Graduation Project (DESIGN AND ANALYSIS OF MULTI-TOWER STRUCTURE USING ETABS).
- 1. DESIGN AND ANALYSIS OF MULTI- TOWER STRUCTURE USING ETABS BY KHALED AL SHAMI
- 2. INTRODUCTION BASEMENT. 3 PARKING FLOORS. 2 FLOOR HEALTH CLUB. 13 FLOOR HOTEL TOWER (LEFT). 33 FLOOR OFFICE TOWER (RIGHT).
- 3. LOCATION AT THE HEART OF AMMAN IN MECCA STREET. SURROUNDING AREA IS MOSTLY OFFICE TOWERS. POSITIONED NEAR AN INTERCHANGE. VERY HIGH ACCESSIBILITY.
- 5. WHY ETABS AND SAFE ? DEVELOPED BY CSI (CONSTRUCTION SPECIFICATION INSTITUTE). THEY WORK COMPATIBLY. 2D/3D MODELLING. LINEAR/NON-LINEAR ANALYSIS. SIMULATION OF EARTHQUAKE AND WIND LOAD ON STRUCTURE. FRIENDLY INTERFACE, EVEN FOR DESIGN OF COMPLICATED STRUCTURES.
- 6. DEAD LOAD CALCULATION LOAD NAME VALUE UNIT SOURCE PARTITION 2 kN/m2 UBC 97 code TILING (MARBLE) 0.4 kN/m2 2cm * 20 kN/m3 MORTAR (LIGHTWEIGHT CONCRETE) 0.16 kN/m2 2cm * 8 kN/m3 MECHANICAL AND ELECTRICAL EQUIPMENT 0.2 kN/m2 UBC 97 code, table 16-B FALSE CEILING 0.1 kN/m2 UBC 97 code, table 16-B FIRE SPRINKLERS 1.11 kN/m2 UBC 97 code, table 16-B TOTAL 3.97 Take as 4
- 7. OTHER LOADS FAÇADE LOAD APPLIED ON THE PERIMETER OF THE STRUCTURE HAS VALUE OF 1KN/M2. (ASCE7-5 CODE, SECTION 9.8). SNOW LOAD MINIMUM SNOW LOADS (0.240 KN/M2) ARE APPLIED.
- 8. LIVE LOAD REDUCTION ACCORDING TO UBC 97 PROVISIONS. TRIBUTARY AREA METHOD. MINIMUM FACTOR FOR MULTIPLE STORIES IS 0.4.
- 9. LIVE LOAD (ACCORDING TO IBC 2009) AREA LOAD UNIT SOURCE GROUND FLOOR 4 kN/m2 IBC 2009 Code PARKING FLOORS (1-3) 4 kN/m2 IBC 2009 Code HEALTH CLUB (1-2) 4 kN/m2 IBC 2009 Code LEFT TOWER (13 FLOORS HOTEL) 3.2 kN/m2 IBC 2009 Code RIGHT TOWER (33 FLOORS OFFICE AREA) 3.6 kN/m2 IBC 2009 Code.
