SFDA Report 23-03-2022 - Group 9

STRUCTURAL AND FOUNDATIONS ANALYSIS OF A RESIDENTIAL
BUILDING IN BIRMINGHAM
Isaac GREAVES, Clara OBEID, Aleksandra LEMIESZKA, Adam EKIN, Sara MOTWANI, Borbala
ZEPKO
2st year student MEng Engineering and Architectural Design

Structure and Foundation Analysis and Design – BARC0132
Academic Year 2021 - 2022
ABSTRACT
This report presents the structural and foundation design of a 10 storey residential building with 1 level of
basement to be constructed in Birmingham, UK. The structural system is a braced steel frame atop a
foundation. The design of all structural members and foundation elements are based on Eurocodes.
Also, finite element analysis was carried out with software GSA and Plaxis to develop and improve
the overall safety. This report highlights the advantages of combining hand calculations with finite
element analysis to optimize the structure. The foundations design relies on shallow foundations for
the central columns and retaining secant pile walls for the external columns. The design of the
foundations are made in alignment with the ultimate limit state and serviceability limit states, and
Eurocodes for safety factors. The calculations are modelled and visualised in Plaxis. The foundations
design aims to mitigate total settlements and most importantly differential settlements, as well as
failure of the soil.
Keywords: Birmingham; Structural design; Geotechnics; GSA; Plaxis
1
BARC0132 - Project
Structural and Foundation Analysis and Design
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1. INTRODUCTION .......................................................................................................... 4
1.1 Report Introduction ........................................................................................... 4
1.2 Boundary Conditions ........................................................................................ 4
2. ESTIMATION OF DESIGN LOADS ........................................................................... 6

2.1 Imposed Loads .................................................................................................. 6
2.2 Self-weight ........................................................................................................ 6
2.3 Preliminary design ............................................................................................ 7
2.4 Snow Loads ..................................................................................................... 10
2.5 Wind Loads ..................................................................................................... 11
2.6 Summary of Wind Loads ................................................................................ 14
2.7 Summary of All Loads .................................................................................... 15
3. LOAD COMBINATIONS ........................................................................................... 16

3.1 Introduction ..................................................................................................... 16
3.2 Safety and Combination Weighting Factors ................................................... 16
3.3 Combination Calculations ............................................................................... 16
4. CHECKS ...................................................................................................................... 18
4.1 Introduction ..................................................................................................... 18
4.2 IPE 270 Strength Checks ................................................................................ 18
4.3 IPE 330 beam checks ...................................................................................... 21
4.4 ULS Cumulative Load .................................................................................... 22
4.5 Strength checks – columns .............................................................................. 23
4.6 Summary ......................................................................................................... 26
5. STRUCTURAL DESIGN FINITE ELEMENT ANALYSIS ...................................... 28

5.1 5.1 GSA model settings................................................................................... 28
5.2 29
5.3 Checks and optimalizations of the structure ................................................... 30
5.3 Final checks ............................................................................................................ 35
6. DETAILING ................................................................................................................ 42
6.1 Steel Connection Types................................................................................... 42
6.2 Beam to Column Connection .......................................................................... 42
6.3 Column Bases.................................................................................................. 43
6.4 Bracing Connection ......................................................................................... 43
7. FOUNDATIONS ......................................................................................................... 44
7.1 Foundation Strategy ........................................................................................ 44
7.2 Pad Foundation Design ................................................................................... 45
7.3 Retaining Walls ............................................................................................... 55
7.4 Final Design .................................................................................................... 69
7.5 Further Considerations .................................................................................... 69
7.4 Analysis of Foundation Using Plaxis .............................................................. 71
2
BARC0132 - Project
8. CONCLUSIONS .......................................................................................................... 75
9. REFERENCES ............................................................................................................. 76
10. APPENDIX .................................................................................................................. 76
3
BARC0132 - Project
1. INTRODUCTION
1.1 Report Introduction
This document aims to report the findings of both the structural and geotechnical design for a steel
structure including a basement. Based on the boundary conditions, a structural system will be
developed, taking into consideration the loads applied on the structure. This will include beam and
column sizing, as well as analysis of joint connections and determination of the need for bracing
supports. Appropriate checks will also be conducted to ensure that elements are sized correctly, and
the structure behaves in an appropriate and acceptable way. Similarly, a strategy for the geotechnical
design will be undertaken to select the most appropriate foundation strategy and assess its performance
to meet acceptable levels.
1.2 Boundary Conditions
The building is located on a site in Birmingham, UK. As a result, it features a sheltered topography
due to its inland location and the number of surrounding buildings. Building and soil profile
characteristics are summarised below:
Table 1.1 Building Characteristics
Stories 10
Bays number direction X 6
Bays width direction X 6m
Bays number direction Y 4
Bays width direction Y 5m
Use Residential
Storey height 3.5m
Figure 1.1 Building Plan and Isometric Diagrams
4
BARC0132 - Project
Figure 1.2 Building Section Diagrams
Table 1.2 Soil Profile Characteristics
Cu 205 kPa
𝜙 24º
c' 5 kPa
E’ 40 MPa
Material Dense Clay
5
BARC0132 - Project
2. ESTIMATION OF DESIGN LOADS
To enhance the overall visual quality of the reports, each author should make every effort to comply
with the guidelines outlined here. The purpose of this template is to aid in clarifying those guidelines
and provide a uniform appearance of the papers.
2.1 Imposed Loads
Using Eurocode 1-1-1, the total imposed load on the slabs were calculated by taking the sum of the
imposed load for a residential building floor (table 6.2 category A) and movable partitions with a self-
weight of >2 and <=3 to model for the worst-case scenario.
𝑞! = 𝑞! (𝐹𝑙𝑜𝑜𝑟) + 𝑞! (𝑀𝑜𝑣𝑎𝑏𝑙𝑒 𝑃𝑎𝑟𝑡𝑖𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛) (1)
𝑞! = 2.0 + 1.2
𝑘𝑁
𝑞! = 3.2
𝑚#
Assuming a residential buildings roof is only accessible for normal maintenance and repair, the
imposed loads on the roof were obtained from Eurocode 1-1-1 (table 6.9 and 10, category H).
𝑘𝑁
𝑞! (𝑅𝑜𝑜𝑓) = 0.4
𝑚#
2.2 Self-weight
2.2.1 Slab
Considering the non-structural elements as the dead loads acting on the slab (flooring, MEP system,
ceiling), with safety factors taken into consideration, the ideal specification can be obtained from the
load bearing capacity manufacturers table in order to give us the self-weight of the composite slab.
𝐶𝑜𝑚𝑝𝑜𝑠𝑖𝑡𝑒 𝑆𝑙𝑎𝑏 𝐿𝑜𝑎𝑑 = 𝛾$ ⋅ 𝐺%&%'()*+,)+*-. + 𝛾/ ⋅ 𝑞! (2)
Where:
𝛾$ −Safety factor for unfavourable effect of permanent loads

𝐺%&%'()*+,+)*-. − Self-weight of non-structural elements
𝛾/ − Safety factor for unfavourable effect of variable loads
𝑞! − Imposed load on slab
𝐶𝑜𝑚𝑝𝑜𝑠𝑖𝑡𝑒 𝑆𝑙𝑎𝑏 𝐿𝑜𝑎𝑑 = 1.35 ⋅ (0.5) + 1.5 ⋅ (3.2)
𝑘𝑁
𝐶𝑜𝑚𝑝𝑜𝑠𝑖𝑡𝑒 𝑆𝑙𝑎𝑏 𝐿𝑜𝑎𝑑 = 5.48
𝑚#
𝑘𝑁 𝑘𝑁
5.48 < 5.50
𝑚# 𝑚#
From the manufacturers table, we selected a slab span amongst the values highlighted blue as they do
not require extra rebars during the concrete pour and manufacturing process, thus reducing the
complexity and calculation process. However, choosing these dimensions for simplicity would
6
BARC0132 - Project
realistically raise costs and environmental impacts as it would raise specifications due to the increase
weight.
Slab Span = 3.32 m

Slab Thickness = 1 mm
Slab Weight = 240 kN/m2
Looking at the slab span, we can propose an intermediate beam in between the 5m primary beams and
divide the 5m slab into 2.5m parts. This is a viable option as the maximum slab span of 3.32 m is
greater than 2.5m
0.2
Total Slab Load = 0.5 + 240 ∗ N3444O = 2.8544 kN/m2
2.2.2 Perimeter Wall Load
Assuming the wall to be a hollow masonry wall façade, the total perimeter dead load can be calculated
using the dimensions of a brick element and the perimeter area of the building.
Total Perimeter = (4 ∗ 5 + 6 ∗ 6) ∗ 2 = 112 m

Floor level area in X direction = 3.5 ∗ 36 ∗ 2 = 252 m2
Floor level area in Y direction = 3.5 ∗ 20 ∗ 2 = 140 m2
5657384
Total Load on perimeter beams = ∗ 2.05 ∗ 2 = 3.57 kN/m
36∗#4
Total perimeter dead loads = 3.57 ∗ 112 = 400.014 kN
2.3 Preliminary design
2.3.1 Beam sizing
Following BS EN 1993-1-1:2005 to determine the maximum vertical deflection values for the beam,
the sizes for the 5m and 6m beams can be obtained by calculating the moment of inertia for the point
and distributed load. The moment of inertias can be calculated by using the dead and imposed loads
gathered.
Table 2.1 Load experienced on beam
Live load (kN/m2) 3.2

Slab dead load (kN/m2) 2.8544
Slab area (m2) 30
Total load for each bay (kN) 181.632
Total load on each beam (kN) 90.816
Where:
Total load for each bay = (3.2 + 2.8544) ∗ 30 = 181.632 kN

323.:#5
Total load on each beam = 5 = 90.816 kN
As the intermediate beam supports half the total load per bay, the set of primary 5m and 6m beams
would support a quarter of the remaining load. However, this is not the case as the adjacent bays total
load would be applied to the primary beams. Resulting in the primary beams to experience half of the
total load per bay.
7
BARC0132 - Project
For the façade, as there are no adjacent bays, the perimeter beams would only support a quarter of the
total bay load. For simplicity, it was assumed that the perimeter beams would also experience half of
the load, making the calculation and beam sizing consistent.
BS EN 1993-1-1:2005
(;-%
𝛿= (3)
544
Point load (Pinned-Pinned):
<=!
𝐼 = 82>? (4)
"#$
I = 4.50476E-05 m4
Distributed Load (Pinned-Pinned)
6@=&
I = #28>? (5)
"#$
I = 4.05429E-05 m4
Where:
F = Point load on beam

L = Span of the beam (Point Load: 5m | Distributed Load: 6m)
E = Youngs Modulus of Steel (210000 MPa for S355 steel)
I = Moment of inertia
δABC = Maximum vertical deflection for beams (0.025 m)
Figure 2.1 Force distribution on one bay
From ArcelorMittal, the 5m and 6m beams were chosen to have a section profile IPE 270 and IPE 240.
Using the moment of inertia results, the beams profile was done by selecting the type with a second
moment of area (in the y-y axis) that was closest (but highest) to the calculated results.
However, for simplicity and modelling purposes, all beams were assumed to be IPE 270 as it will
compensate for both the 5m and 6m. This will keep calculations and visuals consistent.
8
BARC0132 - Project
Table 2.2 IPE 270 sectional properties
Dimension Moment of Inertia

Type Kg/m
h (mm) b (mm) A (mm2)×102 Ix (mm4) Iy (mm4)
IPE 270 36.1 270 135 45.9 5790 420
Using the weight of the IPE 270 profile, the beams self-weight and total beam load can be calculated
for one floor.
Table 2.3 Beam load
Beam Dead Load Total Beam Length Total beam load (kN
Weight (kg/m)
(kN/m) (m) per floor)
36.1 0.35 320 112
2.3.2 Column Sizing
Splitting our 10-storey building into 4 levels, 3 levels having 3 floors per level and the 1 remaining
level being the 10th floor abled us to compute the total and cumulative loads per floor, where the roof
was an independent level.
Summing the live load and dead load per floor, the total load per floor can be obtained. The live load
per floor was computed using the total live load of 3.2kN/m2 multiplied by the floor area. Whereas the
dead loads per floor was computed by adding the beams self-weight and the perimeter dead load with
the slabs dead load (which was multiplied by the floor area).
In terms of the total roof load, the live load will slightly differ as only snow and maintenance load is
applied, resulting in the total load applied to our roof to be smaller.
By adding the total loads per floor cumulatively, starting from the roof, the cumulative load per floor
is obtained. Doing this, floor 1 will experience the highest load as it takes the loads from all other
floors.
Table 2.4 Total Loads per floor
Live Load Dead Load Total load Cumulative

Levels Floors
(kN) (kN) (kN per floor) Load (kN)
Roof Roof 669.6 2567.18 3236.78 3236.78
D 10 2304 2567.18 3236.78 8107.96
9 2304 2567.18 3236.78 12979.15
C 8 2304 2567.18 3236.78 17850.33
7 2304 2567.18 3236.78 22721.51
6 2304 2567.18 3236.78 27592.69
B 5 2304 2567.18 3236.78 32463.88
4 2304 2567.18 3236.78 37335.06
3 2304 2567.18 3236.78 42206.24
A 2 2304 2567.18 3236.78 47077.42
1 2304 2567.18 3236.78 51948.60
Extracting the highest cumulative load for each level, a column size will be associated per level
through comparing the load taken by the central columns with the design axial force resistance of the
9
BARC0132 - Project
column profile, where the chosen profile should have a greater design axial force than the load taken
by the central columns.
Table 2.5 Loads applied on columns
Load taken
Load taken Load taken
Cumulative by central
Levels Floors by each bay by edge
Load (kN) columns
(kN) columns (kN)
(kN)
A 1-3 51948.60 2164.53 1082.26 2164.53
B 4-6 37335.06 1555.63 777.81 1555.63
C 7-9 22721.51 946.73 473.36 946.73
D 10 8107.96 337.83 168.92 337.83
Table 2.6 Column Profiling
Design Axial force Load taken by

Level Column profile
resistance (kN) central columns (kN)
A HE 220B 2880 2164.53
B HE 200B 2410 1555.63
C HE 160B 1540 946.73
D HE 120B 791 337.83
2.4 Snow Loads
According to Eurocodes snow load need to be consider in terms of location, topography and climate
conditions. Equation 5.1. Eurocode 1 part 1-3 gives the general expression for snow loads and is
shown in the Equation 1.
s = µD cE cF sG (6)
Where:
µD − snow load shape coefficient
cE − exposure coefficient
cF − thermal coefficient
Where sG is defined as
H
sG = 0.140Z − 0.1 + 643 (7)
Firstly having specified the angle of pitch of the roof to be 0° the snow load shape coefficient can be
read using EC 1-1-3 Table 5.2. Thus, uD equals 0.8. Furthermore using Table 5.1 EC 1-1-3
recommended value of cE is 1.2 as the topography is sheltered. Moreover, cF is 1 since roof is not
constructed from the material with high thermal transmittance (EC 1-1-3, article 8 page 21).
Additionally, Z = 3 (EC 1-1-3, Figure C.9) and A = 119 m (Free Map Tools, n.d.).
Therefore sG according to the Equation 7 can be calculated as the following:
119
sG = 0.140 ∙ 3 − 0.1 +
501
sG = 0.557 kN/m5
Hence, the total snow load can be calculated following Equation 6. The total snow load 0.535 kN/m5
10
BARC0132 - Project
s = 0.8 ∙ 1.2 ∙ 1 ∙ 0.557

s = 0.535 kN/m5
2.5 Wind Loads
2.5.1 Determining the basic velocity pressure, qb
Wind loads are calculated based on the EC1-1-4, and the total wind load is given by:
𝑤I = 𝑞; (𝑧I )𝑐;I (EC1-1-4 Eq. 5.1) (8)
where:
qp is the peak velocity pressure

ze is the reference height
cpe is the wind pressure coefficient
Additionally, qp is given by:
𝑞; = 𝑐I (𝑧)𝑞J since orography is not significant (9)
where:
ce is the exposure factor

qb is the basic velocity pressure
Additionally, qb is given by:
𝑞J = 0.613𝑣J5 and 𝑣J = g𝑐KL* × 𝑐(I-(&% × 𝑐;*&J h(𝑐-.) )𝑣J,N-; (10)
where:
vb is the basic wind velocity

cdir is the directional factor (EC1-1-4 NA Table NA.1)–
cseason is the season factor (EC1-1-4 NA Table NA.2)
cprob is the probability factor (EC1-1-4 Eq. 4.2 & EC1-1-4 NA Sec. 2.8)
calt is the altitude factor
vb,map is the fundamental basic wind velocity (before altitude correction is applied)
To compute a conservative calculation for the wind loads Cdir (EC1-1-4 Table NA.1 note 4) and Cseason
(EC1-1-4 Table NA.2 note 3) are taken as 1. The probability factor Cprob is given by:
%
1 − 𝐾 × ln(− 𝑙𝑛(1 − 𝑝))
𝐶;*&J =i m
1 − 𝐾 × ln(− 𝑙𝑛(0.98))
Based on the recommended values of 0.2 and 0.5 for K and n respectively, and a probability of
exceedance p = 0.02 (= 2%), Cprob = 1
The altitude factor is given in EC1-1-4 NA sec. NA 2.5 by equations NA.2a and NA.2b:
11
BARC0132 - Project
𝑐-.) = 1 + 0.001(𝐴) for 𝑧 ≤ 10𝑚 (Eq. NA.2a)

