Steel Project (2015)

2015 Structural design of Steel Aircraft Hangar
Table of Contents Page

1. Introduction .................................................................................................2
2. Structural System and Design Considerations ..................................3
3. Structural Analysis
3.1 Loading.......................................................................................................................4
4. Design Load Combinations……………………………………………………….14
5. Analysis and Design
5.1 Procedure for Analysis and Design.................................................................15
5.2 Design Output.........................................................................................................16
5.3 Check for Ultimate limit state of structural elements...............................17
5.4 Column......................................................................................................................20
6. Design of truss members
6.1 Bottom and Top.....................................................................................................22
6.2 Diagonal...................................................................................................................23
6.3 Vertical.....................................................................................................................23
7. Bracing Design
7.1 Wall Bracing...........................................................................................................24
8. Connections
8.1 Beam to Column....................................................................................................26
9. Ground Slab.................................................................................................26
10. Design for base plate, foundation column and concrete footing
10.1 Base Plate.............................................................................................................26
10.2 Foundation column...........................................................................................27
10.3 Footing..................................................................................................................28
AAiT, School of Civil and Environmental Engineering Page 1

1. Introduction
This is the design of aircraft maintenance hangar to be built at Bole International

Airport, Addis Ababa. It comprises of statical calculation of design loads, procedures for
analysis and design of structur`al elements. Along with the Ethiopian Building Code of
Standards we have used the Euro Code version 1993-1-1 for analysis and design.
The hangar is made of steel elements which form the basic structural system. It covers a
span of 30 m in both directions with a total area of 900m2 and is open in the front. At
the back there is two storey partitioned spaces to be used for different functions with a
total floor area of about 300 m2.

2. Structural System and Design Considerations
There are the usual prevalent forces of dead, live, wind and seismic action effects to be
considered for design. But here due to the short limited height of the structure, its
weight, and orientation; seismic action is small and not governing. The governing lateral
force was found to be wind according to designed sizes and geometry of the structure.
But the remaining three actions are considered with the necessary partial safety factors
and combinations assumed to cover all possible scenarios and come up with a safe
design.
We have used steel grade Fe 430 with characteristic yield strength of 255 N/mm2 for all
members of structural steel. Concrete class C-25 and steel grade S-300 is used for the
foundation, foundation columns, and slab on ground.
The ground slab of the hanger is designed to be fully supported on the underlying soil.
Here it is considered to have no structural connection with the steel structure. Thus,
reinforced concrete is considered to be the best possible option.
The hangar is fully open on one side and therefore it needs a special structure as its
lateral force resisting system. Therefore, the lateral force resisting system consists of
the three side structural walls with cross bracings and connected with each other by
means of a diaphragm at the roof level. The bracings are released for compression
forces in the model, since are considered ineffective in compression. This is so because
these elements are long and slender and will buckle and become ineffective by small
compressive load if subjected. The roof peripherals are totally braced along with one
additional bay to create the diaphragm structure for distribution of lateral forces.

3. Structural Analysis
3.1 Loading
Dead load, all dead loads meaning structure dead load, roof sheet, wall cladding and
dead load on mezannine floor are considered for design.
Here the analysis was set to consider the self weight of the structure with the
appropriate safety factor.
Roof sheet, is 4mm thick EGA 500 fixed on purlins. And hence the loads are set to be
distributed action on the purlins.
Live load, we have considered live action effects of 2kN/m2 on the mezannine floors.
Further 0.25kN/m2 load is considered on roof for construction and maintenance.
Wind load
As stated earlier the governing lateral action effect is wind load over seismic action.
Following is the analysis for wind load.
3.2 Wind Load Analysis on the roof
Pitch Angle
α= tan -1 (1.5/15)
= 5.71o
The roof type is Duo pitch
Altitude > 2000m
Temperature= 20oc
Pressure calculation
 External pressure
The wind pressure acting on the external surface of structure We shall be
obtained from
𝑊𝑒 = 𝑞𝑟𝑒𝑓 ∗ 𝐶𝑒 (𝑍𝑒 ) ∗ 𝐶𝑝𝑒 …………..EBCS1, 1995
Art 3.5.2

 Internal pressure
The wind pressure acting on internal surface of structure Wi shall be obtained from
𝑊𝑖 = 𝑞𝑟𝑒𝑓 ∗ 𝐶𝑒 (𝑍𝑖 ) ∗ 𝐶𝑝𝑖
Where 𝑞𝑟𝑒𝑓 = reference mean wind velocity pressure ……….EBSC 1, 1995

