Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Effect of Oor Openings On The Capacity of Composite Space Trusses
Effect of Oor Openings On The Capacity of Composite Space Trusses
ORIGINAL ARTICLES
a
Department of Construction Engineering, College of Engineering, University of Dammam, Saudi Arabia
b
Department of Civil Engineering, Faculty of Engineering, Menoufia University, Egypt
KEYWORDS Abstract Presenting the composite deck, which consists of concrete slab with profiled steel sheets
Composite space truss; fixed to the top layer of Double Layer Grid (DLG), proved its great efficiency in increasing the load
Openings; carrying capacity for this type of structures. Earlier studies concluded that the application of the
Finite element modelling; prescribed composite action had solved many problems facing the spread of DLG structures such
Steel structures; as their prone to collapse in a progressive manner besides their suitability to be used only as roof
Numerical analysis covering structures. In addition, the application of the composite action introduced an economical
solution due to considerable savings in steel material used in building the top layer of the DLG
structures. However, openings in the deck are needed for architectural purposes such as passing ser-
vice ducts, day-lighting panels or passing shear walls or continuous structural elements. Adding
such openings in the deck affects the efficiency of the composite deck in carrying the assigned loads
especially if the openings are being added after the construction is completed. The current research
introduced experimental tests along with numerical investigation using ABAQUS software for com-
posite deck space trusses with common cases of support patterns and different deck opening loca-
tions. The study shows the obvious effect of the existence of openings and their locations on the
load carrying capacity and ductility of DLG space structures.
Ó 2016 The Authors. Production and hosting by Elsevier B.V. on behalf of King Saud University. This is
an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).
1. Introduction
* Corresponding author. Double Layer Grid (DLG) space truss is the most common
E-mail addresses: melshami@ud.edu.sa (M. El-Shami), application of space structures. It can be defined as a three-
elseedy@hotmail.com (S. Mahmoud), maherelabd@yahoo.com dimensional structural system assembled of linear elements
(M. Elabd). and arranged to ensure a three-dimensional force transfer from
Peer review under responsibility of King Saud University. the load application points to the supports (Makawski, 1981;
BSI, 2001). DLG can have many configurations, see Fig. 1.
Earlier studies on DLG showed obviously that the common
cases of space truss collapses emerged from the buckling of
Production and hosting by Elsevier
one or more critical top chord members, spreading rapidly to
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jksues.2016.03.002
1018-3639 Ó 2016 The Authors. Production and hosting by Elsevier B.V. on behalf of King Saud University.
This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).
Effect of floor openings 131
400
350
Total applied load (kN)
300
250
200
150
Non-Composite Truss
50
0
0.0 5.0 10.0 15.0 20.0 25.0 30.0
Central vertical deflection (mm) Figure 4 Test model of DLG space truss structure.
Figure 7 Casting of reinforced concrete slab. Figure 10 LVDT transducer unit, MM700 series.
200
150
Applied Load (kN)
100
50
1 2
Figure 17 Stress distribution in slab.
400 350
350 350
Total Applied Load (kN)
300 350
Total Applied Load (kN)
250 300
250
200
200
150
150
100
100
50 50
0 0
0 20 40 60 0 20 40 60 80 100
Displacement (mm) Displacement (mm)
400
350
300
Total Applied Load (kN)
250 No Opening
Location 1
200
Location 2
150 Location 3
100 Location 4
Location 5
50
0
0 20 40 60 80 100 120
Displacement (mm)
Table 1 Maximum load and displacement locations for different cases of corner-supported DLG.
Case Max. load (kN) Disp. @ monitored point (mm) Max. displacement (mm) Node of max. displacement
No openings 333.45 106 150 N1
Location 1 330.05 100.055 100.055 N1
Location 2 285.12 58.3 62.92 N2
Location 3 301.54 102 128.36 N3
Location 4 280.80 54.1 63.04 N4
Location 5 309.31 78.9 91.323 N5
connection between stool and top joints occurred due to inac- for symmetry purposes, so the obtained locations will be
curacies in the welding and installation process. However, the reversed if the opening locations are moved to the opposite
programme extended the loading until failure occurred in some directions.
members due to buckling in compression elements. Due to Fig. 23a through f presents the results of the FE analysis for
the lack of fund and equipment besides the high capability different models supported on their edges with different open-
of the FEM software to predict the behaviour of the loaded ing locations.
truss, the programme was then used to predict the changes A comparison between the load-displacement behaviour of
in the structure behaviour due to the presence of openings at the five models compared to the model without opening is pre-
different locations in the DLG structure. sented in Fig. 24.
