Akh Ymi DD WT00X D Ce Rep 3001 0

ERC AKH Railway Project
ERC
AWASH – KOMBOLCHA – HARA GEBAYA
RAILWAY PROJECT
Employer’s Representative:
WATER TANK TYPE-III
STRUCTURAL DESIGN REPORT

Report No
A K H - YM I - D D - WT 0 0 X - D - C E - R E P - 3 0 0 1 - 0
Project Organization Stage Location Category Discipline Type of Number Vers.
Document
30.04.2017
WATER TANK TYPE-III STRUCTURAL DESIGN REPORT AKH – YMI – DD – WT00X – D – CE – REP – 3001 – 0 30.04.2017
This report must not be either loaned, copied or otherwise reproduced in whole or in part or used for any
purpose without the prior written permission of Yapı Merkezi. © Yapi Merkezi Insaat ve Sanayi A.Ş.,201 6 Page 1 / 55
Project:
AWASH – KOMBOLCHA – HARA GEBAYA

RAILWAY PROJECT, ETHIOPIA
Employer:
ETHIOPIAN RAILWAYS CORPORATION (ERC)
Employer’s Representative:
Contractor:
www.ym.com.tr
Designer:
Report Name:
WATER TANK TYPE-III STRUCTURAL DESIGN REPORT
Report No:
AKH - YM I - DD - WT 0 0 X - D - CE - RE P - 3 0 0 1 - 0
Project Organization Stage Location Category Discipline Type of Number Vers.
Document
Date: 30.04.2017
VERSION HISTORY
Version Details Date Amended By
0 First Issue 30.04.2017 YM Design Group
PREPARED BY
Edited by B. Zeybek YM Structural Engineer
YM Senior Structural
Checked by C. Özaydın
Design Engineer
YM General Structural
Approved by Ö. Güzel
Design Manager
Approved by Z. Uygun YM Deputy GM, Design
Approved by A. Kılıç YM Project Manager
APPROVAL
APPROVED APPROVED AS NOTED REJECTED
APPROVED BY
Name Title Signature & Stamp
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1 INTRODUCTION _______________________________________________________ 5
2 STANDARDS, REFERENCES and SOFTWARES__________________________ 8
3 MATERIALS ___________________________________________________________ 9
4 GEOLOGICAL CHARACTERISTICS ____________________________________ 11
5 LOADS ______________________________________________________________ 12
5.1 Dead loads ______________________________________________________________________ 12
5.2 Live Loads ______________________________________________________________________ 13
5.3 Thermal Loads___________________________________________________________________ 14
5.4 Wind Loads _____________________________________________________________________ 15
5.5 Seismic Loads ___________________________________________________________________ 24
6 LOAD COMBINATIONS _______________________________________________ 28
7 FIRE RESISTANCE & CORROSION ____________________________________ 29
8 STRUCTURAL DESIGN METHODOLOGY _______________________________ 30
9 STRUCTURAL CALCULATIONS _______________________________________ 31
9.1 Structural Analysis Results_______________________________________________________ 31
9.1.1 Envelope Results of ULS Combinations _________________________________________ 31
9.1.2 Interstory Drift Check __________________________________________________________ 34
9.2 Capacity Calculations of Members ________________________________________________ 35
9.2.1 Capacity Demand Ratios of Steel Members ______________________________________ 35
9.2.2 Calculation Sheets of Members _________________________________________________ 36
9.2.3 Soil Bearing Check ____________________________________________________________ 50
9.2.4 CMU Wall Calculations ________________________________________________________ 54
1 INTRODUCTION
The design will comply with the Eurocode standards. According to these standards, the structural design
will be developed following the Limit States principles, which define that the safety of a structure as a
whole, or any of its parts, is assured when the structural solicitation doesn’t exceed the ultimate
structural resistance of the element. This definition can be expressed by the following equation:
𝑆𝑑 ≤ 𝑅𝑑
Where 𝑆𝑑 represents the structural forces obtained by the design and 𝑅𝑑 is the ultimate structural
resistance of the element.
Ultimate Limit States are related with safety of either persons or the structure itself. Forces are obtained
by increasing characteristic values of loads by means of partial safety coefficients. Resistance of
elements is evaluated through their geometrical characteristics and material properties reduced by
material partial safety factors.
During some stages of the design, computer programs such as SAP2000 will be used. The results from
the structural models will be justified by presenting graphics and/or tables with the most significant
values. Additionally, in some cases, hand calculations can be used to verify the structural designs.
Horizontally braced system is used at the roof plane and the bracings are only working under tension
loads by using tension only elements (compression limits=0) with nonlinear analysis of SAP 2000. Also
interstorey drifts, design forces are obtained from these nonlinear models.
Refer to “Station Buildings Design Manual” Report No: AKH-YMI-DD-GL00X-D-CE-REP-0001 for further
information.
Figure 1.1. WATER TANK TYPE-III - Drawing Model
Description of the Structure
Structure subjected to this design is a water tank located in station areas. It is designed to store water
in modular equipments which are carried by slab on grade of the structure. Therefore, there is no water
related forces in this structural steel design. The structure is a sort of shelter with CMU walls at the
circumference to protect equipments.
Foundation is made of RC single footings carrying RC pedestals which reach up to the top of slab-on-
grade. Footings and pedestals are connected by sub-basement walls at circumference of the structure.
Superstructure is moment frame in both direction. All connections are moment connections except purlin
to beam connection which is a simple fin plate connection.
Exterior CMU walls are designed to resist wind forces and connected to sub-basement walls with
grouted cells at specified intervals and locations.
Figure 1.2. WATER TANK TYPE III -Structural Analysis Model
Figure 1.3. WATER TANK TYPE III Foundation Formwork Plan
2 STANDARDS, REFERENCES and SOFTWARES
The buildings structural design will be carried out according to the following standards and references:
 EN 1990:2002 - Eurocode - Basis of structural design
 EN 1991-1-1:2002 - Eurocode 1: Actions on structures - Part 1-1: General actions - Densities,

