Design and Analysis of Tall

Reinforced Concrete Buildings to

Eurocodes
School of Construction and Surveying,
Glasgow Caledonian University

Research Khan Iskandarov, BSc (Hons) Construction Management;

Developer: Year 4, School of Construction and Built Environment,
Glasgow Caledonian University,S1102552,
[email protected]

Supervisor:

Moderator:

i
Declaration of Originality

Name: Khan Iskandarov

Title of Project: Design and Analysis of Tall Reinforced Concrete Buildings to

Eurocodes

I confirm that this work is affirmed to be original; all the research conducted and
authored is my individual effort. Material and data taken from elsewhere is
acknowledged and all sources have been appropriately referenced.

Signature

KHAN ISKANDAROV

14/08/2015

ii
Contents
CHAPTER 1 : Introduction .......................................................................................................... 1
1.1 Overview ............................................................................................................................. 1
1.2 Aim ...................................................................................................................................... 4
1.3 Objectives............................................................................................................................ 4
CHAPTER 2 : Literature Review .................................................................................................. 6
2.1 Design Philosophies ............................................................................................................ 6
2.1.1 Introduction ................................................................................................................. 6
2.1.2 (EN 1990) Eurocode 0 Basis of Design. ........................................................................ 7
2.1.3 Reliability ...................................................................................................................... 8
2.1.4 Limit State Design......................................................................................................... 9
2.2 Limit states ........................................................................................................................ 11
2.2.1 Ultimate limit states ................................................................................................... 11
2.2.2 Serviceability limit states ........................................................................................... 11
2.3 Wind Loading .................................................................................................................... 13
2.4 Modal Analysis .................................................................................................................. 21
2.4.1 Introduction ............................................................................................................... 21
2.4.2 Degrees of Freedom ................................................................................................... 22
2.4.3 The Equation of Motion ............................................................................................. 23
2.4.4 Single Degree of Freedom System ............................................................................. 25
2.5 Dynamic Analysis............................................................................................................... 25
2.5.1 Introduction ............................................................................................................... 25
2.5.2 Response of a SDOF to harmonic excitation .............................................................. 26
2.5.3 Seismic loading ........................................................................................................... 28
2.6 Structural Framing Systems .............................................................................................. 33
2.6.1 Frame System ............................................................................................................. 33
2.6.2 Shear-Wall System ..................................................................................................... 34
2.6.3 Shear-Wall and Frame System ................................................................................... 35
2.6.4 Framed Tube System .................................................................................................. 36
2.6.5 Tube-in-tube System .................................................................................................. 37
CHAPTER 3 : Methodology....................................................................................................... 38
3.1 Introduction ...................................................................................................................... 38
3.2 Research strategy .............................................................................................................. 38

iii
 3.3 Structural analysis ............................................................................................................. 39
3.3.1 Permanent actions ..................................................................................................... 40
3.3.2 Variable actions .......................................................................................................... 41
3.3.3 Design Load ................................................................................................................ 41
3.3.4 Reinforced Concrete Slab Design Procedure ............................................................. 42
3.3.5 Reinforced Concrete Beam Design Procedure .................................................... 46
3.3.6 Overview and Design Procedure for Columns .................................................... 51
3.3 Stability Systems ............................................................................................................... 53
3.4 Seismic Action ................................................................................................................... 57
3.5 Piled Foundation Design ............................................................................................. 61
3.3.5 Design for Shear ......................................................................................................... 63
3.3.6 Design for Punching Shear ......................................................................................... 63
3.3.7 The Pile Cap Sizing ...................................................................................................... 64
3.6 Case Study – Three storey building. Eigenvectors and Natural Frequency Calculation
64
3.4 Shear Wall with Opening Design ....................................................................................... 68
CHAPTER 4 : Results and Analysis ............................................................................................ 69
4.1 Seismic Analysis................................................................................................................. 69
4.2 Structural Elements Analysis ............................................................................................. 78
4.2.1 Introduction ............................................................................................................... 78
4.2.2 Slab Analysis ............................................................................................................... 78
4.2.3 Beam Analysis ............................................................................................................ 80
4.2.4 Column Analysis ......................................................................................................... 82

Table of figures
Figure 1-Value of Z min ........................................................................................................................ 13
Figure 2 for parameter definitions. ........................................................................................................ 14
Figure 3-Calculation of h_dis. ............................................................................................................... 15
Figure 4 - Values of Cp,e for walls. ....................................................................................................... 16
Figure 5-Values of Cp,e for monopitch roofs. ...................................................................................... 16
Figure 6 Values of 𝒄𝒑𝒆for duopitch roofs. ........................................................................................... 17
Figure 7-Snow loading zone NO ........................................................................................................... 18
Figure 8 Characteristic 10 minute mean wind velocity, Vb,0 (m/s) ..................................................... 19
Figure 9 Exposure factor, 𝑪𝒆 ................................................................................................................ 20

iv
Figure 10 Exposure correction factor, Ce,t ............................................................................................ 20
Figure 11-SDF structure under free vibration ...................................................................................... 27
Figure 12-Typical accelerogram ........................................................................................................... 28
Figure 14-fluctuation of the force over time ....................................................................................... 28
Figure 15-SDOF system with respect to time ....................................................................................... 30
Figure 16-Newmark B method ............................................................................................................. 32
Figure 17 Frame System ....................................................................................................................... 34
Figure 18 Shear Wall System ................................................................................................................ 35
Figure 19-Frame Tube System ............................................................................................................. 37
Figure 20-Slab Analysis ............................................................................ Error! Bookmark not defined.

v
CHAPTER 1 : Introduction
1.1 Overview

The first time ever that man built a structure in stones was under the reign of pharaoh

Djoser in the ancient Egyptduring third dynasty. The architect who designed the

structure was Imhotep.

Subsequently, in around 2500 B.C. in Egypt, during the fourth dynasty under the

pharaoh Khufu, engineers designed and constructed the great pyramid of Giza or

Cheops of 150 metres high that had remained the tallest structure up to the moment

when cathedral spires were erected in the 14th century. The completion of the pyramid

required the manoeuvring of 2.3 million pieces of stones, each weighing from 2 to 70

tons. The structure is still standing today and virtually unaffected by the multiple

earthquakes that have shaken the area around the Giza plateau over the millennia

(Williams & K., 2007).

However, it’s only from 450 B.C that we have definite proof that mathematics,

sequential procedures and engineering science were applied in design for the first time

by Greek civilisation. As a result a number ofmarvellousstructuresemergedon the

territory of eastern Mediterranean Basin (Region) and some of the best-preserved

structures could be nowadays observed on the Mediterranean Island of Crete. While the

Greeks adopted the design method of large structures from Egyptians their contribution

was the formalisation of design procedures as well as improvement of the building

processes and the quality of finished works (Addis, 2007). The further study of science

in ancient Greece led to the establishment of novel field that is nowadays known as

engineering. Two of the earliest products of engineering that still have wide application

1
in various industries are the compound pulley and the Archimedes’ screw that were

invented by Archimedes in Sicily at around 287-212 B.C. Subsequently,the Romans

significantly advanced in engineering field by implementing new techniques such as the

use of the arch and barrel vault that allowed the construction of structures of greater

span (bridges, aqueducts and etc.). They started manufacturing and exploiting artificial

construction materials such as concrete, brick and iron on a scale never seen before.

The discovery of hydraulic cement through mixing Lime concrete (that in turn was first

used in structures erected during the reign of Minoan Civilisation in Crete back in 2000

B.C.) with fine sandy volcanic ash enabled Romans to build structures in the

environments with excessive water content as well as under water.

The most remarkable concrete structure built by Romans was The Dome of The

Pantheon in Rome completed at A.D 126. The Dome had a span of 144 feet which was

not exceeded until the 19th century. The lowest part of dome was built of concrete

mixed with broken bricks whereas he top of the dome was built of concrete mixed with

lighter aggregates and finished with pumice to reduce the effect of dead load.

As the evidence suggests, Romans are the pioneers in current project management as

they started organising and training workers, developed skills in logistics needed for

managing the vast supply of materials as well as mandated the usage of design

procedures and plans, perspective drawings and elevations during the design stage .

It was not until 1854 that W.B. Wilkinson invented a reinforced concrete floor system

that eventually triggered interests in reinforced concrete use in various applications,

although a Frenchman Joseph-Luis Lambot had had built a concrete rowboat reinforced

with steel wire six years earlier which received a patent only in 1855.

2
After this decisive invention a whole host of other patents were issued for various

inventions such as reinforced tubs, pipes and tanks, flat plates, bridges and stairs in the

period between 1868 and 1881. That ultimately led to the investigation of the

mechanical properties of reinforced concrete in the University of Stuttgart and

subsequently, a method of calculating the strength of reinforced concrete was

formulated by chief building inspector for Prussia Mr Koenen (MacGregor & Wight,

2005).

From the structural perspective,the building is deemed to be tall when the lateral loads

have a tangible impact onthe structural analysis and design of a building, particularly

when those loads result in a sway of a structure. Sway or drift can be defined as the

relative displacement betweena given floor and a one beneath or above it. In fact,the

effects of wind forces become more detrimental with the increase in a building height.

Therefore, a wind resisting system must be incorporated into the design of structural

framework for tall buildings.

Over the last 120 years the world has seen three main types of structures acting as a

skeleton of tall buildings. The first type was widely used in construction of cast iron

buildings throughout 60 years from 1850 to 1910, in which the axial loads of structures

were supported by exterior walls. The buildings of second generation emergedafter the

erection of Home Insurance Building in 1883 in Chicago which followed by the

construction of Woolworth Building in 1913 and Empire State Building in 1931. The

skeleton of those buildings comprised of riveted or welded steel columns and beams

with cinder concrete cover, while the exterior this time was a non-bearing curtain wall.

Finally, the third generation buildingshave been persistently built since the 1960s after

the implementation of tubular system concept in building construction by Fazlur

Khan(Taranath, 2010). The design of tubular system frames involves the positioning of

3
closely spaced columns at the perimeter of building that are interconnected by deep

spandrel beams. The prime function of the tubular frame is to resist the lateral loads,

while the gravity loads are primarily carried by interior elements of the building.

The technological advancement in current architecture has encouraged the engineers to

simulate economical designs of high-rise structures within the office environment.

Nowadays, with an aid of specialised software the buildings that have never been built

before are designed, planned and analysed by structural engineers and the design

implications of each building are known prior to construction. As a result, more

elaborate frame systems are devised by engineers what enables the construction of super

tall buildings. The application of structural software facilitates the challenging

calculations and results in structural cost reductionsdue to the ability to experiment with

different configurations.

1.2 Aim

The principle objective of this dissertation is to gain an insight into the current

practices of design and construction of tall reinforced buildings to Eurocodes and

propose the optimum design of dynamically and seismically stable tall RC building.

1.3 Objectives

 Understand LSD Philosophies and Eurocodes.

 Undertake a critical review of current practices involved in the design process of

structural elements.

 Analyse and design all structural elements that constitute the proposed tall RC

building manually (hand calculations).