2.3.2. DLG model with deck openings at different locations 3. Results and discussions
FEM model for the DLG is used to enlarge the study to
achieve our research objectives. The study included the model The main objective of this research was to evaluate the effect of
described above with openings located at different positions of the presence of openings in the floor of composite DLG struc-
the RC deck. Fig. 19 presents the considered locations of the tures on their load carrying capacity. In addition, investigating
openings in the RC deck. Locations of the openings were the optimum location of having such floor openings and
selected to cover all possible locations by the symmetry condi- extending this evaluation to other support configuration were
tions. Results of the FE analysis for different models supported two other objectives of this research. The FE model developed
on their corners with different opening locations are pre- by ABAQUS has been tested by comparing results with those
sented in Fig. 20a through f. A comparison between the obtained from the experimental tests on DLG space truss that
load-displacement behaviour of the five models and the model was built and tested at the University of Dammam. The FE
without any opening is presented in Fig. 21. model was able to predict with decent accuracy the behaviour
As shown from Fig. 22a, location of the point of maximum of the experimental model. The FE model is used to extend the
displacement was variable according to the location of the study by having openings at many locations in the deck of the
opening (see Table 1). Concurrently, for the case of fully- DLG space truss. Two common cases of corner and fully-edge
edge supported DLGs, the presence of the supports at all edge supports are used during the FE analysis, which are the most
joints affected the rigidity around them resulting in keeping the common cases in real structures. Five locations for openings
location of the point of maximum displacement to be similar were selected to cover almost all places in the DLG considering
for all cases (Fig. 22b). It should be noted that all selected the symmetry effect. The load-displacement behaviour was
opening locations were taken at one quarter of the structure detected for each case so that the monitored joint was located
138 M. El-Shami et al.
2000 2000
2000 2000
Total Applied Load (kN)
1000 1000
500 500
0 0
0 50 100 150 0 50 100 150
Displacement (mm) Displacement (mm)
2000 2000
Total Applied Load (kN)
1500 1500
1000 1000
500 500
0 0
0 50 100 150 0 50 100 150
Displacement (mm) Displacement (mm)
2000
1500
Total Applied Load (kN)
No Opening
Location 1
1000
Location 2
Location 3
Location 4
500
Location 5
0
0 100 200 300
Displacement (mm)
Table 2 Maximum load and displacement locations for different cases of edge-supported DLG.
Case Max. load (kN) Disp. @ monitored point (mm) Max. displacement (mm) Node of max. displacement
No openings 1926 303 303 N1
Location 1 1589.76 166 167.14 N1
Location 2 1296.00 104 109.99 N1
Location 3 1270.08 113 116.28 N1
Location 4 1045.44 59.7 65.87 N1
Location 5 1062.72 63.5 67.95 N1
at the centre of the lower grid of the DLG space truss and kept As can be seen from the obtained results, the minimum
fixed for all models. At the same time, the node of maximum value of deformation and highest load carrying capacity
displacement is mentioned as seen in Tables 1 and 2 for both of composite DLG with opening was obtained when the
cases of corner and edge-supported DLG. openings were at the centre of the structure. This result
From analysis, it was noticed generally that the load carry- was applicable for both cases of corner and edge-
ing capacity of all models with openings was lower than that supported composite DLG space trusses is by the centre
for models without openings. The maximum capacity was of the structure (Location 1).
obtained for the case when there is no opening followed by In general, the worst location for floor openings is to be
the case where opening was located at the centre of the deck located around the middle-edge of the structure where the
(Location 1 for corner and edge-supported). The worst case highest values of stresses at top continuum can be found.
was obtained when opening was located at the edge of the
DLG between the corner support and the middle of the edge
(Location 4 for corner and edge-supported). Concurrently, 4. Conclusions
the maximum vertical displacement obtained did follow the
same behaviour, since it can be seen that the maximum dis- Authors accomplished the current research work through build-
placement was obtained for the case with no openings and ing and testing an experimental model for composite DLG space
lowest with the case when opening was located at Location 4 truss. Experimental test results have been used to calibrate a
for corner and edge-supported. As a result from the above numerical model created by a commercial FEM software ABA-
brief discussion the following points can be stated: QUS. The study concluded that removing a part of the compos-
ite deck in a composite DLG space truss will result in a reduction
The behaviour of composite DLG space truss having an in the load carrying capacity of DLG structures. This reduction
opening in the floor depends mainly on the location of such will be limited in case of corner-supported structures. Mean-
opening. while, the case is not the same for fully-edge supported DLG
Floor openings have limited effect on the load capacity or structures where there will be a noticeable reduction in the load
vertical deflection of composite DLG space truss due to carrying capacity. Finally, the authors recommend a large para-
the high rigidity of the system. metric study to apply the current research findings on large scale
The worst location of adding openings in composite DLG structures so that empirical equations may be obtained to be
structures is between the support panel and the middle of implemented in the design codes.
the edge for corner supported DLG space trusses (Location
4).
Acknowledgments
The composite deck increased the ductility of the DLG
structure noticeably, which can be seen by the large defor-
The authors thank the deanship of Scientific Research at the
mation before the failure occurs, since such type of struc-
University of Dammam (Project # 2103140). It should be
tures suffers a highly brittle behaviour. However, this
noted that the second author is on leave from the Faculty of
ductile behaviour is reduced by adding a floor opening. This
Engineering at Mataria, Helwan University, Cairo, Egypt
behaviour agrees with the results previously obtained in the
and would like to acknowledge his institution.
literature by (El-Sheikh and McConnel, 1993).