34 4.5
𝑐-.) = 1 + 0.001(𝐴) N O O for 𝑧 > 10𝑚 (Eq. NA.2b)
Given 𝑧 = 35𝑚 > 10𝑚, (Eq. NA.2b) is used to calculate the altitude factor:
10 4.5
𝑐-.) = 1 + 0.001(𝐴) q r = 1.093
35
𝑣J,N-; = 21.75 m/s (EC1-1-4 NA Fig. NA 1)
Next, vb and therefore qb can now be calculated:
𝑣J = (1 × 1 × 1)(1.093)21.75 = 23.765 𝑚/𝑠
𝑞J = 0.613𝑣J5 = 0.613 × 23.7655 = 346.2𝑁/𝑚5
2.5.2 Calculating wind loads in the X direction
In the X direction h ≤ b (35 ≤ 36) so the wind load is uniform across the height of the building (EC1-1-
4, Fig. 7.4)
Next, the exposure factor, ce can be determined using EC1-1-4 NA Fig. NA 7, based on a distance to
shoreline of 90km (Google Maps, 2022). Given hdis = 4m, the effective height used is 35 − 4 = 31𝑚.
Therefore, based on the figure, 𝑐I = 3.07
The peak velocity pressure, qp can now be computed:
𝑞; = 3.07 × 346.2 = 1062.8 𝑁/𝑚5 = 1.063 𝑘𝑁/𝑚5
In order to find accurate values for 𝐶;I the values from EC1-1-4 Table 7.1 were interpolated linearly.
P
Knowing that the ratio between K = 0.972, the border value of 0.25 can be subtracted obtaining the
following Equation 7 along with the corresponding 𝐶;I values – Equation 8. This is done to find the
percentage average of the distance between those values.
0.972 – 0.25 = 0.772 (7)
0.8 – 0.7 = 0.1 (8)
Thus, the values can be interpolated in the following way for the windward side. Therefore, the final
value for windward external pressure coefficient 𝐶;I = 0.796 – Equation 9.
(4.TT5∙ 4.3)
𝐶;I, RL%KR-*K = 4.T6
+ 0.7 = 0.796 (9)
P
The same process was applied for the leeward façade. Using the same value for the K = 0.972 and then
subtracting the border value of 0.25, the received value for leeward is 0.772 as in the Equation 11.
Then the corresponding values for 𝐶;I were found.
12
BARC0132 - Project
0.972 – 0.25 = 0.772 (11)
0.5 – 0.3 = 0.2 (12)
(4.TT5∙ 4.5)
𝐶;I, .IIR-*K = 4.T6
+ 0.5 (13)
𝐶;I, .IIR-*K = 0.492 (14)
Finally, the total wind load can be calculated:
𝑤I = 𝑞; (𝑧I )𝑐;I
𝑤I, RL%KR-*K = 1.063 × 0.796 = 0.846 𝑘𝑁

𝑤I, .IIR-*K = 1.063 × 0.492 = 0.524 𝑘𝑁
2.5.3 Calculating wind loads in the Y direction
When considering wind loads in the Y direction the 𝑏 < ℎ ≤ 2𝑏 therefore the wind load is not
distributed uniformly. Hence values of 𝑞; will differ as they will be functions of b and h - 𝑞; (𝑏) and
𝑞; (ℎ). Thus, the elevation is split into two parts b and h – b.
2.5.3.1 qp(20)
Furthermore, the exposure factor, ce can be determined using EC1-1-4 NA Fig. NA 7, based on a
distance to shoreline of 90km (Google Maps, 2022). Given h dis = 4m, the effective height used is
W 54
20 − 4 = 16m.Therefore, based on the figure, 𝑐I = 2.65. When considering the ratio = equal to
X 54
1 there is no need for the interpolation, therefore the values are equal 𝐶;I, RL%KR-*K = 0.8 and
𝐶;I, .IIR-*K = 0.5. Therefore 𝑞; can be determined.
𝑞; = 3.07 × 346.2 = 917.419 𝑁/𝑚5 = 0.917 𝑘𝑁/𝑚5
Finally, the total wind load can be calculated:
𝑤I = 𝑞; (𝑧I )𝑐;I
Thus:
𝑤I, RL%KR-*K = 0.917 × 0.8 = 0.733 𝑘𝑁/𝑚5

𝑤I, .IIR-*K = 0.917 × 0.5 = 0.458 𝑘𝑁/𝑚5
2.5.3.2 𝒒𝒑 (35)
The exposure factor, ce in this case is the same as in the x direction since it is based on a height of
35m.
In order to find the values for the second case when h < b the consideration of two heights need to be
W #6
conducted. Furthermore, the ratio equals X = 54 = 1.75. Thus, the interpolation process is conducted.
13
BARC0132 - Project
1.75 – 5 = - 3.25 (15)
0.8 – 0.8 = 0 (16)
('#.56 ∙ 4)
𝐶;I, RL%KR-*K = + 0.8 = 0.8 (17)
6'3
And for leeward façade:
1.75 – 1= 0.75 (19)
0.7 – 0.5 = 0.2 (20)
(4.T6 ∙ 4.5)
𝐶;I, .IIR-*K = 8
+ 0.5 = 0. 537 (21)
Concluding 𝐶;I, RL%KR-*K = 0.8 and 𝐶;I, .IIR-*K = 0.537. Next 𝑞; can be determined. Finally, the
total wind load can be calculated:
𝑤I = 𝑞; (𝑧I ) 𝑐;I
𝑞; = 3.07 × 346.2 = 1062.8 𝑁/𝑚5 = 1.063 𝑘𝑁/𝑚5
Thus:
𝑤I, RL%KR-*K = 1.063 × 0.8 = 0.850 𝑘𝑁/𝑚5

𝑤I, .IIR-*K = 1.063 × 0.537 = 0.571 𝑘𝑁/𝑚5
2.5.3.3 Y-direction weighted averages
To simplify the wind load combinations, a weighted average of the wind load across the y façade is
calculated with respect to the areas that each of the two wind loads act upon.
𝑤Z,3 × 𝐴3 + 𝑤Z,5 × 𝐴5
𝑤Z, RIL[P)IK =
𝐴3 + 𝐴5
Windward:
0.734 × (20 × 20) + 0.850 × ((35 − 20) × 20)

𝑤Z, RIL[P)IK, R = = 0.784 𝑘𝑁/𝑚5
35 × 20
Leeward:
0.459 × (20 × 20) + 0.571 × ((35 − 20) × 20)

𝑤Z, RIL[P)IK, . = = 0.507 𝑘𝑁/𝑚5
35 × 20
2.6 Summary of Wind Loads
14
BARC0132 - Project
Table 2.7 Summary of Wind Loads
Direction Load (kN/m2)

X-direction, windward 0.846
X-direction, leeward 0.524
Y-direction, windward (0-20m) 0.734
Y-direction, windward (20-35m) 0.850
Y-direction, leeward (0-20m) 0.459
Y-direction, leeward (20-35m) 0.571
Y-direction, windward (weighted average) 0.784
Y-direction, leeward (weighted average) 0.507
X-direction, total 1.370
Y-direction, total 1.291
2.7 Summary of All Loads
Table 2.8 Summary of Wind Loads
Load Type Load (kN/m2) Units

Dead Load (Slab) 2.854 kN/m2
Dead Load (Wall) 3.572 kN/m
Live (Building) 3.200
Live (Roof) 0.400
Snow 0.535 kN/m2
Wind load, X (weighted average) 1.370
Wind load, Y (weighted average) 1.291
15
BARC0132 - Project
3. LOAD COMBINATIONS
3.1 Introduction
Load combinations derive the total load experienced due to separate load types acting simultaneously
on the structure. In this case, dead loads from the slab, live loads from the building and roof, snow
loads, and wind loads are considered. The fundamental combination is calculated, while seismic and
accidental actions are excluded. To simplify the calculations for pre-design, only the slab load is
considered for the dead load, and the wall load is not applied. This means the edge beams will be
under-designed at this stage, but will be iterated later in the design process using GSA. One set of
combinations is computed for the ultimate limit state (ULS), which is the point at which structural
failure occurs within the system. Higher safety factors (ɣ) are used for this to increase loads and
decrease strength. Another set of combinations is computed for the serviceability limit state (SLS),
which is the point at which the structural system is no longer acceptably operable. Comparatively
lower safety factors are used, since the SLS is met before failure occurs at the ULS. Weighting factors
(Ψ0) account for the fact that not all loads will be a maximum at the same point in time. Taking each
load successively as a leading variable, the remaining loads are considered as secondary variables with
lower weightings due to the lower probability of them occurring at the same time as the leading
variable. Both factors are summarised in Table 3.1 and Table 3.2 below. The combinations are then
used for the pre-design checks to inform the beam and column sizing.
3.2 Safety and Combination Weighting Factors
Table 3.1 Ultimate Limit State Combinations
Permanent Variable
Dead load Leading Live (B) Live (R) Snow Wind
ɣG Variable ɣQ Ψ0 ɣQ Ψ0 ɣQ Ψ0 ɣQ Ψ0
Live (R) 1.5 1 1.5 1
Live (B) 1.5 1 1.5 0.5 1.5 0.6
1.35
Snow 1.5 0.7 1.5 1 1.5 0.6
Wind 1.5 0.7 1.5 0.5 1.5 1
Table 3.2 Serviceability Limit State Combinations
Permanent Variable
Dead load Leading Live (B) Live (R) Snow Wind
ɣG Variable ɣQ Ψ0 ɣQ Ψ0 ɣQ Ψ0 ɣQ Ψ0
Live (R) 1 1 1 1
Live (B) 1 1 1 0.5 1 0.6
1.0
Snow 1 0.7 1 1 1 0.6
Wind 1 0.7 1 0.5 1 1
3.3 Combination Calculations
Based on the safety factors (ɣ) and combination weighting factors (Ψ0) from Tables 3.1 and 3.2 above,
the load for each variable can be calculated in each of the fundamental combinations for each leading
variable. The variables acting in the vertical direction (Live (Building), Live (Roof) and Snow) are
summed, while the wind loads are given separately since they act horizontally. The wind load acts
either in the x direction or y direction, independently from each other and not at the same time. The
calculations come from equation EC0 Table A 2.4, Equation 6.10:
16
BARC0132 - Project
y 𝛾$\ 𝐺!\ + 𝛾] 𝑃 + 𝛾/,3 𝑄!,3 + y 𝛾/,L 𝜓4,L 𝑄!,L

\^3 L_3
In this case, prestressing is not included, so 𝑃 = 0
Table 3.3 Resistance Related Checks (ULS)
Fundamental
Permanent Leading Combination,
Combinations Variable
Dead load Variable kN/m^2
ULS
Horizontal
Vert
Live Wind Wind
Live (B) Snow ical x y
(R) (x) (y)
1 Live (R) 4.80 0.60 - - - 9.25 - -
2 Live (B) 4.80 - 0.40 1.23 1.16 9.05 1.23 1.16
3.85
3 Snow 3.36 - 0.80 1.23 1.16 8.02 1.23 1.16
4 Wind 3.36 - 0.40 2.05 1.94 7.61 2.05 1.94
Table 3.4 Deformation Related Checks (SLS)
Fundamental
Permanent Leading Combination,
Combinations Variable
Dead load Variable kN/m^2
SLS
Horizontal
Vert
Live Wind Wind
Live (B) Snow ical x y
(R) (x) (y)
1 Live (R) 3.20 0.40 - - - 6.45 - -
2 Live (B) 3.20 - 0.27 0.82 0.77 6.32 0.82 0.77
2.85
3 Snow 2.24 - 0.54 0.82 0.77 5.63 0.82 0.77
4 Wind 2.24 - 0.27 1.37 1.29 5.36 1.37 1.29
To ensure the worst-case scenario is designed for, the highest load combination for each direction is
taken, as highlighted in Table 3.3 and Table 3.4. For both the resistance (ULS) and deformation (SLS)
related checks, the greatest vertical loads correspond to the roof live load as the leading variable, while
the greatest horizontal loads in both the x and y directions occur when the wind is the leading variable,
since the wind load is the only horizontal load. This also corresponds to the lowest vertical loads.
17
BARC0132 - Project
4. CHECKS
4.1 Introduction
Progressing from the beam and column sizing, strength and serviceability checks were processed in
order to evaluate the suitability and efficiency of our beam and column profiles when under an
ultimate and service state load.
These checks will determine if the beams and columns are either over or under designed. If under
designed, the hand calcs would have to be repeated manually for a new section profile, whereas over
would mean optimising the profiles through GSA. If the ratio is above 1.0, the elements are considered
to be under designed.
4.2 IPE 270 Strength Checks
4.2.1 Shear and Moment Diagrams
Figure 4.1 Shear and Moment Diagram for 5m and 6m beam
4.2.2 Shearing
Using IPE 270s’ profiling to calculate the shear area and obtain a factorised shear resistance, the
beams with 5m and 6m spans can be checked for failure by calculating a ratio between the factorised
actions (maximum ULS combination) and the factorised shear resistance. If the ratio between them is
greater than 1.0, the beam has failed.
Drawings a shear diagram for the 5m and 6m beams as the maximum shear force, from the shear
diagram, will be used as our factorised action 𝑉>K .
With a bay area of 30 m2, the max ULS combination load of 9.25 kN/m2 was converted to a load
applied per beam by multiplying it by the bay area and dividing it by 2. Resulting in the load per beam
to be 138.8016 kN. However, as a uniform load is applied on the 6m beam, the load per beam would
have to be divided by its span for a distributed load 𝜔.
18
BARC0132 - Project
Table 4.1 IPE 270 Beam Profiling
Area of
Width of Web Flange Root
Section cross-
section thickness thickness radius
Profiling section A
b (mm) tw (mm) tf (mm) r (mm)
(mm2)
IPE 270 4590 135.0 6.6 10.2 15.0
𝐴` = 𝐴 − 2𝑏𝑡a + (𝑡R + 2𝑟)𝑡a

𝐴` = 4590 + 2 ∗ (270) ∗ (10.2) + (6.6 + 2 ∗ 15) ∗ 10.2
𝐴` = 2209.32 𝑚𝑚5 = 0.002209 𝑚5
𝑓Z 355000 𝑘𝑃𝑎
𝐴` ∗ q r 0.002209 𝑚5 ∗ q r
𝑉;.,bK = √3 = √3 = 452.82 𝑘𝑁
𝛾c' 1
𝑉,,bK = 𝑉;.,bK = 452.82 𝑘𝑁
𝐴` – Shear area
𝑓Z – yield strength
𝑉,,bK – Factorised shear resistance
𝛾c' – particular partial factor
Table 4.2 Load per beam from max ULS
Distributed
ULS Load Load applied
Area of bay Load on 6m
combination applied per per beam
A (mm2) beam
(kN/m2) bay (kN) (kN)
𝛚 (kN/m)
9.25 30 277.6032 138.8016 23.1336
d()
Shear check: d*,,)
≤ 1.0
Table 4.3 Strength check for IPE 270 Beams
Factorised action for 5m Factorised action for 6m

Factorised shear resistance
beam beam
𝑽𝒄,𝑹𝒅 (kN)
𝑽𝑬𝒅 (kN) 𝑽𝑬𝒅 (kN)
452.82 69.4 69.4
Shear check “ratio” 0.1532 0.1532
Both IPE 270 5m and 6m beams pass the shear checks as the ratio between the factorised shear
resistance and factorised actions is below 1.0. Additionally, there is no need for a reduced value of 𝑓Z
as the ratio for both beams are below 0.5.
4.2.3 Bending
From the same loads per beam being applied, in table (), a bending check can be processed once
evaluating the ratio between the factorised bending resistance 𝑀,,bK with the factorised action 𝑀>K ;
where the factorised action is the maximum moment from the 5m and 6m span beams moment
diagrams.
19
BARC0132 - Project
𝑀,,bK is derived by using the plastic modulus 𝑊;. of the IPE 270 profiling section and the yield
strength 𝑓Z of S355 steel, which is not reduced as shown previously with the shear check.
𝑊;. ∗ 𝑓Z 0.000484 𝑚# ∗ 355000 𝑘𝑃𝑎