- 10. WIND LOAD (UBC 97)
- 11. WIND LOAD (ASCE 7-05) TYPE ANNOTATION VALUE UNIT SOURCE WIND SPEED - 78 MpH Amman municipality DIRECTIONALITY FACTOR Kd 0.85 - ASCE 7-05 - C6.5.4.4 IMPORTANCE FACTOR I 1 - ASCE 7-05 - C6.5.5 EXPOSURE TYPE - B - ASCE 7-05 - C6.5.6 TOPOGRAPHICAL FACTOR Kzt 1 - ASCE 7-05 - C6.5.7 GUST FACTOR G 0.85 - ASCE 7-05 - C6.5.8
- 12. WIND EXPOSURE PARAMETERS (ASCE 7-05)
- 13. EARTHQUAKE LOADS (UBC 97) TWO LOAD CASES (Qx, Qy). TYPE ANNOTATION VALUE SOURCE IMPORTANCE FACTOR I 1 TABLE 16-K UBC CODE OVER- STRENGTH FACTOR R 4.5 TABLE 16-N UBC CODE TIME PERIOD CT 0.02 PROGRAM CALCULATED SOIL PROFILE - SC TABLE 16-J UBC CODE SEISMIC ZONE FACTOR Z 0.20 TABLE 16-I UBC CODE
- 14. LOAD COMBINATION TWO MANUALLY GENERATED COMBINATIONS. SHEAR WALL COMBINATIONS AND CONCRETE FRAME COMBINATION ARE AUTOMATICALLY GENERATED. Name Load Scale Factor Load Scale Factor Type Service Load Dead 1.0 Live 1.0 Linear Ultimate Load Dead 1.4 Live 1.6 Linear
- 15. MODELLING 1. DEFINE 1. MATERIALS (CONCRETE, STEEL). 2. FRAME SECTIONS (COLUMNS, BEAMS) 3. SHELLS (SLABS, WALLS) 4. OPENINGS IF ANY EXISTS. 5. DEFINE SECTION MODIFIRES. 2. DRAW 1. COLUMNS 2. BEAMS 3. ROOFS 4. WALLS 5. OPENINGS
- 16. MODELLING 3. DEFINE 1. EARTHQUAKE LOAD (EQX, EQY). 2. WIND LOAD (WX, WY). 3. RESPONSE SPECTRUM FUNCTION (SPEC-UBC). 4. RESPONSE SPECTRUM LOAD CASES (SPEC-X, SPEC-Y). 5. MASS SOURCE. 6. P-DELTA CASE. 7. MODAL CASE (EIGEN). 4. ASSIGN 1. AREA LOADS (ON SLABS). 2. LINE LOADS (ON BEAMS). 3. DIAPHRAGM 4. SUPPORTS (FIXED/PINNED). 5. MOMENT RELEASES FOR BEAMS. 6. MESHING (FOR WALLS AND SLABS). 7. PIER AND SPANDREL LABELS. 8. LIVE LOAD REDUCTION FACTOR. 9. SPECIAL SESIMIC EFFECTS. RUN
- 17. ANALYSIS
- 19. CORE MOMENT ELEVATORE CORE MOMENT
- 20. CHECKING BEAMS FOR ANY LOAD CASE OR COMBO. VIEW MOMENT. VIEW SHEAR. VIEW DEFLECTION.
- 21. CHECKING SLABS
- 22. CHECKING OVER-ALL DEFLECTION FOR UNFACTORED WIND: H 500 = 13127 500 = 26.26 𝑐𝑚 FACTORED SEISMIC LOAD: 0.02H = 0.02 * 13127 = 262.54 CM (ACCORDING TO UBC 97 CODE). OR: 0.005H = 0.0065 * 13127 = 85.32 CM (ACCORDING TO JAPANESE CODE). Load Case Translation (cm) Translation (cm) Comparison (cm) X-Dir Y-Dir X-Dir Y-Dir Qx 2.66 0.01 40.04 -0.86 40.04 < 262.54 safe Qy -0.46 3.37 -2.78 68.16 68.16 < 262.54 safe Translation (mm) Translation (mm) Comparison (mm) Wx 1.1 11.2 8.3 108.3 108.3 < 262.6 safe Wy 4.6 14.9 37.1 144.8 144.8 < 262.6 safe
- 23. INTER-STORY DRIFT CHECK Drift is the difference in horizontal deflection between the top and bottom of any storey. The story drift shall not exceed 2.5% of the story height for structures with fundamental period less than 0.7 second, for it to be considered safe. Allowable story drift = 2.5% * 3300mm = 82.5mm . Load Case Maximum Drift (mm) Comparison Safety Qx 4.185 4.185 < 82.5 Safe Qy 6.538 6.538 < 82.5 Safe
- 24. MODAL RESPONSE SPECTRA (STORY RESPONSE) STORY SHAERS LOAD CASE : RESPONSE SPECTRUM
- 25. MODAL RESPONSE SPECTRA (STORY RESPONSE) MAXIMUM STORY DISPLACEMENT MODE 1.