self-weight, imposed loads for buildings
 EN 1991-1-4:2005 - Eurocode 1: Actions on structures - Part 1-4: General actions - Wind

actions
 EN 1991-1-5:2003 - Eurocode 1: Actions on structures - Part 1-5: General actions - Thermal

actions
 EN 1992-1-1:2004 - Eurocode 2: Design of concrete structures - Part 1-1: General rules and
rules for buildings
 EN 1993-1-1:2005 - Eurocode 3: Design of steel structures - Part 1-1: General rules and rules
for buildings
 EN 1993-1-2:2005 - Eurocode 3: Design of steel structures - Part 1-2: General rules -

Structural fire design
 EN 1993-1-8:2005 - Eurocode 3: Design of steel structures - Part 1-8: Design of joints
 EN 1997-1:2004 - Eurocode 7: Geotechnical Design - Part 1: General rules
 EN 1998-1:2004 - Eurocode 8: Design of structures for earthquake resistance – Part 1:

General rules, seismic actions and rules for buildings
 EN 1998-1:2004 - Eurocode 8: Design of structures for earthquake resistance – Part 5:

Foundations, retaining structures and geotechnical aspects
 ESCP-1:1983 Ethiopian Standard Code of Practice for Loading – Wind actions
 EBCS-1:1995 Ethiopian Building Standard- Basis of Design and Actions on Structures
 Designer’s Guide to EN1993-1-1, Eurocode3: Design of Steel Structures General Rules and
Rules for Buildings.
 Steel Building Design: Concise Eurocodes, SCI Publication P362.
 Eurocode 3-1:2005 with Eurocode 8:2004 Steel Frame Design Manual for Sap2000, CSI
However where specific standards are not listed, then other relevant international standards as
applicable will be followed.
The following softwares will mainly be used for the structural design of Buildings:
 SAP2000
 CSE
 BETONexpress
 AutoCAD
 XSTEEL
 Other engineering and drafting software
3 MATERIALS
CONCRETE :
The principles and criteria for concrete will be according to Section 3.1. EN 1992-1-1. The properties of
each concrete class is presented in the Table 3.1, EN 1992-1-1.
The values of the design compressive and tensile strengths are defined as:
𝑓𝑐𝑘 𝑓𝑐𝑡𝑘,0.05
𝑓𝑐𝑑 = 𝑓𝑐𝑡𝑑 =
𝛾𝑐 𝛾𝑐
Where 𝛾𝑐 is the partial safety factor for concrete. The recommended values are the following:
𝛾𝑐 = 1.50 for persistent and transient situations.
The following concrete classes shall be applied:
Columns: C25/30 (fck=25 MPa, fck, cube=30 MPa, fctk, 0.05=1.8 MPa, Ecm=31 GPa)
Walls: C25/30 (fck=25 MPa, fck, cube=30 MPa, fctk, 0.05=1.8 MPa, Ecm=31 GPa)
Foundations: C25/30 (fck=25 MPa, fck, cube=30 MPa, fctk, 0.05=1.8 MPa, Ecm=31 GPa)
Slabs: C25/30 (fck=25 MPa, fck, cube=30 MPa, fctk, 0.05=1.8 MPa, Ecm=31 GPa)
Blinding: C12/15 (fck=12 MPa, fck, cube=15 MPa, fctk, 0.05=1.1 MPa, Ecm=27 GPa)
