Transcript Presentation - An-Najah National University

‫بسم هللا الرحمن الرحيم‬
AN-NAJAH NATIONAL UNIVERSITY
ENGINEERING COLLEGE
Civil Engineering Department
Graduation project
" 3D-DYNAMIC BUILDING DESIGN
INCLUDE SHEAR WALLS "
Prepared By
Ra`fat Amarneh
Hammad Judeh
Nidal Abu-Baker
Instructor
Dr.Imad Al-Qasem
Abstract
This project is a design of an office building which located
in Ramallah city. This building is consisted of seven stories.
Firstly the building designed under a static load by both,
hand calculation and SAP 2000 v.12 program, after that it is
analysis for dynamic by exposing the building lateral load;
finally the building is redesigned by using shear walls.
3D of the building
Contents
Chapter One: Introduction
1-1 About the project
1-2 Philosophy of analysis & design
1-3 Materials
1-4 Loads
1-5 Codes
Chapter Two: Design of floor system
2-1 Slab systems
2-2 Floor system
2-3 Thickness of the slab
2-4 Design of rib
2-5 Shear design of rib
Contents
Chapter Three: Beams
3-1 Beams system
3-2 Shear design of beams
Chapter Four: Columns
4-1 Introduction
4-2 Types of columns
4-3 Column groups
4-4 Group design
4-5 Summary
Contents
Chapter Five: Footing
5.1 Footing system
5.2 Footing groups
5.3 Groups design
5.4 Structural analysis program modal for footing F4
5.5 Summary of footing group
5.6 Tie beam
Chapter Six: Dynamic Analysis
6.1 Introduction
6.2 Static Analysis
6.3 Required dynamic analysis
6.4 Summary Comment
Contents
Chapter Seven: Redesign the Building with Shear Walls
7.1 Introduction
7.2 Design of walls
7.3 Design of Slabs
7.4 Design of beams
7.5 Design of Columns
7.6 Design of Footings
INTRODUCTION




About the project:
The building in Ramallah, is an office building consists of
seven floors having the same area(600m2) and
height(3.5m), the first floor will be used as a
garage(4m).
Philosophy of analysis & design:
Sap 2000v12 is used to analysis of building.
Ultimate design method is used to design the building.
INTRODUCTION
Materials of construction:
 Reinforced concrete:
unit weight= 2.5 ton/m3
fc = 250 kg/cm2
But for columns fc = 300 kg/cm2
Fy =4200 kg/cm2
Block density = 1.4 ton/m3
Stone density = 3 ton/m3
 Soil capacity = 4.0 kg/cm²
INTRODUCTION

loads:

Live load: LL=0.4 ton/m2

Dead load: Owen weight=(Calculated By SAP)


SID= 0.3 ton/m2
Earthquake load: its represents the lateral load that
comes from an earthquake.
INTRODUCTION


Code Used:
American Concrete Institute Code (ACI 318-05)
Combination:
Ultimate load= 1.2D+1.6L
SLAB
One way ribbed slab is used :
(L/B)=(21.38/5.63)= 3.8 > 2
Thickness of slab: hmin = Ln/18.5 =533/18.5=28.81cm
Use h=30cm.
Slab consists of two strips (strip 1 & 2)

cross section in ribbed slab
SLAB


Design of Slab :
Rib 1 :
SLAB
M-ve. =3.02 ton.m
ρ=
ρ= 0.0094
As = ρ* b* d = 3.52 cm2
Use (2Φ16)
M+ve. =2.24 ton.m
ρ= 0.00175
As = ρ* b* d = 2.41 cm2
Use (2Φ14)
SLAB
Shear Design
Vu = 3.05 ton at distance d from support
Shear strength of concrete Vc =1.1* 0.53 *
= 3.45 ton
min. Vs = 3.5 * bw * d = 1.31 ton
Vc< Vu < Vc + min. Vs
So use minimum shear reinforcement.
S=
use stirrups Φ8
Use 1Φ8 / 40 cm .
* bw * d
BEAMS

BEAMS SYSTEM:
Beams will be designed using reaction method
(Loads from slab reactions), all the beams are dropped.
BEAMS
Design of beam 2:
DL(ton/m)
LL(ton/m)
BEAMS
S.F.D(ton)
B.M.D(ton.m)
Reinforcement
BEAMS

Design of Beam 2:

M-ve = 49.65 ton.m


ρ = 0.0087
As = 19.39 cm2
Use (8Φ18).
 M+ve = 47.3 ton.m


ρ = 0.0083
As = 18.38 cm2
Use (8Φ18)
BEAMS
Check shear for B2







Vu =42.95 ton.
min. Vs = 3.5 * bw * d = 7.77 ton .
Vc< Vn < Vc + min. Vs
Vc + min. Vs = 18.6 + 7.77 =19.7 ton.
Use Φ10  S = 70 cm  not Ok . use Smax
Smax = d/2 < 60cm if Vs<1.06 *
*b*d
Or Smax = d/4 < 30cm if Vs>1.06 *
*b*d
Here Vs<1.06 * * b * d  S=d/2=74/2=37 cm
Use 1Φ10 /30 cm .
BEAMS

Summary:
Beam 1
Beam 2
Beam 3
Beam 4
DIMENSION(cm)
30x80
30x80
30x80
30x80
Ast TOP
4 ф 16 mm
8 ф 18 mm
7 ф 18 mm
2 ф 18 mm
Ast BOTTOM
4 ф 16 mm
8 ф 18 mm
8 ф 18 mm
2 ф 18mm
Stirrups
1 ф10@35cm
1ф10@30cm
1 ф10@30cm
1 ф10@35cm
COLUMNS

.



Columns System :
Columns are used primarily to support axial
compressive loads, that coming from beams that
stand over them.
24 columns in this project are classified into 2
groups depending on the ultimate axial load.
The ultimate axial load on each column from the
reactions of beams.
.
COLUMNS
.
Column name
Ultimate load
C1
C2
C3
C4
C5
C6
24.85
41.22
54.46
77.16
52.49
60.9
Group (1)
C1
C2
C3
C5
Ultimate load
for 7 stories
173.95
288.54
381.22
540.12
367.43
426.3
Group (2)
C4
C6
COLUMNS
.
Design columns in group (1):
Maximum ultimate load at C3 =381.22 ton.
Use ρ=1.5 % lie between (1-8) % ok
Pnreq =Pu/Ф = 381.22/0.7 = 544.6ton.
Pn=.8 Po =0.8 (0.85* fc*Ac + As Fy)
544.6*103 = 0.8[(0.85*300(Ag -0 .015Ag) + 0.015*Ag*4200]
Ag = 2166.77 cm2
Use 30 x 75
Ag=2250 cm2
As = 0.015*30*75 = 33.75 cm2
Use (14 Ф18)
Summary of Columns:
Groups
.
Group (1)
Group (2)
Ultimate loads (ton)
381.22
540.12
Dimension (cm)
30x75
40x80
Reinforcement
14 Ф18
16 Ф20
Ф10
Ф10
Spacing (cm)
20
20
Cover (cm)
4
4
Stirrups
FOOTING :




Footing System:
All footings were designed as isolated footings.
The design depends on the total axial load carried
by each column.
Groups of footings :
Group 1
Ultimate load
(ton)
Group 2
Ultimate load
(ton)
F1
F2
F3
F5
173.95
288.54
381.22
367.43
F4
F6
540.12
426.3
FOOTING :
Summary
Group 1
Group 2
Dimension(m)
2.5*2.9
4*3.3
Thickness (cm)
75
80
Steel in the short direction
Use 6Φ20/m
Use 6Φ20/m
Steel in the long direction
Use 6Φ20/m
Use 6Φ20/m
Cover(cm)
8
8
FOOTING :

Group 2 using sap :
FOOTING :




Group 2 using sap :
Moment per meter= (128.75/3) = 42.9 ton.m/m
Compare it with hand calculation Mu= 44.5 ton.m
% of error = (44.5-42.9)/44.5 = 3.5 % ok
Tie Beam Design:



Tie Beam Design:
Tie beams are beams used to connect between
columns necks, its work to provide resistance moments
applied on the columns and to resist earthquakes load
to provide limitation of footings movement.
Tie beam was designed based on minimum
requirements with dimensions of 30 cm width and 60
cm depth.
Tie Beam Design:
Tie beam 1 :
DL(ton/m)
S.F.D(ton)
Tie Beam Design:
Tie beam 1 :
B.M.D(ton.m)
Reinforcement
DYNAMIC ANALYSIS
In this chapter the investigation of building in static and
dynamic analysis is very important by using manual and SAP
results
the building is exposed to EL-Centro earthquake in dynamic
analysis, the building consists of seven stories but in this chapter the
analysis will be made for one, three, seven and ten stories, and the
comparison made between them.
DYNAMIC ANALYSIS
Static Analysis
 Reactions
Reactions from tributary area & from SAP for 3 storey building.
Column
Name
C1
C2
C4
Reaction
manual(ton)
67.788
117.19
213.09
Reaction from
SAP(ton)
62.94
114.58
250
Percent of
difference(%)
7.15
2.23
14.76
Reactions from tributary area & from SAP for 7 storey building
Column
Name
C1
C2
C4
Reaction
manual(ton)
157.26
272.99
498.24
Reaction from
SAP(ton)
163.99
264.19
570.13
Percent of
difference(%)
4.1
3.22
12.61
DYNAMIC ANALYSIS
Reactions from tributary area & from SAP for 10 storey building
Column
Name
Reaction
manual(ton)
Reaction from
SAP(ton)
Percent of
difference(%)
C1
238.31
253.03
5.89
C2
379.75
374.87
1.29
C4
709.19
798.36
11.17
There are differences between the values of reactions in
columns from tributary area and from SAP, this because the
assumption that the building is rigid , and the true that the
building is semi rigid.
DYNAMIC ANALYSIS
Manual Reactions (ton)
300
y = 1.3044x - 30.569
R² = 0.9951
250
200
150
100
50
0
0
50
100
150
200
250
Reactions from SAP (ton)
Manual Reactions & Reactions from SAP (3story building).
DYNAMIC ANALYSIS
600
y = 1.214x - 42.944
R² = 0.9898
Manual reactions (ton)
500
400
300
200
100
0
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
Reactions from SAP (ton)
Manual Reactions & Reactions from SAP (7story building).
DYNAMIC ANALYSIS
900
y = 1.1806x - 46.911
R² = 0.9932
Manual Reactions (ton)
800
700
600
500
400
300
200
100
0
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
Reactions from SAP (ton)
Manual Reactions & Reactions from SAP (10 story building).
800
DYNAMIC ANALYSIS
 These figures show a linear graph between the reactions from
manual and SAP, the correct equations with no difference must
be( Y=X), but the fact that the reactions are different from SAP
and manual, so these figures show these differences, if the three
equations for the graphs checked; the conclusion that the
coefficients of ( X) decrease; and get closer to one and this is
good because the equation get closer to (Y=X) and this means
the percentage of difference decreases when the number of floors
increases .
DYNAMIC ANALYSIS
 The building will be analyzed due to an earthquake of
(0.2 g) amplitude with duration and frequencies similar to
El-Centro earthquake and comparing the results with static
results.
DYNAMIC ANALYSIS
Periods For Building :( 2, 3, 7&10 floors):
T=
Rayleigh equation.
Where:
M: mass of floor (ton).
F: earth quake force (KN).
: Deflection for floor (m).
 The building was exposed to earth quake in the wake
direction (X- direction), and this the periods in this direction.
DYNAMIC ANALYSIS
periods for 1 storey building
f#
1
M
F
549.37 565.93
∆st
0.0082
F∆st
4.640626
M∆st2
T
0.03694 0.560296
periods for 3 storey building
f#
1
M
549.37
F
∆st
F∆st
565.93 2.57E-02 14.5330824
M∆st2
T
3.62E-01 1.126908
2
549.37
565.93 3.38E-02 19.1340933
6.28E-01
3
549.37
565.93 3.77E-02
21.335561 7.81E-01
55.0027367 1.77E+00
DYNAMIC ANALYSIS
periods for 7 storey building
C
M
F
∆st
F∆st
M∆st2
1
549.37
565.93
0.06221
35.20651 2.126108 2.104329
2
549.37
565.93
0.08583
48.57377 4.047093
3
549.37
565.93
0.10327
58.44359 5.858862
4
549.37
565.93
0.11692
66.16854 7.510045
5
549.37
565.93
0.12718
71.97498 8.885924
6
549.37
565.93
0.13413
75.90819 9.883637
7
549.37
565.93
0.13798
78.08702 10.45917
434.3626 48.77084
T
DYNAMIC ANALYSIS
periods for 10 storey building
f#
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
M
549.37
549.37
549.37
549.37
549.37
549.37
549.37
549.37
549.37
549.37
F
565.93
565.93
565.93
565.93
565.93
565.93
565.93
565.93
565.93
565.93
∆st
0.08048
0.11188
0.13628
0.15677
0.17387
0.18765
0.19811
0.20525
0.20917
0.21047
F∆st
45.54605
63.31625
77.12494
88.72085
98.39825
106.1968
112.1164
116.1571
118.3756
119.1113
945.0635
M∆st 2
3.558286
6.876538
10.20303
13.50177
16.60788
19.3447
21.56144
23.14362
24.03609
24.33578
163.1691
T
2.609445
DYNAMIC ANALYSIS
periods for buildings from manual &SAP
Building name
Period manual (sec)
Period from SAP(sec)
B1(1floor)
0.560296
0.51788
B2(3floors)
1.126908
1.04799
B3(7floors)
2.104329
1.96805
B4(10floors)
2.609445
2.63431
 The values of periods for buildings are acceptable and safe, this
is due to the stabilization of building and because the use of drop
beams.
DYNAMIC ANALYSIS
8
7
NUMBER OF FLOOR
6
5
4
3
2
1
0
0
0.02
0.04
0.06
0.08
0.1
0.12
∆ST (m)
difference deflections with deferens floors
0.14
0.16
DYNAMIC ANALYSIS
3
y = 0.2338x + 0.3146
R² = 0.999
Periods (sec)
2.5
2
1.5
1
0.5
0
0
2
4
6
Number of Floors
8
10
12
Period from SAP & Number of floors
 This graph shows the relationship between periods and the number of floors
in building (R2=0.999), this means that the relationship is linear, and in this graph
proves that there is a relationship between the number of floors of the building and
the period for this building.
DYNAMIC ANALYSIS
 El-Centro :
Factor for El-Centro = (0.2x0.01)/0.35 = 0.0057
The two combinations used:
Comb 2: 1.2DL+1.6LL.
Comb 3: 1.2 DL+LL+EQ.
Comb3 is critical.
Redesign Building with Shear Walls
Introduction
 Horizontal forces acting on building, those due to wind
or seismic action , can be resisted by different means, rigid
frame resistance of the structure, augmented by the
contribution of ordinary masonry walls and partitions.
when heavy horizontal loading is likely, such as would
result from an earthquake, reinforced concrete shear walls
are used.
Redesign Building with Shear Walls
Design of walls
øPn= 0.55 ø fc Ag[1-(KLc/32h)2]
Wall
Thickness (cm)
Pu(ton/m)
øPnw(ton/m)
Wall (1)
25
18
19.5
Wall (2)
25
17.2
19.5
The notes from this table that øPnw > Pu for all walls
 so it is safe.
Redesign Building with Shear Walls
Wall Reinforcement
Vertical reinforcement:
According to ACI code (14.3.2) minimum ratio of vertical
reinforcement area to gross concrete area shall be 0.0012.
As = ρ*Ag = 0.0012*100*25 = 3cm2
Use (1Φ14/20cm)
Horizontal reinforcement
According to ACI (14.3.3) minimum ratio of horizontal
reinforcement area to gross concrete area shall be 0.002
As = ρ*Ag = 0.002*100*25 = 5 cm2
Use (1Φ12/20cm)
Comparison between Two Design
Beam:
The value of negative moment increase ,and the value of
positive moment decrease by using shear walls. this is because
fixation at the edge slab which gives a different value ,in chapter
three of the project, because the assumption in chapter three that
the edge of beams are hinge.
Comparison between Two Design
Columns
After use the shear wall in building for each story without the
first floor the load increased on columns due to the weight of
walls, so some of columns will be changed in dimension to carry
the extra loads .
load in columns after used shear walls.
Column Name
C1
C2
C3
C4
C5
C6
Total Ultimate Load
(ton)
352.45
381.52
372.14
550.52
373.5
544.53
Comparison between Two Design
Groups
Group (1)
Group (2)
Group(3)
Ultimate loads
(ton)
Dimension (cm)
352.45
550.52
372.14
30x75
40x80
30x80
Reinforcement
14 Ф18
16 Ф20
16 Ф18
Ф10
Ф10
Ф10
Spacing (cm)
20
20
20
Cover (cm)
4
4
4
Stirrups
Group 3: C2,C3&C5
Comparison between Two Design
Comparison between Two Design
Footing
Group 1
Group 2
Group 3
Dimension(m)
2.5*2.9
2.5*3.0
4*3.3
Thickness (cm)
75
80
80
Use 6Φ18/m
Use 6Φ18/m
Use 6Φ20/m
Steel in the long direction Use 6Φ18/m
Use 6Φ18/m
Use 6Φ20/m
Steel in the short
direction
Cover(cm)
8
8
The footing dimension increased because the
loads increase.
8
Thank You