Transcript Download
Chapter 1 : Introduction Introduction: Al-Nour building is 8 stories reinforced concrete building ,located in Nablus city and used as residential building. The first story is used as garages with plan area of 700 m^2 and the above 7 stories used as residential apartment (two apartments per floor) with plan area of 490 m^2 due to the setback. The soil bearing capacity = 400 KN/m2 Introduction : The Following slides shows : 1. columns centers plan. 2. 3D model of the building. Structural System : The structural system used is on way ribbed slab with load path in x-direction. Materials: - Concrete : - f’c= 320 kg/cm²( 32 MPa) For columns. - f’c= 240 kg/cm²( 24 MPa) for others. - The concrete unit weight = 25 (KN/m3). - Reinforcing Steel: The yield strength of steel is equal to 4200 Kg/cm2 (420 MPa). -Others : Unit weight Material Reinforced concrete Plain concrete Sand Aggregate Y-tong Blocks Polystyrene Masonry stone Light weight block Tile (KN/m3) 25 23 18 17 5 12 0.3 27 6 26 Design loads : - Dead loads in addition to slab own weight : 1. Superimposed dead load = 4.5 KN/m2 2. Partition load = 1 KN/m2 . 3. Masonry wall weight = 21.22 KN/m. - Live load = 2 KN/m2 . -Water tanks load = 1.14 KN/m2 - Seismic loads : shown later. Design codes and load combinations: - The following are the design codes used : 1. ACI – code 2008 . 2. IBC 2009 . 3. ASCE for design loads. The following are the load combinations used : 1. Wu = 1.4DL. 2. Wu = 1.2DL + 1.6LL . 3. Wu = 1.2DL + LL ± E. 4. Wu = 0.9DL ± E • Chapter 2 : Preliminary Design Preliminary design We performed a preliminary design for all structural elements conceptually. The story height is 3.12 m. The following are the preliminary dimensions : Slab : - depth = 25 cm (based on deflection criteria) . - web width = 12 cm. - slab own weight = 4.55KN/m². - Ultimate load = 14.06KN/m². Preliminary Design Beams : Since the structural system is one way ribbed slab (load path in x-direction) we have : 1. Main beams in y-direction : 30x60 cm. 2. Secondary beams in x-direction : 40x25 cm. Columns : Take a sample columns ( B3) : Area carried by column = 28 m2 Ultimate slab load = 14.06KN/m² Pu = 3769.6 KN. Ag = 2326.9 cm2. → Use columns of 40x60cm2. Preliminary design and checks Footing : we performed an preliminary design for footing of the previous column as single footing. with dimensions of 2.9x2.7x0.7 m. Chapter 3 : Static Design Static design : Final dimensions : 1. frame sections : Member Depth(cm) Width(cm) Col. 80 40 Main interior beams 70 40 Main exterior beams 75 30 Secondary beams 25 40 Tie beams 50 30 Static Design: The new web width (bw) = 15 cm. Area sections dimensions : Area section name Thickness (cm) Actual Slab 25 Equivalent Slab thickness 19.45 (in SAP model) Shear wall 30 (initially) The story height = 3.5 m Static design: Verification Of SAP model: - We perform the verification for SAP models( one and eight stories and it was OK) the following is verification for eight stories : - 1. Compatibility satisfied : Static Design 2.Equilibrium Satisfied : Load type Hand results(KN) SAP results (KN) Error % Dead load 76262.44 76273.132 0.01 Live load 8407.24 8407.24 0 3.Stress -Strain relationship satisfied: Taking beam C in second story (taking 8 m span) : Load` M-ve (left)(KN.m) M+ve (KN.m) M-ve(right) (KN.m) Total moment (KN.m) SAP Result 325.13 208.63 371.41 556.9 1D Result 0 341.40 433.61 558.21 Error 2.3% Static Design : Slab design : 1. Check slab deflection : So, ∆dead = 2.92 mm. ∆Live = 0.78mm. Δ long term = 7.16mm. The allowable deflection = 4000 /240 = 16.67 mm. So the slab deflection = 7.16mm < allowable