The concrete dilatation coefficient is 𝛼𝑡 = 10−5 ℃−1 .
Clear nominal cover, cnom, shall be specified on the drawings. It is defined as a minimum cover, c min
(defined in accordance with EN 1992-1-1, Section 4.4.1.2), plus an allowance in design for deviation,
∆cdev (defined in accordance with EN 1992-1-1, Section 4.4.1.3):
cnom = cmin + ∆cdev
Below we include the nominal concrete covers used in the project:
 Foundations and pedestals 50mm (> k1=40mm)
REINFORCING STEEL :
The steel to be used in the reinforcing bars of concrete elements will follow the specifications of Section
3.2. and Annex C of EN 1992-1-1 and also Section 5.3.2 of EN 1998-1.
The steel class will be S500B for all elements.
The yield strength of the reinforcing steel should be: 𝑓𝑦𝑘 = 500 𝑀𝑃𝑎
The recommended values for the partial safety factor of reinforcing steel are the following:
𝛾𝑠 = 1.15 for persistent and transient situations
STRUCTURAL STEEL :
Structural steel shall comply with Sections 3.2 and 3.3 of EN 1993-1-1.
Structural steel will be of the following classes:
 Structural steel in plates:

𝑡 ≤ 40 𝑚𝑚 S235 (fy=235 MPa, fu=360 MPa, E=210 GPa)
𝑡 > 40 𝑚𝑚 S235 (fy=215 MPa, fu=360 MPa, E=210 GPa)
 Structural steel in profiles:
𝑡 ≤ 40 𝑚𝑚 S235 (fy=235 MPa, fu=360 MPa, E=210 GPa)
𝑡 > 40 𝑚𝑚 S235 (fy=215 MPa, fu=360 MPa, E=210 GPa)
 Tension rods (ties)
𝑡 < 40 𝑚𝑚 S460 (fy=460 MPa, fuk=625 MPa, E=210 GPa)
Structural steel dilatation coefficient for steel structures is 𝛼𝑡 = 1.2𝑥10−5 ℃−1 .
This report must not be either loaned, copied or otherwise reproduced in whole or in part or used for any Page 10 /
purpose without the prior written permission of Yapı Merkezi. © Yapi Merkezi Insaat ve Sanayi A.Ş.,201 6 55
4 GEOLOGICAL CHARACTERISTICS
Structure subjected to this design report is a typical structure designed to be placed in different station
areas located throughout the trackline. Therefore; the most unfavorable expected soil type is assumed
during the design stage and will be verified with a calculation note whenever the relevant geotechnical
reports are provided. Please refer to calculation notes named as:
“AKH-YMI-DD-ST0*X-D-CE-CAL-0001”.
where; (*) is the relevant number showing the location of the station area.
Soil Parameters assumed during the design:
Soil Parameter
Bearing Resistance (qu) 400 kPa
Vertical Subgrade Reaction Modulus (kv) 20 MN/m3
Soil Type C
Table 4.1 Assumed Soil Parameters
Detailed information regarding the soil parameters and suggestions of geotechnical designer will be
presented in the Geotechnical Report of each Station.
5 LOADS
5.1 Dead loads

