Engineering Structures 25 (2003) 1639–1654

www.elsevier.com/locate/engstruct

Static and seismic design of one-way and two-way jack arch

masonry slabs
Mahmoud R. Maheri ∗, Hamid Rahmani
Shiraz University, Department of Civil Engineering, Shiraz, Iran

Received 7 June 2001; received in revised form 26 May 2003; accepted 26 May 2003

Abstract

Steel I-beam, brick jack arch slabs have long been used to floor and roof industrial and residential buildings in many parts of
the world. Collapse of a large number of these non-homogeneous one-way slabs during past earthquakes has highlighted their poor
seismic performance. However, due to their easy construction together with low cost, the jack-arch slab is still widely used in many
countries. In this article, the weaknesses inherent in the traditional one-way jack-arch slabs are explored. To overcome these short-
comings, a new two-way system is proposed. Results of static and dynamic tests on full scale two-way and one-way jack-arch
slabs and finite element numerical analyses, aimed at investigating the effectiveness of the proposed two-way system, are presented
with favourable conclusions. Following these investigations the static and seismic design of jack arch slabs are discussed. The
proposed, allowable stress design method is based on designing for the steel grid and controlling the stresses in brick arches.
Parameters necessary for an equivalent static seismic load calculation are first determined. Finite element numerical analyses are
then conducted to investigate the effects of a number of parameters on the design of the slab and the necessary design factors are
evaluated. In addition, appropriate tables and figures are presented to facilitate the design of the one-way and two-way jack arch
slabs. It is concluded that the jack arch slab system, designed and constructed as presented in this article, provides a viable, low
cost alternative to other forms of flooring in seismic zones and elsewhere.
 2003 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Keywords: Jack arch slab; Masonry slab; Design of jack arch slab; Seismic response; Dynamic testing

1. Introduction
The traditional steel I-beam, jack arch flooring system
was developed in Britain towards the end of nineteenth
century and was used extensively to cover large floor
areas in factories and other industrial buildings. The
technique spread eastwards and, by the middle of the
twentieth century, it became a popular flooring system
in parts of East Europe, the Middle East and the Indian
subcontinent. Due to its technical simplicity, speed in
construction and low cost, traditional jack arch slabs are
still very popular in the Middle East, where, not only
industrial buildings and ordinary dwellings but also
many high-rise steel and concrete framed buildings are
floored by this method.
∗
Corresponding author. Tel: +98-711-832-1353; fax: +98-711-
2352-725.
E-mail address: mmaheri@hotmail.com (M.R. Maheri).
The floor slabs constructed using the steel I-beam jack
arch system are stable under normal static conditions as
the brick arches transfer the gravity loads, mainly in
compression, along the arch to the supporting beams
(Fig. 1). The load is then transferred along the parallel
steel beams to the supporting walls or beams. The geo-
metric form of the steel I-beam jack arch system and the
load path through the steel beams, make the slab act as
a one-way system.
Despite the wide spread use of the jack arch slabs and
their advantages, there are no particular procedures for
their engineered design and there is no mention of the
system in codes of practice. Indeed, a search of the
literature reveals no reference to any particular scientific
research directed at studying this slab system or any
attempts to provide an engineering basis for its design
and construction. Design engineers, using the jack arch
slab in framed buildings, consider the brick arches as
merely dead loads, carried by the steel beams, and are
sufficient in designing the steel beams. This assumption

0141-0296/$ - see front matter  2003 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/S0141-0296(03)00143-3
1640 M.R. Maheri, H. Rahmani / Engineering Structures 25 (2003) 1639–1654

Nomenclature
A Design base acceleration
a Length of slab
B Slab dynamic response coefficient
b Width of slab
C Earthquake coefficient
Cs Slab design coefficient
E Earthquake load
Eeff Effective modulus of elasticity of slab
Em Elastic modulus of brickwork
fball Allowable tensile stress of masonry
fmall Allowable compressive stress of masonry
fsall Allowable stress of steel
fy Yield stress of steel
f’m Compressive strength of masonry prism
h Thickness of slab
I Importance factor
Ireq Required moments of inertia for slab beams (Ixx)
In Minimum normalized moments of inertia of slab beams (Ixx) given in design table
Ixx, Iyy Moments of inertia of slab beams around axis parallel to and perpendicular to the slab surface,
respectively
Rw Slab working performance factor
Rm Ductility reduction factor
S Section modulus of steel beams
Sn Minimum normalized section modulus of slab beams given in design table
T Fundamental period of vibration
To Type of soil parameter
V In-plane shear force on the slab
W Design load
We Weight of slab for calculating the earthquake load
Ws Weight of steel grid per unit area of slab
Wst Weight of transverse beams per unit area of slab
Y Allowable stress factor
⌬max Maximum allowable deflection
⍀ Over-strength factor
.a Correction factor for support condition
b Correction factor for width of brick arch
g Slab deflection parameter ( = αβ⑀λ)
gmin Deflection control parameter
⑀ Correction factor for elastic modulus of brickwork
λ Correction factor for allowable stress of brickwork
l1 Dimensionless parameter depending on geometry and boundary conditions
nm Poisson’s ratio of brickwork
r Mass per unit area of slab
w Correction factor for design load

