Comparison on Structural Design Using Three (3) Structural Softwares

by

Noorfakhriah binti Yaakub

Dissertation submitted in partial fulfillment of

the requirements for the

Bachelor of Engineering (lions)

(Civil Engineering)

JULY 2009

Universiti Teknologi PETRONAS

Bandar Seri Iskandar

31750Tronoh
Perak Darul Ridzuan
 CERTIFICATION OF APPROVAL

Comparison on Structural Design Using Three (3) Structural Softwares

by

Noorfakhriah binti Yaakub

A project dissertation submitted to the

Civil Engineering Programme

Universiti TeknologiPETRONAS
in partial fulfilment of the requirement for the
BACHELOR OF ENGINEERING (Hons)
(CIVIL ENGINEERING)

UNIVERSITI TEKNOLOGI PETRONAS

TRONOH, PERAK
July 2009

i
 CERTIFICATION
OF ORIGINALITY

This is to certify that I am responsible for the work submitted in this project, that the

original work is my own except as specified in the references and acknowledgements,

and that the original work contained herein have not been undertaken or done by

unspecified sources or persons.

12i-.
NOORFAKHRIAH BINTI YAAKUB

11
ABSTRACT

A rapid development within the field of civil engineering structural design methods and

techniques and software designs that has taken place over the last years offers new
possibilities for designers of structural design through the use of Building Information
Modeling (BIM) concept. The concept of generating computable data set of building and

modeling in the construction industry is very definite. With a lot of softwares available
in the market for structural consulting firms to choose, there is a need to find the

software that produce optimum results. For this approach, a same structural design is
done using three different softwares, namely Esteem, Orion, and STAAD Pro Structural
Software, with fixed parameters to see the difference in the design output. In this case, a

water tank structure architectural design is obtained and roughly designed before being
transferred into the softwares. The designs include beam, column, slabs, and foundation

where certain parameters such as element size and density are fixed in order to find the
most powerful output.

This Final Year Project thesis is a theoretical work extracted from study material, ranges

of codes of practice documents, and web-source referenced. The work was aimed
towards giving a state-of-the-art introduction to software technology of structural design

as well as comparing the use of the softwares in industry.

III
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

The author wishes to take this opportunity to express her utmost gratitude to the
individuals that have taken the time and effort to assist her in completing the Final Year
Project throughout her final year. Without the cooperation of these individuals, no doubt

the author would have faced some complications both major and minor throughout the

course.

First and foremost the author's utmost gratitude goes to the author's Final Year
Project Supervisor, AP Dr. Madzlan bin Napiah and the Department of Civil
Engineering for who had been helping with the development of the project progress
from the very beginning to the end of it. Without their endless guidance and patience,

the author would not succeed in completing the course. The author also would like to
express her special thanks to Engr. Rosmee bin Abdul Rahman, her former internship
supervisor as well as Mr. Agus Kurniawan, post graduate student in Civil Engineering
Department, and fellow students who provided various help and advices in order to

assist the completion of this report.

The author also would like to give special thanks to her parents and families that

provide great support and for giving her trust and confidence to complete this project in
the timeline arranged by the Department of Civil Engineering, Universiti Teknologi
PETRONAS.

To all other individuals that has helped the author in any ways, but whose name
is not mentioned here, the author thanks you all.

iv
TABLE OF CONTENT

CERTIFICATIONS
Certification of Approval
Certification of Originality

ABSTRACT iii
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT iv
CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION 1
1.1Backgroundof Study 1
1.2Problem Statement 2
1.3Objective
.2
1.4 Scopeof Work 3
1.5Relevancy and Feasibility .3
CHAPTER 2: LITERATURE REVIEW AND THEORY 5
2.1 StructuralEngineering and Design .5
2.2 Brief Design Consideration 6
2.3 Building Information Modeling 10
2.4 Software Application in Civil Engineering . 12

CHAPTER 3: METHODOLOGY 14
3.1 Research 14
. 14
3.2 Data Gathering
3.3 Rough Design 16
3.4 SoftwareDesign 17
3.5 Comparisonof Software 21
3.6 Findings and Conclusion 21

CHAPTER 4: RESULTS AND DISCUSSON. 22

4.1 StructuralDesign Parameters 22
4.2 Resultsand Reports 23
.
4.3 Comparisonand Discussion 31
.
CHAPTER 5: CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATION. 38
5.1 Conclusion 38
.
5.2 Recommendation 39
.
REFERENCES 40

APPENDICEX BEAM DESIGN 41

COLUMN DESIGN 50
.
SLAB DESIGN 54
MANUAL CALCULATION 56

V
LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 2.1 BeamDimensions 7

Figure 2.2 Rise (R), Going (G), and Waist (H) Length 9

Figure 2.3 BIM Project Life Cycle, S. Fauerbach 11

Figure 3.1 Flow Chart of Project Methodology 15

Figure 3.2 Water Tank Structure 16

Figure 3.3 Rough Design on Paper 16

Figure 3.4a Step 1- Input Grid Alignment 17

Figure 3.4b Step2- Input Beam 18

Figure 3.4c Step3- Input Column 18

Figure 3.4d Step4- Input Slab 19

Figure 3.5 BeamAnalysis and Design Parameters 19

Figure 3.6 BeamDetailing Parameters 20

Figure 3.7 Column Detailing Parameters 20

Figure 4.1 Key Planfor the Water Tank Upper Floor and Ground Floor 24

Figure 4.2 EsteemProjectQuantity Parameters 34

VI
LIST OF TABLES

Table 2.1 Minimum Imposed Floor Loads 8

Table 4.1 Summation of Loadings for First Floor Beams 25

Table 4.2 Summation of Key Plan Load Input 25

Table 4.3 Modification Factor for Tension Reinforcement 28

Table 4.4 Modification Factor for Compression Reinforcement 28

Table 4.5 Ultimate Bending Moments and Shear Forces in One-Way

Spanning Slabs 28

Table 4.6 Esteem - Column Reinforcement Schedule 30

Table 4.7 Column Reinforcement Schedule 30

Table 4.8 Concrete Volume and Formwork Area 32

Table 4.9 Total Lower Column Concrete for Floor Plan 32

Table 4.10 Total Lower Column Formwork for Floor Plan 33

Table 4.11 Main Rebar Steel and Link Weight 33

Table 4.12 Lower Column Main Rebar for Key Plan: IF 33

Table 4.13 Lower Column Link for Key Plan: IF 33

Table 4.14 Summation of All of the Above Cost 33

Table 4.15 Comparison of Beam and Column Elements 35

Table 5.1 Comparison on Esteem, Orion, and STAAD Pro 38

vii
 CHAPTER 1

INTRODUCTION

1.1 BACKGROUND OF STUDY

Structural design engineers have been using various structural softwares in aiding the
design for their projects. The engineering softwares provide applicability for the

structural engineers. These softwares are expected to produce analysis and design for
certain structure and detect faults as well as failure so that the design engineer can
improvise the design.

One of commonly used structural software is the Esteem Structural Design Software.
The Esteem Structural Design is widely used in the consulting engineer offices as well

as the developers. The software provides 2-D and 3D analysis design for the beams,
columns, slabs, as well as the reinforced concrete wall. Most structural software now
has BIM or Building Information Modeling where, not only that the user can observe

the designed structure in 3-D view, he or she can also experience getting into the
simulated structure and see information about the structure or where failure may occur.

Other famous structural software for consulting engineer in Malaysia would be the CSC
Orion. CSC Orion is more complicated than the Esteem Structural Design software as it

provides more detailed features when analyzing the structural design. This explains why
CSC Orion is preferred for tall building design and for designing a complicated grid

arrangement. Besides that, Orion software can be modeled initially in Autodesk Revit
Structure. It means that, architectural drawing from Autodesk software can be directly

1
transferred to Orion for editing by the design engineer, thus enhancing and speeding up
the design process.

STAAD Pro is said to be the best method for the construction steel structure. No detail

rebar needed, therefore the software produced results that are required only. Besides,
this software provide broad range of design codes to be as reference, therefore, user can

use this one software for various type of design. This means user don't have to use one
software for modeling, another one for steel design, and yet another software to design
the concrete beams, slabs, and foundation.

The use of software aid has been benefiting companies in term of time saving as well as
increasing profitability where money is saved when high quality product is produced.
Engineering software provides accurate measurement and come in various dimensions

that are important in rendering of the designs.

1.2PROBLEM STATEMENT

There are a lot of softwares in the market for structural engineers to choose depending

on the quality and cost they are willing to spend. The structural design softwares create
a functional, economic, and safe structure for public to reside, and are widely used to do
the repetitive, lengthy and complicated calculations. However, the design engineer

should not become too dependent on the softwares as they are merely tools to aid in
designing structures.

The software calculations might be different from one another. For example, the Esteem
Structural Design is using elastic method to obtain the reaction, not the area method

students usually learnt in Structural Analysis course. The results might be a little
different as two different methods are used, if the software user calculates manually

using the area method. The results will then be different from other software's result of
calculation, which should be the starting point of various resulting design produced by
various softwares.

2
1.3 OBJECTIVE

At the end of this project, the comparison of the analysis and result of a water tank

structural design using three (3) different structural softwares will be obtained. The
results consist of difference in terms of:

1. Engineering Specification/Applicability
2. Structural Design and Detailing
3. User-friendliness of softwares

1.4 SCOPE OF WORK

The softwares involved in this project are:

1. Esteem Structural Software

2. CSC Orion
3. STAAD Pro

The softwares are expected to analyze the structural design of a water tank structure and

come out with differing results in terms of engineering details. These will later on affect
other factors such as quality, safety, cost, and others. The output of the software will be
representedin drawings, detailing, and calculations.

1.5 RELEVANCY AND FEASIBILITY

This project is relevant to the structural design engineering field because it involves the

usage of softwares which are being used in the industry. By comparing the results of the
three softwares analysis and design, the findings would be one of a tool for the

engineering firms to choose which software is the best for their business.

Besides, when doing the structural design, the author is also applying her theoretical
knowledge learnt for the past few years in civil engineering courses.

3
This project is also feasible in terms of simplicity and availability of tools needed for

the research. The author has to deal with the industry before getting hold of the

softwares as well as the soft copies of architectural drawings, which is a good skill to
practice.

4
 CHAPTER 2

LITERATURE REVIEW AND THEORY

2.1 STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING AND DESIGN

Structural engineering, a specialty within civil engineering, is a field dealing with the
design and analysis of structures that support or resist loads. Structural engineers are

most commonly involved in the design of large modem buildings and similar structures
and often specialize in particular fields, such as building engineering, bridge
engineering, geotechnical engineering and highway engineering. Structural design of a
reinforced concrete structure is a combination of beams, columns, slabs, walls,
staircase, and foundations rigidly connected together to form a monolithic and
indivisible frame. Each individual member must have the ability to resist the forces

acting on it, so that the ascertainment of these forces is an essential component of the
design process. The full design and analysis of a rigid concrete frame is mostly

complicated, but simplified calculations of adequateaccuracy can often be made if the

basic action of the structure is understood.

The analysis must be performed with an evaluation of all the loads carried by the

structure, such as roof load, floor load, and wall load for a typical structure including its
own weight (beams, column, etc). The loads are usually not consistent in value and
position, and the consideration must include all possible critical arrangement. First, the
structure itself is rationalized into simplified forms that represent the load carrying
action of the prototype.

5
According to Mosley (1999)

The forces in each member can be determined by one of the following methods:

1. Applying moment and shear coefficient;

2. Manual calculations;

3. Computer method

Tabulated coefficients are suitable for use only with simple, regular structures such

as equal-span continuous beams carrying uniform loads. Manual calculations are

possible for the vast majority if structures, but may be tedious for large or

complicated ones. The computer can be an invaluable help in the analysis of even

quite small frames, and for some calculations it is almost indispensable. However,

the amount of output from a computer analysis is sometimes almost overwhelming;

and then the results are most readily interpreted when they are presented

diagrammatically by means of a graph plotter or other visual device.

2.2 BRIEF DESIGN CONSIDERATION

Basically, a simple and typical structural design consists of beams, columns, slabs,

walls, staircase, and foundations design. The design specifications are listed in the
BS8110 - Structural Use of Concrete and BS6399 - Loadings for Buildings.