- Weights of structural members are taken into account by analysis program (Sap2000)
automatically.
- Dead load of roof is taken as 4.50 kN/m2 and given as uniformly area load
Figure 5.1.1 Dead Load
5.2 Live Loads
Live load on the roof is taken as 0.6 kN/m2 and assigned as uniformly distributed area load.
The followings show the minimum load requirements described in the relevant code :
Roof category is “H” as decribed in “BS EN 1991-1-1” as “Roofs not accessible except for normal
maintenance repair” and minimum distributed live load is specified in “NA to BS EN 1991-1-1” as
“0.6 kN/m2” for the roofs having a slope less than 30O.
Figure 5.2.1 Live Load
5.3 Thermal Loads
Thermal difference of +/-25 celcius degree is taken for structural members.
Figure 5.3.1 Thermal Load (+25 C0)
Figure 5.3.2 Thermal Load (-25 C0)
5.4 Wind Loads
Ethiopian Building Code Standard, EBCS-1(1995) is accepted as a National Annex to EN codes and
fundamental value of basic wind speed is taken from that code. The refence wind velocity is taken as
22m/s for all buildings as per "Section 3.7 Reference Wind of EBCS-1". The rest of
regulations/requirements are taken from EN1991-1-4.
Wind pressure coefficients are determined according to EN1991-1-4 and presented below.
Wind Loads are assigned to roof area depending on the wind load case defined in the code. Wind load
cases are named such that the first letter shows the direction, following number shows one of the two
possibility defined in the code and last plus and minus sign indicates whether the case is suction or
pressure in terms of inner pressure of the structure. As an example;
"Wind Load Case x1-" shows that windward side is x axis, the roof pressure coefficient I is the first
possibility and internal pressure is negative in this case.
Figure 5.4.1 Wind Load x1-
Figure 5.4.2 Wind Load x1+
Figure 5.4.3 Wind Load x2-
Figure 5.4.4 Wind Load x2+
Figure 5.4.5 Wind Load y1-
Figure 5.4.6 Wind Load y1+
Figure 5.4.7 Wind Load y2-
Figure 5.4.8 Wind Load y2+
5.5 Seismic Loads
General Information:
In the absence of detailed geotechnical reports related to each site, a ground type assumption is made
to be used in the calculations and the worst of all seismicity parameters foreseen along the alignment is
taken as the basis of ground acceleration. A more detailed explanation can be found in “Basic Design
Report No: AWR-YM-X-BTR-GNRL-001-00, Section 3.6 Seismicity, pages 12-14”.
Peak Ground Acceleration
The following Peak Ground Acceleration (PGA) values are considered along the project:
PGA : 0,20g in the vicinity of Kare-Kore (up to 25km north and down to 25km south),
PGA : 0,16g at the other places.
Peak ground acceleration value 0,20g is taken for calculations of the structural members.
Figure 5.5.1: Seismicity of Horn of Africa
(Retrieved from : http://www.preventionweb.net/files/3870_Seismichorn.pdf)
Identification of ground type
Ground type C is selected for calculations (EB1998-1, Table 3.1 :Deep deposits of dense or medium-
dense sand, gravel or stiff clay with thickness from several tens to many hundreds of metres,
Vs,30(m/s)=180-360) and with a conservative approach. Type I elastic response spectra is sellected
according to EN1998-1 Table 3.2 (MS>5,5).
Ground Type S TB(S) TC(S) TD(S)

C 1,15 0,20 0,6 2,0
Structural type is moment frame for both axes and ductility class is selected DCM according to Table
6.2. Upper limit of reference values of behaviour factors for systems regular in elevation, behaviour
factor q is selected as 4.
“Lateral Force Method” is used for representation of earthquake loads as described in Clause 4.3.3.2 of
EN 1998-1.
The peak spectrum acceleration area is chosen for the ease of calculations.
Seismic forces are assigned as joint loads to the top of columns to represent seismic effect.
Earthquake mass calculations:
Section Total mass of member

(kg)
HE 300A 2600
HE 300B 3500
IPE 300 1000
IPE 220 1850
Roof cladding 60000
Total Seismic Weight 68950
Horizontal design spectrum acceleration:
The following values are used to calculate design spectrum acceleration:
Importance Factor Class IV 1.4 Table 4.3, EN 1998-1

