Académique Documents
Professionnel Documents
Culture Documents
INTRODUCTION
CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION
The project is a 5,625 m2 indoor theme park to be built upon a one-hectare land in Cuta,
Batangas. The design project includes the structural design of an indoor amusement park,
specifically its reinforced concrete members. The members are designed in accordance to several
codes, primarily the National Structural Code of the Philippines.
The structures in this project are analyzed as moment frames comprising mostly
of reinforced concrete members. The frames are analyzed through manual (Microsoft
Excel) and software (ETABS) calculations.
The sustainability of the structure through the use of natural lighting will also be
analyzed in further studies.
AUTHOR/S:
Dr. Rehan A. Khan
ABSTRACT/SUMMARY:
The basic concept of Performance Based Seismic Design is to provide engineers with the
capability to design buildings that have a predictable and reliable performance in earthquakes.
Performance based Seismic design is an elastic design methodology done on the probable
performance of the building under input ground motions. The present study is an effort to
understand Performance Based Design Approach. In this, a five storey symmetrical building is
designed using STAAD.Pro and the performance based seismic design is performed by N2
method using a simple computer-based pushover analysis technique using SAP2000, a product
of Computers and Structures International. The procedure compares the capacity of the structure
(in the form of a pushover curve) of a MDOF system with the demands on the structure (in the
form of inelastic response spectra of a single degree freedom system). The method is formulated
in acceleration displacement format. The graphical intersection of the two curves approximates
the performance point of the structure. The proposed method is illustrated by finding the seismic
performance point for a five storey reinforced concrete framed building located in Zone-IV,
symmetrical in plan (designed according to IS 456:2002) subjected to three different PGA levels
as input ground motion. An extensive parametric study is conducted to investigate the effect of
many important parameters on the Performance point. The parameters include effect of input
ground motion on performance point, changing percentage of reinforcement in columns, size of
columns, beams individually.The results of analysis are compared in terms of base shear and
storey displacements.
3. ATC, 1997a, “NEHRP Guidelines for the Seismic Rehabilitation of Buildings”, FEMA
273 Report, prepared by the Applied Technology Council for the Building Seismic Safety
Council, published by the Federal Emergency Management Agency, Washington, D.C.
AUTHOR/S:
ABSTRACT/SUMMARY:
Moment resisting frames (MRF) are typically classified as “ductile”, “nominally ductile”,
and “GLD” (Gravity Load Designed). The seismic performance of these structures can be
evaluated in terms of its lateral load resistance, distribution of interstory drift, and the sequence
of yielding of the members. In this study a typical 5-story frame is designed as (a) ductile, (b)
nominally ductile, (c) GLD, and (d) retrofitted GLD. This study presents an analytical approach
for seismic assessment of RC frames using nonlinear time history analysis and push-over
analysis. The analytical models are validated against available experimental results and used in a
study to evaluate the seismic behavior of these 5-story frames. It is concluded that both the
ductile and the nominally ductile frames behaved very well under the considered earthquake,
REFERENCES:
3. ATC, 1997a, “NEHRP Guidelines for the Seismic Rehabilitation of Buildings”, FEMA
273 Report, prepared by the Applied Technology Council for the Building Seismic Safety
Council, published by the Federal Emergency Management Agency, Washington, D.C.
AUTHOR/S:
O. Ertas, S. Ozden, T. Ozturan
ABSTRACT/SUMMARY:
REFERENCES:
5. Soubra, K. S., J. K. Wight, and A. E. Naaman. 1993. Cyclic Response of Fibrous Cast-
in-Place Connections in Precast BeamColumn Subassemblages. ACI Structural Journal,
V. 90, No. 3 (May–June): pp. 316–323.
7. Bhatt, P., and D. W. Kirk. 1985. Test on an Improved Beam Column Connection for
Precast Concrete. ACI Journal, V. 82, No. 6 (November–December): pp. 834–843.
10. Stanton, J. F., N. M. Hawkins, and T. R. Hicks. 1991. PRESSS Project 1.3:
Connection Classification and Evaluation. PCI Journal, V. 36, No. 5 (September–
October): pp. 62–71.