Beam strength is more affected by its depth than its breadth. A suitable breadth may be

a third or half of the beam depth; besides, if a beam is less than 150 mm wide, there
may be difficulty in providing adequate side cover and space for the reinforcing bars.
Figure 2.1 shows the typical dimension of beam design consisting of beam depth,
breadth, as well as the concrete cover. Beam depth can be calculated using Equation
2.1:

6
[ Beam depth, h=d+ cover +t] Equation 2.1

where d is the effective depth

and t is the distancefrom the outside of the link to the centre of the tension bars

""

d
h

cover

Figure 2.1: Beam Dimensions

Beam first live load is always considered zero. However, beam first dead load is taken

as the beam self-weight and the Uniformly Distributed Load (UDL) from the floor and
wall. Beams are considered fail if one or more of these criteria occur:

i) If tension reinforcement exceeds4.0

ii) If compression reinforcement exceeds2.0
iii) If deflection ratio is less than 1.0

Reinforced concrete slabs are used in floors, roofs, and building walls as well as the
bridges decks. Slabs may span in one way or two way direction and are supported by
beams, walls, or directly by the structure's columns. Slab imposed load is taken from
Table 1- Minimum Imposed Floor Loads of BS6399 - Part 1 (see Table 2.1). The
loadings are distributed to the beams and columns using mesh properties as specified in

the structural design softwares.

7
Table 2.1: Minimum Imposed Floor Loads

I Table 1. \liuimuiu imposed floor loads

L t>e of 1.%RlllUll"6 [/? 4T1E'CI:: C : F(. l'onceiurated load
Ycci. "it}r'occupauc} for : on 'j
i iC>. ill'
part of the building or
wtructure
;. iclul"StlL' c.nd rrsidr"utit All usta;rs ::-ilIiiu srll-rcul:; iuea :I:. i"Iliug uuili i .i
4 1'1P.Itll"y cuuunuu: iududing kilclu"ns' if[ LIc, ks cl
iAlsc 51"r cLl c"Gcry i !l ýs :: pl limüt"d us" I; _' r c.: nunun aI
.ý "_ ucu"
t:n".,ýsfit :: Ilit"1' t lccks :: 1 ! lals. ibi" Cý FRLIt'i"lu::
l! F"dr:: cuis 1Ji11 A,2mjil,,: ill 11-LAOS
rji, s 15 .ý
IJLLI IIIL'-t bls

f!edruums in Iiulels mill Illutels Lß

li"il ilel serdi
lbih"I ere:a
1!illi: 1:I 1: %Cll15

icunuunL LiI. ht-lis !;

uolcl
!!: _Iccniis -ýingle dxl"Iling 15 I!
wlili M LLI
CG1111111111 k1 :: (bk 9
Ill I'IGCi! L' 1:111«lS
Mill Illlllltrd ufl.
iýbt IIGII" It

Guest Iirust's. ýtuv Fs tauuis tu xhirh IJ. UI ruu ccncentr::"u"d

iesidenlitJ cltils L. i"ss 1:lit
tlio-, bi: "u ;". 11Ihe uutl.r týdgr
tall ccuuuuukl ::itt wiuiunuu ul i :!
tat't; y iIi iIl: c'I: F Li
iiký15 eXCbI'i 3'S

C'C`ftýriSl t'ýi MAL-

l. Llt'Ik liId 1IIL: It'I1 :1ur :s IcGniS IC7.111 L-1 I 5w ruu c u. Cut t'::t r: I
tJu}' Lirt- SaCPse but :9 thiý cUU'f i"JI; i
::itlý : ntiniuuuu c1 i
V t! Cli. rs :acl :: -ciY. rt r. I- li : r;, iinC ius. utility r.: Ius ý" . !: ý
CL'Pt"rL"'. t hlsiearrr:
nCl '"i lü; ht lu, lu5t: iýý1 et r g: ý: ý ib
_ir. tccnts . ttücul
Min-s 1Cr giui"rt: i usc, ý
1!a kiui Ir lý
vicüiiis. I uu: Iri ,. I:.1 r i: ri ý ! :?
I"I
-alls .: ith 111ý-i1111":
Jlli. 1T1111titi"I's P s11111L! ;5 !ý
1";7tl11111iut

h:. lls. cir. vh. ti: u si res tilt.! : il f "ý d6

r''
'rcjrcti.: n !: ! us I L"i_nuiný li..
. ': i" ,
51:. iti, u=__
r'k: ICrir"s. :: crksh ) UI); IIII=i
)'y pci ilpgl 5, 15
(gellt-rk: ) induslriJ

Columns transfer the load from the beams and slabs down to the foundation and

eventually to the ground. Although they may have to resist bending force due to
structure continuity, columns are primarily considered as compression members of the
structure. A braced and an unbraced column is differentiated by the lateral load resisted,
which are walls or other bracing form restriction and column bending action restriction
of lateral loads respectively. A structure is considered fail if the steel percent in the
columns exceeds 6.0%.

8
Staircase designs consist of rise, going, waist, and steel detailing design (see Figure
2.2). It includes the analysis of moment reinforcement, shear resistance check and
deflection check.

6 4

Figure 2.2: Rise (R), Going (G), and Waist (H) Length

For foundation design, the design engineer has to specify which type of foundation to
be used, whether pad foundation, pile foundation, raft foundation or so on. Other

method is to design all types of foundation and choose the most suitable one for the real
construction, depending on the availability and cost factor.

Basically, a design engineer only has to roughly design a structure according to the

specification, and export the input into structural design softwares. The softwares will
then calculate and analyze the design, specify the failing criteria and list parts of
structure that need modification. With this, the task of a design engineer is much more
reduced, where cost and time consumed will be proportionally decreasedas well.

9
2.3 BUILDING INFORMATION MODELING

The Architecture/Engineering/Construction (AEC) industry is showing an increasing

interest in the concept of Building Information Modeling (BIM) and its applications
(Fauerbach, 2007; Strafaci, 2008). This interest has been fuelled by the maturity and

applicability of commercial software that supports BIM as well as by the concept of

Integrated Practice which is now actively promoted by professional associations of

owners, designersand builders (Salazar, 2009).

BIM is the process of generating and managing an intelligent and computable data set

of building during its life cycle and sharing the data among the various types of
professionals within the design and construction team. Typically it uses three-
dimensional (3D), real-time, dynamic building representation and modeling software to
increase productivity in building design and construction. The target of the modeling

process is to enhance collaboration among project participants. Eastman (2008) points

out that BIM "encompasses building geometry, spatial relationships, geographic
information, and quantities and properties of building components".

Typically, architects and engineers create a 3-D model of a building or structure that is

used for analysis and design. As stated by Fauerbach (2007), the model is shared among
the various disciplines to improve design and avoid conflicts. (p. 2) For example, the

mechanical engineer can use the model to design the Heating, Ventilating, and Air-
Conditioning (HVAC) system and avoid interference with the structural system, and the

architect and interior designer can use the model to adhere to Leadership in Energy and
Environmental Design (LEED) standardsfor daylight.

In civil engineering, 3-D data is being shared and applied to various stagesof project's
lifecycle (see Figure 2.3). As a result, professionals from different fields are

collaborating more and project data and information is being used in ways that benefit
all parties involved in certain project. For example, for a highway construction project,
a GIS is used for site planning and preliminary design which provide information such
as soil classifications, locations of power line, nearby businesses,and traffic flow. The

10
data is processed and shared with the civil engineer so that 3-D modeling detailed
design can be produced. The design is then shared with the contractors for GPS

machine control as well as the cost of construction. Next, the client will use these data
for system integration so that it can be used for asset management and as data for

planning future projects nearby.

Projectlifecycle

4
Datalifecycle
3-0mndelIcsl;rre,lcd, i land 4urvtry'nry.GIS.
RetlabllitaiiUn LiDAR,!asCr scann rg, Planning?
ý15 urarma(iun
leWo
i; lilll illl IU'lký ;7'.lljliltit' aerýa:phcdography,
Preliminary
design
(ýrartbtlfaty1ir
ý111{lti:

f o7lainrichmfonnalion
a"id3"Cdata

Opt:rale
andmaintain 3.0 moc-6dataintegiatO into, f nyini.ersdesiyii
GISor fai lily O&h.
1 liragram Design
usinga3.0 made
1
Engineer shares3D

R rnudelwithcontrac'ur
`;ir usewth GPS
macfanc central
At
Build

Figure 2.3: BIM Project Life Cycle, Fauerbach

Not all the steps in the Figure 2.3 project lifecycles are applied in civil engineering

projects and the process of data sharing is not as simple. However, projects increasingly
are applying some of the elements of this scenario, and keep on improving.

11
According to Strafaci (2008)

The most immediate benefits of BIM are better designs and increased efficiency and

productivity. Because design and construction documentation are dynamically

linked, the time needed to evaluate more alternatives, execute design changes, and

produce construction documentation is reduced significantly. This is particularly

important for transportation agencies because it can shorten the time to contract

letting, resulting in projects being completed sooner and within more predictable

timetables.

2.4 SOFTWARE APPLICATION IN CIVIL ENGINEERING

Noh is very definite: "There were six popular softwares used in structure engineering

such as STAAD Pro, Esteem, Prokon, Orion, Excel, and SAP 2000 according to its
frequency of use. The most popular structural software used is STAAD Pro and
Esteem". The study has been made by giving out questionnaires to selectedrespondents

within Bandaraya Ipoh area. It shows that the usage of structural software especially in
structure engineering is getting more popular in the construction industry, which
includes the consultants, contractors, and the local authority (JabatanKerja Raya).

Not only is that, softwares are also being used in Civil Engineering courses taught in

universities, and the most common software included in studies is STAAD Pro, which
is said to be the most powerful software. "Research Engineers International (REI), a
division of netGuru Inc. (Nasdaq:NGRU), providers of world class engineering

software for structural design and analysis, announced that more than 300 licenses of its
market-leading STAAD Pro structural design and analysis software has been purchased
by leading engineering universities in Asia and the Middle East" (Yorba, 2002)

12
The universities that have designated STAAD. Pro as a standard teaching tool in their

course within civil engineering departments since 2002 include University of the East
and St. Luis College in the Philippines; Universiti Teknologi Malaysia (Johor),
Universiti Tun Hussein Onn and Universiti Malaya (Sabah) in Malaysia; King Faisal
University (Dammam) in Saudi Arabia; Sharjah University in Dubai; National Pintung
University, National Chung Hshing University, Kaohsiung University (NKUAC), China
Culture University and Ming Hsin Institute of Technology (MHIT) in Taiwan; and the
Vocational Training Council in Hong Kong.

13
 CHAPTER 3

METHODOLOGY

Procedures are developed as in Figure 3.1: Flow Chart of Project Methodology in order
for this project to run smoothly and within the specified time.

3.1 RESEARCH
Firstly, research is done on the project title to see if the project is feasible for studies.
Reading materials and reference are also acquired in subject of related softwares and

their usage in the industry. Research includes internet research and going through

publications (journals, symposium papers etc). The information is also used for
literature review and discussion part in this paper.
Apart from having been used to Esteem Structural Software, the author has to learn on
how to use the other two softwares before this project can proceed.

3.2 DATA GATHERING

Before proceeding with the use of structural software itself, an architectural design of a

water tank structure must first be obtained. In this case, the author modified a design
from a residential project during her internship in a consulting engineer firm. The

modification includes editing the length of beams so that they are smaller and simpler in
design.

Figure 3.2 shows the three dimensional view of proposed water tank structure.

14
 1
Studyon:
" Esteem Structural Software
" CSCOrion
" STAAD Pro

T
Architectural Design of a two-storey
bungalow

I
Rough structural design on papers

1
Transfer structural design into softwares

1
Analyze design and modification (if any)

T
Compare results of three softwares

Figure 3.1: Flow Chart of Project Methodology

15
 Figure 3.2: Water Tank Structure

3.3 ROUGH DESIGN

After familiarizing with the architectural design, a rough structural design is drafted on

paper in accordanceto the specification from the British Standard.Figure 3.3 shows an
example of rough calculation before the data is being transferred to computer software.

-1.

if i_y,
,_,
Iý
_ý--

z..r !,,

., " +"

ý: ý1
y.
ý ý.

Figure 3.3: Rough Design on Paper

16
Grid alignments, beams, columns and slabs are proposed accordingly with the

architectural design. Rough design is usually done in colours so that the drawings
become presentable. With colours, for example, red for beams and yellow for slabs, the

author herself can easily identify structure when transferring the details into the
softwares.

3.4 SOFTWARE DESIGN

The draft design is then transferred into the structural design software which analyzed

and calculated the proposed design where modifications are done in necessaryparts of
the structure. The steps are repeatedto the other two softwares.

3.4.1 Structural Design Steps

Designs on Esteem include grids, beams, columns and slabs input in accordanceto
the architecture drawing. The author also has to input the parameters of each

element before doing the analyzing part of the design. The steps of doing the
structural design of water tank structure are shown in Figures 3.4a - 3.4d.

ýia'InýlK. 11L1 . "" i

rvry
- 3? ",:.... "I. ýp ,
Z

.1...
I. .
.
A

I . "

Figure 3.4a: Step 1- Input Grid Alignment

17
LJ i'Inialº'. IILI .-i f, %)
ý 7?.. . +"J :... - 11 aQ . a..
ý" "u .. y:
. ý. .i... .. Z
rri.. _.
""ii.

. ý..
1. .
m-
. 1&.

r
F-3
dF-3
ro, rr

tir-U

Figure 3.4b: Step 2- Input Beam

Uaýrnoºra". nu . ý- r
rrj
- 3+.. +.:.... -II in .
Z
I. I

I. .

Yy^fl ý

Figure 3.4c: Step 3- Input Column

18
 LI+-inrlta. 1161 . -- i rl,3
- li
" 3ý... ":::.
;ý" 11 . 1. .1... . .o I U...
X-
ý"
ýý ý
ý _.ý..

I.r
.:
I. .

...,
.ý-ý .
. .. ""

... .I

r
...
-

Figure 3.4d: Step 4- Input Slab

3.4.2 Parameters in Design

Parameters are being fixed for the water tank structural design in order to get the

optimum result from the three softwares. Figure 3.5 to 3.7 shows the fixed
parameters for column and beam design.

Beam Analysis/Besign Parameters

Plan Beam
1
Basic Design PaFarnetars
Automatic man bas selection arid spacng Beam Detakg Parameters
Mirrrwn

Maanan
dianreleQmmk

dwrmftdmm):
12

25
.

.
Mrinun

Miinm
spacig

spacig
al stgporgmmt

at mid span(mmi
Fý25

Fý.
i
Requiemert of Coded Practice I
Reirfacement bar(N/mm" 2jýý Maximo Pý
spacig[mmk

Automatic slim selection and-spacing SrrbhameDesign Cmfguation

Mirrraandiametet(mmk F6 15-0
-] MUun"spacidmmt
Maxnaan diarnete(mmj 12 . Maxfframk& specig(mmi I
I""' Specid Design Parameters
ReidmcemeM b m(N/mm'2i 460 ý-

Concretechareooeritticsiren F2
Ann"2t Def*A Modes I
Steel percentage of man bar(Xt t0.15

Top or bottom concede cover to longitu rd bar(mmt 1ý`5 Load Delmß Parometes
Side concrete cover to bngiridnal bar(mmt I ý
"
Verticd clear sparing between two le rers of bn urinal bar(mmt I"
Two rebar sires auto-combinationfor muRilayerto gitudrwl rebar r
Automatic continuous rebar at top left and right ends for beam detarTrg rv

SaveaEwl
cm.'al
Figure 3.5: Beam Analysis and Design Parameters

19
ftBeam a
Detailing Parameters

Static
Mnirmsn length of rebar bent at ends of beams(mmj ý
Clear gap between section of detailngimmk 150
Sava
Position of spans cirnension line: Bottom ý
ICrank bar lapping
Bottom bar lapping at support: ý
Underline beam mark for every span mode: W
Beam section cut is boking from the left and of beam Load DefauR
F-0
FO
Distance of section mark from beam elevation detais(mm):
-0
Ratio of top support bar curtailment as percentage of span length 25
Maw urn length of bottom rebar before discontinuation 110 00 Cancel
at support(mmk

Minimum length of top rebar before continuation at mid-span(mmk 1500

Incremental dimensional figures in Febar cuts t(mmk 110

Maximum size of bar diameter for cranking lap(mm): 125

Order of beam sizes in beam mark detailing: (Width X Depth)

Arrow lira for the fink: One line below lettering

Detail of stirrup
i No. of strirrup
C"' No detailing of distance
Symbol of detailing
/: R10/15O C- Detaing of distance without gap
6 x: R1Ox5f1
t' Detailing of distance with gap

Figure 3.6: Beam Detailing Parameters

(Column Design Parameters

Column
1
Automatic main bat selection and spacing Automatic stirrup selection and spacing
Minimum diameter(mm)_ F6
12 Minin um diamete {mmj: -. J
Maximum diameter(mm): 125 Maximum diameter[mmj: 12

Reinforcement bar(N/mm" 2k

Minimum center to center spacing(mmj:

460 Reinforcement bar[N/mm" 2]:
F-7il
150 Miiirwwn stirrup dameter
...
Maximum center to center spacing(mmj 250 fa minimum column dimension 150

Concrete characteristic strength(N/mn^2): --

125
Steel percentage of reinforcement bar[%Lj 7.00
I
Concrete cover to longitudinal bar[mmj: ý- Load defauR parameters

Load Albwance(%j:
70
True biaxial cokenn design: w
Bracing for structure
Braced' C' If "traced' option is chosen and the project
involves 3D analysis, the software will determine
Unbraced
the column brace condition automatically.

Save+Exit Se.
-
Figure 3.7: Column Detailing Parameters

20
3.5 COMPARISON OF SOFTWARE
The resulting structural design is then manually analyzed and compared to see which

result is the most sound and economical. Other aspectsof comparison are also observed
and reported.

3.6 FINDINGS AND CONCLUSION

The optimum software is picked among three. The considerations are in terms of

engineering specifications and applicability, cost of construction, and user-friendliness

of softwares.

21
 CHAPTER 4

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

4.1 STRUCTURAL DESIGN PARAMETERS

Parametersare being fixed in the processof structural design of the water tank structure

using the Esteem, Orion, and STAAD Pro software. This is due to the mean of
comparison, where the compared elements in the design should be equivalent, to
producefair and squareresults.The only variable in the researchis the software design
itself.

4.1.1 Beam Parameters

Beam parameters are being fixed as in Figure 3.5: Beam Analysis and Design
Parameters and Figure 3.6: Beam Detailing Parameters. The parameters are as
followings:

Beam size: 200 mm x 300 mm

Concretecharacteristicstrength:25 N/mm2
Concretecover: 25 mm
Main bar selection:
Minimum diameter:12 mm
Maximum diameter:25 mm
Reinforcementbar: 460 N/mm2
Minimum spacing:25 mm
Maximum spacing:200 mm
Stirrup selection:
Minimum diameter: 6 mm
Maximum diameter: 12 mm
Reinforcement bar: 460 N/mm2
Minimum spacing: 100 mm
Maximum spacing: 250 mm

22
4.1.2 Column Parameters

Column parametersare being fixed as in Figure 3.7: Column Detailing Parameters,and

as followings:

Column size: 200 mm x 200 mm

Concretecharacteristicstrength:25 N/mm2
Bracedcolumn
Main bar selection:
Minimum diameter:12 mm
Maximum diameter:25 mm
Reinforcementbar: 460 N/mm2
Minimum spacing:25 mm
Maximum spacing:200 mm
Stirrup selection:
Minimum diameter:6 mm
Maximum diameter:12 mm
Reinforcementbar: 460 N/mm2

4.2 RESULTS AND REPORTS

After analysisand design using the threesoftwares,namely Esteem,Orion, and STAAD

Pro Structural Software, the results are printed out and comparedto see if there is any
difference in the design.The key plan for the water tank structure is as Figure 4.1: Key
plan for the water tank upper floor (IF) and ground floor (GF). 3D view can be seenin
Figure 3.2: Water Tank Structure.

From Figure 4.1, items marked as A, B, C, and 1,2 are the grid lines for the structure.
A, B, and C are the x-direction of axis while I and 2 are the y-axis direction and the
value 1000refers to the distanceof eachgrid line, which is 1000mm. IF and GF refers
to the location of the beamsfor upper floor (or first floor) and the ground floor, while
the value in the bracketsmeanthe size of the beamsin millimeters. As for columns,the
width and breadth size is the sameas the beam width, which meansthe column size is
200 mm x 200 mm.

23
 m

Figure 4.1: Key plan for the Water Tank Upper Floor (1F) and Ground Floor (GF)

4.2.1 Beam Design

For beam design, the reports are at the appendix part of this report. The resulting

outputsfrom the StructuralSoftwaresareas followings:

GroundBeam(GB); First Floor Beam(1B)

For GB I= GB2 = 1B1 =I B2
Proposedsize: 2T12 top and bottom bar
3x R6 - 175 link
For GB3 = GB4 = 1B4 = 1B5
Proposedsize: 2T12 top and bottom bar
3x R6 -175 link

Table 4.1 and 4.2 showsthe Summationof Individual BeamLoadings and Reactionsfor
the upper floor of the water tank structure,and the calculation for Beam 4 in Floor 1
(1B4) from the EsteemStructuralSoftware:

24
Table 4.1: Summation of Individual Beam Loadings and Reactions
I--------------------------------------------------------------------I
I Beam Name I LL/DL I Loadings, kN I Reactiona, kN I Difference, kN I
I --------------------------------------------------------------------I
I 1F3 I LL I 2.5 I 2.5 1 0.0 I
I 1F3 I DL 1 2.8 1 2.8 1 0.0 I

I 1F4 I LL 1 5.0 I 5.0 I 0.0

I 1F4 I DL 1 4.1 1 4.1 1 0.0

I 1F5 I LL 2.5 I 2.5 I 0.0

I 1F5 I DL I 2.8 2.8 I 0.0

I 1F1 I LL I 7.5 I 7.5 I 0.0

1F1 I DL I 7.7 I 7.7 I -0.0

I 1F2 LL I 7.5 7.5 I 0.0

1F2 I DL I 7.7 I 7.7 I -0.0

--------------------------------------------------------------------
I SUM OF ABOVE I Loadings, kN I Reactions, kN I Difference, kN
--------------------------------------------------------------------
I LIVE LOAD, kN I 25.0 I 25.0 I 0.0
I DEAD LOAD, kN I 25.0 I 25.0 I -0.0
--------------------------------------------------------------------

Table 4.2: Summationof Key Plan Load Input

I Element I Load Type I Dead Load, kN I Live Load, kN I

Slab I Area load I 10.8 I 20.0 I

Slab I Internal UDL I 0.0 I 0.0 I
Slab Edge UDL I 0.0 º 0.0 I
I Slab I Point load I 0.0 I 0.0

I Slab I SUM of Above 1 10.8 1 20.0 1

I Beam I SelfWeight I 10.1 I 0.0 I

I Beam I UDL 0.0 I 0.0 I
I Beam I Point load I 0.0 I 0.0 I
I Beam I VariableLoad I 0.0 I 0.0 I
--------------------------------------------------------------
I Beam I SUM of Above 1 10.1 1 0.0 1

18: SUM of KEYPLAN INPUTI 20.9 1 20.0 1

I Column 1 Point load 1 0.0 1 0.0 1

I Wall I Point load 1 0.0 1 0.0 1

--------------------------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------------------------
I T: SUM of ALL THE ABOVEI 20.9 1 20.0 1
--------------------------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------------------------

25
I A: SUM BEAM TAKE-OFF 20.9 1 20.0
I B: SUM COLUMN TAKE-OFF I 0.0 I 0.0

--------------------------------------------------------------
I C: SUM LOAD TAKE-OFF I 20.9 1 20.0 1

--------------------------------------------------------------
I D: SUM COLUMN REACTIONSI 20.9 I 20.0 1

--------------------------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------------------------
I DIFFZRENCE: T-CI0.0 I 0.0 I
--------------------------------------------------------------
I DIFFERENCE: T-DI I 0.0** I
-0.0
** The difference is due to Live Load pattern is OFF I

--------------------------------------------------------------

BEAM MARIO: 1F4

DESIGN THE SUPPORT MCHENT FOR MOST CRITICAL LIVE LOAD PATTERN

DESIGN FOR CONTINUOUS BEAM

ALONG GRID : B;

CodeOfPractics fcu fys fyv cover span

SS8110: 1985 25 460 460 25 1

Span No Span-m Width-mm Depth-ma F-width F-depth

1 1.00 200 300 200 0

Span Load Type D. L. L. L.

No kN; kN/m
1 udi 1.44 0.00
1 symm. tri-lar 5.40 10.00

DESIGN FOR LEAD LOAD AND LIVE LOAD:

Design for the following load factors: -

Dead Load - 1.40; Live Load - 1.60 Wind Load = 0.00

1.40*DEAD LOAD & 1.60*LIVE LOAD FACTORED MOMENT-kNm

Span No Left LFacs Span RFace Right CutSpan

1 -0.0 -0.7 2.3 -0.7 -0.0 -0.0

Moment & Shear Curtailment, CutSpan is at 25 percent of Span

Design for Moment at support centre

1.40*DEAD LOAD fi 1.60*LIVE LOAD FACTORED SHEAR-kN

Span No Left LFaco Cutapan RFace Right

1 6.9 6.5 5.0 6.5 6.9

26
Design for Shear at support centre

Span AREA OF REBAR-mm2 REBAR ARRANGEMENT -Top/Bottom Side

No. Left Span Right Left Span Right Bar

1 90 90 90 2T12= 2x1 2T12= 2x1 2T12= 2x1 Top

78 90 78 2T12= 2x1 2T12= 2x1 2T12= 2x1 Bot

Support Support Reaction-kN

No D. L. L. L.

1 2.1 2.5
2 2.1 2.5

Span Stress-N/mm2 Vc-N/mm2 Link Dafl'n

No L CutBpan RL CutSpan RLSR ratio
1 0.14 0.10 0.14 0.53 0.53 0.53 6-125 6-125 6-125 12.09

DEFLECTION CHECK FOR SPAN NO. 1:

Refer to Table 3.10, Table 3.11 & Table 3.12 of BS8110: 1985
(As in Table 4.3,4.4 and 4.5)

Eqn. 8,
fs = 5fy*As, regd/(8As, prov) = 5*460*90/(8*226) = 114.4 N/mm^2

Eqn. 7, Tension Modification Factor,

TMF = 0.55 + (477-fs)/(120*(0.9+M/bd^2))
= 0.55 + (477-114.4)/(120*(0.9+2215333/(200*269.0^2)))
= 3.42

Actual Beam span/depth ratio = 1000/269.0 = 3.7

Eqn. 9, Compression Modification Factor,
MF1 = 1+As/(3+As/) = 1+0.42/(3+0.42) = 1.12

Allowable span/depth ratio = TMF*MF1*BasicRatio

= 2.00*1.12*20 = 44.9

Modification fac = 2.25; Deflection ratio = 12.08; Steel

= 0.42 percent

Actual Beam span/depth ratio < Allowable span/depth

ratio, i. e. 3.7 < 44.9 --> Deflection O. K.

27
Table 4.3: Modification Factor for TensionReinforcement
Service stream 1Lbd'
0.50 0.15 1.00 1.50 2.00 3.00 4.00 5.00 6.00

100 `2.00 2.00 2.00 1.86 1.63 1.36 1.19 1.08 1.01
130 2.00 2.01) 1.98 1.69 1.49 1.25 1.11 1.01 0.94
(ft. = 250) 167 2.00 2.00 1.91 1.63 1.44 1.21 1.08 0.99 0.92

200 2.00 1.95 1.76 1.51 1.35 1.14 1.02 0.94 0.88
250 1.90 1.70 1.55 1.34 1.20 1.04 0.94 0.87 0.82
:300 1.60 1.44 1.33 1.16 1.06 0.93 0.85 0.80 0.76

(f, = 460) 307 1.56 1.41 1.30 1.14 1.04 0.91 0.84 0.79 0.76
NIYI'E 1 The values in the table derive from the equation:
(4 , -f') 5 2.0
Modification factor - 0.55 + equation ,
120 0.9
3f \ I
-
bd
where
Al is the design ultimate moment at the centre of the span or, for a cantilever, at the support.
NOTE 2 The design service stress in the tension reinforcement in a member may be estimated from the equation:
2f: " F.
m _, x1 equation S
3A. b
n
NOTE 3 For a continuous beam, if the percentage of redistribution is not known but the design ultimate moment at mid-span is
obviously the same as or greater than the elastic ultimate moment, the stress f in this table may he taken as 2'3fß_

Table 4.4: Modification Factor for CompressionReinforcement

Factor
ono`'ý.
bdý,
0.00 1.00
0.15 1.05
0.25 1.08
0.35 1.10
0.50 1.14
0.75 1.20
1.0 1.25

1.5 1.33
2.0 1.40
2.5 1.45
21-3. () 1.50
NOTE 1 The values in this table are derived from the following equation:
Modification factor for compression reinforcement
100A', 100.4'
1+ prow' O + i: r:, equation 9
hd ' bd
NOTE 2 The area of compression reinforcement A used in this table may include all bars in the
compression zone, even those not effectively tied with links.

Table 4.5: Ultimate Bending Moment and ShearForcesin One-Way SpanningSlabs

End support/slab connection At first Middle Interior
interior interior
supports
Simple Continuous support spans

At outer Near middle At outer Near middle

support of end span support ofend span
Moment
o 0.086r1 - 0.04F1 0.0751.7 -0.086F1 0.063F1
- 0.063F1
Shear o. 4F 0.46F 0.6F 0.5F
- -
NOTE F is the total design ultimate load (i 4C; - 1.6q, );
.
/ is the effective span.

28
SHEAR CHECK:
Span No 1 at Left Support ; Shear, V-6.9 kN

Shear Stress, v= V/bd = 6.9*1000/(200*263) = 0.131 N/mm^2

Shear Capacity,
vc = 0.79*((100As/(bd))^1/3)*(400/d)^1/4)*((fcu/25)^1/3)/1.25

Effective depth ratio = max(1,400/d) = max(1,400/263) = 1.524

Concrete Grade ratio = min(40, fcu)/25 = min(40,25)/25 = 1.000

Steel Percentage, 10OAs/(bd) = min(3,0.43) = 0.43

vc =(0.79*(0.43)^1/3*(1.524)^1/4*(1.000)^1/3 )/1.25 = 0.530 N/mm^2

Shear Stress - Shear Capacity =v- vc = vd

= 0.131 - 0.530 = -0.399 N/mm^2

vd < 0.40 N/mm^2 --> Design for vd = 0.40 N/mm^2

Steel area provided by Link size 6= 2*pie*dia*dia/4

= 2*3.1416*6*6/4 = 56.5 mm^2

Link spacing required = 135

Shear Capacity provided by Link = 0.87*220*56.5/(135*200)
= 0.400 N/mm'2

Link provided - R-6-125

Similar reports from Orion StructuralSoftware areattachedin Appendix: BeamDesign.

4.2.2 Column Design

The output for column design is summarizedin tables consisting of main bar and ties

size as well as the detail drawing for each column. Table 4.6 shows the output from
Esteem Structural Software while Table 4.7 shows the output from Orion Structural
Software.

From the tables, it is shown that the design for column for Esteem,Orion, and STAAD
Pro Structural software gives the sameresult (seealso: Appendix: Column Design and
SlabDesign). The output is as following:

29
Main bars: 4T 12
Ties: R6 - 125

Table 4.6: Esteem- Column ReinforcementSchedule

( : () Li_1MN MAIO
C: i(1/A) C: '(? /A) {'.: ( 1 /( ) (' 1(; 'ý< }

I LOOR

(ýýI IýýI It ýI IýýI

I 4_

MAIN HAI: 4T 12 4T12 4T12 _4T12

----ýr--. .
hý, --1-25- --r R ýi- I. ý'rý. rý
fýf_ý-ýýJ fýCi--GýJ
l. l_

F-

(l)
(_' 1\11ýýAF ýiT1 } _4 --AT 1 - ATi ;1
, r

1IL.`_: Rr 12L Ri?> 12r RF 12 r RFl I",

Table 4.7: Orion - Column ReinforcementSchedule

_, ýf h-. Iý.
"--r K-1

ý ýýý
iý r'
ý _- ý
,:I-M4 1,M4 ;:no:
2lH: 004 1 .
ý. R'. ]. yý`. ý .,: f- 1 ., .: .: 1.,. ^. 1:
-,
i1l,

1, r ry . .. -ý
ý

.::;
ý:. : ýý}ý
$2J94
1-04
Noz O,O 2. ,2 D3- : 4`[2i
e:ýe:2ea
41l, '
ý-
ý`r1,r 1lý.,.1ti'1 . ,-. -ýý'ý ý'- Lr1. ý3- ! '".
. i.
- r. - ,.,
IC: : C3 IC4
let

30
43 COMPARISON AND DISCUSSION

4.3.1 Engineering Specification/Applicability

When designingusing Esteemand Orion StructuralSoftware,usersare given choicesof

which specification or code of practice to be used.As for Esteem,the choicesconsistof

British Standard (BS) 8110 - Structural Use of Concrete,CP65, ACI-318, and AS-
3600.

Orion choices of code or practice range from BS8110, CP65, BS6399 - Loadings for
Buildings, and BS8666 - Scheduling, Dimensioning, Bending, and Cutting of Steel
Reinforcementfor Concrete.

However, for STAAD Pro, the applicability is highest as the users do not have to

choosewhich code they prefer, but the software will analyzethe design in accordance
to all code of practice available, and compare them to produce the most optimum
results. Among codes used by the software are BS8110, BS5950 - Structural Use of
Steelwork in Building, BS5400 - Steel, Concrete,and Composite Bridges, BS8007 -
Design of Concrete Structures for Retaining Aqueous Liquids, IS: 800, AASHTO,
ASCE, AISC, and API. As an example, for beam design only, the software considers
the following codes:

1. GermanCodes- ConcreteDesign Per DIN 1045

2. FrenchCodes- ConcreteDesignPer B. A. E.L.
3. JapaneseCodes- ConcreteDesign Per AU
4. Australian Codes- ConcreteDesign Per AS3600
5. CanadianCodes- ConcreteDesign Per CSA StandardA23.3-94
6. ChineseCodes- ConcreteDesignPer GBJ 10-89
7. Indian Codes- ConcreteDesign Per IS456
8. British Codes- ConcreteDesign Per BS8110
9. Indian Codes- ConcreteDesign Per IS 13920
10.EuropeanCodes- ConcreteDesign PerEurocodeEC2

31
By default, the Esteem and Orion softwares design was analyzed using the British
Standard8110 code. However, STAAD Pro analysisshould be the most powerful as it

comparesmany codesof practice beforeconcluding its result.

4.3.2 Structural Design

As for structural design, from the reports and output of the softwares, it is safe to

conclude that the design and analysis of the specific water tank structure in this project

are the same. This can be seen from beam and column results which show the same
detailing for the structure. Therefore, the steel weight and concrete weight would be the

same through all three software analysis. Table 4.8 to 4.14 shows an example of how
quantity take off are made for columns.

QUANTITY TAKE-OFF FOR COLUMN

Column Height= 3000 mm; Concrete Grade= G25; Steel = T460 N/mm2

Table 4.8: ConcreteVolume and Formwork Area

----------------------------------------------------------------------
IGridi Column IConcrete, m3lFormwork, m2I Nos IConcrete, m3lFormwork, m2I
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I 1/Al 200 2001 0.1200 1 2.400 I1I0.1200 I 2.400 I
I 2/Al 200 2001 0.1200 I 2.400 1110.1200 I 2.400 I
I 1/CI 200 2001 0.1200 I 2.400 I1I0.1200 I 2.400
I 2/Cl 200 2001 0.1200 I 2.400 I1I0.1200 2.400
---------------------------------------------------------------------
I Total Concrete Volume S Formwork Area 1 0.4800 1 9.600 1
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Total Column Plana Formwork M 9.600 m^3

Table 4.9: Total Lower Column Concretefor Floor Plan: IF

--------------------------------------------------------
I Grade I Volume, m3 I Raw Cost I Placement Cost I
--------------------------------------------------------
I G25 1 0.48000 1 RM 72.0 1 RM 120.0 1
--------------------------------------------------------

32
Table 4.10: Total Lower Column Formwork for Floor Plan: IF
--------------------------------------------------------
I Location I Area, m2 I Raw Cost I Placement Cost I
--------------------------------------------------------
I Bottom 1 9.600 1 RM 240.0 1 RM 288.0 1
--------------------------------------------------------

Table 4.11: Main RebarSteeland Link Weight

(Gridl Rebar weight kq I Link Weight kg I Non I Rabar, kgl Link, kgl
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Il/Al 4T12 12.1 I 24R6-125 3.6 I1I 12.1 I 3.6 I
12/Al 4T12 12.1 I 24R6-125 3.6 I1I 12.1 I 3.6 I
I1/CI 4T12 12.1 I 24R6-125 3.6 11 12.1 I 3.6 I
12/CI 4T12 12.1 1 24R6-125 3.6 I1I 12.1 I 3.6 I

I Total Main Rebar Steel and Link Weight 1 48.2 14.4 1

Table 4.12: Lower Column Main Rebarfor Key Plan: IF

I Diameter I Weight, kg I Raw Cost I Placement Cost I
--------------------------------------------------------
I 12 1 48.1 1 RM 57.8 1 RM 91.4 1
--------------------------------------------------------
I Total 1 48.1 1 RH 57.8 1 RH 91.4 1
--------------------------------------------------------

Table 4.13: Lower Column Link for Key Plan: IF

--------------------------------------------------------
I Diamater I kg
Weight, I Raw Cost I Placement Cost I
--------------------------------------------------------
I61 14.3 1 RM 15.8 1 RH 25.8 1
--------------------------------------------------------
I Total I 14.3 I RM 15.8 I RM 25.8 I
--------------------------------------------------------

Table 4.14: Summationof All of the Above Cost

----------------------------------------------------------------------
I Item IQuantityl Material Cost I Placement Coat I
----------------------------------------------------------------------
1Concrete 1 0.5 m^31 RM 150.0 RM 72 1 RM 250.0 RM 120 1
1F1atFormworkl 9.6 m^21 RM 25.0 RM 240 1 RM 30.0 RM 288 I
ICircularForml 0.0 m^21 RM 25.0 RM 01 RM 30.0 RM 01
IMain Bar T12148.1 kg I RM 1.20 RM 58 1 RM 1.90 RM 91 1
ILink Bar R 6114.3 kg I RM 1.10 RM 16 RM 1.80 RM 26 I
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I SUMMTION OF ABOVE I RM 386 I RM 525 I
----------------------------------------------------------------------

33
The costingsare due to default Esteemproject quantity parametersas in Figure 4.2:

I Q
Setting Parameter Template

Camion DetailingLays Seeing Plan Layer Seeing I BeamDetairg LayerSettig 1 Cc to n Detain g LayerSetting
FoolingDetailingLayer Seeing 3D Raine Lays Seeing 3D ModelLayer Settig I Cdurn I Wall
Pad I Pie I Raft Foundation I Plan I Plan Beam 1 Plan Slab I Plan Cokann
I 1 Project Quarl* yParameters
Project General Parameters Project Design Parameter Project Detailing Parameters

Concrete Mid Steil I Hip, YmIdSteel BRC

G,ede IMPmmýtt DW Raw P'ment Diem Raw Pment Type Raw P'ment
20 1150.0 250.0 6 1.1 1.8 10 1.2 1.9 A6 7.0 10.0
25 150.0 250.0 10 1.1 1.8 12 1.2 1.9 A7 8.6 12.0
30 150.0 250.0 12 1.1 1.8 16 1.2 1.9 AB 10.4 14.0
35 150.0 250.0 16 1.1 1.8 20 1.2 1.9 AS 11.4 16.0
40 150.0 250.0 20 1.1 1.8 25 1.2 1.9 A10 12.4 18.0
45 150.0 250.0 25 1.1 1.8 32 1.2 1.9
50 150.0 250.0 32 1.1 1.8 40 1.2 1.9
150.0 250.0 50 1.2 1.9

Raw Cat I Place tCod oanäfiwJm" 9ý1

31
25 0 30.0 ConnsOe
Tinber Plaric za
20.0 30.0
Pkwxiod Man Steel ý
Loan Concrats I 15.0 25.0
Grreney Unk Excavation for Foundation
RM Depth(mk 20 Cost(porm"3T 15
.0

_i

Smro. Eai C&VDW

Figure 4.2: Esteem Project Quantity Parameters

The justification for the sameresulting output from Esteem, Orion, and STAAD Pro
structural software might be due to the structural design of the water tank itself. The
design is consideredtoo safe becausethe beam and column size are large. Therefore,if
the beam and column size are decreasedto an extent that the structureis about to fail,
the resulting output from the softwares might differ. This is discussedmore in the
recommendationpart of the report.

Manual calculation is done as attachedin the Appendix: Manual Calculation for Water
Tank Structure. Using the results from Esteem Structural Software, CSC Orion,

34
STAAD Pro, as well as the manual calculation, a comparison has been made as in Table
4.15.

Table 4.15: Comparisonof Beamand Column Elements

Dimension ProposedSteel Size(mm)
Element % Difference
(mm) Software Manual
Beam GB1 12 4.86 146.9
GB2 12 4.86 146.9
GB3 12 2.42 395.9
GB4 12 2.42 395.9
1B1 200 x 300 12 6.94 72.9
1B2 12 6.94 72.9
1B3 12 6.94 72.9
1B4 12 6.94 72.9
1B5 12 6.94 72.9
Column C1 12 12 0
C2 12 12 0
200 x 200
C3 12 12 0
C4 12 12 0

The proposedsize of steel in the table refers to the proposedsize of top steel bar in the
beamelements.The three softwaresproducedthe samesize for steel reinforcementsize;
therefore, it is located in the same column. From the table, there is a big difference
between proposedsteel size of beamsfrom the softwaresand the manually calculated.
The percentagedifference is shown on the % difference column. As for column design,
the percentagedifference is zero.

It is safe to assume that the softwares provided a very safe design to the water tank

structure. This is due to the parameters in the design, that the author has to fix the

minimum available steel bar size in the market is 12 mm. Therefore, even though the
software calculated for smaller size of steel bar, it still has to propose the steel size
according to the minimum diameter available from the fixed parameters in the software.

35
433 User-Friendliness of Software

The author hasbeenused to EsteemStructural Softwareduring her internship,therefore

Esteemis the most easyto handle software among three. The parametersare already a
default according to the code of practice that the user has already chosen in the early

stage of design. The author took 1 month to master the usage of Esteem under the
supervision of her colleague engineers. However, Esteem structural software gets
hangedor unexpectedlycometo a statewhich no further operationscan be carried out

when designing multistorey structures,especially more than five storeys. In this case,
Orion is better when designing high rise structures,however for this project; the water
tank structureis only 2 storey heightthus there is no problem designing it using Esteem
StructuralSoftware.

For Orion Structural Software, the parametersare almost the same as Esteem, only a
little more complicated.Usershave to edit manually any modification to eachelement

of beam and column. For example, if the user wants to changethe size of beam for the
whole floor, he or she must do it manually one by one, while using Esteem, user can
easily selectall floor beamsand modify onceand for all.

Other minus for Orion is that the software automatically default the height of column
for each floor. In the early stageof software design, user is promptedwith a screento

choosethe height of floors. By default, the height of floor will be the height of column
and stump as well. As for Esteem,the height of also default for eachfloor, but user can
still edit manually for certain situations. This includes the stump height. Stumpheight
for this water tank structure is 1000 mm; thereforethe author has to modify the stump
height in the Ground Floor elements.In Orion, the stump height has to be designedas
default floor height, which is 3000 mm.

However, Orion parametersand featuresare more advance.The detailing includes the

bar reinforcementbending and cutting which is a plus comparedto Esteem.Users can

also choose the steel size needed for each beam according to their needs and

36
immediately see the failure notification even before analyzing the design. This ease

usersa lot as analyzing processtook a long time and wore out the computeras well.

As for STAAD Pro, at first, the parametersare difficult to understand.However, after

training and lessonsfrom personsand tutorials, the author managedto use the softwares
successfully.At first, the author fords it difficult to usethe grid alignment parametersin
STAAD becausethe software does not provide easy grid alignment as in Esteem and
Orion. In STAAD Pro, usershave to fix the dimension of eachgrid lines in a certain A
times A (A x A) boxes. This is a problem becausethe first water tank design is in
awkward values (say, 2440 mm). Therefore, the author has to modify the water tank
architecturedesign so that it can satisfy the requirementsof STAAD Pro software.

Using STAAD Pro needs much effort or skill becauseusers have to input all data
themselvesand not just choosefrom certain range.Therefore, STAAD Pro is the most
difficult software to handle among all three softwares.Only experiencedusersmanage
to use STAAD Pro as default software for structural design. New users are
recommendedto useEsteemStructuralSoftware.

37
 CHAPTER 5

CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATION

5.1 CONCLUSION

As a conclusion,there is no difference in the design output from the three softwaresfor

this particular structural design, thereforethe costing for the water tank structureis the
same.All three softwaresare applicable and can be usedeven by new users,as long as
there are sufficient training and lessons.The findings of this project are simplified into
following table:

Table 5.1: Comparison on Esteem, Orion, and STAAD Pro.

Comparison Esteem Orion STAAD

Applicability High High Highest
Codeof Practice BS81l0 BS8110 BS8110
CP65 CP65 BS5950
ACI-318 BS6399 BS5400
AS-3600 BS8666 BS8007
IS:800
AASHTO
ASCE
AISC
API
Structural Design
SteelWeight Same Same Same
ConcreteWeight
Cost
User Rate Easy Intermediate Difficult
Usagein Indus Low-Rise Hi Rise Power User

38
5.2 RECONIlIMNDATION

For future research,the structural design should be more complicated in order to get
different output from the softwares, for example, a two-storey bungalow or a

multistorey apartment building. These complicated designsmight results in different

output from different softwaresas it involves a lot more calculationand arrangements.

In terms of sizing, the member size for beams and columns for example, should be

minimized so that the load distribution is designed to be in critical condition. When

member size is minimized, the software will design for larger steel reinforcementsize,
thereforethis may be the startingpoint for differing output from various softwares.

The structural design should also includes staircasedesign, concrete wall, and pile
foundation so that the project becomes more applicable and trustworthy. Raft
foundation canalso be consideredas the new elementsfor comparison.

In terms of software, future researchcan be done with more softwaresthat are used in
the industry. This includesPROKON, SAAP 2000 and so on.

It is hoped that with more elements to compare and more softwares used, the

comparisonof the respectivestructural design will be more complicatedand therefore,

will havemore findings and discussionparts.

39
 REFERENCES

1. Abdul Kadir Marsono,"Tall Building System:Analysis and Design"

2. British Standard:BS6399- Loadings for Buildings; 1996

3. British Standard:BS8110- StructuralUse of Concrete;1997

4. Chuck Eastman,Paul Teicholz, Rafael Sacks,and Kathleen Liston, 2008, "BIM

Handbook-A Guide to Building Information Modeling for Owners,Managers,

Designers"

5. Edward G. Nawy, 2005, ReinforcedConcrete-A FundamentalApproach"

6. EsteemInnovation Sdn. Bhd., 1994,"EsteemPlus User Manual"

7. Faizah binti Muhammad Noh, 2007, "Research on Application of Structure

EngineeringSoftware"

8. G. F. Salazarand C.E. Conron, 2009, "The Use of Object-Oriented Software in

the Civil EngineeringCurriculum and UndergraduateProjectsat WPI"

9. Greg Hoback, 2006, "BIM + The Structural Engineer"

10. http://www. cscworld.com, December2008

11. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Structural_design,April 2009

12. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Building_InfonnationModeling, October2009

13. JosienitaBorlongan,2008, "About EngineeringSoftware"

14. ShanonFauerbach,P.E., 2007, "BIM and Civil Engineering"

15. Strafaci,Adam, 2008, "What DoesBIM Mean For Civil Engineers?

"

16. The ConcreteSociety, 1989,"StandardMethod of Detailing StucturalConcrete"

17. W. H. Mosley, J. H. Bungey and R. Hulse, 1999,"Reinforced ConcreteDesign"

40
APPENDIX
rorfakhriah Yaakub
REINFORCEMENT DESIGN

1 Storey: l
I 1B3 L=1000mm
wm)-_ 200 x 300
: BfxHf

UDL G-1.5 O"0 kWm

1.092

wogewo

-1.G92
0.474 0.474

igtTop. Edge)
J. m) _... 0.47 0.06 0.47
im) 263.0 263.0 263.0
0.01 0.01
2.92
0.00 2.92
im) 2.92
nm2) 4.7 4.7
0.0
0.6 0.0
nm2) 0.0
,in 78.0 78.0 78.0
g(Lower Edgej
__
4. m) 0.32 0.27 0.32
im) 266.0 266.0 266.0
0.01 0.00 0.01
im) 2.96 2.96 2.96
nm2) 3.2 2.7 3.1
nm2) 0.0 0.0 0.0
in 78.0 78.0 78.0
:)esign_.
_.
cN) 1.692 1.692
-nm2) 0.03 0.03
0.53 0.38 0.53
x 4.00
i (kN) 54.550
n) 0.0 0.0
a T6-175 T5-175 T6-176
ion Check
1 ... 3.76 < 44.97 OK
ad Steei Areas m_
m2)
ige 226.2 226.2 226.2
j Edge 84.8 84.8 84.8
ars ...
ar 2T12
:)p Bar

'p Bar

i Bar 3T6
i Bar
of Bar

Lam
)orfakhriahYaakub
REINFORCEMENT DESIGN

1 Storey: 2
2B6 L=1000mm
ým"-'ý--- 200 x 300
3BfxHf

G-1.2
Q-4

i
_.
0.1 0.9
0.5
UDL (4-1.5 Q-2 kWlm
4.286

-4.2G9

0259 0.259
M

-1.118
9ýTPP_EdfleL""__
J. m) 0.26 0.26
im) 263.0 263.0
0.00 0.00
im) 2.92 2.92
iim2) 2.6 2.6
nm2) 0.0 0.0
iin 78.0 78.0 78.0
, Lgwer Edge) ..
4.m) 0.66 1.12 0.68
im) 266.0 266.0 266.0
0.01 0.02 0.01
im) 2.96 2.96 2.96
nm2) 6.5 11.1 6.5
nm2) 0.0 0.0 0.0
,in 78.0 78.0 78.0
]esign...
__
4.266 4.266
<N)
nm2) 0.08 0.08
0.38 0.38 0.38
x 4.00
i(kN) 54.550
n) 0.0 0.0
II T6-176 T6-175 T6-175
ion Check
1 ...
3.76 < 44.97 OK
ed Steel Areas (mm2) i
ige -- 226.2 226.2 226.2
84.8 84.8 84.8
ears...
Sr 2T12

)p Bar

V Bar

i Bar Ma
iBar
of Bar
ars

: FYPWaterTank
)Orfakhriah Yaakub
REINFORCEMENT DESIGN

2 Storey: 2
12B7 L=1000mm
ImmJ 200 x 300
sBfxFlf

Gß. 4
Q=8

0.5 0.9
0.1
UDL G-1.5 Q"2 kMlm
5.882

-5.882

m
I

-1.845
12-(ToeEa9e1-
J.m) 0.00 0.00
Im) 263.0 263.0
0.00 0.00
Im) 2.92 2.92
nm2) 0.0 0.0
nm2) 0.0 0.0
in 78.0 78.0 78.0
19-(LowerEdge)._
4"m) 1.85 -1.14
114
IM) 266.0 266.0 266.0
0.02 0.03 0.02
Im) 2.96 2.96 2.96
Yxn2) 11.3 18.3 11.3
nm2) 0.0 0.0 0.0
'` ' 78.0 78.0 78.0
)esign__
cN) 5.882
5.882
nm2) 0.11 0.11
0.38 0.38 0.38
x 4.00
ý (kN) 54.550
n) 0.0 0.0
T&17b
I T6-176 16-176
ion Check
1 ... 3.76 < 44.97 OK I
ad Steel Areas (mm2l
19e r 226.2 12-6].
2
226.2
1-Edge 84.8 84.8
tars
... 2T12
3PBar

V Bar

iBar 32H
I Bar
of Bar

aB

FYPWatarTank
IorfakhriahYaakub
REINFORCEMENT DESIGN

3 Storey: l
II B4 L=1000mm
LM-MA 200 x 300
! B(XHf

ý __ .__i

-7.892
0474 0.474
bNOWNRIA

nt

-0.32 -0.32

To Ede...
J.m) 0.47 0.06 0.47
Im) 263.0 263.0 263.0
0.01 0.00 0.01
Im) 2.92 2.92 2.92
nm2) 4.7 0.6 4.7
nm2) 0.0 0.0 0.0
'Ni 78.0 78.0 78.0
Lower Edge)
... 0.32
'i"m) 0.32 0.27
im) 266.0 266.0 266.0
0.01 0.00 0.01
Im) 2.96 2.96 2.96
nm2) 3.2 2.7 3.1
nm2) 0.0 0.0 0.0
lin 78.0 78.0 78.0
)esi n
... 1.692
, N) 1.692
'nm2) 0.03 0.03
0.53 0.38 0.53
x 4.00
l (kN) 54.550
n) 0.0 0.0
s T6-175 T6-175 TS-176
:ion Check
...
I 3.76 < 44.97 OK
ed Steel Areas (mm2)
Jge 226.2 226.2 226.2
! EOge 84.8 84.8 84.8
ears...
2T12
ar
)p Bar

)p Bar

i Bar 316
iBar
of Bar

ars

: FYPWaterTank
)orfakhriah
Yaakub
REINFORCEMENT DESIGN

3 Storey: 2
12B8 L=1000mm
200 x 300
3BfxHf

G02
ßH

0.9_

UDL G-1.5 Q-! kWm

4.296

-4288

10250 0.259
rH

-1.118
i To Ed e
J.m) ... 0.26 0.26
IM) 263.0 263.0
0.00 0.00
IM) 2.92 2.92
nm2) 2.6 2.6
nm2) 0.0 0.0
in 78.0 78.0 78.0
Lower Edge)
4.m) ... 0.66
0.66 1.12
im) 266_0 266.0 266.0
0.01 0.02 0.01
Im) 2.96 2.96 2.96
nm2) 6.5 11.1 6.5
nm2) 0.0 0.0 0.0
78.0 78.0 78.0
iin
)esi n
.. 4.266
4266
,nm2) 0.08 0.08
0.38 0.38 0.38
x 4.00
i(kN) 54.550
0.0 0.0
0.0
n)
T6-175 T5-175 T5-175
ion Check
...
3.76<44.970K
adSteel Areas mm2
Joe 226.2 226.2 226.2
i Edge 84.8 84.8 84.8
ears...
ar 2712
)p Bar

)p Bar

iBar m
iBar
of Bar

am
)Orfakhriah
Yaakub
REINFORCEMENT DESIGN

A Storey: 1
II BI L=2000mm
mm 200 x 300
. BixFtf

ý__,
UDL G-1.5 Q-0 kWm
2.191

-2.191 0.923
0.923

nt
-0.481

19(Top Edge)
9"m) 0.92 0.00 0.92
im) 263.0 263.0 263.0
0.02 0.00 0.02
m) 2.92 2.92 2.92
rm2) 9.2 0.0 9.2
nm2) 0.0 0.0 0.0
iin 78.0 78.0 78.0
i Lower Edge)
J.m) ... 0.49 0.27
0.25
Im) 266.0 266.0 266.0
0.00 0.01 0.00
Im) 2.96 2.96 2.96
Yºm2) 2.5 4.9 2.7
nm2) 0.0 0.0 0.0
lin 78.0 78.0 78.0
Desin..
<N) 2.191 2.191
Tm2) 0.04 0.04
0.53 0.38 0.53
x 4.00
i (kN) 54.550
0.0 0.0
n)
T6-175 T6-175 T6-175
ion Check
...
1 7.52 < 44.97 OK
edSteel Areas (mm2)
Ige 226.2 226.2 226.2
84.8 84.8 84.8
;ars...
ar 2T12
) Bar

V Bar

i Bar 3TB
iBar
of Bar

as

FYPWaterTank
)OfakhriahYaakub
REINFORCEMENT DESIGN

A Storey: 2
12B4 L=2000mm
mm 200 x 300
I BfxHf

G=1 2 12
(3-4 4

0.1 0.5 0.9 ---

1.1 1.5 1.9
l11)L ß=1 5 0-9 kNlm

-11.473

1.2401
M , 12ý8

-5.961
i To Ede...
J.m) 1.25 1.25
m) 263.0 263.0
0.02 0.02
Im) 2.92 2.92
nm2) 12.5 12.5
nm2) 0.0 0.0
n 78.0 78.0 78.0
1 Lower Edge)
... 2.56
q.m) 2.56 5.96
IM) 266.0 266.0 266.0
0.05 0.11 0.05
im) 2.96 2.96 2.96
nm2) 25.4 59.0 25.4
nm2) 0.0 0.0 0.0
in 78.0 78.0 78.0
)esic n
.. 11.473
cN) 11.473
0.22 0.22
nm2)
0.38 0.38 0.38
x 4.00
i (kN) 54.550
n) 0.0 0.0
I T6-175 T6-175 T6-175
ion Check
...
1 7.52 < 44.97 OK
edSteel Areas mm2
Jge 226.2 2262 2262
I Edge 84.8 84.8 84.8
Ars
ar ... 2712
) Bar

3 Bar

iBar 3TS
' Bar
of Bar

Ars
)Orfakhriah
Yaakub
REINFORCEMENT DESIGN

B Storey: l
1B2 L=2000mm
mm 200x300
BfxHf

-2.191
0.923 0.923

nt
i
-0.491

To Ede...
t. m) 0.92 0.00 0.92
im) 263.0 263.0 263.0
0.02 0.00 0.02
im) 2.92 2.92 2.92
nm2) 9.2 0.0 9.2
nm2) 0.0 0.0 0.0
in 78.0 78.0 78.0
Lower Edge)
4.m) .. 0.49 0.27
0.25
im) 266.0 266.0 266.0
0.00 0.01 0.00
Im) 2.96 2.96 2.96
nm2) 2.5 4.9 2.7
nm2) 0.0 0.0 0.0
in 78.0 78.0 78.0
?esign..
cN) 2.191 2.191
'nm2) 0.04 0.04
0.53 0.38 0.53
x 4.00
i(kN) 54.550
n) 0.0 0.0
I T6-175 T6-175 T6-175
ion Check
...
I 7.52 < 44.97 0K
zd Steel Areas mm2
ige 226.2 226.2 226.2
j Edge -8--
;ars
ar ... 2T113
V Bar

)p Bar

1 Bar 32fl
1 Bar
of Bar

ae
 Yaakub
)Orfakhriah
REINFORCEMENT DESIGN

B Storey: 2
2B5 L=2000mm
mm 200 x 300
_
: BfxHf

G=12 1.2
Q4 4

ý0.1--- 0.5 -0.9 __

1.1 1.5 1.9

UDL Q=1.5 "- kWm

-11.473

1.248 1.248
M

-5- 981
To dge) ...
1_25 1.25
.m
IM) 263.0 263.0
0.02 0.02
im) 2.92 2.92
nm2) 12.5 12.5
nm2) 0.0 0.0
in 78.0 78.0 78.0
19 Lower Edge)
J.m) .. 5.96 2.56
2.56
IM) 266.0 266.0 266.0
0.05 0.11 0.05
im) 2.96 2.96 2.96
nm2) 25.4 59.0 25.4
nm2) 0.0 0.0 0.0
in 78.0 78.0 78.0
)esi n
... 11.473
(N) 11.473
nm2) 0.22 0.22
0.38 0.38 0.38
x 4.00
i (kN) 54.550
n) 0.0 0.0
TS-175 T6-175. T6-17.6
ion Check
I ... 7.52 < 44.970K
ad Steel Areas (mm2)
ige 226.2 2262 226.2
Edge_..f 84.8
ears...
3r 2T12
V Bar

Bar

i Bar 3I&
I Bar
of Bar

Vs

F1'PWaterTank
 NoortakhAah.
Yaakub orio
JMN REINFORCEMENTDESIGN Orion BuildingDesignSystem 14.0 (01.200

I Storey: I (Concrete:C25 / Steel: Grade460 (Type 2

oadings(Combination):
No N M1 t) M2 (bot) M1 (top) M2 (top)
127.289 01 0.02 0.02
2 -0.01
27.289 -0.01 -0.01 0.02 0.02
3 27.289 0.02 0.02
4 -0.01 -0.01 0.02
17.811 -0.04 -0.01 0.08
5 21.387 0.06 0.02
6 -0.03 -0.01 0.02 0.01
18.535 -0.01 -0.01
7 21.695 0.27 0.01
-0.01 -0.22
8 22.789 0.28 " 0.01
9 21.148 -029 -0.01
0.27 0.03
-0.01 -0.24
10 23.336 0.03 0.28
-0.01 -0.29
%riticaiCombination: 1 (G+Q "F)
-
Min Design
I (kN) 27.289 - 27.289 ý--ý
41 (kN.m 0.02 0.27 0.00
42 (kN.m) 0.02 0.27 0.54 200
I-max (kN) 556.074 0

ConcreteCover = 25.0 mm
158110-CI.3.8.4.5 Short Column...
N/bhFcu= 0.027 Le1/b1 = 10.4 < 15 200
Beta = 0.97 Le2/b2 = 10.3 < 15
M-add(1/2)-0.00 / 0.00 kN.m
SX/y 0.040/ 0.008 kN Required): (% 0.10 40.0 mm2
As ýProvided): 4T12
c'(XfY)= 0.44 / 0.44 N/mm2 As (% 1.13; 452.4 mm2
(XN= 0.00 / 0.00 N1mm2
.Inks = T6-125
t Storey: I (concrete: C25 / Steel: Grade 460 (Type 2
OaNo9s (COýrNna4oM1
(bot) M2 (bot) M1 (top) M2 (top)
1 27.289 0.01 0.02 02
-0.01 -0
2 27.289 0.01 0.02 -0.02
3 27.289 -0.01 0.02
-0.01 0.01 -0.02
4 17.811 -0.04 0.01 0-08 -0.02
5 21.387 -0.03 0.01 0.06 -0.02
6 18.535 0.01 0.02
7 -0.01 -0.01
21.695 0.27 0.01 -0.22 -0.01
8 22.789 0.01 . 0.28
-0.29 -0.01
9 23.336 -0.01 0.29 0.03 -0.26 rc_o
10 21.148 0.03 0.24
-0.01 -0.27
:ritical Combination: ) - (G+Q *F)
Mn Design
I (kN) 27.289 - 27.289 S ý
Al (kN. m) 0.02 0.27 0.00 200
42 (kN. m) -0.02 -0.27 -0.54
i-max (kN) 556.074 IM 0
ConcreteCover = 25.0 mm
IS8110-CI.3.8.4.5 Short Column...
N/bhFcu= 0.027 Let/b1 = 10.4 < 15 200
Beta = 0.97 Le2/b2 = 10.3 < 15
M-add(1/2)=0.00 / 0.00 kN.m
d 0.040! 0.008 M As (% 0.10 40.0 mm2 4T12
c xxl/yy As 1rRequired): (% 1.13) 452.4 mm2
`Provided):
(ýxly)ý 0.00 / 0.00 N/mrn2
Inks m T8-125
.
 NoorfakhriahYaakub odo
JMN REINFORCEMENTDESIGN Orion BuildingDesignSystem 14.0 (01.200

3 Storey: I C25/Steel:Grade460(Type2
(Concrete:
cadings (Combination):
No N Ml (bot) M2 (bot) M1 (top) M2 (topa
1 27.289 0.01 0.01 -0.02
2 27.289 0.01 0.01 ... I...,...,....................
-_ -1i...
3 27.289 0.01 0.01
-0.02 -0.02
-0.02 -0.02
4 17.811 0.04 0.01
5 -0.08 -0.02
21.387 0.03 0.01 -0.06
6 18.535 0.01 -0.02
0.01 -0.02 -0.01
7 22.789 0.29 0.01 -0.28 -0.01
8 21.695 0.01 0.22
9 23.336 -0-27 0.29 M OldrD
0.01 -0.03 -0.26
10 21.148 0.01 0.24
-0.27 -0.03
; itical Combination: 1 (G+Q *F)
-
Min Design
I (kN) 27.289 27.289 I*
Al (kN.
kN. m) 0.00
-0.02 -Q27 200
42 m)
I-Max (kN) 556.074-0.02 -0.27 -0.54
ConcreteCover = 25.0 mm a
IS8110-CI.3.8.4.5 Short Column...
N/bhFcu= 0.027 Lei/bi = 10.4 < 15 2OO
Beta - 0.97 Le2/b2 10.3 < 15
M-add(1/2)=0.00 / 0.00 kN.m
c ý*))ý. Ö44ý0.44N/mm2 ý ýovided)Pr ý%1.13; mm2 4T12
As ý 45240.0
mm2
(ýYý= A. 00/ 0.00 N/mm2 .4

.Inks s T6-125

I Storey: 1 (Concrete:C25 / Steel:Grade460 (Type 2

oadings(Combination):
No N M1 (bot) M2 (bot) M1 (top) M2 (top)
1 27.289 0.01 b 02
-0.01 -0.02
2 27.289 0.01 0.02
3 -0.01 -0.02 0.02
27.289 0.01 -0.01 -0.02
4 17.811 0.04 -0.01 -0.08 0.02
5 21.387 0.03 -0.06 0.02
-0.01 0.01
6 18.535 0.01 -0.01 -0.02
7 22.789 0.29 -0.01 -0.28 0.01
8 21.695" -0.01 0.22 0.01
9 -0.27
0.01 0.27 - OS4-0
21.148 -0.03 -0.24
10 23.336 0.01 0.26
-0.29 -0.03
:ritcal. Combination: 1 - (G+Q 'F)
Mim Design
I (RN) 27.289 -
27.289 R
Al (kN. m) -0.02 -027 0.00
t2 (kN. m) 0.02 0.27 0.54- 200
1-max (kN) 556.074
Concrete Cover= 25.0 nm P-
1S8110-CI. 3.8.4.5 ShortColumn...
N/bhFcu= 0.027 Lei/b1 = 10.4< 15
Beta = 0.97 Le2/b2 = 10.3 < 15 . 200
M-add(1/2)=0.00 / 0.00 kN.m
c ý/yr Öý ý0.448 ýPýn)vided): 4T12
N/mm2 As (% 1.13; 452.4 mm2
(x/yý= 0.00 / 0.00 N/mm2
inks = T6-126
.

'ct. FYPWaterTank
 NoorfakhriahYaakub
JMN REINFORCEMENTDESIGN orio
Orion BuildingDesignSystem 14.0 (01.200

S Storey: 2(Coruxete: C25/ Steel:Grade460(Type2

oadings(Combination): ýý.,
No N M1 (bot) M2 (bot) M1 (top) M2(ttop) ,»
1 19.939 -0.63 0.08 1.25
2 -0.14
19.939 -0.63 0.08 1.25 -0.14
3 19.939 0.08 1.25
4 -0.63 -0.14
11.061 -0.21 0.08 0.30 -0.14
5 14.337 0.03 0.93
-0.50 -0.04
6 13.285 0.05 0.82 -0.09
7 -0.42
15.786 -0.37 0.06 0.82 -0.11
8 16.098 . 1.14
-0.65 0.06 -0.11
9 16.244 0.21 0.98
10 -0.51 -0.26
15.640 -0.51 -0.08 0.98 0.04
.dbcal Combination: I (G+Q 'F)
-
Min Design
t (kN) 19.939 - 19.939 ýý
At (kN.
kN. m 1.25 0.20 1.44
42 m) 0.00
200
-0.14
l-max (kN) 556.074 -0.20
M
ConcreteCover = 25.0 nun
lS811O-CI. 3.8.4.5 Short Column...
N/bhFcu= 0.020 Le1/bl = 9.9 < 15 200
Betaa 0.98 Le2/b2- 9.6 < 15
M-add(1/2)=0.00 / 0.00 kN.m
ý SX/y)ý.478 / 0.073 kN As (Required): (p%/
0.10) 40.0 mm2 4T12
lX/Y) 0.44 / 0.43 N/mm2 As (Provided): /Y 1.13) 452.4 mm2
(X/Y): 0.01%0.00 N/mm2
Inka T$-125-
.

i Storey: 2 (Concrete:C25 / Steel: Grade460 (Type 2

oadings(Combination):
No N Ml (bot) M2 (bot) Ml (top) M2 (too
1 19.939 0.63 0.08 -1.25 -0.14
2 19.939 0.63 0.08 -1.25 -0.14
3 19.939 0.63 0.08 -1.25 -0.14
4 11.061 0.21 0.08 -0.30 -0.14
5 14.337 0.50 0.03 -0.93 -0.04
6 13.285 0.42 0.05 -0.82 -0.09
7 16.098 0.65 0.06 -1.14 -0.11
8 15.786 0.37 0.06 -0.82 -0.11
9 16.244 0.51 0.221 -0.98 -0.26
10 15.640 0.51 0.04
-0.08 -0.98
:ritical Combination: 1 - (Gn'F)
w Design
I (kN) ' 19.939 - 19.939
Al (kN.m) -1.25 -0.20 -1.44
42 (kN.m) 0.00 200
-0.14 -0.20
I-max (kN) 556.074
Concrete Cover= 25.0 mm
158110-Cl.
Beta =
3.8.4.5
N/bhFcu= 0.020
0.98
ShortColumn...
Le1/bl = 9.9 < 15
Le2/b2 - 9.6 < 15
.l 200
M-add(112)=0.00 / 0.00 kN.m
c(xly)0.0 ý0.43 f uväedj:f%
% 1.13; mm2 4T12
44 Wmm2 As Pro 4540.0
2.4 mm2
(x/yý= 0.01 / 0.00 N/mm2
Inks T6-126
.

ct: FYPWaterTank
 NooriakhriahYaakub orio
JMN REINFORCEMENTDESIGN Orion BuildingDesignSystem 14.0 (01.200

5 Storey: 2 (Concrete:C25 / Steel: Grade460 (Type 2

oadings(Combination):
No N Ml (bot) M2 (bot) M1 (top) M2 (top)
1 19.939 0.63 0.14
2 -0.08 -1.25
19.939 0.63 -0.08 -1.25 0.14
3 19.939' 0.63 0.14
-0.08 -1.25
4 11.061 0.21 0.14
5 -0.08 -0.30 0.04
14.337 0.50 -0.03 -0.93
6 13.285 0.42 -0.05 -0.82 0.09
7 16.098 0.65 -1.14 0.11
8 -0.06 0.11
15.786 0.37 -0.06 -0.82
9 15.640 0.51 0.08 -0.98 -0.04
' :,ý;:N,. .ý,. .,.. ,
10.16.244 0.51 -0.98 0.26
-0.21
.ritical Combination: 1 (G+Q *F)
-
Min
I (kN) 19.939
-
19.939 Is
41 (kN.m)
42 (kN.m) -1.25 -0.20. -1.44 200
0.14 0.20 0.00
I-max (kN) 556.074
ConcreteCover = 25.0 mm Is «
ISB110-CI.
3.8.4.5 ShortColumn...
N/bhFcu= 0.020 Lei/b1 = 9.9 < 15 ý 200
Beta = 0.98 Le2/b2- 9.6 < 15
M-add(1/2)=0.00 / 0.00 kN.m 4
c (x/y)ý. 478 / 0.073 kN As (Required): (% 0.10) 40.0 mm2 4T12
(x/y)= 0.44 / 0.43 N/mm2 As (Provided): (% 1.13) 452.4 mm2
(ýy)- 0.01 / 0.00 N/mm2
Inks T6-125
.

r Storey: 2" (Concrete:C25 / Steel: Grade460 (Type2

,»ý0
oadings(Combination):
. No N M1 (bot) M2 (bot} M1 (tDp) M2 (top)
1 19.939 125 0.14
-0.63 -0.08
2 19.939 -0.08 1.25 0.14
-0.63 1.25 0.14
3 19.939 -0.63 -0.08
4 11.061 0.30 0.14
-0.21 -0.08 0.93 0.04
5 14.337 -0.50 -0.03
6 13.285 -0.05 0_82 0.09
-0.42 0_82 0.11
7 15.786 -0.37 -0.06
8 16.098 1.14 0.11
-0.65 -0.06
9 15.640 -0.51 0.08 0.98 -0.04
10 16.244 0.98 0.28
-0.51 -0.21
; ritical Combination: 1 - (G+Q `F)
Min
I (kN) 19.939 -
19.939 16
Al (kN.m) 1.25 0.20 1.44
0.20 0.00 200
42 (kN. m) 0.14
I-max (kN) 556.074 M0
ConcreteCover= 25.0 mm
IS8110-CI.3.8.4.5 Short Column...
N/bhFcu= 0.020 Lel/b1 = 9.9 < 15 2P0
Beta = 0.98 " Le2/b2 = 9.6 < 15
M-add(112)=0.00 / 0.00 kN.m
c (x/
( y)= 40.44 (Prroovided):R. 40.0 mm2 4T12
XtY //0.43 N/mm2 As 1.13) 452.4 mm2
NY)00.01 / 0.00 N/mm2
Inks = 76-125
.

