bachelor thesis - ahmad sherif kamal hassan

KIT Steel- and Lightweight Structures

Research Center for Steel, Timber & Masonry

Full Professor:

Univ.-Prof. Dr.-Ing. T. Ummenhofer

Bachelor Thesis

Structural Design of a

Steel Framework Industrial Building to Eurocode

By: Ahmad Sherif Kamal Hassan

The German University in Cairo

Referee: Univ.-Prof. Dr.-Ing. T. Ummenhofer

Supervisor: Prof. Dr.-Ing. Peter Knödel

August 2016

Bachelor Thesis - A.Hassan

I Bachelor Thesis - A.Hassan

Affirmation

I hereby declare that I have written this work independently without the use

of any other than stated sources.

Karlsruhe, 6th August, 2016

Ahmad Hassan

II

Abstract

This thesis is about structural analysis and design of a steel framework in-

dustrial building to Eurocode. The building is located in Nuweiba a coastal

town in the eastern part of Sinai, Egypt where it experiences severe seismic

and wind loads. Half of the building is dedicated to a mezzanine storage area

which magnifies the seismic effects. A 10 ton capacity overhead crane running

along the whole 60 meters length of the building was also included in the

analysis locally and globally. To evaluate the seismic performance of the

frame, Modal Response Spectrum Analysis was performed using Dlubal

RSTAB software package where required data for Natural Modes of Vibration

were obtained. Steel members and connections design was conducted accord-

ing to the Eurocode 3 (EN 1993 : Design of Steel Structures) and Eurocode 8

(EN 1998 : Seismic Design of Buildings) provisions using hand calculations.

Different load combinations have been implemented including different com-

bination factors. Results of analysis showed the drastic effect of lateral loads

over the gravitational loads, where wind and self-weight were the governing

for design in X-direction while the seismic action was the governing in Y-di-

rection. Designing buildings to lateral load action requires certain care as it

is dissimilar to the typical well known gravity loads design case as load direc-

tion is not constant. Design problems arose on account of the significantly

high value of the main frame lateral sway, imposing iterative proposals of

structural model alteration (Large columns’ cross-sections, additional brac-

ing, fixed base connections, etc.) to stick to the code Serviceability Design

Limit States. Full description for designing connections and joints especially

Capacity Designed Connections of Seismic Dissipative Members was included

following the Eurocode regulations. Drawings, layout, and connections detail-

ing were executed using AutoCAD 2D.

III Bachelor Thesis - A.Hassan

Contents

1 Introduction .............................................................................................. 6

1.1 Codes of practice and standardization............................................. 7

1.2 Analysis and design phases ............................................................. 8

2 Building Description ............................................................................... 10

2.1 Layout and Location ....................................................................... 10

2.2 Structure and Purpose ................................................................... 11

3 Loads ....................................................................................................... 13

3.1 Dead Loads ..................................................................................... 13

3.1.1 Self weight ................................................................................. 13

3.1.2 Non-structural elements ........................................................... 13

3.2 Imposed Loads ................................................................................ 17

3.2.1 Roof imposed loads .................................................................... 17

3.2.2 Mezzanine Imposed Loads ........................................................ 18

3.3 Wind Loads ..................................................................................... 19

3.3.1 Vertical Walls ............................................................................ 21

3.3.2 Duo-pitched Roofs ...................................................................... 23

3.3.3 Wind base shear ........................................................................ 27

3.4 Seismic Loads ................................................................................. 27

3.4.1 Fundamental Requirements ..................................................... 27

3.4.2 Modal Analysis .......................................................................... 29

3.4.3 Design Philosophy for Earthquake-Resistant structures ........ 30

3.4.4 Dissipative Structural Behavior ............................................... 31

3.4.5 Structural Types ........................................................................ 32

3.4.6 Project Data ............................................................................... 37

3.4.7 Load Combinations with Seismic Action .................................. 40

3.5 Crane Loads .................................................................................... 41

3.5.1 Variable Actions ........................................................................ 42

3.5.2 Accidental Actions ..................................................................... 47

3.5.3 Load Application ........................................................................ 48

3.6 Imperfections .................................................................................. 57

3.6.1 Global Imperfections ................................................................. 57

3.6.2 Local Imperfections ................................................................... 60

IV Bachelor Thesis - A.Hassan

4 Load Combinations ................................................................................. 61

4.1 Potential Load Combinations......................................................... 64

4.1.1 Frame Sway ............................................................................... 65

4.1.2 Strength of Rafters .................................................................... 66

4.1.3 Columns Reaction ...................................................................... 66

4.1.4 Bracing Axial Forces ................................................................. 66

5 Model ...................................................................................................... 68

5.1 Structural Model ............................................................................ 68

5.2 Defining Loads ................................................................................ 70

5.3 Model Load Combinations .............................................................. 73

5.4 Dynamic Analysis ........................................................................... 73

5.4.1 Mass Cases ................................................................................. 74

5.4.2 Mass Combinations ................................................................... 75

5.4.3 Natural Vibrations .................................................................... 76

5.4.4 Seismic Equivalent Forces ........................................................ 81

5.4.5 Seismic Combinations ............................................................... 84

6 Design of members .................................................................................. 85

6.1 Frame Lateral Sway Problem ........................................................ 85

6.2 Main Frame .................................................................................... 90

6.2.1 Column Design .......................................................................... 92

6.2.2 Rafter Design ........................................................................... 103

6.2.3 End Wall Frame ...................................................................... 110

6.3 End Gable Columns ...................................................................... 115

6.4 Crane Girder ................................................................................. 120

6.5 Mezzanine ..................................................................................... 137

6.5.1 Mezzanine Columns ................................................................ 137

6.5.2 Mezzanine Beams .................................................................... 140

6.6 Bracing .......................................................................................... 149

6.6.1 Vertical Bracing Seismic Design ............................................. 149

6.6.2 Horizontal Bracing .................................................................. 157

6.6.3 Roof Struts ............................................................................... 162

6.6.4 Gable Bracing .......................................................................... 164

6.7 Purlins and Side Rails .................................................................. 166

6.8 Sheetings ....................................................................................... 171

7 Connections ........................................................................................... 174

7.1 End Plate Connection ................................................................... 174

7.1.1 Beam to Column Moment Connection .................................... 179

7.1.2 Main and Secondary Mezzanine Beams Connection ............ 188

7.1.3 Main Beam with Frame Column Connection ........................ 193

V Bachelor Thesis - A.Hassan

7.1.4 Main Beam with Mezzanine Column Connection ................. 197

7.1.5 Secondary Beam with Frame Column Connection ............... 204

7.2 Concentric Bracing Capacity-Designed Connections .................. 205

8 Bases ..................................................................................................... 213

8.1 Fixed Base ..................................................................................... 213

8.2 Hinged Base .................................................................................. 220

9 Summary and Conclusion ..................................................................... 226

List of Figures ............................................................................................ 227

List of Tables ............................................................................................. 232

Bibliography .............................................................................................. 234

APPENDIX A ............................................................................................. 237

Structural Design of a Steel Framework Industrial Building to Eurocode

6 Bachelor Thesis - A.Hassan

1 Introduction

Industrial buildings which are considered a subset of low-rise buildings are

normally used in production industries, for example: paper, automobile and

fertilizers industry or used as storage areas and warehouses.

In most of the cases column free areas are necessary in these types of struc-

tures as well as a sufficient clearance for an overhead crane. Portal frames

system is usually used in industrial steel buildings for being very efficient

consisting of columns and rafter with a moment resisting connection provid-

ing in-plane stability and vertical bracing providing out of plane stability.

Secondary steel members are added such as side rails and purlins for the

walls and roofs respectively for many purposes, mainly for supporting the

building envelope either walls or cladding. Also they transfer the loads from

this envelope to the primary structure in addition to having a beneficial role

in restraining primary members to decrease the effect of Flexural Torsional

Buckling.

The Third layer is the envelope or the coverage of the building which consists

of a double or a single layer metal sheet or a sandwich panel cladding which

provides thermal insulation. The envelope also act as a restraint for the sec-

ondary steel members (purlins and side rails) where the upper flange is as-

sumed to be fully restrained by the presence of the cladding.

Figure 1.1 : Principal building components [20]



1.1 Codes of practice and standardization

The European Union has been trying to unify the rules of structures design

since 1975 reaching to the known European Standards “The Eurocodes“.

Defining basic requirements that should be fulfilled such as mechanical re-

sistance and stability , fire resistance and safety in use nine Strcutural Euro-

codes were produced by CEN (European Committee for Standardization):

EN 1990 Eurocode: Basis of Structural Design

EN 1991 Eurocode 1: Actions on Structures

EN 1992 Eurocode 2: Design of Concrete Structures

EN 1993 Eurocode 3: Design of Steel Structures

EN 1994 Eurocode 4: Design of Composite Steel and Concrete Struc-

tures

EN 1995 Eurocode 5: Design of Timber Structures

EN 1996 Eurocode 6: Design of Masonry Structures

EN 1997 Eurocode 7: Geotechnical Design

EN 1998 Eurocode 8: Design of Structures for Earthquake Resistance

EN 1999 Eurocode 9: Design of Aluminium Structures

National Determined Parameters are allowed by the European Committe

where each country has some aspects relating to the country conditions such

as safety issues, seismic zones, wind velocity,etc. These parameters are de-

fined by each state in what so called a National Annex.

Used Design Codes in this project are:

EN 1991 Eurocode 1: Actions on Structures :

- EN 1991-1-4 : Actions on structures: Part 1-4: Wind actions

- EN 1991-3: Actions on structures: Part 3: Actions induced by cranes

and machinery

EN 1993 Eurocode 3: Design of Steel Structures : which is divided

into the following parts :

- EN 1993-1 General rules and rules for buildings

-EN 1993-2 Steel bridges

- EN 1993-3 Towers, masts and chimneys



- EN 1993-4 Silos, tanks and pipelines

- EN 1993-5 Piling

- EN 1993-6 Crane supporting structures

EN 1998 Eurocode 8: Design of Structures for Earthquake Re-

sistance:

- EN 1998-1 Section 6: Specific rules for steel buildings

1.2 Analysis and design phases

In this thesis analysis and design for a steel framework industrial building

will be conducted. The building requires for analysis is a warehouse dedicated

for paper manufacturing industry. This building’s function has been sug-

gested by the author in order to attain high values for storage loads on the

mezzanine as paper industry is well known for its enormous value of paper

rolls weight.

First the building anatomy and project layout description is explained and

client requirements and limitations for the building is fully clarified.

As a next step and the most important one which is load definition, all acting

loads on the structure are fully described each in an individual manner in-

cluding : Dead, Imposed, Wind and Seismic loads as well as loads acting from

Crane action and Imperfections. Eurocode 1 provisions were followed in de-

fining the loads.

Thirdly, load combinations between the above mentioned loads were executed

having a certain concept to get the most unfavorable combination by adding

certain loads together also having a sense of choosing the correct combination

factor depending on which of the combined load is considered a leading one.

A 3D model is performed using Dlubal RSTAB 8.06 to complete the analysis

procedure where all loads and load combinations were introduced and analy-



sis results were obtained. Dynamic analysis was carried out for seismic load-

ing were Natural Modes of Vibration were acquired by the software package

DYNAM pro then the calculation of equivalent lateral loads and points of ap-

plication of these loads was decided and executed manually by hand calcula-

tions. Internal forces for members of the structure were fetched from RSTAB

and then the design procedure started.

Design phase included a study of design requirements for each member and

getting introduced to the code provisions, checks and limitations for each

member design as well as recommendations in design to facilitate connection

detailing and decrease construction and erection costs. Design was imple-

mented fully using hand calculations where sketches and calculations are at-

tached. Excel sheets following Eurocode members design equations were gen-

erated for the aid of calculations. Design of members included Main frame

column and rafter, Start and End frame (gables), Mezzanine columns, sec-

ondary and main beams, Different bracing systems including horizontal, ver-

tical, longitudinal and gables bracing, Purlins and Side rails and sheetings.

Column bases with pinned and fixed connections were designed. Connections

between members and special joints were fully described and detailed.

A special study was applied for the provisions of designing dissipative mem-

bers according to Eurocode 8 where the resisting system in Y-direction was

designed as an Earthquake Resistant Structure requiring more effort in de-

sign.

Problems during design were introduced due to high loads where high values

of lateral frame sway were experienced being obliged to increase columns and

rafters cross-sections and iteratively try many solution to reach the maximum

sway value allowed by the Serviceability Limit State.

Complete building drawings and connection details were drafted using Auto-

CAD 2D.



2 Building Description

2.1 Layout and Location

The building is located in Nuweiba a coastal town in the eastern part of Si-

nai, Egypt lying directly on the coast of the Gulf of Aqaba. The location of

the building in such an area in the vicinity of the coast subjected the build-

ing to high loads as this region as defined by the Egyptian Code of Practice

ECP is a high seismic region as well as having high wind velocity values.

The building lies over an area of 60 meters long and 20 meters wide 9 cen-

terline dimensions which is the area dedicated for the warehouse design.

Figure 2.1 : Location of Nuweiba on Google Maps



2.2 Structure and Purpose

The building is designed for paper and cartoon industry. The building consists

of portal frames each spanning 20 meters and spaced each 6 meters along the

whole 60 meters length of the building’s area. This building is considered as

a tall building compared to normal steel industrial buildings where the eave

height is 13 meters and the ridge height is 14 meters with a duo-pitched roof

of slope 1:10 and slope angle 5.71.

A mezzanine area which covers half of the building (20x30 square meters) of

height 6 meters from the ground level was required for paper rolls storage.

This type of rolls are a heavy one which would be further explained in the

Loads chapter. Placing a mezzanine with high loads covering this large area

required the addition of two interior columns to decrease the span of the main

mezzanine beam from 20 meters to nearly 6.7 meters

An overhead crane of capacity 10 tons and Hoisting Class 2 is placed at height

11 meters from the ground level running along the whole building’s area in-

cluding the mezzanine area.

Three bays included horizontal bracing which is connected then to the vertical

bracing. The middle bracing bay was required for supporting seismic loads in

Y-direction.

Figure 2.2 : Structural model of the building by RSTAB



Cold formed sections were used as secondary steel members for roofs and

building’s sides where purlins were spaced each 1.63 meters along the in-

clined roof length and regarding the side walls a block wall was to be provided

by the client of height 6 meters from the ground level then side rails are

placed starting from level +6.00 spaced each 1.425 meters. Coverings of roofs

and side walls were provided by the supplier RUUKKI panels [1]. Coverings

were of sandwich panel type with thermal insulation.

Bases of the main portal frames were fixed (clamped) to decrease the lateral

deflection as it will be discussed forward in the sway problem. The start and

the end frames are of hinged bases as they were already braced by the means

of gable bracing so it was more economical to design them as pinned frames.

A Longitudinal horizontal bracing was added with the base fixation as a so-

lution for sway high value which span along the whole length of the building

connected at the end to the gable bracings at the two ends of the building.

Steel grade used for the whole project is S275 with fy= 275 N/mm2 and fu=410

N/mm2.

Figure 2.3 : Roof bracing plan view with longitudinal horizontal bracing in the two sides



3 Loads

3.1 Dead Loads

3.1.1 Self weight

The self-weight is considered as a permanent fixed action. It includes the

weights of portal frames, purlins, bracings, mezzanine members, connec-

tions…etc. It is being calculated from nominal dimensions and given mate-

rial densities. Steel used is of density 78.5 kN/m3 and exact weight calcula-

tions is considered with the cross sectional area along with the material

density in the structural analysis using the analysis software Dlubal

RSTAB.

3.1.2 Non-structural elements

3.1.2.1 Weight of corrugated sheets (Cladding)

Sandwich panels are used as cladding for the building’s roof and walls.

RUUKKI sandwich panels [1] is the coverings supplier.

SP2D E-PIR is used for external walls while SP2C E-PIR is used for roofs.

The weight of panels for externals walls of core thickness equal to 100 mm is

wc = 11.7 kg/m2 = 0.117 kN/m2

Figure 3.1 : Wall sandwitch panel SP2D E-PIR profile [1]



The weight of panels for roofs of Core thickness d/D equal to 140/100 is

wc = 11.7 kg/m2 = 0.117 kN/m2

Figure 3.2 : Wall sandwitch panel SP2C E-PIR specifications [1]

Table 3.1 : Wall sandwitch panel SP2D E-PIR specifications [1]

Table 3.2 : Wall sandwitch panel SP2C E-PIR specifications [1]



3.1.2.2 Weight of electromechanical installations

Also dead loads include loads of permanent objects like the weights of elec-

trical installations, light fixtures, air condition ducts, etc.

wins = 0.1-0.2 kN/m2 as provided by the manufacturer. Load is taken for pre-

liminary design phase as 0.15 kN/m2.