ignores the role of brick arches in transferring slab loads
and the resulting large stresses developed in them.
Despite the lack of a proper design basis and the poor
performance of the jack arch system under earthquake
loading, this type of flooring is still used extensively in
many countries. The reason for this being a number of
practical and economical advantages including simple
construction technique, speed in construction, low cost
and the ability to alter the slab after construction, when
compared to conventional reinforced concrete or con-
crete beam-block slabs.
The performance of the traditional one-way jack arch
slab in a number of recent earthquakes in Eastern Europe
and the Middle East, particularly in Iran, has generally
 M.R. Maheri, H. Rahmani / Engineering Structures 25 (2003) 1639–1654
Fig. 1. Construction detail of a traditional, one-way jack arch slab.
been poor. Collapse of a large number of jack arch slabs
and damage to many more was reported from the
Romanian earthquake of 1990. The Manjil, Iran earth-
quake of 1990 [3,4] is of particular interest in this regard.
It provided a real testing ground for different forms of
the one-way jack arch system. Typical weaknesses and
modes of failure of the traditional one-way slab include
(i) movement of simply supported steel beams from their
position under earthquake shaking, causing the collapse
of brick arches; (ii) inability of the brick arches to trans-
fer in-plane loads perpendicular to the steel beams (Fig.
2a); (iii) concentration of stresses in the stiff brick arches
due to out-of-plane vibration of the slab (Fig. 2b); (iv)
weakness of the slab system in transferring in-plane
shear (Fig. 2c); (v) dynamic interaction between the stiff
brick arches and the more flexible steel beams under ver-
tical vibration; and (vi) inability of the slab to act as a
diaphragm as is required for good seismic performance
Fig. 2. Different modes of failure of traditional one-way jack arch slab. (a) inability to transfer in-plane axial loads; (b) concentration of stresses
in brick arch under out-of-plane bending; (c) inability to transfer in-plane shear force; (d) inability to act as a diaphragm.
1641
(Fig. 2d). Restraining the ends of the I-beams with trans-
verse steel beams, or fixing the ends of the beams to the
concrete ring beam and using transverse or diagonal steel
tie bars over the span are two earlier recommendations,
presented by Moinfar [8], for improving the seismic per-
formance of the traditional one-way system.
2. The proposed two-way, engineered, jack arch
system
To overcome the shortcomings of the one-way jack
arch slab, the senior author has recently proposed using
a number of transverse steel beams spanned between the
main I-beams to form a steel grid [5]. In this way the
unconnected parallel steel beams will become part of an
inter-connected steel grid, allowing the vertical loads to
be transferred in two directions, also enabling the trans-
fer of the in-plane forces (Fig. 3). In fact, by using a
steel grid, the grid will act as the main load-carrying
element in the slab, while the brick arches act mainly as
in-fill panels. The proposed two-way, steel grid, jack
arch system therefore addresses all the weaknesses of
the traditional one-way slab as discussed below:
(i) The steel grid will confine the brick arches in small
(steel framed) panels where no differential move-
ments of the supporting steel occur during an earth-
quake and as a result the arches remain in place.
1642 M.R. Maheri, H. Rahmani / Engineering Structures 25 (2003) 1639–1654
Fig. 3. Details of a typical configuration of the proposed two-way
system.
(ii) The inability of the one-way slab in transferring the
transverse in-plane loads through the brick arches is
overcome by inclusion of transverse steel beams.
(iii) By creating a stiff steel grid, the in-plane shear
forces will be directed towards the steel grid and
away from the brick arches, hence the build up of
stresses in brick arches is avoided.
(iv) In a two-way grid system, the brick arches are made
discontinuous at the location of transverse beams
and become divided into a number of smaller panels
undergoing much smaller out-of-plane bending
stresses.
(v) Discontinuities in brick arches at the locations of
transverse beams also act as plastic hinges, which in
turn reduces the overall stiffness of brick arches. On
the other hand, a steel grid will be stiffer than indi-
vidual I-beams. Therefore, the two systems will be
dynamically more compatible and the effects of
dynamic interaction will be reduced.
(vi) The steel grid creates a homogeneous diaphragm
action for the slab in such a way that if some local
failure in supporting walls or support beams occurs,
the load from the unsupported part of the slab will
be carried by the continuous grid. This will stop the
partial collapse of the slab.
(vii) Finally, the use of a steel grid as opposed to indi-
vidual parallel steel beams does not necessarily
increase the amount of steel required for the slab.
In many instances, it may in fact reduce the amount
of necessary steel and therefore reduce the cost of
the slab. The reason for this being that the steel
grid creates a two-way action for the slab and, as
some of the load is transferred to the supports by
the transverse beams, the load on the main longi-
tudinal beams is reduced and smaller sections will
therefore be required.
3. Experimental investigations
To investigate the behaviour of the jack arch system
in detail, numerical (finite element) models were neces-
sary to represent the real system. However, the presence
of many unknown parameters regarding the mechanical,
dynamic and strength properties of the slab materials and
elements, as well as the boundary conditions required
some prior experimental investigations. Static tests were
first conducted to determine the mechanical and strength
properties of slab elements, particularly those of the
brick arches. Dynamic tests on full-scale prototypes of
the one-way and two-way slabs were then carried out to
determine the dynamic properties and boundary con-
ditions. The results from dynamic tests also provided a
basis for adjusting, correcting and, in general, improving
the finite element models of the slab.
3.1. Material properties of brick arches
The proposed brick arches are lightweight perforated
bricks joined together by a clay-gypsum mortar. No data
on the strength and mechanical properties of this type
of masonry were available. For this reason, standard
static tests were carried out on brick units, mortar and
brickwork. Details of the tests are presented elsewhere
[6]. Typical results include the minimum compressive
strength of brickwork, f⬘m = 4.8 MPa and average elastic
modulus of brickwork, Em = 2.5 GPa. The stress–strain
relations for a number of brickwork test samples are
shown in Fig. 4. A near linear relationship, up to the
ultimate load, can be seen in all the tests.
3.2. Dynamic properties
The four-storey, steel-framed, main building of a flour
factory was used to test the idea of the two-way jack
arch system in a full-scale building. The detailed plan
for the position of equipment, machinery, belts, cranes,
piping etc were not available at the time of construction.
It was, therefore, decided to use the jack arch flooring
system, whereby the desired holes and openings could
easily be made in the floors at a later date. For the pur-
pose of our comparative investigations, the first and third
floors of the building were covered using the two-way
steel grid system and the second and fourth floors of the
building were covered using the one-way system.
Dimensions and details of a 5.0 by 6.0 m floor panel,
used for experiments is given in Fig. 5. Non-destructive
dynamic tests were carried out on the second and third
floors of the building. These two floors have identical
details and boundary conditions, except that in the first
floor two, equally spaced, transverse beams were used
to create a two-way jack-arch system. Dynamic impulse
tests were carried out on the floors to determine the natu-
ral frequencies, mode shapes and damping of their out-
 M.R. Maheri, H. Rahmani / Engineering Structures 25 (2003) 1639–1654 1643

Fig. 5. Construction details of the tested two-way jack arch panel of

the flour factory.

