Structural Design-Calculation Report - PDF

STRUCTURAL DESIGN REPORT
-Steel bracings removal-

Fokker Logistics Park – Amsterdam, Netherlands
Revision History
Rev. Date Designed by Checked by Approved by Description
A 30.08.2017 EU MH MH First issue: DRAFT for review only
Responsible Dept. Prepared by : Checked by: Approved by: Date: Lang. Format Pages
Mat Bacon Emilian Ursu Martin Hyde Martin Hyde 30.08.2017 Eng. A4 27
(MB) (EU) (MH) (MH)
Document Title:
Strucutral design report –Steel bracings removal
Project: Document Number Rev.
Fokker Logistics Park, Amsterdam S.3114.00- A1– 001_A A
Project title : Fokker Logistics Park, Amsterdam
Project no: S.3114.00
Section: Calculation report
TABLE OF CONTENT
1. Introduction………………………….………………….…………………….…………....………..3
1.1 Project description.. ……… ………………………………………….……………………………....3
1.2 System of units..……………….……………… ………….. ………………….………..…………....5
1.3 General statements…………………….………………………………………….………………......5
2. Design norms…………………………………………………………..………..………….………….......5
2.1. Design norms.………………………...………………………….….…………….…….…………....5
2.2. Norms for materials………..…………………....………………………………….………………....6
3. Materials……………………………………………………………………….…………………...……....7
3.1. Structural steel and the steel connections………………………....…………. ………………………...7
3.2. Concrete and reinforcement steel…………………………..……. ….………………………………....7
3.3. Sustainability consideration….………………........…………. ………………………………………...8
4. Loads and loading combinations………………...…………………………………….…………...…….....8

4.1. Consequence class and supervision levels……...………………….……...………………………...…...8
4.2. Loading conditions. …………………………………………..……..……………...……………..….....9
4.3. Load combinations …………………………....…………….………………………………………....12
4.4. Validation for the loads assumptions……................…………. ……………………………………....14
4.5. Design constrains and limitations…….....................…………. ……………………………………....15
5. FEM model……….……………. ………………………………………………………………………...15
6. Structural design………………….………...…………………………………………………......……....19
Date: 30.08.2017 Page 2

1. Introduction
1.1. Project description
The purpose of this report is to summarise the main design parameters, principles and to present the supporting
report /calculations for the alteration works to the existing bracing system within an existing logistic building located
at Fokkerweg 3A, 1438 AN Oude Meer, Amsterdam, Netherlands.
Fig. 1. Site location and building configuration
The existing building has been designed as a warehouse and it was developed in two stages. The first stage
entailed the construction of a building with the overall dimensions of 178.60m (gridlines A to J ) x 83.75m (gridlines
1 to 8). The phase 1 construction was divided in two parts (called hereafter DC11 compartiment A and B) by a
separation joint located on gridlines E and F. Each compartiment was desined as an independend building with steel
bracings within the lateral walls and in the plan of the roof, in order to ensure the lateral stability. From the available
archive information, the foundations along gridline 8 were designed to accommodate a future extension which took
place in a later stage.
The phase 2 construction (gridlines A to J and 9 to 16) is a mirrored construction of Phase 1 building and
separated by a joint along gridlines 8 and 9. Similar to Phase 1 building, the second phase has been divided in two
parts (called hereafter DC12 compartiment C and D) by a separation joint along gridlines E and F (see figure 2 for
more details). The separation joint between both phases, along gridlines 8 and 9 has a width of 170mm and is filled by
a separation wall 150mm thick. The first 2.60m of the separation wall is made in pre-cast concrete and the remainder
up to the roof level is made of aerated concrete planks.
The project consists of the permanent removal of an existing bracing system made of flat steel plates
(15x120mm, grade S355) located on gridlines 8 and 9 and the replacement with two portal braces, in order to ensure
the free manouvering of an automated machince between the DC 11 compartiment B and DC 12 compartiment D (see
figures 3 and 4). On both grids, the bracings sytem is located between gridlines G and I. The total height of the
warehouse is about 13.65m and the roof is sloping towards gridlines G and I, where at the lowest point, the total height
is about 13.20m. The typical span between the grids is 21.68m.
Along the gridlines 8 and 9 and between the main grids, intermediate steel post have been provided in order
to support the roof construction. The steel post are IPE 400 and are placed at equal spaces of 5.42m. The edge posts,
in the corners of the compartiment are HEA200. In order to reduce the effective length of the steel posts, horizontal
rails made of box sections 80x80x4 were provided. These rails do not contribute to the bracing system of the building.
The top members wich supports the roof construction and spans between the vertical post are HEA 180.
Date: 30.08.2017 Page 3

Separation
joint
Steel
bracing
s
Separation Separation
joint joint
Separation
joint
Fig. 2. The existing warehouse and the main component part
Eaves Ridge Eaves

Ridge Ridge
Ridge Ridge
Fig. 3. The existing warehouse and the main component parts
Date: 30.08.2017 Page 4

The geometry and the position of the 8 no. openings (2.0m wide and 12.20m high) is presented in the
following figure.
Fig. 4. The proposed openings within the existing separation concrete wall
1.2. System of units

The metric system has been used throughout the entire project;
1.3.General statements
This document has been developed based on the following design information:
 Input from the client:
- Drawings in CAD format with the openings required for the automated machine: 8 no. openings
2.0m wide and 12.20m high;
- Design information in relation to the construction of the existing building: the steel frame, the base
plates and the anchor bolts, the ground floor construction and the foundation details;
 Eurocode standards and the National Annexes for Netherlands;
 Local specific regulations;
The structural system proposed for the alteration works is complying with the specific design criteria (lateral
deflections, the capacity of the existing foundation system) and the relevant site constraints. The final detailing / design
work and the construction programme will be discussed and agreed with the main contractor prior the tender issue
(Developed Design Stage): the erection sequences for the steel frame, lateral stability during construction, temporary
propping/ temporary bracings, the replace of the steel posts etc. The design work will be coordinated with the
construction programme.
Prior the tender issue (Developed Design Stage), the following aspects will be agreed with the client and the
main contractor:
 The loads/loading scenarios during the construction sequence;
 The design of the connections between the steel members: typical details;
 The strategy for a safe erection on site and the water tightness during construction.
In terms of health and safety, a risk assessment for site specific hazards has been prepared separately by the
design team. The findings were disseminated to all the relevant parties and special measurement will be undertaken if
required.
2. Standards and regulations.

2.1. Design Norms.
All the applicable in force regulations, laws and design norms for Netherlands whave been followed in the
design of all the alteration works. The national standards and design codes considered relevant and which have been
used, are listed below:
 Basis of structural design:
- NEN EN 1990:2010– Eurocode - Basis of structural design;
NA to NEN EN 1990:2010 C2:2011 /NB:2011– Eurocode 0 - Basis of structural design – National Annex;
 Action on structures:
- NEN EN 1991-1-1:2002, - Eurocode 1. Actions on structures. General actions. Densities, self-weight,
imposed loads for buildings
Date: 30.08.2017 Page 5

NA to NEN EN 1991-1-1:2002+C12011/NB:2011 - Eurocode 1. Actions on structures. General actions.

Densities, self-weight, imposed loads for buildings - National Annex.
- NEN EN 1991-1-3:2003- Eurocode 1. Actions on structures. General actions. Snow loads
NA to NEN DIN EN 1991-1-3:2003/NB:2013 Eurocode 1. Actions on structures. General actions. Snow
loads - National Annex.
- NEN EN 1991-1-4:2005 –Eurocode 1: Action on structures – Part 1-3: General action- Wind action;
NA to NEN EN 1991-1-4:2005 A1+C2/NB:2011–Eurocode 1: Action on structures – Part 1-3: General
action- Wind action-National Annex;
- NEN EN 1991-1-6:2005 Eurocode 1. Actions on structures. General actions. Actions during execution.
NA to NEN EN 1991-1-6:2005/NB:2013 Eurocode 1. Actions on structures. General actions. Actions
during execution - National Annex;
- NEN EN 1991-1-7:2006- Eurocode 1. Actions on structures. General actions. Accidental actions.
NA to NEN EN 1991-1-7:2006/NB:2011 Eurocode 1. Actions on structures. General actions. Accidental
actions - National Annex;
 Design of concrete structures:
- NEN EN 1992-1-1:2005 Eurocode 2: Design of concrete structures. General rules and rules for buildings.
NA to NEN 1992-1-1:2005+C2:2011/NB:2016 Eurocode 2: Design of concrete structures. General rules
and rules for buildings - National Annex.
 Design of steel structures:
- NEN EN 1993-1-1:2006 Eurocode 3. Design of steel structures. General rules and rules for buildings.
NA to NEN EN 1993-1-1:2006+C2:2011/NB:2011 Eurocode 3. Design of steel structures. General rules
and rules for buildings - National Annex.
- NEN EN 1993-1-5:2006 Eurocode 3. Design of steel structures. Plated structural elements.
NA to NEN EN 1993-1-5:2006 +C2:2011/NB:2011. Eurocode 3. Design of steel structures. Plated
structural elements - National Annex.
- NEN EN 1993-1-8:2006 Eurocode 3. Design of steel structures. Design of joints.
NA to NEN EN 1993-1-8:2006 +C2:2011/NB:2011. Eurocode 3. Design of steel structures. Design of
joints - National Annex
 Geotechnical design:
- NEN EN 1997-1:2005 Eurocode 7. Geotechnical design. General rules.
- NA to NEN EN 1997-1:2006 A1+C1:2016/NB:2016 Eurocode 7. Geotechnical design. General rules -
National Annex.
2.2. Norms for materials.