- 26. MODAL RESPONSE SPECTRA (STORY RESPONSE) MAXIMUM STORY DISPLACEMENT MODE 25.
- 27. WIND VELOCITY PROFILE CALCULATED WIND VELOCITY PROFILE.
- 29. SHEAR WALL DESIGN Longitudinal reinforcement. Shear reinforcement.
- 30. SHAER WALL LONGITUDINAL REINFORCEMENT USED CODE ACI318-08. REINFORCEMENT CALCULATED BY ETABS. DEMAND/CAPACITY RATIO = 1 (USING 95% OF THE SECTION AREA) THUS (5% FOR SAFETY). Story Pier ID Location Required Reinf % As (Cm2) Reinforcement 32ND P1 Top 0.62 173.6 ⌀ 22 @ 20 C/C 32ND P1 Bottom 0.58 162.4 ⌀ 22 @ 20 C/C 31ST P1 Top 0.58 162.4 ⌀ 22 @ 20 C/C 31ST P1 Bottom 0.48 134.4 ⌀ 20 @ 20 C/C 30TH P1 Top 0.49 137.2 ⌀ 20 @ 20 C/C 30TH P1 Bottom 0.45 126 ⌀ 20 @ 20 C/C
- 31. SHEAR WALL HORIZONTAL REINFORCEMENT SPECIFY NUMBER OF BARS IN ONE METER. Shear reinforcement (cm2/m) Calculation Selected Reinforcement 17.5 17.5/7 = 2.5 take ⌀18 ⌀18 @ 15cm c/c 31.45 31.45/7 = 4.49 take ⌀25 ⌀25 @ 15cm c/c
- 32. SHEAR WALL RENDERING & DETAILING
- 33. SHAERWALL DETAILING SHEAR WALL DETAILING. REINFORCEMENT. SPACING.
- 34. BEAM REINFORCEMENT LONGITUDINAL REINFORCEMENT.
- 35. BEAM DESIGN (LONGITUDINAL REINFORCEMENT) ASSUME A BEAM SECTION WITH 4 BARS AT TOP. 4 BARS AT BOTTOM. AS (CM2) BAR SIZE UNIT REINFORCEMENT 10 10 4 = 2.5 CM2 4 ⌀ 18 5 5 4 = 1.25 CM2 4 ⌀ 14 12 12 4 = 3.00 CM2 4 ⌀ 20 7 7 4 = 1.75 CM2 4 ⌀ 16 4 4 4 = 1.00 CM2 4 ⌀ 12 8 8 4 = 2.00 CM2 4 ⌀ 16
- 36. BEAM LONGITUDINAL REINFORCEMENT FINAL RESULT
- 38. BEAM SHEAR REINFORCEMENT ASSUME DIAMETER OF STIRRUPS TO BE 10MM. 𝑆 = 𝐴𝑠∗𝑁𝑜. 𝑜𝑓 𝑠𝑡𝑖𝑟𝑟𝑢𝑝 𝑙𝑒𝑔𝑠 𝑣𝑎𝑙𝑢𝑒 𝑔𝑖𝑣𝑒𝑛 𝑖𝑛 𝐸𝑇𝐴𝐵𝑆 𝑆 = 79∗2 7.82 = 20.20 𝑇𝐴𝐾𝐸 𝐴𝑆 20𝐶𝑀 𝑆 = 79∗2 4.72 = 33.47 𝑇𝐴𝐾𝐸 𝐴𝑆 30𝐶𝑀
- 39. DIAPHRAGMS EACH SLAB HAS ITS OWN DIAPHRAGM. DIAPHRAGMS ARE ALL RIGID. RIGID DIAPHRAGMS HAVE INFINITE IN-PLANE STIFFNESS PROPERTIES. THEY DON’T EXHIBIT THE ACTUAL IN-PLANE STIFFNESS PROPERTIES AND BEHAVIOUR. THE ADVANTAGE OF THIS METHOD IS DECREASING THE COMPUTATIONAL TIME.