3.1.2.3 Mezzanine Flooring

Mezzanine area is only for storage so there would be no flooring used just an

Epoxy layer installed over the concrete slab.

ComFlor for composite Floor decks design brochures [2] were used to decide

for the choice of slab.

Figure 3.4 : ComFlor Compsote floor decks [2]

Figure 3.3 : Concrete Slab on Mezzaine Floor , Courtsey of Muskan Group [32]



Single span slab and deck is chosen of category ComFlor 60 A142 with con-

crete slab thickness of 13 cm and deck thickness of 1mm to bear a load of 10

kN/m2

So Dead Load on Flooring beams would be qm = 0.13*25 = 3.25 kN/m2

Table 3.3 : ComFlor Composite floor decks design tables [2]



3.2 Imposed Loads

3.2.1 Roof imposed loads

As stated by the EN 1991-1-1, the imposed loads applied on roofs shall be

taken into account as a free action applied at the most unfavorable part of

the influence area of the action effects considered.

By referring to German National Annex for the value of Qk

Recommended value for qk = 0.4 kN/m2 , Qk = 1 kN

qk is intended for the determination of global effects and Qk for local effects

Table 3.4 : Categorization of roofs according to EN1991-1-1 [27]

Table 3.5 : Imposed loads on H category roof EN1991-1-1 [27]



3.2.2 Mezzanine Imposed Loads

The Mezzanine in this building is dedicated to storage only as due to the

presence of the crane it is not feasible to allocate any partitions on the mez-

zanine area for offices or any other facilities.

As specified by the owner the storage area is required for storing paper rolls

where each paper roll weighs 1 ton and its dimensions are 1 meter height

and a diameter of 1 meter so area load specified as

qM = 1 t/m2 = 10 kN/m2

As shown in the below figure it is a similar case of this building. It was for a

storage area in Toronto Star Press Center where similar paper rolls were

used.

Figure 3.5 : Paper rolls in Toronto Star Press Center [18]

Table 3.6 : EN 1991-1-1 Category E loads [27]



3.3 Wind Loads

H = 14 m

Bay Spacing (S) = 6 m

Bay Width (B) = 20 m

Slope Angle (α) = 5.71 ̊

All wind calculation formulas are according to EN1991-1-4 Actions on Struc-

tures: Wind actions on buildings [3]

1-Determination of Basic Wind Velocity:

Vb = Cdir . Cseason . Vb,0

Cdir & Cseason recommended value = 1.0

Vb,0 : Fundamental value of basic wind velocity

**Referring to Egyptian Code of Practice for Load Calculations (ECP-201) for

the value of Vb,0 in the region of Nuweiba. This value is calculated for a wind

storm of duration 3 seconds on a height of 10 meters.

Vb,0 = 39 m/sec

Vb = 1x1x39 = 39 m/sec

2-Peak Velocity Pressure:

qp(z) = [ 1 + 7Iv(z) ] . ½ . ρair . Vm(z)2

Vm(z): Mean wind velocity

Vm(z) = Cr(z) . Co(z) . Vb

Cr(z) : Roughness Factor

Cr(z) = Kr . ln(z/zo) for zmin ≤ z ≤ zmax



Kr : Terrain Factor

Kr = 0.19 . (𝑍𝑜

𝑍𝑜,𝐼𝐼)0.07

**For Terrain Category I

zo = 0.01 m

zmin = 1 m

zmax = 200 m

z = 14 m

zo,II = 0.05 m

Cr(z) = 0.19 x (0.01

0.05)0.07 x ln(

14

0.01) = 1.229

Co(z) : Orography Factor , Recommended value = 1.0

Vm(z) = 1.229x1x39 = 47.96 m/sec

Iv(z): Turbulence Intensity

Iv(z) = KI

Co(z).ln(𝑍

𝑍𝑜) for zmin ≤ z ≤ zmax (4.7)

KI : Turbulence Factor , Recommended value = 1.0

Iv(z) = 1

1xln(14

0.01) = 0.138

qp(z) = [ 1 + 7x0.138] . ½ . 1.25 . 47.962 = 2826.32 N/m2 = 2.826 kN/m2

3-External Wind Pressure:

We = qp(z) . Cpe



Cpe : External Pressure Coefficient

Cpe is chosen as Cpe10 as the calculations are made on the WHOLE building,

Knowing that Cpe1 might be relevant in the design of small elements and fix-

ings with an area per element of 1 m2 or less such as cladding elements and

roofing elements.

3.3.1 Vertical Walls

Wind θ = 0̊

e = Smaller (b or 2h)

h = 14 m

b = 60 m

So e = 28 m

d = 20 m

h/d = 14/20 = 0.7

(Between 0.25, 1)

So Interpolation is applied for the value of Cpe10

for D&E

D = +0.76

E = -0.42

For Elevations:

Figure 3.6: Building Plan (D,E vertical walls) [3]



e > d

Zones A&B are as shown

Cpe10 for A&B

A = -1.2

B = -0.8

Wind θ = 90̊



3.3.2 Duo-pitched Roofs

α= 5.71̊

θ is the Wind Angle

** θ = 0̊

e = Smaller (b,2h)

b here is cross wind

dimension

b = 20 m

So e = 20 m



** θ = 90̊

e = Smaller (b,2h)

b here is cross wind

dimension

b = 20 m

So e = 20 m

Cpe10 for F,G,H,I & J

Interpolation is applied between (5 ̊, 15̊) to get values for 5.71 ̊ (Ref. Table

7.4a & Table 7.4b in EN1991-1-4 [3])

Table 3.7 : External pressure coefficients for duo-pitched roofs



It is noticed that there is only a slight difference between the value for 5.71 ̊

and 5 ̊ so it is more conservative to use the values for 5 ̊

Friction is disregarded according to 5.3.4

** NOTE 1 At θ = 0° the pressure changes rapidly between positive and neg-

ative values on the windward face around a pitch angle of < = -5° to +45°, so

both positive and negative values are given.

For those roofs, four cases should be considered where the largest or small-

est values of all areas F, G and H are combined with the largest or smallest

values in areas I and J. No mixing of positive and negative values is allowed

on the same face.

External Pressure Coefficient on roof For Wind θ = 0 ̊

External Pressure Coefficient on roof For Wind θ = 90 ̊



4 Internal Wind Pressure:

NOTE 2 where it is not possible, or not considered justified, to estimate μ for

a particular case then Cpi should be taken as the more onerous of +0.2 and -

0.3

As specified by the Egyptian code of practice ECP 201 Chapter 7 section 7-6

(7.6.1.4) Internal wind pressure coefficient Ci is the factor that determines

the distribution of wind pressure on the internal surfaces of the building. It

needs to be determined to calculate its impact on interior wall and external

coating units and windows, but does not enter the calculation of the effect of

wind on the building as an integrated unit.

Interior walls and external coating units mentioned above means that inter-

nal pressure will be included only when designing the supporting elements

for wall partitions such as end and side girts as well as end gable columns.

And it is not applied on the main supporting frame.

Net pressure would be considered hereafter in the design of the girts and

end gable columns.

Wind Load per unit length for frame (kN/m) with spacing 6 m

W = Cp. qp . S (kN/m)

Cases and Calculations are modeled and included with the RSTAB Data



3.3.3 Wind base shear

The value of wind base shear would be significant when comparing seismic

effect to wind effect in X-direction.

3.4 Seismic Loads

3.4.1 Fundamental Requirements

In designing earthquake resistant structures, the main goal is protecting

human lives, limiting structural damages and keeping the civil protection

structures safely operating.

Eurocode 8 concerning with the “Design of structures for earthquake re-

sistance” implies taking into consideration two degrees for seismic design.

First the No-collapse requirement, where the structure should be designed

to resist seismic action without being collapsed locally or globally. Second

the Damage limitation requirement, where the structure should be designed

to withstand seismic action without the occurrence of damage and the asso-

ciated limitations of use.

The No-collapse requirement is more concerned with the Ultimate Limit

State as it gives more importance to human lives and the structure as a

whole. While the Damage limitation requirement is more concerned with

the Serviceability Limit State as it gives more attention to diminishing eco-

Figure 3.7 : Wind base shear



nomic losses in frequent earthquake events as well as attaining the service-

ability of the building for occupants ‘comfort. So the structure in this case is

not allowed to have permanent deformation.

Location of the building is in the region of Nuweiba on Gulf of Aqaba

By locating Nuweiba on the map we find that it lies in zone 5a where

ag = 0.25g = 2.452 ≈ 2.5 m/s2

Figure 3.8 : Seismic Zonation Map of Egypt according to Egyptian Code of Practice [16]



3.4.2 Modal Analysis

It is one of the Linear Elastic Analysis methods described by EC8. It is a dy-

namic statistical method which measures the contribution of each vibration

mode to get the maximum seismic response. It measures the spectral accel-

eration as a function of the vibration mode period.

Computer analysis is used to determine these modes for a structure.

It is performed to determine the time periods and mode shapes of the struc-

ture in different modes.

On contrary to the SDOF for MDOF system the motion of mass is not a sim-

ple harmonic motion.

For a SDOF system, the equation of motion is

𝑚. �̈� + 𝑐. �̇� + 𝑘. 𝑢 = 0

And for an undamped system, the equation of motion reduces to

𝑚. �̈� + 𝑘. 𝑢 = 0

For a MDOF undamped system, the equation of motion is

[𝑀]. {𝑢}̈ + [𝐾]. {𝑢} = 0

Where [M] is the mass matrix and [K] is the stiffness matrix of the system

As shown simple harmonic motion is not achieved in MDOF when the sys-

tem starts its first movement.

Dynamic analysis is performed to get the values of mode shapes.

Figure 3.9 : Free Vibration of MDOF [28]



3.4.3 Design Philosophy for Earthquake-Resistant

structures

The objective of design is to prevent collapse to occur at the building site

during the earthquake event to avoid life loss. This means that damage is

permitted. The objective is not to limit damage or provide easy repair.

This philosophy is achieved by DUCTILITY

Ductility is defined as the ability of the structure to undergo sufficient defor-

mations without rupture and it is governed by inelastic (plastic) defor-

mations.

Ductility is one of the cornerstones to survive earthquakes. In earthquake

design we could trade strength for ductility as it is less costly than strength.

For example in the following figure it is obvious that maximum lateral force

has nothing to do with the strength of the earthquake but with the strength

Figure 3.10 : Idealized Load-Deformation curve [17]



of the building that we decide on. If it is designed for lower strength ductil-

ity demand will increase and vice versa.

Ductility Behavior is achieved through some steps and regulations:

a) Choosing Frame Elements that will yield in an Earthquake these ele-

ments are defined as what so called “Fuses” as they resemble the fuse in the

electric circuit which is the element that burn (yield) first.

Examples for fuses: Beams in Moment Resisting Frames, Braces in Concen-

trically Braced Frames and Links in Eccentrically Braced Frames.

b) These members are detailed to sustain inelastic deformations. Detailing

is the most important part in this process where for example High strength

steel is not applicable to seismic actions as it behaves in a brittle manner.

c) These Fuse members should be the weakest part in the structure.

3.4.4 Dissipative Structural Behavior

It is the ability of the structure to dissipate earthquake energy through un-

dergoing inelastic deformation in some of its elements which are called the

dissipative elements or Fuses as mentioned above.

Figure 3.11: Strength and Ductility Relation in Seismic Design [17]



According to EN 1998-1 structures are divided in dissipative capacity into

two concepts: a) Low Dissipative Structural Behavior and b) Dissipative

Structural Behavior where q the behavioral factor represents the capacity of

the structure to deform plastically.

In Steel Structures assuming a low ductility class (low behavior factor q)

gives maximum base shear on the structure but at the other hand mini-

mizes the detailing effort. Increasing the q factor means increasing the po-

tential to activate inelastic behavior producing smaller loads than the latter

case but at the other hand requiring much more effort in the detailing of the

non-dissipative elements as well as certain regulations for section class.

3.4.5 Structural Types

Types of structures resisting seismic loadings in both assumed directions

are Moment Resisting Frames in X-direction and Concentrically Braced

Frames in Y-direction

Table 3.8 : Design concepts, structural ductility classes and upper limit reference values of the

behaviour factors [22]



3.4.5.1 Moment Resisting Frames

Frames having rigid connections to resist mo-

ment and lateral force is resisted by flexural

manner and shear by beams and columns.

Ductility behavior is achieved in MRF through

yielding or beams which implies that these

beams should be the weakest part in the struc-

ture where connections and columns should be

strong.

Plas-

tic hinges are meant to be formed in the beams or their connections with the

column. Full plastic moment resistance is achieved by the beam while it is

avoided for columns to have plastic hinges as it causes stability problems as

well as due to the interaction of axial and bending full plasticity is no

achieved.

P-delta effects are also reduced in case of hinges available in the beam not

the column.

Figure 3.12 : Moment Resisting Frames [17]

Figure 3.13 : Inelastic Behavior of MRF [17]



∑𝑀𝑅𝑐 ≥ 1.3𝑀𝑅𝑏

The moment of resistance of columns taking into account the interaction of

axial and bending should be greater than the moment of resistance of beams

by 30% just to ensure that beams are weaker than the columns.

Also there are some limitations for shear and normal forces in beam to

achieve full plasticity.

𝑁𝐸𝑑𝑁𝑝𝑙,𝑅𝑑

≤ 0.15

𝑉𝐸𝑑𝑉𝑝𝑙,𝑅𝑑

≤ 0.5

Figure 3.14 : Comparison between P-delta effect with different plastic hinges locations [25]



3.4.5.2 Concentrically Braced Frames

Vertical truss system that resists lateral loading through truss action where

its members are subjected only to axial forces.

Ductility behavior is achieved in CBF through two simultaneous actions

yielding in tension brace and buckling of compression brace and losing its

strength. Basic design is straight forward where braces have to be the weak-

est members in the system. Bracing connections should be stronger than the

bracing to develop the tension strength.

Figure 3.15 : Types of CBF [17]

Figure 3.16 : Inelastic Action for CBF [17]



It is expected in case of CBF to see a standing building and the bracing

buckled as shown in the following pictures.

Figure 3.17 : Bracing post Kobe Earthquake Events in Japan 1995 [17]

Figure 3.18 : Rotation of CBF connection- Kobe Earthquake Events in Japan 1995 [17]



3.4.6 Project Data

3.4.6.1 Ground Conditions

As the location of the project is Nuweiba on the Gulf of Aqaba in Egypt the

Egyptian Code of Practice was checked for the determination of the soil type

in this area.

Unfortunately there were no soil maps in the ECP so the ground type was

determined from geological maps and by the help of a research paper by

EERI SPECIAL EARTGQUAKE REPORT called “The Aqaba Earthquake of

November 22, 1995” [4] where it analyzed an earthquake that occurred in

this region in 1995 and the soil type was mentioned to be gravel and small

rocks which according to the EN 1998-1 lies in category B

Soil factor and parameters are taken from Table 3.2 and 3.3 in EN 1998-1

Table 3.9 : Values of the parameters describing the recommended Type 1 elastic response spectra [22]

Table 3.8 : Ground Types EN 1998-1 [22]



3.4.6.2 Building Importance

Buildings are classified into four importance classes, depending on the rami-

fications of damage on human life, on their importance for public safety and

civil protection in the immediate post-earthquake period.

The building is defined as category II where the importance factor γ1 as

stated in section 4.2.5.(5) in EN 1998-1 as to be equal to 1.0

Table 3.10 : Values of the parameters describing the recommended Type 2 elastic response spectra [22]

Table 3.11 : Importance classes for buildings [22]



3.4.6.3 Response Spectrum

It is a plot of elastic spectral accelerations due to a specific earthquake ver-

sus period of vibration of different SDF models having same damping ratio.

A common damping ratio ζ = 5% is used for structures.

The capacity of structural systems to resist seismic actions in the non‐linear

range generally permits their design for resistance to seismic forces smaller

than those corresponding to a linear elastic response.

A reduction factor called “Behavioral Factor” q is applied to the elastic re-

sponse spectrum in order to achieve the above principle where q accounts for

the ability of the structure to dissipate energy.

Response Spectrum data for the building will be further discussed in Model

chapter after showing the results of Dynamic analysis and defining the sig-

nificant mode shapes of natural vibration.