1
= 2 ∗ 𝜌 ∗ 𝑣𝑟𝑒𝑓 2 , 𝑣𝑟𝑒𝑓 == 22 𝑚⁄𝑠 Art 3.7.1
𝜌 = 𝑎𝑖𝑟 𝑑𝑒𝑛𝑠𝑖𝑡𝑦
The variation of air density with altitude is given in table 3.1 of EBSC 1, 1995
For our site which is at altitude of >2000m above sea level, the value of
ρ =0.94Kg/m3
𝑣𝑟𝑒𝑓 2 = 𝐶𝑑𝑖𝑟 ∗ 𝑐𝑡𝑒𝑚𝑝 ∗ 𝐶𝑎𝑙𝑡 ∗ 𝑣𝑟𝑒𝑓0
= 1 ∗ 1 ∗ 1 ∗ 22 𝑚⁄𝑠 = 22 𝑚⁄𝑠
1 2
𝑞𝑟𝑒𝑓 = ∗ 0.94 ∗ 22 𝑚⁄𝑠 = 227.48 𝑁⁄𝑚2
2
 Terrain category
Addis Ababa is an urban municipality. Hence, it is a terrain category IV and the
related parameters are
KT=0.24, Zo (m) =1, Zmin (m) = 16 ……….EBSC1, 1995 Art
3.8.3
 Roughness coefficient
𝑍
 𝐶𝑟(𝑧) = 𝐾𝑇 ∗ ln(𝑍0) For Zmin < Z < 200m
𝐶𝑟(𝑧) = 𝐶𝑟(𝑍𝑚𝑖𝑛) For 𝑍 < 𝑍𝑚𝑖𝑛 …….. EBSC1, 1995 Art

3.8.2
16
𝐶𝑟(𝑍𝑚𝑖𝑛) = 0.24 ∗ ln( 1 )
= 0.6654
 Topography coefficient Ct =1 (topographically unaffected)
The topography coefficient Ct(Z) accounts for the increase of mean wind speed
due to abrupt changes in topography, such as isolated hills, escarpments. But in
our case it is assumed that the location is topography unaffected.
Ct = 1 for ∅ < 0.05 ……..EBCS1, 1995 Art
3.8.4
 Exposure coefficient

7𝐾𝑇
𝐶𝑒(𝑍𝑒) = 𝐶𝑟 2 (𝑧) ∗ 𝐶𝑡 2 (𝑧) ∗ [1 + 𝐶𝑟(𝑧)∗𝐶𝑡(𝑧)] …...EBCS1, 1995 Art 3.8.5
7∗0.24
𝐶𝑒(𝑍𝑒) = 0.66542 ∗ 12 ∗ [1 + 0.6654∗1] = 1.56
𝑊𝑒 = 𝑞𝑟𝑒𝑓 ∗ 𝐶𝑒 (𝑍𝑒 ) ∗ 𝐶𝑝𝑒

= 227.48 ∗ 1.56 ∗ 𝐶𝑝𝑒 = 0.355𝐶𝑝𝑒
= 0.355𝐶𝑝𝑖
𝑊𝑛𝑒𝑡 = 𝑊𝑒 − 𝑊𝑖
= 0.355(𝐶𝑝𝑒 − 𝐶𝑝𝑖 )
Roof category – Duo pitch
Different wind directions, 𝜃 has to be considered and adopt the critical one. The code
recommends the roof to be divided into zones as shown below for θ=0o.
For Wind Directions, θ=0o
e= b or 2h, whichever is smaller

b= 30m, 2h= 2*10.5=21m,
So, e= 21m
The areas for the zones are
Zone F G H J I
Area(m2) 11.025 40.95 387 63 387

External pressure coefficient for duo pitch roofs
Using the area A of the zones external pressure coefficient, Cpe is calculated from the
tables as follows
Cpe= Cpe,1 , A≤ 1 m2
Cpe= Cpe,1 + [ Cpe,10 – Cpe,1] log10 A , 1m2< A < 10m2

Cpe=Cpe,10 , A > 10m2
Positive and negative values (coefficients) are calculated by interpolation using the
pitch angle α= 5.71o
When θ= 0o
Pitch F G H I J
angle (α)
Cpe,10 Cpe,10 Cpe,10 Cpe,10 Cpe,10
5o -1.7 -1.2 -0.6 -0.3 -0.3
15o -0.9 -0.8 -0.3 -0.4 -1
Zone F G H I J
Cpe( α - 1.64 - 1.17 - 0.58 -0.307 -0.35