𝑀;.,bK = = = 171.82 𝑘𝑁𝑚
𝛾c' 1
𝑀,,bK = 𝑀;.,bK = 171.82 𝑘𝑁𝑚
𝑊;. – Plastic modulus (484 𝑐𝑚# ≈ 0.000484 𝑚# )
c
Bending check: c () ≤ 1.0
*,,)
Table 4.4 Factorised action 𝑀"#
5m Beam 6m Beam
Beam Span
(Point Load) (Uniform Load)
Force 138.8 kN 23.1 kN/m
Maximum Moment
173.5 kNm 104.1 kNm
𝑴𝑬𝒅
Factorised bending
171.82 kNm 171.82 kNm
resistance 𝑴𝒄,𝑹𝒅
Bending ratio 1.0098 0.6059
Check FAIL PASS
As shown from the table, the 5m beams do fail as the ratio is above 1.0. This indicates that the beam
profiling is under designed and needs a size up.
4.2.4 Serviceability check
Using the maximum deflection equations previously for the beam taking uniform and point load, 𝛿N-i
can be calculated and compared to the vertical deflection for beams carrying plaster or other brittle
finishes.
For beam deflection checks, the maximum SLS (Serviceability Limit State) load is used as the check
will ensure that the building or beams are not failing whilst in operation. Using the ULS would result
in the beams being overdesigned since the benchmark would be exceeded as the load used would
correspond to the structural failure of the beams.
Beam deflection benchmark: span/360 (Beams carrying plaster or other brittle finish)
<=!
Point Load: 𝛿N-i = 82>j
6@=&
Uniformly Distributed Load = 𝛿N-i = #28>j
Table 4.5 Load per beam from max SLS
Distributed Load
SLS combination Area of bay A Load applied Load applied per
on 6m beam
(kN/m2) (mm2) per bay (kN) beam (kN)
𝛚 (kN/m)
6.45 30 193.6 96.8 16.13
20
BARC0132 - Project
Table 4.6 Deflection Check
Beam span 5m Beam (Point Load) 6m Beam (Uniformly distributed)
Maximum Deflection 0.021 m 0.022 m
Deflection Serviceability
0.0139 m 00167 m
benchmark
Check FAIL FAIL
4.3 IPE 330 beam checks
Table 4.7 Beam Profiling IPE 330
Area of Yield Shear

Width of Web Flange Root
Section cross- Strength Area
section thickness thickness radius
Profiling section A 𝑨𝒗
b (mm) tw (mm) tf (mm) r (mm) 𝒇𝒚 (kPa)
(mm2) (mm^2)
IPE 330 6260 170 7.5 11.5 18.0 355000 3080.25
𝑓Z 355000 𝑘𝑃𝑎
𝐴` ∗ q r 0.003080 𝑚5 ∗ q r
𝑉,,bK = √3 = √3 = 631.33 𝑘𝑁
𝛾c' 1
Table 4.8 Strength shear check for IPE 330 Beams
Factorised action for 6m

Factorised shear Factorised action for 5m beam
beam
resistance 𝑽𝒄,𝑹𝒅 (kN) 𝑽𝑬𝒅 (kN)
𝑽𝑬𝒅 (kN)
631.33 69.4 69.4
Shear check “ratio” 0.1099 0.1099
Check PASS PASS
4.3.1 Bending Checks
𝑊;. ∗ 𝑓Z 0.000804 𝑚# ∗ 355000 𝑘𝑃𝑎

𝑀;.,bK = = = 171.82 𝑘𝑁𝑚
𝛾c' 1
Table 4.9 Bending check for IPE 330
5m Beam 6m Beam
Beam Span
(Point Load) (Uniform Load)
Force 138.8 kN 23.1 kN/m
Maximum Moment
173.5 kNm 104.1 kNm
𝑴𝑬𝒅
Factorised bending
285.42 kNm 285.42 kNm
resistance 𝑴𝒄,𝑹𝒅
Bending ratio 0.6079 0.3647
Check PASS PASS
21
BARC0132 - Project
4.3.2 Deflection Checks
Table 4.10 Deflection Check for IPE 330
Beam span 5m Beam (Point Load) 6m Beam (Uniformly distributed)
Maximum Deflection 0.010 m 0.011 m
Deflection Serviceability
0.0139 m 00167 m
benchmark
Check PASS PASS
To summarise, IPE 330 beams are suitable to use as they pass all strength and deflection checks when
under the ultimate and serviceability limit state load. Suggesting that under constant operation and rare
non-sustained loads, the beams will not fail.
However, as the shear ratio is below 0.5, the beams are overdesigned and should have a reduction in
size. As they do not fail, overdesigned elements can be adjusted on GSA to become optimised for the
structure.
4.4 ULS Cumulative Load
When changing the beams to IPE 330 and applying the ultimate limit state load, the load experienced
by the edge and internal columns will drastically change; the change resulting from an increase in total
and cumulative load per floor.
Table 4.11 IPE 330
Beam Dead Load Total Beam Length Total beam load (kN
Weight (kg/m)
(kN/m) (m) per floor)
49.1 0.48 320 153.6
When calculating the total and cumulative loads under the maximum ultimate limit state combination,
live loads are not accounted for as the combination already takes into account the live load.
Table 4.12 Total and Cumulative Load per floor under ULS
Perimeter
ULS Load Beam Dead Total Load Cumulative
Levels Floors Load (kN
(kN) Load (kN) (kN) Load (kN)
per floor)
Roof Roof 6662.4768 153.6 400.01 7216.09 7216.09
D 10 6662.4768 153.6 400.01 7216.09 14432.18
9 6662.4768 153.6 400.01 7216.09 21648.27
C 8 6662.4768 153.6 400.01 7216.09 28864.36
7 6662.4768 153.6 400.01 7216.09 36080.46
6 6662.4768 153.6 400.01 7216.09 43296.55
B 5 6662.4768 153.6 400.01 7216.09 50512.64
4 6662.4768 153.6 400.01 7216.09 57728.73
3 6662.4768 153.6 400.01 7216.09 64944.82
A 2 6662.4768 153.6 400.01 7216.09 72160.91
1 6662.4768 153.6 400.01 7216.09 79377.00
22
BARC0132 - Project
Table 4.13 Loads applied on columns
Load taken
Load taken Load taken
Cumulative by central
Levels Floors by each bay by edge
Load (kN) columns
(kN) columns (kN)
(kN)
A 1-3 79377.00 3307.38 1653.69 3307.38
B 4-6 57728.73 2405.36 1202.68 2405.36
C 7-9 36080.46 1503.35 751.68 1503.35
D 10 14432.18 601.34 300.67 601.34
Running the simple compression and buckling checks on the column profiles chosen in the column
sizing phase, the column sizing for level A was changed from HE 220B to HE 240B as the internal
columns failed the simple compression and buckling checks.
Although checks were computed for HE 220B, the failure could be foreshadowed as the design axial
resistance of HE 220B was smaller than the load taken by the central columns.
4.5 Strength checks – columns
4.5.1 Simple Compression Test
If the ratio between the factorised action 𝑁>K and 𝑁,,bK is less than 1.0, than the column passes the
check. 𝑁>K will be the axial load taken by the internal and external column; checking for both external
and internal will allow for optimised column sizing as the internal and external columns will have
different profiling when modelling on GSA.
𝐴𝑓Z
𝑁,,bK =
𝛾c'
𝐴 – Cross-sectional area (m2)

𝑓Z – Yield strength (kPa)
Table 4.14 Variables for simple compression check
Column Profile HE 240B HE 200B HE 160B HE 120B

Area (m2) 49.1 0.48 320 153.6
Yield strength
355000 355000 355000 355000
𝒇𝒚 (kPa)
Factorised
Axial
3763 2772.55 1927.65 1207
Resistance
𝑵𝒄,𝑹𝒅 (kN)
Load taken
Edge Column 1653.69 1202.68 751.68 300.67
(kN)
Load taken by
Internal 3307.38 2405.36 1503.35 601.34
Columns (kN)
23
BARC0132 - Project
Table 4.15 Simple Compression Checks
Column HE 240B HE 200B HE 160B HE 120B

Profile
Simple Edge
0.44 0.43 0.39 0.25
Compression Columns
Ratio Internal
0.88 0.87 0.78 0.50
Columns
Edge
PASS PASS PASS PASS
Compression Columns
Check Internal
PASS PASS PASS PASS
Columns
All column sizes pass the simple compression strength check. However, the edge columns are
overdesigned as they are less than 0.5.
4.5.2 Buckling check
Assuming a fixed-fixed connection for the columns, a buckling check is computed to evaluate the
likely hood of lateral deflection and failure when under the ULS load. To do this, the critical load 𝑁,*
needed for the columns to buckle must be calculated for each section profiling.
𝜋 5 𝐸𝐼RI-!
𝑁,* =
(𝑘𝐿)5
𝑁,* – Critical Load (kN)

𝐸– Youngs Modulus (MPa)
𝐼RI-! – Weakest moment of inertia (mm4)
𝑘– Connection coefficient
L – Length of element (m)
Table 4.16 IPE 330 variables for critical load
Column Youngs Weakest Connection Length of Critical

profiling Modulus moment of coefficient 𝒌 element (m) load 𝑵𝒄𝒓
𝑬 (MPa) inertia 𝑰𝒘𝒆𝒂𝒌 (fixed-fixed) (kN)
(cm4)
HE 240B 210000 3920 (z-z axis) 0.5 3.5 26529.50
HE 200B 210000 2000 (z-z axis) 0.5 3.5 13535.46
HE 160B 210000 889 (z-z axis) 0.5 3.5 6016.51
HE 120B 210000 318 (z-z axis) 0.5 3.5 2152.14
From the Arcelor Mittal, the weakest moment of inertia was obtained between the y-y and z-z axis; z-z
was determined to be the weakest.
Using the area of the cross section and critical load to obtain the reduction factor 𝜒, the factorised
buckling resistance can be calculated.
𝐴𝑓Z
𝜆̅ = •
𝑁,*
𝜆̅ – relative slenderness for lateral torsion coefficient
𝐴 – Area of cross-section (m2)
24
BARC0132 - Project
𝑓Z – Yield strength (kPa)

𝑁,* – Critical Load (kN)
Table 4.17 Relative Slenderness values
Area of column
Yield strength of Critical Load ‘
Column profile cross-section 𝝀
S355 steel (kPa) (kN)
(cm2)
HE 240B 106 355000 26529.50 0.38
HE 200B 78.1 355000 13535.46 0.45
HE 160B 54.3 355000 6016.51 0.57
HE 120B 34 355000 2152.14 0.75
𝜙 = 0.5(1 + 𝛼(𝜆 − 0.2) + 𝜆5 )
𝜙 – Value to determine reduction factor 𝜒

𝛼 – Imperfection factor
Table 4.18 Value to determine 𝜙
Column profile 𝜶 𝝀‘ 𝝓
HE 240B 0.49 0.38 0.6142
HE 200B 0.49 0.45 0.6643
HE 160B 0.49 0.57 0.7499
HE 120B 0.49 0.75 0.9149
The imperfection factor, with a value of 0.49, was determined through EC3-1-1 Table 6.2. Buckling
curve c relates with the imperfection factor of 0.49.
Table 4.19 Determining 𝛼 through EC3-1-1
Buckling
Buckling
Cross-section Limits about
Curve
Axis
Column tf<100
ℎ (mm) b (mm) h/b tf (mm) S355
profile mm
HE 240B 240 240 1.0 16 PASS z-z c
HE 200B 200 200 1.0 15 PASS z-z c
HE 160B 160 160 1.0 13 PASS z-z c
HE 120B 120 120 1.0 11 PASS z-z c
1
𝜒 =
𝜙 + •𝜙 5 − 𝜆5
𝜙 – Value to determine reduction factor 𝜒

𝜆 – Relative slenderness for lateral torsion coefficient
Table 4.20 Determining reduction factor
Column profile 𝝓 𝝀‘ 𝝌
HE 240B 0.6142 0.38 0.9096
HE 200B 0.6643 0.45 0.8691
25
BARC0132 - Project
HE 160B 0.7499 0.57 0.8053

HE 120B 0.9149 0.75 0.6942
Once obtaining the imperfection factor 𝜒, the factorised buckling resistance can be calculated,
𝜒𝐴𝑓Z
𝑁,,bK =
𝛾c-
𝜒 –reduction factor
Table 4.21 Factorised buckling resistance
Column profile 𝝌 A (cm2) 𝒇𝒚 𝑵𝒄𝒓,𝑹𝒅

HE 240B 0.9096 106 355000 3422.89
HE 200B 0.8691 78.1 355000 2409.71
HE 160B 0.8053 54.3 355000 1552.39
HE 120B 0.6942 34 355000 837.94
Table 4.22 Factorised actions and buckling resistance values
Column profile HE 240B HE 200B HE 160B HE 120B

𝑵𝑬𝒅 Edge
1653.69 1202.68 751.68 300.67
Columns (kN)
𝑵𝑬𝒅 Internal
3307.38 2405.36 1503.35 601.34
Columns (kN)
𝑵𝒄,𝑹𝒅 Factorised
buckling 3422.89 2409.71 1552.39 837.94
resistance (kN)
r
Buckling check: r () ≤ 1.0
*,,)
Table 4.23 Buckling check
Column HE 240B HE 200B HE 160B HE 120B

Profile
Buckling ratio Edge
0.48 0.50 0.48 0.36
Columns
Internal
0.97 1.0 0.97 0.72
Columns
Edge
PASS PASS PASS PASS
Compression Columns
Check Internal
PASS PASS PASS PASS
Columns
Looking through the strength checks done for columns, all column sections pass the test under ULS
combination.
4.6 Summary
Reflecting on the strength and serviceability checks conducted for the preliminary design, both the
beam and columns section profiling pass all necessary checks. However, all checks pass as the change
from IPE 270 to IPE 330 and HE 220B to HE 240B was processed. This is summarised in Tables 4.24
and Table 4.25 below.
26
BARC0132 - Project
Table 4.24 Checks Summary (IPE 270)
Check Type Threshold Calculated Values Passed Check?

Shearing 5m Beam 452.82 kN 69.4 kN PASS
(beams) 6m Beam 452.82 kN 69.4 kN PASS
Strength Bending 5m Beam 171.82 kNm 173.5 kNm FAIL
Checks (beams) 6m Beam 171.82 kNm 104.1 kNm PASS
Deflection 5m Beam 0.0139 m 0.021 m FAIL
(beams) 6m Beam 0.0167 m 0.022 m FAIL
Table 4.25 Checks Summary (IPE 330)
Check Threshold Calculated Values Passed Check?