11. Yee, A.A. 1991. Design Considerations for Precast Prestressed Concrete Building
Structures in Seismic Areas. PCI Journal, V. 36, No. 3 (May–June): pp. 40–55.
12. Mast, R. F. 1992. A Precast Concrete Frame System for Seismic Zone Four. PCI
Journal, V. 37, No. 1 (January–February): pp. 50–64.
13. French, C. W., O. Amu, and C. Tarzikhan. 1989. Connections between Precast
Elements—Failure Outside Connection Region. Journal of Structural Engineering, V.
115, No. 2: pp. 316–340.
15. Priestley, M. J. N. 1996. The PRESSS Program—Current Status and Proposed Plans
for Phase III. PCI Journal, V. 41, No. 2 (March–April): pp. 22–40.
16. Ghosh, S. K., S. D. Nakaki, and K. Krishan. 1997. Precast Structures in Region of
High Seismicity: 1997 UBC Design Provision. PCI Journal, V. 42, No. 6 (November–
December): pp. 76–93.
18. Hawkins, N. M., and S. K. Ghosh. 2000. Proposed Revisions to 1997 NEHRP
Recommended Provisions for Seismic Regulations for Precast Concrete Structures Part
2—Seismic-ForceResisting Systems. PCI Journal, V. 45, No. 5 (September–October): pp.
34–44.
19. Nakaki, S.D., R. E. Englekirk, and J. L. Plaehn. 1994. Ductile Connectors for a Precast
Concrete Frame. PCI Journal, V. 39, No. 5 (September–October): pp. 46–59.
20. American Concrete Institute (ACI) Innovation Task Group 1 and Collaborators and ACI
Committee 374. 2001. T1.1-01/ T1.1R-01: Acceptance Criteria for Moment Frames Based on
Structural Testing. Farmington Hills, MI: ACI.
21. Turkish Civil Engineering Chamber. 1998. Specifications for Structures to be Built in
Disaster Areas. Turkey: Turkish Civil Engineering Chamber.
AUTHOR/S:
S. Talebi, M. R. Kianoush
ABSTRACT/SUMMARY:
This paper describes the seismic performance of a reinforced concrete frame structure
designed and detailed according to the current Canadian practice. On this basis, designers have
two options for the seismic design of reinforced concrete frames. The first option is to design a
ductile frame, which involves special design and detailing provisions to ensure ductile behavior.
The second option is to design a nominally ductile frame. This option involves designing for
twice the seismic lateral load as that for ductile frames, but without taking all the special
provisions for good detailing in the design of the frame members. By allowing such a choice, the
Code implies that either type of frames will provide equivalent seismic performance under the
design level earthquake. In this study, a typical 5- story frame building is designed for both
conditions. Analytical investigation in the form of pushover analysis is performed to evaluate
and to compare the performance of each frame. The results in terms of story displacement,
ductility, drift, sequence of cracking and yielding and the damage potential are presented. It is
concluded that the performance of the ductile frame is much better than that of the nominally
ductile frame.
REFERENCES:
4. Reinhorm, A.M., Kunnath, S.K., and Valles, R.E., “IDARC2D, A Computer Program
for Inelastic Damage Analysis of Buildings”, Version 4, Department of Civil
Engineering, State University of New York at Buffalo, 1996.
5. Filiatrault A., Lachapelle E., and Lamontagne P., “Seismic Performance of Ductile and
Nominally Ductile Reinforced Concrete Moment Resisting Frames”, Analytical Study,
Canadian Journal of Civil Engineering, Volume 25, Issue 2, Ottawa, Canada., 1998.
AUTHOR/S:
C. A. Goulet, C. B. Haselton, J. Mitrani-Reiser, J. L. Beck, G. G. Deierlein, K. A. Porter,
J. P. Stewart
ABSTRACT/SUMMARY:
• The shear reinforcement required to ensure truss mechanism and to confine the core
concrete varies considerably between the three codes. ACI 318M-02 requires transverse
reinforcement in proportion to the strength of the concrete where as NZS 3101:1998 sets limits
based on the level of nominal shear stress that is experienced by the joint core. EN 1998-1:2003
provides shear reinforcement to confine the joint and to bring down the maximum tensile stress
to design value. Also, the code gives a bound on the estimate of shear reinforcement to maintain
the integrity of joint after diagonal cracking. The design shear reinforcement is decided based on
the above two criteria.