All the applicable in force regulations, laws and code of practice for Netherlands have been followed in the
design process in relation to the materials stipulated within the structural drawings and the technical specification. The
national standards and material norms considered relevant and which have been used are listed below:
- NEN EN 206:1 - Concrete - Part 1: Specification, performance, production and conformity and the National
Annex;
- NEN EN 13670, Execution of concrete structures and the National Annex;
- EN 197:1 - Cement - Part 1 : Composition, specifications and conformity criteria for common cements;
- NEN EN 10080 - Steel for the reinforcement of concrete: Weldable reinforcing steel;
- EN 10138 - Prestressing steels;
- NEN EN ISO 17660-1, Welding - Welding of reinforcing steel - Part 1: Load bearing welded joints and the
National Annex;
- NEN-EN 13055-1 Lichte toeslagmaterialen – Deel 1: Lichte toeslagmaterialen voor beton, mortel en
injectiemortel;
- NEN 3543 Nederlandse aanvulling op NEN-EN 13055-1;
- EN 10210-1:2006, Hot finished structural hollow sections of non-alloy and fine grain steels — Part 1:
Technical delivery conditions;
Date: 30.08.2017 Page 6

- EN 10219-1:2006 Cold formed welded structural hollow sections of non-alloy and fine grain steels — Part
1: Technical delivery conditions;
- DIN EN 10025-5. Hot rolled products of structural steels. Technical delivery conditions for structural steels
with improved atmospheric corrosion resistance;
3. Materials
3.1. Structural steel and the steel connections
All the structural steel used for rolled profiles, circular hollow sections, square/rectangular hollow sections,
equal/unequal angles, steel plates, gussets, stiffeners and end-plates will be S355 in accordance with NEN EN 1993-
1-1:2006 and NEN EN 10025-5. The structural steel S355 has the following properties, in accordance with NEN EN
10025-2:
 nominal value of the yield strength: fy = 355 N/mm2;
 tensile strength: fu = 510 N/mm2;
 elongation at failure not less than 15%;
 the ratio of the specified minimum ultimate tensile strength fu to the specified minimum yield strength fy
not less than 1.10.;
The partial safety coefficient applied to the material properties is γM,0= 1.0;
The high strength bolts used for all the bolted connection of the structural steel elements will be only from
the group of bolts 8.8 and 10.9., as they are defined in NEN EN 1993-1-8:2006:
 group 8.8:
- yield limit of bolts: fyb = 640 N/mm2;
- resistance to fracture of the bolts: fub = 800 N/mm2;
 group 10.9:
- yield limit of bolts: fyb = 900 N/mm2;
- resistance to fracture of the bolts: fub = 1000 N/mm2;
The anchor bolts/rods are used for the connections between the structural steel elements and the existing
foundation system. The anchor rods are obtained from round steel threaded subsequently. The washer and the nuts
used for the connection will be in accordance with provisions of the following standards: EN ISO 898-1:2002 and EN
14399-3:2005. All nuts and washers used in connections shall be galvanized.
The allowed diameters Ø for the anchor bolts are as follows: 20, 24, 30, 36, 42, 48, 56, and 64.
For connections with more than 2 anchor bolts, an embedded steel case will be provided in order to ensure the
stability and to maintain the design position of the anchor bolts when the concrete is poured. The embedded case will
be made up of steel S235. If the main contractor has a different proposal, this must be discussed with, agreed and
approved by the structural engineer prior the concrete pours.
In case of the connections of new steel members to existing concrete elements, chemical or mechanical anchors
will used instead. The chemical/ mechanical anchors specifications have been included within the structural drawings
and comprises the manufacturer, the anchor type, minimum embedment, mechanical properties and the installation
conditions.
The weld will be used for the connections of the structural steel elements and for the connections of the various
steel plates: end-plates, stiffeners and gussets. All welding consumables shall be in accordance with specified reference
standards in chapter 1.2.5 of NEN EN 1993-1-8:2006. For all the weld seams, it must be used electrodes with
mechanical characteristic higher than those corresponding to the steel types of the various combined steel
elements/plates.
The weld on site will be restricted as much as possible and limited to connections on the existing structures.
Site welding must be discussed with, agreed and approved by the structural engineer.
3.2. Concrete and reinforcement steel

The use of concrete for this specific job is limited to replacements for local cuts within the existing foundations
of the main building (along gridlines 8 and 9, if required) and to foundations for the external strucutures. All the in-
situ concrete shall conform to the provisions of NEN EN 1992-1-1:2006 and EN 206:2002 Part 1.
The concrete used will have the following mechanical features /grade:
 concrete grade: proposed C30/37;
- characteristic compressive cylinder strength of concrete at 28 days, fck =30 N/mm2;
- design value of concrete compressive strength, fcd =20 N/mm2;
- mean value of axial tensile strength of concrete, fctm=2.90 N/mm2;
Date: 30.08.2017 Page 7

 exposure classes: XC2 / XA1 – the exposure class confirmed by the avaialbe documentation
XC4 /XC3- External concrete expoised / sheltered from rain;
 maximum aggregate size: 20mm;
 structural class: S4;
 air entrainment: min. 3.5% and max.6%- optional and if concrete is poured during winter time;
All the reinforcement bars will be in accordance with EN 10080 and will have the following mechanical
properties:
 reinforcing steel type: S500B;
 characteristic yield strength: fyk=500N/mm2;
 the concrete cover of the reinforcement bars for foundations: 50mm to all faces.
 the concrete cover of the reinforcement bars for floor slabs: 25mm to all faces.
NOTE: the above values may chance based on the local conditions and will be specified in the structural drawings;
3.3. Sustainability considerations

It is recommended that the regional suppliers to be located within maximum 100-150 kilometres of project
site, if feasible. As much as possible, the excavated soil can be reused for fillings and compacted layers, but only with
the prior approval of the structural engineer and in accordance with the recommendations of the available geotechnical
report. The concrete and the structural / reinforcing steel must be recycled and the local regulation must be consulted
in this repsect. The re-use of the existing materials must be discussed with, agreed and approved by the structural
engineer.
4. Loads and load combinations

4.1. Consequence class and supervision levels
The consequence classes are defined in NEN EN 1990:2006 table B.1. According to this table the existing
building falls in CC2 category (wharehouse): Medium consequences for loss of human life, economic, social or
environmental consequences considerable. According to the design code, particular members of the structure may be
designated in the same, higher or lower consequences class than for the entire structure.
The Execution Class for the steel structure as a whole, was determined as follows:
a) Consequence Class – Table B1, NEN EN 1990:2006 :
CC2 - Medium consequence for loss of human life, or economic, social or environmental consequences
considerable.
b) Service Category – Table B.1, EN 1090-2:
SC1- Buildings and components designed for quasi static actions only;
c) Production Category – Table B.2, EN 1090-2:
PC2 - Welded components manufactured from steel grade products from S355 and above;
The Execution Class – Table B.3, EN 1090-2:
CC2 + SC1 + PC2 >>> EXC2
NOTE: The client or main contractor should appoint a steelwork sub-contractor with an Execution Class equal
to that required for the project, as determined by NEN EN 1090-2. It should be noted that steelwork contractors with
EXC3 capability can be used for EXC1, 2, & 3; and a steelwork contractor with EXC2 capability can only be used for
EXC1 & 2.Design supervision differentiation consists of various organisational quality control measures which can be
used together. For example, the definition of design supervision level may be used together with other measures such
as classification of designers and checking authorities.
In case of this project, the following design supervision levels will be achieved – in accordance with National
Annex of NEN EN 1990:2010, table NA.B1:
 DSL 1 –Normal supervision: Checking by persons internal to the organization but different from those
originally responsible for the design.
 DSL 3 –Supervision by the building inspectorate: Checking by the relevant authorities or a civil engineer
performing the inspection as an accredited entrepreneur on behalf of the authorities;
Date: 30.08.2017 Page 8