Figure 3.19 : Shape of Elastic Resopnse Spectrum [22]



3.4.7 Load Combinations with Seismic Action

Where ψE,I is the combination factor for variable action i and is equal to

ψE,i =ψ2i.

As stated by EN 1998-1 “The combination coefficients ψ2i take into account

the likelihood of the variable loads Qk,i not being present over the entire

structure during the earthquake.”

structure due to the non-rigid connection between them where masses do

not follow perfectly the moves of the structure.

Values of ψ2i are given by the Eurocode in Table 4.3 attached in the next

chapter

Variable Action ψ2

Storage 0.8 1

Crane Permanent action / Total action = 0.8* -

Table 3.13 : Values for combination coefficients for variable actions accompanying seismic

action

ψ2 for crane action is assumed to be 0.8 as the most probable action for anal-

ysis is that the crane would be working at this moment.(To monitor crane-

seismic interaction )

Wind and Imposed Roof loads are not included in combinations as there ψ2i

value is equal to zero.

ALL DETAILS FOR SEISMIC LOADS AND COMBINATIONS WILL BE

DISCUSSED IN CHAPTER 5 (MODEL) SECTION “DYNAMIC ANALYSIS”

Table 3.12 : Values of E,i [22]



3.5 Crane Loads

Overhead cranes are used in various applications especially in industrial us-

age. Cranes carry goods, products and sometimes machinery for industrial

buildings.

Having many types, in this building an overhead travelling crane (top-

mounted crane) was used.

The Crane supplier in this Project is ABUS group one of the world’s leading

overhead crane and hoist manufacturers [5]. ABUS crane design data sheet

[6] was obtained by the help of a senior engineer in Vollack Group.

The used crane is a Single girder overhead travelling crane of capacity 10t

and spanning 19m (as 20m is the centerline to centerline dimension of the

building)

Figure 3.20 : Overhead traveling crane produced by Engelbrecht Lifting [14]

Figure 3.21 : ABUS single girder overhead travelling crane [5]



3.5.1 Variable Actions

Variable actions include self-weight of crane and hoist load which are con-

sidered as vertical actions, also actions due to acceleration and deceleration

as well as skewing which are considered as horizontal actions.

As stated by EN 1991-3 [7] account for dynamic compo-

nents induced by vibrations due to inertial and damping forces.

𝐹,𝑘=𝑖 . 𝐹𝑘

Where F i is the dynamic fac-

tor and Fk is the characteristic static component of crane action.

Table 3.14 : i as given by EN 1991-3 [7]



3.5.1.1 Vertical Actions

Defined as the crane self-weight as well as the hoist load. Values should be

specified by the crane supplier as nominal values accompanied with dynamic

factors. Most of the cases the crane supplier just specifies the final values

after calculating the dynamic effect and applying the factors.

As specified by EN 1991-3 the relevant vertical wheel loads from the crane on

a runway beam should be determined by considering two load arrangements

to get the maximum and minimum values for wheel loads ( Qr,max and Qr,min )

Figure 3.23 : Load arrangement of unloaded crane to obtain the minimum loading on the runway beam [7]

Figure 3.22 : Load arrangement of loaded crane to obtain the maximum loading on the runway beam [7]



ABUS crane data sheet directly gives the values of Qr,max and Qr,min for the

four wheels (values for wheel 1,3 and values for wheel 2,4) as shown in the

following figure

R13MAX = 62.2 kN R24MAX = 62.8 kN

R13MIN = 15.4 kN R24MIN = 15.8 kN

3.5.1.2 Horizontal Actions

Horizontal actions are either Longitudinal or Transverse divided into three

types:

a) Horizontal forces caused by acceleration or deceleration of the crane in the

direction of its movement along the runway beam. These forces are described

by the EN 1991-3 as longitudinal forces HL,i and transverse forces HT,i as

shown.

Figure 3.24 : ABUS single girder overhead travelling crane side view [5]

Figure 3.25 : Horizontal forces cause by crane acceleration/deceleration [7]



These forces are generated if the center of mass of the crane including hoist

load does not align with the centroid or the resultant of the tractive drive force

from end truck wheels.

The main forces are the longitudinal forces which arises from the crane drive

force K. This drive force divided into ( HL,1 and HL,2 ) produce a moment at the

center of mass which is equilibrated by transverse horizontal forces ( HT,1 and

HT,2 ) as shown.

These forces results in a torsional force on the bridge and no net lateral load.

These values are directly given in ABUS crane data sheet. It may be later

discussed how to derive these forces using dynamic factors by following the

EN 1991-3 instructions and principles.

b) Horizontal forces caused by acceleration or deceleration of the crab in the

direction of its movement along the crane bridge HT,3.

It is mentioned in EN 1991-3 as it should be covered by the horizontal force

HB,2 (Buffer force for crab movement) which would be discussed in the acci-

dental crane actions. ABUS crane data sheet gives individual value for the

horizontal force due to crab movement (HT,3) so it would be inspected hence-

forward which value is more conservative (HB,2 or HT,3 ABUS)

Figure 3.26 : Defintion of horizonal transverse forces HT,i [7]

Figure 3.27 : Defintion of horizonal transverse forces due to crab movement



c) Horizontal forces caused by skewing of the crane in relation to its move-

ment along the runway beam.

The main causes of crane bridge skewing are Non-synchronized drive mech-

anism of bridge end truck, Axles for end truck wheel are not parallel, misa-

ligned crane rail and different wheel diameters for end truck wheels.

Skewing forces also subjects the system to a force couple (torsional load) and

no net lateral load is applied in the crane bridge.

As specified by EN 1991-3, skewing forces occur at guidance means of cranes

while travelling or traversing. They are induced by guidance reactions. Guid-

ance is either through separate guidance means or through wheel flanges.

These forces push the wheels to deviate from their free-rolling nature.

In our case guidance is through wheel flanges so forces are as shown.

Skewing forces have 2 terms Horizontal force HS,i,j,k and the guidance force S

For the calculation of these forces the EN 1991-3 gives many rules including

skewing angle and f the

Non-positive factor….etc.

The HS,2,1,T and S values are given by the crane supplier ABUS. It may be

further discussed how to get these values following the Eurocode provisions

it is just a complicated procedure as many equations and sub equations are

involved.

Figure 3.28 : Skewing forces where guidance by means of wheel flanges [7]



3.5.2 Accidental Actions

Accidental actions include collision with buffers and tilting force which is

the collision of lifting attachments with obstacles.

Load models are considered to account for accidental actions of cranes in

form of static loads.

3.5.2.1 Buffer Forces

They are forces acting on the crane supporting structure arising from collision

of the crane with the buffers or what so called Bumpers. Buffers should be

designed to absorb kinetic energy of the crane’s impact moving at 0.7 to 1 of

its own nominal speed as specified by EN 1991-3 (2.11(1)) and its full speed

as specified by the AISE 13 provisions.

The buffer force is delivered to crane

stop and then to the building nearest

braced bay to complete its way to foun-

dation.

Buffer force is calculated by EN 1991-3

taking into consideration the dynamic

effect and the buffer’s spring constant

as well as the crane and hoist mass.

Normally buffer forces are given by the crane producer. According to the

AISC provisions as an advice for the designer, buffer forces are taken as the

larger of two values either twice the tractive force (drive force K) or 10% of

the entire crane weight.

Buffer force is either due to crane impact ( HB,1 ) or due to crab ( HB,2 ). The

force discussed above is the HB,1 while the HB,2 is specified by EN 1991-3 as

to be 10% of the sum of the hoist load and the weight of the crab.

Figure 3.29 : Rubber buffer



3.5.3 Load Application

As stated by the EN 1991-3, only one of the five types of horizontal forces

should be included in the same group of simultaneous crane load.

Loading groups are specified by the Eurocode as shown in the following ta-

ble

Figure 3.30 : Describtion of buffer force and its way to bracing [15]

Table 3.15 : Groups of loads and dynamic factors as given by EN 1991-3 [7]



Data given from the supplier (ABUS):

Capacity = 10 t

Span = 19m

Wheel spacing a = 3.2m

Figure 3.31 : Technical description for single girder traveling crane by ABUS [6]



Figure 3.32 : Technical description for single girder traveling crane by ABUS plan view [6]



Drive Force: HL,1 = HL,2 = 2.75 kN

Buffer Force: HB,1 = 20 kN

Horizontal Force due to crane acceleration:

HT,1 = 1.8 kN

HT,2 = 7 kN

Horizontal Force due to crab stop (buffer force):

HB,2 = 10% of Hoist load and Trolley weight = 0.1*(100+7.2) = 10.72 kN

Horizontal Force due to crab acceleration: (already covered by HB,2 )

HT,3 = 0.1-0.5 kN

Skewing Forces:

S = 17.8 kN

HS,1,1,T = 3.5 kN

HS,2,1,T = 14.3 kN

Vertical Force:

R13MAX = 62.2 kN R24MAX = 62.8 kN

R13MIN = 15.4 kN R24MIN = 15.8 kN

1

where it is taken as equal to the upper value which is 1.1

As stated by the solved example in the “Bautabellen fur Ingenieure” section

(8.99)

For Hall cranes, the critical load groups are LG1 and LG5

LG1 Forces

-Crane Self weight

-Hoist Load

-Acceleration/Deceleration of Crane

Bridge

LG5 Forces

-Crane Self weight

-Hoist Load

-Skewing of Crane Bridge

Figure 3.33 : Crane Horizontal forces due to Load Groups 1 and 5



Although each case is applied on the crane beam individually and internal

forces are used from each case independently as it was mentioned by the EN

1991-3 that only one of the horizontal forces type should be included in one

case. It is seen to be more reasonable for these two cases to be joined to-

gether as by common sense skewing will occur concurrently with the crane

bridge acceleration which makes it more plausible that a superposition be-

tween the two cases should be applied.

As mentioned by Prof. Seeßelberg in his book “Kranbahnen Bemessung und

konstruktive Gestaltung nach Eurocode” [8], There are no studies which

show whether a superposition between the forces should be applied or not.

An assumption for the determination of Skewing forces from EN 1991-3 is

that horizontal forces due to acceleration/deceleration of the crane could not

occur simultaneously. So as following the code regulations superposition is

not appropriate. [8]

3.5.3.1 Crane Girder Internal Forces

The crane girder is designed as two bay continuous beam each bay is 6m and

the wheel load spacing a = 3.2m. Continuous beam gives nearly 21% less for

the values of internal forces comparing with the simple beam design as well

as decreasing the buckling length by 15% as length unsupported is considered

in design to be as 0.85L.

Hand Calculations are attached in the Design chapter in for the crane girder

design.

To get the maximum internal forces on this two span beam some formulas

and factors are given by Seeßelberg in his book [8] which are used for fast

hand calculations but with some conditions :

1- The two bays are of the same length L and EI=constant

2- Two wheel loads F1,F2 with distance a apart

3- F1≥F2

In this case since F1=62.8 and F2=62.2 where F1/F2≈1 therefore

F1=F2=F=62.8 kN



Figure 3.34 : Maximum Internal forces for two bay girder [8]

Table 3.16 : Auxiliary values for calculation of two bay crane girder [8]



= a/ℓ and β = F2/F1

0.533, β = 1

Linear interpolation will be applied to get the values of the fac

0.533

-Maximum Field Moment where left wheel is at position 𝑋𝑀𝑓 = 𝑙. ξ𝑀𝑓

Where ξ𝑀𝑓 = 0.351

xMF = 6x0.351= 2.11m

max My,F,R = γMF.F.ℓ

Where γMF = 0.225

max My,F,R = 0.225x62.8x6 = 84.9 kN.m ≈ 85 kN.m

-Maximum Support Moment where left wheel is at position 𝑋𝑀𝑠𝑡 = 𝑙. ξ𝑀𝑠𝑡

where ξMSt = 0.733

xMSt = 6x0.733= 4.4m

max My,St,R = -γMSt.F.ℓ

where γMSt = 0.169

max My,F,R = -0.169x62.8x6 = -63.67 kN.m

-Vertical Reactions at supports:

Max AR = γA.F = 1.372x62.8 = 86.16 kN

Max BR = γB.F = 1.733x62.8 = 108.85 kN

-Bending moment My and Vertical reactions only due to own weight (g):

max My,F,g = 0.07gℓ2

max My,St,g= -0.125gℓ2

max Ag= 0.375gℓ

max Bg= 1.25gℓ

Table 3.17 : Auxiliary values for Minimum Field Moments MF for two bay girder [8]



-Bending Moment Mz Horizontal force H :

H is chosen as the highest horizontal force( skewing force S-Hs )

= 14.3 kN

Using the same tables above to get the required values taking

into consideration using H as two load value each of value H/2

and spacing a=0

0, β = 1

Maximum Field Moment Mz,F where ξMF = 0.577

xMF = 6x0.577= 3.462m

max Mz,F = γMF.H/2.ℓ

Where γMF = 0.415

max Mz,F = 0.415x7.15x6 = 17.8 kN.m

Minimum Moment would be further calculated at the location of Maximum

Moment (either at the support or the field whatever is the maximum after

the addition of the self-weight).

3.5.3.2 Loads on Main Frame

“Which combination from vertical and horizontal crane loads and which posi-

tion of crane bridge over the crane girder is the most critical. The scale is not

the unfavorable load of the crane girder but the unfavorable reactions”

(Seeßelberg, Kranbahnen, 2014) [8].

Unfavorable reactions are calculated from crane girder and then applied to

the main supporting frame. There are different cases taking into the consid-

eration the location of the crab, type of loads depending on the load group.

As mentioned above the two load groups discussed are LG1 and LG5



Load

Group

Crab

Position

Forces from Crane

Operation

P1 A1 P2 A2

- - 0 0 0 0

6 right Fi (Only Vertical) 27.38 0 108.85 0

1 right HM , Fi 27.38 0.96 108.85 3.74

5 right (S-Hs) , Fi 27.38 14.3 108.85 -14.3

6 left Fi (Only Vertical) 108.85 0 27.38 0

1 left HM , Fi 108.85 3.74 27.38 0.96

5 left (S-Hs) , Fi 108.85 14.3 27.38 -14.3

Table 3.18 : Crane Reactions on the main frame



3.6 Imperfections

Imperfections in the construction world mean the deviation of a structural

member from its ideal form as a result of manufacturing.

Imperfections are considered when the equilibrium forces for members of a

deformed system are required to be calculated. Where deformations result in

the increase of internal forces.

According to the EN 1991-1-1 imperfections in structures are defined into

two main categories Global imperfections for analysis of frame and bracing

and Local imperfections for individual members.

3.6.1 Global Imperfections

The global imperfections covers lack of verticality or lack of straightness of

the structure. For buckling sensitive frames two types of imperfections

should be considered.

3.6.1.1 Sway Imperfections

Initial sway imperfection is defined by angle . Sway imperfections may be

presented by Equivalent Horizontal Forces (EHF). Where the value of EHF

is a fraction of the vertical load.

=

0. 𝛼ℎ . 𝛼𝑚

Figure 3.35 : Sway Imperfection Parameters [13]



Equivalent Horizontal Force (EHF) = . 𝑁𝐸𝑑

Where NEd is the factored force in each column.

Initial sway imperfections should be applied in all unfavorable horizontal di-

rections, but need to be only considered in one direction at a time.

3.6.1.2 Bow Imperfections

Since local bow imperfections is taken into account in member checks it

could be disregarded in case of global analysis. But as stated by EN 1993-1-1

for cases where frames are sensitive to second order effects, local bow imper-

fections should be introduced in the analysis of the structure.

Dlubal RSTAB 8.0 actually calculates the summation of both imperfections

(Sway and Bow) together as one action in both X and Y directions individually

taking into consideration the Eurocode regulations EN 1991-1-1.

Imperfections effect would be discussed in Model chapter

3.6.1.3 Bracing System Imperfections

In the analysis of bracing systems which are required to provide lateral sta-

bility within the length of beams or compression members, the effects of im-

perfections should be included by means of an equivalent geometric imper-

fection of the members to be restrained, in the form of an initial bow imper-

fection" EN 1993-1 Section (5.3.3)

Figure 3.36 : Equivalent Sway Imperfection [13]



Figure 3.37 : Bracing Imperfections calculation [13]

Figure 3.38 : Equivalent loads for bracing imperfections [13]



It should be mentioned that in case 𝑁𝐸𝑑

0.1×𝑁𝑐𝑟≤ 1.0 Where 𝑁𝑐𝑟 =

𝜋2×𝐸×𝐼

𝐿𝑐𝑟2

NO GOMETRIC IMPERFECTIONS TAKE PLACE

As for this building case it will be mentioned in the design part that col-

umns section where huge to cover serviceability limits so the above value

will be smaller than so global imperfections will not be a critical issue in

this project.

