Modelling, loading, analysis, and design of reinforced concrete raker beam for a stadium frame using Eurocode 2.

© All Rights Reserved

1.7K views

Modelling, loading, analysis, and design of reinforced concrete raker beam for a stadium frame using Eurocode 2.

© All Rights Reserved

- Helical Stair - Calculation
- Design of Continuous Beam and Slab Footing using BS 8110-1:1997
- Stadium Roofs
- Helicoid Stairs
- Concrete Helical Stair Design
- Integral Bridge Midas Seminar
- Stadium Planning and Construction.
- Analysis Detailing and Construction of a Free Standing Staircase
- Analysis&Design of Truss for Indoor stadium
- Technical Report for A structural Design Project
- Raker-Beam Construction Requires Rugged Steel Forms_tcm45-343123
- Staircase Design to BS 8110-1:1997
- stadium seating
- Typical Details of Connections
- 2) Frame Analysis
- HelicalStairs Reinforcement
- Examples Design Reinforced Concrete Buildings Bs8110 PDF
- 49ers 20090714 Stadium Design Presentation
- Unit 15 ( DESIGN OF FOUNDATIONS )
- Staircases Structural Analysis and Design

You are on page 1of 13

Beam for Stadium Using Eurocode 2

Ubani Obinna Uzodimma

Works/Engineering Services Department

Ritman University, PMB 1321, Ikot Ekpene, Akwa Ibom State

rankiesubani@gmail.com

Abstract

A continuous intermediate raker beam in the first tier of a football stadium was analysed using elastic

method and designed using Eurocode 2. The raker beam was analysed for permanent and variable

actions due to crowd load and permanent loads only. Due to its inclination, it was subjected to

significant bending, axial, and shear forces. However, design results show that the effect of axial

force was not very significant in the quantity of shear reinforcement required. Asv/Sv ratio of 1.175

(3Y10mm @ 200 c/c) was found to satisfy shear requirements. The greatest quantity of longitudinal

reinforcement was provided at the intermediate support with a reinforcement ratio of 1.3404%. The

provided reinforcement was found adequate to satisfy ultimate and serviceability requirements.

1.0 Introduction

The most common construction concept of sports stadiums today is a composite type where usually precast

concrete terrace units (seating decks) span between inclined (raker) steel or reinforced concrete beams and rest

on each other, thereby forming a grandstand (Karadelis, 2012). The raker beams are usually formed in-situ with

the columns of the structure, or sometimes may be preferably precast depending on site/construction constraints.

This arrangement usually forms the skeletal frame of a stadium structure.

In this paper, a raker beam isolated from a double tiered reinforced concrete grandstand that wraps around a

football pitch has been presented for the purpose of structural analysis and design. A repetitive pattern has been

adopted in the design which utilizes a construction joint of 25mm gap between different frame units. By

estimate, each frame unit is expected to carry a maximum of 3600 spectators, under full working conditions.

With ten different frames units, the stadium capacity is about 35000 after all other reservations have been taken

into account. Each grandstand frame has precast L-shaped seating terrace units that span in between reinforced

concrete raker beams inclined at angles between 20 - 22 with the horizontal. Crowd load and other loads are

transferred from the seating units to the raker beams, which then transfers them to the columns and then to the

foundations. Load from the service areas and concourse areas are also transferred using the same method.

Figure 1.1: 3D skeletal structure of each grandstand frame units (slabs and sitting areas removed)

The three dimensional view of the skeleton of the grandstand is shown in Figure 1.1, while a section

through the grandstand is shown if Figure 1.2. Section through the L-shaped seating unit is shown in

Figure 1.3.

In simple horizontal beams, vertical forces will produce vertical reactions only. However, once a beam is

statically indeterminate and inclined, vertical forces will produce both vertical and horizontal reactions and as a

result, axial forces which may be compressive or tensile in nature will be induced in the beam. In the design of

horizontal floor beams in normal framed structures, the effect of axial force in the shear force capacity of the

section is usually neglected. This is largely due to the fact that these forces are usually compressive, and in

effect tends to increase the concrete resistance shear stress (Vc) and (VRd,c) of the section in accordance with BS

8110-1:1997 and EC2 respectively. It is a well known phenomenon that compressive axial force increases the

concrete resistance shear stress of a section, while tensile axial force will reduce the concrete resistance shear

stress. So this neglect can be justified in terms of it being a conservative design which can only err in economy.

