Eurocodes Background and Applications



Similar documents
EUROCODE 1 Actions on Building Structures

NATIONAL ANNEX TO STANDARD SFS-EN 1990 EUROCODE BASIS OF STRUCTURAL DESIGN

DS/EN 1990 DK NA:2013

Eurocode 1: Actions on structures Part 1-1: General actions - Densities, self-weight, imposed loads for buildings

EN DK NA:2007

EN 1990:2002/A1:2005/AC

EN :2005. Wind actions

Structural Analysis. EUROCODE 2 Background and Applications

DS/EN DK NA:2014

CH. 2 LOADS ON BUILDINGS

DS/EN DK NA:2014

Design MEMO 60 Reinforcement design for TSS 102

NUMERICAL ANALYSIS OF THE EFFECTS OF WIND ON BUILDING STRUCTURES

Design MEMO 54a Reinforcement design for RVK 41

Page 1 of Sven Alexander Last revised SB-Produksjon STATICAL CALCULATIONS FOR BCC 250

Lecture 4. Case Study of 16 th C Church in Old Goa

EN Eurocode 1 Accidental Actions. Ton Vrouwenvelder TNO Bouw / TU Delft. EUROCODES Background and Applications

BFS 2013:10 EKS 9. Section A General provisions. Scope of validity. Consolidated Version as last amended by BFS 2013:10 EKS 9

Load and Resistance Factor Geotechnical Design Code Development in Canada. by Gordon A. Fenton Dalhousie University, Halifax, Canada

Prof. Dr. Zahid A. Siddiqi, UET, Lahore WIND LOAD

DESIGN OF SLABS. 3) Based on support or boundary condition: Simply supported, Cantilever slab,

Shear Forces and Bending Moments

Projectile Motion 1:Horizontally Launched Projectiles

Map Patterns and Finding the Strike and Dip from a Mapped Outcrop of a Planar Surface

Technical handbook Panel Anchoring System

determining wind and snow loads for solar panels America s Authority on Solar

WORLD S TALLEST TIMBER BUILDING, BERGEN

Design of pile foundations following Eurocode 7-Section 7

CHAPTER 6 WIND LOADS

Ministry of the Environment Decree on applying Eurocode standards in building construction

DESIGN OF SLABS. Department of Structures and Materials Engineering Faculty of Civil and Environmental Engineering University Tun Hussein Onn Malaysia

EUROCODES. Background and Applications. EN 1991 Eurocode 1: Actions on structures. Dissemination of information for training workshop

Loads and Seismic Design National Building Code Wind and Snow Importance Factors

INTRODUCTION TO LIMIT STATES

When the fluid velocity is zero, called the hydrostatic condition, the pressure variation is due only to the weight of the fluid.

A N Beal EARTH RETAINING STRUCTURES - worked examples 1

Number of Sides Required to Have a Handrail

Copyright 2011 Casa Software Ltd. Centre of Mass

Computer Program for the Analysis of Loads On Buildings. Using the ASCE 7-93 Standard. Stephen E. Browning. Master of Engineering.

General (1) This Section applies to the design and construction of interior and exterior stairs, steps, ramps, railings and guards.

M6a: Open Channel Flow (Manning s Equation, Partially Flowing Pipes, and Specific Energy)


Study of Snowdrift around Buildings of Antarctica using Numerical Analysis

4.2 Free Body Diagrams

RFEM 5. Spatial Models Calculated acc. to Finite Element Method. of DLUBAL SOFTWARE GMBH. Dlubal Software GmbH Am Zellweg 2 D Tiefenbach

Stresses in Beam (Basic Topics)

South African wind loading specifications: The Euro way?

Basics of vehicle aerodynamics

Pipe Flow-Friction Factor Calculations with Excel

Module 2. Analysis of Statically Indeterminate Structures by the Matrix Force Method. Version 2 CE IIT, Kharagpur

Chapter 3 Pre-Installation, Foundations and Piers

Module 5 (Lectures 17 to 19) MAT FOUNDATIONS

Concrete Design to Eurocode 2

Guideline. Date:

Fluid Mechanics: Static s Kinematics Dynamics Fluid

European Technical Assessment ETA-10/0153 of 10/06/2015

HEAVY OIL FLOW MEASUREMENT CHALLENGES

The Impact of Market Demands on Residential Post-Tensioned Foundation Design: An Ethical Dilemma

AP Physics - Chapter 8 Practice Test

Solving Simultaneous Equations and Matrices

Seismic Risk Prioritization of RC Public Buildings

European Technical Approval ETA-10/0153

Breakaway Walls

EVALUATION OF SEISMIC RESPONSE - FACULTY OF LAND RECLAMATION AND ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING -BUCHAREST

Guide to the use of EN Wind Actions

Physics 201 Homework 8

MacroFlo Opening Types User Guide <Virtual Environment> 6.0

Soil and waste for high-rise

EN Eurocode 7. Section 10 Hydraulic Failure Section 11 Overall Stability Section 12 Embankments. Trevor L.L. Orr Trinity College Dublin Ireland

C B A T 3 T 2 T What is the magnitude of the force T 1? A) 37.5 N B) 75.0 N C) 113 N D) 157 N E) 192 N

HORIZONTAL INSTALLATION

F N A) 330 N 0.31 B) 310 N 0.33 C) 250 N 0.27 D) 290 N 0.30 E) 370 N 0.26

THE REPORT ON THE INVESTIGATION OF THE REACTORS AT FUKUSHIMA DAIICHI NUCLEAR POWER STATION (NO. 1)

Introduction to Matrix Algebra

3600 s 1 h. 24 h 1 day. 1 day

39th International Physics Olympiad - Hanoi - Vietnam Theoretical Problem No. 3

5.14 COMPUTATIONAL MODELLING OF AIRFLOW IN URBAN STREET CANYON AND COMPARISON WITH MEASUREMENTS

Control of Seismic Drift Demand for Reinforced Concrete Buildings with Weak First Stories

Chapitre 10. Flow Nets 1

FLUID FLOW Introduction General Description

Miss S. S. Nibhorkar 1 1 M. E (Structure) Scholar,

Introduction to Beam. Area Moments of Inertia, Deflection, and Volumes of Beams

CHAPTER 2 HYDRAULICS OF SEWERS

Quick RefeRence Guide comparison of Select nfip and Building code Requirements for Special flood Hazard Areas

HOW TO DESIGN CONCRETE STRUCTURES Foundations

HW Set VI page 1 of 9 PHYSICS 1401 (1) homework solutions

Chapter 07 Test A. Name: Class: Date: Multiple Choice Identify the choice that best completes the statement or answers the question.

Steps to Solving Newtons Laws Problems.

Wind Speed Maps for the Caribbean for Application with the Wind Load Provisions of ASCE 7

TEACHER ANSWER KEY November 12, Phys - Vectors

Recitation #5. Understanding Shear Force and Bending Moment Diagrams

Scheme development: Purlin structure design

Solution for Homework #1

Optimizing Tensile Membrane Design utilizing CFD. Trevor Scott. Light Weight Structures Advisory Service

Appendix 4-C. Open Channel Theory

Transcription:

Eurocodes Background and Applications Eurocode example: Actions on a six storey building 18-2 February 28 Prepared by: Kirstine Bak-Kristensen vend Ole Hansen

2 TABLE OF CONTENT 1. ntroduction... 3 2. Characteristic permanent actions (G)... 4 3. Characteristic imposed loads ()... 5 4. Characteristic wind actions (W)... 8 5. Characteristic snow loads ()... 11 6. Combination of actions... 12 7. Dimensioning combination of actions - TR... 14 8. Loss of static equilibrium - EQU... 15

