An Efficient Model for Seismic Analysis of

Flat Slab Structures with

The Effects of Stiffness Degradation

Seung Jae Lee

Sungkyunkwan University
 Introduction
 Flat slab system

• The columns directly support the flat slabs without beams.

• Providing lower story height, good lighting and ventilation
• Remarkable lateral stiffness degradation in the slab

Drop panel
Capi tal

Flat slab structure having capital and drop panel

2 /36
 Equivalent frame method

• Widely used for analysis of flat slab structures in practical engineering

• Slab is modeled by equivalent frame
• Elastic analysis is performed
• Effective width proposed by Jacob S. Grossman is commonly used
y

Equivalent frame width

in the y direction c2 c1 Floor
height
Column
above
l1
Equivalent frame width
in the x direction

x
h
Slab strip
l2

Column
below

Slab strip

Width of the equivalent frame

3 /36
 Objectives

• Investigate limitations in the Equivalent Frame Method

• Propose an efficient analysis method using FEM

 Reduce modulus of elasticity
 Include stiffness degradation in the slab depending on lateral drift
 Use super element and fictitious beam
 Reduce computational time and memory

4 /36
 Grossman method for Effective width
αl2  K d [0.3l1  C1 (l2 /l1 )  (C2  C1 ) / 2](d/ 0.9h) K FP
With limits: (0.2)( K d )( K FP )l2  l2  (0.5)( K d )( K FP )l2
 : Equivalent width factor  l2 : Effective width of slab
K d : Factor considering degradation of stiffness of slabs
 1.1 at the acceptable drift limit hs / 800 hs : Story height
 1.0 at the acceptable drift limit hs / 400
 0.8 at the acceptable drift limit hs / 200
 0.5 at the acceptable drift limit hs / 100

l1 , l2 : Length of span in direction parallel and transverse to lateral load

C1,C2: Size of support in direction parallel and transverse to lateral load
d : Effective depth of slab h : Slab thickness
K FP  1.0 at interior supports
 0.8 at exterior and edge supports
 0.6 at corner supports

5 /36
 Classification of Grossman method
αl2  K d [0.3l1  C1 (l2 /l1 )  (C2  C1 ) / 2](d/ 0.9h) K FP

Terms can be simply included in the FEM

[0.3l1  C1 (l2 /l1 )  (C2  C1 ) / 2] K FP

Terms cannot be easily considered by the FEM

Kd (d/ 0.9h)

(d/ 0.9h)  Approximately 1.0

d/h <0.9, if very thin slab

ER : Adjusted modulus of elasticity

E R  EK d (d / 0.9h) E : Modulus of elasticity

6 /36
 Limitations of the Equivalent Frame Method
Plans to which EFM can not be applied

Difficulty in providing stress distribution in the slab

Calculation of equivalent mass for the dynamic analysis

Troublesome calculation of effective width by the change of column size
7 /36
Stiffness degradation in the slab
U.C. Berkeley Test (by Prof. Jack. P. Moehle, 1990)
N
a b c d
108

32
12
1 72

48
2
Line of symmetry

6.4X6.4 9.6X4.8
‘Pinned’ Support (typ.)
3 9.6X9.6 12.8X6.4
A A SECTION A-A
(All units are in inches)
4 6.4X6.4 6.4X6.4 9.6X4.8 9.6X4.8

PLAN
Test structure
120 160

LATERAL STIFFNESS (kip/in.)

LATERAL STIFFNESS (kip/in.)

140
100
120
80
100

60 80

60
40

EFM 40
EFM
20 FEM
FEM
UCB test 20 UCB test

0 0
1/800 1/400 1/200 1/800 1/400 1/200
LATERAL DRIFT - NS LATERAL DRIFT - EW

8 /36
 Stiffness reduction factor for slabs
1
 1 c 1
s
I=

I=

Deformation of Deformation of Deformation of

Entire Structure Columns Slabs

 
  C   S  C  S
R RS
Consideration of
Stiffness Degradation
 : Total lateral displacement

 C : Lateral displacement due to column deformation

 S : Lateral displacement due to slab deformation S
R
RS  
R  C
: Stiffness reduction factor for structure

RS : Stiffness reduction factor for slab

9 /36
 Drift Direction R  S C RS Avg. S
NS 0.905 0.054 0.033 0.021 0.853 RS  
R  C
1/800 0.822
EW 0.829 0.063 0.049 0.014 0.790
NS 0.830 0.110 0.067 0.043 0.748
1/400 0.722
EW 0.747 0.129 0.100 0.029 0.695
NS 0.661 0.230 0.140 0.090 0.543
1/200 0.539
EW 0.598 0.254 0.197 0.057 0.536
1

0 .9

0 .8
S la b S tiffn e s s R e d u c tio n

0 .7

0 .6

0 .5
RS  74.99  DL  0.91
0 .4

0 .3 DL : Lateral drift
0 .2

0 .1

0
1 /8 0 0 1 /4 0 0 1 /2 0 0
L A T E R A L D R IF T (lo g a rith m ic )
10 /36
 Application of stiffness reduction factor to FEM

120 160

LATERAL STIFFNESS (kip/in.)