- 40. SLAB MODELLING 3DIAPHRAGMS, WHY ? FOR COLLAPSE MECHANISM. FOR EARTHQUAKE JOINT.
- 41. MODELLING POST TENSION SLABS
- 42. WHY POST TENSION SLAB ? TO HELP REDUCING SLAB THICKNESS SAVE ON REBAR STEEL. LESS TIME CONSUMING. NO NEED FOR DROP BEAMS.
- 43. POST TENSION SLAB MODELLING SLAB MODEL ON SAFE 2014.
- 44. POST TENSION SLAB DESIGN TENDON LAYOUT.
- 45. POST TENSION SLAB DESIGN SLAB DESIGN OUTPUT TENDON PROFILES. AMOUNT OF PULLING FORCE FOR EACH TENDON. NEEDED ELONGATION VALUES FOR EACH TENDON. DEAD ENDS AND LIVE ENDS. BILL OF QUANTITY (BOQ) FOR SLAB.
- 46. POST TENSION SLAB DESIGN BILL OF QUANTITY BY SAFE 2014.
- 47. POST TENSION SLAB DESIGN REQUIRED REINFORCMENT. TOP REBAR PLAN.
- 49. COMMUNICATION BETWEEN PROJECT PARTICIPANTS MANY CONSULTANTS. A LOT OF WORKERS. DIFFERENT COMPANIES. ??? HOW TO ARRANGE COMMUNICATION ??? PROLOG IS A WEB BASED SCHEDULER HELPS IN MANAGING COMMUNICATION AMONG PROJECT PARTICIPANTS.
- 50. CONSTRUCTION TENDERING SELECTION OF CONRTRACTOR THIS ISN’T THE FINAL DECISION TO SELECT A SPECIFIC BIDDER, BUT IT HELPS TO SORT OUT AND FOCUS ON BEST POTENTIAL BIDDERS. EXCLUSIONS: CRIMINAL RECORDS, IF THE BIDDER HAS ANY. THEN THEY WOULD BE EXCLUDED FROM THE SELECTION. BUSINESS FAULTS, A BIDDER WHO HAS THESE CAN CAUSE A RISK FOR THE PROJECT. THUS, WOULD BE EXCLUDED.
- 51. CONSTRUCTION TENDERING SELECTION OF CONRTRACTOR REQUIREMENTS TECHNICAL AND PROFESSIONAL QUALIFICATIONS, EXPERIENCE AND CAPABILITY IS THE MOST IMPORTANT WHEN IT COMES TO LARGE SIZE PROJECTS. FINANCIAL AND ECONOMICAL CAPACITY, THIS CAN GUARANTEE THE PROJECT FEASIBILITY.
- 52. CONSTRUCTION TENDERING SELECTION OF CONRTRACTOR AWARDING CRITERIA AFTER SELECTING THE BEST AND LIMITING THE BIDDER NUMBERS, IT’S TIME FOR SELECTING THE BEST OF BEST BY HAVING A DEEPER LOOK ON THE REMAINING BIDDERS, REGARDING THE CRITERIA’S. 1. PRICE 2. HEALTH AND SAFETY 3. SUSTAINABILITY 4. RESPONSIBLE BUSINESS PRACTICE 5. COMMITMENT TO DELIVERY DATE
- 53. PROJECT RISK ASSESSMENT No Risk consequence Likelihood Brief Execution 16 Price inflation of construction materials High Moderate 17 Late delivery of materials High Moderate 18 Insufficient or late funding High Moderate 19 Late Design changes High Moderate 20 Tight project schedule Very High High 21 Lack of coordination between project participants High Moderate 22 Low management and supervision of construction Very High Low 23 Machinery or equipment breakdown High Low 24 Insufficient amount of skilled labours High Moderate RISKS AT EXECUTION STAGE.
