7431177.pptdhfbttttthtghdfghbbbbbbbbbfgg

Prepared by:
Ayman Naalweh
Mustafa Mayyaleh
Nidal Turkoman
An-Najah National University
Faculty of Engineering
Civil Engineering Department
Graduation Project:
3D Dynamic Soil Structure Interaction Design For Al-Manar Building
Supervised By
Dr: Imad AL-Qasem

3D’s For Al-Manar Building
GRADUATION PROJECT
December 2010

SUBJECTS TO BE COVERED
 Abstract
 Chapter One : Introduction
 Chapter Two : Slab
 Chapter Three : Beams
 Chapter Four : Columns
 Chapter Five : Footing
 Chapter Six : Checks
 Chapter Seven : Dynamic Analysis
 Chapter Eight : Soil Structure Interaction

Abstract
 AL-Manar building composed of seven stories office
building. Each floor is composed of equal surface area
of 1925 m2
with 3.5 meter height and long spans.
 The building analyzed under static loads using SAP
2000v12.
 After that the building was analyzed dynamically.
 Finally it was designed based on Soil Structure
Interaction (SSI).

INTRODUCTION
 About the project:
(AL-Manar) building in Ramallah, is an office building
consists of seven floors having the same area and height,
the first floor will be used as a garage.
 Philosophy of analysis & design:
 SAP2000 V12 is used for analysis and ultimate design
method is used for design of slab, the slab are carried over
drop beams.

INTRODUCTION
Materials of construction:
 Reinforced concrete:
(ρ) = 2.4 ton/m3
,
The required compressive strength after 28 days is
fc = 250 kg/cm2
,
For footings fc =280 kg/cm2
For columns fc = 500 kg/cm2
Fy =4200 kg/cm2
 Soil capacity = 3.5 kg/cm²

INTRODUCTION
 loads:
 Live load: LL=0.4 ton/m2
 Dead load: DL=(Calculated By SAP) , SID= 0.3 ton/m2
 Earthquake load: its represents the lateral load that comes
from an earthquake.

INTRODUCTION
 Combinations:
Ultimate load= 1.2D+1.6L
 Codes Used:
 American Concrete Institute Code (ACI 318-05)
 Uniform Building Code 1997 (UBC97)

SLAB
 One way solid slab is used :
 Thickness of slab: t = Ln/24 =12.9 cm use 15 cm ,d=12 cm
 Slab consists of two strips (strip 1 & 2)

SLAB
 ANALYSIS AND DESIGN FOR SLAB :
 STRIP 1 :

SLAB
M+ve. = 1.28 ton.m
ρ= 0.0024
As bottom = ρ* b* d = 2.8 cm2
 Ast = ρ shrinkage * b*h = 0.0018*100*15= 2.7 cm2
 Use 1 ф 12 mm /30 cm

SLAB
M –ve= 1.75 ton.m
ρ= 0.0028
Ast top = 3.66 cm2
Use 1 ф 12 mm/ 25cm
Shrinkage steel = 1 ф 12 mm / 30 cm
Check shear :
Vu= 2.95 ton at distance d from face of column.
Ф Vc = ф (.53) (10) (b) (d) =0.75*0.53**10*1.0*0.12
= 7.54 ton > 2.95 ton. Ok

BEAMS
 BEAMS SYSTEM:
Beams will be designed using reaction method(Loads from
slab reactions) in this project, all the beams are dropped,
multi spans and large space beams.
Beam 1
(0.8*0.3)
Beam 2
(0.8*0.4)
Girder 1
(0.9*0.3)
Girder 2
(0.9*0.6)
Ast TOP 15.01 cm2
43.7 cm2
39.7 cm2
97.68 cm2
# of bars 4 ф 22 mm 12 ф 22 mm 9ф 25 mm 20 ф 25 mm
Ast BOTTOM 14.40 cm2
41.32 cm2
32.6 cm2
78.5 cm2
# of bars 4 ф 22 mm 11 ф 22 mm 9 ф 22 mm 21 ф 22mm