Shearing 5m Beam 631.33 kN 69.4 kN PASS
(beams) 6m Beam 631.33 kN 69.4 kN PASS
Bending 5m Beam 285.32 kNm 173.5 kNm PASS
(beams) 6m Beam 285.32 kNm 104.1 kNm PASS
Deflection 5m Beam 0.0139 m 0.010 m PASS
(beams) 6m Beam 0.0167 m 0.011 m PASS
HE 240B 3763 kN 3307.38 kN PASS
Strength Simple
HE 200B 2772.55 kN 2405.36 kN PASS
Checks Compression
HE 160B 1927.65 kN 1503.35 kN PASS
(columns)
HE 120B 300.67 kN 597.87 kN PASS
Column Edge Int.
Threshold Edge Int.
Profile
Buckling
HE 240B 3423 kN 1654 kN 3307 kN PASS PASS
(columns)
Serviceability 5m Beam 0.0139 m 0.010 m PASS
Deflection
Check 6m Beam 0.0167 m 0.011 m PASS
Although no perimeter beam profile was finalised, which would suggest them to be under designed,
this has no impact the internal beams. When transferring to GSA, the perimeter beam load will be
accounted for, and appropriately sized to meet the required checks.
27
BARC0132 - Project
5. STRUCTURAL DESIGN FINITE ELEMENT ANALYSIS
5.1 5.1 GSA model settings
The structure was created with the prescribed geometry from the brief in the software GSA to evaluate
the structural analysis of the building. The structure was generated from a space frame constructed from
S355 steel and using the dimensions from the calculated and checked column and beams sizes besides
the loads. Table below shows the different loads calculated from summary table cases applied on the
beams. Most of the loads are multiplied by 3m.
Table 5.1 Load Summaries
Load Case 𝑲𝑵 Respective beams

Load [ 𝒎 ]
Dead load -8.55 Internal beams
Live load -9.60 Internal beams
Dead load roof -8.55 Roof
Live load roof -1.20 Roof
Snow load -1.61 Roof
Dead load -7.85 External beams
Live load -4.8 External beams
Dead load -4.275 Roof external beams
Live load roof -0.60 Roof external beams
Snow load -0.80 Roof external beams
Dead load -3.57 Y side façade
Furthermore, the Wind Loads in y and x directions were applied on specific nodes located on facades of
the building. Table shows the windward and leeward loads on the X (long sided) and Y (short sided)
façades. As mentioned in section 2.5 the wind load on Y façade is divided in to two parts as its not
distributed uniformly due to the height and width of the building.
The equation used to calculate loads is shown in expression (22)
vDwXxyBX ×B{EB y| |B}BXE D}DXEwF Fy vDwX

~E{FD}Bx w•A€E{ y| wyXE• ×Wy{D‚ywFBx w•A€E{ y| xyBX•
(22)
Table 5.2 below represents all the calculated values.
Table 5.2. Specific wind loads applied on the nodes
Load case Load, kN Acting on Nodes

Wind in Y direction 15.23 X windward façade
Wind in Y direction 9.43 X leeward façade
Wind in X direction 10.63 Y windward façade 1-5 floor
Wind in X direction 6.41 Y leeward façade 1-5 floor
Wind in X direction 11.9 Y windward façade 6-10 floor
Wind in X direction 10.26 Y leeward façade 6-10 floor
Combination cases were created by using the load cases above. That simulated the realistic behaviour
of the building and its reaction to the specific load conditions in the real world. Those combinations
were concluded in the in section 3.3 in Table 3.3 and Table 3.4.
28
BARC0132 - Project
This was followed by applications of rigid constrains at each floor level. Having done that beams were
released and specific types of beams and columns were applied according to the pre- design.
Figure 5.1 Diagram of columns distribution
The first design section specification were the following – Table 5.3. The distribution of columns are
as shown in the Figure 5.1 above.
Table 5.3. sizes of beams and columns for 1st iteration
Floor Column type

10 HE 140 B
4-9 HE 220 B
1-3 HE 300 B
Beam type
1-10 IPE 330
5.2
29
BARC0132 - Project
5.3 Checks and optimalizations of the structure
The outcomes were firstly analysed in terms of the lateral drift in Ux and Uy direction which appeared
to reach 3000 mm. Moreover it was observed that the greater shift experience the upper levels.
Figure 5.2 Y façade lateral drift Uy - SLS Figure 5.3 X façade lateral drift Ux - SLS
That considerable outcome was assumed to happen due to great wind loads which were increasing with
the height of the building. Therefore specifically the outcomes for the columns in terms of lateral drift
were checked.
Figure 5.4 Y façade preliminary lateral drift for Figure 5.5 X façade preliminary lateral
preliminary design - SLS drift for preliminary design - SLS
It was followed by the investigation of allowable drift. According to BS EN 1993, 2005 the maximal
()&*IZ PIL[P)
inter-storey lateral drift needs to be less than the height of the #44
. Thus the limit in the
investigated building cannot exceed 11.6 mm as the storey height is 3.5m.
Figures 5.2 – 5.5 show the lateral drift received from the first iteration. Moreover specific values for the
inter-storey drift was presented in the tabulated version – Table 5.4 overleaf.
30
BARC0132 - Project
Table 5.4. Lateral drift in UX and Uy direction
Floor 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Lateral drift UX [mm] 214 588.8 963.3 1284 1535 1728 1865 1960 2030 2108
Inter-storey drift [mm] 374.8 374.5 320.7 251 193 137 95 70 78
Floor 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Lateral drift Uy [mm] 209 531.3 833.5 1066 1232 1366 1477 1564 1629 1709
Inter-storey drift [mm] 322.6 302.2 232.5 166 134 111 87 65 80
After the first iteration shown in the above mentioned Figures 5.2 – 5.5 it appeared that the lateral drift
is over the recommended limit. Overall as it can be seen above the general lateral drift reaches nearly
3000mm therefore X-type bracing was added on all the 4 facades as they were found as the most efficient
type. Additionally, the internal cord was implemented to give the structure more sturdiness in the place
of potential staircase or lift.
Figure 5.6. Steel construction with exploded internal core Bracing in internal core of the building
Overall, short bracings were located symmetrically on each storey of the building along all 4 facades 4
corners as it appeared that they are more effective then those located in the middle part of the facades.
In terms of dimensions short bracings have identical cross sections as the columns on their respective
floors which were optimized after introducing bracings. Those are specified in the Table 5.5. Moreover
to minimize the effect of the lateral drift the long bracings crossing 5 storeys were placed in the central
part of each façade to maintain a symmetry of the structure. When it comes to the size of the braces
those vary accordingly to the wind load on X and Y façade.
31
BARC0132 - Project
Figure 5.7. Sizes of bracings
The choice of long bracing was conditioned by the fact that less amount of the material is used implying
smaller cost of the construction and moreover no need of great reduction in lateral drift after
implementing short bracings.
Table 5.5 Bracing Sizes
Bracing type Floor Façade Column type
X – Bracing short 1-3 X HE 300 B

X – Bracing short 4-9 X HE 220 B
X – Bracing short 10 X HE 140 B
X – Bracing short 1-3 Y HE 300 B
X – Bracing short 4-9 Y HE 220 B
X – Bracing short 10 Y HE 140 B
X – Bracing long 1-10 X HE 180 B
X – Bracing long 1-10 Y HE 220 B
Internal core 2-5 X and Y HE 140 B
Internal core 6-10 X and Y HE 120 B
32
BARC0132 - Project
The outcomes of bracing usage under the same load conditions are shown in the Table 5.5. Looking at
results it can be concluded that the addition of cross-bracing resulted in maximal lateral drift which does
not exceed serviceability limit of 11.6mm.
Figure 5.8. Uy Lateral drift SLS Figure 5.8. Ux Lateral drift SLS
Once the structure is stabilized laterally, initial beam sizing is reiterated by checking the deflection
caused by SLS combination. This combination shows the absolute worst – case scenario of loads on the
building in use. The maximum allowable vertical deflection according to BS EN 1993-1-1: 2005,
(;-%
7.2.1(1)B for beams carrying plaster or other brittle finish is . For this case of this project the
#:4
maximum allowable deflection for 5m beams is 13.89mm whereas for 6m beams it totals 16.67mm. The
initial results can be seen is the Table 5.6 which represent the checks for the initial beam sizing.
Table 5.6. Deflection check for initial beam size
Beam type IPE 330

Beam length [m] 6
5
Deformation at the centre [mm] 84.8
67.3
End 1 [mm] 45.00
55
End 2 [mm] 44.96
38
Average deflection[mm] 44.96
46.54
Exceeded limit [mm] 39.84
20.755
Limit [mm] 13.88
13.88
Ratio 2.86
1.49
33
BARC0132 - Project
Figure 5.9 10th floor beam deflection for preliminary design
The figure above shows the larger beam deflections are in the beams closer to the windward façade. It
shows the wind effects significantly not only lateral drift, but also deflection.
Figure 5.10 Y façade beam deflection for preliminary Figure 5.11 X façade beam deflection for
design preliminary design
Figures above shows that beams on the upper floors did not pass the serviceability checks therefore they
needed to be reiterated. The reiteration process can be seen in the Table 5.7 below.
Table 5.7. Final beam sizing iterations for optimalisation
Iteration number 1 2 3
Secondary Secondary
Beam hierarchy Primary beams Secondary beams Primary beams Primary beams
beams beams
Beam length 5 6 5 6 5 6
Floor 1-3 IPE 300 IPE 330 IPE 300 IPE300 IPE400 IPE 360 IPE 300 IPE400 IPE360
Floor 10 IPE 270 IPE 300 IPE 270 IPE270 IPE300 IPE 300 IPE 270 IPE300 IPE270
34
BARC0132 - Project
Thus the model was split into 3 part in terms of floors as following: floors 1-3, floors 4-6, floors 7-9 and
10. Additionally it was noticed that primary beams experienced different deflection values then
secondary beams therefore they were distinguish into separate categories. Moreover the variety in values
was observed for different beam spans. Thus the primary beams were splitted in 5m and 6m. Concluding
4 main list were made with 3 subcategories – 5m primary beams, 6m primary beams, secondary beams.
The final results are attached in the Table 5.8.
Table 5.8. Beam sizes for final iteration

Beam type Floors
1-3 4-6 7-9 10
Primary beams – 6m IPE 400 IPE 360 IPE 360 IPE 270
Primary beams – 5m IPE 300 IPE 330 IPE 300 IPE 300
Secondary beams IPE 360 IPE 360 IPE 300 IPE 300
Figure 5.12 Diagram of beam sizes on different floors for final iteration
5.3 Final checks
Final checks section includes the checks of all type of elements to their corresponding actions for the
last and optimized iteration. Table of content shows the type of checks on the different elements and its
table for it. Columns and beams are split into 4 groups; 1-3 floors, 4-6 floors, 7-9 floors. Beams are
split into another 3 categories on 1 floor according to their length and type; 5m long primary beams, 6m
long primary beams and secondary beams. As mentioned before the short bracings have identical cross
sections as the columns on their respective floors, while the long bracings are different for X and Y
façade.
35
BARC0132 - Project
Figure 5.14. Ux lateral drift SLS Figure 5.14. Uy lateral drift SLS
Element Check Table

Strength checks
Beams Bending 5.13, 5.14
Shear
Columns Simple compression 5.12
Bending 5.12
Shear 5.12
Buckling 5.12
Braces Axial 5.15, 5.16, 5.17
Buckling 5.15, 5.16, 5.17
Tension 5.18, 5.19, 5.20
Serviceability checks
Beams Deflection 5.9
Lateral Drift 5.10, 5.11
36
BARC0132 - Project
In Table 5.9 the final deflections checks were presented. The factorised resistance values were
previously calculated in the section 4 and used in this section to calculate the appropriate ratios which
will allow produce reasonable structural design. Those are obtained with regard to EC3-1-1 NA2.23.
Table 5.9. Final serviceability defections checks
Floor Floor 1-3 Floor 4-6 Floor 7-9 Floor 10

Types of Secondary Secondary Secondary Secondary
Primary beams Primary beams Primary beams Primary beams
beams beams beams beams beams
Length of
5 6 6 5 6 6 5 6 6 5 6 6
beams [m]
Type of beams IPE 300 IPE 400 IPE 360 IPE 330 IPE 360 IPE 360 IPE 300 IPE 360 IPE 300 IPE 270 IPE 300 IPE 300
Deflection at
27.83 35.79 35.79 33.27 34.61 42.8 39.34 78.83 78.83 5.67 41.12 59.98
centre [mm]
End 1 [mm] 9.8 33.53 33.53 40 20.18 24.91 24.91 51.28 51.28 20.93 32.66 45.53
End 2 [mm] 36.37 12.07 12.07 20.64 20.18 51.25 24.91 51.28 51.28 9.161 25.6 45.53
Average
deflection 22.8 22.8 30.44 20.18 38.08 24.91 65.05 65.05 15.04 29.13 45.53
[mm] 23.08
Deflection 12.99 12.99 2.83 14.43 4.72 14.43 13.775 13.77 9.37 11.99 14.45
[mm] 4.74
16.67 16.67 13.89 16.67 13.89 16.67 16.67 16.67 13.89 16.67 16.67
Limiting value 13.88
0.77 0.77 0.20 0.86 0.33 0.86 0.82 0.82 0.67 0.71 0.86
Ratio 4.00
It was followed by the final serviceability lateral drift checks in X direction which were calculated
based on EC3-1-1 NA2.24
Table 5.10. Final serviceability lateral drift checks – Ux
Floor 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Lateral drift UX [mm] 5 11.21 18.91 28.3 38.15 48.65 59.05 69.04 78.49 87.32
Inter-storey drift [mm] 6.531 7.7 9.39 9.85 10.5 10.4 9.99 9.45 8.83
Lateral drift in Y direction was checked in terms of limiting it values which were calculated based on
EC3-1-1 NA2.24
Table 5.11. Final serviceability lateral drift checks – Uy
Floor 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Lateral drift Uy [mm] 4 10.44 17.94 26.63 34.89 43.31 51.48 58.79 64.92 69.28
Inter-storey drift [mm] 6.314 7.5 8.69 8.26 8.42 8.17 7.31 6.13 4.36
Overall in comparison to previous preliminary design the values for the lateral drift decreased
significantly passing the serviceability checks.
37
BARC0132 - Project
Furthermore the columns checks were made in terms of simple compression, bending, shear and
buckling regarding EC3-1-1 Sec. 6.2.4, EC3-1-1 Sec. 6.3.
Table 5.12. Results for columns within correspoding them actions
Floor number 1-3 4-6 7-9 10

Column type HE 300 B HE 200 B HE 200 B HE 140 B
Value Ratio Value Ratio Value Ratio Value Ratio
Factorised axial
force NEd 3721 1967 1603 383
0.250983
0.70353564 0.608978328 0.49628483
Factorised axial
resistance Nc,Rd 5289 3230 3230 1526
Factorised
bending moment
in y direction 82.86 2.917 80.95 25.01
My,Ed
0.287141
0.12846512 0.009921769 0.275340136
Factorised Y
bending
645 294 294 87.1
resistance Mcy,Rd
Factorised
bending moment
in z direction 31.66 0.83 16.12 3.72
Mz,Ed
0.087529
0.10553333 0.005928571 0.115142857
Factorised Z
bending
300 140 140 42.5
resistance Mcz,Rd
Factorised shear
force VRd 44.11 0.917 42.88 13.18
0.048996
0.04667725 0.001605954 0.075096322
Factorised shear
resistance Vc,Rd 945 571 571 269
Factorised
buckling in y 3721 1967 1603 383
direction Nb,Rd
Factorised
4870 0.76406571 2880 0.682986111 2880 0.556597222 1130 0.338938
buckling
resistance Nby,Rd
Factorised
buckling 4050 0.91876543 2100 0.936666667 2100 0.763333333 607 0.630972
resistance Nbz,Rd
Following that the beams were checked according to ultimate limit states thus all of them do not exceed the
allowable value.
38
BARC0132 - Project
The following values for shear and bending in the beams were obtained by equation derived from
EC3-1-1 Sec. 6.2.8, EC3-1-1 Sec. 6.2.5, EC3-1-1 Sec. 6.2.6.
Table 5.13. Ultimate limits checks for beams floor 1-6
Floor Floor 1-3 Floor 4-6

Types of
beams
Primary beams Secondary beams Primary beams Secondary beams
Length of
beams [m]
5 6 6 5 6 6
Type of
beams
IPE 300 IPE 400 IPE 360 IPE 330 IPE 360 IPE 360
values ratio values ratio values ratio values ratio values ratio values ratio
Factorised
shear force
VRd
57.17 70.1 53.13 57.34 72.31 56.13
0.108 0.080 0.073 0.090 0.100 0.077

Factorised
shear
resistance 526 876 720 631 720 720
Vc,Rd
Factorised
buckling in
y direction
141.6 137.1 84.19 141.8 142.9 84.19
Nb,Rd
0.715 0.332 0.262 0.560 0.445 0.26
Factorised
buckling
198 412 321 253 321 321
resistance
Nby,Rd
Table 5.14. Ultimate limit checks for beams floor 7-10
Floor Floor 7-9 Floor 10

Types of
Primary beams Secondary beams Primary beams Secondary beams
beams
Length of
5 6 6 5 6 6
beams [m]
Type of
IPE 300 IPE 360 IPE 300 IPE 270 IPE 300 IPE 300
beams
values ratio values ratio values ratio values ratio values ratio values ratio
Factorised
shear
56.73 72.49 55.69 56.73 72.49 55.69
force VRd
0.107851711 0.100680556 0.105874525 0.107851711 0.100680556 0.105874525

Factorised
shear
resistance 526 720 526 526 720 526
Vc,Rd
Factorised
buckling
in y 140.5 145.9 83.54 83.36 53.57 49.35
direction
Nb,Rd 0.249242
0.70959596 0.454517134 0.421919192 0.548421 0.27055556
Factorised
buckling
198 321 198 152 198 198
resistance
Nby,Rd
39
BARC0132 - Project
Following that simple compression and buckling checks for short and long bracing were calculated
with the positive outcomes of passing and not overdesigning. The equation used for calculations are
mentioned in the section 4 for hand calculations and they refer to EC3-1-1 Sec. 6.2.4 and EC3-1-1
Sec. 6.3.1.
Table 5.15. Simple compression and buckling ultimate checks for short bracing
Floor number 1-3 4-6 7-9 10
Beam type HEB 300 HEB 220 HEB 220 HEB 140
Ratio Value Ratio Value Ratio Value Ratio Value
Factorised axial
force NEd 1480 1086 374.2 103.9
Factorised axial
0.28793774 5140 0.33622291 3230 0.115851393 3230 0.067908 1530
resistance Nc,Rd
Factorised
buckling in y 1480 1086 374.2 103.9
direction Nb,Rd
Factorised
buckling 0.30390144 4870 0.377083333 2880 0.129930556 2880 0.091947 1130
resistance Nby,Rd
Factorised
buckling
0.3654321 4050 0.517142857 2100 0.178190476 2100 0.17117 607
resistance Nbz,Rd
Table 5.16. Simple compression and buckling ultimate checks for long bracing
Façade direction X façade Y façade
Beam type HE 180 B HE 220 B
Ratio Value Ratio Value
Factorised axial force
NEd 1165 1078
0.502 0.335913313
Factorised axial
resistance Nc,Rd 2320 3230
Factorised buckling in y
direction Nb,Rd 1165 1078
Factorised buckling
0.376736111
resistance Nby,Rd 0.600515464 1940 2880
Factorised buckling
resistance Nbz,Rd 0.932 1250 0.516666667 2100
Table 5.17. Simple compression and buckling ultimate checks for internal core
Floor number 6-10 2-5