Soil Factor Type C 1.15 Table 3.2, EN 1998-1
Behaviour Factor Moment Frame, DCM 4.0 Table 6.2, EN 1998-1
Peak Ground Acc 0.2g Section 3.6,
AWR-YM-X-BTR-GNRL-001-00
Sd (T) = ag.S.(2.5/q) Eq 3.14 , EN 1998-1
Sd = 2.00 m/s2
Seismic Force on Superstructure:
Fb = Sd (T) m          Eq 4.5 , EN 1998-1
By taking correlation factor ,  , as 1 :
Fb = 140 N
Figure 5.5.2: Seismic Force (EQx)
Figure 5.5.3: Seismic Force (EQy)
Table 5.5.1: Base Shear Values
Seismic Force on CMU Walls:
Fa = (Sa . Wa . a)/qa (EN 1998.1 , Equ 4.24)
Where;
W a = Seismic weight of the wall subjected to design
qa = 2.0 (EN 1998.1 , Table 4.4)
Sa =  . S . [ 3 (1+(z/H)) / (1+(1-(Ta/T1)2)-0.5] (EN 1998.1 , Equ 4.25)
Where;
Ta = T1 (gives the worst possibility)
z=H (gives the worst possibility)
S = 1.15 (please refer to soil characteristics part of the report)
 = 0.2
===> Sa = 1.3
 Seismic design calculations of CMU exterior walls will be shown and be verified on the relevant
section.
6 LOAD COMBINATIONS
Several load cases are defined and set to the model to built and analyze a realistic structural model.
Abbrevations used and the meanings are the followings:
 D : Representative of dead load of structural members & immovable fixtures

 Q : Representative of live load on structure
 Wx&Wy : Representatives of wind load acting on the structure for different cases
 EQx & EQy : Representatives of earthquake loads according to the directions
 T : Representative of effects of temperature changes
For each critical load case, the design values of the effects of actions (Ed) shall be determined by
combining the values of actions that are considered to occur simultaneously. The combinations of
actions formed in accordance with EN 1990, Sections 6.4.3.2 to 6.4.3.4.
TABLE: Combination Definitions

ComboName ComboType CaseName ScaleFactor
Text Text Text Unitless
1,35D Linear Add Dead Load 1.35
1,35D+1,5Q Linear Add Dead Load 1.35
1,35D+1,5Q Live Load 1.5
0.9D+1.5Wx Linear Add wind x 1.5
0.9D+1.5Wx Dead Load 0.9
0.9D+1.5Wy Linear Add wind y 1.5
0.9D+1.5Wy Dead Load 0.9
1.35D+1.5Wy Linear Add wind y 1.5
1.35D+1.5Wy Dead Load 1.35
1.35D+1.5Wx Linear Add wind x 1.5
1.35D+1.5Wx Dead Load 1.35
D+EQx Linear Add Dead Load 1
D+EQx EQ x 1
D+EQx EQ y 0.3
D+EQy Linear Add Dead Load 1
D+EQy EQ x 0.3
D+EQy EQ y 1
1,35D+1,5T Linear Add Dead Load 1.35
1,35D+1,5T temp + 1.5
1.35D-1.5T Linear Add Dead Load 1.35
1.35D-1.5T temp - 1.5
SLS D+Wx Linear Add Dead Load 1
SLS D+Wx wind x 1
SLS D+Q Linear Add Dead Load 1
SLS D+Q Live Load 1
SLS D+T Linear Add Dead Load 1
SLS D+T temp + 1
SLS D+Wy Linear Add Dead Load 1
SLS D+Wy wind y 1
Table 6.1 Load Combinations Used
7 FIRE RESISTANCE & CORROSION
Fire Resistance :
Fire resistance ratings of the structure is given in the report No:
AKH-YMI-DD-GL00X-D-FL-REP-0001
All the care related to steel and concrete members will be taken as suggested in this fire an life safety
design manual.
Corrosion Resistance :
Corrosion protection of steel elements are explained in detail in “Buildings Structural Design Manual”,
please refer to the following report for further information :
AKH-YMI-DD-GL00X-D-CE-REP-0001.
8 STRUCTURAL DESIGN METHODOLOGY
Structural system and design methodology of the structure subjected to this design is summarized
below:
 Structural system and columns are designed as moment frame in both axes
 Purlins are connected to beams as hinged connection with fin plates. Anti sag rods are used to
provide lateral support to purlins against lateral torsional buckling by dividing clear span length
of purlins into three.
 Beams are designed to have moment connections at both ends.
 Exterior walls are designed to stand alone on sub basement walls without direct support of steel
skeleton under wind and seismic loads.
 The connections of the steel members are designed with the help of Connection Study
Environment (C.S.E) program.
 Slab on grade will rest on fill without having a connection to the columns or sub basement walls.
Structural steel design and detailing are in accordance with the Eurocode Structural Requirements for
Steel Structures (Eurocode 3) which provides minimum requirements for design and construction of
Steel Structures. All the standards which are considered during the analysis and design are presented
in Section 2.
Structural analysis and design of all elements are done according to ultimate stress design method
represented in Eurocodes (EN 1998.1.2004 is considered for seismic design) by using SAP2000. The
steel sections which are used in the structural analysis and design are presented in Section 9. The
analysis model, actions over the structure, frame demand capacity ratios and detailed checks are
presented in Section 11.
9 STRUCTURAL CALCULATIONS
9.1 Structural Analysis Results