Fig. 4. The stress–strain curves of four lightweight brick lime-clay

mortar prisms.

of-plane bending vibration. The test procedure and

details of processing and extraction of data are reported
elsewhere [6]. A typical time history and the related
power spectrum function extracted from one of the tests
are shown in Fig. 6. The natural frequencies of each slab,
appearing as strong peaks in power spectra of their
respective records, were extracted from the spectra. The
damping ratio associated with each frequency was also
calculated from the spectrum, using the half-power
method.
Due to the nature of the tests, it was not possible to
directly determine the mode shapes associated with each
frequency. Therefore, a mapping technique was adopted Fig. 6. Typical (a) response time-history and (b) auto-power fre-
in which, for any given frequency, the peak amplitudes quency spectrum of the two-way jack arch slab of the flour factory.
related to that frequency at different locations of the slab
were compared and in this way the associated mode was one-way system. A marked increase in damping ratio
determined. The main natural frequencies of the out-of- can also be noted for the two-way system.
plane vibration of the two slabs extracted from the tests,
together with their associated mode shapes and damping
ratios, are give in Table 1. 4. Loading
A review of the frequencies given in Table 1 indicates
an increase in the stiffness of the floor, due to transverse Loading to be considered in the design of jack arch
beams. The natural frequencies of the two-way system slabs, are gravity and earthquake loads. The gravity, ser-
are all higher than the corresponding frequencies of the vice dead and live loads may be determined using appro-
1644 M.R. Maheri, H. Rahmani / Engineering Structures 25 (2003) 1639–1654
Table 1
Experimental natural frequencies and damping ratios of the one-way and two-way slabs
Mode number (1) Two-way system
Frequency (Hz) (2) Damping % (3)
Mode 1 (1st bending) 11.6 4.2
Mode 2 (2nd bending) 19.1 5.0
Mode 3 (3rd bending) 30.5 4.8
Mode 4 (4th bending) 37.9 4.3
priate codes of practice. The earthquake loads, however,
warrant further discussion. The earthquake loads, acting
on a jack arch slab are in-plane horizontal loads and out-
of-plane vertical loads.
4.1. Horizontal earthquake loads
The earthquake-induced horizontal forces acting on
the slab may be either in-plane axial or in-plane shear
forces. The in-plane axial forces are caused by the inertia
of the slab alone. These forces are generally small and
the resulting stresses are minimal. The in-plane axial
forces, therefore, are neglected for design purposes. The
in-plane shear forces, however, may be large and should
be considered in design. These forces are the result of
differential movements of the parallel slab supports
caused by the torsion in the building. The horizontal
shear force acting on the slab may be determined by
analysing the building for earthquake loads, using an
equivalent-static, a pseudo-dynamic or a dynamic
method.
In a two-way jack arch system, in-plane shear force
is carried mainly by the frame action of the steel grid,
whereas, in a one-way system, the brick arches are the
main load-carrying elements. The brick arches are weak
in transferring in-plane stresses, therefore, the steel grid
should carry the majority of the load. In other words, a
one-way system will not be suitable when large in-plane
shears are present. For the two-way system, the shear-
induced stresses in both the steel grid and the brick
arches should be checked against the allowable stresses.
4.2. Vertical earthquake loads
The majority of stresses developed in the slab are due
to the combined effects of gravity and vertical earth-
quake loads, both causing out-of-plane bending and
shear in the slab. Design of the slab will, therefore, be
governed by the out-of-plane bending of the steel beams.
Out-of-plane shear stresses in both the steel beams and
the brick arches should also be checked against the
allowable stresses.
To determine the vertical earthquake loads, it is pro-
posed that the simple, equivalent-static, method be used.
One-way system
Frequency (Hz) (4) Damping % (5)
10.9 2.8
14.4 2.9
24.2 2.8
39.4 3.0
In this method, the earthquake load, E, is related to the
weight of the system, We, in the following form:
E ⫽ CWe (1)
We, is usually considered as the total dead load plus a
percentage of the live load, the recommendation for
which differs in seismic codes for different structures.
The earthquake coefficient, C, may be determined from
the relation:
ABI
C⫽ (2)
Rw
in which, A, B, I and Rw are the design base acceleration,
the dynamic response coefficient, the importance factor
and the performance factor, respectively. The design
base acceleration, A, is given by seismic codes for differ-
ent localities. This coefficient is, however, determined
for the horizontal earthquake loading and should be
modified for the vertical loading. A 33% reduction is
often used for this conversion. For design of jack arch
slabs, the importance factor, I, may be taken as that for
the whole building. The other two coefficients need
further considerations as follows.
4.2.1. Dynamic response coefficient: B
This coefficient is a function of the soil type, To, and
the fundamental period of vibration of the system, T, and
represents the dynamic magnification of the system’s
response. Seismic codes provide information regarding
the soil type, To. Designer must determine the fundamen-
tal period of vibration of the system, T. For jack arch
slab, the fundamental mode of vibration will be the first
out-of-plane bending mode. A simple method of
determining T, for the jack arch slabs, is discussed here.
Assuming the slab as a linear, elastic rectangular plate-
bending element, the classic solution for the fundamental
bending mode of vibration is given in the following
form [1]:
2pa2
冋 册
T⫽ (sec.) (3)
Eeffh3 1/2
l21
12r(1⫺J2m)
In the above equation, a, h, Eeff, r and nm are length,
 M.R. Maheri, H. Rahmani / Engineering Structures 25 (2003) 1639–1654