3.6.2 Local Imperfections

Local imperfections are completely covered and regarded during the design

of members in the formulas given for buckling resistance given for members.

Figure 3.39 : Systems of equivalent horizontal forces intoduced for columns due to

imperfections [13]



4 Load Combinations

Loads mentioned above do not occur individually but in combinations, so it is

required from the designer to determine the most critical combination for the

structure. Loads have different degrees of variability and probabilities of oc-

currences their combination would for sure have a reduced probability.

The common old practice was to define the most severe load combinations of

dead with imposed and/or wind loads and giving an allowance for higher

stress in case of wind load accompanied by imposed loads. This is logical but

happens to be irrelevant when wind load acts with dead load as probability of

occurrence remain unchanged.

Eurocode 3 uses logical method depending on statistical analyses of loads and

structural capacities. Whereas Ultimate State Design considers the most se-

vere combination of normal and temporary actions.

[9]

Where Ʃ refers to the combination of actions, γG and γQ are partial factors for

the persistent G and variable Q actions, and ψ0 is a combination factor. The

concept is applying all permanent actions Gk,j as self-weight and equipment

with one leading variable action Qk,1 such as wind or snow and reducing the

value of other variable actions Qk,i

Where EQU means loss of static equilibrium of any part of structure, STR

means failure by successive deformations, internal failure or rupture of any

part of structure and GEO mean failure due to ground successive defor-

mations.

Figure 4.1: Partial load factors for common situations [9]



Crane action’s partial factor is taken as 1.35 as given by EN 1991-3

Table 4.1: Recommended values of γ factors for cranes [7]

Table 4.2: Recommended values of ψ factors for cranes [7]

STR combinations are commonly used in designing structural members not

involving geotechnical actions.



Values for Combination Factors ψ0 are given by EN 1990 in Table A1.1 [10]

EN 1990 classifies design situation in Ultimate limit state into Permanent

Action, Transient Action, Accidental Action and Seismic Action.

Table 4.3: Recommended values of ψ factors for buildings [10]

Table 4.4: Application of Combination factors [30]



Combination Factors ψ0 :

Load Symbol ψ0

Self-Weight G -

Cladding Pc -

Electromechanical Pe -

Mezzanine Flooring Pm -

Imposed on Roof R 0

Imposed on Mezzanine Rm 1.0

Wind W 0.6

Imperfections X Ix 1.0

Imperfections Y Iy 1.0

Crane C 1.0

Accidental Cbuffer 0.7

Table 4.5 : Combination factors for the loads on the building

4.1 Potential Load Combinations

In order to avoid numerous load combinations that arise from choosing the

Automatic Load Combinations option in the structural analysis software

Dlubal RSTAB where it reached 5000+ combinations, one should exercise

his judgment to reduce the sensible combinations into a reasonable number.

As a trivial example it is impossible for wind and earthquake to occur simul-

taneously.

Cases are to be considered to define what should be critical for each part of

the building or each condition for the building.



4.1.1 Frame Sway

In this case lateral loads in X direction as

well as wind suction loads would be critical

while vertical imposed loads would reduce

this effect so the imposed loads of mezza-

nine and roof would be excluded

G + Pc + Pe + Pm + Wx + Ix + C

The case Wx1 is the case considered in Wx as

it helps to inflate the building also for

Crane cases C there exists 3 cases,C1 for ac-

celeration , C5 for Skewing and Cbuffer for ac-

cidental horizontal collision. These 3 crane cases would be considered also

leading actions would be considered.

a) When Wind Wx1 is the Leading action:

1- 1.35G + 1.35(Pc + Pe + Pm) + 1.5(Wx1 + C1) + Ix

2- 1.35G + 1.35(Pc + Pe + Pm) + 1.5(Wx1 + C5) + Ix

3- 1.35G + 1.35(Pc + Pe + Pm) + 1.5(Wx1 + 0.7Cbuffer) + Ix

b) When C1 is the Leading action:

4- 1.35G + 1.35(Pc + Pe + Pm) + 1.5(C1 + 0.6Wx1) + Ix

c) When C5 is the Leading action:

5- 1.35G + 1.35(Pc + Pe + Pm) + 1.5(C5 + 0.6Wx1) + Ix

Case 4,5 seems to be less critical than 1,2 and 3 so 4,5 would be omitted and

case 1,2 and 3 would be repeated 3 times to consider the crane at the start

and end frames.

1’- 1.35G + 1.35(Pc + Pe + Pm) + 1.5(Wx1 + C1start) + Ix

2’- 1.35G + 1.35(Pc + Pe + Pm) + 1.5(Wx1 + C5start) + Ix

3’- 1.35G + 1.35(Pc + Pe + Pm) + 1.5(Wx1 + 0.7Cbuffer start) + Ix

1’’- 1.35G + 1.35(Pc + Pe + Pm) + 1.5(Wx1 + C1end) + Ix

2’’- 1.35G + 1.35(Pc + Pe + Pm) + 1.5(Wx1 + C5end) + Ix

3’’- 1.35G + 1.35(Pc + Pe + Pm) + 1.5(Wx1 + 0.7Cbuffer end) + Ix

These cases are only

to be defined in the

model as crane case

is defined as 2d



4.1.2 Strength of Rafters

In this case Wind Wx4 would be critical as well as the vertical imposed loads

G + Pc + Pe + Pm + Wx4 + R

a) When Roof Imposed Load R is the Leading action:

4- 1.35G + 1.35(Pc + Pe + Pm) + 1.5(R + 0.6Wx4)

b) When Wx4 is the Leading action:

5- 1.35G + 1.35(Pc + Pe + Pm) + 1.5(Wx4 + 0*R)

Case 5 seems to be less critical than 4 so 5 would be omitted.

4.1.3 Columns Reaction

In this case vertical imposed loads would be the most critical

G + Pc + Pe + Pm + R + Rm + Ix

a) When Roof Imposed Load R is the Leading action:

5- 1.35G + 1.35(Pc + Pe + Pm) + 1.5(R + Rm) + Ix

4.1.4 Bracing Axial Forces

In this case lateral forces in direction of Y would be critical as Wy and Im-

perfections in Y as well as crane forces specially the end buffer forces.

G + Pc + Pe + Pm + Wy + Iy + C

a) When Wind Wy is the Leading action:

6- 1.35G + 1.35(Pc + Pe + Pm) + 1.5(Wy + C1) + Iy

7- 1.35G + 1.35(Pc + Pe + Pm) + 1.5(Wy + C5) + Iy

8- 1.35G + 1.35(Pc + Pe + Pm) + 1.5(Wy + 0.7Cbuffer H) + Iy

9- 1.35G + 1.35(Pc + Pe + Pm) + 1.5(Wy + 0.7Cbuffer Long) + Iy

b) When Crane C (C1,C5 or Cbuffer) is the Leading action:

1.35G + 1.35(Pc + Pe + Pm) + 1.5(C1 + 0.6Wy) + Iy



Case b) where C is a leading action seems to be less critical than case a) so it

is not considered.

Cases 12,13 and 14 would be repeated to consider the crane at the start and

end frames.

6’- 1.35G + 1.35(Pc + Pe + Pm) + 1.5(Wy + C1start) + Iy

7’- 1.35G + 1.35(Pc + Pe + Pm) + 1.5(Wy + C5start) + Iy

8’- 1.35G + 1.35(Pc + Pe + Pm) + 1.5(Wy + 0.7Cbuffer H start) + Iy

6’’- 1.35G + 1.35(Pc + Pe + Pm) + 1.5(Wy + C1end) + Iy

7’’- 1.35G + 1.35(Pc + Pe + Pm) + 1.5(Wy + C5end) + Iy

8’’- 1.35G + 1.35(Pc + Pe + Pm) + 1.5(Wy + 0.7Cbuffer H end) + Iy

1 1.35G + 1.35(Pc + Pe + Pm) + 1.5(Wx1 + C1) + Ix

1’ 1.35G + 1.35(Pc + Pe + Pm) + 1.5(Wx1 + C1start) + Ix

1’’ 1.35G + 1.35(Pc + Pe + Pm) + 1.5(Wx1 + C1end) + Ix

2 1.35G + 1.35(Pc + Pe + Pm) + 1.5(Wx1 + C5) + Ix

2’ 1.35G + 1.35(Pc + Pe + Pm) + 1.5(Wx1 + C5start) + Ix

2’’ 1.35G + 1.35(Pc + Pe + Pm) + 1.5(Wx1 + C5end) + Ix

3 1.35G + 1.35(Pc + Pe + Pm) + 1.5(Wx1 + 0.7Cbuffer) + Ix

3’ 1.35G + 1.35(Pc + Pe + Pm) + 1.5(Wx1 + 0.7Cbuffer start) + Ix

3’’ 1.35G + 1.35(Pc + Pe + Pm) + 1.5(Wx1 + 0.7Cbuffer end) + Ix

4 1.35G + 1.35(Pc + Pe + Pm) + 1.5(R + 0.6Wx4)

5 1.35G + 1.35(Pc + Pe + Pm) + 1.5(R + Rm) + Ix

6 1.35G + 1.35(Pc + Pe + Pm) + 1.5(Wy + C1) + Iy

6’ 1.35G + 1.35(Pc + Pe + Pm) + 1.5(Wy + C1start) + Iy

6’’ 1.35G + 1.35(Pc + Pe + Pm) + 1.5(Wy + C1end) + Iy

7 1.35G + 1.35(Pc + Pe + Pm) + 1.5(Wy + C5) + Iy

7’ 1.35G + 1.35(Pc + Pe + Pm) + 1.5(Wy + C5start) + Iy

7’’ 1.35G + 1.35(Pc + Pe + Pm) + 1.5(Wy + C5end) + Iy

8 1.35G + 1.35(Pc + Pe + Pm) + 1.5(Wy + 0.7Cbuffer H) + Iy

8’ 1.35G + 1.35(Pc + Pe + Pm) + 1.5(Wy + 0.7Cbuffer H start) + Iy

8’’ 1.35G + 1.35(Pc + Pe + Pm) + 1.5(Wy + 0.7Cbuffer H end) + Iy

9 1.35G + 1.35(Pc + Pe + Pm) + 1.5(Wy + 0.7Cbuffer Long) + Iy

These cases are only

to be defined in the

model as Crane case

is defined as 2d



5 Model

Modeling and analysis was carried out using RSTAB 8.06 one of Dlubal Soft-

ware’s package. Dlubal Software develops engineering programs for FEA and

structural analysis.

RSTAB is a powerful tool for 3D analysis of frames and trusses. Internal

forces, deformations and support reactions are easily calculated and docu-

mented.

5.1 Structural Model



Figure 5.1 : Vertical Bracing in the building

Figure 5.2 : Mezzanine Interior columns and beams

Figure 5.3 : Gable Frame and Gable bracing



At the beginning of the analysis the model was not the same as shown in the

upper figures. Many alterations and modifications were applied to suit the

design requirements.

5.2 Defining Loads

All mentioned loads were defined manually to the RSTAB model. Self-

weight of the structure was calculated by the software and a load case was

created for it.

Mentioned below an example for each load case to show the loads’ magni-

tude and direction.

Wind load definition was a bit complex task as according to Eurocode the

roof is divided into many areas and each area have a different magnitude of

load than the other and maybe different direction also.

Figure 5.4 : Horizontal roof bracing

Figure 5.5 : Cladding Load



Figure 5.6 : Electromechanical Installations Load

Figure 5.7 : One of Crane Load cases on main frame



Figure 5.8 : Wind Load case one where area divisions are shown

Figure 5.9 : Dead and Live Loads on mezzanine respictively



5.3 Model Load Combinations

Load combinations are previously discussed in chapter 4, the discussed com-

bination factors were applied.

The two mentioned bellow combinations appeared to have the highest

straining actions among the other combinations excluding the seismic com-

bination as it would be introduced in the next section of dynamic analysis.

1- Combination 1 (Comb1)

1.35G + 1.35(Pc + Pe + Pm) + 1.5(Wx1 + C1) + Ix

This combination showed the highest results in the X-direction and was

mainly the wind from left direction which had the governing effect.

The combination included self-weight, dead load of cladding, electromechan-

ical installations and mezzanine (concrete slab) in addition crane action and

imperfections (which is really not effective).

2- Dead and Live loads without lateral actions

1.35G + 1.35(Pc + Pe + Pm) + 1.5(R + Rm)

This combination showed high straining actions for axially loaded members

such as mezzanine columns also gave the highest design values for the mez-

zanine secondary and main beams.

The third main used combination in the design process was that of Earth-

quake action in Y-direction as it showed higher values than the wind load-

ing in Y-direction as it would be discussed in the next chapter on contrary to

the Earthquake in X-direction which appeared to be much less critical than

the lateral effect of wind in X-direction combined with the building’s dead

load.

5.4 Dynamic Analysis

DYNAM pro Add-on Module available in RSTAB 8.0 allows quick and com-

fortable analysis of natural frequencies and mode shapes of the member. Nat-

ural vibrations are mainly required in the seismic analysis.



5.4.1 Mass Cases

Masses participating in the earthquake are defined to the software

Masses were defined manually as member or nodal masses to avoid any error

that may occur by the software in the calculation of masses while converting

loads into masses in KG.



Mass Case Value in KG

Self-Weight 157722.39

Cladding 32998.23

Electromechanical 18445.38

Dead Mezzanine ( Concrete Slab ) 198800.00

Imposed load Mezzanine Storage 611800.00

Crane Vertical Load 13890.00

Table 5.1 : Modal Masses values for dynamic analysis

5.4.2 Mass Combinations

Masses are combined according to EN 1991 rules and provisions where

The factors ψ are discussed previously in chapter 3 in the Seismic Loads

part 3.4.9

Figure 5.10 : Modal Masses manual definition in RSTAB



5.4.3 Natural Vibrations

Number of Eigen values are limited to 12 Eigen values, as more values do

not give any significant result. As a result 12 mode shapes were produced.

Bearing in mind that the building with the installed mezzanine at nearly

half of its height is considered something between one or two storey build-

ing. The resulted 12 mode shapes are examined to check whether this mode

could exist in reality taking into consideration the building conditions.

2 Modes were selected from the 12 which are Mode 4 in X-direction and

Mode 3 in Y-direction

5.4.3.1 Excluded Mode Shapes

As shown below some of the excluded modes mentioning the reason behind

elimination.

Mode 9

Figure 5.11 : Natural vibration Modes by RSTAB with the values of frequency and period of each mode



Mode 9 and Mode 12 shown above where excluded due to the unrealistic

mode shape as the building would not act in this manner as there is clad-

ding covering the building roofs as well as the sides if the building.

Mode 12

Mode 6

Mode 8



Mode 8 is also excluded due to being very overdrawn which would be unfea-

sible in the presence of roof and side cladding. While Mode 6 is excluded for

having a very high frequency f=3.18 Hz which is practically unrealistic for a

building with this weight to have such a high frequency of vibration.

5.4.3.2 Included Mode Shapes

In X-Direction:

Mode 4

f = 2.027 Hz, T = 0.493 sec

Table 5.1 : Mode 4 effective modal mass factors

Figure 5.12 : Mode 4 natural vibration shape



The difference in the sway value is due to the massive mass in the mezzanine

area as well as the bracing in X-Direction in the mezzanine area.

Mode 4



Mode 3

Y-direction

f= 2 Hz , T = 0.5 sec

Just as a note the plan view in the opposite figure, the displacement of the

mezzanine members will not actually occur similar to the figure due to the

presence of the concrete slab.

Mode 3

Table 5.2 : Mode 3 effective modal mass factors



5.4.4 Seismic Equivalent Forces

In normal cases forces are distributed on each storey by the ratio of its mass

according to the other storey masses but in this case of a building with a

mezzanine it is neither considered a one storey nor a two storey building. So

some approximations and hand calculations were applied to distribute the

force.