Composite edge-supported DLG has very high load capac-
ity compared to corner-supported DLG. References
The reduction in adding an opening on load capacity of
Aboul-Anen, B., El-Shafey, A., El-Shami, M., 2009. Experimental and
corner-supported DLG space trusses was not clear since it
analytical model of ferrocement slabs. Int. J. Recent Trends Eng. 6,
ranged from 1.0% for an opening at Location 1 to 15.8% 25–29.
for the case of an opening at Location 4. Al-Bazzaz, A.J., 1976. An Investigation into Composite Double Layer
In case of edge-supported DLG space trusses, having an Space Grid Structures. University of Strathclyde.
opening has a significant effect on the load capacity of such Awad, Z.K., Arabinthan, T., Yan, Z.G., Gonzalez, F., 2012. A review
structures which ranges from 17.5% for truss with opening of optimization techniques used in the design of fiber composite
at Location 1 to 45.71% at Location 4 . structures for civil engineering applications. Mat. Des. 33, 534–544.
Edge-supported DLG space trusses are very sensitive to Bai, Y., Yang, X., 2013. Novel joint for assembly of all-composite
floor opening especially those located away from the centre space truss structures: conceptual design and preliminary study. J.
of the structure. Compos. Constr. 17, 130–138.
140 M. El-Shami et al.
Bakr, H., 2013. Nonlinear Behavior of Composite Space Trusses under Makawski, Z.S., 1981. Analysis, Design and Construction of Double
Earthquake Loads (MSc. thesis). Civil Engineering Dept., Menou- Layer Grids. Applied Science Publishers Ltd., London.
fia University, Menoufia, Egypt. Marsh, C., Fard, R.M., 1984. Optimisation of Space Trusses Using
BSI, 2001. Structural Use of Steel Work in Building, vol. Part 1. BSI, Non-Linear Behaviour of Eccentric Diagonals. Elsevier Applied
London. Science Publ., Guildford, England.
Castillo, H.A., 1967. Space frame construction with steel and Martin, R., Delatte, N.J., 2001. Another look at harford civik center
reinforced concrete, the tridilosa spatial structure. In: Davies, R. coliseum collapse. J. Perform. Constr. Facil., 31–36
M. (Ed.), Space Structures. Blackwell, Oxford, pp. 1089–1093. Schmidt, L.C., Hanaor, A., 1979. Force limiting devices in space
Chu, H.S., 1984. Analysis and experiment of composite space slab-grid trusses. J. Struct. Div. 5, 939–951.
structure. In: Space Structures, Third International Conference, pp. Schmidt, L.C., Morgan, P.R., Clarkson, J.A., 1976. Space trusses with
192–195. brittle-type strut buckling. J. Struct. Div. ASCE 102 (7), 1479–
Dong, S., Zhao, Y., Xing, D., 2012. Application and development of 1492.
modern long-span space structures in China. Front. Struct. Civil Schmidt, L.C., Morgan, P.R., O’Meagher, A.J., Cogan, K., 1980.
Eng. 6 (3), 224–239. Ultimate load behaviour of a full-scale space truss. Proc. Instn. Civ.
Elabd, M.M., 2010. Effect of Composite Action on the Dynamic Eng. 69 (2), 97–109, London.
Behaviour of Space Structure (Ph.D. thesis). School of Civil Shaaban, H.F., 1997. Effect of Composite Action on a Space Truss
Engineering, University of Dundee, UK. System with Continuous Chord Members (Ph.D. thesis). School of
El-Sheikh, A., 1999. Effect of force limiting devices on behaviour of Civil Engineering, University of Dundee, UK.
space trusses. Eng. Struct. 21 (1), 34–44. Smith, E.A., Epstein, H.I., 1980. Hartford coliseum roof collapse
El-Sheikh, A.I., McConnel, R.E., 1993. Experimental study of structural collapse sequence and lessons learned. Civil Eng. ASCE
behavior of composite space trusses. J. Struct. Eng. ASCE 119 50 (4), 59–62.
(3), 747–766. Soudki, K., El-Sayed, A.K., Vanzwol, T., 2012. Strengthening of
El-Sheikh, A., Shaaban, H., 1999. Experimental study of composite concrete slab-column connections using CFRP strips. J. King Saud
space trusses with continuous chords. Adv. Struct. Eng. 2 (3), 219– Univ. Eng. Sci. 24 (1), 25–33, Elsevier.
232. Tabatabaei, M., Marsh, C., 1993. Strengthening space trusses by
Hanaor, A., Levy, R., 1985. Imposed lack of fit as a means of diagonal removal. Int. J. Space Struct. 8 (4), 21–26, Multi-Science
enhancing space truss design. Space Struct. 1, 147–154. Publishing Co. UK.
Kuleib, M., 1989. The analysis and behaviour of composite space Zhu, X., He, R., Lu, X., Ling, X., Zhu, L., Liu, B., 2015. An
frames with profiled steel sheet floors (Ph.D. diss.). University of optimization technique for the composite strut using genetic
Salford, UK. algorithms. Mat. Des. 65, 482–488.
Liu, F., Li, K., 2014. Optimal design analysis of prestressed composite
space truss. Appl. Mech. Mater. 3489 (638), 178–184.