=5.71o)
The critical Cpe for θ= 0o is Cpe= -1.64
For wind Direction θ= 90o

e= b or 2h, whichever is smaller
b= 30m, 2h= 2*10.5= 21m
So, e= 21m

Zone F G H I
Area(m2) 11.025 20.475 252 585
Pitch Angle F G H I
Cpe,10 Cpe,10 Cpe,10 Cpe,10
5o -1.6 -1.3 -0.7 -0.5
5.71o -1.578 -1.3 -0.69 -0.5

15o -1.3 -1.3 -0.6 -0.5
The critical Cpe for θ=90o is Cpe=-1.578
External Wind pressure

For θ=0o
We = q ref ∗ Ce (Ze ) ∗ Cpe
= 0.355Cpe
= 0.355 ∗ (−1.64) = −0.5822 KN⁄m2

For θ=90o
We = q ref ∗ Ce (Ze ) ∗ Cpe
= 0.355Cpe
= 0.355 ∗ (−1.578) = −0.56 KN⁄m2
Internal Wind pressure

For closed buildings with internal partitions and opening windows the extreme values
of internal pressure coefficients are
𝐶𝑝𝑖 = 0.8 𝑜𝑟 𝐶𝑝𝑖 = −0.5
= 0.355𝐶𝑝𝑖
= 0.355 ∗ 0.8 = 0.284 KN⁄m2
Or
= 0.355 ∗ −0.5 = −0.1775 KN⁄m2
Net pressure
The net wind pressure across an element is the difference of the pressures on each
surface taking due account of their signs.
𝐶𝐴𝑆𝐸 1 ∶ 𝑊𝑛𝑒𝑡 = 𝑊𝑒 − 𝑊𝑖 = (−0.5822 − 0.284) KN⁄m2 = −0.866 KN⁄m2
𝐶𝐴𝑆𝐸 2 ∶ 𝑊𝑛𝑒𝑡 = 𝑊𝑒 − 𝑊𝑖 = (−0.5822 − (−0.1775) KN⁄m2 = −0.4047 KN⁄m2

Wind pressure on walls

Height (h) of the wall = 9m
B = 30m, h<b
So the reference height Ze = h = 9m A.2.2-EBCS 1/95
e = b or 2h, whichever is smaller, so
e= 2h = 18m
The dimension of wind parallel side of the building = d = 30m
The code recommends the walls to be divided into zones as follows
Fig. A3 - EBCS 1/95
A=(e/5)*9=3.6*9=32.4m2, B=(e-A)*9=14.4*9=129.6m2,
C=(30-e)*9=12*9=108m2, D=E=30*9=270m2
External pressure coefficients (Cpe) can be found from Table A.1 - EBCS 1/95 as below
d/h = 30/9 = 3.33

Zone A B C D E
d/h Cpe, 10 Cpe, 10 Cpe, 10 Cpe, 10 Cpe, 10
<= 1 -1 -0.8 -0.5 0.8 -0.3
3.33 -1 -0.8 -0.5 0.6446 -0.3
>= 4 -1 -0.8 -0.5 0.6 -0.3
We = qref ∗ Ce (Ze ) ∗ Cpe

= 0.355Cpe
= 0.355𝐶𝑝𝑖
= 0.355(𝐶𝑝𝑒 − 𝐶𝑝𝑖 )
Internal pressure coefficients (Cpi) can be found from figure A.11 – EBCS 1/95

Cpi = -0.5
Cp values (Cpe – Cpi), Xa
Cpi = -0.5
Cp values (Cpe – Cpi), Xb

Cpi = -0.5
Cp values (Cpe – Cpi), Ya
Cpi = 0.8
Cp values (Cpe – Cpi), Yb

4. Design Load Combinations

The value of actions set to occur simultaneously is combined as follows. Here note that
ultimate limit state is the governing combination and is the one used here.
Here are six combinations considered for design;
Ultimate Limit State
a) Gravity.
 COMB1– 1.35  Gk + 1.5  Qk1
b) Wind Direction Perpendicular to Ridge (+ve x- dir).
 COMB2– 1.35  Gk + 1.5  Qk1 + 1.35  Qk2
c) Wind Direction Perpendicular to Ridge (-ve x- dir).
 COMB3– 1.35  Gk + 1.5  Qk1 + 1.35  Qk2
d) Wind Direction Parallel to Ridge (+ve y- dir).
 COMB4– 1.35 Gk + 1.5  Qk1 + 1.35  Qk2
e) Wind Direction Parallel to Ridge (-ve y- dir).
 COMB5– 1.35 Gk + 1.5  Qk1 + 1.35  Qk2
f) Wind Direction Parallel to Ridge (+ve y- dir hangar open case).
 COMB5– 1.35 Gk + 1.5  Qk1 + 1.35  Qk2