thickness, effective elastic modulus, mass per unit area
and Poisson’s ratio of the plate, respectively and l1 is a
dimensionless parameter depending on the geometry of
plate and its boundary conditions. To be able to apply
this equation to a non-homogenous composite plate, such
as a jack arch slab, equivalent effective parameters
should be used. The effective thickness, h, may safely be
considered as the full thickness of the flat slab, including
flooring and the effective density, r, should be determ-
ined considering slab materials. The effect of Poisson’s
ratio will be small. Therefore, as a safe choice, the Pois-
son’s ratio may be considered to be the same as that
for brickwork.
The effective elastic modulus, Eeff, of the slab has an
appreciable effect on the fundamental period of vibration
and should be evaluated more accurately. The para-
meters affecting the Eeff of the slab are the dimensions
and boundary conditions of the slab, the elastic modulus
of brick arches and the number, and size and configur-
ation of the steel beams. A number of numerical dynamic
analyses were carried out on jack arch slabs with differ-
ent dimensions, boundary conditions, steel configur-
ations and types of brickwork and from the results of
each analysis, an equivalent elastic modulus was calcu-
lated. Details of these analyses are reported elsewhere
[10]. It was found that the effective elastic modulus of
slab, Eeff, is linearly proportional to the elastic modulus
of brickwork, Em. As for the slab boundary conditions,
the results from the worse case scenario, i.e. the simply
supported situation, are used. The best parameter to rep-
resent the other two variables, i.e. dimensions of the slab
and steel grid configuration, is the weight of steel per
unit area of slab, Ws (kg/m2). The results of these analy-
ses are plotted in Fig. 7. In this figure, the ratio of effec-
Fig. 7. The effective modulus of elasticity (Eeff) of the jack arch slabs.
1645
tive elastic modulus of slab to elastic modulus of brick-
work (Eeff/Em) is plotted against Ws.
After determining Eeff, it is used in Eqn. (3) to deter-
mine the fundamental period of vibration of the slab. To
check the validity of Eqn. (3) for jack arch slabs, this
simple method was used to calculate the fundamental
periods of the one-way and two-way jack arch slabs of
the flour factory discussed earlier. The calculated values
were compared with the periods determined from the
experiments. The fundamental periods of vibration, T,
calculated using Eqn. (3), are 0.0989 s for the one-way
slab and 0.0912 s for the two-way slab. These values
compare well with the experimental results of 0.0913 s
and 0.0858 s, respectively. The higher calculated values
are due to the simple-support assumption made for the
slab, as the worst case scenario.
To determine the dynamic response coefficient, B, dif-
ferent seismic codes provide different relations and dia-
grams, the majority of which are based on To and T.
These relations are derived for the building as a whole
and, in most codes, the region in the diagram covering
small periods of vibration is considered a constant
maximum. This can be seen in Fig. 8 in which, as an
example, the diagram given by the Iranian Seismic Code
[2] is shown. The dotted line for periods between 0 and
0.4 s is recommended by the Iranian code for buildings.
The fundamental periods of vibration of jack-arch slabs
are, however, well below those of ordinary buildings and
sometimes fall within this range. It is, therefore, prudent
to determine the actual values of B in this period range.
The actual values of B for the four different soil types
are calculated and plotted, in the same figure (Fig. 8),
as full lines.
4.2.2. Performance factor of jack arch slab, Rw
The jack arch slab system discussed here may be con-
sidered as a confined masonry construction. For confined
masonry walls, a value of 4 is often used for the per-
Fig. 8. The proposed dynamic response coefficient (B) for the jack
arch slabs.
1646 M.R. Maheri, H. Rahmani / Engineering Structures 25 (2003) 1639–1654
formance factor Rw [9]. However, the jack arch slab sys-
tem is expected to behave differently to a conventional
masonry building system. A preliminary discussion on
Rw factor for jack arch system will follow.
The system performance factor, Rw, corresponding to
the UBC allowable stress design format, is given by:
Rw ⫽ Rm⍀Y
In which, Rm, ⍀ and Y are ductility reduction factor,
over-strength factor and allowable stress factor, respect-
ively [11]. Design of jack arch slab will be based on
designing the steel grid and controlling the brick arches
for allowable stresses. Ductility of the slab, therefore,
will depend on the level of stresses in the brick arches
when the steel grid is at its allowable stress limit. The
number and size of transverse beams in a two-way sys-
tem will govern the ductility of the slab. Assuming no
ductility for the one-way system (i.e. Rm = 1), a number
of finite element stress analyses were conducted on slabs
of different sizes and transverse beam configurations
and, in each analysis, the level of stresses in brick arches
were compared with those of the one-way system. This
comparison was used as a basis for determining the
available ductility of the slab. Results of these analyses
are plotted in Fig. 9. In this figure, the ductility factor
of the slab, Rm, is plotted against the amount of trans-
verse beams per unit area of the slab. In the expected
range of transverse beam density, ductility factor varies
between 1.0 and 2.0. For the one-way system, Rm, may
be assumed as unity.
A safe value of ⍀ = 1.5 may be proposed for the
overstrength of jack-arch slab. The allowable stress fac-
tor, Y, on the other hand may be determined by consider-
Fig. 9. Ductility reduction factor (Rm) for the jack arch slabs.
ing the critical element of the slab, i.e. the steel grid.
For steel construction, Y, varies between 1.4 to 1.5. The
performance factor, Rw, may therefore be considered as