4
 Conduct dynamic and seismic analysis of the proposed tall RC building.

 Investigate case studies of tall RC buildings.

 Short overview ofthe ANSYS softwarewith subsequent acquisition of the

software data on dynamic and seismic stability of the proposed tall RC building.

 Compare software data with results obtained through hand calculations.

5
CHAPTER 2 : Literature Review

2.1 Design Philosophies

2.1.1 Introduction

The success of building design is contingent on a number of parameters. However, there

are set amount of objectives that engineers must achieve when designing a building

which throughout its projected existence:

1. Will have an adequate margin of safety against collapse while being occupied

2. Fulfil its intended function while in use

3. Adequately robust such that the destruction incurred by a building corresponds to

force that caused it

4. Inexpensive to build

5. Inexpensive to maintain

As mentioned previously, the first structures were built based on intuition and

observations made through trial and error. Later, the empirical rules had been

established and design of structures rested on them. As a result the structural failures

had lessened and a concept of margin of safety against collapse was presented. At the

end of 19th century the emergence of new materials in conjunction with the progress in

mathematical modelling techniques triggered the creation of design philosophy where

the permissible stress design technique was introduced. Subsequently, throughout the

20th century the further two philosophies were put forward known as limit state design

and load factor design.

6
2.1.2 (EN 1990) Eurocode0Basis of Design.

Eurocode 0 imposes obligations on construction workers with regards to design,

construction and maintenance of structures that could be relied on by occupants.

Itstipulates that buildings must support their own self-weights, the actions imposed on

by occupants, plus all the expected actionsthat might potentially affect structures

externally (winds, earthquakes, explosions and etc.). The buildings that meet those

requirements are considered to be reliable to some extent.Eurocodes provide for

delivery of reliable structures through introduction of limit state philosophy. It defines

dead, imposed and wind loads as direct actions, while all the actions resulting from

constrained deformation (i.e. temperature variation) or imposed acceleration

(earthquake loads) defined as indirect actions. The procedurefor computing design loads

that satisfy the conditions of serviceability and ultimate limit states is set out within the

codes as well. Single actions are further divided into three individual groups which are

Permanent actions (G) (self-weight and dead loads), Variable actions (Q) (wind and

imposed loads) and Accidental actions (A) (explosion, earthquake and etc. loads). Since

all those actions are time dependent and that it is highly unlikely that they will be

imposed on a structure at the same time, the design loads calculations could be

simplifiedby application of action safety and sensitivity safety factors.

7
2.1.3 Reliability

Ultimate Limit state design codes make use of the mean, probabilistic values of material

strengths and actions which are in line with safety requirements and based on reliability

theory. The Gaussian distribution lies at the core of reliability theory which was

transformed to less sophisticated Normal Distribution by engineers.

The endeavour to maximisethe public safety by preventing the structural failure of

buildings has led to the emergence of ingenious element design technique. The new

method involves the usage of 95th percentile action (an action with 5% chance to be

greater), while using 5th percentile strength of material (a strengthwith 5% chance to be

lower). These are characteristic design actions and characteristic design material

strengths. Taking into account those considerations, structural engineers strive to attain

design conditions where the characteristic resistance (Rk) is greater than the

characteristic action (Ek) and the difference between these two is defined as the safety

margin. Both, the quality of material and the accurateness at which actions can be

predicted dictate the spread of distribution (standard deviation). This is allowed for by

decreasing the strength of material by a relevant factor (Ym), while increasing the effect

of action by factor (Yf), which gives resultant design values (Rd and Ed). The resultant

factored design action has only 0.5% chance of being surpassed during the life of

structure.

The design equality can be expressed as the following formula: Rd/Ym>YfEk.

The safety margin is Rd/Ed >1.0.

Some materials have better degree of predictability than others. For instance, steel is

normally manufactured and tested indoor, in completely controlled environment under

the supervision of qualified engineers, therefore the likelihood that the load bearing

8
capacity of manufactured steel elements will differ from the expected standard is

extremely low, thus allocating 1 as a safety factor for steel,(Ym=1.00 ).

In contrast to steel, most concrete structures are built on site. As a result the chance that

the quality of concrete will be diminished due to poor workmanship is substantial, thus

making the concrete less reliable material than the steel. Therefore, the safety factor for

the concrete is normally taken as 1.50 (Ym=1.50).

2.1.4 Limit State Design

Implementation of Limit State Design philosophyguarantees the safety of occupants

should the worst loading case scenario occur.Moreover, LSD imposes the restriction on

an excessive deformation of structural elements under the normal loading conditions

with the purpose of preventing the deterioration of aesthetic, durability and performance

qualities of a structure. Regardless of the fact, that neither the forces that act on a

structure nor the bearing capacity of structural elements can be assessed with 100%

degree of certainty, it is still mandatoryto meet the aforementioned requirements. In

order to bring a structure in line with LSD requirement, thus ensuring that a building

will be of reasonable durability, aesthetically pleasing and perform to required

standards, one of the following methods using factors of safety might be adopted:

 The permissible stress method involves the division of ultimate strength of

material by the relevant safety factor. The resultant design stresses are normally

within the elastic region.

 The load factor method involves the multiplication of actions by an appropriate

factor of safety.

9
  The limit state method involves the combination of both methods mentioned

above, i.e. the division of ultimate material strength by a safety of factor as well

as the multiplication of action by an appropriate factor of safety.

The permissible stress method is fairly straightforward method with its characteristic

downsides. Due to that, this method became obsolete and was abandoned by the

engineers. In fact, PSM cannot be applied to semi-elastic materials such as concrete,

since it rests on elastic stress distribution, nor it is of use when the deformations are

disproportional to the actions, for instance in slender columns. Lastly, the use of PSM is

advised against because of the safety concerns, particularly when destabilising,

overturning loads are imposed on a structure (see example 2.21).

The load factor method has it owns disadvantages owing to fact that the method does

not take account ofeffects that loads have on a structure. Furthermore, the LFM does not

incorporate in itself a mechanism for calculationof cracking and deflectionthat occur

when the forces act on a building.

The previous two methods had been long outdated and successfully replaced by the

modern limit state design method which delivers the required level of safety by ensuring

that all variables in material strengths and forces are taken into account through

application of factors of safety.

10
2.2 Limit states

The principal idea behind the limit state design philosophy is to provide guidance/a set

of rulesas to how to design a structure/building that with appropriate degree of

probability will fulfil its prime function, i.e. perform adequately(provide safety) and

offer a comfort to future occupants. If the structure/building ceases to meet these design

requirements during the expected life of structure/building it constitutes that a limit state

is reached. Therefore,the prime design aim of every building is to minimise a chance of

a limit state being reached during the expected building period. There are two main

types of limit states which are ultimate limit state and serviceability limit state:

2.2.1 Ultimate limit states

Ultimate limit state provides engineers with a framework as to how to design a building

that will be able to resist all expected loads and remain stable during the building period

without endangering the occupants and the structure itself. The forces/loads that could

potentially cause overturning or buckling of a building as well as those produced as a

result of accidents must also beconsidered.

2.2.2 Serviceability limit states

Normally the most critical serviceability limit conditions that have to be fulfilled are:

 Deflection – the excessive deflection must not have a negative impact on a

structure or its elements, nor must it detract from aesthetics of the building

or occupants’ comfort.

 Cracking – the damage caused due to concrete cracking or scaling must not

have a negative effect on aesthetics of a structure or its strength.

 Durability – the durability of a building must be assessedin view of

environmentsthe building is exposed to as well as its expected life.

11
 Excessive vibration –might evolve into a prime source of damage to a

structure and discomfort for occupants.

 Fatigue – must be consideredif the fluctuating forces act on a structure.

 Fire resistance –the potential detrimental effects of fire must be taken into

accountwith respect to fire penetration, heat transfer and destructive impact

on a structure.

 Special circumstances –any other conditions which are not included in the

limit states, but must be considered, such as earthquake actions.

 The extent of significance of each limit state rests on structural

characteristics of a building. The standard procedure is to prioritise the limit

states for a specific building and tie the design to most critical limit states.

12
2.3 Wind Loading

Wind loading is taken as an annualmean value with only 0.02 probabilityto be

exceeded.

Simplified wind pressure is calculated by using the following formula:

𝑉𝑏 = 𝑉𝑏,0 𝐶𝑑𝑖𝑟 𝐶𝑠𝑒𝑎𝑠𝑜𝑛 𝐶𝑎𝑙𝑡

𝑉𝑏 is the basic 10 min average wind velocity (for category 2 terrain)

𝑉𝑏,0is the characteristic 10 min average wind velocity (for category 2 terrain )

𝐶𝑠𝑒𝑎𝑠𝑜𝑛 and𝐶𝑑𝑖𝑟 are correction factors that may be taken as 1.0.

The altitude factor may be taken as 𝐶𝑎𝑙𝑡 = 1+0.001A, where A is the site altitude.

Thus 𝑉𝑏 =𝐶𝑎𝑙𝑡 𝑉𝑏,0

Vb,0 may be taken from a wind-therm chart (see chart D1.2).

The site must be idealised in a Terrain Category which represents the surface roughness

of the ground leading up to the site. The terrain category may differ with the wind

direction.

Terrain
Description Zmin(m)
Category

0 Windward shoreline of the sea SEA 1

I Lakes and flat terrain 1

COUNTRY
II Rural areas with low vegetation 2

III Suburban areas with regular obstacles 5

TOWN
IV City centres and large towns 10

Table 2.3: Value of Z min

13
zis the height at which the wind speed is to be calculated, and ρis the air density (1.226

kg/m3).

𝜌
The basic wind velocity pressure, 𝑞𝑏 = 2 𝑉𝑏2 = 0.613𝑉𝑏2

The peak velocity pressure, 𝑞𝑝 =𝑐𝑒 𝑐𝑒𝑇 𝑞𝑏

Ce is the exposure factor taken from chart D 1.3, 𝑐𝑒𝑇 is the exposure correction factor

from Chart D1.4. It is necessary to ascertain the distance the wind blows from the

shoreline to the site, and if the site in Town terrain- the distance the site is inside town

terrain.

In County terrain, ℎ𝑑𝑖𝑠 =0 and 𝑐𝑒𝑇 = 1.0

In Town terrain,

Then ℎ𝑑𝑖𝑠 = 0.8𝑧𝑚𝑖𝑛 ≤ 0.6hx< 2𝑧𝑚𝑖𝑛

2𝑧𝑚𝑖𝑛 <x < 6𝑧𝑚𝑖𝑛 then ℎ𝑑𝑖𝑠 =1.2𝑧𝑚𝑖𝑛 – 0.2x≤ 0.6 h

x≥ 6𝑧𝑚𝑖𝑛 then ℎ𝑑𝑖𝑠 is zero

Figure 1for parameter definitions.

14
Figure 2.3:Calculation of h_dis.

The reference height, 𝑧𝑒 indicates that the wind pressure profile increases with height,

but this is simplified into zone. The peak velocity pressure should be calculated in zones

when the building is taller than the wind face width.

b q p h 

b
h q p z e 
b q p h 
h
q p b 
ze
h q p h  b q p b  b

h<b b <h <2b h >2b

Wind profile on wind face
Figure2.3.a: Reference height, Ze

15
The wind pressure on a surface is, w = 𝑞𝑝 (z)𝑐 𝑝 where 𝑐 𝑝 is the pressure coefficient

(external or internal).

Simplified assessment of Internal Pressure Coefficients may be made in the same way

as BS 6399; 𝐶𝑝𝑖 may be taken as the most onerous of +0.2 or -0.3 if the surface

permeability is unknown.

overall coefficients

Cp,e
h h
d =900
Fron
Side back =00
t d b
b d
5 -0.8 +0.8 -0.7

1 -0.8 +0.8 -0.5

 0.25 -0.8 +0.7 -0.3

Table 2.3.a:Values of Cp,e for walls.

Simplified assessment of External Pressure Coefficients for MONOPITCH ROOFS

overall coefficients Cp,e

=00 =900
Roof
=00 b
angle A B C A B C A B C

<50 -1.2 -0.7 ±0.2 -1.2 -0.7 ±0.2

150 -1.3 -0.9 -1.9 -0.8 -0.7

e/10
300 -1.8 -0.8 -1.5 -1.0 -0.8

h
450 -1.5 -0.7 -1.4 -1.0 -0.9

Table 2.3.b: Values of Cp,e for monopitch roofs.

e is the smallest of b or 2h

bis the length of the windward face

16
Simplified assessment of External Pressure Coefficients for DUOPITCH ROOFS

overall coefficients Cp,e

=00 =900
Roof

angle A B C D A B C D =00
A B C D
50 0/-1.2 0/-0.6 +0.2/-0.6 -0.6 -1.3 -0.7 -0.6

150 +0.2/-0.8 +0.2/-0.3 0/-1.0 0/-0.4 -1.3 -0.6 -0.5

300 +0.7/-0.5 -0.2 -0.5 0/-0.4 -1.4 -0.8 -0.5 e/10 e/10

450 +0.7/0 +0.6/0 0/-0.3 0/-0.2 -1.4 -0.9 -0.5 

h
600 +0.7 +0.7 -0.3 -0.2 -1.2 -0.8 -0.5

Table 2.3.c: Values of 𝒄𝒑𝒆 for duopitch roofs.

The wind force on a surface is, 𝐹𝑤 = w. A .𝐶𝑠 . 𝐶𝑑 . 𝐶𝑂𝐴 where A is the area of the

surface, the structural factor 𝐶𝑠 𝐶𝑑 may be taken as 1.0 in most cases and 𝐶𝑂𝐴 accounts

for the time lag between wind blowing on the front and sucking off the back of a

building.

ℎ
Where 𝑑> 5, 𝐶𝑂𝐴 = 1.0 (short in direction of wind)

ℎ
Where 𝑑< 1, 𝐶𝑂𝐴 = 0.85 (long in direction of wind)

Thus, 𝐹𝑤 = w .A .𝐶𝑂𝐴

17
Figure 2-Snow loading zone NO

18
Figure 3Characteristic 10 minute mean wind velocity, Vb,0 (m/s)

19
Figure 4 Exposure factor, 𝑪𝒆

Figure 5Exposure correction factor, Ce,t

20
2.4 Modal Analysis

2.4.1 Introduction

Modal analysis (also known as mode analysisor natural frequency calculations)gives an

insight into the dynamic behaviour of a structure, its element or any other constituents

of equipment. The dynamic behaviour of structures and their elements varies with the

nature of forces which includeearthquake, wind, crowd movement, explosion and etc.

The intensity at which a structureoscillateswhen the forces act upon it depends on the

natural frequency or fundamental period of a structure. If the natural frequency of a

building coincides with the natural frequency of acting forces the effect of those

forcesisamplified due to such phenomenon as resonance(Penelis & Kappos, 1997). The

degree of amplification of forces (resonance) is dependent on the energy dissipating

systems that are incorporated into the design of a structure (damping), however in

practice the effect of resonance is substantial. Therefore, guided by those considerations

engineers endeavour to prevent the amplification of building oscillation due to

resonance or, at least diminish the effect of resonance when the dynamic loads are

imposed on the building.

Modal analysis is normally conducted before dynamic response analysis, as it provides

an understanding of how a building or its components respond to the forces. It allows

the comparison of the dynamic characteristics of a model with experimental data,

thereby providing a confirmation of the dynamic model and it enables the subsequent

response analysis to be carried out more efficiently.

21
2.4.2 Degrees of Freedom

The Degrees of Freedom of a dynamic system are the number of coordinates required to

ascertain the location of an object.

From structural perspective the number of modes in which a building oscillates

corresponds with the number of degrees of freedom of that building, as presented in

Figure 1. The systems with the only or few degrees of freedom can be better

understood by drawing an analogy between a building and a system of masses

interconnected by means of springs. The building floors are represented as mass, since

the majority of building mass is concentrated at floor level, while the columns can be

represented as springs. In case of multi storey building let’s assume that “n” is a number

of storeys each of which has a specific mass Mi and these masses are carried on

columns with no mass , but with specific stiffness Ki. From this analogy it can be

assumed that each floor in the system can move sideways with degree of freedom Xi.

22
2.4.3 The Equation of Motion

Referringto Newton’s second law the relationship between acceleration, mass and force

can be represented by the following formula F=ma. Since the second derivative of

acceleration denotes the displacement, by making a relevant replacement the new

formula can be rewritten as F=mx̎.

In the single degree of freedom or in systems with the single mode the mass and

stiffness of an object will interact in a way as shown in figure 1.2.

Only one parameter is required to define the motion of the mass, hence the system is

called singe degree of freedom. From what was assumed X is the displacement

measured from the initial equilibrium position to the final point triggered by an applied

forceP(t) which differs with time. The reaction force of the spring because of the

stiffness is:

F(spring)=–kx (1)

Therefore, the force that acts solely on the mass is:

F=P(t)–kx (2)

After application of Newton’s Second Law of Motion to the formula above the new

formula is:

P(t)–kx= mx̎ (3)

In practice the intensity of applied force is always diminished due to the resistanceposed

by air or other viscous materials to the motion. This is known as damping. The extent of

damping is dependent on various factors such as type of materials the structure is made

of, the effect of non-structural elements on overall stiffness of the structure and the type

23
of connections used(Taranath, 2010). Normally damping is taken as a percentile ratio to

the critical damping. In dynamics context critical damping is thelowest level of

damping that ensures the stoppage of a building oscillation completely. Taranath et.al

(2010) points out at a number of internal and external sources that have a significant

impact on the extent of damping. Most critical ones are:

1. External viscous damping – the damping effect due to the presence ofair around

a structure.

2. Internal viscous damping – refers to material viscosity which is material’s

resistance to flow. Material viscosity governs its velocity and greater for

buildings with higher natural frequency.

3. Friction damping – also known as Coulomb damping, takes place at connections

as well as support points of a building. It remains unchanged, regardless of the

velocity or displacement.

4. Hysteretic damping – allows ductile buildings to absorb energy and avoid the

incurrence of structural damage.

Assuming that only viscous damping is present, the damping force will interact with

mass which in turn affects the velocity proportionally and resists the motion of mass -

the viscous damping normally denoted by a dashpot as shown in figure 1.3.

24
The damping force is denoted by:

F(damping)=cx̍ (4)

Through integration of Newton’s second law of motion with viscous damping, Equation

(3) turns into:

P (t) - cx̍ - kx = mx̎

giving

mx̎+cx̍+kx=P (t) (5)

Equations(5) is the core of all dynamic analyses and identified as Equation of Motion.

2.4.4 Single Degree of Freedom System

In equation (5) the motion of a single degree of freedom triggered by applied force. If

there is no involvement of applied force, but an element is displaced, the presence of

vibrations bound to exist. Aforementioned vibrations will decrease with time due to the

existence of damping. Those free vibrations are formulated as follows:

mx̎+cx̍+kx=0 (6)

2.5 Dynamic Analysis

2.5.1 Introduction

The modal characteristics of a structure and the nature of the dynamic loads acting on it,

dictate its dynamic response. The most common dynamic loads, in structural design are

wind loads, earthquake, blast loads, wave loads etc. and they are mathematically

described in terms of “time history” or “response spectrum”(Kappos, 2002). The

25
structural response to a dynamic loading is given in terms of accelerations, velocities

and displacements and these dynamic entities are used to calculate moment, forces and

load paths.

If the equation (…) the forcing term is included, the dynamic load P(t) the

homogeneous equation becomes:

m𝑥̈ + 𝑐𝑥̇ + 𝑘𝑥 = 𝑃(𝑡)(eq. 2.1)

The load P(t) comes in different forms for example a periodic load caused by a rotating

machinery in a building; impulse load, such as the impact of an aircraft falling on a

building.

Seismic loading is more complex and it consists of random acceleration of the building

of typically 10 to 15 seconds in three directions. Prior to further discussing seismic

loading it is useful to examine a simpler load type , the sinusoidal or the harmonic load

that could be caused by vibrating machinery, and the dynamic response of a single

degree of freedom system.

2.5.2 Response of a SDOF to harmonic excitation

Assuming that the load P(t) is a sinusoidal force of frequency equation (2.1) becomes

m𝑥̈ + 𝑐𝑥̇ + 𝑘𝑥 = 𝑃𝑐𝑜𝑠ωt (eq. 2.2)

The solution of this equation can be written in the form

26
 𝑋 1
𝑃⁄ =√ ω ω 2
(eq. 2.3)
𝑘 [1−( )2]2+4𝑐 2 ( )
ω𝑛 ω𝑛

X/ (P/k) represents the dynamic amplification factor. The graph proves two key points

 When the frequency of the applied force get closer to the natural frequency of

the system, the dynamic response of the system increases significantly and

when applied force frequency matches the natural frequency of the system a

peak response is observed(Oliveto, 2002).

 The magnitude of the peak response depends on the damping coefficient, the

higher the value of c the lower the peak value.

Figure 6-SDF structure under free vibration

27
2.5.3 Seismic loading

Accelerogram.

The earthquake is a random ground shaking of 33Hz frequency, consisting of time-

dependent acceleration lasting from 10 to 15 seconds and oriented in three different

orthogonal translational directions(Kappos, 2002). The determination of the full seismic

load is done using the Accelerogram or Acceleration Time History. An example of an

accelerogram is shown on figure bellow.

Figure 7-Typical accelerogram

(a) Calculation of Structural Response

Figure 8-fluctuation of the force over time

28
the displacement x(t) caused by the impulse pΔt is given by equation

𝐼
x(t)= 𝑚ω exp(-cω(t-𝜏))sinω(t-τ) (2.5)

Example: Response of SDOF system

A SDOF system is subjected to a load, which varies over time as shown on Figure 2 4.

The load is sinusoidal with a frequency of ω= 10 rad/s.As it reaches its peak of 10 kN at

0.157 seconds the force drops to zero.

