Open Access
Lamiya Farah Chowdhury
Rabaka Sultana
Saurav Barua
Abstract
The study delves to evaluate the performance of beam slab and flat plate slab in the building frame due to seismic load. Two models of the same layout plan and story levels were compared under seismic load as per BNBC 2016—one was a typical frame structure with beam slab i.e., model 1 and another one was a frame structure with a flat slab, i.e., model 2. Frame structure with beam slab (model 1) reduced story drift varying from 16.34 to 66.67% at various floor levels compared to a frame structure with a flat slab (model 2). It is evident that beam slab can control drift and reduce story-wise drift significantly. Story-wise column shear force decreased in presence of beam in the building frame under earthquake load. Story-wise bending moment at the bottom of column decreased with the rise of story height under seismic load in both models. However, the bending moment at different story levels was much lower in frame structure with beam slab. Column reaction at the corner and middle columns under seismic load decreased to 19.08% and 70.20% respectively in the beam slab frame. Since there was no beam in the structure, overturning moment adding up to 55% in model 2 compared to model 1.
Keywords: Beam slab, BNBC 2016, flat plate slab, seismic load, story drift
[This article belongs to Journal of Structural Engineering and Management(josem)]
Browse Figures
References
1. Bangladesh National Building Code (BNBC) 2016. Housing and Building Research Institute, Bangladesh Standard and Testing Institute, 2016.
2. Qian K, Li B. Dynamic disproportionate collapse in flat-slab structures. Journal of Performance of Constructed Facilities. 2015; 29(5): B4014005. DOI: 10.1061/(ASCE)CF.1943-5509.0000680.
3. Pahwa S, Tiwari V, Prajapati M. Comparative study of flat slab with old traditional two way slab. International Journal of Latest Trends in Engineering and Technology (IJLTET). 2014; 4(2):252– 260.
4. Lande PS, Raut AB. Seismic behaviour of flat slab systems. Journal of Civil Engineering and
Environmental Technology.2015; 2(10): 7–10.
5. Navyashree K, Sahana TS. Use of flat slabs in multi-story commercial building situated in high seismic zone. International Journal of Research in Engineering and Technology. 2014; 3(08): 439–451.
6. Sable KS, Ghodechor VA, Kandekar SB. Comparative study of seismic behaviour of multi-story flat slab and conventional reinforced concrete framed structures. International Journal of Computer Technology and Electronics Engineering. 2012; 2(3): 17–26.
7. Coelho E, Candeias P, Anamateros G, Zaharia R, Taucer F, Pinto AV. Assessment of the seismic behavior of RC flat slab building structures. 13th World Conference on Earthquake Engineering.
Vancouver, BC. 2004, August.
8. Medasana VN, Chintada V. Seismic study and performance of 30 story high rise building with beam slab, flat slab and alternate flat-beam slab systems in Zone-V. International Research Journal of Engineering and Technology (IRJET). 2017; 4(02): 1183–1190.
9. Spoorthy T, Reddy SR. Comparison between the seismic variation of conventional RC slab and flat slab with a drop for G+15 story building in different zones using ETABS software. International Journal of Advance Research, Ideas, and Innovations in Technology (IJARIIT). 2018; 4(3): 963–969.
10. Barua S, Rabaka S. A study on influence of core wall in frame structure under seismic load. DIU Journal of Science and Technology (DIUJST).2020; 15(1):31–36. http://dspace.daffodilvarsity.edu.bd:8080/handle/123456789/3947
11. ACI Committee, 2008. Building code requirements for structural concrete (ACI 318-08) and commentary. American Concrete Institute.
Journal of Structural Engineering and Management
| Volume | 08 |
| Issue | 01 |
| Received | November 9, 2020 |
| Accepted | February 13, 2021 |
| Published | February 13, 2023 |