BEAMS
 DESIGN OF BEAM 1:
 Positive moment on beam 1:
 M+ve = 38.44 ton.m

 =0. 00624
 As bottom = ρ* b*d = 14.4 cm2

 As min = 0.0033*b*d=0.0033.*30*76=7.54 cm2
< 14.4 cm2
 Use 4 ф 22 mm

BEAMS
 DESIGN OF BEAM 1:
Negative moment on beam 1:
M -ve= 40.34 ton.m
ρ = 0.0066
As top = 15.01 cm2
Use 4 ф 22 mm
Min. beam width = ndb +(n-1)S+2ds+2* cover
b min = 4(2.2)+ 3(2.5)+2(2.5) +2(1)
=23.3 cm < 30 cm ok

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 and the shape.
 The ultimate axial load on each column is calculated from
3D SAP, and the reaction of beams as shown in next table :

3D (SAP)
(ton)
Hand
calculation
(ton)
3D (SAP)
(ton)
Hand
calculation
(ton)
C1 451.1 284.1 C13 858.3 759.8
C2 901.8 711.4 C14 1425.5 1859.3
C3 852 711.4 C15 1425.7 1859.3
C4 462.6 284.1 C16 857 759.8
C5 852.4 869.1 C17 852.6 869.1
C6 1796 2126.2 C18 1786.9 2126.2
C7 1723.4 2126.2 C19 1786.5 2126.2
C8 863.1 869.1 C20 851.9 869.1
C9 858.6 759.8 C21 453.1 284.1
C10 1425.4 1859.3 C22 895.9 711.4
C11 1425.7 1859.3 C23 895.1 711.4
C12 856.2 759.8 C24 451.8 284.1

COLUMNS
 Design of columns:
 the capacity of column:
ФPn max = ф λ {0.85 'c (Ag - Ast) + y Ast}
𝒇 ℱ
Ast = 0.01 Ag (Assumed)
 All columns are considered as short columns .
Column type Tied column Spiral column
Ф 0.65 0.7
λ 0.8 0.85

COLUMNS
Group (1) Group (2)
C1 C13 C6
C2 C16 C7
C3 C17 C10
C4 C20 C11
C5 C21 C14
C8 C22 C15
C9 C23 C18
C12 C24 C19
 Columns Groups :

COLUMNS
 Design columns in group (1):
Pu = 980 ton
Check buckling:
The column is short
K: The effective length coefficient (=1 braced frame )
Lu: unbraced length of the column
r: radius of gyration of the column cross section
Let = 1 , = 16.67 < 22 → ok short column.
 ФPn max = ф λ {0.85 'c (Ag - Ast) + y Ast}
𝒇 ℱ
Let
b
b
M
M
2
1
= 1

COLUMNS
 Design columns in group (1):
→ Ag = 4073 cm2
Use 70*70 → Ag = 4900 cm2
→ Ast = 0.01× 4900 = 49 cm2
(use 20 Ф18)
Spacing between stirrups
:
Spacing between stirrups shall not exceed the least of the following:
1) At least dimension of the column = 70cm
2
)
16db = 16*1.8 = 28.8 cm
3) 48ds = 48*1.0 = 48 cm
use Ties (1 ф 10 mm/25 cm c/c)
Let
= 1

COLUMNS :
 Summary:
Group 1 Group 2
Ultimate load
(ton)
980 1900
dimensions (cm) 70*70 Dia. = 95
Reinforcement 20 Ф18 28 Ф18
Stirrups / Spiral Ф10 mm Ф10 mm
Spacing (cm) 25 5
cover (cm) 2.5 cm 2.5 cm

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 :
Groups Footing
Group 1 F1, F4,F21,F24
Group 2 F2, F3,F5,F8,F9,F12,F13,F16,F17,F20,
F22, F23
Group 3 F6,F7,F10,F11,F14,F15,F18,F19

FOOTING :
 Summary :
Group 1 Group 2 Group 3
Dimensions (m) 3.4*3.4 4.7*4.7 6.5*6.5
Thickness (cm) 70 110 130
Steel in x direction (cm2
/m ) 17.62 23.12 37.6
Steel in y direction (cm2
/m ) 17.62 23.12 37.6
Cover (cm) 5 5 5

FOOTING :
 Group 2 using sap :

FOOTING :
 Group 2 using sap :
 Moment per meter in x& y =395.66/4.7= 84.18 ton.m/m
 Compare it with hand calculation Mu= 88.73 ton.m
 % of error = 88.73-84.18/84.14 = 5.4 %

FOOTING :
 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 50 cm depth.
 Use minimum area of steel , with cover = 4 cm.
Ast Top bars Bottom bars stirrups
4.46cm2
4 Φ 12 mm 4 Φ 12 mm 1 Φ 10 / 20cm

CHECKS
 Check Compatibility:
This requires that the structure behave as one unit, so the
computerized model should achieve compatibility, to be more
approach to reality.

