Sie sind auf Seite 1von 11

International Journal of Civil Engineering and Technology (IJCIET)

Volume 9, Issue 8, August 2018, pp. 393–403, Article ID: IJCIET_09_08_039


Available online at http://www.iaeme.com/ijciet/issues.asp?JType=IJCIET&VType=9&IType=8
ISSN Print: 0976-6308 and ISSN Online: 0976-6316

© IAEME Publication Scopus Indexed

MODELLING AND ANALYSIS OF FLYOVER


DECK SLAB WITH U-BOOT TECHNOLOGY
Dr. H. Sudarsana Rao
Director of Academic Audit,
JNT University, Ananthapur, AP, India

M. Surya Prasanth
P.G. Student, Computer Aided Structural Engineering,
JNT University, Ananthapur, AP, India

ABSTRACT
In present days, enhancing of population taking place day by day and due to
excess population, enhancing of traffic is also taking place. Due to heavy traffic,
accidents are also increasing because of congestion of roads. To reduce the
congestion on roads, the pavements provided to be widened and hence the number of
lanes must be increased. But due to minimum budget, contractors are building limited
number of lanes which causes accidents. This paper presents a new methodology to
increase the number of lanes without exceeding the cost. This can work out with U-
Boot technology. It is the technique applied where U-Boots can be placed in deck slab
along with concrete and steel with proper arrangement. As U-Boot is a plastic
product, it minimizes the self weight of deck slab and also reduces the depth of slab
with same strength. It also reduces the amount of concrete and steel provided on deck
slab. The quantity of concrete and steel saved by placing U-Boots can be used for
constructing other lanes. For modeling NX-CAD software is used and for analysis
NX-NASTRAN is used. The details of modeling and analysis are presented in this
paper.
Key words: U-BOOT, NX-CAD, NX-NASTRAN, Deck Slab and Flyover.
Cite this Article: Dr. H. Sudarsana Rao and M. Surya Prasanth, Modelling and
Analysis of Flyover Deck Slab with U-Boot Technology. International Journal of
Civil Engineering and Technology, 9(8), 2018, pp. 393-403.
http://www.iaeme.com/IJCIET/issues.asp?JType=IJCIET&VType=9&IType=8

1. INTRODUCTION
The U-Boot gives a creative response for laying of slabs with mushroom columns with the
extraordinary characteristics of the mushroom being a part of thickness of slab. This new
lighter structure is achieved by encasing the U-Boot inside the solid cast. The lighter structure
is comprised of two level layers one over the other separated and associated with each other
by beams at right angles. The laying of U-Boots in the deck slab is shown in Fig 1.

http://www.iaeme.com/IJCIET/index.asp 393 editor@iaeme.com


Dr. H. Sudarsana Rao and M. Surya Prasanth

Figure 1 laying of U-Boots in Deck Slab

As per the data provided by the U-Boot Beton Company, the reduction in the quantity of
material reduced with U-Boot is presented in Table 1.
Table 1 Reduction of material savings with u-boot
Type of Structure Material
Concrete Steel
Slab -15% -25%
Pillars -20% -35%
Foundation -20% -35%

1.1. Spacer Joint


Spacer joint is the important component in U-Boot technology. The U-Boots provided in
perpendicular directions may not be seated rigidly and hence it has a chance of having
disturbances in U-Boots. To avoid these disturbances, the U-Boots must connect to each other
with spacer joint. So when concrete is poured the U-Boots will not get disturbed. The spacer
joint is fitted on top of U-Boot shown in Fig 2 highlighted with red colour.