long term def. OK. 2. Design for shear : The rib shear strength = 23.2KN. The max shear = 36.75 KN/m. shear per rib = 0.55*36.75 = 20.2 KN. So 23.2 ≥ 20.2 OK So the slab is Ok for shear. Static Design : 3. Design for bending moment : The moments are read from SAP using section cut : Point location/term Moment(KN.m) As(mm2) Bars A1 6.3 113 2 Φ 12 A1- B1 8.6 113 2 Φ 10 B1 10.48 125 2 Φ 12 B1- C1 7.25 113 2 Φ 10 C1 10.29 122 2 Φ 12 C1 – D1 8.1 113 2 Φ 10 D1 9 113 2 Φ 12 D1 – E1 8.1 113 2 Φ 10 E1 13.55 163.3 2 Φ 12 Static Design : Design of beams in y-direction : Taking a sample beam (beam B in the first floor) : - The beam section dimensions are : - Total depth (h) = 700 mm. - The effective depth (d) = 650 mm. -Beam width (bw) = 400 mm. - min reinforcement ratio = 0.0033. - As min = ρbd = 0.0033*400*650 = 858 mm2 - φVc = 159.1 KN. - (Av/s)min = 0.333. Static Design : - Design information : point As(mm) As min (Av/s) (Av/s) min PI(m) Length(m) B1 700 858 0.333 0.333 0.6 2 B1-2 854 858 0.333 0.333 -- 5.9 B2(L) 1676 858 0.333 0.333 1.3 B2(R) 1676 858 0.55 0.333 B2-3 1044 858 0.333 B3(L) 1581 858 B3(R) 1581 B3-4 B4 bars 5Φ16 stirrups 1Φ8 @30 cm 5Φ16 1Φ8 @30 cm 4.8 6φ20 1Φ8 @30 cm 1.5 4.8 6φ20 1Φ8 @15 cm 0.333 _ 7.9 5Φ16 1Φ8 @30 cm 0.48 0.333 1.5 4.8 6φ20 1Φ8 @20 cm 858 0.333 0.333 1.3 4.8 6φ20 1Φ8 @30 cm 772 858 0.333 0.333 _ 5.9 854 858 0.333 0.333 1 2.3 5Φ16 5Φ16 1Φ8 @30 cm 1Φ8 @30 cm Static Design : Design of secondary beams: Total depth(H) = 25cm.(hidden beam) d= 21cm (cover =4cm) Width = 40cm. The following are the values of min reinforcement: (As) min = 0.0033*b*d=0.0033*400*210= 277.2 mm (3Φ12). Vc = 0.75*0.167**400*210/1000= 68.58KN. Static Design : Design information : Point As(mm) As min (mm) (Av/s) (Av/s)min PI(m) bars stirrups A4 469 277.2 0.333 0.333 0.88 5Φ12 1@10cm A4-B4 277 277.2 0.333 0.333 0.88 3Φ12 1@10cm B4 429 277.2 0.333 0.333 0.88 4Φ12 1@10cm B4-C4 259 277.2 0.333 0.333 0.88 3Φ12 1@10cm C4 424 277.2 0.333 0.333 0.88 4Φ12 1@10cm C4-D4 260 277.2 0.333 0.333 0.88 3Φ12 1@10cm D4 425 277.2 0.333 0.333 0.88 4Φ12 1@10cm D4-E4 265 277.2 0.333 0.333 0.88 3Φ12 1@10cm E4 432 277.2 0.333 0.333 0.88 4Φ12 1@10cm E4-F4 147 277.2 0.333 0.333 0.88 3Φ12 1@10cm F4 432 277.2 0.333 0.333 0.88 4Φ12 1@10cm Design of columns: Column grouping, Area of steel& stirrups: column Distributio group n of steel Floor no. Columns As(mm2) All floors except No.8 All Columns 3200 C1 D2 & G2 3766 C2 A2, B2, C2, H2, I2 & J2 4774 C3 Floor No.8 Stirrups spacing (mm) 16φ16 3φ10 @250 mm 20φ16 3φ10 @300 mm 16φ20 3φ10 @300 mm Manual design Check slenderness ratio for corner column C.A-1 From the graph K = 3.5 𝐾𝐿𝑢 3.5x2.8 = = 40.83 >22 ⟹Column is long. rx 0.3x0.8 𝐾𝐿𝑢 ry = 3.5x2.8 0.3x0.4 = 81.66 >22 ⟹Column is long. Pu=3034.75KN MY = 11.02 KN.m(maximum value) MX = 153.1 KN.m( maximum value) Mc = ns*M2 = 1.67(153.1) = 255 KN.m From the interaction diagram: ≤1% use minimum steel ratio use =1%. As =0.01xAg =0.01x40x80 =3200mm2 Same as SAP value. Tie beam design Minimum area of steel = 0.0033*b*d =436 mm2. Use 4Ф12mm bottom steel. Use 4Ф12mm top steel. Shear design : Vu at distance (d = 44cm) = 16.35KN, ФVc = 80.83KN. Use 1Ф8 mm@200mm. Footing design Single footing: Is one of the most economical types of footing and is used when columns are spaced at relatively long distances . Bearing capacity of the soil=400 KN/m2. Footing grouping Group Name Columns Service load(KN) F1 A1, B1,C1,D1,E1,F1,G1,H1,I1,J1 305.6 Ultimate load (KN) 375.7 F2 A2, J2,A4 B4,C4,D4,G4,H4,I4,J4, 2329.95 2878.51 F3 B2,C2, D2,G2,H2,I2,A3,B3,C3,D3,G3,H3, I3,J3 E4 & F4 3667.66 4599.75 2218.20 2741.80 Combined Footing grouping according to column’s