4.2. Loading conditions

Based on the archive information made available by the client and judging on the overall configuration of the
internal speces, it is our understanding that the building has been designed mainly as a warehouse. The roof is made
of a lightweight construction (metal deck, insulation, vapor barier and hydroinsulation) and supported by steel trusses
that slopes towards the centre of the building in a jigsaw fahsion. The roof does not support any external equipment
and inside, it supports a light installation of sprinklers and lighting.
The floor of the building has been desined as a heavy duty floor, to support a total load of 50kN/m2; The floor
slab is supported by 219mm piles arranged on a grid 2.20m x2.20m; The internal columns are manily supported by
isolated pile caps, 2.0m x 0.60m with 2no. precast piles 320x320m. The edge columns within the gables and the
columns located along the separation joint and off main grids ( along gridlines 8 and 9) are supported by a concrete
ground beam 1.0m wide with pre-cast concrete piles located at an interval of about 2.70m;
Based on the available archive information and using a reverse engineering calculation we were able to assess
the following loading conditions for the roof of the building:
 Dead load:
- self-weight of the steel trusses, including connections:0.20 kN/m2;
- self-weight of the roof construction: 0.80 kN/m2; Snow and live load don't have to be
 Permanent load: combined with wind load, see my
- the hanging services and sprinkler installation:0.20 kN/m2; comments on paragraph 4.3. So in
 Live load on the roof ( mainataince acess only): this case they are not relevant.
- the live acess :0.60 kN/m2; - this values is in line with the provisions of the National Annex of NEN
EN 1991 -1-1:2002, table 6.10 – imposed loads on roofs.
According to table 6.10, for roof category H (not accessible) the load qk =1.0 kN/m2 is to be considered
uniformly distributed to an area of 10m2, for each individual structural member, with a rage of 0 for the
rest of the roof. Concervatively, a uniform distributed load of 0.60kN/m2 for the entire area of the roof
has been considered.
In addition to the loads listed above, the following loads have been consiederd in the structural design:
 The snow load: according to NEN EN 1991-1-3:2003 - Eurocode 1. Actions on structures. General actions.
Snow load and the National Annex of Netherlands.
Location: Amsterdam, Netherlands;
According to the National Annex, for the Netherlands a minimum basic value must be adopted:
𝑺𝒌 = 𝟎. 𝟕𝟎 𝒌𝑵/𝒎𝟐
Also, there is no requirement for the exeptional snow loads on the ground, clause 4.3.(1);
According to the National Annex of NEN EN 1991-1-3:2006, in Netherlands, the following design situations
should be considered (table A.1, case A):
▪ persistent/transient design situation (no exceptional falls / no exceptional drifts):
- undrifted:
𝜇𝑖 · 𝐶𝑒 · 𝐶𝑡 · 𝑆𝑘
- drifted (Annex B is only informative in Netherlands):
𝜇𝑖 · 𝐶𝑒 · 𝐶𝑡 · 𝑆𝑘
μ1 - snow load shape coefficient:
μ1 = 0.80 (flat roof α ≈1⁰)
Ce – exposure coefficient:
ce = 1.00 (conservatively, normal exposure)
Ct – thermal coefficient of the roof:
ct = 1.00 ( thermal insulated roof)
According to the national provisions, in case of multispan roofs, the drifted arrangement recommended in
NEN EN 1991-1-3:2006, clause 5.3.4.(3), do not apply. The same is valid in case of projections at the roof level
(parapets, separation walls ect.), clause 6.2.(2). On the other hand, the slope of the roof is about 1⁰ ( +13.565m at the
highest point, +13.218 at the lowest point and spans of 21.680m), therefore are no conditions to favorize the snow
drift.
Therfore, within the persistent/transient design situation (no exceptional falls / no exceptional drifts), the snow
load at roof level has the following value:
𝑺 = 𝟎. 𝟓𝟔 𝒌𝑵/𝒎𝟐
Since the maximum value of the live load on the roof can’t act simultaneously with the maximum snow load
( full access on the roof with maximum snow load), the higher value of the loads will be considered.
Date: 30.08.2017 Page 9

 The wind load: according to NEN EN 1991-1-4:2005 –Eurocode 1: Action on structures – Part 1-3: General
action- Wind action and the National Annex of Netherlands.
According to the National Annex of NEN EN 1991-1-4:2005, the fundamental value of the basic wind velocity
vb,0 , for sites located within Zone II, is given in Table NB.1:
vb,0 = 27.00 m/s
qb,0 = 0.456 kN/m2
This is water.
The site of the

building
The actual project location

is at this position.
Fig. 5. Wind zone map for the territory of Netherlands

The basic wind velocity can be calculated from the following expression:
𝑣𝑏 = 𝐶𝑠𝑒𝑎𝑠𝑜𝑛 · 𝐶𝑑𝑖𝑟 · 𝐶𝑝𝑟𝑜𝑏 · 𝑣𝑏,0
Cseason – represents the season coefficient and the recommended value is 1.00;
Cdir– represents the directional factor and the recommended value is 1.00;
Cprob – represents the probabilistic factor and it is determined as follows:
𝑛
1 − 𝐾 · 𝑙𝑛(−𝑙𝑛(1 − 𝑝))
𝐶𝑝𝑟𝑜𝑏 =[ ]
1 − 𝐾 · 𝑙𝑛(−𝑙𝑛0.98)
K – represents the shape parameter depending on the coefficient of variation of the extreme-value
distribution; the recommended value is K = 0.235 (table NB.2);
n – represents the exponent; the recommended value is n = 0.5;
0.5
1 − 0.235 · 𝑙𝑛(−𝑙𝑛(1 − 0.02))
𝐶𝑝𝑟𝑜𝑏 =[ ] = 1.00
1 − 0.235 · 𝑙𝑛(−𝑙𝑛0.98)
𝑣𝑏 = 𝐶𝑠𝑒𝑎𝑠𝑜𝑛 · 𝐶𝑑𝑖𝑟 · 𝐶𝑝𝑟𝑜𝑏 · 𝑣𝑏,0 = 27.00 𝑚/𝑠
𝒗𝒃 = 𝟐𝟕. 𝟎𝟎 𝒎/𝒔
According to the National Annex of Netherlands, table NB.5, for sites located within Zone II and surrounded
by open land, without constructions or uncultivated, the value of peak velocity pressure qp(z) at height z, which includes
mean and short-term velocity fluctuations, has the following value:
 for z =15 m: 𝑣𝑝 (𝑧 = 10𝑚) = 0.850 𝑘𝑃𝑎
 for z =15 m: 𝑣𝑝 (𝑧 = 15𝑚) = 0.980 𝑘𝑃𝑎
Date: 30.08.2017 Page 10

The maximum height of the warehouse at the ridge is about 13.565m, therefore, by using linear interpolation
between the above values, the value of peak velocity pressure qp(z) is:
𝒒𝒑 (𝒛 = 𝟏𝟑. 𝟓𝟔𝟓) = 𝟎. 𝟗𝟐𝟏 𝐤𝐏𝐚;
The wahrehouse is made of four independent units: DC 11 compartiment A and B and DC 12 compartiment
C and D. The overall dimensions of the wharehouse are 167.00m x 178.60m. The overall dimensions of one unit are
83.50m x 89.30m. Each unit has a braced frame on the perimeter gridlines, therefore two braced frames for each wind
direction. The overall height of the building is 13.565m.
According to the National Annex of NEN EN 1991-1-4:2005, table NB.6, for buildings with h/d <1.0, the
pressure coefficients are as follows:
 lateral wall subject directely to wind pressure (zone D): cpe = +0.800;
we,1 = 0.80· 0.921 = 0.736 kPa
 lateral wall in suction (the wall opposite to the wall subject to wind pressure): c pe = -0.500;
we,2 = -0.50· 0.921 = 0.460 kPa
Pressure Suction
Steel
bracing
s Steel
bracing
s
Suction Pressure
Fig. 6. Wind pressure/suction on the building envelope
Conservatively, since the sutructre is not sensitive to wind vibrations, the dynamic reposne coefficient c scd=1.00.
The total lateral forces produced by the wind dynamic action have the following values:
 lateral wall subject to wind pressure (zone D);
Fw,1 = cscd·we,1 ·Awall =1.00· 0.80· 0.921 = 834.6 kN
 lateral wall subject to wind sunction (zone E);
Fw,2 = cscd·we,2 ·Awall =1.00· -0.50 · 0.921 = 521.6 kN
 friction along the roof surface (enhancedrough surface cfr=0.03);
Ffr = cfr·qp (z)·4h·b=0.03·0.921·4·13.565·83.50= 125.2 kN
Date: 30.08.2017 Page 11

The total wind load in each scenario (pressure /suction) will be devided between two braced bays, as follows:
 lateral wall subject to wind pressure (zone D);
Fwt,1 = (Fw,1 + Ffr) / 2 = (834.6+125.2) / 2 = 480 kN
 lateral wall subject to wind suction (zone E);
Fwt,1 = (Fw,1 + Ffr) / 2 = (521.6+125.2) / 2 = 324 kN
Further, the load cases considered relevant for the structural desing have been detail in table 1, as follows:
Table 1. The load cases considered within the structural analysis
No. Load case Designation

1 Self-weight DL1 Divided by two because
2 Permanent load PL half of the wind loads is
3 Live load LL1 transfered to the founda-
4 Wind Load - Pressure WXP tion by the columns in
5 Wind Load - Suction WXN the facade.
4.3. Load combinations

The load combinations of all the previous action have been considered, in accordance with NEN
EN1990:2010– Eurocode - Basis of structural design. For the calculation of the braces / portal frames wind pressure
and suction must be combined. They are one load case.
a) Ultimate limit state (ULS):
Furthermore the windloads may be reduced with a factor of 0,85
The following ultimate limit states shall be verified as relevant:
due to the lack of correlation, this according to article 7.2.2(3).
 EQU : Loss of static equilibrium of the structure or any part of it considered as a rigid body;
 STR : Internal failure or excessive deformation of the structure or structural mem members, including
footings, piles, basement walls, etc., where the strength of construction materials of the structure
governs;
 GEO : Failure or excessive deformation of the ground where the strengths of soil or rock are
significant in providing resistance;
 FAT : Fatigue failure of the structure or structural members;
The combinations of actions for ULS have the following format:

 persistent or transient design situations (fundamental combinations):
∑ 𝛾𝐺,𝑗 · 𝐺𝑘,𝑗 + 𝛾𝑝 · 𝑃 + 𝛾𝑄,1 · 𝑄𝑘,1 + ∑ 𝛾𝑄,𝑖 · 𝜓0,𝑖 · 𝑄𝑘,𝑖

𝑗≥1 𝑖>1
where:
P - relevant representative value of a prestressing action (if applicable);
γP - partial factor for prestressing actions;
Gk,j - characteristic value of permanent action j;
γG,j - partial factor for permanent action j;
Qk,1 - characteristic value of the leading variable action 1;
Qk,i - characteristic value of the accompanying variable action i;
γQ,i - partial factor for variable action i;
ψ0 - factor for combination value of a variable action;
 accidental design situations:
∑ 𝐺𝑘,𝑗 + 𝑃 + 𝐴𝑑 + (𝜓1,1 𝑜𝑟 𝜓2,1 ) · 𝑄𝑘,1 + ∑ 𝜓2,𝑖 · 𝑄𝑘,𝑖

𝑗≥1 𝑖>1
where:
P - relevant representative value of a prestressing action (if applicable);
γP - partial factor for prestressing actions;
Gk,j - characteristic value of permanent action j;
γG,j - partial factor for permanent action j;
Ad - design value of an accidental action;
Date: 30.08.2017 Page 12

Qk,1 - characteristic value of the leading variable action 1;

Qk,i - characteristic value of the accompanying variable action i;
γQ,i - partial factor for variable action i;
ψ1 - Factor for frequent value of a variable action;
ψ2 - Factor for quasi-permanent value of a variable action;
b) Serviceability limit state (SLS):

The combinations of actions to be taken into account in the relevant design situations should be appropriate
for the serviceability requirements and performance criteria being verified. The combinations of actions for
serviceability limit states are defined symbolically by the following expression:
 characteristic combination (normally used for irreversible limit states):
∑ 𝐺𝑘,𝑗 + 𝑃 + 𝑄𝑘,1 + ∑ 𝜓0,𝑖 · 𝑄𝑘,𝑖

𝑗≥1 𝑖>1
 frequent combination:
∑ 𝐺𝑘,𝑗 + 𝑃 + 𝜓1,1 · 𝑄𝑘,1 + ∑ 𝜓2,𝑖 · 𝑄𝑘,𝑖

𝑗≥1 𝑖>1
 quasi-permanent combination:
The factors are not the

∑ 𝐺𝑘,𝑗 + 𝑃 + ∑ 𝜓2,𝑖 · 𝑄𝑘,𝑖
factors according to the
𝑗≥1 𝑖≥1 dutch annex. I adjusted
them for category H,
snow and wind.
According to NEN EN 1990:2010, the effects of actions that cannot exist simultaneously due to physical or
functional reasons should not be considered together in combinations of actions.
Table 2. Values of ψ factors for buildings
Action ψ0 ψ1 ψ2
Imposed loads in buildings (for categories see EN 1991-1-1)a
— Category A: Domestic, residential areas 0.7 0.5 0.3
— Category B: Office areas 0.7 0.5 0.3
— Category C: Congregation areas 0.7 0.7 0.6
— Category D: Shopping areas 0.7 0.7 0.6
— Category E: Storage areas 1.0 0.9 0.8
— Category F: Traffic areas, vehicle weight ≤ 30 kN 0.7 0.7 0.6
— Category G: Traffic areas, 30 kN ≤ vehicle weight ≤ 160 kN 0.7 0.5 0.3
— Category H: Roofs 0,0 0.7 0 0
For snow and ice loads, see NEN EN 1991-1-3 0,0
— Sites located at altitudes of up to 1 000 m above sea level 0.5 0.2 0.0
— Sites located at altitudes of more than 1 000 m above sea level N/A N/A N/A
For wind loads, see NEN EN 1991-1-4 0,0 0.7 0.2 0.0
For thermal actions (non-fire), see NEN EN 1991-1-5 0.6 0.5 0.0
For the settlements of foundations, see NEN EN 1997 1.0 1.0 1.0
b, c 0.8 0.7 0.5
Other actions
a) For reduction factors to be applied to imposed loads in multi-storey buildings, see NEN EN 1991-1-1.
b) Hydraulic pressure is generally to be treated as a variable action for which the ψ factors need to be specified as a function of the
given location. Hydraulic pressure whose magnitude is limited by geometrical conditions may be treated as a permanent action
for which all ψ factors shall be set equal to 1,0.
c) The ψ factors for machine loads shall be specified as required by the operational conditions.
The load combination considered for the structural desing are as follows:
Date: 30.08.2017 Page 13

a) Ultimate limit state (ULS): I would advise to make the following load
- ULS 1 : 1.35·DL + 1.35·PL +1.50·LL + 1.05 WXP combinations:
- ULS 2 : 1.35·DL + 1.35·PL +1.05·LL + 1.50 WXP ULS:
- ULS 3 : 0.90·DL + 0.90·PL + 1.50 WXP 1.2 DL + 1,2 PL + 1,5 WX
- ULS 4 : 1.35·DL + 1.35·PL +1.50·LL + 1.05 WXN
- ULS 5 : 1.35·DL + 1.35·PL +1.05·LL + 1.50 WXN SLS:
- ULS 6 : 0.90·DL + 0.90·PL + 1.50 WXN 1,0 DL + 1,0 PL + 1,5 WX
b) Serviceablity limit state (SLS):
- SLS 1 : 1.00·DL + 1.00·PL +1.00·LL + 0.60 WXP The following load case does not lead to a
- SLS 2 : 1.00·DL + 1.00·PL +0.70·LL + 1.00 WXP normative cobintion because ψ0 = 0 and can
- SLS 3 : 0.90·DL + 0.90·PL + 1.00 WXP thus be omitted.
- SLS 4 : 1.00·DL + 1.00·PL +1.00·LL + 0.60 WXN 1.35 DL + 1,35 PL + 1,5 ψ0 WX
- SLS 5 : 1.00·DL + 1.00·PL +0.70·LL + 1.00WXN
- SLS 6 : 0.90·DL + 0.90·PL + 1.00 WXN.
4.4. Validation for the loads assumptions

In order to check the veracity of the initial assessment for the loading conditions for the existing warehouse, a
reverse engineering calculation has been performed. For the purpose of this check, one of the central columns of the
wahrehouse has been considered. The central columns are made of box sections 300x5 (S355) and the maximum
height is 13.565m.
All the central columns support steel trusses and the afferent loaded area has the following value:
Aaf = 21.860 x 11.96m =259.29 m2
The forces on top of the steel column due to the roof structure and the assosciated loads,are as follows :
- self-weight of the roof structure:
1.0 kN/m2 · 259.29 m2 = 259.29 kN
- permanent load (hanging services):
0.20 kN/m2 · 259.29 m2 = 51.85 kN
- live load (access on the roof):
0.60 kN/m2 · 259.29 m2 = 155.57 kN
Considering the load combinations described at chapter 4.3, the capacity of the steel column has been checked
as decribed below .
Governing Load Case: 6 ULS1: 1.35*DL+1.35*PL+1.50*LL+1.05WL (2+1)*1.35+3*1.50+4*1.05
SECTION PARAMETERS: 300x5

h=300 mm γM0 =1.00 γM1=1.00
b=300 mm Ay=3000 mm2 Az=2900 mm2 Ax =5900 mm2
tw=5 mm Iy=85599167 mm4 Iz=85599167 mm4 Ix =128361875 mm4
tf=5 mm Wely=570661 mm3 Welz=570661 mm3 Aeff =3911 mm2
INTERNAL FORCES AND CAPACITIES:

NEd = 661.57 kN
Nc,Rd = 2094.50 kN
Nb,Rd = 668.95 kN Class of section = 3
BUCKLING PARAMETERS:
About y axis: About z axis:

Ly = 13.33 m λ_y = 1.19 Lz = 13.33 m λ_z = 1.19
Lcr,y = 13.33 m Xy = 0.48 Lcr,z = 13.33 m Xz = 0.48
λy = 110.64 λz = 110.64
Torsional buckling: Flexural-torsional buckling

Curve,T=b αT=0.34 Curve,TF=b αTF=0.34
Lt =13.33 m ØT=0.48 Ncr,y=975.12 kN ØTF=0.48
Ncr,T =348794.03 kN XT=1.00 Ncr,TF=348794.03 kN XTF=1.00
λ_T=1.19 Nb,T,Rd = 1388.50 kN λ_TF=0.06 Nb,TF,Rd=1388.50 kN
Date: 30.08.2017 Page 14

VERIFICATION FORMULAS:
Section strength check:
NEd /Nc,Rd = 0.32 < 1.00 (6.2.4.(1))
Global stability check of member:
λy= 110.64 < λmax = 120 λz = 110.64 < λmax = 210.00 STABLE
NEd /Min(Nb,Rd ; Nb,T,Rd ; Nb,TF,Rd) = 0.99 < 1.00 (6.3.1) >> Section OK
Based on the reverse engineering calculation, the central column is able to withstand the loads assumend in
the initial assessement with an utilisation ratio of 0.99. Therefore, the loads assumed are conservative and will not
exceed the estimated values.
4.5. Design constraints and limitations

The structural desing has been governed by the following design constraints:
 the maximum lateral deflection under SLS combinations (storey drift): L/300 ≈ 45mm;
 the maximum forces developed within the existing members will not exceed the current capacity: steel
member and the assosciated connections;
The overall approach regarding the replacement of the existing steel bracings was to introduce two new portal
frames within the existing braced bays and the associated sizes have been tuned to reproduce the same lateral
displacements as the initial system. All the bases of the steel portals have been condiered as pinned and no bending
moment will be transferred to the foundation system. Therefore, the foundation system will not require additional
enhancement to accommodate the new lateral resisting system.
5. FEM model
The structural analysis of both, the existing bracings system and the proposed portal frames, have been carried
out using the software Robot Structural Analysis 2016. In this respect, a 3D FEM model has been elaborated by
modelling the steel frames along the gridlines 8 and 9,including the flat steel bracings, the steel posts and the horizontal
rails. Each element has been considered with the relevant geometric configuration, section size or thickness and
appropriate boundary conditions (supports, releases etc.)
The purpose of the structural analysis was as follows:
 the determination of stress level in various members;
 the design of the structural members based on the above level of stress;
 the determination of deflections and lateral displacements;
 to assess the overall behaviour of the proposed system and the lateral stability.
Existing flat
Existing flat
steel bracings
steel bracings
Door frame/Roller Horizontal Steel posts

shutter rails 80x80x5 IPE400 Door frame/Roller
shutter
Fig. 7.The 3D FEM model of the existing steel frame
The horizontal rails have been included in the model to reduce the effective length of the steel posts, but
without any contribution to the lateral stability of the frame. Also, the flat steel plates, 15 x120mm has been modelled
to withstand only tension forces. All the bases of the steel posts IPE 400 have been considered fixed on the strong axis
(perpendicular to the steel frame) and pinned on the weak axis (along the steel frame).
Date: 30.08.2017 Page 15

New beam –welded The proposed New steel post

plates section portal frames around the openings
Haunch
Haunch
Horizontal New column –welded

rails 80x80x5 plates section
Fig. 8.The 3D FEM model of the proposed portal frames
Central column: IPE400+

2no. 1200x400 flanges
30mm, web 20mm Steel beam: 1300x400,
flanges 30mm, web 20mm
Haunches 400x300x16
Edge column: IPE400+
1200x400, flanges
30mm, web 20mm
Fig. 9.The section sizes for the steel members of the portal frame.
In case of each scenario (existing steel bracings or portal frames), the assosciated loads have been
calculated based on the affrent areas and the loading conditions assessed at chapter 4.2.
NOTE: In order to simplify the calculations and to have a better control of the 3D model, the self-weight of
the roof construction has been included in the permement load case. In all the combinations, the self-weight
and the permanent loads have the same coefficient and therefore the results will not be affected. On the other
hand, the dead load case will contain only the self-weight of the steel memembers calculated automatically
by the software.
a) Loads on the top edge beams HEA 180
The metal deck of the roof construction spans between the secondary steel truss and the edge beam.
The value of the bay is about 6.0m, therefore the edge beams will support half of the loads:
- permement load: 1.20kN/m2 (1.0 kN/m2 from self weight and 0.20 kN/m2 from hanging services):
Linear load = 1.20kN/m2 · 6.0m/2 = 3.60 kN/m
- live load: 0.60 kN/m2;
Linear load = 0.60 kN/m2 · 6.0m/2 = 1.80 kN/m
b) Loads on the edge posts IPE 400 which support steel trusses
The reaction on each end of the main steel trusses are as follows:
- permement load: 1.20kN/m2 (1.0 kN/m2 from self weight and 0.20 kN/m2 from hanging services):
Point load = 1.20kN/m2 · ( 21.68m x 5.98m)/2 = 77.8 kN
Concentrated moment = Point load · Ecc = 77.8·0.20 = 15.60 kNm
Date: 14.06.2017 Page 16

- live load: 0.60 kN/m2;

Point load = 0.60 kN/m2 · ( 21.68m x 5.98m)/2 = 38.90 kN
Concentrated moment = Point load · Ecc = 38.90·0.20 = 7.78 kNm
c) Wind loads:
- lateral wall subject to wind pressure: See also previous comments
Fedge = Fwt,1 / 4 = 480 / 4 = 120 kN
Fcentral = Fwt,1 / 2 = 480 / 2 = 240 kN Copy / paste
- lateral wall subject to wind pressure:
Fedge = Fwt,2/ 4 = 480 / 4 = 81 kN
Fcentral = Fwt,2 / 2 = 480 / 2 = 162 kN
Fig.10. The braced frame with the permanent loads
Fig.11. The braced frame with the live loads
Fig.12. The braced frame with the wind loads
Date: 30.08.2017 Page 17