Envelopes of different ULS combinations are presented in this report ,due to the simplicity of the
structure, rather than showing every combination separately.
9.1.1 Envelope Results of ULS Combinations
Figure 9.1.1.1: Maximum axial forces for ULS combinations
Figure 9.1.1.2: Maximum M2 moment forces for ULS combinations
Figure 9.1.1.3: Maximum M3 moment forces for ULS combinations
Figure 9.1.1.4: Maximum V2 shear forces for ULS combinations
Figure 9.1.1.5: Maximum V3 moment forces on each member for ULS combinations
9.1.2 Interstory Drift Check
Structure subjected to this design report is designed to withstand a seismic action having a larger
probability of occurrence than design seismic action, without the occurrence of damage and the
associated limitations of use, the costs of which would be disproportionately high in comparison with the
costs of the structure itself. The seismic action to be taken into account for the “damage limitation
requirement” has a probability of exceedance, PDLR, in 10 years and a return period, T DLR. The
recommended values are PDLR=10% and TDLR=95 years. The interstorey drift checks are done by
considering the peak ground acceleration (PGA) value as 0,2g in the damage limitation checks.
For buildings having non-structural elements fixed in a way so is not to interfere with structural
deformations :
𝑑𝑟 𝑣 ≤ 0,010ℎ (EN 1998-1 , Eq 4.33)
Where;
dr is the interstory drift
h is the story height
𝑣 is the reduction factor which takes into account the lower return period of the seismic action associated
with the damage limitation requirement, it is taken as 0.5.
Figure 9.1.2.1: Interstory drifts for X axis Figure 9.1.2.2: Interstory drifts for Y axis
9.2 Capacity Calculations of Members
9.2.1 Capacity Demand Ratios of Steel Members
The following table gives a brief summary of steel structural members with the highest capacity/demand
ratios of every section.
SECTION DEMAND / CAPACITY RESULT

IPE 220 0.97 SAFE
IPE 300 0.37 SAFE
HEA 300 0.94 SAFE
HEB 300 0.82 SAFE
Table 9.2.1.1 Capacity Demand Ratio Summary Table
Figure 9.2.1.1: Capacity demand ratios of steel members
9.2.2 Calculation Sheets of Members
9.2.2.1 IPE 220
9.2.2.2 IPE 300
9.2.2.3 HEA 300
9.2.2.4 HEB 300
9.2.2.5 RC Pedestal and Footing
The following table summarizes envelope of forces of ULS combination acting on RC pedestals.
Force Value Unit

Axial Force 240 kN
V2 Shear Force 87 kN
V3 Shear Force 30 kN
M2 Moment Force 172 kN.m
M3 Moment Force 80 kN.m
Table 9.2.2.4.1 Envelope of Design Forces Acting on RC Pedestals
The following calculation of strength of the section is perfomed under ULS loads given in Table 9.2.2.4.1.
Structure subjected to this design is standing on RC single footings. Following table summarizes
envelope of ULS load combinations acting on foundation.
Force Value Unit

Axial Force -52 kN
V13 Shear Force (max) 52 kN
V13 Shear Force (min) 55 kN
V23 Shear Force (max) 40 kN
V23 Shear Force (min) 35 kN
M11 Moment Force (max) 15 kN.m
M11 Moment Force (min) 36 kN.m
M22 Moment Force (max) 35 kN.m
M22 Moment Force (min) 55 kN.m
Table 9.2.2.5.1 Envelope of Design Forces Acting on RC Footings
 Envelope forces on footings
Figure 9.2.2.5.1: Envelope of forces acting on foundation (M11+)
Figure 9.2.2.5.2: Envelope of forces acting on foundation (M11-)
Figure 9.2.2.5.3: Envelope of forces acting on foundation (M22+)
Figure 9.2.2.5.4: Envelope of forces acting on foundation (M22-)
Figure 9.2.2.5.5: Envelope of forces acting on foundation (V13+)