Figure 2 Spacer Joint

http://www.iaeme.com/IJCIET/index.asp 394 editor@iaeme.com


Modelling and Analysis of Flyover Deck Slab with U-Boot Technology

2. LITERATURE REVIEW
[1] Northam R. (2009)
In this paper, the slabs are made with plastic ball to reduce the self weight of the structure.
The main aim of this paper is to give a report about punching shear on voided slabs with
plastic balls. Since the punching shear limit is the most important property of flat slab, this
paper studies about the punching shear on plastic balls. This paper used steel fibers with 0.8%
and 1% for defining punching load and deflection. This paper concludes for voided slab, the
punching strength with steel fiber 0.8% and 1% is increased by 2.56% and 7.7% respectively
on comparison with voided slab without steel fiber. Also the deflection increased by 3.153%
and 15.243% respectively.

[2] Lai T. (2009)


In bubble deck system, the concrete at the center of deck is removed and hence the slab
becomes very light on comparison with solid slabs. In reinforced concrete structures, the
ductility factor is important. It contains the shear walls and the flat slabs having plastic
bubbles inside the system. This paper studies, the fluctuations of the ductility in case of
reinforced concrete structures constructed with bubble deck are evaluated by doing non-
linear static analysis. Based on the results, it is concluded that the ductility is more for dual
systems on comparing with single moment resisting system. Ductility factor will decrease by
increasing the ratio of the length of span to storey height (L/H). Low-rise structures with high
(L/H) have the least value of ductility.

[3] Abramski M., Albert A., Pfeffer K., Schnell J. (2010)


The main aim of this paper is to give a report about shear force on flat slabs with circular
voids by varying percentage of steel. This paper used two different percentages of steel i.e.
0.31% and 0.52% .The investigation was made using Atena 3-D finite element software. It
compares the results of these model values with experimental values. It shows flat slabs with
circular voids reduce the shear force on comparison with solid slab. All models with voids
that have the reinforcement ratio of 0.52% failed in shear and those with ratio of 0.31% failed
in bending.

[4] U-Boot Beton technical data by daliform group


The technical data regarding U-Boot i.e. size of U-Boot, height of U-Boot, foot height of U-
Boot, material saving with U-Boot, installation procedure, applications are provided. In this
paper, single U-Boot is used with size 52 x 52 cm, height of U-Boot is 28.8 cm and foot
height is 5 cm.

[5] Saifee Bhagat, Dr. K. B. Parikh (2014)


In this paper, the stiffness factor, percentage of weight saving is calculated for different ball
diameters i.e. 180, 225, 270, 315, 360, 405, 450 mm. On comparing the results, the stiffness
reduction factor is more for ball diameter 180 mm i.e. 0.88 And less for ball diameter 405
mm i.e. 0.75.the percentage of weight saving for ball diameters 180, 225, 270, 315, 360, 405,
450 mm are 20.62, 26.77, 28.98, 30.07, 32.48, 33.03, 31.81 respectively. On comparing more
weight is saved with ball diameter 405 mm.

[6] Arati Shetkarand & Nagesh Hanche (2015)


In this paper, an experimental study is carried out on bubble deck slab made with elliptical
balls made of polypropylene. This paper gives a report regarding deflections for two different
grades of concrete i.e. M25 and M35 and with different diameters of elliptical balls i.e. 180,

http://www.iaeme.com/IJCIET/index.asp 395 editor@iaeme.com


Dr. H. Sudarsana Rao and M. Surya Prasanth

186 and 240 mm. All the five specimens are made with same dimensions. On comparing the
five specimens, the specimen with M35 grade of concrete with diameter 186 mm shows less
deflection with value 15.18 mm.

[7] Subramanian K and Bhuvaneshwari P (2015)


In this paper, Finite element analysis is performed using ANSYS software on six specimens
in which 3 are solid slabs and others are voided slabs. The slab specimens made with
dimensions 1500 × 1500 × 100 mm are tested with symmetric boundary conditions. The void
diameter is taken as 70 mm with a wall thickness of 1 mm and is assumed to be made up of
HDPP. The clear spacing between the voids varied between 30, 50 and 70 mm. The voids
with a spacing of 30 mm prove to be more efficient because even though removes 20% of
concrete, the deflection shown by the specimen is near to that of solid slabs. The results from
finite element analysis are compared with that of plate theory which is used to compute
reference values of deflection for corresponding load. The maximum deflection observed for
V30 slab was 19.52 mm by numerical methods.