2.0 (Rm = 1.0, ⍀ = 1.5, Y = 1.4) for the one-way system
and 2.1Rm for the two-way system. Design tables and
figures presented in the following sections have been
prepared in such a way that allowable stresses and load-
(4)
ing parameters, other than those suggested in this article,
can be easily accommodated.
5. Design method
The jack arch slab is primarily a masonry construc-
tion. In the one-way system, brick arches undergo large
stresses as they transfer the static and seismic loads to
the steel beams. In the two-way system, although the
role of brick arches in the transfer of loads is reduced,
they are still required to transfer their own loads. The
masonry buildings and steel buildings may be designed
using the allowable (working) stress design method
(ASD). It is, therefore, plausible to base the design of
steel-beam jack arch slabs on the same method.
The design procedure to be adopted will be based on
designing the steel grid, as the main load-bearing
element, and controlling the brick arches for allowable
stresses. The failure criterion for the slab is assumed to
be bending failure of the steel beams or compressive
failure of the brick arches. In steel beams, shear failure
is unlikely to occur prior to bending failure. The tensile
failure in brick arches is governed by the bond tensile
strength. The bond tensile strength in masonry construc-
tion is low. For the lime-clay mortar brick prism, this
was determined as 0.2 MPa. Tensile bond failure
between brick units and mortar will be allowed under
high frequency cyclic loads since this failure does not
affect the load-carrying capability of brick arches in
compression.
6. Design parameters and procedure
Similar to other slab systems, in the jack arch slab,
there are a number of parameters that affect the design.
The most important parameters in this respect are recog-
nized as (i) dimensions of the slab; (ii) layout of the steel
grid; (iii) boundary conditions and connections of slab
elements; (iv) width and rise of brick arches; (v) loading,
W; (vi) elastic modulus of brickwork, Em; and (vii)
allowable stress of brickwork (fmall). In the following
sections the allowable stresses of the slab materials are
first explored. Typical slab dimensions and steel grid
configurations are also discussed. Then a large number
of slabs having different dimensions and steel configur-
ations are selected and designed according to the design
method outlined above. In designing these ‘reference’
 M.R. Maheri, H. Rahmani / Engineering Structures 25 (2003) 1639–1654
slabs, constant ‘reference’ values are considered for the
design parameters, (iii) to (vi). Finally, for design cases
in which one or more of the design parameters, (iii) to
(vi) have values other than the reference values, appro-
priate penalty or conversion factors are evaluated using
a series of parametric analyses.
6.1. Allowable stresses
The allowable stresses for steel and masonry are
determined by codes of practice. For this study, in line
with the conventional codes of practice, allowable flex-
ural tensile or compressive stress for steel will be
assumed to be; fsall = 0.6 fy. Since no references exist
concerning the allowable stresses used for jack arch
masonry made with lime-clay mortar, the following
are proposed:
Allowable compressive stress for masonry:
fmal ⫽ 0.2f⬘m;
Allowable tensile stress for masonry:
fball ⫽ 100 kPa.
The proposed allowable tensile stress is in line with
the UBC codes of practice [12] and the test results dis-
cussed earlier. For allowable compressive strength, fmall,
the UBC gives a value of 0.16 f’m for masonry walls.
The brick arches in a jack arch system are, however,
less slender than masonry walls and due to the loading
situation and the geometry of the arch, an increase in
compressive stress (increase in load) will cause an
increase in the stability of the arch. For this reason,
fmall = 0.2 f’m is proposed for jack-arch construction.
Further work will be necessary to establish a more rep-
resentative relation between fmall and f’m.
6.2. Dimensions and layout of slabs
Geometry and dimensions of the slab are governed by
the architectural layout of the building. It is, however, a
useful common practice to limit the span of the main
beams to 6.0 m. For larger floor areas, deep or stiff sup-
port beams will be necessary to reduce the effective span
of the longitudinal dimension of the slab. In the proposed
two-way system, if the transverse beams are to be effec-
tive in carrying the load, i.e. the slab to remain as a two-
way system, it will be necessary to limit the transverse
dimension of the slab to twice the span of the main
beam. This can be achieved by providing support beams.
To validate the above recommendations, stress analyses
were made on slabs of larger dimensions. It was found
that, to limit the stresses in brick arches and the deflec-
tion of the slabs to the allowable limits, steel beams of
1647
uncommon sizes are required, rendering a very expens-
ive slab.
The number of main beams required for a jack arch
slab will be determined by considering the transverse
dimension of the slab and the width of brick arches.
Within the limits discussed later, a designer may select
an appropriate width of arch and determine the number
of required main beams.
The span of main beams and the level of loading dic-
tate the number of required transverse beams. One of the
objectives of providing transverse beams is to divide the
long brick arches into a number of smaller brick panels.
The maximum distance between the transverse beams
should preferably be fixed as twice the width of the arch.
This would give brick panels of a maximum length to
width ratio of 2.0. The number of required transverse
beams and their section modulus, as design parameters,
will depend on the level of horizontal and vertical load-
ing.
6.3. Design of reference slabs (design table)
Over 350 individual rectangular slabs of different
dimensions, ranging from 3.0 × 3.2 m to 6.0 × 12.0 m
and different steel configurations were selected as refer-
ence slabs. Each slab was then designed with other
