0 Aufrufe

Hochgeladen von Sfedf Rtdffgff

Ty

Als PDF, TXT **herunterladen** oder online auf Scribd lesen

- trial1
- meic0572.pdf
- Deterioration of Concrete and Steel Structures
- Ac i 2002 Catalog
- Engineering Organizations
- Structural Design of a Reinforced Concrete Balcony Slab to BS 8110
- C478M-15 Standard Specification for Circular Precast Reinforced Concrete Manhole Sections (Metric)
- Shearwall Lightweeight
- Reinforcement for Slabs on Ground
- reinforcedslab-100917010457-phpapp02
- Calicut Civil Engineering B.tech
- Composite Slab Flooring
- Sika SikaTop Armatec 110
- IRJET-Experimental Study on M20 Grade of Concrete with Addition of Steel Scrap Fiber
- Sikatop Armatec 110 EpoCem.pdf
- 06. Preambles
- Bq 31254262
- corbel 3
- Septic Tank
- sp280_6

Sie sind auf Seite 1von 11

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

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.

Dr. H. Sudarsana Rao and M. Surya Prasanth

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%

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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,

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Dr. H. Sudarsana Rao and M. Surya Prasanth

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.

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

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

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

Dr. H. Sudarsana Rao and M. Surya Prasanth

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.

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

10.

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

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

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

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.

600

COST OF MATERIAL IN RUPEES

500

400

200 WITHOUT U-BOOT

100

0

CONCRETE 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.

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

[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.

- trial1Hochgeladen vonyzza
- meic0572.pdfHochgeladen vondion2110
- Deterioration of Concrete and Steel StructuresHochgeladen vonRamanathan Senthil
- Ac i 2002 CatalogHochgeladen vonaires668
- Engineering OrganizationsHochgeladen vonminion85
- Structural Design of a Reinforced Concrete Balcony Slab to BS 8110Hochgeladen vonIsma Issy
- C478M-15 Standard Specification for Circular Precast Reinforced Concrete Manhole Sections (Metric)Hochgeladen vonMauricio_Vera_5259
- Shearwall LightweeightHochgeladen vontelefonposta
- Reinforcement for Slabs on GroundHochgeladen vonfordesign
- reinforcedslab-100917010457-phpapp02Hochgeladen vonizyannn8950
- Calicut Civil Engineering B.techHochgeladen vonJinu Madhavan
- Composite Slab FlooringHochgeladen vonKathrine Elidan Bacani
- Sika SikaTop Armatec 110Hochgeladen vonjaga67
- IRJET-Experimental Study on M20 Grade of Concrete with Addition of Steel Scrap FiberHochgeladen vonIRJET Journal
- Sikatop Armatec 110 EpoCem.pdfHochgeladen vonDarwin Syahputra
- 06. PreamblesHochgeladen vonMohamad Noor Affenddy
- Bq 31254262Hochgeladen vonIJMER
- corbel 3Hochgeladen vonBan
- Septic TankHochgeladen vonKorupolu
- sp280_6Hochgeladen vonMehdi Bakhshi
- 0025-E21Sudarno (3)Hochgeladen vonDaniela Mihaiela Boca
- ResourceKit_BlueHouseClusterHochgeladen vonTan Vinhao
- Goldmix Sp321 TdsHochgeladen vonRafael Obusan II
- Conv Course Topic 3.3 UnmodHochgeladen vonWan Rids
- dwiandayani-2MK-constech.docxHochgeladen vonDwi Andayani
- Applications of Fibers in IndiaHochgeladen vonMelkamu Demewez
- Lecture 1 Spring2018Hochgeladen vonEngr AtaUllah
- 2003DO_AdilsonRTakeutiHochgeladen vonNelsonPadrónSánchez
- Testing _ Piling ContractorsHochgeladen vonVenkat Palli
- [DownSub.com] Punching Shear [SubtitleTools.com]Hochgeladen vonHBC NUJ

- A Study on a Two-Way Post-Tensioned Concrete Waffle Slab - ScienceDirectHochgeladen vonusman javed
- RccHochgeladen vonarunachelam
- Versaloc| Adbri MasonryHochgeladen vonkristenjames
- Evolution of Bridge TechnologyHochgeladen vonPaniraju Narayanappa Bellur
- 1200_23_PilingHochgeladen vonmangeshshinde124
- Manual(Asdip)Hochgeladen vonmohamedmarar
- Sab4323 Ocw Topic 2Hochgeladen vonEduardo Millas
- Stone Mastic AsphaltHochgeladen vonborisov2009
- Concrete Slabs on GradeHochgeladen vonmr.Kram
- Structural Survey Report GuidelinesHochgeladen vonblackwellkid
- ward14Hochgeladen vonHarsh Tyagi
- Frames With Tapered Web MembersHochgeladen vonenriquecolli
- CVLE432_W3_4&5_part4Hochgeladen vonKarim Aichaa
- IRC 112_Oct 2013 amendments.pdfHochgeladen vonSiva Prasad Mamillapalli
- Strength Evaluation of Existing Steel; Concrete and Masonry Arch BridgesHochgeladen vonfanion47
- Earthquake of Historical Masonry BuildingsHochgeladen vondmardetk
- Word Design of ProjectHochgeladen vonSantosh Basnet
- Connections in Cold form Beam Column Steel Sections using Beam-Column ConnectorHochgeladen vonIRJET Journal
- Pre Engineering BuildingHochgeladen vonPaulus_Fineza_4368
- Boral Partiwall and Fire Wall Class 1aHochgeladen vonRaja Rajan
- 2.3.5 Residential Foundations 0Hochgeladen vonAniculaesi Mircea
- Pre-Constructed Review - NEWHochgeladen vonmvadgama
- flat roofHochgeladen vonHarry Thien
- Concrete-tech-and-design.pdfHochgeladen vonAnmar Al-Adly
- Silo DesigHochgeladen vonJaganraj Sesuraj
- InsHochgeladen vonRodolfo Sánchez
- guideHochgeladen vonGibral Maulana
- Cover & Table of Contents - Fundamentals of Structural Analysis (2nd Edition).pdfHochgeladen vonAle Ignacio Pinilla
- use of waste material in concreteHochgeladen vonmanoj588
- CCA Study Final Report 9-07.pdfHochgeladen vonArn Cruz