Fig.13. The portal frame with the permanent loads
Fig.14. The portal frame with the live loads
Fig.14. The portal frame with the wind loads
NOTE: The bending moments considered on the perpendicular plan of the frame are due to the eccentricity
of the truss connection in repect to the centre line of the IPE 400 posts. These eccentricietes introduce
bending moments and the effect of these will be review in order to ensure a safe removal of the concrete
wall between the DC11 compartiment B and DC 12 compartiment D. In other words, it will be checked if
the concrete wall had a stabilisation role for the flange of the steel posts IPE400.
Date: 30.08.2017 Page 18

6. Structural analysis
Following on from the completion of the 3D modelling of the steel frames and the assignment of the
associated loads, both FEM models have been run independently. In first instance, the existing steel frame
has been cheked on the following aspects:
 maximum lateral displacement:
δbraced,frame = 27mm < L/300 = 45mm OK
Fig.15. The maximum lateral displacement for the steel frame with flat plates bracings
 maximum tension force within the steel brace, 15x120mm (S355) :

Ntension,max = 450 kN
Fig.16. The maximum tension force within the flat plates bracings
a) The tension capacity of the flat steel plate, 15x120mm (S355):
NT,Rd = Aplate· fyd = 15· 120· 355 / 103 = 639 kN
Ntension,max = 450 kN < NT,Rd = 639 kN Bracing safe in tension;
b) The capacity of the steel connection (3 no bolts M24 gr.8 8):
b.1) The shear capacity of the connection:
𝜋 · (0.89 · 24)2
𝛼𝑣 · 𝑓𝑢𝑏 · 𝐴 0.60 · 800 · 4
𝐹𝑉,𝑅𝑑 = = = 137.60 𝑘𝐾/𝑏𝑜𝑙𝑡
𝛾𝑀2 1.25
fub = 800 N/mm2 – bolts group 8.8;
αv= 0.60 – bolts group 8.8;
A- the area of the bolt in the threaded zone;
γM2=1.25 - partial safety coefficient ;
The shear apacity of the connection has the following value:
FRd, shear = 3 Fv,Rd = 412.80 kN
Ntension,max = 450 kN > FRd, shear = 412.80 kN Bracing not safe;
b.2) The capacity to pressure on the bolts holes:
𝑘1 · 𝑎𝑏 · 𝑓𝑢 · 𝑑 · 𝑡
𝐹𝑏,𝑅𝑑 =
𝛾𝑀2
- edge bolts:
𝑒1 55
𝛼𝑑 = = = 0.705
3𝑑0 3 · 26
Date: 30.08.2017 Page 19

- central bolts:
𝑝1 1 80 1
𝛼𝑑 = − = − = 0.776
3𝑑0 4 3 · 26 4
𝑓𝑢𝑏
𝑎𝑏 = 𝑚𝑖𝑛 (𝛼𝑑 ; ; 1.0)
𝑓𝑢
𝑓𝑢𝑏 800
= = 1.568
𝑓𝑢 510
- edge bolts:
𝑓𝑢𝑏
𝑎𝑏 = 𝑚𝑖𝑛 (𝛼𝑑 ; ; 1.0) = 𝑚𝑖𝑛(0.705; 1.568 ; 1.0) = 0.705
𝑓𝑢
- central bolts:
𝑓𝑢𝑏
𝑎𝑏 = 𝑚𝑖𝑛 (𝛼𝑑 ; ; 1.0) = 𝑚𝑖𝑛(0.776; 1.568 ; 1.0) = 0.776
𝑓𝑢
𝑒2 60
𝑘1 = 𝑚𝑖𝑛 (2.80 − 1.70; 2.50) = 𝑚𝑖𝑛 (2.80 − 1.70; 2.50) = 2.50
𝑑0 26
- the capacity for the edge bolt:
𝑘1 · 𝑎𝑏 · 𝑓𝑢 · 𝑑 · 𝑡 2.5 · 0.705 · 510 · 15 · 24
𝐹𝑏,𝑅𝑑,𝑒𝑑𝑔𝑒 = = = 258.9 𝑘𝑁
𝛾𝑀2 1.25
- the capacity for the central bolts:
𝑘1 · 𝑎𝑏 · 𝑓𝑢 · 𝑑 · 𝑡 2.5 · 0.776 · 510 · 15 · 24
𝐹𝑏,𝑅𝑑,𝑐𝑒𝑛𝑡𝑟𝑎𝑙 = = = 285 𝑘𝑁
𝛾𝑀2 1.25
The capacityof the connection to pressure on the bolts holes is:
Fb,Rd = 3·min(Fb,Rd, central ; Fb,Rd, edge) = 775 kN
Ntension,max = 450 kN < Fb,Rd = 775 kN Connection safe for pressure on bolts holes;
b.3) The capacity to connection for block shear:

𝑓𝑦
·𝐴
𝑓𝑢 · 𝐴𝑛𝑡 √3 𝑣
𝑉𝑒𝑓𝑓,1,𝑅𝑑 = +
𝛾𝑀2 𝛾𝑀0
Ant - the area of the steel subject to tension;
Ant = 60 · 15 = 900 mm2;
Av - the area of the steel subject to shear;
Av = (50+80+80) · 15 = 3225 mm2;
𝑓𝑦 355
·𝐴 · 3225
𝑓𝑢 · 𝐴𝑛𝑡 √3 𝑣 510 · 900 √3
𝑉𝑒𝑓𝑓,1,𝑅𝑑 = + = + = 1028 𝑘𝑁
𝛾𝑀2 𝛾𝑀0 1.25 1.0
Ntension,max = 450 kN < Veff,1,Rd = 1028 kN Connection safe for pressure on bolts holes;
The following conclusions can be drawn based on the previous calculations:

- the capacity of the bracing is dictated by the shear resistance of the connection:
Bracing tension capacity = 412.80 kN
- the wind loads assumed in the strucutural analysis are slightly overestimated on the safe side. For
the purpose of these calculations, the forces will remain as assessed initially.
In order to ensure a safe removal of the concrete wall between the DC11 and DC 12 compartiments,
the stability of the steel posts IPE 400 has been checked. In these calculations it has been assumed that the
effective length on the strong axis (perpendicular to the steel frame plan) is equal with the physical length
of the column and on the weak direction, the effective length is reduced due to the horizontal rails, which
will act as a lateral restraint.
Therefore, the effective length for the existing steel posts are as follows:
- strong axis : Ly= Lcolumn = 13.565m;
- weak axis: Lz= 0.35·Lcolumn = 4.75m;
Date: 30.08.2017 Page 20

Fig.17. The maximum axial force on the steel posts IPE 400
SECTION PARAMETERS: IPE 400

h=400 mm gM0=1.00 gM1=1.00
b=180 mm Ay=5603 mm2 Az=4273 mm2 Ax=8450 mm2
tw =9 mm Iy=231300000 mm4 Iz=13180000 mm4 Ix=513000 mm4
tf =14 mm Wply=1307000 mm3 Wplz=229000 mm3
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
N,Ed = 429.37 kN My,Ed = -1.82 kN*m Mz,Ed = 0.01 kN*m Vy,Ed = 0.04 kN
Nc,Rd = 2999.75 kN My,Ed,max = -29.22 kN*m Mz,Ed,max = 0.78 kN*m
Vy,c,Rd = 1148.47 kN
Nb,Rd = 930.99 kN My,c,Rd = 463.99 kN*m Mz,c,Rd = 81.30 kN*m Vz,Ed = -3.23 kN
MN,y,Rd = 463.99 kN*m MN,z,Rd = 81.30 kN*m Vz,c,Rd = 875.81 kN
Mb,Rd = 91.88 kN*m Class of section = 1
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
LATERAL BUCKLING PARAMETERS:

z = 0.00 Mcr = 91.88 kN*m Curve,LT - c XLT = 0.20
Lcr,low=13.57 m Lam_LT = 2.25 fi,LT = 2.85 XLT,mod = 0.20
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- -----------

Ly = 13.57 m Lam_y = 1.09 Lz = 13.57 m Lam_z = 1.59
Lcr,y = 13.57 m Xy = 0.61 Lcr,z = 4.75 m Xz = 0.31
Lamy = 81.99 kyy = 1.78 Lamz = 120.21 kyz = 2.30