Figure 9.2.2.5.6: Envelope of forces acting on foundation (V13-)
Figure 9.2.2.5.7: Envelope of forces acting on foundation (V23+)
Figure 9.2.2.5.8: Envelope of forces acting on foundation (V23-)
9.2.3 Soil Bearing Check
Soil bearing capacity checks are done for Earthquake and Ultimite Limit States by considering “Design
Approach 2” as suggested in EN 1990, Clause A1.3.1.(5).
Since the efforts are much less than the resistances the efforts for earthquake and ULS combinations
are compared with resistances obtained according to Design Approach 2 only.
Design Approach 2 (DA 2)

The combination of partial factors used is A1 ‘+’ M1 ‘+’ R2.
Partial factor Combination Unfavorable Favorable

gG A1 1.35 1.00
gQ A1 1.50 0.00
gf’1 M1 1.00
gC’ M1 1.00
gCu M1 1.00
gqu M1 1.10
gR, v R2 1.40
gR, h R2 1,10
gR, e R2 1,40
Table 9.2.3.1 Factors used during geotechnical calculations
Bearing Check under Eartquake Combinations:
Figure 9.2.3.1: Foundation deformed shape (EQ x)
Figure 9.2.3.2: Foundation deformed shape (EQ y)
Max displacement: 3mm (Envelope of Earthquake Combinations)
𝐸_𝑒𝑞 = 20000𝑥3𝑥10−3 = 60𝑘𝑁/𝑚2 < 𝑅𝑠𝑒𝑖𝑠𝑚𝑖𝑐 = 400 / 1.4 = 286 𝑘𝑁/𝑚2
(SAFE)
Bearing Check under ULS Combinations:
Figure 9.2.3.3: Foundation deformed shape (ULS Envelope)
Max displacement: 4mm (Envelope of ULS Combinations)
𝐸𝑈𝐿𝑆 = 20000𝑥4𝑥10−3 = 80𝑘𝑁/𝑚2 < 𝑅𝑑 = 400 / 1.4 = 286 𝑘𝑁/𝑚2
(SAFE)
9.2.4 CMU Wall Calculations
CMU walls are designed and checked for the most unfavorable cases of ULS, Seismic forces.
Structural Model :
The most critical grouted part of CMU, the one in the mid width of any exterior wall, is idealized as
a frame object carrying a 2000mm tributary width and working as a stand alone beam fixed at the bottom
to the sub basement wall and pinned at the top by the bond beam. Effective earthquake force is assigned
as linearly distributed load along the height. Porosity of CMU,which defines the seismic mass, in cross
section is calculated as 55% and taken as 50% during the calculation of CMU weight to be on the safe
side.
Fa = (Sa . Wa . a)/qa (EN 1998.1 , Equ 4.24)
Where;
W a = (thickness of CMU) x (tributary width) x (unit weight of CMU material) x (porosity of CMU in
cross section)
W a = 0.2 x 2.0 x 24 x 0.5 = 4.8 kN (seismic weight to be carried by the most critical grout)
a = 1.0 (EN 1998.1 , 4.3.5.3.(2))
qa = 2.0 (EN 1998.1 , Table 4.4)
Sa =  . S . [ 3 (1+(z/H)) / (1+(1-(Ta/T1)2)-0.5] (EN 1998.1 , Equ 4.25)
Where;
Ta = T1 (gives the worst possibility)
z=H (gives the worst possibility)
S = 1.15 (please refer to part 5.5 of the report ,Seismic Loads)
 = 0.2
===> Sa = 1.265
Then;
 Earthquake force acting on 200mm CMU wall is the following
Fa = (1.265 x 4.8 x 1.0)/2.0
Fa = 3 kN / m (horizontal seismic force acting on the center of mass of the grout per unit height)
Please note that, seismic weight is calculated for a unit height of one meter so does the seismic
force, too. Therefore 2.3 kN/m is assigned as a uniformly distributed load.
Resulting moment diagram of grouted CMU under calculated seismic loading is presented on
Figure 9.2.4.1;
 Design moments is 7.92 kN.m
Calculation of resisting moments:
Md = As . fyd . z (EN 1996.1.1 Equ 6.22)
Where;
As is chosen as 200mm 2 for a 16mm reinforcement per grouted cell
fyd = 500/1.15 = 435 MPa
z = 100mm (for 200mm thick CMU)
Therefore;
 MRd=8.7 kN.m for 200mm CMU grouted @ 2000mm