Ict: FYPWaterTank
 Final Year Project, Universiti Teknologi PETRONAS; 24-10-2009, Saturda}
4: 20: 47

Water Tank

Slab Detailed Design Calculation:

Code of Practice D. L. L. L. fcu fy cover

BS8110: 1985 1.4 1.6 25 460 25

Data of Slab Mark : FS1; Location: 1-2/A-B

Dimensions, XY Thickness, Thk ImposedLiveLoad, ILL

ImposedDeadLoad, IDL
1000 mm 1000 mm 100 mm 10.00 kN/m^2 3.00 kN/m^2

TotalDeadLoad = SelfWeight + ImposedDeadLoad

= Thk*ConcreteDensity/1000 + IDL = 100*24/1000 + 3.00 = 5.40
Total factored load, Wu = 1.40*5.40+1.60*10.00 = 23.56 kN/m^2
Total factored load*lx*lx, Wu*Lx*Lx = WL = 23.56*1.000*1.000 = 23.56 kNm/m

Long/Short span-ratio, ly/lx = 1000/1000 = 1.00

Span and support coefficients, Bx, By, Bsx, Bsy = 0.042; 0.044; 0.000;
0.058

Moment based on the above coefficients (before redistribution):

Short span moment, Mx = Bx*WL = 0.042 * 23.56 = 1.00
Long span moment, My = By*WL = 0.044 * 23.56 = 1.02
Support long span moment, Msy - Bsy*WL = 0.058 * 23.56 = 1.37

Summary of Moment, Steel Area Required, Rebar Provided:

Mxx Myy Msyl Msy2 Msx1
Msx2
Moment 1.02 1.00 0.00 1.37 0.00
0.00
Area 150 150 150 150 150
150
Rebar T10-175 T10-225 T10-225 T10-225 T10-225 T10-
225

Deflection Check:

Dimensions Y, 1000 < X, 1000 AND bottom of bottom(BB) rebar is spanning Y-

direction:
So effective depth, d= Thickness - cover - YRebar/2 = 100-25-10/2 = 70.0 mn
Span/depth's ratio, Ar = 1/d = 1000/70.0 = 14.3
Basic Span/depth's ratio, Br = 20.0
A= 5fyAs, req /(6As, prov) = 5*460*150/(6*349) = 123.5
B- 120*( 0.9 + M/(b*d^2) )- 120*(0.9+1.00*1000/(7070)_ 132.5
 Modification Factor, MF = 0.55 + (477 - A)/B = 0.55+(477-123.5)/132.5 = 3.2;
Modification Factor, MF = 3.22 > 2.0 ---> MF = 2.0
Slab deflection ratio = MF*Br/Ar = 2.00*20.0/14.29 = 2.80
Ratio >= 1.0 : Deflection check PASSED
-----------------------------------------------------------

Data of Slab Mark : FS2; Location: 1-2/B-C

Dimensions, XY Thickness, Thk ImposedLiveLoad, ILL

ImposedDeadLoad, IDL
1000 mm 1000 mm 100 mm 10.00 kN/m^2 3.00 kN/m^2

TotalDeadLoad = SelfWeight + ImposedDeadLoad

= Thk*ConcreteDensity/1000 + IDL = 100*24/1000 + 3.00 = 5.40
Total factored load, Wu = 1.40*5.40+1.60*10.00 = 23.56 kN/m^2
Total factored load*lx*lx, Wu*Lx*Lx = WL = 23.56*1.000*1.000 = 23.56 kNm/m

Long/Short span-ratio, ly/lx = 1000/1000 = 1.00

Span and support coefficients, Bx, By, Bsx, Bsy = 0.042; 0.044; 0.000;
0.058

Moment based on the above coefficients (before redistribution):

Short span moment, Mx = Bx*WL = 0.042 * 23.56 = 1.00
Long span moment, My = By*WL = 0.044 * 23.56 = 1.02
Support long span moment, Msy = Bsy*WL = 0.058 * 23.56 = 1.37

Summary of Moment, Steel Area Required, Rebar Provided:

Mxx Myy Msyl Msy2 Msx1
Msx2
Moment 1.02 1.00 1.37 0.00 0.00
0.00
Area 150 150 150 150 150
150
Rebar T10-175 T10-225 T10-225 T10-225 T10-225 T10-
225

Deflection Check:

Dimensions Y, 1000 < X, 1000 AND bottom of bottom(BB) rebar is spanning Y-

direction:
So effective depth, d= Thickness - cover - YRebar/2 = 100-25-10/2 = 70.0 ins
Span/depth's ratio, Ar = 1/d = 1000/70.0 = 14.3
Basic Span/depth's ratio, Br = 20.0
A= 5fyAs, req /(8As, prov) = 5*460*150/(8*349) = 123.5
B= 120*( 0.9 + M/(b*d^2) )= 120*(0.9+1.00*1000/(7070)= 132.5
Modification Factor, MF = 0.55 + (477 - A)/B = 0.55+(477-123.5)/132.5 = 3.2:
Modification Factor, MF = 3.22 > 2.0 ---> MF = 2.0
Slab deflection ratio = MF*Br/Ar = 2.00*20.0/14.29 = 2.80
Ratio >= 1.0 : Deflection check PASSED
-----------------------------------------------------------
 ,NfýirR TANI<

'DQQ7", ry` P
oposeä S-.Ze:
ý
iý 3ýArr1 ý2cOm. v, x 300n, r,,

; o03 rylm COLU MN 2oOmm r -2-C)o m,. h

Ir

Jý,
----I 1000 rn m
I

OF

BEAM DESº C-)N

IF.
---- +:_;,
, ý;
i_i_-ý'ýý'ý
ý
_
'F1
1000 . nti,

Seýi }° c"'i ý5
wQiýJ1 mx0.3 mx kN
I"5 kN
m;

Slab 0L ; -0 kN (t"Om )( 0"y m) 0.9.5 kp

x _
m' ý

Ineýrjh\ I. Ow ýý }tiu ýrýk 1 ý11

astarr, nrý aýkc. }c, n1c _ vuý, +Yx woie. wýncn

aoO L aooutc x 9"806 65 Icl 61 15 3N

;< 1m Yým x Im 2
=m-2'`, = "

71 "1 - G133 it"

Slab LL 19 "6133 kN C2mý Cimý : ý. $p665 krJ

= -
m'
ý
To}i, I Lococl = I. Lt C1"5 k0 + oý5 kN) + 1.6 C19 "6 13 3 kN

= 33 "$3 o

hAMQx 33 83 kri 3'458 km m

_ x p"5 m=
2

ý+ ý (ý } 12 _ýFýý Y>11
h "ý aJ

ý= 3oý
-i7 = s63 Mr

j'AN .0 156 ýýýbd' ; (0.156 )cs5ý (200) ýý63)ý ; i3. qýý uN rn I N,.mux
 4 iQIYlýjrt(
J
$"'t58 x ýo p. ý2=ý'S 7 0"0156 -ý ao,ýýy
k_M
3)
C1OO) C>b 3ý' OL
hd'fýý

'0'S ozy Sl
263 ý0 15
? A 0.5 + ý
0 q -ý o"q
--

ý. = ý55 ýG3 rnm

8`t58x o ýc,. ýl mrn

As r!
ý7z (oq5) Cy6oýCýSS IG3ý
o"q5

ý00 As 0 00 )«5- -4i) p. 1'ý6 '1_ ý Y, o K.

o"ý --ý

'o1-1 (1OO) C.lo ol

ý
ý'c(ýýý - ý5 "ý I +vým
ýý

bar dýavre}ýý ý (ý " ý[ý ýnm

-_

cF '. Cý72

,.. ,_ý -,--ý 'ý

uýý ýCz3t, i
r, 3
C-, Wl'i .. ý
II
ýI ý
Iý ý .1 4ºv ý-i kN

Lig j 7900 mw,

0ý rn 5 kW vN
81 gcýF weýh} mxD3 y. o
m

lot-ql 1.4 C3 1cNi : 4-1 lkN

-OUä

N11max c1.7 x l. 0 1 Lt "1 ktil - r^

NIA :5 3"°I 5 '>

1ýNm M. m u rt

V- 4i"'2 x104 d
_ < o'01S(. )S noý1y n6 n6ric
: p. oi21
x
(70J)Cýb3j (ý 5)

ý 0.5 D 35 0. o1Zt
:7 ýG, 3 4 -1
--Lý
ý, ý

Ac `+"ý x10 L ioo( 39'06) o"ob'2 'l. <o"i!, j o"u,

-
37.05 ý
-. mý, Lao) C: ý UJ)

(0"cl 5)(_'t. o)(-z5111 "y)

7tt ý )7 _ 3; oS ým

P Ar O1v, vY\R.'.,-t .ý. y'

ýv6M 1^/ý
 ýS kl,
Cýj3 Ue1ý wezýjl-ý :o "ý Kx03mx x '"o , v, i"5kN
-
°
rn

Toý 1.. 1"`F (J'S) _ D"1 kN

oafi :

Mmax
- a. t c o"5 - 1.09 IcN-vA

M 5395 kN-fA 7 f`l. ma'

:

Lt oS-=ýýr.
uu3oy CO" otS6 tiýnfvYUCd
_=o, -y S nýýy
(.2m) (.a63)2 CaS)

ý O'S t o'2 50 "00304ýý Mm

ý ý63 , ý6ý"ii
_. ýq
o.

6
AS 1"05 Yio : q" i} Yý'
CO*q%)C46o) hý2 "n)

Ioo Cq "0) _0
<0")"!.
-9 ok.
"0I53'/.
('o)

ýrc ýa ý'
z -9 ýi a

i -,., vYýcV-c Ae '} 2 mYY1

bar ., -ý, .
 COI.U MN pES I(IN

I(, .ý26. N h= di 7r7

a6a7, d. $ý rh
ýb. CAx4r+ 2

? oo 37 -IL: 3 ,, h,
-

o "15b ic,, öä a
M4

=
ý
C? a»ý163)

I .14N .I, IkN

111 m ' 20"32 xlp1 0 "tnrn
+r`^

N7 16"q,) + ý"I 19"O'2 kAl

? /rým
a
N 1°t" o) x 10 0 4}55 N

bh (DOZ-) ('Of)

M 20. a') x to C.
_ 9" 5q N"+r. rn ,
(1UU C2 00 )

G om '6S8\10 rAr; 3 CC)r-Arh o4 N M ýr y-eLiAncýwlg. cul. w»f ý

- vs
bi, bh°

loo A: ý'S, AS = 400 mm7

" 4R(
bý,

ä_ 1387 rnm

reposed bo,ý _ `t i i?
d ný3"8? rrm Wu 10o Fýy y} n c'ýzp1ý ý
even ýýwgh rcýuired
\0 l,

d T11Rr-cýft ýýYrý, p/ <Y1}

j ) nx t}-ts Ot t1 MM rLtYtý Ufy\,
UA, tUd QJeýeSy-, ,

b"- -il o,riccjuaýe,

ýx i 3- 87 3- 46 rnvý ý6 mvn
('rororrö \ýrk sýýe "
-

tý, <ý ýU mrn

SrUýý'y 17 x :1 Li`} --
Mr,. -xi 1MVYr

proVoieÖ U rk R6 - 1,50 mm
.