The properties of the SDOF system are as follows:

Mass= 5000kg

Damping =0.05

Initial conditions are:

𝑥(0) =0; 𝑥̇ (0) =0

A spreadsheet is needed to calculate the displacement response using Newmark’s

scheme

29
Figure 9-SDOF system with respect to time

30
31
The response spectrum
A response spectrum is a graph showing the structural response in terms of acceleration,

velocity and displacement of a SDOF system with a defined damping ratio(DOWRICK,

2009).

Figure 10-Newmark B method

32
2.6 Structural Framing Systems

The lifts and shafts of tall concrete buildings are large contributors to their overturning

capacity and lateral stability. The size, position and arrangement of the core must be

thoroughly considered prior to construction by the engineers. Preference should be

given to the location of cores in the centre of a building; however it is not always the

solution. The cores which are too distant from the centre pose arisk to structural

stability of a building and might necessitate the incorporation of additional lateral

resisting systems.

All the systems discussed below traditionally installed on site, except the supporting

damping systems that are in control of acceleration and movement.

Fazlur R. Khan developed a Structural System Chart that contributes to the design of

tall buildings and used by structural engineers to the full extent. In some cases the

engineers combine the systems to make use of advantages of either type.

2.6.1 Frame System

This is quite straightforward system, in which the moment-resisting frames are formed

by rigidly fixed beams and columns that resist gravity and lateral forces at right angles.

The effectiveness of each frame in resisting the lateral and gravity forces depends on the

ratio of its stiffness to the total stiffness of the frames. The increase in building height

leads to the larger frame elementsthat might result in additional concerns with regards to

lateral drift and deflection limits. The combination of flat slab with rigid frame offers

the most cost-saving system due to the relatively simple construction method. The

varieties of factors such as floor to floor height and spans, hence the flexural stiffness of

elements dictate the effectiveness of whole structure in resisting the lateral forces. As a
33
rule of thumb, the flat slabs with spans from 8 to 9 metres are most economical,

although the building and floor to floor heights must be taken in to account. The

characteristic continuity of concrete and the simplicity and consistency with which the

stiffness of structural elements and joints can be determined renders in-situ concrete

moment-resisting frames popular choice for buildings with height not in excess of 75

metres.

Figure 11-Frame System

2.6.2 Shear-Wall System

In this system the lateral forces resisted by shear walls incorporated into the design of

structure. As shown in figure 3.3 the shear walls located near the centre of structure

with a purpose of accommodating building services, elevators and fire-escape stairs

constitutes a rigid core capable of resisting lateral loads in two directions. This

arrangement also known as a “core system” where the core acts as a vertical cantilever

that provides sufficient resistance to bending, torsional and lateral forces(Ackerman, et

al., 2014).

34
Alternatively, additional shear walls can be installed at any position throughout the

building plan for a better dynamic stability. If this variation is adopted it must be

ensured that thepositioning and dimensions of shear walls follow the symmetry in order

to lessen the building twist or torsion should the building be subjected to dynamic loads.

Pure central core systems

In this system the lateral forces are resisted by the shear wall located at the perimeter of

structure while the gravity loads are carried solely by the internal columns. This

arrangement implies that the stiffness of shear walls must be muchgreater than that of

thecolumns. The implementation of this system allows the construction of high-rise

buildings of up to 120 metres without bearing additional costs.

Figure 12-Shear Wall System

2.6.3 Shear-Wall and Frame System

35
This frame type incorporates both systems mentioned above. Normally the shear walls

are placed around the lifts and services whereas the shear walls located at the perimeter

of structure. The lateral resistance of rigid frame in conjunction with core shear walls

allow the construction of buildings that reach 160 metres in height in a cost-effective

way. This is viable because the structural frame limits the deflection of shear walls,

whereas the opposite interaction occurs at the bottom of building. In other words the

structural frame deflects in a shear mode while the shear wall deflects as a cantilever.

The resulting bending moment induced at the bottom and top of structure by structural

frame and shear wall counteract each other. Taranath et.al (2010) argues that this

system is considered to be most economical for medium to high rise buildings.

2.6.4 Framed Tube System

The name of this system is self-explanatory; a layout of this system resembles a tube

where the flange of the tube is formed by the closely spaced columns which are

interlinked by deep spandrel beams. As in pure central core system the lateral loads

imposed on the building carried by the “flange” of the tube system, while gravity loads

transferred to the foundation through internal vertical elements. Normally the perimeter

columns are located at the distance from 2 to 4 metres from each other. The particular

considerations have to be taken of the lateral drift, also known as chord drift and of the

web drift which might occur due to bending and shear deformations of the columns and

spandrel beams. Taranath et.al (2010) advicesnot to exceed the plan aspect ratio of 1:2.5

in order to avoid drift amplification, otherwise additional structural bracing will be

required.

36
The application of this structural framing system allows the erection of high-rise

buildings that reach 150-170 metres in height.

Figure 13-Frame Tube System

2.6.5 Tube-in-tube System

This system is basically the combination of framed tube and shear wall systems. The

closely spaced columns connected with deep spandrel beams at the perimeter of

building form the external envelope, while the services and lift shafts are surrounded by

the rigid concrete core(Ackerman, et al., 2014). This system resembles the shear-wall

and frame system, however tube-in-tube system is significantly more rigid due to the

external “flange”. Structures with tube-in-tube frame system can reach 180-200 metres

in height.

37
CHAPTER 3 : Methodology

3.1 Introduction

The prime objective of this quantitative study is to design a 20-storey reinforced

concrete building according to euro codes 2 and then subject the designed building to

seismic analysis in accordance with euro codes 8.

As part of the seismic analysis a whole host of assumptions will be made such as

location of the building, soil type, magnitude of the earthquake and the distance of the

site from the earthquake epicentre as well as material properties.

To reduce the amount of hand calculations the research will primarily concentrate on

the fundamental frequency and first mode shape alone. The determination of the

fundamental frequency will be carried out using the formula provided in the Bleivins.

The first mode shape however will be obtained using S math studio together with had

calculations.

3.2 Research strategy

Although the seismic analysis is routinely conducted on the building and the literature

on this subject is abundant, the present study seeks to investigate whether Eurocode 8

prediction of the seismic load is too conservative.

38
3.3 Structural analysis
Most of the reinforced concrete structures are either monolithic (fixed) or simply

supported (pinned) what is defined by their joints. To calculate design forces of such

structures an envelope loading conditions must be considered as well as indeterminate

analysis techniques must be applied.

Normally, slabs span either one-way or two-way between beams. Through usage of

statics method, the loads on slabs and beams can be distributed.

Figure D 2.3 Load distribution for one and two way systems

There is a great similarity between slab and beam analysis with slight difference in

calculations that have to do with dimensions of the elements. The slab is normally

analysed as a 1 metre wide beam, whereas the beam analysis conducted for its actual

dimensions. The amount of reinforcement required for the slab is calculated and then

the same amount of reinforcement is placed every metre. Concrete as a material has

great compressive strength, while it performs poor when subjected to tensile actions. In

contrast to concrete, steel is superb at tension, therefore the steel reinforcement is often

incorporated into concrete normally at tension zone improving overall load bearing

capacity of building elements.

39
Multi-bay, continuous structures require meticulous analysis of all envelope loadings

and the forces that have significant effect must be used in design. To facilitate

calculations of design forces the following tables can be used depending on the

percentage of support moment redistribution.

Insert table 6.6 and 6.7 (design of structural elements).

During the design procedure, various forms of structural design analysis methods are

going to be adopted. These methods include the linear analysis method and the plastic

analysis method. Regardless of the applied method there are some design principles that

will be adopted for the design. These include;

The hogging moments will be taken to be at the face of the support. This will only be if

the beam or the slab is monolithic with the provided support. At places where the beam

or support will be continuous over a support it will not be considered to provide

rotational resistance. The moment at the centre line may be reduced by (FEd,supt/8). It

will be noted that during the design of columns the elastic moments from the frame

action will be used without any redistribution.

The two categories of loadings that will be considered will be classified into the

following two sections:

3.3.1 Permanent actions

This will include the self-weight, structural elements and the weights of finishes,

ceilings, services, and partitions. The structural block will be made of reinforced

concrete whose unit weight is 25kN/m3. Finishes consisting of ceramic floor tiles, paint,

40
and plaster all will be assumed for a value of 1.5 kN/m2. Table 1 the euro code 1 (in

appendix) gives the scheduling unit mass of a building materials as a reference. Roof

dead loads such as slates will be assumed to be 1.0kN/m2.

3.3.2 Variable actions

These will be the loadingsimposedby people, furniture, partitions or vehicles in the

building. The imposed loads on the roof will be calculated based on the roof slope and

the roof snow loading s that requires the determination of characteristic snow load on

the ground sk and snow load shape coefficient μi. Consequently, the largest value out of

imposed load due to snow load and that due to roof slope will be used as a final variable

action in roof design. The variable actions will vary according to the type of a structure

that is designed. Values of variable actions for majority of structure types are given in

Table NA.5 (EN1991-1-1).

3.3.3 Design Load

The design load will be based on the load combination case specified in the euro code 1.

The design will be based on the worst case scenario, and hence the load combination

that providethe highest value will be used. For persistent and transient actions less

favourable UDL load design value will be utilised that can be derived from either

Equation (6.10a) or Equation (6.10b) of EN 1990.

41
3.3.4 Reinforced Concrete Slab Design Procedure

To design reinforced concrete slab the following steps must be undertaken:

 Determine the design working life of the slab and check that the thickness of the

designed slab is adequate with respect to fire resistance

 Determine the nominal concrete cover

 Design the flexural reinforcement

 Check the suitability of the slab with respect to crack control

 Check the suitability of the slab with respect to deflection

 Check the suitability of the slab with respect to shear

 Determine the secondary reinforcement in transverse directions

3.3.4.1 Design working life and adequacy of the slab thickness with

respect to fire resistance

Initial stage of the slab designinvolvesthedetermination of the design working life of the

element what can be found in Table NA.2.1 of UK NA to EN 1990, which is normally

50 years. Consequently, the design working life and the exposure class of the section

will allow calculation of the minimum concrete cover due to environmental

considerations, 𝑐𝑚𝑖𝑛,𝑑𝑢𝑟 by referring to Table A.4 BS8500-1. It is also very important

to check that the thickness of designed slab is in line with the minimum slab thickness
42
requirement necessary for structural fire protection of the element for various periods of

time. This can be done by referring to Table 5.8 of Eurocodes part 1-2. Compliance

with structural fire resistance requirements when designing the element will ensure that

occupants evacuate the structure safely should the fire occur.

3.3.4.2 Nominal Concrete Cover

The minimum cover requirement around the reinforcement ensures that the

reinforcement is adequately protected against the fire and improves the overall

durability of the structural element. There a number of cover constituents which are:

𝑐𝑚𝑖𝑛,𝑓𝑖𝑟𝑒 , or also known as 𝑐𝑎𝑥𝑖𝑧 is the distance measured from the outer concrete surface

to the centre of the reinforcement rebar.

𝑐𝑚𝑖𝑛 , the idea behind the provision of minimum concrete cover is to facilitate safe bond

transmission as well as to protect the reinforcement against corrosion and fire.