design parameters ((iii) to (vi)) having reference values
or conditions. These include a non-yielding support for
the main beams (a = 1.0), a width of brick arch equal
to 80 cm with a rise of 5 cm (b = 1.0), an equivalent
vertical load of W = 10.0 kN / m2 (w = 1.0), a brickwork
elastic modulus of Em = 2.5 MPa (⑀ = 1.0) and an allow-
able compressive stress for brickwork of fmall = 1.0
MPa (l = 1.0). In the above, a, b, w, ⑀ and l are penalty
factors, values of which are unity for design parameters
with reference values. For design parameters having
values other than those specified above, these factors
assume different values as will be discussed later. Also
in all analyses and designs, the allowable stress for steel
is considered as fsall = 144.0 MPa and the brickwork
Poisson’s ratio is assumed as n = 0.25.
To design the slabs, finite element linear stress analy-
ses of the slabs were carried out using the general-pur-
pose, SAP-90 program. Beam elements were used to
model slab beams and shell elements were utilized to
model the brick arches. The number of beam and shell
elements used in each model varied according to the slab
size and steel configuration. In some models in excess
of 1000 shell elements were used to model the brick
arches. The stress contours plotted for typical one-way
and two-way slabs are shown in Fig. 10.
For each slab, the required section modulus, Sn and
moment of inertia, In of the main and transverse beams
were thus determined using the allowable stress limits
for steel and brick arches and deflection limits (discussed
later) as controlling parameters. For an optimum design
1648 M.R. Maheri, H. Rahmani / Engineering Structures 25 (2003) 1639–1654
Fig. 10. Typical stress results for (a) a one-way and (b) a two-way
jack arch slab showing the transverse bending stresses around axis
parallel to main beams in the brick arches.
of the main steel beams and in line with design pro-
cedures for RC slabs, the jack arch slab is divided into
three strips: a central strip and two side strips. As in any,
simply supported, plate-bending system, the maximum
stresses will normally be in the central part of the slab.
By dividing the main beams into ‘central beams’ and
‘side beams’, it will be possible to use smaller steel sec-
tions for the side beams. Unlike the RC slab, this
division cannot be made on a fixed length and, therefore,
the division is made on the number of main beams. It
should be noted that, if slab beams span over two or
more slab panels, the negative moments in side beams
become critical. In this case, all main beams should be
of the same size as the central beams.
The results of the design of each reference slab in the
form of the evaluated section modulus, Sn and moment
of inertia, In of the steel beams are compiled in a table
referred to as a ‘design table’. A typical section of the
design table is shown in Table 2. The complete design
table is presented elsewhere [6]. For every slab size, dif-
ferent steel grid configurations are presented in the table
which include both the one-way and two-way systems.
All the given configurations will be suitable for a design
coefficient of Cs = 1.0, based on vertical gravity and
seismic loads only. The required moments of inertia of
the main and transverse beams, Ireq, will be determined
from the following equation:
Ireq ⫽ CsIn (5)
where
Cs ⫽ abwel (6)
In Eq. (5), In, is the minimum moments of inertia of the
main and transverse beams, given in the design table and
a, b, w, ⑀ and l are the factors discussed in the next
section. The actual design for every steel configuration
is carried out by designer using Ireq. Design coefficient,
Cs, will be applied to both the main and transverse
beams.
In earthquake-prone areas, the slab may undergo hori-
zontal in-plane shear forces for which it should be con-
trolled. The in-plane shear force may act parallel to the
main beams or perpendicular to the main beams. The
weakest direction of the slab for this loading is the direc-
tion parallel to the main beams. In another set of analy-
ses, for each of the slabs given in the design table, the
finite element model was fixed at one side (parallel to the
main beams), and shear force was applied, distributed
between the beam nodes, at the other side. The
maximum stress developed in the brick arches and the
flexural stress in weaker, transverse beams, were used
as parameters for determining the in-plane, shear
capacity of the slab. The in-plane shear strengths of all
steel grid configurations for every slab size were thus
calculated and are presented in the design table. In this
way, the choice of a particular configuration for a given
slab size will depend on two parameters, namely the
level of in-plane shear force on the slab and the economy
of steel configuration. A designer will choose the cheap-
est steel configuration, which is capable of resisting the
given in-plane shear force. It should be noted that the
maximum in-plane shear capacity of the steel configur-
ation is calculated using the Iyy for the transverse beams.
6.4. Parametric evaluation of design parameter
factors
To design a jack arch slab with design parameters
(items iii to vii) having different values to their reference
values, conversion factors are necessary to account for
the effects of the change in the values on the design.
For this purpose a series of parametric analyses were
conducted on 15 different jack arch slabs, covering a
wide range of slab sizes and steel grid configurations in
which the effect of each design parameter on the out-
come of the design was evaluated. The slab dimensions
considered included 3.0 by 3.2, 3.0 by 5.6, 4.5 by 4.8,
4.5 by 8.8, 6.0 by 6.4 and 6.0 by 12.0 m and steel grid
configurations included (a) no transverse beams (one-
way system), (b) one transverse beam and (c) two trans-
verse beams. Other parameters were kept constant
throughout the parametric study when not under study,
with reference values.
 M.R. Maheri, H. Rahmani / Engineering Structures 25 (2003) 1639–1654 1649

