04/17/2018

TABLE OF CONTENTS

I. WRITTEN PART

1. General information and geometrical dimensions of the structure ................. 3

2. Loads acting upon the structure ....................................................................... 3
3. Load cases ........................................................................................................ 5
4. Seismic input .................................................................................................... 7
5. Evaluation of the storey shears and overturning moments ............................... 8
6. Evaluation of the soil pressures at the level of the foundation ......................... 9
7. Design of the columns ..................................................................................... 14
8. Design of the silo cells .................................................................................... 18

II. DRAWN PART

R01 - Slab formwork at +0.00

R02 - Vertical silo section
R03 - Silo formwork under foundation slab
R04 - Column reinforcement plan of lower gallery
R05 - Reinforcement plan of the storing cell wall

1. GENERAL INFORMATION AND GEOMETRICAL DIMENSIONS OF THE

2STRUCTURE
of 22
04/17/2018

1. GENERAL INFORMATION AND GEOMETRICAL DIMENSIONS OF THE

STRUCTURE

L1 ≔ 6.7 m ag ≔ 0.2 g hslabug ≔ 25 cm

2
H ≔ 30 m Di ≔ L1 − 1 m = 5.7 m Apwalls ≔ 47.94 m
2 2
Hug ≔ 3 m Aug ≔ 548.32 m Agrains ≔ 442.38 m
kN
Hlg ≔ 4 m Augslab ≔ Aug γgrains ≔ 8 ――
3
m
Algslab ≔ Augslab hlgslab ≔ 40 cm

2. LOADS ACTING UPON THE STRUCTURE

The structure is divided into 14 portions along its elevation. The calculation of the
selfweights and the considered loads for each of the portions is presented below :

- m1 (roof of the upper gallery) :

Ÿ selfweight of the upper gallery

kN
qswug ≔ 8 ――
2
m

Ÿ isolation of the roof

kN
qiso ≔ 0.5 ――
2
m

Ÿ snow load

kN
Sok ≔ 2.5 ――
2
m
Two load combinations are considered and they are the following:

Ÿ Fundamental load combination (FLC)

kN
q1FLC ≔ 1.35 ⋅ qswug + 1.35 ⋅ qiso + 1.5 ⋅ Sok = 15.225 ――
2
m

Ÿ Special load combination (SLC)

kN
q1SLC ≔ 1 ⋅ qswug + 1 ⋅ qiso + 0.4 ⋅ Sok = 9.5 ――
2
m
G1FLC ≔ q1FLC ⋅ Aug = ⎛⎝8.348 ⋅ 10 ⎞⎠ kN
3

G1SLC ≔ q1SLC ⋅ Aug = ⎛⎝5.209 ⋅ 10 ⎞⎠ kN

3

- m2 (upper gallery slab) :

3 of 22
Ÿ selfweight of the slab
04/17/2018
G1SLC ≔ q1SLC ⋅ Aug = ⎛⎝5.209 ⋅ 10 ⎞⎠ kN
3

- m2 (upper gallery slab) :

Ÿ selfweight of the slab

kN
qswslab ≔ γRC ⋅ hslabug ⋅ Augslab = ⎛⎝3.427 ⋅ 10 ⎞⎠ kN
3
γRC ≔ 25 ――
3
m

Ÿ columns of the upper gallery and the walls

qcw ≔ 500 kN

Ÿ live loads

kN
qlive ≔ 5 ――
2
m
Two load combinations are considered and they are the following:

Ÿ Fundamental load combination (FLC)

G2FLC ≔ 1.35 ⋅ qswslab + 1.35 ⋅ qcw + 1.5 ⋅ qlive ⋅ Augslab = ⎛⎝9.414 ⋅ 10 ⎞⎠ kN

3

Ÿ Special load combination (SLC)

G2SLC ≔ 1 ⋅ qswslab + 1 ⋅ qcw + 0.3 ⋅ qlive ⋅ Augslab = ⎛⎝4.749 ⋅ 10 ⎞⎠ kN

3

- m3 ... m12 (ten equal pockets):

- on this portion, the structure made of the pockets is divided into 10 equal parts in heigth

H − 0.25 m
h ≔ ――――= 2.975 m
10
Ÿ selfweight of walls

qwalls ≔ h ⋅ γRC ⋅ Apwalls = ⎛⎝3.566 ⋅ 10 ⎞⎠ kN

3

Ÿ selfweight of grains

qgrains ≔ Agrains ⋅ γgrains ⋅ h = ⎛⎝1.053 ⋅ 10 ⎞⎠ kN

4

Ÿ Fundamental load combination (FLC)

G3FLC ≔ 1.35 ⋅ qwalls + 1.35 ⋅ qgrains = ⎛⎝1.903 ⋅ 10 ⎞⎠ kN

4

Ÿ Special load combination (SLC)

G3SLC ≔ 1 ⋅ qwalls + 1 ⋅ qgrains = ⎛⎝1.409 ⋅ 10 ⎞⎠ kN

4

- m13 (lower gallery):

4 of 22
Ÿ selfweight of the slab under storing cell
04/17/2018
G3SLC ≔ 1 ⋅ qwalls + 1 ⋅ qgrains = ⎛⎝1.409 ⋅ 10 ⎞⎠ kN
4

- m13 (lower gallery):