Minimum concrete cover can be calculated using the Equation 4.2 EN 1992-1-1.

𝑐𝑛𝑜𝑚 , the nominal cover that is the distance measured from the outer concrete surface to

the furthest point of the reinforcement. Nominal cover is the sum of the minimum

cover𝑐𝑚𝑖𝑛 and the allowance in design for deviation, ∆𝑐𝑑𝑒𝑣 which is traditionally taken

as 10 mm. The nominal concrete cover for a designed element can be derived from the

Equation 4.1 EN 1992-1-1.

3.3.4.3 Bending (flexural design)

The design for flexure will then follow. The project will carry out the slab analysis

which will enable the determination of the design moments (M). If the predetermined

concrete class is less than class c50/60, then the value of K will be determined as

provided in the table 4 of the euro code 1.

43
If the value of K’ is less than or equal to the value of K, then there should be the

determination of the compression reinforcement required.

In practice, the slab does not require compression reinforcement and when it does, such

slab design is deemed to be not cost effective. Therefore, if the value of K is less than

the value of K’ then no compression is necessary. At this stage, the lever arm zcould be

derivedfrom the equations provided in the table 5 or the example in figure one of the

euro code 1 and its value must not exceed 0.95d. This will be then followed by the

determination of the area of tension steel required 𝐴𝑠,𝑟𝑒𝑞 that in turn will be checked

against minimum and maximum reinforcement area limits imposed by Equation (9.1N)

EN1992-1-1 and clause 9.2.1.1(3) EN1992-1-1, respectively.

3.3.4.4 Design for Cracking

The free surface of concrete is the most vulnerable to the formation of cracks as

opposed to the area where bond between the reinforcement and concrete occurs. The

cracks formed at the free surface have finite width, 𝑤𝑚𝑎𝑥

The acceptable width of crack is normally 0.3 mm unless the liquid retaining structure is

being designed where the maximum crack size must be limited to 0.1mm or less. The

development of cracks in the concrete element can be controlled by either adhering

designed bar diameter 𝜑𝑠,𝑚𝑎𝑥 , or bar spacing 𝑠𝑠,𝑚𝑎𝑥 to the values given in the Table

7.2N or Table 7.3N EN1992-1-1, respectively. However, the stress in the reinforcement,

Ϭ𝑠 , must be calculated prior to usage of those tables.

44
3.3.4.5 Design for Deflection

As for deflection, Euro code 1 provides two alternative methods of deflection check. In

the first method, explicit calculations can be omitted through use of effective depth to

span ratio, the equations can be found in euro codes EN1992.1.1 under (7.16a) and

(7.16b).

The deflection will be checked by first calculating the limited span to depth ratio. The

limited span to depth ratio will then be factored by appropriate K1, K2 and K3 factors.

Factor K1 is dependent on the structural system of the slab that can be determined by

referring to the table 7.4N of euro codes part 1-1. Factor K2 for all slab apart from flat

slab can be derived as the ratio of 7/𝑙𝑒𝑓𝑓 , while for the flat slab the ratio is 8.5/𝑙𝑒𝑓𝑓 .

Finally, factor K3 can be derived as a stress ratio for tension reinforcement at the

serviceability limit state, K3=310/𝜎sby referring to Equation (7.17) EN1992-1-1.

The check will be completed with the equation comparing the actual span to depth ratio

over the limited span to depth ratio factored by K1, K2, and K3. If the limited span to

depth ratio exceeds the actual span to depth ratio, then the slab design is adequate with

respect to deflection. If the contrary is true, it means that either the area of

reinforcement is insufficient or the excessive reinforcement bars sizes have been used.

3.3.4.6 Design for shear

Generally the slab does not require shear reinforcement and simple check of shear

stressVEd, and shear capacity of the section VRd(or design value of shear strength) under

equation (6.2.a) or (6.2.b) will suffice. It must be ensured that the shear capacity of the

slab exceeds the shear stress of the element.

45
3.3.5 Reinforced Concrete Beam Design Procedure

To successfully design a beam the following procedures must be followed:

 Ascertain the design life of the beam

 Consider the design loads and their combinations

 Assess how the loads are arranged and ascertain the most critical loading conditions.

 Analyse the magnitude and the nature of the design actions.

 Calculate the required beam cover thickness necessary for meeting fire resistance,

bond and durability requirements

 Calculate the amount of flexural reinforcement required for the section.

 Make sure that the amount of flexural reinforcement is within the confines of

minimum and maximum areas of reinforcement limit

 Calculate the required area of shear reinforcement

 Make sure that the element is adequate with respect to deflection

 Double check and if necessary modify the maximum and minimum spacing of bars with

respect to cracking and compaction

3.3.5.1Determine the design life of the beam

Depending on the structure type for which the element is being designed and by referring to

the Table NA.2.1 the designed working life of the beam can be determined. Consequently, the

design working life in conjunction with the exposure class of the beam will dictate the

minimum cover requirement for environmental considerations, 𝒄𝒎𝒊𝒏,𝒅𝒖𝒓 .

46
3.3.5.2Consider the design actions and their combinations

The permanent actions (or dead loads),gk such as self-weight of the beam and that of

the slab carried by the element in conjunction with the dead load of finishes, the value

of which will be assumed as 1 kN /m2 will be computed, summed up and factored

appropriately. The variable actions, also known as imposed loads, qk will be determined

from the Table NA.5 of EN 1991-1-1 the value of which will be governed by the

specific use of the designed section. During the beam design process the characteristic

imposed action on 1 metre of beam will be computed by multiplication of the value

derived from the Table NA.5 with the slab span supported by the beam. Determination

of permanent and imposed action will allow to arrive at unfavourable design value of

the UDL load, qd by using Equations (6.10a) and Equation (6.10b).

3.3.5.3 Assess how the loads are arranged and ascertain the most critical

loading conditions.

Appropriate analysis of the beams will be conducted to ensure that the critical shear and

bending forces applied to the elements are determined. The 15% of bending moment

redistribution will be assumed for the beams and the appropriate table for calculationsof

the bending moments and the shear forcesdesign values will be used for the

analysis(British Standards Institution, 2004).

47
3.3.5.4 Analyse the magnitude and the nature of the design actions.

3.3.5.5 Design flexural reinforcement and check the minimum and

maximum reinforcement area limit. Check that provided reinforcement

spacing is adequate

After the determination of critical bending moments and shear forces the value of K΄

will be calculated using the following formula K΄= 0.60δ – 0.18δ2 – 0.21. The value of

δ will be contingent on the moment redistribution (0% = 1.0; 15% = 0.85). At the same

𝑀𝐸𝑑
time K will be derived from K = . If the resultant of K΄ equation exceeds that of
𝑏𝑑 2 𝑓𝑐𝑘

K equation, it would mean that only tension reinforcement, 𝐴𝑆,𝑟𝑒𝑞 is required. If the

opposite is true, the designed element will need the compression as well as tension

reinforcement. The amount of compression reinforcement required will be obtained

2
(𝐾−𝐾΄)𝑓𝑐𝑘 𝑏𝑑
from 𝐴𝑠2,𝑟𝑒𝑞 = 𝑓𝑠𝑐 (𝑑−𝑑2 )
.Once the amount of tension and compression

reinforcement calculated, several checks on minimum reinforcement spacing 𝑠𝑠,𝑚𝑖𝑛 EN

1992-1-1, section 8.2(2), plus minimum reinforcement area 𝐴𝑠,𝑚𝑖𝑛 EN 1992-1-1, Table

3.1 and Eq.(9.1N) and maximum reinforcement area 𝐴𝑠,𝑚𝑎𝑥 EN 1992-1-1, section

9.2.1.1.(3) will be done.

3.3.5.6 Calculate the required area of shear reinforcement and make sure

that the spacing of shear reinforcement comply with maximum shear

reinforcement spacing

The initial stage at checking the suitability of the beam with respect to shear is the

calculation of design shear strength of the section (also known as shear capacity of the

48
element), equation (6.9) EN1992-1-1 with a minimum shear strength value obtained

from equations (6.2.b)/ (6.3N). The angle between the concrete compression strut and

the beam axis will be conservatively assumed 21.80°. The shear capacity of the element

will be checked against the design shear stress at multiple points along the beam.

𝑉𝐸𝑑
Design shear stress or force will be derived from 𝑉𝐸𝑑 = . The beam is deemed to pass
𝑏𝑧

the shear check if the shear strength (shear capacity) of the section is greater than shear

stress (force) formed within the element. In the end, it must be ensured that the provided

spacing of shear reinforcement is in line with maximum shear reinforcement spacing

requirements obtained from equations (6.8) and (9.8N).

3.3.5.7 Check Deflection

The design for deflection will be done by first determining reference reinforcement,

limit span-depth and compression reinforcement ratio (if applicable), 𝜌0 , ρ and

ρ΄ respectively EN1992-1-1, section 7.4.2(2). This will be followed by using either

equation (7.16.a) or (7.16.b) of EN1992-1-1 depending on 𝜌0 and ρ ratios. The resultant

value of chosen equation will then have to be factored by K factor which will be

determined by tabular method, whereas K2 for square and rectangular beams can be

calculated using the ratio of 7/𝑙𝑒𝑓𝑓 . K3 is provided by K3=310/𝜎s, where 𝜎s, is the stress

ratio for tension reinforcement at the serviceability limit state.

Ultimately, the check will be completed by comparing the actual span to depth ratio

with the limit span to depth ratio, firstfactored by factor K (Table NA.5) and then by

factors F1 (Equation 7.17 EN1992-1-1), F2 and F3 clause 7.4.2(2).Once the limit span to

depth ratio is greater than the actual span to depth ratio, then the beam is adequate with

49
respect to deflection If the section fails in deflection it can be put right either by

increasing the dimension of the section or/and the required steel area.

3.3.5.8Calculate the required beam cover thickness necessary for meeting

fire resistance, bond and durability requirements

Provision of adequate nominal cover, 𝒄𝒏𝒐𝒎 guarantees the safe bond transmission,

provides the fire resistance for the beam for the required period of time, improves the

durability of the section and protects the element from corrosion in various

environments. In order to calculate the nominal cover, first the minimum cover must be

computed, 𝒄𝒎𝒊𝒏 using equation (4.2) EN 1992-1-1. Secondly, the minimum cover due to

fire consideration must be calculated using table 5.6, column 2 or 3 EN 1992-1-2. The

greatest value derived from those equations will be the final minimum cover.

Eventually, the nominal cover will be arrived at by adding the allowance in design for

deviation, 𝒄𝒅𝒆𝒗 = 10 mm to the minimum cover.

The main function of columns in a structure is to transfer dead, imposed and lateral

loads to the foundation vertically, from where they further transferred to the ground. It

worth noting that a building structure has a great impact on columns loadings.

