Analysis and Design of Stadium Raker Beam Using EC2 Ubani Obinna U.

(2016)

Analysis and Design of a Continuous Reinforced Concrete Raker

Beam for Stadium Using Eurocode 2
Ubani Obinna Uzodimma
Works/Engineering Services Department
Ritman University, PMB 1321, Ikot Ekpene, Akwa Ibom State
[email protected]

Abstract
A continuous intermediate raker beam in the first tier of a football stadium was analysed using elastic
method and designed using Eurocode 2. The raker beam was analysed for permanent and variable
actions due to crowd load and permanent loads only. Due to its inclination, it was subjected to
significant bending, axial, and shear forces. However, design results show that the effect of axial
force was not very significant in the quantity of shear reinforcement required. Asv/Sv ratio of 1.175
(3Y10mm @ 200 c/c) was found to satisfy shear requirements. The greatest quantity of longitudinal
reinforcement was provided at the intermediate support with a reinforcement ratio of 1.3404%. The
provided reinforcement was found adequate to satisfy ultimate and serviceability requirements.

1.0 Introduction
The most common construction concept of sports stadiums today is a composite type where usually precast
concrete terrace units (seating decks) span between inclined (raker) steel or reinforced concrete beams and rest
on each other, thereby forming a grandstand (Karadelis, 2012). The raker beams are usually formed in-situ with
the columns of the structure, or sometimes may be preferably precast depending on site/construction constraints.
This arrangement usually forms the skeletal frame of a stadium structure.

In this paper, a raker beam isolated from a double tiered reinforced concrete grandstand that wraps around a
football pitch has been presented for the purpose of structural analysis and design. A repetitive pattern has been
adopted in the design which utilizes a construction joint of 25mm gap between different frame units. By
estimate, each frame unit is expected to carry a maximum of 3600 spectators, under full working conditions.
With ten different frames units, the stadium capacity is about 35000 after all other reservations have been taken
into account. Each grandstand frame has precast L-shaped seating terrace units that span in between reinforced
concrete raker beams inclined at angles between 20° - 22° with the horizontal. Crowd load and other loads are
transferred from the seating units to the raker beams, which then transfers them to the columns and then to the
foundations. Load from the service areas and concourse areas are also transferred using the same method.

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

Downloaded from www.structville.blogspot.com Ranks Michael Enterprises (2016) Page 1

 Analysis and Design of Stadium Raker Beam Using EC2 Ubani Obinna U. (2016)

The three dimensional view of the skeleton of the grandstand is shown in Figure 1.1, while a section
through the grandstand is shown if Figure 1.2. Section through the L-shaped seating unit is shown in
Figure 1.3.

Figure 1.2: Section through the grandstand

Figure 1.3: Section of the precast seating unit

In simple horizontal beams, vertical forces will produce vertical reactions only. However, once a beam is
statically indeterminate and inclined, vertical forces will produce both vertical and horizontal reactions and as a
result, axial forces which may be compressive or tensile in nature will be induced in the beam. In the design of
horizontal floor beams in normal framed structures, the effect of axial force in the shear force capacity of the
section is usually neglected. This is largely due to the fact that these forces are usually compressive, and in
effect tends to increase the concrete resistance shear stress (Vc) and (VRd,c) of the section in accordance with BS
8110-1:1997 and EC2 respectively. It is a well known phenomenon that compressive axial force increases the
concrete resistance shear stress of a section, while tensile axial force will reduce the concrete resistance shear
stress. So this neglect can be justified in terms of it being a conservative design which can only err in economy.

However for inclined beams members in a frame (as in the case of a grandstand), axial force behaviour can vary
greatly especially when the load is applied in the global direction (which is the prevalent scenario). In other
words, based on the structural configuration of the structure and the loading, it is even common to see the
nature of axial forces moving from positive (tensile) to negative (compressive) in the same span of an
inclined member. If the load is however resolved and applied in the local direction of the inclined member, the
axial forces will be absent. A good design will therefore require the use of less shear reinforcement in the axial
compression zone, and more shear reinforcement in the axial tension zone. While the effect of axial forces may
be neglected in horizontal floor beams under axial compression, it may be unsafe to neglect it in inclined beams
because more often than not, some sections are usually under axial tension.

Downloaded from www.structville.blogspot.com Ranks Michael Enterprises (2016) Page 2

 Analysis and Design of Stadium Raker Beam Using EC2 Ubani Obinna U. (2016)

1.2 Materials, Model, and Loading

Structural design of stadiums is critical and this becomes more obvious when EN 1990 (Eurocode – Basis for
Structural Design) classified it under ‘Consequence Class 3’ which by description means high consequence for
loss in terms of human life, economy, environmental considerations, and otherwise if failure should occur.
Several codes of practice across different countries and bodies have provisions made in them for the design of
structures subjected to crowd loading (for example stadiums), but the level of expertise often associated with the
processes in terms of analysis, design and construction is often perceived to be something left to a limited few.
The application of static crowd imposed loads according to both BS 6399-1:1997(Loading on buildings - Code
of practice for dead and imposed loads) and EN 1991-1: (Action on structures: General actions - Densities,
self-weight, imposed loads for buildings) are given in Table 1 below:

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

CODE CATEGORY(DESCRIPTION) IMPOSED CONCENTRATED

LOAD/VARIABLE LOAD (KN)
ACTION (KN/m2)
BS 6399-1:1996 C5 (Areas susceptible to 5 3.6
overcrowding e.g. grandstands)
C5( Areas susceptible to large
EN 1991-1-1 crowds, e.g 5.0 – 7.5 * 3.5 – 4.5*
sports halls including stands)
*Exact range of value to be set by various national annex

Raker beams in stadiums usually support precast seating terrace units which may be L-shaped, or extended into
a more complex shape (see Figure 1.5). These seating terrace units are designed as simply supported elements
spanning between the raker beams (Karadelis, 2012, Salyards et al 2005). The crowd loading is supported
directly by these terrace units, which then transfer the load to the raker beams through the bearings. This
construction concept has been adopted in the design of Cape Town Stadium (South Africa) for the 2010 FIFA
world Cup (Plate 1.5). The picture in (Figure 1.4) below shows the formwork and construction of in-situ raker
beams at San Diego State University Student Activity Center (Steele and Larson 1996).

Figure 1.4: Typical formwork and Plate 1.5: Precast seating units being installed
reinforcement for in-situ raker beam (Steele on raker beams at Cape Town Stadium (2010)
and Larson 1996).

In this design, each L-shaped seating unit is 7m long, which means that the raker beams are spaced at 7m centre
to centre. The crowd loading is supported by the terrace seating units, which is then transferred to the raker
ibeams through the end shears. The raker beams can be analysed as sub-frames or as full 3D structures in order
to get the most realistic behaviour of the structure.

Downloaded from www.structville.blogspot.com Ranks Michael Enterprises (2016) Page 3

 Analysis and Design of Stadium Raker Beam Using EC2 Ubani Obinna U. (2016)

1.2.1 Partial Factor for load

The partial factor for all permanent actions (dead load) Gk is 1.35 while the partial factor for all variable actions
(imposed load) Qk is 1.5. No reduction factor was applied in the analysis, and the effect of wind was neglected.

1.2.2 Material Properties for the design

Design compressive of concrete fck = 35 N/mm2
Yield strength of steel fyk = 460 N/mm2

Table 1.2: Values used in the computation of loading

Load Value
Density of concrete 25 KN/m3
Imposed load/variable action 5 KN/m2
Weight of finishes, rails, seats, stair units 2 KN/m2