In X-direction

Mode 4

f = 2.027 Hz , T = 0.439 sec , ad= 1.5 m/s2

Masses Value in ton

Structure weight 209 t

Concrete Slab weight 198 t

Storage load 0.8t/m2x20x30 = 480 t

Table 5.3 : Seismic mass to be included in the equivalent force caclulations

Mezzanine Area

5 bays

Free Area

5 bays

Masses per bay:

-209/10 = 20.9t

-198/5 = 39.6t

-480/5 = 96t

Ʃ156.5 t

F = 156.5x1.5= 234 kN

234-31.35 = 202.65 kN

Masses per bay:

-209/10 = 20.9t

Ʃ20.9t

F = 20.9x1.5= 31.35 kN

Figure 5.13 : Acceleration Response Spectrum for Mode 4 with T=0.439sec in X-direction



In Y-direction

Mode 3

f= 2 Hz, T = 0.5 sec, ad= 1.476 m/s2

Figure 5.14 : Equivalent Loads in X-direction due to seismic effect with Mode 4 of vibration

Figure 5.15 : Acceleration Response Spectrum for Mode 3 with T=0.5sec in Y-direction



Masses Value in ton

Structure weight 209 t

Concrete Slab weight 198 t

Storage load 0.8t/m2x20x30 = 480 t

Force is divided on 2 bays in Y-direction which are the two Main Vertical

Bracings by the ratio of weight on these 6 nodes

Where bracing in the mezzanine area will have much more loads than

the bracing in the other half of the building

209/6 = 35t------------ 35x1.476= 51.5 kN

(198 + 480)/4 = 169.5t----------- 169.5x1.476= 250 kN

Figure 5.16 : Points of application of equivalent seismic forces in Y-direction

Figure 5.17 : Equivalent Loads in Y-direction due to seismic effect with Mode 3 of vibration



5.4.5 Seismic Combinations

As a result to the two load cases reached above each defining the Equivalent

Seismic Forces for earthquake excitation in both X and Y directions, two

more load combination cases were defined to combine these equivalent

forces with other actions and load cases of the building.

First for X-direction the upper load case in Figure 5.14 is combined with

building’s self-weight and dead load as well as crane lateral action and live

load on mezzanine area both decreased by a value of 20% as stated in Seis-

mic Load Combinations section 3.4.7

Second for Y-direction the upper load case in Figure 5.17 is combined with

building’s self-weight and dead load as well as live load on mezzanine area

decreased by a value of 20% as stated in Seismic Load Combinations section

3.4.7. This combination proved to be the most unfavorable combination in Y-

direction and resistant system in Y-direction was design to its results as

would be shown in Design chapter.

Figure 5.18 : Earthquake X load combination (EQ-X)

Figure 5.19 : Earthquake Y load combination (EQ-Y)



6 Design of members

In this chapter the whole building members, connections and bases are de-

signed according to the most critical values attained from the analysis of load

combinations in both X and Y directions.

After investigating the results it was found that in X-direction the governing

lateral action was the wind defined in case 1 of wind loads and combined with

other lateral actions in Combination 1 (Comb1) as mentioned in the above

chapters.

And considering the Y-direction the governing lateral action was the Earth-

quake equivalent loads in this direction combined with other actions as stated

above in the dynamic analysis section.

Before starting with the members’ design, a problem was recognized from the

model results which led to many changes in the model. This problem was the

high value if frame sway.

6.1 Frame Lateral Sway Problem

From the very beginning of the analysis process the model was not the same

model as shown in all the previous calculations.

Figure 6.1 : Model at the early beginning of the analysis process



Changes were applied to the model as mentioned due to the high value of

lateral sway which exceeded 10 times the allowed value by the Eurocode

where the allowed value of lateral deflection is limited to L/150.

As shown in the above figure 6.1 the building frames were of hinged bases, as

well as no longitudinal horizontal roof bracing nor gable bracing were present.

Also column sections were assumed to be of hot-rolled cross section HEB 500

It was found in the upper case of Comb1 combination the building experienced

a large value of horizontal sway equal to 95 cm and the allowable value was

8.6 cm (L/150)

Trying to solve this problem the column section was increased to a built up

section of h=700 and b=400 , tw=12 and tf=20 dimensions are in mm.

Figure 6.2 : Moment about Y-axis for Comb1 combination

Figure 6.3 : Maximum Lateral displacement in case Comb1 at the begining



As a result of this section enlargement the sway value decreased to be 74 cm

which is still a far value than the allowable.

Rafter cross-sections also were increased to be nearly the same as the col-

umn’s section

The value decreased to reach 50cm so it was decided that a longitudinal

bracing system should be added and connected at the end to a gable bracing

system.

Figure 6.4 : Assumed Column Section for main frame

Figure 6.5 : Decreased value of displacement after column’s section enlargement

Figure 6.5 : Decreased value of displacement after rafter’s section enlargement



Figure 6.6 : Added Longitudinal Horizontal bracing

Figure 6.7 : Added Gable bracing at start and end of the building

Figure 6.8 : Decreased value of displacement after addition of bracing system



As shown in the upper figure the value of sway dropped to reach 16.7 cm

which was a really effective solution but still did not reduce the sway to the

desired value.

At last there was no solution other than fixing the column bases and using

smaller rafter sections so as to be more economical. Also the gable frames at

the start and the end of the building were excluded from the base clamping

as they were already braced by the presence of the bracing.

As shown finally the sway value dropped to reach 8.5 cm which is just

within the limits of the code.(8.66 cm).

Figure 6.9 : Fixing main frame basec

Figure 6.10 : Final Lateral sway value after model modifications



6.2 Main Frame

The building is composed of mainly 10 frames as mentioned before. The last

5 frames are different from the first 5 due to the presence of the mezzanine

in the second half of the building.

After the analysis phase and assembling the results from the RSTAB software

and examining the critical load combinations it was found that for the main

frame the most critical combination in X-direction is the combination of grav-

ity loads + wind in X-direction (Comb1). Seismic Loads was found to be less

critical than wind in X-direction. Wind load was really drastic as it surpassed

the effect of Earthquake loads in X-direction.

Buckling is the main problem to be considered in member design so that’s

why restraints could be added to prevent or reduce out-of-plane buckling in

order to use smaller sections.



A most common way to achieve this restraint through purlins on the top of

the rafter or side rails attached to the column. This provides stability to the

member in different ways:

Direct lateral restraint, when the outer flange is in compression

Intermediate lateral restraint to the tension flange between torsional

restraints, when the outer flange is in tension.

Torsional and lateral restraint to the rafter when the purlin is attached

to the tension flange and used in conjunction with rafter stays to the

compression flange.

Figure 6.11 : Rafter Stay (Flange Brace) , Courtesy of Steel Construction Institute [33]

Figure 6.12 : Rafter Knee bracing in the building from AutoCAD details



6.2.1 Column Design

Design is applied according to EN 1993 provisions in addition to the Ger-

man National Annex.

Excel Design Sheets were conducted to facilitate the design process of differ-

ent members but also a hand calculation example for each member is in-

cluded.

All columns were designed to have the same cross-section(the one with the

most critical loads) as due to the presence of the crane through the whole

building would make it difficult to use different cross-sections which may be

lead to a swerving crane runway.

Figure 6.13 : Frame Columns My Envelope



The Figure shown above is the Envelope of Moment about y-axis My values

for the frame as a result of the most severe load combination.

These upper values of the maximum normal compression forces acting on

the columns are generated from the case of Dead Load and Full Live Load

on Mezzanine and Roof.

Figure 6.14 : Frame Columns Shear Vz values

Figure 6.15 : Frame Columns Normal N values



Side rails are attached to the outer flange of the column to support the clad-

ding as well as acting as a restraint for the column where stays may be

added to prevent the compression flange from buckling.

The first 6 meters in the column length is covered by block walls then a dis-

tribution of side rails is as follows 6 side rails are added with 5 distances be-

tween them each of value 1.4 meters ( [email protected] = 7m ).

It is assumed that stays or Flange Bracing is added each 2 side rails so the

unsupported length of column is (2x1.4 = 2.8m).

Design is carried on the Maximum value for all previous straining actions

Figure 6.16 : Side Rails in Column Section exmaple , Courtesy of Steel Contruction Institute [33]

mailto:[email protected]



6.2.2 Rafter Design

In much the same way to the column design, the rafter’s critical combina-

tion for design was an uplift combination resulting from wind in X-direction

in addition to gravity loads.

An envelope was created for rafters to decide on the critical moment values

Just as a side note the Gable rafters at the start and the end of the building

will be designed on different values and have different cross-sections as the

presence of the gable bracing will decrease the reactions on the gable rafters

as shown in the next figure.

Figure 6.17 : Frame Rafters My Envelope

Figure 6.18 : Gable Rafters My Envelope



Figure 6.19 : Main Rafters Shear and Normal Envelope

Figure 6.20 : Gable Rafters Shear and Normal Envelope



6.2.3 End Wall Frame

End wall or End Gable frames are the two frames on the start and the end

of the building. From analysis these frames carry nearly half the applied

loads so that requires smaller cross sections than the sections required in

the main middle frames. Moreover the end frames have bracing which was

required for sway limitations so this bracing reduces the internal forces in

the frame members as shown in the above figures.

Furthermore then End wall main columns ( the Exterior Columns ) are de-

signed with hinged base contrasting the other main frames with fixed base

just because it is not required to fix the base for these two frames as the

bracing mentioned above prevents them from sway so it performed the same

task so hinged bases were chosen for economical reasons.



6.3 End Gable Columns

There are two gables in the building one at the start let us call it the Start

Wall and the other at the end let us call the End Wall. The reason I defined

them differently is that the End Wall has a mezzanine connected to it that’s

why in the design process there would be some difference between the col-

umns of the end and that of the start in terms of buckling lengths. In addition

to a great difference in the Normal force for the column assembled to the mez-

zanine and the one in the start.

Also it is important to mention the orientation of the gable column as its di-

rection is rotated 90 degrees from the main frame’s column. This distinction

in orientation would alter the definition of flexural buckling length in both

planes.

Figure 6.21 : Start Wall Gable

Figure 6.22 : End Wall Gable



The governing loading case in the gable column is the wind case as the column

is mainly designed to resist Moment about X global direction (From wind

loading) as well as Normal force N (From self-weight , cladding and end rails’

weight).

This Moment could be as a result of suction or pressure so when calculating

the Lateral Torsional Buckling and to find the unsupported length it would

be different in each case. Where the case of suction the compression flange

would be inside the building while in case of pressure the compression flange

would be outside.

So to avoid this complicated issue, As mentioned before in the design of the

main frame column and side rails, flange bracing is added to each end rail to

prevent buckling of the inside flange out of plane. By this way if the compres-

sion flange is outside it would be braced by the end rail and if it is inside it

would be prevented from buckling by the stays (flange brace).

Figure 6.23 : Columns‘ different orientations



The maximum value which is 645 kN.m would be used for the design of both

columns at start and end walls as the moment could be reversed if the wind

was in the opposite direction.

This Normal force -500 kN is as a result of the mezzanine loading

Figure 6.23 : Maximum Suction and Pressure Moments for Gable Column

Figure 6.24 : Difference in Normal Force between Start gable column and End gable Column



Internal Forces and Factors Start Wall Column End Wall Column

Moment 645 kN.m 645 kN.m

Normal Force -222 kN -500 kN

Shear 189 kN 151 kN

Buckling In plane Lin 6m 6m

Buckling Out of plane Lout 13.67m 6m

Lunsupp Comp Flange

Lu

6m 6m

Cmy,Cmz,CmLT 0.95 0.95

HEB 360 HEB 400

Table 6.1 : Design values for End gable columns

Figure 6.25 : Difference in Shear Force between Start gable column and End gable Column



Figure 6.26 : Screenshot of Excel sheet for calculation of the End Column HEB400 Checks

HEB 360 HEB 400

Figure 6.27 : Final Cross-Sections for End gable columns



6.4 Crane Girder

Crane Specifications:

- 10 ton Capacity -Hoisting Class HC 2

Supplier Data (ABUS):

- Vertical Forces : F1=F2= 62.8 kN

- Horizontal Forces : Skewing Forces : H1 = (S-Hs) = 14.3 kN , H2 = 0

Acceleration/Deceleration: H1=-H2 = 7 kN

- Lifting Speed : 5m/min

- Crane Driving Speed : 40m/min

Load Assumptions and Classifications:

- Dynamic Factors :

1=1.1

2= 1.1 + 0.34*(5m/min/60sec/min) = 1.13

3 = 4 = 1

5 = 1.5

The two critical Load Groups LG are the ones mentioned above LG1

for Acceleration/Deceleration action and LG5 for skewing action

LG 1:

F=F1=F2 = 2 x Q = 1.13x62.8 = 71 kN

H1 = -H2 = 5 x H = 1.5x7 = 10.5 kN

LG 5:

F=F1=F2 = 4 x Q = 1x62.8 = 62.8 kN

H1 = Hs= 1 x H = 1x14.3 = 14.3 kN



As shown in the design calculations the crane girder is designed as 2

bay continuous beam , therefore a splice is required to be designed in a

section of the beam which would transfer the forces.

The section is chosen to have the least forces specially moments, As a

first estimation a section of 1.2m away from the support was chosen

depending on this moment chart

Maximum shear is calculated for this section in both directions Y and Z where

max Vz,Ed = 71x1.35 = 95.85 kN

max Vy,Ed = 1.35x14.3=19.3 kN

To get the maximum moment My,Ed by this section Seeelberg’s Influ-

ence lines chart were used.

Where maximum moment nearly appears when one of the wheels is

near the section and the other is away by the distance a.

Where moment is checked at point 2 on chart when load is on point 2

and point 7.5

As per given coefficients 𝑀 =−.𝐹.𝑙

10

for point at 2 = -1.5 and for point at 7.5 = -0.34

Therefore My,Ed at given section = −1.84×71×1.35×6

10 = 105.8 kN.m so head plate

connection would be designed on this value in addition to shear.

Figure 6.27 : Beam Model for the two bay crane girder



Figure 6.28 : Influence Line Chart for a two bay continuous beam by Seeelberg [8]



Some checks applied during the design of crane girder following

“Kranbahnen” – Professor Seeelberg’s guidelines and code provisions.

Figure 6.29 : Stress-Load Introduction –Crippling check [8] , Courtesy of Kranbahnen

Figure 6.30 : Plate Buckling Check [8] , Courtesy of Kranbahnen



As shown in the previous details some precautions should be followed

in design for the wellness of the installation process. For Example in

Sec B-B appear the slotted holes which are very beneficial in order to

rectify any misalignment in the crane girder during assembly between

bays.

Also a double angle section (2L 60x60x6) is used to transfer the lateral

shock force directly to the column. An angle of size 60x60x6 was added

( a kicker ) to transfer braking force to the strut.Bearing stiffeners are

added to avoid web crippling.

*All previous details are personally conducted using AutoCAD 2D



6.5 Mezzanine

Nearly half of the building’s area is a mezzanine area of 20m width and 30m

long. The mezzanine is designed for storage purpose so high loads are likely

to give great internal forces.

6.5.1 Mezzanine Columns

As shown in the previous figure that the mezzanine in X-direction consists

of 2 columns in addition to the main frame columns. While in Y-direction

consists of 5 columns in addition to the end wall column.

Mezzanine columns would nearly have the same internal forces for the de-

sign so it is quite predictive that they would have the same cross-sections

except for the last bay where the mezzanine columns are the end wall col-

umns.

Normal Force in the mezzanine columns would be the ruling internal force

due to the high storage loads as well as the weight of the concrete slab.



Internal Forces Mezzanine Columns

Moment 207 kN.m

Normal 910 kN

Shear 38 kN

Figure 6.31 : Normal Force on Mezzanine Columns from (DL+LL) combination

Figure 6.32 : Moment My and Shear Vz on Mezzanine Columns from Combination 1 (Comb1)



Design Factors Mezzanine Columns

Cmy,Cmz,CmLT 0.6

C1 1.75

Lin = Lout 6m

Lunspp 6m

HEB 280

Table 6.2 : Mezzanine Column design factors and internal forces

Figure 6.33 : Screenshot of Excel sheet for calculation of the Mezzanine Column HEB280 Checks



6.5.2 Mezzanine Beams

Loads applied to the mezzanine area either dead loads including self-weight

of beams and concrete slab or live loads in form of storage loads are trans-

ferred first to the secondary beams where each beam carry a load portion of

the area equal to the width a=1.67m (The distance between secondary

beams) then secondary beams apply the reaction to the main beams.

As shown connections between secondary beams and main beams are simple

(shear connection) where the secondary beam is simply supported to reduce

the cost of adding rigid connections by designing the secondary beam as a

continuous beam.

Serviceability Limits would be checked for the simply supported secondary

beam as well as the main beams on the sides connected to the main frame

column as their connection also is a shear connection which does not trans-

fer moment.