which is less than Md=7.92 kN.m (SAFE)
Figure 9.2.4.1: Resultant moment diagram of

grouted CMU under seismic load

Akh Ymi DD WT00X D Ce Rep 3001 0

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

Akh Ymi DD WT00X D Ce Rep 3001 0

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

ERC AKH Railway Project

WATER TANK TYPE-III

STRUCTURAL DESIGN REPORT

AWASH – KOMBOLCHA – HARA GEBAYA

ETHIOPIAN RAILWAYS CORPORATION (ERC)

Version Details Date Amended By

0 First Issue 30.04.2017 YM Design Group

Edited by B. Zeybek YM Structural Engineer

Approved by Z. Uygun YM Deputy GM, Design

Approved by A. Kılıç YM Project Manager

APPROVED APPROVED AS NOTED REJECTED

Name Title Signature & Stamp

Figure 1.1. WATER TANK TYPE-III - Drawing Model

Figure 1.2. WATER TANK TYPE III -Structural Analysis Model

Figure 1.3. WATER TANK TYPE III Foundation Formwork Plan

 EN 1990:2002 - Eurocode - Basis of structural design

 EN 1991-1-1:2002 - Eurocode 1: Actions on structures - Part 1-1: General actions - Densities,

 EN 1991-1-4:2005 - Eurocode 1: Actions on structures - Part 1-4: General actions - Wind

 EN 1991-1-5:2003 - Eurocode 1: Actions on structures - Part 1-5: General actions - Thermal

 EN 1993-1-2:2005 - Eurocode 3: Design of steel structures - Part 1-2: General rules -

 EN 1993-1-8:2005 - Eurocode 3: Design of steel structures - Part 1-8: Design of joints

 EN 1997-1:2004 - Eurocode 7: Geotechnical Design - Part 1: General rules

 EN 1998-1:2004 - Eurocode 8: Design of structures for earthquake resistance – Part 1:

 EN 1998-1:2004 - Eurocode 8: Design of structures for earthquake resistance – Part 5:

 ESCP-1:1983 Ethiopian Standard Code of Practice for Loading – Wind actions

 EBCS-1:1995 Ethiopian Building Standard- Basis of Design and Actions on Structures

 Steel Building Design: Concise Eurocodes, SCI Publication P362.

 Other engineering and drafting software

𝛾𝑐 = 1.50 for persistent and transient situations.

The following concrete classes shall be applied:

The concrete dilatation coefficient is 𝛼𝑡 = 10−5 ℃−1 .

cnom = cmin + ∆cdev

Below we include the nominal concrete covers used in the project:

 Foundations and pedestals 50mm (> k1=40mm)

The steel class will be S500B for all elements.

𝛾𝑠 = 1.15 for persistent and transient situations

Structural steel will be of the following classes:

 Structural steel in plates:

𝑡 < 40 𝑚𝑚 S460 (fy=460 MPa, fuk=625 MPa, E=210 GPa)

Structural steel dilatation coefficient for steel structures is 𝛼𝑡 = 1.2𝑥10−5 ℃−1 .

Soil Parameters assumed during the design:

5.1 Dead loads

Figure 5.1.1 Dead Load

Figure 5.2.1 Live Load

Figure 5.3.1 Thermal Load (+25 C0)

Figure 5.3.2 Thermal Load (-25 C0)

Figure 5.4.1 Wind Load x1-

Figure 5.4.2 Wind Load x1+

Figure 5.4.3 Wind Load x2-

Figure 5.4.4 Wind Load x2+

Figure 5.4.5 Wind Load y1-

Figure 5.4.6 Wind Load y1+

Figure 5.4.7 Wind Load y2-

Figure 5.4.8 Wind Load y2+

Peak Ground Acceleration

Figure 5.5.1: Seismicity of Horn of Africa

(Retrieved from : http://www.preventionweb.net/files/3870_Seismichorn.pdf)

Ground Type S TB(S) TC(S) TD(S)

Earthquake mass calculations:

Section Total mass of member

Horizontal design spectrum acceleration:

The following values are used to calculate design spectrum acceleration: