Model Answer Q2 2015

Model Answer Q2, 2015:
Institution of Structural
Engineers Chartered
Membership Examination
Model Answer Q2, 2015
Institution of Structural Engineers Chartered Membership Examination
Version Issue Purpose Author Reviewer Approved

01 Dec 2017 EDY DGB DGB
Although all care has been taken to ensure that all the information contained herein is
accurate, The Steel Construction Institute assumes no responsibility for any errors or
misinterpretations or any loss or damage arising therefrom.
For information on publications, telephone direct: +44 (0) 1344 636505

or Email: [email protected]
For information on courses, telephone direct: +44 (0) 1344 636500

or Email: [email protected]
Email: [email protected]
World Wide Web site: http://www.steel-sci.org
ii
FOREWORD
This document has been prepared to assist candidates preparing for the Institution of
Structural Engineers chartered membership examination. It forms one of a series of
answers, demonstrating steel solutions.
The document was prepared by Ed Yandzio and David Brown of the Steel Construction
Institute (SCI), with valuable input from Tom Cosgrove of the British Constructional
Steelwork Association (BCSA) and Owen Brooker of Modulus.
This answer was commissioned and funded by the BCSA and Steel for Life.
iii
iv
Contents
Page No
FOREWORD iii
1 THE QUESTION 1
1.1 General arrangement 1
1.2 Loading 3
1.3 Ground conditions 3
1.4 Section 1b modification 3
2 CALCULATIONS 5
3 DRAWINGS 35
4 METHOD STATEMENT 40
5 PROGRAMME 41
6 CLIENT LETTER 43
v
vi
1 THE QUESTION
A range of past papers is available from the Institution of Structural Engineers at the
following url: https://www.istructe.org/membership/examination/papers-etc
The question addressed by this model answer is Question 2 from January 2015; it is
recommended that the full question is reviewed.
The question requires:
 Development of two distinct and viable schemes,

 A recommendation on the scheme to be adopted,
 Design calculations for the principle structural elements,
 General arrangement plans, sections and elevations,
 A method statement,
 An outline construction programme,
 A letter to the client advising on the implications of the change specified in section 1b.
1.1 General arrangement

The challenge posed by the question was a canopy and control room for a road toll
barrier. Ten lanes, each 5 m wide and with 5 m between lanes were to be covered by a
roof with an overall width of 105 m. Parallel to the road lanes, the canopy was to extend
20 m from a 10 m support zone, making the overall dimension 30 m. The high level
control room was to be 10 m by 10 m, mid-way between the traffic lanes, aligned over
the zone available for supports. A clear height of 5 m was required to the underside of
the canopy, and 20 m to the underside of the control room. The general arrangement is
shown in Figure 1.
1
Traffic lane
Possible support
zones
Control room over
105.0 10.0
5.0
5.0
Control room
5.0
30.0
20.0
5.0
10.0
Figure 1 General Arrangement
Supports were only permitted in the 5 m gap between lanes, within the 10 m zone shown
in Figure 1.
Although the supports were protected from impact, the brief required that the structure
must withstand the removal of a single interior support, under partial loading conditions.
Only three road lanes could be closed at any one time during construction.
2
1.2 Loading
The following loads were specified:
Roof 1.0 kN/m2
Control room floor 4 kN/m2
Basic wind speed of 46 m/s based on a 3 second gust, or a mean hourly wind speed of
23 m/s.
1.3 Ground conditions

Ground conditions varied at each side of the carriageway. Borehole 1 was located at the
North end of the roof, and borehole 2 at the South (as drawn).
Borehole 1:
Ground level to – 0.4 m Asphalt
0.4 m – 5.0 m Silty clay C = 50 kN/m2
Below 5.0 m Stiff clay C = 100 kN/m2
Borehole 2:
Ground level to – 0.4 m Asphalt
0.4 m – 3.0 m Gravel with traces of silt, N = 15
Below 3.0 m Rock, allowable safe bearing pressure 2000 kN/m2
Ground water at 2 m below ground in both locations.
1.4 Section 1b modification

The client wishes to move the control room to the opposite side of the roof.
3
4
2 CALCULATIONS
5
Job No. Sheet 1 of 28 Rev
Title
Subject
Silwood Park, Ascot, Berks SL5 7QN
Telephone: (01344) 636525
Fax: (01344) 636570 Made by EDY Date Nov 17
Client
CALCULATION SHEET Checked by DGB Date DEC 17
SECTION 1(a) – ALTERNATIVE SOLUTIONS