5. Analysis and Design

5.1 Procedure for Analysis and Design
As stated above we have considered the possible action effects in the six possible
combinations. The necessary partial safety factors for both material and loading are
considered to result in safe and economic design.
Procedure for analysis
The modeling and analysis of the structure is as follows;
a. Load computation as stated earlier the governing load, wind action is computed.
b. Architectural requirement: the space and arrangement requirement is provided
to suit the need of the client.
c. Choosing structural system: the requirements of having large open, column free
spaces, height of the structure are best suited for steel structure.
d. Modeling:
1. Material: we have selected steel grade Fe430 steel
2. Sections: rolled square hollow sections (SHS) are used for all different
elements preliminarily; these elements are column, beam, truss and bracing.
e. Assigning loads,
Roof dead and live load is distributed on the purlins
Mezannine floor load is considered distributed on secondary beams
Roof wind load is assigned on joints
Wall wind load is assigned on beams and columns
f. Set load combinations
g. Analysis
Roof purlins are released for moment
Truss structure is released for moments in both major and minor axes
Bracing elements are released for compression and moment
Footing considered as pin.
Nonlinear analysis considering sway effect, load deflection secondary action
Other joints, beam to beam, column to column and beam to column are
considered as continuous and hence don’t affect the design.
The global sway imperfection to account for residual and geometric
imperfections was considered in accordance to the euro code 1993-1-1. Here the
equivalent horizontal loads are added with the wind action to result in

reasonable design. And hence in accordance the procedure for analysis of Euro
code, since both second order analysis and global imperfections are considered,
there is no need to check for individual members for stability. Here only
symmetric sway is considered and hence torsional effects are not considered.
h. Design
Using the analysis output and the European code, 2005 we have designed/
capacity check for the elements.
From the results of failed sections we tried to come up with better and economic
design by adjusting, reanalyzing and designing again until all members are safe
for the possible loads.
5.2 Design Output

Following; here are the final sections for all structural elements
Structural elements Section type, in Section class
mm
Truss, top elements SHS 100 x 100 x 4.5 Class I
Truss, bottom elements SHS 100 x 100 x 4.5 Class I
Truss, diagonal and vertical SHS 80 x 80 x 4 Class I
elements
Roof purlins SHS 100 x 100 x 4 Class I
Roof bracings SHS 50 x 50 x 2.5 Class I
Columns SHS 150 x 150 x 5 Class I
Beams SHS 120 x 120 x 5 Class I
Wall bracings SHS 80 x 80 x 3 Class I
Mezannine floor secondary beams SHS 120 x 120 x 4.5 Class I
Mezannine columns SHS 120 x120 x 5 Class I
Mezannine floor beams RHS 120 x 150 x 5 Class I
Section class: considering the worst possible condition of stress distribution, which is
full compression, all sections are class I. This is so because the provided thickness of the
elements is large enough to allow plastic moment resistance to develop creating plastic

hinges with sufficient rotational capacity and no local buckling. This in turn allows for
plastic global analysis to be carried out which results in the most efficient design.
The sections are proportions to resist the main action effects which are axial and
flexural loads. These may be in different combination as axial only for truss elements,
only tensile axial load for bracings, flexure only for some beams and combination of
flexure and axial force for purlins, columns and beam columns.
This is also visible in the euro code which considers only interactions of flexure and
axial forces and neglects shear and torsion. Here again, the maximum torsion and shear
loads are way lesser than the capacity of the sections proportioned and hence it is safe
to assume, the requirements are always satisfied and further don’t affect the capacity of
the section for the overall capacity.
5.3 Check for Ultimate limit state of structural elements