3 1. ntroduction The present example illustrates the Eurocode actions on a six storey building. The characteristic actions and design actions on a six storey building are determined. The support reactions are calculated for the actions considered. These cover permanent actions, imposed loads, wind actions and snow loads. The building is indefinitely long and supported per 1 m along the building in the points A and B. The points A and B shown in figure 1.1 illustrate two points, for which the support reactions are calculated. The building includes residential and office areas as shown in figure 1.1. This indicates that medium Consequence Class CC2 may be assumed, see B3.1 in EN 199:22. The following recommended partial safety factors for permanent actions are applied, see table A1.2(A) and A.1.2(B) in EN 199:22. EQU: γ Gj,sup = and γ Gj,inf =9. TR 6.1a: γ Gj,sup =1,35 and γ Gj,inf TR 6.1b: ξγ Gj,sup =5 and γ Gj,inf =1,. =1,. Permanent actions only in 6.1a. The recommended partial safety factor of 1.5 is applied for all variable actions, see table A1.2(A) and A.1.2(B) in EN 199:22. The reliability class RC3 with K F = is assumed, see B3.3 in EN 199:22. The K F factor of is applied to the partial safety factors of the unfavourable actions. Figure 1.1 - ix storey building

4 2. Characteristic permanent actions (G) The characteristic permanent actions are assumed as follows: Distributed loads: g = 1, 6 kn/m 2 roof g = 2,4 kn/m 2 floor Line loads: G = 2, 4 kn/m and 8, kn/m facade G = 2,4 kn/m wall Figure 2.1 - Characteristic permanent action The above-mentioned permanent actions give the characteristic permanent support reactions specified in table 2.1. Table 2.1 - upport reactions from characteristic permanent actions Vertical support reactions [kn] R A [kn] 652 R B [kn] 2356

5 3. Characteristic imposed loads () The characteristic imposed uniformly distributed loads q and the load combination factors ψ for residential areas and office areas are as follows: q = 2, kn/m 2 ψ res, res = 7 q = 3, kn/m 2 ψ off, off = 7 The recommended floor reduction factor α A is calculated by: α A 5 A = ψ + 7 A 1, in which ψ is the above-mentioned load combination factor, the area A =1 m², and A is the loaded area. For the three cases shown below, the reduced imposed loads are given in table 3.1 below. Table 3.1 Reduced imposed loads Case no. α A α A qres α A qoff 1 571 4 1,71 2 625 1,25 1,88 3 667 1,33 2, The recommended multi storey reduction factor α n is calculated by: α n = 2 + ( n 2) ψ n in which n is the number of storeys. nserting the number of storeys gives: α α 2 + (4 2) 7 = 4 4, res = 2 + (2 2) 7 = 2 2, off = 85 1,

6 The imposed loads shall be classified as variable free actions, see 2.2 (1)P in EN 1991-1- 1:22. This gives the relevant load cases shown in figure 3.1, and the support reactions are given in tables 3.2 and 3.3. 6.2.2 (1) in EN 1991-1-1:22 specifies: For the design of columns or walls, loaded from several storeys, the total imposed loads on the floor of each storey should be assumed to be distributed uniformly. This specification has not been applied in the present example. Figure 3.1 Distribution of imposed loads Table 3.2 - upport reactions from reduced imposed loads for residential areas, see table 3.1 upport reactions Case 1 Case 2 Case 3 R A [kn] 8 2-12 R B [kn] 56 2 44 Table 3.3 - upport reactions from reduced imposed loads for office areas, see table 3.1 upport reactions Case 1 Case 2 Case 3 R A [kn] 6 15-9 R B [kn] 42 15 33 Figure 3.2 illustrates the reduction for multi storey in case 1. The load on the two middle storeys are reduced by ψ res. The loads on the rest of the storey are unchanged. The average reduction of the loads are expressed by α n.

7 Figure 3.2 Distribution of imposed loads with reduction for multi storey, case 1

8 4. Characteristic wind actions (W) The indefinitely long facades of the building are assumed to be orientated north-south. Basic values, see 4.2 in EN 1991-1-4:25 The fundamental value of the basic wind velocity is assumed to be v b, =24 m/s. For westerly and easterly winds perpendicular to the long facades, the directional factor 2 2 squared has been assumed to be c =1, and c =8, respectively, Terrain roughness, see 4.3.2 in EN 1991-1-4:25 dir For westerly and easterly winds the upstream terrains are assumed to be a suburban terrain with a roughness length of z =3 m and a lake with a roughness length of z =1 m, respectively. Wind turbulence and peak velocity pressure, see 4.4-4.5 in EN 1991-1-4:25 The characteristic peak velocity pressures at building height 22, m above terrain are given in table 4.1 assuming flat terrain. The recommended turbulence factor of k =1, has been applied. Table 4.1 The characteristic peak velocity pressure q p. Wind direction Directional factor squared c 2 dir dir Terrain category z [m] k r q p [kn/m 2 ] Wind from west 1, 3 2154 81 Wind from east 8 1 1698 939 Pressure coefficients, see 7.2.2 and 7.2.5 in EN 1991-1-4:25 The pressure coefficients for the wind action are given in figure 4.1.The lack of correlation of wind pressures between the windward and leeward side has been taken into account by the recommended procedure, see the note of 7.2.2 (3), giving a reduction factor of 87. Thus, the pressure coefficients for wind loads on the facades become,87 8 = 7 and 87 ( 53) = 46, respectively.

9 Figure 4.1 Pressure coefficients for wind actions. Westerly winds.

1 Figure 4.2 Pressure coefficients for wind actions. Easterly winds. The reactions from characteristic wind actions in table 4.2 are determined for a structural factor of 1. Thus, it is assumed that the load reducing effect of lack of correlation, in extension of the above-mentioned correction factor of 87, is balanced out by the load increasing effect from inertial forces originating from structural vibrations. Table 4.2 upport reactions from characteristic wind loads Westerly winds Easterly winds Reactions 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Vertical R A [kn] -217-244 -174-21 261 285 195 219 Vertical R B [kn] 25 252 152 154-222 -275-22 -273 Horizontal R V [kn] -188-22 -157-171 218 235 182 198 The recommended reduction factor of ψ w =6 is applied, see table A1.1 in EN 199:22.

11 5. Characteristic snow loads () The characteristic value of snow load on the ground is assumed to be s =. 9 kn/m². The shape coefficient for the snow load are given in figure 5 and the reactions for the characteristic snow load are given in table 5.1. k Figure 5.1 - now load shape coefficients The recommended load combination factor for remainder of CEN Member tates, for sites located at altitude H 1 m a.s.l. is assumed, i.e. ψ =5. Table 5.1 - upport reactions from characteristic snow loads upport reactions Case 1 Case 2 Case 3 R A [kn] 13-2 2 R B [kn] 88 77 55