Table 2
Typical format of the design table

Slab dimensions Minimum normalized moments of Inertia (In) and the section modulus (Sn) In-plane shear
(m) capacity of slab
(kN)

Main beams Transverse beams

Central beams End beams

No. of Sn (cm3) In (cm4) No. of Sn (cm3) In (cm4) No. of Sn (cm3) In (cm4)

beams beams beams

3.0 × 3.2 1 146 1320 2 78 541 – – –

1 109 869 2 53 318 1 53 318 30
1 78 541 2 53 318 1 109 869
3 78 541 – – – 1 53 318
1 109 869 2 53 318 2 53 318 40
3 78 541 – – – 2 53 318
1 78 541 2 53 318 2 109 869
3.0 × 4.0 2 146 1320 2 78 541 – – – –
2 109 869 2 53 318 1 53 318 40
4 78 541 – - – 1 53 318
2 78 541 2 53 318 1 146 1320
2 84 600 2 53 318 2 53 318 55
4 78 541 – - – 2 53 318
2 78 541 2 53 318 2 78 541

6.4.1. Slab support condition (factor, a)
The jack arch slab may be supported on walls or deep
beams, in which case, the deflection of the slab on the
line of its support will be nil or negligible. The flexible
beams of a framed building may also support the slab.
In this case, the slab will deflect on the support lines
with the supporting beams. This changes the stress level
in the steel beams and the brick arches. All the analyses
leading to the design table were made assuming the for-
mer, unyielding support condition for the main beams
and the latter, flexible support condition for the trans-
verse beams. A factor, a, will therefore be necessary to
account for other forms of support conditions. This fac-
tor will be applied to the required moments of inertia of
the steel beams. To determine the influence of the flexi-
bility of the support beams on the amount of steel
required for the slab, numerical analyses were carried
out on the selected slabs with different support con-
ditions. In each case, the slab was analysed and the
stresses in brick arches and steel beams were extracted
and compared with those of the slabs with reference sup-
port condition. The change in the moments of inertia of
slab beams, required to bring the stresses in steel beams
and brick arches to the level of the reference model, was
then calculated in each case, using trial and error analy-
ses. In Fig. 11, the correction factor, a, indicating the
required change in the moment of inertia of steel sec-
tions, is plotted for slabs of different sizes, steel grid
configurations and support conditions. It can be seen in
this figure that as the size of slab increases, the effect
of support condition on the slab decreases.
6.4.2. Width of brick arches (factor, b)
In the construction of traditional jack arch slabs, the
width of arch varies from 80 cm to 1.0 m. Wider arches
require a higher rise and, therefore, a thicker slab and
shorter arches mean extra steel beams. The rise of arch
is another important parameter affecting the performance
of the slab. To determine the optimum rise of arch,
numerical models of one-way jack arch slabs were ana-
lysed. They had standard 80 cm wide arches, with rises
of 3 cm, 5 cm, 7 cm, and 10 cm and were analysed
under a unit vertical load and the maximum compressive
stresses in the brick arches were determined. It was
found that the stresses in brick arches increase rapidly
for width to rise ratios higher than 16, corresponding to
a rise of 5 cm for an 80 cm wide arch. Numerical analy-
ses carried out on slabs having different arch widths
showed similar optimum width to rise ratio of 16. It is,
therefore, recommended that when geometry of the slab
dictates using shorter arches, the rise of arch to be taken
as 5 cm and when a wider arch (up to 100 cm) becomes
necessary, the rise of arch should correspond to the
width to a rise ratio of 16.
The reference width of arch used for design table
analyses is 80 cm. When a wider arch is used, a factor,
b, should be applied to the supporting steel beams to
take into account the increased stresses in the brick
1650 M.R. Maheri, H. Rahmani / Engineering Structures 25 (2003) 1639–1654
Fig. 11. Factor for slab support condition (a). 1, rigid support for main beams and flexible support for transverse beams; 2, rigid support for
main beams and transverse beams; 3, flexible support for main beams and transverse beams; 4, flexible support for main beams and rigid support
for transverse beams.
arches. The width of arch factor, b, is determined from
the curves shown in Fig. 12. In this figure, b, is a factor
which indicates the increase in the moment of inertia of
the main and transverse beam sections required to keep
the stresses in brick arches and steel grid at the same
level as the 80 cm wide arch.
6.4.3. Loading, W (factor, w)
Loading is a design parameter calculated by the
designer. The design table is based on an equivalent
static, vertical load of 10.0 kN/m2. A factor is, therefore,
necessary to account for variations in the load intensity.
The selected slabs were analysed with different loads of
between 5.0 and 20.0 kN/m2. For every slab size and
steel configuration and for each loading, the steel sec-
tions required to bring the level of stresses in steel and
brick arches to the level of stresses for the 10.0 kN/m2
load, were calculated. These sections were then normal-
ised to the steel section required for the load of 10.0
kN/m2. The normalised results, corresponding to a load
factor, w, are plotted against the load intensity, W, in
Fig. 13. As is evident in this figure, a near linear relation
exists between loading and the required steel sections.
This figure also indicates that the relation between the
load factor, w, and the load intensity, W, is effectively
the same for all slab sizes and steel-grid configurations.
6.4.4. Elastic modulus of brickwork, Em (factor, ⑀)
Similar stress analyses to those mentioned above were
carried out on the selected slabs, this time changing the
variable parameter to elastic modulus of brickwork.
Values between 2.5 and 20.0 GPa were used for Em in
different analyses. The value of elastic modulus used as
a basis for comparison was taken as Em = 2.5 GPa which
corresponds to the elastic modulus of the lightweight,
perforated brick-lime mortar prism previously tested.
The steel sections required to bring the maximum stress
in brick arches to the level of the reference slabs (Em
= 2.5 GPa) were then normalised to the steel sections of
the reference slabs. The normalized values are equivalent
to a factor, ⑀, as shown plotted against the Em values in
Fig. 14. This figure shows that the factor for elastic
modulus, ⑀, is also independent of slab size and steel
configuration and is directly proportional to Em.
6.4.5. Allowable stress of brickwork, fmall (factor, l)
The allowable compressive stress of brickwork used
to evaluate the design table was assumed as 1.0 MPa
(fmall = 0.2 f’m). For allowable stresses, fmal ⫽ 1.0
MPa, another factor, l, will be used. The values of this
correction factor are shown in Fig. 15. Fig. 15 has simi-
larly been extracted from analyses in which steel sec-
tions for different values of fmall were calculated.
M.R. Maheri, H. Rahmani / Engineering Structures 25 (2003) 1639–1654 1651

Fig. 12. Factor for width of brick arch (b).

Fig. 13. Factor for design load (w).

1652 M.R. Maheri, H. Rahmani / Engineering Structures 25 (2003) 1639–1654

Fig. 14. Factor for elastic modulus of brickwork (⑀).

Fig. 15. Factor for allowable stress of brickwork (l).

