Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

    • 125 views

    Final Report Solid Slab

    Uploaded by

    Chime Morn
    The document summarizes the results of analyzing a floor structure using three different finite element models in SAP and comparing them to the Egyptian code. Model 1 used frame and shell elements without rigid connections between slabs and beams. Model 2 improved on this by using insertion points to connect slabs and beams. Model 3 used T-section profiles instead of rectangular for increased accuracy. Bending moments from the models were generally lower than the code's values, with Model 3 providing the closest results. Increasing the inertia of exterior beams reduced bending moments in the slabs.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Final Report Solid Slab

    Uploaded by

    Chime Morn
    125 views17 pages
    The document summarizes the results of analyzing a floor structure using three different finite element models in SAP and comparing them to the Egyptian code. Model 1 used frame and shell elements without rigid connections between slabs and beams. Model 2 improved on this by using insertion points to connect slabs and beams. Model 3 used T-section profiles instead of rectangular for increased accuracy. Bending moments from the models were generally lower than the code's values, with Model 3 providing the closest results. Increasing the inertia of exterior beams reduced bending moments in the slabs.

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    The document summarizes the results of analyzing a floor structure using three different finite element models in SAP and comparing them to the Egyptian code. Model 1 used frame and shell elements without rigid connections between slabs and beams. Model 2 improved on this by using insertion points to connect slabs and beams. Model 3 used T-section profiles instead of rectangular for increased accuracy. Bending moments from the models were generally lower than the code's values, with Model 3 providing the closest results. Increasing the inertia of exterior beams reduced bending moments in the slabs.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as pdf or txt
    125 views17 pages

    Final Report Solid Slab

    Uploaded by

    Chime Morn
    The document summarizes the results of analyzing a floor structure using three different finite element models in SAP and comparing them to the Egyptian code. Model 1 used frame and shell elements without rigid connections between slabs and beams. Model 2 improved on this by using insertion points to connect slabs and beams. Model 3 used T-section profiles instead of rectangular for increased accuracy. Bending moments from the models were generally lower than the code's values, with Model 3 providing the closest results. Increasing the inertia of exterior beams reduced bending moments in the slabs.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as pdf or txt
    of 17

    Sap Results

    1-Introduction:
    In the first phase we analyzed the floor under gravity loads (Its own weight and
    live load) using Egyptian code strip method. The second phase will analyze the
    floor using finite element models and then compare the different models with the
    Egyptian code output.

    2-Floor Elements and Loads:


    B3=B4=B1=25*70
    Flooring=0.2t/m2
    Equivalent Wall Load=0.15t/m2
    Live Load=0.3t/m2

    Page 1 of 17
    3-Model (1):
    It is the SAP default procedure by making frame element and shell element
    C.G to C.L and it is not the exact model it needs modification.

    3-1-Straining action using this model on slabs and Beams:


    3-1-1-Analysis of slabs:
    Moment in X-Direction (M11):
    Strip(3)
    Strip(2)
    Strip(2)

    Strip(3)

    Strip(1)

    Page 2 of 17
    In Y-Direction(M22): Mxy=M12

    It is obvious that the output of this model (bending moments in slabs) is lower than
    the actual values because of non-taking the frame action between slab and beam as
    the rigid connection between them transfer negative moment to the beams in the
    same time with decreasing positive moments in slabs.

    Page 3 of 17
    3-1-2Analysis of beams:
    For beam on Axe (D):

    For beam on Axe(C):

    For Beam on Axe (1):

    For Beam on Axe (2):

    Page 4 of 17
    Model (2):
    Make Slab on the top of beam by using insertion point procedure
    (Assign…frame …insertion point)

    Straining action using this model on slabs and Beams:


    Analysis of slabs:
    In X-Direction:

    Page 5 of 17
    In Y-Direction:

    Page 6 of 17
    Mxy=M12

    Page 7 of 17
    Analysis of beams
    Beam on Axe (D):

    Beam on Axe (C):

    Beam on Axe (1):

    Beam on Axe (2):

    Page 8 of 17
    Model (3):
    Use T-Section in the Model Instead of Rectangular section
    In this model we use Tf=0.5(Tf from code)
    Tf1=8ts+b=8*0.15+.25=1.45m `

    Tf2=8ts+b=8*0.15+.12=1.m
    Lf=3ts+b=3*0.15+.25=0.7m

    Straining action using this model on slabs and Beams:


    Analysis of slabs:
    In X-Direction: `

    Page 9 of 17
    In Y-Direction:

    Page 10 of 17
    Mxy=M12

    Page 11 of 17
    Analysis of Beams:
    Beam on Axe (D):

    Beam on Axe (C):

    Beam on Axe (1)

    Beam on Axe (2):

    Page 12 of 17
    Comparison between values of Bending Moments In Various strips versus
    models:
    Code Values Model(1) Model(2) Model(3)
    Strip
    %(of %(of
    (1)M11
    1) Value(t.m) 1) Value(t.m) %(of 1) Value(t.m) %(of 1) Value(t.m)
    M1(+ve) 117% 2.8 1 2.4 0.833333 2 0.804167 1.93
    M2(-ve) 122% 2.8 1 2.3 1.391304 3.2 1.173913 2.7
    M3(+ve) 138% 2.34 1 1.7 1.005882 1.71 1 1.7
    Code Values Model(1) Model(2) Model(3)
    Strip
    %(of M2%(of
    (2)M22
    1) Value(t.m) 1) Value(t.m) %(of 1) Value(t.m) %(of 1) Value(t.m)
    M1(+ve) 74% 1.92 1 2.6 0.615385 1.6 0.615385 1.6
    M2(-ve) 52% 2.4 1 4.6 0.782609 3.6 0.782609 3.6
    M3(+ve) 74% 1.92 1 2.6 0.615385 1.6 0.615385 1.6
    Code Values Model(1) Model(2) Model(3)
    Strip
    %(of %(of
    (3)M22
    1) Value(t.m) 1) Value(t.m) %(of 1) Value(t.m) %(of 1) Value(t.m)
    M1(+ve) 48% 1.41 1 2.91 0.573883 1.67 0.676976 1.97
    M2(-ve) 33% 1.76 1 5.3 0.716981 3.8 0.792453 4.2
    M3(+ve) 48% 1.41 1 2.91 0.573883 1.67 0.676976 1.97

    M1 M3

    M2

    M1 M3

    For Model (3) Inertia Comparison


    Page 13 of 17
    Studying the effect of increasing exterior beams inertia on the slab bending moments.
    1- Compare between M11:

    Double Inertia Ordinary Inertia

    Treble Inertia

    Page 14 of 17
    2-Compare between M22:

    Ordinary inertia Double Inertia

    Treble Inertia
    Page 15 of 17
    Compare between M12:

    Ordinary inertia double inertia

    Treble inertia

    Page 16 of 17
    Comparison between values of Bending Moments In Various strips versus
    different inertia:
    Ordinary inertia double inertia Treble inertia
    Strip
    %(of %(of %(of
    (1)M11
    Ordinary) Value(t.m) Ordinary) Value(t.m) Ordinary) Value(t.m)
    M1 100% 0.59 98% 0.58 97% 0.57
    M2 100% 1.1 91% 1 88% 0.97
    M3 100% 0.44 98% 0.43 95% 0.42
    Model(1) Model(2) Model(3)
    Strip
    %(of %(of %(of
    (2)M22
    Ordinary) Value(t.m) Ordinary) Value(t.m) Ordinary) Value(t.m)
    M1 100% 0.42 93% 0.39 90% 0.38
    M2 100% 0.88 93% 0.82 91% 0.8
    M3 100% 0.42 93% 0.39 90% 0.38
    Model(1) Model(2) Model(3)
    Strip
    %(of %(of %(of
    (3)M22
    Ordinary) Value(t.m) Ordinary) Value(t.m) Ordinary) Value(t.m)
    M1 100% 0.29 107% 0.31 103% 0.3
    M2 100% 0.75 101% 0.76 101% 0.76
    M3 100% 0.29 107% 0.31 103% 0.3

    Page 17 of 17

    You might also like