As stated above, due to the prevalent loads and chosen sections only two action effects
have significant effect and interaction that is governing. These are axial force and
flexure, bending. And hence checking for the combination of these two, axial force and
bending is sufficient to deduce the design is safe and economic.
Structural elements Section type, in Section mod Section mod
mm about y-y, wy about z-z, wz
Truss, top elements SHS 100 x 100 x 4.5 6.16E-05 6.16E-05
Truss, bottom SHS 100 x 100 x 4.5 6.16E-05 6.16E-05
elements
Truss, diagonal and SHS 80 x 80 x 4 3.47E-05 3.47E-05
vertical elements
Roof purlins SHS 100 x 100 x 4 5.53E-05 5.53E-05
Roof bracings SHS 50 x 50 x 2.5 8.47E-06 8.47E-06
Columns SHS 150 x 150 x 5 1.58E-04 1.58E-04
Beams SHS 120 x 120 x 5 9.92E-05 9.92E-05
Wall bracings SHS 80 x 80 x 3 2.67E-05 2.67E-05
Mezannine floor SHS 120 x 120 x 4.5 9.01E-05 9.01E-05
secondary beams
Mezannine columns SHS 120 x120 x 5 9.93E-05 9.93E-05

Mezannine floor RHS 120 x 150 x 5 1.36E-04 1.16E-04

beams
Structural elements Section type, in Moment of Area in m2

mm Inertia in m4
Truss, top elements SHS 100 x 100 x 4.5 2.62E-06 1.72E-03
Truss, bottom SHS 100 x 100 x 4.5 2.62E-06 1.72E-03
elements
Truss, diagonal and SHS 80 x 80 x 4 1.17E-06 1.22E-03
vertical elements
Roof purlins SHS 100 x 100 x 4 2.36E-06 1.54E-03
Roof bracings SHS 50 x 50 x 2.5 1.79E-07 4.75E-04
Columns SHS 150 x 150 x 5 1.02E-05 2.93E-03
Beams SHS 120 x 120 x 5 5.08E-06 2.3E-03
Wall bracings SHS 80 x 80 x 3 9.14E-07 9.24E-04
Mezannine floor SHS 120 x 120 x 4.5 4.63E-06 2.08E-03
secondary beams
Mezannine columns SHS 120 x120 x 5 5.08E-06 2.3E-03
Mezannine floor RHS 120 x 150 x 5 8.6E-06 2.6E-03
beams
Beam, Design/ Capacity Check

Design loads,
Moment, Major axis 9.25kNm
Minor axis 1.4kNm
Axial load 1.46kN
Calculate the buckling reduction factor

χ=1/( Φ+( Φ2- λ2)0.5)

Φ=0.5(1+α(λ-0.2)+ λ2)
k , y = (Afy/Ncr)0.5, Ncr=π2EI/L2
Using the relationships,

The non dimensional slenderness k , y is = (2.3E-03x255E06/421E3)0.5=1.18
The bucking curve is a, the imperfection factor is 0.21

Φ=1.3
Thus the buckling reduction factor is χ=0.54
Check for flexural buckling,
Nrk=A x fy/g=2.3E-03 x 255E06=586.5E03N=586.5kN
My,Rk=Mpl,Rd=Wpl x fy/g=9.92E-05 x 255E06=25296Nm=25.3kNm
Mz,Rk= Mpl,Rd=Wpl x fy/g=9.92E-05 x 255E06=25296Nm=25.3kNm
Interaction parameters
Using annex B of euro code,
Cmy=1.4
Kyy=Cmy(1+( k , y -0.2)Ned/ χ Nrk), substituting Kyy= 1.402
Kyz= 0.6Kyy=0.6 x 1.402=0.84

Hence,
Ned/ (χ Nrk/g)+ Kyy x My,ed/( χ My,Rk/g)+ Kyz x Mz,ed/( χ Mz,Rk/g)
=1.46E3/(0.54 x 586E3)+1.402 x 9.25E03/(25.3E03 x 0.54) + 0.84 x 1.54E03/(0.54 x
25.3E03)=0.97< 1.0. There is no need to check for lateral torsional bucking because as
stated earlier the action and resistances are far apart.
Hence the section SHS 120 x 120 x5 for beam is enough.
Purlin, Design/ Capacity

Design loads,
Minor axis 0.0kNm
Axial load -41.85kN, compression
χ=1/( Φ+( Φ2- λ2)0.5)

Φ=0.5(1+α(λ-0.2)+ λ2)
k , y = (Afy/Ncr)0.5, Ncr=π2EI/L2=195.6kN

The non dimensional slenderness k , y is = (1.54E-03x255E06/195.6E3)0.5=1.42

Φ=1.64
Nrk=A x fy/g=1.54E-03 x 255E06=392.7E03N=392.7kN
My,Rk=Mpl,Rd=Wpl x fy/g=5.53E-05x 255E06=14.13kNm
Mz,Rk= Mpl,Rd=Wpl x fy/g=5.53E-05 x 255E06=25296Nm=14.13kNm
Cmy=1.35
Kyz= 0.6Kyy=0.6 x 1.78=1.07