• NZS and EN code require 60% of horizontal shear reinforcement as vertical shear
reinforcement. All three codes accept the intermediate column bars as a part of vertical shear
reinforcement.
• The detailing requirements ensure adequate confinement of core concrete and preclude
the buckling of longitudinal bar. The horizontal and vertical transverse reinforcements are to be
distributed within the joint to resist the diagonal shear cracking and to contain the transverse
tensile strain in core concrete. NZS and EN codes emphasize on provision of 135o hook on both
ends of the cross-ties; whereas ACI code accepts 135o at one end and 90o hook at the other end
and insists on proper placement of stirrups to provide effective confinement.
REFERENCES:
The Project
The project is a 5,625 m2 indoor theme park to be built upon a one-hectare land in Cuta,
Batangas. The project will include commercial buildings and attraction space along with a larger
structure which will contain them. The project will analyze and design the reinforced concrete
beams in the structures.
The indoor theme park is part of a land development project in Cuta, Batangas and will
be constructed to compliment the neighborhood and promote the land value. It has a maximum
capacity of 500 people at a given time.
The designers will use manual (Microsoft Excel) and software-based (ETABS)
calculations for the design of the structure.
Restaurant
The arcade and horror house building is a multi-purpose building whose first floor
serves as a horror house while the second serves as an arcade. Combined, they are
expected to hold about 50 people at once. They have a combined floor area of 700m2.
The office and maintenance building is a multi-purpose structure. Its first floor
contains a pair of comfort rooms and a 10 m x 10 m maintenance room. The second
floor contains a 5 m x 10 m accounting office, a 5 m x 10 m security office and a 10
m x 10 m clinic.
Sustainability
Natural Lighting
The main dome will use insulated glass panels for its walls which will allow
natural light to pass through them. This will illuminate the building during day hours and
reduce the building’s dependence to electric lighting.
The reduced consumption in electricity does not only benefit the owner
financially but also the environment by reducing the carbon footprint induced by electric
generation.
Project Objectives
Scope
Dead loads
Live loads
The following software are used for the plans and designs:
Autodesk AutoCAD
Microsoft Excel
ETABS
Delimitations
Foundations
Steel structures
Prestressed concrete members
Veneers and pre-fabricated elements such as glass and masonry
Definitive elements such as signs and park rides
Wind load
Earthquake load
OLD CITY CARNIVAL: A PROPOSED THREE-STOREY INDOOR THEME PARK 18
*Gadon *Ople *Peña *Pulmano
Flood loads
Rain loads
Soil pressure loads
Architectural Plans
The architectural plans consist of perspectives, floor plans and elevations in necessary
planes.
Each of the four structures, (1) open-space dome, (2) restaurant, (3) indoor attraction
[horror house], and (4) arcade, will have its own set of architectural plans.
PERSPECTIVES
PERSPECTIVE
ELEVATION PLANS
PERSPECTIVE
PERSPECTIVE
The structural plans consist of floor plans and elevations in necessary planes.
Each of the four structures, (1) open-space dome, (2) arcade, (3) restaurant, and (4) office
and maintenance, will have its own set of structural plans.
Introductory Paragraph
The preliminary design will focus on determining the adequate dimensions and
reinforcements of the columns, beams and slabs in the structure.
Design Criteria
The designs of the structural members are obtained by satisfying the following
member reactions along with the design codes:
Critical Moment
Critical Shear
Critical Axial Load
The preliminary design of the structures conforms to the standards set by The
National Structural Code of the Philippines 2015 (NSCP 2015).
Material Specifications
(1) ETABS
(2) Microsoft Excel
START
Determine most
economical design
FINAL DESIGN
END
All loads, as much as possible, are obtained from the minimum design loads set
by the NSCP 2015.
Dead Load
Dead loads are determined by using the architectural dimensions and unit weights
stated in Table 204-1 and Table 204-2 of NSCP 2015.
Live Load
All live loads for occupied floor areas are as stated in Section 205 of NSCP 2015.