1.2.3 Concrete cover

Exposure class = XC1
A concrete cover of 40mm is adopted for the section

1.2.4 Design equations according EC2

From EC2 singly reinforced concrete stress block;
MRd = FCz ------------ (1)
0.85 𝑓𝑐𝑘
FC = 0.8𝑥𝑏 ; z = d – 0.4x -------------- (2)
1.5
Clause 5.6.3 of EC2 limits the depth of the neutral axis to 0.45d for concrete class less than or equal to C50/60.
Therefore for an under reinforced section (ductile);
x = 0.45d ----------------- (3)
Combining equation (1), (2) and (3), we obtain the ultimate moment of resistance (MRd)
MRd = 0.167𝑓𝑐𝑘 𝑏𝑑 2 ---------------------- (4)

Also from the reinforced concrete stress block;

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

𝑓𝑦𝑘
FS = 𝐴𝑠1 ------------------ (6)
1.15

Substituting equ (6) into (5) and making 𝐴𝑠1 the subject of the formular;

𝑀𝐸𝑑
𝐴𝑠1 = -------------------- (7)
0.87𝑓𝑦𝑘 𝑧

The lever arm z in EC2 is given ;

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

𝑀𝐸𝑑
where K = ---------------- (9)
𝑓𝑐𝑘 𝑏𝑑2

1.2.4.1 For doubly reinforced sections;

𝑀𝐸𝑑 − 𝑀𝑅𝑑
Area of compression reinforcement AS2 = ----------------------- (10)
0.87𝑓𝑦𝑘 (𝑑− 𝑑2 )

𝑀𝑅𝑑
Area of tension reinforcement 𝐴𝑠1 = + AS2 -------------------- (11)
0.87𝑓𝑦𝑘 𝑧

Downloaded from www.structville.blogspot.com Ranks Michael Enterprises (2016) Page 4

 Analysis and Design of Stadium Raker Beam Using EC2 Ubani Obinna U. (2016)

Where z = d[0.5 + √(0.25 − 0.882𝐾 ′ ) ] where K’ = 0.167

1.2.4.2 Check for deflection (Clause 7.4.2)

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

3⁄
𝜌0 𝜌0 2
L/d = K [11 + 1.5√𝑓𝑐𝑘 + 3.2√𝑓𝑐𝑘 ( − 1) ] if 𝜌 ≤ 𝜌0 --------------------------- (12)
𝜌 𝜌

1⁄
𝜌0 1 𝜌 2
L/d = K [11 + 1.5√𝑓𝑐𝑘
𝜌− 𝜌′
+
12
√𝑓𝑐𝑘 ( 𝜌0 ) ] if 𝜌 > 𝜌0 ---------------------- (13)

Where;

L/d is the limiting span/depth ratio

K = Factor to take into account different structural systems
𝜌0 = reference reinforcement ratio = 10−3 √𝑓𝑐𝑘
𝜌 = Tension reinforcement ratio to resist moment due to design load
𝜌′ = Compression reinforcement ratio

1.2.4.3 Shear design

In EC2, the concrete resistance shear stress without shear reinforcement is given by;
1
VRd,c = [CRd,c.k. (100𝜌1 𝑓𝑐𝑘 )3 + k1. 𝜎𝑐𝑝 ]bw.d ≥ (Vmin + k1. 𝜎𝑐𝑝 ) ----------------------- (14)
200 𝐴𝑆1
CRd,c = 0.18/𝛾𝑐 ; k = 1+√ < 0.02 (d in mm); 𝜌1 = < 0.02 (In which 𝐴𝑆1 is the area of tensile reinforcement
𝑑 𝑏𝑑
3 1
which extends ≥ (𝑙𝑏𝑑 + 𝑑) beyond the section considered; Vmin = 0.035𝑘 2 𝑓𝑐𝑘 2
K1 = 0.15; 𝜎𝑐𝑝 = NEd/Ac < 0.2fcd (Where NEd is the axial force at the section, Ac = cross sectional area of the
concrete), fcd = design compressive strength of the concrete.