Hence,
=41.85E03/(0.408 x 393E3)+1.78 x 2E03/(14.13E03 x 0.408) + 1.07 x 0/(0.408 x
14.13E03)=0.87< 1.0
5.4 Columns
Capacity check for Buckling
Design loads, when flexure is predominant
Minor axis 0.0kNm
χ=1/( Φ+( Φ2- λ2)0.5)
Φ=0.5(1+α(λ-0.2)+ λ2)
k , y = (Afy/Ncr)0.5, Ncr=π2EI/L2=830kN


The non dimensional slenderness k , y is = (2.93E-03 x 255E06/830E3)0.5=0.9

Φ=0.98
Nrk=A x fy/g=2.93E-03x 255E06=747.15E03N=747.15kN
My,Rk=Mpl,Rd=Wpl x fy/g=1.58E-04 x 255E06=40.29kNm
Mz,Rk= Mpl,Rd=Wpl x fy/g=1.58E-04 x 255E06=40.29kNm
Cmy=1.1
Kyz= 0.6Kyy=0.6 x 1.16=0.7

Hence,
=43.61E03/(0.733 x 747E3)+1.16 x 27E03/(40.29E03 x 0.733)=1.03 = 1.0, ok
Capacity check for Buckling

Design loads, when axial force is predominant
Minor axis 0.0kNm
χ=1/( Φ+( Φ2- λ2)0.5)
Φ=0.5(1+α(λ-0.2)+ λ2)
k , y = (Afy/Ncr)0.5, Ncr=π2EI/L2=830kN

The non dimensional slenderness k , y is = (2.93E-03 x 255E06/830E3)0.5=0.9

Φ=0.98


Nrk=A x fy/g=2.93E-03x 255E06=747.15E03N=747.15kN
My,Rk=Mpl,Rd=Wpl x fy/g=1.58E-04 x 255E06=40.29kNm
Mz,Rk= Mpl,Rd=Wpl x fy/g=1.58E-04 x 255E06=40.29kNm
Hence, kyy and kyz are zero
=43.61E03/(0.733 x 747E3)=0.1>1.0, ok
6. Design of truss members

6.1 Bottom and Top Truss Member
Analysis outputs and section properties:
Nsd= 384.93 KN length= 1m
Ixx=Iyy= 2.62*10-6 m4 section= 100*100*4.5mm
i= 0.039m Area= 1719mm2

Effective length; le
The adjoining members are much stiffer than that of the member under analysis. Thus,
β=1
As a result the effective length is 1m.
Slenderness ratio; λ=le/i

λ = 1/0.039=25.64
The limiting slenderness ratio; λp = 𝜋(𝐸/𝑓𝑦)1/2
λp = π*(210/0.255)0.5 λp=90.15
The normalized slenderness ratio; λ= λ/ λp

λ= 25.64/90.15=0.2844
The corresponding reduction factor from table 6.2 and fig 6.4 K=0.97
Thus the flexural buckling can be checked;
𝑁𝑠𝑑 384.93∗1000
<1 <1 0.905 < 1 ……….ok
K∗A∗fy 0.97∗1719∗255

6.2 Diagonal Truss Member

Nsd= -93.65 KN length= 2.14m
Ixx=Iyy= 1.17*10-6 m4 section= 80*80*4mm
i= 0.0311m Area= 1216mm2

The adjoining members are much stiffer than that of the member under analysis.
Thus, β=1
λ = 2.14/0.0311=68.8
The limiting slenderness ratio; λp = 𝜋(𝐸/𝑓𝑦)1/2 fy=275MPa for t≤ 4mm
λp = π*(210/0.275)0.5 λp=86.8

λ= 68.8/86.8=0.79
𝑁𝑠𝑑 93.65∗1000
<1 <1 0.35 < 1 ……….ok
K∗A∗fy 0.80∗1216∗275
6.3 Vertical Truss Member

Nsd= -93.65 KN length= 2m
i= 0.0311m Area= 1216mm2

Thus, β=1
λ = 2/0.0311=64.3

λp = π*(210/0.275)0.5 λp=86.6
λ= 64.3/86.8=0.74
𝑁𝑠𝑑 93.65∗1000
<1 <1 0.34 < 1 ……….ok
K∗A∗fy 0.85∗1216∗275
7. Bracing Design
7.1 Wall Bracing Member
Nsd= 63.72 KN length= 5.8m
i= 0.0315m Area= 924mm2