ultimate load. footing details Group Steel Area of distribution/ Dimensions Depth footing m’ (m) (m) (m2) (Both directions) Area of shrinkage steel (mm2) in each direction Distribution F1 0.96 1.2x0.8 0.3 4 Ø 14mm no No F2 6.21 2.7x2.3 0.55 5 Ø 18mm 𝟓𝟖𝟓 1 Ø 14@300mm F3 9.57 3.3x2.9 0.75 6 Ø 18mm 𝟔𝟕𝟓 1 Ø 14@200mm Combined 13.11 5.7x2.3 0.55 1Ø25 /200mm 778.2 1 Ø 14@200mm Design of Stairs hmin = 𝑙 20 = 0.187m ⇒ Use h = 0.20m. Own Weight=0.2x25=5KN/m2. Live load = 5KN/m2. Superimposed loads =2.14 KN/m2 Superimposed loads of extra of stairs=1.76 KN/m2 Wu=1.2(5+3.9) +1.6(5) =18.68KN/m2. Ø𝑉𝑐 = 110.23KN > 𝑉𝑢 = 20.82𝐾𝑁 Verification of SAP model: Compatibility: “Compatibility Satisfied” Cont. Equilibrium: Load type Dead load Live load Hand results(KN) SAP results(KN) 293.04 181.24 Error % 292.82 181.12 0.08 0.07 “Equilibrium Satisfied” Stress-Strain Relationships: Load 3D SAP Result 1D Result Error Mve(left) (KN.m) M+ve (KN.m) M-ve(right) (KN.m) 22.1 11.9 19.46 21.72 10.86 21.72 Total moment( 𝐖𝐥𝟐 𝟖 (KN.m) 32.68 32.58 0.3% “Stress–strain relationship satisfied” M = 22.1 KN. m/m 𝐴𝑠 𝑚𝑖𝑛 = 𝜌𝑠ℎ𝑟𝑖𝑛𝑘𝑎𝑔𝑒 𝑏ℎ = 360𝑚𝑚2 > 𝐴𝑠 𝜌 = 0.00184 𝐴𝑠 = 331𝑚𝑚2 /m. ⇒ 𝑢𝑠𝑒 1∅12/250𝑚𝑚 𝑖𝑛 𝑎𝑙𝑙 𝑑𝑖𝑟𝑒𝑐𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛𝑠. ) Chapter 4 : Dynamic Design Dynamic Design: Methods for dynamic analysis: 1. Equivalent static method. 2. Time history method. 3. Response spectrum analysis. Input parameters in dynamic analysis : - Importance factor (I) = 1 . - Peak ground acceleration (PGA) = 0.2g . - Area mass = 0.458 ton/m2 - Soil class = Class B. - Spectral accelerations : Ss = 0.5 . S1 = 0.2 . - response modification factor R = 3 in x-direction. R = 4.5 in y-direction. Dynamic Design : Modal information : - For eight stories before enlarging beams in x-direction : Mode No. Direction Period (sec.) MMPR % 1 X 2.55 77 2 RZ(Torsion) 1.707 67 4 y 0.972 65 - Enlarge the beams 2 &4 to 30x70 (width*depth) Dynamic Design: - For eight stories after enlarging beams in x-direction : Mode No. Direction Period (sec.) MMPR % 1 X 1.58 80 2 RZ(Torsion) 1.5 64 3 Y 0.795 65.4 4 X 0.497 11 - Comparison with manual results : Mode direction SAP result(sec) Manual result(sec) Error % x- direction 1.58 1.45 8% y- direction 0.795 0.73 8% Dynamic Design : Response spectrum analysis : We will perform the dynamic design using response spectrum method: Define two response spectrum load cases one in x-direction and the another in y-direction : - For response-x: * Scale factor = 3.27. *Scale factor = 0.654. - For response-y: * Scale factor = 2.18. *Scale factor = 0.981. Perform design using envelope combination and check whether static or dynamic combination controls . Dynamic Design : Slab design : The comparison is performed. Static design controls Dynamic Design : Design of beams in y-direction : - Reinforcement from envelope combination: - Reinforcement from static combination: Static design Controls Dynamic Design : Design of beams in X-direction : - Reinforcement from envelope combination is considered since the dimensions are increased: Dynamic design Controls Dynamic Design : Design of columns : Three representative columns are selected : 1. Interior column B3. 2. Edge column B2. 