However for inclined beams members in a frame (as in the case of a grandstand), axial force behaviour can vary

greatly especially when the load is applied in the global direction (which is the prevalent scenario). In other

words, based on the structural configuration of the structure and the loading, it is even common to see the

nature of axial forces moving from positive (tensile) to negative (compressive) in the same span of an

inclined member. If the load is however resolved and applied in the local direction of the inclined member, the

axial forces will be absent. A good design will therefore require the use of less shear reinforcement in the axial

compression zone, and more shear reinforcement in the axial tension zone. While the effect of axial forces may

be neglected in horizontal floor beams under axial compression, it may be unsafe to neglect it in inclined beams

because more often than not, some sections are usually under axial tension.

Structural design of stadiums is critical and this becomes more obvious when EN 1990 (Eurocode Basis for

Structural Design) classified it under Consequence Class 3 which by description means high consequence for

loss in terms of human life, economy, environmental considerations, and otherwise if failure should occur.

Several codes of practice across different countries and bodies have provisions made in them for the design of

structures subjected to crowd loading (for example stadiums), but the level of expertise often associated with the

processes in terms of analysis, design and construction is often perceived to be something left to a limited few.

The application of static crowd imposed loads according to both BS 6399-1:1997(Loading on buildings - Code

of practice for dead and imposed loads) and EN 1991-1: (Action on structures: General actions - Densities,

self-weight, imposed loads for buildings) are given in Table 1 below:

Table 1.1: Values of variable actions on grandstands from BS 6399 and EN 1991

CODE

BS 6399-1:1996

EN 1991-1-1

CATEGORY(DESCRIPTION)

C5 (Areas susceptible to

overcrowding e.g. grandstands)

C5( Areas susceptible to large

crowds, e.g

sports halls including stands)

IMPOSED

LOAD/VARIABLE

ACTION (KN/m2)

5

CONCENTRATED

LOAD (KN)

5.0 7.5 *

3.5 4.5*

3.6

Raker beams in stadiums usually support precast seating terrace units which may be L-shaped, or extended into

a more complex shape (see Figure 1.5). These seating terrace units are designed as simply supported elements

spanning between the raker beams (Karadelis, 2012, Salyards et al 2005). The crowd loading is supported

directly by these terrace units, which then transfer the load to the raker beams through the bearings. This

construction concept has been adopted in the design of Cape Town Stadium (South Africa) for the 2010 FIFA

world Cup (Plate 1.5). The picture in (Figure 1.4) below shows the formwork and construction of in-situ raker

beams at San Diego State University Student Activity Center (Steele and Larson 1996).

reinforcement for in-situ raker beam (Steele

on raker beams at Cape Town Stadium (2010)

In this design, each L-shaped seating unit is 7m long, which means that the raker beams are spaced at 7m centre

to centre. The crowd loading is supported by the terrace seating units, which is then transferred to the raker

ibeams through the end shears. The raker beams can be analysed as sub-frames or as full 3D structures in order

to get the most realistic behaviour of the structure.

The partial factor for all permanent actions (dead load) Gk is 1.35 while the partial factor for all variable actions

(imposed load) Qk is 1.5. No reduction factor was applied in the analysis, and the effect of wind was neglected.

1.2.2 Material Properties for the design

Design compressive of concrete fck = 35 N/mm2

Yield strength of steel fyk = 460 N/mm2

Load

Density of concrete

Imposed load/variable action

Weight of finishes, rails, seats, stair units

Value

25 KN/m3

5 KN/m2

2 KN/m2

Exposure class = XC1

A concrete cover of 40mm is adopted for the section

1.2.4 Design equations according EC2

From EC2 singly reinforced concrete stress block;

MRd = FCz ------------ (1)

FC =

0.85

1.5

Clause 5.6.3 of EC2 limits the depth of the neutral axis to 0.45d for concrete class less than or equal to C50/60.