CHECKS
 Check of equilibrium:
 Dead load:
Columns :
Type of
column
Number of
columns
dimensions (m)
Weigh per
unit
volume
weight (ton)
Tied 112 3.5 0.7 0.7 2.4 3.5*0.7*0.7*2.4*112 = 460.99
Spiral 56
3.5 D= 0.95 2.4
(π/4 *0.952
)*3.5*2.4*56= 333.42
Total 794.41

CHECKS
Slab
:
Area of slab =1846.2m
Weight of slab = 1846.2*2.4*0.15*7 = 4652.42 ton
Beams :
Type of
beam
Number of
beams
dimensions
(m)
Total
length
Weigh per
unit volume
weight (ton)
Ground
beams
112
0.3 0.5 404.4 2.4 0.3*0.5*2.4*404.4 = 145.58
Beam 1 42 0.3 0.8 77 2.4 0.3*0.8*2.4*77*7 = 310.46
Beam 2 98 0.4 0.8 516 2.4 0.4*0.8*2.4*516*7 = 2774.14
Girder 1 112 0.3 0.9 102 2.4 0.3*0.9*2.4*102*7 = 462.71
Girder 2 112 0.6 0.95 102 2.4 0.6*0.9*2.4*102*7 = 946.75
Total 4359.18

CHECKS
Super imposed dead load
:
Super imposed dead load = area of slab* Super imposed on slab
=
1846.2
*
0.3
*
7
=
3877.02
ton
Total dead load = columns +slabs +beams +super imposed
=
794.41+4652.42+3877.02+4359.18
=
13683.03
ton
Results from SAP
:
Dead load = 13947.82 ton
Error in dead load
:
%
of error = (13947.82 -13683.03)/ 13683.03 = 1.9% < 5% ok

CHECKS
Live load
:
Live load = area of slab* live load
=
1846.2
*
0.4
*
7
=
5169.36
ton
Results from SAP
:
Live load = 5169.36
Error in live load
:
%
of error = (5169.36 - 5169.36 )/5169.36 = 0% < 5% ok

CHECKS
Check stress strain relationship:
Taking beam 1 as example:
Stress –Strain relationship is more difficult check compared with
others, because of the large difference between values of 1D and
3D model, which usually appears during check .
Max M+
Ext. (Ton.m) Max M-
Int. (Ton.m)
1D 3D %
of error 1D 3D %
of error
38.44 43.18 12.3 40.34 35.4 13.9

DYNAMIC ANALYSIS
 Period of structure :
Fundamental period of structure depends on the nature of
building, in terms of mass and stiffness distribution in the
building .
(Define area mass for building)

DYNAMIC ANALYSIS
Check the modal response period from Sap by Rayleigh
method
Approximate method calculation
:
Rayleigh law: period = 2 , Where
:
M = mass of floor
=
displacement in direction of force (m)
F: force on the slab (ton)

DYNAMIC ANALYSIS
Level mass force delta mass*delta2
force*delta period
(sec)
7 196.6 1846.2 1.97 762.9849 3637.014
6 196.6 1846.2 1.88 694.863 3470.856
5 196.6 1846.2 1.74 595.2262 3212.388
4 196.6 1846.2 1.54 466.2566 2843.148
3 196.6 1846.2 1.27 317.0961 2344.674
2 196.6 1846.2 0.94 173.7158 1735.428
1 196.6 1846.2 0.52 53.16064 960.024
sum 3063.303 18203.53 2.58
Rayleiph method calculation for 7 stories in x- direction :