3. Corner column A4 . The comparison is performed and static design controls for all columns. The following table shows the comparison for column B3 : Dynamic Design : The following table shows the comparison for column B3 (M3, V2 ): floor/ter m Envelope combination Static combination moment shear axial As(mm2) moment shear axial As(mm2) 1 68.04 31.34 4553.25 3200 5.54 1.678 4553.3 3200 2 45.78 22.15 3982.31 3200 6.97 3.7 3982.2 3200 3 49.81 22.82 3409.11 3200 4.78 2.73 3409.1 3200 4 47.33 20.07 2841.94 3200 4.62 2.55 2841.9 3200 5 44.51 18.49 2277.7 3200 3.78 2.12 1716.5 3200 6 42.58 16.78 1716.51 3200 3.71 2 1699.8 3200 7 39.19 13.98 1156.2 3200 2.88 1.36 1156.2 3200 8 26.75 8 600.378 3200 6.82 3.18 603.8 3200 Static design OK for columns. Chapter 5 : Structural Modeling Of One Way Ribbed Slab Structural Modeling Of One Way Ribbed Slabs The ribbed slabs can be represented by one of the following ways : 1. Equivalent stiffness method : find the equivalent thickness of a solid slab that can achieve the same rib stiffness. 2. Represent it as separate ribs (T-section). 1. Represent the ribs by rectangular ribs and flange. The main objective is to prove that three models give the nearly the same results. Structural Modeling Of One Way Ribbed Slabs Model 1 : Equivalent stiffness method : - Equivalent slab thickness (t) = 19.45 cm. - I T-sec = I rec →( 0.55*h3eq /12) = 3.371*10-4 h3eq = 19.45 cm. γeq = 23.87 KN/m^3 . . . . .. .to achieve the same weight. - Stiffness modifiers : M11 = 0.35 . M22 = 0.0244 M1-2 = 0.0244. Structural Modeling Of One Way Ribbed Slabs Model 2 : Representation as separate ribs : - Stiffness modifiers : I 3-3 = 0.35 . I 2-2 = 0.35 . Torsional constant(J)= 0.35 . - The loads are inserted as line Loads on ribs. - Substitute the weight of blocks. Structural Modeling Of One Way Ribbed Slabs Model 3 : the slab is represented as rectangular ribs and flange. 1. The rectangle section should satisfy The actual T-section. 2. Stiffness modifiers : I 3-3 = 0.6 . I2-2 = 0.6 . J = 0.52 . 3. Weight modifier = 0.68 . Flange Modifiers : - M11 = 0.0001 .(almost zero). - M 22 = 0.25 . - M 1-2 = 0.0001(almost zero). → we have to substitute the weight of blocks. 55 cm 8 cm 25 cm 15 cm Structural Modeling Of One Way Ribbed Slabs All the previous models are verified according to manual solution. Static analysis is performed for the three models and we read the moment and shear at point C3 in span C3-4 for beam C in the second floor : Moment (KN.m) Shear (KN) (mm2) ( (mm2/mm) SAP Model 1 Results 371.41 268.63 1615 0.545 SAP Model 2 Results 377.87 286.43 1645.1 0.634 SAP Model 3 Results 373.56 274.13 1625 0.573 load Structural Modeling Of One Way Ribbed Slabs also dynamic analysis and design performed for the three models and the following are the modal information : Model 1 : Mode Direction Period MMPR Mode 1 x-direction 1.581 80 Mode 2 Torsion(Rz) 1.503 64 Mode 3 y- direction 0.796 65.4 Model 2 : Direction Period MMPR Mode 1 x-direction 1.622 77.0 Mode 2 Torsion(Rz) 1.555 79.5 Mode 3 y- direction 0.924 70.9 Direction Period MMPR Mode 1 x-direction 1.542 80.3 Mode 2 Mode 3 Torsion(Rz) y- direction 1.456 0.769 65.5 65.7 Mode Model 3 : Mode Structural Modeling Of One Way Ribbed Slabs Also the same span taken in the beam C and the following are the values of moment and shear from envelope combination : Model 1 : Point Envelope combination moment shear As(mm2) C2 C2-C3 C3 316.0 208.6 371.1 1359.4 1053 1613 243.7 16.3 268.5 Av/s (mm2/mm) 0.422 0 0.545 Model 2 : Point Envelope combination moment shear As(mm2) C2 C2-C3 C3 329.7 211.0 377.9 1422 899.1 1645 Point Envelope combination moment shear As(mm2) C2 C2-C3 C3 317.6 209.1 373.6 1367 891.3 1625 Model3: 259.6 17.7 286.4 243.0 16.2 274.1 Av/s (mm2/mm) 0.5 0 0.634 Av/s (mm2/mm) 0.418 0 0.573 Structural Modeling Of One Way Ribbed Slabs Final conclusion : from the previous data shown in tables we note that all the three models give near results. So, we can represent the slab model by any of the previous models but perform the changes in loads assignment and stiffness modifiers.