SCHEME 1
Scheme 1 is comprised of steel trusses at 10 m centres, supporting the cantilever roof. Each
truss is supported within the permitted 10 m zone. Perpendicular to the carriageway,
secondary trusses are provided at the cantilever tips and at the supports.
The control room is supported on a 10 m square steel tower. The tower columns are
supported on transfer trusses at canopy roof level, spanning over the carriageway below and
supported in the permitted zones.
Trusses are designed as pin ended, allowing articulation to accommodate any differential
settlement of supports across the site.
Trusses perpendicular to the carriageway are designed as two span under the accidental
loading conditions, and thus designed to support the structure if a single column is removed.
Uplift on the foundations is the critical load condition. In clay, tension piles are provided to
resist uplift by skin friction. In rock, tension bars are grouted into the rock.
Commentary Sheet 2 of 28 Rev
The key to this question is the cantilever of the canopy roof, compounded by the lateral forces on
the control room tower, which will produce uplift on the foundations.
The quite different ground conditions across the site demand alternative arrangements for the clay
and for the rock.
Structurally, the modest challenge is that the supports to the control room tower are located
between supports (i.e. over a carriageway). A transfer arrangement is required if the control tower
is to be supported at the four corners.
A narrow tower could be provided, becoming wider under the control room itself, but this would
be tall and narrow, so not an efficient solution.
The different ground conditions mean that differential settlement across the site must be
accommodated – and mentioned in the submission.
Calculations Sheet 3 of 28 Rev
Framing arrangement
The roof will be clad in profiled metal sheeting, spanning 2 m between purlins. The purlins
span 10 m to the primary roof canopy trusses.
Roof canopy trusses
The primary roof canopy trusses are 30 m long, supported on a braced support system
within the 10 m permitted zone. The trusses have a 1 in 60 fall to the truss tip, to aid
drainage.
Under gravity conditions, the bottom chord of the cantilever will be in compression.
Lateral restraints will be required at appropriate intervals. In the wind uplift case, the
purlins restrain the compression chord.
Transverse trusses
Transverse trusses will be provided on lines A, B and C (see diagram) to provide stability
at the support locations and at the tips of the cantilever. These trusses do not carry
primary loads in normal conditions, but will be designed to carry the resulting load if one
support is removed.
Load transfer – canopy roof
Vertical loads are carried by the primary roof canopy trusses to the columns within the
10 m permitted support zone. Depending on the load combination, the columns will
experience compression or tension, meaning the foundations must be designed for both
cases.
Loads parallel to the carriageway are carried by the trusses to the vertical bracing within
the permitted support zone and thus to the foundations.
Loads perpendicular to the carriageway will be carried by plan bracing in the line of the
truss chords to bracing towers provided in five of the eleven permitted support zones.
Within these towers, diagonal bracing takes the lateral loads to the foundations.
Frame stability – canopy roof
Plan bracing is provided in each end bay and two further intermediate bays to stabilise
the structure under loads perpendicular to the carriageway. Plane bracing is also
provided over the full width of the structure, between Trusses A and B, to accommodate
loads parallel to the carriageway and to ensure the roof behaves as a diaphragm.
Control Tower
The control tower is a simple clad “box” supported on a braced tower. All four sides of
the tower are braced. A simple floor of precast slabs could be provided, with supporting
beams simply supported. A simple clad roof is envisaged, to suit the architectural details.
At the canopy roof level, due to the arrangement of the carriageways, the control tower
steelwork must be supported by transfer trusses which span to adjacent supports. At
this level, plan bracing is provided to transfer the horizontal loads to the adjacent braced
bays.
Control tower – load transfer
Vertical loads are carried by the four corner columns to the transfer trusses, and
then to vertical supports in the permitted support zones. Lateral loads are carried
by vertical bracing to the canopy roof level transfer trusses. At that level,
horizontal bracing transfers the horizontal loads to vertical bracing provided in
both directions within the permitted support zones.
10 m is a relatively long span. A hollow section will be used for the purlin, primarily so that
lateral torsional buckling under uplift (where the member would be unrestrained) is not a
design consideration.
The transverse trusses (perpendicular to the carriageway) would normally carry no load – the
exceptions are the trusses carrying the column loads from the control tower. However, the
brief demands that a support be removed, so the trusses must function as double span, or as
a cantilever, and this will be the design condition.
Generally, examiners are keen to see issues of load transfer and stability addressed, so it may
be a good discipline to formally describe these.
Detailed arrangements around the control tower are not seen as significant, so are largely
ignored in the submission.
Control tower – frame stability

The tower is braced on all four sides. Lateral loads are transferred to the plan bracing, and
then to the adjacent vertical bracing. Relatively small vertical loads mean that second order
effects are not likely to be significant.
Foundations
The two boreholes indicate quite different ground conditions at each end of the site. In clay,
bored piles will be provided, resisting the uplift by skin friction alone. In the download
condition, the load will be resisted by skin friction and by end bearing. Differential settlement
will be accommodated by pinned connections within the superstructure.
Where rock is indicated at shallow depth, short bored piles will be used to transfer
compression. To resist tension, bars will be grouted into the underlying rock.
SCHEME 2
Scheme 2 provides a similar arrangement of steelwork for the canopy roof, but quite
different support arrangements. In this scheme, tension members are provided from high
level on the control tower to support the roof canopy steelwork mid-way between the end of
the canopy (grids 1 and 14) and the support tower. The general arrangement is shown in
the following figure..
No intermediate supports or foundations are needed.

