN)

200

0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60
-200

-400

-600

-800
Cycle of Loading

Figure 6. Lateral loading vs. cycle of loading by hydraulic jacks

Zahrai, Zahraei 5
Experimental Results

Diaphragm Performance

In building floor systems, which usually transfer the gravity loads to the vertical structural systems, it is
also required to transfer the lateral inertia forces to the lateral resisting systems through a diaphragm
action. The assumption of rigid floor diaphragm is usually used to simplify seismic response analysis of
different types of buildings. However, for some classes of structural systems, the effect of diaphragm
flexibility cannot be disregarded, especially in the case of rectangular buildings with large plane aspect
ratios where considerable inelastic floor slab behavior is expected as stated in the work by Sarkissian et
al, (2005). The diaphragm behavior was one of the most important factors in seismic response of this
kind of structures. According to Iran’s Seismic Code of Practice 2800 (1999), for rigidity assessment,
diaphragms can be classified as follows:

1- When α=ΔDiaph/ Δstory is so small (almost smaller than 0.5) or horizontal diaphragm does not have any
lateral displacement, it can be chosen as this kind. In α formula, ΔDiaph is the maximum value of
displacement for middle of the side beams and Δstory is the frame lateral movement relative to foundation.

2- If all of the diaphragm's supports have high rigidity, (small Δstory), or when α value is very high,
diaphragm acts as a continued beam on the rigid supports.

Among the specimens, the specimen-3 had the least value of α ( α =0.21) (see Table 1), so it had the
best diaphragm performance, then specimen-2 fortified by FEMA-356 where one in-plane bracing was
placed α =0.35.On the basis of the simulation model the specimen-1 had the worst behavior regarding the
fact that unreinforced masonry slab could not behave as a rigid diaphragm and the integrity has been lost
in this model. In non-linear analysis of numerical model set 1, which was the same as specime-1, desired
diaphragm condition did not satisfy, but for linear analysis the floor slab convinced this important item
and it showed the real behavior of traditional jack arch slab was linear like practical model specimen-1.

Experimental Desired
Tests
Specimens Condition
Spesimen-
0.62 NO
1
Spesimen-
0.35 OK
2
Specimen-
0.21 OK
3

Table 1. Diaphragm performance analysis in all specimens

Damping Energy Parameter

Damping energy is one the most important parameter evaluating ability of the structure to dissipate
energy, the buildings which are more capable of dissipating energy had better resistance against
earthquake because in these structures the given earthquake energy can be absorbed by fit system.
According to Priestly et al. (1996) the most common and physically most obvious form of damping or
energy dissipation in bridge structures is in the form of hysteresis of the force-deformation response.

Zahrai, Zahraei 6
 The hysteretic damping or energy loss per cycle, represented by the area Ah in Figure 7 for one
complete idealized load-displacement hysteresis loop, can then be converted for the same displacement to
an equivalent viscous damping ratio:

Ah A
ξ eq = = h (1)
2πVm ∆ m 4πAe

where Vm and Δm represent the average peak force and displacement values. The area Ae represents the
elastic strain energy stored in an equivalent linear elastic system under static conditions with effective
stiffness.

Vm
K eff = (2)
∆m

The equivalent viscous damping coefficient can then be obtained from equations (1) and (2).

Figure 7. Hysteretic energy dissipation

In this paper, the primary aim to compute damping ratio (ξ), was to investigate the capability of damping
energy in each specimen and floor slab. The analysis of ξ began from applying 108 KN in lateral load and
later with each almost 100 KN rise, the analysis was repeated for all specimens. The overall observed
trend in this process disclosed a decline in ξ versus increasing the lateral load; that is, until a distinctive
point, there was a slight reducing procedure, but after this point, an intensive steep in this trend could be
observed in Figure 7. The maximum value of ξ was captured in the specimen-3, and then in the specimen-
2.

Evaluations of relative displacement within cross beams

Upon the collapsed buildings in strong recent earthquakes, relative displacement within cross beams was
one of the most important phenomena for jack arch slabs failure. Lateral loading unsealed the two
adjacent cross-beams, so this increased distance allowed the floor slab to free from tight spans. For
investigating effect of this subject, in all specimens relative displacement in slab was recorded.

Zahrai, Zahraei 7
 Specime-2 had the minimum value. The main reason for minimum relative displacement in that test was
the rich performance of two parallel welded rods below the jack arch slab to prevent lateral relative
displacement of cross beams. Although in the specimen-3, two in plane bracing and one parallel rod were
used, they couldn’t perform as well as specimen-2. Consequently, for reducing torsion in side cross-
beams and relative displacement in cross-beams, rods perpendicular to the cross beams and parallel to
lateral load direction may be recommended. Numerical models disclosed that the only effective way to
decrease this hazardous relative movement was importing rebars perpendicular toward beams.

0.16 0.35
0.2
0.14 0.3

0.12 0.15

Damping Ratio
0.25
Damping Ratio

Damping Ratio
0.1 0.2
0.08 0.1
0.15
0.06
0.1
0.04 0.05
0.02 0.05

0 0 0
108 206 324 412 108 206 324 422 108 206 324 422 491 589
Specimen-3 Load (KN)
Specimen-1 Load (KN) Specimen-2 Load (KN)

Figure 8: Damping ratio changes in lateral loading process

Conclusion

Three full-scale one-story steel building specimens having traditional and retrofitted jack arch slabs
were tested in this research. Experimental evaluation in conformity with the finite elements simulation
models, has a better performance in two retrofitted models. Moreover, specimen-3 have enhanced in most
important seismical parameters obviously than the specimen-2 with just one x-bracing on the floor.
Energy dissipation, capacity of lateral loading and diaphragm performance have become better in
specimen 3, but the specimen-2 with two separate perpendicular rebars on the floor had better impact in
reducing the lateral relative displacement between the cross beams.

Acknowledgements

The authors are gratitude to Building and Housing Research Center of Iran (BHRC) for founding this research project. However,
the findings of this research are those of the authors and not necessary those of the sponsors.

References
Building and Housing Research Center of Iran (1999), Iranian Code of Practice for Seismic Resistant Design of Building
Standard No.2800, BHRC, Tehran
Federal Emergency Management Agency, FEMA 356(2000), Prestandard and Commentary for Seismic Rehabilitation of
Buildings, USA.
Maheri, M. R. (1990), Engineering aspects of the Manjil, Iran earthquake of 20 June 1990, Report published by EEFIT, UK
Maheri, M. R., H. Rahmani (2003), “Static and Seismical Design of One-way and Two-way Jack Arch Masonry
Slabs,” Journal of Engineering Structures, 1639-1654.
Moinfar A.A. (1968), “Seismic activities and conditions of rural houses in the countries of the region,” CENTO Conference on
Earthquake Hazard Mitigation, Turkey, 1968 .
Priestly, M.J.N., F. Seible, and G.M. Clavi, (1996), Seismic Design and Retrofit of Bridges, John Wiley and Sons, New York .
Sarkissian, L., K. Khalili, and S.M. Zahrai, (2005), “Impact of Joist Direction on the Diaphragm Behavior of Composite Floor
System”, Journal of Seismology and Earthquake Engineering, 8(1) pp. 21-32

Zahrai, Zahraei 8

View publication stats