 M.R. Maheri, H. Rahmani / Engineering Structures 25 (2003) 1639–1654
7. Control of deflection
Control of deflection is an important aspect of a struc-
tural design procedure. This is particularly true for the
jack arch slabs as they are generally more flexible than
the conventional concrete slabs. Some codes of practice
suggest a maximum allowable out-of-plane deflection of
⌬max = l / 360. This limit has been used for control of
deflections in jack arch slab design. For every slab size
and steel configuration presented in the design table, the
maximum out-of-plane deflection of the slab was
determined from the numerical analyses. This deflection
was in turn compared with the maximum allowable
deflection and the necessary changes in the design para-
meters; a, b, ⑀ and l, required to reduce the deflection
to the allowable limit and keep the stresses in brick
arches and steel beams within their specified allowable
stresses, were calculated. A deflection parameter, g, was
then calculated as:
g ⫽ abelⱖgmin
This process was repeated for all the slabs considered.
It was noted that the variation in deflection control para-
meter for different slab sizes and steel configurations
was small, but it changed markedly with the allowable
stress for steel and the width of brick arches. The
maximum values of deflection control parameter evalu-
ated for different slab types were, therefore, selected as
the controlling limits (gmin). These are presented in
Table 3.
8. Conclusions
A type of engineered jack arch slab, in the form of a
two-way action, steel-grid system was introduced in this
paper. Experimental and numerical studies of full size,
one way and two-way jack arch systems show the effec-
tiveness of the proposed system. Conclusions drawn
from the material presented in this paper may be sum-
marised as follows:
Table 3
Minimum values of g (= ab⑀l) for control of deflection in jack arch
slabs
Allowable stress of steel, fsall, Deflection control parameter,
(MPa) (1) gmin
Width of arch (cm)
80 (2) 90 (3) 100 (4)
100 1.2 1.46 1.73
144 0.95 1.16 1.37
200–240 0.90 0.9 0.9
1653
1. The proposed steel-grid, two-way jack arch system
has none of the shortcomings of the traditional one-
way system. It provides a more homogeneous slab
capable of diaphragm action and is able to transfer
gravity and seismic loads. In the proposed system, the
in-plane and out-of-plane loads are both carried,
mainly, by the steel grid. This reduces the role of the
low strength, brittle brick arches to small in-fill
panels.
2. The use of lightweight perforated brick units together
with clay-gypsum mortar greatly reduces the weight
of the slab and enhances the ductility and flexibility of
the brickwork. All these factors improve the seismic
performance of the slab.
3. The static tests showed that the brickwork made of
lightweight bricks and clay-gypsum mortar has almost
a linear behaviour up to failure. Considering the lin-
ear-elastic behaviour of steel beams and the hinged
connection between the brick arches and steel beams,
linear, elastic analysis of the slab system is justified.
(7)
This also indicates the applicability of the ASD
method for designing this type of masonry slab.
4. Dynamic tests carried out on full scale one-way and
two-way systems showed the improved dynamic
behaviour of the two-way system. An increased stiff-
ness and damping ratio was observed in the two-way
slab. Dynamic test results were also used to create
representing numerical models for the slabs.
5. The advantages of the proposed two-way system,
regarding performance and cost, compared with those
of the one-way system, can be deduced from their
respective design. It is also concluded that an engine-
ered design of the jack arch slab, as presented in this
article, will pave the way for this popular method of
flooring to be considered as an engineered construc-
tion and a viable alternative to other forms of flooring.
Acknowledgements
The author wishes to acknowledge the financial sup-
port provided by the International Institute of Earthquake
Engineering and Seismology (IIEES), under the grant
No. ZL-4744 and the Iranian National Research Council
for the grant No. NRCI-ZL-479 of National Research
Council Projects. Thanks are also due to Mr. Jafar Fal-
lahi, Managing Director of the Naghshe-Rostam flour
factory. Mr. A. Khoddam-Mohammadi and Mr. A.
Imanipour for their useful contributions to this
research program.
References
[1] Blevins RD. Formulas for natural frequency and mode shapes.
NY: Van Nostrand Reinhold Company, 1979.
1654 M.R. Maheri, H. Rahmani / Engineering Structures 25 (2003) 1639–1654

[2] Iranian Code for Seismic Resistant Design of Buildings, Standard [8] Moinfar AA. Seismic activities and conditions of rural houses in
2800. Building and Housing Research Centre, Publication No. the countries of the region. In: Proc CENTO Conf on Earthq
82. 1988, (in Farsi). Hazard Mitigation, Turkey. 1968.
[3] Maheri MR. Engineering aspects of the Manjil, Iran earthquake [9] Moroni MO, Astroza M, Gomez J, Guzman R. Establishing Rw
of 20 June 1990, Report published by EEFIT (Earthquake Engin- and Cd factors for confined masonry buildings. J Struct Engineer-
eering Field Investigation Team, Society for Earthquake and Civil ing, ASCE 1996;122(10):1208–15.
Engineering Dynamics), UK, 1980. [10] Rahmani H. The basis for static and seismic design of two-way
[4] Maheri MR. Manjil, Iran earthquake of June 1990, some aspects jack arch slabs. MSc thesis, Shiraz University, Iran, 2001 (in
of structural response. J of Structural Engineering Review Farsi).
1992;4(1):1–16. [11] Uang C. Establishing R (or Rw) and Cd factors for building seis-
[5] Maheri MR, Imanipour A. Seismic evaluation of a proposed two- mic provisions. J of Struct Engineering, ASCE
way jack arch slab. In: Proceedings of the 3rd International Con- 1991;117(1):19–28.
ference on Earthquake Engineering and Seismology, Vol. III, [12] Uniform Building Code. International Conference of Building
Tehran, Iran. 1999. Officials, California, 1997.
[6] Maheri MR. The gravity and seismic design of jack arch slabs,
Iranian National Research Council Report No. NRCI-ZL-479,
2001, (in Farsi).