LATERAL STIFFNESS (kip/in.)

140
100
120
80
100

60 80

60
40
EFM EFM
FEM(w/o reduction)
40 FEM(w/o reduction)

20 FEM(w/ reduction) FEM(w/ reduction)

UCB test 20 UCB test

0 0
1/800 1/400 1/200 1/800 1/400 1/200
LATERAL DRIFT - NS LATERAL DRIFT - EW

11 /36
Modeling flat slab using super elements

Refined mesh model for floor slab

12 /36
Separate floor slab for generation of super elements

13 /36
Generation of super elements

14 /36
Assemble super elements

15 /36
Use of stiff fictitious beams

A floor slab unit between columns

16 /36
Add fictitious beams

17 /36
Added fictitious beams

18 /36
Matrix condensation

19 /36
Eliminate fictitious beams

20 /36
Super element

21 /36
Example structure 1

Floor plan

20-story example structure

22 /36
 Static & Eigenvalue analysis

20 5
EFM
FEM(w/ reduction)
Proposed (w/ reduction)
16 4

Period(sec)
12 3
Story

8 2

4 1
EFM
FEM(w/ reduction)
Proposed (w/ reduction)
0 0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 1 4 7 10 13 16 19
Displacement(cm) Mode
Lateral displacements Natural periods of vibration

23 /36
 Von-Mises stress distribution

FEM
 max = 4.53E-2

EFM
 max = 2.22E-2

Proposed
 max = 4.46E-2

24 /36
 Time history analysis
40

30

20
Displacement(cm)

10

-10

-20

-30 EFM
FEM(w/ reduction)
Proposed (w/ reduction)
-40
0 2 4 5.4 6 8 10 12 12.88 14
Time(sec)
Roof displacement time history (El Centro NS, 1940)
Computational time (sec)
Model DOF`s Assemble Static Eigenvalue Time history
Total
M&K analysis analysis analysis
FEM 55500 230.22 394.38 17406.66 281.58 18312.84
EFM 1740 2.61 0.36 19.69 7.67 30.33
Proposed 780 13.70 0.12 5.75 3.36 22.93

25 /36
Example structure 2

Floor plan

20-story example structure

26 /36
 Static & Dynamic analysis
20 5
FEM(w/ reduction)
Proposed (w/ reduction)

16 4

Period(sec)
12 3
Story

8 2

4 1
FEM(w/ reduction)
Proposed (w/ reduction)
0 0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 1 4 7 10 13 16 19
Displacement(cm) Mode
Lateral displacements Natural periods of vibration
Computational time (sec)
Model DOF`s Assemble Static Eigenvalue Time history
Total
M&K analysis analysis analysis
FEM 47580 193.30 390.35 13315.33 238.41 14137.39
Proposed 780 13.48 0.09 5.86 3.33 22.76

27 /36
Example structure 3

Floor plan

3D view of example
structure (20F)
28 /36
Super element for the slab with opening

Refined mesh model for floor slab with opening

29 /36
Separate floor slab for generation of super element

30 /36
Add fictitious beams

31 /36
Matrix condensation

32 /36
Eliminate fictitious beams

33 /36
Assemble the super elements

34 /36
 Static & dynamic analysis
20 5
FEM(w/ reduction)
Proposed (w/ reduction)

16 4

Period(sec)
12 3
Story

8 2

4 1
FEM(w/ reduction)
Proposed (w/ reduction)
0 0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 1 4 7 10 13 16 19
Displacement(cm) Mode
Lateral displacements Natural periods of vibration
Computational time (sec)
Model DOF`s Assemble Static Eigenvalue Time history
Total
M&K analysis analysis analysis
FEM 53580 214.13 447.98 16126.36 269.72 17058.19
Proposed 900 44.98 0.14 7.22 3.83 56.17

35 /36
 Conclusions

Equivalent Frame Method

• Consider stiffness degradation in the slab
• Can be applied only to flat slab structures with a regular plan
• Cannot provide stress distribution in the slab reasonably
• Need to calculate equivalent mass for the dynamic analysis
• Troublesome calculation of effective width with the change of column size

Finite Element Method using super elements

• Consider stiffness reduction in the slab by reduced modulus of elasticity
• Can analyze flat slab structure with irregular plan and openings in the slab
• Can provide stress distribution in the slab with accuracy
• Reduced number of DOF`s  Saving in computational time and memory

36 /36