Ÿ selfweight of the slab under storing cell

qlgslab ≔ hlgslab ⋅ γRC ⋅ Algslab = ⎛⎝5.483 ⋅ 10 ⎞⎠ kN

3

Ÿ selfweight of columns of the lower gallery

hcollg ≔ 4 m − hlgslab = 3.6 m

2 3
V1collg ≔ ⎛⎝hcollg − 0.9 m⎞⎠ ⋅ 1 m = 2.7 m
3
V2collg ≔ (0.45 m ⋅ 1.9 m ⋅ 1.9 m) + (2 ⋅ 0.45 m ⋅ 0.9 m ⋅ 0.9 m) = 2.354 m
3
Vcol ≔ V1collg + 2 ⋅ V2collg = 7.407 m ncol ≔ 48

qcol ≔ ncol ⋅ γRC ⋅ Vcol = ⎛⎝8.888 ⋅ 10 ⎞⎠ kN

3

Ÿ Fundamental load combination (FLC)

G13FLC ≔ 1.35 ⋅ qlgslab + 1.35 ⋅ qcol = ⎛⎝1.94 ⋅ 10 ⎞⎠ kN

4

Ÿ Special load combination (SLC)

G13SLC ≔ 1 ⋅ qlgslab + 1 ⋅ qcol = ⎛⎝1.437 ⋅ 10 ⎞⎠ kN

4

Table 1 Centralizing table for the loads of the masses

3. LOAD CASES

For the calculations 4 load cases are considered :

Ÿ load case 1 (full structure)

GIFLC ≔ G1FLC + G2FLC + 10 ⋅ G3FLC + G13FLC = ⎛⎝2.274 ⋅ 10 ⎞⎠ kN

5

GISLC ≔ G1SLC + G2SLC + 10 ⋅ G3SLC + G13SLC = ⎛⎝1.653 ⋅ 10 ⎞⎠ kN

5

5 of 22
04/17/2018
GISLC ≔ G1SLC + G2SLC + 10 ⋅ G3SLC + G13SLC = ⎛⎝1.653 ⋅ 10 ⎞⎠ kN
5

Ÿ load case 2 ( half of the structure 6C+3S+5PC)

2 2
AC ≔ 25.52 m ACrc ≔ 3.33 m

C ≔ AC ⋅ h ⋅ γgrains + ACrc ⋅ h ⋅ γRC = 855.045 kN

2
AS ≔ 15.82 m

S ≔ AS ⋅ h ⋅ γgrains = 376.516 kN
2 2
APC ≔ 4.13 m APCrc ≔ 0.72 m

PC ≔ APC ⋅ h ⋅ γgrains + APCrc ⋅ h ⋅ γRC = 151.844 kN

GIIFLC ≔ G1FLC + G2FLC + 1.35 ⋅ 10 ⋅ (6 ⋅ C + 3 ⋅ S + 5 ⋅ PC) + G13FLC = ⎛⎝1.319 ⋅ 10 ⎞⎠ kN

5

GIISLC ≔ G1SLC + G2SLC + 10 ⋅ (6 ⋅ C + 3 ⋅ S + 5 ⋅ PC) + G13SLC = ⎛⎝9.452 ⋅ 10 ⎞⎠ kN

4

Ÿ load case 3 ( half of the structure 8C+3S+5PC)

GIIIFLC ≔ G1FLC + G2FLC + 1.35 ⋅ 10 ⋅ (8 ⋅ C + 3 ⋅ S + 5 ⋅ PC) + G13FLC = ⎛⎝1.55 ⋅ 10 ⎞⎠ kN

5

GIIISLC ≔ G1SLC + G2SLC + 10 ⋅ (8 ⋅ C + 3 ⋅ S + 5 ⋅ PC) + G13SLC = ⎛⎝1.116 ⋅ 10 ⎞⎠ kN

5

Ÿ load case 4 ( half of the structure at 45 degrees 7C+3S+5PC)

GIVFLC ≔ G1FLC + G2FLC + 1.35 ⋅ 10 ⋅ (7 ⋅ C + 3 ⋅ S + 5 ⋅ PC) + G13FLC = ⎛⎝1.435 ⋅ 10 ⎞⎠ kN

5

GIVSLC ≔ G1SLC + G2SLC + 10 ⋅ (7 ⋅ C + 3 ⋅ S + 5 ⋅ PC) + G13SLC = ⎛⎝1.031 ⋅ 10 ⎞⎠ kN

5

Table 2 Weight of the structure considering 4 load cases

4. SEISMIC INPUT
6 of 22
04/17/2018

4. SEISMIC INPUT

The evaluation of the base shear force is done considering the four load cases. The
calculation of the base shear force is performed below and the distribution of the base shear
force on the height of the building, respectively the overturning moments corresponding to
each load case are performed using EXCEL sheets.
The value of the base shear force is given by:

ag βT
Fb ≔ γI ⋅ ― ⋅ ―⋅ λ ⋅ m ⋅ g
g q
Ÿ γI is the importance factor of the buildng; our building is in the second category
in terms of importance and the value is 1.2

γI ≔ 1.2
Ÿ βT is the dynaic amplification factor obtained from the normalized spectrum and
is 2.5
βT ≔ 2.5
Ÿ ag is the peak ground acceleration and is taken as input data equal with 0.2g

ag ≔ 0.2 ⋅ g
Ÿ λ takes into account the number of stories of the building and in our case is 1

λ≔1
Ÿ q is the behaviour factor and takes into consideration the ductility of the building;
for this project the behaviour factor is taken as 4

q≔4
Ÿ m is the total mass of the building in our case we use the vales of weights
obtained for the two load combinations

Hence the base shear force obtained for the four load cases are the following:

Load case 1:
ag βT
⋅ ― ⋅ λ ⋅ GISLC = ⎛⎝2.479 ⋅ 10 ⎞⎠ kN
4
Fb1SLC ≔ γI ⋅ ―
g q
Load case 2:
ag βT
⋅ ― ⋅ λ ⋅ GIISLC = ⎛⎝1.418 ⋅ 10 ⎞⎠ kN
4
Fb2SLC ≔ γI ⋅ ―
g q
Load case 3:
ag βT
⋅ ― ⋅ λ ⋅ GIIISLC = ⎛⎝1.674 ⋅ 10 ⎞⎠ kN
4
Fb3SLC ≔ γI ⋅ ―
g q