- 54. . PROJECT RISK ASSESSMENT QUALITATIVE RISK ASSESSMENT. SCALED FACTOR MAY BE USED. MODERATE OVERALL RISK.
- 55. MEASURES AGAINST DIFFERENT RISKS no Phase Solution 16 Price inflation of construction materials Run a net present value estimation of the project, considering inflation rates. 17 Late delivery of materials Include penalty clauses in contracts with the subcontractors. 18 Insufficient or late funding Set the project budget apart from and provide at early stages of the project. 19 Late Design changes Notify the client about the changes in cost and time before doing and change. Also, account sometime in the scheduling to encounter any sudden change. 20 Tight project schedule Adopt an efficient project tracking program to maintain schedule. 21 Lack of coordination between project participants Adopt proper software and methods for communication between project participants. 22 Low management and supervision of construction Make a checklist for things that need to be checked up regularly. Put clear standards and task for project’s supervision. 23 Machinery or equipment breakdown Have contact with backup machine operators and owners. And an on-call maintenance team. 24 Insufficient amount of skilled labours Having contact with backup workers in case of having workers missing. And providing workers training program. RISK MITIGATION PLAN
- 56. CONSTRUCTION SAFETY MANAGEMENT HIGH RISE STRUCTURE BUILDING HAS HIGHER POTENTIAL SAFETY RISKS. SAFETY OF CONSTRUCTION SITE 1. IMPROVES PRODUCTIVITY 2. KEEPS PROJECT ON SCHEDULE. WEAK SAFETY PLAN 1. ACCIDENTS CAN CAUSE DELAYING AND FINANCIAL ISSUES 2. THAT CAN LEAD THE PROJECT TO CRISES AND FAILURE.
- 57. CONSTRUCTION SAFETY MANAGEMENT PROCEDURE HAZARD ASSESSMENT ASSESS RISKS DECIDE PRECAUTIONS
- 58. CONSTRUCTION SAFETY RISK ASSESSMENT QUALITATIVE RISK ASSESSMENT. RISKS ARE PLACED ACCORDING TO 1. THEIR LIKELIHOOD. 2. IMPACT.
- 59. CONSTRUCTION SAFETY RISK ASSESSMENT NUMERIC SCALED QUALITATIVE ASSESSMENT. VALUES ABOVE 10 ARE PROMOTED TO RED. VALUES BELOW 10 ARE PROMOTED TO GREEN. RED RISKS = UNACCPTABLE. GREEN RISKS = ACCEPTABLE. ACCEPTING RISKS DOESN’T MEAN IGNORING .THEM
- 60. COMPULSORY MEASURES TO BE TAKEN AGAINST SAFETY RISKS. USING GUARD RAILS ON EDGES OF BUILDING AND FLOOR OPENINGS. USING SAFETY NETS TO PREVENT FROM FALLING FROM HEIGHTS. USE SCAFFOLDING WITH COVERING NETS TO AVOID FALL OF OBJECTS. PROVIDING ADEQUATE TRAINING AND SUPERVISION FOR WORKERS, TO PREVENT ANY MISTAKES THAT MAY RESULT FROM IGNORANT OR IRRESPONSIBLE ACTS. ESTABLISHING EMERGENCY PLANNING PROCEDURES, INCLUDING FIRST AID. KEEP CONTROL OF SITE ACCESSIBILITY, BY MAKING SPECIFIC GUARDED AND CONTROLLED ENTRANCES AND EXITS, SO ONLY AUTHORIZED STAFF CAN GET THROUGH THE GATES. PROVIDING PPE, CLOTHING AND SIGNS, BUT THEY SHALL BE USED AS LAST RESORT AFTER USING EXPLORING ALL THE HAZARD ELIMINATION METHODS.
- 61. CONSTRUCTION SAFETY MANAGEMENT CONSTRUCTION SITE SAFETY PROCEDURE SIGN