Curve,T=b alfa,T=0.34 Curve,TF=b alfa,TF=0.34
Lt=13.57 m fi,T=1.65 Ncr,y=2543.25 kN fi,TF=1.65
Ncr,T=1585.07 kN X,T=0.39 Ncr,TF=1585.07 kN X,TF=0.39
Lam_T=1.09 Nb,T,Rd=1176.32 kN Lam_TF=1.38 Nb,TF,Rd=1176.32 kN
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ---------------------------------------------------
N,Ed/Nc,Rd = 0.14 < 1.00 (6.2.4.(1))
(My,Ed/MN,y,Rd)^ 2.00 + (Mz,Ed/MN,z,Rd)^1.00 = 0.00 < 1.00 (6.2.9.1.(6))
Vy,Ed/Vy,c,Rd = 0.00 < 1.00 (6.2.6.(1))
Vz,Ed/Vz,c,Rd = 0.00 < 1.00 (6.2.6.(1))
Lambda,y = 81.99 < Lambda,max = 120 Lambda,z = 120 < Lambda,max = 120 STABLE
N,Ed/Min(Nb,Rd,Nb,T,Rd,Nb,TF,Rd) = 0.46 < 1.00 (6.3.1)
Date: 30.08.2017 Page 21

My,Ed,max /Mb,Rd = 0.32 < 1.00 (6.3.2.1.(1))

N,Ed/(Xy*N,Rk/gM1)+kyy*My,Ed,max/(XLT*My,Rk/gM1)+ kyz*Mz,Ed,max/(Mz,Rk/gM1) = 0.82 < 1.00 (6.3.3.(4))
N,Ed/(Xz*N,Rk/gM1)+kzy*My,Ed,max/(XLT*My,Rk/gM1)+ kzz*Mz,Ed,max/(Mz,Rk/gM1) = 0.79 < 1.00 (6.3.3.(4))
The steel posts IPE 400 are safe if the concrete wall is removed ;
As a cursory check, the capacity of the top edge beam H180 has been reviewed, as follows:
SECTION PARAMETERS: HEA 180

h=171 mm gM0=1.00 gM1=1.00
tw=6 mm Iy=25100000 mm4 Iz=9250000 mm4 Ix=149000 mm4
tf=10 mm Wply=325000 mm3 Wplz=156000 mm3
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------------------------
N,Ed = 175.28 kN My,Ed = 26.52 kN*m
Nc,Rd = 1608.15 kN My,Ed,max = 26.52 kN*m
Nb,Rd = 462.14 kN My,c,Rd = 115.38 kN*m
MN,y,Rd = 115.38 kN*m
Mb,Rd = 82.30 kN*m Tt,Ed = 0.00 kN*m
Class of section = 2
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- -----------
LATERAL BUCKLING PARAMETERS:

z = 0.00 Mcr = 113.42 kN*m Curve,LT - b XLT = 0.69
Lcr,upp=5.42 m Lam_LT = 1.01 fi,LT = 0.98 XLT,mod = 0.71
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- -----------

Ly = 5.42 m Lam_y = 0.96 Lz = 5.42 m Lam_z = 1.59
Lcr,y = 5.42 m Xy = 0.62 Lcr,z = 5.42 m Xz = 0.29
Lamy = 72.82 kyy = 1.37 Lamz = 119.96 kzy = 0.71

Curve,T=c alfa,T=0.49 Curve,TF=c alfa,TF=0.49
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- -----------
N,Ed/Nc,Rd = 0.11 < 1.00 (6.2.4.(1))
My,Ed/My,c,Rd = 0.23 < 1.00 (6.2.5.(1))
My,Ed/MN,y,Rd = 0.23 < 1.00 (6.2.9.1.(2))
Tau,ty,Ed/(fy/(sqrt(3)*gM0)) = 0.00 < 1.00 (6.2.6)
Tau,tz,Ed/(fy/(sqrt(3)*gM0)) = 0.00 < 1.00 (6.2.6)
Lambda,y = 72.82 < Lambda,max = 150 Lambda,z = 119.96 < Lambda,max = 150 STABLE
My,Ed,max/Mb,Rd = 0.32 < 1.00 (6.3.2.1.(1))
N,Ed/(Xy*N,Rk/gM1) + kyy*My,Ed,max/(XLT*My,Rk/gM1) = 0.62 < 1.00 (6.3.3.(4))
N,Ed/(Xz*N,Rk/gM1) + kzy*My,Ed,max/(XLT*My,Rk/gM1) = 0.61 < 1.00 (6.3.3.(4))
The top steel beams HEA180 are safe if the concrete wall is removed ;
Following on from the complete review of the existing steel frame in the current conditions, the
analysis focused on the proposed portal frames. The flat steel bracings have been removed entirely
and replaced by a portal frame, one on each gridline. The section sizes of the steel portals have been
Date: 30.08.2017 Page 22

increased iteratively until the lateral displacement matched the displacements of the frame with flat
steel bracings. In order to reduce the steel consumption and to suit the 8 no. openings requested by
the client, additional haunches have been included. Also, where the new proposed openings clahsed
with the existing IPE 400 posts, the posts in question were removed and replaced with two stel
members UB 406x178x67 (S355) on each side of the opening.
In the structural analysis of the new lateral resisting system, the following items were checked:
 maximum lateral displacement:
δportal,frame = 30mm < L/300 = 45mm OK
δportal,frame = 30mm ≈δbraced,frame = 27mm OK
Fig.18. The maximum lateral displacement for the new portal frames
In order to have a better evaluation of the lateral displacements and taking into consideration
the section sizes, a separate model has been created in which the portal frame has been modelled
with shell elements. The maximum lateral displacement obtain in this case was:
δportal,frame = 26mm ≈ δbraced,frame = 27mm OK
Fig.19. The maximum lateral displacement for the new portal frames modelled with shell elements.
 The capacity of the remaining top beams HEA 180:
SECTION PARAMETERS: HEA 180

h=171 mm gM0=1.00 gM1=1.00
Date: 30.08.2017 Page 23


N,Ed = 0.19 kN My,Ed = 29.49 kN*m
Nc,Rd = 1608.15 kN My,Ed,max = 29.49 kN*m
Nb,Rd = 462.14 kN My,c,Rd = 115.38 kN*m
MN,y,Rd = 115.38 kN*m Class of section = 2
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Ly = 5.42 m Lam_y = 0.96 Lz = 5.42 m Lam_z = 1.59
Lcr,y = 5.42 m Xy = 0.62 Lcr,z = 5.42 m Xz = 0.29
Lamy = 72.82 kyy = 1.00 Lamz = 119.96 kzy = 0.52
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- -----------
N,Ed/Nc,Rd = 0.00 < 1.00 (6.2.4.(1))
My,Ed/My,c,Rd = 0.26 < 1.00 (6.2.5.(1))
N,Ed/(Xy*N,Rk/gM1) + kyy*My,Ed,max/(XLT*My,Rk/gM1) = 0.26 < 1.00 (6.3.3.(4))
N,Ed/(Xz*N,Rk/gM1) + kzy*My,Ed,max/(XLT*My,Rk/gM1) = 0.13 < 1.00 (6.3.3.(4))
The top steel beams HEA180 are safe after the introduction of the new portal frame ;
 The capacity of the remaining steel post IPE400:

SECTION PARAMETERS: IPE 400

h=400 mm gM0=1.00 gM1=1.00
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- -----------
N,Ed = 42.37 kN My,Ed = 0.00 kN*m Vy,Ed = -0.32 kN
Nc,Rd = 2999.75 kN My,Ed,max = 0.00 kN*m Mz,Ed,max = 1.46 kN*m Vy,c,Rd = 1148.47 kN
MN,y,Rd = 463.99 kN*m Vz,c,Rd = 875.81 kN
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- -----------

Ly = 13.49 m Lam_y = 1.08 Lz = 13.49 m Lam_z = 1.58
Lcr,y = 13.49 m Xy = 0.61 Lcr,z = 4.72 m Xz = 0.31
Lamy = 81.51 kyy = 1.02 Lamz = 119.51 kzy = 0.53

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
N,Ed/Nc,Rd = 0.01 < 1.00 (6.2.4.(1))
My,Ed/My,c,Rd = 0.00 < 1.00 (6.2.5.(1))
Vy,Ed/Vy,c,Rd = 0.00 < 1.00 (6.2.6.(1))
Vz,Ed/Vz,c,Rd = 0.00 < 1.00 (6.2.6.(1))
Date: 30.08.2017 Page 24