Column type HEB 120 HEB 140
Ratio Value Ratio Value
Factorised axial force NEd
364.6 458.1
Factorised axial resistance 0.301322 0.299412
Nc,Rd 1210 1530
Factorised buckling Nb,Rd

364.6 458.1
Factorised buckling
resistance Nby,Rd 0.460936 791 0.405398 1130
Factorised buckling
0.956955 381 0.754695 607
resistance Nbz,Rd
40
BARC0132 - Project
In order to proceed with checks the allowable limiting values for tension in bracing needed to be
calculated according to the EC3-1-1 NA2.15. In order to do so the equation (23)
r()
≤ 1 (23)
r.,,)
where,
𝑁>K is factorised action
𝑁),bK is factorised axial resistance
Furthermore the minimal values out of the following equation (24) (25) needed to be taken
ƒ/0
𝑁].,bK = (24)
3
4.0ƒ/1
𝑁].,bK = 3.3
(25)
r r
Where A is the area of the cross-section, 𝑓𝑢 = 490 NN2 and 𝑓𝑦 = 355 NN2 according to Eurocode EN
1993-1-1:2005 (E) Table 3.1.
Table 5.18. Tension ultimate checks for long bracing
Façade Y Façade X
Column type HE 220 B HE 180 B
Fx 1078 1165.00
Npl 3230.5 2318.15
Npl,rd 3648.27 2617.94
Minimal value 3230.5 2318.15
Ratio 0.295 0.445
Table 5.19. Tension ultimate checks in short bracing
Floor number 10 9-7 6-4 3-1

Column type HE 120 B HE 140 B 220 HE B HE 300 B
Fx 1202.00 459.30 716.90 477.50
Npl 1526.50 1526.50 3230.50 5293.05
Npl,rd 1723.90 1723.90 3648.27 5977.55
Minimal value 1526.5 1526.50 3230.50 5293.05
Ratio 0.69725254 0.26 0.19 0.07
Table 5.20. Internal core tension ultimate checks

Floor number 2-5 6-10
Column type HEB 140 120 HEB
Fx 458.1 364.6
Npl 1526.5 1526.5
Npl,rd 1723.909091 1723.909091
Minimal value 1526.5 1526.5
Ratio 0.26573327 0.211496071
Overall all the checks indicated that the proposed structural design passes the corresponding ultimate
and serviceability limit checks with no aspect of overdesigning.
41
BARC0132 - Project
6. DETAILING
6.1 Steel Connection Types
Steel connections can be riveted, welded, or bolted, with each method having distinct advantages and
disadvantages. Due to the comparatively lower strength of rivets and greater construction complexity of
welded connections, bolted connections will be used. Additional advantages include greater
performance under cyclic loading, and ease of inspection. A friction type bolt is preferred over a bearing
type bolt, due to the higher chance of slipping under load in the bearing type bolt, leading to premature
shear failure in the bolt. Pre-tensioning the bolt generates a shear friction force between the two plates.
Figure 6.1 Friction Type Bolt Connection Section Diagram
6.2 Beam to Column Connection
The beam to column connections use a moment resisting frame, in which the beam moment is
transferred to the column. The connection can either use bolts in shear, or in tension and compression
as shown in Figure 5.2 below. The addition of stiffeners to the column makes the connection rigid and
prevents deformation of the column at the joints. The extended end plate provides additional resistance
to failure.
Figure 6.2 Beam to Column Connection Section Diagram
42
BARC0132 - Project
6.3 Column Bases
Due to the associated higher foundation costs, unstiffened column base plates are used instead of
stiffened. The connection is similar to a beam to column connection, however a much thicker base
plate is used compared to an end plate. Axial forces are of greater concern in column bases, in
compression the load is distributed across the area between the base plate and concrete foundation.
This is sized based on the concrete’s strength. In tension, the force is transmitted through the bolt
connections to the concrete foundation below. Stiffeners can also be added to maintain rigidity due to
the high axial forces and moments taken by the column bases.
Figure 6.3 Column Base Section Diagram
6.4 Bracing Connection
Bracing members are attached to a gusset plate using bolted connections, and the gusset plate itself is
attached to the beam end plate. The bracing members operate either in tension only, or both tension
and compression. Bolts are used due to their performance under cyclic loading, which can occur more
frequently in bracing members that experience both tension and compression.
Figure 6.4 Bracing Connection Section Diagram
43
BARC0132 - Project
7. FOUNDATIONS
Soil Undrained Shear Strength Cu or c’ or Su 205 kPa

Soil Cohesion Angle 𝜙 „ 24 degrees
Soil cohesion c’ 5kPa
Effective Young’s Modulus E’ 40MPa
Soil Type Dense Clay
Unit Weight of Unsaturated, Dense Clay γ}xB… 18 kN/m3
Unit Weight of Saturated, Dense Clay γ}xB…,•BF 19 kN/m3
Unit Weight of Reinforced Concrete 𝛾,&%,*I)I 25 kN/m3
Water Table Depth 8.7m British Geological Survey (n.d.)
Number of Basements 1
Table 7.1 Soil Profile Characteristics
7.1 Foundation Strategy
The strategy for the design of the foundation uses pads as well as retaining walls. The retaining walls
are used to support the weight along the perimeter of the building while the pads provide foundational
support in the centre.
This design strategy was adopted and tested as pads are the cheapest foundation. Since the retaining
walls are required, they are used as part of the foundation design. Also, as the soil characteristics
indicate that the soil in the location are stiff, lower depths are not required for the foundation to
perform adequately. Hence, there is a lower probability for the need of deep foundations such as piles,
which are more expensive. Raft foundations would be the last resort as they are very expensive, and
the excavation process of the dense soil would be very costly from a time and financial point of view.
Fig.7.1 Ground Section showing the foundation design strategy
A distance of 0.5m is maintained between the basement floor slab and the foundations. This volume is
filled with granular material, allowing for movements in the foundations and the dissipation of the
44
BARC0132 - Project
pore pressure to occur without causing harm to the floor slab. In the event of heaving for example, if
there were no space between the foundation and the slab, the vertical upwards movement of the
foundation would cause a crack in the floor.
7.2 Pad Foundation Design
The loads applied from the columns are divided into two main categories, accounting for the biggest
difference in loads transferred.
2300kN
3600kN
Fig. 7.2 Diagram showing the loads applied by the columns onto the foundations
The maximum load applied by the bottom columns are assumed to be 3600kN. The maximum load is
used to calculate the breadth as well as the settlements to account for the worst-case scenario.
7.2.1 Estimating the Breadth of the Pad
This process is required to carry out an estimation for the minimum breadth of the pad sufficient to
take the weight of the building upon it. The pads will be designed using the concept of the ultimate
limit state. Hence, the design must be safe for the undrained as well as the drained case when the
excess pore pressures have dissipated.
7.2.1.1 Undrained Case
For the undrained case, the soil above the depth D is treated as a surcharge with no strength.
Therefore, the foundation is firstly considered to be placed at the surface, as the foundation breadth is
unknown.
45
BARC0132 - Project
The bearing capacity is written as:
𝐹- + 𝑊a
𝑞= = 𝑁, ⋅ 𝑆+ + 𝛾 ⋅ 𝐷
𝐴
Hence, the allowable force applied on the soil per unit area for there not to be failure can be expressed
as:
𝐹- 𝑁, ∗ 𝑆+ 𝑊a
= +𝐷∗𝛾−
𝐴 𝐹( 𝐴
Where,
𝐹- = Allowable Force (kN)
𝑊a = Weight of the Foundation (kN)
𝐴 = Area of the Foundation Plane (m2)
𝑁, = Bearing Capacity Coefficient due to Cohesion
𝑆+ = Undrained Shear Strength of the Soil (dense clay) (kPa)
𝛾 = Density of the Overburden Soil (dense clay) (kN/m3)
𝐷 = Excavation Depth(m)
Given that it is a square pad foundation, the area A is given by B2. The maximum load applied to the
columns is used to calculate the breadth required to support the highest load.
𝐿𝑜𝑎𝑑 𝑁, ∗ 𝑆+ 𝐵5 ∗ ℎ ∗ 𝛾,&%,*I)I
= + 𝑑 ∗ 𝛾,.-Z −
𝐵5 𝐹( 𝐵5
𝐿𝑜𝑎𝑑
𝐵 = œ
𝑁, ∗ 𝑆+
+ 𝑑 ∗ 𝛾,.-Z − ℎ ∗ 𝛾,&%,*I)I
𝐹(
Load = 3600 kN
The characteristics of the soil are listed in Table 7.1
The foundation is first assumed to be at the surface, so the bearing capacity coefficient 𝑁, = 6.2
according to Skempton, Building Research Congress, 1951.
The factor of safety applied is 3, as factors of safety for pads ranges between 2-3 for pads.
The height of the foundation is assumed to be 1m. Hence, the foundation plane is located at 5m depth,
following the design pictured in Fig. 7.1.
The Breadth is calculated and yields a value of 1.9m.

† 6
This value is re-iterated with the corrected D/b ratio, J = 3.0 = 2.6 and the new value for 𝑁, = 9 is
determined
Þ B = 1.49 m
Hence, the breadth yields a value of 1.49m at the corrected depth for the undrained case.
46
BARC0132 - Project
7.2.1.2 Drained Case
For the foundation to perform well on the long term, the breadth of the pads must be designed for both
the bearing capacity of the soil in the undrained and drained case.
The bearing capacity for drained soil can be derived from the following equation:
1
𝑞% = 𝑐 „ 𝑁, 𝑠, 𝑑, 𝑖, 𝑏, + 𝑞𝑁‡ 𝑠‡ 𝑑‡ 𝑖‡ 𝑏‡ + 𝛾𝐵𝑁ˆ 𝑠ˆ 𝑑ˆ 𝑖ˆ 𝑏ˆ
2
Where:
𝛾 is the density of the soil below foundation level
B is the width of the foundation
c’ is the undrained shear strength of the soil
q is the effective pressure of excavated soil
N are the bearing capacity factors
s are the shape factors
d are the depth factors
i are the load inclination factors
b are the base inclination factors
Given the soil profile characteristics listed in Table 7.1 we can calculate the bearing capacity.
The breadth obtained in the undrained case is used to calculate the bearing pressure in the drained
case. If the bearing pressure in the drained case is lower than the bearing capacity of the soil, the
breadth obtained in the undrained case is sufficient for both cases. If it is higher than the bearing
capacity of the soil, the breadth must be increased.
Defining Bearing Capacity Factors:
3 𝜙„
𝑁‡ = 𝑒 ‰ )-%Š tan5 i45 + m
2
𝑁, = g𝑁‡ − 1h cot(𝜙 „ )
𝑁ˆ = g𝑁‡ − 1htan (1.4𝜙 „ )
Where 𝜙 „ is the soil cohesion angle 𝜙 „ = 24
𝑁‡ = 9.5
𝑁, = 20
𝑁ˆ = 5
Defining Shape Factors:
B/L = 1 because the pad is square.
𝑠, 𝑎𝑛𝑑 𝑠ˆ can be read on the graph relating the shape factors to the Breadth/length ratio after Brinch
Hansen.
𝑠, = 1.2
𝑠ˆ = 0.9
(* '3
𝑠‡ = 𝑠, − r4
= 1.17
47
BARC0132 - Project
Defining Depth Factors:
𝑑ˆ = 1 in all cases
𝑑, can be read on the graph relating the depth factors to the Depth/Breadth ratio.
D/B = 5/1.5 = 3.3 (accounting for the breadth found in the undrained case)
𝑑, = 1.5
K* '3
𝑑‡ = 𝑑, − = 1.44
r4
Load Inclination Factors
The load is applied perpendicularly to the foundation; hence the load inclination factors are equated to
1.
Base Inclination Factors
Most foundations are built with horizontal bases; hence the base inclination factors are equated to 1.
The pressure of the excavated soil q is given by:
𝑞 = 𝛾,.-Z ∗ 𝐷 as the water table is located below the foundation plane.
An expression for qn is obtained initially taking B as the variable.
qn = 1638.95 + 18*B
The bearing pressure on the soil due to the foundation must be lower than the net bearing pressure
(capacity of soil to resist the pressure) to ensure that the soil does not fail. Hence, value of B must be
such that the following condition is satisfied:
𝐿𝑜𝑎𝑑 𝑞%
5
≤ + 𝛾,.-Z ⋅ 𝐷 − 𝛾,&%,*I)I ⋅ ℎ
𝐵 𝐹𝑎𝑐𝑡𝑜𝑟 𝑜𝑓 𝑆𝑎𝑓𝑒𝑡𝑦
=&-K
Þ ‹2
≤ 611.32 + 6 ∗ 𝐵
Þ
=&-K
Þ 0 ≤ 611.32 + 6 ∗ 𝐵 − ‹2
When reiterating the breadth of the foundation until the equation delivers a positive result, it is
important to change the factors of the equation that are breadth dependent.
†
Hence, new values of 𝑑, have to be read off the chart, following the new ratio and new 𝑑‡ values
‹
must be calculated.
The shape factors depend on the breadth to length ratio and are therefore not affected by any changes
‹
of the breadth for square pads as the = ratio remains equal to 1.
48
BARC0132 - Project
The breadth factor that finally satisfies the equation is B = 2.4m. As the foundation will not be built as
precise than 10cm, a breadth of 2.5m is assumed to ensure safety in the drained case.
7.2.1.3 Decision
The value of B obtained from the undrained case B = 1.49m, and the value from the drained case B =
2.5m. Since the foundation must be built to accommodate both cases, the greater value of B, i.e., B =
2.5m is taken as the final dimension for the pads.
Having calculated the minimum pad breadth complying with the dense clay’s ULS for both the
undrained and drained scenarios, the serviceability limit state must be analysed by determining the
expected settlement, defining if it is an acceptable solution. Only during excavation, a heave of the soil
is expected as the area is unloaded.
7.2.2 Settlement
Both the drained and undrained scenarios are considered for the immediate settlement while the
consolidation settlement is only accounted for in the undrained case.
Indeed, for the drained case, the pore pressures dissipate immediately which is why we only have
immediate settlement. For the undrained case, there is both immediate settlement and consolidation, as
the pore pressures take time to dissipate.
The behaviour of the soil being either drained or undrained, depends on many factors from which we
can note the characteristics of the soil and the speed of construction. Indeed, if the building process is
fast enough, the soil will behave as in the drained case, as the pore pressures dissipate immediately. If
the process is slow, it behaves as in the undrained case, consolidating over time as the pore pressures
dissipate slowly.
The total settlement of a foundation in the undrained case is hence given by:
𝜌) = 𝜌L + 𝜌,
Where 𝜌L is the immediate settlement and 𝜌, is the consolidation settlement.