Load case 4:
ag βT
⋅ ― ⋅ λ ⋅ GIVSLC = ⎛⎝1.546 ⋅ 10 ⎞⎠ kN
4
Fb4SLC ≔ γI ⋅ ―
g q

7 of 22
04/17/2018 ag βT
⋅ ― ⋅ λ ⋅ GIVSLC = ⎛⎝1.546 ⋅ 10 ⎞⎠ kN
4
Fb4SLC ≔ γI ⋅ ―
g q

5. EVALUATION OF THE STORY SHEARS AND OVERTURNING MOMENTS

Ÿ below the heights over which the story shears are distributed are briefly calculated
Ÿ in order to save space and time the rest of the cases is calculated using Excel sheets
Ÿ the distribution of the base shear force to each story is realised using the following
formula

mi ⋅ hi
Fi ≔ ――― ⋅ Fb
Σmi ⋅ hi

h13 ≔ 4 m h12 ≔ h13 + h = 6.975 m

h11 ≔ h12 + h = 9.95 m h10 ≔ h11 + h = 12.925 m

h9 ≔ h10 + h = 15.9 m h8 ≔ h9 + h = 18.875 m

h7 ≔ h8 + h = 21.85 m h6 ≔ h7 + h = 24.825 m

h5 ≔ h6 + h = 27.8 m h4 ≔ h5 + h = 30.775 m

h3 ≔ h4 + h = 33.75 m h2 ≔ h3 + 0.25 m = 34 m

h1 ≔ h2 + Hug = 37 m

6. EVALUATION OF THE SOIL PRESSURES AT THE LEVE OF THE FOUNDATION

8 of 22
04/17/2018

6. EVALUATION OF THE SOIL PRESSURES AT THE LEVE OF THE FOUNDATION

Pconv ≔ 600 kPa

Table 3 Eccentricities caused by the uneven distribution of the grains

Fundamental Load Combination (FLC)

Ÿ load case 1 NIFLC ≔ GIFLC

B ≔ 28.16 m D ≔ 21.46 m Af ≔ B ⋅ D
NIFLC
PIFLC ≔ ―― = 376.353 kPa PIFLC < 1.2 ⋅ Pconv = 1
Af

Ÿ load case 2 NIIFLC ≔ GIIFLC ex2 ≔ 6.74 m

2 2
B⋅D B ⋅D ⎛
= ⎛⎝2.161 ⋅ 10 ⎞⎠ m = ⎝2.836 ⋅ 10 ⎞⎠ m
3 3 3 3
Wx ≔ ――― Wy ≔ ―――
6 6

GIIFLCg ≔ 1.35 ⋅ 10 ⋅ (6 ⋅ C + 3 ⋅ S + 5 ⋅ PC)

NIIFLC GIIFLCg ⋅ ex2

PIIFLC ≔ ――― + ――――= 513.78 kPa PIIFLC < 1.2 ⋅ Pconv = 1
Af Wx

Ÿ load case 3: NIIIFLC ≔ GIIIFLC ey3 ≔ 6.74 m

GIIIFLCg ≔ 1.35 ⋅ 10 ⋅ (8 ⋅ C + 3 ⋅ S + 5 ⋅ PC)

NIIIFLC GIIIFLCg ⋅ ey3

PIIIFLC ≔ ――― + ――――= 536.541 kPa PIIIFLC < 1.2 ⋅ Pconv = 1
Af Wy

Ÿ load case 4: NIVFLC ≔ GIVFLC ex4 ≔ 4.5 m ey4 ≔ 3.49 m

exy ≔ ‾‾‾‾‾‾‾‾
2 2
ex4 + ey4 = 5.695 m

GIVFLCg ≔ 1.35 ⋅ 10 ⋅ (7 ⋅ C + 3 ⋅ S + 5 ⋅ PC) = ⎛⎝1.063 ⋅ 10 ⎞⎠ kN

5

NIVFLC ⎛ 1 1 ⎞
PIVFLC ≔ ――― + GIVFLCg ⋅ exy ⋅ ⎜―― + ――⎟ = 730.904 kPa PIVFLC < 1.2 ⋅ Pconv = 0
Af ⎝ Wx Wy ⎠

Special Load Combination (SLC)

9 of 22
Ÿ load case 1
04/17/2018

Special Load Combination (SLC)

Ÿ load case 1

NISLC ≔ GISLC = ⎛⎝1.653 ⋅ 10 ⎞⎠ kN

5
MoISLC ≔ 699684 kN ⋅ m

MoISLC B
eI ≔ ――― = 4.234 m eI < ―= 1
NISLC 6

NISLC MoISLC
σN ≔ ―― = 273.487 kPa σM ≔ ――― = 323.714 kPa
Af Wx

σmax1 ≔ σN + σM = 597.201 kPa σmin1 ≔ σN − σM = −50.227 kPa

σmax1 < 1.4 ⋅ Pconv = 1

NIISLC ≔ GIISLC = ⎛⎝9.452 ⋅ 10 ⎞⎠ kN

4
Ÿ load case 2 MoII ≔ 400260 kN ⋅ m

MoIISLC
MoIISLC ≔ MoII + ex2 ⋅ GIIFLCg = ⎛⎝1.039 ⋅ 10 ⎞⎠ kN ⋅ m
6
eII ≔ ――― = 10.992 m
NIISLC