Therefore for an under reinforced section (ductile);

x = 0.45d ----------------- (3)

Combining equation (1), (2) and (3), we obtain the ultimate moment of resistance (MRd)

MRd = 0.167 2 ---------------------- (4)

Also from the reinforced concrete stress block;

MEd = FSz ------------------ (5)

FS =

1.15

1 ------------------ (6)

Substituting equ (6) into (5) and making 1 the subject of the formular;

1 =

0.87

-------------------- (7)

z = d[0.5 + (0.25 0.882) ] ---------------------- (8)

where K =

---------------- (9)

Area of compression reinforcement AS2 =

0.87 ( 2 )

0.87

----------------------- (10)

Where z = d[0.5 + (0.25 0.882 ) ] where K = 0.167

1.2.4.2 Check for deflection (Clause 7.4.2)

The limiting basic span/ effective depth ratio is given by;

L/d = K [11 + 1.5

+ 3.2 (

1)

( 0 )

12

1

2

3

2

] if 0 --------------------------- (12)

Where;

L/d is the limiting span/depth ratio

K = Factor to take into account different structural systems

0 = reference reinforcement ratio = 103

= Tension reinforcement ratio to resist moment due to design load

= Compression reinforcement ratio

In EC2, the concrete resistance shear stress without shear reinforcement is given by;

1

CRd,c = 0.18/ ; k = 1+

200

3

K1 = 0.15; = NEd/Ac < 0.2fcd (Where NEd is the axial force at the section, Ac = cross sectional area of the

concrete), fcd = design compressive strength of the concrete.

1.2.5.1 Loading on precast seating unit

Permanent Actions

Self weight of the 7m precast seating deck (see Figure 1.4)

(GK1) = (25 0.25 0.15 7) + (25 0.95 0.15 7) = 31.5 KN

Weight of finishes, rails, seats (GK2) = (2 0.95 7) = 13.3 KN

Variable Actions

Imposed load for structural class C5 (QK) = (5 0.95 7) = 33.25 KN

Total action on L-shaped seating terrace unit at ultimate limit state by Eurocode 2

(FE) = 1.35(GKi) + 1.5QK = 1.35(44.8) + 1.5(33.25) = 110.355 KN

Height of beam = 1200mm

Width of beam = 400mm

Concrete own weight (waist area) = 1.2m 0.4m 25 KN/m3 = 12.00 KN/m (normal to the inclination i.e. in

the local direction)

Height of riser in the raker beam = 0.4m; Width of tread in the raker beam = 0.8m; Angle of inclination () =

20.556

Stepped area (risers) = 12 0.4 25 = 5 KN/m (in the global direction)

For purely vertical load in the global y-direction, we convert the load from the waist of the beam by;

UDL from waist of the beam = (12.00 cos 20.556) = 11.236 KN/m

Total self weight (Gk) = 11.236 + 5 = 16.235 KN/m

Self weight of raker beam at ultimate limit state;

n = 1.35(GKi) = 1.35 16.235 = 21.917 KN/m

Load from precast seating units

End shear from precast seating unit = FE/2 = 110.355 = 55.1775 KN

Total number of the precast seating units on the beam = 24/0.8 = 30 units

For an intermediate beam supporting seating units on both sides;

Total number of precast seating units = 2 30 = 60 units

Therefore, total shear force transferred from the seating units to the raker beam = 55.1775 60 = 3310.65 KN

3310.65

Equivalent uniformly distributed load in the global direction at ultimate limit state =

= 137.94 KN/m

24

Total load on intermediate raker beams at ultimate limit state in the global direction = 137.94 + 21.917 =

159.857 KN/m

A full 3D elastic analysis of the whole stadium was performed using Staad Pro with all elements

loaded at ultimate limit state. Also, the raker beam is isolated as a subframe and also analysed. The

results from the two models are very comparable.

The internal stresses on the intermediate raker beams from the analysis of the frame at ultimate limit

state are shown in Figures 1.7 to 1.9.

The summary of the analysis result of the raker beams is shown in Table 1.3.

Table 1.3: Analysis Results of the Raker Beam

Section

Moment

(KN.m)

1967.54

948.078

2283.18

1249.787

1565.63

MA

MABspan

MB

MBCspan

MC

Section

QAB

QBA

QBC

QCB

Shear Force

(KN)

934.62

983.88

999.52

918.98

Section

NAB

NBA

NBC

NCB

Axial Force

(KN)

380.061(C)

339.376(T)

510.767(C)

208.670(T)

The structural design of the of the raker beam using EN 1992-1-1has been carried out and all the

parameters used in the, and steps followed are shown below in the subsequent sections.