Structures that incorporate lateral resisting systems such as shear walls, bracing or cores

50
are subjected only to imposed, dead and axial actions, whereas in unbraced structures in

addition to aforementioned loads columns must resist the lateral wind forces. In both

cases, whether columns are braced or not, they can be classified as slender or non-

slender (stocky). Unlike non-slender columns, slender columns are affected by

additional second-order effects, i.e. moments caused in the sections as a results of

deflection. Whether a column is slender or stocky depends on the limiting slenderness

λlimas defined in clause 5.8.3.1(1): equation (5.13N) in EN 1992-1-1.

3.3.6 Overview and Design Procedure for Columns

The main function of columns in a structure is to transfer dead, imposed and lateral

loads to the foundation vertically, from where they further transferred to the ground. It

worth noting that a building structure has a great impact on columns loadings.

Structures that incorporate lateral resisting systems such as shear walls, bracing or cores

are subjected only to imposed, dead and axial actions, whereas in unbraced structures in

addition to aforementioned loads columns must resist the lateral wind forces. In both

cases, whether columns are braced or not, they can be classified as slender or non-

slender (stocky). Unlike non-slender columns, slender columns are affected by

additional second-order effects, i.e. moments caused in the sections as a results of

deflection. Whether a column is slender or stocky depends on the limiting slenderness

λlimas defined in clause 5.8.3.1(1): equation (5.13N) in EN 1992-1-1.

In order to successfully design a column the procedure below should be followed:

 Determine the design life

 Assess loads acting on the columns

51
  Determine combinations of actions

 Assess durability requirements and determine concrete strength

 Check cover requirements for appropriate fire resistance period

 Calculate minimum cover for bond, durability and fire requirements

 Analyse structure and obtain critical moments and axial forces

 Check slenderness

 Determine the required area of reinforcement

 Check bar spacing as well as minimum and maximum area of reinforcement

The ultimate column cover will be determined considering the environmental conditions

and bond requirements, using the equation 4.1 of EN 1992-1-1.

Afterwards, the designed column size will be checked against the minimum dimension

of a column to meet fire resistance requirements by referring to table 5.2a of

eurocodes2, part 2.

Analysis of the loading on the column will be done to determine the ultimate moments

and the ultimate loadings (Arya, 1994,). The effective length will be determined either

with an aid of figure 5.7 or by use of equation 5.15 or 5.16 of EN 1992-1-1 where k1 and

k2 are the relative flexibilities of rotational restraints (θ/M) x (EI/L)(McKenzie, 2013).

The first order moments of the column will be determined. It is important to note that

the M01 and M02 should have the same signs as in figure 4 of chapter 5 of the euro code

2.The actual slenderness ratio will be determined from equation 5.14 EN 1992-1-1

which is the quotient of the effective length of a column by its radius of gyration (λ =

l0/ί) . That will be followed by the determination of the limiting slenderness that can be

derived from equation 5.13N of eurocodes2 (λlim=20 x A x B x C/√n). The values of A

52
and B will be conservatively taken as 0,7 and 1,1 respectively, whereas the value of C

will be derived from 1,7 – rm. In the end, the actual slenderness ratio and the limiting

slenderness will be compared and whether the column is slender or non-slender (stocky)

will be ascertained (McKenzie, 2013).

Non-slender or stocky column will be designed using the appropriate column chart

which will allow the determination of the required area of reinforcement. Required

reinforcement area will be provided according to the minimum and maximum area of

reinforcement as well as spacing of bars and links requirements written under clauses

9.5.2. (3); (1); 9.5.3 (1); (3); (4) (i) of EN 1992-1-1:2004.

3.3 Stability Systems

Anystructure must have some kind of a stability system that will provide the structural

rigidity against lateral loads and will ensure that no lateral movements occur. This is

normally achieved through incorporation of shear walls into a building design or use of

rigid frames (or a combination of these two). Generally, shear wallsare often placed

around lifts or stair wells forming a rigid core that improves the lateral resistance of a

structure. Most of the time the wind and seismic loadings are the only lateral actions

that have to be thought through, however it is essential to allow for notional actions,

loads that are produced as a result of imperfection during the construction of building

elements.

Dead weight of shear walls normally sufficient to resist overturning moments imposed

laterally by wind or earthquake. It is recommended to carry out a preliminary check

though with a purpose of ascertaining whether tension exists in the reinforcement or

not.

53
Stress distribution in shear wall

𝑃
Axial stress, σc=
ℎ𝐿

Overturning moment, M = Wy

6𝑀
Bending stress, σb = ±
ℎ𝐿

If σb>σc, the tension exists in the wall

One of the benefits of using shear walls in a building as stability system is the provision

of fire resisting barrier to the stair wells and lift cores. Therefore, shear walls are

considered most effective way of providing a stability to a concrete structure in

orthogonal directions.

54
If the ratio of building height over depth is less or equal to 10 it is considered economic

to use shear wall in conjunction with rigid frame as a stability system for buildings up to

𝐻
20 storeys ( ≤ 10).
𝐷

There three types of shear wall classification that has to do with its elevation aspect

ratio and plan shape:

H H H
Short < 1, Squat 1< < 3, Cantilever >3
D D D

D2.25Classification of walls

Elevation aspect ratio can indicate the likely failure mechanism:

D2.26 classification of walls

55
From the figures above it can be observed that shear walls must be reinforced against

cracks in three planes.

H
If > 3 then lateral loads can be split into bending stiffness kbproportionally
D

H
If 1 < < 3 then lateral actions can be split into bending and shear stiffness ks
D

proportionally

EI 𝐺𝐴 𝐸
Where kb= , ks= and G =
L 𝐿 2(1+𝜐)

It can be observed that lateral load differs as the height of a structure increases,

therefore the shear walls have to be placed, so that torsional and bending stiffness is

attained.

D2.27 Consideration of Plan Torsional Stiffness

56
The design of a shear wall is undertaken identically to that of a column provided that

the shear wall is the column whose length exceed its width by 4 times.

3.4 Seismic Action

The seismic load can be assessed by estimating likely ground motion in the future at a

specific location and this process known as hazard assessment (Paulay & Priestley,

1992).

Seismic hazard is normally plotted as diagram which shows the likelihood of specific

seismologic parameter exceedance such as displacement, velocity or the peak ground

acceleration for a specific duration of the earthquake at a specific location.

Bisch et al. (2012) states that aforementioned parameters cannot precisely delineate the

severity of an earthquake and argues that the spectral ordinates describe the seismic

hazard better.

Nevertheless, EN1998-1 uses the reference peak ground acceleration on various types

of ground, 𝑎𝑔𝑅 as seismic hazard descriptor to avoid complexification of seismic

analysis.

The attenuation of the ground peak accelerationis given as:

log𝑎𝑔 = -1,48 + 0.27 × M – 0,92log R (Bisch, et al., 2012)

57
Where M is the earthquake magnitude and R is the distance between a structure and the

earthquake epicentre.

3.4.1 Horizontal Elastic Spectra

The ground acceleration response spectrum, 𝑆𝑒 also referred to as elastic response

spectrum is the way in which the ground motion is represented in eurocodes 8. The

basic or ordinary shape of the elastic response spectrum is depicted below:

Figure 1 illustrates the basic horizontal elastic spectra

58
The spectrum consist of various ranges of spectral acceleration, displacement and pseudo
velocity:
𝑇
0≤ T ≤ 𝑇𝐵 : 𝑆𝑒 (T) =𝑎𝑔 S [1+ 𝑇 (2.5η – 1)]
𝐵

Constant spectral acceleration range: 𝑇𝐵 ≤ T ≤ 𝑇𝐶 : 𝑆𝑒 (T) = 𝑎𝑔 S × 2.5 ηeq.5.2 EN1998-

1
𝑇
Constant spectral pseudovelocity range: 𝑇𝐶 ≤ T ≤𝑇𝐷 : 𝑆𝑒 (T) = 𝑎𝑔 S × 2.5 η [ 𝑇𝐶] eq.5.3

𝑇𝐶 𝑇𝐷
Constant spectral displacement range : 𝑇𝐷 ≤ T ≤ 4 sec : 𝑆𝑒 (T) = 𝑎𝑔 S × 2.5 η [ ]
𝑇2
eq.5.4

Where

𝑆𝑒 (T) is the elastic response spectral acceleration

𝑇𝐵 ,𝑇𝐶 ,𝑇𝐷 are the various period limits of the elastic response spectrum

S is the soil factor

η = √10/(5 + 𝜁) ≥ 0.55, where η is the correction factor for damping

The fundamental parameters of computing the effective mass caught in every mode are

as follows:

The earthquake excitation factor Li =∑ mj𝜑 i j

59
 2
The Modal Mass MI = ∑ mj𝜑𝑖𝑗

The ratio of 𝐿2𝑖 / 𝑀𝑖2 (PM) can be assumed to act as a participating mass with specific

structural response at each mode. If these masses at all modes are added up, the overall

structural mass can be arrived at.

The dynamic analysis of a structure can be facilitated by making an assumption that a

structure is governed by one fundamental mode. On that instance, a static analysis of a

building can be conducted. This method has been a prime seismic analysis technique

used by construction workers for many years and the procedure is stipulated in EC8.

3.4.1.1.1.1 Obtain the period of fundamental modeTi , done with an aid of finite

element analysis or use non-complex formulas

3.4.1.1.1.2 Determine the spectral acceleration Se (Ti) by consulting the related

design response spectrum diagram

3.4.1.1.1.3 Obtain the base shear in fundamental mode given as Fb = PM x Se (Ti)

3.4.1.1.1.4 Share out the lateral load corresponding to mass times mode shape. The
𝑧 𝑚𝑘
resultant forces acting laterally at different levels k given as: Fk= Fb∑𝑧𝑘
𝑗𝑚𝑗

3.4.1.1.1.5 Ultimately, determine deformations and element forces by carrying out

static analysis

60
3.5 Piled Foundation Design

The piled foundation comprises the actual pile/piles and the pile cap. The piles

themselves are invariably designed by professional piling contractor, whereas a

structural engineer is liable only for the design of the pile cap (Mosley, et al., 2012).

There are two methods of pile cap analysis. Mosley et al. (2012) describesthe first

method where the piles are assumed to act as beams in bending, while in the second

method the pile cap is compared to the triangular truss with the upper point positioned

at the centre of loaded area and the lower points positioned at the intersection of the pile

centres with the tension reinforcement.

Geometry of the above figure suggests the following:

𝑇 𝑙 𝑁𝐿
= , therefore T = 2𝑑
𝑁/2 𝑑

The required reinforcement area given as:

𝑇 𝑁𝐿
𝐴𝑠 = 0.87 𝑓 = 2𝑑 𝑥 0.87 𝑓
𝑦𝑘 𝑦𝑘

61
In the pile cap consisting of four piles the load can thought to be distributed between

two parallel trusses, hence the previous equation can be altered to:

𝑇/2 𝑁𝐿
𝐴𝑠 = 0.87 𝑓 = 4𝑑 𝑥 0.87 𝑓
𝑦𝑘 𝑦𝑘

The resultant value obtained from the equation above show the required area of tension

reinforcement in each truss, therefore the reinforcement must be placed in the lower part

of the pile cap in perpendicular directions.