1.2.5 Load Analysis

1.2.5.1 Loading on precast seating unit

Permanent Actions
Self weight of the 7m precast seating deck (see Figure 1.4)
(GK1) = (25 × 0.25 × 0.15 × 7) + (25 × 0.95 × 0.15 × 7) = 31.5 KN

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

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

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

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

1.2.5.2 Loading on the raker beams

Height of beam = 1200mm

Width of beam = 400mm

Downloaded from www.structville.blogspot.com Ranks Michael Enterprises (2016) Page 5

 Analysis and Design of Stadium Raker Beam Using EC2 Ubani Obinna U. (2016)

Self weight of raker beam

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

Height of riser in the raker beam = 0.4m; Width of tread in the raker beam = 0.8m; Angle of inclination (𝛼) =
20.556°
Stepped area (risers) = 1⁄2 × 0.4 × 25 = 5 KN/m (in the global direction)

For purely vertical load in the global y-direction, we convert the load from the waist of the beam by;
UDL from waist of the beam = (12.00 × cos 20.556°) = 11.236 KN/m
 Total self weight (Gk) = 11.236 + 5 = 16.235 KN/m

Self weight of raker beam at ultimate limit state;

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

Load from precast seating units

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

Total number of the precast seating units on the beam = 24/0.8 = 30 units
For an intermediate beam supporting seating units on both sides;
Total number of precast seating units = 2 × 30 = 60 units
Therefore, total shear force transferred from the seating units to the raker beam = 55.1775 × 60 = 3310.65 KN
3310.65 𝐾𝑁
Equivalent uniformly distributed load in the global direction at ultimate limit state = = 137.94 KN/m
24𝑚

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

1.3 Structural Analysis

A full 3D elastic analysis of the whole stadium was performed using Staad Pro with all elements
loaded at ultimate limit state. Also, the raker beam is isolated as a subframe and also analysed. The
results from the two models are very comparable.

Figure 1.6: 3D Modelling of the grandstand on Staad Pro

Downloaded from www.structville.blogspot.com Ranks Michael Enterprises (2016) Page 6

 Analysis and Design of Stadium Raker Beam Using EC2 Ubani Obinna U. (2016)

The internal stresses on the intermediate raker beams from the analysis of the frame at ultimate limit
state are shown in Figures 1.7 to 1.9.

Figure 1.7: Bending Moment Diagram

Figure 1.8: Shear Force Diagram

Figure 1.9: Axial Force Diagram

Downloaded from www.structville.blogspot.com Ranks Michael Enterprises (2016) Page 7

 Analysis and Design of Stadium Raker Beam Using EC2 Ubani Obinna U. (2016)

1.3.1 Summary of Analysis Results

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

Table 1.3: Analysis Results of the Raker Beam

Section Moment Section Shear Force Section Axial Force

(KN.m) (KN) (KN)
MA 1967.54 QAB 934.62 NAB 380.061(C)
MABspan 948.078 QBA 983.88 NBA 339.376(T)
MB 2283.18 QBC 999.52 NBC 510.767(C)
MBCspan 1249.787 QCB 918.98 NCB 208.670(T)
MC 1565.63

1.4 Structural Design

The structural design of the of the raker beam using EN 1992-1-1has been carried out and all the
parameters used in the, and steps followed are shown below in the subsequent sections.

Design compressive of concrete fck = 35 N/mm2

Yield strength of steel fyk = 460 N/mm2
bw = 400mm; h = 1200mm; Cc = 40mm

1.4.1 Flexural Design of span AB (MABspan)

MABspan = 948.078 KNm

d = h – Cc – ϕ/2 – ϕlink
d = 1200 – 40 – 16 – 10 = 1134mm
𝑀𝐸𝑑 948.078 × 106
k= = 35 × 400 × 11342 = 0.0527
𝑓𝑐𝑘 𝑏𝑑2
Since k < 0.167 No compression reinforcement required
z = d[0.5 + √(0.25 − 0.882𝐾) ] = z = d[0.5 + √(0.25 − 0.882(0.0527) ] = 0.95d

𝑀𝐸𝑑 948.078 × 106

𝐴𝑠1 = = 0.87 × 460 × 0.95 ×1134 = 2199 mm2
0.87𝑓𝑦𝑘 𝑧
Provide 5Y25mm BOT (ASprov = 2450 mm2)