12 6. Combination of actions Examples of possible load combinations are listed in table 6.1. The following comments may clarify some of the load combinations: When the imposed load is an accompanying action, the load combination factor ψ is applied and not the multi storey reduction factor α n, see 3.3.2 (2)P in EN 1991-1- 1:22. When the imposed loads act simultaneously with the other variable actions due to wind and / or snow, the total imposed loads considered in the load case shall be considered as a single action, see 3.3.1 (2)P in EN 1991-1-1: 22. When the imposed loads are the only variable action present, one of the imposed load categories is dominating and the other is accompanying, see the load combinations TR (6.1b)-4 and TR (6.1b)-5. TR load combinations for largest R A and largest R B TR 6.1b-1: 5G + 1,5 α + 1,5 α + 1,5 ψ W + 1, ψ res res off off w 5 s TR 6.1b-2: TR 6.1b-3: TR 6.1b-4: TR 6.1b-5: TR 6.1a: 5G + 1,5 W + 1,5 ψ + 1,5 ψ + 1, ψ res res off off 5 5G + 1,5 + 1,5 ψ + 1,5 ψ + 1, ψ G + 1,5 α resres + 1,5 off 5 ψ G + 1,5 αoff off + 1,5 res 5 ψ 1,1 1, 35 G res res off off 5 W off res W TR load combinations for smallest R A (permanent action favourable) TR 6.1b-6: TR 6.1b-7: TR 6.1b-8: TR 6.1b-9: 1, G + 1,5 α + 1,5 α + 1,5 ψ W + 1, ψ res res off off W 5 1, G + 1,5 W + 1,5 ψ + 1,5 ψ + 1, ψ res res off off 5 1, G + 1,5 + 1,5 ψ + 1,5 ψ + 1, ψ 1, G + 1, 5W res res off off 5 W W TR load combinations for smallest R B (permanent action favourable) TR 6.1b-1: 1, G + 1, 5W

13 Table 6.1 Design combination factors G res W Dominating off variable action TR (6.1b)-1 1, 15 1,5 85 1,5 1, 1,5 6 1,5 5 TR (6.1b)-2 1, 15 1,5 7 1,5 7 1, 5 1,5 5 W TR (6.1b)-3 1, 15 1,5 7 1,5 7 1,5 6 1, 5 TR (6.1b)-4 1, 15 1,5 85 1,5 7 TR (6.1b)-5 1, 15 1,5 7 1,5 1, TR (6.1b)-6 1, 1,5 85 1,5 1, 1,5 6 1,5 5 TR (6.1b)-7 1, 1,5 7 1,5 7 1, 5 1,5 5 W TR (6.1b)-8 1, 1,5 7 1,5 7 1,5 6 1, 5 TR (6.1b)-9 1, 1, 5 W TR (6.1a) 1, 35 - The design support reactions are given in table 6.2. The largest upward pointing reactions in points A and B occur for TR (6.1b) - 2 and TR (6.1b) 1, respectively. TR (6.1b) - 7 gives the smallest reaction in point A of 6 kn. Thus, an anchor in point A is not needed according to TR. The dimensioning support reactions are shown bold in table 6.2. Table 6.2 Design support reactions - TR R A [kn] R B [kn] TR (6.1b)-1 1652 478 TR (6.1b)-2 1716 46 TR (6.1b)-3 1545 457 TR (6.1b)-4 1279 425 TR (6.1b)-5 133 4319 TR (6.1b)-6 92 - TR (6.1b)-7 6 - TR (6.1b)-8 165 - TR (6.1b)-9 25 192 TR (6.1a) 968 3499 res off

14 7. Dimensioning combination of actions - TR Largest R B : (TR (6.1b)-1) 1,1 1, 15G "+" 1,1 1,5 α "+" 1,5 ψ "+" 1,5 ψ W Largest R A : (TR (6.1b)-2) n s w 1,1 1, 15G "+" 1,1 1, 5W "+" 1,5 ψ "+" 1,5 ψ mallest R A : (TR (6.1b)-7) s 1, G "+" 1,1 1, 5W "+" 1,5 ψ "+" 1,5 ψ s

15 8. Loss of static equilibrium - EQU The design support reaction in EQU is given in table 8.1. Table 8.1 Design support reaction - EQU R A [kn] R B [kn] EQU -153 - G G "+" 1,1 1, 5W "+" 1,5 ψ "+" 1,5 ψ sup + 9 inf i s 6.4.1 (1)P in EN 199:22 specifies: EQU : Loss of static equilibrium of the structure or any part of it considered as a rigid body, where: minor variations in the value or the spatial distribution of actions from a single source are significant, and the strengths of construction materials or ground are generally not governing s EQU relevant in the present example? f yes, how should the anchor be designed? Give TR alone sufficient safety if an anchor is chosen in the first place?