 Effective length; le
Thus, β=1
λ = 5.8/0.0311=184.12
λp = π*(210/0.275)0.5 λp=86.6
λ= 184.12/86.8=2.12

𝑁𝑠𝑑 63.72∗1000
<1 <1 1.25 ≃ 1 ……….ok
K∗A∗fy 0.2∗924∗275
Wall Bracing Member

Nsd= 63.72 KN length= 7.09m
Ixx=Iyy= 1.79*10-7 m4 section= 50*50*2.5mm
i= 0.048m Area= 475mm2

The adjoining members are much stiffer than that of the member under analysis. Thus,
β=1

λ = 7.09/0.048=148
λp = π*(210/0.275)0.5 λp=86.8
λ= 148/86.8=1.7
𝑁𝑠𝑑 93.65∗1000
<1 <1 0.933 < 1 ……….ok
K∗A∗fy 0.3∗1216∗275

8. Connections
8.1 Beam to column connections
Wall beam to column
Design in puts from the analysis; use bolt type 5.6 with a diameter 12mm such that fyb=
300MPa and fub= 500MPa
Vsd= 13.4KN
Shear capacity of a bolt Veff=0.6fyAveff/γ
Veff= 0.6*300*(𝜋 ∗ 62 )/1.1 = 18.5KN
Vsd/Veff=0.72<1……..ok
Mezzanine beam to column
Design in puts from the analysis; use bolt type 5.6 with a diameter 14mm such that fyb=
300MPa and fub= 500MPa
Vsd= 23.82KN
Shear capacity of a bolt Veff=0.6fyAveff/γ
Veff= 0.6*300*(𝜋 ∗ 72 )/1.1 = 25.2KN
Vsd/Veff=0.94<1……..ok
9. Ground slab design
The ground floor is fully rested on the underlying soil and is not connected to the frame
structure at all. And hence minimum reinforcement provided is sufficient.
As,min=ρminb.d=(0.5/(300)) x 1000 x 120=200mm2. Provide φ8c/c200mm.
10. Design for base plate, foundation column and concrete footing
10.1 Base plate
For design of footings it is safe to consider envelope action effects to reduce the
probability of failure and hence,
Minor axis 15.0kNm
Using concrete grade C25MPa and steel grade S300,
yd =P/A +Myy c/I+Mzz c/I

Take A=0.3m x 0.3m

=(149,000/(300 x 300)+15,000/(4.5E06)+27,000/(4.5E06)=1.64MPa > 11.33MPa, ok
Since the stress is way below allowable value, the plate dimension can be decreased.
Use plate 25cm x 25cm
The stress on the concrete is
=(149,000/(250 x 250)+15,000/(2.6E06)+27,000/(2.6E06)=2.42MPa > 11.33MPa, ok
Thickness of plate, the provided plate is un-stiffened since the design action effects are
small
The thickness is determined by the flexural effect of cantilevered stress on the plate,
As such, yd =M/W, hence plate thickness t=a(3p/yd)=50(3 x 2.42/235)=1.54mm,
Finally use plate 250mm thickness 4mm, to prevent local plate buckling, bending.
10.2 Foundation column

The section has been proportioned in the previous section, of base plate.
Hence here using the EBCS code provisions, the reinforcement required is calculated as
follows,
Design actions
Minor axis 15.0kNm
Normalized axial force ratio, is v=Nsd/(fcd x Ac)=149E3/(11.33 x 300 x 300)=0.15
Normalized moment ratio, μ=Msd/fcd x A x d)=27E06/(11.33 x 3002 x 260)=0.1
μ= Msd/fcd x A x d)=15E06/(11.33 x 3002 x 260)=0.06
The reinforcement ratio ώ is read from biaxial moment column chart, which is 0.0
Using the minimum reinforcement ratio for columns
Asteel=0.008Ac=0.008 x 300 x 300=720mm2
Foundation column,
Size 300mm x 300mm, with 4φ16 bars at each corners

10.3 Footing
Minor axis 15.0kNm
The existing soil condition at the design area is not given. Following this footing is
merely a proper design but carried out to make the design complete. With this in mind
say the allowable soil stress is all=250kpa,
Carrying out the design considering allowable soil stress, wide beam shear, punching
shear and developed bending stress
The footing shall be
Square 120cm x 120cm and a thickness of 25cm with φ12c/c300mm mesh at the
bottom.