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

2⁄ 2⁄
fctm = 0.3 × 𝑓𝑐𝑘 3 = 0.3 × 35 3 = 3.2099 N/mm2
fctm 3.2099
ASmin = 0.26 × Fyk
× bw × d = 0.26 × 460
× 400 × 1134 = 822.962 mm2
Check if ASmin < 0.0013 × bw × d (589.68 mm2)

Therefore, ASmin = 822.962 mm2

Check for deflection;

K = 1.5 for beam fixed at both ends

3⁄
𝜌0 𝜌0 2
L/d = K [11 + 1.5√𝑓𝑐𝑘 + 3.2√𝑓𝑐𝑘 ( − 1) ] if 𝜌 ≤ 𝜌0
𝜌 𝜌

Downloaded from www.structville.blogspot.com Ranks Michael Enterprises (2016) Page 8

 Analysis and Design of Stadium Raker Beam Using EC2 Ubani Obinna U. (2016)

1⁄
𝜌0 1 𝜌′ 2
L/d = K [11 + 1.5√𝑓𝑐𝑘 ′ + √𝑓𝑐𝑘 (𝜌 ) ] if 𝜌 > 𝜌0
𝜌− 𝜌 12 0

𝐴𝑠 2450
𝜌= = = 0.00540 < 10−3 √35
𝑏𝑑 400 × 1134

3⁄
0.0059 0.0059 2
L/d = 1.5 [11 + 1.5√35 × + 3.2√35 ( − 1) ] = 1.5(20.695 + 0.5333) = 31.842
0.0054 0.0054
310
Modification factor 𝛽𝑠 =
𝜎𝑠
310𝑓𝑦𝑘 𝐴𝑆𝑟𝑒𝑞 310 × 500 × 2199
𝜎𝑠 = = = 278.241 N/mm2
500 𝐴𝑆𝑝𝑟𝑜𝑣 500 ×2450
310
𝛽𝑠 = =1.11
278.241
7000
Since the span is greater than 7m, allowable span/depth ratio = 𝛽𝑠 × 31.842 × 𝐿
= 1.11 × 31.842
7000
× 12816
= 19.374
12816
Actual deflection L/d = 1134
= 11.301
Since 11.301 < 19.374, deflection is ok.

1.4.2 Flexural Design of support A (MA);

MA = 1967.54 KNm
k = 0.1093; la = 0.8919; AS1 = 4861 mm2; ASmin = 822.9785 mm2
Provide 4Y32mm + 4Y25mm TOP (ASprov = 5180 mm2)

1.4.3 Flexural Design of support B (MB);

MA = 2283.18KNm
k = 0.1268; la = 0.8717; AS1 = 5772 mm2; ASmin = 822.9785 mm2
Provide 6Y32mm + 4Y20mm TOP (ASprov = 6080 mm2)

1.4.3 Flexural Design of span BC (MBCspan)

MBCSpan = 1249.787 kNm
k = 0.0694; la = 0.9345; AS1 = 2947mm2; ASmin = 822.9785 mm2
Provide 5Y25mm + 2Y20mm BOT (ASprov = 3083 mm2)

Check for deflection

𝐴𝑠 3083
𝜌= = = 0.00679 > 10−3 √35
𝑏𝑑 400 × 1134

1⁄
𝜌0 1 𝜌′ 2
L/d = K [11 + 1.5√𝑓𝑐𝑘 + √𝑓𝑐𝑘 (𝜌 ) ] if 𝜌 > 𝜌0
𝜌− 𝜌′ 12 0

0.0059
L/d = 1.5 [11 + 1.5√35 × + 0] = 28.066
0.00679 − 0

310
Modification factor 𝛽𝑠 =
𝜎𝑠
310𝑓𝑦𝑘 𝐴𝑆𝑟𝑒𝑞 310 × 500 × 2974
𝜎𝑠 = 500 𝐴𝑆𝑝𝑟𝑜𝑣
= 500 ×3083
= 299.039 N/mm2

Downloaded from www.structville.blogspot.com Ranks Michael Enterprises (2016) Page 9

 Analysis and Design of Stadium Raker Beam Using EC2 Ubani Obinna U. (2016)

310
𝛽𝑠 = = 1.0366
299.039
7000
Since the span is greater than 7m, allowable span/depth ratio = 𝛽𝑠 × 28.066 × 𝐿
= 1.0366 ×
7000
28.066 × 12816
= 15.89
12816
Actual deflection L/d = 1134
= 11.301
Since 11.301 < 15.89, deflection is ok.