[8] Harishma K.R and Reshmi K N (2015)


In this paper, an experimental study is carried out on bubble deck slab made with elliptical
balls made of polyethylene. This paper gives a report regarding deflections for four different
types of slabs i.e. conventional slab, continuous slab, alternative slab with zigzag arrangement
and alternative slab with regular arrangement. On comparing 4 types of slabs the load
carrying capacity is more for continuous slab i.e. 320 KN. The load carrying capacity for
conventional slab, alternative slab with zigzag arrangement and alternative slab with regular
arrangement are 260, 290 and 275 KN respectively. The deflections occurred for conventional
slab, continuous slab, alternative slab with zigzag arrangement and alternative slab with
regular arrangement are 8.7, 9.2, 8.95 and 8.8 mm respectively. On comparison the deflection
is more for continuous slab.

3. INSTALLATION
The following are the steps to be followed when installing U-Boots.
1. Initially the reinforcement bars are provided at the bottom in two perpendicular directions.
2. After placing the bottom reinforcement, u-boots are placed in both directions.
3. The U-Boots must be joined with spacer joint to counteract the lateral movements.
4. After placing uboots, the top reinforcement bars are provided in two directions.
5. After placing the top bars, concrete should be poured on the top to fill the gaps between the
U-Boots and reinforcement.
6. Once the structure has hardened, the formwork can be evacuated.
The final view of U-Boot installation is depicted in Fig 3.

Figure 3 Installation of U-Boots

http://www.iaeme.com/IJCIET/index.asp 396 editor@iaeme.com


Modelling and Analysis of Flyover Deck Slab with U-Boot Technology

4. MODELLING OF FLYOVER
For modeling of flyover the following components are assembled.
1. Pile
2. Pile cap
3. Pier
4. Pier cap
5. Bed Block
6. Rocker and Pin Bearing
7. Deck Slab with U-Boot
This Project compares two types of flyover i.e.., Flyover deck slab With U-Boot and
Flyover deck slab without U-Boot. The details of which is presented below.

4.1. Flyover deck slab With U-Boot


In case of flyover deck slab with U-Boot, it is not required to provide beams shown in Fig 4.
Hence it is possible to provide lighter slab with reduced self weight. It also improves the
appearance.

Figure 4 Flyover without beams

4.2. Flyover deck slab Without U-Boot


In case of flyover deck slab without U-Boot, it is required to provide beams which increase
the cost of structure shown in Fig 5. It also looses the appearance.

Figure 5 Flyover with beams

http://www.iaeme.com/IJCIET/index.asp 397 editor@iaeme.com


Dr. H. Sudarsana Rao and M. Surya Prasanth

5. RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONS


5.1. Results of Flyover Deck Slab with U-Boot by NX-Nastran
After analyzing the model of flyover deck slab with U-Boot by NX-Nastran, the following
results are obtained with maximum and minimum values. The maximum principal stress with
U-Boot in deck slab by NX-Nastran is shown in Fig 6.

Figure 6 Maximum Principal Stress with U-Boot

The maximum shear stress with U-Boot in deck slab by NX-Nastran is shown in Fig 7.

Figure 7 Maximum Shear Stress with U-Boot

The displacements with U-Boot in deck slab by NX-Nastran are shown in Fig 8.

Figure 8 Displacements with U-Boot

http://www.iaeme.com/IJCIET/index.asp 398 editor@iaeme.com


Modelling and Analysis of Flyover Deck Slab with U-Boot Technology

The maximum and minimum Values for different parameters under 100 KN Load on
Deck Slab with U-Boot is shown in Table 2.

Table 2 NX-Nastran Values for different parameters under 100 KN Load on Deck Slab with U-Boot
Parameters Minimum Value Maximum Value
Displacement Nodal (mm)
X -0.016 0.016
Y -0.125 0.125
Z -1.839 0
Magnitude 0 1.839
Stress Elemental (Mpa)
XX -5.135 5.135
YY -30.64 30.85
ZZ -3.684 3.645
XY -3.354 3.229
YZ -3.051 3.043
ZX -0.517 0.512
Determinant -524.48 528
Mean -13.13 13.18
Maximum Shear 0.04 15.10
Minimum
Principal -30.96 3.31
Mid Principal -5.142 5.136
Maximum
Principal -3.3 31.09
Worst Principal -30.96 31.09
Octahedral 0.03 13.41
Vonmises 0.07 28.45
Stress Elemental
Nodal (Mpa)
XX -6.73 6.75
YY -39.37 39.38
ZZ -6.73 6.75
XY -6.296 4.793
YZ -5.715 5.906
ZX -2.701 2.422
Determinant -1523.04 1530.43
Mean -17.19 17.24
Maximum Shear 0.03 19.12
Minimum
Principal -40.09 5.79
Mid Principal -6.77 6.75
Maximum
Principal -5.82 40.12
Worst Principal -40.09 40.12
Octahedral 0.02 17.23
Vonmises 0.05 36.54
Reaction Force (N)
X -98.51 65.55
Y -794.13 794.36
Z -32.16 114.69
Magnitude 0 799.83

http://www.iaeme.com/IJCIET/index.asp 399 editor@iaeme.com


Dr. H. Sudarsana Rao and M. Surya Prasanth

5.2. Results of Flyover Deck Slab without U-Boot by Nx-Nastran


After analyzing the model of flyover deck slab without U-Boot by NX-Nastran, the following
results are obtained with maximum and minimum values. The displacements without U-Boot
in deck slab by NX-Nastran are shown in Fig 9.

Figure 9 Displacements without U-Boot


The maximum principal stress without U-Boot in deck slab by NX-Nastran is shown in Fig
10.

Figure 10 Maximum Principal Stress without U-Boot


The maximum shear stress without U-Boot in deck slab by NX-Nastran is shown in Fig 11.

Figure 11 Maximum Shear Stress without U-Boot

http://www.iaeme.com/IJCIET/index.asp 400 editor@iaeme.com


Modelling and Analysis of Flyover Deck Slab with U-Boot Technology

The maximum and minimum Values for different parameters under 100 KN Load on
Deck Slab without U-Boot is shown in Table 3.

Table 3 NX-Nastran Values for different parameters under 100KN Load on Deck Slab without U-Boot
Maximum
Parameters Minimum Value Value
Displacement Nodal (mm)
X -0.0202 0.0201
Y -0.156 0.156
Z -2.299 0
Magnitude 0 2.299
Stress Elemental (Mpa)
XX -6.42 6.42
YY -38.3 38.56
ZZ -4.604 4.557
XY -4.193 4.036
YZ -3.814 3.803
ZX -0.646 0.639
Determinant -1024.37 1031.25
Mean -16.41 16.47
Maximum Shear 0.04 18.88
Minimum
Principal -38.7 4.13
Mid Principal -6.43 6.42
Maximum
Principal -4.13 38.86
Worst Principal -38.7 38.86
Octahedral 0.04 16.77
Vonmises 0.08 35.57
Stress Elemental Nodal (MPa)
XX -8.41 8.43
Yy -49.21 49.22
ZZ -8.41 8.43
XY -7.87 5.99
YZ -7.14 7.38
ZX -3.376 3.028
Determinant -2974.7 2969.12
Mean -21.49 21.55
Maximum Shear 0.04 23.89
Minimum
Principal -50.12 7.24
Mid Principal -8.46 8.43
Maximum
Principal -7.27 50.15
Worst Principal -50.12 50.15
Octahedral 0.03 21.53
Vonmises 0.07 45.68
Reaction Force (N)
X -123.14 81.94
Y -992.66 992.95
Z -40.20 143.36
Magnitude 0 999.79

5.3. Discussion of Results


 Fig 8 and Fig 9 shows the displacements of deck slab with and without U-Boot respectively.
On comparing the results of deck slab with and without U-Boot by NX-Nastran, the maximum

http://www.iaeme.com/IJCIET/index.asp 401 editor@iaeme.com


Dr. H. Sudarsana Rao and M. Surya Prasanth

and minimum deflections occurred are less with U-Boot shown in Table 1 and Table 2. The
percentage of deflection reduced with U-Boot is 20%.
 Fig 7 and Fig 11 shows the Shear stresses of deck slab with and without U-Boot respectively.
On comparing the results of deck slab with and without U-Boot by NX-Nastran, the maximum
and minimum shear stresses developed are less with U-Boot shown in Table 1 and Table 2.
The percentage of shear stresses reduced with U-Boot is 20.02%.
 Fig 6 and Fig 10 shows the principal stresses of deck slab with and without U-Boot
respectively. On comparing the results of deck slab with and without U-Boot by NX-Nastran,
the maximum principal stresses occurred are less with U-Boot shown in Table 1 and Table 2.
The percentage of principal stresses reduced with U-Boot is 3.14%.
5.3.1. Cost Analysis
The comparison of costs of concrete and steel are shown in Fig 12 which is self explanatory.

COST ANALYSIS OF DECK SLAB ( 1×0.6×0.045)


600
COST OF MATERIAL IN RUPEES

500

400

300 WITH U-BOOT


200 WITHOUT U-BOOT

100

0
CONCRETE STEEL

Figure 12 Comparison of costs of concrete and steel

6. CONCLUSIONS
By using U-BOOT Technology, it is possible to save large amount of concrete and steel and
also possible to reduce the self weight of the structure. On comparison with the deck slab
without U-BOOT, it has less deflections and stresses at different nodal points shown in table1
and table 2.The cost of the deck slab construction also will be reduced with U-BOOT
technology. As stresses developed are less, the load carrying capacity of deck slab also can be
increased.

REFERENCES
[1] Northam R. “Biaxial Flat Slab Floor Construction” concrete frame construction, February
2009, p34-35.

[2] Lai T. “ Structural Behavior Of Bubble deck Slabs And Their Application To Lightweight
Bridge Decks”. Msc thesis in civil engineering , Massachusetts Institute of
Technology,2009

[3] Abramski M., Albert A., Pfeffer K., Schnell J. “Experimental and Numerical
Investigations of the Load-Bearing Behaviour of Reinforced Concrete Slabs Using
Spherical Void Formers “, Beton- und Stahlbetonbau 105 (2010), No. 6.

http://www.iaeme.com/IJCIET/index.asp 402 editor@iaeme.com


Modelling and Analysis of Flyover Deck Slab with U-Boot Technology

[4] U-Boot Beton technical data by daliform group

[5] Saifee Bhagat, Dr. K. B. Parikh Comparative Study of Voided Flat Plate Slab and Solid
Flat Plate Slab, ISSN 2278 – 0211, Vol. 3 Issue 3, March, 2014.

[6] Arati Shetkarand & Nagesh Hanche an Experimental Study On bubble deck slab system
with elliptical balls, NCRIET-2015 &Indian J.Sci.Res. 12(1):021- 027, 2015.

[7] Subramanian K and Bhuvaneshwari P Finite Element Analysis of Voided Slab with High
Density Polypropylene Void Formers International Journal of Chem Tech Research,
CODEN (USA): IJCRGG ISSN: 0974-4290, Vol.8, No.2, pp. 746-753, 2015

[8] Harishma K.R and Reshmi K N A study on Bubble Deck slab, International Journal of
Advanced Research Trends in Engineering and Technology (IJARTET) Vol. II, Special
Issue X, March 2015.

http://www.iaeme.com/IJCIET/index.asp 403 editor@iaeme.com