Primary trusses span are provided on grids A, B and C, with a mid-span support from
inclined tension members anchored to the tower. Secondary trusses are provided parallel to
the carriageway, from grid A to C. The secondary trusses are not aligned with the
carriageways below. Purlins span 8.33 m between the secondary trusses to support the
cladding at 2 m centres.
In scheme 2, the spacing of trusses parallel to the carriageway is no longer constrained by the lane
spacing.
In scheme 2, a narrow tower is proposed, meaning no transfer trusses are needed.
In any scheme with inclined members, the resulting forces in the rest of the structure must be
mentioned and managed in design. Here, additional compression is introduced.
With minimal supports, erection will be more challenging.

The tension in the ties produces compression in the primary truss chords, which must be
included in the design. The inclined tie to grid C produces compression in the secondary
truss chord, which must be resisted by a substantial horizontal truss between grids A and B,
which spans from the ends of the canopy to the support tower.
In this scheme, the control room is supported on a narrow tower (5 m x 10 m) which is
located within the permitted support zone between carriageway lanes.
The support tower is subject to high loads, and asymmetric loading conditions – including
torque on plan, so will be heavily braced with diagonal members on all faces down to the
foundations.
Because the tower carries a large proportion of all the forces applied to the structure, the
foundations will be substantial.
Load transfer – canopy roof
In the gravity loadcase, purlins carry the load on the sheeting to the secondary trusses. The
secondary trusses are supported by primary trusses on grids A, B and C. The primary
trusses span from the outside of the canopy roof to the support tower, with an intermediate
support from an inclined tie, midway along the truss
The tie member is only effective in tension (the gravity loadcase), so in the wind uplift
loadcase, the primary trusses must span 50 m from the edge of the roof to the support
tower.
Load parallel to the carriageway is carried by the plan truss between grids A and B to the
vertical bracing at the ends of the canopy and at the support tower.
Load perpendicular to the carriageway is carried by the primary trusses to the vertical
bracing in the support tower.
Load transfer – control room
The vertical loads from the control room are small. The more significant loads are from the
component of the tie force that the columns must carry. All lateral loads will be carried by
bracing on all four sides of the tower to the foundations.
Frame stability
Frame stability is provided by the vertical bracing at the end of the canopy, and by vertical
bracing in both directions at the support tower. The support tower is relatively narrow, so
the resulting forces will be large.
Foundations
Foundations are only required at the ends of the canopy and under the support tower. The
foundations at the ends of the canopy will not be significant. The foundations under the
support tower must resist large vertical forces and large horizontal forces, so will be
substantial. Similar arrangements to scheme 1 are proposed – bored piles if clay and tension
bars if rock.
Scheme Selection
Although scheme 2 has greater architectural merit than scheme 1, the majority of force is
concentrated on the support tower leading to an inefficient design. Because the inclined ties
are ineffective in the uplift loadcase, the primary trusses will be substantial, and may be
competent in the gravity loadscase even without the inclined ties, rendering the ties
structurally redundant. Fewer foundations in scheme 2 are offset by the necessity for much
larger foundations, leading to increased cost.
The narrow tower will lead to significant forces in the bracing, and tower legs, and in the
foundations. The possibility of asymmetric loading would also be considered.
As ties do not work in compression, the primary trusses perpendicular to the carriageway will need
to be substantial (and uplift is the more onerous design condition). Thus the trusses would be
capable in the ‘download’ case without the ties – making them redundant.
The structure is inefficient as the ties are effectively redundant. They do limit deflection in the
gravity loadcase.
The inclined ties result in additional compression in several members, adding complexity to
the design
The structural connections between the canopy roof and the control room support tower are
likely to produce some movement and possibly vibration from the fluctuating wind loads on
the canopy roof, which may lead to discomfort. The control room is more isolated in
scheme 1 so any dynamic effects are reduced.
Temporary works will be more involved in scheme 2, to support the primary trusses until the
ties and the plan bracing is complete. In comparison, the scheme 1 steelwork can be
erected in self-contained, stable stages. Scheme 2 is more sensitive to asymmetric loading.
The structural redundancy demanded by the brief is readily provided in scheme 1.
Both schemes recognise that differential deflection across the canopy roof is possible; both
have sufficient flexibility to accommodate any anticipated movement
Scheme 1 is selected, for three primary reasons:
1. Scheme 1 is more robust in form.
2. Scheme 2 demands more temporary works.
3. The foundations for Scheme 2 will be much more expensive.
SECTION 2 – DESIGN CALCULATIONS
(for scheme 1)
Preliminary design calculations completed in accordance with BS EN 1993-1-1.
Design combinations of actions determined in accordance with expression 6.10 of
BS EN 1990.
All steelwork is S355, unless noted otherwise.
Roof canopy
Loading
Mean hourly wind speed is associated with BS 6399
No altitude given. Assume 150 m asl. so calt 1.15
vs = 1.15 × 23 = 26.5 m/s
Assume country terrain, close to sea (most onerous)
Then from BS 6399 Table 4, sb = 1.96 at 30 m height
ve = 26.5 × 1.96 = 51.9 m/s
qs = 0.613 × 51.92 × 10-3 = 1.65 kN/m2
BS 6399 Table 13 for overall coefficients (net)
Download = +0.2; uplift = -1.2
Download = 0.2 × 1.65 = 0.33 kN/m2
Uplift = -1.2 × 1.65 = -1.98 kN/m2
Assume permanent actions = 0.4 kN/m2
Assume snow load = 0.6 kN/m2
Imposed load (from brief) = 1.0 kN/m2
In the scheme selection, consider structure, foundations, cost, aesthetics, erection, programme
and risk.
It is not clear how the demand to remove one support can be realised in scheme 2.
For the candidate, an equally important reason is that scheme 1 is straightforward to design.
A 3 second gust is compatible with CP2‐ChV. Wind data compatible with the Eurocode is not
provided in the brief.
Not enough data is given for a thorough assessment to BS 6399, so assumptions must be made
about altitude, distance from the sea, etc.
Note that in the Eurocode, the imposed load on a roof is separate to the snow load. Notably, the
imposed load is not combined with wind or snow. An assumption about the snow load must be
made, as this is not given in the brief.
Design combinations of actions