The truss analogy can also be applied to the pile caps with different numbers of piles

that will allow the determination of tensile forces.

It worth mentioning that in a pile cap with only three piles the tension reinforcement

must be positioned in three directions.

62
3.3.5 Design for Shear

The pile shear strength must be calculated at the critical points at the inside face of the pile

cap that are assumed to equate to 20% of the pile diameter.

3.3.6 Design for Punching Shear

The punching shear strength of the cap must also be checked at the critical points as shown in

the figure above.

63
3.3.7 The Pile Cap Sizing

The pile cap sizing can be done by the use of tabular method, however the use of table

is recommended for the pile caps that accommodate up to 6 piles.

Pile Size (mm) 300 350 400 450 500 550 600 750
Cap Depth 700 800 900 1000 1100 1200 1400 1800
(mm)

3.6 Case Study – Three storey building. Eigenvectors and

Natural Frequency Calculation

The following example is the modal analysis of single bay Portal Frame that will outline

the procedure for modal analysis and give an insight into how matrices can be used to

obtain eigenvectors and natural frequencies for a multi degree of freedom building.

Insert figure

Each mass can be rewritten in the form of the following equation:

𝑚𝑖 𝑥̈ 𝑖𝑖 = -𝑘𝑖 ( 𝑥𝑖 - 𝑥𝑖−1) + 𝑘𝑖−1(𝑥𝑖+1 -𝑥𝑖 ) - 𝑐𝑖 (𝑥̇ 𝑖 - 𝑥̇ 𝑖−1) + 𝑐𝑖+1(𝑥̇ 𝑖+1 -𝑥̇ 𝑖 )

If we neglect the damping, then:

𝑘𝐴𝐵 + 𝑘𝐺𝐻 = 𝑘1

𝑘𝐵𝐶 + 𝑘𝐹𝐺 = 𝑘2

64
𝑘𝐶𝐷 + 𝑘𝐸𝐹 = 𝑘3

At this point the equations of motion will take the following form:

𝑚1 𝑥̈ 1 + 𝑘1 𝑥1 - 𝑘2 (𝑥2 - 𝑥1 ) = 0

𝑚2 𝑥̈ 2 + 𝑘2 (𝑥2 - 𝑥1 ) - 𝑘3 (𝑥3 - 𝑥2 ) = 0

𝑚3 𝑥̈ 3 + 𝑘3 (𝑥3 - 𝑥2 ) = 0

These can be reorganised in the following order:

𝑚1 𝑥̈ 1 + (𝑘1 + 𝑘2 )𝑥1 -𝑘2 𝑥2 =0

𝑚2 𝑥̈ 2 -𝑘2 𝑥1 +(𝑘2 +𝑘3 )𝑥2 -𝑘3 𝑥3 =0
𝑚3 𝑥̈ 3 -𝑘3 𝑥2 +𝑘3 𝑥3 =0

These three equations can be modified into matrix:

M𝑋̈ + KX = 0 (1)

𝑚1 0 0 𝑥1 𝑥̈ 1
Where M = 0 𝑚2 0 𝑥 ̈ 𝑥̈
X = 2𝑋 = 2
0 0 𝑚3 𝑥3 𝑥̈ 3

Hence

𝑘1 + 𝑘2 −𝑘2 0
K = −𝑘2 𝑘2 + 𝑘3 −𝑘3
0 −𝑘3 𝑘3

The result of this equation given as:

X = A sin (ωt + α) (2)

Where A is vibration matrix amplitude

Exchanging for X in equation (1) gives:

(K- Mω2 ) A = 0

In this equation for a vibration matrix A to have any other value than 0, K-Mω2 must be
equal to 0, i.e.

65
 |K-Mω2 |= 0

Application of matrix algebra gives:

|𝑀{𝑀−1 K - 𝜔2 I}= 0 (I-unit matrix)

The equation above can be further simplified as:

|𝑀−1 K - 𝜔2 I|= 0 (3)

Where {𝑀−1K} called the dynamic matrix

The equation 3 is the characteristic equation that exemplifies an ordinary eigenvalue

equation. The roots of the expression provide the eigenvalues which give the square

natural frequencies𝜔2 .

For the three degree of freedom Portal Frame, the matrices are:

4000 0 0
M= 0 4000 0 Kg
0 0 2000

1/4000 0 0
−1 0 1/4000 0 𝐾𝑔−1
𝑀 =
0 0 1/2000

Plus,

5 −2 0
K = −2 3.5 −1.5 × 106 N/m
0 −1.5 1.5

1250 −500 0
𝑀−1K = −500 875 −350 N/MKg
0 −750 750

Whichleads to the following equation:

1250 − 𝜔2 −500 0
−1 2
|𝑀 K - 𝜔 𝐼| = −500 875 − 𝜔2 −375
0 −750 750 − 𝜔2

The result of the matrix above can be determined as follows:

66
(1250 - 𝜔2 ) [(875 - 𝜔2 ) (750 - 𝜔2 ) - 281250] – 500 [500 (750 - 𝜔2 )

This can be modified to:

-𝜔6 + 2875 𝜔4 – 2156250 𝜔2 + 28125000 = 0

Where

167 0 0
𝜔2 = 0 1000 0
0 0 1710

The unit of measurement for eigenvalues are (rad/𝑠𝑒𝑐 2 ), hence 𝜔12 = 167 𝜔22 = 1000
𝜔32 = 1710
𝜔
Subsequently, the formula f = will help to obtain frequencies, which are 𝑓1 = 2.04
2𝜋
Hz, 𝑓2 = 5.03 Hz and 𝑓3 = 6.58 Hz

The product of amplitude matrix A provides the eigenvectors that are basically the
mode shape at various frequencies

From the equation mentioned before (K-M𝜔2 ) A = 0

Regardless of a mode number this equation provides the eigenvector

For instance, assess mode 2, 𝜔2 = 1000

5 −2 0 4 0 0 𝐴12
6 6
−2 3.5 −1.5 × 10 - 0 4 0 × 10 ×𝐴22 = 0
0 −1.5 1.5 0 0 2 𝐴32

The result of which is:

1 −2 0 𝐴12
6𝐴
−2 −0.5 −1.5 × 10 22 = 0
0 −1.5 −0.5 𝐴32

The first row becomes » 106 × 𝐴12 = 2 × 106 × 𝐴22 » 𝐴12 = 2 𝐴22
The second row becomes » -1.5 × 106 × 𝐴22 = 0.5 × 106 × 𝐴32 » 𝐴22 = -𝐴32 /3

If we consider fundamental mode than 𝐴12 = 1, therefore the 2nd mode eigenvectors as
follows:

1
0.5
−1.5

67
 1 1
Likewise the 1st and 3rd mode eigenvectors are 2.17 and −0.92 respectively.
2.78 0.72

The mode shapes are illustrated in the following figure:

3.4 Shear Wall with Opening Design

The deflection of shear wall at the top can be determined through use of the following
formula:

𝑊𝐻 3
∆𝑡𝑜𝑝 = R F
𝐼′

F – Flexibility factor stand can be obtained from the appropriate table

R – Coefficient for loads that has different values depending on the nature of actions

UDL action R = 1/8

Lateral action at the top of structure R = 1/3

Seismic Action R = 11/60

H - Total Height

W - Total Action

𝐼 ′ - Second moment area of the cross section of shear wall

68
CHAPTER 4 : Results and Analysis

4.1 Seismic Analysis

In this section the results obtained from hand calculations as well as Finite Element

Model will be discussed and their significance highlighted. To produce the FEM a

number of assumptions were made.

As for the seismic design, a substantial and powerful earthquake of magnitude 7 was

assumed and used to produce the seismic load.

The question to be asked was whether the traditional design procedure could produce a

structure capable of absorbing the energy generated by earthquake of considerable

magnitude.

The site location was assumed to be located in Greece where the soil data is as follows:

Spectrum type 1

69
Soil type C

The damping ratio was taken as 4% which gave the damping correction factor of 1.054.

The magnitude of the seismic event against which the lateral stability of the building

was analysed was 7 and the distance between the epicentre of the earthquake and the

structure was taken as 10 kilometres.

The design ground acceleration was calculated and found to be 0.31g, the lower limit of

constant acceleration 𝑇𝐵 = 0.2s, while Tc=0.6s and TD = 2.0 which represent

respectively the higher boundary of the period of constant acceleration and the period at

the start of the constant spectral displacement range. The soil type S was 1.15.

Since the most onerous natural frequency mode is the fundamental frequency (mode 1),

the focus of analysis was only on the fundamental frequency and corresponding mode

shape. Moreover, the formula in BLEIVINS was used to determine the fundamental

frequency which provide the following result after calculating the total mass per floor

and total stiffness per floor.

M = 339246 kg

K = 1316 × 106 KN/m

𝑓1 = 0.75936 Hz

Thus, the period of free vibration at the fundamental mode was determined, which is 1.3

sec.

70
This has been achieved by modelling the building as a mass-spring mode system as

shown below:

To determine the mode shape at the fundamental level 20x20 mass and stiffness

matrices M and K were set to find to be as follows:

71
Afterwards using the matrices for M and K the following equation was solved:

(K-M𝜔2 )A = 0

Where 𝜔 = 𝜔1 = 4.77 rad/s

That results in 𝜔12 = 22.7646

And A is the modal vector (eigenvector)

The operations with matrixes were performed using S Math Studio software (see

appendix), however the solution of the equation was obtained by hand calculations and

produced the following mode shape 1

1.9941311611

2.976560883

3.94152252

4.883353812

5.796527668

A= 6.675685249

72
 7.515667317

8.311544531

9.752588563

10.38929878

10.965040056

11.47643522

11.9204817

12.29457416

12.59651728

12.82453915

The earthquake excitation factor 𝐿1 was calculated using equation Li=∑ mj𝜑 i jwhich is

2
equal to 57808986 kg, whereas for the modal mass calculation equation MI = ∑ mj𝜑𝑖𝑗 was

used giving 5936880500 kg. After, the participating mass, PM=𝐿2𝑖 / 𝑀𝑖2 was determined which

is 5629087 kg.

The obtained results allowed to determine the base shear in the first mode, Fb = PM Se

(T1).Subsequently, the base shear load were distributed laterally using the formula Fk= Fb
𝑧𝑘 𝑚 𝑘
. The obtained results are presented in the following table:
∑𝑧𝑗𝑚𝑗

Floor Horizontal Load (kN)

1 111212
2 207594
3 303977
4 400360
5 496743
6 593126
7 689509
8 785892

73
 9 882274
10 978657
11 1075040
12 1171423
13 1267806
14 1364189
15 1475400
16 1556955
17 1653338
18 1749720
19 1846103
20 1942486

It can be observed from the table that the load distribution is triangular.

The distributed lateral loads were used to design the shear walls. The vertical stability of

the building under seismic load is beyond the scope of this work and for that reason will

be omitted and not discussed here. The stability of the building was analysed only in the

N-S direction.

When designing the shear wall, first the horizontal load was divided by 4, as there 4

shear walls provide lateral stability in N-S direction. It was also assumed that the load is

equally distributed between those shear walls.