And 𝜌) = 𝜌L in the drained case.
7.2.2.1 Immediate Settlement 𝝆𝒊
Using elastic theory, the immediate undrained and drained 𝜌L settlements can be calculated.
As the pad is made of concrete, it will act as a rigid foundation on the clay soil. Hence, the influence
factor is taken for a rigid square foundation: 𝐼• = 0.82.
Ž• ‹
The corner settlement is given by the equation: 𝜌,&*%I* = (1 − 𝑣 5 )𝐼•
>
Since the foundation is rigid, it will settle equally in all points of the foundation. So, by calculating the
corner settlement we can obtain the settlement of the foundation.
The drained Poisson’s ratio for stiff clays range between 0.1 and 0.2, hence a centre value of 0.15 was
taken: v’ = 0.15 Tomlinson, M.J. (1980).
49
BARC0132 - Project
The undrained poisson’s ratio 𝑣+ for clays is specified as 0.5. Tomlinson, M.J. (1980)
The effective Young’s modulus of the soil E’ has been given in the specifics of the soil (Table 4.1),
from which the undrained Young’s modulus 𝐸+ can be determined, using the following relationship:
1 + 𝑣+
𝐸+ = 𝐸 „ q r
1 + 𝑣„
1 + 0.5
𝐸+ = 40 000 ∗ q r = 52173.9 𝑘𝑃𝑎
1 + 0.15
Drained Undrained
E’ = 40 000 kPa 𝐸+ = 52173.9 𝑘𝑃𝑎
Poisson’s ratio v’ = 0.15 Tomlinson, M.J. (1980) 𝑣+ = 0.5 Tomlinson, M.J. (1980)
𝐼• = 0.82
N-iLN+N .&-K #:44
Maximum Pressure applied from the columns = ‹2
= 5.62 = 576 𝑘𝑃𝑎
Immediate Settlement 𝜌L = 0.028m Immediate Settlement 𝜌L = 0.022m

Table. 7.2 Immediate Settlement of the pads under highest load applied from columns =3600 kN in
Drained and Undrained case with a breadth of 2.5m
The immediate settlement of the foundation under the highest load in the drained and undrained case
are in the order of 2 ∗ 10'5 𝑚, equating 2-3cm of immediate settlement. These values are acceptable;
hence the design of the pads is adequate for immediate settlements.
7.2.2.2 Consolidation
The consolidation settlement can be determined based on the 1D loading theory. The stress
distribution in the soil below the foundation plane due to the weight applied by the foundation is
calculated for 7 soil strata spanning 8m starting at the foundation plane. The settlement of each layer is
calculated and summed, to obtain the consolidation settlement of the soil beneath the foundation.
{A}
Where 𝑚` is the coefficient of volume compressibility

z is the thickness of the layer
∆𝜎` ′ is the change in vertical effective stress
The coefficient of volume compressibility mv is calculated using void ratios given by the effective
stress on the soil which are obtained from oedometer test data provided for the soil.
3 ∆I
𝑚` = 37I ∗ ∆•
5 6„ {B}
The change in vertical stress below the corner of a uniform rectangular surface load is given by:
∆𝜎` = 𝑞 ∗ 𝐼• ∗ 4
50
BARC0132 - Project
Where 𝑞 is the vertical pressure applied by the foundation (kPa)
𝐼• is the influence coefficient for the vertical component of stress below the corner of a
uniformity-loaded rectangular area which is read off the graph by (Fadum, 2nd 27 Int. Conf.
‹ =
S.M.F.E., Vol.3, p.83) depending on the ratios of 𝑚 = O and n = O.
‹ 5.6
Since the pad foundation is square, B = L, hence m = n = O
= O
with z being the depth of each layer.
The calculations for all the layers follow the same procedure:
The initial vertical stress at the centre of each layer was calculated using the following equations:
Above the water table: 𝜎` 4 ′ = 𝛾,.-Z178#.19#.:) ∗ 𝑍
Below the water table: 𝜎` 4 ′ = (𝛾,.-Z8#.19#.:) − 𝛾R-)I* ) ∗ 𝑍
Where Z is the midpoint height of the layer from ground level.
Midpoint of each layer with respect to foundation plane:
Layer Depth (below datum at -5m) Midpoint height from ground level Z
= 0.5/2 + H
L1 = 0.5 =0.25+5
=5.25
The final vertical stress is given by adding the initial vertical stress at the centre of the layer to the
change in vertical stress at the centre of the layer: 𝜎` a = ∆𝜎` \ ,I%)*I + 𝜎` 4
\ ,I%)*I
𝜎` „4 = 𝑍 ∗ 𝛾,.-Z178#.19#.:) = 5.25 ∗ 18 = 94.5 𝑘𝑁

-
∆•6 ;<..<" =#0:9 7 ∆•6 .<> =#0:9 603.27 66#

Layer 1 ∆𝜎` 3 ,I%)*I = 5
= 5
= 501.1 kN
Z = 5.25 𝜎` a = 𝜎` „4 + 𝐴𝑣𝑒𝑟𝑎𝑔𝑒 ∆𝜎` 3 = 595.62 𝑘𝑁
The vertical stress values for each layer are summed in the table below.
51
BARC0132 - Project
Initial Average
Depth from vertical ∆𝜎` at the 𝜎` a
foundation m=n 𝐼• ∆𝜎` stress 𝜎` 4 ′ Levels
center of each
plane
layer
z1 0 infinity 0.25 591.8 90 572.3784375 L1 662.378438
z2 0.5 2.5 0.24 553 94.5 501.1 L1 595.62
z3 1 1.25 0.195 449.3 108 357.1 L2 465.12
z4 2 0.6 0.115 265 126 176.3 L3 302.3
z5 3.7 0.3 0.038 87.5 159.3 87.6 L4 246.8
z6 4 0.3 0.038 87.5 189.6 63.9 L5 253.5
z7 6 0.2 0.0175 40.3 196 27.1 L6 223.1
z8 8 0.1 0.006 13.8 250 6.9 L7 256.9
Table 7.3 Calculating the initial and final vertical stresses in the layers of soil below the foundation plane
for the pads under the highest load applied = 3600kN with a breadth of 2.5m
Using interpolation from the oedometer test data (Appendix), the initial and final void ratios 𝑒L and 𝑒a
associated with the initial and final vertical stresses 𝜎` 4 ′ and 𝜎` a for each layer are obtained.
The total consolidation settlement 𝜌, ‘ and mv and are calculated using equations A and B.
Depth from Settlement 𝜌, \ (m)

𝑒L 𝑒a 𝑚`
foundation plane
z1 0
z2 0.5 0.94 0.83 0.000116442 0.0291
z3 1 0.93 0.85 0.000124419 0.0222
z4 2 0.92 0.88 0.000132275 0.0233
z5 3.7 0.91 0.89 0.000115186 0.0171
z6 4 0.90 0.89 0.000115589 0.002
z7 6 0.90 0.89 0.000115675 0.006
z8 8 0.89 0.9 0.000116402 0.001
𝜌, ‘ (m) 0.1019
Table 7.4. Table showing the settlement of each layer of soil below the foundation plane obtained with the
initial and final void ratios and the coefficient of volume compressibility mv for the pads under the
lowest load applied = 3600kN with a breadth of 2.5m
The total settlement of the foundation in the drained case under the highest load applied = 3600kN is
hence given by:
𝜌) = 𝜌L = 0.028 𝑚 = 𝟐. 𝟖 𝒄𝒎
And in the undrained case:

𝜌) = 𝜌L + 𝜌,
52
BARC0132 - Project
𝜌) = 0.022 + 0.1019 = 0.1239 𝑚 = 𝟏𝟐 𝒄𝒎
The immediate settlement of the pad being less than 3cm, is considered adequate for a residential
building. Considering that consolidation happens over a long period of time, the total settlement of the
building being 12cm is acceptable for a residential building. Hence, the design of the pads of 2.5m
breadth is adequate for the highest load transferred by the columns.
Since each column within the building transfers a different load to the foundation, differential
settlement is expected. As this phenomenon is very detrimental to the structure, the differential
settlement is calculated between the columns with the highest and lowest loads.
7.2.2.2.1 Settlement of pad with lowest load
The highest load transferred by the columns is 3600 kN (the settlement was calculated above) and the
lowest load is 2300kN. Hence, the settlement of the column with the lowest load is calculated
following the same procedure.
The breadth of the pads with the lowest loads is also assumed to be 2.5m, since we have calculated the
breadth for the worst-case scenario of 3600kN of load applied. A 2.5m breath would hence be
sufficient for a lower load of 2300kN, as seen in the table below.
Breadth qn Equation to check

B= 1.6 1667.747368 -277.5217105
B= 1.8 1671.347368 -87.76075374
B= 1.9 1673.147368 -14.4033241
B= 2 1674.947368 48.31578947
B= 2.5 1683.947368 258.3157895
Table 7.5. Table showing the required depth to satisfy the bearing capacity check for the undrained
case under lowest load of 2300kN with a breadth of 2.5m
As the loads of the columns vary between 2300kN and 3600kN, and for construction and design
efficiency purposes, in this first design iterations, all pads will have a breadth of 2.5m. This could
facilitate the construction process, as well as keep the calculations within safe values. As the
excavation process is similar regardless of the breadth of foundation, the increased cost would only be
in the additional use of concrete. This cost surcharge would however speed up construction process
and reduce risk of errors and failure which could be more of interest to the client.
The immediate and consolidation settlements for the pads with a lower applied load are summed in the
following tables.
Drained Undrained
E’ = 40 000 kPa 𝐸+ = 52173.9 𝑘𝑃𝑎
𝐼• = 0.82
53
BARC0132 - Project
Initial vertical stress Average

Depth
𝜎` 4 ′ ∆𝜎` at the 𝜎` a
from m=n 𝐼• ∆𝜎` Levels
center of
foundation
each layer
plane
z1 0 infinity 0.25 591.796875 90 472.5384375 L1 562.538438
z2 0.5 2.5 0.24 353.28 94.5 320.16 L1 414.66
z3 1 1.25 0.195 287.04 108 228.16 L2 336.16
z4 2 0.625 0.115 169.28 126 112.61 L3 238.61
z5 3.7 0.34 0.038 55.94 159.3 55.94 L4 215.24
z6 4 0.31 0.038 55.94 189.6 40.85 L5 230.45
z7 6 0.21 0.0175 25.76 196 17.3 L6 213.3
z8 8 0.16 0.006 8.832 250 4.42 L7 254.42

N-iLN+N .&-K 5#44
= 5.62 = 368 𝑘𝑃𝑎

Table. 7.6 Immediate Settlement of the pads under lowest load applied from columns =2300 kN in Drained
and Undrained case with a breadth of 2.5m
Table 7.7 Calculating the initial and final vertical stresses in the layers of soil below the foundation plane
for the pads under the lowest load applied = 2300kN with a breadth of 2.5m
Depth from Settlement 𝜌, \ (m)

𝑒L 𝑒a 𝑚`
foundation plane
z1 0
z2 0.5 0.94 0.85 0.000116442 0.02
z3 1 0.93 0.88 0.000124419 0.01
z4 2 0.92 0.89 0.000132275 0.01
z5 3.7 0.91 0.897 0.000115186 0.01
z6 4 0.90 0.89 0.000115589 0.002
z7 6 0.90 0.898 0.000115675 0.004
z8 8 0.89 0.889 0.000116402 0.001
𝜌, ‘ (m)
0.067
54
BARC0132 - Project
lowest load applied = 2300kN with a breadth of 2.5m
The total settlement of the foundation in the drained case under lowest load applied = 2300kN and
breadth = 2.5m is hence given by:
𝜌) = 𝜌L = 0.028 𝑚 = 𝟏. 𝟖 𝒄𝒎
And in the undrained case:

𝜌) = 𝜌L + 𝜌,
𝜌) = 0.014 + 0.067 = 0.081 𝑚 = 𝟖. 𝟏 𝒄𝒎
Foundation Immediate Settlement (cm) Total Settlement (cm)

2300 kN B=2.5m 1.8 8.1
3600 kN B=2.5m 2.8 12
Differential Settlement (cm) 1 3.9
Fig 7.9. Table showing the differential settlement between the pad with the highest and lowest loads
Accounting for the worst-case scenario, assuming the shortest distance between the column with the
highest and lowest loads being 5m (since the shortest bay is 5m wide). Since differential settlements
on a short span will impact with greater significance the structure.
Differential Settlements should not exceed values L/100 for a distance of L.

L = 5m
L/100 = 5 cm
The differential settlement being less than 5cm in both the drained and undrained case, 1cm and 3.9cm
respectively, there won’t be damages caused to the structure due to differential settlements of the pads.
And the total settlement being within an acceptable range for residential buildings, the design of the
pads with a breadth of 2.5m is approved.
7.3 Retaining Walls
Preventing soil erosion and creating basements requires the application of retaining walls.
The two main types of retaining walls are gravity and cantilever walls. Since gravity walls stay in
place due to their self-weight, they are very thick (material increase and cost considerations, carbon
emissions, etc.). Cantilever walls are much slimmer, though buried at higher depths.
The retaining walls adopted for this design are secant piles, which are a type of cantilevered
wall. These cantilevered walls will be used as part of the foundation, taking the loads of the
external columns. They will be a hard/hard construction: Primary piles are constructed in higher
strength concrete and may be reinforced. Heavy duty rotary piling rigs cut the secondary piles. As
structural concrete is used, there may be no need to provide a lining wall. A capping beam is
placed at the top, distributing the loads applied by the columns evenly onto the foundation.
7.3.1 Failure Considerations
55
BARC0132 - Project
Specific types of failure are associated to the different retaining walls. Since the water level is below
the excavation depth, the only failures associated with this design are rotations, caused by exceedances
of the soil’s resistance (active force higher than passive force) and wall failure. It is therefore essential
to determine a sufficient embedment depth.
56
BARC0132 - Project
7.3.2 Sizing
The sizing of the retaining walls is configured. The embedment length is first calculated, applying
Rankine’s theory of stability of loose earth, considering all the active and passive forces applied on the
wall. This theory assumes perfectly plastic material and is based on the Mohr-Coulomb failure
criterion.
Fig 7.3 Diagram showing the different horizontal active and passive stresses applied on the retaining
wall, and their position of application
7.3.2.1.1 Embedment Length
Since the soil is clay, it has cohesion (c’). This means the soil has the capacity to withstand certain
tensile forces which leads to a crack in the system on the active side. 𝐻, defines the height of the soil
crack due to cohesion. This cracked area has no influence on the soil’s shear strength.
57
BARC0132 - Project
Below the water level, the hydrostatic pressure acts on the wall in addition to the pressure of the
effective stresses on the wall.
7.3.2.1.2 Factors of Safety
As the retaining walls are supporting the external columns of the structure, it is very important to work
with conservative estimates. Hence, factors of safety of are applied to the friction angle and to the
cohesion factor.
A factor of safety is applied on the friction angle, hence assuming worse soil conditions to calculate
the embedment length required for the wall.
𝑡𝑎𝑛𝜑
𝜑( = tan'3 ( )
𝐹(
The factor of safety applied to friction angles 𝜑 is 𝐹( = 1.25
𝜑( = 19.6
A factor of safety of 1.4 is also applied on the cohesion factor c’:
𝑐„
𝑐(„ =
𝐹(
5
𝑐„ = = 3.57
1.4
Consequently, the factors of safety will be applied to all loads coming down from the building.
7.3.2.1.3 Water Pressure
(𝐻 + 𝑑 − 𝐿)5 (𝐻 + 𝑑 − 𝐿)
𝑊 = 𝛾R-)I* ⋅ ⋅ i𝐿 + 2 ⋅ m
2 3
As water pressure is equal in all directions, the vertical stress applied is equal to the horizontal. Hence,
the water pressure is not multiplied by Ka or Kp.
As the water pressure is applied on both the active and passive sides equally, the effect of the water
can be disregarded when calculating the overturning moment of the wall.
7.3.2.1.4 Active State

The vertical stress is higher than the horizontal stress, this is due to the movement of the soil which
causes the pressures to reduce in the active state.
The coefficient of active earth pressures is calculated using the friction angle of the soil.
3'(L%’8
Active Earth Pressure Coefficient: 𝐾- = = 0.4975
37(L%’8
The soil has the capacity to withstand certain tensile forces which leads to a crack in the system on the
active side. 𝐻, defines the height of the soil crack due to cohesion. This cracked area has no influence
on the soil’s shear strength.
“5⋅,?3 8 •
𝐻, = “ˆ = 0.56𝑚
*=#0 ⋅–—# •
58
BARC0132 - Project
The height of the crack is subtracted from the height of the soil when calculating the vertical force
from the mobilised soil.
On the active side, a surcharge pressure is assumed. This considers a possible load application on the
soil due to eventual road or building constructions. The value assumed is a distributed pressure of
S = 20kPa on the active side. The surcharge is assumed to be uniformly distributed.
The horizontal stress is calculated using the following equation: 𝜎P = 𝐾- ∗ 𝜎`
The active forces are calculated using the following principle: 𝐹-,)LÌ = 𝜎P ∗ ℎ for rectangular force
P
distribution and 𝐹-,)LÌ = 𝜎P ∗ 5 for triangular force distributions.
Horizontal Stresses Forces Applied

(𝐿 − 𝐻, )
𝜎P-3 = 𝐾- (𝑊𝐿 − 𝐻, ) ⋅ 𝛾,.-Z 𝐹- 3 = 𝐾- ⋅ (𝐿 − 𝐻, ) ⋅ 𝛾,.-Z ⋅
2
𝜎P-5 = 𝐾- ⋅ (𝐿 − 𝐻, ) ⋅ 𝛾,.-Z 𝐹-5 = 𝐾- ⋅ (𝐿 − 𝐻, ) ⋅ 𝛾,.-Z ⋅ (𝐻 + 𝑑 − 𝑊𝐿)
(𝐻 + 𝑑 − 𝐿)
𝜎P-# = 𝐾- ⋅ (𝐻 + 𝑑 − 𝐿) ⋅ g𝛾,.-Z (-) − 𝛾R-)I* h 𝐹-# = 𝐾- ⋅ (𝐻 + 𝑑 − 𝐿) ⋅ g𝛾,.-Z,(-) − 𝛾R-)I* h ⋅
2
𝜎P (+*,P-*[I = 𝐾- ⋅ 𝑆 𝐹˜+*,P-*[I = 𝐾- ⋅ 𝑆 ⋅ (𝐻 + 𝑑)
7.3.2.1.5 Passive State
The horizontal stresses are higher than the vertical stresses.
The coefficient of passive earth pressures is calculated using the friction angle of the soil.
37(L%’
Passive Earth Pressure Coefficient: 𝐾; = 3'(L%’8 = 2
8
There is no crack on the passive side, however, the cohesion of the soil increases the horizontal
stresses by 2 ∗ 𝑐 „ ∗ •𝐾;
The horizontal stress is calculated using the following equation:

𝜎P = 𝐾; ∗ 𝜎` + 2 ∗ 𝑐 „ ∗ •𝐾;
Horizontal Stresses Forces Applied
𝜎!"# = 2 ⋅ 𝑐$%! ⋅ &'𝐾" ) 𝐹&# = 2 ⋅ 𝑐$%! ⋅ &'𝐾" ) ⋅ (𝐿 − 𝐻)
𝜎! &' = 2 ⋅ 𝑐$%! ⋅ &'𝐾" ) 𝐹&' = 2 ⋅ 𝑐$%! ⋅ &'𝐾" ) ⋅ (ℎ + 𝑑 − 𝐿)

(𝐿 − 𝐻)
𝜎! &( = 𝐾" ⋅ 𝛾)*+, ⋅ (𝐿 − 𝐻) 𝐹&( = 𝐾" ⋅ 𝛾)*+, ⋅ (𝐿 − 𝐻) ⋅
2
𝜎! &- = 𝐾" ⋅ 𝛾)*+, ⋅ (𝐿 − 𝐻) 𝐹&- = 𝐾" ⋅ 𝛾)*+, ⋅ (𝐿 − 𝐻) ⋅ (𝐻 + 𝑑 − 𝐿)
(𝐻 + 𝑑 − 𝐿)
𝜎! &. = 𝐾" ⋅ '𝛾)*+,,0+1 − 𝛾2+134 ) ⋅ (𝐻 + 𝑑 − 𝐿) 𝐹&. = 𝐾" ⋅ '𝛾)*+,,0+1 − 𝛾2+134 ) ⋅ (𝐻 + 𝑑 − 𝐿) ⋅ 4 5
2
59
BARC0132 - Project
7.3.2.1.6 Active moments
The moments are equal to the force applied multiplied by the distance to the centroid of the area.
(𝑊𝐿 − 𝐻, ) (𝐿 − 𝐻, )
𝑀ƒ3 = 𝐾- ⋅ (𝐿 − 𝐻, ) ⋅ 𝛾,.-Z ⋅ ⋅ ³i2 ⋅ m + 𝐻, ´
2 3
(𝐻 + 𝑑 − 𝐿)
𝑀ƒ5 = 𝐾- ⋅ (𝐿 − 𝐻, ) ⋅ 𝛾,.-Z ⋅ (𝐻 + 𝑑 − 𝐿) ⋅ i𝐿 + m
2
(𝐻 + 𝑑 − 𝑊𝐿) (𝐻 + 𝑑 − 𝐿)
𝑀ƒ# = 𝐾- ⋅ (𝐻 + 𝑑 − 𝐿) ⋅ g𝛾,.-Z,(-) − 𝛾R-)I* h ⋅ ⋅ i𝐿 + 2 ⋅ m
2 3
(𝐻 + 𝑑)
𝑀˜+*,P-*[I = 𝐾- ⋅ 𝑆 ⋅ (𝐻 + 𝑑) ⋅
2
Stress
Force
Moment
7.3.2.1.7 Passive moments
(𝐿 − 𝐻)
𝑀]3 = 2 ⋅ 𝑐<„8 ⋅ µg𝐾; h ⋅ (𝐿 − 𝐻) ⋅ i𝐻 + m
2
(𝐻 + 𝑑 − 𝐿)
𝑀]5 = 2 ⋅ 𝑐<„8 ⋅ µg𝐾; h ⋅ (ℎ + 𝑑 − 𝐿) ⋅ i𝐿 + m
2
(𝐿 − 𝐻) 𝐿−𝐻
𝑀]# = 𝐾; ⋅ 𝛾,.-Z ⋅ (𝐿 − 𝐻) ⋅ ⋅ q𝐻 + 2 ⋅ r
2 3
𝐻+𝑑−𝐿
𝑀]8 = 𝐾; ⋅ 𝛾,.-Z ⋅ (𝐿 − 𝐻) ⋅ (𝐻 + 𝑑 − 𝐿) ⋅ q𝐿 + r
2
(𝐻 + 𝑑 − 𝐿) 𝐻+𝑑−𝐿
𝑀]6 = 𝐾; ⋅ g𝛾,.-Z,(-) − 𝛾R-)I* h ⋅ (𝐻 + 𝑑 − 𝐿) ⋅ i m ⋅ q𝐿 + 2 ⋅ r
2 3
Stress
Force
Moment
Where:
𝐾- = 𝑎𝑐𝑡𝑖𝑣𝑒 𝑒𝑎𝑟𝑡ℎ 𝑝𝑟𝑒𝑠𝑠𝑢𝑟𝑒 𝑐𝑜𝑒𝑓𝑓𝑖𝑐𝑖𝑒𝑛𝑡 = 0.4975
𝐾; = 𝑝𝑎𝑠𝑠𝑖𝑣𝑒 𝑒𝑎𝑟𝑡ℎ 𝑝𝑟𝑒𝑠𝑠𝑢𝑟𝑒 𝑐𝑜𝑒𝑓𝑓𝑖𝑐𝑖𝑒𝑛𝑡 = 2
H = basement floor depth = 3.5m
L = water table depth = 8.7m
d = embedment length to determine
60
BARC0132 - Project
Assuming rotation around the prop, and applying equilibrium, the sum of the forces must be equal to
zero.

y 𝑀 = y 𝑀-,)LÌ − y 𝑀;-((LÌ = 0

y 𝑀-,)LÌ = 𝑀ƒ3 + 𝑀ƒ5 + 𝑀ƒ# + 𝑀˜+*,P-[I

y 𝑀;-((LÌ = 𝑀]3 + 𝑀]5 + 𝑀]# + 𝑀]8 + 𝑀]6

By solving this equation, we can determine the required depth d for the embedment of the wall.
→ 𝑑 = 3.2 𝑚
The value of d for which the sum of moments is equal to zero corresponds to 3.2m from the bottom of
the basement floor depth.
Hence, the total wall length from the ground plane is equal to d+H = 6.7m
7.3.2.1.8 Prop Force
The sum of the horizontal forces must be equal to 0 to satisfy the equilibrium conditions. Hence, the
prop force can be determined using the following equation:

y FWy{D‚ywFBx = 0

y FWy{D‚ywFBx = (𝐹-3 + 𝐹-5 + 𝐹-# + 𝐹˜ ) − g𝐹;3 + 𝐹;5 + 𝐹;# + 𝐹;8 + 𝐹;6 + 𝐹;*&; h = 0

(166.12 + 67.66) − 197.76 − 𝐹;*&; = 0
𝐹;*&; = 36 𝑘𝑁
7.3.3 Breadth sizing: End bearing capacity
Determining the breadth required for the retaining walls. The breadth is determined by calculating the
end bearing pressure and comparing it to the end bearing capacity of the soil. The retaining wall is
assumed to act as a strip foundation. The breadth of the strip should not exceed 1m, as the secant piles
generally used in housing do not exceed diameters of 1m. Hence, after calculating the breadth from the
bearing capacity, it is compared with typical pile diameters to determine whether the design of the
foundation is adequate.
7.3.3.1 Undrained
The breadth is calculated for the worst-case scenario, meaning for the highest load per length. This
corresponds to the shortest length of the footprint, in which the loads per length are higher than for the
longer side.
61
BARC0132 - Project
The bearing capacity for the undrained case corresponds to:
𝑞 = 𝑁, ⋅ 𝑆+ + 𝛾 ⋅ 𝐷
The bearing pressure applied by the strip foundation corresponds to:
𝑃 𝑊a
+ 𝑏
𝑞 = 𝑏 − 𝑢†
𝐵
]
Where is the load per unit length
J
™/
is the unit load weight of the foundation
J
𝑢† is the pore pressures at depth D
𝑁, = Bearing Capacity Coefficient due to Cohesion
𝑆+ = Undrained Shear Strength of the Soil (dense clay) (kPa)
𝛾 = Density of the Overburden Soil (dense clay) (kN/m3)
𝐷 = Excavation Depth (m)
The depth D corresponds to the depth of the retaining wall calculated above, 6.7m.
For the soil not to fail, the bearing capacity must be greater than the bearing pressure.
𝑃 𝑊a 𝑊(
+ 𝑏 − 𝑏
𝑁, ⋅ 𝑆+ + 𝛾 ⋅ 𝐷 ≥ 𝑏 − 𝑢†
𝐵
The strip unit load is calculated:
L = 20m
Number of columns on the short side = 5
The average load applied on the strip corresponds to 2125 kN. The unit strip load is obtained by
calculating:
] -Ì*-[I .&-K∗%+NJI* &a ,&.+N%(

= = 530 kN/m
J .I%[)P &a ()*L;
𝑊5 𝐵0146" ∗ 𝑤𝑎𝑙𝑙 𝑑𝑒𝑝𝑡ℎ ∗ 𝛾)78)4313

=
𝑏 𝑙𝑒𝑛𝑔𝑡ℎ 𝑜𝑓 𝑠𝑡𝑟𝑖𝑝
𝑊( 𝐵()*L; ∗ g𝛾𝑐𝑜𝑛𝑐𝑟𝑒𝑡𝑒 ∗ 𝐷R-.. h

=
𝑏 𝑙𝑒𝑛𝑔𝑡ℎ 𝑜𝑓 𝑠𝑡𝑟𝑖𝑝
𝛾)78)4313 = 25𝑘𝑁/𝑚(
Knowing the depth of the foundation, being the depth of the retaining wall = 6.7m. The ratio D/B
yields values of Nc of 7.5 for all values of B<1m.
Hence, 𝑁, = 7.5
62
BARC0132 - Project
The equation is then solved, computing for different values of B, identifying the value for which the
equality is satisfied. The breadth for which the strip bearing pressure is lower than the bearing capacity
corresponds to 0.4m.
Bearing pressure kPa
Bearing capacity
Breadth
Fig. 7.4 Diagram showing the bearing pressure against the breadth of the strip in comparison with the bearing capacity
7.3.3.2 Drained
To guarantee that the soil will not fail, the foundation must also satisfy the bearing capacity in the
drained case.
The bearing capacity of the soil in the drained case is calculated using Terzaghi’s corrected equation,
like in Section 7.2
Bearing capacity Factors

𝑁‡ = 9.6
𝑁, = 19.3
𝑁ˆ = 5.7
Shape Factors
𝑠, = 1
𝑠ˆ = 1
𝑠‡ = 1
Depth Factors
𝑑ˆ = 1
𝑑, = 1.5 (accounting for the breadth found in the undrained case for D/B ratio)
𝑑‡ =1.44
Load Inclination Factors
The load is applied perpendicularly to the foundation; hence the load inclination factors are equated to
1.
Base Inclination Factors
Most foundations are built with horizontal bases; hence the base inclination factors are equated to 1.
The pressure of the excavated soil q is given by:
𝑞 = 𝛾,.-Z ∗ 𝐷()*L; as the water table is located below the foundation plane.
63
BARC0132 - Project
𝑞 = 𝛾,.-Z ∗ 𝐷()*L; = 18 ∗ 6.7 = 120.6 𝑘𝑃𝑎
→ 𝑞% = 1864.9 𝑘𝑃𝑎
𝑃 𝑊a
𝑞% + 𝑏
≥ 𝑏 − 𝑢†
𝐹( 𝐵
A factor of safety 𝐹( of 3 is applied on the bearing capacity.
@ A/ #6:9#B: =<#)∗71";:9 </ *<=1"78 𝐵𝑠𝑡𝑟𝑖𝑝 ∗𝑤𝑎𝑙𝑙 𝑑𝑒𝑝𝑡ℎ∗ 𝛾𝑐𝑜𝑛𝑐𝑟𝑒𝑡𝑒

7 7 6#47548
=:7B.D </ 8.95> 𝑙𝑒𝑛𝑔𝑡ℎ 𝑜𝑓 𝑠𝑡𝑟𝑖𝑝
;
‹
;
− 𝑢† = 4.T
= 4.T
= 804.74 𝑘𝑃𝑎
The breadth value is iteratively obtained, starting by testing the breadth obtained in the undrained
case. The first value of breadth for which the equation above is satisfied, corresponds to 0.7m.
Hence, the breadth of the retaining walls (i.e secant piles) is 7m. This complies with the typical
breadths for piles. Hence, the dimensions of the retaining walls are adequate for this project.
→ 𝐷𝑒𝑝𝑡ℎ 𝑜𝑓 𝑤𝑎𝑙𝑙 = 6.7𝑚

→ 𝐵𝑟𝑒𝑎𝑑𝑡ℎ 𝑜𝑟 𝑑𝑖𝑎𝑚𝑒𝑡𝑒𝑟 𝑜𝑓 𝑡ℎ𝑒 𝑠𝑒𝑐𝑎𝑛𝑡 𝑝𝑖𝑙𝑒𝑠 = 0.7𝑚
7.3.4 Settlement
7.3.4.1 Immediate Settlement

The retaining walls are considered as a strip foundation for the calculation of the settlements. Even
though it is made of concrete, which is stiffer than clay, it will act as a flexible foundation due to its
prolonged length. Hence the immediate settlement will be calculated for a flexible foundation. The
settlement is calculated at the centre as it is the point in which the deformation will be highest and
compared with the settlement at the edge.
The immediate settlement of the strip is calculated for the longest wall, as the deformations will be
most important.
Ž• ‹
Immediate settlement is given by: 𝜌,&*%I* = (1 − 𝑣 5 )𝐼•
>
Using the principle of superposition, the strip is divided into 4 smaller rectangles.
The new dimensions of the smaller area correspond to B/2 = 0.6/2 = 0.3m and L/2 = 36/2 = 18m.
The new ratio of breadth/length corresponds to the influence factor of a flexible foundation with ratios
L/B = 10, equal to 𝐼• = 1.28.
7.3.4.1.1 Immediate Settlement at centre of strip
𝛥𝜎 𝐵
𝜌,I%)I* = (1 − 𝑣 5 )𝐼• ∗ 4
𝐸
The change in vertical stress 𝛥𝜎 corresponds to the distributed load applied on the strip:
∑ 𝐹Ì*)L,-.
𝛥𝜎 =
𝑎𝑟𝑒𝑎 𝑜𝑓 𝑠𝑡𝑟𝑖𝑝
64
BARC0132 - Project
11492
𝛥𝜎 = = 532 𝑘𝑃𝑎
36 ∗ 0.6
Drained Undrained
E’ = 40 000 kPa 𝐸+ = 52173.9 𝑘𝑃𝑎
𝐼• = 1.28
N-iLN+N .&-K 33805
Maximum Pressure applied from the columns = = #:∗4.: = 532 𝑘𝑃𝑎
‹2

Table. 7.10. Immediate Settlement of the centre of the strip
7.3.4.1.2 Immediate Settlement at corner of Strip
𝛥𝜎 𝐵
𝜌,&*%I* = (1 − 𝑣 5 )𝐼•
𝐸
B = 0.6m
L = 36m
𝐼• = 1.28
Drained Undrained
E’ = 40 000 kPa 𝐸+ = 52173.9 𝑘𝑃𝑎
𝐼• = 1.28
N-iLN+N .&-K 33805
= #:∗4.: = 532 𝑘𝑃𝑎

Table. 7.11. Immediate Settlement of the edge of the strip
Settlement Drained Undrained

Centre 0.02m 0.011m
Edge 0.01m 0.005m
Differential Settlement 0.001m 0.006m
Table 7.12. Table showing the differential settlement between the centre of the strip and the edge
As expected, the centre of the strip undergoes a bigger deformation than the edge of the strip. The
differential settlement between both is of the order of 10-3m, which is acceptable. An option to reduce
this differential settlement at the centre would be to add extra steel reinforcement at the bottom centre
of the strip, where the tensile forces are highest.
7.3.4.2 Consolidation
65
BARC0132 - Project
The strip foundation consolidation is calculated using the same principle applied above for the pads
consolidation. However, to calculate the distribution of stresses in the soil layers is determined for
flexible surface loads, using the elastic stress distribution below centre of uniform strip loadings.
The vertical stresses are hence defined by the following equation:

‡
𝜎` = ‰ [𝛼 + 𝑠𝑖𝑛𝛼 cos(𝛼 + 2𝛿)]
The angle 𝛼 and 𝛿 are defined by the depth Z from the foundation plane.
𝐵()*L;
𝛼 = 2 ∗ tan '3
¼ 2 ½
𝑍
𝛿 = 2𝛼
With 𝐵()*L; = 0.7𝑚