Download
Permanent + imposed; 1.35 × 0.4 + 1.5 × 1.0 = 2.04 kN/m2
Permanent, snow + wind (down);
1.35 × 0.4 + 1.5 × 0.6 + 1.5 × 0.5 × 0.33 = 1.68 kN/m2
Uplift
1.0 × 0.4 – 1.5 × 1.98 = -2.57 kN/m2.
Purlin for roof canopy
10 m span, 2 m spacing; critical load is uplift
Bending moment = 2.57 × 2 × 102/8 = 64 kNm
Adopt 150 × 150 × 6.3 SHS (68.2 kNm)
Primary roof truss
Uplift on one truss = -2.57 × 10 = -25.7 kN/m
Download on one truss = 2.04 × 10 = 20.4 kN/m
Uplift moment at B = 25.7 × 20 × 10 = 5140 kNm
With a 2 m deep truss, chord force = 5140/2 = 2570 kN

In uplift, compression in the top chord, with restraints from purlins at 2 m centres.
Adopt 200 × 200 × 10 SHS (2570 kN on 2 m)
Download moment at B = 20.4 × 20 × 10 = 4080 kN
SHS has been chosen to avoid LTB being a design consideration. No deflection limits are needed at
this stage.
Two design cases are considered – and uplift is more onerous.
Although the compression in the bottom chord will be smaller, as the loading is reduced, restraints
are only provided at 4 m centres (compared to 2 m centres on the top chord) so this design
condition must also be verified.
Chord force = 4080/2 = 2040 kN

Say restraints at every other purlin, so every 4 m
200 × 200 × 10 provides 2280 kN on 4 m, OK
Taking moments about A under uplift conditions:
-25.7 × 30 × 15 = VB × 10; VB = -1156.5 kN (tension)
VA = -25.7 × 30 + 1156.5 = 385.5 kN (compression)
Shear at B = 20 × 25.7 = 514 kN
Shear force diagram

Most heavily loaded internal is subject to shear of 643 kN
Diagonal component = 643 × 20.5 = 909 kN
Length = (2 × 22)0.5 = 2.82 m
Adopt 160 × 160 × 5 SHS (961 kN on 3 m)
Under download conditions, axial compression in column at B
= 1156.5 × 20.4/25.7 = 918 kN (compression)
Assuming that one support is removed, the compression increases by 50% (the load from
the missing column is shared by the adjacent supports).
Design load in column at B = 1.5 × 918 = 1377 kN compression, or
1.5 × 1156.5 = 1735 kN tension
Column length is 5 m
Adopt 200 × 200 × 10 (2040 kN compression on 5 m; 2660 kN tension)
Vertical bracing (not under control room)
Assume a 2 m deep facia to roof canopy.
Assume pressure coefficient on facia of 1.2 (net)
Horizontal force at vertical bracing = 1.2 × 1.65 × 2 × 10 = 39.6 kN
Force in bracing = 39.6 × 20.5 = 56 kN
Length of compression bracing = (2 × 52)0.5 = 7.1 m
Adopt 114 × 5 CHS (99.3 kN on 7 m)
Secondary truss on Grid C
Truss ties cantilever tips – nominal loading, so fabricate from 150 × 150 × 6.3 SHS
chords and 100 × 100 × 6.3 internals.
This assumes that the internal is at 45°
The internal member has been selected to be relatively wide, to minimise the likelihood of
punching through the face of the chord. In a full design, it is essential that the joint resistances are
checked in accordance with BS EN 1993-1-8.
The secondary trusses on C are merely framing.

Control room tower design

Vertical loads:
Roof say 0.5 kN/m2 permanent
1.0 kN/m2 imposed (from brief)
Floor say 3.0 kN/m2 permanent
4 kN/m2 imposed (from brief)
Design value of vertical load
= 1.35 × (0.5 + 3) + 1.5 × (1 + 4) = 12.2 kN/m2
Axial load in each of the four corner columns = 12.2 × 10 × 10 / 4 = 306 kN
EHF will be taken as 2.5% of the factored vertical loads, recognising this is
sufficient to ensure that second order effects are small enough to be ignored.
EHF at control room floor level = 12.2 × 10 × 10 × 2.5/100 = 30.5 kN
Wind actions
Take overall coefficient as 1.2
Design value of wind actions
= 1.65 × 1.2 × 10 × 20 × 1.5 = 743 kN
Force in column due to EHF and wind

= (30.5 × 25 + 743 × 12.5)/(10 × 2) = 503 kN
Total force in each column = 503 + 306 = 809 kN
Unrestrained length = 6.5 m
Adopt 200 × 200 × 6.3 (953 kN on 7 m)
EHF are normally 0.5% of the factored vertical loads. However, the use of 2.5% is considered
sufficient to ensure that if frame stability were considered, cr > 10 and second order effects would
be small enough to be ignored.
Vertical bracing in tower

Shear at base (each side) = (30.5 + 743)/2 = 386 kN
A single member in compression would be 12 m long, so try crossed flats in tension only.
386 kN will require 4 No. M24 bolts (4 × 136 = 544 kN)
Holes for M24 are 26 mm
Try 200 × 12 flat, S275
Resistance = (200 – 2 × 26) × 12 × 275 × 10-3 = 488 kN, OK
Primary truss design (Grids 4 – 8, supporting the control tower)
Normal case: the load from the tower above is midway between grids.
Bending moment = 809 × 10/4 = 2022 kNm

In the accidental case of a support being removed, the truss must span 20 m. Both columns
from the tower above must be carried by the truss, together with the canopy loads. In the
accidental case, the design is completed with 1/3 the imposed load (stated in the brief).
As it is an accidental case, the permanent actions will not be factored, following the
guidance in BS EN 1990.
From the tower, the reduced vertical load (1/3 imposed load), but assuming the full design
value of the wind load and EHF is given by:
503 + [ (0.5 + 3) + (1/3) ×(1 +4)] × 10 × 10 / 4 = 632 kN
From the canopy, the accidental load
= 0.4 + (1/3) × 1.0 = 0.73 kN/m2
The vertical load at the support would therefore be:
0.73 × 10 × 1156.5/25.7 = 328 kN
A compression member could be used – but is inconvenient as the length falls outside the range in
the Blue Book.
A simple check is completed on the net area, using the yield strength. The Eurocode allows the
resistance to be based on gross area × yield, or net area × 0.9 × ultimate, whichever is lower.
This is the “normal” case. It will be compared with the accidental condition, to see which gives the
higher moment.
This first accidental condition assumes the missing support is on grid 6

Bending moment under load = 796 × 10 – 632 × 5 = 4800 kNm

An alternative scenario is when the truss must act as a cantilever:
Moment at support = 632 × 5 = 3160 kNm

Maximum moment = 4800 kN; force in truss chord = 4800/2 = 2400 kN
To reduce the out of plane buckling length, a secondary truss providing a diaphragm will be
introduced midway between grids. The bracing arrangement will be modified to provide
restraint to the trusses on grids A and B at these diaphragm positions.
For the chords, adopt 200 × 200 × 16 SHS (3060 kN on 5 m)

Maximum shear is 769 kN. Force in end diagonal = 769 × 20.5 = 1125 kN
Length is 3.53 m
Adopt 160 × 160 × 8 SHS (1310 kN on 4 m)
Force in support column = [632 × (5+15) +328 × 10]/10 = 1592 kN
200 × 200 × 10 is OK (2040 kN on 5 m)
Primary truss (grids 1 – 4 and 8 to 11)
Design case is when one support is missing:
Midspan moment = 328 × 20/4 = 1640 kNm

This second accidental condition assumes that the missing column is on grid 7
This design covers the trusses that do not support the tower – in the normal condition they are
merely framing the structure together, so the accidental case is the design condition to be verified.
This condition assumes an intermediate support is missing.

Moment at column = 328 × 10 = 3280 kNm

This is the scenario if the support on grid 1 or 11 were removed.
Under the maximum moment, the force in the chord = 3280/2 = 1640 kN
The chord is restrained at 5 m
Adopt 200 × 200 × 8 SHS (1670 kN on 5 m)
Maximum shear is 328 kN
Force in internal = 328 × 20.5 = 464 kN
Length = 3.53 m
Adopt 160 × 160 × 6.3 SHS (1050 kN on 4 m)
Plan Bracing
Plan bracing will be needed at top chord level and at bottom chord level. At bottom chord
level, the assumed restraints to the chords are at 4 m centres, so the plan bracing will be
arranged to suit. Plan bracing is provided in four bays. Between the braced bays, ties are
provided to restrain the bottom chords of the trusses.
Vertical Bracing (North-South direction)
Perpendicular to the carriageway, the plan bracing carries lateral loads to the five braced
towers. The loads in this direction are small – by inspection bracing of
150 × 150 × 6.3 will be adequate.
Foundation design
Column supports (not to tower)
Design value of vertical load from superstructure
= 1377 kN compression, or 1735 kN tension
Key design criteria is tension resistance. Foundations to resist both tension and
compression are required. Two alternative designs will be undertaken, reflecting the
different ground conditions at each end of the site. The beneficial weight of the pilecap will
be taken into account when considering uplift.
In clay (South end)
Tension (1735 kN from superstructure)
The piles will be designed neglecting the contribution of the top 5 m of asphalt and silty
clay (as the silty clay has a low strength). In tension, skin friction will be utilised. In
compression, skin friction and end bearing will be utilised if necessary.
From Table 3.25 (Brooker), a firm to stiff clay has an undrained shear strength of
approximately 75 kN/m2.
This condition assumes that an end support is missing.
Plan bracing need only be nominal. Four braced bays and wind loads only mean the forces are
small.
Foundations are the key design challenge. Two loading conditions exist – foundations that support
the tower, and those that do not. Two quite different ground conditions have to be assessed – on
clay, or over rock at relatively shallow depth.
Try four piles, each 750 mm diameter. 3d spacing = 2250 mm

Overall size of square pilecap = 4.25 m
Depth of pilecap = (1/3)(8 × 750 – 600) = 1800 mm
Weight of pilecap = 4.25 × 4.25 × 1.8 × 22.5 = 731 kN
Net uplift, applying a factor of 0.9 to the self weight of the pilecap
= 1735 – 0.9 × 731 = 1077 kN
With a pile group of 2 × 2 piles, the efficiency factor is 0.8 (Table 3.28, Brooker)
Based on an undrained shear strength of 75 kN/m2, the adhesion factor is 0.7, from Figure
3.14 (Brooker) with soft clay overlying stiff clay.
Tomlinson recommends a 50% reduction in resistance for piles resisting uplift by skin
friction (page 296).
The factor of 2.0 is taken from the UK NA to EN 1997-1 for bored piles (Table A.NA.7)
Assuming 750 mm diameter piles, the length in the stiff clay is at least:
20 × 0.75 = 15 m
Circumference = πd = π × 0.75 = 2.36 m
Ultimate resistance of pile group
= 4 × 0.8 × 0.7 × 75 × 2.36 × 15 × 0.5/2.0 = 1487 kN, > 1077 kN, OK
Compression (1377 kN)
In compression, the resistance is much larger, as the 0.5 factor is not applied, and end
bearing would be included. 1487 kN > 1377 kN, OK
Over rock (North end)
Rock is only 3 m below ground, so anchoring to the rock is proposed for the tension
loadcase, and utilising piles bearing on the rock for the compression loadcase. Tension bars
will be grouted into the rock, passing through the pile casing, before completing the pile.
Some iteration is needed before a reasonable solution can be identified. More piles are less
efficient because of the group effect, but the pilecap is larger – and heavier, which reduces the net
uplift.
Reinforced Concrete Designer’s Handbook; Reynolds and Steedman. C&CA, 1981. Table 195.
0.9 factor from EN 1990 when considering resistance to uplift.
Foundation Design and Construction; Tomlinson, Pitman Publishing, 1995

There appears to be differences of view on the factor to be applied – so the Eurocode is used.
This includes the 0.5 factor used when assessing skin friction in uplift.
End bearing has been neglected. Even if the 0.5 factor for skin friction under uplift is used, the
resistance is satisfactory in compression.
Tension (1077 kN net, assuming same pilecap dimensions)

Try 25 mm bars, with fy = 500 N/mm2
Bar area =  × 252/4 = 491 mm2
Number of bars needed = 1077 × 103/(500 × 491) = 4.4 bars (use minimum 8: 2 per
pile)
Maintaining the pile group of 4 piles, 750 mm diameter, try two 25 mm bars in each pile (8
bars total)
Load per bar = 1077 / 8= 134.6 kN
Resistance of bar = 491 × 500 × 10-3 = 246 kN, > 134.6 kN, OK
Bond strength of bar to grout say 2 N/mm2 (Tomlinson, page 296)
Bar circumference = d =  × 25 = 78.5 mm
Length of anchorage in grout = 134.6 × 103 / (2 × 78.5) = 857 mm
Allow embedment in rock of 1200 mm (top of rock may be fissured)
Bond strength of grout to rock say 1 N/mm2 (Tomlinson, page 297)
Assume a 50 mm hole. Circumference = d =  × 50 = 157 mm
Shear between grout and rock = 134.6 × 103/(1200 × 157)
= 0.71 N/mm2 < 1, OK.
Compression (1377 kN)
End bearing area of each pile =  × 0.752/4 = 0.442 m2.
Resistance of pile group in compression
= 4 × 0.442 × 2000 = 3536 kN > 1377 kN, OK
Foundations under the tower – Grids 5, 6, 7
The ground conditions at the tower location are not known – additional site investigation is
needed before a solution can be chosen. Both alternatives (clay or rock) will be considered.
Loads from tower
The maximum tension will result from permanent vertical loads only in the tower combined with
EHF and wind. The EHF calculated previously will not be modified.
Permanent actions on tower = (0.5 + 3) = 3.5 kN/m2
Compression force in column = 3.5 × 10 × 10 / 4 = 87.5 kN
Maximum tension in tower column = 503 – 87.5 = 415.5 kN
The maximum tension on the foundation is the summation of the tension in the tower leg and
the tension due to the roof canopy loading (see previous)
Maximum tension on foundation = 1735 + 415 = 2150 kN
Net uplift = 2150 – 0.9 × 731 = 1492 kN
Maximum compression on foundation = 1377 + 809 = 2186 kN
If founded above clay:
As previously calculated. Tension resistance of the pile group = 1487 kN. Compared to
1492 kN, this is satisfactory.
Some conservatism in the embedded length.
The EHF could be reduced, as in this case they may be based on the permanent actions only.
In compression, resistance of pile group, neglecting end bearing

= 4 × 0.8 × 0.7 × 75 × 2.36 × 15 × 0.5/2.0
= 2974 kN, > 2186 kN, OK
If founded above rock:
In tension, as previous, 8 bars total proposed
Load per bar = 1492/8 = 187 kN
Resistance of bar = 246 kN, OK
Length of anchorage in grout = 187 × 103 / (2 × 78.5) = 1191 mm
Allow embedment in rock of 1500 mm (top of rock may be fissured)
Shear between grout and rock = 187 × 103/(1500 × 157)
= 0.79 N/mm2 < 1, OK
In compression, as previously calculated, resistance of the pile group
= 3536 kN, > 2186 kN, OK
Pile Reinforcement
Adopt 4% reinforcement
0.4/100 × 442000 = 1768 mm2
Adopt 6 H 20 = 1880 mm2
Adopt H 10 links at 300 mm spacing
From Brooker
34
3 DRAWINGS
The following sheets reproduce the A3 drawings prepared for the scheme.
35
4 METHOD STATEMENT
Preliminaries
 The site should be secured to prevent unauthorised access by member of the
public.
 As there is working at height, full PPE must be worn, including fall arrest
equipment and safe methods of work must be established and followed.
 Additional ground investigation must be carried out to determine which
locations are founded on rock, and which are founded on clay. This will
necessitate lane closures of the two adjacent carriageways during the site
investigation works.
The first three lanes of the carriageway must be secured, with appropriate barriers to
protect the construction team, and to prevent the construction team accidentally
straying into a ‘live’ carriageway. Systems of safe access must be established. This
procedure must be repeated as the construction proceeds across the full carriageway
in stages.
Sequence of work
 Lane closures provided between grids 1 and 4.
 Verify that existing asphalt (assumed to be a carriageway construction) is
adequate for construction plant.
 Install bored pile foundations, grids 1 – 3. If the location is over rock, bore to
rock level and install casing. Drill 50 mm holes in rock to prescribed depth,
before grouting 25 mm bars in position. Reinforce piles and complete.
 Complete pile caps, grids 1 to 3.
 Erect braced tower on grid 1 and erect supports and bracing on grids 2 and 3.
 Erect roof canopy trusses, grids 1 – 3 and primary trusses on grids A, B and C,
with associated plan bracing at upper and lower chord levels. Note that this
part of the structure is stable, without the need for additional temporary
bracing.
 Erect purlins grids 1 – 3 and roof cladding.
 Repeat the previous steps, closing three lanes at a time. Each portion of the
structure is stable.
o Complete piling (and tension bar installation if founded on rock).
o Complete pile caps.
o Erect steelwork, bracing and cladding.
 After completion of the roof canopy, close the carriageway, grids 5 – 7, so the
steelwork for the control tower may be erected.
 Erect the control tower steelwork, installing the crossed flat bracing as erection
proceeds.
 Install the flooring to the tower, cladding etc
40
5 PROGRAMME
The construction programme is shown on the following page, which assumes the
necessary additional site investigation has been completed.
The programme is by necessity lengthy, as the brief stipulates that only three lanes of
the carriageway may be closed at any one time, meaning that the works must be
completed as a linear progression.
41
Construction Programme
Week Duration 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
Activity
Initial works 2
Establish site and verify adequacy of hard standing 2
Grids 1, 2 and 3 6
Construct piles/ tension bars 3
Complete pile caps 2
Erect steekwork 1
Cladding 1
Grids 4, 5 and 6 6
Erect steekwork 1
Cladding 1
Grids 7, 8 and 9 6
Erect steekwork 1
Cladding 1
Grids 10, 11 5
Erect steekwork 1
Cladding 1
Control room tower 3