Design compressive of concrete fck = 35 N/mm2

Yield strength of steel fyk = 460 N/mm2

1.4.1 Flexural Design of span AB (MABspan)

MABspan = 948.078 KNm

d = h Cc /2 link

d = 1200 40 16 10 = 1134mm

k=

948.078 106

2

z = d[0.5 + (0.25 0.882) ] = z = d[0.5 + (0.25 0.882(0.0527) ] = 0.95d

1 =

0.87

948.078 106

To calculate the minimum area of steel required; (TABLE 3.1 EC2)

fctm = 0.3

ASmin = 0.26

2

3

fctm

Fyk

= 0.3 35

2

3

= 3.2099 N/mm2

bw d = 0.26

3.2099

460

Therefore, ASmin = 822.962 mm2

Check for deflection;

K = 1.5 for beam fixed at both ends

L/d = K [11 + 1.5

+ 3.2 (

1)

3

2

] if 0

=

2450

400 1134

500

310

278.241

( )

12

1

2

0.0059

0.0054

Modification factor =

=

] if > 0

310

+ 3.235 (

0.0059

0.0054

1)

3

2

310

500 2450

= 278.241 N/mm2

=1.11

Since the span is greater than 7m, allowable span/depth ratio = 31.842

7000

12816

7000

= 1.11 31.842

= 19.374

12816

1134

= 11.301

MA = 1967.54 KNm

k = 0.1093; la = 0.8919; AS1 = 4861 mm2; ASmin = 822.9785 mm2

Provide 4Y32mm + 4Y25mm TOP (ASprov = 5180 mm2)

1.4.3 Flexural Design of support B (MB);

MA = 2283.18KNm

k = 0.1268; la = 0.8717; AS1 = 5772 mm2; ASmin = 822.9785 mm2

Provide 6Y32mm + 4Y20mm TOP (ASprov = 6080 mm2)

MBCSpan = 1249.787 kNm

k = 0.0694; la = 0.9345; AS1 = 2947mm2; ASmin = 822.9785 mm2

Provide 5Y25mm + 2Y20mm BOT (ASprov = 3083 mm2)

=

3083

400 1134

500

( )

12

0.0059

0.00679 0

Modification factor =

310

1

2

] if > 0

+ 0] = 28.066

310

500 3083

= 299.039 N/mm2

=

310

299.039

= 1.0366

Since the span is greater than 7m, allowable span/depth ratio = 28.066

7000

12816

28.066

7000

= 1.0366

= 15.89

12816

1134

= 11.301

1.4.4 Flexural Design of support C (MC);

MC = 1565.63 KNm

k = 0.0870; la = 0.9163; AS1 = 3765 mm2; ASmin = 822.9785 mm2

Provide 5Y32mm TOP (ASprov = 4020 mm2)

Provide Y16 @ 200mm c/c on both faces as longitudinal side bars

1.4.5 Shear Design

1.4.5.1 Support A

VEd = 934.62 KN; N = 380.061 KN (Compression)

Taking shear at the centreline of support; VEd = 934.62 KN

1

CRd,c = 0.18/ = 0.18/1.5 = 0.12

k = 1+

200

= 1+

200

1134

3

2

1

2

1 =

5180

400 1134

= NEd/Ac < 0.2fcd (Where NEd is the axial force at the section, Ac = cross sectional area of the concrete),

fcd = design compressive strength of the concrete.)

=

380.061 103

400 1200

= 0.7917 N/mm2

1

VRd,c = [0.12 1.4199 (100 0.011419 35 )3 + 0.15 0.7917 ]400 1134 = 318111.948 N = 318.11 KN

Since VRd,c < VEd, shear reinforcement is required.

Assume strut angle = 21.8

Let us now investigate the compression capacity of the strut;

v1 = 0.6(1

fcd =

VRd,max =

250

) = 0.6(1

35

250

) = 0.516

0.85 35

1.5

1

400 0.9 1134 0.516 19.833

= [

] 103 = 1440.64 KN > VEd

(cot 21.8 + tan 21.8)

( + tan )

VEd,s =

cot = 934620 N

934620

(0.9 1134 0.87 460 cot 21.8)

= 0.9153

1.175 > 0.9153 Hence shear reinforcement is ok.