Figure 6.34 : Mezzanine main and secondary beams



6.5.2.1 Secondary Beams

The governing load combination were that resulting from the Dead and Live

Loads on the Mezzanine. The problem in the secondary beam was the service-

ability limit state for the maximum vertical displacement uz , where the al-

lowed value for service loads (unfactored) is L/300 for a simply supported

beam which is equal to 0.02 m for a span of 6 m.

Figure 6.35 : Deflection value in Z-direction for secondary beam of section IPE 300

Figure 6.36 : Deflection value in Z-direction for secondary beam of section IPE 330



As shown in the previous figures the secondary beam’s section was increased

just to abide by the serviceability limit state rules.

It is quite obvious the high value of normal force for the secondary beams on

the edges at the vertical bracing bays which originate from the Seismic Load-

ing case in Y-direction as the bracing system is the main resisting system in

this direction.

Figure 6.37 : Moment and Shear for Secondary Beams from (DL+LL) combination

Figure 6.38 : Normal Force for Secondary Beams from (EQ Y direction)



Internal Forces Secondary Beams

Moment 148 kN.m

Normal 203 kN

Shear 100 kN

Design Factors Secondary Beams

Cmy,Cmz,CmLT 0.95

C1 1.13

Lin 6m

Lout Distance between shear studs Normally 20cm

**It is taken as L/2 for more conservative design

Lunspp Distance between shear studs Normally 20cm

IPE 330

Table 6.3 : Design factors and internal forces for Secondary mezzanine beam

Figure 6.39 : Secondary Beam Cross Section showing Shear Stud [34]



Figure 6.40 : Screenshot of Excel sheet for calculation of the Mezzanine Secondary Beam IPE330 Checks



6.5.2.2 Main Beams

Loads applied on main beams are the reactions from the secondary beams as

well as the main beam’s own weight. Considering the connection of the main

beams with the frame columns and the mezzanine interior columns as a first

try the connection of main beam with the frame column was made to be a

simple connection (shear connection) for economical reasons and then the ser-

viceability limits were checked to see if it would be better to go for a rigid

connection due to high deflections But as shown the mid-span deflection uz of

the main beam was within the allowable limit of L/300.

Figure 6.41 : Deflection value in Z-direction for Main mezzanine beam of section IPE 500

Figure 6.42 : Normal Force for Main mezzanine beams from Comb1 (Mainly Wind in X-direction)



In the case of Loading of (DL+LL) it was interesting that the Normal force in

the Main Beams was a Tension force which would decrease the cross-section

requirements but the design was applied for the most critical case which was

mentioned above due to Comb1.

Internal Forces Secondary Beams

Moment 584 kN.m

Normal 165 kN

Shear 584 kN

Figure 6.44 : Moment and Shear for Main Beams from (DL+LL) combination

Figure 6.43 : Tension Normal Force for Main Beams from (DL + LL)



Design Factors Main Beams

Cmy,Cmz,CmLT -

C1 1.285

Lin = L 6.67m

Lout Distance between secondary beams a = 1.67m

Lunspp Distance between shear studs Normally 20cm

The length where the compression flange is the lower flange L’’ is

checked , L’’=1.24

IPE 500

Figure 6.44 : Unsupported Length of Compression Flange in Main mezzanine beam

Figure 6.45 : Design Checks for Main mezzanine beam using Excel Sheets for Section IPE 500



Due to the high value of Shearing force on the Main Beam which exceeds half

of the cross-section’s resistance in shear Vc,Rd so there exists a reduction in

the section’s Moment Capacity Mc,Rd,y by decreasing the value of yield stress

into fyr to be equal to 261N/mm2 instead of 275N/mm2.

Figure 6.46 : Design Checks for Main mezzanine beam using Excel Sheets for Section IPE 500



6.6 Bracing

6.6.1 Vertical Bracing Seismic Design

Vertical Bracing system is chiefly used in buildings to transfer horizontal

loads to the ground besides maintaining a framework where the side rails

and cladding could be fixed and giving stability for the building during con-

struction.

In this building the vertical bracing system is designed to resist seismic

loads in Y-direction. As it was mentioned above in the seismic loads section

that the seismic action in Y-direction appears to be the governing among

other actions in the same direction.

Bracing is designed for energy dissipation as ductility class DCM was cho-

sen with a behavioral factor q=4. In case of concentric bracing, dissipative

zones are meant to form in diagonals under tension in addition to avoiding

buckling or yielding of beams and columns and before the failure of the con-

nection. While compression bracings are designed to buckle.

6.5.1.1 X-shaped Vertical Bracing

Analysis is made as to assume that in case of gravity loading only the beams

and columns are present and in case of seismic loading only the diagonals in

tension are present as shown in the following figure. [11]

Figure 6.47 : Vertical Bracing System



In the design of the diagonal members as stated by EC8 the value of the

non-dimensional slenderness �̅� is limited to the value 1.3 ≤ �̅� ≤ 2.0

This limitation of 2.0 value is justified as for the first instance in the earth-

quake event the NEd,E will increase to the buckling strength Nb,Rd leaving the

compression diagonal (which is supposed not considered) with permanent

deformations which will in turn decrease the resistance of the member after

the first loading cycle.

However, as stated afterwards by the EC8 for structures up to two storeys,

no limitation for �̅� applies.

All members either than the diagonals should be designed to the capacity

design for seismic combination where

NRd(MEd) ≥ NEd,G + 1.1.ov..NEd,E

Where is the minimum value of axial overstrength in bracing bars and ov

is the material overstrength.

First of all we start to consider the Bracing member, the design force NEd

should not exceed the plastic axial capacity of the chosen section Npl,Rd.

Further more another check should be mentioned in case of tension bracing

members in which holes are drilled for connection purposes , failure re-

sistance of the net section Anet should be higher than the yield resistance of

the gross section A in order to assure ductile failure

𝐴𝑓𝑦

𝛾𝑀0≤

𝐴𝑛𝑒𝑡𝑓𝑢𝛾𝑀2

Figure 6.48 : Values of Design Normal Forces and Moment due to Seismic Loading in Y-direction

First storey – NEd,E and MEd,E values



The Choice for the bracing section was not a simple task as there were many

factors affecting choice. For example single angle members were excluded as

for tension member design, unsymmetrically connected members have a de-

creased failure resistance so that would decrease the value of Nu,Rd leading

to brittle failure due to member fracture.

Also double angles where excluded for the same reason as the suitable an-

gles gave high values of overstrength.

Section NEd Npl,Rd Nu,Rd Npl,Rd ≤ Nu,Rd

2L 80x80x8

227 kN

514.25 kN 518.89 kN

2L 70x70x7 447.15 kN 450.67 kN

2L 60x60x6 379.5 kN 381.729 kN

2L 50x50x5 264 kN 256 kN

Table 6.4 : Comparison between Npl,Rd and Nu,Rd for different L shaped sections with two

bolt holes of diameter 18mm

Therefore Square Hollow Sections where chosen SHS to avoid this confusion

as area gross is used instead of area net of the section

Section NEd Npl,Rd = Npl,Rd / NEd

SHS 50x5 227 kN 240.13 kN 1.05

By Checking the Loads due to gravity for Beams and Columns

NEd,G MEd,G NEd,E MEd,E

BEAM 0 75.6 kN.m 128 kN 45.2 kN.m

COLUMN 454.2 kN 33.6 kN.m 496 kN 14.2 kN.m

Figure 6.49 : Values of Design Normal Forces and Moments due to Gravity Loads–

First Storey NEd,G and MEd,G values



Beam Check Mezzanine Bay:

Section Npl,Rd NEd,G NEd,E NEd = NEd,G + 1.1.ov..NEd,E NRd/NEd

IPE 330 1721.5 kN 0 128 kN 184.8 kN 9.31

Column Check Mezzanine Bay:


IS 700/400 6578 kN 454.2 kN 496 kN 1170.3 kN 5.62

For the Other bays Force is smaller we need just to check for the Strut

(Beam): for bracing member SHS 50x5 with Npl,Rd = 240.13 KN

Section Npl,Rd NEd,G NEd,E . NEd = NEd,G + 1.1.ov..NEd,E NRd/NEd

SHS 100x5 515 kN 0 66 KN 1.16 105.27 kN 4.9

Section Mpl,Rd NEd MEd,G MEd,E MEd = MEd,G + 1.1.ov..MEd,E MRd/MEd

IPE 330 200.96 kN.m 184.8

kN

75.6

kN.m

45.2

kN.m

140.85 kN.m 1.42


IS 700/400 1770.68

kN.m

1170.3

kN

33.6 14.2 54.1 kN.m 32.7

Section Nb,Rd NEd MEd,G MEd,E MEd = MEd,G + 1.1.ov..MEd,E NRd/NEd

SHS 100x5 125.8 kN 105.27 kN 0 0 0 1.19

Figure 6.50 : Values of Design Normal Forces due to Seismic Loading in Y-direction First storey



It is obvious that the governing in the section choice is the buckling re-

sistance 125.8 kN > 105.27 kN

Second Storey:

Section NEd Npl,Rd = Npl,Rd / NEd

SHS 40x5 120 kN 185.13 kN 1.54

By Checking the Loads due to gravity for Beams and Columns

Figure 6.52 : Values of Design Normal Forces and Moments due to Gravity Loads– Second

Storey NEd,G and MEd,G values

Figure 6.51 : Values of Design Normal Forces and Moment due to Seismic Loading in Y-direction

First storey – NEd,E and MEd,E values




STRUT 0 0 27.6 kN 0

COLUMN 120 kN 187 kN.m 156 kN 76.5 kN.m

Strut Check:


SHS 80x5 405.075 kN 0 27.6 kN 58.44 kN 6.93

It is obvious that the governing in the section choice is the buckling re-

sistance 64.2 KN > 58.44 KN

Column Check:


IS 700/400 6578 kN 120 kN 156 kN 450.33 kN 14.6

6.6.1.2 Inverted V-shaped Vertical Bracing

Analysis is made as to assume that in case of gravity loading only the beams

and columns are present and in case of seismic loading both diagonals in ten-

sion and compression are present as shown in the following figure. [11]

The buckling of the diagonal in compression should be considered in the

safety checks

Section Nb,Rd NEd MEd,G MEd,E MEd = MEd,G + 1.1.ov..MEd,E NRd/NEd

SHS 80x5 64.2 kN 58.44 kN 0 0 0 1.1


IS 700/400

1770.68

kN.m

450.33

kN

187

kN.m

76.5

kN.m

348.98 kN.m 5.07



Section NEd Nb,Rd = Npl,Rd /

NEd

Compression SHS 50x5 40 kN 0.189 45.56 kN 1.13

Section NEd Npl,Rd = Npl,Rd /

NEd

Tension SHS 50x5 36.5 kN 240.13 kN 6.57

For symmetry Tension would be the same section as Compression SHS 50x5

(as for reversed direction of EQ).

Figure 6.53 : Values of Design Normal Forces and Moment due to Seismic Loading in Y-direction V bracing

– NEd,E and MEd,E values

Figure 6.54 : Values of Design Normal Forces and Moments due to Gravity Loads V bracing -

NEd,G and MEd,G values




STRUT 0 0 55.7 kN 0

COLUMN 82.3 kN 244 kN.m 33.6 kN 100 kN.m

Strut Check:


SHS 100x5 515 kN 0 55.7 KN 86.5 kN 5.95

Column Check:


IS 700/400 6578 kN 82.3 kN 33.6 kN 134.5 kN 48

Section Nb,Rd NEd MEd,G MEd,E MEd = MEd,G + 1.1.ov..MEd,E MRd/MEd

SHS 100x5 312 kN 86.5 kN 0 0 0 3.6


IS 700/400

1770.68

kN.m

134.5

kN

244

kN.m

100

kN.m

400 kN.m 4.43



6.6.2 Horizontal Bracing

Horizontal Bracing system is placed to resist lateral loads from wind or

crane and transfer them to vertical bracing which in turn transfer them to

the foundation.

During the Analysis phase a problem arose due to the very high value of lat-

eral sway which violated severely the serviceability limit states, many pro-

posals were implemented to the model as mentioned before in order to de-

crease this high sway value.

A powerful solution was adding a Horizontal bracing system in the Longitu-

dinal Direction along the length of the building 60 m fastening it eventually

to gable bracings on both start and end.

This system resulted in the drop of the sway value from nearly 60cm to

20cm.On the following figure appears the added bracing in red color Longi-

tudinal Horizontal Bracing.

Figure 6.55 : Horizontal Bracing System

Figure 6.56 : Longitudinal Horizontal Bracing System



Longitudinal Horizontal Bracing

Bay First and Last

Length of Member 8.99≈ 9 m

Design Force +136 kN

L80x80x8

Hand Calculations and Excel Checks are included below

Figure 6.57 : Maximum Design Normal Force for Horizontal Bracing from Comb1

Figure 6.58 : Maximum Design Normal Force for Longitudinal Horizontal Bracing from Comb1



Connection Longitudinal Horizontal Bracing

Gusset Plate 10mm

Bolts 2 M16 (8.8)

e 40mm

P1 80mm

Table 6.5 : Longitudinal Horizontal bracing design factors and internal forces



Horizontal Bracing

Bay All bays Except first and last

Length of Member 8.99≈ 9 m

Design Force +108 kN

L70x70x7

Connection Horizontal Bracing

Gusset Plate 10mm

Bolts 2 M16 (8.8)

e 40mm

P1 80mm

Table 6.6 : Horizontal bracing design factors and internal forces



6.6.3 Roof Struts

Roof struts are the vertical members in the bracing system. With the diago-

nal members they form what so called the truss system which resists wind

and lateral loads.

For Load Combination in X-direction (Wind or EQ in X-direction + Dead

Load) the struts are in Tension as shown

Figure 6.59 : Roof Struts in Bracing System

Figure 6.60 : Roof Struts Design Force in X-direction Load Combination



Side Struts 6667mm from Eave Combination Internal Force

Tension Comb1 186 kN

Compression Wind Y + DL -133 kN

Middle Strut Combination Internal Force

Tension Comb1 86 kN

Compression Wind Y + DL -31 kN

Length Nb,Rd Npl,Rd

SHS 100x8 6m -181.3 kN 790.6 kN

SHS 70x5 6m -42.34 kN 350 kN

Figure 6.61 : Roof Struts Design Force in Y-direction Load Combination

Figure 6.62 : Roof Struts cross-sections



6.6.4 Gable Bracing

The Gable bracing connects the added longitudinal horizontal bracing on

roof to the ground and acts as a restraint for lateral movements and sway.

Figure 6.63 : Gable Bracing Design Force in X-direction Load Combination



Upper Diagonal Comb1 195 kN

Lower Diagonal Comb1 223 kN

Horizontal Strut Comb1 -115 kN

Section Length Npl,Rd Nb,Rd NEd

Upper Diagonal SHS 50x5 10.16m 240.13 kN - 195 kN

Lower Diagonal SHS 50x5 9.02m 240.13 kN - 223 kN

Horizontal

Strut

SHS 100x8 6.67m 790.6 kN 137 kN -115 kN

Table 6.7 : Gable bracing cross-sections and design values

Figure 6.64 : Gable bracing and strut cross-sections



6.7 Purlins and Side Rails

Purlins and side rails are considered as secondary steel members acting as a

main support for the claddings and covering corrugated sheets spanning be-

tween rafters and columns respectively.

They act as transporters for the loads from cladding to the main frame also

may contribute indirectly in the transfer of lateral loads to the horizontal

bracing.

Both sections are designed as Cold Formed Sections according to the EN 1993

provisions.

Wind load is considered to be the most severe action in this project so for de-

signing the purlins in normal buildings it is always the dead and live load

combination which produces the highest straining actions. On contrary in

this building due to high wind loads, the critical design case for the purlin

outcomes from dead and wind loads combination.

This requires certain measures or precautions to be applied where in most

of the normal cases for designing the purlin member, lateral torsional buck-

ling is neglected by assuming the compression flange is the upper flange

which is fully restrained by the presence of cladding.

Design Loads:

-Own weight of purlin = 6.38kg/m

-Weight of cladding = 0.177 kN/m2

-Weight of electromechanical installations = 0.15 kN/m2

-Live load on roof (Not considered in combination) = 0.4 kN/m2

-Wind load suction

As discussed in the wind load chapter there were many cases for wind with

different signs and magnitudes



But the highest value of suction on roof came from case 1 of wind in direction

0

As shown in the next figure the area where the coefficient Ce is higher should

be taken into consideration

Purlins are spaced every 1.63m so for a conservative design Ce would be taken

as -1.2 for designing the first two purlins from the left and the rest of the

purlins would have smaller sections.

To avoid difference in heights in the purlin sections between the first two and

the others, it was decided that the outer purlins would be double the section

in the middle but as a back to back orientation. A C-lipped channel was cho-

sen from table of section properties as follows. [12]



Wind Load for the edge purlins = −1.2 × 2.826 = −3.39𝐾𝑁/𝑚2

Wind Load for the middle purlins = −0.6 × 2.826 = −1.69𝐾𝑁/𝑚2

Dead + Wind Combination edge=

1.35 × (0.0638 + 0.117 + 0.15) × 1.63 + 1.5 × (−3.39 × 1.63) = −7.56𝐾𝑁

𝑚

Dead + Wind Combination middle=

1.35 × (0.0638 + 0.117 + 0.15) × 1.63 + 1.5 × (−1.69 × 1.63) = −3.4𝐾𝑁

𝑚

Chosen section for checks C-lipped channel 250x70x20x2

For the lateral torsional buckling checks anti-sag rods were used to decrease

the unsupported length and to provide restraint under uplift conditions also

anti-sag rods are powerful during the construction process before the instal-

lation of cladding.

Figure 6.65 : Anti-sag rods orientation, Coutresy of Steel Construction Institute [24]



6.8 Sheetings



7 Connections

7.1 End Plate Connection

An end plate connection transfers moment by coupling tension in bolts with

compression at the opposite flange. The two forces are equal and opposite

unless there is an axial force present.

The force permitted in any bolt row is based on its potential resistance, and

not just its lever arm. Bolts extract more force if they are present near a

point of stiffness such as a beam flange or a stiffener.

1-Tension Zone:

The Resistance of a row of bolts in tension zone is mainly related to column

flange bending and bolt strength, end plate bending and bolt strength, column

web tension and beam web tension.

Figure 7.1 : Required Moment Connection checks,Courtsey of Steel Construction Institute [29]

Figure 7.2 : Equivalent T-stubs failure modes [29]



EC3 converts the complex yield lines around the bolt into an equivalent t-

Stub and then 3 modes of failure are checked for this t-Stub model.

Prying force in the end plate connection “Q” varied according to the connec-

tion’s geometry from 0% to 40% of the tension in the bolt.

Design method assumes it is present and has a value of 20% to 30% of the

bolt’s capacity.

The distribution of bolts’ capacity is checked as shown in the following fig-

ure following this sequence.

Potential resistance of each row is calculated and the capacity of each row or

a group of rows is taken as the least of the following values Column flange

bending/bolt yielding, End plate bending/bolt yielding, Column web tension

or beam web tension.

A- End plate or Column Flange Bending / Bolt Yielding:

The least Pr of the three upper modes is chosen

Figure 7.3 : Distribution of bolt forces [29]

Figure 7.4 : Modes of Failure [29]



B- Web in Tension in Beam or Column:

This check is carried out for the beam and the column separately

Figure 7.5 : Web in tension for column and beam [29]



Figure 7.6 : L effective for equivalent T-stub for bolts acting alone [29]



2-Compression Zone:

Column’s web should be checked for buckling and it may be strengthened.

Compression is regarded as being carried entirely in the flange and the center

of compression is taken as the center of the flange. But in case of large mo-

ments combined with axial force the compression zone spread to the beam

web accompanied by a rise in the center of compression.

3-Shear Zone:

Column’s web must resist the horizontal panel shear force so it should be con-

sidered whether the connection is one sided or two sided connection.

In case of one sided connection with no axial force the web shear panel Fv is

equal to the moment compression force “C”. For a two sided connection with

balanced moments the web shear panel is equal to zero. In case of moment

acting in the same manner as wind the shear is equal to the addition of “C”

and “T”. In one sided connection web shear is likely to govern.

Figure 7.7 : Web Shear Panel [29]



Wind Moment Connection

As declared in the analysis section that the critical internal forces for the

frame is a result if wind loading mainly in X-direction. Consequently certain

regulations should be followed throughout the design and detailing of the

wind moment connection.

Wind moments may act in either directions so the connection is for that rea-

son symmetric, i.e. the upper half of the connection mirrors the lower half.

7.1.1 Beam to Column Moment Connection

Figure 7.8 : Types of Stiffeners [29]



7.1.2 Main and Secondary Mezzanine Beams

Connection

Shear VEd 100 kN

Plate Dimensions Partial depth plate 200x200x10

Bolts 4 M20 (8.8)

Figure 7.9 : Shear Design Value For The Secondary Mezzanine Beam to Main Mezzanine Beam Connection



7.1.3 Main Beam with Frame Column Connection

Figure 7.10 : Shear Design Value For The Main Mezzanine Beam to Column Frame Connection



Shear VEd 217 kN

Plate Dimensions 350x200x10

Bolts 6 M20 (8.8)

An important check is required to be made to make sure the previous con-

nection could resist an extra shear force applied from the transfer of lateral

seismic force from the plane of concrete slab then to the plane of the connec-

tion finally to the vertical bracing.

Figure 7.11 : Check of extra shear in horizontal direction for the main beam to main frame connection



7.1.4 Main Beam with Mezzanine Column

Connection

Figure 7.12 : Moment Design Value For The Main Mezzanine Beam to Mezzanine Column Connection

Figure 7.13 : Axial Force Design Value For The Main Mezzanine Beam to Mezzanine Column

Connection



Moment 555 kN.m

Shear 582 kN

Normal +90 kN

While designing this connection as will be shown down through the steps a

problem arose which was the high value of moment and the cross section can-

not give the required resistance in terms of (LEVER ARM) so it was decided

to add a haunch. The haunch depth was calculated so as to give the required

moment of resistance.

Figure 7.14 : Shear Force Design Value For The Main Mezzanine Beam to Mezzanine Column

Connection

Figure 7.15 : The Difference between the haunched and the free-of-haunch connections



7.1.5 Secondary Beam with Frame Column

Connection

Shear VEd 71 kN

Plate Dimensions 200x200x10

Bolts 4 M20 (8.8)

Figure 7.16 : Shear Design Value For The Secondary Mezzanine Beam to Column Frame Connection



7.2 Concentric Bracing Capacity-Designed

Connections

In case of Concentric bracing system acting as the seismic resistant struc-

ture in Y-direction, Diagonals are meant to be the dissipative elements,

other elements including connections should be designed to the capacity de-

sign.

The design resistance of a full strength connection should follow the rule

stated by EC8

𝑅𝑑 ≥ 1.1𝛾𝑜𝑣𝑅𝑓𝑦

Where 𝛾𝑜𝑣 is material overstrength taken as 1.25 and 𝑅𝑓𝑦 is the plastic re-

sistance of the connected dissipative member based on the yield strength

which is in this project 275 N/mm2.

This rules applies for non-dissipative connection where bolts or fillet welds

are used but when full penetration butt welds are used then the capacity de-

sign criteria is achieved automatically.

Some research work was done to test the availability of designing dissipa-

tive connections assuring the adequacy of ductility and resistance for cyclic

loadings which act as the dissipative zones instead of the bracing members.

This topic is further discussed in APPENDIX.

Forces required for the design of the connection are previously mentioned in

Section 6.5.1.

As shown in the next figure these are the required connections to be de-

signed using the capacity design provisions as stated by EC8

Figure 6.12 : Capcity Design Connections in Vertical Bracing



As a side note the thickness of the gusset plate must be sufficient to resist

both the expected tesnile strength as well as buckling when subjected to the

expected brace compression strength. Apparently, this may lead to thick

gusset plates.



8 Bases

8.1 Fixed Base

Column Base connection is considered an end plate connection but with some

special features. Axial force on column base is likely to be more important

here.

On the Compression side force is distributed over an area of steel-to-concrete

contact which is determined by stress if the concrete. While on the tension

side force is transmitted by holding down bolts which are anchored to the

concrete structure.

This connection is meant to Normal force and Moment as well as Base

Shear (Horizontal Force).

Main Checks:

1- Compression Stress Block

The stress block depends mainly on three factors. The compressive strength

of used concrete (grade), the compressive strength of the bedding material

(grout, mortar or fine concrete) and the labor quality.

Figure 8.1 : Fixed base forces distribution [29]



As a note, using bedding material of high strength requires high quality

control by the site to ensure material is free of voids and air bubbles.

2- Tension in Bolts

The stress block depends mainly on three factors. The compressive strength

of used concrete (grade), the compressive strength of the bedding material

(grout, mortar or fine concrete) and the labor quality.

Table 8.1 : Strength of bedding material and Concrete BS 5328 [29]

Table 8.2 : Strength of bedding material and Concrete BS 5328 [29]



8.2 Hinged Base

The Design procedure of hinged bases in BS EN 1993-1-8 pursues a method

of area calculation which is the effective area method. This method deals

with bases subjected to axial compression.

The effective area represents the area where the bearing pressure is uni-

form leaving behind the plate acting as a simple cantilever around the pe-

rimeter of the column’s cross-section by length equal to the constant width c.

This area could be defined easily as the constant width c on both sides of the

2 flanges and the web as well as shown in the upper figure. This constant

width c defines the required minimum dimension for the base pressure not

to exceed the bearing pressure.

In case of higher loads the c could increase so that there exists an overlap

between strips of column flanges. This happens if c > (h-2tf)/2. As a result

the effective area is recalculated using the expression in the upper figure

(iii).

Design Procedures:

1-Get Area Required Areq = NEd/fjd

fjd = j cd

Where j

sion of compression force within foundation.

Figure 8.2 : Calculated Effective Area for column sections [19]



y assumed as 1.5 which means that the foundation would

nearly have a depth minimum of 1.5*larger base plate dimension and all di-

mensions are 25% larger.so fjd = fcd

fcd = 0.6fcu (NA UK)

2- Areq <= Aeff

Aeff = 4c2 + Pcol.c + Acol

3- Plate Thickness

𝑡𝑝,𝑚𝑖𝑛2 = 𝑐.√

3.𝑓𝑗𝑑.𝛾𝑀0

𝑓𝑝𝑦

4- Weld for Shear

VEd <= FwRd.Lw,eff

FwRd = fvw,d.a

fvw,d = 𝑓𝑢/√3

𝑤.𝛾𝑀2 fu = 410N/mm2 for S275

w : correlation factor by EN1993 for S275 = 0.85

γM2 : Partial factor 1.25

Hinged Bases Section NEd VEd Base Plate Bolts Weld

1 Main Frame Col. Start and End Frame

IS

700/400

333 kN 34.2kN 750x450x20 4 M20 (4.6) 8mm

2 End Wall Gable Col. HEB 400 500 kN 151 kN 450x350x20 4 M20 (4.6) 8mm

3 Start Wall Gable Col. HEB 360 222 kN 190 kN 400x350x20 4 M20 (4.6) 8mm

4 Mezzanine Col. HEB 280 910 kN 38 kN 350x350x20 4 M20 (4.6) 8mm

Table 8.3 : Hinged bases design forces and plate dimensions

Figure 8.4 : Length of Weld Lw [19]

Figure 8.3 : Cantilever length for thickness calculation [19]



9 Summary and Conclusion

Design process is an iterative process where everything is first assumed and

then checked to give a proof either for being feasible or not. In this thesis

many design problems were summed up together. The required building for

the design experienced high loads on account of being located in a coastal area

(Nuweiba) in the vicinity of Sinai, Egypt being categorized as a severe zone

for seismic and wind loadings.

Some great changes may have occurred if the wind load was not governing

over the seismic load in X-direction where the building would have been de-

signed as being a seismic resistant structure in X-direction which would have

led up to designing the Moment Resisting Frames to follow seismic provisions.

The height of the building (14 meters) which is not a typical height for such

industrial structures in most of the cases, played a role in design require-

ments for sway and serviceability limits.

In addition to the mezzanine area which was challenging in more than a way.

First of being loaded with enormous storage load which augmented the effect

of seismic loads and second of being a tricky reason for deciding on the build-

ing’s definition either a one-storey or two-storey building.

Moreover the presence of the crane which also required attention concerning

loading cases for the global frame as well as the local supporting structure

The added longitudinal bracing to decrease the sway as well as sections en-

largements and clamping the bases appeared to be powerful solutions for the

problem each with a well-known impact value which is really very beneficial

in next design projects as it would give the designer the sense from the begin-

ning which solution would be the best. That’s one of the aids of getting in-

volved into more problems which would pay off at the end with the experience

the designer would gain.

More concern was given in this thesis for the design and drawn details as

being a student it is great to get to know how things are done in real life out

of the theoretical studies among the whole curriculum path.



List of Figures

Figure 1.1 : Principal building components, Courtsey of Steel Construction

Institute – TATA STEEL [29] .................................................................. 6

Figure 2.1 : Location of Nuweiba on Google Maps ........................................ 10

Figure 2.2 : Structural model of the building by RSTAB .............................. 11

Figure 2.3 : Roof bracing plan view with longitudinal horizontal bracing in

the two sides ........................................................................................... 12

Figure 3.1 : Wall sandwitch panel SP2D E-PIR profile [1] ........................... 13

Figure 3.2 : Wall sandwitch panel SP2C E-PIR specifications [1] ............... 14

Figure 3.3 : Concrete Slab on Mezzaine Floor , Courtsey of Muskan Group

[30] .......................................................................................................... 15

Figure 3.4 : ComFlor Compsote floor decks [2] .............................................. 15

Figure 3.5 : Paper rolls in Toronto Star Press Center [20] ........................... 18

Figure 3.6: Building Plan (D,E vertical walls) [3] ......................................... 21

Figure 3.8 : Seismic Zonation Map of Egypt according to Egyptian Code of

Practice [18] ............................................................................................ 28

Figure 3.9 : Free Vibration of MDOF [33] ..................................................... 29

Figure 3.10 : Idealized Load-Deformation curve [19] .................................... 30

Figure 3.11: Strength and Ductility Relation in Seismic Design [19] ......... 31

Figure 3.12 : Moment Resisting Frames [19] ................................................ 33

Figure 3.13 : Inelastic Behavior of MRF [19] ................................................ 33

Figure 3.14 : Comparison between P-delta effect with different plastic

hinges locations [21] ............................................................................... 34

Figure 3.15 : Types of CBF [19] ...................................................................... 35

Figure 3.16 : Inelastic Action for CBF [19] .................................................... 35

Figure 3.17 : Bracing post Kobe Earthquake Events in Japan 1995 [19] .... 36

Figure 3.18 : Rotation of CBF connection- Kobe Earthquake Events in Japan

1995 [19] ................................................................................................. 36

Figure 3.19 : Shape of Elastic Resopnse Spectrum [34] ................................ 39

Figure 3.20 : Overhead traveling crane produced by Engelbrecht Lifting [15]

................................................................................................................. 41

Figure 3.21 : ABUS single girder overhead travelling crane [5] .................. 41

Figure 3.22 : Load arrangement of loaded crane to obtain the maximum

loading on the runway beam [7] ........................................................... 43

Figure 3.23 : Load arrangement of unloaded crane to obtain the minimum

loading on the runway beam [7] ........................................................... 43

Figure 3.24 : ABUS single girder overhead travelling crane side view [5] .. 44



Figure 3.25 : Horizontal forces cause by crane acceleration/deceleration [7]

................................................................................................................. 44

Figure 3.26 : Defintion of horizonal transverse forces HT,i [7] ..................... 45

Figure 3.27 : Defintion of horizonal transverse forces due to crab movement

................................................................................................................. 45

Figure 3.28 : Skewing forces where guidance by means of wheel flanges [7]

................................................................................................................. 46

Figure 3.29 : Rubber buffer ............................................................................ 47

Figure 3.30 : Describtion of buffer force and its way to bracing [16] ............ 48

Figure 3.31 : Technical description for single girder traveling crane by

ABUS [6] ................................................................................................. 49

Figure 3.32 : Technical description for single girder traveling crane by

ABUS plan view [6] ................................................................................ 50

Figure 3.33 : Crane Horizontal forces due to Load Groups 1 and 5 ............ 51

Figure 3.34 : Maximum Internal forces for two bay girder [8] ..................... 53

Figure 3.35 : Sway Imperfection Parameters [13] ......................................... 57

Figure 3.36 : Equivalent Sway Imperfection [13] .......................................... 58

Figure 3.38 : Equivalent loads for bracing imperfections [13] ...................... 59

Figure 3.37 : Bracing Imperfections calculation [13] .................................... 59

Figure 3.39 : Systems of equivalent horizontal forces intoduced for columns

due to imperfections [13] ........................................................................ 60

Figure 5.3 : Gable Frame and Gable bracing ................................................ 69

Figure 5.2 : Mezzanine Interior columns and beams .................................... 69

Figure 5.1 : Vertical Bracing in the building ................................................. 69

Figure 5.4 : Horizontal roof bracing ............................................................... 70

Figure 5.5 : Cladding Load ............................................................................. 70

Figure 5.7 : One of Crane Load cases on main frame ................................... 71

Figure 5.6 : Electromechanical Installations Load ....................................... 71

Figure 5.9 : Dead and Live Loads on mezzanine respictively ....................... 72

Figure 5.8 : Wind Load case one where area divisions are shown ............... 72

Figure 5.10 : Modal Masses manual definition in RSTAB ............................ 75

Figure 5.12 : Mode 4 natural vibration shape ............................................... 78

Figure 5.14 : Equivalent Loads in X-direction due to seismic effect with

Mode 4 of vibration ................................................................................. 82

Figure 5.15 : Acceleration Response Spectrum for Mode 3 with T=0.5sec in

Y-direction .............................................................................................. 82

Figure 5.16 : Points of application of equivalent seismic forces in Y-direction

................................................................................................................. 83

Figure 5.18 : Earthquake X load combination (EQ-X) .................................. 84

Figure 5.19 : Earthquake Y load combination (EQ-Y) .................................. 84

Figure 6.1 : Model at the early beginning of the analysis process ................ 85



Figure 6.2 : Moment about Y-axis for Comb1 combination........................... 86

Figure 6.3 : Maximum Lateral displacement in case Comb1 at the begining

................................................................................................................. 86

Figure 6.4 : Assumed Column Section for main frame ................................. 87

Figure 6.5 : Decreased value of displacement after column’s section enlarge-

ment ........................................................................................................ 87

Figure 6.5 : Decreased value of displacement after rafter’s section enlarge-

ment ........................................................................................................ 87

Figure 6.8 : Decreased value of displacement after addition of bracing sys-

tem .......................................................................................................... 88

Figure 6.7 : Added Gable bracing at start and end of the building .............. 88

Figure 6.6 : Added Longitudinal Horizontal bracing .................................... 88

Figure 6.9 : Fixing main frame basec ............................................................ 89

Figure 6.10 : Final Lateral sway value after model modifications ............... 89

Figure 6.12 : Rafter Knee bracing in the building from AutoCAD details ... 91

Figure 6.13 : Frame Columns My Envelope ................................................... 92

Figure 6.15 : Frame Columns Normal N values ............................................ 93

Figure 6.14 : Frame Columns Shear Vz values .............................................. 93

Figure 6.17 : Frame Rafters My Envelope ................................................... 103

Figure 6.18 : Gable Rafters My Envelope ..................................................... 103

Figure 6.19 : Main Rafters Shear and Normal Envelope ............................ 104

Figure 6.20 : Gable Rafters Shear and Normal Envelope ........................... 104

Figure 6.22 : End Wall Gable ....................................................................... 115

Figure 6.21 : Start Wall Gable ..................................................................... 115

Figure 6.23 : Columns‘ different orientations .............................................. 116

Figure 6.23 : Maximum Suction and Pressure Moments for Gable Column

............................................................................................................... 117

Figure 6.24 : Difference in Normal Force between Start gable column and

End gable Column ................................................................................ 117

Figure 6.25 : Difference in Shear Force between Start gable column and End

gable Column ........................................................................................ 118

Figure 6.26 : Screenshot of Excel sheet for calculation of the End Column

HEB400 Checks .................................................................................... 119

Figure 6.27 : Final Cross-Sections for End gable columns ......................... 119

Figure 6.27 : Beam Model for the two bay crane girder .............................. 121

Figure 6.28 : Influence Line Chart for a two bay continuous beam by Seeel-

berg [8] .................................................................................................. 122

Figure 6.32 : Moment My and Shear Vz on Mezzanine Columns from Combi-

nation 1 (Comb1) .................................................................................. 138

Figure 6.31 : Normal Force on Mezzanine Columns from (DL+LL) combina-

tion ........................................................................................................ 138



Figure 6.33 : Screenshot of Excel sheet for calculation of the Mezzanine Col-

umn HEB280 Checks ........................................................................... 139

Figure 6.34 : Mezzanine main and secondary beams .................................. 140

Figure 6.36 : Deflection value in Z-direction for secondary beam of section

IPE 330 ................................................................................................. 141

Figure 6.35 : Deflection value in Z-direction for secondary beam of section

IPE 300 ................................................................................................. 141

Figure 6.38 : Normal Force for Secondary Beams from (EQ Y direction) .. 142

Figure 6.37 : Moment and Shear for Secondary Beams from (DL+LL) combi-

nation .................................................................................................... 142

Figure 6.39 : Secondary Beam Cross Section showing Shear Stud [25] ..... 143

Figure 6.40 : Screenshot of Excel sheet for calculation of the Mezzanine Sec-

ondary Beam IPE330 Checks .............................................................. 144

Figure 6.41 : Deflection value in Z-direction for Main mezzanine beam of

section IPE 500 ..................................................................................... 145

Figure 6.42 : Normal Force for Main mezzanine beams from Comb1 (Mainly

Wind in X-direction) ............................................................................. 145

Figure 6.44 : Moment and Shear for Main Beams from (DL+LL) combination

............................................................................................................... 146

Figure 6.43 : Tension Normal Force for Main Beams from (DL + LL) ....... 146

Figure 6.44 : Unsupported Length of Compression Flange in Main mezza-

nine beam .............................................................................................. 147

Figure 6.45 : Design Checks for Main mezzanine beam using Excel Sheets

for Section IPE 500 ............................................................................... 147

Figure 6.46 : Design Checks for Main mezzanine beam using Excel Sheets

for Section IPE 500 ............................................................................... 148

Figure 6.47 : Vertical Bracing System ......................................................... 149

Figure 6.48 : Values of Design Normal Forces and Moment due to Seismic

Loading in Y-direction First storey – NEd,E and MEd,E values ............ 150

Figure 6.49 : Values of Design Normal Forces and Moments due to Gravity

Loads– First Storey NEd,G and MEd,G values ....................................... 151

Figure 6.50 : Values of Design Normal Forces due to Seismic Loading in Y-

direction First storey ............................................................................ 152


Loading in Y-direction First storey – NEd,E and MEd,E values ............ 153


Loads– Second Storey NEd,G and MEd,G values ..................................... 153


Loads V bracing - NEd,G and MEd,G values ............................................ 155


Loading in Y-direction V bracing – NEd,E and MEd,E values ................ 155



Figure 6.55 : Horizontal Bracing System ..................................................... 157

Figure 6.56 : Longitudinal Horizontal Bracing System .............................. 157

Figure 6.57 : Maximum Design Normal Force for Horizontal Bracing from

Comb1 ................................................................................................... 158

Figure 6.58 : Maximum Design Normal Force for Longitudinal Horizontal

Bracing from Comb1 ............................................................................. 158

Figure 6.59 : Roof Struts in Bracing System ............................................... 162

Figure 6.60 : Roof Struts Design Force in X-direction Load Combination . 162

Figure 6.61 : Roof Struts Design Force in Y-direction Load Combination . 163

Figure 6.62 : Roof Struts cross-sections ....................................................... 163

Figure 6.63 : Gable Bracing Design Force in X-direction Load Combination

............................................................................................................... 164

Figure 6.64 : Gable bracing and strut cross-sections .................................. 165

Figure 7.1 : Required Moment Connection checks,Courtsey of Steel Con-

struction Institute [23] ........................................................................ 174

Figure 7.2 : Equivalent T-stubs failure modes [23] ..................................... 174

Figure 7.3 : Distribution of bolt forces [23] .................................................. 175

Figure 7.4 : Modes of Failure [23] ................................................................ 175

Figure 7.5 : Web in tension for column and beam [23] ................................ 176

Figure 7.6 : L effective for equivalent T-stub for bolts acting alone [23].... 177

Figure 7.7 : Web Shear Panel [23] ............................................................... 178

Figure 7.8 : Types of Stiffeners [23] ............................................................. 179

Figure 7.9 : Shear Design Value For The Secondary Mezzanine Beam to

Main Mezzanine Beam Connection ..................................................... 188

Figure 7.10 : Shear Design Value For The Main Mezzanine Beam to Col-

umn Frame Connection ........................................................................ 193

Figure 7.11 : Check of extra shear in horizontal direction for the main beam

to main frame connection ..................................................................... 194

Figure 7.13 : Axial Force Design Value For The Main Mezzanine Beam to

Mezzanine Column Connection ........................................................... 197

Figure 7.12 : Moment Design Value For The Main Mezzanine Beam to Mez-

zanine Column Connection .................................................................. 197

Figure 7.14 : Shear Force Design Value For The Main Mezzanine Beam to

Mezzanine Column Connection ........................................................... 198

Figure 7.15 : The Difference between the haunched and the free-of-haunch

connections............................................................................................ 198

Figure 7.16 : Shear Design Value For The Secondary Mezzanine Beam to

Column Frame Connection .................................................................. 204

Figure 8.1 : Fixed base forces distribution [23] ........................................... 213

Figure 8.2 : Calculated Effective Area for column sections [24] ................ 220

Figure 8.3 : Cantilever length for thickness calculation [24] ..................... 221



List of Tables

Table 3.1 : Wall sandwitch panel SP2D E-PIR specifications [1] ................. 14

Table 3.2 : Wall sandwitch panel SP2C E-PIR specifications [1] ................. 14

Table 3.3 : ComFlor Composite floor decks design tables [2] ........................ 16

Table 3.5 : Imposed loads on H category roof EN1991-1-1 [32] .................... 17

Table 3.4 : Categorization of roofs according to EN1991-1-1 [32] ................. 17

Table 3.6 : EN 1991-1-1 Category E loads [32] .............................................. 18

Table 3.8 : Design concepts, structural ductility classes and upper limit ref-

erence values of the behaviour factors [34] ........................................... 32

Table 3.8 : Ground Types EN 1998-1 [34] ...................................................... 37

Table 3.9 : Values of the parameters describing the recommended Type 1

elastic response spectra [34] .................................................................. 37

Table 3.10 : Values of the parameters describing the recommended Type 2

elastic response spectra [34] .................................................................. 38

Table 3.11 : Importance classes for buildings [34] ........................................ 38

E,i [34] ................................................ 40

Table 3.13 : Values for combination coefficients for variable actions accom-

panying seismic action ........................................................................... 40

i as given by EN 1991-3 [7] .......................... 42

Table 3.16 : Auxiliary values for calculation of two bay crane girder [8] ..... 53

Table 3.17 : Auxiliary values for Minimum Field Moments MF for two bay

girder [8] ................................................................................................. 54

Table 3.18 : Crane Reactions on the main frame .......................................... 56

62

Table 4.1: Recommended values of γ factors for cranes [7] ........................... 62

Table 4.2: Recommended values of ψ factors for cranes [7] .......................... 62

Table 4.3: Recommended values of ψ factors for buildings [10] ................... 63

Table 4.4: Application of Combination factors [17] ....................................... 63

Table 4.5 : Combination factors for the loads on the building ...................... 64

Table 5.1 : Modal Masses values for dynamic analysis ................................. 75

Table 5.1 : Mode 4 effective modal mass factors............................................ 78

Table 5.2 : Mode 3 effective modal mass factors............................................ 80

Table 5.3 : Seismic mass to be included in the equivalent force caclulations

................................................................................................................. 81

Table 6.1 : Design values for End gable columns ........................................ 118

Table 6.2 : Mezzanine Column design factors and internal forces ............. 139



Table 6.3 : Design factors and internal forces for Secondary mezzanine beam

............................................................................................................... 143

Table 6.4 : Comparison between Npl,Rd and Nu,Rd for different L shaped

sections with two bolt holes of diameter 18mm .................................. 151

Table 6.5 : Longitudinal Horizontal bracing design factors and internal

forces ..................................................................................................... 159

Table 6.6 : Horizontal bracing design factors and internal forces .............. 160

161

Table 6.7 : Gable bracing cross-sections and design values ........................ 165

Table 8.1 : Strength of bedding material and Concrete BS 5328 [23] ........ 214

Table 8.2 : Strength of bedding material and Concrete BS 5328 [23] ........ 214



Bibliography

[1] RUUKKI, "RUUKKI Sandwitch Panels," [Online]. Available:

http://www1.ruukki.com/~/media/Files/Building-solutions-

brochures/Ruukki-Sandwich-panels-for-walls-and-roofs.PDF.

[Accessed 09 03 2016].

[2] ComFlor Group, "ComFlor Composite Floor Decks," 2010.

[3] EN 1991-1-4, Actions on structures : Wind actions on buildings,

2003.

[4] A. Osman, "The Aqaba Earthquake of November 22, 1995,"

EERI .

[5] "ABUS crane systems," [Online]. Available:

http://www.abuscranes.co.uk/.

[6] "ABUS technical description for single girder travelling crane,"

2003.

[7] E. 1991-3, Actions induced by cranes and machinery, 2006.

[8] C. Seeßelberg, Kranbahnen Bemessung un Konstruktive

Gestaltung nach Eurocode, 2014.

[9] T. N.S., The Behaviour and Design of Steel Structures to EC3,

2007.

[10] EN 1990, Eurocode Basis of structural design, 2001.

[11] ArcelorMittal, "Earthquake Resistant Steel Structures".

[12] M. M. ELKorashy, "Steel Section Tables".

[13] EN 1993-1-1, 5.3 Imperfections, 2003.

[14] Engelbrecht Lifting, "eLift," Engelbrecht Lifting, [Online].

Available: http://www.elift.co.za/.



[15] P. Kit, "Hydraulic Bumpers for the Protection of

buildings,cranes and operators from impact damage," 1996.

[16] N. AlEsnawy, "Lecture Notes : Earthquake Resistant

Structures",2014.

[17] M. Engelhardt, "Design of Seismic Resistant Steel Buildings

Structures," AISC, 2007.

[18] "Toronta Star Press Center", Technical Brochure, 2010.

[19] "Simple Joints To Eurocode 3," Steel Construction Institute -

TATA STEEL, 2012.

[20] D. M. Koschmidder, "Elastic Design of Single Span Steel Portal

Frame Buildings To Eurocode 3".

[21] EN 1991-1-1, Actions on Structures - General Actions -

Densities,self weight,imposed loadsfor buildings, 2001.

[22] EN 1998-1, Design of Structures for Earthquake Resistance,

2003.

[23] L. S. d. Silva, Design of Steel Structures Eurocode 3, 2010.

[24] A. S. MALIK, "Design of Single Span Steel Portal Frames to BS

5950-1 2000," Berkshire, Steel Construction Institute, undated.

[25] "Earthquake Resistant Structures," ArcelorMittal, undated.

[26] EN DIN 1991-1-1, National Annex, 2010.

[27] EN 1991-1-1, 2001.

[28] NORSAR, "Response Spectrum Analysis," Norway.

[29] The Steel Construction Institute, "Moment Connections," 1996.

[30] Concise Eurocode, Loadings on structure, 2010.

[31] ECP 201, Egyptian Code of Practice for Loads and Forces

Calculation, 2012.

[32] Muskan Group , "Mezzanine Floor Office", Technical Brochure.

[33] bauforumstahl, "Detailed Design For Portal Frames," 2010.



[34] Purdue University , "Lecture Notes : Shear Connectors,"

undated.

[35] D.Dubina , "Cold-formed Steel Design, Eurocodes Background

and Applications", Brussels, Belgium, 2014



APPENDIX A

AutoCAD Drawings

Karlsruher Institut für Technologie

BASE 6

F F

SEC F-F

BASE 1

BASE 2

BASE 3

BASE 4

BASE 5

A

C

C

D

D

A

EE

BB

SEC A-ASEC B-B

SEC C-C SEC D-D

SEC E-E


DEAD LOAD : Concrete Slab = 3.25 KN/m

2

Own wt. of Floor Beams = 1.49 KN/m

2

4.74 KN/m

2

LIVE LOAD : 10 KN/m

2

Karlsruher Institut für Technologie Karlsruher Institut für Technologie

Karlsruher Institut für Technologie Karlsruher Institut für Technologie Karlsruher Institut für Technologie


SEC Y-Y

BASE 6


Karlsruher Institut für Technologie Karlsruher Institut für Technologie Karlsruher Institut für Technologie

bachelor thesis - ahmad sherif kamal hassan

Documents