1.4.4 Flexural Design of support C (MC);

MC = 1565.63 KNm
k = 0.0870; la = 0.9163; AS1 = 3765 mm2; ASmin = 822.9785 mm2
Provide 5Y32mm TOP (ASprov = 4020 mm2)

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

1.4.5 Shear Design

1.4.5.1 Support A
VEd = 934.62 KN; N = 380.061 KN (Compression)
Taking shear at the centreline of support; VEd = 934.62 KN
1
VRd,c = [CRd,c.k. (100𝜌1 𝑓𝑐𝑘 )3 + k1. 𝜎𝑐𝑝 ]bw.d ≥ (Vmin + k1. 𝜎𝑐𝑝 ) bw.d

CRd,c = 0.18/𝛾𝑐 = 0.18/1.5 = 0.12

200 200
k = 1+√ = 1+√ = 1.4199 < 2.0
𝑑 1134
3 1 3 1
Vmin = 0.035𝑘 𝑓𝑐𝑘 = Vmin = 0.035 × (1.4199)2 × (35)2 = 0.3504 N/mm2
2 2

𝐴𝑠 5180
𝜌1 = = = 0.011419 < 0.02; K1 = 0.15
𝑏𝑑 400 × 1134

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

380.061 × 103
𝜎𝑐𝑝 = = 0.7917 N/mm2
400 × 1200

1
VRd,c = [0.12 × 1.4199 (100 × 0.011419 × 35 )3 + 0.15 × 0.7917 ]400 × 1134 = 318111.948 N = 318.11 KN

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

Assume strut angle 𝜃 = 21.8°

Let us now investigate the compression capacity of the strut;

𝑓𝑐𝑘 35
v1 = 0.6(1 − ) = 0.6(1 − ) = 0.516
250 250

𝛼𝑐𝑐 𝑓𝑐𝑘 0.85 × 35

fcd = Taking 𝛼𝑐𝑐 = 0.85; fcd = = 19.833 N/mm2; z = 0.9d
𝛾𝑐 1.5

𝑏𝑤 𝑧𝑣1 𝑓𝑐𝑑 400 × 0.9 × 1134 × 0.516 × 19.833

VRd,max = = [ ] 10−3 = 1440.64 KN > VEd
(𝑐𝑜𝑡𝜃 + tan 𝜃) (cot 21.8 + tan 21.8)

Since VEd < VRd,max

𝐴𝑠𝑤
VEd,s = 𝑧 𝑓𝑤𝑦𝑑 cot 𝜃 = 934620 N
𝑠

Downloaded from www.structville.blogspot.com Ranks Michael Enterprises (2016) Page 10

 Analysis and Design of Stadium Raker Beam Using EC2 Ubani Obinna U. (2016)

𝐴𝑠𝑤 934620
= = 0.9153
𝑠 (0.9 × 1134 ×0.87 × 460 × cot 21.8)

Trying 3Y10mm @ 200mm c/c (235/200 = 1.175)

1.175 > 0.9153 Hence shear reinforcement is ok.

Following the steps described above;

1.4.5.2 Support B; Shear at VBA

VEd = 983.88 KN; N = KN 339.376 (Tension)

Note that due to the tensile axial force in the section, the second term of VRd equation assumes a negative value.
𝜌1 = 0.0134; 𝜎𝑐𝑝 = − 0.7070 N/mm2; vmin = 0.3504 N/mm2; VRd = 230.6532 KN
Since VRd,c < VEd, shear reinforcement is required
Assuming that the strut angle 𝜃 = 21.8°
v1 = 0.5160; fcd = 19.8450 N/mm2; z = 0.9d = 1020.6 mm; VRDmax =1440.64 KN
Since VRDmax > VEd
𝐴𝑠𝑤
= 0.9635
𝑠
Trying 3Y10mm @ 200mm c/c (235/200 = 1.175)

1.175 > 0.9153 Hence shear reinforcement is ok.