The thickness of the shear wall is 300 millimetres, it is length 8 metres including the

opening and the opening itself is 2 metres. The shear wall with opening is connected by

the lintel beams.

The total seismic load that was assumed to be imposed on the structure is 20551797 kN,

while the design axial load, Ned = 27301 kN and the overturning moment is

736694609.6 kNm which means the existence of tension in the wall, since σb>σc, where

σcis axial load and σbis bending stress.

74
To check the structural integrity under the seismic event, the deflection at the top of the

building was calculated using both hand calculations and Finite Element analysis on

ANSYS structural software. Both methods yielded a substantial deflection up to

hundreds of metres.

Finite Element analysis showed that the deflection will be 270.483 metres, whereas the

hand calculations showed that the deflection will be nearly 5 times more than that

obtained by FE. The discrepancy between the deflection results obtained by hand

calculation and FE analysis of a little significance in this case. More important is the

fact that both results indicate at the structural failure and incapability of the designed

stability system to resist the lateral loads imposed by earthquake of such severity.

75
76
77
4.2 Structural Elements Analysis
4.2.1 Introduction

The structural design of elements (for office building) was done by conducting the

critical assessment of dimensions and positioning of the structural elements.

Afterwards, a single element of each type that carry the most onerous loads was

designed. Moreover, the design economy was sought throughout the design process.

A 1 metre middle slab was assumed to be laid in west east or east west directions since

the span between the beams in those direction are shorter (7 metres) than in the opposite

direction (8 metres) and such arrangement helps to save on material costs.

In contrast to the slab, a middle beam that face north south or south north were designed

due to the greater length and imposed loads in comparison to the perimeter beams.

As for the column design, a single middle bottom column was designed considering the

fact that these columns carry the largest axial load Ned as well as greatest loads imposed

by beams and slabs. Moreover, most unfavourable loading that creates the largest

moments was presumed.

4.2.2 Slab Analysis

Prior to the slab design the preliminary sizing had been conducted and the following design

data was presumed:

Slab Span L=7m

Slab Thickness hs = 250 mm

Diameter of reinforcement ϕs = 12 mm

78
Max. Aggregate Size dg = 20 mm

Redistribution of Bending Moment 1-δ = 20%

Characteristic Dead Load Due To Finishes gk = 1.5 KN/m2

Characteristic Compressive Cylinder Strength

Of Concrete (at 28 days) 𝑓𝑐𝑘 = 30 MPa

Characteristic yield strength of reinforcement 𝑓𝑦𝑘 = 500 Mpa

Nominal Density of Reinforced Concrete γconcrete = 25 KN / m3

Fire Resistance REI = 90 min

At the initial stage the nominal cover for the slab, c nom = 25mm, was determined taking

into consideration the slab exposure class and various other requirements imposed by

euro codes. This was followed by the calculation the design bending moment, (Med =

59.76 kNm per metre width), at the critical points along the slab. The calculated design

moment in conjunction with moment redistribution of 20 % enabled the calculation of K

(0.042) and Kᶦ (0.155) what in turn indicated that the section is singly reinforced.

Subsequently the required area of reinforcement was determined, 𝐴𝑠,𝑟𝑒𝑞 = 113.1 mm2

and 680mm2 of tension reinforcement was provided (6 H12 @ 150 mm).

The next stage of the slab analysis was to ensure that the section complies with

minimum and maximum reinforcement area (𝐴𝑠,𝑚𝑖𝑛 = 331𝑚𝑚2 ; 𝐴𝑠,𝑚𝑎𝑥 = 10000 𝑚𝑚2 )

crack control (𝑤𝑘 = 0.3 mm) which the slab successfully passed.

79
It was also ensured that the slab is adequate with respect to deflection by determining

reference reinforcement ratio,p0 =0.00548 and required tension reinforcement, p =

𝑙 𝑙
0.0032 and then 𝑑 = 51.94 and 𝑑 = 31.97.
𝑙𝑖𝑚𝑖𝑡 𝑎𝑐𝑡𝑢𝑎𝑙

Finally, the shear capacity and shear stress of the slab were calculated and compared

𝑉𝑅𝑑 = 0.526 N/ 𝑚𝑚2 , 𝑉𝐸𝑑 = 0.272 N/ 𝑚𝑚2 .

4.2.3 Beam Analysis

The beam adequacy were checked based on the following design data and assumptions:

Span of main beams 𝐿𝑏 = 8 m

Width of beams 𝑏𝑤 = 400mm

Diameter of reinforcement ϕ𝑠 = 12 mm

Overall depth h = 600 mm

Max. Aggregate Size dg = 20 mm

Redistribution of Bending Moment 1-δ = 15%

Characteristic Dead Load Due To Finishes g k = 1.5 KN/m2

Characteristic Compressive Cylinder Strength

Of Concrete (at 28 days) 𝑓𝑐𝑘 = 40 MPa

80
Characteristic yield strength of reinforcement 𝑓𝑦𝑘 = 500 Mpa

Nominal Density of Reinforced Concrete γ concrete = 25 KN / m3

Fire Resistance REI = 90 min

Calculations showed that 𝑐𝑛𝑜𝑚 = 30 mm meet all cover requirements with regards to

bond considerations, environmental exposure, fire safety and etc. stipulated in Euro

codes.

Prior to calculations of the design values of bending moment near mid-span of the end

bay and at first interior support 𝑀𝐸𝑑,3 = 609.63 kNm and 𝑀𝐸𝑑,4 = -621.98 kNm,

respectively the design value of the UDL load, 𝑞𝑑 = 106.74 kN/m had been determined.

The dead load of the slab had been also taken into account in the calculations.

At first when calculating the required area of reinforcement the results revealed that

required reinforcement area for near mid span of end bay 𝐴𝑠,𝑟𝑒𝑞 = 3075𝑚𝑚2 and for the

first interior support 𝐴𝑠,𝑟𝑒𝑞 = 3007.51𝑚𝑚2 . Therefore, it was decided to provide 10H20

mm diameter bars in two rows (3141.6𝑚𝑚2 ).

Nevertheless, further deflection check had revealed that the designed beams are not

𝑙 𝑙
adequate with respect to deflection (𝑑 = 14.03, =15.238) what lead to
𝑙𝑖𝑚𝑖𝑡,𝑓𝑖𝑛 𝑑 𝑎𝑐𝑡𝑢𝑎𝑙

decision to provide extra 2H20 bars (𝐴𝑠,𝑝𝑟𝑜𝑣 = 3770 𝑚𝑚2 )and the deflection check was

eventually passed.

81
The shear reinforcement were provided as follows:

For the beam at outer support it is suggested to provide H10 2-leg links @ 250 mm

(𝑠𝑤,𝑚𝑎𝑥 = 255 mm) and H10 2-leg links @350 mm at 1.5 m from the end support

(𝑠𝑤,𝑚𝑎𝑥 = 380.5 mm).

For the beam at first interior support H10 2-leg links were provided @ 150 mm (𝑠𝑤,𝑚𝑎𝑥

= 182 mm) from first interior support and H10 2-leg links @ 300 mm at 2.5m from the

first interior support.

4.2.4 Column Analysis

The following design assumption were made when doing the column design:

Breadth of the column (b) 700mm

Depth of the column (h) 700mm

Clear height of thecolumn (L) 3.0 metres

Standard Fire Resistance REI =120

Strength class of the concrete (𝑓𝑐𝑘 ) 50 MPa

Diameter of main tension steel ( ϕ𝑠 ) 25 mm

Diameter of links 10 mm

As in previous instances the nominal cover for column was determined 𝑐𝑛𝑜𝑚 = 40 mm.

As stated previously it was assumed that the bottom columns carry the most

unfavourable load combination that creates the largest moment at the top and at the

82
bottom of the column BE. Design values of the UDL were determined to be equal to

112.84 kN/m imposed on beam AB and 81.34 kN/m on beam CB.

Subsequently the stiffness values of beams AB and CB, columns EB and DE were

calculated and distribution factors arrived at. The fixed end moments of the beams had

been also determined.

D A B C E
Joint DB AB BA BD BE BC CB EB
DF 0 0 0.0295 0.504 0.437 0.0295 0 0
FEM -601.82 601.82 -433.82 433.82
BAL -4.96 -84.68 -73.42 -4.96
C/O -42.34 -2.48 -2.48 -36.71
Total -42.34 -604.3 596.86 -84.68 -73.42 -438.78 431.34 -36.71

As it can be observed from the table a moment at the bottom of column EB is 36.71

kNm, while at the top of column is -73.42kNm (where 𝑀02 >𝑀01 ).

83
The total axial load, 𝑁𝐸𝑑 ,that acts on the bottom middle column was found to be

17784Kn and the column has proved to be non-slender, since𝜆𝑙𝑖𝑚 = 16.32 >𝜆𝑎𝑐𝑡𝑢𝑎𝑙 =

8.76.

In the end after determination of design moment 𝑀𝐸𝑑 = 487.79 kNm the specific Design

Chart for 𝑑2 /h = 0.10 was used and required reinforcement area calculated 𝐴𝑠 = 13720

𝑚𝑚2 . The suggestion was made to provide 28H25 mm reinforcement bars.

4.2.5 Pile Cap Analysis

The results indicated that a required area of reinforcement 𝐴𝑠 = 6969 𝑚𝑚2 has to be

provided in each direction. To obtain the required area of reinforcement the tension at

the bottom of the pile cap had been calculated (6062.72 kN). The axial load acting on

the top of the cap was taken as 17784 kN, while the distance between the piles, 2l = 3

metres.

The next step was to determine whether the pile cap has adequate shear capacity to
resist shear forces which it successfully passed (𝑉𝑅𝑑,𝑐 = 2062.97 kN>𝑉𝐸𝑑 = 1010.5 kN.

The punching shear check was not required, as the spacing between the piles three times
the pile diameter.

Eventually, the shear force at the face of the column (𝑉𝐸𝑑 = 𝑁𝐸𝑑 = 17784 kN) was
checked against the maximum shear capacity of the section 𝑉𝑅𝑑,𝑚𝑎𝑥 = 18345.6 kN.

84
CHAPTER 5 : Conclusion

The main objectives of this project were to get an insight into LSD Philosophies and

Eurocodes, undertake a critical review of current practices of structural elements design,

apply that knowledge into the design and analysis of tall RC building by producing

hand calculations, do seismic as well as dynamic analysis of the proposed structure,

conduct an investigation of case studies, become familiar with Finite Element Analysis

and finally obtain the software data and draw a comparison between data obtained by

hand calculations and software analysis.

It can be concluded that all aforementioned objectives have been achieved. It is clearly

evident that the broad literature review have been undertaken on current practices of

elements design and analysis. Moreover, the structural elements such as slab, beam,

column, roof slab and foundation have been designed manually to Eurocodes 2, the

necessary safety factors were applied and all design data as well as critical results were

discussed in the results and analysis chapter. The dynamic and seismic analysis was

conducted at most critical and onerous fundamental mode 1, the fundamental frequency

was found to be 𝑓1 = 0.75936 Hz.

85