NIISLC MoIISLC
σN ≔ ――― = 156.41 kPa σM ≔ ――― = 366.302 kPa
Af Wy

σmax2 ≔ σN + σM = 522.712 kPa σmin2 ≔ σN − σM = −209.892 kPa

B
eII < ―= 0 σmax2 < 1.4 ⋅ Pconv = 1
6

- because the force acting is outside of the central core we perform another evaluation of
the stresses

B 2 ⋅ NIISLC
c ≔ ―− eII = 3.088 m σmax2 ≔ ――― = 950.731 kPa
2 3⋅c⋅D
B B
―< eII < ―= 0
6 3
- this relation is valid only in the case when the force is acting in the active zone of the
foundation, unfortunately here is not the case so two possible solutions can be adopted
- firstly we can propose a bigger foundation in order to redistribute the forces, on the
other hand we can take into consideration the redesign of our structure

NIIISLC ≔ GIIISLC = ⎛⎝1.116 ⋅ 10 ⎞⎠ kN

5
Ÿ load case 3 MoIII ≔ 472588 kN ⋅ m

MoIIISLC ≔ MoIII + ey3 ⋅ GIIIFLCg = ⎛⎝1.267 ⋅ 10 ⎞⎠ kN ⋅ m

6

MoIIISLC D
eIII ≔ ――― = 11.35 m eIII < ―= 0
NIIISLC 6
NIIISLC MoIIISLC
σN ≔ ――― = 184.708 kPa σM ≔ ――― = 586.118 kPa
10 of 22 Af Wx
04/17/2018 M
oIIISLC D
eIII ≔ ――― = 11.35 m eIII < ―= 0
NIIISLC 6

NIIISLC MoIIISLC
σN ≔ ――― = 184.708 kPa σM ≔ ――― = 586.118 kPa
Af Wx

σmax3 ≔ σN + σM = 770.825 kPa σmin3 ≔ σN − σM = −401.41 kPa

σmax3 < 1.4 ⋅ Pconv = 1

- because the force acting is outside of the central core we perform another evaluation of
the stress

D 2 ⋅ NIIISLC 3
c ≔ ―− eIII = −0.62 m σmax3 ≔ ―――― = −4.265 ⋅ 10 kPa
2 3⋅c⋅B

D D
―< eIII < ―= 0
6 3
- the obtained pressure obliges us to grow the dimensions of our foundation or to choose
another layout for our structure

NIVSLC ≔ GIVSLC = ⎛⎝1.031 ⋅ 10 ⎞⎠ kN

5
Ÿ load case 4 MoIV ≔ 436593 kN ⋅ m

GIVSLCg ≔ 10 ⋅ (7 ⋅ C + 3 ⋅ S + 5 ⋅ PC)

MIVS ≔ 0.7 ⋅ MoIV = ⎛⎝3.056 ⋅ 10 ⎞⎠ kN ⋅ m MIVG ≔ GIVSLCg ⋅ exy = ⎛⎝4.484 ⋅ 10 ⎞⎠ kN ⋅ m

5 5

NIVSLC
σN ≔ ――― = 170.559 kPa
Af

MIVS MIVS
σMxS ≔ ―― = 141.395 kPa σMyS ≔ ―― = 107.753 kPa
Wx Wy

MIVG MIVG
σMxIVgrains ≔ ―― = 207.459 kPa σMyIVgrains ≔ ―― = 158.099 kPa
Wx Wy

- the pressures acting at the four corner of the foundation will be :

P1 ≔ σN + σMxS + σMyS + σMxIVgrains + σMyIVgrains = 785.266 kPa

P2 ≔ σN − σMxS + σMyS − σMxIVgrains + σMyIVgrains = 87.557 kPa

P3 ≔ σN + σMxS − σMyS + σMxIVgrains − σMyIVgrains = 253.56 kPa

P4 ≔ σN − σMxS − σMyS − σMxIVgrains − σMyIVgrains = −444.149 kPa

P1 < 1.4 ⋅ Pconv = 1

11 of 22
04/17/2018

- another evaluation of the pressures is being performed taking into consideration the
following equation
ex4 ey4 1
―― + ――< ―= 0
B D 6

- thus the values of the stresses at the four corners willl be the following :
NIVSLC ⎛ 6 ⋅ ex4 6 ⋅ ey4 ⎞
σ1 ≔ ――― ⋅ ⎜1 + ―― + ――⎟ = 500.517 kPa
B⋅D ⎝ B D ⎠

NIVSLC ⎛ 6 ⋅ ex4 6 ⋅ ey4 ⎞

σ2 ≔ ――― ⋅ ⎜1 − ―― + ――⎟ = 173.452 kPa
B⋅D ⎝ B D ⎠

NIVSLC ⎛ 6 ⋅ ex4 6 ⋅ ey4 ⎞

σ3 ≔ ――― ⋅ ⎜1 + ―― − ――⎟ = 167.666 kPa
B⋅D ⎝ B D ⎠

NIVSLC ⎛ 6 ⋅ ex4 6 ⋅ ey4 ⎞

σ4 ≔ ――― ⋅ ⎜1 − ―― − ――⎟ = −159.4 kPa
B⋅D ⎝ B D ⎠

- neither for the 4th load case we do not have the acting force in the central core and in
the active zone so the redesign of the structure or of the foundation is necessary to continue
the process

7. INVESTIGATIONS OF THE GROUND PRESSURE

We compare pressure values from the SLC with Ppl because we did consider plastic
deformations in the ground

Ÿ the value of the plastic moment is given by the following formula

Ppl ≔ m1 ⋅ ⎛⎝γ` ⋅ B ⋅ N1 + γ` ⋅ Df ⋅ N2 + c ⋅ N3⎞⎠

Ÿ where :

m1- is a coefficient representing the work conditions and is given in table 4, we

consider to have fine silt

γ - is the mean weight of the stratas below the foundation level up to a depth of B/4
B - is the smaller dimension of foundation

N1, N2, N3 - are adimensional coefficients depending on the internal friction angle of
the soil below the foundation and is given in table 5
Df - is the depth of the foundation

kN
m1 ≔ 1.7 Df ≔ 2 m c ≔ 30 kPa γ` ≔ 18.2 ――
3
m
N2 ≔ 4.93
N1 ≔ 0.98 N3 ≔ 7.40

12 of 22
04/17/2018
N1 ≔ 0.98 N3 ≔ 7.40
N2 ≔ 4.93

Table 4 Values of m1 coefficient

Table 5 N1,N2,N3 adimensional coefficient values

Ppl ≔ m1 ⋅ ⎛⎝γ` ⋅ B ⋅ N1 + γ` ⋅ Df ⋅ N2 + c ⋅ N3⎞⎠ = ⎛⎝1.536 ⋅ 10 ⎞⎠ kPa

3

Pmax ≔ max ⎛⎝σmax1 , σmax2 , σmax3 , P1 , P2 , P3 , P4⎞⎠ = 950.731 kPa

Pmax < Ppl = 1

8. COLUMN DESIGN
13 of 22
04/17/2018

8. COLUMN DESIGN

Ÿ load case 1 in SLC gives the maximum weight and the maximum horizontal force :

Fb1SLC = ⎛⎝2.479 ⋅ 10 ⎞⎠ kN
4

Ÿ in total the structure has 48 columns at its base, therefore the total shear force and
bending moment in a column is calculated as follows :
Fb1SLC ⋅ 1.05 hcollg
Vcolumn ≔ ―――― = 542.299 kN Mcol ≔ Vcolumn ⋅ ―― = 976.137 kN ⋅ m
ncol 2

Ÿ the maximum pressures corresponding to the first load case from SLC are taken into
account for the calculation of the axial forces of the columns
σmax1 + σmin1
σmax1 = 597.201 kPa σmin1 = −50.227 kPa σmean1 ≔ ――――― = 273.487 kPa
2

Evaluation of the axial forces in the columns :

Ÿ Central columns : Atcc ≔ 12.39 m

2
Ncc ≔ Atcc ⋅ ⎛⎝σmean1⎞⎠ = ⎛⎝3.389 ⋅ 10 ⎞⎠ kN
3

Nmc ≔ Atmc ⋅ ⎛⎝σmean1⎞⎠ = ⎛⎝3.167 ⋅ 10 ⎞⎠ kN

2 3
Ÿ Marginal columns Atmc ≔ 11.58 m

Ncrc ≔ Atcrc ⋅ ⎛⎝σmax1⎞⎠ = ⎛⎝6.378 ⋅ 10 ⎞⎠ kN

2 3
Ÿ Corner columns Atcrc ≔ 10.68 m

Longitudinal reinforcement calculation :

Ÿ the following materials are considered

C25/30 fcd ≔ 16.67 MPa

PC 52 fyk ≔ 345 MPa fyd ≔ 300 MPa

Central and marginal columns

Ÿ the proposed concrete section is 70 cm x 70 cm

Ncc
bc ≔ 70 cm νcol ≔ ――― = 0.415 νcol < 0.6 = 1
2
bc ⋅ fcd
hcollg
――= 5.143 ρmin ≔ 1%
bc
Aslong ≔ ρmin ⋅ Ac = ⎛⎝4.9 ⋅ 10 ⎞⎠ mm
2 2 3 2
Ac ≔ bc = 0.49 m

- as a constructive rule we have to keep in mind that the distance between the
longitudinal bars cannot be greater than 20 cm

14 of 22
04/17/2018

Ÿ the following bar configuration is proposed for the longitudinal reinforcement :

2
π ⋅ d28 2
d28 ≔ 28 mm ϕ28 ≔ ――― = 615.752 mm
4
2
π ⋅ d22 2
d22 ≔ 22 mm ϕ22 ≔ ――― = 380.133 mm
4
2
π ⋅ d18 2
d18 ≔ 18 mm ϕ18 ≔ ――― = 254.469 mm
4

Ÿ resulting the total steel area :

As ≔ 4 ⋅ ϕ28 + 8 ⋅ ϕ22 + 4 ⋅ ϕ18 = ⎛⎝6.522 ⋅ 10 ⎞⎠ mm

3 2

Ÿ the bending moment resistance of the cross sections results :

a1 ≔ 35 mm η≔1

d ≔ bc − a1 = 0.665 m hs ≔ d − a1 = 0.63 m E ≔ 210 GPa

fyd
εcu ≔ 0.0035 εy ≔ ―― = 0.001
E
Ncc εcu
λx ≔ ――― = 0.29 m xlim ≔ d ⋅ ――― = 472.246 mm λx < xlim = 1
bc ⋅ η ⋅ fcd εcu + εy

hs ⎛
= ⎝2.3 ⋅ 10 ⎞⎠ kN ⋅ m
3
MRdc ≔ As ⋅ fyd ⋅ hs + Ncc ⋅ ― Mcol < MRdc = 1
2

Transversal reinforcement calculation :

⎛ bc ⎞
s ≔ min ⎜― , 125 mm , 7 ⋅ d18⎟ = 0.125 m ρwmin ≔ 0.0035
⎝3 ⎠

Ÿ the necessary area of steel in one cross section yields

2
Asw ≔ ρwmin ⋅ bc ⋅ s = 306.25 mm

Ÿ therefore we propose the use of 4 stirrups of ϕ 12 mm

2
π ⋅ d12 2
d12 ≔ 12 mm ϕ12 ≔ ――― = 113.097 mm
4
2 Asw < Asa = 1
Asa ≔ 4 ⋅ ϕ12 = 452.389 mm
Corner columns
15 of 22
04/17/2018
2
Asa ≔ 4 ⋅ ϕ12 = 452.389 mm
Asw < Asa = 1

Corner columns

Ÿ the proposed conrete section is 85 cm x 85 cm

Ncrc
bc ≔ 85 cm νcol ≔ ――― = 0.53 νcol < 0.6 = 1
2
bc ⋅ fcd
hcollg
――= 4.235 ρmin ≔ 1%
bc

Aslong ≔ ρmin ⋅ Ac = ⎛⎝7.225 ⋅ 10 ⎞⎠ mm

2 2 3 2
Ac ≔ bc = 0.723 m

Ÿ the following bar configuration is proposed for the longitudinal reinforcement :

2
π ⋅ d28 2
d28 ≔ 28 mm ϕ28 ≔ ――― = 615.752 mm
4
2
π ⋅ d22 2
d22 ≔ 25 mm ϕ22 ≔ ――― = 490.874 mm
4
2
π ⋅ d18 2
d18 ≔ 20 mm ϕ18 ≔ ――― = 314.159 mm
4
Ÿ resulting the total steel area :

As ≔ 4 ⋅ ϕ28 + 8 ⋅ ϕ22 + 4 ⋅ ϕ18 = ⎛⎝7.647 ⋅ 10 ⎞⎠ mm

3 2

Ÿ the bending moment resistance of the cross sections results :

a1 ≔ 35 mm η≔1

d ≔ bc − a1 = 0.815 m hs ≔ d − a1 = 0.78 m

εcu ≔ 0.0035 εy ≔ 0.00143

Ncc εcu
λx ≔ ――― = 0.239 m xlim ≔ 0.8 d ⋅ ――― = 462.88 mm λx < xlim = 1
bc ⋅ η ⋅ fcd εcu + εy

hs ⎛
= ⎝3.111 ⋅ 10 ⎞⎠ kN ⋅ m
3
MRdc ≔ As ⋅ fyd ⋅ hs + Ncc ⋅ ― Mcol < MRdc = 1
2

Transversal reinforcement calculation :

⎛ bc ⎞
s ≔ min ⎜― , 125 mm , 7 ⋅ d18⎟ = 0.125 m ρwmin ≔ 0.0035
⎝3 ⎠
Ÿ the necessary area of steel in one cross section yields
2
Asw ≔ ρwmin ⋅ bc ⋅ s = 371.875 mm

16 of 22
04/17/2018
2
Asw ≔ ρwmin ⋅ bc ⋅ s = 371.875 mm

Therefore we propose the use of 4 stirrups of ϕ 12 mm

2
π ⋅ d12 2
d12 ≔ 12 mm ϕ12 ≔ ――― = 113.097 mm
4
2
Asa ≔ 4 ⋅ ϕ12 = 452.389 mm Asw < Asa = 1

θ ≔ 45 deg αcw ≔ 1 bw ≔ bc

z ≔ 0.9 ⋅ d = 0.734 m v1 ≔ 0.54

αcw ⋅ bw ⋅ z ⋅ v1 ⋅ fcd ⎛
= ⎝2.806 ⋅ 10 ⎞⎠ kN
3
VRdmax ≔ ―――――― Vcolumn < VRdmax = 1
cot (θ) + tan (θ)

17 of 22
04/17/2018

9. DESIGN OF THE SILO CELLS

Janssen equations are being taken into consideration :

μ ≔ 0.4
kN kN
γg ≔ 8 ―― γgl ≔ 7 ――
3 3
m m

Km ≔ 0.59 ak ≔ 1.15 K ≔ ak ⋅ Km = 0.679

2 Acell
Acell ≔ 25.52 m P ≔ 19.71 m ρ ≔ ―― = 1.295 m
P
H
―= 5.263 a1 ≔ 1.53
Di
a2 ≔ 1.01

Table 6 A1 and a2 values

The cells are divided into 4 regions :

Region 1 z1 ≔ 5 m

⎛ −μ ⋅ K
――― ⋅ z1⎞
γg ⋅ ρ ⎜ ρ
⎟⎠ = 24.784 kPa
Pvfz1 ≔ ――⋅ ⎝1 − e
μ⋅K
Phfz1 ≔ K ⋅ Pvfz1 = 16.816 kPa

Pwfz1 ≔ μ ⋅ Phfz1 = 6.726 kPa

Corrections:

Ÿ only the horizontal pressure distribution gets corrections

PhfZ1 ≔ Phfz1 + a1 ⋅ Phfz1 = 42.545 kPa

Region 2 z2 ≔ 10 m
⎛ −μ ⋅ K
――― ⋅ z2⎞
γg ⋅ ρ ⎜ ρ
⎟⎠ = 33.474 kPa
Pvfz2 ≔ ――⋅ ⎝1 − e
μ⋅K
Phfz2 ≔ K ⋅ Pvfz2 = 22.712 kPa

Pwfz2 ≔ μ ⋅ Phfz2 = 9.085 kPa

Corrections:

PhfZ2 ≔ Phfz2 + a1 ⋅ Phfz2 = 57.462 kPa

z3 ≔ 25 m
Region 3
18 of 22
04/17/2018
PhfZ2 ≔ Phfz2 + a1 ⋅ Phfz2 = 57.462 kPa

Region 3
z3 ≔ 25 m

⎛ −μ ⋅ K
――― ⋅ z3⎞
γg ⋅ ρ ⎜ ρ
⎟⎠ = 37.964 kPa
Pvfz3 ≔ ――⋅ ⎝1 − e
μ⋅K

Phfz3 ≔ K ⋅ Pvfz3 = 25.758 kPa

Pwfz3 ≔ μ ⋅ Phfz3 = 10.303 kPa

Corrections: PhfZ3 ≔ Phfz3 + a2 ⋅ Phfz3 = 51.774 kPa

Region 4 z4 ≔ 30 m

⎛ −μ ⋅ K
――― ⋅ z4⎞
γgl ⋅ ρ ⎜ ρ
⎟⎠ = 33.333 kPa
Pvfz4 ≔ ――⋅ ⎝1 − e
μ⋅K
Phfz4 ≔ K ⋅ Pvfz4 = 22.616 kPa

Pwfz4 ≔ μ ⋅ Phfz4 = 9.047 kPa

Corrections: PhfZ4 ≔ Phfz4 + a1 ⋅ Phfz4 = 57.22 kPa

Evaluation of the internal forces and reinforcement calculation

Circular cell - central

Ÿ for the region I, II, IV the following evaluation of the axial force is performed :
⎛ h ⎞
hused ≔ h ξ1 ≔ 1.25 ⋅ ⎜1.8 − ―― =1 α1 ≔ 0.4 ⋅ a2 ⋅ ξ1 = 0.404
⎝ hused ⎟⎠

Di ⋅ m
NEd1 ≔ 1.35 ⋅ ⎛⎝1 + α1⎞⎠ ⋅ PhfZ1 ⋅ ―― = 229.822 kN
2

Di ⋅ m
NEd2 ≔ 1.35 ⋅ ⎛⎝1 + α1⎞⎠ ⋅ PhfZ2 ⋅ ―― = 310.401 kN
2
Di ⋅ m
NEd4 ≔ 1.35 ⋅ ⎛⎝1 + α1⎞⎠ ⋅ PhfZ4 ⋅ ―― = 309.094 kN
2

⎛ h ⎞
Ÿ for the region III: ξ2 ≔ 0.7 ⋅ ⎜1.5 + ―― = 1.75 α2 ≔ 0.2 ⋅ a2 ⋅ ξ2 = 0.354
⎝ hused ⎟⎠

Di ⋅ m
NEd3 ≔ 1.35 ⋅ ⎛⎝1 + α1⎞⎠ ⋅ PhfZ3 ⋅ ―― = 279.678 kN
2
2
Di ⋅ m
MEd3 ≔ 1.35 ⋅ α2 ⋅ PhfZ1 ⋅ ――― = 164.914 m ⋅ kN
4
Ÿ required reinforcement in the cell : b≔1 m

19 of 22 Ÿ C20/25 and PC 52 are used

04/17/2018 Di ⋅ m
2

MEd3 ≔ 1.35 ⋅ α2 ⋅ PhfZ1 ⋅ ――― = 164.914 m ⋅ kN

4

Ÿ required reinforcement in the cell : b≔1 m

MPa
Ÿ C20/25 and PC 52 are used fcd ≔ 20 ――= 13.333 MPa
1.5

hs ≔ Di − 180 mm = 5.52 m d ≔ 180 mm − 25 mm

NEd3 εcu
λx ≔ ―― = 20.976 mm λxmin ≔ 0.8 d ⋅ ――― = 88.032 mm
b ⋅ fcd εcu + εy

MEd3 + NEd3 ⋅ hs ⎛
= ⎝1.032 ⋅ 10 ⎞⎠ mm
3 2
Asreq ≔ ―――――
fyd ⋅ hs
2
π ⋅ d12 2
d12 ≔ 12 mm ϕ12 ≔ ――― = 113.097 mm
4
Ÿ the proposed reinforcement over 1 meter is the following :

Aseff ≔ 2 ⋅ 7 ⋅ ϕ12 = ⎛⎝1.583 ⋅ 10 ⎞⎠ mm

3 2
Asreq < Aseff = 1

Circular cell - lateral

Ÿ we have assumed and it is a correct assumption that earthquake gives smaller

pressures than unloading

Ÿ for the region I, II, IV the following evaluation of the axial force is performed :
⎛ h ⎞
ξ1 ≔ 1.25 ⋅ ⎜1.8 − ―― =1 α1 ≔ 0.4 ⋅ a2 ⋅ ξ1 = 0.404
⎝ hused ⎟⎠

Di ⋅ m Di ⋅ m
NEd1 ≔ 1.35 ⋅ ⎛⎝1 + α1⎞⎠ ⋅ PhfZ1 ⋅ ―― + 0.2 ⋅ Phfz1 ⋅ 1.35 ⋅ ―― = 242.762 kN
2 2

Di ⋅ m Di ⋅ m
NEd2 ≔ 1.35 ⋅ ⎛⎝1 + α1⎞⎠ ⋅ PhfZ2 ⋅ ―― + 0.2 ⋅ Phfz2 ⋅ 1.35 ⋅ ―― = 327.878 kN
2 2
Di ⋅ m Di ⋅ m
NEd4 ≔ 1.35 ⋅ ⎛⎝1 + α1⎞⎠ ⋅ PhfZ4 ⋅ ―― + 0.2 ⋅ Phfz4 ⋅ 1.35 ⋅ ―― = 326.497 kN
2 2
Ÿ for the region III:
⎛ h ⎞
ξ2 ≔ 0.7 ⋅ ⎜1.5 + ―― = 1.75 α2 ≔ 0.2 ⋅ a2 ⋅ ξ2 = 0.354
⎝ hused ⎟⎠

Di ⋅ m Di ⋅ m
NEd3 ≔ 1.35 ⋅ ⎛⎝1 + α1⎞⎠ ⋅ PhfZ3 ⋅ ―― + 0.2 ⋅ Phfz3 ⋅ 1.35 ⋅ ―― = 299.499 kN
2 2
2 2
Di ⋅ m Di ⋅ m
MEd3 ≔ 1.35 ⋅ α2 ⋅ PhfZ1 ⋅ ――― + 1.35 ⋅ 0.2 ⋅ Phfz3 ⋅ ――― = 221.404 m ⋅ kN
4 4

Ÿ required reinforcement in the cell :

20 of 22
04/17/2018

Ÿ required reinforcement in the cell :

NEd3
λx ≔ ―― = 22.462 mm λx < λxmin = 1
b ⋅ fcd

MEd3 + NEd3 ⋅ hs ⎛
= ⎝1.132 ⋅ 10 ⎞⎠ mm
3 2
Asreq ≔ ―――――
fyd ⋅ hs
Ÿ the proposed reinforcement over 1 meter is the following :

Aseff ≔ 2 ⋅ 7 ⋅ ϕ12 = ⎛⎝1.583 ⋅ 10 ⎞⎠ mm

3 2
Asreq < Aseff = 1
2
ρmin ≔ 0.0025 Acell ≔ 3.33 m

Asmin ≔ ρmin ⋅ Acell = ⎛⎝8.325 ⋅ 10 ⎞⎠ mm

3 2

Aseffcell ≔ 19.71 ⋅ Aseff = ⎛⎝3.121 ⋅ 10 ⎞⎠ mm

4 2

Pocket cells

2 ‾‾‾‾‾‾
APC
Deq ≔ 4 ⋅ ―― = 2.293 m
π

Deq ⋅ m
NEd1 ≔ 1.35 ⋅ ⎛⎝1 + α1⎞⎠ ⋅ PhfZ1 ⋅ ――― = 92.458 kN
2

Deq ⋅ m
NEd2 ≔ 1.35 ⋅ ⎛⎝1 + α1⎞⎠ ⋅ PhfZ2 ⋅ ――― = 124.876 kN
2

Deq ⋅ m
NEd4 ≔ 1.35 ⋅ ⎛⎝1 + α1⎞⎠ ⋅ PhfZ4 ⋅ ――― = 124.35 kN
2

Deq ⋅ m
NEd3 ≔ 1.35 ⋅ ⎛⎝1 + α1⎞⎠ ⋅ PhfZ3 ⋅ ――― = 112.516 kN
2
2
Deq ⋅ m
MEd3 ≔ 1.35 ⋅ α2 ⋅ PhfZ1 ⋅ ――― = 26.691 m ⋅ kN
4

Ÿ required reinforcement in the cell :

NEd3
λx ≔ ―― = 8.439 mm λx < λxmin = 1 hs ≔ Deq − 180 mm = 2.113 m
b ⋅ fcd

MEd3 + NEd3 ⋅ hs 2
Asreq ≔ ――――― = 417.156 mm
fyd ⋅ hs
2
π ⋅ d10 2
d10 ≔ 10 mm ϕ10 ≔ ――― = 78.54 mm
4
Ÿ the proposed reinforcement over 1 meter is the following :
21 of 22
04/17/2018 π ⋅ d10
2
2
d10 ≔ 10 mm ϕ10 ≔ ――― = 78.54 mm
4

Ÿ the proposed reinforcement over 1 meter is the following :

Aseff ≔ 2 ⋅ 7 ⋅ ϕ10 = ⎛⎝1.1 ⋅ 10 ⎞⎠ mm

3 2
Asreq < Aseff = 1
2
ρmin ≔ 0.0025 Acell ≔ 0.61 m

Asmin ≔ ρmin ⋅ Acell = ⎛⎝1.525 ⋅ 10 ⎞⎠ mm

3 2

Aseffcell ≔ 3.55 ⋅ Aseff = ⎛⎝3.903 ⋅ 10 ⎞⎠ mm

3 2

Star cells

Ÿ in order to determine we should consider the following load case

Ÿ it would be a full cell over region III

a3 ≔ 0.2 Phf3 ≔ a3 ⋅ Phfz3 = 5.152 kPa

2 ‾‾‾‾‾
AS
Deq ≔ 4 ⋅ ―― = 4.488 m
π

Deq ⋅ m
NEd3 ≔ 1.35 ⋅ ⎛⎝Phfz3 + Phf3⎞⎠ ⋅ ――― = 107.017 kN
ξ2
1 1
β1 ≔ ― β2 ≔ ―
12 24
2
Deq ⋅ m
MEd3support ≔ 1.35 ⋅ ⎛⎝Phfz3 + Phf3⎞⎠ ⋅ ――― ⋅ β1 = 17.511 m ⋅ kN
4
2
Deq ⋅ m
MEd3span ≔ 1.35 ⋅ ⎛⎝Phfz3 + Phf3⎞⎠ ⋅ ――― ⋅ β2 = 8.755 m ⋅ kN
4
Ÿ required reinforcement in the cell :
NEd3
λx ≔ ―― = 8.026 mm λx < λxmin = 1 hs ≔ Deq − 180 mm = 4.308 m
b ⋅ fcd

MEd3support + NEd3 ⋅ hs 2
Asreqsupport ≔ ――――――― = 370.272 mm d8 ≔ 8 mm
fyd ⋅ hs 2
π ⋅ d8 2
ϕ8 ≔ ――― = 50.265 mm
MEd3span + NEd3 ⋅ hs 2 4
Asreqspan ≔ ―――――― = 363.497 mm
fyd ⋅ hs
Ÿ the proposed reinforcement both for span and support is the following:
2
Aseff ≔ 2 ⋅ 7 ⋅ ϕ8 = 703.717 mm Asreq < Aseff = 1

Asmin ≔ ρmin ⋅ Acell = ⎛⎝6.225 ⋅ 10 ⎞⎠ mm

2 3 2
Acell ≔ 2.49 m
Aseffcell ≔ 20.56 ⋅ Aseff = ⎛⎝1.447 ⋅ 10 ⎞⎠ mm
4 2

22 of 22