1.4.5.3 Support B; Shear at VBC

VEd = 999.52 KN; N = KN 510.767 (Compression)

Note that due to the tensile axial force in the section, the second term of V Rd equation assumes a negative value.
𝜌1 = 0.0134; 𝜎𝑐𝑝 = 1.0641 N/mm2; vmin = 0.3504 N/mm2; VRd = 351.161 KN
Since VRd,c < VEd, shear reinforcement is required
Assuming that the strut angle 𝜃 = 21.8°
v1 = 0.5160; fcd = 19.8450 N/mm2; z = 0.9d = 1020.6 mm; VRDmax =1440.64 KN
Since VRDmax > VEd
𝐴𝑠𝑤
= 0.9789
𝑠
Trying 3Y10mm @ 200mm c/c (235/200 = 1.175)

1.175 > 0.9153 Hence shear reinforcement is ok.

1.4.5.4 Support C; Shear at VCB

VEd = 918.98 KN; N = KN 208.670 (Tension)

Note that due to the tensile axial force in the section, the second term of VRd equation assumes a negative value.
𝜌1 = 0.0089; 𝜎𝑐𝑝 = −0.4347 N/mm2; vmin = 0.3504 N/mm2; VRd = 213.2707 KN
Since VRd,c < VEd, shear reinforcement is required
Assuming that the strut angle 𝜃 = 21.8°
v1 = 0.5160; fcd = 19.8450 N/mm2; z = 0.9d = 1020.6 mm; VRDmax =1440.64 KN
Since VRDmax > VEd

Downloaded from www.structville.blogspot.com Ranks Michael Enterprises (2016) Page 11

 Analysis and Design of Stadium Raker Beam Using EC2 Ubani Obinna U. (2016)

𝐴𝑠𝑤
= 0.9000
𝑠
Trying 3Y10mm @ 200mm c/c (235/200 = 1.175)

1.175 > 0.9153 Hence shear reinforcement is ok.

1.5 Discussion and Conclusion

It is very easy to see that the influence of axial force was not very pronounced in the results produced. It would
have been very significant using BS 8110. The maximum reinforcement was seen at support B due the high
magnitude of moment at that section. This phenomenon is consistent with horizontal continuous beams. See
detailing sketches in Figure 2.0.

Figure 2.0: Reinforcement detailing sketches (not to scale)

Downloaded from www.structville.blogspot.com Ranks Michael Enterprises (2016) Page 12

 Analysis and Design of Stadium Raker Beam Using EC2 Ubani Obinna U. (2016)

References

[1] BS 6399 part 1: 1996: Loading for Building code of practice for dead and imposed loads.
British Standards Institution.
[2] BS 8110 – 1:1997: Structural use of concrete Part1: Code of practice for design and
construction. British Standard Institutions.
[3] EN 1991-1-1 (2002): General Actions- Densities, self weight, imposed loads for buildings
[4] EN 1992-1-1 (2004): Design of concrete structures: General Rules and rules for building
[5] Jeff Steele, Mark Larsen (1996): Raker-Beam Construction Requires Rugged Steel Forms.
Publication #C960738 The Aberdeen Group
[6] Karadelis J (2009): Concrete Grandstands. Part 1: Experimental investigations. Proceedings
to the Institution of Civil Engineers – Engineering and Computational mechanics. Volume
162,Issue 1 ISSN 1755-0777
[7] Salyards K.A., Honagan L.M (2005): Evaluation of a finite element model for dynamic
characteristic prediction of stadium facility.

Downloaded from www.structville.blogspot.com Ranks Michael Enterprises (2016) Page 13