Steel Project (2015)

Загружено:

Сведения о документе

Авторское право

Доступные форматы

Поделиться этим документом

Поделиться или встроить документ

Параметры публикации

Этот документ был вам полезен?

Это неприемлемый материал?

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

Steel Project (2015)

Загружено:

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

2015 Structural design of Steel Aircraft Hangar

Table of Contents Page

AAiT, School of Civil and Environmental Engineering Page 1

This is the design of aircraft maintenance hangar to be built at Bole International

AAiT, School of Civil and Environmental Engineering Page 2

2. Structural System and Design Considerations

AAiT, School of Civil and Environmental Engineering Page 3

3.2 Wind Load Analysis on the roof

AAiT, School of Civil and Environmental Engineering Page 4

Where 𝑞𝑟𝑒𝑓 = reference mean wind velocity pressure ……….EBSC 1, 1995

𝐶𝑟(𝑧) = 𝐶𝑟(𝑍𝑚𝑖𝑛) For 𝑍 < 𝑍𝑚𝑖𝑛 …….. EBSC1, 1995 Art

AAiT, School of Civil and Environmental Engineering Page 5

𝑊𝑒 = 𝑞𝑟𝑒𝑓 ∗ 𝐶𝑒 (𝑍𝑒 ) ∗ 𝐶𝑝𝑒

e= b or 2h, whichever is smaller

AAiT, School of Civil and Environmental Engineering Page 6

External pressure coefficient for duo pitch roofs

Cpe= Cpe,1 + [ Cpe,10 – Cpe,1] log10 A , 1m2< A < 10m2

Cpe( α - 1.64 - 1.17 - 0.58 -0.307 -0.35

The critical Cpe for θ= 0o is Cpe= -1.64

For wind Direction θ= 90o

AAiT, School of Civil and Environmental Engineering Page 7

5.71o -1.578 -1.3 -0.69 -0.5

The critical Cpe for θ=90o is Cpe=-1.578

External Wind pressure

= 0.355 ∗ (−1.64) = −0.5822 KN⁄m2

AAiT, School of Civil and Environmental Engineering Page 8

= 0.355 ∗ (−1.578) = −0.56 KN⁄m2

Internal Wind pressure

= 0.355 ∗ 0.8 = 0.284 KN⁄m2

𝐶𝐴𝑆𝐸 2 ∶ 𝑊𝑛𝑒𝑡 = 𝑊𝑒 − 𝑊𝑖 = (−0.5822 − (−0.1775) KN⁄m2 = −0.4047 KN⁄m2

AAiT, School of Civil and Environmental Engineering Page 9

Wind pressure on walls

Fig. A3 - EBCS 1/95

AAiT, School of Civil and Environmental Engineering Page 10

We = qref ∗ Ce (Ze ) ∗ Cpe

AAiT, School of Civil and Environmental Engineering Page 11

Cp values (Cpe – Cpi), Xa

Cp values (Cpe – Cpi), Xb

AAiT, School of Civil and Environmental Engineering Page 12

Cp values (Cpe – Cpi), Ya

Cp values (Cpe – Cpi), Yb

AAiT, School of Civil and Environmental Engineering Page 13

4. Design Load Combinations

AAiT, School of Civil and Environmental Engineering Page 14

5. Analysis and Design

AAiT, School of Civil and Environmental Engineering Page 15

5.2 Design Output

AAiT, School of Civil and Environmental Engineering Page 16

5.3 Check for Ultimate limit state of structural elements

AAiT, School of Civil and Environmental Engineering Page 17

Mezannine floor RHS 120 x 150 x 5 1.36E-04 1.16E-04

Structural elements Section type, in Moment of Area in m2

Beam, Design/ Capacity Check

AAiT, School of Civil and Environmental Engineering Page 18

χ=1/( Φ+( Φ2- λ2)0.5)

Using the relationships,

The bucking curve is a, the imperfection factor is 0.21

Kyz= 0.6Kyy=0.6 x 1.402=0.84

Purlin, Design/ Capacity

AAiT, School of Civil and Environmental Engineering Page 19

Using the relationships,

The bucking curve is a, the imperfection factor is 0.21

Kyz= 0.6Kyy=0.6 x 1.78=1.07

AAiT, School of Civil and Environmental Engineering Page 20