DYNAMIC ANALYSIS
Response spectrum
:
Analysis input
:
IE: seismic factor (importance factor) = 1.0
R: response modification factor (Ordinary frame) = 3
PGA: peak ground acceleration = 0.2 g
According to seismic map for Palestine (Ramallah city)
Soil type: SB (Rock)
Ca: seismic coefficient for acceleration = 0.2
Cv: seismic coefficient for velocity = 0.2
Scale factor = = 3.27

DYNAMIC ANALYSIS
Definition of response spectrum function :

DYNAMIC ANALYSIS
Define of earthquake load case in x-direction :

DYNAMIC ANALYSIS
Base reaction for Response Spectrum :

DYNAMIC ANALYSIS
Summary:
Direction Modal period
(
sec
)
Base Reaction of
Qauke (ton)
Displacment
(
cm
)
X-direction ( U1 ) 2.63 321.7 5.28
Y- direction ( U2 ) 2.15 393.3 4.64

SOIL STRUCTURE INTERACTION (SSI)
 The process in which the response of the soil influences the
motion of the structure and the motion of the structure influences
the response of the soil is termed as soil-structure interaction
(SSI).
 Neglecting SSI is reasonable for light structures in relatively stiff
soil such as low rise buildings, however, The effect of SSI
becomes prominent for heavy structures resting on relatively soft
soils .

Soil structure model from SAP

 ANALYSIS AND DESIGN FOR BEAMS:
 Beam 1:

 M+ ext. = 32.73 ton.m

 ρ= 0.0053
 As bottom = ρ* bw* d = 12.0 cm2

 SUMMARY:
Max M-
Ext. Max M+
Ext. Max M-
Int. Max M+
Int.
BEAM Normal
1D
SSI
3D
Normal
1D
SSI
3D
Normal
1D
SSI
3D
Normal
1D
SSI
3D
BEAM1 0 -58.21 38.44 32.73 -40.34 -35.86 0.32 17.37
BEAM2 0 -109.32 96.69 57.93 -101.64 -40.35 2.06 18.02
Girder1 0 -72.2 87.87 41.91 -103.58 -76.12 53.87 40.56
Girder2 0 -155.28 220.14 100.7 -258.58 180.4 90.21 94.56
Ast cm2
Ast cm2
Ast cm2
Ast cm2
BEAM1 0 22.4 14.23 11.05 14.99 13.33 0.1 6.2
BEAM2 0 48.3 41.32 23.08 43.9 15.64 0.8 6.7
Girder1 0 25.86 31.1 14.4 39.68 27.7 17.93 13.38
Girder2 0 52.01 78.49 32.68 93.9 62.8 28.84 31.12

 SUMMARY:
Max S-
Ext. Max S+
Ext. Max S-
Int. Max S+
Int.
BEAM Normal
1D
SSI
3D
Normal
1D
SSI
3D
Normal
1D
SSI
3D
Normal
1D
SSI
3D
BEAM1 -13.85 -24.35 19.82 21.5 -14.34 -15.83 -13.85 14.34
BEAM2 -36.8 -48.14 51.23 42.25 -37.07 -29.74 37.07 29.69
Girder1 -26.95 -34.91 47.26 35.13 -39.16 -34.72 34.59 34.23
Girder2 -66.83 -86.87 117.53 88.4 -98.42 -85.91 85.49 87.1
Spacing(Ф10)
(cm)
Spacing(Ф10)
(cm)
Spacing(Ф10)
(cm)
Spacing(Ф10)
(cm)
BEAM1 35 35 35 35 35 35 35 35
BEAM2 25 13 13 13 25 25 25 25
Girder1 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20

 ANALYSIS AND DESIGN FOR SLAB:
 STRIP 2:

 M+ ve=1.18 ton.m

 b=100 cm, d=12 cm
 ρ = 0.00221
 As bottom = ρ* b* d = 2.6 cm2

As min. =2.7 cm
2

Use 1 ф 12 mm /30 cm

 SUMMARY:

7431177.pptdhfbttttthtghdfghbbbbbbbbbfgg

More Related Content

Similar to 7431177.pptdhfbttttthtghdfghbbbbbbbbbfgg

More from hozifajalalzai

Recently uploaded

7431177.pptdhfbttttthtghdfghbbbbbbbbbfgg