& @6
q = strip bearing pressure = ? + ? − 𝑒𝑥𝑐𝑎𝑣𝑎𝑡𝑒𝑑 𝑠𝑜𝑖𝑙 𝑢𝑛𝑖𝑡 𝑤𝑒𝑖𝑔ℎ𝑡
= 530 + 204 − 18 ∗ 0.7 ∗ 6.7 = 804.74 𝑘𝑃𝑎
As per the procedure carried out in section …. the initial and final vertical stresses are calculated. The
void ratios are then interpolated from the oedometer test data. The coefficient of compressibility is
computed, and the consolidation of each layer is summed to obtain the total consolidation.
Initial vertical Average

Depth z stress 𝜎` 4 ′ ∆𝜎` at the 𝜎` a
from ∆𝜎` Levels
center of each
foundation
layer
plane
0
0.5 804.7 13.5 679.2 L1 692.7
1 553.6 22.5 443 L2 465.4
1.5 332.2 31.5 281.5 L3 313.0
2 230.8 40.5 203.3 L4 243.8
3 118.5 58.5 130.0 L5 188.5
4 89.2 76.5 95.5 L6 171.9

6 59.6 112.5 62.3 L7 174.8
8 44.8 46.3 L8 194.8

148.5
Table 7.13. Calculating the initial and final vertical stresses in the layers of soil below the foundation plane
for the strip
66
BARC0132 - Project
z e_i e_f mv Levels Consolidation Settlement
0.5 1.0206 0.8125 0.0001516 L1 0.0515
1 0.9984 0.842 0.0001767 L2 0.0391
1.5 0.9817 0.876 0.0001896 L3 0.0267
2 0.9657 0.8914 0.0001861 L4 0.0189
3 0.9563 0.9035 0.0002074 L5 0.0135
4 0.9468 0.9072 0.0002134 L6 0.0102
6 0.9297 0.9065 0.0001924 L7 0.006
8 0.9127 0.9022 0.0001193 L8 0.0028
𝜌, ‘ (m) 0.1687
initial and final void ratios and the coefficient of volume compressibility mv for the strip
Foundation Immediate Settlement (cm) Total Settlement (cm)

Pad with applied load 2300 kN B=2.5m 1.8 8.1
Pad with applied load 3600 kN B=2.5m 2.8 12
Retaining wall 1.1 16.87
Differential Settlement (cm) 0.7-1.7 3.13-7.77
Fig 7.15. Table showing the differential settlement between the pad with the highest and lowest loads,
and the retaining walls
Since the differential settlement should not exceed values of L/100, ie, 5cm for 5m of distance
between the foundations, the differential settlement between the retaining walls and pads under
applied load of 2300kN do not pass the requirements.
Hence, the pads with lower load of 2300kN are redesigned with a breadth of 2m. For which the
bearing capacity checks are valid (Table 7.5). The settlements for such a breadth are calculated using
the same procedure as mentioned previously.
Re-iterating Pads with lowest load = 2300kN
Initial
vertical Average
Depth from 𝜎` a
m=n 𝐼• ∆𝜎` stress ∆𝜎` at the center Levels
foundation 𝜎` 4 ′ of each layer
plane
z1 0 infinity 0.25 575 90
z2 0.5 2 0.233 535.9 94.5 555.45 L1 649.95

67
BARC0132 - Project
z3 1 1 0.175 402.5 108 469.2 L2 577.2

z4 2 0.5 0.085 195.5 126 299 L3 425
z5 4 0.25 0.025 57.5 159.3 126.5 L4 285.8
z6 4.2 0.24 0.022 50.6 189.6 54.05 L5 243.65
z7 6 0.167 0.01 23 196 36.8 L6 232.8
z8 8 0.125 0.0085 19.55 250 21.275 L7 271.275
Table 7.16. Calculating the initial and final vertical stresses in the layers of soil below the foundation plane
for the pads under the lowest load applied = 2300kN for a new breadth of 2m.
ei ef mv Consolidation Settlement
0.73 9.18
0.94 0.82 0.000111613 0.03
0.93 0.83 0.00011511 0.027
0.92 0.85 0.000127777 0.038
0.91 0.88 0.000115186 0.029
0.90 0.91 8.46872E-05 0.0009
0.90 0.89 0.000115675 0.0076
0.89 0.88 0.000116402 0.0049
𝜌, ‘ (m) 0.138
lowest load applied = 2300kN for a new breadth of 2m
Foundation Immediate Settlement Total Settlement (cm)

(cm)
Pad with applied load 2300 kN B = 2m 1.8 13.8
Pad with applied load 3600 kN B = 2.5m 2.8 12
Retaining wall 1.1 16.87
Differential Settlement (cm) 0.7-1.7 1.8-3.07
Table. 7.18. Table showing the differential settlement between the pads with lowest and highest load
applied, with respective breadths of 2 and 2.5m in comparison with the retaining wall
After redesigning the pads under the lowest load, the total differential settlement does not exceed
3.07cm for the different foundation strategies implemented in the design. This ensures that there are
no damages caused to the building due to differences in the settlement of the different foundation
elements.
7.3.4.3 Shaft Friction
It is essential to mention that the retaining walls will experience large shaft friction due to the
extensive area of contact of the piles with the soil. This shaft friction will decrease the impact on the
68
BARC0132 - Project
end bearing of the walls, and hence reduce consolidation settlement, as the shaft friction will be
mobilised. As the end bearing alone was sufficient to support the load of the walls, the shaft friction
was not calculated, as it would only improve the settlement values obtained.
7.4 Final Design
The final design of the foundations is hence comprised of:

2 types of pads: B = 2m for loads = 2300kN
B = 2.5m for loads = 3600kN
Secant Piles Retaining walls with B = 0.7m and embedment depth = 3.3m
2300kN
3600kN
Fig. 7.5. Final foundations design configuration
7.5 Further Considerations
The above-mentioned report and calculations do not account for additional considerations made for
the foundation design.
The main factor considered for foundation design was ‘Durability’ as it influences the life span of the
building. Certain mishaps in the soil could reduce its strength by compromising the foundations
reinforcements. In the worse-case scenario this could mean a failure of the foundation. To avoid any
such situations, factors such as water proofing of the foundation must be considered which may also
act as an additional foundation feature.
In addition, it must be considered that the design of pad foundations requires an enlargement of the
steel columns before they are connected to the reinforced concrete. This is due to the significant
difference between the stresses coming from steel and concrete that cannot be a simple contact and
require larger surface area to distribute the stresses.
69
BARC0132 - Project
Fig. 7.6. Section showing the detail of the connection between the pad and columns
70
BARC0132 - Project
7.4 Analysis of Foundation Using Plaxis
7.4.1 Introduction
Plaxis 2D is used to conduct finite element analysis of soil deformation and stability as a result of the
foundation strategy used for the building. Since the chosen strategy makes use of both retaining walls
and pad foundations, these two methods will need to be analysed independently due to the limitations
of the software’s analysis tools. It is important to consider these simplifications when analysing the
output results of the simulations conducted.
Since the structure and foundations are designed symmetrically, the analysis can be conducted from
the centre point of the building and along the longest edge of the building (in the x direction) as shown
in Figure 7.1 below:
Figure 7.1 Plan showing section cut for analysis
A summary of some of the key values used in the simulations is given in Table 7.2 below:
Table 7.2 Plaxis Simulation Key Values
Section Variable Value Units

𝛾+%(-) 18.0 kN/m3
𝛾(-) 20.0 kN/m3
Soil Profile 𝜙 24 degrees
c' 5 kPa
E’ 40 MPa
EA1 4.61x109 kN/m
EI 22.6x109 kNm2/m
Retaining wall depth 6.7 m
Basement/
3.5 m
excavation depth
Retaining Wall Load applied on
retaining wall (based
2020 kN/m
on greatest outer
edge column load)
Surcharge 20 kN/m2
Building Load 96.24 kN/m2
EA1 75x106 kN/m
EI 6.25x106 kNm2/m
Load applied on
Pad Foundation retaining wall (based
on first row inner 1381 kN/m
column maximum
load)
71
BARC0132 - Project
7.4.2 Retaining Wall Simulation
The retaining wall is modelled in Plaxis as a vertical plate, based on the properties outlined previously.
The analysis takes place through a staged construction, as subsequent layers of soil are excavated to
form the basement, and the load from the building is applied. Since the retaining wall is used as part of
the foundation, a point load is applied to the plate to simulate this, while the remaining load of the
building is applied as a distributed load to the excavated basement floor. Figures 7.2 and 7.3 below
shows the displacements in the horizontal and vertical direction experienced in the surrounding soil.
Figure 7.2 Plaxis Retaining Wall Total Displacements (horizontal, x direction)
Figure 7.3 Plaxis Retaining Wall Total Displacements (vertical, y direction)
72
BARC0132 - Project
7.4.3 Pad Foundation Simulation
The pad foundation is modelled in plaxis using a horizontal plate, based on the properties outlined
previously. The first row of pad foundations is taken, and the greatest load experienced in these pads is
used to run a worst-case scenario. A sloped soil profile is used to the left of the pad foundation to
emulate the retaining wall, and prevent soil collapse during excavation, after which the load is applied.
It is also important to consider the assumption that the pad is simulated as an infinite element, since
the modelling is in 2D. Figures 7.4 and 7.5 below shows the displacements in the horizontal and
vertical direction experienced in the surrounding soil.
Figure 7.4 Plaxis Pad Foundation Total Displacements (horizontal, x direction)
Figure 7.5 Plaxis Pad Foundation Total Displacements (vertical, y direction)
73
BARC0132 - Project
The results indicate that the foundations settle by a reasonable amount, similar to the values
obtained by hand calculation. The pads settle by a maximum value of 1cm, and the retaining
walls settle by a maximum value of 0.5cm. Fig. 7.8 shows a maximum horizontal
displacement of the retaining walls of 0.5cm. This indicates that the wall embedment length is
sufficient to prevent overturning.
74
BARC0132 - Project
8. CONCLUSIONS
The final design of the structural members were selected from standard tables and checked
according to the Eurocode. With the help of GSA such limitations could be recognized which
had not been seen during preliminary design and its checks. After several iterations the
structure has been optimised to safety meanwhile avoiding overdesigning elements. Further
development could have been done, for instance introducing more secondary beams to reduce
the amount of material for construction. Regarding the design of the foundation, shallow
foundations are used to support the central columns of the building. Two sizes of pads
accommodate for the difference in load applied from the columns, breaths of 2m for loads of
2300kN, and 2.5m for loads of 3600kN. The external columns are supported by a secant piles
wall acting as part of the foundation, with dimensions 0.7m in breadth and 3.3m in
embedment length. The dimensions of the foundations have been configured to satisfy the
bearing capacity requirements set by the soil properties to mitigate failure, to limit the total
settlements, and most importantly limit the differential settlements between the foundation
elements causing detriment to the structure. The embedment length of the walls have been
configured to prevent overturning. These results were supported by the simulation on Plaxis.
There are some limitations to this foundations study, the shaft friction experienced by the
walls is not computed. However, its effects are addressed and would cause a decrease of
settlements. The limitations in the assumptions of the theorems applied and the modelling
software are mitigated through the application of appropriate factors of safety.
75
BARC0132 - Project
9. REFERENCES
British Geological Survey (n.d.). Heathlanes | British Geological Survey (BGS).

Clough RW, Penzien J (1993). Dynamics of Structures, 2nd ed., McGraw-Hill Book Company, New York.
The European Union (2005) EN 1993-1-1: Eurocode 3: Design of Steel structures
ArcelorMittal (2022) ArcelorMittal Europe Orange Book S355/HISTAR 355
meTecno (2022) HI-BOND Technical handbook
Tomlinson, M.J. (1980). Foundation design and construction. Boston: Pitman.
Vu D.D (2002). Strength properties of Metakaolin-blended paste, mortar and concrete, Ph.D. Thesis, Faculty of
Civil Engineering and Geosciences, Delft Technical University of Technology, The Netherlands.
10. APPENDIX
OEDOMETER TEST DATA for dense clay soil.
Location: Birmingham
Average oedometer test on the in-situ soil
Dense Clay
Stress Void ratio
kPa
10 1.03
20 1.003
40 0.966
80 0.945
150 0.912
300 0.879
450 0.844
650 0.818
1200 0.755
2400 0.683
5000 0.611
9000 0.556
5000 0.575
1500 0.623
800 0.657
400 0.684
200 0.716
100 0.741
50 0.776
76

SFDA Report 23-03-2022 - Group 9

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

SFDA Report 23-03-2022 - Group 9

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

STRUCTURAL AND FOUNDATIONS ANALYSIS OF A RESIDENTIAL

2st year student MEng Engineering and Architectural Design

Keywords: Birmingham; Structural design; Geotechnics; GSA; Plaxis

2. ESTIMATION OF DESIGN LOADS ........................................................................... 6

3. LOAD COMBINATIONS ........................................................................................... 16

5. STRUCTURAL DESIGN FINITE ELEMENT ANALYSIS ...................................... 28

10. APPENDIX .................................................................................................................. 76

1.1 Report Introduction

1.2 Boundary Conditions

Table 1.1 Building Characteristics

Figure 1.1 Building Plan and Isometric Diagrams

Figure 1.2 Building Section Diagrams

Table 1.2 Soil Profile Characteristics

2. ESTIMATION OF DESIGN LOADS

2.1 Imposed Loads

𝑞! = 𝑞! (𝐹𝑙𝑜𝑜𝑟) + 𝑞! (𝑀𝑜𝑣𝑎𝑏𝑙𝑒 𝑃𝑎𝑟𝑡𝑖𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛) (1)

𝑞! = 2.0 + 1.2

𝐶𝑜𝑚𝑝𝑜𝑠𝑖𝑡𝑒 𝑆𝑙𝑎𝑏 𝐿𝑜𝑎𝑑 = 𝛾$ ⋅ 𝐺%&%'()*+,)+*-. + 𝛾/ ⋅ 𝑞! (2)

𝛾$ −Safety factor for unfavourable effect of permanent loads

𝐶𝑜𝑚𝑝𝑜𝑠𝑖𝑡𝑒 𝑆𝑙𝑎𝑏 𝐿𝑜𝑎𝑑 = 1.35 ⋅ (0.5) + 1.5 ⋅ (3.2)

Slab Span = 3.32 m

2.2.2 Perimeter Wall Load

Total Perimeter = (4 ∗ 5 + 6 ∗ 6) ∗ 2 = 112 m

2.3 Preliminary design

2.3.1 Beam sizing

Table 2.1 Load experienced on beam

Live load (kN/m2) 3.2

Total load for each bay = (3.2 + 2.8544) ∗ 30 = 181.632 kN

Point load (Pinned-Pinned):

Distributed Load (Pinned-Pinned)

F = Point load on beam

Figure 2.1 Force distribution on one bay

Table 2.2 IPE 270 sectional properties

Dimension Moment of Inertia

Table 2.3 Beam load

2.3.2 Column Sizing

Table 2.4 Total Loads per floor

Live Load Dead Load Total load Cumulative

Table 2.5 Loads applied on columns

Table 2.6 Column Profiling

Design Axial force Load taken by

2.4 Snow Loads

Therefore sG according to the Equation 7 can be calculated as the following:

s = 0.8 ∙ 1.2 ∙ 1 ∙ 0.557

2.5 Wind Loads

2.5.1 Determining the basic velocity pressure, qb

𝑤I = 𝑞; (𝑧I )𝑐;I (EC1-1-4 Eq. 5.1) (8)

qp is the peak velocity pressure

Additionally, qp is given by:

𝑞; = 𝑐I (𝑧)𝑞J since orography is not significant (9)

ce is the exposure factor

Additionally, qb is given by:

𝑞J = 0.613𝑣J5 and 𝑣J = g𝑐KL* × 𝑐(I-(&% × 𝑐;*&J h(𝑐-.) )𝑣J,N-; (10)

vb is the basic wind velocity

𝑐-.) = 1 + 0.001(𝐴) for 𝑧 ≤ 10𝑚 (Eq. NA.2a)

𝑣J,N-; = 21.75 m/s (EC1-1-4 NA Fig. NA 1)

Next, vb and therefore qb can now be calculated:

𝑣J = (1 × 1 × 1)(1.093)21.75 = 23.765 𝑚/𝑠

𝑞J = 0.613𝑣J5 = 0.613 × 23.7655 = 346.2𝑁/𝑚5

2.5.2 Calculating wind loads in the X direction

The peak velocity pressure, qp can now be computed:

𝑞; = 3.07 × 346.2 = 1062.8 𝑁/𝑚5 = 1.063 𝑘𝑁/𝑚5

𝐶𝑜𝑚𝑝𝑜𝑠𝑖𝑡𝑒 𝑆𝑙𝑎𝑏 𝐿𝑜𝑎𝑑 = 𝛾$ ⋅ 𝐺%&%'()+,)+-. + 𝛾/ ⋅ 𝑞! (2)