Wind Load
Earthquake Load
Lateral seismic loads are determined in accordance to the standards set by Section
208 of NSCP 2015. Computations for loads due to earthquake are discussed in the
succeeding section (see Seismic Analysis).
LOAD COMBINATIONS
1.4(D+F) (203-1)
1.2(D+F+T) + 1.6(L+H) + 0.5(Lr or R) (203-2)
1.2D + 1.6(Lr or R) + (f1L or 0.5W) (203-3)
1.2D + 1.0W + f1L + 0.5(Lr or R) (203-4)
1.2D + 1.0E + f1L (203-5)
0.9D + 1.0W + 1.6H (203-6)
0.9D + 1.0E + 1.6H (203-7)
Where:
f1 = 1.0 for floors in places of public assembly, for live loads in excess of 4.8 kPa, and for
garage live load, or
= 0.5 for other live loads
D+F (203-8)
D+H+F+L+T (203-9)
D + H + F + (Lr or R) (203-10)
D + H + F + 0.75[L + T(Lr or R) ] (203-11)
𝐸
D + H + F + (0.6𝑊 𝑜𝑟 1.4) (203-12)
No increase in allowable stresses shall be used with these load combinations
except as specifically permitted by Section 203.4.2.
OPEN-SPACE DOME
ARCADE
RESTAURANT
SLAB LOADS
Table 5.3 shows the loads carried by the slab, including their self-weight,
superimposed dead loads and live loads.
For the dimensions of the slabs, refer to Table 4.3. For the live loads, refer to
Table 5.2.
Table 5.4 SLAB LOADS
SELF DEAD LIVE
THICKNESS
STRUCTURE SLAB WEIGHT LOAD LOAD
(mm)
(kPa) (kPa) (kPa)
2S-1 120 2.832 1.35 4.8
BEAM LOADS
Table 5.4 shows the loads carried by the beams, including their self-weight, walls,
and dead loads and live loads from the slabs. The self-weight is calculated by multiplying
the cross-sectional area of the beams to the unit weight of concrete. The uniform loads
from the slabs are obtained using the load analysis for two-way slabs. The wall loads are
calculated by multiplying the height of the walls to their unit pressures.
For the dimensions of the beams and the loads applied by the slabs, refer to Table
4.2 and Table 5.3, respectively. For the unit weights and unit pressures of the materials,
refer to Table 5.1.
COLUMN LOADS
Table 5.5 shows the axial loads carried by the columns. The self-weights are
calculated by multiplying the unit weight of concrete to the height of the column. The
superimposed dead loads and live loads are obtained by multiplying the uniform loads
from the beams to the tributary lengths carried by the columns.
For the dimensions of the columns, refer to Table 4.1. For the uniform loads used
to calculate the loads, refer to Table 5.4.
1-C3 7 - - - - -
3-C3 7 - - - - -
START
GIVEN: Specifications,
Beam and Column
Dimensions, Dead Loads
Display
reactions Compute for
moments using the
moment distribution
1 Tabulate moments
from dead loads and
live loads separately
1 END
The software calculation was done using ETABS, while the manual calculation
was done using the moment distribution method in Microsoft Excel.
The loads used for the analysis are as stated in Tables 5.3, 5.4 and 5.5.
OPEN-SPACE DOME
Fig. 5.19 Office and Maintenance Frame Analysis at Section B (Dead Load)
Fig. 5.21 Office and Maintenance Frame Analysis at Section B (Live Load)
Fig. 5.23 Office and Maintenance Frame Analysis At Section 3 (Dead Load)
Fig. 5.25 Office and Maintenance Frame Analysis at Section 5 (Live Load)
Fig. 5.27 Office and Maintenance Frame Analysis at Section 4 (Live Load)
OLD CITY CARNIVAL: A PROPOSED THREE-STOREY INDOOR THEME PARK 106
*Gadon *Ople *Peña *Pulmano
Fig 5.28 Office and Maintenance Frame Analysis at Section 3 (Live Load)
Column
Structure Section Reinforcement Ties
Designation
1-C1 950 x 950 12 – 36 mm ø 12mm ø @ 230 mm O. C.
Column
Structure Section Reinforcement Ties
Designation
1-C1 750 x 750 8 – 36 mm ø 12mm ø @ 180 mm O. C.