Following the steps described above;

1.4.5.2 Support B; Shear at VBA

Note that due to the tensile axial force in the section, the second term of VRd equation assumes a negative value.

1 = 0.0134; = 0.7070 N/mm2; vmin = 0.3504 N/mm2; VRd = 230.6532 KN

Since VRd,c < VEd, shear reinforcement is required

v1 = 0.5160; fcd = 19.8450 N/mm2; z = 0.9d = 1020.6 mm; VRDmax =1440.64 KN

Since VRDmax > VEd

= 0.9635

1.175 > 0.9153 Hence shear reinforcement is ok.

1.4.5.3 Support B; Shear at VBC

Note that due to the tensile axial force in the section, the second term of V Rd equation assumes a negative value.

1 = 0.0134; = 1.0641 N/mm2; vmin = 0.3504 N/mm2; VRd = 351.161 KN

Since VRd,c < VEd, shear reinforcement is required

v1 = 0.5160; fcd = 19.8450 N/mm2; z = 0.9d = 1020.6 mm; VRDmax =1440.64 KN

Since VRDmax > VEd

= 0.9789

1.175 > 0.9153 Hence shear reinforcement is ok.

1.4.5.4 Support C; Shear at VCB

Note that due to the tensile axial force in the section, the second term of VRd equation assumes a negative value.

1 = 0.0089; = 0.4347 N/mm2; vmin = 0.3504 N/mm2; VRd = 213.2707 KN

Since VRd,c < VEd, shear reinforcement is required

v1 = 0.5160; fcd = 19.8450 N/mm2; z = 0.9d = 1020.6 mm; VRDmax =1440.64 KN

Since VRDmax > VEd

= 0.9000

1.175 > 0.9153 Hence shear reinforcement is ok.

It is very easy to see that the influence of axial force was not very pronounced in the results produced. It would

have been very significant using BS 8110. The maximum reinforcement was seen at support B due the high

magnitude of moment at that section. This phenomenon is consistent with horizontal continuous beams. See

detailing sketches in Figure 2.0.

References

[1] BS 6399 part 1: 1996: Loading for Building code of practice for dead and imposed loads.

British Standards Institution.

[2] BS 8110 1:1997: Structural use of concrete Part1: Code of practice for design and

construction. British Standard Institutions.

[3] EN 1991-1-1 (2002): General Actions- Densities, self weight, imposed loads for buildings

[4] EN 1992-1-1 (2004): Design of concrete structures: General Rules and rules for building

[5] Jeff Steele, Mark Larsen (1996): Raker-Beam Construction Requires Rugged Steel Forms.

Publication #C960738 The Aberdeen Group

[6] Karadelis J (2009): Concrete Grandstands. Part 1: Experimental investigations. Proceedings

to the Institution of Civil Engineers Engineering and Computational mechanics. Volume

162,Issue 1 ISSN 1755-0777

[7] Salyards K.A., Honagan L.M (2005): Evaluation of a finite element model for dynamic

characteristic prediction of stadium facility.