Erect steelwork 1
Floors, cladding etc 2
6 CLIENT LETTER
43
44
45
Steel Construction Institute
SCI (The Steel Construction Institute) is the leading, independent provider of
technical expertise and disseminator of best practice to the steel construction
sector. We work in partnership with clients, members and industry peers to help
build businesses and provide competitive advantage through the commercial
application of our knowledge. We are committed to offering and promoting
sustainable and environmentally responsible solutions.
British Constructional Steelwork Association

BCSA is the national organisation for the steel construction industry: its Member
companies undertake the design, fabrication and erection of steelwork for all
forms of construction in building and civil engineering. Industry Members are
those principal companies involved in the direct supply to all or some Members
of components, materials or products. Corporate Members are clients,
professional offices, educational establishments etc which support the
development of national specifications, quality, fabrication and erection
techniques, overall industry efficiency and good practice.
Steel for Life

Steel for Life is a wholly-owned subsidiary of BCSA, created in 2016, with
funding provided by sponsors from the whole steel supply chain. The main
purpose of Steel for Life is to communicate the advantages that steel offers to
the construction sector. By working together as an integrated supply chain for
the delivery of steel-framed solutions, the constructional steelwork sector will
continue to innovate, educate specifiers and clients on the efficient use of steel,
and market the significant benefits of steel in construction.
www.steelconstruction.info is the go-to resource for all steel construction related

information and guidance.
Follow us on:
Twitter: @steelcoinfo
LinkedIn: steelconstruction.info
Facebook: steelconstruction.info
Google+: steelconstruction.info
Produced for:
The British Constructional Steelwork Association
www.steelconstruction.org
and Steel for Life
www.steelforlife.org
by:
The Steel Construction Institute
www.steel-sci.com

Model Answer Q2 2015

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Model Answer Q2 2015

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Model Answer Q2 2015

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Model Answer Q2, 2015:

Version Issue Purpose Author Reviewer Approved

For information on publications, telephone direct: +44 (0) 1344 636505

For information on courses, telephone direct: +44 (0) 1344 636500

World Wide Web site: http://www.steel-sci.org

The question requires:

 Development of two distinct and viable schemes,

1.1 General arrangement

Control room over

Figure 1 General Arrangement

Roof 1.0 kN/m2

Control room floor 4 kN/m2

1.3 Ground conditions

Ground level to – 0.4 m Asphalt

0.4 m – 5.0 m Silty clay C = 50 kN/m2

Below 5.0 m Stiff clay C = 100 kN/m2

Ground level to – 0.4 m Asphalt

0.4 m – 3.0 m Gravel with traces of silt, N = 15

Below 3.0 m Rock, allowable safe bearing pressure 2000 kN/m2

Ground water at 2 m below ground in both locations.

1.4 Section 1b modification

SECTION 1(a) – ALTERNATIVE SOLUTIONS

Control tower – frame stability

No intermediate supports or foundations are needed.

In scheme 2, a narrow tower is proposed, meaning no transfer trusses are needed.

With minimal supports, erection will be more challenging.

Design combinations of actions

Uplift moment at B = 25.7 × 20 × 10 = 5140 kNm

With a 2 m deep truss, chord force = 5140/2 = 2570 kN

Two design cases are considered – and uplift is more onerous.

Chord force = 4080/2 = 2040 kN

Shear force diagram

This assumes that the internal is at 45°

The secondary trusses on C are merely framing.

Control room tower design

Force in column due to EHF and wind

Vertical bracing in tower

Bending moment = 809 × 10/4 = 2022 kNm

This first accidental condition assumes the missing support is on grid 6

Bending moment under load = 796 × 10 – 632 × 5 = 4800 kNm

Moment at support = 632 × 5 = 3160 kNm

For the chords, adopt 200 × 200 × 16 SHS (3060 kN on 5 m)

Midspan moment = 328 × 20/4 = 1640 kNm

This condition assumes an intermediate support is missing.

Moment at column = 328 × 10 = 3280 kNm

This condition assumes that an end support is missing.

Try four piles, each 750 mm diameter. 3d spacing = 2250 mm

0.9 factor from EN 1990 when considering resistance to uplift.

Foundation Design and Construction; Tomlinson, Pitman Publishing, 1995

Tension (1077 kN net, assuming same pilecap dimensions)

Some conservatism in the embedded length.

In compression, resistance of pile group, neglecting end bearing

Control room tower 3

British Constructional Steelwork Association

Steel for Life

www.steelconstruction.info is the go-to resource for all steel construction related

You might also like