1-C2 900 x 900 8 – 36 mm ø 12mm ø @ 220 mm O. C.
1-C3 500 x 500 4 – 36 mm ø 12mm ø @ 120 mm O. C.
1-C4 500 x 500 4 – 36 mm ø 12mm ø @ 120 mm O. C.
2-C1 750 x 750 8 – 36 mm ø 12mm ø @ 180 mm O. C.
OPEN-SPACE 2-C2 900 x 900 8 – 36 mm ø 12mm ø @ 220 mm O. C.
DOME 2-C3 500 x 500 4 – 36 mm ø 12mm ø @ 120 mm O. C.
2-C4 500 x 500 4 – 36 mm ø 12mm ø @ 120 mm O. C.
3-C1 750 x 750 8 – 36 mm ø 12mm ø @ 180 mm O. C.
3-C2 900 x 900 8 – 36 mm ø 12mm ø @ 220 mm O. C.
3-C3 500 x 500 4 – 36 mm ø 12mm ø @ 120 mm O. C.
3-C4 500 x 500 4 – 36 mm ø 12mm ø @ 120 mm O. C.
C-1 500 x 500 8 – 20 mm ø 10mm ø @ 120 mm O. C.
C-2 500 x 500 8 – 20 mm ø 10mm ø @ 120 mm O. C.
C-3 500 x 500 8 – 20 mm ø 10mm ø @ 120 mm O. C.
C-4 500 x 500 8 – 20 mm ø 10mm ø @ 120 mm O. C.
C-5 500 x 500 8 – 20 mm ø 10mm ø @ 120 mm O. C.
C-6 500 x 500 8 – 20 mm ø 10mm ø @ 120 mm O. C.
ARCADE
2C-1 500 x 500 8 – 20 mm ø 10mm ø @ 120 mm O. C.
2C-2 500 x 500 8 – 20 mm ø 10mm ø @ 120 mm O. C.
2C-3 500 x 500 8 – 20 mm ø 10mm ø @ 120 mm O. C.
2C-4 500 x 500 8 – 20 mm ø 10mm ø @ 120 mm O. C.
2C-5 500 x 500 8 – 20 mm ø 10mm ø @ 120 mm O. C.
2C-6 500 x 500 8 – 20 mm ø 10mm ø @ 120 mm O. C.
C-1 500 x 500 8 – 20 mm ø 10 mm @ 120 mm O.C.
RESTAURANT C-2 500 x 500 8 – 20 mm ø 10 mm @ 120 mm O.C.
C-3 500 x 500 8 – 20 mm ø 10 mm @ 120 mm O.C.
C-1 500 x 500 8 – 20 mm ø 10 mm ø @ 100 mm O. C.
C-2 500 x 500 8 – 20 mm ø 10 mm ø @ 150 mm O. C.
C-3 500 x 500 8 – 20 mm ø 10 mm ø @ 100 mm O. C.
C-4 500 x 500 8 – 20 mm ø 10 mm ø @ 150 mm O. C.
OFFICE C-5 500 x 500 8 – 20 mm ø 10 mm ø @ 150 mm O. C.
AND
C-6 500 x 500 8 – 20 mm ø 10 mm ø @ 150 mm O. C.
MAINTENANCE
C-7 500 x 500 8 – 20 mm ø 10 mm ø @ 100 mm O. C.
C-8 500 x 500 8 – 20 mm ø 10 mm ø @ 150 mm O. C.
C-9 500 x 500 8 – 20 mm ø 10 mm ø @ 100 mm O. C.
C-10 500 x 500 8 – 20 mm ø 10 mm ø @ 150 mm O. C.
Start
fc = 0.35f’c
fs = 0.4fy
Compute Mu at midspan:
𝑾𝒖𝑳𝟐
𝑴𝒖 =
𝟏𝟐
Solve for n:
𝐸𝑠
𝑛=
𝐸𝑐
Solve for K:
𝒏𝒇′𝒄
𝑲=
𝒇𝒔 + 𝒏𝒇𝒄
Solve for j:
𝟏
𝑹 = 𝒇𝒄𝑲𝒋
𝟐
End