- Helical Stair - CalculationUploaded byLalima Chatterjee
- Design of Continuous Beam and Slab Footing using BS 8110-1:1997Uploaded byUbani Obinna Ranks
- Stadium RoofsUploaded byDebarpan Das
- Helicoid StairsUploaded bykapinjal_
- Concrete Helical Stair DesignUploaded bySamuel Tesfaye
- Integral Bridge Midas SeminarUploaded bylamkinpark3373
- Stadium Planning and Construction.Uploaded byshrikant
- Analysis Detailing and Construction of a Free Standing StaircaseUploaded byRuthie Jivan
- Analysis&Design of Truss for Indoor stadiumUploaded byD.V.Srinivasa Rao
- Technical Report for A structural Design ProjectUploaded byMagicWand2
- Raker-Beam Construction Requires Rugged Steel Forms_tcm45-343123Uploaded byaminjoles
- Staircase Design to BS 8110-1:1997Uploaded byGihan Chathuranga
- stadium seatingUploaded bymushthaq
- Typical Details of ConnectionsUploaded byAlan Diaz Diaz
- 2) Frame AnalysisUploaded byAzuanuddin Samad
- HelicalStairs ReinforcementUploaded byChandra Shekar
- Examples Design Reinforced Concrete Buildings Bs8110 PDFUploaded byDanielle
- 49ers 20090714 Stadium Design PresentationUploaded bydssdsdkskl
- Unit 15 ( DESIGN OF FOUNDATIONS )Uploaded byZara Nabilah
- Staircases Structural Analysis and DesignUploaded byMiguel Oliveira
- Concrete Bridge Design to BS 5400Uploaded bywendydy6
- 1. Design-of-Staircases.pdfUploaded bytika
- Worked Examples for Design of Concrete BuildingsUploaded byWinyi Patrick
- Two Way Design Slab to BS 8110Uploaded byGihan Chathuranga
- Curved Beam and Frame AnalysisUploaded byAmir Syazuan
- Stadium AtlasUploaded byNeeraj Desai
- Design & Detail to BS 8110-1997Uploaded byBrukadah Williams Onwuchekwa
- Design and Analysis of Stadium Using Staad ProUploaded bybabu1434
- Structural Design of Swimming Pools[1]Uploaded byale hopeju2009
- Modelling in SACS BasicUploaded byPradeep Chitluri

- Example on Modal Dynamic Analysis of a One(1)Uploaded byUbani Obinna Ranks
- Example on the Analysis of Internal Stresses in Frames Due to Temperature Difference Using Force MethodUploaded byUbani Obinna Ranks
- An Evaluation of Geopolymer Cement in Construction WorkUploaded byUbani Obinna Ranks
- Analysis and Design of a Continuous Reinforced Concrete Raker Beam for Stad.pdfUploaded byUbani Obinna Ranks

- Mckinsey on Finance 943Uploaded byscribdrestelo123
- TM-1001-AVEVA-Plant-12-1-PDMS-Foundations-Rev-3-0.pdfUploaded byPolarograma
- Applied CalculusUploaded bykhalil
- Recovery Recrystallization Grain GrowthUploaded bySrinivas Ds
- sop.pdfUploaded bymounibarbie
- Regency- Job Satisfaction ModifiedUploaded bylakshmanlakhs
- Impulse TurbineUploaded bywlmngtn310
- [SiC-En-2013-17] Challenges Regarding Parallel Connection of SiC JFETsUploaded bynuaa_qhh
- Vendor Sample ProjectsUploaded byCassio Rafael R R
- SPC Case AnalysisUploaded byAbhishek
- FelixPadel-SamarendraDasUploaded bySankalp Srivastava
- En 10213 - 2007 Steel Castings for Pressure PurposesUploaded bydepeche1mode
- 07 IHRDC International Petroleum Management Certificate ProgramUploaded byMustafa Khattak
- Tenhet v BoswellUploaded byLisa B Lisa
- Kliger water level gauge.pdfUploaded byGarry Bernard Nelson
- (HC) Pennewell v. Carey - Document No. 4Uploaded byJustia.com
- 1 IJAEST Volume No 1 Issue No 2 a Parametric and Non Parametric Approach for Performance Appraisal of Indian Power Generating CompaniesUploaded byiserp
- Financial Accounting and Key concepts of HRUploaded byarslanshani
- ra 9439Uploaded byFlorante Manongdo Tapac Jr.
- 20121022153255350.pdfUploaded byHamza Abbasi Abbasi
- hl7guide-1-4-2012-08Uploaded bysidd193799
- CV AcademicUploaded byKemahasiswaan Himatika Itb
- WCDMA-BTS-Alarm-Descriptions.pdfUploaded byCung Levan
- h276Uploaded bygustavofx21
- Mind Your LanguageUploaded byShiv Aroor
- Mumbai's Slums MapUploaded bySumit Vaswani
- Yamaha SLG100s ManualUploaded byJheck Araullo
- A Multilayer Ultra-wideband Directional CouplerUploaded byagmnm1962
- Tyco Fire Catalogue Iss 7 29 (1)Uploaded byishaq
- Induction cooker circuit designUploaded byMr. Pushparaj Ghodke