N,Ed/(Xy*N,Rk/gM1) + kyy*My,Ed,max/(XLT*My,Rk/gM1) + kyz*Mz,Ed,max/(Mz,Rk/gM1) = 0.04 < 1.00 (6.3.3.(4))
N,Ed/(Xz*N,Rk/gM1) + kzy*My,Ed,max/(XLT*My,Rk/gM1) + kzz*Mz,Ed,max/(Mz,Rk/gM1) = 0.06 < 1.00 (6.3.3.(4))
The existing steel posts IPE400 are safe after the introduction of the new portal frame;
 The capacity of the new steel post UB 406x178x67:

SECTION PARAMETERS: UB 406x178x67

h=409 mm gM0=1.00 gM1=1.00
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- -----------------------
N,Ed = 40.75 kN My,Ed = 0.00 kN*m Vy,Ed = -0.36 kN
Nc,Rd = 3035.25 kN My,Ed,max = 0.00 kN*m Mz,Ed,max = 1.63 kN*m Vy,c,Rd = 1102.37 kN
MN,y,Rd = 477.83 kN*m Vz,c,Rd = 789.89 kN
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- -----------

Ly = 13.50 m Lam_y = 1.06 Lz = 13.50 m Lam_z = 1.57
Lcr,y = 13.50 m Xy = 0.62 Lcr,z = 4.72 m Xz = 0.32
Lamy = 80.03 kyy = 1.02 Lamz = 118.25 kzy = 0.53

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- -----------
N,Ed/Nc,Rd = 0.01 < 1.00 (6.2.4.(1))
My,Ed/My,c,Rd = 0.00 < 1.00 (6.2.5.(1))
Vy,Ed/Vy,c,Rd = 0.00 < 1.00 (6.2.6.(1))
Vz,Ed/Vz,c,Rd = 0.00 < 1.00 (6.2.6.(1))
N,Ed/(Xy*N,Rk/gM1) + kyy*My,Ed,max/(XLT*My,Rk/gM1) + kyz*Mz,Ed,max/(Mz,Rk/gM1) = 0.04 < 1.00 (6.3.3.(4))
N,Ed/(Xz*N,Rk/gM1) + kzy*My,Ed,max/(XLT*My,Rk/gM1) + kzz*Mz,Ed,max/(Mz,Rk/gM1) = 0.06 < 1.00 (6.3.3.(4))
 The structural design of the new portal frames:

From the foregoing analysis, we have been able to demonstrate that the new portalised frames can
adequately replace the existing flat plate bracings.
However, the detailed design of the portal members can only be completed following the indepth
discussions and co-ordination between the steel fabricator and ourselves. These discussions will take place
in the coming week and following these our detail calculations will be completed and made available for
review, comments and onward submission to the local authorities.
Date: 30.08.2017 Page 25

The structural impact on the existing foundation system:

As part of the desing process, the potential impact on the existing foundations has been
considered. The foundation system along gridlines 8 and 9 is made of a concrete ground beam,
1000m wide and 600mm deep, with pre-cast driven piles 320mmx320mm placed at 2.71 m centres.
Due to the steel bracings, locally, for the steel posts on gridlines G, H and I a local pile cap has
been provided. The pile cap is 2.0m long, 600mm wide and 600mm deep and it has 2 no. pre-cast
concrete driven piles. The ground floor slab of the warehouse has been desined as a heavy duty slab
and to withstand a load of 50kN/m2;
a) the shear forces at columns/steel posts bases:
Fig.20. The maximum shear forces for the columns/steel posts bases with flat steel bracings.
Fig.21. The maximum shear forces for the columns/steel posts bases with the new portal frames
VEd, max, bracings = 351.62 kN
VEd, max, portal frame = 366.02 kN
Δshear = 14.40 kN >> Λshear = 4.10 % slightly increase OK
b) the axial forces at columns/steel posts bases:
Shouldn't you take the loss of self-

weight due to the removal of the
wall also take in account here?
Date: 30.08.2017 Page 26

Fig.22. The maximum axial forces for the columns/steel posts bases with flat steel bracings.
Fig.21. The maximum shear forces for the columns/steel posts bases with the new portal frames
In case of the new portal frame, the concrete wall between the DC11 and DC12 will be
removed entirely. The selfweight of the concrete wall has the following value:
Gwall = 0.15m·13.565m· 3.0m· 22 kN/m3= 134.20 kN
1.35·Gwall = 181.17 kN
NEd, max, bracings = 561.12 kN
NEd, max, portal frame = 582.12 kN
Δshear = 21.09 kN >> Λshear = 3.76 % slightly increase OK
The End of the structural report.
As I understood the wall

Prepared by: is an AAC wall so the
Eng. Emilian Ursu (EU) self-weight is much less.
For your information the
pile capacity is 750 kN.
Checked by:
Eng. Martin Hyde (MH)
Date: 30.08.2017 Page 27

Structural Design-Calculation Report - PDF

Hochgeladen von

Dokumentinformationen

Originalbeschreibung:

Originaltitel

Copyright

Verfügbare Formate

Dieses Dokument teilen

Dokument teilen oder einbetten

Freigabeoptionen

Stufen Sie dieses Dokument als nützlich ein?

Sind diese Inhalte unangemessen?

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

Structural Design-Calculation Report - PDF

Hochgeladen von

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

STRUCTURAL DESIGN REPORT

-Steel bracings removal-

4. Loads and loading combinations………………...…………………………………….…………...…….....8

5. FEM model……….……………. ………………………………………………………………………...15

Date: 30.08.2017 Page 2

Fig. 1. Site location and building configuration

Date: 30.08.2017 Page 3

Fig. 2. The existing warehouse and the main component part

Eaves Ridge Eaves

Fig. 3. The existing warehouse and the main component parts

Date: 30.08.2017 Page 4

1.2. System of units

2. Standards and regulations.

Date: 30.08.2017 Page 5

NA to NEN EN 1991-1-1:2002+C12011/NB:2011 - Eurocode 1. Actions on structures. General actions.

2.2. Norms for materials.

Date: 30.08.2017 Page 6

3.2. Concrete and reinforcement steel

Date: 30.08.2017 Page 7

3.3. Sustainability considerations

4. Loads and load combinations

Date: 30.08.2017 Page 8

4.2. Loading conditions

Date: 30.08.2017 Page 9

The site of the

The actual project location

Fig. 5. Wind zone map for the territory of Netherlands

Date: 30.08.2017 Page 10

Date: 30.08.2017 Page 11

No. Load case Designation

4.3. Load combinations

The combinations of actions for ULS have the following format:

∑ 𝛾𝐺,𝑗 · 𝐺𝑘,𝑗 + 𝛾𝑝 · 𝑃 + 𝛾𝑄,1 · 𝑄𝑘,1 + ∑ 𝛾𝑄,𝑖 · 𝜓0,𝑖 · 𝑄𝑘,𝑖

 accidental design situations:

∑ 𝐺𝑘,𝑗 + 𝑃 + 𝐴𝑑 + (𝜓1,1 𝑜𝑟 𝜓2,1 ) · 𝑄𝑘,1 + ∑ 𝜓2,𝑖 · 𝑄𝑘,𝑖

Date: 30.08.2017 Page 12

Qk,1 - characteristic value of the leading variable action 1;

b) Serviceability limit state (SLS):

∑ 𝐺𝑘,𝑗 + 𝑃 + 𝑄𝑘,1 + ∑ 𝜓0,𝑖 · 𝑄𝑘,𝑖

∑ 𝐺𝑘,𝑗 + 𝑃 + 𝜓1,1 · 𝑄𝑘,1 + ∑ 𝜓2,𝑖 · 𝑄𝑘,𝑖

The factors are not the

Date: 30.08.2017 Page 13

4.4. Validation for the loads assumptions

SECTION PARAMETERS: 300x5

INTERNAL FORCES AND CAPACITIES:

About y axis: About z axis:

Torsional buckling: Flexural-torsional buckling

Date: 30.08.2017 Page 14

4.5. Design constraints and limitations

Door frame/Roller Horizontal Steel posts

Date: 30.08.2017 Page 15

New beam –welded The proposed New steel post

Horizontal New column –welded

Central column: IPE400+

Date: 14.06.2017 Page 16

- live load: 0.60 kN/m2;

Fig.10. The braced frame with the permanent loads

Fig.11. The braced frame with the live loads

Fig.12. The braced frame with the wind loads

Date: 30.08.2017 Page 17

Fig.13. The portal frame with the permanent loads

Fig.14. The portal frame with the live loads

Governing Load Case: 7 ULS2: 1.35DL+1.35PL+1.05LL+1.50WL (2+1)1.35+41.50+31.05